Badar (BAZ)

Leave it to the default value (8 seconds). For your structure, any number more than 2 seconds will not change the design force. So this parameter is useless for your purposes.

BCP has not given this value. You can put reasonable number based on your engineering judgment. Majority of buildings do not fall in that part of response spectrum, so it does not matter ( Unless you are working on building more than 50 storey, or building with base isolation).

This is most likely not a serious error; it will not have drastic effect on the behavior of the member. You might want to take a look at the hinge properties.

This is most likely not a serious error; it will not have drastic effect on the behavior of the member. You might want to take a look at the hinge properties.

Design column moments after P-delta analysis are exceeding the code limit of 1.4 times the moments due to 1st degree analysis.
Check any member by manual calculations to make sure that the change in member ( column, beams, or both) size is required.
In addition, you can do following:
ETABS uses a default value of 1 for effective length factors; you should revise the factor if you have stiffer beams. you can also review moment coefficient factor. make sure that unbraced length ratios are correct.

Study the PMM diagram. For column at top floor, small axial load coupled with relatively large moment is causing your PMM ratio to shoot up.

Dear Waqar
please check the pouring methodology and measures adopted to control temperature for mass concreting, if any. Then you can calculate the temperature rise during hardening of concrete and compare the difference of atmospheric temperature and concrete temperature. As very high cement content is anticipated so stringent temperature control requirements should have been adopted. By this you would be able to figure out whether these are temperature shrinkage cracks or otherwise. Moreover please calculate the crack width. As cover is high therefore there is a possibility that you may end up in calculating the crack width equivalent to whatever is visible there in the slab.  Pattern of cracks you highlighted indicates the temperature shrinkage nature of cracks however calculations are needed to confirm the anticipation.

Please leave it to some one who understands it better. After reading your post, I think, you are not the right person ( from practical building construction point of view) to get the advice.

Please leave it to some one who understands it better. After reading your post, I think, you are not the right person ( from practical building construction point of view) to get the advice.

Have you compared the deflection with and without the secondary beam?

I think your reading of the results given by ETABS is not reasonable. Also floors is incorrect terminology to be used here, I reckon you mean two slab panels.
If two slab panels are connected by a pin-end secondary beam supported on fixed-end beams, you will get more deflections in that panel as compared to the model in which secondary beam can transfer end moments to primary beams.

The beam is a flexural member, and the column is an axial+flexural member. So, the beam will experience more cracking than columns. These numbers are deduced from experimental results ( read the commentary of ACI section 10.10.4.1).

Yes, You can reduce. ACI 318 calls them Architectural Columns, See following sections of ACI 318-14
ACI 318-14 (R10.3.1.2)
But, you need to be careful in areas where ductility demand is high.

Design your floor system by checking the "ignore vertical offsets in non P/T Models". It is performing incorrect analysis when you uncheck this option; you can compare the shape of bending moment diagram in beams as a reference. It gives a weird shape when you uncheck this option.
 
Ignoring or considering the 2D analysis only will have negligible effect.

For gravity loads, and for the purpose of deflection check ( which needs to be checked against gravity loads), it is reasonable to use 2D analysis option. Even if your are using 3D analysis by unchecking this option, your results should approximately be the same, as you are using gravity loads only. Another scenario where this option can lead to considerably different results is when you have angled columns.
Vertical offsets are used to model raised and depressed slab panels. If you have not modelled them, it does not matter if that option is checked or not.
How much is the difference in results in terms of percentage? I doubt if your results are  differing by considerable amount.

Use ACI 530-11 for the reference.
You do not need a software for these structures, unless you want to know the design shear on individual wall panels.
For most masonry buildings (rectangular shape with no vertical irregularities, normal size rooms, and only the normal size window and door openings) you do not even need to consult any code or use software. You should be able to design these kind of structures in 30 minutes.
 

"There is no favorable wind for sailor who does not know where to go". You are asking wrong questions. Whatever I write, will misguide you.

Study the PMM diagram. For column at top floor, small axial load coupled with relatively large moment is causing your PMM ratio to shoot up.

Following are the documents that you can consider for performing the PBD. You can find guidelines for hinge lengths in them as well.
ASCE/SEI 41-17 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings An alternative for seismic analysis and design of tall buildings located in Los Angeles by LATBSDC TBI guidelines for performance based seismic design of tall buildings Performance Based Design State of the Practice for Tall Buildings by EERI Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design (NIST GCR 10-917-5) PEER/ATC 72-1 report
 

Following are the documents that you can consider for performing the PBD. You can find guidelines for hinge lengths in them as well.
ASCE/SEI 41-17 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings An alternative for seismic analysis and design of tall buildings located in Los Angeles by LATBSDC TBI guidelines for performance based seismic design of tall buildings Performance Based Design State of the Practice for Tall Buildings by EERI Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design (NIST GCR 10-917-5) PEER/ATC 72-1 report
 

Use ACI 530-11 for the reference.
You do not need a software for these structures, unless you want to know the design shear on individual wall panels.
For most masonry buildings (rectangular shape with no vertical irregularities, normal size rooms, and only the normal size window and door openings) you do not even need to consult any code or use software. You should be able to design these kind of structures in 30 minutes.
 

Use ACI 530-11 for the reference.
You do not need a software for these structures, unless you want to know the design shear on individual wall panels.
For most masonry buildings (rectangular shape with no vertical irregularities, normal size rooms, and only the normal size window and door openings) you do not even need to consult any code or use software. You should be able to design these kind of structures in 30 minutes.
 

On checking the first option only that is for 2D plate, my long term deflection comes out to be 0.82 inches
 But when i check only the last option of ignoring the vertical offsets (set as default in Safe 2016) the deflection comes out to b 4.2 inches
What could be the reason?
Here, 2 way slab is modeled running in between the columns. Wall load of 9in thickess is applied on the light grey lines as shown on the image.

Yes, membrane assignment will do the job assuming that you are only concerned abut estimation of demands on the frame elements and not the hollow-core slab itself.
With your shear connection detail between beam and slab in the form of rebar-dowels, it would be wrong to model the slab with flexural stiffness (shell) , as it would lead to an underestimation of flexural demands on beams.

Yes, You can reduce. ACI 318 calls them Architectural Columns, See following sections of ACI 318-14
ACI 318-14 (R10.3.1.2)
But, you need to be careful in areas where ductility demand is high.