TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT

PROJECT : Proposed Commissary

LOCATION : No 31 San Guillermo st., Buting, Pasig City
OWNER : Mr. Michael S. Cheng
DATES OF INSPECTION : Oct 10 & 14, 2017

METHODOLOGY
Visual Examination/Interview with the caretaker
STAAD load simulation

INTRODUCTION

The existing structure is a 50 year old (more or less) 3-storey reinforced concrete building
located at 31 San Guillermo st., Buting, Pasig City. The 3rd floor is located on top of the roof
deck together with a 1000 liter water tank. The current state of the building shows that the
building is not well maintained. The building has undergone some prior modifications that
extended the building laterally and at the rear to provide for covered parking and storage
area.

The original architectural and structural plans is no longer available. The ground floor is
currently being occupied by a hardware while the 2nd and 3rd floor is vacant except for a room
occupied by the caretaker. My observation of the existing floor layouts showed that the 1st
floor is intended for commercial use while the 2nd and 3rd floor is for residential purposes.

The owner engages the services of Arch. Jaypee S. Quilala to draw the architectural plan for
the renovation for the building and convert it to a food commissary where kitchen fixtures,
equipment & ducting will be installed at the 1st and 2nd floor. Based on this plan, a technical
evaluation was requested to evaluate if the existing structure could support the load
requirements of the commissary.

LIMITATIONS
The inspection was limited to areas and sections visible to the naked eye as it would not be
possible to visually examine all concealed portions/sections of the structure without tearing
down the walls and ceiling. In most cases, this type of inspection can be considered adequate
when executed systematically by a duly qualified civil/structural engineer. Surface
imperfections such as cracks, distortion, discoloration, sagging, excessive deflections,
significant misalignment, signs of leakage, and peeling of finishes should be viewed as
indications of possible defects.

As a routine matter, in order to avoid possible misunderstanding, nothing in this report should
be construed directly or indirectly as a guarantee for any portion of the structure.
 OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the structural investigation is

To evaluate the overall safety and stability of the building based on the National Structural
Code of the Philippines and other related structural and building codes if it could support
the intended usage of the building as food commissary.

To recommend corrective measures or rectification, if necessary.

A. RESULTS OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND INVESTIGATION

1. Foundation
Monolithic masonry structures are generally rigid and incapable of accepting vertical and
horizontal movements due to uneven support of subterranean materials or seismic force. This
can result to leaning of the building. Such structural defects will usually manifest on the corner
columns of the ground floor. When differential shears are involved, cracks will typically be
diagonal. So far, none of these were noticeable.

2. Columns

The reinforced concrete columns are intact except for one (1) column located in the toilet
( EXHIBIT A). As shown in the picture, a significant portion of the column has been chipped
off for the sanitary PVC pipe to pass through.

3. Beams & Slabs

Structural cracks and deflection can been seen as shown (EXHIBIT B, C & D). This is more
conspicuous on the balcony parapets which affected the slabs being monolithically
connected to the reinforced concrete beam. Formation of water puddle (EXHIBIT E, F, & G)
have been noted on the roof deck due to the settlement of the slab caused by beam
deflection. When jumping and running over the slab, vibrations have also been detected.
As mentioned by the caretaker, the roof deck has been loaded before with fish tanks which
have comprised the structural integrity of the slab and beams.
B. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION

LOAD CAPACITY

The building occupancy of the 2nd & 3rd floor when it was designed is of residential usage. From
NSCP 2015 code , the minimum design load for residential (Basic floor area) is 1.9 KN/SQM.
To convert it to a commissary, a minimum design load of 4.8 KN/SQM (NSCP 2015), would be
required. This is 2.5 times more than the existing load capacity. More so that the building is
already 50 years old (more or less). Applying the load reduction factor will further reduce the load
carrying capacity of the structure.

STRUCTURAL DEFECTS

When the building was constructed, the design method used at that time was the so-called working
stress design (WSD). Here, the steel is allowed to fail first before the concrete. If the ultimate load
is reached, the steel will begin to yield although the steel compression is still under stressed. If the
load is further increased, the steel will continue to elongate, resulting in appreciable deflections
and large visible cracks in the tensile concrete. This will give warning to the user of the structure
to decrease the load. These signs have manifested in this building as shown in the picture exhibits
B, C, D, F.

Defects in concrete slabs on the roof decks when exposed heavily to rainwater to form water
puddle will result to the corrosion of rebars due to oxidation which can extend up to other
structural members such as the beams and columns. Such defects can be caused by cracks or
inadequate protecting cover of concrete and excessively permeable concrete. This could result to
presence of honeycomb areas and discoloration of concrete (exhibit D, E, F). If the surface concrete
has already been painted, this will manifest by the bulging ,discoloration and scaling of painted
surfaces. The floor system will also manifest some vibrations or deflection in the middle of the
slab if such defect is not corrected. It is therefore imperative that the roof slab be properly
maintained to ensure that the floor drains are not clogged to prevent accumulation of rain water.
The cracks can be remedied by applying sealants and waterproofing materials. Likewise,
inadequate protecting cover of concrete can be corrected by installing ceramic tiles and adhesives
which have waterproofing properties.
 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The current structure will not be able to support the load requirements as indicated
in the architectural plan without undergoing structural retrofitting. This would
require an engineering methodology with detailed drawings and should be
undertaken by a qualified contractor. It should also be supervised by a qualified
civil/structural engineer. The design architect and engineer should work in tandem
to achieve the most viable and economical retrofitting solution. The critical area of
the structure is the 2nd floor which according to the architectural plan would be
loaded with kitchen equipment and ducting. Fixed kitchen sinks made of concrete
would contribute additional dead load should be avoided. This can replaced with
lighter movable tables and racks made of stainless steel. Additional columns and
beams at the ground floor can also be constructed as indicated in the drawing
below to support the additional load. Steel pipes and truss may be use instead of
concrete. The actual sizes and dimensions of these steel structure can be
determined by the structural engineer during implementation.

The application of modern retrofitting techniques in the strengthening of

reinforced concrete to the existing structural components (columns, beams and
slab ) would be needed. To name a few, the following strengthening techniques
can be considered:

Columns
Concrete or steel jacketing or combination
Beam
Adding reinforced steel bars to the main steel without
increasing the beam cross sectional area.
Increasing both the reinforcing steel bars and the cross
sectional are of concrete.
Adding steel plates to the beam
Slab
o Strengthening by increasing its depth from bottom
o Strengthening by increasing its depth from top

To the best of my knowledge and ability, this report represents an accurate appraisal
of the present condition of the building based upon careful evaluation of observed
conditions, to the extent reasonably possible.

Inspected and Prepared by:

ENGR. REX MELCHOR T. IMPERIAL

CIVIL / STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

PRC NO. 05288 VALID UNTIL 1/6/2018

EXHIBIT A

CHIPPING OF COLUMN

EXHIBIT B

CRACKS UNDER THE SLAB

WITH EXPOSED REBARS
EXHIBIT C

BEAM DEFLECTION & CRACKS

EXHIBIT D

DISCOLORATION &
PEELING FINISHES
EXHIBIT E

FORMATION OF WATER PUDDLE

AT MAIN ROOF DECK ABOVE 2ND
FLOOR.

EXHIBIT F

CRACKS
EXHIBIT G

FORMATION OF WATER PUDDLE

AT BALCONY PARAPETS