Final Report

Structural Investigation of  E‐PLDT IDC VITRO BUILDING

Chapter 5: Analysis and Investigation Results

5.1 Overview

This chapter presents the results obtained from the ETABS 3D Model of the modal
analysis, wind analysis, static and dynamic seismic analysis.

The performance of each member and the global building acceptability limits were
checked against the required strength and acceptance criteria as set forth by the current
governing codes of practice.

5.2 Modal Analysis

Minor Direction (Y)

Major Direction (X)

Figure 5‐1: Principal Axes of the building

Table 5‐1: Natural Period in (sec)

Modal Participating Mass Ratios
Mode Natural Period
X (%) Y (%)
1 1.11 59.54 31.00
2 0.93 5.81 50.04
3 0.87 7.64 22.37
4 0.50 3.55 0.10
5 0.43 0.02 6.15
6 0.36 6.11 0.00

MACRO – Consulting Structural Engineers Co. Page 21 of 31 

Final Report
Structural Investigation of  E‐PLDT IDC VITRO BUILDING

7 0.34 6.26 0.02

8 0.31 0.04 10.13
9 0.22 1.67 2.36
10 0.19 3.29 2.02
11 0.12 2.75 3.85
12 0.11 2.96 2.26
Sum 99.63 99.61

It was found that approximately 59.54% of total mass was participating in the first mode
of X‐direction (Mode 1) and 50.04% of total mass was participating in the first mode of Y‐
direction (Mode 2). From the table, it can be seen that the total mass participation
contributed from the first twelve modes were 99.63% and 99.61% in the X and Y
directions, respectively. The natural periods of the fundamental modes are generally
acceptable for this type of building height. The first two modes are translational modes
and the third mode is torsional mode, which is the preferable building response. The
mode shapes are presented in the following table.

Figure 5‐2: 3D Model – Undeformed Shape

MACRO – Consulting Structural Engineers Co. Page 22 of 31 

Final Report
Structural Investigation of  E‐PLDT IDC VITRO BUILDING

T1= 1.12 S T2= 0.92 S T3= 0.87 S

T4= 0.50 S T5= 0.43 S T6= 0.36 S

T7= 0.35 S T8= 0.31 S T9= 0.22 S

T10= 0.19 S T11= 0.12 S T12= 0.11 S

Figure 5‐3: Mode Shapes
5.3 Base Shear

Base Shear from the different types of analysis were compared in this section at the
ground level. For wind analysis, the resulting base shear is multiplied by a load factor of
1.6 for comparison.

Table 5‐2: Base Shears

Story Load Loc P VX VY T MX MY Resultant Shear Resultant Shear (%)

2F EQX Bottom 0 ‐32144.7 0 1325659 ‐43.805 ‐515019 32,145 17.3%

2F EQY Bottom 0 0 ‐33934.9 ‐643092 539996 63.462 33,935 18.2%

2F SPECX Bottom 0 112157.2 26647.33 4534553 421389.4 1829416 115,279 61.9%

2F SPECY Bottom 0 26713.12 142954.8 3406009 2335294 360715.4 145,429 78.1%

2F SPECXECC Bottom 0 11432.94 2716.34 523782.7 42979.83 186535.5 11,751 6.3%

2F SPECYECC Bottom 0 2723.05 14572.36 386831.3 238068.5 36802.85 14,825 8.0%

2F MASS Bottom 186299.6 0 0 0.076 7827799 ‐3788820

MACRO – Consulting Structural Engineers Co. Page 23 of 31

Final Report
Structural Investigation of  E‐PLDT IDC VITRO BUILDING

Base Shear at Ground Level
160,000

140,000

120,000
Base Shear (kN)

100,000
Static (Inelastic)
80,000
RS (Elastic)
60,000 RS (Inelastic)
RS (Scaled Inelastic)
40,000

20,000

0
X Y
Direction

Figure 5‐4: Base Shear at Ground Level

Base Shear in terms of Seismic Weight
90%

80%

70%

60%
Base Shear (%)

50% Static (Inelastic)

40% RS (Elastic)
RS (Inelastic)
30%
RS (Scaled Inelastic)
20%

10%

0%
X Y
Direction

Figure 5‐5: Base Shear in Terms of Seismic Weight

MACRO – Consulting Structural Engineers Co. Page 24 of 31 

Final Report
Structural Investigation of  E‐PLDT IDC VITRO BUILDING

5.4 Story Displacement and Story Drift

The maximum story displacements and story drifts under seismic loadings are plotted in
the following figures (Note: Seismic Loads Govern over Wind Loads).

Story Height Elevation Above GL

HELIPAD 4.3 29.8
WT/TOP 
OF ROOF  3.2 25.5
SLAB
RDECK 4.7 22.3
5F 4.7 17.6
4F 4.3 12.9
3F 4.3 8.6
2F 4.3 4.3
BASE 0 0

Table 5‐3: Building Story Height/Elevation

MACRO – Consulting Structural Engineers Co. Page 25 of 31 

Final Report
Structural Investigation of  E‐PLDT IDC VITRO BUILDING

Story Point Load UX UY UZ RX RY RZ Resultant Displacement (m)

HELIPAD 17 SPECX 0.6023 0.0922 0.0012 0.00242 0.01783 0.00743 0.4265
WT/TOP 
OF ROOF  17 SPECX 0.5064 0.0802 0.001 0.00336 0.02393 0.00602 0.3589
SLAB
RDECK 17 SPECX 0.4445 0.0727 0.0008 0.00179 0.01367 0.00587 0.3153
5F 17 SPECX 0.3602 0.0607 0.0006 0.00214 0.01535 0.00482 0.2557
4F 17 SPECX 0.2568 0.0447 0.0004 0.00261 0.01748 0.00347 0.1825
3F 17 SPECX 0.1476 0.0274 0.0002 0.00303 0.0199 0.00198 0.1051
2F 17 SPECX 0.0501 0.01 0.0001 0.00266 0.01549 0.00068 0.0358
BASE 17 SPECX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0000

Table 5‐4: Inelastic Displacement at X Direction
Story Point Load UX UY UZ RX RY RZ Resultant Displacement (m)
HELIPAD 31 SPECY 0.1184 0.4143 0.0027 0.0119 0.00383 0.00549 0.3016
WT/TOP 
OF ROOF  31 SPECY 0.0933 0.3419 0.0024 0.02009 0.00707 0.00473 0.2481
SLAB
RDECK 31 SPECY 0.0777 0.2951 0.002 0.00925 0.00281 0.00425 0.2136
5F 31 SPECY 0.0613 0.2358 0.0014 0.0099 0.00295 0.0034 0.1705
4F 31 SPECY 0.0428 0.1675 0.001 0.01158 0.00335 0.00245 0.1210
3F 31 SPECY 0.0246 0.0993 0.0006 0.01204 0.00331 0.00142 0.0716
2F 31 SPECY 0.0085 0.036 0.0003 0.0097 0.00255 0.00051 0.0259
BASE 31 SPECY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0000

Table 5‐5: Inelastic Displacement at Y Direction

Inelastic Displacement (EQ)
35

30

25
Elevation (m)

20

SPECX
15
SPECY
10

0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Displacement (m)

Figure 5‐6: Inelastic Displacement

MACRO – Consulting Structural Engineers Co. Page 26 of 31

Final Report
Structural Investigation of  E‐PLDT IDC VITRO BUILDING

Story Load Point X Y Z DriftX DriftY Resultant Drift

HELIPAD SPECX 608 18.45 24.45 29.8 0.027463 0.004158 0.01944
WT/TOP OF 
ROOF SLAB SPECX 33 24.45 24.45 25.5 0.023294 0.004359 0.01659
RDECK SPECX 573 19.5 0.75 22.3 0.020724 0.004971 0.01492
5F SPECX 3726 6.225 ‐0.7 17.6 0.026163 0.009351 0.01945
4F SPECX 15 12.45 0 12.9 0.027053 0.008645 0.01988
3F SPECX 15 12.45 0 8.6 0.024331 0.008954 0.01815
2F SPECX 1 0 0 4.3 0.011611 0.00555 0.00901
BASE SPECX 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00000

Table 5‐6: Inelastic Story Drift at X Direction
Story Load Point X Y Z DriftX DriftY Resultant Drift
HELIPAD SPECY 33 24.45 24.45 29.8 0.006262 0.022136 0.01610
WT/TOP OF 
ROOF SLAB SPECY 33 24.45 24.45 25.5 0.006285 0.019514 0.01435
RDECK SPECY 2350 36.45 47.625 22.3 0.007712 0.014131 0.01127
5F SPECY 61 48.9 77.9 17.6 0.008732 0.017161 0.01348
4F SPECY 54 36.45 77.9 12.9 0.00988 0.016642 0.01355
3F SPECY 228 0 79 8.6 0.00865 0.015942 0.01270
2F SPECY 11 0 61.35 4.3 0.004421 0.008797 0.00689
BASE SPECY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00000

Table 5‐7: Inelastic Story Drift at Y Direction
Inelastic Story Drift
35
DriftX
30
Drift X
25 Limit
Elevation (m)

20

15

10

0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025
Story Drift

Figure 5‐7: Inelastic Story Drift

MACRO – Consulting Structural Engineers Co. Page 27 of  31 

Final Report
Structural Investigation of  E‐PLDT IDC VITRO BUILDING

5.5 Evaluation of Structural Members

5.5.1 Suspended Slabs

Each of the existing suspended slab panels were designed as reinforced concrete
structural member on metal deck. Reinforcements were verified and checked
based on the furnished as built drawings and such reinforcements were
properly placed and provided at the critical locations of the slab.
Flexural capacity, one way and punching shear capacity as well as the
deflection of slab were checked against the demand of serviceability and design
level basis. Also, diaphragm forces were checked to ensure the force
transfer mechanism through the diaphragm. Shear reinforcements were also
checked if needed at locations with high shear demand. Refer to
tabulated summary of member stress for each individual slab for reference.

From the slab summary, majority of the slab panels have passed the allowable
capacity ratio of 1.0 except on the some slab panels 3S‐1 at third floor located at
gridlines A‐E/1‐2 and slab panel RS‐1 at roof deck located at gridlines A‐B/1‐2.
Refer to retrofitting key plans in the appendix for reference.

5.5.2 Moment Resisting Frame Girders and Intermediate Beams

5.5.2.1 Flexural Capacity

All moment resisting frame girders and gravity load carrying beams’
flexural capacity were checked against the demand capacity calls by its
serviceability and design basis. Analysis shows that most of the girder
and beams did meet the required stress ratio of 1.0 as set forth by the
current governing code of practice. However, several beams and girders
were not adequate as per design analysis. The flexural failure of these
elements occur due seismic requirements and gravity loadings. Refer to
BEAM MEMBER SUMMARY for list of beams/girders which have failed in
flexure requirements. Refer to retrofitting key plan in the appendix for
the location of failed elements for reference.

5.5.2.2 Shear Capacity

The shear capacity of each concrete girders and beams was checked
against the probable shear demand as induced by both gravity and
lateral loadings. Most girders/ beams have passed the shear capacity
check while some of these elements did not meet the required shear
capacity check. Refer to BEAM MEMBER SUMMARY for list of beams
which did not meet the required shear capacity.

MACRO – Consulting Structural Engineers Co. Page 28 of 31

Final Report
Structural Investigation of  E‐PLDT IDC VITRO BUILDING

5.5.3 Moment Resisting Columns

Each of the columns has been checked and evaluated for each individual capacity
Axial capacity check of the concrete columns was performed against the
average axial force demand (both compression and tension) at serviceability and
design level basis. The results of analysis and design showed that most columns
have passed the required axial‐flexural interaction capacity while some of the
columns did not pass the allowable axial‐flexural capacity check. Longitudinal
reinforcements for the concrete columns were adequate and have also passed
the axial capacity as well as the flexural capacity check.

In shear design check, all columns have passed the demand shear
capacity as the shear capacity of each column is within the limits of serviceability
and can resist the shear demand capacity as set forth by design level basis.

Ductility check on each of the columns was also performed and it is complying to
code requirements in all aspect especially with regards to girder to column joint
requirement. Refer to COLUMN SUMMARY for list of columns having registered
demand/capacity ratio greater than 1.0 as per design analysis. Retrofitting key
plan was also provided in the appendix for easy reference.

5.5.4 Foundation System

The foundation system was not included in the investigation due lack of essential
data for checking like the soil investigation report. In the absence of such
important data, we have conducted indeed, thorough inspection at lowest floor
level and nearby area for some signs of possible ground settlement or
deflection or heave, signs of liquefaction or deterioration and other foundation
defects, and we have found no signs of such manifestations.

Furthermore, the building is built with deep foundation using pre stressed piles
as reflected on the as built plans. The quantity of the piles installed cannot be
checked due to absence of pile capacity which normally recommended by the
soils Engineer. Thus, we assumed that the foundation is intact and rests on tuff
formation or hard strata and is likewise adequate to support the building loads.

MACRO – Consulting Structural Engineers Co. Page 29 of 31