Ayesha

Like Ilyas said, the same way you would design a foundation under a column. No difference.

My first question is that why are you asking this question? What is your actual concern.. (shear, moment, settlement etc?). Also clarify if the beam would be of same width as that of wall. In my opinion, considering beam is of same width as that of wall, there would be no significant difference.

There are KL/R limits based on tension and compression. For P-Delta, see this

Use dummy members to assign line loads.

Some authors recommend like you can read "Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings by Paulay". Practice varies from engineer to engineer. Thanks.

Assign diaphragms before meshing. Check the points in summary table and you will find errors there. Zoom in your model at the locations points and you will be able to see points not connected.

There can be a number of reasons. To start, your model is not correct. Your loading might not be correct. When you say that your beams or columns are failing, it is very easy to check the capacity of beam or column manually and fix the issue. Have you checked your manual capacities and confirmed if there isn't anything wrong with your models. I don't rely on models as they are mostly garbage in and garbage out. Show us your number that you have done and if you don't know how to do that, spend some time on basics and manual calcs.

The tutorial is for ETABS 9.7. The post is dated 2014 at which time ETABS v15 wasn't out.

Please summarize your temperature loading. Why do you think wall shoul not fail?

I am not clear about ur question. Mind explaining?

Good that you clarified, but the original statement also includes - "Correct I am wrong. As per UBC # of modes shall be such that it incorporates 90% of participating mass."

I think your question has been answered above. I will only add that even for performance based design, the stiffness modifiers shall be different for each performance level. I think that is implied by the commentary. You an also have a look at the following thread to see how drift control and stability requirements are enforced by code in general design practise. It is not 100% related to your question but it gives you a nice overview of how certain elements that we talk about are incorporated into the design with us taking the fore granted. You might find it usefel.

See this

Where does it say in code to do this. Please provide a reference?

For braced frames, the beams are intentionally kept pinned as you don't need to have a moment connection for load transfer as brace takes care of it.

You might be doing it because the scope of problem is only to design beams. It might have some affect. You can check.

There are a number of questions here. I will try to answer some of them. See this: Examples are in FEMA 451.

There can be numerous kind of connections between two structural members. Generally speaking, connections are based on load transfer. If the connection transfers moment and shear, its a continuous connection. Assuming column as pin connection would be a case where there beam can only transfer vertical and lateral load in the column but not the moment. A real life example in concrete would be a beam that is connected to column through shear studs. The assumption made in your course is to make things easy as beam column connection are mostly moment connections. Rigid and semi rigid are ambiguous terms. The amount of moment transfered from beam into column depends upon relative stiffness of beam and column. That determines how much load gets transferred as moment, shear or displacement.

Doing masters back to back with bachelors is not a bad idea if you are doing research. If you are more like a design person, then you should better get a job, but if you want to stay academic, go for masters.

It should result in moment at ends. Moment equal to force times beam depth/2.

You should start by investigating the option proposed by Client. If that works, great. If it doesn't, tell the Client that you have checked the option and it doesn't work and then propose your alternative.

Nothing specific. There is nothing wrong with having this many columns. These columns are more like confined masonry columns rather than structural columns. Sanity checks. Your results should make sense and load path should be complete. Pick-up beams?

The first thing that you need to do is turn your local axis on. Once you have done it, here is the relationship b/w local axis and 1,2 and 3 face. local 1 axis: red local 2 axis: green local 3 axis: blue You can easily determine your reinforcement once local axis are on. M11 is about 2 axis so reinforcement should be parallel to Local 1. M22 is about Local 1 axis, so reinforcement should be parallel to Local 2.

He is referring to pattern live load not live load. By increasing 20% +ve steel, you can justify keeping pattern live load factor as zero.

Yes you should and the reinforcement in them is generally high so provide what you get from ETABS. There are a number of threads in this forum on this topic. You can see this one: If you are providing it, you should. Plinth would give stability to your system.