Professional Documents
Culture Documents
by
ABSTRACT
Foundation is considered as the most critical part of the structure. It transmits the
building load directly into the underlying soil. In this study, collection of existing soil
investigation report was done. The data used came mostly from the Manila City Hall,
specifically from the Office of the Building Officials. From the collected data, the most
probable allowable soil bearing capacity of soil in the city of Manila is 71.94 kPa which
was determined using statistical procedure. This study addresses what is the most
economical and most efficient foundation to be constructed and it was found out to be
isolated footing with tie beam or combined footing with tie beam for structures with less
than five storey and pile foundation for structures with five storey and above. From this
study, the soil composition of the city of Manila was found out to be mostly of silty sands
and sand silt mixture. This study aims to guide civil engineers in designing the
foundation in the City of Manila by providing the allowable capacity of soil. Aside from
these, the study has designs of foundation for typical structures.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
Table A.3 Volume of Coarse Aggregate per Unit Volume of Concrete ................................. 89
Table 4ASummary of Data Gathered ..................................................................................... 29
Table 4B. Summarized Probable Value of qu(allowable) in Every District ........................... 34
Table 4C.Most Probable Value of qa(allowable) in Manila ................................................... 36
Table 4D.Tabulated Soil Properties ........................................................................................ 38
Table 4E.Tabulated Data of SOil Bearing Capacities, Dimension of Footing,Rebars for
Residential Occupancy .................................................................................................... 38
Table 4.F.Tabulated Data of SOil Bearing Capacities, Dimension of Footing,Rebars for
Commercial Occupancy .................................................................................................. 39
LIST OF FIGURES
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Foundation is that part of a structure which transmits the building load directly
into the underlying soil. The foundation is considered as the most important part of the
structure. It is the one responsible in holding the weight of the structure and the
buildings stability depends on it. The design of the foundation will be efficient and
economical if the soil investigation was conducted accurately. For the soil investigation
to be accurate, soil testing must be performed on site and in the laboratory.
Generally, there are two types of samples: the disturbed and undisturbed samples.
Disturbed samples are taken from cuttings produced by the drilling process using split
spoon sampler while undisturbed samples are generally taken by cutting blocks of soil, or
by pushing or driving tubes into the ground using shelby tube sampler. These samples
can be obtained by means of boring, drilling and probing. After the samples were
obtained, they are tested on site or in the laboratory to determine different soil
parameters.
From the previous researches, the mechanical properties of soil in Manila were
not fully determined. There are no studies that provide the mechanical properties of soil
which would be used in the design of the foundation.
10
11
Arrange each data from different references into following breakdown: Location of the
soil investigation report, number of storey and type of structure in the site, allowable soil
bearing capacity at a particular site, and the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in
the site
Compare
the
Unified
Soil
Classification System(USCS) in the
soil investigation report to the
geographic map of manila
Make a conclusion
12
only serves as a reference. The study covers structures which are classified as low rise
and medium rise since no soil investigation report was collected for high rise structures.
14
CHAPTER 2
RESEARCH COMPONENT
15
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Related Literature
The urgency for accurate information and adequate understanding of the
geotechnical properties of the foundation of subsoil cannot be over emphasized.
Geotechnical information are useful in ensuring that the effects of projects on the
environment and natural resources are properly evaluated and mitigated where necessary
(Nwankwoala et al., 2009). The study of Nwankwoala et al.(2009) shows that on the
determination of the properties of soil it would be appropriate to estimate a type of
foundation to the subsoil.
The estimation of soil strength indices is required for the design of foundations,
retaining walls, and pavements in civil engineering applications (Freudlund &Vanapali,
2002). These indices are also essential in assessing the stability of slopes and soil, and
can be used to construe the ability of a soil to withstand stresses and strains associated
with naturally occurring instances of: increased pore pressure, cracking, swelling,
development of slickensides, leaching, weathering, undercutting, and cyclic loading
(Duncan & Wright, 2005).
The difficulty and in some cases the high cost of attaining the soil strength indices
has led to many researchers seeking correlations with easily measured soil index
properties (Eid, 2006).
Several empirical procedures have been developed over the years to predict the
shear strength of soils, particularly unsaturated soils. Drained residual strength was
shown to correlate with clay content as well as type of clay minerals (Stark & Eid, 1997).
16
The unit of soil to withstand a shear stress is a derivative of the measurement of soil shear
strength.. Specifically, research efforts have focused on determining correlations between
the residual friction angle of soils and soil parameters such as Atterberg limits, and clay
fraction (Kaya &Kwong, 2007). The quaternary alluvium are consists of gravel, sand, silt
and clay, in which it is loose and easily deformed by underground water. (Kilic, R. ,
Ulamis K, and Atalar C., 2006). Foundation designs must satisfy both strength and
serviceability criteria. The soil beneath the foundations must be capable of carrying the
structural loads placed upon it without shear failure and consequent settlements being
tolerated for the structure it is supporting. Rupture surfaces are formed in the soil mass
upon exceeding a certain stress condition. The angle of internal friction of soil is
measured between the normal force and the resultant force within the soil column that is
attained when failure just occurs in response to a shearing stress. Peak soil friction angle
refers to the initial angle attained from the initial shearing phase, while the residual
friction angle refers to the angle obtained following the initial failure of the soil sample.
(Das, 1997).Bearing capacity failure on foundation occurs as the soil supporting the
foundation fails in shear, which may involve general, local, punching shear mechanism
(Bowles, 1988). The soil properties are not distributed randomly, but in a semicontinuous fashion. It has been observed that the performance of foundations is
considerably affected by the inherent spatial variability of the soil properties (Griffiths
and Fenton, 2001). To date, some researches have been undertaken investigating the
probabilistic analysis of the settlement of foundations supported on single-layered soil
profiles incorporating spatial variability (Griffiths et al., 2002). For footings, the
geotechnical engineering practice regularly calculates the bearing capacity from input of
17
assumed shear strength values and a series of relations that depend on these values
directly and indirectly. The capacity is then divided by a factor of safety, normally
ranging from 2.5 through 4 to obtain the allowable load or stress. For piles, the capacity
of the pile toe is assumed to follow a bearing capacity formula (static analysis). However,
it is generally thought that the capacity of a pile is so difficult to analyze that a static or
dynamic test giving the capacity directly is necessary for a reliable design. (Coduto, D.
P., 1994)
18
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
19
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
3. 1 Research Design
This study aims to classify the soil and determine a certain mechanical property
called the allowable soil bearing capacity. This property is essential in the design of a
foundation. From a soil investigation report, the soil could be classified by the unified
soil classification system. In order to classify the soil, grain size analysis was done.
Specific test for the mechanical property is also performed such as the unconfined
compression test for the bearing capacity. The soil investigation reports that were
acquired were from the different districts in the City of Manila.
From the data gathered, a comparison was made about the classification of soil
from the geologic map of Metro Manila obtained from Bureau of Mines and GeoSciences in Quezon City.
The results are presented in table form containing the street, district, type of
structure, allowable soil bearing capacity, proposed foundation, and soil classification.
20
Analyse Information
Design of Foundation
21
22
(Unified
Soil
Classification
System),
ASTM
D216606
(Unconfined
Compression Test)
24
deformation values are recorded as needed for obtaining a reasonably complete loaddeformation curve. The loading is continued until the load values decrease or remain
constant with increasing strain, or until reaching 20% (sometimes 15%) axial strain. At
this state, the samples are considered to be at failure.
For each applied load, axial unit strain can be computed by dividing the
specimens change in height by its initial height. The value of the initial height is given
by the deformation dial reading, provided that the dial is set to zero initially. As the load
is applied to the specimen, its cross-sectional area will increase by a small amount. For
each applied load, the cross-sectional area can be computed by dividing the initial area of
the specimen to the quantity one subtracted by the axial unit strain. Each applied load can
be determined by multiplying the proving ring dial reading by the proving ring
calibration factor, and the load per unit area can be computed by dividing the load by the
corresponding cross-sectional area.
The largest value of load per unit area at fifteen percent strain, whichever is
secured first, is taken to be the unconfined compressive strength and the cohesion is taken
to be half of the unconfined compressive strength.
25
0 < LI < 1
LI > 1
26
Soil Type
Sand
Silt
Clay
27
CHAPTER 4
DATA PRESENTATION
28
Chapter 4
PRESENTATION OF DATA, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATIONS
4.1 Presentation of Data
The location of each soil investigation samples are shown in Figure 1. In general,
the soil classification in the City of Manila is found to be composed of silty sands and
sand silt mixture for the upper layer and it is drawn in Figure 2.
3 BOREHOLES
1 BOREHOLE
11 BOREHOLES
18 BOREHOLES
1 BOREHOLE
3 BOREHOLES
3 BOREHOLES
1 BOREHOLE
2 BOREHOLES
1 BOREHOLE
6 BOREHOLES
4 BOREHOLES
1 BOREHOLE
30
31
District
Figure 4. Comparison Chart of the Most Probable Value of Soil Bearing Capacity in
Manila
The chart shows the relationship between the most probable values of the soil
bearing capacity in each district with respect to the most probable value of soil bearing
capacity of Manila. The method used in computing the most probable value is shown in
the latter part of this chapter. The district of San Miguel has the farthest value compared
to Manila and the other districts while the other district has a little variation compared to
the value of Manila.
32
Street
District
Quiapo
M.A. Guerrero
Extension
068 Quirino Street
Tondo
2416 Callejon 1
Corner Fidel Street,
Gagalangin
Calle Gamban Corner
Calle Guidote Balut
Tondo
Tondo
Tondo
401-C Interior 54
Perla Street
Tondo
Balintawak Street
Tondo
Tondo
Sta. Cruz
Sta. Cruz
Sta. Cruz
Tondo
Tondo
Tondo
Tondo
Purpose of
Structure
3 Storey
Residential
3 Storey
condominium
3 Storey
Residential
3 Storey
Building with
Deck
3 Storey
Building with
Deck
4 Storey
Warehouse
Building
qu (allowable)*
4 Storey
Building
3 Storey
Residential
Apartment
with
Penthouse
3 Storey with
Deck
75 kPa
3 Storey
Residential
with Deck
5 Storey
Residential
with Deck
3 Storey
Residential
with Roof
Deck
4 Storey
Commercial
3 Storey
Residential
72 kPa
2 Storey with
Deck and
72kPa
33
Proposed
Foundation
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
Isolated Footing
USCS
72 kPa
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
SM
72 kPa
Strip or
Continuous
Footing with Tie
Beam
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
SM
Combined
Footing with Tie
Beam
Combined
Footing with Tie
Beam
Pile Foundation
with Tie Beam
SM
72 kPa
Continuous
Footing with Tie
Beam
SM
75 kPa
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
Isolated Footing
or Combined
Footing with Tie
Beam
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
SM
75 kPa
75 kPa
57.46 kPa
72 kPa
72 kPa
75 kPa
72 kPa
72 kPa
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
Penthouse
3 Storey
Residential
Apartment
with Deck
3 Storey
Residential
3 Storey
Residential
3 Storey
Building with
Deck
3 Storey
Residential
Building
3 Storey
Building
Lot 19 Block 2
Makisig Street
Sta. Mesa
Sta. Mesa
Sta. Mesa
Estrada Street
Sta. Ana
Sta. Ana
2265 Calabastro
Street
San
Andres
Bukid
San
Andres
Bukid
Pandacan
3 Storey
Building with
Deck
3 Storey
Residential
Pandacan
72 kPa
Mendoza Guanzon
Corner Isidro
Mendoza Street
Lot 59 Block 35,
Antipolo Street
1415 A. Maceda
Street
1238 Miguelin Street
Pandacan
3 Storey
Apartment
3 Storey
Office/
Warehouse
3 Storey with
Deck
3 Storey
Residential
3 Storey
Residential/
Apartment
Building
3 Storey with
Roof Deck
3 Storey with
Deck
72 kPa
Sampaloc
Sampaloc
Sampaloc
Sampaloc
Adelina Street
Sampaloc
34
72 kPa
Isolated Footing
or Combined
Footing with Tie
Beam
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
SM
72 kPa
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
SM
72 kPa
Isolated or
Combined
Footing with Tie
Beam
Combined
Footing with Tie
Beam
Isolated or
Combined
Footing with Tie
Beam
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
SM
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
SM
Isolated or
Combined
Footing with Tie
Beam
Combined
Footing with Tie
Beam
SM
86.19 kPa
72 kPa
72 kPa
72 kPa
57.46 kPa
75 kPa
75 kPa
72 kPa
72 kPa
72 kPa
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
Sampaloc
3 Storey
Residential
72 kPa
Sampaloc
75 kPa
Sampaloc
Lot 7 Extremadura
Street
1152 E. Quintos
Street
Lot 54 Bolck 11,918
A. Maceda Street
Sampaloc
Lot 50 Block 20 M.
Fuente Street
Sampaloc
Santisima Street
Sampaloc
3 Storey
Building with
Deck
3 Storey
Residential
3 Storey
Residential
3 Storey
Residential
4 Storey with
Deck
Commercial/
Residential
Building
3 Storey
Residential
Building
4 Storey with
Deck
Lot 33 A&B P.
Florentino corner J.
Marzan Streets
PIY Margal Street
Sampaloc
Sampaloc
Sampaloc
San
Miguel
Sto. Cristo
San
Nicholas
Sampaloc
Sampaloc
Sampaloc
Sampaloc
Binondo
4 Storey
Commercial
Building
3 Storey
Residential
4 Storey
Residential/C
ommercial
3 Storey with
Deck
3 Storey with
Roof Deck
3 Storey
Residential
with Roof
Deck
3 Storey
Residential
with Deck
5 Storey with
Mezzanine
and Penthouse
35
Combined
Footing with Tie
Beam
Combined
Footing with Tie
Beam
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
SM
78.57 kPa
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
SM
72 kPa
Combined
Footing with Tie
Beam
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
SM
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
SM
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
SM
57.46 kPa
Mat Footing
SM
72 kPa
Pile Foundation
SM
72 kPa
72 kPa
72 kPa
72 kPa
71.80 kPa
72 kPa
72 kPa
99 kPa
70 kPa
72 kPa
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
Lot 10 Block 7
interior P. Gil
Paco
1565-F Valentina
street
Phase 14 lot 3 block 3
Acropolis subd. P.H.
Guazon
Paco
Paco
Paco
Malate
Lot 1, Block 3
Leveriza Urban Bliss
1739 F.T. Benitez
Street
Paco
Paco
Commercial
Building
3-storey with
roof deck
72 kPa
3-storey with
roof deck
3-storey
residential
72 kpa
4-storey
residential
3-storey
residential
75 kPa
4-storey with
roof deck
57.46 kPa
72 kpa
75 kPa
3-storey
72 kPa
residential
Malate
3-storey
72 kPa
residential
Malate
4 Storey
72 kPa
Building with
Deck
Malate
3 Storey
72 kPa
Residential
Building
Table 4A. Summary of Data Gathered
Combined/Isolat
ed with grade
beam
Isolated footing
with tie beams
Isolated footing
with tie beams
SM
Isolated footing
with tie beams
Isolated/Combin
ed footing with
tie beams
Continuous
footing with tie
beam
Isolated footing
with tie beams
Isolated footing
with tie beams
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
SM
Isolated Footing
with Tie Beam
SM
The table shows the lists of districts in Manila which the soil investigation was
performed. Its shows the number of storey as well as its purpose, allowable soil bearing
capacity, type of foundation recommended, and the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS).
*qu (allowable)-Allowable soil bearing capacity
36
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
37
District : Binondo
qu(allow)
N
72
1
1
Prob. Value of qu
72
qu*N
72
72
District: Malate
qu(allow)
N
72
4
4
Prob. Value of qu
72
qu*N
288
288
District : Paco
qu(allow)
N
75
2
72
3
57.46
1
6
Prob. Value of qu 70.57667
qu*N
150
216
57.46
423.46
38
District : Pandacan
qu(allow)
N
75
1
72
1
57.46
1
3
Prob. Value of qu 68.15333
qu*N
75
72
57.46
204.46
District: Quiapo
qu(allow)
N
75
1
1
Prob. Value of qu
75
qu*N
75
75
District: Sampaloc
qu(allow)
N
qu*N
75
2
150
72
12
864
78.57
1
78.57
71.8
1
71.8
90
1
90
70
1
70
18
1324.37
Prob. Value of qu 73.57611
qu*N
144
144
qu*N
57.46
57.46
39
qu*N
72
72
qu*N
144
144
qu*N
75
144
219
qu*N
144
86.19
230.19
District: Tondo
qu(allow)
N
75
3
72
7
57.46
1
11
Prob. Value of qu 71.49636
qu*N
225
504
57.46
786.46
40
District
Binondo
72
Malate
72
Paco
70.57667
Pandacan
68.15333
Quiapo
75
Sampaloc
San Andres
73.57611
72
San Miguel
57.46
San Nicolas
72
Sta. Ana
72
Sta. Cruz
73
Sta. Mesa
76.73
Tondo
71.49636
41
71.4963
72 6
73
72
73.57611
72
72
76.73
75
72 6
72
70.57667
68.15333
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
Figure 6. Map of Manila with the Most Probable Value of Allowable Bearing
Capacity
42
Prob. Value of qu
Prob.
District
(kPa)
Area(hectares)
Value*Area
Binondo
72
66.11
4759.92
Malate
72
259.58
18689.76
Paco
70.57666667
278.69
19669.01123
Pandacan
68.15333333
166
11313.45333
Quiapo
75
84.69
6351.75
Sampaloc
73.57611111
513.71
37796.78404
San Andres
72
168.02
12097.44
San Miguel
57.46
91.37
5250.1202
San Nicolas
72
163.85
11797.2
Sta. Ana
72
169.42
12198.24
Sta. Cruz
73
309.01
22557.73
Sta. Mesa
76.73
261.01
20027.2973
Tondo
71.49636364
865.13
61853.64907
Most prob.
71.94343597 kPa
Table 4C. Most Probable Value of qa(allowable) in Manila
4.2 Analysis
All data collected almost came from the Manila City Hall, office of the building
officials in particular, while other data came from private institutions. From the data
gathered, soil investigation reports were collected from the different districts of the city.
It was then tabulated in terms of address, district, proposed type of structure, allowable
soil bearing capacity, recommended type of foundation, and USCS (Unified Soil
Classification System).
The soil bearing capacity in each district is determined using the data collected.
These values can be computed with the use of Terzaghis bearing capacity divided by the
factor of safety. But in order to use the Terzaghis bearing capacity equation, the soils
cohesion and the soils angle of internal friction should be known. These can be obtained
by laboratory test such as Unconfined Compression Test (UCT) and Direct Shear Test.
43
The allowable bearing capacity of soil is needed to design for the foundation of
the structure and its foundation type depends on the load passed by the structure. These
loads may differ with the type of use of the structure (e.g. commercial, residential,
industrial, etc.). Based from Table 1, the type of foundation which is recommended in
the City of Manila is shallow foundation for structures with 4-storey and below while pile
deep foundation for structures with 5-storey and above without considering the
occupancy type of the structure which was verified from the data of EM 2A Partners and
Co. In some instances, because of the weak bearing capacity of soil and heavy load
carried by the structure, there are four storey structures which are required to be rested on
deep foundation. Shallow foundation may be made of isolated footing and combined
footing if the area of the site is limited while deep foundation is mainly made up of piles.
Since the numbers of soil investigation reports gathered are not equal in every
district as well as the areas for each district, statistic procedure was done to compute for
the most probable value of the allowable soil bearing capacity on each district and on
Manila. The most probable value of the allowable soil bearing capacity of Manila can be
taken as 71. 94 kPa.
44
NUMBER OF SAMPLES
PROPERTY
1
2
3
w.c.(%)
15.4
7
19.7
3
Moist density(kg/ cm )
2.447
2.606
1.859
3
Dry density(kg/ cm )
2.12
2.436
1.553
3
Dry unit weight(kN/ m )
20.7972
23.89716 15.23493
3
Moist unit weight(kN/ m )
24.00507 25.56486 18.23679
Void ratio
0.496342
3
Moist unit weight(kN/ m )
20.95518
Table 4D. Tabulated Soil Properties
4
6.3
1.618
1.522
14.93082
15.87258
5
14.7
1.595
1.391
13.64571
15.64695
The table shows the tabulated data of a specific soil sample in which its shows
some of the soil properties needed in designing a structure. The data are gathered by the
field density test for the determination of in-site unit weight and moisture of backfill
used. There were 5 samples taken and by oven drying and the sand replacement method
the moisture content, moist and dry densities were then gathered. The formula in the
determination of necessary soil properties are used to determine the required unit weights
and void ratio. The computed moist unit weight is used in the design of the foundation
since the unit weight of soil is vital factor in designing.
Occupancy: Residential
No. of
Dimension of
storey
A.S.B.C.(qa)
E.S.B.C.(qeff)
U.S.B.C.(qu)
Square Footing
Rebars
1
71.94 kPa
37.6335 kPa
36.7411 kPa
3.2x3.2x0.3 m.
11
2
71.94 kPa
37.4389 kPa
37.266 kPa
4.5x4.5x0.35 m.
21
3
71.94 kPa
37.2443 kPa
36.1848 kPa
5.6x5.6x0.45 m.
30
Table 4E. Tabulated Data of Soil Bearing Capacities, Dimension of Footing, and
Rebars for Residential Occupancy
45
Occupancy: Commercial
No. of
Dimension of
storey
A.S.B.C.(qa) E.S.B.C.(qeff)
Square Footing
Rebars
U.S.B.C.(qu)
1
71.94 kPa
37.5038 kPa 35.8232 kPa
4.1x4.1x0.35 m.
17
2
71.94 kPa
37.2443 kPa 37.1381 kPa
5.7x5.7x0.45 m.
36
3
71.94 kPa
37.0496 kPa 37.0137 kPa
7x7x0.525 m.
54
Table 4F. Tabulated Data of Soil Bearing Capacities, Dimension of Footing,
and Rebars for Commercial Occupancy
The table shows the bearing capacities, dimension of isolated square footing, and
the required number of reinforcing bars for footing. The allowable soil bearing capacity
was computed using most probable value method to compute the probable soil bearing
capacity of Manila from the available data from city engineers office of Manila. The
value of the allowable bearing capacity used in the design process is 71.94 kPa since it is
the most probable value of bearing capacity, and then the effective soil bearing capacity
is calculated by subtracting the effective pressure due to concrete and overburden soil to
the allowable bearing capacity. The effective bearing capacity is used for the
determination of the dimension of isolated square footing with the total unfactored dead
load as the axial load. The design thickness of the footing is gathered by computing the
effective depth of the footing, and then by adding the 150% of the rebar diameter and
concrete cover of 75 mm for structural elements exposed to earth.
The design of the isolated square footing was done using the ultimate strength
method with the help of the NSCP to be provided by the proper codes especially in
design. Referring to the table, the effective bearing capacity of the soil lessens as the
number of storey increases and also the assumed thickness of the footing affects the value
of the effective bearing capacity. The ultimate bearing capacity of the soil varies from the
load imposed as well as the dimension of the square footing, and it is noticeable from the
46
table 4F. The number of rebars was computed using the formulas for beam design and
then checked if the actual spacing follows the required by the code, and the number of
bars increases as the storey increases. The same analysis for the commercial occupancy
since the imposed loads only changes
47
CHAPTER 5
DETAILED ENGINEERING
DESIGN
48
) = 14.46kN/m
*For a middle singly reinforced beam loads from slabs are the most critical.
W = 2(14.46) = 28.92kN/m, Factored load alone
Beam design:
Beam width, b = 5% of span (design assumption) = 5%(5000mm) = 250mm.
Height, H = 2b (design assumption) = 2(250mm) = 500mm.
Beam self-weight = conc.(Cross sectional area of beam) = 23.6(0.25x0.5) = 2.944kN/m
Moment at support =
BALANCE =
=79.6427kN-m
= 0.037833
= 0.005091
= 0.222943
50
Ab =
N=
= 314.1592654 mm2
= 6 bars
Reaction at support =
= 93.28177kN
Design of Columns:
Imposed axial load on column at 2nd level: 4(reaction at support)
Pu(Axial load) = 373.1271 kN
51
71.94 kPa =
52
, for shear
Vc =
Vu = Vc
36.74105(3.2)(d-1512.5)N =
d = 81.014 mm.
53
Vu = 0.3674105(
Vc =
, for shear
= 0.3674105(
d = 174.24 mm. = 175 mm.
t = d + 1.5Dbar +75 mm.
t = 175 + 1.5(20) +75 mm.
t = 300 mm, OK
Number of main bars
Mu =
Mu =
Mu = 134.48 kN-m
Mu = Rub d2
134.48x106kN-m = 0.9Ru(3200)(175)
54
Ru = 1.5247 MPa
MIN =
= 0.005091
Ab =
N=
= 314.1592654 mm2
= 11 bars
S=
S=
S = 303 mm. > 100mm. OK
55
Live load:
Residential = 1.9kPa
Total live load = 1.9kPa
Load combination:
w = 1.2DL+1.6LL = 1.2(2.34) + 1.6(1.9) = 8.674kPa
Short span = 5m
Long span = 5m
Span ratio, m =
) = 14.46kN/m
*For a middle singly reinforced beam loads from slabs are the most critical.
W = 2(14.46) = 28.92kN/m, Factored load alone
Beam design:
Beam width, b = 5% of span (design assumption) = 5%(5000mm) = 250mm.
Height, H = 2b (design assumption) = 2(250mm) = 500mm.
Beam self-weight = conc.(Cross sectional area of beam) = 23.6(0.25x0.5) = 2.944kN/m
Moment at support =
BALANCE =
=79.6427kN-m
= 0.037833
= 0.005091
= 0.222943
57
Ab =
N=
= 314.1592654 mm2
= 6 bars
Reaction at support =
= 93.28177kN
58
59
71.94 kPa =
B = 2.5 m., initial dimension of footing
Thickness of footing, t = 375 mm. assumption verification needed on one-way
shear (beam shear) and two-way shear (punching shear)
qeffective = qa qconcrete - qsoil
qeffective = 71.94 23.55(0.375)- 20.955(1.6-0.375)
qeffective = 37.4389kPa
qeffective =
37.4389 kPa =
B = 4.5m., design dimension
60
qu =
qu = 37.266 kPa
Check against beam shear
Vu = qu(Dimension)(d-x), x is the face length from column face to edge of
dimension
Vu = 37.266 (4.5)(d-2125)N
Vc =
, for shear
Vc =
Vu = Vc
37.266 (4.5)(d-2125)N =
d = 115.36 mm.
Chech against punching shear
Vu = qu(
Vu = 0.37266(
Vc =
, for shear
= 0.37266(
- (250+d) 2)
61
Mu =
Mu =
Mu = 378.628 kN-m
Mu = Rub d2
378.628 x106kN-m = 0.9Ru(3200)(175)
Ru = 1.4598 MPa
MIN =
= 0.005091
Ab =
N=
= 314.1592654 mm2
= 21 bars
S=
S=
S = 216.5 mm. > 100mm. OK
63
Live load:
Residential = 1.9kPa
Total live load = 1.9kPa
Load combination:
w = 1.2DL+1.6LL = 1.2(2.34) + 1.6(1.9) = 8.674kPa
Short span = 5m
Long span = 5m
Span ratio, m =
) = 14.46kN/m
*For a middle singly reinforced beam loads from slabs are the most critical.
W = 2(14.46) = 28.92kN/m, Factored load alone
Beam design:
Beam width, b = 5% of span (design assumption) = 5%(5000mm) = 250mm.
Height, H = 2b (design assumption) = 2(250mm) = 500mm.
Beam self-weight = conc.(Cross sectional area of beam) = 23.6(0.25x0.5) = 2.944kN/m
Moment at support =
BALANCE =
=79.6427kN-m
= 0.037833
= 0.005091
= 0.222943
65
Ab =
N=
= 314.1592654 mm2
= 6 bars
Reaction at support =
= 93.28177kN
66
67
Column height = 3 m.
W = conc(Volume of column) = 23.55(3)(0.250)2 = 4.416 kN
Pu(Axial load carried by ground floor column) = 4.416 kN + 2.164 kN + 3(373.1271 kN)
Pu(Axial load carried by ground floor column) = 1126 kN
1126 kN = 0.8(0.65)(0.85(21) (Ag-0.04Ag)+275(0.04Ag))
Solving for Ag,
Ag = 51,153.86 m m2
For square column Ag = B2 = 76959
B = 277.41 mm = 300 mm.
Design of isolated footing
qa = 71.94 kPa, most probable value of allowable soil bearing capacity of Manila
sat = 20.955 kN/ m3, Assuming ground water table at near natural ground line (N.G.L.)
Total axial load = Total axial load(from column) + self-weight (column + pedestal),
pedestal height = Df - t
Total axial load = 1125.96 + 6.3585+ 2.4374
Total axial load(Ultimate) = 1134.76 kN
Total axial load(Unfactored) = Total axial load(unfactored from column) + self-weight
(column + pedestal)
Total axial load(Unfactored) or service loads= 643.191 kN
Initial dimension of footing
qa =
71.94 kPa =
68
, for shear
Vc =
Vu = Vc
36.1848 (5.6)(d-2650)N =
d = 139.907 mm.
69
Vu = 0.361848(
Vc =
, for shear
= 0.361848(
- (300+d) 2)
Mu =
Mu =
Mu = 711.502 kN-m
Mu = Rub d2
711.502 x106kN-m = 0.9Ru(5600)(325)
70
Ru = 1.33653 MPa
MIN =
= 0.005091
Ab =
N=
= 314.1592654 mm2
= 30 bars
S=
S=
S = 187.241 mm. > 100mm. OK
71
) = 23.728
kN/m
*For a middle singly reinforced beam loads from slabs are the most critical.
W = 2(23.728) = 47.455 kN/m, Factored load alone
Beam design:
Beam width, b = 6% of span (design assumption) = 6%(5000mm) = 300mm.
Height, H = 2b (design assumption) = 2(300mm) = 600mm.
Beam self-weight = conc.(Cross sectional area of beam) = 23.55(0.3x0.6) = 4.329 kN/m
Moment at support =
BALANCE =
=129.235 kN-m
= 0.037833
= 0.005091
73
= 0.222943
Ab =
N=
= 314.1592654 mm2
= 8 bars
Reaction at support =
= 93.28177kN
Design of Columns:
Imposed axial load on column at 2nd level: 4(reaction at support)
74
75
71.94 kPa =
B = 3 m., initial dimension of footing
Thickness of footing, t = 350 mm. assumption verification needed on one-way
shear (beam shear) and two-way shear (punching shear)
qeffective = qa qconcrete - qsoil
qeffective = 71.94 23.55(0.35)- 20.955(1.6-0.35)
qeffective = 37.5038kPa
qeffective =
37.5038 kPa =
B = 4.1m., design dimension
qu =
qu = 35.8232 kPa
Check against beam shear
Vu = qu(Dimension)(d-x), x is the face length from column face to edge of
dimension
Vu = 35.8232 (4.1)(d-1937.5)N
Vc =
, for shear
Vc =
Vu = Vc
35.8232 (4.1)(d-1937.5)N =
76
d = 101.322 mm.
Vu = 0.358232(
Vc =
, for shear
= 0.358232(
Vc =
Mu =
Mu =
Mu = 275.678 kN-m
77
- (225+d) 2)N
Mu = Rub d2
275.678 x106kN-m = 0.9Ru(4100)(225)
Ru = 1.4757 MPa
MIN =
= 0.005091
Ab =
N=
= 314.1592654 mm2
= 17 bars
S=
S=
S = 245.6251 mm. > 100mm. OK
78
) = 23.728
kN/m
*For a middle singly reinforced beam loads from slabs are the most critical.
W = 2(23.728) = 47.455 kN/m, Factored load alone
Beam design:
Beam width, b = 6% of span (design assumption) = 6%(5000mm) = 300mm.
Height, H = 2b (design assumption) = 2(300mm) = 600mm.
Beam self-weight = conc.(Cross sectional area of beam) = 23.55(0.3x0.6) = 4.329 kN/m
Moment at support =
BALANCE =
=129.235 kN-m
= 0.037833
= 0.005091
80
= 0.222943
Ab =
N=
= 314.1592654 mm2
= 8 bars
Reaction at support =
= 93.28177kN
82
71.94 kPa =
B = 3 m., initial dimension of footing
Thickness of footing, t = 450 mm. assumption verification needed on one-way
shear (beam shear) and two-way shear (punching shear)
qeffective = qa qconcrete - qsoil
qeffective = 71.94 23.55(0.45)- 20.955(1.6-0.45)
qeffective = 37.2443kPa
qeffective =
37.2443 kPa =
83
Vc =
, for shear
Vc =
Vu = Vc
37.1381(5.7)(d-2848.5)N =
d = 154.134 mm.
Chech against punching shear
Vu = qu(
Vu = 0. 371381(
Vc =
, for shear
84
- (300+d) 2)N
= 0. 371381(
d = 316.725 mm. = 325 mm.
t = d + 1.5Dbar +75 mm.
t = 325+ 1.5(20) +75 mm.
t = 450 mm, OK
Number of main bars
Mu =
Mu =
Mu = 858.809kN-m
Mu = Rub d2
858.809x106kN-m = 0.9Ru(5700)(325)
Ru = 1.5849 MPa
MIN =
= 0.005091
85
As = 0.00604 (5600)(325)
As = 11,198.2mm2
Ab =
N=
= 314.1592654 mm2
= 36 bars
S=
S=
S = 158 mm. > 100mm. OK
86
) = 23.728
kN/m
*For a middle singly reinforced beam loads from slabs are the most critical.
W = 2(23.728) = 47.455 kN/m, Factored load alone
Beam design:
Beam width, b = 6% of span (design assumption) = 6%(5000mm) = 300mm.
Height, H = 2b (design assumption) = 2(300mm) = 600mm.
Beam self-weight = conc.(Cross sectional area of beam) = 23.55(0.3x0.6) = 4.329 kN/m
Moment at support =
BALANCE =
=129.235 kN-m
= 0.037833
= 0.005091
88
= 0.222943
Ab =
N=
= 314.1592654 mm2
= 8 bars
Reaction at support =
= 93.28177kN
Column self-weight
Column height = 3 m.
W = conc(Volume of column) = 23.55(3)(0.300)2 = 6.359 kN
Pu(Axial load carried by ground floor column) = 6.359 kN + 3.577 kN + 3(597.122 kN)
Pu(Axial load carried by ground floor column) = 1,801.3 kN
1801.3 kN = 0.8(0.65)(0.85(21) (Ag-0.04Ag)+275(0.04Ag))
Solving for Ag,
Ag = 123,117.64 m m2
For square column Ag = B2 = 123,117.64
B = 350.881 mm = 375 mm.
Design of isolated footing
qa = 71.94 kPa, most probable value of allowable soil bearing capacity of Manila
sat = 20.955 kN/ m3, Assuming ground water table at near natural ground line (N.G.L.)
Total axial load = Total axial load(from column) + self-weight (column + pedestal),
pedestal height = Df - t
Total axial load = 1801.3 + 9.9352+ 3.5601
Total axial load(Ultimate) = 1813.6724 kN
Total axial load(Unfactored) = Total axial load(unfactored from column) + self-weight
(column + pedestal)
Total axial load(Unfactored) or service loads= 455.0683 kN
Initial dimension of footing
qa =
91
71.94 kPa =
B = 3 m., initial dimension of footing
Thickness of footing, t = 525 mm. assumption verification needed on one-way
shear (beam shear) and two-way shear (punching shear)
qeffective = qa qconcrete - qsoil
qeffective = 71.94 23.55(0.525)- 20.955(1.6-0.525)
qeffective = 37.0496kPa
qeffective =
37.0496 kPa =
B = 7 m., design dimension
qu =
qu = 37.0137kPa
Check against beam shear
Vu = qu(Dimension)(d-x), x is the face length from column face to edge of
dimension
Vu = 37.0137 (7)(d-3498.5)N
Vc =
, for shear
Vc =
Vu = Vc
37.0137 (7)(d-3498.5)N =
92
d = 188.706 mm.
Chech against punching shear
Vu = qu(
Vu = 0. 370137(
Vc =
, for shear
= 0. 370137(
d = 385.793 mm. = 400 mm.
t = d + 1.5Dbar +75 mm.
t = 400+ 1.5(20) +75 mm.
t = 525 mm, OK
Number of main bars
Mu =
Mu =
Mu = 1585.6 kN-m
Mu = Rub d2
93
= 0.005091
Ab =
N=
= 314.1592654 mm2
= 54 bars
S=
S=
S = 128.868 mm. > 100mm. OK
94
Portland Cement
Type of Aggregate
Max Size of Coarse
Aggregates
19
mm
1000
kg/m3
Wt. of Cement
Slump
Unit Wt. of Coarse
Aggregate.
40
25 to 50
kg/bag
mm
1500
kg/m3
Cement
Fineness Modulus
3.2
Sp. Gravity
Moisture Content
Absorption
I
Type
Sand
2.8
2.08
3.0
1.3
Natural
Gravel
2.0
0
1.0
Angular
1) Water-Cement Ratio
WATER CEMENT RATIO
Absolute ratio by
Li/40 kg bag
kgf / sq.cm.
MPa
weight
0.35
14.20
420.00
41.40
0.44
17.75
350.00
34.47
0.53
21.30
280.00
27.58
0.62
24.85
224.00
22.08
0.71
28.40
175.00
17.24
0.80
31.95
140.00
13.80
Table A.1: Compressive Strength of Concrete for Various Water Cement
Ratios
95
Value
Strength (MPa)
Upper Limit
22.08
24.85
Required
21.00
Lower Limit
17.24
28.4
2) Water Requirement
Water, Li / cum of concrete of indicated max. size of aggregates
Slump
(mm)
25 to 50
75 to 100
150 to 178
%Entrapped
Air
9.5 mm
Ang
208
228
243
Rd
188
208
228
13 mm
Ang
198
218
228
Rd
179
198
208
19 mm
Ang
184
203
213
2.5
Rd
164
184
193
25 mm
Ang
179
193
203
Rd
159
174
184
1.5
38 mm
Ang
164
179
188
Rd
144
159
169
51 mm
Ang
154
169
179
Rd
134
149
159
76 mm
Ang
144
159
159
0.5
Slump = 25 to 50mm
96
Rd
124
139
149
0.3
Max. Size
Vol. of dry-rodded coarse aggregate per unit volume of concrete for
of coarse
different fineness modulus of sand
aggregate
2.4
2.55
2.8
3
3.2
(mm)
9.5
0.46
0.44
0.42
0.4
0.38
13
0.55
0.53
0.51
0.49
0.47
19
0.65
0.63
0.61
0.59
0.57
25
0.7
0.68
0.66
0.64
0.62
38
0.76
0.74
0.72
0.7
0.68
51
0.79
0.77
0.75
0.73
0.71
TABLE A.3: Volume of Coarse Aggregates per Unit Volume of Concrete
N=
N= 7.18 bags of cement
6) Absolute volume of cement
|Vcement| =
= 0.0897 m3
= 0.184 m3
= 0.4575
Abs. Vol
0.0897
0.2488
0.4575
0.1840
0.02
Sp. Gr
3.20
2.08
2.00
1.00
-
H2O
1000.00
1000.00
1000.00
1000.00
-
Uncorrected
Wt. (kg)
287.03
517.51
915.00
184.00
Corrected Wt.
(kg)
(required to find)
(required to find)
(required to find)
(required to find)
= 517.51 (1
) = 526.31 kg
= 915.00 (1
) = 925.15 kg
Abs. Vol
0.0897
0.2488
0.4575
0.1840
0.02
Sp. Gr
3.20
2.57
2.50
1.00
-
H2O
1000.00
1000.00
1000.00
1000.00
-
Uncorrected
Wt. (kg)
287.03
517.51
915.00
184.00
Corrected
Wt. (kg)
287.03
526.31
925.15
165.05
1860 kg of cement
3410 kg of sand
99
= 1857.62 kg
= 3406.20 kg
= 5987.43 kg
= 1068.18 kg
5990 kg of gravel
1070 kg of water
= 2399.57 kg
= 4399.95 kg
= 7734.25 kg
= 1379.82 kg
2400 kg of cement
4400 kg of sand
7735 kg of gravel
1380 kg of water
4456 kg of cement
8171 kg of sand
100
= 4455.62 kg
= 8170.02 kg
= 14361.29 kg
= 2562.10 kg
14365 kg of gravel
2565 kg of water
= 1857.62 kg
= 3406.20 kg
= 5987.43 kg
= 1068.18 kg
1860 kg of cement
3410 kg of sand
5990 kg of gravel
1070 kg of water
4620 kg of cement
8465 kg of sand
101
= 4616.17 kg
= 8464.41 kg
= 14878.77 kg
= 2654.42 kg
14880 kg of gravel
2655 kg of water
8125 kg of cement
14895 kg of sand
26180 kg of gravel
4671 kg of water
102
= 8122.23 kg
= 14893.26 kg
= 26179.43 kg
= 4670.5 kg
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
103
Chapter 6
Conclusion
6.1 Conclusion
After the collection of data has been done it was found out that the best
foundation to be used in the City of Manila for structure with less than 5-storey is isolated
footing with tie beam and if the land area is limited then combined footing with tie beam
must be use. In general the soil in the City of Manila has low bearing capacity which is
underlain by weak, compressible and potentially liquefiable formation (sand) within the
influence depth of the formation. The soil classification in the City of Manila obtained from
the geotechnical report verifies the geological map of the Mines and Geosciences bureau
which classified the soil as quarternary alluvium which is composed of mostly sand, silt, and
gravel. It is suggested that for structure that have 5-storey and above pile foundation is highly
recommended. The most probable value for the soil allowable bearing capacity of Manila is
71.94 kPa using the statistical procedures.
In conducting a soil investigation, a soil classification is included and it was
identified to be composed mostly of silty sands and sand silt mixture (more than half of
coarse fraction is smaller than no. 4 sieve) and partly inorganic silts micaceous or
diatornaceous fine sandy or silty, elastic soils with liquid limit less than 50%.
Since it has been identified that the soil bearing capacity in the city of Manila are
almost the same in every district, the most suited type of structure to be constructed is
residential structures. And if it is desired to have commercials or industrials structures
deep foundation will be used.
104
CHAPTER 7
RECOMMENDATION
105
Chapter 7
Recommendation
7.1 Recommendation
This study utilizes available soil investigation reports that were available during
the collection of data. Because of the limited resources, the researchers were not able to
obtain reports from some districts like Ermita, Port Area, and Intramuros. Other districts
have only one soil investigation report like Quaipo, San Andres Bukid, and San Miguel.
It is suggested that further collection of data will be focused on these districts.
There are other mechanical properties of soil that are needed in the design of
foundation that were not included in this study. Further researches should consider the
depth of water table, shear strength, angle of internal friction and other parameters.
The design of the isolated footing in Manila is possible although based on the
unified soil classification system the soil in Manila are composed mostly of silt particles
in which affects the stability of isolated square footing. A strapped and wall footing type
of shallow foundation is what is recommended for 3-storey structures and below floor
levels, and pile foundation for 4-storey and above.
It is advised that other cities should also have its geotechnical analysis especially
cities where there are rapid infrastructure developments.
106
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
107
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We dedicate this thesis to the Almighty Father, who gives us strength, knowledge
and wisdom to finish this study. Our parents, for their unending support, who are our
inspiration in doing the study. We would also want to thank Mr.Eduardo Guico who
allowed us to have an access with the soil investigation reports passed on the Manila City
Halls office of the building officials. Our sincerest thanks to our thesis adviser Engr.
Flordeliza C. Villaseor and our thesis coordinator Engr. Geoffrey L. Cueto. We would
also like to acknowledge Engr. Vinci Nicolas R. Villaseor for reviewing our thesis and
giving us recommendations to improve our study, Engr. Ivan D.L. Marquez who acted us
our second adviser who verifies our methodologies. We also want to thank other
professionals who shared their knowledge to us namely Engr. Lewdan Ferrer and Engr.
Jayson Lorenzo Manansala.
In this thesis, there is nothing here that we possess as our own; they are all
acknowledged in return to their respective studies, works and researchers, which became
our inspiration for pursuing this thesis. Herewith now, we gave you this work of ours, the
artifact that is the product of their knowledge, work of our hands, and the symbol of the
researchers identity.
Ericson M. Mosuela
REFERENCES
109
REFERENCES
-
Brown and G. Bally, Land Capability Survey of Trinidad and Tobago. No. 4.
Soils of the Northern Range of Trinidad, Government Printery, Port-of-Spain,
1967.
Budhu, Muni, Soil Mechanics and Foundations, John Wiley & Sons,
Copyright 2007
http://www.geotechdata.info/geotest/unconfined-compression-test. Retrieved
March 5, 2012
J. M. Duncan and S. G. Wright, Soil Strength and Slope Stability, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 2005.
110
111
APPENDICES
112
APPENDIX A
DESIGN OF CONCRETE MIX
The ACI Method (ACI 211.1-91)
1) Given the design compressive strength of concrete, fc, identify the
corresponding water-cement ratio. Interpolation might be needed.
2) Obtain the water requirement taking the following parameters:
a) Type of Coarse aggregates (Angular/Rounded)
b) Maximum Aggregate Size (MAS)
c) Slump
3) From the corresponding water requirement, identify the percentage of
entrapped air.
4) Use Table E-5 to identify the volume of coarse aggregates given the
following parameters:
a) Fineness modulus (sand)
b) MAS
5) Number of bags of cement required
N=
6) Absolute volume of cement
|Vcement| =
(Gc
sp.gr.
cement)
7) Absolute volume of water
|Vwat| =
8) Absolute volume of air = 1 x % entrapped (item 3)
9) Absolute volume of cement paste (|Vp|) = sum of items 6, 7 and 8
10) Absolute volume of solid aggregates = 1 - |Vp|
11) Absolute volume of gravel:
113
of
Absolute
Volume
Specific
Gravity
Unit
Weight of
Water
Uncorrected
Wt. (Col 2 x
Col 3 x Col 4)
Sand
Cement
Gravel
Water
17) Quantity Take-off (for filling a structural component)
Wt. of material =
V is the volume of the structural element required to fill.
*Considering quantity losses, multiply the quantity of material by 1.1.
114
Corrected
Wt.
13 (1/2 ")
51
199
13 (1/2 ")
56
214
19 (3/4 ")
46
184
19 (3/4 ")
51
199
25 (1")
41
178
25 (1")
46
192
38 (1 ")
37
166
38 (1 ")
42
181
51 (2")
34
157
51 (2")
39
172
76 (3")
31
148
76 (3")
36
163
152 (6")
26
131
152 (6")
31
146
Table A.0: Corresponding Properties of Round and Coarse Aggregates
Absolute ratio by
Li/40 kg bag
kgf / sq.cm.
MPa
weight
0.35
14.20
420.00
41.40
0.44
17.75
350.00
34.47
0.53
21.30
280.00
27.58
0.62
24.85
224.00
22.08
0.71
28.40
175.00
17.24
0.80
31.95
140.00
13.80
Table A.1: Compressive Strength of Concrete for Various Water Cement Ratios
115
9.5 mm
Ang
208
228
243
Rd
188
208
228
13 mm
Ang
198
218
228
Rd
179
198
208
2.5
19 mm
Ang
184
203
213
Rd
164
184
193
25 mm
Ang
179
193
203
Rd
159
174
184
1.5
38 mm
Ang
164
179
188
Rd
144
159
169
51 mm
Ang
154
169
179
Rd
134
149
159
76 mm
Ang
144
159
159
0.5
0.3
Max. Size
Vol. of dry-rodded coarse aggregate per unit volume of concrete for
of coarse
different fineness modulus of sand
aggregate
2.4
2.55
2.8
3
3.2
(mm)
9.5
0.46
0.44
0.42
0.4
0.38
13
0.55
0.53
0.51
0.49
0.47
19
0.65
0.63
0.61
0.59
0.57
25
0.7
0.68
0.66
0.64
0.62
38
0.76
0.74
0.72
0.7
0.68
51
0.79
0.77
0.75
0.73
0.71
TABLE A.3: Volume of Coarse Aggregates per Unit Volume of Concrete
116
Rd
124
139
149
APPENDIX B
Minimum Design Load Requirements
(Chapter 2, Section 203-205 of NSCP 2010 vol. 1)
The minimum design load is required for the design of a particular structural
component of a vertical structure such as slabs, beams, columns, footings, and other
structural components. The loads in particular of this study compose of live and dead
loads with the help of the provisions on the code. Dead loads are consists of permanent
weight imposed on the structural component and the self-weight of the structural
component is considered, while the live loads are defined be the type of occupancy of the
structure.
Notation:
DL = Dead load, includes imposed dead loads and self-weight.
LL = Live load
w = Loads coming from the slab to the beam.
S = Short span of the slab.
m = Ratio between the short span and long span of the slab.
Span ratio, m =
m 0.5, Two-way slab
m < 0.5, One-way slab
Uniform distributed load transfer formula for two-way slab =
m2)(eq. B-2),
formula used to transfer the loads from slab to the supporting beam as a uniformly
distributed load.
118
APPENDIX C
Design of Singly Reinforced Concrete Beam using Ultimate Strength Design Method
(Chapter 4, Section 410 of NSCP 2010 vol. 1)
The design method used on the structural components is the ultimate design
method in which the code provides factors in designing a certain structural component.
The loads from the slab including its weight would be imposed to the beam by the load
transfer formula.
Notation:
w = Loads coming from the slab to the beam.
S = Short span of the slab.
m = Ratio between the short span and long span of the slab.
b = Width of the beam.
d = Effective depth of beam.
H = Height of the beam.
= Reduction factor
Ru = Coefficient of resistance.
w=
119
Moment at support =
(eq. C-3)
shall be defined in two cases (Section 410.3.7.3 of NSCP 2010):
<
(eq. C-5)
In design the actual steel ratio shall be a percentage of the maximum ratio and
should not be less than the minimum steel ratio.
= % MAX (eq. C-6)
The reinforcement index is the ratio between yield strength of steel and concrete,
also the value computed is used for determination of the coefficient of resistance.
=
(eq. C-7)
Coefficient of resistance:
120
(eq. C-12)
121
APPENDIX D
Design of Square Tied Concrete Column using Ultimate Strength Design Method
(Chapter 4, Section 410 of NSCP 2010 vol. 1)
The axial load to the column is calculated from the beam support reactions with
the code provision from chapter 4 section 408 of NSCP 2010,
Reaction at support =
The ultimate load that the column can carrie is governed by the (eq. D-2, Section
410.4.6.2 of NSCP 2010), and used also to determine the dimension and required steel for
the concrete column.
Pu = 0.8(0.85f`c(Ag-As)+fyAs) (eq. D-2, Section 410.4.6.2 of NSCP 2010)
Where: = Reduction factor for compressed member
For compressed member = 0.65 (Section 409.4.2.2 of NSCP)
Ag = Gross area of column.
As = Steel area.
The steel ratio is the ratio between the area of steel and the gross area of the
column.
As = Ag (eq. D-3)
= must range between 1%-8% (Section 410.10.1 of NSCP 2010)
Then solve for the required area for the square tied column.
122
APPENDIX E
Design of Isolated Square Footing using Ultimate Strength Design Method
(Chapter 4, Section 415 of NSCP 2010 vol. 1)
The initial dimension of footing is solved by dividing the service load by the
allowable soil bearing capacity of soil for the determination of the initial thickness of the
isolated square footing.
qa =
(eq. E-1)
(eq. E-3)
The beam shear on footings is governed by the formula from the code,
Vc =
(eq. E-4)
123
(eq. E-5)
(eq. E-6)
The required steel area is the area of reinforcing steel required for the beam with
the actual steel ratio.
124
As = bd (eq. C-11)
The number of reinforcing steel is calculated by dividing the steel area by the area
of a single reinforcing bar with the diameter of bar given and should be a whole number.
N=
(eq. C-12)
(eq. E-7)
125
APPENDIX F
Computation of the soil properties from available borehole samples
Given: Five samples of on-site soil specimens
PROPERTY
w.c.(%)
Moist density(kg/ cm3)
Dry density(kg/ cm3)
Dry unit weight(kN/ m3)
Moist unit weight(kN/ m3)
NUMBER OF SAMPLES
1
2
3
4
5
15.4
7
19.7
6.3
14.7
2.447
2.606
1.859
1.618
1.595
2.12
2.436
1.553
1.522
1.391
20.7972 23.89716 15.23493 14.93082 13.64571
24.00507 25.56486 18.23679 15.87258 15.64695
127