IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED BNBC CODE PROVISIONS

ON CONSTRUCTION COST OF RC BUILDINGS

KHANDAKER MAHEDI HASAN

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING (STRUCTURAL)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
DHAKA-1000, BANGLADESH

NOVEMBER, 2021
IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSED BNBC CODE PROVISIONS
ON CONSTRUCTION COST OF RC BUILDINGS

By

KHANDAKER MAHEDI HASAN

Student ID No.: 1014042315 P

A thesis submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering,

Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING (STRUCTURAL)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

BANGLADESH UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

NOVEMBER, 2021
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I express my gratitude to ALMIGHTY ALLAH for giving me with the blessing and
mercy, which has enabled me to accomplish my thesis as a requirement for the degree of
Master of Science in Civil Engineering (Structural). Without the grace of Allah, this work
could not become a reality.

Then I would like to express my heartiest thanks, profound gratitude and deep respect to
my supervisor Dr. Khan Mahmud Amanat, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), Dhaka, who has the
attitude and the substance of a genius; he continually and convincingly conveyed a spirit
of adventure in regard to research; and an excitement in regard to teaching. Without his
guidance and persistent help this dissertation would not have been possible. One simply
could not wish for a better or friendlier supervisor. I will remain ever grateful to him for
his supervision and inspiration to work hard in writing this thesis.

Next to Him are my parents, whom I am greatly indebted for bringing me up with love
and encouragement to this stage.

Besides, my sincere gratefulness to all the teachers of Department of Civil Engineering,

BUET for their entire effort to teach the subjects of Civil Engineering.

At last, but not the least I am thankful to all my friends and well-wishers who have been
always helping and encouraging me throughout the year.

ii
 ABSTRACT

Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC) was first published in 1993 to provide
guidelines for design and construction of new buildings. Recently a thoroughly revised
version of this code called BNBC-2020 has been published. The provisions of the new
code is quite different from those of the previous one. Under such circumstances,
engineers and designers are always inquisitive to know the effect of newer code
provisions on the cost of construction.

In the present study, an initiative is taken to conduct a controlled parametric and

comparative study of RC frame structures based on two codes using FEM based structural
analysis software to investigate the cost implication of the newer code. Structural
analysis and design of five different multistoried (8, 12, 16, 20 and 24) RC building
located in high seismic and high wind (Chattogram), moderate seismic and moderate
wind (Dhaka), low seismic and high wind (Khulna), low seismic and low wind (Rajshahi)
and high seismic and low wind (Sylhet) is conducted. Once the design of all the buildings
is finalized, the detail bill of quantities (BoQ) and cost estimation of structural civil works
for each of the buildings is prepared. Finally, a comparative study is conducted on the
basis of detail analysis and cost estimation outcomes.

This study reveals that the maximum lateral deflection and story drift under service
condition in seismic loading is higher for all the studied buildings in BNBC-2020 than
BNBC-1993 for all the districts under consideration. On the other hand, for wind loading
condition, lateral deflection and drift are higher in BNBC-1993 compared to the same
from BNBC-2020 loading. In terms of concrete volume, BNBC-2020 gives economic
design than BNBC-1993. Besides, BNBC-1993 gives economic design than BNBC-2020
in terms of reinforcement requirements. When total cost of structural civil works is
concerned, BNBC-2020 provisions generally results in a cost effective design for low
seismic areas and produces costlier design for high seismic areas when compared with
similar designs based on BNBC-1993. Though, in most cases the average cost difference
is between -4.57% to +6.0%. If costs of other components such as electromechanical
(lift, substation, generator, air conditioning etc.), plumbing and sanitary, finishing civil
works (e.g. flooring, interior works etc.) are considered, then the cost difference would
be even smaller. Therefore, the effects of recently published BNBC-2020 code on the
construction cost of RC buildings may not be considered very significant.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ii

ABSTRACT iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ix

LIST OF SYMBOLS x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 General 1

1.2 Research Significance 2

1.3 Objectives of the Present Study 2

1.4 Outline of the Methodology 3

1.5 Organization of the Thesis 4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 6

2.1 Introduction 6

2.2 Historical Study 7

2.3 Major Modifications Regarding BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020 9

2.3.1 Live loading 9

2.3.1.1 Comparison of floor live loads 9

2.3.1.2 Comparison of roof live loads 9

2.3.1.3 Reduction of live loads 10

2.3.2 Wind loading 12

2.3.2.1 Comparison of exposure category 12

2.3.2.2 Basic wind speed 14

iv
 2.3.2.3 Topographic effects 16

2.3.2.4 Gust effect factor 17

2.3.2.5 Sustained wind pressure or velocity pressure 19

2.3.2.6 Design wind pressure 19

2.3.2.7 Comparison of pressure and force coefficient 20

2.3.2.8 Design wind load 21

2.3.3 Seismic loading 23

2.3.3.1 Design base shear 24

2.3.3.2 Seismic zone factor 25

2.3.3.3 Structure importance factor 28

2.3.3.4 Response reduction factor 28

2.3.3.5 Time period 30

2.3.3.6 Soil factor 30

2.3.3.7 Normalized response spectrum acceleration 31

2.3.3.8 Seismic weight 31

2.3.3.9 Vertical earthquake loading 32

2.3.3.10 Load combination 32

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 37

3.1 Introduction 37

3.2 Planning for the Research 37

3.2.1 Typical layout selection 38

3.2.2 Considerations for stair and lift 39

3.2.3 Preferences for floor system 39

3.2.4 Number of story and floor heights 40

3.3 Design Considerations 41

3.3.1 Design code and standards 42

v
 3.3.2 Load considerations 42

3.3.3 Structural framing system 42

3.3.4 Material property 44

3.4 Structural Modeling and Analysis 45

3.5 Analysis and Design of Foundation 48

3.6 Design Parameter Used For Lateral Loads 50

3.6.1 Wind load analysis parameters between two codes 50

3.6.2 Seismic load analysis parameters between two codes 50

3.7 Serviceability Limits 56

CHAPTER 4: COST ESTIMATION APPROACHES 57

4.1 Introduction 57

4.2 Quantification of Civil Works 58

4.2.1 Earth excavation and backfilling 58

4.2.2 Quantification of form work 59

4.2.3 Concrete volume quantification 60

4.2.4 Reinforcement weight quantification 61

4.2.4.1 Foundation reinforcement 61

4.2.4.2 Column reinforcement 64

4.2.4.3 Beam reinforcement 66

4.2.4.4 Slab and stair reinforcement 69

4.2.4.5 Water reservoir, basement wall and slab reinforcement 72

4.3 Application of Unit Rate and Finalization of Total Costs 73

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 74

5.1 Introduction 74

5.2 Consequences of Earthquake Loading 74

vi
 5.2.1 Impacts on base shear 74

5.2.2 Impacts on maximum lateral displacement 78

5.3 Consequences of Wind Loading 81

5.3.1 Impacts on wind load 81

5.3.2 Impacts on maximum lateral displacement 87

CHAPTER 6: COMPARATIVE STUDY OF QUANTITY AND COST 90

6.1 Introduction 90

6.2 Comparison of Concrete Volume 90

6.2.1 Concrete volume in different components of structure 90

6.2.1.1 Concrete volume in mat foundation 90

6.2.1.2 Concrete volume in column 93

6.2.1.3 Concrete volume in beam 96

6.2.2 Comparison of total concrete volume 99

6.3 Comparison of Reinforcement 102

6.3.1 Reinforcement in different components of structure 103

6.3.1.1 Reinforcement in mat foundation 103

6.3.1.2 Reinforcement in column 105

6.3.1.3 Reinforcement in beam 108

6.3.1.4 Reinforcement in Floor Slab 111

6.3.2 Each structural elements’ reinforcement as % of total reinforcement 114

6.3.2.1 Foundation reinforcement as % of total reinforcement 115

6.3.2.2 Column reinforcement as % of total reinforcement 117

6.3.2.3 Beam reinforcement as % of total reinforcement 120

6.3.2.4 Floor slab reinforcement as % of total reinforcement 122

6.3.3 Comparison of total reinforcement 125

6.4 Comparison of Total Costs of Civil Works 127

vii
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 131

7.1 Introduction 131

7.2 Observations from the Study 131

7.3 Suggestions for Future Investigation 132

REFERENCES 134

APPENDIX-A: TYPICAL ARCHITECTURAL LAYOUTS 136

APPENDIX-B: SAMPLE CALCULATIONS OF COST ESTIMATION 140

viii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACI American Concrete Institute

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

BNBC Bangladesh National Building Code

DBE Design Basic Earthquake

DL Dead Load

ETABS Extended Three Dimensional Analysis of Building System

FEA Finite Element Analysis

FEM Finite Element Method

IMRF Intermediate Moment Resisting Frame

LL Live Load

MCE Maximum Considered Earthquake

MRF Moment Resisting Frame

MWFRS Main Wind-Force Resisting System

OMRF Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame

PGA Peak Ground Acceleration

RCC Reinforced Cement Concrete

RC Reinforced Concrete

SDL Super-imposed Dead Load

SMRF Special Moment Resisting Frame

UBC Uniform Building Code

ix
 LIST OF SYMBOLS

Cd Deflection amplification factor

Cp Wind pressure coefficient
Cs Normalized acceleration response spectrum
Ct Numerical coefficient to determine building period
E Total load effects of earthquake that include both horizontal and vertical
Eh Horizontal seismic load effect
Ev Vertical effect of seismic load
G Gust effect factor
Gf Gust effect factor for MWFRSs of flexible buildings and other structures
GCp Product of external pressure coefficient and gust effect factor
GCpf Product of the equivalent external pressure coefficient and gust effect factor
GCpi Product of internal pressure coefficient and gust effect factor
H Height of hill or escarpment
I Importance factor
K1, K2, K3 Multipliers in Figure 6.2.4 to obtain Kzt
Kd Wind directionality factor
Kh Velocity pressure exposure coefficient evaluated at height z=h
Kz Velocity pressure exposure coefficient evaluated at height z
Kzt Topographic factor
L Live loads due to intended use and occupancy
Lr Roof live loads, or related internal moments and forces
R Response modification factor
S Site dependent soil factor
Sa Design Spectral Acceleration (in units of g)
T Fundamental period of vibration of structure, in seconds
V Total design base shear calculated by equivalent static analysis
W Wind load, or related internal moments and forces
Z Seismic zone coefficient

0 Horizontal seismic over strength factor

x
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General

In recent eras there has been an extensive increase in the number of tall buildings, both
residential and commercial, and the current trend is towards taller structures. Tall
Buildings are a common feature these days in both developed and developing economies
and with the increase in population and lack of open spaces instead of single storied
constructions, multi-storied buildings are increasingly becoming popular and hence
special consideration need to be given for the analysis of these structures by considering
the dynamic nature of wind and earthquake. Thus the effects of lateral loads like winds
loads, earthquake forces are attaining increasing importance and almost every designer
is faced with the problem of providing adequate strength and stability against lateral
loads. For this reason, to estimate wind load and earthquake loading in an appropriate
way on high-rise building design is essential.

Building codes address many of a society’s most important concerns, including public
health and safety, and environmental protection. Because they are developed by a
democratic and deliberative process that applies improvements incrementally, the
building codes also address cost efficiency and investment value. In large part, building
codes establish a building’s quality, safety and energy performance for years to come,
because initial design and construction decisions determine operational and maintenance
costs for the life of the building. Building equipment and other components may be
replaceable and upgradeable, but many aspects of building performance are "designed
in" at the beginning, and are too expensive and difficult to change. Foundations and other
parts of the building envelope are typically in place for 50 years or more. Building codes
and design and construction decisions affect us in every aspects. Some requirements such
as fire safety codes and structural and seismic standards affect us in obvious ways.

Very recent past in Bangladesh, for the design of buildings Bangladesh National Building
Code (BNBC) 1993 was practiced by professional engineers. However, very freshly
Bangladesh National Building Code 2020 has been developed for the further
advancement of more resilient design of structures to ensure more safety and
serviceability rather than economic design. This calls for the use of an established and
tested building code so far in Bangladesh. Bangladesh lies in a quite seismic-prone region
 2

and historical statistic points to major earthquakes within or close to the country. To
ensure the safety of the structure and its occupants against the natural hazard, drastic
change at the wind and earthquake load provisions in the newly gazetted BNBC code can
be observed. This research is intended to evaluate and compare the previous and new
seismic design provisions dealing with the specification of seismic design forces and
wind provisions among the old and recently published BNBC-2020 code.

1.2 Research Significance

A research is made on comparative investigation of multistoried RC buildings in terms of

seismic and wind provisions for old BNBC-1993 and newly gazetted BNBC-2020 codes.
This study is executed by analysis and designing RC buildings of different stories, as well
as 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24 storied buildings at five different zones in Bangladesh in terms of
different seismic and wind categories. Five different cities such as Chattogram, Dhaka,
Khulna, Rajshahi and Sylhet are selected for high seismic and high wind, moderate seismic
and moderate wind, low seismic and high wind, low seismic and low wind, and high
seismic and low wind respectively. Subsequently, after the finalization of the design of
all RCC buildings under considerations, the variation in different parameters and
materials, including reinforcement, concrete with total costs of structural civil works are
detected. The materials, design parameters and total costs of each building vary from
these two codes with different stories at different zones. The importance of the research
is to attain a comparative study between this two BNBC codes in terms of materials and
other costs for different storied RC buildings in different districts of Bangladesh.

1.3 Objectives of the Present Study

The principal objective of this research is to compare the seismic and wind load
provisions, load combinations, base shear, materials requirement, economy of design,
safety of the design, serviceability of design and overall costs of civil works of the
buildings of BNBC-1993 with same parameters of newly published BNBC-2020. The
purposes are keeping an eye on:
i. To compare the similarities as well as differences between old and new version
of BNBC provisions.
ii. To compare both seismic and wind load effect on multistoried RC buildings
between two codes.
 3

iii. To determine the unit cost of construction (costs per square meter) of multistoried
RC buildings in different zones of Bangladesh following older and newer version
of BNBC provisions. Also the variation of unit cost with respect to the height or
number of floors of a building.
iv. To study the effect of different geographic (e.g. seismic zoning) and
environmental parameters (e.g. wind speed) on cost of construction.
v. A general estimate of unit cost of construction of multistoried RC buildings for
different areas of Bangladesh.

1.4 Outline of the Methodology

In this investigation, the methodology involves firstly the selection of a typical

architectural plan of the multistoried RC building. Secondly, the RC buildings with the
typical plan will be modeled and analyzed for different numbers of floors ranging from
8 to 24 stories in 5 different districts. The modeling and analysis of buildings of different
stories will be done by a finite element method based structural integrated software. A
three dimensional model of the structures will be developed using frame and shell
elements. The structures will be analyzed for different types of loads such as gravity and
lateral loads. Gravity loads involves dead load from Self-weight, super imposed dead
loads and live loads which applied during and after construction stage. Lateral loads
include both earthquake and wind load that act on the structures laterally in all directions
of structure. Seismic loads vary with different seismic zones in Bangladesh. In
accordance with BNBC-1993, Bangladesh is divided into three different seismic zones,
whereas BNBC-2020 divided into four different seismic zones. Wind loads also vary with
different locations and will be analyzed for different load conditions in different cities.

Thirdly, the buildings will be analyzed and designed for particular load combinations as
per the provision sets by both the codes. Some particular super imposed dead and live
loads will be assumed for the analysis and design of all buildings. The beam, column and
shear wall sections and detailing, foundation thickness and detailing, slab detailing and
others structural requirements will be finalized after adjusting by the specification of both
the BNBC. The floor height and slab thickness are kept unchanged for all storied
buildings for both the codes for the convenience of comparing the specific parameters
such as base shear, sway, reinforcement, serviceability criteria etc. Some parameters and
 4

assumptions are simplified and generalized for the convenience of comparing the
parameters between BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020.

Fourthly, after the completion of the final design of all the buildings, the quantitative
results will be extracted directly from finite element analysis which will be used to further
prepare bill of quantities (BoQ) and cost estimate for each of the buildings. Moreover the
structural detailing calculations will be prepared as per the specifications of both the
codes.

Finally, a comparative study will be conducted on the basis of detail analysis outcomes
from the FEA of different structural parameters, BoQ and cost estimate of civil works.
Based on the findings of the study, conclusion will be drawn regarding the unit cost of
construction and other important aspects.

1.5 Organization of the Thesis

The research works performed in this study are divided into different topics and presented
in six Chapters so as to better discuss the resulting findings and comparison of the
investigation.

Chapter 1 introduces a brief introduction to the importance, statement of the present study,
and objective of the thesis along with brief description of the research plan.

Chapter 2 reviews the available literature that is required to understand the background
theories of comparative study and the distinctions of these two codes.

Chapter 3 presents the structural analysis and design methodology used in the present
study. The chapter describes the planning, modeling, meshing, boundary conditions,
gravity and load applications used in the finite element analysis.

Chapter 4 represents the detail procedures of Bill of Quantities (BoQ) of every

components of a RC buildings. Along with cost estimation procedure, sample
calculations data sheet also displayed in this section of the study.

Chapter 5 is based on the outcomes of the numerical study, some parametric analysis
carried out to find the discrepancies between these codes with the aid of figures followed
by some discussions on the obtained results.
 5

Chapter 6 represents the comparative study of material variations, i.e. concrete volume
and reinforcement quantity of different multistoried buildings with the results of final
design as per both the codes. It also comprises the comparison of construction costs of
civil works of varying multistoried buildings of 5 different cities.

Chapter 7 is the concluding chapter, summarizes the entire research work and provide
some recommendations for future research.
 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Bangladesh lies within a zone that is susceptible to seismic hazard. Thus it is of utmost
importance to have restructured Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC) provisions
that could grant structures, maximum affordable safety. The Bangladesh National
Building Code (BNBC) was first published in 1993 to standardize the design and
construction of buildings and uphold them to certain standards. Before the code, the only
laws pertaining to construction was the Building Construction Act, enacted way back in
1952, during the Pakistan era. The need for the Bangladesh National Building Code
(BNBC) arose with a sudden growth and development in the country, which led to a
massive changes starting in the early 90s. The Bangladesh National Building Code
(BNBC) is overseen by the Housing and Building Research Institute (HBRI). This code
establishes the minimum standards for design, construction, material quality, proper
usage, maintenance, and location of buildings.

Since then, major progress has been made in research worldwide and different building
codes have been upgraded accordingly. Significant amount of research have also been
carried out in Bangladesh. In 2010 HBRI took has taken up an initiative to upgrade the
existing building code (BNBC-1993) to incorporate the advances in knowledge and
experience over almost two decades. As the number of high rise buildings is increasing,
the international codes followed for building design, detailing and construction is revised
quite frequently to adopt the new practices [15]. Along with the practicing engineering,
so many researches were done by the different researchers and suggests to upgrade and
modify the old BNBC code. In this regard, an initiative has been taken successfully to
prepare the draft BNBC codes. Moreover many comparative study has been done by the
researchers with the draft BNBC codes. Finally an updated version of BNBC has been
gazetted as a mandatory law for building design and construction by “Ministry of
Housing and Public Works” on 11th February 2021 called as Bangladesh National
Building Code (BNBC) 2020. The purpose of this Code is to establish minimum
standards for design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and
maintenance of all buildings within Bangladesh in order to safeguard, within achievable
limits, life, health, property and public welfare [11].
 7

2.2 Historical Study

This research targets at highlights the modifications in BNBC-2020 on gravity and lateral
loading system and how the construction cost are varies in comparison with BNBC-1993.
It is planned to explore the effects of this changes to a typical building structure at
different location of Bangladesh. Many researchers worked on seismic and wind analysis
with code modifications published. Significant changes have been introduced in BNBC
2012 with regard to analysis for lateral loads. It was originated that seismic base shear of
the building calculated by BNBC 2012 differs pointedly from seismic base shear
calculated by BNBC-1993. Base shear is increased in BNBC-2012 than BNBC-1993 due
to increase in seismic zone coefficient (Z) and self-weight (W), and decrease in structural
response modification factor (R). Design of reinforced concrete buildings for lateral load
in BNBC-2012 is relatively economic than BNBC-1993 as the amount of reinforcement
required is less in BNBC-2012. There is a significant decrease in design wind pressure
in BNBC-2012 than BNBC-1993. For wind load the maximum lateral displacement and
inter story drift with respect to number of stories is less in BNBC-2012 than in BNBC-
1993 in [14].

The proposed changes to BNBC-1993 was first brought up by the research team of Al-
Hussaini, T.M. et al. (2012). They conducted a thorough study on peak ground
acceleration (PGA), spectral acceleration, soil classification system, site-dependent
response spectrum and worked extensively in defining seismic design category. BNBC-
1993 necessities a major update in term of geotechnical earthquake engineering
provisions affecting computation of the seismic loads for design and structural analysis
in [18].

Primarily Bangladesh National Building Code, 1993 (BNBC-1993) has been studied and
compared with Uniform Building Codes, 1991 and 1997 (UBC-91 and UBC-97),
National Building Code of India, 1983 (NBCIndia-83), and Outline Code of Bangladesh,
1979. The study revealed that the developed countries have increased the factor of safety
against earthquake by suggesting higher values of base shear. But the earthquake design
provisions in BNBC-1993 is the least conservative among the current codes compared in
this paper. This may hamper the integrity of the structure and cause serious loss of life
and properties in case of a major earthquake. This calls for a more conservative approach
in the seismic design of the buildings in Bangladesh. Also, wind loads should not be
 8

ignored and should to be properly catered for in the design of medium to high-rise
structures in [9].

Research conducted one of the most compressive studies reveals that BNBC-1993 has
the least base shear among all the codes. Factored base shear values of BNBC-2010 are
found to have increased significantly than that of BNBC-1993 for low rise buildings (
20 m) around the country than its predecessor. Despite revision of the code, BNBC-2010
(draft) still suggests less base shear values when compared to the Indian and American
code. Therefore, this increase in factor of safety against the earthquake imposed by the
proposed BNBC-2010 code by suggesting higher values of base shear is appreciable in
[15].

The effect of surrounding objects and height of structures are considered in proposed
BNBC-2015. BNBC-1993 mentions basic wind speed in terms of fastest-mile wind speed
whereas BNBC-2015 provides basic wind speed in terms of 3-second gust wind speed.
In Method 1, the windward and the leeward pressure are separately considered than
combined but in Method 2, the overall pressure co efficient is used to determine the
design wind pressure directly. All the factors related to wind speed has changed from
BNBC-1993 to BNBC-2015.The wind load in Exposure A according to BNBC-2015 is
found considerably higher by 7-12% than that of BNBC-1993. But for Exposure B & C
according to BNBC-2015 is found significantly lower by 2-10% than BNBC-1993 in
[17].

In case of wind load, change were introduced by modifying method of analysis and load
projection, basic wind speed, gust response factor, external and internal pressure co-
efficient, topographic effect, exposure and enclosure classification. For seismic load,
design spectral acceleration had been reformulated. Seismic zoning was subjected to re-
calibration of PGA values. Seismic base shear is significantly higher for BNBC-2017
compared to BNBC-1993 due to higher seismic zone coefficient (Z), lower response
reduction factor (R), increased normalized acceleration response spectrum (Cs). But base
shear due to wind load is slightly lower for BNBC-2017 than BNBC-1993, due to
reduction in wind pressure coefficient (Cp). Percent change in base shear decreases with
building height due to both seismic and wind loads. Heavier W section governs in vertical
member design for BNBC-2017, primarily due to higher load factor and modified load
combinations in [20].
 9

2.3 Major Modifications Regarding BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020

Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC) 2020 has been established for the advance
progression of more coherent design of structures to ensure enriched serviceability and
safety. In many different parts of the code, there are so many upgradation carried out
throughout the new BNBC. In structural design perspective, the principal differences
between BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020 are based on the analysis of seismic and wind
loads which are relatively more intricate than static dead load. Moreover, some changes
in floor and roof live loads are made. In addition the combination of loads differs from
the previous version of BNBC. All those variations of the older and newer form of BNBC
are momentarily discussed.

2.3.1 Live loading

Live load is the load superimposed by the use or occupancy of the building not including
the environmental loads such as wind load, rain load, earthquake load or dead load. The
live loads used for the structural design of floors, roof and the supporting members shall
be the greatest applied loads arising from the intended use or occupancy of the building,
or from the stacking of materials and the use of equipment and propping during
construction, but shall not be less than the minimum design live loads set out by the
provisions of building design code.

2.3.1.1 Comparison of floor live loads

The lowermost floor live loads shall be the greatest actual imposed loads resulting from
the intended use or occupancy of the floor, and shall not be less than the uniformly
distributed load or the concentrated loads patterns specified by the code whichever
produces the most critical effect. In this study both the older and newer version of codes
are applied and associated in terms of floor live loads for different occupancy level. A
comparison in Table 2.1 shows the dissimilarities of floor live loads for different
occupancy level for both BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020.

2.3.1.2 Comparison of roof live loads

Roof live loads shall be assumed to act vertically over the area projected by the roof or
any portion of it upon a horizontal plane, and shall be determined as stated in code. The
key changes between them is only for the flat roof (slope = 0). All other loads for different
 10

types of roof are same in both the codes. The roof live loads for flat roof is 1.5 kN/m2
and 1.0 kN/m2 as per BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020 respectively.

Table 2.1: Diferrences of floor live loads between BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020
Occupancy or Use BNBC-1993 BNBC-2020
Uniform Concentrated Uniform Concentrated
kN/m2 kN kN/m2 kN
General office room/offices 3.00 9.00 2.40 9.00
Corridors above first floor 4.00 4.50 3.80 9.00
Public rooms and corridors 4.00 4.50 4.80 --
serving them
Lobbies, lounge, belcony, 4.00 4.50 4.80 --
Stairs and exit ways
Classrooms 3.00 2.70 2.00 4.50
Dining rooms and restaurants 3.00 2.70 4.80 --
Car parking, Garages 2.50 -- 2.00 --
(passenger vehicles only),
Trucks and buses
Computer room 3.50 9.00 4.80 9.00
Operating rooms 2.50 4.50 2.90 4.50
Laboratories 3.00 4.50 2.90 4.50
Stack rooms 6.50 7.00 7.20 4.50
Reading rooms with book 4.00 4.50 2.90 4.50
storage
Assembly areas and theaters 3.00 2.70 2.90 --
with fixed seats
Assembly areas and theaters 5.00 4.50 4.80 --
with movable seats
Stage floors 5.00 4.50 7.20 --
Manufacturing: light 6.00 4.50 4.00 6.00
Retail stores 4.00 3.6 4.80 4.50
Fire escapes 5.00 4.50 4.80 --
Armories, boiler rooms 7.50 4.50 7.20 --
Drill rooms, drill halls 5.00 9.00 7.20 --

2.3.1.3 Reduction of live loads

As stated on both the BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020, reduction of live load is permitted
for primary structural members supporting floor or roof, including beam, girder, truss,
flat slab, flat plate, column, pier, footing and the like. Where applicable, the reduced live
load on a primary structural member shall be obtained by multiplying the corresponding
 11

unreduced uniformly distributed live load with an appropriate live load reduction factor.
Although the reduction factor varies as specified on both the BNBC provisions.

Table 2.2: Reduction of live loads as per BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020

BNBC-1993 BNBC-2020
a) All possible live loads applied on a) Subject to the some limitations,
floors and roof of a building due to members for which a value of KLLAT is 37.16
various occupancies and uses, shall be m2 or more are permitted to be designed for a
divided into three road groups as reduced live load in accordance with the
described, for determining the following formula:
appropriate live load reduction factors.
b) Live load reduction factor, R is
based on the relations:
Where, L = reduced design live load per m2 of
R=0.6+(8/At) for Load Group 2 and area supported by the member; L0= unreduced
R =0.25+(14/At) for Load Group 3. design live load per m2 of area supported by the
c) No live load reduction factor is member (Table 6.2.3); KLL= live load element
permitted for the Load Group 1. Thus the factor (Table 6.2.7); AT = tributary area in m2
reduction factor, R for this group is 1.0. L shall not be less than 0.50L for members
Where At = sum of all tributary areas supporting one floor and L shall not be less
with loads from any one load group (1, 2 than 0.40L for members supporting two or
or 3). more floors.
The load groups are: The limitations are:
I. Load Group 1: i. Live loads that exceed 4.80 kN/m2 shall not
a) Assembly areas with uniformly be reduced.
distributed live load of 5.0 kN/m2 ii. The live loads shall not be reduced in
or less. passenger car garages.
b) Live loads from machinery and
iii. Live loads of 4.80 kN/m2 or less shall not
eguipment for which specific
load allowance has oeen made. be reduced in public assembly
c) Special roof live loads as occupancies.
specified in code. iv. There shall be no reduction of live loads for
d) Printing plants, vaults, strong cyclone shelters.
room and armouries. v. The tributary area, AT, for one-way slabs
II. Load Group 2: shall not exceed an area defined by the slab
a) Assembly areas with uniformly span times a width normal to the span of 1.5
distributed live load greater than
5.0 kN/m2 . times the slab span.
b) Storage,. mercantile, industrial,
Exception: Live loads for members supporting
parking garage, retail stores.
two or more floors may be reduced by 20
III. Load Group 3:
percent.
a) Uniformly distributed live loads
from all occupancies and uses
except those listed in load
groups 1 and 2 above.
 12

2.3.2 Wind loading

Wind load on the buildings are typical dynamic in nature. The approach wind speed
basically depends on surface roughness and topography condition for the approach flow
of wind. Wind plays a vigorous role in the design of the tall structure because it applies
a load on the structures. For any high rise vertical construction, wind is more momentous
load factor than the earthquake and gravity load. Calculated results can be used in the
selection of the design parameter of the building. As we know that if the load increases
this will affect most of parameters of design such as dimensions of structural members,
strength of material, and quantity of material and finally the cost of construction. In
accordance with this study it is discloses that wind load in urban areas (Exposure A)
according to BNBC-2020 is slightly higher than BNBC-1993. But wind load in
obstructed and unobstructed open terrain type areas (Exposure B and C) according to
BNBC-2020 is notably lower than BNBC-1993.

As per BNBC-1993, initially the sustained wind pressure is calculated on the basis of
importance of structure, height, exposure condition and basic wind speed (Fastest-mile
wind), which in turn depends on the region the structure is located in. The sustained wind
pressure in then converted to design wind pressure by multiplication with the gust
coefficient and pressure coefficient for the structure. And as per the BNBC-2020, at the
outset sustained wind pressure is calculated on the basis of the importance of structure,
exposure condition, and topographic condition of the region, directionality factor and
Basic wind speed (3-second gust wind), which in turn depends on the region. Finally, the
design wind pressure is calculated by multiplying the sustained wind pressure with gust
effect factor and external pressure coefficient and adjusting the value for internal
pressure. For both code, the exposure of the structure to wind forces is a function of terrain
type, vegetation and built up environment in the surrounding and pressure coefficient
which considers the direction of wind relative to the structure and roof slope. In this
outline both the codes are deliberated and compared, in terms of various wind parameters.

2.3.2.1 Comparison of exposure category

As specified in BNBC-1993, a terrain exposure category that adequately reflects the

surface roughness characteristics of the ground shall be determined for the building site,
taking into account the variations in ground roughness arising from existing natural
topography, vegetation and manmade constructions.
 13

Table 2.3: Different exposure category as stated in BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020

Exposure BNBC-1993 BNBC-2020
category
Exposure Urban and sub-urban areas, Shall apply where the ground surface
A industrial areas, wooded areas, roughness condition, as defined by
hilly or other terrain covering at Surface Roughness A (closely spaced
least 20 per cent of the area with obstructions), prevails in the upwind
obstructions of 6 meters or more direction for a distance of at least 792
in height and extending from the m or 20 times the height of the
site at least 500 meters or 10 building, whichever is greater.
times the height of the structure, Exception: For buildings whose mean
whichever is greater. roof height is less than or equal to 9.1
m, the upwind distance may be
reduced to 457 m.
Exposure Open terrain with scattered Shall apply for all cases where
B obstructions having heights Exposures A or C do not apply.
generally less than 10 m
extending 800 m or more from
the site in any full quadrant. This
category includes air fields,
open park lands, and sparsely
built-up outskirts of towns, flat
open country and grasslands.
Exposure Flat and unobstructed open Shall apply where the ground surface
C terrain, coastal areas and roughness, as defined by Surface
riversides facing large bodies of Roughness C (flat, unobstructed areas
water, over 1.5 km or more in and water surfaces), prevails in the
width. Exposure C extends upwind direction for a distance greater
inland from the shoreline 400 m than 1,524 m or 20 times the building
or 10 times the height of height, whichever is greater. Exposure
structure, whichever is greater. C shall extend into downwind areas of
Surface Roughness A or B for a
distance of 200 m or 20 times the
height of the building, whichever is
greater.
Exception: An intermediate exposure
between the preceding categories is
permitted in a transition zone
provided that it is determined by a
rational analysis method defined in
the recognized literature.
 14

According to BNBC-2020, as exposure categories depends on wind directions and

sectors and also surface roughness, which is determined from the topography, vegetation,
and existing structures. A comparison in Table 2.3 displays the variations of exposure
category for both the codes.

2.3.2.2 Basic wind speed

The basic wind speed (Vb or V) is used in the determination of design wind loads on
buildings and other structures. The wind shall be assumed to come from any horizontal
direction. As in compared to the basic wind speeds listed in BNBC-1993 and BNBC-
2020, it is observed that BNBC-1993 specifies fastest-mile wind speeds whereas BNBC-
2020 provides basic wind speed in terms of 3-second gust wind. The fastest mile speed
is the average speed of a particle travelling with the wind over the distance of one mile.
The 3-second gust speed is the peak gust speed averaged over a short time interval of 3
seconds duration. Since the basic wind speed calculations methods are different for both
the codes, no major differences found between them. Both together BNBC-1993 and
BNBC-2020 provides basic wind speed associated with an annual probability of
occurrence of 0.02 (50-year recurrence interval) measured at a point 10m above the mean
ground level in a flat and open terrain. Tornadoes have not been considered in developing
the basic wind speed distribution in the two BNBC codes. The basic wind speed of eight
divisional cities of Bangladesh between this two codes are listed below. Besides the wind
speed map for both the codes are also shown.

Table 2.4: Basic wind speed of eight divisional cities

Division BNBC-1993 (fastest-mile BNBC-2020 (3-second
wind speed) gust wind)
km/hr m/s m/s
Barisal 256 71.11 78.70
Chattogram 260 72.22 80.00
Dhaka 210 58.33 65.70
Khulna 238 66.11 73.30
Mymensingh 217 60.28 67.40
Rajshahi 155 43.06 49.20
Rangpur 209 58.06 65.30
Sylhet 195 54.17 61.10
 15

Figure 2.1: Basic wind speed map as displays in BNBC-1993.

 16

Figure 2.2: Basic wind speed map as displays in BNBC-2020.

2.3.2.3 Topographic effects

As stated in BNBC-1993, if a structure or any portion is thereof being located within a

local topographic zone, such as regions around hills and ridges, the sustained wind
pressure obtained shall be adapted by multiplying by a local topographic coefficient, Ct.
 17

This coefficient depends on the height of the hill or ridge and the horizontal distance
upwind from the crest to a level half the height below the crest.

In line with BNBC-2020, Wind speed-up effects at isolated hills, ridges, and escarpments
constituting abrupt changes in the general topography located in any exposure category
shall be included in the design when buildings and other site conditions and locations of
structures meet all of the following conditions:

i. The hill, ridge, or escarpment is isolated and unobstructed upwind by other

similar topographic features of comparable height for 100 times the height of the
topographic feature (100 H) or 3.22 km, whichever is less. This distance shall be
measured horizontally from the point at which the height H of the hill, ridge, or
escarpment is determined.
ii. The hill, ridge, or escarpment protrudes above the height of upwind terrain
features within a 3.22 km radius in any quadrant by a factor of two or more.
iii. The structure is located in the upper one-half of a hill or ridge or near the crest of
an escarpment.
iv. H / L h ≥ 0.2
v. H is greater than or equal to 4.5 m for Exposures B and C and 18.3 m for Exposure
A.
Where, H = Height of hill or escarpment relative to the upwind terrain, in meters.
Lh = Distance upwind of crest to where the difference in ground elevation is half
the height of hill or escarpment, in meters.

Topographic factor: The wind speed-up effect shall be included in the calculation of
design wind loads by using the factor 𝐾𝑧𝑡:

𝐾𝑧𝑡 = (1 + 𝐾1 𝐾2 𝐾3 )2 (2.1)

Where, 𝐾1, 𝐾2, and 𝐾3 are the factors depends on height, length and shape of the hilly
area. If site conditions and locations of structures do not meet with the specification as
per code, then 𝐾𝑧𝑡= 1.0.

2.3.2.4 Gust effect factor

Wind gusts cause additional loading effects due to turbulence over the sustained wind
speed. For slender buildings and structures, this additional loading gets further amplified
 18

due to dynamic wind structure interaction effects. According to BNBC-1993, a slender

or wind-sensitive building shall be one having either
a) A height exceeding five times the least horizontal dimension
b) A fundamental natural frequency less than 1.0 Hz

Gust coefficient, CG shall account for such additional gust loading effects on non-slender
and slender buildings and shall be set equal to Gust Response Factors Gh, Gz as set forth
below:
a) Gust response factor Gh for Non-slender Buildings and Structures shall be
determined from Table 6.2.11 (BNBC-1993, Part-6, Chapter-2).
b) Gust response factor Gz for Building Components shall be determined from Table
6.2.11 (BNBC-1993, Part-6, Chapter-2).

̅ for Slender Buildings and Structures: Gust response factor, 𝐺̅

Gust Response Factor, G
shall be calculated by the following relations.
𝑃 11.0𝑇 𝑆 2
𝐺̅ = 0.65 + √𝛽 + 1+𝑘𝑐𝐼 (2.2)

̅
𝑃 = 𝑓 𝐽𝑌 (2.3)
55.44𝑓ℎ
𝑓̅ = (2.4)
𝑠𝑉𝑏

In accordance with BNBC-2020, for rigid structures the gust-effect factor shall be taken
as 0.85 or calculated by the formula:
1+1.7𝑔𝑄 𝐼𝑧̅ 𝑄
𝐺 = 0.925 (2.5)
1+1.7𝑔𝑣 𝐼𝑧̅
1⁄
10 6
𝐼𝑧̅ = 𝐶 ( 𝑧̅ ) (2.6)

The background response Q is given by,

1
𝑄=√ 𝐵+ℎ
0.63 (2.7)
1.+0.63( )
𝐿𝑧̅

Where 𝐿𝑧̅ = the integral length scale of the turbulence at equivalent height given by,
𝑧̅ 𝜖̅
𝐿𝑧̅ = 𝑙 (10) (2.8)

Flexible or dynamically sensitive structures: For flexible or dynamically sensitive

structures (natural period greater than 1.0 second), the gust-effect factor shall be
calculated by
 19

1+1.7𝐼𝑧̅ √𝑔𝑄 2 𝑄2 +𝑔𝑅 2 𝑅 2

𝐺𝑓 = 0.925 (2.9)
1+1.7𝑔𝑣 𝐼𝑧̅

The value of both 𝑔Q and 𝑔𝑣 shall be taken as 3.4 and 𝑔𝑅 is given by,
0.577
𝑔𝑅 = √2 ln 3600𝑛1 + (2.10)
√2 ln 3600𝑛1

R the resonant response factor, is given by,

1
𝑅 = √𝛽 𝑅𝑛 𝑅ℎ 𝑅𝐵 (0.53 + 0.47𝑅𝐿 ) (2.11)

7.47𝑁1
𝑅𝑛 = 5 (2.12)
(1+10.3𝑁1 ) ⁄3

2.3.2.5 Sustained wind pressure or velocity pressure

The sustained wind pressure or velocity pressure, qz on a building surface at any height
z above ground shall be calculated for both the codes and evaluation displays in table.

Table 2.5: Difference between sustained wind pressure and velocity pressure
BNBC-1993 BNBC-2020

qz = Cc CI Cz Vb 2 qz = 0.000613Kz Kd Kzt V2 I

qz = sustained wind pressure at height z qz = velocity pressure at height z

(kN/m2) (kN/m2)
Cc = velocity-to-pressure conversion co- Kz = velocity pressure exposure co
efficient
efficient = 47.2×10-6
Kd = wind directionality factor
CI = structure importance co-efficient Kzt = topographic factor
Cz = combined height and exposure co- I = structure importance factor
efficient V = basic wind speed in m/s. (BNBC-
2020, part 6, chapter 2)
Vb = basic wind speed in km/hr. (BNBC-
1993, chapter 6)

2.3.2.6 Design wind pressure

The design wind pressure, pz or p for a structure or an element of a structure at any height,
z above mean ground level shall be calculated for both the codes and dissimilarity
displays in Table 2.6.
 20

Table 2.6: Distinction of Design Wind Pressure among two codes

BNBC-1993 BNBC-2020
For a structure or an element of a For the MWFRS of buildings of all
structure at any height, z heights:
pz = CG Cp qz p= qGCp - qi (GCpi ) ( kN⁄m2 )
pz = design wind pressure at height z q = qz for windward walls evaluated at height
(kN/m2) z above the ground; and qh for leeward walls,
CG = gust coefficient side walls, and roofs, evaluated at height ℎ
Cp= pressure coefficient for structure qi = qh for windward walls, side walls,
components. (BNBC-1993, chapter 6) leeward walls, and roofs of enclosed
buildings and for negative internal pressure
evaluation in partially enclosed buildings;
and qi = qz for positive internal pressure
evaluation in partially enclosed buildings
G = gust effect factor
Cp = external pressure coefficient from
GCpi = internal pressure coefficient. (BNBC-
2020, part 6, chapter 2)

2.3.2.7 Comparison of pressure and force coefficient

As mentioned in BNBC-1993, the pressure coefficient 𝐶p to be used for the determination

of design wind pressure shall be equal to the values described below:

a) Cpe: External pressure coefficient as given in Fig 6.2.5 and Fig 6.2.6 and in Table
6.2.13 for external surfaces of buildings or structures. This coefficient shall be
used with Method 1 given in Sec 2.4.6.4a (i).
b) 𝐶’pi: Internal peak pressure coefficient as given in Table 6.2.14 for internal
surfaces of building. The coefficient shall be used along with the coefficients 𝐶’pi
for design wind load on components, or with 𝐶𝑝𝑒 for design wind load on
buildings as per provisions of Sec 2.4.6.4 a (ii).
c) 𝐶’pe: External peak pressure coefficient as given in Fig 6.2.7 and Fig 6.2.8 to be
applied on external surfaces of buildings to obtain wind load on individual
components and cladding in accordance with Sec 2.4.6.5.
d) 𝐶𝑝̅ : Overall pressure coefficient as given in Tables 6.2.15 through 6.2.21 for
various cross sectional shapes to be used with the projected area of the buildings
or structures when Method 2 in Sec 2.4.6.4(b) is used.
 21

If pressure coefficient Cpe, 𝐶’pi, 𝐶’pe or 𝐶𝑝̅ are not provided herein for certain buildings,
structures or components, reliable references shall be followed or specialist advice shall
be sought.

Accordant with BNBC-2020, there are two types of pressure coefficients i.e. internal and
external. The two values are different in term of building exposure category and angle of
slope or roof.

Internal pressure coefficient: Internal Pressure Coefficient. Internal pressure coefficients,

GCpi shall be determined from Figure 6.2.5 based on building enclosure classifications
determined from Sec 2.4.9.

Reduction Factor for Large Volume Buildings, Ri: For a partially enclosed building
containing a single, un-partitioned large volume, the internal pressure coefficient, GCpi
shall be multiplied by the following reduction factor, Ri:

1
𝑅𝑖 = 1.0 or, 𝑅𝑖 = 0.5 (1 + 𝑉
) ≤ 1.0 (2.13)
𝑖
√1+6951𝐴
𝑜𝑔

Where, Aog = total area of openings in the building envelope (walls and roof, m2)
Vi = un-partitioned internal volume, m3

External pressure coefficient: Main Wind-Force Resisting Systems: External pressure

coefficients for MWFRSs Cp are given in Figures 6.2.6 to 6.2.8. Combined gust effect
factor and external pressure coefficients, GCpf are given in Figure 6.2.10 for low-rise
buildings. The pressure coefficient values and gust effect factor in Figure 6.2.10 shall not
be separated.

Components and Cladding: Combined gust effect factor and external pressure
coefficients for components and cladding, GCp are given in Figures 6.2.11 to 6.2.17. The
pressure coefficient values and gust-effect factor shall not be separated.

2.3.2.8 Design wind load

The Design wind load on individual structural components such as roofs, walls, and
individual cladding units and their immediate supporting members and fixings etc., of
enclosed buildings and structures shall be determined in accordance with both the codes
and difference shows in Table 2.7.
 22

Table 2.7: Variations of Design Wind Load between two codes

BNBC-1993 BNBC-2020
I. Method 1 (Surface Area Method): a) For rigid buildings of all
a) For all framing systems: heights:
p= qGCp -qi (GCpi ) ( kN⁄m2 )
F1 = ∑ pAz
q = qz for windward walls
F1 = wind force on primary framing systems evaluated at height z above the
acting normal to a surface, or roof ground and qh for leeward walls,
p = design wind pressure on building surfaces, side walls, and roofs, evaluated at
kN/m2 height ℎ
Az = area of the building surface or roof G = gust effect factor
tributary to the framing system at height z Cp = external pressure coefficient
b) For gable frames and single-storied rigid GCpi = internal pressure
frames: coefficient
F1 = ∑ (p-pi )A
z b) For low-rise building:
pi = internal pressure = C'pi q p= qh [(GCpf )-(GCpi )]
h
C'pi = internal peak pressure coefficient ( kN⁄m2 )
qh = sustained wind pressure qh = Velocity pressure evaluated
at mean roof height, h
II. Method 2 (Projected Area Method):
GCpf = external pressure
a) It may be used for any building or
coefficient
structure,
̅
F2 = ∑ pz A c) For flexible building:
z
F2 = total wind force on the framed system p= qGf Cp -qi (GCpi ) ( kN⁄m2 )
of the building Gf = gust effect factor
pz = design wind pressure, kN/ m2
d) For parapets:
̅ z = Projected frontal area normal to wind
A
pp = qp GCpn ( kN⁄m2 )
tributary to the framing system at height z, m2
b) For components and cladding: pp = Combined net pressure on
the parapet
F'= ∑(C'pe q-C'pi qi ) Az
qp = Velocity pressure evaluated
F’ = total wind force on a building
at the top of the parapet
component
GCpn = Combined net pressure
C'pe = external peak pressure coefficient for
coefficient
components
C'pi = internal peak pressure coefficient
qi = wind pressure developed at the interior
of the building.
 23

2.3.3 Seismic loading

Natural disasters are usually regarded as damage factors causing high private and social
costs. An earthquake is one of them, as a result of an abrupt release of energy in the
earth's crust that creates seismic waves. Seismic load is very dominant and it will collapse
the structure in fraction of seconds this leads to damage of life and property. The
seismicity or seismic activity of an area refers to the frequency, type and size of
earthquakes experienced over a period of time. The most common loads resulting from
the effect of gravity are dead load, live load and snow load. Moreover these vertical loads,
buildings are also subjected to lateral loads caused by wind, earthquake. Lateral loads
can develop high stresses, produce sway movement or cause vibration.

The purpose of earthquake resistant design provisions is to provide guidelines for the
design and construction of new structures subject to earthquake ground motions in order
to minimize the risk to life for all structures, to increase the expected performance of
higher occupancy structures as compared to ordinary structures, and to improve the
capability of essential structures to function after an earthquake. It is not economically
feasible to design and construct buildings without any damage for a major earthquake
event. The intent is therefore to allow inelastic deformation and structural damage at
preferred locations in the structure without endangering structural integrity and to
prevent structural collapse during a major earthquake.

Therefore most earthquake prone regions have developed and adopted local building
code provisions. Building code provisions for earthquake are generally based on three
factors. The first is the experience obtained from the observations of the response of real
structures when subjected to earthquakes, and the continuous development of
prescriptive rules to prevent construction of buildings with characteristics that are
observed to result in undesirable behavior. The second is the findings of analytical and
laboratory researches, which provide an understanding of the way structures, respond to
earthquakes. The third is the building design community that has a vital and dominant
contribution in the development of building code provisions.

The method of calculation of seismic loading is more or less same in BNBC-2020 and
BNBC-1993. The two codes consider the earthquake force as a lateral force. The forces
are determined on the basis of a base shear by Equivalent Lateral Force procedure. Base
 24

shear is calculated on the basis of seismic zone factor, structural importance factor and
response reduction factor which is a function of structural system. Time period and soil
type as a function of acceleration spectrum (Cs) defined by BNBC-2020 and as a function
of numerical coefficient (C) defined by BNBC-1993 are used in the expression of base
shear. Furthermore the seismic zone factor is noticeably higher in BNBC-2020 than the
older version of BNBC in [15].

2.3.3.1 Design base shear

The lateral forces exerted on the structure by ground vibrations may be determined by
the static or equivalent lateral force procedure. Base shear (V) is an estimate of the
maximum expected lateral force on the base of the structure due to seismic activity. It is
calculated using the seismic zone, soil material, and building code lateral force equations.
Base shear value is determine by merging the following physical factors:
i. Soil conditions at the site
ii. Proximity to potential sources of seismic activity (such as geological faults)
iii. Probability of significant seismic ground motion
iv. Level of ductility and over strength associated with various structural
configurations and total weight
v. Fundamental (natural) period of vibration of the structure when subjected to
dynamic loading.
Table 2.8: Difference of design base shear within two codes
BNBC-1993 BNBC-2020
Design base shear, Seismic design base shear force,
ZIC V= Sa W
V= W
R
W = Total seismic weight of the
Z = Seismic zone coefficient building
I = Structure importance coefficient Sa = Design spectral acceleration
R = Response modification coefficient (in units of g) Where,
for structural systems
2 ZI
W = Total seismic weight of the building Sa = C
3 R s
C = Numerical coefficient given by the
relation: Z = Seismic zone coefficient
1.25S I = Structure importance factor
C= 2⁄3 R = Response reduction factor
T
S = Site coefficient for soil characteristics Cs = Normalized acceleration
T = Fundamental period of vibration response spectrum
 25

2.3.3.2 Seismic zone factor

A seismic hazard zone describes an area with a particular level of hazard due to
earthquakes. Typically, a high seismic hazard zone is nearest a seismic zone where there
are more earthquakes, and a lower seismic hazard zone is farther away from a seismic
zone. Accordant with the BNBC-1993, on the basis of the severity of the probable
intensity of seismic ground motion and damages, the seismic zoning map of Bangladesh
has been divided into three seismic zones, i.e. Zone 1, Zone 2 and Zone 3 with Zone 3
being the most severe. The seismic zoning map is revised in the newly gazetted BNBC-
2020. The intent of the seismic zoning map is to give an indication of the Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCE) motion at different parts of the country. In probabilistic
terms, the MCE motion may be considered to correspond to having a 2% probability of
exceedance within a period of 50 years. The country has been divided into four seismic
zones with different levels of ground motion. Each zone has a seismic zone coefficient
(Z) which represents the maximum considered peak ground acceleration (PGA) on very
stiff soil/rock (site class SA) in units of g (acceleration due to gravity). The most severe
earthquake prone zone, Zone 4 is in the northeast which includes Sylhet and has a
maximum PGA value of 0.36g. Dhaka city falls in the moderate seismic intensity zone,
while Chittagong city falls in a severe intensity zone.

Table 2.9: Seismic Zone Coefficient, Z as stated in BNBC-1993

Seicmic Zone (Fig. 2.3) Zone Coefficient, Z
1 0.075
2 0.15
3 0.25

Table 2.10: Description of Seismic Zones as specified in BNBC-2020

Seicmic Location Seismic Seismic Zone
Zone Intensity Coefficient, Z
1 Southwestern part including Barisal, Khulna, Low 0.12
Jessore, Rajshahi
2 Lower Central and Northwestern part Moderate 0.20
including Noakhali, Dhaka, Pabna, Dinajpur,
as well as Southwestern corner including
Sundarbans
3 Upper Central and Northwestern part Severe 0.28
including Brahmanbaria, Sirajganj, Rangpur
4 Northeastern part including Sylhet, Very 0.36
Mymensingh, Kurigram severe
 26

Figure 2.3: Seismic Zoning Map of Bangladesh as per BNBC-1993.

 27

Figure 2.4: Seismic Zoning Map of Bangladesh as per BNBC-2020.

 28

2.3.3.3 Structure importance factor

As specified by BNBC-1993, structure importance co-efficient is described for five

different importance categories whereas it is defined for four different occupancy
category in BNBC-2020. The explanations of the categories in earlier and new gazetted
codes are completely dissimilar. Besides the structure importance co-efficient is different
for structural and non- structural components and equipment and denoted by I’, but the
importance co-efficient is same and denoted by I for all cases as specified by BNBC-2020.
Additionally the Importance co-efficient is found higher in BNBC-2020 and increased
up to 25 % for some cases. The changes of this values are listed below for both the codes.

Table 2.11: Structure Importance Coefficients as per BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020

BNBC-1993 BNBC-2020
Importance Category I I’ Importance Category I
I Essential Facilities 1.25 1.50 IV 1.50
II Hazardous Facilities 1.25 1.50 III 1.25
III Special Occupancy 1.00 1.00 III 1.25
Structures
IV Standard Occupancy 1.00 1.00 II 1.00
Structures
V Low-risk Structures 1.00 1.00 I 1.00

2.3.3.4 Response reduction factor

Response reduction factor is the factor by which the actual base shear force should be
reduced, to obtain the design lateral force during design basic earthquake (DBE) shaking.
The response reduction factor (R) is mainly depends on Over strength (Rs), Ductility
(Rµ), Redundancy (RR). So there is a need to come up with realistic R factors for different
structural systems used in various countries. The response reduction factor represents the
ratio of the maximum lateral force, V0, which would develop in a structure, responding
entirely linear elastic under the specified ground motion, to the lateral force, Vd, which
has been designed to withstand. Response reduction factor R is expressed by the
equation: R = V0/ Vd in [21].

The value of response modification factor is significantly changes in BNBC-2020 for

different structural systems shown in Table 2.12. This reduction is logical since only two-
third of the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) ground motion is considered to be
 29

design basis earthquake in BNBC-2020 rather than full MCE in BNBC-1993. Also the
system over-strength factor (o) and deflection amplification factor (Cd) are not specified
in BNBC-1993 whereas both of them are mentioned with varies seismic force resisting
system in BNBC-2020.

Table 2.12: Variation of response modification factor between both the codes
Structural Description of seismic force- resisting system BNBC- BNBC-
System 1993 2020
Bearing Special reinforced concrete shear walls 6 5
Wall Ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls 6 4
Systems Ordinary reinforced masonry shear walls 6 2
Ordinary plain masonry shear walls - 1.5
Building Steel eccentrically braced frames 10 8
Frame Special steel concentrically braced frames 8 6
System Ordinary steel concentrically braced frames 8 3.25
Special reinforced concrete shear walls 8 6
Ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls 8 5
Ordinary reinforced masonry shear walls 8 2
Ordinary plain masonry shear walls - 1.5
Moment Special steel moment resisting frame 12 8
Resisting Intermidiate steel moment resisting frame - 4.5
Frame Ordinary steel moment resisting frame 6 3.5
System Special concrete moment resisting frame 12 8
Intermediate concrete moment resisting frame 8 5
Ordinary concrete moment resisting frame 5 3
Dual Steel eccentrically braced frames 12 8
System Special steel concentrically braced frames 10 7
(SMRF) Special reinforced concrete shear walls 12 7
Ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls 6 6
Dual Special steel concentrically braced frames 10 6
System Special reinforced concrete shear walls 9 6.5
(IMRF) Ordinary reinforced masonry shear walls 6 3
Ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls 6 5.5
 30

2.3.3.5 Time period

The fundamental building period (T) is simply the inverse of the building frequency at
which it wants to vibrate when set in motion by some sort of disturbance (in building
design, typically a seismic or wind event) based on the system’s mass and stiffness
characteristics. Buildings with shorter fundamental periods attract higher seismic forces
as the code- based design spectrum exhibits higher accelerations at shorter periods.

The fundamental period, T of the building in the horizontal direction under consideration
shall be determined using the following guidelines:
a) Structural dynamics procedures (such as Rayleigh method or modal eigenvalue
analysis), using structural properties and deformation characteristics of resisting
elements, may be used to determine the fundamental period T of the building in
the direction under consideration. This period shall not exceed the approximate
fundamental period determined by the following formula by more than 40
percent.
b) The building period T (in sec.) may be approximated by the following formula:

𝑇 = 𝐶𝑡 (ℎ𝑛 )𝑚 (2.15)
Where, ℎ𝑛 is the height of the building in meter. The values of Ct and m are dissimilar
in the two codes as displayed in subsequent table.

Table 2.13: Variations of Ct and m values between BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020

Structure Type BNBC-1993 BNBC-2020
Ct m Ct m
Concrete moment resisting frame 0.073 0.75 0.0466 0.9
Steel moment resisting frame 0.083 0.75 0.0724 0.8
Eccentrically braced steel frame -- -- 0.0731 0.75
All other structural systems 0.049 0.75 0.0488 0.75

2.3.3.6 Soil factor

As BNBC-1993 is named as site coefficient (S) for soil characteristics. The amount of
ground motion amplification depends on wave propagation characteristics of soils, which
can be estimated from the measurements of shear wave velocity. Soft soils with slower
shear wave velocities generally produce greater amplification than stiff soils with faster
 31

shear wave velocities. The site classes are classified by 4 categories as S1, S2, S3 and S4 in
terms of soil profile depth and shear wave velocity.

Whereas as per the provisions of BNBC-2020, the site classification (S) is classified as
soil type SA, SB, SC, SD, SE, S1 and S2. Classification will be done in accordance with
the soil properties of upper 30 meters of the site profile. In this provisions additional two
procedures are added to determine the site classes as measuring shear wave velocity
enhances cost to a geotechnical investigation. Such classification is based on standard
penetration resistance, untrained shear strength and shear wave velocity.

2.3.3.7 Normalized response spectrum acceleration

Normalized acceleration response spectrum (Cs), which is a function of structure

(building) period and soil type (site class) as defined by four equations in BNBC-2020.
Cs depends on S and values of TB (lower limit of the period of the constant spectral
acceleration), TC (upper limit of the period of the constant spectral acceleration) and TD
(lower limit of the period of the constant spectral displacement), which are all functions
of the site class. Constant Cs value between periods TB and TC represents constant spectral
acceleration. Code-based response spectrum is similar to numerical coefficient of BNBC-
1993 in a sense that both are functions of time period (T) and site characteristics (S).
Nevertheless in the newly gazetted code introduces an additional parameter Damping
Factor as a function of response spectrum. Damping factor is the effect of inherent energy
dissipation mechanisms in a structure (due to sliding, friction, etc.) that results in
reduction of effect of vibration, expressed as a percentage of the critical damping for the
structure. This provision suggests that 5% damped design spectrum to be properly
modified for an actual damping factor.

2.3.3.8 Seismic weight

Seismic weight (W) is the total dead load of a building or a structure, including partition
walls, and applicable portions of other imposed loads. Allowance for partition wall is
considered in the former code but it is not considered in new code. The provisions are
found a little bit difference in new code than previous one. The variations of seismic
weight are listed below for clear understanding.
 32

Table 2.14: Variation of seismic weight among the codes

BNBC-1993 BNBC-2020
i. In storage and warehouse i. For live load up to and including 3
occupancies, a minimum of 25% kN/m2, a minimum of 25% of the live
of the floor live load shall be load shall be applicable.
applicable. ii. For live load above 3 kN/m2, a minimum
ii. Where an allowance for partition of 50% of the live load shall be
load is included in the floor design applicable.
in accordance with the code iii. Total weight (100%) of permanent heavy
provision, all such loads but not equipment or retained liquid or any
2
less than 0.6 kN /m shall be imposed load sustained in nature shall be
applicable. included.
iii. Total weight of permanent iv. Where the probable imposed loads
equipment shall be included. (mass) at the time of earthquake are more
correctly assessed, the designer may go
for higher percentage of live load.

2.3.3.9 Vertical earthquake loading

Vertical earthquake loading (Ev) is not acknowledged in the older version of code but it
is specified in the BNBC-2020 in addition with the horizontal earthquake loads. The
maximum vertical ground acceleration shall be taken as 50 percent of the expected
horizontal peak ground acceleration (PGA). The vertical seismic load effect Ev may be
determined as:
𝐸𝑣 = 0.50(𝑎ℎ )𝐷 (2.16)
Where, 𝑎ℎ = expected horizontal peak ground acceleration (in g) for design = (2⁄3)𝑍𝑆
D = effect of dead load, S = site dependent soil factor

2.3.3.10 Load combination

Buildings, foundations and structural members shall be investigated for adequate

strength to resist the most unfavorable effect resulting from various combinations of
loads. The load combinations in new codes are changed in comparison with the previous
code. Different load factors are used in load combinations. In BNBC-1993, it includes
around 50 load combinations while in BNBC-2020, it includes 39 load combinations
which can be varied depending on seismic design category of building. Detail load
combinations with expanded combinations for 3D analysis are stated below separately
in consonance with the two codes.
 33

Table 2.15: Load combinations for strength design method as per BNBC-1993
General load combinations for reinforced Symbols and notation
concrete and masonry structures
1. 1.4D D = Dead load
2. 1.4D + 1.7L E = Seismic load
3. 1.2D + 1.4S F = Weight and pressure of fluid
4. 0.9D + 1.3 (W or 1.1E) H = Weight and pressure of soil
5. 0.9D + 1.7 (H or F) L = Live load = Lf + (Lr or P)
6. 1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7 (H or F) S = Self-straining forces/thermal
forces
7. 0.75 [1.4D + 1.4S + 1.7L] W = Wind load
8. 0.75 [1.4D + 1.4S + 1.7 (W or 1.1E)] P = Initial rainwater ponding
9. 0.75 [1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7W]
10. 0.75 [1.4D + 1.7L + 1.7 (H or F) + 1.7 (W or
1.1E)]
11. 0.75 [1.4D + 1.4S + 1.7L + 1.7 (H or F) + 1.7
(W or 1.1E)]

Table 2.16: Expanded load combinations for 3D analysis of typical buildings (Zone-1)
as per BNBC-1993 provisions
1. 1.4D 15. 1.05D + 1.275L + 1.4025Ex
2. 1.4D + 1.7L 16. 1.05D + 1.275L - 1.4025Ex
3. 0.9D + 1.3Wx 17. 1.05D + 1.275L + 1.4025Ey
4. 0.9D - 1.3Wx 18. 1.05D + 1.275L - 1.4025Ey
5. 0.9D + 1.3Wy 19. 1.05D + 1.275Wx
6. 0.9D - 1.3Wy 20. 1.05D - 1.275Wx
7. 0.9D + 1.43Ex 21. 1.05D + 1.275Wy
8. 0.9D - 1.43Ex 22. 1.05D - 1.275Wy
9. 0.9D + 1.43Ey 23. 1.05D + 1.4025Ex
10. 0.9D - 1.43Ey 24. 1.05D - 1.4025Ex
11. 1.05D + 1.275L + 1.275Wx 25. 1.05D + 1.4025Ey
12. 1.05D + 1.275L - 1.275Wx 26. 1.05D - 1.4025Ey
13. 1.05D + 1.275L + 1.275Wy
14. 1.05D + 1.275L - 1.275Wy
 34

Table 2.17: Expanded load combinations for 3D analysis of typical buildings (Zone-2
and Zone-3) as per BNBC-1993
1. 1.4D 19. 1.05D + 1.275L + 1.4025Ex + 0.421Ey
2. 1.4D + 1.7L 20. 1.05D + 1.275L + 1.4025Ex - 0.421Ey
3. 0.9D + 1.3Wx 21. 1.05D + 1.275L - 1.4025Ex + 0.421Ey
4. 0.9D - 1.3Wx 22. 1.05D + 1.275L - 1.4025Ex - 0.421Ey
5. 0.9D + 1.3Wy 23. 1.05D + 1.275L + 1.4025Ey + 0.421Ex
6. 0.9D - 1.3Wy 24. 1.05D + 1.275L + 1.4025Ey - 0.421Ex
7. 0.9D + 1.43Ex + 0.429Ey 25. 1.05D + 1.275L - 1.4025Ey + 0.421Ex
8. 0.9D + 1.43Ex - 0.429Ey 26. 1.05D + 1.275L - 1.4025Ey - 0.421Ex
9. 0.9D - 1.43Ex + 0.429Ey 27. 1.05D + 1.275Wx
10. 0.9D - 1.43Ex - 0.429Ey 28. 1.05D - 1.275Wx
11. 0.9D + 1.43Ey + 0.429Ex 29. 1.05D + 1.275Wy
12. 0.9D + 1.43Ey - 0.429Ex 30. 1.05D - 1.275Wy
13. 0.9D - 1.43Ey + 0.429Ex 31. 1.05D + 1.4025Ex + 0.421Ey
14. 0.9D - 1.43Ey - 0.429Ex 32. 1.05D + 1.4025Ex - 0.421Ey
15. 1.05D + 1.275L + 1.275Wx 33. 1.05D - 1.4025Ex + 0.421Ey
16. 1.05D + 1.275L - 1.275Wx 34. 1.05D - 1.4025Ex - 0.421Ey
17. 1.05D + 1.275L + 1.275Wy 35. 1.05D + 1.4025Ey + 0.421Ex
18. 1.05D + 1.275L - 1.275Wy 36. 1.05D + 1.4025Ey - 0.421Ex
37. 1.05D - 1.4025Ey + 0.421Ex
38. 1.05D - 1.4025Ey - 0.421Ex
For response spectrum analysis, additional 12 combinations are as follows:
39. 0.9D + 1.43RSx 45. 1.05D + 1.275L + 1.4025RSy
40. 0.9D - 1.43RSx 46. 1.05D + 1.275L - 1.4025RSy
41. 0.9D + 1.43RSy 47. 1.05D + 1.4025RSx
42. 0.9D - 1.43RSy 48. 1.05D - 1.4025RSx
43. 1.05D + 1.275L + 1.4025RSx 49. 1.05D + 1.4025RSy
44. 1.05D + 1.275L - 1.4025RSx 50. 1.05D - 1.4025RSy
 35

Table 2.18: Combinations of load effects for strength design method as per BNBC-2020
General load combinations for reinforced Symbols and notation
concrete and masonry structures
1. 1.4 (D+F) D = Dead load
2. 1.2 (D+F+T) + 1.6 (L+H) + 0.5 (Lr or R) E = Seismic Load
3. 1.2D + 1.6 (Lr or R) + (L or 0.8W) F = Weight and pressure of Fluid
4. 1.2D + 1.6W + L + 0.5(Lr or R) H = Weight and pressure of soil
5. 1.2D + 1.0E + 1.0L L = Live load; Lr = Roof live load
6. 0.9D + 1.6W + 1.6H W = Wind load; R = Rain load
7. 0.9D + 1.0E + 1.6H T = Thermal load/self-straining forces
For typical building analysis, above combinations are as follows:
1. 1.4D Exceptions: The load factor on live
2. 1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5Lr load L in combinations (3), (5) and (6)
is permitted to be reduced to 0.5 for all
3. 1.2D + 1.6Lr + 1.0L
occupancies in
4. 1.2D + 1.6Lr + 0.8W Which minimum specified uniformly
5. 1.2D + 1.0L + 0.5Lr + 1.6W distributed live load is less than or
equal to 5.0 kN/m2, with the
6. 1.2D + 1.0L + 1.0E
exception of garages or areas
7. 0.9D + 1.6W occupied as places of Public
8. 0.9D + 1.0E assembly.

Table 2.19: Expanded combinations for 3D analysis of typical buildings (SDC B and
SDC C without plan irregularity Type V) as per BNBC-2020 provisions
1. 1.4D 12. 1.2D + 1.0L + 1.0Ex + 1.0Ev
2. 1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5Lr 13. 1.2D + 1.0L - 1.0Ex + 1.0Ev
3. 1.2D + 1.6Lr + L 14. 1.2D + 1.0L + 1.0Ey + 1.0Ev
4. 1.2D + 1.6Lr + 0.8Wx 15. 1.2D + 1.0L - 1.0Ey + 1.0Ev
5. 1.2D + 1.6Lr - 0.8Wx 16. 0.9D + 1.6Wx
6. 1.2D + 1.6Lr + 0.8Wy 17. 0.9D - 1.6Wx
7. 1.2D + 1.6Lr - 0.8Wy 18. 0.9D + 1.6Wy
8. 1.2D + 1.0L + 0.5Lr + 1.6 Wx 19. 0.9D - 1.6Wy
9. 1.2D + 1.0L + 0.5Lr - 1.6 Wx 20. 0.9D + 1.0Ex - 1.0Ev
10. 1.2D + 1.0L + 0.5Lr + 1.6 Wy 21. 0.9D - 1.0Ex - 1.0Ev
11. 1.2D + 1.0L + 0.5Lr - 1.6 Wy 22. 0.9D + 1.0Ey - 1.0Ev
Here, E = Eh + Ev, where Eh = Ex and Ey 23. 0.9D - 1.0Ey - 1.0Ev
 36

Table 2.19: Expanded combinations for 3D analysis of typical buildings (SDC B and
SDC C without plan irregularity Type V) as per BNBC-2020 provisions [Continued]
For response spectrum analysis, additional 08 combinations are as follows:
24. 1.2D + 1.0L + 1.0RSx + 1.0Ev 28. 0.9D + 1.0RSx - 1.0Ev
25. 1.2D + 1.0L - 1.0RSx + 1.0Ev 29. 0.9D - 1.0RSx - 1.0Ev
26. 1.2D + 1.0L + 1.0RSy + 1.0Ev 30. 0.9D + 1.0RSy - 1.0Ev
27. 1.2D + 1.0L - 1.0RSy + 1.0Ev 31. 0.9D - 1.0RSy - 1.0Ev

Table 2.20: Expanded combinations for 3D analysis of typical buildings (SDC D and
SDC C with plan irregularity Type V) as per BNBC-2020 provisions
1. 1.4D 16. 1.2D + 1.0L + 1.0Ey + 0.3Ex + 1.0Ev
2. 1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5Lr 17. 1.2D + 1.0L + 1.0Ey - 0.3Ex + 1.0Ev
3. 1.2D + 1.6Lr + L 18. 1.2D + 1.0L - 1.0Ey + 0.3Ex + 1.0Ev
4. 1.2D + 1.6Lr + 0.8Wx 19. 1.2D + 1.0L - 1.0Ey - 0.3Ex + 1.0Ev
5. 1.2D + 1.6Lr - 0.8Wx 20. 0.9D + 1.6Wx
6. 1.2D + 1.6Lr + 0.8Wy 21. 0.9D - 1.6Wx
7. 1.2D + 1.6Lr - 0.8Wy 22. 0.9D + 1.6Wy
8. 1.2D + 1.0L + 0.5Lr + 1.6 Wx 23. 0.9D - 1.6Wy
9. 1.2D + 1.0L + 0.5Lr - 1.6 Wx 24. 0.9D + 1.0Ex + 0.3Ey - 1.0Ev
10. 1.2D + 1.0L + 0.5Lr + 1.6 Wy 25. 0.9D + 1.0Ex - 0.3Ey - 1.0Ev
11. 1.2D + 1.0L + 0.5Lr - 1.6 Wy 26. 0.9D - 1.0Ex + 0.3Ey - 1.0Ev
12. 1.2D + 1.0L + 1.0Ex + 0.3Ey + 1.0Ev 27. 0.9D - 1.0Ex - 0.3Ey - 1.0Ev
13. 1.2D + 1.0L + 1.0Ex - 0.3Ey + 1.0Ev 28. 0.9D + 1.0Ey + 0.3Ex - 1.0Ev
14. 1.2D + 1.0L - 1.0Ex + 0.3Ey + 1.0Ev 29. 0.9D + 1.0Ey - 0.3Ex - 1.0Ev
15. 1.2D + 1.0L - 1.0Ex - 0.3Ey + 1.0Ev 30. 0.9D - 1.0Ey + 0.3Ex - 1.0Ev
31. 0.9D - 1.0Ey - 0.3Ex - 1.0Ev
For response spectrum analysis, additional 08 combos need to include as per
mentioned below:
32. 1.2D + 1.0L + 1.0RSx + 1.0Ev 36. 0.9D + 1.0RSx - 1.0Ev
33. 1.2D + 1.0L - 1.0RSx + 1.0Ev 37. 0.9D - 1.0RSx - 1.0Ev
34. 1.2D + 1.0L + 1.0RSy + 1.0Ev 38. 0.9D + 1.0RSy - 1.0Ev
35. 1.2D + 1.0L - 1.0RSy + 1.0Ev 39. 0.9D - 1.0RSy - 1.0Ev
 CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

The modifications in structural analysis and design of both high and low rise RC
buildings in different seismic zone and wind pressure has been studied in this research.
Hence the effects of construction costs on RC buildings due to the changes of provisions
of new codes has also been explored. There are several steps are followed for this
research approach. First steps for this study is to detail out the planning and design
concepts based on the target sets for the analysis. Then finite element modeling, structural
analysis and design has been performed for all the buildings under consideration. Finally
detail cost estimation has been carried out to achieve the comparative study between both
the BNBC codes. The research procedures is one step are as follows.
Planning for the
Research

Design
Considerations

Finite Element
Modeling

Structural Analysis
and Design

Cost Estimation

Figure 3.1: Approaches in one step for this study.

3.2 Planning for the Research

Planning is the most valuable part for any research study. In this research, planning
involves firstly the selection of different location of Bangladesh in consideration with
various intensities of earthquake and wind effects i.e. high seismic and high wind
(Chattogram), moderate seismic and moderate wind (Dhaka), low seismic and high wind
(Khulna), low seismic and low wind (Rajshahi) and high seismic and low wind (Sylhet).
Secondly a typical architectural plan with basement is selected with several multistoried
buildings.
 38

The planning steps at a glance are pointed below and as well the detail planning process
are elaborately deliberated in this section of the study.
a) Typical layout selection
b) Considerations for stair and lift
c) Preferences of floor system
d) Number of story and floor heights

3.2.1 Typical layout selection

In contemplation of relative study between old and newly gazetted BNBC codes, a
regular and rectangular plan grid pattern for columns has been chosen. The building is
assumed as commercial building, the column grid pattern is generally governed by car
parking requirements. In consonance with Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (RAJUK)
rules, the minimum clear gap between columns shall be 4.78 m for two cars and 7.01 m
for three cars. Allowing for the column size, cladding and maneuvering space for the
cars, the most suitable center-to-center spacing between columns may be 6.0m x 8.1m.
In the current study, this simple column grid spacing has been accepted. With the above
basic grid pattern, a 3-span by 3-bay floor having overall 18.0m x 24.3m = 437.4 m2 plan
area has been chosen. A regular architectural plan along with basement of the buildings
under this study are shown in the figure underneath.

Figure 3.2: Typical basement layout for the study.

 39

Figure 3.3: Typical floor layout for the study.

3.2.2 Considerations for stair and lift

In buildings, stairs is a term applied to a complete flight of steps between two floors. In
such buildings connectivity within the building and from outside world is of prime
important. This is what gives height to a building and helps it to rise up. Staircase or
elevators function as primary way of connecting to various spaces in low and mid-rise
buildings. Whereas elevators make it possible to reach the highest story. These sources
of connectivity also help in evacuating the building instantly in case of emergency. To
evaluate with the practical phenomena, two stairs (one regular and one emergency) with
1.50m of stair width as per the code requirements for commercial buildings is has been
considered. Besides three lifts in between two stairs has been designed in the plan of the
buildings. An equivalent slab (212.50 mm) is considered for modeling of both the stair.

3.2.3 Preferences for floor system

A reinforced concrete slab is the one of the most vital component in a building. It is a
structural element of modern building. Slabs are supported on columns and beams. RCC
 40

slabs whose thickness ranges from 100 to 500 mm are most often used for the construction
of floors and ceilings. Thin concrete slabs are also used for exterior paving purpose. In
many domestic slabs are also used for exterior paving purpose. In many domestic and
industrial building a thick concrete slab, supported on foundation or directly on the sub
soil, is used to construct the ground floor of a building.

Intended for this investigation, a 150 mm concrete slab has been taken into account for the
design of all RC buildings allowing for the minimum slab requirement which will check
further to control the deflection under service loading condition. The concrete slab are
meshed in the plane of intersection with visible grid and further meshed manually to a
reasonable rectangular shape. As shown in figure 3.4, the meshing of the typical floor for
all buildings under this analysis.

Figure 3.4: Typical concrete slab profile with meshing.

3.2.4 Number of story and floor heights

In Bangladesh, the height of typical commercial buildings varies between ten to twenty-
five stories. In this experiments, buildings with 5 different heights (8, 12, 16, 20 and 24
 41

storied) has been considered as stated in Table 3.1. The same architectural plan as
displayed in Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3, has been used for all the five different building
heights. The floor-to-floor height has been taken into 3.60 m considering the typical
plumbing and duct requirements for air conditioning etc. To provide adequate space
(about 150mm to 200mm) for air- conditioning ducts between the false ceiling and beam
bottom and to keep clear height between floor and false ceiling at least 2600mm the
depth of interior main beams are limited to depth of 750mm as the floor to floor height
is 3600mm. Moreover 3.30 m height has been assumed for the all typical basement for
all types of buildings.

Table 3.1: General criteria for this experiment

Location/District General criteria for building design
No. of Basement Floor heights Foundation
stories
i. Chattogram 8, 12, a. One basement for 8 a. 3.60 m for Mat
ii. Dhaka 16, 20 and 12 storied typical foundation
and 24 building floor height for all types
iii. Khulna b. Two basement for b. 3.30 m for of buildings
iv. Rajshahi 16 and 20 storied basement
building height
v. Sylhet
c. Three basement for
24 storied building

3.3 Design Considerations

The design considerations are formulated to bring to the attention to design in applying
the universal accessibility design principles and requirements to buildings and facilities.
It can also be used to identify barriers in existing buildings. In this part of the study
several guidelines, calculations and assumptions has been taken to complete the
experiment. Figure 3.7 shows the design thoughts at a quick look and also the detail
considerations are decoratively discoursed in this section of the study.

Design code Structural

Load Metarial
and framing
considerations properties
standards system

Figure 3.5: Steps for design thoughts.

 42

3.3.1 Design code and standards

Structural designs must comply with all national, state or local building standards, permit
requirements and design codes. These criteria serve as guidelines when designing any
building. While building codes will vary depending on location, here are some relevant
codes and standards to consider:
a. Bangladesh National Building Code 1993
b. Bangladesh National Building Code 2020
c. American Concrete Institute (ACI): ACI 318-14, Building Code Requirements
for Structural Concrete
d. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): ASCE 7-05, Minimum Design
Loads for Buildings and Other Structures

3.3.2 Load considerations

An analysis of load consideration is a vital part of the structural design. Load

considerations will depend on the type of occupancy for the structure, as well as the
height of the structure. Three common loadings of a building include:
i. Dead Load (DL): Typically composed of the self-weight of the member or a
structure.
ii. Super-imposed Dead Load (SDL): Comprises of the floor finishes and the weight
of the partitions.
iii. Live Loads (LL): Constitutes movable loads that the structure may carry.

The SDL has been taken as same for design with both the codes (i.e. BNBC-1993 and
BNBC-2020), but the LL varies as per the provisions of the codes; detailed out in Table
3.2. Along with those gravity loads, lateral loads (wind and earthquake) have also been
applied on the structures comprising with different assumptions and calculations as per
the specifications of BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020.

3.3.3 Structural framing system

Determining the proper structural support, or framing, is an important part of the process
to ensure the safety of the structure. Structural analysis, through the use of Finite Element
Method (FEM) technology, can help to determine appropriate column or shear walls and
beam dimensions, slab thickness, orientations, design of footings and more. Structural
 43

frame refers to the load-resisting sub-system of a building or structure. The structural

system transfers loads through interconnected elements or members.

Table 3.2: Loading used for the design with both the codes
Criteria Loading Considerations
BNBC-1993 BNBC-2020
Occupancy According to Table 6.2.3, for According to Table 6.2.3, for
business and mercantile office building:
(Occupancy-F) building:
Super-imposed i. Internal permanent Partition i. Internal permanent Partition
dead loads Wall (PW) = 3.0 kN/m2 Wall (PW) = 3.0 kN/m2
(SDL) and Live (assumed) (assumed)
loads (LL) ii. Floor Finish (FF) = 1.50 ii. Floor Finish (FF) = 1.50
2
kN/m kN/m2
iii. LL = 3.0 kN/m2 (typical iii. LL = 2.40 kN/m2 (typical
floors) floors)
2
iv. LL= 4.00 kN/m (staircase, iv. LL= 4.80 (staircase and exit
lobby, corridor etc.) ways, lobbies)
2
v. LL = 2.50 kN/m (car v. LL = 2.00 kN/m2
parking and ramp) and 1.50 (garages/parking area) and
2
kN/m (flat roof) 1.0 kN/m2 (flat roof)

Loads from lift a. Considered per lift capacity a. Considered per lift capacity
and lift machine = 12 persons and per person = 12 persons and per person
room weight = 80 kg. weight = 80 kg.
b. Total loads including b. Total loads including
machine room and shaft machine room and shaft
2
weight = 4.788 kN/m weight = 4.788 kN/m2
(100psf). (100psf).
Loads from i. In accordance with table i. In accordance with table
overhead water 8.6.1, Occupancy: F (for 8.6.1, Occupancy: F (for
tank business and mercantile or business and mercantile or
offices) and for full offices) and for full
facilities, water requirement facilities, water requirement
= 45 LPCD. = 45 LPCD.
ii. Assume 50 persons per ii. Assume 50 persons per
floor. Thus the water loads floor. Thus the water loads
2
per floor = 0.479 kN/m (10 per floor = 0.479 kN/m2 (10
psf). psf).
iii. Water tank wall loads are iii. Water tank wall loads are
assigned as per actual load assigned as per actual load
calculations. calculations.
 44

At the same time, the structural resisting framing system is dissimilar for the two BNBC.
Hence the response modification coefficient varies for both the codes. Table 3.3 shows
the response modification factors used for the design in both the codes for this study.

Table 3.3: Response modification factors used for the design

Structural Description of seismic As per As per
System force- resisting system BNBC-1993 BNBC-2020
Moment Special concrete moment 12 8
Resisting resisting frame
Frame Intermediate concrete 8 5
System moment resisting frame
Ordinary concrete 5 N/A
moment resisting frame
Dual System Special reinforced N/A 7
(SMRF) concrete shear walls

3.3.4 Material property

Reinforced Concrete (RC, also called RCC) is a widely used construction material in
many parts the world. RC is a strong durable building material that can be formed into
many varied shapes and sizes. Based on the building heights and complexity of the
structures, two different concrete strength is used for this study. The yield strength of
reinforcement remains same for all the structures of all 5 districts. Material properties
used for analysis and design of sub and super structures are listed on the table underneath.
In standard practice considerations, higher concrete strength has been considered for high
rise buildings and lower concrete strength for low rise buildings, or else the sizes for the
structural elements will increases from the usual practice.

Table 3.4: Material properties considered for the study

No. of Material properties
stories Concrete compressive Yield strength of
strength, f’c reinforcement, fy
MPa psi MPa psi
8 27.57 4,000
12
16 420.00 60,000
20 34.48 5,000
24
 45

3.4 Structural Modeling and Analysis

In this research, powerful and popular finite element software package ETABS 2016 v
16.2.1 has been used for the structural modeling, analysis and design. The software
package ETABS (Extended Three Dimensional Analysis of Building System), a finite
element method based software was used in this study for modeling and analysis. Finite
element analysis provides both static and dynamic analysis for wide range of gravity,
thermal and lateral loads. This software can analyze any combination of 3-D frame and
shear wall system, and provides complete interaction between the two. Outputs story
displacements, mode shapes and periods, lateral frame displacements, frame member
forces are obtained at each level of the frame. Therefore the software offers the widest
variety of analysis and design tools available for the structural engineer working on
building structures.

A three dimensional model of the structure has been developed using frame and shell
elements. The frame elements are typical two node (1-D) frame elements having six
degrees of freedom per node – three translations and three rotations in three mutually
perpendicular axes system. The plate elements are of rectangular (or quadrilateral) shape.
The rectangular or quadrilateral element has four nodes at its four corners. Each node has
six degrees of freedom –three translations and three rotations in a 3D space configuration.
Frame elements are used to model the beams, columns and braces while the shell
elements are used to model the floor slab and roof, providing stiffness in all directions
and transfer mass of slab to beams. A rigid diaphragm was assumed at all floor levels.
At the base level, all nodes were restrained against translation. Stiffness modification
factors are used for the analysis and design of all structural members i.e. column, beam,
slab and shear wall for both the BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020 codes.

The modal combination method used for all models was CQC (Complete Quadratic
Combination). It is preferred over SRSS (Square Root of Sum of Squares) because the
structural models of the sample buildings used in this work are all 3-dimensional with
the possibility of closely spaced modes. CQC results are generally much more accurate
for structures with closely spaced modes. The internal forces obtained using CQC are
about the same as SRSS. It was verified for all the buildings used in this work. Typical
3D view of the 20-storied building model for RC moment frame and 24-storied for dual
system (moment frame with shear wall) is shown in Figure 3.6 and Figure 3.7.
 46

Figure 3.6: 3D view of a 20 storied RC moment frame building in FEA model.

 47

Figure 3.7: 3D view of a 24 storied RC dual system building in FEA model.

 48

3.5 Analysis and Design of Foundation

Foundation, an eminent element for any kind of construction and infrastructure

development. For any kind of civil engineering projects foundation turned out to be most
important aspect. In this study, conventional raft or mat foundation preferred for the
design of foundation for all types of buildings under consideration. The finite element
analysis method is the consideration of the soil flexible behavior in the structural
analysis. In this method the soil is model and its behavior is incorporated into the analysis
and design. There are different methods to model the soil. Soil can be model as the area
springs. It is very important to select the correct material model for the soil in this type
of analysis. This design requires only the values of bending moments and shear forces
within the foundation. A plan view of meshed mat slab is presented here.

Figure 3.8: Plan view – Mat foundation in FEA model.

In absence of the plate test, estimated subgrade reaction coefficient, Ks are used in
modeling. To take into account the subgrade reaction value of 16,000 kN/m3 considering
the worst cases as loose sand has been used as area spring to complete the design of mat
foundation. In finite element modeling, mat foundation has been modeled underneath the
superstructure considering 600 mm extended part on both sides of the mat. Also the
manual meshed has been performed to design the mat foundation.
 49

Table 3.5: Mat thickness with change of building heights and locations
Location/District No. of Mat thickness (mm)
stories BNBC-1993 BNBC-2020
8 1100 1075

12 1325 1275

Chattogram 16 1450 1400

20 1450 1425

24 1625 1475

8 1100 1075

12 1325 1300

Dhaka 16 1450 1425

20 1550 1525

24 1575 1525

8 1100 1075

12 1325 1275

Khulna 16 1450 1400

20 1475 1475

24 1575 1500

8 1100 1075

12 1325 1300

Rajshahi 16 1450 1425

20 1550 1525

24 1575 1525

8 1100 1075

12 1300 1300

Sylhet 16 1450 1425

20 1550 1425

24 1550 1450

The foundation is designed for service load combination for consideration of settlement
is DL + LL. Considering the load combinations for strength design, the controlling
gravity load combination is 1.2DL + 1.6LL. After the analysis and design of foundation,
different thickness of mat foundation has been found depending on the different loading
condition of both the codes and variations in column size and self-weight. The variations
of mat thickness are listed below with the changes of heights and locations.
 50

3.6 Design Parameter Used For Lateral Loads

The structural design of any structure first involves establishing the gravity and lateral
loading and other design constraints, which must be supported by the structure and
therefore must be considered in its design. Most lateral loads are live loads whose main
component is a horizontal force acting on the structure. Typical lateral loads would be a
wind load against a facade, an earthquake, the earth pressure against a beach front
retaining wall or the earth pressure against a basement wall. In shear distribution based
on rigid floor assumption, the lateral loads are transmitted from one element to the other
by means of the floor slabs. Most lateral loads vary in intensity depending on the
building's geographic location, structural materials, height and shape. The dynamic
effects of wind and earthquake loads are usually analyzed as an equivalent static load in
most small and moderate-sized buildings (Luebkeman and Peting 1995). Different
parameters for wind and earthquake loading are applied in all the buildings under this
research are presented in tabular format in this section based on two BNBC codes.

3.6.1 Wind load analysis parameters between two codes

Analysis parameters for wind loading varies in some cases specially the basic wind
speed, maximum deflection limit and other factors which causes the differences the entire
wind loads between BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020. The basic wind speed changes from
fasted mile speed to 3 second gust in BNBC-2020 considering all districts of Bangladesh.
Additionally, some new coefficients are introduced in the new BNBC codes compared
to the older one. Furthermore the analysis methods are dissimilar from the older version
of the code. Table 3.6 shows the design criteria or factors considered to design the
buildings for wind loading in varying districts of Bangladesh.

3.6.2 Seismic load analysis parameters between two codes

Seismic loading depends, primarily on seismic hazard, geotechnical parameters of the

site, and structure's natural frequency etc. There are horizontal and vertical components
of earthquake ground motions. The main factors of the seismic analysis of structures are
load carrying capacity, ductility, stiffness, damping and mass. Design parameters for
seismic loading varies in many cases specially the seismic zone factors, seismic design
category, Seismic force-resisting system, response reduction factors, spectral
acceleration values and other factors which causes the differences the entire seismic loads
 51

between BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020. Additionally, some new coefficients are

introduced in the new BNBC codes compared to the older one.

Table 3.6: Differences of wind load parameters between two BNBC codes
Location/District Parameter Design criteria or factors
BNBC-1993 BNBC-2020
All 5 districts Analysis Method Projected Area Analytical
Method Procedure
Chattogram Fastest mile speed: 3 second Gust wind:
Basic wind speed, 260.00 288.00
Dhaka Vb (km/hr.) Fastest mile speed: 3 second Gust wind:
210.00 236.52
Khulna Fastest mile speed: 3 second Gust wind:
238.00 268.33
Rajshahi Fastest mile speed: 3 second Gust wind:
155.00 177.12
Sylhet Fastest mile speed: 3 second Gust wind:
195.00 219.96
Exposure A (Urban and sub A (Urban and sub
Category urban area) urban area)
Important factor, I 1.00 1.00
Topographical N/A 1.00
Factor, Kzt
Gust effect factor, -- 0.85
G
All 5 districts Directionality N/A 0.85
Factor, Kd
Maximum ℎ ℎ
for 100% Wind for 70% Wind
500 500
Deflection Limit
effect effect
Other factors Combined height and Velocity pressure
exposure coefficient exposure
Cz coefficient, Kd
FEA Algorithm UBC 94 ASCE 7-05

Moreover, the analysis methods such as equivalent static or dynamic analysis has been
changed in accordance with the different building heights. Whichever is required the
linear dynamic analysis has been applied as per the two codes. Table 3.7, Table 3.8,
Table 3.9 and Table 3.10 shows the design criteria or factors considered to design the
buildings for seismic loading in varying districts of Bangladesh.
 52

Table 3.7: Seismic load parameters applied regarding two BNBC codes in Chattogram
Location/ Parameter Design criteria or factors
District BNBC-1993 BNBC-2020
Site Classification S3 SD
Site Coefficient, S 1.5 1.35
Importance Factor, I 1.00 1.00
Seismic zone Zone 2 Zone 3
Seismic Zone 0.15 0.28
Coefficient, Z
Seismic design N/A D
category (SDC)
Seismic force- Intermediate a) Special reinforced concrete
resisting system moment resisting moment frames (SMRF)
frames (IMRF) for 8, 12 and 16 storied
for all storied b) Duel system (SMRF):
buildings Special reinforced concrete
shear walls for 20 and 24
storied
Response reduction 8 (for all storied a) 8 (for 8, 12 and 16 storied)
factor, R buildings) b) 7 (for 20 and 24 storied)
System Over N/A a) (for 8, 12 and 16 storied)
strength Factor, Ω0
CHATTOGRAM

b) 2.5 (for 20 and 24 storied)

Deflection N/A 5.5 (for all storied buildings)
amplification factor,
Cd
Building Period, T 3 4
𝑇 = 𝐶𝑡 (ℎ𝑛 ) ⁄ 𝑇 = 𝐶𝑡 (ℎ𝑛 )𝑚
Ct=0.03 a) Ct=0.016 and m=0.9 (for 8,
12 and 16 storied)
b) Ct=0.02 and m=0.75 (for 20
and 24 storied)
0.2 Sec. spectral N/A 0.7
acceleration, Ss
1 Sec. spectral N/A 0.28
acceleration, S1
Site coefficient, Fa N/A 1.35
Site coefficient, Fv N/A 2.7
Static All buildings Only 8-storied building under
equivalent/Dynamic under static static equivalent analysis, and
analysis equivalent other buildings under
analysis except dynamic analysis.
24-storied
building.
Eccentricity ratio 5% 5%
FEA Algorithm UBC 94 ASCE 7-05
 53

Table 3.8: Seismic load parameters applied regarding two BNBC codes in Dhaka

Location/ Parameter Design criteria or factors

District BNBC-1993 BNBC-2020
Site classification S3 SD
Site Coefficient, S 1.5 1.35
Importance Factor, I 1.00 1.00
Seismic zone Zone 2 Zone 2
Seismic Zone 0.15 0.20
Coefficient, Z
Seismic design category N/A D
(SDC)
Seismic force-resisting Intermediate Special reinforced
system moment resisting concrete moment frames
frames (IMRF) (SMRF) for all storied
for all storied buildings
buildings
Response reduction 8 (for all storied 8 (for all storied
factor, R buildings) buildings)
System Over strength N/A 3 (for all storied
Factor, Ω0 buildings)
DHAKA

Deflection N/A 5.5 (for all storied

amplification factor, Cd buildings)
Building Period, T 𝑇 = 𝐶 (ℎ𝑛 ) ⁄
3 4
𝑇 = 𝐶𝑡 (ℎ𝑛 )𝑚
𝑡
Ct=0.03 Ct=0.016 and m=0.9 (for
all storied buildings)
0.2 Sec. spectral N/A 0.50
acceleration, Ss
1 Second spectral N/A 0.20
acceleration, S1
Site coefficient, Fa N/A 1.35
Site coefficient, Fv N/A 2.7
Static All buildings Only 8-storied building
equivalent/Dynamic under static under static equivalent
analysis equivalent analysis, and other
analysis except buildings under dynamic
24-storied analysis.
building.
Eccentricity ratio 5% 5%
FEA Algorithm UBC 94 ASCE 7-05
 54

Table 3.9: Seismic load parameters applied regarding two BNBC codes in Khulna and
Rajshahi
Location/ Parameter Design criteria or factors
District BNBC-1993 BNBC-2020
Site classification S3 SD
Site Coefficient, S 1.5 1.35
Importance Factor, I 1.00 1.00
Seismic zone Zone 1 Zone 1
Seismic Zone 0.075 0.12
Coefficient, Z
Seismic design N/A C
category (SDC)
Seismic force- Ordinary moment Intermediate reinforced
resisting system resisting frames concrete moment frames
(OMRF) for all (IMRF) for all storied
storied buildings buildings
Response reduction 5 (for all storied 5 (for all storied buildings)
factor, R buildings)
KHULNA and RAJSHAHI

System Over N/A 3 (for all storied buildings)

strength Factor, Ω0
Deflection N/A 4.5 (for all storied buildings)
amplification factor,
Cd
Building Period, T 𝑇 = 𝐶 (ℎ𝑛 ) ⁄
3 4
𝑇 = 𝐶𝑡 (ℎ𝑛 )𝑚
𝑡
Ct=0.03 Ct=0.016 and m=0.9 (for all
storied buildings)
0.2 Second spectral N/A 0.30
acceleration, Ss
1 Second spectral N/A 0.12
acceleration, S1
Site coefficient, Fa N/A 1.35
Site coefficient, Fv N/A 2.7
Static All buildings Only 8 and 12-storied
equivalent/Dynamic under static building under static
analysis equivalent equivalent analysis, and
analysis. other buildings under
dynamic analysis.
Eccentricity ratio 5% 5%
FEA Algorithm UBC 94 ASCE 7-05
 55

Table 3.10: Seismic load parameters applied concerning two BNBC codes in Sylhet
Location/ Parameter Design criteria or factors
District BNBC-1993 BNBC-2020
Site Classification S3 SD
Site Coefficient, S 1.5 1.35
Importance Factor, I 1.00 1.00
Seismic zone Zone 3 Zone 4
Seismic Zone 0.25 0.36
Coefficient, Z
Seismic design N/A D
category (SDC)
Seismic force- Special moment a) Special reinforced concrete
resisting system resisting frames moment frames (SMRF)
(SMRF) for all for 8, 12 and 16 storied
storied buildings b) Duel system (SMRF):
Special reinforced concrete
shear walls for 20 and 24
storied
Response reduction 12 (for all storied a) 8 (for 8, 12 and 16 storied)
factor, R buildings) b) 7 (for 20 and 24 storied)
System Over N/A a) 3 (for 8, 12 and 16 storied)
strength Factor, Ω0 b) 2.5 (for 20 and 24 storied)
SYLHET

Deflection N/A 5.5 (for all storied buildings)

amplification factor,
Cd
Building Period, T 3 4
𝑇 = 𝐶𝑡 (ℎ𝑛 ) ⁄ 𝑇 = 𝐶𝑡 (ℎ𝑛 )𝑚
Ct=0.03 a) Ct=0.016 and m=0.9 (for 8,
12 and 16 storied)
b) Ct=0.02 and m=0.75 (for
20 and 24 storied)
0.2 Sec. spectral N/A 0.9
acceleration, Ss
1 Sec. spectral N/A 0.36
acceleration, S1
Site coefficient, Fa N/A 1.35
Site coefficient, Fv N/A 2.7
Static All buildings Only 8-storied building under
equivalent/Dynamic under static static equivalent analysis, and
analysis equivalent other buildings under
analysis except dynamic analysis.
24-storied
building.
Eccentricity ratio 5% 5%
FEA Algorithm UBC 94 ASCE 7-05
 56

3.7 Serviceability Limits

Even though serviceability conditions are not often clearly defined in design codes, they
are very significant for designing structures against vibration. A serviceability limit
defines the performance criterion for serviceability and corresponds to a conditions
beyond which specified service requirements resulting from the planned use are no
longer met. In limit state design, a structure fails its serviceability if the criteria of the
serviceability limit state are not met during the specified service life and with the required
reliability. Hence, a structure that fails serviceability has exceeded a defined limit for one
of the following properties:
a) Excessive deflection
b) Vibration
c) Local deformation
The serviceability limits for different loading condition for both the codes are applied
during the analysis and design of all the buildings under consideration. There are little
bit differences i.e. story drift and top deflection at service load condition between this
two codes, which has been applied to finalize the design of all the buildings under this
study. The limits for serviceability with some remarks as per BNBC-1993 and BNBC-
2020 are listed in the following table.

Table 3.11: Serviceability limits between two BNBC codes

Description Limit Remarks
Building Top deflection for wind load ℎ/500 For 100% wind load as per
BNBC-1993 and 70% as per
BNBC-2020
Building story drift limit for Earthquake 0.004ℎ For T 0.7second and ℎ is
Load (as per BNBC-1993) the height of the building
Building story drift limit for Earthquake 0.02ℎx ℎx is the story height below
Load (as per BNBC-2020) Level x
Floor Member (e.g. Beam) Deflection due 𝑙/240 𝑙 is the span length of beam
to service load or one-way slab
Floor Member (e.g. Beam) immediate 𝑙/360 𝑙 is the span length of beam
Deflection due to Live load or one-way slab
Slab deflection limit due to Service load 𝑙/240 with Plastered Celling

Slab immediate deflection limit due to live 𝑙/360 with Plastered Celling
load
 CHAPTER 4
COST ESTIMATION APPROACHES

4.1 Introduction

A construction cost estimate is a projection of how much money a new structure will cost
to build. This estimate plays a vigorous role in the success of a construction project.
Effective cost estimation is necessary in the early stages of any project. It always helps
any owner for initial budget and communicate important information about how much
the project will cost. Cost estimation requires an in-depth knowledge of the construction
procedures and cost of materials and labor in addition to the skill, experience, foresight
and good judgment. Even though it is completely difficult to calculate the exact cost after
the physical execution of the project.

In different situations, different cost estimation tactics work best. Depending on far along
the project is and how much the project information are, certain cost estimation methods
may be superior to others. There are few cost estimation methods as keep an eye on:

I. The Unit Cost Method: The unit cost method breaks a project into multiple units
for cost estimation. After that it requires individually estimating the expense of
each element and find the total project cost by summing up your different units.
The unit cost technique works best for buildings where large amounts of floor
space are occupied with the same identical units.
II. The Square Meter Method: This is another strategy that works best in the early
stages of design. Through this, it needs to calculate the building’s total square
footage and multiply the area by an estimate of how much the project will cost
per square foot. However, it is necessary to have the data from similar past
projects for this approach.
III. The Approximate Quantities Method: One of the most accurate forms of
estimation. Earlier estimation starts, it essentials to break down the bill of
quantities into major groups like the foundation, first floor, walls, and other
building elements. After that it needs to measure defined quantities for each of
these components, typically from schematics, drawings, or other data stored in
FEM and multiply by the unit rate of the materials. However, it will provide fairly
accurate results and a detailed breakdown of the project cost.
 58

4.2 Quantification of Civil Works

Measurement or quantification is a process concerned with converting the materials of

different components of any structure into words and numbers in accordance with various
calculations and a strict set of guidelines. There are several building components are
made with different materials which are needed to calculate accordingly as per the design
requirements. Each of the materials of civil work have been quantified with detail
formulations sets in excel programming. The elements of civil construction works are
short listed below and the detail calculation procedure is deliberated in the next section.

Earth excavation Form work Concrete volumne Reinforcement

and backfilling calculations measurements calculations

i. Foundation i. Foundation work i. Foundation work i. Foundation work

excavation
ii. Colum ii. Colum ii. Colum
construction construction construction
ii. Back filling after
iii. Beam and slab iii. Beam and slab iii. Beam and slab
foundation
construction construction construction
construction
iv. Others iv. Others iv. Others
construction items construction items construction items
iii. Workmanship
v. Workmanship v. Workmanship v. Workmanship

Figure 4.1: Major elements of structural civil construction works.

4.2.1 Earth excavation and backfilling

In every construction works, have more or less earth excavation work as well as
backfilling works. To quantify the earth excavation for mat foundation work, 600mm has
been considered as an extended part of both sides of the mat foundation. As well the
150mm extra earth cutting work has been counted to calculate the area of earth
excavation. The depth of earth cutting has been considered as the depth of the basement
from the road level by also adding some more depth for actual field work consideration.
To show a demonstration of the calculation process, the data of a 20-storied building in
Dhaka zone are displaced below. The detailed calculation sheets of this building are
attached with the Appendix-B.

Table 4.1: Example of earth excavation calculations

Earth Excavation
Size
Quantity
Location Work At Length Width Depth Volume (cum) Total Volume (cum)
(No's)
mm mm mm
Mat 25800 19500 6750 1 Nos. 3395.93 3,395.93
Foundation

Total Earth Excavation = 3,395.93

 59

In addition for the measurements of back filling work, the size and depth of the mat and
basement wall has been deducted from the earth excavated work.

Table 4.2: Example of sand filling calculations

Sand Filling
Size
Quantity
Location Work At Length Width Depth Volume (cum) Total Volume (cum)
(No's)
mm mm mm
Earth cutting 3,395.93
EGL to PL 25500 600 1000 15.30
25500 19200 6600 1 Nos. 3231.36 3,231.36
Deduction

Total Sand Filling = 179.87

4.2.2 Quantification of form work

Form work is one of the most fundamental part of any civil construction work. Shutter is
used in every part of the buildings like foundation, basement walls, columns, beams,
slabs, stairs, underground and overhead water tank, lift pit walls etc. Consequently, the
quantity of shuttering work has been calculated separately by considering all the
components of building for this study. As the shutter is a re-useable materials, has been
counted as some percentage of all floors (30%-35%) for an individual building. For this
investigation all the shutters have been considered as steel shutter. The size and thickness
of those aforementioned components have been taken directly from the FEA after
finalizing the structural design of each of the buildings. A sample of form work
calculations are presented below for the 20-storied building of Dhaka district. The
detailed calculation sheets of this building are attached with the Appendix-B.

Table 4.3: Sample calculations of form work

Calculations of Form Work
Size
Quantity
Location Work At Length Depth No. of storey (Nos.) Area (Sqm.) Total Area (Sqm.)
(No's)
mm mm
Foundation Mat 89400 1525 1 No's. 136.34 136.34

C1 3200 3300 2.00 4 No's. 10.56 84.48

C2 3900 3300 2.00 8 No's. 12.87 205.92
Column Below GF
C3 3800 3300 2.00 4 No's. 12.54 100.32
C4 1900 0 0.00 4 No's. 0.00 0.00

C1 3000 3600 6.00 4 No's. 10.80 259.20

C2 3700 3600 6.00 8 No's. 13.32 639.36
Column Level-GF to Roof
C3 3600 3600 6.00 4 No's. 12.96 311.04
C4 1700 3600 0.00 4 No's. 6.12 0.00

C1 3000 3600 0.00 0 No's. 10.80 0.00

C2 3700 3600 1.00 0 No's. 13.32 0.00
Column Level-Stair top
C3 3600 3600 1.00 0 No's. 12.96 0.00
C4 1700 3600 1.00 4 No's. 6.12 24.48

1 24300 0 2.00 1 No's. 0.00 0.00

2 24300 2100 2.00 1 No's. 51.03 102.06
3 24300 2100 2.00 1 No's. 51.03 102.06
IN BETWEEN 8100 1575 2.00 1 No's. 12.76 25.52
4 24300 0 2.00 1 No's. 0.00 0.00
BEAMS' IN GRADE & BELOW GRADE
A 18000 0 2.00 1 No's. 0.00 0.00
LEVEL
B 6000 1575 2.00 1 No's. 9.45 18.90
C 18000 2100 2.00 1 No's. 37.80 75.60
D 18000 2100 2.00 1 No's. 37.80 75.60
E 6000 1575 2.00 1 No's. 9.45 18.90
F 18000 0 2.00 1 No's. 0.00 0.00
 60

4.2.3 Concrete volume quantification

Concrete is the main structural element of any RCC (Reinforced Cement Concrete)
building. Thus the concrete volume computations are one of the major portion of this
cost estimation. In every component of the structures, i.e. foundation, basement walls,
columns, beams, slabs, stairs, underground and overhead water tank, lift pit walls etc.
used as a reinforced concrete. Accordingly, the quantity of concrete volume in cubic
meter has been calculated separately by considering all the components of building for
this study. The size and thickness of those aforementioned components have been taken
directly from the FEA after finalizing the structural design for each of the buildings. A
sample calculations of concrete volume are demonstrated underneath for the 20-storied
building of Dhaka district. The detailed calculation sheets of this building are attached
with the Appendix-B.

Table 4.4: Sample calculations of RCC work

R.C.C Work
Size
Quantity No. of storey
Location Work At Length Width Depth Volume (cum) Total Volume (cum)
(No's) (Nos.)
mm mm mm
Foundation Mat 25500 19200 1525 1 No's. 746.64 746.64

C1 800 800 3300 4 No's. 2.11 16.90 2

C2 1050 900 3300 8 No's. 3.12 49.90 2
Column below GF
C3 950 950 3300 4 No's. 2.98 23.83 2
C4 475 475 0 4 No's. 0.00 0.00 0

C1 750 750 3600 4 No's. 2.03 162.00 20

C2 1000 850 3600 8 No's. 3.06 489.60 20
Column Level-GF to ROOF
C3 900 900 3600 4 No's. 2.92 233.28 20
C4 425 425 3600 4 No's. 0.65 0.00 0

C1 750 750 3600 0 No's. 2.03 0.00 0

C2 1000 850 3600 2 No's. 3.06 6.12 1
Column Level-STAIR TOP
C3 900 900 3600 4 No's. 2.92 11.66 1
C4 425 425 3600 4 No's. 0.65 2.60 1

1 24300 0 0 1 No's. 0.00 0.00 2

2 24300 600 750 1 No's. 10.94 21.87 2
3 24300 600 750 1 No's. 10.94 21.87 2
IN BETWEEN 8100 375 600 1 No's. 1.82 3.65 2
4 24300 0 0 1 No's. 0.00 0.00 2
BEAMS' IN GRADE & BELOW GRADE
A 18000 0 0 1 No's. 0.00 0.00 2
LEVEL
B 6000 375 600 1 No's. 1.35 2.70 2
C 18000 600 750 1 No's. 8.10 16.20 2
D 18000 600 750 1 No's. 8.10 16.20 2
E 6000 375 600 1 No's. 1.35 2.70 2
F 18000 0 0 1 No's. 0.00 0.00 2

1 24300 600 750 1 No's. 10.94 87.48 8

2 24300 600 750 1 No's. 10.94 87.48 8
3 24300 600 750 1 No's. 10.94 87.48 8
IN BETWEEN 8100 375 600 1 No's. 1.82 14.58 8
4 24300 600 750 1 No's. 10.94 87.48 8
FLOOR BEAM (1F TO 8F) A 18000 600 750 1 No's. 8.10 64.80 8
B 6000 375 600 1 No's. 1.35 10.80 8
C 18000 600 750 1 No's. 8.10 64.80 8
D 18000 600 750 1 No's. 8.10 64.80 8
E 6000 375 600 1 No's. 1.35 10.80 8
F 18000 600 750 1 No's. 8.10 64.80 8

1 24300 500 700 1 No's. 8.51 102.06 12

2 24300 500 700 1 No's. 8.51 102.06 12
3 24300 500 700 1 No's. 8.51 102.06 12
IN BETWEEN 8100 375 600 1 No's. 1.82 21.87 12
4 24300 500 700 1 No's. 8.51 102.06 12
FLOOR BEAM (9F TO ROOF) A 18000 500 700 1 No's. 6.30 75.60 12
B 6000 375 600 1 No's. 1.35 16.20 12
C 18000 500 700 1 No's. 6.30 75.60 12
D 18000 500 700 1 No's. 6.30 75.60 12
E 6000 375 600 1 No's. 1.35 16.20 12
F 18000 500 700 1 No's. 6.30 75.60 12

BELOW GF 437400000.0 150 1 No's. 65.61 65.61 1

GF TO ROOF 437400000.0 150 1 No's. 65.61 1377.81 21
STAIR TOP 83700000.0 125 1 No's. 10.46 10.46 1
OHWT BOTTOM 69412950.0 250 1 No's. 17.35 17.35 1
OHWT TOP 48600000.0 125 1 No's. 6.08 6.08 1
Slab OHWT Wall 42300000.0 250 1 No's. 10.58 10.58 1
UGWT Wall 56227500.0 250 1 No's. 14.06 14.06 1
STAIR Steps 450000.0 2400 1 No's. 1.08 22.68 21
Basement Wall 576630000.0 300 1 No's. 172.99 172.99 1
Lift pit bottom slab 20817000.0 250 1 No's. 5.20 5.20 1
Lift pit side wall 28809000.0 250 1 No's. 7.20 7.20 1
 61

4.2.4 Reinforcement weight quantification

Reinforcement is one of the major structural material of any RCC (Reinforced Cement
Concrete) building. Consequently the reinforcement weight calculations are key portion
of this cost estimation. Reinforcement has been used in every structural component of
those 50 buildings under consideration. The weight of reinforcement in kilogram (kg)
has been calculated separately by considering all the components of building as listed
below.
a) Foundation
b) Columns
c) Beams
d) Slabs and stairs
e) Underground and overhead water tank, basement and lift pit walls etc.

The weight for longitudinal or main reinforcement of those aforementioned components

have been taken directly from the FEA after finalizing the structural design for each of
the buildings. To computation of the weight of transverse reinforcement, a detailed
calculation sets according to both the codes specification for SMRF, IMRF and OMRF
detailing, and also checked with the corresponding requirements of transverse
reinforcement from FEA results. A detailed sample calculations of reinforcement weight
are demonstrated beneath for the 20-storied building as per BNBC-2020 specifications
for Dhaka district. To consider the wastage quantity of reinforcement during
construction, 5% additional reinforcement has been added to the total calculated weight
of reinforcement.

4.2.4.1 Foundation reinforcement

The reinforcement requirements in both directions of mat foundations taken directly from
the FEA results in governing service loading combination (1.2 DL+16 LL). Also the
computations of lapping reinforcements have been considered as per specification sets
by the code. After that the total required reinforcement area has been converted to the
weight in kilogram. Along with the sample calculations a demonstration of FEA results
is presented below. The detailed calculation sheets are attached with the Appendix-B.
Figure 4.2: Sample FEA results for top reinforcement (direction-1) mat foundation.
62
Figure 4.3: Sample FEA results for bottom reinforcement (direction-1) mat foundation.
63
 64

Table 4.5: Sample calculations of RCC work

Reinforcement Work: Foundation
Bar Size Weight No of Bar Length Total Length Nos of Item Total Weight Rebar Spacing
Location/ Description
mm kg/m Nos mm m Nos. kg mm
Mat Bottom Long 28 mm 4.834 164.00 26,694 4,377.816 1 21,160.34 125
Mat Bottom Short 28 mm 4.834 214.00 20,394 4,364.316 1 21,095.09 125
Mat Top Long 25 mm 3.853 116.00 26,550 3,079.800 1 11,867.29 175
Mat Top Short 25 mm 3.853 152.00 20,250 3,078.000 1 11,860.36 175
Extra Bottom Long 20 mm 2.466 32.00 5,400 172.800 4 1,704.56 125
Extra Bottom Short 16 mm 1.578 43.00 4,000 172.000 4 1,085.87 125
Extra Top Long 25 mm 3.853 22.00 5,400 118.800 6 2,746.61 175
Extra Top Short 20 mm 2.466 30.00 4,000 120.000 10 2,959.31 175
Lapping (Mat Bottom Long) 28 mm 4.834 164.00 1,400 229.600 2.00 2,219.56 125
Lapping (Mat Bottom Short) 28 mm 4.834 214.00 1,400 299.600 1.00 1,448.13 125
Lapping (Mat Top Long) 25 mm 3.853 116.00 1,250 145.000 2.00 1,117.45 175
Lapping (Mat Top Short) 25 mm 3.853 152.00 1,250 190.000 1.00 732.12 175
All Foundation Reinforcement Work= 79,996.69

4.2.4.2 Column reinforcement

The longitudinal reinforcement of each column from the basement to the roof and stair
top has been directly extracted from the FEA results after finalization of structural design
as per both the codes. Then transfer those in to total weight (kg) by multiplying by the
each floor height. In other ways the transverse reinforcement or ties has been calculated
according to the specification of both the codes for SMRF, IMRF and OMRF detailing,
and also matched with the corresponding requirements of transverse reinforcement from
FEA results.

Moreover the computations of lapping reinforcements have been included in the

calculation sheet as per the specification sets by the two codes. To approximate match
with the actual field reinforcement detailing, around 3% of longitudinal reinforcement
has been increased as per the actual field reinforcement calculation of one typical column
in table 4.8. A sample calculations of column longitudinal and transverse reinforcement
is presented underneath along with the FEA results. The detailed calculation sheets of
this building are attached with the Appendix-B.

Table 4.6: Example of input data of column from FEA

Mid Bar Corner At V At V
Unique Station Design/ PMM PMM As,min As V Minor
Story Label Design Section Status As Bar As V Major Combo Major Minor Warnings Errors
Name Check Ratio Combo Combo
in in² in² in² in² in²/ft in²/ft
STAIR
C8 389 C4 16x16 0 Design No Message Comb-23-1 2.48 2.48 0.31 0.31 Comb-23-1 0.1514 Comb-23-1 0.2647 No Message No Message
TOP
STAIR
C8 389 C4 16x16 59.0551 Design No Message Comb-23-1 2.48 2.48 0.31 0.31 Comb-23-1 0.1514 Comb-23-1 0.2647 No Message No Message
TOP
STAIR
C8 389 C4 16x16 118.1102 Design No Message Comb-23-1 2.48 2.48 0.31 0.31 Comb-23-1 0.1514 Comb-23-1 0.2647 No Message No Message
TOP
STAIR
C10 9 C3 36x36 0 Design No Message Comb-23-1 12.555 12.555 0.2616 0.2616 Comb-23-1 0.4719 Comb-23-1 0.4247 No Message No Message
TOP
STAIR
C10 9 C3 36x36 57.0866 Design No Message Comb-23-1 12.555 12.555 0.2616 0.2616 Comb-23-1 0.4719 Comb-23-1 0.4247 No Message No Message
TOP
STAIR
C10 9 C3 36x36 114.1732 Design No Message Comb-23-1 12.555 12.555 0.2616 0.2616 Comb-23-1 0.4719 Comb-23-1 0.4247 No Message No Message
TOP
STAIR
C11 390 C3 36x36 0 Design No Message Comb-23-1 12.555 12.555 0.2616 0.2616 Comb-23-1 0.6439 Comb-23-1 0.4195 No Message No Message
TOP
STAIR
C11 390 C3 36x36 57.0866 Design No Message Comb-23-1 12.555 12.555 0.2616 0.2616 Comb-23-1 0.6439 Comb-23-1 0.4195 No Message No Message
TOP
STAIR
C11 390 C3 36x36 114.1732 Design No Message Comb-23-1 12.555 12.555 0.2616 0.2616 Comb-23-1 0.6439 Comb-23-1 0.4195 No Message No Message
TOP
STAIR
C14 10 C3 36x36 0 Design No Message Comb-23-1 12.555 12.555 0.2616 0.2616 Comb-23-1 0.4758 Comb-23-1 0.4272 No Message No Message
TOP
STAIR
C14 10 C3 36x36 57.0866 Design No Message Comb-23-1 12.555 12.555 0.2616 0.2616 Comb-23-1 0.4758 Comb-23-1 0.4272 No Message No Message
TOP
STAIR
C14 10 C3 36x36 114.1732 Design No Message Comb-23-1 12.555 12.555 0.2616 0.2616 Comb-23-1 0.4758 Comb-23-1 0.4272 No Message No Message
TOP
STAIR
C15 392 C3 36x36 0 Design No Message Comb-23-1 12.555 12.555 0.2616 0.2616 Comb-23-1 0.6607 Comb-23-1 0.4179 No Message No Message
TOP
STAIR
C15 392 C3 36x36 57.0866 Design No Message Comb-23-1 12.555 12.555 0.2616 0.2616 Comb-23-1 0.6607 Comb-23-1 0.4179 No Message No Message
TOP
 65

Table 4.7: Calculations of column transverse reinforcement as per BNBC-2020

Column: C1 30x30
At V At V Provided
Design
Storey Label
Section
Major Minor rebar Remarks Input Data
(in2/ft) (in2/ft) (in2)
STAIR TOP C1 C1 30x30 0 0 0.950 Okay Column depth Bar dia Avg. spacing Leg Provided rebar Remarks,
Section
STAIR TOP C4 C1 30x30 0 0 0.950 Okay mm mm mm Nos. in2 considering
STAIR TOP C7 C1 30x30 0 0 0.950 Okay C1 30x30 750 12 112.5 2 0.950 Okay
STAIR TOP C9 C1 30x30 0 0 0.950 Okay C2 34x40 1000 16 112.5 2 1.689 Okay
ROOF C1 C1 30x30 0.4403 0.2727 0.950 Okay C3 36x36 900 12 112.5 2 0.950 Okay
ROOF C4 C1 30x30 0.4403 0.2752 0.950 Okay C4 17x17 425 12 112.5 2 0.950 Okay
ROOF C7 C1 30x30 0.3976 0.2483 0.950 Okay
ROOF C9 C1 30x30 0.3928 0.2468 0.950 Okay Not Okay= 0 C1
19F C1 C1 30x30 0.2857 0.2002 0.950 Okay Not Okay= 0 C2
19F C4 C1 30x30 0.2863 0.2017 0.950 Okay Not Okay= 0 C3
19F C7 C1 30x30 0.2334 0.1812 0.950 Okay Not Okay= 0 C4
19F C9 C1 30x30 0.2329 0.1804 0.950 Okay
18F C1 C1 30x30 0.2925 0.2201 0.950 Okay So<= (i) 1/4*min. column dim.
18F C4 C1 30x30 0.2929 0.2201 0.950 Okay Through ho (ii) 6*smallest long bar Art. 8.3.5.4(b)
BNBC-2020
18F C7 C1 30x30 0.2593 0.2201 0.950 Okay (iii) 100<={So=100+(350-hx)/3}=<150 Art. 8.3.5.4(f)
18F C9 C1 30x30 0.2589 0.2201 S<= (iv) 6*smallest long bar
SMRF
0.950 Okay
17F C1 C1 30x30 0.3215 0.2454 0.950 Okay Beyond ho (v) 150mm
17F C4 C1 30x30 0.3218 0.2469 0.950 Okay
17F C7 C1 30x30 0.2875 0.2222 0.950 Okay Section Column width Column depth So and S Avg. Spacing
17F C9 C1 30x30 0.2872 0.2216 0.950 Okay smallest long bar = 20 hx = 200 (So+S)/2
16F C1 C1 30x30 0.3484 0.2882 0.950 Okay mm mm (i) (ii) & (iv) (iii) (v)
16F C4 C1 30x30 0.3487 0.2895 0.950 Okay C1 30x30 750 750 187.5 120 150.00 150.00 120.00
16F C7 C1 30x30 0.3142 0.253 0.950 Okay C2 34x40 850 1000 212.5 120 150.00 150.00 120.00
16F C9 C1 30x30 0.3139 0.2524 0.950 Okay C3 36x36 900 900 225 120 150.00 150.00 120.00
15F C1 C1 30x30 0.3733 0.3298 0.950 Okay C4 17x17 425 425 106.25 120 150.00 150.00 113.13
15F C4 C1 30x30 0.3735 0.3311 0.950 Okay
15F C7 C1 30x30 0.3387 0.2867 0.950 Okay f'c= 5000 psi fyt= 60000 psi
15F C9 C1 30x30 0.3385 0.2859 0.950 Okay Section s hc,long hc,short Ag Ach Ash1 Ash2
14F C1 C1 30x30 0 0 0.950 Okay C1 30x30 120 675 675 562500 455625 0.736 0.736
14F C4 C1 30x30 0 0 0.950 Okay C2 34x40 120 925 775 850000 716875 0.799 0.669
14F C7 C1 30x30 0.361 0.328 0.950 Okay C3 36x36 120 825 825 810000 680625 0.729 0.729
14F C9 C1 30x30 0.3607 0.3272 0.950 Okay C4 17x17 120 350 350 180625 122500 0.772 0.772
13F C1 C1 30x30 0 0 0.950 Okay
13F C4 C1 30x30 0 0 0.950 Okay Art. 8.3.5.4[a(ii)]
13F C7 C1 30x30 0.3891 0.3685 0.950 Okay
13F C9 C1 30x30 0.389 0.3677 0.950 Okay
12F C1 C1 30x30 0 0 0.950 Okay

Table 4.8: Percentage calculation for approximate match with the actual field
longitudinal reinforcement weight (kg) of column
Direct calcutations from ETABS result: Actual calculations as per practical field:
Unit Total
Rebar
Labe 2 Floor Ht. 3 Reqd. Rebar Rebar Floor Rebar
Storey Col. ID As (in ) As (m ) Wt. Storey Label Col. ID
l (m) Rebar area area Ht. (m) Wt. (kg)
(kg)
(kg/m) (kg/m)
STAIR C3
STAIR TOP C15 C3 24x24 C15 18-16mm
5.58 3.6 0.013 101.736 TOP 24x24 1.580 28.444 3.600 102.400
C3
ROOF C15 C3 24x24 ROOF C15 18-16mm
5.58 3.6 0.013 101.736 24x24 1.580 28.444 3.600 102.400
C3
7F C15 C3 24x24 7F C15 18-16mm
5.58 3.6 0.013 101.736 24x24 1.580 28.444 3.600 102.400
C3
6F C15 C3 24x24 6F C15 18-16mm
5.58 3.6 0.013 101.736 24x24 1.580 28.444 3.600 102.400
C3
5F C15 C3 24x24 5F C15 18-16mm
5.58 3.6 0.013 101.736 24x24 1.580 28.444 3.600 102.400
C3
4F C15 C3 24x24 4F C15 18-16mm
5.58 3.6 0.013 101.736 24x24 1.580 28.444 3.600 102.400
C3
3F C15 C3 24x24 3F C15 18-16mm
5.8319 3.6 0.014 106.328 24x24 1.580 28.444 3.600 102.400
C3
2F C15 C3 24x24 2F C15 18-25mm
12.2244 3.6 0.028 222.878 24x24 3.858 69.444 3.600 250.000
C3
1F C15 C3 24x24 1F C15 26-25mm
18.6153 3.6 0.043 339.398 24x24 3.858 100.309 3.600 361.111
C3
GF C15 C3 24x24 GF C15 30-25mm
22.8562 3.3 0.049 381.993 24x24 3.858 115.741 3.300 381.944
Total = 1,709.86
Total = 1661.01
Percentage Increase = 2.857 %
 66

Table 4.9: Complete sample calculations of column total reinforcement weight in kg

Reinforcement Work: Column
Column ID Label Floor height As Total Weight % Increase
Location/ Description
mm m3 kg 3
C1 30x30 C1 3,600.00 0.564 4,424.71
C1 30x30 C4 3,600.00 0.565 4,433.43
Longitudinal Rebar: C1
C1 30x30 C7 3,600.00 0.531 4,170.08
C1 30x30 C9 3,600.00 0.532 4,172.62
Total Longitudinal Reinforcement Work (C1)= 17,716.87
Nos. of column per Column Column Avg. Tie bar Nos. of
Bar Size Weight No of Bar Length Total Length Total Weight
floor width/length depth Spacing floor
Stirrup: C1
mm kg/m Nos mm m Nos. kg mm mm mm Nos.
12 mm 0.888 33.0 2,846 93.918 4.00 7,003.90 750.00 750.00 112.5 21
25 mm 3.853 6.00 1,250 7.50 52.00 1,502.77 75.6 N/A N/A 21
Lapping: C1 20 mm 2.466 6.00 1,000 6.00 52.00 769.42 75.6 N/A N/A 21
16 mm 1.578 6.00 800 4.80 0.00 - 75.6 N/A N/A 21
Total Reinforcement Work (C1)= 26,992.96

C2 34x40 C2 3,600.00 0.743 5,829.56

C2 34x40 C3 3,600.00 0.757 5,943.98
C2 34x40 C12 3,600.00 0.859 6,744.29
C2 34x40 C13 3,600.00 0.860 6,749.15
Longitudinal Rebar: C2
C2 34x40 C16 3,600.00 0.750 5,888.48
C2 34x40 C17 3,600.00 0.750 5,887.92
C2 34x40 C22 3,600.00 0.743 5,831.68
C2 34x40 C23 3,600.00 0.758 5,949.37
Total Longitudinal Reinforcement Work (C2)= 50,289.16
Nos. of column per Column Column Avg. Tie bar Nos. of
Bar Size Weight No of Bar Length Total Length Total Weight
floor width/length depth Spacing floor
Stirrup: C2
mm kg/m Nos mm m Nos. kg mm mm mm Nos.
16 mm 1.578 33.0 3,546 117.018 8.00 31,397.18 850.00 1000.00 112.5 21.25
25 mm 3.853 6.00 1,250 7.50 144.00 4,161.53 76.5 N/A N/A 21.25
Lapping: C2 20 mm 2.466 6.00 1,000 6.00 144.00 2,130.70 76.5 N/A N/A 21.25
16 mm 1.578 6.00 800 4.80 0.00 - 76.5 N/A N/A 21.25
Total Reinforcement Work (C2)= 87,978.57

C3 36x36 C10 3,600.00 0.770 6,044.02

C3 36x36 C11 3,600.00 0.848 6,654.54
Longitudinal Rebar: C3
C3 36x36 C14 3,600.00 0.769 6,035.41
C3 36x36 C15 3,600.00 0.855 6,714.33
Total Longitudinal Reinforcement Work (C3)= 26,211.75
Nos. of column per Column Column Avg. Tie bar Nos. of
Bar Size Weight No of Bar Length Total Length Total Weight
floor width/length depth Spacing floor
Stirrup: C3
mm kg/m Nos mm m Nos. kg mm mm mm Nos.
12 mm 0.888 33.0 3,446 113.718 4.00 8,884.31 900.00 900.00 112.5 22
25 mm 3.853 6.00 1,250 7.50 72.00 2,080.76 79.2 N/A N/A 22
Lapping: C3 20 mm 2.466 6.00 1,000 6.00 72.00 1,065.35 79.2 N/A N/A 22
16 mm 1.578 6.00 800 4.80 0.00 - 79.2 N/A N/A 22
Total Reinforcement Work (C3)= 38,242.17

C4 17x17 C5 3,600.00 0.000 -

C4 17x17 C6 3,600.00 0.000 -
Longitudinal Rebar: C4
C4 17x17 C8 3,600.00 0.000 -
C4 17x17 C20 3,600.00 0.000 -
Total Longitudinal Reinforcement Work (C4)= -
Nos. of column per Column Column Avg. Tie bar Nos. of
Bar Size Weight No of Bar Length Total Length Total Weight
floor width/length depth Spacing floor
Stirrup: C4
mm kg/m Nos mm m Nos. kg mm mm mm Nos.
12 mm 0.888 33 1,546 51.018 4.00 181.17 425.00 425.00 112.5 1
Total Reinforcement Work (C4)= 181.17
All Columns' Total Reinforcement Work after increment= 153,394.88

4.2.4.3 Beam reinforcement

The longitudinal reinforcement of each beam of every floor, including roof and stair
room has been directly taken out from the FEA results after finalization of structural
design as per both the codes. Then transfer those in to total weight (kg) by multiplying
by the each beam length. On the other hand the transverse reinforcement or stirrups has
been calculated according to the specification of both the codes for SMRF, IMRF and
OMRF detailing, and also matched with the corresponding requirements of transverse
reinforcement from FEA results.
Furthermore the computations of lapping reinforcements have been included in the
calculation sheet as per the specification sets by the two codes. To approximate match
with the actual field reinforcement detailing, around 8% of longitudinal reinforcement
has been increased as per the actual field reinforcement calculation of one floor beams
in table 4.12. A sample calculations of beam longitudinal and transverse reinforcement
 67

is presented underneath along with the FEA results. The detailed calculation sheets of
this building are attached with the Appendix-B.

Table 4.10: Example of input data of beam flexure reinforcement from FEA model and
calculations of reinforcement weight in kg
(+) As Max. As
(-) Moment As Top As Bot Top Bottom Midle bar Span Rebar volume Rebar weight Lebel Span
Label Story Section Location (-) Combo Moment (+) Combo Torsion Torsion

kip-ft in² kip-ft in² in² in² in² in² in² m m3 kg X, Y-direction m
B6 STAIR TOP 15x24 End-I -10.9146 Comb-31 0.1648 22.7097 Comb-27 0.344 0 0 0.165 0.344 0.000 6.000 0.000 0 B4 8.1
B6 STAIR TOP 15x24 Middle -10.7386 Comb-27 0.1621 25.2337 Comb-27 0.3825 0 0 0.162 0.383 0.000 6.000 0.00262 20.591 B5 8.1
B6 STAIR TOP 15x24 End-J -42.9543 Comb-27 0.6543 21.4771 Comb-27 0.3252 0 0 0.654 0.325 0.000 6.000 0.000 0 B20 8.1
B8 STAIR TOP 20x28 End-I -225.5108 Comb-11 2.0606 112.7554 Comb-11 1.3529 0 0 2.061 1.353 0.000 6.000 0.000 0 B21 8.1
B8 STAIR TOP 20x28 Middle -56.3777 Comb-11 0.6714 137.7006 Comb-2 1.6577 0 0 0.671 1.658 0.000 6.000 0.01068 83.858 B22 8.1
B8 STAIR TOP 20x28 End-J -109.4962 Comb-10 1.3132 102.0967 Comb-11 1.2232 0 0 1.313 1.223 0.000 6.000 0.000 0 B23 8.1
B11 STAIR TOP 20x28 End-I -226.8153 Comb-11 2.0729 113.4077 Comb-11 1.3608 0 0 2.073 1.361 0.000 6.000 0.000 0 B24 8.1
B11 STAIR TOP 20x28 Middle -56.7038 Comb-9 0.6754 137.9113 Comb-2 1.6602 0 0 0.675 1.660 0.000 6.000 0.01071 84.048 B25 8.1
B11 STAIR TOP 20x28 End-J -108.2043 Comb-10 1.2975 102.725 Comb-9 1.2309 0 0 1.298 1.231 0.000 6.000 0.000 0 B26 8.1
B15 STAIR TOP 15x24 End-I -11.1393 Comb-27 0.1682 23.8754 Comb-27 0.3618 0 0 0.168 0.362 0.000 6.000 0.000 0 B31 8.1
B15 STAIR TOP 15x24 Middle -11.1393 Comb-27 0.1682 26.0919 Comb-27 0.3956 0 0 0.168 0.396 0.000 6.000 0.00272 21.375 B32 8.1
B15 STAIR TOP 15x24 End-J -44.557 Comb-27 0.6791 22.2785 Comb-27 0.3374 0 0 0.679 0.337 0.000 6.000 0.000 0 B36 8.1
B26 STAIR TOP 20x28 End-I -250.788 Comb-13 2.2996 149.7401 Comb-2 1.744 0 0 2.300 1.744 0.000 8.100 0.000 0 B39 8.1
B26 STAIR TOP 20x28 Middle -63.2177 Comb-12 0.7536 250.3221 Comb-2 2.2952 0 0 0.754 2.295 0.000 8.100 0.01904 149.481 B40 8.1
B26 STAIR TOP 20x28 End-J -252.8709 Comb-12 2.3194 126.4354 Comb-12 1.5198 0 0 2.319 1.520 0.000 8.100 0.000 0 B41 8.1
B31 STAIR TOP 20x28 End-I -282.1475 Comb-13 2.5987 141.0738 Comb-13 1.699 0 0 2.599 1.699 0.000 8.100 0.000 0 B42 8.1
B31 STAIR TOP 20x28 Middle -70.9943 Comb-12 0.8471 260.0279 Comb-2 2.3875 0 0 0.847 2.388 0.000 8.100 0.02072 162.620 B44 8.1
B31 STAIR TOP 20x28 End-J -283.9772 Comb-12 2.6162 153.1055 Comb-2 1.744 0 0 2.616 1.744 0.000 8.100 0.000 0 B1 6
B35 STAIR TOP 12x18 End-I -7.6322 Comb-25 0.1493 24.6024 Comb-10 0.486 0 0 0.149 0.486 0.000 2.925 0.000 0 B2 6
B35 STAIR TOP 12x18 Middle -10.5366 Comb-25 0.2064 7.7902 Comb-10 0.1524 0 0 0.206 0.152 0.000 2.925 0.00119 9.378 B3 6
B35 STAIR TOP 12x18 End-J -30.5289 Comb-25 0.6052 15.2644 Comb-25 0.2999 0 0 0.605 0.300 0.000 2.925 0.000 0 B6 6
B37 STAIR TOP 12x18 End-I -30.1324 Comb-25 0.5972 15.0662 Comb-25 0.2959 0 0 0.597 0.296 0.000 2.925 0.000 0 B7 6
B37 STAIR TOP 12x18 Middle -10.4561 Comb-25 0.2048 7.5331 Comb-25 0.1473 0 0 0.205 0.147 0.000 2.925 0.00117 9.213 B8 6
B37 STAIR TOP 12x18 End-J -7.5331 Comb-25 0.1473 23.9624 Comb-25 0.4732 0 0 0.147 0.473 0.000 2.925 0.000 0 B9 6
B5 STAIR TOP 15x24 End-I -72.9101 Comb-15-1 1.0275 40.7449 Comb-13-1 0.6203 0 0 1.028 0.620 0.000 8.100 0.000 0 B10 6
B5 STAIR TOP 15x24 Middle -20.583 Comb-12-1 0.3116 66.3116 Comb-2 1.017 0 0 0.312 1.017 0.000 8.100 0.00807 63.321 B11 6
B5 STAIR TOP 15x24 End-J -82.3319 Comb-12-1 1.0275 41.1659 Comb-12-1 0.6268 0 0 1.028 0.627 0.000 8.100 0.000 0 B12 6
B13 STAIR TOP 20x28 End-I -22.5321 Comb-25 0.2672 25.3033 Comb-7 0.3002 0 0 0.267 0.300 0.000 2.925 0.000 0 B15 6
B13 STAIR TOP 20x28 Middle -52.1095 Comb-25 0.6203 22.5321 Comb-25 0.2672 0 0 0.620 0.267 0.000 2.925 0.00193 15.154 B16 6
B13 STAIR TOP 20x28 End-J -90.1286 Comb-25 1.0781 45.0643 Comb-25 0.5359 0 0 1.078 0.536 0.000 2.925 0.000 0 B17 6
B14 STAIR TOP 20x28 End-I -100.8396 Comb-25 1.208 50.4198 Comb-25 0.6 0 0 1.208 0.600 0.000 2.925 0.000 0 B18 6
B14 STAIR TOP 20x28 Middle -58.3965 Comb-25 0.6957 25.2099 Comb-25 0.299 0 0 0.696 0.299 0.000 2.925 0.00217 17.061 B28 6
B14 STAIR TOP 20x28 End-J -25.2099 Comb-25 0.299 29.7833 Comb-6 0.3535 0 0 0.299 0.354 0.000 2.925 0.000 0 B29 6
B29 STAIR TOP 20x28 End-I -43.6258 Comb-27 0.5187 66.6024 Comb-27 0.7943 0 0 0.519 0.794 0.000 6.000 0.000 0 B30 6
B29 STAIR TOP 20x28 Middle -43.6258 Comb-27 0.5187 70.5284 Comb-27 0.8415 0 0 0.519 0.842 0.000 6.000 0.00705 55.309 B33 6
B29 STAIR TOP 20x28 End-J -164.3152 Comb-14-1 1.744 87.2517 Comb-27 1.0433 0 0 1.744 1.043 0.000 6.000 0.000 0 B34 6
B30 STAIR TOP 20x28 End-I -43.4036 Comb-27 0.5161 66.086 Comb-27 0.7881 0 0 0.516 0.788 0.000 6.000 0.000 0 B43 6
B30 STAIR TOP 20x28 Middle -43.4036 Comb-27 0.5161 70.0859 Comb-27 0.8362 0 0 0.516 0.836 0.000 6.000 0.00702 55.087 B13 2.925
B30 STAIR TOP 20x28 End-J -163.4835 Comb-14-1 1.744 86.8072 Comb-27 1.038 0 0 1.744 1.038 0.000 6.000 0.000 0 B14 2.925
B25 STAIR TOP 20x28 End-I -114.4711 Comb-13 1.3738 57.2355 Comb-13 0.6817 0 0 1.374 0.682 0.000 8.100 0.000 0 B35 2.925
B25 STAIR TOP 20x28 Middle -29.2256 Comb-12 0.3469 85.0109 Comb-2 1.0162 0 0 0.347 1.016 0.000 8.100 0.00961 75.458 B37 2.925

Table 4.11: Example of input data of beam shear and torsion reinforcement from FEA
model and calculations of reinforcement weight in kg
As
At Provided
Labe Sectio Locatio V At T for At T Combo T for As T Combo Torsio Remark Input Data
Story V Combo Torsion rebar
l n n At As n s
kip in²/ft kip-ft in²/ft kip-ft in² in2 Beam depth Bar dia Avg. spacing Leg Provided rebar
STAIR Comb-23- Section
B6 15x24 End-I 7.607 0 1.8881 Comb-23-1 0 1.8881 Comb-23-1 0 mm mm mm Nos. in2
TOP 1 0.658 Okay
STAIR Comb-23-
B6 15x24 Middle 8.93 0 0.5078 Comb-23-1 0 0.5078 Comb-23-1 0 12x18 450 10 162.5 2 0.457
TOP 1 0.658 Okay
STAIR Comb-23-
B6 15x24 End-J 10.71 0 0.489 Comb-23-1 0 0.489 Comb-23-1 0 15x24 600 12 162.5 2 0.658
TOP 1 0.658 Okay
STAIR Comb-23-
B8 20x28 End-I 47.637 0.507 0.8631 Comb-23-1 0 0.8631 Comb-23-1 0 20x28 700 16 112.5 2 1.689
TOP 1 1.689 Okay
STAIR Comb-23-
B8 20x28 Middle 34.959 0.372 13.5451 Comb-23-1 0 13.5451 Comb-23-1 0 24x30 750 16 100 2 1.900
TOP 1 1.689 Okay
STAIR Comb-23-
B8 20x28 End-J 36.631 0.39 2.61E-05 Comb-23-1 0 2.61E-05 Comb-23-1 0
TOP 1 1.689 Okay
STAIR Comb-23-
B11 20x28 End-I 47.966 0.51 0.6295 Comb-23-1 0 0.6295 Comb-23-1 0
TOP 1 1.689 Okay
STAIR Comb-23-
B11 20x28 Middle 35.282 0.376 13.0931 Comb-23-1 0 13.0931 Comb-23-1 0
TOP 1 1.689 Okay
STAIR Comb-23-
B11 20x28 End-J 36.698 0.391 2.45E-05 Comb-23-1 0 2.45E-05 Comb-23-1 0 Not Okay= 0
TOP 1 1.689 Okay
STAIR Comb-23-
B15 15x24 End-I 9.332 0.126 3.2321 Comb-23-1 0 3.2321 Comb-23-1 0 0
TOP 1 0.658 Okay #N/A=
STAIR Comb-23-
B15 15x24 Middle 9.403 0.127 1.5706 Comb-23-1 0 1.5706 Comb-23-1 0
TOP 1 0.658 Okay
STAIR Comb-23-
B15 15x24 End-J 11.193 0.152 1.8636 Comb-23-1 0 1.8636 Comb-23-1 0 So<= (i) 1/4*effective depth of beam, d
TOP 1 0.658 Okay
STAIR Comb-15-
B26 20x28 End-I 81.159 0.307 0 Comb-23-1 0 0 Comb-23-1 0 (ii) 8*smallest long bar Art. 8.3.4.3(b)
TOP 1 1.689 Okay Through ho
STAIR Comb-23-
B26 20x28 Middle 38.804 0.209 0 Comb-23-1 0 0 Comb-23-1 0 (iii) 24*hoop bar dia
TOP 1 1.689 Okay
BNBC-2020 SMRF
STAIR Comb-15-
B26 20x28 End-J 81.377 0.309 0 Comb-23-1 0 0 Comb-23-1 0 (iv) 300mm
TOP 1 1.689 Okay
STAIR Comb-15-
B31 20x28 End-I 103.47 0.544 6.7874 Comb-23-1 0 6.7874 Comb-23-1 0 S<= (v) 1/2*effective depth of beam, d Art. 8.3.4.3(c)
TOP 1 1.689 Okay
STAIR Comb-15-
B31 20x28 Middle 62.079 0.209 8.2095 Comb-23-1 0 8.2095 Comb-23-1 0
TOP 1 1.689 Okay Beyond ho
STAIR Comb-15-
B31 20x28 End-J 103.71 0.547 1.47E-05 Comb-23-1 0 1.47E-05 Comb-23-1 0
TOP 1 1.689 Okay
STAIR Comb-15-
B35 12x18 End-I 18.072 0.317 1.2117 Comb-23-1 0 1.2117 Comb-23-1 0 So Avg. Spacing
TOP 1 0.457 Okay
Beam depth S
STAIR Comb-15-
B35 12x18 Middle 20.168 0.353 2.1803 Comb-23-1 0 2.1803 Comb-23-1 0 Section smallest long bar = 16
TOP 1 0.457 Okay
(So+S)/2
STAIR Comb-15-
B35 12x18 End-J 21.379 0.375 3.1689 Comb-23-1 0 3.1689 Comb-23-1 0 mm (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)
TOP 1 0.457 Okay
STAIR Comb-15-
B37 12x18 End-I 20.981 0.368 2.1943 Comb-23-1 0 2.1943 Comb-23-1 0 12x18 450 111.875 128 240 300 223.75 167.81
TOP 1 0.457 Okay
STAIR Comb-15-
B37 12x18 Middle 19.783 0.347 1.2088 Comb-23-1 0 1.2088 Comb-23-1 0 15x24 600 149.375 128 240 300 298.75 213.38
TOP 1 0.457 Okay
STAIR Comb-15-
B37 12x18 End-J 17.691 0.31 0.5161 Comb-23-1 0 0.5161 Comb-23-1 0 20x28 700 174.375 128 240 300 348.75 238.38
TOP 1 0.457 Okay
STAIR Comb-23-
B5 15x24 End-I 12.031 0 1.9317 Comb-23-1 0 1.9317 Comb-23-1 0 24x30 750 186.875 128 240 301 373.75 250.88
TOP 1 0.658 Okay
 68

Table 4.12: Percentage calculation for approximate match with the actual field
longitudinal reinforcement weight (kg) of beam
As Max.
(-) Moment As Top As Bot Torsio As Top Bottom Midle bar Rebar volume Rebar weight
Label Story Section Location (-) Combo
n Torsion
Actual % Increase Span (m)
kip-ft in² in² in² in² in² in² in² m3 kg
STAIR
B6 12x15 End-I -13.3944 Comb-14-1 0.3147 0.1762 0 0 6
TOP 0.315 0.176 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B6 12x15 Middle -4.0082 Comb-13-1 0.0896 0.3697 0 0 8.1 2-12ST-B 2-12ST-T 1+1-12ET
TOP 0.090 0.370 0.000 0.00199 15.644 24.860 58.908
STAIR
B6 12x15 End-J -20.0411 Comb-13-1 0.4639 0.1304 0 0 2.925
TOP 0.464 0.130 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B8 18x25 End-I -100.7923 Comb-26-1 1.2464 0.563 1.9505 1.9505
TOP 1.897 1.213 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B8 18x25 Middle -23.7071 Comb-14-1 0.2528 1.1793 1.5723 1.9505 2-20ST-B 2-20EB 1+1-16EB 2-20ST-T 2+2-20ET 2-16ST-MID
TOP 0.903 1.829 0.650 0.01406 110.334 114.030 3.350
STAIR
B8 18x25 End-J -94.8928 Comb-13-1 1.1999 0.6 1.8419 1.9505
TOP 1.850 1.250 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B9 18x25 End-I -89.1005 Comb-14-1 1.1094 0.2781 0 0
TOP 1.109 0.278 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B9 18x25 Middle -20.8513 Comb-13-1 0.2231 1.2464 0 0 2-12ST-B 3-16EB 2-12ST-T 3+3-16ET
TOP 0.223 1.246 0.000 0.00568 44.587 49.720 11.513
STAIR
B9 18x25 End-J -104.2565 Comb-13-1 1.2464 0.2985 0 0
TOP 1.246 0.299 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B11 18x25 End-I -102.363 Comb-26-1 1.2464 0.5533 1.9492 1.9492
TOP 1.896 1.203 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B11 18x25 Middle -18.5567 Comb-6 0.2831 1.1855 1.5688 1.9492 2-20ST-B 2-20EB 1+1-16EB 2-20ST-T 2+2-20ET 2-16ST-MID
TOP 0.933 1.835 0.650 0.01409 110.582 114.030 3.118
STAIR
B11 18x25 End-J -93.7736 Comb-13 1.1879 0.6136 1.8524 1.9492
TOP 1.838 1.263 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B12 18x25 End-I -88.8517 Comb-14 1.1082 0.2834 0 0
TOP 1.108 0.283 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B12 18x25 Middle -20.9378 Comb-13 0.226 1.2464 0 0 2-12ST-B 3-16EB 2-12ST-T 3+3-16ET
TOP 0.226 1.246 0.000 0.00569 44.635 49.720 11.394
STAIR
B12 18x25 End-J -104.0635 Comb-13-1 1.2464 0.2962 0 0
TOP 1.246 0.296 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B15 12x15 End-I -12.58 Comb-14 0.2949 0.1843 0 0
TOP 0.295 0.184 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B15 12x15 Middle -4.1334 Comb-13 0.0925 0.3688 0 0 2-12ST-B 2-12ST-T 1+1-12ET
TOP 0.093 0.369 0.000 0.00201 15.743 24.860 57.916
STAIR
B15 12x15 End-J -20.6668 Comb-13 0.479 0.1347 0 0
TOP 0.479 0.135 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B26 18x25 End-I -177.203 Comb-12-1 1.7546 0.7831 2.8604 2.866
TOP 2.710 1.738 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B26 18x25 Middle -35.8515 Comb-11-1 0.4196 1.8734 1.8922 2.866 3-20ST-B 3-20EB 1+1-16EB 3-20ST-T 3+3-20ET
TOP 1.375 2.829 0.955 0.02781 218.341 228.250 4.538
STAIR
B26 18x25 End-J -179.2576 Comb-11-1 1.7755 0.7632 2.866 2.866
TOP 2.731 1.719 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B31 18x25 End-I -201.453 Comb-2 2.0925 0.9092 1.7676 1.7676
TOP 2.682 1.498 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B31 18x25 Middle -40.1468 Comb-11 0.4886 2.2696 0 1.7676 3-20ST-B 2-20ST-T 2-16ST-MID 3-20EB 4+4-20ET
TOP 1.078 2.859 0.589 0.02453 192.535 198.690 3.197
STAIR
B31 18x25 End-J -203.4396 Comb-2 2.1223 0.8952 1.7623 1.7676
TOP 2.712 1.484 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B35 12x15 End-I -9.4858 Comb-2 0.2824 0.5007 0 0
TOP 0.282 0.501 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B35 12x15 Middle -18.2395 Comb-2 0.4828 0.2824 0 0 2-12ST-B 1-12EB 2-16ST-T 1-16ET
TOP 0.483 0.282 0.000 0.00183 14.391 16.830 16.952
STAIR
B35 12x15 End-J -47.4291 Comb-2 0.9377 0.4283 0 0
TOP 0.938 0.428 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B36 18x25 End-I -108.6686 Comb-12-1 1.2464 0.7894 0 0
TOP 1.246 0.789 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B36 18x25 Middle -22.2547 Comb-11 0.361 1.2644 0 0 3-16ST-B 1-16EB 2-12ST-T 3+3-16ET
TOP 0.361 1.264 0.000 0.00987 77.516 82.560 6.507
STAIR
B36 18x25 End-J -110.9539 Comb-11-1 1.2464 0.7612 0 0
TOP 1.246 0.761 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B37 12x15 End-I -47.199 Comb-2 0.9337 0.4273 0 0
TOP 0.934 0.427 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B37 12x15 Middle -18.2806 Comb-2 0.4828 0.2813 0 0 2-12ST-B 1-12EB 2-16ST-T 1-16ET
TOP 0.483 0.281 0.000 0.00182 14.319 16.830 17.537
STAIR
B37 12x15 End-J -9.4398 Comb-2 0.2813 0.4934 0 0
TOP 0.281 0.493 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B5 12x15 End-I -63.7069 Comb-2 1.2535 0.5455 0 0
TOP 1.254 0.546 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B5 12x15 Middle -12.8149 Comb-2 0.3097 1.055 0 0 2-16ST-B 1-20EB 2-16ST-T 2+2-16ET
TOP 0.310 1.055 0.000 0.00865 67.910 74.840 10.205
STAIR
B5 12x15 End-J -64.0746 Comb-2 1.2613 0.5413 0 0
TOP 1.261 0.541 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B13 12x15 End-I -9.8896 Comb-2 0.2887 0.5116 0 0
TOP 0.289 0.512 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B13 12x15 Middle -18.0672 Comb-11-1 0.4828 0.2865 0 0 2-12ST-B 1-12EB 2-16ST-T 1-16ET
TOP 0.483 0.287 0.000 0.00188 14.761 16.830 14.014
STAIR
B13 12x15 End-J -49.4481 Comb-2 0.9771 0.4427 0 0
TOP 0.977 0.443 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B14 12x15 End-I -53.1561 Comb-2 1.0552 0.4828 0 0
TOP 1.055 0.483 0.000 0.000 0
STAIR
B14 12x15 Middle -19.2792 Comb-12-1 0.4828 0.3089 0 0 2-12ST-B 1-12EB 2-16ST-T 1+1-20ET
TOP 0.483 0.309 0.000 0.00201 15.785 20.100 27.332
STAIR
B14 12x15 End-J -10.6312 Comb-2 0.3125 0.5546 0 0
TOP 0.313 0.555 0.000 0.000 0
Total= 957.08 1,032.15
Percentage Increase = 7.84 %
 69

Table 4.13: Complete sample calculations of beam total reinforcement weight in kg

Reinforcement Calculation: Beam
All Beams' Total Longitudinal Reinforcement Work= 120,121.44 % Increase
All Beams' Total Longitudinal Reinforcement Work after increment= 129,731.15 8
Total Span
No of No. of
Bar Size Weight Length Total Length Nos of Item Total Weight Length (along X
Lapping storey
Location/ Description or Y)
No.of beams X no. of
mm kg/m Nos mm m kg m Nos.
bars per beam
25 mm 3.853 2.00 1,500 3.00 0.00 0.00 24.3 2
20 mm 2.466 2.00 1,200 2.40 4.00 47.35 24.3 2
Lapping (Along X, Below 1F)
16 mm 1.578 2.00 960 1.92 4.00 24.24 24.3 2
12 mm 0.888 2.00 720 1.44 2.00 5.11 24.3 2
25 mm 3.853 1.00 1,500 1.50 0.00 0.00 18 2
20 mm 2.466 1.00 1,200 1.20 4.00 23.67 18 2
Lapping (Along Y, Below 1F)
16 mm 1.578 1.00 960 0.96 4.00 12.12 18 2
12 mm 0.888 1.00 720 0.72 2.00 2.56 18 2
25 mm 3.853 2.00 1,500 3.00 12.00 1109.74 24.3 8
20 mm 2.466 2.00 1,200 2.40 16.00 757.58 24.3 8
Lapping (Along X, 1F to 8F)
16 mm 1.578 2.00 960 1.92 4.00 96.97 24.3 8
12 mm 0.888 2.00 720 1.44 0.00 0.00 24.3 8
25 mm 3.853 1.00 1,500 1.50 12.00 554.87 18 8
20 mm 2.466 1.00 1,200 1.20 16.00 378.79 18 8
Lapping (Along Y, 1F to 8F)
16 mm 1.578 1.00 960 0.96 4.00 48.49 18 8
12 mm 0.888 1.00 720 0.72 0.00 0.00 18 8
25 mm 3.853 2.00 1,500 3.00 12.00 1664.61 24.3 12
20 mm 2.466 2.00 1,200 2.40 12.00 852.28 24.3 12
Lapping (Along X, 9F to Roof)
16 mm 1.578 2.00 960 1.92 4.00 145.46 24.3 12
12 mm 0.888 2.00 720 1.44 0.00 0.00 24.3 12
25 mm 3.853 1.00 1,500 1.50 12.00 832.31 18 12
20 mm 2.466 1.00 1,200 1.20 12.00 426.14 18 12
Lapping (Along Y, 9F to Roof)
16 mm 1.578 1.00 960 0.96 4.00 72.73 18 12
12 mm 0.888 1.00 720 0.72 0.00 0.00 18 12
20 mm 2.466 1.00 1,200 1.20 0.00 0.00 13.95 1
Lapping (Along X, Stair top) 16 mm 1.578 1.00 960 0.96 4.00 6.06 13.95 1
12 mm 0.888 1.00 720 0.72 4.00 2.56 13.95 1
20 mm 2.466 1.00 1,200 1.20 2.00 5.92 12 1
Lapping (Along Y, Stair top) 16 mm 1.578 1.00 960 0.96 4.00 6.06 12 1
12 mm 0.888 1.00 720 0.72 4.00 2.56 12 1
All Beams' Total Longitudinal Lapping Reinforcement Work= 7,078.18
No. of beams per Beam Avg. Stirrup Nos. of
Bar Size Weight No of Bar Length Total Length Total Weight Beam width
Location/ Description floor along X or Y depth Spacing floor

mm kg/m Nos mm m Nos. kg mm mm mm Nos.

16 mm 1.578 244.0 2,546 621.224 2 3921.91 600 750 100 2
Stirrup (Along X, Below 1F)
16 mm 1.578 82.0 2,096 171.872 1 542.53 375 750 100 2
16 mm 1.578 181.0 2,546 460.826 2 2909.28 600 750 100 2
Stirrup (Along Y, Below 1F)
12 mm 0.888 38.0 1,796 68.248 2 242.36 375 600 162.5 2
16 mm 1.578 244.0 2,546 621.224 4 31375.26 600 750 100 8
Stirrup (Along X, 1F to 8F)
12 mm 0.888 51.0 1,796 91.596 1 650.55 375 600 162.5 8
16 mm 1.578 181.0 2,546 460.826 4 23274.27 600 750 100 8
Stirrup (Along Y, 1F to 8F)
12 mm 0.888 38.0 1,796 68.248 2 969.44 375 600 162.5 8
16 mm 1.578 217.0 2,246 487.382 4 36923.24 500 700 112.5 12
Stirrup (Along X, 9F to Roof)
12 mm 0.888 51.0 1,796 91.596 1 975.82 375 600 162.5 12
16 mm 1.578 161.0 2,246 361.606 4 27394.66 500 700 112.5 12
Stirrup (Along Y, 9F to Roof)
12 mm 0.888 38.0 1,796 68.248 2 1454.16 375 600 162.5 12
16 mm 1.578 73.0 2,246 163.958 3 776.32 500 700 112.5 1
Stirrup (Along X, Stair top) 12 mm 0.888 51.0 1,796 91.596 1 81.32 375 600 162.5 1
16 mm 1.578 27.0 2,246 60.642 4 382.84 500 700 112.5 1
16 mm 1.578 55.0 2,246 123.530 4 779.87 500 700 112.5 1
Stirrup (Along Y, Stair top)
12 mm 0.888 38.0 1,796 68.248 2 121.18 375 600 162.5 1
All Beams' Total Transeverse Reinforcement Work= 132,775.02
All Beams' Total Reinforcement Work after increment= 269,584.35

4.2.4.4 Slab and stair reinforcement

The calculations of the main reinforcement in both directions of all floor slabs directly
taken from the FEA results in governing service loading combination. Besides the stair
reinforcement are calculated along with the floor slab considering as one panel floor in
the stair region. Correspondingly the computations of lapping reinforcements have been
considered as per specification sets by the code. Along with the sample calculations a
demonstration of FEA results is presented below. The detailed calculation sheets are
attached with the Appendix-B.
Figure 4.4: Sample FEA results for top reinforcement (direction-1) of floor slab.
70
Figure 4.5: Sample FEA results for bottom reinforcement (direction-1) of floor slab.
71
 72

Table 4.14: Sample calculations of slab and stair reinforcement weight in kg

Reinforcement Calculation: Slab and Stair
Location/ Description Bar Size Weight No of Bar Length Total Length Nos of Item Total Weight Rebar Spacing No. of floor
Below 1F mm kg/m Nos mm m Nos. kg mm Nos.
Slab Bottom Long 10 mm 0.617 66.00 24,262 1,601.292 1 1,974.47 275 2
Slab Bottom Short 10 mm 0.617 89.00 17,962 1,598.618 1 1,971.17 275 2
Extra Bottom Long 10 mm 0.617 14.00 5,400 75.600 4 372.87 275 2
Extra Bottom Short 10 mm 0.617 19.00 4,000 76.000 4 374.85 275 2
Slab Top Long 10 mm 0.617 66.00 24,262 1,601.292 1 1,974.47 275 2
Slab Top Short 10 mm 0.617 89.00 17,962 1,598.618 1 1,971.17 275 2
Extra Top [centre column] Long 10 mm 0.617 21.00 5,400 113.400 0 - 275 2
Extra Top [centre column] Short 10 mm 0.617 29.00 4,000 116.000 0 - 275 2
Extra Top [corner column] Long 10 mm 0.617 21.00 2,025 42.525 4 209.74 137.5 2
Extra Top [corner column] Short 10 mm 0.617 29.00 1,500 43.500 4 214.55 137.5 2
Extra Top [edge column] Long 10 mm 0.617 21.00 2,025 42.525 8 419.48 275 2
Extra Top [edge column] Short 10 mm 0.617 14.00 4,000 56.000 8 552.40 275 2
Lapping (Slab Bottom Long) 10 mm 0.617 2.00 500 1.00 66 81.38 2
Lapping (Slab Bottom Short) 10 mm 0.617 1.00 500 0.50 89 54.87 2
Lapping (Slab Top Long) 10 mm 0.617 2.00 500 1.00 66 81.38 2
Lapping (Slab Top Short) 10 mm 0.617 1.00 500 0.50 89 54.87 2
Deduct: Slab Bottom Long 10 mm 0.617 10.00 8,100 81.000 1 99.88 275 2
Deduct: Slab Bottom Short 10 mm 0.617 30.00 2,570 77.100 1 95.07 275 2
Deduct: Slab Top Long 10 mm 0.617 10.00 8,100 81.000 1 99.88 275 2
Deduct: Slab Top Short 10 mm 0.617 30.00 2,570 77.100 1 95.07 275 2
1F to 19F
Slab Bottom Long 10 mm 0.617 66.00 24,262 1,601.292 1 18,757.43 275 19
Slab Bottom Short 10 mm 0.617 89.00 17,962 1,598.618 1 18,726.10 275 19
Extra Bottom Long 10 mm 0.617 7.00 2,700 18.900 4 885.57 275 19
Extra Bottom Short 10 mm 0.617 9.00 2,000 18.000 4 843.40 275 19
Slab Top Long 10 mm 0.617 66.00 24,262 1,601.292 1 18,757.43 275 19
Slab Top Short 10 mm 0.617 89.00 17,962 1,598.618 1 18,726.10 275 19
Extra Top [centre column] Long 10 mm 0.617 21.00 5,400 113.400 4 5,313.44 275 19
Extra Top [centre column] Short 10 mm 0.617 29.00 4,000 116.000 2 2,717.63 275 19
Extra Top [corner column] Long 12 mm 0.888 10.00 2,025 20.250 4 1,366.31 275 19
Extra Top [corner column] Short 10 mm 0.617 14.00 1,500 21.000 2 491.99 275 19
Extra Top [edge column] Long 12 mm 0.888 21.00 2,025 42.525 8 5,738.52 275 19
Extra Top [edge column] Short 10 mm 0.617 14.00 4,000 56.000 6 3,935.88 275 19
Lapping (Slab Bottom Long) 10 mm 0.617 2.00 500 1.00 66 773.12 19
Lapping (Slab Bottom Short) 10 mm 0.617 1.00 500 0.50 89 521.27 19
Lapping (Slab Top Long) 10 mm 0.617 2.00 500 1.00 66 773.12 19
Lapping (Slab Top Short) 10 mm 0.617 1.00 500 0.50 89 521.27 19
Deduct: Slab Bottom Long 10 mm 0.617 10.00 8,100 81.000 1 948.83 275 19
Deduct: Slab Bottom Short 10 mm 0.617 30.00 2,570 77.100 1 903.14 275 19
Deduct: Slab Top Long 10 mm 0.617 10.00 8,100 81.000 1 948.83 275 19
Deduct: Slab Top Short 10 mm 0.617 30.00 2,570 77.100 1 903.14 275 19
Roof
Slab Bottom Long 10 mm 0.617 66.00 24,262 1,601.292 1 987.23 275 1
Slab Bottom Short 10 mm 0.617 89.00 17,962 1,598.618 1 985.58 275 1
Slab Top Long 10 mm 0.617 66.00 24,262 1,601.292 1 987.23 275 1
Slab Top Short 10 mm 0.617 89.00 17,962 1,598.618 1 985.58 275 1
Extra Top [edge column] Long 12 mm 0.888 14.00 5,400 75.600 4 268.47 275 1
Extra Top [edge column] Short 12 mm 0.888 19.00 4,000 76.000 2 134.94 275 1
Lapping (Slab Bottom Long) 10 mm 0.617 2.00 500 1.00 66 40.69 1
Lapping (Slab Bottom Short) 10 mm 0.617 1.00 500 0.50 89 27.44 1
Lapping (Slab Top Long) 10 mm 0.617 2.00 500 1.00 66 40.69 1
Lapping (Slab Top Short) 10 mm 0.617 1.00 500 0.50 89 27.44 1
Deduct: Slab Bottom Long 10 mm 0.617 10.00 8,100 81.000 1 49.94 275 1
Deduct: Slab Bottom Short 10 mm 0.617 30.00 2,570 77.100 1 47.53 275 1
Deduct: Slab Top Long 10 mm 0.617 10.00 8,100 81.000 1 49.94 275 1
Deduct: Slab Top Short 10 mm 0.617 30.00 2,570 77.100 1 47.53 275 1
Stair Top
Slab Bottom Long 10 mm 0.617 20.00 13,912 278.240 1 171.54 300 1
Slab Bottom Short 10 mm 0.617 47.00 5,962 280.214 1 172.76 300 1
Slab Top Long 10 mm 0.617 20.00 13,912 278.240 1 171.54 300 1
Slab Top Short 10 mm 0.617 47.00 5,962 280.214 1 172.76 300 1
Extra Top [centre column] Long 10 mm 0.617 10.00 3,675 36.750 2 45.31 300 1
Extra Top [centre column] Short 10 mm 0.617 12.00 1,500 18.000 2 22.19 300 1
Lapping (Slab Bottom Long) 10 mm 0.617 1.00 500 0.50 20 6.17 1
Lapping (Slab Bottom Short) 10 mm 0.617 0.00 500 0.00 47 - 1
Lapping (Slab Top Long) 10 mm 0.617 1.00 500 0.50 20 6.17 1
Lapping (Slab Top Short) 10 mm 0.617 0.00 500 0.00 47 - 1
All Slabs' Reinforcement Work= 110,121.22

4.2.4.5 Water reservoir, basement wall and slab reinforcement

The calculations of the main reinforcement in both directions of overhead water reservoir
slabs directly taken from the FEA results for dead plus live load condition. Besides the
underground water reservoir slab, basement and lift pit wall reinforcements are
calculated by one sample hand calculations for all the buildings. Also the calculations of
lapping reinforcements have been considered as per specification sets by the code. Along
 73

with the sample calculations a demonstration of FEA results is presented below. The
detailed calculation sheets are attached with the Appendix-B.

Table 4.15: Sample calculations of water reservoir, basement wall and slab
reinforcement weight in kg
Reinforcement Calculation: Water reservoir, Basement and Lift pit wall & slab
Location/ Description Bar Size Weight No of Bar Length Total Length Nos of Item Total Weight Rebar Spacing No. of floor
OHWT bottom slab mm kg/m Nos mm m Nos. kg mm Nos.
Slab Bottom Long 12 mm 0.888 26.00 8,062 209.612 1.00 186.09 237.5 1
Slab Bottom Short 12 mm 0.888 34.00 5,962 202.708 1.00 179.96 237.5 1
Slab Top Long 12 mm 0.888 26.00 8,062 209.612 1.00 186.09 237.5 1
Slab Top Short 12 mm 0.888 34.00 5,962 202.708 1.00 179.96 237.5 1
Extra bottom long 12 mm 0.888 25.00 2,700 67.500 1.00 59.93 237.5 1
Extra bottom Short 12 mm 0.888 34.00 2,000 68.000 1.00 60.37 237.5 1
Extra top long 12 mm 0.888 6.00 2,025 12.150 4.00 43.15 237.5 1
Extra top Short 12 mm 0.888 8.00 1,500 12.000 4.00 42.61 237.5 1
OHWT top slab
Slab Bottom Long 10 mm 0.617 20.00 8,062 161.240 1.00 99.41 300 1
Slab Bottom Short 10 mm 0.617 27.00 5,962 160.974 1.00 99.24 300 1
Slab Top Long 10 mm 0.617 20.00 8,062 161.240 1.00 99.41 300 1
Slab Top Short 10 mm 0.617 27.00 5,962 160.974 1.00 99.24 300 1

OHWT wall
Horizontal bars 10 mm 0.617 13.00 28,200 366.600 1.00 226.02 150 1
Vertical bars 12 mm 0.888 189.00 1,800 340.200 1.00 302.03 150 1
Ex.top long 0.000 13.00 0.000 1.00 0.00
Ex.top Short 0.000 189.00 0.000 1.00 0.00

UGWT wall
Horizontal bars 12 mm 0.888 17.00 17,850 303.450 1.00 269.40 200 1
Vertical bars 12 mm 0.888 120.00 3,300 396.000 1.00 351.57 150 1
Ex.top long 0.000 17.00 0.000 1.00 0.00
Ex.top Short 0.000 120.00 0.000 1.00 0.00

Basemant wall
Horizontal bars 12 mm 0.888 34.00 89,400 3,039.600 1.00 2698.54 200 1
Vertical bars 12 mm 0.888 597.00 6,600 3,940.200 1.00 3498.08 150 1
Lapping for horizontal bars 12 mm 0.888 7.00 600 4.20 34 126.78 1

Lift pit bottom slab

Slab Bottom Long 12 mm 0.888 11.00 8,062 88.682 1.00 78.73 237.5 1
Slab Bottom Short 12 mm 0.888 34.00 2,532 86.088 1.00 76.43 237.5 1
Slab Top Long 12 mm 0.888 11.00 8,062 88.682 1.00 78.73 237.5 1
Slab Top Short 12 mm 0.888 34.00 2,532 86.088 1.00 76.43 237.5 1

Lift pit side wall

Horizontal bars 12 mm 0.888 8.00 21,340 170.720 1.00 151.56 200 1
Vertical bars 12 mm 0.888 143.00 1,500 214.500 1.00 190.43 150 1
Lapping for horizontal bars 12 mm 0.888 1.00 600 0.60 8 4.26 1

All Slabs' Reinforcement Work= 9,464.45

4.3 Application of Unit Rate and Finalization of Total Costs

The detailed construction cost estimation has been finalized during this stage of the study
by putting the unit rate of each construction material of civil works with the workmanship
and making it complete in scope, current in costs, and accurate in reflecting the
anticipated total cost of construction. The unit rates are taken from the last gazetted
Public Works Department (PWD) rate schedule 2018. Item wise rates are applied to the
finalized quantity of each civil item in a detail summary sheet. This summary calculation
sheets of a sample BoQ are attached with the Appendix-B.
 CHAPTER 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
5.1 Introduction

The major concern of this experiment is to differentiate the various parameters for
designing a building and hence the effect on the construction cost of new RC building
between the olden and newly gazetted Bangladesh national building code. In favor of
this purposes different analysis parameters are assembled in two different building codes.
All disparities are performed with respect to the results building analysis as per the two
codes. The research scope of this thesis includes different location of Bangladesh
considering wind and earthquake hazards with varying building height.

The results are presented in the form of contrasting effect for base shear, lateral
displacements and inter story drifts for structural members between BNBC-1993 and
BNBC-2020. As well as the perception behind those dissimilarities are deliberated with
this section.

5.2 Consequences of Earthquake Loading

Numerous analysis data of earthquake loading are collected for different storied RC
building in 5 different districts. Comparative relation between BNBC-1993 and BNBC-
2020 of those data are presented in graphical format and discussed below.

5.2.1 Impacts on base shear

Base shear is an approximation of the maximum probable lateral force that will occur
due to seismic ground motion at the base of a structure. Distinction of base shear in
earthquake loading of varying height RC buildings in different districts between BNBC-
1993 and BNBC-2020 is presented in Figure 5.1 to Figure 5.5. The percentage changes
between these two codes are displayed on top of the bar diagram. The findings and
reasons behind those are specified below.

Figures seems that the value of base shear for earthquake loading is higher for BNBC-
2020 than BNBC-1993 in low to medium range stories (i.e. 8, 12 and16) for Dhaka,
Khulna and Rajshahi districts. This result is found because of introducing new seismic
zoning (Z=0.075 and 0.15 in BNBC-1993, Z=.12 and 0.20 in BNBC-2020), normalized
acceleration response spectrum (Cs) and self-weight (W). Though in case of high range
 75

stories (i.e. 20 and 24) base shear is lower in BNBC-2020 than BNBC-1993. This
variation occurs mostly due to the change of Cs value with increase in natural period or
building height. As specified in BNBC-2020 that, as period increases Cs increase but
after certain point Cs starts decreasing drastically with increase in building time period.

10000
+78%
9000 BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020
+107%
8000

7000
Base Shear (kN)

6000

5000
+20%
4000 +40%
+72%
3000

2000

1000

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.1: Comparison on seismic base shear in Chattogram.

4500

4000 BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020 -8%

3500
-15%
Base Shear (kN)

3000
-9%
2500 +6%
+31%
2000

1500

1000

500

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.2: Comparison on seismic base shear in Dhaka.

 76

4000

3500 BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020

-18%
3000
-9%
+4%
Base Shear (kN)

2500
+21%
+43%
2000

1500

1000

500

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.3: Comparison on seismic base shear in Khulna district.

3500

3000 BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020

-9%
+0%
2500 +6%
+27%
Base Shear (kN)

+53%
2000

1500

1000

500

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.4: Comparison on seismic base shear in Rajshahi district.

 77

14000

+179%
12000 BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020
+192%

10000
Base Shear (kN)

8000

6000
+56%
+83%
+121%
4000

2000

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.5: Comparison on seismic base shear in Sylhet district.

Yet again by analyzing for Chattogram and Sylhet zone, the base shear value for
earthquake loading is higher for BNBC-2020 than BNBC-1993 for all the storied under
consideration. The changes in seismic zone factors (Z=0.15 and 0.25 in BNBC-1993,
Z=0.28 and 0.36 in BNBC-2020) is one of the main causes behind it. Again the variations
on Cs value and time period affects the base shear of this two codes. Immense changes
found in 20 and 24 storied buildings, because of using a dual system as a seismic force
resisting system to control the maximum limits of lateral sway and story drift.

In addition, it shows that % changes in base shear for earthquake between two codes
decrease with no of story (up to 16 storied) but after certain level it starts increasing for
all the districts. The changes in base shear with the number of stories is uniform and
almost linear according to BNBC-1993. However as per BNBC-2020 a significant
change occurs from 16-storied to 20-storied buildings and afterward the changes is
almost linear.

When buildings are analyzed and designed using BNBC-1993, moment frame system
was adopted as structural configuration to be on the conservative side. This buildings
 78

could have analyzed adopting a frame-shear wall dual system. This would result in a
somewhat lower base shear due to increase in the response modification (R) value. Under
such cases, the percent difference of base shear with respect to BNBC-2020 would have
been higher than those shown in Figures 5.1 and Figure 5.5.

5.2.2 Impacts on maximum lateral displacement

Story displacement is the lateral displacement of the story relative to the base of a
structure. The lateral force-resisting system be able to limit the excessive lateral
displacement of the building. Difference of maximum lateral displacement of varying
height RC buildings in different districts between BNBC-1993 [(X-direction) and (Y-
direction)] with BNBC-2020 [(X-direction) and (Y-direction)] are displayed in Figure
5.6 to Figure 5.10.

250

200
Displacement in Earthquake (mm)
Maximum Lateral

150

100

50 BNBC 1993 (X direc.)

BNBC 2020 (X direc.)
BNBC 1993 (Y direc.)
BNBC 2020 (Y direc.)
0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.6: Effects on maximum lateral displacement in earthquake loading in

Chattogram.
 79

200

180

Displacement in Earthquake (mm)

160

140
Maximum Lateral

120

100

80

60
BNBC 1993 (X direc.)
40 BNBC 2020 (X direc.)
BNBC 1993 (Y direc.)
20 BNBC 2020 (Y direc.)

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.7: Effects on Maximum lateral displacement in earthquake loading in Dhaka.

140

120
Displacement in Earthquake (mm)

100
Maximum Lateral

80

60

40

BNBC 1993 (X direc.)

BNBC 2020 (X direc.)
20 BNBC 1993 (Y direc.)
BNBC 2020 (Y direc.)

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.8: Effects on Maximum lateral displacement in earthquake loading in Khulna.

 80

250

Displacement in Earthquake (mm)

200
Maximum Lateral

150

100

50 BNBC 1993 (X direc.)

BNBC 2020 (X direc.)
BNBC 1993 (Y direc.)
BNBC 2020 (Y direc.)

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.9: Effects on Maximum lateral displacement in earthquake loading in

Rajshahi.
250

200
Displacement in Earthquake (mm)
Maximum Lateral

150

100

50 BNBC 1993 (X direc.)

BNBC 2020 (X direc.)
BNBC 1993 (Y direc.)
BNBC 2020 (Y direc.)

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.10: Effects on Maximum lateral displacement in earthquake loading in Sylhet.

 81

The outcomes and explanations from the above figures are stated below.

i. It appears that the maximum lateral displacement increases with number of

stories and the changes is high for higher stories than lower stories in both the
codes. The maximum deflection is higher for all different storied buildings in
BNBC-2020 than BNBC-1993 for all the zones under this study since the
seismic force is higher in BNBC-2020.
ii. In Chattogram and Sylhet districts, the maximum lateral displacement in
earthquake loading is much higher compared to the other 3 districts due to
considerably higher base shear in BNBC-2020 than BNBC-1993.
iii. Furthermore the maximum displacement for earthquake loading in vertical Y-
direction is higher than the maximum displacement for earthquake loading in
horizontal X-direction for higher storied buildings whereas is lower for lower
storied buildings up to a certain level of building heights for both the codes.

5.3 Consequences of Wind Loading

Several analysis data of wind loading are collected for different storied RC building in 5
different districts. Distinguishing between BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020 of those data
are presented in graphical format and discussed below.

5.3.1 Impacts on wind load

8000
BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020
7000 -12%
Wind Load, [X-direc.] (kN)

6000
-11%
5000
-10%
4000

3000 -9%

2000 -8%

1000

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.11: Comparison on wind base shear [X-direction] in Chattogram.

 82

5000
-9%
4500 BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020

4000
-8%
Wind Load, [X-direc.] (kN) 3500

3000
-7%
2500

2000 -6%

1500
-5%
1000

500

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.12: Comparison on wind base shear [X-direction] in Dhaka.

7000

6000 BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020

-12%
Wind Load, [X-direc.] (kN)

5000
-11%

4000
-10%

3000
-9%

2000
-8%

1000

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.13: Comparison on wind base shear [X-direction] in Khulna.

 83

3000

-6%
2500 BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020
Wind Load, [X-direc.] (kN)
-5%
2000

-4%
1500

-3%
1000

-2%

500

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.14: Comparison on wind base shear [X-direction] in Rajshahi.

4500

4000 BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020 -9%

3500
Wind Load, [X-direc.] (kN)

-8%
3000

2500 -7%

2000
-6%
1500

-5%
1000

500

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.15: Comparison on wind base shear [X-direction] in Sylhet.

 84

12000

BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020

10000
-21%
Wind Load, [Y-direc.] (kN)

8000
-20%

6000 -19%

-19%
4000

-18%
2000

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.16: Comparison on wind base shear [Y-direction] in Chattogram.

8000

7000 BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020

-18%
6000
Wind Load, [Y-direc.] (kN)

-18%
5000

4000 -17%

3000 -16%

2000
-15%

1000

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.17: Comparison on wind base shear [Y-direction] in Dhaka.

 85

10000

9000 BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020

8000 -21%
Wind Load, [Y-direc.] (kN)
7000
-20%
6000

5000 -19%

4000
-18%
3000
-17%
2000

1000

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.18: Comparison on wind base shear [Y-direction] in Khulna.

4500

4000 BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020

-16%
3500
Wind Load, [Y-direc.] (kN)

3000 -15%

2500
-14%
2000

-13%
1500

1000 -12%

500

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.19: Comparison on wind base shear [Y-direction] in Rajshahi.

 86

7000

6000 BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020

-18%
Wind Load, [Y-direc.] (kN)
5000

-17%
4000

-16%
3000

-16%
2000
-15%

1000

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.20: Comparison on wind base shear [Y-direction] in Sylhet.

Abovementioned figures (Figure 5.11 to Figure 5.20) illustrates that, the variations of
wind shear or wind load of varying height RC buildings in different districts between
BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020. The percentage changes between these two codes are
displayed on top of the bar diagram. The findings and reasons behind those results are
specified below.

i. It noticeably appears that the value of wind load for both the principal axes (X
and Y) is higher in BNBC-1993 than BNBC-2020 for all the buildings of those 5
districts.
ii. The decrease of wind loading as per the new code with respect to the old code is
linear. The decreasing rate linearly varies between 5% to 12% in X-direction and
12% to 21% in Y-direction, considering all the 5 districts’ effects.
iii. Moreover, the rate of increase in wind load with respect to the different height of
the buildings is constant in both the codes and linearly increases with the height
of the buildings for both the codes.
 87

5.3.2 Impacts on maximum lateral displacement

Variations in maximum lateral displacement of varying height RC buildings in different

districts between BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020 are displayed underneath.
180

Displacement in Wind Load (mm) 160

140
Maximum Lateral

120

100

80

60
BNBC 1993 (X direc.)
40 BNBC 2020 (X direc.)
BNBC 1993 (Y direc.)
20 BNBC 2020 (Y direc.)

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.21: Variations in maximum lateral displacement in wind loading in

Chattogram.

180

160
Displacement in Wind Load (mm)

140
Maximum Lateral

120

100

80

60
BNBC 1993 (X direc.)
40
BNBC 2020 (X direc.)
BNBC 1993 (Y direc.)
20 BNBC 2020 (Y direc.)

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories
Figure 5.22: Variations in maximum lateral displacement in wind loading in Dhaka.
 88

180

160

Displacement in Wind Load (mm)

140

120
Maximum Lateral

100

80

60

BNBC 1993 (X direc.)

40
BNBC 2020 (X direc.)
BNBC 1993 (Y direc.)
20 BNBC 2020 (Y direc.)

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.23: Variations in maximum lateral displacement in wind loading in Khulna.

180

160
Displacement in Wind Load (mm)

140

120
Maximum Lateral

100

80

60

40 BNBC 1993 (X direc.)

BNBC 2020 (X direc.)
BNBC 1993 (Y direc.)
20
BNBC 2020 (Y direc.)

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.24: Variations in maximum lateral displacement in wind loading in Rajshahi.

 89

140

120

Displacement in Wind Load (mm) 100

Maximum Lateral

80

60

40
BNBC 1993 (X direc.)
BNBC 2020 (X direc.)
20 BNBC 1993 (Y direc.)
BNBC 2020 (Y direc.)

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 5.25: Variations in maximum lateral displacement in wind loading in Sylhet.

The above figures (Figure 5.21 to Figure 5.25) that, the changes of maximum lateral
displacement in wind loading with number of stories in different zones for BNBC-1993
and BNBC-2020. The outcomes and explanations behind those are stated below.

i. It appears that the maximum lateral displacement increases with number of

stories and the changes is greater for higher stories than lower stories in both the
codes.
ii. The maximum deflection for all different storied buildings is less in BNBC-2020
than BNBC-1993 for all the zones in both principal direction of wind (X and Y)
under this study.
iii. The rate of increase in max story displacement from lower to higher stories is
almost linear for both the codes under this investigation.
iv. Furthermore the maximum displacement for wind loading in vertical Y-direction
is higher than the maximum displacement for earthquake loading in horizontal
X-direction for both the codes.
 CHAPTER 6
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF QUANTITY AND COST

6.1 Introduction

A case study at all times is a comprehensive and thorough investigation, often undertaken
over time, by a single or multiple cases. Comparative case studies consist of the analysis
and synthesis of the similarities, differences and outlines across two or more cases that
share a common focus or goal. Comparative case studies often incorporate both
qualitative and quantitative information.

To be able to do this well in this portion of the research, comparison between older and
newer version of the Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC) is prepared on the
basis of material (concrete and reinforcement) requirement and approximate costs of civil
works. Major construction materials of RC structures, i.e. concrete and reinforcement
requirement in the substructure and superstructure are considered to establish this
comparison. All the comparison is finalized based on the analysis and costs estimation
results found from the two BNBC codes. For this purpose, RC buildings with 5 different
heights (8, 12, 16, 20 and 24 storied) has been considered with various intensities of
earthquakes and wind effects in Bangladesh i.e. high seismic and high wind
(Chattogram), moderate seismic and moderate wind (Dhaka), low seismic and high wind
(Khulna), low seismic and low wind (Rajshahi), high seismic and low wind (Sylhet).

6.2 Comparison of Concrete Volume

In this section of the comparison the amount of concrete required in a foundation, column
and shear wall, beam of the different story building in 5 different districts is assessed.
But the concrete volume in floor slab is not reflected under this comparative analysis
since similar slab thickness used for the design of all buildings. The comparison between
the outcomes from this study are presented in graphical format and discussed below.

6.2.1 Concrete volume in different components of structure

6.2.1.1 Concrete volume in mat foundation

Differences of concrete volume in mat foundation with varying height of RC buildings

in 5 districts between BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020 are presented in figures below.
 91

722.2
24
795.6

697.7
20
709.9
Number of Stories

685.4
16
709.9

624.2
12
648.7

526.3 BNBC 2020

8
538.6 BNBC 1993

- 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Total Concrete Volume in Foundation (m3)

Figure 6.1: Differences of concrete volume in mat foundation in Chattogram.

746.6
24
771.1

746.6
20
758.9
Number of Stories

697.7
16
709.9

636.5
12
648.7

526.3 BNBC 2020

8
538.6 BNBC 1993

- 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Total Concrete Volume in Foundation (m3)

Figure 6.2: Differences of concrete volume in mat foundation in Dhaka.

 92

734.4
24
771.1

722.2
20
722.2
Number of Stories

685.4
16
709.9

624.2
12
648.7

526.3 BNBC 2020

8
538.6 BNBC 1993

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Total Concrete Volume in Foundation (m3)

Figure 6.3: Differences of concrete volume in mat foundation in Khulna.

746.6
24
771.1

746.6
20
758.9
Number of Stories

697.7
16
709.9

636.5
12
648.7

526.3 BNBC 2020

8
538.6 BNBC 1993

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Total Concrete Volume in Foundation (m3)

Figure 6.4: Differences of concrete volume in mat foundation in Rajshahi.

 93

746.6
24
758.9

746.6
20
758.9
Number of Stories

697.7
16
709.9

636.5
12
636.5

526.3 BNBC 2020

8
538.6 BNBC 1993

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Total Concrete Volume in Foundation (m3)

Figure 6.5: Differences of concrete volume in mat foundation in Sylhet.

Above figures (Figure 6.1 to Figure 6.5) illustrates that, the concrete volume of mat
foundation is less in BNBC-2020 than BNBC-1993 for all the buildings in all districts
because of larger thickness required in foundation design according to BNBC-1993.

This is due to greater live loads in BNBC-1993 code compared to BNBC-2020. Hence
the dead loads are higher as in the previous code. Also the variation is very low, it varies
approximately 2-5%.

6.2.1.2 Concrete volume in column

Differences of concrete volume in column with varying height of RC buildings in 5

different districts of Bangladesh between BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020 are presented in
figures below. The outcomes and causes behind those are also specified below.
 94

2,424.5
24
2,381.3

1,374.5
20
1,358.6
Number of Stories

812.5
16
769.5

500.8
12
431.8

236.4
8 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993
193.6

- 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000 2,400

Total Concrete Volume in Column (m3)

Figure 6.6: Differences of concrete volume in column in Chattogram.

1,482.7
24
1,472.8

995.9
20
937.3
Number of Stories

643.3
16
547.5

392.7
12
309.9

214.8
8 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993
152.9

- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600

Total Concrete Volume in Column (m3)

Figure 6.7: Differences of concrete volume in column in Dhaka.

 95

1,682.4
24
1,781.5

1,165.1
20
1,168.9
Number of Stories

694.1
16
642.6

421.9
12
376.8

205.5
8 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993
174.8

- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

Total Concrete Volume in Column (m3)

Figure 6.8: Differences of concrete volume in column in Khulna.

1,259.9
24
1,198.7

799.6
20
750.1
Number of Stories

510.1
16
503.2

323.3
12
287.1

160.9
8 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993
151.3

- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400

Total Concrete Volume in Column (m3)

Figure 6.9: Differences of concrete volume in column in Rajshahi.

 96

1,388.8
24
1,357.1

938.8
20
840.7
Number of Stories

660.8
16
540.1

438.9
12
354.4

272.3
8 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993
191.2

- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400

Total Concrete Volume in Column & Shear Wall (m3)

Figure 6.10: Differences of concrete volume in column in Sylhet.

Above figures (Figure 6.6 to Figure 6.10) explains that, the concrete volume of column
is marginally higher in BNBC-2020 than BNBC-1993 for all the buildings in all districts
due to high seismic force found from analysis of the new code.

It varies approximately 5-15% for low seismic zone areas and 1-40% for high seismic
zone areas.

6.2.1.3 Concrete volume in beam

The variations of concrete volume in beam is much higher than the variations of concrete
volume in column. Differences of concrete volume in beam with varying height of RC
buildings in five different districts of Bangladesh between BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020
are presented in figures below. The outcomes and causes behind the differences are also
specified below.
 97

3,246.88
24
4,673.88

2,196.88
20
3,102.84
Number of Stories

1,370.88
16
1,935.66

911.78
12
1,202.64

592.81 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993

8
600.26

- 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Total Concrete Volume in Beam (m3)

Figure 6.11: Differences of concrete volume in beam in Chattogram.

2,193.27
24
3,380.04

1,519.66
20
2,363.33
Number of Stories

1,219.01
16
1,475.27

843.16
12
944.93

558.38
8 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993
455.57

- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Total Concrete Volume in Beam (m3)

Figure 6.12: Differences of concrete volume in beam in Dhaka.

 98

2,426.34
24
3,995.47

1,707.05
20
2,778.11
Number of Stories

1,258.65
16
1,731.80

825.28
12
1,076.83

472.91
8 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993
557.77

- 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Total Concrete Volume in Beam (m3)

Figure 6.13: Differences of concrete volume in beam in Khulna.

1,875.62
24
2,443.51

1,421.86
20
1,755.26
Number of Stories

1,042.89
16
1,390.23

764.79
12
809.73

521.22
8 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993
435.46

- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000

Total Concrete Volume in Beam (m3)

Figure 6.14: Differences of concrete volume in beam in Rajshahi.

 99

2,190.15
24
3,001.87

1,798.15
20
Number of Stories 2,188.41

1,423.15
16
1,387.53

1,061.34
12
885.44

748.04
8 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993
520.61

- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Total Concrete Volume in Beam (m3)

Figure 6.15: Differences of concrete volume in beam in Sylhet.

Above mentioned figures (Figure 6.11 to Figure 6.15) explains that, the concrete volume
of the beam is much higher in BNBC-1993 than BNBC-2020 for all the buildings in all
districts, except some low rise buildings in Rajshahi and Sylhet districts. It varies
approximately 1-40% for all structures in all 5 districts.

6.2.2 Comparison of total concrete volume

Variation of total concrete volume per square meter with varying height of RC buildings
in the 5 different districts between BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020 is displayed in Figure
6.16 to Figure 6.20. The percentage changes between these two codes are displayed on
top of the bar diagram. The findings of those evaluations are detailed below.

a) Those figures clarifies that, the quantity of total concrete volume is more in
BNBC-2020 than BNBC-1993 for low rise building (8-storied) in all districts
except Khulna. Although the total concrete volume is less in BNBC-2020 than
BNBC-1993 for moderate to high rise building (12, 16, 20 and 24-storied) in all
districts with the exception of Sylhet.
b) The decrease rate of total concrete volume in BNBC-2020 than BNBC-1993 for
moderate to high rise building, is increases with the increase of floor heights. It
varies up to 1 to 22% considering all districts excluding Sylhet.
 100

c) In Khulna, the total concrete volume is less in BNBC-2020 than BNBC-1993 for
all buildings, but the concrete volume is more in BNBC-2020 than BNBC-1993
for all buildings in Sylhet.

0.90
BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020
0.80
Total Concrete Volume (m3/m2)

0.70 -22.16%
-14.52%
0.60 -7.33% -11.07%
1.09%

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories
Figure 6.16: Differences on total concrete volume with no. of story in Chattogram.

0.70
BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020

0.60 -15.27%
-13.60%
Total Concrete Volume (m3/m2)

7.86% -1.05% -4.06%

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories
Figure 6.17: Differences on total concrete volume with no. of story in Dhaka.
 101

0.80
BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020
0.70
-19.39%
Total Concrete Volume (m3/m2) 0.60 -16.61%
-7.26% -9.69%
-3.22%
0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.18: Differences on total concrete volume with no. of story in Khulna.

0.60
BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020

4.33% -7.98%
-0.74% -5.84%
0.50 -8.56%
Total Concrete Volume (m3/m2)

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.19: Differences on total concrete volume with no. of story in Rajshahi.
 102

0.70
BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020
2.13%
14.50% 2.54%
0.60 8.81%
3.47%
Total Concrete Volume (m3/m2)
0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.20: Differences on total concrete volume with no. of story in Sylhet.

In addition to the previous findings, it also illustrates that, the requirement of concrete
volume is high in very high wind areas like Chattogram, is medium in high and moderate
wind areas like Khulna, Dhaka and Sylhet, and is low in low wind areas like Rajshahi.

Consequently, it can be understood that, BNBC-2020 gives more economic design in

terms of total concrete volume compared to BNBC-1993 for moderate to high rise
buildings except in Sylhet district. While the results of Sylhet expresses that, BNBC-
1993 gives more economic design in terms of total concrete volume compared to BNBC-
2020 for all heights’ buildings.

6.3 Comparison of Reinforcement

In this section of the comparison the amount of reinforcement required in a foundation,

column and shear wall, beam and floor slab for the different story building in different
districts of Bangladesh is evaluated. As well the percentage change in reinforcement of
each component and the each structural components’ reinforcement as percentage of total
reinforcement has been quantified for this parallelism. The comparison between the
consequences from this study are presented in graphical format and are discussed below.
 103

6.3.1 Reinforcement in different components of structure

6.3.1.1 Reinforcement in mat foundation

Differences of reinforcement in mat foundation with varying height of RC buildings in 5

districts between BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020 are presented in the following figures.

81.96
24
95.12

74.40
20
Number of Stories

81.78

71.44
16
76.85

63.82
12
63.24

53.72 BNBC 2020

8
53.00 BNBC 1993

0 20 40 60 80 100
Total Reinforcement in Foundation (tonne)

Figure 6.21: Differences of reinforcement in mat foundation in Chattogram.

86.33
24
92.23

80.00
20
Number of Stories

80.96

71.64
16
75.68

62.75
12
63.24

52.83 BNBC 2020

8
53.01 BNBC 1993

0 20 40 60 80 100
Total Reinforcement in Foundation (tonne)

Figure 6.22: Differences of reinforcement in mat foundation in Dhaka.

 104

87.79
24
93.88

81.96
20
81.57
Number of Stories

70.46
16
75.51

62.75
12
63.03

52.83 BNBC 2020

8
52.83 BNBC 1993

0 20 40 60 80 100
Total Reinforcement in Foundation (tonne)

Figure 6.23: Differences of reinforcement in mat foundation in Khulna.

84.30
24
85.74

79.52
20
76.60
Number of Stories

74.40
16
74.59

62.77
12
62.53

52.83 BNBC 2020

8
52.83 BNBC 1993

0 20 40 60 80 100
Total Reinforcement in Foundation (tonne)

Figure 6.24: Differences of reinforcement in mat foundation in Rajshahi.

 105

80.00
24
86.66

80.00
20
82.34
Number of Stories

73.54
16
75.68

63.32
12
63.24

53.72
8 BNBC 2020
53.00
BNBC 1993

0 20 40 60 80 100
Total Reinforcement in Foundation (tonne)

Figure 6.25: Differences of reinforcement in mat foundation in Sylhet.

Above figures (Figure 6.21 to Figure 6.25) illustrates that, the required reinforcement
quantity of mat foundation is less in BNBC-2020 than BNBC-1993 for all the buildings
in all districts because of larger thickness required in foundation design according to
BNBC-1993.

This is due to greater live loads in BNBC-1993 code compared to BNBC-2020. Hence
the dead loads are higher as in the previous code. Also the variation is very low, it varies
approximately 1-6% for low seismic zone areas and 1-14% for high seismic zone areas.

6.3.1.2 Reinforcement in column

Differences of concrete volume in column with varying height of RC buildings in 5

different districts of Bangladesh between BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020 are presented in
the following figures. The comparative outcomes and causes behind these are also
specified below.
 106

329.74
24
238.71

204.74
20
134.80
Number of Stories

120.74
16
78.61

79.13
12
48.21

36.71
8 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993
24.81

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Total Reinforcement in Column (tonne)

Figure 6.26: Differences of reinforcement in column in Chattogram.

221.74
24
176.19

153.39
20
103.54
Number of Stories

92.18
16
62.76

59.59
12
45.80

31.21
8 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993
26.60

0 50 100 150 200 250

Total Reinforcement in Column (tonne)

Figure 6.27: Differences of reinforcement in column in Dhaka.

 107

222.78
24
197.98

160.07
20
115.52
Number of Stories

97.06
16
68.10

58.84
12
44.90

31.21
8 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993
23.30

0 50 100 150 200 250

Total Reinforcement in Column (tonne)

Figure 6.28: Differences of reinforcement in column in Khulna.

157.14
24
151.11

96.67
20
91.30
Number of Stories

62.30
16
59.50

43.08
12
41.36

25.70
8 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993
22.13

0 50 100 150 200

Total Reinforcement in Column (tonne)

Figure 6.29: Differences of reinforcement in column in Rajshahi.

 108

257.91
24
189.41

167.91
20
115.65
Number of Stories

92.91
16
72.10

65.45
12
49.90

42.53
8 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993
27.91

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Total Reinforcement in Column & Shear Wall (tonne)

Figure 6.30: Differences of reinforcement in column in Sylhet.

Above figures (Figure 6.26 to Figure 6.30) explains that, the reinforcement requirement
in the column is higher in BNBC-2020 than BNBC-1993 for all the buildings in all
districts due to high seismic force found from analysis results of the of the new BNBC
code. Spatially for high rise buildings (i.e. 20 and 24-storied) the rate of increments in
BNBC-2020 in much higher in high seismic zone areas such as Chattogram, Dhaka and
Sylhet.

It varies approximately 12-35% for low seismic zone areas and 35-48% for high seismic
zone areas.

6.3.1.3 Reinforcement in beam

Differences of concrete volume in beam with varying height of RC buildings in 5

different districts of Bangladesh between BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020 are presented in
the following figures. The comparative outcomes and causes behind these results are also
specified below.
 109

389.13
24
257.05

299.13
20
185.36
Number of Stories

214.13
16
140.09

134.44
12
97.57

73.98
8 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993
57.97

0 100 200 300 400 500

Total Reinforcement in Beam (tonne)

Figure 6.31: Differences of reinforcement in beam in Chattogram.

345.03
24
205.04

269.58
20
156.99
Number of Stories

197.02
16
119.17

108.39
12
92.87

59.65
8 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993
61.10

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Total Reinforcement in Beam (tonne)

Figure 6.32: Differences of reinforcement in beam in Dhaka.

 110

266.51
24
216.13

215.26
20
160.26
Number of Stories

152.72
16
123.72

93.89
12
90.93

55.84
8
52.08 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Total Reinforcement in Beam (tonne)

Figure 6.33: Differences of reinforcement in beam in Khulna.

192.01
24
169.43

155.68
20
136.66
Number of Stories

115.52
16
104.32

82.29
12
82.07

54.02
8 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993
54.57

0 50 100 150 200 250

Total Reinforcement in Beam (tonne)

Figure 6.34: Differences of reinforcement in beam in Rajshahi.

 111

377.46
24
305.71

289.46
20
224.68
Number of Stories

189.46
16
165.56

132.59
12
110.52

82.30
8
66.19 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Total Reinforcement in Beam (tonne)

Figure 6.35: Differences of reinforcement in beam in Sylhet.

Above mentioned figures (Figure 6.31 to Figure 6.35) explains that, the reinforcement in
beam is higher in BNBC-2020 than BNBC-1993 for all the buildings in all districts.
Predominantly for high rise buildings (i.e. 20 and 24-storied) the rate of increments in
BNBC-2020 in much higher in high seismic zone areas such as Chattogram, Dhaka and
Sylhet.

It varies approximately 1-15% for low seismic zone areas and 20-52% for high seismic
zone areas.

6.3.1.4 Reinforcement in Floor Slab

Differences of reinforcement in floor slab with varying height of RC buildings in 5

different districts of Bangladesh between BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020 are presented in
the following figures. The comparative outcomes and causes behind those results are also
specified below.
 112

142.99
24
139.70

118.99
20
116.63
Number of Stories

92.99
16
90.39

68.33
12
66.92

47.91
8 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993
46.56

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Total Reinforcement in Floor Slab (tonne)

Figure 6.36: Differences of reinforcement in floor slab in Chattogram.

136.06
24
139.23

110.12
20
122.73
Number of Stories

87.88
16
100.13

68.08
12
67.29

48.35
8 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993
48.26

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Total Reinforcement in Floor Slab (tonne)

Figure 6.37: Differences of reinforcement in floor slab in Dhaka.

 113

137.41
24
142.34

114.95
20
113.46
Number of Stories

90.31
16
91.21

67.03
12
61.14

46.82
8 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993
47.32

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Total Reinforcement in Floor Slab (tonne)

Figure 6.38: Differences of reinforcement in floor slab in Khulna.

137.12
24
133.91

114.04
20
107.70
Number of Stories

93.64
16
89.68

68.84
12
69.69

48.00
8 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993
49.41

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Total Reinforcement in Floor Slab (tonne)

Figure 6.39: Differences of reinforcement in floor slab in Rajshahi.

 114

132.20
24
135.38

105.20
20
107.87
Number of Stories

93.20
16
96.76

67.98
12
69.85

48.06
8
49.27 BNBC 2020 BNBC 1993

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Total Reinforcement in Floor Slab (tonne)

Figure 6.40: Differences of reinforcement in floor slab in Sylhet.

Above mentioned figures (Figure 6.36 to Figure 6.40) explains that, the variation of
required reinforcement quantity in the floor slab between these two codes for all the
buildings in all districts is more or less same because of same slab thickness used so far.
Then again some cases it slightly varies due to live and dead loads dissimilarities.

Moreover the variation is very low, it varies approximately 1-6% for low seismic zone
areas and 1-12% for high seismic zone areas.

6.3.2 Each structural elements’ reinforcement as % of total reinforcement

Comparison of each structural components’ reinforcement as percentage of total

reinforcement with varying height of RC buildings in the 5 different districts in BNBC-
2020 and BNBC-1993 are displaced in the following figures from 6.51 to 6.70. A second
order polynomial line is fitted using those data. The consequences of those graphs are
stated below separately.
 115

6.3.2.1 Foundation reinforcement as % of total reinforcement

30

Foundation Reinforcement as 25
% of Total Reinforcement
20

15

10

5 BNBC 1993
BNBC 2020

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.41: Foundation reinforcement as % of total reinforcement in Chattogram.

30

25
Foundation Reinforcement as
% of Total Reinforcement

20

15

10

5 BNBC 1993
BNBC 2020

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.42: Foundation reinforcement as % of total reinforcement in Dhaka.

 116

30

25

Foundation Reinforcement as
% of Total Reinforcement
20

15

10

5
BNBC 1993
BNBC 2020

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.43: Foundation reinforcement as % of total reinforcement in Khulna.

30

25
Foundation Reinforcement as
% of Total Reinforcement

20

15

10

5
BNBC 1993
BNBC 2020

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.44: Foundation reinforcement as % of total reinforcement in Rajshahi.

 117

30

25

Foundation Reinforcement as
% of Total Reinforcement
20

15

10

5 BNBC 1993
BNBC 2020
0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.45 Foundation reinforcement as % of total reinforcement in Sylhet.

Above 5 figures (Figure 6.41 to Figure 6.45) explains that, mat foundation reinforcement
as % of total reinforcement is higher for BNBC-1993 than BNBC-2020. Moreover, it
indicates that foundation reinforcements as % of total reinforcement decreases with
number of floor increases for all the districts. The percentage of mat foundation
reinforcement as % of total reinforcement varies more or less 25-10% for both the codes.

6.3.2.2 Column reinforcement as % of total reinforcement

35

30
as % of Total Reinforcement
Column Reinforcement

25

20

15

10

BNBC 1993
5
BNBC 2020
0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.46: Column reinforcement as % of total reinforcement in Chattogram.

 118

30

25

as % of Total Reinforcement
Column Reinforcement
20

15

10

5
BNBC 1993
BNBC 2020

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.47: Column reinforcement as % of total reinforcement in Dhaka.

35

30
as % of Total Reinforcement

25
Column Reinforcement

20

15

10

5 BNBC 1993
BNBC 2020
0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.48: Column reinforcement as % of total reinforcement in Khulna.

 119

30

25

as % of Total Reinforcement
Column Reinforcement
20

15

10

5
BNBC 1993
BNBC 2020
0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.49: Column reinforcement as % of total reinforcement in Rajshahi.

35
Column and Shear Wall Reinforcement

30
as % of Total Reinforcement

25

20

15

10

5 BNBC 1993
BNBC 2020
0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.50 Column reinforcement as % of total reinforcement in Sylhet.

As showed in Figure 6.46 to Figure 6.50, it point out that the column reinforcement as %
of total reinforcement is higher for BNBC-2020 than BNBC-1993. Besides, it indicates
that the column reinforcements as % of total reinforcement increases with number of
floor increases for all the districts. The percentage of column reinforcement as % of total
 120

reinforcement varies nearly 12-30% and 15-35% according to BNBC-1993 and BNBC-
2020 respectively.

6.3.2.3 Beam reinforcement as % of total reinforcement

45

as % of Total Reinforcement 40

35
Beam Reinforcement

30

25

20

15

10

5 BNBC 1993
BNBC 2020
0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.51: Beam reinforcement as % of total reinforcement in Chattogram.

45

40
as % of Total Reinforcement

35
Beam Reinforcement

30

25

20

15

10

5 BNBC 1993
BNBC 2020
0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.52: Beam reinforcement as % of total reinforcement in Dhaka.

 121

40

35

30
as % of Total Reinforcement
Beam Reinforcement

25

20

15

10

BNBC 1993
5
BNBC 2020

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.53: Beam reinforcement as % of total reinforcement in Khulna.

35

30
as % of Total Reinforcement

25
Beam Reinforcement

20

15

10

5
BNBC 1993
BNBC 2020
0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.54: Beam reinforcement as % of total reinforcement in Rajshahi.

 122

45

40

as % of Total Reinforcement
35

Beam Reinforcement
30

25

20

15

10
BNBC 1993
5 BNBC 2020
0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.55: Beam reinforcement as % of total reinforcement in Sylhet.

Aforementioned figures (Figure 6.51 to Figure 6.55) expresses that, the beam
reinforcement as % of total reinforcement is higher for BNBC-2020 than BNBC-1993.
In addition, it indicates that the beam reinforcements as % of total reinforcement
increases with number of floor increases for all the districts. The percentage of beam
reinforcement as % of total reinforcement varies nearly 27-35% and 28-42% in
accordance with BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020 respectively.

6.3.2.4 Floor slab reinforcement as % of total reinforcement

25
as % of Total Reinforcement
Floor Slab Reinforcement

20

15

10

5 BNBC 1993
BNBC 2020

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.56: Floor Slab reinforcement as % of total reinforcement in Chattogram.

 123

30

25

as % of Total Reinforcement
Floor Slab Reinforcement
20

15

10

5
BNBC 1993
BNBC 2020
0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.57: Floor Slab reinforcement as % of total reinforcement in Dhaka.

30

25
as % of Total Reinforcement
Floor Slab Reinforcement

20

15

10

5
BNBC 1993
BNBC 2020
0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.58: Floor Slab reinforcement as % of total reinforcement in Khulna.

 124

30

25

as % of Total Reinforcement
Floor Slab Reinforcement
20

15

10

5
BNBC 1993
BNBC 2020
0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.59: Floor Slab reinforcement as % of total reinforcement in Rajshahi.

25
as % of Total Reinforcement

20
Floor Slab Reinforcement

15

10

5
BNBC 1993
BNBC 2020
0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.60 Floor Slab reinforcement as % of total reinforcement in Sylhet.

Above displayed figures (Figure 6.56 to Figure 6.60) explains that, floor slab
reinforcement as % of total reinforcement is higher for BNBC-1993 than BNBC-2020.
Furthermore, it indicates that floor slab reinforcements as % of total reinforcement
decreases with number of floor increases for all the districts. The percentage of floor slab
reinforcement as % of total reinforcement varies nearly 25-15% for both the codes.
 125

6.3.3 Comparison of total reinforcement

Variation of total reinforcement in kilogram per square meter with varying height of RC
buildings in the 5 different districts between BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020 is displayed
in Figure 6.61 to Figure 6.65. The percentage changes between these two codes are
displayed on top of the bar diagram. The findings of those evaluations are detailed below.

100
BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020
90 32.29%
37.50%
80
Reinforcement per m2 (kg)

28.69%
70 24.72%
15.90%
60
Total

50

40

30

20

10

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.61: Differences on total reinforcement with no. of story in Chattogram.

80
BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020 28.22%
70 31.45%
Reinforcement per m2 (tonne)

24.79%
60 10.74%
1.59%
50
Total

40

30

20

10

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.62: Differences on total reinforcement with no. of story in Dhaka.

 126

70
BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020 9.68%
21.14%

60
14.15%
8.45%
6.16%

Reinforcement per m2 (tonne)

50

40
Total

30

20

10

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.63: Differences on total reinforcement with no. of story in Khulna.

60
BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020
5.50%
0.88% 8.00%
50 0.51%
5.28%
Reinforcement per m2 (kg)

40
Total

30

20

10

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.64: Differences on total reinforcement with no. of story in Rajshahi.

 127

80 15.70%
BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020
18.45%
70
14.93% 11.95% 9.31%

Reinforcement per m2 (kg)

60

50
Total
40

30

20

10

0
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.65: Differences on total reinforcement with no. of story in Sylhet.

Above mentioned figures (Figure 6.61 to Figure 6.65) clarifies that, the quantity of total
reinforcement is more in BNBC-2020 than BNBC-1993 for all storied buildings in all 5
districts. Besides it increase with number of floor increases for all districts.

The increase rate of total reinforcement between these two codes varies from 15% to
37% for high seismic zone areas, 6-22% for moderate seismic zone areas and from 0.5%
to 8% for low seismic zone areas.

In addition to the above findings, it also illustrates that, the reinforcement requirement is
high in very high and high seismic zone areas like Sylhet and Chattogram, is medium in
moderate seismic zone areas like Dhaka, and is low in low seismic zone areas like Khulna
and Rajshahi.

Consequently, it can be understood that, BNBC-1993 gives more economic design in

terms of total required reinforcement compared to BNBC-2020 for all storied buildings
of all districts under consideration.

6.4 Comparison of Total Costs of Civil Works

In this section of the comparison the total costs of civil works for the different story
building in different 5 districts of Bangladesh is evaluated. The unit rate of total costs are
calculated as per square meter of total floor area. The comparison between the results of
 128

this cost analysis are presented in bar diagram in the following figures and discussed
underneath. The percentage changes of total civil costs between these two codes are
displayed on top of the bar diagram. Along with the bar diagram, the unit rate of total
costs of civil works is listed.

20,000 +0.16%
BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020
18,000
+0.23%
of Civil Works per m2 (BDT)

16,000
+1.75%
+3.35%
14,000 +6.06%
Total Costs

12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

-
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.66: Comparison of total cost of civil works and % change in total costs (w.r.t
BNBC-1993) with no. of story in Chattogram.

16,000 -1.04%
BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020
+1.04%
14,000 +5.33%
+5.24% +3.11%
of Civil Works per m2 (BDT)

12,000

10,000
Total Costs

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

-
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.67: Comparison of total cost of civil works and % change in total costs (w.r.t
BNBC-1993) with no. of story in Dhaka.
 129

18,000
BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020
16,000
-9.60%
-4.63%
14,000 -1.46%
Civil Works per m2 (BDT) +0.11% -1.70%
12,000
Total Costs of

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

-
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.68: Comparison of total cost of civil works and % change in total costs (w.r.t
BNBC-1993) with no. of story in Khulna.

14,000
BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020
-3.28%
+2.92% -1.16%
-0.28% -3.71%
12,000
of Civil Works per m2 (BDT)

10,000
Total Costs

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

-
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.69: Comparison of total cost of civil works and % change in total costs (w.r.t
BNBC-1993) with no. of story in Rajshahi.
 130

18,000
BNBC 1993 BNBC 2020
+3.69%
16,000
+4.09%
+13.76%
+9.40% +5.38%
14,000
of Civil Works per m2 (BDT)
12,000
Total Costs

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

-
8 12 16 20 24
Number of Stories

Figure 6.70: Comparison of total cost of civil works and % change in total costs (w.r.t
BNBC-1993) with no. of story in Sylhet.

Above mentioned figures (Figure 6.66 to Figure 6.70) summaries that are below,

a) While BNBC-2020 provides economic design in terms of concrete volume and

BNBC-1993 in terms of reinforcement weight. But the variation of total costs of
civil works between these two codes for different storied building is not so much.
b) Besides from the above comparisons, BNBC-2020 gives more cost effective
design than BNBC-1993 for low seismic zone areas. While BNBC-1993 gives
more cost effective design than BNBC-2020 for high seismic zone areas.
c) However the variation of % change of total costs between these two codes for
different storied building varies with the building heights and seismic zone.
d) In high seismic zone areas (i.e. Chattogram and Dhaka), the increase rate of civil
costs in BNBC-2020 varies from 1% to 6%; and for high seismic zone areas (i.e.
Sylhet), it varies from 5% to 14%.
e) In low seismic zone areas (i.e. Khulna and Rajshahi), the costs of civil works
decreases in BNBC-2020 than BNBC-1993. The decrease rate is varies nearly
1% to 10%.
 CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Introduction

In order to study the effects on the construction costs of RC buildings of the newly
published Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC)-2020, high seismic and high
wind, moderate seismic and moderate wind, low seismic and low wind, and high seismic
and low wind have been selected. Five different multistoried (8, 12, 16, 20 and 24) RC
buildings with similar plan is considered. In the context of Bangladesh, most of the soils
are developed by filling marshy lowlands, almost all soils are loose silty sand or clay.
Therefore, considering the worst cases, the soil classifications have been assumed as S3
and SD for BNBC-1993 and BNBC-2020 respectively. Moreover the seismic design
category (SDC) found as per BNBC-2020 in this type of soil class is C for Khulna and
Rajshahi, and D for Chattogram, Dhaka and Sylhet. All other necessary parameters to
analyze the model are taken according to the provisions of the two BNBC codes (BNBC-
1993 and BNBC-2020). Finite element method based software has been used to analyze
and design the buildings. Results for base shears, maximum lateral displacement, and
maximum story drift for all RC buildings are presented in chapter 4. On the contrary, in
chapter 5, the amount of concrete, reinforcement and construction costs of civil works
for RC buildings in two building code has been deliberated momentarily.

7.2 Observations from the Study

In conformity with the comparison of the research findings with the issues from the
previous two chapters lead to the following conclusions for RC buildings in 5 different
districts (i.e. Chattogram, Dhaka, Khulna, Rajshahi and Sylhet) of Bangladesh.

i. Seismic base shear is higher for BNBC-2020 than BNBC-1993 in low to medium
range stories (i.e. 8, 12 and16) for Dhaka, Khulna and Rajshahi districts.
However, in case of higher storied buildings (i.e. 20 and 24) base shear is lower
in BNBC-2020 than BNBC-1993. On the other hand, in case of Chattogram and
Sylhet zone, the base shear value for earthquake loading is higher for BNBC-
2020 than BNBC-1993 for all the storied under consideration. It should be kept
in mind that, the approach of calculating seismic load in BNBC-2020 is different
 132

from that of BNBC-1993. Therefore, the magnitude of base shear calculated by

the two versions of the code may not be directly comparable.
ii. The wind base shear for both the principal axes (X and Y) is higher in BNBC-
1993 than BNBC-2020 for all the buildings under this study. The procedure to
calculate the design wind load in BNBC-2020 is different from that of the
previous code. Therefore, the magnitudes of wind load may not be directly
compared.
iii. The maximum lateral deflection and story drift under service condition in seismic
loading is higher for all the studied buildings in BNBC-2020 than BNBC-1993
for all the districts under consideration. On the other hand, for wind loading
condition, lateral deflection and drift are higher in BNBC-1993 compared to the
same from BNBC-2020 loading.
iv. In terms of concrete volume, BNBC-2020 gives economic design than BNBC-
1993. On the other hand, BNBC-1993 gives economic design than BNBC-2020
in terms of reinforcement requirements.
v. When total cost of structural civil works is concerned, BNBC-2020 specifications
generally results in a cost effective design for low seismic areas and produces
costlier design for high seismic areas when compared with similar designs based
on BNBC-1993. However, in most cases the average cost difference is between -
4.57% to +6.0%. If costs of other components such as electromechanical (lift,
substation, generator, air conditioning etc.), plumbing and sanitary, finishing civil
works (e.g. flooring, interior works etc.) are considered, then the cost difference
would be even smaller. Therefore, the effects of recently published BNBC-2020
code on the construction cost of RC buildings may not be considered very
significant.

7.3 Suggestions for Future Investigation

During this investigation, only the RC building consisting regular geometry has been
carried out. Besides the number of stories was fixed for 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24. In the layout,
the number of bays and spans was also bounded. Considering the restrictions, the
subsequent suggestions for advance study can be made from the present study:
 133

a) Corresponding study can be performed in large scale for other types of buildings
such as steel frame buildings, composite and masonry structures etc. in different
in places of Bangladesh.
b) More buildings with different height and irregular plan may be considered to get
a more generalized pattern of change between two BNBC codes.
c) This analysis was performed considering with one site conditions for all the
building. Therefore, further research is recommended to accomplish similar study
by considering different site conditions.
d) Comparisons of BNBC-2020 with other building codes such as Euro code, Indian
code, UBC, ACI, Italian code etc. is recommended.
e) Cost estimation was performed based on the direct results from FEA and a
combination of some judgement. In consequence, this study can be extended on
by performing cost estimation after conducting detail construction drawing.
 134

REFERENCES

[1] Al-Hussaini, T.M., “Facing the earthquake and tsunami risk in Bangladesh,”
Proc., Seminar on Tsunami and Seismic Risk – Action for Bangladesh, organized
by Military Institute of Science and Technology, Dhaka, 2005.
[2] Al-Hussaini, T.M. et al., “Site Classification and Seismic Response of Dhaka City
Soils,” Proc., 4th International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece, Paper no. 1457, 2007.
[3] Al-Hussaini, T.M. and Al-Noman, M.N., “Probabilistic Estimates of PGA and
Spectral Acceleration in Bangladesh,” Proc., 3rd International Earthquake
Symposium, Bangladesh, Dhaka, pp.473-480, 2010.
[4] Al-Hussaini, T.M. and Hossain, T.R., “Earthquake Loads,” Section 2.5 of
Chapter 2: Loads on Buildings and Structures, included in Draft Submission for
Updated Bangladesh National Building Code, 2010.
[5] Ali, M.H. and Choudhury, J.R., “Seismic Zoning of Bangladesh,” Paper
presented at the International Seminar on Recent Developments in Earthquake
Disaster Mitigation, Institution of Engineers, Dhaka, 1994.
[6] Ansary, M.A. and Sharfuddin, M., “Proposal for a New Seismic Zoning Map for
Bangladesh,” Journal of Civil Engineering Division, IEB, 30 (2), pp.77-89, 2002.
[7] ASCE/SEI, 7-05, ASCE Standard – Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, 2005.
[8] ACI 318-14: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, American
Concrete Institute, 2014.
[9] Atique, F. and Wadud, J., “A comparison of BNBC-93 with other building codes
with respect to Earthquake and Wind analysis,” The Eighth East Asia-Pacific
Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction, Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore, 2001.
[10] Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC), Housing and Building Research
Institute and Bangladesh Standard and Testing Institute, Bangladesh, 1993.
[11] Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC), Housing and Building Research
Institute, Bangladesh, 2020.
[12] Bari, M.S. and Khondoker, J.U., “Seismic forces on buildings: A comparative
study of different codes,” Journal of Civil Engineering, Institution of Engineers,
Bangladesh, Vol. CE 27, No. 2, 2007.
 135

[13] Hasan, M. R. and Hoque, M. T., “Comparative studies of Different Building

Codes in context of Bangladesh National Building Code,” 2007.
[14] Imam, F. S. et al., “Comparative Study on Lateral Load Analysis by BNBC–
1993 and Proposed BNBC-2012,” International Journal of Scientific and
Technology Research, 2014.
[15] Bari, M.S. and Das, T., “A Comparative Study on Seismic Analysis of
Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC) with Other Building Codes,” 2014.
[16] Anil K. Chopra, “Dynamics of Structures,” Theory and applications of
earthquake engineering, fourth edition, Chapter-6, 2012.
[17] Masum, M. M. H. et al., “Comparison of Wind Load among BNBC-1993 and
Proposed BNBC-2015,” 2018.
[18] Al-Hussaini, T. et al. “Proposed Changes to the Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering Provisions of the Bangladesh National Building Code,” 2012.
[19] Rabbi, M. I. I., and Sadik, S., “A Comparative Study on Lateral Load Analysis
by Using ETABS Considering Two Different Versions of BNBC,” 2020.
[20] Sakib, M. S. et al., “A Comparative Study of BNBC 1993 and 2017 Provisions
for the Design of Multistoried Steel Buildings in High Wind and High Seismic
Zone,” 2019.
[21] Shah, M. D., and Patel, M. B., “Formulation of Response Reduction Factor for
RCC Framed Staging of Elevated Water Tank using Static Pushover Analysis,”
2010.
 APPENDIX-A
TYPICAL ARCHITECTURAL LAYOUTS

This Appendix provides the architectural layout for basement, ground floor and typical
floors for both the moment resisting frame systems and dual systems. Moments resisting
frame systems applies for all RC buildings under this study except 20 and 24 storied
buildings in Chattogram and Sylhet districts. Two different dual systems has been
considered for 20 and 24 storied buildings as per the design requirements. All those
layouts are drawn below individually.

Figure A.1: Typical ground floor and basement plan with moment resisting frame
systems.
 137

Figure A.2: Typical floor plan with moment resisting frame systems.

Figure A.3: Typical ground floor and basement plan with dual systems for 20-storied
buildings in Chattogram and Sylhet districts.
 138

Figure A.4: Typical floor plan with dual systems for 20-storied buildings in
Chattogram and Sylhet districts.

Figure A.5: Typical ground floor and basement plan with dual systems for 24-storied
buildings in Chattogram and Sylhet districts.
 139

Figure A.6: Typical floor plan with dual systems for 24-storied buildings in
Chattogram and Sylhet districts.
 APPENDIX-B
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS OF COST ESTIMATION

This Appendix includes the sample calculations of cost estimation of total structural civil
construction works for 20 storied RC building according to BNBC 2020. The summary
sheet of this sample BoQ are presented here with the breakdown of detail calculations.

Bill OF Quantities (BoQ) of 20-storied commercial building

Project: M.Sc. Thesis Client: Research purposes
Location: Dhaka Date: 26-Oct-2021
Sub & Super structure RCC part only
SL. NO. DESCRIPTION Unit Quantity Rate Taka Remarks
Earth work in excavation in all kinds of soil for foundation trenches including layout, providing center lines, local
bench-mark pillars, levelling, ramming and preparing the base, fixing bamboo spikes and marking layout with
chalk powder, providing necessary tools and plants, protecting and maintaining the trench dry etc., stacking,
1 cleaning the excavated earth at a safe distance out of the area enclosed by the layout etc. all complete and accepted Cu.m 3395.93 217 736,916
by the Engineer-in-charge, subject to submit method statement of carrying out excavation work to the Engineer-in-
charge for approval. However, engineer‟s approval shall not relieve the contractor of his responsibilities and
obligations under the contract.
Supplying and laying of single layer polythene sheet weighing one kilogram per 6.5 square meter in floor or any
2 Sq.m 489.60 42 20,563
where below cement concrete complete in all respect and accepted by Engineer-in-charge.
One layer brick flat soling in foundation or in floor with first class/picked jhama bricks including preparation of
3 Sq.m 489.60 420 205,632
bed and filling the interstices with local sand, leveling etc. complete and accepted by the Engineer-in-charge
Mass concrete (1:2:4) in foundation or in floor with cement, sand (F.M. 1.2) and picked jhama brick chips
including breaking of chips, screening, mixing, laying, compacting to required level and curing for at least 7 days
4 Cu.m 36.72 7,643 280,651
including the supply of water, electricity, costs of tools & plants and other charges etc. all complete and accepted
by Engineer-in-charge. (Cement: CEM-II/A-M)
Form Work (steel): Centering and shuttering, including strutting, propping etc. (The formwork must be rigid
enough both in and out of plane, to make the concrete surface true to the designed shape and size by using
5 Sq.m 9202.80 532 4,895,890
necessary MS sheets of minimum 16 BWG, angles of minimum size 40 mm x 40 mm x 5 mm, flat bars etc.) and
removal, all completed and accepted by the Engineer in Cahage.
Reinforced cement concrete works with minimum cement content relates to mix ratio 1:1:2 having minimum f'cr
= 49 Mpa, satisfying a specified compressive strength f‟c = 40 MPa at 28 days on standard cylinders as per
standard practice of Code ACI/BNBC/ASTM, Cement conforming to BDS EN-197-1-CEM-I, 52.5N (52.5 MPa) /
ASTM-C 150 Type – I, and adding approved high range water reducing admixture of complying specific type
(generally be Type-G) under ASTM-C 494, best quality coarse sand [Sylhet sand or coarse sand of equivalent
F.M. 2.2], 20 mm down well graded crushed stone chips conforming to ASTM C-33, making and placing shutter
6 in position and maintaining true to plumb, making shutter water-tight properly, placing reinforcement in position; Cu.m 5065.67 13,134.00 66,532,529
mixing with standard mixer machine with hopper and fed by standard measuring boxes or mixing in batching
plant, casting in forms, compacting by vibrator machine and curing at least for 28 days, removing centering-
shuttering after specified time approved; including cost of water, electricity, testing charges of materials and
cylinders required by engineer, other charges etc. all complete approved and accepted by the Engineer-in-charge.
(Doses of admixture to be fixed in consultation with design office) (Rate is excluding the cost of reinforcement
and its fabrication, placing, binding etc, admixture and the cost of shuttering & centering)
Sand filling in foundation trenches and plinth with sand having minimum F.M. 1.2 in 150 mm in layers including
leveling, watering and compaction to achieve minimum dry density of 95% with optimum moisture content
7 Cu.m 179.87 913.00 164,217
(Modified proctor test) by ramming each layer up to finished level as per design supplied by the design office
only, all complete and accepted by the Engineer-in-charge.
Supplying, fabrication and fixing to detail as per design : ribbed or deformed bar reinforcement for Reinforced
cement concrete, produced and marked in accordance with BDS ISO 6935 - 2: 2006 (or standard subsequentley
released from BSTI) including straightening and cleaning rust, if any, bending and binding in position with
supply of G.I. wires, necessary laboratory tests (excluding splices or laps) etc. complete in all respect and
accepted by the Engineer-in-charge (Measurement shall be recorded only on standard mass per unit length of
8 bars, while dia of bars exceeds its standard). Kg 653689.67 82.00 53,602,553
Grade 400 (RB 400 /RB 400W: complying BDS ISO 6935-2:2006) ribbed or deformed bar produced and marked
according to Bangladesh standard, with minimum yield strength, fy (ReH)= 400 MPa but fy not exceeding 450
MPa and whatever is the yield strength within allowable limit as per BNBC/ ACI 318, the ratio of ultimate tensile
strength fu to yield strength fy, shall be at least 1.25 and minimum elongation after fracture and minimum total
elongation at maximum force is 16% and 8% respectively : up to ground floor.
Total Amount= 126,438,950.93
In words: Twelve crore sixty four lakh thirty eight thousand and nine hundred fifty BDT only
 141

Detail Calculation Sheet: The calculations of each item of the structural civil
constructions work only are separately presented here with detail breakdown.

Civil Works
SL.NO DESCRIPTION OF WORK Unit Quantity
1 Earth excavation work cum 3395.93
2 Polythene work sqm 489.60
3 Brick flat soling work sqm 489.60
4 C.C work cum 36.72
Sand filling in foundation & where
5 cum 179.87
required
6 Shuttering work sqm 9202.80
7 RCC work cum 5065.67 Input data
8 Reinforcement work kg 622561.59 Input data, if changes required

FOUNDATION
Below
Name L W T CC Thickness No. of foot.
EGL
Mat 25500 19200 1525 75 6600 1

COLUMN
Below GF Above GF
Name Depth Width No. of column Depth Width
H H
C1 800.00 800.00 3300 4 3600 750.00 750.00
C2 1050.00 900.00 3300 8 3600 1000.00 850.00
C3 950.00 950.00 3300 4 3600 900.00 900.00
C4 475.00 475.00 0 4 3600 425.00 425.00

BEAMS' IN GRADE & BELOW GRADE LEVEL

Name Length Width Depth
1 24300 0 0
2 24300 600 750
3 24300 600 750
IN BETWEEN 8100 375 600
4 24300 0 0
A 18000 0 0
B 6000 375 600
C 18000 600 750
D 18000 600 750
E 6000 375 600
F 18000 0 0

FLOOR BEAM (1F to 8F)

Name Length Width Depth
1 24300 600 750
2 24300 600 750
3 24300 600 750
IN BETWEEN 8100 375 600
4 24300 600 750
A 18000 600 750
B 6000 375 600
C 18000 600 750
D 18000 600 750
E 6000 375 600
F 18000 600 750
 142

FLOOR BEAM (9F to Roof)

Name Length Width Depth
1 24300 500 700
2 24300 500 700
3 24300 500 700
IN BETWEEN 8100 375 600
4 24300 500 700
A 18000 500 700
B 6000 375 600
C 18000 500 700
D 18000 500 700
E 6000 375 600
F 18000 500 700

FLOOR BEAM (STAIR TOP)

Name Length Width Depth
1 24300 0 0
2 8100 500 700
3 8100 500 700
3a 2925 500 700
IN BETWEEN 8100 375 600
4 8100 500 700
4a 2925 300 450
A 18000 0 0
B 6000 375 600
C 12000 500 700
D 12000 500 700
E 6000 375 600
F 18000 0 0

Earth Excavation
Size
Quantity
Location Work At Length Width Depth Volume (cum) Total Volume (cum)
(No's)
mm mm mm
Mat 25800 19500 6750 1 Nos. 3395.93 3,395.93
Foundation

Total Earth Excavation = 3,395.93

Polythene Laying
Size
Quantity
Location Work At Length Width Depth Area (Sqm.) Total Area (Sqm.)
(No's)
mm mm mm
Mat 25500 19200 1 Nos. 489.60 489.60
Foundation

Total Polythene Laying = 489.60

Brick flat soling

Size
Quantity
Location Work At Length Width Depth Area (Sqm.) Total Area (Sqm.)
(No's)
mm mm mm
Mat 25500 19200 1 Nos. 489.60 489.60
Foundation

Total Brick flat soling = 489.60

75mm cc work
Size
Quantity
Location Work At Length Width Depth Volume (cum) Total Volume (cum)
(No's)
mm mm mm
Mat 25500 19200 75 1 Nos. 36.72 36.72
Foundation

Total 75mm cc work = 36.72

Sand Filling
Size
Quantity
Location Work At Length Width Depth Volume (cum) Total Volume (cum)
(No's)
mm mm mm
Earth cutting 3,395.93
EGL to PL 25500 600 1000 15.30
25500 19200 6600 1 Nos. 3231.36 3,231.36
Deduction

Total Sand Filling = 179.87

 143

Calculations of Form Work

Size
Quantity
Location Work At Length Depth No. of storey (Nos.) Area (Sqm.) Total Area (Sqm.)
(No's)
mm mm
Foundation Mat 89400 1525 1 No's. 136.34 136.34

C1 3200 3300 2.00 4 No's. 10.56 84.48

C2 3900 3300 2.00 8 No's. 12.87 205.92
Column Below GF
C3 3800 3300 2.00 4 No's. 12.54 100.32
C4 1900 0 0.00 4 No's. 0.00 0.00

C1 3000 3600 6.00 4 No's. 10.80 259.20

C2 3700 3600 6.00 8 No's. 13.32 639.36
Column Level-GF to Roof
C3 3600 3600 6.00 4 No's. 12.96 311.04
C4 1700 3600 0.00 4 No's. 6.12 0.00

C1 3000 3600 0.00 0 No's. 10.80 0.00

C2 3700 3600 1.00 0 No's. 13.32 0.00
Column Level-Stair top
C3 3600 3600 1.00 0 No's. 12.96 0.00
C4 1700 3600 1.00 4 No's. 6.12 24.48

1 24300 0 2.00 1 No's. 0.00 0.00

2 24300 2100 2.00 1 No's. 51.03 102.06
3 24300 2100 2.00 1 No's. 51.03 102.06
IN BETWEEN 8100 1575 2.00 1 No's. 12.76 25.52
4 24300 0 2.00 1 No's. 0.00 0.00
BEAMS' IN GRADE & BELOW GRADE
A 18000 0 2.00 1 No's. 0.00 0.00
LEVEL
B 6000 1575 2.00 1 No's. 9.45 18.90
C 18000 2100 2.00 1 No's. 37.80 75.60
D 18000 2100 2.00 1 No's. 37.80 75.60
E 6000 1575 2.00 1 No's. 9.45 18.90
F 18000 0 2.00 1 No's. 0.00 0.00

1 24300 2100 2.00 1 No's. 51.03 102.06

2 24300 2100 2.00 1 No's. 51.03 102.06
3 24300 2100 2.00 1 No's. 51.03 102.06
IN BETWEEN 8100 1575 2.00 1 No's. 12.76 25.52
4 24300 2100 2.00 1 No's. 51.03 102.06
FLOOR BEAM (1F TO 8F) A 18000 2100 2.00 1 No's. 37.80 75.60
B 6000 1575 2.00 1 No's. 9.45 18.90
C 18000 2100 2.00 1 No's. 37.80 75.60
D 18000 2100 2.00 1 No's. 37.80 75.60
E 6000 1575 2.00 1 No's. 9.45 18.90
F 18000 2100 2.00 1 No's. 37.80 75.60

1 24300 1900 4.00 1 No's. 46.17 184.68

2 24300 1900 4.00 1 No's. 46.17 184.68
3 24300 1900 4.00 1 No's. 46.17 184.68
IN BETWEEN 8100 1575 4.00 1 No's. 12.76 51.03
4 24300 1900 4.00 1 No's. 46.17 184.68
FLOOR BEAM (9F TO ROOF) A 18000 1900 4.00 1 No's. 34.20 136.80
B 6000 1575 4.00 1 No's. 9.45 37.80
C 18000 1900 4.00 1 No's. 34.20 136.80
D 18000 1900 4.00 1 No's. 34.20 136.80
E 6000 1575 4.00 1 No's. 9.45 37.80
F 18000 1900 4.00 1 No's. 34.20 136.80

1 24300 0 1.00 1 No's. 0.00 0.00

2 8100 1900 1.00 1 No's. 15.39 15.39
3 8100 1900 1.00 1 No's. 15.39 15.39
3a 2925 1900 1.00 2 No's. 5.56 11.12
IN BETWEEN 8100 1575 1.00 1 No's. 12.76 12.76
4 8100 1900 1.00 1 No's. 15.39 15.39
FLOOR BEAM (STAIR TOP) 4a 2925 1200 1.00 2 No's. 3.51 7.02
A 18000 0 1.00 1 No's. 0.00 0.00
B 6000 1575 1.00 1 No's. 9.45 9.45
C 12000 1900 1.00 1 No's. 22.80 22.80
D 12000 1900 1.00 1 No's. 22.80 22.80
E 6000 1575 1.00 1 No's. 9.45 9.45
F 18000 0 1.00 1 No's. 0.00 0.00

BELOW GF 437400000 1.00 1 No's. 437.40 437.40

GF TO ROOF 437400000 6.00 1 No's. 437.40 2624.40
STAIR TOP 83700000 1.00 1 No's. 83.70 83.70
OHWT BOTTOM 69412950 1.00 1 No's. 69.41 69.41
OHWT TOP 48600000 1.00 1 No's. 48.60 48.60
Slab OHWT Wall 42300000 1.00 2 No's. 42.30 84.60
UGWT Wall 56227500 1.00 2 No's. 56.23 112.46
STAIR Steps 450000 6.00 1 No's. 0.45 2.70
Basement Wall 576630000 1.00 2 No's. 576.63 1153.26
Lift pit bottom slab 20817000 1.00 1 No's. 20.82 20.82
Lift pit side wall 28809000 1.00 2 No's. 28.81 57.62
Total Calculations of Form Work = 9,202.80
 144

R.C.C Work
Size
Quantity No. of storey
Location Work At Length Width Depth Volume (cum) Total Volume (cum)
(No's) (Nos.)
mm mm mm
Foundation Mat 25500 19200 1525 1 No's. 746.64 746.64

C1 800 800 3300 4 No's. 2.11 16.90 2

C2 1050 900 3300 8 No's. 3.12 49.90 2
Column below GF
C3 950 950 3300 4 No's. 2.98 23.83 2
C4 475 475 0 4 No's. 0.00 0.00 0

C1 750 750 3600 4 No's. 2.03 162.00 20

C2 1000 850 3600 8 No's. 3.06 489.60 20
Column Level-GF to ROOF
C3 900 900 3600 4 No's. 2.92 233.28 20
C4 425 425 3600 4 No's. 0.65 0.00 0

C1 750 750 3600 0 No's. 2.03 0.00 0

C2 1000 850 3600 2 No's. 3.06 6.12 1
Column Level-STAIR TOP
C3 900 900 3600 4 No's. 2.92 11.66 1
C4 425 425 3600 4 No's. 0.65 2.60 1

1 24300 0 0 1 No's. 0.00 0.00 2

2 24300 600 750 1 No's. 10.94 21.87 2
3 24300 600 750 1 No's. 10.94 21.87 2
IN BETWEEN 8100 375 600 1 No's. 1.82 3.65 2
4 24300 0 0 1 No's. 0.00 0.00 2
BEAMS' IN GRADE & BELOW GRADE
A 18000 0 0 1 No's. 0.00 0.00 2
LEVEL
B 6000 375 600 1 No's. 1.35 2.70 2
C 18000 600 750 1 No's. 8.10 16.20 2
D 18000 600 750 1 No's. 8.10 16.20 2
E 6000 375 600 1 No's. 1.35 2.70 2
F 18000 0 0 1 No's. 0.00 0.00 2

1 24300 600 750 1 No's. 10.94 87.48 8

2 24300 600 750 1 No's. 10.94 87.48 8
3 24300 600 750 1 No's. 10.94 87.48 8
IN BETWEEN 8100 375 600 1 No's. 1.82 14.58 8
4 24300 600 750 1 No's. 10.94 87.48 8
FLOOR BEAM (1F TO 8F) A 18000 600 750 1 No's. 8.10 64.80 8
B 6000 375 600 1 No's. 1.35 10.80 8
C 18000 600 750 1 No's. 8.10 64.80 8
D 18000 600 750 1 No's. 8.10 64.80 8
E 6000 375 600 1 No's. 1.35 10.80 8
F 18000 600 750 1 No's. 8.10 64.80 8

1 24300 500 700 1 No's. 8.51 102.06 12

2 24300 500 700 1 No's. 8.51 102.06 12
3 24300 500 700 1 No's. 8.51 102.06 12
IN BETWEEN 8100 375 600 1 No's. 1.82 21.87 12
4 24300 500 700 1 No's. 8.51 102.06 12
FLOOR BEAM (9F TO ROOF) A 18000 500 700 1 No's. 6.30 75.60 12
B 6000 375 600 1 No's. 1.35 16.20 12
C 18000 500 700 1 No's. 6.30 75.60 12
D 18000 500 700 1 No's. 6.30 75.60 12
E 6000 375 600 1 No's. 1.35 16.20 12
F 18000 500 700 1 No's. 6.30 75.60 12

BELOW GF 437400000.0 150 1 No's. 65.61 65.61 1

GF TO ROOF 437400000.0 150 1 No's. 65.61 1377.81 21
STAIR TOP 83700000.0 125 1 No's. 10.46 10.46 1
OHWT BOTTOM 69412950.0 250 1 No's. 17.35 17.35 1
OHWT TOP 48600000.0 125 1 No's. 6.08 6.08 1
Slab OHWT Wall 42300000.0 250 1 No's. 10.58 10.58 1
UGWT Wall 56227500.0 250 1 No's. 14.06 14.06 1
STAIR Steps 450000.0 2400 1 No's. 1.08 22.68 21
Basement Wall 576630000.0 300 1 No's. 172.99 172.99 1
Lift pit bottom slab 20817000.0 250 1 No's. 5.20 5.20 1
Lift pit side wall 28809000.0 250 1 No's. 7.20 7.20 1

DOOR1 PER FLOOR 2 No's. 0.05 1.89

2100.0 150 150 20
DOOR2 PER FLOOR 7 No's. 0.02 3.31
1050.0 150 150 20
WINDOW PER
8 No's. 0.07 11.88
FLOOR 3300.0 150 150 20
Lintel WINDOW IN STAIR 1200.0 150 150 4 No's. 0.03 2.27 21
WINDOW IN
4 No's. 0.02 1.89
TOILET 1050.0 150 150 20
LIFT DOOR 1650.0 150 150 3 No's. 0.04 2.23 20
LIFT MACHINE
1 No's. 0.02 0.02
DOOR 1050.0 150 150 1
ENTRY GATE 5400.0 150 150 1 No's. 0.12 0.12 1
Down slab PER FLOOR LEVEL 5175.0 6000.0 112.5 1 No's. 3.49 69.86 20
Total R.C.C Work = 5,065.67
 145

Reinforcement Work
Reinforcement Calculation: Foundation
Bar Size Weight No of Bar Length Total Length Nos of Item Total Weight Rebar Spacing
Location/ Description
mm kg/m Nos mm m Nos. kg mm
Mat Bottom Long 28 mm 4.834 164.00 26,694 4,377.816 1 21,160.34 125
Mat Bottom Short 28 mm 4.834 214.00 20,394 4,364.316 1 21,095.09 125
Mat Top Long 25 mm 3.853 116.00 26,550 3,079.800 1 11,867.29 175
Mat Top Short 25 mm 3.853 152.00 20,250 3,078.000 1 11,860.36 175
Extra Bottom Long 20 mm 2.466 32.00 5,400 172.800 4 1,704.56 125
Extra Bottom Short 16 mm 1.578 43.00 4,000 172.000 4 1,085.87 125
Extra Top Long 25 mm 3.853 22.00 5,400 118.800 6 2,746.61 175
Extra Top Short 20 mm 2.466 30.00 4,000 120.000 10 2,959.31 175
Lapping (Mat Bottom Long) 28 mm 4.834 164.00 1,400 229.600 2.00 2,219.56 125
Lapping (Mat Bottom Short) 28 mm 4.834 214.00 1,400 299.600 1.00 1,448.13 125
Lapping (Mat Top Long) 25 mm 3.853 116.00 1,250 145.000 2.00 1,117.45 175
Lapping (Mat Top Short) 25 mm 3.853 152.00 1,250 190.000 1.00 732.12 175
All Foundation Reinforcement Work= 79,996.69

Reinforcement Calculation: Column

Column ID Label Floor height As Total Weight % Increase
Location/ Description 3
mm m kg 3
C1 30x30 C1 3,600.00 0.564 4,424.71
C1 30x30 C4 3,600.00 0.565 4,433.43
Longitudinal Rebar: C1
C1 30x30 C7 3,600.00 0.531 4,170.08
C1 30x30 C9 3,600.00 0.532 4,172.62
Total Longitudinal Reinforcement Work (C1)= 17,716.87
Nos. of column per Column Avg. Tie bar
Bar Size Weight No of Bar Length Total Length Total Weight Column depth Nos. of floor
floor width/length Spacing
Stirrup: C1
mm kg/m Nos mm m Nos. kg mm mm mm Nos.
12 mm 0.888 33.0 2,846 93.918 4.00 7,003.90 750.00 750.00 112.5 21
25 mm 3.853 6.00 1,250 7.50 52.00 1,502.77 75.6 N/A N/A 21
Lapping: C1 20 mm 2.466 6.00 1,000 6.00 52.00 769.42 75.6 N/A N/A 21
16 mm 1.578 6.00 800 4.80 0.00 - 75.6 N/A N/A 21
Total Reinforcement Work (C1)= 26,992.96

C2 34x40 C2 3,600.00 0.743 5,829.56

C2 34x40 C3 3,600.00 0.757 5,943.98
C2 34x40 C12 3,600.00 0.859 6,744.29
C2 34x40 C13 3,600.00 0.860 6,749.15
Longitudinal Rebar: C2
C2 34x40 C16 3,600.00 0.750 5,888.48
C2 34x40 C17 3,600.00 0.750 5,887.92
C2 34x40 C22 3,600.00 0.743 5,831.68
C2 34x40 C23 3,600.00 0.758 5,949.37
Total Longitudinal Reinforcement Work (C2)= 50,289.16
Nos. of column per Column Avg. Tie bar
Bar Size Weight No of Bar Length Total Length Total Weight Column depth Nos. of floor
floor width/length Spacing
Stirrup: C2
mm kg/m Nos mm m Nos. kg mm mm mm Nos.
16 mm 1.578 33.0 3,546 117.018 8.00 31,397.18 850.00 1000.00 112.5 21.25
25 mm 3.853 6.00 1,250 7.50 144.00 4,161.53 76.5 N/A N/A 21.25
Lapping: C2 20 mm 2.466 6.00 1,000 6.00 144.00 2,130.70 76.5 N/A N/A 21.25
16 mm 1.578 6.00 800 4.80 0.00 - 76.5 N/A N/A 21.25
Total Reinforcement Work (C2)= 87,978.57

C3 36x36 C10 3,600.00 0.770 6,044.02

C3 36x36 C11 3,600.00 0.848 6,654.54
Longitudinal Rebar: C3
C3 36x36 C14 3,600.00 0.769 6,035.41
C3 36x36 C15 3,600.00 0.855 6,714.33
Total Longitudinal Reinforcement Work (C3)= 26,211.75
Nos. of column per Column Avg. Tie bar
Bar Size Weight No of Bar Length Total Length Total Weight Column depth Nos. of floor
floor width/length Spacing
Stirrup: C3
mm kg/m Nos mm m Nos. kg mm mm mm Nos.
12 mm 0.888 33.0 3,446 113.718 4.00 8,884.31 900.00 900.00 112.5 22
25 mm 3.853 6.00 1,250 7.50 72.00 2,080.76 79.2 N/A N/A 22
Lapping: C3 20 mm 2.466 6.00 1,000 6.00 72.00 1,065.35 79.2 N/A N/A 22
16 mm 1.578 6.00 800 4.80 0.00 - 79.2 N/A N/A 22
Total Reinforcement Work (C3)= 38,242.17

C4 17x17 C5 3,600.00 0.000 -

C4 17x17 C6 3,600.00 0.000 -
Longitudinal Rebar: C4
C4 17x17 C8 3,600.00 0.000 -
C4 17x17 C20 3,600.00 0.000 -
Total Longitudinal Reinforcement Work (C4)= -
Nos. of column per Column Avg. Tie bar
Bar Size Weight No of Bar Length Total Length Total Weight Column depth Nos. of floor
floor width/length Spacing
Stirrup: C4
mm kg/m Nos mm m Nos. kg mm mm mm Nos.
12 mm 0.888 33 1,546 51.018 4.00 181.17 425.00 425.00 112.5 1
Total Reinforcement Work (C4)= 181.17
All Columns' Total Reinforcement Work after increment= 153,394.88
 146

Reinforcement Calculation: Beam

All Beams' Total Longitudinal Reinforcement Work= 120,121.44 % Increase
All Beams' Total Longitudinal Reinforcement Work after increment= 129,731.15 8
Total Span
No of
Bar Size Weight Length Total Length Nos of Item Total Weight Length (along X No. of storey
Lapping
Location/ Description or Y)
No.of beams X no. of
mm kg/m Nos mm m kg m Nos.
bars per beam
25 mm 3.853 2.00 1,500 3.00 0.00 0.00 24.3 2
20 mm 2.466 2.00 1,200 2.40 4.00 47.35 24.3 2
Lapping (Along X, Below 1F)
16 mm 1.578 2.00 960 1.92 4.00 24.24 24.3 2
12 mm 0.888 2.00 720 1.44 2.00 5.11 24.3 2
25 mm 3.853 1.00 1,500 1.50 0.00 0.00 18 2
20 mm 2.466 1.00 1,200 1.20 4.00 23.67 18 2
Lapping (Along Y, Below 1F)
16 mm 1.578 1.00 960 0.96 4.00 12.12 18 2
12 mm 0.888 1.00 720 0.72 2.00 2.56 18 2
25 mm 3.853 2.00 1,500 3.00 12.00 1109.74 24.3 8
20 mm 2.466 2.00 1,200 2.40 16.00 757.58 24.3 8
Lapping (Along X, 1F to 8F)
16 mm 1.578 2.00 960 1.92 4.00 96.97 24.3 8
12 mm 0.888 2.00 720 1.44 0.00 0.00 24.3 8
25 mm 3.853 1.00 1,500 1.50 12.00 554.87 18 8
20 mm 2.466 1.00 1,200 1.20 16.00 378.79 18 8
Lapping (Along Y, 1F to 8F)
16 mm 1.578 1.00 960 0.96 4.00 48.49 18 8
12 mm 0.888 1.00 720 0.72 0.00 0.00 18 8
25 mm 3.853 2.00 1,500 3.00 12.00 1664.61 24.3 12
20 mm 2.466 2.00 1,200 2.40 12.00 852.28 24.3 12
Lapping (Along X, 9F to Roof)
16 mm 1.578 2.00 960 1.92 4.00 145.46 24.3 12
12 mm 0.888 2.00 720 1.44 0.00 0.00 24.3 12
25 mm 3.853 1.00 1,500 1.50 12.00 832.31 18 12
20 mm 2.466 1.00 1,200 1.20 12.00 426.14 18 12
Lapping (Along Y, 9F to Roof)
16 mm 1.578 1.00 960 0.96 4.00 72.73 18 12
12 mm 0.888 1.00 720 0.72 0.00 0.00 18 12
20 mm 2.466 1.00 1,200 1.20 0.00 0.00 13.95 1
Lapping (Along X, Stair top) 16 mm 1.578 1.00 960 0.96 4.00 6.06 13.95 1
12 mm 0.888 1.00 720 0.72 4.00 2.56 13.95 1
20 mm 2.466 1.00 1,200 1.20 2.00 5.92 12 1
Lapping (Along Y, Stair top) 16 mm 1.578 1.00 960 0.96 4.00 6.06 12 1
12 mm 0.888 1.00 720 0.72 4.00 2.56 12 1
All Beams' Total Longitudinal Lapping Reinforcement Work= 7,078.18
No. of beams per Avg. Stirrup
Bar Size Weight No of Bar Length Total Length Total Weight Beam width Beam depth Nos. of floor
Location/ Description floor along X or Y Spacing
mm kg/m Nos mm m Nos. kg mm mm mm Nos.
16 mm 1.578 244.0 2,546 621.224 2 3921.91 600 750 100 2
Stirrup (Along X, Below 1F)
16 mm 1.578 82.0 2,096 171.872 1 542.53 375 750 100 2
16 mm 1.578 181.0 2,546 460.826 2 2909.28 600 750 100 2
Stirrup (Along Y, Below 1F)
12 mm 0.888 38.0 1,796 68.248 2 242.36 375 600 162.5 2
16 mm 1.578 244.0 2,546 621.224 4 31375.26 600 750 100 8
Stirrup (Along X, 1F to 8F)
12 mm 0.888 51.0 1,796 91.596 1 650.55 375 600 162.5 8
16 mm 1.578 181.0 2,546 460.826 4 23274.27 600 750 100 8
Stirrup (Along Y, 1F to 8F)
12 mm 0.888 38.0 1,796 68.248 2 969.44 375 600 162.5 8
16 mm 1.578 217.0 2,246 487.382 4 36923.24 500 700 112.5 12
Stirrup (Along X, 9F to Roof)
12 mm 0.888 51.0 1,796 91.596 1 975.82 375 600 162.5 12
16 mm 1.578 161.0 2,246 361.606 4 27394.66 500 700 112.5 12
Stirrup (Along Y, 9F to Roof)
12 mm 0.888 38.0 1,796 68.248 2 1454.16 375 600 162.5 12
16 mm 1.578 73.0 2,246 163.958 3 776.32 500 700 112.5 1
Stirrup (Along X, Stair top) 12 mm 0.888 51.0 1,796 91.596 1 81.32 375 600 162.5 1
16 mm 1.578 27.0 2,246 60.642 4 382.84 500 700 112.5 1
16 mm 1.578 55.0 2,246 123.530 4 779.87 500 700 112.5 1
Stirrup (Along Y, Stair top)
12 mm 0.888 38.0 1,796 68.248 2 121.18 375 600 162.5 1
All Beams' Total Transeverse Reinforcement Work= 132,775.02
All Beams' Total Reinforcement Work after increment= 269,584.35
 147

Reinforcement Calculation: Slab and Stair

Location/ Description Bar Size Weight No of Bar Length Total Length Nos of Item Total Weight Rebar Spacing No. of floor
Below 1F mm kg/m Nos mm m Nos. kg mm Nos.
Slab Bottom Long 10 mm 0.617 66.00 24,262 1,601.292 1 1,974.47 275 2
Slab Bottom Short 10 mm 0.617 89.00 17,962 1,598.618 1 1,971.17 275 2
Extra Bottom Long 10 mm 0.617 14.00 5,400 75.600 4 372.87 275 2
Extra Bottom Short 10 mm 0.617 19.00 4,000 76.000 4 374.85 275 2
Slab Top Long 10 mm 0.617 66.00 24,262 1,601.292 1 1,974.47 275 2
Slab Top Short 10 mm 0.617 89.00 17,962 1,598.618 1 1,971.17 275 2
Extra Top [centre column] Long 10 mm 0.617 21.00 5,400 113.400 0 - 275 2
Extra Top [centre column] Short 10 mm 0.617 29.00 4,000 116.000 0 - 275 2
Extra Top [corner column] Long 10 mm 0.617 21.00 2,025 42.525 4 209.74 137.5 2
Extra Top [corner column] Short 10 mm 0.617 29.00 1,500 43.500 4 214.55 137.5 2
Extra Top [edge column] Long 10 mm 0.617 21.00 2,025 42.525 8 419.48 275 2
Extra Top [edge column] Short 10 mm 0.617 14.00 4,000 56.000 8 552.40 275 2
Lapping (Slab Bottom Long) 10 mm 0.617 2.00 500 1.00 66 81.38 2
Lapping (Slab Bottom Short) 10 mm 0.617 1.00 500 0.50 89 54.87 2
Lapping (Slab Top Long) 10 mm 0.617 2.00 500 1.00 66 81.38 2
Lapping (Slab Top Short) 10 mm 0.617 1.00 500 0.50 89 54.87 2
Deduct: Slab Bottom Long 10 mm 0.617 10.00 8,100 81.000 1 99.88 275 2
Deduct: Slab Bottom Short 10 mm 0.617 30.00 2,570 77.100 1 95.07 275 2
Deduct: Slab Top Long 10 mm 0.617 10.00 8,100 81.000 1 99.88 275 2
Deduct: Slab Top Short 10 mm 0.617 30.00 2,570 77.100 1 95.07 275 2
1F to 19F
Slab Bottom Long 10 mm 0.617 66.00 24,262 1,601.292 1 18,757.43 275 19
Slab Bottom Short 10 mm 0.617 89.00 17,962 1,598.618 1 18,726.10 275 19
Extra Bottom Long 10 mm 0.617 7.00 2,700 18.900 4 885.57 275 19
Extra Bottom Short 10 mm 0.617 9.00 2,000 18.000 4 843.40 275 19
Slab Top Long 10 mm 0.617 66.00 24,262 1,601.292 1 18,757.43 275 19
Slab Top Short 10 mm 0.617 89.00 17,962 1,598.618 1 18,726.10 275 19
Extra Top [centre column] Long 10 mm 0.617 21.00 5,400 113.400 4 5,313.44 275 19
Extra Top [centre column] Short 10 mm 0.617 29.00 4,000 116.000 2 2,717.63 275 19
Extra Top [corner column] Long 12 mm 0.888 10.00 2,025 20.250 4 1,366.31 275 19
Extra Top [corner column] Short 10 mm 0.617 14.00 1,500 21.000 2 491.99 275 19
Extra Top [edge column] Long 12 mm 0.888 21.00 2,025 42.525 8 5,738.52 275 19
Extra Top [edge column] Short 10 mm 0.617 14.00 4,000 56.000 6 3,935.88 275 19
Lapping (Slab Bottom Long) 10 mm 0.617 2.00 500 1.00 66 773.12 19
Lapping (Slab Bottom Short) 10 mm 0.617 1.00 500 0.50 89 521.27 19
Lapping (Slab Top Long) 10 mm 0.617 2.00 500 1.00 66 773.12 19
Lapping (Slab Top Short) 10 mm 0.617 1.00 500 0.50 89 521.27 19
Deduct: Slab Bottom Long 10 mm 0.617 10.00 8,100 81.000 1 948.83 275 19
Deduct: Slab Bottom Short 10 mm 0.617 30.00 2,570 77.100 1 903.14 275 19
Deduct: Slab Top Long 10 mm 0.617 10.00 8,100 81.000 1 948.83 275 19
Deduct: Slab Top Short 10 mm 0.617 30.00 2,570 77.100 1 903.14 275 19
Roof
Slab Bottom Long 10 mm 0.617 66.00 24,262 1,601.292 1 987.23 275 1
Slab Bottom Short 10 mm 0.617 89.00 17,962 1,598.618 1 985.58 275 1
Slab Top Long 10 mm 0.617 66.00 24,262 1,601.292 1 987.23 275 1
Slab Top Short 10 mm 0.617 89.00 17,962 1,598.618 1 985.58 275 1
Extra Top [edge column] Long 12 mm 0.888 14.00 5,400 75.600 4 268.47 275 1
Extra Top [edge column] Short 12 mm 0.888 19.00 4,000 76.000 2 134.94 275 1
Lapping (Slab Bottom Long) 10 mm 0.617 2.00 500 1.00 66 40.69 1
Lapping (Slab Bottom Short) 10 mm 0.617 1.00 500 0.50 89 27.44 1
Lapping (Slab Top Long) 10 mm 0.617 2.00 500 1.00 66 40.69 1
Lapping (Slab Top Short) 10 mm 0.617 1.00 500 0.50 89 27.44 1
Deduct: Slab Bottom Long 10 mm 0.617 10.00 8,100 81.000 1 49.94 275 1
Deduct: Slab Bottom Short 10 mm 0.617 30.00 2,570 77.100 1 47.53 275 1
Deduct: Slab Top Long 10 mm 0.617 10.00 8,100 81.000 1 49.94 275 1
Deduct: Slab Top Short 10 mm 0.617 30.00 2,570 77.100 1 47.53 275 1
Stair Top
Slab Bottom Long 10 mm 0.617 20.00 13,912 278.240 1 171.54 300 1
Slab Bottom Short 10 mm 0.617 47.00 5,962 280.214 1 172.76 300 1
Slab Top Long 10 mm 0.617 20.00 13,912 278.240 1 171.54 300 1
Slab Top Short 10 mm 0.617 47.00 5,962 280.214 1 172.76 300 1
Extra Top [centre column] Long 10 mm 0.617 10.00 3,675 36.750 2 45.31 300 1
Extra Top [centre column] Short 10 mm 0.617 12.00 1,500 18.000 2 22.19 300 1
Lapping (Slab Bottom Long) 10 mm 0.617 1.00 500 0.50 20 6.17 1
Lapping (Slab Bottom Short) 10 mm 0.617 0.00 500 0.00 47 - 1
Lapping (Slab Top Long) 10 mm 0.617 1.00 500 0.50 20 6.17 1
Lapping (Slab Top Short) 10 mm 0.617 0.00 500 0.00 47 - 1
All Slabs' Reinforcement Work= 110,121.22
 148

Reinforcement Calculation: Water reservoir, Basement and Lift pit wall & slab
Location/ Description Bar Size Weight No of Bar Length Total Length Nos of Item Total Weight Rebar Spacing No. of floor
OHWT bottom slab mm kg/m Nos mm m Nos. kg mm Nos.
Slab Bottom Long 12 mm 0.888 26.00 8,062 209.612 1.00 186.09 237.5 1
Slab Bottom Short 12 mm 0.888 34.00 5,962 202.708 1.00 179.96 237.5 1
Slab Top Long 12 mm 0.888 26.00 8,062 209.612 1.00 186.09 237.5 1
Slab Top Short 12 mm 0.888 34.00 5,962 202.708 1.00 179.96 237.5 1
Extra bottom long 12 mm 0.888 25.00 2,700 67.500 1.00 59.93 237.5 1
Extra bottom Short 12 mm 0.888 34.00 2,000 68.000 1.00 60.37 237.5 1
Extra top long 12 mm 0.888 6.00 2,025 12.150 4.00 43.15 237.5 1
Extra top Short 12 mm 0.888 8.00 1,500 12.000 4.00 42.61 237.5 1
OHWT top slab
Slab Bottom Long 10 mm 0.617 20.00 8,062 161.240 1.00 99.41 300 1
Slab Bottom Short 10 mm 0.617 27.00 5,962 160.974 1.00 99.24 300 1
Slab Top Long 10 mm 0.617 20.00 8,062 161.240 1.00 99.41 300 1
Slab Top Short 10 mm 0.617 27.00 5,962 160.974 1.00 99.24 300 1

OHWT wall
Horizontal bars 10 mm 0.617 13.00 28,200 366.600 1.00 226.02 150 1
Vertical bars 12 mm 0.888 189.00 1,800 340.200 1.00 302.03 150 1
Ex.top long 0.000 13.00 0.000 1.00 0.00
Ex.top Short 0.000 189.00 0.000 1.00 0.00

UGWT wall
Horizontal bars 12 mm 0.888 17.00 17,850 303.450 1.00 269.40 200 1
Vertical bars 12 mm 0.888 120.00 3,300 396.000 1.00 351.57 150 1
Ex.top long 0.000 17.00 0.000 1.00 0.00
Ex.top Short 0.000 120.00 0.000 1.00 0.00

Basemant wall
Horizontal bars 12 mm 0.888 34.00 89,400 3,039.600 1.00 2698.54 200 1
Vertical bars 12 mm 0.888 597.00 6,600 3,940.200 1.00 3498.08 150 1
Lapping for horizontal bars 12 mm 0.888 7.00 600 4.20 34 126.78 1

Lift pit bottom slab

Slab Bottom Long 12 mm 0.888 11.00 8,062 88.682 1.00 78.73 237.5 1
Slab Bottom Short 12 mm 0.888 34.00 2,532 86.088 1.00 76.43 237.5 1
Slab Top Long 12 mm 0.888 11.00 8,062 88.682 1.00 78.73 237.5 1
Slab Top Short 12 mm 0.888 34.00 2,532 86.088 1.00 76.43 237.5 1

Lift pit side wall

Horizontal bars 12 mm 0.888 8.00 21,340 170.720 1.00 151.56 200 1
Vertical bars 12 mm 0.888 143.00 1,500 214.500 1.00 190.43 150 1
Lapping for horizontal bars 12 mm 0.888 1.00 600 0.60 8 4.26 1

All Slabs' Reinforcement Work= 9,464.45

Total Reinforcement Work= 622,561.59 653,689.67 with 5% wastage