STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION

OF
EXISTING THREE- STOREY BUILDING
WITH ROOF DECK
Evangelista St, Makati City

FINAL REPORT
March 4, 2019

Submitted to:

ROBINSONS LAND CORPORATION

Prepared by:

VBDC CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERS I BUILDERS I STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS

8302 Dapitan St., Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City

email: [email protected]
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION
II. GENERAL PROCEDURE

III. DAMAGED CRITERIA

IV. METHODOLOGY
A. Visual Investigation

B. Concrete Core Samples

C. Steel Rebars Verification

D. Laboratory Test Result

E. Analytical Investigation

V. OBSERVATIONS & FINDINGS

VI. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

VII. LIMITATIONS

ANNEXES

A. Site Photographs

B. Architectural As-found plans

C. Structural As-found plans

D. Concrete & Rebar Sample Test Results

E. Structural Analysis & Results

 __________________________________________________________
FINAL REPORT ON
THE STRUCTURAL INVESTIGATION OF
EXISTING THREE-STOREY BUILDING WITH ROOFDECK
__________________________________________________________

I. INTRODUCTION

The existing building is a three (3) storey with roof deck rectangular reinforced
concrete structure with a foot print dimensions of approximately 24.955 meters in
longitudinal dimension and 12.515 meters in transverse dimension.

The existing building is covered with a roof deck where a penthouse structure is
located. Flooring system typically comprised of concrete & steel beams and
concrete slabs in conventional design from second, third to roof deck floor level.
The said beams and slabs are supported by a concrete column and foundations
are supported on assumed isolated footings. The building exterior walls are
enclosed using a concrete hollow blocks (CHB). Left, right & rear sides of the
building are protected by firewalls and interior partition walls are made of
concrete hollow blocks as well.

Presently, the building is being occupied by tenants. Robinsons bank at the

ground floor, computer shops on the second floor .The third floor level was used
to be a call center office and fitness gym occupied the roof deck level when the
investigation started.

The proposal to investigate and check the existing adequacy of the building is
the primary objective of the structural investigation conducted to accommodate
the proposed additional floor to cater the new occupancy requirement for a
dormitory use as per client.

The said procedure will require exploring and checking its structural soundness &
integrity based on the present condition using a methodology carried out in this
structural investigation report.

To undertake this, the client, Robinsons Land Corp (RLC) has commissioned
the services of VBDC CONSTRUCTION. This report contains the results of the
structural investigation undertaken by the investigation team and the
corresponding evaluations, observations, findings and recommendations.
II. GENERAL PROCEDURE

The building was inspected during the first visit by the principal consultant and
later together with the technical team with the approval of RLC client’s
representative, at the head office , Mr. Joel Jocson and Mr. Charlemagne
Remoroza of Robinsons bank- Evangelista prior to start the investigation in
January 22,2019,

After the initial inspection, a brief instruction was called-up to order where initial
findings were reported and initial site activities like chipping of columns to expose
rebar and dimension of beams and columns to verify actual condition of the
building were started.

Based on the ocular inspection conducted, the consultant reported that no

alarming damages on beams and columns except for temperature cracks found
on walls.

A general inspection from ground to third floor & roof deck was conducted for
further assessment and observations during the said visit.

Prior to investigation the consultant advised that, an as-built plan of the structure,
a comprehensive soils report were determined to be needed prior to making a
recommendation on the appropriate solution to the proposed extension of the
building. Below are the essential recommendations needed to complete the
investigation which some of the following was already performed:

-Make available the latest engineering/architectural drawings for the

structural design and analysis of the building.
- Make available the soil investigation report for the structure.
-Undertake a structural design review of the building based on as built
conditions
-Require a competent contractor who will be capable to perform necessary
repair, rehabilitation, or retrofit activities based on further
recommendations.

The VBDC Construction proposal was approved by the client and “The Notice to
Proceed” advising to start the said structural investigation was then provided.

Photographs of various locations showing the present physical condition of

structural elements and methodology activities were taken to document in this
report. (Please refer to Annex-A for actual site photos)
III. DAMAGED CRITERIA

An appraisal shall be made on members that have been subjected to potential

damage. For convenience, the appraisal is grouped into members according to
their importance to the structure.

1. Primary Members:

1.1 Columns
1.2 Beams and girders
1.3 Slabs

2. Secondary Members and Elements:

2.1 Walls and Partitions

2.2 Concrete cover

Primary Members - A reinforced concrete member is considered damaged

and unusable if it suffers from spalling, exposure of reinforcement, and the
cracking and degradation of the concrete.

Secondary Members - Walls and partitions are considered damaged and

unusable if the stability has been lost. Indicators of this type of terminal
damage would be large cracks, lateral deformations and appearance.
Concrete cover and encasement are considered damaged and unusable if
there are separations from the structural steel elements, large cracks and
degradation.

IV. METHODOLOGY

A. VISUAL INVESTIGATION

1. Columns and beams

Apparently, there were no evidence of structural damages or cracks observed on
the concrete surface of columns and beams during the investigation, except for
the steel columns at the roof deck where installation of anchor bolts were not
properly done.

2. Suspended slab

During the investigation no cracks were observed on the suspended slab at the
second, third & roof deck floor level of the existing building, except for the
cantilever slab at the roof deck where concrete pouring was not done properly.

3. Exterior walls
No damages were observed on the CHB walls except for temperature cracks only
found on some portion of the existing wall.
B. CONCRETE CORE SAMPLES

Extraction of concrete samples started from the third floor level & roof deck level
only (where no occupants present) during the investigation of the building using
an electric coring machine with a 2.5-inch diameter coring drill bit. Approximately,
the average length of concrete core samples taken from structural members
varies from length ranges from 5” to 6” to allow for the end capping procedure
during the compression testing in the laboratory.

A total of Ten (10) concrete specimen samples were extracted. Three (3)
concrete samples were extracted on beams. Six (6) concrete samples were
extracted on columns and, one (1) concrete sample extracted on roof deck slab to
determine the actual compressive strength of the concrete on each particular
member.

The concrete core samples were secured and were brought to material testing
center for compression strength testing in accordance to ASTM C-42. No samples
taken from the ground floor due the strict security compliance of Robinsons bank,
neither on the second floor where 24 hrs computer operations will be disturbed
and may hamper the services.

C. VERIFICATION OF STEEL REINFORCEMENT

1. Columns & beams

Concrete cover of selected structural elements on beams & column were chipped-
off to expose reinforcing steel bars for verification of the sizes and rebar
arrangement.

Location of column and beam rebars were detected using the rebar scanner which
has the capacity to determine the actual rebar location and depth .About 75mm
thick L-shape concrete cover was chipped-off on columns and beams surface to
verify the number of rebars as per actual condition.

After chipping the concrete cover to expose the rebar, enough to make the existing
rebars able to be verified by using the vernier caliper which has the accuracy in
determining the rebar diameter. Please refer to site photos for reference.

Two (2) rebar samples , 2 pcs 20mm diameter were extracted from the columns at
the third floor level of the building to check the actual tensile strength of the
reinforcement.
D. LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

1. Concrete core samples

After a successful coring, the concrete core samples were secured and were
brought to material testing center in Quezon City for compression strength
testing in accordance to ASTM C-42.

Based on the laboratory test results conducted, concrete samples extracted

from beams showed high compressive values ranging from 4,130 psi,4,956
psi,& 5,919 psi.

For columns results compressive strength ranges from a low of 1, 927 psi,
2,615 psi, 3,992 psi, to a high value of 4,543 psi, 4,818 psi & 4,956 psi and
slab with highest value of 6,332 psi.

For complete results please refer to the attachments. Result of compressive

strength test on concrete core samples are attached herein as Annex D of this
report.

2. Rebar samples

Two sets of 20mm diameter by 1meter of deformed round bar samples

were extracted from the column of the existing building .Extracted samples
were secured and were brought to the laboratory for testing.

Based on the test results, the yield strength of steel samples ranges from 473
Mpa to 482 Mpa. The extracted rebar samples were All grade 60. (60 ksi).

E. DESIGN PARAMETER

Upon completing the required information and data, the structural components of
the building were reviewed based on the following design codes and references.

a. National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP C101-15) Vol. 1, Buildings,

Towers and Other Vertical Structures, 7th Edition, 2015.
Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP)
b. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI 318-02, David A.
Fanella & Basile G. Rabbat
c. Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1997 Edition.
d. Design of Concrete Structures, 12th Edition, Arthur Nilson
e. Design of Concrete Buildings for Earthquake and Wind Forces,
According to 1997 Uniform Building Code, David A. Fanella
f. Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th Edition, Joseph E. Bowles
g. American Institute of Steel Construction Inc.,9th Edition
AISC - ASD/ LRFD.
h. Applied Structural Steel Design, Leonard Spiegel
All components of the structural system shall be applied based on the expected normal
loads presented below. For Reinforced Concrete (RC) members, Ultimate Strength
Design (USD) method will be applied and Working Stress Design (WSD) method for all
structural steel.
A. Dead Loads:

The dead load is the vertical load which includes the weight of all permanent
construction and all materials and equipment which are permanently fastened thereto
and supported thereby.

Table 1 - DEAD LOAD

Material Dry Unit Weight

Reinforced Concrete 24.00 KN/cu.m. (150 pcf)

Floor Finish & Floor Toppings 1.20 Kpa (25 psf)
Ceiling & Utilities 0.24 Kpa (5 psf)
Exterior Wall (150mm thk. CHB,350 psi 2.80 Kpa (57 psf)
Interior Partitions (100mm thk. CHB,350psi) 2.00 Kpa (42 psf)
Waterproofing/Topping 0.60 Kpa (25 psf)
Roofing ( corr. G.I. sheet, long span) 0.10 Kpa (2 psf)
Structural Steel 77.00 KN/cu.m (7850kg/cum)
Unit weight of Soil 16.00 KN/cu.m (166 pcf)
Waterproofing 0.60kpa (12.5psf)

B. Live loads

The live loads include loads which may vary in magnitude, and/or distribution during the
life of the structure; not including wind load, earthquake or dead load. The minimum
values of these loads depend on the occupancy and are normally specified by the
governing codes. Table 2 shows the live loads used in the design of the building.

Table 2 - LIVE LOAD

Occupancy/Use Floor Live Load

Robinsons bank office area 2.40 Kpa (50 psf)

Computer shops area 2.90 Kpa (60 psf)
Call-center & BPO area 2.90 Kpa (60 psf)
Fitness Gym 4.80 Kpa (100 psf)
Commercial 4.80 Kpa (100 psf)
Residential area 1.90Kpa (40 psf)
Roof Deck 2.90 Kpa (60 psf)
C. Earthquake load

Seismic Code: National Structural Code of the Philippines C101-15

Design Parameters:
Seismic Zone Zone 4, Z= 0.4
Soil Profile Type Sc, defined in Table 208-2
Seismic Source Type A
Seismic Source Proximity < 15 km from Valley Fault System
Seismic Coefficients Ca = 0.4Na
Cv = 0.56Nv
Near- Source Factor Na = 1.0 < 10 km form Seismic Source A
Nv =1.0 < 15 km from Seismic Source A
Importance Factor I = 1.0, Special Occupancy Structure
Numerical Coefficient R = 8.50
Period of Vibration T = C t(hn) ¾, using Method A
Design Base Shear:
V = CVIW/ RT ≤ 2.50C aWI/R
≥ 0.11CaIW
≤ 0.80ZNvW/R

F. ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION

To check the theoretical strength capacity of the structural elements of the

existing building, an analysis was made using an Engineering Software, to
simulate the strength and capacity of the existing structure. This is standard
software accepted worldwide.

The structure was modeled as space frame with loading based on criteria of the
latest National Structural Code of the Philippines (NCSP2015). The seismic
analysis is computer generated in accordance with standard engineering
practice.

A capacity check was made by comparing the output forces from the computer
run and the capacity of the member. The strength capacity of the member was
computed using the strength design method following the ACI-319-02 code.
V. OBSERVATIONS & FINDINGS

A. Visual Investigation & Test Results Evaluation:

Scope of inspection was limited to materials installed and visible physical

evidence at the time of inspection. Below are the general observations & findings
during the duration of the investigation

1. The average compressive strength of concrete taken from beams, & columns
was approximately 5,008 psi and 3,808 psi respectively.(Please see Annex-B
for the concrete & rebars test results).

2. Based on the test results rebars extracted from the columns were found to be
all grade 60 (60 ksi or 414 Mpa).(Please see Annex-B for test results).

3. Upon actual checking on the column & beam rebars, it was recorded that
column & beam rebars were found to be about 20mm diameter & 25mm
diameter respectively using a vernier caliper to determine its accuracy.

4. Gross Sizes (including plastering) of the column varies from 430x600,

440x640, 400x600, 440x440, 404x406mm as well as typical beam gross
section of 350x650mm were also recorded.

5. Based on the recorded data, column rebars arrangement and sizes were
found to be 15-20mm diameter to 17-20mm diameter vertical bars as shown
on column exposed top end rebars were observed at the roof deck level
during a thorough site investigation conducted.

6. For beam rebars sizes it was recorded that, an outer layer exposed of 6-
25mm diameter bottom bars & 4-25mm diameter top bars were recorded
using vernier caliper & rebar scanner.

7. It was observed that beams at the second floor & fourth floor were made of
concrete and beams at the third floor were comprised of steel beam and
stiffer beams.

8. During the exploration/inspection conducted, there were no alarming cracks

on floor tiles observed on the ground floor slab indicating stable foundation
condition (no substantial settlement observed or uneven settlement).

9. No alarming signs of substantial cracks found on columns, beams & slabs ,

except for the improper pouring of partial cantilever slab at the roof deck level
and a little vibration observed on the third floor level where the main beams
installed were made of steel materials supporting third floor slabs.
10. It was observed that Installation of steel columns & base plates at the roof
deck level (partial floor above roof deck) were not properly done. Based on
actual inspection a 20 mm deformed round bars were installed only instead
of anchor bolts. Pouring of concrete grouting between the column base
plates locations at roof deck slab were seemed unfinished.

B. Analytical Findings & Evaluation

After collecting pertinent data from the physical observations of column and
beam sections and laboratory test results ,several computer run were made
with different loading conditions and cases as per code requirement were
taken into consideration. Below are the five (5) major cases considered in the
analyses performed for the said project:

1. Existing Structure: Loaded with BPO, Office, Gym Live Load

2. Existing Structure: Loaded with Residential
3. Proposed Structure: Five-storey w/ roof deck (residential)
4. Proposed Structure: Five-storey w/GI roof (residential)
5. Proposed Structure: Five-storey w/GI roof with alternate columns
(residential)

Based on the computer analyses results and assessment per actual data
gathered, the following structural conditions & findings were observed .

1. Existing Structure: Loaded with BPO, Office, Gym Live Load

1.1 Based on the original design review conducted for case 1.1, using mixed
use loading condition, majority of the concrete girders were underestimated.
Calculations showed that girders were over stressed about 25 % beyond its
actual capacity with average Demand Capacity Ratio(DCR) of 1.275

1.2. For steel beams at third floor framing, majority of the steel beams were
good. DCR results averaged to 1.0043 which we considered satisfactory
although with some members subject for retrofitting.(Please refer results to
Annex-E).

1.3 For concrete columns applying the same load cases; for case 1.1, using
mixed use loading condition, it was observed that majority of the concrete
columns were underestimated. Based on calculation results columns were
found to be over stressed ranging about 14 % to 30% to high value of 60 %.
DCR results averaged to 1.6225 (Please refer results to Annex-E).

1.4 Slabs were generally satisfactory from second, third & fourth floor to roof
deck floor level, no excessive deflection was noticed although at third floor
level, a vibration was observed due to the flexibility effect of the long span steel
beam. Slab thickness at this floor (3rd) was observed to be average of 50 mm
 thick. Also temperature cracks were noticed at this floor, but can be treated by
application of epoxy injection during repair.

1.5 During the investigation, no cracks observed on ground floor tiles slab at
the column perimeter areas, prompting signs of no significant differential
settlements on the said foundation. Though minimal settlement of about 25mm
will be expected generally as soon as further soil investigation shall be
conducted.

1.6 At the time the investigation was conducted, soil exploration is yet to be
conducted due to the site condition where the positioning of the rig tripod is not
doable, unless the canopy at the front of the bank shall not block the bore hole
location.(subject for confirmation & approval later)

2 Existing Structure: Loaded with Residential Occupancy

2.1 For case 1.2 using residential loads. Although majority of the concrete
girders were underestimated the ratio of the underestimated members were
reduced. Calculations showed that girders were over stressed, about 18 % with
Demand Capacity Ratio (DCR) average of 1.1833 beyond its actual capacity.
(Please refer results to Annex-E)

2.2 For steel beams at third floor framing, majority of the steel beams were
good. DCR results averaged to 0.93 which we considered satisfactory. (

2.3 Based on this load case, 1.2 using residential loads although majority of the
concrete columns were underestimated. Calculations showed that columns over
stressed members were reduced, with average Design Capacity Ratio (DCR)
1.44 beyond its actual capacity. (Please refer results to Annex-E

3 Proposed Structure: Five-storey w/ roof deck (residential)

3.1 Another set of design analysis was made integrating the proposed
additional (one) floor over the existing roof deck. In this case the existing partial
steel roof deck was demolished based on actual site condition which is not
recommendable to be used.

3.2 Based on the results considering case 2, with loading condition for the
residential, although majority of the beams were considered satisfactory, there
were some members needed to be retrofitted. Identified DCR calculated values
on the near end of the beams were over stressed about 25 % of the actual
capacity. Generally, concrete beams DCR value averaged to about 0.7875 of
the actual capacity.
 3.3 For steel beams at third floor framing , majority of the steel beams were
found underestimated and needed to be retrofitted. Based on the calculations,
DCR results averaged to 1.036.( Please refer results to Annex-E).

3.4 For columns, based on this load case, using residential loads, majority of the
concrete columns were found satisfactory due to the substantial reduction of the
live load requirements from commercial/gym/BPO loads to residential. Although
there were some minimal members needed to be retrofitted, generally columns
were good. Calculations showed that columns average Demand Capacity Ratio
(DCR) at this load case was found to be 0.8625 which we considered satisfactory

4. Proposed Structure: Five-storey w/GI roof (residential)

4.1Based on the results considering case 3, with loading condition for the
residential use, general results with roof deck as in case-2 were the same,
although majority of the beams were considered satisfactory, there were some
members needed to be retrofitted. Identified DCR calculated values on the near
end of the beams were over stressed about 25 % of the actual capacity.
Generally, concrete beams DCR value averaged to about 0.7875 of the actual
capacity. Please refer results to Annex-E).

4.2 For steel beams at third floor framing, majority of the steel beams were found
underestimated and needed to be retrofitted. Based on the calculations, DCR
results averaged to 1.01.( Please refer results to Annex-E).

4.3 For columns, based on this load case, using residential loads, majority of the
concrete columns were found satisfactory due to the substantial reduction of the
live load requirements from commercial/gym/BPO loads to residential. Although
there were some minimal members needed to be retrofitted, generally columns
were good. Calculations showed that columns average Demand Capacity Ratio
(DCR) at this load case was found to be 0.8625 which we considered satisfactory
(Please refer results to Annex-E).

5. Proposed Structure: Five-storey w/GI roof - alternate column ( residential)

5.1 Based on the results considering case 4, with loading condition for the
residential use, all the beams were good and considered satisfactory .Concrete
beams DCR calculated values were generally good with the averaged value of
0.5875 based on the actual beam capacity. (Please refer results to Annex-E).

5.2 For steel beam at third floor level, all steel beams were found to be good and
satisfactory. Based on the calculations, DCR results averaged to 0.616 due the
reduced span of the existing long beam (11 meters) to half of the length by
introducing a new column at the midspan starting from ground floor to third floor
level and steel column form third floor to roof deck. (Please refer results to
Annex-E).
 5.3 For columns, based on this load case, using residential loads, all of the
concrete columns were found satisfactory due to the substantial reduction of the
live load requirements from commercial/gym/BPO loads to residential and
insertion of the additional concrete columns at the midspan of the beams.
Calculations showed that columns average Demand Capacity Ratio (DCR) at this
load case was found to be 0.69125 which we considered satisfactory. (Please
refer results to Annex-E)

VI. CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the visual investigation, concrete core samples, steel rebars

verification, the results of analytical investigation, and the laboratory test results
performed supplemented by thorough inspection of the structural elements of the
existing building. we can conclude that the structure in general is usable and
repairable and that undergoing general rehabilitation to enhance its structural
integrity is highly recommended. A qualified and experienced Structural
Consultant should supervise the repair and renovation works required as
specified in this report as well as experienced structural contractor/builder to
implement the said structural solutions recommended. Below are the following
recommendations needed to be undertaken:

1. The existing steel structure over the existing main roof deck shall be
demolished. Based on the investigation the said steel structure was not
properly constructed. Structural steel columns and beams were below the
minimum design requirements, thus it is recommended to be replaced by a
new main floor extension as part of the purpose of this report.

2. The Limitations on additional floor shall be observed so as not to induce

further loads to the existing building and maintain its structural soundness.

3. The provision for the additional floor (one floor only with roof deck) is doable
and practical in order to maintain the existing structural member’s capacity to
reduce the cost for the retrofitting works.

4. Additional floor neither with the use of roof deck nor with G.I roofing is both
doable. Based on analysis both cases have DCR with the same range in
cost for the retrofitting works, whichever is preferred.

5. Based on the study, introducing of the new concrete columns at the center or
the building or midspan of the beam will re-distribute the vertical loads on
existing column as well as on the foundation. This will also shorten the long
span of the existing steel beam, at the third floor level. Thus will address the
vibration observed.
6. With new /additional column, will create additional stability to the existing
building, by providing additional main support at the middle/center area. In
 effect, will result to optimizing the existing structural member’s capacity and
minimizing the cost for the repair and retrofitting works.

7. By providing the said additional column in an alternate location will not only
provide stability but enhance the seismic capability of the structure against
lateral forces during earthquake activities.

8. Girders affected by the rectification works shall be provided by an additional

top & bottom rebar as per requirement on main support based on the
calculations, the said details shall be shown on the retrofitting plans to be
provided.

9. All temperature cracks on slabs and walls observed shall be pressure

injected with concrete epoxy to restore bonding and prevent exposure of
rebars from further corrosion.

10. Components of the structural framing materials must be designed using light
construction materials should roof deck shall be utilized as full occupancy
load for residential use. To lighten the loads, ideal columns, beams and
girders must be made of structural steel with a combination of concrete slab
on metal decking flooring system or structural steel joist.

11. Maximum live load on the 2nd to 4th ,& 5th floor level shall not exceed 40 psf
(2.4 Kpa) for office areas and 40 psf (1.90 kpa) for residential areas
respectively to optimize the existing carrying capacity of the structural
members. (Pls refer to design criteria).

12. For final review and validation of the foundation. A soil exploration/soil test to
determine the actual soil bearing capacity needed to check the footing sizes
is also recommended prior to rectification works.

13. A detailed rectification works and procedure shall be provided on the

structural rectification drawings/plans for your reference during rehabilitation.
In addition, a shop drawings and methods of retrofitting works shall be
submitted by the contractor (prior to fabrication and installation) for structural
engineer’s/consultant’s approval.

14. Should the above mentioned recommendations commenced, adequate

shoring support to carry temporary loads and safety measure to ensure
safety during the repair/retrofitting activities shall be provided by the specialty
contractor.(preferably with experience in retrofitting works).

15. All works shall be done under close supervision of a project/construction

manager and competent structural consultant to ensure rehabilitation &
construction works are implemented properly in conformance with plans and
specifications until the project is completed.
VII. LIMITATIONS

The foregoing observations, findings conclusion and recommendations are

generally based on the physical evidence gathered, data from the concrete
samples & rebar explorations, laboratory test results performed during the period
of structural investigation.

Should other observations noticed during the actual construction activities, the
undersigned shall be notified for further investigation so as necessary
recommendation shall be made. The amount of rectification works needed to
bring back and ensure the structural soundness of the building is beyond the
scope of this report.

VBDC CONSTRUCTION,

VEN LEE G. VILVAR, M ASEP, M.PICE

Principal Structural Engineer
Structural Engineering Consultant
PRC No. 73130