Nustian371

You can apply the as line load to your external beams or can add this onto the slab SDL load as well, either is fine.

You don't modify the steel stiffness in the software.

so what are you expecting, in this case? the moment on the cantilever beam and column would be same.

hi i would have done it with pinned support in the model to get the net tension compression force at the base. i suspect your foundation size is not adequate ( just experience), as the framing you said above is 12mx5m = 60m2 *1.33= 79.8Kn *6= 473kn-m say the moment arm below 1.2m (foundation size) , 473/1.2= 394kN times your safety factor = 394*1.5 = 591 kN, if you go further and increase your moment arm still you got quite a force to resist the uplift. have a look at your foundation in each direction.

Hi What are your expectations, if the column have the load which needs to be transferred through the cantilever beam than what other load path would you expect?

I donot think i got your question properly, but what i understood is that can columns transfer the load to masonry walls supporting the beam above, the answer will be mixed, depending upon your construction type, for example in case of concrete/beam frame building the confinement of masonry is just transferring the loads of the masonry to column not the other way round, your beams and columns in this case are design elements, in case of a masonry house construction the design is based on load bearing walls so the loads transfer is mainly through the masonry walls. if you could do a quick free body sketch of your situation then maybe someone can answer much better.

Its a very common steel tank design for water storage, waste water and fire water in industrial sites all around the world, not used much in Pakistan.

You havenot replied to earlier question of mine, anyways i see this very commonly on the concrete slabs with steel tanks of this size. we do the design and monitoring for such structures on weekly basis. I would recommend you using XYPEX concrete water proofing. This band can be applied outside the tank wall with the concrete. The crystallisation of the compound will stop the water leak. the second option you can use is to empty the tank and apply a band of SikaFlex carbodur sheets at the base of the tank, They will stop that as well.

You got quiet a few answers above, But i think the fundamental question is what is your tank design is it a steel liner tank with a additional liner layer inside for water proofing or is a pocket base, which i see in this case as the steel wall is embedded in the concrete. There are water seals around the tank wall in the pocket see examples of each below, that is the liner one You got that one. There is a waterseal as mentioned above if this seal is not isntalled carefully and if it gets broken or damaged somehow during site pore, the leak at the base can occur. Normally the concrete slab for such tanks have a very high requirement of crack control so i doubt that if thats not considered in design. I would recommend first check the design of the wall pocket (if the leak is there) and confirm with the site notes if the seal is provided. The remedial measures can only be suggested once the cause is known. There are several options which can be adopted.

I am not sure if i picked up your question, but normally the confining reinforcement at the ends of confined masonry is to transfer the loads in tension compression. The Confined masonry in an earthquake act as compression strut and there are equations and guidance in FEMA to work out the capacities of these diagonal strut members. We do these checks very commonly here in New Zealand for the seismic analysis of the existing confined masonry structures. I would recommend you to have a read of the document i am attaching. Its called C8 and its part of the documentation used for the detailed seismic analysis of structures here in New Zealand. Section_C8-Unreinforced_Masonry_Buildings.pdf

Hi Arsalan, with all due respect, if you feel confident in what you are doing than no point of doing masters as this will just be a degree for you and waste of time/money, until unless you work with some competent engineers and challenge yourself with technical problems on bigger projects. There is nothing wrong in doing design work on your own, which you are doing but if you have never been to a design office or never sit with a senior engineer, I doubt your knowledge about the design codes and the application of different design clauses. I personal feel you should not be giving any structural advise (sorry but that is what i think). 2storeyplus buildings or small plazas may look simple but are very critical as they are the major building stock in pakistan, without prior design knowledge there are so many basic details which you learn only with a senior engineer or in a design office. I am pretty sure you are just copying the drawings for other consultant and engineers which is basically what contractor or builders do. There is no difference between what you are doing and what they are doing. You should keep your firm name as builders only as design part is doubtful. Apologies if something i said offends you but structural engineering is a profession which we as engineers pick and we do it passionately, there is no way of shortcuts.

Unfortunately in Middle east i have experienced something similar, the person taking interview might not necessarily know all these answers as well but he will come up with these questions just to make sure that you know nothing and he knows everything, a bit unprofessional attitude, the questions should be as per the experience of the guy and the job description. I found out the reason for the interviews to be like that they prefer the reference alot rather going through interview process. Its just what i have seen definitely not same for all organisations.

I will agree with above and suggest you try to look for something in the UK market as this will be hugely beneficial for you professionally and the experience will be immense. the projects and there nature is different in UK market and u will be surprised with the approach methods for each design problem. This will provide you a good base and will help. I am sure you will land a job soon but keep your focus there only.

As explained above that metal deck have inbulit shear capacity for the shear flow in some cases and if the joists or beams below are designed for the simply supported cases than the metal deck is pretty much behaving like a scaffold. So it is possible but again check your design requirements and if they are complied than should be no issue.

Incase you model the wall for gravity only loads the modelling in the FEA analysis will still show you the hogging moments under certain load cases as it will take that as a deflection. You can try another simple approach in which you model the equivalent concrete beam element for the masonry above your beam slab similar to equivalent steel or concrete n=Es/Ec, This will provide the additional depth to the beam/slab below which will reduce the hogging moments. The issue i always found with the links and springs is the definition of there properties and the force capacity as it is very difficult to determine for the plastered walls or block masonry.

Whatever your water level is in the tank and soil outside the tank the limits for the crack width will remain as per the code, as mentioned above these are conservative to say but should be followed, the workmanship is not that great locally, so its better to be conservative.

check you support condition. Once you allow for a settlement than that should be fixed settlement. Software still might be calculating additional settlement on top of defined one.

yes you are right the creep and shrinkage coefficient is used on the top of ULS/SLS deflection limits. SAP2000 do the analysis for creep and shrinkage if temperature loads are applied or long term short term loading are self defined. Otherwise SAP2000 deflection are only for loading applied.

Just to add a bit more to what is said above, these structures are a combination of Strut and ties capable of full design loads as per codes, they take tension and compression only with pinned connections.

This is sort of creating a short column in the structure due to architectural features. On a certain storey level you will have your story height and most of the columns are of same length but if any column due to any addition to structure is reduced in size it will cause a short captive column which attract more seismic shear due to stiffness. we try to avoid these elements or detail them adequately. See attached commentary it will explains you much better hopefully.

yes we do it separate for each vehicle load case.

It will be helpful for you to see the example in the CSI help for the application of influence lines and traffic loading as it is a bit difficult to explain the procedure of loading pattern. Normally you have the UDL load for the bridge lane then your point axle loads followed by UDL at the end again. In most cases the speed limit is 10KM to 15kM just to see the maximum BMD and SFD. For the number of vehicle crossing the bridge, you normally design for one vehicle with maximum load case going across the bridge. if you add more vehicles you worst case still will be with the first load case single vehicle. See AASHTO or any other design code you are using you will see the application of maximum load case for single span. Just apply these loads no need to add so many vehicles on the bridge.

If you are not restrained by depth of section than you can try converting it to a truss members and check you support conditions. But still all gona be expensive time consuming exercise. better go for section you design or ask for another section available with ur specs.

Check your frame releases. You can't release all the members with M22. Your major axis moment behaviour is different than the minor axis. run the model and also your column connection to the truss should be modelled as pin connection as your layout and model suggests.

See attached it will help you. PCI-Manual-for-the-Design-of-Hollow-Core-Slabs-and-Walls--3rd-Edition-MNL126-15.pdf