Desktop Review: Feedback on Structural Safety (Concorde Garments Ltd FFC ID 9640)

Review Number: 1st

a. As per previously approved document by Alliance, there was a proposed shed at RCC portion
only on Roof floor/5th floor of Main building. Factory has submitted design document of roof top
shed that has been built on Roof floor/5th floor and they have claimed that this shed has been
built as per previously approved proposed shed. But it has been found in recently submitted
document that roof top shed has been built on both RCC portion & steel portion at roof level/5th
floor level of this building and RCC portion shed haven’t been built as per previously approved
drawing. Also, existing structure haven’t been checked through analysis due to extra load effect
for roof top shed on steel portion. Hence this roof top shed will be treated as vertical extension
of Main building. Revised DEA report should be prepared for whole building as per guideline
considering roof top shed of steel & RCC portion.
b. Separate structural analysis has been carried out for RCC portion & roof top steel shed portion.
But to know the lateral (Seismic & Wind) effect on roof top steel shed due to RCC portion, it is
recommended to perform the combined analysis for RCC & roof top steel shed as a single model.
Otherwise, all moment, axial & lateral force effect of roof top shed should be included in below
structure.
2 Design Report of Utility Building:
a. As per cover page of drawing, this building is Basement+3-Storied but drawings have been
provided for Basement+4-Storied.
b. As per factory declaration, currently this consists of Basement+2-Storied but 1st floor of this
building is shown as proposed floor in provided drawing. So, the current condition of this building
is not clear. Provide the as-built drawing for this building that portion has been already built and
drawing should be provided as Proposed only for that portion which will be constructed in
future. It must be cleared in drawing that which portion is already built & which portion will be
considered as Proposed. In all the cases floor occupancy should be mentioned clearly.
c. From master layout plan, it seems that there is no gap in between 3-storied steel building & 5-
storied building. But there exists a void space in between this two building. So master layout
plan should be provided for this premises as per scale.
d. Provide elevation drawing for all side of building. Door & window schedule haven’t been
provided.
e. 3 nos individual foundations are shown in drawing of MAT foundation, but details drawing
haven’t been provided for this.
f. No structural drawings have been provided for west side stair. Is this stair connected to another
building or this is the independent structure?
g. Beam widths are not presented properly in beam layout plan. Beam details have not been
provided properly as per beam layout plan. As example: check the FB2 floor beam details of 1 st
floor where size of this beam is not presented properly in respect to beam layout plan. Grid-ID

Page 1 of 3
 should be added into beam details drawing for better understanding. So, provide the floor beam
layout plan & floor beam details for all the floors properly.
h. Separate structural analysis has been carried out for RCC portion & roof top steel shed portion.
But to know the seismic effect on roof top steel shed due to RCC portion, it is recommended to
perform the combined analysis for RCC & roof top steel shed as a single model.
i. Two different analysis model have been provided for RCC portion of this building. In one model,
retaining model are not assigned and some portion 2nd floor slabs are not assigned in another
model. What is the reason behind providing two different models? It is suggested to provide one
single model which should be prepared as per drawing.
j. Rebar of C1-1st is not assigned in model as per drawing.
k. Cantilever beams are not assigned in all floors as per drawing.
l. Cantilever slab is not assigned at stair roof as per drawing.
m. 33 psf Live load have been assigned on flat roof but this roof will be used for proposed shed. So,
live load should be assigned based on this.
n. Landing beam is assigned at floor level which should be assigned as per drawing. Also, slab is
assigned at stair portion, but stair should be assigned (inclined) as per drawing.
o. Concrete test reports haven’t been provided for Column Member. Cylinder test reports are
available only for Slab & Basement. If Cylinder test reports are not available for Column, then it is
recommended to perform core test to know the concrete strength of Column member.
p. Ferro scan report have not been provided with this Design report.
q. Provide adequacy check for all type of floor beam of each individual floor. Adequacy check of one
floor beam has been provided only. Adequacy check of floor beam should be provided for
support section & mid-section of each type of floor beam where there should be provided a
comparison in between required reinforcement & provided reinforcement.
r. Adequacy check of retaining wall should be provided.
s. Provide adequacy check for all type of grade beam. No adequacy check of grade beam has been
provided. Adequacy check of grade beam should be provided for support section & mid-section
of each type of grade beam where there should be provided a comparison in between required
reinforcement & provided reinforcement.
t. 2.2 Tsf (F.S-2.5) bearing capacity of soil have been considered. Please check this capacity based
on soil test report.
u. Only analysis results have been provided but adequacy report of MAT foundation should be
provided where there should be provided a comparison in between required reinforcement &
provided reinforcement.
v. Serviceability should be checked for building.
w. No floor load plans have been provided for this building.
3 Evidence of NC list for Expansion Structure:

a. The factory needs to provide the evidence for each question as per attached NC list. It is
requested to factory to use the attached format where F, G & H column of attached excel needs
to be filled by factory for each question. Multiple evidence should be provided where required
and, in that case, factory may provide evidence via google drive link/other link & provide the link
in excel file. Evidence should be provided in a way so that all expansion structures are covered
through this document.

Page 2 of 3
4 Load Management Document:

a. Load management documents of Main building have been provided for almost all day of Aug’
2021 to Oct’ 2021. But all floors are not included into load management document. Total
occupancy area has been considered for calculating load capacity where span area/panel area
should be considered for calculating load capacity of occupancy wise. Load management
program should be maintained for all occupancy of all floors of building. Load management
program should be maintained daily at storage location, and it should be once in every 2 days
(minimum) for other operations. Span area/panel area should be considered for calculating live
load of section wise. Load can be calculated for maximum loaded panel of each occupancy area
in load management document. Checking of permissible height limit is not included into load
management document for storage area.
b. No load management have been provided for utility building. Load management program should
be maintained for all occupancy of all floors of building. Load management program should be
maintained daily at storage location, and it should be once in every 2 days (minimum) for other
operations. Span area/panel area should be considered for calculating live load of section wise.
Load can be calculated for maximum loaded panel of each occupancy area in load management
document. Checking of permissible height limit should be included into load management
document for storage area.
c. Provide load management document of last 10-15 days (at least) for Main Building & Utility
Building.

Page 3 of 3