EngrUzair

Yes, provided you know (or able to estimate) the concrete compressive strength & reinforcing steel yield strength.
Calculate required maximum steel area per code (corresponding to Maximum Steel Ratio in tension), for the given beam size & compare it with the actual (provided) steel area.
In case actual steel area in tension zone is more than the Code Permitted Maximum steel area, and the reinforcement area provided in compression zone is at least equal to the excess amount of reinforcement area provided in tension zone (= the difference of actually provided minus Code Maximum steel area in tension), the given beam will be a doubly reinforced beam. 
Regards.

Yes, provided you know (or able to estimate) the concrete compressive strength & reinforcing steel yield strength.
Calculate required maximum steel area per code (corresponding to Maximum Steel Ratio in tension), for the given beam size & compare it with the actual (provided) steel area.
In case actual steel area in tension zone is more than the Code Permitted Maximum steel area, and the reinforcement area provided in compression zone is at least equal to the excess amount of reinforcement area provided in tension zone (= the difference of actually provided minus Code Maximum steel area in tension), the given beam will be a doubly reinforced beam. 
Regards.

Usman,
Although foundation design may be based on an ASSUMED bearing capacity value, it is generally used for preparation of building cost estimates only. However, use of such a foundation design for actual construction may be risky for the structural stability or may be uneconomical, in case the ACTUAL bearing capacity is either less or more than the ASSUMED value.
Such a situation, if arises in reality, will negatively affect the credibility of the structural engineer. Therefore, professionally building foundations are designed based on actual bearing capacity of soil only, obtained through a reliable geotechnical firm. 
In the stated case, you may design the foundation assuming some lower bearing capacity value, like 0.50 or 0.75 tsf (former would be conservative of course, as indicated earlier by @UmarMakhzumi), clearly noting on the drawing that the foundation has been based on an assumed value of soil bearing capacity. And, in case actual bearing capacity (that should be checked at the most before starting the foundation concrete) is different from the value used for footing design, foundation design will require a review.
This is the normal procedure I myself adopt in cases where the actual bearing capacity of a site is not available at the time of preparation of structural drawings. In my case, the drawings are stamped as "Advanced Copy. Not for Construction." as well.
Regards.

@EngrUzair has replied well to your question. I will just add that the most important thing while using any software is to know its limitations and what part of design is not covered. You can be a master at a software use but if you don't know its limitations, its all in vain.
Thanks.
 

1. General basis of these software is available in software manuals (Getting Started, Analysis Reference  etc.) that are installed along with the software, in the 'Manuals' subfolder in the installation folder of the relevant software (Etabs,SAFE or SAP 2000).
2. Software installation folder most probably contains one or two software tutorials as well. Additionally, you may use 'Watch and Learn' training movies, developed by CSI, and available at following link, to learn how to use the software for various tasks:-
CSI Watch-and-Learn videos
Just click on the name of the software, and a page containing the list of videos pertaining to that software will open.
3. Many examples explaining the use of these software through modelling of various type of structures are available at YouTube.
Regards. 

For knowing the answer to your  question in a better way, one of the option should be to treat each set of buildings (supported on one raft) as an independent Etabs model with an independent SAFE model for the raft.
Results of this option should be compared with those of the combined Etabs model and the separate raft models of different sets of building obtained from export of reactions of combined Etabs model to a single SAFE model.
This comparion will clarify how & how much the adjacent rafts are affecting each other, with reference to the results obtained for independent rafts.
After comparison, results requiring a larger raft thickness and/or reinforcement should be adopted for final drawings & construction.
Regards.

WA.
Researchers have observed that "the characteristic behaviours of an isolated footing are affected if there exist other footing or group of footings close to each other and their individual zone of influence interfere with each other leading to interference phenomenon.
The ultimate bearing capacity increases with decrease in the clear spacing between the footings and attains a peak magnitude at some critical spacing and thereafter with further decrease in clear spacing, the ultimate bearing capacity decreases and at spacing equal to zero the two footings act as an isolated footing of twice the width when width of two interfering footings are similar and loaded symmetrically.
Moreover, the settlement at failure of interfering footing is observed to be greater than that of isolated footing at failure and the same decreases with increase in clear spacing between the footings."
"The bearing capacity and the settlement of footings are the basic criterion which influence in the design of the footings and these are affected by the presence of one or more of the footings close to each other; however the interference phenomenon is not considered in the design of shallow footing."
Accordingly, there may some influence of closeby rafts in the stated case. However, IMO this affect would not be prominent or negative, keeping in view that the rafts are about 3 m away, especially if the buildings are of low height.
Regards.
[Reference: Interference of the footings] 

Here is the update on above problem, for the benefit of others that might be interested in knowing how to go about this type of error.
The solution of above 'Data Saving Error 0' was obtained luckily soon, using following procedure.
By intuition, I imported the problematic model in ETABS 2016 to see what happens. Surprisingly, the import indicated just one warning message about ignoring of a certain data line in the input file being imported. The analysis however followed & completed successfully by Etabs 2016.
From here, I got an idea about what might be the real problem area that ETABS v9 was unable to handle. So, I opened the problematic ETABS v9 text input file (.$ET) in notepad, searched for the data line ignored by ETABS 2016 while analysing, and deleted the whole block. Resaved the file with new name & imported it now into ETABS v9. This trick really worked, and model was analyzed properly this time by ETABS v9.
By the way, the data line which was causing problem, was related to Structural Steel specifications, and actually no structural steel elements were present in the said software model.
Regards

Here is the update on above problem, for the benefit of others that might be interested in knowing how to go about this type of error.
The solution of above 'Data Saving Error 0' was obtained luckily soon, using following procedure.
By intuition, I imported the problematic model in ETABS 2016 to see what happens. Surprisingly, the import indicated just one warning message about ignoring of a certain data line in the input file being imported. The analysis however followed & completed successfully by Etabs 2016.
From here, I got an idea about what might be the real problem area that ETABS v9 was unable to handle. So, I opened the problematic ETABS v9 text input file (.$ET) in notepad, searched for the data line ignored by ETABS 2016 while analysing, and deleted the whole block. Resaved the file with new name & imported it now into ETABS v9. This trick really worked, and model was analyzed properly this time by ETABS v9.
By the way, the data line which was causing problem, was related to Structural Steel specifications, and actually no structural steel elements were present in the said software model.
Regards

AA.
Following documents provide basic technical knowledge regarding design of tunnels. These include design examples as well:-
1.    Guidelines for the Design of Tunnels 
       a.   Design Example-1
       b.  Design Example-2     
2.  Technical Manual for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels 
3. Tunnel lining design guide - RG

For more resources, you may use following link:-
Tunnel Design weblinks
HTH
Regards.

AA.
Following documents provide basic technical knowledge regarding design of tunnels. These include design examples as well:-
1.    Guidelines for the Design of Tunnels 
       a.   Design Example-1
       b.  Design Example-2     
2.  Technical Manual for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels 
3. Tunnel lining design guide - RG

For more resources, you may use following link:-
Tunnel Design weblinks
HTH
Regards.

1. To check soil pressure in SAFE v8,
- After running the analysis, go to Diplay menu,
- Select 'Show Reaction Forces...',
- Select 'Soil Pressures',
- Select the Load case or combination,
- Click on OK.
2. Minimum & maximum pressures are the Actual range of calculated pressures anywhere on the given foundation.
3. The limit of pressure is the Allowable Soil Bearing Pressure provided by a geotechnical engineer, after carrying out necessary field & laboratory tests on the at the project site or the soil samples taken from the site.
Regards.
 

The file referred in the link is Chapter 4 of 2002 version (ASCE 7-02) of 'Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures', dealing with Live Loads. Reduction of Live Load is permitted, as per procedure & limitations described in Section 4.8 of this chapter. 
This information is also available in later versions of ASCE 7. In case of ASCE 7-05, it is provided in Section 4.8, whereas in ASCE 7-10, you may find it in Section 4.7 of the standard.
Regards.

Very informative & impressive article, on a very very important topic of earthquake awareness, both technically as well as for the general knowledge of common people. And, that too in Urdu language for easy understanding of even non-technical people. Fully appreciated.
Except a mistake (most probably typographic) of indicating Quetta in Zone 3 (Instead of Zone 4), the article is really superb, both from technical information as well from clarity points of view.
Hopefully, it would help the readers understand how the earthquakes initiate, what are their negative effects & why their homes should be earthquake resistant. 
Regards.

Very informative & impressive article, on a very very important topic of earthquake awareness, both technically as well as for the general knowledge of common people. And, that too in Urdu language for easy understanding of even non-technical people. Fully appreciated.
Except a mistake (most probably typographic) of indicating Quetta in Zone 3 (Instead of Zone 4), the article is really superb, both from technical information as well from clarity points of view.
Hopefully, it would help the readers understand how the earthquakes initiate, what are their negative effects & why their homes should be earthquake resistant. 
Regards.

Very informative & impressive article, on a very very important topic of earthquake awareness, both technically as well as for the general knowledge of common people. And, that too in Urdu language for easy understanding of even non-technical people. Fully appreciated.
Except a mistake (most probably typographic) of indicating Quetta in Zone 3 (Instead of Zone 4), the article is really superb, both from technical information as well from clarity points of view.
Hopefully, it would help the readers understand how the earthquakes initiate, what are their negative effects & why their homes should be earthquake resistant. 
Regards.

IS PAKISTAN PREPARED ENOUGH TO HANDLE THE NEXT "BIG ONE"??
https://www.express.pk/story/968021/
Errata: The magnitude of 2005 Kashmir earthquake is mistakenly typed as 8.6. Actually it was a M7.6 event.

Following article (particularly its first paragraph) may help you understand the role of column ties in resisting shear during an earthquake:-
EQ Tip 19.pdf
Regards.
 

Check the following link for the required information:-
https://wiki.csiamerica.com/display/safe/Import+response-spectrum+load+case+from+ETABS+into+SAFE
Regards.

Following article (particularly its first paragraph) may help you understand the role of column ties in resisting shear during an earthquake:-
EQ Tip 19.pdf
Regards.
 

Following article (particularly its first paragraph) may help you understand the role of column ties in resisting shear during an earthquake:-
EQ Tip 19.pdf
Regards.
 

Following link that provides reference to several good documents related to pile cap design (including design examples), might be helpful in this regard:-
Pile cap design

Here are my two cents:-
1. General guidance regarding placement of construction joints in RC work has been provided in Section 6.4 of ACI 318-08 and its commentary. Some clarity is given in section 6.4.3, where it is stated that "Construction joints shall be so made and located as not to impair the strength of the structure. Provision shall be made for transfer of shear and other forces through construction joints."
For transfer of shear etc through construction joints, reference is made to the ACI Section 11.6.9 that deals with the calculation of shear-friction, at the interface between two concretes cast at different times (beside other situations described in section 11.6.1 of the code).
Moreover, Section 6.4.4 suggests that "Construction joints in floors shall be located within the middle third of spans of slabs, beams, and girders.
2. Regarding construction joints in columns, however, Section 6.4 does not provide guidance clearer  than that in Section 6.4.6 stating that the "Beams, girders, or slabs supported by columns or walls shall not be cast or erected until concrete in the vertical support members is no longer plastic." 
And, the commentary section R6.4.6 explains that "Delay in placing concrete in members supported by columns and walls is necessary to prevent cracking at the interface of the slab and supporting member caused by bleeding and settlement of plastic concrete in the supporting member."
3. The support member (referred in previous paragraph) will generally be a column or a wall. And, in a simplified form, Section 6.4.4 & its commentary are advising us NOT to cast beams & slab monolithically with the wall or column, BUT only after the supporting column (or wall) concrete has hardened,  in order to avoid plastic cracking at the beam-column (or beam-wall) joint.
4. In our normal field practice (within Pakistan as well as abroad), beams & slabs are cast at least one day after casting of columns or supporting walls. This gap of one day (between casting of column & beam concretes) ensures that the column (or wall) concrete poured one day earlier has hardened (is no longer plastic),  thereby avoiding any possibility of plastic cracking (discussed in paragraph 2 above). 
5. Now coming to your queries;
In general terms, it is preferable to cast the column in one pour..
However, in compelling circumstances it may be done in more than one pour too, subject to certain conditions.
 
Already described in initial paragraphs.
 
This is the normal & IMHO desirable practice, according to ACI code Section 6.4.6.
 
IMO, leaving 9" or 12" column depth below the beam soffit is excessive & undesirable. It should not be more than 1" or 2" in any case.
 
IMO, this practice is based on the requirements of ACI 318-08 (also ACI 318-11) Section 6.4.6.
The same requirement is available in ACI 318-14 Section 26.5.7.2 (a) as well.
HTH
Regards.

Dear Fellow Researchers, Academicians, and research students,
 
NED University of Engineering & Technology in collaboration with Institution of Engineers Pakistan (IEP) is organizing 9th International Civil Engineering Conference (ICEC 2017) on December 22-23, 2017 at Karachi, Pakistan.
 The congress details are available at its website www.neduet.edu.pk/icec
 Also attached is congress flyer for information and dissemination among your peers.
 Abstracts submission deadline has been extended till October 31, 2017.
 International Civil Engineering Conference (ICEC) is a regular feature in the calendar of events for Institution of engineering Pakistan and its Organizing partner NED University of Engineering and Technology Karachi. It is being organized frequently for almost two decades now. Eight international conferences have been organized in the past. Every year, the ICEC is held under an innovative theme related to contemporary issues that relate Civil Engineering and Socioeconomics of the society.
 The latest version of ICEC was held on December 23-24, 2016 at Karachi. The conference was organized in collaboration with Federation of Engineering Institutions of Islamic Countries (FEIIC), Federation of Engineering Institutions of South and Central Asia (FEISCA) and The Asian Civil Engineering Coordinating Council (ACECC). Theme of this congress was “Ensuring technological advancement through innovation based knowledge corridor” More than 40 international papers were presented at the 2016 conference including those from United States, United Kingdom, Malaysia, Srilanka, Bangladesh, Iran, and Nepal. The event was attended by a number of delegates both from academia and industry that provided a great opportunity for the stakeholders to meet and discuss various issues related to Civil Engineering education, profession and recent advancements.
 This year, the 9th International Civil Engineering Conference (ICEC 2017) will be organized on December 22-23, 2017, under the theme “Striving towards Resilient Built Environment?” The idea is to bring together latest civil engineering knowledge, research and development efforts from scientific community, engineers and practitioners that can help in contributing towards enhancing the resilience of the societies and thus establish a better built environment.
 The conference proceedings are published through blind peer-review procedure. The confetence will cover all areas of civil engineering, including, but not limited to, the following:
 ·          Structural Engineering
·          Construction Project Management
·          Earthquake Engineering & Design
·          Transportation Planning
·          Traffic Simulation and Modeling
·          Disaster Management
·          Geotechnical Engineering
·          Water Resources
·          Environmental Engineering
 
For further details, contact the undersigned.
 Best Regards,
 -------------------------------------------
 
Dr. Farrukh Arif
Co-Convener, ICEC 2017
Assistant Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering,
NED University of Engineering & Technology,
Karachi, Pakistan
farrukharif@gmail.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.