August 31, 2022

Bp. J.P. Andaya

Apostolic Vicariate of Tabuk
Tabuk City Kalinga

Re: Preliminary Structural Condition Assessment Report

Your Excellency Bp. Andaya:

At your humble request , I have surveyed together with your staff, the condition of the STS
3 Story School Building to determine its structural integrity in view of the latest earthquake
that had occurred recently. The object of the survey was to examine the exterior and
interior masonry at Ground Floor, Second Floor and Third Floor walls and of beams and
columns to assess previously identified problems-bulges and deteriorated masonry joint
and fire protection covers-and generally look for structural deficiencies throughout the
building.

I. BACKGROUND

Purpose

This assessment is part of a study to review STS (St. Theresita’s School) space needs. The
program calls for reusing the existing building and reviewing options to repair the Three
Story Reinforce Concrete Framed building. During our surveys, we had identified bulges
and deteriorated masonry joints and beam to column joints. As bulges in CHB masonry
indicate movement which can precede a partial collapse of wall sections, their assessment
is understood as a high priority. The issuance of Certificate of Occupancy had assessed the
building as a structurally robust building leading this team to not expect to find significant
structural deficiencies. This study relies primarily on a visual survey to validate our
opinions.

Description

STS 3 Story RC framed structure is an L-shaped building where the longer span is in the
eastern direction while the shorter span is in the southern direction. The walls are lightly
single reinforced masonry construction carried by RC beams and supported by columns.

II. SURVEY

On August 28, 2020, the Undersigned met with STS personnel to survey the said STS RC
framed structure. Attached at the end of this report are annotated digital photographs
documenting conditions and drawings illustrating conditions of interest. This survey
started by viewing the Ground floor, Second floor and Third floor elevations. Afterward,
the STS staff escorted the Undersigned through the building starting in the third floor,
down through the balcony, second floor, first floor and the stairways. Reading through the
photos and sketches at this point will help to understand what follow
 III. EVALUATION

Within the building, much of the structure is concealed behind thick plaster walls and
ceilings steel deck sheets) and flooring toppings preventing direct measurement of
structural framing or inspection. In general, the floors and walls appear adequately
supported which indirectly indicate the structure is adequate. Observations of identified
problems and questionable construction are as follows:

1. CHB walls at Ground floors. Second floors and Third floors

a. Along the window and door lines, exterior mortar joints are breaking down with
cracks visible and in almost a 45 degree crack line patterns. The fractured mortar is
a result of moisture drawn into the walls and in the absence of diagonal bars along
the corners of the windows and doors to resist lateral movements induced by earth
quake motions that occurred recently. Also the water expands and fractures mortar.
The problem is more extensive on Third floors.

b. CHB walls at column-beam joints appeared to have detached between the column-
beam joints and between the column-wall joints itself. The masonry walls are now
sealed with elastomeric type caulking and tied together with additional and new
installed horizontal and vertical RSB drilled into the columns where low viscosity
epoxy were place to enhanced bonding values.

c. Mortar and plasters in belt course are falling out. falling out. This xcan be
addressed by placing epoxy on its soffit and the plasters and mortars are place
beneath.

2. East end wall.

a. A horizontal bulge lies between the south wall and the large window at the level of
the ceiling. This bulge is a result of water trapped in the backup portions of the wall
freezing and turning to ice. This process fractures the softer backup brick and
pushes the face brick outward.
b. A vertical bulge lies over the top of the large window. It developed for the same
reasons as the one in item 2.a.
c. Freeze action is eroding the interior face of the wall within the attic.

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

Until a complete and revised Structural Analysis & Design coupled with Materials Testing
and Quality Control tests is performed that addresses the level of desired restoration, reuse,
and additional construction.

However, only repair type work can be identified as follows:

1. Urgent masonry repairs. Stabilizing thru repairs the cracked portions in the
masonry wall by either rebuilding facing and broken backup CHB units at the
 windows and door lines or by adding temporary interior and exterior bracing to
constrain the cracked portions and prevent further cracks or lengthening the
cracked lines.

2. Considering that said cracks were located and concentrated along the window and
door corners, which are considered as non – structural members and therefore does
not affect the structural integrity of the structure, repairs shall be implemented to
avoid degradation of the said masonry walls and to restore its aesthetic values.

3. Cracks that are inherent on beam-column joints shall be repaired using Dry Pack
method.

V. METHOD OF MASONRY WALL REPAIR

a. The cracked /bulged portion of the windows and door lines is cleaned and
widened to 10 mm along the lines is cut using an electric cutter or by manual
method using a chisel to at least.

b. Debris and loose particles are cleaned using strong air pressure pumps.

c. Diagonal RSB (12 mm or 16 mm as detailed in plans) are placed on the voids

and sealed with Built Rite Epoxy to provide bonding between the CHB joints.

d. Concrete patching is plastered to the joints using a trowel manually.

e. The joints are painted with the desired color and consistency.

VI. METHOD OF BEAM -COLUMN JOINT DRY PACK REPAIR

a. The cracked /bulged portion of the beam and column joints are chiseled by
manual method.

b. Debris and loose particles are cleaned using strong air pressure pumps.

c. Wet burlap is placed overnight to moistened the surface at joint ends & edges

d. Formworks are placed around the column -beam joint to ensure placement
concrerte. Forms shall be 25 mm extend from its original dimensions
sideway where the excess shall be chiseled when the concrete attained its
initial compressive strength.

e. Placement of concrete shall initialized using a Class AA with ¾ in MSA

 (Maximum Size of Aggregates) with a compressive strength of 5 KSI or
34.47 mPa.

f. Forms are removed after 1 day and the excess shall be removed using chisel

g. Plastering is employed to ensure its desired original shape.

Finally, the evaluations and recommendations with Method of Construction/Repairs

stated in this report were based on observations made during the site visits/inspections and
is limited to only those areas accessible for observations/inspections. No destructive
inspections nor testing of materials were performed.

For your information and guidance.

Sincerely yours,

Felixander Collado Falgui

Civil/Structural Engineer
PRC no. 0019884

Member, (PICE) Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers

Member, (ASEP) Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines
Member, (SCE) Saudi Council of Engineers
Member, (WorksPhi-PMP) Work Society of the Philippines
ATTACHMENTS

Front View of STS School Building

Rear View of STS School Building

Longer Span of the building at side and the shorter span of the building at far east directionco
Small cracks are visible between the Column-Beam joints

Cracks near the door corner

Cracks at wall

Masonry plasters loosened during translational movement

Cracks at Column-Beam joints

Diagonal cracks at corner of windows

Vertical cracks at Column-Beam joints

Vertical cracks at Column-Beam joints

Loosened floor tiles

Bulged portion at corner of windows

Diagonal cracks at corner of windows
 Certificate of Structural Adequacy
Property: Three Story STS (St. Theresita’s School) High School Institutional Building
Location: Dagupan, Tabuk City, Kalinga

The property under review comprises a Ground floor, Second Floor and Third Floor situated at
Dagupan, Tabuk City, Kalinga which is subjected to lateral movements induced by a recent
earthquake with 7.0 magnitude emanating from fault line at Abra Province last July 22, 2020.
Damage was the result of minor movements of the substructure consisting of isolated and wall
footings and the structure itself consisting of columns, beams, girders and slabs and of non-
structural members such as CHB walls.

Urgent repairs of the said building were implemented in accordance to ACI and AISC
specifications to its original aesthetic character

The repair works were the Contractor’s workers.

The building itself appears to be stable and adequate for occupancy.

We have examined only those parts and areas of the building that was accessible and visible. We
have not extended our inspection to other parts and areas of the said building particularly those
members and elements that are shielded by plastering and covers and are latent in nature. This
certificate does not in any way increased our liability beyond that agreed under the terms of
understanding as reflected in the Structural Preliminary Condition Assessment Report.

This Certificate is for the sole benefit of the Owner of the said property and the CBAO
(City Building Architectural Office) and may not be relied upon by any other person/entity
whatsoever. Transfer of benefits of this Certificate to any party other than the Owner and
CBAO to whom it is addressed will be allowed with the written permission of the
Undersigned.

Felixander Collado Falgui

Civil/Structural Engineer
PRCno. 0019884
PTR No. 0385379
April 11, 2022
Tabuk City Kalinga