64 views

Uploaded by aj

thesis

- LL3.odt
- Ground imporvement using pre-loading with PVD.pdf
- 14.3332013AtterbergLimitsData_blank.xlsx
- deepak raj bhat
- laboratory assessment correlate DCP and OMC with strength characteristics of subgrade.pdf
- 7004eng.pdf
- Efficiency of Pile Groups in Clay Under Different Loading Rates
- AASHTO Specifications
- BS 5930 Craig Soil 13 Soil Class
- BH82
- Study of Mechanical Properties of Stabilized Lateritic Soil with Additives.
- GB090-2614-299-CV-RP-0002_0
- Method
- state of OKLAHOMA.pdf
- KSDesign Manual
- Embankment 3
- 11227-25697-1-SM
- SS Gravity Calculations 4.8 Metric
- notes1-2-2
- a3 4 4websoilsurvey1

You are on page 1of 127

by

Mosuela, Ericson M.

Palatino, Carlo Dominic M.

Engineering in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

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

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. iv

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1

2.1.Related Literature.................................................................................................... 8

3.1.Research Design.................................................................................................... 13

4

3.4.4 Determination of Natural Moisture Content ............................................................ 18

4.2 Analysis................................................................................................................. 36

Chapter 7:RECOMMENDATION...98

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.....101

APPENDICES105

5

LIST OF TABLES

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

Table A.3 Volume of Coarse Aggregate per Unit Volume of Concrete ................................. 89

6

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4: Comparison Chart of the Most Probable Value of Soil Bearing Capacity in

Manila .............................................................................................................................. 25

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

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

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 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

10

1.3 Objective of the Study

This study aims to develop a map of Manila City using the collected data.

investigation reports submitted to the City of Manila and soil investigations done

by private companies.

c) To generalize the foundation in the City of Manila with respect to the number of

storeys of structure.

capacity based from soil investigation report conducted in the city of Manila.

11

1.4 Conceptual Framework

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

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 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

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

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

The estimation of soil strength indices is required for the design of foundations,

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,

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

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

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-

considerably affected by the inherent spatial variability of the soil properties (Griffiths

and Fenton, 2001). To date, some researches have been undertaken investigating the

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

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-

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

Analyse Information

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

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

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

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

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

site. These test are ASTM D422 (Grain Size Analysis of Soil), ASTM D4318 (Atterbergs

Compression Test)

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

23

3.4.2 Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2488)

Soils seldom exist in nature separately as sand, gravel, or any other single

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

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.

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

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

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

The water content of soil is determined as the ratio, expressed in percentage of the

25

3.4.5 Atterbergs Limit (ASTM D4318)

The test method covers the determination of the liquid limit, plastic limit, and

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

Plasticity index is the range of water contents over which the soil deforms

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 =

expected

plastic material

LI > 1 Liquid State - low strength, soil deforms like a viscous fluid

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

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.

The footing for one storey residential, two storey residential, three storey

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

27

CHAPTER 4

DATA PRESENTATION

28

Chapter 4

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.

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

30

Figure 3. Geological Map of Manila(Source: Mines and Geosciences Bureau)

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

31

MPV per District vs MPV of Manila

MPV Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

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

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

Residential with Tie Beam

419 Alegria Street Sta. Mesa 3 Storey 72 kPa Isolated Footing SM

Residential with Tie Beam

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

Street Residential with Tie Beam

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

Residential with Tie Beam

Lot 7 Extremadura Sampaloc 3 Storey 72 kPa Isolated Footing SM

Street Residential with Tie Beam

1152 E. Quintos Sampaloc 3 Storey 72 kPa Isolated Footing SM

Street Residential with Tie Beam

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

Residential with Tie Beam

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 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

Street Residential with Tie Beam

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).

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

Prob. Value of qu 72

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

Prob. Value of qu 68.15333

District: Quiapo

qu(allow) N qu*N

75 1 75

1 75

Prob. Value of qu 75

District: Sampaloc

qu(allow) N qu*N

75 2 150

72 12 864

78.57 1 78.57

71.8 1 71.8

90 1 90

70 1 70

18 1324.37

Prob. Value of qu 73.57611

qu(allow) N qu*N

72 2 144

2 144

Prob. Value of qu 72

qu(allow) N qu*N

57.46 1 57.46

1 57.46

Prob. Value of qu 57.46

39

District: San Nicolas

qu(allow) N qu*N

72 1 72

1 72

Prob. Value of qu 72

qu(allow) N qu*N

72 2 144

2 144

Prob. Value of qu 72

qu(allow) N qu*N

75 1 75

72 2 144

3 219

Prob. Value of qu 73

qu(allow) N qu*N

72 2 144

86.19 1 86.19

3 230.19

Prob. Value of qu 76.73

District: Tondo

qu(allow) N qu*N

75 3 225

72 7 504

57.46 1 57.46

11 786.46

Prob. Value of qu 71.49636

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

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

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

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

47

CHAPTER 5

DETAILED ENGINEERING

DESIGN

48

MINOR: STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Design parameters:

Concrete cover:

Beam = 40 mm.

Column = 40 mm.

Dead load:

Ceiling loads:

Flooring load:

49

Total dead load = 2.34kPa

Live load:

Residential = 1.9kPa

Load combination:

Short span = 5m

Long span = 5m

*For a middle singly reinforced beam loads from slabs are the most critical.

Beam design:

BALANCE = = = 0.037833

MIN = = = 0.005091

= = = 0.222943

50

Ru = f`c(1-0.59 ) = 0.222943(21)[1-0.59(0.222943)] = 4.06597 MPa

Let d=1.75b

H = 500 mm.

Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2

N= = = 6 bars

Design of Columns:

51

Pu = 0.8(0.85f`c(Ag-As)+fyAs) , for tied column = 0.65

As = 0.04Ag

Pu = 0.8(0.85f`c(Ag-0.04Ag)+fy(0.04Ag))

Ag = 25502.99 mm2

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

(column + pedestal)

qa =

71.94 kPa =

52

B = 1.8 m., initial dimension of footing

shear (beam shear) and two-way shear (punching shear)

qeffective =

37.6335 kPa =

qu =

qu = 36.74105 kPa

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

Vc = , , for shear

Vc =

Vc = Vu

= 0.3674105( - (175+d) 2)

t = 300 mm, OK

Mu =

Mu = 134.48 kN-m

Mu = Rub d2

134.48x106kN-m = 0.9Ru(3200)(175)

54

Ru = 1.5247 MPa

MIN = = = 0.005091

= )

= )

As = bd

As = 0.0058(3200)(175)

As = 3250.22 mm2

Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2

N= = = 11 bars

S=

S=

55

DESIGN OF A TYPICAL ISOLATED FOOTING

Design parameters:

Concrete cover:

Beam = 40 mm.

Column = 40 mm.

Dead load:

Ceiling loads:

Flooring load:

56

Live load:

Residential = 1.9kPa

Load combination:

Short span = 5m

Long span = 5m

*For a middle singly reinforced beam loads from slabs are the most critical.

Beam design:

BALANCE = = = 0.037833

MIN = = = 0.005091

= = = 0.222943

57

Ru = f`c(1-0.59 ) = 0.222943(21)[1-0.59(0.222943)] = 4.06597 MPa

Let d=1.75b

H = 500 mm.

Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2

N= = = 6 bars

58

Pu = 0.8(0.85f`c(Ag-As)+fyAs) , for tied column = 0.65

As = 0.04Ag

Pu = 0.8(0.85f`c(Ag-0.04Ag)+fy(0.04Ag))

Ag = 25502.99 mm2

Column self-weight

Column height = 3 m.

Pu(Axial load carried by ground floor column) = 2.164 kN + 2(373.1271 kN) = 748.4 kN

Ag = 51153.86 m m2

59

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

(column + pedestal)

qa =

71.94 kPa =

shear (beam shear) and two-way shear (punching shear)

qeffective = 37.4389kPa

qeffective =

37.4389 kPa =

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.

Vc = , , for shear

Vc =

Vc = Vu

= 0.37266( - (250+d) 2)

61

d = 246.128 mm. = 250 mm.

t = 375 mm, OK

Mu =

Mu = 378.628 kN-m

Mu = Rub d2

Ru = 1.4598 MPa

MIN = = = 0.005091

= )

= )

As = bd

As = 0.00569(4500)(250)

As = 6399.68 mm2

62

Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2

N= = = 21 bars

S=

S=

63

DESIGN OF A TYPICAL ISOLATED FOOTING

Design parameters:

Concrete cover:

Beam = 40 mm.

Column = 40 mm.

Dead load:

Ceiling loads:

Flooring load:

64

Live load:

Residential = 1.9kPa

Load combination:

Short span = 5m

Long span = 5m

*For a middle singly reinforced beam loads from slabs are the most critical.

Beam design:

BALANCE = = = 0.037833

MIN = = = 0.005091

= = = 0.222943

65

Ru = f`c(1-0.59 ) = 0.222943(21)[1-0.59(0.222943)] = 4.06597 MPa

Let d=1.75b

H = 500 mm.

Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2

N= = = 6 bars

66

Pu = 0.8(0.85f`c(Ag-As)+fyAs) , for tied column = 0.65

As = 0.04Ag

Pu = 0.8(0.85f`c(Ag-0.04Ag)+fy(0.04Ag))

Ag = 25502.99 mm2

Column self-weight

Column height = 3 m.

Pu(Axial load carried by ground floor column) = 2.164 kN + 2(373.1271 kN) = 748.4 kN

Ag = 51,153.86 m m2

Column self-weight

67

Column height = 3 m.

Pu(Axial load carried by ground floor column) = 4.416 kN + 2.164 kN + 3(373.1271 kN)

Ag = 51,153.86 m m2

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

(column + pedestal)

qa =

71.94 kPa =

68

B = 3 m., initial dimension of footing

shear (beam shear) and two-way shear (punching shear)

qeffective = 37.2443kPa

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

Chech against punching shear

Vc = , , for shear

Vc =

Vc = Vu

= 0.361848( - (300+d) 2)

t = 450 mm, OK

Mu =

Mu = 711.502 kN-m

Mu = Rub d2

70

Ru = 1.33653 MPa

MIN = = = 0.005091

= )

= )

As = bd

As = 0.005091(5600)(325)

As = 9265.45 mm2

Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2

N= = = 30 bars

S=

S=

71

DESIGN OF A TYPICAL ISOLATED FOOTING

Design parameters:

Concrete cover:

Beam = 40 mm.

Column = 40 mm.

Dead load:

Ceiling loads:

Flooring load:

72

Total dead load = 5.464 kPa

Live load:

Load combination:

Short span = 5m

Long span = 5m

kN/m

*For a middle singly reinforced beam loads from slabs are the most critical.

Beam design:

BALANCE = = = 0.037833

MIN = = = 0.005091

73

= = = 0.222943

Let d=1.75b

H = 575 mm.

Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2

N= = = 8 bars

Design of Columns:

74

Pu(Axial load) = 597.122 kN

As = 0.04Ag

Pu = 0.8(0.85f`c(Ag-0.04Ag)+fy(0.04Ag))

Ag = 40812.861 mm2

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.)

pedestal height = Df - t

(column + pedestal)

qa =

75

71.94 kPa =

shear (beam shear) and two-way shear (punching shear)

qeffective = 37.5038kPa

qeffective =

37.5038 kPa =

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.

Vc = , , for shear

Vc =

Vc = Vu

t = 350 mm, OK

Mu =

Mu = 275.678 kN-m

77

Mu = Rub d2

Ru = 1.4757 MPa

MIN = = = 0.005091

= )

= )

As = bd

As = 0.00561(5600)(325)

As = 5173.98 mm2

Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2

N= = = 17 bars

S=

S=

78

DESIGN OF A TYPICAL ISOLATED FOOTING

Design parameters:

Concrete cover:

Beam = 40 mm.

Column = 40 mm.

Dead load:

Ceiling loads:

Flooring load:

79

Total dead load = 5.464 kPa

Live load:

Load combination:

Short span = 5m

Long span = 5m

kN/m

*For a middle singly reinforced beam loads from slabs are the most critical.

Beam design:

BALANCE = = = 0.037833

MIN = = = 0.005091

80

= = = 0.222943

Let d=1.75b

H = 575 mm.

Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2

N= = = 8 bars

81

Pu(Axial load) = 597.122 kN

As = 0.04Ag

Pu = 0.8(0.85f`c(Ag-0.04Ag)+fy(0.04Ag))

Ag = 40812.861 mm2

Column self-weight

Column height = 3 m.

Pu(Axial load carried by ground floor column) = 3.577 kN + 2(597.122 kN) = 1197.82

kN

Ag = 81870.184 m m2

82

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.)

pedestal height = Df - t

(column + pedestal)

qa =

71.94 kPa =

shear (beam shear) and two-way shear (punching shear)

qeffective = 37.2443kPa

qeffective =

37.2443 kPa =

83

B = 5.7 m., design dimension

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.

Vc = , , for shear

Vc =

Vc = Vu

84

= 0. 371381( - (300+d) 2)N

t = 450 mm, OK

Mu =

Mu = 858.809kN-m

Mu = Rub d2

858.809x106kN-m = 0.9Ru(5700)(325)

Ru = 1.5849 MPa

MIN = = = 0.005091

= )

= )

As = bd

85

As = 0.00604 (5600)(325)

As = 11,198.2mm2

Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2

N= = = 36 bars

S=

S=

86

DESIGN OF A TYPICAL ISOLATED FOOTING

Design parameters:

Concrete cover:

Beam = 40 mm.

Column = 40 mm.

Dead load:

Ceiling loads:

Flooring load:

87

Total dead load = 5.464 kPa

Live load:

Load combination:

Short span = 5m

Long span = 5m

kN/m

*For a middle singly reinforced beam loads from slabs are the most critical.

Beam design:

BALANCE = = = 0.037833

MIN = = = 0.005091

88

= = = 0.222943

Let d=1.75b

H = 575 mm.

Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2

N= = = 8 bars

89

Pu(Axial load) = 597.122 kN

As = 0.04Ag

Pu = 0.8(0.85f`c(Ag-0.04Ag)+fy(0.04Ag))

Ag = 40,812.861 mm2

Column self-weight

Column height = 3 m.

Pu(Axial load carried by ground floor column) = 3.577 kN + 2(597.122 kN) = 1,197.82

kN

Ag = 81,870.184 m m2

90

Column self-weight

Column height = 3 m.

Pu(Axial load carried by ground floor column) = 6.359 kN + 3.577 kN + 3(597.122 kN)

Ag = 123,117.64 m m2

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.)

pedestal height = Df - t

(column + pedestal)

qa =

91

71.94 kPa =

shear (beam shear) and two-way shear (punching shear)

qeffective = 37.0496kPa

qeffective =

37.0496 kPa =

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.

Vc = , , for shear

Vc =

Vc = Vu

t = 525 mm, OK

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

= )

= )

As = bd

As = 0.006 (7000)(400)

As = 16,791.9 mm2

Ab = = = 314.1592654 mm2

N= = = 54 bars

S=

S=

94

MINOR: CONSTRUCTION METHODS

Type of Aggregate Angular

Max Size of Coarse

Aggregates 19 mm

Slump 25 to 50 mm

Unit Wt. of Coarse

Aggregate. 1500 kg/m3

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

1) Water-Cement Ratio

Absolute ratio by

Li/40 kg bag kgf / sq.cm. MPa

weight

0.35 14.20 420.00 41.40

0.44 17.75 350.00 34.47

0.53 21.30 280.00 27.58

0.62 24.85 224.00 22.08

0.71 28.40 175.00 17.24

0.80 31.95 140.00 13.80

Table A.1: Compressive Strength of Concrete for Various Water Cement

Ratios

95

Value Strength (MPa) W-C Ratio (L/40kg

bag)

Upper Limit 22.08 24.85

Required 21.00 -

Lower Limit 17.24 28.4

2) Water Requirement

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

Type of Aggregate = Angular

Slump = 25 to 50mm

Water Requirement = 184 liters

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

Fineness Modulus of Sand = 2.8

Volume of Coarse Aggregates = 0.61

N=

N=

|Vcement| = = 0.0897 m3

|Vwat| = = 0.184 m3

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 = 0.2937

= 1 - Absolute Volume of Cement Paste

= 1 0.2937 = 0.7063

= = 0.4575

Absolute Vol. of Solid Aggregates Absolute Vol. of Gravel

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 - -

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

= 165.05 kg

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 Footing = 5.8835m3

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

1860 kg of cement

3410 kg of sand

99

5990 kg of gravel

1070 kg of water

Volume of Footing = 7.60m3

Where Absolute Volume of Concrete = 1 m3

Wt. of Cement : 287.03 kg x 7.60 m3 x 1.1 = 2399.57 kg

Wt. of Sand : 526.31 kg x 7.60 m3 x 1.1 = 4399.95 kg

Wt. of Gravel : 925.15 kg x 7.60 m3 x 1.1 = 7734.25 kg

Wt. of Water : 165.05 kg x 7.60 m3 x 1.1 = 1379.82 kg

2400 kg of cement

4400 kg of sand

7735 kg of gravel

1380 kg of water

Volume of Footing = 14.112m3

Wt. of Cement : 287.03 kg x 14.112 m3 x 1.1 = 4455.62 kg

Wt. of Sand : 526.31 kg x 14.112 m3 x 1.1 = 8170.02 kg

Wt. of Gravel : 925.15 kg x 14.112 m3 x 1.1 = 14361.29 kg

Wt. of Water : 165.05 kg x 14.112 m3 x 1.1 = 2562.10 kg

4456 kg of cement

8171 kg of sand

100

14365 kg of gravel

2565 kg of water

Volume of Footing = 5.8835m3

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

1860 kg of cement

3410 kg of sand

5990 kg of gravel

1070 kg of water

Volume of Footing = 14.6205m3

Wt. of Cement : 287.03 kg x 14.6205 m3 x 1.1 = 4616.17 kg

Wt. of Sand : 526.31 kg x 14.6205 m3 x 1.1 = 8464.41 kg

Wt. of Gravel : 925.15 kg x 14.6205 m3 x 1.1 = 14878.77 kg

Wt. of Water : 165.05 kg x 14.6205 m3 x 1.1 = 2654.42 kg

4620 kg of cement

8465 kg of sand

101

14880 kg of gravel

2655 kg of water

Volume of Footing = 25.725m3

Wt. of Cement : 287.03 kg x 25.725 m3 x 1.1 = 8122.23 kg

Wt. of Sand : 526.31 kg x 25.725 m3 x 1.1 = 14893.26 kg

Wt. of Gravel : 925.15 kg x 25.725 m3 x 1.1 = 26179.43 kg

Wt. of Water : 165.05 kg x 25.725 m3 x 1.1 = 4670.5 kg

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

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

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.

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

It is advised that other cities should also have its geotechnical analysis especially

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.

In this thesis, there is nothing here that we possess as our own; they are all

acknowledged in return to their respective studies, works and researchers, which became

our inspiration for pursuing this thesis. Herewith now, we gave you this work of ours, the

artifact that is the product of their knowledge, work of our hands, and the symbol of the

researchers identity.

Ericson M. Mosuela

108

REFERENCES

109

REFERENCES

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

p., Copyright 1994

Civil Engineering, University of Surret, 2nd Edition

Agronomy Society of America, 2002, pp. 329-361.

and Their Correlation to Mechanical Properties, Geotechnical and Geological

Engineering, Vol. 24, No. 6, 2005, pp. 1695-1713.

- http://www.geotechdata.info/geotest/unconfined-compression-test. Retrieved

March 5, 2012

- J. M. Duncan and S. G. Wright, Soil Strength and Slope Stability, John Wiley &

Sons, New York, 2005.

for Residual Friction Angle of Soils: Hawaiian Amorphous Materials Rich

Colluvial Soil Case Study, Engineering Geology, Vol. 92, No. 1-2, 2007.

110

- National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP), C101-10, Volume I,

Buildings, Towers, and Other Vertical Structures, Sixth Edition, 2010,

Copyright2010

Prediction of Shear Strength with Respect to Soil Suction, Canadian

Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 33, No. 3, 1996, pp. 379-392.

Gotechnique, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1964, pp. 77-101.

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

corresponding water-cement ratio. Interpolation might be needed.

a) Type of Coarse aggregates (Angular/Rounded)

b) Maximum Aggregate Size (MAS)

c) Slump

entrapped air.

4) Use Table E-5 to identify the volume of coarse aggregates given the

following parameters:

a) Fineness modulus (sand)

b) MAS

N=

cement)

|Vwat| =

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

=

Corr. = Uncorr. (1 + )

Corr. = Uncorr. (s + g + )

sand, gravel and air, respectively,

Volume Gravity Weight of Wt. (Col 2 x Wt.

Water Col 3 x Col 4)

Sand

Cement

Gravel

Water

Wt. of material =

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

19 (3/4 ") 46 184 19 (3/4 ") 51 199

25 (1") 41 178 25 (1") 46 192

38 (1 ") 37 166 38 (1 ") 42 181

51 (2") 34 157 51 (2") 39 172

76 (3") 31 148 76 (3") 36 163

152 (6") 26 131 152 (6") 31 146

Table A.0: Corresponding Properties of Round and Coarse Aggregates

Absolute ratio by

Li/40 kg bag kgf / sq.cm. MPa

weight

0.35 14.20 420.00 41.40

0.44 17.75 350.00 34.47

0.53 21.30 280.00 27.58

0.62 24.85 224.00 22.08

0.71 28.40 175.00 17.24

0.80 31.95 140.00 13.80

Table A.1: Compressive Strength of Concrete for Various Water Cement Ratios

115

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:

LL = Live load

m = Ratio between the short span and long span of the slab.

Dead loads:

Unit weight of plain concrete, conc.: 23.55 kN/m3 (from section 204-1)

Ceiling loads:

Flooring load:

117

Partition load allowance = 1kPa (from section 204.3)

Live load:

Residential = 1.9kPa

Span ratio, m =

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:

m = Ratio between the short span and long span of the slab.

= Reduction factor

Ru = Coefficient of resistance.

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.

119

Moment at support = , Moment at support with more than 2 span (eq. C-2,

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.

= 0.85 0.05 , for concrete strength greater than 28 MPa, but not

less than 0.65

In design the actual steel ratio shall be a percentage of the maximum ratio and

should not be less than the minimum steel ratio.

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.

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)

121

APPENDIX D

Design of Square Tied Concrete Column using Ultimate Strength Design Method

(Chapter 4, Section 410 of NSCP 2010 vol. 1)

The axial load to the column is calculated from the beam support reactions with

the code provision from chapter 4 section 408 of NSCP 2010,

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.

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)

Then solve for the required area for the square tied column.

122

APPENDIX E

Design of Isolated Square Footing using Ultimate Strength Design Method

(Chapter 4, Section 415 of NSCP 2010 vol. 1)

The initial dimension of footing is solved by dividing the service load by the

allowable soil bearing capacity of soil for the determination of the initial thickness of the

isolated square footing.

qa = (eq. E-1)

t = 20%B + 75 mm.

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.

The beam shear on footings is governed by the formula from the code,

Vc = (eq. E-4)

123

f`c = Concrete compressive strength.

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)

H = Column dimension.

calculated moment reaction from (eq. C-2, Section 408 of NSCP 2010) would be the

same moment to be use.

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)

As =Steel area.

S= (eq. E-7)

N = Number of rebars.

125

APPENDIX F

Computation of the soil properties from available borehole samples

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

SAMPLE 1

SAMPLE 2

SAMPLE 3

SAMPLE 4

SAMPLE 5

SAMPLE 1

SAMPLE 2

SAMPLE 3

126

DRY = 1.553*9.81 kN/ m3 = 15.23493 kN/ m3

SAMPLE 4

SAMPLE 5

DRY =

17.701164 =

e = 0.496342

sat =

127

- LL3.odtUploaded byFatin Najwa
- Ground imporvement using pre-loading with PVD.pdfUploaded byhanumabendadi
- 14.3332013AtterbergLimitsData_blank.xlsxUploaded byIyadh Besbes
- deepak raj bhatUploaded byd-bhat
- laboratory assessment correlate DCP and OMC with strength characteristics of subgrade.pdfUploaded bySen Hu
- 7004eng.pdfUploaded bySena Agic
- Efficiency of Pile Groups in Clay Under Different Loading RatesUploaded bysenhu
- AASHTO SpecificationsUploaded bydcdecastrojr
- BS 5930 Craig Soil 13 Soil ClassUploaded byKimberly Rivera
- BH82Uploaded byConifer Yu
- Study of Mechanical Properties of Stabilized Lateritic Soil with Additives.Uploaded byIJAERS JOURNAL
- GB090-2614-299-CV-RP-0002_0Uploaded bytanujaayer
- MethodUploaded bypaulina804
- state of OKLAHOMA.pdfUploaded byJosé Humberto Delgadillo Salinas
- KSDesign ManualUploaded byManuel
- Embankment 3Uploaded byyslabortek
- 11227-25697-1-SMUploaded byMuhamad Faisal
- SS Gravity Calculations 4.8 MetricUploaded bymttaib
- notes1-2-2Uploaded byYen Ling Ng
- a3 4 4websoilsurvey1Uploaded byapi-178275861
- Effect of RhaUploaded byabdullmalik
- 23_Comparative Study ImpUploaded byAnonymous QsPMjbsKxY
- BS sieve.docxUploaded byAnonymous 2FDTST37u
- 307573744-Depth-Conductor.pdfUploaded byTiffany Dacino
- IRJET-V4I5113.pdfUploaded byIRJET Journal
- geot.2007.57.1Uploaded byapi-26568392
- Mektan MinhayUploaded byRobbi Bayuaji Nugroho
- criteria for material testingUploaded byUjjval Solanki
- Roadway design in karst J. A. Fischer, J. J. Fischer & R. W. Greene, Environmental Geology, 22(4), 1993, pp 321–325Uploaded byNovia Setya
- APA_DOC_no._154Uploaded byCindy Rodriguez

- DesignManualGuidelinesonone-storeydwellingunitUploaded byJimmyt
- Dr Vitolo Calligraphy Course BookUploaded byisis_anastasia
- The Art of War by Sun Tzu translated by Samuel B. Griffith.pdfUploaded byaj
- 8th Ed. Handbook.pdfUploaded byNoli Mose Mirador
- Simply Down Home Cooking.pdfUploaded byaj
- TrainingManualOntheuseofnewtechforNHAprojects.pdfUploaded byJimmyt
- LocalGovUnitsProcManual.pdfUploaded bymarwinjs
- Farm to Market RoadsUploaded byWira Putranto
- schoolUploaded byGenevieve Acut-Gabule
- Sk Guidetojapanese Pre 01 Ww EnUploaded byLouis Pasteur Roslinda
- Fiba Guide to Basketball Facilities.pdfUploaded byKrina Shah
- NIA Estimation Guidelines.pdfUploaded byaj
- ProverbsUploaded byaj
- 2Sty_4CLUploaded byaj
- coaUploaded byaj
- 64 Interview QuestionsUploaded byshivakumar N
- APG Civil 2012 TOC SampleUploaded byRussel Pomahuali Lapa
- Microsoft ExcelUploaded byVinoj Mno
- AutoCad 2012 Tutorial, 2d FundamentalUploaded byaj
- Autocad Mechanical SamplesUploaded byAhmed Bdair
- Greek MythologyUploaded byJeremy Kapp
- Primeros Pasos Con VRAY - IUploaded byRafael Arancibia Cuela
- watercolorUploaded byaj
- Advanced Excel Skills.pdfUploaded byaj
- Excel Tips TricksUploaded byscribd_bharat
- How to Think in ChessUploaded byaj
- Rubik4x4x4SolutionUploaded byBMS_SOFTGUY
- How to Think in Chess.pdfUploaded byaj
- 505553 Watercolor Painting TutorialsUploaded bykumargajam
- Copi and Cohen's Introduction to Logic.pdfUploaded byaj

- DocumentUploaded byDrizzle Ventura
- Meshfree Chapter 6Uploaded byZenPhi
- hc-i_manualUploaded bysentot ali basah
- Digital Control Systems_2Uploaded byKalamchety Ravikumar Srinivasa
- Determination of Mechanical Properties of Sand Grains by Nano IndentationUploaded byAlvin John Lim
- Tribology - Solid & Semi-Solid LubrificantsUploaded byJorge Vieira
- Materials for Cryogenics ApplicationsUploaded bycamcad
- Art Aviation Ah an 00 Brew GoogUploaded byviorelcroitoru
- manual-12.12Uploaded byAnanias B Alencar
- Compresion DesignUploaded byFar Han
- business statistics - mohit final.docxUploaded bymohit
- CHAPTER 2.docxUploaded bydinesh naik
- Guide to MarsUploaded byLauren Sarah Park
- MahUploaded byKrish Chennai
- I-LAB Diacetyl Analyses Method[1]Uploaded byEmanuele Hernandes
- DrillstringUploaded byfabianandres23
- SRME2dUploaded byEdward Hendra
- fuzzyUploaded byzamzuri_rashid
- YANUploaded byapi-3733260
- Seismic Design Consideration for East AfricaUploaded byhillamng
- Report Roller ChainUploaded byPejuangHati
- Calculus 04-Extrem ValueUploaded bybudi_umm
- 31 Zakiah AhmadUploaded bycessare
- 1228-1729-1-PBUploaded byGeraldo Eky
- Rp62!3!1 - Valve Leak Detection Using Acoustic EmissionUploaded bykamal arab
- CentrexUploaded byLL
- FRP Cooling TowersUploaded byalenmarkaryan1978
- Effect of Initial Cooling on Heat and Mass Transfer at the Cryogenic Surface by Choi2017Uploaded byDiaz Aditya Arrianto
- Manual Calibrador AC 300Uploaded byCésar Jácome Conde
- GasTurb.xlsUploaded byosbertodiaz