A Report on Detail Assessment of Retrofitted Building of Madina Madarsa Masjid

Pra. Parishad Building, Butwal, Nepal

Report Submitted to:

Madina madarsa Masjid Pra. Parishad
Butwal, Rupandehi, Nepal
Report Submitted by:
CIVIL ERA ENGINEERING CONSULTANcY
Bhaisepati Residential Area, Sainbu, Lalitpur
Telephone: (977-1)5590033
E-mail: structnep@gmail.com

March 2023
TABLE OF CONTENT
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................7
1.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................ 7
1.2 OBJECTIVE OF ASSESSMENT .............................................................................. 7
1.3 SCOPE OF WORK ................................................................................................ 7
1.4 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 7
1.5 LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 2. GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA AND ASSUMPTIONS .........................................9
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING ........................................................................ 9
2.2 LOADING CRITERIA ................................................................................... 10
2.2.1 GRAVITY LOADING ..............................................................................10
2.3 MATERIAL STRENGTH ..................................................................................... 11

DRAFT
2.3.1 CONCRETE ............................................................................................11
2.3.2 REBAR ..................................................................................................11
2.3.3 KNOWLEDGE FACTOR/CONFIDENCE FACTOR .....................................11
2.4 LOAD COMBINATION ....................................................................................... 11
2.4.1 LIMIT STATE M ETHOD .........................................................................11
2.5 SEISMIC LOAD ................................................................................................. 11
2.5.1 LINEAR STATIC AND RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS METHOD: .....11
CHAPTER 3. SEISMIC EVALUATION ...................................................................................15
3.1 EVALUATION METHODS OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS ................................... 15
3.2 INTERVENTION APPROACH: ............................................................................. 15
3.2.1 MODELLING APPROACH ......................................................................16
3.2.2 ADDITIONAL OF COLUMN JACKETING: ...............................................16
3.3 OVERALL STRUCTURAL RESPONSE AND RESULTS ......................................... 17
3.3.1 MODAL ANALYSIS ...............................................................................18
3.3.2 STOREY DRIFT RATIO AND DISPLACEMENT .........................................20
3.3.3 STRUCTURE IRREGULARITY CHECK ....................................................24
3.3.4 TORSIONAL IRREGULARITY .................................................................24
3.4 EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS ...................................................... 26
3.4.1 ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF REINFORCED C ONCRETE COLUMN 26
3.4.2 ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF EXISTING BEAMS ...........................27
3.4.3. STRONG COLUMN AND WEAK BEAM CHECK ................................................... 30
3.4. PUSHOVER ANALYSIS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION OF EXISTING AND
RETROFITTED STRUCTURES ............................................................................ 31
 3.4.3 GENERAL ..............................................................................................31
3.4.4 LATERAL DEFORMATION .......................................................................33
CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION .............................................................36
ANNEX I SLAB CHECK......................................................................................................38
ANNEX II PHOTOGRAPH .................................................................................................39

DRAFT
LIST OF FIGURES

F IGURE 2-1: SPECTRAL S HAPE F ACTOR FOR EQUIVALENT STATICS M ETHOD .......................................... 12
F IGURE 2-2 S PECTRA FACTOR FOR RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD............................................................. 13
F IGURE 3-1 F RAME STRUCTURE OF R ETROFITTED BUILDING WITH COLUMN JACKETING ....................... 16
FIGURE 3-2 REINFORCEMENT OF THE COLUMN BY JACKETING ALL COLUMNS. ............................................. 17
FIGURE 3-3 COLUMN J ACKETING WITH 8NO. 16 MM DIA. BAR WITH TOTAL OF 21” X 21” COLUMN AT GIRD
B2 AND C2 GF ............................................................................................................................................ 17
F IGURE 3-4 F UNDAMENTAL TIME PERIOD OF THE EXISTING BUILDING ....................................................... 19
F IGURE 3-5 M ODAL P ARTICIPATION MASS RATIOS OF EXISTING BUILDING AFTER RETROFIT .............. 20
F IGURE 3-6 S TOREY RESPONSE DISPLACEMENT (MM ) OF EXISTING STRUCTURE (ULS) AFTER RETROFIT
..................................................................................................................................................................... 21
F IGURE 3-7 S TOREY RESPONSE DISPLACEMENT (MM ) OF EXISTING STRUCTURE (SLS) AFTER R ETROFIT
..................................................................................................................................................................... 22
F IGURE 3-8 S TOREY RESPONSE OF EXISTING STRUCTURE AFTER RETROFIT (ULS) ................................. 23
F IGURE 3-9 S TOREY RESPONSE OF EXISTING STRUCTURE AFTER RETROFIT (ULS) ................................. 24
F IGURE 3-10 CENTRE OF M ASS AND R IGIDITY FOR EXISTING STRUCTURE AFTER RETROFIT ................ 25
F IGURE 3-11 TORSION IRREGULARITY ............................................................................................................ 25

DRAFT
F IGURE 3-12 DCR OF THE COLUMN IN PMM I NTERACTION AFTER R ETROFIT ......................................... 27
F IGURE 3-13 DCR RATIO PF COLUMN IN SHEAR AFTER RETROFIT ............................................................. 27
F IGURE 3-14 FLEXURAL DEMAND REBAR TO PROVIDED REBAR (M ID R EGION) ......................................... 28
F IGURE 3-15 FLEXURAL DEMAND REBAR TO PROVIDED REBAR (END R EGION) ......................................... 28
F IGURE 3-16 SHEAR D/C RATIO OF BEAMS (END REGION) .......................................................................... 29
F IGURE 3-17 SHEAR D/C RATIO OF BEAMS (M ID REGION) .......................................................................... 29
F IGURE 3-18 COLUMN/B EAM R ATIOS OF THE COLUMNS ALONG GRID 11 (RATIO>1.2 IN ALL THE
COLUMNS WHICH IS OK ) ............................................................................................................................ 30
F IGURE 3-19 COLUMN/B EAM R ATIOS OF THE COLUMN ALONG GRID 22 (R ATIO>1.2 IN ALL THE
COLUMNS WHICH IS OK ) ............................................................................................................................ 31
F IGURE 3-20 RESPONSE SPECTRUM C URVE FOR P USH-X R ETROFITTED.................................................... 32
F IGURE 3-21 RESPONSE SPECTRUM C URVE FOR P USH-Y R ETROFITTED.................................................... 32
F IGURE 3-22 BASE FORCE V S R OOF DISPLACEMENT FOR PUSH ALONG X- DIRECTION AFTER
RETROFIT ................................................................................................................................................ 34
F IGURE 3-23 BASE FORCE V S R OOF DISPLACEMENT FOR PUSH ALONG Y-DIRECTION AFTER RETROFIT 34
F IGURE 3-24 H INGE FORMATION IN STRUCTURE DUE TO PUSH-X AT PERFORMANCE A FTER RETROFIT
( STEP-4 LEFT , STEP-5 RIGHT) .................................................................................................................. 35
F IGURE 3-25 H INGE FORMATION IN STRUCTURE DUE TO PUSH-Y AT PERFORMANCE AFTER RETROFIT
( STEP-6 LEFT , STEP-7 RIGHT) .................................................................................................................. 35
ABBREVIATIONS
RC : REINFORCED CONCRETE
DCR : DEMAND TO CAPACITY RATIO
GFRP : GLASS FIBRE REINFORCED POLYMER
BOQ : BILLING OF QUANTITIES
IS : INDIAN STANDARD
ACI : AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE

DRAFT
C : COMPLIANCE
NC : NOT COMPLIANCE
N/A : NOT APPLICABLE
NK : NOT KNOWN
UNDP : UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME
NSET : NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR EARTHQUAKE TECHNOLOGY-NEPAL
ESS : EARTHQUAKE SAFETY SOLUTION
MMI : MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY
ETABS : EXTENDED THREE-DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS OF BUILDING
DG : DAMAGE GRADE
FEMA : FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report has completed seismic retrofit design of the Madina Madarsa Masjid Pra.
Parishad Building Butwal, Rupandehi. The purpose of this study is to assess retrofitted
building to check the structural safety of the buildings satisfying code specified
requirements. Since the building was constructed 12 years ago and the serviceable life
period of the building is 38 years. Therefore, it is important to note that the assessment was
done for the probable safety of the building for seismic for the next 38 years. Similarly, this
assessment was to check the existing building capacity to withstand the additional floor.
The field inspection includes visual inspection, communication with contractor and use of
old photographs to understand and verify the structural details and material qualities
to some extent and communication with
client/contractor. In case of justification of the any material quantity and quality the
contractor/client is solely responsible for the verification and justification of the material
quantity and quality.

From the as build detail seismic assessment of the building it came to conclusion that, after the
retrofit the drift is within the limit as per the NBC permissible limit for both the U.L.S. and

DRAFT
S.L.S. All the columns satisfy the P.M.M capacity limit of the column. Similarly, all the beams
satisfy the shear and flexure demand. The shear demand of the beam is consider taking bother
the stirrups and concrete capacity. The building does comply the strong column weak beam
concept. This has resulted in adequate structural strength of the building against the impending
large earthquake in Nepal.

Retrofitting is the quantified implementation of seismic strengthening measures to correct/

reduce seismic deficiencies. Retrofit design was carried out considering the rebar jacketing
main lateral load resisting structure member (column). For the global performance, retrofit was
adopted by column jacketing at effective location of the building.

Non-linear static (pushover analysis) was carried out to check the performance of the retrofitted
building. The hinges were relocated primarily from columns, beams. By jacketing some
column from the demand of pushover analysis was sufficient to withstand the seismic demands.
This system improves the seismic response of existing structure as required by earthquake
design consideration. The intensity of damage to the building was significantly reduced with
the implementation of proposed intervention option. The retrofitting has upgraded the building
structure to Life Safety (LS) level at the design earthquake shaking.

Therefore, it concludes that the building will sustain the additional floor in total (4 Story)
for the probable life safety of the building for the next 38 years.
 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL
This report is prepared by Civil Era engineering consultancy Pvt. Ltd. has completed detail
assessment of the Madina Madarsa Masjid Pra. Parishad building. The purpose of this
study is to conduct detail assessment of the retrofitted design to enhance the structural safety
of the buildings satisfying code specified requirements.

From the as build seismic evaluation method, identifying the seismic deficiency of the building.
The as build evaluation has been carried out based on the analysis procedure followed on NBC
105:2020, IS 15988:2013, Critical checks and potential seismic deficiencies in the structure.
Form the evaluation the buildings drift limit is within the NBC permissible limit for both the
U.L.S. and S.L.S. Maximum no. of columns satisfied the P.M.M capacity limit of the column.
Similarly maximum number of beams satisfied the shear and flexure demand. The building
also complies the strong column weak beam concept.

This report presents outcomes from the retrofit design. It has been organized in five sections.
Section 1 provides introduction, objectives, scope, and limitations. Section 2 describes the
general design and assumptions for existing building, and the section 3 summarized the results,
outcomes and recommendations of the report followed by the references.

DRAFT
In addition, this report also includes six annexes that provide supporting information on issues
discussed in the main chapters. These include, Annex I Slab Check, Annex II Photographs,
Annex III Seismic Retrofitting Architectural/structural drawings.

1.2 OBJECTIVE OF ASSESSMENT

The main objective of this report is to propose the most feasible conceptual retrofit solution to
increase the seismic safety of the assessed building.

1.3 SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of work for assessment is as follows:
1. Conduct detailed seismic analysis and retrofitting check using quantitative method.
2. Prepare the report detailing procedures and presenting findings and recommendation.
3. Prepare drawings for the retrofitted option.

1.4 METHODOLOGY
The overall methodology adopted for this study is as follows:
1. Evaluation of general earthquake performance of the building. The building
performance is evaluated based on the available fragility functions developed in Nepal
Building Code and IS 15988:2013.
1.5 LIMITATIONS
The study is carried out mainly by reviewing of available as-built architectural drawings and
field inspection of the building. The field inspection includes visual inspection, communication
with contractor and use of old photographs to understand and verify the structural details and
material qualities to some extent. In case of justification of the any material quantity and quality
the contractor/client are solely responsible to justify any required data. Therefore, verification
of the quality and quantity of the structure material and structural component is necessary as a
prerequisite to justify and adopted this report conclusions. Also, other structure system like
foundation still needs to be checked and conformation is still required for its adequacy.

As it was not possible to test all structural elements of building during assessment, there exist
some uncertainties in assumption of material properties, geometry as well as detailing in this
building as well. The foundation of building was not inspected during the field visit due to site
constraint.
All possible efforts were carried out to extract the exact information under the given
circumstances. So, neither nor Civil-Era Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and its staffs make any warranty,
expressed or implied, nor assumes any responsibility for the accuracy, completeness ore
usefulness of the statement made in this report.

DRAFT
 CHAPTER 2. GENERAL DESIGN CRITERIA AND ASSUMPTIONS

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING

Building Owner Madina Madarsa Masjid Pra. Parishad

Location Butwal-5, Rupandehi

GPS Coordinate

27°42'16.63"N
83°27'47.55"E

Terrain Type Plain Terrain

Age of the Building 12 Years, Just Retrofitted

Type of the structure Reinforced concrete frame

DRAFT
No of Stories 3 Storey + one Additional Proposed Floor (Total 4 Storey)

Plan Configuration
Regular

Vertical Configuration Regular

Position of the Building Attached at back and left portion of the building
Block

Building Dimension 12.2682 m X 4.4196 m

Height up to the ceiling Story 1 (4.4196 m), Story 2 (3.5052 m), Story 3 (2.4384m), Story 4
(2.4384m)
 Plinth Area 54.22 Sq. m.
Column Size Retrofitted (18” x 18”), (16” x 18”) x (21” x 21”)

Beam Size New Beam-9”X12” (including slab depth) and Old Beam-9” x 14”
(including slab depth)

Slab Depth 125 mm at 1F and 2F, 3F and 4F

Building Condition
Good no deterioration of concrete was observed.

Floor/Roof Structure
RCC slab

DRAFT
2.2 LOADING CRITERIA
The minimum dead and live loads are calculated as per IS 875 (Part-1)-1987 and IS 875 (Part-
2)-1987. The earthquake loading is considered as per NBC 105:2020.

2.2.1 GRAVITY LOADING

Dead load on the structure comprises of the self-weight of the member, weight of the floor
finishes, brick walls and partition walls. Wall loads are applied as a UDL in the Beam members.

TABLE 2-1 MATERIAL PROPERTIES

Material Density
Reinforced concrete : 25 KN/m3
Unit weight of soil : 19 KN/m3
Steel : 78.5 KN/m3
Brick : 19 KN/m3

TABLE 2-2 LOAD CLASSIFICATION

Hospital Building
Live load : 3 KN/m2
Live load for terrace : 1.5 KN/m2
Live load for roof in assessable : 0.75 KN/m2
Floor Finishes : 1.15 KN/m2

In addition, wall loads are applied as follow.

Parapet Wall : 4.78 kN/m (Full Wall Load)
115mm Wall with openings : 6.88 kN/m
2.3 MATERIAL STRENGTH

2.3.1 CONCRETE
The materials used on the construction structural members of the building is reinforced
concrete.
Grade of Concrete used for columns:M20.
Grade of Concrete for Beams, slabs: M20
Refer Cube Test Report From Client/Contractor.

2.3.2 REBAR
Grade of Steel used has been considered as Fe500 for new rebar and FE 415 for old rebar based
on practices during the construction time.

2.3.3 KNOWLEDGE FACTOR/CONFIDENCE FACTOR

Lateral load is considered with modification factor (i.e., as 0.8) for retrofit design for 41-
years of remaining useful life of the building. Since the building was constructed 18 years
ago and the serviceable life period of the building is 32 years.

DRAFT
2.4 LOAD COMBINATION

2.4.1 LIMIT STATE METHOD

Limit state method of analysis and design is adopted for the reinforced cement concrete frame
building. Load combinations for the analysis and design of structure are adopted as per NBC
105:2020. The design load combinations are various combinations of the load cases for which
structures needs to be checked. As per NBC or IS code, since the structure is subjected to dead
load (DL), Live Load (LL), Wind Load (WL) and earthquake Load (EL) are considering that
wind and earthquake forces are reversible. The following load combinations has been defined.
Following load combinations as per NBC 105:2020 have been considered for the selected
building:
i. 1.2DL + 1.5LL
ii. DL + 0.3LL ± EL
Where RS = response spectrum

2.5 SEISMIC LOAD

The site location is on high seismic risk zone as per seismic hazard map of Nepal. For Seismic
Load calculations and the distribution both linear static, dynamic response spectrum, linear and
nonlinear time history analysis methods are performed.

2.5.1 LINEAR STATIC AND RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS METHOD:

The design base shear is calculated using empirical relation for fundamental period T as per
code.
T=0.05 H3/4
Where,
H = Height of the building above ground in m
The design horizontal seismic coefficient Cd for a structure is determined by the following
expression (NBC 105:2020):
𝐶(𝑇)
𝐶𝑑 =
𝑅µ Ω𝑢
Where,
C(T) = Elastic Site Spectra
Rµ = Ductility factor
Ωu = Over strength factor for ultimate limit state

SPECTRAL SHAPE FACTOR

3

2.5

DRAFT
2
PSA(g)

1.5

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Natural Time Period(Sec)
Spectral Shape Factor

FIGURE 2-1: SPECTRAL SHAPE FACTOR FOR EQUIVALENT STATICS METHOD

SPECTRAL SHAPE FACTOR

3

2.5

2
PSA(g)

1.5

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Natural Time Period(Sec)
Spectral Shape Factor Building Time Period
 FIGURE 2-2 SPECTRA FACTOR FOR RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD
The total design lateral force or design seismic base shear (Vb) along any principal direction
shall be determined by the following expression:
𝑉𝐶 𝑊
Where, s
Cd = Horizontal base shear coefficient
W = Seismic weight of building
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:
Wh
F =V
∑ Wh
Where,
Fi = Lateral seismic force at level i
Wi = Seismic weight of the structure assigned to level i
hi = Height from the base to level i
n = Total number of floors/levels
The base shear coefficient calculated is shown in Table 2-3.

DRAFT
TABLE 2-3 BASE SHEAR COEFFICIENT CALCULATION FOR RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS
Method of analysis Response Spectrum Remarks
Soil type B
Peak spectral acceleration normalized by
α 2.50 Table 4-1
PGA
Corner period corresponding to the start
0.100 Table 4-1
of constant spectral acceleration range Ta
Corner period corresponding to the end
0.700 Table 4-1
of constant spectral acceleration range Tc
Coefficient that controls the descending
1.800 Table 4-1
branch of the spectrum K

Seismic zone Butwal Table 4-5

Cl 4.1.4,
Z 0.3
Seismic Zone factor Fig. 4-3
Reinforced Concrete
Moment Resisting Cl 4.1.5,
Structure type Frame Table 4-6
 Cl 4.1.5,
Importance factor I 1.25 Table 4-6
Height of the building h 12.801 m Refer dwg.
T1 =
Time period of the building along X, sec Cl 5.1.2
kt*(H^3/4) 0.508
Amplification of approximate period 1.250 Cl 5.1.3
0.634 sec
Spectral shape factor Ch(T) 2.5 Cl 4.1.2
Elastic site spectra for horizontal loading
(ultimate limit state) C (T) 0.938 Cl 4.1.1
Elastic site spectra for horizontal loading
(serviceability limit state) Cs (T) 0.188 Cl 4.2

DRAFT
Cl 5.3.1,
Ductility factor for ultimate limit state Rμ
4 Table 5-2
Ductility factor for serviceability limit
Rs Cl 5.3.2
state 1
Overstrength factor for ultimate limit 1.5 Cl 5.4.1,
Ωu
state Table 5-2
Overstrength factor for serviceability 1.25 Cl 5.4.2,
Ωs
limit state Table 5-2
IS
Later Load Modification Factor U U 0.87 15988:2013
CL: 5.4
Cd (T1) = 0.156
Horizontal base shear coefficient for
C (T1) / Cl 6.1.1
ultimate limit state
(Rμ*Ωu)
Factored Horizontal base shear 0.135
Cd (T1)
coefficient for ultimate limit state
Cd (T1) = 0.150
Horizontal base shear coefficient for
Cs (T1) / Cl 6.1.2
serviceability limit state
(Ωs)
Factored Horizontal base shear 0.13
Cd (T1)
coefficient for serviceability limit state
 CHAPTER 3. SEISMIC EVALUATION

The four-storey building are modeled in ETABS 2019 produced by CSI, California Berkeley.
The model is as per actual dimension available in the existing drawing and site verification.
ETABS is Finite Element based tool which analyzes the structure from the connectivity of
joints, frames, shells and defined meshing. The structural members i.e., column and beams are
modeled as a frame member in ETABS with node-to-node connectivity. Shear walls and slabs
are modeled as a thin-shell element with defined meshing size.

Actual sizes of structural components their sizes, rebars area are checked at the site then
modeled, evaluated and calculated as per the code criteria. Seismic load is considered only in
the horizontal direction (along the two principal directions) since seismic load is not significant
in vertical direction. The seismic design force has been applied and automatically distributed
by the software at various floor levels. Rigid floor diaphragms are provided with reinforced
concrete solid slabs. The building response in terms of story drift and displacement were

DRAFT
calculated using the software and were checked as per IS provision.

3.1 EVALUATION METHODS OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

Indian Standard Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete, i.e. IS 456-2000 for
design of structural elements is followed.

Limit State Method is based on safety and serviceability requirements associated with the
design loads and design strengths of the materials. These design loads and design strengths are
obtained by applying partial safety factors for characteristic loads and strengths of the materials
such as concrete and steel.

IS 15988(2013): Seismic Evaluation and Strengthening of Existing Reinforced Concrete

Buildings-Guidelines is used for the evaluation parameters.

TABLE 3-1 SECTION PROPERTY MODIFIER USED IN NBC 105:2020

Structural Members Section Modifier
Columns : 0.7 for both direction
Beams : 0.35 for major direction
Slabs : 1

No section modifier was used for the shear property of the structural members.

3.2 INTERVENTION APPROACH:

As a retrofit measure different options were approached, and suitable option column jacketing
is selected based upon the level of intervention, cost, and time of application.
3.2.1 MODELLING APPROACH
Frame elements was used for modeling of existing building’s column and beams and shell
element was used to model slab and angle plates are added at column of the building.

DRAFT
FIGURE 3-1 FRAME STRUCTURE OF RETROFITTED BUILDING WITH COLUMN JACKETING

3.2.2 ADDITIONAL OF COLUMN JACKETING:

To resist the lateral load, control drift of the building, new shear walls with openings are added
at the corner section of the building:
 FIGURE 3-2 REINFORCEMENT OF THE COLUMN BY JACKETING ALL COLUMNS.
Axial and bending capacity of the existing column is increased with the addition of reinforced

DRAFT
jacket concrete on four sides of all the columns. The postion of the new retrofittted column are
added at critical location.

FIGURE 3-3 COLUMN JACKETING WITH 8NO. 16 MM DIA. BAR WITH TOTAL OF 21” X 21”
COLUMN AT GIRD B2 AND C2 GF

3.3 OVERALL STRUCTURAL RESPONSE AND RESULTS

The overall structural response was obtained from the finite element modal and proper checks
were carried out.
 TABLE: Load Pattern Definitions - Auto Seismic - User Coefficient
Ecc. Top Bottom Weight Base
Name Ratio Story Story C K Used Shear
kN kN
EQx_ULS 0.1 3F Base 0.135 1.067 2629.505 354.9831
EQx_SLS 0.1 3F Base 0.135 1.067 2629.505 354.9831
EQy_ULS 0.1 3F Base 0.130 1.067 2629.505 341.8356
EQy_SLS 0.1 3F Base 0.130 1.067 2629.505 341.8356

3.3.1 MODAL ANALYSIS

Modal analysis was performed to determine the free vibration modes and dynamic behaviour
of the building.
TABLE 3-2 FUNDAMENTAL TIME PERIOD OF THE EXISTING BUILDING AFTER RETROFIT
TABLE: MODAL DIRECTION FACTORS
Circular
Case Mode Period Frequency Frequency Eigenvalue
sec
Modal 1 0.97 1.04 6.51 42.39

DRAFT
Modal 2 0.84 1.19 7.45 55.53
Modal 3 0.80 1.25 7.83 61.35
Modal 4 0.27 3.68 23.12 534.39
Modal 5 0.25 4.08 25.62 656.60
Modal 6 0.23 4.30 27.02 729.96
Modal 7 0.13 7.49 47.05 2213.80
Modal 8 0.13 7.84 49.26 2426.92
Modal 9 0.12 8.57 53.84 2898.72
Modal 10 0.07 14.69 92.28 8515.11
Modal 11 0.07 15.20 95.49 9117.81
Modal 12 0.06 16.96 106.58 11358.65
 MODEL PERIOD VS NO. OF MODES
1.20
Series2
1.00

TIME PERIOD (SEC)

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
NO. OF MODES

DRAFT
FIGURE 3-4 FUNDAMENTAL TIME PERIOD OF THE EXISTING BUILDING
TABLE 3-3 MODAL PARTICIPATION MASS RATIOS OF EXISTING BUILDING AFTER
RETROFIT

TABLE: MODAL PARTICIPATING MASS R ATIOS

Sum Sum Sum
Case Mode Period UX UY UX UY RZ RZ
sec
Modal 1 0.965 0.000 0.815 0.000 0.815 0.047 0.047
Modal 2 0.843 0.846 0.003 0.847 0.818 0.027 0.073
Modal 3 0.802 0.030 0.040 0.876 0.859 0.796 0.870
Modal 4 0.272 0.000 0.104 0.876 0.962 0.004 0.873
Modal 5 0.245 0.095 0.000 0.971 0.962 0.001 0.874
Modal 6 0.233 0.001 0.005 0.971 0.967 0.097 0.971
Modal 7 0.134 0.000 0.030 0.971 0.996 0.002 0.973
Modal 8 0.128 0.028 0.000 0.999 0.997 0.000 0.973
Modal 9 0.117 0.000 0.003 0.999 0.999 0.026 0.999
Modal 10 0.068 0.000 0.001 0.999 1.000 0.000 0.999
Modal 11 0.066 0.001 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.000 0.999
Modal 12 0.059 0.000 0.000 1.000 1.000 0.001 1.000
 MODAL PARTICIPATING MASS RATIO
1.200
X-Direction Y-Direction

1.000
MODAL PARTICIPATING MASS RATIO

0.800

0.600

0.400

0.200

0.000
1 3 5 7 9 11
NUMBER OF MODES

DRAFT
FIGURE 3-5 MODAL PARTICIPATION MASS RATIOS OF EXISTING BUILDING AFTER
RETROFIT

3.3.2 STOREY DRIFT RATIO AND DISPLACEMENT

The inter storey drifts of the building were checked for earthquake and compared with the
allowable limit of 0.025 for ultimate limit state and 0.006 for serviceability limit state as per
NBC105: 2020 Code.
TABLE 3-4 STOREY DISPLACEMENT OF EXISTING STRUCTURE (ULS) AFTER RETROFIT
TABLE: STORY RESPONSE (D ISPLACEMENT)
Story Elevation Location X-Dir Y-Dir
m mm mm
4F 12.8016 Top 33.361 47.506
3F 10.3632 Top 28.331 39.663
2F 7.9248 Top 22.157 30.3
1F 4.4196 Top 10.791 14.123
Base 0 Top 0 0
TABLE 3-5 STOREY DISPLACEMENT OF EXISTING STRUCTURE (SLS) AFTER RETROFIT
TABLE: STORY RESPONSE (D ISPLACEMENT)
Story Elevation Location X-Dir Y-Dir
m mm mm
4F 12.8016 Top 32.078 45.678
3F 10.3632 Top 27.241 38.137
2F 7.9248 Top 21.305 29.135
1F 4.4196 Top 10.376 13.58
Base 0 Top 0 0

DISPLACEMENT VS STORY ELEVATIONS

GRAPH ULS
14

X-Direction Y-Direction
12

10
STORY ELVATION (M)

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
DISPLACEMENT (MM)

FIGURE 3-6 STOREY RESPONSE DISPLACEMENT (MM) OF EXISTING STRUCTURE (ULS)

AFTER R ETROFIT

DRAFT
 DISPLACEMENT VS STORY ELEVATIONS
GRAPH SLS
14
X-Direction Y-Direction
12

10
STORY ELVATION (M)

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
DISPLACEMENT (MM)

FIGURE 3-7 STOREY RESPONSE DISPLACEMENT (MM) OF EXISTING STRUCTURE (SLS)

AFTER R ETROFIT

TABLE 3-6 STOREY RESPONSE DRIFT OF EXISTING STRUCTURE (ULS) AFTER RETROFIT
TABLE: STORY DRIFTS (ULS)
Load Drift*R Check
Storey Case/Combo Direction Drift 4 Drift<0.025
4F EQx_ULS X_1 0.00207 0.008264 Ok
3F EQx_ULS X_1 0.00253 0.010128 Ok

DRAFT
2F EQx_ULS X_1 0.00324 0.012972 Ok
1F EQx_ULS X_1 0.00244 0.009768 Ok
Base EQx_ULS X_1 0 0 Ok
TABLE: STORY DRIFTS (ULS)
Load Drift*R Check
Storey Case/Combo Direction Drift 4 Drift<0.025
4F EQy_ULS Y_1 0.00322 0.012864 Ok
3F EQy_ULS Y_1 0.00384 0.01536 Ok
2F EQy_ULS Y_1 0.00462 0.01846 Ok
1F EQy_ULS Y_1 0.0032 0.012784 Ok
Base EQy_ULS Y_1 0 0
TABLE 3-7 STOREY RESPONSE DRIFT OF EXISTING STRUCTURE (SLS) AFTER RETROFIT
TABLE: STORY DRIFTS (SLS)
Load Check
Storey Case/Combo Direction Drift Drift<0.006
4F EQx_SLS X_1 0.001986 ok
3F EQx_SLS X_1 0.002434 ok
2F EQx_SLS X_1 0.003118 ok
1F EQx_SLS X_1 0.002348 ok
Base EQx_SLS 0
TABLE: STORY DRIFTS (SLS)
Load Check
Storey Case/Combo Direction Drift Drift<0.006
4F EQy_SLS Y_1 0.003093 ok
3F EQy_SLS Y_1 0.003692 ok
2F EQy_SLS Y_1 0.004438 ok
1F EQy_SLS Y_1 0.003073 ok
Base EQy_SLS 0

STORY LEVEL VS INTER-STORY DRIFT-

4 ULS
NBC 105:202 permissible
3.5

DRAFT
3 X-Direction

2.5 Y-Direction
STORY LEVEL

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
STORY DRIFT

FIGURE 3-8 STOREY RESPONSE OF EXISTING STRUCTURE AFTER RETROFIT (ULS)

 Story level vs Inter-story Drift-SLS
4

NBC 105:202 permissible

3.5
X-Direction
3
Y-Direction

2.5
Story Level

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Story drift

FIGURE 3-9 STOREY RESPONSE OF EXISTING STRUCTURE AFTER RETROFIT (ULS)

3.3.3 STRUCTURE IRREGULARITY CHECK

DRAFT
3.3.4 TORSIONAL IRREGULARITY
As per NBC 105:2020, clause 5.7, the accidental eccentricity can be taken as ±0.1b for the
analysis of the building. The calculated eccentricity and the design eccentricity are given in
Rigid Diaphragm has been considered Dx= 36m, Dy=15 m for the structure.
Table 3-8 Centre of Mass and Rigidity for Existing Structure after Retrofit
TABLE: CENTRE OF MASS AND RIGIDITY
Eccentricity %
Story Diaphragm XCM YCM XCR YCR Check Eccentricity Result
m m m m X Y X Y X Y
4F D1 5.64 2.55 6.50 2.46 0.86 0.09 7.03 2.08 OK OK
3F D1 5.62 2.52 6.55 2.44 0.93 0.08 7.55 1.87 OK OK
2F D1 6.23 2.35 6.58 2.43 0.35 0.08 2.86 1.81 OK OK
1F D1 6.26 2.36 6.62 2.49 0.36 0.13 2.95 2.90 OK OK
Length along X= 12.2682 m
Length along Y= 4.4196 m
 Eccentricity Comparision of x and y direction
8.00
7.00
Eccentricity in Percentage

6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Story4 Story3 Story2 Story1
Building Floor
Series1 Series2

DRAFT
FIGURE 3-10 CENTRE OF MASS AND RIGIDITY FOR EXISTING STRUCTURE AFTER
RETROFIT

3.3.4.1 Torsion Irregularity Check:

According to NBC 105:2020 clause 5.5.2.1, torsion irregularity is considered to exist in the
building where the maximum horizontal displacement of any floor in the direction of the lateral
force (applied at the center of mass) at one end is more than 1.5 times its minimum horizontal
displacement at the far end.

FIGURE 3-11 TORSION I RREGULARITY

TABLE 3-9 MASS COMPARISON OF EXISTING STRUCTURE AFTER RETROFIT
TABLE: Story Max/Avg Displacements (Eq-X)
Load
Minimum
Story Case/Combo Maximum Average Ratio Ratio Check
mm (mm) (max/min) <1.5
Story4 EQX 33.359 33.063 1.009 32.767 1.018 Ok
Story3 EQX 28.331 28.106 1.008 27.881 1.016 Ok
Story2 EQX 22.157 21.984 1.008 21.811 1.016 Ok
 Story1 EQX 10.791 10.66 1.012 10.529 1.025 Ok
Story4 EQX 34.238 32.853 1.042 31.468 1.0880 Ok
Story3 EQX 29.128 27.936 1.043 26.744 1.0890 Ok
Story2 EQX 22.777 21.853 1.042 20.929 1.0880 Ok
Story1 EQX 10.981 10.584 1.038 10.187 1.0780 Ok
Story4 EQx-ECC 35.25 33.273 1.059 31.2960 1.1260 Ok
Story3 EQx-ECC 29.918 28.276 1.058 26.6340 1.1230 Ok
Story2 EQx-ECC 23.386 22.116 1.057 20.8460 1.1220 Ok
Story1 EQx-ECC 11.395 10.737 1.061 10.0790 1.1310 Ok

TABLE: STORY MAX/AVG DISPLACEMENTS (EQ-Y)

Load
Minimum
Story Case/Combo Maximum Average Ratio Ratio Check
mm (mm) (max/min) <1.5
Story4 EQY 47.506 43.862 1.083 40.218 1.181 Ok
Story3 EQY 39.663 36.46 1.088 33.257 1.193 Ok

DRAFT
Story2 EQY 30.3 27.74 1.092 25.18 1.203 Ok
Story1 EQY 14.123 12.838 1.1 11.553 1.222 Ok
Story4 EQY 49.83 43.205 1.153 36.58 1.362 Ok
Story3 EQY 41.33 35.875 1.152 30.42 1.359 Ok
Story2 EQY 31.408 27.263 1.152 23.118 1.359 Ok
Story1 EQY 14.534 12.594 1.154 10.654 1.364 Ok
Story4 EQy-ECC 58.432 44.519 1.313 30.606 1.909 Not OK
Story3 EQy-ECC 48.905 37.046 1.32 25.187 1.942 Not OK
Story2 EQy-ECC 37.482 28.216 1.328 18.95 1.978 Not OK
Story1 EQy-ECC 17.592 13.082 1.345 8.572 2.052 Not OK
From the eccentricity Check table, the building is torsional irregular due to the earthquake load.

3.4 EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

3.4.1 ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF REINFORCED C ONCRETE COLUMN

Columns were analyzed as per the loading and checked in finite element model. Axial flexural
(PMM) Interaction against the seismic load combinations as defined in load section. Column
PMM demand to capacity (D/C) ratios results is shown graphically in the figure below. The
columns are directly designed from the software ETABS.
As per the contractor/client the provided reinforcement for retrofitted column is of 8-16 dia.+2-
12 dia. bar was provided for eight ground floor columns and the reinforcement was 4-16 dia+6-
12 dia. from the first floor till top floor which was observed at the third floor during site
inspection. The stirrups of 2L-8mm dia. were provided with spacing of 5” c/c. Similarly, the
old column had 6-12 dia. of bar with 8mm stirrups with spacing of 5” c/c as per the
contractor/client.
 Demand Capacity Ratio (Flexural) All Column
3

2.5

DCR 2

1.5

0.5

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Limit OF COLUMNS
LOCATION PMM Ratio

FIGURE 3-12 DCR OF THE COLUMN IN PMM INTERACTION AFTER RETROFIT

Column Shear Demand Capacity Ratio Chart

Top and Bottom
Limit
1.2
DCR

DRAFT
1
Demand/Capaciy

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Location of Column

FIGURE 3-13 DCR RATIO PF COLUMN IN SHEAR AFTER RETROFIT

After retrofit demand in the columns are within the capacity and shear limit.

3.4.2 ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF EXISTING BEAMS

Reinforcement demand in existing beams were checked at three locations (two of them closed
to joints and one at the mod location). Capacities were calculated based upon the provided
longitudinal and shear reinforcement as per the available structural drawing. The graphical
representation of the demand reinforcement toe existing reinforcement area is shown in the
following figure:

As per the contractor/client the provided reinforcement for new beam 2-16 dia. + 1-12 dia. (At
top) and similarly 2-16 dia. + 1-12 dia. (At Bottom). The stirrups of 2L-8mm dia. were
provided with spacing of 4” c/c-6” c/c. Similarly, the old beam had 2-16 dia. + 3-12 dia. (At
top) and similarly 3-16 dia. (At Bottom) with 8mm stirrups with spacing of 4” c/c-6” c/c as per
the contractor/client.

BEAM FLEXURAL DEMAND

CAPACITY RATIO CHART. (MID)
1.20

1.00
Demand/Capaciy

0.80

0.60

DRAFT
0.40

0.20

0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Location of Beam
Bottom Limit Top

FIGURE 3-14 FLEXURAL DEMAND REBAR TO PROVIDED REBAR (MID REGION)

BEAM FLEXURAL DEMAND

1.20
CAPACITY RATIO CHART. (END)
1.00
Demand/Capaciy

0.80

0.60

0.40

0.20

0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Location of Beam
Bottom Limit Top

FIGURE 3-15 FLEXURAL DEMAND REBAR TO PROVIDED REBAR (END REGION)

 BEAM SHEAR DEMAND CAPACITY
RATIO CHART. (END)
1.2

Demand/Capaciy 1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Location of Beam

DRAFT
DCR Limit
FIGURE 3-16 SHEAR D/C RATIO OF BEAMS (END REGION)

BEAM SHEAR DEMAND CAPACITY

RATIO CHART. (MIDDLE)
1.2

0.8
Demand/Capaciy

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Location of Beam
DCR Limit

FIGURE 3-17 SHEAR D/C RATIO OF BEAMS (MID REGION)

3.4.3. STRONG COLUMN AND WEAK BEAM CHECK
Strong column weak beam mechanism is very important aspect to check for the ductile
behavior of building during seismic event. Strong column weak beam leads to formation of
hinges in beam. To avoid the progressive collapse of the structure or to form the damage locally
the columns and beams need to be designed as per Strong-Column Weak Beam design. This
mechanism helps to dissipate energy without the collapse of the structure, increasing the
ductility of the building. The columns and beams are checked for this mechanism at critical
locations.

As per clause 4.4.4 of Annex A( NBC105:2020) at each beam-column joint of moment-

resisting frame, the sum of nominal design strength of columns meeting at that joint (with
nominal strength calculated for the factored axial load in the direction of the lateral force under
consideration so as to give least column nominal design strength) along each principal plane
shall be at least 1.2 times the sum of nominal design strength of beams meeting at that joint in
the same plane. The building satisfied the above statement.

DRAFT
FIGURE 3-18 COLUMN/BEAM RATIOS OF THE COLUMNS ALONG GRID 11 (RATIO>1.2 IN
ALL THE COLUMNS WHICH IS OK)
DRAFT
FIGURE 3-19 COLUMN/BEAM RATIOS OF THE COLUMN ALONG GRID 22 (RATIO>1.2 IN ALL

3.4.

3.4.3
THE COLUMNS WHICH IS OK )

PUSHOVER A NALYSIS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION OF EXISTING AND

RETROFITTED STRUCTURES

GENERAL
To assure the performance of the building within life safety, non-linear statics pushover
analysis was performed in retrofitted building. Pushover analysis was performed by subjecting
a structure to a monotonically increasing pattern of lateral forces, representing the inertial
forces which would be experienced by the structure when subjected to ground shaking. Under
incrementally increasing loads various structural elements yield and hinges are formed
sequentially. Consequently, at each event the structure suffers a loss in stiffness. Using a
pushover analysis, a characteristics non-linear force-displacement can be chosen. Typically,
the first pushover load case is used to apply gravity load and the subsequent lateral pushover
load cases are specified to start from the final condition of the gravity.

Here, pushover analysis was performed as displacement- controlled. The magnitude of

displacement was increased as necessary until the controlled displacement reaches a specified
value. The flexure hinges were assigned automatically using Etabs and the shear capacity were
checked with reference to the ASCE 41-17.
In this project, result of pushover analysis is demonstrated as resistance of the structure in terms
of base shear force versus roof displacement, that is referred to as the capacity curve of the
structure. Here performance of the building in existing state and after the retrofired compared
and after retrofitted performance occurs at the life safety range. The capacity spectrum curve
of the building according to the FEMA 440 for push along x-direction and push along y-
direction is shown in the Figure 3-20 and Figure 3-21 respectively. Base shear Vs roof
displacement for deigned building is shown in the figure 3-22 for push along x-direction and
figure 3-23 for push along y-direction respectively.

Hinge formation in retrofitted structure at performance point and ultimate point has been shown
in figure has been shown in and respectively.

DRAFT FIGURE 3-20 RESPONSE SPECTRUM CURVE FOR PUSH-X RETROFITTED

FIGURE 3-21 RESPONSE SPECTRUM CURVE FOR PUSH-Y RETROFITTED

3.4.4 LATERAL DEFORMATION
Lateral deformation at the performance point displacement is to be checked against the
deformation limits according to the ATC-40 cl.11.3.3.Table 3-10 presents deformation limit for
various performance levels. Maximum total drift is defined as the inter storey drift at the
performance point displacement.

TABLE 3-10: D EFORMATION LIMITS FOR VARIOUS PERFORMANCE LIMIT

Performance Limit
Inter-Story Drift limit IO DC LS SS
Maximum total drift 0.01 001-0.02 0.02 0.33Vi/Pi

For calculating the performance point as per the capacity spectrum method as per FEMA 440,
the demand spectrum definition can be defined by either entering the function plot itself or
providing Ca and Cv values as described below for Butwal:

DRAFT
• Ca = 0.3 (PGA for Butwal in g)
• Cv = 0.3*2.5 (applying multiplication factor at 1 second period for soil type B)
The following set of information can be obtained from the Capacity Spectrum method using
ETABS.
(After Retrofit)
Performance Point (X):

V = 1260.6087 KN Sa(g)= 0.5083

D = 186.45 mm Sd (mm)= 155.616

Performance Point (Y):

V = 1260.04 KN Sa(g)= 0.4881

D = 291.35 mm Sd (mm)= 260.22

The inter-storey drift ratio at performance point for push along x-direction and along y-
direction is shown below.
 Pushover Analyis -X dir.

1400

1200

1000
PP
Base Shear (kN)

800
After Retrofit

600 IO

400 LS

CP
200

0
0.00 50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00 300.00 350.00
Displacement (mm)

DRAFT
FIGURE 3-22 BASE FORCE VS ROOF DISPLACEMENT FOR PUSH ALONG X-DIRECTION AFTER
RETROFIT

Pushover Analyis -Y dir.

1400

1200

1000
PP
Base Shear (kN)

800 After
Retrofit
600 IO

LS
400
CP
200

0
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00
Displacement (mm)

FIGURE 3-23 BASE FORCE VS ROOF DISPLACEMENT FOR PUSH ALONG Y-DIRECTION AFTER
RETROFIT
From push over analysis, the structure performance level is life safety which was achieved by
column jacketing as shown above.
The effective time-period:
(After Retrofit)
For the X direction was calculated as 1.107 s, which occurred between step 4 and 5 in the pushover
process.
For the Y direction was calculated as 1.308s, which occurred between step 6 and 7 in the pushover
process.

FIGURE 3-24 HINGE FORMATION IN STRUCTURE DUE TO PUSH-X AT PERFORMANCE AFTER

RETROFIT (STEP-4 LEFT , S TEP -5 R IGHT)

DRAFT
FIGURE 3-25 HINGE FORMATION IN STRUCTURE DUE TO PUSH -Y AT PERFORMANCE AFTER
RETROFIT (STEP-6 LEFT , S TEP-7 R IGHT)
 CHAPTER 4. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION

The building is assessed at the site followed by the analytical modeling using finite element
software. Based on the available information about the building, the architectural and
structural information obtained from field visit, implementation of limited number of non-
destructive tests and manual calculations based on codes and guidelines following
conclusion has been drawn:

i. The building was linear also analyzed the pushover analysis was performed which
conclude that the structure members (Beam, column) can withstand in total the four-
story building.
ii. The nonlinear pushover analysis shows that the retrofitted building structure
performance is within the Life Safety (LS) limit for both the global and local level.
iii. The building drift are within the code limit for both ULS and SLS.
iv. For the design the slab depth of 5” is sufficient.
v. The building supports the strong column weak beam concepts as the column/beam
ratios are more than 1.2.
vi. Therefore, it concludes that the building will sustain the additional floor in total
(4 Story) for the probable life safety of the building for the next 38 years.

DRAFT
REFERENCES

1. IS:875 (Parts 1 to 5) -1987, Code of practice for design loads in Building and Structure-
Dead loads, Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi,1989
2. IS:1893- (Part I)-2016, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design Structure Bureau of
Indian standards, New Delhi,1986
3. National Building Code of Nepal - NBC105
4. IS 456:2000, IS 1893:2016, IS 875 (part I and II), IS 15988: 2013. (n.d.).
5. Agarwal, P., & Shrikhande, M. (2016). Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures.
Delhi: PHI Learning Private Limited
6. IS 15988 (2013): Seismic Evaluation and Strengthening of. Existing Reinforced
Concrete Buildings.
7. DUDBC. (2016). Seismic Retrofitting Guidelines of Buildings in Nepal.
8. ASCE 41-13, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit Rehabilitation of. Existing Buildings
9. Bowles Joseph E., Foundation Analysis and Design-1997, McGraw-Hill
10. Federal Emergency Management Agency, (FEMA 356), Pre-standard and Commentary
for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Building Seismic Safety Council,
Washington D. C.,
11. 2000.
12. Paulay, T and Priestley, M.J.N, (1992), Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and
13. Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, USA

DRAFT
 ANNEX I SLAB CHECK

Project Name: madinah masjid Date 14-Mar-23

DESIGN OF TWO WAY SLAB Slab Id S1
4.369 DESIGN
Lex (m) = CASE 4.Two Adjacent Edges Discontinuous
Ley (m) = 4.775 RATIO Ley/Lex = 1.09
fck (MPa) = M20 fck (MPa) = 20

DRAFT
Grade of Steel Fe 500 fy (MPa) = 500
FLOOR FINISH AND WALL (kN/m2) = 1.50 w (kN/m2) = 7.625
IMPOSED LOAD (kN/m2) = 3.00 Eff. Depth - X, dx (mm) = 110
SLAB THKNESS, D (mm) = 125 Eff. Depth - Y, dy (mm) = 110
EFF. COVER - X, d'x (mm) = 15 O.K
EFF. COVER - Y, d'y (mm) = 15

SPAN, SUPPORT, SPAN SUPPORT,

DESIGN RESULTS +VE X -VE X +VE Y -VE Y
Area of Steel Required (mm2) 189 255 166 226
SELECT BAR DIA. (mm) 8 8 8 8
SPACING OF REBAR (mm) 150 150 150 150
150 150 150 150
SPACING OF STEEL FOR ITTIRATION (mm)=

Area of Steel Provided (mm2) 335 335 335 335

CALCULATIONS
Value of α 0.0397 0.0526 0.0350 0.0470
UNFACTORED BM (kN.m/m) = 5.7706 7.6524 5.0937 6.8401
Factored Bending Moment,M(KN.m/m) 8.6559 11.4786 7.6405 10.2601
Ast (mm2/m) = 189 255 166 226
Ast,min (mm2/m) = 150 150 150 150
Coefficent for Slab type 26.00 Slab Type 1.Continous Slab
Check For Deflection OK OK OK OK
EFF. DEPTH, REQd.(mm) 65.69
EFF. DEPTH PROVIDED (mm) = 110.00
CORNER REINF. FOR TORSION (mm2/m)
150.00
O.K
1. BOTH EDGE, DISCONTINUOUS =
2. ONE EDGE DISCONTINUOUS = 150
EDGE STRIP REINF. (mm2/m) = 150
 ANNEX II PHOTOGRAPH

Concreting for the foundation Excavation for the foundation

DRAFT
Excavation for the eccentric foundation Observed Column Rebar with
Extended rebar at middle portion
Observed Reinforcement at the 3rd floor to extend to Observed Retrofitted Building from
the top floor the Front

DRAFT