BAZ

Moderators
  • Content count

    249
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    90

BAZ last won the day on December 31 2016

BAZ had the most liked content!

7 Followers

About BAZ

  • Rank
    Major

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    badar210@hotmail.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Rawalpindi
  • University
    NUST, Politecnico Di torino
  • Employer
    CIIT
  • Interests
    structural engineering,cricket,football,economics and films/music.

Recent Profile Visitors

801 profile views
  1. The factor of 0.35Ig is not applicable to beams with flanges. For the interior beam, the factor will be around 0.7Ig, and for the edge beam, it will be around 0.5Ig. Moreover, these factors are for un-braced frames; factors are different for braced frames. Please go through the commentary of the section 8.7.1 of ACI 318-08.
  2. I think both will indicate the torsional irregularity at a level in the building. The ETABS gives those results in the summary report; the software reports in term of maximum and average displacements and their ratio at each story.
  3. In calculating design forces, have you considered the application of point load on a panel, which will support lights, at the top of the pole, in addition to the UDL on the pole itself. Is it possible that only two bolts will be effective in resisting moment for a wind direction in which two bolts will lie on the neutral axis, and the moment arm will be sqrt(2) x 12.
  4. My initial post was to point to fellow engineers that one must look at the value of the time period used by the ETABS for calculating the base shear. For normal construction in Pakistan, the construction in which the area of shear walls seldom exceeds 1% of the floor area, the time period of the building should not be significantly less than the value obtained by empirical formulae of UBC 97. If ETABS is using the value which is, say 60%, of that value, then there should be some mistake in modeling, and the design engineer should be aware of that.
  5. The design of tie beam will be governed by amount of differential settlement of the foundation selected for the job at hand. If delta is the differential settlement, then the fixed-end moment due to that value will be: (6EI/L*L)delta. Add the gravity load Fixed End Moment to it, and then distribute this moment among members of beam-column joint according to their flexural stiffness. That is a crude way of proportioning the tie beam.
  6. I hold the same opinion on this topic.
  7. The post contains an attachment containing the seismic analysis of the over head water tank, performed by using guidelines of ACI 350.3-06. The report doesn't address every structural component, but can serve as reference for anyone who wants to check the frame-supported overhead water tank for seismic forces. Water tank Seismic FORCES - SEFP.pdf
  8. The modifier -0.35- is not meant to be used for calculating deflections of flexural members for gravity loads; It is to be used for calculating lateral deflections of the frame. You can make multiple models on Etabs to perform the calculation. It is better to use excel sheet. I do not perform these calculations on ETABS. Safe is another option to perform these calculations.
  9. How can i find out Short and long Term spectral response acceleration parameters for Kuwait. Kuwait is in Seismic Zone 1.

     

    Thanks

     

    Shahid Mahmood

    0096569998035

    1. Show previous comments  2 more
    2. shahid Mahmood

      shahid Mahmood

      Good Morning,

      How can i get this document, can u please guide me.

       

      Regards,

       

      Shahid Mahmood

    3. UmarMakhzumi

      UmarMakhzumi

      Please see the attachment.

      Thanks.

      Screen Shot 2016-12-20 at 1.22.19 PM.png

    4. shahid Mahmood

      shahid Mahmood

      Thank you very much.

  10. The beam with larger depth should be the main beam, and the beam smaller depth should be the secondary beam. By main beam, I mean that the beam has ability to attract forces from adjoining members because of its larger stiffness. Keeping that thing in mind, secondary beams should have been transferring the reaction directly to main beams, and main beams should have been transferring the loads of secondary beams, which are carrying the load of metal deck and the live load, to concrete beams. In the figure, they have placed larger and smaller size beams in the same directions. If smaller size are able to carry load, as is evident from the standing structure, why use larger beams. They have wasted material.
  11. The term might have been used by some author; it is not a common term. Where did you read it?
  12. Some portion of slab is used by many engineers to take into the account the effect of line load on the slab. Many call it a beam, because the reinforcement arrangement resembles like a beam. But it cannot technically be called a beam; beam is a member that attracts force by virtue of its stiffness. Since, the thickness of so called beam is equal to that a slab, it cannot attract forces. It is a simplified way of taking into the account the effect of line load on slab; by arranging reinforcement in this way, one assumes that the effect of line load will be limited within the width of so called beam. So the width of the beam will be decided by the design moment. The beam will be only designed for the load of the supported wall, or the load of supported wall + the load transferred by the wall from upper levels. The so called beam cannot take any load from adjacent slab area, as it does not have the stiffness to attract any load. So tributary area thing is not applicable to that member. If you understand what is written above, you should conclude that there is no need to check the deflection. In many cases, this way of locally reinforcing the slab ( so called concealed beam) will not be able to support the load transferred from above levels, unless you increase the thickness of slab.