Final Project

IOE, Thapathali Campus
TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING
THAPATHALI CAMPUS
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
SEISMIC DESIGN OF STRUCUTRE AND COMPARATIVE

ANALYSIS OF SUB-STRUCTURE UNDER DIFFERENT
SOIL CONDITIONS
BY
AMAR SINGH ADHIKARI (2074/BCE/009)
AMIT BHATTA (2074/BCE/010)
BISHAL THAPA MAGAR (2074/BCE/027)
DIPENDRA KUMAR MANDAL (2074/BCE/034)
KISHOR PANTHI (2074/BCE/043)
NAWARAJ SUNDAS (2074/BCE/047)
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR

THE BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
1|Page
April, 2022
Kathmandu, Nepal
2|Page
INSTITUE OF ENGINEERING
THAPATHALI CAMPUS
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the work contained in this report entitled "Seismic Design
of Structure and comparative analysis of Sub-structure under Different soil conditions"
in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering,
as a record of project work, has been carried out by ‘Amar Singh Adhikari
(074/BCE/009), Amit Bhatta (074/BCE/010), Bishal Thapa Magar (074/BCE/027),
Dipendra Kumar Mandal (074/BCE/034), Kishor Panthi (074/BCE/043) and Nawaraj
Sundas (074/BCE/047)’ under my supervision and guidance in the Institute of
Engineering, Thapathali Campus, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Project Supervisor: Er. Piyush Pradhan

Department of Civil Engineering
Date: April 22, 2022
3|Page
INSTITUTE OF
ENGINEERING
THAPATHALI CAMPUS
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL
ENGINEERING
SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF STRUCUTRE

AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SUB-STRUCTURE
UNDER DIFFERENT SOIL CONDITIONS
A PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN CIVIL
ENGINEERING
……………………………. …………………………..
Er. Piyush Pradhan Er. Piyush Pradhan
Supervisor Internal Examiner
………………………….. …………………………..
Er. Er. Ram Prasad Neupane
External Examiner Head of Department, Civil
April, 2022
Kathmandu, Nepal
4|Page
COPYRIGHT
The author has agreed that the library, Department of Civil Engineering
Thapathali Campus, Institute of Engineering may make this report freely available
for inspection. Moreover, the author has agreed that permission for extensive use
of this report for scholarly purpose may be granted by the professor(s) who
supervised the work recorded herein or, in their absence, by the Head of the
Department wherein the report was done. It is understood that the recognition will
be given to the author of this report and to the Department of Civil Engineering,
Thapathali Campus, Institute of Engineering in any use of the material of this
report. Copying or publication or the other use of this report for financial gain
without approval of the Department of Civil Engineering, Thapathali Campus,
Institute of Engineering and author's written permission is prohibited.
Request for permission to copy or to make any other use of the material in this
report in whole or in part should be addressed to:
Er. Ram Prasad Neupane

Head of Department
Department of Civil Engineering
Thapathali Campus, Institute of Engineering
Kathmandu, Nepal
5|Page
PREFACE
Tribhuvan University, Institute of Engineering has prescribed a course

entitled as “Civil Engineering Project” which acts as an aide to tackle problems
during an engineering profession life. This project is a guide to every student for
the use of theoretical knowledge acquired during four years of time period to the
practical applications.
This project, entitled as “Structural Design of Structure and comparative
analysis of Sub-structure under Different soil conditions” is commenced towards
partial fulfillment of Degree of Bachelor in Civil Engineering. It includes
structural analysis for Seismic design and detailing of Structure and optimization
and design of Sub-structure system.
Structural Analysis deals with analyzing the internal forces in the members
of the structure and sizing various members of the structure to resist the internal
force to which they are subjected in the course of their life cycle. Despite of good
structural design, it won’t be properly effective unless proper structural detailing
is not adopted. The Indian code of practice should be thoroughly implemented for
proper analysis, design and detailing with respect to safety, serviceability,
economy, and strength. In the foundation part, different types of foundations
should be studied and analyzed. From the analysis, Piled Raft foundation should
be proposed as the optimized foundation system and the design should be carried
out using suitable method.
During this project we came across various problems in all analysis, design
and detailing section. With proper solution of these problems structure can stand
under adverse condition as well.
6|Page
ABSTRACT
This project report is based on the design of the building components and
comparative analysis of Sub-structure options under different soil conditions. On
the sites having hard and stable soil strata at shallow depth Shallow foundation are
preferred while on the sites where the stable soil strata are found only at the larger
depth, deep foundations are preferred. Selection of the foundation also depends on
the foundation to Plinth area ratio. Mat foundation is a common choice for
buildings with basement, among structural engineers. However, it does not suit
where soil bearing capacity is low and undergoes large settlement. In such cases
deep pile foundations may be adopted to transfer the load to the stable soil strata
at larger depth. But Pile foundations are costly. In such cases combined piled raft
foundation is also an option. Such condition is also presented in this report where
it was found that the combined piled raft foundation (CPRF) justifies both
performance and economy.
For structural members, one each highly stressed member was designed
using envelope combination in ETABs where as a spreadsheet program was used
to ascertain load sharing capacities of CPRF and reactions on pile. Pile geometric
characteristics such as length, diameter, and number were optimized with graphs
and were designed manually. This report can be useful as a reference for seismic
design of building and can provide insights on design of CPRF.
Project members
Amar Singh Adhikari (074/BCE/009)
Amit Bhatta (074/BCE/010)
Bishal Thapa Magar (074/BCE/027)
Dipendra Kumar Mandal (074/BCE/034)
Kishor Panthi (074/BCE/043)
Nawaraj Sundas (074/BCE/047)
7|Page
8|Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like acknowledge the help received from various individuals

and institutions for the preparation of this report. We’re indebted to our project
supervisor Er. Piyush Pradhan, for helping us with his professional guidance,
suggestions during the planning and the development phase of the project. We are
also thankful to Department of Civil Engineering, Thapathali Campus for
administrative help during the development of project. Acknowledgement is also
due to Material Test Pvt. Ltd., Mid Baneshwor, Kathmandu for helping us with
some essential data on soil reports of different soil types.
9|Page
ACRONYMS
Symbols Meaning
αx, αy BM coefficients for Rectangular Slab Panels

ϕ Diameter of Bar, Angle of internal friction of soil
δm Percentage reduction in moment
Tc Shear Stress in concrete
τc,max Maximum shear stress in concrete with shear reinforcement
τbd Design Bond Stress
σac Permissible Stress in Axial Compression (Steel) Permissible
σcbc Bending Compressive Strength of Concrete Permissible
σsc, σst Stress in Steel in Compression and Tension respectively
γm Partial Safety Factor for Material
γf Partial Safety Factor for Load Unit
γ Weight of Material
AB Area of Each Bar Gross
AG Area of Concrete
AH Horizontal Seismic Coefficient
Asc Area of Steel in Compression
Ast Area of Steel in Tension
Asv Area of Stirrups
B or D Width or Shorter dimension in plan
Bf Effective width of flange
d Effective Depth
d' Effective Cover
D Overall Depth
Df Thickness of Flange
Ex Eccentricity along X- direction
Ey Eccentricity along Y- direction
Ec Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete
Es Modulus of Elasticity of Steel
10 | P a g e
ELX, ELY Earthquake Load along X and Y direction respectively

FBR Bearing stress in concrete
fck Characteristics Strength of Concrete
fy Characteristics Strength of Steel
H Height of building
I Importance Factor (For Base Shear Calculation)
IXX, IYY Moment of Inertia (Along X and Y direction)
J Neutral Axis Depth Factor
K Coefficient of Constant or Factor
K1, K2, K3 Coefficient for Wind Pressure
KA, KP Active and Passive Earth Pressure
L Length of Member
Lef Effective Length of member
LD Development Length
M Modular Ratio
M or BM Bending Moment
Nu or Pu, Ultimate Axial Load on a Compression Member
Pc Percentage of Compression Reinforcement
PT Percentage of Tension Reinforcement
Pz Wind Pressure
Q, Qu Permissible and Ultimate Bearing capacity of soil

QI SR, Design Lateral Force in ith Level
Rmin Slenderness Ratio (minimum) for structural steel section
R Response Reduction Factor
SA/G Average Response Acceleration Coefficient
Sv Spacing of Each Bar
TA Fundamental Natural Period of Vibrations
VB Basic wind speed
V Design wind speed
Vb Design Seismic Base Shear
Wi Weight of ith Floor
11 | P a g e
12 | P a g e
WL Wind Load
XU Actual Depth of Neutral Axis
XUL Ultimate Depth of Neutral Axis
Z Seismic Zone Factor
CM Center of Mass
CR Center of Rigidity
DL Dead Load
HYSD High Yielding Strength Deformed Bars
IS Indian Standard
LL Live Load
RCC Reinforced Cement Concrete
M25 Grade of Concrete
Fe500, Fe415 Grade of Steel
13 | P a g e
Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 17
1.1 General Introduction: .................................................................................................... 17
1.2 Building Specification .................................................................................................. 17
2. Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 18
2.1 General Objective ......................................................................................................... 18
2.2 Specific Objectives ....................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3. Statement OF Problem ....................................................................................................... 18
4. Scope of Study ................................................................................................................... 19
5. Literature Review.............................................................................................................. 19
5.1 Code of Practice............................................................................................................ 19
5.1.1 Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice(IS 456:2000) .......................... 19
5.1.2 Code of Practice for Design Loads (IS 875 (Parts I & II):1993) ........................... 19
5.1.3 Design Aids for Reinforced Concrete to IS 456:1978 (SP 16) .............................. 21
5.1.4 IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures
(General Provision and Building): ......................................................................... 21
5.1.5 IS 8009 (Part I) – 1976: ........................................................................................ 21
5.1.6 IS 6403: 1981 (Reaffirmed 2002): ....................................................................... 22
5.1.7 Design and Construction of Pile Foundations- IS 2911 (part 1/ Sec 2): .............. 22
5.1.8 IS 13920: 2016 Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected
to Seismic Force- Code of Practice: ....................................................................... 22
5.1.9 SP: 34 Handbook on Concrete Reinforcement And Detailing ............................... 22
5.2 Textbooks on RCC Design and Earthquake Engineering ............................................ 23
5.3 Assumptions for Flexural Member (IS 456:2000, Cl. 38.1) ......................................... 23
5.4 Assumptions for Compression Members (IS 456:2000, Cl. 39.1) ................................ 24
5.5 Structural Loads and Their Combinations: ................................................................... 25
5.6 Fundamental Natural Period: ........................................................................................ 27
5.7 Design Horizontal Seismic Force Coefficient .............................................................. 27
5.8 Distribution of Design Force .................................................................................. 29
5.9 Foundation ............................................................................................................... 30
5.9.1 Types of Foundation............................................................................................. 30
5.9.2 Bearing Capacity terms .......................................................................................... 32
5.9.3 Bearing capacity ..................................................................................................... 33
6. Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 37
6.1 Collection of Architectural Drawing ............................................................................ 37
6.2 Preliminary Design ....................................................................................................... 37
6.3 Load Calculation........................................................................................................... 38
14 | P a g e
6.4 Model Analysis and Design .......................................................................................... 38

6.5 Foundation analysis and Design ................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
6.6 Detailing ....................................................................................................................... 38
6.7 Report Preparation ........................................................................................................ 38
7. Preliminary Design ............................................................................................................ 38
7.1 Preliminary Design of Slab........................................................................................... 38
7.2 Preliminary Design of Beam ........................................................................................ 42
7.3 Preliminary Design of Column ..................................................................................... 50
7.3.1 LOAD CALCULATION: ...................................................................................... 50
7.3.2 DESIGN PROCEDURE ........................................................................................ 51
8. Check for Irregularity ..................................................................................................... 55
8.1 Check for plan Irregularity ....................................................................................... 55
8.1.1 Check for torsion irregularity ................................................................................. 55
8.1.2 Check for Re-entrant corners ................................................................................. 55
8.2 Check For Vertical Irregularity .................................................................................... 55
8.2.1 Check for stiffness irregularity (soft storey) .......................................................... 55
8.2.2 Check for Mass Irregularity ................................................................................... 56
9. Structural Design ............................................................................................................. 57
9.1 Base Shear calculation using equivalent lateral load procedure ............................ 57
9.2 Stability Index ............................................................................................................. 60
9.3 DESIGN OF COLUMN: C59 (Edge Column) ........................................................... 61
9.4 DESIGN OF COLUMN: C32 (Centre Column) ...................................................... 71
9.5 Design OF Beam .............................................................................................................. 81
9.5.1 Check for member size .............................................................................................. 82
9.5.2 Checking for limiting longitudinal reinforcement ..................................................... 82
9.5.3 Design for flexure ...................................................................................................... 82
9.5.4 Check for shear .......................................................................................................... 86
9.5.4 Check for Shear Reinforcement Spacing................................................................... 90
9.6 Design of Staircase ......................................................................................................... 90
9.7 Design of Retaining Wall................................................................................................. 98
9.8 ANALYSIS & DESIGN OF MAT FOUNDATION: (On Soil Type 2) ....................... 104
9.9 ANALYSIS & DESIGN OF MAT FOUNDATION: (On Soil Type 3) ................... 119
9.10 DESIGN OF PILED-RAFT FOUNDATION.............................................................. 139
Design of Raft as Pile cap: ............................................................................................... 139
Depth from Flexure Criteria: ......................................................................................... 140
Depth from punching shear criteria ............................................................................... 140
Calculation of Reinforcements ...................................................................................... 141
15 | P a g e
Design of Pile ................................................................................................................... 141

For Diameter 0.80 m. .................................................................................................... 141
10. References ...................................................................................................................... 143
10.1 Reference Books: ...................................................................................................... 143
10.2 Reference Articles .................................................................................................... 143
10.3 Reference Codes: ...................................................................................................... 144
16 | P a g e
1. Introduction
1.1 General Introduction:
The world we live today is unimaginable without the physical infrastructure we use
every day. From the earliest of time, we have always searched for natural structure which
would meet our needs and when we were unable to find them, we started making our
own; these are the structure we know today and structure came with their own adversity
such as seismic hazards.
Nepal is located in the boundary of two colliding tectonic plates, namely, the
Indian Plate (Indo-Australian Plate) and the Tibetan Plate (Eurasian Plate). Due to that,
Nepal has witnessed many major as well as minor earthquakes in past. Gorkha earthquake
of 2072 B.S. is the most recent, high intensity quake among many that hit Nepal. Thus,
structures to be built in Nepal need to be suitably designed and detailed, so as to
counteract the forces due to earthquakes.
Any structure is stable if it has stable foundation. The stability of foundation is

governed by type of foundation and its design. Meanwhile the selection of foundation
depends on the soil type in which it is founded. Nepal, having diverse geographical
condition; different types of soil in different conditions are found.
This project mainly focuses on the comparative analysis of different types of

foundation based on the different soil types at a given site. Given the time frame, three
different soil types are considered and used for the analysis of foundation.
1.2 Building Specification

Type of building: multi-storeyed corporate building
Number of storeys: 6
Structural system: RC Frame
Plinth area covered: 1136.028 m2

Basement area: 1731.35m2
Floor to floor height: 3.60 m
3.0 m (lower ground floor)
17 | P a g e
Type of foundation:
Soil Type Site Foundation used
Type I Sardewa Raina Devi , Palpa Raft
Type II Chakrapath, Kathmandu Raft
Type III Nagarjun, Kathmandu Pile& Piled Raft
The preliminary design of structural members was done based on limit state
method and following IS 456:2000.
2. Objectives
2.2 Main Objective
➢ To carry out comparative analysis of Sub-structure in different soil condition
To achieve main objectives following:
• To identify structural arrangement of the structure
• To carry out load analysis
• To perform structural analysis
• To carry out design of RC beam, column and slab
• To perform comparative analysis of sub-structure
• To design Sub-structure components.
• To develop detailed drawings of superstructure
3. Statement of Problem
Nepal being a developing country, large and complex structures are constructed day
by day. These construction works are required to be safe and serviceable under different
natural conditions. For a structure to be safe and serviceable, foundation plays an
important role. Different sub-soil conditions urge to have different types of Sub-
structures.
Besides the structural design of a project, its economy is also a major concern for
us. The cost of foundation work is generally high, so we need to optimize its cost as much
as possible. For that reason, different types of foundation suitable for a particular soil
type or site soil condition are analyzed and they are compared from cost optimization
point of view given that structure performs satisfactorily according to codal provisions.
And in this project, we will try to analyze the best possible foundation design from
structural and economical point of view
18 | P a g e
4. Scope of Study
• Preliminary design to determine geometry of structural members
• Seismic design of Building
• Develop FEM model of the building using ETABS 2019 and carry out structural
analysis
• Calculation of SBC
• Comparative analysis of foundation requirement for different soil types
5. Literature Review
Every engineering design is the outcome of the past experiences and observations.
It is necessary to justify the result of the analysis and design properly with reference to
the preexisting standard results or the past experiences. Structural design is the
methodical investigation of the stability, strength and rigidity of structures. The basic
objective in structural analysis and design is to produce a structure capable of resisting
all applied loads without failure during its service life. Safe design of structures can be
achieved by applying the proper knowledge ofstructural mechanics and past experiences.
The design should follow the provision made in the code of practices.
5.1 Code of Practice

For design of the building, the different codes that were followed during the
projectwork are as follows:
5.1.1 Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice (IS 456:2000)

This standard deals with the general structural use of plain and reinforced concrete.
For the purpose of this standard, plain concrete structures are those where reinforcement,
if provided is ignored for determination of strength of the structure. Special requirements
of structures, such as shells, folded plates, arches, bridges, chimneys, blast resistant
structures, hydraulic structures, liquid retaining structures and earthquake resistant
structures, covered in respective standards have not been covered in this standard; these
standards shall be used in conjunction with this standard.
5.1.2 Code of Practice for Design Loads (IS 875 (Parts I & II):1993)
IS 875 is used code of practice for design loads other than earthquake for
buildings and structures.
19 | P a g e
Part 1: Dead Loads, Unit Weight of Building Materials and Stored Materials:
This part deals with the dead load to be assumed in the design of the building. These
loads are given in the form of unit weight of materials. The unit weight of the
materials that are likely to be stored in the building are also given in the code for the
purpose of the load calculation due to stored materials. This code covers the unit
weight or mass of the materials and parts and components in the building that apply
to the determination of the dead load in the design of building. Table 1 of this code
covers unit weight of the building materials and Table 2 of the code covers the unit
weight of the building parts or the components.
Part 2: Imposed Loads

Imposed load is the load assumed to be produced by the intended use or occupancy
of a building including the weight of moveable partitions, distributed, concentrated
loads, loads due to impact and vibrations and dust loads (Excluding wind, seismic,
snow, load due to temperature change, creep, shrinkage, differential settlements etc.)
This part of the code deals with imposed load of the building produced by the
intended occupancy or use. Minimum imposed load that should be taken into
consideration for the purpose of structural safety of the buildings are given in the
code but it do not cover the incidental to construction and special cases of vibration,
such as moving machinery, heavy acceleration from cranes hoist etc.
Part 3: Wind Loads
This part deals with the wind load to be considered when desigining the building,
structure and component thereof. This code gives the wind force and their effect
(Static and Dynamic) that should be taken into account when designing buildings,
structures and components thereof. In the code wind load estimation is done by taking
into account the random variation of the wind speed with time.
Part 4: Snow Loads
This part of the code deals with snow loads on roofs of buildings. Roofs should be
designed for the actual load due to snow or the imposed load specified in Part 2
whichever is more sever. Since location of the building is within Kathmandu Valley,
there is no possibility of snowfall. Hence the snow load is not considered in the
design.
20 | P a g e
Part 5: Special Loads and Load Combinations
This code loads and loads effects (Except the loads covered in Part 1 to 4 and seismic
load) due to temperature changes, internally generated stress due to creep shrinkage,
differential settlement etc. in the building and its components, soil and hydrostatic
pressures, accidental loads etc. This part also covers the guidance for the load
combinations.
5.1.3 Design Aids for Reinforced Concrete to IS 456:1978 (SP 16)
This handbook explains the use of formulae mentioned in IS456 and provides
several design charts and interaction diagrams for flexure, deflection control criteria,
axial compression, compression with bending and tension with bending for rectangular
cross-sections (for circular section in case of compression member) which can greatly
expedite the design process if designed manually. This design aid is particularly useful
for preliminary design.
5.1.4 IS 1893 (Part 1): 2016 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures
(General Provision and Building):
This code deals with the assessment of seismic loads on various structures and
earthquake resistant design of buildings. Its basic provisions are applicable to buildings;
elevated structures; industrial and stack like structures; bridges; concrete masonry and
earth dams; embankment and retaining structures and other structures. Temporary
supporting structures like scaffoldings etc. need not be considered for the seismic loads.
It is concerned with the methods of determining seismic loads and the effects of various
irregularities in a building can have upon its seismic response. This standard does not
deal with the construction features relating to earthquake resistant design in building and
other structures.
5.1.5 IS 8009 (Part I) – 1976:

This standard (Part I) provides simple methods for the estimation of immediate
and primary consolidation of shallow foundations under symmetrical staticvertical loads.
Procedures for computing time rate of settlement are also given.
This standard does not deal with catastrophic settlement as the foundations are
expected to be loaded only up to the safe bearing capacity. Analytical methods for the
estimation of settlements due to deterioration of foundations, mining and other causes
21 | P a g e
are not available and, therefore, are not dealt with. Satisfactory theoretical methods
are not available for the estimation of secondary compression. However, it is known that
in organic clays and plastic silts, the secondary compression may be important and,
therefore, should be taken into account. In such situation, any method consideredsuitable
for the type of soul met with may be adopted by the designer.
5.1.6 IS 6403:1981 (Reaffirmed 2002):

This standard covers the procedure for determining the ultimate bearing
capacity and allowable bearing pressure of shallow foundations based on shear and
allowable settlement criteria.
5.1.7 Design and Construction of Pile Foundations- IS 2911 (part 1/ Sec 2):
This standard covers the design and construction of bored cast in-situ concrete
piles which transmit the load to the soil by resistance developed either at the pile tip
by end-bearing or along the surface of the shaft by friction or by both. This standard
isnot applicable for use of bored case in-situ concrete piles for any other purpose, for
example, temporary or permanent retaining structure.
5.1.8 IS 13920: 2016 Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures

Subjected to Seismic Force- Code of Practice:
This standard covers the requirements for designing and detailing of
monolithic reinforced concrete buildings so as to give them adequate toughness and
ductility to resist sever earthquake shock without collapse. The provision for the
reinforced concrete construction given in the code are specifically to the monolithic
reinforced concrete construction. The code includes the detailing rules for flexural
members, column and frame member subjected to bending and axial loads and shear
walls.
5.1.9 SP: 34 Handbook on Concrete Reinforcement and Detailing
The compilation of provisions and guidelines regarding reinforcement
detailing scattered throughout IS codes 456, 4326, 5525 and 13920 can be found in
this handbook. Searching for that information in the original codes can be very time
consuming. This handbook presents all that information in a well-organized manner.
22 | P a g e
5.2 Textbooks on RCC Design and Earthquake Engineering

Books Authors
1. Slab Design
a) Flat slab Pillai and Menon, Reinforced concrete Design
b) Two way Ribbed slab PC Varghese , Advanced RCC Design
2. Beam Design Pillai and Menon, Reinforced concrete Design
3. Column Design Pillai and Menon, Reinforced concrete Design
4. Staircase Design Pillai and Menon, Reinforced concrete Design
5. Foundation Design Dr. KR Arora, Soil Mechanics And Foundation

a) Soil Bearing Engineering
Capacity Swami Saran , Analysis and Design of Substructures
DR. Mashhour A. Ghoneim Design of Reinforced
b) Mat Design Concrete Structure - Volume 3
c) Pile Design J.E. Bowels, Foundation Analysis and Design

Swami Saran , Analysis and Design of Substructures
d) Piled Raft Design H.G. Poulos, Design for piled raft
6. Retaining Wall Pillai and Menon, Reinforced concrete Design
For the design purpose references from those books was very useful. Besides
those books, other books, related articles and soil reports were chosen which will be
mentioned in the references.
5.3 Assumptions for Flexural Member (IS 456:2000, Cl. 38.1)

Design for the limit state of collapse in flexure shall be based on the
assumptions given below:
1. Plane sections normal to the axis remain plane after bending.
2. The maximum strain in concrete at the outermost compression fibre is taken as 0.0035
in bending.
3. The relationship between the compressive stress distribution in concrete andthe
strain in concrete may be assumed to be rectangle, trapezoid, parabola or any other
shape which results in prediction of strength in substantial agreement with the results
of test. An acceptable stress strain curve is given in Fig. 1. For design purposes, the
compressive strength of concrete in the structure shall be assumed to be 0.67 times
the characteristic strength. The partial safety factor γm = 1.5 shall be applied in
23 | P a g e
addition to this.
Fig 1. Stress- Strain Curve for Concrete (Refer to IS code)

4. The stresses in the reinforcement are derived from representative stress-strain curve
for the type of steel used. Typical curves are given in fig b. For design purposes the
partial safety factor γm, equal to 1.15 shall be applied.
5. The maximum strain in the tension reinforcement in the section at failure shall not be
0.87∗𝑓𝑦
less than + 0.002
𝐸𝑆
Where,
fy = characteristics strength of steel
Es = modulus of elasticity of steel
5.4 Assumptions for Compression Members (IS 456:2000, Cl. 39.1)

In addition to the assumptions given for flexure above, the following shall be
assumed:
1. The maximum compressive strain in concrete in axial compression is taken as

0.002.
2. The maximum compressive strain at the highly compressed extreme fibre in
concrete subjected to axial compression and bending and when there is no
tension on the section shall be 0.0035 minus 0.75 times the strain at least
compressed extreme fibre.
24 | P a g e
5.5 Structural Loads and Their Combinations:
The building is acted upon by various types of loads. They are:
a) Dead Loads:
All the permanent constructions of the structure form the dead loads. The dead
load comprises of the weights of walls, partitions floor finishes, false ceilings, false
floors and the other permanent constructions in the buildings. The dead loadsmay
be calculated from the dimensions of various members and their unit weights. The
unit weights of plain concrete and reinforced concrete made with sand and gravel
or crushed natural stone aggregate may be taken as 24 KN/m3 and 25 KN/m3
respectively.
b) Imposed Loads:
Imposed load is produced by the intended use or occupancy of a building including
the weight of movable partitions, distributed and concentrated loads, load due to
impact and vibration and dust loads. Imposed loads do not include loads due to
wind, seismic activity, snow, and loads imposed due to temperature changes to
which the structure will be subjected to, creep and shrinkage of the structure, the
differential settlements to which the structure may undergo.
c) Seismic load
Load Combination:
Different load cases and load combinations are considered to obtain the most
critical element stress in the structure in the course of analysis.
There are altogether four load cases considered for the structural analysis and
are mentioned as below:
• Dead Load (DL)
• Live Load (LL)
• Earthquake load in X- direction (EQx)
• Earthquake load in Y- direction (EQy)
Design Horizontal Earthquake Load
• When lateral load resisting elements are oriented along two mutually
orthogonal horizontal directions, structure shall be designed for effects
due to full design earthquake load in one direction at a time, and not in
25 | P a g e
both directions simultaneously.

Following Load Combinations are adopted as per IS 1893 (Part I): 2016,
Cl.6.3.2.1.)
➢ 1.5 (DL+LL)
➢ 1.5( DL+EQx)
➢ (DL+EQx)
➢ 1.5(DL+EQy)
➢ 1.5 (DL-EQy)
➢ 1.2 (DL+LL+EQx)
➢ 1.2 (DL +LL -EQx)
➢ 1.2 (DL+LL+EQy)
➢ 1.2(DL+LL-EQy)
➢ 0.9DL+1.5EQx
➢ 0.9DL–1.5EQx
➢ 0.9 DL+1.5 EQy
➢ 0.9 DL–1.5 EQy
• When lateral load resisting elements are not oriented along mutually
orthogonal horizontal directions, structure shall be designed for the
simultaneous effect due to full design earthquake load in one horizontal
direction plus 30 percent of design earthquake load along the other horizontal
direction (cl. 6.3.2.2)
Design Lateral Force
The design lateral force shall first be computed for the building as a whole. This
design lateral force shall then be distributed to the various floor levels. The overall
design seismic force thus obtained at each floor level shall then be distributed to
individual lateral load resisting elements depending on the floor diaphragm action.
Design Seismic Base Shear
The total design lateral force or design seismic base shear (VB) along any principal
direction shall be determined by the following expression:
VB= Ah*W
Where
26 | P a g e
Ah= Horizontal acceleration
W= seismic weight of all the floors
5.6 Fundamental Natural Period:

The approximate fundamental natural period of vibration (Y), in seconds, of a
moment resisting frame building without infill in the panels may be estimated by the
empirical expression:
Ta= 0.075h0.75 for RC frame building

Ta= 0.085h0.75 for steel frame building
where,
H= Height of the building in m. This excludes the basement storey’s, where

basement walls are connected with the ground floor deck or fitted between
the building columns. Bit it includes the basement storeys, when they are
not so connected. The approximate fundamental natural period of vibration
(T), in seconds, of all other buildings, including moment-resisting frame
buildings with brick lintel panels, may be estimated by the empirical
expression.
T=0.09H/√D
where,
H= height of building
D= base dimension of the building at the plinth

level in m, along the considered direction of
the lateral force.
5.7 Design Horizontal Seismic Force Coefficient

For the purpose of determining the design seismic forces, the country
(India)is classified into four seismic zones (II, III, IV and V). Previously, there
were five zones, of which Zone I and II are merged into Zone II in fifth revision
of code. The design horizontal seismic forces coefficient Ah for a structure shall
be determined by following expression,
𝑍𝐼𝑆𝑎
𝐴ℎ =
2𝑅𝑔
27 | P a g e
Where,
Z= zone factor for the maximum considerable earthquake (MCE) and

service life of the structure in a zone. Factor 2 in denominator is to reduce
the MCE to design basis earthquake (DBE).
Zone Factor, Z
Table 1. Zone Factor (Refer IS code)
Seismic Zone II III IV V

Seismic Intensity Low Moderate Severe Very Severe
Z 0.1 0.16 0.24 0.36
I = importance factor depending on the functional purpose of the building;

characterized by hazardous consequences of its failure, post- earthquake
functional needs, historical value, or economic importance.
R = response reduction factor, depending upon the perceived seismic

damage performance of the structure, characterized by ductile or brittle
deformations however the ratio I/R shall not be greater than 1.
Sa/g = average acceleration coefficient
28 | P a g e
Fig 2. Spectral Acceleration Coefficient Vs Period Curve
5.7.1 Distribution of Design Force

Vertical distribution of Base Shear to different floor level
The design base shear (VB) shall be distributed along the height of the building as per
the following expression,
𝑊𝑖 ∗ℎ𝑖2
Qi = VB ∗ ∑𝑛 2
𝑖=1 𝑊𝑖 ∗ℎ𝑖
Where,
Qi = design lateral force at floor i
Wi = Seismic weight of floor i
hi= height of floor i measured from base
n = number of storeys in building, that is number of levels at which masses are
located
Distribution of Horizontal Design Lateral Force to Different Lateral Force

Resisting Elements in case of buildings whose floors are capable of providing rigid
horizontal diaphragm action, the total shear in any horizontal plane shall be distributed
to the various vertical elements of lateral force resisting system, assuming the floors to
be infinitely rigid in the horizontal plane. In case of building, whose floor diaphragms
cannot be treated as infinitely rigid in their own plane, the lateral shear at each floor
shall be distributed to the vertical elements revisiting the lateral forces, considering the
in-plane flexibility of the diagram.
29 | P a g e
5.8 Foundation
Part of the structure transmitting the weight of the structure to the ground is foundation.
It is the connecting link between structure proper and the ground which supports it. A
foundation should be designed such that
a) the soil below does not fail in shear and

b) the settlement is within the safe limits.
Foundation may be broadly classified into two categories:
a) Shallow Foundation
It transmits the loads to the strata at shallow depth.
b) Deep Foundation
It transmits the loads at considerable depth below the ground surface.
As per Terzaghi's criteria, foundation is shallow if depth is equal to or less than its
width i.e., Df (depth of foundation) ≤ B (Width of foundation).
5.8.1 Types of Foundation
1) Shallow foundation
a) Spread or Isolated footing
A spread or isolated footing is provided to support an individual column. A spread
footing is circular, square or rectangular slab of uniform thickness. Sometimes, it
is stepped or hunched to spread the load over a large area.
b) Raft foundation
It is a large slab supporting a number of columns and walls under the entire
structure or a large part of the structure. A mat is required when the allowable soil
pressure is low or when the isolated footings would overlap or nearly touch each
other.
Mat foundations are useful in reducing the differential settlements on non-

homogeneous soils or where there is a large variation in the loads on individual
columns.
2) Deep Foundation
a) Pile Foundation
30 | P a g e
Pile is a slender structural member made of steel, concrete or wood. A pile

is either driven into the soil or formed in-situ by excavating a hole and filling it
with concrete.
Necessity of Pile Foundations

Pile foundations are used in the following conditions:
• When the strata at or just below the ground surface is highly compressible
and very weak to support the load transmitted by the structure.
• When the plan of the structure is irregular relative to its outline and load
distribution. In shallow foundation, non-uniform settlement is observed. To
reduce thedifferential settlement pile foundation can be used.
• For resisting the horizontal forces like wind and earthquake force, force on
retaining walls in addition to vertical loads.
• In case of the expansive soils like black cotton soil showing higher swell and
shrinking, piled are used.
b) Combined Piled Raft Foundation

Combined Piled Raft Foundation is relatively modern concept developed in
Europe specially Germany in case of hard clay subsoil.
Randolph (1994) has defined clearly three different design philosophies
with respect to piled rafts:
i) the 'conventional approach', in which the piles are designed as a group to
carry the major part of the load, while making some allowance for the
contribution of the raft, primarily to ultimate load capacity.
ii) 'creep piling', in which the piles are designed to operate at a working load
at which significant creep starts to occur, typically 70-80% of the ultimate load
capacity;sufficient piles are included to reduce the net contact pressure between
the raft and thesoil to below the pre-consolidation pressure of the soil.
iii) Differential settlement control, in which the piles are located
strategically in orderto reduce the differential settlements, rather than to reduce
the overall average settlement substantially.
31 | P a g e
We are using the conventional approach for the analysis which assumes the load
from the superstructure is shared by both raft and piles. The exact analysis of three
phase system including raft, pile and soil requires computer methods. Basic concept of
the combined piled raft foundation is used for analysis and design of this foundation in
case of the High rise building we are dealing.
Cases of using piled raft foundation
Case I: Piled raft adopted to reduce settlement
Case II: Piled raft adopted to satisfy bearing capacity considerations
Case III: Piled raft adopted to increase lateral resistance in high rise buildings
5.9.2 Bearing Capacity of soil

Some of the terminologies used in Bearing capacity of soil are:
1) Ultimate Bearing Capacity (qu):

It is the gross pressure at the base of the foundation at which the soil fails in shear.
2) Net Ultimate Bearing Capacity (qnu):

It is the net increase in pressure at the base of the foundation that causes shear
failureof the soil. It is equal to the gross pressure minus overburden pressure.
Thus, qnu = qu – γ Df
where, qu = ultimate bearing capacity (gross)
γ = unit weight of foundation soil, and
Df = depth of foundation
3) Net Safe Bearing Capacity (qns)
It is the net soil pressure which can be safely applied to the soil considering only
shear failure. It is obtained by dividing the net ultimate bearing capacity by a
suitable factor of safety. Thus
qnu = qnu/F
where, F = factor of safety, which is generally taken as 3.0.
32 | P a g e
4) Gross Safe Bearing Capacity (qs)
It is the maximum gross pressure which the soil can carry safely without shear
failure. It is equal to the net safe bearing capacity plus the original overburden
pressure. Thus
Qs = qns+ γ Df
qs=qnu/F + γ Df
5) Net Safe Settlement Pressure (qnp):
It is the net pressure which the soil can carry without exceeding the allowable
settlement.
The net safe settlement pressure is also known as unit soil pressure or safe
bearing pressure.
6) Net Allowable Bearing Pressure (qna):
The net allowable bearing pressure is the net bearing pressure which can be used
for the design of foundations.
As the requirements for the design of foundation requires no shear failure and
excess settlement, the allowable bearing pressure is the smaller of the net safe
bearing capacity (qns) and the net safe settlement pressure (qnp). Thus
qna = qns if qnp > qns
qna = qnp if qns > qnp
The net allowable bearing pressure is also known as the allowable soil pressure or
allowable bearing pressure or allowable bearing capacity.
5.9.3 Bearing capacity

a) For shallow foundation,
As per IS Code 6403:1981
𝑞𝑛𝑢 = 𝐶𝑁𝑐 𝑆𝑐 𝑑𝑐 𝑖𝑐 + 𝑞(𝑁𝑞 − 1)𝑆𝑞𝑑𝑞𝑖𝑞 + 0.5𝐵𝑓 𝑁𝑓 𝑆𝑓 𝑑𝑓 𝑖𝑓 𝑊 ′
where,
C= soil cohesion
Nc,Nq,Nf are bearing capacity factors depending upon angle of
shearing resistance(ⱷ)
Sc,Sq,Sf are shape factors
33 | P a g e
dc,dq,df are depth factors

ic,iq,if are inclination factors
W' is water table correction factor
Bf is width of footing
qnu is the ultimate bearing capacity of soil
γ' is submerged unit wt of soil
For footings on layered soil

Footings may be placed on stratified soil deposits. The usual methods of
determining the bearing capacity are not applicable. The shear pattern gets distorted
and the bearing capacity becomes dependent on the extent of the rupture surface in
weaker or stronger material. A practicable solution which gives reasonable safety
is shown in fig below.
(I) Consider the different layers of the soil within effective shear depth which is
approximately equal to 0.5B tan(45+ⱷ/2). If the thickness of the first layer
below the base of the footing is more than the significant shear depth, analysis
of a single layer holds.
Fig: footing on layered soil (Source: Autocad)
34 | P a g e
(II) Average values of C and ⱷ are obtained as
𝐶1 ℎ1 +𝐶2 ℎ2 +𝐶3 ℎ3+⋯

Cav = 𝐶1 +𝐶2 +𝐶3 +⋯
ⱷ 1 ℎ1 + ⱷ 2 ℎ2 + ⱷ 3 ℎ3+⋯
ⱷav = ⱷ 1 + ⱷ 2 + ⱷ 3 +⋯
b) For pile foundation

The bearing capacity of single pile depends upon:
i) Type, size and length of pile
ii) Type of soil
iii) Method of installation
The ultimate bearing capacity of a pile is the load resisted by the pile by fully
mobilizing the friction (Qs) and by point bearing (Qp). Thus,
Qu = Qs + Qp
Ultimate bearing capacity of soil in cohesive (c-ⱷ) soil
The point bearing capacity of a pile is given as,

Qp=Ab(1.2cNc+γLf(Nq-1)+0.4γBNγ)
Where,
Ab= area of cross section of pile tip

C = soil cohesion
γ= unit weight of soil
B= diameter of pile
Nc, Nq, N γ are the bearing capacity factors depending upon angle of shearing
resistance
Lf= length pf embedded pile
The side soil resistance can be computed as the sum of adhesion and skin friction
given by the following equation,
Qs=As (Kσv*tanδ+αcu)
Where,
As= embedded surface area of pile

K= earth pressure coefficient
35 | P a g e
σv = average effective overburden pressure over embedded depth of

pile
δ= angle of friction between pile material and soil
Cu= soil cohesion
α= adhesion factor
Pile material δ
Steel 20
Concrete 3/4 ⱷ
Timber 2/3 ⱷ
Settlement of foundation
For footing on cohesive soils,
Sf=Ht/(1+e0)*Cc log10 ((p0+Δp)/p0)
Where,
Sf = Consolidation or settlement
Ht = Thickness of soil layer
e0 = Initial void ratio
P0 = Effective stress at mid height of layer
Δp = Pressure increment
For footing on cohesionless soils,

Using schmertmann equation,
Se = C1.C2 Δq Σ0z (Iz/Es)Δz
Where,
Se = net allowable settlement
C1 = a correction factor for the depth of foundation
embedment
= 1-0.5 (q/Δq)
q = effective overburden pressure on foundation
C2 = a correction factor to account into creep in soil
= 1+0.2 log (time in year/0.1)
Δq = difference between stress at level of foundation and
overburden pressure.
36 | P a g e
Δz = Thickness of soil layer

Es = Modulus of elasticity of sand
Iz = Strain influence at depth z
Fig: Schmertmann chart for vertical influence factor
6. Methodology
For completing the superstructure analysis and design following methods were adopted.
6.1 Collection of Architectural Drawing

The architectural drawings of the building was provided to us.
6.2 Preliminary Design

With the help of instructions from supervisor and codal provisions as mentioned in IS-
456:2000 as well as SP 16, preliminary sizes of beam, slab and column was determined.
Preliminary design was carried out so that the sizes assumed would not be very different
from the actual required sizes.
37 | P a g e
6.3 Load Calculation

For calculating the loads, codal provisions as per following IS codes were used.
Codes used for load calculation

IS 875 part I - Dead load
IS 875 part II - Imposed load (live load) IS 1893:2016 part I - Seismic load
6.4 Model Analysis and Design

Modeling of superstructure was performed in ETABS 2016. Analysis of model
in ETABS was carried out. The stress functions such as axial force, shear force, bending
moments of critical sections was carried out manually and output from ETABS was
compared and analyzed. The required size of structural members was determined.
The methodology of the analysis and design steps involved in Super structure and
Sub structure part is explained in a suitably with the help of the Flowcharts presented
below. These flowcharts will give a general idea of what we did and how we did it while
designing the components of our project. Fig.3 is the Flowchart showing methodology
of superstructure and Fig.4 shows is the Flowchart showing methodology of substructure.
6.5 Detailing
Calculated and designed details of the structural components like beam, column,
and slab were drawn with the help of AutoCAD. Plan and different sectional views of
detailing are drawn of all the necessary structural components.
6.6 Report Preparation

The final report including optimization of foundation system for the given building
(using Microsoft excel by data simulation with parametric variation and Linear Programming
technique) along with complete detailing was carried out based on calculations and final
report was submitted.
7. Preliminary Design
6.1 Preliminary Design of Slab
All slabs are of equal size (6000*6000 mm)

Slab panel features:
S1- Two adjacent end discontinuous
S2- one edge discontinuous
38 | P a g e
S3- two edge discontinuous
S4- all edge continuous (i.e., interior panel)
Average live load on slab = 3.25KN/m2
Dead load (excluding self wt. of slab) = 2.06KN/m2
Grade of Concrete used = M25, Characteristic strength of concrete
(fck) = 25 Mpa
Grade of steel used = Fe 500, Characteristic strength of Steel (fy)
= 500 Mpa
Design of Two way ribbed slab
Calculation of effective depth (d), overall depth (D), effective length of

spans (lx, ly)
For all slabs, longer span/shorter span = 6000/6000 =1 < 2 (hence it is a two
way slab)
Since, some slabs are continuous and some are discontinuous slab. So,
taking span/depth
ratio = (26+20)/2=23 and taking modification factor =1.5
Effective depth, d = 6000/(23*1.5) =173.92mm>150mm. which is difficult

to cast. So, Two way ribbed slabs are used.
A. Determination of rib dimensions:

• Spacing of ribs = 1.2m (as per IS456 clause 30.5)
• Topping width of slab = max of (50mm or L/10); where L is length of span.
= take 100mm
• Width of rib = 150mm (should be greater than 65mm, as per IS456 clause 30.5)
• Depth of rib should be less than four times width of rib (Excluding the topping
width of slab, as per IS456 clause 30.5)
take depth = 200mm(<400mm)
• Overall depth, D = 100+200=300mm
• Effective depth, d = 300-20 = 280mm, (20mm effective cover is provided).
B. Span length
Lx = 6000mm
Ly = 6000mm
Here ly/lx = 1 (<2), hence two-way slab.
C. Load calculation
39 | P a g e
(1.2∗0.15∗0.2)∗2−0.15∗0.15∗0.2
Self wt. of the slab & rib = 25*0.1 + 25*( )= 3.672
1.2∗1.2
kN/m2
Floor finish (DL) = 2.06 kN/m2
Live load (LL) = 3.25 kN/m2
Total load = 3.672 + 2.06 + 3.25 = 8.982 kN/m2
Factored load, Wu = 1.5*8.982 = 13.473 kN/m2
D. Calculation of moment coefficients
From, IS 456:2000, table 26

Coefficients of moments
Span ly/lx
αx+ αx- αy+ αy-
S1 1 0.035 0.047 0.035 0.047
S2 1 0.028 0.037 0.028 0.037
S3 1 0.035 0.047 0.035 0.000
S4 1 0.024 0.032 0.024 0.032
E. Calculation of moment
Moment (kN-m)
L W M M M M
Span +
ux = -
ux = +
uy = uy = -
x (m) u (kN)
αx+*Wu*l αx*Wu*lx αy+*Wu αy*Wu*lx
x2 2
*lx2 2
S 6 12 16 21 16 21
1 .0 .912 .269 .692 .269 .692
S 6 12 13 17 13 17
2 .0 .912 .015 .354 .015 .354
S 6 12 16 21 16 0.
3 .0 .912 .269 .692 .269 000
S 6 12 11 14 11 14
4 .0 .912 .156 .875 .156 .875
Here maximum negative moment = 21.692 kN-m/m

And maximum positive moment = 16.269 kN-m/m.
Maximum moment to be carried for rib, max negative moment = 21.692*1.2
= 26.03 kN-m
max positive moment =16.269*1.2 = 19.53 kN-m
F. Calculation of reinforcements using design aids (SP 16, Table 50)
40 | P a g e
Take effective cover (d’) = 30mm
𝑑’
= 30/300 = 0.1
𝐷
𝑀𝑢 26.03∗106
= = 3.32
𝑏𝑑2 100∗2802
1.152−1.122
Tension steel at the top, Pt =1.122+ ∗ (3.32 − 3.3) = 1.128%
3.4−3.3
0.207−0.174
Compression steel at the bottom, Pc = 0.174+ ∗ (3.32 − 3.3) = 0.181%
3.4−3.3
1.128
Ast = ∗ 100 ∗ 280 = 315.84mm2, provide 2- 16mmdia bars (402.12mm2) @60mm c/c
100
0.181
Asc = ∗ 100 ∗ 280 = 50.68mm2, provide 2- 8mmdia bars (100.53mm2) @60mmc/c
100
G. At mid span
Approximate steel is calculated taking lever arm approximately as greater of (0.9d or (d -
𝐷𝑓
)
2
100
Z = max of (0.9*280 or (280 - )
2
=252mm
𝑀 26.03∗106
Ast = 0.87∗𝑓𝑈 = 0.87∗415∗252 = 286.09mm2
𝑦 ∗𝑧
Provide 2, 14mmdia bars (307.88mm2) @ 60mmc/c
H. Reinforcement in the topping slab

Provide 8mm bars @150mmc/c.
I. Check for shear

Vu = 0.43Wu Lx
=0.43*12.912*6
=33.31KN/m
For rib = 33.31*1.2 = 39.97KN
𝑉 39.97∗103
Nominal shear, τv = 𝑏𝑑𝑢 = = 1.43
100∗280
Maximum shear stress, τcmax = 2.8>1.43(ok)
Pt =1.128
0.67−0.62
Then from table 19, τc = 0.62+ ∗ (1.128 − 1) = 0.646 < 1.365.
1.25−1
Hence additional stirrups are needed.
Vus = 39.97 - 0.646*100*280/1000 = 21.882KN
Using 2 legged 8 mm dia. vertical stirrups, Asv = 100.53mm2

0.87𝑓𝑦 𝐴𝑠𝑣 𝑑 0.87∗415∗100.53∗280
Spacing of stirrups, Sv = = = 464.45𝑚𝑚
𝑉𝑢𝑠 21.882∗1000
max spacing of ribs, Smax = min of (0.75d,300)
41 | P a g e
=min of (210,300)
Provide 2 legged 8mm dia. stirrups @ 250mmc/c
J. Check for deflection

𝐿 6000
i.e., = = 20
𝐷 300
Permissible limit ≤ αβγδλ
≤ 23*1*0.96*1.02*1
≤22.52 (ok)
20+26
Where, α = = 23
2
β =1 (span less than 10m)
γ =0.96 (fig 4 IS456, modification factor for tensile reinforcement)
δ = 1.02 (fig 5 IS456, modification factor for compression reinforcement)
λ = 1 (fig 6IS456, ratio of web to flange width being 1)
6.2 Preliminary Design of Beam

Preliminary design of beam is done by assuming a section of specific size
and then the results are checked with size of a section required to withstand all the
loads safely. Hit and trial needs to be done while assuming a section, so the sections
size were first trialed and result for the safe section is presented below.
42 | P a g e
Fig: Area of Influence
DESIGN OF BEAM
Basic information for load calculation:
Width of support (w) = 500 mm
Assume floor height (H) = 3.6m = 3600 mm
Assume wall thickness = 230 mm
Preliminary depth of slab = 100 mm
FOR AA’ BEAM
Effective depth of beam
Preliminary depth of beam can be done by taking the average value of span to depth
ratio of simply supported and continuous beams, and a certain modification factor.
For simplicity taking l/d ratio in the range (1/12 to 1/15), d= 5500/12 = 458.33 mm
Adopt effective cover of 40 mm

43 | P a g e
Hence overall depth, D = 458.33+40=498.33
Adopt overall depth of D = 550 mm
So, effective depth, d = 500-40 = 510 mm
Load Calculation
Overall depth of beam(D) = 550mm, effective cover = 40 mm
Beam width (B) =350 mm
A) Dead load (DL)
1. Self wt of wall = γb*volume of wall

= 19.2* (3.6-0.55) *0.23
= 13.469 kN/m
Considering 30% openings, self wt. = 0.7*13.469

= 9.428 kN/m
In the fig the portion of slab acting on beam are different in some beams. However, for
design purpose maximum portion of slab acting on beam is considered.
2. Self - weight of slab = γc*volume of the shaded region of span
1 6000
= 25 * (2 * 2 * 6000 * ) * 100
2
= 45 kN
45.0
Self-weight of slab (per m) on beam = = 7.5 kN/m
6.0
1 6000
3. Dead load (excluding self-wt.) = 2.06 * (2*2*6000* )
2
= 37.08 kN
37.08
Dead load (per m) on beam = = 6.18 kN/m
6
4. Self wt of beam = γc*volume

= 25*0.55*0.3
= 4.125 kN/m
Total dead load (Wd) = 9.428+7.5+6.18+4.125
= 27.233 kN/m
Factored dead load (Wdu) =1.5*27.233 = 40.85 kN/m
B) Live load (LL) = 3.25 kN/m2 (from live load calculation)
44 | P a g e
1 6000
= 3.25*(2*2*6000* )
2
= 58.5 KN
58.5
Live load (perm) = =9.75 KN/m
6
Factored live load (Wlu) = 1.5*9.75 = 14.625 KN/m
Calculation of effective span
Since the beam is of continuous type

Here the width of the support (w) = 500mm
1 1
of clear span = 12*5500
12
= 458.33
1
(i.e., width of the support>12of clear span)
Hence effective length is computed as that of cl [22.2, b,1]
Le = clear span =5500 =5500mm
Calculation of moments
Here, the moment coefficients provided by IS 456:2000 code can be used.
Moment calculation using coefficients:

Dead Live Total
Description load moment load moments moments (kN-
(kN-m) (kN-m) m)
At end Support A 0.00 0.00 0.00
Near mid of End
109.63 47.10 156.73
span, A-a1
At interior support
-131.56 -52.33 -183.89
a1 (near A)
At mid of interior
82.22 39.25 121.48
span a1-a2
At interior support
-109.63 -52.33 -161.97
a2
At mid of interior
82.22 39.25 121.48
span a2-a43
At interior support
-109.63 -52.33 -161.97
a3
At mid of interior
82.22 39.25 121.48
span a3-a4
45 | P a g e
At interior support
-131.56 -52.33 -183.89
a4 (near A')
At mid of interior
109.63 47.10 156.73
span a4-A'
At end support A' 0.00 0.00 0.00
Here max moment occurs in the support next to end support, MU = 183.89 kN-m
46 | P a g e
Calculation of effective depth from moment
𝑀𝑢
Here d=√𝑄∗𝐵 ; where Q = 0.36*fck*k* (1-0.42k), k =0.46 (For Fe500)
= 0.36*25*0.46(1-0.42*0.45), fck = 20 (ForM20)
= 2.67
200.316
= √2.67∗300
= 479mm < 510 mm(ok)
So, provide d = 510 mm
Hence overall depth(D) = 510+40 = 550 mm
Limiting moment of resistance of the section,
Mu,lim = 0.36*fck*B*xu*(d – 0.42 xulim); where xu=k*d(for Fe415 k=0.48)
= 0.36*20*500*0.46*460*(460-0.42*0.46*460)
= 208.505 kN/m > Mu,mzx
Hence, the section is under reinforced.

Minimum area of tensile reinforcement
0.85∗𝑏∗𝑑 0.85∗300∗510
Ast, min = = = 260.10mm2
𝑓𝑦 500
Area of Reinforcement bars(top)

𝑓𝑦∗𝐴𝑠𝑡
Mu = 0.87*fy*Ast*(d- )
𝑓𝑐𝑘∗𝑏
500∗𝐴𝑠𝑡
189.39*106 = 0.87*500*Ast*(460 - )
20∗500
On solving, Ast = 888.137 mm2 > Ast,min (ok)

Provide 4-20 mm-Φ bars at the top
500−2∗50−4∗20
Assume side clearance of 50 mm, then the spacing of bars S = ( ) = 107
3
mm (ok)
47 | P a g e
Area of Reinforcement bars (bottom)
Max moment at mid-span causing the sagging moment, Mu = 156.73 kNm

Mu=0.87*fy*Ast*(d- )
𝑓𝑐𝑘∗𝑏
500∗𝐴𝑠𝑡
169.934*106 = 0.87*500* Ast *(460- 20∗500 )
Ast = 737.52 mm2 > Ast,min(ok)
Provide 4 – 16 mm-Φ bars at the bottom

500−2∗50−4∗16
Assume side clearance of 50mm, then the spacing of bars S = = 112 mm(ok)
3
48 | P a g e
FOR BEAM BB’

Here loading pattern for slab is uniform and the calculation procedure is similar to that
of previous one. As in previous case beam design, for max loading on beam load was taken
taking the contribution of load from slab from both sides, which is the same configuration in
this case. So rest of the calculations will also be same
Hence for preliminary design of beam 300*550 mm can be adopted.
49 | P a g e
6.3 Preliminary Design of Column

6.3.1 LOAD CALCULATION:
Dead
Dead load on Live L
load of slab
SN Floor slab (excluding self load on slab load on s
& rib (self-
wt kN/m2) (kN/m2) (kN)
wt) (kN/m2)
1 top 2.050 3.672 3.250 117

2 4th floor 2.050 3.672 3.250 117
3 3rd floor 2.060 3.672 3.250 117
4 2nd floor 2.060 3.672 3.250 117
50 | P a g e
5 1st floor 2.060 3.672 3.250 117
6 ground floor 2.060 3.672 3.050 109
FOR CENTRE COLUMN C3

Beam
Dead load of load
Live load on Total Factored load
SN Floor slab and rib including
slab (kN) (kN) (kN)
(kN) wall load
(kN)
1 top 205.992 117.000 140.835 463.827 695.740
2 4th floor 205.992 210.600 140.835 904.254 1356.380
3 3rd floor 206.352 280.800 140.835 1321.640 1982.460
4 2nd floor 206.352 327.600 140.835 1715.627 2573.441
5 1st floor 206.352 351.000 140.835 2086.214 3129.321
6 ground floor 206.352 351.000 140.835 2433.401 3650.101
Load on ground floor supporting column excluding self wt of column = 3650.101
Table: Load Calculation for Column design
Floor height = 3.6m,
Self-weight of column (except basement) = 25*0.5*0.5*3.6=22.5 kN
Factored weight of column = 1.5*22.5 = 33.75 kN
Self-weight of basement column = 25*0.5*0.5*3.0 = 18.75 kN
Factored weight of basement column = 1.5*22.5 = 28.125 kN
Load on basement column (except self-wt.) = 3650.101 kN
So total load on column at basement level = 3650.101 + (5*33.75) + 28.125 kN
Hence take total factored load on column Pu = 3846.976 kN
Take Pu= 3847 kN
Mux= 197.26 kN-m
Muy= 197.26 kN-m
Unsupported length of column (l) = 3.5m = 3500mm
Concrete used = M25; fck = 25Mpa
Steel used = Fe500; fy = 500Mpa
6.3.2 DESIGN PROCEDURE
51 | P a g e
Step 1: Slenderness ratio
dx= 500 mm
dy= 500 mm
since effectively held in position at both ends and restricted in translation as well
as rotation.
The effective length of the column, Lex = Ley= 0.65*3600 = 2340mm

2340
(S.R.)x=(S.R.)y = = 4.68 < 12 (hence column can be designed as a short column)
500
Step2:Check for minimum eccentricities

197.387
Applied eccentricity, ex = ∗ 1000 = 80.34mm
2457
197.387
ey = = 80.34mm
2457
3600 500
minimum eccentricity from code ex,min = ey,min= 500 + = 23.87mm
30
permissible value of emin for to be designed as a short column = 0.05D = 0.05*500

= 25 > 23.87 (ok).
So, the column can be designed as a short column
Step3: Longitudinal reinforcement for trial section
Design moment,
Mu = (Mux2+Muy2)1/2
= (197.3872+197.3872)1/2
= 279.15 kN-m
Assuming d’ = 50mm
𝑑′ 50
= 500 = 0.1
𝐷
𝑃𝑢 2457∗103
= = 0.13
𝑓𝑐𝑘∗𝑏∗𝐷 25∗5002
𝑀𝑢 279.15∗106
= =0.09
𝑓𝑐𝑘∗𝑏∗𝐷 3 25∗5003
𝑑′ 𝑃𝑢 𝑀𝑢
From sp16 chart 44, for = 0.1, 𝑓𝑐𝑘∗𝐷2 = 0.13 & 𝑓𝑐𝑘∗𝐷3 =0.09
𝐷
𝑃𝑢
= 0.08
𝑓𝑐𝑘
52 | P a g e
∴ P = 0.08*25 = 2% (which is in between 0.2% - 4%, Hence okay)
∴Asc= 1.25*400*400/100 = 2000mm2
Provide 8-25mm dia. bars, so Asc = 3927mm2 > 2000mm2(ok)

100
Ppro = 3927*400∗400 = 2.45
P /fck = 2.45/25 = 0.1
Assume lateral ties of 8mm dia.
d’ = 40+8+25/2 = 60.5mm
𝑑′ 60.5
= = 0.15
𝐷 400
𝑑′ 𝑃𝑢
For =0.15, P /fck =0.1 & =0.24 from chart 45, Mu /fck*b*D2 = 0.135
𝐷 𝑓𝑐𝑘∗𝑏∗𝐷
Mu /fck*b*D2 = 0.135
Mux1 = Muy1 = 0.135*25*400*4002 = 216KN-m > (Mux, Muy); (ok)
Puz = 0.45*fck*Ag + (0.75*fy – 0.45*fck)*Asc
= 0.45*25*4002(0.75*415 – 0.45*25)*2412.74
= 2523.822KN > Pu(ok)
Pu / Puz = 955/2523.822 = 0.378(0.2 to 0.8)

2−1
Then from IS456 cl.39.6 for αn, from interpolation αn = 1+0.8−0.2 ∗ (0.378 − 0.2)
= 1.3
Step 4: check for biaxial bending
(Mux/Mux1)αn +(Muy/Muy1)αn ≤ 1
= (112.79/220.8)1.3 + (89.38/220.8)1.3
= 0.726 ≤ 1(0k)
Hence provide 8-25mm longitudinal bars
Step 5: Lateral ties

𝑑𝑖𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑠
Dia. >max of { , 6} = {25/6, 6}
6
Provide 8mm bars
53 | P a g e
Spacing < min of {D, 16*dia. of main bars, 300} = {400, 16*25, 300}
Adopt spacing = 300mm
54 | P a g e
8. Check for Irregularity

8.1 Check for plan Irregularity
8.1.1 Check for torsion irregularity
As per UBC (Cl.1633.1, Table 16-M)
Torsion Irregularity is to be considered when floor diaphragms are rigid in their ownplan
in relation to the vertical structural elements that resist the lateral forces.
Torsional irregularity is to be considered to exist when the maximum storey
drift, computed with design eccentricity, at one end of the structure transverse to an
axis ismore than 1.2 times the average of the storey drifts at the two ends of the
structure.
i.e. If ∆1 = Lower displacement value of one node at top storey
∆2 = Higher Displacement value of another node at top storey
Then, for no torsion irregularity,
𝛥1 +𝛥2
Δ2 =1.2 ∗ or, (Δmax =1.2*Δavg)
2
Check for torsion irregularity

Output Direc Maxi Ave R Rem
Case tion mum rage atio arks
4.79 1.
EQy Y 5.553 ok
7 158
52.5 1.
EQx X 58.707 ok
29 118
8.1.2 Check for Re-entrant corners

As per UBC (Cl.1633.2.9, Table 16-M)
Plan configurations of a structure and its lateral force resisting system contain re-
entrant corners, where both projections of the structure beyond a re-entrant corner are greater
than 15 percent of the plan dimension of the structure in the given direction.
i.e. Re-entrant corner exist if A/L>0.15
Where, A = projection length & L = Length along the direction
In our case Ax& Ay=0
So no re-entrant corner exist.
8.2 Check For Vertical Irregularity
8.2.1 Check for stiffness irregularity (soft storey)
As per UBC (Cl.1629.8.4, Table 16-L)
A soft storey is the one in which the lateral stiffness is less than 70 percent
of that inthe storey above or less than 80 percent of the average lateral stiffness of
the three storeys above.
i.e., 𝑘𝑖 < 0.7, 𝑘𝑖 < 0.8
𝑘𝑖+1 (𝑘𝑖+1+𝑘𝑖+2+𝑘𝑖+3)/3
55 | P a g e
Stif Ki/(
O fX Ki c (Ki+1 + c
Story
utput kN/ /ki+1 heck Ki+2 + heck
Case m Ki+3)/3)
LIFT E 186
-
COVER Qx 076.2
E 276 1. o
ROOF Qx 015.6 483 k
TOP E 357 1. o
FLOOR Qx 395.2 295 k
THIRD E 380 1. o 1.3 o
FLOOR Qx 467.1 065 k 93 k
SECOND E 405 1. o 1.2 o
FLOOR Qx 695.5 066 k 00 k
FIRST E 454 1. o 1.1 o
FLOOR Qx 101.6 119 k 91 k
GROUND E 113 2. o 2.7 o
FLOOR Qx 5238 500 k 46 k
Sti Ki/
O ff y K c ((Ki+1 + c
Story
utput kN i/ki+1 heck Ki+2 + heck
Case /m Ki+3)/3)
LIFT E 18
COVER Qy 4719.3
E 26 1 o
ROOF Qy 8765 .455 k
TOP E 36 1 o
FLOOR Qy 3803.4 .354 k
THIRD E 40 1 o 1. o
FLOOR Qy 1771.9 .104 k 475 k
SECOND E 44 1 o 1. o
FLOOR Qy 1654.9 .099 k 281 k
FIRST E 48 1 o 1. o
FLOOR Qy 1521.9 .090 k 197 k
GROUN E 11 2 o 2. o
D FLOOR Qy 92865 .477 k 701 k
8.2.2 Check for Mass Irregularity

As per UBC (Cl.1629.8.4, Table 16-L)
56 | P a g e
Mass Irregularity shall be considered to exist where the seismic weight of any
storey is more than 150 percent of that of its adjacent storeys. The irregularity need not
be considered in case of roofs.
𝑊𝑖
i.e. 𝑊 < 1.5
𝑖+1
𝑊𝑖
< 1.5
𝑊𝑖−1
Seismic Wi/ C Wi C
Story Weight Wi+1 heck /Wi-1 heck
0.5 o
5070.30 - -
ROOF 8 k
TOP 1.7 o 0.9 o
8763.73
FLOOR 3 k 5 k
THIRD 1.0 o 0.9 o
9261.85
FLOOR 6 k 8 k
SECOND 1.0 o 0.9 o
9432.83
FLOOR 2 k 1 k
FIRST 10305.9 1.0 o 0.7 o
FLOOR 3 9 k 2 k
GROUN 14221.1 1.3 o
- -
D FLOOR 3 8 k
9. Structural Design
9.1 Base Shear calculation using equivalent lateral load procedure
Computation of Seismic weights
STOREY Seismic Weight (kN)

LIFT COVER 1427.999
ROOF 5070.303
TOP FLOOR 8763.729
THIRD FLOOR 9261.847
SECOND FLOOR 9432.830
FIRST FLOOR 10305.931
GROUND FLOOR 14221.134
TOTAL SEISMIC WT. 58483.773
IS 1893:2016 Auto Seismic Load Calculation
57 | P a g e
This calculation presents the automatically generated lateral seismic loads for load
pattern EQx according to IS 1893:2016, as calculated by ETABS.
Direction and Eccentricity
Direction = Multiple
Eccentricity Ratio = 5% for all diaphragms
Structural Period
Period Calculation Method = User Specified
User Period: T=0.735 sec
Factors and Coefficients
Seismic Zone Factor [IS Table 3], Z = 0.36
Response Reduction Factor [IS Table 9], R = 5
Importance Factor [IS Table 8], I=1.2
Site Type [IS Table 1], III
Spectral Acceleration Coefficient [IS 6.4.2],
Sa/g=1.67/T
Sa/g= 2.272
Seismic Coefficient [IS 6.4.2],
𝑍𝐼𝑆𝑎
Ah = = 0.0981
2𝑅𝑔
Base shear (VB) = Ah*W = 0.0981*58483.774 kN = 5740.481 kN
Calculation of Storey force and Vertical Distribution of base shear

Elevation Seismic Storey
Storey Wi*Hi2
(Hi), m Weight (Wi) Force (kN) Shear
LIFT
24 1427.99 522.661 5
COVER 822527.3
ROOF 21 5070.303 2236004 1420.83 19
TOP
17.4 8763.729 1685.997 36
FLOOR 2653307
THIRD
13.8 9261.846 1120.793 47
FLOOR 1763826
SECOND
10.2 9432.83 623.608 53
FLOOR 981391.6
FIRST
6.6 10305.931 285.262 56
FLOOR 448926.4
GROUND
3 14221.134 81.329 57
FLOOR 127990.2
Total 9033972
58 | P a g e
59 | P a g e
9.2 Stability Index
To determine whether a storey is in a sway or no sway condition, the stability index ofeach floor is determined
as per IS 456:2000 clause E-2. The column is in a no sway condition only if the stability index is less than or equal to
0.04.
Along X
Seismic Storey Absolute Relative Storey

Storey ∑Pu=∑Wi
Weight Height Displacement Displacement Forces Shea
LIFT COVER 1427.999 1427.999 3000 70.72 3.687 522.661

ROOF 5070.303 6498.302 3600 67.033 8.327 1420.830
TOP FLOOR 8763.729 15262.031 3600 58.706 11.679 1685.998
THIRD FLOOR 9261.847 24523.878 3600 47.027 13.727 1120.793
SECOND FLOOR 9432.830 33956.707 3600 33.3 14.63 623.608
FIRST FLOOR 10305.931 44262.639 3600 18.67 13.29 285.262
GROUND FLOOR 14221.134 58483.773 3600 5.38 5.38 81.329
Along Y
Seismic Storey Absolute Relative Storey S

Storey ∑Pu=∑Wi
Weight Height Displacement Displacement Forces Shear
LIFT COVER 1427.999 1427.999 3000 60.217 1.2 522.661 5

ROOF 5070.303 6498.302 3600 59.017 6.297 1420.83 19
TOP FLOOR 8763.729 15262.03 3600 52.72 9.467 1686 36
THIRD FLOOR 9261.847 24523.88 3600 43.253 12.009 1120.79 47
60 | P a g e
SECOND FLOOR 9432.83 33956.71 3600 31.244 13.2 623.608 53
FIRST FLOOR 10305.93 44262.64 3600 18.044 12.492 285.262 56
GROUND FLOOR 14221.13 58483.77 3600 5.552 5.552 81.3292 57
9.3 DESIGN OF COLUMN: C59 (Edge Column)

1. Load Combinations:
As defined in Etabs.
2. Force Data
For a column, force resultants for various Load cases and Load combinations are shown in table 2.1 and 2.2 below:
Force resultant in column C59 for different load cases:
(Note: The two ends of a Column are denoted as A and B)
A B
Load
Case V2 M2 (kN- M3 V2 M2
P (kN) P (kN)
(kN) m) (kN-m) (kN) (kN-m)
- -
EQx 37.218 -8.208 93.562 37.218 2.342
240.505 240.505
-
EQy 191.847 -1.233 115.369 -1.158 191.847 -1.233
19.411
- -
6.573 -5.820 7.012 6.573 8.228
DL 627.973 613.876
- -
2.618 -3.147 3.010 2.618 4.850
LL 130.358 130.358
Force resultant in column C1 for different load combos:
A B
Load Case P V2 M2 (kN- M3 (kN- P V2 M
(kN) (kN) m) m) (kN) (kN) (kN-m)
61 | P a g e
- -
0.9DL+1.5EQx 69.871 -25.587 154.656 69.871 22.4
1401.883 1389.195
- - -
0.9DL+1.5EQy 12.478 159.779 13.024 12.478
779.714 767.026 10.200
- - - - -
0.9DL-1.5EQx -13.464 15.9
711.365 41.782 126.031 698.677 41.782
- - -
0.9DL-1.5EQy 15.893 16.049 15.893 48.0
1328.895 186.327 1316.207
- -
1.2(DL+LL+EQx) 66.528 -31.325 134.970 66.528 33.8
1833.203 1816.286
- -
1.2(DL+LL+EQy) 20.614 116.967 21.665 20.614 8.1
1335.468 1318.551
- - - -
1.2(DL+LL-EQx) -21.627 -89.579 28.6
1280.789 22.794 1263.872 22.794
- - -
1.2(DL+LL-EQy) 23.346 24.085 23.346 54.3
1774.813 159.918 1757.896
- -
1.5(DL+EQx) 79.233 -34.436 164.197 79.233 35.0
2095.966 2074.820
- -
1.5(DL+EQy) 21.840 150.929 22.565 21.840 2.8
1473.797 1452.651
- -
1.5(DL+LL) 27.334 -26.844 28.369 27.334 38.8
1930.746 1909.600
- - - - -
1.5(DL-EQx) -22.314 28.5
1405.448 32.420 116.490 1384.302 32.420
- - -
1.5(DL-EQy) 25.256 25.591 25.256 60.6
2022.978 195.177 2001.832
3. Design Checks:
Column Size: Materials Prop.:
62 | P a g e
Width (B): 500 mm Concrete: 25 N/mm2
Depth (D): 500 mm Steel: 500 N/mm2
3.1 Check for Axial Stress:

Lowest factored axial force = -698.677 kN
Factored Axial Stress = 2.795 N/mm2 (> 2.000 N/mm2 i.e. 0.08fck)
Hence, design as column member.
3.2 Check for member size:

Width = 500 mm (> 300 mm), [Cl. 7.1.2, IS 13920:1993]
B/D = 1.000 (> 0.4), Hence Okay, [Cl. 7.1.3, IS 13920:1993]
Span (L) = 3 m
Effective Span (Leff) = 0.65*L [Cl. E-3, Table 28, IS 456:2000]
= 1.95m
Leff/D = 3.90 <12,
Hence design as short column [Cl. 25.1.2, IS 456:2000]
Maximum dimension of Column = 500 mm (> 15Φ i.e. 300 mm), where Φ = Largest dia. of Beam longitudinal R/f
= 20 mm
Hence, okay [Cl. 7.1.2, proposed draft IS 13920]
4. a) Design of Column:
Design for Earthquake in X-direction: Design for Earthquake in Y-direction:

Pu = 1770.305 kN Pu = 1487.699 kN
Mu2 = 195.177 kN-m Mu3 = 164.197 kN-m
Pu/(fck*bD) = 0.283 Pu/(fck*bD) = 0.238
Mu2/(fck*bD2) = 0.053 Mu3/(fck*bD2) = 0.062
63 | P a g e
d' = 50 mm d' = 50 mm
d'/D = 0.10 d'/D = 0.10
Referring to the chart 48 of SP16 Referring to the chart 48 of SP16
p/fck = 0.010 p/fck = 0.011
Longitudinal Steel:
The required steel will be governed by the higher value of the above two values and hence, we take p/fck as:
p/fck = 0.011
i.e. % steel, p =0.28 %
Which is less than 0.8% (i.e. nominal requirement), so
p = 0.80 %
or, Ast = 2000.00 mm2
b) Checking of a section:
The column should be checked for bi-axial moment. Moment about either axis may occur due to the torsion of
the building or due to the minimum eccentricity of the axial load.
Checking for the critical combination with earthquake in the X-direction.

Pu = 1770.305 kN
Mu2 = 164.197 kN-m
e = l/500 + D/30 [Cl. 25.4, IS 456:2000 ]
= 21.67 mm
emin = 0.04 bD
= 20 mm
Hence, design eccentricity (e) = 21.67 mm
Mu3 = Pu*e
= 38.357 kN-m
For, Pu/(fck*bD) = 0.283 and p/fck = 0.032
Referring to chart 44 of SP16:
64 | P a g e
Mu2/(fck*bD2) = 0.080
So, Mu2,l = 250.000 kN-m
Mu3,l = 250.000 kN-m
Puz = 0.45fck*Ac + 0.75fy*Asc [Cl. 39.6, IS 456:2000 ]
= 0.45fck*Ag + (0,75fy - 0.45fck)*Asc
= 3540.000 kN
Pu/Puz = 0.50
Now, by interpolation αn = 1.500
Using interaction formula of [Cl. 39.6, IS 456:2000 ]
(Mu2/Mu2,l)αn + (Mu3/Mu3,l)αn = 0.592 (< 1.00)
Hence, Okay .

Pu = 1487.699 kN
Mu3 = 195.177 kN-m
e = l/500 + D/30 [Cl. 25.4, IS 456:2000 ]
= 21.67 mm
emin = 0.04 bD
= 20 mm
Hence, design eccentricity = 21.67 mm
Mu2 = Pu*e
= 32.233 kN-m

Mu2/(fck*bD2) = 0.084
So, Mu2,l = 262.500 kN-m
Mu3,l = 262.500 kN-m
65 | P a g e
Puz = 0.45fck*Ac + 0.75fy*Asc [Cl. 39.6, IS 456:2000 ]
= 0.45(fck*Ag + (0,75fy - 0.45fck)*Asc
= 3540.000 kN
Pu/Puz = 0.42
Using interaction formula of [Cl. 39.6, IS 456:2000 ]

(Mu2/Mu2,l)αn + (Mu3/Mu3,l)αn = 0.724 (< 1.00)
Hence, okay.
5. Detail of Longitudinal R/f:

A B
Load
Combination P V2 M2 M3 (kN- P V2 M2
(kN) (kN) (kN-m) m) (kN) (kN) (kN-m) (
Gravity - - -
27.334 28.369 27.334 38.804
Load 1930.746 26.844 1909.600 3
Critical
- - -
combination with 79.233 164.197 79.233 35.042
2095.966 34.436 2074.820 3
EQx
Critical
- - -
2022.978 195.177 2001.832 3
EQy
Design of column for Earthquake in X-direction
66 | P a g e
Load A
Combination Pu/(fck*bD) Mu2/(fck*bD2) p/fck p Pu/(fck*bD) Mu2/(fck*b
Gravity
0.309 0.009 - - 0.306 0.013
Load
0.28
Critical
%
combination with 0.283 0.053 0.011 0.332 0.011
0.80
EQx
%
Design of column for Earthquake in Y-direction

Load A
0.28
Critical
%
0.80
EQy
%
0.80
So, for end A, p = So, f
%
Summary of Reinforcement for Column C1
Longitudinal
Column AB
R/f
Reinforcement
4-20-4-16
at A
Reinforcement
4-20-4-16
at B
67 | P a g e
● ● ● ● ● ●
4-16 mm Φ bars 4-16 mm Φ bars

● ● ● ●
4-20 mm Φ bars 4-20 mm Φ bars
● ● ● ● ● ●
Reinforcement at A Reinforcement at B
Tabulation of Shear force in column for different
Load combinations:
A B
Load Case
EQx (kN) EQy (kN) EQx (kN) EQy (kN)
1.5(DL+LL) 27.334 -26.259 27.334 -26.259
1.2(DL+LL+EQx) 66.528 -26.072 66.528 -26.072
1.2(DL+LL-EQx) -22.794 -20.113 -22.794 -20.113
1.5(DL+EQx) 79.233 -27.791 79.233 -27.791
1.5(DL-EQx) -32.420 -20.343 -32.420 -20.343
0.9DL+1.5EQx 69.871 -19.207 69.871 -19.207
0.9DL-1.5EQx -41.782 -11.759 -41.782 -11.759
1.2(DL+LL+EQy) 20.614 43.687 20.614 43.687
1.2(DL+LL-EQy) 23.346 -85.702 23.346 -85.702
1.5(DL+EQy) 21.840 59.407 21.840 59.407
1.5(DL-EQy) 25.256 -102.329 25.256 -102.329
0.9DL+1.5EQy 12.478 67.991 12.478 67.991
0.9DL-1.5EQy 15.893 -93.745 15.893 -93.745
68 | P a g e
6. Design for Shear:
Shear Capacity of Column:
Assuming 50 % steel provided as tensile steel to be on the conservative side,
Ast = pt%/2
= 0.40 %
Hence, Permissible shear stress (τc) = 0.44 N/mm2 [Cl. 40.2.1, IS 456:2000]
And, Considering Lowest Pu = 698.677 kN
δ = 1+ (3Pu/Agfck) [Cl. 40.2.2, IS 456:2000]

= 1.335
τc = 0.59 N/mm2
Effective depth in X- direction = 450 mm Clear cover = 40 mm

Vc = 132.201 kN Bar dia. = 20 mm
Effective depth in Y- direction = 450 mm

Vc = 132.201 kN
a.
The maximum factored shear force in X-direction from table = 79.233 kN
The maximum factored shear force in Y-direction from table = 102.329 kN
b.
Shear force due to plastic hinge formed at the beam ends
The hogging and sagging moment capacities are;
For earthquake in X-direction:
Sagging Moment Capacity = 76 kN-m
Hogging Moment Capacity = 152 kN-m
Vu = 1.4 (Mubr)/hst hst = storey height = 3 m.
69 | P a g e
= 106.307 kN
For earthquake in Y-direction:
Vu = 1.4 (Mubr + Mubl)/hst hst = storey height = 3.000
= 108.528 kN
As per code IS 13920:1993, Cl.7.3.4

Design Shear force for column shall be maximum of case a. and Case b.
Hence,
For earthquake in X-direction, Design shear (Vu) = 106.307 kN-m
For earthquake in Y-direction, Design shear (Vu) = 108.528 kN-m
Detail of Transverse Reinforcement

Here design shear force in column is less than the shear capacity column in both direction. So, only nominal
reinforcement will work.
Nominal Links:
The spacing of hoops shall not exceed half the least lateral dimension of column. [Cl. 7.3.3, IS
456:2000]
Least lateral dimension of column = 500 mm
Spacing of hoops ≤ 250 mm
Let’s provide 8mm-Φ bars @ 200 mm spacing.
70 | P a g e
9.4 DESIGN OF COLUMN: C32 (Centre Column)
1. Load Calculation
As defined in Etabs.
2. Force Data
For a column, force resultants for various Load cases and Load combinations are shown in table 2.1 and 2.2
below:
Force resultant in column C32 for different load cases:
(Note: The two ends of a Column are denoted as A and B
A B
Load
Case V2 M2 (kN- M3 V2 M2
P (kN) P (kN)
(kN) m) (kN-m) (kN) (kN-m)
- -
EQx 37.218 -8.208 93.562 37.218 2.342
240.505 240.505
-
EQy 191.847 -1.233 115.369 -1.158 191.847 -1.233
19.411
- -
6.573 -5.820 7.012 6.573 8.228
DL 627.973 613.876
- -
2.618 -3.147 3.010 2.618 4.850
LL 130.358 130.358
Force resultant in column C32 for different load combos:
Load Case A B
71 | P a g e
P V2 M2 (kN- M3 (kN- P V2 M2
(kN) (kN) m) m) (kN) (kN) (kN-m)
- -
0.9DL+1.5EQx 93.849 -2.733 178.028 93.849 1.816
1179.438 1166.750
- - -
0.9DL+1.5EQy 0.313 163.521 1.166 0.313
888.342 875.654 48.938
- - - - -
0.9DL-1.5EQx -1.054 -0.125
603.054 93.696 176.633 590.366 93.696
- - -
0.9DL-1.5EQy -0.159 0.577 -0.159 50.629
893.832 166.997 881.145
- -
1.2(DL+LL+EQx) 74.418 -3.801 142.661 74.418 2.132
1868.584 1851.667
- - -
1.2(DL+LL+EQy) -0.554 129.202 1.171 -0.554
1635.707 1618.790 38.472
- - - - -
1.2(DL+LL-EQx) -2.458 1.163
1407.477 75.618 141.068 1390.560 75.618
- - -
1.2(DL+LL-EQy) -0.789 0.700 -0.789 41.182
1640.099 135.212 1623.183
- -
1.5(DL+EQx) 93.900 -3.891 178.494 93.900 2.380
1773.305 1752.159
- - -
1.5(DL+EQy) 0.364 162.363 1.631 0.364
1482.209 1461.063 48.374
- -
1.5(DL+LL) -0.750 -3.756 0.996 -0.750 1.694
2047.092 2025.946
- - - - -
1.5(DL-EQx) -2.212 1.169
1196.921 93.645 176.168 1175.775 93.645
- - -
1.5(DL-EQy) -0.108 1.042 -0.108 51.193
1487.699 168.155 1466.553
3. Design Checks:
72 | P a g e
Column Size: Materials Prop.:
Width (B): 400 mm Concrete: 25 N/mm2
Depth (D): 400 mm Steel: 500 N/mm2
3.1. Check for Axial Stress:

Lowest factored axial force = -590.366 kN
Factored Axial Stress = 3.690 N/mm2 (>2.000 N/mm2 i.e. 0.08fck)
Hence, design as column member.
3.2. Check for member size:

Width = 500 mm (> 300 mm) [Cl. 7.1.2, IS 13920:1993]
B/D = 1.250 (> 0.4, Hence Okay) [Cl. 7.1.3, IS 13920:1993]
Span (L) = 3 m
Effective Span (Leff) = 0.65*L [Cl. E-3, Table 28, IS 456:2000]
= 1.95m
Leff/D = 4.88 (<12, Hence design as short column) [Cl. 25.1.2, IS 456:2000]
Maximum dimension of Column = 400 mm (> 15Φ i.e 300 mm) where, Φ = Largest dia. of Beam
longitudinal R/f
= 20 mm
Hence, Okay [Cl. 7.1.2, proposed draft IS 13920]
4. a) Design of Column:
Design for Earthquake in X-direction: Design for Earthquake in Y-direction:
Pu = 1770.305 kN Pu = 1487.699 kN
73 | P a g e
Mu3 = 178.494 kN-m Mu2 = 168.155 kN-m
Pu/(fck*bD) = 0.443 Pu/(fck*bD) = 0.372
Mu2/(fck*bD2) = 0.112 Mu2/(fck*bD2) = 0.105
d' = 50 mm d' = 50 mm
d'/D = 0.13 d'/D = 0.13
Referring to the chart 48 of SP16 Referring to the chart 48 of SP16
p/fck = 0.100 p/fck = 0.090
Longitudinal Steel:
The required steel will be governed by the higher value of the above two values and hence, we take p/fck as:
p/fck = 0.100
i.e. Percentage steel, p = 2.50 %
Which is less than 0.8% (i.e. nominal requirement),
So, p =2.50 %
or, Ast = 4000.00 mm2
b) Checking of a section:
The column should be checked for bi-axial moment. Moment about either axis may occur due to the torsion of the
building or due to the minimum eccentricity of the axial load.
Pu = 1770.305 kN
Mu2 = 178.494 kN-m
e = l/500 + D/30 [Cl. 25.4, IS 456:2000]
= 18.53 mm
emin = 0.04 bD
= 16 mm
74 | P a g e
Mu3 = Pu*e
= 32.810 kN-m

Mu2/(fck*bD2) = 0.120
So, Mu2,l = 192.000 kN-m
Mu3,l = 192.000 kN-m
Puz = 0.45fck*Ac + 0.75fy*Asc [Cl. 39.6, IS 456:2000]
= 0.45fck*Ag + (0,75fy - 0.45fck)*Asc
= 3255.000 kN
Pu/Puz = 0.54
Using interaction formula of [Cl. 39.6, IS 456:2000]

αn αn
(Mu2/Mu2,l) + (Mu3/Mu3,l) = 0.954 (< 1.00)
Hence Okay
Checking for the critical combination with earthquake in the Y-direction.

Pu = 1487.699 kN
Mu3 = 168.155 kN-m
e = l/500 + D/30 [Cl. 25.4, IS 456:2000]
= 18.53 mm
emin = 0.04 bD
= 16 mm
Mu2 = Pu*e
75 | P a g e
= 27.572 kN-m

Mu2/(fck*bD2) = 0.110
So, Mu2,l = 176.000 kN-m
Mu3,l = 176.000 kN-m
Puz = 0.45fck*Ac + 0.75fy*Asc [Cl. 39.6, IS 456:2000]
= 0.45fck*Ag + (0.75fy - 0.45fck)*Asc
= 3255.000 kN
Pu/Puz = 0.46
Using interaction formula of [Cl. 39.6, IS 456:2000]

αn αn
(Mu2/Mu2,l) + (Mu3/Mu3,l) = 1.008 (> 1.00)
Hence Okay
5. Detail of Longitudinal R/f:

A B
Load
Combination P V2 M2 M3 (kN- P V2 M2
(kN) (kN) (kN-m) m) (kN) (kN) (kN-m) (k
Gravity - - -
-0.750 0.996 -0.750 1.694
Load 2047.092 3.756 2025.946
Critical
- - -
1773.305 3.891 1752.159 56
EQx
-0.108 1.042 -0.108 51.193
76 | P a g e
Critical
- - -
combination with
1487.699 168.155 1466.553
EQy
Design of column for Earthquake in X-direction
Load A
Gravity
0.512 0.002 - - 0.506 0.002
Load
2.50
Critical
%
2.50
EQx
%
Design of column for Earthquake in Y-direction
Load A
2.25
Critical
%
combination 0.372 0.105 0.090 0.367 0.032
2.25
with EQy
%
2.50
So, for end A, p = So, fo
%
Summary of Reinforcement for Column C1
Longitudinal
Column AB
R/f
77 | P a g e
Reinforcement
4-25-0-20
at A
Reinforcement
4-25-0-16
at B
Reinforcement at A Reinforcement at B
Tabulation of Shear force in column for different load combinations:

A B
Load Case
EQx (kN) EQy (kN) EQx (kN) EQy (kN)
1.5(DL+LL) 27.334 -26.259 27.334 -26.259
1.2(DL+LL+EQx) 66.528 -26.072 66.528 -26.072
1.2(DL+LL-EQx) -22.794 -20.113 -22.794 -20.113
1.5(DL+EQx) 79.233 -27.791 79.233 -27.791
1.5(DL-EQx) -32.420 -20.343 -32.420 -20.343
0.9DL+1.5EQx 69.871 -19.207 69.871 -19.207
0.9DL-1.5EQx -41.782 -11.759 -41.782 -11.759
1.2(DL+LL+EQy) 20.614 43.687 20.614 43.687
1.2(DL+LL-EQy) 23.346 -85.702 23.346 -85.702
1.5(DL+EQy) 21.840 59.407 21.840 59.407
1.5(DL-EQy) 25.256 -102.329 25.256 -102.329
0.9DL+1.5EQy 12.478 67.991 12.478 67.991
78 | P a g e
0.9DL-1.5EQy 15.893 -93.745 15.893 -93.745
6. Design for Shear:

Shear Capacity of Column:
Assuming 50 % steel provided as tensile steel to be on the conservative side,
Ast = pt%/2
= 1.25 %
Hence, Permissible shear stress (τc)= 0.44 N/mm2 [Cl. 40.2.1, IS 456:2000]
And, Considering Lowest Pu = 590.366 kN
δ = 1+ (3Pu/Agfck) [Cl. 40.2.2, IS 456:2000]

= 1.443
τc = 0.63 N/mm2
Effective depth in X- direction = 350 mm Clear cover = 40 mm

Vc = 88.875 kN Bar dia. = 20 mm
Effective depth in Y- direction = 350 mm

Vc = 88.875 kN
a.
The maximum factored shear force in X-direction from table = 79.233 kN
The maximum factored shear force in Y-direction from table = 102.329 kN
b.
Shear force due to plastic hinge formed at the beam ends
The hogging and sagging moment capacities are;
79 | P a g e
For earthquake in X-direction:
Vu = 1.4 (Mubr)/hst hst = storey height = 3 m
= 106.307 kN
For earthquake in Y-direction:
Vu = 1.4 (Mubr + Mubl)/hst hst = storey height = 3 m.
= 108.528 kN
As per code IS 13920:1993, Cl.7.3.4
Design Shear force for column shall be maximum of case a. and Case b.
Hence,
For earthquake in X-direction, Design shear (Vu) = 106.307 kN-m
For earthquake in Y-direction, Design shear (Vu) = 108.528 kN-m
Detail of Transverse Reinforcement

Here design shear force in column is less than the shear capacity column in both directions. So, only nominal
reinforcement will work.
Nominal Links:
The spacing of hoops shall not exceed half the least lateral dimension of column. [Cl. 7.3.3, IS
456:2000]
Least lateral dimension of column = 500 mm
Spacing of hoops ≤ 250 mm
Lets provide 8mm-Φ bars @ 200 mm spacing.
80 | P a g e
9.5 Design OF Beam
Beams are structural members assigned to transmit the loads from slab
to the column throughit. Specially, flexure is more dominant than shear in the
beam.
There are three types of reinforced concrete beams:
1. Singly reinforced beams

2. Doubly reinforced beams
3. Singly or doubly reinforced flanged beam
In singly reinforced simply supported beams, reinforcements are

placed at the bottom of the beam whereas on top in case of cantilever beams.
A doubly reinforced concrete beam is reinforced in both compression

and tension regions. The necessity of using steel in compression region arises
when depth of the section is restricted due to functional or aesthetic
requirements.
A complete design of beam involves consideration of safety under

ultimate limit state in flexure, shear, torsion and bond as well as consideration
of serviceability limit states of deflection, crack width, durability etc.
In the analysis of a section, it is required to determine the moment of

resistance knowing the cross section and reinforcement details.in the design of
sections, it is required to determine the cross section and amount of
reinforcement knowing the factored design loads.
Beam selected
From ETABS,
Critical Beam = B42 of first floor
Load condition = 1.5(DL-EQy) (for hogging condition)
= 0.9DL+1.5EQy (for sagging condition
Known data
Concrete grade= 20 Mpa

Steel grade = 500 Mpa
Overall depth of beam D = 550mm
Width of beam B = 450
Effective cover = 50 mm
Effective depth, d = 550 – 50 = 500 mm
81 | P a g e
9.5.1 Check for member size
Width of beam, B = 450 mm > 200 mm (IS 13920:2016 Clause 6.1.2)
Depth of beam D = 550 mm
B/D = 450/550 = 0.81 > 0.3 (IS 13920:2016 Clause 6.1.1)
Hence, Okay
Effective length, Le = 6m
Clear span, L = 6-2*0.5/2 = 5.5m
L/D = 5/0.55 = 9.09 > 4 (OK) (IS 13920:2016 Clause 6.1.4
9.5.2 Checking for limiting longitudinal reinforcement

Minimum reinforcement
√𝑓𝑐𝑘
𝐴𝑠𝑡,𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.24 × 𝐵𝐷 (IS 13920:2016 Clause 6.2.1b)
𝑓𝑦
√20
𝐴𝑠𝑡,𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 0.24 × 450 × 550 = 531.289𝑚𝑚2
500
Maximum reinforcement
𝐴𝑠𝑡,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.025 𝐵𝐷 (IS 13920:2016 Clause 6.2.2)
𝐴𝑠𝑡,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.025 × 450 × 550 = 6187.5 𝑚𝑚2
9.5.3 Design for flexure

𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚 = 0.1336 𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝑏𝑑 2
𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚 = 0.1336 × 20 × 450 × 5002 = 300.60𝑘𝑁𝑚
At left end
For Hogging (Negative) Moment:
Hogging moment, Mu = 468.809kNm (-)
Torsional moment, Tu = 37.49kNm (+)
Bending moment equivalent to torsion:
𝐷 550
1+ 1+
𝑏 450
𝑀𝑡 = 𝑇𝑢 ( 1.7 ) = 37.49 × ( ) = 49.006𝑘𝑁𝑚
1.7
𝑀𝑒1 = 𝑀𝑢 + 𝑀𝑡 = 468.039 − 49.006 = 419.039𝑘𝑁𝑚

𝑀𝑒1 > 𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚
Hence it is a doubly reinforced section
Assume d’=50mm
82 | P a g e
d’/d = 50/500 = 0.1
Me1/bd2 = 419.039*10^6/450*5002 = 3.743
Now Using design aids chart (IS456:1978, Table 54)
Then from interpolation
Pt = 1.032%
Pc = 0.271%
For Sagging (Positive) Moment:
Sagging moment, Mu = 364.237kNm (+)

Torsional moment, Tu = 2.902 kNm (-)
Bending moment equivalent to torsion
𝐷 550
1+ 1+
𝑏 450
𝑀𝑡 = 𝑇𝑢 ( 1.7 ) = 2.902 × ( ) = 3.793 𝑘𝑁𝑚
1.7
Mt < Mu , So longitudinal reinforcement need not be designed in compression.

𝑀𝑒1 = 𝑀𝑢 + 𝑀𝑡 = 364.273 − 3.793 = 360.48𝑘𝑁𝑚
So, providing doubly reinforced section.

Assume d’=50mm
d’/d = 50/500 = 0.1
Me1/bd2 = 360.48*10^6/450*5002 = 3.204
Now Using design aids chart (IS456:1978, Table 54)
Pt = 0.894%
Pc = 0.15%
Thus,
Ast (bottom bar) = 0.00894*450*500 = 2011.5mm2 >Ast,min & < Ast, max (ok)
[Provide 2-25mm dia bars (corner) + 2- 20 mm dia bars ]on bottom +2-20mm dia bars ,
Ast,pro = 2238.385mm2>Ast(ok)
Asc (bottom) = 0.0015*450*500 = 337.5mm2 < Ast,min
Provide Asc minimum as 50% of Ast
Thus, Least area of bottom bar, Asc = 50 % of Ast = 1119.19 mm2 > 531.89 mm2
83 | P a g e
At middle part
As per analysis, there is no hogging moment at this section of beam.

Sagging moment, Mu = 77.96 kNm (+)
Torsional moment, Tu = 5.249kNm (+)
𝐷 550
1+ 1+
𝑀𝑡 = 𝑇𝑢 ( 1.7𝑏 ) = 5.249 × ( 450
) = 6.861𝑘𝑁𝑚
1.7
Mt < Mu, so longitudinal reinforcement need not be designed in compression.

𝑀𝑒1 = 𝑀𝑢 + 𝑀𝑡 = 77.96 + 6.861 = 84.821 𝑘𝑁𝑚
𝑀𝑒1 < 𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚
So, providing singly reinforced section.

For area of bottom bar, Ast
𝑓𝑦 ×𝐴𝑠𝑡
𝑀𝑒1 = 0.87 × 𝑓𝑦 × 𝐴𝑠𝑡 × 𝑑 (1 − 𝑏×𝑑×𝑓 )
𝑐𝑘
500 × 𝐴𝑠𝑡
84.821 × 106 = 0.87 × 500 × 𝐴𝑠𝑡 × 500 (1 − )
450 × 500 × 20
𝐴𝑠𝑡 = 408.525 𝑚𝑚2 < Ast,min
Provide 2-20mm bars throughout the beam , Ast = 628.318mm2
Provide 2-25mm bars throughout in the compression zone
At right end
For the considered load combination there is no hogging moment and sagging moment in
the right end. However designing the bars as per the nature of moment at right end under
the load conditions.
Sagging moment, Mu = 218.76 kNm (+)
84 | P a g e
𝐷 550
1+ 1+
𝑏 450
𝑀𝑡 = 𝑇𝑢 ( 1.7 ) = 5.08 × ( ) = 6.64 𝑘𝑁𝑚
1.7
Mt < Mu , so longitudinal reinforcement need not be designed in compression.

𝑀𝑒1 = 𝑀𝑢 + 𝑀𝑡 = 218.76 − 6.64 = 212.12 𝑘𝑁𝑚
𝑀𝑒1 < 𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚
So, providing singly reinforced section.
For area of bottom bar, Ast
𝑓𝑦 ×𝐴𝑠𝑡
𝑀𝑒1 = 0.87 × 𝑓𝑦 × 𝐴𝑠𝑡 × 𝑑 (1 − 𝑏×𝑑×𝑓 )
𝑐𝑘
500×𝐴
212.12 × 106 = 0.87 × 500 × 𝐴𝑠𝑡 × 500 (1 − 450×500×20
𝑠𝑡
)
𝐴𝑠𝑡 = 1112.87 𝑚𝑚2 > Ast,min (ok)

[Provide 2-20mm dia bars + 2-16mm dia bars] on bottom and 2-16mm dia bars on second
row, Ast, pro = 1432.56mm2
Least area of top bar,Asc = 50 % of Ast = 716.28mm2 >531.89 mm2 (Ast,min)
Provide 2-25mm dia bars on compression region.
Hogging moment, Mu = 382.451 kNm (-)
𝐷 550
1+ 1+
𝑀𝑡 = 𝑇𝑢 ( 1.7𝑏 ) = 29.819 × ( 450
) = 38.98 𝑘𝑁𝑚
1.7
𝑀𝑒1 = 𝑀𝑢 + 𝑀𝑡 = 382.451 + 38.98 = 421.431 𝑘𝑁𝑚

So, doubly reinforced section is required.

Assume d’=50mm
d’/d = 50/500 = 0.1
Me1/bd2 = 421.431*10^6/450*5002 = 3.74
Now Using design aids chart (IS456:1978, Table 54
Pt = 1.032%
Pc = 0.271%
Thus, Ast (top bar) = 0.01032*450*500 = 2322mm2 >Ast,min & < Ast, max (ok)
85 | P a g e
Provide 4-25mm dia bars + 2- 16 mm dia bars , Ast,pro = 2365.62mm2>Ast(ok)
Asc (bottom) = 0.00271*450*500 = 609.75mm2 >Ast,min
Provide Asc minimum as 50% of Ast
Thus, Least area of bottom bar, Asc = 50 % of Ast = 1161 mm2 > 531.89 mm2
Provide 4-20mm dia bars at bottom Asc, pro = 1256.637mm2
9.5.4 Check for shear

From analysis results,
Shear force at left end =-250.205 kN
Shear force at mid span = 77.96 kN
Shear force at right end = 215.025 kN
Torsion at left end = 37.49 kNm
Torsion at mid span = 5.643 kNm
Torsion at right end = -29.819kNm
Shear force due to formation of plastic hinge at both ends

The additional shear force due to formation of plastic hinge at both ends of the beam.
For sway to right
𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝐴𝑠 + 𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝐵ℎ
𝑉𝑢,𝑎 = 𝑉𝑎 𝐷+𝐿 − 1.4 ( )
𝐿𝐴𝐵
𝐷+𝐿 𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝐴𝑠 + 𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝐵ℎ
𝑉𝑢,𝑏 = 𝑉𝑏 + 1.4 ( )
𝐿𝐴𝐵
For sway to left
𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝐴ℎ + 𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝐵𝑠
𝑉𝑢,𝑎 = 𝑉𝑎 𝐷+𝐿 − 1.4 ( )
𝐿𝐴𝐵
𝐷+𝐿 𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝐴ℎ + 𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝐵𝑠
𝑉𝑢,𝑏 = 𝑉𝑏 + 1.4 ( )
𝐿𝐴𝐵
Where
𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝐴𝑠 = Sagging moment of resistance at left end
𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝐵ℎ = Hogging moment of resistance at right end
𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝐴ℎ = Hogging moment of resistance at left end
𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝐵𝑠 = Sagging moment of resistance at right end
𝑉𝑎 𝐷+𝐿 = Shear at end A, with partial safety factor of 1.2 on loads
𝑉𝑏 𝐷+𝐿 = Shear at end B, with partial safety factor of 1.2 on loads
The beam is provided with steel area of 2365.62mm2 (pt= 1.051%) at top and
86 | P a g e
1256.637 mm2 (pc=0.558%) at bottom on the right end of the beam.
For pt = 1.051% and pc=0.558% from table 54 of SP16
𝑀𝑢 𝐴ℎ
= 3.819
𝑏𝑑2
And
𝑀𝑢 𝐴𝑠
= 4.68
𝑏𝑑2
Mu,limAh =3.744 *450*5002 = 421.20 kNm

Mu,limAs = 4.68*450*5002 = 526.50 kNm
The beam is provided with steel area of 2365.62mm2 (pt= 1.051%) at top and
1256.637 mm2 (pc=0.558%) at bottom on the right end of the beam.
For pt = 1.051% and pc=0.558% from table 54 of SP16
𝑀𝑢 𝐵ℎ
= 3.819
𝑏𝑑2
And
𝑀𝑢 𝐵𝑠
= 4.68
𝑏𝑑2
Mu,limBh = 3.744 *450*5002 = 421.20 kNm

Mu,limBs =4.68*450*5002 = 526.50 kNm
From ETABS
VaD+L = -92.281 kN
VbD+L = 107.563 kN
For sway to right

𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝐴𝑠 +𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝐵ℎ
𝑉𝑢,𝑎 = 𝑉𝑎 𝐷+𝐿 − 1.4 ( )
𝐿𝐴𝐵
526.5 + 421.2
= −92.281 − 1.4 ( )
5.5
= −333.514 kN
𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝐴𝑠 +𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝐵ℎ
𝑉𝑢,𝑏 = 𝑉𝑏 𝐷+𝐿 + 1.4 ( )
𝐿𝐴𝐵
526.5+421.2
= −92.281 + 1.4 ( )
5.5
= 148.95 kN
For sway to left

𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝐴ℎ +𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝐵𝑠
𝑉𝑢,𝑎 = 𝑉𝑎 𝐷+𝐿 − 1.4 ( )
𝐿𝐴𝐵
421.2+526.5
= 107.563 − 1.4 ( )
5.5
87 | P a g e
= −133.67 kN
𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝐴ℎ +𝑀𝑢,𝑙𝑖𝑚 𝐵𝑠
𝑉𝑢,𝑏 = 𝑉𝑏 𝐷+𝐿 − 1.4 ( )
𝐿𝐴𝐵
421.2+526.5
= 107.563 + 1.4 ( )
5.5
= 348.796 kN
The design shear force to be resisted shall be maximum of shear force
obtained from analysis and shear force obtained from the formation of plastic hinges
at both ends of the beam plus factored load on span.
Hence design shear force are

At left end = −333.514 kN
At mid span = 77.96 kN
At right end= 348.796 kN
At left end
Tensile steel provided= 2365.62 mm2
Percentage of steel provided = 1.051 %
τc = 0.63 N/mm2
τc,max = 2.8 N/mm2
Vu = -333.514 kN
Tu = 8.335 kNm
Equivalent shear, 𝑉𝑒 = 𝑉𝑢 + 1.6𝑇𝑢 /𝑏
= 333.38 kN
𝑉𝑒 333.38 × 103
𝜏𝑣𝑒 = =
𝑏𝑑 450 × 550
= 1.482 N/mm2
τc < τve < τc,max
Hence, transverse reinforcement is designed as follows.
𝑇𝑢 𝑠𝑣 𝑉𝑢 𝑠𝑣
𝐴𝑠𝑣 = +
𝑏1 𝑑1 (0.87𝑓𝑦 ) 2.5𝑑1 (0.87𝑓𝑦 )
Considering effective cover of 40 mm along width and 40 mm along depth,
𝑏1 = 450 − 2 × 50 = 350 𝑚𝑚
𝑑1 = 550 − 2 × 50 = 450 𝑚𝑚
Providing 8 mm diameter two legged vertical stirrups
𝐴𝑠𝑣 = 100.53 𝑚𝑚2
𝑠𝑣 = 147.34 𝑚𝑚
Provide spacing of 140mm c/c
At mid span
88 | P a g e
Percentage of steel provided = 0.279%
τc = 0.15N/mm2
τc,max = 2.8 N/mm2
Vu = 77.96 kN
Tu = 5.643kNm
= 77.98 kN
𝑉𝑒 77.98 × 103
𝜏𝑣𝑒 = =
𝑏𝑑 450 × 500
= 0.346 N/mm2

𝐴𝑠𝑣 = +
𝑏1 𝑑1 (0.87𝑓𝑦 ) 2.5𝑑1 (0.87𝑓𝑦 )
𝑏1 = 450 − 2 ∗ 50 = 350 𝑚𝑚
𝑑1 = 550 − 2 × 50 = 450 𝑚𝑚
𝐴𝑠𝑣 = 100.53 𝑚𝑚2
𝑠𝑣 = 630.72 𝑚𝑚>300
Provide 300mm c/c
At right end
Percentage of steel provided = 1.051 %
τc = 0.63 N/mm2
τc,max = 2.8 N/mm2
Vu = 348.796 kN
Tu = -29.819 kNm
= 348.69 kN
𝑉𝑒 348.69 × 103
𝜏𝑣𝑒 = =
𝑏𝑑 450 × 550
= 1.408 N/mm2

𝐴𝑠𝑣 = +
𝑏1 𝑑1 (0.87𝑓𝑦 ) 2.5𝑑1 (0.87𝑓𝑦 )
89 | P a g e
𝑏1 = 450 − 2 × 50 = 350 𝑚𝑚
𝑑1 = 550 − 2 × 50 = 450 𝑚𝑚
𝐴𝑠𝑣 = 100.53 𝑚𝑚2
𝑠𝑣 = 140.96 𝑚𝑚
Provide spacing of 140mm c/c
9.5.4 Check for Shear Reinforcement Spacing

i) x1= short dimension of stirrups = 350+25+8 = 383 mm
y1= long dimension of stirrups= 450+25+8 = 483 mm
ii) 300 mm
iii) (x1+y1)/4 = 216.5 mm
The spacing of stirrups as confining reinforcement over a length of 2d=2*500 = 100 mm
shall be least of following:
i) d/4 = 125 mm
ii) 8 times maximum diameter of longitudinal bar = 8 × 25 = 200 mm
iii) 100 mm
Provision of Shear Reinforcement
Provide 8 mm diameter 2 legged vertical stirrups @ 100 mm c/c upto a length of 2d, i.e.
1000 mm from left end.
Provide 8 mm diameter 2 legged vertical stirrups @ 300 mm c/c at mid span.
Provide 8 mm diameter 2 legged vertical stirrups @ 100 mm c/c upto a length of 2d, i.e.
1000 mm from right end.
9.6 Design of Staircase

Step 1: Load calculation
For first flight
Specification Width/Height No.
Tread 275 mm 5
Riser 180 mm 6
Assume waist slab thickness = 130 mm

Assuming Rebars of 12 mm Φ being used with clear cover 12 mm
Effective depth, d = 112.0 mm
90 | P a g e
Landing width = 2000 mm
Unit wt of concrete, γc = 25 kN/m3
Dead load of waist slab = γc*volume

= 7.77 kN/m
Dead load of a step = γc*volume
= 1.24
= 4.50 kN/m
Considering floor finish load = 2.0 kN/m2
FF = 2.00 kN/m
Total DL on steps n waist slab = 14.27 kN/m
Factored DL on steps n waist slab = 21.40 kN/m
Live load = 4.00kN/m2
= 4.00 kN/m
Factored live load = 6.00 kN/m
Total load on steps n waist slab = 27.40 kN/m
Dead load of landing = 6.50 kN/m
FF = 2.00 kN/m
Total dead load on landing = 8.50 kN/m
Factored dead load on landing =12.75 kN/m
Live load = 4.00kN/m2 = 4.00 kN/m
Factored live load= 6.00 kN/m
Total factored load on landing = 18.75 kN/m
Sample fig for a step:
328.67 mm
180mm
275mm
For Second flight:
91 | P a g e
Tread 275 mm 7
Riser 180 mm 8

Assuming Rebars of 12 mm Φ being used with clear cover 12 mm.
Unit wt of concrete, γc =25 kN/m3
Load calculation
= 7.77 kN/m

= 1.24
= 4.50 kN/m
Considering floor finish load = 2.0kN/m2
FF = 2.00 kN/m
= 4.00 kN/m
FF = 2.00 kN/m
Factored dead load on landing = 12.75 kN/m
= 4.00 kN/m
92 | P a g e
For third flight
Similar to first flight
Fig: staircase plan showing load distribution

Now designing for the second flight
STEP 2: Calculation of moment and reaction

Load is equally shared by the landing joining the two flights.
So, each of the flight receives load equally. Hence, 9.375kN/m load is applied.
Reactions at the end: Where, Load S
= (w1*l1+w2*l2+w3*l3)/2 w1 9.38kN/m l1
= 45.47 kN
w2 27.40kN/m l2
Location of zero shear force
w3 9.38kN/m l3
let the distance be x from the
left end R 45.474kN
0=R-w1*l1-w2*(X-l1)
93 | P a g e
On solving, x= 3.01 m
i.e. almost at the mid span, x = 3.00 m
Bending moment at x, Mu = R*x-w1*l1*(X-L1/2)-w2*(X-l1)^2/2
= 86.02 kNm
Step 3: Calculation of effective depth from moment criteria
𝑀𝑢
𝑑 = √𝑄∗𝐵 where Q = 0.36*fck*k*(1-0.42k), k = 0.46 (For Fe500)
= 0.36*20*0.46*(1-0.42*0.46), fck = 20 (For M20

= 2.672
d = 179.42 mm
Hence, assumed depth is not feasible
Effective depth from deflection criteria
longer span/shorter span = 6000/6000 =1 < 2 (two-way slab)
Since some slabs are continuous and some are discontinuous slab.
So, taking span/depth ratio = (26+20)/2 = 23
and taking modification factor of 1.5.
Effective depth, d = 6000/(23*1.5) = 173.91 mm

Adopt an overall depth of 250 mm, D = 250 mm
With nominal cover of 20 mm and dia.. of bars used as 12 mm,
Revised effective depth, d =224.0 mm
Now, Revised load calculation is given as:
Step 1: Load Calculation:

For first flight
Specification width/height No.

Tread 275mm 5
Riser 180mm 6
Assume waist slab thickness =250 mm

94 | P a g e
Unit wt of concrete, γc = 25 kN/m3
Load calculation
= 14.94 kN/m
= 1.24
= 4.50 kN/m
FF = 2.00 kN/m
= 4.00 kN/m
FF = 2.00 kN/m
= 4.00 kN/m
For second flight:

Tread 275 mm 7
Riser 180 mm 8
95 | P a g e
Unit wt. of concrete, γc = 25 kN/m3
Load calculation
= 14.94 kN/m
= 1.24
= 4.50 kN/m
FF = 2.00 kN/m
= 4.00 kN/m
FF = 2.00 kN/m
= 4.00 kN/m
For third flight :
Similar to first flight
Step 2: Calculation of moment and reaction

Load is equally shared by the landing joining the two flights.
So, each of the flight receives load equally. Hence, 13.875kN/m load is applied.
Reactions at the end:
96 | P a g e
= (w1*l1+w2*l2+w3*l3)/2
= 64.999 kN
location of zero shear force
let the distance be x from the left end
0=R-w1*l1-w2*(X-l1)
On solving,
x=3m
Bending moment at x, Mu = R*x-w1*l1*(X-L1/2)-w2*(X-L1)2/2
= 121.49kNm
Step 3: Calculation of reinforcements
𝑀𝑢 = 0.87 ∗ 𝑓𝑦 ∗ 𝐴𝑠𝑡 ∗ (𝑑 − )
𝑏∗𝑓𝑐𝑘
on solving,
Ast,req = 1496.897 mm2/m
Use 16 mm dia.. bars
So effective depth, d = (250-20-8) = 222 mm
Required spacing 16mm bars, d = 16 mm
Area of a bar, Ab= 201.062 mm2
Spacing, S= 132.5 mm
Adopt spacing of 150mmc/c
Hence, with revised effective depth of 222 mm, provide 16mm dia.. bars @130mm
c/c.
Distribution bars
As per IS456:2000
Ast,min= 0.0012 bD = 300mm2/m
Use 10mm dia. bars, d2 = 10mm
Area of bar, Ab= 78.54 mm2
Spacing required, S = 261.8 mm
Adopt spacing of 250 mm c/c
97 | P a g e
So, provide 10mm dia. bars @250mmc/c.
Step 4 Check for shear
shear force at support, Vu= 65.00kN
Nominal shear, τu= Vu/bd = 0.293N/mm2 [<2.8 (τc,max for M20)]
Area of reinforcement provided, Pt = 100*Ast,pro/bd = 0.683
from table 19(IS456:2000), for 0.683% and M20
τc= 1.315 N/mm2 (>τu)
Hence, safe against shear too.
Step 5 Development length
Ld = ⱷ*fs/4*τbd = 906.25 mm
Provide 910mm
9.7 Design of Retaining Wall

1. Input data
unit weight of soil, γ = 17 kN/m3
unit weight of concrete, γc = 25 kN/m3
coefficient of static friction, µ = 0.5 (0.35-0.6)
angle of shearing resistance, ⱷ = 30
Assume vehicular surcharge, Ws = 10kN/m2
basement height, h = 3m
Equivalent height of vehicular surcharge, hs = γ / Ws = 0.6m
total height, H=3.6m
Earth pressure coefficients:
1−𝑠𝑖𝑛∅
Active earth pressure coefficient, Ca= 1+𝑠𝑖𝑛∅ = 0.333
Passive earth pressure coefficient, Cp =1/Ca = 3
2. Preliminary Proportion
Thickness of footing base slab, = 0.08H= 0.29 m
Adopt thickness of footing base slab = 300 mm (can't be less than 300 mm). Assume
stem thickness of 350mm (taken slightly more than that of footing base slab) at base and
tapering to 150mm at the top of wall. For economical proportioning of the length L of the
base slab, it will be assumed that the vertical reaction R at the footing base is in line with the
98 | P a g e
front face of the stem. For such condition, the length of the heel slab (inclusive of stem
thickness), is taken as, X= √𝐶𝑎 ∗ (ℎ + ℎ𝑠) = 1.09m
Assuming a triangular soil pressure distribution below the base,

Length of base, L=1.5X= 1.64m
Fig: Retaining wall

3. Stability against Overturning
Forces due to active earth pressure (per m length of wall.)
Pa1 = Ca*Ws*hs = 1.96kN (acts at h1 = 1.50m)
Pa2 = Ca*γ*h2/2= 25.5kN (acts at h2=1.00m)
Pa= Pa1+Pa2 = 27.46 kN
Passive earth forces on the toe side of the retaining wall is generally small due to
small height of earth and is not usually included in the design calculations, as this is
conservative.
Overturning moment, Mo = 28.44 kN-m (per m length of wall)
Line of action of vertical forces with respect to the heel can be located as follows:
Distance Moment
Forces(kN)
from heel (m) Mw(kN-m)
w1 52.75 0.47 24.89
w2 10.13 1.02 10.31
w3 3.78 0.83 3.13
w4 12.30 0.82 10.09
99 | P a g e
Total 78.96 48.42
Distance of resultant force from heel, Xw =78.96/48.42 = 0.61m
Stabilizing moment about toe, Mr = 78.96* (1.64-0.61) = 81.11kNm
FOS against overturning, = (0.9∗𝑀𝑟)/𝑀𝑜= 2.57 >1.4(safe). Ok
4. Soil pressure at footing base
resultant vertical reaction, R = 78.96 kN
distance of R from heel, LR = (Mw+Mo)/R = 0.97m
eccentricity, e= LR-L/2 = 0.15m<L/6=0.27m) indicates that the resultant lies well
within the middle third of the base as per middle third rule.
𝑅 6𝑒
q max= (1 + ) =75.10kN/m2
𝐿 𝐿
𝑅 6𝑒
qmin= (1 − ) = 21.16kN/m2
𝐿 𝐿
5. Stability against sliding

Sliding force, Pa = 27.46kN
Resisting force (ignoring passive resistance), F= µ*R=39.48 kN >Pa
0.9∗𝐹
FOS against sliding, = = 1.29<1.4
𝑃𝑎
Hence, a shear key is to be provided to generate the balance force through the
passive resistance.
Providing a shear key of size 400*400 mm at a distance 800mm from toe. The
location for shear key can be obtained by solving mathematical eqn
(Refer Pillai and Menon)
6. Design of toe slab
The loads considered for the design of toe slab are as shown in fig.
100 | P a g e
The net pressure acting upward is obtained by reducing the uniformly distributed self
-weight of the toe slab from the gross pressures at the base.
Self-weight of slab at toe = 7.5kN/m2
The net upward pressure varies from 67.6 to 49.51 kN/m2
Assuming a clear cover of 75mm and 12mm dia.. bars, d = 300-75-12/2 = 219 mm
For shear the critical section is at distance d from face of stem.
The shear force at distance d from face of stem is obtained by solving pressure
dia.gram = 56.71 kN/m2
Applying a load factor of 1.5 the design shear force at a distance d from face of stem
and moment at face of stem are calculated as:
factor taken =1.5
Vu = 30.86 kN/m
Mu = 13.97 kN-m/m
Nominal shear, τu =Vu/bd =0.141N/mm2, [<2.8 (τc,max for M20)]
𝑀𝑢 = 0.87 ∗ 𝑓𝑦 ∗ 𝐴𝑠𝑡 ∗ (𝑑 − )
𝑏∗𝑓𝑐𝑘
on solving
Ast,req =149.184 mm2/m
however, for shear consideration taking Pt = 0.15%
Ast= 328.5 mm2/m
Bars used, d1= 12mm, Ab=113.097 mm2
Spacing required = 344.28 mm
101 | P a g e
Provide 12 mm dia.. bars @ 300mmc/c at bottom of the toe.
Minimum bar length to be extended on both sides from face of stem
= 47*dia.. of bar used = 564 mm
At the front face length is restricted to (550 - 75) = 475mm
So additional length is provided by bending the bar to a length = 89mm
7. Design of Heel slab
The loads considered for the design of toe slab are as shown in fig above. The net
pressure acting upward is obtained by reducing the uniformly
distributed self -weight of the toe slab from the gross pressures at the base.
i. Self-weight of slab at heel = 7.5 kN/m2
ii. Overburden and surcharge = 55.9kN/m2
Total = 63.4kN/m2
The net upward pressure varies from 17.9 to 42.24 kN/m2
Assuming a clear cover of 75mm and 12mm dia.. bars, d = 219mm
Applying a load factor of 1.5, the design shear force and bending moment at the
rear face of stem are given by,
factor taken= 1.5
Vu = 49.16kN/m
Mu = 30.41kNm/m
Nominal shear, τu=Vu/bd = 0.224N/mm2, [<2.8(τc,max for M20)]
𝑀𝑢 = 0.87 ∗ 𝑓𝑦 ∗ 𝐴𝑠𝑡 ∗ (𝑑 − )
𝑏∗𝑓𝑐𝑘
On solving,
Ast req=331.78 mm2/m
however, for shear consideration taking Pt = 0.25%
Ast,pro = 547.5 mm2/m
bars used, d1= 12mm, Ab = 113.097 mm2
Spacing required = 206.57 mm
Provide 12 mm dia.. bars @ 200 mm c/c at top of heel
minimum bar length to be extended from both sides from rear face of stem
=47*dia.. of bar used
=564mm
Length available = (1090 – 75 - 350) = 665 mm > 564 mm. Ok
Since sufficient length is available so no bending is needed.
8. Design of Vertical stem

Height of cantilever above base of footing slab, h1= 2.7m
102 | P a g e
Assuming a clear cover of 50mm and 12 mm dia. bars d
(at the base) = 350 – 50 – 6 = 294mm
Check for shear
Critical section is at d =294 mm above the base i.e.
Z = 2.7 - 0.294 = 2.41 m below top edge
Shear at critical section taking load factor 1.5
Vu= 36.632 kN/m
Nominal shear, τu=Vu/bd= 0.125 N/mm2, [<2.8(τc,max for M20)] however,
for shear consideration taking Pt = 0.15%
Ast = 328.5 mm2/m
Assuming a load factor of 1.5,
maximum design moment
Mu = 46.11 kN-m/m
𝑀𝑢 = 0.87 ∗ 𝑓𝑦 ∗ 𝐴𝑠𝑡 ∗ (𝑑 − )
𝑏∗𝑓𝑐𝑘
On solving, Ast,req = 372.33 mm2/m

dia. of bars used, d2 = 12 mm
area of a bar, Ab= 113.09 mm2
Spacing required, S = 303.75 mm
Provide 12mm dia. bars @300 mm c/c extending into the shear key the anchorage
should be more than, Ld = 47*dia. of bar used
=564mm
9. Curtailment of Bars
Curtailment of bars is done in two stages (at one third and two third height of stem
above the base.
10. Temperature and shrinkage reinforcement
For the lowermost 1/3 region
Provide 2/3 of the horizontal bars near the front face (which is exposed to weather)
and the remaining 1/3 near the rear face.
For the lowermost 1/3 height of the stem above base,
Ast = 0.0012bD*2/3 = 280 mm2/m
Using 8mm dia. bars
spacing required, S = 179.52 mm
adopt spacing of 150 mm c/c at the front face of stem
provide 8mm dia. bars @300 mm c/c at the rear end of stem
For the middle 1/3 region
provide 8mm dia. bars @300mmc/c at the front face
provide 8mm dia. bars @300mmc/c at the rear end
For the uppermost 1/3 region
provide 8mm dia. bars @300mmc/c at the front face
provide 8mm dia. bars @300mmc/c at the rear end
103 | P a g e
Also provide nominal bars of 10mm dia. @ 300mm c/c vertically near the front face.
And provide nominal bars of 10mm dia. @ 200 mm c/c as distribution bars at top and
bottom of footing base.
9.8 ANALYSIS & DESIGN OF MAT FOUNDATION: (On Soil

Type 2)
From Etabs, for load combination DL+LL, sum of total reaction at the base of
column = 101942 kN
Net allowable bearing capacity = 95 kN/m2
i) For Isolated Footing:
Total Load 101942
Area of Footing required = Allowable bearing capacity = = 1073.076 m2
95
Plinth Area = 1731.35 m2
1083.076
% of footing area to plinth area = = 0.62 = 62%
1731.35
Inference: Since, area of the footing required is greater than 60% of the plinth
area of the building. Hence Mat Foundation is required.
ii) For Raft Foundation:
Conventional Rigid Method:
Dimension of Raft : Dimension of Column: Soil Property:
Width along X- = 36.50 m. Length = 500 mm SBC= 95 kN/m2
Width along Y- = 48.50 m. Width = 500 mm
Step 1: Check Soil Pressure
𝑃 𝑀𝑥 𝑀𝑦
𝑞= + 𝑦+ 𝑥
𝐴 𝐼𝑥 𝐼𝑦
where,
A = 1813.00 m2
𝐵 𝐿3 36.5∗48.53
𝐼𝑥 = = = 347005.88 m4
12 12
𝐵 𝐿3 48.5∗36.53
𝐼𝑦 = = = 196534.63 m4
12 12
The vertical loads on Columns, as obtained from ETABS, can be tabulated

as:
Grids 1 2 3 3-4
(m) 0.25 6.25 12.25 15.25
A 0.25 113.97 223.79 207.84
B 6.25 221.63 530.79 1020.66 806.83
C 12.25 209.01 1619.32 1993.79 1102.06
D 18.25 212.67 2359.66 2965.87
E 24.25 212.63 2503.82 3123.90
F 30.25 214.74 2504.78 3199.12
G 36.25 212.55 2375.03 3103.14
104 | P a g e
H 42.25 223.21 1724.09 2389.47
I 48.25 113.09 222.29 210.32
Total factored vertical loads = 101942 kN
Total design loads = 112136 kN
The C.G. of applied loads can be obtained by taking moment of loads about
the bottom left corner point of plan as:
X̅ = 20.36 m.
So, ex = X̅ - B/2 = 2.11 m.
Similarly,
Y̅ = 25.40 m.
So, ey = Y̅ - L/2 = 1.15 m.
The resultant applied moments are given by:
Mx = Ptotal * ey = 129297.77 kN-m
My = Ptotal * ex = 237078.33 kN-m
The soil bearing pressure can be obtained by applying the following
equations:
𝑞 =𝐴+ 𝑦+ 𝑥
𝐼𝑥 𝐼𝑦
The results for the value of q at column grid points are summarized in the
table as:
Point 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(m) -4
- - - - 1 1
0 6
18.25 12 6 3 2 8.25
- 3 3 4 5 6 6 7
A24.25 0.80 8.34 5.58 2.82 0.05 7.29 4.83
- 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7
B 18 3.13 0.67 7.91 1.53 5.14 2.38 9.62 7.16
- 3 4 5 5 5 6 7 7
C 12 5.36 2.90 0.14 3.76 7.38 4.62 1.86 9.39
- 3 4 5 5 6 7 8
D6 7.60 5.14 2.38 9.62 6.85 4.09 1.63
3 4 5 6 6 7 8
0
E 9.84 7.38 4.61 1.85 9.09 6.33 3.87
4 4 5 6 7 7 8
6
F 2.07 9.61 6.85 4.09 1.32 8.56 6.10
1 4 5 5 6 7 8 8
G2 4.31 1.85 9.08 6.32 3.56 0.80 8.34
1 4 5 6 6 7 8 9
H8 6.54 4.08 1.32 8.56 5.80 3.03 0.57
2 4 5 6 7 7 8 9
I 4.25 8.87 6.41 3.65 0.89 8.12 5.36 2.90
105 | P a g e
Here the maximum soil pressure is = 92.90 kN/m2, which is less than
allowable soil pressure. Hence the Raft foundation only is sufficient.
Step 2: Calculation of the Shear Force and Bending Moments

Step 2.1: For Strip A-a-A'-a' (3.25 m)
The average soil pressure of the strip (qavg) = 52.82 kN/m2
Then the total soil reaction (RAaA'a') = 6265.20 kN/m2
And the total vertical load on the strip (PAaA'a') = 1326.98 kN/m2
Now, average total reaction (Pavg) = 3796.09 kN/m2
And modified soil pressure (Per strip) = 104.00 kN/m
The column loads are modified in the same manner using the modification
factor/ratio of (Pavg/PAaA'a'):
α = 2.86
As:
Item Pactual(kN) Pmod(kN)
1 113.97 326.02
2 223.79 640.19
3 207.84 594.58
4 214.58 613.86
5 214.70 614.20
6 230.74 660.08
7 121.36 347.18
These loads will act downward from the position of center of column whereas the
soil pressure calculated above will act in upward direction from beneath the raft strip.
Resulting shear force and bending moment are tabulated at last.
Step 2.2: For Strip a-a'-b-b' (6.00 m)

Then the total soil reaction (Ra-a'-b-b') = 11977.47 kN/m2
And the total vertical load on the strip (Pa-a'-b-b') = 9626.66 kN/m2
And modified soil pressure (Per strip) = 295.95 kN/m2
factor/ratio of (Pavg/PAaA'a'):
α = 0.94
As:
106 | P a g e
1 221.63 248.69
2 530.79 595.60
3 1020.66 1145.29
4 806.83 905.34
5 1828.15 2051.36
6 2884.23 3236.39
7 2070.44 2323.24
8 263.93 296.16
Step 2.3: For Strip b-b'-c-c’ (6.00 m)

Then the total soil reaction (Ra-a'-b-b') = 12467.08 kN/m2
And the total vertical load on the strip (Pa-a'-b-b') = 14069.61 kN/m2
factor/ratio of (Pavg/Pb-b'-c-c’):
α = 1.12
As:

1 221.63 248.69
2 530.79 595.60
3 1020.66 1145.29
4 806.83 905.34
5 1828.15 2051.36
6 2884.23 3236.39
7 2070.44 2323.24
8 263.93 296.16
Step 2.4: For Strip c-c'-d-d' (6.00 m)

Then the total soil reaction (Rc-c'-d-d') = 13055.76 kN/m2
And the total vertical load on the strip (Pc-c'-d-d') = 13777.82 kN/m2
factor/ratio of (Pavg/Pc-c'-d-d'):
α = 0.97
As:
1 212.67 207.10
2 2359.66 2297.82
107 | P a g e
3 2965.87 2888.15
4 2581.01 2513.38
5 2680.03 2609.81
6 2704.12 2633.27
7 274.46 267.27
Step 2.5: For Strip d-d'-e-e' (6.00 m)

Then the total soil reaction (Rd-d'-e-e') = 13545.37 kN/m2
And the total vertical load on the strip (Pd-d'-e-e') = 15236.14 kN/m2
Now, average total reaction (Pavg) = kN/m2
factor/ratio of (Pavg/Pd-d'-e-e'):
α = 0.94
As:
1 212.63 200.83
2 2503.82 2364.89
3 3123.90 2950.57
4 2180.59 2059.60
5 2019.50 1907.45
6 3170.89 2994.95
7 2024.81 1912.46
Step 2.6: For Strip e-e'-f-f' (6.00 m)

Then the total soil reaction (Re-e'-f-f') = 14034.98 kN/m2
And the total vertical load on the strip (Pe-e'-f-f') = 16369.40 kN/m2
factor/ratio of (Pavg/Pe-e'-f-f'):
α = 0.93
As:
1 214.74 199.43
2 2504.78 2326.17
3 3199.12 2971.01
4 2600.77 2415.33
5 2391.08 2220.58
6 2903.23 2696.22
7 2555.68 2373.45
108 | P a g e
Step 2.7: For Strip f-f'-g-g' (6.00 m)
Then the total soil reaction (Rf-f'-g-g') = 14524.59 kN/m2
And the total vertical load on the strip (Pf-f'-g-g') = 16587.12 kN/m2
factor/ratio of (Pavg/Pf-f'-g-g'):
α = 0.94
As:

1 212.55 199.33
2 2375.03 2665.02
3 3103.14 3482.03
4 2951.86 3312.28
5 2714.15 3045.55
6 2773.04 3111.63
7 2457.36 2757.40
Step 2.8: For Strip g-g'-h-h' (6.00 m)

Then the total soil reaction (Rg-g'-h-h') = 15014.20 kN/m2
And the total vertical load on the strip (Pg-g'-h-h') =13639.99 kN/m2
factor/ratio of (Pavg/Pg-g'-h-h'):
α = 1.05
As:
1 223.21 234.45
2 1724.09 1810.93
3 2389.47 2509.84
4 2421.27 2543.24
5 2344.28 2462.37
6 2553.87 2682.51
7 1983.81 2083.74
Step 2.9: For Strip h-h'-I-I' (3.25 m)

The average soil pressure of the strip (qavg) =70.89 kN/m2
109 | P a g e
Then the total soil reaction (Rh-h'-I-I') = 8408.95 kN/m2
And the total vertical load on the strip (Ph-h'-I-I') = 1307.97 kN/m2
factor/ratio of (Pavg/Ph-h'-I-I'):
α = 3.71
As:

1 113.09 420.08
2 222.29 825.70
3 210.32 781.23
4 213.83 794.25
5 211.68 786.28
6 223.69 830.91
7 113.07 420.01
The loads so calculated at each strip of the raft foundation slab are applied at the nodal points
where columns are located and the soil pressure acts uniformly from the beneath of the Raft
foundation slab. The shear force and Bending moment resulting from the such acted loads are
tabulated below.
110 | P a g e
Shear force on different strips at the different nodal points:
SF (kN)
N
ODE A- a-b- b-c- c-d- d-e- e-f- f-g- g-h- h-I-
a-A'-a' a'-b' b'-c' c'-d' d'-e' e'-f' f'-g' g'-h' H'-I'
73.9 90.8 91.8 98.5 104. 106. 98.1 33.
26
87 8 95 67 125 547 3 277
1
- - - - - - - - -
193.75 695.029 853.715 872.12 935.445 988.188 1011.178 931.293 315.817
43 108 132 133 143 151 154 142 48
0.25 0.671 7.405 3.36 0.175 0.812 5.962 3.827 2.843
2
- - - - - - - - -
906.502 973.354 1195.585 1164.586 1249.146 1319.577 1350.277 1243.602 421.726
96 802. 985. 104 111 117 120 111 37
5.498 346 535 0.894 6.474 9.423 6.863 1.518 6.934
3
- - - - - - - - -
704.244 747.736 918.455 1085.977 1164.829 1230.506 1259.134 1159.659 393.26
140. 172.
114 105
a
656. 806.
673 602
54 - - 111 120 126 129 119 40
3.756 231.177 283.958 9.503 0.791 8.494 8.006 5.461 5.4
4
- - - - - - - - -
332.524 731.202 898.147 1107.948 1188.396 1255.401 1284.608 1183.121 401.216
29 104 128 109 117 124 127 117 39
1.476 4.498 2.973 7.532 7.224 3.599 2.532 1.999 7.444
5
- - - - - - - - -
305.662 1163.205 1428.782 1098.672 1178.446 1244.89 1273.853 1173.216 397.857
111 | P a g e
31 612. 752. 110 118 125 128 118 40
8.338 495 338 6.808 7.174 4.11 3.287 1.904 0.803
6
- 830. 116 - - - - - -
316.829 929 0.476 1113.805 1194.679 1262.038 1291.4 1183.376 403.337
30 - - 109 117 123 126 116 39
7.171 944.771 1020.644 1.675 0.941 6.962 5.74 5.744 5.323
7
- - - - - - - - -
1189.769 73.987 90.88 4251.872 4560.6 4817.739 4929.825 4540.358 1539.71
Bending Moment on different strips at the different nodal points:
BM (kN-m)
N
ODE A- a-b- b-c- c-d- d-e- e-f- f-g- g-h- h-I-
a-A'-a' a'-b' b'-c' c'-d' d'-e' e'-f' f'-g' g'-h' H'-I'
3.2 9.24 11.3 11.4 12.3 13.0 13.3 12.2 4.1
1
5 8 6 87 21 16 18 66 6
M - - - - - - - - -
id 1-2 177.226 806.878 991.101 1023.109 1097.397 1159.271 1186.242 1092.526 370.494
71 116 143 139 149 158 161 148 50
2
2.752 6.175 2.431 5.206 6.512 0.889 7.669 9.869 5.239
M - - - - - - - - 16
id 2-3 604.147 434.463 533.657 449.645 482.293 509.486 521.34 480.153 2.828
88 653. 802. 102 109 116 118 109 37
3
9.742 153 278 4.131 8.493 0.429 7.427 3.617 0.864
112 | P a g e
M - -
ax 3-a 291.447 357.989
- - - - - - - - -
a
302.467 258.279 317.249 580.071 622.19 657.271 672.562 619.428 210.058
M 470. 577.
ax a-4 255 621
40 379. 466. 112 120 127 130 120 40
4
8.28 96 716 4.711 6.377 4.395 4.045 1.022 7.286
M - - - - - - - - -
id 4-5 123.316 523.324 642.807 545.059 584.636 617.599 631.968 582.041 197.38
28 131 162 109 117 123 126 116 39
5
5.138 9.853 1.196 3.464 2.86 8.989 7.815 7.654 5.971
M - - - - - - - - -
id 5-6 164.04 966.083 1186.654 548.464 588.288 621.457 635.915 585.677 198.613
32 - - 111 119 126 129 119 40
6
3.167 332.275 408.139 7.874 9.043 6.648 6.117 3.721 4.81
M - 117 144 - - - - - -
id 6-7 159.432 5.735 4.174 569.599 610.958 645.405 660.421 608.246 206.266
29 9.24 11.3 105 112 119 121 112 38
7
4.192 8 6 1.481 7.829 1.419 9.138 2.823 0.768
113 | P a g e
Step 3: Design for Flexure:
Step 3.1: Reinforcement for Strip A-a-A'-a'
The maximum positive R/f is equal to 889.74 kN-m. The positive bending moment needs
bottom R/f.To obtain the reinforcement per meter we divide the above value by the width of the
strip.
i.e. B= 3.25 m.
So, M' = 365.55/3.25
= 273.77 kN-m/m
i.e Mu = 273.77 kN-m/m
Assuming,
The distance from C.G. of reinforcing steel to the concrete surface = 70 mm
And, total thickness/depth = 750 mm
Then, effective depth of foundation slab = 680 mm

𝑀𝑢
Then, = 0.024
𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝑏 𝑑2
Since, moment is considered per unit width of strip. So, b = 1000 mm

From the chart with Mu/(fck*b*d2) = 0.024
the reinforcement index is (ω) = 0.029
𝑓𝑐𝑘
𝐴𝑠 = 𝜔 ∗ ∗ 𝑏 ∗ 𝑑 = 979 mm2 where,
𝑓𝑦
fy = 500 N/mm2
fck = 25 N/mm2
0.6
𝑏𝑑 = 816 𝑚𝑚2
𝐴𝑠𝑡,𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑆𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 { 𝑓𝑦
1.3𝐴𝑠 = 1273 𝑚𝑚2
Hence, Ast,min = 816 mm2

Ast,pro = 979 mm2
Similarlly,
The maximum negative R/f is equal to -604.15 kN-m. The negative bending moment needs
top R/f. To obtain the reinforcement per meter we divide the above value by the width of the strip
.
i.e. B= 3.25 m.
So, M' = 148.85/3.25
= -185.89 kN-m/m
i.e. Mu = 185.89 kN-m/m
𝑀𝑢
Then, 𝑓 2
= 0.017
𝑐𝑘 𝑏 𝑑
114 | P a g e
From the chart with Mu/(fck*b*d2) = 0.017
the reinforcement index is (ω) = 0.020
𝑓𝑐𝑘
𝐴𝑠 = 𝜔 ∗ ∗ 𝑏 ∗ 𝑑 = 694 mm2
𝑓𝑦
0.6
𝑏𝑑 = 816 𝑚𝑚2
𝐴𝑠𝑡,𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑆𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 { 𝑓𝑦
1.3𝐴𝑠𝑡 = 902 𝑚𝑚2
Hence, Ast,min = 816 mm2
Ast,pro = 816 mm2
Step 4: Design for Punching Shear
The maximum vertical load occurs at the column C5. And the load is of = 3626.17
kN
i.e. Ultimate load:
Pu = 3626.17 kN
The critical perimeter is at d/2 from the face of the column. For the interior column, the
critical peri-meter (U) equals:
d= 680 mm
a= c1+d = 1180 mm where, c1 = 500 mm
b= c2+d = 1180 mm c2 = 500 mm
U= 2(a+b) = 4720 mm
The pressure at the grid point C5 (from table) is equal to = 64.62 kN/m2
Thus, the ultimate soil pressure (qsu) = 96.93 kN/m2
The Punching load equals,

Qup = Pu - qsu (a*b) = 3536.197575
qup = Qup/U*d = 1101.756473 kN/m2
= 1.10 N/mm2
The concrete strength for punching is the least of three values:
𝑓
1. qcup = 0.316√ ϒ𝑐𝑘 = 1.41 N/mm2 Where, fck= 30 N/mm2
𝑐
𝑎 𝑓
2. qcup = 0.316(0.50 + 𝑏)√ ϒ𝑐𝑢 = 2.12 N/mm2
𝑐
𝛼𝑑 𝑓𝑐𝑢
3. qcup = 0.8 (0.20 + )√ ϒ = 5.35 N/mm2
𝑈 𝑐
115 | P a g e
Hence, qcup = 1.41 N/mm2
Since the applied punching shear is less than the punching shear strength of concrete; the
raft is
Safe in punching shear.
Hence Okay.
For the design of other strips the procedure is same as the design for this strip. And it is
found that the depth of the Raft is defined by the Flexure condition. Hence, the design for the
flexure of other strips and the depth required for those strips is calculated in the tabular form for
the convenience.
116 | P a g e
Table: Flexure design of Raft strips
Strip a-a'-b-b' b-b'-c-c' c-c'-d-d' d-d'-e-e'
R/f Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bo
- - - -
M (kN-m) 1320 1621 1395 1496 1
966.1 1187 1023 1097
B (m) 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
- - - -
Mu 219.98 270.2 232.5 249.4 26
161.0 197.8 170.5 182.9
(kN-m)
b (mm) 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1
d (mm) 680 680 680 680 680 680 680 680 6
R 0.02 0.014 0.024 0.018 0.021 0.015 0.022 0.016 0.
ω 0.024 0.018 0.029 0.022 0.025 0.018 0.026 0.019 0.
Ast (mm2) 979.2 734.4 1175 881.3 1028 734.4 1077 783.4 1
Ast,min
816 816 816 816 816 816 816 816 8
(mm2)
Ast,req
979.2 816 1175 881.3 1028 816 1077 816 1
(mm2)
5 @16 5 6 @16 5 6 @16 5 6 @16 5 6
Rft**/m
mm @16 mm mm @16 mm mm @16 mm mm @16 mm mm
Additional - - - - - - - -
d(req)
568.8 486.6 630.4 539.3 584.8 500.8 605.6 518.6 62
(mm)
117 | P a g e
118 | P a g e
9.9 ANALYSIS & DESIGN OF MAT FOUNDATION: (On Soil
Type 3)
From Etabs, for load combination DL+LL, sum of total reaction at the base of
column = 102279 kN
Net allowable bearing capacity = 75 kN/m2
i) For Isolated Footing:
Total Load 102279
Area of Footing required = Allowable bearing capacity = = 1363.72 m2
75
Plinth Area = 1731.35 m2
1363.72
% of footing area to plinth area = 1731.35 = 0.768 = 76.8%
Inference: Since, area of the footing required is greater than 60% of the plinth area
of the building. Hence Mat Foundation is required.
ii) For Raft Foundation:
Conventional Rigid Method:
Dimension of Raft : Dimension of Column: Soil Property:
Width along X- = 36.50 m. Length = 500 mm SBC= 75kN/m2
Width along Y- = 48.50 m. Width = 500 mm
Step 1: Check Soil Pressure
𝑞= + 𝑦+ 𝑥
𝐴 𝐼𝑥 𝐼𝑦
where,
A = 1813.00 m2
𝐵 𝐿3 36.5∗48.53
𝐼𝑥 = = = 347005.88 m4
12 12
𝐵 𝐿3 48.5∗36.53
𝐼𝑦 = = = 196534.63 m4
12 12
The vertical loads on Columns, as obtained from ETABS, can be tabulated as:
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Grids -4
(m) 0 6 1 1 1 2 3 3
.25 .25 2.25 5.25 8.25 4.25 0.25 6.25
0 1 2 2 2 2 2 1
A
.25 13.28 23.72 07.88 13.19 11.83 29.19 21.03
6 2 5 9 8 1 2 2 2
B
.25 20.86 33.82 40.86 41.85 841.14 976.18 136.93 63.57
1 2 1 2 1 2 3 2 2
C
2.25 08.59 626.95 033.69 127.21 332.55 646.92 964.04 84.90
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
D
8.25 12.47 358.16 963.61 580.69 677.63 716.80 74.56
2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2
E
4.25 12.55 503.76 123.91 180.55 019.72 178.62 027.19
3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2
F
0.25 14.81 504.96 199.10 600.84 391.22 903.36 556.58
119 | P a g e
3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2
G
6.25 12.78 381.06 109.32 951.90 714.12 776.03 458.87
4 2 1 2 2 2 2 1
H
2.25 23.53 729.49 394.28 421.12 344.22 563.84 984.61
4 1 2 2 2 2 2 1
I
8.25 13.62 22.55 10.82 14.45 12.48 24.48 13.45
Total factored vertical loads = 102278.26 kN

Total design loads = 112506.09 kN
The C.G. of applied loads can be obtained by taking moment of loads about
the bottom left corner point of plan as:
X̅ = 20.38 m.
So, ex = X̅ - B/2 = 2.13 m.
Similarly,
Y̅ = 25.37 m.
So, ey = Y̅ - L/2 = 1.12 m.
The resultant applied moments are given by:
Mx = Ptotal * ey = 125598.10 kN-m
My = Ptotal * ex = 239584.80 kN-m

The results for the value of q at column grid points are summarized in the
table as:
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Point -4
(m) - - - - 1 1
0 6
18.25 12 6 3 2 8.25
- 3 3 4 5 6 6 7
A
24.25 1.03 8.65 5.96 3.28 0.59 7.91 5.53
- 3 4 4 5 5 6 7 7
B
18 3.29 0.91 8.23 1.88 5.54 2.85 0.17 7.79
- 3 4 5 5 5 6 7 7
C
12 5.46 3.08 0.40 4.05 7.71 5.03 2.34 9.96
- 3 4 5 5 6 7 8
D
6 7.64 5.25 2.57 9.88 7.20 4.51 2.13
3 4 5 6 6 7 8
E 0
9.81 7.43 4.74 2.06 9.37 6.68 4.30
4 4 5 6 7 7 8
F 6
1.98 9.60 6.91 4.23 1.54 8.86 6.47
1 4 5 5 6 7 8 8
G
2 4.15 1.77 9.08 6.40 3.71 1.03 8.65
1 4 5 6 6 7 8 9
H
8 6.32 3.94 1.26 8.57 5.88 3.20 0.82
120 | P a g e
2 4 5 6 7 7 8 9
I
4.25 8.58 6.20 3.52 0.83 8.15 5.46 3.08
`
Here the maximum soil pressure is = 93.08 kN/m2, which is greater than
allowable soil pressure. Hence the Raft foundation only is not sufficient.
iii) For Pile Foundation:

We first calculate the ultimate bearing capacity of bored and cast-in-situ Piles in
cohesive soils, for different diameter at different depth, as a sum of two different bearing
capacity viz. point bearing capacity and skin friction:
Point bearing capacity of pile = Qp = Ab (1.2cNc + γ Lf (Nq-1) + 0.4γBNγ)
Skin friction = Qs = As (Kσv * tanδ + cu)

where,
Lf = length of penetration of pile in the bearing strata;
B = diameter or minimum width of pile;
Ab = Bearing area of pile;
Nc, Nq, Nγ = dimensionless bearing capacity factors;
σv = effective vertical stress along the length of pile;
c = unit cohesion;
cu = undrained shear strength of clay adjacent to the shaft;
K = earth pressure coefficient; and
δ = angle of friction between pile material and soil
Units are all in SI.
Safe load to apply to piles can be obtained by providing factor of safety to the
ultimate bearing capacity of pile as calculated.
Then, number of piles required to withstand the load coming through column can
be obtained using the different combination of pile diameter and pile length. Here, for
economical consideration the pile length is kept 9 m as it was found, from plot of volume
of concrete vs length for different diameter, that for 9m length the volume required was
minimum. So, length of pile adopted is 9m and no. of 9 m piles of different diameter can
be obtained as in the table given below. The table for the selection of economical pile
length is kept in the Annex.
121 | P a g e
In
D Th divisual C Q
φ Su N N N Q
epth ickness C N layer skin um. skin u = Qp +
,⁰ rcharge q c γ p (kN)
(m) (m) friction, friction Qs (kN)
Qs (kN)
2 5 0.0 1 1 2 1
0
7 .0 00 2 3.143 3.847 4.404
1 2 5 0.4 1 1 2 1
.5 7 .0 65 3 3.143 3.847 4.404
2 5 1.3 7 1 7 1 19
3 0.0 5 0 0
2 .0 95 .793 6.822 .101 9.499 .499
4 2 1 2.5 7 1 6 5 16. 1 74
1.5 4
.5 1 0.0 13 .046 5.759 .174 7.572 632 6.632 .204
2 1 3.6 9 1 9 1 20. 3 14
6 1.5 8
4 0.0 49 .566 9.251 .404 10.746 135 6.767 7.513
7 2 2 4.7 1 1 2 1 2 33. 6 27
1.5
.5 5 0.0 93 0 0.620 0.642 0.830 01.000 070 9.838 0.837
2 2 5.9 9 1 9 2 36. 1 32
9 1.5 8
4 0.0 40 .566 9.251 .404 16.917 326 06.163 3.081
1 3 2 7.0 2 1 3 2 5 44. 1 65
1.5
0.5 0 5.0 90 8 8.315 0.010 2.290 04.898 594 50.757 5.655
1 3 2 8.2 3 2 3 2 6 47. 1 84
1.5
2 1 5.0 41 5 0.532 2.526 5.859 42.724 867 98.625 1.348
1 3 2 8.9 3 2 3 2 7 49. 2 97
1.5
3.5 1 5.0 07 1 0.532 2.526 5.859 21.896 809 48.433 0.329
1 3 2 9.0 3 2 3 2 8 50. 2 10
1.5
5 1 5.0 00 4 0.532 2.526 5.859 01.068 080 98.513 99.581
122 | P a g e
1 3 2 9.0 3 1 3 2 7 50. 3 11
1.5
6.5 0 5.0 76 5 8.315 0.010 2.290 85.652 406 48.919 34.572
Table: Ultimate bearing capacity of Pile (For Dia. of 0.45 m)
Table: Ultimate bearing capacity for Piles
Diameter
0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85
(m)
Length
(m)
Pile Bearing Capaci
1.5 19.50 24.55 30.27 36.71 43.89 51.83 60.56 70.12 80.52
3 74.20 89.97 107.3 126.3 146.9 169.2 193.2 218.9 246.3
4.5 147.5 178.2 211.9 248.6 288.4 331.3 377.4 426.6 479.1
6 270.8 326.5 387.4 453.5 525.1 602.1 684 772.4 865.7
7.5 323.1 386.4 455.3 529.9 610.2 696.2 788 885.5 989
123 | P a g e
9 655.6 792.3 942.1 1105 1281 1471 1674 1890 2120
10.5 841.3 1016 1207 1415 1639 1881 2140 2415 2708
12 970.3 1169 1386.2 1622 1877 2150 2443 2754 3085
13.5 1099 1322 1565.7 1829 2114 2420 2746 3093 3462
124 | P a g e
Table: Calculation of total number of Piles
Diam Len Num
Colu Colum Pile
eter of Pile gth of Pile ber of
mn Name n Load (kN) load (kN)
(m) (m) Pile(s)
113.28 113.2
A1 0.45 9 1
0 8
223.72 223.7
A2 0.45 9 1
0 2
207.88 207.8
A3 0.45 9 1
0 8
213.19 213.1
A4 0.45 9 1
0 9
211.83 211.8
A5 0.45 9 1
0 3
229.19 229.1
A6 0.45 9 1
0 9
121.03 121.0
A7 0.45 9 1
0 3
220.86 220.8
B1 0.45 9 1
0 6
533.82 266.9
B2 0.45 9 2
0 1
940.86 940.8
B3 0.8 9 1
0 6
841.85 841.8
B3-4 0.75 9 1
0 5
1841.1 920.5
B4 0.8 9 2
40 7
2976.1 744.0
B5 0.7 9 4
80 45
2136.9 1068.
B6 0.85 9 2
30 465
263.57 263.5
B7 0.45 9 1
0 7
208.59 208.5
C1 0.45 9 1
0 9
1625.9 812.9
C2 0.75 9 2
50 75
2033.6 1016.
C3 0.85 9 2
90 845
1127.2 1127.
C3-4 0.9 9 1
10 21
2332.2 1166.
C4 0.9 9 2
10 105
3646.9 911.7
C5 0.8 9 4
20 3
2964.0 741.0
C6 0.7 9 4
40 1
125 | P a g e
284.90
C7 0.45 9 1 284.9
0
212.47 212.4
D1 0.45 9 1
0 7
2358.1 1179.
D2 0.9 9 2
60 08
2963.6 740.9
D3 0.7 9 4
10 025
2580.6 1290.
D4 0.95 9 2
90 345
2677.6 1338.
D5 1 9 2
30 815
2716.8 1358.
D6 1 9 2
00 4
274.56 274.5
D7 0.45 9 1
0 6
212.55 212.5
E1 0.45 9 1
0 5
2503.7 1251.
E2 0.95 9 2
60 88
3123.9 780.9
E3 0.75 9 4
10 775
2180.5 1090.
E4 0.9 9 2
50 275
2019.7 1009.
E5 0.85 9 2
20 86
3178.6 794.6
E6 0.75 9 4
20 55
2027.2 1013.
E7 0.85 9 2
00 6
214.81 214.8
F1 0.45 9 1
0 1
2504.9 1252.
F2 0.95 9 2
60 48
3199.1 799.7
F3 0.75 9 4
00 75
Diam Len Num
Colu Colum Pile
eter of Pile gth of Pile ber of
mn Name n Load (kN) load (kN)
(m) (m) Pile(s)
2600.8 1300.
F4 0.95 9 2
40 42
2391.2 1195.
F5 0.9 9 2
20 61
2903.3 1451.
F6 1 9 2
60 68
2556.5 1278.
F7 0.95 9 2
80 29
126 | P a g e
212.78 212.7
G1 0.45 9 1
0 8
2381.0 1190.
G2 0.9 9 2
30 515
3109.3 777.3
G3 0.75 9 4
20 3
2951.9 1475.
G4 1 9 2
00 95
2714.1 1357.
G5 1 9 2
20 06
2776.0 1388.
G6 1 9 2
30 015
2458.8 1229.
G7 0.95 9 2
70 435
223.53 223.5
H1 0.45 9 1
0 3
1729.4 864.7
H2 0.8 9 2
90 45
2394.2 1197.
H3 0.9 9 2
80 14
2421.1 1210.
H4 0.95 9 2
20 56
2344.2 1172.
H5 0.9 9 2
20 11
2563.8 1281.
H6 0.95 9 2
40 92
1984.6 992.3
H7 0.85 9 2
10 05
113.62 113.6
I1 0.45 9 1
0 2
222.55 222.5
I2 0.45 9 1
0 5
210.82 210.8
I3 0.45 9 1
0 2
214.45 214.4
I4 0.45 9 1
0 5
212.48 212.4
I5 0.45 9 1
0 8
224.48 224.4
I6 0.45 9 1
0 8
113.45 113.4
I7 0.45 9 1
0 5
10227
119
6.93
127 | P a g e
A chart showing the consideration of the economic pile length is also attached
which is a graph of Volume of piles for different length of pile for a fixed diameter of piles
plotted for various diameters of Pile.
Following that, thorough parametric variation between pile diameter and pile
length the number of piles required for different combinations of pile diameter and pile
length is also obtained. Plotting the variation in number of piles required with length of
pile for fixed pile diameter we obtained following chart.
Volume of Piles vs Length of Pile

Dia. 0.45 m
Dia. 0.5 m
1400
Dia. 0.55 m
1200 Dia. 0.6 m
Dia. 0.65 m
1000
Volume of Piles (m3)
Dia. 0.7 m
800 Dia. 0.75 m

Dia. 0.8 m
600 Dia. 0.85 m
Dia. 0.9 m
400
Dia. 0.95 m
200 Dia. 1.0 m
Dia. 1.05 m
0
Dia. 1.10 m
0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 9 10.5 12 13.5 15
Length of Piles (m) Dia. 1.15 m
Fig 1: Chart for Economical pile length
128 | P a g e
Number of Piles vs Length of Pile
2000
Dia. 0.45 m
1800
Dia. 0.5 m
1600
Dia. 0.55 m
1400
Dia. 0.6 m
1200
No. of Piles
Dia. 0.65 m
1000 Dia. 0.7 m
800 Dia. 0.75 m

Dia. 0.8 m
600
Dia. 0.85 m
400
Dia. 0.9 m
200
Dia. 0.95 m
0 Dia. 1.0 m
0 1.5 3 4.5 6 7.5 9 10.5 12 13.5 15
Dia. 1.05
Length of Piles (m)
Fig 2: Variation in number of Piles of 9 m length with different diameter
Inference: From Fig 1., we see that volume of piles is minimum for 9 m length of
piles having different diameter which in turn will result in the lowered cost of concrete and
the reinforcements. And from Fig 2. also it is seen that the number of piles for fixed pile
diameter is decreasing sharply from 3 m to 7.5 m pile length. The decrease in number of
piles continues till the pile length reaches 13.5 m, b u t t h e d e c r e a s e i n the number
of piles is insignificant between 9 m to 13.5 m length of pile. The presence of competent
strata in this pile length region as per the geotechnical report also supports our
consideration of 9 m pile length as an economical pile length.
Though pile foundation seems adequate in terms of taking loads, it seems to be a

costly option. So, we try to compare this Pile foundation with Piled-Raft one which takes
into consideration the capacity of pile cap as well thus reducing the number of piles
required which might help in reducing the cost of construction.
iv) For Piled-Raft Foundation

a) Estimation of settlement of piles
The total elastic settlement of the pile can be expressed as:
St = Sf + Sb + Sp
where,
St = Total Settlement
Sf = Settlement due to friction by pile shaft
Sb = Settlement due to bearing by the end of the pile
Sp = Elastic settlement of piles due to load
129 | P a g e
Empirical equations for calculation of Sf, Sb, Sp are given below:
i. Calculation of settlement in friction:
𝑄 𝐷𝑖𝑎.𝑜𝑓 𝑃𝑖𝑙𝑒
𝑆𝑓 = 𝐼𝑓 (𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑓 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎)( 𝐸 )(1 − 𝜇𝑠2 )
𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙
The Influence factor If is given as:
𝐿
𝐼𝑓 = 2 + 0.35√𝐷
where,
Qf = Frictional resistance of the pile
L = Length of the pile
D = Diameter of the pile
𝜋𝐷𝐿 = 𝑆𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓𝑝𝑖𝑙𝑒
ii. Calculation of settlement in bearing

𝑄 𝐷
Sb = 𝐼𝑏 ( 𝐴𝑏)(𝐸 )(1 − 𝜇𝑠2 )
𝑠
where,
Qb = Load in bearing
A = Area at tip of pile
Es = Modulus of elasticity of soil
𝜇 = 𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑛′𝑠 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜
Ib = Empirical constant = 0.85
iii. Elastic Compression of Pile:
𝑄𝑝 + α 𝑄
𝑆𝑝 = ( 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎∗𝐸 𝑓 )
𝑐
where,
Ec = Modulus of elasticity of concrete in kN/m2
𝛼 = A factor depending on the frictional resistance along the pile
= 0.5 for uniform and parabolic distribution and 0.67 for
triangular distribution.
b) Estimation of Settlement of Raft in soils

The immediate or elastic settlement of an area resting on soil is given by:
1−𝜇𝑠2
𝑆𝑖 = 𝑞𝐵( )𝐼𝑤
𝐸𝑠
where,
q = Intensity of loading
B = Width of the area
Es = Modulus of elasticity
𝜇 = 𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑜𝑛′𝑠𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜
Iw = Influence Factor
130 | P a g e
Settlement of Raft-foundation:
Since there is only silty clay present settlement analysis need to be done
only for clay.
Considering elastic settlement and uncertainty we take factor of safety of
factor of safety = 1.5
For Raft of dimension 36.4 m * 48.4 m * 3m
Allowable bearing for shear = 774 KN/m2
Assume safe bearing for settlement = 35 KN/m2
D C e Δ P Sf
H
epth C o P 0 (m)
0 1 3 0.0
3 35 1
.05 .85 0 059
0 1 29. 4
4 0 0
.05 .85 127 0
5. 0 1 27. 5 1 0.0
5 .05 .85 303 5 .5 046
0 1 25. 7 1 0.0
7
.05 .85 646 0 .5 036
8. 0 1 24. 8 1 0.0
5 .05 .85 135 5 .5 029
0 1 22. 1 1 0.0
10
.05 .85 755 00 .5 023
11 0 1 21. 1 1 0.0
.5 .05 .85 491 15 .5 020
0 1 20. 1 1 0.0
13
.05 .85 329 30 .5 017
14 0 1 19. 1 1 0.0
.5 .05 .85 259 45 .5 014
0 1 18. 1 1 0.0
16
.05 .85 272 60 .5 012
17 0 1 17. 1 1 0.0
.5 .11 .85 359 75 .5 024
0 1 16. 1 1 0.0
19
.11 .85 514 90 .5 021
Total 0.0
settlement = 450
Table: Calculation of settlement of Raft for in soil
So, allowable bearing pressure is lesser of shear or settlement which comes
out to be 45.0 mm (< code specified 75mm for clayey soils.)
Settlement of pile for bearing pressure:

Since there is only silty clay present settlement analysis need to be done
only for clay
For foundation: 36 m.*48.4 m.*13 m.
Assume safe bearing for settlement = 41 KN/m2
131 | P a g e
And, considering elastic settlement and uncertainty we take factor of safety = 1
D C e Δ P Sb
H
epth C o P 0 (m)
0 1 1 1 0.0
13 41
.05 .85 30 .5 031
14 0 1 37. 1 1 0.0
.5 .05 .85 821 45 .5 026
0 1 35. 1 1 0.0
16
.05 .85 319 60 .5 023
17 0 1 33. 1 1 0.0
.5 .11 .85 059 75 .5 044
0 1 31. 1 1 0.0
19
.11 .85 010 90 .5 038
0.0
Total settlement =
162
Table:
So, allowable bearing pressure is lesser of shear or settlement which comes

out to be 16.2 mm (< code specified 75mm for clayey soils.)
Settlement of pile from skin friction:
Since there is only silty clay present settlement analysis need to be done only for
clay
For foundation: 36.4 m.*48.4 m.* 8.5m
Assume safe bearing for settlement = 17 kN/m2
De C P SC
eo ΔP H
pth C 0 (m)
0. 1. 8 1 0.0
8.5 17
05 85 5 .5 021
0. 1. 16.2 1 0.0
10 0
05 85 09 00 000
11. 0. 1. 15.1 1 1 0.0
5 05 85 368 15 .5 014
0. 1. 14.1 1 1 0.0
13
05 85 68 30 .5 012
14. 0. 1. 13.2 1 1 0.0
5 05 85 90 45 .5 010
0. 1. 12.4 1 1 0.0
16
05 85 91 60 .5 009
17. 0. 1. 11.7 1 1 0.0
5 11 85 63 75 .5 016
0. 1. 11.0 1 1 0.0
19
11 85 97 90 .5 014
132 | P a g e
Total 0.0
settlement = 096
So, allowable bearing pressure is lesser of shear or settlement which comes out to
be 9.6 mm (< code specified 75mm for clayey soils.)
Elastic compression of 9 m pile for 0.75 mm dia.:

𝑄𝑝 + α 𝑄
Using, 𝑆𝑝 = ( 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎∗𝐸 𝑓 )
𝑐
611+0.45∗176
𝑆𝑝 = = 0.046 m. = 46 mm
0.442∗3∗104
Hence, total settlement is = 46 mm + 9.6 mm + 16.2 mm

= 71.8 mm (<75 mm, prescribed by the code)
In the cases in which the bearing capacity of the raft is not enough, piles can be
added to satisfy the bearing capacity. The excess load can be carried by piles. In this
case, asthere should be enough safety factors against failure, we cannot assume the full,
ultimate bearing capacity of the piles but only the safe bearing capacity which is much
less than the ultimate capacity.
For the piled rafts adopted to reduce settlement, distances between the piles can
be made large (> 6 times diameter of piles) to avoid group effects. We should also
calculate the settlement needed to fully mobilize the ultimate capacity of piles, which
will be rather small. Hence, the pile can be assumed to carry load up to its ultimate
capacity in soils. This is one of the great advantages of Combined Piled-Raft
Foundation (CPRF) over conventional pile foundation as in conventional pile
foundations, the working load, which is taken as much lesser than its ultimate capacity,
is taken as the carrying capacity of the piles. (It is important to note that in piled rafts,
the piles are loaded to ultimate capacity.)
For silty clay,
Allowable maximum settlement is 75 mm, but the elastic settlement of raft is

365.8 mm. So, we have to calculate the allowable load intensity for raft for the
allowable settlement of 75 mm. The remaining load has to be taken by pile.
133 | P a g e
iii) Piled-Raft Selection:
Considering 65% load to be carried out by pile.
Colu
Col Dia Le Nu Pile
mn Load
umn Name meter (m) ngth (m) mber load (kN)
(kN)
73.63 73.6
A1 0.45 9 1
2 32
145.4 145.
A2 0.45 9 1
18 418
135.1 135.
A3 0.45 9 1
22 122
138.5 138.
A4 0.45 9 1
74 574
137.6 137.
A5 0.45 9 1
90 690
148.9 148.
A6 0.45 9 1
74 974
78.67 78.6
A7 0.45 9 1
0 70
143.5 143.
B1 0.45 9 1
59 559
346.9 173.
B2 0.45 9 2
83 492
611.5 611.
B3 0.7 9 1
59 559
B3- 547.2 273.
0.45 9 2
4 03 601
1196. 1196
B4 0.9 9 1
741 .741
1934. 967.
B5 0.85 9 2
517 259
1389. 694.
B6 0.7 9 2
005 502
171.3 171.
B7 0.45 9 1
21 321
135.5 135.
C1 0.45 9 1
84 584
1056. 1056
C2 0.85 9 1
868 .868
1321. 660.
C3 0.7 9 2
899 949
C3- 732.6 732.
0.7 9 1
4 87 687
1515. 757.
C4 0.75 9 2
937 968
2370. 1185
C5 0.9 9 2
498 .249
134 | P a g e
1926. 963.
C6 0.8 9 2
626 313
185.1 185.
C7 0.45 9 1
85 185
138.1 138.
D1 0.45 9 1
06 106
1532. 766.
D2 0.75 9 2
804 402
1926. 963.
D3 0.8 9 2
347 173
1677. 838.
D4 0.75 9 2
449 724
1740. 870.
D5 0.8 9 2
460 230
1765. 882.
D6 0.8 9 2
920 960
178.4 178.
D7 0.45 9 1
64 464
138.1 138.
E1 0.45 9 1
58 158
1627. 813.
E2 0.75 9 2
444 722
2030. 1015
E3 0.85 9 2
542 .271
1417. 708.
E4 0.7 9 2
358 679
1312. 656.
E5 0.7 9 2
818 409
2066. 1033
E6 0.85 9 2
103 .052
1317. 658.
E7 0.7 9 2
680 840
139.6 139.
F1 0.45 9 1
27 627
1628. 814.
F2 0.75 9 2
224 112
2079. 1039
F3 0.85 9 2
415 .708
Colu
Col Dia Le Nu Pile
mn Load
umn Name meter (m) ngth (m) mber load (kN)
(kN)
1690. 845.
F4 0.75 9 2
546 273
1554. 777.
F5 0.75 9 2
293 147
1887. 943.
F6 0.8 9 2
184 592
135 | P a g e
1661. 830.
F7 0.75 9 2
777 889
138.3 138.
G1 0.45 9 1
07 307
1547. 773.
G2 0.75 9 2
670 835
2021. 1010
G3 0.85 9 2
058 .529
1918. 959.
G4 0.8 9 2
735 368
1764. 882.
G5 0.8 9 2
178 089
1804. 902.
G6 0.8 9 2
420 210
1598. 799.
G7 0.75 9 2
266 133
145.2 145.
H1 0.45 9 1
95 295
1124. 1124
H2 0.9 9 1
169 .169
1556. 778.
H3 0.75 9 2
282 141
1573. 786.
H4 0.75 9 2
728 864
1523. 761.
H5 0.75 9 2
743 872
1666. 833.
H6 0.75 9 2
496 248
1289. 644.
H7 0.7 9 2
997 998
73.85 73.8
I1 0.45 9 1
3 53
144.6 144.
I2 0.45 9 1
58 658
137.0 137.
I3 0.45 9 1
33 033
139.3 139.
I4 0.45 9 1
93 393
138.1 138.
I5 0.45 9 1
12 112
145.9 145.
I6 0.45 9 1
12 912
73.74 73.7
I7 0.45 9 1
3 43
6648
101
0.005
136 | P a g e
Table: Pile number selection for piled raft foundation
Number of piles required in case of CPRF reduces in comparison to number of piles

required for piled foundation due to consideration of capacity of raft as well in load taking.
We can carry out the comparison between volume of concrete of required for Pile and
Piled-raft foundation as shown in following table and charts:
Le Le
ngth 9.0 m ngth 9.0 m
Dia Nu Vol Dia Nu Vol
. (m) mber ume (m )3 . (m) mber ume (m3)
0.4 37.2 0.4 40.0
26 28
5 16 5 79
0.7 41.5 0.7 48.4
12 14
0 63 0 90
0.7 75.5 0.7 111.
19 28
5 45 5 330
0.8 40.7 0.8 72.3
9 16
0 15 0 82
0.8 51.0 0.8 51.1
10 10
5 71 5 78
0.9 85.8 0.9 22.9
15 4
0 83 0 02
0.9 102.
16 - - -
5 070
Le 9.0 Len 9.0 Len 9.0
ngth m gth m gth m
Dia Nu Vol Dia Nu Vol
. (m) mber ume (m3) . (m) mber ume (m3)
1.0 91.8
13 - - -
0 23
Tot 525. Tot 345.
120 101
al 887 al 362
Table: Volume comparison of Pile and Piled-Raft Foundation
The chart for volume of piles against their diameter is plotted and compared with the
piled-raft foundation where pile is assumed to take 65% of the total load. We can see a
significant change in the values. The scale of this graph changes greatly when the cost of the
concrete and the reinforcement is incurred.
137 | P a g e
Volume of Piles vs Diameter

1200
1000
800
VOLUME OF PILES (M3)
65%
600
Volume of
concrete for
Pile
400 foundation
(m3)
200
0
0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25
DIAMETER OF PILE (M.)
Fig: Comparison of volume of concrete for pile and piled-raft foundation
138 | P a g e
Number of Piles vs Diameter

375
350
325
300
275
250
NUMBER OF PILES
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
DIAMETER OF PILE (M.)
No. of Piles for Piled Raft (α=65%) No.of Piles for Pile Foundation
Fig: Plot of pile number vs Diameter
9.10 DESIGN OF PILED-RAFT FOUNDATION

Design of Raft as Pile cap:
From inspection it was found that the maximum load bearing column was C5
with load of 2370.498kN.
Size of column C5 = 500*500
Grade of steel used, Fe500 i.e. (fy=500 Mpa)
Grade of concrete used, M25 i.e. (fck=25 Mpa)
Ultimate soil pressure, qu=75 KN/m2
Number of piles used =2
Dia of piles used =0.90 m
No of rows, m =1
No of columns, n =2
For 100% efficicency the pile spacing is adopted as:
1.57𝐵𝑚𝑛−2𝐵
𝑆= =1026 mm
𝑚+𝑛−2
139 | P a g e
Adopt the spacing of 1020 mm, S = 1020 mm
Vertical load on column = 2370.498 kN
Bending moment is considered at the face of column.
load on each pile = 1185.249kN
Depth from Flexure Criteria:

Factored moment due to pile at face of column=302.122kNm per m
Factored moment from etabs: Mx = 6.06kNm
My = 8.5kNm
Resultant moment =√𝑀𝑥2 + 𝑀𝑦2 = 10.44 kNm
Hence design moment for pile cap = 302.122+10.44 = 312.56 kNm per m
𝑀𝑢 312.56∗106
effective depth required, 𝑑 = √𝑄∗𝐵=√ 3.34∗1000 = 305.90mm
where, Q =0.36*fck*k*(1-0.42k) for Fe 500 k=0.46

Q=3.340152
Adopted effective thickness of pile cap = 310 mm
Effective cover provided =60 mm
Overall depth, D = 370mm
Depth from punching shear criteria
The critical section for two way or punching shear is taken d/2 from face of
column.
Punching shear force = 3646.92kN
Punching shear stress =3.63 N/mm2 [>3.1(τc,max)N/mm2]
Hence depth from moment criteria is not feasible.
Punching shear resistance =Ks*τc
where ks=1
τc= 0.25*√fck = 1.25 N/mm2
for safety depth required to resist punching shear Vu≤Vc
3646.92≤1.25*4*(500+d)*d
On solving,
d ≥ 640mm
140 | P a g e
Providing an effective cover =60 mm
Overall depth = 700 mm

Hence, depth is governed by the Punching shear criteria. So, take overall depth
750 mm.
Calculation of Reinforcements
𝑀𝑢 = 0.87 ∗ 𝑓𝑦 ∗ 𝐴𝑠𝑡 ∗ (𝑑 − )
𝑓𝑐𝑘∗𝐵
312.56*106 = 0.87*500*Ast* (690- (500*Ast) / (25*1000))

on solving,
Ast = 1074.83 mm2
Provide 20 mm dia. bars, Ab = 314.16 mm2
Spacing req, S = 1000*Ab/Ast
= 292.29 mm
Adopted spacing = 200 mm
Provide 20 mm dia. bars @ 200 mm c/c in the both directions.
Design of Pile
For Diameter 0.80 m.
Length of pile (L) = 9 m
Effective length of pile, Le = 6 m
Dia. of pile B or (D) = 0.80 m
𝐿𝑒 9
=0.80 = 11.25 (<12, Hence the pile is designed considering as
𝐵
a short column.
𝐿 𝐵 9000 80
minimum eccentricity, emin + 30 = + 30 = 44.667 (>20 mm)
500 500
Max factored load to be carried by 0.80 dia. pile, P = 963.173 kN
Factored moment, M = 43.02 kN-m
Since bored piles are provided, there will be no handling stresses.
𝐿𝑒
Correction factor for long column = 1.25- = 1.000
48𝐵
Considering the moment to act along both planes and designing as

biaxial column
Design moment, Mu = 60.84 kN-m
Design Load, Pu= 963.17 kN
Steel used, Fe500 fy= 500 Mpa
Concrete used, M25, fck = 25 Mpa
Provide effective cover d' = 50 mm
141 | P a g e
then,
𝑑′
= 0.07
𝐷
Referring to design aids interaction diagram, IS456:1978 chart no 60.

𝑃𝑢
= 0.060
𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝐷 2
𝑀𝑢
= 0.005
𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝐷 3
As per interaction diagrams the amount of reinforcements works out to

be very less.
Therefore, provide nominal reinforcement as 0.40%.
Ast = 2010.62 mm2
So, provide 8 No. of 20mm diameter Bars
Ast,pro = 2513.274 mm2
Lateral Ties
Minimum volume of lateral reinforcement per metre length of pile
= 0.20% of Ag*1000
= 1005309.65 mm2
Volume of a tie of 10 mm diameter bars = π/4 *d2*c/c distance of lateral tie
= 175185.4781 mm2
Number of ties/meters of pile = 6
Spacing of lateral ties = 166.67 mm (< 600mm)
( <48d2 = 480 mm)
(< 16d1 = 320 mm)
Okay
Provide lateral ties at 150 mm.
142 | P a g e
10. References
10.1 Reference Books:
1. Pillai, S.U. and Menon, D., “Reinforced Concrete Design”, McGraw Hill, India,
1999
2. Subramanian, N. , “ Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures”, Oxford
University Press, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi 110001, India, 2013
3. Varghese, P. C. , “Advanced Reinforced Concrete Design”, PHI Learning Pvt.
Ltd, New Delhi, India, 2008
4. Ghoneim, M.A.& El-Mihilmy, M.T. , “ Design of Reinforced Concrete
Structure, vol.3, 2008
5. Ramarutham, S.,“ Design of Reinforced Structures”, Dhanpat Rai and Sons, Nai
Sarak Delhi-110006, India,1974
6. Jain, A.K., “Reinforced Concrete Limit State Design”, Nem Chand and Bros.,
Roorke, India, 2012.
7. Saran, S., “Analysis and Design of Substructures” Oxford & IBH Pvt.ltd. New
Delhi 110049, India, 2013
8. Arora, K.R., “Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering”, Standard Publishers
Distributors, Delhi, 2018.
9. Bowels, J.E., “Foundation Analysis And Design”, McGraw Hill, 1997
10. Tomlinson, M. & John, W., “ Pile Design and Construction Practice” CRC Press
Tylor & Francis Group, London, New York, 2015
11. Shamsher, P. & Sharma H.D., “Pile Foundations In Engineering”, A Wiley-
Interscience, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1990
12. Rajapakse, R., “Pile Design and Construction Rules Of Thumb”, Elsevier, 30
corporate Drive, Burlington, MA01803,USA,2008
13. Madabhushi, G. , Knappet, J. & Haigh, S., “ Design of Pile Foundations In
Liquefiable Soils”, Imperial College Press, 57 Shelton Street, Covent Garden,
London WC2H9HE, 2010
10.2 Reference Articles

1. Poulos, H.G.( 2000). Piled Raft: Design and Applications.
2. Kumar, A. ( 2006). Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation.
3. Reul, O. Randolf, M.F.(2009). Optimised Design Of Combined Pile Raft
Foundations. Proc. International Conference on Deep Foundations- CPRF and
Energy Piles, Darmstadt Geotechnics, No.18, 149-169
4. Vesic, A.S.(1977). Design of Pile Foundations. National Cooperative Highway
Research Program Synthesis of Highway Practice.
5. Kumar, A. & Choudhury, D. (2017). Load Sharing Mechanism of Combined
Pile- Raft Foundation (CPRF) under Seismic Loads. Geotechnical Engineering
Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA Vol.48. No. ISSN 0046-5828
6. Gedeon, G.(2018). Design of Pile Foundation. US Corps of Engineers
Publication EM 1110-2-2906. Course No. G10-001
7. Ahner, C. & Sukhov, D. (2020). Combined Piled Raft Foundation (CPRF),
Safety Concept.
143 | P a g e
8. Abebe, A. & Smith, Dr. I.G. (2015). Pile Foundation: A student Guide. School
of the Built Environment, Napier University, Edinburgh
9. Bandyopadhyay, S., Sengupta, A., & Parulekar, Y.M. (2020). Behaviour of a
Combined Piled Raft Foundation in a Multi- Layered Soil Subjected To Vertical
Loading.
10. Botis, M.F. & Cerbu, C.(2020). A Method For Reducing The Overall Torsion
For Reinforced Concrete Multi- Storey Irregular Structures.
10.3 Reference Codes:

1. IS 456:2000, "Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete".
2. IS 875 (Parts I & II):1993, "Code of Practice for Design Loads".
3. SP 16: 1980, "Design Aids for Reinforced Concrete to IS 456:2000".
4. IS 13920: 2016, "Code of Practice for Ductile Detailing ofReinforced Concrete
Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces".
5. IS 6403: 1981 (Reaffirmed 2002), "Code of Practice for Determination of
Breaking Capacity of Shallow Foundations".
6. IS:2950 (Part I)-1981, “Code of Practice For Design And Construction of Raft
Foundations.”
7. IS:1904-1986 (Reaffirmed 2006), “Code Of Practice For Design And
Construction Of Foundations In Soils: General Requirements.”
8. IS 8009 (Part I) – 1976, "Code of Practice for Calculation of Settlements of
Foundations".
9. IS 2911 (part 1/ Sec 1- Sec 4), "Code of Practice for Design and Construction of
PileFoundations".
144 | P a g e
145 | P a g e

Final Project

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

Final Project

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IOE, Thapathali Campus

SEISMIC DESIGN OF STRUCUTRE AND COMPARATIVE

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR

Project Supervisor: Er. Piyush Pradhan

SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF STRUCUTRE

A PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

Er. Ram Prasad Neupane

Tribhuvan University, Institute of Engineering has prescribed a course

We would like acknowledge the help received from various individuals

αx, αy BM coefficients for Rectangular Slab Panels

ELX, ELY Earthquake Load along X and Y direction respectively

Q, Qu Permissible and Ultimate Bearing capacity of soil

6.4 Model Analysis and Design .......................................................................................... 38

Design of Pile ................................................................................................................... 141

Any structure is stable if it has stable foundation. The stability of foundation is

This project mainly focuses on the comparative analysis of different types of

1.2 Building Specification

Plinth area covered: 1136.028 m2

5.1 Code of Practice

5.1.1 Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice (IS 456:2000)

Part 2: Imposed Loads

Part 3: Wind Loads

Part 5: Special Loads and Load Combinations

5.1.5 IS 8009 (Part I) – 1976:

5.1.6 IS 6403:1981 (Reaffirmed 2002):

5.1.8 IS 13920: 2016 Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures

5.2 Textbooks on RCC Design and Earthquake Engineering

5. Foundation Design Dr. KR Arora, Soil Mechanics And Foundation

c) Pile Design J.E. Bowels, Foundation Analysis and Design

6. Retaining Wall Pillai and Menon, Reinforced concrete Design

5.3 Assumptions for Flexural Member (IS 456:2000, Cl. 38.1)

Fig 1. Stress- Strain Curve for Concrete (Refer to IS code)

5.4 Assumptions for Compression Members (IS 456:2000, Cl. 39.1)

1. The maximum compressive strain in concrete in axial compression is taken as

both directions simultaneously.

Design Lateral Force

Design Seismic Base Shear

Ah= Horizontal acceleration

W= seismic weight of all the floors

5.6 Fundamental Natural Period:

Ta= 0.075h0.75 for RC frame building

H= Height of the building in m. This excludes the basement storey’s, where

D= base dimension of the building at the plinth

5.7 Design Horizontal Seismic Force Coefficient

Z= zone factor for the maximum considerable earthquake (MCE) and

Table 1. Zone Factor (Refer IS code)

Seismic Zone II III IV V

I = importance factor depending on the functional purpose of the building;

R = response reduction factor, depending upon the perceived seismic

Sa/g = average acceleration coefficient

Fig 2. Spectral Acceleration Coefficient Vs Period Curve

5.7.1 Distribution of Design Force

Distribution of Horizontal Design Lateral Force to Different Lateral Force

a) the soil below does not fail in shear and

Foundation may be broadly classified into two categories:

Mat foundations are useful in reducing the differential settlements on non-

Pile is a slender structural member made of steel, concrete or wood. A pile

Necessity of Pile Foundations

b) Combined Piled Raft Foundation

Cases of using piled raft foundation

Case I: Piled raft adopted to reduce settlement

Case II: Piled raft adopted to satisfy bearing capacity considerations

5.9.2 Bearing Capacity of soil

1) Ultimate Bearing Capacity (qu):

Vus = 39.97 - 0.646100280/1000 = 21.882KN