You are on page 1of 133

CONCEPTUAL

DESIGN
SUPERVISOR : DR TEO WEE


MUHAMMAD SYAFIE BIN MAZLAN 12050
ABDULLAH SOFIY BIN MANSOR 11848
ABDUL HALIM BIN ROSLY 11840
NORAZY SHAKILA BINTI MD. SALLIH 12124
NURUL NASYIHAH BINTI HAMBALI 12168

By Consultant :-
For Client :-
ORGANIZATION
CHART
PROJECT OVERVIEW
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Office Building of 13-storey at Ara Damansara, Mukim Damansara,
Daerah Petaling, Selangor consists:-
Basement - 2 levels of car park,
Level 1 - Auditorium, Cafeteria, Childcare, Clinic, Multipurpose Shop,
Office Space, Prayer room
Level 2-12 Office spaces
SITE LOCATION
FOUNDATION AND
GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER PART
1. SOIL INVESTIGATION
2. FOUNDATION
3. BASEMENT WALL AND SYSTEM
4. PILE CAP
5. GROUND BEAM AND GROUND SLAB
6. OTHER CONSIDERATION
1. SITE INVESTIGATION
Soil constitutive properties
Design consideration for such soil
properties
Risk and integrity of the foundation
on such soil properties
Soil constitutive properties
Soil constitutive properties
SPT from
borelog
Standard SPT
Allowable
bearing capacity
Design consideration for such soil
properties
Platform level is 17-18m.
Average surface level is 53m, we have to cut the soil
up to the platform level.
The main constituent of soil is silty sand.
Major portion is silt.
Minor portion is sand.
The strength of sandy soil is represented with
friction angle (). Pure silts are frictional material
and for all practical purposes, it behaves as sands.
No clay present.
Ground water table is very high = 42m

Design consideration for such soil
properties
Assumptions
SPT value from the borelog are conducted using safety
hammer with 70% energy ratio.
Highest GWT after excavation is equal to platform level.
Based on Standard SPT:
Friction angle, = 38
Relative density = 0.85
Unit weight = 22kN/m
3
Since we decided to use concrete spun pile:
Lateral earth pressure coefficient, K = 1.0-1.5
Pile skin friction angle, =
Risk and integrity of the foundation on
such soil properties
Risk Risk assessment Propose mitigation
High ground water table Causes wet excavation, pile
driving and ground beam
construction.
Adoptions of water proof
reinforce concrete basement
wall, drainage culvert and
installation of sump pump.
Risk and integrity of the foundation on
such soil properties
Risk Risk assessment Propose mitigation
Absence of bed rock Cause excessive settlement
of pile.
Pile design based on both
skin friction and tip bearing
capacity.
Risk and integrity of the foundation on
such soil properties
Risk Risk assessment Propose mitigation
Main soil composition is silt Silt can get loose easily. Static compaction is done to
the soil before installation of
piles.
2. FOUNDATION
Type of foundation use
Design of the foundation and type
Risk assessment of the foundation
chosen
Type of foundation use
Silty sand load bearing capacity = 144kN/m
2
Maximum building load = 180kN/m
2
Shallow foundation is not sufficient, hence deep
foundation is needed.
Type = spun pile
Supplier = Industrial Concrete Product Berhad(ICP)
Pile shoes = open ended
Installation method = jacked in
Codes applied:
BS EN 1997-1:2004 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design
solution Section 7.1 1(P)
BS EN 1997-1:2004 Section 7.4.2 Design Consideration 4(P)

Design of the foundation and types
Using Meyerhof equation correlated with SPT
value
Result:
Spun pile class B(effective prestress=5N/mm
2
)
Diameter = 500mm
Thickness = 90mm
Length = 18m (12m + 6m)
Spun pile individual capacity = 207ton
Design of the foundation and types
Design of the foundation and types
Cross section detail of the ICP piles
Design of the foundation and types
Bonding of ICP pile into pile caps
Design of the foundation and types
Risk assessment of the foundation
chosen
Risk Risk assessment Propose mitigation
Improper
welding of
pile during
splicing.
Pile performance
will be affected and
load transfer will be
disturbed.
Site supervision must ensure that the welding
thickness must not be less than 6mm and after done
with the welding, it must be cooled at least 5 minutes
before applying the anti rust protection paint.
Risk assessment of the foundation
chosen
Risk Risk assessment Propose mitigation
Structural
damage to
the pile head
or pile toe.
This might be due to
overdriving of pile. The
existence of boulder can
cause spalling, cracking or
breaking of pile structure.
Pile capacity must always be checked and
ensure during pile driving, the driving force
does not exceed the pile capacity. It s useless
to force the pile into the soil while damaging it.
Practice good driving technique.
Risk assessment of the foundation
chosen
Risk Risk assessment Propose mitigation
Expose end of pile reinforcement
after pile trimming provide hazard
to the working personnel.
Potential to cause
injuries.
Use protection caps on the bars
after pile trimming and before
placing foundation concrete.
3. BASEMENT WALL
AND SYSTEM
Type of basement wall and system chosen
Design consideration of the basement wall
and system
Sequence of work and risk assessment of
the basement wall and system
Type of basement wall and system
chosen
Total area = 14, 030 m
2
.
Depth of excavation = 4.59m +3.425m = 8.015m
Excavation volume= 8.015m X 14, 030m
2
=
112,450 m
3
.
Code used:
BS 8004: 1986 Code of practice for foundations
BS 8002: 1994 Code of practice for earth retaining
structures
BS 8110: 1985 Structural use of concrete
DFCP 4: Drilling fluid material - bentonite

Type of basement wall and system
chosen
Based on BS8102, the function of basement
allowed us to design based on Type B.
Type of basement wall and system
chosen
Support system = braced
Why not anchored?
problem in maintenance in long term. (BS8081:1889 Code
of Practise for Ground Anchorages)
If the local authorities require to be removed, then it may
pose problems if the system has not been proven at site
to be fully removable.
Approval from the adjacent owners should be acquired if
there is encroachment of ground anchors into adjacent
properties.
Leakages and loss of fine through drill holes need
additional precautionary measures in the construction.

Design consideration of the basement
wall and system
Concrete compressive strength = 30N/mm
2

Reinforcement yield strength = 410N/mm
2

Soil equivalent fluid pressure = 60psf/f = 293kg/m
2
per
meter
Total service level vertical dead load on wall = 481 kN/m
Total service level vertical live load on wall = 286 kN/m
Design assumption
Design wall with fixed base
Ground water table is at platform level for conservative
design.
Use 2ft additional soil surcharge to account for compaction
pressure.
Design consideration of the basement
wall and system
Dimension of diaphragm wall
Basement depth = 8m
Depth of diaphragm wall = 14m
Thickness = 600mm
Vertical reinforcement = 20mm diameter at 200mm
c/c
Horizontal reinforcement = 14mm diameter at
300mm c/c
Length of interval for alternating diaphragm wall
excavation = 5m to 7m

Design consideration of the basement
wall and system
Method of
construction = top
down
Advantages:
reduces the time
Reduced
settlement.
saves the cost of
formwork.
Sequence of work
Earthwork
Diaphragm
wall
Bored, casing
and spun pile
Stanchions
Superstructure
and
substructure
Top down
construction
sequence
Sequence of work
Diaphragm wall sequence
Install guide wall at 1.5m
to 2m depth and 0.6m
wide.

Trench excavation and
deposit soil to a holding
tank
Install rebar cage
Checking verticality by
Coden Test.

Tremie concrete.

Disposal of excavated soil
from holding tank.
Risk assessment of the basement wall
and system
Risk Risk assessment Propose mitigation
Working
inside the
excavation
basement
area
Confine dark space give
minimum space for error.
Slight collision between
cranes with the stanchions
can cause disasters.
Implement systematic working condition with
extra precaution. Space opening must be
sufficient for safe mobilization of crane. Limited
access and number of workers inside the
basement for safety reason.
Risk assessment of the basement wall
and system
Risk Risk assessment Propose mitigation
Cold joint
due to the
interval
concreting.
Presence of small void
which can allow ground
water to pass thru the
basement wall.
If the crack is minute, it can be seal with thin
layer of concrete sealant. Sump pump need to be
installed inside the basement in case if the water
intrusion is unstoppable.
4. PILE CAP
Typical design of pile cap
Design of at least 50% of the total
types of pile cap
Risk assessment and integrity of the
pile cap
Typical design of pile cap
Code used:
BS 8110: 1997 Structural use of concrete
BS 5950 Structural steel design
Truss method
Check:
Shear capacity
Punching shear
Typical design of pile cap
Design criteria:
Concrete strength , f
cu
= 30N/mm
2

Reinforcement steel yield strength, f
y
= 460N/mm
2

Pile capacity = 2129 kN
Size aggregate = 20mm
Top and side cover = 50mm
Bottom cover = 75mm
Concrete
c
= 1.5
Steel
s
= 1.05
Concrete density = 24 kN/m
3


Typical design of pile cap
Typical design of pile cap
Design of pile cap methodology or
construction sequences
Formwork and
reinforcement bar are
placed
Ready mix concrete is transfer into the formwork. Various
method of transferring can be done which are by using
excavator bucket, specific concrete bucket or boom of pump
truck.

Then the concrete is
vibrated using vibrator to
reduce the air voids
The concrete is
allowed to harden.
Risk assessment and integrity of the
pile cap
Risk Risk assessment Propose mitigation
Shear failure and
punching failure
in pile cap.
This failure can be mitigate if the
pile cap have enough thickness
and reinforcement inside it.
Shear and punching failure should be
checked and provide sufficient
reinforcement bars.
Risk assessment and integrity of the
pile cap
Risk Risk assessment Propose mitigation
Eccentric loads
from axial column
Eccentricity induced
moment.
Column should be checked for verticality
during construction.
5. GROUND BEAM AND
GROUND SLAB
Typical design of ground tie beam
and ground slab
Design details and types of ground
beam and ground slab
Risk assessment of the designed
ground beam and ground slab
Typical design of ground tie beam and
ground slab
Code use:
BS 8110: 1997 Structural use of concrete
BS 5950 Structural steel design
Two way suspended slab 8.2m x 8.2m

Design details and types of ground
beam and ground slab
Concrete strength = 30N/mm
2
Reinforcement strength = 460 N/mm
2
Slab thickness = 300mm
Slab area = 8.2m x 8.2m = 67.24m
2
Beam width = 800mm
Beam thickness = 900mm
Beam length = 8200m

Design details and types of ground
beam and ground slab
Slab reinforcement details:
X direction = T12-150c/c
Y direction = T12-150c/c

Beam reinforcement details:
Top portion = 3T20
Bottom portion = 3T25
Link = 2T8 200c/c

Risk assessment of the designed
ground beam and ground slab
Risk Risk assessment Propose mitigation
The formwork at the
bottom of the slab is
difficult to remove.
Due to the weight of beam
and friction between soil
underneath and beam.
Provide extra thickness for bottom
concrete cover which is 75mm.
Eliminate the bottom formwork.
6. OTHER
CONSIDERATION
Waterproofing method
Cold joint treatment and waterstop
Risk mitigation of the chosen
method
Waterproofing method
High ground water table exert uplift
pressure to the basement slab and beam
Uplift forces = 433,000kN
Self weight of beam and slab = 154,000kN
Passive method = diaphragm wall
Active method = sump pump
Waterproofing method
Sump pump specification
Type: Submersible
Sump basin dimension: 0.6m
diameter x 1m depth
Individual capacity: 100 liters
Service life: 15 years
Head pressure: 10m
Suction capability: 0.5
horsepower (400W)
Periodic maintenance: annually
Daily operation using main
power supply but has backup
battery for power outage

Additional features:
- High water alarm
- Automatic operation

Waterproofing method
9 units of sump
pumps
Distance between
each sump pump is
between 30m to
70m.

Location of the sump pump
Waterproofing method
Installed along the
interior perimeter of
the basement wall.
Total length is 520m.
The drainage pipe
used is WaterGuard.
It includes a wall
flange that extends
up slightly from the
drainage system.

French drain system
Cold joint treatment using waterstop
Hydrophilic waterstop.
Exposure to water makes the material expand
dramatically
Enough to create a compression seal
Material = chloroprene rubber.
Risk mitigation of the chosen method
Risk Risk assessment Propose mitigation
Small silt can clog
the WaterGuard
passage inside the
French drain.
This prevent sump pump
from pumping ground water
out from the basement.
Periodic maintenance must be done
annually to ensure the system works.
Clogged WaterGuard must be
replaced with the new one.
SUPERSTRUCTURE
BS 6399 : part 1 : 1984
Loading
Dead Load
concrete 2400 kg/m
Metal deck 13.6 kg/m
Column Variable depending on type
Beam Variable depending on type
Loading
Live Load(kn/m)
General area 2.5
Balconies 4
Store 4
Toilet 2
Electric Room(AHU) 2
Stair 4
Harvesting tank 29.43
Typical floor layout
STAIRS
AHU
SHEAR
CORE WALL
TOILET
AHU
BALCONY
STORE
STORE
STAIRS
BALCONY
Slab System(Bondeck)
Bondeck(properties)
Section properties per m width
Thickness
(mm)
Grade(mpa) Section
modulus area
(x10mm/m)
Cross
sectional
area
(mm/m)
Second
moment
(x10^4
mm^4/mm)
Weight
(kg/m)
1.00 550 16.69 1678 64.08 13.6
Continous
span
No prop Concrete
thickness
2960
Continuos span 1 prop 150mm
5930
Steel conform to BS EN
10147
Fire resistance up to 120
minutes
BONDECK(reinforcement bar)
Help in
supporrting
load
(longitudinal)
Shrinkage
and
temperature
effect
(transverse)
Bondeck(piping)
Bondeck(electrical wiring)
BEAM
(Based on BS 5950)
Universal beam
1)UB 533 x 210 x 92
2)UB 610 x 229 x 125
3)UB 610 x 305 x 149
4)UB 914 x 305 x 224
5)UB 1016 x 305 x 314
Beam layout
UB 533 x 210 x 92
UB 610 x 229 x 125

UB 610 x 305 x 149

UB 914 x 305 x 224
(Floor 9)

UB 1016 x 305 x 314
(floor 13)


Column
(based on BS 5950)

Universal column


Column
(core)




Column
(critical)




Column
(External)




Column


GROUP
COLUMN
FLOOR
1-5 6-10 11-13
Core Column 356 X 406 X 467 305 X 305 X 118 254 x 254 x 89
External Column 356 X 406 X 467 356 X 368 X 177 356 X 368 X 129
Critical Column 356 X 406 X 467 356 X 406 X 467 356 x 368 x 177

Lift shear core



0.98 kn/m
Wind load
calculated
based on
MS 1553
2002
Assumption
that the wind
load will all be
taken by the
shear core
wall

Lift motor
room load
of
7.5kn/m
Lift Shear Core dimension


Lift shear core
Length(m) 2.4
Thickness/
width(m)
0.4

Lift Shear Core Rebar



4x1T25(corner) x 2x13T25(internal) x 2x6T25(side)

Staircase



Type 1
Type 2
Type 2

Staircase



G
R
T
Riser(R) = 166.67 mm
Tread(T) = 255 mm
Going(G) = 250 mm

Staircase



MAIN REBAR SIZE
TYPE 1 T12-300 T8-150 SC 1 & 2
TYPE 2 T12-250 T8-125 SC 6 & 7


CONNECTION

Base plate to column
UC 356 x 406 x 467



Dimension
= 58 cm x
57 cm
Thickness
= 7 cm
Bolt grade
of 4.6 with
20mm
diameter

Beam to column



One example dimension for UB 533 x 210
x 92
9 bolts M22 grade 4.6
o 6 bolts at column
o 3 bolts at beam


Splice
Splicing UC 356 x 406 x 467 to same
size
Plate connector length = 450 mm
Width connector length = 450 mm
Thickness plate = 35mm
Web cover plate width = 230 mm
4 no M20, 8.8 grade bolts

Splice


Splicing UC 356 x 406 x 467 to UC
305 x 305 x 118
Connector plate length of 320 mm
Width of connector plate of 125
mm
Thickness of connector plate of 15
mm
Web cover plate width of 165 mm
Use M20, 8.8 grade of bolt

Risk assesment



Risk Risk assesment Mitigation
Fire
Affect structural
ability
Danger to human
lives
Intumescent coating
that can upstand fire
up until 120 minutes
Corrosion
Affect structural
ability
Spread more into
the member

Coat with coating such
as paint
Lintel


Lintel


Height(mm) 60 110 210
Thickness
(mm)
3.0 3.0 3.0
UDL can
sustained
(kn/m)
4 8 10
INFRASTRUCTURE
Source: Perbadanan Urus Air Selangor
(PUAS) BHD.
Main Building (13 Storey Building) :
= 29125 m2
WATER DEMAND
Normal Usage (Drinking) : (PUAS)
= 291 250 L/day
= 291. 25 m3/day
For Hose Reel and Fire Hydrant Usage: (UBBL)
= 12133 L/day
= 12.133 m3/day
STORAGE TANK
STORAGE TANK
DIMENSION : 10000 mm x 8000 mm x 6000 mm
Designing storage tank for 3 days usage :

Normal usage = 873.75
3

Fire Hydrant and Hose Reel = 36. 4
3


TOTAL VOLUME OF WATER = 910.15





Volume of water per 1 tank = 456
3

No of tanks : 2
Using RC storage tank :
Concrete Plinth : 300 X 500 ( Gap = 1m)
STORAGE TANK
WATER RECTICULATION
Standard Code : MS 1058: Part 2: 2002

Dimensioning:


Source: Hazen-Williams Equation

Diameter : 110 mm
Flow velocity : 0.17 m/s
Length : 100 m
Pipe head loss : 0.35
Implement pumps to water tank
--> Hazen Williams Equation
Type of Pipe = HDPE PIPE
SEWERAGE CAPACITY
Source: Indah Water Konsortium)
PE calculated:
= 1446 person

Discharge Produced:
= 0.225m3/day.person * 1380
= 310.5m3/day
= 3.59
3
m3/s
STORAGE TANK
SEWERAGE PIPE
Standard Code : MS 1228 : 1991
: MS 1228 C1. 4. 3. 3 (Hydraulic Design)

Slope (%) 0.4 %
Sewer Line Diameter (mm) 100
Source: Indah Water Konsortium ( IWK)
Dimension Selection:
Diameter, Dia = 200 mm
Slope, S = 1: 100

Material used: HDPE Pipe



where

= 3.59
3
m3/s
Peak Factor = 1.164

= .

m3/s

Using V = 0.45 m/s :

From Q= AV A = .



STP
(1 km from
the site)
Project
Site
Manhole:
- At every change of direction (at 100m)
- No of manhole = 6
- Min diameter = 225 mm
Sewerage Tapping Point
STORAGE TANK
DRAINAGE SYSTEM
OUTER DRAIN
Minor System Design ARI : 10 years (
10

= 315.33 mm/ hr)


Major System Design ARI : 50 years (
50

= 385.25 mm/ hr)


ANNUAL RAINFALL INTENSITY (Source : MSMA)
INNER DRAIN

360

------------- Equation 14.7
Note: C= 0.09
Area = 1.4 ha
Q
10
= 1.1036 m
3
/s
= 38.998 ft
3
/s
Q
50
= 1.3484 m
3
/s
= 47.646 ft
3
/s
Area = 0.19 ha
Q
10
= 0.1498 m
3
/s
= 5.293 ft
3
/s
Q
50
= 0.1830 m
3
/s
= 6.466 ft
3
/s
Outer Drain Inner Drain
Width (m) 0.9 0.45
Height (m) 0.75 0.45
Freeboard (m) 0.05 0.05
Flow Capacity ,q (m
3
/s ) 1.45 0.19
Velocity (m
2
/s) 2.29 1.38
q = A R
2/3
S
1/2

n
Drain capacity > Q peak
OK
V = Q
A
Type of Drain : U- Drained Size
Material : Concrete
Supplier : OKA COOPERATION BHD.
Slope of Drain
= 0.005
STORAGE TANK
HARVESTING TANK
2 harvesting tank
Dimension : 3000 x 3000 x 3000


Volume Capacity = 27
3
x 2 tanks
= 54
3


Maximum volume of rain water collected
= 32.19m
3
< 54
3


OK

PAVEMENT
PARKING LOT PAVEMENT
Pavement type: Asphalt Concrete Base Pavement

Subgrade class: moderate

4cm
9cm
DCA REQUIREMENT
AIRPORT REQUIREMENT
2.96km
3.5km
Inner horizontal surface
AIRPORT REQUIREMENT
Elevation of Inner Horizontal Surface: 27m MSL
Requirement for obstacles height: 45m
PL
Inner Horizontal
Surface
Height requirement
Height : 53.5m
MSL
27m
45m
17.8m
ASSESSMENT
TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT (TIA)
Year Volume (veh/hr) LOS
2010 8 233 C
2012 9 283 D
2015 11 113 D
2020 15 000 E
Census Station :
Kuala Lumpur-
Subang Airport
(BR802)
Mitigation for year
2020:
Add one lane per
direction. AND
Increase lane width

LOS : D
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT (EIA)
Environmental Quality (Prescribed Activities)
(Environmental Impact Assessment) Order 1987.
Required area: 500 000 squared-metre
Area of project: 14 030 squared-meter
No EIA is required


ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT (EIA)
MATERIALS USED
STEEL FRAME
Advantages
Shorter build times
Reduced site labour
Superior quality
Reduced
environment
disruption to site.
LYSAGHT BONDEK
Excellent spanning capacities for
greater strength and less deflection
Acts as permanent formwork with
minimal propping and no stripping
of formwork is required
Fast and easy to install with less
handling required
Works as composite slab saving on
concrete and reinforcement costs
Ribs at 200mm centres creating a
safe working platform with slip
resistant embossments
Advanced design for fire resistance
HOMOGENEOUS TILES
Tougher tile because
lower water absorption
rate & higher density.

Use in:-
Staircase
Balconies
Toilets
GRANITE TILES
Easily remove stains
Wide availability in
market

Use in:-
Staircase
Floor outside the lift
CEMENT RENDER
Solid plastering
Often textured,
colored, painted after
application.

Use in:-
AHU
Store
FLOOR SCREEDS/CARPET
Screed directly
bonded to base
Carpet offering
warmth

Use in:-
Office area
FLOOR DROPS
To avoid water flow out
to other area in
building.

Examples:
Toilets (50mm drop)
Balconies (100mm drop)
BUILDING SET-BACK
Required distance that a building must be
located away from the streets, easements,
and other structures.

3500mm setback

SCHEDULING
CED 1

CED 2
SUBMISSION SCHEDULE
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
MINIMIZED
WASTAGES IN
CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT
Construction Waste
Construction Waste
A waste allowance is generally included
within the order to account for design waste
and construction process waste.

Construction waste categories:
Generated by design activities.
Generated by construction activities.

Typical Malaysian Contractors
Material Wastage Allowance
Material Wastage Allowance
Concrete 7%
Rebar up to 16mm 8%
Rebar more than 16mm 15%
Formwork 12%
Cement screed 30%
Red bricks wall 12%
Metal roofing 5%
Tiling 8%
MINIMIZE CONSTRUCTION WASTE
An effective effort in
minimizing wastage in
construction can:

Make significant savings
to the client, contractors
and the environment
Divert a high percentage
of all construction waste
materials from the landfill
and recycled into new
products.
BUILDING ECONOMICS
BUILDING COSTING (June 2012)
SECTIONS COST (RM)
Steel beam RM6,338,588.26
Steel Column RM 75,232,858.80
Lysaght Bondex RM 497,605.45
Spun Pile RM 824,100.00
Pile Cap RM 90,159.00
Water tank RM20,875.20
Harvesting Tank RM2,635.20
Water Reticulation Pipe RM 2,300.00
TOTAL RM83,009,121.91
MAIN TOWER ONLY:-
WHOLE PROJECT AREA MAIN TOWER AREA
SECTIONS COST (RM) COST (RM)
Basement walls RM3,763,327.71 -
Excavation RM11,245,045.00 RM1,697,152.21
TOTAL RM14,571,572.71 RM1,697,152.21
MAIN TOWER &
WHOLE AREA:-
BUILDING COSTING (June 2012)
ESTIMATION TOTAL COST OF MAIN BUILDING:-

RM140,000,000
THANK YOU
By Consultant :-
For Client :-