Appendix' Table Update

Adriano, Neil Vinzon S.
Student/Team An, Marianne R.

Group Paraiso, Joyce Ann
Reyes, David Dwight
Design of a Port Terminal in A.Ibañez St., Brgy. San Vicente,

Project Title
Angono Rizal
Program Concentration
Structural, Geotechnical
Area
Context I - Structural
Constraints
Economic constraint has a great effect in designing the structural details of the
proposed Port Terminal because budget is one of the relevant things to be considered
Economic in any design process. The cost of the materials to be used in any design process is an
important parameter that must be taken into consideration. This constraint is an
important part of the design because the client wants a low cost structure but efficient
to use. In consideration of economic, the designer takes into consideration of the
effectiveness of cost but does not compromise the quality of the work or project. In this
case, construction cost inclusive of material cost, labor and construction cost that the
designer will consider in evaluating
In line with this constraint, sustainability of the structure is considered for the reason
that the client from the Municipal Engineering Office are up to design a terminal
structure with a higher longevity with minimum cost of maintenance. The port terminal
Sustainability should be used by the public through its maximum lifespan providing maintenance.
The designers, in consideration with this constraint, will only focus on the maintenance
cost for the structure that will be taken into account and will be used as the value for
evaluation.
Another hindrance considered by the designers which they plan to alleviate is the
reduction of the adverse effects of enormous carbon emissions to the worsening
pollution in the world. According to studies, concrete production is one of the
Environmental contributors of the growing carbon emissions. The project aims to design the most
economical section of the beams and columns that will satisfy the conditions of safety
and sustainability, without compromising its imminent threat to the environment in the
long run. The designers also aims to safeguard the body of water in any presence of
pollutants from the construction. In the attempt to quantify these emissions, the
designers will only consider the contribution of concrete production to the said
emissions.
The duration of the project will also be an issue in designing the port terminal. The site
of the construction, Angono, is lying near the Laguna de Bay and is highly affected by
unpleasant weather systems such as rains, storms and winds that can cause flooding
Constructability in the area that could delay the project duration.
The designers, in consideration with this constraint, will only focus on the project
duration and on how it affects the total cost of the project. The project should be
finished in less than 100 days, as set by the client and in discretion of the designers.
For the evaluation, the designers will use the labor cost as the value for this constraint.
Environmental Loads are loads that cannot be prevented and are automatically applied
Risk Assessment to the structure. In line with this, the structure will inevitably face natural calamities at
times. These natural calamities are related to the environmental loads, such as
earthquakes which add seismic loads, and typhoons which add wind loads. These
environmental loads will surely contribute to the decline of the overall structural
integrity. This decline will surely make the occupants of the structure present at risk.
The designers, in consideration with this constraint, needs to design the structure with
consideration to the environmental loads, which relates to the buckling effect,
considering the slenderness factor of the structure after certain years. For the
evaluation, the designers will use the total bracing and connection costs as the value
for this constraint. The consideration of environmental loads shall reduce the risk
present in the structure.
Context II - Geotechnical
Constraints
The project’s budget is the most relevant thing to consider in any project. Financial
matters runs the project therefore there is must be sufficient budget for the project or
Economic the budget allocated by the clients must be reasonable to provide for the project. In line
with that, the designers proposed different plans that will satisfy the want of the client. It
will be evaluated as which trade-off best suits the client’s budget. Any further increase
in the cost of the project has no guarantee to be negotiable and failure to the execution
of the project.
The designers considered different studies and researches to make the design
economical and could lessen soil settlement. The proposals use different soil treatment
to address this constraint.
The designers considered the sustainability of the geotechnical constraint because it
can affect the financial matter of the project. The success of a project is determined if it
reached its estimated economic life or even exceed it. Maintenance cost will be
Sustainability considered by the team to address this concern. There are many ground improvement
practices that are available worldwide but each of it must be evaluate well because not
all practices have lesser impact on the environment more specifically to those non-
renewable resources that were needed on its operation. Serviceability as well as the
design life of the structure is also considered as it is not just only for the environmental
concerns but also for the benefits of the occupants. Considering the lacking of
materials due to the demand it is important to create a project that is durable and less
maintenance.
The design of ground improvement should provide adequate strength without the need
or with minimum cost of maintenance.
The designers also considered the environmental constraint for geotechnical
procedures to preserve the body of water near the project structure from the processes
of soil treatments. Not only providing adequate strength and less soil settlement is the
Environmental key for the designers in choosing the suited trade-off for the ground improvement but
also the one that is the least to affect the environment. The designers also considered
the number of man-hour and time rent to discern which tradeoff governs in terms of
labor and equipment cost.
The design can also be restricted according to the constructability or the duration of the
soil treatment. The project is located near a body of water and soil treatment may take
longer because of the need of controlling the water. Constructability can be measured
by evaluating the labor cost of the construction and also the duration it needs in order
Constructability to finish the project. The designers will choose the method that will be the most
effective yet suited the construction time given by the client.
The client desires to accomplish the ground improvement in a short period of time. In
this regard, the project is limited, and should be delayed, to 30 working days. However,
it excludes the time necessary for further investigations and studies towards the
project.
For the design of ground improvement, the vital design objective is Risk Assessment.
Risk Assessment For you to conclude that this design is effective, settlement reduced by a certain trade-
off must be evaluated. A certain structure has its own allowable settlement, but we
cannot predict the failure of a structure easily that is why settlement produce by a
certain ground improvement method must be calculated and consider as a major
constraint for this project for you to arrive in a reasonable conclusion. At service load
level, the ground improvement must provide an adequate strength, not to undergo
excessive settlements and be robust enough to withstand repeated applications of live
load. Correct design is very essential to permit the loading properly and evenly. To be
able to ensure the durability of the project, the designers introduce trade-offs that are
based on the criteria and its risk.
The design should not be under or over design in terms of providing improvement on
the ground that may cause further settlement or overturning of the structure.
Tradeoffs I -Structural
Reinforced concrete is a strong durable building material that can be formed
into many varied shapes and sizes ranging from a simple rectangular column,
to a slender curved dome or shell. Its utility and versatility is achieved by
Reinforced Concrete (Normal combining the best features of concrete and steel. It has good thermal mass,
Weight) and is inherently fire resistant. Rebar is generally made from 100% recycled
scrap, and at the demolition stage, the concrete and rebar are capable of
being separated so that the steel can be recycled.
Precast concrete is a construction product produced by casting concrete in a
reusable mold or form which is then cured in a controlled environment,
transported to the construction site and erected into place. Precast has lower
Reinforced Concrete (Lightweight) lifetime costs than any other building solution and minimizes structural
maintenance needs during years. It was found that structural construction cost
efficiency around 5-10% was generally obtained by replacing conventional
structural system with precast concrete. It has also been proved that the
construction speed was able to be increased significantly in-line with the
achievement of better quality works and more eco-friendly construction
projects.
Steel structure is a metal structure made of structural steel connected with bolts or
Steel weld to carry loads. Since structural steel possesses high strength, steel structures
requires less raw material than other types of structure like reinforced concrete
structure and steel structure.
Tradeoffs II - Geotechnical
Dynamic Compaction is a ground improvement technique that densifies soils
and fills by using a drop weight. The drop weight, typically hardened steel
Dynamic Compaction plates, are lifted by a crane and repeatedly dropped on the ground surface.
Dynamic compaction technique is used to increase bearing capacity, and
decrease settlement and liquefaction potential for planned structures. The
technique will be effective in silts, clayey silts and sandy silts.
Stone Column is a ground improvement method that's being used to increase
the load bearing capacity of the foundation and tend to reduce the settlement
Grout Compaction of foundation at allowable loads. This generally consists of water-jetting a
vibroflot into the soft clay layer to make a circular hole that extends through the
clay to firmer soil. The hole is then filled with imported gravel. The gravel in the
hole is gradually compacted as the vibrator is withdrawn.
Ground consolidation using The Rapid Impact Compaction is an innovative dynamic compaction technique
Prefabricated Drains that is used to compact sandy soil, where silt and clay contents are low.
Standards Structural
1. National structural code The purpose of this code is to provide minimum load requirements for
of the Philippines the design of the buildings, towers and other vertical structures and minimum
(NSCP) standards and guidelines to safeguard life or limb, property and public welfare by
regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials pertaining
to the structural aspects of all buildings and structures within its jurisdiction.
2. American Society for Testing ASTM's geotechnical engineering standards are instrumental in specifying,
and Material - International testing, and investigating the physical/mechanical properties and characteristic
Standard (ASTM) behaviors of surface and subsurface earth materials that are relevant to a
construction project. Such earth materials include soil, dimension stones, slate,
soil-cement mixtures, ground water, bituminous geomembranes, and slurry, rock
mass, aquifers, and geotextiles. These geotechnical engineering standards
allow engineering firms and construction companies to examine the elastic
characteristics, flow, and erosion behavior of the said earth materials to ensure
safety and prevent unforeseen hazards related to the erection of civil structures.
3. Philippine Port Authority In designing port and harbor facilities, the design condition shall be based on the
- Engineering Standards for environmental considering, characteristics of materials, construction condition,
Port and Harbor Structures and social requirements for the facilities.
Unit Weights of Materials, PPA-ESPHS, Chapter 15, Table 15.2.1 Static
Friction Coefficient, PPA-ESPHS, Chapter 16, Table 16.1.1 Load
Combination, PPA-ESPHS, Chapter 17, Table 17.1.1
Modern Tools/Techniques
STAAD Pro V8i SS6 STAAD Pro is one of the most widely used structural analysis and design
software worldwide. Basically STAAD helps structural engineers automate tasks
by removing the tedious and long procedures of the manual methods. STAAD
Pro can also be used to analyzed bridges based on the codes and provisions
from the design standards. The designers used the software to create an
analytical model to analyze and measure the initial deflection of each trade-offs.
Standards Geotechnical
1. American Society for ASTM’s geotechnical engineering standards are instrumental I specifying,
Testing and Material - testing, and investigating the physical/mechanical properties and characteristic
International Standard behaviors of surface and subsurface earth materials that are relevant to a
(ASTM) construction project. Such earth materials include soil, dimension stones, slate,
soil-cement mixture, ground water, bituminous geomembranes, and slurry, rock
mass, aquifers, and geotextiles. These geotechnical engineering standards
allow engineering firms and construction companies to examine the elastic
characteristics, flow, and erosion behavior of the said earth material to ensure
safety and prevent unforeseen hazard related to the erection of civil structures.
2. National Structural Code The purpose of this code is to provide minimum load requirements for
of the Philippines (NSCP) the design of the buildings, towers and other vertical structures and minimum
standards and guidelines to safeguard life or limb, property and public welfare by
regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials pertaining
to the structural aspects of all buildings and structures within its jurisdiction.
Modern Tools/Techniques
DC - Settle A software that is intended to provide settlement analysis of several foundations.
GEO 5 The design project will be supported by a program known as GEO5, a

Geotechnical software suite intended for solving geotechnical problems based
on traditional analytical methods and Finite Element Method (FEM). It consists of
individual program with unified user interface, which provides solutions for
definite structure type ranging from the basic tasks (verification of foundation,
wall, slope stability), up to highly specialized programs (analysis of tunnels,
building damage due to tunneling, rock stability).
TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES
938 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECHTURE

Civil Engineering Department
CE 509
CE Design Project 2
DESIGN OF PORT TERMINAL IN A. IBAÑEZ ST.,BRGY. SAN VICENTE,

ANGONO RIZAL
PREPARED BY:
Adriano, Neil Vinzon S.
An, Marianne R.
Paraiso, Joyce Ann E.
Reyes, David Dwight
CE52FC3
SUBMITTED TO:
ENGR. Rhonnie C. Estores
Instructor
October 2019
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The completion of this Capstone Design Project will not be possible without those people who
helped us in the design, analysis, and presentation of our project. We would like to take this opportunity, to
express our deepest gratitude our instructors, advisers, the Capstone defense panel, our families, and
friends for all their patience, guidance and support for this project to be possible.
To our internal adviser, Engr. Jerome Tadiosa, for advising us on how to design our trade-offs and
for helping us in doing the construction management part and costing of the project, thank you so much Sir
for making time despite your busy schedule!;
To our external adviser, Engr. Elmer Cabulisan Jr., who helped us in coming up with our trade-offs
and for advising us in the design of our trade-offs, thank you Sir for making time for us!;
To our class adviser, Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores, for his unending patience with our persistent
questions and his valuable inputs and guidance throughout duration this project, thank you so much Sir!;
To our guest panel, Dr. Amelia T. Marquez, for making time for our capstone defense despite her
hectic schedule, thank you for guiding us and correcting our project, Ma’am!;
To our families, especially to our parents, who are very understanding and supportive, for their
continuous moral and financial support;
To our friends, who helped us towards the completion of this project and who stayed with us
through those sleepless nights;
To Amo Yamie Crib and High Grounds Cafe, for letting us stay in their establishment until late nights;
Our school, the Technological Institute of the Philippines, for giving us the opportunity to do this kind of
project;
Lastly, we would like thank God Almighty for giving us the gifts of patience, perseverance, and knowledge;
without You Lord, this project would never be possible.
Our most heartfelt “Thank You!” to all the people, whom we failed to mention, who has been part for making
this Capstone Design Project possible.
Thank you!
To God Be the Glory.
#GraduateOctober2019
Table of Contents
TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES................................................................................................. 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT......................................................................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 The Project....................................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Location............................................................................................................................................2
1.3 Project Objectives..........................................................................................................................................3
1.3.1 General Objectives....................................................................................................................................3
1.3.2 Specific Objectives....................................................................................................................................3
1.4 The Client......................................................................................................................................................3
1.5 Scope and Limitation of the Study................................................................................................................4
1.5.1 Scope.........................................................................................................................................................4
1.6 Project Development.....................................................................................................................................4
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUT.................................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Design Data..........................................................................................................................................................5
2.1.1 Geotechnical Data.........................................................................................................................................5
2.1.2 Slope and Elevation Data..............................................................................................................................7
2.1.3 Hydrological Data..........................................................................................................................................9
2.1.4 Wind Speed Data...........................................................................................................................................9
2.1.5 Design Loads...............................................................................................................................................10
2.1.6 Static Coefficient of Friction........................................................................................................................11
2.2 Related Literature..............................................................................................................................................12
2.2.1 Port are points of convergence between land and maritime domains......................................................12
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, TRADEOFFS AND STANDARDS...............................................................13

3.1. Design Constraints......................................................................................................................................13
3.1.1 Quantitative Constraint...............................................................................................................................13
3.2 Trade-Offs...........................................................................................................................................................14
3.2.1 Structural Engineering................................................................................................................................14
3.2.2 Geotechnical Engineering...........................................................................................................................19
3.3 Raw Designer’s Ranking..............................................................................................................................21
3.4. Initial Design Estimates...............................................................................................................................22
3.4.1 Economic Constraint (Economic / Project Cost).........................................................................................25
3.4.2 Environmental Constraint (Environmental Cost)........................................................................................28
3.4.3 Constructability Constraint (Man-hours Production / Project duration)...............................................31
3.4.4 Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost)........................................................................................34
Sustainability Constraint (Maintenace Cost).......................................................................................................34
Sustainability Constraint (Maintenace Cost).......................................................................................................35
3.4.5 Risk (Risk Cost)........................................................................................................................................37
TRADE-OFF ASSESMENT...........................................................................................................................................41
Structural:.............................................................................................................................................................41
Geotechnical:.......................................................................................................................................................42
3.5 Design Standards...............................................................................................................................................43
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE.................................................................................................................. 44

4.1 Design Methodology..........................................................................................................................................44
4.2 General Design Processes...................................................................................................................................44
4.2.1 Design Flow Chart for Reinforced Concrete Port (Normal Weight).......................................................45
4.2.2 Design Flow Chart for Structural Steel Port............................................................................................46
4.2.3 Design Flow Chart for Reinforced Concrete Port (Lightweight).............................................................47
4.2.4 Design Flowchart for Ground Consolidation..........................................................................................48
4.2.5 Design Flowchart for Dynamic Compaction...........................................................................................49
4.2.6 Design Flowchart for Grout Compaction.................................................................................................50
4.3 Structural and Architectural Plans.....................................................................................................................51
4.4. Design Loadings................................................................................................................................................55
4.4.1. Load Models...............................................................................................................................................55
4.4.2. Dead Loads.................................................................................................................................................55
4.4.3. Live Load.....................................................................................................................................................55
4.4.4. Wind Loads.................................................................................................................................................56
4.4.5. Earthquake Loads.......................................................................................................................................56
4.5. Design Models..................................................................................................................................................57
4.5.1 Design Analysis........................................................................................................................................58
4.5.2 Design Details..............................................................................................................................................60
4.5.3 Validation of Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards..............................................................................97
4.5.4 Summary of Final Raw Ranking............................................................................................................103
4.6 Sensitivity Analysis...........................................................................................................................................104
Sensitivity Analysis.............................................................................................................................................104
CHAPTER V: FINAL DESIGN.............................................................................................................................. 106

5.1 Design Schedules..............................................................................................................................................111
5.1.2 Design Schedule of Beams........................................................................................................................111
5.1.3 Design Schedule of Columns.....................................................................................................................112
5.1.4 Beam Details.............................................................................................................................................112
a. Steel Reinforcement.......................................................................................................................................112
5.1.5 Column Details..........................................................................................................................................112
APPENDICES.................................................................................................................................................... 113
APPENDIX A: CODES AND STANDARDS..................................................................................................................113
APPENDIX B: INITIAL ESTIMATES...........................................................................................................................123
APPENDIX C: FINAL ESTIMATES..............................................................................................................................125
FINAL ESTIMATES COMPUTATION FOR CONTEXT I...........................................................................................125
APPENDIX D: FINAL ESTIMATES COMPUTATION FOR CONTEXT II....................................................................130
APPENDIX E.DESIGN OF GEOTECHNICAL TRADE-OFFS......................................................................................212
Notations:....................................................................................................................................................... 216
Appendix J: Design for Grout Compaction Notations:.......................................................................................223

APPENDIX F: REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................229
APPENDIX G: CURRICULUM VITAE.........................................................................................................................230
REFLECTIVE ESSAY........................................................................................................................................... 237
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1 The Project

The population of Angono Rizal was 113,283 people, with a density of 4,300 inhabitants per square
kilometer or 11,000 inhabitants per square mile according to the Philippine Statistics Authority census for
the year 2015. Angono Rizal is politically subdivided into 11 barangays including barangay San Vicente.
While the population in Binangonan Rizal was 382, 474 people in the year 2015 that will cause people
congestion in there port.
Binangonan is the bounded North-Northwest by Angono Rizal. The lakeside park referred by the locals as
Wawa is located at A. Ibañez St., Brgy. San Vicente, Angono Rizal is the place to go especially when dusk
looms where the townsfolk hang out and enjoy the views of the sunset, the Laguna de Bay and the Metro
Manila skyline. Popular among local bathers and promenades alike; the lakeside park, along with the forest
park, is part of municipal government’s plan to provide affordable and yet beautiful places of relaxation for
residents and visitors.
Lack of port is one of the problems in the province of Binangonan Rizal. Port in Binangonan Rizal
undergoes congestion that’s why people always experience delays going to the Barangay of Talim Island.
The main objective of this project is to design an industrial-strength port terminal at A. Ibañez St., Bgy. San
Vicente, Angono Rizal to avoid people congestion in Binangonan, to provide alternative route and to help
the community and near provinces to have an easy access going to Talim Island.
1
1.2 Project Location
The location of our project will be along A. Ibañez St., Bgy. San Vicente, Angono Rizal having the
coordinates of 14°31'09"N and 121°08'32"E. The total lot area is 11 meters by 45 meter for a total of 495
square meters. The project location was near Laguna de Bay. The photo below shows the exact location of
the project.
Figure 1- 1. Satellite View of the location of the project

Source: https://earth.google.com/web/
2
Side View Front View
Figure 1- 2. Actual Project Location
Figure 1- 3. Perspective View of Port

1.3 Project Objectives
Upon the completion of the project, the designers aim to accomplish the following general and
specific objectives:
1.3.1 General Objectives
The main objective of this project is to design an industrial-strength port, affordable but safe access at A.
Ibañez St., Bgy. San Vicente, Angono, Rizal to provide alternative route and to help the community to have
an easy access going to Talim Island by designing a structure based on engineering methods and
application, by analyzing and comparing the options based on the constraints such as accessibility,
3
economy, usability, risk assessment and other demand of the client.
1.3.2 Specific Objectives
a) To design an alternative and practical route going to Talim Island.

b) To design and provide an efficient cost estimate of the structure
c) To design and evaluate the impact of important constraints in relation with trade-offs to
determine the most efficient design for the project
1.4 The Client
The Client of this project is the Local Government represented by Mr. Gerardo V. Calderon, Mayor of
Angono Rizal and headed by Engr. Emilnor B. Passion; Municipal Engineering Office Head wants the
project to be done in more than a year. The lifespan of the project is depended on the designer’s output.
The purpose of this project is to provide transportation services for the residents of Angono Rizal and near
provinces
1.5 Scope and Limitation of the Study
The following were the scope and limitations of the design project:
1.5.1 Scope
a) Provide architectural plans (floor plan and elevation Plan) using the specification and standards of
the National Building Code of the Philippines.
b) The design project must be in accordance to National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010
(NSCP 2010).
c) Analyze the structure using Staad pro software.
d) Estimate the quantity cost of materials required in the project, and also the duration required that
will finish the project.
1.5.2 Limitation
a) Detailed activities of the construction, estimate of labor cost and types of machinery during
construction of the port are not included.
b) The project is only based on the resources available in some studies or research that has been
done.
c) The project only provide the design of the port terminal and not the port itself.
1.6 Project Development
The following design scheme was used as a guide for the phase development of project to reflect the series
of stages that will take upon the progress of the project completion.
1. Identifying the Problems. Identifying the existing problem that the designers intend to address for
the designers to share pieces of idea and formulate solutions on the existing problem.
4
2. Conceptualization. The phase from the development of the project is conceptualization, in which
the designer is considering the client’s needs and demands.
3. Data Gathering. Related data are gathered after conceptualizing the details of the project through
preliminary interviews and first-hand data. A site investigation will be also conducted to help gather
additional information including the underlying problems and status of soil in the location.
4. Design Constraints and Standards. The designers will identify the different challenges that will limit
the design of the project with the help of the client. This includes the rules and standards set henceforth by
the law in the Philippines.
5. Evaluation of Results. The results from this study will be compared and analyzed using trade-off
analysis to determine the best possible solutions for soft soil improvement design of proposed multi- storey
hotel building.
6. Final Result. The final design will be derived by the designers based on the most effective result
with regards on the significant of constraint in line with the trade-offs.
5
Figure 1- 4. Design Flow Chart
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUT
2.1 Design Data
To be able to properly design a port terminal at Angono Rizal, the following data were gathered
to serve as the design basis.
2.1.1 Geotechnical Data
The table is composed of the soil classification, the clay soils are the dominant types found
within Angono Rizal. Most notable are the Antipolo clay, San Luis clay and Baras clay soil types,
which cover the greater portion of the municipality.
Soil Types of Angono Rizal

SOIL TYPE % DISTRIBUTION
San Luis Clay 17.60%
Antipolo Clay 50.80%
Baras Clay 14.87%
Boulevard Clay 10.37%
Escarpment 6.37%
Total: 100%
Table 2-1 Soil Types of Angono Rizal
Source: Bureau of Soils and Water Management
Soil Types Classification of Angono Rizal

The largest single type of soil overlying the province of Rizal, it covers
more than half of the land area of Angono. It occupies the northern
San Luis Clay portion of Barangay San Isidro and the eastern part of San Roque. This
Table soil type is characterized by a surface soil that is reddish brown in color, 2-2
Soil very friable and finely granular clay. The subsoil contains various types
and sizes of concretions depending on the depth.
This type is found in the southern portion of the town, along the banks of
Antipolo Clay the Angono River. It covers portions of Barangays San Roque, San
Isidro, and San Pedro. It is also suitable for agriculture, being located in
the valleys.
This type of soil is commonly found along the shores of Laguna de Bay.
Its fine grained surface materials are deposited by the lake water. This
Baras Clay soil is fine textured and friable when dry but sticky when wet. Suitable
for rice cultivation, it is found along the lakeshore portions of Barangays
Kalayaan,
San Vicente, Poblacion Ibaba, PoblacionItaas, Bagumbayan and San
Pedro.
This soil is found in Barangay Mahabang Parang. It is dark brown to
Boulevard Clay nearly black clay, coarse granular to cloddy when dry and sticky when
wet. Rice and corn could be cultivated on this soil but since it straddles
6
a mountainous terrain, terracing is necessary to minimize soil erosion
Types Classification of Angono Rizal
Source: Municipality of Angono Rizal
Figure 2-1 Soil Map

2.1.2 Slope and Elevation Data
The table shows the slope class in Angono Rizal. The elevations of the area are quite low, the highest point
being only 232 meters. In fact, about one-tenth of the town along the lake is flood- prone. However, there is
an increasing trend with respect to altitude toward the northeast. Low-lying coastal zones on the southwest
have elevations of 1-8 meters above mean sea level. The central portion of the land is less than 100 meters
high, although terrain elevation gradually increases to 200 meters north-eastward.
Slope Classification
SOIL CLASS % DISTRIBUTION
00 – 18 74.36%
18 – 50 24.28%
00 > 50 1.35%
Total: 99.99%
Table 2-3 Slope Classification of Angono
Source: NAMRIA
7
Figure 2-2 Slope Map
Figure 2-3 Angono Topographic Map

Source: Municipality of Angono Rizal
8
2.1.3 Hydrological Data
The figure shows the average rainfall amount of Angono Rizal. The rainfall regime in the area is dominated
by the monsoon which renders a seasonal variation in precipitation. It receives sufficiently abundant rainfall
annually with total annual levels amounting to 2,406.2 millimeters.
Figure 2-4 Angono Average Rainfall Data

Source: World Weather
2.1.4 Wind Speed Data
The prevailing wind direction that occurs more frequently is the Northeasterlies, which is mostly because of
the influence of the Northeast Monsoon. On the other hand, the winds are not quite strong. The annual
average wind speed is only 2 meters per second (or approximately 7.2 kph).
Figure 2-5 Angono Average and Maximum Wind Speed and Gust
9
Source: World Weather
2.1.5 Design Loads
The design load stated will be based on Philippine Port Authority - Engineering Standards for Port and
Harbor Structures based on section 15.1 of chapter 15 when designing port and harbor facilities, loads shall
be taken into consideration as necessary. For port and harbor facilities design, loads are divided into
deadweight and surcharge.
Materials Unit weight (kN/𝒎𝟑)

Steel and casting steel 77.0
Casting iron 71.0
Aluminum 27.5
Reinforced concrete 24.0
Plain concrete 22.6
Timber 7.8
Asphalt concrete 22.6
Stone (granite) 26.0
Stone (sandstone) 25.0
Sand, gravel and rubber (dry) 16.0
Sand, gravel and rubber (wet) 18.0
Sand, gravel and rubber (saturated) 20.0
Table 2-4 Unit weight of materials

Source: Philippine Port Authority - Engineering Standards for Port and Harbor Structures
2.1.5.1 Load Factor Design
Based on Philippine Port Authority - Engineering Standards for Port and Harbor Structures concrete
structures for piers and wharves may be proportioned using the load resistance factor design (ultimate
strength) method.
Vacant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
D 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.9
L 0 1.6 1 0 1 1
B 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.9
Be 0 0 0 0 0 0
C 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.9
Cs 0 0 0 0 0 0
E 0 1.6 0 0 0 0 1.6 1.6
Eq 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
W 0 0 0 0.8 1.6 0 1.6 0
Ws 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
E 1.6 0 0 0
Eq 0 0 0 1
10
W 0 0 1.6 0
Ws 0 0 0 0
Mooring 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
D 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.9
L 0 1.6 1 0 1 1 0 0
B 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.9
Be 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
C 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.9
Cs 0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.9
E 0 1.6 0 0 0 0 1.6 1.6
Eq 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
W 0 0 0 0.8 1.6 0 1.6 0
Ws 0 0 0 0.8 1.6 0 1.6 0
Berthing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
D 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
L 1.6 1 1 1
B 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
Be 1.6 0 0 0
C 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
Cs 0 0 0 0
Table 2-5 Load Combination
Source: Philippine Port Authority - Engineering Standards for Port and Harbor Structure
2.1.6 Static Coefficient of Friction
The friction coefficient for materials used in calculations of the frictional resistance force shall be static
friction coefficient as the standard. The friction coefficient shall be appropriately determined after taking into
consideration the characteristics of the structure and the characteristics of the materials.
Concrete against concrete 0.5

Concrete against bedrock 0.5
Underwater concrete against bedrock 0.7 ~ 0.81)
Concrete against rubble 0.6
Rubble against rubble 0.8
Timber against timber 0.2 (wet) ~ 0.5 (dry)
Friction increasing mat and rubble 0.7 ~ 0.8
Table 2-6 Static Coefficient Table
Source: Philippine Port Authority - Engineering
Standards for Port and Harbor Structures
11
2.2 Related Literature
2.2.1 Port are points of convergence between land and maritime domains
According to (Dr. Jean Paul Rodrigue and Dr. Theo Notteboom, 2017), Ports are points of convergence
between two geographical domains of freight circulation (sometimes passengers);
the land and maritime domains. While the maritime domain can involve substantial geographical coverage
related to global trade, the land domain is related to the port’s region and locality. The term port comes
from the Latin portus, which means gate or gateway. Historically, ports emerged as safe harbors for fishing
and those with convenient locations became trade hubs, many of which of free access and designed to
protect trade. As such, they became nexus of urbanization with several becoming the first port cities playing
an important role in the economic welfare of their regions. Today, many of the most important cities in the
world owe their origin to their port location. The port is a multidimensional entity at start anchored within
geography, but also dependent on its operations, governance structure and embedded within supply
chains.
As stated by (Martin Minogue and Ledivina Cariño, 2006), The Philippines is an archipelagic country,
consisting of more than 7000 islands. These islands need to be linked together by an efficient and
seamless transport system. Unfortunately, the country’s sea transport and distribution system, mainly the
ports system, is plagued by inefficiency that causes high domestic transport costs.
12
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, TRADEOFFS AND STANDARDS
3.1. Design Constraints
In this chapter, design constraints are factors that limit the range of potential design solutions that can
be adopted. In the early stage of a project, only some of these constraints may be known, while others
become apparent as the design progresses. Constraints have to be managed. Practically, the design can
only improve when the constraint is improved.
In order to meet and achieve the requirements of the client must be design in line with the needs and
necessities given by the client and also the judgement of the designer. These factors are the quantitative
constraints; are those constraints that can be measured using engineering methods (estimation). The
following are the constraints faced by the designers in the “Design of a Port Terminal in A.Ibañez St., Brgy.
San Vicente, Angono Rizal”.
3.1.1 Quantitative Constraint
3.1.1.1 Economic Constraints (Cost)
Economic constraint has a great effect in designing the structural details of the proposed Port Terminal
because budget is one of the relevant things to be considered in any design process. The cost of the
materials to be used in any design process is an important parameter that must be taken into consideration.
This constraint is an important part of the design because the client wants a low cost structure but efficient
to use. In consideration of economic, the designer takes into consideration of the effectiveness of cost but
does not compromise the quality of the work or project. In this case, construction cost inclusive of material
cost, labor and construction cost that the designer will consider in evaluating As a result, the designer come
up with three possible trade-offs per specialization which are Structural and Geotechnical Engineering. The
six trade-offs will be evaluated by the cost of the materials needed
3.1.1.2 Sustainability (Maintenance Cost)
The sustainability constraint takes into account the problem on how long the design life of a project is with
respect to its design strength. One of the basic ideas in engineering design is that with greater design
strength, there is an equivalent increase in cost due to the need of higher quality material. In line with this
constraint, sustainability of the structure is considered for the reason that the client from the Municipal
Engineering Office are up to design a terminal structure with a higher longevity with minimum cost of
maintenance. The port terminal should be used by the public through its maximum lifespan providing
maintenance. The designers, in consideration with this constraint, will only focus on the maintenance cost
for the structure that will be taken into account and will be used as the value for evaluation.
3.1.1.3 Environmental Constraints (Cost)
The designer has considered environment as a constraint on the design of the Port Terminal. Environment
is a great factor in designing the structure, because of the different calamities brought by Mother Nature.
There are natural calamities like floods, earthquakes and even tsunamis considering the location of the port
which is near lakeside area happens unexpectedly that might affect the strength of the ground and its
13
properties as well. That is why the designers think of a way and evaluate which of the six trade-offs is the
most sustainable and at the same time can contribute better or lessen the possible soil settlement and
foundation failure. The three structural designs and three geotechnical designs will be evaluated according
to its capacity to resist the loads.
3.1.1.4 Constructability Constraints (Duration)
Main concern of the client is the duration of the work in particular to the possible shortest period of time in
terms of accomplishment of construction. In order to have harmonious work together with the client the
designer should conform to that constraint. The duration of the project will be an issue in designing the port
terminal. The site of the construction, Angono, is lying near the Laguna de Bay and is highly affected by
unpleasant weather systems such as rains, storms and winds that can cause flooding in the area that could
delay the project duration. The designers, in consideration with this constraint, will only focus on the project
duration and on how it affects the total cost of the project. The project should be finished in less than 100
days, as set by the client and in discretion of the designers. For the evaluation, the designers will use the
labor cost as the value for this constraint
3.1.1.5 Risk Assessment (Cost of Risk)
The three structural designs and three geotechnical designs will be evaluated according to its safety
requirements. The trade-offs, Reinforced Concrete (Normal Weight), Reinforced Concrete (Lightweight),
and Steel Structure will be investigated naturally through the member’s deflection and stiffness and
evaluate according to the ability to carry the loads. The design which appears to be stiffer than the other will
be considered to be a safe Port design. The designers, in consideration with this constraint, needs to
design the structure with consideration to the environmental loads, which relates to the buckling effect,
considering the slenderness factor of the structure after certain years.. The consideration of environmental
loads shall reduce the risk present in the structure.
3.2 Trade-Offs
To address these multiple constraints, the designers came up with two specialization of trade-offs;
Structural and Geotechnical. There are three alternatives for each specialization that were chosen by the
designer to satisfy the constraints and also, this will help the client to decide for the best option that will be
using for the design. The designer chose this following trade-offs:
3.2.1 Structural Engineering
This field deals with the design of structures that support or resist loads.
3.2.1.1 Reinforced Concrete (Normal Weight)
Reinforced concrete is a strong durable building material that can be formed into many varied shapes
and sizes ranging from a simple rectangular column, to a slender curved dome or shell. Its utility and
versatility is achieved by combining the best features of concrete and steel.
14
Figure 3-1 Reinforced Concrete Column
Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/
Advantages and Disadvantages of Reinforced Concrete
Table 3-1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Reinforced Concrete
Advantages Disadvantages
 Reinforced concrete has a high  The tensile strength of reinforced

compressive strength compared to other concrete is about one-tenth of its
building materials. compressive strength.
 Due to the provided reinforcement,  The main steps of using reinforced

reinforced concrete can also withstand a concrete are mixing, casting, and curing.
good amount tensile stress. All of this affects the final strength.
 Fire and weather resistance of reinforced  The cost of the forms used for casting is
concrete is fair. relatively higher.
 The reinforced concrete building system  For multi-storied building the RCC
is more durable than any other building column section for is larger than steel
system. section as the compressive strength is
lower in the case of Shrinkage causes
crack development and strength loss.
 Reinforced concrete, as a fluid material,
in the beginning, can be economically
molded into a nearly limitless range of
15
shapes.
 The maintenance cost of reinforced

concrete is very low. In the structure like
footings, dams, piers etc
Reinforced concrete is the most

economical construction material.
 It acts like a rigid member with
minimum deflection.
 As reinforced concrete can be molded to
any shape required, it is widely used in
precast structural components. It yields
rigid members with minimum apparent
deflection.
 Compared to the use of steel in structure,
reinforced concrete requires less skilled
labor
for the erection of the structure.
Source: https://www.linkedin.com/
3.2.1.2 Reinforced Concrete (Normal Weight)
Concrete is a mixture of sand, gravel, crushed rock, or other aggregates held together in a rocklike mass
with a paste of cement and water. As with most rocklike substances, concrete has a high compressive
strength and a very low tensile strength. Reinforced concrete is a combination of concrete and steel
wherein the steel reinforcement provides the tensile strength lacking in the concrete. Steel reinforcing is
also capable of resisting compression forces and is used in columns as well as in other situations.
Reinforced concrete is not just a material for buildings but also for bridges, dams, retaining walls,
pavements, tanks, and so on.
A Reinforced Concrete Structure is the most commonly used type of structure and it is defined as a
structure with its beams, columns, and other components composed of both concrete and steel working
together to resist forces. Among the trade-offs, it is the cheapest option.
Table 3-1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Reinforced Concrete
 It has considerable compressive strength  Has lower tensile strength.

per unit cost compared with most other  Low strength per unit of weight of concrete
materials. leads to heavy members.
16
 Fire and water resistant.  The properties of concrete vary widely
 Very rigid. because of variations in its proportioning and
 Low-maintenance material. mixing. Furthermore, the placing and curing
 Compared with other materials, it has a of concrete is not as carefully controlled as is
very long service life. the production of other materials, such as
 Strength of concrete increases with time. structural steel and laminated wood.
 Only economical material available for  Production of cement is not environment
footing, floor slabs, basement walls, and friendly.
other similar applications.  More dead weight.
 Has an ability to be cast into an  Consumes more concrete and
extraordinary variety of shapes from simple reinforcements.
slabs, beams, and columns to great arches  Has long construction duration.
and shells.
Lower grade of skilled labor is required for erection.
Figure 3-1 Reinforced Concrete Structure

Source:
3.2.1.3 Reinforced Concrete (Lightweight)
Lightweight concrete is defined as a type of concrete which includes an expanding agent which increases
the volume of the mixture while giving additional qualities such as lessened dead weight. The density of this
type of concrete ranges from 1440 to 1840 kg/m3. Lightweight aggregate concretes can be used for
structural applications, with strengths equivalent to normal weight concrete. The elastic modulus of
lightweight concretes is lower than the equivalent strength normal weight concrete, but when considering
the deflection of a slab or beam, this is counteracted by the reduced self-weight.
Table 3-2. Advantages and Disadvantages of Lightweight Concrete
 Cost reduction of about 30 to 40  Longer drying phase.

percent.  Greater deflection.
 More fire resistant.
 Lower thermal expansion.
3.2.1.4 Steel Structure
Structural steel is a category of steel construction material that is produced with a particular cross section
or shape, and some specified values of strength and chemical composition. Structural steel composition,
strength, size, shape, strength, and storage are controlled in most advanced countries.
17
Figure 3-3 Steel Curved Truss
Source: https://www.123rf.com/
Advantages and Disadvantages of Steel Slab
 The market price of steel is way lower  Structures and machines made of structural
compared to other metals. It has steel require timely maintenance. Repairs
achieved huge productivity advances and small fixtures can incur high costs.
throughout the steel supply chain thereby  It is a scientific fact that steel tends to lose its
reducing cost. strength at high temperatures. It is for this
 Structural steel has a high strength to reason that fabricators engage in fireproof
weight ratio which makes it suitable for treatment for structural steel. In addition to
constructing huge structures. It is tensile, that buildings have to be installed with
ductile and malleable. Buildings made of sprinkler systems. These measures are
structural steel have high endurance; they expensive and add to the overall cost of the
can withstand strong winds, earthquakes, construction project.
and storms.  Steel is susceptible to corrosion as it reacts
 Structural steel buildings can be constructed with atmospheric oxygen to form rust. This
easily and at a rapid pace. Steel frames for deteriorates the quality of the structure.
buildings can be erected in no time. Various expensive treatments are done
Construction projects usually cause over structural steel to prevent it from
disruption to nearby buildings and roads. corrosion; some of them are dry abrasive
Speedy construction reduces this and also blasting, water blasting, and coal tar
leads to savings in site preliminaries. paintings.
 Structural steel can be easily modified to  Steel structures tend to get fatigued over a
suit any design. They are more adaptable period of time. After being exposed to
than other framing systems. It is easy to different kinds of pressures, there are
incorporate last minute additions and variations in the tensile strength of the
changes in a steel frame structure. frames. This can lead to buckling of the steel
structure.
Source: http://northern-weldarc.com/
18
3.2.2 Geotechnical Engineering
Geotechnical engineering largely involves defining the soil's strength and deformation properties.
3.2.2.1 Ground consolidation using Prefabricated Drains
Consolidation of soft ground using vertical drains and preloading is a technique used since the 1920s. The
vertical drains provide a shortened pathway for water to exit the soils while fill preloading surcharges the
foundation soils. Initially sand drains were used, and then cardboard drains followed by geotextile-encased
drains (prefabricated vertical drains). The most common vertical drain at present is the use of prefabricated
vertical drains (PVDs).
PVDs are band shaped (rectangular cross-section) products consisting of a geotextile jacket surrounding a
plastic core with drainage channels. The configuration permits pore water in the soil to seep into the drain
for collection and transmittal up and down the length of the core. While there are some variations, the size
of a PVD is typically 4 inches wide by 1/8 to 3/8 inches thick.
The most common transportation use of PVDs is to accelerate consolidation for approach embankments at
bridges or other embankment construction over soft soils, where the total post construction settlement
would otherwise be unacceptable.
 Economy - For typical projects, the cost for  Headroom Limitations - PVD installation
PVDs is much less than available alternatives equipment must be 5 to10 feet taller than the
such as aggregate drains. depth of installation which can limit their use
 Improved Quality Control - The quality control for some sites.
and assurance for PVD construction is quite  Materials must be Stored Properly - PVD
simple. Because continuity of the drain is material can degrade in sunlight and,
assured during installation, the major duties therefore, must be stored properly. While
of inspection are to ensure proper drain most specifications require the material to be
anchorage and proper depth attainment. covered during storage, the effect of sunlight
 Continuity of Drain - PVDs provide an on the geotextile will not be significant unless
assurance of a permanent drainage path, the material is on site for more than a month.
even with considerable lateral displacement
or buckling under vertical or horizontal soil
movements.
 Installation - Generally, the production rate for
PVDs will average between 15,000 to 20,000
lineal feet per day per rig.
 Equipment Flexibility - PVDs are generally
installed with a static or vibratory installation
force, and normal equipment can be adapted
for a minimal amount of jetting, where
necessary.
19
 Low Material Storage - PVDs come in reels
usually containing 450 to 1,000 feet of
material. Each roll is approximately 3.3 feet in
diameter, 4 inches thick, and can be easily
stored.
 No Water Required- Except in unusual
cases, PVDs are installed without jetting.
Even if a minimum amount of jetting is
required, the resulting surface runoff is
minimal
Table11: Advantages and Disadvantages of Ground Consolidation using Prefabricated Drains
3.2.2.2 Dynamic Compaction

Impacting soil deposits with tampers dropped from varying heights has been used for centuries. The
Romans reportedly used this process to density loose soils (Kerisel 1985). Cohesionless soils in
Germany were compacted with a 4 kip tamper and a 5-foot drop from a steam shovel in 1933 (Loos
1963). The Corps of Engineers experimented with heavy tamping at the Franklin Falls Dam construction
site in 1936 (USACE 1938). In 1955, dynamic compaction was used in South Africa to densify loose
soils to support a 250 feet diameter crude oil tank (Hobbs 1976). In Russia, heavy tampers were used to
compact loessial silty and sandy soils, beginning about 1960 (Bobylev 1963).
Use of deep dynamic compaction began on a regular and continuing basis in Europe in 1969 and in the
United States in 1971. In Europe, tampers of 18 to 22 kips were dropped from heights of 25 to 40 feet to
densify fill deposits. This process was called heavy tamping, and was generally used in good quality fill
deposits, such as rock waste, rubble, and sand.
Figure 3-4 Dynamic Compaction

Source: https://vibromenard.co.uk/technique/dynamic-compaction/
 Compacts large areas of loose granular fills  Vibro Compaction cannot compact soils with.
 Reduces the volume of landfill waste  more than 12 % to 15 % fines content.
20
 Increases in situ density and the voids are  Vibro Compaction requires a minimum
collapsed vertical stress in the soil in order to be
 Increased bearing capacity effective, which means that in the upper 90
 Reduces post-construction settlements cm from the surface there is no improvement
so this surface layer
 has to be roller compacted.
Table12: Advantages and Disadvantages of Dynamic Compaction
3.2.2.3 Grout Compaction
Compaction grouting was pioneered on the West Coast in the 1950s, and is the only grouting technique
to have its origins in the United States. It was first used to rectify structural settlements through the
controlled injection of a very stiff, low mobility mix (Warner 1982). In the late 1970s, compaction grouting
was introduced as a preventative, rather than a remediate, measure when the technique was used in
lieu of conventional underpinning to protect surface structures from settlement during the installation of
Bolton Hill Tunnel, part of the Northwest Line of the Baltimore Region Rapid Transit System (Baker et
al. 1983.
 Compaction grouting causes minimal disruption  The one main disadvantage of this technique
to the landscape, surrounding soils, and nearby is that it is a bit messy and may require
structures. cleanup.
 This technique can be utilized for projects that
have limited access and require more delicate
installations.
 It is cost-effective and easy to install compared
to some other soil stabilization and ground-
shoring methods.
 Engineered Solutions has used this versatile
technique on a variety of projects, and it has
 successfully strengthened ground soils in each
instance.
Table Advantages and Disadvantages of Grout Compaction
3.3 Raw Designer’s Ranking
Ranking scale was formulated by Kevin N. Otto and Erik K. Antonsson, it is a Trade-off
strategies in engineering design that allows the designer team to formally and explicitly
make a decisions in choosing which of the trade-offs presented has strongest overall
21
performance considering each weaknesses. The importance factor and the satisfactory
scale for each constraint are from 0 to 10, where 10 are the highest. The tradeoff will be
determined based on the computation results of criteria set by the client and the
designers.
Figure 3-7 Ranking Scale for Importance and Satisfactory FactorFor computing the ranking in
satisfying the criterion, the equations to be used are the following:
Therefore, to satisfy the criterion, the governing trade-off that satisfies different constraints was subjectively
ranked higher. And then the sub trade-off which accounted higher cost was computed its rank in
accordance with Equation 3-1 and Equation 3-2.
3.4. Initial Design Estimates
The designer provided initial estimates for the (6) six trade-offs. Through this estimates, the designer can
be able to come up which of the following trade-offs will be the best for economic, sustainability,
environmental and constructability constraint.
Table 3-7 Initial Estimates for Tradeoffs
22
The data stated in the table shows the initial estimate for the structure. The initial estimates were based on
the cost data gathered from the websites cited on the references for each constraint. The researchers had
Design of Constraints
Economic Environmental Constructability Sustainability Risk
Tradeoffs
Cost (30% of
Structural Maintenace Risk Cost
Cost (Php) the economic Duration (Days)
Cost (Php) (Php)
cost) (Php)
Reinforced
Concrete 3,901.54
1,170.462 94 days 1,503,897.98 25,278.75
(Normal (per sq.meter)
Weight)
Reinforced 4,250.00
Concrete (per sq. 1,275.00 94 days 1,998,761.12 28,009.21
(LightWeight) meter)
Steel 4,057.57 1,217.271 80 days 3,755,332.76 31,981.34
Structure (per pieces.)
considered construction statistics from approved building permits related to administrative-based data on
new constructions and additions, alterations and repairs of existing residential and non-residential buildings
and other structures proposed to be constructed in all cities and municipalities of the country in a specific
period. The designers researched the prices for the economic cost and it was converted from natural
Design of Constraints
Economic Environmental Constructability Sustainability Risk
Tradeoffs
Cost (30% of
Geotechnical Maintenace Risk Cost
Cost (Php) the economic Duration (Days)
Cost (Php) (Php)
cost) (Php)
Ground
consolidation
using 200,000.00 60,000.00 20 days 354,044.47 402,445.29
Prefabricated
Drains
Dynamic
310,000.00 93,000.00 30 days 512,098.08 405,554.22
Compaction
Grout
257,500.00 77,250.00 20 days 203,099.93 385,076.43
Compaction
currency to Philippine Peso.
Table 3-8 Designer's Raw Ranking of Trade-Offs
Design Criteria Ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale 0 to 10)

Criterion's
23
Reinforced Reinforced
Importance(on
Concrete (Normal Concrete Steel
scale of 0 to 10)
Weight) (LightWeight)
Economic
(Php) 10 10 9.18 9.18
Environmental 7 10 9.18 9.18
Constructability
(Duration - Months) 8 7.98 9.38 9.38
Risk
Risk Cost (Php) 9 10 8.57 7.14
Sustainability
Maintenace Cost 9 10 8 6
(Php)
Over-all Rank 413.84 380.23 361.8
Table 3-9 Designer's Raw Ranking of Trade-Offs
Ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale 0 to 10)
Criterion's Ground
Design Criteria
Importance(on consolidation
scale of 0 to 10) Dynamic Grout
using
Compaction Compaction
Prefabricated
Drains
Economic
(Php) 10 0.28 10 6.36
Environmental 7 0.28 10 6.36
Constructability
(Duration - Months) 8 5.56 8.33 10
Risk
Risk Cost (Php) 9 9 8.5 10
Sustainability
Maintenace Cost 9 7.14 5.57 10
(Php)
Over-all Rank 229.24 364.53 333.38
3.4.1 Economic Constraint (Economic / Project Cost)
The table below shows the initial cost estimate of the given tradeoffs. Through this initial result, the
designers may find out which tradeoff has the lower price of materials and which is the most economical
among the three.
24
3.4.1.1 Structural Economic Cost Ranking
Reinforced Concrete Reinforced Concrete (Light

Description Steel
(Normal Weight) weight)
Economic Cost
Php3,901.54 Php4,057.57 Php4,250.00
( Php )
Subordinate Rank 10 9.62 9.18
3.4.1.1.1 Computation for Economic Constraint
 Steel vs. Reinforced Concrete (Light weight)
 Reinforced Concrete (Light weight) vs. Reinforced Concrete (Normal Weight)
25
3.4.1.2 Geotechnical Economic Cost Ranking
Table 3-11 Geotechnical Economic Cost Ranking
Description Ground consolidation

using Prefabricated Dynamic Compaction Grout Compaction
Drains
Economic Cost Php257, 500.00 Php310,000.00 Php200,000.00
( Php )
Subordinate Rank 6.36 10 0.28
3.4.1.2.1 Computation for Economic Constraint
 Grout Compaction vs. Ground consolidation using Prefabricated Drains
26
 Grout Compaction vs. Dynamic Compaction
27
3.4.2 Environmental Constraint (Environmental Cost)
The designers made an initial estimate of the equipment and labor cost of the project. The designers
considered the number of man-hour and time rent to discern which tradeoff governs in terms of labor and
equipment cost. According to the book of Elbelatgi, the labor costs and equipment costs is approximately
30% of the estimated value for material cost. The book discussed the basic principle for estimating labor
costs, equipment costs, operating costs, and preparing detailed cost estimate.
3.4.2.1 Structural Environmental Ranking
Table 3-12 Structural Environmental Ranking

Description Reinforced Concrete Reinforced Concrete
Steel
(Normal Weight) (Light weight)
Environmental Php1,170.462 Php4,057.57 Php4,250.00
( Php )
 Steel vs. Reinforced Concrete (Normal Weight)
𝑯𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝑽𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆 − 𝑳𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓 𝑽𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆

% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 =
𝑯𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝑽𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆 × 𝟏𝟎
1,275.00 − 1,170.462
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10
1,275.00
%𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟐
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝑮𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 − (% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆)
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 0.82

𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟗. 𝟏𝟖
28
 Reinforced Concrete (Light weight) vs. Reinforced Concrete
(Normal Weight)

𝑯𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝑽𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆
× 𝟏𝟎
1,217.271 − 1,170.462
1,217.271
%𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟖

𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟗. 𝟔𝟐
3.4.2.2 Geotechnical Environmental Ranking
Table 3-13 Geotechnical Environmental Ranking

Drains
Environmental Php77,250 Php93,000 Php60,000
( Php )
 Grout Compaction vs. Dynamic Compaction

% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = × 𝟏𝟎
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 =
29
93,000 – 60,000 93,000
× 10
%𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟑. 55

𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟔. 45
 Ground consolidation using Prefabricated Drains vs. Dynamic

Compaction
𝑯𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝑽𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆 − 𝑳𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓 𝑽𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆 × 𝟏𝟎

93,000 – 77,250 93,000

× 𝟏𝟎
%𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 1.69

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 – 1.69
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 8.31
3.4.3 Constructability Constraint (Man-hours Production / Project duration)
Based on existing project schedules as per provided on the reference located in the appendix. Each
duration of each type of was considered. It was based on existing or finished projects with detailed project
schedule as per provided on the reference
30
3.4.3.1 Structural Constructability Ranking
Table 3-14 Structural Constructability Ranking

Description Reinforced Concrete (Normal Reinforced Concrete
Steel
Weight) (Light weight)
Constructability 94 75 80
( days )
Subordinate Rank 7.98 10 9.38
 Reinforced Concrete (Normal Weight) vs. Steel
31
 Reinforced Concrete (Light weight) vs. Reinforced Concrete (Normal Weight)
32
3.4.3.2Geotechnical Constructability Ranking
Table 3-15 Geotechnical Constructability Ranking

Drains
Constructability 20 30 20
( days )
 Dynamic Compaction vs. Ground consolidation using Prefabricated Drains
33
 Dynamic Compaction vs. Grout Compaction
3.4.4 Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost)

The designers made an initial estimate of the initial maximum service life of each trade-off to
determine which system will govern in terms of sustainability.
3.4.4.1Structural Sustainability Ranking
Table 3-16 Structural Sustainability Ranking

Steel
Sustainability Constraint 1,503,897.98 3,755,332.76 1,998,761.12

(Maintenace Cost)
Subordinate Rank 10 6 8
34
Since the long term deflection of each tradeoff can only be computed if the structural components are
designed and if the dimensions are already finalized. The ranking of each tradeoff for the initial estimate is
based on the maximum allowable deflection for concrete (L/360) and (L/350) for steel according to the data
gathered in the reference. Each tradeoff was analysed and determined with the advantages and
disadvantages of each. The designers weighed in each advantage and chose the reinforced concrete as
the highest rank.
3.4.3.1 Geotechnical Sustainability Ranking

Table 3-17 Geotechnical Sustainability Ranking
Drains
Sustainability Constraint 354,044.47 512,098.08 203,099.93

(Maintenace Cost)
Subordinate Rank 7.14 5.57 10
 Grout Compaction vs. Ground consolidation using

Prefabricated Drains
𝑯𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝑽𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆 − 𝑳𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓 𝑽𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆 × 𝟏𝟎
1,100 − 956
1,100
%𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 1.30
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 – 1.30

35
𝑯𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝑽𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆 −
𝑳𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓 𝑽𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆
%
𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆
=
× 𝟏𝟎
956 − 900
956
× 10
36
3.4.5 Risk (Risk Cost)
The designers made an initial estimate of the initial maximum displacements of each trade-off to determine
which framing system will govern in terms of safety.
3.4.5.1 Structural Risk Ranking
Table 3-18 Structural Safety Ranking

Steel
Risk (Risk Cost)
25,278.75 31,981.34 28,009.21

 Steel VS. Reinforced Concrete (Normal Weight)
37
 Reinforced Concrete (Light weight) VS. Reinforced Concrete (Normal Weight)
3.4.5.2 Geotechnical Risk Ranking
Table 3-19 Geotechnical Safety Ranking

Drains
Risk (Risk Cost)
402,445.29 405,554.22 385,076.43
Subordinate Rank 9 8.5 10
 Grout Compaction vs. Ground consolidation using Prefabricated Drains
38
39
40
TRADE-OFF ASSESMENT
Structural:
ABILITY TO SATISFY THE CRITERION (0 TO

CRITERION’S 10)
DECISION
IMPORTANCE (0 % WEIGHT
CRITERIA Reinforced Reinforced
TO 10) Steel
Concrete(Norma Concrete
Structure
l Weight) (Lightweight)
Economic 10
.23 10 9.18
Constraints (Cost) 9.18
Sustainability 7
(Maintenance .18 10 9.18
9.18
Cost)
Environmental 8
.18 7.98 9.38
Constraints (Cost) 9.38
Constructability
Constraints 9 .21 10 8.57
7.14
(Duration)
Risk Assessment
9 .20 10 8
(Cost of Risk) 6
TOTAL 43 1 47.98 44.31 40.88
Geotechnical:
41
Ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale 0 to 10)
Criterion's
% Ground
Design Criteria Importance(on
WEIGHT consolidation
scale of 0 to Dynamic Grout
10) using
Compaction Compaction
Prefabricated
Drains
Economic
(Php) 10 .23 6.36 10 0.28
Environmental 7 .18 10 6.36 0.28
Constructability
(Duration - 8 .18 10 8.37 5.56
Months)
Risk
Risk Cost (Php) 9 .21 9 8.5 10
Sustainability
Maintenace Cost 9 .20 7.4 5.57 10
(Php)
Over-all Rank 1 42.76 38.8 26.12
3.5 Design Standards
The designers will be designing the project with accordance to the following codes and standards:
42
• NSCP – National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015
The purpose of this code is to provide minimum load requirements for the design of the buildings, towers
and other vertical structures and minimum standards and guidelines to safeguard life or limb, property and
public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials pertaining to the
structural aspects of all buildings and structures within its jurisdiction.
• ASTM – American Society for Testing and Material, International Standard

ASTM's geotechnical engineering standards are instrumental in specifying, testing, and investigating the
physical/mechanical properties and characteristic behaviors of surface and subsurface earth materials that
are relevant to a construction project. Such earth materials include soil, dimension stones, slate, soil-
cement mixtures, ground water, bituminous geomembranes, and slurry, rock mass, aquifers, and
geotextiles. These geotechnical engineering standards allow engineering firms and construction companies
to examine the elastic characteristics, flow, and erosion behavior of the said earth materials to ensure
safety and prevent unforeseen hazards related to the erection of civil structures.
• Philippine Port Authority - Engineering Standards for Port and Harbor Structures
In designing port and harbor facilities, the design condition shall be based on the environmental
considering, characteristics of materials, construction condition, and social requirements for the facilities.
Unit Weights of Materials, PPA-ESPHS, Chapter 15,

Table 15.2.1 Static Friction Coefficient, PPA-ESPHS,
Chapter 16, Table 16.1.1 Load Combination, PPA-ESPHS,

43
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE
4.1 Design Methodology
The Design of a Port Terminal in A. Ibanez St., Brgy San Vicente, Angono Rizal City was done according
with the aforementioned design standards in chapter 3. In this project, the designers proceeded with the
design of Port Terminal based on the governing system, thus considering six (6) trade-offs, in which the
designers shall be using different materials as trade-offs.
The material to be used will be chosen among the material trade-offs for the design of storm water drainage
system which Reinforce Concrete, Precast Concrete, and Steel, Jet Grouting, Prefabricated Vertical Drains,
and Vibro Compactions. The design was done in accordance with the codes and standards appropriate for
this structure. The figure below shows the step by step process of the design of the building.
4.2 General Design Processes
The designers will follow the flow chart for the process of designing the structure given the trade-offs.
The design starts with the conceptualization of the structure plan that will also consider the multiple
constraints, trade-offs and design standards for the final design.
Port Layout
Design
Determination of
Material Property
Computation
of Loads
Design of Each Trade-off
Cost Estimates
Considering the
Design Constraints
Final
Ranking
Selection of Final
Design Trade-off
Figure 4.1. General Design Process
44
4.2.1 Design Flow Chart for Reinforced Concrete Port (Normal Weight)
START
INPUT:
Material Specification (Philippine Ports Authority – Engineering
Standards for Ports and Harbor Structures)
Concrete Properties
Check for Minimum Design Requirements (NSCP Vol. II – Section 8) for

geometric details.
INPUT:
Geometric Data of Column
Compute for Loads

Moment due to loads
Dead load
Live load
Impact load
Wind load
Wind load in live load
Design Moment (NSCP Vol. II – Section 3.22)
Group (N) =
CHECK FOR ADEQUACY

Flexural (NSCP Vol. II, Section 8.16.3)
Shear (NSCP Vol. II, Section 8.16.6)
Deflection (NSCP Vol. II, Section 8.13)
INPUT:
Beam dimension
Flexural reinforcement
Shear reinforcement
END
45
4.2.2 Design Flow Chart for Structural Steel Port
START
INPUT:
Steel Properties (NSCP Vol. II Section 10.2.2)
Section Properties (ASEP Steel Hand Book 2004, Vol. I)
Bolts Properties (Specifications of Highway Bridges –
AASHTO, Section 1.7.5)
Compute for Loads using Staad Pro Vi8

Consider dead, live and impact load only based on NSCP Vol. II, Section 10.43.2
Dead Load
Live Load
Impact Load
Load combination (NSCP Vol. II, Section 3.22)
Group (N) =
Compute if Section is adequate:

Compact Section (NSCP Vol. II, Section 10.48.1.1)
;
Ultimate Moment (NSCP Vol. II, Section 10.48.1)
Deflection Generated by Staad.Pro Vi8
OUTPUT: (PCI Handbook)

Dimension of Column
Strand Pattern
Compute for the reinforcement and other design details (NSCP Vol. II,
Section 10)
Angles
Fasteners and Bolts
Diaphragm
Shear Connectors
END
46
4.2.3 Design Flow Chart for Reinforced Concrete Port (Lightweight)
START
INPUT:
Material Specification (Philippine Ports Authority – Engineering
Standards for Ports and Harbor Structures)
Concrete Properties
Check for Minimum Design Requirements (NSCP Vol. II – Section 8) for

geometric details.
INPUT:
Geometric Data of Column
Compute for Loads

Moment due to loads
Dead load
Live load
Impact load
Wind load
Wind load in live load
Design Moment (NSCP Vol. II – Section 3.22)
Group (N) =
CHECK FOR ADEQUACY

Flexural (NSCP Vol. II, Section 8.16.3)
Shear (NSCP Vol. II, Section 8.16.6)
Deflection (NSCP Vol. II, Section 8.13)
INPUT:
Beam dimension
Flexural reinforcement
Shear reinforcement
END
47
4.2.4 Design Flowchart for Ground Consolidation
START
INPUT:
Soil Properties
Borehole detail
Time of consolidation
Amount of settlement
Compute for Coefficients and Limit

Coefficient of vertical consolidation
Coefficient of horizontal consolidation
Liquid limit
INPUT ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS:
(If there is lack of data)
Average degree of consolidation
Diameter of equivalent drain
Soil and drain factor
Compute for diameter of drain:
Compute for Spacing

Triangular spacing
Rectangular spacing
END
48
4.2.5 Design Flowchart for Dynamic Compaction
START
INPUT:
Borehole details
Type of fill
Determine compaction parameters based on minimum

values (if there is a lack of data)
Factor K
Height of Drop
Weight of Drop
Compute for Depth of Treatment (Louis Menard Equation)
END
49
4.2.6 Design Flowchart for Grout Compaction
START
INPUT: Soil Property based on Soil Type
Void ratio
Unit weight
Moisture
Determine if Soil is suitable for grouting.

Relative Density
Determine design based on minimum requirement

(if there is a lack of data)
Diameter of grout
Grout hole spacing
Grout quantities
END
50
4.3 Structural and Architectural Plans
The following figures show the structural plans prepared by the designers. These plans were used
by the designers to be able to model and design the building structure using the STAAD Vi8 Pro software
51
52
53
54
4.4. Design Loadings
The following are the different types of design loadings used in the structural analysis of the port.
All these loadings are in accordance to the NSCP Vol. 2 of 2010 and are used to determine the
load combinations. This governing load combination will then be used to calculate the member
forces of the port.
4.4.1. Load Models
The loads considered in this project are the dead load, live load, wind load and seismic loads. Load
combinations were also applied to these loads. The load combinations that were utilized were those that
are written in Section 203 of NSCP 2010.
1.4 (D+F) (203 -1)

1.2(D+F+T)+1.6(L+H)+0.5(Lr or R) (203 -2)
1.2D+1.6(Lr or R) + (flL or 0.8W) (203 -3)
1.2D+ 1.6W +f1 L + 0.5(Lr or R) (203 -4)
1.2D + L0E+ f1 L (203 -5)
0.9D + 1.6W +1.6H (203 -6)
0.9D +1.0E+1.6H (203 -7)
4.4.2. Dead Loads
ROOF
INSULATION, ROOF BOARDS (per mm thickness) 0.004 KPA
POLYSTYRENE FOAM
FRAME PARTITIONS
MOVABLE PARTIONS (STEEL) 0.19 KPA
WOOD OR STEEL STUDS, 13mm GYPSUM BOARD EACH 0.38 KPA
SIDE
Total 4.48 KPA
Table 4.1. Chapter 2 Section 207
4.4.3. Live Load

The designers used the design live loads specified in the National Structural Code of the
Philippines (NSCP) 1997, Vol. 2. This includes vehicular live loading, truck loading, and lane
loading.
55
4.4.4. Wind Loads
Zone Classification Zone 2 Chapter 2 Section 207;
(Basic wind speed) V = 200 kph Table 207-1
Exposure Category Chapter 2 Section
Surface Roughness B (Urban
207.5.6.2
Wind loads Importance Factor, Chapter 2 Section 207;
Occupancy Category
Iw = 1.15 Table 207-3
Wind Directionality Factor Chapter 2 Section 207;
Kd = 0.85
Table 207-2
Topographic Factor Chapter 2 Section
Kzt = 1.0
207.5.7.2
Gust Effect Factor Chapter 2 Section
G = 0.83044 (calculated) or 0.85
207.5.7.8
Exterior Pressure Coefficient Cp = 0.8 Chapter 2 Figure 207-6
Product of Internal Pressure
Coefficient and Gust Effect GCpi = ± 0.55 (partially enclosed
Chapter 2 Figure 207-5
factor building)
Table 4.2. Chapter 2 Section 207
4.4.5. Earthquake Loads
Importance Factor, Iw 1.00 Chapter 2 Section 208;

Table 208-1
Seismic Zone, Z Zone 4, Z = 0.40 Chapter 2 Section 208;
Table 208-3
Soil Profile Type, Type D Chapter 2 Section 208;
Table 208-2
Seismic Source Type C Chapter 2 Section 208;
Table 208-6
NEAR SOURCE FACTOR
Na 1.0 Chapter 2 Section 208;
Table 208-4
Nv 1.0 Chapter 2 Section 208;
Table 208-5
Structural Resiliency for MRF Chapter 2 Section 208;
8.0
System (Steel SMRF) Table 208-11B
Structural Resiliency for MRF Chapter 2 Section 208;
8.5
System (RC SMRF) Table 208-11A
Table 4-3: Chapter 2 Section 208
56
4.5. Design Models
The following figures show the design models of the port which are designed in accordance
to the standards and retrieved from Staad Pro V8i.
Wind Intensity
Wind Intensity
Height (m) Intensity (kPa)

4.5 1.313670039177
6 1.52084004879
Figure 4.6. Wind Load (+X0
57
Figure 4.7. Earthquake Load (+X)
4.5.1 Design Analysis
The following Trade-offs for this project were modeled using a computer software called STAAD.ProV8i
where in the computation for the acting forces of the structure are identified due to the iterations of methods
of the program. Upon specifying the design parameters for each design, the software will perform analysis
and provide valuable data that may contribute in manual computation of the design
4.5.1.1 Reinforced Concrete (Normal Weight) Port Structural Analysis
Table Result for Structural Analysis of Reinforced Concrete (Normal Weight)
58
4.5.1.2 Structural Steel Port Structural Analysis
Table Result for Structural Analysis of Steel Design
4.5.1.3 Reinforced Concrete (Light Weight) Port Structural Analysis
Table Result for Structural Analysis of Precast Concrete (Light Weigth)
Reinforced Concrete (Normal Weight)

Maximum Value of Axial Forces in F=50.997
Columns
Maximum Value of Bending Moments +M=37.105
(Z) in Beams -M=46.268
Steel
Columns
(Z) in Beams -M=52.454 59
Reinforced Concrete (Light Weight)
Columns
(Z) in Beams -M=0.506
4.5.2 Design Details
4.5.2.1. Structural Design
In this section, the beams and columns were designed. The main goal of the structural design of
the members is to know the number of bars and their spacing, and check if the assumed dimensions are
adequate for the structure
4.5.2.1.1 Design Details for Reinforced Concrete (Normal Weight) Port Column
a. Steel Reinforcement
 Tension Reinforcement: 6 – 32 mm dia. bar
 Shear Reinforcement: 10 mm dia. stirrup @ 450 mm spacing on center
 Transverse Reinforcement:
a. bottom = 6 -16 mm diameter bar @ 170 mm spacing per meter width of slab
b. top = 10 -16 mm diameter bar @ 100 mm spacing per meter
 Shrinkage and Temperature Reinforcement:
c. 3 – 10 mm diameter bar @ 350 mm spacing per meter
b. Diaphragm: depth = 670 mm

Spacing = 2000 mm on center
c. Hooks and bend
a. 90 degrees standard hook plus 120 mm bend for stirrups
d. Development length
a. Transverse Reinforcement: bottom = 150 mm
top = 150 mm
b. Tension Reinforcement: 604.7342 mm
c. Shear Reinforcement: 120 mm
e. Splice
1. Tension Reinforcement:600 mm – Class A Splice
4.5.2.1.2 Design Details for Structural Steel Port Column
a. Lateral bracing are not needed according to NSCP Vol. II – Section 10.21.1.
b. Transverse stiffeners are not needed according to NSCP Vol. I – Section 506.6.1
c. Cover plates:
Length of 2.15 meters
60
Thickness of 25 millimeters d Diaphragm
- Spacing of 2 meters
- Depth of 312 millimeters
.d. Fasteners
- Bearing type of connection using high strength bolts.
- Use L90 x 90 x 12 equal legs for angle connection.
- Size of bolt is 25 mm diameter for the angle to diaphragm connection.
Hole dimension of 27 millimeters.
Spacing of 90 millimeter
Washer dimension: Outside diameter: 50.8 mm
Inside Diameter:27 mm
Thickness: 7.92 mm
e. Shear Connectors
- Use headed stud shear connector
- Head diameter of 30 mm with 25 mm body diameter.
- Transverse spacing of 150 mm center to center and 39.3 mm on edge in each side.
- Longitudinal spacing 300 mm center to center and 200 mm on edge in each side.
- Use 144 total number of shear connectors for each girder.
f. Transverse and Longitudinal Reinforcement:
1. Transverse Reinforcement:
 bottom = 6 -16 mm diameter bar @ 170 mm spacing per meter width of slab
 top = 10 -16 mm diameter bar @ 100 mm spacing per meter
 L = 20,300 = 21 M
61
2. Longitudinal Reinforcement:
 – 8 mm diameter bar @ 250 mm spacing per meter
 L = 22M
3. Shrinkage and Temperature Reinforcement:
 – 10 mm diameter bar @ 350 mm spacing per meter
 L = 23 M
4.5.2.1.3 Design Details for Reinforced Concrete (Light Weight) Port Column
f. Steel Reinforcement
 Tension Reinforcement: 8 – 32 mm dia. bar
 Shear Reinforcement: 10 mm dia. stirrup @ 450 mm spacing on center
 Transverse Reinforcement:
a. bottom = 6 -16 mm diameter bar @ 170 mm spacing per meter width of slab
b. top = 10 -16 mm diameter bar @ 100 mm spacing per meter
 Shrinkage and Temperature Reinforcement:
c. 3 – 10 mm diameter bar @ 350 mm spacing per meter
g. Diaphragm: depth = 670 mm

Spacing = 2000 mm on center
h. Hooks and bend
a. 90 degrees standard hook plus 120 mm bend for stirrups
i. Development length
4 Transverse Reinforcement: bottom = 150 mm
top = 150 mm
5 Tension Reinforcement: 604.7342 mm
6 Shear Reinforcement: 120 mm
j. Splice
1. Tension Reinforcement:600 mm – Class A Splice
4.5.2.2. Geotechnical Design
4.5.2.2.1 Grouting Compaction
SOIL PROPERTIES: - Type of Soil:
silty soil Properties of Silt soil are
based on typical values - Saturated Unit Weight: 19 KN/m3

62
- Dry Unit Weight: 16 KN/m3
- Specific Gravity: 2.67
BOREHOLE PROPERTIES:
Borehole 1 - Maximum Water Content: 79%
- Average Water Content: 32.33%

- Void Ratio In-situ: 42%
- Maximum Void Ratio: 64%
- Minimum Void Ratio: 21%
- Relative Density: 51%

- Void Ratio In-situ: 41%
- Maximum Void Ratio: 64%
- Minimum Void Ratio: 18%
- Relative Density 50%
DESIGN DETAILS:
1. Grout mix should be tested by ASTM C 827 for non-shrink grout.

2. Grout diameter:
-Type V2 – 4m diameter at 180L/min
3. Grout spacing of 12 meters
4. Total number of 8 grouts.
4.5.2.2.2 Ground Consolidation Geotechnical Analysis
SUMMARY OF DESIGN PARAMETER:
BOREHOLE 1:
- Liquid Limit = 32.33%

- Coefficient of Horizontal Consolidation = .6 ft2/day
- Coefficient of Vertical Consolidation = .3 ft2/day
- Diameter of the cylinder of the influence drain: triangular pattern = 22.82 ft @ 21.73 ft spacing
square pattern = 22.82 ft @ 20.19 ft spacing
- Time to consolidate 90% of soil = 1 year
BOREHOLE 2:
- Liquid Limit = 29.28%

63
- Coefficient of Horizontal Consolidation = 1 ft2/day
- Coefficient of Vertical Consolidation = 0.5 ft2/day
- Diameter of the cylinder of the influence drain : triangular pattern = 27.69 ft @ 26.37 ft
spacing square pattern =27.69 ft @24.5 ft
spacing
- Time to consolidate 90% of soil = 1 year
4.5.2.2.3. Deep Dynamic Compaction Geotechnical Analysis

Soil Properties: Organic Silt Soil
SUMMARY OF DESIGN DETAILS:

Constant
K = .5 (Rock Fill)
Drop Weight
W = 40 Metric Tons
Drop Height H = 20 meter
64
Spacing between impacts of 4.5 meter for depth of 30 meter.
Use 12 holes for 2 layer of 20 meter width in each embankment.
Depth of Treatment
D = 14.14 meters
4.5.3 Validation of Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards
4.5.3.1 Structural Context Validation of Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards
After the design process, the design results on a specific constraint during the conceptualization
phase has been assessed and evaluated. These constraints greatly affect the output of the design
and small variations in these constraints can lead to a significant change in the final output.
To validate the initial designer‟s raw ranking in Chapter 3, a final cost estimate is presented to
measure the overall ranking of the design trade-offs compared to the initial estimate. These
comparisons show the difference in terms of multiple constraints.
Finals Estimates for the Trade-offs

Constraint Reinforced Concrete Reinforced Concrete
Steel
Economic
(Php) Php 614,230.7 Php 2,726,838 Php 645,271.3
Environmental Cost
(30% of the economic Php 182,635.5 Php 818,051.4 Php 141,959.69
cost) (Php)
Constructability
(Duration - Days) 67 Days 64 Days 67 Days
Risk (Risk Cost) Php 22,800.00 Php 22,800.00 Php 22,800.00
Sustainability
(Maintenace Cost) Php 153,557.68 Php 818,051.4 Php 161,317.75
65
Finals Estimates for the Trade-
offs
Constraint Deep
Ground
Dynamic Grouting Compaction
Consolidation
Compaction
Economic (Cost) PHP 198,259.06 PHP 263,557.37 PHP 203,084.61
Environmental Cost
(30% of the economic PHP 59,477. 718 PHP 19,067.211 PHP 60,925.383
cost) (Php)
Constructability PHP 208,910.00 PHP 106,210.00 PHP 83,460.00
(Duration) (26 Days) (26 Days) (21 Days)
Risk (Risk Cost) Php 12, 000. 00 Php 12, 000. 00 Php 12, 000. 00
Sustainability PHP 62,673.00 PHP 31,863.00 PHP 25,038.00
Computation for Final Designer’s Ranking (Structural)
Computation of Ranking for Economic Constraint:
Steel vs Reinforced Concrete (Normal Weight)
Higher value−Lower value

%Difference= x 10
Higher value
Php 2,726,838−Php 614,230.7

%Difference= x 10
Php 2,726,838
% Difference = 7.75
Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank − %Difference

Subordinate Rank = 10 – 7.75 = 2.25
Reinforced Concrete (Lightweight) vs Reinforced Concrete (Normal Weight)

%Difference= x 10
Higher value
Php 645,271.3−Php 614,230.7

%Difference= x 10
Php 645,271.3
%Difference = 0.48
66
Computation of Ranking for Sustainability Constraint:
Steel vs Reinforced Concrete (Normal Weight)

%Difference= x 10
Higher value
Php 818,051.4−Php153,557.68
%Difference= x 10
Php 818,051.4
%Difference = 8.12
Reinforced Concrete (Lightweight) vs Reinforced Concrete (Normal Weight)

%Difference= x 10
Higher value
Php 161,317.75−Php 153,557.68

%Difference= x 10
Php 161,317.75
%Difference = 0.48
Computation of Ranking for Constructability Constraint:
Reinforced Concrete (Normal Weight) vs Steel

%Difference= x 10
Higher value
67−64
%Difference= x 10
68
%Difference = 0.45
67
Reinforced Concrete (Lightweight) vs Steel

%Difference= x 10
Higher value
67−64
%Difference= x 10
67
%Difference = 0.45
Computation for Final Designer’s Ranking (Geotechnical)
Computation of Ranking for Economic Constraint:
Ground consolidation vs Grouting Compaction

%Difference= x 10
Higher value
PHP 203,084.61−PHP 198,259.06

%Difference= x 10
PHP 203,084.61
%Difference = 0.24

Subordinate Rank = 10 − 0.24 = 𝟗. 𝟕𝟔
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
68
Ground Consolidation vs Deep Dynamic Compaction

%Difference= x 10
Higher value
PHP 263,557.37−PHP 198,259.06

%Difference= x 10
PHP 263,557.37
%Difference = 2.71

Subordinate Rank = 10 − 2.71 = 𝟕. 𝟐𝟗
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Computation of Ranking for Sustainability Constraint:
Grouting Compaction vs Ground Consolidation

%Difference= x 10
Higher value
69
PHP 62,673.00−PHP 25,038.00
%Difference= x 10
PHP 62,673.00
%Difference = 6.01
Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank − % Difference

Subordinate Rank = 10 − 6.01 = 𝟑. 𝟗𝟗
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Grouting Compaction vs Deep Dynamic Compaction

%Difference= x 10
Higher value
PHP 31,863.00−PHP 25,038.00

%Difference= x 10
PHP 31,863.00
%Difference = 2.14

Subordinate Rank = 10 − 2.14 = 𝟕. 𝟖𝟔
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Computation of Ranking for Constructability Constraint:
Grouting Compaction vs. Ground Consolidation

%Difference= x 10
Higher value
PHP 208,910.00−PHP 83,460.00

%Difference= x 10
PHP 208,910.00
%Difference = 3.46
70
Subordinate Rank = 10 − 3.46 = 𝟔. 𝟓𝟒
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Grout Compaction vs Deep Dynamic Compaction

%Difference= x 10
Higher value
PHP 106,210.00−PHP 83.460.00

%Difference= x 10
PHP 106,210.00
%Difference = 1.24

Subordinate Rank = 10 − 1.24 = 𝟖. 𝟕𝟔
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4.5.4 Summary of Final Raw Ranking
Structural:
Decision C riteria Criterion’s Ability to Satisfy the Criterion
Importance
(Scale of 0 to Reinforced Reinforced Structural Steel
10) Concrete (Normal Concrete
Weight) (Lightweight)
Economic 10 10 100 9.52 95.6 2.25 22.5
Constructability 8 9.55 76.4 9.55 76.4 10 80
Sustainability 9 10 90 9.52 85.68 1.88 16.92
Risk Assessment 9 9.52 85.68 10 90 6.54 58.86
Over-all Rank 352.08 347.68 178.28
71
Geotechnical:
Decision Criteria Criterion’s Ability to satisfy criterion

Importance
(scale 0-10)
Ground Deep Dynamic Grout
Consolidation Compaction Compaction
Economic (Cost) 8 10 7.29 9.76
Sustainability 10 3.99 7.86 10
(Lifespan)
Constructability 8 6.54 8.76 10
(Duration)
Overall Rank 172.22 210.36 258.08
4.6 Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analysis is a method to prove that the final design choice is indeed the best choice regardless of
the distribution of importance criterion. In this section, designers will manipulate the values wherein the
given importance criterion for the constraints will be redistributed and the designers will assess whether this
affects the governing tradeoff.
Sensitivity Analysis
Given Importance Factors
Constraint Importance Criterion

Economic 10
Constructability 8
Sustainability 9
Risk Assessment 9
Trial 1
Economic 10
Constructability 9
Sustainability 10
Risk Assessment 10
72
Final Ranking for Trial 1 (Structural)
Decision Criteria Criterion's Ability to Satisfy the Criterion
Importance
(Scale of 0 Reinforced Reinforced Structural Steel
to 10) Concrete (Normal Concrete
Economic 10 10 100 9.52 95.2 2.25 22.5
Constructability 9 9.55 85.95 9.55 85.95 10.00 90
Sustainability 10 10 100 9.52 95.2 1.88 18.8
Risk Assessment 8 9.52 76.16 10 80 6.54 52.32
Over-all Rank 362.11 356.35 183.62
Final Ranking for Trial 1 (Geotechnical)

Importance
(Scale of 0 Ground Deep Dynamic Grout Compaction
to 10) Consolidation Compaction
Economic 10 10 100 7.29 72.9 9.76 97.6
Sustainability 9 6.54 58.86 7.47 67.23 10 90
Risk Assessment 8 10 80 4.11 26.72 7 56
Over-all Rank 278.76 245.45 343.6
The table above shows that despite redistributing value of the importance factors among the constraints,
Normal Weight Reinforced Concrete Design and Grout Compaction still govern as the best choice.
Trial 2
Economic 8
Constructability 10
Sustainability 10
Risk Assessment 9
Final Ranking for Trial 2 (Structural)

Importance
(Scale of 0 Reinforced Reinforced Structural Steel
to 10) Concrete (Normal Concrete
Economic 8 10 80 9.52 76.16 2.25 18
Constructability 9 9.55 85.95 9.55 85.95 10.00 90
Sustainability 10 10 100 9.52 100 1.88 18.8
73
Risk Assessment 9 9.52 85.68 10 90 6.54 58.86
Over-all Rank 351.63 349.11 185.66
Final Ranking for Trial 2 (Geotechnical)

Importance
(Scale of 0 Ground Deep Dynamic Grout Compaction
to 10) Consolidation Compaction
Economic 8 10 80 7.29 58.32 9.76 78.08
Sustainability 10 6.54 65.4 7.47 74.7 10 100
Risk Assessment 9 10 90 4.11 36.99 7 63
Over-all Rank 271.31 213.75 331.08
The table above shows that despite redistributing value of the importance factors among the constraints,
Normal Weight Reinforced Concrete Design and Grout Compaction still govern as the best choice.
CHAPTER V: FINAL DESIGN
Based on the trade-off analysis done in the previous chapter, the designers have come up with the result
for what design to use. For addressing the economic, sustainability, safety, environmental and
constructability constraints the design that will be used is Reinforced Concrete
With the aid of manual computation using Microsoft excel and staad, the designers were able to design a
Port Terminal to control and prevent the congestion that causing delays to passengers going to the
Barangays of Talim Island.
The design analysis for each trade-off is adequate and the final raw ranking and sensitivity analysis were
validated to choose which trade-off fits in the project in Angono Rizal.
Structural Design of Reinforced Concrete Port

Terminal
For Reinforced Concrete Columns

The column with the maximun axial forces was
designed.
The following are the given data.
74
P 5532 kN
My 17.318 kN-m
B 650 mm
T 650 mm
cc 50
D 574
f'c 28 MPa
fy 254 MPa
Φbar 32 mm
Φtie 10 mm
Part 1. Determine the Steel Area and Positioning of

Bars Results
Step 1. Determine the Steel Area and N
bars
ρg = ____, assumed value from 0.02 -
0.04 ρg 0.02
As = ρgAg Ag 422500 mm2
N = As/Abar then determine
actual As As 8450 mm2
804.247
Get actual ρg Abar 7 mm2
Pcap = Φ*0.8*Ag(0.85*f'c*(1-ρg)+fy*ρg) N 12 pcs
actual 0.02284
* If Pcap > P, the dimensions are adequate ρg 3
* If Pcap < P, redesign Φ 0.65
Pcap 6384.12 kN
OK
Step 2. Determine the position of the bars.
Part 2. Checking of Capacity due to Eccentric Load Results

Step 1. Determine if Tension or Compression Controls
fy = 600*(d-c)/c, Solve for c c 403.2787 mm
a = βc β 0.85
Pb = 0.85*f'c*a*b a 342.7869 mm
Pb*(eb+x) = A's*(d-d')+0.85*f'c*a*b*(d-a/2) Pb 5302913 kN
Solve eb in this equation eb 33.039 mm
ex = My/P ex 3.130513 mm
Solve ex in this equation Compression Controls
* If eb > e, Compression Controls, solve for fs
75
* If eb < e, Tension Controls, solve for f's

Step 2. Solve and check for Pcap
Since tension conrtols, f's = 600(c-d')/c c 268.6011 mm
Solve for c and Pcap in the following equations Pcap 2873.398 kN
Pcap(ex+(d-c)) = A'sf's(d-d')+0.85f'c(βc)b(d-βc/2)
Pcap + Asfy = A'sf's + 0.85f'c(βc)b
* If Pcap > P, The dimensions are adequate
* If Pcap < P, Redesign
For Reinforced Concrete Beams

The following are the given data
Mu 46.268 kN-m Es 200000 MPa
Vu 55.5216 kN Ec 24870.06 MPa
f'c 28 MPa n
fy 254 MPa L 5 m
b 400 mm
t 400 mm
d' 97.5 mm
d 302.5 mm
Φbar 25 mm
Φtie 10 mm

Part 1. Computation of Steel Area and Number of Bars
Step 1. Solve for ρmax and Mu(max) RESULTS
ρb = (0.75*0.85*f'c*β1*600)/(fy*(600+fy)
β = 0.85, for f'c < 28 MPa β 0.85
ρmax = ρ = 0.75ρb ρb 0.041968
ω = ρ*fy/f'c ρmax 0.031476
Mu(max) = Φ*f'c*ω*b*(d^2)*(1-.59ω) ω 0.285531
Φ = 0.9 Φ 0.9
* If Mu < Mu(max), design is Singly Reinforced Mu(max) 219.0011 kN-m
* If Mu > Mu(max), design is Doubly Reinforced SINGLY

Step 2. Using Doubly Reinforcement. Solving As1, Mu1, Mu2, and
As2
As1 = ρmax*b*d As1 3808.583 mm2
Mu1 = Mu(max) Mu1 219.0011 kN-m
Mu2 = Mu - Mu1 Mu2 kN-m
76
Mu2 = Φ*As2*fy*(d-d'), Solve for As2 As2 mm2
Step 3. Solve for the Stress of the Compression Steel
C=T
0.85*f'c*a*b = As1*fy, Solve for a a 101.6156 mm
a = βc, Solve for c c 119.5477 mm
f's = 600*(c-d')/c 0 f's 110.6556 MPa
* If f's > fy, A's = As2 0 A's 0 mm2
* If f's < fy, A's = As2*fy/f's

Step 4. Determine the Number of Bars
As = As1 + As2
For Tension N 8 pcs
N = As/Abar, Abar = pi*(Φbar^2)/4 N' 0 pcs
For Compression
N' = A's/Abar, Abar = pi*(Φbar^2)/4

Part 2. Designing the Vertical Stirrup

Step 1. Calculate the Shear Strength by Concrete
(Vc) RESULTS
Vc = sqrt(f'c)*b*d/6
* If Vu > ΦVc, stirrups needed, go to Step II Vc 106.712 kN
* If Vu < ΦVc, but Vu > .5*ΦVc Stirrups needed ΦVc 96.04077 kN
* If Vu < .5*Φ*Vc, stirrups are not needed .5ΦVc 48.02039 kN
Stirrups Needed
Step 2. Calculate the Shear Strength by Stirrup (Vs)
Vn = Vu/Φ Vn 61.69067 kN
Vs = Vn - Vc Vs -45.0213 kN
paramete
* If Vs < 0.67*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, go to Step 3. r 428.9821
* If Vs > 0.67*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, redesign.

Step 3. Spacing of Stirrups
77
Si = Av*fy*d/Vs, Av = pi*(Φtie^2)/4 160 Av 78.53982 mm2
For Smax, 80 Si -130 mm
If Vs < 0.33*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, Smax = d/2 or 600mm (get paramete
* smaller) r 211.2897 mm
If Vs > 0.33*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, Smax = d/4 or 400mm (get
* smaller) Smax1 160 mm
Smax2 mm
Epoxy Light Sf 220 mm
Zinc Normal
Uncoated

Part 3. Development Length

The following are the supplementary
data.
cc 75 mm
Bar Coat Epoxy

Step 1. Determine the Value of the Coefficients (ψt,ψe,ψs,λ) RESULTS
ψt = 1.0 for all other situations
ψe = 1.5 for epoxy-coated bars with cover less than 3d or
6d ψt 1
= 1.2 for all other epoxy-coated bars ψe 1.2
= 1 for uncoated or zinc coated bars ψs 1
ψt = .8 for 20 mm bars and smaller λ 1
= 1 for 25 mm bars and larger
λ = 1 for normal weight concrete
Atr 157.0796 mm2
Step 2. Compute for the development
length Ktr 7.139983
ld = (fy*ψt*ψe*ψs*d)/(1.1*λ*sqrt(f'c)*((cc+Ktr)/d)) ld 398.4453 mm
Ktr = 40*Atr/(S*N), Atr = 2*pi*(Φtie^2)/4

Part 4. Checking the Beam in Deflection
Step 1. Calculate the Gross Moment of Inertia and the Cracking Moment of the Beam
RESULTS
Ig = b(t^3)/12
Mcr = Ig*fr/ϒt, fr = 0.62*λ*sqrt(f'c), yt =
t/2 Ig 2133333333 mm4
78
3.28073162
fr 6 MPa
yt 250 mm
27.9955765
Mcr 4 kN-m
Step 2. Calcualte the Moment of Inertia of the
Cracked Section
63417231.0
Icr = b*(d^3)/12 + nAs(d-c)+nAs'(c-d') Icr 1 mm4

Step 3. Calculate the Effective Moment of Inertia
Ie = ((Mcr/Mu)^3)*Ig + ((1- 521958902.
(Mcr/Mu)^3)*Icr) Ie 3 mm4

Step 4. Determine and Check the
Deflection
Mu = W(L^2)/8, W=____ W 14.80576 kN/m
0.00356424
δ = 5*W*(L^4)/(384*Ec*Ie) δ 5 mm
13.8888888
δmax = L/360 δmax 9 mm
OK

5.1 Design Schedules

The design schedule of the structural members included the investigated dimensions and designed number
of bars with spacing. The following tables below show the design schedule of the project.
5.1.2 Design Schedule of Beams
Table 5.1.. Beam Schedule
Mark Beam Size Main Reinforcements Tie Wires
79
Compression Φ tie
spacing
B1 400mm X400mm 8 pcs - 25mm bars 10mm 0.6 mm
5.1.3 Design Schedule of Columns
Table5.2. Column Schedule
Main Reinforcements Tie Wires

Mark Column Size Remarks
Compression Φ tie spacing
GF to Roof
Truss
C1 650mm X650mm 10 pcs - 32mm bars 10mm 480 mm
5.1.4 Beam Details

a. Steel Reinforcement
5.1.5 Column Details
80
Figure5.2. Column Details
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: CODES AND STANDARDS
National Building Code of the Philippines (NBC)

The following are the sections and codes that are followed in conceptualizing and designing the structural
plan of the apartment building:
 Section 401. Types of Construction
Type I. The structural elements may be any of the materials permitted by this Code.
 Section 701. Occupancy Classified.

Group B. Residentials, Hotels and Apartments
 Section 805. Ceiling Heights.

Habitable rooms provided with artificial ventilation have\ ceiling heights not less than 2.40 meters
measured from the floor to the ceiling; Provided that for buildings of more than one-storey, the
minimum ceiling height of the first storey shall be 2.70 meters and that for the second storey 2.40
meters and succeeding storeys shall have an unobstructed typical head-room clearance of not less
81
than 2.10 meters above the finished floor. Above stated rooms with a natural ventilation shall have
ceiling height not less than 2.70 meters.
 Section 806. Size and Dimensions of Rooms.

Minimum sizes of rooms and their least horizontal dimensions shall be as follows:
1. Rooms for Human Habitations. 6.00 square meters with at least dimensions of 2.00
2. Kitchens. 3.00 square meters with at least dimension of 1.50 meters;
3. Bath and toilet. 1.20 square meters with at least dimension of 0.90 meters.
 Section 808. Window Openings.

Every room intended for any use, not provided with artificial ventilation system as herein specified
in this Code, shall be provided with a window or windows with a total free area of openings equal to
at least ten percent of the floor area of room, and such window shall open directly to a court, yard,
public street or alley, or open water courses.
 Section 1207. Stairs, Exits and Occupant Loads.
General. The construction of stairs and exits shall conform to the occupant load requirements of
buildings, reviewing stands, bleachers and grandstands:
7 Determinations of Occupant Loads. The Occupant load permitted in any building or portion
thereof shall be determined by dividing the floor area assigned to that use by the unit area allowed
per occupant as determined by the Secretary.
8 Exit Requirements. Exit requirements of a building or portion thereof used for different purposes
shall be determined by the occupant load which gives the largest number of persons. No
obstruction shall be placed in the required width of an exit except projections permitted by this
Code.
National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2010

Notation
A g = gross area of section, mm2.
A s = area of nonprestressed tension reinforcement, mm 2.
A s ,min = minimum amount of flexural reinforcement, mm 2.
A st = total area of nonprestressed longitudinal reinforcement (bars and steel shapes), mm 2.
A v = area of shear reinforcement within a distance s, mm2.
82
A vf = area of shear-friction reinforcement, mm 2.
A ' s = area of compression reinforcement, mm 2.
b = width of compression face of member, mm.

b w = web width, mm.
c = distance from extreme compression fiber to neutral axis, mm.

c c = clear cover from the nearest surface in tension to the surface of the flexural tension reinforcement,
mm.
C m = a factor relating actual moment diagram to an equivalent uniform moment diagram.
D = dead loads, or related internal moments and forces.

d = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension reinforcement, mm.
d ' = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of compression reinforcement, mm.
d b = nominal diameter of bar, wire, or prestressing strand, mm.
d c = thickness of concrete cover measure from extreme tension fiber to center of bar or wire located
closest thereto, mm.
d s = distance from extreme tension fiber to centroid of tension reinforcement, mm.
d t = distance from extreme compression fiber to extreme tension steel, mm.
E = load effects of earthquake, or related internal moments and forces.

Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete, MPa.
E s = modulus of elasticity of reinforcement, MPa.
EI = flexural stiffness of compression member, N-mm 2.

F = loads due to weight and pressures of fluids with well defined densities and controllable maximum
heights, or related internal moments and forces.
f ' c = specified compressive strength of concrete, MPa.
f y = specified yield strength of nonprestressed reinforcement, MPa.
f yt = specified yield strength fy
H = loads due to weight and pressure of soil, water in soil, or other materials, or related internal moments
and forces.
h = overall thickness of member, mm.
I = moment of inertia of section beam about the centroidal axis, mm 4.
83
I cr = moment of inertia of cracked section transformed to concrete, mm 4.
I e = effective moment of inertia for computation of deflection, mm 4.
I g = moment of inertia of gross concrete section about centroidal axis, neglecting reinforcement, mm 4.
L = live loads, or related internal moments and forces.

Ld = development length, mm.
l n = length of clear span measured face-to-face of supports, mm.
M a = maximum moment in member at stage deflection is computed.
M cr = cracking moment.
Pb = nominal axial load strength at balanced strain conditions
Pn = nominal axial load strength at given eccentricity.
V c = nominal shear strength provided by concrete
W = wind load, or related integral moments and forces.

w c = unit weight of concrete, kN/m 3.
w u = factored load per unit length of beam or per unit area of slab.
α f = ratio of flexural stiffness of beam section to flexural stiffness of a width of slab bounded laterally by
center line of adjacent panle, if any on each side of beam.
α fm = average value of α f for all beams on edges of a panel.
β 1 = factor
ε t = net tensile strain in extreme tension steel at nominal strength.
λ = modification factor reflection the reduced mechanical properties of lightweight concrete.

λ Δ = multiplier for additional long-time deflection ρ = ration of nonprestressed tension reinforcement =
A s /bd
ρ ' = ratio of nonprestressed compression reinforcement = A ' s /bd

ρb = reinforcement ratio producing balanced strain conditions
Φ = strength-reduction factor.
The following are the sections and codes that are followed in conceptualizing and designing the structural
plan of the apartment building:
 Section 203 - Combination of Load
84
a.Minimum densities for design loads from materials
b.Minimum design loads
c. Minimum uniform and concentrated live loads
 Section 206 - Other Minimum Loads

a.206.3 Impact loads
b.206.3.1 Elevators
c. 206.3.2 Machinery
 Section 207 - Wind Load

a. 207.5.10 Velocity Pressure
b. 207.5.6.6 Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficient
c. 207.5.7.2 Topographic Factor
d. 207.5.4.4 Wind Directionality Factor
e. 207.5.6 Exposure
 Section 208 - Earthquake Loads

a. 208.5.1.1 Earthquake Loads
b. 208.5.2.1 Design Base Shear
c. 208.5.2.2 Structure Period
Wind Load
Section 207.5.4 Wind Directionality Factor
The wind directionality factor, K d, shall be determined form Table 207-2. This factor Shall only be applied
when used in conjunction with load combinations specified in Section 203.3 and 203.4.
 Section 207.5.5 Importance factor
An importance factor Iw, for the building or other structure shall be determined from Table 207-3
based on building and structure categories listed in Table 103-1.
 Section 207.5.6 Exposure
For each wind direction considered, the upwind exposure category shall be based on ground
surface roughness that is determined from natural topography, vegetation, and constructed
facilities.
 Section 207.5.7 Topographic factor
The wind speed up effect shall be included in the calculation of design wind loads by using the
factor kzt. If site conditions and locations of structures do not meet all the conditions specified in
Section 207.5.7.1 the kzt= 1.0
85
 Section 207.5.8 Gust Effect factor
The gust effect factor shall be calculated as permitted in Sections 207.5.8.1 to 207.5.8.5, using
appropriate values for natural frequency and damping ratio as permitted in Section 207.5.8.6.
 Section 207.5.9 Enclosure Classifications
For the purpose of determining internal pressure coefficients, all buildings shall be classified as
enclosed, partially enclosed, or open as defined in Section 207.2.
Section 207.5.10 Velocity Pressure
Velocity pressure, qz, evaluated at height z shall be calculated by the following equation qz=
47.3x10-6 kz kzt kd V2 Iw.
 Section 207.5.11 Pressure and Force Coefficients

Internal Pressure Coefficients, GCpi, shall be determined from fig. 207-5 based on building
enclosure classifications determined from Section 207.5.9
 Section 207.5.12 Rigid Building for all heights

Design wind pressures for the MWFRS of a buildings of all heights shall be determined by the
following equation;
P= qGCP – qi(GCPi)
 Section 207.5.13 Design Wind Loads on Open Buildings with Monoslope, Pitched, or Troughed
Roofs
Plus and minus signs signify pressure acting toward and away from the top surface of the roof,
respectively.
 Section 207.5.14 Design Wind Loads on Solid Freestanding Walls and Solid Signs
The design wind force for solid freestanding walls and solid signs shall be determined by the
following formula:
F= qhGCfAs
 Section 207.5.15 Design Wind Loads on other Structures
The design wind force for other structures shall be determined by the following equation:
F=qzGfCfAf
Earthquake Load
 Section 208.5.1 Earthquake Loads and Modeling Requirements

Structures shall be designed for ground motion producing structural response and seismic forces in
any horizontal direction. The following earthquake loads shall be used in the load combinations set
forth in Section 203:
E= ρEh + Eb
86
 Section 208.5.2 Static Force Procedure
Section 208.5.2.1
The total design base shear in a given direction shall be determined form the following equation:
V= CvI (W)
RT
The total design base shear need not exceed the following:
V= 2.5CaI (W)
R
The Base Shear shall not be less than the following:
V= .11CaIW
 Section 208.5.2.2
The value of T shall be determined using the following method:
Determine the structure period T using Method A
T = Ct (hn)3/4
The following are the tables used in each design computations:
Stone Concrete Fill 1.53 Kpa

Gypsum Board 0.2 Kpa
Suspended Steel Channel 0.1 Kpa
Mechanical Duct Allowance 0.2 Kpa
Terrazo 1.53 Kpa
Grout 0.11 Kpa
CHB 1.65 Kpa
Clay Dry 0.6435 Kpa
Water Proofing 0.05 Kpa
Cement Finish 1.53 pa
Table 204-1 Minimum Densities for Design Loads from Materials
87
Material Density (KN/m3)
Masonry, Concrete 16.5
Table 204-2 Minimum Design Dead Loads
Basic Floor Area 1.9 Kpa

Roof Live Load 1.9 Kpa
Table 205-1 Minimum Uniform Concentrated Live Loads
Occupancy Category Seismic Importance Factor I Seismic Importance Factor Ip

I. Essential facilities 1.5 1.5
II. Hazardous facilities 1.25 1.5
III. Special Occupancy Structures 1 1
IV. Standard Occupancy Strutures 1 1
V. Miscellaneous Structures 1 1
Table 208-1 Seismic Importance Factors
Soil Profile Soil Profile Name Ave. Properties for Top 30 m Soil Profile
Shear Wave Velocity SPT Undrained Shear Strenght
SA Hard Rock >1500

SB Rock 760 to 1500
Sc Very Dense Soil 360 to 760 >50 >100
SD Stiff Soil Profile 180 to 360 15 to 50 50 to 100
SE Soft Soil Profile <180 <15 <50
SF Soil Requiring Site-Specific Evaluation See Section 208.4.3.1
Table 208-2 Soil Profile Types
Zone 2 4
Z 0.2 0.4
88
Table 208-3 Seismic Zone Factor Z
Seismic Source Closest Distance to Known

Type Seismic Source
≤ 5 Km ≥10 Km
A 1.2 1
B 1 1
C 1 1
Table 208-4 Near-Source factor Na
Seismic Source Closest Distance to Known

Type Seismic Source
≤ 5 Km 10 Km ≥15 Km
A 1.6 1.2 1
B 1.2 1 1
C 1 1 1
Table 208-5 Near-Source factor Nv
Seismic Zone
Soil Profile Type 2 4
Z=0.2 Z=0.4
SA 0.16 .32Na
SB 0.2 .40Na
Sc 0.24 .40Na
SD 0.28 .44Na
SE 0.34 .44Na
SF See Footnote 1 of Table 208-8
Table 208-7 Seismic Coefficient, Ca
Seismic Zone
Soil Profile Type 2 4
89
Z=0.2 Z=0.4
SA 0.16 .32Na
SB 0.20 .40Na
Sc 0.32 .56Na
SD 0.40 .64Na
SE 0.64 .96Na
SF See Footnote 1 of Table 208-8
Table 208-8 Seismic Coefficient, Cv
System Limitation and

Basic Seismic Force Resisting System R Ω0 Building Limitation
Zone 2 Zone 4
C. Moment Resisting Frame
Special reinforced concrete moment 8.5 2.8 NL NL
frames
Table 208-11A Earthquake Force –Resisting Structural Systems of Concrete
Zone Classification Province

(Basic Wind Speed)
Zone 2 National Capital
V=200 kph Region
Table 207-1 Wind Zone for the Different Provinces of the Philippines
Directionality
Structural Type factor Kd
Buildings
°Main Wind Force Resisting System 0.85
°Components and Cladding 0.85
Arched Roof
Chimneys, Tanks, and Similar Structures
°Square 0.9
°Hexagonal 0.95
°Round 0.95
Soild Signs 0.85
Open Signs and Lattice Framework 0.85
Trussed Towers
°Triangular. Square, rectangular 0.85
°All other cross sections 0.95
Table 207-2 Wind Directionality factor
90
Occupancy Description Iw
Category
I Essential 1.15
II Hazardous 1.15
III Special Occupancy 1.15
IV Standard Occupancy 1
V Miscellaneous 0.87
Table 207-3 Importance factor Iw
Exposure (Note 1)
B C D
Height above Ground Level (m) Case 1 Case 2 Cases 1& 2 Cases 1&2
0-4.5 0.7 0.57 0.85 1.03
6 0.7 0.62 0.9 1.08
7.5 0.7 0.66 0.94 1.12
9 0.7 0.7 0.98 1.16
12 0.76 0.76 1.04 1.22
15 0.81 0.81 1.09 1.27
18 0.85 0.85 1.13 1.31
Table 207-4 Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficients
91
APPENDIX B: INITIAL ESTIMATES
Initial Estimates
Structural Trade-offs
Economic Constraint (Material Cost)
Inputs:
Average cost per square meter of non-residential constructions is Php 9,210.00
Plan Area = 40 x 10 sq. m
Reinforced Concrete Design (Pure Lightweight Concrete) is 13.9% cheaper than Normal Concrete
Structural Steel Design is= 38.19% higher than Normal Weight Concrete
1. Reinforced Concrete Design (Normal Weight Concrete)

Cost =Ave .Cost per SQM x Area x No. of Floors
¿ Php 9,210 x 400 sqm
Cost =Php3,684,000.00
2. Reinforced Concrete Design (Pure Lightweight Concrete)

Cost =Php3,684,000.00 x 0.139
¿ Php512,076.00
¿ Php3,684,000.00−512,076.00
Cost =Php3,171,924.00
3. Structural Steel Design

Cost =Php3,684,000.00 x 0.3819
¿ Php1 , 406,919.6
¿ Php3,684,000.00+1,406,919.6
Cost =Php5,090,919.60
Constructability Constraint (Duration and Labor Cost)

Inputs:
Minimum Wage in CALABARZON = Php 317.00 to 400.00 (non-agriculture)
RCD (Normal Weight) = 230 days
RCD (Lightweight) = 190 days
Steel = 160 days
1. Reinforced Concrete (Normal Weight)

Cost =Duration x Min .Wage x No. of Workers
¿ 230 days x Php 350.00 x 20
Cost =Php1 , 680 , 000.00
2. Reinforced Concrete (Lightweight)
Cost =190 days x Php 350.00 x 20
92
Cost =Php1 , 330,000.00

Cost =160 days x Php 350.00 x 20
Cost =Php1 , 280,000.00
Sustainability Constraint (Lifespan and Maintenance Cost)

Inputs:
RCD (Normal Wt.) = 50-year lifespan
RCD (Pure Ltwt) = 50-year lifespan
Steel = 47-year lifespan
1. Reinforced Concrete Design (Normal Weight Concrete)

Lifespan
Cost =5 % Material Cost x years
10
¿ Php3,684,000.00 x 0.05 x 5
Cost =Php 921,000.00
2. Reinforced Concrete Design (Pure Lightweight Concrete)

Cost =Php3,171,924.00 x 0.05 x 5
Cost =Php792,981.00
Cost =Php5,090,919.60 x 0.05 x 4.7
Cost =Php1,196,366.106
APPENDIX C: FINAL ESTIMATES

93
FINAL ESTIMATES COMPUTATION FOR CONTEXT I
b t L Quantity Volume
B-1 FINAL
400 ESTIMATE 400 COST ESTIMATE
5 – REINFORCED
16 12.8 CONCRETE NORMAL WEIGHT
C-1 650 650 4 CONCRETE
18 WORKS
30.42
TOTAL VOLUME 43.22 SAN GRAVE
Member L b t pcs V CEMENT D L
3
Assuming that 500% (m) of Total (m)
Volume of (m)
Concrete Works is equal(mto)Total Man(bags)
Days, (m) (m)
AddingB-1200% For Rebar
5 Works0.4and 350%0.4For 16 12.8 115.2 6.4 12.8
C-1
Finishing 4 0.65 0.65 18 30.42 273.78 15.21 30.42
TOTAL 388.98 21.61 43.22
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 5(43.22) + 2(43.22) +
3.5(43.22) PRICES
ITEM TOTAL
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 541 per pc ITEM LABOR
days
CEMEN 101134.
T 388.98 bags 260 8 40453.92 GRAND
Given that
SAND there will
21.61 be 8 workers
m 3
50 1080.5 432.2 TOTAL
TOTAL
GRAVEL MAN DAYS
43.22 = 68 Days m 3
800 34576 13830.4
136791.
TOTAL PRICE 3 54716.52 191507.8
REBAR WORKS
BAR Ø As L N- Total W
Member N bars
(mm) (mm )2
(m) members (kg)
490.873
B-1 25 9 7 8 16 3408.628
804.247
10
C-1 32 7 3 18 3365.777
PRICE
ITEM TOTAL
per kg ITEM LABOR TOTAL
6774.40 35226 70453.8
Steel 5 52 9 1 422722.9
TOTAL COST 614230.7
TOTAL MAN DAYS

94
FINAL COST ESTIMATE – REINFORCED CONCRETE LIGHT WEIGHT
CONCRETE WORKS
SAN GRAVE
Member L b t pcs V CEMENT D L
3
(m) (m) (m) (m ) (bags) (m) (m)
B-1 5 0.4 0.4 16 12.8 115.2 6.4 12.8
C-1 4 0.65 0.65 18 30.42 273.78 15.21 30.42
TOTAL 388.98 21.61 43.22
PRICES
ITEM TOTAL
per pc ITEM LABOR
CEMEN 123306.
T 388.98 bags 317 7 49322.66 GRAND
SAND 21.61 m3 50 1080.5 432.2 TOTAL
GRAVEL 43.22 m3 800 34576 13830.4
158963.
TOTAL PRICE 2 63585.26 222548.4
REBAR WORKS
BAR Ø As L N- Total W
Member N bars
(mm) (mm2) (m) members (kg)
490.873
B-1 25 9 7 8 16 3408.628
804.247
10
C-1 32 7 3 18 3365.777
PRICE
ITEM TOTAL
per kg ITEM LABOR TOTAL
6774.40 35226 70453.8
Steel 5 52 9 1 422722.9
TOTAL COST 645271.3
b t L Quantity Volume
B-1 400 400 5 16 12.8
C-1 650 650 4 18 30.42
TOTAL VOLUME 43.22
Assuming that 500% of Total Volume of Concrete Works is equal to Total Man Days,
Adding 200% For Rebar Works and 350% For
Finishing
95
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 5(43.22) + 2(43.22) +
3.5(43.22)
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 541
days
Given that there will be 8 workers

TOTAL MAN DAYS = 68 Days
FINAL COST ESTIMATES - STEEL TRADE OFF

SMRF
Section Total Length (m) Weight (kg/m) Unit Cost (Php/kg) Cost (Php)
W 12X65
(Beam) 80 96.85 102.4 793,395
W 14X176
(Column) 72 262.24 102.4 1,933,443
TOTAL 2,726,838
Maintenance Cost
Material Cost Factor (5%) Life Span/10 Years Maintenance Cost
Trade-off1 ₱614,230.7 0.05 5 ₱153,557.68
Trade-off2 ₱2,726,838 0.05 6 ₱818,051.4
Trade-off3 ₱645,271.3 0.05 5 ₱161,317.75
Cost of Risk
Displacement Cost per mm Cost of
(mm) displacement Risk
Trade-off1 1.14 ₱20,000.00 ₱22,800.00
Trade-off2 1.11 ₱20,000.00 ₱22,200.00
Trade-off3 1.14 ₱20,000.00 ₱22,800.00
96
APPENDIX D: FINAL ESTIMATES COMPUTATION FOR CONTEXT II
D.1. Final Cost Estimates for Ground Consolidation
D.1.1 Economic Final Cost Estimates
Ground Consolidation cost: PHP 305.00/cubic yard

Area: 440 sqm = 575.498 cubic yard
Total Cost = PHP 265.00 575.498
Total Material Cost = PHP 152,506.97
Labor Cost = 30% of the Total Material Cost
Labor Cost = 30% PHP 152,506.97 = PHP 45,752.09
𝐓𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐬𝐭 = 𝐏𝐇𝐏 𝟏𝟗𝟖, 𝟐𝟓𝟗. 𝟎𝟔𝟓
D.1.2.Constructability Final Cost Estimates
Task Description Duration (days) Resource Cost Total Cost (Php)
Chain Driven 4 PHP 8,500.00 PHP 34,000.00

Cable Pull-down 5 PHP 12,000.00 PHP 60,000.00
Direct Hammer 2 PHP 16,000.00 PHP 32,000.00
Inside Mandrel w/ Enlarged Shoe 3 PHP 2,500.00 PHP 7,500.00
Jet Probe 4 PHP 3,800.00 PHP 15,200.00
Static Vibratory 3 PHP 1,500.00 PHP 4,500.00
Finishing 5 PHP 1,500.00 PHP 7,500.00
TOTAL DAYS 26 MATERIAL COST PHP 160,700.00
LABOR COST PHP 48,210.00
TOTAL COST PHP 208,910.00
97
D.1.3.Sustainability Final Cost Estimates
SUSTAINABILTY COST: 30% OF THE TOTAL COST

Total Cost: PHP 208,910.00
Sustainability Cost: PHP 208,910.00 (0.3)
TOTAL SUSTAINABILITY COST = PHP 62,673.00
References: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/geotech/pubs/nhi16027.pdf
http://www.epa.ie/licences/lic_eDMS/090151b2805f4ceb.pdf
D.2. Final Cost Estimates for Deep Dynamic Compaction
D.2.1. Economic Final Cost Estimates

Deep Dynamic Compaction grouting cost: PHP 352.28/cubic yard
Total Cost = PHP 352.28 575.498
𝐓𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐬𝐭 = 𝐏𝐇𝐏 𝟐𝟔𝟑, 𝟓𝟓𝟕. 𝟑𝟕
D.2.2. Constructability Final Cost Estimates
Slope Instability 4 PHP 5,000.00 PHP 20,000.00

Settlement 5 PHP 3,500.00 PHP 17,500.00
Liquefaction 2 PHP 2,000.00 PHP 4,000.00
Contamination 3 PHP 1,500.00 PHP 4,500.00
Slope Protection 4 PHP 2,300.00 PHP 9,200.00
Adjacent structures 3 PHP 3,000.00 PHP 9,000.00
Surface Stabilizing 5 PHP 3,500.00 PHP 17,500.00
98
D.2.3. Sustainability Final Cost Estimates

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305384064_Benefit-
Cost_Analysis_and_Application_of_Intelligent_Compaction_for_Transportation
D.3. Final Cost Estimates for Grout Compaction
D.3.1. Economic Final Cost Estimates

Low mobility grout (LMG) grouting cost: PHP 271.45/cubic yard
Total Cost = PHP271.45 575.498
𝐓𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐬𝐭 = 𝐏𝐇𝐏 𝟐𝟎𝟑, 𝟎𝟖𝟒. 𝟔𝟏
99
D.3.2. Constructability Final Cost Estimates

Problem soils 4 PHP 2,300.00 PHP 9,200.00
D.3.3. Sustainability Final Cost Estimates

Problem soils 4 PHP 2,300.00 PHP 9,200.00

Total Cost: PHP 83,460.00
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305384064_Benefit-
Cost_Analysis_and_Application_of_Intelligent_Compaction_for_Transportation
211
APPENDIX E.DESIGN OF GEOTECHNICAL TRADE-OFFS
E.1. Design of Ground Consolidation using Prefabricated Drains
Notations:
t = time required to achieve desired average degree of consolidation
dc = diameter of the cylinder of influence of the drain (drain influence zone)
ch = coefficient of consolidation for horizontal drainage
F(n) = drain spacing factor

Fs = Soil disturbance factor (smear zone)
Fr = Well resistance factor
Uh = average degree of consolidation due to horizontal drainage (90%-95%)
BORING PROFILE:
A. BOREHOLE 1
Summary of borehole details: (Data from DPWH)
Depth (m) n-values (water content)
1.5 23
3 28
4.5 26
6 31
7.5 7
9 6
10.5 6
12 5
13.5 0
15 6
16.5 35
18 42
19.5 64
21 71
22.5 63
24 62
25.5 74
27 79
28.5 93/20
30 96/25
212
DEPTH OF BOREHOLE = 30 meter or 98.42 ft
Liquid Limit = Average of Moisture Content
23+28+26+31+7+6+6+5+6+35+42+64+71+63+62+74+79+ 93 96
20 +25+0
Liquid Limit = = 32.33%
20
 Some assumptions are made in this design because of the lack of data.
 This method will only be effective for rough
estimation Total settlement = 12 inch for 10 years
Time Needed to Accelerate the Settlement: within 1 year
 Formula relating time to the drain dimension: (USDoT - Ground Modification Methods Reference
Manual – Vol. 1)
𝑐2 1
𝑡 = 𝑑 [𝐹 𝑛 + 𝐹 + ]ln⁡[ ]
𝑠 𝑟
8𝑐𝑕 1 − 𝑢𝑕
𝑑𝑐 whrere d = 2.5 inch
𝐹 𝑛 = ln − .75 w
𝑑𝑤
Uh = 90%
Typical project: Fs and Fr are ignored.
Cv = .3 ft2/day from table
Ch = 2Cv = 2(.3) = .6 ft2/day
𝑐2
𝑑𝑐
365 = 𝑑 [(ln − .75 ) + 𝐹 + ]ln⁡[ 1 ]
𝑠 𝑟
8(.6) 2.5 1 − .9
dc = 22.82 ft @ 21.73 ft spacing for equilateral triangular pattern
dc = 22.82 ft @ 20.19 ft spacing for square pattern
B. BOREHOLE 2
213
Depth (m) n-values (water content)
1.5 24
3 21
4.5 27
6 30
7.5 6
9 6
10.5 6
12 4
13.5 0
15 5
16.5 41
18 45
19.5 68
21 73
22.5 66
24 73
25.5 74
27 80
28.5 96/20
30 95/20
DEPTH OF BOREHOLE = 30 meters or 98.42 ft

Liquid Limit = Average of Moisture Content
24+21+27+30+6+6+6+4+5+41+45+68+73+66+73+74+80+ 96 +95
20 20+0
Liquid Limit = = 29.28 %
 Some assumptions are made in this design because of the lack of data.
 This method will only be effective for rough
estimation Total settlement = 12 inch for 10 years
Time Needed to Accelerate the Settlement: 1 year
 Formula relating time to the drain dimension: (USDoT - Ground Modification Methods Reference
Manual – Vol. 1)
𝑐2 1
𝑡 = 𝑑 [𝐹 𝑛 + 𝐹 + ]ln⁡[ ]
214
𝑠 𝑟
8𝑐𝑕 1 − 𝑢𝑕
𝑑𝑐 where d = 2.5 inch
𝐹 𝑛 = ln − .75 w
𝑑𝑤
Uh = 90%
Typical project: Fs and Fr are ignored.
Cv =.5 ft2/day from table
Ch = 2(.5) = 1 ft2/day
dc = 27.69 ft @ 26.37 ft spacing for equilateral triangular pattern
dc = 27.69 ft @ 24.50 ft spacing for square pattern
215
E.2. Design of Dynamic Compaction
Notations:
D = Depth of Treatment (m)
K = Soil constant that varies with respect to soil type
W = Weight of drop in (metric tons)
H = Height of drop (m)

SP, SM, SC = Sandy soil
ML, MH = Silty soil

CL, CH = Clayey Soil
Borehole Details:
C. BOREHOLE 1
Depth (m) USCS (Soil Type)
1.5 SP
3 SP-SM
4.5 SM
6 SM
7.5 SM
9 ML
10.5 CH
12 CH
13.5 CL
15 ML
16.5 ML
18 ML
19.5 ML
21 MH
22.5 ML
24 ML
25.5 ML
27 SM
28.5 ML
30 SC-SM
BOREHOLE 2
Depth (m) USCS (Soil Type)
1.5 SP
3 SP-SM
4.5 SM
6 SM
7.5 SM
9 ML
10.5 CH
12 CH
13.5 CL
15 ML
16.5 ML
18 ML
19.5 ML
21 MH
22.5 ML
24 ML
25.5 ML
27 SM
28.5 ML
30 SC-SM
Design Parameters:
 The result will be used for both boreholes because of almost same soil properties based on
borehole details which Is inorganic silt.
- Constant (K): 0.35 = Stiff Clay Fill

0.40 = Old Refuse Fill
0.50 = Rock Fill
0.50 = Hard Fill
- Drop Weight Range:

15 – 40 metric tonnes
 Use maximum weight for faster work.
- Drop Height Range:
10 – 30 meters
 Use average drop height of 20 meters to make up with huge load.
- Spacing of 4.5 meters for typical application of dynamic compaction for depths up top 30 meters.
- After every 1 meter depth of soil depth the hole is backfilled then compacted again.
- Depth of Treatment: (Louis Menard Equation)
D = K WH
D = 0.5 40kg 20meter = 𝟏𝟒. 𝟏𝟒 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭

E.3. Design of Compaction Grouting Notations:
emax = void ratio at loosest state
emin = void ratio at densest state
e = void ratio of soil
ϒm = unit weight of soil
ϒd = unit weight of dry soil
ϒsat = unit weight of saturated soil
Dr = relative density
SOIL PROPERTIES: - Type of Soil: silty soil
Properties of Silt soil are based on typical values - Saturated Unit Weight: 19 KN/m3
A. Checking for suitability of soil:

emax − emin
Dr =
emax − emin
- emax
1. Borehole 1
γm kn
γd = ; γm = γd 1 + MC = 16 . 79 + 1 = 28.64
1 + MC
m3
220
G + GMC G + GMC γw − γm
γm = γw ; emax 1 = = .64
γm
2. Borehole 1+e
γ kn
2 γ ; = 1 + MC =
1 + MC
16 . 8 + 1 =
28.80
G+γγGMC m3
md
G +
GMC
γw −
γm
γ = .64
1 γm
- em
m +
i =
n e
1. B
;
o
r
e ema
x2
h
o =
l
e
1
e 1. Bo G +
re γm GMC
2. B 1 hol =
e1 1+
o γw
r e
e ;
h emin
o2. B γm
1=
l o =
e r
2 e
h G +
γm GMC
o
=
l
1+
-e e γw
e
1. B 2 ;
o emax
r γm
= 2=
e
h - G +
o D GMC
l r
221
G  Th
G + 1M
GMC
GC+γwGMC
= e
. soil
+ − γ 21 on
1
+γm w bot
− h
e γm
bor
eh
γγ γ =
ww
ole
G + GMC m . is
;
; γw γ 18 me
diu
e− m m
emγm
max
de
i 2 γm nse
n= = the
. n
1
42 gro
G + GMC
= γw utin
g is
− pos
γm sibl
G = e.
+ γm .
41
Dr = e .
m
6
4
ax −
− .
4
e 2
=
e 51
.6
− 4 −
.2
e 1
2. B min
Dr = e .
m
6
4
ax −
− .
4
e 1
e =
5 .
6
− 4 −
.1
e 8
max min
222
B. Design Details: (Compaction Grouting Guide - Committee of the Geo-Institute of the ASCE 2007)
 Dimension and sizes used are based on average and minimum requirements due to lack of data of
in- situ soil.
1. The grout that will be used should be evaluated by ASTM C 827 to have non-shrink grout at the plastic
state.
2. Mass diameter (Grout)
- Use Type V2 with 4 meter diameter at 180L/min.
3. Grout Hole Spacing
S = 3(mass diameter) = 3(4m) = 12 meter
4. Grout Quantities
- Use a total of 8 grout – 4 on each embankment
Appendix J: Design for Grout Compaction

Notations:
emax = void ratio at loosest state

emin = void ratio at densest state
e = void ratio of soil
ϒm = unit weight of soil
ϒd = unit weight of dry soil
ϒsat = unit weight of saturated soil
Dr = relative density
SOIL PROPERTIES: - Type of Soil: silty soil

Properties of Silt soil are based on typical values - Saturated Unit Weight: 19 KN/m3


C. Checking for suitability of soil:
𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝐷𝑟 =
𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛
- emax
1. Borehole 1
𝛾𝑚 𝑘𝑛
𝛾𝑑 = ; 𝛾𝑚 = 𝛾𝑑 1 + 𝑀𝐶 = 16 . 79 + 1 = 28.64
1 + 𝑀𝐶 3
𝐺 + 𝐺𝑀𝐶 𝐺 + 𝐺𝑀𝐶 𝛾𝑤 − 𝛾𝑚
𝛾𝑚 = 𝛾𝑤 ; 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 1 = = .64
1+𝑒 𝛾𝑚
2. Borehole
2
𝛾𝑚 𝑘𝑛
𝛾𝑑 = ; 𝛾𝑚 = 𝛾𝑑
1 + 𝑀𝐶 1 + 𝑀𝐶 = 16 . 8 + 1 = 28.80
𝑚3
𝐺 + 𝐺𝑀𝐶 𝐺 + 𝐺𝑀𝐶 𝛾𝑤 − 𝛾𝑚
𝛾𝑚 = 𝛾𝑤 ; 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 2 = = .64
1+𝑒 𝛾𝑚
- emin
1. Borehole
1
𝐺 + 𝐺𝑀𝐶 𝐺 + 𝐺𝑀𝐶
𝛾𝑚 = 𝛾𝑤 ; 𝛾𝑤 ;
1+𝑒 1+𝑒
- Dr 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 1 = 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 2 =
2. Borehole
2
𝛾𝑚 = 𝐺 + 𝐺𝑀𝐶
𝛾𝑤 ;
1+𝑒
-e 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 2 =
1. Borehole
1 𝛾𝑚 =
𝐺 + 𝐺𝑀𝐶
𝛾𝑤 ;
1+𝑒
2. Borehole 𝛾𝑚 =
𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 1 =
2
𝐺 + 𝐺𝑀𝐶 𝛾𝑤 𝛾𝑚 − 𝛾𝑚
− 𝛾𝑚 𝛾𝑚 = .21
𝛾𝑚
= .42
𝐺 + 𝐺𝑀𝐶 𝛾𝑤 − 𝛾𝑚
𝐺+ = .18
𝐺 + 𝐺𝑀𝐶 𝛾𝑤 𝛾𝑚
𝐺𝑀𝐶
− 𝛾𝑚
𝛾𝑤
= .41
3. Borehole 1
𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑒 . 64 − .42
𝐷𝑟 = 𝑒 −𝑒 = . 64 − .21 = .51
4. Borehole 1 𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝐷𝑟 = 𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑒 . 64 − .41
𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑥−𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛 = . 64 − .18 = .5
 The soil on both borehole is medium dense then grouting is possible.
D. Design Details: (Compaction Grouting Guide - Committee of the Geo-Institute of the ASCE 2007)
 Dimension and sizes used are based on average and minimum requirements due to lack of data of
in- situ soil.
5. The grout that will be used should be evaluated by ASTM C 827 to have non-shrink grout at the plastic
state.
6. Mass diameter (Grout)
- Use Type V2 with 4 meter diameter at 180L/min.
7. Grout Hole Spacing
S = 3(mass diameter) = 3(4m) = 12 meter
8. Grout Quantities
- Use a total of 8 grout – 4 on each embankment
APPENDIX F: REFERENCES
Abeysuriya, N., & Jayasinghe, T. (n.d.). Deflection Related Serviceability Issues in Steel Buildings With Large Span Girders.
Retrieved from •
https://www.academia.edu/8339157/DEFLECTION_RELATED_SERVICEABILITY_ISSUES_IN_STEEL_BUILDINGS_WITH_L
ARGE_SPAN_GIRDERS
Construction Statistics from Approved Building Permits: First Quarter 2018 (Preliminiaty Result). (2018). Retrieved from
Philippine Statistics Authority: • https://psa.gov.ph/content/construction-statistics-approved-building-permits-first-quarter-2018-
preliminary-results
Fagan, A. J., & Lurie, D. J. (2005). Annual Reports on NMR Spectroscopy. Reinforced Concrete Structures.
Glass, G. (2003). Comprehensive Structural Integrity. Reinforced Concrete Structure.
Kumar, S., Babu, R. K., Kumar, S. K., & Kumar, K. (2010). Experimental Study on Lightweight Aggregate Concrete. Retrieved
from https://www.academia.edu/22082708/Experimental_Study_on_Lightweight_Aggregate_Concrete
Mohit, & Haider. (2015). A Comparaive Study on Structural Performance Between Steel and Reinforced Concrete Building.
Retrieved from http://www.duet.ac.bd/DUET_Old_Website/ce/template/IICSD2015/Sustainable%20Infrastructure%20and
%20Environment/SIE-005.pdf
N.Subramanian. (2013). Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures. Maryland: Oxford University Press.
Rizal Province Bid Results on Civil Works and Services. (2018). Retrieved from • http://rizalprovince.ph/old
%20database/engineering/BID%20RESULTS%20ON%20CIVIL%20WORKS/3rd%20Qtr%202018%20Bid%20Results%20on
%20Civil%20Works%20Goods%20and%20Services%20and%20Consulting%20Services.pdf
Sadat, T. N. (2014, March). Comparative Study on Reinforced Concrete and Steel Framed Buildings with Various Floor .
Retrieved from http://lib.buet.ac.bd:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/633/Full%20Thesis.pdf?sequence=1’
Sangave, P., Madur, N., Waghmare, S., Shete, R., Mankondi, V., & Gundla, V. (2015, February). Comparative Study of
Analysis and Design of R.C and Steel Structures. Retrieved from https://www.ijser.org/researchpaper/Comparative-Study-of-
Analysis-and-Design-of-R-C-and-Steel-Structures.pdf
Sastri, V. (2010). Shreir's Corrosion. Reinforced Concrete Structure.
227
APPENDIX G: CURRICULUM VITAE
228
MARIANNE AN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Technological Institute of the Philippines (TIP) QC
Address: Blk. 8 Lot 11 Dividend Homes Santol St. Taytay, Rizal
Email Address: mariannereyesan08@gmail.com
Cellular No.: +639997103880
To apply OBJECTIVE
CAREER the learning and abilities learned from school into a real employment condition which will give me an adequate
chances to profession development that will make me a successful person.
ON-THE-JOB TRAINING/ PRACTICUM/ INTERNSHIP EXPERIENCE
Sales Lady
Chichalax Printing
Service Cainta Rizal
November 10, 2014 - April 10, 2015
Chichalax company is a printing service (Pictures, T-shirts) and photocopy service.
KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ATTITUDE
Analyze complex problems and identify and define the computing requirements
appropriate for solution Use modern techniques and tools of the computing practice in
complex activities.
Easy to cope up with other people.
EXTRA AND CO-CURRICULAR ENGAGEMENTS AND VOLUNTEER WORKS
T.I.P. Mountaineering
Club Member
March 18, 2018 - October 18, 2019
Philippine Institute of Civil
Engineers Member
July 04, 2018 - July 04, 2019
OTHER SKILLS
Knowledgeable in MS Office like MS Word, Excel, etc

Willingness to learn and acquire new skills.
Has a skill to coordinate and work as a team.
REFERENCES
Mary Rose Espedillon maryrose.espedillon@yahoo.com

Civil Engineer Professor 09663760183
Technological Institute of the Philippines - Qc 229
Elmer Cabulisan Jr.
Civil Engineer
National Irrigation Administration
Cabulisanej08@gmail.com
09486319711
230
NEIL VINZON ADRIANO
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Technological Institute of the Philippines (TIP), Quezon City
Address: 287 Sumulong Street, Barangay Bagumbayan, Angono, Rizal
Email Address: neil_19_25@yahoo.com.ph
Cellular No.: +639155093441
CAREER OBJECTIVE
5th year Civil Engineering student, seeking for a position where I can apply and improve my knowledge in
engineering and gain further experience while enhancing the company’s productivity and reputation.
DESIGN PROJECTS/RESEARCH UNDERTAKEN

Design of One-Storey Timber Warehouse
January-March 2018 CE 412- Timber Design
Design of Three-Storey Residential Building
January-March 2018 CE 407- Earthquake Engineering
Design of Three-Storey Residential Building
January-March 2018
CE 413- Building Design 2
Design of Ten-Storey Condominium
January-March 2018
CE 413- Building Design 2

Studying in TIP for the last 4 years, I have acquired and can demonstrate the following student acquired
outcomes (knowledge, skills and attitude) necessary to the practice of the civil engineering profession:
● Professional competence
● Communication skills
● Critical thinking and problem solving skills
EDUCATION
2014 Technological Institute of the Philippines

Quezon, City
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
2010-2014 Saint Mary High School
Pidigan,Abra
2004-2010 Pidigan Central School
Pidigan, Abra
SEMINAR/S AND TRAINING/S ATTENDED

9 May 2018 1st Road Safety Web Seminar
PNP Camp Bgen Rafael T Crame, Quezon City
7 March 2018 Water Resources Engineering
Technological Institute of the Philippines (938 Aurora Blvd. Cubao Quezon City)
14 August 2017 Intelligent Transportation System
Technological Institute of the Philippines (938 Aurora Blvd. Cubao Quezon City)
OTHER SKILLS
● Proficient in AutoCAD, MS Word,MS Excel
REFERENCES
Engr. Emmanuel Lazo

TIPQC-Faculty
emlazo_10@yahoo.com
09455366909
Paraiso, Joyce Ann E.
Block 7 Lot 1 St. John Park Homes Brgy. San Juan, Taytay Rizal 1920
+63 926 675 8126
joythenriquez06@gmail.com
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
 Tertiary Education 2014 - 2019 Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

Technological Institute of the Philippines
Quezon, City
 Secondary Education 2010 – 2014 Cainta Catholic College

Cainta, Rizal
 Primary Education 2004 – 2010 Rosario Ocampo Elementary School

Taytay, Rizal
WORK EXPERIENCES
 Laboratory Technician Readycon Trading and Construction Corp.

On-Job Trainee
November 2018 - March 2019
 Customer Services Representative SPI Global

Sales and Technical Support
April 2017 – May 2017
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Age: 21 Birthplace: Pasig, City Nationality: Filipino

Birthday : May 6, 1998 Religion: Roman Catholic Civil Status: Single
ACHIEVEMENTS
Dean’s Lister 2nd Semester A.Y 2015-2016 Technological Institute of the Philippines
President Lister 1st Semester A.Y. 2014-2015 Technological Institute of the Philippines
Best in Christian Formation Batch of A.Y. 2013-2014 Cainta Catholic College
Champion 2014 Robotics Competition Cainta Catholic College
Third Runner Up 2013 Cooking Contest Cainta Catholic College
First Runner Up 2002 Little Miss St. Joseph St. Joseph Subdivision Cainta, Rizal
DAVID DWIGHT REYES
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Technological Institute of the Philippines (TIP) QC
Address: 52 Banaba Street Twin River Subdivision Nangka Marikina
Email Address: davidreyes0321@gmail.com
Cellular No.: +6309392322101
OBJECTIVE
To establish a career in engineering where I can demonstrate the learning outcomes of the Civil
Engineering program of the Technological Institute of the Philippines (TIP), a program accredited by the
US - based outcomes-oriented ABET (Accreditation Board for the Engineering and Technology),
Engineering Accreditation Commission.

Having studied from TIP with its orientation towards outcome-based education, I have acquired and can
demonstrate the following student acquire outcomes (knowledge, skills and attitudes) necessary to the
practice of the computing profession:
 Analyze complex problems and identify and define the computing requirements appropriate for
solution.
 Use modern techniques and tools of the computing practice in complex activities.
 Understand professional, ethical, legal, security and social issues and responsibilities relevant to
professional computing.
ON-THE-JOB TRAINING/ PRACTICUM/ INTERNSHIP EXPERIENCE

 Intern
Goodman Builders International
Sto. Niño, Marikina
November 28, 2018 – March 8, 2019
 Site inspection
 Autocad operator
EXTRA AND CO-CURRICULAR ENGAGEMENTS AND VOLUNTEER WORKS
American Concrete Institute Philippines
Member
July 06, 2017 - Present
Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers
Member
July 06, 2017 – Present
REFERENCES
Elprado Patricio 09488638190
Civil Engineer Melissa Coderes
Goodman Builders International Civil Engineer
goodman.abhe@gmail.com EEI Corporation
melissapena1623@gmail.com 09501210
REFLECTIVE ESSAY
Marianne R. An
Before I took this I am very curious about this course because when I was a lower year, I have a friends
who was taking this course and I see them always upset and stress, sometimes I encountered them
fighting in their design because CAPSTONE DESIGN 2 is not an easy course. So when the class started, I
also started to love the subject, the learnings in the subject and also the method of teaching of our
professor Engr. Estores, it looks easy when he teaches us. We can follow in every lecture we got, taking
notes every meeting. We enjoy it. When designing of the projects time we thought it is easy just like the
lesson, at first doing it was fun but when we started in the middle of chapter 4 and revising some chapters
from 1 to 3, from Capstone 1, we realized it is not easy at all. We do not sleep just to finish it, go overnight
sometimes, and sometimes we came up from misunderstanding each other so we ask for help on our
advisers who already a licensed civil engineer. We have a hard time finishing the chapter 4, so that we
can’t start chapter 5. But we did it, even though it is not that good because it is just our first time to take and
the time is not enough.
Capstone Design is a difficult subject but I just need to be more focus and disciplined, I need more efforts
to pass this subject but this subject is very exciting and thrilling actually. Because of this experience in
taking Capstone Design 2 I learned that it is not about the knowledge at all, it’s about how can you handle
one another, your groupmates, how you will solve your project dependently without blaming each other for
the only reason that he/she has many contribution to that project. It only teaches us in our Next Level as
soon to be Civil Engineer to be professional in every problems we encountered.
Engr. Estores is an influential person. He does not only teach but also he teaches us the life lessons behind
engineering, or how to become a Civil Engineer. Every meeting, he always reminds us that we should bring
to best to ourselves in order to appreciate one’s profession. In which, I could say that being dedicated to
your position means Act and Example.
236

Appendix&#39; Table Update

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Appendix&#39; Table Update

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Appendix&#39; Table Update

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adriano, Neil Vinzon S.

Student/Team An, Marianne R.

Design of a Port Terminal in A.Ibañez St., Brgy. San Vicente,

GEO 5 The design project will be supported by a program known as GEO5, a

DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECHTURE

DESIGN OF PORT TERMINAL IN A. IBAÑEZ ST.,BRGY. SAN VICENTE,

To God Be the Glory.

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES................................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND................................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUT.................................................................................................................................. 5

CHAPTER 3: DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, TRADEOFFS AND STANDARDS...............................................................13

CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE.................................................................................................................. 44

CHAPTER V: FINAL DESIGN.............................................................................................................................. 106

Appendix J: Design for Grout Compaction Notations:.......................................................................................223

1.1 The Project

Figure 1- 1. Satellite View of the location of the project

Figure 1- 2. Actual Project Location

Figure 1- 3. Perspective View of Port

a) To design an alternative and practical route going to Talim Island.

1.4 The Client

1.5 Scope and Limitation of the Study

CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUT

2.1 Design Data

Soil Types of Angono Rizal

Soil Types Classification of Angono Rizal

Figure 2-1 Soil Map

SOIL CLASS % DISTRIBUTION

Figure 2-3 Angono Topographic Map

Figure 2-4 Angono Average Rainfall Data

Materials Unit weight (kN/𝒎𝟑)

Table 2-4 Unit weight of materials

2.1.5.1 Load Factor Design

2.1.6 Static Coefficient of Friction

Concrete against concrete 0.5

3.1. Design Constraints

3.1.1 Quantitative Constraint

3.1.1.1 Economic Constraints (Cost)

3.1.1.3 Environmental Constraints (Cost)

3.1.1.4 Constructability Constraints (Duration)

3.1.1.5 Risk Assessment (Cost of Risk)

3.2.1 Structural Engineering

Advantages and Disadvantages of Reinforced Concrete

Table 3-1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Reinforced Concrete

 Reinforced concrete has a high  The tensile strength of reinforced

 Due to the provided reinforcement,  The main steps of using reinforced

 The maintenance cost of reinforced

Reinforced concrete is the most

3.2.1.2 Reinforced Concrete (Normal Weight)

 It has considerable compressive strength  Has lower tensile strength.

Figure 3-1 Reinforced Concrete Structure

3.2.1.3 Reinforced Concrete (Lightweight)

 Cost reduction of about 30 to 40  Longer drying phase.

3.2.1.4 Steel Structure

Advantages and Disadvantages of Steel Slab

3.2.2.1 Ground consolidation using Prefabricated Drains

Table11: Advantages and Disadvantages of Ground Consolidation using Prefabricated Drains

3.2.2.2 Dynamic Compaction

Figure 3-4 Dynamic Compaction

Appendix' Table Update

Appendix' Table Update

Appendix' Table Update