CLIENT:

DESIGNED BY: BEREKET TESFAYE(PSTE/22382)

LOCATION: DESSIE
DATE: NOV 13,2022

G+2 STRUCTURAL
DESIGN REPORT
DESIGN REPORT

Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Geometry of the structure ............................................................................................................................ 3
Design Criteria and Building Codes ............................................................................................................... 4
Material Properties ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Loading and load combination ..................................................................................................................... 8
Seismic Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 13
Sample loading on frame and shell elements ............................................................................................. 23
Structural Design......................................................................................................................................... 27
Slab Design .............................................................................................................................................. 27
Stair Design ............................................................................................................................................. 29
Beam & Column Design ......................................................................................................................... 33
Foundation Design .................................................................................................................................. 41

NOV 13,2022
DESIGN REPORT

Introduction

This design report explains the assumptions; analysis, design process and the results associated
with the structural design of G+2 building to be constructed in Dessie city, The design process
considered all the requirements of the code and the environment condition of the area.
Characteristics
The building has a plan configuration as shown in the figure below.

The building is categorized in a design working life category of 4 based on Es EN 1990 2015,
which its indicative design working life is 50 years. The building has staircase that provide
vertical communication between floors. Reinforced concrete beams, columns, and solid slab
have been adopted for the floor system. Three-dimensional modeling has been done for the
analysis of the frame using finite element software (Etabs software). It is designed based on
EBCS EN 1990 2015, EBCS EN 1992-2015, and EBCS EN 1998-2015 codes.

Page 2 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Geometry of the structure

Slab

Solid concrete solid slab has been used for floors. Hence 160 mm thick concrete solid slab used
and roof slab carrying water tanker is also designed with 160mm thick concrete solid slab and
cantilever slab designed with 160mm thickness of concrete. Slab blocks are supported by 450mm
x 250 (depth x width) beam. Analysis and design of the slab system has been done in accordance
with ES EN 1992 -2015. All floors are designed to be solid concrete slab. Panels with similar
spans and loading conditions were grouped together as shown on the Slab design section of the
structural calculations. The moments, shears and reactions of the panels were calculated using
coefficients appropriate for the dimensions and support conditions of the slabs using Excel based
Spreadsheet.
Beam Design

Based on structural and architectural requirement different types of beams are selected. For
beams Supporting concrete solid slab 450mm x 250mm,600x300,350X250 Beams are designed
for the maximum moment and shear effects arising from the design situations specified in ES EN
1992-1-1:2015. Beam dimensions are selected based on these effects, architectural requirements
and serviceability considerations stated in ES EN 1992-1-1:2015. Finally, reinforcements were
designed using ETABS facilities (using Eurocode 2:2004) after verifying its results with the
procedures and recommendations given by Ethiopian Building Code of Standards.
Column Design

Columns are checked for 1st as well as 2nd order effects. 1st order effects are those arising from
direct application of loads whereas 2nd order effects are those coming from two sources: P-Delta
effects of the global lateral translation of the frame and the local deformation of elements within
the frame due to slenderness effects. The 3D ETABS Analysis was set up so that it will take into
account any p-delta effects resulting from lateral loads. Therefore, the analysis results from
ETABS give both the first and second order effects of the loads. Column reinforcements are
calculated in ETABS facilities using EUROCODE 2 -2004 which is the similar version of ES
EN 1992-1-1:2015, after performing the analysis.

Page 3 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Stair Design
The stair was modeled as one-way slabs running in longitudinal direction. And the design was
conducted for each design actions, bending moment and shear force according to design
considerations provided in ES EN 1992-2015.Analysis and design of the stair case system has
been done using excel sheet.
Foundation Design
The foundation was dimensioned in such a way that the assumed bearing capacity of the soil is
not exceeded. The allowable bearing capacity of the soil was assumed to be 250kpa and this has
to be verified by the engineer before construction. The superstructure loads for designing the strap
and strap foundation section are obtained from 3d analysis model made using ETABS software.
SOIL ASSUMPTION
A detail geotechnical investigation has been carried out and different types of soil layers varying
in depth from bore hole to bore hole observed and the Strap foundation recommended. For more
detail soil investigation report is attached with this booklet.

Design Criteria and Building Codes

Serviceability limit state design method was used for member sizing and ultimate limit state
design for flexural designing.
The project is designed in accordance with the new Ethiopian code, ES EN: 2015

-ES EN: 1990-2015: Basis of Structural Design

-ES EN: 1991-2015: Action on Structures

-ES EN: 1992-2015: Design of Concrete Structures

-ES EN: 1997-2015: Geotechnical Design

-ES EN: 1998-2015: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance

Page 4 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Material Properties
The material properties as well as the material partial safety factor dictated by the Ethiopian
Building Code and Standards (ES EN 1990) are clearly identified in the “Material Properties”
section of the Structural Calculations. Accordingly, the Major structural materials considered in
the design and their characteristic strength is given bellow
Concrete

➢ grade of concrete is C-25 slab, beam, stair structural member

➢ Characteristic strength, fck=20Mpa for C-25
➢ Fcd = 11.33 Mpa for C-25
➢ Modulus of elasticity, Ecm= 30Gpa
➢ Safety factors = 1.5
➢ grade of concrete is C-30 foundation and column
➢ Characteristic strength, fck=25Mpa for C-30
➢ Fcd = 13.60 Mpa for C-30
➢ Modulus of elasticity, Ecm= 31Gpa
➢ Safety factors = 1.5
Reinforcement

S400B-for shear reinforcement and main reinforcement

➢ Yield strength, fyk = 400Mpa

➢ Safety factors = 1.15
➢ fyd = 400/1.15 = 347.83 Mpa
The safety factors used in the load combinations are taken from EBCS EN 2015

a) safety factors used for load cases

- dead load, γG = 1.35
- live load, γQ = 1.5
b) safety factors used for strength of materials
- concrete γc = 1.5
- steel γs = 1.15

Page 5 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Concrete

Strength Classes For fck (MPa) fk, cube (MPa) Ecm (GPa
Concrete
C-25 For Beam and Solid 20 25 30
Slab

C-30 For column and 25 30 31

foundation

➢ For Beam and slab elements concrete grade of C20/25 is used.

➢ For footing concrete grade of C25/30 is used.
➢ For column elements concrete grade of C25/30 is used

Reinforcing steel
Product form Bars and de-coiled rods
Class A B C
Characteristic yield strength fyk or f0,2k (MPa)
400 -600

Minimum value of k = (ft/fy)k ≥1.05 ≥1.08 ≥1.15

<1.35
Characteristic strain at ≥2.5 ≥5.0 ≥7.5
Maximum force, εuk (%)
Bendability Bend/Rebend test
Shear strength
Maximum nominal
deviation from bar size (mm)
nominal mass ≤ 8
(individual bar >8 ±6.0
or wire) (%) ±4.5

Concrete cover to reinforcement:

Concrete cover of is the distance between the surfaces the reinforcement closest to the concrete
surface.

For slab and stair

Exposure class - XC1
Indicative strength class - C20/25
Number with slab geometry reduced by 1 = 4 - 1 = 3
Cmin, B = stair diameter of the bar = 12
Cmin, B = slab diameter of the bar = 10
Structural class = S3 = cmin, dur = 10
cdev (allowance in design for varation ) = 10
cnom = cmin + cdev = 12mm + 10mm = 22mm  25mm for stair
cnom = cmin + cdev = 10mm + 10mm = 20mm for slab

Page 6 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

For column
COVER CALCULATION TO ES EN-1992:2015
DESIGN WORKING LIFE 50 EXPOSURE CLASS XC2/XC3
STRUCTURAL ELEMENT BEAM MAXIMUM AGGREGATE SIZE ≤32mm
DIAMETER OF REBAR 14 STRENGTH CLASS OF CONCRETE C20/25
QUALITY CONTROL? YES

Cmin,b 14 mm
COVER DUE TO ENVIROMENTAL
STRUCTURAL CLASS
CONDITIONS
DESIGN WORKING LIFE 0 Cmin,DUR 20 mm
STRENGTH CLASS 0 3 Cmin,γ 0 mm
SLAB GEOMETRY 0 Cmin,st 0 mm
SPECIAL QUALITY CONT. -1 Cmin,add 0 mm
STRUCTURAL CLASS S3 Σ 20 mm
Cmin,min 20 mm
ΔCdev 10 mm
Cnom The Nominal Cover For The Considered Element Should Be 30 mm

COVER CALCULATION TO ES EN-1992:2015

DESIGN WORKING LIFE 50 EXPOSURE CLASS XC2/XC3

STRUCTURAL ELEMENT COLUMN MAXIMUM AGGREGATE SIZE ≤32mm
DIAMETER OF REBAR 14 STRENGTH CLASS OF CONCRETE C20/25
QUALITY CONTROL? YES

Cmin,b 14 mm
COVER DUE TO ENVIROMENTAL
STRUCTURAL CLASS
CONDITIONS
DESIGN WORKING LIFE 0 Cmin,DUR 20 mm
STRENGTH CLASS 0 3 Cmin,γ 0 mm
SLAB GEOMETRY 0 Cmin,st 0 mm
SPECIAL QUALITY CONT. -1 Cmin,add 0 mm
STRUCTURAL CLASS S3 Σ 20 mm

Cmin,min 20 mm
ΔCdev 10 mm
Cnom The Nominal Cover For The Considered Element Should Be 30 mm

For footing

Exposure class - XC4

Indicative strength class - c20/25
Cmin, B = diameter of the bar = 14
Structural class = S4 = cmin, dur = 30
(allowance in design for varation ) = 10
cnom = cmin + cdev = 30mm + 10mm = 40mm

• For Footings 50mm.

• For Beams, Columns cover to main reinforcement 25mm
• For suspended slabs 20mm.
• For suspended stair 25mm.
• For slabs on hard-core 30mm.

Page 7 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Loading and load combination

Floor Loading

For the purpose of determining loading on each floor, the following unit weights of material have
been used:
Dead Load

Concrete 25 KN/m3
Cement Screed 23KN/m3
PVC/Carpet 16KN/M3
Glass 0.027 KN/m2/mm
HCB 14KN/m3
Partial Safety Factor 1.35
Live Load

Balconies: 4.0 KN /m2 uniform

Stair 3.0 KN /m2 uniform
Residence rooms: 2.0 KN /m2 uniform
Toilets and bath rooms 2.0 KN /m2 uniform
Terrace 2.0 KN /m2 uniform

Beam loading

20cm HCB self-wt.=14KN/m2*0.2* (3.4-0.45) m=8.26KN/m

Plaster: 2*0.02*23KN/m2*(3.4-0.45) =2.714KN/m
Total load =8.26+2.714=11KN/m

Page 8 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Design Load Combinations

The values of actions which occur simultaneously are combined as follows:

1. Quasi permanent

Gkj + PK + 2i  Qki

2. Persistent and transient situation

COMB1 – 1.35  Gk + 1.5  Qk

Geometric Imperfection

The unfavorable effects of possible deviations in the geometry of the structure and the position of
loads shall be considered in the analysis of members and structures (ES EN 1992:2015).
Imperfections shall be considered in ultimate limit states in persistent and accidental design
situations (ES EN 1992:2015). Table 2-1 shows imperfection forces applied to diaphragms.
 = o * h * m
l 1
o = = = 0.005
200 200
2 2
h = = = 0.52take  h = 0.52
l 14.50
 m = 0.5(1 + 1 / m ) 0.5(1 + 1 / 3) = 0.5(1 + 1 / 3) = 0.816
 x =  o *  h *  m = 0.005 * 0.52 * 0.816 = 0.0022
 m = 0.5(1 + 1 / 4) = 0.5(1 + 1 / 3) = 0.816
 y =  o *  h *  m = 0.005 * 0.52 * 0.816 = 0.0022

Imperfection force per floor

TABLE: Story Forces
Story Load Case/Combo Location P = Nb – Na Hix = θ iX P Hiy = θ i P
kN
WT SERVICE Bottom 228.6689 0.50 0.49
ROOF SERVICE Bottom 817.3284 1.80 1.74
2ND FL SERVICE Bottom 4485.1855 9.87 9.55
1ST FL SERVICE Bottom 8249.289 18.15 17.57
GFL SERVICE Bottom 10133.225 22.29 21.58

Page 9 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Seismic Situation

General Format: Gkj + AEd + 2i  Qki  Imperfection X

: Gkj + AEd + 2i  Qki  Imperfection Y
Equivalent Static Method of Analysis

Thus, are total load combinations for seismic situation corresponding to the four load combinations
above whose seismic actions, AEd have each two alternative lines of actions to take in to account the
effects of accidental torsional eccentricity.

1.0  Gkj + 0.3  Qki, + 0.6  Qki,  AEd, x  0.3 AEd, y  IMP X
OR

 Gkj + 0.3  Qki, + 0.6  Qki,  AEd, y  0.3 AEd, x  IMP X

Load Combinations
Table 4.11 - Load Combinations
Load Scale
Name Type Auto
Case/Combo Factor
COMB1 DEAD 1.35 Linear Add No
COMB1 FINISHING 1.35 No
COMB1 WALL 1.35 No
COMB1 LIVEA 1.5 No
COMB1 LIVEB 1.5 No
COMB1 LIVEC 1.5 No
COMB1 LIVED 1.5 No
COMB1 LIVEF 1.5 No
SESMIC DEAD 1 Linear Add No
SESMIC LIVEA 0.3 No
SESMIC FINISHING 1 No
SESMIC WALL 1 No
SESMIC LIVEC 0.6 No
SESMIC LIVED 0.6 No
SESMIC LIVEF 0.3 No
SESMIC LIVEB 0.3 No
1COMB1 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
1COMB1 EQX 1 No
1COMB1 EQY 0.3 No
1COMB1 IMPX 1 No
1COMB2 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
1COMB2 EQX 1 No
1COMB2 EQY 0.3 No
1COMB2 IMPX -1 No
1COMB3 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
1COMB3 EQX 1 No
1COMB3 EQY -0.3 No
1COMB3 IMPX 1 No
1COMB4 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
1COMB4 EQX 1 No
1COMB4 EQY -0.3 No
1COMB4 IMPX -1 No
1COMB5 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
1COMB5 EQX -1 No
1COMB5 EQY 0.3 No
1COMB5 IMPX 1 No
1COMB6 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No

Page 10 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Load Scale
Name Type Auto
Case/Combo Factor
1COMB6 EQX -1 No
1COMB6 EQY 0.3 No
1COMB6 IMPX -1 No
1COMB7 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
1COMB7 EQX -1 No
1COMB7 EQY -0.3 No
1COMB7 IMPX 1 No
1COMB8 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
1COMB8 EQX -1 No
1COMB8 EQY -0.3 No
1COMB8 IMPX -1 No
2COMB1 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
2COMB1 NEQX 1 No
2COMB1 NEQY 0.3 No
2COMB1 IMPX 1 No
2COMB2 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
2COMB2 NEQX 1 No
2COMB2 NEQY 0.3 No
2COMB2 IMPX -1 No
2COMB3 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
2COMB3 NEQX 1 No
2COMB3 NEQY -0.3 No
2COMB3 IMPX 1 No
2COMB4 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
2COMB4 NEQX 1 No
2COMB4 NEQY -0.3 No
2COMB4 IMPX -1 No
2COMB5 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
2COMB5 NEQX -1 No
2COMB5 NEQY 0.3 No
2COMB5 IMPX 1 No
2COMB6 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
2COMB6 NEQX -1 No
2COMB6 NEQY 0.3 No
2COMB6 IMPX -1 No
2COMB7 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
2COMB7 NEQX -1 No
2COMB7 NEQY -0.3 No
2COMB7 IMPX 1 No
2COMB8 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
2COMB8 NEQX -1 No
2COMB8 NEQY -0.3 No
2COMB8 IMPX -1 No
3COMB1 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
3COMB1 EQX 0.3 No
3COMB1 EQY 1 No
3COMB1 IMPY 1 No
3COMB2 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
3COMB2 EQX 0.3 No
3COMB2 EQY 1 No
3COMB2 IMPY -1 No
3COMB3 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
3COMB3 EQX -0.3 No
3COMB3 EQY 1 No
3COMB3 IMPY 1 No
3COMB4 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
3COMB4 EQX -0.3 No
3COMB4 EQY 1 No
3COMB4 IMPY -1 No
3COMB5 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
3COMB5 EQX 0.3 No
3COMB5 EQY -1 No
3COMB5 IMPY 1 No

Page 11 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Load Scale
Name Type Auto
Case/Combo Factor
3COMB6 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
3COMB6 EQX 0.3 No
3COMB6 EQY -1 No
3COMB6 IMPY -1 No
3COMB7 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
3COMB7 EQX -0.3 No
3COMB7 EQY -1 No
3COMB7 IMPY 1 No
3COMB8 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
3COMB8 EQX -0.3 No
3COMB8 EQY -1 No
3COMB8 IMPY -1 No
4COMB1 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
4COMB1 NEQX 0.3 No
4COMB1 NEQY 1 No
4COMB1 IMPY 1 No
4COMB2 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
4COMB2 NEQX 0.3 No
4COMB2 NEQY 1 No
4COMB2 IMPY -1 No
4COMB3 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
4COMB3 NEQX -0.3 No
4COMB3 NEQY 1 No
4COMB3 IMPY 1 No
4COMB4 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
4COMB4 NEQX -0.3 No
4COMB4 NEQY 1 No
4COMB4 IMPY -1 No
4COMB5 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
4COMB5 NEQX 0.3 No
4COMB5 NEQY -1 No
4COMB5 IMPY 1 No
4COMB6 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
4COMB6 NEQX 0.3 No
4COMB6 NEQY -1 No
4COMB6 IMPY -1 No
4COMB7 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
4COMB7 NEQX -0.3 No
4COMB7 NEQY -1 No
4COMB7 IMPY 1 No
4COMB8 SESMIC 1 Linear Add No
4COMB8 NEQX -0.3 No
4COMB8 NEQY -1 No
4COMB8 IMPY -1 No
SERVICE DEAD 1 Linear Add No
SERVICE LIVEA 1 No
SERVICE FINISHING 1 No
SERVICE WALL 1 No
SERVICE LIVEB 1 No
SERVICE LIVEF 1 No
SERVICE LIVEC 1 No
SERVICE LIVED 1 No

Page 12 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Seismic Analysis
Analysis
The vertical dead and live loads imposed on the slabs were calculated and applied to the different
slab panels. The slab reactions on the supporting beams were determined and input in the 3D
ETABS model so that they would be analyzed together with the other calculated lateral loads.
Earthquake
The seismic analysis of the building was more involved. One type of analysis was conducted
based on ES EN 1998.
The seismic analysis followed the procedure below
Calculate floor loads and floor center of mass

Calculate seismic base shear

Distribute the seismic load on each floor at the center of mass of the
floor

Apply the Seismic Load on Each at the Center of Mass of the Floor

All joints on a particular floor were connected together by the “diaphragm” feature of ETABS.
This feature represents the presence of a solid slab (diaphragm), which will allow the distribution
of lateral forces to the lateral force resisting systems in accordance with their stiffness. The
seismic force on the floors was applied in two orthogonal directions with positive and negative
sign.

Page 13 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Earthquake Loading
a. Plan and elevation irregularity check

In general, the regularity in plan can be checked when the structural model is defined. The
criteria for regularity in plan are described in EBCS EN 1998-2015

The slenderness of the building shall be not higher than 4 ( = Lmax/Lmin),

In ground, G- terrace= ( = Lmax/Lmin= (11.5/11.2) =1.which is smaller than 4

c. if they do not preserve symmetry in each face, the sum of setbacks at all story shall be not
greater than30 %of the plan dimension at the ground floor above the foundation or above the
top of rigid basement, and the individual setbacks shall not greater than 10% of the previous
plan dimension

In x direction In Y-direction

L − L2
= 0  0  0.3
L − L2 L
 0 = 0  0.3
L

Therefore, the building is Regular in elevation in x and regular in y direction.

b. Fundamental period of vibration T1

T1 = Ct  H3/4
Ct = 0.075 (Frame system); Tc = 0.6s (subsoil Class c)

 T1 = 0.075  14.503/4 = 0.55s

Page 14 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

4 xTc = 4 * 0.6 = 2.4.

T1  
2.0s
Fb = Sd (T1)  m  
Where:
 = 0.85 since T1 <2TC;
C. Member stiffness

The internal forces are computed based on cracked elements according to ES EN 1998 in correlation
with euro code. In concrete buildings, in composite steel-concrete buildings and in masonry
buildings the stiffness of the load bearing elements should, in general, be evaluated
taking i nto account the effect of cracki ng. Such stiffness should correspond to the
ini tiation of yielding of the reinforcement.
Unless a more accurate analysis of the cracked elements is performed, the elastic flexural
and shear stiffness properties of concrete and masonry elements may be taken to be
equal to one-half of the corresponding stiffness of the uncracked el ements.
Therefore, the elastic flexural and shear stiffness properties are taken to be equal to one-half
of the corresponding stiffness of the un-cracked elements. Also, the torsional stiffness of
the elements has been reduced to 10% of the torsional stiffness of the un-cracked sections.
Stiffness of the slab elements is neglected. However, the rigid diaphragm behavior of the slab
elements is taken into account.
Member stiffness modification for concrete

beam Member Stiffness modification for concrete

column

Page 15 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

C. Ductility Class

Since this kind of topology is constructed in high earthquake region we need to consider it as
Ductility class medium for design.
d. Structural system type

Frames or frame-equivalent dual system type structural system

e. Calculation of behavior factor

Assuming DCM, q = 3.u /1, where αu is the load factor to cause over- all instability due to

plastic hinge formation, and α1 is the load factor at first yield in the Structure. u /1 =1.3

For Multistory, multi-bay frames or frame-equivalent dual structures:

q =1.3*3=3.9 =for regular building.

Page 16 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Page 17 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

g. Base Shear Distribution over the Height of the Building

The base shear is distributed over the height of the building according to the following formula:

Page 18 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Page 19 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Page 20 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Page 21 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

I. Determination the interstorey drift sensitivity coefficient  & check for damage limit

Drift and sensitivity coefficient is checked for maximums horizontal load of earthquake in each
direction.

TABLE: Story Drifts θ=(Ptot*q*dr/h) v *dr/

Story
Load ptot vtot dr/h v h<
Case/Comb 0.005
WT EQX 205.9539 17.2 0.000671 0.031 0.001
ROOF EQX 791.5454 58.1 0.0009 0.048 0.002
2ND FL EQX 4064.191 212.3 0.002326 0.174 0.05
1ST FL EQX 7432.788 294.1 0.00164 0.162 0.003
GFL EQX 9316.724 294.1 0.000975 0.120 0.002

TABLE: Story Drifts θ=(Ptot*q*dr/h) v *dr/

Story
Load ptot vtot dr/h v h<
Case/Comb 0.005
WT EQY 205.9539 15.5 0.00067 0.035 0.001
ROOF EQY 791.5454 52.5 0.00085 0.050 0.002
2ND FL EQY 4064.191 192 0.001201 0.099 0.05
1ST FL EQY 7432.788 265.9 0.001578 0.172 0.003
GFL EQY 9316.724 265.9 0.001047 0.143 0.002

TABLE: Story Drifts θ=(Ptot*q*dr/h) v *dr/

Story
Load ptot vtot dr/h v h<
Case/Comb 0.005
WT NEQX 205.9539 17.2 0.000608 0.028 0.001
ROOF NEQX 791.5454 58.1 0.001039 0.055 0.002
2ND FL NEQX 4064.191 212.3 0.002714 0.203 0.05
1ST FL NEQX 7432.788 294.1 0.001905 0.188 0.004
GFL NEQX 9316.724 294.1 0.000878 0.108 0.002

TABLE: Story Drifts θ=(Ptot*q*dr/h) v *dr/

Story
Load ptot vtot dr/h v h<
Case/Comb 0.005
WT NEQY 205.9539 15.5 0.000641 0.033 0.001
ROOF NEQY 791.5454 52.5 0.000867 0.051 0.002
2ND FL NEQY 4064.191 192 0.001479 0.122 0.05
1ST FL NEQY 7432.788 265.9 0.00181 0.197 0.004
GFL NEQY 9316.724 265.9 0.001157 0.158 0.002

Since inter story drift sensitivity coefficient we do need to apply second order
analysis using p delta.

• for buildings having non-structural el em e n t s of brittle materials attached to

the Structure: dr*v<0.005*h, where v=0.5 for importance class I and II.
Therefore, the analysis does not exceed permissible store drift.

Page 22 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Sample loading on frame and shell elements

Super Dead Load (Finishing Load)

Page 23 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Area Live Load

Page 24 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Wall Area Load (Partition Load)

Frame Load (Wall Load)

Page 25 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Page 26 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Structural Design
Modeling

The model of the building shall adequately represent the distribution of stiffness and mass. So
that all significant deformation shapes and inertia Forces are properly accounted for under the
seismic action considered. The structure must be considered to consist and the number of vertical
and lateral load resisting systems, connected by horizontal diaphragm.
Method of Design

Serviceability limit state design method was used for member sizing and designing.
Software

ETABS, Software is used for the analysis and design of the building by modeling as a 3-D
frame.

Slab Design
Analysis and design of the slab system has been done in accordance with EBCS EN 1992-2015.
All floors of building including roofs are a solid concrete slab. Panels with similar spans and
loading conditions were grouped together as shown on the Slab design section of the structural
calculations. The moments, shears and reactions of the panels were calculated using coefficients
appropriate for the dimensions and support conditions of the slabs using Excel based
Spreadsheet. Finally, we detail our slab by using the maximum span so that it is workable and
avoid wastage.
CALCULATION SHEET
Analysis and Design of Cantilever slab

Cantilever slab CS-1 P

F ck 20.00 F cd 11.33
F yk 400.00 Fy d 347.83

L [m] 1.50 d cal[m] 0.11 Dcal[m] 0.128

Slab Depth [mm] 160.00 Cover [mm] 15.00
Dead Load Floor finish Screed slab Weight Ceiling Plaster Other.D.Load
0.50 0.69 4.00 0.46 1.50
Wall heiht[m] 2.95 Unit wt 25.00 wall thickness[m] 0.2
Point load,P*(KN) 11.0
Total dead load 18.15 Live Load 5.00 Design Load 31.60
Moment 52.04 k-value 2740 r 0.01
Amin[sq.mm] 255 Ascal [sq.mm] 1261 Asmax [sq.mm] 11040
f 14 # of bars 10 Asfinal [sq.mm] 1261
S.max [mm] 320 S.calc[mm] 122.07 S.final [mm] 122.07
f 14 S.final [mm] 120.00

Load transfer on Beams Dead load 24.6 Live load 3.8

Page 27 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Suspended floor Slab Design

Project Spreadsheets to BS 8110 & EC2 REINFORCED CONCRETE COUNCIL

Client Advisory Group Made by Date Page
Location FLOOR SLAB F to G: 1 to 2 RMW 13-Nov-2022 130
2-WAY SPANNING INSITU CONCRETE SLABS to BS 8110:1997 (Table 3.14) Checked Revision Job No
Originated from RCC94.xls on CD © 1999 BCA for RCC chg - R68

DIMENSIONS MATERIALS STATUS VALID DESIGN

short span, lx m 5.60 fcu N/mm² 25 gc = 1.50 F G
long span, ly m 5.60 fy N/mm² 400 gs = 1.15 Edge 1
h mm 160 Density kN/m³ 25 1

Lx = 5.6 m
Top cover mm 20 (Normal weight concrete) Plan
Btm cover mm 20

Edge 4

Edge 2
LOADING characteristic EDGE CONDITIONS
Self weight kN/m² 4.00 Edge 1 C C = Continuous
Extra dead kN/m² 3.30 Edge 2 C D = Discontinuous Ly = 5.6 m
Total Dead, gk kN/m² 7.30 gf= 1.35 Edge 3 D
Imposed, qk kN/m² 5.00 gf= 1.50 Edge 4 D 2
Design load, n kN/m² 17.36 See Figure 3.8 and clauses 3.5.3.5-6 Edge 3

SHORT LONG EDGE 1 EDGE 2 EDGE 3 EDGE 4 BS8110

MAIN STEEL SPAN SPAN Continuous Continuous Free Free Reference
ßs 0.036 0.034 0.047 0.045 0.000 0.000 Table 3.14
M kNm/m 19.4 18.5 25.8 24.7 0.0 0.0
d mm 135.0 125.0 135.0 125.0 135.0 125.0
k' 0.156 0.156 0.156 0.156 0.156 0.156
k 0.042 0.047 0.057 0.063 0.000 0.000
Z mm 128.3 118.0 125.9 115.5 128.3 118.8 3.4.4.4
As req mm²/m 434 451 590 614 0 0
As min mm²/m 189 175 175 175 175 175 Table 3.25
As deflection mm²/m 501 521 ~ ~ ~ ~
Ø mm 10 10 10 10 10 10
Layer B1 B2 T1 T2 T1 T2
@ mm 150 150 125 125 200 200
As prov mm²/m 524 524 628 628 393 393
= % 0.388 0.419 0.465 0.503 0.291 0.314 %
S max mm 415 385 415 385 415 385 Clause
Subclause (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) 3.12.11.2.7
DEFLECTION
fs 221 230 250 261 0 0 Eqn 8
Mod factor 1.637 Eqn 7
Perm L/d 42.56 Actual L/d 41.48 As enhanced 15.5% for deflection control Table 3.10

TORSION STEEL BOTH EDGES DISCONTINUOUS ONE EDGE DISCONTINUOUS

Ø mm 10 X Y X Y
As req mm²/m 393 326 189 3.5.3.5
As prov T mm²/m 393 393 393
Additional As T req mm²/m 0 0 0 0
As prov B mm²/m 524 524 524 524
Bottom steel not curtailed in edge strips at free edges

SUPPORT REACTIONS (kN/m char uno) (See Figure 3.10) Sum ßvx = 0.673 Table 3.15
EDGE 1 EDGE 2 EDGE 3 EDGE 4 Sum ßvy = 0.660
1, F-G G, 2-1 2, F-G F, 2-1 equations
ßv 0.404 0.396 0.269 0.264 19 & 20
Dead kN/m 16.52 16.19 11.01 10.79
Imposed kN/m 11.31 11.09 7.54 7.39
Vs kN/m 39.3 38.5 26.2 25.7
OUTPUT/SUMMARY
SHORT LONG EDGE 1 EDGE 2 EDGE 3 EDGE 4
PROVIDE SPAN SPAN 1, F-G G, 2-1 2, F-G F, 2-1
MAIN STEEL R10 @ 150 B1 R10 @ 150 B2 R10 @ 125 T1 R10 @ 125 T2 R10 @ 200 T1 R10 @ 200 T2

ADDITIONAL 0 CORNER 2 CORNER 3 CORNER 4

TORSION STEEL 0 G1 G2 F2
X direction 0 placed in edge strips
Y direction 0

CHECKS BAR Ø SINGLY MIN MAX GLOBAL

Lx > Ly < COVER REINFORCED SPACING SPACING DEFLECTION STATUS
OK OK OK OK OK OK VALID DESIGN

Page 28 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Stair Design
The stair was modeled as one-way slabs running in longitudinal direction. And the design was
conducted for each design actions, bending moment and shear force according to design
considerations provided in ES: EN 1992, 2015. Analysis and design of the stair case system has
been done using excel sheet.

0.00 m 5.00 m 0.00 m

.

Riser = 19 cm
Thread = 28 cm
θ= 34.16 º
Stair width = 1.20 m

Materials Used:
Concrete: C-25 fcu= 25 MPa
Steel: S-400 fyk= 400 MPa
Constants:
fck =0.8fcu = 20 MPa gc= 1.50
gs = 1.15
0 . 85 f ck
f cd = = 11.33 MPa
g f yk
f yd = =
c
347.83 MPa
1.03 MPa g s

2
3
0 .21( f ck )
Depth Determination: f ctd = = ba = 30 (EBCS 2 - 5.2.3)
gc
æ f yk ö Lx
d = çç 0.4 + 0.6 ÷÷
è 400 ø ba
Required d = 166.67 Provided d = 178.00 OK!
D= 200 mm
Loading:
Dead load at Stair:

- Own wt. of slab (Inclined) = (Dslab x gconc.)/cos = 6.04 KN/m

- 1.5cm plastering = (tplaster x gplaster)/cos = 0.42 KN/m
- Due to steps per unit run = 0.5 x Riser x gconc. = 2.38 KN/m
- 3cm cement screed on thread = gscreed x tscreed = 0.69 KN/m
- 3cm cement screed on riser = (gscreed x tscreed x riser)/thread=0.47 KN/m
- 3cm marble floor finish on thread = gmarble x tmarble = 0.81 KN/m
- 3cm marble floor finish on riser = gmarble x tmarble x riser)/thread =0.55 KN/m
Total Dead Load on Stair = 11.35 KN/m

Page 29 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Live load at Stair:

Live load per unit meter = 3.00 KN/m
Design load at Stair:
1.35DL + 1.5LL = 19.83 KN/m
Dead load at Landing:
- Own wt. of slab = Dslab x gconc. = 5.000 KN/m
- 3cm cement screed = gscreed x tscreed = 0.690 KN/m
- 3cm terrazzo floor finish = gmarble x tmarble = 0.810 KN/m
- 1.5cm plastering = tplaster x gplaster = 0.345 KN/m
Total Dead Load at Landing = 6.85 KN/m
Live load at Landing:
Live load per unit meter = 3.00 KN/m

Design load at Landing:

1.35DL + 1.5LL = 13.70 KN/m
Modeling
19.83
13.70 13.70
RZ = RZ =
49.56 49.56
0.00 5.00 0.00
m m
DL Reaction = 28.38 DL Reaction = 28.38
LL Reaction = 7.50 LL Reaction = 7.50
Design actions
Design Moment = 61.95 KNm
Design Shear = 49.56 KN/m
Dead Load Transferred (Unfactored) = 28.38 KN/m
Live Load Transferred (Unfactored) = 7.50 KN/m

Check for Shear Capacity

V c = 0 . 25 f ctd k 1 k 2 b w d
f ctd = 1.03 rmin = 0.002
K 1 = 1.08
K 2 = 1.42
Calculated Shear Capacity, Vc = 70.17 OK!
Reinforcement calculation
F = 14
 2M  f cd
r cal = 1 − 1 −  = 0.006
 bd 2 f cd  f yd

0.6
r min = = 0.002
f yk
2
As,max = 1106.16 mm
main bar Spacing Required Use F = 14 @ 130 mm
According to ES EN the ratio of the secondary reinforcement to the-
main reinforcement shall be at least equal to 0.2. Thus transverse reinforcement:
F=8
As = 222.50
distribution bar Spacing Required Use F = 8 @ 200 mm

Page 30 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

0.00 m 2.55 m 0.00 m

.

Riser = 18 cm
Thread = 28 cm
θ= 32.74 º
Stair width = 1.30 m

Materials Used:
Concrete: C-25 fcu= 25 MPa
Steel: S-400 fyk= 400 MPa
Constants:
fck =0.8fcu = 20 MPa gc= 1.50
gs = 1.15
0 . 85 f ck
f cd = = 11.33 MPa
gc f yk
f yd = = 347.83 MPa
1.03 MPa g s

2
3
0 .21( f ck )
Depth Determination: f ctd = = ba = 30 (EBCS 2 - 5.2.3)
gc
æ f yk ö Lx
d = çç 0.4 + 0.6 ÷÷
è 400 ø ba
Required d = 85.00 Provided d = 138.00 OK!
D= 160 mm
Loading:
Dead load at Stair:

- Own wt. of slab (Inclined) = (Dslab x gconc.)/cos = 4.76 KN/m

- 1.5cm plastering = (tplaster x gplaster)/cos = 0.41 KN/m
- Due to steps per unit run = 0.5 x Riser x gconc. = 2.25 KN/m
- 3cm cement screed on thread = gscreed x tscreed = 0.69 KN/m
- 3cm cement screed on riser = (gscreed x tscreed x riser)/thread=0.44 KN/m
- 3cm marble floor finish on thread = gmarble x tmarble = 0.81 KN/m
- 3cm marble floor finish on riser = gmarble x tmarble x riser)/thread =0.52 KN/m
Total Dead Load on Stair = 9.88 KN/m
Live load at Stair:
Live load per unit meter = 3.00 KN/m

Page 31 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Design load at Stair:

1.35DL + 1.5LL = 17.84 KN/m
Dead load at Landing:
- Own wt. of slab = Dslab x gconc. = 4.000 KN/m
- 3cm cement screed = gscreed x tscreed = 0.690 KN/m
- 3cm terrazzo floor finish = gmarble x tmarble = 0.810 KN/m
- 1.5cm plastering = tplaster x gplaster = 0.345 KN/m
Total Dead Load at Landing = 5.85 KN/m
Live load at Landing:
Live load per unit meter = 3.00 KN/m

Design load at Landing:

1.35DL + 1.5LL = 12.40 KN/m
Modeling
17.84
12.40 12.40
RZ = RZ =
22.74 22.74
0.00 2.55 0.00
m m
DL Reaction = 12.60 DL Reaction = 12.60
LL Reaction = 3.83 LL Reaction = 3.83
Design actions
Design Moment = 14.50 KNm
Design Shear = 22.74 KN/m
Dead Load Transferred (Unfactored) = 12.60 KN/m
Live Load Transferred (Unfactored) = 3.83 KN/m

Check for Shear Capacity

V c = 0 . 25 f ctd k 1 k 2 b w d
f ctd = 1.03 rmin = 0.002
K 1 = 1.08
K 2 = 1.46
Calculated Shear Capacity, Vc = 55.93 OK!
Reinforcement calculation
F = 14
 2M  f cd
r cal = 1 − 1 −  = 0.002
 bd 2 f cd  f yd

0.6
r min = = 0.002
f yk
2
As,max = 312.94 mm
main bar Spacing Required Use F = 14 @ 170 mm
According to ES EN the ratio of the secondary reinforcement to the-
main reinforcement shall be at least equal to 0.2. Thus transverse reinforcement:
F=8
As = 172.50
distribution bar Spacing Required Use F = 8 @ 200 mm

Page 32 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Beam & Column Design

The force envelope i.e., maximum positive and negative moments, and maximum shear
(envelope) is automatically selected by the ETABS software. The beam reinforcements are
designed to resist these loads.
BEAM AND COLUMN SECTIONS

Page 33 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Page 34 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Page 35 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Page 36 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Flexural and Shear Design of Beam

Page 37 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Page 38 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Shear Reinforcement

Page 39 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Page 40 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Foundation Design
The foundation was dimensioned in such a way that the assumed bearing capacity of the soil is
not exceeded. The allowable bearing capacity of the soil was designed to be 250kpa for the
isolated footing and strap footing; this has to be verified by the engineer before construction. The
type of foundations provided for this building are isolated, combined and strap footings. The
dimensions and reinforcements detail are shown using safe 2016 software finite element
analysis.
Foundation Reaction from ETABS at base level

Comb 1=1.35 dead load+ 1.5 live load

Page 41 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Service Load

Page 42 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

Soil pressure is lower than Alllowable Soil Pressure - 250 Kpa

Page 43 of 44
DESIGN REPORT

FOOTING REINFORCEMENT

----------------------------------------------------------------END -------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 44 of 44