Ayesha

I would suggest that you design the minaret as a wall. You can use section designer and check the reinforcement. That representation is better suited. Then based on results, you would know if it is acceptable or not.

The best approach generally is that review the information that you are coming across in the design while working as design engineer. Whenever something comes up, look up the literature associated with it and review it. In that way, you will memorize it. It you review with using them in practice, you will forget soon.

Minha, ETABS is not very friendly software for masonry design. It is better to do it manually. You can then design the foundation in SAFE or manually.

What is the picture about? Can you explain the problem and what the picture is..

Yes as it is more conservative.

Of course you can with epoxy grout as bond strength is even high than compressive strength of concrete for most epoxy grouts. You have to check the data sheet. The important thing would be surface prep as aggregate would need to be exposed to half depth and extremely good cleaning. Once you have used epoxy, there is no construction joint at that location. Just remember that.

You will need to mesh the wall and then add links at those nodes.

The paper is the one you referred in Eng-Tips. Title: SHEAR TRANSFER IN REINFORCED CONCRETE - RECENT RESEARCHDate: March-April, 1972Volume: 17Issue: 2Page number: 55-75Author(s): Alan H. Mattock, Neil M. Hawkins Download Link: https://www.pci.org/PCI_Docs/Publications/PCI Journal/1972/March-1972/Shear Transfer in Reinforced Concrete - Recent Research.pdf You can see page 61 of the PDF to see the definition of items in the equation. Another alternate would be to provide epoxy grout to join the two surfaces on either side of the crack. In that way no calculation is required.

You can try links or compression only springs.

This shouldn’t happen as beam is not connected to wall and only resting on wall in real world case - therefore your modelling should represent it. There was also another question on the forum on modelling CRP and I think the same reply would fit here. Contact, gap etc are better modelled in FEM software. Personally you shouldn’t be doing a model for a 3 story building in a FEA software. Keep it simple. If you still want to do it, use compression only springs to connect the beam to wall. That would be simple but I strongly suggest using advanced models for simple things.

You can use the recommendations in the paper that allow use of axial compression and rebar perpendicular to crack surface to be accounted. If I were you, I would just use the conventional method described in the paper and ignore any contribution due to rebar (see snapshot for the method/ equation). Also, I have difference of opinion for your case. I checked the topic at Eng-Tips as the question is explained in much More detail than here (I would suggest you edit your question above and include additional details). The location you have chosen is under compression as directly under columns. You shouldn’t be worried about shear or moment there.

This doesn’t look right and beam for sure looks under-reinforced. If you have done the calculation, you can share and see if someone has time to review here. If you don’t have structural engineering background, contact a structural engineer, pay him and get this designed.

Shear transfer at construction joint happens through a combination of bearing and shear strength of key where provided. Flexural reinforcement has no role. See also,

Post your error log. There must be some other problem.

This topic has been discussed to death in this forum. See the following:

Yes, and check the case for building period with or without the mass on top that is for 2 cases. 1) Swimming pool is full. 2) Swimming pool is empty. Both will give you different period. Swimming pool is nothing but just load. So treat it like one. Also, make sure you design the bottom slab of swimming pool for crack control and water tightness. You can search this forum as this topic has been discussed to death here.

What is the basis for this statement?

Hafsa, Can you check the error log and then try looking up the error number here: https://wiki.csiamerica.com/display/kb/Error+codes+and+descriptions Also, please share screen shot of the above error related to load cases.

Looks like a custom addin. You can google and buy it.

That can help with reinforcement but for bearing pressure, not sure.

There is already some discussion on the forum. You can check these threads.

Your question depends on site parameters. If you don't have them, the it is very hard to know the correct response of the structural system/ shore pile.

You need to get recommendations for this from the geotech consultant assigned to the project.

There is also Pakistan Building Code which is basically based on UBC97. ACI code is used widely in Pakistan and consultants authorized by local building authorities like CDA use and do the vetting based on ACI. In case you use a different code, it might be a problem if the design lands with local authority. @Simple Structures is also right in pointing out and British and other International Consultants on international projects in Pakistan have a preference to use their code and in my opinion such use shall be taken as exception to rule, not the rule.

This will help. https://www.sepakistan.com/topic/2182-confined-masonry-guidelines-pakistan/