Ayesha

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.

The building is really irregular. I would suggest isolating different sections of building if it is possible considering building envelope and architectural plans. For concrete buildings, the normal rule of thumb that I have seen out of handbooks in 180 feet. You can also refer to ACI 224.3R to further details.
Hope that helps.

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.

There is some additional information on Mass Irregularity in Appendix F and Strong Column/ Weak Beam discussing in Appendix G of the document.
 

Hi there,
I have studied this code and there is enough information such as modeling the baseline (regular) buildings and summary of results in Appendix C, but there is no information about modeling (especially section designs) irregular ones. The first paragraph of aforementioned Appendix is stated as follows:
For details on the steel moment frame designs with irregularities and for detailed results of the steel moment frame studies, see the electronic supporting documentation for Appendix C "steel moment frame irregularity designs and detailed results" (You can see the green highlighted text in below pic). 
Is there any electronic supporting documentation for this code? or is there any information of section designs that we directly use these buildings as benchmark structures?
many regards,

I'm an old codger with over 50 years of good engineering experience. I'm still actively designing. Most of my work, now is related to structural steel connections, but my experience is very wide. The reason for joining this site, is that there is an engineer in Vietnam that has a very irregular building 'footprint' (shape) and is seeking advice for locating expansion (control) joints. The joints are not constrained by dimension, but are determined by the irregularity.
Thanks.
Dik

Hi Ali,
End release is not preferred in concrete elements since it will require to allow for some cracks on beams and also difficult to detail in drawings
Releasing frames may touch the stability also of the lateral framing system unless you have another existing system cover this.
You may design column as flexure member by adding localized reinforcement covering moment only from one side and can be developed from one side to the beam/slab

You should bend them and the length should be equal to development length of a hook. Below is the concept:
 

Normally, the width of wall should be kept enough wide that you are able to achieve the ldh length and from the face of the wall you need to extend the rebar a distance of ld. You can find the values of Ldh also called development length of hooked bar and ld - development length of straight bar in your Russian code. For US Code, you can use this link:
https://structuralcalc.com/rebar-development-length-calculator-to-aci-318/
 
If you extend your wall bars a distance of Ld from the face of the wall, you need to just place the slab/ beam bars to the end as your wall reinforcement which is bent will take of of flexural moment at end of slab. No need to connect or anything.. Just extend your slab bar to the end of wall horizontally using a straight bar.
This can also be correct because in houses the loads are small and if you aren't in seismic zone, and the design is over-reinforced the development lengths can be reduced. Also, not bending the wall reinforcement into slab means that your slab will have more positive moment. Nothing is wrong with this approach.
 

There are similar discussions on the forum. Please check and post updated questions if still unanswered.
Raft Edge or Corners Overstressed: https://www.sepakistan.com/topic/3106-raft-edges-and-corners-overstressed/?tab=comments#comment-10121
High Soil Bearing Pressure under Raft: https://www.sepakistan.com/topic/2918-high-soil-bearing-pressure-under-raft/?tab=comments#comment-9375
Calculating Soil Spring: https://www.sepakistan.com/topic/1303-spring-support-modulus-of-subgrade-reaction/?tab=comments#comment-3548
Numerous Questions on Raft Design: https://www.sepakistan.com/topic/1440-raft-design-for-a-2-basementg24-story-building/?hl=raft
Minimum Thickness of Foundation: https://www.sepakistan.com/topic/160-minimum-thickness-of-footing/?hl=raft
 

It is not shown because the question requires the person to calculate "Loading" for "BG" and along "ABCD".
That is what the solution is provided for. 

There are different way depending upon the risk category of the structure. 
Pile capacity of concrete is one things and geotechnical capacity is another. The best way would be to do a pile load test on this pile group. Geotechnical consultants normally do such test and it helps verify capacity of existing piles both structurally and geotechnically.
For concrete strength, like you said core testing is one way. I am not familiar with GPR for strength testing of concrete piles. I have seen a lot of results of GPR surverys to find buried lines but nothing to determine strength.
Hope this helps.

I haven't done any slab retrofits myself, but looking at the picture, the following solution comes to my mind.
You can consider the additional thickness of slab + original one as one slab. Do your analysis and find the compressive and tension force in a unit width and design the studs for that width. That force will tell you how many studs you need. 
Also you need to check stud capacity and Hilti adhesive capacity. Stud capacity should be easy as it is made of steel. For Hilti, yo can use their software Profis.

There are different way depending upon the risk category of the structure. 
Pile capacity of concrete is one things and geotechnical capacity is another. The best way would be to do a pile load test on this pile group. Geotechnical consultants normally do such test and it helps verify capacity of existing piles both structurally and geotechnically.
For concrete strength, like you said core testing is one way. I am not familiar with GPR for strength testing of concrete piles. I have seen a lot of results of GPR surverys to find buried lines but nothing to determine strength.
Hope this helps.

AH and DE are load bearing walls that is why.
The question is about the need to draw "loading sketch" so that why reactions don't matter.

quick update:  After further investigation, I concluded the following:
Etabs considers the stiffness of the connected members in order to determine the level of fixity. This can be easily verified by modeling multiple portal frames with the same beam size and different column sizes. Shell elements without mesh have a high artificial stiffness that is not representative and is unrealistic. In addition, i came across an ETABS manual by Atkins, where they recommend the following : If the shell element (wall) has a refined mesh, consider extending the beam into the wall at least one shell element to model proper fixity.
 
 
 

Before I reply, just to make sure I understand your question and sketch right.
You said that "The concrete wall has a frontpart consisting of isolation and bricks."
1) Is this brick wall self supporting or connected to concrete wall through some anchors? 
2) The gap you show in the above sketch, is that isolation?
To answer your question, 
1) The balcony has self weight, weight of finishes as well as live load for which it needs to be designed. These loads will be transferred through the connection of balcony beam to the wall as well as through the steel wire. The very important this to notice is that due to the arrangement of balcony support system, your balcony beam will also have an axial load. I have marked the reactions.
First step is to resolve the forces as reactions on the connection to the wall. This also requires checking the steel wire to make sure it has enough strength as well as the balcony beam and its connection to wall.
Once you have done that, then you need to transfer the load (reaction of the balcony) to the foundation through the wall.
If the wall is not connected to the concrete wall below, then you need to analyze the wall for this load and make sure it has enough flexural and shear strength to transfer this load in combination with other environmental loads like Wind and Seismic etc.
it depends on how you are analyzing the wall. If you are using a software for example ETABS, you can model the openings in the software and design accordingly.
 

Mapped Spectral Accelerations Ss and S1 for 43 cities of Pakistan as per The Building codes of Pakistan 2021.  Coordinates of cities have been marked on maps and respective accelerations values are tabulated. This task has been performed during the MSC structural Engineering course "Seismic Design of Structures" at UET Lahore, and was assigned by course instructor Prof.Dr.M.Burhan Sharif,CED UET Lahore.
Mapped Spectral Acc.Engr.Sameer.UET.pdf

It appears that you have misunderstood the point about available length of residual bar  that can serve the demand of negative moment. You do not have 990mm.
 
 

I have already addressed that: You can provide extra rebars as per details shown by Ayesha.
 
It is what it is!
 
You cannot avoid them. What you can do is to limit their width so that the structure can have an longer service  life, and the rebars remain corrosion free.
I hope you understand that main/non-main depends on whether there is one-way or two-way action.

Negative rebars are the ones near the top of slab. With respect to my figure, it is the wall-rebar bent into the slab near its top face. It is a widely accepted practice to extend the top (negative) rebars to a distance of about span/4 from the face of support. For a 4m span, this would mean that you require 1m. But, as per your drawings, you do not have 1m; the available length of residual bars from the face of wall is about 1200 -150-300= 750. So you need extra rebars as per the detail shown in the comments of Ayesha for those spans. PS: In RCC structures there is no one-fits-all solutions. There are multiple loads paths. Even if you do not provide the lengths mentioned above, the slab can still have the required strength if you have provided extra reinforcement in the mid-span (i.e bottom bars).
The difference will be that you might get wider cracks (on top near slab to wall connection) if you do not follow the detail suggested in my comments.
But, you may not get to see them ever as flooring on the slab will make them invisible. This is the reason many engineers and contractors will say to you that do not worry about top rebars.

As  I understand, you want to know what to do with residual rebars of basement walls. This is what I have to say about it:

The kern check is the stability check for foundation. Failing that means limit state failure. Other options would be doing piling or tie the foundation using a beam to next available foundation and design accordingly.

You should bend them and the length should be equal to development length of a hook. Below is the concept:
 

Normally, the width of wall should be kept enough wide that you are able to achieve the ldh length and from the face of the wall you need to extend the rebar a distance of ld. You can find the values of Ldh also called development length of hooked bar and ld - development length of straight bar in your Russian code. For US Code, you can use this link:
https://structuralcalc.com/rebar-development-length-calculator-to-aci-318/
 
If you extend your wall bars a distance of Ld from the face of the wall, you need to just place the slab/ beam bars to the end as your wall reinforcement which is bent will take of of flexural moment at end of slab. No need to connect or anything.. Just extend your slab bar to the end of wall horizontally using a straight bar.
This can also be correct because in houses the loads are small and if you aren't in seismic zone, and the design is over-reinforced the development lengths can be reduced. Also, not bending the wall reinforcement into slab means that your slab will have more positive moment. Nothing is wrong with this approach.
 

You should bend them and the length should be equal to development length of a hook. Below is the concept:
 

Normally, the width of wall should be kept enough wide that you are able to achieve the ldh length and from the face of the wall you need to extend the rebar a distance of ld. You can find the values of Ldh also called development length of hooked bar and ld - development length of straight bar in your Russian code. For US Code, you can use this link:
https://structuralcalc.com/rebar-development-length-calculator-to-aci-318/
 
If you extend your wall bars a distance of Ld from the face of the wall, you need to just place the slab/ beam bars to the end as your wall reinforcement which is bent will take of of flexural moment at end of slab. No need to connect or anything.. Just extend your slab bar to the end of wall horizontally using a straight bar.
This can also be correct because in houses the loads are small and if you aren't in seismic zone, and the design is over-reinforced the development lengths can be reduced. Also, not bending the wall reinforcement into slab means that your slab will have more positive moment. Nothing is wrong with this approach.