Items Compliance (Yes/ No) Comment

Has the structural design criteria (SDC) is agreed upon and

followed?
Loadings are identified, and calculations to back up load all considered loads as shown in our
are provided where required? Dead loads, Live loads, design criteria have been applied to
Equipment/cranage loads etc., Wind loads, Earthquake the design models
loads, Temperature loads.

Has the load cases and load combinations finalized?

Has the KEO practice, guide line notes and standards been
followed?
Has the load path been clearly defined?
Have the subsoil conditions been adequately defined in the
soil report to give working values for allowable pile loads
and bearing pressure for shallow foundations; settlement,
water level, ground water containments, seismic
parameters etc.?

Determine section cracked modifier.

Determine R value.
Are the site specific soil seismic parameter Fa and Fv
determined by geotechnical engineer to calculate the
seismic force as per ASCE7-05 11.4?

Is the cracked moment of inertia used for check for For EQ serviceability, the time
serviceability limit state factored by 1.43 as given by ACI - period obtained by ETABS can be
commentary section R 1011.1? This is only for WIND used as per 1630.10.3 of UBC 1997.
serviceability checking. For EQ serviceability, cracked Bd definition is wrong ACI318-05.
section modifier shall be used. For sustained load, I shall be Follow ACI318-08.
divided by 1+Bd,

Is P - Delta analysis (second - order load effect) considered

in the analysis conforming to ASCE7-05 12.8.7?

Has the stability checked according to ACI 10.10.7.4 Columns and walls at the lower floor
(ACI318-08) and Bd considered in calculating of E (concrete shall be checked for this provision, if
modules) as given by ACI 10.10.4.2 (ACI318-08)? 10.13.6 applicable. See commentary.
for ACI318-05 and 10.11.1 for ACI 318-05.

Have the period and mode shapes of the structures been ASCE7-05 19.1 is for soil structure
established for fixed - base conditions as given by ASCE7-05 interaction. E can be reduce as
19.1? much as 30% if we take the
advnatage of this clause.
Complicated but can be done. We
can also use SP-240 to chose the
fixity - pinned for serviceability and
fixed for strength.

Does the dynamic analysis include a sufficient number of

modes to obtain a combined modal mass participation of at
least 90% of the actual mass in each of two orthogonal
direction as required by ASCE7-05 12.9.1?

In case of using linear dynamic analysis for seismic load

using modal analysis procedure as per ASCE7-05 12.9 does
the base shear scaled to static based shear as given in
ASCE7-05 12.8?

Have the horizontal and vertical irregularities been checked

for modeling purpose as required by ASCE7-05 12.3?

Has appropriate wind exposure category considered?

Has parapet been included in the analysis?
Has appropriate overstrength been cosidered. Refer to
table 16-N of UBC-97
Has P-Δ load load combination (1.2D+0.5L) used? Verify with SP-240
Bending property modifiers for PT slabs may be increased
to .3 (used 0.25 for all slabs)
Has slab panel been meshed? Limit to 2x2 maximum
Has ramp been modelled? For parking structure or
structures with significant ramp area, check whether ramps
can transfer lateral force from one side to another side? If
ramp plan area is insignificant to total floor are, model the
ramp as membrane and should not be part of rigid
diaphragm.

Add earth and subsoil water pressures as additional design

loads and apply these on basement walls.

Add drop panel or add additional mass for drop panel.

Items Compliance (Yes/ No) Comment
Has the fixity of the base been taken care of as per SP-240 Verify with SP-240
chapter 4? For drift (serviceability) columns are pinned and
walls are fixed. For strength, columns & walls are fixed.

Has the beam - column fixity reduced to 50% as per SP-240? Verify with SP-240

Has the model incorporated intermediate moment frame

(IMF) by virtual beam and membrane?
Has the accidental torsion taken care of by modifying 5%
eccentrucity?
Has the wall been meshed?
Has the overall stabilty check been carried out?
Check for the upper limit of calculating building period has
been done as required by ASCE7-05 12.8.2?

Has the effect of deformation on non-structural members

considered?
Are movements such as: settlements, differential
settlements, temperature, early thermal shrinkage, creep,
vibration and similar adequately catered for in the analysis?

For high rise buildings check that lateral stability system Usually the acceleration is given by
conforms to design criteria for limitation of building wind report. We can do manually as
acceleration and drift. suggested in ASCE.

Have basic global checks been made to satisfy stability in

the vertical and horizontal direction (including overturning
and floating)?

Have simple calculations been carried out to check the

capacity of key elements like transfer slabs or transfer
girders?

Does the structure allow for any planned future extentions

or changes of use?
Has the inelastic inter-storey drift been checked under it is calculated in all etabs models
seismic load as required by ASCE7-05 12.12?
Has the elastic inter-storey drift (lateral displacement) For wind load (servicebility) only
under wind load been checked for 10 years return period
wind speed within the limit as recommended by ASCE7-05
C.C.1.2?

Has the overall building drift under wind load been checked Wind load is used in the model is as
for 50 years return period wind speed within the limit as recomented by Windtunel test and
recommended by ASCE C.B.1.2? checkedaginst minimum of 80% of
ASCE7 load.

Is the columns axial shortening consideration has been Use paper by Fintel and spreadsheet
given to the effect of creep as required by ACI 318-05 8.2.4 following Eurocode.
and recommendations for high rise building in ACI
reference publication SP-27?

Has the preliminary checks for acceleration been done as Usually obtained from wind tunnel
given in ASCE7-05 equation C6-12? test. If not, then need to be done by
ASCE methodology.

Has the directional effect (orthogonality effect) considered

in the load case as per 1633.1?

Has the vertical component considered in the load case?

Does any element need seismic force amplification factor

stated in 1630.1.1 & 1630.3.1? Please NOTE that only the
horizontal EQ effect will need to be considered as per load
combination 1612.4 ; No need to consider vertical
component.

If the structural system is "Dual System", has the the 25%

criteria fulfilled as per 1629.6.5?
For any discontinuous lateral load resisting system,
provisions in 1630.8.2 shall be used with Load Combination
1612.4 & Omega. Verify.

Drift shall be computed based on actual time period based

as per UBC97 1630.10.3 and ASCE 05-7 12.8.6.2.

Has the "Ties and continuity" ( check provision of 0.5CaI in

UBC97 1633.2.5) been verified?
Has the transfer of forces through diaphragm been checked
as ASCE 05-7 clause 12.10? Check for diaphragm "Drag
chord forces- compression strut, tension chord".
Items Compliance (Yes/ No) Comment
If the slab is modeled as shell, reinforcement of lateral
force shall be provided. For flat slab modeled as shell and
NOT part of lateral force resisting system - reinforcement
shall be provided to slab , mainly at column locations, for
lateral force, i.e. EQ, Wind. For Flat slab part of lateral
system such as in IMF, check the analogy with Equivalent
frame and membrane analogy.

EQ servicibility model shall be based on cracked section

and actual program determined time period without the
30% or 40% limitation as stated in 1630.10.3.

For weak story, check the provision of UBC 97 1629.9.1 for

structures less than two story or 30ft.
Check whether the diaphragm is rigid or flexible. Use semi-
rigid if required.
For L, C, T, etc. shape use multiple diaphragm or flexible
diphragm.
Has the provision of reduction of EQ force implemented as Note that this provision can be used
per ASCE05-7 clause 12.9 and ASCE05-7 chapter 19? to reduce the EQ force due to soil
structure interaction.

Has the model been checked for possible end offset. This The end offset will induce some
has to be checked and specified when the beam frames moment at column, at joint location.
into column, i.e beam column joint. This is OK for concrete beam-column
joint. But for steel connection or
steel-concrete connection the offset
may be set to zero. So that no
moment is transferred to the
column due to absence of rigid joint
connection.
 DESIGN DIVISION STRUCTURED QA/QC DOCUMENT
Project Name: AL REEM MALL & HOTEL 006 RFS: 07-9581-0006
MODEL TEAM ORGANIZATION
STAGE: CD SD DD WD OTHER
Review Period: 5/7/09-12/7/09
Review Manager: I. S. Gill
Review Team Leader: Constante Pedro (Architecture)
Review Team Members: Sunil Manchanda (Structural)
Haysam (HVAC)
Samar Al Ghussain (Plumbing)
Om Mantri (Electrical)
Nada Saadeh (Interiors)
Marwa Al Marzouk (Landscape)
Rudolf Staniek (Support)

CAD Coordinator