Leaderboard

This is not the right place to discuss/seek consultancy advice/design of a complete structure, in fact it is dangerous. Please hire a professional structural engineer to properly check and design it.

REPLY FROM CSI Ilyas, Regarding your questions: 1, 2 and 3- Results are not expected to be the same, in general, ETABS is based on 3D analysis of the building while SAFE is based on a single story. If you uncheck thick plate in SAFE slab property it is similar to shell thin in ETABS in which slab shear deformation is not accounted for in both programs. This is also depending on ETABS--->SAFE export option you are using, load cases involved, meshing, rigid zone over columns etc. 4- Please make sure to run latest version of SAFE 2016 v16.0.1 5- Concrete strength does not matter for stiff element property as program does not design stiff elements. Program magnify their bending stiffness by a factor of 100 to model the rigidity of the interface. Regards, Mohamad ____________________________ Mohamad Ali-Ahmad CSI Technical Support Computers & Structures, Inc. TECHNOLOGY FOR A BETTER WORLD 1646 N. California Blvd. Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 – USA Main (510) 649-2200 Fax (510) 649-2299 support@csiamerica.com www.csiamerica.com

AA. Here is the progress & update regarding the problem described in my original post, for the benefit of the interested SEFP users. 1. Automeshing was adopted in the original ETABS 9 model, with a maximum mesh size of 3 ft for the slabs & walls. The slabs included a raft slab as well, for tranferring the reactions to SAFE. 2. The model was being updated in steps, by refining the geometry along various edges of the slabs according to architectural plans at different floors. Model was running fine at all the steps. 3. The problem most probably occurred when the whole model (including the raft slab) was selected through 'Select all' command & automeshed again as stated in para-1 above. This action meshed the raft slab as well.The meshing of raft slab was haphazard in some regions, because of orientation of slab outer edges in different directions. 4. Following steps were taken in order to sort out the error:- a. Trials were made by automeshing the model at two different maximum mesh sizes of 4 ft & 2 ft (one at a time), but without any positive result. b. Third trial was made using 'default' meshing option ( meshing at grids & in Automesh options, by keeping the 'Further subdivide shell/wall in maximum element size of' option UNCHECKED. This trial helped in running the analysis completely, with 2 Warning Messages indicating presence of unconnected point & frame objects at the specified locations. Deletion of these extra objects removed the warning messages. c. Another trial indicated that thr problem is with the meshing of slabs, and not the walls. d. Trying to locate affected element # 22836 through the procedure advised by Rana, indicated that the relevant output table designates the slab & wall elements by the number types F### for slab elements & W### for wall elements. It followed that element numbers (like 22836 etc) are generated during analysis only. The same facts have been stated above by Saad Pervez. Thus, the affected element could not be traced once again. e. Keeping in view suggestion made by EngrJunaid, the affected model was opened in ETABS 2016. This time the affected element was located & found to be present in the automeshed Raft Slab, provided at the base level merely for exporting the Base Reactions to SAFE for further processing there. 5. Replacing the affected Automeshed Raft Slab, with a new unmeshed raft slab & remeshing the floor slabs & rc walls (after selecting the floor slabs & walls separately) at desired maximum mesh size finally solved the problem. In the end, thanks to all (especially @EngrJunaid) for contribution to reach the solution of subject problem, by suggesting various courses of action. Regards.