University of Negros Occidental – Recoletos
College of Engineering
A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY MIXED-USE BUILDING IN A BARANGAY IN
BACOLOD CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL
Presented To:
Engr. Joenard G. Urbanozo
CEPRJ242D Adviser
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
Presented By:
Matthew Dilan B. Arroyo
Krizia Marie G. Carmona
Noveen Krylle D. Labayen
Hairah Jem Sevillo
Rosemarie P. Villamera
May 2022
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
3
1.2 Statement of the Problem
4
1.3 Objectives of the Study
5
1.4 Scope and Limitations
5
1.5 Definition of Terms
6
Reference List
8
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Studies have shown that mixed-use buildings are advantageous due to factors such as
development cost, operational cost, shared revenue, multi-generational programming, and an
overall better experience. However, these benefits of mixed-use buildings are commonly
achieved in highly urbanized cities in Luzon and are of limited access to other parts of the
Philippines. As a result, Gordon (2010) in his study on Multipurpose Spaces, concludes that the
mixed-use spaces should be able to handle a wide range of functions and should be able to
satisfy the needs of its assigned functions. Moreover, Gerick (2017) promotes those new
multifunctional buildings should be adequate to reflect the needs of the present society.
Bacolod City is one of the thirty-three (33) highly urbanized cities in the Philippines yet
there are only three (3) businesses registered as multipurpose and mixed-use buildings in the
city catering to the huge population of the city according to the Bacolod City Government
(Business Registration). Other multipurpose and mixed-use buildings are owned by the
government and commonly used for government-related activities like seminars, businesses,
and political gatherings.
Barangay Pahanocoy is one of the barangays located in the southern part of Bacolod City
which is home to the total population of 17,122 (as of 2020) and is still growing. According to
2015 Census, the age group with highest population range is from 15 to 19 (1439 individuals).
Data shown from the National Statistics Office of the Philippines and National Statistical
Coordination Board states that the Barangay has a population density of 4,831/km² (2020)
distributed among the 3.544 km² of land the Barangay covers. The exponential growth of the
local population demands for more space necessities (to conducive to multiple activities in the
Barangay to enrich quality life and overall being of the population. Moreover, Dale et al (2021)
support that it is important that mixed-use facilities will be accessible to communities such as in
Barangay Pahanocoy for the mixed-use building diverse uses in one place can contribute to a
community’s vitality. Interestingly, research findings from published studies however lack
enough data to answer specific questions related to maximizing the need for mixed-use
buildings locally. Most of the studies were focused on multi-purpose building design criteria.
This study will therefore be focused on the necessity of the multi-purpose building for
commercial, recreational and economic development of Barangay Pahanocoy and Bacolod City
collectively.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The researchers aim to utilize the vacant lot by constructing a tree-storey mixed-use
building located at Araneta Avenue, Barangay Pahanocoy, Bacolod City Negros Occidental in
front of Manville Royal Bacolod. The problem focused and seen in the location is the lack of a
multifunctional building that could cater event centers and recreational activities.
The research group aims to answer the following questions:
1. How does the proposed project perform in terms of serviceability?
2. Is the proposed project safe for its occupants and the community nearby?
3. Is the proposed project economical?
1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
The primary objectives of the project include the following:
1. To design and analyze the behavior of the overall design performance of the proposed
structure concerning its serviceability.
2. To evaluate the safety of the occupants and nearby community through conforming to
the code requirements provided by the National Building Code of the Philippines
(NBCP), National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2015, and other
engineering codes and standards.
3. To determine and compare the total proposed project estimate cost with the economic
cost.
1.4 SCOPE AND LIMITATION
The study focuses on the design and the necessity of a Three-Storey Mixed-Use Building in
the City of Bacolod. The study will aim to design and analyze the behavior of the overall design
performance of the proposed structure for its serviceability. The National Building Code of the
Philippines (NBCP), National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2015, and other
engineering codes and standards will be used as reference for the design of the structure. As
most published studies with reference to mixed-used buildings were focused on design criteria,
data for the necessity of a mixed-use building for economic development and growth will be
gathered through observation.
The study will be conducted to determine how a mixed-use building for recreation and
commercial use will contribute to the economic development of Bacolod City, and shall not
cover the economy of neighboring cities and towns. The study will not be limited to residents of
Barangay Pahanocoy and Bacolod City, but will include tourists and visitors as part of the
population group of the study as these factors can affect the economy of Bacolod City. Other
matters that are not necessarily connected to the design of the structure and the necessity of
mixed-use buildings will not be covered by this study. The study will be done and completed in
forty (40) weeks.
1.5 DEFINITION OF TERMS
AutoCAD. This refers as a computer aided design program that is being used in this study to
present the 2D and 3D design and drafting of the project (Techopedia, 2017).
Construction. Refers to the process of building new facilities such as road, bridge, flood control
system and structure (DPWH, 2016).
Mixed-Use Building. This is described as the combination of different functions such as
residential, commercial, institutional, cultural and entertainment with their own designated
space (Urban Hub).
Multipurpose Building. This refers to the structure that integrates multiple functions in a same
space but at different time (Gerijk, 2017).
NBCP. In this study, the researchers used the NBCP or the National Building Code of
Philippines for the basis of the minimum standards requirement in the design of the proposed
project (DPWH).
NSCP. In this study, the researchers used the NSCP or the National Standard Compliance that
aims in aligning all standard compliance initiatives and information in the country (DPWH).
Reinforced Concrete. This refers to the combination of concrete and steel reinforcement which
gives the tensile strength that the concrete lacks (McCormac and Brown).
Serviceability. This refers to the ability of being useful on a specific purpose (MerriamWebster,
2022).
Sketchup. A software that will be used in this project proposal that can generate 3D objects
from 2D design (BGSU).
STAAD Pro. A software used in this study that mainly focused on the structural analysis that
automatically convert into analytical method (Bentley).
Stability. In this study, it refers to the power of remaining the structure in equilibrium
(The Constructor, 2010).
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 MIXED-USE BUILDING
A mixed-use building is a structure that is designed to serve multiple purposes, such as
residential, business, and commercial use, that are physically and functionally integrated, and
this varied usage allows diversification of investment risk and intensive use of land. Mixed-use
development projects vary in their form and arrangement according to the size and location of
the land (Rabianski et al. 2009), and take into consideration the structure that fits each purpose
of use, floor planning, and integration of the multiple functions (Herndon 2011). Therefore, they
are more complex than single-use building projects in terms of design and construction, and
generally, more time is required for their completion (Bergeron 2007). Thus, the development
of a construction time prediction model based on performance data that reflects the distinctive
characteristics of mixed-use building projects is necessary.
A mixed-use building aims to combine three or more uses into one structure such as
residential, hotel, retail, parking, transportation, cultural, and entertainment. Whatever the
combination, it brings together several uses within either one building or a small area. The two
most common forms of mixed-use design are:
a) Vertical Building
As a single, multi-story building, a typical mix places apartments on the upper
levels and retail or offices at street level. A basement level provides parking and/or
access to underground public transportation.
b) Horizontal Building
Spread over several buildings, such as a city block or around an open space or
courtyard, these individual buildings serve one or two specific uses while
creating a microcosm within a neighborhood.
2.2 HISTORY OF MIXED-USE BUILDINGS
Traditionally, humans settled in mixed-use patterns, pooling all their resources into one
central area. Historical examples can be found in the old market squares of ancient Rome where
shops, apartments, administrative offices, and often a library were intermixed. The industrial
age, however, brought new zoning laws and a stricter division between living and working
spaces. The emergence of the car reinforced this trend, bringing with it an acceptance of
traveling long distances between home, office, and shopping and an exodus from city living to
suburban life.
In the present days, developers are embracing mixed-use development. People are returning
to cities, and high-density development is trending. In addition, a relaxation in mixed-use
zoning laws since the 1990s has helped to pave the way for architects and city planners to
develop creative concepts that fulfill a variety of city dwellers’ needs in a single location.
Buildings designated for several predefined uses are as old as architecture itself.
In the twentieth century, several groundbreaking architectural theories, such as those of
Team 10, Metabolism, and the Megaform, as well as debates over high‐rise buildings, engaged
housing as a basis for mixed‐use architecture.
In the past few decades, multiunit housing schemes that designate spaces for additional
functions have proliferated. However, this phenomenon seems to exist under architectural
history and theory, with little discussion of what shall be incorporated into housing, the
challenges of mixing uses, and the possibilities that these present. The consideration of MUH as
a term of dwelling, as this thematic issue proposes, involves differentiating it from mixed‐use
urban neighborhoods and zones. This liminal characteristic—of belonging to both urban
schemes and architecture—may provide a partial explanation of the fact that current research
proposes little in the way of clearly defining MUH and that it has not received targeted historical
consideration (Coupland, 1997; Mualam et al., 2019). Thus, a key contribution of the present
study is the proposal of such a definition, acknowledging that it shall be open‐ended and
flexible. Researchers seek to close a theoretical and historical gap by exploring modernist MUH
as an architectural typology and investigate how this term was understood during the second
half of the twentieth century.
2.2.1 Interwar Experimentation
To evaluate the importance of approaches developed for MUH after World War II, it is
helpful to review some major developments of the interwar period. In the aftermath of
World War I, modular housing and mass housing were both revolutionized in their designs
as well as in the political and economic systems that developed and sustained them, such as
municipalities that built them and policies that produced social housing (Glendinning,
2021). Important debates regarding the design of housing took place in the framework of
broader urban discourses, dominated at the time by the idea of the “neighborhood unit” and
the concept of zoning urban functions (Glendinning, 2021). These influential urban
theories, which were implemented in numerous new plans, dictated the separation of
housing from most other urban functions.
Despite this overarching principle, some architects did experiment with integrating
urban functions and housing, both in vision and reality. In 1922, in his Ville
Contemporaine, Le Corbusier, for example, who was among the most important
formulators of CIAM’s urban zoning concepts, introduced a scheme of twelve‐story
apartment buildings whose bases integrated various urban functions (Marmot, 1981).
These included a theater, restaurants, and sports facilities. While Le Corbusier’s plans of
that period remained on paper, several innovative complexes, such as Highpoint in London
by Lubetkin and Tecton (1933–1938) and, more famously, the Narkomfin apartments in
Moscow by Ginsburg and Milinis (1928), were indeed built (Marmot, 1981; Mumford,
2019). They included communal rooms and shared functional rooftops intended for the
residents’ use. However, these and several other housing complexes with shared spaces
remained singular experiments. Moreover, the introduction of mixed uses was not the goal
or overarching concept of these complexes, so they did not produce significant
terminology for MUH. Although nonresidential uses were integrated into both middle‐ and
working‐class MUH and emerged from novel, even revolutionary, social requirements,
they were not approached as a design problem. Rather, their architecture was largely
dictated by the apartment building as the basic design unit. As such, interwar precedents
did not engender the integrative concepts of the postwar years—concepts that will present
new terminologies merging urban and residential scales.
2.2.2 Post‐World War II Urban Theories as Bases for Mixed‐Use Housing
The post‐World War II years proved a turning point in developing MUH as a novel
concept. Transformations in urban and design theories intensely engaged the integration of
dwellings and additional urban functions.
Arguably, Le Corbusier formulated the popular theory for producing a mixed‐use
dwelling complex in Western Europe in the years immediately following World War II.
His series of MUH complexes, the Unités d’Habitation, can be considered the first
architectural experimentation that realized the integration of dwelling with urban
functions. They were conceived in the framework of Le Corbusier’s urban theory of the
functional city and its four functions—dwelling, work, recreation, and transportation
(Gold, 1998; Pedret, 2005).
Furthermore, Le Corbusier designed the Unités as novel solutions for the changing
needs of urban populations. Designing MUH seemingly stood in contrast to the zoning he
proposed in the functional city theory. However, Konstanze Domhardt reconciles this
contradiction, explaining that Le Corbusier and other members of the CIAM did not
exclude planning residential neighborhoods with functions that belong to the other three
elements of the city, as fast‐growing postwar urban centers demanded autonomous
neighborhood facilities (Domhardt, 2012). Thus, the Unités represented a compact
implementation of the functional city’s mass housing neighborhood. They were intended to
foster commonality and increase accessibility to modern urban functions, which included
preschools, sports facilities, post offices, and more. Modular floor plans and design
elements were also key characteristics of the Unités. These were stacked to a maximum
height of seventeen stories, as Le Corbusier perceived multistory vertical circulation as an
impediment to successful family life (Marmot, 1981). The architect sought to replace
vertical circulation with horizontal connectivity by designing internal streets on several
levels of the tall apartment buildings.
In addition to fostering family life, these urban‐inspired streets were perceived as
enhancing spatial mobility capable of promoting interaction among residents. Hence, in the
Unités, Le Corbusier introduced an architectural micro‐urban environment that delineated
MUH as an architectural whole centered upon accessibility to urban functions, modularity,
and spatial mobility.
Transposing autonomous neighborhood facilities to a single apartment building was
not, however, an obvious step. This is indicated by the fact that the first Unité, along with
the few above‐noted complexes designed in the interwar years, remained exceptional
projects until the late 1950s. Moreover, urban and architectural theories that were
developed in the 1950s and 1960s criticized the concept of the functional city and the
CIAM Grid and proposed new solutions for connecting housing and urban functions.
In the framework of these theories, the concept of habitat was developed as a new
approach (Boyer, 2017; van den Heuvel & Risselada, 2005; Mumford, 2019). While both
architects and historians have offered nuanced interpretations of this concept, for the
purposes of the present discussion it can be described as a framework that sought to create
architecture that can foster community, will be more responsive to the specific cultural
needs of its inhabitants, and will improve the connection to its immediate environment (van
den Heuvel & Risselada, 2005). As a term that brought to the forefront more spiritual
everyday requirements and engaged the links between the dwelling and its urban
environment, the concept of habitat proved to be a theoretical turning point that impacted
the design of MUH.
Among the most significant theoretical contributions was Team 10 architects’ framing
of MUH in this new context. This was done by developing a new set of terms that connected
the rather abstract concept of habitat with actual design. Alison and Peter Smithson, two of
Team 10’s senior members and arguably their chief ideologists, saw “human association”
with the different scales—or hierarchies—of the city as key to the social interactions and
connections required for creating habitat (Avermaete, 2005; Boyer, 2017; van den Heuvel
& Risselada, 2005). Habitat, they argued, was created when architecture was conceived as
an integral part of urban hierarchies, which included the house, street, neighborhood, and
the town at large. They viewed architecture as the chief instrument in creating city dwellers’
associations with the various accompanying urban functions, more so than streets and other
connective elements.
Accordingly, Team 10 and other architects who shared their ideas promoted MUH as
an architectural design solution capable of engendering communality within the most
primary components of the urban environment, thus significantly adding to mixing
functions from the various hierarchies within small‐scale urban clusters (van den Heuvel &
Risselada, 2005; Wagenaar, 2000). CIAM and Le Corbusier’s earlier zoned functions were
thus replaced by urban hierarchies. Although Team 10 admired the Unité d’Habitation for
its innovations, they rejected the idea of creating a habitat by providing several prioritized
urban facilities in a single high‐rise building.
All these iterations perceived dwelling as the basic building block of urban life, yet,
significantly, the idea of association with the different scales of the urban environment
derived not only from criticism of earlier models but also from a re‐examination of the
virtues of historic cities. In relation to the grand modern urban schemes, the former evolved
in a more spontaneous way over centuries. In this respect, the Smithsons were inspired by
MARS. As with the historic city, this perspective, which derived from vernacular and
traditional architecture, afforded yet another departure point for thinking about MUH.
Similarly, Alison Smithson pointed to the dense Muslim casbahs and their mixed functions
(Smithson, 1974), while Aldo van Eyck sought to “re‐create the traditional city’s unity in
diversity” (Strauven, 1998, p. 562).
To no small degree, referencing historic cities relied on sociological and urban studies
from both sides of the Atlantic—studies that investigated traditional neighborhoods where
low‐ and middle‐class inhabitants resided. These studies concluded that the mixed‐use
character and high density of traditional neighborhoods fostered communality and urban
vitality (Boyer, 2017; Cupers, 2016; Jacobs, 1961).
In the United States, several theories that considered such sociohistorical explorations
can be seen to have promoted the design of MUH. In the present context, both Denise Scott
Brown’s critique of Team 10 and Harvey Perloff’s “town intown” theory created important
frameworks for MUH. In an often‐overlooked 1967 critique of urban planning, Scott
Brown analyzes the impact of Team 10 on such American architects as Robert Venturi,
Charles Moore, and Louis Kahn (Scott Brown, 1967). She refutes what she describes as the
precedence that urban planning has over architecture and discusses “the non‐architect‐
designed parts of cities that few architects, except the Brutalists, seem to notice” (Scott
Brown, 1967, p. 47). Architecture, she argues, and the design of the single building or
complex in its setting are the focal points of urban functions: “Buildings and cities must be
appreciated in their economic, technological and expressive functions all at once, since all
are part of one architectural experience” (Scott Brown, 1967, p. 48, original emphasis). This
reassertion of the role of architecture proposes the building as key to mixing uses and hence
firmly relates to the idea of MUH. Moreover, Scott Brown’s text further demonstrates that
these approaches emerged from an international discourse that related similar concerns.
In the decade between 1955 and 1965 Chicago-based urban planner Harvey Perloff
developed a novel approach that articulated new concepts of urbanism and architectural
modernism. Termed the “new town intown,” it focused on and underscored the concept of
community. Perloff’s heightened awareness of racial and economic diversity was
translated into dense urban schemes for existing neighborhoods. Instead of building
“public housing projects and…‘removing the slums’ or ‘doing something about run‐down
housing’” (Perloff, 1966, p. 155, original emphasis), he proposed gradual intervention in
what he termed the “original fabric of the Intown” (Perloff, 1966, p. 157) while introducing
mixed uses to encourage communality and social heterogeneity. Perloff strongly promoted
mixing uses within a neighborhood and, like his European colleagues, emphasized
connectivity achieved by architecture. Echoing Le Corbusier, Perloff regarded a residential
tower as a “city‐within‐a‐city” (Perloff, 1966, p. 160). As argued by Judith Martin, his was
a far more pragmatic approach than Jane Jacobs’s and other planners who were devising
urban schemes (J. A. Martin, 1978). Moreover, Perloff’s “town intown” fostered
architectural design capable of implementing ideas intended for social improvement. It
clearly conceived of communality as contingent on MUH and not only on a successful
urban plan. Both Perloff’s and Scott Brown’s theories thus focused on architecture’s
central role in creating cities and communities; they introduced terminologies relating to
extant neighborhoods, intervention, and reuse, thereby echoing Team 10’s historicity.
Metabolism and the megastructure are theories that complicate any attempt to
understand the evolvement of MUH in the postwar years. Formulated in Japan in the early
1960s and inspired by Team 10 and the GEAM group, Metabolism advocated a
rearrangement of urban functions within novel megastructures (Deyong, 2001; Tange,
1961). However, architects such as Fumihiko Maki and Masato Ohtaka saw this
rearrangement as inclusive of clear, even strict, functional zoning within the megastructure
(Maki & Ohtaka, 1960). Moreover, since the Metabolist megastructure provided optimal
access to all urban functions through intricate systems of highways, streets, and pedestrian
routes, the hyperdense apartments or “capsule towers” included in these schemes
interfaced with the other facilities and hence did not require anything beyond the dwelling
unit (Imamura, 2014). The megastructures proposed by Yona Friedman, as well as by the
architects of Archigram, provided additional theoretical models for increased density,
mobility, and flexibility, wherein mass housing was perceived as an organic part of the
mega‐urban scheme (Deyong, 2001, 2008; Langevin, 2011). Like Metabolism, their
approach emphasized connectivity of functions rather than their mix. Nevertheless, these
innovative theories were thought‐provoking in terms of how urban components relate to
one another—a design problem that occupied a central place in the architecture of MUH as
built.
2.2.3 Mixed‐Use Housing: Invention Rather Than Interpretation
From the schemes and ideas discussed above, we can trace a process that identifies
MUH as an architectural experiment that articulates urban hierarchies by integrating
functions belonging to the different scales of the city into housing design. To explain how
these designs function as an architectural whole—part of the definition proposed at the
outset—this section considers MUH that was realized throughout the 1960s and 1970s and
further explores modernist ideas that paved the way to the design of mixed‐use complexes.
The timeline of the MUH discussed here is represented in Figure 2 and the discussion is
guided by the design terminologies that turned theory into practice.
Examples of post‐World War II buildings converted into contemporary MUH:
(A) Lincoln Building, Tel‐Aviv, 1963, by Rappoport, Glieberman, and Frenkel;
(B) study of possible reuse of the Centraal Beheer Office Building at Housing Herzberger
Park (former Centraal Beheer Headquarters), 1968–1972, by Herman Herzberger and
Architectuurstudio HH. Sources: (A): Rappoport et al. (1963); (B): Herzberger and
Architectuurstudio HH (2021).
2.3 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE PROJECTS
The Residential Mixed-Use Guidelines provide specific and broad recommendations to
create high quality buildings and site plans that will result in attractive, livable, and
pedestrian-friendly mixed-use districts. They aim to be prescriptive enough to create a
framework for design and carry out the community’s urban design vision but flexible enough to
allow for creativity and innovation in design and planning.
2.3.1 Development Intensity
These guidelines ensure that projects contribute to the appearance and vitality of the
mixed-use districts and respect the unique features of adjoining properties.
A-1 Design projects to enhance the visual appearance of the street and district in which
they are located (see Fig. A-1).
A-2 Locate and orient buildings to respect the need for privacy, light, and air of
surrounding structures, especially adjoining low and medium density residential
development (see Fig. A-2).
Fig. A-1: Provides architectural interest and enhances the visual appearance of the street.
Fig. A-2: The taller stories are located in the middle of the project minimizing the impact of the project on
adjacent neighboring property.
2.3.2 Location of Commercial and Residential Uses
The ground floor commercial uses create an active pedestrian realm, that is an
engaging and well-populated environment with a variety of uses and activities such as
locating commercial uses on the ground floor adjacent to the sidewalk, including retail,
restaurant and service uses.
2.3.3 Building Height
The purpose of these limits is to ensure that the scale of the building is compatible, and
tall buildings are not located so as to overwhelm smaller scale buildings or block access to
light and sun.
2.3.4 Building Form and Bulk
These guidelines ensure that continuous buildings with attached or stacked units on
deep narrow lots do not end up being overly long and bulky, creating an incompatible
institutional character within residential neighborhoods.
C-3 Design residential projects to avoid large box-like forms with continuous
unrelieved surfaces.
C-4 Include articulation in the project, such that the bulk as seen from existing
neighbors is reduced. (See Building Articulation.)
C-5 Minimize the bulk of the buildings by limiting building length, or designing
buildings with two or more of the following special features to break up building bulk,
including:

Horizontal and vertical setbacks and stepbacks (instead of a long flat wall);

Changes in roof form and height;

Major full-height recesses (typically at least 10 feet deep) along the length of the
building that successfully break the building into smaller discrete masses.
C-6 Ground level parking podiums and lobbies can be continuous without a break if
the above guidelines are met.
C-7 Provide visual orientation from the major commercial arterials through graduated
heights and/ or varied setbacks or architectural elements such as towers to mark entries or
corners to reduce the scale of larger buildings and to provide visual orientation from the
major commercial arterials.
In this project, breaking up the building into smaller discrete masses minimizes the bulk of the building.
(Guideline C-5)
The corner of this building is marked with an architectural element, which provides visual orientation
from major commercial arterials. (Guideline C-7)
The building bulk is broken up through height recesses along the length of the building.
(Guideline C-5)
2.3.5 Building Design
These guidelines seek to create unified and harmonious building compositions,
promote quality architecture, and visual diversity. No official architectural style is dictated
or preferred.
E-1 Design projects with a consistent design integrity, exhibit by all building
components including, but not limited to, building mass and articulation, roof forms,
windows (proportion and design), building materials, façade details (doors and entrances),
fencing, and landscaping.
E-2 Design publicly-visible exterior facades, or building walls to be substantial,
permanent, and integral to the entire building.
E-3 Organize façade areas to provide:

Horizontal emphasis through recesses, ornamentation and other types of
decorative detail;

Pedestrian orientation through overhangs, eaves, awnings, display windows
and architectural ornamentation; and

Harmonious composition through use of complementary combinations of
materials and colors.
E-4 Design commercial building facades fronting on sidewalks to consist of storefronts
that include a preponderance of clear glass display windows and entry doors, that provide
visibility into the ground floor lease space.
In some circumstances, such as when building security would be placed at risk or when
a side or rear wall of a building is adjacent to or near the street, shallow display windows,
containing merchandise or artworks, are encouraged.
Ground floor office uses are discouraged, per the Land Use Element of the Specific
Plans, but, where present, must be designed and maintained as storefront spaces.
E-5 Include architectural elements providing shade and weather protection for
pedestrians, such as overhangs and arcades.
2.4 SUSTAINABLED MIXED-USE DESIGN
With the World Health Organization’s projection that 70% of the world’s people will live in
cities by 2050, developers are rethinking how urban spaces are designed. Urban areas were
historically comprised of tight-knit neighborhoods, corner stores, and family owned businesses
all within walking distance. Modern zoning laws have created an urban landscape that is far
different. Plots of lands are separated by their distinct use: residential, retail, office, industrial,
etc. Mixed-use development seeks to create an atmosphere where people are again connected to
each other and the communities around them.
2.4.1 Sustainable Mixed-Use Development
Mixed-use development is an emerging model of urban planning that seeks to
incorporate a multitude of uses in a single urban development. Rather than creating
segregated spaces, a mixed-use space includes residential, office, and retail space in the
same environment. In true mixed-use developments, these areas blend together
harmoniously rather than simply placing a retail strip mall next to a housing development.
In the 2011 report, delivering mixed use development at neighborhood and street block
scales, scholars and policymakers identified three important definitions of mixed-use
development that included descriptions of land use, varied economic activities, integration
of physical connections and a high-density, multifunction environment that is physically
attractive.
Mixed-use development promotes sustainability. The density and interconnectedness
of mixed-use neighborhoods promotes the feasibility of public transportation in areas
where it was not practical before, thus reducing the environmental impact of an
automobile-based commuter culture.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
3.1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ANALYSIS
Site investigation and analysis are undertaken prior to the construction progress of any
infrastructure to gather information on and off nearby the site location. During the survey, the
following are determined: accurate location, site boundaries and dimensions, elevation, possibly
entry and exit points from public road access, and possible future developments around the site.
Additional information from the Google Map and Google Earth were recorded.
Initial
necessary computations were made to assess the required site data that can be used in upcoming
tasks. Following the conclusion of the investigation, subsurface conditions were determined to
identify the feasibility of the proposed mixed-use building to be erected.
Furthermore, other necessary data such as the environmental conditions were gathered that
give importance in deciding the geometry, dimensions, and specifications of the proposed
mixed-use building. Principal values are established to be used in designing and analysis of the
structural members. These design specifications and dimensions are justified by the National
Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP) for the architectural building standards and the
National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2015 which contains updated and
well-established structural standards based on the past behaviors of the buildings and other
vertical structures recorded in the Philippines history.
The architectural and structural plans and designs were established with the aid of computer
software such as AutoCAD and SketchUp which serve as the basis in the proceeding sections of
this chapter. The computation of the loadings are based on the chapter II of NSCP 2015, while
the analysis and design methods are constructed from the chapters IV and V of the NSCP 2015
and Design of Reinforced Concrete (9th Edition) authored by Jack C. McCormac and Russell H.
Brown. The values taken are used for the beam analysis and design, columns analysis and
design, footing analysis and design.
3.2 LOADING
The vertical structures and buildings such as the mixed-use building shall be designed to
resist the load combinations acting on the building specified in Sections 203.3, 203.4, and 203.5
of the NSCP 2015. When one or more of the contributing loads are not acting, the most critical
consequence can occur. In line with the established load combinations, all applicable loads,
including earthquake and wind, must be evaluated.
The computed loads that shall be used in analysis and design of the proposed building shall
be the loadings that shall be designed to resist with adherence to the load combinations found in
chapter 2 of NSCP 2015.
Load Combination Using Strength Design or Load and Resistance Factor Design:
Where:
1.4(𝐷 + 𝐹)
(203 − 1)
1.2(𝐷 + 𝐹 + 𝑇) + 1.6(𝐿 + 𝐻) + 0.5(𝐿𝑟 𝑜𝑟 𝑅)
(203 − 2)
1.2𝐷 + 1.6(𝐿𝑟 𝑜𝑟 𝑅) + (𝑓1 𝐿 𝑜𝑟 0.5𝑊)
(203 − 3)
1.2𝐷 + 1.0𝑊 + 𝑓1 𝐿 + 0.5(𝐿𝑟 𝑜𝑟 𝑅)
(203 − 4)
1.2𝐷 + 1.0𝐸 + 𝑓1 𝐿
(203 − 5)
0.9𝐷 + 1.0𝑊 + 1.6𝐻
(203 − 6)
0.9𝐷 + 1.0𝐸 + 1.6𝐻
(203 − 7)
D = dead load
E = earthquake load
F = load due to fluids with well-defined pressures and maximum height
H = load due to lateral pressures of soil and water in soil
L = live load, except roof live load, including any permitted live load reduction
𝐿𝑟 = roof live load, including any permitted live load reduction
R = rain load on the undeflected roof
T = self-straining force and effects arising from temperature change, shrinkage,
moisture change, creep in component materials, movement due to differential
settlement, or combinations thereof
W = load due to wind pressure
𝑓1 = 1.0 for floors in places of public assembly, for live loads in excess of 4.8 kPa, and
for garage live load, or
= 0.5 for other live loads
3.3 METHODS USED TO DETERMINE END MOMENTS
The method that shall be used in determining the end moments is the Moment Distribution
Method. This method can be used to analyze all types of statically indeterminate beams and
frames. The method mentioned was taken from the Chapter 12 of the Structural Analysis (8th
Edition) authored by R.C. Hibbeler.
3.3.1 Moment Distribution Method (MDM)
This method of successive approximations was developed by Hard Cross in 1930 that
can be carried out to any desired degree of accuracy. Essentially, the method begins by
assuming each joint of a structure is fixed. Then, by unlocking and locking each joint in
succession, the internal moments at the joints are distributed and balanced until the joints have
rotated to their final or nearly final positions. The following is the procedure of the moment
distribution method.
a) Compute the fixed-end moments (FEM) of the loaded members. The following are the
typical beam-loading systems taken from the Structural Analysis by R.C. Hibbeler.
Figure 3.3.1.a.1: Uniformly distributed loading with fixed end supports.
𝐹𝐸𝑀 = ±
𝑤𝐿2
12
Figure 3.3.1.a.2: Deflection caused by the transverse loads at the other support.
𝐹𝐸𝑀 = ±
6𝐸𝐼∆
𝐿2
b) Compute the member stiffness factor (K) for all the structural members of the frame.
i.) Far End Fixed
𝐾=
ii.) Far End Pinned or Roller Supported
4𝐸𝐼
𝐿
𝐾=
3𝐸𝐼
𝐿
𝐾=
2𝐸𝐼
𝐿
iii.) Symmetric Beam and Loading
Where:
E = Modulus of elasticity of the member
I = Moment of inertia of the member
L = Length span of the member
c) Compute for the distribution factor (DF) of the structural members at each joint.
𝐷𝐹 =
𝐾
ΣK
d) Balance the moments eat each joint and distribute the balancing moment according to
the distribution factors of each segment attached to the joint.
i.) At each joint, evaluate the unbalanced moment and distribute the unbalanced
moment to the members connected to the joint by multiplying the negative of the
unbalanced moment by the distribution factor for the member end.
ii.) Carry over one-half of each distributed moment to the opposite (far) end of the
member.
iii.) Repeat the steps until either all the free joints are balanced or the unbalanced
moments at these joints are within the tolerance limit.
e) Determine the end moments.
f) Determine the reactions at support.
3.4 DESIGN OF SLABS
Reinforced concrete slabs are large flat plates supported by columns, beams, walls, or ground.
A slab is designed to satisfy the conditions for equilibrium and geometrical compatibility if shown
that the design strength at every section is at least equal to the required strength. The method of
designing the slab was taken from chapter IV of the Design of Reinforced Concrete (9th Edition)
authored by Jack C. McCormac and Russell H. Brown.
3.4.1 Design of One-Way Slab
The method of designing a one-way slab is assuming the slab to be a rectangular
beam with a large ratio of width to depth. The following is the procedure of the slab design.
a. Estimate the thickness of the slab.
b. Compute for the unfactored loads.
c. Compute for the effective flexural depth.
d. Select flexural reinforcement.
e. Select temperature and Shrinkage reinforcement.
3.5 DESIGN METHOD OF BEAMS
3.5.1 Design Of Singly-Reinforced Rectangular Beams
Singly reinforced concrete will be used in designing the beams of the proposed
mixed-use building. The following are the procedure of the design.
1. Estimate the beam dimensions and compute for its weight.
2. Compute the factored loads, 𝑊𝑢 and 𝑀𝑢 . Assume 𝜙 = 0.90. Computing 𝑅𝑛 , and 𝜌
with the following expressions:
𝑅𝑛 =
𝑀𝑢
𝜙𝑏𝑑 2
0.85𝑓 ′ 𝑐
2𝑅𝑛
𝜌=
(1 − √1 −
)
𝑓𝑦
0.85𝑓 ′ 𝑐
3. Check the 𝜌 limits with the following expressions:
𝜌=
𝜌𝑏𝑎𝑙 =
√𝑓′𝑐
1.4
𝑜𝑟
4𝑓𝑦
𝑓𝑦
0.85𝛽1 𝑓′𝑐
600
(
)
𝑓𝑦
600 + 𝑓𝑦
𝜌0.005 = 0.375 (
600 + 𝑓𝑦
) 𝜌𝑏𝑎𝑙
600
4. Compute the area and select the reinforcing.
𝐴𝑠 = 𝜌𝑏𝑑
𝑛=
𝐴𝑠
𝐴𝑛
5. Check the section’s ductility and its capacity. ρ should be greater than 𝜌𝑚𝑖𝑛 . See table
B.7 to B.13 based on the Design of Reinforced Concrete 9th Edition by McCormac.
𝑎
𝜙𝑀𝑛 = 𝜙𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑦 (𝑑 − )
2
3.5.2 Design Of Vertical Stirrups
1. Determine if the stirrups are needed.
i. Compute and draw 𝑉𝑢 diagram.
ii. Calculate 𝑉𝑢 at distance “d” from the support.
iii. Calculate 𝜙𝑉𝑐 .
1
𝜙𝑉𝑐 = 𝜙 𝜆√𝑓′𝑐 𝑏𝑤 𝑑
6
iv. Stirrups are needed if 𝑉𝑢 > 1/2 (𝜙𝑉𝑐 ) (with some exceptions for slabs, footings, shallow
members, and joists)
2. Design of stirrups
i. Calculate 𝑉𝑠 .
𝑉𝑠 =
𝑉𝑢 − 𝜙𝑉𝑐
𝜙
ii. Calculate theoretical stirrups spacing.
𝐴𝑣 = 𝑛𝑠 𝐴𝑠
𝑠=
𝐴𝑣 𝑓𝑦𝑡 𝑑
𝑉𝑠
iii. Determine maximum spacing to provide minimum area of reinforcement.
𝑠𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
𝐴𝑣 𝑓𝑦𝑡
𝐴𝑣 𝑓𝑦𝑡
𝑜𝑟
0.35𝑏𝑤
0.062√𝑓′𝑐 𝑏𝑤
From NSCP Section 409.7.6.2.2
𝑠=
𝑑
√𝑓′𝑐
≤ 600𝑚𝑚, 𝑖𝑓 𝑉𝑠 ≤
𝑏𝑤 𝑑
2
3
𝑠=
𝑑
√𝑓 ′ 𝑐
≤ 300𝑚𝑚, 𝑖𝑓 𝑉𝑠 >
𝑏𝑤 𝑑
4
3
From NSCP Section 409.7.6.4.3
𝑠 = 16𝑑𝑏 𝑜𝑟 48𝑑𝑠 𝑜𝑟 300 𝑚𝑚
From NSCP Section 418.6.4.4
𝑠=
𝑑
𝑜𝑟 6𝑑𝑏 𝑜𝑟 150 𝑚𝑚
4
2
iv. Check for 𝑉𝑢 ≤ 𝜙 (𝑉𝑐 + 3 √𝑓 ′ 𝑐 𝑏𝑤 𝑑)
v. Minimum practical spacing approximates to 75 mm or 100 mm.
3.6 DESIGN OF COLUMNS
Reinforced concrete columns are used to carry mainly the axial compressive load and
secondarily the bending moment in designing the columns of the proposed mixed-use building,
wherein the ultimate strength column will be considered. The column shall be classified to carry
out the appropriate design procedures. The following are the procedure for the design of columns.
3.6.1 Design of Axially Loaded Columns
I. Select column dimensions using the following formula:
𝜙 = 0.65 for tied column
𝜙𝑃𝑛 = 𝜙0.80[0.85𝑓 ′ 𝑐 (𝐴𝑔 − 𝐴𝑠𝑡 ) + 𝐴𝑠𝑡 𝑓𝑦 ]
II. Designing of Ties
a.) Select and determine the number of longitudinal bars.
𝜋𝑑𝑛2
𝐴𝑛 =
4
𝑛=
𝐴𝑠𝑡
𝐴𝑛
III. Check the NSCP requirements.
a.) Minimum dimensions (NSCP Section 418.7.2.1)
𝑏 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ ≥ 250 𝑚𝑚
b.) Longitudinal reinforcements (NSCP Section 418.7.4.1)
𝜌=
𝐴𝑠𝑡
𝐴𝑔
0.01 𝐴𝑔 < 𝐴𝑠𝑡 < 0.06 𝐴𝑔
c.) Transverse reinforcements (NSCP Section 418.7.5)
1
𝐿𝑜 ≥ 6 clear span of the column
𝐿𝑜 ≥ 𝑏 𝑜𝑟 ℎ 𝑜𝑟 450 𝑚𝑚
𝑠𝑜 ≤ 6 𝑑𝑏 𝑜𝑟 24 𝑑𝑡
1
𝑠𝑜 ≤ 4 of the smallest column cross-sectional dimension
d.) Splice length
𝑐𝑏 = 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑡𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟 + 𝑑𝑡 +
𝑐𝑏 + 𝐾𝑡𝑟
≤ 2.5
𝑑𝑏
𝑑𝑏
2
9 𝑓𝑦
Ψ𝑡 Ψ𝑒 Ψ𝑠
𝑙𝑑 = (
)𝑑
10 𝜆√𝑓′𝑐 (𝑐𝑏 + 𝐾𝑡𝑟 ) 𝑏
𝑑𝑏
Ψ𝑡 = Ψ𝑒 = Ψ𝑠 = 1.0
𝑆𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ ≥ 1.3𝑙𝑑 𝑜𝑟 300 𝑚𝑚
3.6.2
Design of Axially and Bending Loaded Column
The columns practically behave as beam-column due to lateral loads acting on the
building, therefore subjected to some bending. Columns will bend under the action of
moments which will produce compression on one side of the columns and tension on the other
side. The following procedures are used to carry out the recommended design using
interaction diagrams.
a.) Compute interaction diagram coordinate, 𝐾𝑛 and 𝑅𝑛 .
𝐾𝑛 =
𝑅𝑛 =
𝑃𝑛
𝑓′𝑐 𝐴𝑔
𝑃𝑛 𝑒
𝑒
𝑜𝑟 𝑜𝑟 𝐾𝑛 ( )
𝑓′𝑐 𝐴𝑔 ℎ
ℎ
a. Compute 𝛾, which is the ratio of the center-to-center distance between the bars and the
depth of the column, ℎ, wherein both values are taken in the direction of bending. In most
cases, the value of 𝛾 falls in between a pair of curves.
𝛾=
𝛾ℎ
ℎ
c.) Plot the values of 𝐾𝑛 and 𝑅𝑛 on the interaction diagram.
d.) Determine and interpolate the values of 𝜌𝑔 from various graphs based on
the
direction of bending.
e.) Compute the reinforcing area and select the bars.
𝐴𝑠𝑡 = 𝜌𝑔 𝐴𝑔 𝑜𝑟 𝜌𝑔 𝑏ℎ
f.) Check the selected bars by using the following equations.
𝜌𝑔 =
𝐴𝑠𝑡
𝐴𝑔
𝑅𝑛 𝑒
=
𝐾𝑛 ℎ
𝑃′𝑛 =
𝑅𝑛 𝑓′𝑐 𝐴𝑔 ℎ
≥ 𝑃𝑛
𝑒
3.7 FOUNDATION DESIGN
The foundation serves as the structural base that stands on the ground and supports the rest of
the building. In designing the foundation, extensive study of the ground below the foundation shall
be involved. The following are the procedures of the footing designs.
3.7.1 Design of Wall Footing
1. Assume the footing thickness and compute the effective soil pressure.
2. Compute the soil bearing pressure.
3. Check the depth required for shear at a distance d from the face of wall.
4. Determine the steel area and select reinforcing.
5. Check the development length.
3.7.2 Design of Square Footing
1. Assume the footing thickness and compute the effective soil pressure.
2. Compute the required footing area.
3. Check the thickness for two-way shear or punching shear.
4. Check the thickness for one-way shear.
5. Determine the steel area and select reinforcing.
6. Check the development length.
3.7.3 Design of Rectangular Footing
1. Assume the footing thickness and compute the effective soil pressure.
2. Compute the required footing area.
3. Check the thickness for one-way shear.
4. Check the thickness for two-way shear.
5. Design the longitudinal reinforcement.
6. Design the short direction reinforcement.
7. Check the development length.
3.8 COST
The estimated cost of the proposed mixed-use building serves as an important factor in project
management which establishes the baseline of the project cost at different stages of the development of
the project. The cost estimate spans from the foundation up to the highest floor level access. This
covers the quantity takeoff of the earthworks, masonry works, roofing works, formworks, steelworks,
tilework, electrical systems, sanitary/plumbing systems, and mechanical works. The procedures are
taken with the aid of the Simplified Construction Estimated authored by Max B. Fajardo Jr.