Leaderboard

Read More: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/robert-wood-trial-begins-1.3748401 If this were Pakistan, the chances of criminal indictment would be zero. Whats your take? Thanks.

What happens if, supports in your example are very flexible as compared to slab or beam, so it behaves as simply supported. If the support stiffness is huge (rotational restraint) as compared to the member, it will be a continuous frame. Yes you can do separate analyses and combined together as long as you respect the equilibrium, comparability of deformations, constitutive relations.

First-off, I am not sure about your system, is it a moment resting frame, dual frame or shear wall frame interaction? I assume it is a building frame system where lateral loads (all) are taken by shear walls (in-plane) and all gravity (mostly ~ 90%) is taken by columns. The above assumption can be checked by checking reactions after applying 0.7,0.35 modifiers to walls and 0.7 modifiers to columns. This is your routine design..Right? Now comes the question of temperature loading, for that please update what is the temperature magnitude you are using? What is the use of building? It is heated/un-heated structure? For example if its a parking structure where under-sides of beams also have temperature loading, slab stresses will be minimal (almost zero if equal values). Also for parking structure, the first slab will have huge stresses due to fixity of base. And as @UmarMakhzumi pointed out, you also need to check bending under temperature gradient (manually by using C and T approach for a single reinforced section or by computer using complex analysis). Anyway, In my view, I hope that authorities would not go for that. But for normal temperature analysis, I would recommend you to make a 1 page A4 calculation, stating the design philosophy for temperature loads and put it as appendix or part of your report. In that report you would mention, 1. use of semi-rigid option 2. use of reduced modifiers for tension cracking for walls (even for columns if they are showing tension). You can use 0.25 and if it not working reduced further. It would be nAs/Ag for the members where you havee tension. 3. show formula for modulus of rupture for restrained slabs and subtract that capacity from ETABS values. 4. Assign piers or average manually the axial force over whole length of wall piers to reduce magnitude further. Make sure that reinforcement provided for temperature is same on both sides for slabs/walls and same on all sides for beams/columns. Now next question is regarding lateral load RE-distribution. If you reduced the stiffness of walls and columns both by same amount, that would not affect re-distribution of lateral forces. But if you just reduced stiffness of walls, columns will start taking more lateral loads (depends on relative stiffness of wall/columns, I do not know the dimensions) so As @UmarMakhzumi pointed out, you should this design too. Because axial stiffness of walls/shells = in-plane stiffness of walls/shells so changing axial stiffness will also change the bending stiffness for lateral loads and re-distribution will happen. So check for this condition too, you might need to increase some columns that again depend on dimensions and framing system. In that case, read Tranath book on tall buildings chapter 3 on lateral loads to see what you actually need to increase, columns or beams? Please update us what happens.

Yes, you can do like that. The difference in results would not be significant if both conditions are done appropriatley. Thanks.