DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT OF

YOUNG INTERNATIONAL LTD.

Project type: Four Storied RCC Building.

Location: Plot#32-34, Sector#05, South Halishar, CEPZ, Chittagong.
Client: Young International Ltd.

Assessed by-
Engr. Md. Mehedi Hasan
Lead Structural Engineer,
Sthapona Consultants
M.Sc. (Structural Engineering, BUET) B.Sc. (BUET),
MIEB -24748, Rajuk Reg. DMINB-CE0233.

Submitted by

Y OUR S AFETY IS OUR C ONCERN

st
1 Floor, House#18, Road#20, Nikunjo-2, Dhaka-1229.
Office: +880-1762-777666.
sthaponaconsultants@gmail.com
MARCH 2019
 Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 2
1.2 GENERAL OBJECTIVE .......................................................................................................... 3
2 STRENGTH OF MATERIALS ............................................................................................... 4
2.1 EVALUATION OF CONCRETE STRENGTH FROM CORE TEST ............................. 4
3 ANALYSIS FOR STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY .................................................................... 5
3.1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM ........................................................................................................ 5
3.2 CODES AND PRACTICES ..................................................................................................... 6
3.3 MATERIAL PROPERTY ........................................................................................................ 6
3.4 LOADS ........................................................................................................................................ 6
3.4.1 DEAD Loads ..................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.4.2 Live Load........................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.4.3 Wind Load (W) ............................................................................................................................................... 7
3.4.4 Earthquake Load (E) .................................................................................................................................... 9

3.5 METHOD OF ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 9

3.6 LOADING AND LOAD COMBINATION ........................................................................ 10
3.7 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 11
3.8 APPLICATION OF LOAD AND ANALYSIS .................................................................. 12
4 EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS FOR BNBC LOADING CONDITION
13
4.1 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF FOUNDATION ................................................................ 13
4.2 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF COLUMN: ......................................................................... 15
4.3 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF R.C.C. BEAMS.................................................................. 21
4.3.1 Evaluation of Floor Beam ....................................................................................................................... 21

5 EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS FOR BNBC LOADING CONDITION

27
5.1 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF FOUNDATION ................................................................ 27
5.2 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF COLUMN: ......................................................................... 31
5.3 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF R.C.C. BEAMS.................................................................. 37
5.3.1 Evaluation of Floor Beam ....................................................................................................................... 37

5.4 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF SLAB .................................................................................. 41

5.5 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF SHEARWALL .................................................................. 45
 Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

6 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 46
7 RECOMMENDATION .......................................................................................................... 46
8 EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS AFTER RETROFITTING ................. 47
8.1 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF FOUNDATION ................................................................ 47
8.2 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF COLUMN: ......................................................................... 52
8.3 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF R.C.C. BEAMS.................................................................. 58
8.3.1 Evaluation of Floor Beam ....................................................................................................................... 58

8.4 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF SLAB .................................................................................. 63

8.5 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF SHEARWALL .................................................................. 68
8.6 DRIFT CHECK ....................................................................................................................... 69
8.7 TORISIONAL IRREGULARITY CHECK......................................................................... 71
9 DISCLAIMER ......................................................................................................................... 71

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1.1.1: Location of Project ..................................................................................... 2

Figure 3.1.1: Beam-Column Framing System of the Building ........................................... 5

Figure 3.1.2: 3D View of Analytical Model ..................................................................... 5

Figure 3.8.1: Deflected Shape of the building .................................................................. 12

Figure 4.1.1: Foundation Layout Plan from As Built Drawing. ....................................... 13

Figure 4.1.2: Adequacy check of foundation for Bearing capacity from SAFE model. .. 14

Figure 4.2.1: Column Layout Plan from as Model Snapshot. .......................................... 15

Figure 4.2.2: Column Layout Plan from Built Drawing. .................................................. 16

Figure 4.2.3: Condition of Column in Grid A ................................................................... 17

Figure 4.2.4: Condition of Column in Grid B ................................................................... 17

Figure 4.2.5: Condition of Column in Grid C ................................................................... 17

Figure 4.2.6: Condition of Column in Grid D ................................................................... 18

Figure 4.2.7: Condition of Column in Grid E ................................................................... 18

Figure 4.2.8: Condition of Column in Grid F ................................................................... 18

Figure 4.2.9: Condition of Column in Grid G ................................................................... 18

 Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 4.2.10: Condition of Column in Grid H ................................................................. 19

Figure 4.2.11: Condition of Column in Grid I .................................................................. 19

Figure 4.2.12: Condition of Column in Grid J .................................................................. 19

Figure 4.2.13: Condition of Column in Grid K ................................................................. 19

Figure 4.2.14: Condition of Column in Grid L ................................................................. 20

Figure 4.3.1: Condition of 1st Floor Beams....................................................................... 21

Figure 4.3.2: Condition of 2nd Floor Beams. ..................................................................... 22

Figure 4.3.3: Condition of 3rd Floor Beams. ..................................................................... 23

Figure 4.3.4: Condition of Roof Floor Beams. ................................................................. 24

Figure 4.3.5: Condition of Roof Top Floor Beams. .......................................................... 25

Figure 5.1.1: Foundation Layout Plan (Proposed). ........................................................... 27

Figure 5.1.2: Foundation Beams from Etabs Model. ........................................................ 28

Figure 5.1.3: Reinforcement Requirement of Foundation Beams from SAFE Model. .... 29

Figure 5.1.4: Adequacy check of foundation for Bearing capacity from SAFE model. .. 30

Figure 5.2.1: Column Layout Plan from Model Snapshot. ............................................... 31

Figure 5.2.2: Column Layout Plan from Proposed Drawing. ........................................... 32

Figure 5.2.3: Condition of Column in Grid A ................................................................... 33

Figure 5.2.4: Condition of Column in Grid B ................................................................... 33

Figure 5.2.5: Condition of Column in Grid C ................................................................... 33

Figure 5.2.6: Condition of Column in Grid D ................................................................... 34

Figure 5.2.7: Condition of Column in Grid E ................................................................... 34

Figure 5.2.8: Condition of Column in Grid F ................................................................... 34

Figure 5.2.9: Condition of Column in Grid G ................................................................... 35

Figure 5.2.10: Condition of Column in Grid H ................................................................. 35

Figure 5.2.11: Condition of Column in Grid I .................................................................. 35

Figure 5.2.12: Condition of Column in Grid J .................................................................. 36

Figure 5.2.13: Condition of Column in Grid K ................................................................. 36

 Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 5.2.14: Condition of Column in Grid L ................................................................. 36

Figure 5.3.1: Condition of 1st Floor Beams....................................................................... 37

Figure 5.3.2: Condition of 2nd Floor Beams. ..................................................................... 38

Figure 5.3.3: Condition of 3rd Floor Beams. ..................................................................... 39

Figure 5.3.4: Condition of Roof Floor Beams. ................................................................. 40

Figure 5.4.1: Deformed Shape for RBNBC-2 (E^-3) ....................................................... 41

Figure 5.4.2: 1st Floor Slab Bottom Reinforcement Requirement in Direction-1 (unit-
in2/ft.) ................................................................................................................................. 42

Figure 5.4.3: 1st Floor Slab Top Reinforcement Requirement in Direction-1 (unit-in2/ft.)
........................................................................................................................................... 42

Figure 5.4.4: 1st Floor Slab Bottom Reinforcement Requirement in Direction-2 (unit-
in2/ft.) ................................................................................................................................. 43

Figure 5.4.5: 1st Floor Slab Top Reinforcement Requirement in Direction-2 (unit-in2/ft.)
........................................................................................................................................... 44

Figure 8.1.1: Foundation Layout Plan (Proposed). ........................................................... 48

Figure 8.1.2: Foundation Beams from Etabs Model. ........................................................ 49

Figure 8.1.3: Reinforcement Requirement of Foundation Beams from SAFE Model. .... 50

Figure 8.1.4: Adequacy check of foundation for Bearing capacity from SAFE model. .. 51

Figure 8.2.1: Column Layout Plan from Model Snapshot. ............................................... 52

Figure 8.2.2: Column Layout Plan from Proposed Drawing. ........................................... 53

Figure 8.2.3: Condition of Column in Grid A ................................................................... 54

Figure 8.2.4: Condition of Column in Grid B ................................................................... 54

Figure 8.2.5: Condition of Column in Grid C ................................................................... 54

Figure 8.2.6: Condition of Column in Grid D ................................................................... 55

Figure 8.2.7: Condition of Column in Grid E ................................................................... 55

Figure 8.2.8: Condition of Column in Grid F ................................................................... 55

Figure 8.2.9: Condition of Column in Grid G ................................................................... 56

Figure 8.2.10: Condition of Column in Grid H ................................................................. 56

 Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 8.2.11: Condition of Column in Grid I .................................................................. 56

Figure 8.2.12: Condition of Column in Grid J .................................................................. 57

Figure 8.2.13: Condition of Column in Grid K ................................................................. 57

Figure 8.2.14: Condition of Column in Grid L ................................................................. 57

Figure 8.3.1: Condition of 1st Floor Beams....................................................................... 58

Figure 8.3.2: Condition of 2nd Floor Beams. ..................................................................... 59

Figure 8.3.3: Condition of 3rd Floor Beams. ..................................................................... 60

Figure 8.3.4: Condition of Roof Floor Beams. ................................................................. 61

Figure 8.4.1: Deformed Shape for RBNBC-2 (E^-3) ....................................................... 64

Figure 8.4.2: 1st Floor Slab Bottom Reinforcement Requirement in Direction-1 (unit-
in2/ft.) ................................................................................................................................. 65

Figure 8.4.3: 1st Floor Slab Top Reinforcement Requirement in Direction-1 (unit-in2/ft.)
........................................................................................................................................... 65

Figure 8.4.4: 1st Floor Slab Bottom Reinforcement Requirement in Direction-2 (unit-
in2/ft.) ................................................................................................................................. 66

Figure 8.4.5: 1st Floor Slab Top Reinforcement Requirement in Direction-2 (unit-in2/ft.)
........................................................................................................................................... 67

List of Tables
Table 1.1.1: Basic information ............................................................................................ 2

Table 2.1.1: Equivalent Concrete Strength of column and foundation .............................. 4

Table 2.1.2: Equivalent Concrete Strength of beam and slab ............................................. 4

Table 5.4.1: Adequacy Check for Slab ............................................................................. 44

Table 5.5.1: Adequacy Check of Shear Wall .................................................................... 45

Table 8.4.1: Adequacy Check for Slab ............................................................................. 67

Table 8.5.1: Adequacy Check of Shear Wall .................................................................... 68

APPENDIX-I: DT & NDT REPORT

APPENDIX-II: SOIL TEST REPORT

Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The existing factory building of Young International Ltd. Is a 4-storied building composed of
RCC Frame.

A team from ACCORD conducted visual assessment of the factory building. They recommended
to perform DEA of the building. On this recommendation, YOUNG INTERNATIONAL LTD. has
engaged Sthapona Consultants for performing DEA along with checking architectural and
structural drawing of the building.

The structural and architectural drawings were verified by Ferro-scanning, dimensions

measurement, plaster removing, foundation explorations etc.
For DEA one of the key inputs is the concrete strength. Bureau Veritas (BV) collected, NINE
cores from different locations of columns and foundation and SIX cores from different location
of beam have been collected to test the concrete strength. These cores have been sent and
tested in BUET Lab by UTM (universal testing machine) to find its compressive strength. It has
been found that brick chips were used as coarse aggregate. Equivalent concrete strength (As
per ACI-562) for column is 2021.12 psi and for beam is 2286.55 psi. Rebar yield strength was
found to be 40 Ksi which was confirmed by BUET test. Test result of BUET is presented in DT-
NDT Report.

Considering BNBC referred loading (63 pound per square feet live load), we analysed the
structure & found that most of the R.C.C. columns and R.C.C. Floor beams are inadequate. The
foundation is inadequate in some locations as per the provided soil test report.
The structure was reanalysed as per the proposed architectural plan provided by factory
authority considering 63 psf live load. The foundation might be inadequate in some locations
as per the present soil test report. However, we would recommend to perform plate load test
in those locations to ensure overall adequacy of the foundation. After plate load test if the
bearing capacity is found to be unsafe for the structure, foundation may need retrofitting in
some locations. During physical observations, we observed several issues in floor slabs
concrete spalling, dampness, exposed reinforcement, corrosion etc. Treatment of such slabs is
to be applied based on site condition. A large number of columns and beams are found to be
overstressed. The final Retrofitting plan has been prepared based on the proposed
Architectural drawings approved by Factory. Several new columns, beams and slabs has been
added in these new plans.

There is a base of the yarn machine foundation, which at present condition is below the existing
foundation level. We recommend to fill the pit with compacted soil (six inch per layer) and then
cast a mat foundation in that location connecting the existing foundations.

We recommend the factory authority to rectify the overstressed members as soon as possible,
to comply the building with BNBC 2006.

Page | 1
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND
The factory building of YOUNG INTERNATIONAL LTD. is currently in operation as a 4 storied RCC
building located at Plot#32-34, Sector#05, South Halishar, CEPZ, Chittagong. Having Latitude:
22°17’42.3” N and Longitude: 91°46’25.1” E.

*Source: Google Earth

Figure 1.1.1: Location of Project

Table 1.1.1: Basic information

Information Description

Structural System Frame work of the building is composed of R.C. column and
Beam.
Floor Area Floor area: 438622 sqf (Approx.)

Number of Stories Four stories.

Foundation Type Strip Footing.

Construction materials Concrete with brick chips for foundation, column, foundation
beam, floor beam and floor slab.

Page | 2
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

1.2 GENERAL OBJECTIVE

Sthapona Consultants was assigned to prepare DEA of the factory building of YOUNG
INTERNATIONAL LTD. The scope of work of the project has been shown below, which includes
recommendations made by The ACCORD team,

(i). Ferro-Scanning in Column, Beam and Slab for Rebar Detection

(ii). Validate available structural design drawings
(iii). Verify architectural drawings and
(iv). The Structural Integrity Assessment of the building, which includes the following
items:
 Highlight any variations between as-built and structure design drawings (if
applicable)
 Result of testing of materials
 Results of geotechnical assessment and testing/investigation
 Details of assumptions, loading, inputs and results of computer modelling
 Detail assessment of the performance of all structural members under the
seismic load, earthquake load and gravity load
 Commentary on adequate/inadequacy of elements of the structure and further
action plan

Page | 3
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

2 STRENGTH OF MATERIALS

2.1 EVALUATION OF CONCRETE STRENGTH FROM CORE TEST

9 cores from different locations of columns and 6 cores from different locations of beams have
been collected to test the concrete strength. These cores have been sent and tested in BUET
Lab by UTM (Universal Testing Machine) to find its compressive strength. It has been found
that brick chips were used as coarse aggregate. Equivalent concrete strength (As per ACI-562)
for column 2021.12 psi and for beam is 2286.55 psi. Core test result is presented in DT-NDT
Report.

Table 2.1.1: Equivalent Concrete Strength of column and foundation

of variation
Sample No.

coeffecient
Equivalent
Diameter

Standard
deviation
Core Diameter Modified Number
Damage
Effect

Effect

test of Core Core test Average kc of

result (inch) result sample
Concrete strength
according to ACI 562 sec. 6.4.3
1 2170 3.31 1.0207 1.06 2347.81
2 3760 3.31 1.0207 1.06 4068.10
3 3550 3.31 1.0207 1.06 3840.89
4 2120 3.31 1.0207 1.06 2293.72
5 960 3.31 1.0207 1.06 1038.66
6 2120 3.31 1.0207 1.06 2293.72
7 1750 3.31 1.0207 1.06 1893.40
2745.73 1.1 9 1034.60 0.38 2021.12
8 2810 3.31 1.0207 1.06 3040.26
9 3600 3.31 1.0207 1.06 3894.99

Table 2.1.2: Equivalent Concrete Strength of beam and slab

of variation
Sample No.

coeffecient

Equivalent
Diameter

Standard
deviation

Core Diameter Modified Number

Damage
Effect

Effect

test of Core Core test Average kc of

result (inch) result sample
Concrete strength
according to ACI 562 sec. 6.4.3
1 3810 3.31 1.0207 1.06 4122.20
2 3120 3.31 1.0207 1.06 3375.66
3 2020 3.31 1.0207 1.06 2185.52
4 1590 3.31 1.0207 1.06 1720.29
3148.45 1.2 6 977.56 0.31 2286.55
5 3250 3.31 1.0207 1.06 3516.31
6 3670 3.31 1.0207 1.06 3970.73

Calculation of Equivalent Concrete Strength as per ACI 562 for Column and Beam

So, Concrete Strength for Column is 2021.12 psi and beam is 2286.55 psi.

Page | 4
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

3 ANALYSIS FOR STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY

3.1 STRUCTURAL SYSTEM

The structural system of the factory building is a 4 storied RCC structure. Figure 3.1.1
shows the condition of framing system.

Figure 3.1.1: Beam-Column Framing System of the Building

The building is classified as Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame (OMRF). General 3D view of the
building has been presented in Figure 3.1.2

Figure 3.1.2: 3D View of Analytical Model

Page | 5
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

3.2 CODES AND PRACTICES

For the present project, relevant sections of Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC, 2006)
have been used for analysis. For the reinforced concrete design check, American Concrete
Institute (ACI 318-99) code has been consulted as and when became necessary to complement
the BNBC.

3.3 MATERIAL PROPERTY

The principal material of construction is reinforced concrete. As per investigation and design
drawings, the following material properties have been used:
 Yield strength of existing steel (Rebar), fy = 40,000 lb/in2
 Yield strength of proposed steel (Rebar), fy = 72,500 lb/in2
 Compressive strength of concrete of beam, fc' = 2286.55 psi.
 Compressive strength of concrete of column, fc' =2021.12 psi
 Compressive strength of new concrete, fc' = 3500 psi
 Young's modulus of concrete, Ec = 45,000fc'
We have considered 72.5 ksi rebar for retrofitting both column and beam. But, for the
convenience of modelling in ETABS we have used 60 ksi rebar in retrofitting beam section.

3.4 LOADS
The loads that may act upon the structure are as follows:

3.4.1 DEAD Loads

DEAD Loads (D) are those gravity loads which remain acting on the structure permanently
without any change during the structures normal service life. These are basically the loads
coming from the weight of the different components of the structure. For the sake of
convenience in the analysis, sometimes this kind of loads are divided into two types, namely a)
self-weight of the structure (SW) and b) the weight coming from the non-structural permanent
components of the building. In concrete building the weight of slabs, beams, and columns etc.
which form the main structural system is considered the self-weight (SW). The weights of floor
finish, water proofing layer, partition walls and other non-structural permanent components
generally constitute the rest of the total DEAD Loads. For the analysis and design checking of
the building, following are the values of DEAD Loads

 Unit weight of reinforced concrete = 135 pcf

 Unit weight of brickwork = 120 pcf

3.4.2 Live Load

Live load is the gravity load due to non-permanent objects like machines, furniture, and human.
Analysis has been carried out base on load recommended by BNBC (2006).

Page | 6
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

3.4.3 Wind Load (W)

Bangladesh is typically a storm prone area where due consideration to the thrust due to storm
must be given in the analysis and design of building and structures. Wind load due to storm is
typically modelled as lateral thrust force causing sway or overturning of the building. Detailed
specifications on wind loading on buildings are outlined in BNBC (2006). The present project is
located in Chittagong, for which the following basic parameters are used in wind load
calculation,

 Basic wind speed, Vb = 260 km/h

 Exposure category = A
 Structure Importance coefficient CI =1.00

Page | 7
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Page | 8
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

3.4.4 Earthquake Load (E)

Proper structural design of any building structure must include loads due to earthquake
shaking. Although there has been no major incident of earthquake hazard in the recent past of
Bangladesh, earthquakes are not uncommon in this area. Scientific geological study of the
earth crust below Bangladesh shows that Bangladesh does fall in moderate to high seismic risk
zone. Statistical evidence from past major and minor earthquake incidents shows that a major
earthquake is overdue in the recent times of geological scale. Therefore, it is necessary to
prepare against any possible earthquake hazard. It should be kept in mind that the objective
of earthquake resistance building design is not to make a strong building which can resist any
damage due to earthquake. Instead, earthquake resistant design basically aims at minimizing
the possible damage and casualty to an acceptable level.

Regarding the earthquake resistant structural design, it essential that the specific design code
is followed. For the analysis and design checking of this building, Equivalent Static Force
Method of BNBC (2006) is followed. The main considerations for calculation of earthquake load
are given below.

 Zone co-efficient, Z = 0.15 (zone 2, As Per BNBC 2006)

 Structure importance co-efficient, I = 1.00 (Standard Occupancy, Table 6.2.23, BNBC
2006)
 Response modification co-efficient, R = 5.0 (OMRF, Table 6.2.24, BNBC)
 Site co-efficient, S3= 1.5 (type 3 soil as suggested in Table 6.2.25, BNBC)

3.5 METHOD OF ANALYSIS

Depending on the type of project, there are several well-established methods among which
Finite Element Method (FEM) is perhaps the most sophisticated and all-encompassing one. For
analysis and design checking of the building, powerful finite element based structural design
software package ETABS v16.2.1 has been employed for analysis. Some aspects of the analysis
process are discussed in the following paragraphs.

A full three-dimensional modelling of the structure has been developed using frame and
plate/shell elements. At base level, the columns are assumed to be fixed due to strip
foundation.

Page | 9
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

3.6 LOADING AND LOAD COMBINATION

The basic sources of loads are described in earlier section. These loads are applied on the model
in seven basic categories. These are as follows:

 Self-weight of structure (SW).

 Floor finish and partition wall (SDEA REPORT).
 Live load on roof (LL).
 Earthquake load on North-South Direction (Ex).
 Earthquake load on East-West Direction (Ey).
 Wind load on North-South Direction (Wx).
 Wind load on East-West Direction (Wy).

These seven basic load cases are analysed in ETABS v16.2.1. The results are then combined in
accordance with the specifications set forth by BNBC. BNBC specifies a number of combination
options. These are as follows:
For Concrete Structure:

 1.4 D
 1.4 D + 1.7 L
 0.9 D + 1.3 (W or 1.1 E)
 0.75 (1.4 D + 1.7 (W or 1.1 E))
 0.75 (1.4 D + 1.7 L + 1.7 (W or 1.1 E))
 1.4 (D + L + E)

Where D stands for total DEA Report load i.e. D = DL + SDEA REPORT, L stands for live load i.e.
L=LL, W stands for wind load and E stands for earthquake load. When these seven basic load
cases are combined accordingly considering the direction of lateral loads, then according to
BNBC 2006, we obtain, after simplification, the following thirty combination cases:
 Combination Case 1: 1.4 D
 Combination Case 2: 1.4 D + 1.7 L
 Combination Case 3: 1.05 D + 1.275 L + 1.275 Wx
 Combination Case 4: 1.05 D + 1.275 L - 1.275 Wx
 Combination Case 5: 1.05 D + 1.275 L + 1.275 Wy
 Combination Case 6: 1.05 D + 1.275 L - 1.275 Wy
 Combination Case 7: 1.05 D + 1.275 Wx
 Combination Case 8: 1.05 D - 1.275 Wx
 Combination Case 9: 1.05 D + 1.275 Wy
 Combination Case 10: 1.05 D - 1.275 Wy
 Combination Case 11: 0.9 D + 1.3 Wx
 Combination Case 12: 0.9 D - 1.3 Wx
 Combination Case 13: 0.9 D + 1.3 Wy
 Combination Case 14: 0.9 D - 1.3 Wy
 Combination Case 15: 1.05 D + 1.275 L + 1.4025 E x

Page | 10
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

 Combination Case 16: 1.05 D + 1.275 L - 1.4025 Ex

 Combination Case 17:
 Combination Case 18:
 Combination Case 19:
 Combination Case 20:
 Combination Case 21:
 Combination Case 22:
 Combination Case 23:
 Combination Case 24:
 Combination Case 25:
 Combination Case 26:
 Combination Case 27:
 Combination Case 28:
 Combination Case 29:
 Combination Case 30:
1.05 D + 1.275 L + 1.4025 E y
1.05 D + 1.275 L - 1.4025 Ey
1.05 D + 1.4025 Ex
1.05 D - 1.4025 Ex
1.05 D + 1.4025 Ey
1.05 D - 1.4025 Ey
0.9 D + 1.43 Ex
0.9 D - 1.43 Ex
0.9 D + 1.43 Ey
0.9 D - 1.43 Ey
1.4 D + 1.4 L + 1.4 Ex
1.4 D + 1.4 L - 1.4 Ex
1.4 D + 1.4 L + 1.4 Ey
1.4 D + 1.4 L - 1.4 Ey

But in ETABS analysis, we do not calculate combination cases 27, 28, 29 & 30.

For the assessment of garments building we consider the load combination provided by the
Guideline for RMG (November 08, 2013) by BNBC for RC structures. The following load
combination is used for the assessment:

Combination Case 1: 1.2 DL + 1.6LL

Combination Case 2: 1.05 DL + 1.25LL + 1.0Wx
Combination Case 3: 1.05 DL + 1.25LL - 1.0Wx
Combination Case 4: 1.05 DL + 1.25LL + 1.0Wy
Combination Case 5: 1.05 DL + 1.25LL - 1.0Wy
Combination Case 6: 1.05 DL + 1.25LL + 1.0Ex
Combination Case 7: 1.05 DL + 1.25LL - 1.0Ex
Combination Case 8: 1.05 DL + 1.25LL + 1.0E y
Combination Case 9: 1.05 DL + 1.25LL - 1.0Ey

3.7 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

In any finite element analysis, applying appropriate boundary conditions are important.
Without appropriate boundary conditions the model of building structure may not be stable.
For a structure like this building with this type of strip foundation, it is reasonable to assume
that the bases of columns are fully restrained in all directions.

Page | 11
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

3.8 APPLICATION OF LOAD AND ANALYSIS

A static analysis is performed using the loadings and combinations of loads (mentioned earlier)
for the factory building. Some pictorial representation of the analysis results is shown in figures
below.

The floor finish is slightly variable at different locations of the building and load was applied as
per requirement.

Figure 3.8.1: Deflected Shape of the building

Page | 12
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

4 EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS FOR BNBC LOADING CONDITION

4.1 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF FOUNDATION

Provided structural drawings of the project shows that Strip Foundation is used in this building.
We have checked adequacy of footing for bearing capacity considering BNBC loading condition.
The soil test was tested and reported by “EQUALITY SOIL ENGINEERING.”

Considering the bearing capacity of 1.74 ksf and concrete compressive strength of 2021.12 psi,
the foundation is slightly inadequate in bearing capacity in some locations. There is foundation
beam in the strip footing. So adequacy check for punching shear was not checked in this case.

Figure 4.1.1: Foundation Layout Plan from As Built Drawing.

Page | 13
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

The following figure represents the foundation beams of structure,

Figure 4.1.2: Adequacy check of foundation for Bearing capacity from SAFE model.

Page | 14
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

4.2 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF COLUMN:

Column layout plan from model snap shot is shown in Figure 4.2.1. Results has been shown
based on model grid. Assessment of columns (P-M-M Interaction Ratio) considering 63 psf live
load. According to standard practice, column with P-M-M value greater than 1.0 is considered
as inadequate.

Figure 4.2.1: Column Layout Plan from as Model Snapshot.

Page | 15
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

RCC Column layout plan is shown in Figure 4.2.2 from Design Drawing.

Figure 4.2.2: Column Layout Plan from Built Drawing.

Page | 16
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 4.2.3: Condition of Column in Grid A

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Figure 4.2.4: Condition of Column in Grid B

(Sections having P-M-M ratio less than 1 are Adequate)

Figure 4.2.5: Condition of Column in Grid C

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Page | 17
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 4.2.6: Condition of Column in Grid D

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Figure 4.2.7: Condition of Column in Grid E

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Figure 4.2.8: Condition of Column in Grid F

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Figure 4.2.9: Condition of Column in Grid G

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Page | 18
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 4.2.10: Condition of Column in Grid H

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Figure 4.2.11: Condition of Column in Grid I

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Figure 4.2.12: Condition of Column in Grid J

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Figure 4.2.13: Condition of Column in Grid K

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Page | 19
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 4.2.14: Condition of Column in Grid L

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Page | 20
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

4.3 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF R.C.C. BEAMS

4.3.1 Evaluation of Floor Beam

Following figures represent the condition of beams according to 63 psf live loading.
Represented Figures are showing required reinforcements. Required reinforcement < Provided
Reinforcement denotes adequacy. All floor beams are adequate.

*For clarity please see the soft copy

Figure 4.3.1: Condition of 1st Floor Beams.

Page | 21
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 4.3.2: Condition of 2nd Floor Beams.

Page | 22
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 4.3.3: Condition of 3rd Floor Beams.

Page | 23
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 4.3.4: Condition of Roof Floor Beams.

Page | 24
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

*For clarity please see the soft copy

Figure 4.3.5: Condition of Roof Top Floor Beams.

Page | 25
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Provided Reinf. At
Beam Id. In Provided Reinf. Required Reinf. Required Reinf.
Middle-Bottom
Drawing At Top-Edge (in2) (in2) (in2)
(in2)
FB1 2.43 As Shown 3.4 As Shown
FB2 2.43 As Shown 2.916 As Shown
FB3 2.75 As Shown 2.95 As Shown
FB4 0.97 As Shown 1.76 As Shown
FB5 2.75 As Shown 2.95 As Shown
FB6 2.43 As Shown 2.43 As Shown
FB7 0.972 As Shown 1.767 As Shown
FB8 0.972 As Shown 1.767 As Shown
FB9 0.972 As Shown 1.767 As Shown
FB10 0.972 As Shown 1.767 As Shown
FB11 3.4 As Shown 2.43 As Shown

Page | 26
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

5 EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS FOR BNBC LOADING CONDITION

5.1 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF FOUNDATION

Provided structural drawings of the project shows that Strip Foundation is used in this building.
We have checked adequacy of footing for bearing capacity considering BNBC loading condition.
The soil test was tested and reported by “EQUALITY SOIL ENGINEERING.”

Considering the bearing capacity of 1.74 ksf and concrete compressive strength of 2021.12 psi,
the foundation is slightly inadequate in bearing capacity in some locations. There is foundation
beam in the strip footing. So adequacy check for punching shear was not checked in this case.

Figure 5.1.1: Foundation Layout Plan (Proposed).

Page | 27
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

The following figure represents the foundation beams of structure,

Figure 5.1.2: Foundation Beams from Etabs Model.

Page | 28
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 5.1.3: Reinforcement Requirement of Foundation Beams from SAFE Model.

Provided Reinf. Provided Reinf. At
Beam Id. In Required Reinf. Required Reinf.
At Bottom-Edge Middle-Top
Drawing (in2) (in2)
(in2) (in2)
FB1 2.218 As Shown 2.218 As Shown
FB2 2.218 As Shown 2.218 As Shown
FB3 2.218 As Shown 2.218 As Shown

Page | 29
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 5.1.4: Adequacy check of foundation for Bearing capacity from SAFE model.

Page | 30
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

5.2 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF COLUMN:

Column layout plan from model snap shot is shown in Figure 4.2.1. Results has been shown
based on model grid. Assessment of columns (P-M-M Interaction Ratio) considering 63 psf live
load. According to standard practice, column with P-M-M value greater than 1.0 is considered
as inadequate.

Figure 5.2.1: Column Layout Plan from Model Snapshot.

Page | 31
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

RCC Column layout plan is shown in Figure 4.2.2 from Design Drawing.

Figure 5.2.2: Column Layout Plan from Proposed Drawing.

Page | 32
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 5.2.3: Condition of Column in Grid A

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Figure 5.2.4: Condition of Column in Grid B

(Sections having P-M-M ratio less than 1 are Adequate)

Figure 5.2.5: Condition of Column in Grid C

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Page | 33
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 5.2.6: Condition of Column in Grid D

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Figure 5.2.7: Condition of Column in Grid E

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Figure 5.2.8: Condition of Column in Grid F

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Page | 34
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 5.2.9: Condition of Column in Grid G

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Figure 5.2.10: Condition of Column in Grid H

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Figure 5.2.11: Condition of Column in Grid I

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Page | 35
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 5.2.12: Condition of Column in Grid J

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Figure 5.2.13: Condition of Column in Grid K

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Figure 5.2.14: Condition of Column in Grid L

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Page | 36
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

5.3 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF R.C.C. BEAMS

5.3.1 Evaluation of Floor Beam

Following figures represent the condition of beams according to 63 psf live loading.
Represented Figures are showing required reinforcements. Required reinforcement < Provided
Reinforcement denotes adequacy. Most of the beams are inadequate in reinforcement
requirement.

*For clarity please see the soft copy

Figure 5.3.1: Condition of 1st Floor Beams.

Page | 37
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 5.3.2: Condition of 2nd Floor Beams.

Page | 38
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 5.3.3: Condition of 3rd Floor Beams.

Page | 39
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 5.3.4: Condition of Roof Floor Beams.

Page | 40
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Provided Reinf. At
Beam Id. In Provided Reinf. Required Reinf. Required Reinf.
Middle-Bottom
Drawing At Top-Edge (in2) (in2) (in2)
(in2)
FB1 2.43 As Shown 3.4 As Shown
FB2 2.43 As Shown 2.916 As Shown
FB3 2.75 As Shown 2.95 As Shown
FB4 0.97 As Shown 1.76 As Shown
FB5 2.75 As Shown 2.95 As Shown
FB6 2.43 As Shown 2.43 As Shown
FB7 0.972 As Shown 1.767 As Shown
FB8 0.972 As Shown 1.767 As Shown
FB9 0.972 As Shown 1.767 As Shown
FB10 0.972 As Shown 1.767 As Shown
FB11 3.4 As Shown 2.43 As Shown

5.4 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF SLAB

Following figures represent the condition of a typical floor slab (1st Floor) according to 84 psf
live loading. All the slabs are adequate.

Figure 5.4.1: Deformed Shape for RBNBC-2 (E^-3)

*For clarity please see the soft copy

Page | 41
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 5.4.2: 1st Floor Slab Bottom Reinforcement Requirement in Direction-1 (unit-in2/ft.)

Figure 5.4.3: 1st Floor Slab Top Reinforcement Requirement in Direction-1 (unit-in2/ft.)

Page | 42
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 5.4.4: 1st Floor Slab Bottom Reinforcement Requirement in Direction-2 (unit-in2/ft.)

Page | 43
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 5.4.5: 1st Floor Slab Top Reinforcement Requirement in Direction-2 (unit-in2/ft.)

Table 5.4.1: Adequacy Check for Slab

Provided Top Provided Reinf. At Required

Slab Required Reinf.
Reinf. At Column Middle-Bottom Reinf.
Direction (in2/ft)
Strip (in2/ft) (in2/ft) (in2/ft)
Direction-1 0.446 As Shown 0.446 As Shown
Direction-2 0.446 As Shown 0.446 As Shown

Page | 44
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

5.5 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF SHEARWALL

The following figure shows the requirement of vertical reinforcement. Provided
reinforcement<Required reinforcement denotes inadequacy.

Table 5.5.1: Adequacy Check of Shear Wall

Slab Provided Vertical Required Reinf.

Direction Reinforcement (in2/ft)

Direction-1 31.67 As Shown

Direction-2 31.67 As Shown

Page | 45
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

6 CONCLUSION

According to BNBC loading condition (84 psf Live Load)-

 Most of the RCC columns are overstressed.
 Most of the floor beams are inadequate.
 Foundation beams are adequate.
 The foundation is slightly adequate in size at some locations as per present soil test
report.
 The existing shear wall was found to be inadequate.
 The foundation of yarn machine is not adequate.

7 RECOMMENDATION

The structure was reanalysed as per the proposed architectural plan provided by factory
authority considering 63 psf live load. The foundation might be inadequate in some locations
as per the present soil test report. However, we would recommend to perform plate load test
in those locations to ensure overall adequacy of the foundation. After plate load test, if the
bearing capacity is found to be unsafe for the structure, foundation may need retrofitting in
some locations. During physical observations, we observed several issues regarding slab, such
as, concrete spalling, dampness, exposed reinforcement, corrosion etc. Treatment of such
slabs is to be applied based on site condition. A large number of columns and beams are found
to be overstressed. Retrofitting of overstressed columns, shear walls and beams is to be
performed as per the provided retrofitting drawing in order to comply the building as per BNBC
code.

There is a base of the yarn machine foundation, which at present condition is below the existing
foundation level. We recommend to fill the pit with compacted soil (six inch per layer) and then
cast a mat foundation in that location connecting the existing foundations.

Page | 46
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

8 EVALUATION OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS AFTER RETROFITTING

8.1 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF FOUNDATION

Provided structural drawings of the project shows that Strip Foundation is used in this building.
We have checked adequacy of footing for bearing capacity considering BNBC loading condition.
The soil test was tested and reported by “EQUALITY SOIL ENGINEERING.”

Considering the bearing capacity of 1.74 ksf and concrete compressive strength of 2021.12 psi,
the foundation is slightly inadequate in bearing capacity in some locations. There is foundation
beam in the strip footing. So adequacy check for punching shear was not checked in this case.

We found that the foundation is slightly inadequate in size at some locations as per the present
soil test report. We recommend to perform plate load test in those area. After plate load test,
if the bearing capacity is found to be unsafe for the structure, foundation may need retrofitting
in some locations.

There is a base of the yarn machine foundation, which at present condition is below the existing
foundation level. We recommend to fill the pit with compacted soil (six inch per layer) and then
cast a mat foundation in that location connecting the existing foundations.

Page | 47
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 8.1.1: Foundation Layout Plan (Proposed).

The following figure represents the foundation beams of structure,

Page | 48
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 8.1.2: Foundation Beams from Etabs Model.

Page | 49
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 8.1.3: Reinforcement Requirement of Foundation Beams from SAFE Model.

Provided Reinf. Provided Reinf. At
Beam Id. In Required Reinf. Required Reinf.
At Bottom-Edge Middle-Top
Drawing (in2) (in2)
(in2) (in2)
FB1 2.218 As Shown 2.218 As Shown
FB2 2.218 As Shown 2.218 As Shown
FB3 2.218 As Shown 2.218 As Shown

Page | 50
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 8.1.4: Adequacy check of foundation for Bearing capacity from SAFE model.

Page | 51
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

8.2 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF COLUMN:

Column layout plan from model snap shot is shown in Figure 4.2.1. Results has been shown
based on model grid. Assessment of columns (P-M-M Interaction Ratio) considering 63 psf live
load. According to standard practice, column with P-M-M value greater than 1.0 is considered
as inadequate.

Figure 8.2.1: Column Layout Plan from Model Snapshot.

Page | 52
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

RCC Column layout plan is shown in Figure 4.2.2 from Design Drawing.

Figure 8.2.2: Column Layout Plan from Proposed Drawing.

Page | 53
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 8.2.3: Condition of Column in Grid A

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Figure 8.2.4: Condition of Column in Grid B

(Sections having P-M-M ratio less than 1 are Adequate)

Figure 8.2.5: Condition of Column in Grid C

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Page | 54
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 8.2.6: Condition of Column in Grid D

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Figure 8.2.7: Condition of Column in Grid E

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Figure 8.2.8: Condition of Column in Grid F

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Page | 55
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 8.2.9: Condition of Column in Grid G

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Figure 8.2.10: Condition of Column in Grid H

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Figure 8.2.11: Condition of Column in Grid I

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Page | 56
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 8.2.12: Condition of Column in Grid J

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Figure 8.2.13: Condition of Column in Grid K

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Figure 8.2.14: Condition of Column in Grid L

(Sections having P-M-M ratio more than 1 are Inadequate)

Page | 57
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

8.3 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF R.C.C. BEAMS

8.3.1 Evaluation of Floor Beam

Following figures represent the condition of beams according to 63 psf live loading.
Represented Figures are showing required reinforcements. Required reinforcement < Provided
Reinforcement denotes adequacy. Most of the beams are inadequate in reinforcement
requirement.

*For clarity please see the soft copy

Figure 8.3.1: Condition of 1st Floor Beams.

Page | 58
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 8.3.2: Condition of 2nd Floor Beams.

Page | 59
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 8.3.3: Condition of 3rd Floor Beams.

Page | 60
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 8.3.4: Condition of Roof Floor Beams.

Page | 61
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Provided Reinf. At
Beam Id. In Provided Reinf. Required Reinf. Required Reinf.
Middle-Bottom
Drawing At Top-Edge (in2) (in2) (in2)
(in2)
FB1 2.43 As Shown 3.4 As Shown
FB2 2.43 As Shown 2.916 As Shown
FB3 2.75 As Shown 2.95 As Shown
FB4 0.97 As Shown 1.76 As Shown
FB5 2.75 As Shown 2.95 As Shown
FB6 2.43 As Shown 2.43 As Shown
FB7 0.972 As Shown 1.767 As Shown
FB8 0.972 As Shown 1.767 As Shown
FB9 0.972 As Shown 1.767 As Shown
FB10 0.972 As Shown 1.767 As Shown
FB11 3.4 As Shown 2.43 As Shown
RFB1 5.47 As Shown 5.68 As Shown
RFB3 7.31 As Shown 6.75 As Shown
RFB4 5.53 As Shown 3.71 As Shown
RFB5 4.7 As Shown 4.9 As Shown
RFB6 4.38 As Shown 5.47 As Shown
RFB8 3.88 As Shown 2.92 As Shown
RFB11 6.44 As Shown 5.47 As Shown
NFB1 8.024 As Shown 7.6 As Shown
NFB2 4.98 As Shown 2.91 As Shown

Page | 62
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

8.4 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF SLAB

During physical observations, we observed several issues regarding slab, such as, concrete
spalling, dampness, exposed reinforcement, corrosion etc. To illustrate the condition of slab in
such locations some pictures are shown below.

Treatment of such slabs is to be applied based on the type of problem and site condition. Such
as, using Ferro-cement, Ferro-cement with wire mesh or with FRP, provide plaster, maintain
necessary slope at roof etc. based on the site condition.

Page | 63
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Following figures represent the condition of a typical floor slab (1st Floor) according to 84 psf
live loading. All the slabs are adequate.

Figure 8.4.1: Deformed Shape for RBNBC-2 (E^-3)

*For clarity please see the soft copy

Page | 64
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 8.4.2: 1st Floor Slab Bottom Reinforcement Requirement in Direction-1 (unit-in2/ft.)

Figure 8.4.3: 1st Floor Slab Top Reinforcement Requirement in Direction-1 (unit-in2/ft.)

Page | 65
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 8.4.4: 1st Floor Slab Bottom Reinforcement Requirement in Direction-2 (unit-in2/ft.)

Page | 66
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Figure 8.4.5: 1st Floor Slab Top Reinforcement Requirement in Direction-2 (unit-in2/ft.)

Table 8.4.1: Adequacy Check for Slab

Provided Top Provided Reinf. At Required

Slab Required Reinf.
Reinf. At Column Middle-Bottom Reinf.
Direction (in2/ft)
Strip (in2/ft) (in2/ft) (in2/ft)
Direction-1 0.446 As Shown 0.446 As Shown
Direction-2 0.446 As Shown 0.446 As Shown

Page | 67
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

8.5 CHECKING ADEQUACY OF SHEARWALL

The following figure shows the requirement of vertical reinforcement. Provided
reinforcement<Required reinforcement denotes inadequacy.

Table 8.5.1: Adequacy Check of Shear Wall

Slab Provided Vertical Required Reinf.

Direction Reinforcement(in2) (in2)

Direction-1 80 As Shown
Direction-2 80 As Shown

Page | 68
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

8.6 DRIFT CHECK

Drift check for several floors is shown below.

Considered Floor Levels = Base and 1F

Height Between Two Considered Floors = 20.33 ft

Drift From Analysis File

Governing Allowable Drift
Base 1F Difference Remarks
Lateral Load (in)
∆1 (in) ∆2 (in) ∆ = ∆1 ~ ∆2 (in)
EQx = 0 0.25 0.25 1.2198 OK

EQy = 0 0.43 0.43 1.2198 OK

Considered Floor Levels = 1F and 2F

Height Between Two Considered Floors = 12.0833 ft

Drift From Analysis File

Governing Allowable Drift
1F 2F Difference Remarks
Lateral Load (in)
∆1 (in) ∆2 (in) ∆ = ∆1 ~ ∆2 (in)
EQx = 0.25 0.44 0.19 0.724998 OK

EQy = 0.43 0.6 0.17 0.724998 OK

Page | 69
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

Considered Floor Levels = 2F and 3F

Height Between Two Considered Floors = 12.0833 ft

Drift From Analysis File

Governing Allowable Drift
2F 3F Difference Remarks
Lateral Load (in)
∆1 (in) ∆2 (in) ∆ = ∆1 ~ ∆2 (in)
EQx = 0.44 0.612 0.172 0.724998 OK

EQy = 0.6 0.82 0.22 0.724998 OK

Considered Floor Levels = 3F and Roof

Height Between Two Considered Floors = 11.8333 ft

Drift From Analysis File

Governing Allowable Drift
3F Roof Difference Remarks
Lateral Load (in)
∆1 (in) ∆2 (in) ∆ = ∆1 ~ ∆2 (in)
EQx = 0.612 0.74 0.128 0.709998 OK

EQy = 0.82 1.01 0.19 0.709998 OK

Page | 70
Young International Ltd. DETAILED ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

8.7 TORISIONAL IRREGULARITY CHECK

Torsional irregularity check for roof floor is shown below.

DEQY DEQY
0.79 0.98
DEQX 0.76 0.76 DEQX

DEQX 0.64 0.64 DEQX

0.79 0.99
DEQY DEQY

EQX End-1 End-2

Δavg 0.70 0.70
Δmax 0.76 0.76
Δmin 0.64 0.64
Δmax/Δavg = 1.0857 1.0857

EQY End-1 End-2

Δavg 0.89 0.89
Δmax 0.98 0.99
Δmin 0.79 0.79
Δmax/Δavg = 1.1073 1.1124

Max Ratio= 1.1124

Limit Ratio For Torsonal Irregularity:

Δmax/Δavg ≤ 1.2; indicates “No Considerable Torsional Irregularity Exists”

1.2 < Δmax/Δavg ≤ 1.4; indicates “Irregular Torsional Irregularity Exists”
Δmax/Δavg > 1.4 indicates “Extreme Torsional Irregularity Exists”

Remarks: No Considerable Torsional Irregularity Exists

9 DISCLAIMER

The assessment engineer made the above observations & recommendations from Core test,
NDT results & mathematical modelling of the building. We applied our best engineering
judgments. We do not bear responsibility for any deviation from the predicted behaviour of
the structure caused by uncertainties of performance or calamities.

Page | 71