Peer Review Report on Center for Brain Research Iisc Bangalore 06.03.2020

PEER REVIEW REPORT ON - CENTRE FOR BRAIN
RESEARCH, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE CAMPUS,

BANGALORE.
CLIENT: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, BANGALORE.
PROJECT: CENTRE FOR BRAIN RESEARCH, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

SCIENCE CAMPUS, BANGALORE.
PRINCIPAL CONSULTANTS: STERLING ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY

SERVICES PVT. LTD.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS: A. N. PRAKASH CPMC PVT LTD.
DESIGN REVIEW CONSULTANT'S :V

VISION STRUCTURAL DESIGN AID
(THROUGH ANPCPMC) # 72, 3RD FLOOR, 50 FEET ROAD,
HANUMANTHA NAGAR,
BANGALORE –560019.
TEL: 080 – 26615806
E-MAIL: amarnath@visda.co.in
JOB NO.: VISDA-STR-1433
ISSUE RECORD:
DATE ISSUE PREPARED CHECKED REVISION
17.03.2020 KUSHAL AMAR R0
VISION STRUCTURAL DESIGN AID, BANGALORE. 1

CONTENTS:
1. INTRODUCTION.
2. DOCUMENTS RECEIVED ON PROJECT.
3. DESIGN REVIEW OBSERVATIONS ON THE FOLLOWING.

3.1 Comments On Design Basis Report.
3.2 Comments On General Arrangement Drawing.
3.3 Comments On Etabs Model.
3.4 Gravity Load Analysis.
3.5 Earthquake Analysis.
3.6 Dynamic Analysis.
3.7 Comments/ Observations On General Arrangement Drawings.
3.8 Comments/ Observations On Footings And Columns.
3.9 Comments/ Observations On Grouund floor reinf. Details.
3.10 Comments/ Observations On First floor reinf. Details.
3.11 Comments/ Observations On Second floor reinf. Details.
3.12 Comments/ Observations On Third floor reinf. Details.
3.13 Comments/ Observations On Fourth floor reinf. Details.
3.14 Comments/ Observations On Fifth floor reinf. Details.
3.15 Comments/ Observations On Terace floor reinf. Details.
3.16 Comments/ Observations On Above Terrace floor reinf. Details.
3.17 Comments/ Observations Canopy Structures.
4. LIST OF APPROVED DRAWINGS.

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore have proposed the construction of Center for
Brain Research at IISC premises, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru. The proposed building
comprises of Basement + Ground Floor + 5 Upper Floors & Terrace .
The building is essentially RC Structure with Beam slab system. These are located
so as to deal with all the functional requirement of the space. The columns and shear
walls are connected to each other with a network of R.C.C beams and with the slabs acting
as in plane-rigid diaphragms for each of the floor.
Agencies involved:
 Owner : CONVENER, CBR, Indian Institute of

Science, Bengaluru.
 Principal Architects : RSP Design Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd,

Bengaluru.
 Principal Structural Consultants : Sterling Engineering Consultancy Services

Pvt. Ltd, Bengaluru.
 Services Consultants : Maple Engg-Design Services (India) Pvt.
 Landscape : RSP Design Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd,
 Interiors : RSP Design Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd,
 PMC : ANPCPMC, Bengaluru.
 Peer Review Consultants : Vision Structural Design Aid, Bengaluru.

(through ANPCPMC)

2. DOCUMENTS RECEIVED FROM STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS
2.1. Soil Report
2.2 Design Basis Report
2.3. All Floor Architectural Layouts
2.4. All Floor General Arrangement Drawings.
2.5. Etabs Model Of The Building
2.6. Safe Model For The Footings.
2.7. Design Calculations For Columns And Footings.
2.8. Column And Footing Layout.
2.9. Column Reinforcement Details.
2.10.Footing Reinforcement Details.
2.11.All Floor Beam Reinforcement Details.
2.12.All Floor Slab Reinforcement Details.
2.13.Water Tank Details.
3.DESIGN REVIEW REPLY ON THE DOCUMENTS SHARED.
Preliminary checks were done on the shared documents wrt General arrangement drawing,
Soil report, structural behavior in ETABS and our input was shared to each one as below.
3.1.COMMENTS ON GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING:
3.1.1 Geometry:
Structural General arrangement drawing is fairly matching with architectural drawing,

but few openings in Slabs, shown in Architectural drawings are not matching with
Structural GA drawing.
3.2 OBSERVATIONS ON ANALYSIS MODEL:
3.2.1.Material properties:
Material Properties defined are in good agreement with Design basis report.
3.2.2. Frame Sections:
-Frame section material properties defined are in good agreement with Design Basis
Report.
We have asked to correct the clear cover assigned to beams and columns as well as
arrangement of bars assigned to each individual frame section. The same is been
Resubmitted with necessary changes.
In many locations, beam section dimensions shown in GA drawing is not matching

with ETABS model. The revised details have been Resubmitted with necessary changes.
Few beams that are shown in the GA drawing are not considered in the ETABS
Model. For instance ( In ground floor beam sections located between grids H,K and
8,12 are missing. The revised detail have been resubmitted with necessary changes.
-Correct the beam situated between grids 8 and J,N in first floor.

3.2.3 Slab Sections
3.2.3.1 Ground floor
Floor openings provided in architectural drawing and structural drawing were not
matching between grids j,k and 5,8. The detail have been resubmitted with necessary
changes.
3.2.3.1 First floor
Slab openings between grids 8,9 and j,k were corrected and revised drawings have
been resubmitted with necessary changes.
3.3. GRAVITY LOAD ANALYSIS.

- Under service ability criteria, Deflection of all beams at all levels are found to be
within permissible limits.
-No columns are found to be in tension.
- General SFD and BMD behaviour of frames (Beams and Columns) is found to be in
order for given loading provided. However first floor Beam located on grids between
L,M and 4 were failing due to shear force and torsion put together. In 3rd,4th, 5th and
terrace floor beams located between grids K and 1,4 fail due to shear force and
torsion put together.
3.4.EARTHQUAKE ANALYSIS:
3.4.1 Equivalent static analysis

-The parameters such as zone factor, importance factor, Time period and Response
reduction factor considered for the equivalent static-load analysis are conforming
to the codal provisions. Further, Base shear check calculated manually is in
good agreement with program calculated base shear,
- Program determined values for following quantities
3.4.2 For load case EQ-X

maximum displacement is 11.35 mm
maximum storey drift = 0.049 mm
Storey stiffness = 33%
3.4.3 For load case EQ-Y

maximum displacement is 17.68mm
maximum storey drift = 0.073 mm
Storey stiffness = 25%
The permissible displacement as per IS 1893-2016 clause 7.11, shall not exceed 0.004
times the height ie 0.004 x 24.8 = 86.8 mm. The permissible storey drift as per
IS 1893-2016 clause 7.11, shall not exceed 0.004 times the storey height ie 0.004
X 3.9 = 15.6 mm. Hence the deformations of the structure is within acceptable limits.
Further, as per IS-1893 – 2016 clause 7.10.3b, the lateral stiffness in the open

storey shall not be less than 80% of that in the storey above and the stiffness variation
at all levels in both principal plan directions are within acceptable limits.
The detailed summary report is enclosed.
3.5. DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
- When base shear estimated using response spectrum method is compared with static
load method, the ratio is 1. Further, the analysis results are conforming to the codal
provisions as specified in IS1893-2016 table 6.
The detailed summary report is enclosed below.
TABLE 1: STIFFNESS VARIATION ALONG EQ-X.
LOAD CASE
STIFFNESS IN X STIFFNESS VARIATION
CONSIDERED
STOREY DIRECTION (kN/ BETWEEN SUCCESSIVE
FOR
m) LEVELS
STIFFNESS
6 EQX 1443043.239 143.633252211925

5 EQX 2072689.935 119.49251386701
4 EQX 2476709.308 107.545605671055
3 EQX 2663592.026 137.081814120133
2 EQX 3651300.27 86.8400931868581
1 EQX 3170792.557 256.712120760791
0 EQX 8139808.818 492.405549149594
-1 EQX 40080870.31 0
TABLE 2: STIFFNESS VARIATION ALONG EQ-Y.
LOAD CASE
STIFFNESS Iny STIFFNESS VARIATION
CONSIDERED
STOREY DIRECTION (kN/ BETWEEN SUCCESSIVE
FOR
m) LEVELS
STIFFNESS
6 EQY 639783.962 164.356735782008

5 EQY 1051528.036 130.170153732354
4 EQY 1368775.661 119.078979298128
3 EQY 1629924.086 178.084495464042
2 EQY 2902642.085 77.0178577149652
1 EQY 2235552.751 211.390621799736
0 EQY 4725748.861 399.104899726071
-1 EQY 18860695.253

TABLE 3 : DRIFT VARIATION ALONG X-DIRECTION.
DRIFT VARIATION (X DIRECTION)

ALLOWABLE
LOAD CASE DRIFT (mm) AS
STOREY
STOREY CONSIDERED DRIFT X PER CLAUSE
HEIGHT (m)
FOR DRIFT 7.11.1 OF IS
1893 (2016)
TF EQX 0.324 15.6 3.9
5 EQX 0.421 15.6 3.9
4 EQX 0.479 15.6 3.9
3 EQX 0.522 15.6 3.9
2 EQX 0.522 15.6 3.9
1 EQX 0.417 15.6 3.9
0 EQX 0.25 20 5
-1 EQX 8.30E-02 16.8 4.2
TABLE 4. DRIFT VARIATION ALONG Y-DIRECTION.
ALLOWABLE
LOAD CASE DRIFT (mm) AS
STOREY
STOREY CONSIDERED DRIFT Y (mm) PER CLAUSE
HEIGHT (m)
FOR DRIFT 7.11.1 OF IS
1893 (2016)
TF EQY 0.719 15.6 3.9
5 EQY 0.784 15.6 3.9
4 EQY 0.793 15.6 3.9
3 EQY 0.795 15.6 3.9
2 EQY 0.712 15.6 3.9
1 EQY 0.528 15.6 3.9
0 EQY 0.47 20 5
-1 EQY 0.186 16.8 4.2
TABLE 5. BASE SHEAR RESULT
LEVEL LOAD CASE BASE REACTIONS (kN)
BASE EQX 5475.02

BASE EQY 5475
BASE SPEC X 5474.84
BASE SPEC Y 5472

TABLE 6 : MODAL MASS PARTICIPATION RATIOS
Modal mass participation ratios:
Mode Period SumUX SumUY Torsion (Rz)
1 1.136 3.56 62.23 1.14%
2 0.919 46.21 66.58 21.68%

3 0.842 71.62 66.7 42.45%
AS PER TABLE 6 OF IS 1893(2016), THE MODAL MASS PARTICIPATION ARE IN ORDER
3.6. COMMENTS ON THE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWINGS
The following General arrangement drawings were attached with marked sections, Where in
discripancies were found wrt column, beam and slab sections when compared with ETABS
model. The same is been corrected and Re-submitted.

Fig 1. Ground floor level general arrangement drawing.

Fig 2. First floor level general arrangement drawing.

Fig 3. Second floor level general arrangement drawing.

Fig 4. Third floor level general arrangement drawing.

Fig 5. Fourth floor level general arrangement drawing.

Fig 6. Fifth floor level general arrangement drawing.

Fig 7. Terrace floor level general arrangement drawing.

3.7. CLARIFICATIONS ON FOOTINGS AND COLUMNS RAISED BY
VISDA.
Clarifications were asked for below points on Columns and Footings. And each of the queries
raised were clarrified/corrected by the principal structural consultant.
1. CF9 footing area in safe model is not matching as per the drawing and please check the
reinforcement
2. CF2 footing safe model that you have shared second time is also not matching as per the
drawing
3. please check the CF8 bottom reinforcement along the length
4. Column C20 still needs to be updated in ETABS model as per the drawing.
5. Reinforcement details in terms of no of bars needs to be updated in column C 16 (3-5 th

floor)
6. As per the calculation details given for commented columns, it seems the calculations
stands for the old ETABS model as we foud variations in the forces taken by RCDC
compared to ETABS model, Kindly recheck or clarify.
7. Calculation sheets of column C10 and C20 are missing after the inundation.
8.Please share calculation sheet for CF6 & CF9 as it is not included in safe model.
9.CF8 area is not matching in safe model as per drawings.
10.CF2 footing area and depth in safe model in grid Q9 is not matching as per the
drawing.
11.CF1 SBC indicated in drawing is not matching with the safe model.
12.Please clarify whether the F1 footing is step footing or pad footing.
13.F7 SBC shown in drawing is not matching with SBC considered for design.
14.Column C21 text is missing in the drawing.
15.As per the soil report the SBC mentioned for independent footings at the depth of 7m is 60
tons/sqmt and at higher levels it is 45 tons/ sqmt. kindly clarify as the footing levels are at
higher levels and considered SBC is different.
16.mismatch found in the values of SBC mentioned in the drawing to the considered SBC
values in SAFE model for CF! footing.
17. There are significant variations in the total axial load considered for the design of footings
(ETABS and SAFE), clarify the same.

18.Kindly share calculations sheets of footings and columns as discussed over phone.
19. Mismatch in the column dimentions of C10 and SW5 with regard to GA drawing.
20. RC wall stopping at basement level is missing in ETABS.
3.7. THE REPLY FROM THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS ARE

ATTACHED BELOW
1.Please share calculation sheet for CF6 & CF9 as it is not included in safe model-
separate safe model for the footing is being shared.
2.CF8 area is not matching in safe model as per drawings- model for the same is
shared
3.CF2 footing area and depth in safe model in grid Q9 is not matching as per the -
model for the same is shared
drawing
4.CF1 SBC indicated in drawing is not matching with the safe model- sbc considered
is 100T/sqm
5.Please clarify whether the F1 footing is step footing or pad footing- Footing F1 is
pad footing
6.F7 SBC shown in drawing is not matching with SBC considered for design- footing
is design for 60t\sqm and calculation for the same as been shared earlier and the
same is resent again for your review.
7.Column C21 text is missing in the drawing- text indicated
8.Please find the attached Design calculation for Isolated footing and the foundation drawing.
9.The SBC considered is as per the soil report and recommendation by Prof. B.R. Srinivasa
Murthy and the same is attached. The recommendation for 60T/m^2
Is mentioned for footing with smaller loads and of smaller size (2mX2m). The same is
mentioned in the foundation dwg.
10.The mismatch of loads is been check from over end and we find there is no mismatch and
the same is conveyed over the phone. Kindly relook on the same.
11.Mismatch in column dimension is considered in the footing and column design after the
priliminary comments on the same for received.
12. The toe wall considered for the lift wall is design for the filling being done
simultaneously inside and outside the pit. The modeling of the same is not considered, we are
considering the toe wall to just retain the soil and not bet part of the load carrying system.

3.8. REVIEW ON GFC DRAWINGS :
Below attached are the sheets of column and footing schedule, highlighted areas represent
the discripancies in reinforcements provided against the results of analysis model. the same
were sent for updation/clarification and the updated drawings were received for clearance. the
drawings were checked again for the approval..

Fig 8. Footing schedule.

Fig 9. Column Schedule

Fig 10. Corewall and Retaining wall reinforcement details.

The floor structural design drawings and documentation were reviewed and our observations
were shared docucmented and shared as shown in the attached drawings. our observations/
concerns were agrred/ addressed by the principal structural consultant and gfc drawings were
issued accordingly.
Fig 11. Second floor shuttering layout.

Fig 12. Second floor Beam reinforcement details.

Fig 13. Third floor shuttering layout.

Fig 14. Third floor Beam reinforcement details (Sheet 01).

Fig 15. Third floor Beam reinforcement details (Sheet 02).

Fig 16. Fourth floor Shuttering layout.

Fig 17. Fourth floor Beam reinforcement details (Sheet 01).

Fig 18. Fourth floor Beam reinforcement details (Sheet 02).

Fig 19. Fifth floor Beam reinforcement details (Sheet 01).

Fig 20. Fifth floor Beam reinforcement details (Sheet 02).

Fig 21. Fifth floor Slab reinforcement details.

Fig 22. Terrace floor Shuttering layout.

Fig 23. Terrace floor Beam reinforcement details (Sheet 01).

Fig 24. Terrace floor Beam reinforcement details (Sheet 02).

CANOPY STRUCTURE:
On reviewing the canopy structural design drawings and details of the canopy
structure, the following observations were made.
 Stability check of canopy structure which is completely eccentric in nature to

be performed alone without the any contribution of steel members as a case
for its robustness and furnished.
 We are of the opinion that the stability of complete 7m cantilever canopy

cannot be completely dependant on 7no of exposed steel members which has
limitations when in exposed condition and can deteriorate significantly if not
maintained. We feel some amount of self built stability be installed in canopy
structure without the contribution of steel section.
 Steel ISMC members provided as tie between canopy structure and main
structure to be checked along with insert plate and lugs specification with
respect to dia and anchorage length provided for forces in range of 300kn as
per staad model and the documents to be provided.
Principal structural consultant have replied to the same saying “ The canopy scheme
was proposed considering the steel members for the overall stability and we are not
considering canopy structure separately.” The same was discussed in the joint
meeting and agreed on it with the precautionary measures as follows
 For the structural steel members which is critical from stability of canopy
structure, fire resistant paint and anti corrosion treatment to be done to ensure
the longevity of these members.
 The type of treatment to be done in the drawings itself and submit along with
the other details sought for final checking.

LIST OF APPROVED DRAWINGS
On resolving the discrepencies from both the ends, The Updated drawings are rechecked
again. and clearance are given to the following list of drawings for sub structure.
DRAWING DRAWING
JOB NO REMARKS
TITLE NUMBER
Design basis
SFCS.18.1347(A) - APPROVED
report.
Reinforcement
SFCS.18.1347(A) details of CBRST.BSMT.02.BM APPROVED
plinth beam
Plan and detail

SFCS.18.1347(A) CBRST.BSMT.01.GA APPROVED
at plinth beam
Grade slab
SFCS.18.1347(A) details at CBR.ST.MD.05.CS APPROVED
plinth lvl
CBR.ST.00.FDN.CS
Column
SFCS.18.1347(A) schedule APPROVED
details
(SHEET 01 OF 02)
CBR.ST.00.FDN.CS
Lift wall
SFCS.18.1347(A) APPROVED
details
(SHEET 02 OF 02)

Plan and
SFCS.18.1347(A) details at CBR.ST.00.FDN.01 APPROVED
foundation lvl
Mass
SFCS.18.1347(A) excavation CBR.ST.00.01.ME APPROVED
layout
General
arrangement
of beams and
slabs at
Ground floor
SFCS.18.1347(A) CBR.ST.GR.01.GA APPROVED
lvl
General
arrangemrnt
SFCS.18.1347(A) of beams and CBR.ST.1ST.01.GA APPROVED
slabs at first
floor lvl
Reinforcement
detail of
SFCS.18.1347(A) CBR.ST.1ST.02.BM APPROVED
beams at first
floor lvl
Reinforcement
detail of slab
SFCS.18.1347(A) CBR.ST.1ST.03.SL APPROVED
at first floor
lvl

General
arrangemrnt
of beams and
SFCS.18.1347(A) CBR.ST.02.01.GA APPROVED
slabs at
second floor
lvl
Reinforcement
detail of
SFCS.18.1347(A) beams at CBR.ST.02.02.BM APPROVED
second floor
lvl
Part plan and

beam details CBR.ST.02.02.BM-
at second floor SK 3
lvl
General
arrangemrnt
SFCS.18.1347(A) of beams and CBR.ST.3RD.01.GA APPROVED
slabs at third
floor lvl
Reinforcement
detail of
SFCS.18.1347(A) CBR.ST.03.02.BM APPROVED
beams at third
floor lvl
Reinforcement
detail of slab
SFCS.18.1347(A) CBR.ST.03.03.SL APPROVED
at third floor
lvl

General
arrangemrnt
SFCS.18.1347(A) of beams and CBR.ST.4TH.01.GA APPROVED
slabs at fourth
floor lvl
Reinforcement
detail of
beams at
fourth floor lvl
Reinforcement
detail of slab
at fourth floor
lvl
General
arrangemrnt
SFCS.18.1347(A) of beams and CBR.ST.05.01.GA APPROVED
slabs at fifth
floor lvl
Reinforcement
detail of
beams at fifth
floor lvl
Reinforcement
detail of slab
at fifth floor
lvl

General
arrangemrnt
SFCS.18.1347(A) of beams and CBR.ST.06.01.GA APPROVED
slabs at terrace
floor lvl
Reinforcement
detail of
SFCS.18.1347(A) beams at CBR.ST.06.02.BM APPROVED
terrace floor
lvl
Reinforcement
detail of slab
at terrace floor
lvl
Footing reinf.
details

Peer Review Report on Center for Brain Research Iisc Bangalore 06.03.2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Peer Review Report on Center for Brain Research Iisc Bangalore 06.03.2020

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

Peer Review Report on Center for Brain Research Iisc Bangalore 06.03.2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEER REVIEW REPORT ON - CENTRE FOR BRAIN

RESEARCH, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE CAMPUS,

CLIENT: INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, BANGALORE.

PROJECT: CENTRE FOR BRAIN RESEARCH, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF

PRINCIPAL CONSULTANTS: STERLING ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY

PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS: A. N. PRAKASH CPMC PVT LTD.

DESIGN REVIEW CONSULTANT'S :V

JOB NO.: VISDA-STR-1433

DATE ISSUE PREPARED CHECKED REVISION

17.03.2020 KUSHAL AMAR R0

VISION STRUCTURAL DESIGN AID, BANGALORE. 1

2. DOCUMENTS RECEIVED ON PROJECT.

3. DESIGN REVIEW OBSERVATIONS ON THE FOLLOWING.

4. LIST OF APPROVED DRAWINGS.

VISION STRUCTURAL DESIGN AID, BANGALORE. 2

 Owner : CONVENER, CBR, Indian Institute of

 Principal Architects : RSP Design Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd,

 Principal Structural Consultants : Sterling Engineering Consultancy Services

 Services Consultants : Maple Engg-Design Services (India) Pvt.

 Landscape : RSP Design Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd,

 Interiors : RSP Design Consultants (India) Pvt. Ltd,

 PMC : ANPCPMC, Bengaluru.

 Peer Review Consultants : Vision Structural Design Aid, Bengaluru.

VISION STRUCTURAL DESIGN AID, BANGALORE. 3

3.1.COMMENTS ON GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWING:

Structural General arrangement drawing is fairly matching with architectural drawing,

3.2 OBSERVATIONS ON ANALYSIS MODEL:

3.2.2. Frame Sections:

In many locations, beam section dimensions shown in GA drawing is not matching

VISION STRUCTURAL DESIGN AID, BANGALORE. 4

3.2.3.1 Ground floor

3.2.3.1 First floor

3.3. GRAVITY LOAD ANALYSIS.

-No columns are found to be in tension.

3.4.1 Equivalent static analysis

- Program determined values for following quantities

3.4.2 For load case EQ-X

3.4.3 For load case EQ-Y

VISION STRUCTURAL DESIGN AID, BANGALORE. 5

3.5. DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

TABLE 1: STIFFNESS VARIATION ALONG EQ-X.

6 EQX 1443043.239 143.633252211925

6 EQY 639783.962 164.356735782008

VISION STRUCTURAL DESIGN AID, BANGALORE. 6

DRIFT VARIATION (X DIRECTION)

TABLE 4. DRIFT VARIATION ALONG Y-DIRECTION.

TABLE 5. BASE SHEAR RESULT

LEVEL LOAD CASE BASE REACTIONS (kN)

BASE EQX 5475.02

VISION STRUCTURAL DESIGN AID, BANGALORE. 7

Modal mass participation ratios:

Mode Period SumUX SumUY Torsion (Rz)

1 1.136 3.56 62.23 1.14%

2 0.919 46.21 66.58 21.68%

AS PER TABLE 6 OF IS 1893(2016), THE MODAL MASS PARTICIPATION ARE IN ORDER

3.6. COMMENTS ON THE GENERAL ARRANGEMENT DRAWINGS

VISION STRUCTURAL DESIGN AID, BANGALORE. 8

VISION STRUCTURAL DESIGN AID, BANGALORE. 9

VISION STRUCTURAL DESIGN AID, BANGALORE. 10