BUILDING INTEGRITY SUMMARY REPORT

Similar documents
3.5 Tier 1 Analysis Overview Seismic Shear Forces

IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific Research & Development Vol. 4, Issue 05, 2016 ISSN (online):

SEAU 5 th Annual Education Conference 1. ASCE Concrete Provisions. Concrete Provisions. Concrete Strengths. Robert Pekelnicky, PE, SE

The designer shall also submit additional information required by the University as described and underlined below.

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit Manual MTPTC Training, April & May Build Change & Degenkolb Engineers

Design Example 2 Reinforced Concrete Wall with Coupling Beams

Technical Report 3. Alyssa Stangl Structural Option Advisor Dr. Linda Hanagan L A J O L L A C O M M O N S P H A S E I I O F F I C E T O W E R

ABA Fashions Ltd. Plot #9, Block F, Tongi, Gazipur-1710 ( N, E) 08 MARCH 2014

Table of Contents.2. Introduction...3 Gravity Loading and Deflections..4. Existing Structural System..8

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF LOW-RISE PRE-ENGINEERING BUILDINGS WITH TILT-UP AND MASONRY FAÇADE WALLS DURING THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES IN NEW ZEALAND

Post-earthquake emergency assessment of building damage, safety and usability Part 1: Technical issues

CE 3150 Reinforced Concrete Design Design Project

Structural Inspection Report

REPORT PREPARED FOR Monterey Avenue Palm Desert, CA Peters Canyon Rd., Suite 140, Irvine, CA IDS Project Number 11.

Structural Redesign Gravity System

4.2 Tier 2 Analysis General Analysis Procedures for LSP & LDP

INITIAL STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT REPORT (SIAR)

Project Findings: Appendix 2

Thesis Proposal. Nasser Marafi. Center & Facility Service Building. St. Joseph Hospital of Orange Patient Care. Proposal

MITRE 3 Building McLean VA

LIFE SCIENCES BUILDING STRUCTURAL CONCEPTS AND EXISTING CONDITIONS

Minimum slab thickness of RC slab to prevent undesirable floor vibration. Technology, Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh. 2.

Effect of Edge Beam and Shear Wall on the Structural Behavior of Flat Plate Multistoried Building: A Computing Modeling for lateral load Analysis

SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS

RAPID STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

Structural Inspection

Evaluation of Seismic Behavior for Low-Rise RC Moment Resisting Frame with Masonry Infill Walls

Structural System. Design Criteria Fire Resistance Concrete designed for 2 HR rating (worst case) Geotechnical Report Allowable Bearing Capacity

AC R1 # Triangle Parkway Suite 100 Norcross, Ga Phone: Fax: AC R1. September 11, 2012

Structural Technical Report 1 Structural Concepts / Structural Existing Conditions Report

LATERAL DRIFT DESIGN IN COLD FORMED STEEL WALL SYSTEMS

Apparel Gallery Ltd.

Structural Technical Report #2 By Robert Whitaker

Seismic performance assessment of reinforced concrete buildings using pushover analysis

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Volume 2, No 2, 2011

Requirements for Foundations on Liquefiable Sites

ON DRIFT LIMITS ASSOCIATED WITH DIFFERENT DAMAGE LEVELS. Ahmed GHOBARAH 1 ABSTRACT

Pushover analysis of RC frame structure using ETABS 9.7.1

Shake-table test on a four-storey structure with reinforced concrete and unreinforced masonry walls

REINFORCED CONCRETE WALL BOUNDARY ELEMENT LONGITUDINAL REINFORCING TERMINATION

PERFORMANCE STUDY OF RETROFITTED GRAVITY LOAD DESIGNED WALL FRAME STRUCTURES (SC-140)

North Mountain IMS Medical Office Building

DEFINING RIGID VS. FLEXIBLE NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

Structural Engineering

A SIMPLIFIED METHOD FOR THE ESTIMATION OF THE SEISMIC RESISTANCE OF RC FRAMES WITH WEAK INFILL PANELS

Performance of Buildings During the January 26, 2001 Bhuj Earthquake. Abstract

Nonlinear Pushover Analysis of Steel Frame Structure Dahal, Purna P., Graduate Student Southern Illinois University, Carbondale

EARTHQUAKE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS OF BUILDINGS. By Ir. Heng Tang Hai

HOTEL NORTHEAST U.S. JORDAN RUTHERFORD STRUCTURAL OPTION FACULTY ADVISOR DR. THOMAS BOOTHBY AE SENIOR THESIS APRIL 8, 2013

Seismic Base Isolation of RC Frame Structures With and Without Infill

SEISMIC PROVISIONS OF IBC 2006 AND ASCE 7-05

DESIGN CRITERIA. Allowable Stress Design (ASD) AISC-1999.

SEISMIC TEST OF CONCRETE BLOCK INFILLED REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES

151 First Side. Technical Assignment 2 November 16 th, William J. Buchko. AE 481w Senior Thesis The Pennsylvania State University

REHABILITATION OF RC BUILDINGS USING STRUCTURAL WALLS

Project Findings: Appendix 2

Effect of Column Discontinuity on Base Shear and Displacement of Structure

2018 APPENDIX B BUILDING CODE SUMMARY FOR ALL COMMERCIAL PROJECTS (EXCEPT 1 AND 2-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND TOWNHOUSES)

Details for Exterior Brick Masonry Veneer Supported by Metal Plate Connected Wood Trusses

Structural Comparison between Pan Joist Concrete and Steel Frame Systems for UMCP Student Housing Building B

Evaluation of Earthquake Risk Buildings with Masonry Infill Panels

COMPARATIVE STUDY ON DESIGN RESULTS OF A MULTI-STORIED BUILDING USING STAAD PRO AND ETABS FOR REGULAR AND IRREGULAR PLAN CONFIGURATION

Hilton Baltimore Convention Center Hotel Western Podium

SEISMIC CODE EVALUATION ST. LUCIA Evaluation conducted by Myron W. Chin

Analysis and Design of Multi-Storey Building Subjected to Lateral Forces

NATIONAL HARBOR BUILDING M OXON HILL, MARYLAND. Ryan Sarazen Structural Option Technical Report 3 Faculty Consultant: Dr.

Shear Wall Analysis. Introduction. The Medical Office Building Malvern, PA 7

The Structural Redesign of Boyds Bear Country and its Related Systems. Boyds Bear Country, Pigeon Forge, Tennessee

Performance Based Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Building

Comparative Study of R.C.C and Steel Concrete Composite Structures

EARTHQUAKE ANALYSIS OF A G+12 STOREY BUILDING WITH AND WITHOUT INFILL FOR BHUJ AND KOYNA EARTHQUAKE FUNCTIONS

AISC Steel & Timber Research for High-Rise Residential Buildings

This point intends to acquaint the reader with some of the basic concepts of the earthquake engineer:

CAUSES OF STRUCTURAL DAMAGE DUE TO EARTHQUAKES

STRUCTURAL CONDITION ASSESSMENT

MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER

Seismic Analysis and Design of Vertically Irregular RC Building Frames

SJI Updates Expanded Load Tables for Noncomposite Joists / Joist Girders and Development of New Composite Joist Series

Seismic Assessment of an RC Building Using Pushover Analysis

Application of Pushover Analysis for Evaluating Seismic Performance of RC Building

Structural Assessment Report 2118 Milvia Street Berkeley, California

Seismic Retrofitting of Building with Soft Storey and Floating Column

EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE DEFORMATION CAPACITY OF STRUCTURAL MASONRY

Abanti Color Tex Ltd. Plot-S, A-646, Shashongaon Enayetnager, Fatullah, Narayangonj ( E, N) 28 June 2014

2012 International Building Code Errata (Portions of text and tables not shown are unaffected by the errata)

DESIGN FOR PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE 1

LPI 56 Technical Guide

Available at ISSN

Seismic Safety and Vulnerability Mitigation of School Buildings

UNIT 9 INSPECTION AND QUALITY CONTROL

REPORT HOLDER: BLUE POINT FASTENING, INC YORBA COURT CHINO, CALIFORNIA EVALUATION SUBJECT:

FEASIBILITY STUDY ON SEISMIC RESPONSE ESTIMATION OF DAMAGED R/C BUILDINGS BASED ON OBSERVATION DATA AND NUMERICAL ANALYSIS

Simi Aboobacker 1 and Nisha Varghese 2

FEMA-310. Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings, 1998

USE OF 500 GRADE STEEL IN THE DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB. Prof. M. Shafiul Bari, Ph.D Department of Civil Engg., BUET

A Guide for the Interpretation of Structural Design Options for Residential Concrete Structures

Descriptive Study of Pushover Analysis in RCC Structures of Rigid Joint

Sabah Shawkat Cabinet of Structural Engineering 2017

EXPLORATION OF DIFFERENT RETROFITTING OPTIONS FOR RC FRAME BUILDINGS IN KATHMANDU

Transcription:

BUILDING INTEGRITY SUMMARY REPORT SUPPLIER NAME UNITS AUDITED Opex Mills 4X 6X Denim Rope Denim SSL SSL3 Utility Diesel SUPPLIER ADDRESS AUDIT DATE January 2014 AUDIT PERFORMED BY AUDIT TEAM Kanchpur, Sonargaon, Narayangonj, Dhaka, Bangladesh Department of Civil Engineering, Bureau of Research, Testing and Consultation, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET) 2 auditors GRAVITY LOADING EVALUATION 4X GREEN The building is fully safe. 6X GREEN The building is fully safe. Denim GREEN The building is fully safe. Rope Denim GREEN The building is fully safe. SSL GREEN The building is fully safe. SSL3 GREEN The building is fully safe. Utility GREEN The building is fully safe. Diesel GREEN The building is fully safe. SEISMIC PERFORMANCE RATING 4X 6X Denim Rope Denim SSL SSL3 Utility Diesel Possible significant structural and nonstructural damage and/or result in falling hazards in a major seismic disturbance, representing appreciable life hazards. BUILDING INTEGRITY INSPECTION SUMMARY OPEX MILLS PAGE 1/8

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY Visual inspection and ASCE 31-03 Tier- 1 Analysis DETAILED CONTENT VISUAL INSPECTION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS... 2 4X GENERATOR BUILDING... 2 6X GENERATOR BUILDING... 3 DENIM GENERATOR BUILDING... 3 ROPE DENIM GENERATOR BUILDING... 3 SSL GENERATOR BUILDING... 3 SSL3 BUILDING... 3 GENERATOR UTILITY BUILDING... 4 DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING... 4 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION... 4 I. BASIC STRUCTURAL CHECKLIST NON- COMPLIANCES... 4 II. GEOLOGICAL SITE HAZARDS AND FOUNDATIONS CHECKLIST NON- COMPLIANCES... 5 III. BASIC NON- STRUCTURAL COMPONENT CHECKLIST NON- COMPLIANCES... 6 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY... 6 VISUAL INSPECTION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS 4X GENERATOR BUILDING The Consultants strongly recommend repairing of distressed exterior beam (spalling of concrete) with appropriate technique immediately. The owner/users of the building should also be vigilant about development of any new distress, particularly, in primary structural elements such as columns, beams and slabs. Based on the Visual Assessment and available Factor of Safety (FOS) of all types of columns, the building falls in to GREEN category considering gravity loading condition only. The columns have high slenderness at ground floor building which will probably place them into long column criteria. The second order analysis is necessary to check the stability of such long columns and strongly recommended. The building has fixed heavy loads on 1 st floor and roof which will contribute in the overall mass system of the building during an event of earthquake and will definitely make slender columns more vulnerable. Therefore, Detail Engineering Assessment (DEA) of the structure need to be carried out to assess the performance under the seismic load. BUILDING INTEGRITY INSPECTION SUMMARY OPEX MILLS PAGE 2/8

6X GENERATOR BUILDING Since the columns have high slenderness ratio, footing is on non- durable timber piles and the underlying soil is liquefiable, a detail engineering analysis of the structure need to be carried out to assess the performance under the seismic load. DENIM GENERATOR BUILDING Since the columns have high slenderness ratio and the 2nd story is a soft- story a detail engineering analysis of the structure need to be carried out to assess the performance under the seismic load. ROPE DENIM GENERATOR BUILDING Since the columns have high slenderness ratios and the underlying soil is liquefiable, a detail engineering analysis of the structure need to be carried out to assess the performance under the seismic load. SSL GENERATOR BUILDING Since the columns have high slenderness ratio and are overstressed and the underlying soil is liquefiable, a detail engineering analysis of the structure need to be carried out to assess the performance under the seismic load. SSL3 BUILDING Hairline cracks in walls, beams and slabs near the AC plant area may be due to fatigue. These cracks should be under vigilant observation taking notice of any propagation or widening Due to high slenderness ratio of the columns, presence of a mezzanine floor and existence of cracks caused by machine vibration, a detail engineering analysis of the structure need to be carried out to assess the performance under the seismic load. BUILDING INTEGRITY INSPECTION SUMMARY OPEX MILLS PAGE 3/8

GENERATOR UTILITY BUILDING The owner/users of the building should be vigilant about development of any new distress, particularly, in primary structural elements such as columns, beams and slabs. Based on the available Factor of Safety (FOS) of all types of columns (except the distressed ones) considering gravity loading condition only, the building falls in to GREEN category. Therefore, building is put under in GREEN category with the strong recommendation of immediate repairing two distressed columns. The Detail Engineering Assessment (DEA) of the building is recommended under present condition due to stability issues of the columns at ground floor and soft story phenomenon. DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING The owner/users of the building should be vigilant about development of any new distress, particularly, in primary structural elements such as columns, beams and slabs. Based on the Visual Assessment and available Factor of Safety (FOS) of all types of columns, the building falls in to GREEN category considering gravity loading condition only. The Consultants recommend intensity of loading should not exceed 40 psf on any location of the building Though columns have high slenderness at ground floor, due to lesser gravity loads columns seem to have adequate margin of safety against gravity load. However, the building has one bay framing system with no redundancy in the north- south direction. This type of structural configuration could make the structure vulnerable under seismic excitation. Therefore, Detail Engineering Assessment (DEA) of the structure need to be carried out to assess the performance under the seismic load. SEISMIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION I. BASIC STRUCTURAL CHECKLIST NON- COMPLIANCES Criteria Description of Conditions Comments Unit System - General The clear distance between the building The building is connected with a 10 storied building (WG- 5 Extension) at 1 st floor Denim being evaluated and any adjacent level with two beams and a Adjacent building shall be greater than 4 percent slab and at the 2 s floor level of the height of the shorter building for with reinforced concrete Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. steps. Floor levels are different in the two connected buildings. Configuration Soft Story The stiffness of the lateral- force resisting system in any story shall not be less than 70 percent of the lateral- force- resisting system stiffness in an adjacent story above or below, or less than 80 2nd story is found to be a soft- story based on the measured story height and physical dimensions of all columns (Denim ). Denim Utility BUILDING INTEGRITY INSPECTION SUMMARY OPEX MILLS PAGE 4/8

Condition of Materials Cracks In Boundary Columns percent of the average lateral- force resisting system stiffness of the three stories above or below for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. There shall be no existing diagonal cracks wider than 1/8 inch for Life Safety and 1/16 inch for Immediate Occupancy in concrete columns that encase masonry infills. Moment Frames with Infill Walls Interfering Walls Concrete Moment Frames Shear Stress Check All concrete and masonry infill walls placed in moment frames shall be isolated from structural elements. The shear stress in the concrete columns, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 3.5.3.2, shall be less than the greater of 100 psi or for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. Unreinforced Masonry Shear Walls Shear Stress Check The shear stress in the unreinforced masonry shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 3.5.3.3, shall be less than 30 psi for clay units and 70 psi for concrete units for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. The columns stiffness of ground floor is not satisfying the mentioned requirement ( Utility ). Cracks in two exterior columns (probably more than 1/16 in width) has been observed Masonry infill walls are not isolated in both the interior and exterior moment frames. However, the infill walls are neither structurally integrated with the frame members. The columns of ground floor and 1st floor are not satisfying he mentioned requirements. All unreinforced masonry shear walls do not satisfy the mentioned requirement. Utility All SSL Diesel All II. GEOLOGICAL SITE HAZARDS AND FOUNDATIONS CHECKLIST NON- COMPLIANCES Criteria Description of Conditions Comments Unit Geologic Site Hazards Liquefaction susceptible soils exist in the foundation soils at depths within 25 feet of the building as described in project geotechnical investigation (6X ). Liquefaction Liquefaction- susceptible, saturated, loose granular soils that could jeopardize the building's seismic performance shall not exist in the foundation soils at depths within 50 feet under the building for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. Liquefaction susceptible soils exist in the foundation soils at depths within 35 feet of the building as described in project geotechnical investigation (Rope Denim 6X Rope Denim SSL SSL3 BUILDING INTEGRITY INSPECTION SUMMARY OPEX MILLS PAGE 5/8

). Liquefaction susceptible soils exist in the foundation soils at depths within 30 feet of the building as described in project geotechnical investigation (SSL ). Liquefaction susceptible soils exist in the foundation soils at depths within 40 feet of the building as described in project geotechnical investigation (SSL3 ). III. BASIC NON- STRUCTURAL COMPONENT CHECKLIST NON- COMPLIANCES Criteria Description of Conditions Comments Unit Partitions The maximum height of All masonry wall in ground floor is more than 10 feet. Unreinforced Masonry Stairs URM Walls Unreinforced masonry or hollow clay tile partitions shall be braced at spacing equal to or less than 10 feet in levels of low or moderate seismicity and 6 feet in levels of high seismicity. Walls around stair enclosures shall not consist of unbraced hollow clay tile or unreinforced masonry with a height- to- thickness ratio greater than 12- to- 1. A height- to- thickness ratio of up to 15- to- 1 is permitted where only the Basic Nonstructural Component Checklist is required. The maximum height of masonry wall in ground floor is 19 feet ( Utility ). The height- to- thickness ratio of URM walls is 16. Where the URM wall thickness is 5 in (4X and Diesel ). The height- to- thickness ratio of URM walls is 16. Where the URM wall thickness is 10 in (6X ). The height- to- thickness ratio of URM walls is 16. Where the URM wall thickness is 10 in (Rope Denim ). 4X 6X Rope Denim DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY 1. The following criteria are used for the building integrity inspection: BUILDING INTEGRITY INSPECTION SUMMARY OPEX MILLS PAGE 6/8

A. Permit review and verification. B. Visual assessment. C. Detailed assessment following ASCE- 31 standards. i. Level of Investigation ii. Level of Performance Evaluation to Life Safety Performance Level (L.S.) iii. Level of Seismicity According to BNBC (1993) and based on geotechnical investigation report 1. Zone coefficient 2. Site Class (as per BNBC 1993) Design short period response acceleration S DS Design spectral response acceleration at 1 sec. SD 1 iv. Type v. Screening Phase (Tier 1) vi. Basic Structural Checklist vii. Geological Site Hazards and Foundation Checklist viii. Basic Non- structural Component Checklist 2. Gravity Loading Evaluation Definitions GREEN YELLOW AMBER RED Factor of Safety (FS) of Column Strength is greater than 1.86 - the building is fully safe Factor of Safety (FS) of Column Strength is between 1.5 and 1.86 - the building is marginally safe Factor of Safety (FS) of Column Strength is between 1.25 and 1.5 - the building's safety is not fully ensured Factor of Safety (FS) of Column Strength is less than 1.25 - the building is unsafe 3. Seismic Performance Ratings (http://www.berkeley.edu/administration/facilities/safer/findings.html#rating ) GOOD FAIR s and other structures whose performance during a major seismic disturbance is anticipated to result in structural and nonstructural damage and/or falling hazards that would not significantly jeopardize life. s and other structures with a GOOD rating would represent an acceptable level of earthquake safety, such that funds need not be spent to improve their seismic resistance to gain greater life safety. s and other structures whose performance during a major seismic disturbance is anticipated to result in structural and nonstructural damage and/or falling hazards that would represent low life hazards. s and other structures with a FAIR seismic rating would be given a low priority for BUILDING INTEGRITY INSPECTION SUMMARY OPEX MILLS PAGE 7/8

expenditures to improve their seismic resistance and/or to reduce falling hazards so that the building could be reclassified GOOD. VERY s and other structures expected to sustain significant structural and nonstructural damage and/or result in falling hazards in a major seismic disturbance, representing appreciable life hazards. Such buildings or structures either would be given a high priority for expenditures to improve their seismic resistance and/or to reduce falling hazards so that the building could be reclassified GOOD, or would be considered for other abatement programs, such as reduction of occupancy. s and other structures whose performance during a major seismic disturbance is anticipated to result in extensive structural and nonstructural damage, potential structural collapse, and/or falling hazards that would represent high life hazards. Such buildings or structures either would be given the highest priority for expenditures to improve their seismic resistance and/or to reduce falling hazards so that the building could be reclassified GOOD, or would be considered for other abatement programs, such as reduction of occupancy. BUILDING INTEGRITY INSPECTION SUMMARY OPEX MILLS PAGE 8/8