K&K Consultants
M/S Rising Star Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd.
Drawings/ Document Name &
S.No Building Name
1 Main Building
2 Main Building
3 Main Building
RISING STAR MOBILES INDIA PVT. LTD.
Review and Comment by Peer Reviewe consultant Submission of comment compliance report
Number
DBR dated 9.9.21 Page 2, Wind Loads. K4 factor of 1.15 has not been considered. This is to be incorporated. K4 factor considered as 1.15 as per clause 6.6 of IS875 part3;2015 & (kd)
Similarly Ka, Kc, Kd and Terrain Category not mentioned. should be taken as 1.0 when considering local pressure coefficients, here in
the model since local pressure coefficients are considered for the design (kd)
shall be 1.0, (ka) shall be considered when the tributary area is more than the
pressure coefficient given in cl.7.3 here the pressure coefficient given in cl.7.3
is the condition to be used, so a seperate decrease in pressure is not required
to be considered, (kc) shall be considered in clad buildings when taking wind
loads on the frame, so that the pressure or suction inside & outside shall not
fully correlated. Here it can be fully correlated. so no reduction is required for
all three (ka, kc & kd) is considered as 1.0 is ideal here.
DBR dated 9.9.21 Point number 4, earthquake load. Once again being an Industrial Structure, IS 1893:Part4 is Initially we considered, Importance factor (I) value for Industrial Building
not considered. I value considered is not in line with structure category as per IS 1893 Part classified in Category 4 under warehouse, other non plant buildings & utility
4. structures & Administration Building. So we considered importance factor (I)
value as 1 (As per IS 1893: Part4). But now we considered as per cl. 8.1
category 2 - structure whose failure can cause conditions that can lead directly
or indirectly to serious fire hazards/extensive damage within the plat
complex. structure, which are required to handle emergencies immediately
after an earthquake, are also included. so now changed the importance factor
value as 1.5 under category 2 & updated in etabs model.
DBR dated 9.9.21 Point Number 4, Earthquake Load. Time period calculation shall not be as per standard The model is analysed for time period formula given in part 4 Is 1893
formula. Please refer Clause 9.3 Note 1 and 9.3.1 of 1893 - Part4 : 2015. Horizontal Seismic considering the deflection of structure estimated based on eigen-value
coeffecient may be removed as the same is not relevant in this model. analysis of the structural mathematical model. And the value of deflection is
used in bellow formula and to find the static time period.
 Final review & approval by Peer reviewe consultant
OK. Please modify the DBR to include this. Also, the wind load pattern
screenshot does not contain the K4 factor. Please confirm using program
results that this is captured.

OK. Please incorporate in DBR and submit the same.

The time period determination by the formula mentioned is only for

preliminary analysis and not necessary in our case. Please modify the DBR
accordingly and submit.