AKTII COMMENTS 19/09/2017

what about concrete waterproofing ? what is the

performance? what is the crack width

Water Proofing
Reply: Waterproofing admixture should fulfill
criteria of ASTM C494: Types A & D
Example of a waterproofing admixture
available in our country in Annexure -1

AKTII RESPONSE
-Not clear if you are proposing to use shrinkage strips or movement joints. Shrinkage strips are ok, movement joints should be avoided (this must be communicated to the client
due to high risk of water ingress).
-You need to be clear in terms of cracking design:
-SHORT TERM - pour strips, maximum size pours, cracking check width (Flexural 0.3mm, shrinkage 0.2mm) - LONG TERM - cracking check width (Flexural 0.3mm, shrinkage
0.2mm)(0.2mm)
-You need to prepare a proper waterproofing strategy:
a) on each area of the building in contact with the ground you should identify the required waterproofing grade. clarify the system used to achieve the grade proposed.
b) identify first and second barrier of defence (structural integral, drain cavity, membrane etc...)
c) design the defence system
 As per ACI Detailing
manual it is 6db or 75 mm
hoops must have at whichever is larger,
least 10 diameter Details in Annexure -2. minimum
anchorage length into hoop and tie Yes 10mm @ 100 c/c
the core of the diameter 6mm will be provided.
column. 50mm or less
Are these limitations related with the ductility
class set as Medium as minimum (High
would be preferable). Having not received
any response on AKTII comments on the
100%SD, we aren't sure that those
As per ACI Detailing manual comments have been captured. From the
it is min. 50 page 24 fig 5. hoops spacings it seems to be a Medium
Details in Annexure -2. ductility class. Please confirm.

This is a detail of Intermediate

Moment resisting frame.
AKTII RESPONSE

Again walls here are probably required?

 AKTII RESPONSE
In the case of dual structures and due to the large
influence of the frames in the overall behaviour of the
structure at the top upper floors EC8 prescribed an
envelope of shear forces as the one in figure. Are you
considering this or are you using the same reinforcement
all along the wall?

ties

hoops and ties here!

Yes, Do you think in other way? Yes, We will provide
Please give your sugestion it in construction
design PHASE.

Provide reinforcement details for wall elevation

 are you sure you need this big wall here?
is it not better to use the walls here to equilibrate the
torsional moment?

AKTII RESPONSE

- tie beams???
you need to draw tie beams to connect all the capping piles
This was an Architectural
Requirement by FCBS. If you
have alternative idea then
please shear with us. it will be
highly appreciable.

AKTII RESPONSE

see previous comments

FOUNDATIONS
SHOULD BE
CONNECTED ON
X AND Y
DIRECTION.
OTHERWISE YOU We have checked . No wall is
ARE ASSUMING required here. as the building is not
THE SEISMIC so high the wall is not required.
ACTION HAPPEN More over wall will increase cost
ON ONE
DIRECTION ONLY
 are you sure you need this big wall here?
is it not better to use the walls here to equilibrate the
torsional moment?

same comments as before

Same reply as per

previous drawing

We have checked . No wall is

required here. as the building is
not so high the wall is not
required. More over wall will
increase cosy
same comments as before
LIQUEFACTION DESIGN

Liquefaction design:-
Comments from DD
1. The site need ground improvement and by ground
improvement work, liquefaction problem will mitigate. We
think liquefaction or cantilever should not considered in
design. In principle the theory the the soil improvement will help the performance of the piles
2. Consideration of liquefaction or cantilever will increase is correct but too qualitative. in order to establish a value of the improvement you
member size, reinforcement and construction cost. should still check the liquefaction susceptibility via calculation or doing a test on site.
you need to bear in mind that the improvement is done to improved the soft clays and
3. As client and every consultant are concerned about cost,
the benefit on the sands are debatable. if you are willing to propose a test on site than
PILES TO BE DESIGNED AS LIQUEFIABLE SOIL DEPTH we think liquefaction mitigation by ground improvement
CANTILEVER (LENGTH OF (TBC WITH SI) an SPT before and post-ground improvement test area could tell how much the
and design considering no liquefaction will be the cost
THE CANTILEVER DEPENDS
ground has improved.
ON THE LIQUEFIABLE SOIL
DEPTH)
effective solution. Anyway you need to address the issue.
ADD CALCULATION IN THE
REPORT
We have considered pile cap
connecting beam here as per wisest
suggestion.

What I'm saying is to consider only the
foundation elastic (R=1) and to leave the
superstructure with an higher R. This
approach won't increase the size of the
elements of the superstructure
ARE THE FOUNDATIONS DESIGNED FOR
ELASTIC LOAD (R=1) AND THE LATERAL LOAD
CALCULATED USING ACCELERATION = PGA?
IN SOME CODES IT IS ENOUGH TO USE AN
OVERSTRENGHT FACTOR

1. We followed recent locally approved/ accepted code BNBC.

2. In our local code proposes for this type of structure R=8, the method discussed in details at SD stage.
3. The site need ground improvement and by ground improvement work, liquefaction problem will mitigate. We think
liquefaction or cantilever should not considered in design. Consideration of liquefaction or cantilever will increase member
Noted with thanks.
size, reinforcement and construction cost.
We will provide it at
4. As client and every consultant are concerned about cost, we think liquefaction mitigation by ground improvement and
Construction Design
design considering no liquefaction will be the cost effective solution.
stage.
5. Similarly we think consideration of R=1 will increase member size (we have calculated that earthquake load will be
amplified 8 times!!!), reinforcement and cost of structure. In our local practice we use R=8 for this type of structure. We are
not familiar with Consideration of R=1 and its design philosophy. If it is required and as it is new thing to us then you have
to demonstrate about it. In conclusion, we are recommending on basis of local practice to use R=8. add tie beams here

In principle the theory the the soil improvement will help the performance of the piles
is correct but too qualitative. in order to establish a value of the improvement you
should still check the liquefaction susceptibility via calculation or doing a test on site.
you need to bear in mind that the improvement is done to improved the soft clays and
the benefit on the sands are debatable. if you are willing to propose a test on site than
an SPT before and post-ground improvement test area could tell how much the
ground has improved.
Anyway you need to address the issue.
 6,702 mm
how does this beam work during
this slab seems a bit small!!!!!!! this the seismic event? it will attract a
is why you experiencing very high large amount of shear
deflections!!!!
Noted with thanks.
We will provide it at AKTII RESPONSE
Please respond to this comment
Construction Design
stage.

AKTII RESPONSE
We need this info at this stage not at the next as this may
change the thickness of the slabs

We have checked.
No wall is required
here. as the building it would be better to think having
is not so high the walls here to re-equilibrate the
wall is not required. centre of stiffness instead to have
More over wall will large columns along grid lines
increase cost. 7-6-5-4

AKTII RESPONSE
See the previous comments
 where are the stirrups here? where are the stirrups here?
are these similar distributed as these are these similar distributed as these

specify the stirrups diameter

Stirrups shall be read from

cross section. We will
provide total detail in
construction design.

Same reply as per

previous drawing

comments above are valid

here as well
same comments here as
previous drawings
this slab seems a bit small!!!!!!! this
is why you experiencing very high
deflections!!!!

this reinforcement looks not

enough to deal with the
long-term deflection

Noted with thanks.

We will provide it at
Construction Design
stage.

AKTII RESPONSE
We need this info at this stage not at the next as this may
change the thickness of the slabs
this slab seems a bit small!!!!!!! this
is why you experiencing very high
deflections!!!!
 Same reply as per
previous drawing

same comments here as

previous drawings
 Same reply as per
previous drawing

same comments here as

previous drawings
this slab seems a bit small!!!!!!! this AKTII RESPONSE
is why you experiencing very high We need this info at this stage not at the next as this may
change the thickness of the slabs
deflections!!!!

Same reply as per

previous drawing

this reinforcement looks not

enough to deal with the
long-term deflection
 7,949 mm
this slab seems a bit small!!!!!!! this
is why you experiencing very high
deflections!!!!

this slab seems a bit small!!!!!!! this

is why you experiencing very high
deflections!!!!
Same reply as per
previous drawing

same comments here as

previous drawings
Same reply as per
previous drawing

same comments here as

previous drawings
 AKTII RESPONSE
We need this info at this stage not at the next as this may
change the thickness of the slabs

Same reply as per

previous drawing
this reinforcement looks not
enough to deal with the
long-term deflection
2,627 mm
this slab seems a bit small!!!!!!! this
is why you experiencing very high
deflections!!!!
Same reply as per
previous drawing

same comments here as

previous drawings
 Same reply as per
previous drawing

same comments here as

previous drawings
 AKTII RESPONSE
We need this info at this stage not at the next as this may
AKTII RESPONSE change the thickness of the slabs
why is this now 200 and the level below is 220?
please check the long term deflection

this reinforcement looks not Same reply as per

enough to deal with the previous drawing
long-term deflection
this slab seems a bit small!!!!!!! this
is why you experiencing very high
deflections!!!!
same comments here as
previous drawings
Same reply as per
previous drawing

same comments here as

previous drawings
 this reinforcement looks not
enough to deal with the
long-term deflection

Same reply as per

previous drawing

AKTII RESPONSE
We need this info at this stage not at the next as this may
change the thickness of the slabs
provide bottom
reinforcement here
 Same reply as per
previous drawing

same comments here as

previous drawings
 what about reinforcement here?

Noted with thanks.

We will provide it at
Construction Design
stage.

AKTII RESPONSE
We need this info at this stage not at the next as this may
change the thickness of the slabs
 as pointed in the previous
revisions this column (very short)
will take a lot of load. Please
review it

show tie beams here

Noted with thanks.
We will provide it at
Construction Design
Reviewed, find ok. Column designed
stage.
considering allowable load and
moment.

AKTII RESPONSE
The problem is not the moment but the high shear which
will be concentrating in this part of the building
 Noted with thanks.
We will provide it at
show tie beams here Construction Design
stage.