Your views on the implementation of Tdy 3.4.3.1b

H

HakanŞahin

Administrator
What are your views on the implementation of tdy 3.4.3.1b in 6 versions? In ideCAD 6 version, the most important difference in beam expansions compared to 5 is the tdy 3.4.3.1 control, and according to this control, the bends of the beams inside the column are drawn shorter than 5. In addition, if the condition cannot be met, the program warns the user. For columns with a width of 25 cm, this condition is often unsatisfactory depending on the size of the reinforcement used. For example: If a 50 cm high beam ends with a 30 cm column supported by a column of 30 cm: bend length of 12 gauge reinforcement = 23 cm bend length of 14 reinforcement = 32 cm The curve length of the reinforcement = 40 cm is drawn. . In version 5, these three values are 44cm. What are your views? Do you apply your drawings according to tdy 3.4.3.1 in your projects or do you use it like version 5? I wish everyone a good day...
 
The control of Tdy 3.4.3.1b has been good for situations where there are deficiencies. The 6 version is not very satisfying to the eye. In practice, it is very difficult for the masters to make the miter squares properly and in sufficient length.
 
It is better to do it in accordance with the new regulation. Although we make a 44 cm square for the 50-gauge beam in the drawing, a 25 cm square is made in order to facilitate the driving of the beam bottom flat reinforcements.
 
If the main thing is not to violate the minimums of the regulation, the 6th version drawing is quite sufficient. In practice, it is an unavoidable fact that the work done will be different according to the drawn project, since the suitability of the reinforcement details often changes depending on the quality of the inspection. However, I think it is useful not to ignore the convenience of making standard detailing during the manufacturing phase. My vote is to use the same typical miter size for typical heights in beams.
 
If the column + slab is to be poured together, it is best to apply the details in accordance with the regulation, but when the columns and slabs are poured separately, the columns will be poured up to the lower level of the beam, so this time it will be a problem that the miter lengths are more than the beam height. In this case, if the long miter lengths are cut back in the direction of the beam, the regulation will also be adhered to. In this way, we also provide the required miter length.
 
While I am designing a building, I am trying to establish a standard in formwork and reinforcement for each project. I think Idestatic should fully comply with the regulation we use first. For such cases, it should allow the user to change these features (without exceeding the regulations).
 
The regulation gives the limit values and says it should be at least in this size, it does not say that it should be done in this size, therefore, I think it should be both more and in standard size, that is, as before. The user may also be given the right to choose in this regard.
 
"emrah":1h0lwv53" said:
While designing a building, I am trying to establish a standard for each project in terms of formwork and reinforcement.
Click to expand...
In addition, the application of this article can be adjusted as desired in version 6. This application has been designed completely parametrically.
 
"HakanŞahin":26u4ltbd" said:
In addition, the application of this substance can be adjusted as desired with parameters in version 6. This application has been designed completely parametrically. In a beam with >=beam load/2 selected and H=32cm high, does the program draw the bend length of the 16cm reinforcement (b) as 16 cm or does it draw as 19cm according to the 12 fi condition?
Click to expand...
 
"emrah":2axymfhb" said:
"HakanŞahin":2axymfhb" said:
In addition, in version 6, the way this article is applied can be adjusted as desired with parameters. This application has been designed completely parametrically.
Click to expand...
For example, (a) is connected to a column of sufficient length, b>=beam load/2 is selected in the beam parameters, and H=32cm high, in a beam of 16mm reinforcement (b) bend length program 16 Does it plot in cm or does it plot as 19cm according to the 12 fi condition?
Click to expand...
Hi, we have to assume the appropriate column width due to the condition of fitting the length lb. So we have to make the column lb=67 cm. In that case, the fold is drawn 19 cm according to the 12fi condition. If you want 16 cm, we need to remove the 12fi condition. If you remove the 12fi condition, all are drawn 16 cm regardless of the reinforcement diameter.
 
"HakanŞahin":2z5dhyzg" said:
Hi, we need to assume the appropriate column width due to the condition of obeying the lb length. So we have to make the column lb=67 cm. Then the fold is drawn 19 cm according to the 12fi condition. If you want 16 cm, we need to remove the 12fi condition If you remove the 12fi condition, all of them will be drawn 16 cm regardless of the diameter of the reinforcement.
Click to expand...
Hello, when I said "connected to a column of sufficient length (a)" above, I meant that the column should be 67 cm, but I was too lazy to calculate it :lol: you calculated it because I asked a question on the picture. It was a missing question, I thought that when we clicked on one of the places to be marked, the others would be unmarked, but you said that when dirt.load/2 is selected, 16 cm is drawn regardless of the diameter of the reinforcement. If a situation like the example I gave, the user is warned that the tdy article 3.4.1.3.1b condition is not met. does it?
 
"HakanŞahin":wgu7mw9b" said:
a>=0.4lb and a+b>=lb are provided and you are not warned because you said not to look at 12fi.
Click to expand...
I think the program should warn the user when projecting a structure when it goes out of regulation because unfortunately most of them They think that they produced a project in compliance with the regulation because the user program did not give a warning.In the last event I encountered at the place where I worked as project supervisor on behalf of IMO, I encountered a column placed at the end of the console balcony on the third floor of the project.
 
The program's settings are set to give warnings; If the user does not specifically tick 12fi, he or she has made a special choice. There may also be a request not to block this preference. a>=0.40lb is considered under all conditions. Before reaching 12fi, the condition is not satisfied from a. If the project you mentioned is made in ideCAD Static 6 with default settings, the user will receive a warning from condition a. I think the main point of this article is related to the total length of the reinforcement column and after the column. It is also directly controlled with a+b>=lb.
 
"HakanŞahin":3tmzdgvj" said:
The program's settings are set to warn, if the user does not specifically tick 12fi, he or she has made a special choice. There may be a request not to block this preference. A>=0.40lb is checked under all conditions. Before reaching 12fi, the condition is not met from a. If the project you mentioned is made in ideCAD Static 6 with default settings, the user will receive a warning from condition a. I think that the main point of this article is related to the total length of the reinforcement after the column and column. It is already controlled with a+b>=lb.
Click to expand...
For C25 S420 fi16 lb=584.5 mm If only b>=beam load/2 is selected for the 16-inch iron in the beam with a height of 32 cm attached to a 50 cm column, the program will b It will draw =16 cm and the user will not receive a warning even though b>=12fi 16>=19.2 is not because a+b>=lb 50+16>=58.45 a>=0.40lb 50>=0.4*58.45. My opinion on the implementation of article 3.4.3.1b; Tdy is given to the user in the program. There should be an option to edit the articles of the regulation, but users should be warned when the regulations are violated.
 
I think it is very good for the idea that it produces a solution according to Tdy 3.4.3.1b. It is very nice to leave it up to the user whether to use this item or not. Of course, it is more convenient for the master to have the same lengths of the folds, but it is ideal for us to stay within the minimum limits.
 
It is calculated that lb=0.12 (fyd/fctd)Q =584.5 mm. For s420 and q16 steel, but where does 67 come from, can you express it numerically? Also, in the b>=25 option, we say don't make a square smaller than 25 cm, right? that is, we provide b>=12q and for example, b=20 @16 iron should be 20 cm larger than 19.2, but because we say b>=25, it subtracts 25, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top