BUILDING INTEGRITY SUMMARY REPORT

Similar documents
BUILDING INTEGRITY SUMMARY REPORT

BUILDING INTEGRITY SUMMARY REPORT

3.5 Tier 1 Analysis Overview Seismic Shear Forces

BUILDING INTEGRITY DEA SUMMARY REPORT

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

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

McMULLAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

"Impact of New IS 1893 & Related Codes on Design of tall Buildings, Including Trend Setting Structures

Structural Inspection Report

Volume 1. HOW TO MAKE A DREAM HOUSE EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT Contents

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

gwinnettcounty RACKING SHELVING CONVEYOR CONSTRUCTION CODE COMPLIANCE GUIDELINES Permitting Procedure

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

Supplemental Plan Check List for Unreinforced Masonry (URM) Retrofit

NON-LINEAR STATIC PUSHOVER ANALYSIS FOR MULTI-STORED BUILDING BY USING ETABS

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

Plan Check No. Checked by: An Appointment Is Required for Verification

PEER/CSSC Tall Building Design Case Study Building #1. J. Andrew Fry John Hooper Ron Klemencic Magnusson Klemencic Associates

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

Seismic Behavior of Soft First Storey

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

4.2 Tier 2 Analysis General Analysis Procedures for LSP & LDP

DEFINING RIGID VS. FLEXIBLE NONSTRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

INITIAL STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT REPORT (SIAR)

LATERAL DRIFT DESIGN IN COLD FORMED STEEL WALL SYSTEMS

International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 1, Pages , July 2011

Effect of Standard No Rules for Moment Resisting Frames on the Elastic and Inelastic Behavior of Dual Steel Systems

Index terms Diagrid, Nonlinear Static Analysis, SAP 2000.

Seismic Design Criteria for Structures, Systems, and Components in Nuclear Facilities

Structural Engineering

Earthquake Resistant Design. Dr. S. K. PRASAD Professor of Civil Engineering S. J. College of Engineering, Mysore

EARTHQUAKE HAZARD REDUCTION IN EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS AND CONCRETE WITH MASONRY INFILL BUILDINGS

4.6 Procedures for Connections

ADVANCED PASSIVE CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR RETROFIT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS IN SEISMIC ZONE

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 5, Issue 5, May ISSN

IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific Research & Development Vol. 2, Issue 07, 2014 ISSN (online):

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

FEMA P-593 STEP-BY STEP PRESCRIPTIVE RETROFIT FOR CRIPPLE WALL BRACING & ANCHORAGE TO FOUNDATION

A Performance Based Evaluation of a Wall- Frame Structure Employing the Pushover Analysis Tool

Linear and Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of a Tall Air Traffic Control (ATC) Tower

SECTION SEISMIC RESTRAINT REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS REVISED PART 1 GENERAL 1.1 DESCRIPTION:

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

Panduit Corporation Tinley Park, Illinois. Outset and Inset Cabinets Seismic Load Rating and Anchorage Design

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

PEER Tall Building Seismic Design Guidelines

DEFINITIONS AND GENERAL EQUIREMENTS

Pushover Analysis of High Rise Reinforced Concrete Building with and without Infill walls

APPLICATION OF PERFORMANCE - BASED DESIGN TO UPGRADE UNSYMMETRICAL RC BUILDING

AN ASSESSMENT OF SAFETY OF A REAL SIX STORIED R.C.C FRAME STRUCTURE BY NON LINEAR STATIC PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

Consideration of torsional irregularity in Modal Response Spectrum Analysis

Available at: Last Modified: December 2012

STATE UNIVERSITY CONSTRUCTION FUND

Hilton Baltimore Convention Center Hotel Western Podium

Comparison of Chilean and US Seismic Design Provisions for Timber Structures

PERIODS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES DURING NONLINEAR EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE

CASE STUDY OF A 40 STORY BRBF BUILDING LOCATED IN LOS ANEGELES

EVALUATION OF NONLINEAR STATIC PROCEDURES FOR SEISMIC DESIGN OF BUILDINGS

Apparel Gallery Ltd.

Distribution of Forces in Lateral Load Resisting Systems

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

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

Performance Based Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Building

A Proposal on the Simplified Structural Evaluation Method for Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings with Infilled Brick Masonry Walls

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

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

PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT OF RC BUILDING FRAMES BY NON LINEAR ANALYSIS

CE 3150 Reinforced Concrete Design Design Project

IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific Research & Development Vol. 2, Issue 09, 2014 ISSN (online):

Comparative Study on Concentric Steel Braced Frame Structure due to Effect of Aspect Ratio using Pushover Analysis

ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION ON THE PERFORMANCE OF TUBE-IN-TUBE STRUCTURES SUBJECTED TO LATERAL LOADS

CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE

DEVELOPMENT OF FLOOR DESIGN SPECTRA FOR OPERATIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS IN CANADA

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Volume 7, Issue 10, October ISSN Pushover Analysis of RC Building

Assessment of P-Delta Effect on High Rise Buildings

Structural Tests and Special Inspections Form. Inspection of Fabricators (1704.2)

SEISMIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS

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

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

PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC EVALUATION OF MULTI-STOREYED REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS USING PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

Pushover analysis of RC frame structure using ETABS 9.7.1

Seismic Performance of Multistorey Building with Soft Storey at Different Level with RC Shear Wall

HOW CONFINED MASONRY BUILDINGS FAIL IN EARTHQUAKES

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

FEMA 356 Life Safety Building Performance Evaluation & PML Analysis

SEISMIC PROVISIONS OF IBC 2006 AND ASCE 7-05

Innovative Moment Resisting Frame System for Earthquake

BASE SHEAR CALCULATION OF RCC STRUCTURE

Seismic Retrofitting of Building with Soft Storey and Floating Column

Best Buy Corporate Building D (4) Richfield, MN

Comparative Study on Dynamic Analysis of Irregular Building with Shear Walls

SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF RC BUILDING RESTING ON PLAIN AND SLOPING GROUND WITH BRACINGS AND SHEAR WALL

Post-Disaster Safety Evaluations Using ATC-20/45

3. CLASSIFICATION AND IMPLICATIONS OF DAMAGE

Seismic Damage Prediction of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Using Pushover Analysis

STANDARD PLAN BULLETIN SP-2 (Structural)

Structural Response Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frame with Unreinforced Masonry Infill Walls

Seismic performance assessment of reinforced concrete buildings using pushover analysis

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

Seismic Performance and Design of Linked Column Frame System (LCF)

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PURE AND APPLIED RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

Transcription:

BUILDING INTEGRITY SUMMARY REPORT SUPPLIER NAME Kenpark Bangladesh Pvt.Ltd (Unit 1) UNITS AUDITED SUPPLIER ADDRESS Dry Process Building Sector 8, Plot 31-42, Chittagong Export Processing Zone, Chittagong, Bangladesh AUDIT DATE March 2014 AUDIT PERFORMED BY Department of Civil Engineering, Bureau of Research, Testing and Consultation, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET) AUDIT TEAM 2 auditors GRAVITY LOADING EVALUATION GREEN The building is fully safe. GREEN The building is fully safe. Dry Process Building AMBER The building's safety is not fully ensured. SEISMIC PERFORMANCE RATING POOR Possible significant structural and nonstructural damage POOR and/or result in falling hazards in a major seismic Dry Process Building POOR disturbance, representing appreciable life hazards. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY Visual inspection and ASCE 31-03 Tier-1 Analysis BUILDING INTEGRITY INSPECTION SUMMARY KENPARK BANGLADESH PVT LTD (UNIT 1) PAGE 1/6

DETAILED CONTENT VISUAL INSPECTION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS... 2 MAIN BUILDING... 2 WASH BUILDING... 2 DRY PROCESS BUILDING... 3 SEISMIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION... 3 I. BASIC STRUCTURAL CHECKLIST NON-COMPLIANCES... 3 II. GEOLOGICAL SITE HAZARDS AND FOUNDATIONS CHECKLIST NON-COMPLIANCES... 4 III. BASIC NON-STRUCTURAL COMPONENT CHECKLIST NON-COMPLIANCES... 4 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY... 4 VISUAL INSPECTION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS MAIN BUILDING Based on the Visual Assessment, we have decided that this building has fallen in safe, GREEN, category. There may be a potential cause of pounding due to different vibration modes of two dissimilar structures. The factory management has already arranged a Detail Engineering Assessment (DEA) from CUET and it has been concluded that the structure is properly designed as per code requirement. The single storied main factory building with a mezzanine floor and the single storied canteen have different framing system and both of them are connected at the ground floor level through a covered passageway. This may be a potential cause of pounding due to different vibration modes of two dissimilar structures. The fixed covered passageway need to be replaced with a sliding one to avoid pounding immediately. Bracings need to be provided to the steam pipes and other utility items which are hanging from the roof, immediately. The use of the building in its present condition may continue with due regards to the observations made above. WASH BUILDING This building has fallen in GREEN (safe) category considering the Factor of Safety (FOS) of all types of columns. From ASCE31 checklist, it is observed that some columns of ground floor do not satisfy the minimum requirements of shear stress. The affected columns need to be identified through DEA and strengthened immediately. The 3 storied extension building and the single storied washing plant have different framing system and both of them are connected at the ground & first floor levels; during occurrence of an earthquake pounding may occur. Sufficient gap based on DEA need to be provided to avoid pounding immediately. BUILDING INTEGRITY INSPECTION SUMMARY KENPARK BANGLADESH PVT LTD (UNIT 1) PAGE 2/6

Bracings need to be provided to the steam pipes and other utility items which are hanging from the roof, immediately. The use of the building in its present condition may continue with due regards to the observations made above. DRY PROCESS BUILDING The slender column used as central support appeared to be vulnerable under earthquake (strong beam weak column).the building has been tagged as AMBER with Detailed Engineering Assessment (DEA) to be commenced immediately and completed within the next 6 weeks. Bracings need to be provided to the steam pipes and other utility items which are hanging from the roof, immediately. The use of the building in its present condition may continue with due regards to the observations made above. SEISMIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION I. BASIC STRUCTURAL CHECKLIST NON-COMPLIANCES Criteria Description of Conditions Comments Unit Building System - General The single-storied main factory building with a mezzanine floor and the single-storied canteen have The clear distance between the building different framing system and being evaluated and any adjacent both of them are connected Adjacent building shall be greater than 4 percent at the ground floor level Buildings of the height of the shorter building for through a covered Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. passageway. Configuration The estimated distance between the story center of mass and the story center of rigidity shall be less than 20 Torsion percent of the building width in either plan dimension for Life Safety and Immediate Occupancy. Concrete Moment Frames Shear Stress Check 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 The shear stress in the unreinforced Check masonry shear walls, calculated using There is a single story steel structure/shed connected with the extension building. The distance between story center of mass and center of rigidity is not less than the 20% of plan dimension in both direction due to mezzanine. The columns of ground floor are not satisfying the mentioned requirements. All unreinforced masonry shear walls do not satisfy the BUILDING INTEGRITY INSPECTION SUMMARY KENPARK BANGLADESH PVT LTD (UNIT 1) PAGE 3/6

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. mentioned requirement. II. GEOLOGICAL SITE HAZARDS AND FOUNDATIONS CHECKLIST NON-COMPLIANCES Criteria Description of Conditions Comments Unit III. BASIC NON-STRUCTURAL COMPONENT CHECKLIST NON-COMPLIANCES Criteria Description of Conditions Comments Unit Lighting Fixtures Emergency lighting shall be anchored or Emergency Emergency lighting is not braced to prevent falling during an Dry Process Lighting securely fixed. earthquake. Building Building Contents and Furnishing Tall Narrow Contents Contents over 4 feet in height with a height-to-depth or height-to-width ratio greater than 3-to-l shall be anchored to the floor slab or adjacent structural walls. A height-to-depth or height-towidth ratio of up to 4-to-l is permitted where only the Basic Nonstructural Component Checklist is required. Mechanical and Electrical Equipment Attached Equipment Equipment weighing over 20 lb that is attached to ceilings, walls; or other supports 4 feet above the floor level shall be braced. The height to width ratio of tall rack is greater than 4 and are needed to be braced. External AC units may not be adequately braced. Dry Process Building All DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY 1. The following criteria are used for the building integrity inspection: 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 BUILDING INTEGRITY INSPECTION SUMMARY KENPARK BANGLADESH PVT LTD (UNIT 1) PAGE 4/6

Design spectral response acceleration at 1 sec. SD 1 iv. Building 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 POOR VERY POOR Buildings 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. Buildings 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. Buildings 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. Buildings and other structures with a FAIR seismic rating would be given a low priority for expenditures to improve their seismic resistance and/or to reduce falling hazards so that the building could be reclassified GOOD. Buildings 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. Buildings 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 BUILDING INTEGRITY INSPECTION SUMMARY KENPARK BANGLADESH PVT LTD (UNIT 1) PAGE 5/6

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 KENPARK BANGLADESH PVT LTD (UNIT 1) PAGE 6/6