All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Past hour
  2. Hooks bent inwards provide confinement and increase ductility. Thanks.
  3. Today
  4. Assalamualaikum SE Pakistan in this pca seismic guide detailing it says that the rebar hook shall be bends towards to the center of column but i always see the bend is towards to the outer of column, which one is right? and why? all the best
  5. how did you model the section with different spacing of long.bar in SAP2000/ETABS? i always see that they have the same spacing bar to bar
  6. Hello Sir Thank you sir Now I understood, Actually my doubt is that, if there is no load in between the footing and the structure is small and soil have sufficient bearing capacity, then why we we are design the tie beam too?? In all references, if the actual bearing pressure is nearer to the safe bearing capacity then there will be a chances of settlement, to avoid this settlement we can use some geotechnical method and we can design the suitable tie beam. As per this reference book, the sliding against footing and settlement calculation both are safe, but still client saying that to design the tie beam cause the sliding check is fail. That's why am trying to prove this calculation is correct or not.
  7. As far as your calculation goes, you can reference this manual in your calculations and that should be okay. I am not sure what do you mean when you say "Please suggest me some solution for this. " Haven't you already done calculation? Do you want me to check it and confirm if that is okay? If that's the case, I won't be able to check the calc because of my own workload. But as long as you are using literature references, it good. Double check your numbers and nothing to worry about. What I want to understand is that why are you worried about settlement? Does your structure contain any equipment for which you need to keep settlement below certain value so connections to equipment don't break? Also, I am not sure where this structure will be built - is there any frost heave expected where this structure is being built? If yes, have you designed for that? Thanks.
  8. Yesterday
  9. Suarez, we do not handle pirated/cracked stuff. Please be aware in future.
  10. Dear members, I am using ETABS v9.7.4 and i want to use the newer versions for detailing purposes. I am trying to install ETABS 2013 or 2015 (cracked version), but its not cracking / working. I followed every steps as directed but Can't open. Help plz.
  11. DEAR Rana bahi said rightly,this Vu* is for beam(frame action) ,this is magnified shear demand only applicable in sway intermediate and sway special,this i found in ''2012 IBC SEAOC STRUCTURAL DESIGN MANUAL" VOLUME 3. BUT you will not find this in ACI 318-14 AND ALSO DO NOT EXIST IN ETABS MANUAL(CONCRETE FRAME DESIGN ). THIS IS HOW IT IS CALCULATED, vu*=ῳV x vu and ῳV=0.9+n/10 AND ‘’n’’ IS NUMBER OF STORIES ῳV =SHEAR AMPLIFICATION FACTOR
  12. Solutions; 1. Why dont you import the cad drawing (as shown in image) into SAFE and draw footings with proper orientation? 2. Like you got reactions under so many combinations from ETABS for each column, in the same way, you could select all columns and export to EXCEL the local forces at and then filter for zero location and proceed with manual design. 3. Get global reactions (like you did already) but one group at a time. By one group i mean all the columns on one radial grid line. All columns on that grid will have same orientation and angle right. Export to EXCEL, transform forces in XY to that angle. New rotated forces will be; Fx' = Fx Cos theta + Fy Sin theta Fy' = -Fx Sin theta + Fy Cos theta there you go, you now have the new rotated forces. Repeat it for each radial line and then design footings manually.
  13. Hello Sir Thank you for your great support. Yes I did the settlement calculation based on the applied load. Am using one foundation design manual as per British code. Here Am attaching that book. Structural foundation designer's manual - W.G CURTIN, G.SHAW, G.I PARKINSON & J.M.GOLDING revised by N.J.SEWARD. Please suggest me some solution for this. Note: The steel and concrete both design are based on BS codes. Structural_Foundation_Designers_Manual.pdf
  14. Assalam o alaikum, I am having a building with a semi circle shape. None of the footing is either parallel to global X-axis nor to the global Y-axis. The plan of footings is attached. The problem I am facing is, ETABS reports joint reactions along global X-axis and global Y-axis instead of along the local axes of column. Since my columns are at a degree to global axis, the joint reactions also becomes at a degree from column and footing. Since to use simple combined stress formula of stress = P/A + Mx*Y/Ix + My*X/Iy I need forces along axis of footing. Or i will have to resolve either moment of inertia of footing along direction of forces or vice versa, which is quite tough and time taking. The other option I can go for is to design footing in SAFE. But again here, there i dont find any option to rotate footing at a certain degree to match orientation of columns. If i rotate local axis of footing, It only rotates its local axes and meshing but not the footing physically itself. The orientation of footing remains same. How can i solve this problem? Either having reactions in etabs along local axes of columns can solve my issue so that i can design it manually or rotating footing in safe to match local axes of columns can solve my issue. So can any one guide me how to do either option? Thanks.
  15. That is a very good approach.
  16. Depends on design moment combination. Thats why i always recommend putting in the right reinforcement in columns in ETABS and put it on 'check' instead of design.
  17. Assalamualaikum SE pakistan in general placement of rebar, i always see that the rebars set on the same spacing. These are 2 columns they have the same ratio of reinforcement, same dimentions, but the placement of rebar about 2 axis the A one has larger d than the B one and according to calculation its obvious that the A one gives the larger moment resistance(M3) , which one give the best overall resistance i mean not only the moment resistance but to overall ? the A one or B one? Regards
  18. @Saad Pervez @Rana @EngrJunaid thanks alot for the response, is it better to make the reinforcement to 2 layers of bar or just 1 but more tight space?
  19. Last week
  20. Hi, I am not familiar with the formulas that you have used (That doesn't mean they are incorrect). I believe that you are calculating the settlement based on applied load (or bearing pressure). If you have a reference for the formulas you are using, it should be all good. Generally, I would ask the geotechnical engineer to provide some literature that I can use to calculate settlement. Thanks.
  21. It might be this; "For concrete frame design using the ACI 318-08 and ACI 318-11 codes, the design report for "Shear Details" has been enhanced for "Sway Special" frames by adding the field Design Shear (Vu) for clarity. Previously, only the factored Vu was reported, which may not be the governing force for capacity design." Incident Id: 64173 in ETABS 2013 13.1.4 enhancement user notes.
  22. It could be. For example if you are checking shear at ground floor pier, it could be more than the shear force of floor diaphragm. This is due to the additive effects of upper stories. Meaning, shear in that pier will be the shear from floor diaphragm plus any residual shear force coming from upper stories, depending on shear force diagram. Yes, values will be either positive or negative. Is there any third possible sign? Secondly, you did not mention the results coming from static analysis or dynamic analysis? Remember that equilibrium from linear dynamic analysis such as MRSA are not possible.
  23. It looks like newer version of ETABS. Vu for frame or wall? I am sure there must be something written about Vu* in ETABS manual/help.
  24. RT @ahwazna1999: #أحوازنا - حزب الصواب الموريتاني ينظم مهرجانا تضامنيا مع انتفاضة الاحواز https://t.co/X91MUI47uT https://t.co/qUGSpLBYGs

  25. HOW Vu* calculated in Etabs,this is the output of etabs SHEAR DETAILS. Factored Vu2 kip Factored Mu3 kip-ft Factored Vu* kip Factored Mu* kip-ft Capacity Vp kip Gravity Vg kip 68.185 -291.4801 105.165 -474.5679 92.675 31.213
  26. Hello, I'm designing a 11 story building using Etabs 2016. I found something in the results of pier forces (V2) and story forces (Vx or Vy) from earthquake forces in Y direction. Logically the story force (V y) must be higher than V2 in piers due to EQy, but in my model I found that V2 in piers higher than story force (V y) My questions are: 1- Can pier forces (V2) in a given story be higher than story force (Vx or Vy) in that story. If yes, why is that possible? 2- In the pier forces in y direction, I found that most of the values (V2) in a given story are either positive or negative and that why it gave me high values of pier forces. Is that possible?? The model is attached here. Please inform me if there are any problems in my model. Looking forward to hearing from you. Structural Model.rar
  27. Yes or by any other mean like manually applying the joint loads.
  28. Hello Sir Thanks for your kind replay. Node 1 V =28.055kN Node 2 V = 12.22kN H= 3.5kN H= -1.52kN Node 5 V = 24.9kN Node 6 V =2.756kN H= -4.47kN H =0.186kN Node 9 V = 14.72kN Node 10 V = 12.61kN H= 3.718kN H =-2.59kN These are the STAAD results, based on this i made settlement calculation as well as sliding check. Here by I attached that calculation. This structure is covering by a sand trap louver on 3 sides only and no roof. FYI.pdf
  29. Dear Uzair, I have replied here: Thanks.
  1. Load more activity