REPORT ON PROPOSED

49-53 ALMA ROAD SW8

This page is intentionally left blank
 Declaration
This report is a Corrective Action Plan report for structural safety made for 49-53 ALMA
ROAD SW8. This assessment has been done based on data and results following mainly ACI
and BS code.

All rights reserved. This report and all other documents related to this project are
confidential and may contain information that is privileged or otherwise protected from
disclosure and are only for the intended recipient.
This page is intentionally left blank.
 INDEX

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE BUILDING

3. MATERIAL STRENGTH

4. METHOD OF ANALYSIS

5. ADEQUACY CHECK FOR PROPOSED MASONRY WALL

6. ADEQUACY CHECK FOR FOUNDATION

This page is intentionally left blank.
 Executive Summary

The main purpose of this analysis is to determine, whether the building, in its current
condition, has sufficient capacity to support the anticipated vertical and lateral loads. The
existing building is three (03) storied with a basement. It has RCC retaining wall up to
ground level and from ground floor to roof Masonry load bearing wall. However, the
building has no sufficient lateral (i.e. seismic & wind) load bearing system, especially
along short direction.

Few observations are stated as follows:

A. Serviceability: Deflection is within allowable limit in vertical direction. The building

has not proper lateral stability providing element.

B. Structural Member: This building is Load Bearing Wall structure. In the building
RCC retaining wall and Masonry wall are responsible for resisting both lateral and
vertical load.

Adequacy Summery

1. RCC retaining wall: Demand Capacity Ratio for RCC retaining wall is within allowable
limit.
2. Masonry wall: Demand Capacity Ratio of stress due to vertical load (i.e. dead + live
load) for Masonry wall is within allowable limit.

3. Slab: Provided thickness slab is adequate resist code prescribed vertical load.

4. Foundations: Foundation below the proposed part supported by Strip Footing which is
adequate for existing condition However, for proposed condition the Factor of
safety becomes below 03 (2.78).
Recommendation:

Reviewing available field data and structural analysis result, we recommended as

following:

1. Proposed extension is possible considering vertical load (Dead load+ Live Load).

2. Proposed Structural Drawing for the proposed extension has been provided.
 General Overview of the Building

Table 1: Basic information of the building

Information Description
Structural System Load Bearing Wall
Number of Stories 03 with a basement floor
Construction Year 2000
Foundation Type Strip Footing
RCC for retaining wall & masonry load
Construction Materials
bearing wall
Design Drawing As built Architectural drawings is available.
This page is intentionally left blank.
Material Strength
This page is intentionally left blank
As, no test of material is done for the present condition of the building, so minimum strength
has been considered as per ACI 562.

Input Parameters:

Existing Materials Strength

1 Yield Strength of steel fy 275 Mpa

2 Strength of RCC wall fc 14 Mpa
3 Strength of Masonry fm 5 Mpa
4 Youngs Modulas of Concrete Ec 16993.85 Mpa

Proposed Materials Strength

1 Yield Strength of steel fy 415 Mpa

2 Strength of Masonry(Brick/Block) fm 20 Mpa
4 Minimum Strength of Mortar fm 5 Mpa
Acceptance Criteria for the Evaluation of Linear Analysis:

01. Code and Practice:

For the present project, Guidelines of BS and ACI code have been used for analysis.

Load Definition and Input Parameters:

Prior to structural analysis it is essential that the loads that may act upon the building during
its lifetime be duly considered and incorporated in the analysis. The loads that may act upon
the structure are as follows:

(i). Dead Loads (D):

Dead loads (D) are those gravity load 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 following types,
namely

A) Self-weight of the structure (SW)

B) Weight coming from floor finish (FF).

C) Weight coming from partition wall above beam (BM WALL).

D) Weight coming from partition wall above slab (SLAB WALL).

For the analysis and evaluation of the building, following are the values of unit weight
considered to obtain the self-weight.

Unit weight of reinforced concrete = 150 pcf

Unit weight of brickwork = 120 pcf

Floor finish = 20 psf

(ii). Live load (L):

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 BS code. Following are
the live load values used in the analysis.

Table 2.1: Typical Loading of Building considered for analysis

Type of Code Specified Load (QC) in KN/m2 for residential building.

Floor
Loading
1st floor Live Load 1.5
2nd floor Live Load 1.5
rd
3 floor Live Load 1.5
Roof Live Load 0.75

03. 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 evaluation of the building, powerful finite element based structural design
software package ETABS has been employed for analysis. Some aspects of the analysis process
are discussed in the following paragraphs.

A full three-dimensional modeling of the structure has been developed using frame and
plate/shell elements. The frame elements are typical two-nodded frame elements in space
having six degrees of freedom per node three translations and three rotations in three
mutually perpendicular axes system. The plate/shell elements are of rectangular (or
quadrilateral) and triangular shape. The quadrilateral element has four nodes at its four
corners. Each node has six degrees of freedom three translations and three rotations in a 3D
space configuration. The frame elements are used to model the columns while the plate/shell
elements are used to model the ribs and the roof shell etc. At base level, the columns are
assumed to be held fixed.

Load Combination:

As per BS code, for vertical load consideration.

1.4 DL + 1.6 LL
 Method of Analysis
Method of Analysis: Nonlinear Static Analysis.

Applied Load, Analysis Results and Discussion

A nonlinear Static analysis is performed using the loadings and combinations of loads mentioned
earlier for constructed portion of the building.

Fig: 3-D view in ETABS (Existing Condition)

Fig: 3-D view in ETABS(Proposed Condition)
Adequacy Check for Proposed Masonry wall

Fig: Proposed Wall(Blue Color)

 Fig: Stress distribution on Proposed Wall

Lebel Length Height Developed DCR Remarks

L(m) h (m) Thickness Stress z Allowable
t (mm) (Mpa) Fa (Mpa)
W1 4.912 5.5 210 0.55 0.76 0.73 OK
W2 0.817 5.5 210 0.60 0.76 0.79 OK
W3 1.037 5.5 210 0.54 0.76 0.71 OK
W4 2.096 5.5 210 0.56 0.76 0.74 OK
 Adequacy Check for Foundation

Data from initial Report:

=20 KN/m3 Cu=0-5 KN/m2

Cu=50 KN/m2 =
22
=
0 Ka=.45

ULTIMATE BEARING CAPCITY

Wate
Unit
B Df r qult
Footing weight, q Nq sq dq N s d Rw1 Rw2
(m) (m) (deg)
(kN/m3)
level (kn/m2)
(m)

F 1.2 2 22 20 0 20.4 7.821 1 1.2 4.0662 1 1.2 0.5 0.5 114.8921

Check for factor of safety(Existing Condition)

Total (WSD) Area of the Developed Ultimate Bearing Factor of

Remark
Load(KN) Footing (m2) Stress(KN/m2) Capacity(KN/m2) safety

340 11.5 29.56521739 114 3.86 Safe

Check for factor of safety(Proposed Condition)

Total Area of the Ultimate

Developed Factor of
(WSD) Footing Bearing Remark
Stress(KN/m2) safety
Load(KN) (m2) Capacity(KN/m2)

500 12 41.66666667 115.6869114 2.78 Should be above( 3)

This page is intentionally left blank