Structural Assessment of Existing Platform

at San Miguel Corporation Brewery

San Fernando, Pampanga

Structural Assessment Report

October 2021

Prepared by:
Ian Carl R. Ventura
Dara R. Padilla

WILYE R. PADILLA
Structural Engineer

Reg. No.: 102579 PTR No.: 2575724

TIN No.: 246-171-068 Date: 01-06-2021

2nd floor, RGM Bldg., 326 Aguirre Ave.

BF Homes, Parañaque City 1720
(02) 8-296-0393 | 7peaksdesignbuilld@gmail.com
GNQ INDUSTRIAL AND CONTRACTING CORPORATION OCTOBER 2021
PLATFORM ASSESSMENT STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 2

1 PARAMETERS FOR STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN ........................... 3
1.1 Codes and References ........................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Material Specifications ......................................................................................................... 3
1.2.1. Steel Sections ........................................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Loading Criteria.................................................................................................................... 3
1.3.1. Dead Loads ........................................................................................................................... 3
1.3.2. Live Loads ............................................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Primary Load Cases ............................................................................................................. 5
1.5 Load Combinations for Allowable Stress Design ............................................................... 5
2 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN RESULTS .............................................. 6
2.1 Structural Modeling.............................................................................................................. 6
2.1.1. Analysis Software Used ....................................................................................................... 6
2.1.2. Structural Model ................................................................................................................. 6
2.2. Structural Assessment of the Main Girder ......................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Iteration 1: Live Load = 6kPa ............................................................................................. 8
2.2.2 Iteration 2: Equipment as concentrated loads................................................................... 9
2.3. Load for Maximum Allowable Deflection of Additional Beam ...................................... 10
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 12

Page 1 of 12
GNQ INDUSTRIAL AND CONTRACTING CORPORATION OCTOBER 2021
PLATFORM ASSESSMENT STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report contains the results of the detailed structural assessment of the existing platform
located at the San Miguel Brewery, Bo. Quebiawan, San Fernando, Pampanga. Seven Peaks
Design and Build Inc. (SPDBI) was commissioned by GNQ Industrial and Contracting
Corporation (GNQICC) to evaluate the structural integrity of the existing platform if two
additional equipment are to be placed on the said platform.

Based on the results of the structural assessment, it was recommended to introduce two (2)
additional channel members to adequately support the additional equipment to be placed in the
said platform.

However, last October 19, 2021, a sagged beam was observed after installation of the additional
channel members and equipment. A structural analysis was made wherein the concerned beam
was isolated and subjected to different iterations to identify the cause of the deflection. It was
found out that the girder, which is part of the main frame, does not exceed the allowable
deflection.

Moreover, the sag can only be observed at the additional beam. A concentrated load of 113.8
is assumed to have been applied to the said beam which may have caused the deflection. Since
this is only an additional beam and was not included in the original structural plans, the
observed deflection should not affect the structural integrity of the main girder and the
platform.

Page 2 of 12
GNQ INDUSTRIAL AND CONTRACTING CORPORATION OCTOBER 2021
PLATFORM ASSESSMENT STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

1 PARAMETERS FOR STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND

DESIGN
1.1 Codes and References

The applicable provisions of the following regulations, codes and standards were used:

Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP), “National Structural

Code of the Philippines 2015, Vol. 1: Buildings, Towers, and Other Vertical
Structures”, 7th edition, 1st printing, 2016.

American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), “AISC Steel Construction

Manual”, 14th edition, 2011.

The available shop drawings were used as the primary reference in the creation of a 3D
computer model and the initial structural assessment.

1.2 Material Specifications

1.2.1. Steel Sections

The assumed yield strength (fy) of the structural steel members used in the analysis is
248 MPa (A36).

The steel sections used for the structure are:

- W12X92
- W18X76
- W18X50
- C9X15
- C10X20

1.3 Loading Criteria

1.3.1. Dead Loads

The self-weight of the structure is applied to the structural model. Additionally, the
weight of the steel slab and mechanical duct were also applied as dead loads.

1.3.2. Live Loads

Live loads equivalent to the actual weights of existing and additional equipment were
applied on the structural model. The locations of the said equipment are shown in
Figure 1.

Page 3 of 12
GNQ INDUSTRIAL AND CONTRACTING CORPORATION JUNE 2021
PLATFORM ASSESSMENT STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
___

Figure 1. Actual weights and locations of existing and additional equipment (highlighted in yellow).

Page 4 of 12
GNQ INDUSTRIAL AND CONTRACTING CORPORATION JUNE 2021
PLATFORM ASSESSMENT STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

1.4 Primary Load Cases

The following primary loads are utilized in the study:

• Dead Load, D
• Live Load, L

1.5 Load Combinations for Allowable Stress Design

The above primary load cases are combined as provided in the NSCP 2015. The
following loading combinations are as follows:

• (D)
• (D) + L

Page 5 of 12
GNQ INDUSTRIAL AND CONTRACTING CORPORATION JUNE 2021
PLATFORM ASSESSMENT STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

2 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN RESULTS

2.1 Structural Modeling

2.1.1. Analysis Software Used

MIDAS Gen 2019 was used to create a three-dimensional computer model for the
structural analysis of the warehouse. MIDAS Gen enables practicing engineers to
readily perform structural analysis and design for conventional and complex structures.

2.1.2. Structural Model

A three-dimensional model of the main frame, assumed to be a steel moment resisting

frame (SMRF) as shown in Figure 2.1, was created using MIDAS Gen 2019 where all
necessary structural elements were incorporated. The model was based on the provided
shop drawings.

The concerned member was highlighted in Figure 2.2. This member was isolated, as
shown in Figure 3, and was subjected to dead loads and live loads, which are shown in
Appendix A, to determine its deflection.

Moreover, the additional T-Beam was also modelled to determine the maximum load
which will cause the beam to deflect beyond its maximum allowable deflection. This
can be seen in Figure 2.4.

Figure 2.1. Perspective view of the structural model of the main framing system using
MIDAS Gen.

Page 6 of 12
GNQ INDUSTRIAL AND CONTRACTING CORPORATION JUNE 2021
PLATFORM ASSESSMENT STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 2.2. 3-D view of the structural model of the isolated member, where the additional
equipment will be placed, using MIDAS Gen.

Figure 2.3. 3-D view of the structural model of the additional T-beam using MIDAS Gen.

2.2. Structural Assessment of the Main Girder

Based on the serviceability requirements in Section 424 of NSCP 2015, the allowable
deflection of a structural member is given by the equation:

ℓ
∆𝑀𝑎𝑥 = ; 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 ℓ = 𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟
480

Page 7 of 12
GNQ INDUSTRIAL AND CONTRACTING CORPORATION JUNE 2021
PLATFORM ASSESSMENT STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

From this equation, it can be computed that the allowable deflection is 9.07mm. The
following iterations were done in order to check if the deflections do not exceed the
maximum permissible.

2.2.1 Iteration 1: Live Load = 6kPa

As stated in the NSCP, the live load for light equipment storage is 6 kPa. Combining
this with the dead loads as indicated in Table 2.1, the deflection of the main girder is
shown in Figure 2.3. Based on the results of the analysis, the maximum deflection that
the concerned member will experience is 0.939mm which is less than the allowable
deflection (9.07mm). This means the member is still adequate even if it experiences the
said loads.

Table 2.1. Dead and live loads applied for Iteration 1.

DESCRIPTION LOADS
Uniform Dead Loads
= 47.1 kg/m2
6mm Steel Plate
= 2.82 kN/m (6m tributary width)
= 0.2 kPa
Mechanical Duct
= 1.2 kN/m (6m tributary width
= 73.42 kg/m
T-Beam
= 0.73 kN/m

Concentrated Dead Loads

= 29.76 kg/m
C10X20
= 1.76 kN (6m long)
= 22.32 kg/m
C9X15 = 1.32 kN (6m long; existing members)
= 2.190 kN (10m long; additional channel members)
= 74 kg/m
W18X50
= 4.36 kN (6m long; existing member)

Uniform Live Load

= 6 kPa
Light Equipment Storage
= 36 kN/m

Page 8 of 12
GNQ INDUSTRIAL AND CONTRACTING CORPORATION JUNE 2021
PLATFORM ASSESSMENT STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

Iteration 1:
Live Load =
6Pa

Max displacement: 0.98 mm

Allowable displacement (L/480):
9.mm
0.98mm < 9mm - Deflection is
acceptable
Figure 2.4. Deflection due to 6kPa live load.

2.2.2 Iteration 2: Equipment as concentrated loads

For this iteration, the existing and additional equipment were loaded as concentrated
loads in the middle part of the concerned member. The existing equipment weighed
43800kg while the additional equipment weighed 9500kg. A total of 522.88 kN was
placed in the middle resulting to a maximum deflection of 7.990mm, which is less than
the allowable deflection (9.07mm). This means the member is still adequate even if it
experiences the indicated loads as shown in Table 2.2.

Table 2.1. Dead and live loads applied for Iteration 1.

DESCRIPTION LOADS
Uniform Dead Loads
= 47.1 kg/m2
6mm Steel Plate
= 2.82 kN/m (6m tributary width)
= 0.2 kPa
Mechanical Duct
= 1.2 kN/m (6m tributary width
= 73.42 kg/m
T-Beam
= 0.73 kN/m
Concentrated Dead Loads
= 29.76 kg/m
C10X20
= 1.76 kN (6m long)
= 22.32 kg/m
C9X15 = 1.32 kN (6m long; existing members)
= 2.190 kN (10m long; additional channel members)
= 74 kg/m
W18X50
= 4.36 kN (6m long; existing member)

Page 9 of 12
GNQ INDUSTRIAL AND CONTRACTING CORPORATION JUNE 2021
PLATFORM ASSESSMENT STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

Concentrated Live Load

= 43800 kg
Existing Equipment
= 429.68 kN
= 9500 kg
Additional Equipment
= 93.20 kN

Iteration 2: Loading the existing and

additional euquipment full weight

Figure 2.5. Deflection due to equipment weight as concentrated live load.

that might have

been imposed on
2.3. Load for Maximum Allowable Deflection of Additional Beam the beam

The deflection observed by the additional beam may have been caused by a
concentrated load greater than the maximum allowable. This is illustrated in Figure
2.6. From the figure, it can be observed that upon applying 113.8 kN (11,600 kg), the
T Beam will exhibit a deflection of 9.0703mm which is greater than the maximum
allowable deflection. It can be concluded that any deflection exhibited by the T Beam
is acceptable as long as the load applied to it is less than 113.8 kN (11,600 kg).

Page 10 of 12
GNQ INDUSTRIAL AND CONTRACTING CORPORATION JUNE 2021
PLATFORM ASSESSMENT STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

Figure 2.5. Minimum load which will exceed the maximum allowable deflection.

113.8

*if the additional T-beam below the

main girder is subjected to a load of
113. KN (11000 kg), then the
deflection will be exceeding the
allowable limit.

Figure 2.5. Load resulting to an excess in the maximum allowable deflection.

Page 11 of 12
 GNQ INDUSTRIAL AND CONTRACTING CORPORATION JUNE 2021
PLATFORM ASSESSMENT STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

CONCLUSION
As GNQICC commissioned SPDBI to evaluate the existing platform structure, SPDBI
recommended to introduce additional channel members to adequately support the weight of the
additional equipment to e placed on the said structure. However, upon installation of the
channel members and equipment, a sag was noticed on the additional beam below itthe main
girder. by
investigate were
GNQ
To determine the cause of the sag, the main girder concerned was isolated and was subjected
to two (2) different iterations. The deflection from these iterations was compared to the
maximum allowable deflection as stated in the NSCP.
deflections selfweig
and ni T
Forthe
he deflection of the first iteration, the member was subjected to a combination of dead loads and a 6 kPa
live less
main girder is still load which is provided by the NSCP for light equipment storage. With this combination,
the
han the maximum member exhibited a deflection less than the maximum allowable. Alternatively, the second
iteration
allowable deflection - consists of a combination of dead loads and a concentrated live load equal to the full
which is still weight of the existing equipment near the member and the full weight of the additional
acceptable. equipment placed near it. It was observed that even with the full weight being loaded to it, the
main girder still deflects within the allowable deflection. of btoh additional and
existing equipment
On the other hand, the additional beam below the main girder was also analyzed to(50000kg)
determine
the what caused the sag. From the analysis, the additional beam may have been cause by hanging investig
possibl a component wight a weight of 113.8 kN (11,600 kg). This weight causes the beam to bend
e cause beyond its maximum allowable deflection.
of the
sag Based on the data provided by GNQICC, it can be concluded that the deflection exhibited by
the main girder is still within the allowable limit whether the load applied on is the one provided
by the NSCP, or the actual weight of the equipment which the member carries.

may have
sagged
because of an
instance of
hanging a
compinent
with weight of
____

Page 12 of 12