i
TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES
938 Aurora BLVD. Cubao, Quezon City
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CE 502
REINFORCED CONCRETE DESIGN
A DESIGN OF A FIVE-STOREY REINFORCED
CONCRETE COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN MARAWI CITY
Submitted By:
AMER, AHMAD BASHIR D.
Submitted To:
ENGR. ALLAN B. BENOGSUDAN
December 11, 2021
ii
ABSTRACT
This project is entitled as “A Design of a Five Storey Reinforced Concrete Commercial Building in
Marawi City” is presented by Ahmad Bashir D. Amer, as partial fulfillment for the requirements for CE 502
(Reinforced Concrete Design).
The project is about the structural analysis and design of the identified parts for the five storey
reinforced concrete commercial building utilizing the moment resisting frames, namely Ordinary Moment
Resisting Frame and Special Moment Resisting Frame. Design specifications, inputs and other
considerations from NBCP and NSCP were used in the design process of the project. The analyzed parts
and designed included: beams, columns and slabs. The most critical part were considered to be chosen due
to its highest result computed from STAAD pro CONNECT Edition, considering all the load combinations.
The details and schedule of the member of the structure were created for the final design of the project.
The software used in the analyzation and concrete design of the structure was STAAD.Pro
CONNECT Edition. As for the detailing of the members designed was AutoCAD.
iii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. AREAS AND FUNCTIONS PER FLOOR ...................................................................................... 6
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF INITIAL ESTIMATES OF VALUES ..................................................................... 31
TABLE 3. RAW DESIGNER'S RANKING .................................................................................................... 37
TABLE 4. RAW INITIAL DATA .................................................................................................................... 38
TABLE 5. NORMALIZED INITIAL DATA ..................................................................................................... 38
TABLE 6. FIRST WEIGHTED SUM OF VARIOUS PERCENTAGE FOR INITIAL DATA ............................ 38
TABLE 7. SECOND WEIGHTED SUM OF VARIOUS PERCENTAGE FOR INITIAL DATA ....................... 39
TABLE 8. THIRD WEIGHTED SUM OF VARIOUS PERCENTAGE FOR INITIAL DATA............................ 39
TABLE 9. MINIMUM DENSITIES FOR DESIGN LOADS FROM MATERIALS ........................................... 54
TABLE 10. MINIMUM UNIFORM CONCENTRATED LIVE LOADS ............................................................ 54
TABLE 11. SEISMIC IMPORTANCE FACTORS ......................................................................................... 55
TABLE 12. SOIL PROFILE TYPES ............................................................................................................. 55
TABLE 13. SEISMIC ZONE FACTOR ......................................................................................................... 55
TABLE 14. NEAR-SOURCE FACTOR ........................................................................................................ 55
TABLE 15. NEAR-SOURCE FACTOR ........................................................................................................ 56
TABLE 16. SEISMIC COEFFICIENT, CA..................................................................................................... 56
TABLE 17. SEISMIC COEFFICIENT, CV..................................................................................................... 56
TABLE 18. EARTHQUAKE FORCE –RESISTING STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS OF CONCRETE ................ 57
TABLE 19. WIND ZONE FOR THE DIFFERENT PROVINCES OF THE PHILIPPINES ............................. 57
TABLE 20. WIND DIRECTIONALITY FACTOR........................................................................................... 57
TABLE 21. IMPORTANCE FACTOR, IW...................................................................................................... 58
TABLE 22. VELOCITY PRESSURE EXPOSURE COEFFICIENTS ............................................................ 58
TABLE 23. DESIGN LIVE LOADS ............................................................................................................... 58
TABLE 24. MINIMUM DESIGN DEAD LOADS............................................................................................ 59
TABLE 25. SEISMIC LOADING PARAMETER FOR ORDINARY MOMENT RESISTING FRAME – ONE
WAY SLAB AND TWO WAY SLAB ..................................................................................................... 59
TABLE 26. SEISMIC LOADING PARAMETER FOR SPECIAL MOMENT RESISTING FRAME – ONE WAY
SLAB AND TWO WAY SLAB .............................................................................................................. 60
TABLE 27. LOAD CASES COMBINATIONS ............................................................................................... 61
TABLE 28. BEAM END FORCES SUMMARY............................................................................................. 75
TABLE 29. NODE DISPLACEMENTS SUMMARY...................................................................................... 75
TABLE 30. SUPPORT REACTIONS SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 76
TABLE 31. BEAM END FORCES SUMMARY............................................................................................. 90
TABLE 32. NODE DISPLACEMENTS SUMMARY...................................................................................... 90
TABLE 33. SUPPORT REACTIONS SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 91
TABLE 34. BEAM END FORCES SUMMARY........................................................................................... 105
TABLE 35. NODE DISPLACEMENT SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 105
TABLE 36. SUPPORT REACTIONS SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 106
TABLE 37. BEAM END FORCES SUMMARY........................................................................................... 120
iv
TABLE 38. NODE DISPLACEMENTS SUMMARY.................................................................................... 120
TABLE 39. SUPPORT REACTIONS SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 121
TABLE 40. FINAL ESTIMATE OF TRADEOFFS ....................................................................................... 122
TABLE 41. COMPARISON OF INITIAL AND FINAL ESTIMATE OF TRADEOFFS .................................. 122
TABLE 42. FINAL DESIGNER’S RANKING .............................................................................................. 129
TABLE 43. RAW FINAL DATA. ................................................................................................................. 129
TABLE 44. NORMALIZED FINAL DATA ................................................................................................... 130
TABLE 45. FIRST WEIGHTED SUM OF VARIOUS PERCENTAGE FOR FINAL DATA .......................... 130
TABLE 46. SECOND WEIGHTED SUM OF VARIOUS PERCENTAGE FOR FINAL DATA ..................... 130
TABLE 47. THIRD WEIGHTED SUM OF VARIOUS PERCENTAGE FOR FINAL DATA.......................... 131
TABLE 48.SLAB SCHEDULE .................................................................................................................... 132
TABLE 49. BEAM SCHEDULE .................................................................................................................. 132
TABLE 50. COLUMN SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................ 136
v
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. MAP LOCATION OF THE FIVE-STOREY COMMERCIAL BUILDING ....................................... 2
FIGURE 2. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ..................................................................................... 4
FIGURE 3. GEOMETRIC MODEL ................................................................................................................. 5
FIGURE 4. GROUND FLOOR PLAN............................................................................................................. 7
FIGURE 5. SECOND FLOOR PLAN ............................................................................................................. 8
FIGURE 6. THIRD FLOOR PLAN.................................................................................................................. 9
FIGURE 7. FOURTH FLOOR PLAN............................................................................................................ 10
FIGURE 8. FIFTH FLOOR PLAN ................................................................................................................ 11
FIGURE 9. FRONT ELEVATION ................................................................................................................. 12
FIGURE 10. LEFT SIDE ELEVATION ......................................................................................................... 12
FIGURE 11. RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ....................................................................................................... 13
FIGURE 12. REAR ELEVATION ................................................................................................................. 13
FIGURE 13. ONE WAY SLAB SYSTEM ..................................................................................................... 26
FIGURE 14. TWO WAY SLAB SYSTEM ..................................................................................................... 26
FIGURE 15. ORDINARY MOMENT RESISTING FRAME ........................................................................... 27
FIGURE 16. SPECIAL MOMENT RESISTING FRAME .............................................................................. 28
FIGURE 17. RANKING SCALE FOR IMPORTANCE FACTOR .................................................................. 30
FIGURE 18. RANKING SCALE FOR SATISFACTORY FACTOR ............................................................... 30
FIGURE 19. COST DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 1 AND 4 .................................................................. 31
FIGURE 20. COST DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 2 AND 4 .................................................................. 32
FIGURE 21. COST DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 3 AND 4 .................................................................. 33
FIGURE 22. CONSTRUCTABILITY DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 1 AND 4 ........................................ 33
FIGURE 23. CONSTRUCTABILITY DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 2 AND 4 ........................................ 34
FIGURE 24. CONSTRUCTABILITY DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 3 AND 4 ........................................ 35
FIGURE 25. SAFETY/SERVICEABILITY DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 1 AND 3 ................................ 35
FIGURE 26. SAFETY/SERVICEABILITY DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 2 AND 3 ................................ 36
FIGURE 27. SAFETY/SERVICEABILITY DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 4 AND 3 ................................ 36
FIGURE 28. DESIGN METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 41
FIGURE 29. ONE WAY SLAB FRAMING PLAN ......................................................................................... 43
FIGURE 30. TWO WAY SLAB FRAMING PLAN ......................................................................................... 44
FIGURE 31. STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAM FOR SINGLY REINFORCED BEAM........................................ 46
FIGURE 32. FLOW CHART OF SHEAR COMPUTATION .......................................................................... 47
FIGURE 33. FLOW CHART OF DESIGN OF SINGLY REINFORCED BEAM ............................................ 48
FIGURE 34. FLOW CHART OF DESIGN OF DOUBLY REINFORCED BEAM........................................... 49
FIGURE 35. FLOW CHART OF COLUMN REINFORCEMENT .................................................................. 51
FIGURE 36. DESIGN OF SLAB .................................................................................................................. 52
FIGURE 37. GENERAL DESIGN PROCESS .............................................................................................. 53
FIGURE 38. DESIGN PROCESS FLOW CHART FOR TRADE-OFF ONE (ONE WAY SLAB – ORDINARY
MOMENT RESISTING FRAME) .......................................................................................................... 62
vi
FIGURE 39. GEOMETRIC MODEL OF ORDINARY MOMENT RESISTING FRAME - ONE WAY SLAB .. 63
FIGURE 40. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR DEAD LOADS .................................................................................... 64
FIGURE 41. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT X ............................................................. 64
FIGURE 42. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT -X ........................................................... 65
FIGURE 43. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT Z ............................................................. 65
FIGURE 44. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT -Z............................................................ 66
FIGURE 45. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR LIVE LOADS ...................................................................................... 66
FIGURE 46. SHEAR DIAGRAM AT X ......................................................................................................... 67
FIGURE 47. SHEAR DIAGRAM AT Y ......................................................................................................... 67
FIGURE 48. SHEAR DIAGRAM AT Z ......................................................................................................... 68
FIGURE 49. MOMENT DIAGRAM AT X ...................................................................................................... 68
FIGURE 50. MOMENT DIAGRAM AT Y ...................................................................................................... 69
FIGURE 51. MOMENT DIAGRAM AT Z ...................................................................................................... 69
FIGURE 52. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT X ................................................................................................. 70
FIGURE 53. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT –X ............................................................................................... 70
FIGURE 54. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT Z ................................................................................................. 71
FIGURE 55. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT -Z ................................................................................................ 71
FIGURE 56. GRAVITY LOAD (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION ......................................... 72
FIGURE 57. GRAVITY LOAD (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – TRANSVERSE DIRECTION ........................................... 72
FIGURE 58. MOMENT DUE TO SEISMIC LOAD - LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION ..................................... 73
FIGURE 59. MOMENT DUE TO SEISMIC LOAD – TRANSVERSE DIRECTION....................................... 73
FIGURE 60. WIND LOAD – LONGITUDINAL ............................................................................................. 74
FIGURE 61. WIND LOAD – TRANSVERSE................................................................................................ 74
FIGURE 62. DESIGN PROCESS FLOW CHART FOR TRADE-OFF ONE (ONE WAY SLAB – SPECIAL
MOMENT RESISTING FRAME) .......................................................................................................... 77
FIGURE 63. GEOMETRIC MODEL OF SPECIAL MOMENT RESISTING FRAME - ONE WAY SLAB ...... 78
FIGURE 64. LOAD DIAGRAMS FOR DEAD LOAD .................................................................................... 79
FIGURE 65. LOAD DIAGRAMS FOR LIVE LOAD ...................................................................................... 79
FIGURE 66. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT X ............................................................. 80
FIGURE 67. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT -X ........................................................... 80
FIGURE 68. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT Z ............................................................. 81
FIGURE 69. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT –Z ........................................................... 81
FIGURE 70. SHEAR DIAGRAM AT X ......................................................................................................... 82
FIGURE 71. SHEAR DIAGRAM AT Y ......................................................................................................... 82
FIGURE 72. SHEAR DIAGRAM AT Z ......................................................................................................... 83
FIGURE 73. MOMENT DIAGRAM AT X ...................................................................................................... 83
FIGURE 74. MOMENT DIAGRAM AT Y ...................................................................................................... 84
FIGURE 75. MOMENT DIAGRAM AT Z ...................................................................................................... 84
FIGURE 76. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT X ................................................................................................. 85
FIGURE 77. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT –X ............................................................................................... 85
FIGURE 78. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT Z ................................................................................................. 86
vii
FIGURE 79. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT -Z ................................................................................................ 86
FIGURE 80. GRAVITY LOAD (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION ......................................... 87
FIGURE 81. GRAVITY LOAD (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – TRANSVERSE DIRECTION ........................................... 87
FIGURE 82. MOMENT DUE TO SEISMIC LOAD - LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION ..................................... 88
FIGURE 83. MOMENT DUE TO SEISMIC LOAD - TRANSVERSE DIRECTION ....................................... 88
FIGURE 84. WIND LOAD – LONGITUDINAL ............................................................................................. 89
FIGURE 85. WIND LOAD – TRANSVERSE................................................................................................ 89
FIGURE 86. DESIGN PROCESS FLOW CHART FOR TRADE-OFF TWO (TWO WAY SLAB – ORDINARY
MOMENT RESISTING FRAME) .......................................................................................................... 92
FIGURE 87. GEOMETRIC MODEL OF ORDINARY MOMENT RESISTING FRAME - TWO WAY SLAB .. 93
FIGURE 88. LOAD DIAGRAMS FOR DEAD LOAD .................................................................................... 94
FIGURE 89. LOAD DIAGRAMS FOR LIVE LOAD ...................................................................................... 94
FIGURE 90. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT X ............................................................. 95
FIGURE 91. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT –X........................................................... 95
FIGURE 92. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT Z ............................................................. 96
FIGURE 93. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT –Z ........................................................... 96
FIGURE 94. SHEAR DIAGRAM AT X ......................................................................................................... 97
FIGURE 95. SHEAR DIAGRAM AT Y ......................................................................................................... 97
FIGURE 96. SHEAR DIAGRAM AT Z ......................................................................................................... 98
FIGURE 97. MOMENT DIAGRAM AT X ...................................................................................................... 98
FIGURE 98. MOMENT DIAGRAM AT Y ...................................................................................................... 99
FIGURE 99. MOMENT DIAGRAM AT Z ...................................................................................................... 99
FIGURE 100. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT X ............................................................................................. 100
FIGURE 101. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT –X ........................................................................................... 100
FIGURE 102. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT Z ............................................................................................. 101
FIGURE 103. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT –Z ........................................................................................... 101
FIGURE 104. GRAVITY LOAD (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION ..................................... 102
FIGURE 105. GRAVITY LOAD (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – TRANSVERSE DIRECTION ....................................... 102
FIGURE 106. MOMENT DUE TO SEISMIC LOAD - LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION ................................. 103
FIGURE 107. MOMENT DUE TO SEISMIC LOAD - TRANSVERSE DIRECTION ................................... 103
FIGURE 108. WIND LOAD – LONGITUDINAL.......................................................................................... 104
FIGURE 109. WIND LOAD – TRANSVERSE ............................................................................................ 104
FIGURE 110. DESIGN PROCESS FLOW CHART FOR TRADE-OFF TWO (TWO WAY SLAB – SPECIAL
MOMENT RESISTING FRAME) ........................................................................................................ 107
FIGURE 111. GEOMETRIC MODEL OF SPECIAL MOMENT RESISTING FRAME - TWO WAY SLAB.. 108
FIGURE 112. LOAD DIAGRAMS FOR DEAD LOAD ................................................................................ 109
FIGURE 113. LOAD DIAGRAMS FOR LIVE LOAD .................................................................................. 109
FIGURE 114. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT X ......................................................... 110
FIGURE 115. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT –X....................................................... 110
FIGURE 116. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT Z ......................................................... 111
FIGURE 117. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT -Z........................................................ 111
viii
FIGURE 118. SHEAR DIAGRAM AT X ..................................................................................................... 112
FIGURE 119. SHEAR DIAGRAM AT Y ..................................................................................................... 112
FIGURE 120. SHEAR DIAGRAM AT Z ..................................................................................................... 113
FIGURE 121. MOMENT DIAGRAM AT X .................................................................................................. 113
FIGURE 122. MOMENT DIAGRAM AT Y .................................................................................................. 114
FIGURE 123. MOMENT DIAGRAM AT Z .................................................................................................. 114
FIGURE 124. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT X ............................................................................................. 115
FIGURE 125. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT –X ........................................................................................... 115
FIGURE 126. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT Z ............................................................................................. 116
FIGURE 127. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT –Z ........................................................................................... 116
FIGURE 128. GRAVITY LOAD (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION ..................................... 117
FIGURE 129. GRAVITY LOAD (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – TRANSVERSE DIRECTION ....................................... 117
FIGURE 130. MOMENT DUE TO SEISMIC LOAD - LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION ................................. 118
FIGURE 131. MOMENT DUE TO SEISMIC LOAD - TRANSVERSE DIRECTION ................................... 118
FIGURE 132. WIND LOAD – LONGITUDINAL.......................................................................................... 119
FIGURE 133. WIND LOAD - TRANSVERSE ............................................................................................ 119
FIGURE 134. COST DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 1 AND 4 .............................................................. 123
FIGURE 135. COST DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 2 AND 4 .............................................................. 124
FIGURE 136. COST DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 3 AND 4 .............................................................. 125
FIGURE 137. CONSTRUCTABILITY DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 1 AND 4 .................................... 125
FIGURE 138. CONSTRUCTABILITY DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 2 AND 4 .................................... 126
FIGURE 139. CONSTRUCTABILITY DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 3 AND 4 .................................... 127
FIGURE 140. SAFETY/SERVICEABILITY DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 1 AND 2 ............................ 127
FIGURE 141. SAFETY/SERVICEABILITY DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 3 AND 2 ............................ 128
FIGURE 142. SAFETY/SERVICEABILITY DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 4 AND 2 ............................ 128
FIGURE 143. BEAM DETAILS (A) ............................................................................................................ 141
FIGURE 144. BEAM DETAILS (B) ............................................................................................................ 142
FIGURE 145. COLUMN DETAILS (A) ....................................................................................................... 143
FIGURE 146. COLUMN DETAILS (B) ....................................................................................................... 143
ix
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1
The Project
The project is a commercial building constituted of five stories containing all the necessary rooms for
offices and grocery store at the ground floor. It is intended to be built in Marawi City. As a city with
many businesses and many professionals who will go to nearby cities or most will go to metro manila,
constructing a commercial building is appropriate.
The designed structure is composed of five floors with a basic floor area of 893.09 sq.m. The entire
building comprises of state-of-the-art facilities on offices, a lobby, a lounge, a pantry, a comfort room
in every floor, a conference rooms, and an open-plan offices common in an office building topped by
a roof deck. Each floor has a height of 3 meters.
It is designed with the principles of Reinforced Concrete Design and under the standard and
specifications of National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP) and National Structural Code of
the Philippines (NSCP), 2015, Volume 1, 7th Edition.
1
1.2
Project Location
Figure 1. Map Location of the Five-Storey Commercial Building
1.3
Project Objectives
1.4.1
General Objective
1. The purpose of this project is to design a 5-storey commercial building and to analyze
the structure using reinforced concrete design in accordance with the NSCP 2010
principles.
1.4.2
Specific Objectives
1) To design a 5-storey school building made of reinforced concrete materials.
2) To provide detailed plans and programmed design of the project
3) To evaluate the effect of multiple constraints, trade-offs and standards in the final design.
2
4) To provided structural analysis of the project.
1.4
The Client
The client of this project is the mayor of Marawi City which is Atty. Majul Gandamra, which he will be
the one to accept the funding to create a commercial building that will lead to a better Marawi City
after it had a devastating collapse in economy due to the siege.
1.5
Project Scope and Limitations
The following are the scope covered by the project:
•
The project is designed in accordance with the National Structural Code of the Philippines
2015 Volume 1, National Building Code of the Philippines and other applicable codes.
•
Analysis of structural elements using STAADPro CONNECT v22 program.
•
Detailed illustrations of structural member and design
•
Design by reinforced concrete materials
The following are the limitations of the design project:
•
The detailed activities within the span of construction of the project.
•
The project does not include Architectural, Mechanical, Plumbing and Electrical Works.
•
The project does not include the cost estimation for Architectural, Mechanical, Plumbing and
Electrical Works.
•
The interior perspective each floor of the school building project.
•
The maintenance and alterations of the project.
3
1.6
Project Development
The following stages shown in Figure 1-3 takes place in design in a 5-storey commercial building.
Conceptualization
Location/Vicinity Map
Identifying the project objectives, target
client and scope and limitations
Determining design standards and
parameters
Architectural and Structural Plans
Identification of Constraints and TradeOffs
Weighing of constraints and trade-offs
based on standard capstone procedures
Loadings and Structural Analysis
Final Design Output
Figure 2. Project Development Process
4
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUT
2.1
Description of Structure
The figure below shows geometric model of the main frame system of the five-storey building. It is
modeled through STAAD.Pro CONNECT software and used for structural analysis.
Figure 3. Geometric Model
2.2
Classification of Structure
In designing a structure, the designer/s should be able to classify the structure itself using National
Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP- 2015). The structure which is commercial building
classified as essential facility according to the occupancy category based on the NSCP-2015. It also
classified as Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF) for the structural components but there is
also Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame. From these classifications, the designer will identify all the
parameters involve in designing the structure especially for seismic and earthquake analysis.
5
2.3
Floor Area
Table 1. Areas and Functions per Floor
FUNCTION
AREA (m2)
First Floor
Store
Office-2
Employee Break Rm.
Storage Rm.
C.R.
Stairs
Hallway
TOTAL
725
25
25
50
25
25
25
900
Second Floor
Office-1
Office-2
Conference Rm.
Open-Plan Office
Lobby
Hallway
Pantry
C.R.
Stair
TOTAL
100
150
50
250
175
100
25
25
25
900
Third Floor
Office-1
Office-2
Conference Rm.
Open-Plan Office
Lounge
Hallway
Pantry
C.R
Stair
TOTAL
100
150
50
400
75
50
25
25
25
900
Fourth Floor
Office-1
Office-2
Conference Rm.
Open-Plan Office
Hallway
Pantry
C.R
Stair
100
150
50
450
75
25
25
25
6
TOTAL
900
Fifth Floor
Office-1
Office-2
Conference Rm.
Open-Plan Office
Hallway
Pantry
C.R
Stair
TOTAL
2.4
100
150
50
450
75
25
25
25
900
Architectural Plans
2.4.1
Floor Plans
Figure 4. Ground Floor Plan
7
Figure 5. Second Floor Plan
8
Figure 6. Third Floor Plan
9
Figure 7. Fourth Floor Plan
10
Figure 8. Fifth Floor Plan
11
2.4.2
Elevations
Figure 9. Front Elevation
Figure 10. Left Side Elevation
12
Figure 11. Right Side Elevation
Figure 12. Rear Elevation
13
2.5
Review of Related Literature and Studies
2.5.1
Seismic Resistance of Buildings
The conceptual design and the detailing of the structural elements (walls, columns, slabs) and the
non-structural elements (partition walls, façades) plays a central role in determining the structural
behaviour (before failure) and the earthquake vulnerability (sensitivity to damage) of buildings. Errors
and defects in the conceptual design cannot be compensated for in the following calculations and
detailed design of the engineer. A seismically correct conceptual design is furthermore necessary in
order to achieve a good earthquake resistance without incurring significant additional costs. (Hugo
Bachmann, January 2002).
2.5.2
Floor Slab Analysis
Floor Slab Analysis (Case Study: One Residence Apartment Batam Center)
Reinforced concrete slab are widely used in civil buildings, including as building
floors, roof floors, bridge floors and dock floors. The load acting on the slab is generally
calculated against gravitational loads. This study aims to analyse floor slab in One Residence
Batam Center Apartment Construction Project. The moment method is used to predict the
magnitude of frame and shrinkage values that refer to 2002 of SNI. Loading is carried out
from dead loads and live loads with a two-way reinforcement system. Reinforcement is done
using steel with a diameter of 10 mm. So that the minimum area is 313 mm square with a
distance of 250 mm and is in the safe category. From the calculation results obtained the
concrete elastic modulus obtained by 250 MPa with a reinforcement ratio of 0.0025.
Checking the time dependency factor for dead loads is carried out within 3 months, 6 months,
14
12 months and more than 5 years. Long-term deflection due t frame and shrinkage is still in
the safe category. (Yayuk Setyaning Astutik, 2019)
2.5.2.1 One Way Slab
Behaviour and Strength of One Way Reinforced Concrete Slabs
There would be a variety of slab systems which can be used to reduce the
slab self-weight, such as the hollow slab, to cope with the increase in the height and
dimensions of building structures which results in turn in self weight structure
increase. In this study, one directional hollow slabs were experimented to investigate
the behavior of the reinforced concrete slab containing cavities. The cavities filled
with styropor as insulation material which were inserted at the middle zone of the
slab thickness between the tension cord (lower zone) and the compression cord
(upper zone). They will reduce the slab weight rather than the insulation properties
as compared to the solid slab (reference slab). (Amer Izzet, March 2014)
Enhancing the Behavior of One-Way Reinforced Concrete Slabs by Using
Laced Reinforcement
This paper studies experimentally the behavior of laced reinforced concrete
one-way slabs under monotonic load. The experimental program included testing
three simply supported one-way slabs of dimensions (1500 mm length, 600 mm
width, and thickness 130mm. One of these slabs was the control specimen which
was designed without lacing reinforcement steel and the other two specimens
designed were with two variable lacing reinforcement ratio (0.27% and 0.52%). All
specimens were cast with normal of 22 MPa compressive strength. Specimens were
15
tested under two equal line loads applied at the third parts of the slab (monotonic
load) gradually applying up to failure. The specimens showed an enhanced in
ultimate load capacity up to 40% as a result of increasing the lacing steel ratio to
0.52 %. Also, decreasing in deflection at service and at ultimate load levels by 42%
and %57 respectively. In addition, the results showed that specimen with lacing
reinforcement are more ductility than specimen without lacing reinforcement so
using of lacing steel reinforcement leads to significant improvements in ductility
index which reached to about 49% with increasing the lacing steel ratio to (0.52%).
(Ali Faiq Hallawi et al., 2019)
2.5.2.2 Two Way Slab
Maximum bending moments in a RC two-way slab subjected to wall loads
With the purpose to characterize the behavior of a transfer slab system, a
slab-wall full-scale specimen was designed, build and tested to cyclic loads in the
Laboratory of Structures at UAM. The prototype slab-wall was subjected to three
load patterns: 1) gravitational load; 2) horizontal load only; and 3) a combination of
gravitational and lateral loads. The specimen consists of a masonry wall placed on
top of a squared two-way slab of 4.25 m by side, thickness of 12 cm, on four
reinforced concrete beams. The most important results presented herein are the
resistance capacity of the slab supporting a load-bearing wall subjected to vertical
and horizontal load. Analytical finite element slab-wall models were used. (Alonso
Gómez Bernal et al., 2017)
AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON FLEXURAL BEHAVIOUR OF RCC TWO WAY
SLABS
16
Concrete is the most commonly used material in various types of
constructions. The demand of aggregate and cement used in concrete is increasing
worldwide every year due to rapid industrialization and urban development. The
excessive utilization of aggregate for concrete production leads to excessive
exploitation of natural aggregate and environmental degradation from quarrying
activities. This has resulted in renewed interest in Recycled Aggregate (RA) as a
viable source of concrete ingredient. Study carries casting and testing of two way
slab specimens by using natural coarse aggregate and 50% replacement with
recycled aggregate. The concrete grade considered for study is M25. In the
experimental study the concrete mix has been designed as per the guidelines given
in IS: 10262-2009 published by Bureau of Indian Standards. In slab specimens, the
steel reinforcement varies from 0.3%, 0.4%, 0.5% in both the cases (natural and
recycled) by using 6mm and 8mm diameter rebars. The size of two way slab is
600mm × 800mm × 90mm. The value of modulus of elasticity (E) is evaluated from
the load vs. deflection curve of slab specimens. The modulus of elasticity of concrete
is a very important parameter reflecting the ability of concrete to deform elastically.
Deflections and crack widths are the parameters that gives us warning that the
structure is about to fail so that there will be time to counter act. The aim of study is
to verify the influence of steel reinforcement on the modulus of elasticity of
reinforced concrete members. (Dr. B. Madhusudana Reddy et al., December 2017)
17
2.5.2.3 Computational Analysis of RCC Slab (Simply Supported) using C Software
Language
Slab design is done mainly by manual method or using design and analysis
software. In this article, a C coding has been done for the design of a simply supported
reinforced concrete slab. The design of slabs will differ depending upon the support
conditions and also on end conditions. The load condition can also be a variable factor. The
design criteria will change with the grade of concrete used, the exposure conditions. These
criteria have not taken into account in the coding procedure. Indian standard design
procedure has been followed, and the clauses in the IS456-2000, has been followed during
the coding. This coding has done to overcome the delay in the manual calculations, to obtain
the accuracy in the result calculations. As slab is an import element in the structural design
aspect, it has to be designed very carefully. As an input value, the steel area calculation has
to be done manually in this procedure. Also the unit conversion is not allowed in the coding,
and all the dimensions are to be submitted in meters only. (S.Suchithra et al., November
2019)
A Comparative Study on Structural Analysis of High-Rise Buildings
With the developing technology, the high-level structures provide innovative solutions that
enable many functions to coexist together. In addition, high-rise buildings are an advertising tool for
countries, cities and large companies to show their power and prestige. From their design to
operation, these structures take place in the city skyline with their advanced technology. Formerly
human’s life was near to nature, which human beings have been accustomed for centuries. However
today, they have been tried to rise their structures with the help of developments in technology,
construction techniques and with the limitations brought by urbanization day by day. These
18
structures, which are defined as multi storey buildings in the literature, have taken the name of
skyscraper together with the desire to reach higher and higher. As technology has advanced, the
desire to build higher has brought different structure system solutions and proposals. In this context,
the investigation of the positive/negative effects of these structures to the function of the structure,
which are the new living spaces of people, constitutes the main point of the study. It has been found
that the functions are limited and the spaces cannot be used efficiently in the structure system
solutions of the prestige buildings in this study. With the development of the construction materials,
it will be provided that hybrid or steel construction system buildings formed by taking advantage of
the steel structure with slender columns and beams. Thus, creating a more flexible and efficient use
of interior spaces of extraordinary forms can be designed. (Şule Yılmaz Erten et al., 2018).
Structural Framing Analysis
They presented an advanced structural framing system, which can construct cost-efficient
high-rise office buildings with high additional value. Main components are comprised of, (1)
earthquake-resisting core walls with boundary beams, which can bear almost all of the earthquake
forces, (2) outer frames and (3) the inversed haunch beams of office areas released from earthquake
force. These characteristics give flexibility to building planning and future possible renovations. The
seismic response analysis results illustrated that the earthquake-resistance standards of Japan, as
a severely seismic country, could be satisfied, and the boundary beams reduced the seismic
response. The loading tests confirmed that the shear strength and bending characteristics of the
earthquake-resisting walls with built-in steel could be evaluated by conventional design equations
for reinforced concrete earthquake-resisting walls. It was also verified that the boundary beams
proposed had a large equivalent damping factor and could decrease damage compared with
boundary beams of normal cross-sections. (Naoki Niwa et. al., 2004)
19
Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame
In this study behaviour of the structure having various structural configurations like OMRF
(Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames), SMRF (Special Moment Resisting Frames). The poor
performance of Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame (OMRF) in past earthquakes suggested that, the
special design and detailing to require arresting a ductile behaviour in seismic zones of high
earthquake (zone III, IV & V). For this purpose, a G+7 storey R.C.C. regular building are analyzed
for OMRCF, SMRCF framing configurations in Seismic Zone II, III & IV according to Indian codes.
For OMRF structures the guide lines of I.S. 456-2000 and the design, detailing of reinforcement are
executed as per which make the structure less tough and ductile in comparison of SMRF structures.
The earthquake resistant design should be based on lateral strength as well as deformability and
ductility capacity of structure. For adequate toughness and ductility to resist the severe earthquake
shocks without collapse, in the SMRF structures Beams, columns, and beam-column joints are
proportioned and detailed as per I.S. code 13920(2002). Thus it has been studied and observed that
SMRF structures behave well in earthquake than OMRF structures. (Anupam S. Hirapure et. al.,
2017)
Special Moment Resisting Frames
This performance-based study was conducted to investigate the effects of seismic
coefficients on performance of concrete special moment frames of 5,7, and 10-storey buildings
located in Tehran, Iran. The structures are designed three-dimensionally by ETABS 2016 software
according to ACI-318-08. Fifteen specimens were designed with different base shears having
seismic coefficients of 0.7, 0.85, 1, 1.15, and 1.30 times the proposed value of Iranian Standard
2800, (i.e. decreased by 70 and 85%, and increased by 115 and 130%). Endurance time method
(ETA20in series of ET acceleration function) as well as three real earthquake records was employed
20
to evaluate the seismic performance of the modeled structures. The performance of structures was
compared by the time of the first plastic hinges formation in beams and columns, the time of entering
to nonlinear region and the time of experiencing storey drift of 2% corresponding to the life safety
performance level. It was observed that the results of ET records and real records were similar to
each other. A procedure was proposed for finding optimum structure with lower weight using ET
method through defining efficient ratio (ER) and cost ratio (CR). Based on the results of ER/CR ratio
and considering the importance of collapse prevention performance level, optimum structure was a
7-storey structure with lower weight or cost whose seismic coefficient had been reduced by 70%. It
was concluded that high safety can not be achieved simply by increasing the seismic coefficient of
structures. (Hadi Radmanesh et. al., 2018)
Comparative Analysis on Moment Resisting Frames
The comparative study of SMRF and OMRF buildings has been done by performing
pushover analysis for 12 storey and 16 storey RC buildings and their response is monitored. The
comparative observations are,
1.
It is observed that the base shear capacity of OMRF buildings is 80% to 85% more than that
of SMRF buildings.
2.
And the ductility of SMRF buildings is 55% to 140% more than that of OMRF buildings.
3.
This is due to the use of more number of stirrups as ductile reinforcement and heavy
confinement of concrete due to splicing. 4. It is observed that SMRF buildings perform much
better compared to OMRF buildings. 5. The ductility and magnitude of base shear that can
be resisted increases with increase in number of storeys. (Shinde M.S. et. al., 2018).
A Comparative Study on Structural Analysis of High-Rise Buildings
21
With the developing technology, the high-level structures provide innovative solutions that
enable many functions to coexist together. In addition, high-rise buildings are an advertising tool for
countries, cities and large companies to show their power and prestige. From their design to
operation, these structures take place in the city skyline with their advanced technology. Formerly
human’s life was near to nature, which human beings have been accustomed for centuries. However
today, they have been tried to rise their structures with the help of developments in technology,
construction techniques and with the limitations brought by urbanization day by day. These
structures, which are defined as multi storey buildings in the literature, have taken the name of
skyscraper together with the desire to reach higher and higher. As technology has advanced, the
desire to build higher has brought different structure system solutions and proposals. In this context,
the investigation of the positive/negative effects of these structures to the function of the structure,
which are the new living spaces of people, constitutes the main point of the study. It has been found
that the functions are limited and the spaces cannot be used efficiently in the structure system
solutions of the prestige buildings in this study. With the development of the construction materials,
it will be provided that hybrid or steel construction system buildings formed by taking advantage of
the steel structure with slender columns and beams. Thus, creating a more flexible and efficient use
of interior spaces of extraordinary forms can be designed. (Şule Yılmaz Erten et al., 2018).
Study of OMRF and SMRF structures for different earthquake zones of India
The increase in the rate of earthquake every year and thereby increasing loss of life and
property has led to necessity of comparing the methods of analyzing/designing of building structures.
The study of the building structures was done by classifying them into two methods i.e. Ordinary RC
Moment Resisting Frames (OMRF) structures and Special RC Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF)
Structures. In these study two comparisons has been done. First comparison is between OMRF and
22
SMRF structures. Second comparison is the behavior of a building structure in different earthquake
zones of India. STAAD Pro software is used for designing structures, for four Earthquake zones. In
this study the variation in the structure was done while designing, considering OMRF and SMRF
Structures. For that purpose fixed dimensions of beams and columns was taken, so as to co-relate
the variation in the displacement of OMRF and SMRF Structure due to lateral force generated by the
earthquake in x and z direction. In conclusion, the comparison of study output is done for following
the suitable method of designing the structure for safety purpose, to prevent the loss of life,
infrastructure and to meet the better serviceability criteria during the earthquake. (J. Bhattacharjee,
2017).
23
CHAPTER 3: CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS AND STANDARDS
3.1
Design Constraints
Design constraints are the factors that will limit the range of potential design solutions that can
be adopted. In the early stage of a project only some of these constraints may be known, while
others become evident as the design progresses. Constraints are divided into two, the Quantitative
Constraints which refers to those that can be measured by applying of engineering principles and
one of this is estimation method. Qualitative Constraints, refers to those constraints that are not
measurable anymore but it can be classified by designer through perception. The following are the
constraints to be considered:
3.1.1
Quantitative Constraints
1. Economic. The cost of the structure is highly considerable and important in terms of
fund of the client, and it is also highly significant to the designer due to the fact that the
client will be happy if the designer considers the least reasonable cost.
2. Constructability. The constructability is also called as buildability, which is a new term
in construction industry. But the concept of buildability has existed from past. This will
also be an important quantitative constraints because it will determine the duration of
construction, schedules, number of workers and laborers, equipments needed and
materials to be used. If the desired schedule to finish the project are not met, it will take
a lot of time and more money to spend on the project.
3. Safety/Serviceability. Safety of the structure should and always a priority for the
occupants to use. It makes the structure function effectively overtime. There are times
it will accidentally damage but we cannot deny the fact of the importance of safety.
24
3.1.2
Qualitative Constraints
1. Aesthetics. This will depend on a person’s perception whether which design is more
presentable and pleasing. This constraint will depend on the taste of a person and
therefore it is considered as a qualitative constraint.
2. Sustainability. Sustainability refers to which how durable will be the structure as time
pass by and how the building will still be considered useful and safe at the same time.
Should these limit states be exceeded, it will be considered unsustainable.
3.2
Trade-Offs
Considering the design constraints, trade-offs will have a significant effect on the structural design
of the structure that were provided by the designer. As a trade-off, the designer will have to evaluate
and check which is more effective considering the given constraints. Trade-off in the design are
always present in the design process. The following are the trade-offs that were chosen by the
designer because it will be most fitted to the given constraints.
3.2.1
One Way Slab
25
Figure 13. One Way Slab System
One-way slabs are those slabs with an aspect ratio in plan of 2:1 or greater, in which bending
is primarily about the long axis. In heavily loaded slabs, the thickness is often governed by shear or
flexure, while in lightly-loaded slabs, the thickness is generally chosen based on deflection
limitations. Both lightly and heavily loaded slabs are typically dimensioned so that no shear
reinforcement is required, as placing stirrups in slabs is perceived to be difficult and costly. One-way
slabs are designed for flexure and shear on a per meter width basis, assuming that they act as a
series of independent strips. Thus one-way shear in slabs is often referred to as beam shear, and
design for flexure and shear is carried out using a beam analogy
3.2.2
Two Way Slab
Figure 14. Two Way Slab System
When a rectangular slab is supported on all the sides and the length-to-breadth ratio is less
than two, it is considered to be a two-way slab. The slab spans in both the orthogonal directions. In
26
general, a slab which is not falling in the category of one-way slab is considered to be a two-way
slab.
3.2.3
Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame
Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames (OMRF) do not meet special detailing requirements for
ductile behavior under National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP 2015). Ordinary Moment
Resisting Frames is stiffer and attracts higher base shear (seismic force) but less capable to
redistribute forces from member to joint and joint to member due to its limitations of detailing.
Typically used in non/low-seismic regions.
Figure 15. Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame
3.2.4
Special Moment Resisting Frame
NSCP specifies using Special moment resisting frames for analysis and study on lateral
loads. NSCP uses moment-resisting frames, particularly special moment resisting frames. Special
Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF) is expected to withstand significant inelastic deformations and it
must sustain inter-story drift angle of at least 0.04 radians. Intermediate moment resisting frame is
typically used in mid/high-seismic regions.
27
Figure 16. Special Moment Resisting Frame
3.3
Significance of Chosen Tradeoffs to the Quantitative Design Constraints
In this section, the constraints enlisted in the beginning of the chapter will be related to the tradeoffs
chosen by the designer. The final decision of choosing the tradeoff that will be used for the structure lies on
the client. Thus, the significance of the tradeoffs to the constraints is needed.
Economic. For the cost effectiveness of the structure, the tradeoffs chosen will be designed to be
compared whether of the two will be more economical. Clients do not have the same state of living and thus
might give priority to this constraint. Some might choose the tradeoff that have lower price but might not give
way to the positivity of other tradeoffs.
28
Constructability. Time measures is significant in the construction of the structure. Knowing which
of the difference in the period of construction two tradeoffs might be significant for a client. Some clients need
shorter period of time and thus give priority to this constraint.
Safety/Serviceability. The magnitudes of deflection for concrete members are also important. Any
structure used by the people should be quite rigid and relatively-vibration free so as to provide security.
Designing these two tradeoffs will give different results. Thus, one tradeoff might be safer than the other. A
safer structure known to a client might be given priority.
Through the consideration of multiple constraints, the designer will have to choose what particular
design among the tradeoffs will be used. The tradeoff is very significant in the design for it will solve the
problem regarding the concern of client considering the constraints.
3.4
Method of Measurements for Quantitative Constraints
The main method of measurement that will be used in this design is estimation. For the economic
constraint, the cost of the whole building. This includes the materials that will be used for the construction of
the beams, slabs, and columns. It also includes the cost of the reinforcements that will be used for the
structure. For the constructability of the structure, the period of time that will be utilized to construct the
building will be estimated, together with the number of workers that will work on that period of time. The
number of workers will be constant for both tradeoffs. The difference between the days will give the result for
each tradeoff. For the last constraint, the deflection of the most critical beam will be computed for each
tradeoff and will then be compared.
3.5
Ranking Scale
The ranking scale that will be used in the design will be based on the model on tradeoff strategies
that is formulated by Otto and Antonsson (1991). The importance factors in every constraint is scaled from 0
29
to 5, while the capacity to satisfy the constraints will be scaled from -5 to 5, 5 being the highest for both. After
obtaining the results, the product of the importance and the capacity to satisfy the criteria will be summed of
from every constraint. The result will be the overall ranking of the trade-off.
Figure 17. Ranking Scale for Importance Factor
Figure 18. Ranking Scale for Satisfactory Factor
Computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials:
Percent Difference () =
Higher Value-Lower Value
Higher Value
Subordinate Rank = Governing rank -
x10; Equation 1
Percent Difference
10
; Equation 2
The above equations will be used for the manipulation of the rankings of each constraint given to the
tradeoffs. The governing rank is the highest possible value set by the designer. The subordinate rank
in second equation is a variable that corresponds to its percentage difference from the governing
rank along the ranking scale.
3.6
Initial Estimate and Ranking Computation
To determine the difference between the two tradeoffs, certain methods were used by the designer.
For the economic constraint, a cost estimate was provided. For the constructability constraint, an estimate of
the number of working days was provided, given that there will be 50 workers. For the safety/serviceability
constraint, the deflection of the most critical beam was considered.
30
In this part, a rough computation of the estimates was utilized. The values written in the table
below were just assumed by the designer whose basis came from experience.
Table 2. Summary of Initial Estimates of Values
CONSTRAINT
Economic
Constructability
Safety/Serviceability
ESTIMATED VALUE
One-Way Slab
Two-Way Slab
SMRF
OMRF
Php 16,000,000
Php 17,500,000
550 Days
575 Days
5% of allowable
3.5% of allowable
One-Way Slab
OMRF
Php 18,000,000
600 Days
4% of allowable
Two-Way Slab
SMRF
Php 15,500,000
525 Days
4.5% of allowable
Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint of Trade-Offs one (1) and four (4)
% Difference =
Higher Value-Lower Value
% Difference =
Higher Value
18000000-15500000
18000000
x100
x100
% Difference = 13.88
Subordinate rank = Governing rank -
% difference
10
Subordinate rank = 5 – 1.389
Subordinate rank = 3.599
Figure 19. Cost Difference of Trade-Offs 1 and 4
31
Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint of Trade-Offs two (2) and four (4)
% Difference =
Higher Value-Lower Value
Higher Value
% Difference =
16000000-15500000
16000000
x100
x100
% Difference = 3.125
Subordinate rank = Governing rank -
% difference
10
Subordinate rank = 5 – 0.3125
Subordinate rank = 4.6875
Figure 20. Cost Difference of Trade-Offs 2 and 4
Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint of Trade-Offs three (3) and four (4)
% Difference =
Higher Value-Lower Value
% Difference =
Higher Value
17500000-15500000
17500000
x100
x100
% Difference = 11.429
Subordinate rank = Governing rank -
% difference
10
32
Subordinate rank = 5 – 1.43
Subordinate rank = 3.57
Figure 21. Cost Difference of Trade-Offs 3 and 4
Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint of Trade-Offs one (1) and four (4)
% Difference =
Higher Value-Lower Value
Higher Value
% Difference =
600-525
600
x100
x100
% Difference = 12.5
Subordinate rank = Governing rank -
% difference
10
Subordinate rank = 5 – 1.25
Subordinate rank = 3.75
Figure 22. Constructability Difference of Trade-Offs 1 and 4
Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint of Trade-Offs two (2) and four (4)
% Difference =
Higher Value-Lower Value
Higher Value
x100
33
% Difference =
550-525
550
x100
% Difference = 4.545
Subordinate rank = Governing rank -
% difference
10
Subordinate rank = 5 – 0.454
Subordinate rank = 4.546
Figure 23. Constructability Difference of Trade-Offs 2 and 4
Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint of Trade-Offs three (3) and four (4)
% Difference =
Higher Value-Lower Value
Higher Value
% Difference =
575-525
575
x100
x100
% Difference = 8.695
Subordinate rank = Governing rank -
% difference
10
Subordinate rank = 5 – 0.869
Subordinate rank = 4.131
34
Figure 24. Constructability Difference of Trade-Offs 3 and 4
Computation of ranking for Safety/Serviceability Constraint for Trade-Offs one (1) and three (3)
% Difference =
Higher Value-Lower Value
Higher Value
% Difference =
4 - 3.5
4
x100
x100
% Difference = 12.5
Subordinate rank = Governing rank -
% difference
10
Subordinate rank = 5 – 1.25
Subordinate rank = 3.75
Figure 25. Safety/Serviceability Difference of Trade-Offs 1 and 3
Computation of ranking for Safety/Serviceability Constraint for Trade-Offs two (2) and three (3)
% Difference =
Higher Value-Lower Value
Higher Value
% Difference =
5 - 3.5
5
x100
x100
% Difference = 30
Subordinate rank = Governing rank -
% difference
10
35
Subordinate rank = 5 – 3
Subordinate rank = 2
Figure 26. Safety/Serviceability Difference of Trade-Offs 2 and 3
Computation of ranking for Safety/Serviceability Constraint for Trade-Offs four (4) and three (3)
% Difference =
Higher Value-Lower Value
Higher Value
% Difference =
4.5 - 3.5
4
x100
x100
% Difference = 22.222
Subordinate rank = Governing rank -
% difference
10
Subordinate rank = 5 – 2.222
Subordinate rank = 2.778
Figure 27. Safety/Serviceability Difference of Trade-Offs 4 and 3
3.7
Raw Designer’s Ranking and Assessment
After making an initial estimate of the structure considering the constraints, the design came up
with the raw rankings on the one-way slab and two-way slab. The values computed in the latter section is
tabulated.
36
Table 3. Raw Designer's Ranking
CONSTRAINT
(CRITERIA)
IMPORTANCE
(on a scale of
0 to 5)
Economic
5
Constructability
4
Safety/Serviceability
3
Overall Ranking
ABILITY TO SATISFY THE CRITERION
(on a scale of 0 to 5)
One-Way
One-Way
Two-Way
Two-Way
Slab OMRF
Slab SMRF
Slab OMRF
Slab SMRF
3.599
4.6875
3.57
5
3.75
4.546
4.131
5
3.75
2
5
2.778
44.245
47.6215
49.374
53.334
These tabulated values are just subjective, especially the importance factors. These values will still
go on with the validation after making a final estimate and final ranking. Knowing the significance of the
constraints to the tradeoffs, the ranks in its importance are given as 5, for economic, 4, for constructability,
and 3, for safety/serviceability.
As for economic constraint, it turned out that the initial cost for the two-way slab SMRF is cheaper
than the other three, considering only the volume of concrete that will be used. As for the constructability
constraint, it turned out that the labor constituting of 50 workers will have to work for longer time for the
construction of the one-way slab OMRF. As for the safety/serviceability constraint, the deflection of the critical
member in the two-way slab is quite greater than that of the one-way slab.
Overall, it turned out that the two-way slab SMRF tradeoff outranked the other three tradeoff for the
raw designer’s ranking.
3.8
Normalization of Initial Data
The normalization of data are based on the initial estimate of the two mandatory tradeoffs namely,
One-Way Slab and Two-Way Slab, and based on the three constraints, namely Economic, Constructability
and Serviceability.
37
3.8.1
Raw Data
Table 4. Raw Initial Data
Design
1. OMRF (One-Way)
2. OMRF (Two-Way)
3. SRMF (One-Way)
4. SMRF (Two-Way)
PC1 (Cost in pesos)
18000000
16000000
17500000
15500000
PC2
(Duration in days)
600
550
575
525
PC3 (Safety/Serviceability
in percent)
4
5
3.5
4.5
Table 4 shows the raw data gathered from previous studies and used it as a basis to determine which
trade-off offers the best in a particular constraint, and in general scale.
3.8.2
Normalized Data
Table 5. Normalized Initial Data
Design
1. OMRF (One-Way)
2. OMRF (Two-Way)
3. SRMF (One-Way)
4. SMRF (Two-Way)
PC1
(Cost in pesos)
1
8.2
2.8
10
PC2
(Duration in days)
1
7
4
10
PC3 (Safety/Serviceability
in percent)
7
1
10
4
Normalization of rating means adjusting values measured on different scales to a noitionally common
scale, prior to averaging. Table 5 shows the normalized data from the raw data.
3.8.3
Weighted Sum of Various Percentage Weight
Table 6. First weighted sum of various percentage for initial data
PC
1
2
3
Weighted Sum
Weight (%)
0.5
0.3
0.2
1
D1
1
1
7
2.2
D2
8.2
7
1
6.4
D3
2.8
4
10
4.6
D4
10
10
4
8.8
38
Table 6 shows the first weighted sum of various percentage where constraints one (1), two (2) and
three (3) have given a percentage of 0.5, 0.3 and 0.2 respectively.
Table 7. Second weighted sum of various percentage for initial data
PC
1
2
3
Weighted Sum
Weight (%)
0.44
0.3
0.26
1
D1
1
1
7
2.56
D2
8.2
7
1
5.968
D3
2.8
4
10
5.032
D4
10
10
4
8.44
Table 7 shows the first weighted sum of various percentage where constraints one (1), two (2) and
three (3) have given a percentage of 0.44, 0.3 and 0.26 respectively.
Table 8. Third weighted sum of various percentage for initial data
PC
1
2
3
Weighted Sum
Weight (%)
0.3
0.4
0.3
1
D1
1
1
7
2.8
D2
8.2
7
1
5.56
D3
2.8
4
10
5.44
D4
10
10
4
8.2
Table 8 shows the first weighted sum of various percentage where constraints one (1), two (2) and
three (3) have given a percentage of 0.3, 0.4 and 0.3 respectively.
3.9
Design Standards
To come up with the final design of the structure, the designer utilized the codes and standards
written in the following:
1. National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP)
2. National Structure Code of the Philippines (NSCP 2015)
39
The National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP), enacted into law on August 26, 1972,
provides for all buildings and structures a framework of minimum standards and requirements by
guiding and controlling location, siting, and design.
The NBCP also establishes standards for quality of materials, construction, use, occupancy, and
maintenance, including environment, utilities, fixtures, equipments, and mechanical, electrical, and
other systems and installations.
One of the main reasons why the National Building Code is created is to ensure public safety. All
buildings must abide to certain principles of construction. All materials that are needed must also be
environmental friendly.
The National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) is created to provide minimum standards
to safeguard life, health, property, and public welfare, consistent with the principles of sound
environmental management and control.
It is also the purpose of this code is to provide a framework of minimum standards and requirements
to regulate and controlling their location, site, deign, quality of materials, construction, use,
occupancy and maintenance for all buildings that will be built. The current version of it is the NSCP
2015 7th Edition (Vol.1).
40
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE
4.1
Design Methodology
In designing the Reinforced Concrete Structure, the designer will conform to the codes and standards
of National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015. The figure below shows the step by step process of the
design.
STRUCTURAL PLANS
FRAMING PLANS
NBCP
DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
NSCP
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
MODULUS OF ELASTICITY
STRUCTURAL MEMBER DIMENSIONS
STRUCTURAL MODEL
GEOMETRIC MODELING
DEAD LOAD AND LIVE LOAD
LOAD MODELS
SEISMIC LOAD AND WIND LOAD
LOAD COMBINATIONS
SHEAR DIAGRAMS
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
MOMENT DIAGRAMS
REACTIONS AND DEFLECTIONS
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
DESIGN SCHEDULES DETAILING
Figure 28. Design Methodology
41
The first process in design methodology was the creation of structural plans. The structural plans
included the framing plans of the two trade-offs. The next step was to know the design specifications. These
specifications are the codes and standards needed for the structure’s classification and description. The
National Building Code and National Structural Code of the Philippines are the main books used for design
specifications.
The third step in the process was the identification of the material properties. The compressive
stresses and modulus of elasticity of the concrete and steel to be used were determined. Also, the structural
member dimensions (b, d, etc.) were assumed. The fourth step was the creation of the structural model.
These models included geometric modelling, which showed the positioning of the structural members
(beams, columns, slabs) in 3D form.
The fifth step was the presentation of load models. In this part, the loads acting on the structure were
computed. These loads were the dead load, live load, wind load, and seismic (earthquake) load, applying
also the load combinations. After computing for these loads, load models was presented also in 3D form. The
sixth step was the structural analysis. In structural analysis, member (beams and columns) forces and
reactions were determined. The member forces included were the axial force, shear force, and moment acting
on the member.
The last part was the structural design. The structural design did not include the design of footings.
The values from the structural analysis was utilized to design the structural members of the structures, mainly
the beams and columns. The maximum moment acting on a beam was used to design the beam, and the
maximum value of the axial force acting on a column was used to design the column. To design the slab, the
total load on the floors was utilized.
42
4.1.1
Structural Plans
Figure 29. One Way Slab Framing Plan
43
Figure 30. Two Way Slab Framing Plan
44
4.1.2
Structural Design
In this section, the beams, columns, and slabs were designed. The main goal of the
structural design of the members is to know the number of bars and their spacing, and check if the
assumed dimensions are adequate for the structure.
For beams and columns, only the most critical parts were designed. For one-way slab, only
one slab was considered both in longitudinal and transverse directions was designed. For two-way
slab, only one strip was designed also considering both longitudinal and transverse directions. For
convenience, a sample procedure of computation for a structural member will be shown. The manual
computations of the members is shown in the appendices.
4.1.2.1 Design of Beams
Due to forces acting on the beam, the whole structure experiences flexure, and thus
the whole length of the beam have moments within them. Also due to these forces, the beam
experiences a shearing stress, which makes a part of the beam to be compressed (top), and
another part to be tensed (bottom). To design the beams of the entire structure, the beam
which had the highest moment was picked and the resulting design for that beam will be
applied to all other beams in the structure. The dimensions of the beam (b,t) and the stresses
(f’c,fy) were provided by the designer. The parts of the beam to be designer are the supports,
which experience negative moment, and the midspan, which experience positive moment.
Moreover, the stress strain diagram of the cross-sectional of the beam was used for the
design. The following flow charts present the step by step process of designing a beam.
45
Figure 31. Stress-Strain Diagram for Singly Reinforced Beam
Given: b,d,f’c and fy
Vu = R-Wud
Vc = 1/6ξf'cbd
YES
Vu = 1/3 ΦVc
YES
No shear
reinforcement is
required
Vu = 1/3 ΦVc
Vn = Vu/Φ
NO
Av = bs/3fy
S=d/2
Vs = Vn - Vc
Vs ≤ 2/3 ξf'cbd
46
YES
NO
S = Avfyd/Vs
Adjust the size of
beam
Vs ≤ 1/3 ξf'cbd
Smax = d/2
Smax = d/4
End
End
Figure 32. Flow Chart of Shear Computation
Given: f’c,fy,b,d and ω
Calculate Mumax=Φf’cbd ω(1-.59 ω)
MT=Mload+Mwt of beam
MT<Mumax
MT<Mumax
YES
NO
MT>Mumax
MT<Mumax
Design as Doubly
Design as Singly
47
Ru = Mu/Φbd2
ρact = (0.85f’c/fy)(1-1-2Ru/0.85f’c)
YES
ρmin < ρ <ρmax
NO
Ast = ρact(bd)
Change Section
π
No. of bars = Ast/(4 D2 )
Check if steel yield, a =Asfy/0.85f’cb
c = a/β
εs = 0.003(d-c)/c
εy = fy/Es
YES
εs > εy
NO
εs > εy, Steel Yield
εs > εy, Steel not Yield
End
End
Figure 33. Flow Chart of Design of Singly Reinforced Beam
48
Given: f’c,fy,b,d and ω
Calculate Mumax = Φf’cbd2ω(1-.59ω)
MT = Mload + Mwt of beam
YES
MT > Mumax
NO
MT > Mumax, Design as Doubly
MT < Mumax, Design as Singly
As1 = ρmaxbd
Check if Compression steel
yield
Mu1 = Mumax
a = As1 / 0.85f’cb
Mu2 = Mu-Mu1
c = a/β
As2 = Mu2/Φfy(d-d’)
YES
f’s ≥ fy
NO
f’s = fy
f’s < fy
A’s = As2
A’s = As2fy/f’s
π
No. of bars = A’s/( 4 D2 )
π
No. of bars = A’s/( 4 D2 )
End
End
Figure 34. Flow Chart of Design of Doubly Reinforced Beam
49
4.1.2.2 Design of Columns
From the structural analysis, the column that experienced the greatest axial forces
was designed. The designer started the design of the column in determining the number of
bars and its positioning within the gross area of the column. Knowing the position of bars in
the column, the designer then computed for the axial force capacity column due to the
eccentric load. The flow chart below shows the step by step process done by the designer.
The second flow chart is applicable only in this design (eccentricity on one side only).
Given: Pcap,fy,f’c,Φ; Assume: ρg = 0.01-0.08
Ast = 0.01Ag
Pcap = 0.8Φ[(0.85f’c(Ag-0.01Ag)+fy(0.01Ag)], Compute for Ag
t = Ag
Solve for
ex = Pux(d)/Pu
ex = Puy(d)/Pu
Check for column capacity
YES
S
ρg < 0.08, OK
ρg < 0.08
NO
ρg > 0.08
adjust ρg (Assume)
50
Check for column capacity
Pu=0.8Φ[(0.85f’c(Ag-0.01Ag)+fy(0.01Ag)]
Pcap > Pu
Pcap < Pu
Pcap > Pu, OK
Adjust dimension
End
Figure 35. Flow Chart of Column Reinforcement
4.1.2.3 Design of Slabs
To design a slab, we always consider the longer and shorter span of the slab since
the bending is experience by the whole. For One-way slabs, the process is quite the same
in designing a singly reinforced concrete beam. The only difference is that we assume that
we get a strip from the whole length of the slab. The width of that strip is 1 meter with
thickness.
Following the procedure of solving for the reinforcement of singly reinforced beams,
the desired number of bars for one-way slab was computed. For the spacing of bars, the
width, b (1 m) was divided by the diameter of the bar times the quantity of bars.
Since the two-way slab transmits the load to the supports in trapezoidal form, the
method used for one-way slab is not applicable. For the two-way slab, the equivalent frame
method was used. The two-way slab was designed considering the positive and negative
51
moments passed through the column strip and middle strip. The flow chart below shows the
procedure of equivalent frame method.
Flat Plate Slab
L/S
One-Way Slab
Two-Way Slab
Step 1: Estimate the slab thieckness to meet
the code requirements
Step 1: Estimate the slab thieckness to meet
the code requuirements
Step 2: Calculate the factored moment to be
carried by the slab
Step 2: Determine the depth required from
shear
Step 3: Compute for the Required Steel Ratio
Step 3: Calculate the total static moments to
be resisted in the two direction
Step 4: Compute for the Steel Area
Step 5: Compute for the required main bar
spacing
Step 4: Estimate the percentages of the static
moments that are positive and negative, and
proportion the resulting values between the
column and middle strips.
Step 5: Select the reinforcing
End
End
Figure 36. Design of Slab
52
4.2
General Design Process of the Structure
START
Design of Reinforced
Concrete
Data Gathering
Design Codes and
Consideration
Trade-Offs
Design One-Way Slab
Design Two-Way Slab
Evaluations of Results
Evaluation of Results
Final Design of Beams,
Columns and Slabs
Final Design of Beams,
Columns and Slabs
END
END
Figure 37. General Design Process
53
Figure 31 shows the flow chart of process activities for the designer. The design process will start
with planning what type structure must be designed and getting the data and assumptions that the project
might need. The data and assumptions were computed through the use of computer software aid like STAAD
and MS Excel, and the results will be tabulated by the designer for the evaluation of what result may be fit in
the constraints and what might be economical.
4.2.1
Design Loads and Inputs
The following are the tables used in each design computations:
4.2.1.1 Materials
Table 9. Minimum Densities for Design Loads from Materials
Stone Concrete Fill
Gypsum Board
Suspended Steel Channel
Mechanical Duct Allowance
Terrazo
Grout
CHB
Clay Dry
Water Proofing
Cement Finish
1.53 Kpa
0.2 Kpa
0.1 Kpa
0.2 Kpa
1.53 Kpa
0.11 Kpa
1.65 Kpa
0.6435 Kpa
0.05 Kpa
1.53 Kpa
Table 204-1 Minimum Densities for Design Loads from Materials (NSCP 2015)
Table 10. Minimum Uniform Concentrated Live Loads
Material
Masonry, Concrete
Density
(KN/m3)
16.5
Table 205-1 Minimum Uniform Concentrated Live Loads (NSCP 2015)
54
4.2.1.2 Earthquake Load Parameters
Table 11. Seismic Importance Factors
Occupancy Category
I. Essential facilities
II. Hazardous facilities
III. Special Occupancy
Structures
IV. Standard Occupancy
Strutures
V. Miscellaneous Structures
Seismic Importance
Factor I
1.5
1.25
1
Seismic Importance Factor
Ip
1.5
1.5
1
1
1
1
1
Table 208-1 Seismic Importance Factors (NSCP 2015)
Table 12. Soil Profile Types
Soil Profile
Soil Profile
Name
Ave. Properties for Top 30 m Soil Profile
Shear Wave Velocity
SPT
Undrained Shear Strenght
SA
Hard Rock
>1500
SB
Rock
760 to 1500
Sc
Very Dense Soil
360 to 760
>50
>100
SD
Stiff Soil Profile
180 to 360
15 to 50
50 to 100
SE
Soft Soil Profile
<180
<15
<50
SF
Soil Requiring Site-Specific Evaluation See Section 208.4.3.1
Table 208-2 Soil Profile Types (NSCP 2015)
Table 13. Seismic Zone Factor
Zone
Z
2
0.2
4
0.4
Table 208-3 Seismic Zone Factor, Z
Table 14. Near-Source factor
Seismic Source
Type
A
Closest Distance to Known
Seismic Source
≤ 5 Km
≥10 Km
1.2
1
55
B
C
1
1
1
1
Table 208-4 Near-Source factor, Na (NSCP 2015)
Table 15. Near-Source factor
Seismic Source
Type
A
B
C
Closest Distance to Known
Seismic Source
≤ 5 Km
10 Km
1.6
1.2
1.2
1
1
1
≥15 Km
1
1
1
Table 208-5 Near-Source factor, Nv (NSCP 2015)
Table 16. Seismic Coefficient, Ca
Soil Profile Type
Seismic Zone
4
Z=0.4
.32Na
SA
2
Z=0.2
0.16
SB
0.2
.40Na
Sc
0.24
.40Na
SD
0.28
.44Na
SE
0.34
.44Na
SF
See Footnote 1 of Table 208-8
Table 208-7 Seismic Coefficient, Ca (NSCP 2015)
Table 17. Seismic Coefficient, Cv
SA
Seismic Zone
2
Z=0.2
0.16
4
Z=0.4
.32Na
SB
0.20
.40Na
Sc
0.32
.56Na
SD
0.40
.64Na
SE
0.64
.96Na
SF
See Footnote 1 of Table 208-8
Soil Profile Type
56
Table 208-8 Seismic Coefficient, Cv (NSCP 2015)
Table 18. Earthquake Force –Resisting Structural Systems of Concrete
Basic Seismic Force Resisting System
R
Ω0
System Limitation and
Building Limitation
Zone 2
Zone 4
C. Moment Resisting Frame
Special reinforced concrete moment frames 8.5 2.8 NL
NL
Table 208-11A Earthquake Force –Resisting Structural Systems of Concrete (NSCP 2015)
4.2.1.3 Wind Loads
Table 19. Wind Zone for the Different Provinces of the Philippines
Zone
Classification
(Basic Wind
Speed)
Zone 2
V=200 kph
Province
National Capital
Region
Table 207-1 Wind Zone for the Different Provinces of the Philippines (NSCP 2015)
Table 20. Wind Directionality factor
Structural Type
Directionality
factor Kd
Buildings
°Main Wind Force Resisting
System
°Components and Cladding
Arched Roof
Chimneys, Tanks, and Similar Structures
°Square
°Hexagonal
°Round
Soild Signs
Open Signs and Lattice Framework
Trussed Towers
°Triangular. Square,
rectangular
°All other cross sections
0.85
0.85
0.9
0.95
0.95
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.95
57
Table 207-2 Wind Directionality factor (NSCP 2015)
Table 21. Importance factor, Iw
Occupancy
Category
I
II
III
IV
V
Description
Iw
Essential
Hazardous
Special Occupancy
Standard Occupancy
Miscellaneous
1.15
1.15
1.15
1
0.87
Table 207-3 Importance factor Iw (NSCP 2015)
Table 22. Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficients
Exposure (Note 1)
B
Height above Ground Level (m)
Case 1 Case 2
0-4.5
0.7
0.57
6
0.7
0.62
7.5
0.7
0.66
9
0.7
0.7
12
0.76
0.76
15
0.81
0.81
18
0.85
0.85
C
Cases 1& 2
0.85
0.9
0.94
0.98
1.04
1.09
1.13
D
Cases 1&2
1.03
1.08
1.12
1.16
1.22
1.27
1.31
Table 207-4 Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficients (NSCP 2015)
4.2.1.4 Live Loads
The following Live Loads are to be used in the analysis of the structure.
Table 23. Design Live Loads
Occupancy
Office
Open Plan Office
Call Centers and Business Processing
Lobbies
Lounge
Pantry
Uniform Load (kPa)
2.4
4.8
2.9
4.8
4.8
2.4
58
Hallway
Comfort Room
1.9
1.9
4.2.1.5 Dead Loads
The following Dead Loads are to be used in the analysis of the structure.
Table 24. Minimum Design Dead Loads
Materials
Cement Finish (25mm) on stone concrete fill
Suspended Steel Channel System
Mechanical duct allowance
Gypsum Board (per mm)
CHB wall full grout (19.6 kN/m3) (200mm)
Plaster (both sides)
Design Loads (kPa)
1.53
0.1
0.2
0.008
3.88
0.48
4.2.1.6 Seismic Loading Parameters
The following values are the inputs used in the parameters for Earthquake
loadings.
Table 25. Seismic Loading Parameter for Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame – One Way Slab and Two Way Slab
59
Table 26. Seismic Loading Parameter for Special Moment Resisting Frame – One Way Slab and Two Way Slab
60
4.2.1.7 Load Combinations
The following table defines the different types of load combination used in the
structural analysis of the building. All these combinations will be applied, and the designer
will determine the load combination that will produce the maximum stress in the building.
This governing load combination will then be used to calculate the member forces for the
design.
Table 27. Load Cases Combinations
61
4.3
Design Analysis for Trade-Off One (One Way Slab – Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame)
The following are the analysis that is based on the modelling of the structure using the software –
STAAD.Pro CONNECT. The values are taken depending on the design loads and inputs.
4.3.1
Design Methodology for Trade-Off One (One-Way Slab – Ordinary Moment Resisting
Frame)
GEOMETRIC AND FRAME MODELLING
ANALYSIS AND INITIAL DESIGN
ESTIMATION OF COST
DESIGNER’S FINAL RANKING
FINAL DESIGN
Figure 38. Design Process Flow Chart for Trade-Off One (One Way Slab – Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame)
62
4.3.2
Geometric Modeling
To simulate all the possible effects of different loadings to the structure with different load
combinations, the designer use Staad Pro CONNECT to have a thorough analysis for this first tradeoff.
Figure 39. Geometric Model of Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame - One Way Slab
63
4.3.3
Load Diagrams of Trade-Off One (One Way Slab)
Figure 40. Load Diagram for Dead Loads
Figure 41. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at X
64
Figure 42. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at -X
Figure 43. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at Z
65
Figure 44. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at -Z
Figure 45. Load Diagram for Live Loads
66
Figure 46. Shear Diagram at X
Figure 47. Shear Diagram at Y
67
Figure 48. Shear Diagram at Z
Figure 49. Moment Diagram at X
68
Figure 50. Moment Diagram at Y
Figure 51. Moment Diagram at Z
69
Figure 52. Wind Load Diagram at X
Figure 53. Wind Load Diagram at –X
70
Figure 54. Wind Load Diagram at Z
Figure 55. Wind Load Diagram at -Z
71
4.3.4 Frame Staad Analysis
Figure 56. Gravity Load (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – Longitudinal direction
Figure 57. Gravity Load (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – Transverse direction
72
Figure 58. Moment due to Seismic Load - Longitudinal direction
Figure 59. Moment due to Seismic Load – Transverse direction
73
Figure 60. Wind Load – Longitudinal
Figure 61. Wind Load – Transverse
74
4.3.5
Structural Analysis Results
The following results are presented in the table below. These are the results of the design
loads and inputs using the software STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition.
4.3.5.1 Beam End Forces
Table 28. Beam End Forces Summary
Max Fx
Min Fx
Max Fy
Min Fy
Max Fz
Min Fz
Max Mx
Min Mx
Max My
Min My
Max Mz
Min Mz
Beam
1140
12173
12173
52215
1144
1145
52250
52250
1145
1144
1128
1128
L/C
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1)
221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6)
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7)
221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6)
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7)
6 EQ +Z -E
1 EQ +X +E
219 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (4)
6 EQ +Z -E
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7)
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1)
4 EQ -X -E
Beam End Forces
Node
Fx (kN)
131
2250.67
6
-967.885
6
720.797
20
511.587
135
1343.185
136
13.726
221
0
221
-44.815
136
13.726
135
1343.185
119
1494.325
119
-0.008
Fy (kN)
270.794
-54.991
303.122
-335.117
3.548
6.609
0
-90.263
6.609
3.548
290.511
-287.57
Fz (kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m)
14.401
-3.413
-52.024
0.542
-2.415
-0.678
-1.937
8.626
2.421
-0.391
0.652
-0.489
303.253
-3.234
-616.068
-299.329
3.265
595.559
-51.646
85.995
64.554
51.982
-86.555
-64.974
-299.329
3.265
595.559
303.253
-3.234
-616.068
-14.508
-3.413
-1.899
0
3.444
0
Mz (kN-m)
645.516
-124.239
377.581
441.342
-13.945
16.5
0
-141.376
16.5
-13.945
686.221
-681.714
4.3.5.2 Node Displacements
Table 29. Node Displacements Summary
Max X
Min X
Max Y
Min Y
Max Z
Min Z
Max rX
Min rX
Max rY
Min rY
Max rZ
Min rZ
Max Rst
Node
498
498
84
286
420
504
7
86
414
420
231
225
504
Node Displacement
Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Resultant
L/C
X (mm) Y (mm)
Z (mm)
mm
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 48.988
-0.616
-0.2
48.992
4 EQ -X -E
-48.544
-0.359
-3.25
48.654
6 EQ +Z -E
-0.561
1.708
6.595
6.835
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) 0.639
-4.655
-24.856
25.296
6 EQ +Z -E
3.033
0.449
31.67
31.818
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) 3.306
-0.45
-35.047
35.205
6 EQ +Z -E
0.67
0.199
6.595
6.631
223 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (8) -0.521
-0.313
-6.679
6.706
224 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (1)
42.321
-0.383
1.017
42.335
219 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (4) -41.708
-0.575
0.064
41.712
219 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (4) -22.72
-0.324
0.567
22.729
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 22.95
-0.38
0.537
22.959
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 48.791
-1.257
-6.63
49.256
rX (rad)
0
0
0.001
-0.001
0.001
-0.001
0.002
-0.002
0
0
0
0
0
Rotational
rY (rad)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
rZ (rad)
-0.001
0.001
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0.001
0.001
0.004
-0.004
-0.001
75
4.3.5.3 Support Reactions
Table 30. Support Reactions Summary
Max Fx
Min Fx
Max Fy
Min Fy
Max Fz
Min Fz
Max Mx
Min Mx
Max My
Min My
Max Mz
Min Mz
Node
125
118
131
127
135
136
135
136
92
92
119
119
Support Reactions
Horizontal Vertical Horizontal
Moment
L/C
Fx (kN)
Fy (kN)
Fz (kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
227 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (4)
292.628 1566.054 -10.113
-9.018
3.425
-675.38
109 ULC, 1.2 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) -292.932 1494.751 -4.417
8.193
-3.407
678.042
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) -270.794 2250.67
14.401
52.024
-3.413
645.516
6 EQ +Z -E
-22.71 -579.503 -228.339 -513.016
3.265
52.608
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) -3.548 1343.185 303.253
616.068
-3.234
-13.945
6 EQ +Z -E
-6.609
13.726 -299.329 -595.559
3.265
16.5
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) -3.548 1343.185 303.253
616.068
-3.234
-13.945
6 EQ +Z -E
-6.609
13.726 -299.329 -595.559
3.265
16.5
112 ULC, 1.2 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (4) 203.839 1246.519 38.509
83.538
3.481
-532.128
224 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (1)
-184.36 356.005 -12.977
-32.859
-3.462
514.802
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) -290.511 1494.325 -14.508
1.899
-3.413
686.221
4 EQ -X -E
287.57
-0.008
0
0
3.444
-681.714
76
4.4
Design Analysis for Trade-Off Two (One Way Slab – Special Moment Resisting Frame)
The following are the analysis that is based on the modelling of the structure using the software –
STAAD.Pro CONNECT. The values are taken depending on the design loads and inputs.
4.4.1
Design Methodology for Trade-Off One (One-Way Slab – Special Moment Resisting
Frame)
GEOMETRIC AND FRAME MODELLING
ANALYSIS AND INITIAL DESIGN
ESTIMATION OF COST
DESIGNER’S FINAL RANKING
FINAL DESIGN
Figure 62. Design Process Flow Chart for Trade-Off One (One Way Slab – Special Moment Resisting Frame)
77
4.4.2
Geometric Modelling
Figure 63. Geometric Model of Special Moment Resisting Frame - One Way Slab
78
4.4.3
Load Diagrams of Trade-Off One (One way Slab – Special Moment Resisting Frame)
Figure 64. Load Diagrams for Dead Load
Figure 65. Load Diagrams for Live Load
79
Figure 66. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at X
Figure 67. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at -X
80
Figure 68. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at Z
Figure 69. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at –Z
81
Figure 70. Shear Diagram at X
Figure 71. Shear Diagram at Y
82
Figure 72. Shear Diagram at Z
Figure 73. Moment Diagram at X
83
Figure 74. Moment Diagram at Y
Figure 75. Moment Diagram at Z
84
Figure 76. Wind Load Diagram at X
Figure 77. Wind Load Diagram at –X
85
Figure 78. Wind Load Diagram at Z
Figure 79. Wind Load Diagram at -Z
86
4.4.4
Frame Staad Analysis
Figure 80. Gravity Load (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – Longitudinal direction
Figure 81. Gravity Load (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – Transverse direction
87
Figure 82. Moment due to Seismic Load - Longitudinal direction
Figure 83. Moment due to Seismic Load - Transverse direction
88
Figure 84. Wind Load – Longitudinal
Figure 85. Wind Load – Transverse
89
4.4.5
Structural Analysis Results
The following results are presented in the table below. These are the results of the design
loads and inputs using the software STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition.
4.4.5.1 Beam End Forces
Table 31. Beam End Forces Summary
Max Fx
Min Fx
Max Fy
Min Fy
Max Fz
Min Fz
Max Mx
Min Mx
Max My
Min My
Max Mz
Min Mz
Beam
1140
12173
22166
52250
2144
2141
52256
52244
1144
1144
1128
1128
L/C
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1)
221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6)
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7)
220 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (5)
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7)
221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6)
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1)
112 ULC, 1.2 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (4)
6 EQ +Z -E
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7)
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1)
4 EQ -X -E
Beam End Forces
Node
Fx (kN)
131
1816.167
6
-357.342
214
126.438
228
255.203
21
861.683
76
1332.153
222
-3.665
220
-6.184
135
11.831
135
1135.974
119
1240.01
119
-0.002
Fy (kN)
84.251
51.779
156.722
-174.917
22.45
-1.573
-78.769
-56.375
4.987
12.638
98.13
-94.315
Fz (kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
0.238
-1.852
-43.49
305.323
-0.226
1.529
0.282
37.603
0.157
-1.062
-0.196
180.639
-0.372
0.906
-0.465
218.135
105.584
-3.066
-185.841
42.198
-107.868
3.215
174.864
-4.288
-7.992
19.453
9.989
-104.18
8.082
-19.673
-10.102
-74.803
-98.166
1.812
247.483
16.959
102.278
-1.762
-284.181
5.452
-10.486
-1.852
-22.073
331.704
0
1.902
0
-324.271
4.4.5.2 Node Displacements
Table 32. Node Displacements Summary
Max X
Min X
Max Y
Min Y
Max Z
Min Z
Max rX
Min rX
Max rY
Min rY
Max rZ
Min rZ
Max Rst
Node
498
498
224
221
420
504
147
230
432
433
231
225
504
Node Displacement
Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Resultant
L/C
X (mm) Y (mm)
Z (mm)
mm
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 42.393
-0.745
-6.74
42.932
4 EQ -X -E
-41.221
-0.12
-2.732
41.312
6 EQ +Z -E
-1.01
1.61
11.357
11.515
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7)
1.323
-8.432
-13.244
15.757
6 EQ +Z -E
2.585
0.153
25.433
25.564
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7)
3.576
-0.629
-34.734
34.924
6 EQ +Z -E
1.202
0.111
11.357
11.421
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7)
1.519
-0.614
-14.028
14.124
224 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (1)
37.363
-1.016
-7.147
38.054
112 ULC, 1.2 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (4) -35.759
-1.164
-5.33
36.173
227 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (4)
-16.16
-0.347
-0.793
16.183
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 16.708
-0.492
-1.845
16.817
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 42.188
-0.901
-12.036
43.881
rX (rad)
0
0
0.001
-0.002
0.001
-0.001
0.002
-0.003
0
0
0
-0.001
-0.001
Rotational
rY (rad)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
rZ (rad)
-0.002
0.001
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0.001
0.001
0.003
-0.004
-0.001
90
4.4.5.3 Support Reactions
Table 33. Support Reactions Summary
Max Fx
Min Fx
Max Fy
Min Fy
Max Fz
Min Fz
Max Mx
Min Mx
Max My
Min My
Max Mz
Min Mz
Node
125
119
131
127
135
132
135
135
92
92
119
119
Support Reactions
Horizontal Vertical Horizontal
Moment
L/C
Fx (kN)
Fy (kN)
Fz (kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
227 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (4)
98.554
1245.34
-1.267
15.131
1.851
-319.599
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) -98.13
1240.01 -10.486
22.073
-1.852
331.704
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) -84.251 1816.167
0.238
43.49
-1.852
305.323
6 EQ +Z -E
-8.335 -171.812 -75.194
-218.733
1.812
26.339
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) -12.638 1135.974 102.278
284.181
-1.762
5.452
221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6)
6.636
1718.367 -103.636 -215.452
1.863
-15.059
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) -12.638 1135.974 102.278
284.181
-1.762
5.452
6 EQ +Z -E
-4.987
11.831
-98.166
-247.483
1.812
16.959
112 ULC, 1.2 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (4) 74.756
784.652
21.729
64.302
1.971
-262.907
224 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (1)
-56.206 546.336
3.79
9.129
-1.954
249.68
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) -98.13
1240.01 -10.486
22.073
-1.852
331.704
4 EQ -X -E
94.315
-0.002
0
0
1.902
-324.271
91
4.5
Design Analysis for Trade-Off Three (Two Way Slab – Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame)
The following are the analysis that is based on the modelling of the structure using the software –
STAAD.Pro CONNECT. The values are taken depending on the design loads and inputs.
4.5.1
Design Methodology for Trade-Off Two (Two Way Slab – Ordinary Moment Resisting
Frame)
GEOMETRIC AND FRAME MODELLING
ANALYSIS AND INITIAL DESIGN
ESTIMATION OF COST
DESIGNER’S FINAL RANKING
FINAL DESIGN
Figure 86. Design Process Flow Chart for Trade-Off Two (Two Way Slab – Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame)
92
4.5.2
Geometric Modelling
Figure 87. Geometric Model of Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame - Two Way Slab
93
4.5.3
Load Diagrams of Trade-Off Two (Two Way Slab – Ordinary Moment Resisting
Frame)
Figure 88. Load Diagrams for Dead Load
Figure 89. Load Diagrams for Live Load
94
Figure 90. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at X
Figure 91. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at –X
95
Figure 92. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at Z
Figure 93. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at –Z
96
Figure 94. Shear Diagram at X
Figure 95. Shear Diagram at Y
97
Figure 96. Shear Diagram at Z
Figure 97. Moment Diagram at X
98
Figure 98. Moment Diagram at Y
Figure 99. Moment Diagram at Z
99
Figure 100. Wind Load Diagram at X
Figure 101. Wind Load Diagram at –X
100
Figure 102. Wind Load Diagram at Z
Figure 103. Wind Load Diagram at –Z
101
4.5.4
Frame Staad Analysis
Figure 104. Gravity Load (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – Longitudinal direction
Figure 105. Gravity Load (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – Transverse direction
102
Figure 106. Moment due to Seismic Load - Longitudinal direction
Figure 107. Moment due to Seismic Load - Transverse direction
103
Figure 108. Wind Load – Longitudinal
Figure 109. Wind Load – Transverse
104
4.5.5
Structural Analysis Results
The following results are presented in the table below. These are the results of the design
loads and inputs using the software STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition.
4.5.5.1 Beam End Forces
Table 34. Beam End Forces Summary
Max Fx
Min Fx
Max Fy
Min Fy
Max Fz
Min Fz
Max Mx
Min Mx
Max My
Min My
Max Mz
Min Mz
Beam
1134
1136
1128
1128
1146
1147
52106
52148
1147
1146
1128
1128
L/C
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7)
6 EQ +Z -E
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1)
4 EQ -X -E
7 EQ -Z +E
221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6)
220 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (5)
217 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (2)
221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6)
7 EQ -Z +E
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1)
4 EQ -X -E
Beam End Forces
Node
Fx (kN)
40
2078.37
6
-554.401
46
1431.457
46
-0.009
28
-0.009
35
1471.231
251
33.259
281
33.385
35
1471.231
28
-0.009
46
1431.457
46
-0.009
Fy (kN)
16.335
23.164
284.324
-282.5
0
10.847
54.819
54.827
10.847
0
284.324
-282.5
Fz (kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
257.878
-3.149
-595.045
38.059
-224.328
3.139
572.465
52.02
-14.166
-3.02
16.913
644.7
0
3.01
0
-640.335
283.407
-3.139
-642.427
0
-284.145
3.129
645.489
4.119
2.731
6.026
-5.981
40.634
-2.743
-6.045
6.011
40.638
-284.145
3.129
645.489
4.119
283.407
-3.139
-642.427
0
-14.166
-3.02
16.913
644.7
0
3.01
0
-640.335
4.5.5.2 Node Displacements
Table 35. Node Displacement Summary
Max X
Min X
Max Y
Min Y
Max Z
Min Z
Max rX
Min rX
Max rY
Min rY
Max rZ
Min rZ
Max Rst
Node
288
288
251
285
252
252
105
147
246
288
147
141
252
Node Displacement
Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Resultant
L/C
X (mm) Y (mm)
Z (mm)
mm
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 44.988
-0.565
3.277
45.111
4 EQ -X -E
-44.346
-0.447
-2.869
44.441
6 EQ +Z -E
3.025
0.479
43.996
44.103
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7)
2.552
-2.03
-42.473
42.598
221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6)
3.42
-0.561
45.131
45.264
7 EQ -Z +E
-3.027
-0.447
-44.504
44.609
221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6)
1.785
-0.322
20.774
20.853
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7)
1.795
-0.284
-20.437
20.518
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) -2.402
-1.476
-37.865
37.969
221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) -2.391
-1.461
38.914
39.015
219 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (4) -20.354
-0.284
1.713
20.428
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 20.712
-0.327
1.723
20.786
221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6)
3.42
-0.561
45.131
45.264
rX (rad)
0
0
0.001
-0.001
0.001
-0.001
0.003
-0.003
-0.001
0.001
0
0
0.001
Rotational
rY (rad)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
rZ (rad)
-0.001
0.001
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.003
-0.003
0
105
4.5.5.3 Support Reactions
Table 36. Support Reactions Summary
Max Fx
Min Fx
Max Fy
Min Fy
Max Fz
Min Fz
Max Mx
Min Mx
Max My
Min My
Max Mz
Min Mz
Node
46
46
40
6
28
35
28
35
1
1
46
46
Support Reactions
Horizontal Vertical Horizontal
Moment
L/C
Fx (kN)
Fy (kN)
Fz (kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
4 EQ -X -E
282.5
-0.009
0
0
3.01
-640.335
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) -284.324 1431.457 -14.166
-16.913
-3.02
644.7
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) -16.335 2078.37 257.878
595.045
-3.149
38.059
6 EQ +Z -E
-23.164 -554.401 -224.328 -572.465
3.139
52.02
7 EQ -Z +E
0
-0.009
283.407
642.427
-3.139
0
221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) -10.847 1471.231 -284.145 -645.489
3.129
4.119
7 EQ -Z +E
0
-0.009
283.407
642.427
-3.139
0
221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) -10.847 1471.231 -284.145 -645.489
3.129
4.119
229 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (6)
-9.144
305.738 -181.944 -483.236
3.14
38.986
115 ULC, 1.2 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) 29.526 1299.511 202.191
500.614
-3.15
-56.694
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) -284.324 1431.457 -14.166
-16.913
-3.02
644.7
4 EQ -X -E
282.5
-0.009
0
0
3.01
-640.335
106
4.6
Design Analysis for Trade-Off Four (Two Way Slab – Special Moment Resisting Frame)
The following are the analysis that is based on the modelling of the structure using the software –
STAAD.Pro CONNECT. The values are taken depending on the design loads and inputs.
4.6.1
Design Methodology for Trade-Off Two (Two Way Slab – Ordinary Moment Resisting
Frame)
GEOMETRIC AND FRAME MODELLING
ANALYSIS AND INITIAL DESIGN
ESTIMATION OF COST
DESIGNER’S FINAL RANKING
FINAL DESIGN
Figure 110. Design Process Flow Chart for Trade-Off Two (Two Way Slab – Special Moment Resisting Frame)
107
4.6.2
Geometric Modelling
Figure 111. Geometric Model of Special Moment Resisting Frame - Two Way Slab
108
4.6.3
Load Diagrams of Trade-Off Two (Two Way Slab – Special Moment Resisting Frame)
Figure 112. Load Diagrams for Dead Load
Figure 113. Load Diagrams for Live Load
109
Figure 114. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at X
Figure 115. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at –X
110
Figure 116. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at Z
Figure 117. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at -Z
111
Figure 118. Shear Diagram at X
Figure 119. Shear Diagram at Y
112
Figure 120. Shear Diagram at Z
Figure 121. Moment Diagram at X
113
Figure 122. Moment Diagram at Y
Figure 123. Moment Diagram at Z
114
Figure 124. Wind Load Diagram at X
Figure 125. Wind Load Diagram at –X
115
Figure 126. Wind Load Diagram at Z
Figure 127. Wind Load Diagram at –Z
116
4.6.4
Frame Staad Analysis
Figure 128. Gravity Load (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – Longitudinal direction
Figure 129. Gravity Load (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – Transverse direction
117
Figure 130. Moment due to Seismic Load - Longitudinal direction
Figure 131. Moment due to Seismic Load - Transverse direction
118
Figure 132. Wind Load – Longitudinal
Figure 133. Wind Load - Transverse
119
4.6.5
Structural Analysis Results
The following results are presented in the table below. These are the results of the design
loads and inputs using the software STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition.
4.6.5.1 Beam End Forces
Table 37. Beam End Forces Summary
Max Fx
Min Fx
Max Fy
Min Fy
Max Fz
Min Fz
Max Mx
Min Mx
Max My
Min My
Max Mz
Min Mz
Beam
1134
1136
22134
22133
2139
2141
2101
2101
1148
1146
1128
1128
L/C
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7)
6 EQ +Z -E
219 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (4)
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1)
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7)
221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6)
229 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (6)
115 ULC, 1.2 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7)
221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6)
7 EQ -Z +E
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1)
4 EQ -X -E
Beam End Forces
Node
Fx (kN)
40
1693.314
6
-148.941
137
-0.878
137
-9.304
76
1309.933
90
1250.581
50
413.803
50
610.308
42
1136.043
28
-0.002
46
1140.442
46
-0.002
Fy (kN)
6.704
8.14
136.363
-121.791
-0.312
-0.227
-11.881
-22.534
11.866
0
92.935
-90.151
Fz (kN)
77.558
-74.518
0.011
-0.029
92.974
-93.711
-33.027
66.978
-91.925
89.892
-13.509
0
Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
-2.029
-280.603
28.186
2.004
290.122
28.236
-0.214
-0.023
158.899
0.583
-0.062
157.435
-3.811
-186.89
2.727
3.727
195.304
-0.1
3.77
90.584
-15.355
-3.812
-143.256
-37.316
1.978
320.57
6.942
-2.004
-311.617
0
-1.92
20.993
340.461
1.894
0
-329.472
4.6.5.2 Node Displacements
Table 38. Node Displacements Summary
Max X
Min X
Max Y
Min Y
Max Z
Min Z
Max rX
Min rX
Max rY
Min rY
Max rZ
Min rZ
Max Rst
Node
288
288
251
285
252
252
105
105
254
282
141
141
252
Node Displacement
Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Resultant
L/C
X (mm) Y (mm)
Z (mm)
mm
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 48.723
-0.728
5.29
49.015
4 EQ -X -E
-46.197
-0.143
-3
46.295
6 EQ +Z -E
3.228
0.154
47.629
47.738
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7)
4.584
-1.759
-44.102
44.375
221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6)
5.419
-0.721
50.79
51.083
7 EQ -Z +E
-3.231
-0.144
-48.259
48.367
221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6)
2.051
-0.46
19.259
19.374
7 EQ -Z +E
-1.406
-0.095
-18.585
18.639
115 ULC, 1.2 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) -0.175
-1.093
-41.215
41.23
229 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (6)
-0.597
-1.018
44.739
44.755
4 EQ -X -E
-17.346
-0.093
-1.324
17.397
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 18.024
-0.467
2.031
18.144
221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6)
5.419
-0.721
50.79
51.083
rX (rad)
0
0
0.002
-0.001
0.002
-0.002
0.004
-0.004
-0.001
0.002
0
0
0.002
Rotational
rY (rad)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
rZ (rad)
-0.002
0.002
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.004
-0.004
0
120
4.6.5.3 Support Reactions
Table 39. Support Reactions Summary
Max Fx
Min Fx
Max Fy
Min Fy
Max Fz
Min Fz
Max Mx
Min Mx
Max My
Min My
Max Mz
Min Mz
Node
39
46
40
6
27
41
28
42
1
1
46
46
Support Reactions
Horizontal Vertical Horizontal
Moment
L/C
Fx (kN)
Fy (kN)
Fz (kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
227 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (4)
92.519
999.463
-0.072
-4.092
1.895
-321.155
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) -92.935 1140.442 -13.509
-20.993
-1.92
340.461
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) -6.704 1693.314 77.558
280.603
-2.029
28.186
6 EQ +Z -E
-8.14
-148.941 -74.518
-290.122
2.004
28.236
222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7)
0.224
1672.22
91.753
300.954
-2.029
7.657
221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6)
4.074
1587.325 -93.516
-316.629
1.978
-9.385
7 EQ -Z +E
0
-0.002
89.892
311.617
-2.004
0
221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) -11.866 1136.043 -91.925
-320.57
1.978
6.942
229 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (6)
2.457
527.228 -54.538
-245.286
2.004
21.863
115 ULC, 1.2 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) 16.752
778.831
73.396
254.816
-2.029
-30.983
216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) -92.935 1140.442 -13.509
-20.993
-1.92
340.461
4 EQ -X -E
90.151
-0.002
0
0
1.894
-329.472
121
4.7
Normalization of Final Data, Raw Ranking Validation, Comparison of Results, and Final
Ranking Assessments
In this section, the raw designer’s ranking was validated through the gathered results of the design.
The initial and final estimated values was then be compared. With the help of the final designer’s ranking,
the final ranking assessments was concluded.
4.7.1
Final Estimates of Tradeoffs
The table below shows the result of the estimation of construction cost, man days, and cost
of maintenance for each tradeoff.
Table 40. Final Estimate of Tradeoffs
CONSTRAINT
One-Way Slab
OMRF
TRADE-OFFS
One-Way Slab
Two-Way Slab
SMRF
OMRF
Two-Way Slab
SMRF
Economic
(Construction Cost)
Php
18,179,360.48
Php
16,661,469.14
Php
15,898,110.45
Php
14,349,860.25
Constructability
Safety/Serviceability
573 Days
2.81% of allowable
450 Days
2.02% of allowable
553 Days
3.89% of allowable
427 Days
5.65 % of allowable
4.7.2
Validation of Raw Designer’s Ranking
Table 41. Comparison of Initial and Final Estimate of Tradeoffs
CONSTRAINT
One-Way
Slab OMRF
Economic
Php
18,000,000
600 Days
Constructabili
ty
Safety/Servic
eability
4% of
allowable
Initial Estimate
One-Way
Two-Way
Slab SMRF Slab OMRF
Php
Php
16,000,000 17,500,00
550 Days
575 Days
5% of
allowable
3.5% of
allowable
Final Estimate
One-Way
Two-Way
Slab SMRF Slab OMRF
Php
Php
16,661,469 15,898,110
Two-Way
Slab SMRF
Php
15,500,00
525 Days
One-Way
Slab OMRF
Php
18,179,360
Two-Way
Slab SMRF
Php
14,349,860
573 Days
450 Days
553 Days
427 Days
4.5% of
allowable
2.81% of
allowable
2.02% of
allowable
3.89% of
allowable
5.65 % of
allowable
122
Looking at the table, there are small discrepancies between the assumed values and the computed
values, except for the serviceability of the four. However, the results of the final estimate of values has almost
the same outcome with the initial estimate. It turned out that the two way slab is better than the one way slab
in terms of both economic and constructability constraint, while one way slab is better than two way slab in
terms of safety/serviceability constraint. These results are the same as what was said in the raw ranking,
which makes raw design to be quite certain in this project.
4.7.3
Final Designer’s Ranking
Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint for Trade-Offs one (1) and four (4)
% Difference =
% Difference =
Higher Value-Lower Value
Higher Value
x100
18,179,360.48-14,349,860.25
18,179,360.48
x100
% Difference = 21.06509871
Subordinate rank = Governing rank -
% difference
10
Subordinate rank = 5 – 2.106509871
Subordinate rank = 2.893490129
Figure 134. Cost Difference of Trade-Offs 1 and 4
Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint for Trade-Offs two (2) and four (4)
123
% Difference =
% Difference =
Higher Value-Lower Value
Higher Value
x100
16,661,469.14-14,349,860.25
16,661,469.14
x100
% Difference = 13.87397996
Subordinate rank = Governing rank -
% difference
10
Subordinate rank = 5 – 1.387397996
Subordinate rank = 3.612602004
Figure 135. Cost Difference of Trade-Offs 2 and 4
Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint for Trade-Offs three (3) and four (4)
% Difference =
% Difference =
Higher Value-Lower Value
Higher Value
x100
15,898,110.45-14,349,860.25
15,898,110.45
x100
% Difference = 9.738579971
Subordinate rank = Governing rank -
% difference
10
Subordinate rank = 5 – 0.973857997
124
Subordinate rank = 4.026142003
Figure 136. Cost Difference of Trade-Offs 3 and 4
Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint for Trade-Offs one (1) and four (4)
% Difference =
Higher Value-Lower Value
Higher Value
% Difference =
573-427
573
x100
x100
% Difference = 25.47993019
Subordinate rank = Governing rank -
% difference
10
Subordinate rank = 5 – 2.547993019
Subordinate rank = 2.452006981
Figure 137. Constructability Difference of Trade-Offs 1 and 4
Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint for Trade-Offs two (2) and four (4)
% Difference =
Higher Value-Lower Value
Higher Value
x100
125
% Difference =
450-427
450
x100
% Difference = 5.111111111
Subordinate rank = Governing rank -
% difference
10
Subordinate rank = 5 – 0.511111111
Subordinate rank = 4.488888889
Figure 138. Constructability Difference of Trade-Offs 2 and 4
Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint for Trade-Offs three (3) and four (4)
% Difference =
Higher Value-Lower Value
Higher Value
% Difference =
553-427
553
x100
x100
% Difference = 22.78481013
Subordinate rank = Governing rank -
% difference
10
Subordinate rank = 5 – 2.278481013
Subordinate rank = 2.721518987
126
Figure 139. Constructability Difference of Trade-Offs 3 and 4
Computation of ranking for Safety/Serviceability Constraint for Trade-Offs one (1) and two (2)
% Difference =
Higher Value-Lower Value
Higher Value
% Difference =
2.81-2.02
2.81
x100
x100
% Difference = 28.113879
Subordinate rank = Governing rank -
% difference
10
Subordinate rank = 5 – 2.8113879
Subordinate rank = 2.1886121
Figure 140. Safety/Serviceability Difference of Trade-Offs 1 and 2
Computation of ranking for Safety/Serviceability Constraint for Trade-Offs three (3) and two (2)
% Difference =
Higher Value-Lower Value
Higher Value
% Difference =
3.89-2.02
3.89
x100
x100
% Difference = 48.07197943
127
Subordinate rank = Governing rank -
% difference
10
Subordinate rank = 5 – 4.807197943
Subordinate rank = 0.192802057
Figure 141. Safety/Serviceability Difference of Trade-Offs 3 and 2
Computation of ranking for Safety/Serviceability Constraint for Trade-Offs three (3) and two (2)
% Difference =
Higher Value-Lower Value
Higher Value
% Difference =
3.89-2.02
3.89
x100
x100
% Difference = 64.24778761
Subordinate rank = Governing rank -
% difference
10
Subordinate rank = 5 – 6.424778761
Subordinate rank = -1.424778761
Figure 142. Safety/Serviceability Difference of Trade-Offs 4 and 2
128
Table 42. Final Designer’s Ranking
CONSTRAINT
(Criteria)
Importance
(on a scale of
0 to 5)
Economic
5
Constructability
4
Safety/Serviceability
3
Overall Rank
4.7.4
Ability to Satisfy the Criterion (on a scale of 0 to 5)
One-Way
One-Way
Two-Way
Two-Way
Slab OMRF
Slab SMRF
Slab OMRF
Slab SMRF
2.89
3.61
4.03
5
2.45
4.49
2.72
5
2.19
5
0.192
-1.424
30.82
51.01
31.606
40.728
Normalization of Final Data
The normalization of data are based on the initial estimate of the two mandatory tradeoffs
namely, One-Way Slab and Two-Way Slab, and based on the three constraints, namely Economic,
Constructability and Serviceability.
4.7.4.1 Raw Data
Table 43. Raw Final Data.
Design
1. OMRF (One-Way)
2. OMRF (Two-Way)
3. SRMF (One-Way)
4. SMRF (Two-Way)
PC1
(Cost in pesos)
18,179,360.48
16,661,469.14
15,898,110.45
14,349,860.25
PC2
(Duration in days)
573
450
553
427
PC3 (Safety/Serviceability
in percent)
2.81
2.02
3.89
5.65
Table 43 shows the raw data gathered from the estimate conducted by the designer that is available
to see in the appendix.
129
4.7.4.2 Normalized Data
Table 44. Normalized Final Data
Design
1. OMRF (One-Way)
2. OMRF (Two-Way)
3. SRMF (One-Way)
4. SMRF (Two-Way)
PC1 (Cost in
pesos)
1
4.567311983
6.361339349
10
PC2
(Duration in days)
1
8.582191781
2.232876712
10
PC3
(Safety/Serviceability in percent)
8.041322314
10
5.363636364
1
Normalization of rating means adjusting values measured on different scales to a noitionally common
scale, prior to averaging. Table 44 shows the normalized data from the raw data.
4.7.4.3 Weighted Sum of Various Percentage Weight
Table 45. First weighted sum of various percentage for final data
PC
1
2
3
Weighted Sum
Weight (%)
0.5
0.3
0.2
1
D1
1
1
8.041322314
2.408264463
D2
4.567311983
8.582191781
10
6.858313526
D3
6.361339
2.232877
5.363636
4.92326
D4
10
10
1
8.2
Table 45 shows the first weighted sum of various percentage where constraints one (1), two (2) and
three (3) have given a percentage of 0.5, 0.3 and 0.2 respectively.
Table 46. Second weighted sum of various percentage for final data
PC
1
2
3
Weighted Sum
Weight (%)
0.44
0.3
0.26
1
D1
1
1
8.041322314
2.830743802
D2
4.567311983
8.582191781
10
7.184274807
D3
6.361339
2.232877
5.363636
4.863398
D4
10
10
1
7.66
Table 46 shows the first weighted sum of various percentage where constraints one (1), two (2) and
three (3) have given a percentage of 0.44, 0.3 and 0.26 respectively.
130
Table 47. Third weighted sum of various percentage for final data
PC
1
2
3
Weighted Sum
Weight (%)
0.3
0.4
0.3
1
D1
1
1
8.041322314
3.112396694
D2
4.567311983
8.582191781
10
7.803070307
D3
6.361339
2.232877
5.363636
4.410643
D4
10
10
1
7.3
Table 47 shows the first weighted sum of various percentage where constraints one (1), two (2) and
three (3) have given a percentage of 0.3, 0.4 and 0.3 respectively.
4.7.5
Designer’s Final Ranking Assessment
In terms of economic constraints, the two-way slab got the rank of 5 considering both the
concrete works and rebar works. As for the constructability constraints, the number of man hours
needed to construct the structure in one-way slab is larger rather than the two-way slab, thus making
the two-way slab gets the rank of 5. For safety/serviceability constraint, the percentage of deflection
from allowable in the one way slab is smaller than the two way slab making this trade get a rank of
5 in this constraint.
After gathering all data and making the designer’s overall final ranking assessment. Overall, the four
tradeoffs had a difference of smaller in tradeoffs one and three, but large in the other tradeoffs. Overall, the
one-way slab SMRF outranked the other three tradeoffs. With these information, the designer concluded that
the governing tradeoff is One-Way slab SMRF in contrast with the raw designer’s ranking.
131
CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN
As what was proven from the previous chapters, the governing tradeoff was the One-Way Slab. After
going through all the design processes, the designer can now conclude the final design of the structure which
includes the design schedule of the structural members.
5.1
Design Schedules
The design schedule of the structural members included the investigated dimensions and designed
number of bars with spacing. The following tables below show the design schedule of the project.
5.1.1
Design Schedule of Slabs
Table 48.Slab Schedule
SLAB
(2F - ROOF)
t (mm)
S-1
S-2
150
150
S-1
S-2
150
150
5.1.2
Spacing (mm)
Φ bar (mm)
Midspan
Continuous
Edge
Longitudinal Direction
12
250
250
12
250
250
Transverse Direction
12
250
250
12
250
250
Φ tie (mm)
10
10
10
10
Design Schedule of Beams
Table 49. Beam Schedule
Beam
2F - ROOF
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
Dimension
b (mm)
310
310
310
310
310
310
t (mm)
420
420
420
420
420
420
Top (left)
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
Numbers of Bars
Bottom (mid)
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
Top (Right)
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
132
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
B17
B18
B19
B20
B21
B22
B23
B24
B25
B26
B27
B28
B29
B30
B31
B32
B33
B34
B35
B36
B37
B38
B39
B40
B41
B42
B43
B44
B45
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
133
B46
B47
B48
B49
B50
B51
B52
B53
B54
B55
B56
B57
B58
B59
B60
B61
B62
B63
B64
B65
B66
B67
B68
B69
B70
B71
B72
B73
B74
B75
B76
B77
B78
B79
B80
B81
B82
B83
B84
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
134
B85
B86
B87
B88
B89
B90
B91
B92
B93
B94
B95
B96
B97
B98
B99
B100
B101
B102
B103
B104
B105
B106
B107
B108
B109
B110
B111
B112
B113
B114
B115
B116
B117
B118
B119
B120
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
310
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
420
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
5 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
4 - 32Φ
135
5.1.3
Design Schedule of Columns
Table 50. Column Schedule
Column
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
C17
C18
C19
C20
C21
C22
C23
C24
C25
C26
C27
C28
C29
C30
C31
C32
C33
Dimensions
b (mm)
t (mm)
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
No. and size of
Bars
nd
2 Floor
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
20 – 16mmΦ
20 – 16mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
20 – 16mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
20 – 16mmΦ
20 – 16mmΦ
20 – 16mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
Tie Wires
Φtie (mm)
Spacing (mm)
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
256
256
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
256
400
256
256
256
400
400
136
C34
C35
C36
C37
C38
C39
C40
C41
C42
C43
C44
C45
C46
C47
C48
C49
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
C17
C18
C19
C20
C21
C22
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
20 – 16mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
20 – 16mmΦ
20 – 16mmΦ
20 – 16mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
rd
3 Floor
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
400
400
256
400
400
400
400
400
400
256
256
256
400
400
400
400
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
137
C23
C24
C25
C26
C27
C28
C29
C30
C31
C32
C33
C34
C35
C36
C37
C38
C39
C40
C41
C42
C43
C44
C45
C46
C47
C48
C49
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
20 – 16mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
20 – 16mmΦ
20 – 16mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
th
4 Floor
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
256
400
400
400
256
256
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
138
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
C17
C18
C19
C20
C21
C22
C23
C24
C25
C26
C27
C28
C29
C30
C31
C32
C33
C34
C35
C36
C37
C38
C39
C40
C41
C42
C43
C44
C45
C46
C47
C48
C49
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
th
5 Floor
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
139
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
C17
C18
C19
C20
C21
C22
C23
C24
C25
C26
C27
C28
C29
C30
C31
C32
C33
C34
C35
C36
C37
C38
C39
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
140
C40
C41
C42
C43
C44
C45
C46
C47
C48
C49
5.1.4
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
8 – 25mmΦ
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
Beam Details
Figure 143. Beam Details (a)
141
Figure 144. Beam Details (b)
142
5.1.5
Column Details
Figure 145. Column Details (a)
Figure 146. Column Details (b)
143
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: CODES AND STANDARDS
National Building Code of the Philippines (NBC)
The following are the sections and codes that are followed in conceptualizing and designing the structural
plan of the apartment building:
•
Section 401. Types of Construction
Type I. The structural elements may be any of the materials permitted by this Code.
•
Section 701. Occupancy Classified.
Group E. Business and Mercantile
•
Section 805. Ceiling Heights.
Habitable rooms provided with artificial ventilation have\ ceiling heights not less than 2.40 meters
measured from the floor to the ceiling; Provided that for buildings of more than one-storey, the
minimum ceiling height of the first storey shall be 2.70 meters and that for the second storey 2.40
meters and succeeding storeys shall have an unobstructed typical head-room clearance of not less
than 2.10 meters above the finished floor. Above stated rooms with a natural ventilation shall have
ceiling height not less than 2.70 meters.
•
Section 806. Size and Dimensions of Rooms.
Minimum sizes of rooms and their least horizontal dimensions shall be as follows:
1. Rooms for Human Habitations. 6.00 square meters with at least dimensions of 2.00
2. Kitchens. 3.00 square meters with at least dimension of 1.50 meters;
3. Bath and toilet. 1.20 square meters with at least dimension of 0.90 meters.
•
Section 808. Window Openings.
144
Every room intended for any use, not provided with artificial ventilation system as herein specified in
this Code, shall be provided with a window or windows with a total free area of openings equal to at
least ten percent of the floor area of room, and such window shall open directly to a court, yard,
public street or alley, or open water courses.
•
Section 1207. Stairs, Exits and Occupant Loads.
General. The construction of stairs and exits shall conform to the occupant load requirements of
buildings, reviewing stands, bleachers and grandstands:
a. Determinations of Occupant Loads. The Occupant load permitted in any building or portion
thereof shall be determined by dividing the floor area assigned to that use by the unit area
allowed per occupant as determined by the Secretary.
b. Exit Requirements. Exit requirements of a building or portion thereof used for different purposes
shall be determined by the occupant load which gives the largest number of persons. No
obstruction shall be placed in the required width of an exit except projections permitted by this
Code.
National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2015
Notation
Ag = gross area of section, mm2.
As = area of nonprestressed tension reinforcement, mm2.
As ,min = minimum amount of flexural reinforcement, mm2
Ast = total area of nonprestressed longitudinal reinforcement (bars and steel shapes), mm 2.
Av = area of shear reinforcement within a distance s, mm2.
145
Avf = area of shear-friction reinforcement, mm2.
A 's = area of compression reinforcement, mm2.
b = width of compression face of member, mm.
bw = web width, mm.
c = distance from extreme compression fiber to neutral axis, mm.
cc = clear cover from the nearest surface in tension to the surface of the flexural tension
reinforcement, mm.
Cm = a factor relating actual moment diagram to an equivalent uniform moment diagram.
D = dead loads, or related internal moments and forces.
d = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension reinforcement, mm.
d ' = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of compression reinforcement, mm.
db = nominal diameter of bar, wire, or prestressing strand, mm.
dc = thickness of concrete cover measure from extreme tension fiber to center of bar or wire located
closest thereto, mm.
ds = distance from extreme tension fiber to centroid of tension reinforcement, mm.
dt = distance from extreme compression fiber to extreme tension steel, mm.
E = load effects of earthquake, or related internal moments and forces.
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete, MPa.
Es = modulus of elasticity of reinforcement, MPa.
146
EI = flexural stiffness of compression member, N-mm2.
F = loads due to weight and pressures of fluids with well-defined densities and controllable maximum
heights, or related internal moments and forces.
f 'c = specified compressive strength of concrete, MPa.
f y = specified yield strength of nonprestressed reinforcement, MPa.
f yt = specified yield strength fy
H = loads due to weight and pressure of soil, water in soil, or other materials, or related internal
moments and forces.
h = overall thickness of member, mm.
I = moment of inertia of section beam about the centroidal axis, mm4.
Icr = moment of inertia of cracked section transformed to concrete, mm4.
Ie = effective moment of inertia for computation of deflection, mm4.
Ig = moment of inertia of gross concrete section about centroidal axis, neglecting reinforcement, mm4.
L = live loads, or related internal moments and forces.
Ld = development length, mm.
ln = length of clear span measured face-to-face of supports, mm.
Ma = maximum moment in member at stage deflection is computed.
Mcr = cracking moment.
Pb = nominal axial load strength at balanced strain conditions
147
Pn = nominal axial load strength at given eccentricity.
Vc = nominal shear strength provided by concrete
W = wind load, or related integral moments and forces.
wc = unit weight of concrete, kN/m3.
wu = factored load per unit length of beam or per unit area of slab.
αf = ratio of flexural stiffness of beam section to flexural stiffness of a width of slab bounded laterally
by center line of adjacent panle, if any on each side of beam.
αfm = average value of αf for all beams on edges of a panel.
β1 = factor
εt = net tensile strain in extreme tension steel at nominal strength.
λ = modification factor reflection the reduced mechanical properties of lightweight concrete.
λΔ = multiplier for additional long-time deflection ρ = ration of nonprestressed tension reinforcement
= As /bd
ρ ' = ratio of nonprestressed compression reinforcement = A 's /bd
ρb = reinforcement ratio producing balanced strain conditions
Φ = strength-reduction factor.
The following are the sections and codes that are followed in conceptualizing and designing the structural
plan of the apartment building:
•
Section 203 - Combination of Load
148
a. Minimum densities for design loads from materials
b. Minimum design loads
c. Minimum uniform and concentrated live loads
•
Section 206 - Other Minimum Loads
a. 206.3 Impact loads
b. 206.3.1 Elevators
c. 206.3.2 Machinery
•
Section 207 - Wind Load
a. 207B.3.2 Velocity Pressure
b. 207C.3.1 Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficient
c. 207A.8 Topographic Factor
d. 207A.6 Wind Directionality Factor
e. 207 A.7 Exposure
•
Section 208 - Earthquake Loads
a. 208.5.1.1 Design Base Shear
b. 208.5.2.2 Structure Period
149
APPENDIX B: RESULTS OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
B17
B18
B19
B20
B21
B22
B23
B24
B25
B26
B27
B28
B29
B30
B31
B32
B33
B34
B35
B36
B37
B38
B39
B40
B41
ONE WAY SLAB (SMRF) – 2ND FLOOR ONLY
M(+) kN-m
M(-) kN-m
62.74
122.46
C1
61.21
121.47
C2
61.10
121.46
C3
61.10
121.45
C4
61.12
121.60
C5
62.36
121.92
C6
63.78
116.18
C7
62.12
115.78
C8
61.99
115.84
C9
61.98
115.80
C10
62.04
116.21
C11
63.55
116.12
C12
62.60
115.03
C13
60.97
115.77
C14
60.84
115.82
C15
60.83
115.80
C16
60.86
116.21
C17
62.34
116.06
C18
61.47
113.91
C19
59.86
114.66
C20
59.74
114.72
C21
59.70
114.82
C22
54.92
131.94
C23
56.36
133.21
C24
63.30
115.82
C25
61.65
116.47
C26
61.53
116.55
C27
61.43
116.98
C28
61.49
112.34
C29
58.03
132.21
C30
65.13
117.75
C31
63.38
117.32
C32
63.34
122.20
C33
58.45
141.62
C34
58.39
140.21
C35
59.91
129.73
C36
64.72
124.81
C37
63.12
123.50
C38
63.05
128.59
C39
63.03
128.61
C40
63.09
128.87
C41
P (Axial) kN
766.43
1009.15
1008.92
1008.56
1008.64
1009.45
749.12
996.12
1184.31
1181.53
1181.20
1181.24
1185.14
1010.49
1094.77
1116.40
1135.03
1134.58
1135.37
1203.76
1024.65
979.67
1136.52
1134.02
1136.85
1142.69
1094.00
1026.52
1093.89
1116.72
1116.71
1334.88
1372.86
1469.24
1024.73
1115.62
1183.25
1185.21
1484.12
1523.17
1520.85
150
B42
B43
B44
B45
B46
B47
B48
B49
B50
B51
B52
B53
B54
B55
B56
B57
B58
B59
B60
B61
B62
B63
B64
B65
B66
B67
B68
B69
B70
B71
B72
B73
B74
B75
B76
B77
B78
B79
B80
B81
B82
B83
B84
MAX
64.17
113.74
112.06
112.10
112.17
112.24
115.76
143.08
143.54
143.60
143.77
143.80
145.90
134.53
136.21
136.18
136.29
136.48
144.64
132.68
134.42
134.42
135.20
135.06
156.08
134.91
136.54
136.75
140.83
142.08
151.89
144.04
145.77
146.37
149.16
148.26
144.50
112.13
111.41
111.72
110.82
109.88
109.30
151.89
119.15
148.59
145.80
145.86
145.93
146.02
148.27
159.68
159.47
159.58
159.75
159.84
160.74
151.32
152.11
152.15
152.26
152.58
158.88
149.11
150.00
150.07
150.77
150.91
180.64
151.80
152.52
152.98
168.58
170.44
165.75
160.93
161.67
162.57
176.91
176.59
159.74
147.50
145.49
145.89
144.97
144.06
142.63
176.91
C42
C43
C44
C45
C46
C47
C48
C49
1013.54
1115.77
1094.59
1115.97
1063.84
1067.07
1065.17
726.18
1523.17
151
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
B17
B18
B19
B20
B21
B22
B23
B24
B25
B26
B27
B28
B29
B30
B31
B32
B33
B34
B35
B36
B37
B38
B39
B40
B41
B42
B43
TWO WAY SLAB (SMRF) – 2ND FLOOR ONLY
M(+) kN-m
M(-) kN-m
70.82
133.62
C1
69.35
132.79
C2
69.28
132.79
C3
69.27
132.80
C4
69.30
132.86
C5
70.18
133.28
C6
70.96
131.08
C7
69.50
131.74
C8
69.45
131.73
C9
69.45
131.73
C10
69.51
131.80
C11
70.96
132.30
C12
69.20
129.30
C13
67.77
131.36
C14
67.72
131.35
C15
67.72
131.36
C16
67.78
131.42
C17
69.20
131.89
C18
67.43
127.51
C19
66.03
129.58
C20
65.97
129.58
C21
66.01
129.91
C22
61.18
146.28
C23
62.52
147.96
C24
69.42
129.55
C25
67.98
131.52
C26
67.93
131.52
C27
68.08
132.06
C28
67.96
126.10
C29
64.44
146.70
C30
71.40
131.57
C31
69.99
131.77
C32
65.14
157.36
C33
65.22
158.90
C34
65.09
155.58
C35
66.49
142.80
C36
71.49
134.12
C37
69.96
133.33
C38
69.93
139.59
C39
69.86
139.95
C40
69.98
139.80
C41
70.85
127.57
C42
74.15
136.44
C43
P (Axial) kN
756.05
990.55
989.65
989.55
989.62
990.25
740.98
989.63
1102.78
1100.84
1100.83
1100.85
1102.61
948.71
989.11
1101.25
1099.27
1099.19
1099.36
1169.43
982.15
989.05
1101.24
1099.28
1100.45
1101.63
1171.01
949.18
989.07
1101.19
1100.42
1303.75
1306.97
1406.92
1017.00
989.37
1102.39
1102.58
1407.10
1410.74
1410.74
950.80
740.88
152
B44
B45
B46
B47
B48
B49
B50
B51
B52
B53
B54
B55
B56
B57
B58
B59
B60
B61
B62
B63
B64
B65
B66
B67
B68
B69
B70
B71
B72
B73
B74
B75
B76
B77
B78
B79
B80
B81
B82
B83
B84
MAX
72.30
72.21
72.21
72.24
73.47
74.44
72.61
72.53
72.52
72.58
74.40
72.83
71.03
70.95
70.95
71.06
68.00
71.21
69.45
69.37
69.37
69.48
71.11
73.32
71.52
71.41
66.69
66.86
73.15
75.42
73.57
73.54
68.74
68.81
75.22
75.63
73.73
73.56
73.63
73.67
74.87
75.63
135.49
135.49
135.55
135.66
136.24
134.09
134.60
134.58
134.69
134.83
134.04
132.50
134.41
134.38
134.46
134.25
158.10
130.91
132.84
132.81
132.90
133.05
143.66
133.03
134.91
135.17
151.16
152.27
145.87
135.16
136.99
137.56
151.83
151.23
134.77
137.92
138.40
138.69
137.02
135.71
131.11
158.90
C44
C45
C46
C47
C48
C49
949.15
949.08
1051.90
1116.91
1116.06
726.72
1410.74
153
APPENDIX C: DESIGN OF BEAMS
Beam with Maximum Moment was Designed (One-Way Tradeoff)
For Support
The following are the given data:
Mu =
Vu =
f'c =
fy =
b=
t=
d' =
d=
Φbar =
Φtie =
151.89
84.4
21
275
420
310
62.5
247.5
32
10
kN-m
kN
Mpa
Mpa
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
Es =
Ec =
n=
L=
200000
21383.71
10
5
Mpa
Mpa
m
Part 1. Computation of Steel Area and Number of Bars
Step 1. Solve for ρmax and Mu(max)
ρb = (0.75*0.85*f'c*β1*600)/(fy*(600+fy)
β = 0.85, for f'c < 28 MPa
ρmax = ρ = 0.75ρb
ω = ρ*fy/f'c
Mu(max) = Φ*f'c*ω*b*(d^2)*(1-.59ω)
Φ = 0.9
* If Mu < Mu(max), design is Singly Reinforced
* If Mu > Mu(max), design is Doubly Reinforced
Step 2. Using Doubly Reinforcement. Solving As and N bars
As1 = ρmax*b*d
M2 = Mu/ Φ – M1, Where M1 = Mu(max)
As2 = M2/ fy(d-d’)
As = As1 + As2
a = As1*fy/0.85f’c*b
154
c = a/ β
fsc = 600(c-d’/c)
A’s = As2fy/fsc-0.85f’c
N = As/Ab, For tensions reinforcement bars
N’ = A’s/Ab, For compression reinforcement bars
β
ρb
ρmax
ω
φ
Mumax
RESULTS:
0.85
0.028374545
0.021280909
0.278678571
0.9
113.2277631
DOUBLY
As
3303.824281
mm2
A's
N
N'
1585.621017
4
2
mm2
pcs
pcs
kN-m
Part 2. Designing the Vertical Stirrup
Step 1. Calculate the Shear Strength by Concrete (Vc)
Vc = sqrt(f'c)*b*d/6
* If Vu > ΦVc, stirrups needed, go to Step II
* If Vu < ΦVc, but Vu > .5*ΦVc Stirrups needed
* If Vu < .5*Φ*Vc, stirrups are not needed
Step 2. Calculate the Shear Strength by Stirrup (Vs)
Vn = Vu/Φ
Vs = Vn – Vc
* If Vs < 0.67*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, go to Step 3.
* If Vs > 0.67*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, redesign.
Step 3. Spacing of Stirrups
Si = Av*fy*d/Vs, Av = pi*(Φtie^2)/4
For Smax,
155
* If Vs < 0.33*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, Smax = d/2 or 600mm (get smaller)
* If Vs > 0.33*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, Smax = d/4 or 400mm (get smaller)
RESULTS:
Vc
79.39312392
φVc
71.45381152
0.5φVc
35.72690576
STIRRUPS NEEDED
Vn
93.77777778
Vs
14.38465386
Parameter
319.1603581
Av
Si
Parameter
Smax1
Smax2
Sf
78.53981634
371.6193869
157.1983854
123.75
600
130
kN
kN
kN
kN
kN
kN
mm2
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
Part 3. Development Length
The following are the supplementary data.
Cc = 40 mm, Bar Coat = Epoxy
Step 1. Determine the Value of the Coefficients (ψt,ψe,ψs,λ)
ψt = 1.0 for all other situations
ψe = 1.5 for epoxy-coated bars with cover less than 3d or 6d, = 1.2 for all other epoxycoated bars, = 1 for uncoated or zinc coated bars
ψt = .8 for 20 mm bars and smaller, = 1 for 25 mm bars and larger
λ = 1 for normal weight concrete
Step 2. Compute for the development length
ld = (fy*ψt*ψe*ψs*d)/(1.1*λ*sqrt(f'c)*((cc+Ktr)/d))
Ktr = 40*Atr/(S*N), Atr = 2*pi*(Φtie^2)/4
ψt =
ψe =
ψt =
λ=
RESULTS:
1
1.2
1
1
156
Atr
Ktr
ld
mm2
157.0796327
24.51472131
62.15888111
mm
For Midspan
The following are the given data:
Mu =
Vu =
f'c =
fy =
b=
t=
d' =
d=
Φbar =
Φtie =
176.91
75.05
21
275
420
310
62.5
247.5
32
10
kN-m
kN
Mpa
Mpa
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
Es =
Ec =
n=
L=
200000
21383.71
10
5
Mpa
Mpa
m
Part 1. Computation of Steel Area and Number of Bars
Step 1. Solve for ρmax and Mu(max)
ρb = (0.75*0.85*f'c*β1*600)/(fy*(600+fy)
β = 0.85, for f'c < 28 MPa
ρmax = ρ = 0.75ρb
ω = ρ*fy/f'c
Mu(max) = Φ*f'c*ω*b*(d^2)*(1-.59ω)
Φ = 0.9
* If Mu < Mu(max), design is Singly Reinforced
* If Mu > Mu(max), design is Doubly Reinforced
Step 2. Using Doubly Reinforcement. Solving As and N bars
As1 = ρmax*b*d
M2 = Mu/ Φ – M1, Where M1 = Mu(max)
As2 = M2/ fy(d-d’)
157
As = As1 + As2
a = As1*fy/0.85f’c*b
c = a/ β
fsc = 600(c-d’/c)
A’s = As2fy/fsc-0.85f’c
N = As/Ab, For tensions reinforcement bars
N’ = A’s/Ab, For compression reinforcement bars
β
ρb
ρmax
ω
φ
Mumax
RESULTS:
0.85
0.028374545
0.021280909
0.278678571
0.9
113.2277631
DOUBLY
kN-m
As
3850.261627
mm2
A's
N
N'
2379.303669
5
3
mm2
pcs
pcs
Part 2. Designing the Vertical Stirrup
Step 1. Calculate the Shear Strength by Concrete (Vc)
Vc = sqrt(f'c)*b*d/6
* If Vu > ΦVc, stirrups needed, go to Step II
* If Vu < ΦVc, but Vu > .5*ΦVc Stirrups needed
* If Vu < .5*Φ*Vc, stirrups are not needed
Step 2. Calculate the Shear Strength by Stirrup (Vs)
Vn = Vu/Φ
Vs = Vn – Vc
* If Vs < 0.67*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, go to Step 3.
* If Vs > 0.67*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, redesign.
Step 3. Spacing of Stirrups
Si = Av*fy*d/Vs, Av = pi*(Φtie^2)/4
158
For Smax,
* If Vs < 0.33*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, Smax = d/2 or 600mm (get smaller)
* If Vs > 0.33*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, Smax = d/4 or 400mm (get smaller)
RESULTS:
Vc
79.39312392
φVc
71.45381152
0.5φVc
35.72690576
STIRRUPS NEEDED
Vn
83.38888889
Vs
3.995764974
Parameter
319.1603581
Av
Si
Parameter
Smax1
Smax2
Sf
78.53981634
1337.820489
157.1983854
123.75
600
130
kN
kN
kN
kN
kN
kN
mm2
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
Part 3. Development Length
The following are the supplementary data:
Cc = 40 mm, Bar Coat = Epoxy
Step 1. Determine the Value of the Coefficients (ψt,ψe,ψs,λ)
ψt = 1.0 for all other situations
ψe = 1.5 for epoxy-coated bars with cover less than 3d or 6d, = 1.2 for all other epoxycoated bars, = 1 for uncoated or zinc coated bars
ψt = .8 for 20 mm bars and smaller, = 1 for 25 mm bars and larger
λ = 1 for normal weight concrete
Step 2. Compute for the development length
ld = (fy*ψt*ψe*ψs*d)/(1.1*λ*sqrt(f'c)*((cc+Ktr)/d))
Ktr = 40*Atr/(S*N), Atr = 2*pi*(Φtie^2)/4
159
RESULTS:
ψt =
ψe =
ψt =
λ=
1
1.2
1
1
Atr
Ktr
ld
157.0796327
16.33715689
71.18149216
mm2
mm
Part 4. Checking the Beam in Deflection
Step 1. Calculate the Gross Moment of Inertia and the Cracking Moment of the Beam
Ig = b(t^3)/12
Mcr = Ig*fr/ϒt, fr = 0.62*λ*sqrt(f'c), ϒt = t/2
Step 2. Calculate the Moment of Inertia of the Cracked Section
Icr = b*(c^3)/12 + nAs(d-c)+nAs'(c-d')
Step 3. Calculate the Effective Moment of Inertia
Ie = ((Mcr/Mu)^3)*Ig + ((1-(Mcr/Mu)^3)*Icr)
Step 4. Determine and Check the Deflection
Mu = W(L^2)/8, W=____
δ = 5*W*(L^4)/(384*Ec*Ie)
δmax = L/360
RESULTS:
Ig
fr
ϒt
Mcr
1042685000
2.841196931
155
19.11273175
mm4
Mpa
mm
kN-m
Icr
37088340.7
mm4
Ie
W
δ
δmax
38356386.58
9.04
0.280295746
13.88888889
OK
mm4
kN/m
mm
mm
160
Beam with Maximum Moment was Designed (Two-Way Tradeoff)
For Support
The following are the given data:
Mu =
Vu =
f'c =
fy =
b=
t=
d' =
d=
Φbar =
Φtie =
75.63
101.37
21
275
310
420
62.5
357.5
32
10
kN-m
kN
Mpa
Mpa
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
Es =
Ec =
n=
L=
200000
21383.71
10
5
Mpa
Mpa
m
Part 1. Computation of Steel Area and Number of Bars
Step 1. Solve for ρmax and Mu(max)
ρb = (0.75*0.85*f'c*β1*600)/(fy*(600+fy)
β = 0.85, for f'c < 28 MPa
ρmax = ρ = 0.75ρb
ω = ρ*fy/f'c ρmax
Mu(max) = Φ*f'c*ω*b*(d^2)*(1-.59ω)
Φ = 0.9
* If Mu < Mu(max), design is Singly Reinforced
* If Mu > Mu(max), design is Doubly Reinforced
Step 2. Using Singly Reinforcement. Solving As and N bars
As1 = ρmax*b*d
N = As/Abar, Abar = pi*(Φbar^2)/4
β
ρb
ρmax
RESULTS:
0.85
0.028374545
0.021280909
161
ω
φ
Mumax
0.278678571
0.9
174.3680925
SINGLY
As
N
2358.45675
3
kN-m
mm2
pcs
Part 2. Designing the Vertical Stirrup
Step 1. Calculate the Shear Strength by Concrete (Vc)
Vc = sqrt(f'c)*b*d/6
* If Vu > ΦVc, stirrups needed, go to Step II
* If Vu < ΦVc, but Vu > .5*ΦVc Stirrups needed
* If Vu < .5*Φ*Vc, stirrups are not needed
Step 2. Calculate the Shear Strength by Stirrup (Vs)
Vn = Vu/Φ
Vs = Vn – Vc
* If Vs < 0.67*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, go to Step 3.
* If Vs > 0.67*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, redesign.
Step 3. Spacing of Stirrups
Si = Av*fy*d/Vs, Av = pi*(Φtie^2)/4
For Smax,
* If Vs < 0.33*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, Smax = d/2 or 600mm (get smaller)
* If Vs > 0.33*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, Smax = d/4 or 400mm (get smaller)
RESULTS:
Vn
84.6439919
Vs
76.17959271
0.5φVc
34.28081672
STIRRUPS NEEDED
kN
kN
kN
Vn
Vs
112.6333333
27.98934143
kN
kN
Parameter
Av
340.2688474
78.53981634
mm2
mm
162
Si
Parameter
Smax1
Smax2
Sf
275.8709315
167.595104
178.75
600
180
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
Part 3. Development Length
The following are the supplementary data.
Cc = 40 mm, Bar Coat = Epoxy
Step 1. Determine the Value of the Coefficients (ψt,ψe,ψs,λ)
ψt = 1.0 for all other situations
ψe = 1.5 for epoxy-coated bars with cover less than 3d or 6d, = 1.2 for all other epoxycoated bars, = 1 for uncoated or zinc coated bars
ψt = .8 for 20 mm bars and smaller, = 1 for 25 mm bars and larger
λ = 1 for normal weight concrete
Step 2. Compute for the development length
ld = (fy*ψt*ψe*ψs*d)/(1.1*λ*sqrt(f'c)*((cc+Ktr)/d))
Ktr = 40*Atr/(S*N), Atr = 2*pi*(Φtie^2)/4
ψt
ψe
ψt
λ
RESULTS:
1
1.2
1
1
Atr
Ktr
157.0796327
11.90335223
mm2
ld
161.2012078
mm2
163
For Midspan
The following are the given data:
Mu =
Vu =
f'c =
fy =
b=
t=
d' =
d=
Φbar =
Φtie =
158.9
97.94
21
275
310
420
62.5
357.5
32
10
kN-m
kN
Mpa
Mpa
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
Es =
Ec =
n=
L=
200000
21383.71
10
5
Mpa
Mpa
m
Part 1. Computation of Steel Area and Number of Bars
Step 1. Solve for ρmax and Mu(max)
ρb = (0.75*0.85*f'c*β1*600)/(fy*(600+fy)
β = 0.85, for f'c < 28 MPa
ρmax = ρ = 0.75ρb
ω = ρ*fy/f'c ρmax
Mu(max) = Φ*f'c*ω*b*(d^2)*(1-.59ω)
Φ = 0.9
* If Mu < Mu(max), design is Singly Reinforced
* If Mu > Mu(max), design is Doubly Reinforced
Step 2. Using Singly Reinforcement. Solving As and N bars
As1 = ρmax*b*d
N = As/Abar, Abar = pi*(Φbar^2)/4
β
ρb
ρmax
ω
φ
Mumax
RESULTS:
0.85
0.028374545
0.021280909
0.278678571
0.9
174.3680925
kN-m
164
SINGLY
As
N
2358.45675
3
mm2
pcs
Part 2. Designing the Vertical Stirrup
Step 1. Calculate the Shear Strength by Concrete (Vc)
Vc = sqrt(f'c)*b*d/6
* If Vu > ΦVc, stirrups needed, go to Step II
* If Vu < ΦVc, but Vu > .5*ΦVc Stirrups needed
* If Vu < .5*Φ*Vc, stirrups are not needed
Step 2. Calculate the Shear Strength by Stirrup (Vs)
Vn = Vu/Φ
Vs = Vn – Vc
* If Vs < 0.67*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, go to Step 3.
* If Vs > 0.67*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, redesign.
Step 3. Spacing of Stirrups
Si = Av*fy*d/Vs, Av = pi*(Φtie^2)/4
For Smax,
* If Vs < 0.33*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, Smax = d/2 or 600mm (get smaller)
* If Vs > 0.33*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, Smax = d/4 or 400mm (get smaller)
RESULTS:
Vn
84.6439919
Vs
76.17959271
0.5φVc
34.28081672
STIRRUPS NEEDED
kN
kN
kN
Vn
Vs
108.8222222
24.17823032
kN
kN
Parameter
Av
Si
Parameter
Smax1
Smax2
Sf
340.2688474
78.53981634
319.3552874
167.595104
178.75
600
180
mm2
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
165
Part 3. Development Length
The following are the supplementary data.
Cc = 40 mm, Bar Coat = Epoxy
Step 1. Determine the Value of the Coefficients (ψt,ψe,ψs,λ)
ψt = 1.0 for all other situations
ψe = 1.5 for epoxy-coated bars with cover less than 3d or 6d, = 1.2 for all other epoxycoated bars, = 1 for uncoated or zinc coated bars
ψt = .8 for 20 mm bars and smaller, = 1 for 25 mm bars and larger
λ = 1 for normal weight concrete
Step 2. Compute for the development length
ld = (fy*ψt*ψe*ψs*d)/(1.1*λ*sqrt(f'c)*((cc+Ktr)/d))
Ktr = 40*Atr/(S*N), Atr = 2*pi*(Φtie^2)/4
ψt
ψe
ψt
λ
RESULTS:
1
1.2
1
1
Atr
Ktr
157.0796327
11.90335223
mm2
ld
161.2012078
mm2
Part 4. Checking the Beam in Deflection
Step 1. Calculate the Gross Moment of Inertia and the Cracking Moment of the Beam
Ig = b(t^3)/12
Mcr = Ig*fr/ϒt, fr = 0.62*λ*sqrt(f'c), ϒt = t/2
Step 2. Calculate the Moment of Inertia of the Cracked Section
Icr = b*(c^3)/12 + nAs(d-c)+nAs'(c-d')
Step 3. Calculate the Effective Moment of Inertia
Ie = ((Mcr/Mu)^3)*Ig + ((1-(Mcr/Mu)^3)*Icr)
Step 4. Determine and Check the Deflection
Mu = W(L^2)/8, W=____
166
δ = 5*W*(L^4)/(384*Ec*Ie)
δmax = L/360
RESULTS:
Ig
fr
ϒt
Mcr
1042685000
2.841196931
155
19.11273175
mm4
Mpa
mm
kN-m
Icr
37088340.7
mm4
Ie
W
δ
δmax
38356386.58
25.29
0.784145953
13.88888889
OK
mm4
kN/m
mm
mm
167
APPENDIX D: DESIGN OF ONE-WAY SLAB
Design of S-1
Considering Longer Side
The following are the given data:
Dead Loads
Weight of Slab =
3.6 kPa
Stone Concrete Fill =
1.53 kPa
Gypsum Board =
0.2 kPa
Total =
5.33 kPa
Live Loads
Basic Floor Area =
1.9 kPa
f'c =
fy =
L=
t=
b=
Φbar =
Φtie =
d=
β=
21
415
5
150
1000
12
10
134
0.850000
Mpa
Mpa
m
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
Step 1. Calculate the Factored Loads and the Moment in the Slab
W = 1.2DL + 1.6LL
For Midspan, M = W*(L^2)/14
For Continuous Edge, M = W*(L^2)/10
Step 2. Calculate the ρ and check for the Midspan
R = Mu/(b*(d^2))
ρ = (0.85*f'c/fy)*(1-(sqrt(1-((2*R)/(0.85*f'c))))
ρmax = 0.75*0.85*f'c*β*600/(fy*(600+fy))
ρmin = 1.4/fy
* If ρ > ρmax, redesign
* If ρmin < ρ < ρmax, ok
* If ρmin > ρ, use ρmin
Step 3. Calculate the Steel Area and Spacing of Bars
As = ρ*b*d
S = b*Abar/As, Abar = pi*(Φbar^2)/4
Step 4. Calculate the ρ and check for the Continuous Edge
Step 5. Calculate the Steel Area and Spacing of Bars
168
W
Mmid
Mc.e.
R
ρi
ρmax
ρmin
ρf
As
Abar
S
R
ρi
ρmax
ρmin
ρf
As
Abar
S
STEP 1 RESULTS:
9.436
16.85
23.59
STEP 2 RESULTS:
0.93840499
0.002324001
0.016208974
0.003373494
0.003373494
STEP 3 RESULTS:
452.0481928
113.0973355
250.1886687
STEP 4 RESULTS:
1.313766986
0.003291657
0.016208974
0.003373494
0.003373494
STEP 5 RESULTS:
452.0481928
113.0973355
250.1886687
kN/m
kN-m
kN-m
mm2
mm2
mm
mm2
mm2
mm
Considering Shorter Side
The following are the given data:
Dead Loads
Weight of Slab =
3.6 kPa
Stone Concrete Fill =
1.53 kPa
Gypsum Board =
0.2 kPa
Total =
5.33 kPa
Live Loads
Basic Floor Area =
1.9 kPa
f'c =
fy =
L=
t=
b=
Φbar =
Φtie =
d=
β=
21
415
2.5
150
1000
12
10
134
0.850000
Mpa
Mpa
m
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
Step 1. Calculate the Factored Loads and the Moment in the Slab
W = 1.2DL + 1.6LL
169
For Midspan, M = W*(L^2)/14
For Continuous Edge, M = W*(L^2)/10
Step 2. Calculate the ρ and check for the Midspan
R = Mu/(b*(d^2))
ρ = (0.85*f'c/fy)*(1-(sqrt(1-((2*R)/(0.85*f'c))))
ρmax = 0.75*0.85*f'c*β*600/(fy*(600+fy))
ρmin = 1.4/fy
* If ρ > ρmax, redesign
* If ρmin < ρ < ρmax, ok
* If ρmin > ρ, use ρmin
Step 3. Calculate the Steel Area and Spacing of Bars
As = ρ*b*d
S = b*Abar/As, Abar = pi*(Φbar^2)/4
Step 4. Calculate the ρ and check for the Continuous Edge
Step 5. Calculate the Steel Area and Spacing of Bars
W
Mmid
Mc.e.
R
ρi
ρmax
ρmin
ρf
As
Abar
S
R
ρi
ρmax
ρmin
STEP 1 RESULTS:
9.436
4.2125
5.8975
STEP 2 RESULTS:
0.234601247
0.000569069
0.016208974
0.003373494
0.003373494
STEP 3 RESULTS:
452.0481928
113.0973355
250.1886687
STEP 4 RESULTS:
0.328441746
0.000798844
0.016208974
0.003373494
kN/m
kN-m
kN-m
mm2
mm2
mm
170
ρf
0.003373494
STEP 5 RESULTS:
As
452.0481928
mm2
Abar
113.0973355
mm2
S
250.1886687
mm
Design of S-2
Considering Longer Side
The following are the given data:
Dead Loads
Weight of Slab =
3.6 kPa
Stone Concrete Fill =
1.53 kPa
Gypsum Board =
0.2 kPa
Total =
5.33 kPa
Live Loads
Basic Floor Area =
1.9 kPa
f'c =
fy =
L=
t=
b=
Φbar =
Φtie =
d=
β=
21
415
2.475
150
1000
12
10
134
0.850000
Mpa
Mpa
m
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
Step 1. Calculate the Factored Loads and the Moment in the Slab
W = 1.2DL + 1.6LL
For Midspan, M = W*(L^2)/14
For Continuous Edge, M = W*(L^2)/10
Step 2. Calculate the ρ and check for the Midspan
R = Mu/(b*(d^2))
ρ = (0.85*f'c/fy)*(1-(sqrt(1-((2*R)/(0.85*f'c))))
ρmax = 0.75*0.85*f'c*β*600/(fy*(600+fy))
ρmin = 1.4/fy
* If ρ > ρmax, redesign
* If ρmin < ρ < ρmax, ok
* If ρmin > ρ, use ρmin
Step 3. Calculate the Steel Area and Spacing of Bars
As = ρ*b*d
171
S = b*Abar/As, Abar = pi*(Φbar^2)/4
Step 4. Calculate the ρ and check for the Continuous Edge
Step 5. Calculate the Steel Area and Spacing of Bars
W
Mmid
Mc.e.
R
ρi
ρmax
ρmin
ρf
As
Abar
S
R
ρi
ρmax
ρmin
ρf
As
Abar
S
STEP 1 RESULTS:
9.436
4.12867125
5.78013975
STEP 2 RESULTS:
0.229932683
0.00055767
0.016208974
0.003373494
0.003373494
STEP 3 RESULTS:
452.0481928
113.0973355
250.1886687
STEP 4 RESULTS:
0.321905756
0.0007828
0.016208974
0.003373494
0.003373494
STEP 5 RESULTS:
452.0481928
113.0973355
250.1886687
kN/m
kN-m
kN-m
mm2
mm2
mm
mm2
mm2
mm
172
Considering Shorter Side
The following are the given data:
Dead Loads
Weight of Slab =
3.6 kPa
Stone Concrete Fill =
1.53 kPa
Gypsum Board =
0.2 kPa
Total =
5.33 kPa
Live Loads
Basic Floor Area =
1.9 kPa
f'c =
fy =
L=
t=
b=
Φbar =
Φtie =
d=
β=
21
415
2.3
150
1000
12
10
134
0.850000
Mpa
Mpa
m
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
Step 1. Calculate the Factored Loads and the Moment in the Slab
W = 1.2DL + 1.6LL
For Midspan, M = W*(L^2)/14
For Continuous Edge, M = W*(L^2)/10
Step 2. Calculate the ρ and check for the Midspan
R = Mu/(b*(d^2))
ρ = (0.85*f'c/fy)*(1-(sqrt(1-((2*R)/(0.85*f'c))))
ρmax = 0.75*0.85*f'c*β*600/(fy*(600+fy))
ρmin = 1.4/fy
* If ρ > ρmax, redesign
* If ρmin < ρ < ρmax, ok
* If ρmin > ρ, use ρmin
Step 3. Calculate the Steel Area and Spacing of Bars
As = ρ*b*d
S = b*Abar/As, Abar = pi*(Φbar^2)/4
Step 4. Calculate the ρ and check for the Continuous Edge
Step 5. Calculate the Steel Area and Spacing of Bars
STEP 1 RESULTS:
W
9.436
kN/m
Mmid
3.56546
kN-m
Mc.e.
4.991644
kN-m
173
R
ρi
ρmax
ρmin
ρf
As
Abar
S
R
ρi
ρmax
ρmin
ρf
As
Abar
S
STEP 2 RESULTS:
0.198566496
0.000481165
0.016208974
0.003373494
0.003373494
STEP 3 RESULTS:
452.0481928
113.0973355
250.1886687
STEP 4 RESULTS:
0.277993094
0.000675162
0.016208974
0.003373494
0.003373494
STEP 5 RESULTS:
452.0481928
113.0973355
250.1886687
mm2
mm2
mm
mm2
mm2
mm
174
APPENDIX E: DESIGN OF TWO-WAY SLAB
The following are the given and results for S1:
1
2
3
4
5
1
DESIGN OF SLAB BY LIMIT STATE METHOD (SIMPLY SUPPORTED TWO WAY )
DIMENSIONS OF ROOM
Ly
5000 mm
LONGER
Lx
5000 mm
SHORTER
THICKNESS OF SUPPORT
b'
200 mm
q
0.133
GRADE OF CONCRETE
fck
20 N/mm^2
LL
4 KN/M^2
GRADE OF STEEL
fy
415 N/mm^2
FF
1 KN/M^2
CLEAR COVER
d''
40 mm
ALPHA X
0.086
0.058
ASSUMED DATA
ALPHA Y
DIA. OF BAR FOR ASTx
10 mm
b
1000
mm
DIA. OF BAR FOR ASTy
10 mm
MF
1.3
CALCULATION
d=Lx/(20*1.
d
192.307692 mm
ASSUMPTION FOR EFFECTIVE
FOR S.S.
4)
DEPTH OF SLAB
OVERALL DEPTH
2
EFFECTIVE SPAN
d=
D=
120 mm
165 mm
lx
1
2
5120 mm
5.12 M
1
2
5120 mm
5.12 M
lx
ly
ly
3
0.165 m
5200 mm
Lx+b'
5120 mm
Lx+d
WHICH EVER IS LESSER
5200 mm
Ly+b'
5120 mm
Ly+d
WHICH EVER IS LESSER
FOR ONE
WAY AND
TWO WAY
1
CHECK ly/lx
NEED TO DESIGN AS TWO WAY SLAB
4
5
LOADING CALCULATION FOR
ONE METER STRIP
BENDING MOMENT
CALCULATION
DEAD LOAD
LIVE LOAD
FLOAR FINISH
TOTAL LOAD
TOTAL FACTORED
LOAD(wd)
Mux
Muy
Mu max
5.33 KN/M
1.9 KN/M
1 KN/M
8.23 KN/M
12.345 KN/M
27.83104205 KN.M
18.76977254 KN.M
27.83104205 KN.M
Dx25X1
LL.x1
FF.x1
DL+LL+FF
TLx1.5
(ALPHA X) x( Wd)x(lx^2)
(ALPHA Y) x( Wd)x(lx^2)
175
6
CHECK FOR DEPTH
6
dreq.
DEPTH REQUIRED
Mur max
Qxfckxbxdxd
d req.=
102.2878183 mm
d provided > d required HENCE OK
d=√(Mur*10^6)/(fck*10
00*Q)
AST CALCULATION
1 ASTx CALCULATION
ASTx= 736.473544 mm^2
SPACING OF 10 MM BAR
AREA OF ONE BAR= 78.53982
CHECK FOR MIN.
SPACING
TAKE SPACING =
.
.
(
d
106.6431 mm
1000`
360 mm
300 mm
106.64 mm
3Xd
300 mm
LESSER OF ABOVE 3
CHECK FOR AST MIN.
ASTmin=
198.00 mm^2
ASTprovided>ASTmin HENCE OK
2 ASTy CALCULATION
ASTy=
524.79416 mm^2
SPACING
AREA OF ONE BAR= 78.53982
CHECK FOR MIN.
SPACING
TAKE SPACING =
.
.
(
d
149.658 mm
X1000
360.000 3Xd
300.00 300 mm
149.66 mm
LESSER OF ABOVE 3
The following are the results for the Design of S1:
SLAB SCHEDULE
SLAB
MARK
S1
SLAB SIZE
Ly mm
5000
Lx mm
5000
EFFECTIVE SLAB
SIZE
ly mm
5120
lx mm
5120
DIA OF BAR
#1 mm
10
#2 mm
10
DEPTH
EFFECTIVE
DEPTH
D mm
165
d mm
120
ASTx
SPACING
FOR ASTx
ASTy
#1 mm^2 #1 mm #2 mm^2
736.47354 106.6431 524.79416
SPACING
FOR ASTy
#2 mm
149.658
176
The following are the given and results for S2:
1
2
3
4
5
1
DESIGN OF SLAB BY LIMIT STATE METHOD (SIMPLY SUPPORTED TWO WAY )
DIMENSIONS OF ROOM
Ly
2475 mm
LONGER
Lx
2300 mm
SHORTER
THICKNESS OF SUPPORT
b'
230 mm
q
0.133
GRADE OF CONCRETE
fck
20 N/mm^2
LL
4 KN/M^2
GRADE OF STEEL
fy
415 N/mm^2
FF
1 KN/M^2
CLEAR COVER
d''
40 mm
ALPHA X
0.086
0.058
ASSUMED DATA
ALPHA Y
DIA. OF BAR FOR ASTx
16 mm
b
1000
mm
DIA. OF BAR FOR ASTy
10 mm
MF
1.3
CALCULATION
d=Lx/(20*1.
d
88.4615385 mm
ASSUMPTION FOR EFFECTIVE
FOR S.S.
4)
DEPTH OF SLAB
OVERALL DEPTH
2
EFFECTIVE SPAN
d=
D=
80 mm
128 mm
lx
1
2
2380 mm
2.38 M
1
2
2555 mm
2.555 M
lx
ly
ly
3
0.128 m
2530 mm
Lx+b'
2380 mm
Lx+d
WHICH EVER IS LESSER
2705 mm
Ly+b'
2555 mm
Ly+d
WHICH EVER IS LESSER
FOR ONE
WAY AND
TWO WAY
1.073529
CHECK ly/lx
NEED TO DESIGN AS TWO WAY SLAB
4
5
LOADING CALCULATION FOR
ONE METER STRIP
BENDING MOMENT
CALCULATION
DEAD LOAD
LIVE LOAD
FLOAR FINISH
TOTAL LOAD
TOTAL FACTORED
LOAD(wd)
Mux
Muy
Mu max
5.33 KN/M
1.9 KN/M
1 KN/M
8.23 KN/M
12.345 KN/M
6.013723548 KN.M
4.055767044 KN.M
6.013723548 KN.M
Dx25X1
LL.x1
FF.x1
DL+LL+FF
TLx1.5
(ALPHA X) x( Wd)x(lx^2)
(ALPHA Y) x( Wd)x(lx^2)
177
6
CHECK FOR DEPTH
6
dreq.
DEPTH REQUIRED
Mur max
Qxfckxbxdxd
d req.=
47.54785301 mm
d provided > d required HENCE OK
d=√(Mur*10^6)/(fck*10
00*Q)
AST CALCULATION
1 ASTx CALCULATION
ASTx= 220.971564 mm^2
SPACING OF 10 MM BAR
AREA OF ONE BAR= 201.0619
CHECK FOR MIN.
SPACING
TAKE SPACING =
.
.
(
d
909.8996 mm
1000`
240 mm
300 mm
240.00 mm
3Xd
300 mm
LESSER OF ABOVE 3
CHECK FOR AST MIN.
ASTmin=
153.60 mm^2
ASTprovided>ASTmin HENCE OK
2 ASTy CALCULATION
ASTy= 177.502133 mm^2
SPACING
AREA OF ONE BAR= 78.53982
CHECK FOR MIN.
SPACING
TAKE SPACING =
.
.
(
d
442.473 mm
X1000
240.000 3Xd
300.00 300 mm
240.00 mm
LESSER OF ABOVE 3
The following are the results for the Design of S2:
SLAB SCHEDULE
SLAB
MARK
S2
SLAB SIZE
Ly mm
2475
Lx mm
2300
EFFECTIVE SLAB
SIZE
ly mm
2555
lx mm
2380
DIA OF BAR
#1 mm
16
#2 mm
10
DEPTH
EFFECTIVE
DEPTH
D mm
128
d mm
80
ASTx
SPACING
FOR ASTx
ASTy
#1 mm^2 #1 mm #2 mm^2
220.97156 909.8996 177.50213
SPACING
FOR ASTy
#2 mm
240.000
178
APPENDIX F: SAMPLE DESIGN OF COLUMNS
One-Way Slab Tradeoff
The column with the maximum axial force was designed.
The following are the given data:
P=
My =
b=
t=
cc =
d=
f'c =
fy =
Φbar =
Φtie =
1523.17
283.25
650
600
40
534
21
415
32
10
kN
kN-m
mm
mm
mm
mm
Mpa
Mpa
mm
mm
Step 1. Determine the Steel Area and N bars
ρg = ____, assumed value from 0.02 - 0.04
As = ρgAg
N = As/Abar then determine actual As
Get actual ρg,
Pcap = Φ*0.8*Ag(0.85*f'c*(1-ρg)+fy*ρg)
* If Pcap > P, the dimensions are adequate
* If Pcap < P , Redesign
ρg
Ag
As
Asactual
Abar
N
Actual ρg
Φ
Pcap
RESULTS
0.02
390000
7800
8042.477
804.2477
10
0.020622
0.65
5280.896
Adequate
mm2
mm2
mm2
mm2
pcs
kN
179
Two-Way Slab Tradeoff
The column with the maximum axial force was designed.
The following are the given data:
P=
My =
1410.74
283.25
kN
kN-m
b=
650
mm
t=
600
mm
cc =
40
mm
d=
f'c =
fy =
Φbar =
Φtie =
534
21
415
32
10
mm
Mpa
Mpa
mm
mm
Step 1. Determine the Steel Area and N bars
ρg = ____, assumed value from 0.02 - 0.04
As = ρgAg
N = As/Abar then determine actual As
Get actual ρg,
Pcap = Φ*0.8*Ag(0.85*f'c*(1-ρg)+fy*ρg)
* If Pcap > P, the dimensions are adequate
* If Pcap < P , Redesign
ρg
Ag
As
Asactual
Abar
N
Actual ρg
Φ
Pcap
RESULTS
0.02
390000
7800
8042.477
804.2477
10
0.020622
0.65
5280.896
Adequate
mm2
mm2
mm2
mm2
pcs
kN
180
APPENDIX G: COST ESIMATE
COST ESTIMATE OF ONE-WAY OMRF TRADEOFF
CONCRETE WORKS
CEMENT
(bags)
4294.125
1732.5
2751.84
8778.465
CEMENT
(bags)
5906.25
38.424375
16.858125
5961.5325
MEMBER
B-1
B-2
C-1
L (m)
5
2.5
3.2
b (m)
0.55
0.55
0.65
t (m)
0.5
0.5
0.6
pcs
347
280
245
V (m3)
477.125
192.5
305.76
TOTAL
SLAB
S-1
S-2
S-3
L (m)
5
2.475
0.925
b (m)
2.5
2.3
2.7
t (m)
0.15
0.15
0.15
pcs
350
5
5
V (m3)
656.25
4.269375
1.873125
TOTAL
PRICE
LABOR
1473999.75
16377.775
524088.8
2014466.325
7050632.138
N - members
347
280
245
300
300
Total W (kg)
65718.33
32365.2
49493.92
7920
7920
ITEM
CEMENT
SAND
GRAVEL
TOTAL
14739.9975
bags
818.88875
m3
1637.7775
m3
TOTAL PRICE
MEMBER
B-1
B-2
C-1
Slonger
Sshorter
BAR Ø
(mm)
32
25
32
12
12
ITEM
TOTAL
Steel
163417.45
As (mm2)
804.2477
490.8739
804.2477
113.0973
113.0973
per kg
22.7
per pc
250
50
800
ITEM
3684999
40944.44
1310222
5036166
REBAR WORKS
L (m)
5
5
3.2
30
30
N bars
6
6
10
PRICE
ITEM
LABOR
3709576 7419152
TOTAL COST
SAND (m)
238.5625
96.25
152.88
487.6925
SAND (m)
328.125
2.1346875
0.9365625
331.19625
GRAVEL
(m)
477.125
192.5
305.76
975.385
GRAVEL
(m)
656.25
4.269375
1.873125
662.3925
TOTAL
TOTAL
11128728.35
18179360.48
181
COST ESTIMATE OF ONE-WAY SMRF TRADEOFF
CONCRETE WORKS
CEMENT
(bags)
2033.073
820.26
2751.84
5605.173
CEMENT
(bags)
5906.25
38.424375
16.858125
5961.5325
MEMBER
B-1
B-2
C-1
L (m)
5
2.5
3.2
b (m)
0.42
0.42
0.65
t (m)
0.31
0.31
0.6
pcs
347
280
245
V
225.897
91.14
305.76
TOTAL
SLAB
S-1
S-2
S-3
L (m)
5
2.475
0.925
b (m)
2.5
2.3
2.7
t (m)
0.15
0.15
0.15
pcs
350
5
5
V (m3)
656.25
4.269375
1.873125
TOTAL
PRICE
LABOR
1156670.55
12851.895
411260.64
1580783.085
5532740.798
N - members
347
280
245
300
300
Total W (kg)
65718.33
32365.2
49493.92
7920
7920
ITEM
CEMENT
SAND
GRAVEL
TOTAL
11566.7055
bags
642.59475
m3
1285.1895
m3
TOTAL PRICE
MEMBER
B-1
B-2
C-1
Slonger
Sshorter
BAR Ø
(mm)
32
25
32
12
12
ITEM
TOTAL
Steel
163417.45
As (mm2)
804.2477
490.8739
804.2477
113.0973
113.0973
per kg
22.7
per pc
250
50
800
ITEM
2891676
32129.74
1028152
3951958
REBAR WORKS
L (m)
5
5
3.2
30
30
N bars
6
6
10
PRICE
ITEM
LABOR
3709576 7419152
TOTAL COST
(m3)
SAND (m)
112.9485
45.57
152.88
311.3985
SAND (m)
328.125
2.1346875
0.9365625
331.19625
GRAVEL
(m)
225.897
91.14
305.76
622.797
GRAVEL
(m)
656.25
4.269375
1.873125
662.3925
TOTAL
TOTAL
11128728.35
16661469.14
182
COST ESTIMATE OF TWO-WAY OMRF TRADEOFF
CONCRETE WORKS
CEMENT
(bags)
5346
2751.84
8097.84
CEMENT
(bags)
6075
38.424375
16.858125
6130.2825
MEMBER
B-1
C-1
L (m)
5
3.2
b (m)
0.6
0.65
t (m)
0.55
0.6
pcs
360
245
V
594
305.76
TOTAL
SLAB
S-1
S-2
S-3
L (m)
5
2.475
0.925
b (m)
5
2.3
2.7
t (m)
0.15
0.15
0.15
pcs
180
5
5
V (m3)
675
4.269375
1.873125
TOTAL
PRICE
LABOR
1422812.25
15809.025
505888.8
1944510.075
6805785.263
N - members
360
245
300
300
Total W (kg)
68180.4
49493.92
7920
7920
ITEM
CEMENT
SAND
GRAVEL
TOTAL
14228.1225
bags
790.45125
m3
1580.9025
m3
TOTAL PRICE
MEMBER
B-1
C-1
Slonger
Sshorter
BAR Ø
(mm)
32
32
12
12
ITEM
TOTAL
Steel
133514.32
As (mm2)
804.2477
804.2477
113.0973
113.0973
per kg
22.7
per pc
250
50
800
ITEM
3557031
39522.56
1264722
4861275
REBAR WORKS
L (m)
5
3.2
30
30
N bars
6
10
PRICE
ITEM
LABOR
3030775 6061550
TOTAL COST
(m3)
SAND (m)
297
152.88
449.88
SAND (m)
337.5
2.1346875
0.9365625
340.57125
GRAVEL
(m)
594
305.76
899.76
GRAVEL
(m)
675
4.269375
1.873125
681.1425
TOTAL
TOTAL
9092325.192
15898110.45
183
COST ESTIMATE OF TWO-WAY SMRF TRADEOFF
CONCRETE WORKS
CEMENT
(bags)
2109.24
2751.84
4861.08
CEMENT
(bags)
6075
38.424375
16.858125
6130.2825
MEMBER
B-1
C-1
L (m)
5
3.2
b (m)
0.42
0.65
t (m)
0.31
0.6
pcs
360
245
V
234.36
305.76
TOTAL
SLAB
S-1
S-2
S-3
L (m)
5
2.475
0.925
b (m)
5
2.3
2.7
t (m)
0.15
0.15
0.15
pcs
180
5
5
V (m3)
675
4.269375
1.873125
TOTAL
PRICE
LABOR
1099136.25
12212.625
390804
1502152.875
5257535.063
N - members
360
245
300
300
Total W (kg)
68180.4
0
49493.92
7920
7920
ITEM
CEMENT
SAND
GRAVEL
TOTAL
10991.3625
bags
610.63125
m3
1221.2625
m3
TOTAL PRICE
MEMBER
B-1
C-1
Slonger
Sshorter
BAR Ø
(mm)
32
32
12
12
ITEM
TOTAL
Steel
133514.32
As (mm2)
804.2477
804.2477
113.0973
113.0973
per kg
22.7
per pc
250
50
800
ITEM
2747841
30531.56
977010
3755382
REBAR WORKS
L (m)
5
3.2
30
30
N bars
6
10
PRICE
ITEM
LABOR
3030775 6061550
TOTAL COST
(m3)
SAND (m)
117.18
152.88
270.06
SAND (m)
337.5
2.1346875
0.9365625
340.57125
GRAVEL
(m)
234.36
305.76
540.12
GRAVEL
(m)
675
4.269375
1.873125
681.1425
TOTAL
TOTAL
9092325.192
14349860.25
184
APPENDIX H: ESTIMATE OF MAN HOURS
For Trade-Off One (One-Way Slab OMRF)
Beam
B-1
B-2
C-1
S-1
S-2
S-3
b (m)
0.5
0.5
0.65
t (m)
0.15
0.15
0.15
ESTIMATE OF MAN HOURS
t (m)
L (m)
Quantity
0.55
5
347
0.55
2.5
280
0.6
3.2
245
s (m)
L (m)
Quantity
2.5
5
350
2.3
2.475
5
0.925
2.7
5
TOTAL VOLUME
Volume (m3)
477.125
192.5
305.76
Volume (m3)
656.25
4.269375
1.873125
1637.7775
Assuming that 500% of Total Volume of Concrete Works is equal to Total Man Days,
Adding 200% For Rebar Works and 350% For Finishing
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 5 (1637.7775) + 2 (1637.7775) + 3.5 (1637.7775)
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 17197 days
Given that there will be 30 workers
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 573 days
185
For Trade-Off Two (One-Way Slab SMRF)
Beam
B-1
B-2
C-1
S-1
S-2
S-3
b (m)
0.31
0.31
0.65
t (m)
0.15
0.15
0.15
ESTIMATE OF MAN HOURS
t (m)
L (m)
Quantity
0.42
5
347
0.42
2.5
280
0.6
3.2
245
s (m)
L (m)
Quantity
2.5
5
350
2.3
2.475
5
0.925
2.7
5
TOTAL VOLUME
Volume (m3)
225.897
91.14
305.76
Volume (m3)
656.25
4.269375
1.873125
1285.1895
Assuming that 500% of Total Volume of Concrete Works is equal to Total Man Days,
Adding 200% For Rebar Works and 350% For Finishing
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 5 (1285.1895) + 2 (1285.1895) + 3.5 (1285.1895)
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 13494 days
Given that there will be 30 workers
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 450 days
186
For Trade-Off Three (Two-Way Slab OMRF)
Beam
B-1
C-1
S-1
S-2
S-3
b (m)
0.55
0
0.65
t (m)
0.15
0.15
0.15
ESTIMATE OF MAN HOURS
t (m)
L (m)
Quantity
0.6
5
360
0
0
0
0.6
3.2
245
s (m)
L (m)
Quantity
5
5
180
2.3
2.475
5
0.925
2.7
5
TOTAL VOLUME
Volume (m3)
594
0
305.76
Volume (m3)
675
4.269375
1.873125
1580.9025
Assuming that 500% of Total Volume of Concrete Works is equal to Total Man Days,
Adding 200% For Rebar Works and 350% For Finishing
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 5 (1580.9025) + 2 (1580.9025) + 3.5 (1580.9025)
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 16599 days
Given that there will be 30 workers
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 553 days
187
For Trade-Off Four (Two-Way Slab SMRF)
Beam
B-1
C-1
S-1
S-2
S-3
b (m)
0.31
0
0.65
t (m)
0.15
0.15
0.15
ESTIMATE OF MAN HOURS
t (m)
L (m)
Quantity
0.42
5
360
0
0
0
0.6
3.2
245
s (m)
L (m)
Quantity
5
5
180
2.3
2.475
5
0.925
2.7
5
TOTAL VOLUME
Volume (m3)
234.36
0
305.76
Volume (m3)
675
4.269375
1.873125
1221.2625
Assuming that 500% of Total Volume of Concrete Works is equal to Total Man Days,
Adding 200% For Rebar Works and 350% For Finishing
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 5 (1221.2625) + 2 (1221.2625) + 3.5 (1221.2625)
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 12823 days
Given that there will be 30 workers
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 427 days
188
APPENDIX I: PERCENTAGE DEFLECTION FROM ALLOWABLE
Tradeoff 1 (One Way Slab OMRF)
(Beam with maximum moment was used)
Beam Deflection at Midspan
0.39010528 mm
Allowable Deflection
13.88888889 mm
Percentage of Computed Deflection from Allowable
% = (LV/HV)*100%
% = (0.39010528/13.88888889)*100%
% = 2.808758016 %
Tradeoff 2 (One Way Slab SMRF)
(Beam with maximum moment was used)
Beam Deflection at Midspan
0.280295746 mm
Allowable Deflection
13.88888889 mm
Percentage of Computed Deflection from Allowable
% = (LV/HV)*100%
% = (0.280295746/13.88888889)*100%
% = 2.018129371 %
Tradeoff 3 (Two Way Slab OMRF)
(Beam with maximum moment was used)
Beam Deflection at Midspan
0.54028932
Allowable Deflection
189
13.88888889 mm
Percentage of Computed Deflection from Allowable
% = (LV/HV)*100%
% = (0.54028932/13.88888889)*100%
% = 3.890083104 %
Tradeoff 4 (Two Way Slab SMRF)
(Beam with maximum moment was used)
Beam Deflection at Midspan
0.784145953
Allowable Deflection
13.88888889 mm
Percentage of Computed Deflection from Allowable
% = (LV/HV)*100%
% = (0.784145953 /13.88888889)*100%
% = 5.645850861 %
190
APPENDIX J: REFERENCES
Books
•
McCormac, J.C., & Brown, R. H. (2014). Design of Reinforced Concrete 9th Edition. United States:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
•
Everrad & Tanner (1996). Theory and Problems of Reinforced Concrete Design. New York:
Schaum Publishing Company.
•
Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines. National Structural Code of the Philippines
2010. Quezon City, Philippines: Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc.
•
National Building Code of the Philippines (1977). Philippines.
Website References
•
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1230/1/012050/pdf
•
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705817336081
•
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Active-Control-of-Pendulum-Tuned-Mass-Dampers-forEltaeb/a33b1682592681e0a3d16030938d766be0cc8b5d
•
https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/13_53.pdf
•
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303818187_Structural_Analysis_and_Design_of_Comme
rcial_Building_for_Earthquake_Resistance
•
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317767808_Study_of_OMRF_and_SMRF_structures_for
_different_earthquake_zones_of_India
•
http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/13_53.pdf
•
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239545693_Seismic_Conceptual_Design_of_Buildings__Basic_principles_for_engineers_architects_building_owners_and_authorities
191
•
https://www.northernarchitecture.us/resisting-system/info-ybx.html
•
https://www.irjet.net/archives/V5/i6/IRJET-V5I6160.pdf
•
https://recentscientific.com/sites/default/files/10104-A-2018.pdf
•
http://sknlazoce.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-to-determine-coefficient-of-over.html
•
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Active-Control-of-Pendulum-Tuned-Mass-Dampers-for
Eltaeb/a33b1682592681e0a3d16030938d766be0cc8b5d
•
www.wikipedia.com
•
www.google.com
192