EngrUzair

In case you have subdivided the beam (that is supporting the lowest picked-up column) correctly for creating the support point of picked-up column, it is unlikely that you don't get the beam design or reinforcement. It appears that you might have missed something or made some mistake in your model.
See the attached image (taken from an ETABS 9 model, I have created to cross-check the results) and note the reinforcement of the left side beam (supporting the picked-up columns), as well as for the supported columns at all levels.

Picked-up columns are supported on beams at their lowest point.
In order to draw a picked-up column, you will need to create point objects at required location on the relevant beams, and connect the two points (one located on the lower level beam and the second on the next upper level beam) with a line element (defined as a column member).
Application of loads, and analysis & design is similar to the other normal columns of a frame structure.
HTH

Salam .
from left to right
Mr.Junaid Shah, Mr.Asad Ishaq, Mr.Uzair , Mr.Umar Makhzumi (Admin), Dr.Badar Ali Zeshan (Moderator), Mr.Abdul Qadir, Mr.Waqar Saleem(Moderator)
 
Regards

Great..!!! I m only familiar with Engr Junaid because he is my class fellow, with Umar Makhzumi Bhai, and With Waqar Saleem Brother. Today I came to know what is full form of BAZ  And he has changed his looks also. By the way, I used to think Engr Uzair Sir quite younger but he is quite senior to us. Mostly people after getting senior does not use social media forums much.. especially for responding people.. Really nice to know the members. This forum is really great.!!

Very good coverage of the event, Waqar! Well done.

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

Very good coverage of the event, Waqar! Well done.

Assalamoalaikum
Dear Fellows
The gathering was a nice wonderful meeting. Summary of the meeting i share for the SEFP members who wanted to attend but couldn't manage to appear. Gathering took place in F-7 markaz, islamabad, at 630pm, 10Dec, 2016. Seven members(Mr. Umar Makhzumi(Admin), Mr. Badar Ali Zeshan(Moderator), Mr. Uzair, Mr. Asad ishaq, Mr.Abdul Qadeer, Mr. Junaid shah and Mr. Waqar Saleem(Moderator)) managed to attend the meeting. Number is small but weightage is very high, it was intended to break the ice. we met at the entrance of Saeed Book Bank and after gathering went to a nearby hotel, ordered food and had many discussions.Discussion topics included how to improve the structural engineering profession, how a service structure for structural engineers should be introduced, SEFP advertising to different forums, at conferences and universities, registration of SEFP with PEC for CPD points, a book/magazine publishing annually/six monthly, improvement of the SEFP role for learning, inviting senior structural engineers to participate in training and guiding the young structural engineers. These are some topics which i could recall shortly.Food was shared. Prime requirement of SEFP is advertisement to structural engineering community and registration with PEC as Engineering Body, whose registration and active participation can provide CPD to structural engineers. if i have missed anything important can be added by meeting participants please.
It was a unique experience and i thank all participants especially Umar sab, Badar Ali Zeshan sab, Uzair sab.
Regards

The gathering would be at F7 Markaz, Saturday Dec 10, 2016. Time: 6:30 pm. Everyone who is reading this is cordially invited. 
Thanks.

Umar Bhai!
In my opinion, this gathering must take place, even if it turns out to be a meeting of a few members only. Because It will help introduce the forum members to each other as well  as to the moderators available at the gathering.
For making the arrangement and knowing the anticipated number of participants, you may announce the date, time & venue of the gathering and ask the forum members to confirm their availability for the occasion, at least 24 hours before the gathering time. I am sure, response would be much better this time, compared to the previous one.
Moreover, a WhatsApp group may also be created, in order to develop direct communication between the Forum members.
Regards.   

Zebi,
Please provide following information regarding degree program and the institution you have attended, to proceed with PEC:-
1. Full Name of the University with mailing address
2. Contact information of the University (web and email address)
3. Duration and Official Start and Completion dates of the degree program attended.
Regards.
 

Two most commonly used standards for the design, construction, maintenance and inspection of water storage tanks, used for fire protection, are National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard 22 and and Factory Mutual (FM) standard 4020.
While both NFPA 22 and FM 4020 provide nearly similar provisions for the design of water storage tanks used for fire protection purposes, requirements of FM 4020 are of a higher level (more stringent).
By 'Seismic zone FM50', your sub-contractor would most probably be referring to the FM seismic zone with a 50-year mean recurring interval for the damaging ground motion.
For more details, you may refer to the following link:
http://www.pittsburgtank.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/FPCmag-FMvs.NFPA_.pdf
Regards.

Two most commonly used standards for the design, construction, maintenance and inspection of water storage tanks, used for fire protection, are National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standard 22 and and Factory Mutual (FM) standard 4020.
While both NFPA 22 and FM 4020 provide nearly similar provisions for the design of water storage tanks used for fire protection purposes, requirements of FM 4020 are of a higher level (more stringent).
By 'Seismic zone FM50', your sub-contractor would most probably be referring to the FM seismic zone with a 50-year mean recurring interval for the damaging ground motion.
For more details, you may refer to the following link:
http://www.pittsburgtank.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/FPCmag-FMvs.NFPA_.pdf
Regards.

I have talked today with one of my colleagues working in PEC. He is out of city & office for two days. I will In Sha Allah contact him day-after-tomorrow, and will update this forum, hopefully with some positive information, in due course of time. 
Regards.

Yes. How? Go through the following paragraphs.
In case of ASD, service loads are used, and both dead and live loads have same load factor of 1. On the other hand, considering the the basic load combination of 1.2 D + 1.6 L, dead load (DL) has a load factor of 1.2 and live load (LL), a load factor of 1.6. Now consider two simple examples.
For the first example, assume that a certain beam has to carry a DL of 30 kips, and a LL of 10 kips. For this beam, total design service load for ASD method will be DL+LL=30+10 = 40 kip. For the Strength Design, basic design load will be 1.2 DL+1.6LL = 1.2(30)+1.6(10) = 52 kips. Strength Design load in this case is  (52-40)/40*100 = 30% larger than the Design Load for ASD.
Now, for the second example, assume that there is another beam, similar to that in the first example, except that the DL & LL values are reverse of those in first example i.,e., now DL = 10 kips, & LL = 30 kips. Total Design Load for ASD method is now  DL+LL=10+30 = 40 kip (same as in first example). However, design load for Strength design changes and it is now 1.2 (10)+1.6(30) =60 kips, which is (60-40)/40*100 = 50 % larger.
Thus, it is very clear that for both the examples, Design load is the same when using ASD method, and resultantly the member size & reinforcement will also be the same. However, since Design load for Strength Design method is larger in second example (when LL is larger than DL), a comparatively larger member size or reinforcement will be required. Thus, ASD method is generally economical (as compared to Strength Design method) when the live load on a member is larger than the dead load.
Regards.

Yes. How? Go through the following paragraphs.
In case of ASD, service loads are used, and both dead and live loads have same load factor of 1. On the other hand, considering the the basic load combination of 1.2 D + 1.6 L, dead load (DL) has a load factor of 1.2 and live load (LL), a load factor of 1.6. Now consider two simple examples.
For the first example, assume that a certain beam has to carry a DL of 30 kips, and a LL of 10 kips. For this beam, total design service load for ASD method will be DL+LL=30+10 = 40 kip. For the Strength Design, basic design load will be 1.2 DL+1.6LL = 1.2(30)+1.6(10) = 52 kips. Strength Design load in this case is  (52-40)/40*100 = 30% larger than the Design Load for ASD.
Now, for the second example, assume that there is another beam, similar to that in the first example, except that the DL & LL values are reverse of those in first example i.,e., now DL = 10 kips, & LL = 30 kips. Total Design Load for ASD method is now  DL+LL=10+30 = 40 kip (same as in first example). However, design load for Strength design changes and it is now 1.2 (10)+1.6(30) =60 kips, which is (60-40)/40*100 = 50 % larger.
Thus, it is very clear that for both the examples, Design load is the same when using ASD method, and resultantly the member size & reinforcement will also be the same. However, since Design load for Strength Design method is larger in second example (when LL is larger than DL), a comparatively larger member size or reinforcement will be required. Thus, ASD method is generally economical (as compared to Strength Design method) when the live load on a member is larger than the dead load.
Regards.

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.

Please refer to Sections 1629, 1630 and 1631 of UB97 for your required information.
Regards.

You should not get moment from temperature load in ETABS. Because temperature is applied as axial load not as gradient like in SAP.
 
Yes walls will fail in F11, F22 (axial force, tension mostly). But remember for tension, walls will be cracked and to account for cracking you have to apply a very low value of axial stiffness. I would say to start with F22 and F11 as 0.25 and if it still fails you can even reduce it to like 0.10 (tension will be carried only by steel) plus some portion by tensile capacity of concrete.
 
This is true if cracks are not your concern like in water tanks etc.
Imagine what is the goal of your calculations? failure mode? service or ultimate? Ultimate right? Ok, now at ultimate stage what is the predicted cracking mode? How much cracking do you expect? For axial tension, I expect fully cracked concrete with section capacity only equal to n.As. So nAs/Ag is the modifier you should use for f11 and f22 in tension.
 
For compression, i dont expect cracks so section is mostly less cracked (only from shear or flexure).

The information given above is a bit dated with reference to both the ETABS version and the ACI code versions, as the above referred document pertains to ETABS version 7 and ACI 318-99. Whereas the ETABS 2015 & ACI 318-14 are the latest ETABS & ACI code versions in use today. (ETABS 2016 has been released a few days ago, however, AFAIK no changes have been made in it regarding present topic). As such, a little update correlating the previous & present situation, would be beneficial for all those interested. Here are my 2 cents:
1. According to ETABS Concrete Frame Design Manual, beam design in ETABS is done,
   a. As a Rectangular or T-beam, for the Maximum Positive Moment
   b. As a Rectangular beam always for the Maximum Negative Moment.
2. For ACI 318-99 and ETABS version 7, this is mentioned in 3rd paragraph under the heading 'Determine Factored Moments' on Page-37 of the reference provided by Ayesha earlier.
3. The same beam design principle has been followed in later ETABS versions (including ETABS 2015), for the later ACI code versions (including ACI318-14).
4. For ACI 318-02 and ACI318-05, this is indicated in Section 3.4.1.1 of the relevant ETABS Concrete Frame Design Manual, whereas for the newer ACI codes (2008, 2011 & 2014 versions), it is given in Sections 3.5.1.1 of the following ETABS 2015 Manuals for the mentioned ACI codes:
   a. ETABS Concrete Frame Design Manual (ACI 318-08)
   b. ETABS Concrete Frame Design Manual (ACI 318-11)
   c. ETABS Concrete Frame Design Manual (ACI 318-14)
5. Concrete Frame Design Manuals for the ACI 318-08 and earlier ACI codes, are generally installed along with ETABS 9 software, and are available in 'Manuals' sub-folder.
Regards.

In case you need it for your office work, more appropriately you should ask your employer to arrange it for you.
The link for purchasing the document, is given below:
https://www.concrete.org/store/productdetail.aspx?ItemID=35006
 

The information given above is a bit dated with reference to both the ETABS version and the ACI code versions, as the above referred document pertains to ETABS version 7 and ACI 318-99. Whereas the ETABS 2015 & ACI 318-14 are the latest ETABS & ACI code versions in use today. (ETABS 2016 has been released a few days ago, however, AFAIK no changes have been made in it regarding present topic). As such, a little update correlating the previous & present situation, would be beneficial for all those interested. Here are my 2 cents:
1. According to ETABS Concrete Frame Design Manual, beam design in ETABS is done,
   a. As a Rectangular or T-beam, for the Maximum Positive Moment
   b. As a Rectangular beam always for the Maximum Negative Moment.
2. For ACI 318-99 and ETABS version 7, this is mentioned in 3rd paragraph under the heading 'Determine Factored Moments' on Page-37 of the reference provided by Ayesha earlier.
3. The same beam design principle has been followed in later ETABS versions (including ETABS 2015), for the later ACI code versions (including ACI318-14).
4. For ACI 318-02 and ACI318-05, this is indicated in Section 3.4.1.1 of the relevant ETABS Concrete Frame Design Manual, whereas for the newer ACI codes (2008, 2011 & 2014 versions), it is given in Sections 3.5.1.1 of the following ETABS 2015 Manuals for the mentioned ACI codes:
   a. ETABS Concrete Frame Design Manual (ACI 318-08)
   b. ETABS Concrete Frame Design Manual (ACI 318-11)
   c. ETABS Concrete Frame Design Manual (ACI 318-14)
5. Concrete Frame Design Manuals for the ACI 318-08 and earlier ACI codes, are generally installed along with ETABS 9 software, and are available in 'Manuals' sub-folder.
Regards.

The information given above is a bit dated with reference to both the ETABS version and the ACI code versions, as the above referred document pertains to ETABS version 7 and ACI 318-99. Whereas the ETABS 2015 & ACI 318-14 are the latest ETABS & ACI code versions in use today. (ETABS 2016 has been released a few days ago, however, AFAIK no changes have been made in it regarding present topic). As such, a little update correlating the previous & present situation, would be beneficial for all those interested. Here are my 2 cents:
1. According to ETABS Concrete Frame Design Manual, beam design in ETABS is done,
   a. As a Rectangular or T-beam, for the Maximum Positive Moment
   b. As a Rectangular beam always for the Maximum Negative Moment.
2. For ACI 318-99 and ETABS version 7, this is mentioned in 3rd paragraph under the heading 'Determine Factored Moments' on Page-37 of the reference provided by Ayesha earlier.
3. The same beam design principle has been followed in later ETABS versions (including ETABS 2015), for the later ACI code versions (including ACI318-14).
4. For ACI 318-02 and ACI318-05, this is indicated in Section 3.4.1.1 of the relevant ETABS Concrete Frame Design Manual, whereas for the newer ACI codes (2008, 2011 & 2014 versions), it is given in Sections 3.5.1.1 of the following ETABS 2015 Manuals for the mentioned ACI codes:
   a. ETABS Concrete Frame Design Manual (ACI 318-08)
   b. ETABS Concrete Frame Design Manual (ACI 318-11)
   c. ETABS Concrete Frame Design Manual (ACI 318-14)
5. Concrete Frame Design Manuals for the ACI 318-08 and earlier ACI codes, are generally installed along with ETABS 9 software, and are available in 'Manuals' sub-folder.
Regards.

Sohaib,
I will try to explain to you the procedures involved in designing a pile. 
1) Pile design involves meeting the two limit states: Axial and Lateral (also called serviceability for piles)
Considering ULS design for piles, you need a geotechnical report that contains skin friction values for pile design along with recommended factors for tensions, compression and frost loads. Geotechnical report will also provide you either parameters for lateral design or load deflection graphs.  
2) Once you have the geotechnical report, you do initial sizing of the pile based on the load. Geotechnical report recommendations will allow you to size the pile based on geotechnical capacity, which is how much load can be transferred from pile to soil based on pile geometry.
3) Once you have sized the piles based on geotechnical, you will need to do structural checks to make sure pile structural capacity is greater than geotechnical capacity.
4) For literature, you can have a look at attached.
Foundation Analysis and Design - FEMA.pdf
Thanks.

The referred code clause is Section R10.10.4.1 in Commentary portions of both ACI 318-08  as well as ACI 318-11.