TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

938 Aurora BLVD. Cubao, Quezon City

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE CIVIL

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

CE 015
PRINCIPLES OF REINFORCED/ PRESTRESSED CONCRETE DESIGN

A DESIGN OF A FIVE-STOREY REINFORCED MIXED-

USED COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IN
SAN MATEO, RIZAL

Submitted by:
ARAÑA, ISIAH VANJAY L.

May 2025

Submitted to:
ENGR. Aleine Mikhaello Garcia
 Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................ ..................4

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... ...................6
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 9

1.1 The Project.......................... ........................................................................................................ 9

1.2 Project Location .................................................................................................................... 10
1.3 The Client................................. .................................................................................................. 12
1.4 Project Objectives........................................................................................................................................13
1.5 Project Scope and Limitations ....................................................................................................... 14
1.6 Project Development ................................................................................................................. 14

CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUT

...............................................................................................................................................1
6
2.1 Description of the Structure
15
2.2 Classification of the Structure ........................................................................................................ 15
2.3 Floor Area 15
2.4 Architectural Plans ..................................................................................................................... 18
2.4.1 Floor Plans 18
2.4.2 Elevations 24
2.5 Review of Related Literature and Studies ......................................................................................... 30
2.5.1 Lateral Resisting Frames 30
2.5.2 Flooring System 32
2.5.3 Columns 33
2.5.4 Beams 35
2.5.5 Foundation 36

CHAPTER 3: CONTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS AND STANDARDS ............................................................ 37

3.1 Design Constraints ................................................................................................................. 37
3.2 Tradeoffs 38
3.3 Tradeoffs Summary ............................................................................................................... 41
3.4 Database Normalization and Weighted Average
43
3.5 Tradeoffs Assessment ............................................................................................................. 43
3.6 Design Standards .................................................................................................................. 46

CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE .......................................................................................... 48

1
4.1 Design Methodology
48
4.1.1 Dead Loads…………………………………………………………………………………………
4.1.2 Live Loads................................. ............................................................................................ 54
4.1.3 Wind Loads................. ......................................................................................................... 54
4.1.4 Earthquake Loads....... ......................................................................................................... 55
4.1.5 Load Combination........ ......................................................................................................... 55
4.1.6 Materials Properties… ......................................................................................................... 56
4.1.7 Seismic Detailing for Special Moment Resisting Frames .................................................................56
4.2 Combination.... ...................................................................................................................... 56
4.2.1 Geometric Modeling.............................................................................................................. 56
4.2.2 Structural Analysis...... ......................................................................................................... 57
4.2.3 Structural Design........ .......................................................................................................... 85
4.3 Combination.. .. ..................................................................................................................... 88
4.3.1 Geometric Modeling…. ........................................................................................................ 88
4.3.2 Structural Analysis...... ......................................................................................................... 89
4.3.3 Structural Design........ ......................................................................................................... 117
4.4 Validation of Trade-offs and Multiple Constraints .......................................................................... 120

2
 List of Tables
Table 2.1 Floor Area
Table 3.1: Trade-offs Summary
Table 3.2 Normalized Data for Tradeoffs
Table3.3: Lateral Resisting Frame System Overall Trade-offs Assessment
Table3.4: Column System Overall Trade-offs Assessment

Table3.5: Beams System Overall Trade-offs Assessment

Table3.6: Combinations of Trade-offs
Table3.7: Over-all Score of Combination
Table 4.1: Minimum Design Dead Loads
Table 4.2: Minimum uniform Live Loads
Table 4.3: Wind Load Parameters
Table 4.4: Seismic Load Parameters
Table 4.5 Load Combinations
Table 4.6: Maximum Moments, Shear, Torsion of Girder from Beam Diagram (GRID 1&4)
Table 4.7 Maximum Moments, Shear, Torsion of Girder from Beam Diagram (GRID F&C)
Table 4.8: Maximum Moments, Shear, and Axial Forces of Column from Beam Diagram (GRID 1&4)
Table 4.9: Maximum Moments, Shear, and Axial Forces of Column from Beam Diagram (GRID F&C)
Table 4.10: Maximum Loads for Footings
Table 4.11: Loads for Slabs: Based on Floor Loads Assigned
Table 4.12: Design of Beam Perimeter and Critical Grid 1&4
Table 4.13: Design of Beam Longitudinal and Critical Grid F&C
Table 4.14: Design of Column Perimeter and Critical Grid 1&4
Table 4.15: Design of Column Longitudinal and Critical Grid F&C
Table 4.16: Design of Spread Footing for the 5-storey Residential Building
Table 4.17: Design of one- way slab: 5-storey Condominium Building

3
 List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Project Site Location

Figure 1.2: General Project Development Process
Figure 2.1: Perspective of the Proposed Condominium Building
Figure 2.2: Ground Floor Plan
Figure 2.3: Second Floor Plan
Figure 2.4: Third Floor Plan
Figure 2.5: Fourth Floor Plan Figure
2.6: Fifth Floor Plan
Figure 2.7: Roof Deck Plan
Figure 2.8: Front Elevation
Figure 2.9: Rear Elevation
Figure 2.10: Left Elevation
Figure 2.11: Right Elevation
Figure 4.1: Initial Geometric Model
Figure 4.2 Foundation Plan
Figure 4.3: 2nd-5th Framing Plan
Figure 4.4: Roof deck Framing Plan
Figure 4.5: Elevation Plan for Perimeter and Interior Perimeter Section
Figure 4.6: Elevation Plan for Longitudinal and Interior Longitudinal Section
Figure 4.7: Geometric Model of Combination 1
Figure 4.8 Beam Diagram of Shear (Fz) – GRID 1: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.9 Beam Diagram of Shear (Fy) – GRID 1: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.10 Beam Diagram of Torsion (Mx) – GRID 1: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.11 Beam Diagram of Torsion (My) – GRID 1: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.12 Beam Diagram of Moments (Mz) – GRID 1: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.13 Beam Diagram of Shear (Fz) – GRID 4: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.14 Beam Diagram of Shear (Fy) – GRID 4: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.15 Beam Diagram of Torsion (Mx) – GRID 4: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

4
Figure 4.16 Beam Diagram of Moments (My) – GRID 4: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.17 Beam Diagram of Moments (Mz) – GRID 4: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.18 Beam Diagram of Shear (Fz) – GRID F: Load Combination 10: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ey + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.19 Beam Diagram of Shear (Fy) – GRID F: Load Combination 10: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ey + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.20 Beam Diagram of Torsion (Mx) – GRID F: Load Combination 10: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ey + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.21 Beam Diagram of Torsion (My) – GRID F: Load Combination 10: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ey + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.22 Beam Diagram of Moment (Mz) – GRID F: Load Combination 10: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ey + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.23 Beam Diagram of Shear (Fz) – GRID C: Load Combination 9: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.24 Beam Diagram of Shear (Fy) – GRID C: Load Combination 9: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.25Beam Diagram of Torsion (Mx) – GRID C: Load Combination 9: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.26 Beam Diagram of Torsion (My) – GRID C: Load Combination 9: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.27 Beam Diagram of Moment (Mz) – GRID C: Load Combination 9: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.28: Beam Diagram of Axial (Fx) – GRID 1: Load Combination 18: 0.9(D) - 1.0Ey
Figure 4.29: Beam Diagram of Shear (Fy) – GRID 1: Load Combination 18: 0.9(D) - 1.0Ey

Figure 4.30: Beam Diagram of Shear (Fz) – GRID 1: Load Combination 18:
0.9(D) - 1.0Ey

Figure 4.31: Beam Diagram of Moments (My) – GRID 1: Load Combination 18:
0.9(D) - 1.0Ey

Figure 4.32: Beam Diagram of Moments (Mz) – GRID 1: Load Combination 18:
0.9(D) - 1.0Ey

Figure 4.33: Beam Diagram of Axial (Fx) – GRID 4: Load Combination 9: 1.2(D) -
1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

Figure 4.34: Beam Diagram of Shear (Fy) – GRID 4: Load Combination 9: 1.2(D) -
1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

Figure 4.35: Beam Diagram of Shear (Fz) – GRID 4: Load Combination 9: 1.2(D)
- 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.36: Beam Diagram of Moments (My) – GRID 4: Load Combination 9: 1.2(D) -
1.0Ex + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.37: Beam Diagram of Moments (Mz) – GRID 4: Load Combination 9: 1.2(D)
- 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

5
 Figure 4.38 Beam Diagram of Axial (Fx) – GRID F: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) +
1.0Ex + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.39 Beam Diagram of Shear (Fy) – GRID F: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) +
1.0Ex + 1.0(L) Figure 4.40 Beam Diagram of Shear (Fz) – GRID F: Load Combination
7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L) Figure 4.41 Beam Diagram of Moment (My) – GRID F:
Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.42 Beam Diagram of Moment (Mz) – GRID F: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.43 Beam Diagram of Axial (Fx) – GRID C: Load Combination 8: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ey + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.44 Beam Diagram of Shear (Fy) – GRID C: Load Combination 8: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ey + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.45 Beam Diagram of Shear (Fz) – GRID C: Load Combination 8: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ey + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.46 Beam Diagram of Moment (My) – GRID C: Load Combination 8: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ey + 1.0(L)
Figure 4.47 Beam Diagram of Moment (Mz) – GRID C: Load Combination 8: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ey + 1.0(L)

6
 CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1 The Project

This project is a five-story mixed-use residential and commercial building intended for
construction in San Mateo, Rizal, a region with high urban development and economic activity. San Mateo,
which serves as a bridge between Metro Manila and Rizal province, is witnessing a continuous population
growth and had 273,306 people recorded during the latest census in 2020. This reflects the increased need
for housing and commercial properties. This development seeks to assist in meeting this demand by
offering retail places on the lower floors of the building and residential apartments on the upper floors for
easy access and comfort. The dominance of local businesses is evident in the 14.75% increase in business
permit applications from 2021 to 2023. Furthermore, increased traffic in the region has transformed the
area into a commercial hub, ensuring more job opportunities and new businesses. Alongside, the positive
economic impact of this project includes attracting investors and new businesses to enhance the overall
economy of San [Link], with an average daily traffic volume of over 30,000 vehicles along the
main roads of San Mateo, the location ensures high foot traffic, making it an ideal site for commercial
success. This project will not only boost the local economy by attracting investors and businesses but will
also contribute to the livability of the area by providing modern, strategically located housing options for
professionals, families, and young entrepreneurs.

The commercial building has a footprint of 20 meters by 20 meters, resulting in a total floor area
of 400 square meters per level. With a total height of 14.2 meters, the structure consists of five stories,
integrating both commercial and residential spaces. The exterior façade showcases a simple architectural
design, incorporating aluminum cladding and concrete finishes for a sleek yet durable look. The main
entrance is 3 meters wide, ensuring easy access for customers and tenants, while secondary entrances on
the sides provide additional entry points. Inside, the ground floor has a coffee shop and restaurant (30m²)
designed with modern interiors and ample seating capacity. Additionally, more spaces (each 36m²) are
available for lease, catering to small businesses. The second, third, and fourth floors are dedicated to
residential units, offering a mix of two-bedroom (20m²) and studio-type (36m²) apartments, each designed
with balconies, kitchens, and built-in storage spaces to maximize comfort and functionality. Hallways are 3
meters wide, ensuring ease of movement, while each floor has a shared lobby and dedicated security
features. The fifth floor is a roof deck, featuring an open recreational space, landscaped seating areas, and
a multipurpose function hall (150m²), providing residents with a relaxing and communal area with
panoramic city views.

In structural design, achieving a balance between functionality and cost-efficiency requires

thoughtful trade-offs. One of the key considerations involves choosing between a reinforced concrete
structural frame and a composite steel-concrete system. While a reinforced concrete frame offers excellent
strength, durability, and fire resistance, it typically involves longer construction times and higher costs.
Conversely, a composite steel-concrete system facilitates quicker construction and reduces structural
weight but may incur increased maintenance expenses over time.

Another critical design decision involves selecting the appropriate foundation system. A mat
foundation ensures better load distribution and overall stability but comes with higher excavation a nd
material costs. In contrast, isolated footings are more economical; however, they may demand additional
reinforcement to maintain structural integrity, especially in variable soil conditions.

7
 For the flooring system, the integration of reinforced concrete slabs with steel decking enhances
structural strength and reduces dead loads. However, this method may require greater initial investment
compared to conventional concrete slabs. Additionally, the commercial spaces located on the lower floor s
benefit from open floor layouts, which necessitate the use of long-span beams. These beams improve
functional space utilization but require deeper sections and stronger columns to adequately support the
loads.

The roof deck is designed not only for structural efficiency but also to accommodate multipurpose
functions such as a hall. To support these various uses, additional reinforcement is provided to ensure
safety and performance under varying loads.

All structural planning and design decisions are guided by the provisions of the National Building
Code of the Philippines (NBCP) and National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2015, ensuring
that the building adheres to established safety standards and engineering best practices.

Figure 1.1: Perspective of the proposed mixed-used condominium and residential building

1.2 Project Location

The project is located at 14.691763° N latitude and 121.117922° E longitude, with the address
Guitnang Bayan I (Pob.), San Mateo, Rizal. San Mateo is a first-class urban municipality in the province of

8
Rizal. The project site is a vacant lot located near the national road, surrounded by numerous trees. While
some trees will need to be removed to accommodate the development, they will be replanted in designated
areas to support environmental sustainability. This approach ensures that the project minimizes its
ecological impact while enhancing the green spaces within the community. The strategic location near the
national road provides easy accessibility for both commercial and residential use, making it an ideal site for
[Link] View of the Proposed Building

Figure 1.2: Site Location Overview (Source: Google Earth Pro)

Figure 1.2 shows that rhe project site is strategically located between Quezon City and Antipolo, but it is
closer to Marikina, making it highly accessible from key urban centers. San Mateo, Rizal, is a rapidly
urbanizing municipality that serves as a transition area between Metro Manila and the province of Rizal.
With its growing population, commercial expansion, and infrastructure development, the area has become
a prime location for mixed-use developments. The site’s proximity to major roads and transportation hubs
ensures convenient access for residents, businesses, and commuters.

9
 Figure 1.3 Detailed Site Location (Source: Google Maps)

Figure 1.3 shows that the project site is near the national road, General Luna Avenue, making it a highly
accessible and strategic location. Its proximity to a nearby school makes it ideal for families and students,
while the presence of various support services, such as retail shops, healthcare facilities, and
transportation options, further enhances its convenience. Additionally, the site is close to several churches,
providing easy access to places of worship for the local community. The surrounding side streets and open
spaces offer additional accessibility and breathing room, contributing to a well-balanced urban environment.
With these advantages, the location is well-suited for a mixed-use development that caters to both
residential and commercial needs while integrating seamlessly into the existing neighborhood.

1.3 The Client

The client for this project is a privately owned by a businesswoman and and an Engineer, Ms.
Jane Maraña and she is specializing in mixed-use and residential developments in the Rizal and Metro
Manila areas. With a strong track record committed to creating sustainable and well-integrated communities
that cater to both residential and commercial needs.

10
1.3.1 Client Specifications

1. The total cost of the structural project must not exceed PHP 40 million, ensuring a balance
between quality and cost-effectiveness
2. The maximum construction duration shall not exceed 12 months, with a phased timeline to
ensure timely completion while minimizing disruptions.
3. The project should ensure compliance with all local building codes and environmental
regulations, integrating sustainable practices such as energy-efficient lighting, proper waste
management, and green spaces.
4. The building must feature high-quality materials that ensure durability and low maintenance
costs, while also prioritizing modern aesthetics and functionality to attract both residential and
commercial tenants.
5. The client requires the structure to be earthquake-resistant and flood-resilient since the san
mateo rizal is prone to flooding, following the National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015
and other relevant safety standards.

1.4 Project Objectives

1.4.1 General Obejectives

The project's overall goal is to develop a five-story mixed-use building that will offer both business
and residential space, assuring long-term profitability for the client and investors while following the codes
in NSCP 2015.

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

1. To design a five-story mixed-use building that adheres to the National Structural Code of the
Philippines 2015, ensuring safety, stability, economically and compliance with local regulations.
2. Provide a detailed cost estimate covering materials, labor, and other expenses to ensure the
project stays within the allocated budget of PHP 40 million.
3. Develop complete structural plans, including foundation, framing, floor, and roofing plans, as well
as necessary reinforcement details.
4. Evaluate multiple design constraints, such as Economic constraints, sustainability constraints,
Constructablity constraints, and Risks constraints, to optimize the overall functionality and
efficiency of the building.

1.5 Project Scope and Limitations

1.5.1 Scope
1. The design and structural analysis of the five-story mixed-use building were performed using
the software of structural engineering Midas Gen only.
2. Adhering to the local building codes, zoning regulations, and environmental guidelines such
as NSCP, NBCP and other ACI codes to ensure safety and sustainability in structures.
3. Cost Estimation and budgeting of materials, labor, and other costs to be incurred for the

11
 project will ensure it doesn't exceed the PHP 40 million budget.
4. .Analyze comprehensively only in structural plans/members that will include foundation,
column, beam, slab, and roofing plans and reinforcement details.

1.5.2 Limitation
1. The project does not include the design of electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems, as
these will be handled by specialized consultants. The design project does not cover
architectural interior design details, such as finishes, furniture layouts, and decorative
elements, focusing only on the structural framework and load-bearing components.
2. The project does not include construction execution or actual site development, as it is
limited to planning, design, and structural analysis.
3. The detailed plan of project scheduling is not included in this design project.
4. Maintenance and Revisions of the design project is not included.

1.6 Project Development

The project followed a structured and systematic methodology to achieve an efficient and
compliant final design. It began with identifying the core problem and exploring feasible engineering
solutions, followed by the development of concepts based on established practices. Clear project objectives
were established to guide the design process, supported by thorough data collection, including site
conditions and environmental factors. Design standards, particularly those from NSCP 2015, were applied
to ensure safety and code compliance. Both quantitative constraints (e.g., budget, structural limits) and
qualitative ones (e.g., environmental and regulatory considerations) were defined. I recognized and
analyzed design trade-offs, referencing relevant literature to evaluate advantages and disadvantages.
Multiple design alternatives were developed and evaluated using a normalization method to identify the
most feasible and sustainable option. Ultimately, the selected design met all structural and safety
requirements, integrating all stages into a cohesive and optimized final design solution.

12
 Evaluation of design
based on multiple

Figure 1.4 Project Development Plan

13
 CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUT

2.1 Description of the Structure

Figure 1.1 shows the perspective view of the 5-storey condominium building. The figure below was
modeled in SketchUp 2019 and rendered in Twinmotion (2023). The structure will be designed in
conformance with the National Structural Code of the Philippines, 2015, and other applicable standards such
as the American Concrete Institute. The structure to be built is locatd 1.0 km away from the west valley
fault.

2.2 Classification of the structure

In structural design, it's important to ascertain the occupancy category based on the National
Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP 2015). For this condominium project, a 5-storey building, the
building falls under Category II – Standard Occupancy Structures. The structural system is also
assigned as a Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF). These are necessary in order to determine
the right parameters in the design process, especially for seismic and earthquake analysis.

2.3 Floor Area

Occupancy

Location Description Area (sqm)

Ground Floor Coffee Shop 72

Ground Floor Front Desk 40

Ground Floor Comfort Room 36

Ground Floor Medic Room 36

Ground Floor Waiting Area 20

Ground Floor Security Area 36

Ground Floor Utilities Area 36

Ground Floor Storage Room 36

14
Ground Floor Cafeteria 80

Ground Floor Stairs Room 36

Ground Floor Laundry Area 36

Second Floor Room 201 36

Second Floor Room 202 36

Second Floor Room 203 40

Second Floor Room 204 36

Second Floor Room 205 36

Second Floor Room 206 40

Second Floor Room 207 36

Second Floor Room 208 36

Second Floor Room 209 36

Second Floor Comfort Room 36

Second Floor Sheets and Cloths Room 20

Second Floor Stairs Room 36

Second Floor Fitness Center 80

Third Floor Room 301 36

Third Floor Room 302 36

Third Floor Room 303 40

Third Floor Room 304 36

Third Floor Room 305 36

15
Third Floor Room 306 40

Third Floor Room 307 36

Third Floor Room 308 36

Third Floor Room 309 36

Third Floor Comfort Room 36

Third Floor Sheets and Cloths Room 20

Third Floor Stairs Room 36

Third Floor Lounge Bar 80

Fourth Floor Room 401 36

Fourth Floor Room 402 36

Fourth Floor Room 403 40

Fourth Floor Room 404 36

Fourth Floor Room 405 36

Fourth Floor Room 406 40

Fourth Floor Room 407 36

Fourth Floor Room 408 36

Fourth Floor Room 409 36

Fourth Floor Comfort Room 36

Fourth Floor Sheets and Cloths Room 20

Fourth Floor Stairs Room 36

Fourth Floor Lounge Bar 80

Roof Deck Landscaping Area 150

Roof Deck Stair Room/Stairway 50

Total Floor Area 2176

16
 Table 2.1 Floor Area

2.4 Architectural Plans

2.4.1 Floor Plans

Figure 2.1 Ground Floor Plan

17
Figure 2.2 Second Floor Plan

18
Figure 2.3 Third Floor Plan

19
Figure 2.4 Fourth Floor Plan

20
Figure 2.5 Roof Deck Plan

21
Figure 2.6 Front Elevation

22
Figure 2.7 Rear Elevation

23
Figure 2.8 Left Elevation

24
Figure 2.9 Right Elevation

25
2.1 Review of Related Literature and Studies
During the literature review, relevant technical papers and textbooks were examined to explore the
design constraints and trade-offs associated with the study.

2.1.1 Lateral Resisting Frames

The Philippines, where San Mateo, Rizal adjoining Metro Manila and Marikina City is located is
geographically positioned within the Pacific Ring of Fire and is therefore extremely vulnerable to seismic
activity. Considering this threat, it is necessary to include seismic design factors in construction projects to
guarantee structural safety and robustness. One of the major steps in earthquake damage reduction involves
the use of Lateral Force Resisting Systems (LFRS), specifically designed to resist lateral forces caused by
ground motions. For this project, a Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF) is employed, reputed for its
ductility and energy dissipation, essential in seismically high-risk areas (Farsangi, 2017). As per the National
Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP, 2015), SMRF systems are especially recommended for structures
in Seismic Zone 4, where significant ground shaking is expected. In addition, the American Concrete Institute
(ACI 318-14) endorses the utilization of ductile frame systems in urban mid-rise buildings for increasing post-
earthquake functionality and life safety. Rodriguez and Aristizabal-Ochoa's studies (2001) also mention the
success of well-designed SMRFs in reducing collapse probability during major seismic events. Thus, the use
of an SMRF in the five-story mixed-use San Mateo building is a technically sound and code-compliant move,
which helps counter the area's high seismic hazard and fits best engineering practice for resisting lateral
forces.

[Link] Special Moment Resisting Frames and Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames.
Studies comparing Special Moment Resisting Frames (SMRF) and Ordinary Moment Resisting
Frames (OMRF) show that SMRF systems offer better seismic performance in seismically active
locations such as San Mateo, Rizal, the choice of lateral force-resisting system is important. Research
indicates that the use of Special Moment Resisting Frames (SMRFs) offers better seismic performance
compared to Ordinary (OMRF) and Intermediate (IMRF) systems, particularly in areas of ductility,
control of drift, and energy absorption (Kheyroddin et al., 2016; Shin & LaFave, 2005).
Though more economical and quicker to build (Jung & Kim, 2015; Lu et al., 2021), OMRFs
have lower seismic resilience owing to lesser detailing requirements. Experimental studies support that
column performance in OMRF and IMRF systems is vulnerable to lap splices and reinforcement
spacing, impacting drift capacity and structural integrity (Shin & LaFave, 2005). In compliance with
NSCP 2015 and ACI 318-14, the adoption of the SMRF system into the five-storey mixed-use building
would provide higher safety and structural performance under a high-risk seismic zone.
Supporting these observations, Shin and LaFave (2005) carried out an experimental work
comparing the seismic behavior of columns in Ordinary and Intermediate Moment Resisting Concrete
Frames (OMRCF and IMRCF) based on scale models. Even though all test columns had superior ACI
318-02 strength demand requirements and adequate drift capacities (>3% for OMRCF and >4.5% for
IMRCF), their performances were vastly different with lap splice conditions and spacings of the lateral

26
reinforcement. These findings highlight the significance of detailing in delivering the performance and
ductility required under seismic loading. Thus, the use of a Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF)
for this project is in accordance with performance-based design considerations, ensuring compliance,
safety, and durability.

[Link] Location of Lateral Resisting Frame Systems

A comparative analysis on lateral load-resisting systems performed by Venkatesh et al. (2017)
examined the seismic performance of various structural systems such as moment-resisting frames,
shear walls, and braced frames in multi-storey structures. The study revealed that buildings employing
dual systems—combinations of moment-resisting frames and shear walls—exhibited highly enhanced
performance regarding lateral displacement, base shear capacity, and control of inter-storey drift
against structures employing single systems. This combination of the systems gives enhanced stiffness
and stability, especially in seismically active area
For instance, incorporating reinforced concrete shear walls was responsible for dramatically
reducing story displacement as well as giving better resistance to base shear. Simultaneously, SMRFs
ensured energy dissipation and ductility, essential to resist seismic energy under strong ground motion.
The research noted that even though SMRFs stand on their own to give a ductile performance, they
integrated into other systems such as shear walls can deliver a better, balanced seismic response.

Within the framework of the planned five-storey mixed-use structure in San Mateo, Rizal, which
is situated in a high seismic zone, the above conclusions justify the strategic choice of a Special
Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF) system. Integrating or looking at hybrid techniques like coupling
SMRFs with core walls or bracing, if possible, can enhance the building's earthquake resistance further
and achieve NSCP 2015 compliance. The designers and engineers should weigh the advantages of
integrating systems to maximize both safety and structural efficiency.

[Link] Advantages and Disadvantages of SMRF

Special Moment Resisting Frames (SMRF) are commonly used in seismic design because of
their strong ductility and capability to dissipate large amounts of energy. Their performance can,
however, be increased by combining them with other bracing systems. Abdollahzadeh and
Faghihmaleki (2014) performed research comparing the seismic performance of medium-rise steel
SMRFs retrofitted with Typical Buckling Braces (TBBs) and Buckling Restrained Braces (BRBs). The
research established that although SMRFs by themselves offer good ductility, their combination with
BRBs enhances lateral stiffness as well as minimizes inter-story drifts, which results in better seismic
performance. The benefits of SMRFs are that they possess inherent ductility, enabling a high level of
energy absorption in seismic activities, and they offer architectural flexibility since they do not need
supplementary bracing components that could be an intrusion in building aesthetics and functionality.
Nevertheless, one of the significant drawbacks is their relatively lower lateral stiffness in comparison to
other systems, which can lead to greater story drifts and possible damage under intense earthquakes.
The use of BRBs overcomes this limitation by enhancing stiffness and managing deformations without

27
sacrificing ductility. Consequently, SMRFs have some drawbacks. Mousavi et al. (2020) identified the high
construction cost as a significant limitation of Special Moment Resisting Frames (SMRFs). They also noted
that the construction process for SMRFs is typically more time-consuming and expensive due to its structural
complexity. Additionally, the rigid structural requirements of SMRFs can restrict design flexibility, potentially
limiting architectural creativity and adaptability in future modifications.

[Link] Advantages and Disadvantages of OMRF

OMRFs are structural systems that are most often employed in low to moderate seismic zones
because of their less complicated design and detailing criteria. Han et al. (2002) presented an
experimental research investigation assessing the seismic performance of a three-story OMRF built
based on the minimum ACI 318-99 requirements. The investigation identified the OMRF to have stable
hysteretic behavior without sudden strength degradation during cyclic lateral loading. The base shear
strength obtained was greater than the design base shear forces for seismic zones 1, 2A, and 2B,
reflecting satisfactory performance in low to moderate seismic areas. The benefits of OMRFs are cost
savings and simplicity of construction due to lower detailing requirements than those of Special Moment
Resisting Frames (SMRFs). This ease of construction enables faster construction schedules and lower
labor costs. Nevertheless, the study also revealed a number of disadvantages. OMRFs exhibited poor
ductility and energy absorption capacity and hence are less ideal for areas of high seismicity.
Insufficient detailing requirements, like no strong-column weak-beam constraints and minimal
transverse reinforcement in beam-column joints, can cause brittle failure modes under major seismic
events. Finally, although OMRFs provide construction and economic advantages in low-seismic-risk
zones, their use in high seismic areas is limited because of their lower ductility and energy-dissipation
properties. For such buildings, special detailing or other systems such as SMRFs might be better suited
to promote safety and toughness during earthquakes.

[Link] Comparative analysis of SMRF and OMRF

Sheovinay Rai, Banarjee, and Izhar (2020) conducted a comparative study to evaluate the seismic
behavior of reinforced concrete buildings using different structural configurations, specifically Ordinary
Moment Resisting Frames (OMRF) and Special Moment Resisting Frames (SMRF), using analysis software
such as [Link] and ETABS. The study assessed G+6 storey RC buildings located in Indian Seismic
Zones III and IV, following Indian Standards IS 456-2000 and IS 13920-2002. The structural performance was
evaluated based on parameters like storey drift, mean displacement, and natural time period using linear
static analysis. The findings revealed that OMRF structures, due to simpler reinforcement detailing per IS 456-
2000, are less ductile and more brittle under seismic loads compared to SMRF structures.

SMRF buildings, on the other hand, followed the ductility and toughness provisions of IS 13920-2002,
allowing them to perform significantly better during seismic events. The study emphasized that earthquake-
resistant design must not only rely on lateral strength but also on deformability and energy dissipation capacity.
Structural components in SMRFs beams, columns, and joints are detailed to absorb seismic energy, reducing
the risk of collapse. The analysis ultimately concluded that SMRFs provide enhanced seismic resilience over
OMRFs, making them a more reliable choice for earthquake-prone regions.

28
2.1.2 Flooring System
The recent energy and environmental crises, combined with increasing sustainability
regulations, have driven an ever-growing interest in substituting traditional construction materials with
more sustainable options. Because of its recyclability, reusability, and natural renewability, wood is
regarded as one of the most sustainable materials for use in construction. It also has a high strength-to-
weight ratio and good acoustic and thermal insulation characteristics, so it can be used for both
structural components—such as beams, columns, and floor systems—and non-structural components
such as windows, doorframes, and insulation. New developments in engineered wood products and
high-strength adhesives have made it possible to produce large cross-section structural elements that
can span long distances with strength similar to steel and reinforced concrete, yet at reduced
environmental cost. This has stimulated more worldwide interest in long-span timber buildings.

Bazli, Heitzmann, and Ashrafi (2022) performed a thorough review of more than 100 research
studies to investigate material properties, structural performance, and sustainability performance of
long-span timber structures with emphasis on floors. The review pointed out the state-of-the-art
fabrication methods, structural analysis procedures, and experiments conducted to analyze timber
floors' static as well as dynamic responses. Their results highlight that with adequate design and
engineering, long-span timber floor systems are capable of fulfilling contemporary performance
expectations while helping in sustainable construction efforts. Addressing the challenges and
opportunities in their research could lead to more efficient, buildable, and ecologically efficient timber
structures.

[Link] One-way and Two-way Flooring System

When Steel I-beam and brick jack arch slabs have traditionally served as cost-effective flooring
and roofing options in industrial and residential building construction in different parts of the world. But
the occurrence of several failures of these non-homogeneous one-way slabs in previous earthquakes
has generated alarm about their poor seismic performance. Nevertheless, jack-arch slabs continue to
be favored because of their low cost and simplicity in construction. To overcome their intrinsic
disadvantages, Maheri and Rahmani (2010) introduced a new two-way jack-arch system that greatly
improves structural resilience under seismic and static loading. Their work consisted of full-scale lab
experiments and finite element analysis comparing conventional one-way and the newly created two-
way systems.

The outcome revealed that the two-way system dramatically enhances performance in strength
and deformation control under seismic loading. The authors also proposed a static and seismic design
method on the basis of allowable stress design principles, where the steel grid is designed and stresses
are controlled in the brick arch elements. Numerical analysis was utilized to optimize the design
parameters, and useful design tools in the form of figures and tables were created to assist in the
design of one-way and two-way jack-arch slabs. Finally, the research determined that in a proper
design and construction, jack-arch slabs could be a cost-efficient and seismically efficient alternative
flooring system.

29
 [Link] Advantages and Disadvantages of One-way Slab
One-way slabs are most widely applied in reinforced concrete structures because they are
simple, cost-effective, and quick to construct. One-way slabs are perfect for spans that have a
greater than two ratio of length to width, with loads mostly transmitted in one direction (McCormac &
Nelson, 2015). They have simple design, use less reinforcement and formwork, are economical,
and quicker to construct, particularly in low- to mid-rise structures (Warner et al., 2010)
But one-way slabs are not as good at spreading loads in more than one direction and deflect
more in longer spans. They are also more likely to crack unless reinforced (Nilson et al., 2010).
They may not perform as well in high-seismic areas or buildings with large open spaces because of
lower lateral stiffness and energy dissipation (Wight, 2012).

In general, although one-way slabs are cost-effective and convenient, their application must
be restricted to suitable structural plans and reasonable loads.

[Link] Advantages and Disadvantages of Two-way Slab

Two-way slabs are best for square or almost square building plans, with improved load
distribution, minimal deflection, and enhanced seismic performance (McCormac & Nelson, 2015; Wight,
2012). They cover greater spans and are resistant to punching shear efficiently (Warner et al., 2010;
Nilson et al., 2010). Yet, they are more difficult to construct and cost more due to increased
reinforcement and more complicated formwork (Taranath, 2016; Warner et al., 2010). Notwithstanding
these limitations, their strength and efficiency make them suitable for big open spaces as well as mid-
to high-rise buildings.
In summary, two-way slabs have definite advantages in load distribution, seismic behavior, and
structural efficiency. But their benefits have to be balanced against higher cost, construction difficulty,
and material consumption.

[Link] Comparative Analysis of One-way slab and Two-way slab

In Design of Reinforced Concrete by Jack C. McCormac and James K. Nelson (2015), the
authors explain the mechanics and design criteria for two-way and one-way slabs. One-way slabs are
cheaper and easier to build, particularly for narrow bays, while two-way slabs more effectively distribute
loads in both directions, making them perform better for square or almost square bays.

As Nilson, Darwin, and Dolan (2010) in Design of Concrete Structures explain, two-way slabs
offer better load distribution and smaller deflections at greater construction expense because of higher
reinforcement and labor demands. The compromise, hence, is between initial cost of construction and
performance of the structure.

30
2.1.3 Column
Columns are vital in a 5-storey reinforced concrete building, providing vertical support to carry loads
from beams and slabs to the base. They are built of reinforced concrete and are meant to withstand
compressive pressures while also uniformly distributing loads. Columns also resist lateral pressures, ensuring
the structure's stability and safety. Structural engineers are responsible for designing and constructing
columns that fulfill safety and construction specifications.

[Link] Tied and Spiral Column

Reinforced concrete columns are very important in transmitting structural loads to the foundation.
Tied columns and spiral columns are two of the most utilized types used in multistorey buildings with different
performance traits and sacrifices. Tied columns are inexpensive and simple to construct, and they are typically
applied in cases of moderate load requirements (Wight, 2012). Conversely, spiral columns provide increased
strength and ductility, particularly under seismic loads, and are therefore appropriate for seismically active
areas (McCormac & Nelson, 2015; Mander et al., 1988). Spiral columns are, however, more costly and time-
consuming (Taranath, 2016). Tied columns have less environmental impact because they require less steel
(Yilmaz et al., 2018), but spiral columns ensure better structural performance and safety in important
applications.

[Link] Advantages and Disadvantages of Tied Column

Tied columns are commonly preferred for their ease, cost-effectiveness, and simplicity in construction.
As stated by Wight (2012), tied columns need less complex reinforcement detailing and are simpler to
construct compared to spiral columns, such that they are best applied to the majority of typical buildings where
seismicity is moderate. McCormac and Nelson (2015) note that tied columns are satisfactory in axial loading
and are particularly suited for non-seismic regions or buildings where lateral loads are not significant. Their
construction involves fewer materials and less labor, making project costs and constr uction time less.
Additionally, as indicated by Yilmaz et al. (2018), tied columns are less environmentally demanding,
generating approximately 15% less CO₂ emissions per square meter compared to spiral columns because of
lower reinforcement usage.
Notwithstanding their benefits, tied columns are less ductile and have low energy absorption. In
seismic regions, this is a major limitation. Mander, Priestley, and Park (1988) concluded that tied columns
have brittle modes of failure, with spalling of the concrete and buckling of the bar occurring before the
occurrence in spiral columns. They are therefore undesirable for earthquake load-bearing structures. Warner
et al. (2010) describe that although tied columns are simpler to install, their effectiveness in confinement is
less, which makes them less capable of resisting cyclic loading and lateral deformation. In seismic zones like
base columns in tall buildings or piers in bridges, tied columns might not be enough to show good resilience.
Therefore, use of tied columns is suggested for non-critical members or zones with low risk of seismicity,
where speed of construction and cost effectiveness are more valuable than ductility.

31
 [Link] Advantages and Disadvantages of Spiral Column
Spiral columns are well known for having greater ductility, energy absorption, and post-yield capacity,
particularly subjected to seismic and dynamic loads. As per McCormac and Nelson (2015), the integral spiral
reinforcement extends a uniform level of confinement that resists spalling and increases strength and capacity
for deformation. In perhaps the most widely cited research, Mander, Priestley, and Park (1988) formulated a
stress-strain model for confined concrete that indicated spiral columns exhibit up to 20–40% increased
ductility and increased load-carrying capacity compared to tied columns. They are thus perfectly suited for
earthquake-resistant buildings. Wight (2012) further states that spiral columns perform better in limiting
premature buckling of longitudinal reinforcement because of their uniform lateral restraint. This results in
better retention of strength under seismic conditions. In addition to this, spiral columns can enhance the
structural performance of bridge piers and high-rise buildings. They offer more confinement and stable energy
absorption, which is particularly important for seismic performance-based design (Warner et al., 2010).
Though the structural advantages offered by spiral columns, they face construction and economic issues.
They generally need greater steel reinforcement and labor-intensive fabrication, adding construction
cost by 10–20% over tied columns (Taranath, 2016). Also, accurate fabrication and installation of spiral
reinforcement are necessary to ensure equal pitch and proper cover. Nilson, Darwin, and Dolan (2010)
caution that incorrect placement can decrease efficiency and cause uneven confinement from a sustainability
standpoint, Yilmaz et al. (2018) identified that spiral columns have more embodied carbon emissions
compared to tied columns because they contain more steel — about 416.57 kg CO₂-eq/m² as opposed to
355.07 kg CO₂-eq/m² for tied columns.

[Link] Comparative analysis of Tied and Spiral Column.

In their Mander, Priestley, and Park (1988) proposed a theoretical stress-strain model of confined concrete
that has been used as a benchmark in assessing column types' ductility. In their study, spiral columns showed
far greater energy absorption and ductility, and there was longer spalling delay, leading to enhanced
performance in terms of cyclic loading. Tied columns are strong under axial load but are prone to failure more
suddenly with lesser ductility when seismic loading occurs. Wight (2012) supports this, describing how spiral
columns are superior to tied columns in terms of post-yield behavior and effectiveness at confinement. He
notes their significance in earthquake-resistant buildings, where ductility and energy dissipation can be the
factors for survival during large-scale seismic activity. While they perform better, however, spiral columns cost
more to build. They demand continuous helical reinforcement, which costs more in labor and accuracy in
fabrication and installation. Taranath (2016) points out that the total cost of spiral columns would be 10 –20%
higher than for tied columns and thus more appropriate for average mid-rise structures where seismic forces
are moderate. Environmental impact assessments, like Yilmaz et al. (2018), point out that tied columns have
less embodied carbon, i.e., about 355.07 kg CO₂-eq/m² compared to 416.57 kg CO₂-eq/m² for spiral columns.
The variation is largely due to the higher content of steel in spiral reinforcement. summarize this leave the
experimental results and the citation
2.1.4 Beams
RC Reinforced concrete (RC) beams are common in construction due to their versatility, strength, and
durability over time. These structural elements have an important function of supporting numerous loads and
effectively transmitting them to supporting structures like columns or walls. Deep knowledge of RC beam

32
behavior and design considerations is mandatory to guarantee the stability and safety of a structure. RC beam
performance depends in large part on their composite material makeup—matching concrete's compressive
strength with steel reinforcement's tensile strength. With these, RC beams are well capable of withstanding
various kinds of loads. RC beams perform most naturally with respect to bending moments, in which the top
surface of the beam is under compression while the bottom surface is tensioned. Additionally, RC beams are
also made to withstand shear forces that are exerted along the plane of the beam, in addition to torsional
forces which twist.

[Link]. Singly Reinforced Concrete Beam

Singly reinforced concrete (RC) beams are the most widespread beam type in reinforced
concrete design, especially in low to mid-rise buildings. Singly reinforced beams are reinforced in the
tension zone only because concrete is strong in compression but weak in tension. McCormac and
Nelson (2015) say that singly reinforced beams are structurally efficient and economical when the
bending moment falls within the compressive capacity of concrete. They are best suited for basic spans
and beams where the depth is not critically restricted. The reinforcement is at the bottom (tension side)
of the beam, hence the design and detailing is easier and less expensive.

Furthermore, Wight (2012) observes that singly reinforced beams are sufficient for most
structural members in residential and commercial buildings. They are easier to construct, use less steel,
and cost less overall than more highly reinforced designs. Wight also points out, though, that their
production is constrained by beam section depth since greater demand might necessitate deeper
members or a changeover to doubly reinforced design. Finally, singly reinforced beams have
environmental benefits.

According to Yilmaz et al. (2018), these beams use less steel and concrete compared to doubly
reinforced or prestressed options, resulting in lower embodied carbon emissions, particularly when
applied in structures with moderate structural requirements.

[Link]. Doubly Reinforced Concrete Beam

Doubly reinforced concrete (RC) beams include reinforcement in both the tension and
compression zones and are used when section depth is limited or when singly reinforced beams cannot
handle high bending moments. According to McCormac and Nelson (2015), they are necessary when
architectural constraints prevent adequate compression capacity from the concrete alone. Wight (2012)
emphasizes their importance in high-demand structural areas like high-rises and bridge girders, where
compact yet strong sections are required. Despite using more steel, Yilmaz et al. (2018) argue that
doubly reinforced beams are more material-efficient under heavy loads and support sustainability by
enabling reduced floor-to-floor heights, thus improving overall building efficiency.

2.1.5 Footings
Footings are an inherent element of a building's foundation system, meant to transfer safely the
structural loads from columns and walls down to the ground. Their main role is to avoid over-settlement

33
and maintain the stability of the structure in the long term.
Based on McCormac and Nelson (2015), footings are structural members that transfer axial
loads over larger areas to keep bearing pressures within tolerable limits in soils. They are categorized
primarily as isolated (pad) footings, combined footings, and mat (raft) foundations based on the structural
requirement and soil condition.

[Link] Square Footings and Design Parameters

Square footings are among the most prevalent forms of isolated footings employed in reinforced
concrete structures. They are typically used to carry single columns and are plan symmetrical, thus
being simple to design and build.

As per McCormac and Nelson (2015), square footings are optimal if the column load is
symmetrically applied over the centre and the soil bearing capacity is even over the entire site. Their
symmetry makes the structural analysis and the process of construction quite easier, especially in a
building with a symmetric grid of columns.

Square footings are employed in centrally loaded columns and are effective for homogeneous
soil conditions (McCormac & Nelson, 2015). Major design considerations are load, soil pressure, shear,
and reinforcement (Wight, 2012; Bowles, 1996). Their straightforward nature is suitable for mid-rise
buildings with repeated geometry (Taranath, 2016). Although they are material intensive, their impact
on the environment can be minimized by optimization (Yilmaz et al., 2018)

34
 CHAPTER 3: DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS, AND STANDARDS

3.1 Design Constraints

In evaluating a structure's design, design constraints are instrumental as they set boundaries
which ascertain safety and cost goals. These limitations are usually placed into two classes. Quantitative
constraints utilize equations and numbers, so they have measurable value. In contrast, qualitative
constraints are assessed with descriptive measures and depend on set design standards and principles
along with expert intuition instead of concrete values.

3.1.1 Economic Constraint

The primary economic constraint for this project is the construction material's cost, as it
significantly affects the design’s feasibility. The cost of materials embraces reinforced concrete, steel
reinforcement bars, formwork, masonry units, waterproofing materials, and finishing components needed
for construction of a five-story residential building with a roof deck. The careful selection and distribution of
these materials is important in keeping the costs within the budget while ensuring compliance with the
national standards. The assessment of material costs will consider the actual market prices, suppliers’
quotes, and quantity estimations based on the structural engineering drawings. More efficiency in the use
of materials will be achieved, for example, by eliminating custom sizes for columns and beams. Such
approaches lead to less construction waste and expenditures while ensuring optimal safety and quality
standards.

3.1.2 Sustainability Constraints

Sustainable design is a core principle in modern construction, aiming to minimize
environmental impact while improving occupants' quality of life. Key factors under this constraint include
energy efficiency, use of eco-friendly materials, water-saving strategies, indoor environmental quality, and
site conservation. Sustainable design seeks to balance ecological considerations with human needs,
resulting in buildings that are environmentally responsible, energy-efficient, and conducive to health and
well-being.

3.1.3 Risk Constraint

Risk constraint is the process of assessing the possible dangers and uncertainties that can
impact the safety and performance of the subject 5-storey residential building with roof deck throughout its
service life. For this project, the main risks considered are seismic activity due to the location's proximity to
the West Valley Fault and flooding, considering the location's moderate flood susceptibility. These risks will
be quantified through examination of site conditions, structural design, and local hazard maps. Seismic risk
will be mitigated through adherence to NSCP 2015 seismic design provisions, whereas flood risk will be
managed through raising the level of the finished floor and incorporating drainage solutions. By mitigating
these risks early on in the design stage, the building will be more resilient to natural disasters and better
safeguard both property and occupants in the long run.

3.1.4 Uncertainty Constraint

35
 As the location of the project is in a high-density area, unforeseen natural or man-made
disasters can be devastating. Special caution should be exercised for potential hazards like fires, vehicle
accidents, and earthquakes. As the location is merely 1.0 kilometers from a fault, it will be prone to high
seismic activity. Contrary to this, the building will have seismic-resisting systems in the form of OMRFs with
varying positions of the shear walls. The building must be designed for the worst combinations of loads
according to code to address the uncertainties of the load calculations.

3.1.5 Duration Constraint

Both the customer and the designer must work within schedule limits since shorter
construction times save money and time. Structural integrity must not be sacrificed in the name of
expedited completion. To fulfill deadlines and prevent delays that might increase project costs, careful
preparation is required about the availability of workers, equipment, and materials.

3.2 Trade-offs
The trade-offs presented here were determined after a careful analysis process in which each
alternative was assessed for feasibility within the limits. This included extensive study, including citations to
academic literature, technical articles, industry standards, and other authoritative sources, to ensure that
each conclusion was both educated and balanced.

3.2.1 Lateral Force Resisting System (LFRS)

According to the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP), buildings in seismic
zone 4, particularly those having elevator shafts, must have a lateral force resisting system (LFRS) that can
endure considerable seismic, wind, and other lateral pressures. Elevator cores must also be built to
withstand these loads in order to retain structural integrity during seismic occurrences.

[Link] Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF).

The SMRF system is intended to show ductile behavior, which is essential in earthquake
resistance. Ductility refers to the ability of material to deform without breaking. SMRFs are specially
designed and proportioned to enable beam, column, and connection strength to be capable of resisting a
range of stresses in seismic oscillation. SMRF systems dissipate and distribute seismic energy, enhancing
strength and safety of buildings in high-seismic hazard locations, as required by the NSCP.

[Link] Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame (OMRF)

OMRFs are structural systems that use beams and columns' flexural action to counteract
lateral loads. They can diffuse seismic energy by developing plastic hinges at connections, although their
ductility is not as great as that of SMRFs. OMRFs are better suited for areas with low to moderate seismic
risk or for less significant structures, as long as they adhere to safety code criteria.

3.2.2 Flooring System

The designer will assess several slab types according to their suitable use cases and load-
bearing systems. To choose the best option for the project, the benefits and drawbacks of each kind will be

36
examined.

[Link] One-Way Slab

One-way slabs are of a length-to-width ratio greater than 2:1 and generally deflect in one
direction. They typically do not attempt to offer shear reinforcement because the introduction of stirrups in
slabs is generally cumbersome and costly. Such slabs are reinforced as strips acting as beams, and
structural calculations are carried out for flexure and shear for every meter of width.

[Link] Two-Way Slab

Two-way slabs distribute loads in two directions, have a span ratio of less than two, and are
supported on all four sides. They work well with greater weights and unusual layouts since they are usually
reinforced in both directions. Two-way slabs are thicker and more reinforced, providing superior strength
and load distribution, and are frequently used in both residential and commercial buildings.

3.2.3 Column
Tie and spiral columns, two types of vertical structural components intended mostly for
compression but also vulnerable to lateral stresses, will be detailed by the designer. We'll go over how
each type behaves under stress and how to use it properly.

[Link] Tied Column

Lateral reinforcement, or ties, are used in tied columns to keep the core concrete contained
and stop it from bowing under compressive stresses. High-rise structures frequently utilize these columns
because they assist distribute lateral pressures throughout the structure and sustain vertical loads.

[Link] Spiral Column

Continuously coiled spiral bars support spiral columns, increasing their ductility and
resistance to lateral stresses. Because of their improved stability and uniform load distribution, they are
especially appropriate for earthquake zones. Tall structures frequently feature spiral columns, which can
also add to their visual attractiveness.

3.2.4 Beams
Different types of beam reinforcement will be reviewed, categorized by their performance and
structural roles. The designer will assess each type’s advantages and disadvantages to select the best
option for the building.

[Link] Singly Reinforced Concrete Beam

Singly reinforced beams are simpler and less expensive, but they are suitable for moderate
loads. They have limited strength and require careful design to avoid cracking or brittle fracture. Their use
depends on achieving a balance of structural needs and economics.

37
[Link] Doubly Reinforced Concrete Beam
Doubly reinforced beams are reinforced on both tension and compression sides, with greater
load-carrying capacity and flexibility. While more complex and costly, they are ideal for areas where
bending stresses are most pronounced, with greater safety and performance.

3.3 Summary of Trade-Offs

The main trade-offs that the designers evaluated are shown in a summary graphic. These
were founded on a thorough analysis of case studies, experimental data, academic publications,
engineering manuals, and internet resources, guaranteeing that every design decision was supported by
reliable data and industry best practices.

Table 3.1 Trade-offs Summary

CONFIGURATION 1 CONFIGURATION 2
Lateral Force Resisting Frames

Special Moment Resisting Frames Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames

Columns

Tied Columns Spiral Columns

38
 Beams

Singly Reinforced Beam Doubly Reinforced Beam

Slabs

One-way Slab Two-way Slab

Foundation

Isolated Footings

39
3.4 Database Normalization and Weighted Moving Average
By guaranteeing that design parameters are in line with accepted standards, normalization
plays a crucial part in the design of reinforced concrete buildings. By minimizing mistakes and
inconsistencies, this method makes it possible to provide optimum design solutions that improve structural
performance under a range of loading scenarios. The end product is a reliable, long-lasting, and safe
building.

3.4.1 Normalized Data for Trade-offs

As indicated in Table 3.2 of Chapter 3, normalized values—obtained from Chapter 2's
research studies—were calculated through spreadsheet computation. The table lists normalized values of
the major trade-offs under study, i.e., the Lateral Force Resisting System, columns, and beams. It provides
a basis for comparison of the performance and efficiency of different structural options.

Table 3.2 Normalized Data for Trade-Offs

3.5 Trade-offs Evaluation

Trade-off analysis in reinforced concrete design means the delicate balancing of several
constraints, namely cost-effectiveness, environmental sustainability, risk minimization, uncertainty
considerations, and project duration. The broad analysis enables the designer to make decisions that
guarantee the final structure not only to be compliant and quality, but also functional and economical.

3.5.1 Lateral Resisting Frame System – Overall Trade-off Analysis

Table 3.3 is the total trade-off analysis for the Lateral Force Resisting System. Upon
examination, the Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF) was found to have the highest weighted sum

40
value of 7.3671, followed by 7.2881 for the Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame (OMRF). The outcomes
were obtained from the weighted importance of each of the design constraints. As a result of this analysis,
the SMRF is suggested to be the system of choice for the design due to its better performance in all the
parameters examined.

Table 3.3 Lateral Resisting Frame System Overall Trade-offs Assessment

3.5.2 Column – Overall Trade-off Analysis

Table 3.4 gives the overall trade-off analysis of column design alternatives. Tied column was,
based on weighted sum analysis, superior to the spiral column, with 9.2969 against 9.0120, respectively.
The results are computed based on the percentage weight of each of the design constraints. The tied
column is thus the best alternative among the design alternatives to be employed in the project.

Table 3.4 Column Overall Trade-offs Assessment

41
3.5.3 Beam – Overall Trade-off Evaluation
Table 3.5 provides the overall assessment of trade-offs for beam selection. The Doubly
reinforced concrete beam is better compared to the singly reinforced beam, with a weighted score of
8.5942, against 6.8237 for the latter. This follows from the weights given to each constraint in the design.
The Doubly reinforced concrete beam is thus the optimal one to adopt.

Table 3.5 Beam Overall Trade-offs Assessment

3.5.4 Slab – Overall Trade-off Analysis

Table 3.6 shows the trade-off analysis of slab systems. From it, we observe that the one-way
slab has a lower weighted sum of 3.7310, compared to 4.8373 for the two-way slab. The figures are the
impact of weighted design constraints. From the analysis, the Two-way slab is the slab system to be
employed in the building.

Table 3.6 Slab Overall Trade-offs Assessment

42
3.5.5 Summary of Overall Results
Table 3.7 is a list of some of the combinations of structural design trade-offs that were
analyzed in the study. Table 3.8 further decomposes this list by tabulating the total weighted sum for each
of the combinations, as derived from the individual ratings of the trade-offs across the entire set of design
constraints. Of the alternatives attempted, Combination 1—which consists of the Special Moment Resisting
Frame (SMRF), tied column, singly reinforced concrete beam, and one-way slab—possessed the highest
total rating, and thus is the best structural configuration. Combination 8, which consists of the Ordinary
Moment Resisting Frame (OMRF), spiral column, doubly reinforced beam, and two-way slab, possessed
the lowest rating, and thus is the worst solution.

Table 3.7 Combination of Trade-Offs

Combination LRSF COLUMN BEAM SLAB
1 SMRF TIED SRB One-Way
2 SMRF TIED SRB Two-Way
3 SMRF TIED DRB One-Way
4 SMRF TIED DRB Two-Way
5 SMRF SPIRAL SRB One-Way
6 SMRF SPIRAL SRB Two-Way
7 SMRF SPIRAL DRB One-Way
8 SMRF SPIRAL DRB Two-Way
9 OMRF TIED SRB One-Way
10 OMRF TIED SRB Two-Way
11 OMRF TIED DRB One-Way
12 OMRF TIED DRB Two-Way
13 OMRF SPIRAL SRB One-Way
14 OMRF SPIRAL SRB Two-Way
15 OMRF SPIRAL DRB One-Way
18 OMRF SPIRAL DRB Two-Way

43
 Table 3.8 Combination of Trade-Offs

3.6 Design Standards

The following codes and standards are used in this project:
 National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP)
 National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP)
 American Concrete Institute Building Code Requirements

44
National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP)
is a comprehensive legislative code that embraces the minimum requirements and standards
in the construction, occupancy, and maintenance of all buildings and structures in the Philippines.
Presidential Decree No. 1096 enacted into law the NBCP that aims to safeguard life, health, property, and
public welfare through the promulgation of the rules and regulations that yield safe, functional, and
environmentally responsive buildings. It encompasses nearly all aspects of architecture, including
architectural design, structural systems, electric and mechanical installations, fire protection, sanitation, and
accessibility. Through the enforcement of compliance from the public and private sectors, t he NBCP is the
primary regulatory tool that governs the planning and implementation of all building projects in the
Philippines.

The National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2015,

by contrast is a specialized technical code based on international structural engineering
standards, mainly those of the United States, but adapted to the Philippine environment and geology. It is
employed by engineers to provide the structural integrity and stability of buildings and other structures. The
code has detailed provisions on the analysis and design of various structural systems such as concrete,
steel, timber, and masonry structures, and it outlines the loads that have to be resisted by these structures
such as those resulting from earthquakes, wind, and other loads. The NSCP 2015 is the latest engineering
knowledge and practices and is a vital tool in achieving resilient and sustainable development, particularly
in a disaster-prone country like the Philippines.

The American Concrete Institute's Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
ACI 318, is a global standard applied widely around the world, including by the NSCP as a guide,
specifying the minimum requirements for structural concrete design and construction. ACI 318 ensures that
the concrete elements utilized in buildings and infrastructure projects are safe, serviceable, durable, and
constructible. It has provisions for material selection, proportioning of concrete mixtures, detailing of
reinforcement, structural analysis, and construction procedure. Through the provision of clear and specific
guidelines for designing reinforcement and prestressed concrete systems, ACI 318 allows engineers and
builders to design and construct high-quality, reliable concrete structures to safety and performance
standards.

45
 CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE

4.1 Design Methodology

Figure 4.1 illustrates the geometric model of the 5-storey condominium building as designed
using Midas Gen 2019. Further, the building's framing plans are illustrated in Figures 4.2 and 4.4, indicating
the distribution and arrangement of the structural framing members on each floor level, presenting a
general perspective of the structural system. In addition, Figures 4.5 and 4.6 illustrate the designer's
selected sections' perspective views, i.e., the perimeter, interior perimeter, longitudinal, and interior
longitudinal sections. The figures display vertical views of the building's exterior and interior walls, as well
as the location of doors and windows, for proper alignment during construction and structural stability. The
grids emphasized in the sketches—Grid B (perimeter), Grid D (critical perimeter), Grid 1 (longitudinal), and
Grid 5 (critical longitudinal)—are the key sections selected by the designer for structural analysis.

Figure 4.1: Initial Geometric Model

46
Figure 4.2: Foundation Plan

47
Figure 4.3: 2nd- 4th Framing Plan

48
Figure 4.4: Roof Deck Framing Plan

49
Figure 4.5: Elevation Plan for Perimeter and Interior Perimeter Section

50
Figure 4.6: Elevation Plan for Longitudinal and Interior Longitudinal Section

51
4.1.1 Dead loads.
When designing buildings or other structures, determining dead loads is critical to assuring
the overall safety and stability of the construction. Dead loads are the weights of all building elements
utilized in the structure, including concrete, steel, wood, and other components. According to Section 204.2
of the NSCP 2015, designers must utilize the actual weights of materials and structures when computing
dead loads for design purposes.
Table 4.1 displays a summary of the minimal design dead loads based on the NSCP 2015, which will be
used in the design of the 5-story with roof deck Mix-used structure.

Table 4.1 Minimum Design Loads

Occupancy Materials Floor Load (kpa)
Gypsum Board (5 mm thickness) 0.04
CHB wall (100 mm thickness) 2.4
Stone Concrete 0.23
Movable Partitions 0.24
RESIDENTIAL
Exterior stud wall with back
2.30
vencer
Ceramic tiles 0.77
Total: 5.64
Gypsum Board (5 mm thickness) 0.04
CHB wall (100 mm thickness) 2.4
Stone Concrete 0.23
Movable Partitions 0.24
HALLWAY
Exterior stud wall with back
2.30
vencer
Ceramic tiles 0.77
Total: 5.64
Gypsum Board (5 mm thickness) 0.04
ROOF DECK CHB wall (100 mm thickness) 2.4
Plaster on concrete 0.24

52
 Stone Concrete 0.23
Movable Partitions 0.24
Exterior stud wall with back
2.30
vencer
Ceramic tiles 0.77
Total: 5.87
Book Tile (50 mm) 0.57
Water proofing (Liquid applied) 0.05
ROOF
Rigid Insulation 0.64
Total: 1.26

4.1.2 Live Loads

Designers must consider the weight of occupants, equipment, and fixtures that will be inside a
building when in use or occupied in order to determine live loads. Based on Section 205.1 of building codes,
live loads must be determined on the basis of maximum loads expected, and buildings must be designed in
such a way that they can support such loads for safety and stability.
The table 4.2 below indicates the Minimum uniform live loads of the Occupancy in the Design
of the 5-storey with roof deck Mix-used building:

Table 4.2 Minimum Uniform Live loads

Occupancy Uniform Load

Residential 1.9 Kpa
Hallway 3.8 Kpa
Roof Deck 1.9 Kpa
Roof 4.72 Kpa

4.1.3 Wind Loads

Section 207 of building codes mandates that buildings and other vertical structures must be
designed to withstand wind loads as specified in Sections 207A to 207F.
The Table 4.3 implies the wind load parameters in accordance with the NSCP 2015, which to be utilized in
designing.

53
 Table 4.3 Wind Load Parameters
Basic Wind Speed 187.5
Exposure B
Directional Factor 0.85
Gust Effect Factor 0.85

4.1.4 Seismic Loads

Section 208 of the building regulations requires buildings to be designed to withstand seismic
ground motions so that they do not suffer extensive damage leading to loss of life and property. Designers
must ensure that buildings are constructed to withstand the effect of seismic ground motions, as required
by Section 208, to meet the minimum threshold of safety.
The table 4.4 below show the seismic load parameters to be used in designing with
conformance with the NSCP 2015
Table 4.4 Seismic Load Parameters
Soil Profile Type Sc
Seismic Zone Factor 0.40
Closest Distance to Known Seismic Source 1.0
Importance Factor 1.0
Ductility Coefficient ® 0.85
Period 0.6388

4.1.5 Load Combinations

Table 4.5 gives the various load combinations that are commonly applied in building
structural analysis. The designer employs these combinations to check the various stress conditions for
which the structure will be loaded. The designer determines the combination that gives maximum stress,
and this is used as the governing load case for determining the member forces to be used for design.
This method is crucial as buildings are exposed to different types of loads, and each can
induce different stress effects. The analysis of different cases of loads ensures that the designer is certain
the structure can sustain the worst case of stress conditions, with stability and safety under different
conditions.

54
 Table 4.5 Load Combinations
Description Parameters
1.4(D) NSCP 2015
1.2(D) + 1.6(L) NSCP 2015
1.2(D) + 1.0Wy + 1.0(L) NSCP 2015
1.2(D) + 1.0Wx + 1.0(L) NSCP 2015
1.2(D) - 1.0Wy + 1.0(L) NSCP 2015
1.2(D) - 1.0Wx + 1.0(L) NSCP 2015
1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L) NSCP 2015
1.2(D) + 1.0Ey + 1.0(L) NSCP 2015
1.2(D) - 1.0Ex + 1.0(L) NSCP 2015
1.2(D) - 1.0Ey + 1.0(L) NSCP 2015
0.9D + 1.0Wy NSCP 2015
0.9D + 1.0Wx NSCP 2015
0.9D - 1.0Wy NSCP 2015
0.9D - 1.0Wx NSCP 2015
0.9(D) + 1.0Ex NSCP 2015

4.1.6 Material Properties

The structural elements of the 5-storey Mixed-Used building shall be built of reinforced
concrete. The concrete used in this project shall be 27.58 MPa (4000 psi) compressive strength, and the
reinforcing steel used shall be 413.68 MPa yield strength, Grade 60.

4.1.7 Special Moment-Resisting Concrete Frames Seismic Detailing

For the building to resist seismic forces, there are certain detailing requirements that must be adhered to for
the Special Moment-Resisting Concrete Frames, as per the NSCP 2015 7th Edition. These are:
 A minimum clear span of four times the depth of the beam.
 Maximum tensile reinforcement ratio of 0.025.
 The initial confinement hoop must be placed 50 mm from the support face.

55
 Spacing of hoops must not be more than the smaller of the following: one-fourth of effective depth of
the beam, six times nominal diameter of main rebar, or 150 mm.

4.2 Combination 1
This section describes the modeling, analysis, and structural design of Combination 1. In
Combination 1, the structural elements carrying the loads are tied columns. The structural analysis results
are described in the subsequent sections. This section gives a general overview of the geometric model,
analytical process, and structural design of Combination 1, Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF), Tied
Column, Doubly Reinforced Concrete Beam, Two-way slab and Isolated Footing. The section begins with
the general overview of the structural system and the components.

4.2.1 Geometric Modeling

Figure 4.7 presents the three-dimensional geometric model of the 5-storey Mixed-Used
building with a Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF), Tied Columns, and Singly Reinforced Concrete
Beams. The figure presents the floor layout of the building, columns and beams clearly labeled with their
respective dimensions and locations. The modeled beam is 750 mm x 750 mm in size, and the columns are
800 mm x 800 mm.

Figure 4.7: Geometric Model of Combination 1

56
4.2.2 Structural Analysis
this work presents the structural analysis done on the Special Moment Resisting
Frame (SMRF), according to design considerations taken by the designer.

[Link] Beam end forces.

Figures 4.8 to 4.48 present internal force diagrams from Midas Gen 2019. Such
diagrams indicate the manner in which internal forces—axial forces, shear forces, moments
of bending, and torsional moments—change from one end of the beams to the other. Tables
4.6 to 4.13, further, present in detail a summary of the limiting internal forces in terms of
maximum moment, shear, and torsion magnitudes for the girders. They also present the
maximum axial forces, shears, and moments for the columns for the most critical load
combinations for each perimeter condition. For beams, the internal forces are presented for
different building levels, that is, the ground, third, and fifth floors. For columns, the results
present the entire frame for overall analysis. This tabulated and graphical data is important
in structural design since it decides the ultimate internal forces to which structural members
may be subjected during their lifetime. This data gives the designer insights into how to
ensure the structural members are adequately sized and reinforced to resist the anticipated
loads and ensure the building remains safe and structurally sound.

[Link].1 Beams

Figure 4.8: Beam Diagram of Shear (Fz) – GRID 1: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

57
 Figure 4.9: Beam Diagram of Shear (Fy) – GRID 1: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

Figure 4.10: Beam Diagram of Torsion (Mx) – GRID 1: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

58
Figure 4.11: Beam Diagram of Torsion (My) – GRID 1: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

Figure 4.12: Beam Diagram of Moments (Mz) – GRID 1: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

59
Figure 4.13: Beam Diagram of Shear (Fz) – GRID 4: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

Figure 4.14: Beam Diagram of Shear (Fy) – GRID 4: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

60
Figure 4.15: Beam Diagram of Torsion (Mx) – GRID 4: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

Figure 4.16: Beam Diagram of Moments (My) – GRID 4: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

61
 Figure 4.17: Beam Diagram of Moments (Mz) – GRID 4: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

Table 4.6 Maximum Moments, Shear, Torsion of Girder from Beam Diagram (GRID 1&4)

Structural Shear Shear Torsion Moment Moment

Level
Member (Fz) (Fy) (Mx) (My) (Mz)
Ground 59.33 0.002 0.18 54.05 0
Perimiter 3rd 59.60 0 0.6 53.97 0.002
5th 33.0 0 0.4 39.0 26.55
Ground 251.8 0.005 0.55 192.1 0.006
Critical
3rd 251.3 0.002 0.29 188.79 0
Perimeter
5th 183.67 0.001 0.17 121.3 0.15

62
Figure 4.18: Beam Diagram of Shear (Fz) – GRID F: Load Combination 10: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ey + 1.0(L)

Figure 4.19: Beam Diagram of Shear (Fy) – GRID F: Load Combination 10: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ey + 1.0(L)

63
Figure 4.20: Beam Diagram of Torsion (Mx) – GRID F: Load Combination 10: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ey + 1.0(L)

Figure 4.21: Beam Diagram of Torsion (My) – GRID F: Load Combination 10: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ey + 1.0(L)

64
Figure 4.22: Beam Diagram of Moment (Mz) – GRID F: Load Combination 10: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ey + 1.0(L)

Figure 4.23: Beam Diagram of Shear (Fz) – GRID C: Load Combination 9: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

65
Figure 4.24: Beam Diagram of Shear (Fy) – GRID C: Load Combination 9: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

Figure 4.25: Beam Diagram of Torsion (Mx) – GRID C: Load Combination 9: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

66
Figure 4.26: Beam Diagram of Torsion (My) – GRID C: Load Combination 9: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

Figure 4.27: Beam Diagram of Moment (Mz) – GRID C: Load Combination 9: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

67
 Table 4.7 Maximum Moments, Shear, Torsion of Girder from Beam Diagram (GRID F&c)

Structural Shear Shear Torsion Moment Moment

Level
Member (Fz) (Fy) (Mx) (My) (Mz)
Ground 74.06 0.002 0.32 96.82 0.09
Longitudinal 3rd 73.33 0.001 0.34 96.5 1.04
5th 54.99 0.001 0.18 79.5 0
Ground 66.0 0.001 0.01 141.0 0.02
Critical
3rd 66.0 0 0.05 144.9 0.01
Longitudinal
5th 102.91 0 0.06 133.03 0.01

[Link].2 Columns

Figure 4.28: Beam Diagram of Axial (Fx) – GRID 1: Load Combination 18: 0.9(D) - 1.0Ey

68
Figure 4.29: Beam Diagram of Shear (Fy) – GRID 1: Load Combination 18: 0.9(D) - 1.0Ey

Figure 4.30: Beam Diagram of Shear (Fz) – GRID 1: Load Combination 18: 0.9(D) - 1.0Ey

69
Figure 4.31: Beam Diagram of Moments (My) – GRID 1: Load Combination 18: 0.9(D) - 1.0Ey

Figure 4.32: Beam Diagram of Moments (Mz) – GRID 1: Load Combination 18: 0.9(D) - 1.0Ey

70
Figure 4.33: Beam Diagram of Axial (Fx) – GRID 4: Load Combination 9: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

Figure 4.34: Beam Diagram of Shear (Fy) – GRID 4: Load Combination 9: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

71
 Figure 4.35: Beam Diagram of Shear (Fz) – GRID 4: Load Combination 9: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

Figure 4.36: Beam Diagram of Moments (My) – GRID 4: Load Combination 9: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

72
 Figure 4.37: Beam Diagram of Moments (Mz) – GRID 4: Load Combination 9: 1.2(D) - 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

Table 4.8 Maximum Moments, Shear, and Axial Forces of Column from Beam Diagram (GRID 1&4)

Structural Shear Shear Torsion Moment Moment

Level
Member (Fz) (Fy) (Mx) (My) (Mz)
Grid 1-A -259.08 23.81 -66.12 24.59 17.55
Grid 1-B -611.55 26.44 -27.43 28.77 12.01
Grid 1-C -770.09 15.91 -13.9 -18.31 -15.62
Perimiter
Grid 1-D -532.22 35.25 -11.02 -19 -10.09
Grid 1-E -366.9 -211.0 -15.18 13.64 -11.80
Grid 1-F -195.23 122.55 31.49 13.41 33.66
Grid 4-A -721.71 21 -21.64 42.81 -90.43

Critical Grid 4-B -990.15 -12.44 -25.19 58.10 4.2

Perimeter Grid 4-C -1184.88 -18.61 -27.03 91.51 -0.01
Grid 4-D -845.15 5.99 -30.17 86.40 0.09

73
 Grid 4-E -333.67 29.85 68.5 51.77 -61.54
Grid 4-F -789.43 13.11 - 155.33 -144.0 -9.0

Figure 4.38: Beam Diagram of Axial (Fx) – GRID F: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

74
Figure 4.39: Beam Diagram of Shear (Fy) – GRID F: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

Figure 4.40: Beam Diagram of Shear (Fz) – GRID F: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

75
Figure 4.41: Beam Diagram of Moment (My) – GRID F: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

Figure 4.42: Beam Diagram of Moment (Mz) – GRID F: Load Combination 7: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ex + 1.0(L)

76
Figure 4.43: Beam Diagram of Axial (Fx) – GRID C: Load Combination 8: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ey + 1.0(L)

Figure 4.44: Beam Diagram of Shear (Fy) – GRID C: Load Combination 8: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ey + 1.0(L)

77
Figure 4.45: Beam Diagram of Shear (Fz) – GRID C: Load Combination 8: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ey + 1.0(L)

Figure 4.46: Beam Diagram of Moments (My) – GRID C: Load Combination 8: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ey + 1.0(L)

78
Figure 4.47: Beam Diagram of Moments (Mz) – GRID C: Load Combination 8: 1.2(D) + 1.0Ey + 1.0(L)

Table 4.8 Maximum Moments, Shear, and Axial Forces of Column from Beam Diagram (GRID F&C)

Structural Shear Shear Torsion Moment Moment

Level
Member (Fz) (Fy) (Mx) (My) (Mz)
Grid F-1 310.92 15.66 100.83 97.11 60.2
Grid F-2 1498.55 16.71 -4.01 9.88 -1.9
Grid F-3 -1895.1 32.64 33.8 -25.68 -12.0
Perimiter
Grid F-4 -2001.51 29.03 21.55 -24.89 -0.4
Grid F-5 -1551.17 16.14 58.19 26.83 -19.42
Grid F-6 -418.85 12.20 61.55 -44.22 5.11
Grid C- 1 -1338.17 -21.55 -71.17 28.08 -0.05

Critical Grid C- 2 -1331.46 -0.04 -6.22 7.98 -7.52

Perimeter Grid C- 3 -2666.17 -17.17 -11.28 11.06 -10.99

Grid C-

79
 4 -800.12 -1.0 -3.99 -9.05 12.0
Grid C- 5 -1913.0 -19.88 -4.5 -28 64.5

[Link].3 Slabs

Figure 4.48: 1st- 3rd - 5th Floor Slab - Two-way (To be designed)

Table 4.8 Loads for Slabs: Based on Floor Loads Assigned

Corridor Loads (kN)

Live Load 9.5
Dead Load 1.9

80
4.2.3 Structural design
The 5-storey Mixed-use building, done through manual calculation. The detailed
computations are available in the appendix, which support the design data shown in Tables 4.9 to 4.17.
This section of the study deals with the determination of the suitable structural system, materials, and
member sizes needed to achieve the building's purpose to be able to support its own weight, the imposed
loads, and the occupancy loads safely and economically. Specifically, this section outlines the design
process for Combination 1, which includes a Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF), singly reinforced
concrete beams, tied columns, spread footings, and one-way slabs. For additional discussion of the
detailing and scheduling requirements of the design, refer to Chapter 5.

Table 4.9 Design of Beam Perimeter and Critical Grid 1&4

Stirrups
Grid Level Tension Steel Side Bars
Spacing
1st 2-16mmØ 12 mm Ø, 1 @50, Not required
10 @100, rest @
1 3rd 2-16mmØ Not required
250mm cc
Girders 5th 2-16mmØ 12 mm Ø, 1 @50, Not required
15 @100, rest @
1st 2-16mmØ Not required
250mm cc

4 3rd 2-20mmØ 10 mm Ø, 1 @50, Not required

12 @100, rest @
5th 2-20mmØ Not required
250mm cc

Table 4.10 Design of Beam Longitudinal and Critical Grid F&C

Stirrups
Grid Level Tension Steel Side Bars
Spacing
1st 2-20mmØ 12 mm Ø, 1 @50, Not required
10 @100, rest @
1 3rd 2-25mmØ Not required
Girders 250mm cc

5th 2-25mmØ 12 mm Ø, 1 @50, Not required

12 @100, rest @
1st 2-20mmØ Not required
250mm cc
4 3rd 2-20mmØ 10 mm Ø, 1 @50, Not required

81
 12 @100, rest @
5th 2-16mmØ Not required
250mm cc

Table 4.11 Design of Beam Longitudinal and Critical Grid F&C

Structural Main bar

Level Ties
Section reinforcement
Grid 1-A 12-32mmØ 10mmØ
Grid 1-B 8-32mmØ 10mmØ
Grid 1-C 8-28mmØ 12mmØ
Perimiter
Grid 1-D 12-32mmØ 12mmØ
Grid 1-E 8-28mmØ 10mmØ
Grid 1-F 8-36mmØ 12mmØ
Grid 4-A 12-32mmØ 12mmØ
Grid 4-B 10-36mmØ 10mmØ

Critical Grid 4-C 10-32mmØ 10mmØ

Perimeter Grid 4-D 12-36mmØ 10mmØ
Grid 4-E 8-32mmØ 10mmØ
Grid 4-F 8-36mmØ 10mmØ

Table 4.12 Design of Spread Footing for the 5-storey Mixed-used Residential/commericial Building
Structural Section Grids Main Bar Reinforcement Depth of footings
Perimeter Grid 1 5-28mmØ 1000mm
Critical Perimeter Grid 4 5-28mmØ 1000mm
Longitudinal Grid F 7-28mmØ 1000mm
Critical Longitudinal Grid C 7-28mmØ 1000mm

82
 Table 4.13 Design of one- way slab: 5-storey Mixed-Used Residential/commericial Building
Structural
Levels thickness Diameter of bar Spacing Temp Bars
Section
170mm @
support, top
1st 175mm 12mmØ 265mm
bars 265mm @
midspan
170mm @
support, top
Whole Section 3rd 175mm 10mmØ 265mm
bars 265mm @
midspan
170mm @
support, top
5th 175mm 12mmØ 265mm
bars 265mm @
midspan

4.3 Combination 2

83