MAYNILAD WATER SERVICES,

INCORPORATED
Katipunan Road, Balara, Quezon City Philippines

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF

LA MESA WATER TREATMENT PLANT 1:
PROCESS IMPROVEMENT WORKS

STRUCTURAL CALCULATION REPORT OF

GANTRY

APRIL 2018

Prepared by:

JOHN ROM M. CABADONGGA, BSCE

PRC REG. NO. 0144396 TIN NO. 328871255

DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTOR:
STA. CLARA INTERNATIONAL, JFE ENGINEERING CORP.
CORP.
Highway 54 Plaza, 23rd Floor, Robinsons Cyberspace Alpha Bldg.,
986 Epifanio de los Santos Ave., Wack-Wack, Sapphire & Garnet Rd., Ortigas Center,
Mandaluyong City, Philippines Pasig City, Philippines

1|P age
Contents
I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................3
I.A Overview .............................................................................................................................................................3
II. Parameters of Structural Design and Analysis ..........................................................................................................4
II.A Codes and References ........................................................................................................................................4
II.B Materials Specification .......................................................................................................................................4
II.C Sections ..............................................................................................................................................................4
II.D Software .............................................................................................................................................................4
III. Loading Criteria .......................................................................................................................................................4
III-A. Design Loads ...................................................................................................................................................4
Dead load ...............................................................................................................................................................4
Live Loads .............................................................................................................................................................5
Earthquake Loads ..................................................................................................................................................5
Wind Loads ...........................................................................................................................................................5
III-B. Loading Plan ....................................................................................................................................................6
III-C Load Combination ............................................................................................................................................8
IV. Staad Output ............................................................................................................................................................9
V. Conclusion and Recommendation .......................................................................................................................... 12
V. A Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 12
V. B Recommendation............................................................................................................................................. 12
VI. Analysis of Existing Structure ............................................................................................................................... 12
VII .Track Locking Joint Connection .......................................................................................................................... 15
VIII.Appendix ............................................................................................................................................................. 17
Gantry Connection Detail ............................................................................................................................................ 17

2|P age
I. Introduction
Background

As a part of the design and build contract package, the contractor (SCIC-JFE consortium) must
submit a method statement such as the integrity and safety of existing structure in the
sedimentation area will not sacrificed during execution of works. One possible way to do that is
the Gantry which is being discussed on submitted method statement. Gantry was designed to
accommodate all lifting activities with in the basin including the erection of roof framing system.
It will be capable to lift a concentrated load of 5 tons.

Plan

I.A Overview
This design calculation report for the proposed gantry at the sedimentation north and south basin
was prepared as supporting documents to the adequacy and safe execution of method statement of
lifting and other activities involving installation of roof and demolition works on particular area
(North and South Basin).

This report including modeling using Staad Pro V8i as well as extraction of the design and
analysis outputs under loads prescribe by the governing codes.

3|P age
II. Parameters of Structural Design and Analysis
II.A Codes and References

The applicable provisions of the following regulations, codes and standards form
part of the design criteria:

 NATIONAL STRUCTURAL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES 2015 VOL.

2(BUILDINGS, TOWERS, AND OTHER VERTICAL STRUCTURES)
 AISC ( American Institute of Steel Construction )

II.B Materials Specification

All structural steel used in design shall have the minimum yield strength:

 Fy = 248 MPa
 Fu = 400 MPa

II.C Sections

The following are the section used in 3D modeling with the same specs as stated on section II.B

 L 4X4X0.31
 L 3X3X1/4
 TUB40403
 TUB 80405
 L31/2X31/2X5/16

II.D Software

As per project specification, analysis of the structural frame members has been modeled in the
structural design software Staad Pro V8i.
Considered the design loads and codes requirements, a run through has been carried out of all
forces including stresses have been extracted accordingly for the final member design check.

III. Loading Criteria

III-A. Design Loads

Dead load
 Self-weight of all the materials
 Checkered Plate = 0.46 kPa

4|P age
Live Loads
 Truss Load = 50 kN

Earthquake Loads
 Ss = 2.0 (short period spectral response)
 S1 = 0.35 (1 second spectral response)
 Fa = 1
 Fv = 1.7
 Sms = 1(2) = 2
 Sd1 = 1.7(0.35) = 0.595
 Sds = 2/3 (2) = 1.33
 Sd1 = 2/3 (0.595) = 0.397
 Approximate Weight of Structure and Load = 80 kN
 V = .3(Sds*W*Ie) = 31 kN
 v = 31 kN/36 nodes = 0.88 kN/node

Wind Loads
 H = 2m (Height of structure)
 Kz = 0.85 (exposure coefficient)
 Kzt = 1.0 (topographic effect)
 V = 270 kph (Basic wind speed)
 I = 1.0 (Importance factor)
 G = 0.85 (gust effect factor, assumed conservative value)
 qz = .00256 Kz Kzt Kd V2 (basic wind pressure)
 qz = 52.67 psf
 As = 5.68 sqm (solid area)
 Ag = 16m x 1.9m = 30.4m2 (gross area)
 e = As/Ag = .187
 Cf = 1.8 for As=0.187
 F = qh*G*Cf*Af = 22 kN (The total lateral force from wind)
 wl = 22kN/(16m)(4) = 0.35 kN/m of chord (Distributing the load along the chords)

5|P age
III-B. Loading Plan

Dead load

Truss Load case 1

6|P age
Truss Load Case 2

Wind load

7|P age
Earthquake Load

III-C Load Combination

8|P age
IV. Staad Output
Utilization Ratio

The table below are sorted from top ten largest and most critical section as a result in 3D model
analysis.

Result from Analysis

9|P age
Summary of Reaction

The summary of maximum and minimum reactions occurred on the different load cases acting
on the structure.

Result from Analysis

10 | P a g e
Displacement

Section Displacement occur in load combination - 22

This table is sorted from the top ten largest possible displacement occurred on the different load
cases as a result came from 3D Model Analysis.

Result from Analysis

11 | P a g e
V. Conclusion and Recommendation
V. A Conclusion

From the calculation and subsequent design procedures presented, all structural members where
proven adequate.

V. B Recommendation

We therefore recommend adopting the following sections and sizes including the material
specification stated herein for the design of proposed Gantry:

 L 4X4X0.31
 L 3X3X1/4
 TUB40403
 TUB 80405
 L31/2X31/2X5/16

VI. Analysis of Existing Structure

The existing cantilever slab is 300 mm thick at the root and is reinforced with 25mm deformed
bars at 300 o.c. This analysis considered an effective width of 1.8m each set of rollers and its
capacity is computed below.

1. Capacity of existing cantilever

 fy = 414 MPa ; fc=24 MPa ;
 d = 300 mm-50 mm=250 mm
1800 𝜋
 As = 300 𝑥 4 (252 ) = 2945.24 mmsq.
414(2943)
 a = 0.85(24)(1800) = 33.2 mm
 M = 0.9(2945.24)(414)(250-33.2/2)= 256.13 kN-m

2. The actual moment on the other hand is calculated

from the actual critical load based on the result of analysis
in load case 26 on one set of rollers.
 P = 55.92 kN + 41.9 kN = 97.82 kN
 d = 446 mm
 Md = 97.82 kN x 0.446m = 43.62 kN-m

12 | P a g e
CHECK SLAB TO CARRY CART WITH GROSS WT 3250 kgf

1. Assume the effective width of the 250mm thick

slab is 360 mm
 Dead weight = w = 2400(0.36*0.25) = 216 kgf/m
 MDL = wl2/9 = 216(2)2/9 = 96 kgf-m
2. The maximum moment due to LL is assumed at
condition when one wheel of the cart is at midspan.

The live load is increased by 30% to account for impact.

 LL=3250*1.30/4 = 1056.25 kgf
 MLL = 1056.25(2)/4 = 528.13 kgf-m

3. Factored total moment is

 1.2DL + 1.6LL = 1.2 (96) + 1.6 (541.57) = 960.21 kgf-m
= 9.42 kN-m for every 360 mm width of slab

4. The nominal capacity of the 360mm wide x 250mm thick

slab reinforced with 16mm @ 300 is computed:
 As = 200.96 mm2
 fy = 417MPa
 fc = 27MPa

Taking b = 300 mm
 a = Asfy/0.85fc b = 11.68 mm

The factored nominal moment

 Mn = 0.9(As fy) (d-a/2) = 14.53 kN-m/300 mm

This is equivalent to
 M=16.95 kN-m. /360 mm
Figure 1(As-Built)
In this approach, the strength contribution of the adjacent
strip, though quite considerable, is neglected in the computation.

Due to outriggers of Mini crane (Sedimentation side)

This walls will be subject for axial force cause by outriggers that will rest on the surface during
lifting works. Assumption is 1m strip and analyze as a column.

Sedimentation Side
1. Actual Compressive force;
 P = 98.1 kN

13 | P a g e
2. Actual Moment Due to lateral loads cause by static force of soil
1 1−𝑠𝑖𝑛∅
𝐹 = 2 𝛾 𝑘𝑎 ℎ ;𝛾 = 18𝑘𝑁/𝑚3 ; ∅ = 33 𝑑𝑒𝑔. ; ka = 1+𝑠𝑖𝑛∅ ; h = 6m
1
 F = 2 x 18 x 0.29 x 6 = 15.66 kN
1
 Md = 3 𝑥 6 𝑥 15.66 = 31.32 kN-m

3. Allowable factored load P (∅ 𝑃𝑛)

Ast = 3272.49 mmsq. ; Ag = 600,000 mmsq.
 ∅ 𝑃𝑛 =0.65x0.8x(0.85xfc’x(Ag- Ast)+414Ast) = 6289.87 kN

4. Allowable Moment ∅ 𝑀𝑛
∅ 𝑀𝑛 = M1 + M2; a = 38.38 mm
38.38
 M1 = 0.85 x 24 x 38.38 x 1000 x ( 550- 2 ) = 415.59 kN -m
 M2 = As fs ( d – d’ ) = 1636.245 x 64.59 x ( 550-50 ) = -52.84 kN –m (Tension)
 ∅ 𝑀𝑛 = 0.9 x ( 415.59 + (-52.84) ) = 326.56 kN-m

𝑓𝑦
5. Balance Condition (∈𝑦 = 𝐸𝑠 )
∅ 𝑀𝑛 = M1 + M2; a = 276.63 mm
276.63
 M1 = 0.85 x 24 x 276.63 x 1000 (550- 2 ) = 2323.24 kN-m
 M2 = 1636.245 x 414 x ( 550- 50 ) = 338.702
 ∅ 𝑀𝑛 = 0.9 x (2323.24 + 338.702 ) = 2395.74 kN-m
∅ 𝑃𝑛 = C1 + C2 –T
 C1 = 0.85 x 24 x 276.63 x 1000 = 5643.25 kN
 C2 = 1636.245 x 414 = 677.405 kN
 T = 1636.245 x 400 = 654.498 kN
 ∅ 𝑃𝑛 = 0.65 (5643.25 + 677.405 ) – 654.498 = 3683 kN

6. Compression Controls (fs ≠ fy )

∅ 𝑀𝑛 = M1 + M2; a = 115.77 mm
115.77
 M1 = 0.85 x 24 x 115.77 x 1000 x ( 550- 2 ) = 1162.23 kN
 M2 = 1636.245 x 379 x ( 550-50 ) = 310.068
 ∅ 𝑀𝑛 = 0.9 x (1162.23 + 310.068) = 1325.0682 kN
∅ 𝑃𝑛 = C1 + C2 –T
 C1 =0.85 x 24 x 115.77 x 1000 = 2361.71 kN
 C2 =1636.245 x 379 = 620.136 kN
 T =1636.245 x 414 = 564.38 kN
 ∅ 𝑃𝑛 = 0.65 x (2361.71 + 620.136 – 564) = 1571.59 kN

7. Tension Controls (fs = fy)

∅ 𝑀𝑛 = M1 + M2; a = 159.83 mm
159.83
 M1 = 0.85 x 24 x 159.83 x 1000 x (550- 2 ) = 1532.72 kN-m
 M2 = 1636.245 x 414 x (550-50) = 338.702 kN-m

14 | P a g e
  ∅ 𝑀𝑛 = 0.9 x (1532.72 + 338.702) = 1684.27 kN
∅ 𝑃𝑛 = C1 + C2 –T
 0.85 x 24 x 159.83 x 1000 = 3260.532 kN
 1636.245 x 414 = 677.405 kN
 1636.245 x 414 = 677.405 kN
 ∅ 𝑃𝑛 = 0.65 x 3260.532 + 677.405 – 677.405 kN = 2119.35 kN

8. Interaction Diagram

VII .Track Locking Joint Connection

Loadings
1. Earthquake Loads
 Ss = 2.0 (short period spectral response)
 S1 = 0.35 (1 second spectral response)
 Fa = 1
 Fv = 1.7
 Sms = 1(2) = 2
 Sd1 = 1.7(0.35) = 0.595
 Sds = 2/3 (2) = 1.33

15 | P a g e
  Sd1 = 2/3 (0.595) = 0.397
 Approximate Weight of Structure and Load = 80 kN
 V = .3(Sds*W*Ie) = 31 kN
 v = 31 kN/2 nodes = 15.5 kN/node

Design of Bolts
1. Parameters
 Allowable Shear = 117 MPa
 P = 15.5 kN (Applied load )

2. Bolt Diameter
 457 = P/A
 457 = 15.5(1000) / A
 A = 33.91 mmsq.
𝜋
 33.91= 4 (𝐷2 )
 D = 6.57 mm say 16 mm (commercial size)

3. Actual Shear < Allowable Shear

𝜋
 P / A = 15.5 (1000) / 4 (162 ) = 77 MPa
 77 MPa < 117 MPa ok!

4. Recommendation

Use A325 M16 Threaded bolt for track locking

Connection.

16 | P a g e
 VIII.Appendix
Gantry Connection
Detail

17 | P a g e
 6mmTHK
GUSSET
6mmTHK
80mm x 80mm x 6mm FLAT BAR
ANGEL BAR

100mm x 100mm x 8mm

DOUBLE ANGEL BAR

90mm x 90mm x 8mm

ANGEL BAR
 COLLAPSABLE GUARD RAIL

CATWALK

DETAIL D
DETAIL C

DETAIL A 6mm THK DETAIL E

GUSSET

80mm x 80mm x 6mm

100mm x 100mm x 8mm ANGEL BAR
ANGEL BAR
CATWALK

DETAIL B
TUB40403

TUB40403

100mm x 100mm x 8m
ANGEL BAR

CASTER WHEEL DETAIL WILL BE CASTER WHEEL

PROVIDED BY THE SUPPLIER ELECTRIC POWERED DETAIL
ENGINE PROVIDED BY THE
SUPPLIER
 M16 A325
TUB40403

CASTER WHEEL
50mm Ø G.I. PIPE
SCHEDULE 40

TRACK LOCKING MECHANISM