Cualesreginaldray 12881 322722 CE52FB1-Group-7-2 PDF

Major (Capstone) Design Experience Information
CE 509 CE Projects 2
2ndSemester, SY 2019-2020
Cuales, Reginald Ray T.

Student/Team Debolgado, Jan Michael B.
Group 7 Fumera, Gabriel SM.
Manimtim, Jann Samantha C.
Design of a Four-Storey Multi-Purpose Evacuation Center at Brgy. Bagumbayan,
Project Title
Pililla, Rizal.
Program Structural Engineering, Geotechnical Engineering
Concentration Area
Constraints
Structural
Engineering
Building a structure whether large- or small-scale projects are expensive. However, it
is possible to choose more affordable materials and methods of construction which
may help lower costs. In Structural Context, the designers will estimate the
construction cost of each trade-offs based on labor cost and materials to be used for
the proposed structure.
Economic
After estimating, designers will evaluate which trade-offs will be best suitable for the
(Construction Cost)
proposed budget without compromising the strength of the structure. In these trade-
offs, the designers will be obtaining desirable outcomes to know what will be the
most economical under given circumstances.
 Limitation: the construction cost of the project set by the client is limited to an
amount of Php 40,000,000.00 only.
The sustainability of the building that the designers wish to construct is one of the
constraints to be considered. The life span of the structure is one of the recent
concerns in every project. This building focuses on its longevity while meeting human
needs in times of natural calamities. The trade-offs will dictate the advantages and
Sustainability
disadvantages of each material and methods. These will be evaluated by comparing
(Maintenance Cost)
the maximum lifespan that the designers will determine for the construction of the
building. The structure to be selected by the designers is the tradeoff that would be
able to withstand natural calamities and obtain a longevity that meets the limitations.
 Limitation: the structure must reach a design life of at least 45 years
Efficient planning of activities and allocation of resources may result in a fast paced
construction. The designers shall abide by the conditions of the client in terms of the
duration of the construction. Such constraint helps the designers prevent errors,
Constructability
delays, and unnecessary costs. Therefore, this constraint enables the designers to
(Duration)
fully identify factors which may cause delay in construction and remedies to be done
to compensate for unexpected errors or delayed works.
 Limitation: the construction of the project must be completed within 400days.
Risk Risk Assessment is identifying the potential hazards that can cause harm while
Assessment(Cost of evaluating the risks associated with the identified hazards. This constraint helps the
Risk) structure maintain its safety. Safety may indicate a structure‟s ability to protect
against natural disasters (e.g. floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, and tornadoes).
Therefore, the designers will use a structural code to prevent the potential hazard
that makes the structure deflect and collapse.
Earthquake is one of the most dangerous natural disasters that can affect structures.
As earthquakes hit a structure, it produces inertia forces that can cause deformations
and horizontal and vertical shaking. This hazard may generate inertia forces and
lateral displacements on the structure considering that the project is located 7.4 km
away from the west valley fault.
 Limitation: this constraint will focus on lateral displacement for structural
context. The lateral displacement will be set from the limits given in the
National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015.
The main concern of this constraint is the alignment of the structure‟s functionality
and its purpose. The structure should be designed based on its purpose and
Functionality function. For an evacuation center, it is designed to provide evacuees a temporary
shelter during a disaster. The designers must see to it that the evacuation center
must be spacious, well illuminated, elevated and suitable.
This constraint pertains to the limitations of building a particular structure which are
set by environmental impact on the construction surroundings. The designers have
Environmental researched a set of trade-offs that will be compared to one another, whether the
materials and methods to be used in the development of the design will be beneficial
to the environment.
The aesthetic constraint of the project is a limitation on the architectural plan for the
design of the structure. The original aesthetic of the project is to use windows, doors,
and other designs of the building. The structural plan for calamity proof may take
Aesthetics effect in the preliminary configuration. It is dependent on the location of the project
whether or not it may be prone to hazards. The aesthetics may need to be modified,
or redesign in terms of the design constraint of the tradeoffs and may affect the
preliminary design and ventilation of the building.
Geotechnical
Engineering
Constructing a structure is costly, whether huge or small scale projects. However, it
is possible to choose more affordable materials and methods of construction, which
may help lessen the costs. This depends on the type of soil that the structure will be
built, climate, and building codes. This set of trade-offs will be evaluated whether the
materials and methods will be inexpensive and, at the same time, be beneficial to the
Economic structure. In these trade-offs, the designers will be obtaining desirable outcomes to
(Construction Cost) identify what will be the most economical under given circumstances.
In Geotechnical Context, the designers will estimate the construction cost of each
trade-off based on the labor cost and equipment to be used for the ground
improvement for the structure.
 Limitation: the construction cost of the project set by the client is limited to an
amount of Php 5,000,000.00 only.
Sustainability Sustainability constraint is the ability of the structure to be able to function and
(Maintenance Cost) withstand a long period of time. It is the duration of use as intended by the designers,
ii
after which it may need to be replaced. Before this duration has elapsed, it should
remain adequate for the purpose.
In Geotechnical Context, the ground improvement must make the soil of the project
site withstand natural catastrophes and can stand for numerous years. Several
parameters will be investigated on these constraints that can affect the design life of
the structure.
Constructability defines the ease and efficiency with which buildings can be built. The
more constructible a structure is, the more cost-effective it will be. This constraint has
a significant influence on the project cost because it has a direct relationship with the
Constructability duration of the project. As the project duration lengthens, the labor cost and
(Duration) equipment cost increases and thus making the project more expensive. This
constraint will focus on the period of the execution of each trade-off.
 Limitation: the construction of the project must be completed within 400
days.
Risk assessment is a term used to describe the overall process or method used to
distinguish hazards and risk factors that have the potential to cause harm and assess
the risk associated with the aforementioned danger. This constraint helps the
structure maintain its safety. Safety is one of the most critical factors that affects the
design of every project. The safety of a structure must be the consideration with the
gravest bearing among others. All construction projects carry some level of risk.
Risk Assessment
When threats become a reality, they can be damage the successful completion of the
(Cost of Risk)
project. Therefore, the designers will use structural code to prevent the possible
danger that can make the structure collapse. This constraint focuses on the
settlement of soil as it affects the safety of the structure.
 Limitation: this constraint will focus on settlement of the structure for
geotechnical context. The allowable settlement shall not be exceeding
25mm.
This constraint mainly concerns with the state of the structure properly functioning
based on its purpose. The structure should be designed based on its use and
Functionality function. For an evacuation center, it is intended to provide evacuees a temporary
shelter during a disaster. The designers must see to it that the evacuation center
must be spacious, well lighted, elevated, and suitable.
An environmental constraint is a limitation of building a particular structure with the
equipment and methods to be used, based on the environmental impact on the
surroundings in construction. The designers have researched a set of trade-offs that
Environmental
will be analyzed, whether the equipment and methods to be used in the ground
improvement will be beneficial to the environment at the same time to the design
itself.
Societal constraints refer to the social behaviors and characteristics influencing the
sustainability of a design project within a community. Societal constraints can
include formal practices such as government regulations or informal norms, including
Societal social preferences. Designs over the years have been increasingly successful
because of increased knowledge of these societal constraints. Hence, the designers
will be analyzing a set of trade-offs, whether the equipment or methods to be
executed on the improvement of the ground will be beneficial to the structure at the
iii
same time will not be a nuisance to the nearby communities.
Tradeoffs
Structural
Reinforced concrete special moment frames are used as part of seismic force-
resisting systems in buildings that are designed to resist earthquakes. Beams,
Special Moment columns, and beam-column joints in moment frames are proportioned and detailed to
Frame (Moment- resist flexural, axial, and shearing actions that result as a building sways through
Resisting Frame multiple displacement cycles during strong earthquake ground shaking. Special
System) proportioning and detailing requirements result in a frame capable of resisting strong
earthquake shaking without significant loss of stiffness or strength. These moment-
resisting frames are called “Special Moment Frames” because of these additional
requirements, which improve the seismic resistance in comparison with less
stringently detailed Intermediate and Ordinary Moment Frames.
Braced frames resist loads through a series of trusses made of steel members. The
Special Braced diagonal members of the trusses resist lateral loads in the form of axial stresses,
Frame (Building either by tension or compression. Steel bracing is a highly efficient
Frame System) and economical method of resisting horizontal forces in a frame structure.
Bracing has been used to stabilize laterally the majority of the world‟s tallest
building structures as well as one of the major retrofit measures. Bracing is efficient
because the diagonals work in axial stress and therefore call for minimum
member sizes in providing stiffness and strength against horizontal shear.
A dual system is a structural system in which an essentially complete frame provides
support for gravity loads, and resistance to lateral loads is provided by a specially
detailed moment-resisting frame and shear walls or braced frames. Both shear walls
Special Shear Walls and frames participate in resisting the lateral loads resulting from earthquakes or
(Dual System) wind or storms, and the portion of the forces resisted by each one depends on its
rigidity, modulus of elasticity and its ductility, and the possibility to develop plastic
hinges in its parts. The frame is a group of beams and columns connected with each
other by rigid joints, and the frames bend in accordance with shear mode, whereas
the deflection of the shear walls is by a bending mode like the cantilever walls. As a
result of the difference in deflection properties between frames and walls, the frames
will try to pull the shear walls in the top of the building, while in the bottom, they will
try to push the walls.
Geotechnical
Jet grouting is a soil stabilization process whereby cement slurry is injected into soil
at a high velocity to form a soil-concrete matrix. The effectiveness of the jet grouting
is very much influenced by the nature of eroding capability of soil. Gravelly soil and
clean sand are highly erodible, whereas highly plastic clays are difficult to erode.
Jet Grouting Grout material includes cement, bentonite, bituminous emulsion, sodium silicate
solution etc. The spacing of the grout hole varies from 2 to 5 meters depending upon
the conditions of the soil/rock. The grout pressure is generally kept less than one-
fourth of the effective overburden pressure. The grout solutions are prepared by
using cement-water, water-bentonite, chemical like silicates, acrylic resins etc. Care
should take to use the chemical grout as some of them may contaminate the ground
water. The choice of the grout solution depends upon grain size range and
iv
permeability of the soil.
A method now being used to increase the load-bearing capacity of shallow
foundations on soft clay layers is the construction of stone columns. This generally
consists of water jetting into the soft clay layer to make a circular hole that extends
through the clay to firmer soil. The hole is then filled with imported gravel. The gravel
in the hole is gradually compacted as the vibrator is withdrawn. The gravel used for
Stone Column
the stone column has a size range of 6 to 40mm. Stone columns usually have
diameters of 0.5 to 0.75 meters and are spaced at about 1.5 to 3 meters center to
center. After stone columns are constructed, a fill material should always be placed
over the ground surface and compacted before the foundation is constructed. The
stone columns tend to reduce the settlement of foundations at allowable loads.
Dry deep soil mixing methods such as lime, cement, or lime-cement columns have
been used to improve soft, cohesive soils. Lime-cement columns have been used to
reduce total and differential settlements using rationale similar to stone columns.
These columns are stiffer and relatively less compressible than the surrounding soil;
therefore, carry a greater portion of the applied load thus reducing total and
Dry Deep Soil differential settlement. The amount of settlement reduction is a function of the area
Mixing replacement ratio and the stress concentration ratio, which is a function of the
column stiffness compared to the untreated soil. These types of columns are used to
reinforce existing soils by increasing the mass shear strength, thus increasing the
stability of embankments and slopes. Typically, the columns are placed in a grid
pattern under the embankments and in interconnected rows under the slope to
provide sufficient resistance to bending. Lime, cement, or lime-cement columns can
be used to increase the stability of anchored sheet pile walls. The columns increase
the passive earth pressure at the toe of the wall. In addition, columns placed behind
the wall can reduce the lateral earth pressure acting on the sheet piles.
Standards
National Building The National Building Code of the Philippines, also known as Presidential Decree
Code of the No. 1096 was drafted and adopted as a uniform building code to embody up-to-date
Philippines and modern technical knowledge on building design, construction, use, occupancy,
(PD1096) and maintenance. The use of this code is to determine the minimum standards and
requirements with regards to the design, use of the structure, type of occupancy,
allocation of spaces, ventilation, regulate and control the location, and maintenance.
 Chapter 8 Section 806 : Size and dimension of rooms
 Chapter 8 Section 811 : Artificial Ventilation
 Chapter 12 Section 1207 : Stairs, Exits, and Occupant Loads
National Structural This code helps the designers about what parameters shall be used, and it also
Code of the serves as a guide for the computation of different loads. The sections used for this
Philippines 2015 design project are as follows:
 Section 203 Load Combination

 Section 204 Dead Loads
 Section 205 Live Loads
 Section 207 Wind Loads
v
 Section 208 Earthquake Loads
 Chapter 4: Structural Concrete
 Section 504 Design of Members for Tension
 Section 510 Design of Connections
Association of Structural Steel Design is one of the structural tradeoffs used in this project.
Structural Therefore, the ASEP Steel Handbook is fitting to guide the designers in fully
Engineers of the understanding the concept of such.
Philippines (ASEP
Steel Handbook)
American Concrete ACI 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary,” is
the document that presents the code requirements for design and construction of
Institute (ACI) 318
structural concrete that are necessary to ensure public safety. The ACI 318 is a
must-have standard for all professionals engaged in concrete design, construction,
and inspection.
vi
TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES
938 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

Civil Engineering Department
CE 509
CE Projects Design 2
DESIGN OF A FOUR-STOREY MULTI-PURPOSE EVACUATION CENTER

AT BRGY. BAGUMBAYAN, PILILLA, RIZAL
PREPARED BY:
GROUP 7
GROUP LEADER:
FUMERA, GABRIEL SM
MEMBERS:
CUALES, REGINALD RAY T.
DEBOLGADO, JAN MICHAEL B.
MANIMTIM, JANN SAMANTHA C.
CE52FB1
SUBMITTED TO:
ENGR. JENNIFER CAMINO
Instructor
i
Approval Sheet
The capstone design project entitled “Design of a Four-Storey Multi-Purpose Evacuation Center at
Brgy. Bagumbayan, Pililla, Rizal” prepared by Reginald Ray T. Cuales, Jan Michael B. Debolgado,
Gabriel SM. Fumera, and Jann Samantha C. Manimtim, graduating students of the Civil Engineering
Department was examined and evaluated by the members of the Students Design Evaluation Panel, and is
hereby recommended for approval.
ii
ABSTRACT
Nowadays, the Philippines suffers from major environmental problems such as typhoons, earthquakes, and
deforestation. These events result in casualties and damage to property, which occurs in urban areas.
Hence, to avoid damages and fatalities caused by flooding and other natural calamities, an evacuation
center plays a vital role in disaster management, which is described as moving people at risk to safety.
Evacuation centers have a fundamental role in managing the impacts of natural calamities. It provides
emergency shelter from the worst consequence of the disaster as well as essential data to emergency
planners regarding those internally displaced persons, who have been made entirely homeless, or whose
shelter is severely damaged, rendering them in need of a transition shelter or a durable solution. The
designers considered multiple criteria to come up with a possible solution that led to proposing a Four-
Storey Multi-Purpose Evacuation Center of the barangay. The designers considered two Engineering
Contexts; namely Structural and Geotechnical Context; that plays a vital role in the design. In each context,
the designers evaluate options used for the project and approach which best meet‟s the goal of the project.
For Structural Context, the trade-offs are Special Moment-Resisting Frame, Special Braced Frame, and
Shear Wall Frame System. While for Geotechnical Context, the trade-offs are Jet Grouting, Stone Column,
and Dry Deep Soil Mixing. Each trade-off was designed according to codes, standards, and constraints
based on the client to compare and evaluate each of them accurately. After the design phase, the
designers came up with the most efficient alternative for the design of the evacuation center. For Structural
Context, summing up the result of different assessments, it can be concluded that Special Braced Frame is
the best option to be used in the design configuration of the evacuation center with an overall rank of
372.203 followed by the Special Moment-Resisting Frame. While for Geotechnical Context, from the results
of assessments of different trade-offs concerning constraints, the soil improvement method must be used is
the Stone Column with an overall rank of 347.26 followed by the Dry Deep Soil Mixing. Hence, the
designers highly recommend using Special Braced Frame System and Stone Column for the design of the
Evacuation Center in Brgy. Bagumbayan, Pilillia, Rizal.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Immeasurable appreciation and deepest gratitude; for the help and support; are extended to the following
people who in one way or another have contributed to making this design possible.
First and foremost, praises and thanks to the God Almighty, for providing us with the knowledge, wisdom,
strength, support and blessings throughout our design. And for the guidance in helping us surpass all the
trials that we have encountered and for giving us the determination to pursue our Capstone design project.
Second, we would like to thank Engr. Jennifer Camino, our Capstone Design Instructor, for providing
invaluable supervision and assistance throughout this design project, for being patient and easy to reach
out whenever we have questions and clarifications. We will not be able to design the project precisely
without her guidance and assistance during and after the class.
Third, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to Engr. Mico P. Cruzado, our Capstone Design 1
Instructor for imparting us his knowledge on writing and presenting the manuscript correctly, for guiding us
on choosing the right title and topic for our design project, and for being fastidious on checking the format
and content of our design.
Fourth, we are extending our most profound appreciation to our internal adviser, Engr. Jerome Z. Tadiosa;
and external advisers, Engr. Marc Erick Von Tiosing and Engr. Rainier Ramos, for the continuous
support to our design. Their patience, motivation, passion, vision, sincerity and immense knowledge have
deeply inspired us. It was a great privilege and honor to work and design under their guidance.
Fifth, we would like to thank our Panel Members; Engr. Mcken Flores, Engr. Mico Cruzado, Engr. Chris
Edward Monjardin, and Engr. Billy John Rejuso, for lending their time during the defense of our design
project, for providing their corrections, ideas and remarks to enhance our work, and for being considerate
and concerned for our safety and welfare.
Lastly, we are extremely grateful for our families for their love, care, understanding and sacrifices for
educating and preparing us for our future. For their moral encouragement, financial assistance as well as
their spiritual support for us to accomplish our design. The product of this design would not be possible
without all of them.
iv
ABBREVIATIONS, SYMBOLS, AND NOTATIONS
NSCP – National Structural Code of the Philippines

NBCP – National Building Code of the Philippines
ASEP – Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines
ASCE – American Society of Civil Engineers
ACI – American Concrete Institute
ASTM – American Society for Testing and Materials
USCS – Unified Soil Classification System
AASHTO - American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
BH – Borehole
SLWC – Structural Lightweight Concrete
STAAD RCDC – STAAD Advanced Concrete Design
LRFD – Load and Resistance Factor Design
CHB – Concrete Hollow Blocks
λ – Modification Factor
Φ – Strength Reduction Factor
As – Area of reinforcement
c – Distance from extreme compression fiber to neutral axis
Ec – Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete
Es – Modulus of Elasticity of Steel
d – distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension reinforcement
d’ – distance from extreme compression fiber to concrete of compression reinforcement
EI – flexural stiffness of compression fiber
f’c – specified strength of concrete
fy – specified yield strength of reinforcement
fs - Calculated tensile stress in reinforcement at service loads
Nu – factored axial force normal to cross section
β – neutral axis angle corresponding to load angle
Mu – Factored Bending Moment
Vu – Factored Shear Force
v
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. xiv
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. xvii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 The Project .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Location ............................................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Project Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.3.1 General Objective ...................................................................................................................... 2
1.3.2 Specific Objectives .................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 The Client ...................................................................................................................................... 3
1.4.1 Clients Specifications................................................................................................................. 3
1.5 Scope and Limitation ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.5.1 Context I Structural Engineering Context ................................................................................... 3
1.5.1.1 Scope ............................................................................................................................ 3
1.5.1.2 Limitation ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.5.2 Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context ............................................................................ 4
1.5.2.1 Scope ............................................................................................................................ 4
1.5.2.2 Limitation ....................................................................................................................... 4
1.6 Project Development ..................................................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN CRITERIA AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ........................................... 7
2.1 Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.1 Design Criteria for Context I Structural Engineering Context ..................................................... 7
2.1.1.1 Demography .................................................................................................................. 7
2.1.1.2 Topography.................................................................................................................... 9
2.1.1.3 Typhoon Hazard ............................................................................................................ 9
2.1.1.4 Landslide Hazard ......................................................................................................... 11
2.1.1.5 Liquefaction Potential .................................................................................................. 11
2.1.1.6 Flood Susceptibility ...................................................................................................... 12
2.1.1.7 Description of the Project ............................................................................................. 13
2.1.1.8 Architectural Plans ......................................................................................................... 7
2.1.1.8.1 Floor Plan ................................................................................................................... 7
iv
2.1.1.8.2 Fourth Floor Reflected Ceiling Plan ........................................................................... 11
2.1.1.8.3 Elevation Plan............................................................................................................ 12
2.1.1.8.4 Section Plan .............................................................................................................. 14
2.1.1.8.5 Roof Plan ................................................................................................................... 16
2.1.1.9 Design Loads ............................................................................................................... 17
2.1.1.9.1 Dead Loads ............................................................................................................... 17
2.1.1.9.2 Live Loads ................................................................................................................. 18
2.1.1.10 Wind Load Parameters ................................................................................................ 18
2.1.1.11 Seismic Design Parameters......................................................................................... 19
2.1.1.12 The Distance of Project Location from Active Fault Line.............................................. 20
2.1.1.13 Basic Load Combinations ............................................................................................ 21
2.1.2 Design Criteria for Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context ............................................ 22
2.1.2.1 Borehole Data .............................................................................................................. 22
2.2 Review of Related Literature ....................................................................................................... 23
2.2.1 Review of Related Literature for Context I Structural Engineering Context .............................. 23
2.2.2 Review of Related Literature for Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context ....................... 27
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN CONSTRAINT, TRADE-OFFS, AND STANDARDS ............................................... 33
3.1 Design Constraints ...................................................................................................................... 33
3.1.1 Design Constraints for Context I Structural Engineering Context ............................................ 33
3.1.1.1 Quantitative Constraint ................................................................................................ 33
3.1.1.2 Qualitative Constraint .................................................................................................. 34
3.1.2 Design Constraints for Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context ...................................... 35
3.1.2.1 Quantitative Constraint ................................................................................................ 35
3.1.2.2 Qualitative Constraint .................................................................................................. 36
3.2 Design Trade-offs ........................................................................................................................ 37
3.2.1 Structural Engineering Trade-offs (Context I) .......................................................................... 37
3.2.2 Geotechnical Engineering Trade-offs (Context II) .................................................................... 40
3.3 Designer‟s Raw Ranking ............................................................................................................. 45
3.3.1 Initial Raw Ranking for Context I Structural Engineering Context ............................................ 46
3.3.1.1 Summary of Initial Estimate of Context I Structural Engineering Context .................... 46
3.3.1.2 Computation for Initial Raw Ranking of Context I Structural Engineering Context ....... 47
3.3.2 Trade-off Assessment for Context I Structural Engineering Context ........................................ 53
v
3.3.2.1 Economic Constraint Assessment ............................................................................... 53
3.3.2.2 Constructability Constraint Assessment....................................................................... 53
3.3.2.3 Sustainability Constraint Assessment .......................................................................... 54
3.3.2.4 Risk Assessment Constraint ........................................................................................ 54
3.3.3 Over-all Assessment of Trade-offs for Context I Structural Engineering Context .................... 54
3.3.4 Initial Raw Ranking for Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context...................................... 54
3.3.4.1 Summary of Initial Estimate of Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context .............. 54
3.3.4.2 Computation for Initial Raw Ranking of Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context 55
3.3.5 Trade-off Assessment for Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context ................................. 61
3.3.5.1 Economic Constraint Assessment ............................................................................... 61
3.3.5.2 Constructability Constraint Assessment....................................................................... 61
3.3.5.3 Sustainability Constraint Assessment .......................................................................... 61
3.3.5.4 Risk Assessment Constraint ........................................................................................ 61
3.3.6 Over-all Assessment of Trade-offs for Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context .............. 61
3.4 Multiple Constraints Using Initial Normalization Method .............................................................. 62
3.4.1 Context I Structural Engineering Context ................................................................................. 62
3.4.1.1 Raw Data ..................................................................................................................... 62
3.4.1.2 Normalized Data .......................................................................................................... 62
3.4.1.3 Weighted Sum of Various Percentage Weight ............................................................. 63
3.4.2 Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context .......................................................................... 64
3.4.2.1 Raw Data ..................................................................................................................... 64
3.4.2.2 Normalized Data .......................................................................................................... 64
3.4.2.3 Weighted Sum of Various Percentage Weight ............................................................. 65
3.5 Design Standards and Codes ...................................................................................................... 66
3.5.1 The National Building Code of the Philippines (PD 1096) ........................................................ 66
3.5.2 The National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015 ............................................................. 66
3.5.3 Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP Steel Handbook) ...................... 66
3.5.4 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318 .................................................................................... 66
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURES ................................................................................................. 67
4.1 Design Methodology .................................................................................................................... 67
4.2 Design Process for Context I Structural Engineering Context...................................................... 67
4.2.1 Structural Analysis ................................................................................................................... 67
vi
4.2.2 Load Specification ................................................................................................................... 67
4.2.2.1 Wind Load.................................................................................................................... 67
4.2.3 Design of Context I Structural Engineering Context ................................................................. 68
4.2.3.1 Design of Special Moment Resisting Frame ................................................................ 68
4.2.3.1.1 Design Process ......................................................................................................... 68
4.2.3.1.2 Design Input .............................................................................................................. 69
4.2.3.1.2.1 Member Section and Properties ......................................................................... 69
4.2.3.1.2.2 3D Model ............................................................................................................ 69
4.2.3.1.2.3 Support Reactions .............................................................................................. 70
4.2.3.1.3 Special Moment Resisting Frame Results ................................................................. 72
4.2.3.1.3.2 Beam Design ...................................................................................................... 72
4.2.3.1.3.2.1 Material Properties ...................................................................................... 72
4.2.3.1.3.3 Beam Design Parameters................................................................................... 72
4.2.3.1.3.4 Column Design ................................................................................................... 73
4.2.3.1.3.4.2 Column Design Parameters......................................................................... 73
4.2.3.1.3.5 Slab Design ........................................................................................................ 73
4.2.3.1.3.5.1 Slab Material Properties .............................................................................. 73
4.2.3.1.3.5.2 Slab Design Parameters .............................................................................. 73
4.2.3.1.3.6 Footing Design ................................................................................................... 74
4.2.3.1.3.6.1 Footing Material Properties.......................................................................... 74
4.2.3.1.3.6.2 Footing Design Parameters ......................................................................... 74
4.2.3.1.3.6.3 Footing Perspective View ............................................................................ 74
4.2.3.1.3.7 Truss Design ...................................................................................................... 75
4.2.3.1.3.7.1 Truss Material Properties............................................................................. 75
4.2.3.1.3.7.2 3D Model of Truss ....................................................................................... 75
4.2.3.1.3.7.3 Truss Design and Analysis .......................................................................... 76
4.2.3.1.3.8 Purlin Design ...................................................................................................... 77
4.2.3.1.3.8.1 Purlin Material Properties ............................................................................ 77
4.2.3.1.3.8.2 3D Model of Purlin ....................................................................................... 77
vii
4.2.3.1.3.8.3 Purlin Design and Analysis .......................................................................... 78
4.2.3.2 Design of Special Braced Frame ................................................................................. 79
4.2.3.2.1 Design Process ......................................................................................................... 79
4.2.3.2.2 Design Input .............................................................................................................. 80
4.2.3.2.2.2 3D Model ............................................................................................................ 80
4.2.3.2.3 Braced Frame System Results .................................................................................. 83
4.2.3.2.3.2 Beam Design ...................................................................................................... 83
4.2.3.2.3.2.2 Beam Design Parameters............................................................................ 83
4.2.3.2.3.3 Column Design ................................................................................................... 83
4.2.3.2.3.4 Slab Design ........................................................................................................ 84
4.2.3.2.3.5 Footing Design ................................................................................................... 84
4.2.3.2.3.6 Truss Design ...................................................................................................... 86
4.2.3.2.3.6.1 Truss Material Properties............................................................................. 86
4.2.3.2.3.6.2 3D Model of Truss ....................................................................................... 86
4.2.3.2.3.6.3 Truss Analysis and Design .......................................................................... 87
4.2.3.2.3.7 Purlin Design ...................................................................................................... 88
4.2.3.2.3.7.1 Purlin Material Properties ............................................................................ 88
4.2.3.2.3.7.2 3D Model of Purlin ....................................................................................... 88
4.2.3.2.3.7.3 Purlin Design and Analysis .......................................................................... 89
4.2.3.2.3.8 Brace Design ...................................................................................................... 89
viii
4.2.3.2.3.8.1 Brace Material Properties ............................................................................ 89
4.2.3.2.3.8.2 Brace Analysis and Design .......................................................................... 89
4.2.3.2.3.9 Connection Design ............................................................................................. 91
4.2.3.2.3.9.1 Connections Material Properties .................................................................. 91
4.2.3.3 Design of Shear Wall Frame System ........................................................................... 92
4.2.3.3.1 Design Process ......................................................................................................... 92
4.2.3.3.2 Design Input .............................................................................................................. 93
4.2.3.3.2.2 3D Model ............................................................................................................ 93
4.2.3.3.3 Special Shear Wall Results ....................................................................................... 96
4.2.3.3.3.2 Beam Design ...................................................................................................... 96
4.2.3.3.3.2.2 Beam Design Parameters............................................................................ 96
4.2.3.3.3.3 Column Design ................................................................................................... 96
4.2.3.3.3.4 Slab Design ........................................................................................................ 97
4.2.3.3.3.5 Footing Design ................................................................................................... 97
4.2.3.3.3.6 Shear Wall Design .............................................................................................. 99
4.2.3.3.3.6.1 Shear Wall Properties .................................................................................. 99
4.2.3.3.3.6.2 Shear Wall Design Parameters ................................................................... 99
4.2.3.3.3.7 Truss Design ...................................................................................................... 99
4.2.3.3.3.7.1 Truss Material Design Properties ................................................................ 99
4.2.3.3.3.7.2 3D Model of Truss ..................................................................................... 100
ix
4.2.3.3.3.7.3 Truss Analysis and Design ........................................................................ 100
4.2.3.3.3.8 Purlin Design .................................................................................................... 102
4.2.3.3.3.8.1 Purlin Material Design Properties .............................................................. 102
4.2.3.3.3.8.2 3D Model of Purlin ..................................................................................... 102
4.2.3.3.3.8.3 Purlin Design and Analysis ........................................................................ 103
4.3 Design of Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context ............................................................ 104
4.3.1 Soil Profile and Parameters ................................................................................................... 104
4.3.1.1 Settlement of Untreated Soil Strata ........................................................................... 104
4.3.2 Design of Stone Column ........................................................................................................ 105
4.3.2.1 Design Process.......................................................................................................... 105
4.3.2.2 Design Input............................................................................................................... 106
4.3.2.3 Design Results of Stone Column ............................................................................... 107
4.3.2.3.1 Settlement Analysis for Soil with Stone Column ...................................................... 107
4.3.2.3.2 Design Results of Stone Column ............................................................................. 107
4.3.2.3.3 Result Summary of the Design of Stone Column .................................................... 108
4.3.3 Design of Jet Grouting ........................................................................................................... 109
4.3.3.1 Design Process.......................................................................................................... 109
4.3.3.2 Design Input............................................................................................................... 110
4.3.3.3 Design Results of Jet Grouting .................................................................................. 110
4.3.3.3.1 Settlement Analysis for Soil with Jet Grouting ......................................................... 110
4.3.3.3.2 Design Results of Jet Grouting ................................................................................ 111
4.3.3.3.3 Result Summary of the Design of Jet Grouting ........................................................ 111
4.3.4 Design of Dry Deep Soil Mixing ............................................................................................. 113
4.3.4.1 Design Process.......................................................................................................... 113
4.3.4.2 Design Input............................................................................................................... 114
4.3.4.3 Design Results of Dry Deep Soil Mixing .................................................................... 114
4.3.4.3.1 Settlement Analysis for Soil with Dry Deep Soil Mixing ........................................... 114
4.3.4.3.2 Design Results of Dry Deep Soil Mixing .................................................................. 115
4.3.4.3.3 Result Summary of the Design of Dry Deep Soil Mixing .......................................... 115
4.4 Designer‟s Raw Ranking ........................................................................................................... 116
4.4.1 Final Raw Ranking for Context I Structural Engineering Context........................................... 116
x
4.4.1.1 Summary of Final Estimate for Context I Structural Engineering Context .................. 116
4.4.1.2 Computation for Final Raw Ranking of Context I Structural Engineering Context ..... 116
4.4.2 Trade-off Assessment for Context I Structural Engineering Context...................................... 122
4.4.2.1 Economic Constraint Assessment ............................................................................. 122
4.4.2.2 Sustainability Constraint Assessment ........................................................................ 122
4.4.2.3 Constructability Constraint Assessment..................................................................... 123
4.4.2.4 Risk-Assessment ....................................................................................................... 123
4.4.3 Over-all Assessment for Context I Structural Engineering Context ........................................ 123
4.5.1 Final Raw Ranking of Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context ..................................... 123
4.5.1.1 Summary of Final Estimate of Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context ............ 123
4.5.1.2 Computation for Final Raw Ranking of Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context123
4.5.2 Trade-off Assessment for Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context ............................... 129
4.5.2.1 Economic Constraint Assessment ............................................................................. 129
4.5.2.2 Sustainability Constraint Assessment ........................................................................ 129
4.5.2.3 Constructability Constraint Assessment..................................................................... 129
4.5.2.4 Risk-Assessment ....................................................................................................... 130
4.5.3 Over-all Assessment of Trade-offs ........................................................................................ 130
4.6 Multiple Constraints Using Final Normalization Method ............................................................. 130
4.6.1 Context I Structural Engineering Context ............................................................................... 130
4.6.1.1 Raw Data ................................................................................................................... 130
4.6.1.2 Normalized Data ........................................................................................................ 130
4.6.1.3 Weighted Sum of Various Percentage Weight ........................................................... 131
4.6.2 Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context ........................................................................ 132
4.6.2.1 Raw Data ................................................................................................................... 132
4.6.2.2 Normalized Data ........................................................................................................ 132
4.6.2.3 Weighted Sum with Various Percentage Weight ....................................................... 133
4.7 Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................................................... 134
4.7.1 Sensitivity Analysis for Context I Structural Engineering Context .......................................... 134
4.7.1.1 Economic vs. Constructability .................................................................................... 134
4.7.1.2 Economic vs. Sustainability ....................................................................................... 135
4.7.1.3 Economic vs. Risk-Assessment ................................................................................. 135
4.7.2 Sensitivity Analysis for Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context .................................... 136
xi
4.7.2.1 Economic vs. Constructability .................................................................................... 136
4.7.2.2 Economic vs. Sustainability ....................................................................................... 137
4.7.2.3 Economic vs. Risk-Assessment ................................................................................. 138
CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN .................................................................................................................... 140
5.1 Context I Structural Engineering Context Final Design .............................................................. 140
5.1.1 Special Braced Frame System .............................................................................................. 140
5.1.1.1 Member Section and Properties ................................................................................ 140
5.1.1.1.1 Beam Design ........................................................................................................... 141
5.1.1.1.1.1 Material Properties ........................................................................................... 141
5.1.1.1.1.2 Beam Framing Plan .......................................................................................... 141
5.1.1.1.1.3 Beam Scheduling ............................................................................................. 141
5.1.1.1.1.4 Beam Bar Scheduling ....................................................................................... 144
5.1.1.1.1.5 Beam Sections and Elevations ......................................................................... 150
5.1.1.1.2 Column Design ........................................................................................................ 166
5.1.1.1.2.1 Material Properties ........................................................................................... 166
5.1.1.1.2.2 Column Framing Plans ..................................................................................... 166
5.1.1.1.2.3 Column Schedule ............................................................................................. 166
5.1.1.1.2.4 Column Bar Bending Schedule......................................................................... 168
5.1.1.1.2.5 Column Elevations & Section ........................................................................... 171
5.1.1.1.3 Slab Design ............................................................................................................. 174
5.1.1.1.3.1 Slab Material Properties ................................................................................... 174
5.1.1.1.3.2 Slab Framing Plan ............................................................................................ 174
5.1.1.1.3.3 Slab Schedule .................................................................................................. 174
5.1.1.1.3.4 Slab Bar Bending Schedule .............................................................................. 175
5.1.1.1.3.4.1 Top Slab Bar Bending Schedule................................................................ 175
5.1.1.1.3.4.2 Bottom Slab Bar Bending Schedule .......................................................... 178
5.1.1.1.4 Footing Design ........................................................................................................ 181
5.1.1.1.4.1 Footing Material Properties............................................................................... 181
5.1.1.1.4.2 Footing Plan ..................................................................................................... 181
5.1.1.1.4.3 Footing Schedule.............................................................................................. 182
5.1.1.1.4.4 Footing Bar Bending Schedule ......................................................................... 182
xii
5.1.1.1.4.5 Footing Perspective View ................................................................................. 183
5.1.1.1.5 Truss Design ........................................................................................................... 183
5.1.1.1.5.1 Truss Material Properties.................................................................................. 183
5.1.1.1.5.2 3D Model of Truss ............................................................................................ 184
5.1.1.1.5.3 Truss Analysis and Design ............................................................................... 184
5.1.1.1.6 Purlin Design ........................................................................................................... 186
5.1.1.1.6.1 Purlin Material Properties ................................................................................. 186
5.1.1.1.6.2 3D Model of Purlin ............................................................................................ 186
5.1.1.1.6.3 Purlin Design and Analysis ............................................................................... 187
5.1.1.1.6.4 Brace Design .................................................................................................... 187
5.1.1.1.6.4.1 Brace Material Properties .......................................................................... 187
5.1.1.1.6.4.2 Brace Analysis and Design ........................................................................ 187
5.1.1.1.6.5 Connection Design ........................................................................................... 189
5.1.1.1.6.5.1 Connections Material Properties................................................................ 189
5.1.1.1.6.5.2 Connections Layout Plan ........................................................................... 190
5.2 Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context Final Design ....................................................... 191
5.2.1 Stone Column Design ............................................................................................................ 191
5.2.1.1 Design Results of Stone Column ............................................................................... 191
5.2.1.1.1 Settlement Analysis for Soil with Stone Column ...................................................... 191
5.2.1.1.2 Design Results of Stone Column ............................................................................. 191
5.2.1.1.3 Result Summary of the Design of Stone Column .................................................... 192
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 193
APPENDIX A: INITIAL ESTIMATES FOR CONTEXT I STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONTEXT ........ 197
APPENDIX B: INITIAL ESTIMATES FOR CONTEXT II GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONTEXT ... 199
APPENDIX C: SPECIAL MOMENT-RESISTING FRAME DRAWINGS..................................................... 200
APPENDIX D: SPECIAL BRACED FRAME DRAWINGS .......................................................................... 230
APPENDIX E: SHEAR WALL FRAME SYSTEM DRAWINGS .................................................................. 272
APPENDIX F: FINAL ESTIMATES FOR CONTEXT I STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CONTEXT .......... 324
APPENDIX G: FINAL ESTIMATE FOR CONTEXT II GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING CONTEXT ....... 330
APPENDIX H: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT ............................................................................................... 332
APPENDIX I: REVISIONS SUGGESTED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE PANEL ...................................... 353
xiii
CURRICULUM VITAE ............................................................................................................................... 360
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: Perspective Plan of the Project ................................................................................................... 1
Figure 1-2: Site Location of the Project.......................................................................................................... 2
Figure 1-3: Stages of Design Project ............................................................................................................. 6
Figure 2-1: Aggregate Age Population........................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2-2: Population Growth Rate .............................................................................................................. 8
Figure 2-3: Location Topography ................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2-4: Typhoon Risk Map of the Philippines ........................................................................................ 10
Figure 2-5: Landslide Hazard Map............................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2-6: Liquefaction Potential Map ........................................................................................................ 12
Figure 2-7: Distance of the Site Location from a near River ........................................................................ 12
Figure 2-8: Basic Wind Speed for Category I Buildings and Other Structures ............................................. 19
Figure 2-9: Distance from an active fault line ............................................................................................... 20
Figure 2-10. Soil Bearing Capacity at a Depth of 5-m in Metro Manila ........................................................ 27
Figure 2-11. Liquefaction Susceptibility in Metro Manila .............................................................................. 28
Figure 3-1: Special Moment Resisting Frame .............................................................................................. 37
Figure 3-2: Special Braced Frame ............................................................................................................... 38
Figure 3-3: Special Shear Wall Frame ......................................................................................................... 40
Figure 3-4. Jet Grouting Procedure ............................................................................................................. 41
Figure 3-5: Stone Column Installation.......................................................................................................... 43
Figure 3-6: Dry Deep Soil Mixing Procedure ............................................................................................... 45
Figure 3-7: Ranking Scale ........................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 3-8: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Special Shear Wall ................................................ 48
Figure 3-9: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Special Braced Frame........................................... 48
Figure 3-10: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Special Shear Wall ..................................... 49
Figure 3-11: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Special Braced Frame ................................ 50
Figure 3-12: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Special Moment Frame .................................. 50
Figure 3-13: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Special Braced Frame ................................... 51
Figure 3-14: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Special Moment Frame ........................... 52
Figure 3-15: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Special Braced Frame ............................. 52
xiv
Figure 3-16: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Jet Grouting ........................................................ 55
Figure 3-17: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Deep Soil Mixing ................................................. 56
Figure 3-18: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Jet Grouting ................................................ 57
Figure 3-19: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Dry Deep Soil Mixing .................................. 57
Figure 3-20: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Stone Column ................................................ 58
Figure 3-21: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Dry Deep Soil Mixing ..................................... 59
Figure 3-22: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Stone Column.......................................... 59
Figure 3-23: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Jet Grouting ............................................. 60
Figure 4-1: Design Process of Special Moment-Resisting Frame (SMRF) System ..................................... 68
Figure 4-2. 3D Model of Special Moment Resisting Frame ......................................................................... 69
Figure 4-4: 3D Model of Truss – Special Moment-Resisting Frame ............................................................ 75
Figure 4-5: Purlin 3D Model – Special Moment-Resisting Frame ................................................................ 77
Figure 4-6: Design Process of Special Braced Frame ................................................................................. 79
Figure 4-7: 3D Model of Special Braced Frame System .............................................................................. 80
Figure 4-8: Footing Perspective View – Special Braced Frame ................................................................... 85
Figure 4-9: 3D Model of Truss – Special Braced Frame .............................................................................. 86
Figure 4-10: 3D Model of Purlin – Special Braced Frame............................................................................ 88
Figure 4-11: Design Process of Special Shear Wall Frame ......................................................................... 92
Figure 4-12: 3D Model of Shear Wall Frame System .................................................................................. 93
Figure 4-13: Footing Perspective View – Shear Wall Frame System .......................................................... 98
Figure 4-14: 3D Model of Truss – Shear Wall Frame System.................................................................... 100
Figure 4-15: 3D Model of Purlin – Shear Wall Frame System ................................................................... 102
Figure 4-16. Design Process of Stone Column .......................................................................................... 105
Figure 4-17. Settlement Plot – Stone Column ........................................................................................... 107
Figure 4-18. Layout Plan – Stone Column ................................................................................................. 108
Figure 4-19: Design Process of Jet Grouting ............................................................................................. 109
Figure 4-20: Settlement Plot – Jet Grouting............................................................................................... 110
Figure 4-21: Layout Plan – Jet Grouting .................................................................................................... 111
Figure 4-22: Design Process of Dry Deep Soil Mixing ............................................................................... 113
Figure 4-23: Settlement Plot – Dry Deep Soil Mixing ................................................................................. 114
Figure 4-24: Layout Plan – Dry Deep Soil Mixing ...................................................................................... 115
Figure 4-25: Economic Constraint Subordinate Rank: Shear Wall Frame System .................................... 117
xv
Figure 4-26: Economic Constraint Subordinate Rank: Special Braced Frame........................................... 118
Figure 4-27: Constructability Constraint Subordinate Rank: Shear Wall Frame System ........................... 118
Figure 4-28: Constructability Constraint Subordinate Rank: Special Braced Frame .................................. 119
Figure 4-29: Sustainability Constraint Subordinate Rank: Shear Wall Frame System ............................... 120
Figure 4-30: Sustainability Constraint Subordinate Rank: Special Braced Frame ..................................... 120
Figure 4-31: Risk Assessment Subordinate Rank: Shear Wall Frame System .......................................... 121
Figure 4-32: Risk Assessment Subordinate Rank: Special Braced Frame ................................................ 122
Figure 4-33: Economic Constraint Subordinate Rank: Jet Grouting .......................................................... 124
Figure 4-34: Economic Constraint Subordinate Rank: Dry Deep Soil Mixing ............................................. 124
Figure 4-35: Constructability Constraint Subordinate Rank: Jet Grouting .................................................. 125
Figure 4-36. Constructability Constraint Subordinate Rank: Dry Deep Soil Mixing .................................... 126
Figure 4-37: Sustainability Constraint Subordinate Rank: Jet Grouting ..................................................... 127
Figure 4-38: Sustainability Constraint Subordinate Rank: Dry Deep Soil Mixing ....................................... 127
Figure 4-39: Risk Assessment Subordinate Rank: Jet Grouting ................................................................ 128
Figure 4-40: Risk Assessment Subordinate Rank: Stone Column ............................................................. 129
Figure 4-41: Economic vs. Constructability – Context I Structural Engineering Context ............................ 134
Figure 4-42: Economic vs. Sustainability – Context I Structural Engineering Context ............................... 135
Figure 4-43: Economic vs. Risk-Assessment – Context I Structural Engineering Context ......................... 136
Figure 4-44: Economic vs. Constructability – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context ..................... 137
Figure 4-45: Economic vs. Sustainability – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context ......................... 138
Figure 4-46: Economic vs. Risk-Assessment – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context .................. 139
Figure 5-1: Beam Framing Plan – Special Braced Frame ......................................................................... 141
Figure 5-2a: Beam Elevation of 1st floor – Special Braced Wall ................................................................ 150
Figure 5-2b: Beam Elevation of 1st floor – Special Braced Wall ................................................................ 151
Figure 5-3: Beam Elevation of 1st floor – Special Braced Frame .............................................................. 152
Figure 5-4a: Beam Elevation of 2nd and 3rd floor – Special Braced Frame .............................................. 153
Figure 5-4b: Beam Elevation of 2nd and 3rd floor – Special Braced Frame .............................................. 154
Figure 5-5: Beam Elevation of 2nd and 3rd floor – Special Braced Frame ................................................ 155
Figure 5-6: Beam Elevation of 2nd and 3rd floor – Special Braced Frame ................................................ 156
Figure 5-7a: Beam Elevation of 4th floor – Special Braced Frame ............................................................ 157
Figure 5-7b: Beam Elevation of 4th floor – Special Braced Frame ............................................................ 158
Figure 5-8: Beam Elevation of 4th floor – Special Braced Frame .............................................................. 159
xvi
Figure 5-9: Beam Section of 1st floor (B1-B24) – Special Braced Frame .................................................. 160
Figure 5-10: Beam Section of 1st floor (B27-B42) – Special Braced Frame .............................................. 161
Figure 5-11: Beam Section of 2nd and 3rd floor (B1-B24) – Special Braced Frame .................................. 162
Figure 5-12: Beam Section of 2nd and 3rd Floor (B25-B41) – Special Braced Frame .............................. 163
Figure 5-13: Beam Section of 4th Floor (B1-B16) – Special Braced Frame............................................... 164
Figure 5-14: Beam Section of 4th floor (B17-B20) – Special Braced Frame .............................................. 165
Figure 5-15: Column Framing Plan – Special Braced Frame .................................................................... 166
Figure 5-16: Column Elevation of C1-C10 & C18-C27 – Special Braced Frame ....................................... 171
Figure 5-17: Column Elevation of C11-C17 – Special Braced Frame ........................................................ 172
Figure 5-18: Slab Framing Plan – Special Braced Frame .......................................................................... 174
Figure 5-19: Footing Plan – Special Braced Frame ................................................................................... 181
Figure 5-20: Footing Perspective View – Special Braced Frame ............................................................... 183
Figure 5-21: 3D Model of Truss – Special Braced Frame .......................................................................... 184
Figure 5-22: 3D Model of Purlin – Special Braced Frame.......................................................................... 186
Figure 5-23: Layout Plan of 6-bolt Connection – Special Braced Frame ................................................... 190
Figure 5-24: Layout Plan of 4-bolt Connection – Special Braced Frame ................................................... 190
Figure 5-25. Settlement Plot – Stone Column ........................................................................................... 191
Figure 5-26. Layout Plan – Stone Column ................................................................................................. 192
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Projected Population .................................................................................................................... 9
Table 2-2: Superimposed Dead Loads ........................................................................................................ 17
Table 2-3: Total Superimposed Dead Loads ............................................................................................... 17
Table 2-4: Live Loads .................................................................................................................................. 18
Table 2-5: Wind Load Parameters ............................................................................................................... 18
Table 2-6: Seismic Design Parameters ....................................................................................................... 20
Table 2-7: Load Cases ................................................................................................................................ 21
Table 2-8: Borehole Data............................................................................................................................. 22
Table 3-1: Advantages & Disadvantages of Special Moment Resisting Frame ........................................... 38
Table 3-2: Advantages & Disadvantages of Special Braced Frame ............................................................ 39
Table 3-3: Advantages & Disadvantages of Special Shear Walls ................................................................ 39
Table 3-4: Advantages & Disadvantages of Jet Grouting ............................................................................ 41
xvii
Table 3-5: Advantages & Disadvantages of Stone Column ......................................................................... 42
Table 3-6: Advantages & Disadvantages of Dry Deep Soil Mixing .............................................................. 44
Table 3-7: Summary of Initial Estimate – Context I Structural Engineering Context .................................... 46
Table 3-8: Summary of Initial Raw Ranking – Context I Structural Engineering Context ............................. 53
Table 3-9: Summary of Initial Estimate – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context .............................. 54
Table 3-10: Summary of Initial Raw Ranking – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context .................... 60
Table 3-11: Raw Data – Context I Structural Engineering Context .............................................................. 62
Table 3-12: Normalized Data – Context I Structural Engineering Context ................................................... 62
Table 3-13: 1st Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context I Structural Engineering Context ............ 63
Table 3-14: 2nd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context I Structural Engineering Context ........... 63
Table 3-15: 3rd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context I Structural Engineering Context ............ 64
Table 3-16: Raw Data – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context ....................................................... 64
Table 3-17: Normalized Data – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context............................................. 64
Table 3-18: 1st Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context ...... 65
Table 3-19: 2nd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context .... 65
Table 3-20: 3rd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context ..... 65
Table 4-1: Windward Wall Intensity ............................................................................................................. 67
Table 4-2: Leeward Wall Intensity................................................................................................................ 67
Table 4-3: Sideward Wall Intensity .............................................................................................................. 68
Table 4-4: Initial Member Section and Properties – Special Moment Resisting Frame ............................... 69
Table 4-5: Final Member Section and Properties – Special Moment Resisting Frame ................................ 72
Table 4-6: Materials Properties of Beam – Special Moment Resisting Frame ............................................. 72
Table 4-7: Beam Design Parameters – Special Moment Resisting Frames ................................................ 72
Table 4-8: Materials Properties of Column – Special Moment Resisting Frame .......................................... 73
Table 4-9: Column Design Parameters – Special Moment Resisting Frames ............................................. 73
Table 4-10: Material Properties of Slab – Special Moment Resisting Frame ............................................... 73
Table 4-11: Slab Design Parameters – Special Moment Resisting Frames ................................................ 73
Table 4-12. Material Properties of Footing – Special Moment Resisting Frame .......................................... 74
Table 4-13: Footing Design Parameters – Special Moment Resisting Frames ............................................ 74
Table 4-14: Truss Material Properties – Special Moment-Resisting Frame ................................................. 75
Table 4-15: Truss Design and Analysis – Special Moment-Resisting Frame............................................... 76
Table 4-16: Purlin Material Properties – Special Moment-Resisting Frame................................................. 77
xviii
Table 4-17: Purlin Design and Analysis ....................................................................................................... 78
Table 4-18: Initial Member Section and Properties – Special Braced Frame ............................................... 80
Table 4-19: Final Member Section and Properties – Braced Frame System ............................................... 83
Table 4-20: Material Properties of Beam – Special Braced Frame .............................................................. 83
Table 4-21: Beam Design Parameters – Special Braced Frame ................................................................. 83
Table 4-22: Material Properties of Column – Special Braced Frame ........................................................... 83
Table 4-23: Column Design Parameters – Special Braced Frame .............................................................. 84
Table 4-24: Material Properties of Slab – Special Braced Frame ................................................................ 84
Table 4-25: Slab Design Parameters – Special Braced Frame.................................................................... 84
Table 4-26. Material Properties of Footing – Special Braced Frame ........................................................... 84
Table 4-27: Footing Design Parameters – Special Braced Frame ............................................................... 85
Table 4-28: Truss Material Properties – Special Braced Frame .................................................................. 86
Table 4-29: Truss Analysis and Design – Special Braced Frame ................................................................ 87
Table 4-30: Purlin Material Properties – Special Braced Frame .................................................................. 88
Table 4-31: Purlin Design and Analysis – Special Braced Frame ................................................................ 89
Table 4-32: Brace Material Properties – Special Braced Frame .................................................................. 89
Table 4-33: Brace Analysis and Design Summary – Special Braced Frame ............................................... 89
Table 4-34: Connections Material Properties – Special Braced Frame ....................................................... 91
Table 4-35: Initial Member Section and Properties – Shear Wall Frame System ........................................ 93
Table 4-36: Final Member Section and Properties – Shear Wall Frame System ......................................... 96
Table 4-37: Material Properties of Beam – Shear Wall Frame System........................................................ 96
Table 4-38: Beam Design Parameters – Shear Wall Frame System ........................................................... 96
Table 4-39: Material Properties of Column – Shear Wall Frame System ..................................................... 96
Table 4-40: Column Design Parameters – Shear Wall Frame System ........................................................ 97
Table 4-41: Material Properties of Slab – Shear Wall Frame System .......................................................... 97
Table 4-42: Slab Design Parameters – Shear Wall Frame System ............................................................. 97
Table 4-43: Material Properties of Footing – Shear Wall Frame System ..................................................... 97
Table 4-44: Footing Design Parameters – Shear Wall Frame System ........................................................ 98
Table 4-45: Material Properties of Shear Wall – Shear Wall Frame System................................................ 99
Table 4-46: Shear Wall Design Parameters – Shear Wall Frame System ................................................... 99
Table 4-47: Truss Material Properties – Shear Wall Frame System ............................................................ 99
Table 4-48: Truss Analysis and Design – Shear Wall Frame System........................................................ 100
xix
Table 4-49: Purlin Materials Properties – Shear Wall Frame System ........................................................ 102
Table 4-50: Purlin Design and Analysis – Shear Wall Frame System ....................................................... 103
Table 4-51: Soil Profile and Parameters .................................................................................................... 104
Table 4-52: Footing Details........................................................................................................................ 104
Table 4-53: Settlement of Untreated Soil Strata ........................................................................................ 104
Table 4-54: Column Properties – Stone Column ....................................................................................... 106
Table 4-55: Foundation Properties – Stone Column .................................................................................. 106
Table 4-56: Settlement Analysis for Soil – Stone Column ......................................................................... 107
Table 4-57: Parametric Analysis Tabular Results – Stone Column ........................................................... 107
Table 4-58: Settlement without Treatment vs. Settlement with Treatment – Stone Column ...................... 108
Table 4-59: Result Summary of the Design – Stone Column .................................................................... 108
Table 4-60: Column Properties – Jet Grouting .......................................................................................... 110
Table 4-61: Settlement Analysis for Soil – Jet Grouting............................................................................. 110
Table 4-62: Parametric Analysis Tabular Results – Jet Grouting............................................................... 111
Table 4-63: Settlement without Treatment vs. Settlement with Treatment – Jet Grouting ......................... 111
Table 4-64: Result Summary of the Design – Jet Grouting........................................................................ 112
Table 4-65: Column Properties – Dry Deep Soil Mixing............................................................................. 114
Table 4-66: Settlement Analysis for Soil – Dry Deep Soil Mixing ............................................................... 114
Table 4-67: Parametric Analysis Tabular Results – Dry Deep Soil Mixing ................................................. 115
Table 4-68: Settlement without Treatment vs. Settlement with Treatment – Dry Deep Soil Mixing ........... 115
Table 4-69: Result Summary of the Design – Dry Deep Soil Mixing .......................................................... 116
Table 4-70: Summary of Final Estimate – Context I Structural Engineering Context ................................. 116
Table 4-71: Summary of Final Raw Ranking – Context I Structural Engineering Context.......................... 122
Table 4-72: Summary of Final Estimate – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context .......................... 123
Table 4-73: Summary of Final Raw Ranking – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context ................... 129
Table 4-74: Raw Data – Context I Structural Engineering Context ............................................................ 130
Table 4-75: Normalized Data – Context I Structural Engineering Context ................................................. 130
Table 4-76: 1st Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context I Structural Engineering Context .......... 131
Table 4-77: 2nd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context I Structural Engineering Context ......... 131
Table 4-78: 3rd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context I Structural Engineering Context .......... 132
Table 4-79: Raw Data – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context ..................................................... 132
Table 4-80: Normalized Data – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context........................................... 132
xx
Table 4-81: 1st Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context.... 133
Table 4-82: 2nd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context .. 133
Table 4-83: 3rd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context ... 133
Table 4-84: Economic vs. Constructability – Context I Structural Engineering Context ............................. 134
Table 4-85: Economic vs. Sustainability – Context I Structural Engineering Context ................................ 135
Table 4-86: Economic vs. Risk-Assessment – Context I Structural Engineering Context .......................... 136
Table 4-87: Economic vs. Constructability – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context....................... 137
Table 4-88: Economic vs. Sustainability – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context .......................... 138
Table 4-89: Economic vs. Risk-Assessment – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context ................... 139
Table 5-1: Final Member Section and Properties – Braced Frame System ............................................... 140
Table 5-2: Material Properties of Beam – Special Braced Frame .............................................................. 141
Table 5-3: Beam Scheduling for 1st floor – Special Braced Frame ........................................................... 141
Table 5-4: Beam Scheduling for 2nd floor – Special Braced Frame .......................................................... 142
Table 5-5: Beam Scheduling for 3rd floor – Special Braced Frame ........................................................... 142
Table 5-7: Beam Bar Scheduling of 1st floor (B1-B24) – Special Braced Frame ....................................... 144
Table 5-8: Beam Bar Scheduling for 1st floor (B1-B8) – Special Braced Frame........................................ 145
Table 5-9: Beam Bar Scheduling for 1st floor (B25-B42) – Special Braced Frame.................................... 145
Table 5-10: Beam Bar Scheduling for 2nd and 3rd floor (B1-B24) – Special Braced Frame ..................... 146
Table 5-11: Beam Bar Scheduling for 2nd and 3rd floor (B25-B26, B31-B32, B35-B36, B41-B42) – Special
Braced Frame ............................................................................................................................................ 147
Table 5-12: Beam Bar Scheduling for 2nd and 3rd floor (B25-B26, B31-B32, B35-B36, B41-B42) – Special
Braced Frame ............................................................................................................................................ 147
Table 5-13: Beam Bar Scheduling for 2nd and 3rd floor (B1-B8) – Special Braced Frame ....................... 147
Table 5-14: Beam Bar Scheduling for 4th floor (B1-B16)........................................................................... 148
Table 5-15: Beam Bar Scheduling for 4th floor (B1-B8)............................................................................. 149
Table 5-16: Beam Bar Scheduling for 4th floor (B17-B20)......................................................................... 149
Table 5-16: Material Properties of Column – Special Braced Frame ......................................................... 166
Table 5-17: Column Schedule – Special Braced Frame ............................................................................ 166
Table 5-18: Column Bar Bending Schedule (C1-C10, C18-C27) – Special Braced Frame ....................... 168
Table 5-19: Column Bar Scheduling (C11-C18) – Special Braced Frame ................................................. 169
Table 5-20: Column Bar Scheduling (C1) – Special Braced Frame ........................................................... 170
Table 5-21: Column Section – Special Braced Frame ............................................................................... 173
Table 5-22: Material Properties of Slab – Special Braced Frame .............................................................. 174
xxi
Table 5-23: Slab Schedule – Special Braced Frame ................................................................................. 174
Table 5-24: Top Slab Bar Bending Schedule (T1-T30) – Special Braced Frame....................................... 175
Table 5-25: Top Slab Bar Bending Schedule (T31-T60) – Special Braced Frame..................................... 176
Table 5-26: Top Slab Bar Bending Schedule (T61-T90) – Special Braced Frame..................................... 177
Table 5-27: Bottom Slab Bending Schedule (B1-B30) – Special Braced Frame........................................ 178
Table 5-28: Bottom Slab Bar Bending Schedule (B31-B60) – Special Braced Frame ............................... 179
Table 5-29: Bottom Slab Bar Bending Schedule (B61-B84) – Special Braced Frame ............................... 180
Table 5-30: Material Properties of Footing – Special Braced Frame ......................................................... 181
Table 5-31: Footing Schedule – Special Braced Frame ............................................................................ 182
Table 5-32: Footing Bar Bending Schedule – Special Braced Frame ........................................................ 182
Table 5-33: Truss Material Properties – Special Braced Frame ................................................................ 183
Table 5-34: Truss Analysis and Design – Special Braced Frame .............................................................. 184
Table 5-35: Purlin Material Properties – Special Braced Frame ................................................................ 186
Table 5-36: Purlin Design and Analysis – Special Braced Frame .............................................................. 187
Table 5-37: Brace Material Properties – Special Braced Frame ................................................................ 187
Table 5-38: Brace Analysis and Design Summary – Special Braced Frame ............................................. 187
Table 5-39: Connections Material Properties – Special Braced Frame ..................................................... 189
Table 5-40: Settlement Analysis for Soil – Stone Column ......................................................................... 191
Table 5-51: Parametric Analysis Tabular Results – Stone Column ........................................................... 191
Table 5-52: Settlement without Treatment vs. Settlement with Treatment – Stone Column ...................... 192
Table 5-53: Result Summary of the Design – Stone Column .................................................................... 192
xxii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Project

Nowadays, the Philippines suffer from major environmental problems such as typhoons, earthquakes, and
deforestation. These events result in casualties and damage to property which occurs in urban areas. The
geological location of the Philippines contributes to these events since it is part of the Pacific Ring of Fire,
wherein numerous quakes and volcanic eruptions occur. It is within the Pacific Ocean where the most
powerful typhoons begin to develop that can directly affect the Philippines (Dungo, 2019). The effect of
global warming cast great danger to human life and the environment, through the years, the Philippines
experience more typhoons than we expected and it gets more severe due to climate change (Wikipedia
Contributors, 2019). Last November 2013, super typhoon Yolanda also internationally known as Typhoon
Haiyan struck the Philippines. It reached a maximum wind speed of 315 km per hour thus considered one
of the most powerful tropical cyclones ever recorded (Milman, 2015)
To avoid damages and fatalities by flooding and other natural calamities, an evacuation center plays a vital
role in disaster management, which is described as moving people at risk to safety. Evacuation centers
have a fundamental role in managing the impacts of natural calamities brought on by typhoons, floods, and
earthquakes in protecting the lives of vulnerable communities that are at risk. It provides emergency shelter
from the worst consequence of the disaster as well as essential data to emergency planners regarding
those internally displaced persons, who have been made fully homeless, or whose shelter is severely
damaged rendering them in need of a transition shelter or a durable solution (Government of Vanuatu
Ministry of Climate Change Adaptation, 2016). For the past years, schools are commonly used as
temporary shelters every time a calamity strikes; however, it affected its operation that hinders the learning
of students. Also, the evacuees get often sick or die due to lack of proper sanitation since schools are not
built to function as an evacuation center (De la Cruz, 2015). According to House Bill 3046, every city and
municipality are required to establish evacuation centers due to the Philippines being prone to natural
phenomenon. These evacuation centers will be a big help to community, especially to those who still don‟t
have an evacuation center. The designers considered multiple criteria to come up with a possible solution
which led to proposing a Four-Storey Multi-Purpose Evacuation Center of the barangay, based on the
standard of National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015 Volume I and the National Building Code of
the Philippines.
Figure 1-1: Perspective Plan of the Project
1
1.2 Project Location
Figure 1-2: Site Location of the Project

(Source: Google Map)
The site location of the project is in Barangay Bagumbayan, formerly Poblacion, which is a barangay in the
municipality of Pililla, in the province of Rizal. It is located near Pililla National High School and the
Municipal Hall of Pililla. It can be accessed through the main road, Manila East Road and Tanay-Pililla
Road along M.A. Roxas Street. Wawa is situated at approximately 14.4737, 121.3189, on the island of
Luzon.
1.3 Project Objectives

The designers must be clear about the objective of the proposed project based on the client‟s demands and
specifications. The project objectives are subdivided into general and specific objectives.
1.3.1 General Objective

The main objective of the designers is to design a temporary shelter for the residents in times of disaster by
proposing a Four-Storey Multi-Purpose Evacuation Center based on engineering methods and applications.
The project considered different constraints and tradeoffs to meet the client‟s specifications.
1.3.2 Specific Objectives

To attain the designers‟ objective, the following must be accomplished:
 Provide a detailed architectural and structural plan of the proposed structure.

 Design a project in accordance with the National Structural Code of the Philippines, the National
Building Code of the Philippines, and other related codes and standards.
 Identify different constraints that affect the project design process.
 Provide desirable tradeoffs based on the identified design constraints.
2
 Use software that will contribute to the design of the project such as STAAD, RCDC, SAFE, Stone-
C, Excel, AutoCAD
 Estimate the total cost of the project including the labor costs and duration of the construction.
1.4 The Client

The client of this project is the Local Government of Pililla under Mayor Dan V. Masinsin. This project is
also coordinated with the engineering department of the local government, under Engr. Dariel Ricarto, the
Municipal Engineer of the Pililla, Rizal.
1.4.1 Clients Specifications

The following are the restrictions to the proposed project given by the client:
1. The total cost of the project must not exceed Php 40,000,000.00.
2. The maximum construction duration of the project shall not exceed 400 working days.
3. The design life of the structure must reach at least 45 years.
1.5 Scope and Limitation
1.5.1 Context I Structural Engineering Context
1.5.1.1 Scope
The design project shall provide and cover the following:
1. The designers will provide the schematic plan and preliminary structural configuration of the proposed
structure.
2. The designers will provide detailed analysis and design of the structure based on the National
Structural Code of the Philippines.
3. The designers will focus on the structural integrity and stability of the structure.
4. The designers will perform cost estimates and analysis of the given trade-offs including their labor cost.
1.5.1.2 Limitation
The project is limited and bounded by the following:
1. The designers will not provide other plans such as mechanical, plumbing, sanitary, electrical, and fire
protection system.
2. The designers will not provide detailed daily construction activities.
3. The designers will not design the traffic flow for the various purposes of the building.
4. The designers will not provide other alternative designs that are not included in the trade-offs.
3
1.5.2 Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
1.5.2.1 Scope
The design project shall provide and cover the following:
1. The designers will provide appropriate ground improvement techniques based on the geotechnical
report of the location.
2. The designers will focus on the stability of the structure.
3. The designers will focus on the settlement problems of the structure.
4. The designers will perform cost estimates and analysis of the given trade-offs including labor cost.
1.5.2.2 Limitation
The project is limited and bounded by the following:
1. The designers will not provide detailed daily construction activities.

2. The designers will not provide other alternative designs that are not included in the trade-offs.
4
1.6 Project Development
The project is a Four-Storey Multi-purpose evacuation center at Brgy. Bagumbayan. Some of the residents
used schools and covered courts as their temporary shelter in times of calamities. The proposed multi-
purpose evacuation center will enable ease of mind for the residents as its goal is to provide safe
emergency shelter when affected by disasters.So now, they don‟t have to worry because the designers
decided to propose a multi-purpose evacuation center to provide safe emergency shelter to the people from
the impact of the disaster.
The following steps will be in a systematic approach and these are:
1. Identify the problem

Identifying the existing problem that the designers intend to address to share opinions and
formulate solutions to the resulting problems.
2. Data Gathering
After identifying the problem, the designers gather data on the said topic and a review of related
concepts takes place to begin the project with its problems and possible solutions.
3. Constraints
The designers identify and select constraints that affect the design of the structures.
4. Trade-offs
The designers evaluate options used for the project and approach best meet‟s the goal of the
project.
5. Design of Architectural and Structural Configuration

The minimum architectural requirement and standards are selected under the National Building
Code of the Philippines (NBCP).
6. Structural Analysis and Design

The minimum design loads use in the project was selected under the National Structural Code of
the Philippines (NSCP 2015). These values are used to compute the structural loads needed in this
project.
7. Estimation of costs and number of working days

The designers estimate the possible expenses of materials used in the structure and the number of
working days.
5
Figure 1-3: Stages of Design Project
6
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN CRITERIA AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Design Criteria

The designers gathered data from various institutions and departments to have appropriate design
parameters that were used to be able to design a Four-Storey Multi-Purpose Evacuation Center. These
design parameters used are under the standards and provisions provided in the National Structural Code of
the Philippines 2015.
2.1.1 Design Criteria for Context I Structural Engineering Context
2.1.1.1 Demography
Demography is the study of human populations, including size, structure, and distribution over space,
socioeconomic characteristics, households and families, migration, labor force, and vital processes. Brgy.
Bagumbayan, formerly known as Problacion, has a population of 11,101, determined from the 2015 latest
census and this represents 17.13% of the total population of Pililla. Based on the result, there is a growth of
3.20% or 1,695 from the previous population from the 2010 census. This data will be used to help the
designers in allocating the space provided for the evacuation center.
Figure 2-1: Aggregate Age Population

Source: https://www.philatlas.com
7
Figure 2-2: Population Growth Rate
Source: https://www.philatlas.com
Population projection is a mathematical equation that calculates the estimated growth rate or change of
future populations based on current populations. Governments use population projections for planning for
public health, preparedness, housing, assistance, and school and hospital construction. Such information
also aids business and marketing (Dotson, 2018). With the help of population projection, the designers will
be able to project the future population of Brgy. Bagumbayan in Pililla, Rizal to ensure the proper allocation
of area for the proposed evacuation center for risk management.
Nt = Pert Equation 2-1: Population Projection
Where:
Nt = number of people at a future date

P= present population
e= natural logarithm
r =rate of increase divided by 100
t = time period.
8
Table 2-1: Projected Population
Increase in Population from 2015
Year Total Population
population
2020 1926 13027
2025 4186 15287
2.1.1.2 Topography
The location of Brgy. Bagumbayan is approximately 68m or 209.3ft above sea level, which is essential for
the evacuation center. Evacuation centers must be located in an elevated place for it to be suitable as a
temporary shelter, especially in times of flooding events.
Figure 2-3: Location Topography

Source: https://en-ph.topographic-map.com
2.1.1.3 Typhoon Hazard

Philippines is prone to various weather-related hazards because of its location in the tropics, along the path
of typhoons and monsoons. Northern Luzon, Southeastern Luzon and Eastern Visayas are the areas highly
at risk to the occurrence of tropical depressions, tropical storms, typhoons, and super typhoons. According
to the map below, the proposed project location has a high risk to typhoons. Therefore, the affected
residents of the barangay may occupy the evacuation center in times of strong typhoons.
9
Figure 2-4: Typhoon Risk Map of the Philippines
Source: http://vm.observatory.ph/
10
2.1.1.4 Landslide Hazard
Landslides denotes any down-slope movement of soil and rock under the direct influence of gravity.
Landslides can be initiated in slopes already on the verge of movement by rainfall, changes in water level,
stream erosion, changes in ground water, earthquakes, volcanic activity, disturbance by human activities,
or any combination of these factors. The hazard map below shows the unstable slopes and landslide extent
of the nearby communities of the proposed project. With that in mind, the possible victims of this hazard
can use the proposed evacuation center which is at a safe location.
PROJECT LOCATION
Figure 2-5: Landslide Hazard Map

Source: http://noah.up.edu.ph/
2.1.1.5 Liquefaction Potential

Soil liquefaction refers to ground failure or loss of strength that causes otherwise solid soil to behave
temporarily as a viscous liquid. The phenomenon occurs in water-saturated unconsolidated soils affected
by seismic S waves or secondary waves, which cause ground vibrations during earthquakes. According to
map developed by PHIVOLCS, the location of the proposed project in Brgy. Bagumbayan, Pililla, Rizal has
a high liquefaction potential.
11
Figure 2-6: Liquefaction Potential Map
Source: PHIVOLCS
2.1.1.6 Flood Susceptibility
Project Location
Figure 2-7: Distance of the Site Location from a near River

Source: Google Maps
According to the statement given by the Municipality of Pililla, Flooding usually occurs once a year during
the wet season in some parts of the lowland near the mouths of rivers. Sometimes, some built-up areas
experience two or more flooding in one year. About 21 hectares or 0.25 percent of the town area are
subject to annual inundation. This natural hazard is traceable to the practice of forest denudation in the
eastern uplands that cause quick and massive run-off of water in the absence of trees. The creeks and
12
rivers cannot accommodate this kind of run-off and what happens is that there is riverbank overflow,
particularly in the low-lying urban areas along with the lower courses of the Pililla River.
The site is 672.75m away from the Pililla River based on the scaled map presented by Google. There are
residences besides the Pililla River, which is at risk whenever there is a typhoon that has entered the
Philippine Area of Responsibility. Hence, it is essential that there is a structure that can cater to these
families whose residences are prone to flooding and other natural hazards.
2.1.1.7 Description of the Project

The project is to design a four-storey multi-purpose evacuation center building with an area of 376 square
meters and a total height of 16.425 meters. On the ground floor, there will be a Health Zone, Reception &
Administration Services, and Storage Room. On the second and third floor, there will be a sleeping area.
On the fourth floor, there will be an open space for different purposes.
13
2.1.1.8 Architectural Plans
2.1.1.8.1 Floor Plan
7
8
9
10
2.1.1.8.2 Fourth Floor Reflected Ceiling Plan
11
2.1.1.8.3 Elevation Plan
12
13
2.1.1.8.4 Section Plan
14
15
2.1.1.8.5 Roof Plan
16
2.1.1.9 Design Loads
2.1.1.9.1 Dead Loads

Dead load is primarily the weight of the structure depending on its size, dimension, and type of material
used for its construction. Aside from the weight of the structure, there are also superimposed load which is
considered dead load since it is also permanent loads added to the structure. The superimposed dead load
acts vertically on the structure of each floor and the roof of the proposed building which is determined from
Table 204-1 Minimum Densities for Design Loads from Materials and Table 204-2 Minimum Design Dead
Loads of National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015.
Table 2-2: Superimposed Dead Loads
FLOOR LOADS
Plaster on concrete 0.24 kPa
Gypsum Sheathing 0.1 kPa
Lightweight concrete, per mm 0.015 kPa
Ceramic or quarry tile 0.77 kPa
Windows 0.38 kPa
Total 1.505 kPa
ROOF
Three-ply ready roofing 0.05 kPa
Gypsum Sheathing 0.1 kPa
Total 0.15 kPa
Table 2-3: Total Superimposed Dead Loads

Floor Level Superimposed Load
Second Floor 1.505 kPa
Third Floor 1.505 kPa
Fourth Floor 1.505 kPa
Roof 0.15 kPa
17
2.1.1.9.2 Live Loads
Live loads are temporary loads, acting vertically on a structure; these loads can change over time such as
furniture and people walking around the building. Live loads are those loads produced by the use and
occupancy of the building or other structure and do not include dead load, construction load, or
environmental loads. Table 2-5 shows the uniform live load for the proposed evacuation center based on
Table 205-1 Minimum Uniform and Concentrated Live Loads of National Structural Code of the Philippines
2015.
Table 2-4: Live Loads
Use or Occupancy Uniform Load (kPa)
Category Description kPa
Basic Floor area 1.9
Residential Storage 1.9
Corridor above the ground floor 3.8
Office Lobbies and ground floor corridor 4.8
2.1.1.10 Wind Load Parameters

Wind load on a structure is caused by wind speed and its air density onto the exterior of the structure. This
load is one of the factors to be considered since it plays a crucial role in designing especially to high rise
structures. The pressure acting on the faces of the structure will be computed using the Directional
Procedure of National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015.
Table 2-5: Wind Load Parameters

Location Brgy. Bagumbayan, Pililla, Rizal
Wind Velocity 270kph (Section 207A.5 of NSCP 2015)
Wind Directionality Factor, Kd 0.85 (Section 207A.6 of NSCP 2015)

Exposure Exposure C (Section 207A.7 of NSCP 2015)
Topographic Factor, Kzt 1.0 (flat terrain) (Section 207A.8 of NSCP 2015)
Gust Effect Factor, G 0.85 (Section 207A.9 of NSCP 2015)
Enclosure Classification Enclosed (Section 207A.10 of NSCP 2015)
Internal Pressure Coefficient, GCpi ±0.18 (Section 207A.11 of NSCP 2015)
18
Figure 2-8: Basic Wind Speed for Category I Buildings and Other Structures
Source: National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015
2.1.1.11 Seismic Design Parameters

Base shear is an estimate of the maximum expected lateral force that will occur due to seismic ground
motion at the base of a structure. Table 2-7 shows the parameters to be considered in the computation of
seismic loads based on the 2015 NSCP. The following factors, coefficients, and parameters from the
National Structural Code of the Philippines (2015) are used to calculate the base shear and seismic loads
acting on the building.
19
Table 2-6: Seismic Design Parameters
Seismic Zone Zone 4; Z=0.40
Seismic Source Type Type C
Importance Factor 1.5 (Essential Facilities)
Soil Type SE (Based on Geotechnical Investigation Report)
Seismic Coefficient, Cv 0.96 (Soil Profile Type SE; Seismic Zone 4)
Near-source factor, Nv 1.0 (Seismic Source Type A; 7.4km to Unnamed Fault)
Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.44 (Soil Profile Type SE; Seismic Zone 4)
Near-source factor, Na 1.0 (Seismic Source Type A; 7.4 km to Unnamed Fault)
2.1.1.12 The Distance of Project Location from Active Fault Line

The proposed evacuation is located in Barangay Bagumbayan, Pililla, Rizal. It is found to be 7.4 kilometers
away from an Unnamed Fault.
Figure 2-9: Distance from an active fault line

Source: http://faultfinder.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph
20
2.1.1.13 Basic Load Combinations
The load cases used for the design are based on the Section 203.3 Load Combination using Strength
Design or Load Resistance Factor Design. With the use of this load combination, structures and all portions
shall resist the most critical effects beyond its allowable stress to use the full potential of the materials.
Table 2-7: Load Cases

Load Case Description
1 1.4(D + F)
2 1.2(D + F + T) + 1.6(L + H) + 0.5(Lr or R)
3 1.2D + 1.6(Lr or R) + (ƒ1L or 0.5W)
4 1.2D + 1.0W + ƒ1L + 0.5(Lr or R)
5 1.2D + 1.0E + ƒ1L
6 0.9D+ 1.0W + 1.6H
7 0.9+ 1.0E + 1.6H
Where:
ƒ1 = 1.0 for floors in places of public assembly, for live loads in excess of 4.8kPa, and for garage live load
= 0.5 for other live loads
21
2.1.2 Design Criteria for Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
2.1.2.1 Borehole Data

Table 2-2 shows the borehole data gathered in the project location. Based from the findings of the
geotechnical investigation, ground improvement is needed up to the depth of 3m which is also the
suggested depth of the shallow foundation.
The site will be needing ground improvement as the minimum allowable bearing capacity for clay soil is
150kPa but based on the geotechnical report given by the client the soil bearing of the site is just around
110kPa to 155kPa. Based also on the geotechnical investigation, 3 meters is the suggested depth of the
shallow foundation.
Table 2-8: Borehole Data
Bearing Sample
Borehole I.D. Depth (m) SPT Values Conclusion
Capacity Description
Low Plasticity Loose to Medium

1.8m – 3.5m 9 115kPa
Clay with Sand Dense
BH-1
Silty Clay with
3.5m – 7.5m 21 155kPa Sand to Clayey Medium Dense
Gravel with Sand
Low Plasticity
Clay with Sand to Loose to Medium
1.8m – 3.5m 11 110kPa
Silty Clay with Dense
BH-2 Sand
Silty Clay with

3.5m – 7m 19 148kPa Sand to Clayey Medium Dense
Gravel with Sand
Source: Geovince Geological Consultancy
Based on the geotechnical report of the location of the proposed project, the bearing capacity of the soil is
generally sufficient for small construction projects. However, since the soil layers of the location is
composed of low plasticity clay, silty clay with sand, and clayey gravel, the designers considered the
probability of footing settlement of the structure to be built. Also, the project location has a high risk of
liquefaction which can be mitigated by ground improvement techniques.
22
2.2 Review of Related Literature
2.2.1 Review of Related Literature for Context I Structural Engineering Context

While the local government unit features different kind of spaces for evacuation centers, there are still
special situations which demand a safer, dual-purpose and structurally sound center that are hazard-
adaptive and sensitive to the needs of the evacuees. Multi-purpose building is becoming a feature of most
of the dual-purpose centers for its ability to transform for different purposes. It features a large space
capable of holding a large number of people (Naoe, 2017). The Philippine government and organizations
need to make hazard-resistant shelter designs that are resilient and sustainable after a disaster. Many
structures lacked adequate foundations before, thus, reconstruction efforts promoted better foundations by
using concrete footings. The lack of lateral bracing in 45% of projects highlights a significant gap in hazard-
resistant design adopted by organizations and more than half of these projects utilized poor structural
connections. Also, the shelters are constructed to have simple shapes, avoiding irregularity (Opdyke,
Javernick-Will, Koschmann, & Moench, 2016).
Earthquake is a natural phenomenon caused by a sudden release of energy from the earth‟s crust which
forms seismic waves. It is the reason for the degradation of the properties of structural elements in
reinforced concrete buildings (Ilyas, Azeem, & Mohiuddin, 2018). In order to minimize the effects of
earthquake loads on a structure and simplify the distribution of earthquake loads, certain criteria are
needed to consider. It is advantageous if the used material is lightweight but strong in construction so that
the intensity of seismic forces acting on the structure can be reduced. The material should have the ability
to deform plastically and have high ductility properties to withstand the effects of earthquake loads that are
double-sided because this structure has a material that disperses the seismic energy in a simple manner.
The degradation properties of strength and stiffness of material structure must be low. The material
structure must be uniform strength and stiffness in order to have a good dynamic response during an
earthquake (Siswanto & Salim, 2018).
The type of framing system to be used for a particular building may depend upon the budget and the
seismic risk of where it is constructed. Lateral forces acting on a building are distributed according to the
flexural rigidity of each structural element on it. For zones with low seismic risks, ordinary moment-resisting
frame (OMRF) is probably the most common type of frame to be used but for high seismic risk zones,
special moment-resisting frame (SMRF) needs to be used because OMRF became inadequate for it. Using
SMRF in a structure reduces the area of steel reinforcement and the size of the section for it provides
ductile behavior on the structure (Yadav & Rai, 2017). Buildings are very vulnerable to progressive collapse
due to loss of one or more columns in the wake of any extreme action. It is important to study the likelihood
of progressive collapse of reinforced concrete structures since it is most commonly used in building
construction. Various codes and design guidelines are available for mitigating progressive collapse and
reducing the damages caused by the progressive collapse of a structure. It was found out that that the
special reinforcement detailing of a special moment-resisting reinforced concrete frame is significant in
mitigation of the progressive collapse of building frames. The collapse load for SMRF models estimated by
plastic mechanism was 75.5% of the tested failure capacity (Almusallam, Al-Salloum, Ngo, Mendis, &
Abbas, 2017).
Lateral load resisting system such as shear walls system is used to provide strength on the buildings
against lateral loads. Shear wall is vertical elements of the horizontal force resisting frame and it is
23
constructed in a building to resist the effects of the lateral loads acting on it. It was found out that using a
shear wall in a structure provides minimal displacement. If the shear wall is positioned at adequate
locations, it largely reduces the displacement of the buildings due to earthquake load. It also improves the
lateral stability of the structure (Vijetha & Rao, 2019). It was found that shear wall along periphery is most
efficient among all the shear walls considered. In terms of minimizing the drift of a structure, zigzag
arrangement of shear walls was found to be better than other configurations as it enhances the strength
and stiffness of the structure by reducing the lateral drift and inter storey drift than other types of walls and
is most effective in earthquake prone areas. In addition, storey drift of building provided with openings in
shear wall is greater than shear wall without openings and also arrangement of shear walls has influence
on material consumption and concrete consumption and steel (Sonali Pandey, 2017). It was found out that
the building stiffness reduces greatly with increasing lateral drifts and relates to prior deformation history.
All standard provisions produced substantially larger stiffness estimates than experimental values for shear
walls. Study results, therefore, indicate that improvements in the stiffness provisions of all investigated
standards for concrete buildings may be validated (Kwon & Ghannoum, 2016).
Special concentrically braced frames have been used to resist lateral loads after the disappointing
performance due to severe damage caused by earthquake in special moment resisting frame. It results to
stringent requirements and restrictions now required for SMRFs, heavier beams and columns must be used
in these systems, resulting in complex connection details and high labor costs. Conversely, special
concentrically braced frames are relatively easy to construct and cost-effective, making them advantageous
over SMRFs. SCBFs are lateral load resisting systems that dissipate earthquake energy through buckling
of compressive braces and yielding of tensile braces. SCBF are divided into three configurations namely V-
type, inverted V-type (chevron) and X-type, however X-type became rarely used bracing configuration due
to its costly connections. In terms of seismic design of brace-intersected girders, V-type and chevron
frames usually led to deep girders that were also not desirable, so in an attempt to reduce girder size,
engineers have been using two-story X-bracing systems that consist of V-type and inverted V-type bracing
in alternating stories (Momenzadeh, 2017). Eccentric Braces Frames (EBFs) consists of a small connecting
link often known as ductile link. This ink provides the essential ductility and the energy dissipation to the
structure. This configuration is constructed to provide eccentricity between the bracing tips and column tip.
The interstorey drift of EBF is considered to provide uniform ductility over the stories of the building.
Uniform storey ductility over all stories for a building is usually desired in seismic design (Yamini Komath,
2017).
Lateral load resisting systems such as shear wall and bracing systems should be adopted in a multi-storey
building with a requirement of resisting higher value of seismic forces. Braced frame system is a structural
system which is design to resist earthquake and wind forces. Braced frame mostly consisting of steel
members. The members in a braced frame system are intended to work in tension and compression.
Braced frame can be classified as concentric and eccentric. Compare to unbraced reinforced concrete
buildings, there is a reduction of 78.27% in maximum storey drift when the X-braced frame is used
(Choudhary & Khare, 2018). Shear wall is a concrete wall constructed to resist lateral forces in a building. A
comparison between the shear wall system and braced frame system has been done using E-TABS
software. The results show that the weight of the shear wall is 88.9% higher than the braced frame. In
terms of cost, bracing is 30.1% higher than the shear wall (Kumar & Pandian, 2016).
Continuous beams are commonly used if it rests to three or more supports which act as redundant support
reactions. There were two types of failure affected by the position and size of web openings regardless of
24
the shear span to the overall depth (a/h) ratio. The load capacity of beams that had web opening in external
shear spans was almost equal to those of continuous deep beams that had no opening at all. The increase
of the opening size led to a high reduction in load capacity, and the effect of web opening on the behavior
and strength of simply span deep beams was generally similar to the continuous ones. The ultimate
capacity increased with decreasing (a/d) or with decreasing the size of the openings (Khattab, 2016).
Reinforced concrete (RC) is now widely used in a variety of structures owing to its versatility, high
compressive strength, durability and resistance to fire and water damage. The vast usage of concrete
structures calls for the economical design, and thus, many attempts have been made to optimize the
structural design of RC structures. The conventional structural design of steel-reinforced concrete beams
involves iterative design and checks for section dimensions and the amount of steel reinforcement. The
process usually starts with a trial section, where the depth of the beam is selected based on guidelines for
deflection control. The composite flexural resistance of the trial section is checked against the applied
bending moment, considering the effects of the self-weight. The concrete and steel used in the reinforced
concrete beam greatly influence the cost of the construction (Tesfamariam, 2014). Steel structures are
designed daily by structural engineers. The process of steel design includes a structural analysis to
produce axial force, shear force, and bending moment followed by a design check to a structural
specification to verify that each member and connection has adequate strength. Advanced analysis is well
recognized as an alternative design tool to the traditional member-based design method. It provides
structural engineers a more reliable design method which shortens design time because there is no need
for separate member/section capacity checks. Also, it shows the failure mode of the structure, enabling the
designer to consider the consequences of failure. And in most cases, using system-based design by
advanced analysis leads to a reduction in the weight of steel used (Liu, 2016).
In Construction, time is one of the most important factors aside from budget and scope. Steel construction
is more advantageous than Reinforced Concrete structure because it saves time from creating the
formworks, mixing and matching of concrete, and it has no curing stage. Another advantage of using steel
framing is that, it has less weight than concrete so the effect of seismic loads is lesser since base shear is
dependent on the weight of the structure. It is found out that bending moments in beams and columns are
much greater in reinforced concrete than steel, so it implies that using long-span steel beams reduces
vertical columns which also minimize the cost of the construction. In conclusion, steel framing can
withstand heavier loads and deflection than concrete framing (Sangave, 2015). Whenever a building is
constructed, it has 70–75 % material component and 25–30% labor component. In western countries, the
cost of labor is very high, whereas South Asia the cost of labor is less expensive or one can say very
cheap. Hence if one needs to do faster construction the best is to do it with steel, where no time is wasted
since they come in predetermined section based on structure engineering calculation and at site, they only
need to be either be refitted or welded as per shop drawings. Whereas if these buildings are to done in Asia
they are done with lesser steel in the form of reinforcement and rest is taken care of with compressive
cement concrete by using the cast-in-situ method. Since steel in Asian region is costly and labor is cheap,
they are done in RCC. Here, the engineers have found a cost-effective balance in making buildings by
innovatively using the compressive strength of concrete & tensile strength of steel with its lesser quantity in
the form of reinforcement. (Grag, 2018).
In Mozambique, the general notion of an emergency shelter or such as an evacuation center was defined
as a place of temporary accommodation shelter including basic conditions for people that are victims during
the threat, the state or fact of being about to happen and the occurrence of the disaster. Accommodation
centers are defined as a safe place providing temporary shelter, food, water, clothes, and health, to the
25
group of people and households, before and after the occurrence of a disaster. Accommodation centers
can be pre-existing infrastructures, which are the permanent buildings and facilities that are used for public
or community services, such as schools, sports centers, factories, and religious buildings. Provisional
settlements that are placed on plain areas, which are suitable for setting up shelters made up of tarpaulins
or tents. Accommodation centers can also be classified as an evacuation center, according to the longevity
of stay and the conditions they provide. Evacuation centers site conditions are basic and consequently,
they can only be used as an immediate shelter for the first reception. The infrastructure can provide good
services and therefore, it can accommodate people for a longer period in dignified conditions (Martinez &
Navaza, 2015). With any disaster, a multi-purpose evacuation center is a must in every barangay. It should
have an architectural design that can accommodate the population of a certain barangay or town. An
evacuation center can be a temporary shelter to many families during times of calamities must include
accommodation for the people‟s basic needs. Similar to a P36 million two-storey evacuation center opens
in San Jose de Buenavista, Antique, it has rooms, bathrooms, toilets, kitchen, dining area, and storage
rooms which can serve people up to 18 towns from the province of antique during times of calamities (Yap,
2019). Evacuation is the fast movement of individuals off from the immediate threat or impact of a disaster
to a safer place of shelter. It is commonly characterized by a short time frame, from hours to weeks, within
which emergency procedures need to be enacted to save lives and minimize exposure to harm. Typhoon
Yolanda (International Codename: Haiyan) made its initial landfall on 8 November 2013 in the Philippines in
Guiuan, Eastern Samar, with the eye of the storm passing directly over the municipality. Peak winds
reached 380 kilometers per hour (235 mph) with sustained wind speeds of 315 kilometers per hour. During
a disaster, evacuation center is designed to provide evacuees with safe shelter during a disaster for the
preservation of life. The evacuation center is not designed to function as a collective center for displaced
persons post-disaster. The evacuation center may be utilized for emergency shelter only in the instance
that vulnerable individuals (older people, pregnant women, unaccompanied children and persons with
disability) have limited or no access to more appropriate emergency shelter solutions (IOM, 2014).
In Zamboanga City, they minimize the use of schools as a temporary shelter typhoon and other natural
calamities because they don‟t want to have any disruption for the students after the disaster. The public
works department has already completed three evacuation centers costing 102 million in Zamboanga. It is
built to be gender-sensitive and can accommodate persons with disabilities. They also include wheelchair
ramps, railings, separate toilets for male and female, an infirmary, laundry and drying room and an
accommodation area (Marasigan, 2019). Ormocanons now have an evacuation center that will provide
accommodation to evacuees during natural catastrophes. Mayor Gomez stated that Ormoc City is
frequently hit by typhoons and other calamities, because of such; an evacuation center in Ormoc City,
Leyte, with complete facilities was established on January 17, 2019. It is a two-story accommodation
building with a 200KVA generator, it has facilities like toilet and bathroom building, laundry/drying, and
water tank building, office and infirmary building, generator room, pump room, garbage disposal, and septic
tank (Victoria, 2018). The evacuation center in Batangas was established on 8th of august, 2018. The
stated evacuation center has 3000 square meters and can accommodate 3000 evacuees and
environmental-friendly because the construction did not use trees as a part of their materials. It is also a
multi-purpose evacuation center for the purpose that it will not only be an evacuation center but it can also
be used as a covered park, gathering, and entertainment activity area when there are no calamities
(Zabarte, 2018 ). The National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC) formally
opened a regional evacuation center (REC), the first six evacuation center will be in Cordilleras. It is an
alternative for schools and barangay halls that are usually used as an evacuation center. The Regional
Director of the Department of Social Welfare and Development-Cordillera Administrative Region, Janet
26
Armas said that one of the requests of the parents, that the schools should not be used as an evacuation
center because the children should still be able to go to school after the disaster. It is also requested by the
DepEd, that it should be an evacuation center where every family has privacy. The facility can
accommodate 33 families, and it should have a shower room and laundry areas (Cornes, 2019).
2.2.2 Review of Related Literature for Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context

To design foundations properly, the geotechnical characteristics and allowable bearing capacity of the soil
must be known because the design would depend on the strength and behavior of the soil. The east coast,
which includes Marikina City, is mostly composed of quarterly alluvium soil on the surface. The allowable
bearing capacities of the area at depths of 1 to 2 meters have values ranging from 0 to 200 kPa because
the surface geology of the soil is generally loose. It can be concluded that the cities near the bodies of
water, such as Manila, Navotas, and Marikina, have low soil bearing capacities. Thus, the use of shallow
foundations is only recommended for structures that have low design loads since the soil is not capable of
carrying heavy loads (Dungca, Concepcion, Limyuen, See, & Vicencio, 2017).
Figure 2-10. Soil Bearing Capacity at a Depth of 5-m in Metro Manila

Source: Soil Bearing Capacity Reference for Metro Manila, Philippines by Dungca, J.R., et al.
Liquefaction occurs in a ground composed of loose sandy soil saturated with water. When an earthquake
happens, stresses will be induced on such ground in which the pore water pressure rises in the soil and the
effective stresses in the soil are lost, as well as the strength of the soil itself. Consequently, the soil
becomes softer as pore water pressure rises even if the effective stress is not lost completely (Yoshida,
2018). There are eight active faults namely surrounding Metro Manila that are capable of triggering
liquefaction in the said area. Among these active faults, Manila Trench was found out to be an area fault
rupture while the Valley Fault System was the only one that has a few recorded movements in the past 368
years. Largely influenced by the soil type, Figure 2-15 shows the liquefaction probability of different areas in
Metro Manila for a given earthquake magnitude represented by different colors (Dungca & Chua, 2016).
27
Figure 2-11. Liquefaction Susceptibility in Metro Manila
Source: Development of a Probabilistic Liquefaction Potential Map for Metro Manila by Dungca, J.R., and Chua, R.A.D.
The soil in its natural state may be inappropriate to support structures, thus, it needs improvement to
increase its bearing capacity and decrease possible settlement (Gaafer, Bassioni, & Mostafa, 2015). An
increase in the stiffness of the soil profile is one of the effects of ground improvement on a structure. The
seismic ground motions at the surface have been affected by the soil stiffness of the soil. Making the soil
stiff can increase the strength of accelerations at the surface but can decrease the displacements (Ministry
of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE) and New Zealand Geotechnical Society (NZGS), 2017).
Vibro compaction is one of the ground improvement techniques which compacts granular soils by
rearranging the particles of the soil into a denser state. The process involves the penetration of the
oscillating vibrator into a designed depth with full water pressure and compacting the soil from the full depth
of penetration upwards (Keller Holding GmbH, 2017).Vibro replacement stone columns is a technique that
28
is mainly used to mitigate the possible danger due to liquefaction, reduce stress levels in the surrounding
soil, and increase the soil density during installation process (Salem, Frikha, & Bouassida, 2017).The most
commonly used method for this is the dry bottom-feeding system in which the granular materials located at
the bottom of the borehole are allowed to feed with the help of the nose cone of the vibrator (Al Ammari &
BG, 2016). It can treat different kinds of soils and thickens coarse soil by vibratory techniques, unlike Vibro
compaction which is not allowed to treat certain soils such as sand, clay, and silt (Shirazi, Zarrin, &
Valipourian, 2015).Dynamic compaction is one of the ground improvement techniques for liquefaction
mitigation and strengthening the foundation in sands containing little or no silt content through vibration and
impact-induced liquefaction, and dissipation of pore water from the soil (S. Thevanayagam, 2016). The
application of this method is restricted near the slopes due to instability problems and it is not effective
adjacent to slopes (Elham Ghanbari, 2015).
Stone columns ground improvement method was first used in France, in the year the 1830s. The stone
columns are composed of compacted gravel or crushed stones that are arranged by a vibrator. Stone
columns are enormously used to improve the soil bearing capacity of the poor ground and to reduce the
risk of soil settlement of structures that are built on them. A stone column is one of the ground improvement
or stabilization methods that are used to increase the soil‟s strength and to decrease the compressibility of
soft and loose fine graded soils It also accelerates the consolidation effect and reducing the liquefaction
potential of the soil (Mokhtari & Kalantari, 2017). In some construction projects, problems arise due to the
construction site for not being stable enough to support the structure that will be built into it. The problem
becomes severe when there is no possibility of the availability of an alternative location with a better ground
condition. Civil Engineers formulate a solution in order to accomplish the project of meeting the challenge of
the site either by choosing to provide an expensive, but much more safer and stabilized foundation design
to the proposed structure or by means of improving the ground conditions to make it suitable to support the
structure that will be built into it. Safely, and yet the cost-effectiveness of the construction project is
maintained. For this, several proposed methods of ground improvement are available. The suitability of
different ground improvement methods depends upon the type of soil, drainage conditions, relative density,
degree of expansiveness, etc. The choice to choose to take up a particular ground improvement method
depends upon the type of soil to be improved, the extent of the soil and its cost involved (Khan, Yadav, &
Dube, 2017).
In Australia and the Pacific Region, they are experiencing an uncommon growth in terms of diversity and
application of ground improvement methods and technologies and enabling the construction on soft or
unstable grounds. And as the following types of becoming more complex, and also its pressure on building
on poorer sites, due to social, economic, and environmental constraints, the new methods and techniques
provide valuable tools to enable the development of these sites. One of these ground improvement
methods and technologies is the dynamic replacement, which is widely used where the thickness of
compressible soils is only limited up to six meters to seven meters. The dynamic replacement method is
derived from the dynamic compaction method but adapted to cohesive soils. Craters are formed due to
repetitively dropping a large heavy pounder progressively backfilled with sand, gravel or rock until large
vertical ballasted pillars are created (Spaulding, Friedlaender, Wong, & Jones, 2017).
The safety standards and building codes require the acceptable value for the properties of soil to be used for
design and construction, and it covers a significant portion of the overall project cost. The usual methods in
improving the properties of soil are through mechanical and chemical soil stabilization. (Galupino, 2017).
Grouting is the method of injecting cementitious materials into the pore voids of soils or fissures and cracks
29
in rocks. It increases the bearing capacity and stability of soil and rocks. The jet grouting method provides
the high bearing capacity; it is a solution to the settlement problems, it can be applied to nearly any type of
soil, and it has a short production period. Thus, not only the risk of liquefaction was eliminated but also an
increase of more than three times the bearing capacity of the foundation was obtained (Öztürk, Banu,
Şadoǧlu,, Dadaşbilge, & Angın, 2017). Compaction is the method of applying mechanical energy to a soil
mass to rearrange the particles and making it dense through the removal of air from the voids between the
soil grains (Patel, 2019). The ground subsidence and the improvement depth tend to increase as the number
of compaction increases, but it seems that the increase in ground subsidence and improvement depth is
reduced after compacting more than 12–14 times (Moon, Jung, Lee, & Kang, 2019). Soil compaction can
offer practical solutions for many foundation problems and is especially useful for reducing total settlements
in sands (Gopalsamy, Sakthivel, Arun, Vigneshwaran, & Mohammed Harish, 2017)
In general, foundations should not be made in organic soils due to their variable properties over time and
also under influence of water. As demonstrated by these tests, addition of a binder like cement allows
improving strength properties of a soil. We can hardly determine proper cement to soil ratio due to random
parameters of the latter. For the soils under examinations, the minimum addition of 170 kg/m3 is that which
provides a change which is visible and variable in time. The increase of binder content leads to better soil-
cement properties; however, it should be born in mind that such material has very random properties
dependent on many factors. Hence, economic application of DSM Dry technology may require detailed
testing and supervision for each one project under design. The above analysis was aimed at determining of
cement-soil properties. It shows that: the more cement in the cement-soil, the greater its strength, the
largest increase in adhesive strength can be observed in the initial stage of samples maturation, the higher
binder content, the faster material degrades after damage, the maturation time of the sample has no
significant effect on its behavior after damage (Jendrysik, Kiecana, & Szabowicz, 2018).
In situ Soil Mixing (SM) is a versatile ground improvement method. It can be used to stabilize a wide range
of soils, including soft clays, silts and fine-grained sands. Stabilization of organic soils such as peat and
sludge are also possible, but is more difficult and requires carefully tailored binders and execution
procedures. However, the engineering properties of the stabilized soil will not only depend on the
characteristics of the binder. They will also depend, to a large extent, on the inherent characteristics of
each soil and the way it has been deposited, as well as on mixing and curing conditions at a particular
worksite. Deep Soil Mixing (DSM) is used for stabilization of the soil to a minimum depth of 3 m. The
binders are injected into the soil in dry or slurry form through hollow mixing shafts tipped with various
cutting tools and equipped with auger flights, mixing blades or paddles to increase the efficiency of the
mixing process. The shafts, mounted in single or multiple arrangements, rotate about the vertical axis and
produce individual or overlapping soil-mix columns. In some methods, the mechanical mixing is enhanced
by simultaneously injecting fluid grout at high velocity through nozzles in the mixing or cutting tools. Dry
binders may be also deposited in shallow trenches before commencement of in-depth mixing (Topolnicki,
2016).
The main purposes of Boskose and Gokceoglu‟s study were to compare in situ performances of two ground
improvement techniques, which are jet grout and deep soil mixing techniques. In the test site, three jet
grout colons and three deep soil mix colons having same cement content were constructed. After 28 days
of curing, the colons were excavated and the core specimens were extracted. The UCS and unit weight
tests were applied on the core specimens. When considering the UCS test results, the core specimens
30
obtained from the deep mix colons was found to be approximately 3–4 times higher than those obtained
from the jet grout colons. (Baskose & Gokceoglu, 2018)
Ground improvement is an important requirement in today‟s construction industry as land reclamation is

becoming increasingly popular. The stone column technique is a very efficient method of improving the
strength parameters of soil like bearing capacity and reducing consolidation settlement. It offers a much
economical and sustainable alternative to piling and deep foundation solutions. The major conclusions
arrived at are as follows:
 Stone columns improve the bearing capacity and reduces the settlement of weak soil strata
 Owing to rapid consolidation due to the accelerated dissipation of excess pore water pressure into
the drainage path formed by stone columns, construction can be started quickly
 Thorough subsoil investigation from bore logs supplemented by penetration tests and other in-situ
test results should be strictly carried out before designing the stone column
 Stone columns when installed at a distance of 4.87m or more eliminates the damage caused by
vibrations
Ground improvement when implemented through stone column technique aids in a much stable solution to
construction in weak cohesive soils (Karun & Nigee, 2016)
Stone column ground improvement involves adding vertical columns of stone into the ground to a depth of
at least 4m below the ground surface. A layer of compacted gravel can then be put over the top of the
columns, ready for the construction of new house foundations. The stone column method is quick to
construct and can be done at any time of the year. Stone columns are extensively used to improve the
bearing capacity of poor ground and reduce the settlement of structures built on them. A stone column is
one of the soil stabilization methods that is used to increase strength, decrease the compressibility of soft
and loose fine graded soils, accelerate a consolidation effect and reduce the liquefaction potential of soils.
The columns consist of compacted gravel or crushed stone arranged by a vibrator. The settlement behavior
of Stone column with aggregate which is used conventionally is found to be less when compared with the
other materials. Stone columns with encasement provide good results not only improving its strength and
also prevent the column from bulging. Among the different materials used Aggregates along with the
encasement gives higher strength than other materials. The values of other materials are moderately
nearer to the value of stone column with conventional material aggregates (Thanaraj & Brema, 2019)
Ground improvement techniques are the techniques used to improve and alter poor ground conditions in
order construction can meet project performance requirements in an economical way. Stone columns
repeatedly used for stabilization of soft soils. For the support of different structures, use of stone columns is
increasing day by day. Stone columns are used for the improvement of settlement and bearing capacity of
soft soils in reasonable fare and friendly towards the environment. In present paper, a review to analyses
the behavior of stone columns used in different types of constructions such as oil storage tanks,
embankments, buildings etc. The reviewed literature concluded about the stone columns and the use of
geosynthetics used for the encasement of stone columns experimentally and numerically. By providing
encasement it gives more improved results. The stone columns designed are of types short, floating and
fully penetrated. In short stone columns punching failure occurred while in fully penetrated stone columns
31
bulging failure takes place. The stone columns are constructed single or in groups depending upon the
requirement. In group it maybe in triangular or in square pattern based on loading criterion. By using
different type of factors according to the location different types of researches takes place to improve the
properties of the soft soil (Singh & Sahu, 2019)
32
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN CONSTRAINT, TRADE-OFFS, AND STANDARDS
3.1 Design Constraints

Design Constraints are the restrictions or limits to be considered to determine the appropriate design for the
proposed project. These conditions are the requirements and standards set by the client depending on his
budget, interest, and specifications. Constraints will be paired with each trade-off to help the designer
measure and chose the most applicable design for the project.
3.1.1 Design Constraints for Context I Structural Engineering Context
3.1.1.1 Quantitative Constraint

Economic (Construction Cost)
Building a structure whether large or small scale projects are expensive. However, it is possible to choose
more affordable materials and methods of construction which may help lower the costs. In Structural
Context, the designers will estimate the construction cost on each trade-off based on the labor cost and
materials to be used for the proposed structure
After estimating, the designers will evaluate which trade-offs will be best suitable for the proposed budget
without compromising the strength of the structure. In these trade-offs, the designers will be obtaining
desirable outcomes to know what will be the most economical under given circumstances.
 Limitation: the construction cost of the project set by the client is limited to an amount of Php
35,000,000.00 only.
Sustainability (Maintenance Cost)
The sustainability of the building that the designers wish to construct is one of the constraints to be
considered. The life span of the structure is one of the top concerns in every project. This building focuses
on meeting the human needs in times of calamities and its ability to withstand long periods of time. The
trade-offs will study the advantages and disadvantages of each material and methods and will be evaluated
by comparing the maximum lifespan that the designers will be using for the construction of the building. The
structure that the designers would select is the tradeoff that would help to withstand natural calamities and
can stand for several years.

Constructability (Duration)
Efficient planning of activities and allocation of resources may result in a fast-paced construction. The
designers shall abide by the conditions given by the client in terms of the duration of construction. This
constraint helps the designers prevent errors, delays, and unnecessary costs. Therefore, this constraint
enables the designers to fully identify the factors which may cause a delay in the construction and what
remedy must be done to compensate for errors or delayed works.
 Limitation: the construction of the project must be completed within 400 days.
33
Risk Assessment (Cost of Risk)
Risk Assessment is identifying the potential hazards that can cause harm while evaluating the risk
associated with the identified hazard. This constraint helps the structure to maintain its safety. Safety may
indicate a structure‟s ability to protect against a natural disaster like floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, and
tornadoes. Therefore, the designers use structural code to prevent the potential hazard that makes the
structure deflect and collapse.
Earthquake is one of the most dangerous natural disasters that can structures. As earthquakes hit the
structure, it produces inertia forces that can cause deformations and horizontal and vertical shaking in the
structure. Therefore, this hazard generates inertia forces, and lateral displacements on the structure and
the project is located 7.4 km away from the west valley fault.
 Limitation: this constraint will focus on lateral displacement for structural context. The lateral
displacement will be set from the limits given in the National Structural Code of the Philippines
2015.
3.1.1.2 Qualitative Constraint

Functionality
This constraint mainly concerns with the structure‟s functionality and its alignment with its purpose. The
structure should be designed based on its purpose and function. For an evacuation center, it is designed to
provide evacuees a temporary shelter during a disaster. The designers must see to it that the evacuation
center must be spacious, well illuminated, elevated and suitable.
Environmental
An environmental constraint is a limitation of building a particular structure with the material and method to
be used, based on the environmental impact on the surroundings in construction. The designers have
researched a set of trade-offs that will be compared to one another, whether the materials and methods to
be used in the development of the design will be beneficial to the environment.
Aesthetics
The aesthetic constraint of the project is a limitation on the architectural plan for the design of the structure.
The original aesthetic of the project is to use windows, doors, and other design of the building, the
structural plan for calamity proof may take changes in the preliminary configuration depending on the
location of the project were prone to hazards. The aesthetics may need to be modified, or redesign in terms
of the design constraint of the tradeoffs and may affect the preliminary design and ventilation of the
building.
34
3.1.2 Design Constraints for Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
3.1.2.1 Quantitative Constraint

Economic (Construction Cost)
Constructing a structure is costly, whether huge or small scale projects. However, it is possible to choose
more affordable materials and methods of construction, which may help lessen the costs. Depending on the
type of soil that the structure will built, climate, and based on building codes. This set of trade-offs will be
evaluated on whether the materials and methods will be inexpensive and, at the same time, be beneficial to
the structure. In these trade-offs, the designers will be obtaining desirable outcomes to identify what will be
the most economical under given circumstances.
In Geotechnical Context, the designers will estimate the construction cost on each trade-off based on the
labor cost and equipment to be used for the ground improvement for the structure.
 Limitation: the construction cost of the project set by the client is limited to an amount of Php
5,000,000.00 only.
Sustainability (Maintenance Cost)
Sustainability constraint is the ability of the structure to be able to function and remain for a long time. It is
the duration of use as intended by the designers, after which it may need to be replaced. Before this
duration has elapsed, it should remain adequate for the purpose.
In Geotechnical Context, the ground improvement must make the soil of the project site withstand natural
catastrophes and can stand for numerous years. Several parameters will be investigated on these
constraints that can affect the design life of the structure.

Constructability (Duration)
Constructability defines the ease and efficiency with which buildings can be built. The more constructible a
structure is, the more cost-effective it will be. This constraint has a significant influence on the project cost
because it has a direct relationship with the duration of the project. As the project duration lengthens, the
labor cost and equipment cost increase and thus making the project more expensive. This constraint will
focus on the period of the execution of each trade-off.
 Limitation: the construction of the project must be completed within 400 days.
Risk Assessment (Settlement)
Risk assessment is a term used to describe the overall process or method used to distinguish hazards and
risk factors that have the potential to cause harm and assess the risk associated with that danger. This
constraint helps the structure to maintain its safety. Safety is one of the most critical factors that affect the
design of every project. The safety of a structure is the one that must have the most outstanding
consideration among all. All construction projects carry some level of risk. When threats become a reality,
35
they can be damaging to the successful completion of the project. Therefore, the designers will use
structural code to prevent the possible danger that can make the structure collapse. This constraint focuses
on the settlement of soil as it affects the safety of the structure.
 Limitation: this constraint will focus on settlement of the structure for geotechnical context. The
allowable settlement shall not be exceeding 25mm.
3.1.2.2 Qualitative Constraint

Functionality
This constraint mainly concerns with the state of the structure properly functioning based on its purpose.
The structure should be designed based on its use and function. For an evacuation center, it is intended to
provide evacuees a temporary shelter during a disaster. The designers must see to it that the evacuation
center must be spacious, well lighted, elevated, and suitable.
Environmental
An environmental constraint is a limitation of building a particular structure with the equipment and methods
to be used, based on the environmental impact on the surroundings in construction. The designers have
researched a set of trade-offs that will be analyzed, whether the equipment and methods to be used in the
ground improvement will be beneficial to the environment at the same time to the design itself.
Societal
Societal constraints to refer to the social behaviors and characteristics that influence the sustainability of a
design project within a community. Societal constraints can include formal practices such as government
regulations or informal norms, including social preferences. Designs over the years have been increasingly
successful because of increased knowledge of these societal constraints. Hence, the designers will be
analyzing a set of trade-offs, whether the equipment or methods to be executed on the improvement of the
ground will be beneficial to the structure at the same time will not be a nuisance to the nearby communities.
36
3.2 Design Trade-offs
The trade-offs are the alternative ways to be analyzed and compared to one another to determine the best
design for the project concerning constraints. The designers will weigh these trade-offs that best fit to
design a Four-Storey Multi-Purpose Evacuation Center at Brgy. Bagumbayan, Pililla, Rizal.
3.2.1 Structural Engineering Trade-offs (Context I)

Special Moment-Resisting Frame
Reinforced concrete special moment frames are used as part of seismic force-resisting systems in
buildings that are designed to resist earthquakes. Beams, columns, and beam-column joints in moment
frames are proportioned and detailed to resist flexural, axial, and shearing actions that result as a building
sways through multiple displacement cycles during strong earthquake ground shaking. Special
proportioning and detailing requirements result in a frame capable of resisting strong earthquake shaking
without significant loss of stiffness or strength. These moment-resisting frames are called “Special Moment
Frames” because of these additional requirements, which improve the seismic resistance in comparison
with less stringently detailed Intermediate and Ordinary Moment Frames.
Figure 3-1: Special Moment Resisting Frame

(Source: Google Images)
37
Table 3-1: Advantages & Disadvantages of Special Moment Resisting Frame
Advantages Disadvantages
 Produces greater deflection and drift
 Provides flexibility for architectural
compared to that of braced frames or
design and layout
shear walls
 Produces localized stress
concentrations at rigid joints
 Requires care in erection of
connections in order to resist lateral
loads properly
 Expensive moment connections
Special Braced Frame (Building Frame System)
Braced frames resist loads through a series of trusses made of steel members. The diagonal members of
the trusses resist lateral loads in the form of axial stresses, either by tension or compression. Steel
bracing is a highly efficient and economical method of resisting horizontal forces in a frame structure.
Bracing has been used to stabilize laterally the majority of the world‟s tallest building structures as well as
one of the major retrofit measures. Bracing is efficient because the diagonals work in axial stress and
therefore call for minimum member sizes in providing stiffness and strength against horizontal shear.
Figure 3-2: Special Braced Frame

38
Table 3-2: Advantages & Disadvantages of Special Braced Frame
 Produces problems for layout of
 Can be located internally or externally
windows and doors due to obstruction
for flexibility of architectural design
of bracings
 Requires fireproofing materials for steel
 Accommodates service penetrations
members so that takes up space
 Need for large gusset plates for
 Can be located within partition walls connections between beams and
columns
 No need for moment connections
Shear Wall Frame System
A dual system is a structural system in which an essentially complete frame provides support for gravity
loads, and resistance to lateral loads is provided by a specially detailed moment-resisting frame and shear
walls or braced frames. Both shear walls and frames participate in resisting the lateral loads resulting from
earthquakes or wind or storms, and the portion of the forces resisted by each one depends on its rigidity,
modulus of elasticity and its ductility, and the possibility to develop plastic hinges in its parts. The frame is a
group of beams and columns connected with each other by rigid joints, and the frames bend in accordance
with shear mode, whereas the deflection of the shear walls is by a bending mode like the cantilever walls.
As a result of the difference in deflection properties between frames and walls, the frames will try to pull the
shear walls in the top of the building, while in the bottom, they will try to push the walls.
Table 3-3: Advantages & Disadvantages of Special Shear Walls

 Cost efficient since only a few shear  Decrease in stiffness and strength
walls are required when there are openings
 Have large stiffness and strength for  Produce concentrated stress in the
resistance walls since the walls support the whole
building‟s lateral stability
 Can provide torsional resistance to
structure if placed in a symmetrical  Produce large effects of overturning on
layout shear walls
 Can be used as fire compartment walls,  Creates large bearing pressure for
stairs, or lift shafts foundations due to self-weight of walls
39
 Will not obstruct architectural layout
Figure 3-3: Special Shear Wall Frame

3.2.2 Geotechnical Engineering Trade-offs (Context II)
The project is located at Barangay Bagumbayan Pililla Rizal, which has a soil type and the upper 3
meters of this site is characterized by weak soil, loose soil layers were observed in this layer. Considering
the possible loads for a Four-Storey Multi-Purpose Evacuation Center, the use of shallow foundations is
recommended. Shallow foundation systems consisting of either combined of spread footings is feasible
which can be selected for this site, considering medium loading structure. Considering shallow foundation
system founded on these types of soils, the following values of allowable soil bearing capacity can be used
for design (110 kPa, 115 kPa). The suggested depth of embedment of foundation is at least 1.8 m to 2
meters from the ground surface. Ground improvements such as grouting could work for weak soil layers,
the upper 3 meters of this site is characterized by weak soil, and loose soil layers were observed in this
layer. Where grout improves the soil bearing capacity reduces excessive settlements and eliminates
possible foundation problems. (Geovince Geological Consultancy, 2018) The following are the three
methodologies in soil improvement and ground modification that the designers considered for the
foundation of the structure:
Jet Grouting
Jet grouting is a soil stabilization process whereby cement slurry is injected into soil at a high velocity to
form a soil-concrete matrix. The effectiveness of the jet grouting is very much influenced by the nature of
40
eroding capability of soil. Gravelly soil and clean sand are highly erodible, whereas highly plastic clays are
difficult to erode. Grout material includes cement, bentonite, bituminous emulsion, sodium silicate solution
etc. The spacing of the grout hole varies from 2 to 5 meters depending upon the conditions of the soil/rock.
The grout pressure is generally kept less than one-fourth of the effective overburden pressure. The grout
solutions are prepared by using cement-water, water-bentonite, chemical like silicates, acrylic resins etc.
Care should take to use the chemical grout as some of them may contaminate the ground water. The
choice of the grout solution depends upon grain size range and permeability of the soil. (Das, 2011)
Table 3-4: Advantages & Disadvantages of Jet Grouting
 Large cemented material column creation  Smallest geometry achieved.
without causing huge ground disturbances
(subsoil).
 Columns form continuous elements  Very difficult to control heave in cohesive
forming in different shapes thus improving soils.
the mechanical properties and decreasing
porosity.
 Improvement in construction process thus  Complex system and equipment.
emerging out with a better design
philosophy.
 It is attractive nature in terms of confined  Requires significant experience.
space working and under difficult site
conditions.
Source: (The Constructor-Civil Engineering Home for Civil Engineers, 2019)
Figure 3-4. Jet Grouting Procedure

Source: (The Constructor-Civil Engineering Home for Civil Engineers, 2019)
41
Stone Column
A method now being used to increase the load-bearing capacity of shallow foundations on soft clay layers
is the construction of stone columns. This generally consists of water jetting into the soft clay layer to make
a circular hole that extends through the clay to firmer soil. The hole is then filled with imported gravel. The
gravel in the hole is gradually compacted as the vibrator is withdrawn. The gravel used for the stone
column has a size range of 6 to 40mm. Stone columns usually have diameters of 0.5 to 0.75 meters and
are spaced at about 1.5 to 3 meters center to center. After stone columns are constructed, a fill material
should always be placed over the ground surface and compacted before the foundation is constructed. The
stone columns tend to reduce the settlement of foundations at allowable loads. (Das, 2011)
Table 3-5: Advantages & Disadvantages of Stone Column

 Stone columns can be used to improve the  Sensitive clays do not adequately regain
stability of a slope by creating discrete zones shear strength. Due to this, ground
of high shear strength within a low shear improvement by the stone column cannot be
strength soil mass. achieved in clays.
 Stone columns can enhance the performance  Stone columns when installing at a distance
of a low bearing capacity soil layer by of less than 3.66 meters can cause high
transferring most of a heavy surface load to a lateral pressures and displacement of
deeper, stronger layer. adjacent structures.
 Stone columns can be used to reduce the

 Severe cracks could be seen in structures
amounts of total and differential settlement
close by the stone column site due to the
that a new embankment would experience if
vibrations of 30-50 Hz (Hertz).
placed over a low strength soil.
 Stone columns will provide a conduit for the
 Stone column installation in extremely
flow of groundwater under excess pore
cohesive clays and silts is suitable only if the
pressure, thus decreasing the time for the
preloading facility is available, especially for
settlement to occur below a new
storage tank construction.
embankment.
Source: (Karun Mani, 2013)
42
Figure 3-5: Stone Column Installation
Source: (Baker, 2015)
Dry Deep Soil Mixing
Dry deep soil mixing methods such as lime, cement, or lime-cement columns have been used to improve
soft, cohesive soils. Lime-cement columns have been used to reduce total and differential settlements
using rationale similar to stone columns. These columns are stiffer and relatively less compressible than
the surrounding soil; therefore, carry a greater portion of the applied load thus reducing total and differential
settlement. The amount of settlement reduction is a function of the area replacement ratio and the stress
concentration ratio, which is a function of the column stiffness compared to the untreated soil. These types
of columns are used to reinforce existing soils by increasing the mass shear strength, thus increasing the
stability of embankments and slopes. Typically, the columns are placed in a grid pattern under the
embankments and in interconnected rows under the slope to provide sufficient resistance to bending. Lime,
cement, or lime-cement columns can be used to increase the stability of anchored sheet pile walls. The
columns increase the passive earth pressure at the toe of the wall. In addition, columns placed behind the
wall can reduce the lateral earth pressure acting on the sheet piles. (NYSDOT Geotechnical Design
Manual, 2013)
43
Table 3-6: Advantages & Disadvantages of Dry Deep Soil Mixing
 Dry deep soil mixing provides an economic  The full strength of the columns may not be
benefit when compared to other conventional mobilized when the pH of the groundwater is
foundation methods. acidic or the content of carbon dioxide is high.
 The air-driven injection process may

 Dry deep soil mixing method generates little
accumulate large quantities of air in the
to no spoil, thus eliminating the high cost of
ground potentially causing heave of the
spoil disposal.
adjacent ground surface.
 Engineers‟ have a valuable resource for soil

mixing design since FHWA released a design  Mobilization of the equipment required for soil
manual for deep mixing for embankment and mixing to the project site is expensive.
foundation support.
 Soil mixing is favorable in urban conditions  There is no standardized method of quality

since the amounts of noise and vibrations control testing, making design verification
induced during construction are low. difficult and subjective.
Source: (Karun Mani, 2013)
44
Figure 3-6: Dry Deep Soil Mixing Procedure
Source: kellerasean.com
3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking

The designers summarized and ranked the trade-offs concerning different constraints using the Model on
Trade-off Strategies in Engineering Design. The ranking process is based on the degree of importance for
each criterion and scaled from 0 to 10, 10 being the highest. Likewise, the design methodology‟s ability to
satisfy the criterion is tabulated and also scaled from 0 to 10, as 10 being the highest. The computations of
ranking ability to satisfy the criteria of the design are as follows:
Equation 3.1: Percent Difference
Equation 3.2: Subordinate Rank
The designers set the governing rank as a subjective value which depends on the designers‟ perception of
how important each constraint for the design of the structure. In the Equation above, the subordinating rank
is a variable that corresponds to its percentage distance from the governing rank along the ranking scale of
0 to 10.
The value of importance rank is highly dependent on the client‟s specifications and standards wherein the
designers will make adjustments to comply and meet the client‟s needs. Since the project is to be funded
45
by the local government, thus the economic constraint will be ranked as ten (10) because the cost has a
limitation set by the client. Another constraint that should be ranked as ten (10) is Risk Assessment.
Considering it will function as an evacuation center in times of calamities, it must be durable enough to
withstand different natural phenomena for the residents to have a safe and secured temporary shelter. The
constructability and sustainability constraints are both ranked as nine (9); the duration of construction
should be considered since there are times that the construction will be delayed due to some issues like the
weather. For sustainability, it is important to evaluate the life-span of the structure depending on the
materials to be used.
Figure 3-7: Ranking Scale
3.3.1 Initial Raw Ranking for Context I Structural Engineering Context
3.3.1.1 Summary of Initial Estimate of Context I Structural Engineering Context

Table 3-7: Summary of Initial Estimate – Context I Structural Engineering Context
Structural Trade-Offs
Special Moment
Constraints Special Braced Importance Factor
Frame (Moment- Shear Wall Frame
Frame (Building
Resisting Frame System
Frame System)
System)
Economic
(Construction Cost- 21,010,880.00 24,210,837. 02 23,298,964.83 10
Php)
Constructability
280 350 320 9
(Duration-Days)
Sustainability
50 54 60 9
(Lifespan-Years)
Risk Assessment
4.10 2.89 3.24 10
(Drift-Millimeters)
Table 3-7 shows the corresponding data of trade-offs concerning different constraints that will be evaluated
to come up with a desirable design
Based on the Philippine Statistics Authority, the average cost per square meter for structures like the
evacuation center is determined to be 13,970 Php, the designers used this to initially estimate the cost for
construction. In a construction, different type of methodology is applied to help withstand different loads and
46
forces. An example of this is shear walls and a bracing system in an RCC framed structure in which wall or
system which is designed to resist shear, lateral force due to lateral loads such as earthquake and wind
pressure and to increases the ductility of the structure. Shear wall is a structural member used to resist
lateral force parallel to the plane of the wall. Wall bracing is a construction technique used to improve the
structural performance of a building by putting additional connections between the members. It is then
compared in construction in which of the frame system is more economical. The study shows that the cost
of construction of Braced Frame and Dual System with Shear wall is higher by 10.89% and
15.23%respectively, compared to Special Moment Resisting Frame (Kumawat, Bilonia, Ahmad, & Kumar,
2018).
In Multistoried building design, lateral load is mainly responsible for lateral displacement which concerns
the selection of structural system to get rid of the risk. The lateral displacement in moment frames is the
greatest among the other lateral load resisting systems investigated; the lateral displacement in dual
frames is the least while the lateral displacement in shear wall systems is slightly higher than that of the
dual system (Alandkar & Jaya, 2016). The design life and duration of construction of the trade-offs is based
on the experience and perspective of engineers that the designers asked for some information
3.3.1.2 Computation for Initial Raw Ranking of Context I Structural Engineering Context
Solution for Economic Constraint
Since Special Moment Resisting Frame is the most economical out of three trade-offs, the designers gave
it a scale of ten (10).
For Special Shear Walls (Dual System)
47
Figure 3-8: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Special Shear Wall
For Special Braced Frame (Building Frame System)
Figure 3-9: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Special Braced Frame

Solution for Constructability Constraint
Since Special Moment Resisting Frame has the lowest constructability duration out of three trade-offs, the
designers gave it a scale of ten (10).
48
For Special Shear Walls (Dual System)
Figure 3-10: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Special Shear Wall

49
Figure 3-11: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Special Braced Frame
Solution for Sustainability Constraint
Since Special Shear Walls (Dual System) has the longest lifespan out of three trade-offs, the designers
gave it a scale of ten (10).
For Special Moment Frame (Moment-Resisting Frame System)
Figure 3-12: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Special Moment Frame
50
Figure 3-13: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Special Braced Frame

Solution for Risk Assessment Constraint
Since Special Shear Walls (Dual System) is the one having the lowest Lateral Displacement, the designers
gave it a scale of ten (10).
For Special Moment Frame (Moment-Resisting Frame System)
51
Figure 3-14: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Special Moment Frame
Figure 3-15: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Special Braced Frame
52
Summary of Initial Raw Ranking for Context I Structural Engineering Context
Table 3-8: Summary of Initial Raw Ranking – Context I Structural Engineering Context
Ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale of 0 to 10)

Criterion’s
Importance (on a Special Moment
Special Shear Special Braced
Decision Criteria scale of 0 to 10) Frame (Moment-
Walls (Dual Frame (Building
Resisting Frame
System) Frame System)
System)
1. Economic 10 10 8.68 9.02
2. Constructability 9 10 8.29 9.06
3. Sustainability 9 8.33 9 10
4. Risk Assessment 10 7.05 10 8.92
Over-all Rank 335.47 342.41 350.94
In table 3-8 shows the summary of Initial Raw Ranking in the Structural Engineering Context. These values
were multiplied to the importance factor set by the client and the designers.
3.3.2 Trade-off Assessment for Context I Structural Engineering Context

The criterion‟s importance depends on the mutual decision of the client and designer. Economic and Risk
Assessment is given an importance value of ten (10), this was given since there is a restriction on budget of
the client and it is an evacuation center to when in times of calamities, it must be durable to promote the
safety of the affected residents. Sustainability and Constructability are both given an importance value of
nine (9). The designers and the client agreed that even if it has a limit on the constructability, the number
one concern for this project will be the cost for construction and the safety of the residents.
3.3.2.1 Economic Constraint Assessment

The designers calculated the initial estimate for economic constraint using the typical cost per square meter
and related studies about the three trade-offs. In the assessment of rankings, it showed that Special
Moment Resisting Frame is the most economical since the construction of the other two frames requires
more skilled workers and the materials are costly.
3.3.2.2 Constructability Constraint Assessment

In the assessment, the result showed that Special Moment Resisting Frame has the least construction
period since its construction is less complex than the other 2 tradeoffs and didn‟t require highly skilled
workers.
53
3.3.2.3 Sustainability Constraint Assessment
Special Braced Frame System is the best among the three trade-offs when it comes to durability and the
longest design life since it can withstand external and environmental effects unlike in SMRF and Shear
walls.
3.3.2.4 Risk Assessment Constraint

In the assessment of lateral displacement and with the help of some studies, Special Shear Wall (Dual
System) is the safest and has the least storey drift since the shear wall acts as damper when there are
lateral forces acting on the structure.
3.3.3 Over-all Assessment of Trade-offs for Context I Structural Engineering Context

Summing up the result of different assessments, it can be concluded that Special Braced Frame is the best
option to be used in the design configuration of the evacuation center with an overall rank of 350.94. This
trade-off ranks first only in sustainability constraint. Even if this trade-off didn‟t rank first with other
constraints; it is still the second-best option among the tradeoffs.
3.3.4 Initial Raw Ranking for Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
3.3.4.1 Summary of Initial Estimate of Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context

Table 3-9: Summary of Initial Estimate – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
Geotechnical Trade-Offs
Constraints Importance Factor
Dry Deep Soil
Stone Column Jet Grouting
Mixing
Economic
(Construction Cost- 784,110.40 3,688,420.88 1,114,082.40 10
Php)
Constructability
18 28 25 9
(Duration-Days)
Sustainability
60 75 30 9
(Lifespan-Years)
Risk Assessment
2.424810938 8.79 1.62 10
(Drift-Millimeters)
From the given table above are the estimations of construction costs for the different geotechnical trade-
offs considered by the designers. For the estimation for stone column, it is said that the total area
replacement costs up to 2085.40 Php per square meter. For estimation of jet grouting, it is said that the
total area replacement costs up to 9809.63 Php per square meter (The Constructor-Civil Engineering Home
for Civil Engineers, 2019). According to the study of (Yenco, 2013), the estimated cost of dry deep soil
mixing is 3032.4 Php per sq.
54
For the constructability duration of the stone column is estimated to be 18 working days, and its estimated
lifespan will be up to 60 years. For the constructability duration of the jet grouting is 28 working days, and
its design life will be up to 75 years (Bashar, Amman, & Mounir, 2013). For the duration of the construction
of Dry Deep Soil Mixing is 25 days, and expected to last until 30 years. According to the study of (Bergado,
2000), the settlement using the Prefabricated Vertical Drains is 1.62.
3.3.4.2 Computation for Initial Raw Ranking of Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
Since Stone Column is the most economical out of three trade-offs, the designers gave it a scale of ten
(10).
For Jet Grouting
Figure 3-16: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Jet Grouting
For Dry Deep Soil Mixing
55
Figure 3-17: Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Deep Soil Mixing
Since Stone Column has the lowest constructability duration out of three trade-offs, the designers gave it a
scale of ten (10).
For Jet Grouting
56
Figure 3-18: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Jet Grouting
Figure 3-19: Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Dry Deep Soil Mixing
Since Jet Grouting has the longest lifespan out of three trade-offs, the designers gave it a scale of ten (10).
57
For Stone Column
Figure 3-20: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Stone Column
58
Figure 3-21: Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Dry Deep Soil Mixing
Solution for Risk Assessment Constraint
Since Dry Deep Soil Mixing is the one having the lowest Ground Settlement, the designers gave it a scale
of ten (10).
For Stone Column
Figure 3-22: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Stone Column
59
For Jet Grouting
Figure 3-23: Risk Assessment Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Jet Grouting

Summary of Initial Raw Ranking for Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
Table 3-10: Summary of Initial Raw Ranking – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
Criterion’s Ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale of 0 to 10)

Decision Criteria Importance (on a
scale of 0 to 10) Dry Deep Soil
Stone Column Jet Grouting
Mixing
1. Economic 10 10.000 2.126 7.038
2. Constructability 9 10.000 6.429 7.200
3. Sustainability 9 8.000 10.000 4.000
4. Risk Assessment 10 6.681 1.843 10.000
Over-all Rank 328.810 187.551 271.180
60
In table 3-10 shows the summary of Initial Raw Ranking in the Geotechnical Engineering Context. These
values were multiplied to the importance factor set by the client and the designers.
3.3.5 Trade-off Assessment for Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context

Economic and Risk Assessment constraint is given an importance value of ten (10). For the Risk
Assessment, the main concern of the designers for the design is to minimize the settlement of the structure
which may affect its stability. Sustainability and Constructability are both given an importance value of nine
(9). The number one concern for this project will be the cost for construction and the safety of the residents
which means that the duration period can be set aside to promote safety with the client‟s consent.

For economic constraint, it yields that Stone Column is the most economical among the three trade-offs for
the improvement of the ground beneath the structure. It is made possible because it has the least value of
cost per square meter based on different studies.

In the assessment for the duration period of construction, the result is clear that Stone Column is the most
efficient compared to other geotechnical tradeoffs and it can minimize the cost for labor since it only
requires the least duration from other tradeoffs.

For this constraint, Jet Grouting ranks first because of its long design life due to its physical and natural
properties. Its design life has a huge difference with the other two trade-offs.
3.3.5.4 Risk Assessment Constraint

Based on the initial calculation for the settlement of the trade-offs, the result suggests that Dry Deep Soil
Mixing must be used for ground improvement as it has the least soil settlement.
3.3.6 Over-all Assessment of Trade-offs for Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context

From the results of assessments of different trade-offs concerning constraints, the soil improvement
method must be used is the Stone Column with an overall rank of 328.810. The second option would be
Dry Deep Soil Mixing for the ground improvement of the project.
61
3.4 Multiple Constraints Using Initial Normalization Method
3.4.1.1 Raw Data

Table 3-11: Raw Data – Context I Structural Engineering Context
Economic
Constructability Sustainability Risk-Assessment
Cost
Design (Duration in (Lifespan in (Storey Drift in
(Cost in
Days) Years) mm)
Pesos)
SPECIAL MOMENT-RESISTING
21,010,880.00 280 50 4.1
FRAME
SHEAR WALL
24,210,837.02 350 54 2.89
FRAME SYSTEM
SPECIAL BRACED FRAME
23,988,964.83 320 60 3.24
(BUILDING FRAME SYSTEM)
In table 3-11 shows the raw data gathered by the designers from previous studies for the structural context,
and used it as a basis to determine which trade-off offers the best in particular constraint, and in general
scale.
3.4.1.2 Normalized Data

Table 3-12: Normalized Data – Context I Structural Engineering Context
Economic
Cost
(Cost in
Days) Years) mm)
Pesos)
SPECIAL MOMENT-RESISTING
10.00 10.00 1.00 1.00
FRAME
SHEAR WALL
1.00 1.00 6.40 10.00
FRAME SYSTEM
1.62 4.86 10.00 7.40
Normalization of rating means adjusting values measured on different scales to a notionally common scale,
prior to averaging. Table 3-12 shows the normalized data where the units of measurement were eliminated
to easily compare each structural trade-off.
62
3.4.1.3 Weighted Sum of Various Percentage Weight
Table 3-13: 1st Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context I Structural Engineering Context
SPECIAL
SPECIAL BRACED
SHEAR WALL
Weight MOMENT- FRAME
Constraints FRAME
(%) RESISTING (BUILDING
SYSTEM
FRAME FRAME
SYSTEM)
Economic Cost (Cost in Pesos) 0.3 10.00 1.00 1.62
Constructability (Duration in Days) 0.2 10.00 1.00 4.86
Sustainability (Lifespan in Years) 0.2 1.00 6.40 10.00
Risk-Assessment (Storey Drift in mm) 0.3 1.00 10.00 7.40
Weighted Sum 5.5 4.78 5.68
Table 3-13 shows the weighted sum of the normalized data of each structural trade-offs where the
economic constraint, constructability constraint, sustainability constraint, and risk assessment has a weight
of 0.3, 0.2, 0.2, and 0.3. Special braced frame system garnered the highest weighted sum when the weight
of economic cost and risk assessment is higher than constructability and sustainability.
Table 3-14: 2nd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context I Structural Engineering Context
SPECIAL
SPECIAL SHEAR BRACED
Weight MOMENT- WALL FRAME
Constraints
(%) RESISTING FRAME (BUILDING
FRAME SYSTEM FRAME
SYSTEM)
Table 3-14 shows the weighted sum of the normalized data of each structural trade-off where the economic
constraint, constructability constraint, sustainability constraint, and risk assessment has a weight of 0.2,
0.3, 0.3, and 0.2. Special braced frame system garnered the highest weighted sum when the weight of
constructability and sustainability is higher than economic cost and risk assessment.
63
Table 3-15: 3rd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context I Structural Engineering Context
SPECIAL SHEAR SPECIAL BRACED
Weight MOMENT- WALL FRAME
Constraints
(%) RESISTING FRAME (BUILDING FRAME
FRAME SYSTEM SYSTEM)
Table 3-15 shows the weighted sum of the normalized data of each structural trade-off where all the
constraints have a weight of 0.25. Special braced frame system garnered the highest weighted sum when
the weights of all constraints are the same.
3.4.2.1 Raw Data

Table 3-16: Raw Data – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
Economic
Cost
Design (Duration in (Lifespan in (Settlement in
(Cost in
Days) Years) mm)
Pesos)
Stone Column 784,110.40 18 60 2.4248
Jet Grouting 3,688,420.88 28 75 8.79
Dry Deep Soil Mixing 1,114,082.40 25 30 1.62
Table 3-16 shows the raw data gathered by the designers from previous studies for the geotechnical
context, and used it as a basis to determine which trade-off offers the best in particular constraint, and in
general scale.

Table 3-17: Normalized Data – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
Economic
Cost
Design (Duration in (Lifespan in (Settlement in
(Cost in
Days) Years) mm)
Pesos)
Stone Column 10.00 10.00 7.00 8.99
Jet Grouting 1.00 1.00 10.00 1.00
Dry Deep Soil Mixing 8.98 3.70 1.00 10.00
to easily compare each geotechnical trade-off.
64
Table 3-18: 1st Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
Stone Dry Deep Soil
Constraints Weight (%) Jet Grouting
Column Mixing
Risk-Assessment (Settlement in mm) 0.3 8.99 1.00 10.00
Table 3-19 shows the weighted sum of the normalized data of each geotechnical trade-off where the
of 0.3, 0.2, 0.2, and 0.3. Stone columns garnered the highest weighted sum when the weight of economic
cost and risk assessment is higher than constructability and sustainability.
Table 3-19: 2nd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
Stone Dry Deep Soil
Constraints Weight (%) Jet Grouting
Column Mixing
of 0.2, 0.3, 0.3, and 0.2. Stone columns garnered the highest weighted sum when the weight of
Table 3-20: 3rd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
Stone Jet Dry Deep Soil
Constraints Weight (%)
Column Grouting Mixing
Table 3-21 shows the weighted sum of the normalized data of each geotechnical trade-off where all the
constraints have a weight of 0.25. Stone columns garnered the highest weighted sum when the weights of
all constraints are the same.
65
3.5 Design Standards and Codes
3.5.1 The National Building Code of the Philippines (PD 1096)

The National Building Code of the Philippines, also known as Presidential Decree No. 1096 was drafted
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 use of this code is to determine the minimum
standards and requirements with regards to the design, use of the structure, type of occupancy, allocation
of spaces, ventilation, regulate and control the location, and maintenance.
 Chapter 8 Section 806: Size and dimension of rooms

 Chapter 8 Section 811: Artificial Ventilation
 Chapter 12 Section 1207: Stairs, Exits, and Occupant Loads
3.5.2 The National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015

This code helps the designers about what parameters shall be used, and it also serves as a guide for the
computation of different loads. The sections used for this design project are as follows:
 Section 203 Load Combination

 Section 204 Dead Loads
 Section 205 Live Loads
 Section 207 Wind Loads
 Section 208 Earthquake Loads
 Chapter 4: Structural Concrete
 Section 504 Design of Members for Tension
 Section 510 Design of Connections
3.5.3 Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP Steel Handbook)

Part of the structural tradeoffs is Structural Steel Design. Therefore, the ASEP Steel Handbook is fitting to
help the designers fully understand the concept behind steel structures.
3.5.4 American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318

ACI 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary,” is the document that
presents the code requirements for design and construction of structural concrete that are necessary to
ensure public safety. The ACI 318 is a must-have standard for all professionals engaged in concrete
design, construction, and inspection.
66
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURES
4.1 Design Methodology
4.2 Design Process for Context I Structural Engineering Context
4.2.1 Structural Analysis

The specified trade-offs for the project were modeled using a computer software STAAD Pro V8i for the
computation of the forces acting on the structure in accordance with the NSCP 2015. The acting forces
such as wind and earthquake were identified due to several iteration methods of the program.
4.2.2 Load Specification
4.2.2.1 Wind Load

Table 4-1: Windward Wall Intensity
WINDWARD WALL
INTENSITY (kN/m2)
no. HEIGHT (m)
-0.18 0.18
1 0.00000 2.27931 1.10625
2 4.57200 2.27931 1.10625
3 5.48377 2.34537 1.17231
4 6.39554 2.40325 1.23019
5 7.23629 2.45495 1.28189
6 8.21908 2.50178 1.32872
7 9.13084 2.54467 1.37161
8 10.04261 2.58430 1.41124
9 10.95438 2.62119 1.44813
10 11.86615 2.65572 1.48266
11 12.77795 2.68822 1.51516
12 13.68969 2.71894 1.54588
13 14.60146 2.74809 1.57503
14 15.51323 2.77583 1.60277
15 16.42500 2.80231 1.62925
Table 4-2: Leeward Wall Intensity
LEEWARD WALL
INTENSITY (kN/m^2)
no. HEIGHT (m)
-0.18 0.18
1 0.00000 2.80231 1.62924867
2 16.42500 2.80231 1.62924867
67
Table 4-3: Sideward Wall Intensity
SIDEWARD WALL
INTENSITY
no. HEIGHT (m) (kN/m^2)
-0.18 0.18
1 0 2.802308 1.629249
2 16.42503192 2.802308 1.629249
4.2.3 Design of Context I Structural Engineering Context
4.2.3.1 Design of Special Moment Resisting Frame
4.2.3.1.1 Design Process
Figure 4-1: Design Process of Special Moment-Resisting Frame (SMRF) System
68
4.2.3.1.2 Design Input
In designing the special moment-resisting frame, the designers used the ACI 318-2014. This code will help
the designers for determining which properties must be used for the structure.
4.2.3.1.2.1 Member Section and Properties

Table 4-4: Initial Member Section and Properties – Special Moment Resisting Frame
Member Material Unit Weight Section
Normal Weight
Beam 23.6 kN/m3 300mm x 400mm
Concrete
Normal Weight 500mm x 500mm (1st floor)
Column 23.6 kN/m3
Concrete 450mm x 450mm (2nd floor to 4th floor)
Normal Weight
Slab 23.6 kN/m3 150mm
Concrete
Table 4-4 shows the initial member section which came up from manual computation of the designers.
4.2.3.1.2.2 3D Model
Figure 4-2. 3D Model of Special Moment Resisting Frame
69
4.2.3.1.2.3 Support Reactions
The figure below shows the support reactions generated from STAAD.Pro analysis. For each support, there
are 13 varieties of reactions which resulted from the different load combinations.
70
71
4.2.3.1.3 Special Moment Resisting Frame Results

Table 4-5: Final Member Section and Properties – Special Moment Resisting Frame
Normal Weight 300mm x 400mm
Beam 23.6 kN/m3
Concrete 350mm x 500mm
Column 23.6 kN/m3
Normal Weight
Concrete
Table 4-5 shows the final member section which came up from the software used by the designers.
4.2.3.1.3.2 Beam Design
4.2.3.1.3.2.1 Material Properties

Table 4-6: Materials Properties of Beam – Special Moment Resisting Frame
Material E (MPa) Design Strength
Concrete 25 000 f‟c = 25 MPa
10 mm Ø Rebar 200 000 fy = 420 MPa
16 mm Ø Rebar 200 000 fy = 420 MPa
25 mm Ø Rebar 200 000 fy = 420 MPa
32 mm Ø Rebar 200 000 fy = 420 MPa
4.2.3.1.3.3 Beam Design Parameters

Table 4-7: Beam Design Parameters – Special Moment Resisting Frames
Code Used ACI 318-14

Resistance Factor
Φ (Tension Controlled) 0.90
Φ (Compression Controlled) 0.65
Φ (Shear) 0.75
72
4.2.3.1.3.4 Column Design

Table 4-8: Materials Properties of Column – Special Moment Resisting Frame
32 mm Ø Rebar 200 000 fy = 420 MPa
4.2.3.1.3.4.2 Column Design Parameters

Table 4-9: Column Design Parameters – Special Moment Resisting Frames

Resistance Factor
Φ (Shear) 0.75
4.2.3.1.3.5 Slab Design
4.2.3.1.3.5.1 Slab Material Properties

Table 4-10: Material Properties of Slab – Special Moment Resisting Frame
10 mm Ø Rebar 200 000 fy = 420 Mpa
4.2.3.1.3.5.2 Slab Design Parameters

Table 4-11: Slab Design Parameters – Special Moment Resisting Frames

Resistance Factor
73
4.2.3.1.3.6 Footing Design
4.2.3.1.3.6.1 Footing Material Properties

Table 4-12. Material Properties of Footing – Special Moment Resisting Frame
16 mm Ø Rebar 200 000 fy = 420 Mpa
4.2.3.1.3.6.2 Footing Design Parameters

Table 4-13: Footing Design Parameters – Special Moment Resisting Frames

Resistance Factor
Φ (Shear) 0.75
4.2.3.1.3.6.3 Footing Perspective View
Figure 4-3: Footing Perspective View – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
74
4.2.3.1.3.7 Truss Design
4.2.3.1.3.7.1 Truss Material Properties

Table 4-14: Truss Material Properties – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
AXIS X-X AXIS Y-Y
Wt.
AISC k Area Ix Sx Iy Sy
per m rx y ry x
Designation x10^5 x10^3 x10^5 x10^3
(mm) (kg/m) (mm^2) (mm^4) (mm^3) (mm) (mm) (mm^4) (mm^3) (mm) (mm)
L 2 x 2 x 1/8 9.53 2.455 312 0.08 2.15 15.9 13.87 0.08 2.15 15.9 13.87
L 2 1/2 x 2 x 3/16
- 9.08 1161 0.7 13.6 24.54 19.41 - - - -
(Double Angle)
4.2.3.1.3.7.2 3D Model of Truss
Figure 4-4: 3D Model of Truss – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
75
4.2.3.1.3.7.3 Truss Design and Analysis
Table 4-15: Truss Design and Analysis – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
Analysis Design Allowable Normalize Ratio

Truss Actual Ratio
Property Property Ratio (Actual/Allowable)
1 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.202 1 0.202
2 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.223 1 0.223
3 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.080 1 0.080
4 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.079 1 0.079
5 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.070 1 0.070
6 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.070 1 0.070
7 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.079 1 0.079
8 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.080 1 0.080
9 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.223 1 0.223
10 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.202 1 0.202
11 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.381 1 0.381
12 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.407 1 0.407
13 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.305 1 0.305
14 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.334 1 0.334
15 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.449 1 0.449
16 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.449 1 0.449
17 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.334 1 0.334
18 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.305 1 0.305
19 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.407 1 0.407
20 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.381 1 0.381
21 L20202 L20202 0.596 1 0.596
22 L20202 L20202 0.287 1 0.287
23 L20202 L20202 0.104 1 0.104
24 L20202 L20202 0.086 1 0.086
25 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.145 1 0.145
26 L20202 L20202 0.086 1 0.086
76
27 L20202 L20202 0.104 1 0.104
28 L20202 L20202 0.287 1 0.287
29 L20202 L20202 0.596 1 0.596
30 L20202 L20202 0.854 1 0.854
31 L20202 L20202 0.231 1 0.231
32 L20202 L20202 0.171 1 0.171
33 L20202 L20202 0.603 1 0.603
34 L20202 L20202 0.603 1 0.603
35 L20202 L20202 0.171 1 0.171
36 L20202 L20202 0.231 1 0.231
37 L20202 L20202 0.854 1 0.854
4.2.3.1.3.8 Purlin Design
4.2.3.1.3.8.1 Purlin Material Properties

Table 4-16: Purlin Material Properties – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
AXIS X-X AXIS Y-Y
Wt.
AISC k Area
Ix Sx Iy Sy
per m rx y ry x
C 4 x 5.4 17.46 8.04 1026 1.6 31.63 39.62 - 0.13 4.64 11.4 -
4.2.3.1.3.8.2 3D Model of Purlin
PURLINS (C4X5)
Figure 4-5: Purlin 3D Model – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
77
4.2.3.1.3.8.3 Purlin Design and Analysis
Table 4-17: Purlin Design and Analysis
Purlin Actual Ratio
1 C4X4 C4X4 0.353 1 0.353
2 C4X4 C4X4 0.353 1 0.353
3 C4X4 C4X4 0.205 1 0.205
4 C4X4 C4X4 0.205 1 0.205
5 C4X4 C4X4 0.195 1 0.195
6 C4X4 C4X4 0.195 1 0.195
7 C4X4 C4X4 0.195 1 0.195
8 C4X4 C4X4 0.195 1 0.195
9 C4X4 C4X4 0.205 1 0.205
10 C4X4 C4X4 0.205 1 0.205
11 C4X4 C4X4 0.353 1 0.353
12 C4X4 C4X4 0.353 1 0.353
78
4.2.3.2 Design of Special Braced Frame
Figure 4-6: Design Process of Special Braced Frame
79

Table 4-18: Initial Member Section and Properties – Special Braced Frame
Normal Weight
Concrete
Column 23.6 kN/m3
Normal Weight
Concrete
4.2.3.2.2.2 3D Model
Figure 4-7: 3D Model of Special Braced Frame System
80
81
82
4.2.3.2.3 Braced Frame System Results

Table 4-19: Final Member Section and Properties – Braced Frame System
200x250mm
Normal Weight
Concrete
350mm x 500mm
Column 23.6 kN/m3
Normal Weight
Concrete

Table 4-20: Material Properties of Beam – Special Braced Frame
25 mm Ø Rebar 200 000 fy = 420 Mpa
4.2.3.2.3.2.2 Beam Design Parameters

Table 4-21: Beam Design Parameters – Special Braced Frame

Resistance Factor
Φ (Shear) 0.75

Table 4-22: Material Properties of Column – Special Braced Frame
Concrete 25 000 f‟c = 25 Mpa
32 mm Ø Rebar 200 000 fy = 420 Mpa
83
Table 4-23: Column Design Parameters – Special Braced Frame

Resistance Factor
Φ (Shear) 0.75

Table 4-24: Material Properties of Slab – Special Braced Frame
10 mm Ø Rebar 200 000 fy = 420 Mpa

Table 4-25: Slab Design Parameters – Special Braced Frame

Resistance Factor

Table 4-26. Material Properties of Footing – Special Braced Frame
25 mm Ø Rebar 200 000 fy = 420 Mpa
84
Table 4-27: Footing Design Parameters – Special Braced Frame

Resistance Factor
Figure 4-8: Footing Perspective View – Special Braced Frame
85
4.2.3.2.3.6.1 Truss Material Properties

Table 4-28: Truss Material Properties – Special Braced Frame
AXIS X-X AXIS Y-Y
Wt.
per m rx y ry x
L 2 x 2 x 1/8 9.53 2.455 312 0.08 2.15 15.9 13.87 0.08 2.15 15.9 13.87
L 2 1/2 x 2 x 3/16
- 9.08 1161 0.7 13.6 24.54 19.41 - - - -
(Double Angle)
Figure 4-9: 3D Model of Truss – Special Braced Frame
86
4.2.3.2.3.6.3 Truss Analysis and Design
Table 4-29: Truss Analysis and Design – Special Braced Frame

Truss Actual Ratio
1 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.202 1 0.202
2 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.223 1 0.223
3 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.080 1 0.080
4 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.079 1 0.079
5 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.070 1 0.070
6 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.070 1 0.070
7 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.079 1 0.079
8 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.080 1 0.080
9 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.223 1 0.223
10 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.202 1 0.202
11 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.381 1 0.381
12 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.407 1 0.407
13 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.305 1 0.305
14 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.334 1 0.334
15 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.449 1 0.449
16 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.449 1 0.449
17 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.334 1 0.334
18 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.305 1 0.305
19 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.407 1 0.407
20 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.381 1 0.381
21 L20202 L20202 0.596 1 0.596
22 L20202 L20202 0.287 1 0.287
23 L20202 L20202 0.104 1 0.104
24 L20202 L20202 0.086 1 0.086
25 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.145 1 0.145
26 L20202 L20202 0.086 1 0.086
87
27 L20202 L20202 0.104 1 0.104
28 L20202 L20202 0.287 1 0.287
29 L20202 L20202 0.596 1 0.596
30 L20202 L20202 0.854 1 0.854
31 L20202 L20202 0.231 1 0.231
32 L20202 L20202 0.171 1 0.171
33 L20202 L20202 0.603 1 0.603
34 L20202 L20202 0.603 1 0.603
35 L20202 L20202 0.171 1 0.171
36 L20202 L20202 0.231 1 0.231
37 L20202 L20202 0.854 1 0.854
4.2.3.2.3.7.1 Purlin Material Properties

Table 4-30: Purlin Material Properties – Special Braced Frame
AXIS X-X AXIS Y-Y
Wt.
AISC k Area
Ix Sx Iy Sy
per m rx y ry x
C 4 x 5.4 17.46 8.04 1026 1.6 31.63 39.62 - 0.13 4.64 11.4 -
PURLINS (C4X5)
Figure 4-10: 3D Model of Purlin – Special Braced Frame
88
Table 4-31: Purlin Design and Analysis – Special Braced Frame

Purlin Actual Ratio
1 C4X4 C4X4 0.353 1 0.353
2 C4X4 C4X4 0.353 1 0.353
3 C4X4 C4X4 0.205 1 0.205
4 C4X4 C4X4 0.205 1 0.205
5 C4X4 C4X4 0.195 1 0.195
6 C4X4 C4X4 0.195 1 0.195
7 C4X4 C4X4 0.195 1 0.195
8 C4X4 C4X4 0.195 1 0.195
9 C4X4 C4X4 0.205 1 0.205
10 C4X4 C4X4 0.205 1 0.205
11 C4X4 C4X4 0.353 1 0.353
12 C4X4 C4X4 0.353 1 0.353
4.2.3.2.3.8 Brace Design
4.2.3.2.3.8.1 Brace Material Properties

Table 4-32: Brace Material Properties – Special Braced Frame
AISC Ax Ay Az Ix Iy Iz Elasticity Density
D W
Designation (m2) (m2) (m2) (m4) (m4) (m4) (kN/mm2) (kg/m3)
L5x5x8 0.00618063 0.002151 0.002151 0.127 3.29517 1.75676 9.36544 0.127 205 7833.41
L6x6x6 0.0056516 0.001935 0.001935 0.1524 1.7011x10-7 2.26049 1.28088 0.1524 205 7833.41
4.2.3.2.3.8.2 Brace Analysis and Design

Table 4-33: Brace Analysis and Design Summary – Special Braced Frame
Normalized Ratio
Brace Design Property Actual Ratio Allowable Ratio
(Actual/Allowble)
1052 L6x6x6 0.888 1.000 0.888
1053 L6x6x6 0.915 1.000 0.915
1054 L6x6x6 0.722 1.000 0.722
1055 L6x6x6 0.660 1.000 0.660
89
1056 L5x5x8 0.574 1.000 0.574
1057 L5x5x8 0.480 1.000 0.480
1058 L5x5x8 1.036 1.000 1.036
1059 L5x5x8 1.036 1.000 1.036
1060 L6x6x6 0.896 1.000 0.896
1061 L6x6x6 0.892 1.000 0.892
1062 L6x6x6 0.757 1.000 0.757
1063 L6x6x6 0.704 1.000 0.704
1064 L5x5x8 0.627 1.000 0.627
1065 L5x5x8 0.502 1.000 0.502
1066 L5x5x8 0.537 1.000 0.537
1067 L5x5x8 0.484 1.000 0.484
1068 L6x6x6 0.676 1.000 0.676
1069 L6x6x6 0.656 1.000 0.656
1070 L6x6x6 0.777 1.000 0.777
1071 L6x6x6 0.780 1.000 0.780
1072 L5x5x8 0.499 1.000 0.499
1073 L5x5x8 0.452 1.000 0.452
1074 L6x6x6 0.630 1.000 0.630
1075 L6x6x6 0.610 1.000 0.610
1076 L6x6x6 0.711 1.000 0.711
1077 L6x6x6 0.713 1.000 0.713
1078 L5x5x8 0.512 1.000 0.512
1079 L5x5x8 0.405 1.000 0.405
1080 L6x6x6 0.620 1.000 0.620
1081 L6x6x6 0.566 1.000 0.566
1082 L6x6x6 0.700 1.000 0.700
1083 L6x6x6 0.691 1.000 0.691
1084 L6x6x6 0.628 1.000 0.628
1085 L6x6x6 0.646 1.000 0.646
1086 L6x6x6 0.537 1.000 0.537
1087 L6x6x6 0.479 1.000 0.479
1088 L5x5x8 0.442 1.000 0.442
1089 L5x5x8 0.331 1.000 0.331
1090 L5x5x8 1.036 1.000 1.036
1091 L5x5x8 1.036 1.000 1.036
1092 L6x6x6 0.777 1.000 0.777
1093 L6x6x6 0.562 1.000 0.562
1094 L6x6x6 0.566 1.000 0.566
90
1095 L6x6x6 0.531 1.000 0.531
1096 L5x5x8 0.374 1.000 0.374
1097 L5x5x8 0.377 1.000 0.377
1098 L5x5x8 0.069 1.000 0.069
1099 L5x5x8 0.087 1.000 0.087
1100 L5x5x8 0.086 1.000 0.086
1101 L5x5x8 0.074 1.000 0.074
1102 L5x5x8 0.385 1.000 0.385
1103 L5x5x8 0.365 1.000 0.365
1104 L6x6x6 0.569 1.000 0.569
1105 L6x6x6 0.525 1.000 0.525
1106 L6x6x6 0.776 1.000 0.776
1107 L6x6x6 0.563 1.000 0.563
1108 L6x6x6 0.777 1.000 0.777
1109 L6x6x6 0.563 1.000 0.563
1110 L6x6x6 0.562 1.000 0.562
1111 L6x6x6 0.778 1.000 0.778
1112 L6x6x6 0.571 1.000 0.571
1113 L6x6x6 0.525 1.000 0.525
1114 L6x6x6 0.531 1.000 0.531
1115 L6x6x6 0.568 1.000 0.568
1116 L5x5x8 0.364 1.000 0.364
1117 L5x5x8 0.386 1.000 0.386
1118 L5x5x8 0.071 1.000 0.071
1119 L5x5x8 0.087 1.000 0.087
1120 L5x5x8 0.376 1.000 0.376
1121 L5x5x8 0.377 1.000 0.377
1122 L5x5x8 0.083 1.000 0.083
1123 L5x5x8 0.071 1.000 0.071
4.2.3.2.3.9 Connection Design
4.2.3.2.3.9.1 Connections Material Properties

Table 4-34: Connections Material Properties – Special Braced Frame
Material Spacing (mm) Area (mm2)
20 mm Ø Bolt 65 -
Gusset Plate - 62500
91
4.2.3.3 Design of Shear Wall Frame System
Figure 4-11: Design Process of Special Shear Wall Frame
92

Table 4-35: Initial Member Section and Properties – Shear Wall Frame System
Normal Weight
Concrete
Column 23.6 kN/m3
Normal Weight
Concrete
Table 4-35 shows the initial member section which came up from manual computation of the designers.
4.2.3.3.2.2 3D Model
Figure 4-12: 3D Model of Shear Wall Frame System
93
94
95
4.2.3.3.3 Special Shear Wall Results

Table 4-36: Final Member Section and Properties – Shear Wall Frame System
Normal Weight 300mm x 400mm
Beam 23.6 kN/m3
Concrete 350mm x 500mm
Column 23.6 kN/m3
Normal Weight
Concrete

Table 4-37: Material Properties of Beam – Shear Wall Frame System
25 mm Ø Rebar 200 000 fy = 420 Mpa
4.2.3.3.3.2.2 Beam Design Parameters

Table 4-38: Beam Design Parameters – Shear Wall Frame System

Resistance Factor
Φ (Shear) 0.75

Table 4-39: Material Properties of Column – Shear Wall Frame System
10 mm Ø Rebar 200 000 fy = 420 Mpa
96
Table 4-40: Column Design Parameters – Shear Wall Frame System

Resistance Factor
Φ (Shear) 0.75

Table 4-41: Material Properties of Slab – Shear Wall Frame System
10 mm Ø Rebar 200 000 fy = 420 Mpa

Table 4-42: Slab Design Parameters – Shear Wall Frame System

Resistance Factor

Table 4-43: Material Properties of Footing – Shear Wall Frame System

16 mm Ø Rebar 200 000 fy = 420 Mpa
97
Table 4-44: Footing Design Parameters – Shear Wall Frame System

Resistance Factor
Φ (Shear) 0.75
Figure 4-13: Footing Perspective View – Shear Wall Frame System
98
4.2.3.3.3.6 Shear Wall Design
4.2.3.3.3.6.1 Shear Wall Properties

Table 4-45: Material Properties of Shear Wall – Shear Wall Frame System

10 mm Ø Rebar 200 000 fy = 420 Mpa
28 mm Ø Rebar 200 000 fy = 420 Mpa
36 mm Ø Rebar 200 000 fy = 420 Mpa
4.2.3.3.3.6.2 Shear Wall Design Parameters

Table 4-46: Shear Wall Design Parameters – Shear Wall Frame System

Resistance Factor
Φ (Shear) 0.75
4.2.3.3.3.7.1 Truss Material Design Properties

Table 4-47: Truss Material Properties – Shear Wall Frame System
AXIS X-X AXIS Y-Y
Wt.
per m rx y ry x
L 2 x 2 x 1/8 9.53 2.455 312 0.08 2.15 15.9 13.87 0.08 2.15 15.9 13.87
L 2 1/2 x 2 x 3/16
- 9.08 1161 0.7 13.6 24.54 19.41 - - - -
(Double Angle)
99
Figure 4-14: 3D Model of Truss – Shear Wall Frame System
4.2.3.3.3.7.3 Truss Analysis and Design

Table 4-48: Truss Analysis and Design – Shear Wall Frame System

Truss Actual Ratio
1 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.202 1 0.202
2 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.223 1 0.223
3 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.080 1 0.080
4 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.079 1 0.079
5 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.070 1 0.070
6 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.070 1 0.070
7 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.079 1 0.079
8 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.080 1 0.080
9 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.223 1 0.223
10 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.202 1 0.202
11 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.381 1 0.381
12 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.407 1 0.407
13 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.305 1 0.305
14 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.334 1 0.334
15 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.449 1 0.449
100
16 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.449 1 0.449
17 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.334 1 0.334
18 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.305 1 0.305
19 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.407 1 0.407
20 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.381 1 0.381
21 L20202 L20202 0.596 1 0.596
22 L20202 L20202 0.287 1 0.287
23 L20202 L20202 0.104 1 0.104
24 L20202 L20202 0.086 1 0.086
25 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.145 1 0.145
26 L20202 L20202 0.086 1 0.086
27 L20202 L20202 0.104 1 0.104
28 L20202 L20202 0.287 1 0.287
29 L20202 L20202 0.596 1 0.596
30 L20202 L20202 0.854 1 0.854
31 L20202 L20202 0.231 1 0.231
32 L20202 L20202 0.171 1 0.171
33 L20202 L20202 0.603 1 0.603
34 L20202 L20202 0.603 1 0.603
35 L20202 L20202 0.171 1 0.171
36 L20202 L20202 0.231 1 0.231
37 L20202 L20202 0.854 1 0.854
101
4.2.3.3.3.8.1 Purlin Material Design Properties

Table 4-49: Purlin Materials Properties – Shear Wall Frame System
AXIS X-X AXIS Y-Y
Wt.
AISC k Area
Ix Sx Iy Sy
per m rx y ry x
C 4 x 5.4 17.46 8.04 1026 1.6 31.63 39.62 - 0.13 4.64 11.4 -
PURLINS (C4X5)
Figure 4-15: 3D Model of Purlin – Shear Wall Frame System
102
Table 4-50: Purlin Design and Analysis – Shear Wall Frame System

Purlin Actual Ratio
1 C4X4 C4X4 0.353 1 0.353
2 C4X4 C4X4 0.353 1 0.353
3 C4X4 C4X4 0.205 1 0.205
4 C4X4 C4X4 0.205 1 0.205
5 C4X4 C4X4 0.195 1 0.195
6 C4X4 C4X4 0.195 1 0.195
7 C4X4 C4X4 0.195 1 0.195
8 C4X4 C4X4 0.195 1 0.195
9 C4X4 C4X4 0.205 1 0.205
10 C4X4 C4X4 0.205 1 0.205
11 C4X4 C4X4 0.353 1 0.353
12 C4X4 C4X4 0.353 1 0.353
103
4.3 Design of Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
4.3.1 Soil Profile and Parameters

Table 4-51: Soil Profile and Parameters
Saturated Coefficient of
Layer Unit Wt. Phi
No. Name Unit Wt. Friction
m kN/m3 deg
kN/m3 kPa
Low Plasticity Clay (CL, CI) firm
1 1.5 21 10 15 30
consistency
2 2.0 Silty Clay with Sand (CL-ML) 20 10 9 30
3 4.0 Clayey Gravel (GC) 19.5 10 5 30
Table 4-52: Footing Details

Footing Data
Footing Type Square Footing
Dimension 2000 x 2000 x 650
Founding Depth 2m
Foundation Load 496.74 kPa
4.3.1.1 Settlement of Untreated Soil Strata

According to the provision codes from the NSCP, the maximum allowable settlement shall not exceed 25
mm otherwise ground improvement is recommended. The maximum settlement resulted from the Stone-C
2D V.6 software for the ground is 56.50 mm which is beyond the allowed value of the soil settlement.
Table 4-53: Settlement of Untreated Soil Strata

Settlement without
Load Over. Treatment
Bottom
No. Stress Stress Ds (MPa) Center of Corner of
Depth (m)
(kPa) (kPa) Footing Footing
(mm) (mm)
1 1.50 240.50 30.00 10.00 56.5 17.4
2 5.50 29.72 108.00 20.00 16.6 10.6
104
4.3.2 Design of Stone Column
4.3.2.1 Design Process

First to consider is the geotechnical report of the site, wherein all the data about the soil profile is provided
from the borehole analysis. Next, the design of the most economic and safe section of the footing of the
structure and the analysis for the soil bearing capacity and its settlement. In designing the jet grout column,
the designers used the Stone-C 2D software to determine the section, diameter, number of columns, layout
and the spacing. To validate the design, the settlement is analyzed with the applied treatment as well as
the factor of safety.
Start
Determine Settlement of Structure
Design of Stone Column
Factor of Safety > 2
Computed NO
Settlement <
Actual Settlement
YES
Scheduling
Estimation
End
Figure 4-16. Design Process of Stone Column
105
4.3.2.2 Design Input
Table 4-54: Column Properties – Stone Column
Grid Type Triangular
Horizontal Spacing 1.20m
Vertical Spacing 1.20m
No. of Columns 5
Friction Angle 30.00
Dry Unit Wt. 15.70 kN/m3
Sat. Unit Wt. 21.50 kN/m3
Constrained Modulus (Dc) 55.00 MPa
Table 4-55: Foundation Properties – Stone Column

Soil Layer No.1 (from 0.00m to 1.50m):
Friction Angle 30.00°
Cohesion 9.00 kPa
Average Cohesion 6.66 kPa
Soil Weight above Foundation Level 20.00 kN/m3
Fictitious Width 2.00m
Nc = 30.14
Beating Capacity Factor Nd = 18.40
Nb = 10.05
Vc = 1.53
Shape Factors Vd = 1.50
Vb = 0.70
Ultimate Stress 588.28 kPa
Single Layer Safety Factor 2.10
Soil Layer No. 2 (from 1.50m to 5.50m):
Friction Angle 30.00°
Cohesion 5.00 kPa
Average Cohesion 4.04 kPa
Soil Weight above Foundation Level 20.00 kN/m3
Fictitious Width 2.00m
Nc = 30.14
Beating Capacity Factor Nd = 18.40
Nb = 10.05
Vc = 1.53
Shape Factors Vd = 1.50
Vb = 0.70
Ultimate Stress 460.63 kPa
Single Layer Safety Factor 1.65
106
4.3.2.3 Design Results of Stone Column
4.3.2.3.1 Settlement Analysis for Soil with Stone Column

Table 4-56: Settlement Analysis for Soil – Stone Column
Bottom Load Over. Settlements with Treatment
Ds improved
No. Depth Stress Stress
(MPa) Center of footing (mm) Corner of footing (mm)
(m) (kPa) (kPa)
1 1.50 135.57 30.00 20.81 3.19 4.70
2 5.50 16.75 108.00 32.37 0.93 3.70
Figure 4-17. Settlement Plot – Stone Column
4.3.2.3.2 Design Results of Stone Column

Table 4-57: Parametric Analysis Tabular Results – Stone Column
Settlement without Settlement with
Diameter (m) Factor of Safety
Treatment (mm) Treatment (mm)
0.8 41.2 21.1 0.93
The resulted economic sections for the design of ground improvement using jet grout columns as shown in
Figure 4-18 having a diameter of 0.6 m, horizontally spaced at 1.2 m and vertically spaced at 1.2m
respectively. The founding depth of the columns is 2.0 m as shown in Figure 4.18
107
Figure 4-18. Layout Plan – Stone Column
4.3.2.3.3 Result Summary of the Design of Stone Column

Table 4-58: Settlement without Treatment vs. Settlement with Treatment – Stone Column
Settlement without Settlements with
Treatment Treatment
Bottom Load Over. Ds
Corner
No. Depth Stress Stress improved Center of Corner of Center of
of
(m) (kPa) (kPa) (MPa) footing footing footing
footing
(mm) (mm) (mm)
(mm)
1 1.50 135.57 30.00 20.81 31.9 9.8 15.30 4.70
2 5.50 16.75 108.00 32.37 9.3 6.0 5.80 3.70
TOTAL 41.2 15.8 21.10 8.40
Table 4-59: Result Summary of the Design – Stone Column

Settlement Column
Footing Footing Area Load No. of Columns
(mm) Diameter (mm)
F-1 4.00 280.00 21.1 600 5
Total Number of Stone Columns 135
The designers use a typical footing in order to design the stone columns. The total number of stone
columns used was the number of columns used multiplied to the number of footing of the structure.
108
4.3.3 Design of Jet Grouting
Start
Design of Jet Grouting
Computed NO
Settlement <
Actual Settlement
YES
Scheduling
Estimation
End
Figure 4-19: Design Process of Jet Grouting
109
Table 4-60: Column Properties – Jet Grouting
No. of Columns 5
Sat. Unit Wt. 21.50 Kn/m3
4.3.3.3 Design Results of Jet Grouting
4.3.3.3.1 Settlement Analysis for Soil with Jet Grouting

Table 4-61: Settlement Analysis for Soil – Jet Grouting
Ds improved
(m) (kPa) (kPa)
1 1.50 135.57 30.00 42.32 17.9 5.50
2 5.50 16.75 108.00 82.83 4.60 2.90
TOTAL 22.5 8.40
Figure 4-20: Settlement Plot – Jet Grouting
110
4.3.3.3.2 Design Results of Jet Grouting
Table 4-62: Parametric Analysis Tabular Results – Jet Grouting
0.5 41.2 22.5 0.93
Figure 4-21: Layout Plan – Jet Grouting
4.3.3.3.3 Result Summary of the Design of Jet Grouting

Table 4-63: Settlement without Treatment vs. Settlement with Treatment – Jet Grouting
Treatment Treatment
Bottom Load Over. Ds Corner
of
footing
(mm) (mm) (mm)
(mm)
1 1.50 135.75 30.00 38.30 31.9 9.80 17.90 5.50
2 5.50 16.75 108.00 42.01 9.30 6.00 4.60 2.90
TOTAL 41.20 15.80 22.50 8.40
111
Table 4-64: Result Summary of the Design – Jet Grouting
Settlement Column
(mm) Diameter (mm)
F-1 4.00 280.00 22.50 500 5
Total Number of Jet Grouting Columns 135
112
4.3.4 Design of Dry Deep Soil Mixing
Start
Design of Jet Grouting
Computed NO
Settlement <
Actual Settlement
YES
Scheduling
Estimation
End
Figure 4-22: Design Process of Dry Deep Soil Mixing
113
Table 4-65: Column Properties – Dry Deep Soil Mixing
No. of Columns 5
Sat. Unit Wt. 21.50 Kn/m3
4.3.4.3 Design Results of Dry Deep Soil Mixing
4.3.4.3.1 Settlement Analysis for Soil with Dry Deep Soil Mixing
Table 4-66: Settlement Analysis for Soil – Dry Deep Soil Mixing
Ds improved
(Mpa) Center of footing (mm) Corner of footing (mm)
(m) (kPa) (kPa)
1 1.50 135.57 30.00 18.35 17.40 5.30
2 5.50 16.75 108.00 42.64 4.40 2.80
TOTAL 21.70 8.10
Figure 4-23: Settlement Plot – Dry Deep Soil Mixing
114
4.3.4.3.2 Design Results of Dry Deep Soil Mixing
Table 4-67: Parametric Analysis Tabular Results – Dry Deep Soil Mixing
Settlement with Treatment
Diameter (m) Settlement without Treatment (mm) Factor of Safety
(mm)
0.5 41.20 21.70 0.93
Figure 4-24 having a diameter of 0.5 m, horizontally spaced at 1.2 m and vertically spaced at 1.2 m
Figure 4-24: Layout Plan – Dry Deep Soil Mixing
4.3.4.3.3 Result Summary of the Design of Dry Deep Soil Mixing

Table 4-68: Settlement without Treatment vs. Settlement with Treatment – Dry Deep Soil Mixing
Treatment Treatment
Bottom Load Over. Ds Corner
of
footing
(mm) (mm) (mm)
(mm)
1 1.50 135.57 30.00 18.35 31.90 9.80 17.40 5.30
2 5.50 16.75 108.00 42.64 9.30 6.00 4.40 2.80
TOTAL 41.20 15.80 21.70 8.10
115
Table 4-69: Result Summary of the Design – Dry Deep Soil Mixing
Settlement Column Diameter

(mm) (mm)
F-1 4.00 280.00 21.70 500 5
Total Number of Dry Deep Soil Mixing Columns 135
The designers use a typical footing in order to design the dry deep soil mixing columns. The total number of
stone columns used was the number of columns used multiplied to the number of footing of the structure.
4.4 Designer’s Raw Ranking
4.4.1 Final Raw Ranking for Context I Structural Engineering Context
4.4.1.1 Summary of Final Estimate for Context I Structural Engineering Context

Table 4-70: Summary of Final Estimate – Context I Structural Engineering Context
STRUCTURAL TRADE-OFFS
SPECIAL SPECIAL
IMPORTANCE
CONSTRAINTS MOMENT- SHEAR WALL BRACED
FACTOR
RESISTING FRAME SYSTEM FRAME
FRAMES (SMRF) SYSTEM
Economic Constraint
12,253,314.16 14,616,168.46 12,678,978.98 10
(Construction Cost – Php)
Constructability (Duration –
291 377 310 9
Days)
Sustainability (Lifespan –
163,213.32 188,481.67 165,813.15 9
Maintenance Cost)
Risk Assessment (Drift –
6.335 5.0554 1.070 10
Millimeters)
4.4.1.2 Computation for Final Raw Ranking of Context I Structural Engineering Context
Since Special Moment-Resisting Frame offers the least construction cost, the designers gave it a scale of
ten (10).
For Shear Wall Frame System
116
Figure 4-25: Economic Constraint Subordinate Rank: Shear Wall Frame System
For Special Braced Frame System
117
Figure 4-26: Economic Constraint Subordinate Rank: Special Braced Frame
Since Special Moment-Resisting Frame offers the least duration of construction, the designers gave it a
scale of ten (10).
Figure 4-27: Constructability Constraint Subordinate Rank: Shear Wall Frame System
118
Figure 4-28: Constructability Constraint Subordinate Rank: Special Braced Frame
Since Special Moment-Resisting Frame offers the least maintenance cost, the designers gave it a scale of
ten (10).
119
Figure 4-29: Sustainability Constraint Subordinate Rank: Shear Wall Frame System
Figure 4-30: Sustainability Constraint Subordinate Rank: Special Braced Frame

Solution for Risk Assessment
Since Special Braced Frame System offers the least drift, the designers gave it a scale of ten (10).
120
Figure 4-31: Risk Assessment Subordinate Rank: Shear Wall Frame System
For Special Moment-Resisting Frame
121
Figure 4-32: Risk Assessment Subordinate Rank: Special Braced Frame
Summary of Final Raw Ranking for Context I Structural Engineering Context
Table 4-71: Summary of Final Raw Ranking – Context I Structural Engineering Context
Ability to Satisfy the criterion (on a scale of 1 to 10)
Criterion’s Importance
Design Criteria Special Moment- Shear Wall Frame Special Braced
(on a scale of 1 to 10)
Resisting Frame System Frame
1. Economic 10 10.000 8.383 9.664
2. Sustainability 9 10.000 8.659 9.843
4. Risk-Assessment 10 1.689 2.117 10.000
Over-all Rank 296.890 260.862 372.203
In table 4-71 shows the summary of Final Raw Ranking in the Structural Engineering Context. These
4.4.2 Trade-off Assessment for Context I Structural Engineering Context

The criterion‟s importance depends on the mutual decision of the client and designer. Economic and Risk
Assessment is given an importance value of ten (10), this was given since there is a restriction on budget of
the client and it is an evacuation center to when in times of calamities, it must be durable to promote the
safety of the affected residents. Sustainability and Constructability are both given an importance value of
nine (9). The designers and the client agreed that even if it has a limit on the constructability, the number
one concern for this project will be the cost for construction and the safety of the residents.

The designers calculated the initial estimate for economic constraint using the typical cost per square meter
and related studies about the three trade-offs. In the assessment of rankings, it showed that Special
Moment Resisting Frame is the most economical since the construction of the other two frames requires
more skilled workers and the materials are costly.

In the assessment, the result showed that Special Moment Resisting Frame has the least construction
period since its construction is less complex than the other 2 tradeoffs and didn‟t require highly skilled
workers.
122
Special Moment-Resisting Frame offers the least maintenance cost for the constructability constraints. This
simply means that it is cheaper to maintain a structure with a Special Moment-Resisting Frame.
4.4.2.4 Risk-Assessment
In the assessment of lateral displacement and with the help of some studies, Special Braced Frame is the
safest and has the least storey drift since the shear wall acts as damper when there are lateral forces
acting on the structure.
4.4.3 Over-all Assessment for Context I Structural Engineering Context

Summing up the result of different assessments, it can be concluded that Special Braced Frame is the best
option to be used in the design configuration of the evacuation center with an overall rank of 372.203. This
trade-off ranks first only in risk-assessment. Even if this trade-off didn‟t rank first with other constraints; it is
still the second-best option among the tradeoffs.
4.5.1 Final Raw Ranking of Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
4.5.1.1 Summary of Final Estimate of Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context

Table 4-72: Summary of Final Estimate – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
Geotechnical Trade-offs
IMPORTANCE
CONSTRAINTS Dry Deep Soil
Stone Column Jet Grouting FACTOR
Mixing
Economic Constraint
1,272,570.57 2,151,928.75 2,171,742.29 10
(Construction Cost – Php)
Constructability (Duration – Days) 7.63 10.13 13.5 9
Sustainability (Lifespan –
19,088.56 25,823.15 65,152.27 9
Maintenance Cost)
Risk Assessment (Settlement –
21.10 22.50 21.70 10
Millimeters)
4.5.1.2 Computation for Final Raw Ranking of Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
Since Stone Column offers the least construction cost, the designers gave it a scale of ten (10).
For Jet Grouting
123
Figure 4-33: Economic Constraint Subordinate Rank: Jet Grouting
Figure 4-34: Economic Constraint Subordinate Rank: Dry Deep Soil Mixing
124
Since Stone Column offers the least duration of construction, the designers gave it a scale of ten (10).
For Jet Grouting
Figure 4-35: Constructability Constraint Subordinate Rank: Jet Grouting

125
Figure 4-36. Constructability Constraint Subordinate Rank: Dry Deep Soil Mixing
Since Stone Column offers the least maintenance cost, the designers gave it a scale of ten (10).
For Jet Grouting
126
Figure 4-37: Sustainability Constraint Subordinate Rank: Jet Grouting
Figure 4-38: Sustainability Constraint Subordinate Rank: Dry Deep Soil Mixing
Solution for Risk-Assessment
Since Stone Column offers the least settlement, the designers gave it a scale of ten (10).
For Jet Grouting
127
Figure 4-39: Risk Assessment Subordinate Rank: Jet Grouting
128
Figure 4-40: Risk Assessment Subordinate Rank: Stone Column
Summary of Final Raw Ranking for Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
Table 4-73: Summary of Final Raw Ranking – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
Criterion’s Importance Ability to Satisfy the criterion (on a scale of 1 to 10)
Design Criteria
(on a scale of 1 to 10) Stone Column Jet Grouting Dry Deep Soil Mixing
1. Economic 10 10.000 5.914 5.860
2. Sustainability 9 10.000 7.532 5.652
4. Risk-Assessment 10 10.000 9.378 9.724
Over-all Rank 380.00 287.236 233.078
In table 4-73 shows the summary of Final Raw Ranking in the Geotechnical Engineering Context. These
4.5.2 Trade-off Assessment for Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context

Economic and Risk Assessment constraint is given an importance value of ten (10). For the Risk
Assessment, the main concern of the designers for the design is to minimize the settlement of the structure
which may affect its stability. Sustainability and Constructability are both given an importance value of nine
(9). The number one concern for this project will be the cost for construction and the safety of the residents
which means that the duration period can be set aside to promote safety with the client‟s consent.

For economic constraint, it yields that Stone Column is the most economical among the three trade-offs for
the improvement of the ground beneath the structure. It is made possible because it has the least value of
cost per square meter based on different studies.

For this constraint, Stone Column ranks first because of its long design life due to its physical and natural
properties. Its design life has a huge difference with the other two trade-offs

In the assessment for the duration period of construction, the result is clear that Stone Column is the most
efficient compared to other geotechnical tradeoffs and it can minimize the cost for labor since it only
requires the least duration from other tradeoffs
129
4.5.2.4 Risk-Assessment
Based on the final calculation for the settlement of the trade-offs, the result suggests that Stone Column
must be used for ground improvement as it has the least soil settlement.
4.5.3 Over-all Assessment of Trade-offs

From the results of assessments of different trade-offs concerning constraints, the soil improvement
method must be used is the Stone Column with an overall rank of 380.00. The second option would be Dry
Deep Soil Mixing for the ground improvement of the project.
4.6 Multiple Constraints Using Final Normalization Method
4.6.1.1 Raw Data

Table 4-74: Raw Data – Context I Structural Engineering Context
Economic Sustainability
Constructability Risk-Assessment
Cost (Maintenance
Design (Duration in (Storey Drift in
(Cost in Cost
Days) mm)
Pesos) in Pesos)
SPECIAL
12,253,314.60 218 163213.32 6.335
MOMENT-RESISTING FRAME
SHEAR WALL
14,616,168.46 279 188481.67 5.0554
FRAME SYSTEM
12,678,978.98 231 165813.15 1.07
Table 4-74 shows the raw data from the final estimates for the structural context, and used it as a basis to
determine which trade-off offers the best in particular constraint, and in general scale.

Table 4-75: Normalized Data – Context I Structural Engineering Context
Economic
Cost
(Cost in
Days) Years) mm)
Pesos)
SPECIAL
10.00 10.00 10.00 1.00
MOMENT-RESISTING FRAME
SHEAR WALL
1.00 1.00 1.00 3.19
FRAME SYSTEM
8.38 8.08 9.07 10.00
to easily compare each structural trade-off.
130
Table 4-76: 1st Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context I Structural Engineering Context
SPECIAL
SPECIAL BRACED
SHEAR WALL
Constraints FRAME
SYSTEM
FRAME FRAME
SYSTEM)
economic cost and risk assessment is higher than constructability and sustainability.
Table 4-77: 2nd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context I Structural Engineering Context
SPECIAL
SPECIAL BRACED
SHEAR WALL
Constraints FRAME
SYSTEM
FRAME FRAME
SYSTEM)
131
Table 4-78: 3rd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context I Structural Engineering Context
SPECIAL BRACED
SPECIAL
SHEAR WALL FRAME
Weight MOMENT-
Constraints FRAME (BUILDING
(%) RESISTING
SYSTEM FRAME
FRAME
SYSTEM)
Table 4-78 shows the weighted sum of the normalized data of each structural trade-off where all the
constraints have a weight of 0.25. Special braced frame system garnered the highest weighted sum when
the weights of all constraints are the same.
4.6.2.1 Raw Data

Table 4-79: Raw Data – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
Economic
Constructability Sustainability
Cost Risk-Assessment
Design (Duration in (Maintenance
(Cost in (Settlement in mm)
Days) Cost in Pesos)
Pesos)
Stone Column 1272570.57 7.63 19088.56 21.1
Jet Grouting 2151928.75 10.13 25823.15 22.5
Table 4-79 shows the raw data gathered by the designers from previous studies for the geotechnical
context, and used it as a basis to determine which trade-off offers the best in particular constraint, and in
general scale.

Table 4-80: Normalized Data – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
Economic
Constructability Sustainability
Cost Risk-Assessment
Design (Duration in (Maintenance
(Cost in (Settlement in mm)
Days) Cost in Pesos)
Pesos)
Stone Column 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
Jet Grouting 1.20 6.17 8.68 1.00
to easily compare each geotechnical trade-off.
132
4.6.2.3 Weighted Sum with Various Percentage Weight
Table 4-81: 1st Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
Weight
Constraints Stone Column Jet Grouting Dry Deep Soil Mixing
(%)
Weighted Sum 10.00 3.63 2.54
of 0.3, 0.2, 0.2, and 0.3. Stone columns garnered the highest weighted sum when the weight of economic
cost and risk assessment is higher than constructability and sustainability.
Table 4-82: 2nd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
Weight
(%)
Weighted Sum 10.00 4.90 2.03
of 0.2, 0.3, 0.3, and 0.2. Stone columns garnered the highest weighted sum when the weight of
Table 4-83: 3rd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
Weight
(%)
Weighted Sum 10.00 4.26 2.29
Table 4-83 shows the weighted sum of the normalized data of each geotechnical trade-off where all the
constraints have a weight of 0.25. Stone columns garnered the highest weighted sum when the weights of
all constraints are the same.
133
4.7 Sensitivity Analysis
4.7.1 Sensitivity Analysis for Context I Structural Engineering Context
4.7.1.1 Economic vs. Constructability

Figure 4-41 shows the effect of the increase of project cost to the constructability of the project. The project
cost was seen to be inversely proportional to the construction duration since increasing the manpower and
labor cost will speed up the construction and decrease the construction duration of the project. The
relationship mentioned is true for every trade-off of the proposed project.
Table 4-84: Economic vs. Constructability – Context I Structural Engineering Context

Special Moment Frame
Special Braced Frame Special Shear Walls
PERCENT (Moment-Resisting
(Building Frame System) (Dual System)
INCREASE Frame System)
COST DAYS COST DAYS COST DAYS
0% 12253314.16 291.00 12678978.98 310.00 14616168.46 377.00
5% 12865979.87 276.45 13312927.93 294.50 15346976.88 358.15
10% 13478645.58 261.90 13946876.88 279.00 16077785.31 339.30
15% 14091311.28 247.35 14580825.83 263.50 16808593.73 320.45
20% 14703976.99 232.80 15214774.78 248.00 17539402.15 301.60
25% 15316642.70 218.25 15848723.73 232.50 18270210.58 282.75
Figure 4-41: Economic vs. Constructability – Context I Structural Engineering Context
134
4.7.1.2 Economic vs. Sustainability
Figure 4-42 shows the effect of the increase of project cost to the sustainability of the project. The project
cost was seen to be directly proportional to the maintenance cost of the project. It is due to the dependency
of maintenance cost to the material cost and predicted lifespan of the project. The relationship mentioned is
true for every trade-off of the proposed project.
Table 4-85: Economic vs. Sustainability – Context I Structural Engineering Context

(Moment-Resisting Frame
PERCENT (Building Frame System) (Dual System)
System)
INCREASE
MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE
COST COST COST
COST COST COST
0% 12253314.16 163213.32 12678978.98 165813.15 14616168.46 188481.67
5% 12865979.87 171373.99 13312927.93 174103.81 15346976.88 197905.75
10% 13478645.58 179534.65 13946876.88 182394.47 16077785.31 207329.84
15% 14091311.28 187695.32 14580825.83 190685.12 16808593.73 216753.92
20% 14703976.99 195855.98 15214774.78 198975.78 17539402.15 226178.00
25% 15316642.70 204016.65 15848723.73 207266.44 18270210.58 235602.09
Figure 4-42: Economic vs. Sustainability – Context I Structural Engineering Context
4.7.1.3 Economic vs. Risk-Assessment

Figure 4-43 shows the effect of the increase of project cost to the cost of risk of the project. The project cost
was seen to be inversely proportional to the cost of risk since increasing the size and cost of structural
members will decrease the storey drift of the structure. The cost of risk is assumed to be equivalent to Php
20,000.00 per mm of storey drift. The relationship mentioned is true for every trade-off of the proposed
project.
135
Table 4-86: Economic vs. Risk-Assessment – Context I Structural Engineering Context
(Moment-Resisting Frame
PERCENT (Building Frame System) (Dual System)
System)
INCREASE
COST OF COST OF COST OF
COST COST COST
RISK RISK RISK
0% 12253314.16 126700.00 12678978.98 21400.00 14616168.46 101108.00
5% 12865979.87 120365.00 13312927.93 20330.00 15346976.88 96052.60
10% 13478645.58 114030.00 13946876.88 19260.00 16077785.31 90997.20
15% 14091311.28 107695.00 14580825.83 18190.00 16808593.73 85941.80
20% 14703976.99 101360.00 15214774.78 17120.00 17539402.15 80886.40
25% 15316642.70 95025.00 15848723.73 16050.00 18270210.58 75831.00
Figure 4-43: Economic vs. Risk-Assessment – Context I Structural Engineering Context
4.7.2 Sensitivity Analysis for Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
4.7.2.1 Economic vs. Constructability

Figure 4-44 shows the effect of the increase of project cost to the constructability of the project. The project
cost was seen to be inversely proportional to the construction duration since increasing the manpower and
equipment will speed up the construction and decrease the construction duration of the project. The
relationship mentioned is true for every trade-off of the proposed project.
136
Table 4-87: Economic vs. Constructability – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
PERCENT JET GROUTING DRY DEEP SOIL MIXING STONE COLUMN

INCREASE
COST DAYS COST DAYS COST DAYS
0% 2151928.75 10.13 2171742.29 13.50 1272570.57 7.63
5% 2259525.19 9.62 2280329.40 12.83 1336199.10 7.25
10% 2367121.63 9.12 2388916.52 12.15 1399827.63 6.87
15% 2474718.06 8.61 2497503.63 11.48 1463456.16 6.49
20% 2582314.50 8.10 2606090.75 10.80 1527084.68 6.10
25% 2689910.94 7.60 2714677.86 10.13 1590713.21 5.72
Figure 4-44: Economic vs. Constructability – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
4.7.2.2 Economic vs. Sustainability

Figure 4-45 shows the effect of the increase of project cost to the sustainability of the project. The project
cost was seen to be directly proportional to the maintenance cost of the project. It is due to the dependency
of maintenance cost to the material cost and predicted lifespan of the project. The relationship mentioned is
true for every trade-off of the proposed project.
137
Table 4-88: Economic vs. Sustainability – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
PERCENT JET GROUTING DRY SOIL MIXING STONE COLUMN

INCREASE
COST MAINTENANCE COST MAINTENANCE COST MAINTENANCE
0% 2151928.75 25823.15 2171742.29 65152.27 1272570.57 19088.56
5% 2259525.19 27114.31 2280329.40 68409.88 1336199.10 20042.99
10% 2367121.63 28405.47 2388916.52 71667.50 1399827.63 20997.42
15% 2474718.06 29696.62 2497503.63 74925.11 1463456.16 21951.84
20% 2582314.50 30987.78 2606090.75 78182.72 1527084.68 22906.27
25% 2689910.94 32278.94 2714677.86 81440.34 1590713.21 23860.70
Figure 4-45: Economic vs. Sustainability – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
4.7.2.3 Economic vs. Risk-Assessment

Figure 4-46 shows the effect of the increase of project cost to the cost of risk of the project. The project cost
was seen to be inversely proportional to the cost of risk since increasing the size and number of columns
will decrease the settlement of the structure. The cost of risk is assumed to be equivalent to Php 10,000.00
per mm of settlement. The relationship mentioned is true for every trade-off of the proposed project.
138
Table 4-89: Economic vs. Risk-Assessment – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
JET GROUTING DRY SOIL MIXING STONE COLUMN

PERCENT
INCREASE COST COST COST
COST OF COST OF COST OF
RISK RISK RISK
0% 2151928.75 225000.00 2171742.29 217000.00 1272570.57 211000.00
5% 2259525.19 236250.00 2280329.40 227850.00 1336199.10 221550.00
10% 2367121.63 247500.00 2388916.52 238700.00 1399827.63 232100.00
15% 2474718.06 258750.00 2497503.63 249550.00 1463456.16 242650.00
20% 2582314.50 270000.00 2606090.75 260400.00 1527084.68 253200.00
25% 2689910.94 281250.00 2714677.86 271250.00 1590713.21 263750.00
Figure 4-46: Economic vs. Risk-Assessment – Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
139
CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN
This section shows the final design results of the governing trade-offs for the Structural and Geotechnical
Context after conducting the final ranking and sensitivity analysis. Out of the Structural Trade-offs, which
are Special Moment-Resisting Frame, Shear Wall Framing System, and Special Braced Frame System, the
third stated trade-off governed in the final ranking, in the sensitivity analysis and in the normalization
method. Meanwhile, for the Geotechnical trade-offs, which are Stone Column, Dry Deep Soil Mixing, and
Jet Grouting, Stone Column governed the final ranking, sensitivity analysis, and in the normalization
method.
From the conducted estimates and design and based on the governing trade-offs, the proposed four-storey
multi-purpose evacuation center will therefore have a total material cost of Php 12,678,978.98 total
construction days of 231, lateral displacement or drift that is within the allowable limit, and minimal
maintenance cost throughout its 50- year life span. The ground improvement on the other hand will take
7.63 days, have Php 1,272,570.57 material cost, and have a design life of 60 years. To sum it up, the total
project cost and total construction duration will be Php 13,951,549.5 and 238.63 days respectively.
5.1 Context I Structural Engineering Context Final Design
5.1.1 Special Braced Frame System
5.1.1.1 Member Section and Properties

Table 5-1: Final Member Section and Properties – Braced Frame System
200x250mm
Normal Weight
Concrete
350mm x 500mm
Column 23.6 kN/m3
Normal Weight
Concrete
140
5.1.1.1.1 Beam Design
5.1.1.1.1.1 Material Properties

Table 5-2: Material Properties of Beam – Special Braced Frame
25 mm Ø Rebar 200 000 fy = 420 Mpa
5.1.1.1.1.2 Beam Framing Plan
Figure 5-1: Beam Framing Plan – Special Braced Frame

5.1.1.1.1.3 Beam Scheduling
Table 5-3: Beam Scheduling for 1st floor – Special Braced Frame
BOTTOM
SIZE TOP REINFORCEMENTS SHEAR STIRRUPS
REINFORCEMENT
BEAM NUMBERS MID
MID RIGH MID
B D LEFT SPA RIGHT LEFT LEFT RIGHT
SPAN T SPAN
N
B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,
B6, B7, B8, B9, B10,
15-2L 12-2L
B11, B12, B13, B14, 12-2L #10
300 400 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ #10 @
B15, B16, B17, B18, @ 75 C/C
150 C/C 75 C/C
B19, B20, B21, B22,
B23, B24
11-2L
2-2L #12
11-2L #12 #12 @
B25 350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 @ 200
@ 100 C/C 100
C/C
C/C
11-2L
B26, B28, B30, B32, 22-2L
11-2L #10 #10 @
B34, B36, B38, B40, 350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @
@ 100 C/C 100
B42 200 C/C
C/C
2-2L #12 11-2L
B27, B29, B31, B33, 11-2L #12
350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 @ 200 #12 @
B35, B37, B39, B41 @ 100 C/C
C/C 100
141
C/C
Table 5-4: Beam Scheduling for 2nd floor – Special Braced Frame
BOTTOM
REINFORCEMENT
BEAM
NUMBERS MID
MID MID
B D LEFT SPA RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT
SPAN SPAN
N
B1, B2, B3, B4,
B5, B6, B7, B8,
B9, B10, B11,
12-2L 16-2L #10
B12, B13, B14, 12-2L #10
300 400 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ @ 150
B15, B16, B17, @ 75 C/C
75 C/C C/C
B18, B19, B20,
B21, B22, B23,
B24
11-2L 2-2L #12
B25, B31, B35, 11-2L #12
350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #12 @ @ 200
B41 @ 100 C/C
100 C/C C/C
B26, B28, B30, 11-2L 22-2L #10
11-2L #10
B32, B34, B36, 350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ @ 200
@ 100 C/C
B38, B40, B42 100 C/C C/C
15-2L 2-2L #10
B27, B29, B33, 15-2L #10
350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ @ 200
B37, B39 @ 75 C/C
75 C/C C/C
Table 5-5: Beam Scheduling for 3rd floor – Special Braced Frame
BOTTOM
BEAM REINFORCEMENT
NUMBERS MID MID MID
B D LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT
SPAN SPAN SPAN
B1, B2, B3, B4,
B5, B6, B7, B8,
B9, B10, B11,
12-2L 16-2L 12-2L
B12, B13, B14,
300 400 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ #10 @ #10 @
B15, B16, B17,
75 C/C 150 C/C 75 C/C
B18, B19, B20,
B21, B22, B23,
B24
11-2L 2-2L 11-2L
B25, B29, B37,
350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #12 @ #12 @ #12 @
B41
100 C/C 200 C/C 100 C/C
B26, B28, B30, 11-2L 22-2L 11-2L
B32, B34, B36, 350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ #10 @ #10 @
B38, B40, B42 100 C/C 200 C/C 100 C/C
15-2L 2-2L 15-2L
B27, B39 350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ #10 @ #10 @
75 C/C 200 C/C 75 C/C
142
11-2L 2-2L 15-2L
B31, B33, B35 350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #12 @ #12 @ #12 @
100 C/C 200 C/C 75 C/C
Table 5-6: Beam Scheduling for 4th floor – Special Braced Frame
BOTTOM
BEAM REINFORCEMENT
NUMBERS MID MID MID
SPAN SPAN SPAN
B1, B2, B3,
B4, B5, B6,
8-2L
B7, B8, B9, 30-2L 8-2L #10
#10 @
B10, B11, 200 250 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 #10 @ @ 75
75
B12, B13, 100 C/C C/C
C/C
B14, B15,
B16
8-2L
10-2L 8-2L #10
#10 @
B17 200 250 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 #10 @ @ 75
75
100 C/C C/C
C/C
8-2L
55-2L 8-2L #10
#10 @
B18 200 250 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 #10 @ @ 75
75
100 C/C C/C
C/C
8-2L
80-2L 8-2L #10
#10 @
B19 200 250 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 #10 @ @ 75
75
100 C/C C/C
C/C
143
5.1.1.1.1.4 Beam Bar Scheduling
Table 5-7: Beam Bar Scheduling of 1st floor (B1-B24) – Special Braced Frame
144
Table 5-8: Beam Bar Scheduling for 1st floor (B1-B8) – Special Braced Frame
Table 5-9: Beam Bar Scheduling for 1st floor (B25-B42) – Special Braced Frame
145
Table 5-10: Beam Bar Scheduling for 2nd and 3rd floor (B1-B24) – Special Braced Frame
146
Table 5-11: Beam Bar Scheduling for 2nd and 3rd floor (B25-B26, B31-B32, B35-B36, B41-B42) – Special Braced Frame
Table 5-12: Beam Bar Scheduling for 2nd and 3rd floor (B25-B26, B31-B32, B35-B36, B41-B42) – Special Braced Frame
Table 5-13: Beam Bar Scheduling for 2nd and 3rd floor (B1-B8) – Special Braced Frame
147
Table 5-14: Beam Bar Scheduling for 4th floor (B1-B16)
148
149
5.1.1.1.1.5 Beam Sections and Elevations
Figure 5-2a: Beam Elevation of 1st floor – Special Braced Wall
150
Figure 5-2b: Beam Elevation of 1st floor – Special Braced Wall
151
Figure 5-3: Beam Elevation of 1st floor – Special Braced Frame
152
Figure 5-4a: Beam Elevation of 2nd and 3rd floor – Special Braced Frame
153
Figure 5-4b: Beam Elevation of 2nd and 3rd floor – Special Braced Frame
154
Figure 5-5: Beam Elevation of 2nd and 3rd floor – Special Braced Frame
155
Figure 5-6: Beam Elevation of 2nd and 3rd floor – Special Braced Frame
156
Figure 5-7a: Beam Elevation of 4th floor – Special Braced Frame
157
Figure 5-7b: Beam Elevation of 4th floor – Special Braced Frame
158
Figure 5-8: Beam Elevation of 4th floor – Special Braced Frame
159
Figure 5-9: Beam Section of 1st floor (B1-B24) – Special Braced Frame
160
Figure 5-10: Beam Section of 1st floor (B27-B42) – Special Braced Frame
161
Figure 5-11: Beam Section of 2nd and 3rd floor (B1-B24) – Special Braced Frame
162
Figure 5-12: Beam Section of 2nd and 3rd Floor (B25-B41) – Special Braced Frame
163
Figure 5-13: Beam Section of 4th Floor (B1-B16) – Special Braced Frame
164
Figure 5-14: Beam Section of 4th floor (B17-B20) – Special Braced Frame
165
5.1.1.1.2 Column Design
5.1.1.1.2.1 Material Properties

Table 5-16: Material Properties of Column – Special Braced Frame
Concrete 25 000 f‟c = 25 Mpa
32 mm Ø Rebar 200 000 fy = 420 Mpa
5.1.1.1.2.2 Column Framing Plans
Figure 5-15: Column Framing Plan – Special Braced Frame
5.1.1.1.2.3 Column Schedule

Table 5-17: Column Schedule – Special Braced Frame
SIZE 500 X 500
11.925M STEEL 8-#32
TO LINKS #10@240 C/C + #10@250 C/C
15.925M MATERIAL C25:Fy420
SCR ZONE 625
SIZE 500 X 500 500 X 500
8.725M STEEL 8-#32 8-#32
TO LINKS #10@240 C/C + #10@250 C/C #10@240 C/C + #10@250 C/C
11.925M MATERIAL C25:Fy420 C25:Fy420
SCR ZONE 500 500
SIZE 500 X 500 500 X 500
5.52M STEEL 8-#32 8-#32
SCR ZONE 500 500
2M SIZE 550 X 550 550 X 550
TO STEEL 8-#32 8-#32
5.525M LINKS #10@240 C/C + #10@255 C/C #10@240 C/C + #10@210 C/C
166
MATERIAL C25:Fy420 C25:Fy420
SCR ZONE 550 550
SIZE 550 X 550 550 X 550
0M STEEL 8-#32 8-#32
2M MATERIAL C25:Fy420 C25:Fy420
SCR ZONE 550 550
COLUMN MARKED C1 - C10, C18 – C27 C11 – C17
167
5.1.1.1.2.4 Column Bar Bending Schedule
Table 5-18: Column Bar Bending Schedule (C1-C10, C18-C27) – Special Braced Frame
168
Table 5-19: Column Bar Scheduling (C11-C18) – Special Braced Frame
169
Table 5-20: Column Bar Scheduling (C1) – Special Braced Frame
170
5.1.1.1.2.5 Column Elevations & Section
Figure 5-16: Column Elevation of C1-C10 & C18-C27 – Special Braced Frame
171
Figure 5-17: Column Elevation of C11-C17 – Special Braced Frame
172
Table 5-21: Column Section – Special Braced Frame
173
5.1.1.1.3 Slab Design
5.1.1.1.3.1 Slab Material Properties

Table 5-22: Material Properties of Slab – Special Braced Frame
10 mm Ø Rebar 200 000 fy = 420 Mpa
5.1.1.1.3.2 Slab Framing Plan
Figure 5-18: Slab Framing Plan – Special Braced Frame
5.1.1.1.3.3 Slab Schedule

Table 5-23: Slab Schedule – Special Braced Frame
BOTTOM REINFORCEMENT TOP REINFORCEMENTS
SLAB SLAB ALONG SHORT SPAN ALONG LONG SPAN OVERLONG SUPPORT OVERSHORT SUPPORT
MARKED THICKNESS
DISTRIBUTION
FULL FULL CONTINUOUS END CONTINUOUS END
CURTAILED CURTAILED
LENGTH LENGTH SUPPORT SUPPORT SUPPORT SUPPORT
S2, S7,
S10, S11, #10 @ #10 @ #10 @ 135 #10 @ 135
150 ---- ---- #10 @ 135 C/C #10 @ 135 C/C #10 @ 135 C/C
S12, S13, 135 C/C 135 C/C C/C C/C
S14, S15
S3, S4, S5, #10 @ #10 @ #10 @ 135

150 ---- ---- #10 @ 135 C/C ---- #10 @ 135 C/C #10 @ 135 C/C
S6 135 C/C 135 C/C C/C
#10 @ #10 @ #10 @ 135 #10 @ 135

S9, S16 150 ---- ---- ---- #10 @ 135 C/C #10 @ 135 C/C
135 C/C 135 C/C C/C C/C
174
5.1.1.1.3.4 Slab Bar Bending Schedule
5.1.1.1.3.4.1 Top Slab Bar Bending Schedule

Table 5-24: Top Slab Bar Bending Schedule (T1-T30) – Special Braced Frame
175
176
177
5.1.1.1.3.4.2 Bottom Slab Bar Bending Schedule
Table 5-27: Bottom Slab Bending Schedule (B1-B30) – Special Braced Frame
178
Table 5-28: Bottom Slab Bar Bending Schedule (B31-B60) – Special Braced Frame
179
Table 5-29: Bottom Slab Bar Bending Schedule (B61-B84) – Special Braced Frame
180
5.1.1.1.4 Footing Design
5.1.1.1.4.1 Footing Material Properties

Table 5-30: Material Properties of Footing – Special Braced Frame
25 mm Ø Rebar 200 000 fy = 420 Mpa
5.1.1.1.4.2 Footing Plan
Figure 5-19: Footing Plan – Special Braced Frame
181
5.1.1.1.4.3 Footing Schedule
Table 5-31: Footing Schedule – Special Braced Frame
SR. NO. TYPE NOS LX LY T REBARS-A REBARS-B
1 F1 18 2.00 M 2.00 M 0.65 M 19-16 17-16
2 F2 9 2.00 M 2.00 M 0.65 M 12-16 15-16
5.1.1.1.4.4 Footing Bar Bending Schedule

Table 5-32: Footing Bar Bending Schedule – Special Braced Frame
182
5.1.1.1.4.5 Footing Perspective View
Figure 5-20: Footing Perspective View – Special Braced Frame
5.1.1.1.5 Truss Design
5.1.1.1.5.1 Truss Material Properties

Table 5-33: Truss Material Properties – Special Braced Frame
AXIS X-X AXIS Y-Y
Wt.
per m rx y ry x
L 2 x 2 x 1/8 9.53 2.455 312 0.08 2.15 15.9 13.87 0.08 2.15 15.9 13.87
L 2 1/2 x 2 x 3/16
- 9.08 1161 0.7 13.6 24.54 19.41 - - - -
(Double Angle)
183
5.1.1.1.5.2 3D Model of Truss
Figure 5-21: 3D Model of Truss – Special Braced Frame
5.1.1.1.5.3 Truss Analysis and Design

Table 5-34: Truss Analysis and Design – Special Braced Frame
Truss Actual Ratio
1 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.202 1 0.202
2 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.223 1 0.223

3 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.080 1 0.080
4 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.079 1 0.079

5 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.070 1 0.070
6 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.070 1 0.070
7 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.079 1 0.079
8 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.080 1 0.080

9 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.223 1 0.223
10 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.202 1 0.202
11 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.381 1 0.381
12 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.407 1 0.407
13 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.305 1 0.305
184
14 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.334 1 0.334
15 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.449 1 0.449

16 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.449 1 0.449
17 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.334 1 0.334
18 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.305 1 0.305
19 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.407 1 0.407
20 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.381 1 0.381
21 L20202 L20202 0.596 1 0.596

22 L20202 L20202 0.287 1 0.287
23 L20202 L20202 0.104 1 0.104
24 L20202 L20202 0.086 1 0.086
25 L25203 LD L25203 LD 0.145 1 0.145

26 L20202 L20202 0.086 1 0.086
27 L20202 L20202 0.104 1 0.104
28 L20202 L20202 0.287 1 0.287
29 L20202 L20202 0.596 1 0.596

30 L20202 L20202 0.854 1 0.854
31 L20202 L20202 0.231 1 0.231
32 L20202 L20202 0.171 1 0.171
33 L20202 L20202 0.603 1 0.603
34 L20202 L20202 0.603 1 0.603
35 L20202 L20202 0.171 1 0.171

36 L20202 L20202 0.231 1 0.231
37 L20202 L20202 0.854 1 0.854
185
5.1.1.1.6 Purlin Design
5.1.1.1.6.1 Purlin Material Properties

Table 5-35: Purlin Material Properties – Special Braced Frame
AXIS X-X AXIS Y-Y
Wt.
AISC k IxAreaSx Iy Sy
per m rx y ry x
C 4 x 5.4 17.46 8.04 1026 1.6 31.63 39.62 - 0.13 4.64 11.4 -
5.1.1.1.6.2 3D Model of Purlin
PURLINS (C4X5)
Figure 5-22: 3D Model of Purlin – Special Braced Frame
186
5.1.1.1.6.3 Purlin Design and Analysis
Table 5-36: Purlin Design and Analysis – Special Braced Frame

Purlin Actual Ratio
1 C4X4 C4X4 0.353 1 0.353
2 C4X4 C4X4 0.353 1 0.353
3 C4X4 C4X4 0.205 1 0.205
4 C4X4 C4X4 0.205 1 0.205
5 C4X4 C4X4 0.195 1 0.195
6 C4X4 C4X4 0.195 1 0.195
7 C4X4 C4X4 0.195 1 0.195

8 C4X4 C4X4 0.195 1 0.195
9 C4X4 C4X4 0.205 1 0.205
10 C4X4 C4X4 0.205 1 0.205
11 C4X4 C4X4 0.353 1 0.353

12 C4X4 C4X4 0.353 1 0.353
5.1.1.1.6.4 Brace Design
5.1.1.1.6.4.1 Brace Material Properties

Table 5-37: Brace Material Properties – Special Braced Frame
AISC Ax Ay Az Ix Iy Iz Elasticity Density
D W
Designation (m )
2 (m )
2 (m2) (m4) (m )
4 (m )
4 (kN/mm2) (kg/m3)
L5x5x8 0.00618063 0.002151 0.002151 0.127 3.29517 1.75676 9.36544 0.127 205 7833.41
L6x6x6 0.0056516 0.001935 0.001935 0.1524 1.7011x10-7 2.26049 1.28088 0.1524 205 7833.41
5.1.1.1.6.4.2 Brace Analysis and Design

Table 5-38: Brace Analysis and Design Summary – Special Braced Frame
Normalized Ratio
Brace Design Property Actual Ratio Allowable Ratio
(Actual/Allowble)
1052 L6x6x6 0.888 1.000 0.888
1053 L6x6x6 0.915 1.000 0.915
1054 L6x6x6 0.722 1.000 0.722
1055 L6x6x6 0.660 1.000 0.660
1056 L5x5x8 0.574 1.000 0.574
187
1057 L5x5x8 0.480 1.000 0.480
1058 L5x5x8 1.036 1.000 1.036
1059 L5x5x8 1.036 1.000 1.036
1060 L6x6x6 0.896 1.000 0.896
1061 L6x6x6 0.892 1.000 0.892
1062 L6x6x6 0.757 1.000 0.757
1063 L6x6x6 0.704 1.000 0.704
1064 L5x5x8 0.627 1.000 0.627
1065 L5x5x8 0.502 1.000 0.502
1066 L5x5x8 0.537 1.000 0.537
1067 L5x5x8 0.484 1.000 0.484
1068 L6x6x6 0.676 1.000 0.676
1069 L6x6x6 0.656 1.000 0.656
1070 L6x6x6 0.777 1.000 0.777
1071 L6x6x6 0.780 1.000 0.780
1072 L5x5x8 0.499 1.000 0.499
1073 L5x5x8 0.452 1.000 0.452
1074 L6x6x6 0.630 1.000 0.630
1075 L6x6x6 0.610 1.000 0.610
1076 L6x6x6 0.711 1.000 0.711
1077 L6x6x6 0.713 1.000 0.713
1078 L5x5x8 0.512 1.000 0.512
1079 L5x5x8 0.405 1.000 0.405
1080 L6x6x6 0.620 1.000 0.620
1081 L6x6x6 0.566 1.000 0.566
1082 L6x6x6 0.700 1.000 0.700
1083 L6x6x6 0.691 1.000 0.691
1084 L6x6x6 0.628 1.000 0.628
1085 L6x6x6 0.646 1.000 0.646
1086 L6x6x6 0.537 1.000 0.537
1087 L6x6x6 0.479 1.000 0.479
1088 L5x5x8 0.442 1.000 0.442
1089 L5x5x8 0.331 1.000 0.331
1090 L5x5x8 1.036 1.000 1.036
1091 L5x5x8 1.036 1.000 1.036
1092 L6x6x6 0.777 1.000 0.777
1093 L6x6x6 0.562 1.000 0.562
1094 L6x6x6 0.566 1.000 0.566
1095 L6x6x6 0.531 1.000 0.531
188
1096 L5x5x8 0.374 1.000 0.374
1097 L5x5x8 0.377 1.000 0.377
1098 L5x5x8 0.069 1.000 0.069
1099 L5x5x8 0.087 1.000 0.087
1100 L5x5x8 0.086 1.000 0.086
1101 L5x5x8 0.074 1.000 0.074
1102 L5x5x8 0.385 1.000 0.385
1103 L5x5x8 0.365 1.000 0.365
1104 L6x6x6 0.569 1.000 0.569
1105 L6x6x6 0.525 1.000 0.525
1106 L6x6x6 0.776 1.000 0.776
1107 L6x6x6 0.563 1.000 0.563
1108 L6x6x6 0.777 1.000 0.777
1109 L6x6x6 0.563 1.000 0.563
1110 L6x6x6 0.562 1.000 0.562
1111 L6x6x6 0.778 1.000 0.778
1112 L6x6x6 0.571 1.000 0.571
1113 L6x6x6 0.525 1.000 0.525
1114 L6x6x6 0.531 1.000 0.531
1115 L6x6x6 0.568 1.000 0.568
1116 L5x5x8 0.364 1.000 0.364
1117 L5x5x8 0.386 1.000 0.386
1118 L5x5x8 0.071 1.000 0.071
1119 L5x5x8 0.087 1.000 0.087
1120 L5x5x8 0.376 1.000 0.376
1121 L5x5x8 0.377 1.000 0.377
1122 L5x5x8 0.083 1.000 0.083
1123 L5x5x8 0.071 1.000 0.071
5.1.1.1.6.5 Connection Design
5.1.1.1.6.5.1 Connections Material Properties

Table 5-39: Connections Material Properties – Special Braced Frame
Material Spacing (mm) Area (mm2)
20 mm Ø Bolt 65 -
Gusset Plate - 62500
189
5.1.1.1.6.5.2 Connections Layout Plan
Figure 5-23: Layout Plan of 6-bolt Connection – Special Braced Frame
Figure 5-24: Layout Plan of 4-bolt Connection – Special Braced Frame
190
5.2 Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context Final Design
5.2.1 Stone Column Design
5.2.1.1 Design Results of Stone Column
5.2.1.1.1 Settlement Analysis for Soil with Stone Column

Table 5-40: Settlement Analysis for Soil – Stone Column
Ds improved
(m) (kPa) (kPa)
1 1.50 135.57 30.00 20.81 3.19 4.70
2 5.50 16.75 108.00 32.37 0.93 3.70
Figure 5-25. Settlement Plot – Stone Column
5.2.1.1.2 Design Results of Stone Column

Table 5-51: Parametric Analysis Tabular Results – Stone Column
0.8 41.2 21.1 0.93
191
respectively. The founding depth of the columns is 2.0 m as shown in Figure 5-26.
Figure 5-26. Layout Plan – Stone Column
5.2.1.1.3 Result Summary of the Design of Stone Column

Table 5-52: Settlement without Treatment vs. Settlement with Treatment – Stone Column
Treatment Treatment
Bottom Load Over. Ds
Corner
of
footing
(mm) (mm) (mm)
(mm)
1 1.50 135.57 30.00 20.81 31.9 9.8 15.30 4.70
2 5.50 16.75 108.00 32.37 9.3 6.0 5.80 3.70
TOTAL 41.2 15.8 21.10 8.40
Table 5-53: Result Summary of the Design – Stone Column

Settlement Column
(mm) Diameter (mm)
F-1 4.00 280.00 21.1 600 5
Total Number of Stone Columns 135
192
REFERENCES
Al Ammari, K., & BG, C. (2016, February). Predicting the Effect of Vibro Stone Column Installation on
Performance of Reinforced Foundation. Retrieved from http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/92826/
Almusallam, T., Al-Salloum, Y., Ngo, T., Mendis, P., & Abbas, H. (2017). Experimental investigation of
progressive collapse potential of ordinary and special moment-resisting reinforced concrete
frames. Materials and Structures, 137.
Baskose, Y., & Gokceoglu, C. (2018, December 31). An Experimental Study to Compare Two Soil
Improvement Techniques Performance. Retrieved from
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-030-01665-
4_61?fbclid=IwAR0hCvQ9aheN1Q9wFC3JOi-7ZTnipZvnpEPJ5RhQfISQF6fQDl_AWBTmgE0
Choudhary, J., & Khare, D. G. (2018). Comparative Study and Analysis of Unbraced RCC Framed Stucture
with Steel Braced RCC Framed Structure using Response Spectrum Method. International Journal
of Engineering Research & Technology.
Cornes, M. (2019). NDRRMC opens Cordillera regional evacuation center.
Dungca, J. R., & Chua, R. A. (2016). Development of a Probabilistic Liquefaction Potential Map for Metro
Manila. International Journal of GEOMATE, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1804-1809.
Dungca, J. R., Concepcion, I. J., Limyuen, M. C., See, T. O., & Vicencio, M. R. (2017). Soil Bearing
Capacity Reference for Metro Manila, Philippines. International Journal of GEOMATE, Vol. 12
Issue 32, 5-11.
Elham Ghanbari, A. H. (2015). Improvement parameters in dynamic compaction adjacent to the slopes.
Science Press.
Gaafer, M., Bassioni, H., & Mostafa, T. (2015). Soil Improvement Techniques. International Journal of
Scientific & Engineering Research, Vol. 6, Issue 12, 217-222.
Galupino, J. G. (2017, June 20). Current Experimental Methodologies in Soil Strength Improvement.
Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9f6e/c0a425a68da62567cf3d216041492577c571.pdf
Gopalsamy, P., Sakthivel, M., Arun, K., Vigneshwaran, V., & Mohammed Harish, H. (2017, February).
Study on Improvement of Bearing Capacity of Soil by Grouting. Retrieved from
https://www.irjet.net/archives/V4/i3/IRJET-V4I3475.pdf
Grag. (2018). Retrieved from Quora: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-buildings-in-the-Philippines-made-

mostly-of-concrete-and-buildings-on-the-US-made-mostly-of-steel-Which-building-method-is-better
193
Ilyas, A., Azeem, M. A., & Mohiuddin, H. (2018). Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Buildings
Under Mainshock-Aftershock Earthquake Sequence. International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, Volume 9, Issue 4, 647-659.
IOM. (2014). Design Development Evacuation Centers / Eastern Samar.
Jendrysik, K., Kiecana, M., & Szabowicz, H. (2018). Preliminary results of dry deep soil mixing soil-cement
composite testing. Retrieved from MATEC Web of Conferences (Vol. 251, p. 01025):
https://www.matec-conferences.org
Karun, M., & Nigee, K. (2016). A Study on Ground Improvement using Stone Column Technique.
International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 2(11).
Keller Holding GmbH. (2017). Deep Vibro Techniques. Retrieved from https://kellerholding.com/deep-vibro-
techniques.html
Khan, M., Yadav, R., & Dube, A. (2017, September 3). A Review on Methods of Ground Improvement .
International Journal of Engineering & Science Research, Volume 3(Issue 9).
Khattab, S. A. (2016). Parameters Affecting Load Capacity of Reinforced Self-Compacted Concrete Deep
Beams. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), Vol. 5, 225–233.
Kumar, S. P., & Pandian, G. A. (2016). Analysis and Evaluation of Structural Systems with Bracing and
Shear Wall. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology.
Kwon, J., & Ghannoum, W. M. (2016). Assessment of international standard provisions on stiffness of
reinforced concrete moment frame and shear wall buildings. Engineering Structures Volume 128,
149-160.
Liu, W. (2016). System Reliability-Based Design of Three-Dimensional Steel Strucutres by Advance

Analysis. University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Marasigan, L. (2019). DPWH Speeds up construction of 4 Evacuation Centers.
Martinez, J. C., & Navaza, V. A. (2015, October 2). Community Shelter Guidelines. (delegadoCRE, Ed.)
Accomodation Centres in Existing Buildings.
Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment (MBIE) and New Zealand Geotechnical Society (NZGS).
(2017, June). Module 5: Ground Improvement of Soils Prone to Liquefaction. Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering Practice.
Mokhtari, M., & Kalantari, B. (2017, September 3). Soft Soil Stabilization using Stone Columns. (R. Gate,
Ed.)
194
Momenzadeh, S. (2017). Seismic design study of concentrically braced frames . Iowa State University .
Moon, J.-S., Jung, H., Lee, S., & Kang, S.-T. (2019, May 22). Ground Improvement Using Dynamic
Compaction in Sabkha Deposit. Retrieved from https://www.mdpi.com/2076- 3417/9/12/2506/pdf
Naoe, L. (2017). A Multi-Purpose Sport Center cum Evacuation Center. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/32734970/_A_Multi-
Purpose_Sport_Center_cum_Evacuation_Center_in
Opdyke, A., Javernick-Will, A., Koschmann, M., & Moench, H. (2016). Characterizing Post-Disaster Shelter
Design and Material Selections: Lessons from Typhoon Yolanda in the Philippines. Construction
Research Congress 2016, 1475-1485.
Öztürk, S., B. ,., Ş. E., Dadaşbilge, O., & Angın, Z. (2017, April). Soil Improvement by Jet Grout Method
and Geogrid Against Liquefaction. Retrieved from
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017EGUGA..1914969O
Patel, A. (2019). Geotechnical Investigations and Improvement of Ground Conditions. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128170489000020
S. Thevanayagam, G. M. (2016). Liquefaction Remediation in Silty Soils using Dynamic Compaction .
Salem, Z., Frikha, W., & Bouassida, M. (2017). Densification effect on Liquefaction potential of Reinforced
Soil by Stone Columns. 19th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering. Seoul, South Korea.
Sangave, P. e. (2015). Comparative Study of Analysis and Design of R.C. and Steel Structures.
International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, Vol. 6.
Shirazi, M. R., Zarrin, O., & Valipourian, K. (2015). The Role of Vibro-Stone Column for Enhancing the Soft
Soil Properties. International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vol. 9, No.5.
Singh, I., & Sahu, A. (2019). A Review on Stone Columns used for Ground Improvement of Soil.
International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering .
Siswanto, A. B., & Salim, M. A. (2018). Basic Criteria Design of Earthquake Resistant Building Structures.
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Vol. 9, Issue 4, 1426-1436.
Sonali Pandey, D. M. (2017). A Review on Shear wall in High Rise Buildings. International Journal of
Engineering Inventions, 19-21.
Spaulding, C., Friedlaender, E., Wong, P., & Jones, S. (2017, September 3). Recent Application of Ground
Improvement Technology in Australia and the Pacific Region. Common Ground Proceedings.
195
Tesfamariam, S. (2014). Optimal design of reinforced concrete beams. Computers and Concrete, Vol. 14,
457-482 .
Thanaraj, S., & Brema, J. (2019). Analysis on the Performance of Stone Columns with Different Materials of
Soil Stabilization. International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology.
Topolnicki, M. (2016). General overview and advances in deep soil mixing. XXIV Geotechnical Conference
of Torino Design, Construction and Controls of Soil Improvement Systems (pp. 1-30). Torino, 25-
26.
Victoria, R. (2018). Evacuation center with complete facilities to rise in Ormoc.
Vijetha, K., & Rao, D. B. (2019). Comparative Study of Shear Walls and Bracings for a Multistoried
Structure Under Seismic Loading. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology.
Yadav, A. K., & Rai, A. (2017). A Seismic Comparison of RC Special Moment Resisting Frame Considering
Regular and Irregular Structures. International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research
Technology.
Yamini Komath, P. M. (2017). REVIEW ON STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE OF BRACED STEEL.

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), 56-72.
Yap, T. (2019). Evacuation Center opens in Antique.
Yoshida, N. (2018). Remedial Measures Against Soil Liquefaction: from Investigation and Design to
Implementation. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Zabarte, E. (2018 ). Konstruksyon ng Batangas Capitol Evacuation Center.
196
APPENDIX A: INITIAL ESTIMATES FOR CONTEXT I STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
CONTEXT
For Context I Structural Engineering Context
Economic Constraint:
Inputs:
Average Cost Per Square Meter = Php 13,970
Project Area = 376 sq.m
No. of Floors = 4
The cost of construction of Braced Frame and Dual System with Shear wall is higher by 10.89% and
15.23%respectively, compared to Special Moment Resisting Frame
1. Special Moment Resisting Frame
2. Special Braced Frame
3. Special Shear Wall System
Risk Assessment:
Lateral Displacement:
Special Moment Resisting Frame
∆ = 4.10 mm
Special Braced Frame
∆ = 2.89 mm
197
Special Shear Wall System
∆ = 3.24 mm
198
APPENDIX B: INITIAL ESTIMATES FOR CONTEXT II GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
CONTEXT
For Context II Geotechnical Engineering Context
Economic Constraint:
Inputs:
Total Area of the Project= 376 sq. m
No. of Floors = 4
Average Cost per square meter for Stone Column =2085.40 Php
Average Cost per square meter for Jet Grouting = 9809.63 Php
Average Cost per square meter for Deep Dry Soil Mixing = 3032.40 Php
1. Stone Column
2. Jet Grouting
3. Deep Dry Soil Mixing
199
APPENDIX C: SPECIAL MOMENT-RESISTING FRAME DRAWINGS
BEAM DRAWINGS – SPECIAL MOMENT-RESISTING FRAME
Beam Framing Plan – Special Moment Resisting Frame
BOTTOM TOP
SIZE SHEAR STIRRUPS
BEAM REINFORCEMENT REINFORCEMENTS
NUMBERS MID MID MID
SPAN SPAN SPAN
11-
B1, B2, B7, 2L 16-2L 11-2L
3- 3-
B8, B9, 300 400 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 #10 @ #10 @ 80
#25 #25
B16 @ 80 140 C/C C/C
C/C
B3, B4, B5,
11-
B6, B17,
2L 16-2L 11-2L
B18, B19, 3- 3-
300 400 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 #10 @ #10 @ 80
B20, B21, #25 #25
@ 80 140 C/C C/C
BB22, B23,
C/C
B24
11-
2L 16-2L 11-2L
3- 3-
B10 300 400 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 5-#25 #10 #10 @ #10 @ 80
#25 #25
@ 80 140 C/C C/C
C/C
11-
16-2L 11-2L
B11, B12, 3- 5- 2L
300 400 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 5-#25 #10 @ #10 @ 80
B13, B14 #25 #25 #10
140 C/C C/C
@ 80
200
C/C
11-
2L 16-2L 11-2L
3- 5-
B15 300 400 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 #10 @ #10 @ 80
#25 #25
@ 80 140 C/C C/C
C/C
11-
2L
11-2L
3- 3- #10
B25, B41 350 550 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 --- #10 @
#25 #25 @
100 C/C
100
C/C
11-
2L
22-2L 11-2L
B26, B40, 3- 3- #10
350 550 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ #10 @
B42 #25 #25 @
190 C/C 120 C/C
120
C/C
13-
2L 11-2L
3- 4-
B27 350 550 3-#25 3-#25 4-#25 4-#25 #10 --- #10 @ 90
#25 #25
@ 85 C/C
C/C
11-
2L
22-2L 11-2L
3- 4- #10
B28 350 550 3-#25 3-#25 4-#25 4-#25 #10 @ #10 @
#25 #25 @
190 C/C 120 C/C
120
C/C
11-
2L
11-2L
B29, B33, 3- 3- #10
350 550 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 --- #10 @
B37 #25 #25 @
100 C/C
105
C/C
11-
2L
22-2L 11-2L
3- 3- #10
B30, B38 350 550 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ #10 @
#25 #25 @
190 C/C 120 C/C
120
C/C
B31, B35 350 550 3- 3-#25 3-#25 4- 4-#25 4-#25 12- --- 11-2L
201
#25 #25 2L #10 @ 85
#10 C/C
@ 90
C/C
11-
2L
22-2L 11-2L
3- 4- #10
B32, B36 350 550 3-#25 3-#25 4-#25 4-#25 #10 @ #10 @
#25 #25 @
190 C/C 120 C/C
120
C/C
11-
2L
17-2L 11-2L
3- 3- #10
B34 350 550 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ #10 @
#25 #25 @
240 C/C 120 C/C
120
C/C
11-
2L
11-2L
3- 3- #10
B39 350 550 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 --- #10 @
#25 #25 @
105 C/C
100
C/C
Beam Schedule of 1st Floor – Special Moment Resisting Frame
BOTTOM TOP
SIZE SHEAR STIRRUPS
NUMBERS MID MID MID
SPAN SPAN SPAN
12-
2L 19-2L 12-2L
3- 3-
B1, B2, B7 300 400 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 #10 @ #10 @ 75
#25 #25
@ 75 125 C/C C/C
C/C
B3, B4, B5,
B6, B8, B9,
B10, B11, 12-
B12, B13, 2L 16-2L 12-2L
3- 3-
B14, B15, 300 400 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 #10 @ #10 @ 75
#25 #25
B16, B17, @ 75 150 C/C C/C
B18, B19, C/C
B20, B21,
BB22, B23,
202
B24
12-
2L
12-2L
3- 3- #12
B25, B41 350 550 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 --- #12 @
#25 #25 @
100 C/C
100
C/C
12-
2L
19-2L 12-2L
3- 3- #10
B26, B42 350 550 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ #10 @
#25 #25 @
225 C/C 100 C/C
100
C/C
15-
2L 15-2L
3- 3-
B27, B39 350 550 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 --- #10 @ 75
#25 #25
@ 75 C/C
C/C
12-
2L
24-2L 12-2L
3- 3- #10
B28, B40 350 550 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ #10 @
#25 #25 @
175 C/C 100 C/C
100
C/C
15-
2L 15-2L
B29, B33, 3- 3-
350 550 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 --- #10 @ 75
B37 #25 #25
@ 75 C/C
C/C
12-
2L
19-2L 12-2L
B30, B43, 3- 3- #10
350 550 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ #10 @
B38 #25 #25 @
225 C/C 100 C/C
100
C/C
15-
15-2L
3- 4- 2L
B31, B35 350 550 3-#25 3-#25 4-#25 4-#25 --- #12 @ 75
#25 #25 #12
C/C
@ 75
203
C/C
12-
2L
19-2L 12-2L
3- 4- #10
B32, B36 350 550 3-#25 3-#25 4-#25 4-#25 #10 @ #10 @
#25 #25 @
225 C/C 100 C/C
100
C/C
Beam Schedule of 2nd to 3rd Floor – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
BOTTOM TOP
SIZE SHEAR STIRRUPS
NUMBERS MID MID MID
SPAN SPAN SPAN
8-2L
30-2L #10 8-2L #10
B1, B8, 2- 2- #10
200 250 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 @ 100 @ 75
B9, B16 #25 #25 @ 75
C/C C/C
C/C
B2, B3,
B4, B5, 8-2L
30-2L #10 8-2L #10
B6, B7, 2- 2- #10
200 250 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 @ 100 @ 75
B10, B11, #25 #25 @ 75
C/C C/C
B12, B13, C/C
B14, B15
11-2L
4-2L #10 11-2L
2- 2- #10
B17 250 350 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 @ 150 #10 @
#25 #25 @ 75
C/C 75 C/C
C/C
11-2L
34-2L #10 11-2L
2- 2- #10
B18 250 350 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 @ 150 #10 @
#25 #25 @ 75
C/C 75 C/C
C/C
11-2L
50-2L #10 11-2L
2- 2- #10
B19 250 350 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 @ 150 #10 @
#25 #28 @ 75
C/C 75 C/C
C/C
Beam Schedule for 4th Floor – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
204
Beam Bar Scheduling – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
205
206
207
208
Beam Elevation – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
Beam Elevation (B1-B16) – Special Moment Resisting Frame (a)
209
Beam Elevation (B9-B16) – Special Moment Resisting Frame (b)
210
Beam Section – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
211
212
213
214
COLUMN DRAWINGS – SPECIAL MOMENT RESISTING FRAME
Column Framing Plan – Special Moment Resisting Frame
SIZE 450 X 450

11.925M STEEL 8-#32
TO LINKS #10@225 C/C + #10@225 C/C
SCR ZONE 625
SIZE 450 X 450 450 X 450
8.725M STEEL 8-#32 8-#32
SCR ZONE 470 470
SIZE 450 X 450 450 X 450
5.52M STEEL 8-#32 8-#32
SCR ZONE 470 470
SIZE 550 X 550 550 X 550
0M STEEL 8-#32 8-#32
SCR ZONE 855 855
Column Schedule – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
215
Column Bar Bending Schedule – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
216
217
Column Elevation – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
218
219
Column Section – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
220
Slab Drawings – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
Slab Framing Plan – Special Moment Resisting Frame
MARKED THICKNESS
DISTRIBUTION
CURTAILED CURTAILED
S2, S7,
S10, S11, #10 @ #10 @ #10 @ 135 #10 @ 135
150 ---- ---- #10 @ 135 C/C #10 @ 135 C/C #10 @ 135 C/C
S12, S13, 135 C/C 135 C/C C/C C/C
S14, S15
S3, S4, S5, #10 @ #10 @ #10 @ 135

150 ---- ---- #10 @ 135 C/C ---- #10 @ 135 C/C #10 @ 135 C/C
S6 135 C/C 135 C/C C/C
#10 @ #10 @ #10 @ 135 #10 @ 135

S9, S16 150 ---- ---- ---- #10 @ 135 C/C #10 @ 135 C/C
135 C/C 135 C/C C/C C/C
Slab Schedule – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
221
Slab Bar Bending Schedule – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
Top Slab Bar Bending Schedule – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
222
223
224
Bottom Slab Bar Bending Schedule – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
225
226
227
Footing Drawings – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
Footing Plan – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
228
Footing Schedule – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
Footing Bar Bending Schedule – Special Moment Resisting Frame
229
APPENDIX D: SPECIAL BRACED FRAME DRAWINGS
BEAM DRAWINGS – SPECIAL BRACED FRAME
Beam Framing Plan – Special Braced Frame
Beam Schedule (1st Floor) – Special Braced Frame
BOTTOM
REINFORCEMENT
BEAM NUMBERS
MID MID RIGH MID
B D LEFT RIGHT LEFT LEFT RIGHT
SPAN SPAN T SPAN
B1, B2, B3, B4, B5,
B6, B7, B8, B9, B10,
15-2L 12-2L
B11, B12, B13, B14, 12-2L #10
300 400 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ #10 @
B15, B16, B17, B18, @ 75 C/C
150 C/C 75 C/C
B19, B20, B21, B22,
B23, B24
11-2L
2-2L #12
11-2L #12 #12 @
B25 350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 @ 200
@ 100 C/C 100
C/C
C/C
11-2L
B26, B28, B30, B32, 22-2L
11-2L #10 #10 @
B34, B36, B38, B40, 350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @
@ 100 C/C 100
B42 200 C/C
C/C
11-2L
2-2L #12
B27, B29, B31, B33, 11-2L #12 #12 @
350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 @ 200
B35, B37, B39, B41 @ 100 C/C 100
C/C
C/C
230
Beam Schedule (2nd Floor) – Special Braced Frame
BOTTOM
BEAM REINFORCEMENT
NUMBERS MID MID MID
SPAN SPAN SPAN
B1, B2, B3, B4,
B5, B6, B7, B8,
B9, B10, B11,
12-2L 16-2L #10
B12, B13, B14, 12-2L #10
300 400 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ @ 150
B15, B16, B17, @ 75 C/C
75 C/C C/C
B18, B19, B20,
B21, B22, B23,
B24
11-2L 2-2L #12
B25, B31, B35, 11-2L #12
350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #12 @ @ 200
B41 @ 100 C/C
100 C/C C/C
B26, B28, B30, 11-2L 22-2L #10
11-2L #10
B32, B34, B36, 350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ @ 200
@ 100 C/C
B38, B40, B42 100 C/C C/C
15-2L 2-2L #10
B27, B29, B33, 15-2L #10
350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ @ 200
B37, B39 @ 75 C/C
75 C/C C/C
Beam Schedule (3rd Floor) – Special Braced Frame
BOTTOM
BEAM REINFORCEMENT
NUMBERS MID MID MID
SPAN SPAN SPAN
B1, B2, B3, B4,
B5, B6, B7, B8,
B9, B10, B11,
12-2L 16-2L 12-2L
B12, B13, B14,
300 400 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ #10 @ #10 @
B15, B16, B17,
75 C/C 150 C/C 75 C/C
B18, B19, B20,
B21, B22, B23,
B24
11-2L 2-2L 11-2L
B25, B29, B37,
350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #12 @ #12 @ #12 @
B41
100 C/C 200 C/C 100 C/C
B26, B28, B30, 11-2L 22-2L 11-2L
B32, B34, B36, 350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ #10 @ #10 @
B38, B40, B42 100 C/C 200 C/C 100 C/C
15-2L 2-2L 15-2L
B27, B39 350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ #10 @ #10 @
75 C/C 200 C/C 75 C/C
231
11-2L 2-2L 15-2L
B31, B33, B35 350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #12 @ #12 @ #12 @
100 C/C 200 C/C 75 C/C
Beam Schedule (4th Floor) – Special Braced Frame
BOTTOM
BEAM REINFORCEMENT
NUMBERS MID MID MID
SPAN SPAN SPAN
B1, B2, B3,
B4, B5, B6,
8-2L
B7, B8, B9, 30-2L 8-2L #10
#10 @
B10, B11, 200 250 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 #10 @ @ 75
75
B12, B13, 100 C/C C/C
C/C
B14, B15,
B16
8-2L
10-2L 8-2L #10
#10 @
B17 200 250 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 #10 @ @ 75
75
100 C/C C/C
C/C
8-2L
55-2L 8-2L #10
#10 @
B18 200 250 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 #10 @ @ 75
75
100 C/C C/C
C/C
8-2L
80-2L 8-2L #10
#10 @
B19 200 250 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 #10 @ @ 75
75
100 C/C C/C
C/C
232
Beam bar Scheduling – Special Braced Frame
Beam Bar Scheduling of 1st Floor (B1-B24) – Special Braced Frame
233
Beam Bar Scheduling of 1st Floor (B1-B8) – Special Braced Frame
Beam Bar Scheduling for 1st floor (B25-B42) – Special Braced Frame
234
Beam Bar Scheduling for 2nd and 3rd floor (B1-B24) – Special Braced Frame
235
Beam Bar Scheduling for 2nd and 3rd floor (B25-B26, B31-B32, B35-B36, B41-B42) – Special Braced
Frame
Beam Bar Scheduling for 2nd and 3rd floor (B1-B8) – Special Braced Frame
236
Beam Bar Scheduling for 4th floor (B1-B16) – Special Braced Frame
237
238
Beam Elevation – Special Braced Frame
Beam Elevation of 1st floor – Special Braced Frame (a)

239
Beam Elevation of 1st floor – Special Braced Frame (b)
240
Beam Elevation of 1st floor – Special Braced Wall
241
Beam Elevation of 2nd and 3rd floor – Special Braced Frame (a)
242
Beam Elevation of 2nd and 3rd floor – Special Braced Frame (a)
243
Beam Elevation of 2nd and 3rd floor – Special Braced Frame
244
Beam Elevation of 2nd and 3rd floor – Special Braced Frame
245
Figure 4-28a. Beam Elevation of 4th floor – Special Braced Frame
246
Figure 4-28b. Beam Elevation of 4th floor – Special Braced Frame
247
Beam Elevation of 4th floor – Special Braced Frame
248
Beam Sections – Special Moment-Resisting Frame
Beam Section of 1st floor (B1-B24) – Special Braced Frame

249
Beam Section of 1st floor (B27-B42) – Special Braced Frame
250
Beam Section of 2nd and 3rd floor (B1-B24) – Special Braced Frame
251
Beam Section of 2nd and 3rd Floor (B25-B41) – Special Braced Frame
252
Beam Section of 4th Floor (B1-B16) – Special Braced Frame
253
Beam Section of 4th floor (B17-B20) – Special Braced Frame
254
Column Drawings – Special Braced Frame
Column Framing Plan – Special Braced Frame
Column Schedule – Special Braced Frame
SIZE 500 X 500

11.925M STEEL 8-#32
TO LINKS #10@240 C/C + #10@250 C/C
SCR ZONE 625
SIZE 500 X 500 500 X 500
8.725M STEEL 8-#32 8-#32
SCR ZONE 500 500
SIZE 500 X 500 500 X 500
5.52M STEEL 8-#32 8-#32
SCR ZONE 500 500
SIZE 550 X 550 550 X 550
2M STEEL 8-#32 8-#32
SCR ZONE 550 550
SIZE 550 X 550 550 X 550
0M STEEL 8-#32 8-#32
SCR ZONE 550 550
255
Column Bar Bending Schedule (C1-C10, C18-C27) – Special Braced Frame
256
Column Bar Scheduling (C11-C18) – Special Braced Frame
257
Column Bar Scheduling (C1) – Special Braced Frame
258
Column Elevations – Special Braced Frame
Column Elevation of C1-C10 & C18-C27 – Special Braced Frame
259
Column Elevation of C11-C17 – Special Braced Frame
260
Column Section – Special Braced Frame
Column Section – Special Braced Frame
261
SLAB DRAWINGS – SPECIAL BRACED FRAME
Slab Framing Plan – Special Braced Frame
Slab Schedule – Special Braced Frame
MARKED THICKNESS
DISTRIBUTION
CURTAILED CURTAILED
S2, S7,
S10, S11, #10 @ #10 @ #10 @ 135 #10 @ 135
150 ---- ---- #10 @ 135 C/C #10 @ 135 C/C #10 @ 135 C/C
S12, S13, 135 C/C 135 C/C C/C C/C
S14, S15
S3, S4, S5, #10 @ #10 @ #10 @ 135

150 ---- ---- #10 @ 135 C/C ---- #10 @ 135 C/C #10 @ 135 C/C
S6 135 C/C 135 C/C C/C
#10 @ #10 @ #10 @ 135 #10 @ 135
S9, S16 150 ---- ---- ---- #10 @ 135 C/C #10 @ 135 C/C
135 C/C 135 C/C C/C C/C
262
Slab Bar Bending Schedule – Special Braced Frame
Top Slab Bar Bending Schedule
Top Slab Bar Bending Schedule (T1-T30) – Special Braced Frame
263
264
265
Bottom Slab Bar Bending Schedule – Special Braced Frame
Bottom Slab Bending Schedule (B1-B30) – Special Braced Frame
266
Bottom Slab Bar Bending Schedule (B31-B60) – Special Braced Frame
267
Bottom Slab Bar Bending Schedule (B61-B84) – Special Braced Frame
268
Footing Plans – Special Braced Frame
Footing Plan – Special Braced Frame
269
Footing Schedule – Special Braced Frame
SR. NO. TYPE NOS LX LY T REBARS-A REBARS-B

1 F1 18 2.00 M 2.00 M 0.65 M 19-16 17-16
2 F2 9 2.00 M 2.00 M 0.65 M 12-16 15-16
Footing Bar Bending Schedule
Footing Bar Bending Schedule – Special Braced Frame
270
Connection Drawings – Special Braced Frame
Layout Plan of 6-bolt Connection – Special Braced Frame
Layout Plan of 4-bolt Connection – Special Braced Frame
271
APPENDIX E: SHEAR WALL FRAME SYSTEM DRAWINGS
BEAM DRAWINGS – SHEAR WALL FRAME SYSTEM
Beam Framing Plans – Shear Wall Frame System
Beam Framing Plan of 1st to 3rd floor – Shear Wall Frame System
Beam Framing Plan of 4th floor – Shear Wall Frame System
272
Beam Schedule – Shear Wall Frame System
BEAM SCHEDULE 1ST TO 3RD FLOOR – SHEAR WALL FRAME SYSTEM
BOTTOM TOP
SIZE SHEAR STIRRUPS
NUMBERS MID MID MID
SPAN SPAN SPAN
B1, B2, B3,
B4, B5, B6,
B7, B8, B9,
12-2L 15-2L #10
B10, B11, 3- 3- 12-2L #10
300 400 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ @ 150
B12, B13, #25 #25 @ 75 C/C
75 C/C C/C
B14, B15,
B16, B17,
B22
12-2L 17-2L #10
B18, B19, 3- 3- 12-2L #10
300 400 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ @ 150
B20, B21 #25 #25 @ 75 C/C
75 C/C C/C
12-2L 2-2L #12 12-2L #12
3- 3-
B23 350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #12 @ @ 175 @ 100
#25 #25
100 C/C C/C C/C
12-2L 21-2L #10 12-2L #10
3- 3-
B24 350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ @ 200 @ 100
#25 #25
100 C/C C/C C/C
15-2L 2-2L #10
B25, B28, 3- 3- 15-2L #10
350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ @ 200
B31 #25 #25 @ 75 C/C
75 C/C C/C
11-2L 2-2L #12 11-2L #12
B26, B29, 3- 3-
350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #12 @ @ 200 @ 100
B32 #25 #25
100 C/C C/C C/C
11-2L 21-2L #10
B27, B30, 3- 3- 11-2L #10
350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ @ 200
B33, B36 #25 #25 @ 75 C/C
75 C/C C/C
15-2L 1-2L #10 15-2L #10
3- 3-
B34 350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ @ 175 @ 100
#25 #25
100 C/C C/C C/C
11-2L 2-2L #12
3- 3- 15-2L #12
B35 350 500 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #12 @ @ 175
#25 #25 @ 75 C/C
75 C/C C/C
273
BEAM SCHEDULE OF 4TH FLOOR – SHEAR WALL FRAME SYSTEM
BOTTOM TOP
SIZE SHEAR STIRRUPS
NUMBERS MID MID MID
SPAN SPAN SPAN
18-2L 12-2L
3- 3- 12-2L #10
B1 300 400 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ #10 @
#25 #25 @ 75 C/C
125 C/C 75 C/C
B2, B3, B4,
15-2L 12-2L
B5, B6, B7, 3- 3- 12-2L #10
300 400 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ #10 @
B8, B9, #25 #25 @ 75 C/C
150 C/C 75 C/C
B14
17-2L 12-2L
B10, B11, 3- 3- 12-2L #10
300 400 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ #10 @
B12, B13 #25 #25 @ 75 C/C
150 C/C 75 C/C
1-2L #12 12-2L
3- 3- 12-2L #12
B15 300 400 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 @ 150 #12 @
#25 #25 @ 75 C/C
C/C 75 C/C
31-2L 12-2L
3- 3- 12-2L #10
B16 300 400 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ #10 @
#25 #25 @ 75 C/C
150 C/C 75 C/C
48-2L 12-2L
3- 3- 12-2L #10
B17 300 400 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 3-#25 #10 @ #10 @
#25 #25 @ 75 C/C
150 C/C 75 C/C
274
Beam Bar Scheduling – Shear Wall Frame System
Beam Bar Schedule of 1st to 3rd Floor (B1-B16) – Shear Wall Frame System
275
276
Beam Bar Schedule of 1st to 3rd Floor (B23-B24, B26-B27, B29-B30, B32-B33, B35-B36) – Shear Wall
Frame System
Beam Bar Schedule of 1st to 3rd Floor (B25, B28, B31, B34) – Shear Wall Frame System
277
Beam Bar Schedule of 4th Floor (B1-B8) – Shear Wall Frame System
278
279
280
Beam Elevations – Shear Wall Frame System
Beam Elevation of 1st to 3rd Floor (B1-B16) – Shear Wall Frame System (a)
281
Beam Elevation of 1st to 3rd Floor (B1-B16) – Shear Wall Frame System (b)
282
Beam Elevation of 1st to 3rd Floor (B17-B18) – Shear Wall Frame System
283
284
285
Beam Elevation of 1st to 3rd Floor (B23-B26, B26-B27, B29-B30, B32-B33, B35-B36) – Shear Wall Frame
System
286
Beam Elevation of 1st to 3rd Floor (B25, B28, B31, B34) – Shear Wall Frame System
287
Beam Elevation of 4th (B1-B16) – Shear Wall Frame System (a)
288
Beam Elevation of 4th Floor (B1-B16) – Shear Wall Frame System (b)
289
Beam Elevation of 4th Floor (B9-B10) – Shear Wall Frame System
290
291
292
Beam Sections – Shear Wall Frame System

293
Beam Section of 1st to 3rd Floor (B1-B15)
– Shear Wall Frame System
294
Beam Section of 1st to 3rd Floor (B17-
B36) – Shear Wall Frame System
295
Beam Section of 4th Floor (B1-B8) –
296
Beam Section of 4th Floor (B9-B18) – Shear Wall Frame System
Column Drawings – Shear Wall Frame System
Column Framing Plan – Shear Wall Frame System
Column Framing Plan – Shear Wall Frame System
Column Schedule – Shear Wall Frame System
297
Column Schedule – Shear Wall Frame System
SIZE 600 X 600

11.925M STEEL 8-#32
TO LINKS #25@240 C/C + #25@300 C/C
SCR ZONE 625
SIZE 600 X 600 600 X 600
8.725M STEEL 8-#32 8-#32
SCR ZONE 600 600
SIZE 600 X 600 600 X 600
5.52M STEEL 8-#32 8-#32
SCR ZONE 600 600
SIZE 600 X 600 600 X 600
2M STEEL 8-#32 8-#32
SCR ZONE 600 600
SIZE 600 X 600 600 X 600
0M STEEL 8-#32 8-#32
SCR ZONE 600 600
C1, C3, C5, C7, C9 – C10
COLUMN MARKED C12, C14, C16
C18 – C20, C23, C26 –27
298
Column Bar Bending Schedule – Shear Wall Frame System
299
Bar Bending Schedule (C1, C3, C5, C7, C9, C10, C18, C19, C20, C23, C26, C27) – Shear Wall Frame
System
300
Bar Bending Schedule (C12, C14, C16) – Shear Wall Frame System
301
Column Elevations – Shear Wall Frame System
Column Elevation of C1, C3, C5, C7, C9, C10, C18, C19, C20, C23, C26, C27 – Shear Wall Frame System
302
Column Elevation of C12, C14, C16 – Shear Wall Frame System
303
Column Section – Shear Wall Frame System
Column Section of C1, C3, C5, C7, C9, C10, C18-C20, C23, C26-C27 – Shear Wall Frame System
304
Slab Drawings – Shear Wall Frame System
Slab Framing Plan – Shear Wall Frame System
Slab Framing Plan – Shear Wall Frame System
Slab Schedule – Shear Wall Frame System
Slab Schedule – Shear Wall Frame System
MARKED THICKNESS
DISTRIBUTION
CURTAILED CURTAILED
S2, S7,
S10, S11, #10 @ #10 @ #10 @ 125 #10 @ 125
150 ---- ---- #10 @ 125 C/C #10 @ 125 C/C #10 @ 125 C/C
S12, S13, 125 C/C 125 C/C C/C C/C
S14, S15
S3, S4, S5, #10 @ #10 @ #10 @ 125

150 ---- ---- #10 @ 125 C/C ---- #10 @ 125 C/C #10 @ 125 C/C
S6 125 C/C 125 C/C C/C
#10 @ #10 @ #10 @ 125 #10 @ 125

S9, S16 150 ---- ---- ---- #10 @ 125 C/C #10 @ 125 C/C
125 C/C 125 C/C C/C C/C
305
Slab Bar Bending Schedule – Shear Wall Frame System
Top Slab Bar Bending Schedule – Shear Wall Frame System
Top Slab Bar Bending Schedule (T1-T30) – Shear Wall Frame System
306
307
308
309
310
311
Bottom Slab Bar Bending Schedule – Shear Wall Frame System
Bottom Slab Bar Bending Schedule (B1-B30) – Shear Wall Frame System
312
Table 4-105. Bottom Slab Bar Bending Schedule (B31-B60) – Shear Wall Frame System
313
Table 4-106. Bottom Slab Bar Bending Schedule (B61-B84) – Shear Wall Frame System
314
Footing Drawings – Shear Wall Frame System
Footing Plan
Footing Plan – Shear Wall Frame System
315
Footing Schedule – Shear Wall Frame System
Footing Schedule – Shear Wall Frame System
Footing Bar Bending Schedule – Shear Wall Frame System
Footing Bar Bending Schedule – Shear Wall Frame System
316
Shear Wall Drawings – Shear Wall Frame System
Shear Wall Sections and Elevations – Shear Wall Frame System
Shear Wall Elevation @ 2m-5.525m (CW1, CW2, CW3, CW4) – Shear Wall Frame System
317
Shear Wall Elevation @ 5.525m-8.725m (CW1, CW2, CW3, CW4) – Shear Wall Frame System
318
Shear Wall Elevation @ 8.725m-11.925m (CW1, CW2, CW3, CW4) – Shear Wall Frame System
319
Shear Wall Elevation @ 2m-5.525m (CW5, CW6) – Shear Wall Frame System
Shear Wall Elevation @ 5.525m-8.725m (CW5, CW6) – Shear Wall Frame System
320
321
Shear Wall Section @ 0m-2m (CW1, CW2, CW3, CW4) – Shear Wall Frame System
322
Shear Wall Section @ 11.925m-15.925m (CW1, CW2, CW3, CW4) – Shear Wall Frame System
Shear Wall Section @ 0m-2m (CW5, CW6) – Shear Wall Frame System
323
APPENDIX F: FINAL ESTIMATES FOR CONTEXT I STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
CONTEXT
Final Estimate for Context I Structural Engineering Context
Construction Cost and Labor Cost
SPECIAL MOMENT RESISTING FRAME

QTY UNIT PRICE MATERIAL COST MANHOURS LABOR COST TOTAL COST
EARTHWORKS
EXCAVATION 216.00 cu.m ₱ 194.69 ₱ 42,053.04 81.00 ₱12,798.00
₱ 44,155.69 5%
BACKFILL 134.77 cu.m ₱ 361.55 ₱ 48,726.09 202.16 ₱31,940.49
₱ 51,162.40 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 95,318.09 283.16 ₱44,738.49 ₱ 140,056.58
CONCRETE
444.37 cu.m ₱ 5,135.50 ₱ 2,282,062.14 5832.36 ₱921,512.29
₱ 2,396,165.24 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 2,396,165.24 5832.36 ₱921,512.29 ₱ 3,317,677.53
REBARS
BEAM REBAR
AT 5.525
10 1227.80 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 55,742.12
12 329.77 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 14,971.56
16 311.78 kg ₱ 45.00 ₱ 14,030.10
25 5733.24 kg ₱ 45.00 ₱ 257,995.80
₱ 342,739.58 1026.35 ₱162,163.24
AT 8.725
10 1457.12 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 66,153.25
12 195.37 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 8,869.80
16 209.79 kg ₱ 45.00 ₱ 9,440.55
25 5579.16 kg ₱ 45.00 ₱ 251,062.20
₱ 335,525.80 1004.59 ₱158,725.92
AT 11.925
10 1382.53 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 62,766.86
12 222.37 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 10,095.60
16 97.57 Kg ₱ 45.00 ₱ 4,390.65
25 5479.16 kg ₱ 45.00 ₱ 246,562.20
₱ 323,815.31 969.52 ₱153,184.17
AT 15.925
10 531.52 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 24,131.01
16 107.20 kg ₱ 45.00 ₱ 4,824.00
25 1684.04 kg ₱ 45.00 ₱ 75,781.80
28 35.43 kg ₱ 45.00 ₱ 1,594.35 313.57 ₱49,544.47
₱ 106,331.16
₱ 1,108,411.84
₱ 1,163,832.43 5%
SLAB REBAR
10 12081.99 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 548,522.35 1631.07 ₱257,708.85
₱ 575,948.46 5%
COLUMN REBAR
10/32 32818.77 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 1,489,972.16 4430.53 ₱700,024.36
₱ 1,564,470.77 5%
FOOTING REBAR
16 3490.00 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 158,446.00 471.15 ₱74,441.70
₱ 166,368.30 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 3,470,619.96 9846.79 ₱1,555,792.71 ₱ 5,026,412.67
324
FORMWORKS
BEAM AT 5.525 63.00 pcs ₱ 1,320.00
₱ 83,160.00 689.16 ₱108,887.30
AT 8.725 64.00 pcs ₱ 1,320.00
₱ 84,480.00 706.06 ₱111,557.71
AT 11.925 64.00 pcs ₱ 1,320.00
₱ 84,480.00 706.06 ₱111,557.71
AT 15.925 16.00 pcs ₱ 1,320.00
₱ 21,120.00 174.92 ₱27,636.62
SLAB 249.00 pcs ₱ 1,320.00
₱ 328,680.00 8341.05 ₱1,317,886.49
COLUMN 246.00 pcs ₱ 1,320.00
₱ 324,720.00 2231.90 ₱352,640.36
₱ 926,640.00
₱ 972,972.00 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 972,972.00 12849.15 ₱2,030,166.20 ₱ 3,003,138.20
CHB
14379.00 pcs ₱ 16.00 ₱ 230,064.00 857.10 ₱135,421.80
₱ 241,567.20 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 241,567.20 857.10 ₱135,421.80 ₱ 376,989.00
MORTAR
CEMENT 1703.00 bags ₱ 259.00 ₱ 441,077.00
SAND 141.60 cu.m ₱ 1,435.00 ₱ 203,196.00
₱ 644,273.00
₱ 676,486.65 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 676,486.65 ₱ 676,486.65
PLASTER
CEMENT 656.00 bags ₱ 259.00 ₱ 169,904.00 1074.23 ₱169,728.66
SAND 39.00 cu.m ₱ 1,435.00 ₱ 55,965.00
₱ 225,869.00
₱ 237,162.45 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 237,162.45 1074.23 ₱169,728.66 ₱ 406,891.11
PAINTING WORKS
PRIMER 214.00 gal ₱ 688.00 ₱ 147,232.00 2211.32 ₱349,388.24
PAINT 184.00 gal ₱ 633.00 ₱ 116,472.00
₱ 263,704.00
₱ 276,889.20 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 276,889.20 2211.32 ₱349,388.24 ₱ 626,277.44
TRUSS WORKS
PURLINS (C4x5.4) 4631.04 kg ₱ 55.77 ₱ 258,273.10 397.41 ₱62,791.54
L 2 1/2 x2x3/16 (DOUBLE ANGLE) 1286.71 kg ₱ 108.98 ₱ 140,225.28 779.01 ₱123,083.95
L 2x2x1/8 850.79 kg ₱ 54.49 ₱ 46,359.55
₱ 444,857.93
₱ 467,100.83 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 467,100.83 1176.43 ₱185,875.49 ₱ 652,976.32
ROOF WORKS
Pre-painted Metal Roofing Sheet Ga. 26 x 2.44m 427.80 sqm ₱ 372.00₱ 159,141.60 725.12 ₱114,569.12
Pre-painted Gutter, GA 24(0.701mm) x 2.44m 74.40 lnm ₱ 175.00₱ 13,020.00
Pre-painted Ridge Roll, GA 24(0.701mm) x 2.44m) 37.20 lnm ₱ 167.00₱ 6,212.40
Roof Foam Insulation 9.00 pcs ₱ 4,850.00₱ 43,650.00
₱ 222,024.00
₱ 233,125.20 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 233,125.20 725.12 ₱114,569.12 ₱ 347,694.32
TOTAL ₱ 9,067,406.83 34855.65 ₱5,392,623.87 ₱ 14,460,030.70
NOTE: Total Manhours 1742.78
25 workers will be used Total Days 218
1 day = 8 hours Maintenance Cost ₱ 163,213.32
325
BRACED FRAME
EARTHWORKS
EXCAVATION 216.00 cu.m ₱ 194.69 ₱ 42,053.04 81.00 ₱12,798.00
₱ 44,155.69 5%
BACKFILL 134.77 cu.m ₱ 361.55 ₱ 48,726.09 202.16 ₱31,940.49
₱ 51,162.40 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 95,318.09 283.16 ₱44,738.49 ₱ 140,056.58
CONCRETE
355.59 cu.m ₱ 5,135.50 ₱ 1,826,132.45 4667.12 ₱737,404.76
₱ 1,917,439.07 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 1,917,439.07 4667.12 ₱737,404.76 ₱ 2,654,843.83
REBARS
COLUMN REBAR
10 5137.28 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 233,232.51
12 219.46 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 9,963.48
32 31387.00 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 1,424,969.80 4960.40 ₱783,743.97
₱ 1,668,165.80
₱ 1,751,574.09 5%
BEAM REBAR
10 4531.24 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 205,718.30
12 620.11 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 28,152.99
16 6.47 kg ₱ 45.00 ₱ 291.15
25 18441.64 kg ₱ 45.00 ₱ 829,873.80 3185.93 ₱503,376.48
₱ 1,064,036.24
₱ 1,117,238.05 5%
SLAB REBAR
10 12081.99 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 548,522.35 1631.07 ₱257,708.85
₱ 575,948.46 5%
FOOTING REBAR
16 2810.00 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 127,574.00 379.35 ₱59,937.30
₱ 133,952.70 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 3,578,713.30 10156.75 ₱1,604,766.60 ₱ 5,183,479.90
FORMWORKS
BEAM 184.00 pcs ₱ 1,320.00 ₱ 242,880.00 2022.68 ₱319,583.21
COLUMN 274.00 pcs ₱ 1,320.00 ₱ 361,680.00 2484.66 ₱392,575.81
SLAB 245.00 pcs ₱ 1,320.00 ₱ 323,400.00 8341.05 ₱1,317,886.49
₱ 927,960.00
₱ 974,358.00 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 974,358.00 12848.39 ₱2,030,045.51 ₱ 3,004,403.51
CHB
14379.00 pcs ₱ 16.00 ₱ 230,064.00 857.10 ₱135,421.80
₱ 241,567.20 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 241,567.20 857.10 ₱135,421.80 ₱ 376,989.00
MORTAR
CEMENT 1703.00 bags ₱ 259.00 ₱ 441,077.00
SAND 141.60 cu.m ₱ 1,435.00 ₱ 203,196.00
₱ 644,273.00
₱ 676,486.65 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 676,486.65 ₱ 676,486.65
326
PLASTER
CEMENT 656.00 bags ₱ 259.00 ₱ 169,904.00 805.67 ₱127,296.49
SAND 39.00 cu.m ₱ 1,435.00 ₱ 55,965.00
₱ 225,869.00
₱ 237,162.45 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 237,162.45 805.67 ₱127,296.49 ₱ 364,458.94
PAINTING WORKS
PRIMER 214.00 gal ₱ 688.00 ₱ 147,232.00 1658.49 ₱262,041.18
PAINT 184.00 gal ₱ 633.00 ₱ 116,472.00
₱ 263,704.00
₱ 276,889.20 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 276,889.20 1658.49 ₱262,041.18 ₱ 538,930.38
TRUSS WORKS
PURLINS (C4x5.4) 4631.04 kg ₱ 55.77 ₱ 258,273.10 397.41 ₱62,791.54
L 2x2x1/8 850.79 kg ₱ 54.49 ₱ 46,359.55
₱ 444,857.93
₱ 467,100.83 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 467,100.83 1176.43 ₱185,875.49 ₱ 652,976.32
ROOF WORKS
Pre-painted Metal Roofing Sheet Ga. 26 x 2.44m 427.80 sqm ₱ 372.00 ₱ 159,141.60 725.12 ₱114,569.12
Pre-painted Gutter, GA 24(0.701mm) x 2.44m 74.40 lnm ₱ 175.00 ₱ 13,020.00
Pre-painted Ridge Roll, GA 24(0.701mm) x 2.44m) 37.20 lnm ₱ 167.00 ₱ 6,212.40
Roof Foam Insulation 9.00 pcs ₱ 4,850.00₱ 43,650.00
₱ 222,024.00
₱ 233,125.20 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 233,125.20 725.12 ₱114,569.12 ₱ 347,694.32
BRACING
L5x5x8 2483.29 kg ₱ 54.56 ₱ 135,488.45 3411.47 ₱539,012.60
L6x6x6 2660.06 kg ₱ 54.56 ₱ 145,132.85
₱ 280,621.30
₱ 294,652.37 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 294,652.37 3411.47 ₱539,012.60 ₱ 833,664.97
CONNECTIONS
20mm Φ bolts 205.19 kg ₱ 415.20 ₱ 85,194.89 239.05 ₱37,769.36
16mm Φ bolts 205.19 kg ₱ 415.20 ₱ 85,194.89
Gusset Plate 9.00 sq.m ₱ 4,245.52 ₱ 38,209.68
₱ 208,599.46
₱ 219,029.43 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 219,029.43 239.05 ₱37,769.36 ₱ 256,798.79
TOTAL ₱ 9,211,841.79 36828.74 ₱5,818,941.41 ₱ 15,030,783.19
327
SHEARWALL
EARTHWORKS
EXCAVATION 216.00 cu.m ₱ 194.69 ₱ 42,053.04 81.00 ₱12,798.00
₱ 44,155.69 5%
BACKFILL 134.77 cu.m ₱ 361.55 ₱ 48,726.09 202.16 ₱31,940.49
₱ 51,162.40 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 95,318.09 283.16 ₱44,738.49 ₱ 140,056.58
CONCRETE
482.24 cu.m ₱ 5,135.50 ₱ 2,476,543.52 6329.40 ₱1,000,045.20
₱ 2,600,370.70 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 2,600,370.70 6329.40 ₱1,000,045.20 ₱ 3,600,415.90
REBARS
COLUMN
10 8700.85 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 395,018.59
12 1327.43 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 60,265.32
28 41980.00 kg ₱ 45.00 ₱ 1,889,100.00
32 20707.00 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 940,097.80
36 21514.00 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 976,735.60 12720.95 ₱2,009,910.54
₱ 4,261,217.31
BEAMS ₱ 4,474,278.18 5%
10 3950.82 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 179,367.23
12 629.41 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 28,575.21
16 71.93 kg ₱ 45.00 ₱ 3,236.85
25 16627.27 kg ₱ 45.00 ₱ 748,227.15 2872.72 ₱453,890.24
₱ 959,406.44
₱ 1,007,376.76 5%
SLAB REBAR
10 12877.86 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 584,654.84 1738.51 ₱274,684.75
₱ 613,887.59 5%
FOOTING REBAR
16 4010.00 kg ₱ 45.40 ₱ 182,054.00 541.35 ₱85,533.30
₱ 191,156.70 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 6,286,699.23 17873.54 ₱2,824,018.84 ₱ 9,110,718.07
FORMWORKS
BEAM 184.00 pcs ₱ 101.00 ₱ 18,584.00 2022.68 ₱319,583.21
COLUMN 571.00 pcs ₱ 101.00 ₱ 57,671.00 5175.36 ₱817,706.17
SLAB 252.00 pcs ₱ 101.00 ₱ 25,452.00 8422.31 ₱1,330,725.38
₱ 101,707.00
₱ 106,792.35 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 106,792.35 15620.35 ₱2,468,014.75 ₱ 2,574,807.10
CHB
11829.00 pcs ₱ 16.00 ₱ 189,264.00 647.04 ₱102,232.32
₱ 198,727.20 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 198,727.20 647.04 ₱102,232.32 ₱ 300,959.52
MORTAR
CEMENT 1074.00 bags ₱ 259.00 ₱ 278,166.00
SAND 95.60 cu.m ₱ 1,435.00 ₱ 137,186.00
₱ 415,352.00
₱ 436,119.60 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 436,119.60 ₱ 436,119.60
PLASTER
CEMENT 656.00 bags ₱ 259.00 ₱ 169,904.00 608.22 ₱96,098.38
SAND 39.00 cu.m ₱ 1,435.00 ₱ 55,965.00
₱ 225,869.00
₱ 237,162.45 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 237,162.45 608.22 ₱96,098.38 ₱ 333,260.83
PAINTING WORKS
PRIMER 214.00 gal ₱ 688.00 ₱ 147,232.00 1252.02 ₱197,819.54
PAINT 184.00 gal ₱ 633.00 ₱ 116,472.00
₱ 263,704.00
₱ 276,889.20 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 276,889.20 1252.02 ₱197,819.54 ₱ 474,708.74
328
TRUSS WORKS
PURLINS (C4x5.4) 4631.04 kg ₱ 55.77 ₱ 258,273.10 397.41 ₱62,791.54
L 2x2x1/8 850.79 kg ₱ 54.49 ₱ 46,359.55
₱ 444,857.93
₱ 467,100.83 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 467,100.83 1176.43 ₱185,875.49 ₱ 652,976.32
ROOF WORKS
Pre-painted Metal Roofing Sheet Ga. 26 x 2.44m 427.80 sqm ₱ 372.00
₱ 159,141.60 725.12 ₱114,569.12
Pre-painted Gutter, GA 24(0.701mm) x 2.44m 74.40 lnm ₱ 175.00
₱ 13,020.00
Pre-painted Ridge Roll, GA 24(0.701mm) x 2.44m) 37.20 lnm ₱ 167.00
₱ 6,212.40
Roof Foam Insulation 9.00 pcs ₱ 4,850.00
₱ 43,650.00
₱ 222,024.00
₱ 233,125.20 5%
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 233,125.20 725.12 ₱114,569.12 ₱ 347,694.32
TOTAL ₱ 10,471,204.01 44515.27 ₱6,918,843.01 ₱ 17,390,047.02
Cost of Risk
Special Moment-Resisting Frame
Special Braced Frame
329
APPENDIX G: FINAL ESTIMATE FOR CONTEXT II GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
CONTEXT
Construction Cost & Labor Cost
330
MAINTENANCE COST
JET GROUTING
STONE COLUMN
DRY DEEP SOIL MIXING
COST OF RISK
JET GROUTING
STONE COLUMN
DRY DEEP SOIL MIXING
331
APPENDIX H: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
APPENDIX I: REVISIONS SUGGESTED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
CURRICULUM VITAE
GABRIEL FUMERA
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Technological Institute of the Philippines (TIP) QC
Address: 0005 Kalyehon Alberto St. GuitnangBayan 1 San Mateo, Rizal
Email Address: fumeragabriel21@gmail.com
Cellular No.: +639053957460
CAREER OBJECTIVE
To establish a career in civil engineering where I can demonstrate the learning outcomes of the Civil Engineering program of
the Technological Institute of the Philippines (TIP), a program accredited by the US-based outcomes-oriented ABET
(Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology), Computing Accreditation Commission.
DESIGN PROJECTS COMPLETED/ RESEARCHES
Design of Four-Storey Commercial and Residential Building to Be Constructed In Mary Grace Village, Sto. Nino, Plaridel,
Bulacan
A Design Project that intends to provide the students the knowledge and skills of making use of the concept and
knowledge gained in the course Structural Theory 2.
Design of Three-Storey Commercial Building with Through Lot

A Design project that focuses on the plumbing and electrical design of a commercial building in a through lot.
Design of Two-Storey Residential Building Using Timber

A Design project that aims to design a two-storey residential building using the knowledges in timber design.
Design Proposal for Water Supply in Villa Maniboc Lingayen, Pangasinan

A Design project that aims to design and analyze the water supply for the subdivision they had chosen.
Design of Three-Storey Residential Building

A Design project that aims to design a three-storey building that uses the National building code of the Philippines as their
reference.
A Research on the Effect of Coconut Coir as a Soil Stabilizer

A Design project that focuses on the improvement of the shear strength parameters.
Design of Three-Storey Residential Building using Reinforced Concrete

A Design project that aims to apply the knowledge gained from the course Reinforced Concrete Design
KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ATTITUDE

360
As a 5th year student from TIP with its orientation towards outcome-based education, I have acquired and can
demonstrate the following student acquire outcomes (knowledge, skills and attitudes) necessary to the practice of the
computing profession:
Analyze complex problems and identify and define the computing requirement appropriate for solution. Use modern techniques and tools of the
computing practice in complex activities.
Understand professional, ethical, legal, security and social issues and responsibilities relevant to professional computing.
SEMINARS AND TRAININGS ATTENDED

Developing the Winning Mindset
Career Center Training Room, Technological Institute of the
Philippines, Quezon City March 25, 2019
UltimACI: Lego Fabricated & Railway System in the Philippines

Seminar Room A & B, Technological Institute of the
PICE Day 2.0: Maintaining Stability and Buoyancy in Great Depths through Water Resource Engineering Congregating
Area, Technological Institute of the Philippines, Quezon City
March 02, 2019
21st National Engineering Students Conference: Integrating Advance and Digital Technology in Building Infrastructure
Balanga, Bataan
November 24, 2018
SupremeACI: Geotechnical Engineering & Concrete Technology PE Center 1, Technological Institute of the Philippines,
Quezon City September 12, 2018
STRATUM: Diversifying Surcharges and Setting Footings through Geotechnical Engineering Seminar Room A & B,
Technological Institute of the Philippines, Quezon City
August 11, 2018
 Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers - TIP QC Student Chapter Member

July 06, 2018 - March 31, 2019
 American Concrete Institute Member

July 06, 2018 - March 31, 2019
OTHER SKILLS
 Good Communtication Skillls

 Computer Literate: Microsoft Word, Powerpoint, Excel, and AutoCAD Hardworking and Responsible
 Productive
 Willing to Learn
361
REFERNCES
Engr. Alpanorwen D. Aseo Engr. John Pepard M. Rinchon

Civil Engineering Department - Faculty Member Instructor III, Civil Engineering Department
TIP – QC FEU Institute of Technology
aseoalpanorwen@gmail.com jprinchon27@gmail.com
09499426200 09175538459
362
REGINALD RAY CUALES
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Address: 384 G. Bautista St. San Jose, Rodriguez, Rizal
Email Address: cualesreginald@gmail.com
Cellular No.: +639179709768
CAREER OBJECTIVE
Design of Four-Storey Commercial Building in Quezon City

A Design Project that intends to provide the students the knowledge and skills of making use of the concept and
knowledge gained in the course Structural Theory 2.
Design of Three-Storey Commercial Building with Through Lot

A Design project that focuses on the plumbing and electrical design of a commercial building in a through lot.
Design of Two-Storey Residential Building Using Timber

A Design project that aims to design a two-storey residential building using the knowledges in timber design.
Design Proposal for Water Supply in Rodriguez, Rizal

A Design project that aims to design and analyze the water supply for the subdivision they had chosen.
Design of Three-Storey Residential Building

A Design project that aims to design a three-storey building that uses the National building code of the Philippines as their
reference.
Design of Three-Storey Residential Building using Reinforced Concrete

A Design project that aims to apply the knowledge gained from the course Reinforced Concrete Design
The Effect of Sodium Chloride in a Clayey Soil

An experimental research that focuses on how a percentage of Sodium Chloride added to a Clayey Soil affects
the values when being tested.
The Effect of Alkali Resistant Glass Fiber to the Compressive and Bending Stress of a Mortar
An experimental research that focuses on the comparison of computed Compressive and Bending Stresses of a
mortar with and without Alkali Resistant Glass Fiber
The Effect of Temperature Change in the Density of Vinegar

An experimental research that focuses on how the change in temperature can affect the density of Vinegar
363
Construction of Bunk House in Tacloban City
Research Proposal that focuses on how the Bunkhouses in Tacloban City will be constructed
Ang mga posibleng epekto sa paghahalo ng Chromium at Cobalt bilang pamalit sa Nickel sa
paggawa ng Stainless na Bakal A descriptive research that sought to distinguish the effect of
changing the material used in order to make a Stainless Steel
20th National Civil Engineering Students' Summit 2019: Competency Advancement Towards C.E. 4.0 Tagaytay International
Convention Center, Aguinaldo Highway, Tagaytay City
July 26, 2019
Imperium ut Defendere (Power to Defend): Civil Engineering Defying Calamity, Protecting Humanity Seminar Rooms A and
B, Technological Institute of the Philippines, Quezon City
October 02, 2019
AdequACI: Attaining the Desired Education & Qualifying Unique Ideas Applied in Concrete Industry PE Center 1,
Technological Institute of the Philippines Quezon CIty
September 19, 2019
Calculator Technique
PE Center 1, Technological Institute of the Philippines, Quezon City
March 11, 2019
UltimACI: Lego Fabricated & Railway System in the Philippines

Seminar Room A & B, Technological Institute of the
PICE Day 2.0: Maintaining Stability and Buoyancy in Great Depths through Water Resource Engineering Congregating
March 02, 2019
21st National Engineering Students Conference: Integrating Advance and Digital Technology in Building Infrastructure
Balanga, Bataan
November 24, 2018
SupremeACI: Geotechnical Engineering & Concrete Technology PE Center 1, Technological Institute of the Philippines,
STRATUM: Diversifying Surcharges and Setting Footings through Geotechnical Engineering Seminar Room A & B,
August 11, 2018
3rd Philippine Engineering Students Congress

March 09, 2018
364
 American Concrete Institute - TIP Qc Student Chapter

Member
June 23, 2018 - March 31, 2019
 Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers - TIP Qc Student Chapter

Auditor
March 09, 2018 - March 02, 2019
 SOCIP
Volunteer
July 04, 2017
 Roosevelt College Rodriguez Alumni Association

President (of Batch 2015)
March 31, 2015 - Present
OTHER SKILLS
 Good Communtication Skillls

 Computer Literate: Microsoft Word, Powerpoint, Excel, and AutoCAD Hardworking and Responsible
 Productive
 Willing to Learn
 Sociable
 Confident
 Joyful
REFERENCES
Engr. John Pepard M. Rinchon Engr. Edwin M. Marcelo Engr. Luis O. Millanes
Instructor – III, Civil Engineering Department Principal Engineer Manager/Asst Division Head Engg
FEU Institute of Technology Edwin M Marcelo & Associates Araneta Center Inc.
jmrinchon@feutech.edu.ph emmarcelo68@gmail.com luismillanes@yahoo.com
+63917553845 09175026049 090888116650
365
JAN MICHAEL DEBOLGADO
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Address: B7 L10 Villa San Mateo 1 Guitnang Bayan I, San Mateo, Rizal
Email Address: janmichaeldebolgado@gmail.com
Cellular No.: +639177190975
CAREER OBJECTIVE
Structural Analysis and Design of a Proposed 4-Storey Steel Framed Commercial and Residential Building
A project proposal that focuses on applying exact analysis using slope deflection method and software analysis using
STAAD on the proposed structure.
Design of Flexible Pavement using California Method

A project that aims on designing the appropriate thickness of asphalt surface course and base course using California
(Hveem) design method.
The Effect of Alkali Resistant Glass Fiber to the Compressive and Bending Stress of a Mortar
An experimental research that determines the difference of the compressive and bending stress of a mortar with and without
added alkali resistant glass fiber.
Effect of Rubber Crumbs on Geotechnical Properties of Soil

An experimental research that analyse the relationship of the soil properties to the amount of rubber crumbs added to the
soil.
Factors of the Decrease in Number of Civil Engineering Students in Technological Institute of the Philippines, Quezon City
A research proposal that focuses on determining the possible factors of the decrease in population of civil engineering
students in Technological Institute of the Philippines, Quezon City.
Mga Salik sa Pagbaba ng Bilang ng mga Mag-aaral ng Civil Engineering mula Ikalawa hanggang Ikalimang Taon ng
kanilang Pag-aaral sa Technological Institute of the Philippines, Quezon City
A research proposal that determines the factors of the decrease in population of second to fifth year civil engineering
students in Technological Institute of the Philippines, Quezon City.
366
UltimACI: Lego Fabricated and Railway System in the Philippines
Seminar Rooms A and B, Technological Institute of the Philippines, Quezon City March 06, 2019
PICE Day 2.0: Maintaining Stability and Buoyancy in Great Depths through Water Resources Engineering Congregating
March 02, 2019
21st National Civil Engineering Students Conference: Integrating Advanced and Digital Technology in Building Infrastructure
Lou-is Resort and Restaurant, Balanga City, Bataan
November 24, 2018
SupremACI: Geotechnical Engineering and Concrete Technology PE Center 1, Technological Institute of the Philippines,
#P1CE: STRATUM: Diversifying Surcharges and Setting Footings through Geotechnical Engineering Seminar Rooms A and
August 11, 2018
3rd Philippine Engineering Students Congress Technological Institute of the Philippines, Quezon City March 09, 2018
Environmental Engineering Seminar: A Dynamic Field For Engineers

Seminar Rooms A and B, Technological Institute of the Philippines, Quezon City June 23, 2016
20th National Civil Engineering Students' Summit 2019: Competency Advancement Towards C.E. 4.0 Tagaytay International
Convention Center, Aguinaldo Highway, Tagaytay City
July 26, 2019
Imperium ut Defendere (Power to Defend): Civil Engineering Defying Calamity, Protecting Humanity Seminar Rooms A and
October 02, 2019
AdequACI: Attaining the Desired Education & Qualifying Unique Ideas Applied in Concrete Industry PE Center 1,
Technological Institute of the Philippines Quezon CIty
September 19, 2019
 American Concrete Institute - TIP Qc Student Chapter

Member
July 05, 2018 – March 31, 2020
 Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers - TIP Qc Student Chapter

Auditor
July 06, 2017 – March 31, 2020
 Society of Scholars
Member
July 11, 2016 - March 31, 2019
 13th OlymPHYSICS 2018

Student-in-Charge
September 26, 2018
 12th OlymPHYSICS 2017

Proctor
September 22, 2017
 SOCIP
Volunteer
July 04, 2017
367
 Abstract Combination with Emotional Quotient
Member
July 06, 2016 - March 31, 2017
 Humanities and Social Sciences Society

Member
July 06, 2016 - March 31, 2017
 Literature and Languages Society

Member
July 06, 2016 - March 31, 2017
OTHER SKILLS
 Skilled on using Microsoft Word, Excel and PowerPoint. Capable on using AutoCad for drafting.
 Capable on using English language for communication.
REFERENCES
Diana Romero Engr. Alpanorwen Aseo

Human Resource Supervisor Faculty - Civil Engineering Department
Puregold Price Club Inc. Technological Institute of the Philippines, Quezon City
romerodianad@gmail.com aseoalpanorwen@gmail.com
09150680867 09499426200
368
JANN SAMANTHA MANIMTIM
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Address: Lot 7 Cluster B Bagong Nayon 1 Antipolo city, Rizal
Tel. No.: 668-1296
Email Address: jsamantha.manimtim@gmail.com
Cellular No.: +639156406094
CAREER OBJECTIVE
University of Santo Tomas Main Building: Basis For Constructing Sturdy And Timeless Structures Term Paper in fulfillment
for ENG002
Mga Ibat-Ibang Paraan Ng Pag-aaral Ng Mga Mag-aaral Ng Civil Engineering Sa Technological Institute Of The Philippines
Research Paper in fulfillment for FIL002
Construction of Bunk House in Tacloban City Research Proposal for ENG003
Effect of Cross Sectional Area to the Transmission of Pressure Using an Improvised Hydraulic Lift
Design of experiment that tackles the effects of transmitting pressure dependent on the area of an improvised hydraulic lift.
Effect of Sawdust on Geotechnical Characteristics of Sandy Soil

Design Project that states the characteristics of a sandy soil when a foreign material (Sawdust) will be added on it.
Effect of Alkali Resistant Glass Fiber to the Compressive and Bending Stress of a Mortar
Experimental research that compares the strength of a mortar with and without the Alkali Resistant Glass Fiber.
ON-THE-JOB TRAINING/ PRACTICUM/ INTERNSHIP EXPERIENCE
 Intern
D.M. Consunji, Inc.
DMCI Plaza Building, 2281
Chino Roces Avenue April 23,
2019 - May 16, 2019
Internship program under Cavite-Laguna Expressway Project.
369

Environmental Engineering Seminar: A Dynamic Field For Engineers Technological Institute of the Philippines (Quezon City)
June 23, 2016
3rd Philippine Engineering Students Congress Technological Institute of the Philippines (Quezon City) March 09, 2018
STRATUM: Diversifying Surcharges and Setting Footing Through Geotechnical Engineering Technological Institute of the
Philippines (Quezon City)
August 11, 2018
SupremACI: Concrete Technology and Geotechnical Engineering Technological Institute of the Philippines (Quezon City)
September 12, 2018
Maintaining Stability and Buoyancy Through Water Resources Engineering Technological Institute of the Philippines
(Quezon City)
March 02, 2019
UltimACI: Prefabricated Concrete Lego System Its Strength and Application & Railway Transporation in the Philippines
Technological Institute of the Philippines (Quezon City)
March 06, 2019
Every Nation Campus (Victory Metro East)

Victory Group Leader, Technical and Stage
Management Volunteer February 21, 2014 -
Present
Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers-
TiP QC Student Chapter Member
July 06, 2016 - Present
American Concrete Institute-

TiP QC Student Chapter
Member
July 05, 2018 - Present
OTHER SKILLS
Computing: Fluent in Microsoft Word, Microsoft Powerpoint, and Microsoft Excel.

Computer Aided Design: Intermediate in AutoCAD.
Knowledge of Applicable Laws: Basic knowledge in the National Building Code of the Philippines, National Structural Code of the Philippines.
Communication and Interpersonal: Good Listener, Able to work and befriend with anyone.
Problem Solving and Critical Thinking: Can identify the problem and analyze it well to find a solution, Can make a wise decision
quickly.
Time Management: Always on time when it comes to attendance and deadlines. Learner:
Has a mind open to new learnings and able to pick up new things right away. Enthusiasm:
Active and interested in any activity and always ready to get involved.
370
Ability to Work Under Pressure: Can respond well when put under pressure.
REFERENCES
Carlene Mae Jadap Jerome Tadiosa Richard Navida

Managing Director Professor Mechanical Engineer
Ideation Philippines Technological Institute of the Philippines MIJAC Construction Inc.
cayijadap@gmail.com jztadiosa@up.edu.ph mijac_navida@yahoo.com
09053974170 09174540319 09166910578
371

Cualesreginaldray 12881 322722 CE52FB1-Group-7-2 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cualesreginaldray 12881 322722 CE52FB1-Group-7-2 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Cualesreginaldray 12881 322722 CE52FB1-Group-7-2 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Major (Capstone) Design Experience Information

Cuales, Reginald Ray T.

 Section 203 Load Combination

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

DESIGN OF A FOUR-STOREY MULTI-PURPOSE EVACUATION CENTER

NSCP – National Structural Code of the Philippines

1.1 The Project

Figure 1-1: Perspective Plan of the Project

Figure 1-2: Site Location of the Project

1.3 Project Objectives

1.3.1 General Objective

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

 Provide a detailed architectural and structural plan of the proposed structure.

1.4 The Client

1.4.1 Clients Specifications

1.5 Scope and Limitation

1.5.1 Context I Structural Engineering Context

1. The designers will not provide detailed daily construction activities.

The following steps will be in a systematic approach and these are:

1. Identify the problem

5. Design of Architectural and Structural Configuration

6. Structural Analysis and Design

7. Estimation of costs and number of working days

2.1 Design Criteria

2.1.1 Design Criteria for Context I Structural Engineering Context

Figure 2-1: Aggregate Age Population

Nt = Pert Equation 2-1: Population Projection

Nt = number of people at a future date

Figure 2-3: Location Topography

2.1.1.3 Typhoon Hazard

Figure 2-5: Landslide Hazard Map

2.1.1.5 Liquefaction Potential

2.1.1.6 Flood Susceptibility

Figure 2-7: Distance of the Site Location from a near River

2.1.1.7 Description of the Project

2.1.1.8.1 Floor Plan

2.1.1.9.1 Dead Loads

Table 2-3: Total Superimposed Dead Loads

Second Floor 1.505 kPa

Third Floor 1.505 kPa

Fourth Floor 1.505 kPa

Roof 0.15 kPa

Table 2-4: Live Loads

Use or Occupancy Uniform Load (kPa)

Category Description kPa

Basic Floor area 1.9

Residential Storage 1.9

Corridor above the ground floor 3.8

Office Lobbies and ground floor corridor 4.8

2.1.1.10 Wind Load Parameters

Table 2-5: Wind Load Parameters

Wind Velocity 270kph (Section 207A.5 of NSCP 2015)

Wind Directionality Factor, Kd 0.85 (Section 207A.6 of NSCP 2015)

Gust Effect Factor, G 0.85 (Section 207A.9 of NSCP 2015)

Enclosure Classification Enclosed (Section 207A.10 of NSCP 2015)

Internal Pressure Coefficient, GCpi ±0.18 (Section 207A.11 of NSCP 2015)

2.1.1.11 Seismic Design Parameters

2.1.1.12 The Distance of Project Location from Active Fault Line

Figure 2-9: Distance from an active fault line