DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS

Structural
Project Number: 20574
Project Name: ELEVATED WATER TANK TOWER ‐ Northern Iloilo Fishery Rehabilitation & Dev. Project
City/Country: Municipality of Concepcion, Iloilo Province, Philippines
Design Reviewer: Dr Angel GUERRERO CASTELLS, PhD in Engineering [AGC from now on]
Designer:
Review #:
WSP Philippines
001 20181019
002 20190715
STRUCTURAL
DESIGN REVIEW NOTES
The following design review comments list is provided to help review the structural engineering component of UNOPS infrastructure projects. 
DESIGN 
STATUS Notes

For each required item, you will find a color‐coded response in the comments box: 
• Comments marked green meet the minimum requirements of the Design Planning Manual, or these requirements have been deemed not applicable for the proposed infrastructure/project.
• Comments marked orange require your attention to meet the specified requirements (or provide additional information as to how the requirement was met).
• Comments marked light green have been provisionally accepted but require further consideration or documentation.

DESIGN LIABILITY: This design review carried out by the design reviewer shall not relieve the original designer from design liability. The designer shall remain responsible implement appropriate
modifications to the design until it meets the requirements set out the  UNOPS Design Planning Manual and the design review. The design reviewer's liability shall be limited to evaluating
 the compliance of the design against the minimum requirements set out in the applicable section of the Design Planning Manual and shall not include any liability for the design. 

Relevant Documents Provided & Reviewed (Review of these documents does not mean acceptance)
Received # Pages Designer, Document Name, Document #, Date Date & Rev. #
11.10.2018 Structural review of the Elevated Water Tank in the Northern Iloilo Fishery Rehabilitation & Dev. Project, resulting in the comments '[First Comment, AGC, 19/1 October 2018 & #001
The scope of this review is the structural design of the Elevated Water Tank Tower but not the Water Tank itself or the Rainwater Harvest System. LEGEND LEGEND LEGEND LEGEND
The base documentation provided for this review (among the overall package of documentation) is: To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review team
‐ ‘Design Report’ (File UNOPS Iloilo Design Report_ver_2018.05.18.pdf’), dated May 2018. Present but incompleate or considerably to be improved Present but incompleate or considerably to be improved Present but incompleate or considerably to be improved Present but incompleate or considerably to be improved
‐ Structural Analysis & Design Calculation report (File 2018‐0903 3200492A‐UNOPS‐DC‐P‐10 ELEVATED WATER TANK RAIN HARVESTER PAD.pdf ) for the
Absent Absent Absent Absent
Elevated Water Tank Rain Water Harvester
   Pad, dated September 3rd 2018.
‐ Geotechnical investigation report (file 'Geotechnical Investigation Report ‐ UNOPS Iloilo Fishery Rehabilitation and Development Project.pdf'), not dated
This second review is based on the documentation provided by 11th July, including some drawings (not of the tower structure) and a revised
11.07.2019 July 2019 & #002
structural report
REFERENCE ‐  DESIGN REVIEWER:  UNOPS‐PHILS OFFICE DESIGN PRACTICIONER Response (25 Jan 2018) UNOPS‐PHILS OFFICE UNOPS‐PHILS OFFICE DESIGN PRACTICIONER Response (2 August 2019) UNOPS‐PHILS OFFICE DESIGN PRACTICIONER Response
Document  DESIGN REVIEWER    Comments DESIGN PRACTICIONER Response BY DESIGN  Status (Initial Comments)  INSERT DATE & INITIALS (Initial Comments) Feb. 08, 2019 DESIGN PRACTICIONER Response (4 March 2019) (Initial Comments) March. 07, 2019 INSERT DATE & INITIALS (Initial Comments) Aug. 06, 2019 INSERT DATE & INITIALS
# Ref 19/10/2018, AGC INSERT DATE & INITIALS PRACTIONER ‐  (drop‐down) INSERT DATE & INITIALS
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: A fundamental issue observed in the provided [First Response]: This is typo error. Capacity  OK
documentation is that the water tank capacity detailed in detail ‘2’ of the drawing ‘W‐104’ of water tank considered in the design is 
included in the ‘Structural Analysis & Design Calculation’ report and, consequently, the water 9500 Gallons. Please refer to sheet W‐104 
weight load supposed to have been considered in the calculations included in that document, is of the updated drawings dated Sept 3.
9.500 gallons while the water tank capacity defined in paragraph 8.3.2 of the ‘Design Report’
(File UNOPS Iloilo Design Report_ver_2018.05.18.pdf’) is 22.000 gallons – “../.. The whole port
project is provided with one (1) elevated water tanks (EWT) located near an existing road in
orderto easily access its tapping point. The EWT capacity has a capacity of 22000 gallons to
serve the required demand of Port building facilities including 10000 gallons for fire reserve.
 With the 9500 gallons water tank capacity, does  Pls see Design Report Revision 2 dated August 2, 
STRUCTURAL  ../..” , i.e. more than twice the capacity considered in the calculations and the constructive The 9500 gallons water tank capacity includes the fire 
it also covers the water provision for fire  2019 Section 8.3.2 and 8.3.3 with updated Water 
DESIGN &  drawings (the rainwater harvester for cleaning purposes is independent of this elevated tank reserve of 4,200 gallons. Pls refer to the revised Design  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
1 Provisionally Accepted reserved? How many gallons of water is  Storage and Water Demand sections. Pls see attached 
CALCULATIO water reservoir). With the capacity considered in the calculations and the constructive drawings Report, Section 8. Pls refer also to the attached excerpt of  team team
dedicated for fire reserved according to the  excerpt of the Fire Code of the Philippines Section  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review team.
NS (9.500 gallons) it is not covered even the water provision for the fire reserve (10.000 gallons). the Fire Code of the Philippines
code? 10.2.6.6.4.e (Pressure and Gravity Tanks)
For this reviewer this is a fundamental first issue to be clarified. For the sake of advancing in the
project review despite this incoherence, the next comments are included herein assuming that
the correct tank capacity is 9.500 gallons.
[Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: Neither a revised Design Report nor the excerpt of the
Fire Code of Philippines, i.e. documents mentioned in the DP response to solve this issue, have
been provided, so this reviewer cannot check if it is acceptable to keep the water tank with a
capacity lower than 10.000 gallons regarding the water reserve needs for fire protection.
Please, provide the mentioned documents. This reviewer needs further clarification regarding
this issue.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: The Live Load corresponding to the water weight and [First Response]: Unit weight of water  OK
pressure has not been defined in paragraph 2.5.3 of the ‘Structural Analysis & Design considered in the design is 1000kg/m3. 
Calculation’ report, so it cannot be checked. According to paragraph 208.8.1.3 of the NSCP 2015 Weight of water was considered as live load 
STRUCTURAL  Code require to account for all normal operating contents for items such as tanks, so the water both in static and considered as part of 
DESIGN &  weight need to be considered both in static and in the seismic structural analyses (in the latter seismic weight for seismic analysis. It is  Why do we see at page 28 vertical forces and  Page 28 shows live loads only (vertical forces) while To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
2 Accepted Absent
CALCULATIO through the ‘W’ total seismic dead load to be used in paragraph 208.5.2.1 to calculate the design  indicated in the calculations page 28.  not horizontal? Page 29 shows seismic loads (horizontal forces) team
NS base shear). Please, define it and include it in the seismic load combination. For this reviewer Weight of water is 356 kN distributed to 4 
clarification is needed. columns (89 kN per column).
[Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The clarification requested has been provided. No
further actions are needed regarding this issue. This comment is closed.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: The Wind Load considered depends upon several [First Response]:  Parameters used in the  OK
parameters (velocity pressure exposure coefficient, topographic factor, wind directionality computation of wind load are the ff: G = 
factor,…) whose values have not been defined in paragraph 2.5.4 of the ‘Structural Analysis & 0.85, Cf = 1.80, Kd = 0.95 (round tank), Kz 
Design Calculation’ report, so they cannot be checked. The projected area normal to the wind =1.267 (15m Exposure D), Kzt = 1.0, V = 270 
STRUCTURAL 
considered to calculate the horizontal force to be applied to each section of the structure kph. Please refer to page 5 of the updated  Indicate the value of G, Cf, Kd, Kz, Kzt at page 5 
DESIGN &  Provisionally accepted pending the design  Provisionally accepted pending the design  Please see updated calculations dated July 28, 2019 
3 CALCULATIO
(including the water tank surface) has been neither defined. Please, define them. For this calculations dated Sept. 3 for the formula  Provisionally Accepted of the provided calculation "15Nov'18_UNOPS 
review verification of the provided values.  review verification of the provided values.  page 5 for the updated design data.
To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review team.
reviewer clarification is needed. used in computation of wind load. Elevated Water Tank (revised calculation) 1"
NS
[Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The information requested has been provided.
However, please include these essential design data in the Project documents, i.e. in 'UNOPS
EWT_Calculations 1 to 18_March 1 2019.pdf' document, to avoid confusions. This reviewer
needs further clarification regarding this issue.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: Regarding the earthquake consideration within the [First Response]: Please refer to page 25 of  OK
STRUCTURAL  calculations, the fundamental period of the structure has not been calculated either through the updated calculations dated Sept. 3 for 
DESIGN &  ‘Method A’ (equation 208‐12) or through ‘Method B’ (equation 208‐14) preconized in the NSCP the computation of seismic load. To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
4 CALCULATIO 2015 Code. Please, calculate it. For this reviewer clarification is needed.
Accepted
team team team
NS [Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The calculation requested has been provided. No
further actions are needed regarding this issue. This comment is closed.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]:The construction method to be deployed and the tests [First Response]: Fill should be compacted at  Plate Load test  Contractor to carry out plate load test to meet 
needed to ensure that the newly built floor where the elevated water tank will rest every 200mm and plate load test should be  shall be  the minimum Soil Bearing Capacity (SBC) of 80 
(embankment currently non‐existing since its location is part of the projected extension) conducted to check the soil bearing of the  performed in  kPa. This information was added in the revised  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
STRUCTURAL  achieves the 80 kPa soil bearing capacity assumed in paragraph 2.7 of the ‘Structural Analysis & embankment area. order to  "UNOPS Iloilo Port ‐ Technical  team team
DESIGN &  Design Calculation’ report need to be defined. For this reviewer clarification is needed. achieve an 80  Specifications_14Dec 2018" under Section 2.3.1‐ 
5 Accepted
CALCULATIO [Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The information requested has been provided. No kPa SBC. Soil Bearing Capacity.
NS further actions are needed regarding this issue. This comment is closed.

[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: No temperature loads have been considered in the [First Response]:  Temperature loads are  OK To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
STRUCTURAL  calculations. For this reviewer clarification is needed. usually not considered in the Philippines as  team
Temperature loads must be included in the  Temperature loads must be included in the  Calculations with Temperature Loads provided,
DESIGN &  [Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The calculation requested has been provided. No the effect of the wind or sesimic governs in 
6 Accepted calculations as per requirement from NSCP  calculations as per requirement from NSCP  please refer to pages 36b to 36m of Calculations
CALCULATIO further actions are needed regarding this issue. This comment is closed. the design of the elements.
2015. 2015. dated March 1, 2019
NS

[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: No maintenance loads have been considered in the [First Response]: We included maintenance  OK
Page 42c is not included in the calculation at 
STRUCTURAL  calculations (unless the 0,35 kN/m noted in page 27 of the Appendix‐2 of the ‘Structural Analysis load in the design of ring girder. Applied as 
document "15Nov'18_UNOPS Elevated Water 
DESIGN &  & Design Calculation’ report correspond to mainentance loads). Please, confirm it. For this live load equivalent to 0.522 kN/m (0.58kPa  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  Please refer to the complete set of calculations To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
7 Accepted Tank (revised calculation) 1". 
CALCULATIO reviewer clarification is needed. multiplied to ring girder width 900mm).  team dated March 1, 2019 team
Kindly complete the calculation pages and 
NS [Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The information requested has been provided. No Please refer to page 42c of the calculations.
update.
further actions are needed regarding this issue. This comment is closed.
STRUCTURAL  [First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: The dead weight of the ladder and its cage has not been [First Response]: Dead weight of ladder is  OK
DESIGN &  considered in the calculations. For this reviewer clarification is needed. 4.5kN, live load at ladder is 1.6kN. Please  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
8 Accepted
CALCULATIO [Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The information requested has been provided. No refer to page 15&16, 27&28 of the  team team team
NS further actions are needed regarding this issue. This comment is closed. calculations.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: The effect of Suction due to inadequate venting of the tank [First Response]:  The design of the tank  Water Tank 
WSP to include the design of the water tank. In  WSP to include the design of the water tank. In  WSP to include the design of the water tank. In 
need to be considered as a Design Action (as per, just as an example of a structural Code itself is not part of our scope of work.  We  shall comply 
case WSP reccomand the tank itself to be  case WSP reccomand the tank itself to be  case WSP reccomand the tank itself to be 
focused on tanks, Annex B, paragraph B.2.10 of the European Standard EN 1991‐4 'Eurocode 1: are only designing for the support frame  with AWWA  UNOPS consider that design of the tank is part of the 
prefabbricated and predesigned, it is necessary  prefabbricated and predesigned, it is necessary  prefabbricated and predesigned, it is necessary 
Basis of structural design and action on structures – Part 4: Silos and tanks' (2006)). Please, and foundation.   The tank will be designed  D103 Section 5  scope of work. Therefore require the design to be 
anyway to provide example of tank available in  anyway to provide example of tank available in  anyway to provide example of tank available in 
include it. For this reviewer clarification is needed. by the supplier and so the suction effect  Tank Structure  developed as any other part fo the infrastrcuture.
the Philippines and aprpopriate for this context  the Philippines and aprpopriate for this context  the Philippines and aprpopriate for this context  The load combinations with either wind and seismic 
STRUCTURAL  [Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The issue reported herein is not referred at all to the shall be considered by them.  Also the load  as per  In  email dated 29th July 2019 sent from Paolo to 
and use. Also, important is to demostrate  and use. Also, important is to demostrate  and use. Also, important is to demostrate  will have a greater effect on the structure. Structural 
DESIGN &  water tank design but to the actions that the tank (whatever is like its design) will do on the combinations with either wind and seismic  technical  WSP to check/approve tank specifications and Rowena, Rowena  explained that WSP will discuss 
9 Provisionally Accepted compatibility of the selelced prefabricated tank  compatibility of the selelced prefabricated tank 
design to be provided by the contractor
compatibility of the selelced prefabricated tank  calculation considering the effect of suction due to 
CALCULATIO structure. Please, include in the structural calculation the effect on the tower structure of will have a greater effect on the structure. specifications. inernally about this topic  and revert to UNOPS with 
with the metallic structure with particular  with the metallic structure with particular  with the metallic structure with particular  inadequate venting in the tank will be provided as 
NS suction due to inadequate venting of the need. A guide to do so can be found in the clarificaiton "about if" and "according to what part 
attention to the connections. PLease note also  attention to the connections. PLease note also  attention to the connections. PLease note also  soon as steel tank design is finalized.
abovementioned specialized Code. This reviewer needs further clarification regarding this of the contract" WSP consider the tank deign not 
that is necessary to describe in th technical  that is necessary to describe in th technical  that is necessary to describe in th technical 
issue. part of the Scope of Work. UNOPS is still waiting for 
specificaitons the caracteristics that such tank  specificaitons the caracteristics that such tank  specificaitons the caracteristics that such tank 
a precise answer on this topic. 
shall have in order to be compliante with rules  shall have in order to be compliante with rules  shall have in order to be compliante with rules 
and regulaitons of the adopted standards. and regulaitons of the adopted standards. and regulaitons of the adopted standards.

UNOPS Design Review Comments List
20574_Elevated Water Tank Structural Review_20190807.xlsx 1 of 3 8/9/2019
 [First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: Please, provide the calculation of the concrete column [First Response]: Calculation of concrete  OK
(‘pedestal’) through which the steel tower legs rest on the foundation (drawing ‘W‐104’ – detail pedestal is included in the updated 
‘3’ of the ‘Structural Analysis & Design Calculation’ report), including its shear checking under calculations dated Sept. 3 page 40a.
STRUCTURAL  the earthquake efforts. For this reviewer clarification is needed.
Please highlight where the calculation of the  Please see updated drawings dated August 2, 2019 
DESIGN &  [Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The calculation requested has been provided in page To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  Please refer to the complete set of calculations To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
10 CALCULATIO 40a of the revised calculation report. However, in this page the vertical reinforcement bars of
Provisionally Accepted concrete column pedestal could be found.  
team dated March 1, 2019 team
sheet W‐112 drawing 3 for the revised rebar  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review team.
Not found page 40a. diameter. 25mm rebar diameter should be used.
NS the column are defined as 12#8 while in detail 3A of the drawing W‐104 they are defined as
12#20 (recall that a revised release of drawing W‐104 has not been provided with the
documentation sent for this last review). Please, solve this incoherence. This reviewer needs
further clarification regarding this issue.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: The foundation checking included in page 37 of the [First Response]: The reaction at page 24 is  OK
appendix 2 of the ‘Structural Analysis & Design Calculation’ report considers a dead load value the deadload of steel frame only. We 
STRUCTURAL  for the 'Empty Tank + Wind' case (54,683 kN) which does not correspond to the value obtained included deadweight of footing tie beam  pages at "15Nov'18_UNOPS Elevated Water 
DESIGN &  from the general calculation reaction (page 24, 24,673 kN). For this reviewer clarification is and pedestal equivalent to 30.01 kN. Please  Tank (revised calculation) 1" is only until page  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  Please refer to the complete set of calculations To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
11 CALCULATIO needed. note that we revised the staad analysis for 
Accepted
30.  team dated March 1, 2019 team
NS [Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The information requested has been provided. No both Tank empty+Wind and Tank  Not found page 36a.
further actions are needed regarding this issue. This comment is closed. full+Seismic. Please refer to pages 14 to 24 
and 26 to 36a.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: Analogously, the foundation checking included in page 39 of [First Response]: The reaction at page 24 is  OK
the appendix 2 of the ‘Structural Analysis & Design Calculation’ report considers a dead load the deadload of steel frame only. We 
STRUCTURAL  value for the 'Full Tank + Seismic' case (54,683 kN) which does not correspond to the value included deadweight of footing tie beam  pages at "15Nov'18_UNOPS Elevated Water 
DESIGN &  obtained from the general calculation reaction (page 24, 24,673 kN) and a live load (90,22 kN) and pedestal equivalent to 30.01 kN. Please  Tank (revised calculation) 1" is only until page  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  Please refer to the complete set of calculations To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
12 CALCULATIO that does not correspond to the reaction value in page 36 (96,22 kN). For this reviewer note that we revised the staad analysis for 
Accepted
30.  team dated March 1, 2019 team
NS clarification is needed. both Tank empty+Wind and Tank  Not found page 36a.
[Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The correction requested has been included. No further full+Seismic. Please refer to pages 14 to 24 
actions are needed regarding this issue. This comment is closed. and 26 to 36a.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: The foundation checking included in page 37 of the [First Response]: Please refer to pages 37 to  OK
appendix 2 of the ‘Structural Analysis & Design Calculation’ report does not account fo the case 38.
STRUCTURAL  where the wind load exerts compression efforts on the foundation instead of the tensile ones pages at "15Nov'18_UNOPS Elevated Water 
DESIGN &  (i.e. +151,16 kN instead of ‐151,16 kN, a case which occurs in half of the columns), case in which  Tank (revised calculation) 1" is only until page  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  Please refer to the complete set of calculations To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
13 CALCULATIO the pressure transmitted to the soil needs to be verified to be under the soil bearing capacity.
Accepted
30.  team dated March 1, 2019 team
NS For this reviewer clarification is needed. Not found page 37 to 38.
[Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The calculation requested has been provided. No
further actions are needed regarding this issue. This comment is closed.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: Analogously, the foundation checking included in page 39 of [First Response]: Please refer to pages 39 to  OK
the appendix 2 of the ‘Structural Analysis & Design Calculation’ report does not account fo the 39a.
STRUCTURAL  case where the earthquake load exerts compression efforts on the foundation instead of the pages at "15Nov'18_UNOPS Elevated Water 
DESIGN &  tensile ones (i.e. +220,3 kN instead of ‐220,03 kN, a case which occurs in half of the columns), Tank (revised calculation) 1" is only until page  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  Please refer to the complete set of calculations To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
14 CALCULATIO case in which the pressure transmitted to the soil needs to be verified to be under the soil
Accepted
dated March 1, 2019
30.  team team
NS bearing capacity. For this reviewer clarification is needed. Not found page 39 to 39a.
[Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The calculation requested has been provided. No
further actions are needed regarding this issue. This comment is closed.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: The calculations of both the base plates and their [First Response]: Please refer to page 40i. OK
STRUCTURAL  pages at "15Nov'18_UNOPS Elevated Water 
mandatory stainless steel anchorages in the pedestals (detail '4' of the 'W‐104' drawing) are
DESIGN &  Tank (revised calculation) 1" is only until page  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  Please refer to the complete set of calculations To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
15 CALCULATIO
missing. Please, provide them. For this reviewer clarification is needed. Accepted
30.  team dated March 1, 2019 team
[Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The calculation requested has been provided. No
NS Not found page 40i.
further actions are needed regarding this issue. This comment is closed.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: The weld between the columns and the base plates has not [First Response]: Please refer to page 49a. OK
been defined in the drawings (detail '4' of the 'W‐104' drawing) and its calculation has not been
provided. Please, define it in the drawings and provide its calculation taking into account that
the boundary conditions assumed in the general structural calculation for this joint is 'pinned',
so as no bending moment can be transmitted in the joint the columns flanges cannot be welded
(only their webs can be welded to the base plates). For this reviewer clarification is needed.
[Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The calculation requested has been provided. However,
Welding Length for fixed jont has been corrected at 
the DP has ignored completely the advice of this reviewer to calculate the welding taking into
page 49a of the calculations, however, WSP need to 
account only the welding of the W8x31 beam web and never of the flanges, to avoid violating Please see updated calculations dated July 28, 2019 
confirm if the already existing drawing do not need 
the pinned boundary conditions assumed in the calculations. Instead, the DP has changed the Drawing of baseplate is at page 11 drawing no. 4. Column  page 49a; revised due to incorrect welding length. 
STRUCTURAL  pages at "15Nov'18_UNOPS Elevated Water  to be revised and the change in boundary condition 
boundary conditions of the structural model from pinned to fixed, and the DP has calculated WSP to indicate where to find the  to Baseplate should be fixed connection. Revised staad  Please note the following connections considered in 
DESIGN &  Tank (revised calculation) 1" is only until page  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  from pinned to fixed does not imply any structural 
16 CALCULATIO
this welding already assuming the fixed joint. However, there is a calculation error when Provisionally Accepted
30. 
detaisl/drawing of column to base plate  model of elevated water tank shows fixed support. Please 
team
the design and also reflected in the drawings: Column 
changes against the original structural design. In the 
calculating under these new conditions the provided welding length ('Lprovided') at the welding. refer to pages 14 to 36m of calculations dated March 1,  to pedestal ‐fixed connection, HB beams to column ‐
NS Not found page 49a. case  that the change in the boundary conditions 
bottom of page 49a, since 2x203,2 + 2x203,07 + 2x180 is not 1532,54 mm but 1172,54 mm. 2019 fixed connection, VB beams to column ‐ pinned 
have changed any fraction of the structural design, 
Please, correct it. Besides this, as the columns feet boundary conditions change from pinned to conection.
WSP must provide a complete set of updated 
fixed is a major change in the structural design, please confirm explicitly that the already
structural drawings. 
existing structural drawings (provided for the previous review) do not need to be revised since
the change in the boundary conditions does not imply any structural changes against the
original structural design; if this is not the case and the change in the boundary conditions have
changed any fraction of the structural design, please provide a complete set of updated
structural drawings (no updated structural drawings have been provided for this review). This
reviewer needs further clarification regarding this issue.

[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: Please, justify why the earthquake action has not been taken [First Response]: In our assumption and  OK
STRUCTURAL 
into account in the design and calculation of the ring girder (appendix 2‐A of the ‘Structural model we did not consider the ring girder as 
DESIGN &  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
17 CALCULATIO
Analysis & Design Calculation’ report). For this reviewer clarification is needed. part of the main frame to resist the lateral  Accepted
team team team
[Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The clarification requested has been provided. No loads.
NS
further actions are needed regarding this issue. This comment is closed.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: Please, provide the calculation of the weld between the ring [First Response]: Please refer to pages 49b. OK
STRUCTURAL  pages at "15Nov'18_UNOPS Elevated Water 
girder and each column (detail '7' of the 'W‐104' drawing). For this reviewer clarification is
DESIGN &  Tank (revised calculation) 1" is only until page  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  Please refer to the complete set of calculations To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
18 CALCULATIO
needed. Accepted
30.  team dated March 1, 2019 team
[Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The calculation requested has been provided. No
NS Not found page 49b.
further actions are needed regarding this issue. This comment is closed.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: Please, provide the calculation of the steel brackets [First Response]: Please refer to pages 47a  OK
STRUCTURAL  appearing in detail '7' of the 'W‐104' drawing and their weld to the ring girder. For this reviewer to 47h. pages at "15Nov'18_UNOPS Elevated Water 
Please see updated calculations dated July 28, 2019 
DESIGN &  clarification is needed. Tank (revised calculation) 1" is only until page  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  Please refer to the complete set of calculations To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
19 Provisionally Accepted page 49c for the calculation of weld between steel  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review team.
CALCULATIO [Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The calculation of the weld between the steel brackets 30.  team dated March 1, 2019 team
bracket and ring girder.
NS and the ring girder (detail '7' of the 'W‐104' drawing) has not been provided. Please, provide Not found page 47a to 47h.
it. This reviewer needs further clarification regarding this issue.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: Please, provide the calculation of the foundation beams [First Response]: Calculation of footing tie  OK
STRUCTURAL 
appearing in detail '5' of the 'W‐104' drawing (including seismic effects according to paragraph beam FTB‐1 is included in the updated  Please specify where is the calculation for 
DESIGN &  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  Please refer to the complete set of calculations To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
20 CALCULATIO
413.2.3.1 of the NSCP 2015). For this reviewer clarification is needed. calculations dated Sept. 3 page 40b. Accepted footing tie beam FTB‐1.
team dated March 1, 2019 team
[Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The calculation requested has been provided. No Not found page 40b.
NS
further actions are needed regarding this issue. This comment is closed.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: As the behaviour of many joints has been assumed 'pinned' [First Response]: Yes this is considered in the  OK
in the calculations (e.g. in page 32 of the ‘Structural Analysis & Design Calculation’ report), design.
please check that the weld typologies designed in that joints will reproduce this structural
Please see updated calculations dated July 28, 2019. 
behaviour without transmitting any additional bending moments, For this reviewer clarification WSP to specify where (what page) in the calculations 
STRUCTURAL  Please specify where in the calculation it can be  Please note the following connections considered in 
is needed. that the checking has been developed for the other 
DESIGN &  found that the clarification has been considered. Please specify where in the calculation it can be  Please refer to page 20‐21, 32‐33 showing that the water  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  the design and also reflected in the drawings: Column 
21 CALCULATIO
[Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The pages mentioned by the DP, i.e. 20‐21 & 32‐33 only  Provisionally Accepted
found that the clarification has been considered. tank tower is fixed supported team to pedestal ‐fixed connection, HB beams to column ‐
joints of the structure where welding typologies 
refer to the bottom of the columns joint to the base plates. However, there are many other produces pinned conditions.
NS fixed connection, VB beams to column ‐ pinned 
joints in the structure assumed 'pinned', where the weld typologies designed reproducing
conection.
pinned conditions still need to be checked. Please, specify where in the calculations can be
found that this checking has been developed. This reviewer needs further clarification
regarding this issue.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: The consideration of partial safety factors for the materials [First Response]: Safety factors are already  OK
WSP to specify what is the partial safety factor for 
properties has not been detailed in the ‘Structural Analysis & Design Calculation’ report. Please, incorporated on the structural design of the  Material properties are stated in the technical 
material properties considered in the calculation and 
STRUCTURAL  detail them. For this reviewer clarification is needed. elements.  For steel and concrete design  specifications. Contractor should ensure that the 
Please indicate where in the "15Nov'18_UNOPS  Please indicate where in the "15Nov'18_UNOPS  where in the calculation it can be found, OR to 
DESIGN &  [Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: Neither of the pages mentioned in the DP response, i.e. load factors are considered and resistance  Please refer to page 18 and 30 showing that safety  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  materials to be used is in accordance with the 
22 Provisionally Accepted Elevated Water Tank (revised calculation) 1"  Elevated Water Tank (revised calculation) 1"  demonstrate that the considered load factor is 
CALCULATIO page 18 and page 30, even mention the partial safety factors for the material properties. factors are included in the design equations  factors are included in the design team required specifications. Load factors considered in 
such factors are incorporated or to be found. such factors are incorporated or to be found. sufficient enough to cover minor changes in material 
NS Please, specify correctly where in the calculations have been considered the partial safety to account for the safety factors. the design is sufficient enough to cover minor 
properties. 
factors for the material properties. This reviewer needs further clarification regarding this changes in the material properties.
issue.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: No verification of the serviceability limit state (as per, just to [First Response]:  From the National  OK
give an example of a structural Code focused on tanks, Annex A, Table A.5 of the European Structural Code of the Philippines 2015 
The updated calculations dated July 28, 2019 page 7, 
Standard EN 1991‐4 'Eurocode 1: Basis of structural design and action on structures – Part 4: edition, the design of the support of the 
STRUCTURAL  does not demonstrate checking calculations  based 
Silos and tanks' (2006)) has been done. Please, include the verification of the SLS. For this tank which is a steel structure is based on 
DESIGN &  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  Please see updated calculations dated July 28, 2019  on the Serviceability Limit State.
23 CALCULATIO
reviewer clarification is needed. either Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)  Provisionally Accepted
team team team page 7 for the updated design data. WSP to specify where in the calculations is reported 
[Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: Please, specify where in the calculations is reported the or Allowable Strength Design (ASD).  We 
NS the checking of the displacements based on the 
checking of the displacements based on the Serviceability Limit State. This reviewer needs designed the elements based on LRFD and 
Serviceability Limit State. 
further clarification regarding this issue. the checking of the displacement is based on 
the Serviceability Limit State (SLS). 
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: Each pair of the L75x75 bracings that cross in each of the [First Response]: The bracings were  OK
tower faces (at three levels), are structurally binded according to the detail '2' of the 'W‐104' designed as independent of each other.  We 
drawing f the ‘Structural Analysis & Design Calculation’ report. However, according to the figure will remove the connection between the 
STRUCTURAL  in page 54 of the calculations description included in the same document, each pair of bracings bracings and change the orientation of the 
Please see updated drawings dated Aug. 2, 2019 page 
DESIGN &  are disconnected at their centres (no nodes are present at their centres), which implies a diagonal angle bars so that they will not  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
24 CALCULATIO different structural behaviour of the bracing system. For this reviewer clarification is needed. intersect.
Provisionally Accepted
team team team
W‐113 drawing 6 showing the diagonal beams VB are  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review team.
not connected in the middle.
NS [Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: Please, provide updated drawings showing the new
independent design of the bracings. This reviewer needs further clarification regarding this
issue.

UNOPS Design Review Comments List
20574_Elevated Water Tank Structural Review_20190807.xlsx 2 of 3 8/9/2019
 [First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: The gusset plates dimensions have not been either defined [First Response]:  The dimensions of the  OK
in W‐104 and W‐105 drawings or justified through calculations in the ‘Structural Analysis & gusset plate will be provided by the 
STRUCTURAL  Design Calculation’ report. Please, provide their definition and structural calculation (1A, 1B, 1C fabricator and will be approved by the 
Dimensions of gussetplate are already provided. Please 
DESIGN &  and the gusset plate that joins the bracings to the columns at their upper ends). For this designer. The size of the gusset plate will be  Designer must define all dimensions of gusset  Designer must define all dimensions of gusset  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  Please see updated calculations dated July 28, 2019 
25 CALCULATIO reviewer clarification is needed.
Provisionally Accepted refer to page 12 of the calculations dated Mar 1, 2019 or  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review team.
based on the length of weld  of the member  plates plates team page 52a for the calculation for gusset plate.
to drawing sheet no W‐113
NS [Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: Please, provide the structural calculation of the gussets connected to the gusset plate.
(only their dimensions have been included in the structural report). This reviewer needs
further clarification regarding this issue.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: The welds of the splice plates shown in drawing ‘W‐105’ [First Response]: Fillet welds is indicated in  OK
included in the ‘Structural Analysis & Design Calculation’ report and the columns have not been the elevation and plan of detail 3. Total 
described in detail ‘3’ of drawing ‘W‐105’. Please, define them in the drawing. Regarding their Length of weld is 8 x 100mm(vertical weld) 
structural calculation, which has been included in page 49 of the Report, there is a conceptual + 4 x 150(horizontal weld). Please refer to 
Pages of "15Nov'18_UNOPS Elevated Water 
mistake in the calculation: the required welding length has been compared with the total length drawing sheet no W‐105 and page 49 of the 
STRUCTURAL  Tank (revised calculation) 1" is only until page 
of the 8 welds per column; however, only half of the length of each welding need to be calculations. The complete set (3 files) of revised structural 
DESIGN &  30.  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  Please refer to the complete set of calculations To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
26 CALCULATIO
considered since the full axial force will be transmited between each column piece and the Accepted
Not found page 49.
calculations was re‐sent to UNOPS on Jan. 23. Pls refer to 
team dated March 1, 2019 team
splice plate (and then from the splice plate to the next column piece) so only the weld between the said document.
NS
these two elements can be considered (8 welds of 100 mm long each). This means that the
designed weld lengths (8x100=800mm) will be lower than the required one (897,35mm) so it
must be redesigned. For this reviewer clarification is needed.
[Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The correction requested has been included. No further
actions are needed regarding this issue. This comment is closed.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: The length of the welds considered in the checking of the [First Response]: Yes, the weld length should  OK
weld between the VB‐1 beam and the column (page 51) are not correct, since 225 mm and be 300mm and 100mm. We will update our 
75mm lengths are considered for each welding while 300mm and 100mm lengths are the calculation.
STRUCTURAL 
correct ones. On the other hand, if the axial force considered in the calculations is the total one
DESIGN &  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
27 CALCULATIO
that each pair of bracings supports, half the effort need to be considered in each L 100x100x6 Accepted
team team team
beam. However, these two issues do not affect the conclusion of the results because they result
NS
in higher requirements. For this reviewer clarification is needed.
[Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The correction requested has been included. No further
actions are needed regarding this issue. This comment is closed.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: The water tank calculations have not been provided, so this [First Response]: Design of water tank is out  Water Tank 
WSP to include the design of the water tank. In  WSP to include the design of the water tank. In  WSP to include the design of the water tank. In 
reviewer understands that the structural design of the water tank is out of the scope of this of our scope.  shall comply 
case WSP reccomend the tank itself to be  case WSP reccomend the tank itself to be  case WSP reccomend the tank itself to be 
review and shall be provided independently. In any case, when designing the water tank take with AWWA  UNOPS consider that design of the tank is part of the 
prefabbricated and predesigned, it is necessary  prefabbricated and predesigned, it is necessary  prefabbricated and predesigned, it is necessary 
into account that it is used to provide the tank walls and bottom an overthickness to account for D103 Section 5  scope of work. Therefore require the design to be 
anyway to provide example of tank available in  anyway to provide example of tank available in  anyway to provide example of tank available in 
corrosion, i.e. 2 mm for the bottom plate, 1.5 mm for the walls under static conditions and 1.0 Tank Structure  developed as any other part fo the infrastrcuture.
the Philippines and aprpopriate for this context  the Philippines and aprpopriate for this context  the Philippines and aprpopriate for this context 
STRUCTURAL  mm for the walls under dynamic conditions (no overthickness is usually provided to the roof), as as per  In  email dated 29th July 2019 sent from Paolo to 
and use. Also, important is to demostrate  and use. Also, important is to demostrate  and use. Also, important is to demostrate 
DESIGN &  per EN 1993‐4‐2, so please, consider this additional thickness beyond the structurally needed technical  WSP to check/approve tank specifications and design to  Rowena, Rowena  explained that WSP will discuss 
28 CALCULATIO one when designing the water tank). For this reviewer confirmation is needed.
N/A compatibility of the selelced prefabricated tank  compatibility of the selelced prefabricated tank  compatibility of the selelced prefabricated tank 
specifications. be provided by the contractor inernally about this topic  and revert to UNOPS with 
with the metallic structure with particular  with the metallic structure with particular  with the metallic structure with particular 
NS [Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: This reviewer still understands that the structural clarificaiton "about if" and "according to what part 
attention to the connections. PLease note also  attention to the connections. PLease note also  attention to the connections. PLease note also 
design of the water tank is out of the scope of this review and shall be provided of the contract" WSP consider the tank deign not 
that is necessary to describe in th technical  that is necessary to describe in th technical  that is necessary to describe in th technical 
independently, cause no new information regarding its structural design has been provided. No  part of the Scope of Work. UNOPS is still waiting for 
specificaitons the caracteristics that such tank  specificaitons the caracteristics that such tank  specificaitons the caracteristics that such tank 
further actions are needed regarding this issue. This comment is closed. a precise answer on this topic. 
shall have in order to be compliante with rules  shall have in order to be compliante with rules  shall have in order to be compliante with rules 
and regulaitons of the adopted standards. and regulaitons of the adopted standards. and regulaitons of the adopted standards.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: There seems to be an incoherence between the detail ‘3’ of [First Response]: In detail 2 at sheet W‐104,  OK. See C‐102
the drawing ‘W‐104’ included in the ‘Structural Analysis & Design Calculation’ report, where the bottom level reflected is at baseplate level. 
concrete columns (‘pedestal’) rise above the soil level to receive the steel structure and the Detailed elevation in architectural 
STRUCTURAL  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
29 DRAWINGS
detail ‘2’ of the same drawing where the steel beam seems to rest on the foundation at the soil drawings. Accepted
team team team
level (or, at least, at an undefined level). For this reviewer clarification is needed.
[Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The clarification requested has been provided. No
further actions are needed regarding this issue. This comment is closed.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: In detail ‘4’ of the drawing ‘W‐104’ included in the [First Response]: Gusset plate not included  OK
‘Structural Analysis & Design Calculation’ report it does not appear the gusset plate through in detail 4 for clarity. This will be reflected 
which the bracing diagonal beams are supposed to connect to the columns and the foundation on the fabrication drawings to be provided 
base plates. In fact, the base plates drawn in detail ‘4’ do not seem to have enough space to by the contractor. Dimensions of gussetplate already provided. Please refer 
STRUCTURAL  Designer must define all dimensions of gusset  Designer must define all dimensions of gusset  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
30 DRAWINGS
allocate the gusset plates (or at least no gusset plates as big as those appearing in detail ‘2’ of Accepted
plates plates
to page 12 of the calculations dated Mar 1, 2019 or to 
team
the drawing ‘W‐104’ and in detail ‘1’ of the drawing ‘W‐105’). For this reviewer clarification is drawing sheet no W‐105
needed.
[Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The clarification requested has been provided. No
further actions are needed regarding this issue. This comment is closed.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: In none of the structural details shown in drawing ‘W‐104’ [First Response]: Top of footing tie beam  OK. See W‐104
included in the ‘Structural Analysis & Design Calculation’ report (or in any other drawings) is FTB‐1 is at NGL. Detailed section will be 
defined the connection of the foundation beams and the foundation footings. It is neither provided.
indicated if the foundation beams are linked directly to the footings or to the concrete columns Please see updated drawings dated Aug. 2, 2019 
STRUCTURAL  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
31 DRAWINGS
(pedestals), the level at which they are linked, nor the tying reinforcement bars among both of Provisionally Accepted
team team team
sheet W‐112 drawing 3 showing the reinforcement  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review team.
the structural elements linked. Please, provide a detailed section defining the foundation beams for footing tie beam 1 (FTB‐1)
position and tying. For this reviewer clarification is needed.
[Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The details and drawing requested have not been
provided. Please, provide them. This reviewer needs further clarification regarding this issue.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: The dimensions of the bottom cover of the ring girder [First Response]: Dimension of bottom cover  OK. See W‐104 
(detail ‘7’ drawing ‘W‐104’) have not been defined in the drawings. For this reviewer of ring girder is 275mm. 7C and 7D Please see updated drawings dated Aug. 2, 2019 
STRUCTURAL  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
32 DRAWINGS
clarification is needed. Provisionally Accepted
team team team
sheet W‐112 drawing 7 showing the  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review team.
[Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: Please, include this dimension in the updated drawings. dimensions/detail for the ring girder
This reviewer needs further clarification regarding this issue.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: It is not clear in 'W‐106' drawing at which column is the [First Response]: Location of ladder to be  OK. See W‐101
STRUCTURAL  ladder up the tower attached. For this reviewer clarification is needed. reflected in architectural drawings. To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
33 Accepted
DRAWINGS [Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The clarification requested has been provided. No team team team
further actions are needed regarding this issue. This comment is closed.
[First Comment, AGC, 19/10/2018]: Any double angle intermediate stitching in bracings shall be [First Response]: 6mm Filler plate spaced at  OK
STRUCTURAL  specified as per NSCP 15. For this reviewer clarification is needed. 500mm O.C.  Please refer to drawing sheet  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review  To be submitted to UNOPS HQ design review 
34 DRAWINGS [Second Comment, AGC, 15/07/2019]: The clarification requested has been provided. No no W‐105.
Accepted
team team team
further actions are needed regarding this issue. This comment is closed.
 ‐‐‐ END ‐‐‐

UNOPS Design Review Comments List
20574_Elevated Water Tank Structural Review_20190807.xlsx 3 of 3 8/9/2019