PART I.

STRUCTURAL RE-ANALYSIS AND MODELING OF PEZA BUILDING

A. INTRODUCTION
The Philippine Export Processing Zone Authority (PEZA) Building is a six (6) storey
reinforced concrete building constructed in the 1960s. The sixth floor level was an
additional one-floor office space constructed above the five storey existing building.
In the conduct of the structural evaluation and analysis of the structural stability of
the PEZA Building, PSquare & Associates Co. adopted a systematic procedure
using the information and results of the Preliminary Evaluation done by RS Ison and
Associates which were provided by PEZA. The procedure involves an independent
materials property, evaluation/investigation and determination of in-place structural
capacity of structural components which included frame analysis and computations
of Demand-Capacity Ratios (DCRs). The Structural Analysis was done by creating a
structural model using ETABS Software while other analyses were carried out by
using MS-Excel worksheets. The results of the materials property evaluation were
used in determining the structural capacities of critical members i.e. Beams,
Columns. Linear Static Lateral Force Procedure (LSP) was done following codeprescribed procedure while Linear Dynamic Procedure (LDP) using Response
Spectrum Analysis was undertaken considering the results of the site specific study
which were modified following the code-prescribed procedures for LDP.

B. STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA USED IN THE EVALUATION

1. Applicable Codes and Standards
a. National Structural Code of the Philippines Volume I for Buildings,
Towers and Other Vertical Structures 2010 6th Edition
b. National Building Code of the Philippines
c. ASEP Earthquake Design Manual
d. Building Code Requirements of Structural Concrete, ACI 318-08
2. Gravity Loads
a. Dead Load
Concrete = 24 kN/cu.m.
Structural Steel = 77.0 kN/cu. m.
b. Superimposed Dead Load
Concrete/Floor Finish = 1.2 kPa
Partitions = 1.0 kPa
CHB 150 mm = 2.7 kPa
Ceiling and Fixtures = 0.60 kPa
Waterproofing = 0.05 kPa
3. Live Load
Office Units = 2.4 kPa
Lobby/Corridor/Social Hall = 4.8 kPa
Storage = 7.2 kPa
Maintenance/Electrical Room = 6.0 kPa

Stairway = 4.8 kPa

Machine Room = 6.00 kPa
Roof Deck = 2.4 kPa
4. Seismic Load
a. Static Lateral Force Procedure
Design Base Shear, V
V = (CvI/RT)W
Should not exceed:
V = (2.5CaI/R)W
and should not be less than:
V = 0.11CaIW or
V = (0.8ZNvI/R)W
Where :

Cv = seismic coefficient, NSCP Table 208-8 = 0.896

Ca = Sesimci coefficient, NSCP Table 208-7 = 0.484
Nv = near source factor, NSCP Table 208-5/208-6 = 1.4
(distance from source=7.5 km)
Z = zone factor 0.40
R = response modification factor = 8.5
I = importance factor 1.0
W = seismic dead weight
Fundamental period, T = Ct hn
Ct = 0.0731 = 0.03 (English unit)
hn = building height in meters

4. Load Combinations
a. 4.1 U = 1.4 D
b. 4.2 U = 1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5 Lr
c. 4.3 U = 1.2D + 1.6 Lr + 0.5L
d. 4.4 U = 1.2D + 1.6W + 1.0L + 0.5Lr
e. 4.5 U = 1.2D + 1.0E + 1.0L
f. 4.6 U = 0.90D + 1.0E
Where:

D = dead load
L = live load
Lr = roof live load
W = wind load
E = seismic load

5. Material Strenghts
a. Concrete, fc = 11.2 MPa (1,600 psi)
b. Reinforcing bars, ASTM Grade 33, fy = 230 MPa (33,000 psi)

C. RESULTS/FINDINGS
Based on the results of the analysis of DCR for beams and columns, 72 percent of
the second floor beams failed to resist the anticipated loads due to dead, live and
seismic loads. For the third floor, 75 percent of the beams failed. For the fourth and
fifth floors, 76 percent of the beams failed. For the sixth floor, 81 percent of the
beams failed and for the roof, 51 percent of the beams failed. For the columns, 100
percent of the columns failed in required capacities from footings to roof level. In
summary, on the average, 74 percent of all beams failed and 100 percent of the
columns failed. The beams and columns failed either due to inadequate flexural
capacities and/or strength to resist anticipated loads.
D. STRUCTURAL MODELLING

Figure 1. PEZA ETABS Model (Pure Frame with Elevator Shaft)

Figure 2. PEZA ETABS Model with shear walls and elevator shaft

Figure 3. Second floor framing model showing failed beams (in red)

Figure 3. Second floor framing model showing failed beams (in red)

Figure 4. Third floor framing model showing failed beams (in red)

Figure 5. Fourth Floor Framing model showing failed beams (in red)

Figure 6. Fifth Floor Framing model showing failed beams (in red)

Figure 7. Sixth Floor Framing model showing failed beams (in red)

Figure 8. Roof framing model showing failed beams (in red)

Figure 9. Frame 1 elevation model showing failed columns

Figure 10. Frame 2 elevation model showing failed columns

Figure 11. Frame 3 elevation model showing failed columns

Figure 12. Frame 4 elevation model showing failed columns

Figure 13. Frame 5 elevation model showing failed columns

Figure 14. Typical floor framing model

Figure 15. Typical floor framing Model showing beam designations

Figure 16. Typical stress distribution on frames

Figure 17. Typical beams stress distribution

E. COMPUTATIONS OF DEMAND-CAPACITY
RATIOS FOR BEAMS

F. COMPUTATIONS OF DEMAND-CAPACITY
RATIOS FOR COLUMNS

G. ETABS RUN ANALYSIS

PART II. STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS FOR

THE APPLICATION OF CFRPS AND
RECONSTRUCTION OF 6TH FLOOR