Chapter 3 - Design Constraints, Tradeoffs and Standards 3.1 Design Constraints

CHAPTER 3 – DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, TRADEOFFS AND STANDARDS
3.1 Design Constraints
A constraint is a condition, agency or force that impedes progress towards an objective or goal. There are a
number of different types of constraint that can affect construction projects. Constraints should be identified,
and described in as much detail as possible during the early stages of a project, so that awareness of them
and their potential impact can be managed. This includes understanding the dynamics of the project and how
different constraints interrelate, as well as being clear about any potential risks and who is responsible for
them. The possible constraints are the sustainability, economic, constructability, and structural safety
constraint.
Design constraints are factors that limit the range of potential design solutions that can be adopted. Design
constraints may be inherent in the type of building required, or the site, or they may be imposed by the client
or a third party. It is often argued that design constraints are actually helpful in the development of a design,
as they limit the number of feasible options and point towards an obvious solution. In the absence of an
constraints at all, it can be difficult to know where to start, or to justify developing one particular solution in
preference to others.
3.1.1 Sustainability Constraints
Sustainability constraints in building is a vast and complex subject that must be considered from the very
earliest stages as the potential environmental impacts are very significant. It means ensuring that resources
are being used in an efficient way in the project considering the longevity of the project/structure. So, in order
to address this constraint, the designers considered the maintenance cost of the structure to prolong its
economic life. Maintaining the building structural members and installed seismic resistant equipment it will
ensure the building’s life span. We knew that construction materials produce carbon that cause drastic effects
on our environment. Thus, the designers thought maintaining the structural members is appropriate rather
than making a new structural member, it saves money and minimize the production of carbon that causes
greenhouse gases. Also, prolonging its life span and to ease the excessive deflections/displacements for a
long period of time.
3.1.2 Economic Constraints
Economic constraint mainly happened with budget limit and allocation of the money. Due to the budget limit,
the adopted construction system may not be the best option for achieving the project goal and quality. It will
affect the proceeding of the project. As for the allocation of money to be used in the project, if the money is
not effectively allocated, it will affect the progress of the project. The effect on the project is the product quality
and performance of the project. If the economic constraints for the project could not be managed well, the
product, performance, function or quality of the project will be affected.
options that the designer can take to not only reduce environmental effects but save money as well.
3.1.3 Constructability Constraints
Constructability is a project management technique to review construction processes from start to finish
during pre-construction phase. It is to identify obstacles before a project is actually built to reduce or prevent
errors, delays, and cost overruns. It is the ease and efficiency with which structures can be built. The more
constructible a structure is, the more economical it will be. The effective and timely integration of construction
knowledge into the conceptual planning, design, construction, and field operations of a project to achieve the
overall project objectives in the best possible time and accuracy at the most cost-effective levels.
3.1.4 Structural Safety Constraints
Structural failures occur worldwide. Various investigations have concluded that the primary causes of failure
were design and construction errors within the building process. However, the exact factors that played a
significant role were not clear. Therefore, the primary focus of this project is to improve structural safety by
determining the influencing factors for structural safety within the design.
Taking the seismic loads into consideration, it is expected that an unavoidable stress due to earthquakes will
greatly affect the whole structure. To make sure that the structure will sustain its stability and safety, the
designer must make sure that the structure will have sufficient resistance to seismic effects to avoid excessive
storey drift and overturning. Therefore, this constraint will be measured based on maximum lateral force that
will occur due to seismic ground motion at the base of the structure.
3.2 Trade-Offs
The project is to design a Five-Storey Commercial Building in Nagcarlan, Laguna. Trade-offs are
alternatives that were chosen with full understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of each setup.
They stem from the limitations of different factors. The trade-offs will be used to design the project while
considering the overall performance and meeting the design constraints effectively and efficiently. The trade-
offs were chosen with respect to the formulated preference rankings. A final deliberation of what trade-offs
for both context will govern with respect to the constraints presented will be determined.
TRADE-OFFS
Context Trade-Off 1 Trade-Off 2 Trade-Off 3
Structural X Bracing System K Bracing System V Bracing System
Geotechnical Jet Grouting System Soil Cement Column Vibro Compaction
The table shows the different trade-offs set by the designers with accordance to the design constraints. The
designers will undergo sets of estimates (initial and final) and analysis to select the most efficient,
economical and effective trade-off of for the project.
3.2.1 Structural Context Trade-Offs
Bracing is a construction technique used to improve the structural performance of a building. It is a
highly efficient and economical method to laterally stiffen the frame structures against lateral forces. Diagonal
structural members are inserted into the rectangular areas so that triangulation is formed. These systems
help the structure to reduce the bending of columns and beams and the stiffness of the system is increased.
One of the client’s specification is to produce a structure which is structurally sound in terms of its
seismic design. The use of bracing systems provides lower stiffness and lower weight which make it useful
for architectural purposes. The designers decided to use bracing as tradeoff for it is proven to be an
economical way to build an efficient structure that can withstand earthquake loads.
3.2.1.1 Trade-Off 1 – X Bracing System
This bracing system uses two diagonal members crossing each other. X-Bracing can increase a
building's capability to withstand seismic activity. Bracing is important in buildings designed to resist
earthquakes because it helps resist lateral loads. Also, the cross-bracing system contributes to the aesthetic
design of the building.
3.2.1.2 Trade-Off 2 – V Bracing System
Two diagonal members forming a V-shape extend downwards from the top two corners of a
horizontal member and meet at a center point on the lower horizontal member (left-hand diagram). Inverted
V-bracing (right-hand diagram, also known as chevron bracing) involves the two members meeting at a center
point on the upper horizontal member. V Bracing System can reduce the buckling capacity of the compression
brace so that it is less than the tension yield capacity of the tension brace. This can mean that when the
braces reach their resistance capacity, the load must instead be resisted in the bending of the horizontal
member.
3.2.1.3 Trade-Off 3 – K Bracing System
K-braces connect to the columns at mid-height. This frame has more flexibility for the provision of
openings in the facade and results in the least bending in floor beams. K-bracing is generally discouraged in
seismic regions because of the potential for column failure if the compression brace buckles.
3.3 Geotechnical Context Trade-Offs
Ground improvement involves the controlled alteration of ground materials within the soil to achieve an
intended performance. The mechanism of achieving ground improvement varies by technique and soil
conditions. Densification by means of vibration or displacement is an effective means of improving granular
soils. Reinforcement involves constructing or inserting stiff elements within a soil mass to create an
improved composite material. Soil can be improved by adding cementitious materials by either permeation
in granular soils or mixing in all soil types.
3.3.1 Trade-Off 1 – Jet Grouting

Jet grouting is a construction process used to improve the mechanical characteristics of a soil. The
technique is used in situations where increased stability and bearing capacity or decreased permeability is
required. Because of its design flexibility, jet grouting is an important alternative to more traditional grouting
methods, slurry walls, mechanical underpinning systems, micro piles, or ground freezing.
Single, double and triple jet system carry the necessary hydrodynamic energy to break up and mix the soil
with the slurry. It is suitable for mass treatment, linear treatment and inclusions, in soils of good to poor
grout ability.
Factors affecting Jet grouting:
Jetted Soil
- Sand is easier to erode than clay. Thus, the width of the treated zone will be less in clay than in
sands if no adjustments are made during the jetting operation. Irregular column geometries are
likely in cobblely soils where larger particles limit the range of jetting and in highly permeable,
poorly graded gravel where grout may flow out of the jetted zone. Soil moisture increases the water
content of soil-cement mix, resulting in lower strength.
Ground Water Conditions
- Grout could leach out of soil by seepage or attack chemically or biologically.
Grout Mix
- usually a water-cement mixture, must match to ground conditions to sufficiently strengthen and/or*
reduce permeability. The water-cement ratio of the in-situ mix is a key index of strength, initial set
time, and durability. Bentonite is usually added where low permeability is critical. While Fly Ash is
added to control excessive bleeding and to improve durability.
Jet grouting makes use of three physical processes, singly or in combination: the very high-speed jet loosens
the soil, the jetting fluid washes some of the soil to the surface and the slurry adds a binder to the soil mix.
The procedure is usually as follows:
1. A small (100-200mm dia.) hole is drilled to the required depth,
2. A high pressure (several dozen MPa) fluid is pumped through one or more small (1-10mm) nozzles
on a monitor at the foot of a 70-100mm dia. drill string,
3. The drill string is slowly raised and rotated to form a column of soil cement.
4. During jetting, material in excess of the soil cement mix must rise freely to the hole collar (to prevent
the excess material fracturing and disturbing the surrounding ground). It is removed from site as it
emerges.
5. The result (diameter, composition and strength of the columns) is dependent on drill string rotation
and raising speeds, jet pressure and flow, grout mix; soil type, grain size distribution, composition
and compactness; and jet configuration (single, double or triple jet set-up).
3.3.2 Trade-Off 2 – Soil Cement Column

Soil Cement Column is effective to a location which has high moisture clay. It is done by mechanically
mixing the soil with a dry cementitious binder to form a soilcrete. For the construction of columns, the method
will be done by using a high-speed drill which drives into the ground with drill rod and radial mixing paddles.
During the insertion, the tool shears the soil for the mixing process. When the tool reaches the needed depth,
the cementitious binder will be pumped through the drill steel to the tool and it will be mixed with the soil.
This method can construct soilcrete columns, overlapping row columns, and 100 percent mass stabilization
with a designed stiffness and strength. This method produces low vibration, clean, quiet and uses available
materials. This process has the advantage of producing low spoil for disposal. Soil with 60 percent moisture
content or greater is best and suitable for the effectiveness of this method. When soil is soft cohesive, this
method is not advisable to be used. This method is effective to a depth up to 60 feet. Obstructions must be
pre-drilled before the soil mixing process proceeds. Different testing must be finished before the process
proceeds for the determination of mix methodologies, energy and binder content.
Soil mix columns can be used to stabilize slopes and levees, create in-situ gravity retaining
structures, and can greatly reduce lateral loads on bulkhead walls. Deep soil mixing construction is most
often provided on a design and build basis. As part of the design process, soil borings are conducted, and
various laboratory mix designs are developed to achieve the required compressive strength and other design
requirements. Once an optimum mix is developed, the installation of the soil cement columns begins. Soil
mixing can be accomplished with a wide range of mixing tools and configurations dependent upon the specific
application and use. QA/QC is employed to ensure that the proper mixing and cement dosages are completed
in columns with the proper diameter and depth in the field and that the design mix compressive strength is
being met.
3.3.3 Trade-Off 3 – Vibro Compaction

Vibro-compaction also known as vibro-flotation is a technique to increases the density of the soil by using
powerful depth vibrators. The vibrator used is also known as vibroflot or simply flot. It is one of the most
common ground improvement technique using vibration. Water flushing is done during the insertion process.
Vibro-flotation is most suitable for very loose sands submerged under water table. Efficiency of densification
reduces with increase in silt and clay content and penetration rate reduces in case of dense sands with deep
water tables.The technique is primarily used for seismic mitigation and in-situ densification of loose sands up
to 30m deep. Vibro Compaction significantly reduces the threat of liquefaction in the event of earthquakes;
densifying sands to provide a firm founding layer.
Procedure:
1. Penetration
At full water pressure the oscillating vibrator penetrates to the design depth and is surged up and
down as necessary to agitate the sand, remove fines and form an annular gap around the vibrator.
At full depth, the water flow is reduced or stopped.
2. Compaction
The compaction is carried out in steps from the maximum depth of penetration upwards. It
encompasses a cylindrical soil body of up to 5m diameter. The increase in density is indicated by
an increased power consumption of the vibrator.
3. Backfilling
Around the vibrator a crater develops which is backfilled with sand, which is either imported (A) or
taken from existing soil (B). For this purpose, a volume of up to 15% of treated soil volume is
required.
4. Finishing
After completion of the compaction the surface is relevelled and, if required, compacted with a
surface vibratory roller.
3.4 Raw Designer’s Ranking
Considering the multiple design constraints, the tradeoffs were ranked according to its ability to satisfy the
given constraint. The table below shows the initial estimated values.
1. Table 3-2 Raw Designer’s Ranking (Structural)
Ability to satisfy Criterion Scale
from (0 to 10)
Criterion's
Importance
Design Criterion
(scale 0 to BRACING SYSTEMS
10)
Trade-off Trade-off Trade-off
1 2 3
Sustainability Constraint
10.00 9.7 10 9.8
(Maintenance Cost)
Economic Constraint (Cost) 8.00 9.7 10 9.8
Constructability Constraint
8.00 9.7 10 9.8
(Man Hour Duration)
Safety / Risk Assessment
Constraint (Seismic 10.00 8.4 8.1 10
Resistance)
Overall Rank 336.2 341 354.8
*Note: Trade-off 1: X Bracing System

Trade-off 2: V Bracing System Bracing Systems
Trade-off 3: K Bracing System
2. Table 3-3 Raw Designer’s Ranking (Geotechnical)
Ability to satisfy Criterion Scale
from (0 to 10)
Criterion's
Importance
Design Criterion
(scale 0 to GROUND IMPROVEMENT
10)
Trade-off Trade-off Trade-off
1 2 3
Sustainability Constraint
10.00 7.2 4.3 10
(Maintenance Cost)
Economic Constraint (Cost) 8.00 7.2 4.3 10
Constructability Constraint
8.00 6.5 10 6.7
(Man Hour Duration)
Safety / Risk Assessment
Constraint (Seismic 10.00 8.1 10 8.4
Resistance)
Overall Rank 277 257.4 317.6
Note: Trade-off 1: Vibro Compaction

Trade-off 2: Jet Grouting Ground Improvement Techniques
Trade-off 3: Vibro-Replacement
Reference: (Otto & Antonsson, 1991). Trade-off strategies in engineering design
The indicated values are just initial estimates and done for the primary comparison of the trade-offs. The
initial estimates will give the designers an idea of what possible outcomes will be. The comparison between
the options with respect to the constraints stated above is done by computing the cost of materials,
equipment and labor to be used for the construction.
3.4.1 Trade-offs Assessment for Bracing System

The outcome of the criterion set therein will constitute to the clients and designer’s decision. The client
emphasized that the constraint for Sustainability and Structural Safety constitutes the most important parts
in the design project which in this case is given an importance of ten (10). This project is funded by the
Nagcarlan, Laguna Municipal Government, the designers gives an importance factor of eight (8) for
Constructability and Economic constraints.
3.4.1.1 Initial Estimate for Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost)
Table 3-4 Initial Estimates for Sustainability Constraint for each Trade-Offs
TRADE-OFFS INITIAL ESTIMATES SUBORDINATE
RANK
Trade-Off 1: X Bracing System Php 5,753,000 9.69
Trade-Off 2: V Bracing System Php 5,573,000 10
Trade Off 3: K Bracing System Php 5,698,000 9.79
The Table 3-4 shows the subordinate rank of each Trade-Offs for the Bracing System. The initial estimates
for the maintenance cost is the 20 % of the total cost of each Trade-Offs for the Bracing System.
Trade-Off 2 VS. Trade-Off 1
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝑥 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
Php 5,753,000 − Php 5,573,000
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝑥 10 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟏
Php 5,753,000
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 10 − 0.31 = 9.69
Figure 3-7 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Sustainability Analysis T2 vs T1

Php 5,698,000 − Php 5,573,000
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝑥 10 = 𝟎. 𝟐𝟏
Php 5,698,000
3.4.1.2 Initial Estimate for Economic Constraint (Cost)

Table 3-5 Initial Estimates for Economic Constraint for each Trade-Offs
RANK
The Table 3-5 shows the subordinate rank of each Trade-Offs for the Bracing System for the Economic
Constraint. Trade-Off 2 is cheaper than the other Trade-Offs for the Bracing System to be used.
Php 28,765,000 − Php 27,865,000
Php 28,765,000
Php 28,490,000 − Php 27,865,000
Php 28,490,000
3.4.1.3 Initial Estimate for Constructability Constraint (Cost)

RANK
The Table shows the subordinate rank of each Trade-Offs for the Bracing System for the Constructability
Constraint. Trade-Off 2 is cheaper than the other Trade-Offs for the Bracing System to be used. The labor
cost of each trade-off is the 30% of total cost of the total materials cost.
Php 8,629,500 − Php 8,359,500
Php 8,547,000

Php 8,547,000 − Php 8,359,500
Php 8,547,000
3.4.1.4 Initial Estimate for Safety Constraint / Risk Assessment (Story Drift)
RANK
Trade-Off 1: X Bracing System 215 mm 8.4
Trade-Off 2: V Bracing System 220 mm 8.1
Trade Off 3: K Bracing System 180 mm 10
The Table 3-7 shows the subordinate rank of each Trade-Offs for the Bracing System for the Structural
Safety Constraint. Trade-Off 2 is safer than the other Trade-Offs for the Bracing System to be used.
215 mm − 180 mm
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝑥 10 = 𝟏. 𝟗
215 mm

220 mm − 180 mm
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝑥 10 = 𝟏. 𝟔
220 mm
3.4.2 Trade-offs Assessment for Geotechnical Context Trade-Offs
The outcome of the criterion set therein will constitute to the clients and designer’s decision. The client
emphasized that the constraint for Sustainability and Structural Safety constitutes the most important parts
in the design project which in this case is given an importance of ten (10). This project is funded by the
Nagcarlan, Laguna Municipal Government, the designers gives an importance factor of eight (8) for
Constructability and Economic constraints.
3.4.2.1 Initial Estimate for Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost)

Table 3-8 Initial Estimates for Sustainability Constraint for each Trade-Offs
RANK
Trade-Off 1: Vibro Compaction Php 48,799.314 7.2
Trade-Off 2: Jet Grouting Php 82,150.00 4.3
Trade Off 3: Vibro Replacement Php 35,173.602 10

Php 48,799.314 − Php 35,173.602
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝑥 10 = 2.8
Php 48,799.314
Php 82,150 − Php 35,173.602
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝑥 10 = 𝟓. 𝟕
Php 82,150
3.4.2.2 Initial Estimate for Economic Constraint (Cost)

RANK
Trade-Off 1: Vibro Compaction Php 243,996.57 7.2
Trade-Off 2: Jet Grouting Php 410,750 4.3
Trade Off 3: Vibro-Replacement Php 175,868.602 10

Php 243,996.57 − Php 175,868.602
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝑥 10 = 𝟐. 𝟖
Php 243,996.57
Figure 3-17 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Economic Constraint T2 vs T1

Php 410,750 − Php 175,868
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝑥 10 = 𝟓. 𝟕
Php 410,750
Figure 3-18 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Economic Constraint T2 vs T1
3.4.2.3 Initial Estimate for Constructability Constraint (Cost)

RANK
Trade-Off 1: Vibro Grouting Php 277,262.28 6.5
Trade-Off 2: Jet Grouting Php 179,766.00 10
Trade Off 3: Vibro Replacement 6.7

Php 267,946.71
Php 277,262.28 − Php 179,766.00
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝑥 10 = 𝟑. 𝟓
Php 277,262.28
Figure 3-19 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Constructability Constraint T2 vs T1

Php 267,946.71 − Php 179,766
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝑥 10 = 𝟑. 𝟑
Php 267,946.71
Figure 3-20 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Constructability Constraint T2 vs T3
3.4.2.4 Initial Estimate for Safety Constraint / Risk Assessment (Settlement)
RANK
Trade-Off 1: Vibro Compaction Php 95,000 8.1
Trade-Off 2: Jet Grouting Php 60,000 10
Trade Off 3: Vibro Replacement Php 100,000 8.4

Php 95,000 − 𝑃ℎ𝑝 60,000
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝑥 10 = 𝟏. 𝟗
Php 95,000
Figure 3-21 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Structural Safety Constraint T2 vs T1

Php 100,000 − 𝑃ℎ𝑝 60,000
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝑥 10 = 𝟏. 𝟔
Php 100,000
Figure 3-22 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Structural Safety Constraint T2 vs T3
3.5 Design Standards

The designer came up with the design of the Five-Storey Commercial Building at Brgy. Palayan Nagcarlan,
Laguna. The designers followed the provided codes and standards to achieve the most sustainable
structural system for the project.
National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP) (PD1096)

The National Building Code of the Philippines, also known as Presidential Decree No. 1096 was formulated
and adopted as a uniform building code to embody up-to-date and modern technical knowledge on building
design, construction, use, occupancy and maintenance. The Code provides for all buildings and structures,
a framework of minimum standards and requirements to regulate and control location, site, design, and
quality of materials, construction, use, occupancy, and maintenance.
National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP 2015)

This code provides minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, property and public welfare by regulating
and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials pertaining to the structural aspects of all
buildings and structures within its jurisdiction. The provision of this code shall apply to the construction,
alteration, moving, demolition, repair, maintenance and use of any building or structure within its
jurisdiction, except work located primarily in a public way, public utility towers and poles, hydraulic flood
control structures, and indigenous family dwellings.

Chapter 3 - Design Constraints, Tradeoffs and Standards 3.1 Design Constraints

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 3 - Design Constraints, Tradeoffs and Standards 3.1 Design Constraints

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 3 - Design Constraints, Tradeoffs and Standards 3.1 Design Constraints

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 3 – DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, TRADEOFFS AND STANDARDS

3.1 Design Constraints

3.1.1 Sustainability Constraints

3.1.3 Constructability Constraints

3.1.4 Structural Safety Constraints

Context Trade-Off 1 Trade-Off 2 Trade-Off 3

Structural X Bracing System K Bracing System V Bracing System

Geotechnical Jet Grouting System Soil Cement Column Vibro Compaction

3.2.1.3 Trade-Off 3 – K Bracing System

3.3.1 Trade-Off 1 – Jet Grouting

3.3.2 Trade-Off 2 – Soil Cement Column

3.3.3 Trade-Off 3 – Vibro Compaction

*Note: Trade-off 1: X Bracing System

Note: Trade-off 1: Vibro Compaction

Reference: (Otto & Antonsson, 1991). Trade-off strategies in engineering design

3.4.1 Trade-offs Assessment for Bracing System

Trade-Off 2: V Bracing System Php 5,573,000 10

Trade Off 3: K Bracing System Php 5,698,000 9.79

Trade-Off 2 VS. Trade-Off 3

3.4.1.2 Initial Estimate for Economic Constraint (Cost)

Trade-Off 2: V Bracing System Php 27,865,000 10

Trade Off 3: K Bracing System Php 28,490,000 9.79

3.4.1.3 Initial Estimate for Constructability Constraint (Cost)

Trade-Off 2: V Bracing System Php 8,359,500 10

Trade Off 3: K Bracing System Php 8,547,000 9.8

Trade-Off 2 VS. Trade-Off 3

Trade-Off 2: V Bracing System 220 mm 8.1

Trade Off 3: K Bracing System 180 mm 10

Trade-Off 3 VS. Trade-Off 2

3.4.2.1 Initial Estimate for Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost)

Trade-Off 2: Jet Grouting Php 82,150.00 4.3

Trade Off 3: Vibro Replacement Php 35,173.602 10

Trade-Off 3 VS. Trade-Off 1

3.4.2.2 Initial Estimate for Economic Constraint (Cost)

Trade-Off 2: Jet Grouting Php 410,750 4.3

Trade Off 3: Vibro-Replacement Php 175,868.602 10

Trade-Off 3 VS. Trade-Off 1

Trade-Off 3 VS. Trade-Off 2

3.4.2.3 Initial Estimate for Constructability Constraint (Cost)

Trade-Off 2: Jet Grouting Php 179,766.00 10

Trade Off 3: Vibro Replacement 6.7

Trade-Off 3 VS. Trade-Off 2

Trade-Off 2: Jet Grouting Php 60,000 10

Trade Off 3: Vibro Replacement Php 100,000 8.4

Trade-Off 2 VS. Trade-Off 1

Trade-Off 2 VS. Trade-Off 3

3.5 Design Standards

National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP) (PD1096)

National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP 2015)

You might also like