An Analysis of Geotechnical Reports To Determine The Soil Bearing Capacity in Manila For The Design of

An Analysis of Geotechnical Reports to Determine the Soil Bearing
Capacity in Manila for the Design of Foundation
by
Gangcuangco, Dave Joseph V.

Mosuela, Ericson M.
Palatino, Carlo Dominic M.
A Thesis Submitted to the School of Civil, Environmental and Geological

Engineering in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
Mapa Institute of Technology

December 2012
1
2
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.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPROVAL SHEET ............................................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................... 4
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... viii
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1
1.1.Background of the Study ........................................................................................ 2
1.2.Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 2
1.3.Objectives of the Study ........................................................................................... 3
1.4.Conceptual Framework Model ............................................................................... 4
1.5.Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 5
1.6.Scope and Limitations of the Study ..................................................................... 5-6
Chapter 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................................................. 8
2.1.Related Literature.................................................................................................... 8
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 12
3.1.Research Design.................................................................................................... 13
3.2.Research Subject and Locale ................................................................................ 14
3.3.Data Gathering Procedures ................................................................................... 15
3.4.Laboratory Test Done in a Subsurface Soil Investigation .................................... 16
3.4.1 Grain Size Analysis .................................................................................................... 16
3.4.2 Unified Soil Classification System ............................................................................. 17
3.4.3 Unconfined Compression Test .................................................................................. 17
4
3.4.4 Determination of Natural Moisture Content ............................................................ 18
3.4.5 Atterbergs Limit ........................................................................................................ 19
Chapter 4: PRESENTATION OF DATA, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATIONS ......... 21
4.1 Presentation of Data .............................................................................................. 22
4.2 Analysis................................................................................................................. 36
Chapter 5: DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN.....41
5.1 Minor: Structural Engineering...............42
5.2 Minor: Construction Methods88
Chapter 6:CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 96
6.1. Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 97
Chapter 7:RECOMMENDATION...98
7.1 Recommendations ................................................................................................. 99
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.....101
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 103
APPENDICES105
Appendix A. Design of Concrete Mix .................................................................................. 106
Appendix B. Minimum Design Load Requirements ............................................................ 110
Appendix C. Design of Singly Reinforced Beam ................................................................. 112
Appendix D. Design of Square Tied Concrete Column ....................................................... 115
Appendix E. Designof Isolated Square Footing ................................................................... 116
Appendix F. Computation of the soil properties from available borehole samples.......119
5
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.A Descriptionof Soil Strength Based on Liquidity Index .......................................... 19
Table 3.B Typical Atterbergs Limit for Soils ......................................................................... 20
Table 3.C Summary of Concrete-Mix Parameters .................................................................. 88
Table A.1 Compressive Strength of Concrete for Various W/C ratio .................................... 88
Table A.2 Approximate Mixing Water Requirements for Different Slump and Maximum
Size of Aggregates ............................................................................................................ 89
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
6
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Map of the City of Manila ....................................................................................... 22
Figure 2: Number of BoreholeLogs on Each District of Manila ............................................ 23
Figure 3: Geological Map of Manila ...................................................................................... 24
Figure 4: Comparison Chart of the Most Probable Value of Soil Bearing Capacity in
Manila .............................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 5: Unified Soil Classification System Chart ................................................................ 30
Figure 6:Map of Manila with the Most Probable Value of Allowable Bearing Capacity ...... 35
7
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
8
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.
9
1.1 The Problem and Its Background
Soil is the oldest and most complex engineering material and all structures are
constructed in it. The mechanical properties of soil must be determined before designing
and constructing the foundation. The mechanical properties of soil are shear strength and
bearing capacity. To obtain the ultimate bearing capacity of the soil, Unconfined
Compression Test could be performed in the laboratory using the unconfined
compression apparatus while the shear strength could be obtained through the Direct
Shear Test using the Direct Shear Apparatus in the laboratory. However, the actual
mechanical properties of soil in the City of Manila are not familiar to civil engineers
since not anyone of them have access to these data.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
More specifically, this study answered the following questions:
1. What is the composition of the soil in the city of Manila?
2. What is the value of soil bearing capacity in different parts of Manila?
10
1.3 Objective of the Study
This study aims to develop a map of Manila City using the collected data.
a) To be able to determine the type of foundation in Manila by collecting soil
investigation reports submitted to the City of Manila and soil investigations done
by private companies.
b) To identify and classify the composition of soil in Manila.
c) To generalize the foundation in the City of Manila with respect to the number of
storeys of structure.
d) To develop a map of Manila City showing probable allowable soil bearing
capacity based from soil investigation report conducted in the city of Manila.
11
1.4 Conceptual Framework
Obtain soil investigation reports

from public and private
institutions
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

Determine the most probable value
Classification System(USCS) in the
of the allowable soil bearing
soil investigation report to the
capacity using statistical procedure
geographic map of manila
Make a conclusion
12
1.6 Significance of the Study
The study is a useful guide to civil engineers in designing the foundation in the
city of Manila by providing the allowable capacity of soil. With the aid of this study, the
engineer will have an idea on what type of foundation to be constructed. Also with this
study, the engineer would know if the soil condition in the proposed site is appropriate
for a proposed structure.
For its academic purpose, this study can serve as a reference for civil engineering
students to know the soil condition in a particular site. And for its technological purpose,
this study helps technical and non-technical people on being familiar with the different
tests that could be used in determining the properties of the soil.
1.7 Scope and Limitations
The study is a collection of data, particularly the soil investigation reports in the City
of Manila. The data inside the soil investigation report are obtained by laboratory or field
experiments established by the American Standard for Testing Materials (ASTM) and
with the guidance of other trusted references regarding the soil properties. The City of
Manila is where the study took place. Since conducting a soil investigation is expensive,
the data used in this study are those data which are collected from previous soil
investigation reports. This study is a guide to civil engineers on what type of foundation
may be designed or constructed. The foundation which was designed was based from the
loads presented in the NSCP 2010 and only the most loaded footing was designed.
Geotechnical investigation must be performed on site upon construction since this study
13
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 semi-
continuous 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 Geo-
Sciences 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
3.2 Research Design Framework
Gather Related Literature
Collect Soil Investigation Reports
Analyse Information
Classify the soil Determine Bearing Capacity
Propose Type of Foundations
Determine Suitable Type of Structures
Design of Foundation
21
3.2 Research Subject and Locale
The City of Manila, known as Maynila for the Filipinos, is the capital city of the
Philippines and one of the cities that make up the greater metropolitan area of Metro
Manila. Manila is the center of government in the country and one of the central hubs of a
thriving metropolitan area home to over 12 million people as of NSO 2010 Census. It is
located on the shores of Manila Bay just west of the geographical center of Metro Manila,
also known as the National Capital Region (NCR), which lies on a peninsula between
Manila Bay and Laguna de Bay in southern Luzon. The city is one of 17 cities and
municipalities which form the metropolitan area.
The geography of Manila reveals that the city is on the eastern shore of Manila
Bay. Manila apart from the Manila City encompasses seven cities and nine towns. The
City of Manila is approximately 38.3 square kilometers and is located on the west coast
of the Philippine island of Luzon.
Manila is the capital of Philippines and is also an important commercial,
industrial and cultural center. The geography of Manila also reveals that the Pasig River
divides the city into two sections -The Intramuros (the old city) and the Ermita (important
government buildings and the hotels) and the new section on the northern bank
(http://www.manila.gov.ph/, March 5, 2012).
22
3.3 Data Gathering Procedures
There were 55 soil investigation reports gathered from the City of Manila. From
these reports, the soil classification, bearing capacity, and the proposed type of
foundation were determined. There are numerous tests performed in the laboratory for the
complete subsurface exploration such as unified soil classification system, unconfined
compressive strength of cohesive soil, particle size analysis of soils, liquid limit of soils,
plastic limit and plasticity of soils, moisture content of soils, unconfined compressive
strength of intact rock cores, and specific gravity of soils.
3.4 Laboratory Test Done in a Subsurface Soil Investigation
In a soil exploration report, several tests must be performed in laboratory or at the
site. These test are ASTM D422 (Grain Size Analysis of Soil), ASTM D4318 (Atterbergs
Limit), ASTM D2216 (Determination of Natural Moisture Content of Soil), ASTM
D2488 (Unified Soil Classification System), ASTM D216606 (Unconfined
Compression Test)
3.4.1 Grain Size Analysis (ASTM D422)
Soil was passed through a series of sieves, the weight of soil retained on
eachsieve determined and recorded. For each sample analyzed, a gradation curvewas
drawn based on the percent finer by weight. The distribution of particlesizes larger than
No. 200 sieve (retained on the No. 200 sieve) is determinedby sieving, while the
distribution of particle sizes smaller than the No. 200 sieve is determined by a
sedimentation process, using a hydrometer.
23
3.4.2 Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2488)
Soils seldom exist in nature separately as sand, gravel, or any other single
component. Usually they occur as mixtures with varying proportions of particles of
different sizes. Each component contributes its characteristics to the mixture. The USCS
is based on the characteristics of the soil that indicate how it will behave as a construction
material.
In the USCS, all soils are placed into one of three major categories. They are
coarse-grained, fine-grained and highly organic. The USCS further divides soils that have
been classified into the major soil categories by letter symbols, such as S for sand, G for
gravel, M for silt, and C for clay.
A soil that meets the criteria for a sandy clay would be designated (SC). There are
cases of borderline soils that cannot be classified by a single dual symbol, such as GM for
silty gravel. These soils may require four letters to fully describe them. For example,
(SM-SC) describes a sand that contains appreciable amounts of silt and clay.
3.4.3 Unconfined Compression Test (ASTM D2166 06)
The unconfined compression test is an important method of determining the shear
strength of cohesive and semi-cohesive soil.
In the unconfined compression test, the sample is placed in the loading machine
between the lower and upper plates. Before starting the loading, the upper plate is
adjusted to be in contact with the sample and the deformation is set as zero. The test then
starts by applying a constant axial strain of about 0.5 to 2% per minute. The load and
24
deformation values are recorded as needed for obtaining a reasonably complete load-
deformation 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.
3.4.4 Determination of Natural Moisture Content of Soil (ASTM D2216)
The water content of soil is determined as the ratio, expressed in percentage of the
mass of pore water to the given mass of the solid particles.
25
3.4.5 Atterbergs Limit (ASTM D4318)
The test method covers the determination of the liquid limit, plastic limit, and
plasticity index of soils that are defined as follows:
Liquid Limit is the water content, in percent, at which a soil changes from plastic
to liquid state.
Plastic limit is the water contents of solid at which the soil changes from a solid to
a semi-solid to a plastic state.
Plasticity index is the range of water contents over which the soil deforms
plastically and is defined by the equation:
Plasticity index = Liquid Limit Plastic Limit
Liquidity Index is the ratio of the difference in water content between the natural
water content of a soil and its plastic limit to its plasticity index and is defined by the
equation:
Liquidity Index =
Values of Liquidity Index Description of soil strength
LI < 0 Semisolid State high strength, brittle, sudden fracture is
expected
0 < LI < 1 Plastic State intermediate strength, soil deforms like a
plastic material
LI > 1 Liquid State - low strength, soil deforms like a viscous fluid
Table 3.A Description of Soil Strength Based on Liquidity Index
26
Soil Type Liquid Limit (%) Plastic Limit (%) Plasticity Index
Sand Nonplastic
Silt 30 40 20 25 10 16
Clay 40 -180 25 50 15 - 100
Table 3.B Typical Atterberg Limits for Soils
3.5 Presentation of Data
After the collection of data, the data were presented in a table form found at the
next chapter of the study. The table is composed of the location of the conducted
subsurface soil investigation, district, number of storeys of the structure as well as its
purpose, the allowable soil bearing capacity of soil, and the proposed type of foundation
as prescribed by the report. The most probable allowable soil bearing capacity of soil in
each district and the most probable soil bearing capacity of soil in the City of Manila is
tabulated.
3.6 Design of Footing
The footing for one storey residential, two storey residential, three storey
residential, one storey commercial/industrial, two storey commercial/industrial, three
storey commercial/industrial was designed using the most probable allowable soil bearing
capacity of soil and the Ultimate Strength Design (USD) and with accordance with the
National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP). The design of the footing is limited
to these structures since these are the typical types of structure constructed in the city
based on the subsurface soil investigation collected. Together with the design is the
estimated amount of material to be used in the construction of the footing using the
American Concrete Institute (ACI) method of designing for concrete mix.
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.
Figure 1. Map of the City of Manila
29
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
Figure 2. Number of Borehole Logs on Each District of Manila
30
Figure 3. Geological Map of Manila(Source: Mines and Geosciences Bureau)
It is the geological representation of the city of Manila in which it provides the
information necessaryto make decisions about constructionand infrastructure design in
earthquake-prone areas. The map also indicates the type of formation in Manila such as it
contains quaternary alluvium that mainly consists of gravel, sand, silt and clay, in which
it is loose and easily saturated by ground water.
31
MPV per District vs MPV of Manila
MPV Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
District MPV of Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity per

District
MPV Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity of Manila
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 Purpose of qu (allowable)* Proposed USCS
Structure Foundation
1882 C.M. Recto Quiapo 3 Storey 75 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Avenue Residential with Tie Beam
Solis Street Tondo 3 Storey 75 kPa Isolated Footing SM
condominium with Tie Beam
M.A. Guerrero Tondo 3 Storey 57.46 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Extension Residential with Tie Beam
068 Quirino Street Tondo 3 Storey 72 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Building with
Deck
2416 Callejon 1 Tondo 3 Storey 72 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Corner Fidel Street, Building with with Tie Beam
Gagalangin Deck
Calle Gamban Corner Tondo 4 Storey 72 kPa Strip or SM
Calle Guidote Balut Warehouse Continuous
Building Footing with Tie
Beam
1249 San Nicolas Tondo 4 Storey 75 kPa Isolated Footing SM
corner Tindalo Streets Building with Tie Beam
1227 Camba Street Tondo 3 Storey 72 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Extension Residential with Tie Beam
Apartment
with
Penthouse
Lot 20-C, Herbosa Tondo 3 Storey with 75 kPa Combined SM
Street Deck Footing with Tie
Beam
401-C Interior 54 Tondo 3 Storey 72 kPa Combined SM
Perla Street Residential Footing with Tie
with Deck Beam
Balintawak Street Tondo 5 Storey 72 kPa Pile Foundation SM
Residential with Tie Beam
with Deck
300 Pacheco Street Tondo 3 Storey 72 kPa Continuous SM
Residential Footing with Tie
with Roof Beam
Deck
1732 Tecson Street Sta. Cruz 4 Storey 75 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Commercial with Tie Beam
2140 Vision Street Sta. Cruz 3 Storey 72 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Residential or Combined
Footing with Tie
Beam
1525 Sulu Street Sta. Cruz 2 Storey with 72kPa Isolated Footing SM
Deck and with Tie Beam
33
Penthouse
Lot 19 Block 2 Sta. Mesa 3 Storey 72 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Makisig Street Residential or Combined
Apartment Footing with Tie
with Deck Beam
2604 Benito Street Sta. Mesa 3 Storey 86.19 kPa Isolated Footing SM
419 Alegria Street Sta. Mesa 3 Storey 72 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Estrada Street Sta. Ana 3 Storey 72 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Building with with Tie Beam
Deck
Br. Manuel Carreon Sta. Ana 3 Storey 72 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Street Residential with Tie Beam
Building
2265 Calabastro San 3 Storey 72 kPa Isolated or SM
Street Andres Building Combined
Bukid Footing with Tie
Beam
Aqua Marina Street San 3 Storey 72 kPa Combined SM
Andres Building with Footing with Tie
Bukid Deck Beam
Sta. Maria Street Pandacan 3 Storey 57.46 kPa Isolated or SM
Residential Combined
Footing with Tie
Beam
2279 Linceo Street Pandacan 3 Storey 72 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Apartment with Tie Beam
Mendoza Guanzon Pandacan 3 Storey 75 kPa Isolated Footing
Corner Isidro Office/ with Tie Beam
Mendoza Street Warehouse
Lot 59 Block 35, Sampaloc 3 Storey with 75 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Antipolo Street Deck with Tie Beam
1415 A. Maceda Sampaloc 3 Storey 72 kPa Isolated Footing SM
1238 Miguelin Street Sampaloc 3 Storey 72 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Residential/ with Tie Beam
Apartment
Building
Lot 20-A Florentino Sampaloc 3 Storey with 72 kPa Isolated or SM
Corner Metrica Roof Deck Combined
Streets Footing with Tie
Beam
Adelina Street Sampaloc 3 Storey with 72 kPa Combined SM
Deck Footing with Tie
Beam
34
Lot 17-A Block 3 Sampaloc 3 Storey 72 kPa Combined SM
Kundiman Street Residential Footing with Tie
Beam
751 Sisa Street Sampaloc 3 Storey 75 kPa Combined SM
Building with Footing with Tie
Deck Beam
1416 Maceda Street Sampaloc 3 Storey 72 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Lot 7 Extremadura Sampaloc 3 Storey 72 kPa Isolated Footing SM
1152 E. Quintos Sampaloc 3 Storey 72 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Lot 54 Bolck 11,918 Sampaloc 4 Storey with 72 kPa Isolated Footing SM
A. Maceda Street Deck with Tie Beam
Commercial/
Residential
Building
Lot 50 Block 20 M. Sampaloc 3 Storey 78.57 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Fuente Street Residential with Tie Beam
Building
Santisima Street Sampaloc 4 Storey with 72 kPa Combined SM
Deck Footing with Tie
Beam
Lot 33 A&B P. Sampaloc 4 Storey 71.80 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Florentino corner J. Commercial with Tie Beam
Marzan Streets Building
PIY Margal Street Sampaloc 3 Storey 72 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Fajardo corner Don Sampaloc 4 Storey 72 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Quijote Streets Residential/C with Tie Beam
ommercial
940 A. Leyte Del Sur Sampaloc 3 Storey with 99 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Street Deck with Tie Beam
688 Domingo Sampaloc 3 Storey with 70 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Santiago Street Roof Deck with Tie Beam
528 Madrid Street Binondo 3 Storey 72 kPa Isolated Footing SM
San Nicolas Residential with Tie Beam
with Roof
Deck
Lot no. 5-C-9-A, San 3 Storey 57.46 kPa Mat Footing SM
Matienza Street Miguel Residential
with Deck
Sto. Cristo San 5 Storey with 72 kPa Pile Foundation SM
Nicholas Mezzanine
and Penthouse
35
Commercial
Building
Lot 10 Block 7 Paco 3-storey with 72 kPa Combined/Isolat SM
interior P. Gil roof deck ed with grade
beam
1565-F Valentina Paco 3-storey with 72 kpa Isolated footing SM
street roof deck with tie beams
Phase 14 lot 3 block 3 Paco 3-storey 72 kpa Isolated footing SM
Acropolis subd. P.H. residential with tie beams
Guazon
Lot 2 Block 3 road Paco 4-storey 75 kPa Isolated footing SM

Lot I residential with tie beams
Acropolis Manila Paz Paco 3-storey 75 kPa Isolated/Combin SM
Mendoza Guanzon residential ed footing with
tie beams
Lot 4-C Peafrancia Paco 4-storey with 57.46 kPa Continuous SM
street roof deck footing with tie
beam
Lot 4 Anak bayan Malate 3-storey 72 kPa Isolated footing SM
street residential with tie beams
Lot 448 Leyte street Malate 3-storey 72 kPa Isolated footing SM
residential with tie beams
Lot 1, Block 3 Malate 4 Storey 72 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Leveriza Urban Bliss Building with with Tie Beam
Deck
1739 F.T. Benitez Malate 3 Storey 72 kPa Isolated Footing SM
Building
Table 4A. Summary of Data Gathered
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
Figure 5. The Unified Soil Classification System Chart
37
In conducting a soil investigation the soil composition is classified using the
USCS chart. In this chart the typical description of the soil can be seen as well as the
letter symbol which is indicated at every depth of the borehole. It is subdivided into two
major divisions which are the coarse grain soil and fine grain soil.
The following table shows the probable value of the allowable soil bearing
capacity in each district. Where N is the number of soil investigation report collected on
the district. The probable value of qu was computed by using the formula
District : Binondo
qu(allow) N qu*N
72 1 72
1 72
Prob. Value of qu 72
District: Malate
qu(allow) N qu*N
72 4 288
4 288
District : Paco
qu(allow) N qu*N
75 2 150
72 3 216
57.46 1 57.46
6 423.46
Prob. Value of qu 70.57667
38
District : Pandacan
qu(allow) N qu*N
75 1 75
72 1 72
57.46 1 57.46
3 204.46
District: Quiapo
qu(allow) N qu*N
75 1 75
1 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
District: San Andres

qu(allow) N qu*N
72 2 144
2 144
District: San Miguel

qu(allow) N qu*N
57.46 1 57.46
1 57.46
39
District: San Nicolas
qu(allow) N qu*N
72 1 72
1 72
District: Sta. Ana

qu(allow) N qu*N
72 2 144
2 144
District: Sta. Cruz

qu(allow) N qu*N
75 1 75
72 2 144
3 219
District: Sta. Mesa

qu(allow) N qu*N
72 2 144
86.19 1 86.19
3 230.19
District: Tondo
qu(allow) N qu*N
75 3 225
72 7 504
57.46 1 57.46
11 786.46
40
District Probable Value of qu(allowable)
Binondo 72
Malate 72
Paco 70.57667
Pandacan 68.15333
Quiapo 75
Sampaloc
73.57611
San Andres 72
San Miguel 57.46
San Nicolas 72
Sta. Ana 72
Sta. Cruz 73
Sta. Mesa 76.73
Tondo 71.49636
Table 4B. Summarized Probable Value of qu(allowable) in Every District
The probable value of the allowable soil bearing capacity is then used to compute
for the probable value of the allowable soil bearing capacity of the City of Manila as
presented in the next table. The most probable value was computed using the formula
41
`
71.4963
72 6
73
72
73.57611
72
72 75 76.73
72 6
72
68.15333
70.57667
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 4 5
w.c.(%) 15.4 7 19.7 6.3 14.7
3
Moist density(kg/ cm ) 2.447 2.606 1.859 1.618 1.595
3
Dry density(kg/ cm ) 2.12 2.436 1.553 1.522 1.391
3
Dry unit weight(kN/ m ) 20.7972 23.89716 15.23493 14.93082 13.64571
3
Moist unit weight(kN/ m ) 24.00507 25.56486 18.23679 15.87258 15.64695
Void ratio 0.496342
3
Moist unit weight(kN/ m ) 20.95518
Table 4D. Tabulated Soil Properties
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) U.S.B.C.(qu) Square Footing Rebars
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
MINOR: STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DESIGN OF A TYPICAL ISOLATED FOOTING
Design method: Ultimate Strength Design method
Type of structure: One-storey residential with roof deck
Design parameters:
Slab thickness: 100mm. (minimum slab thickness for two-way slab)
Unit weight of plain concrete: 23.55 kN/m3
Concrete compressive strength, f`c = 21MPa
Reinforcing bar tensile strength, fy = 275MPa
Main reinforcing bar diameter (for beam and column) = 20 mm.
Stirrups and ties = 10 mm. (Main bar < 32 mm.)
Concrete cover:
Beam = 40 mm.
Column = 40 mm.
Footing = 75 mm. (Exposed to earth)
Minimum design loads:
Superimposed dead load:
Slab self-weight = conc.(slab thickness) = 23.55(0.1) =2.355kPa
Dead load:
Ceiling loads:
Wood furring with suspension = 0.12kPa
Gypsum board(15mm. thick) = 0.12kPa
Flooring load:
Flat tile on 25mm. mortar =1.1kPa
Partition load allowance = 1kPa
49
Total dead load = 2.34kPa
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 = = = 10.5, Two-way slab
Uniform distributed load transfer formula = m2 ) = ) = 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 = = =79.6427kN-m
BALANCE = = = 0.037833
MAX = 0.75 BALANCE = 0.75(0.037833) = 0.028375
MIN = = = 0.005091
Assume = 0.6 MAX = 0.6(0.028375) = 0.017025
= = = 0.222943
50
Ru = f`c(1-0.59 ) = 0.222943(21)[1-0.59(0.222943)] = 4.06597 MPa
Let d=1.75b
Mu = Rub d2 -> 0.9 Rub d2 = 79.6427kN-m
b = 231.686276 = 250 mm.
d = 405.450983 = 425 mm.
H = d + Concrete cover(40 mm.) + d(strirrups) + 0.5d(Main bar)
= 425 + 40 + 10 +0.5(16) = 483 mm.
H = 500 mm.
*check design beam self-weight over actual beam self-weight
Actual self-weight = 23.55(0.5)(0.25) = 2.94375 kN/m
Design self-weight = 2.94375 kN/m
Actual self-weight = Design self-weight OK!
Number of main reinforcing bars
As = bd = 0.017025(250)(425) = 1808.877273 mm2
Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2
N= = = 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
Pu = 0.8(0.85f`c(Ag-As)+fyAs) , for tied column = 0.65
As = Ag, Assume = 0.04
As = 0.04Ag
Pu = 0.8(0.85f`c(Ag-0.04Ag)+fy(0.04Ag))
373.1271 kN = 0.8(0.65)(0.85(21) (Ag-0.04Ag)+275(0.04Ag))
Solving for Ag,
Ag = 25502.99 mm2
For square column Ag = B2 = 25502.99
B = 159.7 mm = 175 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 = 373.1271 + 2.163656 + 1.009706
Total axial load(Ultimate) = 376.2283 kN
Total axial load(Unfactored) = Total axial load(unfactored from column) + self-weight

(column + pedestal)
Total axial load(Unfactored) or service loads= 212.3731 kN
Initial dimension of footing
qa =
71.94 kPa =
52
B = 1.8 m., initial dimension of footing
Thickness of footing, t = 300 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(0.3)- 20.955(1.6-0.3)
qeffective = 37.6335 kPa
qeffective =
37.6335 kPa =
B = 3.2 m., design dimension
qu =
qu = 36.74105 kPa
Check against beam shear
Vu = qu(Dimension)(d-x), x is the face length from column face to edge of

dimension
Vu = 36.74105(3.2)(d-1512.5)N
Vc = , , for shear
Vc =
Vu = Vc
36.74105(3.2)(d-1512.5)N =
d = 81.014 mm.
53
Chech against punching shear
Vu = qu( (Column dim.+ d))
Vu = 0.3674105( - (175+d) 2)N
Vc = , , for shear
bw = 4*( Column dim.+ d)
Vc =
Vc = Vu
= 0.3674105( - (175+d) 2)
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 = , treated as cantilever beam
Mu =
Mu = 134.48 kN-m
Mu = Rub d2
134.48x106kN-m = 0.9Ru(3200)(175)
54
Ru = 1.5247 MPa
MIN = = = 0.005091
= )
= )
= 0.0058 < MIN, OK
As = bd
As = 0.0058(3200)(175)
As = 3250.22 mm2
Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2
N= = = 11 bars
S=
S=
S = 303 mm. > 100mm. OK
55
Type of structure: Two-storey residential with roof deck
Design parameters:
Concrete cover:
Beam = 40 mm.
Column = 40 mm.
Dead load:
Ceiling loads:
Flooring load:
56
Live load:
Load combination:
w = 1.2DL+1.6LL = 1.2(2.34) + 1.6(1.9) = 8.674kPa
Short span = 5m
Long span = 5m
Beam design:
BALANCE = = = 0.037833
MAX = 0.75 BALANCE = 0.75(0.037833) = 0.028375
MIN = = = 0.005091
Assume = 0.6 MAX = 0.6(0.028375) = 0.017025
= = = 0.222943
57
Ru = f`c(1-0.59 ) = 0.222943(21)[1-0.59(0.222943)] = 4.06597 MPa
Let d=1.75b
Mu = Rub d2 -> 0.9 Rub d2 = 79.6427kN-m
b = 231.686276 = 250 mm.
d = 405.450983 = 425 mm.
= 425 + 40 + 10 +0.5(16) = 483 mm.
H = 500 mm.
As = bd = 0.017025(250)(425) = 1808.877273 mm2
Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2
N= = = 6 bars
Design of Columns(2nd Floor):
58
As = 0.04Ag
Pu = 0.8(0.85f`c(Ag-0.04Ag)+fy(0.04Ag))
373.1271 kN = 0.8(0.65)(0.85(21) (Ag-0.04Ag)+275(0.04Ag))
Solving for Ag,
Ag = 25502.99 mm2
B = 159.7 mm = 175 mm.
Design of Columns(1st Floor):
Column self-weight
Column height = 3 m.
W = conc(Volume of column) = 23.55(3)(0.175)2 = 2.164 kN
Pu(Axial load carried by ground floor column) = 2.164 kN + 2(373.1271 kN) = 748.4 kN
748.4 kN = 0.8(0.65)(0.85(21) (Ag-0.04Ag)+275(0.04Ag))
Solving for Ag,
Ag = 51153.86 m m2
B = 226.17 mm = 250 mm.
59
Design of isolated footing
Total axial load = 748.4178 + 4.415625+ 1.803047

(column + pedestal)
qa =
71.94 kPa =
B = 2.5 m., initial dimension of footing

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

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.
Vu = 0.37266( - (250+d) 2)N
Vc = , , for shear
Vc =
Vc = Vu
= 0.37266( - (250+d) 2)
61
d = 246.128 mm. = 250 mm.
t = d + 1.5Dbar +75 mm.
t = 250+ 1.5(20) +75 mm.
t = 375 mm, OK
Number of main bars
Mu =
Mu = 378.628 kN-m
Mu = Rub d2
378.628 x106kN-m = 0.9Ru(3200)(175)
Ru = 1.4598 MPa
MIN = = = 0.005091
= )
= )
= 0.00569 < MIN, OK
As = bd
As = 0.00569(4500)(250)
As = 6399.68 mm2
62
Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2
N= = = 21 bars
S=
S=
S = 216.5 mm. > 100mm. OK
63
Type of structure: Three-storey residential with roof deck
Design parameters:
Concrete cover:
Beam = 40 mm.
Column = 40 mm.
Dead load:
Ceiling loads:
Flooring load:
64
Live load:
Load combination:
w = 1.2DL+1.6LL = 1.2(2.34) + 1.6(1.9) = 8.674kPa
Short span = 5m
Long span = 5m
Beam design:
BALANCE = = = 0.037833
MAX = 0.75 BALANCE = 0.75(0.037833) = 0.028375
MIN = = = 0.005091
Assume = 0.6 MAX = 0.6(0.028375) = 0.017025
= = = 0.222943
65
Ru = f`c(1-0.59 ) = 0.222943(21)[1-0.59(0.222943)] = 4.06597 MPa
Let d=1.75b
Mu = Rub d2 -> 0.9 Rub d2 = 79.6427kN-m
b = 231.686276 = 250 mm.
d = 405.450983 = 425 mm.
= 425 + 40 + 10 +0.5(16) = 483 mm.
H = 500 mm.
As = bd = 0.017025(250)(425) = 1808.877273 mm2
Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2
N= = = 6 bars
Design of Columns(3rd Floor):
66
As = 0.04Ag
Pu = 0.8(0.85f`c(Ag-0.04Ag)+fy(0.04Ag))
373.1271 kN = 0.8(0.65)(0.85(21) (Ag-0.04Ag)+275(0.04Ag))
Solving for Ag,
Ag = 25502.99 mm2
B = 159.7 mm = 175 mm.
Column self-weight
Pu(Axial load carried by ground floor column) = 2.164 kN + 2(373.1271 kN) = 748.4 kN
748.4 kN = 0.8(0.65)(0.85(21) (Ag-0.04Ag)+275(0.04Ag))
Solving for Ag,
Ag = 51,153.86 m m2
B = 226.17 mm = 250 mm.
Design of column( 1st floor):
Column self-weight
67
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.
Total axial load = 1125.96 + 6.3585+ 2.4374

(column + pedestal)
qa =
71.94 kPa =
68
B = 3 m., initial dimension of footing

qeffective = 71.94 23.55(0.45)- 20.955(1.6-0.45)
qeffective =
37.2443 kPa =
qu =
qu = 36.1848 kPa

dimension
Vu = 36.1848 (5.6)(d-2650)N
Vc = , , for shear
Vc =
Vu = Vc
36.1848 (5.6)(d-2650)N =
d = 139.907 mm.
69
Vu = 0.361848( - (300+d) 2)N
Vc = , , for shear
Vc =
Vc = Vu
= 0.361848( - (300+d) 2)
d = 303.869 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 = 711.502 kN-m
Mu = Rub d2
711.502 x106kN-m = 0.9Ru(5600)(325)
70
Ru = 1.33653 MPa
MIN = = = 0.005091
= )
= )
= 0.00506 > MIN, use MIN
As = bd
As = 0.005091(5600)(325)
As = 9265.45 mm2
Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2
N= = = 30 bars
S=
S=
S = 187.241 mm. > 100mm. OK
71
Type of structure: One-storey commercial with roof deck
Design parameters:
Concrete cover:
Beam = 40 mm.
Column = 40 mm.
Slab self-weight = conc.(slab thickness) = 23.55(0.125) = 2.94375 kPa
Dead load:
Ceiling loads:
Suspended steel channel system = 0.1 kPa
Mechanical allowance = 0.2 kPa
Gypsum board(15mm. thick) = 0.12 kPa
Flooring load:
72
Total dead load = 5.464 kPa
Live load:
Commercial(reatail store) = 4.8 kPa
Total live load = 4.8 kPa
Load combination:
w = 1.2DL+1.6LL = 1.2(5.464) + 1.6(4.8) = 14.237kPa
Short span = 5m
Long span = 5m
Uniform distributed load transfer formula = m2 ) = ) = 23.728
kN/m
W = 2(23.728) = 47.455 kN/m, Factored load alone
Beam design:
Beam self-weight = conc.(Cross sectional area of beam) = 23.55(0.3x0.6) = 4.329 kN/m
Moment at support = = =129.235 kN-m
BALANCE = = = 0.037833
MAX = 0.75 BALANCE = 0.75(0.037833) = 0.028375
MIN = = = 0.005091
Assume = 0.6 MAX = 0.6(0.028375) = 0.017025
73
= = = 0.222943
Ru = f`c(1-0.59 ) = 0.222943(21)[1-0.59(0.222943)] = 4.06597 MPa
Let d=1.75b
Mu = Rub d2 -> 0.9 Rub d2 = 129.235 kN-m
b = 272.257 = 275 mm.
d = 476.449 = 500 mm.
= 500 + 40 + 10 +0.5(16) = 483 mm.
H = 575 mm.
Actual self-weight Design self-weight OK!
As = bd = 0.017025(275)(575) = 2340.9 mm2
Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2
N= = = 8 bars
Design of Columns:
74
As = 0.04Ag
Pu = 0.8(0.85f`c(Ag-0.04Ag)+fy(0.04Ag))
597.122 kN = 0.8(0.65)(0.85(21) (Ag-0.04Ag)+275(0.04Ag))
Solving for Ag,
Ag = 40812.861 mm2
B = 202.022 mm = 225 mm.
Total axial load = 597.1215 + 3.5767+ 1.4903

(column + pedestal)
qa =
75
71.94 kPa =

qeffective = 71.94 23.55(0.35)- 20.955(1.6-0.35)
qeffective =
37.5038 kPa =
B = 4.1m., design dimension
qu =
qu = 35.8232 kPa

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( - (225+d) 2)N
Vc = , , for shear
Vc =
Vc = Vu
Vc = = 0.358232( - (225+d) 2)N
d = 219.289 mm. = 225 mm.
t = d + 1.5Dbar +75 mm.
t = 225+ 1.5(20) +75 mm.
t = 350 mm, OK
Number of main bars
Mu =
Mu = 275.678 kN-m
77
Mu = Rub d2
275.678 x106kN-m = 0.9Ru(4100)(225)
Ru = 1.4757 MPa
MIN = = = 0.005091
= )
= )
= 0.00561 < MIN, OK
As = bd
As = 0.00561(5600)(325)
As = 5173.98 mm2
Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2
N= = = 17 bars
S=
S=
S = 245.6251 mm. > 100mm. OK
78
Type of structure: Two-storey commercial with roof deck
Design parameters:
Concrete cover:
Beam = 40 mm.
Column = 40 mm.
Dead load:
Ceiling loads:
Flooring load:
79
Live load:
Load combination:
w = 1.2DL+1.6LL = 1.2(5.464) + 1.6(4.8) = 14.237kPa
Short span = 5m
Long span = 5m
kN/m
Beam design:
BALANCE = = = 0.037833
MAX = 0.75 BALANCE = 0.75(0.037833) = 0.028375
MIN = = = 0.005091
Assume = 0.6 MAX = 0.6(0.028375) = 0.017025
80
= = = 0.222943
Ru = f`c(1-0.59 ) = 0.222943(21)[1-0.59(0.222943)] = 4.06597 MPa
Let d=1.75b
Mu = Rub d2 -> 0.9 Rub d2 = 129.235 kN-m
b = 272.257 = 275 mm.
d = 476.449 = 500 mm.
= 500 + 40 + 10 +0.5(16) = 483 mm.
H = 575 mm.
As = bd = 0.017025(275)(575) = 2340.9 mm2
Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2
N= = = 8 bars
Design of Columns(3rd floor):
81
As = 0.04Ag
Pu = 0.8(0.85f`c(Ag-0.04Ag)+fy(0.04Ag))
597.122 kN = 0.8(0.65)(0.85(21) (Ag-0.04Ag)+275(0.04Ag))
Solving for Ag,
Ag = 40812.861 mm2
B = 202.022 mm = 225 mm.
Column self-weight
Pu(Axial load carried by ground floor column) = 3.577 kN + 2(597.122 kN) = 1197.82
kN
1197.82 kN = 0.8(0.65)(0.85(21) (Ag-0.04Ag)+275(0.04Ag))
Solving for Ag,
Ag = 81870.184 m m2
B = 286.13 mm = 300 mm.
82
Total axial load = 1197.8197 + 6.3585+ 2.4374

(column + pedestal)
qa =
71.94 kPa =

qeffective = 71.94 23.55(0.45)- 20.955(1.6-0.45)
qeffective =
37.2443 kPa =
83
qu =
qu = 37.1381 kPa

dimension
Vu = 37.1381(5.7)(d-2848.5)N
Vc = , , for shear
Vc =
Vu = Vc
37.1381(5.7)(d-2848.5)N =
d = 154.134 mm.
Vu = 0. 371381( - (300+d) 2)N
Vc = , , for shear
Vc =
Vc = Vu
84
= 0. 371381( - (300+d) 2)N
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 = 858.809kN-m
Mu = Rub d2
858.809x106kN-m = 0.9Ru(5700)(325)
Ru = 1.5849 MPa
MIN = = = 0.005091
= )
= )
= 0.00604 < MIN, OK
As = bd
85
As = 0.00604 (5600)(325)
As = 11,198.2mm2
Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2
N= = = 36 bars
S=
S=
S = 158 mm. > 100mm. OK
86
Type of structure: Two-storey commercial with roof deck
Design parameters:
Concrete cover:
Beam = 40 mm.
Column = 40 mm.
Dead load:
Ceiling loads:
Flooring load:
87
Live load:
Load combination:
w = 1.2DL+1.6LL = 1.2(5.464) + 1.6(4.8) = 14.237kPa
Short span = 5m
Long span = 5m
kN/m
Beam design:
BALANCE = = = 0.037833
MAX = 0.75 BALANCE = 0.75(0.037833) = 0.028375
MIN = = = 0.005091
Assume = 0.6 MAX = 0.6(0.028375) = 0.017025
88
= = = 0.222943
Ru = f`c(1-0.59 ) = 0.222943(21)[1-0.59(0.222943)] = 4.06597 MPa
Let d=1.75b
Mu = Rub d2 -> 0.9 Rub d2 = 129.235 kN-m
b = 272.257 = 275 mm.
d = 476.449 = 500 mm.
= 500 + 40 + 10 +0.5(16) = 483 mm.
H = 575 mm.
As = bd = 0.017025(275)(575) = 2,340.9 mm2
Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2
N= = = 8 bars
Design of Columns(3rd floor):
89
As = 0.04Ag
Pu = 0.8(0.85f`c(Ag-0.04Ag)+fy(0.04Ag))
597.122 kN = 0.8(0.65)(0.85(21) (Ag-0.04Ag)+275(0.04Ag))
Solving for Ag,
Ag = 40,812.861 mm2
B = 202.022 mm = 225 mm.
Column self-weight
Pu(Axial load carried by ground floor column) = 3.577 kN + 2(597.122 kN) = 1,197.82
kN
1,197.82 kN = 0.8(0.65)(0.85(21) (Ag-0.04Ag)+275(0.04Ag))
Solving for Ag,
Ag = 81,870.184 m m2
For square column Ag = B2 = 81,870.184
B = 286.13 mm = 300 mm.
Design of column( 1st floor):
90
Column self-weight
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.
Total axial load = 1801.3 + 9.9352+ 3.5601

(column + pedestal)
qa =
91
71.94 kPa =

qeffective = 71.94 23.55(0.525)- 20.955(1.6-0.525)
qeffective =
37.0496 kPa =
B = 7 m., design dimension
qu =
qu = 37.0137kPa

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.
Vu = 0. 370137( - (375+d) 2)N
Vc = , , for shear
Vc =
Vc = Vu
= 0. 370137( - (375+d) 2)N
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 = 1585.6 kN-m
Mu = Rub d2
93
1585.6 x106kN-m = 0.9Ru(7000)(400)
Ru = 1.57302 MPa
MIN = = = 0.005091
= )
= )
= 0.006 < MIN, OK
As = bd
As = 0.006 (7000)(400)
As = 16,791.9 mm2
Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2
N= = = 54 bars
S=
S=
S = 128.868 mm. > 100mm. OK
94
MINOR: CONSTRUCTION METHODS
Design of Concrete Mix (Using ACI Method)
Portland Cement Type I

Type of Aggregate Angular
Max Size of Coarse
Aggregates 19 mm
Max Density of Water 1000 kg/m3
Wt. of Cement 40 kg/bag

Slump 25 to 50 mm
Unit Wt. of Coarse
Aggregate. 1500 kg/m3
Cement Sand Gravel

Fineness Modulus - 2.8 -
Sp. Gravity 3.2 2.08 2.0
Moisture Content 3.0 0
Absorption 1.3 1.0
Type I Natural Angular
Table 1.C: Summary of Concrete-Mix Parameters
1) Water-Cement Ratio
WATER CEMENT RATIO NON-AIR ENTRAINED CONCRETE

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) W-C Ratio (L/40kg
bag)
Upper Limit 22.08 24.85
Required 21.00 -
Lower Limit 17.24 28.4
= = 25.64 L/40 kg bag
2) Water Requirement
Water, Li / cum of concrete of indicated max. size of aggregates

Slump
9.5 mm 13 mm 19 mm 25 mm 38 mm 51 mm 76 mm
(mm)
Ang Rd Ang Rd Ang Rd Ang Rd Ang Rd Ang Rd Ang Rd
25 to 50 208 188 198 179 184 164 179 159 164 144 154 134 144 124
75 to 100 228 208 218 198 203 184 193 174 179 159 169 149 159 139
150 to 178 243 228 228 208 213 193 203 184 188 169 179 159 159 149
%Entrapped
Air
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0.3
TABLE A.2: Approximate Mixing Water Requirements for Different
Slump and Maximum Size of Aggregates
Maximum Size of Coarse Aggregate = 19 mm

Type of Aggregate = Angular
Slump = 25 to 50mm
Water Requirement = 184 liters
3) Entrapped Air: (From Table E-4)

Percent of Entrapped Air = 2%
96
4) Volume of Coarse Aggregate
Max. Size Vol. of dry-rodded coarse aggregate per unit volume of concrete for
of coarse different fineness modulus of sand
aggregate
(mm) 2.4 2.55 2.8 3 3.2
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
Maximum Size of Coarse Aggregate: 19 mm

Fineness Modulus of Sand = 2.8
Volume of Coarse Aggregates = 0.61
5) Number of bags per volume of concrete:
N=
N=
N= 7.18 bags of cement
6) Absolute volume of cement
|Vcement| = = 0.0897 m3
7) Absolute volume of water
|Vwat| = = 0.184 m3
8) Absolute volume of air = 1 x 0.02 = 0.02
97
9) Absolute volume of cement paste (|Vp|)
Absolute volume of cement paste:
Abs. Vol. of Cement + Abs. Vol. of Water + Abs. Vol. of Air
Absolute Volume of Cement Paste = 0.0897 + 0.184 + 0.02

Absolute Volume of Cement Paste = 0.2937
10) Absolute volume of solid aggregates

= 1 - Absolute Volume of Cement Paste
= 1 0.2937 = 0.7063
11) Absolute volume of gravel:
= = 0.4575
12) Absolute volume of sand:

Absolute Vol. of Solid Aggregates Absolute Vol. of Gravel
Absolute volume of sand =0.7063 - 0.4575
Absolute volume of sand = 0.2488
A tabulated summary of computed values is shown below:
Uncorrected Corrected Wt.

Material Abs. Vol Sp. Gr H2O Wt. (kg) (kg)
Cement 0.0897 3.20 1000.00 287.03 (required to find)
Sand 0.2488 2.08 1000.00 517.51 (required to find)
Gravel 0.4575 2.00 1000.00 915.00 (required to find)
Water 0.1840 1.00 1000.00 184.00 (required to find)
Air 0.02 - -
Correcting the quantities of water, sand and gravel:
13) Field Moisture

Field Moisture of Sand = 3.00 1.30 = 1.70%
Field Moisture of Gravel = 2.00 1.00 = 1%
98
14) Correction of Weight of Sand and Gravel
Corr. Wt. of Sand = 517.51 (1 + ) = 526.31 kg
Corr. Wt. of Gravel = 915.00 (1 + ) = 925.15 kg
15) Corrected Quantity of Water
= 184 [(526.31 517.51) + (925.15 915.00)]
= 165.05 kg
16) Final Tabulated Results:
Uncorrected Corrected
Material Abs. Vol Sp. Gr H2O Wt. (kg) Wt. (kg)
Cement 0.0897 3.20 1000.00 287.03 287.03
Sand 0.2488 2.57 1000.00 517.51 526.31
Gravel 0.4575 2.50 1000.00 915.00 925.15
Water 0.1840 1.00 1000.00 184.00 165.05
Air 0.02 - -
Volume of Concrete to Fill for One Storey Residential:
Volume of Footing = 4.1m x 4.1m x 0.35m

Volume of Footing = 5.8835m3
Quantity of Concrete Proportions Considering Losses
Where Absolute Volume of Concrete = 1 m3

Wt. of Cement : 287.03 kg x 5.8835 m3 x 1.1 = 1857.62 kg
Wt. of Sand : 526.31 kg x 5.8835 m3 x 1.1 = 3406.20 kg
Wt. of Gravel : 925.15 kg x 5.8835 m3 x 1.1 = 5987.43 kg
Wt. of Water : 165.05 kg x 5.8835 m3 x 1.1 = 1068.18 kg
Final Proportions Used:
1860 kg of cement
3410 kg of sand
99
5990 kg of gravel
1070 kg of water
Volume of Concrete to Fill for Two Storey Residential:


2400 kg of cement
4400 kg of sand
7735 kg of gravel
1380 kg of water
Volume of Concrete to Fill for Three Storey Residential:


4456 kg of cement
8171 kg of sand
100
14365 kg of gravel
2565 kg of water
Volume of Concrete to Fill for One Storey Commercial:


1860 kg of cement
3410 kg of sand
5990 kg of gravel
1070 kg of water
Volume of Concrete to Fill for Two Storey Commercial:


4620 kg of cement
8465 kg of sand
101
14880 kg of gravel
2655 kg of water
Volume of Concrete to Fill for Three Storey Commercial:


8125 kg of cement
14895 kg of sand
26180 kg of gravel
4671 kg of water
102
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.
Regards from the Authors,
Dave Joseph V. Gangcuangco
Ericson M. Mosuela
Carlo Dominic M. Palatino
108
REFERENCES
109
REFERENCES
- ASTM International, ASTM Standards in building codes: Specifications test

methods, practices, Classifications, Terminology, Copyright 2009 ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA
- 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
- Coduto, D. P.,Foundation design Principles and practices. Prentice Hall 796

p., Copyright 1994
- C.R.I. Clayton, M.C. Mathews, N.E. Simons, Site Investigation, Department of

Civil Engineering, University of Surret, 2nd Edition
- G. Freudlund and S. K. Vanapalli, Shear Strength of Unsaturated Soils,

Agronomy Society of America, 2002, pp. 329-361.
- H. T. Eid, Factors Influencing the Determination of Shale Classification Indices

and Their Correlation to Mechanical Properties, Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering, Vol. 24, No. 6, 2005, pp. 1695-1713.
- http://www.dnr.mo.gov/geology/docs/gcwinter9.pdf. Retrieved August 8 2012
- http://www.geotechdata.info/geotest/direct-shear-test. Retrieved March 5, 2012
- http://www.geotechdata.info/geotest/unconfined-compression-test. Retrieved
March 5, 2012
- http://www.manila.gov.ph/localgovt.htm. Retrieved March 5, 201
- J. M. Duncan and S. G. Wright, Soil Strength and Slope Stability, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 2005.
- Kaya and K. P. Kwong, Evaluation of Common Prac-tice Empirical Procedures

for Residual Friction Angle of Soils: Hawaiian Amorphous Materials Rich
Colluvial Soil Case Study, Engineering Geology, Vol. 92, No. 1-2, 2007.
- Military Soils Engineering, FM 5-410, 23 December 92
110
- National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP), C101-10, Volume I,
Buildings, Towers, and Other Vertical Structures, Sixth Edition, 2010,
Copyright2010
- S. K. Vanapalli, D. G. Fredlund, D. E. Pufahl and A. W. Clifton, Model for the

Prediction of Shear Strength with Respect to Soil Suction, Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 33, No. 3, 1996, pp. 379-392.
- W. Skempton, 4thRankine Lecture: Long-Term Stability of Clay Slopes,

Gotechnique, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1964, pp. 77-101.
- Youdeowei, P. O. and Nwankwoala, H. O., Studies on sub-soil characteristics

of sand deposits in some parts of Bayelsa State, Eastern Niger Delta, Nigeria,
Institute of Geosciences and Space Technology, Rivers State University of
Science and Technology, P. M. B. 5080, Nkpolu-Oroworukwo, Port Harcourt,
Nigeria.
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. of
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
=
12) Absolute volume of sand:
= Absolute Vol. of Solid Aggregates Absolute Vol. of Gravel
Correcting the quantities of water, sand and gravel
13) Field Moisture (FM)
= moisture content - absorption
14) Correction of Weight of Sand and Gravel
Corr. = Uncorr. (1 + )
15) Corrected Quantity of Water
Corr. = Uncorr. (s + g + )
s, g, = difference between the corrected and uncorrected weights of

sand, gravel and air, respectively,
16) Tabulate Results (Sample Below):
MATERIAL Absolute Specific Unit Uncorrected Corrected

Volume Gravity Weight of Wt. (Col 2 x Wt.
Water 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
ROUNDED COARSE AGGREGATES ANGULAR COARSE AGGREGATES
% Sand of % Sand of
Maximum Total Net Water Maximum size Total Net Water
size Aggregate Content of Coarse Aggregate Content
of coarse by (L / m3) aggregates by (L / m3)
aggregates Absolute mm (inch) Absolute
mm (inch) Volume Volume
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
WATER CEMENT RATIO NON-AIR ENTRAINED CONCRETE

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
Water, Li / cum of concrete of indicated max. size of aggregates
Slump
9.5 mm 13 mm 19 mm 25 mm 38 mm 51 mm 76 mm
(mm)
Ang Rd Ang Rd Ang Rd Ang Rd Ang Rd Ang Rd Ang Rd
25 to 50 208 188 198 179 184 164 179 159 164 144 154 134 144 124
75 to 100 228 208 218 198 203 184 193 174 179 159 169 149 159 139
150 to 178 243 228 228 208 213 193 203 184 188 169 179 159 159 149
%Entrapped
Air
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0.3
TABLE A.2: Approximate Mixing Water Requirements for Different Slump
and Maximum Size of Aggregates
Max. Size Vol. of dry-rodded coarse aggregate per unit volume of concrete for
of coarse different fineness modulus of sand
aggregate
(mm) 2.4 2.55 2.8 3 3.2
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
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.
203.3.1 Basic Load Combination
w = 1.2DL+1.6LL, from NSCP 2010 chapter 2 section203-3(eq. B-1)
Dead loads:
Unit weight of plain concrete, conc.: 23.55 kN/m3 (from section 204-1)
Ceiling loads:
Wood furring with suspension = 0.12kPa (from section 204-2)
Gypsum board(15mm. thick) = 0.12kPa (from section 204-2)
Flooring load:
Flat tile on 25mm. mortar =1.1kPa (from section 204-2)

117
Partition load allowance = 1kPa (from section 204.3)
Live load:
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= m2) (eq. C-1)
conc. = Unit weight of concrete, kN/m3
The self-weight of the beam is assumed by making its width to be a percentage of

the beam span and the height would be twice the width; thus, in the latter part of the
design the assumed section would be checked for verification if the assumption was right.
Beam width, b = % of span (design assumption)
Height, H = 2b (design assumption)
Beam self-weight = conc.(Cross sectional area of beam)
The moment reaction at support is calculated by the given equation
119
Moment at support = , Moment at support with more than 2 span (eq. C-2,
Section 408 of NSCP 2010)
Balanced steel ratio condition in which the concrete and the reinforcing steel
yields at the same time given a concrete strain of 0.003 and modulus of elasticity of steel
to be 200 GPa.
BALANCE = (eq. C-3)
where shall be defined in two cases (Section 410.3.7.3 of NSCP 2010):
= 0.85, for concrete strengths ranging from 17 MPa 28 MPa, and
= 0.85 0.05 , for concrete strength greater than 28 MPa, but not
less than 0.65
Maximum steel ratio is given as 75% of the balanced steel ratio.
MAX = 0.75 BALANCE (eq. C-4)
Minimum steel ratio shall be the largest between the given:
MIN = < (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
Ru = f`c(1-0.59 ) (eq. C-8)
Assume the effective depth of beam by setting a ratio between the effective depth
and width of beam such that, d/b:
d=1.5b to d=2b
The ultimate moment is governed by the equation below. In which the calculated
moment reaction from (eq. C-2, Section 408 of NSCP 2010) would be the same moment
to be use.
Mu = Rub d2 (eq. C-9)
Where: = Reduction factor for flexure members
For flexure, = 0.9 (Section 409.4.2.1 of NSCP 2010)
The designed beam height is calculated as,
H = d + Concrete cover(40 mm.) + d(strirrups) + 0.5d(Main bar) (eq. C-10)
The designed section must be compared to the assumed section to secure the
stability of the designed beam.
The required steel area is the area of reinforcing steel required for the beam with
the actual steel ratio.
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)
Where: N = number of reinforcing bars.
121
APPENDIX D
Design of Square Tied Concrete Column using Ultimate Strength Design Method
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 = (eq. D-1, Section 408 of NSCP 2010)
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
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)
The assumed thickness would be governed by the formula,
t = 20%B + 75 mm.
Where: t = Assumed thickness of the footing.
B = Least dimension of the footing.
The effective soil bearing capacity is used to determine the actual or the designed
dimension of the isolated square footing by dividing the factored load by the effective
soil bearing capacity.
qeffective = qa qconcrete - qsoil (eq. E-2)
Where: qeffective = Effective soil bearing capacity.
qconcrete = Pressure applied by weight of concrete footing.
qsoil = Pressure applied by weight of soil above the footing.
qeffective = (eq. E-3)
The beam shear on footings is governed by the formula from the code,
Vc = (eq. E-4)
Where: = Reduction factor for shear, = 0.85
123
f`c = Concrete compressive strength.
b = width of member that is perpendicular to the shear.
d = Effective depth of member.
Check against punching shear, because it is the most critical for most of the
isolated square footing therefore the effective depth in punching shear should govern.
Vc = (eq. E-5)
Where: = Reduction factor for shear, = 0.85
f`c = Concrete compressive strength.
bw = Perimeter of the punched area, 4(d+B)
d = Effective depth of member.
H = Column dimension.
The ultimate moment is governed by the equation below. In which the

calculated moment reaction from (eq. C-2, Section 408 of NSCP 2010) would be the
same moment to be use.
Mu = Rub d2 (eq. C-9)
Where: = Reduction factor for flexure members
For flexure, = 0.9 (Section 409.4.2.1 of NSCP 2010)
The steel ratio is calculated with the given formula with Ru as a parameter.
= (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)
Where: N = number of reinforcing bars.
d = Main bar diameter.
As =Steel area.
The spacing should be checked to verify the computed number of rebars.
S= (eq. E-7)
Where: S = Spacing of rebars, S> 100mm.
N = Number of rebars.
125
APPENDIX F
Computation of the soil properties from available borehole samples
Given: Five samples of on-site soil specimens
NUMBER OF SAMPLES
PROPERTY 1 2 3 4 5
w.c.(%) 15.4 7 19.7 6.3 14.7
Moist density(kg/ cm3) 2.447 2.606 1.859 1.618 1.595
Dry density(kg/ cm3) 2.12 2.436 1.553 1.522 1.391
Dry unit weight(kN/ m3) 20.7972 23.89716 15.23493 14.93082 13.64571
Moist unit weight(kN/ m3) 24.00507 25.56486 18.23679 15.87258 15.64695
Unit weight(moist), MOIST = mass densityMOIST*9.81kN/ m3
SAMPLE 1
MOIST = 2.447*9.81 kN/ m3 = 24.005 kN/ m3
SAMPLE 2
MOIST = 2.606*9.81 kN/ m3 = 25.565 kN/ m3
SAMPLE 3
MOIST = 1.859 *9.81 kN/ m3 = 18.237 kN/ m3
SAMPLE 4
MOIST = 1.522*9.81 kN/ m3 = 15.873 kN/ m3
SAMPLE 5
MOIST = 1.595*9.81 kN/ m3 = 15.647 kN/ m3
Unit weight(dry), MOIST = mass densityDRY*9.81kN/ m3
SAMPLE 1
DRY = 2.12*9.81 kN/ m3 = 20.7972kN/ m3
SAMPLE 2
DRY = 2.436*9.81 kN/ m3 = 23.89716 kN/ m3
SAMPLE 3
126
DRY = 1.553*9.81 kN/ m3 = 15.23493 kN/ m3
SAMPLE 4
DRY = 1.522*9.81 kN/ m3 = 14.93082 kN/ m3
SAMPLE 5
DRY = 1.391*9.81 kN/ m3 = 13.64571 kN/ m3
Average moist unit weight
Average moist unit weight, MOIST =
Average moist unit weight, MOIST =
Average moist unit weight, MOIST = 19.86525 kN/ m3
Average dry unit weight
Average moist unit weight, DRY =
DRY =
Average moist unit weight, DRY = 17.701164 kN/ m3
Determination of void ratio, e
DRY = , taking Gs = 2.7 as average specific gravity of soil
17.701164 =
e = 0.496342
Saturated unit weight, sat =
sat =
sat = 20.95517733 kN/ m3
127

An Analysis of Geotechnical Reports To Determine The Soil Bearing Capacity in Manila For The Design of

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

An Analysis of Geotechnical Reports To Determine The Soil Bearing Capacity in Manila For The Design of

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

An Analysis of Geotechnical Reports to Determine the Soil Bearing

Capacity in Manila for the Design of Foundation

Gangcuangco, Dave Joseph V.

A Thesis Submitted to the School of Civil, Environmental and Geological

Mapa Institute of Technology

these, the study has designs of foundation for typical structures.

APPROVAL SHEET ............................................................................................................... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................... 4

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. vii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... viii

1.1.Background of the Study ........................................................................................ 2

1.2.Statement of the Problem ........................................................................................ 2

1.3.Objectives of the Study ........................................................................................... 3

1.4.Conceptual Framework Model ............................................................................... 4

1.5.Significance of the Study ........................................................................................ 5

1.6.Scope and Limitations of the Study ..................................................................... 5-6

Chapter 2: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................................................. 8

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................ 12

3.2.Research Subject and Locale ................................................................................ 14

3.3.Data Gathering Procedures ................................................................................... 15

3.4.Laboratory Test Done in a Subsurface Soil Investigation .................................... 16

3.4.1 Grain Size Analysis .................................................................................................... 16

3.4.2 Unified Soil Classification System ............................................................................. 17

3.4.3 Unconfined Compression Test .................................................................................. 17

3.4.5 Atterbergs Limit ........................................................................................................ 19

Chapter 4: PRESENTATION OF DATA, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATIONS ......... 21

4.1 Presentation of Data .............................................................................................. 22

Chapter 5: DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN.....41

5.1 Minor: Structural Engineering...............42

5.2 Minor: Construction Methods88

Chapter 6:CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 96

6.1. Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 97

7.1 Recommendations ................................................................................................. 99

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 103

Appendix A. Design of Concrete Mix .................................................................................. 106

Appendix B. Minimum Design Load Requirements ............................................................ 110

Appendix C. Design of Singly Reinforced Beam ................................................................. 112

Appendix D. Design of Square Tied Concrete Column ....................................................... 115

Appendix E. Designof Isolated Square Footing ................................................................... 116

Appendix F. Computation of the soil properties from available borehole samples.......119

Table 3.A Descriptionof Soil Strength Based on Liquidity Index .......................................... 19

Table 3.B Typical Atterbergs Limit for Soils ......................................................................... 20

Table 3.C Summary of Concrete-Mix Parameters .................................................................. 88

Size of Aggregates ............................................................................................................ 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

Figure 1: Map of the City of Manila ....................................................................................... 22

Figure 2: Number of BoreholeLogs on Each District of Manila ............................................ 23

Figure 3: Geological Map of Manila ...................................................................................... 24

Figure 5: Unified Soil Classification System Chart ................................................................ 30

to be accurate, soil testing must be performed on site and in the laboratory.

which would be used in the design of the foundation.

Compression Test could be performed in the laboratory using the unconfined

since not anyone of them have access to these data.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

More specifically, this study answered the following questions:

1. What is the composition of the soil in the city of Manila?