Please can you post in the ETABS community. Please log in to the course and then find the ''ETABS Community'' and post it there please. Also your doubt needs more explanation. Please explain it more clearly. If needed use ''loom'' for recording. Please post in the community.

I understand that the soil retention is inside. Can you not make this sloped instead of offsetting thinckness? Or if ever possible, have the straight edge in the retention side as it is the main bar. Any ways, you have to design it at each section where the thickness changes and for the lesser thickness at each offset. Also anchor the bar sufficiently.

Why do you need so many laps. I have mentioned where you should not lap already. Lap in the allowed zone if and only if it is really needed. Also stagger the laps.

I understand that you are asking me about the retaining wall rebar lapping. Let me explain the load application and the idealisation and the support conditions. It depends on how you have idealised it. As I see from the images, the wall is tucked between the columns. There is also a beam or slab at the top which is connected to the retaining wall monolithically. This means that the retaining wall will act as a 4 side supported slab. The load acting on it is a varying earth pressure. You can now idealise this as a slab and decide the lap loaction similar to what you would do for a normal slab. The soil side rebars will be the top reinforcement (comparing to a slab) and the farside rebars will be the bottom (comparing to a slab) As you know in slabs, bottom rebars shall not be lapped at midspan The top rebars shall not be lapped close to supports. You also have to ensure laps are staggered. Note that longer the distance between the columns, lesser will be the stiffness in that direction and hence more of load transfer takes place in the height direction. If you need to capture this exactly, you will have to model the wall as a shell and do an analysis. You can also use well accepted thumb rules to establish the behavior though it may result to minor redistribution. If you are keen on an exclusive detailing course, see it here

See, as Engineers we can only talk about engineering aspects. We should stick to the codes and what is proven by practice. You can check the cube strength if it is possible Adopt higher margin in design if you are unsure. I cannot say any thing more on this ☺️

1) This does not look an engineered building. So there is not much point to discuss 2) Inspite of this if you want an answer, slab A is supported on 3 sides and you can replicate this in your analysis by plate analysis. If you want an easy conservative solution, design it as a cantilever if the span is less or design as 1 way in the long direction if that span is less. In both cases, there are likely redistribution cracks that depends on a variety of factors.It may not occur aswell. You can know about redistribution in the blog here. 3) Slab B is 2 side supported and this can also be replicated in analysis by shell modelling. If you want a conservative design, design as a cantilever. You can learn these in the ETABS course here

There is nothing like knowing if the column is uniaxial or biaxially bending. Most columns will be biaxially bending and that is a result interpretation point and not related to just this member offset. Smaller columns like this for small projects, it wont matter much if you dont account the offset. If the columns are longer,You can deal this condition by member offsets or by modelling the columns as walls.

This scheme is not proper. Either you need a column there or change the building plan there and provide a continuous beam. You can model this and analyse and find the issue your own. If you do that you will realise why it is not possible. I suggest you post the future questions in the ETABS course community.

I often get these kinds of structural questions from Civil and site Engineers. The fact is civil site and structural engineering are inseparable. As I often write and say, site engineering is application of structural engineering. Both compliments each other. If a site engineer knows basics of structural engineering, the site engineer can perform better in the site role. You enjoy and appreciates what you do in site. This helps you as an engineer. This also helps the project as you add value to the project. If you don’t know structures, you will be blindly executing what is in drawing even without knowing or missing out a mistake done by the Structural Engineer. Coming to the question, this is not a good practice in any beams. Not just that it is not a good practice, it is a wrong practice to lap reinforcement closer to support or inside a junction. The same is true for even column rebars. No reinforcement shall be lapped inside a joint or near a joint. For beams, the lap shall be away from the column beam junction. The reason is that, the seismic forces are inertial forces and the thrust will be at the column beam junctions. The laps can open up if closer to any joint. You can read more about this in my blog here. Many consultants ignore lintel as part of the structure and don't account it in the frame action. When they do this, lintel is considered as a beam taking only the gravity load. That is, the load of the wall coming on top of the lintel alone. This is not a correct practice. In reality, the lintel if connected to columns will act as part of the frame. During earth quake, it will behave as a beam and the detailing matters. A lintel even creates a short column effect and can generate undesirable forces in the column and hence needs to be detailed properly. You can read more about short column effects here. Hope this answers your question about reinforcement laps. You can read more about similar rebar lap here. In case you want to learn all the detailing practices of a building structure systematically using Revit, see my Revit structures course here. This course covers all the structural detailing practices in a systematic way. You will also learn how to use Revit for structures for structural detailing in a professional consulting way.

Mail me full details and I will send you my consulting options available

As said this is a new information you added. Mail me and I will send you my consulting options

Please dont come up with 1 extra info every day. I have already answered you with what ever info you gave me initially. Further please discuss with me directly as consulting

How many floors the building is? Ideally this should not be done especially if it is a multi floor building. The wall will be carrying large loads from different levels and may not be having the sufficient strength. I dont know the details of the project, the context and the situation. So I cannot tell a conclusive opinion unless I know more about it.

1) The question needs more clarity. Why do you think that the foundation of a RCC building and that of a steel framed building is different. Please explain the context of your question, details of the project and more information 2) We already have a similar discussion on top reinforcement in footings and this is not specific to steel buildings but to footings of all kind of buildings. You can see it here. 3) If you are a registered student in civilera, please post your subsequent / future new questions in course.civilera.com ie; in the course community where you are enrolled. This discussion can continue here.

Can you send the plan in full? I am assuming B7 is considered to be seated on top of a wall. See the long section that you had sent earlier. this wont stand so long as a cantilever unless supported on a wall or some where. The so called designer or the designer has considered the beam to be sitting on a wall and the other short portion ( not clear in plan) is considered to overhang towards the other side of the column which is not fully visible in the plan. It is not so wise to partly use masonry support. However I cannot comment unless I know the full situation and condition of the project

Strength point of view, if the load is uniform and if the ground is well compacted, it may be fine. However you need ensure there are no soft spots. This is true even with PCC Durability point of view, you need to meet the Table 5 criteria (IS 456) if you are designing as per IS codes. P.C.C allows for the extra cover durability point of view. There might be a minor variation in water absorption too which all can be planned. Finally all these are aspects which you need to discuss with the project consultant and decide. I can comment based on the limited info provided here.

Please send me full info of the structure. A plan or a picture which is clear enough. I also dont understand a few things you stated - how can a wall load be triangular? Please send me pictures and the scheme. Also on what basis you feel, it is not designed as a cantilever? I can see more steel in the Tension zones which is an indication, it might have been designed. However I cannot conclude if it is adequate from the information you have provided.

Pier and spandrel labelling is always a confusion for entry level engineers. Analysis point of view, it is ok to model it as pier or spandrel which ever, as long as it is a modelled as a shell in ETABS. For any thing that needs to be present in the model with its stiffness, it has to be modelled as a shell and not membrane. So, any shear wall or any deep beam or a coupler beam, it is better to be modelled as a shell. In case Shear wall design or deep beam modelled as shell needs to be designed in ETABS, then it needs pier labelling and spandrel labels respectively. Any thing modelled and assigned with a pier label will be designed as a vertically predominant member like a column or a wall. Anything modelled and labelled as aspandrel will be designed as a flexural member like a beam. Same is the case with the ability to interpret results in ETABS. Results can be relevantly interpreted only if pier labelling is done for shear walls and spandrel labelling is done for beams or spandrels. The video explains all of this.

You are welcome. Please read the blog shared too.

Ductile detailing is optional in Seismic Zone 2 as per IS 13920 Ductile detailing is mandatory only in seismic zone 3 and above. You can read clause 1.1.1 of IS 13920 2016 which clearly says that the code provision is applicable to Seismic zone III and above. For better performance, if you really want you can adpot it in zone 2 also. That is your choice. I have explained 4 virtues of seismic resistance and importance of ductility in this blog here