Technological Institute of The Philippines: 938 Aurora BLVD., Cubao, Quezon City

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES
938 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

Civil Engineering Department
CE511
Structural Steel Design
DESIGN OF A FIVE STOREY PUBLIC HIGHSCHOOL BUILDING AT CALUBCUB II, SAN JUAN,
BATANGAS
PREPARED BY:
Benedicto, Anthony Tristan D.
Daño, Ryan Steve Q.
Fermin, Chrismar G.
CE52S1
SUBMITTED TO:
Engr. Jerome Z. Tadiosa
Instructor
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Project Location 1
1.3 Project Client 2

1.3.1 Client’s Requirement 2
1.4 Project Objectives 2

1.4.1 General Objectives 2
1.4.2 Specific Objective 2
1.5 Scope and Limitations 2

1.5.1 Scope 2
1.5.2. Limitations 3
1.6 Project Development Plan 3
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 5
2.1 Location Data 5

2.1.1 Vicinity Map 5
2.1.2 Demography Data 6
6
2.1.3 Topography 7
2.2 Hazard Maps 8

2.2.1 Floor Hazard Map 8
2.2.2 Wind Speed Hazard Map 9
2.2.3 Seismic Hazard Map 10
2.3 Description of the Structure 11
2.4 Building Plans 14

2.4.1 Floor Plans 14
2.4.2 Elevation Plans 16
2.4.3 Cross Sections 20
2.4.4 Schedule of Finishes 22
2.5 Loads 23
2.5.1 Densities for Design Loads from Material 23
2.5.2 Dead Loads 23
2.5.3 Live Loads 24
2.5.4 Wind Loads 24
2.5.4.1 External Pressure Coefficient 25
2.5.4.2. Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficient 25
2.5.5 Earthquake Parameters 26
2.6. Review of Related Literatures 26
CHAPTER 3: CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS AND STANDARDS 29
3.1 Design Constraints 29

3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints 29
3.1.1.1 Economic Constraint (Cost/Budget) 29
3.1.1.2 Constructability Constraint (Duration) 29
3.1.3 Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost) 30
3.1.2 Qualitative Constraints 30
3.1.2.1 Safety 30
3.1.2.2 Environmental 30
3.1.2.3 Social 31
3.2 Trade-Offs 31
3.2.1 Framing Systems 31
3.2.1.1 Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF) 31
3.2.1.2 Cross-Braced Frame (XBF) 32
3.2.1.3 V-Braced Frame (VBF) 32
3.2.2 Columns 33
3.2.2.1 Circular Hollow Steel Section (CHSS) 33
3.2.2.2 Rectangular Hollow Steel Section (RHSS) 34
3.2.2.3 Square Hollow Steel Section (SHSS) 34
3.2.3. Beams 35
3.2.3.1 I-Beam (IB) 35
3.2.3.2 W-Beam (WB) 36
3.2.3.3 Rectangular Hollow Steel Section (RHSS) 36
3.2.4. Connections 37
3.2.4.1 Bolted Connections (BC) 37
3.2.4.2 Welded Connections (WC) 38
3.2.4.3 End Plate Connections (EPC) 38
3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking 39

3.3.1 Initial Estimates for Economic Constraint 40
3.3.1.1 Framing System 40
3.3.1.2 Columns 41
3.3.1.3 Beams 42
3.3.1.3 Connections 43
3.3.2 Initial Estimates for Constructability Constraint 44
3.3.2.2 Columns 45
3.3.2.3 Beams 46
3.3.3 Initial Estimates for Sustainability Constraint 48
3.3.2.2 Columns 49
3.3.2.3 Beams 50
3.3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking and Assessment 52
3.3.4 Summary of Results for Combination of Trade-Offs 53
3.4 Design Codes and Standards 55

3.4.1 National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015 (NSCP 2015) 55
3.4.2 National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP) 55
3.4.3 Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines Steel Handbook 2004, 3 rd Edition
(ASEP Steel Handbook 2014) 56
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. 1 PERSPECTIVE VIEW 1
FIGURE 1. 2 PROJECT LOCATION 1
FIGURE 1. 3 CLIENT’S LOGO 2
FIGURE 1. 4 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4
FIGURE 2. 1 VICINITY MAP 5

FIGURE 2. 2 PIE GRAPH OF POPULATION BY AGE GROUP OF CALUBCUB II, SAN JUAN,
BATANGAS (2015) 6
FIGURE 2. 3 LINE GRAPH OF HISTORICAL POPULATION OF CALUBCUB II, SAN JUAN,
BATANGAS (2015) 6
FIGURE 2. 4 TOPOGRAPHY MAP 7
FIGURE 2. 5 FLOOR HAZARD MAP 8
FIGURE 2. 6 BASIC WIND SPEEDS FOR OCCUPANCY CATEGORY I BUILDINGS AND OTHER
STRUCTURES 9
FIGURE 2. 7 SEISMIC HAZARD MAP 10
FIGURE 2. 8 GEOMETRIC MODEL OF THE FIVE-STORY PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL 11
FIGURE 2. 9 GROUND FLOOR PLAN 14
FIGURE 2. 10 SECOND TO FIFTH FLOOR PLAN 15
FIGURE 2. 11 FRONT ELEVATION 16
FIGURE 2. 12 REAR ELEVATION 17
FIGURE 2. 13 LEFT SIDE ELEVATION 18
FIGURE 2. 14 RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION 19
FIGURE 2. 15 CROSS SECTION THRU “A-A” 20
FIGURE 2. 16 CROSS SECTION THRU “B-B” 21
FIGURE 2. 17 SCHEDULE OF DOORS AND WINDOWS 22
FIGURE 3. 1 SPECIAL MOMENT RESISTING FRAME 32

FIGURE 3. 2 CROSS-BRACED FRAME 32
FIGURE 3. 3 V-BRACED FRAME 33
FIGURE 3. 4 CIRCULAR HOLLOW STEEL SECTION 33
FIGURE 3. 5 RECTANGULAR HOLLOW STEEL SECTION 34
FIGURE 3. 6 SQUARE HOLLOW STEEL SECTION 35
FIGURE 3. 7 I-BEAM 35
FIGURE 3. 8 W-BEAM 36
FIGURE 3. 9 RECTANGULAR HOLLOW STEEL SECTION 37
FIGURE 3. 10 BOLTED CONNECTIONS 37
FIGURE 3. 11 WELDED CONNECTIONS 38
FIGURE 3. 12 END PLATE CONNECTIONS 39
FIGURE 3. 13 RANKING SCALE 39
FIGURE 3. 14 RANKING SCALE FOR SMRF V XBF ECONOMIC CONSTRAINT 40
FIGURE 3. 15 RANKING SCALE FOR SMRF V VBF ECONOMIC CONSTRAINT 41
FIGURE 3. 16 RANKING SCALE FOR CHSS V RHSS ECONOMIC CONSTRAINT 41
FIGURE 3. 17 RANKING SCALE FOR CHSS V SHSS ECONOMIC CONSTRAINT 42
FIGURE 3. 18 RANKING SCALE FOR WB V IB ECONOMIC CONSTRAINT 42
FIGURE 3. 19 RANKING SCALE FOR WB V RHSS ECONOMIC CONSTRAINT 43
FIGURE 3. 20 RANKING SCALE FOR EPC V WC ECONOMIC CONSTRAINT 43
FIGURE 3. 21 RANKING SCALE FOR EPC V BC ECONOMIC CONSTRAINT 44
FIGURE 3. 22 RANKING SCALE FOR XBF V SMRF CONSTRUCTABILITY CONSTRAINT 44
FIGURE 3. 23 RANKING SCALE FOR XBF V VBF CONSTRUCTABILITY CONSTRAINT 45
FIGURE 3. 24 RANKING SCALE FOR RHSS V CHSS CONSTRUCTABILITY CONSTRAINT 45
FIGURE 3. 25 RANKING SCALE FOR RHSS V SHSS CONSTRUCTABILITY CONSTRAINT 46
FIGURE 3. 26 RANKING SCALE FOR WB V IB CONSTRUCTABILITY CONSTRAINT 46
FIGURE 3. 27 RANKING SCALE FOR WB V RHSS CONSTRUCTABILITY CONSTRAINT 47
FIGURE 3. 28 RANKING SCALE FOR EPC V BC CONSTRUCTABILITY CONSTRAINT 47
FIGURE 3. 29 RANKING SCALE FOR EPC V WC CONSTRUCTABILITY CONSTRAINT 48
FIGURE 3. 30 RANKING SCALE FOR VBF V SMRF SUSTAINABILITY CONSTRAINT 48
FIGURE 3. 31 RANKING SCALE FOR VBF V XBF CONSTRUCTABILITY CONSTRAINT 49
FIGURE 3. 32 RANKING SCALE FOR RHSS V CHSS SUSTAINABILITY CONSTRAINT 49
FIGURE 3. 33 RANKING SCALE FOR RHSS V SHSS SUSTAINABILITY CONSTRAINT 50
FIGURE 3. 34 RANKING SCALE FOR WB V IB SUSTAINABILITY CONSTRAINT 50
FIGURE 3. 35 RANKING SCALE FOR WB V RHSS SUSTAINABILITY CONSTRAINT 51
FIGURE 3. 36 RANKING SCALE FOR EPC V BC SUSTAINABILITY CONSTRAINT 51
FIGURE 3. 37 RANKING SCALE FOR EPC V WC SUSTAINABILITY CONSTRAINT 52
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2. 1 TABLE OF POPULATION BY AGE GROUP OF CALUBCUB II, SAN JUAN, BATANGAS
(2015) 6
TABLE 2. 2 FIRST FLOOR FACILITIES 12
TABLE 2. 3 SECOND TO FIFTH FLOOR FACILITIES 13
TABLE 2. 4 ROOF DECK FACILITIES 13
TABLE 2. 5 MINIMUM DENSITIES FOR DESIGN LOADS FROM MATERIALS 23
TABLE 2. 6 DEAD LOADS 23
TABLE 2. 7 LIVE LOADS 24
TABLE 2. 8 WIND LOADS 24
TABLE 2. 9 EXTERNAL PRESSURE COEFFICIENT 25
TABLE 2. 10 VELOCITY PRESSURE EXPOSURE COEFFICIENT 25
TABLE 2. 11 EARTHQUAKE PARAMETERS OF MOMENT-RESISTING FRAME STRUCTURES 26
TABLE 3. 1 TRADE-OFFS 31
TABLE 3. 2 STRUCTURAL CONSTRAINTS 40
TABLE 3. 3 INITIAL ESTIMATES OF MATERIAL COST FOR FRAMING SYSTEM 40
TABLE 3. 4 INITIAL ESTIMATES OF MATERIAL COST FOR COLUMNS 41
TABLE 3. 5 INITIAL ESTIMATES OF MATERIAL COST FOR BEAMS 42
TABLE 3. 6 INITIAL ESTIMATES OF MATERIAL COST FOR CONNECTIONS 43
TABLE 3. 7 INITIAL ESTIMATES FOR CONSTRUCTABILITY FOR FRAMING SYSTEM 44
TABLE 3. 8 INITIAL ESTIMATES FOR CONSTRUCTABILITY FOR COLUMNS 45
TABLE 3. 9 INITIAL ESTIMATES FOR CONSTRUCTABILITY FOR BEAMS 46
TABLE 3. 10 INITIAL ESTIMATES FOR CONSTRUCTABILITY FOR CONNECTIONS 47
TABLE 3. 11 MAINTENANCE COST EVERY 10 YEARS FOR FRAMING SYSTEM 48
TABLE 3. 12 MAINTENANCE COST EVERY 10 YEARS FOR COLUMNS 49
TABLE 3. 13 MAINTENANCE COST EVERY 10 YEARS FOR BEAMS 50
TABLE 3. 14 MAINTENANCE COST EVERY 10 YEARS FOR CONNECTIONS 51
TABLE 3. 15 DESIGNER’S RAW RANKING AND ASSESSMENT 52
TABLE 3. 16 SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR COMBINATION OF TRADE-OFFS 55
TABLE 3. 17 TOP 10% OF THE TRADE-OFFS COMBINATIONS 55
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
The proposed project is a five-story public high school building which is intended to be erected at
Calubcub II, San Juan, Batangas, beside the Calubcub II Elementary School. The proposed project is an
educational structure where it is intended to be used by high school students who is residing near the
barangay of Calubcub II. This structure will consist of 20 classrooms, 4 science laboratories, 4 staff
offices, 2 libraries, 2 restrooms, 2 supply storages and a security room at the ground floor while there are
22 classrooms, 4 computer laboratories, 2 libraries, 2 supply storages and a faculty room for each floor
on the 2nd – 5th floor. Also, it has a projected capacity of 3,000 students. This idea was conceptualized
due to lack of educational institution around the area where it will give a big help for the students because
they do not need to enroll to Calubcub I National High School, which is 3.3 km. away from Calubcub II
Elementary School.
It is a u-shaped building and has a total lot area of 3,859 m2. with dimensions of 76 m. x 38 m. Also, each
floor has a height of 2.7 m. with a roof deck of 1 m. having a total height of 14.5 m. Its large area will give
other spaces for car parking spaces, gardens and student lounges around the campus for them to have
a space to study or have fun with their friends. A scenic background with trees will give the students a
good air to breath and a relaxation for their minds.
Taking note that Philippines is a gateway of natural calamities, the proposed five-story public high school
building is also designed to resist the hazards it can bring to the area. It has enough rooms to be used in
case of an immediate evacuation where 3-5 families can fit in every room. The structure is designed
under the standards and specifications of National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP) and National
Structural Code of the Philippines 2015 (NSCP 2015).
1
Figure 1. 1 Perspective View
1.2 Project Location
The proposed project is located at Calubcub II, San Juan, Batangas. The coordinates mapped by Google
Earth on the target area is 13.753669° N, 121.422061° E. The landmarks to be found near on it are the
Calubcub II Elementary School, Calubcub Church and the Calubcub I Barangay Hall. The area resides
along the San Juan – Laiya Road.
Figure 1. 2 Project Location

Source: Google Map
1
1.3 Project Client
The client of the project is Mr. Benedictus Danio Fermez, the founder and
CEO of BDF Corporation Construction. It is a well-known company for building
structures and aims to help areas that in need of essential structures in their
place. Figure 1. 3 Client’s
Logo
1.3.1 Client’s Requirement
1. Has a minimum capacity of 3,000 people.

2. Has a minimum of 15 classrooms for each floor and other essential rooms for a school.
3. Has a car parking available and as much as possible a scenic garden.
4. Can act as an evacuation center in case of disasters or calamities.
5. Architectural plans, structural framework and blueprints design of the structure.
1.4 Project Objectives
1.4.1 General Objectives

To design a five-story public high school building in accordance with the American Institute of
Steel Construction 15th Edition (AISC 15th Ed.) and analyze the structure that will resist the loads
given in accordance with NSCP 2015 code provisions.
1.4.2 Specific Objective

• To design a five-story public high school building using structural steel materials.
• To provide detailed plans and cost estimates of the project.
• To satisfy the client’s requirement for the project.
• To provided structural analysis of the project.
• To evaluate the effect of multiple constraints, trade-offs and standards in the final design.
1.5 Scope and Limitations
1.5.1 Scope
• The design a five-story public high school building that will satisfy the client’s demands and
conceptualized with accordance to the National Building Code of the Philippines and National
Structural Code of the Philippines 2015.
2
• The design structural members in accordance to the American Institute of Steel Construction
(AISC 15th Edition) and ASEP Steel Handbook 2004.
• The structural works, cost estimate and structural member details.
• The architectural and structural plans using AutoCAD 2018.
• The structural analysis based on NSCP 2015 using STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition V22.
1.5.2. Limitations
• The detailed activities within the span of construction of the project.
• The mechanical, electrical and plumbing plans were excluded.
• The cost estimation for architectural, mechanical, plumbing and electrical works were excluded.
1.6 Project Development Plan
The project development provides the fundamental processes for the project that will summarize the
solutions that will be needed to accomplish the goal while determining the constraints and trade-offs
involved to create an innovative and cost-effective product.
The project has passed different stages and was presented with the figure below:
1. Identification of the Problem – the designer will identify the problem and formulate a solution that
will clear-up the problem.
2. Conceptualization – it is where the client will give ideas about the structure and the designer will
exchange information for the project to conclude in their own combined desires.
3. Gathering of Data – the designer will collect data that will help in designing the proposed four-stored
apartment.
4. Identification of Constraints – the designer will use the gathered data for the analysis of structure.
5. Presentation of Trade-Offs – the designer will offer different solutions that incorporates engineering
solutions and which the values for each constraint will be used as an input.
6. Evaluation of Trade-Offs – the designer will illustrate and evaluate the results to decide which is
the most economical, safest and beneficial trade-offs.
7. Final Design Choice – it is the presentation of the most efficient result evaluated by the designer.
3
Figure 1. 4 Project Development Plan
4
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Location Data
2.1.1 Vicinity Map
The figure below will show the map where the project will be located where it includes the major roads
and landmarks.
Figure 2. 1 Vicinity Map

Source: Google Map
5
2.1.2 Demography Data
Demography data is one of the determinants in planning of constructing a structure at a specific location.
The age groups of one location will tell the importance of the structure in the said area where it will be
constructed.
Figure 2. 2 Pie Graph of Population by Age Group

of Calubcub II, San Juan, Batangas (2015)
Source: https://www.philatlas.com/
Table 2. 1 Table of Population by Age Group

of Calubcub II, San Juan, Batangas (2015) Figure 2. 3 Line Graph of Historical Population of
Source: https://www.philatlas.com/ Calubcub II, San Juan, Batangas (2015)
Source: https://www.philatlas.com/
6
2.1.3 Topography
The topography is one of the important determinants in planning of construction because it will show the
slope of the area where the construction will start. For this area, it can be observed that the location is
fairly flat.
Figure 2. 4 Topography Map

Source: https://contourmapcreator.urgr8.ch/
7
2.2 Hazard Maps
2.2.1 Floor Hazard Map
Flood hazard map is an important factor to get to have an idea if the area chosen is a flood-prone area.
By doing this, the client can ensure the minimalization of the damage it can bring to the structure. Due to
the chosen structure was a school, it has the possibility of becoming an evacuation center when a disaster
or calamity brought extreme damages to the community. Based on the observation from the University
of the Philippines – Nationwide Operational Assessment of Hazards (UP – NOAH) data, it shows that it
has a low to medium hazard of flood on the area the client chosen and little high near the sea.
Figure 2. 5 Floor Hazard Map

Source: http://noah.up.edu.ph/
8
2.2.2 Wind Speed Hazard Map
This shows the basic wind speed of a location where this will be use in designing the wind loads.
Figure 2. 6 Basic Wind Speeds for Occupancy Category I Buildings and Other Structures
Source: National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015
9
2.2.3 Seismic Hazard Map
This kind of hazard is important because the Philippines is in the Pacific Ring of Fire that is why
considering to know the nearest fault line at the site is important. The nearest active fault line at the site
is Lubang Fault, which is 30.4 km. away from the site.
Figure 2. 7 Seismic Hazard Map

Source: https://hazardhunter.georisk.gov.ph/
10
2.3 Description of the Structure
The figure below shows the geometric model of the main frame system of the five-story public high school
building. This model is made through STAAD.Pro CONNECT V22. The function of the structure is to used
to academic learning where the high school students that resides or near Calubcub II, San Juan,
Batangas can enroll to. It is projected to have a minimum of 3,000 enrolled students. Also, it is capable
of being an evacuation center where it can welcome families in times of unprecedented events.
Figure 2. 8 Geometric Model of the Five-Story Public High School
First Floor Facilities

Description Area (m2)
Classroom 1 42.63
Classroom 2 42.63
Classroom 3 42.63
Classroom 4 42.63
Classroom 5 42.87
Classroom 6 42.63
Classroom 7 43.54
Classroom 8 43.54
Classroom 9 45.23
Classroom 10 45.23
Classroom 11 42.63
Classroom 12 42.63
Classroom 13 42.63
Classroom 14 42.63
Classroom 15 42.87
Classroom 16 42.63
Classroom 17 43.54
Classroom 18 43.54
Classroom 19 45.23
Classroom 20 45.23
Science Laboratory 1 43.54
Science Laboratory 2 43.54
Supply Storage 1 23.35
11
Library 1 19.97
Library 2 19.97
Restroom 1 12.11
Restroom 2 12.11
Stairs 1 (Inside) 14.1
Stairs 1 (Outside) 9
Staff Offices 1 14.57
Staff Offices 2 14.57
Security Room 22.52
Hallway 440.27
Table 2. 2 First Floor Facilities
Second to Fifth Floor Facilities

Classroom 1 45.23
Classroom 2 45.23
Classroom 3 45.23
Classroom 4 45.23
Classroom 5 45.23
Classroom 6 45.23
Classroom 7 45.23
Classroom 8 45.23
Classroom 9 45.23
Classroom 10 45.23
Classroom 11 45.23
Classroom 12 45.23
Classroom 13 45.23
Classroom 14 45.23
Classroom 15 45.23
Classroom 16 45.23
Classroom 17 45.23
Classroom 18 45.23
Classroom 19 45.23
Classroom 20 45.23
Classroom 21 45.23
Classroom 22 45.23
Computer Laboratory 1 43.54
Computer Laboratory 2 43.54
Library 1 19.97
Library 2 19.97
Restroom 1 12.11
12
Restroom 2 12.11
Faculty Room 94.87
Hallway 340.82
Table 2. 3 Second to Fifth Floor Facilities
Roof Deck
Stairs 14.1
Roof Deck Floor Area 1855.11
Table 2. 4 Roof Deck Facilities
13
2.4 Building Plans
2.4.1 Floor Plans
Figure 2. 9 Ground Floor Plan
14
Figure 2. 10 Second to Fifth Floor Plan
15
2.4.2 Elevation Plans
Figure 2. 11 Front Elevation
16
Figure 2. 12 Rear Elevation
17
Figure 2. 13 Left Side Elevation
18
Figure 2. 14 Right Side Elevation
19
2.4.3 Cross Sections
Figure 2. 15 Cross Section Thru “A-A”
20
Figure 2. 16 Cross Section Thru “B-B”
21
2.4.4 Schedule of Finishes
Figure 2. 17 Schedule of Doors and Windows
22
2.5 Loads
2.5.1 Densities for Design Loads from Material
Table 2. 5 Minimum Densities for Design Loads from Materials

2.5.2 Dead Loads
Table 2. 6 Dead Loads

23
2.5.3 Live Loads
Table 2. 7 Live Loads

2.5.4 Wind Loads
Table 2. 8 Wind Loads

24
2.5.4.1 External Pressure Coefficient
Table 2. 9 External Pressure Coefficient

2.5.4.2. Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficient
Table 2. 10 Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficient

25
2.5.5 Earthquake Parameters
Table 2. 11 Earthquake Parameters of Moment-Resisting Frame Structures

2.6. Review of Related Literatures
According to the study, the overall performance of the of the entire frame depends on its connections and
frame configurations. The study aims to evaluate the hysteric characteristic of modular steel-braced
frames under reversed cyclic loading. The study describes the characteristic behavior and provides a
detailed comparison of the two systems to assess the strength, stiffness, inelastic force and deformation,
and energy dissipation characteristics of the modular system. (Annan, Youssef, & El Naggar, 2009)
According to the journal of Gosowski & Redecki (2020), which presents extensive experimental
investigations of models of I-shaped steel columns with segmentally prismatically variable stiffness, the
average values of each Smax, the standard deviations and the coefficient of variations corresponding to
the particular test series were characterized by a quite good repeatability.
As stated to the study, the results related to the behavior of hollow composite-steel concrete members
under short term loading were defined. Steel and concrete have different properties as well as behavior
but at normal temperature steel behavior can be neglected while for concrete, deformations were
significant due to creep. Permanent actions are responsible for a large portion of external actions acting
on compressed structural members. Based on the result of the study, the external steel shell has a great
influence on the concrete creep process. The difference in creep deformations of concrete and composite
26
specimens can reach 40 percent depending on the intensity of the applied load. In addition, the external
steel shell has a positive influence on the hardening of the internal concrete core reducing the shrinkage
and creep deformation. (Šapalas, Šaučiuvėnas, & Rasiulis, 2017)
As reported to the study of Tafsirojjaman, Fawzia, & Thambiratnam (2019), steel frames has been widely
used in building construction and employed in high seismic risk area all over the world. However, in the
recent major earthquakes, failure of beam-column joints occurred. Seismic strengthening is an urgent
need for mitigating the high collapse risk of existing and future constructed steel frames during the
possible earthquakes in the future. In this study steel frames are strengthened by using externally bonded
carbon fibre reinforced polymers (CFRP) composites with varying the layers number of CFRP to mitigate
the seismic action on steel frames. Based on the results of the study CFRP strengthening technique
improved the stiffness of the steel frames which results less lateral deflection of the steel frames under
seismic action and indicates its effectiveness for increasing seismic mitigation capacity of steel frames.
Based on the study, structural imperfections has a considerable impact on the behavior of the structure.
The study focused on the effects of geometrical and structural imperfection on selected load bearing steel
structures from the point of view of the whole load-bearing system. Implemented steel structures shows
a varying degree of shape and deviation from the presumed ideal state. Impact analysis has been made
with the use of selected types of loading steel structures as for their load-carrying capacity and
serviceability. Based on the result, neglect or inadequate attention given to the imperfections could have
a serious impact on the safety and reliability of the structures. (Šmak & Straka, 2012)
As claimed by the study of Malekpour, Ghaffarzadeh, & Dashti (2011), Displacement Based Design
method represents a new approach to performance-based design. The study aims to develop a reliable
design method that could withstand various seismic levels for regular steel moment resisting frames. In
order to evaluate seismic response of the designed structure, a series of non-linear time history analyses
has been performed. Based on the results, the method is able to design structures with quite controlled
residual behavior also in terms of story maximum displacements, maximum interstory drifts and story
ductility demands the method performed quite satisfactorily, even for tall models.
Corresponding to the study, due to architectural reasons, dual lateral system was commonly used in high
rise building. The major objective of the research is to quantify and develop seismic performance factors
for dual systems. Although the proposed system is not an explicit model representing a horizontal
combination of two different seismic force-resisting system, the lowest value of R may result in over
estimation of the seismic force and can be deficient of realistic approach. (Ahmad & Yavarian, 2016)
27
Pursuant to the study of Sendanayake, Thambiratnam, Perera, Chan, & Aghdamy (2019), steel modular
building structure are widely adopted for various building application because of its method of
construction which offers benefits over conventional constructional methods. The paper aims to mitigate
the failure at the columns at critical members that could result to the total collapse of the structure by
shifting the failure away from the columns to inter-modular connection which can be allowed to deform in
a ductile manner. The result of the study demonstrate that the proposed connection has superior dynamic
performances and greater energy absorbing capability under seismic loads compared to the connection
in use today.
As claimed to the study, steel columns under unexpected loading exhibit a tendency of plastic
deformation in large buckling. The study demonstrates how to prevent the progressive collapse of the
structure using plastic deformation energy of members and absorbing the collapse loading energy of
structures. Based on the result of the non-linear FEM analysis, the study contributes in preventing the
progressive collapse of structure by predicting unexpected collapse modes that made possible through
identification of buckling modes depending on the shape of the section. (Park & Choi, 2011)
28
CHAPTER 3: CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS AND STANDARDS
3.1 Design Constraints
Design Constraints is an important factor in designing a project which serves as a basis of conditions and
limitations that the designers consider to know what and what not to include in the design of the project.
With the use of the constraints, the designers can choose the best trade-off to be used. The decision to
be made on choosing what design suits well for the road improvement depend on the constraints. In a
design process, constraints are to be used to know which designs are to be carried out.
3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints
3.1.1.1 Economic Constraint (Cost/Budget)
Cost is one of the top factors in identifying what type of pavement will be used in the road improvement
design with a certain range of budget the client will provide. The allocation of the budget will affect the
scope, time, and quality of the project that’s why the designers will do adjustment to satisfy the cost
without sacrificing the quality, serviceability, and functionality of the road pavement. However, an
appropriate budget must be taken into consideration that will meet the most efficient and effective design
with regards to a lesser cost. Through this constraint, the designers will create a design that can save
money while increasing the quality and acceptable to the demand of the client as it will be funded by the
government. This constraint will be measured through the actual cost of construction of a four storey
public high school building from data that was gathered from the local government.
3.1.1.2 Constructability Constraint (Duration)
Various factors affect the duration of the project and one of them is the allotted budget of the client. The
higher the budget of the client the more workers it can support or the more machinery and equipment
could be used to lessen the labors which can be both time-efficient. However, if the client has a lower
budget it can slow down the construction which will require money overtime. And failure to estimate the
project duration properly can greatly affect the budget, that's why it is necessary to have an accurate
estimation for how long a specific project can be constructed. This constraint will be measured through
the actual duration of construction of a four storey public high school building from data that was gathered
from the local government.
The designers will determine the number of days required for the construction of different types of road
pavements chosen. The labor costs will be estimated for each type of pavement to know if there are ways
that could be done to lessen the duration of the project. The design that would take the least time will be
29
ideal. The client wants to finish the road improvement as soon as possible to lessen possible impacts on
economic loss to the affected residents and businesses related to agriculture in the project location.
3.1.3 Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost)
One of the main objectives of any project is to make it sustainable or have a longer life span. Like in road
improvement, it is preferable to have a longer life to get sufficient return of investment from cost to good
service. The designers will choose from a set of materials to be used, as to what kind of material will
perform longer. The designers will also select trade-offs that are cheaper but has a longer life span to be
favorable both on the client and the citizens in the project location. And also the longer life span of the
road pavement can be a guarantee that it was designed with quality and efficiency. This constraint will
be measured through acquiring the possible cost of maintenance that will occur on the life span of the
public high school building.
3.1.2 Qualitative Constraints
3.1.2.1 Safety
The safety of people that will benefit to the road improvement must also be considered. The road
improvement to be done must be safe enough for them to pass through and must be accident-free. This
constraint will reflect if the road was designed properly and under the standards. The designers will make
sure to follow safety standards in designing a road pavement not to compromise the safety of people.
This constraint will be measured through getting the possible number of casualties that may have if an
incident occurs during the construction of the building.
3.1.2.2 Environmental
Road improvement design has a lot of environmental impacts to be considered properly. The project
might be useful to many citizens living in the project location but it shouldn’t be forgotten that its design
must also be environmentally friendly. In the road improvement in might not be good for the environmental
aspects because if the road is to widen it will occur some environmental damages especially of our project
location as it is situated in a semi forest area, but the designers will do some actions to lessen its impact
in the environment. The designers will think out of a unique way of designing road pavement that will
show great care for the environment. This constraint will be measured through obtaining the possible
effects of the construction of the public high school building to the environment.
30
3.1.2.3 Social
This constraint pertains to the situation of the establishments and people living in the area that can affect
the flyover design. Since the said area is urbanized, the designers need to adjust especially the
dimensions of the proposed flyover. The designers also considered intersection so as to have lesser
obstructions such as houses and establishments. This constraint will be measured through the gains of
people that will benefit to the public high school building.
3.2 Trade-Offs
For the trade-offs, the designers considered different kinds of structural steel members to construct the
proposed public high school. They have considered three (3) for framing system, column, beam and
connections. The finalization of the trade-offs will be done by combining the structural members to form
a structural system.
Trade-Offs Trade-Offs to be Selected

Framing System Special Moment Resisting Frame
Cross-Braced Frame
V-Braced Frame
Columns Circular Hollow Steel Section
Rectangular Hollow Steel Section
Square Hollow Steel Section
Beams I-Beam
W-Beam
Rectangular Hollow Steel Section
Connections Bolted Connections
Welded Connections
End Plate Connections
Table 3. 1 Trade-Offs
Therefore, the number of possible trade-offs that can be gathered is 81 combinations.
Number of Possible Trade-Offs = 3 · 3 · 3 · 3 = 81 Combinations
3.2.1 Framing Systems

3.2.1.1 Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF)
This framing system is designed to resist strong inelastic deformation in both members and connections
when being attacked by lateral forces. Also, SMRF are used in regions with mid to high seismic activity
and it is the most ductile lateral-force resisting system.
31
Figure 3. 1 Special Moment Resisting Frame
Source: https://s3da-design.com/
3.2.1.2 Cross-Braced Frame (XBF)

Cross-braced frame is a framing system that have two diagonal members crossing each other. It is
resistant to tension, where one brace at a time acts to resist sideway forces.
Figure 3. 2 Cross-Braced Frame

Source: https://dc.urbanturf.com/
3.2.1.3 V-Braced Frame (VBF)

V-braced framing system forms its braces in a V-shape where two diagonal members are extended
downwards from the top two corners of a horizontal member where they meet at a center point on the
lower horizontal member. VBF demonstrated that it can significantly reduce the buckling capacity of the
compression brace where it will lessen the tension yield capacity of the tension brace. This means if the
32
braces reached its resistance capacity, the load must instead be resisted in the bending of the horizontal
bending member.
Figure 3. 3 V-Braced Frame

Source: https://www.pinterest.ph/
3.2.2 Columns
3.2.2.1 Circular Hollow Steel Section (CHSS)
Circular hollow steel section is used in a wide range of structural, mechanical and construction areas.
CHSS have a clean, consistent lines and lack of any protruding edges that makes it the popular choice
for aesthetic appearance in a variety of applications.
Figure 3. 4 Circular Hollow Steel Section

Source: https://www.tboake.com/
33
3.2.2.2 Rectangular Hollow Steel Section (RHSS)
Rectangular hollow steel section is a popular choice for different kinds of applications like mechanical,
structural and construction. RHSS has a flat surface where structural solutions results in a more
economical choice for joining and various types of fabrication works. It also possesses clean lines
alongside its structural strength.
Figure 3. 5 Rectangular Hollow Steel Section

Source: https://steelguru.com/
3.2.2.3 Square Hollow Steel Section (SHSS)
Square hollow steel section shares RHSS for its popularity for the usage of structural steel where it also
possesses features like flat surface where it is also economical for joining and welding. On the other
hand, it shares CHSS attributes with its symmetrical appearance where it is formed in equal-sided square
hollow sections. Lastly, it provides an ideal balance between strength, functionality and aesthetic
appearance.
34
Figure 3. 6 Square Hollow Steel Section
Source: https://in.pinterest.com/
3.2.3. Beams
3.2.3.1 I-Beam (IB)
I-beam consists of two horizontal planes, flanges and webs, where it creates the “I” or an “H” cross-
section. It ensures a structure’s integrity with relentless strength and support. Also, it reduces the need
of structural supports, where it can contribute in saving time and money, as well as making the structure
more stable.
Figure 3. 7 I-Beam
Source: https://theconstructor.org/
35
3.2.3.2 W-Beam (WB)
W-Beam is named due to its shape where it is a wide flanged beam. It is a structural support that is
primarily used for building constructions that is able to bear excessive amounts of pressure where they
ensure structural integrity and stability. Also, it is used to support structures that bear massive amounts
of weight.
Figure 3. 8 W-Beam
Source: https://in.pinterest.com/
3.2.3.3 Rectangular Hollow Steel Section (RHSS)
As discussed on the earlier part, RHSS has a flat surface where structural solutions results in a more
economical choice for joining and various types of fabrication works. It also possesses clean lines
alongside its structural strength.
36
Figure 3. 9 Rectangular Hollow Steel Section
Source: https://continuingeducation.bnpmedia.com/
3.2.4. Connections
3.2.4.1 Bolted Connections (BC)
This type of connection has the advantage of flexibility in assembling parts of the structure as well as
disassembling it. Also, it is applicable for members subjected to tension, shear or both of it. The bolts are
used to connect the pieces of metals by inserting them through the holes in the metals, at the threaded
end, nuts should be tightened.
Figure 3. 10 Bolted Connections

Source: https://www.swcole.com/
37
3.2.4.2 Welded Connections (WC)
Welded connection is when two members are connected by welds. It offers an opportunity to the designer
to achieve more efficient use of materials. Advancement in the field of non-destructive testing methods
(NDT), makes the testing and quality control of welds became easier. Welded connections are relatively
low, where it will cut the cost of construction and is effective in carrying loads because there are no
reduction of holes.
Figure 3. 11 Welded Connections

Source: https://havitsteelstructure.com/
3.2.4.3 End Plate Connections (EPC)

End Plate Connections consist of a plate fastened to both sides of the web in the steel beam structures
by fillet welds. It will transmit vertical shear and allow beam end rotations to occur without the
development of significant moments. Also, it will provide moment-resistant connections between beams
and columns.
38
Figure 3. 12 End Plate Connections
Source: http://northern-weldarc.com/
3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking

This is a method to present the designer’s trade-off decisions by ranking the constraints from the weakest
aspect to its best considering the overall performance of the structure. It is formulated by with preference
rankings which is alike to a utility theory. The ranking process is scaled from 0 to 10 where it is based on
the level of importance. The computation of ranking is as follows:
𝑯𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝑽𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆 − 𝑳𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒓 𝑽𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆

𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝒙 𝟏𝟎
𝑯𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒆𝒓 𝑽𝒂𝒍𝒖𝒆
Equation 3. 1 Percentage Difference
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝑮𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 − 𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆
Equation 3. 2 Subordinating Rank
Figure 3. 13 Ranking Scale
39
The table below shows the most to least important constraints that the designers’ preferences. The
project has three (3) constraints, named, economic, constructability and sustainability Constraints where
it got 10, 9, 8 importance scores, respectively. Economic constraint got the highest importance score
because the designers complied to the client’s requirements where cost should be given a priority. Next,
constructability got the second position because the construction will affect the near by houses and
communities and it also needs to comply with the client’s requirements. Lastly, sustainability got the least
importance because it is automatically be constructed to sustain the community’s need of a learning
institute and a center for evacuation for inevitable natural events.
Structural Importance of
Constraints Criteria
Economic 10
Constructability 9
Sustainability 8
Table 3. 2 Structural Constraints

3.3.1 Initial Estimates for Economic Constraint
3.3.1.1 Framing System
Trade-offs Initial Estimates of Material Cost (PhP)
SMRF 16,457,325.00
XBF 14,756,345.00
VBF 14,628,967.00
Table 3. 3 Initial Estimates of Material Cost for Framing System

SMRF v XBF
16,457,325 − 14,756,645
𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
16,457,325
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟏. 𝟎𝟑𝟑𝟓𝟕
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 1.03357
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟖. 𝟗𝟔𝟔𝟒𝟑
Figure 3. 14 Ranking Scale for SMRF v XBF Economic Constraint
40
SMRF v VBF
16,457,325 − 14,628,967
16,457,325
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟏. 𝟏𝟏𝟎𝟗𝟔𝟗
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟖. 𝟖𝟖𝟗𝟎𝟑𝟏
Figure 3. 15 Ranking Scale for SMRF v VBF Economic Constraint

3.3.1.2 Columns
CHSS 32,185,741.00
RHSS 29,586,354.00
SHSS 30,581,364.00
Table 3. 4 Initial Estimates of Material Cost for Columns

CHSS v RHSS
32,185,741 − 29,586,354
32,185,741
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟎𝟕𝟔𝟐𝟏
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟗. 𝟏𝟗𝟐𝟑𝟕𝟗
Figure 3. 16 Ranking Scale for CHSS v RHSS Economic Constraint
41
CHSS v SHSS
32,185,741 − 30,581,364
32,185,741
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟒𝟗𝟖𝟒𝟕𝟒
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟗. 𝟓𝟎𝟏𝟓𝟐𝟔
Figure 3. 17 Ranking Scale for CHSS v SHSS Economic Constraint
3.3.1.3 Beams
IB 32,561,485.00
WB 38,625,745.00
RHSS 31,546,359.00
Table 3. 5 Initial Estimates of Material Cost for Beams

WB v IB
38,625,745 − 32,561,485
38,625,745
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟏. 𝟓𝟕𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟓
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟖. 𝟒𝟐𝟗𝟗𝟓
Figure 3. 18 Ranking Scale for WB v IB Economic Constraint
42
WB v RHSS
38,625,745 − 31,546,745
16,457,325
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟏. 𝟖𝟑𝟐𝟖𝟏𝟓
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟖. 𝟏𝟔𝟕𝟏𝟖𝟓
Figure 3. 19 Ranking Scale for WB v RHSS Economic Constraint

3.3.1.3 Connections
BC 368,000.00
WC 389,256.00
EPC 415,691.00
Table 3. 6 Initial Estimates of Material Cost for Connections

EPC v WC
415,691 − 389,256
415,691
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟔𝟑𝟓𝟗𝟐𝟗
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟗. 𝟑𝟔𝟒𝟎𝟕𝟏
Figure 3. 20 Ranking Scale for EPC v WC Economic Constraint
43
EPC v BC
415,691 − 368,000
415,691
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟏. 𝟏𝟒𝟕𝟐𝟕
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟖. 𝟖𝟓𝟐𝟕𝟑
Figure 3. 21 Ranking Scale for EPC v BC Economic Constraint

3.3.2 Initial Estimates for Constructability Constraint
Trade- Initial Estimate for Constructability
offs Duration (days) Labor Cost (PhP)
SMRF 100 935,650.00
XBF 130 1,250,000.00
VBF 130 1,135,000.00
Table 3. 7 Initial Estimates for Constructability for Framing System

XBF v SMRF
1,250,000 − 935,650
1,250,00
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟐. 𝟓𝟏𝟒𝟖
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟕. 𝟒𝟖𝟓𝟐
Figure 3. 22 Ranking Scale for XBF v SMRF Constructability Constraint
44
XBF v VBF
1,250,000 − 1,135,000
1,250,000
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟗𝟐
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟗. 𝟎𝟖
Figure 3. 23 Ranking Scale for XBF v VBF Constructability Constraint

3.3.2.2 Columns
CHSS 160 1,550,000.00
RHSS 175 1,700,000.00
SHSS 170 1,600,000.00
Table 3. 8 Initial Estimates for Constructability for Columns

RHSS v CHSS
1,700,000 − 1,550,000
1,700,000
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟖𝟐𝟑𝟓𝟑
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟗. 𝟏𝟏𝟕𝟔𝟒𝟕
Figure 3. 24 Ranking Scale for RHSS v CHSS Constructability Constraint
45
RHSS v SHSS
1,700,000 − 1,600,000
1,700,000
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟓𝟖𝟖𝟐𝟑𝟓
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟗. 𝟒𝟏𝟏𝟕𝟔𝟓
Figure 3. 25 Ranking Scale for RHSS v SHSS Constructability Constraint
3.3.2.3 Beams
IB 53 545,000.00
WB 74 651,395.00
RHSS 62 455,000.00
Table 3. 9 Initial Estimates for Constructability for Beams

WB v IB
651,395 − 545,000
651,395
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟏. 𝟔𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟒𝟏
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟖. 𝟑𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟓𝟗
Figure 3. 26 Ranking Scale for WB v IB Constructability Constraint
46
WB v RHSS
651,395 − 455,000
651,395
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟑. 𝟎𝟏𝟒𝟗𝟗𝟏
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟔. 𝟗𝟖𝟓𝟎𝟎𝟗
Figure 3. 27 Ranking Scale for WB v RHSS Constructability Constraint

3.3.1.3 Connections
BC 10 95,000.00
WC 15 115,000.00
EPC 23 130,000.00
Table 3. 10 Initial Estimates for Constructability for Connections

EPC v BC
130,000 − 95,000
130,000
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟐. 𝟔𝟗𝟐𝟑𝟎𝟖
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟕. 𝟑𝟎𝟕𝟔𝟗𝟐
Figure 3. 28 Ranking Scale for EPC v BC Constructability Constraint
47
EPC v WC
130,000 − 115,000
130,000
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟏. 𝟏𝟓𝟑𝟖𝟒𝟔
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟖. 𝟖𝟒𝟔𝟏𝟓𝟒
Figure 3. 29 Ranking Scale for EPC v WC Constructability Constraint

3.3.3 Initial Estimates for Sustainability Constraint
Trade- Maintenance Cost Every 10 Years
offs (PhP)
SMRF 1,130,748.00
XBF 1,357,158.00
VBF 1,475,364.00
Table 3. 11 Maintenance Cost Every 10 Years for Framing System

VBF v SMRF
1,475,364 − 1,130,748
1,475,364
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟐. 𝟑𝟑𝟓𝟖𝟎𝟑
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟕. 𝟔𝟔𝟒𝟏𝟗𝟕
Figure 3. 30 Ranking Scale for VBF v SMRF Sustainability Constraint
48
VBF v XBF
1,475,364 − 1,357,158
1,475,364
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟎𝟏𝟏𝟗𝟗
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟗. 𝟏𝟗𝟖𝟖𝟎𝟏
Figure 3. 31 Ranking Scale for VBF v XBF Constructability Constraint

3.3.2.2 Columns
offs (PhP)
CHSS 3,194,035.00
RHSS 4,613,762.00
SHSS 3,518,307.00
Table 3. 12 Maintenance Cost Every 10 Years for Columns

RHSS v CHSS
4,613,762 − 3,194,035
4,613,762
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟑. 𝟎𝟕𝟕𝟏𝟓𝟕
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟔. 𝟗𝟐𝟐𝟖𝟒𝟑
Figure 3. 32 Ranking Scale for RHSS v CHSS Sustainability Constraint
49
RHSS v SHSS
4,613,762 − 3,518,307
4,613,762
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟐. 𝟑𝟕𝟒𝟑𝟐𝟏
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟕. 𝟔𝟐𝟓𝟔𝟕𝟗
Figure 3. 33 Ranking Scale for RHSS v SHSS Sustainability Constraint
3.3.2.3 Beams
offs (PhP)
IB 3,532,846.00
WB 4,305,100.00
RHSS 3,476,230.00
Table 3. 13 Maintenance Cost Every 10 Years for Beams

WB v IB
4,305,100 − 3,532,846
4,305,100
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟏. 𝟕𝟗𝟑𝟖𝟏𝟐
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟖. 𝟐𝟎𝟔𝟏𝟖𝟖
Figure 3. 34 Ranking Scale for WB v IB Sustainability Constraint
50
WB v RHSS
4,305,100 − 3,476,230
4,305,100
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟏. 𝟗𝟐𝟓𝟑𝟐𝟏
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟖. 𝟎𝟕𝟒𝟔𝟕𝟗
Figure 3. 35 Ranking Scale for WB v RHSS Sustainability Constraint

3.3.1.3 Connections
offs (PhP)
BC 48,368.00
WC 59,784.00
EPC 68,325.00
Table 3. 14 Maintenance Cost Every 10 Years for Connections

EPC v BC
68,325 − 48,368
68,325
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟐. 𝟗𝟐𝟎𝟖𝟗𝟑
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟕. 𝟎𝟕𝟗𝟏𝟎𝟕
Figure 3. 36 Ranking Scale for EPC v BC Sustainability Constraint
51
EPC v WC
68,325 − 59,784
68,325
𝑷𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒂𝒈𝒆 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟏. 𝟐𝟓𝟎𝟎𝟓𝟓
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟖. 𝟕𝟒𝟗𝟗𝟒𝟓
Figure 3. 37 Ranking Scale for EPC v WC Sustainability Constraint

3.3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking and Assessment
The table below will show the designers’ raw ranking results considering the importance factor given to
the different constraints.
Economic Constructability Sustainability

Decision Criteria Constraint Constraint Constraint Overall
Ability to satisfy the criterion Rank
Criterion's Importance 10 9 8
Framing System SMRF 100 67.3668 61.313576 228.6804
XBF 89.6643 90 73.590408 253.2547
VBF 88.89031 81.72 80 250.6103
Columns CHSS 100 82.058823 55.382744 237.4416
RHSS 91.92379 90 80 261.9238
SHSS 95.01526 84.705885 61.005432 240.7266
Beams IB 84.2995 75.299931 70.449504 230.0489
WB 100 90 80 270
RHSS 81.67185 62.865081 64.597432 209.1344
Connections BC 88.5273 65.769228 56.632856 210.9294
WC 93.64071 79.615386 69.99956 243.2557
EPC 100 90 80 270
Table 3. 15 Designer’s Raw Ranking and Assessment

From the Table 3.15, the governing trade-offs that the designers will use for framing system is cross-
braced framing that got a rank of 254. 2547, for columns are rectangular hollow steel section with a rank
of 261.9238, for beams are w-beam that got a rank of 270 and for connections are end plate connections
with a rank of 270.
52
3.3.4 Summary of Results for Combination of Trade-Offs
The designer has considered 81 possible combinations of trade-offs for the five-story public high school
project. The 10% of the data will be summarized and the highest of them will be the combination of choice.
Total Criterion's
No. Trade-offs Combination
Factor
1 SMRF CHSS IB BC 907.100262
2 SMRF CHSS IB WC 939.426534
3 SMRF CHSS IB EPC 966.170878
4 SMRF CHSS WB BC 947.051327
5 SMRF CHSS WB WC 979.377599
6 SMRF CHSS WB EPC 945.256306
7 SMRF CHSS RHSS BC 886.18569
8 SMRF CHSS RHSS WC 918.511962
9 SMRF RHSS RHSS EPC 969.738529
10 SMRF RHSS IB BC 931.582485
11 SMRF RHSS IB WC 963.908757
12 SMRF RHSS IB EPC 990.653101
13 SMRF RHSS WB BC 971.53355
14 SMRF RHSS WB WC 1003.859822
15 SMRF RHSS WB EPC 1030.604166
16 SMRF RHSS RHSS BC 910.667913
17 SMRF RHSS RHSS WC 942.994185
18 SMRF RHSS RHSS EPC 969.738529
19 SMRF SHSS IB BC 910.385272
20 SMRF SHSS IB WC 942.711544
21 SMRF SHSS IB EPC 969.455888
22 SMRF SHSS WB BC 950.336337
23 SMRF SHSS WB WC 982.662609
24 SMRF SHSS WB EPC 1009.406953
25 SMRF SHSS RHSS BC 889.4707
26 SMRF SHSS RHSS WC 921.796972
27 SMRF SHSS RHSS EPC 948.541316
28 XBF CHSS IB BC 931.674594
29 XBF CHSS IB WC 964.000866
30 XBF CHSS IB EPC 990.74521
31 XBF CHSS WB BC 971.625659
32 XBF CHSS WB WC 1003.951931
33 XBF CHSS WB EPC 1030.696275
34 XBF CHSS RHSS BC 910.760022
53
35 XBF CHSS RHSS WC 943.086294
36 XBF RHSS RHSS EPC 994.312861
37 XBF RHSS IB BC 956.156817
38 XBF RHSS IB WC 988.483089
39 XBF RHSS IB EPC 1015.227433
40 XBF RHSS WB BC 996.107882
41 XBF RHSS WB WC 1028.434154
42 XBF RHSS WB EPC 1055.178498
43 XBF RHSS RHSS BC 935.242245
44 XBF RHSS RHSS WC 967.568517
45 XBF RHSS RHSS EPC 994.312861
46 XBF SHSS IB BC 934.959604
47 XBF SHSS IB WC 967.285876
48 XBF SHSS IB EPC 994.03022
49 XBF SHSS WB BC 974.910669
50 XBF SHSS WB WC 1007.236941
51 XBF SHSS WB EPC 1033.981285
52 XBF SHSS RHSS BC 914.045032
53 XBF SHSS RHSS WC 946.371304
54 XBF SHSS RHSS EPC 973.115648
55 VBF CHSS IB BC 929.030196
56 VBF CHSS IB WC 961.356468
57 VBF CHSS IB EPC 988.100812
58 VBF CHSS WB BC 968.981261
59 VBF CHSS WB WC 1001.307533
60 VBF CHSS WB EPC 1028.051877
61 VBF CHSS RHSS BC 908.115624
62 VBF CHSS RHSS WC 964.924119
63 VBF RHSS RHSS EPC 991.668463
64 VBF RHSS IB BC 953.512419
65 VBF RHSS IB WC 985.838691
66 VBF RHSS IB EPC 1012.583035
67 VBF RHSS WB BC 993.463484
68 VBF RHSS WB WC 1025.789756
69 VBF RHSS WB EPC 1052.5341
70 VBF RHSS RHSS BC 932.597847
71 VBF RHSS RHSS WC 964.924119
72 VBF RHSS RHSS EPC 991.668463
73 VBF SHSS IB BC 932.315206
74 VBF SHSS IB WC 964.641478
54
75 VBF SHSS IB EPC 991.385822
76 VBF SHSS WB BC 972.266271
77 VBF SHSS WB WC 1004.592543
78 VBF SHSS WB EPC 1031.336887
79 VBF SHSS RHSS BC 911.400634
80 VBF SHSS RHSS WC 943.726906
81 VBF SHSS RHSS EPC 970.47125
Table 3. 16 Summary of Results for Combination of Trade-Offs

The designers chose the 10% of the data that have the highest rank out of the 81 combinations. Based
on the table, combination 55 have the highest criterion rank with a rank of 1055.178498. It consists with
a cross-braced framing system, rectangular hollow steel section, w-beam and end plate connection.
Total Criterion's
No. Trade-offs Combination
Factor
15 SMRF RHSS WB EPC 1030.604166
33 XBF CHSS WB EPC 1030.696275
41 XBF RHSS WB WC 1028.434154
42 XBF RHSS WB EPC 1055.178498
51 XBF SHSS WB EPC 1033.981285
60 VBF CHSS WB EPC 1028.051877
69 VBF RHSS WB EPC 1052.5341
78 VBF SHSS WB EPC 1031.336887
Table 3. 17 Top 10% of the Trade-Offs Combinations

3.4 Design Codes and Standards
Before continuing with the final design analysis and computation of the structure, the designer must
consider and utilize the following structural codes and standards used in the Philippines. These codes
are cited as follows:
3.4.1 National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015 (NSCP 2015)

The National Structural Code of the Philippines is the code and standard used by engineers to design
structures in the Philippines. This national structural code provides the minimum required standard to
protect life, property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of
materials regarding the structural aspects of all buildings and structures within its scope.
3.4.2 National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP)

The National Building Code of the Philippines, also called as the Presidential Decree No. 1096, was
formulated and used as the main building code to incorporate modern and present used technical
55
knowledge on designs of buildings, construction methods, usage, occupancy and maintenance. The
Code is provisioned for all types of buildings and structures, a diagram of minimum standards and most
requirements to control and regulate for the project location, site, design, material qualities, and
construction methods.
3.4.3 Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines Steel Handbook 2004, 3 rd Edition
(ASEP Steel Handbook 2014)
The ASEP Steel Handbook provides the steel references for civil engineering constituents. This will be
the reference for the selection of steel sections and its properties for the design project.
56
57

Technological Institute of The Philippines: 938 Aurora BLVD., Cubao, Quezon City

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technological Institute of The Philippines: 938 Aurora BLVD., Cubao, Quezon City

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

Technological Institute of The Philippines: 938 Aurora BLVD., Cubao, Quezon City

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

938 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

1.2 Project Location 1

1.3 Project Client 2

1.4 Project Objectives 2

1.5 Scope and Limitations 2

1.6 Project Development Plan 3

CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 5

2.1 Location Data 5

2.2 Hazard Maps 8

2.2.3 Seismic Hazard Map 10

2.3 Description of the Structure 11

2.4 Building Plans 14

2.6. Review of Related Literatures 26

CHAPTER 3: CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS AND STANDARDS 29

3.1 Design Constraints 29

3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking 39

3.4 Design Codes and Standards 55

FIGURE 2. 1 VICINITY MAP 5

FIGURE 3. 1 SPECIAL MOMENT RESISTING FRAME 32

1.2 Project Location

Figure 1. 2 Project Location

1.3.1 Client’s Requirement

1. Has a minimum capacity of 3,000 people.

1.4 Project Objectives

1.4.1 General Objectives

1.4.2 Specific Objective

1.5 Scope and Limitations

1.6 Project Development Plan

2.1.1 Vicinity Map

Figure 2. 1 Vicinity Map

Figure 2. 2 Pie Graph of Population by Age Group

Table 2. 1 Table of Population by Age Group

Figure 2. 4 Topography Map

2.2.1 Floor Hazard Map

Figure 2. 5 Floor Hazard Map

Figure 2. 7 Seismic Hazard Map

Figure 2. 8 Geometric Model of the Five-Story Public High School

First Floor Facilities

Table 2. 2 First Floor Facilities

Second to Fifth Floor Facilities

Table 2. 3 Second to Fifth Floor Facilities

Table 2. 4 Roof Deck Facilities

2.4.1 Floor Plans

Figure 2. 9 Ground Floor Plan

Figure 2. 11 Front Elevation

Figure 2. 15 Cross Section Thru “A-A”

Figure 2. 17 Schedule of Doors and Windows

2.5.1 Densities for Design Loads from Material

Table 2. 5 Minimum Densities for Design Loads from Materials

2.5.2 Dead Loads

Table 2. 6 Dead Loads

Table 2. 7 Live Loads

2.5.4 Wind Loads

Table 2. 8 Wind Loads

Table 2. 9 External Pressure Coefficient

2.5.4.2. Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficient