UNFINISHED Works...
Timely, the projects in Catubig and Las Navas, Northern Samar, link map, Philippines. These projects are being funded through LOANS from Japan and government of the Philippines;
View Larger Map
A Glimpse of the projects:
First, the Catubig diversion dam and the Canals (completed sometime in June 2010 or May 2011) and the Canals and minor structures are not yet completed as of May 2011, the dam was discovered to have cracks due to flooding last December 2010 as Mr. Deodito Tejero was telling story about the cracks, while drinking beer at the office of Contractor, and had undergone repair works undertaken by HANJIN. On the time while I was there the HANJIN was still constructing the CANALS and some minor structures even the contract was already finished because actually it was not really finished even the consultant the Japanese Mr. Toku was there always visiting and walking on the site as of May 2011;
The construction of Bulao diversion dam and Hagbay diversion dam under contract with HANJIN Industries and Construction Ltd., were terminated, the Bulao diversion Dam was rebid; and then;
Second, the Hagbay diversion Dam project at Sta. Fe, Catubig town, 10 kilometers away from town proper of Las Navas with poor, muddy and inaccessible road to reach the site, had been awarded last July 2, 2010 to prominent Construction company, wherein as of April 18, 2011 having a negative slippage (-16.6%) as per letter of the NIA Administrator and was subject for termination already, because the sub-contractor and the engineers (Mr. Danilo Maderazo, magna cum laude, former Professor of civil engineering at Divine Word University, former reviewer of Salazar engineering review center, first placer in the Geodetic engineers licensure exam, my professor) from Tacloban City and Enzo construction from Catbalogan Western Samar, had abandoned and left the Hagbay dam project, because when they made their "EVALUATION daw" they marked him as having No sufficient experiences in dam construction, and inadequate qualifications.
Hence, the main contractor/construction has resorted to get a new sub-contractor from Catarman Northern Samar, henceforth, a protégé of Politicians or (we don't KNOW who are their back-ups?), had accepted the sub-con contract from construction, this sub-contractor did not make a clearer view, thorough study and did not make detailed estimates of the contract design plans, the works to be done, namely; major structures (DAM structures), bridge structure, minor structures (drainage canals, irrigation canals with access road and/or service road with the same length of the irrigation canals length (14.2 km.), intake boxes, crossing pipes, the length of drainage canals, etc. The sub-contractor is not a civil engineer but unlicensed mechanical graduate, bully, prideful and CRAFTY person, a new contractor one and 1/2 (1.5 year), Mr. Rikki Rubenecia. Unfortunately, he accepted the sub-con contract amount out of ph231 Millions total contract amount by the main contractor, which is very obvious by a simple mind and layman analysis and understanding, that the sub-contract amount is only (?) of the total contract amount. hence, the projects would be finished using sub-standard materials and low quality project with the amount accepted by the sub-contractor.
Here are the crucial parts of my study and OBSERVATIONS:
I was too inquisitive and become curious, enquiring, why they were very prideful of their design, so I used my time to delve into details, in my in depth study of the design plans of the said projects, I discovered that the reinforced concrete design of the DAM Structures and Bridge Structures were not accurate as being bragged by the NIA engineers. If you read this blogpost it's a big question mark why?"a civil engineer also had worked there from year 2007 to June 2010 as one of the engineers and CAD operator". Accordingly, I was able to retrieve the Excel files of Danilo De Asis containing the Spreadsheets for DAM structures and Bridge Structures, namely; Catubig dam, Pinipisakan Bridge Flume, Hagbay dam and service Bridge, Bulao dam structural analysis and design computations. I reviewed and checked the spreadsheets calculations and the results are not good as being show off and pridefully bragged by Mr. Danilo de Asis, Prisco O. Boco III and Dennis Lozano. I discovered when I checked that the Chief designer Prisco O. Boco III and Amadeo Montejo had made mistakes in the applications of formulas and assumptions for Bridge Columns, Barrages piers, Sluice piers, T-Beams, R-Beams, Slabs; These are not altered copies all of these are authentic.
 |
| Hagbay Bridge Design using Spreadsheet, with Omega, w= 0.18, an Old Standard |
 |
| Side Elevation of Bridge - 20 meters long |
 |
| Section Detail of Hagbay Bridge included in the Hagbay Dam construction |
 |
| Bridge Beam Rebars Details, adopted an OLD methods, using 45 degrees bent -up at L/4, the splice points were not considered to conform with new detailing method |
 |
| Side view Detail of Rebars, using 45 degrees bent -up of main bars clearly an OLD Method of Detailing |
They used Old standard, omega, w =0.18 and rho =0.18f'c/fy for control of deflection, clearly an old standard ACI 318-1963 Code provision, Chapter 15, section 1507-Control of Deflections, used until 1970 as midrange percentage reinforcement, rho=As/bd =0.18f'c/fy (although it is not distinctly advantageous value as per Prof. Phil M. Ferguson, Prof. John Breen and Prof. James O. Jirsa commented in their book reinforced concrete fundamentals, Prof. J. Jirsa- ACI 318 Code committee member, and Professor of University of Texas), which was evidently DISCARDED from the Code, ACI 318-1971 Code, also discarded in all publications of ACI 318 Code from 1977 to 2011, obviously more than 40 years time had elapsed already. The ACI 435-Control of Deflections in Concrete Structures, has recommended a limiting values of steel ratio, rho (0.25*rhobal to 0.35*rhobal), also recommended the Minimum thickness of Beams and One-Way in Roof and Floor construction.
At the Introduction page of the ACI code states ACI (1977) and ACI318-2011 was adopted as a standard of the ACI to SUPERSEDE ACI old editions in accordance with the institute's standardization procedure.
References:
Reinforced Concrete Fundamentals, Prof. John Breen, Prof. James O. Jirsa-1987;
Handbook of Concrete Engineering by Mark Fintel, Dan Branson-P.E., Ph.D.- 2nd edition-1985;
ACI Committee 435-Control of Deflections in Concrete Structures-1978;
Design Concrete Structures by Park and Paulay-1974;
Reinforced Concrete Design by Noel Everard, MSCE, Ph.D. and Tanner, University of Texas-1966.
The LOAD COMBINATION THEY USED was Working Stress Design (WSD), Group III and VII of the AASHO 1961-1974 editions and they combined with load factors used by ACI 318;
Group III = 1.4DL + 1.7*( LL + Impact)
Group VII = D + E + B + SF + EQ
The Load factor is equal to 1.3 for dead load NOT Equal to 1.4.
The Load Factor equal to 1.7 for Live Load is not correct, because this is applicable only to Gravity Loads for vertical structures and not applicable to TRUCK MOVING LOADS for bridges, the correct LOAD FACTOR (LF) is equal to =2.2, as per ACI 343R-95-Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridge structures and NSCP v2-1997, also as per AASTHO-1973-Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges.
According to AASHTO -11th ed.-1975 to 16th ed.-1996 and 17th edition-2002, Load Factor Design, Group III and VII Load Combination are;
Group III = 1.3D + 2.2*( L +I )n....., and
Group VII =y[ beta(e) *D + beta(e)*E + B + SF +EQ]
References:
AASHTO-1973-11th edition;
AASHTO-1992-15th edition, 1996-16th edition, 2002-17th edition;
AASHTO-LRFD-2004, 2007, 2010, 2012;
ACI 343- Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Bridge Structures-1995;
NSCP V2- Bridges, 2nd edition-1997
The Strength Reduction factor equal to phi =0.7 for Compression members (columns and also beams which are in compression control) which was applicable up through the ACI 318-99 Code, they have been changed to phi =0.65 for compression control members, beginning with ACI318-2002 Code and continuing with the ACI318-2005 and ACI318-2011 up to present... Let me educate you people there...!!! The standards you are using should be updated..
 |
| ACI 318-1963, published on June 1963 |
First, he used the OLD ACI 1963, 1971 and parts of 1983 ACI 318 codes as per Books by V. Besavilla, Jr., who cited the 1983 ACI Code (with due respect to Besavilla), which are very obvious an obsolete ACI codes, in which undergo major revisions every six (6) years and minor revisions in between.
Second, they used the AASHTO specifications (american association of state highway and transportation officials), the HS 20-1944 -8,000 lbs for front axle and 32,000 lbs for rear axles load and HS 10-1944 -4000 lbs front axle, 16000 lbs rear axle; in my review of their design they used only 50% of 20 tonnes and 10 tonnes truck load for the piers and columns analysis. Whereas, they used 100% of 20 tonnes and 10 tonnes truck load (HS 20, HS 10) for girders designs, which was a GREAT BLUNDER in design load calculations.
Hence, the Girders are stronger than Piers/columns. Fig. 2a and 2b; Screen shot for their load calculations.
Third, consequently he inadvertently applied erroneous formulas for the variables “C” distances from the neutral axes to the compression concrete fiber, which had resulted a bigger and negative (-) values for the theoretical Strength Design Capacity, ϕPn and ϕMn for the Columns and/or Piers of Dams (Barrages, Sluices) and service Bridges Piers, which he noted DISCARD design. How could a design calculation be discarded if all assumptions of the designs were accurate? I verified the calculations and made my conclusion, viz:
My comment: |
| Fig. 2a Pier Load calculation using 50% of 20 tonnes truck load |
 |
| Fig. 2b Pier moving load analysis using 50% of 10 tonnes truck loads |
Second, they used the AASHTO specifications (american association of state highway and transportation officials), the HS 20-1944 -8,000 lbs for front axle and 32,000 lbs for rear axles load and HS 10-1944 -4000 lbs front axle, 16000 lbs rear axle; in my review of their design they used only 50% of 20 tonnes and 10 tonnes truck load for the piers and columns analysis. Whereas, they used 100% of 20 tonnes and 10 tonnes truck load (HS 20, HS 10) for girders designs, which was a GREAT BLUNDER in design load calculations.
Hence, the Girders are stronger than Piers/columns. Fig. 2a and 2b; Screen shot for their load calculations.
Third, consequently he inadvertently applied erroneous formulas for the variables “C” distances from the neutral axes to the compression concrete fiber, which had resulted a bigger and negative (-) values for the theoretical Strength Design Capacity, ϕPn and ϕMn for the Columns and/or Piers of Dams (Barrages, Sluices) and service Bridges Piers, which he noted DISCARD design. How could a design calculation be discarded if all assumptions of the designs were accurate? I verified the calculations and made my conclusion, viz:
- The strain compatibility analysis was not done correctly;
- ϕPn is NEGATIVE it means the load is axially upward (tension);
- The variable "C" is negative(-), the distance from neutral axis to extreme compression fiber of concrete meaning variable "C" is outside the section diagram.
variable 'C" must not be negative value, and never become a negative value!
Why don't they used the NEW ACI CODE PROVISIONS, if they are well experienced engineers with many work experiences as they bragged. As a SUGGESTION to them! USE the NEW ACI CODE provisions to SHOW OFF to others that they are well equipped with new weapons and ammunition (NEW STANDARDS, Codes). So, if they need NEW ACI318 CODE I have a copy of the latest ACI318 Code-2011 edition...! The AASHTO-2010 Bridge Design specifications..! The ACI Manual of Concrete Practice 2008 edition, six (6) volumes.
Therefore, the design is absurd! Why? Because the application of formulas was erroneous. please see the screen shot below.
 |
| Fig. 3 value of "C" and "fs" are negative -by PRISCO BOCO III |
 |
| Fig. 4 value of C , Pny and fs are negative-design by PRISCO BOCO III |
 |
| Pinipisakan Bridge Profile and Side Elevation |
 |
| Pier #3 Design by Prisco Boco, III compared /checked to his Calculation |
Subsequently, I tried to check, correct and rectify the applications of the formulas he used, hence, I have corrected the values and answers, which I have compared with the examples presented in the books of Venancio Besavilla (author-Reinforced Concrete Design) and Prof. A. H. Nilson, PhD., C. K. Wang, PhD. and C. G. Salmon, PhD. , Prof. Emeritus-Phil. Ferguson and Prof. James O. Jirsa-University of Texas (authors -reinforced concrete books), and I have also applied the ACI 318 Code-2005 and ACI 318 Code-2008 Codes, ACI Design Handbook, volume 2 -1997 (American Concrete Institutes) which I have latest copies, because I am a RECOGNIZED MEMBER of ACI..
There are three methods in the analysis and design of concrete columns as discussed by Chu-Kia Wang in his book reinforced concrete design, namely;
- Principles of statics;
- Non-dimensional strength interaction diagram (ACI design handbook, vol.2); and
- Approximate method using Whitney formula.
I will not discussed anymore these methods of design calculations but I suggest to them to read these design books. In view of the fact that engineering education in the Philippines is American oriented.
The Engineers are not permanent employees of NIA–HCAAP(PMO), they are all casuals and job orders employees, co-terminus. The engineers are being hired and employed thru politicians (palakasan system or with recommendation) the Politicians (who..?) or PM.
Mr. Danilo de Asis a graduate of BSCE on 2001, at the University of Eastern Philippines (UEP-Catarman Northern Samar) he replaced Mr. Prisco O. Boco III, as chief for operations who was transferred to regional office Tacloban City, although Mr. Danilo De Asis had worked for 9 years in NIA-HCAAP still he is inexperienced in design and construction, Dennis Losano a young engineer also. The Project Engineer Mr. David Irorita (BSCE) he is a good man, a man of few words, Asst. PE Buenaventura Poso (BSCE 2003) a good man also, the project -in charge Deodito Tejero (BSCE) from Biri Northern Samar a good man also (but effeminate-vicious-man engineer he often ask for allowance). Most of the engineers are younger than I am, why because when they enrolled civil engineering in UEP sometime in 1995 and 1996, I was a registered civil engineer already in 1991-1992, and had worked as Assistant Project engineer and Materials engineer in the construction of Catarman Bridge (232 linear meters) and by-pass road (6 kilometers), project cost was 110 millions pesos; and then transferred to LGU engineer (government). I have no resentment to those persons I mentioned, but people inside their ranks who wanted to belittle and degrade others, have questioned the integrity and credibility of others, must be very careful in judging others. As the Bible says! Matthew 7:2 "For with what judgement you are JUDGING, YOU will be judged; and with the MEASURE that YOU are MEASURING out, they will MEASURE out to YOU.
Unfriendly, the Project Manager Mr. Reinerio Irinco an Agricultural Engineering (BSAE) graduate and Mr. Danilo de Asis and others were saying that the contractor’s engineers are still young and inexperienced engineers. Mr. Reinerio Irinco was unaware of the facts that design calculations done by them was erroneous.
When meeting was held, Mr. Reinerio Irinco suggested that the contractor should hire engineers, having age ranging from 50 to 80 years old and having experiences of more than 10 years in dam construction, office engineer, and earthwork supervisor to supervise a project 10 kilometers away from town proper of Las Navas, Philippines, and he urged that the contractor must put funding to expedite the construction, and warned us that within 3 months (starting/beginning June 27, 2011) if there is no substantial accomplishment in major item of works, he will recommend that the contract will be terminated, I quote "You tell your boss (?) to put funds and hire more engineers with experience, surveyors, materials, and then he said! we will consider the experiences and qualifications of the engineers as per submitted RESUME'" Precisely! I agreed to him, he has experienced in managing projects as retirable engineer, but not in Design..! I admire him being an OLD Agricultural Engineer, also, the consultant Mr. Teopilo Malicse an old engineer who were using old standards (as old as their ages). I heard many feed backs from reliable sources (during bidding of some minor works at the HCAAP-PMO Catarman) that engineers included in the Organization Chart by JD Legaspi were inexperienced. Even Carpio reacted about the words uttered by them, when we had a meeting. He said! I quote "you have the same education, you are all civil engineers." Parehas lang kayo mga engineers in local dialect.
Hence, Pride is more powerful and dangerous than humility, and indeed! we are just hired and being displayed by Mr. Eking Rubinicia, because Mr. Rubinicia is not experienced contractor and not a civil engineer, HE is just a sub-contractor of this project being used by somebody (who?). The problem was on the side of the main contractor who let inexperienced person (like Mr. Rubinicia) to handle this multi-million project and then pretended to be experienced and could not defend his engineers from prideful engineers who supervise these simple projects. Nobody could withstand the hardship because the means of transportation is "WALKING" in a muddy, rough road and motorcycle back ride to reach the site, a far flung barangay Sta. Fe, Catubig, we went there on foot for the whole 6 kilometers on June 11, 2011. I am hoping that they could pressure the sub-contractor to do by all means to finish this son of a gun projects, and headache projects, so to speak. "BATO-BATO sa LANGIT ang TAMAAN ay HUWAG MAGALIT", "we are engineers not soldiers". We let our temper burst out like a gun, and then pull the trigger, because your ego, and our pride was hit by somebody..!
On the 3rd week (23-24) of June 2011, Secretary Proceso Alcala of the Department of Agriculture visited the site and conducted ocular inspection for the Catubig Dam and other projects (HCAAP-NIA), HE WAS SURPRISED why the project was still unfinished, and made comments, he even shouted to the engineers, the consultants, HCAAP personnel, because they said that the projects are LOAN granted by Japan Bank International Cooperation, but Sec. Alcala answered the LOANS are being paid by the government, not purely given to the Philippines.
The projects were jointly funded by the Government of the Philippines and Government of Japan which involve millions of US Dollar and millions Philippine Pesos only to find out that the DESIGN were not accurate and erroneous application of design formulas. And to find out that the road was not constructed in good conscience. Politics is more powerful than knowledge and experiences.
Moreover, my feet and hands were embedded up to the knee level (nabaon ang paa ko hanggang tuhod) in the muddy road which was also a FMR project of NIA-HCAAP reported 100% completed as of 2008, this BULAO Farm to Market Road (FMR) was implemented by the Provincial engineering office with the supervision of JICA Consultants (JV of CONSULTANTS for HCAAP), this 7.10 kilometers FMR Project was Php 64 millions, but until now it's inaccessible and muddy road, I was surprised why the HCAAP (PMO) accepted 100% completed this Farm to Market Road. Only few people knew the real story behind the acceptance. Why? I met the former Mayor and now the incumbent Vice Mayor of Las Navas, he told me the real story behind, he could not complain to higher authority because he said he does like to quarrel with the gods in the province, and he said! I inserted PICTURES with dates as of December 3, 2010 to May 20, 2011, to present clear evidence, because they will deny these FACTS.
 |
| PH 64 millions 7.1 kilometers BULAO Farm to Market Road, DATE is DECEMBER 03, 2010, YOU can not deny this Mr. Johnny- A CLEAR EVIDENCE PICTURE |
 |
To show their design Calculations, I am posting screen shot taken from their protected spreadsheets and photos proof of their mistakes for anyone to review.
 |
| Screen shot for DISCARD Design due to Negative "C" or small eccentricity |
 |
| Discard design by Prisco O. Boco III |
 |
| Screen shot for Strain diagram and C calculation |
 |
| Catubig Dam -2 gates only but having errors in design e.g. C distance and Strength Capacity |
 |
| Screen shot Catubig Dam having errors in Strength Capacity -Pn- calculations |
 |
| REBID BULAO DAM (LEFT UNFINISHED BY HANJIN Industries and Construction Ltd.) |
DESIGNERS for BARRAGE DAMS and SLUICES PIERS, BRIDGE FLUMES, SERVICE BRIDGES, should have undergone training and seminars in structural analysis, concrete designs before become prideful, haughty engineers and eventually become HUMBLE in the eyes of GOD and to men.
Post Script:
They are showing in their reports and blog (Jhonny) some good pictures like the bridge in Las Navas which was designed and implemented by DPWH and supervised by Engineer Manuel "Sam" Uy from BOC-DPWH, Regional Office (R8), construction division, Engr. Uy was my co-worker in Oras Bridge, Oras Eastern Samar, Philippines, because this Las Navas highway bridge was DPWH project component under the HCAAP-NIA. Bid out on December 29, 2005, the bid amount was Php448 Million plus, implemented and supervised by DPWH central office and Construction division Region 8. Hence, Mr. Johnny, and other engineers showed pictures of this bridge, because they wanted to cover up their blunders in designed, failures and supervising these projects and be PRAISED by their administrator, director and the Provincial government.
The recent updates of these projects are good; The Project Manager Mr. Irinco had been transferred to NIA Central Office, then retired from government service, and Mr. Danilo De Asis had resigned from HCAAP.
To inform and speak to the persons who read this blogpost and made COMMENTS:
About the author of this blog..!
He is a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE);
He is a member of American Concrete Institute (ACI);
First, He worked as Project Engineer in the Construction of Oras Bridges 1 and 2, Oras Eastern Samar a Bored Pile Bridge (50 meters depth per bored pile, f'c =3000 psi) and Post-Tensioned girders (f'c =5,000 psi, 30 meters long girders), having a total length of 540 meters long (12 spans and 6 spans, 30 meters per span, this bridge was the first of it's kind, a bored piles bridge in region 8 when it was constructed in 1996 to 2000; under the supervision of the Bureau of Construction-BOC-DPWH Central office and DPWH -Regional office, Region VIII (8); under contract with BALM Construction, Co., Inc.
 |
| Oras Bridge -12 Spans |
Second, he worked as Assistant Project Engineer and Material Engineer in the Construction of Catarman Bridge 232 meters long (8 spans, 28.4 meters long girders, f'c =5,000 psi), in 1992 to 1995 under the supervision of PADAP-SIRDP-Philippine Australian Development Assistance Program-Samar Integrated Rural development projects, this was a foreign assisted project; under Contract with BALM Construction, Co., Inc.
 |
| Catarman Bridge 8-spans |
 |
| Catarman Bridge |
 |
| Catarman Bridge |
Then third, at the same time, he worked as material engineer in the construction of Jubasan bridge, ALLEN N. Samar, under PJHL-Philippine JAPAN Highway Loan- foreign assisted project; under Contract with BALM Construction, Co., Inc.
BALM Construction was the same contractor who constructed the 6-BRIDGES in Mondragon-Pambujan by-pass road (14 kilometers road), viz.; Mondragon Bridge (1984 -1987), Mondragon-Bugko Bridge (1986 -1987), Mondragon-Bagasbas -2 Bridges (1987); Pambujan Bridge (1988 to 1990); 1-bridge in San Roque N. Samar; and then Basiad Bridge in Bicol (1996 to 1998), Sipukot Bridge in Bicol, and more bridges, etc.
