Capstone Isa Pang Update

Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND........................................................................................................1

1.1 The Project..............................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Location......................................................................................................................................2
1.3 The Client................................................................................................................................................2
1.4 Project Objectives.............................................................................................................................2
1.4.1 General Objectives.........................................................................................................................2
1.4.2 Specific Objectives.........................................................................................................................3
1.5 Scope and Limitation..............................................................................................................................3
1.5.1 Scope...........................................................................................................................................3
1.5.2 Limitation.......................................................................................................................................3
1.5 Project Development........................................................................................................................3
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS........................................................................................................................5
2.1 Preliminary Data......................................................................................................................................5
2.1.1 Topography...................................................................................................................................5
2.1.2 Geography.....................................................................................................................................5
2.1.3 Elevation and Topographic Map.......................................................................................................6
2.2 Data and Statistics..................................................................................................................................7
2.2.1 Total Number of Students and Rooms in Public High Schools at Taytay, Rizal......................................8
2.3 Geotechnical Investigation Report..........................................................................................................8
2.4 Summary of Results of Field and Laboratory Testing..........................................................................19
2.4.1 Unified Soils Classification System Result.......................................................................................19
2.5 Load Specifications...............................................................................................................................20
2.5.1 Dead Loads.................................................................................................................................20
2.5.2 Live Loads...................................................................................................................................20
2.5.3 Earthquake Loads........................................................................................................................21
2.5.4 Wind Loads..................................................................................................................................21
2.5.5 Load Combinations.......................................................................................................................21
2.6 Soil Properties.......................................................................................................................................22
2.7 Comparison of Bearing Stress Capacity of the Soil to the Stress Capacity of the Foundation...........22
2.8 Result of Bearing Capacity of the Soil..................................................................................................23
2.9 Architectural Design..............................................................................................................................24
2.9.1 Floor Area....................................................................................................................................24
2.9.2 Floor Plans..................................................................................................................................25
2.9.3 Elevation Plans............................................................................................................................27
2.9.4 Foundation Plans.........................................................................................................................28
2.10 Related Literature...............................................................................................................................30
2.10.1 Foreign Literature.......................................................................................................................30
2.10.2 Local Literature...........................................................................................................................33
CHAPTER 3: CONSTRAINTS, TRADEOFFS, AND STANDARDS...............................................................36
3.1 Geotechnical Design.............................................................................................................................36
3.1.1 Design Constraints.......................................................................................................................36
3.1.1.1 Quantitative Constraints..............................................................................................................37
3.1.1.2 Qualitative Constraints...............................................................................................................37
3.1.2 Tradeoffs.....................................................................................................................................38
3.1.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking...............................................................................................................42
3.1.4 Trade Off Assessment...................................................................................................................43
3.1.5 Constraint Assessment.................................................................................................................49
3.2 Structural Design...................................................................................................................................49
3.2.1 Design Constraints.......................................................................................................................49
3.2.1.1 Quantitative Constraints..............................................................................................................49
3.2.1.2 Qualitative Constraints...............................................................................................................51
3.2.2 Tradeoffs.....................................................................................................................................51
3.2.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking...............................................................................................................55
3.2.4 Trade Off Assessment...................................................................................................................56
3.2.5 Constraint Assessment.................................................................................................................61
3.3 Design Standards.................................................................................................................................62
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF GROUND IMPROVEMENT.................................................................................65
4.1 Design of Ground Improvement............................................................................................................65
4.1.1 Methodology.......................................................................................................................................65
4.1.1.1 Trade-off 1: Design of Ground Improvement Using Soil Cement Column..........................................65
4.1.1.2 Trade-off 2: Design of Ground Improvement Using Jet Grouted.......................................................78
4.1.1.3 Trade-off 3: Design of Ground Improvement Using Vibro Replacement............................................91
4.1.2 Design Optimization.........................................................................................................................105
4.1.2.1 Design Optimization for Tradeoff 1: Soil Cement Column.............................................................105
4.1.2.2 Design Optimization for Tradeoff 2: Jet Grouted Column..............................................................108
4.1.2.3 Design Optimization for Tradeoff 3: Vibro Replacement................................................................112
4.1.3 Final Evaluation of Trade-offs..........................................................................................................115
4.1.3.1 Validation of Estimates.............................................................................................................115
4.1.3.2 Trade-off Assessment and Final Ranking....................................................................................115
4.1.3.3 Cost Comparison.....................................................................................................................121
4.1.4 Sensitivity Analysis..........................................................................................................................123
4.2 Design of Structure.............................................................................................................................141
4.2.1 Methodology....................................................................................................................................141
4.2.1.1 Trade-off 1: Design of Structure using Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame................................142
CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN.......................................................................................................................142
5.1 Foundation Plan with Design of Vibro Replacement..........................................................................142
5.2 Elevation Plan with Design of Vibro Replacement.............................................................................143
5.3 Columns Spacing................................................................................................................................143
5.4 Vibro Replacement Properties............................................................................................................144
5.5 Scheduling..........................................................................................................................................145
TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES
938 AURORA BLVD. CUBAO, QUEZON CITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CE 509
CE PROJECTS 2
GROUND IMPROVEMENT DESIGN FOR THE PROPOSED 5 - STOREY SCHOOL BUILDING AT

BARANGAY MUZON, TAYTAY RIZAL
SUBMITTED BY:
CABAGAY, RALPH
CABUNGCAL, ROSE MAE
NIOG, NICAMAE
SUAREZ, JOANDREY
CE52FC1
SUBMITTED TO:
ENGR. RHONNIE C. ESTORES
OCTOBER 2019
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1 The Project
Figure 1-2: Current Problem in Barangay Muzon

In the past years, some of the municipalities in Rizal province often experience floods due to heavy rain
and nearby rivers. This would cause a natural soil movement including soil erosion due to high water
content being absorbed by the soil itself. Barangay Muzon is one of the barangays that is prone to such
activities based on the preview’s news report. Considering Taytay, Rizal, is bounded by water bodies
including Taytay river which crosses Barangay Muzon and Laguna Lake that lies in the southern part of the
said municipality. Many residential building, commercial and institutional buildings lies near the fault. While
the lower part of Bagong Muzon is lying near the bank of the river, which is prone to heavy flooding. These
are the reasons why the designer should have improved first the soil for the better of construction of the
proposed structure. The primary objective of this design project is a ground improvement design for the
proposed school building.
Figure 1-2: Perspective of the Project
1
Another reason why ground improvement is necessary for the construction of the proposed school building
is to avoid failure due to the unexpected natural disaster like the intense earthquake, especially the one that
became a big issue in our country the past few months that they named as “The Big One”. The site location
is 6.4 kilometers away from the active fault line, the West Valley Fault. The figure below shows the map of
the location and its distance from the said fault line (See Figure 1-3).
Figure 1-3: Distance from the Active Fault Line

(Via PHILVOCS: Fault Finder)
1.2 Project Location
The proposed school building will be loacted located in Brgy. Muzon. The figures below show where
the hospital will be constructed and the nearby existing structures on the proposed site.
Figure 1-4: Site Location

(Via Google Earth)
2
Figure 1-5: Vicinity Map
(Via Google Map)
1.3 The Client
The client of the design project is Engineer Rogelio S. Crespo who is the District Engineer of the
municipality. Engineering department said that during their simulation, the structure fails to resist load
occur due to the low load-bearing capacity of the soil.
1.3.1. Client Specifications
1. The project is a 5-Storey School Building with Ground Improvement.
2. The maximum budget is 45,000,000.00 php for the 5-Storey School Building alone.
3. The maximum budget is 3,500,000.00 php for the ground improvement alone.
4. The ground improvement design should hold the structure.
1.4 Project Objectives
These are the following objectives that the designer must consider:
1.4.1 General Objectives
1. To apply all the needed knowledge, principles and concepts in the field of Geotechnical
Engineering to solve problems.
2. To design with most accurate computation to achieve effectiveness.
3. To use efficient method and materials to make the design project feasible.
1.4.2 Specific Objectives
1. To design a ground improvement method to stabilize/reinforce soil in the said location.
2. To make an efficient yet effective cost and estimate for the design project.
3. To assess the listed tradeoffs by constraints, specifications, and codes.
4. To compare the listed tradeoff to conclude the most efficient and effective method should
choose.
3
5. To lessen the probability of failure in an earthquake event.
1.5 Scope and Limitation
1.5.1 Scope
The following are the score of the design project:
1. To design a ground improvement to strengthen the bearing capacity and resist ground
movement due to high moisture content.
2. Comparison of material cost, labor cost and equipment cost estimates.
3. Computation of ground improvement design.
4. Specification and plans of the design of reinforcements considering the capacity of the soil and
its properties.
5. Structural details for the beam, column, shear walls, footings and other structural elements were
considered in the design project.
1.5.2 Limitation
1. Architectural, Electrical, Mechanical and Plumbing labor, equipment and material cost estimates
are not included.
2. Electrical and Plumbing plans are not included in the design project.
3. Geotechnical properties are the main focus of the design project.
4. Reinforced concrete will be used for the design of the structure.
1.5 Project Development
For the effectiveness of the design project, different stages have undergone as shown in Figure 1-6.
The development of the project will mainly start in the planning stage. In line with this,
conceptualization is needed. Second is gathering of data. Here includes the identification of design
standards, specifications, and parameters for the computation of the design project. The third will be
the determination of constraints and tradeoffs for comparison purposes. Then, designing of trade-offs
comes next. After designing, results will be tabulated for easy comparison. Trade-offs will then be
assess and compare. Next is evaluation of constraints in each trade-offs. Among the trade-offs, the
best will be picked as the final design.
4
START
CONCEPTUALIZATION
GATHERING DATA
DEFINING CONSTRAINTS AND

TRADE-OFFS
DESIGNING OF TRADE-OFFS
TABULATION OF RESULTS
TRADE-OFFS ASSESSMENT
CONSTRAINTS EVALUATION
FINAL DESIGN
END
Figure 1-6: Project Development Chart
5
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS
2.1 Preliminary Data
2.1.1 Topography
The project will be located at Barangay Muzon, Taytay, Rizal, Philippines. It is surrounded by some
well-known cities in Metro Manila and some municipalities in Rizal. Pasig City and Taguig City on the
west, Antipolo City in the east, Cainta on the north, and Angono on the south. Even though the said
municipality is being known as economically, politically and demographically qualified, the plan of
conversion of the municipality into the city was set aside because of social and administrative reforms.
Taytay City is connected to C-6 Road which it can be easier to reach by some people from Parañaque,
Muntinlupa, Taguig and Makati and Manuel L. Quezon Avenue for the people in Angono. Barangay
Dolores has a total land area of 1,237 ha. with a population of 61,115 (as of 2015 census).
Figure 2-1: Taytay Rizal

(Via Google Image)
2.1.2 Geography
Taytay, Rizal has an area of 38.80 km² with a total of 3.3 percent of the whole Rizal Province’s Area.
The municipality is located to East of Pasig City and to the North of Laguna Lake. It is situated in the
province's western side, with boundary grids of 14° 34’ 24" north latitude and 121° 07’ 48" east
longitude. It is bounded by Cainta in the Northwest, Antipolo City in the Northeast, Taguig in the
Southwest and Angono in the East-southeast. The land area of Taytay is rectangular to mostly
trapezoidal in shape with hilly rugged terrain on its eastern section and mostly flat on its south-western
section. The highest elevation that can be measured in the municipality ranges from 200 to 255 meters
which are in the inner north-eastern hills of Barangay Dolores, alongside with the boundary of Antipolo
City and its lowest elevation ranges from 5 to 20 meters located in the southern part of Barangay San
Juan and Muzon near Laguna Lake.
The municipality is primarily supported by south-west rivers from over spread of water such as Taytay
River, Napindan Channel and Panghulo River in which all of those are towards in the Laguna Lake.
The flow of Taytay River is principally crossing some barangay at the municipality including Barangay
Dolores and San Isidro which it is joined with Antipolo River and passes through the southern end part
6
or Barangay Sta.Ana and San Juan. Panghulo River snake flows from upper Taytay across Barangay
San Juan towards the southern part of Barangay Muzon. Napindan Channel flows across the southern
part boundaries of Barangay Sta. Ana and San Juan as it flows towards Laguna Lake also and Bangiad
Creek located at a south-eastern part of the municipality which flows southwestward across Barangay
Muzon towards Laguna Lake.
2.1.3 Elevation and Topographic Map
In this part of the paper, the designer shows the Topographic map in three ways. Using colors to
indicate its elevation (See Figure 2-1) and with the use of Contour lines to indicate its elevation ( See
Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3).
Figure 2-2: Topographic Map 1

(Source: https://en-ph.topographic-map.com/maps/76dv/Taytay/ )

(Source: http://contourmapcreator.urgr8.ch/)
7
(Source: http://www.namria.gov.ph)
2.2 Data and Statistics
Based on the data given by the Department of Education (DepEd) Rizal Division, the insufficiency of
the classroom is one of the major problems the municipality is facing right now, especially in public
schools at Taytay, Rizal. The ratio of the number of classrooms to the total number of students enrolled
in a certain school abruptly increasing. The reason behind this is the increasing number of enrollees
every year and the implementation of K-12. Based on Department of Education, the ideal school must
have only at forty-five (45) students per classroom. But the reason stated above nullifies this
requirement. The department concluded that they needed an additional school building for the other
enrollees, especially for the Senior High School students.
2.2.1 Total Number of Students and Rooms in Public High Schools at Taytay, Rizal
The table below shows the number of students for high school students each public school and number
of available instructional rooms each public school:
Table 2-1: Total Number of Students and Total Number of Instructional Rooms of Public Schools in Taytay, Rizal
School ID Name of School Total Number of No. of

Students Instructional
Rooms
Region: Region IV-A
Province: Rizal
Municipality: Taytay
308108 Antonio C. Esguerra Mem. NHS 1969 9
308102 Benjamin B. Esguerra MNHS 1947 47
308116 Casimiro A. Ynares, Sr. MNHS 3231 50
301466 Manuel I. Santos MNHS 4541 69
308129 Muzon NHS 2022 16
8
308130 Simona NHS 566 7
301465 Taytay NHS 2045 53
342569 Taytay Senior High School 530 No Data
Total 16851 251
(Source: Department of Education)
The location of the proposed school building for the design of ground improvement is at Muzon, Taytay,
Rizal. Muzon National High School is the second among all the public high school that has a large ratio
between the number of students to the number of schools given that they have two class shifts (Morning
and Afternoon classes).
2.3 Geotechnical Investigation Report
Three (3) boreholes were located in the site. Data inputs in this section are taken from the Geotechnical
Investigation Report made by J. Llona, N. Bacuetes & K. Co of TERMS Concrete & Materials Testing
Laboratory Inc.
BH 3
BH 1
BH 2
Figure 2-4: Borehole Location Plan

(Via Google Maps)
9
Below are results of boreholes.
Table 2-2: Borehole no.1 Result
Depth Sampling Type of Rec RQD SPT BLOW N Soil Grading % Atterberg Classification
Depth Sampling (m) (%) PER 15 CM Value Descriptio Passing Unified
n
0.00 Firm, #4 100.00 LL 66.10
brown silty
CLAY of #10 98.91 PL 31.29
Wash high #40 95.63 PI 34.81 CH
Boring plasticity
1.05 #200 85.95
1.50 1.50 SPT X 0.40 - 2 3 4 7
Stiff, #4 100.00 LL 64.40
brown silty
Wash CLAY of #10 99.46 PL 30.96 CH
Boring high
2.55 #40 95.60 PI 33.44
plasticity
3.00 3.00 SPT X 0.40 - 4 5 7 12 #200 86.49
Stiff, #4 100.00 LL 64.90
brown silty
Boring high
4.05 #40 94.96 PI 34.08
plasticity
4.50 4.50 SPT X 0.40 - 5 5 7 12 #200 82.99
Stiff, #4 100.00 LL 62.90
brown silty
Boring high
5.55 #40 98.78 PI 30.98
10
6.00 6.00 SPT X 0.40 - 4 4 5 9 plasticity #200 84.79
Firm, #4 100.00 LL 68.50
brown silty
Boring high
7.05 #40 96.16 PI 36.91
plasticity
7.50 7.50 SPT X 0.40 - 2 3 3 6 #200 88.42
Firm, #4 100.00 LL 64.00
brown silty
Boring high
8.55 #40 93.71 PI 32.40
plasticity
9.00 9.00 SPT X 0.40 - 3 3 4 7 #200 82.23
Stiff, #4 100.00 LL 66.90
brown silty
Boring high
10.05 #40 94.42 PI 35.61
plasticity
10.50 10.50 SPT X 0.40 - 4 4 5 9 #200 84.29
Stiff, #4 100.00 LL 61.80
brown silty
Boring high
11.55 #40 95.71 PI 30.18
plasticity
12.00 12.00 SPT X 0.40 - 4 6 6 12 #200 83.95
Limestone #4 - LL -
, creamish
Rotary light brown #10 - PL - -
Drill intensely
12.00 #40 - PI -
fractured
13.50 13.50 CRG I 0.15 0% CORING #200 -
11
Limestone #4 - LL -
, creamish
Drill intensely
13.50 #40 - PI -
fractured
15.00 15.00 CRG I 0.15 0% CORING #200 -
Limestone #4 - LL -
, creamish
Drill intensely
15.00 #40 - PI -
fractured
16.50 16.50 CRG I 0.15 0% CORING #200 -
Limestone #4 - LL -
, creamish
Drill intensely
16.50 #40 - PI -
fractured
18.00 18.00 CRG I 0.15 0% CORING #200 -
GROUND WATER LEVEL = 1.00m
Depth Sampling (m) (%) PER 15 CM Value Descriptio Passing Unified
n
0.00 Firm, #4 100.00 LL 67.80
brown
silty #10 99.57 PL 31.57
Wash CLAY of #40 96.22 PI 36.23 CH
Boring high
1.05 plasticity #200 88.17
1.50 1.50 SPT X 0.40 - 2 2 3 5
12
Firm, #4 100.00 LL 66.90
brown
Wash silty #10 99.15 PL 31.80 CH
Boring CLAY of
2.55 #40 94.32 PI 35.10
high
3.00 3.00 SPT X 0.40 - 2 2 3 5 plasticity #200 86.86
Very soft, #4 100.00 LL 65.03

brown
Boring CLAY of
4.05 #40 96.82 PI 33.73
high
4.50 4.50 SPT X 0.40 - 1 1 1 2 plasticity #200 86.14
Firm, #4 100.00 LL 65.70

brown
Boring CLAY of
5.55 #40 97.03 PI 33.82
high
6.00 6.00 SPT X 0.40 - 2 3 3 6 plasticity #200 83.10
Soft, #4 100.00 LL 61.90

brown
Boring CLAY of
7.05 #40 95.27 PI 30.20
high
7.50 7.50 SPT X 0.40 - 3 2 2 4 plasticity #200 87.67
Firm, #4 100.00 LL 66.10

brown
Boring CLAY of
8.55 #40 97.26 PI 35.59
high
9.00 9.00 SPT X 0.40 - 3 3 3 6 plasticity #200 87.07
13
Limeston #4 - LL -
e,
Rotary creamish #10 - PL - -
Drill light
9.00 #40 - PI -
brown
10.50 10.50 CRG I 0.15 0% CORING intensely #200 -
fractured
Limeston #4 - LL -
e,
Drill light
10.50 #40 - PI -
brown
fractured
Limeston #4 - LL -
e,
Drill light
12.00 #40 - PI -
brown
fractured
Limeston #4 - LL -
e,
Drill light
13.50 #40 - PI -
brown
fractured
Limeston #4 - LL -
e,
14
15.00 Drill light #40 - PI -
brown
fractured
Limeston #4 - LL -
e,
Drill light
16.50 #40 - PI -
brown
fractured
Depth Sampling (m) (%) PER 15 CM Value Description Passing Unified
0.00 Very soft, #4 100.0 LL 67.8

brown silty 0 0
CLAY of
high #10 99.69 PL 31.7
Wash CH
plasticity 5
Boring
1.05
#40 95.17 PI 36.0
5
#200 86.97
1.50 1.50 SPT X 0.40 - 3 1 1 2
Soft, brown #4 100.0 LL 63.8
silty CLAY 0 0
Wash
15
2.55 Boring of high #10 99.77 PL 31.2 CH
plasticity 2
#40 95.33 PI 32.5
8
3.00 3.00 SPT X 0.40 - 1 2 2 4 #200 83.04
Soft, brown #4 100.0 LL 65.9
silty CLAY 0 0
Wash of high CH
Boring plasticity #10 99.23 PL 31.4
4.05
8
#40 94.32 PI 34.4
2
4.50 4.50 SPT X 0.40 - 1 2 1 3 #200 84.56
Soft, brown #4 100.0 LL 65.7
silty CLAY 0 0
Wash of high CH
5.55
2
#40 96.50 PI 34.0
8
6.00 6.00 SPT X 0.40 - 1 2 2 4 #200 83.95
Very soft, #4 100.0 LL 65.4
brown silty 0 0
Wash CLAY of CH
Boring high #10 99.85 PL 31.9
7.05
plasticity 1
#40 93.94 PI 33.4
9
16
7.50 7.50 SPT X 0.40 - 2 1 1 2 #200 84.33
Firm, brown #4 100.0 LL 64.8
silty CLAY 0 0
Wash of high CH
8.55
5
#40 94.97 PI 33.0
5
9.00 9.00 SPT X 0.40 - 2 2 3 5 #200 86.73
Limestone, #4 - LL -
creamish
Drill intensely
9.00 #40 - PI -
fractured
10.50 10.50 CRG I 0.15 0% CORING #200 -
creamish
Drill intensely
10.50 #40 - PI -
fractured
12.00 12.00 CRG I 0.15 0% CORING #200 -
creamish
Drill intensely
12.00 #40 - PI -
fractured
13.50 13.50 CRG I 0.15 0% CORING #200 -
END OF BOREHOLE. #4 - LL -
#10 - PL - -
17
#40 - PI -
#200 -
#4 - LL -
#10 - PL - -
#40 - PI -
#200 -
#4 - LL -
#10 - PL - -
#40 - PI -
#200 -
18
2.4 Summary of Results of Field and Laboratory Testing
2.4.1 Unified Soils Classification System Result
The results of the boreholes are presented and summarized in the table below:
Table 2-5: Unified Soils Classification System Result
Remarks (Relative Condition

Depth, m USCS Classification
and Consistency)
0.0 – 1.5 SM Loose
1.5 – 3.0 ML Soft
3.0 – 6.0 SM Loose to Medium Dense
6.0 – 10.5 CL Very Stiff
10.5- 12.0 SM Dense
12.0 – 15.0 CL Hard
Table 2-6: Unified Soils Classification System Symbol Table
Major Division Group Symbol Group Name

clean gravel <5% well-graded gravel,
Gravel > 50% of GW
smaller than fine to coarse gravel
coarse fraction
No.200 Sieve GP poorly graded gravel
Coarse-grained retained on No.4
gravel with >12% GM silty gravel
soils more than (4.75 mm) sieve
fines GC clayey gravel
50% retained on
sand well-graded sand,
or above No. 200 SW
≥ 50% of coarse fine to coarse sand
(0.074 mm) sieve clean sand
fraction passes SP poorly graded sand
No.4 (4.75 mm) sand with >12% SM silty sand
sieve fines SC clayey sand
ML silt
clay of low plasticity,
silt and clay inorganic CL
lean clay
liquid limit < 50
organic silt, organic
Fine-grained soils organic OL
clay
50% or more
silt of
passing the No.
MH high plasticity, elasti
200 (0.074 mm)
c silt
sieve silt and clay Inorganic
clay of high
liquid limit < 50 CH
plasticity, fat clay
organic clay, organic
organic OH
silt
Highly organic soils Pt Peat
(Source: Wikipedia)
19
2.5 Load Specifications
The following loads were considered in designing the structural elements of the building. The loads
considered were taken from the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2010.
2.5.1 Dead Loads

The Dead Load is the weight of all permanent materials or components of the structure. It includes the
weight of the slab, beams, columns, walls, and other similar components that is part of the structure. The
following loads were taken from NSCP 2010, Chapter 2- Minimum Design Loads, Section 204, Table 204-2
Minimum Densities for Design Loads from Materials.
Table 2-9: Dead loads (kPa)
Materials Design Load (kN/m3)

Concrete, Reinforced 23.6
Concrete, Masonry (Normal Weight) 21.2
Concrete, Masonry (Medium Weight) 16.5
Concrete, Masonry (Lightweight Weight) 19.6
Table 2-8: Dead loads (kN/m3)
Materials Design Load (kPa)
Asphalt Shingles 0.1
Lightweight Concrete per mm 0.015
Sand per mm 0.015
Stone Concrete per mm 0.023
Asphalt Block Mortar 1.44
Cement Finish Concrete Fill 1.53
2.5.2 Live Loads

Live loads are those loads produced by the use and occupancy of the building or other structure. They are
either moving loads such as equipment, beds, and occupants of the structure. The following loads were
taken from the NSCP 2010, Chapter 2- Minimum Design Loads, Table 205-1 Minimum Uniform and
Concentrated Live Load.
Table 2-10: Live loads
Description Uniform Load Concentrated

Load
Classrooms 1.9 4.5
Corridors above ground floor 3.8 4.5
Ground floor corridors 4.8 4.5
20
2.5.3 Earthquake Loads
Earthquake loads are lateral loads that could cause the lateral deflection of the structure. The designers
considered the highest possible earthquake load that could hit the location. The purpose of considering the
earthquake loads is primarily to safeguard against major structural failures and loss of life, not to limit the
damage or maintain function.
Table 2-11. Earthquake Loads
Parameters
Importance Factor 1.5
Soil Profile Type
SD
Seismic Zone Zone 4 (Z=.4)
Seismic Source Type A
Near-source Factor (Na) 1.1
Near-source Factor (Nv) 1.4
Seismic Response Coefficient (Ca) 0.44Na
Seismic Response Coefficient (Cv) 0.64Nv
2.5.4 Wind Loads

Wind loads are randomly applied dynamic loads. It is used to refer to any pressures or forces that the wind
exerts on a building or structure. The intensity of the wind pressure on the surface of a structure depends
on wind velocity, air density, orientation of the structure, area of contact surface, and the shape of the
structure.
Table 2-12: Wind Loads
PARAMETERS
Basic Wind Speed 200 kph
Exposure Category B
Building Classification Category II
Structure Type Building Structure
Enclosure Classification Enclosed Building
Importance Factor 1.15
Roof Type Roof Deck
2.5.5 Load Combinations

Buildings, towers and other vertical structures and all portions thereof shall be designed to resist the load
combinations. The most critical effects can occur when one or more of the contributing loads are not acting.
All applicable loads shall be considered, including both earthquake and wind, in accordance with the
specified load combination.
21
Table 2-13: Load Combinations
LOADS REQUIRED STRENGTH

DEAD LOAD (DL) AND LIVE LOAD (LL) 1.4DL
1.2DL + 1.6LL
DEAD LOAD (DL), LIVE LOAD (LL) AND 1.2DL + 1.0LL
WIND LOAD (WL) 1.2DL + 0.8WL
1.2DL + 0.8WL + 1.0LL
0.9DL + 1.6WL
DEAD LOAD (DL), LIVE LOAD (LL) AND 1.2DL + 1.0LL + 1.0EL
EARTHQUAKE LOAD (EL) 0.9DL + 1.0EL
2.6 Soil Properties

Table below shows the layer of soil and their properties for the computation purposes.
Table 2-14: Summary of Geotechnical Properties
Soil Layer Angle of Poisson Modulus of Cohesion Unit Weight Cc Cs Pc

Friction Ratio Elasticity (Mpa) (kPa) (kN/m3)
Soft, Brown 17.5 0.2 10 5 17 0.2 0.1 600
Silty Clay
Limestone 32.5 0.3 300 15 21 0.3 0.15 600
2.7 Comparison of Bearing Stress Capacity of the Soil to the Stress Capacity of the Foundation
The table below show the data used for the computation of the bearing capacity of the soil using DC
Bearing.
Table 2-15: Data for the Computation of Bearing Capacity
Bearing Capacity using Terzaghi

Foundation Type Rectangular Foundation
Width b 4 m
Width Transverse a 4 m
Bottom Edge -2.5 m
Height h 0.2 m
Unit Weight 25 kN/m^3
Layer Data:
Soft Clay Limestone
Layer Height [m] 12 88
Inner Friction [ω] 17.5 32.5
Cohesion C [kN/m^2] 5 15
Unit Weight Soil ϒ 17 21
Unit Weight Bouyant ϒ' 7 18
22
Table 2-16: Design Loads and Dimension Inputs
Design Loads and Dimension Inputs

Loading Design Values
Imposed Load P for Square Column 1173 kN
1172 and
Imposed Load P for Combined Column 625
Self-Weight G 80 kN
Lift A -32 kN
Total Load V 1221 kN
Dimensions:
Bond depth d 2.5 m
Equivalent width b' 4 m
Equivalent width trans. a' 4 m
2.8 Result of Bearing Capacity of the Soil

The figure shows the results of the computation of bearing capacity of soil using DC Bearing.
Figure 2-6: Data Result of Bearing Capacity of Soil

In this figure the actual value of bearing load is less than the allowable value of soil bearing capacity load
which has the ratio that is less than 1.0. Therefore, the soil can carry and hold the structure due to bearing
capacity failure and it is not necessary to design the ground improvement based on the bearing capacity of
the soil. The main reason of the design project is to design the ground improvement based on the
settlement that may happen due to the weight of the structure.
23
Figure 2-7: Soil Bearing Capacity Illustration
2.9 Architectural Design

2.9.1 Floor Area
Table 2-17: Floor Area Computation for the School Building
Room Description Floor Area (sq.m) Quantity Total Area (sq.m)

Tellering and Accounting 60 1 60
Guidance and OSA 60 1 60
Comfort Rooms 30 5 150
Staff Room 30 1 30
School Supplies Room 30 1 30
Canteen 90 1 90
Faculty Room 30 3 90
Consultation Room 30 1 30
Classrooms 60 8 480
Seminar Room 90 1 90
Laboratory Room 90 1 90
Library 90 1 90
Study Area 60 1 60
Computer Room 30 4 120
IT Room 30 1 30
Stock Room 30 2 60
Shower Room 30 1 30
Hallway 120 5 600
Elevator 8 5 40
Stairs 15 5 75
Total Floor Area: 2305
24
2.9.2 Floor Plans
The following are the floor plans of the five-storey school building. The floor plans were designed in
accordance to the standards of Department of Education (DepEd) and National Building Code of the
Philippines (NBCP).
Figure 2-8: Proposed Ground Floor Plan
Figure 2-8: Proposed Second Floor Plan
Figure 2-8: Proposed Third Floor Plan
25
Figure 2-9: Proposed Fourth Floor Plan
Figure 2-10: Proposed Fifth Floor Plan
Figure 2-11: Proposed Roof Deck Floor Plan
26
Figure 2-12: Proposed Roof Plan
2.9.3 Elevation Plans
Figure 2-12: Front Elevation
27
Figure 2-13: Right and Left Elevation
Figure 2-14: Rear Elevation
28
2.9.4 Foundation Plans
Figure 2-15: Foundation Plan
Figure 2-16: Typical Footing Details
29
Figure 2-17: Schedule of Footing
2.10 Related Literature

The review of related literature talks about the articles and studies regarding ground improvement
and structural framing. It contains previous articles with details and information that will serve as a
guide for the design project. The related literature is composed of both local and foreign articles
and studies which tackles about the same project.
2.10.1 Foreign Literature
2.10.1.1. EMBANKMENT SUPPORT: A COMPARISON OF STONE COLUMN AND RAMMED
AGGREGATE PIER SOIL REINFORCEMENT
In the paper of White, D., the embankment foundation sites were improved with stone columns and
Geopier elements after geotechnical measurements were taken. This stone column site has
performed its intended function for global slope reinforcement. It proved that the embankment has
not failed. The Geopier installations also have performed as intended by reducing settlement and
the construction delay between embankment completion and abutment construction from the
original 120 days to just 30 days. In short, advantages of the stone columns at this site include
larger diameter and shaft length, whereas the Geopier elements were smaller but stiffer. Future
comparative investigations are highly encouraged with emphasis on documenting the influence of
lateral stress on the load-settlement behavior.
Retrieve from: http://www.geostructures.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/TP36-Geopier-vs-SC-

Performance-Dr.-David-White.pdf
2.10.1.2. USE OF JET GROUTING TO LIMIT DIAPHRAGM WALL DISPLACEMENT OF A DEEP

EXCAVATION
According to Hsii-Sheng Hsieh et.al (January 2003), in this paper, the use of a jet grouting scheme
to reduce the diaphragm wall displacement of a six-level basement excavation. The usual main
cause of damages to the buildings nearby is an excessive lateral diaphragm wall displacement and
associated ground settlements. It is, therefore, necessary to reduce the diaphragm wall
displacement during the basement excavation when the safety of the nearby buildings is
concerned. Based on the experience of the field in similar projects, buildings next to the
30
construction site may live more than an acceptable limit if the digging is carried out without any
protection measures taken. In this excavation project, the mass of the ground within the digging
area is partly jet grouted in an attempt to increase its passive resistance as an effective measure to
limit the wall displacement. To assess the effects of jet grouting, numerical analyses were made.
The wall displacements were measured, and the ground settlement proved the effectiveness of the
improvement process.
Retrieve from: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2003)129%3A2(146)
2.10.1.3. GROUND IMPROVEMENT BY STONE COLUMNS AND SURCHARGE AT A TANK SITE
According to Bhushan, K. et.al., (2004), in this paper proved that stone columns can reduce
liquefaction and lateral spreading potential and can improve the soil bearing capacity by
surcharging the site with loading equal to or more than the structure loads and it can effectively
reduce the post-surcharge settlements to acceptable limits. The measured settlements under the
surcharge agreed well with the predicted settlements. The actual time required to obtain greater
than 90% consolidation was near the lower range of the estimated time. Stone columns can be
installed at distances of 16 ft 4.87 m) or more without damaging existing structures or utilities. The
damage to structures can be reduced by elimination of vibro-compaction in the depth range of the
adjacent structures.
Retrieve from: https://www.groupdelta.com/Papers/Ground-Improvement-by-Stone-Columns-and-
Surcharge-at-a-Tank-Site.pdf
2.10.1.4. IMPROVEMENT MECHANISMS OF STONE COLUMNS AS A MITIGATION MEASURE
AGAINST LIQUEFACTION-INDUCED LATERAL SPREADING
According to Tang, E. (2014), a study was carried out to assess the effectiveness of stone columns
against liquefaction induced lateral spreading using the finite difference programme FLAC. For this
purpose, a site in Christchurch was used which was affected by the February 2011 earthquake.
The three main ground improvement mechanisms associated stone columns – reinforcement,
drainage and densification effects were investigated on how each of them improved the mitigation
against liquefaction and associated lateral spreading. It was found that the densification effect
resulted in the most significant effect on the ground improvement system while the reinforcement
effect had the smallest effect on the system.
Retrieve from: http://db.nzsee.org.nz/2014/oral/82_Tang.pdf
2.10.1.5. DESIGN PROCESS OF DEEP SOIL MIXED WALLS FOR EXCAVATION SUPPORT
According to Rutherford C.J., Biscontin G., Koutsoftas D., Briaud J.L. (2007), DSM walls are used
more and more beca6use of the advantages they provide over traditional excavation support. This
paper presented a design process providing more standardized procedures including alternatives
suitable for simplified calculations and computer-aided analysis. The design flowchart was
illustrated through a case history and the results of various methods were compared. The simplified
method is easier to use but can only be applied to much simplified soil stratigraphies. However, the
limitations associated with deflection and bending moment estimates suggest that this method
should only be used as a preliminary tool for the design of DSM walls. The beam-column method
31
provides both wall deflection predictions and bending moment estimates; however, one must keep
in mind the limitations associated with soil movement predictions. Finite element simulations allow
for more realistic ground deformation and wall deflection predictions for DSM supported
excavations. FEM also allows simulation of different phases of the construction sequence
permitting direct evaluation of the displacement at each stage of construction. These are
advantageous for DSM walls, which are often installed in soft soils where reliable ground
deformation predictions are needed.
Retrieve from: geocasehistoriesjournal.org/…ownload/IJGCH_1_2_1/75
2.10.1.6. DESIGN OF DEEP SOIL MIX STRUCTURES: CONSIDERATIONS ON THE UCS
CHARACTERISTIC VALUE
According to Denies N., Van Lysebetten G., Huybrechts N., a Belgian design methodology for the
DSM structures is currently developed. On the one hand to determine the UCS characteristic value
of the DSM material and on the other hand to design the SMW as a retaining wall according to the
requirements of the Eurocode 7. According to the results presented in this paper, the calculations
of the UCS characteristic value were considered. These are the number of tested core samples,
the possibility to use a statistical approach (based on the cumulative curve) or an approach such
as in the DIN, the determination of the X% lower quantile for DSM material (in case of statistical
calculation), the presence of the unmixed soft soil inclusions potentially considering the rule of 1/6
(Ganne et al. 2010), the scale effect (with regard to the full-scale factor of 0.7), the possibility of 3D
analysis, and the time effects (with the help of creep test or based on experience with similar
technique and soil conditions).
The curing and creep phenomena are currently investigated within the framework of the BBRI ‘Soil
Mix’ project. Indeed, while SMWs were previously used only for temporary excavation support,
permanent retaining and bearing applications with soil mix are increasingly applied in Belgium. For
the evolution of the UCS value with time, it is suggested to consider the value of the UCS at 28
days as the value of reference for the strength of the DSM material.
Retrieve from: www.cfms-sols.org/…es/download_pdf.php?file=2465...
2.10.1.7. GROUND IMPROVEMENT BY JET GROUTING TECHNIQUE FOR FOUNDATIONS OF A
NATURAL GAS COMBINED CYCLE POWER PLANT IN TURKEY
According to Gokalp, A., in this paper, it discussed one of the largest jet grouting applications in
Turkey. Based on the trial test results performed at site, an additional step was added to the basic
procedure to ensure that jet grout column of 600 mm or greater diameter is achieved. Prior to jet
grouting sequence, a pre-jetting sequence was incorporated where high pressure water is jetted
through the nozzles, with rotation and lifting in a similar manner to that used during jet grouting. A
comprehensive quality control and verification testing program were incorporated in the project.
The properly planned and executed quality control program resulted in early identification of
potential problems and allowed the contractor to make necessary adjustment and/or modifications
to solve these problems. Pre-production test grout column installation assist in evaluating the
effectiveness of the equipment to be used and selection of the appropriate and optimum injection
parameters. 78.000 m jet grouting installation was completed within a period of six months with
32
close cooperation among the general contractor, designer and jet grouting contractor. The
unconfined compressive strength of the jet grouted soil ranged from 3.6 to 20.4 Mpa. The test
results exceeded the minimum specified strength of 3.2 Mpa. The results of strength tests reveal
that the measured unconfined compressive strength of jet grouted soils are in conformity with the
values obtained in similar soil conditions.
Retrieved from:
https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/18374/Guo_ku_0099M_13780_DATA_1.pdf?
sequence=1
2.10.1.8. STEEL TANKS ON DEEP VIBRO TECHNIQUES IMPROVED GROUND
According to Z.W. HE, K.W. LEONG and S. SELVARAJU, Steel storage tanks are often founded
conventionally on pile foundations. But with the advent of new ground improvement techniques,
tank foundations are designed more creatively using ground improvement. One such application in
a tank terminal expansion in Singapore is discussed here. Based on the soil conditions, the
foundation solution consisted of Vibro Replacement stone columns for soft to firm soil followed by
Vibro Compaction for reclaimed sand on top. The execution methods, quality assurance and
quality control procedures implemented were described. Hydrostatic tests conducted on tanks after
ground improvement showed that the observed settlements are well within design predictions.
Hence ground improvement using Vibro Replacement and Vibro Compaction is a suitable, cost
effective and reliable foundation solution for storage tanks in this project.
Retrieve from:
file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/STEEL_TANKS_ON_DEEP_VIBRO_TECHNIQUES_IMP.pdf
2.10.1.9. SOIL-CEMENT WALLS FOR EXCAVATION SUPPORT
According to Yang, D. (2003), the in-situ soil mixing methods provided efficient solutions for
projects with challenging subsurface conditions after the researcher design the soil-cement
foundation and gravity wall. It produces reinforced soil-cement walls or gravity walls for effective
earth retention and seepage control in difficult ground, including highly permeable cobble soils, or
liquefiable ground.
Retrieve from: https://www.raito.co.jp/english/construction/pdf/da_soilcement.pdf
2.10.1.10. GROUND IMPROVEMENT USING THE VIBRO-STONE COLUMN TECHNIQUE

According to McCabe, B., the Irish construction industry has been slower than many of its
European counterparts to recognize the technical and economic advantages that Vibro Stone
Columns can provide. Ireland has an abundance of soft estuarine and alluvial soils and these may
be improved sufficiently to allow standard foundations to be constructed at shallow depth, without
the need to resort to deep piling. Where ground conditions are suitable, stone column solutions
have been shown to be more cost effective than trench fill in excess of 2m depth. In addition, stone
columns can offer considerable contract programmed savings over other ground improvement
methods, such as preloading and vertical drains. As with all geotechnical projects, a thorough site
investigation with adequate information on soil strength and compressibility is essential.
33
Retrieve from: http://www.engineersireland.ie/EngineersIreland/media/SiteMedia/groups/societies/
geotechnical/Ground-Improvement-using-the-Vibro-Stone-Column-Technique.pdf
2.10.2 Local Literature
The articles from the local researchers with common parameters, standards and information are
based on some foreign studies which we adopted and presented in this section. Different
techniques are performed to ground improvement and its effect on the structure, a very
comprehensive analysis, and studies should be achieved to mitigate the effect of the seismic
waves. For choosing for the suitable trade-offs for the design project, here are some literature that
focuses on the best ground improvement for cohesive soils.
2.10.2.1. HIGH NONLINEAR URBAN GROUND MOTION IN MANILA (PHILIPPINES) FROM 1993
TO 2010 OBSERVED BY DINSAR: IMPLICATIONS FOR SEA-LEVEL MEASUREMENT
From a methodological point of view according to Raucoules, D. et.al, this study provides an
example of a site where InSAR is helpful in assessing city-scale subsidence or uplift as well as the
related consequences for measurements obtained from geodetic instruments located in the city.
Because of its deformation characteristics (location, extent, and variable temporal evolution), the
Manila metropolitan area has been revealed to be a challenging test site both
for application of deformation-monitoring techniques and for surface deformation-related risk
management. The approach proposed in this study could enable assessment of the usability of a
number 28 of tide gauges suspected of having been affected by local ground motions and finally
could provide help in estimating sea-level evolution over the past century.
Retrieve from: file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/High_nonlinear_urban_ground_motion_in_Ma.pdf
2.10.2.2. AN ANALYSIS OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS TO DETERMINE THE SOIL BEARING
CAPACITY IN MANILA FOR THE DESIGN OF FOUNDATION
According to Gangcuangco, Dave Joseph et. Al. (December 2012), the best foundation to be used
in the City of Manila for a structure with less than 5-storey is isolated footing with tie beam and if
the land area is limited then combined footing with tie beam must be used. In general, the soil in
the City of Manila has a low bearing capacity which is underlain by weak, compressible and
potentially liquefiable formation (sand) within the influence depth of the formation. The soil
classification in the City of Manila obtained from the geotechnical report verifies the geological map
of the Geoscience and Mines which classified the soil as quaternary alluvium which is composed of
mostly sand, silt, and gravel. It is suggested that for a structure that has 5-storey and above pile
foundation is highly recommended. The most probable value for the soil allowable bearing capacity
of Manila is 71.94 kPa using the statistical procedures. In conducting a soil investigation, a soil
classification is included, and it was identified to be composed mostly of silty sands and sand silt
mixture (more than half of coarse fraction is smaller than no. 4 sieve) and partly inorganic silts
micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty, elastic soils with liquid limit less than 50%. Since it
has been identified that the soil bearing capacity in the city of Manila is almost the same in every
district, the most suited type of structure to be constructed is residential structures. And if it is
desired to have commercials or industrials structures deep foundation will be used.
34
Retrieve from: http://fs.mapua.edu.ph/MapuaLibrary/LibraryFiles/LibraryResources/Feasibility/An
%20Analysis%20Of%20Geotechnical%20Reports%20to%20Determine%20the%20Soil
%20Bearing%20Capacity%20in%20Manila%20for%20the%20Design%20of.pdf
2.10.2.3. BEHAVIOUR OF CLAY REINFORCED BY SAND COMPACTION PILE WITH SMEAR
According to Juneja, A. (May 2012), in the design practice for sand compaction piles (SCPs), it is
usually assumed that the state of in situ soil does not change during the installation. In fact, there is
evidence to suggest that extensive remolding of the preferred soil fabric occurs within the zone
immediately surrounding the SCP. Properties of the soil within this heavily disturbed zone can
affect the pore pressure dissipation, and hence the time after which the ultimate strength of the
composite ground would be available. In this study, the effect of smear zone around SCPs is
modelled in the laboratory using triaxial tests. SCPs of 25–80 mm diameter were installed in 100
mm diameter cylindrical samples. The sand columns were installed by pre-drilling a hole and then
backfilling it with well-compacted sand. The smear zone was created by using a rough casing to
drill the hole. The effect of the smear zone on SCP was investigated by observing the change in
pore pressure during consolidation and the undrained shear strength of the composite sample.
Although the shear-induced pore pressures and the undrained shear strength of the composite
samples could reasonable be predicted, wide scatter still existed in the relationship between the
stress concentration factor and the area replacement ratio.
Retrieve from: https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/abs/10.1680/grim.10.00020
2.10.2.4. IMPROVEMENT OF THE BEARING CAPACITY OF CONFINED AND UNCONFINED
CEMENT-STABILIZED AEOLIAN SAND
According to Lopez-Querol, S., the improvement reached on the compaction and bearing capacity
of aeolian sand collected in Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) after its stabilization with Portland cement is
evaluated, comparing the behavior for both treated and untreated samples. With the aim of using
this type of soil in the construction of embankments for road or railway applications, the results
obtained have been evaluated in terms of maximum dry density, optimum moisture content
(compaction test) and bearing capacity (CBR). Special attention has been paid to the influence of
the confining conditions on the results, scarcely analyzed in the literature, by comparing the load-
displacement curves during penetration stage in the CBR tests for both confined and unconfined
specimens. Different contents of Portland cement have been explored (out of 6% of dry soil weight)
to stabilize this material. The results obtained show a clear linear correlation between of
compaction characteristics and CBR respect to the percentage of cement, obtaining, as expected,
higher improvement for treated-material with higher content of cement, also strongly influenced by
the confinement state. Thanks to this treatment, it is possible to employ this material in applications
with low-confinement support, which is impossible without a previous proper stabilization. Finally,
two practical indices have been defined to measure the degree of improvement reached, involving
both cement content and confinement.
Retrieve from: http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=11&sid=10dfa9c8-4cf9-479e-b32c-
d3501218b673%40pdc-vsessmgr01&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU
%3d#AN=125547687&db=a9h
35
2.10.2.5. DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVE STRENGTH OF DEEP CEMENT-MIXED
CLAY FROM CORE STRENGTH DATA
According to Lee, F.H., The core data are first normalized with respect to the duration between
treatment and testing, to account for the increase in strength with time. Second, the robustness of
two types of criteria is then examined and the sample minima are shown to be relatively sensitive
to outlying data. A set of theoretical equations on the variability of sample attributes, such as mean,
variance and representative strength, with sample size is then verified using subset re-sampling
from the data set, thereby providing a basis for assessing sufficiency of sample size. Finally, a
method of conservatively estimating population mean strength and variance from limited sample
size based on a prescribed confidence level is also proposed.
Retrieve from: http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=15&sid=10dfa9c8-4cf9-479e-b32c-
d3501218b673%40pdc-v-sessmgr01&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU
%3d#AN=121610309&db=a9h
36
CHAPTER 3: CONSTRAINTS, TRADEOFFS, AND STANDARDS
3.1 Geotechnical Design

3.1.1 Design Constraints
In a capstone design, constraints are needed. Constraint means a parameter or a barrier that must
be considered in making a design to be more efficient and effective. It also restricts the system
performance in a given context, scenario or environment. It is also the cause of eliminating or
reducing the possible performance of a design.
In our design, constraints were separated into two types, quantitative constraints and qualitative
constraints. Qualitative constraints are those constraints that cannot be computed or measured but
it can be ranked through the designer’s perspective using the raw ranking method. While the
quantitative constraints are those constraints that can be computer or measured using engineering
techniques.
3.1.1.1 Quantitative Constraints

Quantitative Constraints are those constraints that can be measured and compared
numerically which are obtained through engineering methods. These quantitative
constraints to be considered in the design is:
3.1.1.1.1 Constructability (Project Duration)
The designer considers this as a major constraint for the reason that it may affect the cost of the
project, if the project duration is too high or too low. Even though this project is a project arranged
by public government, Project duration is also significant thing to be considered for them to finish
another project. For us to conclude the trade-offs mentioned above will be evaluated by the
estimated duration.
3.1.1.1.2 Economic Constraints (Project Cost)
Another constraint that should be considered by the designer is the material cost. In our case, Soil
nailing, jet grouting, and lime column are the methods we will consider for the improvement or
stabilization of soil. For you to arrive at an efficient conclusion, the designer must consider its
material cost whether it is expensive or not.
3.1.1.1.3 Sustainability (Serviceability/Design Life)
The number of disasters such as typhoons and earthquakes probably cannot be expected. For you
to have an effective and efficient design, sustainability must be considered. That is why ground
improvement is needed to work properly so that its physical and geotechnical properties will be
37
maintained for its sustainability. Maintenance cost is another cost we should consider when
working on a design project.
3.1.1.2.4 Safety Constraints (Factor of Safety)

To determine that the design is effective, settlement reduced by a certain trade-off must be
assessed. 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 considered as a major constraint for this project for you to arrive in a reasonable
conclusion.
3.1.1.2 Qualitative Constraints
Qualitative constraint implies the qualities on processes and meanings that are not computed and
experimentally examined or measured in terms of quantity, amount, intensity, or frequency. Below
are the lists of qualitative constraints that the designers considered.
3.1.1.2.1 Environmental Constraints

There are many environmental factors that may affect the quality of service of the project to the
customers/users. One of the highly considered factors when it comes to environmental constraints
is pollution. Pollution comes in many forms like air pollution, water pollution and noise pollution.
Since the project is prone to the stated pollution problems, it is highly recommended that the
designer must address the problems right during the construction of the project by observance of
cleanliness on the site and the areas around it.
3.1.1.2.2 Risk Assessment

A risk assessment is a thorough look at your workplace to identify those things, situations,
processes, etc. that may cause harm, particularly to people. After identification is made, you
analyze and evaluate how likely and severe the risk is. When this determination is made, you can
next, decide what measures should be in place to effectively eliminate or control the harm from
happening.
3.1.2 Tradeoffs
Trade-offs for the geotechnical design was the different types on how to do a ground improvement.
Namely the Soil Cement Column, Jet Grouting and the Vibro Replacement or Stone Column. The
designers must evaluate those design tradeoffs with the use of the quantitative constraints that
measures which of the designs has been able to meet the limits considering the specifications of
the client.
3.1.2.1 Tradeoff 1: Soil Cement Column
This tradeoff was chosen by the designer. The location has high moisture content base on the
preliminary data collected. That is why this method is introduced. Soil cement columns deep soil
mixing is the mechanical blending of soil with cementitious materials to form a soilcrete mixture with
increased shear strength, reduced compressibility, reduced permeability and other improved
properties. For the construction of columns, the method will be done by using a high-speed drill
which drives into the ground with drill rod and radial mixing paddles. During the insertion, the tool
shears the soil for the mixing process. When the tool reaches the needed depth, the cementitious
38
binder will be pumped through the drill steel to the tool and it will be mixed with the soil. This
method can build overlapping row columns, soilcrete columns and 100 percent stabilization with the
design’s strength and stiffness. This procedure produces low vibration, quiet, clean and uses
available materials. This process has the advantage of producing low spoil for disposal. Soil with
greater than 60 percent moisture content is suitable and best for the effectiveness of this method.
This method can’t be used in a soft cohesive soil. Laboratory testing is advised to do when
designing with organic soils and peats to be stabilized. Depending on the soil type, strength, water
content texture, stratigraphy and plasticity, soil vary widely in their ability to be mixed. This method
is effective to a depth up to 60 feet. Obstructions must be pre-drilled before the soil mixing process
proceeds. Different testing must be finished before the process proceeds for the determination of
mix methodologies, energy and binder content.
Figure 3-1: Method of Soil Cement Column

(Source: Soil Improvement- liebherr)
3.1.2.2 Tradeoff 2: Jet Grouting

Another tradeoff that the designer choose is jet grouting. Ground improvement is a common
technique in dealing with some permanent as well as temporary issue in the field of civil
engineering that is why this technique is introduced.
The difference of this method from grouting of permeation is that the grouting of permeation is a
method that disturbs the structure of the soil while jet grouting is a method which is used not to
disturb the structure of the soil. Jet grouting tends to be more structural method than the other
method of applying grout. It also has a huge range of applications in the field of construction. When
39
this method is applied beneath the structure, it can extend such foundation even in a poor ground
and support them while excavation, often unsupported, operates next to them. It can also support
underground where the opening is needed because it is independent of the ground composition or
ground strength. It can also control groundwater at the base of the excavation and prop retaining
walls simultaneously. Jet grouting is also known for its multi-application ability to support, control
groundwater and increase the efficiency of site usage at the same time. These are the three basic
systems of this method:
a. Single System. This system comprises only the injection of grout at high pressure. This is the
first system to be applied and gives the limited diameter of the column. The borehole can
sometimes be blocked resulting in ground swelling. The sizes of the column are usually small,
and it ranges up to 1m in diameter.
b. Double System. This system apparently like a single system. The only difference between
single and double system is that double system has air shroud to the nozzle. The presence of
air shroud will increase the efficiency of the jet and will result in 30% or more increase in
diameter for equal jetting energy. Mostly, the diameter of the column will reach up to 3m due to
the occurrence of more dynamic high-pressure pumps.
c. Triple System. The difference of triple system from the above systems is that the movement of
the ground is carried out by an air shrouded water jet with a supplementary low-pressure grout
line. The diameter of the column that will result in this method will likely achieve greater than
the diameter achieves on the single system. However, the energy is comparatively low
compared to the double system. The diameter of the column commonly ranges 1.7m to 2m.
Figure 3-2: Systems of Jet Grouting

Jet grouting considered risky method for ground improvement process due to the high pressure
involved and the occurrence of soil movement. However, a well-planned, good operation, good site
control, and experience can make this method feasible, efficient and able to upstand the risk. The
main risk correlated to this method is the use of high pressure and the occurrence of soil
movement. Presence of patience and care must be taken to make sure that the heave of the floors
and walls will be maintained because the construction of walls and floors is critical when the
40
presence of soil movement is involved in the construction. Monitoring is required during jet
grouting. Also, wall movement must be monitor during jet grouting.
Figure 3-3: Method of Jet Grouting

(Source: Ground Improvement: Jet Grouting by Hayward Baker)
3.1.2.3 Tradeoff 3: Vibro Replacement
Vibro replacement is also chosen by the designer as one of its tradeoffs. Vibro replacement will
help the soil to be stabilized well. Vibro replacement is also known as stone column method. For
the effectiveness of this method, the vibrator will penetrate the design depth, and the cavity will be
filled with hard, inert stone that is free from clay and silt. The interaction required between the soil
and the stone column is developed by the stone infill being inserted and compacted in a certain
stage, each layer of stone will be compacted.
The stone column and confined soil will form a combined foundation support system and has a low
compressibility and enhanced load-bearing capacity. In soil under cohesion, relatively rapid
consolidation is gained through excess pore water pressure being consumed by the stone
columns. The stone column layout can be aligned to suit different combination of soil type, load
and the performance of the settlement required. Column spacing ranges from 1.2m to 2.0m
beneath the main load-bearing foundation and up to 3.0m below the floor slabs. The method that
will be used in this trade-off will be bottom feed process. This process is a dry method in which it is
used to work on unstable soil with the high ground water level. The first step is the penetrate the
weak soil with the vibrator and compressed air and form a hole to design, sometimes it is a
competent bearing stratum. After working on such a depth for a short time, the vibrator will be
detached and insert a pile of stone and placed in the hole. The vibrator will be used again, and
then compaction process will undergo. After some time, the compacted stone will be built and
41
reach the ground level. The compacted stone will help them to improve the settlement and load-
bearing capacity of the soil.
Figure 3-4: Method of Stone Column
(Source: Ground Improvement: Stone Column by PTC-fayat)
3.1.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking

Using those constraints, the designer came up with the rankings of the tradeoffs base on their ideas or
perspectives. The discussion on how the designer came up with the rankings are shown in a table:
Table 3-1: Designer’s Raw Ranking
Ability to satisfy the criterion

Criterion’s
(on a scale from 0 to 10)
Importance
(on a scale of Soil
Design Criterion Jet Vibro
0 to 10) Cement
Grouting Replacement
Column
Constructability (Duration)
9 8.75 10 7.37
Economic (Material Cost)

10 7.70 6.65 10
Safety (Settlement) 9 9.41 10 8.13
Sustainability
(Serviceability/Design Life) 8 10 8 6.67
Overall Rank 320.44 310.5 292.86
42
The indicated values are just initial estimation and done for the primary comparison of the design tradeoffs.
The initial estimates will be a guide for the possible outcomes that can occur. The comparison between the
tradeoffs with respect to the constraints listed above is done by computing the labor cost, materials and
equipment to be used for the construction. Below are the values for initial estimates.
Table 3-2: Summary of Initial Estimate of Values
Ground Improvement System

Constraint
Soil Cement Column Jet Grouting Vibro Replacement
Economic PHP 2,680,963.79 PHP 3,102,943.19 PHP 2,064,670.55
Safety 20.57 mm 19.36 mm 23.80 mm
Constructability 16 days 14 days 19 days
Sustainability 75 Years 60 Years 50 Years
3.1.4 Trade Off Assessment

The criterion’s importance was set by the designer’s initial decision based on what they know about the
specific method. The designers emphasize that safety and sustainability are the most important part of the
design project which in this case was given an importance of ten (10). Constructability and economic
constraints constitute an importance factor of ten (10).
Computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials:
Higher Value−Lower Value
% difference= x 100
Higher Value
Equation 3.1
Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank− ( % Difference )
Equation 3.2
These equations were used to determine which tradeoff/method will satisfy all the necessary constraints.
The governing rank is the subjective choice of the designer. In choosing the value for the criterion
importance and the ability to satisfy the criterion, the designer will choose any value regarding their
perspective in which the importance of the method using satisfying the constraints is needed. The
subjective value depends on the initial estimate which the designer can select initially. The subordinate
rank in the Equation 3.2 is a variable that corresponds to its percentage distance from the governing rank
through ranking scale.
43
3.1.4.1 Initial Estimate for Constructability Constraint: Labor and Equipment Cost
Table 3-3: Initial Estimate for Constructability Constraint
Tradeoff Initial Estimate Subordinate Rank

1. Soil Cement Column 16 Working Days 8.75
2. Jet Grouting 14 Working Days 10
3. Vibro Replacement 19 Working Days 7.37
Tradeoff 2 vs. Tradeoff 1

% difference= x 10
Higher Value
16−14
% difference= x 10=1.25
16
Subordinate Rank=10−1.25=8.75
Figure 3-5: Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Constructability Constraint T2 vs. T1

% difference= x 10
Higher Value
19−14
19
Subordinate Rank=10−2.63 = 7.37
44
3.1.4.2 Initial Estimate for Economic Constraint: Project Cost
Table 3-4: Initial Estimate for Economic Constraint

1. Soil Cement Column PHP 2,680,963.79 7.70
2. Jet Grouting PHP 3,102,943.19 6.65
3. Vibro Replacement PHP 2,064,670.55 10

% difference= x 10
Higher Value
2,680,963.79−2,064,670.55
2,680,963.79
Figure 3-7: Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Economic Constraint T3 vs T1
45
% difference= x 10
Higher Value
3,102,943.19 −2,064,670.55
3,102,943.19
Figure 3- 8: Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Economic Constraint T3 vs T2
3.1.4.3 Initial Estimate for Safety Constraint: Settlement
Table 3-5: Initial Estimate for Safety Constraint
Tradeoff Initial Factor of Safety Subordinate Rank

1. Soil Cement Column 20.57 mm 9.41
2. Jet Grouting 19.36 mm 10
3. Vibro Replacement 23.80 mm 8.13

% difference= x 10
Higher Value
20.57−19.36
20.57
46
Figure 3-9: Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Safety Constraint T2 vs. T1

% difference= x 10
Higher Value
23.80−19.36
23.80
3.1.4.4 Initial Estimate for Sustainability Constraint: Life Span
Table 3-6: Initial Estimate for Sustainability Constraint

1. Soil Cement Column 75 Years 10
2. Jet Grouting 60 Years 8
3. Vibro Replacement 50 Years 6.67
47
% difference= x 10
Higher Value
75−60
% difference= x 10=2
75
Subordinate Rank=10−2 = 8
Figure 3-11: Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Sustainability Constraint T1 vs T2

% difference= x 10
Higher Value
75−50
75
Figure 3-12: Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Sustainability Constraint T2 vs. T3
48
3.1.5 Constraint Assessment
3.1.5.1 Constructability Assessment

With the help of designer’s estimation and labor/productivity rate of the materials for the design, the
designers were able to estimate the estimated duration of the project. For the constructability constraint, jet
grouted columns have the lowest duration that can make the project finished because of the equipment, jet
grouting rig, followed by soil cement column and vibro replacement.
3.1.5.2 Economic Assessment

With the help of the designer’s estimation, the designers were able to come up with the following ranking.
For the economic constraint. Vibro-replacement has the lowest estimated cost for the design project
followed by soil cement column and jet grouted columns. The designers rank vibro-replacement as the
highest rank for this constraint.
3.1.5.3 Safety Assessment

For the environmental constraint, jet grouted columns have the lowest value of the resulting settlement
produced by the analysis using DC Settle software. Jet grouted columns has the highest subordinate rank
followed by soil cement and vibro-replacement.
3.1.5.4 Sustainability Assessment

For the sustainability constraint, the highest value for the subordinate rank is soil cement column followed
by jet grouted column and vibro replacement. Soil cement column ranks first for this constraint because soil
cement column composed of mixture of concrete and soil and has a life span to be maintained of more or
less than 75 years. Jet grouted column has a life span to be maintained of more or less than 60 years and
lastly vibro replacement has a life span to be maintained of more or less than 50 years. The sustainability
constraint values are based on the designer’s knowledge about the materials to be used.
3.2 Structural Design

3.2.1 Design Constraints
Constraints are the factors or hindrance affects the design or refers to some limitations under the desire
project to be constructed or developed. In the design of the project, it is important to consider the different
effects of the design constraints and limitations to the structure. Constraint is defined as the limiting
condition that may affect the design and construction of the project. Construction projects have a specific
set of objectives and constraints such as a required time frame for completion. The following were
considered to have relevant impact on the design of the School building:
3.2.1.1 Quantitative Constraints

Quantitative Constraints are those constraints that can be measured and compared numerically
which are obtained through engineering methods. These quantitative constraints to be considered
in the design are:
49
3.2.1.1 Economic (Cost)
In designing, budget of the client is the common concern that is why Economic is the basic
constraint in a project. The cost of a building plays an important role in the designing the
client’s desire to have a 5-storey school building. Without the investment of the client, the
whole project is affected from planning and conceptualizing up to the construction phase.
Thus, the most economical among the trade-offs namely Reinforced Concrete Special
Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF), Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame and Dual
System is the choice that the designer might choose.
3.2.1.2 Safety (Serviceability)
Safety is taken into consideration since most of the time in designing for accidents cannot
be avoided. Upon the evaluation of the designer, the constraint is based on the deflection
to prevent structural damage caused by loads. Considering the safety of the workers and
the future students illustrates the quality of the project and quality of the designer as an
engineer without sacrificing the risks of the people inside the school in the future. And this
also engaged with the cost because the less deflection the less cost to be construct vise-
versa, but the large beam can carry heavy loads compare to small beam. But the designer
must be considered the safety of the of the users and how it takes over a period of time to
be stable.
3.2.1.3 Constructability (Duration of Construction)
The duration of construction plays a vital role for both the designer and for the client. The
client preferably wants a shorter time for the construction because it saves more time and
financial benefits that are favor for both parties. The design of the structural elements
should not compromise the required strength due to the client’s desirable choice. In
constructing a school building, estimating of the number of workers or laborers, equipment
needed and materials to be used are considered because how the project be built without
of this three. In this constraint, the time also considered because the delaying of the
project for some problems maybe technical or any problem. If the project will not reach the
desired time to finish the project it will cause the project to spend more money to finish.
But the shorter the time of the project construction should not put the life of the workers at
risks.
3.2.1.4 Sustainability (Life Span)
Considering different factors affecting the final design of the project, the life span of each
moment resisting frame system incorporated in a school building will determine if the
project is sustainable or not. The designer’s final design recommendation will be chosen
by the client because of the satisfaction from the longer life span of the building.
Correspondingly, the longer the life span, the favorable it is for the designer and for the
client.
50
3.2.1.2 Qualitative Constraints
Qualitative constraint implies the qualities on processes and meanings that are not computed and
experimentally examined or measured in terms of quantity, amount, intensity, or frequency. Below
are the lists of qualitative constraints that the designers considered.
3.1.1.2.1 Environmental Constraints

There are many environmental factors that may affect the quality of service of the project
to the customers/users. One of the highly considered factors when it comes to
environmental constraints is pollution. Pollution comes in many forms like air pollution,
water pollution and noise pollution. Since the project is prone to the stated pollution
problems, it is highly recommended that the designer must address the problems right
during the construction of the project by observance of cleanliness on the site and the
areas around it.
3.1.1.2.2 Risk Assessment

A risk assessment is a thorough look at your workplace to identify those things, situations,
processes, etc. that may cause harm, particularly to people. After identification is made,
you analyze and evaluate how likely and severe the risk is. When this determination is
made, you can next, decide what measures should be in place to effectively eliminate or
control the harm from happening.
3.2.2 Tradeoffs
The designer chose the three trade-offs under the Moment-Resisting Frame System which
classified as structural systems. These moment frame systems are a box-shaped frame with
special moment connections or joints that support to resist the wind and earthquake damage. The
frame helps a building to flex as necessary to remain the building's integrity. The behavior of Steel
Special Moment Resisting Frame, Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Resisting Frame and Dual
System structures is studied under seismic loads. The lateral loads, dead loads, live loads and
wind loads are taken into consideration for designing the school.
3.2.2.1 Tradeoff 1: Steel Special Moment Resisting Frames

Structural steel special moment frames often are designed to withstand dramatic inelastic
deformation in both members and connections when assaulted by lateral forces. They also require
the use of pre-qualified connections that have passed a qualifying cyclic test. These connections
must sustain inter-story drift angle of up to 0.04 radians. SMFs are used in regions with mid- to
high-seismic activity. A properly detailed SMF is among the most ductile lateral-force resisting
systems. Special proportioning and detailing requirements are therefore essential in resisting
strong earthquake shaking with substantial inelastic behavior. These moment-resisting frames are
called Special Moment Frames because of these additional requirements, which improve the
inelastic response characteristics of these frames in comparison with less stringently detailed
Intermediate and Ordinary Moment Frames.
51
Figure 3-13 Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame
(Via Google Image)
3.2.2.1.1 Advantages and Disadvantages for Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame
Table 3-7: Advantage and Disadvantages of Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame
Advantages Disadvantages
 Speed of erection. Steel Structures can be  General cost. Steel structures may be
erected quite rapidly. This normally results more costly than other types of structures
in quicker economic payoff.  Fireproofing. The strength of steel is
 Quality of construction. Streel structures reduced substantially when heated at
can be built with high-quality workmanship temperatures, commonly observed in
and narrow tolerances. building fires. Also, steel conducts and
 Repetitive use. Steel can be reused after a transmit heat from burning portion of the
structure is disassembled. building quite fast. Consequently, steel
 Fatigue strength. Steel structures have frames in buildings must have adequate
relatively good fatigue strength. fireproofing.
 Adaptation of prefabrication. Steel is  Susceptibility to buckling. Due to high
highly suitable for prefabrication and mass strength and weight ratio, steel
production. compression members are in general
slenderer and consequently more
susceptible to bucking than, say reinforced
concrete compression members
3.2.2.2 Tradeoff 2: Dual System

A dual system is a structural system in which an essentially complete frame provides support for
gravity loads, and resistance to lateral loads is provided by a specially detailed moment-resisting
frame and shear walls or braced frames. Both shear walls and frames participate in resisting the
lateral loads resulting from earthquakes or wind or storms, and the portion of the forces resisted by
each one depends on its rigidity, modulus of elasticity and its ductility, and the possibility to develop
plastic hinges in its parts. The moment-resisting frame may be either steel or concrete. In the dual
system, both frames and shear walls contribute in resisting the lateral loads. The frame is a group
of beams and columns connected with each other by rigid joints, and the frames bend in
52
accordance with shear mode, whereas the deflection of the shear walls is by a bending mode like
the cantilever walls.
Figure 3-14 Dual System

(Via Google Image)
3.2.2.2.1 Advantage and Disadvantages of Dual System
Table 3-8: Advantage and Disadvantages of Dual System
 Easy to construct  It may interfere with the architectural
 Efficient in terms of both construction cost requirements.
and effectiveness in minimizing  It usually focuses on the few walls rather
earthquake damage in structural and non- than the large number of columns,
structural elements
 Has a good performance with due to
lateral forces
3.2.2.3 Tradeoff 3: Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Resisting Frames

Reinforced concrete special moment frames are used as part of seismic force-resisting systems in
buildings that are designed to resist earthquakes. Beams, columns, and beam-column joints in moment
frames are proportioned and detailed to resist flexural, axial, and shearing actions that result as a building
sways through multiple displacement cycles during strong earthquake ground shaking. Special
proportioning and detailing requirements result in a frame capable of resisting strong earthquake shaking
without significant loss of stiffness or strength. These moment-resisting frames are called “Special Moment
Frames” because of these additional requirements, which improve the seismic resistance in comparison
with less stringently detailed Intermediate and Ordinary Moment Frames
53
Figure 3-15: Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame
(Via Google Image)
3.2.2.3.1 Advantage and Disadvantages of Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Resisting Frames
Table 3-9: Advantage and Disadvantages of Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Resisting Frame
 It is more flexible that the Dual System  Poorly design, it has been observed to fail
 It provides a potentially high-ductile catastrophically in earthquakes, mainly by
system with a good degree of redundancy, formation of weak stories and failures
which can allow freedom in architectural around the beam-column joints.
planning of internal spaces and external  Beam-column joints represents an area of
cladding. high stress concentration, which needs
 Their flexibility and associated long period considerable skill to design successfully.
may serve to detune the structure from the
forcing motions on stiff soil or rock sites.
3.2.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking

Using those constraints, the designer came up with the rankings of the tradeoffs base on their ideas or
perspectives. The discussion on how the designer came up with the rankings are shown in a table:
54
Table 3-10: Table Ranking per Trade off
Ability to satisfy the criterion

(on a scale from 0 to 10)
Design Criteria Criterion’s Importance
(on a scale of 0 to 10) Reinforced Dual Frame
Steel SMRF
Concrete SMRF System
1. Economic 10 8.88 10 8.57

2. Safety 10 8.4 7.89 10
3. Constructability 9 8.82 8.64 10
4. Sustainability 9 6.67 8 10
Over-all Rank 312.21 328.66 365.7
To define the difference among the three trade-offs presented, specific methods were considered by the
designer. For the economic constraint, a cost estimate was provided. For the constructability constraint, an
estimate of the number of working days was for each trade-off was provided. For the safety constraint, the
deflection of the most critical beam was considered. For the sustainability constraint, the life span of the
building with a certain moment resisting frame system was considered.
In this part, a rough computation of the estimates was utilized. The values written in the table below were
just an assumption by the designer with the basis coming from his experience. In the given table below
shows the initial estimates of the trade-offs performed by the designers. Furthermore, the data indicated in
the table will be used for the initial comparative analysis of the trade-offs.
Table 3-11: Summary of Initial Estimate of Values
Moment-Resisting Frame Systems

Constraint
Steel SMRF RC SMRF Dual System
Economic PHP 42,528,412.5 PHP 33,290,250 PHP 29,699,250
Safety 5.32 mm 6.70 mm 4.35 mm
Constructability 321 days 436 days 380 days

60-75 years 50-60 years 40-50 years
Sustainability 50 % additional 45 % additional 30 % additional
lifespan lifespan lifespan
3.2.4 Trade Off Assessment
Since the criterion’s importance is subjective, its value will then depend on the client’s and designers’
decision. Subsequently, the design of the slab is subject for deliberation, thus it is important to consider on
55
how to make the expense as cheap as possible. In this case, economic constraint was given an importance
of ten (10). The constructability constraint is given an importance of 10 since its significance will be based
on the post-construction of the roofing. Also, safety constraint was given importance of ten (10) for the
quality and integrity of the project. The constructability constraint is given an importance of nine (9) since it
will be based on the duration of the construction phase. The sustainability constraint is given an importance
of (9) since the lifespan of the building in different factors arises will determine if the project is sustainable
or not. The discussion on how the designers came up with the raw rankings’ values are shown and
computed below.
% difference= x 100
Higher Value
Equation 3.1
Equation 3.2
The above equations will be used for the manipulation of the rankings of each constraint given to the
tradeoffs. The governing rank is the highest possible value set by the designer. The subordinate rank in
second equation is a variable that corresponds to its percentage difference from the governing rank along
the ranking scale.
3.2.4.1 Initial Estimate for Constructability Constraint
Table 3-12: Initial Estimate for Constructability Constraint

1. Steel SMRF 321 days 10
2. Dual System 436 days 8.64
3. RC SMRF 380 days 8.82

% difference= x 10
Higher Value
436−321
436
56

% difference= x 10
Higher Value
380−321
380
3.2.4.2 Initial Estimate for Economic Constraint: Project Cost

According to Trading Economics, the price of ₱ 12,682 per square meters is used to estimate the
material cost of a concrete structure. For Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame, ₱ 16201.30 per
square meter and for Dual System: SMRF Shear Wall is ₱ 11314 per square meter. For estimating the
cost of the structure, it is necessary for the quantities of the materials, including those of the
reinforcement to be known. Accurate quantities of the concrete can be calculated from the layout
drawings made after the design processes.
Table 3-13: Initial Estimate for Economic Constraint

1. Steel SMRF PHP 42,528,412.5 8.57
2. Dual System PHP 29,699,250 10
57
3. RC SMRF PHP 33,290,250 8.88

% difference= x 10
Higher Value
42,528,412.5−29,699,250
42,528,412.5

% difference= x 10
Higher Value
33,290,250−29,699,250
33,290,250
58
3.2.4.3 Initial Estimate for Safety Constraint: Settlement
Table 3-14: Initial Estimate for Safety Constraint
Tradeoff Initial Factor of Safety Subordinate Rank

1. Steel SMRF 5.32 mm 10
2. Dual System 4.35 mm 7.89
3. RC SMRF 6.70 mm 8.4

% difference= x 10
Higher Value
5.32−4.35
5.32

% difference= x 10
Higher Value
6.70−5.32
6.70
59
3.2.4.4 Initial Estimate for Sustainability Constraint: Life Span
Table 3-15: Initial Estimate for Sustainability Constraint

1. Steel SMRF 70 Years 10
2. Dual System 50 Years 8
3. RC SMRF 60 Years 6.67

% difference= x 10
Higher Value
70−50
70
60
% difference= x 10
Higher Value
70−60
70
3.2.5 Constraint Assessment

With the value obtain from the designer’s raw ranking and the initial estimates, the designers are
able to do an assessment in line with the constraints, given the limits for the tradeoffs to acquire the
required initial design.
3.2.5.1 Economic Assessment

The designer calculated the difference between the tradeoffs based on economic constraints. Based on the
initial cost formulated by the designer, the Dual System is cheaper than the two other trade-offs namely
Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame and the Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Resisting Frame
considering the material used in each trade off. With the calculated ranking and the importance factor, the
results lead us that the Dual System as the highest rank among the two.
3.2.5.2 Safety Assessment

For the assessment of safety constraint, the designer researched different project similarly to the trade-offs
used in this project. The difference in deflection in the structural member of the projects is focused in this
constraint. It shows that the Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Resisting Frame has the highest value of
deflection experienced by the structural member than the other two trade-offs. The Dual System has the
lowest value of deflection and therefore, the safest.
61
3.2.5.3 Constructability Assessment
For the assessment of constructability constraint, the designer researched different projects showing the
duration of the whole project involving designing Moment Resisting Frames. The Dual System Frame
explicit and requires more duration of time involving its construction than the two other tradeoffs.
3.2.5.4 Sustainability Assessment

For the assessment of sustainability constraint, the designer researched different projects involving the life
span of each building designed as Moment Resisting Frames. The Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame
shows that upon the completion of the building, it sustains more life span than the other two trade-offs.
3.3 Design Standards
3.3.1 National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010 (NSCP 2010). This code provides a provision in
which it will give the designer a minimum standard such as loads, load combination, the computation for
reinforcing, the allowable value of such structural element and others. The main purpose of the National
Structural Code of the Philippines is to support the safety or to safeguard life in which it guides the designer
on how he/she will design a certain project. It also gives the materials’ best quality if the code provision is
followed. The code provision shall apply mainly in construction, altering, moving, demolition, repair,
maintenance and use of any building or structures with its extent except work located in public ways,
hydraulic flood control system and indigenous family dwellings.
Material Properties. The following materials properties were used for the said design project:
1. Concrete. Based on the National Structural Code of the Philippines, the minimum strength of
concrete, fc’ = 20.7 Mpa for:
a. Beams, girder, and slabs
b. Footing and Columns
2. Reinforcing Steel Bars. It shall be deformed and shall follow with PNS 49/ASTM 615:
a. Grade 40, fy =345 Mpa (For bars 20mm in diameter below)
Loadings. It is actually a force or deformation applied to a certain structure or its members. The design
loading is practically divided. Dead loadings, Live loadings and Environmental loadings such as seismic
loads due to earthquake and wind loads due to the wind. These design loading can be based on the
National Structural Code of the Philippines.
Dead loads. Dead loads shall determine based on the values given by the National Structural Code of the
Philippines 2010 under Section 204.
Live loads. Live loads shall determine based on the values given by the National Structural Code of the
Seismic loads. The seismic load shall determine based on the values given by the National Structural Code
of the Philippines 2010 by equivalent static force under Section 208.
Wind loads. Wind loads shall determine based on the values given by the National Structural Code of the
62
Deformation Limit.
a. Beam, Girders and other structural members resist deformation.
3.3.2 American Society for Testing and Materials. World's largest source of standards for materials, goods,
services, and systems. ASTM also publishes information on sampling and testing methods for health,
safety and performance aspects of materials, effects of physical and biological agents and chemicals and
safety guidelines.
Two major components of ASTM were as follows:
a. Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
b. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
3.3.3 Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges of the American Institute of Steel
Construction. States that This Code sets forth criteria for the trade practices involved in steel buildings,
bridges and other structures, where other structures are defined as those structures designed, fabricated
and erected in a manner similar to buildings, with building-like vertical and lateral force-resisting elements.
In the absence of specific instructions to the contrary in the contract documents, the trade practices that are
defined in this Code shall govern the fabrication and erection of structural steel.
3.3.4 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318M-14) and Commentary (ACI 318RM-
14) of the American Concrete Institute. The international code determines the minimum standards of
necessary to provide for public health and safety. The Code is based on this principle. For any structure,
the owner or the licensed design professional may require the quality of materials and construction to be
higher than the minimum requirements necessary to protect the public as stated in the Code. (ACI
Committee 318)
3.3.5 DPWH Manual of Standard Specification It has been the thrust of the Department to provide effective
standard specifications in the implementation of various infrastructure projects. As such, there is a need to
set an updated standard specification for the proper fabrication and installation of framing system.
3.3.6 Unified Soil Classification System The Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) is a soil
classification system used in engineering and geology to describe the texture and grain size of a soil. The
USCS is based on identifying soils according to their textural and plasticity qualities and on their grouping
with respect to behavior.
63
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF GROUND IMPROVEMENT
4.1 Design of Ground Improvement
4.1.1 Methodology
In the design of ground improvement, the designers vary the codes, standards and
specifications provided by the preferred method to be used as well as the data gathered for
the design project.
START
CONCEPTUALIZATION
GATHERING DATA
DEFINING CONSTRAINTS
TRADE-OFFS
JET GROUTING
VIBRO REPLACEMENT SOIL CEMENT COLUMN 64
DESIGN ANALYSIS DESIGN ANALYSIS DESIGN ANALYSIS

TABULATION OF RESULTS TABULATION OF RESULTS TABULATION OF RESULTS
TRADE-OFF ASSESSMENT
FINAL DESIGN
END
Figure 4-1: Design Methodology
4.1.1.1 Trade-off 1: Design of Ground Improvement Using Soil Cement Column

The Deep Soil Mixing or the Soil Cement Column method is that it improves the strength of the ground
in a superior method for the limitation of settlement. It mainly depends on increasing the stiffness of
natural soil by adding a strengthening admixture material.
65
Figure 4-2: Soil Cement Column Procedure
(Via Google Image)
4.1.1.1.1 Soil Profile Used in Soil Cement Column

The soil profile is obtained in our site location. To determine the plasticity index and the other
properties of soil, laboratory test for liquid limit and plastic limit was conducted.
Table 4-1: Soil Profile for Soil Cement Column
SOIL PROFILE
Property Value
Plasticity Index High Plasticity
Soil Classification Silty Clay
Depth 12 m
Unit Weight γ 18 kN/m3
Color Brown
Max Clay Density 1900kg/m3
Optimum Moisture Content 41.0505%
4.1.1.1.2 Design Process of Soil Cement Column

The design guidelines recommend the use of the pressure diagram method for determining the
loading on the soil cement column components of excavation support systems. Support loads are
estimated and the maximum bending moment is calculated at the point of zero shear and used to
size the structural elements of the retaining system. A major limitation with the simplified methods
is the lack of wall deflection and soil deformation predictions (Tamaro and Gould, 1992). The
following flowchart shows the procedure or stages of work in Soil Cement Column.
66
Figure 4-3: Design Flowchart of Soil Cement Column Process
4.1.1.1.3 Soil Properties used for the Design of Soil Cement Column
Table 4-2: Soil Parameters for the Design of Soil Cement Columns
Layer Data Soft Clay Limestone
Layer Height (m) 12.00 88.00
Unit Weight of Soil (kN/m^3) 17.00 21.00
67
Unit Weight of Under Lift 7.00 18.00
(kN/m^3)
Oedometric Modulus 3.00 Unimproved 300.00

(MN/m^2) 14.00 Improved
Correction Coefficient 1.00 0.66
Ground Water Level: 1.00 m
Table 4-3: Foundation Parameters for the Design of Soil Cement Columns
Foundation X from (m) X to (m) Y from (m) Y to (m) Unit Weight (kN/m^3) Type
F-3 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 25.00 Flexible
CF-1 0.00 6.50 0.00 4.00 25.00 Flexible
4.1.1.1.4 Materials Used in Soil Cement Column

● Portland Cement
Any type of Portland cement may be used that complies with the latest specifications for Portland
cement (American Society for Testing and Materials C 150, Canadian Standards Association A5-
M, or American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials M85) or blended
hydraulic cements (ASTM C595 or AASHTO M240 excluding slag cements types S and SA).
Portland cement types I, IA, and II are most commonly used.
● Water
It is used in mixing or curing process. The water used in soil-cement should be relatively clean and
free from harmful amounts of alkaline, acids, or organic matter. Water fit to drink is satisfactory.
Sea water has been used satisfactorily when fresh water was unobtainable.
● Bituminous Prime Coat
It was applied to the compacted base within 24 hours after construction to aid curing.
4.1.1.1.5 Factor of Safety Used in Soil Cement Column

Typical minimum design values of safety factors used for Soil Cement Column.
Table 4-4: Factor of Safety for Soil Cement Column
Symbol Description Typical Minimum

Value for Design
Fcc Factor of safety against crushing of the center isolated deep 1.3
mix columns
Fs Factor of safety against slope stability failure, including global 1.5
stability and shearing through the deep mixed zone
Fo Factor of safety against combined overturning and bearing 1.3
68
capacity failure of the deep mixed shear walls
Fc Factor of safety against crushing of the deep mixed ground at 1.3
the toe of the deep mixed zone
Fv Factor of safety against shearing on vertical planes through the 1.3
deep mixed zone
Fe Factor of safety against soil extrusion through deep mixed 1.3
shear walls
4.1.1.1.6 Settlement Analysis for Soil Cement Column

The limiting values for maximum settlement and maximum angular distortion, to be used for
building purposes are as follows: For maximum settlement in sand, 32mm. For maximum
settlement in clay 45 mm. (Skempton and McDonald, 1956).
Using DC Settle software, the designers were able to model the resulting settlement for
unimproved soil and improved soil as shown below.
Figure 4-4: Column Loadings for Square Footing (F-3)
69
Figure 4-5: Settlement Analysis of Unimproved Soil for Square Footing
Figure 4-6: Column Loadings for Combined Footing (CF-1)
70
Figure 4-7: Settlement Analysis of Unimproved Soil for Combined Footing
Figure 4-8: Elevation View of Improved Soil Stratum with Soil Parameters for Square Footing
71
Figure 4-9: Elevation View of Improved Soil Stratum with Soil Parameters for Combined Footing
72
Figure 4-10: Settlement Analysis of Improved Soil in Square Footing Using Soil Cement Column
73
Figure 4-11: Settlement Analysis of Improved Soil in Combined Footing Using Soil Cement Column
74
4.1.1.1.7 Result Summary of the Design Using Soil Cement Column
The table below shows the result details for the design of soil cement column and the number of piles per footing and its
diameter. The load obtained from the structure was the maximum vertical load computed
Table 4-5: Summary of Design of Soil Cement Column
Footing Grid Footing Load in kN Settlement Column No. of

Area (mm) Diamter (mm) Columns
A-1 16 1173.582 15.51 800 4
A-2 16 1173.582 15.51 800 4
A-3 16 1173.582 15.51 800 4
A-4 16 1173.582 15.51 800 4
A-5 16 1173.582 15.51 800 4
F-3 A-6 16 1173.582 15.51 800 4
A-7 16 1173.582 15.51 800 4
A-8 16 1173.582 15.51 800 4
A-9 16 1173.582 15.51 800 4
A-10 16 1173.582 15.51 800 4
A-11 16 1173.582 15.51 800 4
A-12 16 1173.582 15.51 800 4
A-13 16 1173.582 15.51 800 4
BC-1 26 625 1172 20.57 800 4
BC-2 26 625 1172 20.57 800 4
BC-3 26 625 1172 20.57 800 4
BC-4 26 625 1172 20.57 800 4
BC-5 26 625 1172 20.57 800 4
BC-6 26 625 1172 20.57 800 4
BC-7 26 625 1172 20.57 800 4
CF-1 BC-8 26 625 1172 20.57 800 4
BC-9 26 625 1172 20.57 800 4
BC-10 26 625 1172 20.57 800 4
BC-11 26 625 1172 20.57 800 4
BC-12 26 625 1172 20.57 800 4
BC-13 26 625 1172 20.57 800 4
Total Columns:104
4.1.1.1.8 Design Result

The table below shows the results between improved and unimproved soil.
Table 4-6: Design Result for Settlement
Settlement Met
Unimproved Soil Settlement for Square Footing 92.25 mm
Unimproved Soil Settlement for Combined Footing 107.01 mm
Improved Soil Settlement for Square Footing 15.51 mm
Improved Soil Settlement for Combined Footing 20.57 m
75
4.1.1.1.9 Design Illustrations
Figure 4-12: Final Design Drawing Plan of Soil Cement Columns
Figure 4-13: Final Design Drawing Plan of Soil Cement Columns Elevation
76
Figure 4-14: Spacing of Columns in Square Footing
Figure 4-15: Spacing of Columns in Combined Footing
77
4.1.1.2 Trade-off 2: Design of Ground Improvement Using Jet Grouted
4.1.1.2.1 Design Process of Jet Grouted Columns

During the jet grouting process, the soil surrounding the drill string is eroded by a high energy fluid jet
and mixed with a self-hardening cement suspension. The main advantage of this process is that large
solidified grout elements can be produced in the ground by a relatively small drill rod (Bauer: Jet
Grouting Process and Equipment).
START
Geotechnical Investigation and Determination

of Restriction
YES
NO
Alternative Solution
Assess Environmental
Restriction
YES
NO
Alternative Solution
Design Computation Control and Monitoring
END
Figure 4-16: Jet Grouting Process
78
4.1.1.2.2 Soil Profile Used in Jet Grouted Columns
The erosion capability of the cutting jet renders the jet grouting process suitable for use in virtually all
types of soil. The process is, however, not suitable for hard soil and soft rock formations in which
stabilization is not generally required and would also not be economical. Jet grouting can be used in
non-cohesive or cohesive soils and also in slightly organic soils and fill materials. (Bauer: Jet Grouting
Process and Equipment).
Figure 4-17: Application of Jet Grouting in Different Soil Types
79
Figure 4-18: Final Bore Log Result of Ground Used in Jet Grouted Columns
4.1.1.2.3 Properties and Design Parameters Used in Jet Grouted Columns

The parameters used in the design of jet grouted columns are stated below in table.
Table 4-7: Footing Data
Footing Data
Footing Type Square Footing (F-3) Combined Footing (CF-1)
Dimension 4m x 4m 6.5m x 4m
Founding Depth 2.5m 2.5m
Table 4-7: This table shows the data to be used in the design of jet grouted columns. Dimension of the
footing for the analysis of settlement and number of jet grouted columns to be constructed. Founding depth
for the determination of the soil properties that surrounds the design jet grouted columns. Soil pressure also
for the analysis and design of jet grouted columns. Soil pressure includes reaction produced by the
structure on the footing, surcharge and weight of the soil above the footing itself.
Table 4-8: Soil Layer Description
Geotechnical Properties
Soil Layer Depth (m) Soil Description
1 0 – 12.0 Soft, brown silty CLAY of high plasticity
2 - Limestone
Table 4-9: Summary of Geotechnical Properties
Soil Angle of Poisson Modulus of Cohesion Unit Weight Cc Cs Pc

Layer Friction Ratio Elasticity (kPa) (kN/m3)
(Mpa)
1 28 0.35 16 72 20
0.03 0.06 560
2 25 0.35 9 24 20
0.0112 0.022 560
5 5
The table above indicates the geotechnical parameters to be used for design computation and modelling of
jet grouted columns.
Table 4-10: Jet Grouting Parameters
Jet Grouting Parameters

High Pressure Pump 100 – 600 bar
Number of Nozzles 1-2
Nozzle Diameter 2 – 7 mm
Drilling String Rate of Extraction 1 – 12 min/m
Air Shrouding 4 – 12 bar
80
Drill Rod Speed of Rotation 2 – 15 rpm
Binder Suspension W/B Ratio 0.5 – 1.5
Injection Rate 100 – 400 L/min
Injection Pressure 3 – 10 bar
4.1.1.2.4 Materials Used in Jet Grouted Columns
Table 4-11: Materials Used in Jet Grouted Columns
Materials for Jet Grouted Columns

Materials Quantity and Description
Cement 10 bags per linear meter
Cement Plasticizer 2 Liter per linear meter
Water 1 Liter per 1 kilo of Cement
4.1.1.2.5 Factor of Safety Produced by Jet Grouted Columns
Table 4-12: Safety Factors for Different Jet-Grouted Structures
Objective of
Application Factor of Safety Note
Improvement
❖ Heaving Protection
Improvement at the ❖ Boiling Protection 1.5
bottom of open-cut ❖ Designing the 1.5
excavation Penetration depth 1.5
❖ Protection of
Starting section of Cutting Face or 1.5
shield tunnelling Reaction Wall
❖ Cutting Face
Protection 1.5
Arrival section of shield
tunnelling ❖ Tail Section
Protection 1.0
Factor of Safety for the
Soil protection at the ❖ Combined with 1.0 Permanent Structure
gap between earth- Soldier Beam Should be Equal to
retaining walls ❖ Jet Grouting Only 2.0 Three or more.
❖ Reinforcement of
Sidewall 1.5
Caisson-type pile ❖ Cutting Face
Protection 2.0
Source: (Jet Grouting: Technology, Design and Control by Paolo Croce et.al.)
81
4.1.1.2.6 Settlement Analysis for Jet Grouted Columns
The limiting values for maximum settlement and maximum angular distortion, to be used for building
purposes are as follows: For maximum settlement in sand, 32mm. For maximum settlement in clay 25
mm. Using DC Settle software, the designers were able to model the resulting settlement for
unimproved soil and improved soil as shown below.
Figure 4-19: Column Loadings for Square Footing (F-3)
82
Figure 4-20: Settlement Analysis of Unimproved Soil for Square Footing
Figure 4-21: Column Loadings for Combined Footing (CF-1)
83
Figure 4-22: Settlement Analysis of Unimproved Soil for Combined Footing
Figure 4-23: Elevation View of Improved Soil Stratum with Soil Parameters for Square Footing
84
Figure 4-24: Elevation View of Improved Soil Stratum with Soil Parameters for Combined Footing
85
Figure 4-25: Settlement Analysis of Improved Soil for Square Footing
86
Figure 4-26: Settlement Analysis of Improved Soil for Combined Footing
87
4.1.1.2.7 Result Summary of the Design of Jet Grouted Columns
The table below shows the resulting details for the design of jet grouted columns and also the footing details itself.
Table 4-13: Summary of Design of Jet Grouted Columns
Footing Grid Footing Load Settlement Column No. of

Area (mm) Diamter (mm) Columns
A-1 16 1173.582 14.74 800 4
A-2 16 1173.582 14.74 800 4
A-3 16 1173.582 14.74 800 4
A-4 16 1173.582 14.74 800 4
A-5 16 1173.582 14.74 800 4
F-3 A-6 16 1173.582 14.74 800 4
A-7 16 1173.582 14.74 800 4
A-8 16 1173.582 14.74 800 4
A-9 16 1173.582 14.74 800 4
A-10 16 1173.582 14.74 800 4
A-11 16 1173.582 14.74 800 4
A-12 16 1173.582 14.74 800 4
A-13 16 1173.582 14.74 800 4
BC-1 26 625 1173.582 19.36 800 4
BC-2 26 625 1173.582 19.36 800 4
BC-3 26 625 1173.582 19.36 800 4
BC-4 26 625 1173.582 19.36 800 4
BC-5 26 625 1173.582 19.36 800 4
BC-6 26 625 1173.582 19.36 800 4
BC-7 26 625 1173.582 19.36 800 4
CF-1 BC-8 26 625 1173.582 19.36 800 4
BC-9 26 625 1173.582 19.36 800 4
BC-10 26 625 1173.582 19.36 800 4
BC-11 26 625 1173.582 19.36 800 4
BC-12 26 625 1173.582 19.36 800 4
BC-13 26 625 1173.582 19.36 800 4
Total Columns:104
4.1.1.2.8 Design Result

The table below shows the results between improved and unimproved soil.
Table 4-14: Design Result for Settlement and Bearing Capacity
Settlement Met
Unimproved Soil Settlement for Square Footing 92.25 mm
Unimproved Soil Settlement for Combined Footing 107.01 mm
Improved Soil Settlement for Square Footing 14.74 mm
Improved Soil Settlement for Combined Footing 19.36 mm
88
Figure 4-27: Final Design Drawing Plan of Jet Grouted Columns
Figure 4-28: Final Design Drawing Plan of Jet Grouted Columns Elevation
89
90
4.1.1.3 Trade-off 3: Design of Ground Improvement Using Vibro Replacement
The use of Vibro Replacement as ground improvement technique improves the shear strength of the soil to
increase bearing capacity, consolidation, improves the stiffness of soil to decrease settlements improves
the stiffness of soil to decrease settlements and lateral movement. (Karun Mani, Nigee.K 2007)
Figure 4-31: Typical Cross Section of Stone Column
4.1.1.3.1 Soil Profile Used in Vibro Replacement

Vibro replacement is a very versatile method of ground improvement. This method can improve
different soil types. Soils that need vibro replacement include those have bearing capacity and stability,
and where excessive settlements may occur. (Dustin S. Spears)
Figure 4-32 Vibro Replacement Application Limits for Various Soil Types
4.1.1.3.2 Design Process of Vibro Replacement

The following flowchart shows the procedure or stages of work in Vibro Replacement.
91
Figure 4-33: Design Flowchart of Stone Vibro Replacement Process
4.1.1.3.3 Properties and Design Parameters Used in Vibro Replacement

The following table below shows the properties and design parameters used in vibro replacement as
ground improvement.
92
Table 4-15: Footing Data
Footing Data
Footing Type Square Footing Combined Footing
Dimension 4m x 4m 6.5m x 4m
Founding Depth 2.1m 2.1m
Soil Pressure 73.32 kPa 70 kPa
Table 4-15: Shows the dimension of footing, depth of footing and the soil pressure that was produced by
the structure to the footing. There were two types of footing from the structure which was square footing
having a dimension of 4m x 4m and combined footing having a dimension of 6.5 m x 4m. The two type of
footing has the same depth which was 2.1m.
Table 4-16: Geotechnical Properties of Soil
GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES
Soil Layer 1
Depth 0 - 12.0 m
Soil Description Soft, brown silty CLAY of high plasticity
Modulus of Elasticity 3.0 m
Unit Weight 17 kN/m^3
Poisson Ratio 0.2
Friction Angle 17.5°
Cohession 5 kPa
Table 4-16: Shows the property of the soil which will be improved using for Vibro Replacement. The worst
case for the soil was chosen for the ground improvement.
Table 4-17: Design Parameters for Square Footing
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR SQUARE FOOTING

Properties Value
Dimension of Footing 4.0 m x 4.0 m
Diameter of Column 0.8 m
Area of Footing 16 m^2
Total Area of Column 2.01 m^2
Design Pattern Rectangular
Replacement Ratio 7.96
Spacing in Horizontal Distance 3.0 m
Spacing in Vertical Distance 3.0 m
Equivalent Diameter 3.39 m
Dry Unit Weight of Column 19.5 kN/m^3
Saturated Unit Weight of Column 21.5 kN/m^3
93
Foundation Pressure 73.32 kPa
Table 4-17: Shows the design parameters used for Square Footing. The pattern used was rectangular to
have a 4 number of columns which is 0.8 m diameter to be economical with 3 meters spacing each.
Figure 4-34: Design of Square Footing using Stone C 2D
Table 4-18: Design Parameters for Combined Footing
DESIGN PARAMETERS FOR COMBINED FOOTING

Properties Value
Dimension of Footing 4.0 m x 6.5 m
Diameter of Column 0.8 m
Area of Footing 26 m^2
Total Area of Column 2.01 m^2
Design Pattern Rectangular
Replacement Ratio 12.94
Spacing in Horizontal Distance 3.0 m
Spacing in Vertical Distance 5.0 m
Equivalent Diameter in Horizontal Distance 3.39 m
Equivalent Diameter in Vertical Distance 5.65 m
Dry Unit Weight of Column 19.5 kN/m^3
Saturated Unit Weight of Column 21.5 kN/m^3
Foundation Pressure 70 kPa
94
Table 4-18: Shows the design parameters used for Combined Footing. The pattern used was rectangular to
have a 4 number of columns which is 0.8 m diameter to be economical with 3 meters spacing for horizontal
and 5 meters spacing for vertical.
Figure 4-35: Design of Combined Footing using Stone C 2D
● Stone Column Diameter, D

- Approximate diameter of the stone column in the field may be determined from the known
compacted volume of material required to fill the hole of known length and maximum and
minimum densities of the stone.
● Depth of Stone Column, d

- This point can best be understood by determining the contribution of each layer of soil towards
the settlement of the foundation. However, in some stratified deposits, the nature of
stratification more or less determines the depth of stone column.
● Pattern
- Stone columns should be installed preferably in an equilateral triangular pattern which gives
the densest packing although a rectangular pattern may also be used.
● Spacing
- The design of stone columns should be site specific and no precise guidelines can be given on
the maximum and the minimum column spacing. However, the column spacing may broadly
range from 2 to 3 depending upon the site conditions, loading pattern, column factors, the
installation technique, settlement tolerances, etc.
95
● Equivalent Diameter, De
- The tributary area of the soil surrounding each stone column forms regular hexagon around the
column. The equivalent circle has an effective diameter (De) which is given by following
equation: De = 1.05 S for an equilateral triangular pattern, and = 1.13 S for a rectangular
pattern Where, S = spacing of the stone columns. The resulting equivalent cylinder of
composite ground with diameter (De) enclosing the tributary soil and one stone column is
known as the unit cell.
● Replacement Ratio, a s
- For purpose of settlement and stability analysis, the composite ground representing an
infinitely wide loaded area may be modeled as a unit cell comprising the stone column and the
surrounding tributary soil. To quantify the amount of soil replaced by the stone, the term
replacement ratio, as is used and may also be expressed as follows: as = 0.907 (D/S) ^2.
4.1.1.3.4 Material Used in Vibro Replacement

● Gravel
- 75 mm to 2 mm is the general recommended size of gavel or aggregate that was used for vibro
replacement. The gravel should be well graded and preferably angular shaped for good
interlock.
Table 4-19: Properties of Material Used in Vibro Replacement
PROPERTIES OF GRAVEL
Constrained Modulus, (Mpa) 100
Coefficient of Sliding Friction, μ 0.3
Angle of Internal Friction, Φ 40°
Dry Unit Weight, γdry (kN/m^3) 19
Saturated Unit Weight, γsat (kN/m^3) 21.5
4.1.1.3.5 Factor of Safety Used in Vibro Replacement

The minimum Factor of safety against ultimate load capacity of column obtained from load test
shall be 2.5. (Saraswati Pathariya, Chummar 2000)
4.1.1.3.6 Calculation of Soil Improvement due to Vibro Replacement
Table 4-20: Calculation of Soil improvement in Square Footing
96
SQUARE FOOTING
Symbol Description Value
n 0 Basic Improvement Factor 1.75
A
∆ ( ) Value added to Area Ratio Due to Column Compressibility 0.15
Ac
n1 Soil Improvement Factor Due to Column Compressibility 1.74
m1 Proportional Loads on Columns for n1 0.42
∅ 1 Improved Effective Soil Friction Angle for n1 28.26°
c 1 Improve Soil Cohession for n1 2.88 kPa
f d Depth Factor Due to Overburden Constraints 2.34
n2 Improved Factor with Overburden Constraints 4.07
m 2 Proportional Loads on Columns for n2 0.75
∅2 Improved Effective Soil Friction Angle for n2 35.38°
Table 4-20: The table shows the calculated in the improvement of soil cohesion, factor with overburden
constraints, and effective soil friction angle under the square footing using Stone C 2D.
Table 4-21: Calculation of Soil improvement in Combined Footing
COMBINED FOOTING
Symbol Description Value
n 0 Basic Improvement Factor 1.44
A
∆ ( ) Value added to Area Ratio Due to Column Compressibility 0.15
Ac
n1 Soil Improvement Factor Due to Column Compressibility 1.44
m1 Proportional Loads on Columns for n1 0.3
∅ 1 Improved Effective Soil Friction Angle for n1 25.38°
f d Depth Factor Due to Overburden Constraints 2.07
n2 Improved Factor with Overburden Constraints 2.97
m 2 Proportional Loads on Columns for n2 0.66
∅2 Improved Effective Soil Friction Angle for n2 33.53°
Table 4-21: The table shows the calculated in the improvement of soil cohesion, factor with overburden
constraints, and effective soil fiction angle under the combined footing using Stone C 2D.
Using Stone C 2D:
97
⮚ SQUARE FOOTING
Figure 4-36: Square Footing Properties
Figure 4-37: Column Properties in Square Footing
98
Figure 4-38: Borehole Data in Square Footing
⮚ COMBINED FOOTING
Figure 4-39: Combined Footing Properties
99
Figure 4-40: Column Properties in Combined Footing
Figure 4-41: Borehole Data in Combined Footing
4.1.1.3.7 Settlement Analysis for Vibro Replacement

The figure below shows the settlement in the soil using Stone C 2D for the settlement analysis. The
maximum settlement obtained was 92.25 mm on the center part of the square footing and 107.01 mm
on the center of the combined footing. The acceptable settlement for the clay soil was 25 mm therefore
the soil needs ground improvement to decrease the settlement in the soil due to the loadings from the
structure.
100
Figure 4-42: Settlement of Soil inSquare Footing without Improvement
Figure 4-43: Settlement of Soil in Combined Footing without Improvement
101
Figure 4-44: Settlement Analysis of Improved and Unimproved Soil in Square Footing
Figure 4-45: Settlement Analysis of Improved and Unimproved Soil in Combined Footing
4.1.1.3.8 Design Result Using Vibro Replacement

The table below shows the result details for the design of vibro replacement and the number of piles
per footing and its diameter. The load obtained from the structure was the maximum vertical load
computed.
Table 4-22: Design Result of Stone Column
DESIGN RESULT
Settlements Settlements
Column Number Spacing Spacing
without with
Footing Diameter, Depth, m of in x-axis, in y-axis,
Treatment Treatment
mm Column m m
(Center), mm (Center), mm
Square 0.8 12 4 92.25 17.2 2 2
Combined 0.8 12 4 107.07 23.8 2 3.25
102
Figure 4-46: Final Design Drawing Plan of Jet Grouted Columns
Figure 4-47: Final Design Drawing Plan of Jet Grouted Columns Elevation
103

4.1.2 Design Optimization
To evaluate all the possible design for this project, the designers increased the initial estimates for the cost
of the project resulting in some changes for the other constraints. The effect of the percent increase will be
considered to arrive at the most efficient and effective design for each tradeoff. The optimized design was
being analyzed, calculated and evaluated.
104
4.1.2.1 Design Optimization for Tradeoff 1: Soil Cement Column
4.1.2.1.1 Economic Constraint and Constructability Constraint

To determine the most economical tradeoff based on client specification, a variety of possible design is
present by comparing the effect of increase in cost to the duration of the project. Based on the percent
increase of economical constraint, the designers were able to design some possible design outcomes.
Table 4-23: Increased Cost and Duration Design Comparisons
Soil Cement Column

Target
Increased Cost
(%) Increased Duration
Cost (PHP) (%) (Days)
0 ₱2,680,963.79 0.00 16
11 ₱2,962,582.18 10.50 9
27 ₱3,391,773.76 26.51 7
39 ₱3,714,589.87 38.55 6
SOIL CEMENT COLUMN

18
16
14
12
10
Duration
Duration (Days)
8
6
4
2
0
0 11 27 39
Cost Percent Increase
Figure 4-50: Cost Vs Duration (Soil Cement Column)

The figure shows that if the cost will be increased by 11 percent, the duration decreased by 7 days. If
the cost will be increased by 27 percent, the duration decreased by 9 days. If the cost will be increased
by 39 percent, the duration decreased by 10 days. The duration decreases because of some labors
and equipment added and the cost of the project for this tradeoff will be reduced.
4.1.2.1.2 Economic Constraint and Environmental Constraint

present by comparing the effect of increasing in cost to the produced settlement. Based on the percent
105
Table 4-24: Increased Cost and Settlement Design Comparisons
Soil Cement Column

Target
Increased Cost
(%) Increased Settleme
Cost (PHP) (%) nt (mm)
0 ₱2,680,963.79 0.00 20.57
11 ₱2,962,582.18 10.50 20.07
27 ₱3,391,773.76 26.51 19.82
39 ₱3,714,589.87 38.55 19.69
SOIL CEMENT COLUMN

20.8
20.6
20.4
20.2
Settlement
20 Settlement (mm)
19.8
19.6
19.4
19.2
0 11 27 39
Figure 4-51: Cost Vs Settlement (Soil Cement Column)

The figure shows that if the cost will be increased by 11 percent, the duration decreased to 20.07 mm.
If the cost will be increased by 27 percent, the duration decreased to 19.82 mm. If the cost will be
increased by 39 percent, the duration decreased to 19.69 mm. The duration decreases because of
some labors and equipment added and the cost of the project for this tradeoff will be reduced.
4.1.2.1.3 Economic Constraint and Sustainability Constraint

present by comparing the effect of increasing in cost to the lifespan of the tradeoff used. Based on the
percent increase of economical constraints, the designers were able to design some possible design
outcomes.
Table 4-25 Increased Cost and Life Span Design Comparisons
Target Soil Cement Column
106
Increased Cost Increased Life Span
Cost (PHP)
(%) (%) (Years)
0 ₱2,680,963.79 0.00 75
11 ₱2,962,582.18 10.50 75
27 ₱3,391,773.76 26.51 75
39 ₱3,714,589.87 38.55 75
SOIL CEMENT COLUMN

80
70
60
50
Design Life
40 Life Span (Years)
30
20
10
0
0 11 27 39
Figure 4-52: Cost vs Design Life (Soil Cement Column)

The figure shows the effect of increase in cost to the lifespan of the tradeoff used. This shows that
even though the cost increased, the life span of the soil cement column will not change based on
the materials used for the said tradeoff.
4.1.2.1.4 Summary of Design for Soil Cement Column
Table 4-26: Summary of Design Optimization for Soil Cement Column
Soil Cement Column

Target Duration Settlement Design Life
Cost Cost Increased
Increase (%) (Days) (mm) (Years)
0 ₱2,680,963.79 ₱ - 16 20.57 75
11 ₱2,962,582.18 ₱ 281,618.39 9 20.07 75
27 ₱3,391,773.76 ₱ 710,809.97 7 19.82 75
39 ₱3,714,589.87 ₱1,033,626.08 6 19.69 75
107
The table shows that when the cost for soil cement column increased by 39 percent, the cost will reach
the client’s budget for the ground improvement. The designers chose the third increase (27 percent) for
the final design of soil cement column.
4.1.2.2 Design Optimization for Tradeoff 2: Jet Grouted Column

increase of economical constraints, the designers were able to design some possible design outcomes.
Jet Grouted Column

Target
Increased Cost
(%) Increas Duration
Cost (PHP) ed (%) (Days)
0 ₱3,102,943.19 0.00 14
11 ₱3,435,831.66 10.73 8
27 ₱3,925,459.67 26.51 7
39 ₱4,302,967.90 38.67 6
JET GROUT COLUMN

16
14
12
10
Duration
8 Duration (Days)
0
0 11 27 39
Figure 4-53: Cost Vs Duration (Jet Grouted Column)
108
the cost will be increased by 27 percent, the duration decreased by 7 days. If the cost will be increased
by 39 percent, the duration decreased by 8 days. The duration decreases because of some labors and
equipment added and the cost of the project for this tradeoff will be reduced.

Jet Grouted Column

Target
Increased Cost
Settlement
(%) Cost (PHP) Increase
(mm)
d (%)
0 ₱3,102,943.19 0.00 19.36
11 ₱3,435,831.66 10.73 19.08
27 ₱3,925,459.67 26.51 18.97
39 ₱2,863,482.88 38.67 18.9
JET GROUT COLUMN

19.4
19.3
19.2
19.1
Settlement
19 Settlement (mm)
18.9
18.8
18.7
18.6
0 11 27 39
Cost Percent Inrease
Figure 4-54: Cost Vs Settlement (Jet Grouted Column)

The figure shows that if the cost will be increased by 11 percent, the duration decreased to 19.08 mm.
If the cost will be increased by 27 percent, the duration decreased to 18.97 mm. If the cost will be
109
increased by 39 percent, the duration decreased to 18.9 mm. The duration decreases because of some
labors and equipment added and the cost of the project for this tradeoff will be reduced.

outcomes.
Table 4-29: Increased Cost and Life Span Design Comparisons
Jet Grouted Column

Target
Cost Life
Increased
Cost (PHP) Increased Span
(%)
(%) (Years)
0 ₱3,102,943.19 0.00 60
11 ₱3,435,831.66 10.73 60
27 ₱3,925,459.67 26.51 60
39 ₱ 26.51 38.67 60
JET GROUT COLUMN

70
60
50
40
Life Span
Life Span (Years)

30
20
10
0
0 11 27 39
Figure 4-55: Cost vs Design Life (Jet Grouted Column)

The figure shows the effect of increase in cost to the lifespan of the tradeoff used. This shows that
even though the cost increased, the life span of the soil cement column will not change based on
the materials used for the said tradeoff.
110
4.1.2.2.4 Summary of Design for Jet Grouted Column
Table 4-30: Summary of Design Optimization for Jet Grouted Column
Jet Grout Column

Duration Settlement Life Span
Target Increase (%) Cost Cost Increased (Days) (mm) (Years)
0 ₱3,102,943.19 ₱ - 14 19.36 50
11 ₱3,435,831.66 ₱ 332,888.46 8 19.08 50
27 ₱3,925,459.67 ₱ 822,516.47 7 18.97 50
39 ₱4,302,967.90 ₱1,200,024.71 6 18.9 50
The table shows that when the cost for jet grouted column increased by 27 percent, the cost will reach
the client’s budget for the ground improvement. The designers chose the second increase (11 percent)
for the final design of jet grouted column.
4.1.2.3 Design Optimization for Tradeoff 3: Vibro Replacement

Vibro Replacement
Target
Increased Cost
(%) Increased Duration
Cost (PHP) (%) (Days)
0 ₱2,064,670.55 0.00 19
11 ₱2,285,207.20 10.68 11
27 ₱2,617,428.28 26.77 9
39 ₱2,863,482.88 38.69 7
VIBRO REPLACEMENT
20
18
16
14
12
Duration
10 Duration (Days)
8
6
4
2 111
0
0 11 27 39
Figure 4-56: Cost Vs Duration (Vibro Replacement)
the cost will be increased by 27 percent, the duration decreased by 10 days. If the cost will be
increased by 39 percent, the duration decreased by 12 days. The duration decreases because of some

Vibro Replacement
Target
Increased
(%) Cost Increased Settlement
Cost (PHP) (%) (mm)
0 ₱2,064,670.55 23.80 23.8
11 ₱2,285,207.20 20.90 20.9
27 ₱2,617,428.28 18.60 18.6
39 ₱2,863,482.88 16.80 16.8
VIBRO REPLACEMENT
25
20
15
Settlement
Settlement (mm)
10
0
0 11 27 39
112
Figure 4-57: Cost Vs Settlement (Vibro Replacement)
The figure shows that if the cost will be increased by 11 percent, the duration decreased to 20.9 mm. If
the cost will be increased by 27 percent, the duration decreased to 18.6 mm. If the cost will be
increased by 39 percent, the duration decreased to 16.8 mm. The duration decreases because of some

outcomes.
Table 4-33: Increased Cost and Life Span Design Comparisons
Vibro Replacement
Target
Increased
(%) Cost Life Span
Cost (PHP) Increased (%) (Years)
₱2,064,670.5
0 5 0.00 50
₱2,285,207.2
11 0 10.68 50
₱2,617,428.2
27 8 26.77 50
₱2,863,482.8
39 8 38.69 50
VIBRO REPLACEMENT
60
50
40
Life Span
30 Life Span (Years)
20
10
0
0 11 27 39
113
Figure 4-58: Cost Vs Settlement (Vibro Replacement)
The figure shows the effect of increase in cost to the lifespan of the tradeoff used. This shows that even
though the cost increased, the life span of the soil cement column will not change based on the materials
used for the said tradeoff.
4.1.2.3.4 Summary of Design for Vibro Replacement
Table 4-34: Summary of Design Optimization for Vibro Replacement
Vibro Replacement
Target Increase Settlement Life Span
(%) Cost Cost Increased Duration (Days) (mm) (Years)
0 ₱2,064,670.55 ₱ - 19 23.8 50
11 ₱2,285,207.20 ₱ 220,536.66 11 20.9 50
27 ₱2,617,428.28 ₱ 552,757.73 9 18.6 50
39 ₱2,863,482.88 ₱ 798,812.33 7 16.8 50
The table shows that when the cost for vibro replacement increased by 39 percent, still the cost will not
reach the client’s budget for the ground improvement. The designers chose the fourth increase (39
percent) for the final design of vibro replacement.
4.1.3 Final Evaluation of Trade-offs

In this section, the designers will evaluate those design that was chosen on the design optimization.
4.1.3.1 Validation of Estimates
Table 4-35: Validation of Estimates
Constraints Soil Cement Column Jet Grouted Columns Vibro Replacement

Economic Constraint Php. 3,391,773.76 Php. 3,435,831.66 Php. 2,863,482.88
Constructability Constraint 7 days 8 days 7 days
Environmental Constraint 19.82 mm 19.08 mm 16.8 mm
Sustainability Constraint 75 years 60 years 50 years
4.1.3.2 Trade-off Assessment and Final Ranking
Table 4-36: Trade-off Assessment and Final Ranking
Design Criterion Criterion’s Ability to satisfy Criterion Scale from (0 to 10)

Importance Soil Cement Jet Grouted Vibro
(scale 0 to Column Column Replacement
10)
Constructability Constraint 9 10 8.75 10
Economic Constraint 10 8.44 8.33 10
114
Environmental Constraint 9 8.48 8.81 10
Sustainability Constraint 8 10 8 6.67
Overall Ranking 330.72 305.34 333.36
4.1.3.2.1 Final Estimate for Constructability Constraint: Labor and Equipment Cost
Table 4-37: Final Estimate for Constructability Constraint

1. Soil Cement Column 7 Working Days 10
2. Jet Grouting 8 Working Days 8.75
3. Vibro Replacement 7 Working Days 10

% difference= x 10
Higher Value
8−7
8

% difference= x 10
Higher Value
10−10
10
115
4.1.3.2.2 Final Estimate for Economic Constraint: Project Cost
Table 4-38: Final Estimate for Economic Constraint

1. Soil Cement Column PHP 3,391,773.76 8.44
2. Jet Grouting PHP 3,435,831.66 8.33
3. Vibro Replacement PHP 2,863,482.88 10

% difference= x 10
Higher Value
3,391,773.76−2,863,482.88
3,391,773.76
116
% difference= x 10
Higher Value
3,435,831.66−2,863,482.88
3,435,831.66
4.1.3.2.3 Final Estimate for Environmental Constraint: Settlement
Table 4-39: Final Estimate for Environmental Constraint
Tradeoff Settlement Subordinate Rank

1. Soil Cement Column 19.82 mm 8.48
2. Jet Grouting 19.08 mm 8.81
3. Vibro Replacement 16.80 mm 10

% difference= x 10
Higher Value
19.82−16.80
19.82
117
Figure 4-63: Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Environmental Constraint T3 vs. T1

% difference= x 10
Higher Value
19.08−16.80
19.08
Figure 4-64: Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Environmental Constraint T3 vs. T2
4.1.3.2.4 Final Estimate for Sustainability Constraint: Design Life
Table 4-40: Final Estimate for Sustainability Constraint

1. Soil Cement Column 75 Years 10
2. Jet Grouting 60 Years 8
3. Vibro Replacement 50 Years 6.67

% difference= x 10
Higher Value
118
50−40
50

% difference= x 10
Higher Value
75−50
75
4.1.3.3 Cost Comparison

The graph below shows the comparison between the obtained values from the initial estimate with
respect to the final estimate made from the design optimization.
119
4.1.3.3.1 Economic Comparison
In this section, the figure shows the comparison of the final estimate for the cost of the project for the
different tradeoffs. Jet grouted column has the highest cost for the design of ground improvement and
vibro replacement has the lowest cost for the said design.
Economic Comparison
₱3,500,000.00
₱3,400,000.00
₱3,300,000.00
₱3,200,000.00
₱3,100,000.00
₱3,000,000.00
₱2,900,000.00
₱2,800,000.00
₱2,700,000.00
₱2,600,000.00
₱2,500,000.00
Soil Cement Column Jet Grouted Column Vibro Replacement
Figure 4-67: Economic Comparison
4.1.3.3.2 Constructability Comparison

In this section, the figure shows the comparison of the final estimate for the duration of the project for
the different tradeoffs. Jet grouted column has the highest duration for the design of ground
improvement and vibro replacement and soil cement column has the lowest duration for the said
design.
Constructability Comparison
8
7.8
Vibro Replacement
7.6
7.4
7.2
7 Jet Grouted Column
6.8
6.6
6.4 Soil Cement Column
1
Figure 4-68: Constructability Comparison
120
4.1.3.3.3 Environmental Comparison
In this section, the figure shows the comparison of the final estimate for the duration of the project for
the different tradeoffs. Soil cement column has the highest settlement produced for the design of
ground improvement and vibro replacement has the lowest settlement produced for the said design.
Environmental Comparison
15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20
Vibro Replacement Jet Grouted Column Soil Cement Column
Figure 4-69: Environmental Comparison
4.1.3.3.4 Sustainability Comparison

In this section, the figure shows the comparison of the final estimate for the design life for the different
tradeoffs. Soil cement column has the longest life span design and vibro replacement has the shortest
life span design.
Sustainability Comparison
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
Soil Cement Column Jet Grouted Column Vibro Replacement
Figure 4-70: Sustainability Comparison
121
4.1.4 Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity analysis is a way to show the effect of changing the importance criterion to the over-all
ranking of different trade-offs. Each constraint is evaluated different values of importance criterion (from
0-10) having 0 is the lowest rank and 10 is the highest rank. The evaluation is presented by charts to
know what trade-off will govern from different rankings.
4.1.4.1 Economic Variable
Table 4-41: Designer's Ranking Having an Importance of "0" for Economic Constraint
Economic - 0
Ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale of 0 to 10)
Criterion's
Design Criterion
Column Columns Replacement
1. Constructability 9 10 8.75 10
2. Economic 0 8.44 8.33 10
3. Environmental 9 8.48 8.81 10
4. Sustainability 8 10 8 6.67
Overall Rank 246.32 222.04 233.36
Economic - 1

Criterion's
Design Criterion
2. Economic 1 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 254.76 230.37 243.36
122
Economic - 2

Criterion's
Design Criterion
2. Economic 2 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 263.2 238.7 253.36
Economic - 3
Criterion's
Design Criterion
2. Economic 3 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 271.64 247.03 263.36
Economic - 4
Criterion's
Design Criterion Soil Cement Jet Grouted Vibro
Importance
2. Economic 4 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 280.08 255.36 273.36
Economic - 5
123
Criterion's
Design Criterion
Importance
Soil Cement Jet Grouted Vibro
2. Economic 5 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 288.52 263.69 283.36
Economic - 6

Criterion's
Design Criterion
Importance
2. Economic 6 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 296.96 272.02 293.36
Economic - 7
Criterion's
Importance
2. Economic 7 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 305.4 280.35 303.36
124
Economic - 8

Criterion's
Design Criterion
Importance
2. Economic 8 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 313.84 288.68 313.36
Economic - 9

Criterion's
Design Criterion
2. Economic 9 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 322.28 297.01 323.36
Economic - 10

Criterion's
Design Criterion
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 330.72 305.34 333.36
125
Economic Constraint
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Soil Cement Jet Grouted Vibro Replacement
Figure 4-71: Economic Constraint Sensitivity Graph
4.1.4.2 Constructability Variable
Table 4-52: Designer's Ranking Having an Importance of "0" for Constructability Constraint
Constructability - 0
Criterion's
Importance
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 240.72 226.59 243.36
126
Criterion's
Design Criterion
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 250.72 235.34 253.36
Criterion's
Design Criterion
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 260.72 244.09 263.36

Criterion's
Design Criterion
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 270.72 252.84 273.36
127
Criterion's
Design Criterion
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 280.72 261.59 283.36
Criterion's
Design Criterion
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 290.72 270.34 293.36

Criterion's
Design Criterion
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 300.72 279.09 303.36
128

Criterion's
Design Criterion
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 310.72 287.84 313.36

Criterion's
Design Criterion
Importance
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 320.72 296.59 323.36

Criterion's
Design Criterion
Importance
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 330.72 305.34 333.36
129

Criterion's
Design Criterion
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 340.72 314.09 343.36
Constructability Constraint
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Figure 4-72: Constructability Constraint Sensitivity Graph
130
4.1.4.3 Environmental Variable
Table 4-63: Designer's Ranking Having an Importance of "0" for Environmental Constraint
Environmental - 0
Criterion's
Design Criterion
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 254.4 226.05 243.36
Environmental - 1
Criterion's
Design Criterion
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 262.88 234.86 253.36
Environmental - 2
Criterion's
Design Criterion
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 271.36 243.67 263.36
131
Environmental - 3

Criterion's
Design Criterion
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 279.84 252.48 273.36
Environmental - 4

Criterion's
Design Criterion
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 288.32 261.29 283.36
Environmental - 5

Criterion's
Design Criterion
Importance
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
132
Overall Rank 296.8 270.1 293.36
Environmental - 6

Criterion's
Design Criterion
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 305.28 278.91 303.36
Environmental - 7

Criterion's
Design Criterion
Importance
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 313.76 287.72 313.36
Environmental - 8

Criterion's
Design Criterion
Importance
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
133
Overall Rank 322.24 296.53 323.36
Environmental - 9
Criterion's
Design Criterion
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 330.72 305.34 333.36
Environmental - 10
Criterion's
Design Criterion Soil Cement Jet Grouted
Importance Vibro Replacement
Column Columns
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 339.2 314.15 343.36
134
Environmental Constraint
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Figure 4-73: Environmental Constraint Sensitivity Graph
4.1.4.4 Sustainability Variable
Table 4-74: Designer's Ranking Having an Importance of "0" for Sustainability Constraint
Sustainability - 0
Criterion's
Importance
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 250.72 241.34 280
Sustainability - 1

Criterion's
Design Criterion
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
135
Overall Rank 260.72 249.34 286.67
Sustainability - 2
Criterion's
Importance
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 270.72 257.34 293.34
Sustainability - 3

Criterion's
Design Criterion
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 280.72 265.34 300.01
Sustainability - 4

Criterion's
Design Criterion
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 290.72 273.34 306.68
136
Sustainability - 5

Criterion's
Design Criterion
Importance
2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 300.72 281.34 313.35
Sustainability - 6

Criterion's
Design Criterion
Importance

2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 310.72 289.34 320.02
Sustainability - 7

Criterion's
Design Criterion
Importance

2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
137
Overall Rank 320.72 297.34 326.69
Sustainability - 8
Criterion's Ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale of 0 to 10)
Design Criterion

2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 330.72 305.34 333.36
Sustainability - 9
Design Criterion

2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 340.72 313.34 340.03
Sustainability - 10

Design Criterion
Importance

2. Economic 10 8.44 8.33 10
Overall Rank 350.72 321.34 346.7
138
Sustainability Constraint
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Figure 4-74: Sustainability Constraint Sensitivity Graph
4.2 Design of Structure

4.2.1 Methodology
In order to obtain the best design for the proposed 5-storey school building, the designers follow
the general process that you will see in the flowchart. Below are the processes that will help the designers
come up with the design proper and the final estimates to be consider. Through this process, the design will
be more reasonable and effective.
START
CONCEPTUALIZATION
GATHERING DATA
139
DEFINING CONSTRAINTS
DUAL SYSTEM RC SMRF
STEEL SMRF
DESIGN ANALYSIS DESIGN ANALYSIS DESIGN ANALYSIS
TABULATION OF RESULTS TABULATION OF RESULTS TABULATION OF RESULTS
TRADE-OFF ASSESSMENT
FINAL DESIGN
END
Figure 4-75: General Design Process
4.2.1.1 Trade-off 1: Design of Structure using Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame
The three basic steel special moment frame design components are beams, columns, and beam-
column connections. Beams span the horizontal clear distance between protected zones; columns
span the vertical clear distance between panel zones; and the beam-column connections
encompass both protected and panel zone regions at the beam-column intersections.
140
Figure 4–76: Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame
(Via Google Image)
4.2.1.1.1 Geometric Figure
Figure 4-77: Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame
141
Figure 4-78: Live Load
Figure 4-79: Shear Diagram
4.2.1.1.2 Results
142
4.2.1.2 Trade-off 2: Design of Structure using Dual System
In the dual system, both frames and shear walls contribute in resisting the lateral loads. The frame
is a group of beams and columns connected with each other by rigid joints, and the frames bend in
accordance with shear mode, whereas the deflection of the shear walls is by a bending mode like
the cantilever walls.
Figure 4-80: Dual System

(Via Google Image)
4.2.1.2.1 Geometric Results
Figure 4-81: Dual System
143
Figure 4-82: Second Floor to Fifth Floor Framing Plan
Figure 4-83: Roofdeck Floor Framing Plan
4.2.1.2.2 Results
144
4.2.1.3 Trade-off 3: Design of Structure using Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Resisting Frame
4.1.3.1 Geometric Modelling
Figure 4-84: Geometric Model of the Structure (SMRF)
4.2.1.3.2 Framing Plans
145
Figure 4-85: Second Floor to Fifth Floor Framing Plan
Figure 4-86: Roofdeck Floor Framing Plan
4.2.1.3.3 Load Diagrams
146
Figure 4-87: Shear Diagram
147
Figure 4-88 Moment Diagram
148
Figure 4-89 Seismic Diagram
Figure 4-90 Wind at X direction
149
Figure 4-91 Wind at Z direction
150
Figure 4-92 Dead Load
151
Figure 4-93 Live Load
152
4.2.1.3.4 GOVERNING LOAD COMBINATIONS
4.2.1.3.4.1 Load Case 1 (1.4DL)
Figure 4-94 Load Case 1
4.2.1.3.4.2 Load Case 2 (1.2DL+1.6LL)
153
4.2.1.3.4.3 Load Case 3 (1.2DL+1.0LL)
154
4.2.1.3.4.4 Load Case 4 (1.2DL+0.8WL)
155
4.2.1.3.4.5 Load Case 5 (1.2DL+0.8WL+1.0LL)
156
4.2.1.3.4.6 Load Case 6 (0.9DL+1.6WL)
157
4.2.1.3.4.6 Load Case 6 (1.2DL+1.0LL+1.0EL)
158
159
4.2.1.3.4.6 Load Case 8 (0.9DL+1.0EL)
4.2.1.3.1 Geometric Results
4.2.1.3.2 Results
160
CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN
The design project entitled as “Ground Improvement Design for the Proposed 5-Storey School Building at
Brgy. Muzon, Taytay, Rizal was designed by three tradeoffs. Each tradeoff was evaluated based on the
following constraints: Constructability constraint, Economic constraint, Environmental constraint and
Sustainability constraint for Geotechnical and Structural Design. As all of the tradeoff was evaluated, the
designers were able to choose which among those tradeoffs is effective and efficient for the design project.
Vibro replacement governs all the tradeoffs with 39% increase in cost. The designers showed the final
design for vibro replacement on the succeeding sections for this chapter.
5.1 Foundation Plan with Design of Vibro Replacement
Figure 5-1: Foundation Plan with Vibro Replacement

5.2 Elevation Plan with Design of Vibro Replacement
161
Figure 5-2: Elevation Plan with Vibro Replacement
5.3 Columns Spacing
Figure 5-3: Column Spacing at F-3
Figure 5-4: Column Spacing at CF-1
162
5.4 Vibro Replacement Properties
Table 5-1: Column Properties
Column Properties
Depth 3.5 m from the bottom edge of Foundation
Number of Column for Square Footing (F-3) 4
Number of Column for Combined Footing (CF-1) 7
Column Diameter 800 mm
Equivalent Elasticity of Soil Layer 16.99 Mpa
Loads Transferred to the Column 1172 kN (CF-1) and 625 kN (F-3)
Figure 5-5: Installation Process

5.5 Scheduling
Table 5-2: Scheduling
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6

No of
Columns to
be Finished 24 24 24 24 24 23
No. of Set
Up 4 4 4 4 4 4
Equipment
Operators 5 pet Set-up 5 pet Set-up 5 pet Set-up 5 pet Set-up 5 pet Set-up 5 pet Set-up
Unskilled
Laborers 25 per Set-up 25 per Set-up 25 per Set-up 25 per Set-up 25 per Set-up 25 per Set-up
Skilled
Laborers 10 per Set-up 10 per Set-up 10 per Set-up 10 per Set-up 10 per Set-up 10 per Set-up
163

Capstone Isa Pang Update

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Capstone Isa Pang Update

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Table of Contents

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

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

GROUND IMPROVEMENT DESIGN FOR THE PROPOSED 5 - STOREY SCHOOL BUILDING AT

Figure 1-2: Current Problem in Barangay Muzon

Figure 1-2: Perspective of the Project

Figure 1-3: Distance from the Active Fault Line

Figure 1-4: Site Location

DEFINING CONSTRAINTS AND

Figure 1-6: Project Development Chart

Figure 2-1: Taytay Rizal

Figure 2-2: Topographic Map 1

Figure 2-3: Topographic Map 2

School ID Name of School Total Number of No. of

Figure 2-4: Borehole Location Plan

Table 2-2: Borehole no.1 Result

Very soft, #4 100.00 LL 65.03

Firm, #4 100.00 LL 65.70

Soft, #4 100.00 LL 61.90

Firm, #4 100.00 LL 66.10

Table 2-4: Borehole no.3 Result

0.00 Very soft, #4 100.0 LL 67.8

Table 2-5: Unified Soils Classification System Result

Remarks (Relative Condition

Table 2-6: Unified Soils Classification System Symbol Table

Major Division Group Symbol Group Name

2.5.1 Dead Loads

Table 2-9: Dead loads (kPa)

Materials Design Load (kN/m3)

2.5.2 Live Loads

Table 2-10: Live loads

Description Uniform Load Concentrated

Table 2-11. Earthquake Loads

2.5.4 Wind Loads

Table 2-12: Wind Loads

2.5.5 Load Combinations

LOADS REQUIRED STRENGTH

2.6 Soil Properties

Soil Layer Angle of Poisson Modulus of Cohesion Unit Weight Cc Cs Pc

Table 2-15: Data for the Computation of Bearing Capacity

Bearing Capacity using Terzaghi

Design Loads and Dimension Inputs

2.8 Result of Bearing Capacity of the Soil

Figure 2-6: Data Result of Bearing Capacity of Soil

2.9 Architectural Design

Table 2-17: Floor Area Computation for the School Building

Room Description Floor Area (sq.m) Quantity Total Area (sq.m)

Figure 2-8: Proposed Ground Floor Plan

Figure 2-8: Proposed Second Floor Plan

Figure 2-8: Proposed Third Floor Plan

Figure 2-10: Proposed Fifth Floor Plan

Figure 2-11: Proposed Roof Deck Floor Plan

2.9.3 Elevation Plans

Figure 2-12: Front Elevation

Figure 2-14: Rear Elevation

Figure 2-15: Foundation Plan

Figure 2-16: Typical Footing Details

2.10 Related Literature

Retrieve from: http://www.geostructures.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/TP36-Geopier-vs-SC-

2.10.1.2. USE OF JET GROUTING TO LIMIT DIAPHRAGM WALL DISPLACEMENT OF A DEEP

Retrieve from: https://www.raito.co.jp/english/construction/pdf/da_soilcement.pdf

2.10.1.10. GROUND IMPROVEMENT USING THE VIBRO-STONE COLUMN TECHNIQUE