DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT OF

SQUARE APPARELS LTD (POWER HOUSE).

Project type: Two Storied RCC Building.

Zamirdia, Habirbari, Bhaluka, Mymensingh, Bangladesh.

Client: SQUARE APPARELS 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, House#18, Road#20, Nikunjo-2, Dhaka-1229.
Office: +880-1762-777666.
sthaponaconsultants@gmail.com
JANUARY 2019
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 1
1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 2
1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 2
1.2 GENERAL OBJECTIVE .......................................................................................................... 3
2 STRENGTH OF MATERIALS ........................................................................................................... 4
2.1 EVALUATION OF CONCRETE STRENGTH FROM CORE TEST ............................. 4
3 ANALYSIS FOR STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY .............................................................................. 5
3.1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM ........................................................................................................ 5
3.2 CODES AND PRACTICES ..................................................................................................... 5
3.3 MATERIAL PROPERTY ........................................................................................................ 6
3.4 LOADS ........................................................................................................................................ 6
3.4.1 DEAD Loads ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.4.2 Live Load........................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.4.3 Wind Load (W) ............................................................................................................................................... 6
3.4.4 Earthquake Load (E) .................................................................................................................................... 7

3.5 METHOD OF ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 7

3.6 LOADING AND LOAD COMBINATION ........................................................................... 8
3.7 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 9
3.8 APPLICATION OF LOAD AND ANALYSIS .................................................................. 10
4 EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS FOR BNBC LOADING CONDITION..... 11
4.1 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF FOUNDATION ................................................................ 11
4.2 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF COLUMN: ......................................................................... 14
4.3 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF R.C.C. BEAMS.................................................................. 17
4.3.1 Evaluation of Grade Beam ...................................................................................................................... 17
4.3.2 Evaluation of Floor Beam ....................................................................................................................... 17

5 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 19
6 RECOMMENDATION ...................................................................................................................... 19
7 EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS AFTER RETROFITTING ......................... 19
7.1 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF FOUNDATION ................................................................ 19
7.2 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF COLUMN: ......................................................................... 23
7.3 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF R.C.C. BEAMS.................................................................. 25
7.3.1 Evaluation of Grade Beam ...................................................................................................................... 25
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

7.3.2 Evaluation of Floor Beam ....................................................................................................................... 25

7.3.1 Evaluation of New Steel Beam .............................................................................................................. 27

7.4 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF R.C.C. SHEAR WALL..................................................... 28

8 DISCLAIMER ..................................................................................................................................... 30

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1.1.1: Location of Project ........................................................................................ 2

Figure 3.1.1: 3D View of Analytical Model ....................................................................... 5

Figure 3.8.1: Deflected Shape of the building .................................................................. 10

Figure 4.1.1: Foundation Layout Plan from As Built Drawing. ....................................... 11

Figure 4.1.2: Node ID from Etabs Model. ........................................................................ 11

Figure 4.2.1: Column Layout Plan from as Model Snapshot. .......................................... 14

Figure 4.2.2: Column Layout Plan from Built Drawing. .................................................. 15

Figure 4.2.3: Condition of Column in Grid A ................................................................... 15

Figure 4.2.4: Condition of Column in Grid B ................................................................... 15

Figure 4.2.5: Condition of Column in Grid C ................................................................... 16

Figure 4.3.1: Condition of Grade Beams. ......................................................................... 17

Figure 4.3.2: Condition of Tie Beam. ............................................................................... 17

Figure 4.3.3: Condition of 1st Floor Beams....................................................................... 18

Figure 4.3.4: Condition of Roof Floor Beams. ................................................................. 18

Figure 7.1.1: Foundation Layout Plan from As Retrofit Drawing. ................................... 20

Figure 7.1.2: Node ID from Etabs Model. ........................................................................ 20

Figure 7.2.1: Column Layout Plan from as Model Snapshot. .......................................... 23

Figure 7.2.2: Column Layout Plan. ................................................................................... 23

Figure 7.2.3: Condition of Column in Grid A ................................................................... 24

Figure 7.2.4: Condition of Column in Grid B ................................................................... 24

Figure 7.2.5: Condition of Column in Grid C ................................................................... 24

Figure 7.3.1: Condition of Grade Beams. ......................................................................... 25

[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 7.3.2: Condition of Tie Beam. ............................................................................... 25

Figure 7.3.3: Condition of 1st Floor Beams....................................................................... 26

Figure 7.3.4: Condition of Roof Floor Beams. ................................................................. 26

Figure 7.4.2: Condition of shear wall (SW-2)................................................................... 29

List of Tables
Table 1.1.1: Basic information ............................................................................................ 2

Table 4.1.1: Adequacy Check for Isolated Footing for Soil Bearing Capacity ................ 12

Table 4.1.2: Punching shear check BNBC loading condition .......................................... 13

Table 7.1.1: Adequacy Check for Isolated Footing for Soil Bearing Capacity ................ 21

Table 7.1.2: Punching shear check BNBC loading condition .......................................... 22

Table 7.4.1: Adequacy Check for Shear Wall................................................................... 30

APPENDIX-I: DT & NDT REPORT

APPENDIX-II: SOIL TEST REPORT

 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The existing power house of SQUARE APPARELS LTD. is currently in operation as a two-storied
building composed of RCC Frame.

A team from ALLIANCE conducted visual assessment of the factory building. They
recommended to perform DEA of the building. On this recommendation, SQUARE APPARELS
LTD. has engaged Sthapona Consultants for performing DEA along with checking architectural
and structural drawing of the building.

The structural and architectural drawings were verified by Ferro-scanning, dimensions

measurement, plaster removing, foundation explorations etc.

For DEA one of the key inputs is the concrete strength. Six cores from different locations of
columns have been collected to test the concrete strength. These cores have been sent and
tested in BUET Lab by UTM (universal testing machine) to find its compressive strength. It has
been found that stone chips were used as coarse aggregate. Equivalent concrete strength (As
per ACI-562) for column is 2920 psi. Rebar yield strength was found 72.5 Ksi which was
confirmed by BUET test. Test result of BUET is presented in DT-NDT Report.

Considering BNBC referred loading, we analysed the structure & found that some of the R.C.C.
columns are overstressed due to lateral load, some R.C.C. Floor beams are slightly inadequate
due to torsion, grade beams are adequate. All the foundations are adequate both in bearing &
punching shear capacity. So, few retrofitting work is required for the analysed structure.

For retrofitting of overstressed columns, we recommended to add shear wall. The proposed
shear walls are adequate, the adequacy check of shear wall and its adjacent footing is shown
in the following chapters of this DEA report.

We recommend to rectify the overstressed member to comply the building with BNBC 2006 as
per the provided rectification design. We also recommend the factory authority to run their
operation by following the allowable load layout plan, to comply the building with BNBC 2006.

Page | 1
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND
The power house building of SQUARE APPARELS LTD. is currently in operation as a two
storied RCC building located at Zamirdia, Habirbari, Bhaluka, Mymensingh, Bangladesh. Having
Latitude: 24.293900°N and Longitude: 90.383890°E.

*Source: Google Earth

Figure 1.1.1: Location of Project

Table 1.1.1: Basic information

Information Description

Structural System Frame work of the building is composed of R.C. column, beam,
slab.
Floor Area Floor area: 10050 SFT/floor (Approx.)

Number of Stories Two

Foundation Type Shallow Foundation.

Construction materials Concrete with stone chips for foundation, column, grade beam,
floor beam and floor slab.

Page | 2
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

1.2 GENERAL OBJECTIVE

Sthapona Consultants was assigned to prepare DEA of the power house building of SQUARE
APPARELS LTD. The scope of work of the project has been shown below, which includes
recommendations made by The ALLIANCE 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
• Results of geotechnical assessment and testing/investigation
• 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 adequate/inadequacy of elements of the structure and further
action plan

Page | 3
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

2 STRENGTH OF MATERIALS

2.1 EVALUATION OF CONCRETE STRENGTH FROM CORE TEST

For DEA one of the key inputs is the concrete strength. Six cores from different locations of
columns have been collected to test the concrete strength. These cores have been sent and
tested in BUET Lab by UTM (universal testing machine) to find its compressive strength. It has
been found that stone chips were used as coarse aggregate. Equivalent concrete strength (As
per ACI-562) for column is 2920 psi. Rebar yield strength was found 72.5 Ksi which was
confirmed by BUET test. Test result of BUET is presented in DT-NDT Report.

Core Test Core Modified

Core Diameter
Result Diameter Strength
ID Effect
(psi) (inch) (psi)
1 4800 2.28 1.0516 5047.7 f c (avg)= 3945.3 psi
Standard Deviation of
2 3050 2.28 1.0516 3207.4 1110.63 psi
Core strength=
3 3490 2.28 1.0516 3670.1 Coefficient of variation, V= 0.28
4 2390 2.28 1.0516 2513.3 Number Of Sample, n= 6
Coefficient of variation
5 5180 2.28 1.0516 5447.3 1.15
modification factor, k c =
6 3600 2.28 1.0516 3785.8 f c (eq)= 2924.8 psi

Calculation of Equivalent Concrete Strength as per ACI 562 for Column

So, Concrete Strength for Column is considered to be 2920 psi.

Page | 4
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

3 ANALYSIS FOR STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY

3.1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

The structural system of the factory building is a two storied RCC structure. The building
is classified as Intermediate Moment Resisting Frame (IMRF). General 3D view of the building
has been presented in Figure 3.1.1

Figure 3.1.1: 3D View of Analytical Model

3.2 CODES AND PRACTICES

For the present project, relevant sections of Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC, 2006)
have been used for analysis. For the reinforced concrete design check, American Concrete
Institute (ACI 318-99) code has been consulted as and when became necessary to complement
the BNBC.

Page | 5
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

3.3 MATERIAL PROPERTY

The principal material of construction is reinforced concrete. As per investigation and design
drawings, the following material properties have been used:
❖ Yield strength of steel (Rebar), fy = 72,500 lb/in2
❖ Compressive strength of concrete, fc' = 2920 lb/in2
❖ Young's modulus of concrete, Ec = 57,000fc'

3.4 LOADS
The loads that may act upon the structure are as follows:

3.4.1 DEAD Loads

DEAD loads (D) are those gravity loads 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. In concrete building the weight of slabs, beams, and columns etc.
which form the main structural system is considered the self-weight (SW). The weights of floor
finish, water proofing layer, partition walls and other non-structural permanent components
generally constitute the rest of the total DEAD load. For the analysis and design checking of the
building, following are the values of DEAD loads:

❖ Unit weight of reinforced concrete = 150 pcf

❖ Unit weight of brickwork = 120 pcf
❖ Floor finish = Variable (1” ~ 2.5”)

3.4.2 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 present condition of the structure.

3.4.3 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 Mymensingh, for which the following basic parameters are used in wind load
calculation,

Page | 6
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

❖ Basic wind speed, Vb= 217 km/h

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

3.4.4 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 = 0.25 (zone 3, As Per BNBC 2006)

❖ Structure importance co-efficient, I = 1.00 (Standard Occupancy, Table 6.2.23, BNBC
2006)
❖ Response modification co-efficient, R = 8.0 (IMRF, Table 6.2.24, BNBC)
❖ Site co-efficient, S2= 1.2 (type 2 soil as suggested in Table 6.2.25, BNBC)

3.5 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 ETABS v16.2.1 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. At base level, the columns are assumed to be hinged due to isolated
foundation.

Page | 7
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

3.6 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:

❖ Self-weight of structure (SW).

❖ Floor finish and partition wall (SDEA REPORT).
❖ Live load on roof (LL).
❖ Earthquake load on North-South Direction (Ex).
❖ Earthquake load on East-West Direction (Ey).
❖ Wind load on North-South Direction (Wx).
❖ Wind load on East-West Direction (Wy).

These seven basic load cases are analysed in ETABS v16.2.1. 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 + SDEA REPORT, 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 E x

Page | 8
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

❖ Combination Case 16: 1.05 D + 1.275 L - 1.4025 Ex

❖ Combination Case 17:
❖ Combination Case 18:
❖ Combination Case 19:
❖ Combination Case 20:
❖ Combination Case 21:
❖ Combination Case 22:
❖ Combination Case 23:
❖ Combination Case 24:
❖ Combination Case 25:
❖ Combination Case 26:
❖ Combination Case 27:
❖ Combination Case 28:
❖ Combination Case 29:
❖ Combination Case 30:
1.05 D + 1.275 L + 1.4025 E y
1.05 D + 1.275 L - 1.4025 Ey
1.05 D + 1.4025 Ex
1.05 D - 1.4025 Ex
1.05 D + 1.4025 Ey
1.05 D - 1.4025 Ey
0.9 D + 1.43 Ex
0.9 D - 1.43 Ex
0.9 D + 1.43 Ey
0.9 D - 1.43 Ey
1.4 D + 1.4 L + 1.4 Ex
1.4 D + 1.4 L - 1.4 Ex
1.4 D + 1.4 L + 1.4 Ey
1.4 D + 1.4 L - 1.4 Ey

But in ETABS analysis, we do not calculate combination cases 27, 28, 29 & 30.

For the assessment of garments building we consider the load combination provided by the
Guideline for RMG (November 08, 2013) by BNBC 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 + 1.0E y
Combination Case 9: 1.05 DL + 1.25LL - 1.0Ey

3.7 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, it is
reasonable to assume that the bases of columns are not fully restrained in all directions.

Page | 9
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

3.8 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.

The floor finish is slightly variable at different locations of the building and load was applied as
per requirement.

Figure 3.8.1: Deflected Shape of the building

Page | 10
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

4 EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS FOR BNBC LOADING CONDITION

4.1 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF FOUNDATION

Provided structural drawings of the project shows that Isolated Footing Foundation is used in
this building. We have checked adequacy of footing size & thickness considering BNBC Loading
Condition. The soil test was tested and reported by “BASIC SOIL & CONSTRUCTION.”

Considering the bearing capacity of 2.82 ksf and concrete compressive strength of 2920 psi, all
the foundations are found adequate both for bearing capacity and for punching shear capacity.

*For clarity please see the soft copy.

Figure 4.1.1: Foundation Layout Plan from As Built Drawing.

Figure 4.1.2: Node ID from Etabs Model.

Page | 11
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Table 4.1.1: Adequacy Check for Isolated Footing for Soil Bearing Capacity

Provided
Bearing FoS (From Ultimate Load Reaction Available FoS Remarks
Joint Foundation Foundation
Capacity Soil Test Bearing Capacity (DL + LL) (For Existing (Minimum
Label Type Size
Report) Foundation) FoS=2.0)
sft ksf kip kip
1 F1 56.0 2.82 3 473.76 177.87 2.66 OK
13 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 297.89 2.84 OK
14 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 296.19 2.86 OK
17 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 212.20 3.99 OK
18 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 225.04 3.76 OK
19
F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 350.97 2.41 OK
20
21 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 221.38 3.82 OK
3 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 283.56 2.98 OK
22 F3 169.0 2.82 3 1429.74 439.97 3.25 OK
23 F3 169.0 2.82 3 1429.74 455.10 3.14 OK
24 F3 169.0 2.82 3 1429.74 500.05 2.86 OK
25 F3 169.0 2.82 3 1429.74 454.15 3.15 OK
26 F3 169.0 2.82 3 1429.74 306.75 4.66 OK
27 F3 169.0 2.82 3 1429.74 326.12 4.38 OK
28
F3 169.0 2.82 3 1429.74 484.28 2.95 OK
29
30 F3 169.0 2.82 3 1429.74 267.18 5.35 OK
2 F1 56.0 2.82 3 473.76 179.19 2.64 OK
4 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 294.92 2.87 OK
5 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 295.54 2.86 OK
6 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 324.65 2.61 OK
7 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 301.80 2.80 OK
8 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 223.71 3.78 OK
9 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 235.28 3.60 OK
10
F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 265.75 3.18 OK
11
12 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 122.56 6.90 OK
33
F4 120.0 2.82 3 1015.20 381.43 2.66 OK
15
34
F4 120.0 2.82 3 1015.20 353.51 2.87 OK
16

Page | 12
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Table 4.1.2: Punching shear check BNBC loading condition

f'C= 2920 psi

Live Load BNBC psf
Factored Reaction Column Column Punching
Foundation
Joint Foundation Column (At Column Length, Width, Shear DCR for
Thickness Remark
Label Type Type Center) L B Capacity Punching
(1.4*DL+1.7*LL) in in in kip
1 F1 C1 256 22 17 20 524 0.49 OK
13 F2 C2 434 28 18 22 827 0.52 OK
14 F2 C2 429 28 18 22 827 0.52 OK
17 F2 C2 308 28 18 22 827 0.37 OK
18 F2 C2 327 28 18 22 827 0.40 OK
19 F2 C2 231 28 18 22 827 0.28 OK
20 F2 C2 276 28 18 22 827 0.33 OK
21 F2 C2 320 28 18 22 827 0.39 OK
3 F1 C2 414 22 18 22 545 0.76 OK
22 F3 C3 657 34 22 26 1253 0.52 OK
23 F3 C3 673 34 22 26 1253 0.54 OK
24 F3 C3 737 34 22 26 1253 0.59 OK
25 F3 C3 670 34 22 26 1253 0.54 OK
26 F3 C3 457 34 22 26 1253 0.36 OK
27 F3 C3 486 34 22 26 1253 0.39 OK
28 F3 C3 336 34 22 26 1253 0.27 OK
29 F3 C3 371 34 22 26 1253 0.30 OK
30 F3 C3 387 34 22 26 1253 0.31 OK
2 F1 C1 258 22 17 20 524 0.49 OK
4 F2 C2 430 28 18 22 827 0.52 OK
5 F2 C2 429 28 18 22 827 0.52 OK
6 F2 C2 471 28 18 22 827 0.57 OK
7 F2 C2 438 28 18 22 827 0.53 OK
8 F2 C2 326 28 18 22 827 0.39 OK
9 F2 C2 343 28 18 22 827 0.41 OK
10 F2 C2 194 28 18 22 827 0.23 OK
11 F2 C2 189 28 18 22 827 0.23 OK
12 F2 C2 175 28 18 22 827 0.21 OK
33 F4 C4 66 28 14 20 772 0.09 OK
15 F4 C2 487 28 18 22 827 0.59 OK
34 F4 C4 14 28 14 20 772 0.02 OK
16 F4 C2 500 28 18 22 827 0.60 OK

Page | 13
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

4.2 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF COLUMN:

Column layout plan from model snap shot is shown in Figure 4.2.1. Results has been shown
based on model grid. Assessment of columns (P-M-M Interaction Ratio) considering BNBC
loading condition. According to standard practice, column with P-M-M value greater than 1.0
is considered as inadequate.

*For clarity please see the soft copy

Figure 4.2.1: Column Layout Plan from as Model Snapshot.

Page | 14
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

RCC Column layout plan is shown in Figure 4.2.2 from Design Drawing.

Figure 4.2.2: Column Layout Plan from Built Drawing.

Figure 4.2.3: Condition of Column in Grid A

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Figure 4.2.4: Condition of Column in Grid B

(Sections having P-M-M ratio less than 1 are Adequate)

Page | 15
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 4.2.5: Condition of Column in Grid C

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Page | 16
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

4.3 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF R.C.C. BEAMS

4.3.1 Evaluation of Grade Beam

Following figure 4.3.1 shows the condition of grade beam. All grade beams are adequate.

*For clarity please see the soft copy

Figure 4.3.1: Condition of Grade Beams.

Provided Reinf. At
Beam Id. In Provided Reinf. Required Reinf. Required
Middle-Bottom
Drawing At Top-Edge (in2) (in2) Reinf. (in2)
(in2)
GB1 3.402 As Shown 2.43 As Shown
GB2 2.57 As Shown 2.082 As Shown

4.3.2 Evaluation of Floor Beam

Following figures represent the condition of beams according to BNBC loading condition.
Represented Figures are showing required reinforcements. Required reinforcement < Provided
Reinforcement denotes adequacy.

*For clarity please see the soft copy

Figure 4.3.2: Condition of Tie Beam.

Page | 17
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 4.3.3: Condition of 1st Floor Beams.

Figure 4.3.4: Condition of Roof Floor Beams.

Provided Reinf. At
Beam Id. In Provided Reinf. Required Reinf. Required Reinf.
Middle-Bottom
Drawing At Top-Edge (in2) (in2) (in2)
(in2)
FB1 4.5 As Shown 3.94 As Shown
FB2 4.98 As Shown 4.01 As Shown
FB2A 4.98 As Shown 4.01 As Shown
FB3 4.5 As Shown 3.95 As Shown
FB4 5.532 As Shown 5.532 As Shown
FB5 3.402 As Shown 2.915 As Shown
FB6 5.532 As Shown 4.5 As Shown
FB6A 4.012 As Shown 4.984 As Shown
FB7 3.402 As Shown 3.402 As Shown
FB8 3.95 As Shown 4.224 As Shown
TB1 3.054 As Shown 2.568 As Shown
TB2 3.054 As Shown 2.568 As Shown

*For clarity please see the soft copy

Page | 18
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

5 CONCLUSION

According to BNBC loading condition-

➢ Some of the R.C.C. columns are inadequate.
➢ R.C.C. Floor beams adequate.
➢ Some beams are slightly inadequate due to torsion.
➢ Grade beams adequate.
➢ All the foundations are adequate both in bearing & punching shear capacity.

6 RECOMMENDATION

We recommend to rectify the overstressed member to comply the building with BNBC 2006 as
per the provided rectification design. We also recommend the factory authority to run their
operation by following the allowable load layout plan, to comply the building with BNBC 2006.

7 EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS AFTER RETROFITTING

7.1 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF FOUNDATION

Provided structural drawings of the project shows that Spread Footing Foundation is used in
this building. We have checked adequacy of footing size & thickness considering BNBC Loading
Condition. The soil test was tested and reported by “BASIC SOIL & CONSTRUCTION.”

Considering the bearing capacity of 2.82 ksf and concrete compressive strength of 2920 psi, all
the foundations are found adequate both for bearing capacity and for punching shear capacity.

The adequacy of proposed footing is also represented in the below table 7.1.1 & 7.1.2

*For clarity please see the soft copy.

Page | 19
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 7.1.1: Foundation Layout Plan from As Retrofit Drawing.

Figure 7.1.2: Node ID from Etabs Model.

Page | 20
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Table 7.1.1: Adequacy Check for Isolated Footing for Soil Bearing Capacity

Provided
Bearing FoS (From Ultimate Load Reaction Available FoS Remarks
Joint Foundation Foundation
Capacity Soil Test Bearing Capacity (DL + LL) (For Existing (Minimum
Label Type Size
Report) Foundation) FoS=2.0)
sft ksf kip kip
13 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 252.91 3.35 OK
14 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 297.94 2.84 OK
17 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 212.29 3.99 OK
18 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 225.01 3.76 OK
3 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 176.09 4.80 OK
22 F3 169.0 2.82 3 1429.74 440.31 3.25 OK
23 F3 169.0 2.82 3 1429.74 476.87 3.00 OK
24 F3 169.0 2.82 3 1429.74 497.29 2.88 OK
25 F3 169.0 2.82 3 1429.74 454.21 3.15 OK
26 F3 169.0 2.82 3 1429.74 306.20 4.67 OK
27 F3 169.0 2.82 3 1429.74 325.29 4.40 OK
30 F3 169.0 2.82 3 1429.74 189.24 7.56 OK
4 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 250.63 3.38 OK
5 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 297.76 2.84 OK
6 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 324.33 2.61 OK
7 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 302.26 2.80 OK
8 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 223.52 3.78 OK
9 F2 100.0 2.82 3 846.00 235.72 3.59 OK
1
121 NF1 420.6 2.82 3 3558.14 184.52 19.28 OK
129
2
64 NF1 420.6 2.82 3 3558.14 191.80 18.55 OK
255
28
F3 169.0 2.82 3 1429.74 437.26 3.27 OK
29
19
20
NF2 614.4 2.82 3 5198.14 481.83 10.79 OK
21
205
10
11
NF2 614.4 2.82 3 5198.14 394.01 13.19 OK
12
253
33
F4 120.0 2.82 3 1015.20 375.00 2.71 OK
15
34
F4 120.0 2.82 3 1015.20 350.96 2.89 OK
16

Page | 21
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Table 7.1.2: Punching shear check BNBC loading condition

Factored Reaction Column Column Punching

Foundation
Joint Foundation Column (At Column Length, Width, Shear DCR for
Thickness Remark
Label Type Type Center) L B Capacity Punching
(1.4*DL+1.7*LL) in in in kip
13 F2 C2 368 28 18 22 827 0.44 OK
14 F2 C2 431 28 18 22 827 0.52 OK
17 F2 C2 308 28 18 22 827 0.37 OK
18 F2 C2 327 28 18 22 827 0.40 OK
3 F2 C2 257 28 18 22 827 0.31 OK
22 F3 C3 657 34 22 26 1253 0.52 OK
23 F3 C3 704 34 22 26 1253 0.56 OK
24 F3 C3 733 34 22 26 1253 0.59 OK
25 F3 C3 671 34 22 26 1253 0.54 OK
26 F3 C3 456 34 22 26 1253 0.36 OK
27 F3 C3 484 34 22 26 1253 0.39 OK
30 F3 C3 273 34 22 26 1253 0.22 OK
4 F2 C2 365 28 18 22 827 0.44 OK
5 F2 C2 432 28 18 22 827 0.52 OK
6 F2 C2 470 28 18 22 827 0.57 OK
7 F2 C2 439 28 18 22 827 0.53 OK
8 F2 C2 325 28 18 22 827 0.39 OK
9 F2 C2 343 28 18 22 827 0.42 OK
1 NF1 C1 199 24 17 20 610 0.33 OK
2 NF1 C1 216 24 17 20 610 0.35 OK
28 F3 C3 310 34 22 26 1253 0.25 OK
29 F3 C3 328 34 22 26 1253 0.26 OK
19 NF2 C2 175 24 18 22 633 0.28 OK
20 NF2 C2 156 24 18 22 633 0.25 OK
21 NF2 C2 327 24 18 22 633 0.52 OK
10 NF2 C2 171 24 18 22 633 0.27 OK
11 NF2 C2 155 24 18 22 633 0.24 OK
12 NF2 C2 200 24 18 22 633 0.32 OK
33 F4 C4 62 28 14 20 772 0.08 OK
15 F4 C2 416 28 18 22 827 0.50 OK
34 F4 C4 19 28 14 20 772 0.02 OK
16 F4 C2 407 28 18 22 827 0.49 OK

Page | 22
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

7.2 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF COLUMN:

Column layout plan from model snap shot is shown in Figure 7.2.1. Results has been shown
based on model grid. Assessment of columns (P-M-M Interaction Ratio) considering BNBC
loading condition. According to standard practice, column with P-M-M value greater than 1.0
is considered as inadequate.

*For clarity please see the soft copy

Figure 7.2.1: Column Layout Plan from as Model Snapshot.

RCC Column layout plan is shown in Figure 7.2.2 from Design Drawing.

Figure 7.2.2: Column Layout Plan.

Page | 23
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 7.2.3: Condition of Column in Grid A

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Figure 7.2.4: Condition of Column in Grid B

(Sections having P-M-M ratio less than 1 are Adequate)

Figure 7.2.5: Condition of Column in Grid C

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Page | 24
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

7.3 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF R.C.C. BEAMS

7.3.1 Evaluation of Grade Beam

Following Figure 7.3.1 shows the condition of grade beam. All grade beams are adequate.

*For clarity please see the soft copy

Figure 7.3.1: Condition of Grade Beams.

Provided Reinf. At
Beam Id. In Provided Reinf. Required Reinf. Required
Middle-Bottom
Drawing At Top-Edge (in2) (in2) Reinf. (in2)
(in2)
GB1 3.402 As Shown 2.43 As Shown
GB2 2.57 As Shown 2.082 As Shown

7.3.2 Evaluation of Floor Beam

Following figures represent the condition of beams according to BNBC loading condition.
Represented Figures are showing required reinforcements. Required reinforcement < Provided
Reinforcement denotes adequacy. All floor beams are adequate.

*For clarity please see the soft copy

Figure 7.3.2: Condition of Tie Beam.

Page | 25
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 7.3.3: Condition of 1st Floor Beams.

Figure 7.3.4: Condition of Roof Floor Beams.

Provided Reinf. At
Beam Id. In Provided Reinf. Required Reinf. Required Reinf.
Middle-Bottom
Drawing At Top-Edge (in2) (in2) (in2)
(in2)
FB1 4.5 As Shown 3.94 As Shown
FB2 4.98 As Shown 4.01 As Shown
FB2A 4.98 As Shown 4.01 As Shown
FB3 4.5 As Shown 3.95 As Shown
FB4 5.532 As Shown 5.532 As Shown
FB5 3.402 As Shown 2.915 As Shown
FB6 5.532 As Shown 4.5 As Shown
FB6A 4.012 As Shown 4.984 As Shown
FB7 3.402 As Shown 3.402 As Shown
FB8 3.95 As Shown 4.224 As Shown
TB1 3.054 As Shown 2.568 As Shown
TB2 3.054 As Shown 2.568 As Shown

*For clarity please see the soft copy

Page | 26
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

7.3.1 Evaluation of New Steel Beam

Following Figure 7.3.1 shows the condition of new steel beam. According to standard practice,
member with P-M value greater than 1.0 is considered as inadequate.

*For clarity please see the soft copy

Figure 7.3.1: Condition of new steel beam.

Page | 27
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

7.4 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF R.C.C. SHEAR WALL

Figure 7.4.1 & Figure 7.4.2 shows the condition of shear wall. Shear wall is adequate for BNBC
load combination.

Figure 7.4.1: Condition of shear wall (SW-1).

Page | 28
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 7.4.1: Condition of shear wall (SW-2).

Page | 29
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Power House)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Table 7.4.1: Adequacy Check for Shear Wall

Required longitudinal Reinf. Provided longitudinal

Wall Id. In Drawing Comments
(in2) Reinf. (in2)

Adequate
SW-1 12.66 14.97
Adequate
SW-2 9.74 14.97

8 DISCLAIMER

The assessment engineer made the above observations & recommendations from Core test,
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.

Page | 30