SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT BY SIDEWALK SURVEY AND A STUDY ON GROUND SUPPORTED SLAB USING SOFTWARE STAAD - Pro

SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT BY SIDEWALK SURVEY
AND
A STUDY ON GROUND SUPPORTED SLAB USING
SOFTWARE STAAD.Pro
SUBMITTED BY
Md. Arman Zaman (060203010)
Md. Shamsul Arefin Khan (060203014)
Prosenjit Paul (060203037)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
AHSANULLAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

141-142 LOVE ROAD, TEJGAON INDUSRIAL AREA, DHAKA 1208
OCTOBER 2010
AND
A STUDY ON GROUND SUPPORTED SLAB USING
SOFTWARE STAAD.Pro
SUBMITTED BY
Md. Arman Zaman (060203010)
Md. Shamsul Arefin Khan (060203014)
Prosenjit Paul (060203037)
COURSE: CE-450
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING IN

PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR SCIENCE IN CIVIL
ENGINEERING
AHSANULLAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

141-142 LOVE ROAD, TEJGAON INDUSTRIAL AREA, DHAKA 1208
OCTOBER 2010
I
APPROVED AS TO STYLE AND CONTENT BY
____________________________
Dr. Md. Mahmudur Rahman

Associate Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
Ahsanullah University of science & technology
II
DECLARATION
Declared that except specified by reference to other works, the studies embodied in thesis is the results
of investigation carried by the authors either the thesis nor any part has been submitted to or is being
submitted elsewhere for any other purposes.
Signature of the student

OCTOBER 2010
Md. Arman Zaman
Md. Shamsul Arefin Khan
Prosenjit Paul
III
TABLE OF CONTENT
LIST OF FIGURE
LIST OF TABLE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
ABSTRACT
PART 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION 2
1.1.1 General 3
1.1.2 Status of Earthquakes in Bangladesh 6
1.1.3 Objective & Scope of Study 8
CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND LITERATURE 9
1.2.1 Introduction 10
1.2.2 Chronology 11
1.2.3 Review of previous works 13
IV
CHAPTER 3
CONCEPT OF EARTHQUAKE ASSESSMENT & METHODOLOGY 15
1.3.2 Parameters 16
1.3.3 Assessment of Available Methods 21
1.3.4 Statistical Analysis 21
1.3.5 Variation of building performance with PGV 22
1.3.6 Intensity dependent expected scores 24
CHAPTER 4
RESULT 26
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION 41
V
PART -2
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF GROUND SUPPORTED SLAB BY STAAD.Pro
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION 44
2.1.1 Definition 45
2.1.2 Installing slabs on ground 46
2.1.3 Failure of ground supported slabs 46
2.1.4 Shrinkage and temperature effects 47
2.1.5 “Difficulties to obtain economical, serviceable concrete floor.” 48
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW 52
2.2.2 Finite-element method 54
2.2.3 Construction document information 54
2.2.4 Slab-on-ground design criteria 55
2.2.5 Definitions 56
VI
CHAPTER 3
CONCEPT AND METHODOLOGY 58
2.3.2 Methodology 60
CHAPTER 4
RESULT AND DISCISSION 63
2.4.1 Result 64
2.4.2 Discussion 118
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION 119
VII
LIST OF FIGURE
Figure No. Name of Figure
Figure 1.1.1 Buildings of Old Dhaka

Figure 1.1.4 Earthquake zone of Bangladesh
Figure 1.2.1 Earthquake Hazard Zoning Map of Dhaka Megacity
Figure 1.3.4 Spectral variation of mean plastic deformations in Groups I and IV with R.
Figure 1.3.5 Variation in mean plastic deformation of Group II ground motions for different
Rvalues and the first-order polynomial fits.
Figure 2.1.1 Slab-on-ground
Figure 2.1.2 Cross-Section of Slab-on-ground
Figure 2.2.1 Slab support system terminology
Figure 2.4.1 Displacement of 15-15 ft slab for corner load
Figure 2.4.2 Deflection Curve along edge (outside) of slab (15-15) due to Corner load + Self-
Weight
Figure 2.4.3 Deflection Curve along very next to edge of slab (15-15) due to Corner load + Self-
Weight
Figure 2.4.4 Displacement of 15-15 ft slab for edge loading
Figure 2.4.5 Deflection Curve along edge (outside) of slab (15-15) due to Edge load + Self-Weight
Figure 2.4.6 Deflection Curve along very next to edge of slab (15-15) due to Edge loadings + Self-
Weight
Figure 2.4.7 Displacement of 15-15 ft slab for center loading
Figure 2.4.8 Deflection Curve along the nodes next to center of slab (15-15) due to Corner loadings
+ Self-Weight
Figure 2.4.9 Deflection Curve along the nods next to center of slab (15-15) due to Corner loadings
+ Self-Weight
Figure 2.4.10 Plate Stress Contour Due To Bending Moment
Figure 2.4.11 Bending Moment Curve along the edge of slab Due to Corner + Self-Weight
Figure 2.4.12 Variation of Top and Bottom Stress along the edge of slab
VIII
Figure 2.4.14 Bending Moment Curve along the edge of slab Due to Edge + Self-Weight
Figure 2.4.17 Bending Moment Curve along the nodes next to the center of slab Due to Corner +
Self-Weight
Figure 2.4.19 Displacement of 20-20 ft slab for corner loading
Figure 2.4.20 Deflection Curve along edge (outside) of slab (20-20) due to Corner loading + Self-
Weight
Figure 2.4.21 Deflection Curve along very next to edge of slab (20-20) due to Corner loading + Self-
Weight
Figure 2.4.23 Deflection Curve along edge (outside) of slab (20-20) due to Edge loading + Self-
Weight
Weight
+ Self-Weight
+ Self-Weight
Self-Weight
Figure 2.4.37 Displacement of 25-25 ft slab for corner loading
Figure 2.4.38 Deflection Curve along edge (outside) of slab (25-25) due to Corner loading + Self-
Weight
Figure 2.4.39 Deflection Curve along very next to edge of slab (25-25) due to Corner loading + Self-
Weight
Figure 2.4.41 Deflection Curve along edge (outside) of slab (25-25) due to Edge loading + Self-
Weight
Weight
IX
+ Self-Weight
+ Self-Weight
Self-Weight
X
List of Tables
Table No. Name of Table

Table 1.2.1 Chronology of important earthquakes from 1548
Table 1.3.1 Observed Performance score
Table 1.3.2 Calculated performance-modification factors
Table 1.3.3 Initial performance scores
Table 1.4.1 The value of the coefficient
Table 1.4.2 Calculated EPS value and comment (Buet Teachers Quarter)
Table 1.4.3 Calculated EPS value and comment (Buet Staff Quarter)
Table 1.4.4 Calculated EPS value and comment (Bakshi Bazar - Urdu Road)
Table 1.4.5 Calculated EPS value and comment (Khaja Dayan 1st Lane)
Table 1.4.6 Calculated EPS value and comment (Chalk Bazar Azgor Lane)
Table 1.4.7 Calculated EPS value and comment (Hosni Dalan)
Table 1.4.8 Calculated EPS value and comment (Ajimpur Colony)
Table 1.4.9 Calculated EPS value and comment (Hori Dash Lane)
Table 2.1.1 Cracking Of the Slab
Table 2.1.2 Damp or wet floor slab, excessive humidity
Table 2.1.3 Cold floors
Table 2.4.1 Node displacement (15-15) for Corner + Self weight
Table 2.4.2 Node displacement (15-15) for Edge + Self Weight
Table 2.4.3 Node displacement (15-15) for Center + Self Weight
Table 2.4.4 Plate Centre Principal Stresses and Bending Moment for Corner + Self weight (15-15)
Table 2.4.5 Plate Centre Principal Stresses and Bending Moment Edge + Self Weight (15-15)
Table 2.4.6 Plate Centre Principal Stresses and Bending Moment Center + Self Weight (15-15)
XI
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We desire to express our heartiest gratitude to Dr. Md. Mahmudur Rahman, Assistant
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering of Ahsanullah University of Science and
Technology and Supervisor of this Thesis. We faced many problems while going through this
assignment. We should also express our convivial gratitude to him, for all support and
encouragement. He also guided us all the way and helped us to accomplish our aspiration. His
unstinting efforts on our behalf are worth mentioning. We are certainly indebted for his precious
insights. Those proved more than enough to overcome the difficulties.
The authors would like to express deep regards to Professor Dr. Abdul Halim, Head of
Department of Civil Engineering, and AUST for providing a nice environment and for helping to
complete this research work.
We politely remember Late Prof. Dr. A. M. Shadulla for his encouragement and support
in completing the work.
We also express our regards and warm gratefulness to all of our teachers of Ahsanullah
University of Science and Technology, for their valuable advice and facilitate.
We would like to acknowledge and thank our parents, too who helped us to learn we
knew nothing.
At last, we affectionately appreciate all of friends for their cordial helps thorough out the
year.
XII
Abstract
The research study performed here aims at estimation of vulnerability of urban buildings
under seismic load during earthquake. The vulnerability is estimated by calculating a
performance score for building by a method called “Sidewalk Survey”. The method followed
here is according to the screening method developed by the Middle East Technical University,
Turkey. It is an effective step for seismic risk mitigation in large urban areas.
This survey aims a fast and simple seismic risk assessment procedure for vulnerable
buildings. The procedure is based on observing selected buildings’ parameters such as soft story,
overhangs, building qualities, presence of short columns etc. from street side and estimating
expected performance score known as EPS.
This “Estimated Performance Score” (EPS) denotes the vulnerability of buildings during
earthquake. The identification of such buildings by evaluating their EPS value can reduce the
seismic risk either by retrofitting or by replacing those buildings, the hazards of earthquake can
be minimized.
Most of the existing evaluation methods refer to a single building, rather than a whole
area. However, this method of sidewalk survey estimates the earthquake risk assessment for the
buildings of a given area. The reliability of these methods differ considerably, from limited
reliability of the simple statistical and rapid screening methods, to the most reliable methods that
are based on detailed analytical procedures that may evaluate the mechanical behavior of the
structural system under consideration, but require an enormous amount of data, that is commonly
not available, and take much time in their processing.
Here the survey is done in the area of “Old Dhaka”. The method of Sidewalk Survey is
followed here. The survey is a visual observation of the parameters of the buildings from the
roadside. A peak ground velocity (PGV) value for this area is chosen. Then the value of EPS is
calculated using various vulnerability co-efficient.
The thesis paper also includes another study, which is concerned with the analysis of
behavior of the slab on grade under various loading condition. Here concentrated loads on the
slab at three different positions are taken into account. The positions considered are – at the
centre, at the corner and at the edge of the slab. The analysis is done by using the software-
STAAD.Pro.
XIII
The thesis aims to graphical analysis the behavior of the slab. The graphs are constructed
with the results for different loading condition, obtained from the analysis by STAAD.Pro. The
graph shows the critical point of a slab for a specific loading as well as the other points
respectively.
Failures of concrete slab on grade are frequent. Cracks may be caused from unequal settlement.
The critical point on the graph shows the most vulnerable location for loadings. This thesis study
treats these points and analyzes the behavior of the slab.
XIV
PART -1
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
2
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1.1 General
Earthquakes originate due to various reasons, which fall into two major categories viz
non-tectonic and tectonic. The origin of tectonic earthquakes is explained with the help of
‘elastic rebound theory'. Earthquakes are distributed unevenly on the globe. However, it has
been observed that most of the destructive earthquakes originate within two well-defined
zones or belts namely, 'the circum-Pacific belt' and 'the Mediterranean-Himalayan seismic belt'.
Although Bangladesh is extremely vulnerable to seismic activity, the nature and the level
of this activity is yet to be defined. In Bangladesh, complete earthquake monitoring facilities are
not available. The Meteorological Department of Bangladesh established a seismic observatory
at Chittagong in 1954. This remains the only observatory in the country.
The classical engineering approach for providing seismic safety in building structures is
to ensure their conformance to the current seismic design codes. This is indeed a valid approach
for new buildings. However, the majority of the existing buildings in seismic regions do not
satisfy modern code requirements. Yet, the ratio of severely dam- aged or collapsed buildings
observed after a severe earthquake is much less than the ratio of substandard buildings. The
difference is usually significant.
An effective step for seismic risk mitigation in large urban areas under high seismic risk
is to identify the most vulnerable buildings that may sustain significant damage during a future
earthquake. Once they are identified properly, existing seismic risks may be reduced either by
retrofitting such buildings, or by replacing them with new buildings in view of a particular risk-
mitigation planning strategy.
It is basically a sidewalk survey procedure based on observing selected building

parameters from the street side, and calculating a performance score for determining the
risk priorities for buildings.
Several studies have been made on buildings of Dhaka City. Most of its residential
buildings, as is quite typical all over Dhaka, were built during the last 100 years. There are some
5000 low to moderate height (up to 2-8 stories) residential buildings in Old Dhaka. In the first
stage of the research, a group of buildings was arbitrarily selected in order to implement the
methodology's procedures and then conduct site visits in order to document and compare the real
data with the predicted data. Comparisons were done between the estimated values established
according to the present methodology and the real values of the examined buildings. The
3
following parameters were compared: the number of dwelling units per typical floor, the number
of expansion joints and the number of stories in the building. The comparison shows good
predictions, with a limited number of discrepancies, which are related to several reasons among
which are:
Figure: 1.1.1 Building of Old Dhaka
uncommon distance between expansion joints in one building, mistaken data in the basic
GIS database regarding the height of the building in another building, and in another building we
found out that retrofit of the building was carried out long after its construction and added a new
wing thus adding significantly to the dwelling unit area. These discrepancies cannot be predicted,
however they are exceptional compared to a very good correspondence of all other examined
buildings.
There are various methods followed for estimating the seismic risk. The sidewalk survey
is the most relative for this research. The buildings of Old Dhaka are examined by visual
observation, which includes observation of the parameters like as soft storey, heavy overhangs
and apparent building quality.
4
There are various methods followed for estimating the seismic risk. The sidewalk survey
is the most relative for this research. The buildings of Old Dhaka are examined by visual
observation, which includes observation of the parameters like as soft storey, heavy overhangs
and apparent building quality.
5
1.1.2 Status of Earthquakes in Bangladesh:
Bangladesh is surrounded by the regions of high seismicity which include the Himalayan
Arc and SHILLONG PLATEAU in the north, the Burmese Arc, Arakan Yoma anticlinoria
in the east and complex Naga-Disang-Jaflong thrust zones in the northeast. It is also the site of
the Dauki Fault system along with numerous subsurface active faults and a flexure zone called
Hinge Zone. These weak regions are believed to provide the necessary zones for movements
within the basin area.
Figure: 1.1.4 Earthquake zone of Bangladesh
In the generalized tectonic map of Bangladesh, the distribution of epicenters is found to

be linear along the Dauki Fault system and random in other regions of Bangladesh. The
investigation of the map demonstrates that the epicenters are lying in the weak zones comprising
surface or subsurface faults. Most of the events are of moderate rank (magnitude 4-6) and lie at a
shallow depth, which suggests that the recent movements occurred in the Sediments overlying
the basement rocks. In the northeastern region (SURMA BASIN), major events are controlled by
the Dauki Fault system. The events located in and around the MADHUPUR TRACT indicate
shallow displacement in the faults separating the block from the ALLUVIUM.
The first seismic zoning map of the subcontinent was compiled by the Geological Survey
of India in 1935. The Bangladesh Meteorological Department adopted a seismic zoning map in
1972. In 1977, the Government of Bangladesh constituted a Committee of Experts to examine
the seismic problem and make appropriate recommendations. The Committee proposed a
zoning map of Bangladesh in the same year.
6
In the zoning map, Bangladesh has been divided into three generalized seismic zones:
zone-zone-II, zone-III and I. Zone-I compressing the northern and eastern regions of
Bangladesh with the presence of the Dauki Fault system of eastern Sylhet and the deep
seated Sylhet Fault, and proximity to the highly disturbed southeastern Assam region with
7
the Jaflong thrust, Naga thrust and Disang thrust, is a zone of high seismic risk with a basic
seismic co-efficient of 0.08. Northern Bangladesh comprising greater Rangpur and Dinajpur
districts is also a region of high seismicity because of the presence of the Jamuna Fault and the
proximity to the active east-west running fault and the Main Boundary Fault to the north in India.
The Chittagong-Tripura Folded Belt experiences frequent earthquakes, as just to its east is the
Burmese Arc where a large number of shallow depth earthquakes originate. Zone-II comprising
the central part of Bangladesh represents the regions of recent uplifted Pleistocene blocks of the
Barind and Madhupur Tracts, and the western extension of the folded belt. The Zone-III
comprising the southwestern part of Bangladesh is seismically quiet, with an estimated basic
seismic co-efficient of 0.04.
1.1.3 Objective& Scope of Study

The scopes are expanding, fragility functions pertain to a group of buildings in the whole
area of Old Dhaka rather than a specific building. The scope of the study presented herein
extends one-step further: several selected parameters are evaluated simultaneously to obtain a
performance score for each building. This score separates each building from the other buildings
in the inventory in risk classification. As a result, the vulnerability of a building is identified. A
mitigation of earthquake risk or damages is possible then. The study is a prediction of the
vulnerable buildings.
8
CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND LITERATURE
9
CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND LITERATURE
1.2.1 Introduction
Earthquake is trembling or shaking movement of the earth's surface. Most earthquakes
are minor tremors, while larger earthquakes usually begin with slight tremors, rapidly take the
form of one or more violent shocks, and end in vibrations of gradually diminishing force
called aftershocks. Earthquake is a form of energy of wave motion, which originates in a
limited region and then spreads out in all directions from the source of disturbance. It
usually lasts for a few seconds to a minute. The point within the earth where earthquake
waves originate is called the focus, from where the vibrations spread in all directions.
They reach the surface first at the point immediately above the focus and this point is called the
epicenter. It is at the epicenter where the shock of the earthquake is first experienced. Based on
the depth of focus, an earthquake may be termed as shallow focus (0-70 km), intermediate focus
(70-300 km), and deep focus (> 300 km). The most common measure of earthquake size is the
Richter’s magnitude (M). The Richter scale uses the maximum surface wave amplitude in
the seismogram and the difference in the arrival times of primary (P) and secondary (S)
waves for determining magnitude (M). The magnitude is related to roughly logarithm of
energy, E in ergs.
Accurate historical information on earthquakes is very important in evaluating the

seismicity of Bangladesh in close coincidences with the geotectonic elements. Information on
earthquakes in and around Bangladesh is available for the last 250 years. The earthquake
record suggests that since 1900 more than 100 moderate to large earthquakes occurred in
Bangladesh, out of which more than 65 events occurred after 1960. This brings to light
an increased frequency of earthquakes in the last 30 years. This increase in earthquake
activity is an indication of fresh tectonic activity or propagation of fractures from the adjacent
SEISMIC Zones.
10
1.2.2 Chronology
Before the coming of the Europeans, there was no definite record of earthquakes.
Following is a chronology of important earthquakes from 1548.
Table 1.2.1 Chronology of important earthquakes from 1548
1548 The first recorded earthquake was a terrible one. Sylhet and Chittagong were violently
Shaken, the earth opened in many places and threw up water and mud of a sulphurous
smell.
1642 More severe damage occurred in Sylhet district. Buildings were cracked but there was no
Loss of life.
1663 Severe earthquake in ASSAM, which continued for half an hour and Sylhet district was
not free from its shock.
1762 The great earthquake of April 2, which raised the coast of Foul island by 2.74m and the
northwest coast of Chedua island by 6.71m above sea level and also caused a permanent
submergence of 155.40 sq km near Chittagong. The earthquake proved very violent in
Dhaka and along the eastern bank of the MEGHNA as far as Chittagong. In Dhaka 500
persons lost their lives, the Rivers and JHEELs were agitated and raised high above their
usual levels and when they receded, their banks were strewn with dead fish. A large river
dried up, a tract of land sank and 200 people with all their CATTLE were lost. Two
volcanoes were said to have opened in the Sitakunda hills.
1775 Severe earthquake in Dhaka around April 10, but no loss of life.
1812 Severe earthquake in many places of Bangladesh around May 11. The earthquake
proved violent in Sylhet.
1865 Terrible shock was felt, during the second earthquake occurred in the winter of 1865,
although no serious damage occurred.
1869 Known as Cachar Earthquake. Severely felt in Sylhet but no loss of life. The steeple of
the church was shattered, the walls of the courthouse and the circuit bungalow cracked
and in the eastern part of the district the banks of many rivers caved in.
1885 Known as the Bengal Earthquake. Occurred on 14 July with 7.0 magnitude and the
epicenter was at Manikganj. This event was generally associated with the deep-seated
Jamuna Fault.
1889 Occurred on 10 January with 7.5 magnitudes and the epicenter at Jaintia Hills. It affected
Sylhet town and surrounding areas.
11
1897 Known as the Great India Earthquake with a magnitude of 8.7 and epicenter at Shillong
Plateau. The great earthquake occurred on 12 June at 5.15 pm, caused serious damage to
masonry buildings in Sylhet town where the death toll rose to 545. This was due to the
collapse of the masonry buildings. The tremor was felt throughout Bengal, from the
south Lushai Hills on the east to Shahbad on the west. In Mymensingh, many public
buildings of the district town, including the Justice House, were wrecked and very few of
the two-storied brick-built houses belonging to ZAMINDARs survived. Heavy damage
was done to the bridges on the Dhaka-Mymensingh railway and traffic was suspended
for about a fortnight. The river communication of the district was seriously affected
(BRAHMAPUTRA). Loss of life was not great, but loss of property was estimated at
five million Rupees. Rajshahi suffered severe shocks, especially on the eastern side, and
15 persons died. In Dhaka, damage to property was heavy. In Tippera, masonry buildings
and old temples suffered a lot and the total damage was estimated at Rs 9,000.
1918 Known as the Srimangal Earthquake. Occurred on 18 July with a magnitude of 7.6 and
epicenter at Srimangal, Maulvi Bazar. Intense damage occurred in Srimangal, but in
Dhaka only minor effects were observed.
1930 Known as the Dhubri Earthquake. Occurred on 3 July with a magnitude of 7.1 and the
epicenter at Dhubri, Assam. The earthquake caused major damage in the eastern parts of
Rangpur district.
1934 Known as the Bihar-Nepal Earthquake. Occurred on 15 January with a magnitude of 8.3
and the epicenter at Darbhanga of Bihar, India. The earthquake caused great damage in
Bihar, Nepal and Uttar Pradesh but did not affect any part of Bangladesh.
Another earthquake occurred on 3 July with a magnitude of 7.1 and the epicenter at
Dhubri of Assam, India. The earthquake caused considerable damages in greater
Rangpur district of Bangladesh.
1950 Known as the Assam Earthquake. Occurred on 15 August with a magnitude of 8.4 with
the epicenter in Assam, India. The tremor was felt throughout Bangladesh but no damage
was reported.
1997 Occurred on 22 November in Chittagong with a magnitude of 6.0. It caused minor
damage around Chittagong town.
1999 Occurred on 22 July at Maheshkhali Island with the epicenter in the same place, a
magnitude of 5.2. Severely felt around Maheshkhali island and the adjoining SEA.
Houses cracked and in some cases collapsed.
2003 Occurred on 27 July at Kolabunia union of Barkal upazila, Rangamati district with
magnitude 5.1. The time was at 05:17:26.8 hours.
12
1.2.3 Review of previous works
Saidur Rahman (Director of Bangladesh Disaster Preparedness Centre)
A world famous seismologist Professor Billham said in 2001 that in the Himalayan
region, at least seven earthquakes of the strength 8.1 and above on the Richter scale are overdue.
A team of experts led by him did a survey, they identified seven to eight risk prone countries,
and Bangladesh is obviously one of them because of its geographical location. Secondly, a study
by a UN sponsored program called International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction in the
period from 1991 till 2000 surveyed at least 30 different cities. In addition, the findings of the
survey are very threatening to us. They are saying that the two most vulnerable cities to
earthquake are Tehran and Dhaka. There were several factors to come to this conclusion. For
example situation in an earthquake zone, physical infrastructure, socio-economic condition of the
people living there and most importantly response management.
Dr M Shahidul Islam (Professor, Department of Geography, University of Chittagong)
Potential earthquake threat and our coping strategies
Although earthquake in Bangladesh has not yet been recognized as a case of serious
natural disaster, but recent occurrences and assumptions have already generated a potential
threat. The incidents of recent repeated earthquakes on 27 July in Chittagong have raised a great
concern among the people of the country, particularly among those around Chittagong region.
Geographically Bangladesh is located close to the boundary of two active plates: the
Indian plate in the west and the Eurasian plate in the east and north. As a result, the country is
always under a potential threat of earthquake of any magnitude at any time, which might cause
catastrophic devastation in less than a minute. In the seismic zoning map of Bangladesh,
Chittagong region has been shown under Zone II with basic seismic coefficient of 0.05, but
recent repeated jerk around this region indicate the possibilities of potential threat of even much
higher intensity than projected.
13
Figure 1.2.1: Earthquake Hazard Zoning Map of Dhaka Megacity
14
CHAPTER 3
CONCEPT OF EARTHQUAKE ASSESSMENT &
METHODOLOGY
15
CHAPTER 3
CONCEPT OF EARTHQUAKE ASSESSMENT &
METHODOLOGY
1.3.1 Introduction
Recent earthquakes in urban environments revealed that building damage increases with
the number of stories when the building lacks basic seismic-resistant design features. Other
factors that have significant contribution to damage are also well established. These are the
presence of severe irregularities such as soft stories and heavy overhangs; other discontinuities in
load paths; poor material quality, detailing, and workmanship. It is usually difficult to quantify
the sensitivity of damage to each parameter analytically; however, statistics help. Fragility
functions may be developed for determining damage probabilities, hence for estimating losses in
certain building types under given ground-motion intensities.
The proposed approach aims at developing of a rapid GIS based technique for assessing
the structural systems of a large inventory of residential buildings, where only limited data is
available. There is need for much more data in order to come up with the "most likely" structural
scheme of a building that will enable its analysis, and this data is derived from logical procedures
that are based on several databases. The proposed methodology makes an attempt to produce the
information from a "distance", namely without the need to search for the buildings documents, or
conduct site visits to check and document the buildings, or perform any measurements or tests
whatsoever. The entire work is done in the office by a computerized set of algorithms, with
automatic decisions based on pre-defined rules, at a very short time and with minimal time
resources compared to all other alternatives.
1.3.2 Parameters
Some of the important stated parameters that influence damage significantly can be
determined quite easily by visual observation. The simplest ones are the number of stories, soft
stories, heavy overhangs, and the overall apparent quality of the building reflecting the quality of
construction. These are discussed separately below
 Number of stories
 Presence of soft story
 Presence of heavy overhangs
 Apparent building quality
16
 Presence of short columns
 Pounding between adjacent buildings
 Local soil conditions
 Topographic effects
1.3.2.1 Number of Stories
Field observations of earthquakes revealed a very significant correlation between the

number of unrestrained stories and the severity of building damage. If all buildings conformed to
modern seismic design codes, then such a distribution would not occur and a uniform
distribution of damage would be expected regardless of the number of stories. The increase in
seismic demand with the number of stories is not balanced with the increase in seismic capacity
in substandard buildings.
Figure: 1.3.1 A High Storied Building of Old Dhaka
It can be observed that damage grades shift almost linearly with the number of stories.
However, the objectivity of the assigned damage grades is questionable since the distributions
17
indicate higher damage than that observed by the field survey teams deployed by the Middle East
Technical University. Particularly, assignment of moderate and higher damage grades to all five-
and six-story buildings is misleading. The number of freestanding stories in a building is
identified as the number of “seismic” stories in this study. The number of stories is counted on an
observational basis.
1.3.2.2 Presence of a Soft Story
Soft stories usually exist in buildings when the ground story has less stiffness and
strength compared to upper stories. This situation mostly arises in buildings located along the
side of a main street. Ground stories that have level access from the street are reserved as
commercial space whereas residences occupy the upper stories. These upper stories benefit from
the additional stiffness and strength provided by many partition walls, but the commercial space
at the bottom is mostly left open between the frame members for customer circulation. Besides,
the ground stories may have taller clearances and different axis systems, causing further
irregularity. The compound effect of all these negative features from the earthquake-engineering
perspective is identified as a soft story.
18
Figure: 1.3.3 Buildings of Old Dhaka
During street surveys, the presence of a soft story is evaluated on an observational basis,
where the answer is either yes or no.
1.3.2.3 Presence of Heavy Overhangs
Heavy balconies and overhanging floors in multistory reinforced concrete buildings shift
the mass center upwards; accordingly increase seismic lateral forces and overturning moments
during earthquakes. Buildings having balconies with large overhanging cantilever spans enclosed
with heavy concrete parapets sustained heavier damages during earthquakes compared to regular
buildings in elevation. Since this building feature can easily be observed during the Sidewalk
Survey, it is included in the parameter set.
1.3.2.4 Apparent Building Quality
The material and workmanship quality, and the care given to its maintenance reflect the
apparent quality of a building. The buildings apparent quality roughly observed as good,
moderate or poor. A close relationship had been observed between the apparent quality and
19
experienced damage during the recent earthquakes. A building with poor apparent quality can be
expected to possess weak material strengths and inadequate detailing.
1.3.2.5 Presence of Short Columns
Semi-in filled frames, band windows at the semi-buried basements or mid-story beams
around stairway shafts lead to the formation of short columns in concrete buildings. These
captive columns usually sustain heavy damage during strong earthquakes since they are not
originally designed to receive the high shear forces relevant to their shortened lengths. Short
columns can be identified from outside because they usually form along the exterior axes.
1.3.2.6 Pounding between Adjacent Buildings
When there is no sufficient clearance between adjacent buildings, they pound each other
during an earthquake as a result of different vibration periods and consequent non-synchronized
vibration amplitudes. Uneven floor levels aggravate the effect of pounding. Buildings subjected
to pounding receive heavier damages at the higher stories.
1.3.2.7 Local Soil Conditions
Site amplification is one of the major factors that increase the intensity of ground
motions. Although it is difficult to obtain precise data during a street survey, an expert observer
can be able to classify the local soils as stiff or soft. In urban environments, geotechnical data
provided by local authorities is a reliable source for classifying the local soil conditions.
1.3.2.8 Topographic Effects
Topographic amplification is another factor that may increase the ground motion
intensity on top of hills. Besides, buildings located on steep slopes (steeper than 30 degrees)
usually have stopped foundations, which are incapable of distributing the ground distortions
evenly to structural members above. Therefore, these two factors must be taken into account in
seismic risk assessment. Both factors can be observed easily during a street survey.
20
1.3.3 Assessment of Available Methods
Most of the existing evaluation methods refer to a single building, among which we may
find: methods that a rebased on statistics of past EQ damage records (Whitman, 1974), methods
that are based on experts subjective opinion (ATC-13, 1985. FEMA 178, 1992. EMS 1998)
methods that are based on score assignments of predefined checklists exposing structural
deficiencies that do not contain even elementary engineering calculations (FEMA 154/5, 1998.
NRC-CNRC, 1996. NZSEE, 1996. I. S 2413, 2003), simple analytical methods to simulate
buildings response that are essentially simple approximate solutions that must rely on a few
parameters (ATC-14, 1987. Calvi, 1999. Priestley, 2003) and detailed analytical procedures
(ASCE 41-06, 2007) which are more accurate but require much data and are time-consuming.
The reliability of these methods differ considerably, from limited reliability of the simple
statistical and rapid screening methods, to the most reliable methods that are based on detailed
analytical procedures that may evaluate the mechanical behavior of the structural system under
consideration, but require an enormous amount of data, that is commonly not available, and take
much time in their processing.
The Sidewalk Survey differs from these methods. It requires few parameters. These
parameters can be observed from the exterior side of the buildings. Specially four parameters
includes soft storey, heavy overhangs, no. of stories, apparent quality are used in this survey. The
vulnerability of buildings is identified by a performance score. The EPS value is estimated from
a mathematical relation between the parameters, vulnerability co-efficient and the PGV value.
The PGV value is specially chosen for the survey area Old Dhaka. This EPS value estimates the
vulnerability of buildings for earthquake.
1.3.4 Statistical Analysis

The objective of statistical analysis is to develop a performance score for prioritizing the
buildings in an urban area, based on a set of vulnerability indicators that can be observed visually
through a street survey. Multiple linear regression analysis is employed for developing a mean-
value function that returns the expected value of the performance score.
21
1.3.5 Variation of Building Performance with PGV
The seismic performance of a structure subjected to severe ground motion can be
measured by the observed structural damage. The maximum post-yield deformation (plastic
deformation) experienced by a structure during severe earthquake ground motion can be
accepted as one of the major contributors to structural damage. Hence, it can be accepted as a
suitable performance parameter in quantifying the damage, as it is zero when the structure
behaves in its elastic limits and takes larger values as the structure deforms beyond its yielding
level.
Nonlinear response history analyses of SDOF systems are performed using the strong
ground-motion data described in the preceding section. The inelastic behavior is simulated by the
elastoplastic hysteretic model. At a given period of vibration, the maximum plastic deformation,
Ap, of an SDOF system is computed for a lateral elastic strength demand that is normalized by
the corresponding lateral yield strength value.
Figure: 1.3.4 Spectral variation of mean plastic deformations in Groups I and IV with R.
This normalized lateral strength parameter is known as the strength reduction factor R.
The maximum plastic SDOF deformations computed in this way correspond to plastic
deformation spectra for constant strength. A total of six R values (1.5, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0)
are used in these computations.
Figure 1.3.4 presents the variation in mean ∆p values with respect to the period of
vibration and R factor for ground-motion data Groups I and IV. Comparison of curves for
Groups I and IV indicates the sensitivity of plastic deformations to PGV. The curves in
Figure1.3.4 also show the changes in mean plastic deformation trend with respect to the strength
reduction factor R. The mean plastic deformation values obtained for the ground motions with
larger PGV exhibit a stronger sensitivity to the R factor.
22
Figure 1.3.5 shows a close-up view of mean plastic deformation variation in Group II
ground motions for periods of vibration between 0.1 and 1.0 s. The mean plastic deformation
values follow an almost well defined, linear trend with respect to the R factors. The first-order
polynomial fits computed for each R value are also shown in Figure 1.3.5. Similar to the fits
presented in Figure 1.3.5, mean plastic deformation curves of other ground-motion groups are
represented by linear straight lines for periods of vibration between 0.1 and 1.0 s, and these fits
yielded very high correlation coefficients with respect to the actual data trend. It should be noted
that the period interval from 0.1 to 1.0 s contains a significantly large percentage of existing
building stock.
Table 1.3.1 Observed Performance score
Observation of strong correlation between PGV and plastic deformation demands on

structural systems, together with the observed linear trend in mean plastic deformations with
period can be combined to derive a simplified approach for performance modification. Taking
Group I mean plastic deformations as a base, one can compute the mean structural performance
modification factors (PM) for the other ground-motion groups. Figure 11 shows the results of
such computations for Groups III and IV by using the linear curves fitted on the exact mean
plastic deformation data for periods of vibration between 0.1 and 1.0 s.
Figure: 1.3.5 Variation in mean plastic deformation of Group II ground motions for
different Rvalues and the first-order polynomial fits.
23
These graphics exhibit weaker strength dependency and stronger period dependency of
the plastic deformation (damage) ratios. This dependency increases with increasing PGV
Performance modification factors are calculated and similar graphical information for
representative buildings.
This reference period approximately corresponds to the secant stiffness at 60% of the
yielding strength of the structure and is recommended for seismic performance-assessment
procedures based on structural deformation. The strength reduction factors are selected as three
for all representative buildings, which is thought to be reasonable for low- and medium-rise
substandard concrete buildings. It also has to be noted that the variation of PM with R is very
slow for periods longer than 0.4 seconds. Effective periods for three-to six-story concrete
buildings fall into this range. The calculated performance-modification factors are presented in
Table 1.3.2.
Table: 1.3.2 Calculated performance-modification factors
1.3.6 Intensity-Dependent Expected Performance Score

The β values given in Table 1.3.2 were calculated. Therefore, the values in Table 1.3.2
represent the 60<PGV<80 cm/ s intensity range. It is decided to keep the regression coefficients
βSS, βAQ, and βHO for the vulnerability indicators in Table 1.3.2 the same. A building with an
“average” vulnerability is selected ﬁrst from each story group. Such an average building has a
moderate apparent quality (aq=0) and a median vulnerability concerning the presence of a soft
story (ss=−1/2) and heavy overhangs (ho=−1/2). Accordingly, the expected performance score is
calculated for each average building using Table 1.3.2 finally, the initial performance scores are
recalculated from the modiﬁed expected-performance scores.
24
The results are presented in Table 1.3.3. The co-efficient are rounded to integers for
simplicity.
Table: 1.3.3 Initial performance scores
25
CHAPTER 4
RESULT
26
CHAPTER 4
RESULT
Some sample calculations are done here and the results for the buildings of the area are
shown in the chart. The value of peck ground velocity (PGV) is chosen within 60< PGV<80 for
the area of Old Dhaka. The value of vulnerability co-efficient such as βSS, βAQ, βHO for each
building are assigned from the following chart. Based on these parameters the value of Expected
Performance Score is calculated.
For this range of PGV values, the values of the coefficient are as below-
Table: 1.4.1 The value of the coefficient
Vulnerability Co-efficient
Initial Performance Score (βO)
Apparent Heavy
Numbers of Soft Story
60<PGV<80 Quality overhangs
Stories (βSS)
(βAQ) (βHO)
3 80 23 9 23
4 73 22 15 30
5&6 64 24 23 33
We also assign the following value of indicated vulnerability in the equation of expected
performance score (EPS)
* No soft story (ss) – (0) * No heavy overhangs – (0)
* Apparent quality:
Good – (+1);
Moderate – (0)
Poor – (-1)
* Presence of (ss) – (-1) * Presence of (ho) – (-1)
EPS = β0 + βSS (SS) + βAQ(aq) + βHO(ho) ………………….(1)
27
The area of BUET Teacher`s Quarter
Building no. – 06
As this building is a 4 storied building we get the values from the above table are
β0 = 73 βSS = 22 βAQ = 15 βHO = 30
ss =0, aq = 0, ho =-1
So from eq 1, we get
EPS = β0 + βSS (SS) + βAQ(aq) + βHO(ho)
= 73+22(0)+15(0)+30(-1)
= 43
Comment: The building`s performance is at moderate (from table 1.3.1)
Building no. - 08
β0 = 64; βSS = 24; βAQ = 23; βHO = 33
ss =0; aq = 0; ho =0
EPS = β0 + βSS(SS) + βAQ(aq) + βHO(ho)
= 64+24(0)+23(0)+33(0)
= 64
28
Building no. - 09
As this building is a5 storied building we get the values from the above table are
β0 = 64; βSS = 24; βAQ = 23; βHO = 33
ss =0; aq = 0; ho =-1
= 64+24(0)+23(0)+33(-1)
= 31
Comment: The building is at severe risk (from table 1.3.1)
Building no. - 10
β0 = 64; βSS = 24; βAQ = 23; βHO = 33
ss =0; aq = 0; ho =-1
= 64+24(0)+23(0)+33(-1)
= 31
29
Building no. - 30
β0 = 73; βSS = 22; βAQ = 15; βHO = 30
ss =0; aq = 1; ho =-1
= 73+22(0)+15(1)+30(-1)
= 58
The Chalk Bazaar area
Building no. - 11
β0 = 80; βSS = 23; βAQ = 9; βHO = 23
ss = 0; aq = -1; ho = 0
= 80+23(0)+9(-1)+23(0)
= 71
30
Building no. - 18
β0 = 73; βSS = 22; βAQ = 15; βHO = 30
ss =-1; aq = 0; ho =0
= 73+22(-1)+15(0)+30(0)
= 51
Building no. - 22
β0 = 80; βSS = 23; βAQ = 9; βHO = 23
ss =-1; aq = -1; ho =0
EPS = β0 + βSS (SS) + βAQ(aq) + βHO(ho)
= 80+23(-1)+9(-1)+23(0)
= 48
31
Bakshi Bazaar area
Building no. - 12
β0 = 64; βSS = 24; βAQ = 23; βHO = 33
ss =0; aq = 0; ho =-1
= 64+24(0)+23(0)+33(-1)
= 31
Comment: The building is at sever risk (from table 1.3.1)
32
Table 1.4.2: Calculated EPS value and comment (Buet Teachers Quarter)
Presence Apparent Building Quality

Building Overall No. of Presence of EPS Comment
Area of soft
No. Dimension Story Overhanging Good Moderate Poor
story
Buet Teachers Quarter 1 100 x 50 5 0 0 1 64 Moderate
2 100 x 50 5 0 0 1 64 Moderate
3 70 x 50 4 0 1 1 43 Severe
4 70 x 50 4 0 1 1 43 Severe
5 100 x 50 4 0 0 1 73 Moderate
6 70 x 50 4 0 1 1 43 Severe
7 70 x 50 4 0 1 1 43 Severe
8 100 x 50 5 0 0 1 64 Moderate
9 100 x 50 5 0 0 1 64 Moderate
30 70 x 50 4 0 1 1 58 Moderate
45 70 x 50 4 0 1 1 58 Moderate
33
Table 1.4.3: Calculated EPS value and comment (Buet Staff Quarter)

Building Overall No. of Presence of
of soft EPS Comment
Area No. Dimension Story Overhanging Good Moderate Poor
story
Buet Staff Quarter 10 50x40 5 0 0 1 64 Moderate
11 100x40 5 0 0 1 64 Moderate
15 50x40 5 0 0 1 64 Moderate
14 50x40 5 0 0 1 64 Moderate
43 70x30 5 0 0 1 64 Moderate
42 70x30 5 0 0 1 64 Moderate
16 50x40 5 0 0 1 64 Moderate
17 70x30 5 0 0 1 64 Moderate
18 40x30 5 0 0 1 64 Moderate
52 70x30 5 1 1 1 30 Severe
12 120x30 5 0 0 1 64 Moderate
13 120x30 5 0 0 1 64 Moderate
34
Table 1.4.4: Calculated EPS value and comment (Bakshi Bazar - Urdu Road)
Building Overall No. of Presence of Presence of Apparent Building Quality

EPS Comment
Area No. Dimension Story soft story Overhanging Good Moderate Poor
Bakshi Bazar - Urdu Road 11/a 60x45 6 1 0 1 40 Severe
11/b 60x50 6 1 0 1 63 Moderate
12 50x60 2 0 1 1 48 Severe
7 60x40 9 1 0 1 63 Moderate
8 50x30 5 0 0 1 64 Moderate
13 80x60 5 1 1 1 7 Severe
14 70x45 3 1 0 1 48 Severe
15/a 50x50 3 1 0 1 57 Moderate
15/b 65x50 4 0 1 1 58 Moderate
16 60x45 4 1 0 1 51 Moderate
20 90x70 8 1 1 1 30 Severe
20/a 85x65 6 1 1 1 7 Severe
20/c 60x60 4 1 0 1 51 Moderate
22 75x70 6 1 1 1 30 Severe
23 100x80 8 1 0 1 63 Moderate
24 55x45 3 0 0 1 80 Light
24/a 60x50 5 1 0 1 40 Severe
25 50x40 3 0 1 1 48 Severe
26 75x65 5 1 1 1 7 Severe
27 70x55 4 0 1 1 43 Severe
28 45x65 5 1 0 1 17 Severe
31 65x55 4 1 0 1 36 Severe
40 60x40 4 1 0 1 36 Severe
41 70x55 4 1 1 1 21 Severe
43 50x45 2 0 0 1 71 Moderate
44 55x55 3 0 1 1 57 Moderate
45 80x65 4 1 1 1 21 Severe
35
Table 1.4.5: Calculated EPS value and comment (Khaja Dayan 1st Lane)

Area of soft EPS Comment
No. Dimension Story Overhanging Good Moderate Poor
story
Khaja Dayan 1st Lane 15 80x70 3 0 0 1 71 Moderate
14 50x60 2 0 1 1 48 Severe
16 60x40 9 1 0 1 63 Moderate
17 50x30 5 0 0 1 64 Moderate
18 85x50 4 1 0 1 51 Moderate
19 45x30 3 0 0 1 71 Moderate
20 80x60 6 1 1 1 30 Severe
21 70x45 1 0 0 1 71 Moderate
22 85x70 4 1 0 1 51 Moderate
23 75x50 3 1 0 1 48 Severe
25 75x70 6 1 1 1 30 Severe
24 100x80 8 1 0 1 63 Moderate
27 55x45 3 0 0 1 80 Light
29 50x45 2 0 0 1 71 Moderate
32 45x30 3 0 0 1 71 Moderate
35 80x60 6 1 1 1 30 Severe
36 70x45 1 0 0 1 71 Moderate
37 85x70 4 1 0 1 51 Moderate
38 75x50 3 1 0 1 48 Severe
39 95x75 4 0 1 1 58 Moderate
41 50x35 2 1 0 1 48 Severe
36
Table 1.4.6: Calculated EPS value and comment (Chalk Bazar Azgor Lane)

of soft EPS Comment
story
Chalk Bazar Azgor Lane 11 55x45 3 0 0 1 71 Moderate
13 75x60 2 0 0 1 71 Moderate
14 90x60 2 0 1 1 66 Moderate
15/a 50x50 3 1 0 1 87 Light
18 65x50 4 1 0 1 51 Moderate
19 100x75 3 0 0 1 80 Light
22 45x65 3 1 0 1 48 Severe
23 80x55 4 0 0 1 73 Moderate
24 50x45 4 1 0 1 66 Moderate
25 85x70 4 1 1 1 36 Severe
26 70x55 4 1 0 1 51 Moderate
28 80x60 6 1 1 1 30 Severe
29/b 55x50 5 1 0 1 40 Severe
30 65x50 5 1 0 1 17 Severe
31 90x75 7 1 1 1 30 Severe
31/a 60x45 4 0 0 1 58 Moderate
32 60x45 4 0 0 1 58 Moderate
37
Table 1.4.7: Calculated EPS value and comment (Hosni Dalan)

of soft EPS Comment
story
Hosni Dalan 34/a 60x50 2 0 1 1 48 Severe
35 30x25 3 0 1 1 57 Moderate
37 40x35 2 1 0 1 57 Moderate
39 55x40 3 1 1 1 25 Severe
40 35x25 3 0 0 1 80 Light
17 25x20 2 1 0 1 48 Severe
15/b 30x30 4 1 1 1 36 Severe
14 35x25 2 0 0 1 71 Moderate
13 30x25 3 0 0 1 89 Light
12/a 30x25 3 1 0 1 48 Severe
12/b 65x45 5 1 1 1 7 Severe
11 30x35 3 0 0 1 71 Moderate
14 45x50 4 0 1 1 43 Severe
15 45x40 3 1 1 1 25 Severe
16 75x65 5 1 1 1 7 Severe
17 70x55 4 0 1 1 43 Severe
10 60x40 5 1 1 1 30 Severe
8 40x55 4 1 1 1 36 Severe
38
Table 1.4.8: Calculated EPS value and comment (Ajimpur Colony)

of soft EPS Comment
story
Ajimpur Colony 32 65x50 5 0 0 1 64 Moderate
33 65x50 5 0 0 1 64 Moderate
36 40x50 4 0 0 1 73 Moderate
39 50x40 4 0 0 1 73 Moderate
42 50x40 4 0 0 1 73 Moderate
54 40x50 4 0 0 1 73 Moderate
43 65x50 5 0 0 1 64 Moderate
44 65x50 5 0 0 1 41 Severe
52 65x50 5 0 0 1 64 Moderate
55 40x50 4 0 0 1 73 Moderate
53 40x50 4 0 0 1 73 Moderate
48 40x50 4 0 0 1 73 Moderate
49 40x50 4 0 0 1 88 Light
51 40x50 4 0 0 1 88 light
50 40x50 4 0 0 1 73 Moderate
39
Table 1.4.9: Calculated EPS value and comment (Hori Dash Lane)

of soft EPS Comment
story
Hori Dash Lane 9 40x45 5 1 0 1 40 Severe
8 65x45 5 1 1 1 7 Severe
11 30x35 3 0 0 1 71 Moderate
14 45x50 4 0 1 1 43 Severe
15 45x40 3 1 1 1 25 Severe
16 75x65 5 1 1 1 7 Severe
17 70x55 4 0 1 1 43 Severe
19 45x65 5 1 0 1 17 Severe
21 65x55 4 1 0 1 36 Severe
20 60x40 4 1 0 1 36 Severe
22 70x55 4 1 1 1 21 Severe
23 50x45 2 0 0 1 71 Moderate
33 45x30 3 0 0 1 71 Moderate
34 80x60 6 1 1 1 30 Severe
36 70x45 1 0 0 1 71 Moderate
37 85x70 4 1 0 1 51 Moderate
38 75x50 3 1 0 1 48 Severe
39 95x75 4 0 1 1 58 Moderate
40
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
41
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
A simple screening procedure for three- to six-story substandard concrete buildings,

based on a sidewalk survey of the vulnerable building stock in an urban environment, is
developed in this study. The proposed procedure is calibrated with field data collected in the
region of Old Dhaka City. The basic objective is to accelerate the vulnerability-assessment
studies in large urban regions populated with a very high number of vulnerable buildings.
It has to be noted that the proposed procedure is intended to serve as an initial step for the
treatment of a large-scale epidemic, but not for detailed treatment of each individual patient in
the population at risk.
This paper presents a seismic vulnerability assessment application on a regional scale. In

the introductory parts of this paper, assessment methodology was summarized and in the second
part, the details of the field applications were introduced and the findings were presented.
Here the survey is done on 149 buildings of Old Dhaka. Among them about 6% buildings
are light 48%, buildings are found moderate, and about 46% buildings are found severe in
seismic risk. Therefore, it can be said here that very few buildings are free from seismic risk.
About 46% buildings are most vulnerable and they need instant replacement or retrofitting.
However, the rest are not out of danger. They also need some repairing.
Although the survey provides us, a rough estimation of the vulnerability of those
buildings, but as it is a very serious prediction and the life of many people is related with it, so
more work and more perfection is needed for proper estimation of the vulnerability.
42
PART 2
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF GROUND SUPPORTED
SLAB BY STAAD.Pro
43
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
44
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
2.1.1 Definition
A slab supported by ground, whose main purpose is to support the applied loads by bearing
on the ground. The slab is of uniform or variable thickness and it may include stiffening
elements such as ribs or beams. The slab may be unreinforced or reinforced with nonprestressed
reinforcement, fibers, or post-tensioned tendons. The reinforcement may be provided to limit
crack widths resulting from shrinkage and temperature restraint and the applied loads. Post-
tensioning tendons may be provided to minimize cracking due to shrinkage and temperature
restraint, resist the applied loads, and accommodate movements due to expansive soil volume
changes.
The use of structural slab-on-grade construction is not common practice in Bangladesh

since the depth of frost penetration in most areas, and thus the required depth of footings, warrant
the construction of a basement. However, in situations where a basement is undesirable or where
problem soils are encountered, a structural slab-on-grade may be preferred.
The concrete floor is often the most used, and noticed, part of the building. With that
amount of importance, one would think that we would usually get them right. Unfortunately, it is
all too rare that the concrete floor meets the criteria of Owner, design professional and contactor
throughout the life of the building.
Fig: 2.1.1 Slab-on-ground
45
As structural slab-on-grade construction is not common practice, builders unfamiliar with
its use may encounter problems with construction.
2.1.2 Installing Slabs on Grade

An area of the floor system that is crucially important is the sub-grade on sub-base. The
most important item is proper compaction; many floors settle and have structural cracks. Of
course, organic material cannot be properly compacted and must never be in the sub-grade. It is a
simple fact that the floor system rests on the grade and if the sub-grade settles, the floor settles.
Forming of concrete floors is reasonably straightforward. One must remember, though, that
loose or warped edge forms cause uneven floors. Therefore, the care taken with the edge form
setting will be proportional to final flatness of the floor.
Placing concrete in hot weather, particularly when the walls and roof are not yet completed,
creates some additional quality concerns. Plastic cracking is one of the worse problems that
occur. Plastic shrinkage cracks form before the concrete hardens and are caused by hot, dry,
and/or windy conditions. The cracks resemble the shrinkage cracks seen in clay soils during very
dry weather.
Curing can also create many problems for concrete floors. Since water evaporates so quickly
from the large exposed surface, without proper curing methods a floor is likely to rack, craze and
dust. The three most common means of curing are:
1. Wet cure by covering, after finishing, with continuously watered burlap.

2. Wet cure by watering finished slab and covering with plastic or paper.
3. Seal cure with liquid membrane curling compound.
2.1.3 Failure of ground supported slabs
Failure of ground-supported slabs is all too common. Unequal settlement, overloading and
restrained shrinkage and thermal displacement all tend to produce cracking. The passage of
wheel loads over crack or improperly made joints often leads to failure by progressive
disintegration of the concrete. Slab failure, when they occur is not spectacular and do not results
in collapse in the usual scene, but the use fullness of the slab may be gladly simpered, and repairs
are often costly.
Design methods for slab on ground vary. There is a common theoretical basis that assumes
highly idealizes conditions, but results are modified in recognition of test data and practical
experience. Generally, the design is based in natural service loads and concrete stress that are
compacted against specified limit. Steel reinforcement are used is placed mainly for crack
46
control, although more modern method of analysis and design account for its contribution in a
structural scene.
2.1.4 Shrinkage and temperature effects

A concrete pavement slab, unloaded except for its self-weight. Concrete Shrinkage
or a decrease in temperature, tends to contract the slab, but this contraction is resisted by
frictional drug between the slab and the sub grade. This causes tensile forces in slab. If the total
length of slab between construction joints is l, than equilibrium of the horizontal forces for one
half the length for unit strip of slab indicates that the tension force at a cross section at the mid
length is
T = w0lμ / 2
Where,
Wo = self weight of pavement slab, psi
μ = coefficient of friction between slab and subgrade
l = length between contraction or contraction joints
T = tensile force
The coefficient of friction varies widely, depending mainly on the roughness of the sub
grade, and tests show a range between about 1 and 2.5. The coefficient may be less than 1.0 if
plastic film is used between the slab sub grades. For design of highway pavement the AASHTO.
Interim Guide assumes a value of 1.5. If the slab has not tensile stress in psi is
ft = T / 12h
Where h is the thickness in inches.
47
Fig: 2.1.2 Cross-Section of Slab-on-ground
2.1.5 Difficulties to obtain economical, serviceable concrete floor

The best way to approach this question is to examine some of the things that go wrong.
Generally, problems stem from construction practices, materials, or improper design. A list of
concrete floor problems follows:
 Cracking – structural
 Cracking – shrinkage
 Curling- Top of slab shrinks more than bottom and slab edge lifts.
 Scaling – Hardened concrete breaking away from slab top in sheets 1/8” to ¼”
thick.
 Dusting – Appearance of powdery material at slab surface.
 Crazing – Many fine hairline cracks in a new slab, which resemble a road map.
 Spelling – disintegration of concrete at joint edges.
In order to avoid the above problems, all the details of a concrete slab, from design to
curing, must be performed appropriately. Due to the importance of the floor, we will examine a
systematic procedure for obtaining an acceptable concrete slab-on-grade.
The first step in the process is the concrete design mix. Rarely does low quality concrete
produce a high quality floor. A 4000 psi concrete is recommended instead of a 3000 psi mix due
48
to the higher cement content and improved wear resistance. The Portland Cement Association
recommends that a commercial or industrial concrete floor use a concrete with a three day
compressive strength of 1800 psi. This requirement provides early protection from construction
traffic. Water-cement ratio is also critical for concrete slabs-on-grade in order to minimized
shrinkage cracking.
A manual was prepared which addresses common construction problems associated with
structural slab-on-grade construction. It does not address issues related to their structural design.
The manual follows the format of CMHC's Builder Workshop series, stating various problems,
followed by possible causes and solutions. The key points contained in the manual are
summarized in the table below:
Table: 2.1.1 Cracking Of the Slab
Problem: Cracking Of The Slab

Cause Solution
Follow good construction practices, including the following:
 Dampen the earth before placing concrete.

 Avoid over-toweling.
 Do not finish concrete surfaces when bleed water is
Poor construction techniques present.
and practices  Keep concrete continuously moist for at least 24 hours.
 Never add water on site during placement or finishing.
 Maintain concrete above 10ºC during and for three days
after placement.
 Protect fresh concrete from rapid drying, direct sun and
wind
Differential or uneven
 Ensure the subgrade is uniform and sufficiently compacted
settlement
Minimize the shrinkage of the concrete:
 Use the stiffest mix (lowest slump) possible.

 Use the largest maximum size aggregate.
 Cure the concrete as long as possible.
Curling of the slab  Reduce moisture loss from the surface by using coatings,
sealers and waxes.
 Provide sand over damp proofing to allow some moisture
loss at the bottom of the slab.
 Ensure there are sufficient expansion joints in the slab.
 Use a thicker slab.
49
 Ensure the slab is properly designed to Part 4 of the
Inadequate structural strength National Building Code.
of concrete  Use concrete with sufficient compressive strength, at least
25 MPa, but preferably 30 MPa.
 Never pour concrete on a frozen subgrade.
 Maintain above-freezing temperatures in the house during
Frost heave construction.
 Use adequate insulation to reduce the depth of frost
penetration.
Use proper installation techniques, including:
 Locate mesh no more than 50 mm below the surface of the
slab.
 Lap meshes at least one square.
Improper placement of
 Use chairs to support the mesh at the correct height during
reinforcing and mesh
concrete pouring.
 Ensure the minimum concrete cover over reinforcing steel
is at least 76 mm.
 Lap steel at least 24 bar diameters, but at least 300 mm
Table: 2.1.2 Damp or wet floor slab, excessive humidity
Problem: Damp or wet floor slab, excessive humidity
Cause Solution
 Provide a capillary break (for example, a granular layer)

Moisture migration through the
under the floor slab.
slab
 Provide perimeter drainage and/or a sump pump.
 Eliminate cracks and holes in the slab, seal around pipes,
Air leakage through the slab
drains and ducts, use traps in drains.
 Damp proof the slab, either on top using at least two
Water vapor diffusion through mopped-on coats of bitumen where a separate finished
the slab floor is provided, or under the slab using at least 0.15 mm
polyethylene or Type S roll roofing.
 Provide good site drainage by sloping the subgrade and all
Poor site drainage surface grades away from the house and draining
downspouts away from the house.
50
Table: 2.1.3 Cold floors
Problem: Cold floors
Cause Solution
 Provide adequate insulation under and around the perimeter

Heat loss from the slab of the slab.
 Provide radiant heating in the slab.
Thermal bridging  Insulate the edge of the slab.
The manual also provides appendices on two important issues: the preparation of the sub
grade and options for insulating the slab-on-grade.
To prepare the sub grade, the topsoil must first be completely removed. The characteristics
of the sub grade material must then be evaluated to determine if additional compaction is
required to improve the structural properties of the soil. If compaction is required, the limits of
compaction should be the entire area of the building plus a 1,500 to 3,000 mm (5 to 10 ft)
perimeter border. Testing, using the Proctor test, the Modified AASHTO test or the vibrating
hammer test, should be conducted to confirm the compaction of the soil. If fill material is added
to improve the sub grade, it should be a stable material that can be thoroughly compacted. Buried
utility lines, water pipes, sewers, etc. should be covered with at least 50 mm (2 in.) of compacted
soil with similar moisture and density conditions as the adjacent soil.
After the sub grade is compacted to the required density and graded, a sub base layer of
100 mm (4 in.) of well-graded rock or gravel can be spread over the entire sub grade to provide a
uniform support for the slab. It should be compacted to a minimum of 98% maximum density at
optimum moisture content. The granular sub base also provides a capillary break helping to
damp proof the slab.
51
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
52
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.2.1 Introduction
Review of classical design theories—Design methods for slabs-on-grade are based on

theories originally developed for airport and highway pavements. Westergaard developed one of
the first rigorous theories of structural behavior of rigid pavement (Westergaard 1923, 1925,
1926).
This theory considers a homogeneous, isotropic, and elastic slab resting on an ideal
subgrade that exerts, at all points, a vertical reactive pressure proportional to slab deflection;
known as a Winkler subgrade . The subgrade acts as a linear spring with a proportionality
constant k with units of pressure (lb/in). 2 [kPa]) per unit deformation (in. [m]). The units are
commonly abbreviated as lb/in. 3 (kN/m3). This constant is defined as the modulus of subgrade
reaction.
In the 1930s, the structural behaviors of concrete pavement slabs were investigated at the
Arlington Virginia Experimental Farm and at the Iowa State Engineering Experiment Station.
Good agreement occurred between experiential stresses and those computed by the
Westergaard’s theory, as long as the slab remained continuously supported by the subgrade.
Corrections were required only for the Westergaard corner formula to account for the effects of
slab curling and loss of contact with the subgrade. Although choosing the modulus of subgrade
reaction was essential for good agreement with respect to stresses, here remained ambiguity in
the methods used to determine the correction coefficient.
All existing design theories are grouped according to models that simulate slab and the
subgrade behavior. Three models used for slab analysis are:
 Elastic-isotropic solid;
 Thin elastic slab; and
 Thin elastic-plastic slab.
Two models used for subgrade are:
1. Elastic-isotropic solid; and

2. Winkler (1867).
The Winkler subgrade models the soil as linear springs so that the reaction is proportional
to the slab deflection. Existing design theories are based on various combinations of these
models. The methods in this guide are generally graphical, plotted from computer-generated
solutions of selected models. Design theories need not be limited to these combinations. The
53
elastic-isotropic model provides close prediction for the response of real soils, but the Winkler
model is widely used for design and a number of investigators have reported good agreement
between observed responses to the Winkler-based predictions.
2.2.2 Finite-element method

The classical differential equation of a thin elastic plate resting on an elastic subgrade is
often used to represent the slab-on-ground. Solving the governing equations by conventional
methods is feasible for simplified models where slab and subgrade are assumed to be continuous
and homogeneous. In reality, a slab-on-ground usually contains discontinuities, such as joints
and cracks, and the subgrade support may not be uniform. Thus, the use of this approach is
limited.
The finite-element method can be used to analyze slabs-on-ground, particularly those with
discontinuities. Various models have been proposed to represent the slab (Spears and Panarese
1983; Pichumani 1973). Typically, these models use combinations of elements, such as elastic
blocks, rigid blocks, and torsion bars, to represent the slab. The subgrade is typically modeled by
linear springs (Winkler subgrade) placed under the nodal joints. Whereas the finite-element
method offers good potential for complex problems, graphical solutions and simplified design
equations have been traditionally used for design. The evolution of modern computer software
has made modeling with finite elements more feasible in the design office setting.
2.2.3 Construction document information

Listed below is the minimum information that should be addressed in the construction
documents prepared by the designer. Refer to ACI 302.1R for information related to the
installation and construction for some of these items.
 Slab-on-ground design criteria;

 Base and subbase materials, preparation requirements, and vapor
retarder/barrier, when required;
 Concrete thickness;
 Concrete compressive strength, or flexural strength, or both;
 Concrete mixture proportion requirements, ultimate dry shrinkage strain, or
both;
 Joint locations and details;
 Reinforcement (type, size, and location), when required;
 Surface treatment, when required;
 Surface finish;
54
Tolerances (base, subbase, slab thickness, and floor flatness and levelness);
 Concrete curing;
 Joint filling material and installation;
 Special embedment’s;
 Testing requirements; and
 Preconstruction meeting, quality assurance, and quality control.
2.2.4 Slab-on-ground design criteria
It is helpful that when the slab-on-ground design criteria are well established, that it be
shown on the drawings. This information is especially useful when future modifications are
made to the slab or its use. Design issues, such as the slab contributing to wind or seismic
resistance or building foundation uplift forces, would not be readily apparent unless noted on the
drawings. Because it is not readily apparent when a slab is used as a horizontal diaphragm, it
should be noted on the drawings. Removing or cutting a slab that is designed to resist uplift or
horizontal forces could seriously impair the building’s stability.
The design criteria should include some of the following:
 Geotechnical soil properties used for the different loading types;

 Uniform storage loading;
 Lift-truck and vehicle loadings;
 Rack loadings;
 Line loads;
 Equipment loads;
 When the slab is used to resist wind or seismic foundation uplift forces; &
 When the slab is used as a horizontal diaphragm and to resist horizontal
forces or both due to tilt-walls, masonry walls, tops of retaining walls, and
metal building system columns.
Further research
There are many areas that need additional research. Some of these areas are:
 Developing concrete mixture proportions that have low shrinkage characteristics

and are workable, finish able, and provide a serviceable surface;
 Flexural stress in slabs with curl and applied loads and how curling stresses
change over time due to creep;
 Base restraint due to shrinkage and other volume changes and how this restraint
changes over time;
 Crack widths for different amounts of reinforcement for slabs-on-ground;
 Provide guidance on acceptable joint and crack widths for different slab usages;
55
 Provide dowel recommendations based on loadings (lift truck, rack post, and
uniform storage) rather than slab thickness;
 Provide plate dowel spacing recommendations for plate dowel geometries;
 Provide design guidance for slabs with macro synthetic fibers;
 Provide design aids for slabs with rack uplift loads due to seismic and other uplift
loadings;
 Provide design aids for slabs with non-uniform rack post loads;
 Develop a standardized method for testing and specifying slab surface abrasion
resistance;
 Soil properties and how they may change over time under load repetitions, wide
area long-term loadings, or both; and
 Recommended joint spacing for fiber-reinforced concrete.
2.2.5 Definitions
Curling or warping - Out-of-plane deformation of the corners, edges, and surface of a
pavement, slab, or wall panel from its original shape.
Slab-on-ground - slab, supported by ground, which is main purpose, is to support the

applied loads by bearing on the ground.
Some of the more important expectations that should be discussed for the prospective slab
type are:
 Cracking potential;
 Crack widths for slabs designed with reinforcement to limit crack widths;
 Use of doweled joints versus aggregate interlock;
 Possible future repairs including joint deterioration;
 Joint maintenance requirements and the owner's responsibility for this
maintenance;
 Floor flatness and levelness requirements to meet the owner’s needs;
 Changes to the flatness and levelness over time, especially in low-humidity
environments;
 Advantages and disadvantages of slab placement with the watertight roofing
system in place versus placing the slab in the open;
 Level of moisture vapor resistance required; and
 Advantages and disadvantages of using the building floor slab for tilt-wall
construction form and temporary bracing.
56
Slab types
There are four basic design choices for slab-on-grade construction:
a. Unreinforced concrete slab.

b. Slabs reinforced to limit crack widths due to shrinkage and temperature
restraint and applied loads. These slabs consist of:
i. Nonprestressed steel bar, wire reinforcement, or fiber reinforcement,
all with closely spaced joints; and
ii. Continuously reinforced, free-of-saw cut contraction joints.
c. Slabs reinforced to prevent cracking due to shrinkage and temperature
restraint and applied loads. These slabs consist of:
i.Shrinkage-compensating concrete; and
ii.Post-tensioned.
d. Structural slabs designed in accordance with ACI 318:
i.Plain concrete; and
ii.Reinforced concrete.
Fig: 2.2.1 - Slab support system terminology.
57
CHAPTER 3
CONCEPT AND METHODOLOGY
58
CHAPTER 3
CONCEPT AND METHODOLOGY
2.3.1 Introduction
Concrete slabs are often poured directly on the ground; they receive uniform support from
the soil. Roadway and sidewalk slabs, basement floors, and warehouse floors are common
examples of this type of construction. Ordinary it is desirable to provide a base course of wall-
complicated crushed stone or gravel. The prepared subgrade, approximately 6 to 12 in, thick,
serves (1) to provide more uniform support than if the slab were carried directly on the on the
natural soil, and (2) to improve then drainage of water from beneath the slab. The latter is
particularly important in outdoor locations subjects to freezing temperatures.
Failures of concrete slabs on ground are not infrequent. Unequal settlement or overloading
may cause cracking, as well as restrained shrinkage as volume changes occur. Passing of wheel
loads over cracks or improperly made joints may lead to progressive failure by disintegration of
the concrete. Failures are not spectacular and do not involve collapse in the usual sense. They
may even pass unnoticed for a considerable period of time. Nevertheless, the function of the
structure is often impaired and repairs are both embarrassing and costly.
It is the slab is loaded uniformly over its entire areas and is supported by a uniform, sub
grade; stresses will be due solely to restrained volumetric changes. However, foundation
materials are not uniform in their properties. In addition, most slabs are subjected to no uniform
loading.
59
2.3.2 Methodology
Methods of analysis for slab on grade are similar to those developed for beams on elastic
foundations. Usually the slab is assumed to be homogenous, isotropic and elastic; the reaction of
the sub grade is assumed to be only vertical and proportional to the defection. The stiffness of the
soil is expressed is terms of the modulus of subgrade reaction is usually in units of ton per in, or
simply, lb per in. The numerical value of k varies widely for different soil types and degrees of
consolidation and is generally based on experimental observation.
The usual method of constructing a structural slab-on-grade is to use a thickened slab; at

the edges of the slab, where most of the load will be carried, the slab is thickened, the thickened
portion being cast integrally with the rest of the slab.
For the analyze, concentric loads may be placed according to following three cases. Those
are as follows-
Case 1: Wheel load close to the corner of a large slab:
With a load applied at the corner of a slab, the critical streets in the concerts are tension at
the top surface of the slab. An approximate solution due to A.T. Gold back, assumes point load
acting at the corner of the slab. At small distances (from the corner, the upgrade reaction of the
soil has little effect and the slab is considered to act at a cantilever. At a distance z from the
corner, the bending moment is pz; it is assumed to be uniformly distributed across the width of
the section of slab at right angles to the bisector of the corner angle. For a 90 0 corner, the width
of the section is 2r and bending moment per unit width of slab is
Pz P

2z 2
If h is the thickness of the slab, the tensile stress at the top surface is
M P2 3P
fx   
2 h 6 h2
2
Equation (4.5) will give reasonably close results only in the immediate vicinity of the slab
corner, and if the load is applied over a small contact are:
60
In an analysis which considers the reaction of the sub grade and which consider the load to
be applied over a contact area of radius 0 (see Fig: ...) West guard derives the expression for
critical session at the top of the slab, occurring at a distance 2 a 2L from the corner of the slab:
 0.5 
3P   a 2  
f2  1   

h2   L  
 
In which L is the radius of relative’s stiffness, equal to
Eh 2
L
12(1   2 )k
Where E = elastic modulus of concrete, psi
P = Polson’s ratio
k = modulus of subgrade reaction, Ib/in2
The value of L reflects the relative stiffness of the slab and the sub-grade. It will be large
for a stiff slab and slot base and small for a flexible slab on a still base.
Case 2: wheel load considerable distance fronts the edges of a slab:
With the load is applied some distance from the edges of the slab, the article stress into the
concrete will be tension at the bottom surface. That tension is greatest directly under the center
of the loaded area and is given by the expression.
P
f y  0.316 [log h 2  4 log ( 1.6a 2  h 2  0.675h)  log k  6.48) (4.9)
2
h
Case 3: wheel load at an edge of a slab, but removed a considerable distance from a corner:
When the load is applied at a point along an edge of the slab, the critical tensile streets is at
the bottom of the concrete, directly under the load, and is equal to
61
P
fx  0.572 (log h 2  4 log 1.6a 2  h 2  0.675h)  log k  5.77]
2
h
In the event that the tensile stress in the slab, as given by Eqs. (4.7), (4.9) and (4.10)
exceeds the allowable tensile streets on the concrete, it is forcemeat. Such reinforcement is
usually designed to provide for the entire slab. Its centroid should be no closer to the neutral axis
than that of the tension concrete, which is replaces.
62
CHAPTER 4
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
63
CHAPTER 4
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Results are shown in the chart for the three cases of loading. Self Weight (SW) is added in
all calculations. The slab shows different behavior under different cases. The results for node
displacement, principle stress and bending moment are shown below and analyzed by the graphs.
For 15’-15’ Slab
Table: 2.4.1
Node displacement (15-15) for Corner + Self weight
Vertical Vertical
Distance L/C
Node Y in Node Y in
0 Corner + SW 1 -0.029 7 -0.023
1 Corner + SW 5 -0.023 6 -0.018
2 Corner + SW 8 -0.017 9 -0.014
3 Corner + SW 10 -0.012 11 -0.01
4 Corner + SW 12 -0.009 13 -0.007
5 Corner + SW 14 -0.006 15 -0.005
6 Corner + SW 16 -0.004 17 -0.004
7 Corner + SW 18 -0.003 19 -0.003
8 Corner + SW 20 -0.0025 21 -0.002
9 Corner + SW 22 -0.002 23 -0.002
10 Corner + SW 24 -0.002 25 -0.002
11 Corner + SW 26 -0.002 27 -0.002
12 Corner + SW 28 -0.002 29 -0.002
13 Corner + SW 30 -0.002 31 -0.002
14 Corner + SW 32 -0.002 33 -0.002
15 Corner + SW 2 -0.002 34 -0.002
64
Y
X
Z Load 5 : Displacement
Figure: 2.4.1: Displacement of 15-15 ft slab for corner loading
65
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
-0.01
Dislacement (in)
-0.02
-0.03
Distance (ft.)
Deflection Curve along edge (outside) of slab (15-15) due to

Corner load + Self Weight
Figure: 2.4.2
0 5 10 15 20 25
0.005
-0.005
Dislacement (in)
-0.015
-0.025
Distance (ft.)
Deflection Curve along very next to edge of slab(15-15) due to

Figure: 2.4.3
66
Table: 2.4.2
Node displacement (15-15) for Edge + Self Weight
Vertical Vertical
Distance L/C
Node Y in Node Y in
0 Edge + SW 1 -0.003 7 -0.002
1 Edge + SW 5 -0.003 6 -0.003
2 Edge + SW 8 -0.004 9 -0.004
3 Edge + SW 10 -0.0055 11 -0.005
4 Edge + SW 12 -0.007 13 -0.006
5 Edge + SW 14 -0.009 15 -0.007
6 Edge + SW 16 -0.011 17 -0.009
7 Edge + SW 18 -0.013 19 -0.01
8 Edge + SW 20 -0.013 21 -0.01
9 Edge + SW 22 -0.011 23 -0.009
10 Edge + SW 24 -0.009 25 -0.007
11 Edge + SW 26 -0.007 27 -0.006
12 Edge + SW 28 -0.0055 29 -0.005
13 Edge + SW 30 -0.004 31 -0.004
14 Edge + SW 32 -0.003 33 -0.003
15 Edge + SW 2 -0.003 34 -0.002
.
67
Y
X
Z Load 6 : Displacement
Figure: 2.4.4: Displacement of 15-15 ft slab for edge loading
68
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
-0.01
Dislacement (in)
-0.02
-0.03
Distance (ft)

Edge load + Self Weight
Figure: 2.4.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
0.005
-0.005
Dislacement (in)
-0.015
-0.025
Distance (ft)

Figure: 2.4.6
69
Table: 2.4.3
Node displacement (15-15) Center + Self Weight
Vertical Vertical
Distance L/C
Node Y in Node Y in
0 Center + SW 116 -0.002 132 -0.002
1 Center + SW 115 -0.002 131 -0.002
2 Center + SW 117 -0.003 133 -0.003
3 Center + SW 118 -0.003 134 -0.003
4 Center + SW 119 -0.004 135 -0.004
5 Center + SW 120 -0.004 136 -0.004
6 Center + SW 121 -0.005 137 -0.005
7 Center + SW 122 -0.006 138 -0.006
8 Center + SW 123 -0.006 139 -0.006
9 Center + SW 124 -0.005 140 -0.005
10 Center + SW 125 -0.004 141 -0.004
11 Center + SW 126 -0.004 142 -0.004
12 Center + SW 127 -0.003 143 -0.003
13 Center + SW 128 -0.003 144 -0.003
14 Center + SW 129 -0.002 145 -0.002
15 Center + SW 130 -0.002 146 -0.002
70
Y
X
Z
Load 7 : Displacement
Figure: 2.4.7: Displacement of 15-15 ft slab for center loading
71
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
-0.01
Dislacement (in)
-0.02
-0.03
Distance (ft)
Deflection Curve along the nodes next to center of slab (15-15) due
to Center load + Self Weight
Figure: 2.4.8
0 5 10 15 20 25
0.005
-0.005
Dislacement (in)
-0.015
-0.025
Distance (ft)
Deflection Curve along the nods next to center of slab(15-15) due

Figure: 2.4.9
72
Table: 2.4.4
Plate Centre Principal Stresses and Bending Moment(15-15)
Principal Stress
Bending Moment
Distance L/C Plate Top Bottom
(psi) (psi) Mx lb-in/in My lb-in/in
0 Corner + SW 2 76.528 -76.528 -212.075 -212.075
1 Corner + SW 3 108.239 -108.239 -441.796 -117.966
2 Corner + SW 4 122.106 -122.106 -917.603 -72.53
3 Corner + SW 5 112.617 -112.617 -966.39 -78.169
4 Corner + SW 6 92.14 -92.14 -838.787 -65.388
5 Corner + SW 7 69.707 -69.707 -653.948 -52.015
6 Corner + SW 8 49.34 -49.34 -469.997 -39.277
7 Corner + SW 9 32.779 -32.779 -313.754 -28.512
8 Corner + SW 10 20.381 -20.381 -193.964 -19.972
9 Corner + SW 11 11.773 -11.773 -109.659 -13.547
10 Corner + SW 12 6.258 -6.258 -55.292 -8.932
11 Corner + SW 13 3.059 -3.059 -23.806 -5.766
12 Corner + SW 14 1.423 -1.423 -8.239 -3.681
13 Corner + SW 15 0.678 -0.678 -2.359 -2.442
14 Corner + SW 16 0.295 -0.295 -0.454 -1.886
73
M XY (lo c a l)
lb -in/in
<= 0.310
62.2
124
186
248
310
372
434
496
557
619
681
743
805
867
929
>= 991
Y
X
Z
Loa d 5
Figure: 2.4.10: Plate Stress Contour Due To Bending Moment
74
1 5 9 13
200
Bending Moment(lb-in/in)
-200
-400
-600
-800
Mx lb-in/in
My lb-in/in
-1000
Distance (ft.)
Bending Moment Curve along the edge of slab Due to

Corner + Self Weight
.
Figure: 2.4.11
120
70
Top/Bottom Stress (psi)
20
-30
-80
Top Stress
Bottom Stress
-130
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Distance (ft.)
Variation of Top and Bottom Stress along the
edge of slab Due to Corner + Self Weight
Figure: 2.4.12
75
Table: 2.4.5
Principal Stress
Bending Moment
(psi) (psi)
Mx lb-in/inMy lb-in/in
0 Edge + SW 2 7.369 -7.369 -40.941 -33.927
1 Edge + SW 3 18.152 -18.152 -142.367 -28.382
2 Edge + SW 4 27.945 -27.945 -220.057 -28.699
3 Edge + SW 5 35.403 -35.403 -248.783 -30.929
4 Edge + SW 6 37.62 -37.62 -177.315 -33.573
5 Edge + SW 7 37.768 -29.774 96.209 -10.946
6 Edge + SW 8 86.02 -20.129 789.345 -86.506
7 Edge + SW 9 119.804 -17.531 1280 -187.002
8 Edge + SW 10 86.02 -20.129 789.345 -86.506
9 Edge + SW 11 37.768 -29.774 96.209 -10.946
10 Edge + SW 12 37.62 -37.62 -177.315 -33.573
11 Edge + SW 13 35.403 -35.403 -248.783 -30.929
12 Edge + SW 14 27.945 -27.945 -220.057 -28.699
13 Edge + SW 15 18.152 -18.152 -142.367 -28.382
14 Edge + SW 16 7.369 -7.369 -40.941 -33.927
76
M XY (lo c a l)
lb -in/in
<= 0
25
50.1
75.1
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
275
301
326
351
376
>= 401
Y
X
Z
Loa d 6
77
1 5 9 13
1500
1000
500
-500
Mx lb-in/in
My lb-in/in
-1000
Distance (ft.)
Bending Moment Curve along the edge of slab Due to

Edge + Self Weight
Figure: 2.4.14
120
70
20
-30
-80
Top Stress
Bottom Stress
-130
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Distance (ft.)
edge of slab Due to Edge + Self Weight
Figure: 2.4.15
78
Table: 2.4.6
Principal Stress
Bending Moment
0 Center + SW 107 2.109 -1.193 -12.723 22.497
1 Center + SW 108 4.439 -4.439 -47.351 35.287
2 Center + SW 109 7.228 -7.228 -77.096 61.704
3 Center + SW 110 10.223 -8.206 -87.528 109.05
4 Center + SW 111 18.037 -5.092 -54.315 192.392
5 Center + SW 112 32.523 7.104 75.781 346.91
6 Center + SW 113 54.352 41.496 442.625 579.756
7 Center + SW 114 66.628 66.628 710.699 710.699
8 Center + SW 115 54.352 41.496 442.625 579.756
9 Center + SW 116 32.523 7.104 75.781 346.91
10 Center + SW 117 18.037 -5.092 -54.315 192.392
11 Center + SW 118 10.223 -8.206 -87.528 109.05
12 Center + SW 119 7.228 -7.228 -77.096 61.704
13 Center + SW 120 4.439 -4.439 -47.351 35.287
14 Center + SW 121 2.109 -1.193 -12.723 22.497
79
M XY (lo c a l)
lb -in/in
<= 0
8.43
16.9
25.3
33.7
42.1
50.6
59
67.4
75.8
84.3
92.7
101
110
118
126
>= 135
Y
X
Z
Loa d 7
80
1 5 9 13
1500
1000
500
-500
Mx lb-in/in
My lb-in/in
-1000
Distance (ft.)
Bending Moment Curve along the nodes next to the

center of slab Due to Center + Self Weight
Figure: 2.4.17
120
70
20
-30
-80
Top Stress
Bottom Stress
-130
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Distance (ft.)
edge of slab Due to Center + Self Weight
Figure: 2.4.18
81
Table: 2.4.7
Node displacement (20-20)
Vertical Vertical
Distance L/C
Node Y in Node Y in
0 Corner + SW 1 -0.027 7 -0.022
1 Corner + SW 5 -0.022 6 -0.018
2 Corner + SW 8 -0.017 9 -0.013
3 Corner + SW 10 -0.012 11 -0.01
4 Corner + SW 12 -0.009 13 -0.007
5 Corner + SW 14 -0.006 15 -0.005
6 Corner + SW 16 -0.004 17 -0.0038
7 Corner + SW 18 -0.003 19 -0.0028
8 Corner + SW 20 -0.00225 21 -0.0022
9 Corner + SW 22 -0.002 23 -0.002
10 Corner + SW 24 -0.002 25 -0.002
11 Corner + SW 26 -0.002 27 -0.002
12 Corner + SW 28 -0.002 29 -0.002
13 Corner + SW 30 -0.002 31 -0.002
14 Corner + SW 32 -0.002 33 -0.002
15 Corner + SW 34 -0.002 35 -0.002
16 Corner + SW 36 -0.002 37 -0.002
17 Corner + SW 38 -0.002 39 -0.002
18 Corner + SW 40 -0.002 41 -0.002
19 Corner + SW 42 -0.002 43 -0.002
20 Corner + SW 44 -0.002 45 -0.002
21 Corner + SW 2 -0.002 46 -0.002
82
Y
X
Z
83
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
Distance (ft.)
Figure: 2.4.20
0 5 10 15 20 25
0.005
-0.005
Displacement (in)
-0.015
-0.025
Distance (ft.)
Figure: 2.4.21
84
Table: 2.4.8
Vertical Vertical
Distance L/C
Node Y in Node Y in
0 Edge + SW 1 -0.002 7 -0.002
1 Edge + SW 5 -0.002 6 -0.002
2 Edge + SW 8 -0.003 9 -0.002
3 Edge + SW 10 -0.003 11 -0.003
4 Edge + SW 12 -0.004 13 -0.003
5 Edge + SW 14 -0.004 15 -0.004
6 Edge + SW 16 -0.005 17 -0.005
7 Edge + SW 18 -0.007 19 -0.006
8 Edge + SW 20 -0.009 21 -0.007
9 Edge + SW 22 -0.01 23 -0.008
10 Edge + SW 24 -0.012 25 -0.009
11 Edge + SW 26 -0.012 27 -0.009
12 Edge + SW 28 -0.01 29 -0.008
13 Edge + SW 30 -0.009 31 -0.007
14 Edge + SW 32 -0.007 33 -0.006
15 Edge + SW 34 -0.005 35 -0.005
16 Edge + SW 36 -0.004 37 -0.004
17 Edge + SW 38 -0.004 39 -0.003
18 Edge + SW 40 -0.003 41 -0.003
19 Edge + SW 42 -0.003 43 -0.002
20 Edge + SW 44 -0.002 45 -0.002
21 Edge + SW 2 -0.002 46 -0.002
85
Y
X
Z
86
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
-0.01
Dislacement (in)
-0.02
-0.03
Distance (ft.)

Figure: 2.4.23
0 5 10 15 20 25
0.005
-0.005
Dislacement (in)
-0.015
-0.025
Distance (ft.)

Figure: 2.4.24
87
Table: 2.4.9
Vertical Vertical
Distance L/C Node Y in Node Y in
0 Center + SW 224 -0.002 246 -0.002
1 Center + SW 223 -0.002 245 -0.002
2 Center + SW 225 -0.002 247 -0.002
3 Center + SW 226 -0.003 248 -0.002
4 Center + SW 227 -0.003 249 -0.003
5 Center + SW 228 -0.003 250 -0.003
6 Center + SW 229 -0.004 251 -0.003
7 Center + SW 230 -0.004 252 -0.004
8 Center + SW 231 -0.005 253 -0.004
9 Center + SW 232 -0.005 254 -0.005
10 Center + SW 233 -0.005 255 -0.005
11 Center + SW 234 -0.005 256 -0.005
12 Center + SW 235 -0.004 257 -0.005
13 Center + SW 236 -0.004 258 -0.004
14 Center + SW 237 -0.003 259 -0.004
15 Center + SW 238 -0.003 260 -0.003
16 Center + SW 239 -0.003 261 -0.003
17 Center + SW 240 -0.002 262 -0.003
18 Center + SW 241 -0.002 263 -0.002
19 Center + SW 242 -0.002 264 -0.002
20 Center + SW 243 -0.002 265 -0.002
21 Center + SW 244 -0.002 266 -0.002
88
Y
X
Z
89
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
-0.01
Dislacement (in)
-0.02
-0.03
Distance (ft.)
Figure: 2.4.26
0 5 10 15 20 25
0.005
-0.005
Dislacement (in)
-0.015
-0.025
Distance (ft.)
Deflection Curve along the nodes next to center of slab (20-20)

due to Center load + Self Weight
Figure: 2.4.27
90
Table: 2.4.10
Principal Stresses
Bending Moment
(psi) (psi)
Mx lb-in/in My lb-in/in
0 Corner + SW 2 70.689 -70.689 -194.649 -194.649
1 Corner + SW 3 100.643 -100.643 -401.484 -107.791
2 Corner + SW 4 114.141 -114.141 -846.317 -67.562
3 Corner + SW 5 106.978 -106.978 -910.382 -68
4 Corner + SW 6 89.453 -89.453 -809.849 -61.537
5 Corner + SW 7 69.491 -69.491 -649.682 -49.702
6 Corner + SW 8 50.754 -50.754 -482.756 -38.24
7 Corner + SW 9 34.984 -34.984 -335.165 -28.369
8 Corner + SW 10 22.704 -22.704 -217.043 -20.354
9 Corner + SW 11 13.755 -13.755 -129.502 -14.154
10 Corner + SW 12 7.649 -7.649 -69.021 -9.547
11 Corner + SW 13 3.795 -3.795 -30.213 -6.247
12 Corner + SW 14 1.638 -1.638 -7.467 -3.965
13 Corner + SW 15 0.83 -0.665 4.2 -2.443
14 Corner + SW 16 0.988 -0.302 8.782 -1.464
15 Corner + SW 17 0.942 -0.156 9.243 -0.859
16 Corner + SW 18 0.757 -0.089 7.629 -0.501
17 Corner + SW 19 0.521 -0.055 5.262 -0.299
18 Corner + SW 20 0.296 -0.037 2.947 -0.189
19 Corner + SW 21 0.123 -0.027 1.156 -0.13
20 Corner + SW 22 0.028 -0.017 0.219 -0.106
91
MXY(local)
lb-in/in
<=0.006
58.9
118
177
235
294
353
412
471
530
589
647
706
765
824
883
>=942
Y
X
Z
Load5
92
1 5 9 13 17 21
200
-200
-400
-600
-800
Mx lb-in/in
My lb-in/in
-1000
Distance (ft.)
Bending Moment Curve along the edge of

slab Due to Corner + Self Weight
Figure: 2.4.29
120
70
20
-30
-80
Top Stress
Bottom Stress
-130
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Distance (ft.)
Figure: 2.4.30
93
Table: 2.4.11
Principal Stress
Bending Moment
0 Edge + SW 2 2.679 -2.679 -16.359 -12.863
1 Edge + SW 3 7.247 -7.247 -62.156 -11.748
2 Edge + SW 4 12.809 -12.809 -115.567 -13.22
3 Edge + SW 5 19.321 -19.321 -174.058 -16.569
4 Edge + SW 6 26.224 -26.224 -229.802 -20.428
5 Edge + SW 7 32.548 -32.548 -267.755 -24.459
6 Edge + SW 8 36.644 -36.644 -261.347 -27.03
7 Edge + SW 9 36.267 -36.267 -165.015 -29.848
8 Edge + SW 10 36.95 -27.472 110.597 -9.49
9 Edge + SW 11 82.056 -18.364 758.514 -79.136
10 Edge + SW 12 113.309 -16.067 1210 -171.382
11 Edge + SW 13 82.055 -18.364 758.505 -79.136
12 Edge + SW 14 36.95 -27.472 110.587 -9.487
13 Edge + SW 15 36.267 -36.267 -165.019 -29.848
14 Edge + SW 16 36.644 -36.644 -261.346 -27.032
15 Edge + SW 17 32.548 -32.548 -267.755 -24.459
16 Edge + SW 18 26.224 -26.224 -229.802 -20.429
17 Edge + SW 19 19.321 -19.321 -174.056 -16.568
18 Edge + SW 20 12.809 -12.809 -115.568 -13.22
19 Edge + SW 21 7.247 -7.247 -62.158 -11.748
20 Edge + SW 22 2.679 -2.679 -16.359 -12.863
94
MXY(local)
lb-in/in
<=0
24
48
72
96
120
144
168
192
216
240
264
288
312
336
360
>=384
Y
X
Z
Load6
95
1 5 9 13 17 21
1500
1000
500
-500
Mx lb-in/in
My lb-in/in
-1000
Distance (ft.)

slab Due to Edge + Self Weight
Figure: 2.4.32
120
70
20
-30
-80
Top Stress
Bottom Stress
-130
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Distance (ft.)
Figure: 2.4.33
96
Table: 2.4.12
Principal Stresses
Bending Moment
0 Center + SW 212 0.445 -0.445 -4.748 -2.236
1 Center + SW 213 1.86 -1.86 -19.836 -0.133
2 Center + SW 214 3.771 -3.771 -40.219 4.069
3 Center + SW 215 5.959 -5.959 -63.563 11.773
4 Center + SW 216 8.076 -8.076 -86.139 26.64
5 Center + SW 217 9.507 -9.507 -101.411 53.888
6 Center + SW 218 9.567 -9.155 -97.654 102.052
7 Center + SW 219 17.176 -5.073 -54.113 183.211
8 Center + SW 220 30.798 7.099 75.718 328.514
9 Center + SW 221 50.958 39.108 417.156 543.547
10 Center + SW 222 62.229 62.229 663.777 663.777
11 Center + SW 223 50.957 39.108 417.151 543.544
12 Center + SW 224 30.798 7.098 75.712 328.509
13 Center + SW 225 17.176 -5.073 -54.115 183.21
14 Center + SW 226 9.568 -9.155 -97.653 102.054
15 Center + SW 227 9.507 -9.507 -101.411 53.888
16 Center + SW 228 8.076 -8.076 -86.139 26.64
17 Center + SW 229 5.959 -5.959 -63.562 11.772
18 Center + SW 230 3.771 -3.771 -40.219 4.069
19 Center + SW 231 1.86 -1.86 -19.837 -0.133
20 Center + SW 232 0.445 -0.445 -4.748 -2.236
97
MXY(local)
lb-in/in
<=0
7.89
15.8
23.7
31.6
39.5
47.4
55.3
63.1
71
78.9
86.8
94.7
103
111
118
>=126
Y
X
Z
Load7
98
1 5 9 13 17 21
800
600
400
200
-200
-400
-600
-800 Mx lb-in/in
My lb-in/in
-1000
Distance (ft.)

Figure: 2.4.35
120
70
20
-30
-80
Top Stress
Bottom Stress
-130
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21
Distance (ft.)
Figure: 2.4.36
99
Table: 2.4.13
Distance Vertical Vertical

L/C
Node Y in Node Y in
0 Corner + SW 1 -0.029 7 -0.023
1 Corner + SW 5 -0.023 6 -0.018
2 Corner + SW 8 -0.017 9 -0.014
3 Corner + SW 10 -0.012 11 -0.01
4 Corner + SW 12 -0.009 13 -0.007
5 Corner + SW 14 -0.006 15 -0.005
6 Corner + SW 16 -0.004 17 -0.004
7 Corner + SW 18 -0.003 19 -0.003
8 Corner + SW 20 -0.0025 21 -0.002
9 Corner + SW 22 -0.002 23 -0.002
10 Corner + SW 24 -0.002 25 -0.002
11 Corner + SW 26 -0.002 27 -0.002
12 Corner + SW 28 -0.002 29 -0.002
13 Corner + SW 30 -0.002 31 -0.002
14 Corner + SW 32 -0.002 33 -0.002
15 Corner + SW 34 -0.002 35 -0.002
16 Corner + SW 36 -0.002 37 -0.002
17 Corner + SW 38 -0.002 39 -0.002
18 Corner + SW 40 -0.002 41 -0.002
19 Corner + SW 42 -0.002 43 -0.002
20 Corner + SW 44 -0.002 45 -0.002
21 Corner + SW 46 -0.002 47 -0.002
22 Corner + SW 48 -0.002 49 -0.002
23 Corner + SW 50 -0.002 51 -0.002
24 Corner + SW 52 -0.002 53 -0.002
25 Corner + SW 2 -0.002 54 -0.002
100
Y
X
Z
101
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
-0.01
Dislacement (in)
-0.02
-0.03
Distance (ft.)

Figure: 2.4.38
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.005
-0.005
Dislacement (in)
-0.015
-0.025
Distance (ft.)
Deflection Curve along very next to edge of slab (25-25) due to

Figure: 2.4.39
102
Table: 2.4.14
Vertical Vertical
Distance L/C
Node Y in Node Y in
0 Edge + SW 1 -0.002 7 -0.002
1 Edge + SW 5 -0.002 6 -0.002
2 Edge + SW 8 -0.002 9 -0.002
3 Edge + SW 10 -0.002 11 -0.002
4 Edge + SW 12 -0.003 13 -0.002
5 Edge + SW 14 -0.003 15 -0.003
6 Edge + SW 16 -0.003 17 -0.003
7 Edge + SW 18 -0.004 19 -0.004
8 Edge + SW 20 -0.005 21 -0.005
9 Edge + SW 22 -0.007 23 -0.006
10 Edge + SW 24 -0.009 25 -0.007
11 Edge + SW 26 -0.011 27 -0.009
12 Edge + SW 28 -0.013 29 -0.01
13 Edge + SW 30 -0.013 31 -0.01
14 Edge + SW 32 -0.011 33 -0.009
15 Edge + SW 34 -0.009 35 -0.007
16 Edge + SW 36 -0.007 37 -0.006
17 Edge + SW 38 -0.005 39 -0.005
18 Edge + SW 40 -0.004 41 -0.004
19 Edge + SW 42 -0.003 43 -0.003
20 Edge + SW 44 -0.003 45 -0.003
21 Edge + SW 46 -0.003 47 -0.002
22 Edge + SW 48 -0.002 49 -0.002
23 Edge + SW 50 -0.002 51 -0.002
24 Edge + SW 52 -0.002 53 -0.002
25 Edge + SW 2 -0.002 54 -0.002
103
YX
Z
104
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
-0.01
Dislacement (in)
-0.02
-0.03
Distance (ft.)

Figure: 2.4.41
0 5 10 15 20 25
0.005
-0.005
Dislacement (in)
-0.015
-0.025
Distance (ft.)
Deflection Curve along very next to edge of slab (25-25) due to

Figure: 2.4.42
105
Table: 2.4.15
Vertical Vertical
Distance L/C
Node Y in Node Y in
0 Center + SW 316 -0.002 342 -0.002
1 Center + SW 315 -0.002 341 -0.002
2 Center + SW 317 -0.002 343 -0.002
3 Center + SW 318 -0.002 344 -0.002
4 Center + SW 319 -0.002 345 -0.002
5 Center + SW 320 -0.002 346 -0.002
6 Center + SW 321 -0.003 347 -0.003
7 Center + SW 322 -0.003 348 -0.003
8 Center + SW 323 -0.003 349 -0.003
9 Center + SW 324 -0.004 350 -0.004
10 Center + SW 325 -0.004 351 -0.004
11 Center + SW 326 -0.005 352 -0.005
12 Center + SW 327 -0.006 353 -0.006
13 Center + SW 328 -0.006 354 -0.006
14 Center + SW 329 -0.005 355 -0.005
15 Center + SW 330 -0.004 356 -0.004
16 Center + SW 331 -0.004 357 -0.004
17 Center + SW 332 -0.003 358 -0.003
18 Center + SW 333 -0.003 359 -0.003
19 Center + SW 334 -0.003 360 -0.003
20 Center + SW 335 -0.002 361 -0.002
21 Center + SW 336 -0.002 362 -0.002
22 Center + SW 337 -0.002 363 -0.002
23 Center + SW 338 -0.002 364 -0.002
24 Center + SW 339 -0.002 365 -0.002
25 Center + SW 340 -0.002 366 -0.002
106
Y
X
Z
107
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
-0.01
Dislacement (in)
-0.02
-0.03
Distance (ft.)
to Corner load + Self Weight
Figure: 2.4.44
0 5 10 15 20 25
0.005
-0.005
Dislacement (in)
-0.015
-0.025
Distance (ft.)

Cornet load + Self Weight
Figure: 2.4.45
108
Table: 2.4.16
Principal Stress
Bending Moment
0 Corner + SW 2 76.531 -76.531 -212.103 -212.103
1 Corner + SW 3 108.246 -108.246 -441.897 -117.994
2 Corner + SW 4 122.122 -122.122 -917.823 -72.558
4 Corner + SW 5 112.643 -112.643 -966.738 -78.197
5 Corner + SW 6 92.173 -92.173 -839.226 -65.415
6 Corner + SW 7 69.739 -69.739 -654.38 -52.036
7 Corner + SW 8 49.356 -49.356 -470.249 -39.288
8 Corner + SW 9 32.756 -32.756 -313.554 -28.503
9 Corner + SW 10 20.287 -20.287 -192.93 -19.932
10 Corner + SW 11 11.573 -11.573 -107.304 -13.463
11 Corner + SW 12 5.928 -5.928 -51.074 -8.786
12 Corner + SW 13 2.627 -2.627 -17.24 -5.539
13 Corner + SW 14 1.023 -1.023 0.874 -3.37
14 Corner + SW 15 1.063 -0.421 8.82 -1.978
15 Corner + SW 16 1.108 -0.201 10.787 -1.12
16 Corner + SW 17 0.957 -0.107 9.685 -0.614
17 Corner + SW 18 0.722 -0.062 7.37 -0.33
18 Corner + SW 19 0.483 -0.04 4.911 -0.178
19 Corner + SW 20 0.286 -0.03 2.834 -0.102
20 Corner + SW 21 0.144 -0.026 1.325 -0.065
21 Corner + SW 22 0.059 -0.028 0.378 -0.048
22 Corner + SW 23 0.033 -0.033 -0.106 -0.039
23 Corner + SW 24 0.034 -0.034 -0.257 -0.033
24 Corner + SW 25 0.024 -0.024 -0.205 -0.033
25 Corner + SW 26 0.009 -0.009 -0.064 -0.042
109
MXY(local)
lb-in/in
<=0
61.9
124
186
248
310
372
433
495
557
619
681
743
805
867
929
>=991
Y
X
Z
Load5
110
1 5 9 13 17 21 25
200
-200
-400
-600
-800
Mx lb-in/in
My lb-in/in
-1000
Distance (ft.)

slab Due to Corner + Self Weight
Figure: 2.4.47
120
70
20
-30
-80
Top Stress
Bottom Stress
-130
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
Distance (ft.)
Figure: 2.4.48
111
Table: 2.4.17
Principal Stress
Bending Moment
0 Edge + SW 2 0.999 -0.999 -6.116 -5.093
1 Edge + SW 3 2.84 -2.84 -24.696 -5.197
2 Edge + SW 4 5.561 -5.561 -51.495 -6.604
4 Edge + SW 5 9.433 -9.433 -88.693 -9.129
5 Edge + SW 6 14.563 -14.563 -136.669 -12.455
6 Edge + SW 7 20.887 -20.887 -193.102 -16.557
7 Edge + SW 8 27.995 -27.995 -250.853 -21.16
8 Edge + SW 9 34.914 -34.914 -294.639 -25.869
9 Edge + SW 10 39.819 -39.819 -295.533 -28.96
10 Edge + SW 11 40.026 -40.026 -202.295 -32.133
11 Edge + SW 12 37.972 -30.75 86.687 -9.648
12 Edge + SW 13 86.214 -20.239 788.987 -85.254
13 Edge + SW 14 120.054 -17.415 1280 -185.757
14 Edge + SW 15 86.214 -20.239 788.987 -85.254
15 Edge + SW 16 37.972 -30.75 86.687 -9.648
16 Edge + SW 17 40.026 -40.026 -202.295 -32.133
17 Edge + SW 18 39.819 -39.819 -295.533 -28.96
18 Edge + SW 19 34.914 -34.914 -294.639 -25.869
19 Edge + SW 20 27.995 -27.995 -250.853 -21.16
20 Edge + SW 21 20.887 -20.887 -193.102 -16.557
21 Edge + SW 22 14.563 -14.563 -136.669 -12.455
22 Edge + SW 23 9.433 -9.433 -88.693 -9.129
23 Edge + SW 24 5.561 -5.561 -51.495 -6.604
24 Edge + SW 25 2.84 -2.84 -24.696 -5.197
25 Edge + SW 26 0.999 -0.999 -6.116 -5.093
112
MXY(local)
lb-in/in
<=0
25.5
51
76.5
102
128
153
179
204
230
255
281
306
332
357
383
>=408
Y
X
Z
Load6
113
1 5 9 13 17 21 25
1500
1000
500
-500
Mx lb-in/in
My lb-in/in
-1000
Distance (ft.)

slab Due to Edge + Self Weight
Figure: 2.4.50
120
70
20
-30
-80
Top Stress
Bottom Stress
-130
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
Distance (ft.)
Figure: 2.4.51
114
Table: 2.4.18
Principal Stress
L/C Plate Bending Moment
Distance Top Bottom
0 Center + SW 302 0.22 -0.22 -1.501 -2.342
1 Center + SW 303 0.66 -0.66 -7.036 -2.287
2 Center + SW 304 1.577 -1.577 -16.818 -2.118
4 Center + SW 305 2.927 -2.927 -31.226 -1.301
5 Center + SW 306 4.713 -4.713 -50.273 1.436
6 Center + SW 307 6.842 -6.842 -72.979 8.17
7 Center + SW 308 9.036 -9.036 -96.382 22.355
8 Center + SW 309 10.689 -10.689 -114.021 49.546
9 Center + SW 310 10.613 -10.613 -113.208 99.14
10 Center + SW 311 17.317 -6.631 -70.731 184.714
11 Center + SW 312 31.975 6.198 66.113 341.067
12 Center + SW 313 53.915 40.97 437.012 575.088
13 Center + SW 314 66.228 66.228 706.434 706.434
14 Center + SW 315 53.915 40.97 437.012 575.088
15 Center + SW 316 31.975 6.198 66.113 341.067
16 Center + SW 317 17.317 -6.631 -70.731 184.714
17 Center + SW 318 10.613 -10.613 -113.208 99.14
18 Center + SW 319 10.689 -10.689 -114.021 49.546
19 Center + SW 320 9.036 -9.036 -96.382 22.355
20 Center + SW 321 6.842 -6.842 -72.979 8.17
21 Center + SW 322 4.713 -4.713 -50.273 1.436
22 Center + SW 323 2.927 -2.927 -31.226 -1.301
23 Center + SW 324 1.577 -1.577 -16.818 -2.118
24 Center + SW 325 0.66 -0.66 -7.036 -2.287
25 Center + SW 326 0.22 -0.22 -1.501 -2.342
115
MXY(local)
lb-in/in
<=0
8.48
17
25.4
33.9
42.4
50.9
59.4
67.9
76.3
84.8
93.3
102
110
119
127
>=136
Y
X
Z
Load7
116
1 5 9 13 17 21 25
800
600
400
200
-200
-400
-600
-800 Mx lb-in/in
My lb-in/in
-1000
Distance (ft.)

Figure: 2.4.53
120
70
20
-30
-80
Top Stress
Bottom Stress
-130
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
Distance (ft.)
Figure: 2.4.54
117
2.4.2 Discussion
The slab shows different behavior for different cases as well as under loads at various
points. The value of deflection as like as principal stress and bending moment varies measurably
with the distance. The variation can be observed from the graphs constructed with the values.
Three slabs with different dimensions such as 15’x15’; 20’x20’ and 25’x25’ are considered here.
First the displacement of the nodes along the edge line and the very next line to the edge of
the slab for corner loading are taken into account. The variation of displacement is shown in
Figure-2.4.1 to 2.4.3, in Figure- 2.4.19 to 2.4.21 and in Figure- 2.4.37 to 2.4.39. It can be seen in
the graphs that the values of displacement increases as the distance of the nodes increases from
the corner. The graph shows that the curve is continuously upward up to a certain distance and
then it goes horizontal. Then the values of displacement go almost the same.
The variation of displacement due to edge loading and due to center loading varies largely.
The variation for edge loading along the edge line and the very next line to the edge are shown in
Figure -2.4.4 to Figure- 2.4.6; in Figure- 2.4.22 to Figure- 2.4.24 and in Figure- 2.4.40 to Figure-
2.4.42. The values of displacement for the nodes along the edge are plotted here. The values
represent a V shape. It can be seen here that the value of displacement decreases as the distance
of the nodes increases from the corner. The graph shows that curve is continuously downward up
to a certain distance and after the minimum value, it goes upward. The values of displacement
are nearly equal but opposite. All the figures mentioned above are almost the same.
The variation of displacement against center loading along the line through the center and
the very next to that line are shown in figure – 2.4.7 to Figure- 2.4.9; in Figure- 2.4.25 to Figure-
2.4.27 and in Figure -2.4.43 to Figure-2.4.45. The values of displacement for the nodes along the
center line are plotted here. The values represent nearly V shape. It can be seen here that the
value of displacement decreases as the distance of the nodes increases from the corner. The
graph shows that curve is continuously downward up to a certain distance and after the minimum
value, it goes upward. The values of displacement are nearly equal but opposite.
The bending moment also varies considerably for the three cases. The values of bending
moment about X &Y directions for the plates along the edge line of the slab are plotted. For
corner loading, the values of bending moment about X direction decreases as the distance of the
nodes increases from the corner. After a certain distance, it goes upward. The curve for the
values of moment about Y direction is continuously upward. And at the end, both the curves
meet together. But for the both edge and center loading, the curve for bending moment about
X directions along the edge line of the slab is convex, but divided in two parts. In the first part it
goes upward and after the mid length it goes downward. The graph for edge loading, values of
bending moment about Y direction decreases continuously and at mid length it is convex. But the
graph for center loading along Y direction is same as to X direction. The variation is shown in
the figures –2.4.11;14;17;29;32;35;47;50;53.
Both the distribution of bending moment and top-bottom stress are shown in the
Figure- 2.4.10;13;16;28;31;34;46;49;52.
118
The variation of principle stresses such as top and bottom stresses varies also
considerably. The graphs due to the corner loading are same for three sizes of slabs. The top
stresses start with positive values and after a certain distance, it meets the zero line. The bottom
stresses starts with negative values and at last, it meets the zero line. The variations are shown in
the Figure- 2.4.12;15;18;30;33;36;4851;54. The graphs are almost the same.
119
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
120
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
The study of the behavior of the slab on ground under different loading case actually
aims the comparison among the slabs with different dimension and placement of loads at
different nodes or points. Three measures such as displacements, principal stresses and bending
moments are analyzed here. Displacement of the nodes along the edge line and very next to the
edge line for all three slabs varies almost linearly. Sometimes the graph is convex and sometimes
it is concave. The graphs are described in the discussion. The important matter is that the
displacement, principal stress or the bending moment has the maximum value at the point of
loading. As the distance increases from the loading point, the values decrease. All the graphs
have a minimum value and as like as maximum also.
The most noticeable thing is that the shape of the graphs remains nearly same for same
case of loading with the change of dimension of the slab. The displacement as like as the
principal stresses and the bending moments sometime remain the same but opposite.
It may be concluded in this way - the behavior of the slab on ground does not depend on
the dimension of the slab. The slab behavior is mostly influenced by the placement of the loads
and by the loading criteria.
121
REFERENCES
Design of concrete structures

By H. Nilson David Darwin Charles W. Dolan
An article on seismic risk assessment of existing building stock in Istanbul a pilot application in
zeytinburnu
By - Middle East Technical University, Dep’t of Civil Engineering, 06531, Ankara,
Turkey
Guide to Design of Slabs-on-Ground- Reported

By ACI Committee 360
Article on seismic risk in Bangladesh

By - Saidur Rahman (Director of Bangladesh Disaster Preparedness Centre)
Dr M Shahidul Islam (Professor, Department of Geography, University of
Chittagong)
Earthquake Database and Seismic of Bangladesh

By- Md. Hossain Ali (Department of Civil Engg. BUET, Chaka, Bangladesh)
Sesoren, A.: Geological interpretation of Land sat imagery of the Bangladesh Ganges Delta, ITC
Journal.
Khan. F.H.: Geology of Bangladesh University press limited.
Software: STAAD. Pro
http://www.google.com
http://www.wikipedia.org
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6956055/Earthquake-in-Bangladesh
122
APPENDIX
~1~
STAAD.Pro COMMANDS
AND
SUMMARY of RESULTS
~2~
STAAD.Pro COMMANDS
FOR 15’-15’ SLAB ON GROUND

STAAD SPACE
START JOB INFORMATION
ENGINEER DATE 18-Apr-10
END JOB INFORMATION
INPUT WIDTH 79
UNIT FEET POUND
JOINT COORDINATES
1 0 0 0; 2 15 0 0; 3 15 0 15; 4 0 0 15; 5 1 0 0; 6 1 0 1; 7 0 0 1; 8 2 0 0;
9 2 0 1; 10 3 0 0; 11 3 0 1; 12 4 0 0; 13 4 0 1; 14 5 0 0; 15 5 0 1; 16 6 0 0;
17 6 0 1; 18 7 0 0; 19 7 0 1; 20 8 0 0; 21 8 0 1; 22 9 0 0; 23 9 0 1;
24 10 0 0; 25 10 0 1; 26 11 0 0; 27 11 0 1; 28 12 0 0; 29 12 0 1; 30 13 0 0;
31 13 0 1; 32 14 0 0; 33 14 0 1; 34 15 0 1; 35 1 0 2; 36 0 0 2; 37 2 0 2;
38 3 0 2; 39 4 0 2; 40 5 0 2; 41 6 0 2; 42 7 0 2; 43 8 0 2; 44 9 0 2;
45 10 0 2; 46 11 0 2; 47 12 0 2; 48 13 0 2; 49 14 0 2; 50 15 0 2; 51 1 0 3;
52 0 0 3; 53 2 0 3; 54 3 0 3; 55 4 0 3; 56 5 0 3; 57 6 0 3; 58 7 0 3; 59 8 0 3;
60 9 0 3; 61 10 0 3; 62 11 0 3; 63 12 0 3; 64 13 0 3; 65 14 0 3; 66 15 0 3;
67 1 0 4; 68 0 0 4; 69 2 0 4; 70 3 0 4; 71 4 0 4; 72 5 0 4; 73 6 0 4; 74 7 0 4;
75 8 0 4; 76 9 0 4; 77 10 0 4; 78 11 0 4; 79 12 0 4; 80 13 0 4; 81 14 0 4;
82 15 0 4; 83 1 0 5; 84 0 0 5; 85 2 0 5; 86 3 0 5; 87 4 0 5; 88 5 0 5;
89 6 0 5; 90 7 0 5; 91 8 0 5; 92 9 0 5; 93 10 0 5; 94 11 0 5; 95 12 0 5;
96 13 0 5; 97 14 0 5; 98 15 0 5; 99 1 0 6; 100 0 0 6; 101 2 0 6; 102 3 0 6;
~3~
103 4 0 6; 104 5 0 6; 105 6 0 6; 106 7 0 6; 107 8 0 6; 108 9 0 6; 109 10 0 6;
110 11 0 6; 111 12 0 6; 112 13 0 6; 113 14 0 6; 114 15 0 6; 115 1 0 7;
116 0 0 7; 117 2 0 7; 118 3 0 7; 119 4 0 7; 120 5 0 7; 121 6 0 7; 122 7 0 7;
123 8 0 7; 124 9 0 7; 125 10 0 7; 126 11 0 7; 127 12 0 7; 128 13 0 7;
129 14 0 7; 130 15 0 7; 131 1 0 8; 132 0 0 8; 133 2 0 8; 134 3 0 8; 135 4 0 8;
136 5 0 8; 137 6 0 8; 138 7 0 8; 139 8 0 8; 140 9 0 8; 141 10 0 8; 142 11 0 8;
143 12 0 8; 144 13 0 8; 145 14 0 8; 146 15 0 8; 147 1 0 9; 148 0 0 9;
149 2 0 9; 150 3 0 9; 151 4 0 9; 152 5 0 9; 153 6 0 9; 154 7 0 9; 155 8 0 9;
156 9 0 9; 157 10 0 9; 158 11 0 9; 159 12 0 9; 160 13 0 9; 161 14 0 9;
162 15 0 9; 163 1 0 10; 164 0 0 10; 165 2 0 10; 166 3 0 10; 167 4 0 10;
168 5 0 10; 169 6 0 10; 170 7 0 10; 171 8 0 10; 172 9 0 10; 173 10 0 10;
174 11 0 10; 175 12 0 10; 176 13 0 10; 177 14 0 10; 178 15 0 10; 179 1 0 11;
180 0 0 11; 181 2 0 11; 182 3 0 11; 183 4 0 11; 184 5 0 11; 185 6 0 11;
186 7 0 11; 187 8 0 11; 188 9 0 11; 189 10 0 11; 190 11 0 11; 191 12 0 11;
192 13 0 11; 193 14 0 11; 194 15 0 11; 195 1 0 12; 196 0 0 12; 197 2 0 12;
198 3 0 12; 199 4 0 12; 200 5 0 12; 201 6 0 12; 202 7 0 12; 203 8 0 12;
204 9 0 12; 205 10 0 12; 206 11 0 12; 207 12 0 12; 208 13 0 12; 209 14 0 12;
210 15 0 12; 211 1 0 13; 212 0 0 13; 213 2 0 13; 214 3 0 13; 215 4 0 13;
216 5 0 13; 217 6 0 13; 218 7 0 13; 219 8 0 13; 220 9 0 13; 221 10 0 13;
222 11 0 13; 223 12 0 13; 224 13 0 13; 225 14 0 13; 226 15 0 13; 227 1 0 14;
228 0 0 14; 229 2 0 14; 230 3 0 14; 231 4 0 14; 232 5 0 14; 233 6 0 14;
234 7 0 14; 235 8 0 14; 236 9 0 14; 237 10 0 14; 238 11 0 14; 239 12 0 14;
240 13 0 14; 241 14 0 14; 242 15 0 14; 243 1 0 15; 244 2 0 15; 245 3 0 15;
246 4 0 15; 247 5 0 15; 248 6 0 15; 249 7 0 15; 250 8 0 15; 251 9 0 15;
252 10 0 15; 253 11 0 15; 254 12 0 15; 255 13 0 15; 256 14 0 15;
ELEMENT INCIDENCES SHELL
~4~
2 1 5 6 7; 3 5 8 9 6; 4 8 10 11 9; 5 10 12 13 11; 6 12 14 15 13; 7 14 16 17 15;
8 16 18 19 17; 9 18 20 21 19; 10 20 22 23 21; 11 22 24 25 23; 12 24 26 27 25;
13 26 28 29 27; 14 28 30 31 29; 15 30 32 33 31; 16 32 2 34 33; 17 7 6 35 36;
18 6 9 37 35; 19 9 11 38 37; 20 11 13 39 38; 21 13 15 40 39; 22 15 17 41 40;
23 17 19 42 41; 24 19 21 43 42; 25 21 23 44 43; 26 23 25 45 44; 27 25 27 46 45;
28 27 29 47 46; 29 29 31 48 47; 30 31 33 49 48; 31 33 34 50 49; 32 36 35 51 52;
33 35 37 53 51; 34 37 38 54 53; 35 38 39 55 54; 36 39 40 56 55; 37 40 41 57 56;
38 41 42 58 57; 39 42 43 59 58; 40 43 44 60 59; 41 44 45 61 60; 42 45 46 62 61;
43 46 47 63 62; 44 47 48 64 63; 45 48 49 65 64; 46 49 50 66 65; 47 52 51 67 68;
48 51 53 69 67; 49 53 54 70 69; 50 54 55 71 70; 51 55 56 72 71; 52 56 57 73 72;
53 57 58 74 73; 54 58 59 75 74; 55 59 60 76 75; 56 60 61 77 76; 57 61 62 78 77;
58 62 63 79 78; 59 63 64 80 79; 60 64 65 81 80; 61 65 66 82 81; 62 68 67 83 84;
63 67 69 85 83; 64 69 70 86 85; 65 70 71 87 86; 66 71 72 88 87; 67 72 73 89 88;
68 73 74 90 89; 69 74 75 91 90; 70 75 76 92 91; 71 76 77 93 92; 72 77 78 94 93;
73 78 79 95 94; 74 79 80 96 95; 75 80 81 97 96; 76 81 82 98 97;
77 84 83 99 100; 78 83 85 101 99; 79 85 86 102 101; 80 86 87 103 102;
81 87 88 104 103; 82 88 89 105 104; 83 89 90 106 105; 84 90 91 107 106;
85 91 92 108 107; 86 92 93 109 108; 87 93 94 110 109; 88 94 95 111 110;
89 95 96 112 111; 90 96 97 113 112; 91 97 98 114 113; 92 100 99 115 116;
93 99 101 117 115; 94 101 102 118 117; 95 102 103 119 118; 96 103 104 120 119;
97 104 105 121 120; 98 105 106 122 121; 99 106 107 123 122;
100 107 108 124 123; 101 108 109 125 124; 102 109 110 126 125;
103 110 111 127 126; 104 111 112 128 127; 105 112 113 129 128;
106 113 114 130 129; 107 116 115 131 132; 108 115 117 133 131;
109 117 118 134 133; 110 118 119 135 134; 111 119 120 136 135;
112 120 121 137 136; 113 121 122 138 137; 114 122 123 139 138;
~5~
115 123 124 140 139; 116 124 125 141 140; 117 125 126 142 141;
118 126 127 143 142; 119 127 128 144 143; 120 128 129 145 144;
121 129 130 146 145; 122 132 131 147 148; 123 131 133 149 147;
124 133 134 150 149; 125 134 135 151 150; 126 135 136 152 151;
127 136 137 153 152; 128 137 138 154 153; 129 138 139 155 154;
130 139 140 156 155; 131 140 141 157 156; 132 141 142 158 157;
133 142 143 159 158; 134 143 144 160 159; 135 144 145 161 160;
136 145 146 162 161; 137 148 147 163 164; 138 147 149 165 163;
139 149 150 166 165; 140 150 151 167 166; 141 151 152 168 167;
142 152 153 169 168; 143 153 154 170 169; 144 154 155 171 170;
145 155 156 172 171; 146 156 157 173 172; 147 157 158 174 173;
148 158 159 175 174; 149 159 160 176 175; 150 160 161 177 176;
151 161 162 178 177; 152 164 163 179 180; 153 163 165 181 179;
154 165 166 182 181; 155 166 167 183 182; 156 167 168 184 183;
157 168 169 185 184; 158 169 170 186 185; 159 170 171 187 186;
160 171 172 188 187; 161 172 173 189 188; 162 173 174 190 189;
163 174 175 191 190; 164 175 176 192 191; 165 176 177 193 192;
166 177 178 194 193; 167 180 179 195 196; 168 179 181 197 195;
169 181 182 198 197; 170 182 183 199 198; 171 183 184 200 199;
172 184 185 201 200; 173 185 186 202 201; 174 186 187 203 202;
175 187 188 204 203; 176 188 189 205 204; 177 189 190 206 205;
178 190 191 207 206; 179 191 192 208 207; 180 192 193 209 208;
181 193 194 210 209; 182 196 195 211 212; 183 195 197 213 211;
184 197 198 214 213; 185 198 199 215 214; 186 199 200 216 215;
190 203 204 220 219; 191 204 205 221 220; 192 205 206 222 221;
193 206 207 223 222; 194 207 208 224 223; 195 208 209 225 224;
~6~
196 209 210 226 225; 197 212 211 227 228; 198 211 213 229 227;
199 213 214 230 229; 200 214 215 231 230; 201 215 216 232 231;
202 216 217 233 232; 203 217 218 234 233; 204 218 219 235 234;
205 219 220 236 235; 206 220 221 237 236; 207 221 222 238 237;
208 222 223 239 238; 209 223 224 240 239; 210 224 225 241 240;
211 225 226 242 241; 212 228 227 243 4; 213 227 229 244 243;
214 229 230 245 244; 215 230 231 246 245; 216 231 232 247 246;
217 232 233 248 247; 218 233 234 249 248; 219 234 235 250 249;
220 235 236 251 250; 221 236 237 252 251; 222 237 238 253 252;
223 238 239 254 253; 224 239 240 255 254; 225 240 241 256 255;
226 241 242 3 256;
UNIT INCHES POUND
ELEMENT PROPERTY
2 TO 226 THICKNESSES 8
UNIT FEET POUND
DEFINE MATERIAL START
ISOTROPIC CONCRETE
E 4.536e+008
POISSON 0.17
DENSITY 149.99
ALPHA 5.5e-006
DAMP 0.05
END DEFINE MATERIAL
CONSTANTS
MATERIAL CONCRETE ALL
SUPPORTS
~7~
2 TO 226 PLATE MAT DIRECT YONLY SUBGRADE 518400 PRINT
LOAD 1 LOADTYPE Dead TITLE SW
SELFWEIGHT Y -1 LIST 2 TO 226
LOAD 2 LOADTYPE Dead TITLE CR
ELEMENT LOAD
2 PR GY -6000
LOAD 3 LOADTYPE Dead TITLE EDG
ELEMENT LOAD
9 PR GY -6000
LOAD 4 LOADTYPE Dead TITLE CN
ELEMENT LOAD
114 PR GY -6000
LOAD COMB 5 COMBINATION LOAD CASE 5
1 1.0 2 1.0
1 1.0 3 1.0
1 1.0 4 1.0
PERFORM ANALYSIS
PERFORM ANALYSIS
FINISH
~8~
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Summary of Results for 15”-15” Slab:

Table A1: Node Displacement Summary
X Y Z Resultant rX rY rZ
Node L/C
(in) (in) (in) (in) (rad) (rad) (rad)
Max X 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.029 0.000 0.029 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Min X 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.029 0.000 0.029 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Max Y 68 6:EDG + SW 0.000 -0.001 0.000 0.001 -0.000 0.000 -0.000
Min Y 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.029 0.000 0.029 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Max Z 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.029 0.000 0.029 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Min Z 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.029 0.000 0.029 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Max rX 90 7:CENTER + SW 0.000 -0.004 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 -0.000
Min rX 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.029 0.000 0.029 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Max rY 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.029 0.000 0.029 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Min rY 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.029 0.000 0.029 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Max rZ 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.029 0.000 0.029 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Min rZ 14 6:EDG + SW 0.000 -0.009 0.000 0.009 -0.000 0.000 -0.000
Max Rst 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.029 0.000 0.029 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Table A2: Plate Centre Stress Summary

Shear Membrane Bending
Qx Qy Sx Sy Sxy Mx My Mxy
Plate L/C
(psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (lb-in/in) (lb-in/in) (lb-in/in)
Max Qx 8 6:EDG + SW 15.697 -2.677 0.000 0.000 0.000 789.345 -86.506 358.773
Min Qx 3 5:CORNER + SW -20.551 -1.453 0.000 0.000 0.000 -441.796 -117.966 -859.556
Max Qy 99 7:CENTER + SW 0.000 8.398 0.000 0.000 0.000 579.756 442.625 0.000
Min Qy 17 5:CORNER + SW -1.453 -20.551 0.000 0.000 0.000 -117.966 -441.796 -859.556
Max Sx 2 5:CORNER + SW -9.544 -9.544 0.000 0.000 0.000 -212.075 -212.075 -604.228
Min Sx 2 5:CORNER + SW -9.544 -9.544 0.000 0.000 0.000 -212.075 -212.075 -604.228
Max Sy 2 5:CORNER + SW -9.544 -9.544 0.000 0.000 0.000 -212.075 -212.075 -604.228
Min Sy 2 5:CORNER + SW -9.544 -9.544 0.000 0.000 0.000 -212.075 -212.075 -604.228
Max Sxy 2 5:CORNER + SW -9.544 -9.544 0.000 0.000 0.000 -212.075 -212.075 -604.228
Min Sxy 2 5:CORNER + SW -9.544 -9.544 0.000 0.000 0.000 -212.075 -212.075 -604.228
Max Mx 9 6:EDG + SW 0.000 -4.326 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.28E 3 -187.002 0.000
Min Mx 5 5:CORNER + SW -6.888 -0.801 0.000 0.000 0.000 -966.390 -78.169 -513.580
Max My 114 7:CENTER + SW -0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 710.699 710.699 0.000
Min My 47 5:CORNER + SW -0.801 -6.888 0.000 0.000 0.000 -78.169 -966.390 -513.580
Max Mxy 22 6:EDG + SW 1.538 -0.990 0.000 0.000 0.000 101.283 -212.676 400.669
Min Mxy 18 5:CORNER + SW -1.906 -1.906 0.000 0.000 0.000 -462.093 -462.093 -990.714
Table A3: Plate Centre Principal Stress Summary

Principal Von Mis Tresca
Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom
Plate L/C
(psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi) (psi)
Max (t) 18 5:CORNER + SW 136.201 -136.201 166.603 166.603 185.759 185.759
Max (b) 18 5:CORNER + SW 136.201 -136.201 166.603 166.603 185.759 185.759
Max VM (t) 18 5:CORNER + SW 136.201 -136.201 166.603 166.603 185.759 185.759
Max VM (b) 18 5:CORNER + SW 136.201 -136.201 166.603 166.603 185.759 185.759
Tresca (t) 18 5:CORNER + SW 136.201 -136.201 166.603 166.603 185.759 185.759
Tresca (b) 18 5:CORNER + SW 136.201 -136.201 166.603 166.603 185.759 185.759
~9~
Table A4: Reaction Summary
Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Moment
FX FY FZ MX MY MZ
Node L/C
(lb) (lb) (lb) (kip-in) (kip-in) (kip-in)
Max FX 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 315.976 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Min FX 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 315.976 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Max FY 6 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 795.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Min FY 1 7:CENTER + SW 0.000 18.108 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Max FZ 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 315.976 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Min FZ 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 315.976 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Max MX 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 315.976 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Min MX 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 315.976 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Max MY 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 315.976 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Min MY 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 315.976 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Max MZ 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 315.976 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Min MZ 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 315.976 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Table A5: Base Pressure Summary

FX FY FZ
Node L/C
(psi) (psi) (psi)
Max FX 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 8.777 0.000
Min FX 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 8.777 0.000
Max FY 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 8.777 0.000
Min FY 68 6:EDG + SW 0.000 0.413 0.000
Max FZ 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 8.777 0.000
Min FZ 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 8.777 0.000
Table A6: Statics Check Results

FX FY FZ MX MY MZ
L/C
1:SW Loads 0.000 -22.5E 3 0.000 2.02E 3 0.000 -2.02E 3
1:SW Reactions 0.000 22.5E 3 0.000 -2.02E 3 0.000 2.02E 3
Difference 0.000 -0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.000
2:CR Loads 0.000 -6E 3 0.000 36.000 0.000 -36.000
2:CR Reactions 0.000 6E 3 0.000 -36.000 0.000 36.000
Difference 0.000 -0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.000
3:EDG Loads 0.000 -6E 3 0.000 36.000 0.000 -540.000
3:EDG Reactions 0.000 6E 3 0.000 -36.000 0.000 540.000
Difference 0.000 -0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.000
4:CN Loads 0.000 -6E 3 0.000 540.000 0.000 -540.000
4:CN Reactions 0.000 6E 3 0.000 -540.000 0.000 540.000
Difference 0.000 -0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.000
~ 10 ~
Node L/C
Max X 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.027 0.000 0.027 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Min X 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.027 0.000 0.027 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Max Y 163 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000
Min Y 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.027 0.000 0.027 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Max Z 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.027 0.000 0.027 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Min Z 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.027 0.000 0.027 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Max rX 190 7:CENTER + SW 0.000 -0.004 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000
Min rX 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.027 0.000 0.027 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Max rY 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.027 0.000 0.027 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Min rY 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.027 0.000 0.027 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Max rZ 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.027 0.000 0.027 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Min rZ 20 6:EDGE + SW 0.000 -0.009 0.000 0.009 -0.000 0.000 -0.000
Max Rst 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.027 0.000 0.027 -0.000 0.000 0.000

Plate L/C
Max Qx 11 6:EDGE + SW 15.242 -2.594 0.000 0.000 0.000 758.514 -79.136 333.806
Min Qx 3 5:CORNER + SW -20.079 -1.425 0.000 0.000 0.000 -401.484 -107.791 -805.620
Max Qy 201 7:CENTER + SW 0.000 8.071 0.000 0.000 0.000 543.547 417.156 0.000
Min Qy 23 5:CORNER + SW -1.425 -20.079 0.000 0.000 0.000 -107.791 -401.484 -805.620
Max Sx 2 5:CORNER + SW -9.281 -9.281 0.000 0.000 0.000 -194.649 -194.649 -559.368
Min Sx 2 5:CORNER + SW -9.281 -9.281 0.000 0.000 0.000 -194.649 -194.649 -559.368
Max Sy 2 5:CORNER + SW -9.281 -9.281 0.000 0.000 0.000 -194.649 -194.649 -559.368
Min Sy 2 5:CORNER + SW -9.281 -9.281 0.000 0.000 0.000 -194.649 -194.649 -559.368
Max Sxy 2 5:CORNER + SW -9.281 -9.281 0.000 0.000 0.000 -194.649 -194.649 -559.368
Min Sxy 2 5:CORNER + SW -9.281 -9.281 0.000 0.000 0.000 -194.649 -194.649 -559.368
Max Mx 12 6:EDGE + SW 0.000 -4.170 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.21E 3 -171.382 0.000
Min Mx 5 5:CORNER + SW -7.259 -0.815 0.000 0.000 0.000 -910.383 -72.790 -496.467
Max My 222 7:CENTER + SW 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 663.777 663.777 0.000
Min My 65 5:CORNER + SW -0.815 -7.259 0.000 0.000 0.000 -72.790 -910.383 -496.467
Max Mxy 31 6:EDGE + SW 1.684 -1.074 0.000 0.000 0.000 107.739 -190.676 383.969
Min Mxy 24 5:CORNER + SW -1.986 -1.986 0.000 0.000 0.000 -422.694 -422.694 -941.698

Plate L/C
Max (t) 45 5:CORNER + SW 128.312 -128.312 141.916 141.916 152.429 152.429
Max (b) 25 5:CORNER + SW 128.312 -128.312 141.916 141.916 152.429 152.429
Max VM (t) 24 5:CORNER + SW 127.912 -127.912 157.964 157.964 176.568 176.568
Max VM (b) 24 5:CORNER + SW 127.912 -127.912 157.964 157.964 176.568 176.568
~ 11 ~
FX FY FZ MX MY MZ
Node L/C
Max FX 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 266.231 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Min FX 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 266.231 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Max FY 6 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 685.932 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Min FY 1 6:EDGE + SW 0.000 20.627 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Max FZ 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 266.231 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Min FZ 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 266.231 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Max MX 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 266.231 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Min MX 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 266.231 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Max MY 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 266.231 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Min MY 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 266.231 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Max MZ 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 266.231 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Min MZ 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 266.231 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

FX FY FZ
Node L/C
(psi) (psi) (psi)
Max FX 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 8.153 0.000
Min FX 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 8.153 0.000
Max FY 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 8.153 0.000
Min FY 142 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 0.504 0.000
Max FZ 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 8.153 0.000
Min FZ 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 8.153 0.000

FX FY FZ MX MY MZ
L/C
1:SW Loads 0.000 -40E 3 0.000 4.8E 3 0.000 -4.8E 3
1:SW Reactions 0.000 40E 3 0.000 -4.8E 3 0.000 4.8E 3
Difference 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.000 0.000 -0.000
2:CR Loads 0.000 -5.44E 3 0.000 31.098 0.000 -31.098
2:CR Reactions 0.000 5.44E 3 0.000 -31.098 0.000 31.098
Difference 0.000 -0.000 0.000 -0.000 0.000 -0.000
3:EDG Loads 0.000 -5.44E 3 0.000 31.098 0.000 -653.068
3:EDG Reactions 0.000 5.44E 3 0.000 -31.098 0.000 653.068
Difference 0.000 -0.000 0.000 -0.000 0.000 -0.000
4:CN Loads 0.000 -5.44E 3 0.000 653.074 0.000 -653.074
4:CN Reactions 0.000 5.44E 3 0.000 -653.074 0.000 653.074
Difference 0.000 -0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.000
~ 12 ~
Node L/C
Max X 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.029 0.000 0.029 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Min X 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.029 0.000 0.029 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Max Y 165 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.002 0.000 0.002 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Min Y 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.029 0.000 0.029 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Max Z 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.029 0.000 0.029 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Min Z 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.029 0.000 0.029 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Max rX 275 7:CENTER + SW 0.000 -0.004 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 -0.000
Min rX 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.029 0.000 0.029 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Max rY 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.029 0.000 0.029 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Min rY 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.029 0.000 0.029 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Max rZ 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.029 0.000 0.029 -0.000 0.000 0.000
Min rZ 24 6:EDGE + SW 0.000 -0.009 0.000 0.009 -0.000 0.000 -0.000
Max Rst 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 -0.029 0.000 0.029 -0.000 0.000 0.000

Plate L/C
Max Qx 13 6:EDGE + SW 15.811 -2.662 0.000 0.000 0.000 788.987 -85.254 362.300
Min Qx 3 5:CORNER + SW -20.552 -1.453 0.000 0.000 0.000 -441.897 -117.994 -859.555
Max Qy 289 7:CENTER + SW -0.000 8.429 0.000 0.000 0.000 575.088 437.012 0.000
Min Qy 27 5:CORNER + SW -1.453 -20.552 0.000 0.000 0.000 -117.994 -441.897 -859.555
Max Sx 2 5:CORNER + SW -9.544 -9.544 0.000 0.000 0.000 -212.103 -212.103 -604.230
Min Sx 2 5:CORNER + SW -9.544 -9.544 0.000 0.000 0.000 -212.103 -212.103 -604.230
Max Sy 2 5:CORNER + SW -9.544 -9.544 0.000 0.000 0.000 -212.103 -212.103 -604.230
Min Sy 2 5:CORNER + SW -9.544 -9.544 0.000 0.000 0.000 -212.103 -212.103 -604.230
Max Sxy 2 5:CORNER + SW -9.544 -9.544 0.000 0.000 0.000 -212.103 -212.103 -604.230
Min Sxy 2 5:CORNER + SW -9.544 -9.544 0.000 0.000 0.000 -212.103 -212.103 -604.230
Max Mx 14 6:EDGE + SW -0.000 -4.311 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.28E 3 -185.757 -0.000
Min Mx 5 5:CORNER + SW -6.888 -0.801 0.000 0.000 0.000 -966.738 -78.197 -513.561
Max My 314 7:CENTER + SW -0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 706.434 706.434 -0.000
Min My 77 5:CORNER + SW -0.801 -6.888 0.000 0.000 0.000 -78.197 -966.738 -513.561
Max Mxy 37 6:EDGE + SW 1.625 -0.997 0.000 0.000 0.000 88.790 -206.493 408.059
Min Mxy 28 5:CORNER + SW -1.907 -1.907 0.000 0.000 0.000 -462.198 -462.198 -990.702

Plate L/C
Max (t) 28 5:CORNER + SW 136.209 -136.209 166.604 166.604 185.757 185.757
Max (b) 28 5:CORNER + SW 136.209 -136.209 166.604 166.604 185.757 185.757
Max VM (t) 28 5:CORNER + SW 136.209 -136.209 166.604 166.604 185.757 185.757
Max VM (b) 28 5:CORNER + SW 136.209 -136.209 166.604 166.604 185.757 185.757
~ 13 ~
FX FY FZ MX MY MZ
Node L/C
Max FX 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 315.933 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Min FX 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 315.933 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Max FY 6 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 794.924 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Min FY 1 6:EDGE + SW 0.000 23.834 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Max FZ 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 315.933 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Min FZ 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 315.933 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Max MX 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 315.933 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Min MX 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 315.933 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Max MY 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 315.933 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Min MY 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 315.933 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Max MZ 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 315.933 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Min MZ 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 315.933 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

FX FY FZ
Node L/C
(psi) (psi) (psi)
Max FX 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 8.776 0.000
Min FX 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 8.776 0.000
Max FY 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 8.776 0.000
Min FY 165 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 0.487 0.000
Max FZ 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 8.776 0.000
Min FZ 1 5:CORNER + SW 0.000 8.776 0.000

FX FY FZ MX MY MZ
L/C
1:SW Loads 0.000 -62.5E 3 0.000 9.37E 3 0.000 -9.37E 3
1:SW Reactions 0.000 62.5E 3 0.000 -9.37E 3 0.000 9.37E 3
Difference 0.000 -0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.000
2:CR Loads 0.000 -6E 3 0.000 36.000 0.000 -36.000
2:CR Reactions 0.000 6E 3 0.000 -36.000 0.000 36.000
Difference 0.000 -0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
3:EDG Loads 0.000 -6E 3 0.000 36.000 0.000 -900.000
3:EDG Reactions 0.000 6E 3 0.000 -36.000 0.000 900.000
Difference 0.000 -0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.000
4:CN Loads 0.000 -6E 3 0.000 900.000 0.000 -900.000
4:CN Reactions 0.000 6E 3 0.000 -900.000 0.000 900.000
Difference 0.000 -0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.000
~ 14 ~

SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT BY SIDEWALK SURVEY AND A STUDY ON GROUND SUPPORTED SLAB USING SOFTWARE STAAD - Pro

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT BY SIDEWALK SURVEY AND A STUDY ON GROUND SUPPORTED SLAB USING SOFTWARE STAAD - Pro

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT BY SIDEWALK SURVEY

Md. Shamsul Arefin Khan (060203014)

Prosenjit Paul (060203037)

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

AHSANULLAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Md. Shamsul Arefin Khan (060203014)

Prosenjit Paul (060203037)

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING IN

AHSANULLAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Dr. Md. Mahmudur Rahman

Signature of the student

Md. Arman Zaman

Md. Shamsul Arefin Khan

SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT BY SIDEWALK SURVEY

1.1.2 Status of Earthquakes in Bangladesh 6

1.1.3 Objective & Scope of Study 8

1.2.3 Review of previous works 13

CONCEPT OF EARTHQUAKE ASSESSMENT & METHODOLOGY 15

1.3.3 Assessment of Available Methods 21

1.3.4 Statistical Analysis 21

1.3.5 Variation of building performance with PGV 22

1.3.6 Intensity dependent expected scores 24

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF GROUND SUPPORTED SLAB BY STAAD.Pro

2.1.2 Installing slabs on ground 46

2.1.3 Failure of ground supported slabs 46

2.1.4 Shrinkage and temperature effects 47

2.1.5 “Difficulties to obtain economical, serviceable concrete floor.” 48

2.2.2 Finite-element method 54

2.2.3 Construction document information 54

2.2.4 Slab-on-ground design criteria 55

CONCEPT AND METHODOLOGY 58

RESULT AND DISCISSION 63

2.4.2 Discussion 118

Figure No. Name of Figure

Figure 1.1.1 Buildings of Old Dhaka

Table No. Name of Table

It is basically a sidewalk survey procedure based on observing selected building

Figure: 1.1.1 Building of Old Dhaka

Figure: 1.1.3 Building of Old Dhaka

Figure: 1.1.4 Earthquake zone of Bangladesh

In the generalized tectonic map of Bangladesh, the distribution of epicenters is found to

Figure: 1.1.6 Building of Old Dhaka

1.1.3 Objective& Scope of Study

Figure: 1.1.7 Building of Old Dhaka

Accurate historical information on earthquakes is very important in evaluating the

Table 1.2.1 Chronology of important earthquakes from 1548

Dr M Shahidul Islam (Professor, Department of Geography, University of Chittagong)

Potential earthquake threat and our coping strategies

1.3.2.1 Number of Stories

Field observations of earthquakes revealed a very significant correlation between the

Figure: 1.3.1 A High Storied Building of Old Dhaka

Figure: 1.3.2 Building of Old Dhaka

1.3.2.2 Presence of a Soft Story

1.3.2.3 Presence of Heavy Overhangs

1.3.2.4 Apparent Building Quality

1.3.2.5 Presence of Short Columns

1.3.2.6 Pounding between Adjacent Buildings

1.3.2.7 Local Soil Conditions

1.3.2.8 Topographic Effects

1.3.4 Statistical Analysis

Table 1.3.1 Observed Performance score

Observation of strong correlation between PGV and plastic deformation demands on

Table: 1.3.2 Calculated performance-modification factors