DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4-STORIED INDUSTRIAL

BUILDING WITH MEZZANINE FLOOR

ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS:
CONFIDENTIAL

STRUCTURAL CONSULTANT:
CONFIDETIAL

DESIGN REVIEWED BY:

IT IS ALSO CONFIDENTIAL. ;)

Design Review

Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
1

DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING:..........................................................................1

STRUCTURAL CONCEPT:........................................................................................1

CODE COMPLIANCE:...............................................................................................1

DESIGN REVIEW:......................................................................................................2
4.1

MODELING INFORMATION:...............................................................................3

4.1.1
4.2

DYNAMIC ANLAYSIS (MODAL ANALYSIS):.......................................................4

4.2.1
4.3

CODES:.........................................................................................................3
RESULTS:......................................................................................................5

SERVICEABILITY REQUIREMENTS:...............................................................12

4.3.1

FOR SLAB SYSTEMS:................................................................................12

4.3.2

GLOBAL and INTER STOREY DRIFT:........................................................15

4.4

STRENGTH REVIEW:........................................................................................16

4.4.1

COLUMN:....................................................................................................16

4.4.2

SHEAR WALL..............................................................................................19

4.4.3

SLAB :..........................................................................................................20

4.4.4

BEAM:..........................................................................................................23

4.4.5

FOUNDATION:............................................................................................25

Design Review

Page 2

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

1 DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING:

The building is a four storied building with two mezzanine floor. Building will be occupied
for manufacturing purposes. It contains two stair accessing all the floors. No overhead
water reservoir is housed is the building also the building will use MRL (Machine Room
Less) lift (as depicted from architectural drawing). Faade system of the building is first
class brick work, fair rcc wall and glass.

2 STRUCTURAL CONCEPT:
As the building is being designed structurally no assumption were made on structural
system. The engineer responsible for reviewing the structure spend time understanding
the concept adopted by the engineer responsible for the design.
As depicted the following concepts can be contrived from the structural drawing:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.

The building slab system is beam with slab.

Lateral force resisting system for earthquake is Intermediate Moment
Resisting Frame. (IMRF)
Due to the plan irregularity the project is been designed with expansion
joint.
Main Wind Resisting System is also the IMRF.
The building is designed to withstand wind force of 210 km/hr.
The design earthquake force is calculated based on Seismic Zone 2.

3 CODE COMPLIANCE:
I.

The building is being designed with 72.5 ksi or 500 MPa rebar, which is a
clear violation of the code. As per ACI 318-14 and BNBC 2006 in seismic
zone where building is to be designed for a ductile behavior higher
strength rebar exceeding 60 ksi or 410 Mpa rebar can not be provided.
Moreover under no circumstances one can use shear reinforcement other
than rebar with yield strength of 60 ksi.
The above requirement is for following reason. Due to TMT process the
rebar of 500 Mpa contains two cores. One is inner soft core made up of
soften ferrite materials and outer hard core made up of ferrite and carbon
materials. Now when any tension reversal takes place the softer inner

Design Review

Page 1

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

core deforms and behaves ductile bur outer core struggles and
differentiation of deformation occurs. The outer core or the point of contact
between the two layers tends to develops a crack in the surface as a
result. It is case for all rebar manufactured through the TMT process, no
matter what is the strength.
More over the strength and ductility of a rebar is precisely and primarily a
function of the micro alloy structure and secondarily manufacturing
process. The microstructure composition of the 500 Mpa rebar is following
and which clearly matches the composition of the 275 Mpa or 40 ksi rebar:

% wt.(max)

ELEMENTS
Carbon

0.18

Silicon

0.11

Manganese

0.74

Phosphorus

0.02

Sulphur

0.03

Hence the ductile behavior of 500 Mpa in need is inferior to the 60 Grade rebar and it is
a matter of great concern that in some cases it may perform inferior to its 40 Grade
family rebar.

DESIGN REVIEW:

We, the, engineer responsible for reviewing the design has perform performance
analysis of the building using following FEM (Finite Element Method) software:
a) ETABS 9 v9.7.4.
b) SAFE 2014.
For validation of the design results of the FEM especially we used following software
which are based on code complaint equations:
a) spColumn v5.11.
Design Review

Page 2

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

b) spBeam v5.00.
c) And other excel spreadsheet exclusive developed by our engineers.
4.1 MODELING INFORMATION:
Following factors were taken into consideration during design review:
4.1.1 CODES:
For loads and load combinations we followed BNBC 2006 to comply with provided
information in General Note of the Structural Design Drawing.

Table 4.1.1 Gravity load on structure on Floors

Name of Load Case
Self Weight
Live (Reducible)
Equipment Live
Floor Finish
Partition Wall

Value as per BNBC 2006 (Table 6.2.3)

Calculated by the FEM software
40 psf (for toilet and dressing room)
80 psf (for stair and lobby)
30 psf (for roof and naturally inaccessible
areas)
120 psf (for equipment)
An increase of 20% (Table 6.2.6)
25 psf
25 psf (As per Article 2.3.3.3)

Table 4.1.2 Gravity Loads on Frames (No beams have this load but slab edges have
Faade for which we have to consider this load)
Name of Load Case
Facade

Value as per calculation

500 lb/ft

Table 4.1.3 Load Combinations (As per BNBC 2006 )

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

1.4DL
1.2DL+1.6LL
1.2DL+1LL+1.3W
1.2DL+1LL-1.3W
1.2DL+.8W
1.2DL-.8W

Design Review

Page 3

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

7. .9DL+1.3W
8. .9DL-1.3W
9. 1.2DL+1LL+1.4EQ
10. 1.2DL+1LL-1.4EQ
11. 1.2DL+1.4EQ
12. 1.2DL-1.4EQ
13. .9DL+1.4EQ
14. .9DL-1.4EQ
Table 4.1.4 Serviceability Requirements:
Elements
For Slab System
Global Drift (For Wind Load Cases)
Inter storey Drift

Allowable Deflection
L/480 (As per Table 6.6.4)
L/400-L/500 (Standard Practice as per
IBC)
<.03hR (Article 1.5.6 for our case it is .
00375)

4.2 DYNAMIC ANLAYSIS (MODAL ANALYSIS):

In structural engineering, modal analysis uses the overall mass and stiffness of a
structure to find the various periods at which it will naturally resonate. These periods of
vibration are very important to note in earthquake engineering, as it is imperative that a
building's natural frequency does not match the frequency of expected earthquakes in
the region in which the building is to be constructed. If a structure's natural frequency
matches an earthquake's frequency, the structure may continue to resonate and
experience structural damage. As per ASCE 7-10, BNBC the followings are the criterion
for a well performed building:
1. In first mode the building will vibrate with no kinks for which we need a modal
mass participation ration (MPR) less than 5%.
2. In second mode the building will vibrate with one kinks for which we need a
modal mass participation ration less than 10%.
3. In third mode the building will vibrate with two kinks for which we need a
modal mass participation ration more than 25%.
4. As per BNBC 2006 time period should not be more than 40% of the
calculated value in FEM analysis.

Design Review

Page 4

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

We henceforth performed two sets of analysis :
a) Eigen Vector for each part of the building separately.
b) Ritz Vector for two part of the building only for Earthquake loads.

4.2.1 RESULTS:
4.2.1.1
CALCULATION OF TIME PERIOD:
As per BNBC 2006
T= Ct(h)3/4
Where,
T= Fundamental Un-damped Vibration Period
Ct= Time Period Co-efficient for this structure it is 0.049 (BNBC 2.5.6.2)
h= Total Height of the Building above Base for this structure it is 82.6 ft (25.18m)
Hence T= .55 sec,
therefore maximum allowable time period, T = (1.4 x .55) sec.
= .77 sec
Please see tables for detail dynamic analysis from ETABS 9. And for visual
interpretation please refer to the video file in the folder attached.
4.2.1.2
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF THE BUILDING (INVIDUAL and
EIGEN VECTOR):
We considered each building along expansion joint separately to evaluate its
characteristics individually.

Table 4.2.1.2.1 Modal Analysis of Structure From Grid 1 to Grid 6:

Design Review

Page 5

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

MODE

TIME
PERIOD,
T (sec)

MASS
PARTICIPATION
RATIO ALONG Z
AXIS (%)

1.32

7.47

1.29

50.05

1.10

29.39

FIGURE 4.2.1.2.1 First Mode of the Building.

Design Review

Page 6

REMARKS
The structure vibrates with
kinks or torsion as MPR is
more than 5%. And T is more
than allowable. (UN
ACCEPTABLE)
The structure vibrates with
kinks or torsion as MPR is
more than 10%.(UN
ACCEPTABLE)
The structure vibrates with
kinks or torsion as MPR is
more than 25%.
(ACCEPTABLE)

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

FIGURE 4.2.1.2.2 Second Mode of the Building.

FIGURE 4.2.1.2.3 Third Mode of the Building.

Design Review

Page 7

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

Table 4.2.1.2.2 Modal Analysis of Structure From Grid 6 to Grid 11

MODE

TIME
PERIOD,T
(sec)

MASS
PARTICIPATION
RATIO ALONG Z
AXIS (%)

2.00

1.04

1.86

3.14

1.67

87.76

FIGURE 4.2.1.2.4 First Mode of the Building.

Design Review

Page 8

REMARKS
The structure vibrates with no
kinks or torsion as MPR is less
than 5%.(ACCEPTABLE) And T
is more than allowable.
(UNACCEPATBLE)
The structure vibrates with no
kinks or torsion as MPR is less
than 10%.( ACCEPTABLE)
The structure vibrates with kinks
or torsion as MPR is more than
25%. (ACCEPTABLE)

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

FIGURE 4.2.1.2.5 Second Mode of the Building.

FIGURE 4.2.1.2.6 Third Mode of the Building.

Design Review

Page 9

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

4.2.1.3
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF THE BUILDING (As A Whole and
RITZ VECTOR):
We considered the building as one single structure to evaluate its frequency and mode
shape under Earthquake. This is done mere to study the behavior and probability of the
structure for pounding.
Table 4.2.1.3.1 Modal Analysis of Structure (RITZ VECTOR)

MODE

TIME
PERIOD,T
(sec)

MASS
PARTICIPATION
RATIO ALONG Z
AXIS (%)

1.45

0.28

1.35

9.08

0.47

.0631

REMARKS
The structure vibrates with no
kinks or torsion as MPR is less
than 5%.(UNACCEPTABLE) And
T is more than allowable.
(UNACCEPATBLE)
The structure vibrates with no
kinks or torsion as MPR is less
than 10%.( ACCEPTABLE)
The structure vibrates with kinks
or torsion as MPR is less than
25%. (ACCEPTABLE)

Though the mode shapes are in tolerance limit for MPR but we observe a sysmic
pounding between the two individual part. For which case the structural engineer
responsible for design should advise the joint be filled up with zero stiffness material
such as cement grout, asbestos sheet etc.

Design Review

Page 10

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

FIGURE 4.2.1.3.1 First Mode of the Building.

FIGURE 4.2.1.3.2 Second Mode of the Building.

Design Review

Page 11

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

FIGURE 4.2.1.3.3 Third Mode of the Building.

4.3 SERVICEABILITY REQUIREMENTS:

4.3.1 FOR SLAB SYSTEMS:
As per BNBC the serviceability is defined by deflection of the system. For slab if the
thickness of the slab is as per BNBC Equation 6.42, Table 6.6.5, and Table 6.2.3 then
deflection of the slab is need not to be checked. But here the thickness of the slab is
below the requirements prescribed by BNBC.
The validation of the point is made on the basis of following calculation
ln (.8+fy/200,000)
h= ---------------------------------36+9

Eqn 6.2.4 As per BNBC

Where,
ln= Maximum clear span of slab.
Design Review

Page 12

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

fy= Yield Strength of Rebar.
= Long span to Short Span Ratio.

We evaluated the maximum panel case which is between Grid 6 and Grid 7.
27.68 ft

24ft

Therefore, h = .65 ft = 7.87 in

A slab of 8 in thickness would have been adopted. Henceforth we continued our
analysis in SAFE 2014 the result is shown and elaborated below:

Design Review

Page 13

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

FIGURE 4.3.1.1 Deflection of the slab (1.63 in)
As per BNBC the deflection should have been,
24x12/480= 0.6 in (maximum), and our analysis shows that the
deflection is 1.63 in. Hence the slab do not fill up the serviceability criteria.
Now for flat slab at 3rd floor as per BNBC the minimum thickness required is L/33 for
both interior and exterior panels. Please refer to BNBC Table 6.6.5.
For the structure under consideration the maximum span is between column For the
structure under consideration the maximum span is between Column 3D and Shear
Wall 1, which is 25.17 ft which is our required L. So we require a slab of (25.17x12/33)
9.15 in slab. So it would have been better if the structural engineer had adopted a slab
of 9.5 in or 10 in thickness instead of 9 in.
Our FEM analysis in SAFE 2014 shows following results,

FIGURE 4.3.1.1 Deflection of the flat slab (.62 in)

As per BNBC the deflection should have been, 21.3x12/480= 0.53 in (maximum), and
our analysis shows that the deflection is 0.62 in. Hence the slab do not fill up the
serviceability criteria.

Design Review

Page 14

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

4.3.2 GLOBAL and INTER STOREY DRIFT:
LOAD
CASE

ALLOWABL
E

ACTUAL GLOBAL DRIFT

FOR
STRUCTUR
E GRID 1GRID 6

Wind along
X-Direction

Wind along
Y-Direction

Earthquak
e along XDirection

FOR
STRUCTUR
E GRID 6GRID 11

ACTUAL INTER-STOREY
DRIFT
FOR
STRUCTUR
E GRID 1GRID 6

FOR
STRUCTUR
E GRID 6GRID 11

H/400-H/500
(Global
Deflection)

0.84 in
(H/864)

0.73 in
(H/992)

H/400-H/500
(Global
Deflection)

0.45 in
(H/1613)

1.13 in
(H/642)

0.00211

.00486

/h.00375
(Inter-storey
drift)

Design Review

Page 15

REMARKS

Both
structure
deflects
satisfactoril
y against
wind action.
Both
structure
deflects
satisfactoril
y against
wind action.
Structure
from Grid 1
to Grid 6 is
showing
satisfactory
drift for
earthquake
but
structure
from Grid 6
to Grid 11
has a drift
much more
than
allowable.
Hence
structure
from Grid 6
to Grid 11 is

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

Earthquak
e along YDirection

/h.00375
(Inter-storey
drift)

.00188

.00413

4.4 STRENGTH REVIEW:

4.4.1 COLUMN:
C1:
DESIGN LOAD

DESIGN SECTION
Design Review

Axial load
Moment about X-axis
Moment about Y-axis

REVIEWED SECTION
Page 16

841 kip
121 k-ft
440 k-ft

REMARKS

vulnerable
against
earthquake.
Structure
from Grid 1
to Grid 6 is
showing
satisfactory
drift for
earthquake
but
structure
from Grid 6
to Grid 11
has a drift
much more
than
allowable.
Hence
structure
from Grid 6
to Grid 11 is
vulnerable
against
earthquake.

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

C1 24x24 in dimension C1 24x24 in dimension Designed section is under
with 20 20 mm rebars.
with 26 20 mm rebars.
reinforced.
C2:
DESIGN LOAD

Axial load
Moment about X-axis
Moment about Y-axis

839 kip
133 k-ft
466 k-ft

DESIGN SECTION
REVIEWED SECTION
REMARKS
C2 18x24 in dimension C2 24x24 in dimension Design section is
with 16 20 mm rebars.
with 28 20 mm rebars.
overstressed.
C3:
DESIGN LOAD

Axial load
Moment about X-axis
Moment about Y-axis

906 kip
100 k-ft
51 k-ft

DESIGN SECTION
REVIEWED SECTION
REMARKS
C3 15x24 in dimension C3 15x24 in dimension Designed section is under
with 12 20 mm rebars.
with 18 20 mm rebars.
reinforced.

C4:
DESIGN LOAD

Axial load
Moment about X-axis
Moment about Y-axis

258 kip
237 k-ft
21 k-ft

DESIGN SECTION
REVIEWED SECTION
REMARKS
C4 12x24 in dimension C4 12x24 in dimension Structural Designer
with 14 20 mm rebars.
with 12 20 mm rebars.
Provided 2.12% rebar. OK.
C5:
DESIGN LOAD

Design Review

Axial load
Moment about X-axis
Moment about Y-axis
Page 17

237 kip
27 k-ft
27 k-ft

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

DESIGN SECTION
C5 24 dia in dimension
with 20 20 mm rebars.

REVIEWED SECTION
REMARKS
C5 24 in dimension with 12 Structural Designer
20 mm rebars.
Provided 2.00% rebar. OK.

C6:
DESIGN LOAD

DESIGN SECTION
C5 10X15 dia in
dimension with 8 16 mm
rebars.

Design Review

Axial load
Moment about X-axis
Moment about Y-axis

115 kip
96 k-ft
25 k-ft

REVIEWED SECTION
REMARKS
C6 10X15 in dimension Section is OK.
with 8 16 mm rebars.

Page 18

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

4.4.2 SHEAR WALL

1. Shear wall requires 3.47% rebar for Flexure which results in

overstress in shear and flexure. Maximum allowable flexure
rebar ratio is 2.5%.
2. Wall is overstressed in shear.
SHEAR
WALL
SW1(12
X74)

Design Review

REBAR PROVIDED
For Flexure :28-20mm
( 20mm @ 6 C/C)
No info about shear
reinforcement.

Page 19

REVIEWED
REBAR

REMARKS

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

4.4.3 SLAB :
As we stated earlier that the thickness of the slab is not as per BNBC. So we can
assume the slab is under designed. But we check the provided rebar to check whether it
is properly detailed or not.

FIGURE 4.4.3.1 Manual calculation of slab panel of Grid 7 Grid 6.(Panel under
consideration represents the worst case scenario)
From calculation we see As min= 0.11 in2/ft. (10 mm @ 12C/C)
As +ve= 0.40 in2/ft. (12 mm @ 6C/C)
As -ve= 0.70 in2/ft. (12 mm @ 8C/C+ 16 mm @ 8 C/C).
The slab is under reinforced.

Design Review

Page 20

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

Flat slab calculation is done by the FEM software SAFE 2014. And provide below

FIGURE 4.4.3.2 Flat slab rebar (BOTTOM).

Design Review

Page 21

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

FIGURE 4.4.3.2 Flat slab rebar (TOP).

As producing rebar detail of flat slab takes time its rebar detail is not provided in the
ANNEX-D. But the slab under designed on Grid B, Grid F and Grid 2 strip as shown in
figure below.

Design Review

Page 22

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

FIGURE 4.4.3.3 Flat slab rebar requirements Different Strip.

4.4.4 BEAM:
As the structural drawing do not have any beam nomenclature we adopted following
layout to review the beam design.

Design Review

Page 23

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

FIGURE 4.4.4.1 Beam Layout Plan

Please find the design section comparison in the tabular format in the next page. And
we only drew the section of the critical span.

BEAM ID

Design Review

DESIGN SECTION

REVIEWED SECTION

Page 24

REMARKS

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

Section is under
designed for
earthquake load.

B1

Section is under
designed for
earthquake load. And
section is inadequate
for shear combined
shear and torsion
stress.
For flexure the section
is overdesigned to
100%. And shear rebar
is inadequate.

B2

B3

Section is under
designed for
earthquake load. And
section is inadequate
for shear combined
shear and torsion
stress.
Section is under
designed for wind load.
And shear rebar is
inadequate for shear
combined shear and
torsion stress.
Section is designed
properly. But the shear
rebar is inadequate for
combined shear and
torsion stress.

B4

B5

B6

Design Review

Page 25

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

B8

The section designed is

adequate for flexure.
But fails in combined
shear and torsional
stress. Either increase
of the width of the
section or moment
redistribution to the slab
will solve the issue.
Section is adequate for
flexure. But the shear
rebar is inadequate.

B9

Section is adequate for

flexure. But the shear
rebar is inadequate.

B7

4.4.5 FOUNDATION:
Due to the insufficient Geotechnical Data we cannot review the foundation. At least one
of the following is necessary:
1) Pile Capacity.
2) Soil Properties of the site.
Hence we prepared a Excel Spreadsheet to evaluate the foundation type. Please be
note the Excel Spreadsheet provided under no circumstances be used for commercial
purpose without the consent of the engineer programmed it.
In Excel Spreadsheet please input the pile capacity in the prescribed cell it will
automatically evaluate whether the foundation is overstressed or not.

Design Review

Page 26

DESIGN REVIEW OF A 4 STORIED INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

Design Review

Page 27