Ayesha

Never heard about it but sure would try it some time.

From your attached image, its only higher in one intermediate column. That can be due to a number of reasons like: 1) Your column geometric properties are not assigned correctly. 2) Gravity and lateral Loads are applied incorrectly. 3) The framing is such that there is more load on that column. 4) The attached image is a 2-D image. Maybe there is no beam at intermediate level resulting is larger unbraced length. This can be due to a number of reasons as your question is open ended and there is no definite pattern in results. Check you assignment and "do manual calculations" and compare with ETABS results. Without that, you won't know. So do your manual checks of column design and get back with your result comparison.

Your question is already answered here- Also see my older post here that has examples-

Your questions are good and there has been some discussions on the forum about these. Generally for beams subjected to compatibility torsion, it is safe to reduce torsion in them as there is more than one load path available. What happens is that when you don't provide torsion reinforcement for your beam (or in other words if you have under-designed for torsion), the beam would crack (making any torsion stiffness zero like what you assumed in ETABS) and re-distribute the load. This generally results in more reinforcement in beams center. Even for the case when one beam is being supported on another, keeping torsion modifier to zero would result in more deflection of the beam that is supported and little cracking at the support end but nothing to worry about. . One important thing to note here is that for flat slabs, where you have perimeter beams, reducing beam torsional stiffness would lead to in-effective design. You can think about it and hopefully will understand why.To understand, when you can reduce torsion stiffness to zero, see the following topic and check additional links provided in the discussion. If this house is in seismic region, short columns would attract major chunk of seismic load as they are more stiffer and stiffness attracts loads. Check out the following post as it contains an attachment on why short columns are more dangerous and what precautions shall be taken.

Generally the reinforcement in bottom columns is expected to be more excluding some assumptions. Why is this strange to you? What are you thinking that has gone wrong that made you suspicious of the results?

You can check out the mat foundation tutorial at https://www.csiamerica.com/products/safe/watch-and-learn This explains everything that you are asking.

Multiply it with width of beam.

Those are designed by geotechnical engineer not by structural.

Your topic is already under discussion. You should reply there.

Can you please share how your problem was solved for the benefit of everyone here. My back of the envelope calculation shows that moment should be 1/3rd of what you are getting right now.

Depends on your material. If your material is concrete, use a concrete book that can show you the examples, to check individual beams, column for strength checks. If its steel, do it for steel. If you have access to software, that can do the same for you.

See the attached file. The attachment is a comparison between UBC and IBC but it discusses Groups, Divisions, Importance factors along with references. ICBO_IBC-UBC.pdf Link Source: http://extras.springer.com/2003/978-0-7923-7301-4/ICBO/IBC-UBC.pdf

See attached. Design_Load_Parking_2005.pdf

By bracing do you mean anchors that go between shore piles and keep them in place.

Yes, but you need to provide bracing (Plan and Vertical). In order to answer your question, I need to know what the height of the structure is and what is the reference wind pressure?

What does UBC code suggest for buildings like Hospital? Is your question that the importance factor in code is not clear, or if you can't find it there or if you want someone else to look up for your and tell you or you know what the code says but want a second opinion? If you want to look up importance factor in UBC 97, here is the reference.

Interesting. The location where field engineer has done the pile is closer to center, so you should be able to still do the piles at the original place. What is the minimum spacing between piles that you are keeping? In order to know how to fix this, you will have to update your analysis model based on the in-correctly installed pile, run the analysis to see if the foundation is failing or not. Have you done that? Another solution would be to run very deep beam (2 times the depth of mat) as shown, but first you need to do analysis by updating your pile location in the model as per installed.

Source: http://docs.csiamerica.com/help-files/etabs/Menus/Define/Section_Properties/Frame_Sections/Frame_Section_Property_Reinforcement_Data_Form.htm The above might work for you. I don't have SAP2000 installed so I can't really check what I find on internet but I do remember that you could either design a new beam or check existing one very easily. If the above doesn't work, try this link: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_provide_beam_reinforcement_in_sap2000_with_R_F_to_be_check_option_just_like_option_provided_for_column_in_sap2000 Things have changed so much since I was working on SAP200.

You shouldn't use that menu to define reinforcement in column/ beam section. See attached video that shows how to define members.

This topic has already been repeatedly discussed in the forum. You can use the search to find topics. Here are few topics as starter.

Yes you should be able to use it provided the slab is designed for the loads and deflection criteria is met. I assume by Grid Slab you meant Waffle Slab. One thing to be mindful is that workmanship should be excellent while doing Waffle/ Grid Slabs. You are better off with standard 2 way slabs with beams if good workmanship is not available. Other factors to consider would be structural framing, redundancy of the system and distribution of load on that framing. You need to make sure that your system is redundant. If your slab has only 4 supports, I would recommend adding additional depending on how the loads are laid out, story height, seismic area etc. What you have asked can be done but there are a lot of additional factors to consider like what I said above.

There are a lot of methods that you can look up in the text book. Is there a specific one you were thinking to discuss?

Hamza, There is no criteria other than if you want to know the reinforcement in the specified direction, you need to have a strip defined accordingly. You should spend some time on Safe Watch and Learn Tutorials.

I am very sure that your post violates forum rules and you might get banned here.

@NMN ASCE 7 says to use 20% of any snow load greater than 30psf as seismic weight. For Canadian Code, you will need to see your local jurisdiction code. If the code doesn't says anything about it, you can use ASCE 7 clause and include the snow load. This all depends how you have defined the loads. Some people differentiate between dead loads by creating a dead load case and a super dead load case. Other don't. So go with the option based on your loads definitions.