UmarMakhzumi

Administrators
  • Content count

    943
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    268

UmarMakhzumi last won the day on April 7

UmarMakhzumi had the most liked content!

About UmarMakhzumi

  • Rank
    Colonel

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.sepakistan.com
  • Skype
    Makhzumi

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canada
  • University
    NUST, U of A
  • Employer
    SEFP
  • Interests
    Structural Engineering, Ancient Engineering, Seismic, Retrofitting, Finite Element Analysis, Civil Engineering, Formula 1, Basketball, VB

Recent Profile Visitors

1,987 profile views
  1. Doesn't Staad consider self weight? For 3" slab, the weight should be what you said.. are you checking/ vetting this model? If yes, then follow up with he design engineer. Thanks.
  2. Hi Dipesh, Reporting forces in units / length is standard nomenclature. You will need to multiply the given value by the length of the element that is parallel to the axis of the moment. For orientation of shell stresses and forces, please see the following link: http://docs.csiamerica.com/help-files/csibridge/Output_Conventions/Shell_Element_Internal_Forces_Stresses_Output_Convention.htm Thanks.
  3. Just to add to the earlier point that If you have a wall system, the best way to get seismic demand is to model walls only, assign diaphragm and apply manually calculated seismic loads at each level. This would keep clutter out and you can also assign/ remove selected beams to see their impact on wall capacity. Thanks.
  4. Tahir, I missed out the attached image while replying earlier (on cellphone 3:00 am in the morning). I was assuming your layout to be a rectangular frame one where columns are way apart. Anyway, with reference to the attachment provided, your certain columns are very close. If I were you, I would have the centre three columns on 1 combined foundation and right two columns in another combined foundation and keep the other three as isolated foundation. This would be correct if your strip/ combined foundation can be considered rigid. You need to have enough foundation depth with respect to spacing between columns. If you do like I said, and use this approach for sizing combined foundations, things would work out as columns are closely spaced and the assumption underlying use of geometric centre is satisfied. Thanks.
  5. Tahir, Is your building a frame structure or a confined masonry structure? Anyway, I don't see any mertis of providing strip foundation under a frame structure. You should go for deeper isolated foundations and if they are overlapping, then go for a thicker raft. Thanks.
  6. WSalaam.. ASD is design based on actual non-factored loads considering reduced material strength capacties. For example, for 100 kN load on a steel beam with yield of 350 MPa, you will design it using 100 Kn load and a strength of 2/3*350 MPa= 232 MPa. The reduction in material strength would provide safety, calculated as ratio of actual strength/ (reduction factor * actual strength). This ratio is called Factor of Safety (FOS). FOS would vary for foundations, steel or concrete design etc. ULS is based on factored loads (load factor as per the statistical probability of likely hood of occurance causing failure) with reduced material capacites. The reduction in material capacites is lower than what ASD has. Like for steel design, material reduction factor is 0.9 only which is a mere 10% reduction. ULS is improved and currently the way to go in most building codes worldwide. Some building codes even prohibit using ASD. The following link contains an excellent reply by @EngrUzair about cost Compairson b/w ASD and LRFD. WSD is same as ASD. Secant modulus represents elastic behavior between stress and strain values (as it is a straight line) whereas tangent modulus gives you relationship in any portion of stress strain curve (elastic, plastic etc). Thanks.
  7. It's correct. Just make sure if you have a Beam connecting two walls it's drawn in ETABS. Thanks.
  8. The 2% and 2.5% limits are from UBC Section 1630.10.2. Excerpt from UBC is also posted in the OP. Thanks
  9. Thanks Rana. Lets also hear what others have to say and then finalize.
  10. Its a great suggestion and we can definitely create new categories or perhaps new forms sections as well. Any suggestions ??
  11. I thought this questions was resolved earlier: Thanks.
  12. The following two links might help: 1) https://www.csiamerica.com/products/etabs/watch-and-learn Check Tutorial 15 2) https://wiki.csiamerica.com/display/etabs/Time-history+analysis Thanks.
  13. That shouldn't cause any problem. Try uninstalling and reinstalling ETABS. Thanks.
  14. Hello shanimalik,. Congrats on completing your bachelors degree. Here are websites for a few respectable Canadian Universities. You can visit their webpage and check out the Graduate Students section. It would provide you information with how to create an account and apply for masters program. 1) http://www.civil.engineering.ualberta.ca 2) https://schulich.ucalgary.ca/departments/civil-engineering 3) http://www.civil.ubc.ca 4) http://civil.engineering.utoronto.ca Hope that helps. Thanks.
  15. ACI provides minimum design recommendations. You can go ahead and comply with them. As Engineer of Record, you are bound to stick with Building Code (ACI is not a building Code) and you can also exercise your engineering judgement in cases where you deem it necessary. Like I said, nothing wrong with it. If you want to reduce compatibility based on above quoted equation, please do so, but others that don't want to follow that approach can also do that. I don't know the context, but based on what has been posted, the author for the book recommends all building in SDC D to be checked for 100% one direction + 30% perpendicular direction. As far as design practice goes, I haven't designed anything classified as a building in last 7 years so don't know what the current codes state about the requirement. Thanks.