TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

938 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

Civil Engineering Department

CE 506
CE Design Projects 1

DESIGN OF FOUR-STOREY FIRE STATION IN COGEO, ANTIPOLO CITY

PREPARED BY:
BALAGOT, KRISTIAN REY C.
CO, CHRISTIAN C.
GONZALES, RENDEL MARK

CE51FA1

SUBMITTED TO:
ENGR. CAROL GRACE ALCID
Adviser

AUGUST 2019
 CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS

2.1 Description of the structure

Using the architectural plan, the structure frame of the building was created as shown in Figure 2-1
Using STAAD Pro V8i. The Fire Station has four floor levels and has two access stairs located one at the
center of the center of the building and two are located at the back of the building built separately at both
ends the stairs at the back are made of steel. Mostly, the building includes a special moment reinforced
concrete along longitudinal and traverse sections of the structure as shown in Figure 2-1. The following
classification and design parameters were based on the governing policies set by the National Structural
Code of the Philippines as well as the National Building Code.

Figure 2-1. STAAD Pro V8i Geometric Model

2.2 Classification of the Structure
The designer classified the occupancy of the structure based on the codes provided by National Structural
Codes of the Philippines (NSCP). It is significant for the structure to be categorized according to its
occupancy for the basis of the parameters necessary for seismic and wind analysis.
Table 2-1. Room Function and Quantity

Function Quantity
Fire Truck Garage 2 units
Toilet and Bathroom 8 units
Storage Room 6 units
Conference Room 1 unit
Office 1 unit
Dormitory 12 units
Locker Room 1 unit
Kitchen and Canteen 1 unit
Training Room 1 unit
Fitness Gym 1 unit
Total 34
Table 2-2. Room Classification with Corresponding Area

Floor Function Area Unit

Ground Floor Fire Truck Garage 1 50 m2
Ground Floor Fire Truck Garage 2 50 m2
Ground Floor Toilet and Bathroom 10 m2
Ground Floor Storage and Facility 20 m2
Ground Floor Guard’s desk/ Lobby 20 m2
Second Floor Archive And storage 20 m2
Second Floor Staff and office Room 50 m2
Second Floor Conference Room 50 m2
Second Floor Lobby 20 m2
Second Floor Toilet and Bathroom 10 m2
Staff Room with locker
Third Floor area 60 m2
Toilet and Bathroom
Third Floor with Shower Area 20 m2
Third Floor Kitchen and Canteen 50
Third Floor Lounge 20 m2
Fourth Floor Storage 20 m2
Training and
Fourth Floor Discussion room 50 m2
Fourth Floor Toilet and Bathroom 10 m2
Fourth Floor Fitness Gym Area 50 m2
Fourth Floor Lobby/lounge 20 m2
2.2.1 Architectural Plans
The architectural plans were provided by the designer for the client. As for the design of the foor-storey fire
station building, the designer exceed the minimum sizes of the rooms but some are considered to the
minimum to maximize the lot provided for the building.

Figure 2-2. Ground Floor Plan

 Figure 2-3. 2nd Floor

Figure 2-4. 3rd Floor Plan

Figure 2-5. 4th Floor Plan

Figure 2-6. Front Elevation

 Figure 2-7. Rear Elevation

Figure 2-8. Left Side Elevation

Figure 2-9. Right Side Elevation
2.3 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES
2.3.1 Foreign Literatures and Studies
According to K. Thompson (2006), lightweight construction has been a curse to the fire service, but
this problem is amplified when the bearing structural members are made of lightweight cold-formed steel.
The steel members are the same size as traditional wood framing in nominal widths of 2 feet x 4 feet or 2
feet × 6 feet and made of dime-thick (14 gauge) U-shaped channels of galvanized steel. For the construction
industry and the homeowner, there are several advantages, including cost and resistance to rot and termites.
Steel studs have been used for many years for non-load bearing interior partitions in commercial buildings.
The materials used and the methods employed in lightweight steel frame construction pose a tremendous
risk to firefighters. The structural elements are co-dependent on each other, as they are in all buildings. In
these structures, it appears there is a small safety design margin for the assault from fire. Once the steel
loses its strength from the heat, collapse occurs quickly. There does not appear to be any grace or
forgiveness when these steel members fail.
The failure rate of steel is affected by the following: the size of the steel member, the load supported
by the framing system, the amount of heat exposure (this will vary according to the amount and type of interior
finish used to cover the steel framing), and the distance from the steel unit to the fire. The only protection for
the steel is the gypsum board wall covering. The thermal insulation priorities of 1/2-inch gypsum board will
not greatly delay the transfer of heat to the framing members. Once the wall stud space inside the wall
reaches 500°F, failure is possible. These structural members do not need a great deal of time to be heated
to the failure temperature. They lack mass! The cold-formed steel members have periodic holes punched
through the member. The holes, like all penetrations, will allow fire and heat to travel in concealed spaces.
Although they may not be directly related to the collapse problem, the penetrations are of concern when
checking for extension. These holes will also allow hot fire gases to weaken other steel members. In looking
at one of these homes under construction, voids that extended throughout the walls were noted. Fire can
easily travel to the attic once it enters a concealed space.
Source:https://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-159/issue-6/features/the-dangers-of-
lightweight-steel-construction.html

A. Titiksh and Dr. M.K. Gupta (2015), stated that the selection of a particular type of framing system
depends upon two important parameters i.e. Seismic risk of the zone and the budget. The lateral forces
acting on any structure are distributed according to the flexural rigidity of individual components. Indian Codes
divide the entire country into four seismic zones (II, III, IV & V) depending on the seismic risks. OMRCF is
probably the most commonly adopted type of frame in lower seismic zones. However, with increase in the
seismic risks, it becomes insufficient and SMRCF or Steel Brace frames need to be adopted.
A rigid frame in structural engineering is the load-resisting skeleton constructed with straight or
curved members interconnected by mostly rigid connections which resist movements induced at the joints of
members. Its members can take bending moment, shear, and axial loads. They are of two types: Rigid-
framed Structures & Braced-frames Structures The two common assumptions as to the behavior of a building
frame are that its beams are free to rotate at their connections and that its members are so connected that
the angles they make with each other do not change under load. Moment-resisting frames are rectilinear
assemblages of beams and columns, with the beams rigidly connected to the columns. Resistance to lateral
forces is provided primarily by rigid frame action-that is, by the development of bending moment and shear
force in the frame members and joints. Frames may be designed using concept of strong column-weak girder
proportions. There are two types of MRF: OMRF and SMRF. Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame (OMRF) is
a moment-resisting frame not meeting special detailing requirements for ductile behavior. Special Moment
Resisting Frame (SMRF) is a moment-resisting frame specially detailed to provide ductile behavior and
comply with the requirements given in IS-4326 or IS-13920 or SP6.
Source:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283266570_A_Study_of_the_Various_Structural_Framing_Syste
ms_Subjected_to_Seismic_Loads

According to A. Agrawal and S. Charkha (2012), incorporation of shear wall has become inevitable
in multi-storey building to resist lateral forces. It is very necessary to determine effective, efficient and ideal
location of shear wall. In their study of 25 storey building in zone V is presented with some preliminary
investigation which is analyzed by changing various position of shear wall with different shapes for
determining parameters like storey drift, axial load and displacement. This analysis is done by using standard
package ETAB. RC multi-storey building are adequate for resisting both the vertical and horizontal load.
When such building is designed without shear wall , beam and column sizes are quite heavy and there is lot
of congestion at these joint and it is difficulty to place and vibrate concrete at these places and displacement
is quite heavy which induces heavy forces in member. Shear wall may become imperative from the point of
view of economy and control of lateral deflection. In RC multi-storey building lift well or shear wall are usual
requirement. Centre of mass and stiffness of the building is ideal for a structure. However, on many occasions
the design has to be based on the off centre position of lift and stair case wall with respect to centre of mass
which results into an excessive forces in most of the structural members, unwanted torsional moment and
deflection. From preliminary investigation it reveals that the significant effects on deflection in orthogonal
direction by the shifting the shear wall location. Placing Shear wall away from centre of gravity resulted in
increase in most of the members forces. Location of shear wall effects on static and dynamic axial load on
the column. The displacement of building is uni-directional and uniform for all the grids in the case of Zero
eccentricity for seismic loading. With the increase in eccentricity, the building shows non-uniform movement
of right and left edges of roof due to torsion and induces excessive moment and forces in member.
Source:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265542010_EFFECT_OF_CHANGE_IN_SHEAR_WALL_LOCATI
ON_ON_STOREY_DRIFT_OF_MULTISTOREY_BUILDING_SUBJECTED_TO_LATERAL_LOADS

According to K. S. Muniraju and K. G. Subramanya (2015), the speed growth of population in urban
areas and the consequent pressure on limited space considerably influenced tall building constructions in
developing countries like India. These tall buildings can be constructed using various structural systems. At
present, normally conventional RC Frame buildings are adopted for the construction. These structures are
usually adopted to overcome the large moments developing due to the applied loads. On other hand, the flat
slab structural systems in which slab is directly rested on columns have been used in many buildings
constructed recently due to the advantage of increased clear floor to floor heights to meet the economical,
easier form work, shorter construction period and architectural demands. In the present work conventional
RC frame and Flat Slab building of G+3, G+7, and G+11 storey structural models are considered. The
vulnerability of purely frame and purely flat slab models for seismic load is analyzed considering different soil
conditions and seismic zones. An attempt is made to compare the response of conventional RC frame model
and flat slab model for earthquake load. The analysis is carried out with both equivalent static method and
response spectrum method. Parameters like lateral displacement, time period, storey drift and base shear
are computed using analytical software and comparison is made between both structural systems and the
results are presented.
Based on the outcomes of the analysis following conclusions are drawn, the natural time period
increases as the height of structure increases, irrespective of type of structure viz. flat slab structure,
conventional structure. In comparison of the flat slab model and conventional R.C.C frame model, the time
period is more for flat slab model than conventional frame since the conventional RC frame is stiffer than the
flat slab model. The difference between the two varies from 32-50%. It can be observed from the analysis,
maximum drift occurs at middle height of the structural models. Lateral displacement of conventional R.C.C
building is less than the flat slab building because the structure is stiffer than flat slab structure. The difference
between the two varies from 35-52%. As the result of comparison between two mentioned analysis it is
observed that the Lateral displacement, base shear and storey drift obtained by static analysis is higher than
dynamic analysis. Hence the structure design is governed by static analysis for the models considered for
the analysis. When compare flat slab with conventional method, flat slab is best for horizontal plan irregularity
buildings.
Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/293956637/Comparative-Study-of-Seismic-Analysis-between-
Conventional-RC-Frame-and-Flat-Slab-with-Drop

According to A. Titiksh and G. Bhatt (2017), shear walls are the most commonly used lateral load
resisting systems in high rises. They have high plane stiffness and strength which can be used to
simultaneously resist large horizontal loads while also supporting gravity loads. Hence it is necessary to
determine effective and ideal locations of shear walls. Shear wall arrangement must be absolutely accurate,
if not, it may cause negative effects instead. In their project, a study has been carried out to determine the
effects of additions of shear walls and also the optimum structural configuration of multistory buildings by
changing the shear wall locations radically. Four different cases of shear wall positions for G+10 storey
buildings have been analyzed by computer application software ETABS. The framed structure was subjected
to lateral and gravity loading in accordance with the Indian Standards provision and the results were analyzed
to determine the optimum positioning of the shear walls.
Reinforced concrete (RC) buildings often have vertical plate-like RC walls called Shear Walls in
addition to slabs, beams and columns. These walls generally start at foundation level and continue throughout
the building's height. The researchers concluded that among all other considered possibilities, CASE 4
(Building with Box-type Shear Wall at the center of the geometry) is the ideal framing technique for medium
& high rise buildings. To further increase the effectiveness of the structure, earthquake resisting techniques
such as Seismic Dampers & Base Isolation can be used.
Source:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318400433_Optimum_Positioning_of_Shear_Walls_for_Minimizin
g_the_Effects_of_Lateral_Forces_in_Multistorey-Buildings

According to Apostolska et al. (2008), flat-slab building structures possesses major advantages over
traditional slab-beam-column structures because of the free design of space, shorter construction time,
architectural –functional and economical aspects. Because of the absence of deep beams and shear walls,
flat-slab structural system is significantly more flexible for lateral loads then traditional RC frame system and
that make the system more vulnerable under seismic events. The researchers concluded that purely flat-slab
RC structural system is considerably more flexible for horizontal loads than the traditional RC frame structures
which contributes to the increase of its vulnerability to seismic effects. The critical moment in design of these
systems is the slab-column connection, i.e., the penetration force in the slab at the connection, which should
retain its bearing capacity even at maximal displacements. The ductility of these structural systems is
generally limited by the deformability capacity of the column-slab connection. To increase the bearing
capacity of the flat-slab structure under horizontal loads, particularly when speaking about seismically prone
areas and limitation of deformations, modifications of the system by adding structural elements are
necessary.
Source: http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/14_05-01-0435.PDF

2.3.2 Local Literatures and Studies

According to Mendoza et al. (2011), CHB walls are commonly used in low-rise buildings as non-
structural elements that are usually neglected in the analysis of frames as they are assumed not to carry any
lateral forces during seismic activity. Their paper presents a practical method of modeling CHB masonry for
seismic analysis. The inherent in-plane strength and stiffness of these walls attract substantial amount of in-
plane forces which were solely assigned to carry by the compositing frame. These actions deviates the
behavior of the frame by decreasing the natural period of the structure and correspondingly increase the
applied seismic forces. Hence, the frame behavior cannot just be idealized as a simple bare frame but instead
a CHB in-filled frame. It was therefore the objective of the study to model the CHB walls in order to determine
its effects on the low-rise reinforced concrete frame.
Based on the results of this analytical and experimental study, the following conclusions were drawn,
The global behavior of a CHB-infilled RCF frame may be evaluated by modeling stiffness contribution of CHB
walls as equivalent compression strut. The seismic assessment and comparison on the behavior of bare RCF
and an CHB-infilled RCF was done by via pushover analysis. Results shows that the inclusion of CHB walls
in the analysis of low-rise RCF has significantly altered the behavior of the frame under seismic loading. The
results from the analytical investigation shows that considering the effects of CHB walls in the seismic
performance of low-rise RC frame can increase the over-all strength and stiffness of the frame 26.5% and
12.7%, respectively. However, it was observed that the ductility of the frame was considerably reduced. The
width of the compression strut increases with the decrease in stiffness of the CHB masonry. A graph
relationship between the width of compression strut and stiffness of CHB masonry shows a good agreement
with the set of curves presented by some authors in the literature.
Source:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299745926_MODELING_OF_CHB_MASONRY_FOR_SEISMIC_
ANALYSIS_OF_LOW-
RISE_REINFORCED_CONCRETE_FRAMES_EFFECTS_OF_CHB_MASONRY_PROPERTIES

According to O. Ace (2018), recent history has seen the unrelenting effects of natural disasters—
earthquakes, storm surges, typhoons—on different structures. Among these structures are schools,
government office buildings, and homes. Many have been reinforced, renovated, or rebuilt following these
disasters. Most structures, particularly in the Philippines, are designed using the National Structural Code of
the Philippines (NSCP), with which a set of minimum requirements (e.g., strength, stiffness, connections,
etc.) based on the structural loads expected throughout the building’s lifetime. However, with the increasing
frequency of natural disasters—particularly typhoons—which are unusually large loads these structures will
have to carry; one may not have a clear expectation of the performance of these code-designed buildings.
These structures may underperform or be overdesigned. Building back better, more resilient structures
requires one to gain insight on what specifically causes them to fail, how likely these specific causes are to
happen, and ultimately what the consequences of these failures are. Once this information is available, the
weaknesses in these designs may then be better addressed. The objective of the paper is to be able to
quantify the performance of the different structures in order to see the relative influence of changes made in
the different design variables. Understanding the different factors that affect how a structure performs against
a hazard will allow better insight into how to design new structures that are more resilient.
Throughout the different levels of analyses conducted, it was evident that, generally, performance of
the structures was influenced by modifications made in the roof pitch. This is due to the larger surface area
roof cover has compared to the total window surface area in any one of the structures. This is also consistent
with what is observed in numerous studies on wind engineering, where severe wind damage follows a
progressive, top to bottom trend. Modifying the building aspect ratio however had a greater effect on window
damage, where more slender structures incurred more damage. Regarding hazard characterization: the
Gumbel distribution function used in this study generally shows a good fit except for extreme wind speeds,
which was evident in the Gumbel plot generated, where data points for higher wind speeds had larger
deviations from the trend line. The test of other distribution functions to describe severe wind hazard is
recommended. Investigating more design components, damage indicators, and types of structures is
recommended to get clearer expectations of performance. This will allow for better insight into the
weaknesses and even strengths of current designs, thus allowing designers to help in building back more
resilient structures.
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705818300808
 According to M. R. Willford and R. J. Smith (2008), St Francis Shangri-La Place, Manila, is a
development of two similar 210m tall residential buildings approximately 38m square in plan located in a
region of typhoon winds and in UBC-97 seismic Zone 4. Each building has a reinforced concrete core with
an irregular arrangement of perimeter columns and walls and incorporates a two storey deep outrigger
system at approximately half the overall height. Each outrigger is connected to the adjacent perimeter
columns by means of vertically acting fluid-viscous dampers. The structural design of high-rise buildings is
often governed by dynamic performance in winds, and in regions of high seismicity, by seismic performance.
Conventional practice is to stiffen a building in order to reduce the dynamic response under wind loading.
However, this has the effect of increasing the seismic forces the building must be designed for. By adding a
robust supplementary damping system to the structure instead of stiffening, both wind responses and seismic
forces are reduced – which leads to construction cost savings. This paper describes the structural design of
two similar 60 storey towers in Manila using performance-based procedures for seismic and wind actions.
High-rise buildings designed by performance-based methods not only perform better than conventionally
designed ones, but are also less expensive to construct. The buildings incorporate the Arup Damped
Outrigger System, and the savings realized by this are discussed.
Studies performed for the design of these buildings demonstrate factors relevant to many high-rise
buildings. Firstly, the inclusion of a robust non-tuned supplementary damping system can substantially
reduce wind load effects, permitting more economical structural design and reducing the risks associated
with uncertain intrinsic damping. Secondly, performance based seismic design is essential for such buildings.
Blindly following ‘code’ procedures restricts the design to unsuitable and uneconomic structural forms that
will not perform well in strong earthquakes because the shear demand on the building may be underestimated
and it is unlikely that the required flexural ductility at the base of the core would be achieved. If the prescriptive
code rule regarding proportion of shear to be resisted by moment frames is followed, the structural cost can
increase dramatically with minimal effect on performance. Thus, paradoxically, ‘code-designed’ high-rise
buildings can be both more expensive and less safe than those designed by performance-based techniques.
Source: https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/14_05-06-0092.PDF

According to Anwar et al. (2012), performance based design is a state-of-the-art design tool in the
seismic design, which has been widely used, for seismic evaluation of existing buildings and seismic design
of number of new tall buildings. The conventional seismic design codes apply the global response
modification factors (R factors) as the important role in the determination of seismic design forces. The R
factor accounts for reduction of seismic forces to predict the inelastic response of the building, resulting from
the simplified elastic analysis methods. The shortcoming is that R factor does not account the structural
performance of component level as well as the seismic ground motion characteristics. The elastic analysis
procedures do not consider the redistribution of seismic demand in the various components of building at the
state of inelastic behaviour under strong seismic events. The purpose of this paper is to present the state of
practice using in Philippines for the performance based seismic design of reinforced concrete tall buildings.
Initially, the overall methodology follows “An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall
Buildings Located in the Los Angeles Region, 2008”, which was developed by Los Angeles Tall Buildings
Structural Design Council. After 2010, the design procedure follows “Tall Buildings Initiative, Guidelines for
Performance Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings, 2010” developed by Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center (PEER).
In conclusion, performance based seismic design is common in local structural engineering practice
as well as in the awareness of the real estate developers in the Philippines. Most of the high-rise buildings
are designed using performance based seismic design procedures in accordance with most recent guidelines
and standards. In spite of the absence of proper definition of seismic hazards and mapping in National
Structural Code of the Philippines, probabilistic seismic hazard assessment is conducted for Metro Manila
and site-specific seismic hazard information is used in performance-based design of tall buildings located in
Manila area.
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265210516_PBSD_State_of_Practice_in_Philippines