DEA Report-15-01-2017

DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT OF SINGLE
STORY STEEL BUILDING FOR WAREHOUSE AT MAS

INTIMATES BANGLADESH (PVT.) LTD.
Project type: FSFB #1, Karnaphuli Export Processing Zone, North Patenga, Chittagong
Client: MAS INTIMATES BANGLADESH (Pvt.) Ltd
Assessed by-
Engr. Md. Mehedi Hasan
Lead Structural Engineer,
Sthapona Consultants
M.Sc. (Structural Engineering, BUET) B.Sc. (BUET),
MIEB -24748, Rajuk Reg. DMINB-CE0233.
Submitted by
Y OUR S AFETY IS OUR C ONCERN

1st Floor (2A), House#01/A, Road#10, Nikunjo-2, Dhaka-1229.
Office: +880-1762-777666.
sthaponaconsultants@gmail.com
[MAS INTIMATES BANGLADESH (Pvt.) Ltd.] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1
1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................. 2
1.1 BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 GENERAL OBJECTIVE ..................................................................................................... 3
2 ANALYSIS FOR STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY .......................................................... 4
2.1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM ................................................................................................... 4
2.2 CODES AND PRACTICES ................................................................................................ 5
2.3 MATERIAL PROPERTY .................................................................................................... 5
2.4 LOADS ...................................................................................................................................... 6
2.4.1 Dead Load ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.4.2 Live Load........................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.4.3 Wind Load (W) ................................................................................................................................................ 6
2.4.4 Earthquake Load (E) ...................................................................................................................................... 9
2.5 METHOD OF ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 9

2.6 LOADING AND LOAD COMBINATION ................................................................ 10
2.7 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 13
2.8 APPLICATION OF LOAD AND ANALYSIS .......................................................... 13
3 EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS FOR NTPA GUIDELINES
(RECOMMENDED LOADINGS & LOAD COMBINATIONS) ................................ 15
3.1 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF FOUNDATION ....................................................... 15
3.2 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF R.C.C COLUMNS.................................................. 21
3.3 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF STEEL MEMBERS ............................................... 23
3.4 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF BEAMS ...................................................................... 25
3.4.1.1 Evaluation of Grade Beam ...............................................................................................25
4 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 26
5 RECOMMENDATION ...................................................................................................... 26
6 EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS AFTER RETROFITTING .... 27
6.1 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF FOUNDATION ....................................................... 27
6.2 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF R.C.C COLUMNS.................................................. 33
6.3 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF STEEL MEMBERS ............................................... 37
6.4 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF BEAMS ...................................................................... 39
6.4.1.1 Evaluation of Grade Beam ...............................................................................................39
STHAPONA CONSULTANTS
7 DISCLAIMER ...................................................................................................................... 40
List of Figures
Figure 1.1.1: Location of Project ........................................................................................ 2
Figure 2.1.1: Steel Beam-Column Frame System of the Building ..................................... 4
Figure 2.1.2: 3D View of Analytical Model ....................................................................... 4
Figure 2.4.1: Wind Load for steel shed (perpendicular to ridge) Part-1 ............................. 7
Figure 2.4.2: Wind Load for steel shed (parallel to ridge) Part-1 ....................................... 7
Figure 2.4.3: Wind Load for steel shed (perpendicular to ridge) Part-2 ............................. 8
Figure 2.4.4: Wind Load for steel shed (parallel to ridge) Part-2 ....................................... 8
Figure 2.8.1: Applied PW (lb/ft) Load on Tie Beam. ....................................................... 13
Figure 2.8.2: Deflected Shape of the building .................................................................. 14
Figure 3.1.1: Pile Cap Layout Plan ................................................................................... 15
Figure 3.1.2: Node ID from SAP Model ........................................................................... 16
Figure 3.1.3: Pile Capacity Calculation for Bore Hole-1.................................................. 17
Figure 3.2.1: R.C.C. Column Layout Plan ........................................................................ 21
Figure 3.2.2: Conditions of R.C.C columns (Red coloured members having DCR>1,
inadequate). ........................................................................................................................ 22
Figure 3.3.1: Conditions of Steel Members in Grid-A (Red coloured members having
DCR>1, inadequate). ......................................................................................................... 23
Figure 3.3.2: Conditions of Steel Members in Grid-B (Red coloured members having
DCR>1, inadequate). ......................................................................................................... 23
Figure 3.3.3: Conditions of Steel Members in Grid-C (Red coloured members having
DCR>1, inadequate). ......................................................................................................... 23
Figure 3.3.4: Conditions of Steel Members in Grid-D (Red coloured members having
DCR>1, inadequate). ......................................................................................................... 23
Figure 3.3.5: Conditions of Steel Members in Grid-E (Red coloured members having
DCR>1, inadequate). ......................................................................................................... 23
Figure 3.3.6: Conditions of Steel Members in Grid-F (Red coloured members having
DCR>1, inadequate). ......................................................................................................... 24
Figure 3.3.7: Conditions of Steel Members in Grid-G (Red coloured members having
DCR>1, inadequate). ......................................................................................................... 24
Figure 3.4.1: Condition of Grade Beams. ......................................................................... 25
Figure 6.1.1: Pile Cap Layout Plan ................................................................................... 27
Figure 6.1.2: Node ID from SAP Model ........................................................................... 28
Figure 6.2.1: Steel Column Layout Plan ........................................................................... 33
inadequate). ........................................................................................................................ 34
Figure 6.2.3: Conditions of R.C.C columns in Grid-1 (Red coloured members having
DCR>1, inadequate). ......................................................................................................... 35
DCR>1, inadequate). ......................................................................................................... 35
DCR>1, inadequate). ......................................................................................................... 35
DCR>1, inadequate). ......................................................................................................... 36
DCR>1, inadequate). ......................................................................................................... 36
DCR<1, adequate). ............................................................................................................ 37
DCR<1, adequate). ............................................................................................................ 37
DCR<1, adequate). ............................................................................................................ 37
DCR<1, adequate). ............................................................................................................ 38
DCR<1, inadequate). ......................................................................................................... 38
DCR<1, adequate). ............................................................................................................ 38
DCR<1, adequate). ............................................................................................................ 38
Figure 6.4.1: Condition of Grade Beams. ......................................................................... 39
List of Tables
Table 1.1.1: Basic information ............................................................................................ 2
Table 3.1.1: Pile Capacity check for NTPA Loading Conditions .................................... 19
Table 3.1.2: Punching Shear Check for pile caps considering NTPA Loading Conditions
........................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 6.1.1: Pile Capacity check after Retrofitting ........................................................... 31
Table 6.1.2: Punching Shear Check for pile caps after Retrofitting ................................. 32
ANNEX-I: NDT & DT REPORT
ANNEX-II: SOIL TEST REPORT
[Mas Intimates Bangladesh (Pvt.) Ltd.] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Factory building of MAS INTIMATES BANGLADESH (Pvt.) Ltd. is a single-story
building with pre-fabricated steel shed roof. It has RCC column and grade beam.
A team from ACCORD conducted visual assessment of the factory building on 20 May, 2014.
They recommended to perform Engineering Assessment of the building. On this recommendation,
the authority of MAS INTIMATES BANGLADESH (Pvt.) Ltd. has engaged Sthapona
Consultants for performing Detailed Engineering Assessment along with checking architectural
and structural drawing of the building.
The structural and architectural drawings were verified by dimensions measurement, rebar
exposal by concrete cover removing etc. There are few changes in as-built condition with
architectural drawings which has been incorporated during DEA.
For Detail Engineering Assessment, one of the key input is the strength concrete. We have
collected total ten concrete core from column & grade beam. Among this ten; six core were taken
from Column. Four core were taken from grade beam.
After cutting the Core, we have tested it in Universal Testing Machine at BUET lab. We found
that stone chips were used for concreting. We found the concrete strength is on a range from 1230
psi to 3260 psi for column and 1350 psi to 2320 psi for beam. However, considering the Guide
line of ACI 562, the Equivalent Concrete strength was calculated for column is 1567psi and for
beam is 1477 psi.
Considering NTPA referred loading combinations, we analysed the structure & found that a large
number of R.C.C. beam is overstressed. Some Grade beam are overstressed. A large number of
steel members are over stressed. Pile foundation is adequate in load bearing capacity. Pile cap
thickness is adequate for punching shear capacity.
We recommend to rectify the overstressed RCC & Steel members shown in this report with proper
rectification design. Until rectification the factory can continue its operation.
STHAPONA CONSULTANTS Page | 1

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The factory building of MAS INTIMATES BANGLADESH (Pvt.) Ltd. is a single story pre-
fabricated steel shed located at FSFB #1, Karnaphuli Export Processing Zone, North Patenga,
Chittagong having Latitude: 22°16'13.6"N and Longitude: 91°47'25.6"E
Source: Google Earth
Figure 1.1.1: Location of Project
Table 1.1.1: Basic information
Information Description
Structural System The structural system of this building is R.C.C. moment resisting
frame system with rooftop steel shed and foundation system is pile
foundation.
Floor Area 10538 sft. approximately
Number of Stories Single story
Construction Year N/A
Foundation Type Pile foundations
Construction materials Concrete with stone chips and prefabricated steel.

1.2 GENERAL OBJECTIVE

Sthapona Consultants was assigned to conduct detailed engineering assessment of the factory
building of MAS INTIMATES BANGLADESH (Pvt.) Ltd. The scope of work of the project has
been shown below, which includes recommendation made by the ACCORD team,
(i). Ferro-Scanning in Column, Beam and Slab for Rebar Detection

(ii). Validate available structural design drawings
(iii). Verify architectural drawings and
(iv). The Structural Integrity Assessment of the building, which includes the following
items:
 Highlight any variations between as-built and structure design drawings (if
applicable).
 Result of testing of materials.
 Details of assumptions, loading, inputs and results of computer modelling.
 Detail assessment of the performance of all structural members under the seismic
load, earthquake load and gravity load.
 Commentary on adequacy/inadequacy of elements of the structure and further plan
of action.

2 ANALYSIS FOR STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY
2.1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

The structural system of this building is R.C.C. moment resisting frame system with rooftop steel
shed. In steel frame structures R.C.C. columns & steel rafters and purlin exists. General 3D view
of the building has been presented in Figure 2.1.2.
Figure 2.1.1: Steel Beam-Column Frame System of the Building
Figure 2.1.2: 3D View of Analytical Model

2.2 CODES AND PRACTICES
For the present project, relevant sections of NTPA & Bangladesh National Building Code
(BNBC, 2006) have been used for analyses. For the reinforced concrete design, American
Concrete Institute (ACI 318-99) & for steel design, AISC360-05 (American Institute of Steel
Construction, LRFD) code has been consulted as and when became necessary to complement the
BNBC.
2.3 MATERIAL PROPERTY
The principal material of construction is reinforced concrete & structural steel. As per
investigation and design drawings, the following material properties has been used:
 Yield strength of structural steel, fy = 36,000 lb/in2

 Yield strength of structural rebar, fy = 60,000 lb/in2
 Compressive strength of concrete for column, fc' = 1567lb/in2
 Compressive strength of concrete for beam, fc' = 1477lb/in2
 Young's modulus of concrete, Ec = 57,000fc'
The above concrete strength is Equivalent concrete strength found assuming as per NTPA
guideline and the strength of steel is based on the test result from BUET Lab.

2.4 LOADS
Prior to structural analysis it is essential that the loads that may act upon the building during its
lifetime be duly considered and incorporated in the analysis. The loads that may act upon the
structure are as follows:
2.4.1 Dead Load

Dead loads (D) are those gravity load which remain acting on the structure permanently without
any change during the structures normal service life. These are basically the loads coming from
the weight of the different components of the structure. For the sake of convenience in the
analysis, sometimes this kind of loads are divided into two types, namely a) self-weight of the
structure (SW) and b) the weight coming from the non-structural permanent components of the
building (SDEAD).
 Unit weight of reinforced concrete = 150 pcf

 Unit weight of brickwork = 120 pcf
 Unit weight of steel = 490 pcf
2.4.2 Live Load
Live load is the gravity load due to non-permanent objects like machines, furniture, and human.
Analysis has been carried out base on load recommended by BNBC (2006). For checking if
needed reduced live load (42psf) are also used to find the allowable live load for the structure.
For general area,
Live Load on Roof = 1 KN/m2
2.4.3 Wind Load (W)

Bangladesh is typically a storm prone area where due consideration to the thrust due to storm
must be given in the analysis and design of building and structures. Wind load due to storm
is typically modelled as lateral thrust force causing sway or overturning of the building.
Detailed specifications on wind loading on buildings are outlined in BNBC (2006). The
present project is located in Karnaphuli Export Processing Zone, North Patenga,
Chittagong, for which the following basic parameters are used in wind load calculation,
 Basic wind speed, Vb= 260 km/h

 Exposure category = A
 Structure Importance coefficient CI =1.00

The following figure illustrates the procedure of calculating wind load for this structure-
Perpendicular to Ridge
Windward Wall Side Wall Leeward Wall
qh= 1.643646 qh= 1.643646 qh= 1.643646
Ph= 1.967905 KN/sq.m Ph= -1.72192 KN/sq.m Ph= -1.45133 KN/sq.m
Vb= 260 Vb= 260 Vb= 260
Cg= 1.4966 Cg= 1.4966 Cg= 1.4966
Cz= 0.515133 Cz= 0.515133 Cz= 0.515133
Cpe= 0.8 Cpe= -0.7 Cpe= -0.59
Spacing= 3.2 m Spacing= 2.9 m Spacing= 3.2 m
UDL= 6.30 KN/m UDL= -4.99 KN/m UDL= -4.64 KN/m
Windward Roof Leeward Roof
qh= 1.643646 qh= 1.643646
Ph= -1.968 KN/sq.m Ph= -1.722 KN/sq.m
Vb= 260 Vb= 260
Cg= 1.4966 Cg= 1.4966
Cz= 0.515133 Cz= 0.515133
Cpe= -0.8 Cpe= -0.7
Spacing= 3.2 m Spacing= 3.2 m
UDL= -6.30 KN/m UDL= -5.51 KN/m
Figure 2.4.1: Wind Load for steel shed (perpendicular to ridge) Part-1
Parallel to Ridge
Windward Wall Leeward Wall
qh= 1.643646 qh= 1.643646
Ph= 1.967905 KN/sq.m Ph= -0.91016 KN/sq.m
Vb= 260 Vb= 260
Cg= 1.4966 Cg= 1.4966
Cz= 0.515133 Cz= 0.515133
Cpe= 0.8 Cpe= -0.37
UDL= 12.10 KN/m UDL= -5.60 KN/m
Side Wall Roof (Windward+Leeward)
qh= 1.643646 qh= 1.643646
Ph= -1.72192 KN/sq.m Ph= -1.722 KN/sq.m
Vb= 260 Vb= 260
Cg= 1.4966 Cg= 1.4966
Cz= 0.515133 Cz= 0.515133
Cpe= -0.7 Cpe= -0.7
UDL= -11.41 KN/m UDL= -11.41 KN/m
Figure 2.4.2: Wind Load for steel shed (parallel to ridge) Part-1

Perpendicular to Ridge
Windward Wall Side Wall Leeward Wall
qh= 1.921983 qh= 1.921983 qh= 1.921983
Ph= 2.202285 KN/sq.m Ph= -1.927 KN/sq.m Ph= -1.62419 KN/sq.m
Vb= 260 Vb= 260 Vb= 260
Cg= 1.4323 Cg= 1.4323 Cg= 1.4323
Cz= 0.602367 Cz= 0.602367 Cz= 0.602367
Cpe= 0.8 Cpe= -0.7 Cpe= -0.59
Spacing= 6.625 m Spacing= 6.15 m Spacing= 6.625 m
UDL= 14.59 KN/m UDL= -11.85 KN/m UDL= -10.76 KN/m
Windward Roof Leeward Roof
qh= 1.921983 qh= 1.921983
Ph= -2.202 KN/sq.m Ph= -1.927 KN/sq.m
Vb= 260 Vb= 260
Cg= 1.4323 Cg= 1.4323
Cz= 0.602367 Cz= 0.602367
Cpe= -0.8 Cpe= -0.7
UDL= -14.09 KN/m UDL= -12.33 KN/m
Figure 2.4.3: Wind Load for steel shed (perpendicular to ridge) Part-2
Parallel to Ridge
Windward Wall Leeward Wall
qh= 1.921983 qh= 1.921983
Ph= 2.202285 KN/sq.m Ph= -1.01856 KN/sq.m
Vb= 260 Vb= 260
Cg= 1.4323 Cg= 1.4323
Cz= 0.602367 Cz= 0.602367
Cpe= 0.8 Cpe= -0.37
UDL= 13.54 KN/m UDL= -6.26 KN/m
Side Wall Roof (Windward+Leeward)
qh= 1.921983 qh= 1.921983
Ph= -1.927 KN/sq.m Ph= -1.927 KN/sq.m
Vb= 260 Vb= 260
Cg= 1.4323 Cg= 1.4323
Cz= 0.602367 Cz= 0.602367
Cpe= -0.7 Cpe= -0.7
UDL= -12.33 KN/m UDL= -12.33 KN/m
Figure 2.4.4: Wind Load for steel shed (parallel to ridge) Part-2

2.4.4 Earthquake Load (E)

Proper structural design of any building structure must include loads due to earthquake shaking.
Although there has been no major incident of earthquake hazard in the recent past of Bangladesh,
earthquakes are not uncommon in this area. Scientific geological study of the earth crust below
Bangladesh shows that Bangladesh does fall in moderate to high seismic risk zone. Statistical
evidence from past major and minor earthquake incidents shows that a major earthquake is
overdue in the recent times of geological scale. Therefore, it is necessary to prepare against any
possible earthquake hazard. It should be kept in mind that the objective of earthquake resistance
building design is not to make a strong building which can resist any damage due to earthquake.
Instead, earthquake resistant design basically aims at minimizing the possible damage and
casualty to an acceptable level.
Regarding the earthquake resistant structural design, it essential that the specific design code is
followed. For the analysis and design checking of this building, Equivalent Static Force Method
of BNBC (2006) is followed. The main considerations for calculation of earthquake load are given
below.
 Zone co-efficient, Z = 0.15 (zone 2, As Per BNBC 2006)

 Structure importance co-efficient, I = 1.00 (Standard Occupancy, Table 6.2.23, BNBC
2006)
 Response modification co-efficient, R = 6.0 (OMRF, Table 6.2.24, BNBC)
 Site co-efficient, S = 1.5 (type 3 soil as suggested in Table 6.2.25, BNBC)
2.5 METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Depending on the type of project, there are several well-established methods among which Finite
Element Method (FEM) is perhaps the most sophisticated and all-encompassing one. For analysis
and design checking of the building, powerful finite element based structural design software
package SAP2000- V19.0.0 has been employed for analysis. Some aspects of the analysis process
are discussed in the following paragraphs.
A full three dimensional modelling of the structure has been developed using frame and plate/shell
elements. The frame elements are typical two-nodded frame elements in space having six degrees
of freedom per node – three translations and three rotations in three mutually perpendicular axes
system. The plate/shell elements are of rectangular (or quadrilateral) and triangular shape. The
quadrilateral element has four nodes at its four corners. Each node has six degrees of freedom –
three translations and three rotations in a 3D space configuration. The frame elements are used to
model the columns while the plate/shell elements are used to model the ribs and the roof shell etc.
At base level, the columns are assumed to be held hinged in one direction.

2.6 LOADING AND LOAD COMBINATION
The basic sources of loads are described in earlier section. These loads are applied on the model
in seven basic categories. These are as follows:
Load Case 1: Self-weight of structure (DL).

Load Case 2: Floor finish and partition wall (SDEAD).
Load Case 3: Live Load on the Structure (LL).
Load Case 4: Earthquake load on East-West Direction. (Ex)
Load Case 5: Earthquake load on North-South Direction. (Ey)
Load Case 6: Wind load on East-West Direction. (Wx)
Load Case 7: Wind load on North-South Direction. (Wy)
These seven basic load cases are analysed in SAP2000- V18.1.1 the results are then combined in
accordance with the specifications set forth by BNBC.
BNBC specifies a number of combination options. These are as follows:

For Concrete Structure:
 1.4 D
 1.4 D + 1.7 L
 0.9 D + 1.3 (W or 1.1 E)
 0.75 (1.4 D + 1.7 (W or 1.1 E))
 0.75 (1.4 D + 1.7 L + 1.7 (W or 1.1 E))
 1.4 (D + L + E)
Where D stands for total dead load i.e. D = DL + SDEAD, L stands for live load i.e. L=LL, W
stands for wind load and E stands for earthquake load. When these seven basic load cases are
combined accordingly considering the direction of lateral loads, then according to BNBC 2006,
we obtain, after simplification, the following thirty combination cases:
 Combination Case 1: 1.4 D

 Combination Case 2: 1.4 D + 1.7 L
 Combination Case 3: 1.05 D + 1.275 L + 1.275 Wx
 Combination Case 4: 1.05 D + 1.275 L - 1.275 Wx
 Combination Case 5: 1.05 D + 1.275 L + 1.275 Wy
 Combination Case 6: 1.05 D + 1.275 L - 1.275 Wy
 Combination Case 7: 1.05 D + 1.275 Wx
 Combination Case 8: 1.05 D - 1.275 Wx
 Combination Case 9: 1.05 D + 1.275 Wy
 Combination Case 10: 1.05 D - 1.275 Wy

 Combination Case 11: 0.9 D + 1.3 Wx

 Combination Case 12: 0.9 D - 1.3 Wx
 Combination Case 13: 0.9 D + 1.3 Wy
 Combination Case 14: 0.9 D - 1.3 Wy
 Combination Case 15: 1.05 D + 1.275 L + 1.4025 Ex
 Combination Case 16: 1.05 D + 1.275 L - 1.4025 Ex
 Combination Case 17: 1.05 D + 1.275 L + 1.4025 Ey
 Combination Case 18: 1.05 D + 1.275 L - 1.4025 Ey
 Combination Case 19: 1.05 D + 1.4025 Ex
 Combination Case 20: 1.05 D - 1.4025 Ex
 Combination Case 21: 1.05 D + 1.4025 Ey
 Combination Case 22: 1.05 D - 1.4025 Ey
 Combination Case 23: 0.9 D + 1.43 Ex
 Combination Case 24: 0.9 D - 1.43 Ex
 Combination Case 25: 0.9 D + 1.43 Ey
 Combination Case 26: 0.9 D - 1.43 Ey
 Combination Case 27: 1.4 D + 1.4 L + 1.4 Ex
 Combination Case 28: 1.4 D + 1.4 L - 1.4 Ex
 Combination Case 29: 1.4 D + 1.4 L + 1.4 Ey
 Combination Case 30: 1.4 D + 1.4 L - 1.4 Ey
But in Sap analysis, we do not calculate combination cases 27, 28, 29 & 30.
For Steel Structure:

 Combination Case1: 1.4 DL
 Combination Case2: 1.2 DL + 1.6 Lf + 0.5 Lr
 Combination Case3: 1.2 DL + 1.6 Lr + 0.5 Lf
 Combination Case4: 1.2 DL + 1.6 Lr + 0.8 Wx(+)
 Combination Case5: 1.2 DL + 1.6 Lr + 0.8 Wx(-)
 Combination Case6: 1.2 DL + 1.6 Lr + 0.8 Wy(+)
 Combination Case7: 1.2 DL + 1.6 Lr + 0.8 Wy(-)
 Combination Case8: 1.2 DL + 0.5 Lf + 0.5 Lr + 1.3 Wx(+)
 Combination Case9: 1.2 DL + 0.5 Lf + 0.5 Lr + 1.3 Wx(-)
 Combination Case10: 1.2 DL + 0.5 Lf + 0.5 Lr + 1.3 Wy(+)
 Combination Case11: 1.2 DL + 0.5 Lf + 0.5 Lr + 1.3 Wy(-)
 Combination Case12: 1.2 DL + 0.5 Lf + 1.5 Ex
 Combination Case13: 1.2 DL + 0.5 Lf - 1.5 Ex
 Combination Case14: 1.2 DL + 0.5 Lf + 1.5 Ey
 Combination Case15: 1.2 DL + 0.5 Lf - 1.5 Ey
 Combination Case16: 0.9 DL + 1.3 Wx(+)
 Combination Case17: 0.9 DL + 1.3 Wx(-)

 Combination Case18: 0.9 DL + 1.3 Wy(+)

 Combination Case19: 0.9 DL + 1.3 Wy(-)
 Combination Case20: 0.9 DL + 1.5 Ex
 Combination Case21: 0.9 DL - 1.5 Ex
 Combination Case22: 0.9 DL + 1.5 Ey
 Combination Case23: 0.9 DL - 1.5 Ey
But, for the assessment of garments building we consider the load combination provided by the
Guideline for RMG (November 08, 2013) for RC Structures. The following load combination
is used for the assessment:
 Combination Case 1: 1.2 DL + 1.6LL

 Combination Case 2: 1.05 DL + 1.25LL + 1.0Wx
 Combination Case 3: 1.05 DL + 1.25LL - 1.0Wx
 Combination Case 4: 1.05 DL + 1.25LL + 1.0Wy
 Combination Case 5: 1.05 DL + 1.25LL - 1.0Wy
 Combination Case 6: 1.05 DL + 1.25LL + 1.0Ex
 Combination Case 7: 1.05 DL + 1.25LL - 1.0Ex
 Combination Case 8: 1.05 DL + 1.25LL + 1.0Ey
 Combination Case 9: 1.05 DL + 1.25LL - 1.0Ey
For the assessment of garments building we consider the load combination provided by the
Guideline for RMG (November 08, 2013) for Steel Structures. The following load combination
is used for the assessment:
 Combination Case 1: 1.2 DL + 1.6Lf + 0.5Lr

 Combination Case 2: 1.2 DL + 1.3Wx + 0.5Lf + 0.5Lr
 Combination Case 3: 1.2 DL - 1.3Wx + 0.5Lf + 0.5Lr
 Combination Case 4: 1.2 DL + 1.3Wy + 0.5Lf + 0.5Lr
 Combination Case 5: 1.2 DL - 1.3Wy + 0.5Lf + 0.5Lr
 Combination Case 6: 1.2 DL + 1.5Ex + 0.5Lf
 Combination Case 7: 1.2 DL - 1.5Ex + 0.5Lf
 Combination Case 8: 1.2 DL + 1.5Ey + 0.5Lf
 Combination Case 9: 1.2 DL - 1.5Ey + 0.5Lf
Where, D = Dead Load, Lf = Floor live load, Lr = Roof live load, W = wind load and E =
earthquake load.

2.7 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

In any finite element analysis, applying appropriate boundary conditions are important. Without
appropriate boundary conditions the model of building structure may not be stable. On the other
hand, application of excessive restraints may render the structure too stiff resulting in
development of unreasonable stresses. For a structure like this building having pile foundations
(two pile in each pile group), it is reasonable to assume that the bases of columns are not fully
restrained in all directions.
2.8 APPLICATION OF LOAD AND ANALYSIS

A static analysis is performed using the loadings and combinations of loads (mentioned earlier)
for the factory building. Some pictorial representation of the analysis results is shown in figures
below.
Figure 2.8.1: Applied PW (lb/ft) Load on Tie Beam.

Figure 2.8.2: Deflected Shape of the building

3 EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS FOR NTPA

GUIDELINES (RECOMMENDED LOADINGS & LOAD
COMBINATIONS)
3.1 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF FOUNDATION

Provided structural drawings of the project shows that cast-in-situ pile foundation had been used
for this project (Figure 3.1.1). As per ACCORD guideline, we have checked adequacy of pile
capacity & thickness of pile cap for NTPA loadings & load combinations. Soil test report prepared
by “MRITTIKA PROKAUSHALI”. The minimum ultimate capacity of each pile (using bore
hole-1 & 2) was found as 422 kip. Considering concrete strength (1567 psi) and pile capacity (422
kip) we found all piles are adequate in Capacity. All of pile caps are also adequate for punching
shear capasity.
Capacity of piles have been calculated by AllPile V7.3B software with the available soil test data.
Figure 3.1.1: Pile Cap Layout Plan

Figure 3.1.2: Node ID from SAP Model

VERTICAL ANALYSIS Figure 1
Loads:
Load Factor for Vertical Loads= 1.0
Load Factor for Lateral Loads= 1.0
Loads Supported by Pile Cap= 0 %
Shear Condition: Static
Vertical Load, Q= 10.0 -kp

Shear Load, P= 0.0 -kp
Moment, M= 0.0 -kp-f
Profile:
Pile Length, L= 58.2 -ft
Top Height, H= -7.382 -ft
Slope Angle, As= 0
Batter Angle, Ab= 0
Drilled Pile (dia <=24 in. or 61 cm)
Soil Data: Pile Data:

Depth Gamma Phi C K e50 or Dr Nspt Depth Width Area Per. I E Weight
-ft -lb/f3 -kp/f2 -lb/i3 % -ft -in -in2 -in -in4 -kp/i2 -kp/f
0.000 35.623 26.1 0.000 1.842 4.47 1 0.0 21.654 368.250 68.031 10791.637 2999.971 0.384
8.202 56.616 0.0 0.624 95.421 1.33 5 58.2 21.654 368.250 68.031 10791.637 2999.971 0.384
14.76448.346 31.3 0.000 21.000 26.44 7
18.04554.707 33.9 0.000 40.158 39.56 12
24.60654.707 33.9 0.000 40.158 39.56 12
29.52855.980 34.7 0.000 47.158 43.80 14
39.37059.160 36.4 0.000 67.421 53.92 20
49.21358.524 36.0 0.000 60.789 50.91 18
55.77459.796 36.8 0.000 73.315 56.64 22
65.61761.705 38.5 0.000 108.315 70.44 35
Vertical capacity:
Weight above Ground= 0.00 Total Weight= 13.04-kp *Soil Weight is not included
Side Resistance (Down)= 191.863-kp Side Resistance (Up)= 118.393-kp
Tip Resistance (Down)= 239.259-kp Tip Resistance (Up)= 0.000-kp
Total Ultimate Capacity (Down)= 431.122-kp Total Ultimate Capacity (Up)= 131.437-kp
Total Allowable Capacity (Down)= 143.707-kp Total Allowable Capacity (Up)= 43.812-kp
OK! Qallow > Q
Settlement Calculation:
At Q= 10.00-kp Settlement= 0.00594-in
At Xallow= 1.00-in Qallow= 357.45599-kp
Note: If program can't find result or the result exceeds the up limits. The result shows 9999.
CivilTech MAS Intimates Bangladesh (Pvt) Ltd

Software BH-1
Figure 3.1.3: Pile Capacity Calculation for Bore Hole-1

Loads:

Profile:
Slope Angle, As= 0
Batter Angle, Ab= 0

0.000 35.623 26.1 0.000 1.842 4.47 1 0.0 21.654 368.250 68.031 10791.637 2999.971 0.384
8.202 56.616 0.0 0.624 95.421 1.33 8 58.2 21.654 368.250 68.031 10791.637 2999.971 0.384
14.76448.346 31.3 0.000 21.000 26.44 7
21.32554.707 33.9 0.000 40.158 39.56 10
24.60654.707 33.9 0.000 40.158 39.56 12
36.08955.980 34.7 0.000 47.158 43.80 14
44.29159.160 36.4 0.000 67.421 53.92 25
50.85358.524 36.0 0.000 60.789 50.91 20
60.69659.796 36.8 0.000 73.315 56.64 22
65.61761.705 38.5 0.000 108.315 70.44 34
Vertical capacity:
OK! Qallow > Q

Software BH-2

Table 3.1.1: Pile Capacity check for NTPA Loading Conditions
Foundation Ultimate Ultimate

Dead Live Factor of Remarks
POINT
Type No. of Capacity Capacity of Reaction

Load Load Safety (Min
Pile per Pile Pile Group (kip)
(kip) (kip) (FOS) FOS=1.5)
(Kip) (Kip)
10 PC1 1 422.00 422 69.51 2.56 72.1 5.86 OK
71 PC1 1 422.00 422 81.50 18.08 99.6 4.24 OK
44 PC1 1 422.00 422 81.16 19.96 101.1 4.17 OK
53 PC1 1 422.00 422 81.13 19.90 101.0 4.18 OK
62 PC1 1 422.00 422 81.00 18.61 99.6 4.24 OK
80 PC1 1 422.00 422 81.15 19.59 100.7 4.19 OK
120 PC1 1 422.00 422 71.81 2.55 74.4 5.68 OK
8 PC1 1 422.00 422 60.96 4.94 65.9 6.40 OK
118 PC1 1 422.00 422 64.81 4.71 69.5 6.07 OK
6 PC1 1 422.00 422 62.63 4.88 67.5 6.25 OK
116 PC1 1 422.00 422 65.69 4.32 70.0 6.03 OK
4 PC1 1 422.00 422 60.84 4.97 65.8 6.41 OK
114 PC1 1 422.00 422 63.14 4.73 67.9 6.22 OK
2 PC1 1 422.00 422 68.97 2.57 71.5 5.90 OK
69 PC1 1 422.00 422 76.62 18.08 94.7 4.46 OK
42 PC1 1 422.00 422 77.19 19.96 97.2 4.34 OK
51 PC1 1 422.00 422 81.30 19.90 101.2 4.17 OK
60 PC1 1 422.00 422 77.00 18.62 95.6 4.41 OK
78 PC1 1 422.00 422 77.02 19.59 96.6 4.37 OK
112 PC1 1 422.00 422 69.71 2.57 72.3 5.84 OK

Table 3.1.2: Punching Shear Check for pile caps considering NTPA Loading Conditions
Foundation f' C= 1569 psi
Punching DCR for

FZ Factored Load , Pile Cap Column Column
Remark
Point
FZ (Live) Shear Punching,

Type
(Dead), 42 psf LL Thickness DIM, L DIM, B

Kip Capacity, minimum
Kip (DL*1.2+LL*1.6) in in in
Kip 42 psf LL
10 PC1 2.56 69.51 87 24 31 20 453 0.19 OK

71 PC1 18.08 81.50 127 24 31 20 453 0.28 OK
44 PC1 19.96 81.16 129 24 31 20 453 0.29 OK
53 PC1 19.90 81.13 129 24 31 20 453 0.29 OK
62 PC1 18.61 81.00 127 24 31 20 453 0.28 OK
80 PC1 19.59 81.15 129 24 31 20 453 0.28 OK
120 PC1 2.55 71.81 90 24 31 20 453 0.20 OK
8 PC1 4.94 60.96 81 24 22 20 405 0.20 OK
118 PC1 4.71 64.81 85 24 22 20 405 0.21 OK
6 PC1 4.88 62.63 83 24 22 20 405 0.20 OK
116 PC1 4.32 65.69 86 24 22 20 405 0.21 OK
4 PC1 4.97 60.84 81 24 22 20 405 0.20 OK
114 PC1 4.73 63.14 83 24 22 20 405 0.21 OK
2 PC1 2.57 68.97 87 24 31 20 453 0.19 OK
69 PC1 18.08 76.62 121 24 31 20 453 0.27 OK
42 PC1 19.96 77.19 125 24 31 20 453 0.27 OK
51 PC1 19.90 81.30 129 24 31 20 453 0.29 OK
60 PC1 18.62 77.00 122 24 31 20 453 0.27 OK
78 PC1 19.59 77.02 124 24 31 20 453 0.27 OK
112 PC1 2.57 69.71 88 24 31 20 453 0.19 OK

3.2 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF R.C.C COLUMNS

Results has been shown based on model grid. Assessment of columns (P-M-M Interaction Ratio)
according to NTPA guideline. According to standard practice, column with P-M-M value greater
than 1.0 is considered as inadequate
Figure 3.2.1: R.C.C. Column Layout Plan

Figure 3.2.2 to shows the condition of columns.
inadequate).

3.3 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF STEEL MEMBERS

DCR>1, inadequate).
DCR>1, inadequate).
DCR>1, inadequate).
DCR>1, inadequate).
DCR>1, inadequate).

DCR>1, inadequate).
DCR>1, inadequate).

3.4 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF BEAMS
3.4.1.1 Evaluation of Grade Beam

Figure 3.2.1 shows the condition of grade beams under lateral loading. All the grade beams are
adequate under lateral loading according to NTPA guideline (recommended loadings & load
combinations).
Figure 3.4.1: Condition of Grade Beams.
Beam Id. Provided Reif. At

Provided Reinf. Required Required
In Middle-Bottom
At Top-Edge (in2) Reinf. (in2) Reinf. (in2)
Drawing (in2)
GB-1 2.43 As Shown 1.56 As Shown

4 CONCLUSION
According to NTPA load combinations-
 Most of the R.C.C. Columns are over stressed.

 Some R.C.C grade beams are overstressed.
 All pile foundation is adequate in load bearing capacity. Pile caps are adequate in thickness
for punching shear capacity.
 A large number of Steel members are overstressed.
5 RECOMMENDATION
We recommend to rectify the overstressed RCC & Steel members shown in this report with proper
rectification design. Until rectification the factory can operate its operation.

6 EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS AFTER

RETROFITTING
6.1 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF FOUNDATION

Provided structural drawings of the project shows that cast-in-situ pile foundation had been used
for this project (Figure 6.1.1). As per ACCORD guideline, we have checked adequacy of pile
capacity & thickness of pile cap for NTPA loadings & load combinations. Soil test report prepared
by “MRITTIKA PROKAUSHALI”. The average ultimate capacity of each pile (using bore hole-
1 & 2) was found as 422 kip. Considering concrete strength (1567 psi) and pile capacity (422 kip)
we found all piles are adequate in Capacity. All of pile caps are also adequate for punching
shear.
Capacity of piles have been calculated by AllPile V7.3B software with the available soil test data.
Figure 6.1.1: Pile Cap Layout Plan

Figure 6.1.2: Node ID from SAP Model

Loads:

Profile:
Slope Angle, As= 0
Batter Angle, Ab= 0

0.000 35.623 26.1 0.000 1.842 4.47 1 0.0 21.654 368.250 68.031 10791.637 2999.971 0.384
8.202 56.616 0.0 0.624 95.421 1.33 5 58.2 21.654 368.250 68.031 10791.637 2999.971 0.384
14.76448.346 31.3 0.000 21.000 26.44 7
18.04554.707 33.9 0.000 40.158 39.56 12
24.60654.707 33.9 0.000 40.158 39.56 12
29.52855.980 34.7 0.000 47.158 43.80 14
39.37059.160 36.4 0.000 67.421 53.92 20
49.21358.524 36.0 0.000 60.789 50.91 18
55.77459.796 36.8 0.000 73.315 56.64 22
65.61761.705 38.5 0.000 108.315 70.44 35
Vertical capacity:
OK! Qallow > Q

Software BH-1

Loads:

Profile:
Slope Angle, As= 0
Batter Angle, Ab= 0

0.000 35.623 26.1 0.000 1.842 4.47 1 0.0 21.654 368.250 68.031 10791.637 2999.971 0.384
8.202 56.616 0.0 0.624 95.421 1.33 8 58.2 21.654 368.250 68.031 10791.637 2999.971 0.384
14.76448.346 31.3 0.000 21.000 26.44 7
21.32554.707 33.9 0.000 40.158 39.56 10
24.60654.707 33.9 0.000 40.158 39.56 12
36.08955.980 34.7 0.000 47.158 43.80 14
44.29159.160 36.4 0.000 67.421 53.92 25
50.85358.524 36.0 0.000 60.789 50.91 20
60.69659.796 36.8 0.000 73.315 56.64 22
65.61761.705 38.5 0.000 108.315 70.44 34
Vertical capacity:
OK! Qallow > Q

Software BH-2

Table 6.1.1: Pile Capacity check after Retrofitting
Foundation Ultimate Ultimate

Dead Live Factor of Remarks
POINT
Type No. of Capacity Capacity of Reaction

Load Load Safety (Min
Pile per Pile Pile Group (kip)
(kip) (kip) (FOS) FOS=1.5)
(Kip) (Kip)
10 PC1 1 422.00 422 70.69 4.89 75.6 5.58 OK
71 PC1 1 422.00 422 85.04 20.06 105.1 4.02 OK
44 PC1 1 422.00 422 83.50 18.44 101.9 4.14 OK
53 PC1 1 422.00 422 83.20 18.63 101.8 4.14 OK
62 PC1 1 422.00 422 84.90 21.17 106.1 3.98 OK
80 PC1 1 422.00 422 81.48 16.32 97.8 4.32 OK
120 PC1 1 422.00 422 72.91 5.09 78.0 5.41 OK
8 PC1 1 422.00 422 62.10 2.32 64.4 6.55 OK
118 PC1 1 422.00 422 65.59 2.46 68.0 6.20 OK
6 PC1 1 422.00 422 63.31 4.82 68.1 6.19 OK
116 PC1 1 422.00 422 66.97 7.33 74.3 5.68 OK
4 PC1 1 422.00 422 62.00 2.36 64.4 6.56 OK
114 PC1 1 422.00 422 63.84 2.51 66.3 6.36 OK
2 PC1 1 422.00 422 70.13 4.89 75.0 5.63 OK
69 PC1 1 422.00 422 80.13 20.09 100.2 4.21 OK
42 PC1 1 422.00 422 79.58 18.41 98.0 4.31 OK
51 PC1 1 422.00 422 83.50 18.60 102.1 4.13 OK
60 PC1 1 422.00 422 80.78 21.19 102.0 4.14 OK
78 PC1 1 422.00 422 77.24 16.32 93.6 4.51 OK
112 PC1 1 422.00 422 70.94 5.08 76.0 5.55 OK

Table 6.1.2: Punching Shear Check for pile caps after Retrofitting
Foundation f' C= 1569 psi
Punching
FZ Pile Cap Column Column
Remark
Point
FZ (Live) Factored Load Shear DCR for

Type
(Dead), Thickness DIM, L DIM, B

Kip ,(DL*1.4+LL*1.7) Capacity, Punching
Kip in in in
Kip
10 PC1 4.89 70.69 107 24 31 20 513 0.21 OK

71 PC1 20.06 85.04 153 24 31 20 513 0.30 OK
44 PC1 18.44 83.50 148 24 31 20 513 0.29 OK
53 PC1 18.63 83.20 148 24 31 20 513 0.29 OK
62 PC1 21.17 84.90 155 24 31 20 513 0.30 OK
80 PC1 16.32 81.48 142 24 31 20 513 0.28 OK
120 PC1 5.09 72.91 111 24 31 20 513 0.22 OK
8 PC1 2.32 62.10 91 24 22 20 459 0.20 OK
118 PC1 2.46 65.59 96 24 22 20 459 0.21 OK
6 PC1 4.82 63.31 97 24 22 20 459 0.21 OK
116 PC1 7.33 66.97 106 24 22 20 459 0.23 OK
4 PC1 2.36 62.00 91 24 22 20 459 0.20 OK
114 PC1 2.51 63.84 94 24 22 20 459 0.20 OK
2 PC1 4.89 70.13 106 24 31 20 513 0.21 OK
69 PC1 20.09 80.13 146 24 31 20 513 0.29 OK
42 PC1 18.41 79.58 143 24 31 20 513 0.28 OK
51 PC1 18.60 83.50 149 24 31 20 513 0.29 OK
60 PC1 21.19 80.78 149 24 31 20 513 0.29 OK
78 PC1 16.32 77.24 136 24 31 20 513 0.26 OK
112 PC1 5.08 70.94 108 24 31 20 513 0.21 OK

6.2 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF R.C.C COLUMNS

Figure 6.2.1: Steel Column Layout Plan

Figure 6.2.2 to Figure 6.2.7 shows the condition of columns under NTPA loading system.
inadequate).

DCR>1, inadequate).
DCR>1, inadequate).
DCR>1, inadequate).

DCR>1, inadequate).
DCR>1, inadequate).

6.3 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF STEEL MEMBERS

DCR<1, adequate).
DCR<1, adequate).
DCR<1, adequate).

DCR<1, adequate).
DCR<1, inadequate).
DCR<1, adequate).
DCR<1, adequate).

6.4 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF BEAMS
6.4.1.1 Evaluation of Grade Beam

Figure 6.4.1 shows the condition of RCC grade beam under lateral loading. All of the grade
beams are adequate under lateral loading (according to BNBC Loadings & load combinations)
after retrofitting.
Figure 6.4.1: Condition of Grade Beams.
Beam Id. Provided Reif. At

Provided Reinf. Required Required
In Middle-Bottom
At Top-Edge (in2) Reinf. (in2) Reinf. (in2)
Drawing (in2)
GB-1 2.43 As Shown 1.56 As Shown

7 DISCLAIMER
The assessment engineer made the above observations & recommendations from Core test, DT &
NDT results & mathematical modelling of the building. We applied our best engineering
judgments. We do not bear responsibility for any deviation from the predicted behaviour of the
structure caused by uncertainties of performance or calamities.

DEA Report-15-01-2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEA Report-15-01-2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT OF SINGLE

STORY STEEL BUILDING FOR WAREHOUSE AT MAS

Client: MAS INTIMATES BANGLADESH (Pvt.) Ltd

Y OUR S AFETY IS OUR C ONCERN

2.5 METHOD OF ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 9

Figure 2.1.1: Steel Beam-Column Frame System of the Building ..................................... 4

Figure 2.1.2: 3D View of Analytical Model ....................................................................... 4

Figure 2.8.1: Applied PW (lb/ft) Load on Tie Beam. ....................................................... 13

Figure 2.8.2: Deflected Shape of the building .................................................................. 14

Figure 3.1.1: Pile Cap Layout Plan ................................................................................... 15

Figure 3.1.2: Node ID from SAP Model ........................................................................... 16

Figure 3.1.3: Pile Capacity Calculation for Bore Hole-1.................................................. 17

Figure 3.1.4: Pile Capacity Calculation for Bore Hole-2.................................................. 18

Figure 3.2.1: R.C.C. Column Layout Plan ........................................................................ 21

Figure 3.4.1: Condition of Grade Beams. ......................................................................... 25

Figure 6.1.1: Pile Cap Layout Plan ................................................................................... 27

Figure 6.1.2: Node ID from SAP Model ........................................................................... 28

Figure 6.1.3: Pile Capacity Calculation for Bore Hole-1.................................................. 29

Figure 6.1.4: Pile Capacity Calculation for Bore Hole-2.................................................. 30

Figure 6.2.1: Steel Column Layout Plan ........................................................................... 33

Figure 6.4.1: Condition of Grade Beams. ......................................................................... 39

Table 6.1.1: Pile Capacity check after Retrofitting ........................................................... 31

ANNEX-I: NDT & DT REPORT

ANNEX-II: SOIL TEST REPORT

STHAPONA CONSULTANTS Page | 1

Source: Google Earth

Figure 1.1.1: Location of Project

Table 1.1.1: Basic information

Number of Stories Single story

Construction Year N/A

Foundation Type Pile foundations

Construction materials Concrete with stone chips and prefabricated steel.

STHAPONA CONSULTANTS Page | 2

1.2 GENERAL OBJECTIVE

(i). Ferro-Scanning in Column, Beam and Slab for Rebar Detection

STHAPONA CONSULTANTS Page | 3

2 ANALYSIS FOR STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY

2.1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

Figure 2.1.1: Steel Beam-Column Frame System of the Building

Figure 2.1.2: 3D View of Analytical Model

STHAPONA CONSULTANTS Page | 4

2.2 CODES AND PRACTICES

2.3 MATERIAL PROPERTY

 Yield strength of structural steel, fy = 36,000 lb/in2

STHAPONA CONSULTANTS Page | 5

2.4.1 Dead Load

 Unit weight of reinforced concrete = 150 pcf

2.4.2 Live Load

Live Load on Roof = 1 KN/m2

2.4.3 Wind Load (W)

 Basic wind speed, Vb= 260 km/h

STHAPONA CONSULTANTS Page | 6

STHAPONA CONSULTANTS Page | 7

STHAPONA CONSULTANTS Page | 8

2.4.4 Earthquake Load (E)

 Zone co-efficient, Z = 0.15 (zone 2, As Per BNBC 2006)

2.5 METHOD OF ANALYSIS

STHAPONA CONSULTANTS Page | 9

2.6 LOADING AND LOAD COMBINATION

Load Case 1: Self-weight of structure (DL).

BNBC specifies a number of combination options. These are as follows:

 Combination Case 1: 1.4 D

STHAPONA CONSULTANTS Page | 10

 Combination Case 11: 0.9 D + 1.3 Wx