Jaw-and-jco-line

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT ON PROPOSED JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING OF CHANDILAL GUN SINGHADURBAR, KATHMANDU

FEBRUARY, 2020 Client: Consultant: Nepal Government BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Ministry of Physical Infrastructure and Development Department of Urban Development and Building Pulchowk, Lalitpur Construction(DUDBC) Special Building Construction Project Coordination Office Babarmahal, Kathmandu

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................2 1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................2 1.2 Structural Analysis............................................................................................................2 1.3 Structural Modeling.........................................................................................................3 2.0 STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR THE BUILDING...........................................................4 3.0

GENERAL DATA FOR STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS.......................................................4

3.1 Grade of Concrete.............................................................................................................4 3.2 Reinforcement Steel..........................................................................................................4 3.3 Cover to Reinforcements..................................................................................................5 3.4 Reference Codes...............................................................................................................5 3.5 General Building Information................................................................................................5 4.0 LOAD CALCULATIONS....................................................................................................6 4.1 Gravity Loads....................................................................................................................6 4.2 Live Loads.........................................................................................................................6 4.3 Dead Load.........................................................................................................................6 4.4 Seismic Load.....................................................................................................................8 4.5 Wind Loads.....................................................................................................................19 4.6 Soft Storey.......................................................................................................................19 5.0 LOAD COMBINATIONS..................................................................................................20 6.0

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN PROCEDURE......................................................................20

6.1 Structure Idealization...........................................................................................................21 7.0 MODELING IN ETABS 2016...........................................................................................22 8.0

DEFLECTION AND STOREY DRIFT.............................................................................28

9.0

MODAL PARTICIPATING MASS RATIOS...................................................................36

10.0

DESIGN OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS......................................................................37

10.1 Design of Column...........................................................................................................37 10.2 Design of Beam...............................................................................................................40 10.3 Design of Slab.................................................................................................................43 10.4 Design of Staircase..........................................................................................................46 10.5 Design of Shear wall.......................................................................................................50 10.6 Design of Footing............................................................................................................52 11.0 STRONG COLUMN WEAK BEAM CHECK..................................................................53 ANNEX.........................................................................................................................................56

1|Page

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

1.0 1.1

INTRODUCTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report has been prepared as a part of the structural engineering analysis and design of Institutional Building to be built in Sighandurbar Premises as partial requirement of application for permission to construct the building. This Report describes in brief the Structural Aspects and Design Report of the proposed building. The analysis and design have been carried out using finite element software ETABS 2016 and foundation has been designed from SAFE 2016. These software provide the Structural Engineer with all the tools necessary to create, modify, analyze, design, and optimize the structural elements in a building model. The structure design is intended to be based primarily on the current National Building Code of Practice of Nepal taking account of relevant Indian Codes for the provisions not covered in this.

1.2

Structural Analysis

Intuitional buildings should fulfill the structural standards. Primary objective of the Structural Analysis of proposed “JAW and JCO Line Building” is to analyze the proposed building in seismic perspective primarily on the current National Building Code of Practice of Nepal (NBC 105:2020). This report has been prepared as a part of the structural engineering analysis and design of accommodation Block of JAW and JCO Line. Three blocks have been proposed separated by expansion joints. This report describes in brief the Structural Aspects and Design Report of the proposed blocks.

2|Page

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

1.3

Structural Modeling

A three-dimensional mathematical model of the physical structure should be used that represents the spatial distribution of the mass and stiffness of the structure to an extent that is adequate for the calculation of the significant features of its dynamic response. Thus, the essential requirements of the model is that, it should include the sufficient detail in geometry, support, material, members, loading, strength, rigidity, stability etc. such that it reflects the real and true prototype of a physical structure. In modeling, for the vertical loading system, the deflection on the column in axial direction is so minimal that we can neglect it. It is because of high rigidity of column in axial direction whereas in horizontal loading system, the in-plane stiffness of floor is assumed to be very high compared to the stiffness of other frame members in that plane. It is because of the presence of the slab. Since, the slab has very high in-plane rigidity, the member like column, wall and braces connected to that plane are assumed to move as a single unit in the lateral direction. This system is known as rigid floor diaphragm in which beam is monolithically connected with slab providing negligible bending in the vertical plane. For the modeling of this building, ETABS 2016 software was used. ETABS 2016 is a sophisticated, yet easy to use, special purpose analysis and design program developed specifically for building systems. ETABS 2016 features an intuitive and powerful graphical interface coupled with unmatched modeling, analytical, design, detailing procedure, powerful numerical methods and many international design codes all integrated using a common database. Although quick and easy for simple structures, ETABS 2016 can also handle the largest and most complex building models, including the wide range of nonlinear behaviors, making it the tool of choice for structural engineers in the building industry.

3|Page

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

2.0

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR THE BUILDING

The structural system chosen is Building with ductile RC structural walls with RC SMRFs (Dual System). Columns and beams have been laid out in plan in coordination with architectural and services planning that acts jointly support and transmit to the ground those forces arising from earthquake motions, gravity and live load. Its role becomes increasingly important with the increase in building height. Thus, the vital criteria for structural systems are an adequate reserve of strength against failure, adequate lateral stiffness, and an efficient performance during the service life of the building. The determination of the structural forms of a building involves the selection and arrangement of the major structural elements to resist most efficiently the various combinations of gravity and horizontal loadings. The choice of structural form is strongly influenced by the internal planning, the material and method of construction, the external architectural treatment, the location and routing of service systems, the nature and magnitude of the horizontal loading, and the height and proportion of the building.

3.0

GENERAL DATA FOR STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Grade of Concrete and Cover to the Reinforcement is provided according to the provisions of the Indian Code. The appropriate grade of concrete and nominal cover to reinforcement is governed by the following main considerations: i) Durability of Concrete incl. Fire resistance rating ii) Corrosion Protection of the Reinforcement iii) Bar Size iv) Nominal maximum aggregate size

3.1

Grade of Concrete

The Indian Code IS: 456-2000, permits a minimum grade of concrete for reinforced concrete members as M20 and the following concrete grades shall be used for “normal” conditions: Foundation: M25 Column: M30 Beam: M30 Slab: M30 Shear Wall: M30

3.2

Reinforcement Steel

All reinforcing steel to be used in the structural elements shall have a yield stress of 500 MPa, (Thermo-Mechanically Treated bars), conforming to IS: 1786-1985.

4|Page

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

3.3

Cover to Reinforcements Clear cover to the main reinforcement in the various structural elements shall be as follows: a) b) c) e)

3.4

Footings (Bottom): Footings (Top and Sides): Columns: Beams: Slabs:

50 mm 50 mm 40 mm 25 mm or bar diameter whichever is greater 20 mm or bar diameter whichever is greater

Reference Codes

Many international standard codes of practices were adopted for the creation of mathematical model, its analysis and design. As per the requirements, National Building Code was used for the load combination in order to check for the worse case during analysis. Some of the codes used are enlisted below:  IS 875:1998 (Part I) Code of Practice for Design Loads (Part I: Dead Loads)  IS 875:1998 (Part II) Code of Practice for Design Loads (Part II: Imposed Loads)  IS 456:2000 Plain and reinforced concrete Design Code of Practice  IS 13920:2016 Ductile Detailing of Criteria Reinforced Concrete Structures subjected to Seismic Force  IS 1893:2016 Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Construction of Buildings  SP 16: Design Aids for Reinforced Concrete  NBC 105:2020 Nepal National Building code – Seismic Design of Building in Nepal

3.5 General Building Information

Fig 1: General Layout of the Building 5|Page

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

4.0

LOAD CALCULATIONS

4.1

Gravity Loads

Gravity loading is primarily due to the self-weight of the structure, superimposed dead load and occupancy of the building. Following loads have been considered for the analysis and design of the building based on the relevant Indian Standards.

4.2

Live Loads

The Live Load for building has been adopted as given IS 875 - Part II Section I Loads for residential buildings. The following value has been adopted: For Bedrooms: 2 kN/m2 For Toilet/Bathrooms: 2 kN/m2 For corridors, passages, halls stair: 4 kN/m 2 For terrace (accessible): 1.5 kN/m2 For terrace (inaccessible): 0.75 kN/m2

4.3

Dead Load

The Dead Load for building has been taken as following: The Dead load on the frame is calculated floor wise and it comprises of Beams, Slabs, Stairs, Foundation, Partition wall, Floor finishes etc. Density of Materials assumed: Concrete: 25 kN/m3 Brick Masonry: 19.2 kN/m3   Maximum Finishing Load Consideration Floor Finish 1.5 kN/m2

IS 875:Part I IS 875:Part I

 

6|Page

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Wall Loads: Thickness of Wall

Wall Height

Beam Depth

Opening Percentage

Wall Load

(mm)

(m)

(mm)

(%)

1

230

3.3

650

0

2

230

3.3

650

30

3

230

3.3

0

0

4

230

3.3

450

0

5 7 8 9 10

230 125 125 125 125

3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 1

450 650 650 0 0

30 0 30 0 0

(kN/m) 11.702 4 8.1916 8 14.572 8 12.585 6 8.8099 2 6.36 4.452 7.92 2.4

S.No.

Wall Load for ETABS (kN/m) 11.8 8.2 14.6 12.6 8.9 6.4 4.5 8 2.5

7|Page

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

4.4

Seismic Load

4.4.1 Equivalent Static Method (ESM) Clause 3.2.1 of NBC 105:2020 contains provisions for Static analysis using equivalent lateral force procedure. Equivalent Static Method may be used for all serviceability limit state (SLS) calculations regardless of building characteristics. For ultimate limit state (ULS), the Equivalent Static Method may be used when at least one of the following criteria is satisfied: i) The height of the structure is less than or equal to 15m. ii) The natural time period of the structure is less than 0.5 secs. iii) The structure is not categorized as irregular as per 5.5 and the height is less than 40m.

Fig 2: Spectral Shape Factor, Ch(T) for Equivalent Static Method (Figure 4-1 from NBC 105:2020)

HORIZONTAL BASE SHEAR COEFFICIENT 4.4.1.1 Ultimate Limit State For the ultimate limit state, the horizontal base shear coefficient (design coefficient), Cd (T1), shall be given by: Cd (𝑇1) = C (𝑇1) / (Rµ x Ωu) Where, C (T1) = Elastic Site Spectra as per 4.1.1 Rµ = Ductility Factor as per 5.3 𝛀u = Over strength Factor for ULS as per 5.4

8|Page

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

4.4.1.2 Serviceability Limit State For the serviceability limit state, the horizontal base shear coefficient (design coefficient), Cd (T1), shall be given by: Cd (𝑇1) = Cs (𝑇1) / (Ωs) Where, Cs (T1) = Elastic Site Spectra determined for Serviceability Limit State as per 4.2 𝛀s = Over strength Factor for SLS as per 5.4 Calculation of Horizontal Base Shear Coefficient for MRF: Height Of The Building (H) = 22.05 mete   r For Moment Resisting Concrete Frame, Value of Kt = 0.075     Appropriate Fundamental period of vibration, T1 = kt H3/4 0.76316370 Sec   7 Amplification of appropriate Fundamental period of 0.95395463 Sec   Vibration , T =1.25*T1 3 Hence,       Time Period Of Building (T) = 0.95395463 Sec   3 Soil Type = D   Kathmandu Ta 0.5     Tc 2     α 2.25     k 0.8             Spectral Shape Factor Ch(T)       Ta <= T <= Tc

2.25

 

 

Seismic Zoning factor (Z) =

0.35

 

 

Importance Class

II

 

 

Importance Factor (I) =   Elastic Site Spectra C (T) =

1.25   0.984375

     

    Clause 4.1.1

    Elastic Site Spectra For Serviceability limit state C S (T) =

    0.196875

     

    Clause 4.1.2

   

   

   

    9|Page

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Calculation of Horizontal Base Shear Coefficient   Type of Structural System = Moment resisting Frame   Elastic Site Spectra as per 4.1.1 C(T1) = 0.984375 Elastic Site Spectra for serviceability limit state as per 4.1.2 0.196875 Cs (T1) = Ductility Factor As Per 5.3, Rµ = 4 Over Strength Factor for ULS as per 5.4, Ωu = 1.5 Over Strength Factor for SLS as per 5.4, Ωs = 1.25 For The Ultimate Limit State     0.1640625         For the Serviceability limit State     0.1575 Calculation of Horizontal Base Shear Coefficient for Dual System: Height Of The Building (H) = 22.05

       

       

                 

                 

mete r

Value of Kt for other systems=

0.05

Appropriate Fundamental period of vibration, T1

0.50877580 5

Sec

Amplification of appropriate Fundamental period of Vibration , T =1.25*T1

0.63596975 6

Sec

Hence,

 

 

 

Time Period Of Building (T) =

0.63596975 6

Sec

 

Soil Type =

D

 

Kathmandu

Ta

0.5

 

 

Tc

2

 

 

α

2.25

 

 

k

0.8

 

 

 

 

 

  10 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Spectral Shape Factor Ch(T)

 

 

 

Ta <= T <= Tc

2.25

 

 

Seismic Zoning factor (Z) =

0.35

 

 

Importance Class

II

 

 

Importance Factor (I) =

1.25

 

 

 

 

 

 

Elastic Site Spectra C (T) =

0.984375

 

Clause 4.1.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Elastic Site Spectra For Serviceability limit state C S (T) =

0.196875

 

Clause 4.1.2

 

 

 

 

Calculation of Horizontal Base Shear Coefficient

 

 

 

Type of Structural System = Moment resisting Frame

 

 

 

Elastic Site Spectra as per 4.1.1 C(T1) =

0.984375

 

 

Elastic Site Spectra for serviceability limit state as per 4.1.2 Cs (T1) =

0.196875

 

 

Ductility Factor As Per 5.3, Rµ =

3.5

 

 

Over Strength Factor for ULS as per 5.4, Ωu =

1.4

 

 

Over Strength Factor for SLS as per 5.4, Ωs =

1.2

 

 

For The Ultimate Limit State

 

 

 

 

0.20

 

 

For the Serviceability limit State

 

 

 

 

0.1640625

 

 

11 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

NOTE: For Portico block, T1 < 0.5 seconds, hence K = 1 And, Ta
Where, di = elastic horizontal displacement of center of mass at level i, ignoring the effects of torsion. Fi = lateral force acting at level i g = acceleration due to gravity i = level under consideration n = number of levels in the structure Wi = seismic weight at level i ii) Empirical Equations The approximate fundamental period of vibration, T1, in seconds is determined from following empirical equation: T1 = kt H 0.75 Where, kt = 0.075 for Moment resisting concrete frame = 0.085 for Moment resisting structural steel frame = 0.075 for eccentrically braced structural steel frame = 0.05 for all other structural systems Where, H = Height of the building from foundation or from top of a rigid basement. 12 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Amplification of Approximate Period: The approximate fundamental time period calculated using empirical equation in section 5.1.2 shall be increased by a factor of 1.25. Calculation of Period of Vibration for Left wing (ULSX): Floor Floor Force Deflectio weight Wi*di2 Level (kN) n (m) (kN) 7

146.2103

69.6867

0.046852

6

597.7884

379.193

0.046211

2750.744 5 3896.232 6 4299.836 9 4301.251 7 4303.575 8

1945.50 9 2053.74 8 1374.36 3 839.406 8 360.058 2

5 4 3 2 1

0.045002 0.039086 0.030042 0.018665 0.006977

Fi*di

0.320948

3.264961

1.276551

17.52289

5.570753

87.55181

5.952335

80.27279

3.880696

41.28861

1.49848

15.66753

0.209492 ∑ = 18.70925

2.512126 ∑ = 248.0807

Hence, T1 = 0.550905481 Calculation of Period of Vibration for Left wing (ULSY): Floor Floor Force Deflectio weight Wi*di2 Level (kN) n (m) (kN) 7 146.2103 69.6867 0.04986 0.363482 6

597.7884

5

2750.745 1945.509

4

3896.233 2053.748

3 2 1

379.193

0.048867 0.045961

0.038407 4299.837 1374.363 0.027761 4301.252 839.4068 0.016171 4303.576 360.0582 0.005569

Fi*di 3.474579

1.427509 5.81071

18.53002 89.41756

5.747324 3.313769 1.124783 0.13347 ∑ = 17.92105

78.8783 38.15369 13.57405 2.005164 ∑ = 244.0334

Hence, T1 = 0.543628777

13 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Calculation of Period of Vibration for Left wing (SLSX): Floor Floor Force Deflectio weight Wi*di2 Level (kN) n (m) (kN) 146.210 7 57.1431 0.038419 3 0.215809 597.788 310.938 6 0.037893 4 3 0.858352 2750.74 1595.31 5 0.036902 5 8 3.745847 3896.23 1684.07 4 0.032051 3 3 4.00247 4299.83 1126.97 3 0.024635 7 8 2.609499 4301.25 688.313 2 0.015305 2 5 1.007538 4303.57 295.247 1 0.005721 6 7 0.140855 ∑ =12.58037 Hence, T1 = 0.550908414 Calculation of Period of Vibration for Left wing (SLSY): Floor Floor Force Deflectio weight Wi*di2 Level (kN) n (m) (kN) 146.210 7 57.1431 0.040885 3 0.244403 597.788 310.938 6 0.040561 4 3 0.983478 2750.74 1595.31 5 0.037688 5 8 3.907117 3896.23 1684.07 4 0.031494 3 3 3.864564 4299.83 1126.97 3 0.022764 7 8 2.228174 4301.25 688.313 2 0.01326 2 5 0.756279 4303.57 295.247 1 0.004567 6 7 0.089762

Fi*di

2.195381 11.78239 58.87041 53.97624 27.76309 10.53464 1.689112 ∑ =166.8113

Fi*di

2.336296 12.61197 60.12433 53.03821 25.65452 9.127037 1.348396 14 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

∑ = 12.07378

∑ = 164.2408

Hence, T1 = 0.543909289

15 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Summary of Time period and Building Height Exponent (K) for Left wing:

SN

LOAD CASE

1 2 3 4

ULS X ULS X SLS X SLS Y

TIME TIME TIME PERIOD PERIOD PERIOD FROM FROM FOR RAYLEIGH EMPERICAL ANALYSIS 0.550905481 0.9539546 0.550905481 0.543628777 0.9539546 0.543628777 0.550908414 0.9539546 0.550908414 0.543909289 0.9539546 0.543909289

Calculation of Period of Vibration for Right wing (ULSX): Floor Floor Force Deflectio weight Wi*di2 Level (kN) n (m) (kN) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

274.712 102.8847 1085.576 1 2202.391 4 3587.474 5 2321.841 8 3834.152 4 3776.429 3

0.02918

571.4004

0.02875

1123.076

0.02612

1237.65

0.02234

592.9539

0.01706

522.6698

0.01082

221.7879

0.00426

      Hence, T1 = 0.4927085

 

K 1.025453 1.021814 1.025454 1.021955

Fi*di

0.23396

3.00248

0.89698

16.4249

1.50305

29.3392

1.79106

27.6541

0.67584

10.1164

0.44912

5.65686

0.06844 ∑ = 5.61845

0.94415 ∑ = 93.1381

Calculation of Period of Vibration for Right wing (ULSY): Floor Floor Force Deflectio weight Wi*di2 Level (kN) n (m) (kN) 7 274.712 102.8847 0.03311 0.30107 6 1085.576 571.4004 0.03292 1.17625 5 2202.391 1123.076 0.03145 2.17798 4 3587.475 1237.65 0.02671 2.56016 3 2321.842 592.9539 0.02007 0.93506

Fi*di 3.406 18.8088 35.3174 33.0626 11.8994 16 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

2 3834.152 522.6698 0.01203 0.55479 6.2872 1 3776.429 221.7879 0.00436 0.07169 0.96633         ∑ =7.777 ∑ =109.748 Hence, T1 = 0.530415 Calculation of Period of Vibration for Right wing (SLSX): Floor Floor Force Deflectio weight Wi*di2 Fi*di Level (kN) n (m) (kN) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

274.712

98.8069

1085.57 6 2202.39 1 3587.47 5 2321.84 2 3834.15 2 3776.42 9

548.753 4 1078.56 4 1188.59 7 569.452 7 501.954 3 212.997 5

      Hence, T1 = 0.491539

0.02783 0.02738 0.02498 0.02138 0.01632 0.01035 0.00408  

0.21271

2.7494

0.8137

15.0238

1.37374

26.9371

1.64

25.4134

0.6184

9.29347

0.4108

5.19573

0.06274 ∑ =5.1321

0.86818 ∑ =85.4811

Calculation of Period of Vibration for Right wing (SLSY): Floor Floor Force Deflection weight Wi*di2 Level (kN) (m) (kN) 7

274.712

98.8069

0.031793

6 5 4 3 2 1

1085.576 2202.391 3587.475 2321.842 3834.152 3776.429

548.7534 1078.564 1188.597 569.4527 501.9543 212.9975

0.031612 0.030201 0.025655 0.019273 0.011552 0.004184

0.277677 1.084836 2.008802 2.3612 0.862445 0.511663 0.06611 ∑ =7.172733

Fi*di

3.141368 17.34719 32.5737 30.49346 10.97506 5.798576 0.891182 ∑ =101.2205

Hence, T1 = 0.534015

17 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Summary of Time period and Building Height Exponent (K) for Right wing:

SN

LOAD CASE

TIME TIME PERIOD PERIOD FROM FROM RAYLEIGH EMPERICAL

TIME PERIOD FOR ANALYSIS

K

1 2 3 4

ULS X ULS X SLS X SLS Y

0.492708493 0.53401525 0.491538982 0.53401491

0.492708493 0.53401525 0.491538982 0.53401491

1 1.017008 1 1.017007

0.9539546 0.9539546 0.9539546 0.9539546

4.4.2 Modal Response Spectrum Method (MRSM): Response Spectrum method was chosen for the dynamic analysis of the building as per NBC 105:2020, Clause no. 3.2.2. The method may be used for all types of structures and the structures where Equivalent Static Method is not applicable. A three dimensional analysis shall be performed for torsionally sensitive structures.

18 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Fig 3: Spectral Shape Factor, Ch(T) for Modal Response Spectrum Method (Figure 4-2 from NBC 105:2020) Here, left wing and right wing are chosen for this approach The scale factors used are as: Block

Scale Factor in X direction

Scale Factor in Y direction

LEFT WING (ULS) RIGHT WING (ULS) LEFT WING (ULS) RIGHT WING (ULS)

3.84353 2.59439 3.15169 2.49157

3.42286 2.84242 2.80674 2.72977

Comparison of Base shears from Static analysis and Dynamic analysis: Block LEFT WING (ULS) RIGHT WING (ULS)

Base Shear from Static Analysis(kN) X direction Y direction

Base Shear from Dynamic Analysis(kN) X direction Y direction

7033.1079

7033.1079

7033.1125

7033.1241

4372.4229

4372.4229

4372.4184

4372.4156 19 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

LEFT WING (ULS) RIGHT WING (ULS)

5767.1485

5767.4185

5767.1438

5767.1511

4199.256

4199.1256

4199.1322

4199.1293

20 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

4.5

Wind Loads Wind and seismic loads shall not be taken to act simultaneously. As seismic load is expected to govern wind load has not been considered in design.

4.6

Soft Storey A soft storey can be detected by comparing the stiffness of adjacent storeys. Soft storeys are present in buildings with open fronts on the ground floor or tall storeys.

Fig 4: Open Ground Storey and Bare Frame

There is no soft storey in the proposed building since no storey level has change in mass and stiffness in considerate amount.

21 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

5.0

LOAD COMBINATIONS

The load combination has been taken as per Nepal National Building code. The load combinations used in ETABS analysis are listed below. Load Combinations for NBC 105:2020 Load factor to be used in combination

Load Combo No. DL+0.3LLo+EQX DL+0.3LLo-EQX DL+0.3LLo+EQY DL+0.3LLo-EQY DL+0.6LLs+EQX DL+0.6LLs-EQX DL+0.6LLS+EQY DL+0.6LLo-EQY 1.2DL+1.5LL DL+LL

6.0

DL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.2 1

LIVE STORAGE 0 0 0 0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.5 1

LIVE OTHER 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 0 1.5 1

EQX 1 -1 0 0 1 -1 0 0 0 0

EQY 0 0 1 -1 0 0 1 -1 0 0

ANALYSIS AND DESIGN PROCEDURE

Space frame analysis using ETABS 2016 software has been undertaken to obtain refined results for all load combinations in accordance with Nepal Building Code. The RCC design shall be based on Nepal building code in reference to IS: 456-2000 Code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete, following Limit state philosophy. Structural design for typical members has been done for the combination of loads that produces maximum stress in the structural elements, and in turn requires maximum reinforcing steel provisions. The design of Columns and Beams is done directly using ETABS 2016 design software. The design of Slab and footings are done by Worksheets in Excel. The size of columns and beams are provided as per requirement.

22 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

6.1 Structure Idealization General Information on Structural Elements of the Building

Element

Description

Grade of Concrete

Column

600 mm X 700 mm

M30

Main Beam

650 mm X 400 mm

M30

Secondary Beam

450 mm X 300 mm

M30

Floor Slab

150 mm

M30

Roof Slab

125 mm

M30

Remarks          

   

From Soil Test Report, Bearing Capacity of Soil=110 KN/m2 3-Dimensional structural analysis will be carried out using structural analysis and design software ETABS. The whole structure will be idealized as a space frame. Slabs, Beams, Walls and Columns in the structure will be modeled as line/shell/membrane elements as applicable. Stiffness of members is modeled considering the effect of cracked sections. As per IS 456 Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete member stiffness can be based on cracked section properties and for the calculation of deflection reduced moment of inertia of section shall be used based on cracked section. The property modifiers considered in the analysis are given below, which is based on Table 3-1 of NBC 105:2020. Foundation

S.N 1 2 3 4

Mat

Component Beam Columns Wall- Cracked Wall-Uncracked

M25

Flexural Stiffness 0.35 EcIg 0.70 EcIg 0.5 EcIg 0.8 EcIg

Shear Stiffness 0.4 EcAw 0.4 EcAw 0.4 EcAw 0.4 EcAw

23 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

7.0

MODELING IN ETABS 2016

Fig 5: 3D Model of Left Wing

Fig 6: 3D Model of Right Wing

24 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Fig 7: Roof Plan of Left Wing

Fig 8: Roof Plan of Right Wing

25 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Fig 9: Floor Finish in First Floor of Left Wing

Fig 10: Floor Finish in Fourth Floor of Right Wing

26 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Fig 11: Live Load (LLother) in First Floor of Left Wing

Fig 12: Live Load (LLother) in Fourth Floor of Right Wing

27 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Fig 13: Roof Live Load in Left Wing

Fig 14: Roof Live Load in Second Story of Academic Building - Block 2 and 3

28 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Fig 15: Brick Wall Load in Grid C-C of Left Wing

Fig 16: Brick Wall Load in Grid G-G of Right Wing 29 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

8.0

DEFLECTION AND STOREY DRIFT

To control overall deformation due to earthquake load, the criteria given in clause 5.6 of NBC105:2020 is applied. Clause 5.6.3 of NBC 105:2020 specifies limit of 0.025 at ULS (Ultimate Limit State) and 0.006 at SLS (Serviceability Limit State). Furthermore, Clause 5.6.1.1 states that for ultimate state design the design displacement shall be multiplied by Ductility factor. For Left Wing, For ULS (Ultimate Limit State) Maximum drift in the model is 0.00486. For ULS design actual drift: 0.00486*4= 0.01944 which is less than 0.025. The following table shows the story drift in the model: Story Story7 Story3 Story2 Story3 Story2 Story2 Story3 Story4 Story4 Story2 Story3 Story3 Story3 Story2 Story3 Story2 Story2 Story4 Story4 Story4 Story5 Story4

Load Case/Combo SPECX Max SPECX Max SPECX Max Seismic y 3 Seismic y 3 Seismic x 2 Seismic x 2 SPECX Max Seismic y 3 Seismic x 1 Seismic x 1 Seismic y 1 Seismic y 2 Seismic x 3 Seismic x 3 Seismic y 1 Seismic y 2 Seismic y 1 Seismic y 2 Seismic x 2 Seismic y 3 Seismic x 1

Directio n X X X Y Y X X X Y X X Y Y X X Y Y Y Y X Y X

Drift 0.00486 0.00473 0.00471 0.0044 0.00406 0.00399 0.00393 0.00392 0.00392 0.00375 0.00368 0.00367 0.00363 0.00352 0.00343 0.00339 0.00338 0.00326 0.00323 0.00321 0.0031 0.00299

Check PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS 30 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Story5 Story4 Story1 Story5 Story5 Story1 Story5 Story1 Story1 Story1 Story5 Story7 Story5 Story1 Story7 Story1 Story7 Story7 Story6 Story3 Story6 Story2 Story6 Story6 Story6 Story6 Story6 Story4 Story7 Story5 Story7 Story1 Story6 Story7

SPECX Max Seismic x 3 SPECX Max Seismic y 1 Seismic y 2 Seismic x 2 Seismic x 2 Seismic x 1 Seismic x 3 Seismic y 3 Seismic x 1 Seismic x 2 Seismic x 3 Seismic y 2 SPECY Max Seismic y 1 Seismic x 1 Seismic y 3 Seismic x 3 SPECY Max Seismic y 3 SPECY Max Seismic y 2 Seismic y 1 Seismic x 1 Seismic x 2 SPECX Max SPECY Max Seismic x 3 SPECY Max Seismic y 2 SPECY Max SPECY Max Seismic y 1

X X X Y Y X X X X Y X X X Y X Y X Y X X Y X Y Y X X X X X X Y X X Y

0.00278 0.00277 0.00258 0.00258 0.00252 0.00229 0.00224 0.00219 0.00208 0.00207 0.00207 0.00191 0.00189 0.00183 0.00181 0.00176 0.00135 0.00127 0.00126 0.00125 0.00124 0.00124 0.00123 0.00122 0.00119 0.00114 0.0011 0.00105 0.00079 0.00076 0.00074 0.00068 0.00038 0.00026

PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS 31 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

For Right Wing, For ULS (Ultimate Limit State) Maximum drift in the model is 0.00286 For ULS design actual drift: 0.00286*4= 0.01144 which is less than 0.025. The following table shows the story drift in the model: Story Story3 Story2 Story3 Story2 Story4 Story7 Story2 Story3 Story2 Story4 Story2 Story2 Story2 Story3 Story3 Story3 Story4 Story3 Story5 Story4 Story4 Story4 Story1 Story4 Story5

Load Case/Combo Seismic y 2 Seismic y 2 Seismic y 1 Seismic y 1 Seismic y 2 SPEC Y Max Seismic y 3 Seismic y 3 SPEC X Max Seismic y 1 Seismic x 2 Seismic x 3 Seismic x 1 SPEC X Max Seismic x 2 Seismic x 3 Seismic y 3 Seismic x 1 Seismic y 2 Seismic x 3 SPEC X Max Seismic x 2 Seismic y 2 Seismic x 1 Seismic y 1

Directio n Y Y Y Y Y X Y Y X Y X X X X X X Y X Y X X X Y X Y

Drift

Check

0.00286 0.00284 0.00254 0.0025 0.00239 0.00229 0.00226 0.00223 0.00216 0.00214 0.00212 0.00201 0.00199 0.00199 0.00196 0.00191 0.00188 0.00184 0.00165 0.00162 0.00161 0.0016 0.00159 0.00152 0.0015

PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS 32 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Story1 Story1 Story1 Story1 Story5 Story1 Story1 Story5 Story5 Story5 Story2 Story5 Story3 Story6 Story6 Story6 Story7 Story7 Story6 Story6 Story4 Story6 Story6 Story1 Story7 Story7 Story5 Story7 Story7 Story6 Story7

SPEC X Max Seismic x 2 Seismic y 1 Seismic x 1 Seismic y 3 Seismic y 3 Seismic x 3 Seismic x 3 SPEC X Max Seismic x 1 SPEC Y Max Seismic x 2 SPEC Y Max Seismic x 3 SPEC X Max Seismic x 1 Seismic y 2 SPEC X Max Seismic x 2 Seismic y 2 SPEC Y Max Seismic y 1 Seismic y 3 SPEC Y Max Seismic x 2 Seismic y 1 SPEC Y Max Seismic x 3 Seismic x 1 SPEC Y Max Seismic y 3

X X Y X Y Y X X X X X X X X X X X X X Y X Y Y X X Y X X X X Y

0.00144 0.00142 0.00139 0.00135 0.00134 0.00129 0.00128 0.00118 0.00114 0.00111 0.00108 0.00107 0.00104 0.00098 0.00093 0.00092 0.00091 0.00091 0.00087 0.00085 0.00085 0.0008 0.00077 0.00065 0.00063 0.00058 0.00056 0.00056 0.0004 0.00033 0.00024

PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS

For Left Wing, For SLS (Serviceability Limit State) 33 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Maximum drift in the model is 0.00399 which is less than 0.006. The following table shows the story drift in the model: Story Story7 Story3 Story2 Story3 Story2 Story2 Story3 Story4 Story4 Story2 Story3 Story3 Story3 Story2 Story3 Story2 Story2 Story4 Story4 Story4 Story5 Story4 Story5 Story4 Story1 Story5 Story5 Story1 Story5 Story1

Load Case/Combo SPECX-SLS Max SPECX-SLS Max SPECX-SLS Max Seismic y-SLS 3 Seismic y-SLS 3 Seismic x-SLS 2 Seismic x-SLS 2 SPECX-SLS Max Seismic y-SLS 3 Seismic x-SLS 1 Seismic x-SLS 1 Seismic y-SLS 1 Seismic y-SLS 2 Seismic x-SLS 3 Seismic x-SLS 3 Seismic y-SLS 1 Seismic y-SLS 2 Seismic y-SLS 1 Seismic y-SLS 2 Seismic x-SLS 2 Seismic y-SLS 3 Seismic x-SLS 1 SPECX-SLS Max Seismic x-SLS 3 SPECX-SLS Max Seismic y-SLS 1 Seismic y-SLS 2 Seismic x-SLS 2 Seismic x-SLS 2 Seismic x-SLS 1

Direction X X X Y Y X X X Y X X Y Y X X Y Y Y Y X Y X X X X Y Y X X X

Drift 0.00399 0.00388 0.00386 0.00361 0.00333 0.00327 0.00322 0.00321 0.00321 0.00308 0.00302 0.00301 0.00298 0.00289 0.00281 0.00278 0.00277 0.00268 0.00265 0.00263 0.00254 0.00245 0.00228 0.00227 0.00212 0.00211 0.00207 0.00188 0.00184 0.00179

Check PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS 34 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Story1 Story1 Story5 Story7 Story5 Story1 Story7 Story1 Story7 Story7 Story6 Story3 Story6 Story2 Story6 Story6 Story6 Story6 Story6 Story4 Story7 Story5 Story7 Story1 Story6 Story7

Seismic x-SLS 3 Seismic y-SLS 3 Seismic x-SLS 1 Seismic x-SLS 2 Seismic x-SLS 3 Seismic y-SLS 2 SPECY-SLS Max Seismic y-SLS 1 Seismic x-SLS 1 Seismic y-SLS 3 Seismic x-SLS 3 SPECY-SLS Max Seismic y-SLS 3 SPECY-SLS Max Seismic y-SLS 2 Seismic y-SLS 1 Seismic x-SLS 1 Seismic x-SLS 2 SPECX-SLS Max SPECY-SLS Max Seismic x-SLS 3 SPECY-SLS Max Seismic y-SLS 2 SPECY-SLS Max SPECY-SLS Max Seismic y-SLS 1

X Y X X X Y X Y X Y X X Y X Y Y X X X X X X Y X X Y

0.00171 0.0017 0.00169 0.00156 0.00155 0.0015 0.00148 0.00144 0.00111 0.00104 0.00103 0.00103 0.00102 0.00101 0.00101 0.001 0.00097 0.00094 0.00091 0.00086 0.00065 0.00062 0.00061 0.00056 0.00031 0.00022

PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS

35 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

For Right Wing, For SLS (Serviceability Limit State) Maximum drift in the model is 0.00399 which is less than 0.006. The following table shows the story drift in the model: Load Case/Combo

Directio n

Story5 Story4 Story1 Story3

Seismic x- SLS 1 Seismic x- SLS 1 Seismic x- SLS 1 Seismic y- SLS 2

X X X Y

0.00106 0.00146 0.00129 0.00275

PASS PASS PASS PASS

Story2 Story3 Story2 Story4 Story7 Story2 Story3 Story2 Story4 Story2 Story2 Story2 Story3 Story3 Story3 Story4 Story3 Story5 Story4 Story4 Story4 Story1 Story5 Story1 Story1

Seismic y- SLS 2 Seismic y- SLS 1 Seismic y- SLS 1 Seismic y- SLS 2 SPEC Y-SLS Max Seismic y- SLS 3 Seismic y- SLS 3 SPEC X- SLS Max Seismic y- SLS 1 Seismic x- SLS 2 Seismic x- SLS 3 Seismic x- SLS 1 SPEC X- SLS Max Seismic x- SLS 2 Seismic x- SLS 3 Seismic y- SLS 3 Seismic x- SLS 1 Seismic y- SLS 2 Seismic x- SLS 3 SPEC X- SLS Max Seismic x- SLS 2 Seismic y- SLS 2 Seismic y- SLS 1 SPEC X- SLS Max Seismic x- SLS 2

Y Y Y Y X Y Y X Y X X X X X X Y X Y X X X Y Y X X

0.00273 0.00244 0.0024 0.0023 0.0022 0.00218 0.00215 0.00207 0.00205 0.00203 0.00193 0.00191 0.00191 0.00188 0.00183 0.00181 0.00176 0.00158 0.00156 0.00155 0.00154 0.00153 0.00144 0.00138 0.00136

PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS

Story

Drift

Check

36 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Story1 Story5 Story1 Story1 Story5 Story5 Story2 Story5 Story3 Story6 Story6 Story6 Story7 Story7 Story6 Story6 Story4 Story6 Story6 Story1 Story7 Story7 Story5 Story7 Story7 Story6 Story7

Seismic y- SLS 1 Seismic y- SLS 3 Seismic y- SLS 3 Seismic x- SLS 3 Seismic x- SLS 3 SPEC X- SLS Max SPEC Y-SLS Max Seismic x- SLS 2 SPEC Y-SLS Max Seismic x- SLS 3 SPEC X- SLS Max Seismic x- SLS 1 Seismic y- SLS 2 SPEC X- SLS Max Seismic x- SLS 2 Seismic y- SLS 2 SPEC Y-SLS Max Seismic y- SLS 1 Seismic y- SLS 3 SPEC Y-SLS Max Seismic x- SLS 2 Seismic y- SLS 1 SPEC Y-SLS Max Seismic x- SLS 3 Seismic x- SLS 1 SPEC Y-SLS Max Seismic y- SLS 3

Y Y Y X X X X X X X X X X X X Y X Y Y X X Y X X X X Y

0.00133 0.00129 0.00124 0.00123 0.00113 0.00109 0.00103 0.00103 0.001 0.00094 0.0009 0.00089 0.00087 0.00087 0.00084 0.00082 0.00081 0.00077 0.00074 0.00062 0.00061 0.00055 0.00054 0.00053 0.00038 0.00032 0.00023

PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS

37 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

9.0

MODAL PARTICIPATING MASS RATIOS

For Left Wing TABLE: Modal Participating Mass Ratios Period Case Mode UX UY sec Modal 1 0.773 0.4647 0.0835 Modal 2 0.72 0.1227 0.6484 Modal 3 0.635 0.2114 0.0345 Modal 4 0.232 0.105 0.0012 Modal 5 0.205 0.0025 0.1332 Modal 6 0.181 0.0078 0.0052 Modal 7 0.128 0.0443 0.0001 Modal 8 0.106 1.19E-05 0.0461 Modal 9 0.099 0.0064 7.98E-07 Modal 10 0.091 0.005 0.0001 Modal 11 0.082 0.0076 0.0078 Modal 12 0.078 0.0085 0.012

Sum UX Sum UY 0.4647 0.5874 0.7989 0.9039 0.9064 0.9142 0.9585 0.9585 0.9649 0.9699 0.9775 0.986

0.0835 0.7318 0.7664 0.7675 0.9007 0.9059 0.906 0.9521 0.9521 0.9522 0.96 0.972

For Right Wing

38 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

10.0 DESIGN OF STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS 10.1 Design of Column Sample Design of Column 1 General Information of Column to be designed: Block: Left Wing Grid: C/1 ETABS 2016 Concrete Frame Design IS 456:2000 Column Section Design

Column Element Details Type: Ductile Frame (Summary) Unique Length Level Element Section ID Combo ID Station Loc Name (mm) col 650 x DL+0.3LLo+E Story1 C7 7 0 3300 850 QY

LLRF 1

Section Properties Cover (Torsion) b (mm) h (mm) dc (mm) (mm) 850 650 60.6 28.1 Material Properties Lt.Wt Factor Ec (MPa) fck (MPa) fy (MPa) fys (MPa) (Unitless) 27386.13 30 1 500 500 Design Code Parameters 39 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

ɣC 1.5

ɣS 1.15

Axial Force and Biaxial Moment Design For Pu , Mu2 , Mu3 Rebar Design Pu Design Mu2 Design Mu3 Minimum M2 Minimum M3 Area kN kN-m kN-m kN-m kN-m mm² -5601.0786 -1084.0724 12.6305 189.5032 152.1626 20401

Major Bend(M3) Minor Bend(M2)

Rebar % % 3.69

Axial Force and Biaxial Moment Factors Initial Additional K Factor Length Moment Moment Unitless mm kN-m kN-m

Minimum Moment kN-m

0.799524

2750

-6.0156

0

152.1626

0.824223

2750

-765.0891

0

189.5032

Major, Vu2 Minor, Vu3

Shear Design for Vu2 , Vu3 Shear Vu Shear Vc Shear Vs Shear Vp Rebar Asv /s kN kN kN kN mm²/m 138.9566 423.7215 200.3967 138.9566 942.17 388.0549 430.0237 205.2446 76.374 720.48 Joint Shear Check/Design Joint Shear Shear Shear Shear Force VTop Vu,Tot Vc kN kN kN kN

Major Shear, Vu2 Minor Shear, Vu3

Joint Area cm²

Shear Ratio Unitless

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

(1.1) Beam/Column Capacity Ratio Major Minor Ratio Ratio N/A N/A Additional Moment Reduction Factor k (IS 39.7.1.1)

40 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Ag cm²

Asc cm²

5525

204

Puz Pb Pu k kN kN kN Unitless 15109.018 4464.330 1 7 1 5601.0786

Additional Moment (IS 39.7.1) Section KL/Dept KL/Dept KL/Dept Ma Consider Length Depth h h h Moment (kNMa Factor (mm) Ratio Limit Exceeded m) Major Bending Yes 0.833 650 (M3 ) Minor Bending Yes 0.833 850 (M2 ) For main bars:  Ast(required) = 20401 mm2  Provide 4-20mmφ + 8-16mmφ bars  Ast (provided) = 2865.14 mm2  Here, Ast(provided) > Ast(required)

3.383

12

No

0

2.667

12

No

0

OK

For lateral ties (IS 456:2000) Clause 26.5.3.2(c):  Spacing shall be less than the least of: i. Least lateral dimension = 500 mm ii. 16 φ = 16 x 25 = 400 mm iii. 300 mm  Provide lateral ties 8/10φ @100mm c/c at edges and 8/10φ @150mm c/c at mid-span. All the columns are designed in a similar way. Please Refer Structural Drawings for further details.

41 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

10.2 Design of Beam Sample Design of Beam 1 General Information of Column to be designed: Block: Right Wing Grid: G/10-11 ETABS 2016 Concrete Frame Design IS 456:2000 Beam Section Design

Beam Element Details Type: Ductile Frame (Summary) Unique Station Length Level Element Section ID Combo ID Name Loc (mm) Beam 650*450 DL+0.3LLoStory1 B40 87 4520 4820 M25 SPECX Section Properties b (mm) h (mm) bf (mm) ds (mm) dct (mm) 450 650 450 0 25

LLRF 1

dcb (mm) 25

Material Properties Lt.Wt Factor Ec (MPa) fck (MPa) fy (MPa) fys (MPa) (Unitless) 27386.13 30 1 500 500 Design Code Parameters ɣC ɣS 1.5 1.15 42 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Factored Forces and Moments Factored Factored Factored Factored Mu3 Tu Vu2 Pu kN-m kN-m kN kN 122.5009 19.7909 141.1656 -1.2228 Design Moments, Mu3 & Mt Factored Factored Positive Negative Moment Mt Moment Moment kN-m kN-m kN-m kN-m 122.5009 28.4575 150.9584 -236.7523 Design Moment and Flexural Reinforcement for Moment, Mu3 & Tu Design Design -Moment +Moment Minimum Required -Moment +Moment Rebar Rebar Rebar Rebar kN-m kN-m mm² mm² mm² mm² Top (+2 -236.7523 903 1 903 769 Axis) Bottom (-2 150.9584 769 567 1 769 Axis) Shear Force and Reinforcement for Shear, Vu2 & Tu Shear Ve Shear Vc Shear Vs Shear Vp Rebar Asv /s kN kN kN kN mm²/m 202.8669 107.533 165.7015 145.6193 734.68 Torsion Force and Torsion Reinforcement for Torsion, Tu & VU2 Tu Vu Core b1 Core d1 Rebar Asvt /s kN-m kN mm mm mm²/m 141.165 19.7909 420 620 462.98 6

From the obtained data, the rebars for the beam are calculated as follows: 43 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Top Reinf. Bar Area Ast (required) Bottom Reinf. Bar Area

 

Left

899 mm2

Middle

769 mm2

Right

903 mm2

Left

769 mm2

Middle

769 mm2

Right

769 mm2    

Provide Top Bars: 3-16φ (TH.) Bottom Bars: 3-16φ (TH.) Left Top Reinf. Bar Area Ast(provided) Bottom Reinf. Bar Area

603.19 mm2

Middle

603.19 mm2

Right

603.19 mm2

Left

603.19 mm2

Middle

603.19 mm2

Right

603.19 mm2

All the beams are designed in a similar way. The design results are summarized and tabulated in the adjacent tables.

44 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

10.3 Design of Slab Sample Design of Slab for Left Wing General Information of Slab to be designed: 1.General information: Concrete Grade= Steel Grade=   As per IS 456:2000, Case No.= Type of panel=

M Fe

25 500

 

4 Two Adjacent Edges Discontinuous

2.Thickness of slab and durability consideration: Short Span, lx = 3500 Long Span,ly = 6000 Approx L/d permissible= 28 Approx d= 125.00 Adopting, overall depth(D)= 150 Assuming, clear cover= 20 and diameter of bar= 10 Effective depth of slab(d)= 125       Effective short span (Lx)= 3625 Effective long span (Ly)= 6125 Ly/Lx= 1.69 Hence, it is a two way slab.

           

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

3.Calculation of Design Load: Self weight =

3.75

kN/m2

Finishing &Partition=

1.5

kN/m2

Live Load =

2

kN/m2

Total Load =

7.25

kN/m2

Factored load = 10.88 kN/m2 Considering unit width of Slab, w= 10.88 kN/m

45 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

4.Moment and Reinforcement Calculation: Moments considered Support (-ve) Shorter Span mid span(+ve ) Support (-ve) Longer Span mid span(+ve ) Hence,     the moment to be considered (Mu)= Solving, Mu=0.87*fy*Ast*d*(1-Ast*fy/bd.fck) 2 Ast= 208.7 mm /m Also, Minimum mm2/m Ast(0.25%)= 312.5 2 Hence, Limiting Ast= 312.5 mm /m dia bars @ Providing 10 2 Ast provided= 550 mm /m Provided Ast is sufficient 5. Check for Deflection: shorter span of critical slab= spacing of bars= overall depth of slab= eff depth of slab= % Tension reinforcement= fs= From graph Fig 4 IS 456-2000, Modification factor = Basic L/d= Permissible L/d ratio= Provided L/d ratio=

3625 150 150 125 0.440% 165

Moment (kN.m) 10.970 8.801 6.264 4.665

Coefficient(α) 0.082 0.062 0.047 0.035  

  10.970

kN.m        

150

c/c    

 

mm mm mm mm

1.8 26.000 46.8 29.00

OK

46 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

6. Check for Shear shorter span of critical slab= overall depth of slab= eff depth of slab= Vu= Wu(0.5Lx-d) = Tv =

3625 150 125 18.36 0.14688

mm mm mm kN/m Mpa

Tc

=

0.4 MPa

k kTc

= =

1.3 0.52 Mpa

Table 19, IS456 IS456, 40.2.1.1 OK

Design Summary of Slab Hence, Provide 10 mmφ bars @ 150mm c/c in X-direction And, 10 mmφ bars @ 150mm c/c in Y-direction. Please Refer Structural Drawings for further details.

47 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

10.4 Design of Staircase

DESIGN OF DOG-LEGGED STAIRCASE AS PER IS 456:2000 1) DESIGN DATA: Density of concrete

25

KN/m3

Compressive strength of concrete (fck) Tensile strength of steel (fy)

30

N/mm2

500

N/mm2

Width of flight Projected length of flight Projected clear span of staircase well Riser height for flight Tread width for flight Live load considered

2.18 3 3

m m m

150 300 4

mm mm KN/m2

Floor finish considered

1.5

KN/m2

2) CALCULATION FOR EFFECTIVE SPAN & DEPTH: Clear cover 20

As per Cl 33.1

Assume dia of main bar Assume dia of distribution bar Area of main bar

16 10 201

mm mm mm2

Area of distribution bar

78.5

mm2

Effective projected span of staircase well

3

m

Assume overall depth of waist slab Take effective depth of waist slab (d)

180

mm

152

mm

mm

IS 456, table 16

48 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

3) LOAD CALCULATION: For

2.18

m width of flight 1) load on front landing: Floor finish Self weigth Total load Design load

3 9.81 21.8 32.700

KN/m KN/m KN/m KN/m

2) load on flight: a) Inclined slab Self weigth on plan

10.968

KN/m

3 8.72 4.088 27.045 40.568

KN/m KN/m KN/m KN/m KN/m

9 3 9.81 21.8 32.700

KN/m KN/m KN/m KN/m KN/m

b) Step section Floor finish Live load self weigth Total load Design load   1) load on end landing: Live load Floor finish Self weigth Total load Design load

4) CALCULATION OF SUPPORT RXN & MAX. MOMENT:   Reaction at suppot A: 60.852 KN Reaction at suppot B: 60.852 KN Let X be the distance from support A at which maximum bending moment occurs X 1.500 m   Maximum moment on waist 45.639 KNm 49 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

slab Maximum moment for front landing Maximum moment for end landing   Maximum Bending Moment   4) CHECK FOR DEPTH:   Required depth of landing/waist slab

0.000

KNm

0.000

KNm

45.639

KNm

As per Annex G-1.1©, Cl 38.1 72.436

mm

Safe

5) CALCULATION FOR REINFORCEMENT:   Minimum reinforcement

As per Annex G-1.1(b)

470.88

mm2

Required area of reinforcement

716.035

mm2

Required spacing of main bar Required spacing of distribution bar   Provide: Main bar

280.713 166.709

mm-C/C mm-C/C

16

mm dia bar @

150

Distribution bar

10

mm dia bar @

150

Ast provided

1340.000

mm2

% of reinforcement provided

0.341

%

  6) CHECK FOR SHEAR: Asx100/bd K ζc

As per Cl 40.2, table 19 ,20 0.404 1.24 0.35

Maximum shear stress : ζv

0.184

mm C/ C mm C/ C

N/mm2 50 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Design shear strength : ζ'c

0.434

N/mm2

Maximum shear strength : ζcmax

3.5

N/mm2

7) CHECK FOR DEFLECTION: Effective span of staircase well Effective depth of waist slab

As per Cl 26.2.1 3 152.000

m mm

fs

154.963

N/mm2

leff/d

19.737

Basic value:α Modification factor: β γ

23

Cl 23.2.1 (a)

1 1.6

λ

1

δ

1

αβγλδ

36.8

Cl 23.2.1 (b) Cl 23.2.1 (c)fig 4 Cl 23.2.1 (d)fig 5 Cl 23.2.1 (e)fig 6 Safe

Safe

7) DEVELOPMENT As per Cl 26.2.1 LENGTH: Stress in bar at the section considered at 0.87*fy design load (σs) Development length(Ld) φx0.87xfy/4ζbd ζbd

2.4

Tension reinforcement Compression reinforcement

725.000 580.000

mm mm

Provide development: Tension reinforcement Compression reinforcement

600 500

mm mm

51 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

10.5 Design of Shear wall Sample Design of Shear wall Block: Left Wing Grid: C/1 Story: Ground Floor ETABS 2016 Shear Wall Design IS 456:2000 Pier Design

Story ID Pier ID Story1

P2

Pier Details Centroid Y (mm) 10610

Centroid X (mm) 0

Length (mm) 2000

Thickness (mm) 300

LLRF 0.885

Material Properties Lt.Wt Factor Ec (MPa) fck (MPa) fy (MPa) fys (MPa) (Unitless) 27386.13 30 1 500 500 Design Code Parameters ΓS

ΓC

IPMAX

IPMIN

PMAX

1.15

1.5

0.04

0.0025

0.8

MinEcc Major Yes

MinEcc Minor Yes

Pier Leg Location, Length and Thickness Station Left X1 Left Y1 Right X2 Right Y2 Length Thickness ID Location mm mm mm mm mm mm Top Leg 1 0 9610 0 11610 2000 300 Bottom Leg 1 0 9610 0 11610 2000 300 Flexural Design for Pu, Mu2 and Mu3 Station Required Required Current Flexural Pu Mu2 Mu3 Pier Ag Locatio Rebar Area Reinf Reinf Combo kN kN-m kN-m mm² n (mm²) Ratio Ratio DL+0.3LLo1259.21 Top 8433 0.0141 0.003 2033.822 600000 SPECY 1.4015 81 7 Bottom 21185 0.0353 0.003 DL+0.3LLo600000 EQY 4453.682 89.073 3479.72 52 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Station Required Required Current Locatio Rebar Area Reinf Reinf n (mm²) Ratio Ratio

Flexural Combo

Pu kN

Mu2 Mu3 Pier Ag kN-m kN-m mm²

4

6

59

Shear Design Station Rebar Pu Mu Vu Vc Vc + Vs ID Shear Combo Location mm²/m kN kN-m kN kN kN DL+0.3LLo275.033 Top Leg 1 2068.97 -591.1177 1469.6381 EQY 2126.7717 1469.6381 4 DL+0.3LLo385.182 Bottom Leg 1 1639.71 1331.9348 EQY 4453.6824 2378.1173 1331.9348 5 Boundary Element Check Station Location

ID

Edge Length (mm)

Top–Left

Leg 1

300

Top–Right Leg 1

450

Bottom– Left

Leg 1

Botttom– Leg 1 Right Design Summary

900 750

Governing Combo

Pu kN

DL+0.3LLo+SP 3369.366 -896.3075 ECY 9 DL+0.3LLo+SP 3462.315 1293.631 ECY 8 6 DL+0.3LLo4453.682 3479.725 EQY 4 9 DL+0.3LLo- 5898.378 3812.008 EQY 2

Ast reqd (mm2)

Ast reqd (mm2) single layer

Length of wall (mm)

P1

18477

9238.5

1850

28

P2

24058

12029

2000

28

P3

21025

10512. 5

2300

28

Pier Label

Mu kN-m

dia of bars

spacing (mm) 123.303728 5 102.377946 6 134.718665 2

Stress Comp MPa

Stress Limit MPa

10.1

6

12.24

6

9.98

6

28.89

6

spacing (mm) 100 100 100

Please refer structural drawings for further details. 53 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

10.6 Design of Footing A) INPUT DATA a) Concrete Grade = 25 MPa b) Rebar Grade = 500 MPa c) Soil subgrade Modulus i)

Soil bearing capacity = 165 kN/m2

ii)

Soil subgrade Modulus = 120*165 =19800 kN/m3

iii)

Soil bearing Capacity for considering Earthquake Force = 206.25 kN/m2

54 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

11.0 STRONG COLUMN WEAK BEAM CHECK Sample Strong Column Weak Beam Check for Academic Building- Block 1 Grid: 8/B fy= 500 Mpa         fck column 25 Mpa         Fck beam 25 MPa         For Beam,             b= 250 mm         d= 500 mm         2 Ast(top)= 942.48 mm         Ast(bot)= 942.48 mm2         Mu(hog)= 174.08 kN-m         Mu(sag)= 174.08 kN-m         ∑Mb= 348.16 kN-m                       For Column,             b= 500 mm         D= 500 mm         Clear Cover= 40 mm         Fatored Axial Load= 417.34 kN         2 Area of rebar= 2865.14 mm         pt= 1.146 %         Pu/fck*b*D= 0.067           (from Table of fy=500 , d/D= 0.08 pt/fck= Mu/fck*b*D2= 0.08 0.05) Mu= 250 kNm         ∑Mc= 500 kNm                       Result:             1.4∑Mb= 487.42           ∑Mc= 500 kNm         ∑Mc >1.4∑Mb                         Conclusion:             Hence, Strong column weak beam check is satisfied.       55 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

Sample Strong Column Weak Beam Check for Academic Building- Block 2 and 3 Grid: 2/H fy= 500 Mpa fck Beam 25 Mpa fck column 25 Beam b= 250 mm d= 500 mm Ast(top)= 603.19 mm2 Ast(bot)= 603.19 mm2 Mu(hog)= 118.532 kN-m Mu(sag)= 118.532 kN-m ∑Mb= 237.065 kN-m Column b= D= Clear Cover= Fatored Axial Load= Area of rebar= pt= Pu/fck*b*D= Mu/fck*b*D2= Mu= ∑Mc= Result: 1.4∑Mb= ∑Mc= ∑Mc >1.4∑Mb

400 mm 400 mm 40 mm 252.54 3769.91 2.35619 0.06314 0.12 192 384

kN mm2 % (from Table of fy=500 , d/D= 0.1 pt/fck= 0.09) kNm kNm

331.89 384 kNm

Conclusion: Hence, Strong column weak beam check is satisfied.

56 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

ANNEX ANNEX 1: Seismic Gap Assessment

57 | P a g e

BRS Engineering Solution Pvt. Ltd Pulchowk, Lalitpur

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT JAW AND JCO LINE BUILDING, S I N G H A D U R B A R , KATHMANDU

ANNEX 1: Seismic Gap Assessment For Left and Right Wing STORY

Max Def (mm) in Seismic I = 1.25 X direction Gap

 

LEFT WING

RIGHT Reqd WING

5

60.639

29.593

360.928 288.742

4

51.826

25.74

310.264 248.211

3

39.352

20.15

238.008 190.406

2

24.122

13.002

148.496 118.797

1

8.859

5.22

56.316

 

45.0528

PROVIDE 12" SEISMIC GAP

58 | P a g e