1) Each floor beam you may have to detail differently if the steel is different 2) Providing 3 -16 through out is extremely un economic. But if you provide , then why do you have to provide extra bar? Why don't you provide 2 T12 and extra 2T12 3) This is very well explained in the course videos 4) If you are enrolled in the course, login to course and post it in the etabs community. This is a general forum for non enrolled students to engage

There are different ways that you can start finding your clients. Generally you can have outbound marketing and inbound marketing. Outbound marketing is where you reach out to clients and tell them about your availability to provide structural consulting services. This out reach can be to your prospective clients like Architects and builders or even direct clients. Inbound marketing is where you create valuable content and attract people through that. You can use a website or social media presence or ads and emails for doing these. Marketing is a very vast topic and what suits you is dependent on what you like and your expertise. It also depends on your prospective clients. Where they hang out matters.

Where did you see this ? Where is the project? Any one can provide comments when there are enough information including spans. From the looks of it, the cantilever looks large and is a free cantilever from the column. I would comment more if the entire scheme is made available.

Well ! Clashes in rebars occurs all the time, when ever there are members meeting. It occurs in column and beam junctions. It also occurs where there is a beam to beam connection. I suppose there will be a beam in the perpendicular direction as well in this case connecting the column? In that case the beam bars will clash and you will need to crank the bars in one of the beams in vertical direction also. These cranks are minor and in a gradual slope and not as abrupt as you have drawn.

If your lower levels and upper levels are not aligning, you will have to find common positions in each floor where you can have columns so that there are no functional / architectural clashes. Beams you can try to match with ground walls and avoid its visibility. You can have tie beams concealed to tie the columns It all depends . Please superimpose the floor plans and start working and post your developed layout. Will have a look. Incase you are a registered etabs student, post it in the etabs community where you will get better responses.

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.

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

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.

You are welcome. Please read the blog shared too.