Dea Report
Dea Report
Dea Report
March, 2024
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
1|Page
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
Contents
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
CHAPTER I .................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 About this Report..................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Present Conditions and Basic Information of the Buildings ........................................ 5
CHAPTER II ................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
DESIGN CRITERIA.................................................................................................................................................................. 6
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 6
2.2 Building Classification................................................................................................. 6
2.3 Code and Standard ....................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Type of Foundation ...................................................................................................... 6
2.5 Structural Form ............................................................................................................ 6
2.6 Material and other properties ....................................................................................... 7
2.7 Loads ............................................................................................................................ 7
2.8 Story Drifts................................................................................................................. 12
2.9 Maximum Lateral displacement: ............................................................................... 14
2.10 Torsional Irregularity ............................................................................................... 17
2.11 Design Method ......................................................................................................... 17
2.12 Software and Computer Program............................................................................. 17
CHAPTER III .............................................................................................................................................................................. 18
FINITE ELEMENT COMPUTER MODELING ........................................................................................................................... 18
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 18
3.2 Finite Element Model ................................................................................................ 18
CHAPTER IV.............................................................................................................................................................................. 22
Feasibility Check of structural member................................................................................................................................ 22
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 22
4.2 Feasibility check of Foundation ................................................................................. 22
4.2.1 Existing Foundation Adequacy Check.................................................................... 22
4.3 Column Adequacy check ........................................................................................... 26
4.4 Adequacy check of beam ........................................................................................... 30
4.6 Flexural Adequacy check of slab: .............................................................................. 33
CHAPTER V............................................................................................................................................................................... 35
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION ................................................................................................................................. 35
5.1 Conclusion & Recommendation: ............................................................................... 35
2|Page
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
ABSTRACT
The Factory building for Harun Composite Mills Limited is a single storied structure. RCC roof is available
with two slab in Sub-station and Generator portion. But light weight non engineering steel shed is available
on boiler portion. So it is proposed to replace the non-engineering shed by RCC slab. Assessment of this
structure is ensured considering BNBC-2006.
At the end of the report we have the followings-
Detailed calculation and analysis has been described in the rest of the report.
3|Page
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the structural evaluation of the building; including overall structural behavior of the building as
well as code based design review of the building. The first chapter describes introduction of the project. The second
chapter presents the design review criteria. The third chapter describes the finite element analysis of the structure.
The fourth chapter discusses the feasibility check of the structural member. The fifth chapter includes conclusions
and recommendations.
4|Page
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
The consultant team visited the building and took notes on its structural features. The visual appearance of the
structure was found good. There is no significant sign of distress on the visible portion of the structural members.
The basic information of the building-is as follows:
Building Usage Type : Generator, RMS, Substation and Boiler.
Structural System : RC Beam-Column frame.
Floor System : RC beam slab & non engineering shed.
Floor Area : 3346 sft (Approx.)
No. of Stories : Single storied
Floor Load : Floor finish 25psf, live load of roof 33psf
Foundation Type : Shallow foundation.
Geotechnical Report : Available.
Construction Materials : Reinforced Concrete (brick)
Occupancy
5|Page
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
CHAPTER II
DESIGN CRITERIA
2.1 Introduction
A structure shall ordinarily be described as an assemblage of framing members and components arranged to support
both gravity and lateral force. Structure may be classified as building structure and non-building structure. Structure
that enclose a space and are used for various occupancies shall be called building structure (BNBC). The chapter
deals with the analysis and design criteria of the building.
6|Page
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
Strength of concrete: Compressive strength of concrete is 2040 psi.(Minimum strength according to NTPA Guideline)
2.7 Loads
The following loads are considered to review the building design:
7|Page
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
The calculation of Wind Load as per Bangladesh National Building Code (BNBC) the following equation will be
used to estimate sustained wind pressure on the building:
8|Page
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
9|Page
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
10 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
11 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
EQX:
12 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
EQY:
13 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
For lateral displacement the following load combination has been considered
Allowable displacement=h/500=25*12/500=0.6 in
DL+0.5LL+0.70WX
14 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
DL+0.5LL-0.70WX
15 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
DL+0.5LL+0.70WY
DL+0.5LL-0.70WY
16 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
Torsion irregularity to be considered for rigid floor diaphragms, when the maximum storey drift (Δmax), computed
including accidental torsion, at one end of the structure is more than 1.2 times the average of the storey drifts (Δavg)
at the two ends of the structure (Ref. Table 6.1.4, Chapter-1, Part-6, BNBC 2006)
Max Avg
Load Directi
Story Displacement Displacement Ratio Comment
Case/Combo on
in in
R.C Structure: Ultimate Strength Design (USD) method (Chapter 6, Part 6 of BNBC 2006) will be adopted for design
/check of all R.C structural member/elements.
ETABS 2016 will be utilized for analysis and design of structure. Moreover, customized programs for Wind using
spread sheets e.g. MS Excel will also be used for analysis and design checking of some elements.
17 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
CHAPTER III
FINITE ELEMENT COMPUTER MODELING
3.1 Introduction
Prior to the finite element computer modeling of the building, the original functional, structure & other drawing
geotechnical reports have reviewed. Full three dimensional finite element computer models are created to investigate
the behavior & response of the structure under applied loads.
Three dimensional (3D) finite elements model with appropriate finite element is created in ETABS 2016. The model
is comprised of frame, shell and plate elements to represent structural components.
18 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
All beams are modeled as beam element connecting the column elements to produce a rigid frame.
19 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
All columns are modeled as column element connecting with the beams at floor level rigidly to produce frame.
20 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
21 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
CHAPTER IV
Feasibility Check of structural member
4.1 Introduction
The design review of primary structural members is performed in accordance with the code based procedure. This
chapter discusses the present condition and safety margin of the structural elements.
A sub-soil investigation report having eight bore holes (based on SPT) is available for foundation checking. Allowable
Bearing capacity of shallow foundation is 1.612 ksf considering a factor of safety, FS=2.5 From the load calculation
in each supporting points, it is seen that some footing having FS with respect to soil capacity is less than 2.5. So, that
footing required strengthening. For details see retrofitting drawing.
22 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
23 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
Footing ID
Remark
Current FOS
DL+LL (kip)
23 F2 42.25 63.2 2.7 ADEQUATE
24 F2 42.25 62.9 2.7 ADEQUATE
20 29.7
CF1 60 2.5 ADEQUATE
21 67.0
22 F3 56.25 75.9 3.0 ADEQUATE
18 F3 56.25 80.7 2.8 ADEQUATE
19 F3 56.25 80.3 2.8 ADEQUATE
13 51.5
CF1 60 2.5 ADEQUATE
16 46.2
14 F2 42.25 55.7 3.1 ADEQUATE
17 F2 42.25 59.1 2.9 ADEQUATE
15 F1 30 34.9 3.5 ADEQUATE
10 F3 56.25 74.8 3.0 ADEQUATE
11 F3 56.25 84.8 2.7 ADEQUATE
12 F3 56.25 72.2 3.2 ADEQUATE
7 F3 56.25 51.2 4.4 ADEQUATE
8 F3 56.25 49.4 4.6 ADEQUATE
9 F3 56.25 46.6 4.9 ADEQUATE
4 F3 56.25 78.8 2.9 ADEQUATE
5 F3 56.25 87.1 2.6 ADEQUATE
6 F3 56.25 78.8 2.9 ADEQUATE
1 F3 56.25 52.9 4.3 ADEQUATE
2 F3 56.25 67.7 3.4 ADEQUATE
3 F3 56.25 53.1 4.3 ADEQUATE
24 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
Factored
Area of Column Thickness Punching Concrete
Node Footing Column Load
footing size(inch) of Footing load capacity Comment
Point 1.4DL+1.7LL
ID ID sqft (kips) b h (inch) (kips) (kips)
23 F2 RC1 42.25 74.69 15 24.5 14 63.36 208.03 Ok
24 F2 RC1 42.25 96.19 15 24.5 14 81.6 208.03 Ok
20 RC1 74.87 15 24.5 67.91 159.14 Ok
CF1 60 12
21 RC1 111.68 15 24.5 101.29 159.14 Ok
22 F3 RC1 56.25 124.83 15 24.5 16 108.66 261.85 Ok
18 F3 RC1 56.25 111.65 15 24.5 16 97.18 261.85 Ok
19 F3 RC1 56.25 72.79 15 24.5 16 63.36 261.85 Ok
13 C1 71.90 15 18 66.51 141.15 Ok
CF1 60 12
16 RC1 66.25 15 24.5 60.09 159.14 Ok
14 F2 C1 42.25 105.89 15 18 14 92.77 186.05 Ok
17 F2 RC1 42.25 121.48 15 24.5 14 103.06 208.03 Ok
15 F1 C1 30 102.23 15 18 12 86.9 141.15 Ok
10 F3 RC2 56.25 72.47 15 27.5 16 62.32 273.84 Ok
11 F3 RC2 56.25 79.87 15 27.5 16 68.69 273.84 Ok
12 F3 C1 56.25 49.11 15 18 16 43.85 235.86 Ok
7 F3 C1 56.25 66.05 15 18 16 58.97 235.86 Ok
8 F3 C1 56.25 83.69 15 18 16 74.72 235.86 Ok
9 F3 C1 56.25 115.06 15 18 16 102.73 235.86 Ok
4 F3 RC2 56.25 114.47 15 27.5 16 98.45 273.84 Ok
5 F3 RC2 56.25 41.55 15 27.5 16 35.74 273.84 Ok
6 F3 RC2 56.25 96.09 15 27.5 16 82.64 273.84 Ok
1 F3 C1 56.25 108.02 15 18 16 96.45 235.86 Ok
2 F3 RC2 56.25 89.22 15 27.5 16 76.73 273.84 Ok
3 F3 C1 56.25 88.91 15 18 16 79.39 235.86 Ok
25 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
26 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
27 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
Comments: Some columns are not adequate. So inadequate column proposed to be retrofitted.
28 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
29 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
30 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
31 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
32 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
33 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
34 | P a g e
Turbo Engineering Limited
…………..For better future through innovation
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
Adequacy of all structural members has been checked considering BNBC-2006 standards.
Lateral displacement limit of this structure is within allowable limit.
In as built condition some columns does not have adequate strength. So few more column need to
be strengthen. For details see retrofitting drawing.
In As built condition flexural reinforcement of all grade beams & floor beams are sufficient to carry
proposed load. Proposed load should be posted in all story maintained by factory authority.
Floor slab are capable to carry applied live load.
______________
Engr. Abdul Jabber Miah
DMINB/CE-0460; MIEB-31825
Sr. Structural Engineer
Turbo Engineering Limited
Attachment
Soil test report
Company profile.
35 | P a g e
CLIENT.
HARUN COMPOSITE MILLS LTDI
h
.l ,F,h
lllrrrl'rW
FEBRUARY...,.......,,2018
Page No.
1.0 INTRODUCTION, 1
9.0 CONCLUSION,
10.0 RECOMMENDATION. 9
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents
in detail, the geotechnical features of the Proposed Building At
Dag No-5,A,-45,49, R.S,-27/ 703/ 102/ 24 Khatian No-5.A,-7539/ 734/ 79&
R,S,-435/ 277/ 64& Golakandail, Bhulta, Rupganj, Narayanganj. The Sub soil
Investigation Programme Includes Necessary Field and Laboratory tests. MfM SOIL
TEST Consultants was entrusted with the investigation works and all the factual
information together with the comments and the recommendations have been included
in this report, The purpose of investigation is for the safe and economic design for the
proposed foundation of the structure at the site.
Recording the level of Ground Water in each Boring after completion of field
work.
Presentation of final report with all works including detailed description of soil
stratification and bearing capacity as well as skin friction values of sub-soil.
Page 2
a. Exploratory Eoring
Drilling was executed by the method of wash boring. A hole was started by
driving vertically a 4 inches dia steel casing into the ground to some depth and
than the formation inside the casing was broken up by the repeated drops of a
chopping bit attach to the lower end of the dritling pipe. The upper end of the
same was fitted to swivel head through which water was forced at high pressure
pipe, Forced water emerges at high velocity through the pores of the chopping
bit and returns to the surfacg carrying with it the broken-up soils. In this way
drilling is advanced up to a level of 6 inches above the depth, where SPT has to
be executed.
Dlsturbed soil samples were collected at 5 ft interual and at every change of soil
strata by using the split spoon sampler. These soi/ sample were studied visually
and the soil classification were done to prepare strata chart of soils upto the
explored depth.
g. Consolidation 00 Nos.
a. The following terms are used in this report for description of soil composition;
c. Based on N-values other very useful soil parameters may be obtained from the
correlatlon charts given by different research workers. Two such useful
correlations for cohesive and non-cohesive soils after Prof. K. Terzaghl are given
below:
VALUES OF DR., UNIT WEIGHT AND ALLOWABLE SOIL PRESSURE OF NON COHESSIVE SOILS
BASES ON N.VALUES:
The overall physical properties of the subsoil formation of the prolect area have
been evaluated on the basis of 4 Nos. Boring extending up to the depth of 50ft
as have been selected and pointed out by the owner. The physical properties of
the investigated site may be discussed as follows: (Ref: Bore logs)
Page 5
The GWT has been measured and found at and around the bore hole were 0.0-
7.0 ENGINEERINGPROPERTIES
The following engineering properties of the subsoil formation of the project have
a. Cohesion
The values of cohesion c, obtalned from unconfined compresslon tests varies
from 0.00 psi.
b. Compressibility
The compression index C, va/ues varies from 0.00 to 0.00. The natural void
ratios eo varies from 0.00 to 0.00.
The bearing capacities of the shallow foundation particu/arly for top layer of cohesive
soil may be estimated from the SPT va/ues, as suggested by Terzaghl, according to
fol/owing. Table-l
b. Bearing capacity has been determined for shallow foundation particularly strip
footing and isolated column footing only. The evaluated values have been provlded in
table-2.
Page 7
Notes:
1. Skempton's relation has been used for evaluation of bearing capacity.
2. :
B/t 0 & I
= 5.0 ft (assumed) for strip footing.
3, B/t 1 & B 8.0 ft (assumed) for isolated column footing.
= =
4. Factor of safetY (F,S = 3)
5, The values of cohesion have been considered on average basls,
6, Depth has been measured form EGL of the bore hole.
:
[B Width of footing, L=Length of footing.
:
EGL Existing Ground Level
Page 7/A
Depth BH-4
(ft.) N C f,o 4po
5 3 3 0.0 18 3.6
10 5 5 0.03 6
15 6 6 0.036 7.2
20 5 5 0.03 6
25 4 4 0.024 4,8
30 2 2 0.012 2.4
J5
1
J 3 0.01 I 3.6
40 3 3 0.018 3.6
45 4 4 0,024 4,8
50 6 6 0,036 7.2
Note:
i, N = Field SPT values ii. C:Cohesion
iii. epa =Allowable point bearing capacity for pile foundation with F.S. = 2.5
iv. fsa = Allowable skin friction with F.S. = 2.5
v. The above bearing capacities should be two third in case of RCC cast-in-situ pile
vii. 1 Kg/cm2= 1 tsf and 1 ton = 2000 Lbs,
Page B
e. D:Pllediameter.
1T,O CONCLUSION:
On the basis of above analysis and dlscussions, the fol/owing conclusions may be
drawn regarding the sub-soil condition the project area.
a, The overall soil formatlon of the investigation site are more or less regular in
between the bore hole location.
b.
c. The top layer of the investigated site has been encountered with comprising
brown/gray silt with clay & flne to course sand (Ref. bore logs).
d.
e. The underlying soil is of fine to medium sand and some silt/silty clay
ertending up to the final depth of boring (Ref, bore logs,)
f,
g. Bearing capacities for Pile Foundation as Isolated column footing are sultable
for all borings (Ref. Table-2 & 3).
h.
i. Shallow Foundation & Pile Foundation as isolated column footings may be
provided at the site.
Page 9
RECOMMENDATION
The following recommendations are suggested for the construction of proposed
Building At Dag No-5.A.-45,49 R.S.-27/ 103/ 102, 2O, Khatian No-5.A.-7539,
13+ 198, R.5.-435r 277/ 648/ Golakandail, Bhulta, Rupganj Narayanganj.
PILE FOUNDATION
SAND PILE :
Sand pile may be provided with compaction from the depth 5'-0" and downwards, pile
should be average (8 inch) diameter and the embedment length up to 25'-O" from
the base level of footing at footing area considering spacing of pile (1'-6? center to
center. After sand piling the bearing capacity of should 1.20 tsf. confirming by plate
load test,
Note:
a) 1 Ton : 2000 lbs, I TSF :100 Kpa, EGL : Existing Ground Leve/.
b) The Foundation Engineer or the Designer may select other alternative type, on
the base of depth as well as the Bearing Capacity of the foundation according to
his requirement, in the light of test result provided in this report.
ffi'
n 0 tpLu-
t t'
;ffili'"'nE*Parts
$
.an
N ^J
7l m -ii
^.,(.);
aT-+ ?'=
s
o
r;atB
"i? dE
f€"a9
i ss
v)
\e-A
.;
E
4-rC.l '=
-^t4 ^ =
,vis *
LJ c.l .d: E.
H
vu:a
qi;
.--aY(tr
&
9..iod
:=34 =
z
w)a
iz
gR
J .-.
zo
=:E
vd,
IEA
aY,
z
-1
l-
q
IU
F
JS
HA1
ofr
U)o
tll
Fl
H
= 4
E Q
a
cF
F
o
z
TYPE OF DRILLING : MANUAL DRIVE (HAND WASH)
DOUGHNUT HAMMER
ANVIL
DRILL ROD
ROT ATING CATHEAD
1B INCH FALL
LOCATION]: DAG NO-S'A.-45, 49, R.S.'21, 103,102,20,
MIM SOIL TEST KHATIAN NO-s.A.-1539, 134, 198, R.S.-435, 211,648,
DHAKA GOLAKANDAIL, BHULTA. RUPGANJ, NARAYANGANJ.
BORING NO-l
REMARKS
a (c.w.T SOIL)
O STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
L! VANE SHEAR
Z STRATA ENCOUNTERED Blows/fl.
Z
Y
[- Z TEST
t! FF- Lbs./sq in
F o- i') 9 O
!
U r'l
otr :E
F
o
I H+
4 5',ml
I
5 W v74l
:]:.:.:.:.
I
.i!::.: i
.:::.::::
:
5 ts'77)1
MJ
5 20'
v7z
4 30'
5 35',m
4
vm
40'
J 45'm
48',-0',
Grey rned. dense fine
51'.-0',
03'-0'
SAND some to little silt \ 6 50'm
55',m
60'm
65'.m
7g, %
75'vv,
8o' vz
DISTURBED SAMPLES M
TJNDISTURBEDSAMI'18S....................
f
MIM SOIL TEST LOCATION: DAC NO-S.A.-45, 49, R.S.-21, 103, 102,20,
KHATTAN NO-S.A,-1 539, t34, 198, R.S.-435, 211, 648,
DHAKA
GOLAKANDAI L. I] H U LTA. RUPGANJ, NATTAYANGANJ.
BORING NO-2
REMARKS
0
a (G.w.r.sorL)
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
Z t! STRATA ENCOUNTERED VANE SI.IEAR
t!
z ,.o Blows/tt.
TEST
F Fr- 9 Lbs./sq in
ci! s&
LI E8 F o
J
EGI G.W.I,: (_) 0'_0" R L.- (-) 0'-0"
J 5' ru,
\
\ 5
to'v7z
6
15'v;772
I
I 3
20'
m
Grey SILTYEY clay and
48',-0"
some sand. 4
2s'.
m
) 30'm
J 35'.m
5
v7z
40'
4 4s',
wv
48',-0"
55'.m
60'm
65',m
wm
75'rm
8o' v7z
r! FF-
vz -C TEST
Lbs /sq in
F O- i'r Q
O
^Z-
t&
U rrl o
o ^-
l-.1 LL F J Occ
EG G.W.T: (_) 0'_0" R. L.- (-) 0'-0"
4 5',w
4
l0'Wl
4 15',74
v7z
6 20'
4
v77
30'
6 35'.m
3
v7z
I 40'
v77)
6 4s',
4g'-0'
03'-0' Grey med. dense fine
5 l'-0' SAND some to little silt 8 50'm
55',m
60'm
65',m
70,m
75'r7v7
8o'
v7z
F F r-.
V
U
^/
\Ji Lbs./sq in
o- i'r o
^-
!lJ. F
c Ocr
EG G.W.T: (-) 0'_0" R L.- (-) 0'-0"
J 5',ml
I
5 fi'7Zl
i
6 Ls',VV)1
l
v/4
5 20'
2 JO'
m
J 35'.m
J
vm
40'
4
vm
4i'.
48',-0"
Grey med. dense fine
51',-O',
03'-0'
SAND some to little silt.
i:,.:i::.:
:l:i:::::i
6 50'm
55'.m
60'm
65',w
70'm
75'F772
8o'w'
c.i
N
co =t
o..
a.l -(6
'. od' !+
U)o,
qQ
&6+ "d
0\6
<f,-ts ci
r)Or-i el
<t c-r i.n
-l -
.-: ;
?<E
sd
A \.vH
b0#
ol)?
(dA -= s z
A -.i -
H -.X d F
.. -::=v - hf
5
-!M=
s+ H :<e
c'l o
U
d14
Hr/v^
coi4
o-r -d
^d ta
U)
U--Le
JNo.rZ .]
O c.l Q
9o J
U)
z
Fr
Fq U)
tI
&
t'r
V) cU
a
H
N ol
a
zti
\o
&
\,
O
c..l
O
F
a
lrl c\
F
J
H
o
q
N
E
l-l
E
o,
ooo
OO f* \O
999
tr) ca
o<>o
c\l
'f,
I
--l
N o.t.-
o
*r ^tr.
s^
H) (c
=d b
Nt.oo-^-7
7?6.j
Ed
^+ b0
O..^ O
.t-i I
(n- o\^d,
vaa
r.il.)! d
4-=
-: r- _-
?<m
aa__:
/t'=
;,9
CEA
A-6
tL
;ido
EV-^
o
QO$^@
E] c.l \o
(n
F
i-l
a
r-l
-t+. !f, I
\o
\? V1 v-)
frts L--l N
o?
*El ?o \o
\? O
tLl c.t N $ \o
<l '-. t
>a .I ca
I
L.l
\o
c.l
co r-
\o
z9
r-
i1 l-l
oo
o
I
ti-
\o
\q
N
cl
s oo
r/.)
$I I
\o t/.)
N (\ ca \o
I $
c.l I
\q
(J ol
<>
cO
o
t--
o Q
F (-)
x(.) q q
o
UJ
>
o \o
g
Cn
F
a.
F () 0)
-l r ed
o
l- -o sf L ,P
=o E
!
'6 .9 () .2 bI
() a
(_)
!
bI a
J o\
E E
0 a
o \o q q r
-CJ
l-l -o .o o\ 0) o E
+ U O
o
vt
() 13 O
a (.)
.d
o
'o
Q E o.
d o
E
h
q
o
0)
q
() a
(J U) a c/) ao q
L d
o "l a LJ a U) z a
E
H
() q
0)
z() 0)
.o
q
.oo L cd
0)
E ci
zo E
L
bJ o0
!
0)
N@ !
I'A
rE9
Cd
(.)
a
a
rE () 0a
o S!
'6 F- ':
6.ts o
C>r Oq
q C))
(.) x
o C rcl cH OEr:i
'r
ca o
6d
(.)
LJ z
0)
cn
!F
<E o
()
('1 (d VdJ
(JP )OE
':o
OJ
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: