Detailed Engineering Assessment Report on

Connection Bridge of Square Apparels

Project type: Steel Connection Bridge

Location: 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

st
1 Floor, House#18, Road#20, Nikunja-2, Dhaka-1229.
Office: +880-1762-777666.
sthaponaconsultants@gmail.com
October 2017
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] 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 ..................................................................................................... 6
2.3 MATERIAL STRENGTH PROPERTY................................................................................ 6
2.4 LOADS ........................................................................................................................................ 6
2.4.1 Dead Loads ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.4.2 Live Load........................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.4.3 Wind Load (W) ............................................................................................................................................... 7
2.4.4 Earthquake Load (E) .................................................................................................................................... 7

2.5 METHOD OF ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 8

2.6 LOADING AND LOAD COMBINATION ........................................................................... 8
2.7 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 10
2.8 APPLICATION OF LOAD AND ANALYSIS .................................................................. 11
3 EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS FOR BNBC LOADING CONDITION..... 12
3.1 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF FOUNDATION ................................................................ 12
3.2 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF RCC PADESTAL COLUMN ......................................... 15
3.3 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF STEEL COLUMN ............................................................ 18
3.4 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF STRINGER AND SUB-BEAM ..................................... 23
3.5 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF STEEL BRACING ........................................................... 25
3.6 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF ANGLES ............................................................................ 33
4 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 34
5 RECOMMENDATION ...................................................................................................................... 34
6 EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS FOR BNBC LOADING CONDITION..... 35
6.1 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF FOUNDATION ................................................................ 35
6.2 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF RCC PADESTAL ............................................................. 38
6.3 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF STEEL COLUMN ............................................................ 41
6.1 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF STRINGER AND SUB-BEAM ..................................... 45
6.2 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF STEEL BRACING ........................................................... 47
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

6.3 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF ANGLES ............................................................................ 54

7 DISCLAIMER ................................................................................................................................... 55
 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

List of Figures and Tables

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

Figure 2.1.1: Steel Framing system (under the bridge)....................................................... 4

Figure 2.1.2: Steel Framing system (over the bridge)......................................................... 4

Figure 2.1.3: 3D View of Analytical Model ....................................................................... 5

Figure 2.8.1: Applied Live Load On Bridge Level. .......................................................... 11

Figure 2.8.2: Deflected Shape of structure ........................................................................ 11

Figure 3.1.1: Foundation Layout Plan ............................................................................... 12

Figure 3.1.2: Node ID from ETABS Model ..................................................................... 12

Figure 3.2.1: Column Layout Plan from as Built Drawing. .............................................. 15

Figure 3.2.2: Column Layout Plan from Model Snapshot. ............................................... 15

Figure 3.2.3: Condition of Pedestal Column ..................................................................... 16

Figure3.2.4: Condition of Pedestal Column ...................................................................... 16

Figure 3.2.5: Condition of Pedestal Column ..................................................................... 17

Figure 3.3.1: Column Layout Plan from as Built Drawing. .............................................. 18

Figure 3.3.2: Column Layout Plan from Model Snapshot. ............................................... 18

Figure 3.3.3: Condition of I Section Column of Stair ....................................................... 19

Figure 3.3.4: Condition of I Section Column in Stair ....................................................... 19

Figure 3.3.5: Condition of I Section Column .................................................................... 20

Figure 3.3.6: Condition of I Section Column .................................................................... 21

Figure 3.3.7: Condition of I Section Column .................................................................... 22

Figure 3.3.8: Condition of I Section Column .................................................................... 22

Figure 3.4.2: Condition of stringer and sub-beam. ........................................................... 23

Figure 3.4.3: Condition of stringer and sub-beam. ........................................................... 24

Figure 3.5.2: Condition of bracing .................................................................................... 25

Figure 3.5.3: Condition of bracing .................................................................................... 26

Figure 3.5.4: Condition of bracing. ................................................................................... 26

 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 3.5.5: Condition of bracing. ................................................................................... 27

Figure 3.5.6: Condition of bracing .................................................................................... 28

Figure 3.5.7: Condition of bracing .................................................................................... 29

Figure 3.5.8: Condition of bracing .................................................................................... 30

Figure 3.5.9: Condition of bracing .................................................................................... 30

Figure 3.5.10: Condition of bracing .................................................................................. 31

Figure 3.5.11: Condition of bracing .................................................................................. 31

Figure 3.5.12: Condition of bracing .................................................................................. 32

Figure 3.5.13: Condition of bracing .................................................................................. 32

Figure 3.6.1: Condition of Steel Angle Supporting Chequered Plates. ............................ 33

Figure 3.6.2: Condition of Steel Main Beam of Roof. ...................................................... 33

Figure 6.1.1: Foundation Layout Plan ............................................................................... 35

Figure 6.1.2: Node ID from ETABS Model ..................................................................... 35

Figure 6.2.1: Column Layout Plan .................................................................................... 38

Figure 6.2.2: Column Layout Plan from Model Snapshot. ............................................... 38

Figure 6.2.3: Condition of Pedestal Column ..................................................................... 39

Figure 6.2.4: Condition of Pedestal Column ..................................................................... 39

Figure 6.2.5: Condition of Pedestal Column ..................................................................... 40

Figure 6.3.1: Condition of I Section Column of Stair ....................................................... 41

Figure 6.3.2: Condition of I Section Column of Stair ....................................................... 41

Figure 6.3.3: Condition of I Section Column .................................................................... 42

Figure 6.3.4: Condition of I Section Column .................................................................... 43

Figure 6.3.5: Condition of I Section Column .................................................................... 44

Figure 6.3.6: Condition of I Section Column .................................................................... 44

Figure 6.1.1: Condition of stringer and sub-beam. ........................................................... 45

Figure 6.1.2: Condition of stringer and sub-beam. ........................................................... 46

Figure 6.2.2: Condition of bracing .................................................................................... 47

 [SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 6.2.3: Condition of bracing .................................................................................... 48

Figure 6.2.4: Condition of bracing. ................................................................................... 49

Figure 6.2.5: Condition of bracing. ................................................................................... 50

Figure 6.2.6: Condition of bracing .................................................................................... 50

Figure 6.2.7: Condition of bracing .................................................................................... 51

Figure 6.2.8: Condition of bracing .................................................................................... 52

Figure 6.2.9: Condition of bracing .................................................................................... 52

Figure 6.2.10: Condition of bracing .................................................................................. 53

Figure 6.2.11: Condition of bracing .................................................................................. 53

Figure 6.3.1: Condition of Steel Angle Supporting Chequered Plates. ........................... 54

Figure 6.3.2: Condition of Steel Main Beam of Roof. ...................................................... 54

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

Table 3.1.1:CHACKING CAPACITY OF FOOTING..................................................... 13

Table 3.1.2: Punching shear check OF FOOTING ........................................................... 14

Table 6.1.1:CHACKING CAPACITY OF FOOTING ..................................................... 36

Table 6.1.2: Punching shear check OF FOOTING ........................................................... 37

[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Connection Bridge of SQUARE APPARELS LTD. is made of prefabricated steel member.
It has two stairs and two cargo lift for up & down.

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

SQUARE APPARELS LTD. authority provided us the structural construction drawing. We have
physically verified the existing bridge in respect to available construction drawing. The structural
and architectural drawings were verified by, physical investigation & dimensions measurement
etc.

We have performed the Structural Analysis in a Finite Element Modelling software ETABS. BNBC
2006 loading condition & combination is used for analysis. Concrete strength is considered 2370
psi (according to NTPA guideline). Reinforcement bar yield strength is considered as 72.5 Ksi.
Prefabricated steel members yield strength is considered as 50 Ksi. The strength of rebar and
structural steel is considered based on challan copy provided be factory authority.

Considering BNBC referred loading combinations, we analysed the structure & found that all the
spread footings are adequate in bearing capacity and punching shear. Some of the RCC columns,
grade beams and a few numbers of steel members are inadequate.

We recommend to rectify the overstressed Steel members shown in this report with proper
rectification design to meet loadings and load combinations as per BNBC. Overstressed RCC
pedestal columns and grade beams are also recommended to rectify. Until rectification the
factory can continue its operation under allowable loading.

Page | 1
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND
The Connection Bridge of SQUARE APPARELS LTD. is currently in operation 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 Prefabricated steel Member

Length 59.18 meter (Approximately)

Number of Stair and Lift 2 stair & 2 lift on each side

Foundation Type Isolated Foundation with Some Combined Foundation

Construction materials Concrete with stone chips, Prefabricated Steel (50 grade, Rebar
72.5 grade)

Page | 2
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

1.2 GENERAL OBJECTIVE

Sthapona Consultants was assigned to prepare detailed engineering assessment report of the
Connection Bridge of SQUARE APPARELS LTD. The scope of this engineering assessment work of
the project has been shown below-

(i). Validate existing structural design drawings

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

Page | 3
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

2 ANALYSIS FOR STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY

2.1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

The structural system of the Connection Bridge is prefabricated steel. Pedestal column and grade
beam is made of RCC work with stone chips.

Stair risers & trades are resting on steel angle which are welded with supporting C section. Lifts
are resting on steel frame on both side of bridge.

Figure 2.1.1: Steel Framing system (under the bridge)

Figure 2.1.2: Steel Framing system (over the bridge)

Page | 4
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

The structure is classified as ordinary moment resisting frame. General 3D view of the structure
has been presented in Figure 2.1.3.

Figure 2.1.3: 3D View of Analytical Model

Page | 5
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

2.2 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, American Concrete Institute
(ACI 318-08) & 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 STRENGTH PROPERTY

The principal material of construction is reinforced concrete. As per investigation and design
drawings, the following material properties has been used:
❖ Yield strength of steel (Rebar), fy = 72,500 lb/in2
❖ Compressive strength of concrete for column, fc' = 2,370 lb/in2
❖ Young's modulus of concrete, Ec = 57,000fc'
❖ Prefabricated steel Yield strength = 50,000 lb/in2
The above concrete strength is considered based on NTPA guideline. Rebar strength and
strength of structural steel is considered based on purchase document.

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

2.4.1 Dead Loads

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
structure (SDEAD). In concrete structure 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, i.e. (SDEAD). For the analysis and design checking of
the structure, following are the values of dead loads,

❖ Unit weight of reinforced concrete = 150 psf

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). Live load has been
applied 84 psf according BNBC.

Page | 6
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

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 structure and structures. Wind load due to storm is
typically modelled as lateral thrust force causing sway or overturning of the structure. Detailed
specifications on wind loading on structures are outlined in BNBC (2006). The present project is
located in Mymensing for which the following basic parameters are used in wind load
calculation,

❖ Basic wind speed, Vb = 217 km/h

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

2.4.4 Earthquake Load (E)

Proper structural design of any 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 structure design is not to make a strong structure 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 structure, 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 (For steel) = 6.0 (OMRF, Table 6.2.24, BNBC)
❖ Site co-efficient, S2= 1.2 (type 2 soil as suggested in Table 6.2.25, BNBC)

Page | 7
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

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 structure, 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 system.

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:

❖ Self-weight of structure (SW).

❖ Floor finish and partition wall (SDEAD).
❖ 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- V 16.2.1 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 + 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:

Page | 8
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

❖ Combination Case 1: 1.4 D

❖ Combination Case 2:
❖ Combination Case 3:
❖ Combination Case 4:
❖ Combination Case 5:
❖ Combination Case 6:
❖ Combination Case 7:
❖ Combination Case 8:
❖ Combination Case 9:
❖ Combination Case 10:
❖ Combination Case 11:
❖ Combination Case 12:
❖ Combination Case 13:
❖ Combination Case 14:
❖ Combination Case 15:
❖ Combination Case 16:
❖ 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:
1.4 D + 1.7 L
1.05 D + 1.275 L + 1.275 Wx
1.05 D + 1.275 L - 1.275 Wx
1.05 D + 1.275 L + 1.275 Wy
1.05 D + 1.275 L - 1.275 Wy
1.05 D + 1.275 Wx
1.05 D - 1.275 Wx
1.05 D + 1.275 Wy
1.05 D - 1.275 Wy
0.9 D + 1.3 Wx
0.9 D - 1.3 Wx
0.9 D + 1.3 Wy
0.9 D - 1.3 Wy
1.05 D + 1.275 L + 1.4025 Ex
1.05 D + 1.275 L - 1.4025 Ex
1.05 D + 1.275 L + 1.4025 Ey
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 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(+)

Page | 9
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

❖ 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

2.7 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

In any finite element analysis, applying appropriate boundary conditions are important. Without
appropriate boundary conditions the model of 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, it is reasonable to assume that the bases of some
columns are not fully restrained as per support condition in all directions due to isolated
foundations.

Page | 10
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

2.8 APPLICATION OF LOAD AND ANALYSIS

A static analysis is performed using the loadings and combinations of loads (mentioned earlier)
for the structure. Some pictorial representation of the analysis results is shown in figures below.

Figure 2.8.1: Applied Live Load On Bridge Level.

Figure 2.8.2: Deflected Shape of structure

Page | 11
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

3 EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS FOR BNBC LOADING CONDITION

3.1 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF FOUNDATION

Provided structural drawings of the project shows that Isolated Footing (Figure 3.1.1) is used
structure. We have checked adequacy of footing considering Loading Condition. Soil test report
of the building are available. The soil test was tested and reported by “Basic soil and
construction”. Using the soil test report data, we found the average capacity at 5ft. is 1.44 ksf .

Figure 3.1.1: Foundation Layout Plan

Figure 3.1.2: Node ID from ETABS Model

Page | 12
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Table 3.1.1:CHACKING CAPACITY OF FOOTING

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
9 F2 39.0 1.4 3 163.80 33.68 4.86 OK
10 F2 39.0 1.4 3 163.80 33.41 4.90 OK
15 F2 39.0 1.4 3 163.80 52.49 3.12 OK
20 F2 39.0 1.4 3 163.80 58.43 2.80 OK
17 F2 39.0 1.4 3 163.80 50.19 3.26 OK
22 F2 39.0 1.4 3 163.80 49.78 3.29 OK
18 F2 39.0 1.4 3 163.80 53.93 3.04 OK
23 F2 39.0 1.4 3 163.80 58.83 2.78 OK
19 F2 39.0 1.4 3 163.80 28.88 5.67 OK
29 F2 39.0 1.4 3 163.80 14.86 11.03 OK
32 F1 25.0 1.4 3 105.00 4.47 23.47 OK
33 F1 25.0 1.4 3 105.00 4.33 24.23 OK
34 F1 25.0 1.4 3 105.00 6.46 16.25 OK
35 F1 25.0 1.4 3 105.00 7.89 13.31 OK
31 F1 25.0 1.4 3 105.00 7.19 14.60 OK
30 F1 25.0 1.4 3 105.00 6.61 15.88 OK
2
CF1 50.2 1.4 3 210.84 8.76 24.07 OK
3
4
CF1 50.2 1.4 3 210.84 14.41 14.63 OK
5
6
CF1 50.2 1.4 3 210.84 18.74 11.25 OK
7
8
11
12 SF1 244.6 1.4 3 1027.15 90.81 11.31 OK
13
14
24
25
28 SF2 241.8 1.4 3 1015.48 99.94 10.16 OK
26
27

Page | 13
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Table 3.1.2: Punching shear check OF FOOTING

f'C= 2271 psi

Live Load RETRO 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
9 F2 C2 52 10 24 18 127 0.41 OK
10 F2 C2 51 10 24 18 127 0.40 OK
15 F2 C2 81 10 24 18 127 0.64 OK
20 F2 C2 90 10 24 18 127 0.71 OK
17 F2 C2 77 10 24 18 127 0.61 OK
22 F2 C2 77 10 24 18 127 0.60 OK
18 F2 C2 83 10 24 18 127 0.66 OK
23 F2 C2 91 10 24 18 127 0.71 OK
19 F2 C2 46 16 24 18 286 0.16 OK
29 F2 C2 23 10 24 18 127 0.18 OK
32 F1 C1 7 10 24 18 127 0.05 OK
33 F1 C1 7 16 24 18 286 0.02 OK
34 F1 C1 10 10 24 18 127 0.08 OK
35 F1 C1 12 10 24 18 127 0.10 OK
31 F1 C1 11 10 24 18 127 0.09 OK
30 F1 C1 10 10 24 18 127 0.08 OK
2 C1 7 24 18
CF1 10 127 0.05 OK
3 C1 7 24 18
4 C1 12 24 18
CF1 10 127 0.09 OK
5 C1 10 24 18
6 C1 12 24 18
CF1 10 127 0.09 OK
7 C1 17 24 18
8 C2 8 24 18
11 C2 42 24 18
12 SF1 C2 27 12 24 18 175 0.05 OK
13 C2 21 24 18
14 C2 36 24 18
24 C2 28 24 18
25 C2 38 24 18
28 SF2 C2 33 12 24 18 175 0.16 OK
26 C2 24 24 18
27 C2 24 24 18

Page | 14
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

3.2 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF RCC PADESTAL COLUMN

Assessment of columns (P-M-M Interaction Ratio) considering BNBC loading condition.
According to standard practice, column with P-M-M value lesser than 1.0 is considered as
adequate.

Figure 3.2.1: Column Layout Plan from as Built Drawing.

Figure 3.2.2: Column Layout Plan from Model Snapshot.

Page | 15
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 3.2.3: Condition of Pedestal Column

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

Figure3.2.4: Condition of Pedestal Column

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

Page | 16
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 3.2.5: Condition of Pedestal Column

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

Page | 17
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

3.3 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF STEEL COLUMN

Column layout plan from model snap shot is shown in Figure 3.3.2. Assessment of columns (P-
M-M Interaction Ratio) considering BNBC loading condition. According to standard practice,
column with P-M-M value lesser than 1.0 is considered as adequate. Figure 3.3.3 to Figure 3.3.6
shows the condition of steel column after analysis.

Figure 3.3.1: Column Layout Plan from as Built Drawing.

Figure 3.3.2: Column Layout Plan from Model Snapshot.

Page | 18
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 3.3.3: Condition of I Section Column of Stair

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

Figure 3.3.4: Condition of I Section Column in Stair

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

Page | 19
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 3.3.5: Condition of I Section Column

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

Page | 20
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 3.3.6: Condition of I Section Column

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

Page | 21
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 3.3.7: Condition of I Section Column

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

Figure 3.3.8: Condition of I Section Column

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

Page | 22
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

3.4 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF STRINGER AND SUB-BEAM

According to standard practice, steel frame member with P-M-M value lesser than 1.0 is
considered as adequate. Figure 3.4.1 to Figure 3.4.3 shows the condition of stringer and sub-
beam after analysis.

Figure 3.4.1: Condition of stringer and sub-beam.

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

Page | 23
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 3.4.2: Condition of stringer and sub-beam.

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

Page | 24
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

3.5 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF STEEL BRACING

According to standard practice, steel frame member with P-M-M value lesser than 1.0 is
considered as adequate. Figure 3.5.1 to Figure 3.5.2 shows the condition of steel truss after
analysis.

Figure 3.5.3: Condition of bracing

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

Page | 25
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 3.5.4: Condition of bracing

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

Figure 3.5.5: Condition of bracing.

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

Page | 26
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 3.5.6: Condition of bracing.

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

Page | 27
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 3.5.7: Condition of bracing

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

Page | 28
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 3.5.8: Condition of bracing

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

Page | 29
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 3.5.9: Condition of bracing

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

Figure 3.5.10: Condition of bracing

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

Page | 30
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 3.5.11: Condition of bracing

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

Figure 3.5.12: Condition of bracing

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

Page | 31
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 3.5.13: Condition of bracing

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

Figure 3.5.14: Condition of bracing

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

Page | 32
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

3.6 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF ANGLES

According to standard practice, steel frame member with P-M-M value lesser than 1.0 is
considered as adequate. Figure 3.6.1 to Figure 3.6.2 shows the condition of major steel stair
members on frame after analysis.

Figure 3.6.3: Condition of Steel Angle Supporting Chequered Plates.

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

Figure 3.6.4: Condition of Steel Main Beam of Roof.

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

Page | 33
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

4 CONCLUSION

According to BNBC loading condition -

➢ All of the footings are adequate in bearing capacity and punching.
➢ Some R.C.C. columns are inadequate.
➢ Some Steel columns are inadequate.
➢ Some bracings are inadequate.
➢ Some R.C.C. grade beams are inadequate.

5 RECOMMENDATION

We recommend to rectify the overstressed member to comply the building with BNBC 2006 as
per the provided rectification design. The non-engineered shed on roof is to be replaced as per
the provided drawings.

Page | 34
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

6 EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS FOR BNBC LOADING CONDITION

6.1 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF FOUNDATION

Provided structural drawings of the project shows that Isolated Footing (Figure 3.1.1) is used
structure. We have checked adequacy of footing considering Loading Condition. Soil test report
of the building are available. The soil test was tested and reported by “Basic soil and
construction”. Using the soil test report data, we found the average capacity at 5ft. is 1.4 ksf .

Figure 6.1.1: Foundation Layout Plan

Figure 6.1.2: Node ID from ETABS Model

Page | 35
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Table 6.1.1:CHACKING CAPACITY OF FOOTING

Provided
Bearing FoS (From Ultimate Load Reaction Available FoS Remarks
Joint Foundation Foundation LL
Capacity Soil Test Bearing Capacity (DL + LL) (For Existing (Minimum
Label Type Size
Report) Foundation) FoS=2.0)
sft ksf kip kip kip
9 F2 39.0 1.4 3 163.80 33.67 4.86 OK 16.09
10 F2 39.0 1.4 3 163.80 33.10 4.95 OK 14.88
15 F2 39.0 1.4 3 163.80 55.95 2.93 OK 24.92
20 F2 39.0 1.4 3 163.80 62.01 2.64 OK 28.81
17 F2 39.0 1.4 3 163.80 53.12 3.08 OK 23.59
22 F2 39.0 1.4 3 163.80 53.91 3.04 OK 23.70
18 F2 39.0 1.4 3 163.80 53.89 3.04 OK 25.72
23 F2 39.0 1.4 3 163.80 58.85 2.78 OK 27.97
19 F2 39.0 1.4 3 163.80 29.01 5.65 OK 14.08
29 F2 39.0 1.4 3 163.80 14.90 10.99 OK 6.55
32 F1 25.0 1.4 3 105.00 4.48 23.44 OK 1.77
33 F1 25.0 1.4 3 105.00 4.33 24.26 OK 1.69
34 F1 25.0 1.4 3 105.00 6.42 16.37 OK 3.15
35 F1 25.0 1.4 3 105.00 7.93 13.24 OK 3.94
31 F1 25.0 1.4 3 105.00 7.18 14.62 OK 3.37
30 F1 25.0 1.4 3 105.00 6.62 15.86 OK 2.84
2 1.70
CF1 50.2 1.4 3 210.84 8.77 24.05 OK
3 1.73
4 3.80
CF1 50.2 1.4 3 210.84 14.41 14.64 OK
5 3.33
6 3.63
CF1 50.2 1.4 3 210.84 18.82 11.21 OK
7 5.44
8 1.59
11 9.17
12 SF1 244.6 1.4 3 1027.15 91.72 11.20 OK 3.88
13 2.12
14 7.62
24 7.58
25 8.10
28 SF2 241.8 1.4 3 1015.48 99.79 10.18 OK 5.68
26 1.42
27 2.00

Page | 36
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Table 6.1.2: Punching shear check OF FOOTING

f'C= 2271 psi

Live Load RETRO 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
9 F2 C2 52 10 24 18 127 0.41 OK
10 F2 C2 51 10 24 18 127 0.40 OK
15 F2 C2 86 10 24 18 127 0.68 OK
20 F2 C2 95 10 24 18 127 0.75 OK
17 F2 C2 81 10 24 18 127 0.64 OK
22 F2 C2 83 10 24 18 127 0.65 OK
18 F2 C2 83 10 24 18 127 0.65 OK
23 F2 C2 91 10 24 18 127 0.71 OK
19 F2 C2 46 16 24 18 286 0.16 OK
29 F2 C2 23 10 24 18 127 0.18 OK
32 F1 C1 7 10 24 18 127 0.05 OK
33 F1 C1 7 16 24 18 286 0.02 OK
34 F1 C1 10 10 24 18 127 0.08 OK
35 F1 C1 12 10 24 18 127 0.10 OK
31 F1 C1 11 10 24 18 127 0.09 OK
30 F1 C1 10 10 24 18 127 0.08 OK
2 C1 7 24 18
CF1 10 127 0.05 OK
3 C1 7 24 18
4 C1 12 24 18
CF1 10 127 0.09 OK
5 C1 10 24 18
6 C1 12 24 18
CF1 10 127 0.09 OK
7 C1 17 24 18
8 C2 8 24 18
11 C2 43 24 18
12 SF1 C2 28 12 24 18 175 0.05 OK
13 C2 21 24 18
14 C2 36 24 18
24 C2 28 24 18
25 C2 39 24 18
28 SF2 C2 33 12 24 18 175 0.16 OK
26 C2 23 24 18
27 C2 25 24 18

Page | 37
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

6.2 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF RCC PADESTAL

Assessment of columns (P-M-M Interaction Ratio) considering BNBC loading condition.
According to standard practice, column with P-M-M value lesser than 1.0 is considered as
adequate.

Figure 6.2.1: Column Layout Plan

Figure 6.2.2: Column Layout Plan from Model Snapshot.

Page | 38
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 6.2.3: Condition of Pedestal Column

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

Figure 6.2.4: Condition of Pedestal Column

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

Page | 39
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 6.2.5: Condition of Pedestal Column

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

Page | 40
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

6.3 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF STEEL COLUMN

Assessment of columns (P-M-M Interaction Ratio) considering BNBC loading condition.
According to standard practice, column with P-M-M value lesser than 1.0 is considered as
adequate. Figure 6.3.1 to Figure 6.3.2 shows the condition of steel column after analysis.

Figure 6.3.3: Condition of I Section Column of Stair

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

Figure 6.3.4: Condition of I Section Column of Stair

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

Page | 41
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 6.3.5: Condition of I Section Column

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

Page | 42
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 6.3.6: Condition of I Section Column

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

Page | 43
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 6.3.7: Condition of I Section Column

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

Figure 6.3.8: Condition of I Section Column

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

Page | 44
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

6.1 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF STRINGER AND SUB-BEAM

According to standard practice, steel frame member with P-M-M value lesser than 1.0 is
considered as adequate. Figure 6.1.1 to Figure 6.1.2 shows the condition of stringer and sub-
beam after analysis.

Figure 6.1.3: Condition of stringer and sub-beam.

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

Page | 45
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 6.1.4: Condition of stringer and sub-beam.

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

Page | 46
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

6.2 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF STEEL BRACING

According to standard practice, steel frame member with P-M-M value lesser than 1.0 is
considered as adequate. Figure 6.2.1 to Figure 6.2.2 shows the condition of steel truss after
analysis.

Figure 6.2.3: Condition of bracing

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

Page | 47
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 6.2.4: Condition of bracing

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

Page | 48
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 6.2.5: Condition of bracing.

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

Page | 49
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 6.2.6: Condition of bracing.

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

Figure 6.2.7: Condition of bracing

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

Page | 50
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 6.2.8: Condition of bracing

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

Page | 51
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 6.2.9: Condition of bracing

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

Figure 6.2.10: Condition of bracing

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

Page | 52
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 6.2.11: Condition of bracing

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

Figure 6.2.12: Condition of bracing

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

Page | 53
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

6.3 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF ANGLES

According to standard practice, steel frame member with P-M-M value lesser than 1.0 is
considered as adequate. Figure 6.3.1 to Figure 6.3.2 shows the condition of major steel stair
members on frame after analysis.

Figure 6.3.3: Condition of Steel Angle Supporting Chequered Plates.

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

Figure 6.3.4: Condition of Steel Main Beam of Roof.

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

Page | 54
[SQUARE APPARELS LTD. (Connection Bridge)] DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

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.

Page | 55