Amer Manuscript 4-4-2022

i
TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

938 Aurora BLVD. Cubao, Quezon City
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CE 502
REINFORCED CONCRETE DESIGN
A DESIGN OF A FIVE-STOREY REINFORCED

CONCRETE COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN MARAWI CITY
Submitted By:
AMER, AHMAD BASHIR D.
Submitted To:
ENGR. ALLAN B. BENOGSUDAN
December 11, 2021
ii
ABSTRACT
This project is entitled as “A Design of a Five Storey Reinforced Concrete Commercial Building in
Marawi City” is presented by Ahmad Bashir D. Amer, as partial fulfillment for the requirements for CE 502
(Reinforced Concrete Design).
The project is about the structural analysis and design of the identified parts for the five storey
reinforced concrete commercial building utilizing the moment resisting frames, namely Ordinary Moment
Resisting Frame and Special Moment Resisting Frame. Design specifications, inputs and other
considerations from NBCP and NSCP were used in the design process of the project. The analyzed parts
and designed included: beams, columns and slabs. The most critical part were considered to be chosen due
to its highest result computed from STAAD pro CONNECT Edition, considering all the load combinations.
The details and schedule of the member of the structure were created for the final design of the project.
The software used in the analyzation and concrete design of the structure was STAAD.Pro
CONNECT Edition. As for the detailing of the members designed was AutoCAD.
iii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. AREAS AND FUNCTIONS PER FLOOR ...................................................................................... 6

TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF INITIAL ESTIMATES OF VALUES ..................................................................... 31
TABLE 3. RAW DESIGNER'S RANKING .................................................................................................... 37
TABLE 4. RAW INITIAL DATA .................................................................................................................... 38
TABLE 5. NORMALIZED INITIAL DATA ..................................................................................................... 38
TABLE 6. FIRST WEIGHTED SUM OF VARIOUS PERCENTAGE FOR INITIAL DATA ............................ 38
TABLE 7. SECOND WEIGHTED SUM OF VARIOUS PERCENTAGE FOR INITIAL DATA ....................... 39
TABLE 8. THIRD WEIGHTED SUM OF VARIOUS PERCENTAGE FOR INITIAL DATA............................ 39
TABLE 9. MINIMUM DENSITIES FOR DESIGN LOADS FROM MATERIALS ........................................... 54
TABLE 10. MINIMUM UNIFORM CONCENTRATED LIVE LOADS ............................................................ 54
TABLE 11. SEISMIC IMPORTANCE FACTORS ......................................................................................... 55
TABLE 12. SOIL PROFILE TYPES ............................................................................................................. 55
TABLE 13. SEISMIC ZONE FACTOR ......................................................................................................... 55
TABLE 14. NEAR-SOURCE FACTOR ........................................................................................................ 55
TABLE 15. NEAR-SOURCE FACTOR ........................................................................................................ 56
TABLE 16. SEISMIC COEFFICIENT, CA..................................................................................................... 56
TABLE 17. SEISMIC COEFFICIENT, CV..................................................................................................... 56
TABLE 18. EARTHQUAKE FORCE –RESISTING STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS OF CONCRETE ................ 57
TABLE 19. WIND ZONE FOR THE DIFFERENT PROVINCES OF THE PHILIPPINES ............................. 57
TABLE 20. WIND DIRECTIONALITY FACTOR........................................................................................... 57
TABLE 21. IMPORTANCE FACTOR, IW...................................................................................................... 58
TABLE 22. VELOCITY PRESSURE EXPOSURE COEFFICIENTS ............................................................ 58
TABLE 23. DESIGN LIVE LOADS ............................................................................................................... 58
TABLE 24. MINIMUM DESIGN DEAD LOADS............................................................................................ 59
TABLE 25. SEISMIC LOADING PARAMETER FOR ORDINARY MOMENT RESISTING FRAME – ONE
WAY SLAB AND TWO WAY SLAB ..................................................................................................... 59
TABLE 26. SEISMIC LOADING PARAMETER FOR SPECIAL MOMENT RESISTING FRAME – ONE WAY
SLAB AND TWO WAY SLAB .............................................................................................................. 60
TABLE 27. LOAD CASES COMBINATIONS ............................................................................................... 61
TABLE 28. BEAM END FORCES SUMMARY............................................................................................. 75
TABLE 29. NODE DISPLACEMENTS SUMMARY...................................................................................... 75
TABLE 30. SUPPORT REACTIONS SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 76
TABLE 31. BEAM END FORCES SUMMARY............................................................................................. 90
TABLE 32. NODE DISPLACEMENTS SUMMARY...................................................................................... 90
TABLE 33. SUPPORT REACTIONS SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 91
TABLE 34. BEAM END FORCES SUMMARY........................................................................................... 105
TABLE 35. NODE DISPLACEMENT SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 105
TABLE 36. SUPPORT REACTIONS SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 106
TABLE 37. BEAM END FORCES SUMMARY........................................................................................... 120
iv
TABLE 38. NODE DISPLACEMENTS SUMMARY.................................................................................... 120
TABLE 39. SUPPORT REACTIONS SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 121
TABLE 40. FINAL ESTIMATE OF TRADEOFFS ....................................................................................... 122
TABLE 41. COMPARISON OF INITIAL AND FINAL ESTIMATE OF TRADEOFFS .................................. 122
TABLE 42. FINAL DESIGNER’S RANKING .............................................................................................. 129
TABLE 43. RAW FINAL DATA. ................................................................................................................. 129
TABLE 44. NORMALIZED FINAL DATA ................................................................................................... 130
TABLE 45. FIRST WEIGHTED SUM OF VARIOUS PERCENTAGE FOR FINAL DATA .......................... 130
TABLE 46. SECOND WEIGHTED SUM OF VARIOUS PERCENTAGE FOR FINAL DATA ..................... 130
TABLE 47. THIRD WEIGHTED SUM OF VARIOUS PERCENTAGE FOR FINAL DATA.......................... 131
TABLE 48.SLAB SCHEDULE .................................................................................................................... 132
TABLE 49. BEAM SCHEDULE .................................................................................................................. 132
TABLE 50. COLUMN SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................ 136
v
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. MAP LOCATION OF THE FIVE-STOREY COMMERCIAL BUILDING ....................................... 2

FIGURE 2. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS ..................................................................................... 4
FIGURE 3. GEOMETRIC MODEL ................................................................................................................. 5
FIGURE 4. GROUND FLOOR PLAN............................................................................................................. 7
FIGURE 5. SECOND FLOOR PLAN ............................................................................................................. 8
FIGURE 6. THIRD FLOOR PLAN.................................................................................................................. 9
FIGURE 7. FOURTH FLOOR PLAN............................................................................................................ 10
FIGURE 8. FIFTH FLOOR PLAN ................................................................................................................ 11
FIGURE 9. FRONT ELEVATION ................................................................................................................. 12
FIGURE 10. LEFT SIDE ELEVATION ......................................................................................................... 12
FIGURE 11. RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION ....................................................................................................... 13
FIGURE 12. REAR ELEVATION ................................................................................................................. 13
FIGURE 13. ONE WAY SLAB SYSTEM ..................................................................................................... 26
FIGURE 14. TWO WAY SLAB SYSTEM ..................................................................................................... 26
FIGURE 15. ORDINARY MOMENT RESISTING FRAME ........................................................................... 27
FIGURE 16. SPECIAL MOMENT RESISTING FRAME .............................................................................. 28
FIGURE 17. RANKING SCALE FOR IMPORTANCE FACTOR .................................................................. 30
FIGURE 18. RANKING SCALE FOR SATISFACTORY FACTOR ............................................................... 30
FIGURE 19. COST DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 1 AND 4 .................................................................. 31
FIGURE 22. CONSTRUCTABILITY DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 1 AND 4 ........................................ 33
FIGURE 25. SAFETY/SERVICEABILITY DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 1 AND 3 ................................ 35
FIGURE 28. DESIGN METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 41
FIGURE 29. ONE WAY SLAB FRAMING PLAN ......................................................................................... 43
FIGURE 30. TWO WAY SLAB FRAMING PLAN ......................................................................................... 44
FIGURE 31. STRESS-STRAIN DIAGRAM FOR SINGLY REINFORCED BEAM........................................ 46
FIGURE 32. FLOW CHART OF SHEAR COMPUTATION .......................................................................... 47
FIGURE 33. FLOW CHART OF DESIGN OF SINGLY REINFORCED BEAM ............................................ 48
FIGURE 34. FLOW CHART OF DESIGN OF DOUBLY REINFORCED BEAM........................................... 49
FIGURE 35. FLOW CHART OF COLUMN REINFORCEMENT .................................................................. 51
FIGURE 36. DESIGN OF SLAB .................................................................................................................. 52
FIGURE 37. GENERAL DESIGN PROCESS .............................................................................................. 53
FIGURE 38. DESIGN PROCESS FLOW CHART FOR TRADE-OFF ONE (ONE WAY SLAB – ORDINARY
MOMENT RESISTING FRAME) .......................................................................................................... 62
vi
FIGURE 39. GEOMETRIC MODEL OF ORDINARY MOMENT RESISTING FRAME - ONE WAY SLAB .. 63
FIGURE 40. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR DEAD LOADS .................................................................................... 64
FIGURE 41. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT X ............................................................. 64
FIGURE 42. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT -X ........................................................... 65
FIGURE 43. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT Z ............................................................. 65
FIGURE 44. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT -Z............................................................ 66
FIGURE 45. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR LIVE LOADS ...................................................................................... 66
FIGURE 46. SHEAR DIAGRAM AT X ......................................................................................................... 67
FIGURE 47. SHEAR DIAGRAM AT Y ......................................................................................................... 67
FIGURE 48. SHEAR DIAGRAM AT Z ......................................................................................................... 68
FIGURE 49. MOMENT DIAGRAM AT X ...................................................................................................... 68
FIGURE 50. MOMENT DIAGRAM AT Y ...................................................................................................... 69
FIGURE 51. MOMENT DIAGRAM AT Z ...................................................................................................... 69
FIGURE 52. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT X ................................................................................................. 70
FIGURE 53. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT –X ............................................................................................... 70
FIGURE 54. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT Z ................................................................................................. 71
FIGURE 55. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT -Z ................................................................................................ 71
FIGURE 56. GRAVITY LOAD (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION ......................................... 72
FIGURE 57. GRAVITY LOAD (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – TRANSVERSE DIRECTION ........................................... 72
FIGURE 58. MOMENT DUE TO SEISMIC LOAD - LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION ..................................... 73
FIGURE 59. MOMENT DUE TO SEISMIC LOAD – TRANSVERSE DIRECTION....................................... 73
FIGURE 60. WIND LOAD – LONGITUDINAL ............................................................................................. 74
FIGURE 61. WIND LOAD – TRANSVERSE................................................................................................ 74
FIGURE 62. DESIGN PROCESS FLOW CHART FOR TRADE-OFF ONE (ONE WAY SLAB – SPECIAL
FIGURE 63. GEOMETRIC MODEL OF SPECIAL MOMENT RESISTING FRAME - ONE WAY SLAB ...... 78
FIGURE 64. LOAD DIAGRAMS FOR DEAD LOAD .................................................................................... 79
FIGURE 65. LOAD DIAGRAMS FOR LIVE LOAD ...................................................................................... 79
FIGURE 67. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT -X ........................................................... 80
FIGURE 69. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT –Z ........................................................... 81
FIGURE 76. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT X ................................................................................................. 85
FIGURE 77. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT –X ............................................................................................... 85
FIGURE 78. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT Z ................................................................................................. 86
vii
FIGURE 79. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT -Z ................................................................................................ 86
FIGURE 80. GRAVITY LOAD (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION ......................................... 87
FIGURE 81. GRAVITY LOAD (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – TRANSVERSE DIRECTION ........................................... 87
FIGURE 82. MOMENT DUE TO SEISMIC LOAD - LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION ..................................... 88
FIGURE 83. MOMENT DUE TO SEISMIC LOAD - TRANSVERSE DIRECTION ....................................... 88
FIGURE 84. WIND LOAD – LONGITUDINAL ............................................................................................. 89
FIGURE 85. WIND LOAD – TRANSVERSE................................................................................................ 89
FIGURE 86. DESIGN PROCESS FLOW CHART FOR TRADE-OFF TWO (TWO WAY SLAB – ORDINARY
FIGURE 87. GEOMETRIC MODEL OF ORDINARY MOMENT RESISTING FRAME - TWO WAY SLAB .. 93
FIGURE 88. LOAD DIAGRAMS FOR DEAD LOAD .................................................................................... 94
FIGURE 89. LOAD DIAGRAMS FOR LIVE LOAD ...................................................................................... 94
FIGURE 91. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT –X........................................................... 95
FIGURE 93. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT –Z ........................................................... 96
FIGURE 100. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT X ............................................................................................. 100
FIGURE 101. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT –X ........................................................................................... 100
FIGURE 102. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT Z ............................................................................................. 101
FIGURE 103. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT –Z ........................................................................................... 101
FIGURE 104. GRAVITY LOAD (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION ..................................... 102
FIGURE 105. GRAVITY LOAD (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – TRANSVERSE DIRECTION ....................................... 102
FIGURE 106. MOMENT DUE TO SEISMIC LOAD - LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION ................................. 103
FIGURE 107. MOMENT DUE TO SEISMIC LOAD - TRANSVERSE DIRECTION ................................... 103
FIGURE 108. WIND LOAD – LONGITUDINAL.......................................................................................... 104
FIGURE 109. WIND LOAD – TRANSVERSE ............................................................................................ 104
FIGURE 110. DESIGN PROCESS FLOW CHART FOR TRADE-OFF TWO (TWO WAY SLAB – SPECIAL
MOMENT RESISTING FRAME) ........................................................................................................ 107
FIGURE 111. GEOMETRIC MODEL OF SPECIAL MOMENT RESISTING FRAME - TWO WAY SLAB.. 108
FIGURE 112. LOAD DIAGRAMS FOR DEAD LOAD ................................................................................ 109
FIGURE 113. LOAD DIAGRAMS FOR LIVE LOAD .................................................................................. 109
FIGURE 114. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT X ......................................................... 110
FIGURE 115. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT –X....................................................... 110
FIGURE 116. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT Z ......................................................... 111
FIGURE 117. LOAD DIAGRAM FOR EARTHQUAKE LOADS AT -Z........................................................ 111
viii
FIGURE 118. SHEAR DIAGRAM AT X ..................................................................................................... 112
FIGURE 119. SHEAR DIAGRAM AT Y ..................................................................................................... 112
FIGURE 120. SHEAR DIAGRAM AT Z ..................................................................................................... 113
FIGURE 121. MOMENT DIAGRAM AT X .................................................................................................. 113
FIGURE 122. MOMENT DIAGRAM AT Y .................................................................................................. 114
FIGURE 123. MOMENT DIAGRAM AT Z .................................................................................................. 114
FIGURE 124. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT X ............................................................................................. 115
FIGURE 125. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT –X ........................................................................................... 115
FIGURE 126. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT Z ............................................................................................. 116
FIGURE 127. WIND LOAD DIAGRAM AT –Z ........................................................................................... 116
FIGURE 128. GRAVITY LOAD (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION ..................................... 117
FIGURE 129. GRAVITY LOAD (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – TRANSVERSE DIRECTION ....................................... 117
FIGURE 130. MOMENT DUE TO SEISMIC LOAD - LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION ................................. 118
FIGURE 131. MOMENT DUE TO SEISMIC LOAD - TRANSVERSE DIRECTION ................................... 118
FIGURE 132. WIND LOAD – LONGITUDINAL.......................................................................................... 119
FIGURE 133. WIND LOAD - TRANSVERSE ............................................................................................ 119
FIGURE 134. COST DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 1 AND 4 .............................................................. 123
FIGURE 137. CONSTRUCTABILITY DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 1 AND 4 .................................... 125
FIGURE 140. SAFETY/SERVICEABILITY DIFFERENCE OF TRADE-OFFS 1 AND 2 ............................ 127
FIGURE 143. BEAM DETAILS (A) ............................................................................................................ 141
FIGURE 144. BEAM DETAILS (B) ............................................................................................................ 142
FIGURE 145. COLUMN DETAILS (A) ....................................................................................................... 143
FIGURE 146. COLUMN DETAILS (B) ....................................................................................................... 143
ix
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1 The Project
The project is a commercial building constituted of five stories containing all the necessary rooms for
offices and grocery store at the ground floor. It is intended to be built in Marawi City. As a city with
many businesses and many professionals who will go to nearby cities or most will go to metro manila,
constructing a commercial building is appropriate.
The designed structure is composed of five floors with a basic floor area of 893.09 sq.m. The entire
building comprises of state-of-the-art facilities on offices, a lobby, a lounge, a pantry, a comfort room
in every floor, a conference rooms, and an open-plan offices common in an office building topped by
a roof deck. Each floor has a height of 3 meters.
It is designed with the principles of Reinforced Concrete Design and under the standard and
specifications of National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP) and National Structural Code of
the Philippines (NSCP), 2015, Volume 1, 7th Edition.
1
1.2 Project Location
Figure 1. Map Location of the Five-Storey Commercial Building
1.3 Project Objectives
1.4.1 General Objective
1. The purpose of this project is to design a 5-storey commercial building and to analyze
the structure using reinforced concrete design in accordance with the NSCP 2010
principles.
1.4.2 Specific Objectives
1) To design a 5-storey school building made of reinforced concrete materials.
2) To provide detailed plans and programmed design of the project
3) To evaluate the effect of multiple constraints, trade-offs and standards in the final design.
2
4) To provided structural analysis of the project.
1.4 The Client
The client of this project is the mayor of Marawi City which is Atty. Majul Gandamra, which he will be
the one to accept the funding to create a commercial building that will lead to a better Marawi City
after it had a devastating collapse in economy due to the siege.
1.5 Project Scope and Limitations
The following are the scope covered by the project:
• The project is designed in accordance with the National Structural Code of the Philippines
2015 Volume 1, National Building Code of the Philippines and other applicable codes.
• Analysis of structural elements using STAADPro CONNECT v22 program.
• Detailed illustrations of structural member and design
• Design by reinforced concrete materials
The following are the limitations of the design project:
• The detailed activities within the span of construction of the project.
• The project does not include Architectural, Mechanical, Plumbing and Electrical Works.
• The project does not include the cost estimation for Architectural, Mechanical, Plumbing and
Electrical Works.
• The interior perspective each floor of the school building project.
• The maintenance and alterations of the project.
3
1.6 Project Development
The following stages shown in Figure 1-3 takes place in design in a 5-storey commercial building.
Conceptualization
Location/Vicinity Map
Identifying the project objectives, target

client and scope and limitations
Determining design standards and

parameters
Architectural and Structural Plans
Identification of Constraints and Trade-

Offs
Weighing of constraints and trade-offs

based on standard capstone procedures
Loadings and Structural Analysis
Final Design Output
Figure 2. Project Development Process
4
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUT
2.1 Description of Structure
The figure below shows geometric model of the main frame system of the five-storey building. It is
modeled through STAAD.Pro CONNECT software and used for structural analysis.
Figure 3. Geometric Model
2.2 Classification of Structure
In designing a structure, the designer/s should be able to classify the structure itself using National
Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP- 2015). The structure which is commercial building
classified as essential facility according to the occupancy category based on the NSCP-2015. It also
classified as Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF) for the structural components but there is
also Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame. From these classifications, the designer will identify all the
parameters involve in designing the structure especially for seismic and earthquake analysis.
5
2.3 Floor Area
Table 1. Areas and Functions per Floor
FUNCTION AREA (m2)

First Floor
Store 725
Office-2 25
Employee Break Rm. 25
Storage Rm. 50
C.R. 25
Stairs 25
Hallway 25
TOTAL 900
Second Floor
Office-1 100
Office-2 150
Conference Rm. 50
Open-Plan Office 250
Lobby 175
Hallway 100
Pantry 25
C.R. 25
Stair 25
TOTAL 900
Third Floor
Office-1 100
Office-2 150
Conference Rm. 50
Lounge 75
Hallway 50
Pantry 25
C.R 25
Stair 25
TOTAL 900
Fourth Floor
Office-1 100
Office-2 150
Conference Rm. 50
Hallway 75
Pantry 25
C.R 25
Stair 25
6
TOTAL 900
Fifth Floor
Office-1 100
Office-2 150
Conference Rm. 50
Hallway 75
Pantry 25
C.R 25
Stair 25
TOTAL 900
2.4 Architectural Plans
2.4.1 Floor Plans
Figure 4. Ground Floor Plan
7
Figure 5. Second Floor Plan
8
Figure 6. Third Floor Plan
9
Figure 7. Fourth Floor Plan
10
Figure 8. Fifth Floor Plan
11
2.4.2 Elevations
Figure 9. Front Elevation
Figure 10. Left Side Elevation
12
Figure 11. Right Side Elevation
Figure 12. Rear Elevation
13
2.5 Review of Related Literature and Studies
2.5.1 Seismic Resistance of Buildings
The conceptual design and the detailing of the structural elements (walls, columns, slabs) and the
non-structural elements (partition walls, façades) plays a central role in determining the structural
behaviour (before failure) and the earthquake vulnerability (sensitivity to damage) of buildings. Errors
and defects in the conceptual design cannot be compensated for in the following calculations and
detailed design of the engineer. A seismically correct conceptual design is furthermore necessary in
order to achieve a good earthquake resistance without incurring significant additional costs. (Hugo
Bachmann, January 2002).
2.5.2 Floor Slab Analysis
Floor Slab Analysis (Case Study: One Residence Apartment Batam Center)
Reinforced concrete slab are widely used in civil buildings, including as building
floors, roof floors, bridge floors and dock floors. The load acting on the slab is generally
calculated against gravitational loads. This study aims to analyse floor slab in One Residence
Batam Center Apartment Construction Project. The moment method is used to predict the
magnitude of frame and shrinkage values that refer to 2002 of SNI. Loading is carried out
from dead loads and live loads with a two-way reinforcement system. Reinforcement is done
using steel with a diameter of 10 mm. So that the minimum area is 313 mm square with a
distance of 250 mm and is in the safe category. From the calculation results obtained the
concrete elastic modulus obtained by 250 MPa with a reinforcement ratio of 0.0025.
Checking the time dependency factor for dead loads is carried out within 3 months, 6 months,
14
12 months and more than 5 years. Long-term deflection due t frame and shrinkage is still in
the safe category. (Yayuk Setyaning Astutik, 2019)
2.5.2.1 One Way Slab
Behaviour and Strength of One Way Reinforced Concrete Slabs
There would be a variety of slab systems which can be used to reduce the
slab self-weight, such as the hollow slab, to cope with the increase in the height and
dimensions of building structures which results in turn in self weight structure
increase. In this study, one directional hollow slabs were experimented to investigate
the behavior of the reinforced concrete slab containing cavities. The cavities filled
with styropor as insulation material which were inserted at the middle zone of the
slab thickness between the tension cord (lower zone) and the compression cord
(upper zone). They will reduce the slab weight rather than the insulation properties
as compared to the solid slab (reference slab). (Amer Izzet, March 2014)
Enhancing the Behavior of One-Way Reinforced Concrete Slabs by Using
Laced Reinforcement
This paper studies experimentally the behavior of laced reinforced concrete
one-way slabs under monotonic load. The experimental program included testing
three simply supported one-way slabs of dimensions (1500 mm length, 600 mm
width, and thickness 130mm. One of these slabs was the control specimen which
was designed without lacing reinforcement steel and the other two specimens
designed were with two variable lacing reinforcement ratio (0.27% and 0.52%). All
specimens were cast with normal of 22 MPa compressive strength. Specimens were
15
tested under two equal line loads applied at the third parts of the slab (monotonic
load) gradually applying up to failure. The specimens showed an enhanced in
ultimate load capacity up to 40% as a result of increasing the lacing steel ratio to
0.52 %. Also, decreasing in deflection at service and at ultimate load levels by 42%
and %57 respectively. In addition, the results showed that specimen with lacing
reinforcement are more ductility than specimen without lacing reinforcement so
using of lacing steel reinforcement leads to significant improvements in ductility
index which reached to about 49% with increasing the lacing steel ratio to (0.52%).
(Ali Faiq Hallawi et al., 2019)
2.5.2.2 Two Way Slab
Maximum bending moments in a RC two-way slab subjected to wall loads
With the purpose to characterize the behavior of a transfer slab system, a
slab-wall full-scale specimen was designed, build and tested to cyclic loads in the
Laboratory of Structures at UAM. The prototype slab-wall was subjected to three
load patterns: 1) gravitational load; 2) horizontal load only; and 3) a combination of
gravitational and lateral loads. The specimen consists of a masonry wall placed on
top of a squared two-way slab of 4.25 m by side, thickness of 12 cm, on four
reinforced concrete beams. The most important results presented herein are the
resistance capacity of the slab supporting a load-bearing wall subjected to vertical
and horizontal load. Analytical finite element slab-wall models were used. (Alonso
Gómez Bernal et al., 2017)
AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ON FLEXURAL BEHAVIOUR OF RCC TWO WAY
SLABS
16
Concrete is the most commonly used material in various types of
constructions. The demand of aggregate and cement used in concrete is increasing
worldwide every year due to rapid industrialization and urban development. The
excessive utilization of aggregate for concrete production leads to excessive
exploitation of natural aggregate and environmental degradation from quarrying
activities. This has resulted in renewed interest in Recycled Aggregate (RA) as a
viable source of concrete ingredient. Study carries casting and testing of two way
slab specimens by using natural coarse aggregate and 50% replacement with
recycled aggregate. The concrete grade considered for study is M25. In the
experimental study the concrete mix has been designed as per the guidelines given
in IS: 10262-2009 published by Bureau of Indian Standards. In slab specimens, the
steel reinforcement varies from 0.3%, 0.4%, 0.5% in both the cases (natural and
recycled) by using 6mm and 8mm diameter rebars. The size of two way slab is
600mm × 800mm × 90mm. The value of modulus of elasticity (E) is evaluated from
the load vs. deflection curve of slab specimens. The modulus of elasticity of concrete
is a very important parameter reflecting the ability of concrete to deform elastically.
Deflections and crack widths are the parameters that gives us warning that the
structure is about to fail so that there will be time to counter act. The aim of study is
to verify the influence of steel reinforcement on the modulus of elasticity of
reinforced concrete members. (Dr. B. Madhusudana Reddy et al., December 2017)
17
2.5.2.3 Computational Analysis of RCC Slab (Simply Supported) using C Software
Language
Slab design is done mainly by manual method or using design and analysis
software. In this article, a C coding has been done for the design of a simply supported
reinforced concrete slab. The design of slabs will differ depending upon the support
conditions and also on end conditions. The load condition can also be a variable factor. The
design criteria will change with the grade of concrete used, the exposure conditions. These
criteria have not taken into account in the coding procedure. Indian standard design
procedure has been followed, and the clauses in the IS456-2000, has been followed during
the coding. This coding has done to overcome the delay in the manual calculations, to obtain
the accuracy in the result calculations. As slab is an import element in the structural design
aspect, it has to be designed very carefully. As an input value, the steel area calculation has
to be done manually in this procedure. Also the unit conversion is not allowed in the coding,
and all the dimensions are to be submitted in meters only. (S.Suchithra et al., November
2019)
A Comparative Study on Structural Analysis of High-Rise Buildings
With the developing technology, the high-level structures provide innovative solutions that
enable many functions to coexist together. In addition, high-rise buildings are an advertising tool for
countries, cities and large companies to show their power and prestige. From their design to
operation, these structures take place in the city skyline with their advanced technology. Formerly
human’s life was near to nature, which human beings have been accustomed for centuries. However
today, they have been tried to rise their structures with the help of developments in technology,
construction techniques and with the limitations brought by urbanization day by day. These
18
structures, which are defined as multi storey buildings in the literature, have taken the name of
skyscraper together with the desire to reach higher and higher. As technology has advanced, the
desire to build higher has brought different structure system solutions and proposals. In this context,
the investigation of the positive/negative effects of these structures to the function of the structure,
which are the new living spaces of people, constitutes the main point of the study. It has been found
that the functions are limited and the spaces cannot be used efficiently in the structure system
solutions of the prestige buildings in this study. With the development of the construction materials,
it will be provided that hybrid or steel construction system buildings formed by taking advantage of
the steel structure with slender columns and beams. Thus, creating a more flexible and efficient use
of interior spaces of extraordinary forms can be designed. (Şule Yılmaz Erten et al., 2018).
Structural Framing Analysis
They presented an advanced structural framing system, which can construct cost-efficient
high-rise office buildings with high additional value. Main components are comprised of, (1)
earthquake-resisting core walls with boundary beams, which can bear almost all of the earthquake
forces, (2) outer frames and (3) the inversed haunch beams of office areas released from earthquake
force. These characteristics give flexibility to building planning and future possible renovations. The
seismic response analysis results illustrated that the earthquake-resistance standards of Japan, as
a severely seismic country, could be satisfied, and the boundary beams reduced the seismic
response. The loading tests confirmed that the shear strength and bending characteristics of the
earthquake-resisting walls with built-in steel could be evaluated by conventional design equations
for reinforced concrete earthquake-resisting walls. It was also verified that the boundary beams
proposed had a large equivalent damping factor and could decrease damage compared with
boundary beams of normal cross-sections. (Naoki Niwa et. al., 2004)
19
Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame
In this study behaviour of the structure having various structural configurations like OMRF
(Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames), SMRF (Special Moment Resisting Frames). The poor
performance of Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame (OMRF) in past earthquakes suggested that, the
special design and detailing to require arresting a ductile behaviour in seismic zones of high
earthquake (zone III, IV & V). For this purpose, a G+7 storey R.C.C. regular building are analyzed
for OMRCF, SMRCF framing configurations in Seismic Zone II, III & IV according to Indian codes.
For OMRF structures the guide lines of I.S. 456-2000 and the design, detailing of reinforcement are
executed as per which make the structure less tough and ductile in comparison of SMRF structures.
The earthquake resistant design should be based on lateral strength as well as deformability and
ductility capacity of structure. For adequate toughness and ductility to resist the severe earthquake
shocks without collapse, in the SMRF structures Beams, columns, and beam-column joints are
proportioned and detailed as per I.S. code 13920(2002). Thus it has been studied and observed that
SMRF structures behave well in earthquake than OMRF structures. (Anupam S. Hirapure et. al.,
2017)
Special Moment Resisting Frames
This performance-based study was conducted to investigate the effects of seismic
coefficients on performance of concrete special moment frames of 5,7, and 10-storey buildings
located in Tehran, Iran. The structures are designed three-dimensionally by ETABS 2016 software
according to ACI-318-08. Fifteen specimens were designed with different base shears having
seismic coefficients of 0.7, 0.85, 1, 1.15, and 1.30 times the proposed value of Iranian Standard
2800, (i.e. decreased by 70 and 85%, and increased by 115 and 130%). Endurance time method
(ETA20in series of ET acceleration function) as well as three real earthquake records was employed
20
to evaluate the seismic performance of the modeled structures. The performance of structures was
compared by the time of the first plastic hinges formation in beams and columns, the time of entering
to nonlinear region and the time of experiencing storey drift of 2% corresponding to the life safety
performance level. It was observed that the results of ET records and real records were similar to
each other. A procedure was proposed for finding optimum structure with lower weight using ET
method through defining efficient ratio (ER) and cost ratio (CR). Based on the results of ER/CR ratio
and considering the importance of collapse prevention performance level, optimum structure was a
7-storey structure with lower weight or cost whose seismic coefficient had been reduced by 70%. It
was concluded that high safety can not be achieved simply by increasing the seismic coefficient of
structures. (Hadi Radmanesh et. al., 2018)
Comparative Analysis on Moment Resisting Frames
The comparative study of SMRF and OMRF buildings has been done by performing
pushover analysis for 12 storey and 16 storey RC buildings and their response is monitored. The
comparative observations are,
1. It is observed that the base shear capacity of OMRF buildings is 80% to 85% more than that
of SMRF buildings.
2. And the ductility of SMRF buildings is 55% to 140% more than that of OMRF buildings.
3. This is due to the use of more number of stirrups as ductile reinforcement and heavy
confinement of concrete due to splicing. 4. It is observed that SMRF buildings perform much
better compared to OMRF buildings. 5. The ductility and magnitude of base shear that can
be resisted increases with increase in number of storeys. (Shinde M.S. et. al., 2018).
A Comparative Study on Structural Analysis of High-Rise Buildings
21
With the developing technology, the high-level structures provide innovative solutions that
enable many functions to coexist together. In addition, high-rise buildings are an advertising tool for
countries, cities and large companies to show their power and prestige. From their design to
operation, these structures take place in the city skyline with their advanced technology. Formerly
human’s life was near to nature, which human beings have been accustomed for centuries. However
today, they have been tried to rise their structures with the help of developments in technology,
construction techniques and with the limitations brought by urbanization day by day. These
structures, which are defined as multi storey buildings in the literature, have taken the name of
skyscraper together with the desire to reach higher and higher. As technology has advanced, the
desire to build higher has brought different structure system solutions and proposals. In this context,
the investigation of the positive/negative effects of these structures to the function of the structure,
which are the new living spaces of people, constitutes the main point of the study. It has been found
that the functions are limited and the spaces cannot be used efficiently in the structure system
solutions of the prestige buildings in this study. With the development of the construction materials,
it will be provided that hybrid or steel construction system buildings formed by taking advantage of
the steel structure with slender columns and beams. Thus, creating a more flexible and efficient use
of interior spaces of extraordinary forms can be designed. (Şule Yılmaz Erten et al., 2018).
Study of OMRF and SMRF structures for different earthquake zones of India
The increase in the rate of earthquake every year and thereby increasing loss of life and
property has led to necessity of comparing the methods of analyzing/designing of building structures.
The study of the building structures was done by classifying them into two methods i.e. Ordinary RC
Moment Resisting Frames (OMRF) structures and Special RC Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF)
Structures. In these study two comparisons has been done. First comparison is between OMRF and
22
SMRF structures. Second comparison is the behavior of a building structure in different earthquake
zones of India. STAAD Pro software is used for designing structures, for four Earthquake zones. In
this study the variation in the structure was done while designing, considering OMRF and SMRF
Structures. For that purpose fixed dimensions of beams and columns was taken, so as to co-relate
the variation in the displacement of OMRF and SMRF Structure due to lateral force generated by the
earthquake in x and z direction. In conclusion, the comparison of study output is done for following
the suitable method of designing the structure for safety purpose, to prevent the loss of life,
infrastructure and to meet the better serviceability criteria during the earthquake. (J. Bhattacharjee,
2017).
23
CHAPTER 3: CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS AND STANDARDS
3.1 Design Constraints
Design constraints are the factors that will limit the range of potential design solutions that can
be adopted. In the early stage of a project only some of these constraints may be known, while
others become evident as the design progresses. Constraints are divided into two, the Quantitative
Constraints which refers to those that can be measured by applying of engineering principles and
one of this is estimation method. Qualitative Constraints, refers to those constraints that are not
measurable anymore but it can be classified by designer through perception. The following are the
constraints to be considered:
3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints
1. Economic. The cost of the structure is highly considerable and important in terms of
fund of the client, and it is also highly significant to the designer due to the fact that the
client will be happy if the designer considers the least reasonable cost.
2. Constructability. The constructability is also called as buildability, which is a new term
in construction industry. But the concept of buildability has existed from past. This will
also be an important quantitative constraints because it will determine the duration of
construction, schedules, number of workers and laborers, equipments needed and
materials to be used. If the desired schedule to finish the project are not met, it will take
a lot of time and more money to spend on the project.
3. Safety/Serviceability. Safety of the structure should and always a priority for the
occupants to use. It makes the structure function effectively overtime. There are times
it will accidentally damage but we cannot deny the fact of the importance of safety.
24
3.1.2 Qualitative Constraints
1. Aesthetics. This will depend on a person’s perception whether which design is more
presentable and pleasing. This constraint will depend on the taste of a person and
therefore it is considered as a qualitative constraint.
2. Sustainability. Sustainability refers to which how durable will be the structure as time
pass by and how the building will still be considered useful and safe at the same time.
Should these limit states be exceeded, it will be considered unsustainable.
3.2 Trade-Offs
Considering the design constraints, trade-offs will have a significant effect on the structural design
of the structure that were provided by the designer. As a trade-off, the designer will have to evaluate
and check which is more effective considering the given constraints. Trade-off in the design are
always present in the design process. The following are the trade-offs that were chosen by the
designer because it will be most fitted to the given constraints.
3.2.1 One Way Slab
25
Figure 13. One Way Slab System
One-way slabs are those slabs with an aspect ratio in plan of 2:1 or greater, in which bending
is primarily about the long axis. In heavily loaded slabs, the thickness is often governed by shear or
flexure, while in lightly-loaded slabs, the thickness is generally chosen based on deflection
limitations. Both lightly and heavily loaded slabs are typically dimensioned so that no shear
reinforcement is required, as placing stirrups in slabs is perceived to be difficult and costly. One-way
slabs are designed for flexure and shear on a per meter width basis, assuming that they act as a
series of independent strips. Thus one-way shear in slabs is often referred to as beam shear, and
design for flexure and shear is carried out using a beam analogy
3.2.2 Two Way Slab
Figure 14. Two Way Slab System
When a rectangular slab is supported on all the sides and the length-to-breadth ratio is less
than two, it is considered to be a two-way slab. The slab spans in both the orthogonal directions. In
26
general, a slab which is not falling in the category of one-way slab is considered to be a two-way
slab.
3.2.3 Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame
Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames (OMRF) do not meet special detailing requirements for
ductile behavior under National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP 2015). Ordinary Moment
Resisting Frames is stiffer and attracts higher base shear (seismic force) but less capable to
redistribute forces from member to joint and joint to member due to its limitations of detailing.
Typically used in non/low-seismic regions.
Figure 15. Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame
3.2.4 Special Moment Resisting Frame
NSCP specifies using Special moment resisting frames for analysis and study on lateral
loads. NSCP uses moment-resisting frames, particularly special moment resisting frames. Special
Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF) is expected to withstand significant inelastic deformations and it
must sustain inter-story drift angle of at least 0.04 radians. Intermediate moment resisting frame is
typically used in mid/high-seismic regions.
27
Figure 16. Special Moment Resisting Frame
3.3 Significance of Chosen Tradeoffs to the Quantitative Design Constraints
In this section, the constraints enlisted in the beginning of the chapter will be related to the tradeoffs
chosen by the designer. The final decision of choosing the tradeoff that will be used for the structure lies on
the client. Thus, the significance of the tradeoffs to the constraints is needed.
Economic. For the cost effectiveness of the structure, the tradeoffs chosen will be designed to be
compared whether of the two will be more economical. Clients do not have the same state of living and thus
might give priority to this constraint. Some might choose the tradeoff that have lower price but might not give
way to the positivity of other tradeoffs.
28
Constructability. Time measures is significant in the construction of the structure. Knowing which
of the difference in the period of construction two tradeoffs might be significant for a client. Some clients need
shorter period of time and thus give priority to this constraint.
Safety/Serviceability. The magnitudes of deflection for concrete members are also important. Any
structure used by the people should be quite rigid and relatively-vibration free so as to provide security.
Designing these two tradeoffs will give different results. Thus, one tradeoff might be safer than the other. A
safer structure known to a client might be given priority.
Through the consideration of multiple constraints, the designer will have to choose what particular
design among the tradeoffs will be used. The tradeoff is very significant in the design for it will solve the
problem regarding the concern of client considering the constraints.
3.4 Method of Measurements for Quantitative Constraints
The main method of measurement that will be used in this design is estimation. For the economic
constraint, the cost of the whole building. This includes the materials that will be used for the construction of
the beams, slabs, and columns. It also includes the cost of the reinforcements that will be used for the
structure. For the constructability of the structure, the period of time that will be utilized to construct the
building will be estimated, together with the number of workers that will work on that period of time. The
number of workers will be constant for both tradeoffs. The difference between the days will give the result for
each tradeoff. For the last constraint, the deflection of the most critical beam will be computed for each
tradeoff and will then be compared.
3.5 Ranking Scale
The ranking scale that will be used in the design will be based on the model on tradeoff strategies
that is formulated by Otto and Antonsson (1991). The importance factors in every constraint is scaled from 0
29
to 5, while the capacity to satisfy the constraints will be scaled from -5 to 5, 5 being the highest for both. After
obtaining the results, the product of the importance and the capacity to satisfy the criteria will be summed of
from every constraint. The result will be the overall ranking of the trade-off.
Figure 17. Ranking Scale for Importance Factor
Figure 18. Ranking Scale for Satisfactory Factor
Computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials:
Higher Value-Lower Value

Percent Difference () = x10; Equation 1
Higher Value
Percent Difference
Subordinate Rank = Governing rank - ; Equation 2
10
The above equations will be used for the manipulation of the rankings of each constraint given to the
tradeoffs. The governing rank is the highest possible value set by the designer. The subordinate rank
in second equation is a variable that corresponds to its percentage difference from the governing
rank along the ranking scale.
3.6 Initial Estimate and Ranking Computation
To determine the difference between the two tradeoffs, certain methods were used by the designer.
For the economic constraint, a cost estimate was provided. For the constructability constraint, an estimate of
the number of working days was provided, given that there will be 50 workers. For the safety/serviceability
constraint, the deflection of the most critical beam was considered.
30
In this part, a rough computation of the estimates was utilized. The values written in the table
below were just assumed by the designer whose basis came from experience.
Table 2. Summary of Initial Estimates of Values
CONSTRAINT ESTIMATED VALUE

One-Way Slab One-Way Slab Two-Way Slab Two-Way Slab
OMRF SMRF OMRF SMRF
Economic Php 18,000,000 Php 16,000,000 Php 17,500,000 Php 15,500,000
Constructability 600 Days 550 Days 575 Days 525 Days
Safety/Serviceability 4% of allowable 5% of allowable 3.5% of allowable 4.5% of allowable
Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint of Trade-Offs one (1) and four (4)

% Difference = x100
Higher Value
18000000-15500000
% Difference = x100
18000000
% Difference = 13.88
% difference
Subordinate rank = Governing rank -
10
Subordinate rank = 5 – 1.389
Subordinate rank = 3.599
Figure 19. Cost Difference of Trade-Offs 1 and 4
31
Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint of Trade-Offs two (2) and four (4)

% Difference = x100
Higher Value
16000000-15500000
% Difference = x100
16000000
% difference
10
Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint of Trade-Offs three (3) and four (4)

% Difference = x100
Higher Value
17500000-15500000
% Difference = x100
17500000
% difference
10
32
Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint of Trade-Offs one (1) and four (4)

% Difference = x100
Higher Value
600-525
% Difference = x100
600
% Difference = 12.5
% difference
10

Figure 22. Constructability Difference of Trade-Offs 1 and 4
Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint of Trade-Offs two (2) and four (4)

% Difference = x100
Higher Value
33
550-525
% Difference = x100
550
% difference
10

Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint of Trade-Offs three (3) and four (4)

% Difference = x100
Higher Value
575-525
% Difference = x100
575
% difference
10

34
Computation of ranking for Safety/Serviceability Constraint for Trade-Offs one (1) and three (3)

% Difference = x100
Higher Value
4 - 3.5
% Difference = x100
4
% Difference = 12.5
% difference
10

Figure 25. Safety/Serviceability Difference of Trade-Offs 1 and 3
Computation of ranking for Safety/Serviceability Constraint for Trade-Offs two (2) and three (3)

% Difference = x100
Higher Value
5 - 3.5
% Difference = x100
5
% Difference = 30
% difference
10
35
Subordinate rank = 5 – 3
Subordinate rank = 2
Computation of ranking for Safety/Serviceability Constraint for Trade-Offs four (4) and three (3)

% Difference = x100
Higher Value
4.5 - 3.5
% Difference = x100
4
% difference
10

3.7 Raw Designer’s Ranking and Assessment
After making an initial estimate of the structure considering the constraints, the design came up
with the raw rankings on the one-way slab and two-way slab. The values computed in the latter section is
tabulated.
36
Table 3. Raw Designer's Ranking
CONSTRAINT IMPORTANCE ABILITY TO SATISFY THE CRITERION

(CRITERIA) (on a scale of (on a scale of 0 to 5)
0 to 5) One-Way One-Way Two-Way Two-Way
Slab OMRF Slab SMRF Slab OMRF Slab SMRF
Economic 5 3.599 4.6875 3.57 5
Constructability 4 3.75 4.546 4.131 5
Safety/Serviceability 3 3.75 2 5 2.778
Overall Ranking 44.245 47.6215 49.374 53.334
These tabulated values are just subjective, especially the importance factors. These values will still
go on with the validation after making a final estimate and final ranking. Knowing the significance of the
constraints to the tradeoffs, the ranks in its importance are given as 5, for economic, 4, for constructability,
and 3, for safety/serviceability.
As for economic constraint, it turned out that the initial cost for the two-way slab SMRF is cheaper
than the other three, considering only the volume of concrete that will be used. As for the constructability
constraint, it turned out that the labor constituting of 50 workers will have to work for longer time for the
construction of the one-way slab OMRF. As for the safety/serviceability constraint, the deflection of the critical
member in the two-way slab is quite greater than that of the one-way slab.
Overall, it turned out that the two-way slab SMRF tradeoff outranked the other three tradeoff for the
raw designer’s ranking.
3.8 Normalization of Initial Data
The normalization of data are based on the initial estimate of the two mandatory tradeoffs namely,
One-Way Slab and Two-Way Slab, and based on the three constraints, namely Economic, Constructability
and Serviceability.
37
3.8.1 Raw Data
Table 4. Raw Initial Data
PC2 PC3 (Safety/Serviceability

Design PC1 (Cost in pesos) (Duration in days) in percent)
1. OMRF (One-Way) 18000000 600 4
2. OMRF (Two-Way) 16000000 550 5
3. SRMF (One-Way) 17500000 575 3.5
4. SMRF (Two-Way) 15500000 525 4.5
Table 4 shows the raw data gathered from previous studies and used it as a basis to determine which
trade-off offers the best in a particular constraint, and in general scale.
3.8.2 Normalized Data
Table 5. Normalized Initial Data
PC1 PC2 PC3 (Safety/Serviceability

Design (Cost in pesos) (Duration in days) in percent)
1. OMRF (One-Way) 1 1 7
2. OMRF (Two-Way) 8.2 7 1
3. SRMF (One-Way) 2.8 4 10
4. SMRF (Two-Way) 10 10 4
Normalization of rating means adjusting values measured on different scales to a noitionally common
scale, prior to averaging. Table 5 shows the normalized data from the raw data.
3.8.3 Weighted Sum of Various Percentage Weight
Table 6. First weighted sum of various percentage for initial data
PC Weight (%) D1 D2 D3 D4
1 0.5 1 8.2 2.8 10
2 0.3 1 7 4 10
3 0.2 7 1 10 4
Weighted Sum 1 2.2 6.4 4.6 8.8
38
Table 6 shows the first weighted sum of various percentage where constraints one (1), two (2) and
three (3) have given a percentage of 0.5, 0.3 and 0.2 respectively.
Table 7. Second weighted sum of various percentage for initial data
1 0.44 1 8.2 2.8 10
2 0.3 1 7 4 10
3 0.26 7 1 10 4
Weighted Sum 1 2.56 5.968 5.032 8.44
Table 8. Third weighted sum of various percentage for initial data
1 0.3 1 8.2 2.8 10
2 0.4 1 7 4 10
3 0.3 7 1 10 4
Weighted Sum 1 2.8 5.56 5.44 8.2
3.9 Design Standards
To come up with the final design of the structure, the designer utilized the codes and standards
written in the following:
1. National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP)
2. National Structure Code of the Philippines (NSCP 2015)
39
The National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP), enacted into law on August 26, 1972,
provides for all buildings and structures a framework of minimum standards and requirements by
guiding and controlling location, siting, and design.
The NBCP also establishes standards for quality of materials, construction, use, occupancy, and
maintenance, including environment, utilities, fixtures, equipments, and mechanical, electrical, and
other systems and installations.
One of the main reasons why the National Building Code is created is to ensure public safety. All
buildings must abide to certain principles of construction. All materials that are needed must also be
environmental friendly.
The National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) is created to provide minimum standards
to safeguard life, health, property, and public welfare, consistent with the principles of sound
environmental management and control.
It is also the purpose of this code is to provide a framework of minimum standards and requirements
to regulate and controlling their location, site, deign, quality of materials, construction, use,
occupancy and maintenance for all buildings that will be built. The current version of it is the NSCP
2015 7th Edition (Vol.1).
40
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE
4.1 Design Methodology
In designing the Reinforced Concrete Structure, the designer will conform to the codes and standards
of National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015. The figure below shows the step by step process of the
design.
STRUCTURAL PLANS FRAMING PLANS
NBCP
DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
NSCP
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
MATERIAL PROPERTIES MODULUS OF ELASTICITY
STRUCTURAL MEMBER DIMENSIONS
STRUCTURAL MODEL GEOMETRIC MODELING
DEAD LOAD AND LIVE LOAD

LOAD MODELS SEISMIC LOAD AND WIND LOAD
LOAD COMBINATIONS
SHEAR DIAGRAMS
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
MOMENT DIAGRAMS
REACTIONS AND DEFLECTIONS
STRUCTURAL DESIGN DESIGN SCHEDULES DETAILING
Figure 28. Design Methodology
41
The first process in design methodology was the creation of structural plans. The structural plans
included the framing plans of the two trade-offs. The next step was to know the design specifications. These
specifications are the codes and standards needed for the structure’s classification and description. The
National Building Code and National Structural Code of the Philippines are the main books used for design
specifications.
The third step in the process was the identification of the material properties. The compressive
stresses and modulus of elasticity of the concrete and steel to be used were determined. Also, the structural
member dimensions (b, d, etc.) were assumed. The fourth step was the creation of the structural model.
These models included geometric modelling, which showed the positioning of the structural members
(beams, columns, slabs) in 3D form.
The fifth step was the presentation of load models. In this part, the loads acting on the structure were
computed. These loads were the dead load, live load, wind load, and seismic (earthquake) load, applying
also the load combinations. After computing for these loads, load models was presented also in 3D form. The
sixth step was the structural analysis. In structural analysis, member (beams and columns) forces and
reactions were determined. The member forces included were the axial force, shear force, and moment acting
on the member.
The last part was the structural design. The structural design did not include the design of footings.
The values from the structural analysis was utilized to design the structural members of the structures, mainly
the beams and columns. The maximum moment acting on a beam was used to design the beam, and the
maximum value of the axial force acting on a column was used to design the column. To design the slab, the
total load on the floors was utilized.
42
4.1.1 Structural Plans
Figure 29. One Way Slab Framing Plan
43
Figure 30. Two Way Slab Framing Plan
44
4.1.2 Structural Design
In this section, the beams, columns, and slabs were designed. The main goal of the
structural design of the members is to know the number of bars and their spacing, and check if the
assumed dimensions are adequate for the structure.
For beams and columns, only the most critical parts were designed. For one-way slab, only
one slab was considered both in longitudinal and transverse directions was designed. For two-way
slab, only one strip was designed also considering both longitudinal and transverse directions. For
convenience, a sample procedure of computation for a structural member will be shown. The manual
computations of the members is shown in the appendices.
4.1.2.1 Design of Beams
Due to forces acting on the beam, the whole structure experiences flexure, and thus
the whole length of the beam have moments within them. Also due to these forces, the beam
experiences a shearing stress, which makes a part of the beam to be compressed (top), and
another part to be tensed (bottom). To design the beams of the entire structure, the beam
which had the highest moment was picked and the resulting design for that beam will be
applied to all other beams in the structure. The dimensions of the beam (b,t) and the stresses
(f’c,fy) were provided by the designer. The parts of the beam to be designer are the supports,
which experience negative moment, and the midspan, which experience positive moment.
Moreover, the stress strain diagram of the cross-sectional of the beam was used for the
design. The following flow charts present the step by step process of designing a beam.
45
Figure 31. Stress-Strain Diagram for Singly Reinforced Beam
Given: b,d,f’c and fy
Vu = R-Wud
Vc = 1/6ξf'cbd
YES
Vu = 1/3 ΦVc
YES
No shear Vu = 1/3 ΦVc
reinforcement is
required
NO
Vn = Vu/Φ
Av = bs/3fy
S=d/2
Vs = Vn - Vc
Vs ≤ 2/3 ξf'cbd
46
YES NO
S = Avfyd/Vs Adjust the size of

beam
Vs ≤ 1/3 ξf'cbd
Smax = d/2 Smax = d/4
End End
Figure 32. Flow Chart of Shear Computation
Given: f’c,fy,b,d and ω
Calculate Mumax=Φf’cbd ω(1-.59 ω)
MT=Mload+Mwt of beam
MT<Mumax
MT<Mumax
YES NO
MT>Mumax MT<Mumax
Design as Doubly Design as Singly
47
Ru = Mu/Φbd2
ρact = (0.85f’c/fy)(1-1-2Ru/0.85f’c)
YES
ρmin < ρ <ρmax
NO
Ast = ρact(bd) Change Section
π
No. of bars = Ast/(4 D2 )
Check if steel yield, a =Asfy/0.85f’cb
c = a/β
εs = 0.003(d-c)/c
εy = fy/Es
YES NO
εs > εy
εs > εy, Steel Yield εs > εy, Steel not Yield
End End
Figure 33. Flow Chart of Design of Singly Reinforced Beam
48
Given: f’c,fy,b,d and ω
Calculate Mumax = Φf’cbd2ω(1-.59ω)
MT = Mload + Mwt of beam
YES NO
MT > Mumax
MT > Mumax, Design as Doubly MT < Mumax, Design as Singly
As1 = ρmaxbd Check if Compression steel

yield
Mu1 = Mumax
a = As1 / 0.85f’cb
Mu2 = Mu-Mu1
c = a/β
As2 = Mu2/Φfy(d-d’)
YES
f’s ≥ fy
NO
f’s = fy
f’s < fy
A’s = As2
A’s = As2fy/f’s
π
No. of bars = A’s/( 4 D2 )
π
No. of bars = A’s/( 4 D2 )
End
End
Figure 34. Flow Chart of Design of Doubly Reinforced Beam
49
4.1.2.2 Design of Columns
From the structural analysis, the column that experienced the greatest axial forces
was designed. The designer started the design of the column in determining the number of
bars and its positioning within the gross area of the column. Knowing the position of bars in
the column, the designer then computed for the axial force capacity column due to the
eccentric load. The flow chart below shows the step by step process done by the designer.
The second flow chart is applicable only in this design (eccentricity on one side only).
Given: Pcap,fy,f’c,Φ; Assume: ρg = 0.01-0.08
Ast = 0.01Ag
Pcap = 0.8Φ[(0.85f’c(Ag-0.01Ag)+fy(0.01Ag)], Compute for Ag
t = Ag
Solve for
ex = Pux(d)/Pu ex = Puy(d)/Pu
Check for column capacity
YES NO
S ρg < 0.08
ρg < 0.08, OK ρg > 0.08

adjust ρg (Assume)
50
Check for column capacity
Pu=0.8Φ[(0.85f’c(Ag-0.01Ag)+fy(0.01Ag)]
Pcap > Pu
Pcap > Pu, OK Pcap < Pu

Adjust dimension
End
Figure 35. Flow Chart of Column Reinforcement
4.1.2.3 Design of Slabs
To design a slab, we always consider the longer and shorter span of the slab since
the bending is experience by the whole. For One-way slabs, the process is quite the same
in designing a singly reinforced concrete beam. The only difference is that we assume that
we get a strip from the whole length of the slab. The width of that strip is 1 meter with
thickness.
Following the procedure of solving for the reinforcement of singly reinforced beams,
the desired number of bars for one-way slab was computed. For the spacing of bars, the
width, b (1 m) was divided by the diameter of the bar times the quantity of bars.
Since the two-way slab transmits the load to the supports in trapezoidal form, the
method used for one-way slab is not applicable. For the two-way slab, the equivalent frame
method was used. The two-way slab was designed considering the positive and negative
51
moments passed through the column strip and middle strip. The flow chart below shows the
procedure of equivalent frame method.
Flat Plate Slab
L/S
One-Way Slab Two-Way Slab
Step 1: Estimate the slab thieckness to meet Step 1: Estimate the slab thieckness to meet
the code requirements the code requuirements
Step 2: Calculate the factored moment to be Step 2: Determine the depth required from
carried by the slab shear
Step 3: Compute for the Required Steel Ratio Step 3: Calculate the total static moments to
be resisted in the two direction
Step 4: Compute for the Steel Area

Step 4: Estimate the percentages of the static
moments that are positive and negative, and
proportion the resulting values between the
Step 5: Compute for the required main bar column and middle strips.
spacing
Step 5: Select the reinforcing

End
End
Figure 36. Design of Slab
52
4.2 General Design Process of the Structure
START
Design of Reinforced
Concrete
Data Gathering
Design Codes and

Consideration
Trade-Offs
Design One-Way Slab Design Two-Way Slab
Evaluations of Results Evaluation of Results
Final Design of Beams, Final Design of Beams,

Columns and Slabs Columns and Slabs
END END
Figure 37. General Design Process
53
Figure 31 shows the flow chart of process activities for the designer. The design process will start
with planning what type structure must be designed and getting the data and assumptions that the project
might need. The data and assumptions were computed through the use of computer software aid like STAAD
and MS Excel, and the results will be tabulated by the designer for the evaluation of what result may be fit in
the constraints and what might be economical.
4.2.1 Design Loads and Inputs
The following are the tables used in each design computations:
4.2.1.1 Materials
Table 9. Minimum Densities for Design Loads from Materials
Stone Concrete Fill 1.53 Kpa

Gypsum Board 0.2 Kpa
Suspended Steel Channel 0.1 Kpa
Mechanical Duct Allowance 0.2 Kpa
Terrazo 1.53 Kpa
Grout 0.11 Kpa
CHB 1.65 Kpa
Clay Dry 0.6435 Kpa
Water Proofing 0.05 Kpa
Cement Finish 1.53 Kpa
Table 204-1 Minimum Densities for Design Loads from Materials (NSCP 2015)
Table 10. Minimum Uniform Concentrated Live Loads
Material Density
(KN/m3)
Masonry, Concrete 16.5
Table 205-1 Minimum Uniform Concentrated Live Loads (NSCP 2015)
54
4.2.1.2 Earthquake Load Parameters
Table 11. Seismic Importance Factors
Occupancy Category Seismic Importance Seismic Importance Factor

Factor I Ip
I. Essential facilities 1.5 1.5
II. Hazardous facilities 1.25 1.5
III. Special Occupancy 1 1
Structures
IV. Standard Occupancy 1 1
Strutures
V. Miscellaneous Structures 1 1
Table 208-1 Seismic Importance Factors (NSCP 2015)
Table 12. Soil Profile Types
Soil Profile Soil Profile Ave. Properties for Top 30 m Soil Profile
Name Shear Wave Velocity SPT Undrained Shear Strenght
SA Hard Rock >1500

SB Rock 760 to 1500
Sc Very Dense Soil 360 to 760 >50 >100
SD Stiff Soil Profile 180 to 360 15 to 50 50 to 100
SE Soft Soil Profile <180 <15 <50
SF Soil Requiring Site-Specific Evaluation See Section 208.4.3.1
Table 208-2 Soil Profile Types (NSCP 2015)

Table 13. Seismic Zone Factor
Zone 2 4
Z 0.2 0.4
Table 208-3 Seismic Zone Factor, Z

Table 14. Near-Source factor
Seismic Source Closest Distance to Known

Type Seismic Source
≤ 5 Km ≥10 Km
A 1.2 1
55
B 1 1
C 1 1
Table 208-4 Near-Source factor, Na (NSCP 2015)

Table 15. Near-Source factor
Seismic Source Closest Distance to Known

Type Seismic Source
≤ 5 Km 10 Km ≥15 Km
A 1.6 1.2 1
B 1.2 1 1
C 1 1 1
Table 208-5 Near-Source factor, Nv (NSCP 2015)

Table 16. Seismic Coefficient, Ca
Seismic Zone
Soil Profile Type 2 4
Z=0.2 Z=0.4
SA 0.16 .32Na
SB 0.2 .40Na
Sc 0.24 .40Na
SD 0.28 .44Na
SE 0.34 .44Na
SF See Footnote 1 of Table 208-8
Table 208-7 Seismic Coefficient, Ca (NSCP 2015)

Table 17. Seismic Coefficient, Cv
Seismic Zone
Soil Profile Type 2 4
Z=0.2 Z=0.4
SA 0.16 .32Na
SB 0.20 .40Na
Sc 0.32 .56Na
SD 0.40 .64Na
SE 0.64 .96Na
SF See Footnote 1 of Table 208-8
56
Table 208-8 Seismic Coefficient, Cv (NSCP 2015)
Table 18. Earthquake Force –Resisting Structural Systems of Concrete
System Limitation and

Basic Seismic Force Resisting System R Ω0 Building Limitation
Zone 2 Zone 4
C. Moment Resisting Frame
Special reinforced concrete moment frames 8.5 2.8 NL NL
Table 208-11A Earthquake Force –Resisting Structural Systems of Concrete (NSCP 2015)
4.2.1.3 Wind Loads
Table 19. Wind Zone for the Different Provinces of the Philippines
Zone Province
Classification
(Basic Wind
Speed)
Zone 2 National Capital
V=200 kph Region
Table 207-1 Wind Zone for the Different Provinces of the Philippines (NSCP 2015)
Table 20. Wind Directionality factor
Directionality
Structural Type factor Kd
Buildings
°Main Wind Force Resisting 0.85
System
°Components and Cladding 0.85
Arched Roof
Chimneys, Tanks, and Similar Structures
°Square 0.9
°Hexagonal 0.95
°Round 0.95
Soild Signs 0.85
Open Signs and Lattice Framework 0.85
Trussed Towers
°Triangular. Square, 0.85
rectangular
°All other cross sections 0.95
57
Table 207-2 Wind Directionality factor (NSCP 2015)
Table 21. Importance factor, Iw
Occupancy Description Iw
Category
I Essential 1.15
II Hazardous 1.15
III Special Occupancy 1.15
IV Standard Occupancy 1
V Miscellaneous 0.87
Table 207-3 Importance factor Iw (NSCP 2015)
Table 22. Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficients
Exposure (Note 1)
B C D
Height above Ground Level (m)
Case 1 Case 2 Cases 1& 2 Cases 1&2
0-4.5 0.7 0.57 0.85 1.03
6 0.7 0.62 0.9 1.08
7.5 0.7 0.66 0.94 1.12
9 0.7 0.7 0.98 1.16
12 0.76 0.76 1.04 1.22
15 0.81 0.81 1.09 1.27
18 0.85 0.85 1.13 1.31
Table 207-4 Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficients (NSCP 2015)

4.2.1.4 Live Loads
The following Live Loads are to be used in the analysis of the structure.
Table 23. Design Live Loads
Occupancy Uniform Load (kPa)

Office 2.4
Open Plan Office 4.8
Call Centers and Business Processing 2.9
Lobbies 4.8
Lounge 4.8
Pantry 2.4
58
Hallway 1.9
Comfort Room 1.9
4.2.1.5 Dead Loads
The following Dead Loads are to be used in the analysis of the structure.
Table 24. Minimum Design Dead Loads
Materials Design Loads (kPa)

Cement Finish (25mm) on stone concrete fill 1.53
Suspended Steel Channel System 0.1
Mechanical duct allowance 0.2
Gypsum Board (per mm) 0.008
CHB wall full grout (19.6 kN/m3) (200mm) 3.88
Plaster (both sides) 0.48
4.2.1.6 Seismic Loading Parameters
The following values are the inputs used in the parameters for Earthquake
loadings.
Table 25. Seismic Loading Parameter for Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame – One Way Slab and Two Way Slab
59
Table 26. Seismic Loading Parameter for Special Moment Resisting Frame – One Way Slab and Two Way Slab
60
4.2.1.7 Load Combinations
The following table defines the different types of load combination used in the
structural analysis of the building. All these combinations will be applied, and the designer
will determine the load combination that will produce the maximum stress in the building.
This governing load combination will then be used to calculate the member forces for the
design.
Table 27. Load Cases Combinations
61
4.3 Design Analysis for Trade-Off One (One Way Slab – Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame)
The following are the analysis that is based on the modelling of the structure using the software –
STAAD.Pro CONNECT. The values are taken depending on the design loads and inputs.
4.3.1 Design Methodology for Trade-Off One (One-Way Slab – Ordinary Moment Resisting
Frame)
GEOMETRIC AND FRAME MODELLING
ANALYSIS AND INITIAL DESIGN
ESTIMATION OF COST
DESIGNER’S FINAL RANKING
FINAL DESIGN
Figure 38. Design Process Flow Chart for Trade-Off One (One Way Slab – Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame)
62
4.3.2 Geometric Modeling
To simulate all the possible effects of different loadings to the structure with different load
combinations, the designer use Staad Pro CONNECT to have a thorough analysis for this first trade-
off.
Figure 39. Geometric Model of Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame - One Way Slab
63
4.3.3 Load Diagrams of Trade-Off One (One Way Slab)
Figure 40. Load Diagram for Dead Loads
Figure 41. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at X
64
Figure 42. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at -X
Figure 43. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at Z
65
Figure 44. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at -Z
Figure 45. Load Diagram for Live Loads
66
Figure 46. Shear Diagram at X
Figure 47. Shear Diagram at Y
67
Figure 48. Shear Diagram at Z
Figure 49. Moment Diagram at X
68
Figure 50. Moment Diagram at Y
Figure 51. Moment Diagram at Z
69
Figure 52. Wind Load Diagram at X
Figure 53. Wind Load Diagram at –X
70
Figure 54. Wind Load Diagram at Z
Figure 55. Wind Load Diagram at -Z
71
4.3.4 Frame Staad Analysis
Figure 56. Gravity Load (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – Longitudinal direction
Figure 57. Gravity Load (1.2DL + 1.6LL) – Transverse direction
72
Figure 58. Moment due to Seismic Load - Longitudinal direction
Figure 59. Moment due to Seismic Load – Transverse direction
73
Figure 60. Wind Load – Longitudinal
Figure 61. Wind Load – Transverse
74
4.3.5 Structural Analysis Results
The following results are presented in the table below. These are the results of the design
loads and inputs using the software STAAD.Pro CONNECT Edition.
4.3.5.1 Beam End Forces
Table 28. Beam End Forces Summary

Beam End Forces
Beam L/C Node Fx (kN) Fy (kN) Fz (kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max Fx 1140 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 131 2250.67 270.794 14.401 -3.413 -52.024 645.516
Min Fx 12173 221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) 6 -967.885 -54.991 0.542 -2.415 -0.678 -124.239
Max Fy 12173 222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) 6 720.797 303.122 -1.937 8.626 2.421 377.581
Min Fy 52215 221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) 20 511.587 -335.117 -0.391 0.652 -0.489 441.342
Max Fz 1144 222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) 135 1343.185 3.548 303.253 -3.234 -616.068 -13.945
Min Fz 1145 6 EQ +Z -E 136 13.726 6.609 -299.329 3.265 595.559 16.5
Max Mx 52250 1 EQ +X +E 221 0 0 -51.646 85.995 64.554 0
Min Mx 52250 219 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (4) 221 -44.815 -90.263 51.982 -86.555 -64.974 -141.376
Max My 1145 6 EQ +Z -E 136 13.726 6.609 -299.329 3.265 595.559 16.5
Min My 1144 222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) 135 1343.185 3.548 303.253 -3.234 -616.068 -13.945
Max Mz 1128 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 119 1494.325 290.511 -14.508 -3.413 -1.899 686.221
Min Mz 1128 4 EQ -X -E 119 -0.008 -287.57 0 3.444 0 -681.714
4.3.5.2 Node Displacements
Table 29. Node Displacements Summary

Node Displacement
Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Resultant Rotational
Node L/C X (mm) Y (mm) Z (mm) mm rX (rad) rY (rad) rZ (rad)
Max X 498 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 48.988 -0.616 -0.2 48.992 0 0 -0.001
Min X 498 4 EQ -X -E -48.544 -0.359 -3.25 48.654 0 0 0.001
Max Y 84 6 EQ +Z -E -0.561 1.708 6.595 6.835 0.001 0 0
Min Y 286 222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) 0.639 -4.655 -24.856 25.296 -0.001 0 0
Max Z 420 6 EQ +Z -E 3.033 0.449 31.67 31.818 0.001 0 0
Min Z 504 222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) 3.306 -0.45 -35.047 35.205 -0.001 0 0
Max rX 7 6 EQ +Z -E 0.67 0.199 6.595 6.631 0.002 0 0
Min rX 86 223 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (8) -0.521 -0.313 -6.679 6.706 -0.002 0 0
Max rY 414 224 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (1) 42.321 -0.383 1.017 42.335 0 0 -0.001
Min rY 420 219 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (4) -41.708 -0.575 0.064 41.712 0 0 0.001
Max rZ 231 219 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (4) -22.72 -0.324 0.567 22.729 0 0 0.004
Min rZ 225 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 22.95 -0.38 0.537 22.959 0 0 -0.004
Max Rst 504 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 48.791 -1.257 -6.63 49.256 0 0 -0.001
75
4.3.5.3 Support Reactions
Table 30. Support Reactions Summary

Support Reactions
Horizontal Vertical Horizontal Moment
Node L/C Fx (kN) Fy (kN) Fz (kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max Fx 125 227 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (4) 292.628 1566.054 -10.113 -9.018 3.425 -675.38
Min Fx 118 109 ULC, 1.2 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) -292.932 1494.751 -4.417 8.193 -3.407 678.042
Max Fy 131 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) -270.794 2250.67 14.401 52.024 -3.413 645.516
Min Fy 127 6 EQ +Z -E -22.71 -579.503 -228.339 -513.016 3.265 52.608
Max Fz 135 222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) -3.548 1343.185 303.253 616.068 -3.234 -13.945
Min Fz 136 6 EQ +Z -E -6.609 13.726 -299.329 -595.559 3.265 16.5
Max Mx 135 222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) -3.548 1343.185 303.253 616.068 -3.234 -13.945
Min Mx 136 6 EQ +Z -E -6.609 13.726 -299.329 -595.559 3.265 16.5
Max My 92 112 ULC, 1.2 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (4) 203.839 1246.519 38.509 83.538 3.481 -532.128
Min My 92 224 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (1) -184.36 356.005 -12.977 -32.859 -3.462 514.802
Max Mz 119 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) -290.511 1494.325 -14.508 1.899 -3.413 686.221
Min Mz 119 4 EQ -X -E 287.57 -0.008 0 0 3.444 -681.714
76
4.4 Design Analysis for Trade-Off Two (One Way Slab – Special Moment Resisting Frame)
4.4.1 Design Methodology for Trade-Off One (One-Way Slab – Special Moment Resisting
Frame)
ESTIMATION OF COST
FINAL DESIGN
Figure 62. Design Process Flow Chart for Trade-Off One (One Way Slab – Special Moment Resisting Frame)
77
4.4.2 Geometric Modelling
Figure 63. Geometric Model of Special Moment Resisting Frame - One Way Slab
78
4.4.3 Load Diagrams of Trade-Off One (One way Slab – Special Moment Resisting Frame)
Figure 64. Load Diagrams for Dead Load
Figure 65. Load Diagrams for Live Load
79
Figure 67. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at -X
80
Figure 69. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at –Z
81
82
83
84
85
Figure 79. Wind Load Diagram at -Z
86
87
Figure 83. Moment due to Seismic Load - Transverse direction
88
89

Beam End Forces
Min Fx 12173 221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) 6 -357.342 51.779 -0.226 1.529 0.282 37.603
Max Fy 22166 222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) 214 126.438 156.722 0.157 -1.062 -0.196 180.639
Min Fy 52250 220 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (5) 228 255.203 -174.917 -0.372 0.906 -0.465 218.135
Max Fz 2144 222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) 21 861.683 22.45 105.584 -3.066 -185.841 42.198
Min Fz 2141 221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) 76 1332.153 -1.573 -107.868 3.215 174.864 -4.288
Max Mx 52256 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 222 -3.665 -78.769 -7.992 19.453 9.989 -104.18
Min Mx 52244 112 ULC, 1.2 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (4) 220 -6.184 -56.375 8.082 -19.673 -10.102 -74.803
Max My 1144 6 EQ +Z -E 135 11.831 4.987 -98.166 1.812 247.483 16.959
Min My 1144 222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) 135 1135.974 12.638 102.278 -1.762 -284.181 5.452
Max Mz 1128 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 119 1240.01 98.13 -10.486 -1.852 -22.073 331.704
Min Mz 1128 4 EQ -X -E 119 -0.002 -94.315 0 1.902 0 -324.271

Node Displacement
Max X 498 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 42.393 -0.745 -6.74 42.932 0 0 -0.002
Min X 498 4 EQ -X -E -41.221 -0.12 -2.732 41.312 0 0 0.001
Max Y 224 6 EQ +Z -E -1.01 1.61 11.357 11.515 0.001 0 0
Max Z 420 6 EQ +Z -E 2.585 0.153 25.433 25.564 0.001 0 0
Min Z 504 222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) 3.576 -0.629 -34.734 34.924 -0.001 0 0
Max rX 147 6 EQ +Z -E 1.202 0.111 11.357 11.421 0.002 0 0
Min rX 230 222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) 1.519 -0.614 -14.028 14.124 -0.003 0 0
Max rY 432 224 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (1) 37.363 -1.016 -7.147 38.054 0 0 -0.001
Min rY 433 112 ULC, 1.2 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (4) -35.759 -1.164 -5.33 36.173 0 0 0.001
Max rZ 231 227 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (4) -16.16 -0.347 -0.793 16.183 0 0 0.003
Min rZ 225 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 16.708 -0.492 -1.845 16.817 -0.001 0 -0.004
Max Rst 504 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 42.188 -0.901 -12.036 43.881 -0.001 0 -0.001
90

Support Reactions
Max Fx 125 227 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (4) 98.554 1245.34 -1.267 15.131 1.851 -319.599
Min Fx 119 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) -98.13 1240.01 -10.486 22.073 -1.852 331.704
Min Fy 127 6 EQ +Z -E -8.335 -171.812 -75.194 -218.733 1.812 26.339
Max Fz 135 222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) -12.638 1135.974 102.278 284.181 -1.762 5.452
Min Fz 132 221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) 6.636 1718.367 -103.636 -215.452 1.863 -15.059
Max Mx 135 222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) -12.638 1135.974 102.278 284.181 -1.762 5.452
Min Mx 135 6 EQ +Z -E -4.987 11.831 -98.166 -247.483 1.812 16.959
Max My 92 112 ULC, 1.2 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (4) 74.756 784.652 21.729 64.302 1.971 -262.907
Min My 92 224 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (1) -56.206 546.336 3.79 9.129 -1.954 249.68
Max Mz 119 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) -98.13 1240.01 -10.486 22.073 -1.852 331.704
Min Mz 119 4 EQ -X -E 94.315 -0.002 0 0 1.902 -324.271
91
4.5 Design Analysis for Trade-Off Three (Two Way Slab – Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame)
4.5.1 Design Methodology for Trade-Off Two (Two Way Slab – Ordinary Moment Resisting
Frame)
ESTIMATION OF COST
FINAL DESIGN
Figure 86. Design Process Flow Chart for Trade-Off Two (Two Way Slab – Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame)
92
Figure 87. Geometric Model of Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame - Two Way Slab
93
4.5.3 Load Diagrams of Trade-Off Two (Two Way Slab – Ordinary Moment Resisting
Frame)
94
Figure 91. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at –X
95
Figure 93. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at –Z
96
97
98
99
100
Figure 103. Wind Load Diagram at –Z
101
102
103
104

Beam End Forces
Min Fx 1136 6 EQ +Z -E 6 -554.401 23.164 -224.328 3.139 572.465 52.02
Max Fy 1128 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 46 1431.457 284.324 -14.166 -3.02 16.913 644.7
Min Fy 1128 4 EQ -X -E 46 -0.009 -282.5 0 3.01 0 -640.335
Max Fz 1146 7 EQ -Z +E 28 -0.009 0 283.407 -3.139 -642.427 0
Min Fz 1147 221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) 35 1471.231 10.847 -284.145 3.129 645.489 4.119
Max Mx 52106 220 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (5) 251 33.259 54.819 2.731 6.026 -5.981 40.634
Min Mx 52148 217 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (2) 281 33.385 54.827 -2.743 -6.045 6.011 40.638
Max My 1147 221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) 35 1471.231 10.847 -284.145 3.129 645.489 4.119
Min My 1146 7 EQ -Z +E 28 -0.009 0 283.407 -3.139 -642.427 0
Max Mz 1128 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 46 1431.457 284.324 -14.166 -3.02 16.913 644.7
Min Mz 1128 4 EQ -X -E 46 -0.009 -282.5 0 3.01 0 -640.335
Table 35. Node Displacement Summary

Node Displacement
Max X 288 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 44.988 -0.565 3.277 45.111 0 0 -0.001
Min X 288 4 EQ -X -E -44.346 -0.447 -2.869 44.441 0 0 0.001
Max Y 251 6 EQ +Z -E 3.025 0.479 43.996 44.103 0.001 0 0
Max Z 252 221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) 3.42 -0.561 45.131 45.264 0.001 0 0
Min Z 252 7 EQ -Z +E -3.027 -0.447 -44.504 44.609 -0.001 0 0
Max rX 105 221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) 1.785 -0.322 20.774 20.853 0.003 0 0
Min rX 147 222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) 1.795 -0.284 -20.437 20.518 -0.003 0 0
Max rY 246 222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) -2.402 -1.476 -37.865 37.969 -0.001 0 0
Min rY 288 221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) -2.391 -1.461 38.914 39.015 0.001 0 0
Max rZ 147 219 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (4) -20.354 -0.284 1.713 20.428 0 0 0.003
Max Rst 252 221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) 3.42 -0.561 45.131 45.264 0.001 0 0
105

Support Reactions
Max Fx 46 4 EQ -X -E 282.5 -0.009 0 0 3.01 -640.335
Min Fx 46 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) -284.324 1431.457 -14.166 -16.913 -3.02 644.7
Min Fy 6 6 EQ +Z -E -23.164 -554.401 -224.328 -572.465 3.139 52.02
Max Fz 28 7 EQ -Z +E 0 -0.009 283.407 642.427 -3.139 0
Min Fz 35 221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) -10.847 1471.231 -284.145 -645.489 3.129 4.119
Max Mx 28 7 EQ -Z +E 0 -0.009 283.407 642.427 -3.139 0
Min Mx 35 221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) -10.847 1471.231 -284.145 -645.489 3.129 4.119
Max My 1 229 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (6) -9.144 305.738 -181.944 -483.236 3.14 38.986
Min My 1 115 ULC, 1.2 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) 29.526 1299.511 202.191 500.614 -3.15 -56.694
Max Mz 46 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) -284.324 1431.457 -14.166 -16.913 -3.02 644.7
Min Mz 46 4 EQ -X -E 282.5 -0.009 0 0 3.01 -640.335
106
4.6 Design Analysis for Trade-Off Four (Two Way Slab – Special Moment Resisting Frame)
4.6.1 Design Methodology for Trade-Off Two (Two Way Slab – Ordinary Moment Resisting
Frame)
ESTIMATION OF COST
FINAL DESIGN
Figure 110. Design Process Flow Chart for Trade-Off Two (Two Way Slab – Special Moment Resisting Frame)
107
Figure 111. Geometric Model of Special Moment Resisting Frame - Two Way Slab
108
4.6.3 Load Diagrams of Trade-Off Two (Two Way Slab – Special Moment Resisting Frame)
109
Figure 115. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at –X
110
Figure 117. Load Diagram for Earthquake Loads at -Z
111
112
113
114
115
Figure 127. Wind Load Diagram at –Z
116
117
118
Figure 133. Wind Load - Transverse
119

Beam End Forces
Min Fx 1136 6 EQ +Z -E 6 -148.941 8.14 -74.518 2.004 290.122 28.236
Max Fy 22134 219 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (4) 137 -0.878 136.363 0.011 -0.214 -0.023 158.899
Min Fy 22133 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 137 -9.304 -121.791 -0.029 0.583 -0.062 157.435
Max Fz 2139 222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) 76 1309.933 -0.312 92.974 -3.811 -186.89 2.727
Min Fz 2141 221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) 90 1250.581 -0.227 -93.711 3.727 195.304 -0.1
Max Mx 2101 229 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (6) 50 413.803 -11.881 -33.027 3.77 90.584 -15.355
Min Mx 2101 115 ULC, 1.2 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) 50 610.308 -22.534 66.978 -3.812 -143.256 -37.316
Max My 1148 221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) 42 1136.043 11.866 -91.925 1.978 320.57 6.942
Min My 1146 7 EQ -Z +E 28 -0.002 0 89.892 -2.004 -311.617 0
Max Mz 1128 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 46 1140.442 92.935 -13.509 -1.92 20.993 340.461
Min Mz 1128 4 EQ -X -E 46 -0.002 -90.151 0 1.894 0 -329.472

Node Displacement
Max X 288 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) 48.723 -0.728 5.29 49.015 0 0 -0.002
Min X 288 4 EQ -X -E -46.197 -0.143 -3 46.295 0 0 0.002
Max Y 251 6 EQ +Z -E 3.228 0.154 47.629 47.738 0.002 0 0
Max Z 252 221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) 5.419 -0.721 50.79 51.083 0.002 0 0
Min Z 252 7 EQ -Z +E -3.231 -0.144 -48.259 48.367 -0.002 0 0
Max rX 105 221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) 2.051 -0.46 19.259 19.374 0.004 0 0
Min rX 105 7 EQ -Z +E -1.406 -0.095 -18.585 18.639 -0.004 0 0
Max rY 254 115 ULC, 1.2 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) -0.175 -1.093 -41.215 41.23 -0.001 0 0
Min rY 282 229 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (6) -0.597 -1.018 44.739 44.755 0.002 0 0
Max rZ 141 4 EQ -X -E -17.346 -0.093 -1.324 17.397 0 0 0.004
Max Rst 252 221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) 5.419 -0.721 50.79 51.083 0.002 0 0
120

Support Reactions
Max Fx 39 227 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (4) 92.519 999.463 -0.072 -4.092 1.895 -321.155
Min Fx 46 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) -92.935 1140.442 -13.509 -20.993 -1.92 340.461
Min Fy 6 6 EQ +Z -E -8.14 -148.941 -74.518 -290.122 2.004 28.236
Max Fz 27 222 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) 0.224 1672.22 91.753 300.954 -2.029 7.657
Min Fz 41 221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) 4.074 1587.325 -93.516 -316.629 1.978 -9.385
Max Mx 28 7 EQ -Z +E 0 -0.002 89.892 311.617 -2.004 0
Min Mx 42 221 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (6) -11.866 1136.043 -91.925 -320.57 1.978 6.942
Max My 1 229 ULC, 1.38 DEAD + 1 SEISMIC (6) 2.457 527.228 -54.538 -245.286 2.004 21.863
Min My 1 115 ULC, 1.2 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (7) 16.752 778.831 73.396 254.816 -2.029 -30.983
Max Mz 46 216 ULC, 1.68 DEAD + 1 LIVE + 1 SEISMIC (1) -92.935 1140.442 -13.509 -20.993 -1.92 340.461
Min Mz 46 4 EQ -X -E 90.151 -0.002 0 0 1.894 -329.472
121
4.7 Normalization of Final Data, Raw Ranking Validation, Comparison of Results, and Final
Ranking Assessments
In this section, the raw designer’s ranking was validated through the gathered results of the design.
The initial and final estimated values was then be compared. With the help of the final designer’s ranking,
the final ranking assessments was concluded.
4.7.1 Final Estimates of Tradeoffs
The table below shows the result of the estimation of construction cost, man days, and cost
of maintenance for each tradeoff.
Table 40. Final Estimate of Tradeoffs
CONSTRAINT TRADE-OFFS
One-Way Slab One-Way Slab Two-Way Slab Two-Way Slab
OMRF SMRF OMRF SMRF
Economic Php Php Php Php
(Construction Cost) 18,179,360.48 16,661,469.14 15,898,110.45 14,349,860.25
Constructability 573 Days 450 Days 553 Days 427 Days
Safety/Serviceability 2.81% of allowable 2.02% of allowable 3.89% of allowable 5.65 % of allowable
4.7.2 Validation of Raw Designer’s Ranking
Table 41. Comparison of Initial and Final Estimate of Tradeoffs
Initial Estimate Final Estimate

CONSTRAINT One-Way One-Way Two-Way Two-Way One-Way One-Way Two-Way Two-Way
Slab OMRF Slab SMRF Slab OMRF Slab SMRF Slab OMRF Slab SMRF Slab OMRF Slab SMRF
Economic Php Php Php Php Php Php Php Php
18,000,000 16,000,000 17,500,00 15,500,00 18,179,360 16,661,469 15,898,110 14,349,860
Constructabili 600 Days 550 Days 575 Days 525 Days 573 Days 450 Days 553 Days 427 Days
ty
Safety/Servic 4% of 5% of 3.5% of 4.5% of 2.81% of 2.02% of 3.89% of 5.65 % of
eability allowable allowable allowable allowable allowable allowable allowable allowable
122
Looking at the table, there are small discrepancies between the assumed values and the computed
values, except for the serviceability of the four. However, the results of the final estimate of values has almost
the same outcome with the initial estimate. It turned out that the two way slab is better than the one way slab
in terms of both economic and constructability constraint, while one way slab is better than two way slab in
terms of safety/serviceability constraint. These results are the same as what was said in the raw ranking,
which makes raw design to be quite certain in this project.
4.7.3 Final Designer’s Ranking
Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint for Trade-Offs one (1) and four (4)

% Difference = x100
Higher Value
18,179,360.48-14,349,860.25
% Difference = x100
18,179,360.48
% Difference = 21.06509871
% difference
10
Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint for Trade-Offs two (2) and four (4)
123
% Difference = x100
Higher Value
16,661,469.14-14,349,860.25
% Difference = x100
16,661,469.14
% Difference = 13.87397996
% difference
10
Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint for Trade-Offs three (3) and four (4)

% Difference = x100
Higher Value
15,898,110.45-14,349,860.25
% Difference = x100
15,898,110.45
% Difference = 9.738579971
% difference
10
124
Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint for Trade-Offs one (1) and four (4)

% Difference = x100
Higher Value
573-427
% Difference = x100
573
% Difference = 25.47993019
% difference
10
Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint for Trade-Offs two (2) and four (4)

% Difference = x100
Higher Value
125
450-427
% Difference = x100
450
% Difference = 5.111111111
% difference
10
Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint for Trade-Offs three (3) and four (4)

% Difference = x100
Higher Value
553-427
% Difference = x100
553
% Difference = 22.78481013
% difference
10
126
Computation of ranking for Safety/Serviceability Constraint for Trade-Offs one (1) and two (2)

% Difference = x100
Higher Value
2.81-2.02
% Difference = x100
2.81
% difference
10
Computation of ranking for Safety/Serviceability Constraint for Trade-Offs three (3) and two (2)

% Difference = x100
Higher Value
3.89-2.02
% Difference = x100
3.89
% Difference = 48.07197943
127
% difference
10
Computation of ranking for Safety/Serviceability Constraint for Trade-Offs three (3) and two (2)

% Difference = x100
Higher Value
3.89-2.02
% Difference = x100
3.89
% Difference = 64.24778761
% difference
10
Subordinate rank = -1.424778761
128
Table 42. Final Designer’s Ranking
CONSTRAINT Importance Ability to Satisfy the Criterion (on a scale of 0 to 5)

(Criteria) (on a scale of One-Way One-Way Two-Way Two-Way
0 to 5) Slab OMRF Slab SMRF Slab OMRF Slab SMRF
Economic 5 2.89 3.61 4.03 5
Constructability 4 2.45 4.49 2.72 5
Safety/Serviceability 3 2.19 5 0.192 -1.424
Overall Rank 30.82 51.01 31.606 40.728
4.7.4 Normalization of Final Data
The normalization of data are based on the initial estimate of the two mandatory tradeoffs
namely, One-Way Slab and Two-Way Slab, and based on the three constraints, namely Economic,
Constructability and Serviceability.
4.7.4.1 Raw Data
Table 43. Raw Final Data.
PC1 PC2 PC3 (Safety/Serviceability

Design (Cost in pesos) (Duration in days) in percent)
1. OMRF (One-Way) 18,179,360.48 573 2.81
2. OMRF (Two-Way) 16,661,469.14 450 2.02
3. SRMF (One-Way) 15,898,110.45 553 3.89
4. SMRF (Two-Way) 14,349,860.25 427 5.65
Table 43 shows the raw data gathered from the estimate conducted by the designer that is available
to see in the appendix.
129
4.7.4.2 Normalized Data
Table 44. Normalized Final Data
PC1 (Cost in PC2 PC3

Design pesos) (Duration in days) (Safety/Serviceability in percent)
1. OMRF (One-Way) 1 1 8.041322314
2. OMRF (Two-Way) 4.567311983 8.582191781 10
3. SRMF (One-Way) 6.361339349 2.232876712 5.363636364
4. SMRF (Two-Way) 10 10 1
Normalization of rating means adjusting values measured on different scales to a noitionally common
scale, prior to averaging. Table 44 shows the normalized data from the raw data.
4.7.4.3 Weighted Sum of Various Percentage Weight
Table 45. First weighted sum of various percentage for final data
1 0.5 1 4.567311983 6.361339 10
2 0.3 1 8.582191781 2.232877 10
3 0.2 8.041322314 10 5.363636 1
Weighted Sum 1 2.408264463 6.858313526 4.92326 8.2
Table 46. Second weighted sum of various percentage for final data
1 0.44 1 4.567311983 6.361339 10
2 0.3 1 8.582191781 2.232877 10
3 0.26 8.041322314 10 5.363636 1
Weighted Sum 1 2.830743802 7.184274807 4.863398 7.66
130
Table 47. Third weighted sum of various percentage for final data
1 0.3 1 4.567311983 6.361339 10
2 0.4 1 8.582191781 2.232877 10
3 0.3 8.041322314 10 5.363636 1
Weighted Sum 1 3.112396694 7.803070307 4.410643 7.3
4.7.5 Designer’s Final Ranking Assessment
In terms of economic constraints, the two-way slab got the rank of 5 considering both the
concrete works and rebar works. As for the constructability constraints, the number of man hours
needed to construct the structure in one-way slab is larger rather than the two-way slab, thus making
the two-way slab gets the rank of 5. For safety/serviceability constraint, the percentage of deflection
from allowable in the one way slab is smaller than the two way slab making this trade get a rank of
5 in this constraint.
After gathering all data and making the designer’s overall final ranking assessment. Overall, the four
tradeoffs had a difference of smaller in tradeoffs one and three, but large in the other tradeoffs. Overall, the
one-way slab SMRF outranked the other three tradeoffs. With these information, the designer concluded that
the governing tradeoff is One-Way slab SMRF in contrast with the raw designer’s ranking.
131
CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN
As what was proven from the previous chapters, the governing tradeoff was the One-Way Slab. After
going through all the design processes, the designer can now conclude the final design of the structure which
includes the design schedule of the structural members.
5.1 Design Schedules
The design schedule of the structural members included the investigated dimensions and designed
number of bars with spacing. The following tables below show the design schedule of the project.
5.1.1 Design Schedule of Slabs
Table 48.Slab Schedule
SLAB Spacing (mm)

(2F - ROOF) t (mm) Φ bar (mm) Midspan Continuous Φ tie (mm)
Edge
Longitudinal Direction
S-1 150 12 250 250 10
S-2 150 12 250 250 10
Transverse Direction
S-1 150 12 250 250 10
S-2 150 12 250 250 10
5.1.2 Design Schedule of Beams
Table 49. Beam Schedule
Beam Dimension Numbers of Bars

2F - ROOF b (mm) t (mm) Top (left) Bottom (mid) Top (Right)
B1 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B2 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B3 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B4 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B5 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B6 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
132
B7 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B8 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B9 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B10 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B11 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B12 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B13 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B14 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B15 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B16 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B17 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B18 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B19 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B20 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B21 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B22 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B23 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B24 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B25 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B26 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B27 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B28 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B29 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B30 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B31 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B32 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B33 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B34 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B35 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B36 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B37 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B38 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B39 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B40 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B41 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B42 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B43 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B44 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B45 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
133
B46 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B47 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B48 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B49 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B50 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B51 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B52 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B53 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B54 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B55 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B56 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B57 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B58 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B59 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B60 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B61 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B62 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B63 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B64 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B65 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B66 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B67 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B68 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B69 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B70 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B71 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B72 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B73 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B74 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B75 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B76 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B77 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B78 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B79 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B80 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B81 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B82 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B83 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B84 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
134
B85 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B86 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B87 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B88 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B89 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B90 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B91 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B92 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B93 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B94 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B95 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B96 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B97 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B98 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B99 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B100 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B101 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B102 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B103 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B104 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B105 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B106 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B107 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B108 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B109 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B110 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B111 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B112 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B113 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B114 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B115 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B116 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B117 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B118 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B119 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
B120 310 420 4 - 32Φ 5 - 32Φ 4 - 32Φ
135
5.1.3 Design Schedule of Columns
Table 50. Column Schedule
Column Dimensions No. and size of Tie Wires

b (mm) t (mm) Bars Φtie (mm) Spacing (mm)
2 Floor
nd
C1 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400

C2 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C3 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C4 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C5 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C6 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C7 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C8 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C9 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C10 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C11 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C12 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C13 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C14 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C15 650 600 20 – 16mmΦ 10 256
C16 650 600 20 – 16mmΦ 10 256
C17 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C18 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C19 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C20 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C21 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C22 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C23 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C24 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C25 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C26 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C27 650 600 20 – 16mmΦ 10 256
C28 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C29 650 600 20 – 16mmΦ 10 256
C30 650 600 20 – 16mmΦ 10 256
C31 650 600 20 – 16mmΦ 10 256
C32 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C33 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
136
C34 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C35 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C36 650 600 20 – 16mmΦ 10 256
C37 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C38 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C39 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C40 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C41 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C42 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C43 650 600 20 – 16mmΦ 10 256
C44 650 600 20 – 16mmΦ 10 256
C45 650 600 20 – 16mmΦ 10 256
C46 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C47 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C48 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C49 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
3 Floor
rd
C1 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400

C2 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C3 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C4 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C5 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C6 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C7 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C8 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C9 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C10 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C11 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C12 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C13 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C14 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C15 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C16 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C17 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C18 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C19 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C20 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C21 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C22 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
137
C23 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C24 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C25 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C26 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C27 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C28 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C29 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C30 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C31 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C32 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C33 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C34 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C35 650 600 20 – 16mmΦ 10 256
C36 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C37 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C38 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C39 650 600 20 – 16mmΦ 10 256
C40 650 600 20 – 16mmΦ 10 256
C41 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C42 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C43 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C44 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C45 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C46 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C47 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C48 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C49 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
4 Floor
th
C1 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400

C2 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C3 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C4 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C5 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C6 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C7 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C8 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C9 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C10 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C11 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
138
C12 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C13 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C14 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C15 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C16 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C17 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C18 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C19 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C20 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C21 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C22 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C23 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C24 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C25 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C26 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C27 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C28 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C29 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C30 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C31 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C32 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C33 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C34 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C35 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C36 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C37 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C38 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C39 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C40 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C41 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C42 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C43 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C44 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C45 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C46 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C47 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C48 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C49 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
5 Floor
th
139
C1 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C2 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C3 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C4 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C5 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C6 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C7 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C8 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C9 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C10 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C11 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C12 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C13 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C14 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C15 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C16 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C17 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C18 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C19 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C20 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C21 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C22 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C23 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C24 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C25 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C26 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C27 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C28 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C29 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C30 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C31 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C32 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C33 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C34 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C35 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C36 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C37 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C38 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C39 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
140
C40 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C41 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C42 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C43 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C44 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C45 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C46 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C47 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C48 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
C49 650 600 8 – 25mmΦ 10 400
5.1.4 Beam Details
Figure 143. Beam Details (a)
141
Figure 144. Beam Details (b)
142
5.1.5 Column Details
Figure 145. Column Details (a)
Figure 146. Column Details (b)
143
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: CODES AND STANDARDS
National Building Code of the Philippines (NBC)
The following are the sections and codes that are followed in conceptualizing and designing the structural
plan of the apartment building:
• Section 401. Types of Construction
Type I. The structural elements may be any of the materials permitted by this Code.
• Section 701. Occupancy Classified.
Group E. Business and Mercantile
• Section 805. Ceiling Heights.
Habitable rooms provided with artificial ventilation have\ ceiling heights not less than 2.40 meters
measured from the floor to the ceiling; Provided that for buildings of more than one-storey, the
minimum ceiling height of the first storey shall be 2.70 meters and that for the second storey 2.40
meters and succeeding storeys shall have an unobstructed typical head-room clearance of not less
than 2.10 meters above the finished floor. Above stated rooms with a natural ventilation shall have
ceiling height not less than 2.70 meters.
• Section 806. Size and Dimensions of Rooms.
Minimum sizes of rooms and their least horizontal dimensions shall be as follows:
1. Rooms for Human Habitations. 6.00 square meters with at least dimensions of 2.00
2. Kitchens. 3.00 square meters with at least dimension of 1.50 meters;
3. Bath and toilet. 1.20 square meters with at least dimension of 0.90 meters.
• Section 808. Window Openings.
144
Every room intended for any use, not provided with artificial ventilation system as herein specified in
this Code, shall be provided with a window or windows with a total free area of openings equal to at
least ten percent of the floor area of room, and such window shall open directly to a court, yard,
public street or alley, or open water courses.
• Section 1207. Stairs, Exits and Occupant Loads.
General. The construction of stairs and exits shall conform to the occupant load requirements of
buildings, reviewing stands, bleachers and grandstands:
a. Determinations of Occupant Loads. The Occupant load permitted in any building or portion
thereof shall be determined by dividing the floor area assigned to that use by the unit area
allowed per occupant as determined by the Secretary.
b. Exit Requirements. Exit requirements of a building or portion thereof used for different purposes
shall be determined by the occupant load which gives the largest number of persons. No
obstruction shall be placed in the required width of an exit except projections permitted by this
Code.
National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2015
Notation
Ag = gross area of section, mm2.
As = area of nonprestressed tension reinforcement, mm2.
As ,min = minimum amount of flexural reinforcement, mm2
Ast = total area of nonprestressed longitudinal reinforcement (bars and steel shapes), mm 2.
Av = area of shear reinforcement within a distance s, mm2.
145
Avf = area of shear-friction reinforcement, mm2.
A 's = area of compression reinforcement, mm2.
b = width of compression face of member, mm.
bw = web width, mm.
c = distance from extreme compression fiber to neutral axis, mm.
cc = clear cover from the nearest surface in tension to the surface of the flexural tension
reinforcement, mm.
Cm = a factor relating actual moment diagram to an equivalent uniform moment diagram.
D = dead loads, or related internal moments and forces.
d = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension reinforcement, mm.
d ' = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of compression reinforcement, mm.
db = nominal diameter of bar, wire, or prestressing strand, mm.
dc = thickness of concrete cover measure from extreme tension fiber to center of bar or wire located
closest thereto, mm.
ds = distance from extreme tension fiber to centroid of tension reinforcement, mm.
dt = distance from extreme compression fiber to extreme tension steel, mm.
E = load effects of earthquake, or related internal moments and forces.
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete, MPa.
Es = modulus of elasticity of reinforcement, MPa.
146
EI = flexural stiffness of compression member, N-mm2.
F = loads due to weight and pressures of fluids with well-defined densities and controllable maximum
heights, or related internal moments and forces.
f 'c = specified compressive strength of concrete, MPa.
f y = specified yield strength of nonprestressed reinforcement, MPa.
f yt = specified yield strength fy
H = loads due to weight and pressure of soil, water in soil, or other materials, or related internal
moments and forces.
h = overall thickness of member, mm.
I = moment of inertia of section beam about the centroidal axis, mm4.
Icr = moment of inertia of cracked section transformed to concrete, mm4.
Ie = effective moment of inertia for computation of deflection, mm4.
Ig = moment of inertia of gross concrete section about centroidal axis, neglecting reinforcement, mm4.
L = live loads, or related internal moments and forces.
Ld = development length, mm.
ln = length of clear span measured face-to-face of supports, mm.
Ma = maximum moment in member at stage deflection is computed.
Mcr = cracking moment.
Pb = nominal axial load strength at balanced strain conditions
147
Pn = nominal axial load strength at given eccentricity.
Vc = nominal shear strength provided by concrete
W = wind load, or related integral moments and forces.
wc = unit weight of concrete, kN/m3.
wu = factored load per unit length of beam or per unit area of slab.
αf = ratio of flexural stiffness of beam section to flexural stiffness of a width of slab bounded laterally
by center line of adjacent panle, if any on each side of beam.
αfm = average value of αf for all beams on edges of a panel.
β1 = factor
εt = net tensile strain in extreme tension steel at nominal strength.
λ = modification factor reflection the reduced mechanical properties of lightweight concrete.
λΔ = multiplier for additional long-time deflection ρ = ration of nonprestressed tension reinforcement
= As /bd
ρ ' = ratio of nonprestressed compression reinforcement = A 's /bd
ρb = reinforcement ratio producing balanced strain conditions
Φ = strength-reduction factor.
The following are the sections and codes that are followed in conceptualizing and designing the structural
plan of the apartment building:
• Section 203 - Combination of Load
148
a. Minimum densities for design loads from materials
b. Minimum design loads
c. Minimum uniform and concentrated live loads
• Section 206 - Other Minimum Loads
a. 206.3 Impact loads
b. 206.3.1 Elevators
c. 206.3.2 Machinery
• Section 207 - Wind Load
a. 207B.3.2 Velocity Pressure
b. 207C.3.1 Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficient
c. 207A.8 Topographic Factor
d. 207A.6 Wind Directionality Factor
e. 207 A.7 Exposure
• Section 208 - Earthquake Loads
a. 208.5.1.1 Design Base Shear
b. 208.5.2.2 Structure Period
149
APPENDIX B: RESULTS OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
ONE WAY SLAB (SMRF) – 2ND FLOOR ONLY

M(+) kN-m M(-) kN-m P (Axial) kN
B1 62.74 122.46 C1 766.43
B2 61.21 121.47 C2 1009.15
B3 61.10 121.46 C3 1008.92
B4 61.10 121.45 C4 1008.56
B5 61.12 121.60 C5 1008.64
B6 62.36 121.92 C6 1009.45
B7 63.78 116.18 C7 749.12
B8 62.12 115.78 C8 996.12
B9 61.99 115.84 C9 1184.31
B10 61.98 115.80 C10 1181.53
B11 62.04 116.21 C11 1181.20
B12 63.55 116.12 C12 1181.24
B13 62.60 115.03 C13 1185.14
B14 60.97 115.77 C14 1010.49
B15 60.84 115.82 C15 1094.77
B16 60.83 115.80 C16 1116.40
B17 60.86 116.21 C17 1135.03
B18 62.34 116.06 C18 1134.58
B19 61.47 113.91 C19 1135.37
B20 59.86 114.66 C20 1203.76
B21 59.74 114.72 C21 1024.65
B22 59.70 114.82 C22 979.67
B23 54.92 131.94 C23 1136.52
B24 56.36 133.21 C24 1134.02
B25 63.30 115.82 C25 1136.85
B26 61.65 116.47 C26 1142.69
B27 61.53 116.55 C27 1094.00
B28 61.43 116.98 C28 1026.52
B29 61.49 112.34 C29 1093.89
B30 58.03 132.21 C30 1116.72
B31 65.13 117.75 C31 1116.71
B32 63.38 117.32 C32 1334.88
B33 63.34 122.20 C33 1372.86
B34 58.45 141.62 C34 1469.24
B35 58.39 140.21 C35 1024.73
B36 59.91 129.73 C36 1115.62
B37 64.72 124.81 C37 1183.25
B38 63.12 123.50 C38 1185.21
B39 63.05 128.59 C39 1484.12
B40 63.03 128.61 C40 1523.17
B41 63.09 128.87 C41 1520.85
150
B42 64.17 119.15 C42 1013.54
B43 113.74 148.59 C43 1115.77
B44 112.06 145.80 C44 1094.59
B45 112.10 145.86 C45 1115.97
B46 112.17 145.93 C46 1063.84
B47 112.24 146.02 C47 1067.07
B48 115.76 148.27 C48 1065.17
B49 143.08 159.68 C49 726.18
B50 143.54 159.47
B51 143.60 159.58
B52 143.77 159.75
B53 143.80 159.84
B54 145.90 160.74
B55 134.53 151.32
B56 136.21 152.11
B57 136.18 152.15
B58 136.29 152.26
B59 136.48 152.58
B60 144.64 158.88
B61 132.68 149.11
B62 134.42 150.00
B63 134.42 150.07
B64 135.20 150.77
B65 135.06 150.91
B66 156.08 180.64
B67 134.91 151.80
B68 136.54 152.52
B69 136.75 152.98
B70 140.83 168.58
B71 142.08 170.44
B72 151.89 165.75
B73 144.04 160.93
B74 145.77 161.67
B75 146.37 162.57
B76 149.16 176.91
B77 148.26 176.59
B78 144.50 159.74
B79 112.13 147.50
B80 111.41 145.49
B81 111.72 145.89
B82 110.82 144.97
B83 109.88 144.06
B84 109.30 142.63
MAX 151.89 176.91 1523.17
151
TWO WAY SLAB (SMRF) – 2ND FLOOR ONLY
M(+) kN-m M(-) kN-m P (Axial) kN
B1 70.82 133.62 C1 756.05
B2 69.35 132.79 C2 990.55
B3 69.28 132.79 C3 989.65
B4 69.27 132.80 C4 989.55
B5 69.30 132.86 C5 989.62
B6 70.18 133.28 C6 990.25
B7 70.96 131.08 C7 740.98
B8 69.50 131.74 C8 989.63
B9 69.45 131.73 C9 1102.78
B10 69.45 131.73 C10 1100.84
B11 69.51 131.80 C11 1100.83
B12 70.96 132.30 C12 1100.85
B13 69.20 129.30 C13 1102.61
B14 67.77 131.36 C14 948.71
B15 67.72 131.35 C15 989.11
B16 67.72 131.36 C16 1101.25
B17 67.78 131.42 C17 1099.27
B18 69.20 131.89 C18 1099.19
B19 67.43 127.51 C19 1099.36
B20 66.03 129.58 C20 1169.43
B21 65.97 129.58 C21 982.15
B22 66.01 129.91 C22 989.05
B23 61.18 146.28 C23 1101.24
B24 62.52 147.96 C24 1099.28
B25 69.42 129.55 C25 1100.45
B26 67.98 131.52 C26 1101.63
B27 67.93 131.52 C27 1171.01
B28 68.08 132.06 C28 949.18
B29 67.96 126.10 C29 989.07
B30 64.44 146.70 C30 1101.19
B31 71.40 131.57 C31 1100.42
B32 69.99 131.77 C32 1303.75
B33 65.14 157.36 C33 1306.97
B34 65.22 158.90 C34 1406.92
B35 65.09 155.58 C35 1017.00
B36 66.49 142.80 C36 989.37
B37 71.49 134.12 C37 1102.39
B38 69.96 133.33 C38 1102.58
B39 69.93 139.59 C39 1407.10
B40 69.86 139.95 C40 1410.74
B41 69.98 139.80 C41 1410.74
B42 70.85 127.57 C42 950.80
B43 74.15 136.44 C43 740.88
152
B44 72.30 135.49 C44 949.15
B45 72.21 135.49 C45 949.08
B46 72.21 135.55 C46 1051.90
B47 72.24 135.66 C47 1116.91
B48 73.47 136.24 C48 1116.06
B49 74.44 134.09 C49 726.72
B50 72.61 134.60
B51 72.53 134.58
B52 72.52 134.69
B53 72.58 134.83
B54 74.40 134.04
B55 72.83 132.50
B56 71.03 134.41
B57 70.95 134.38
B58 70.95 134.46
B59 71.06 134.25
B60 68.00 158.10
B61 71.21 130.91
B62 69.45 132.84
B63 69.37 132.81
B64 69.37 132.90
B65 69.48 133.05
B66 71.11 143.66
B67 73.32 133.03
B68 71.52 134.91
B69 71.41 135.17
B70 66.69 151.16
B71 66.86 152.27
B72 73.15 145.87
B73 75.42 135.16
B74 73.57 136.99
B75 73.54 137.56
B76 68.74 151.83
B77 68.81 151.23
B78 75.22 134.77
B79 75.63 137.92
B80 73.73 138.40
B81 73.56 138.69
B82 73.63 137.02
B83 73.67 135.71
B84 74.87 131.11
MAX 75.63 158.90 1410.74
153
APPENDIX C: DESIGN OF BEAMS
Beam with Maximum Moment was Designed (One-Way Tradeoff)
For Support
The following are the given data:
Mu = 151.89 kN-m Es = 200000 Mpa

Vu = 84.4 kN Ec = 21383.71 Mpa
f'c = 21 Mpa n= 10
fy = 275 Mpa L= 5 m
b= 420 mm
t= 310 mm
d' = 62.5 mm
d= 247.5 mm
Φbar = 32 mm
Φtie = 10 mm
Part 1. Computation of Steel Area and Number of Bars

Step 1. Solve for ρmax and Mu(max)
ρb = (0.75*0.85*f'c*β1*600)/(fy*(600+fy)
β = 0.85, for f'c < 28 MPa
ρmax = ρ = 0.75ρb
ω = ρ*fy/f'c
Mu(max) = Φ*f'c*ω*b*(d^2)*(1-.59ω)
Φ = 0.9
* If Mu < Mu(max), design is Singly Reinforced
* If Mu > Mu(max), design is Doubly Reinforced
Step 2. Using Doubly Reinforcement. Solving As and N bars
As1 = ρmax*b*d
M2 = Mu/ Φ – M1, Where M1 = Mu(max)
As2 = M2/ fy(d-d’)
As = As1 + As2
a = As1*fy/0.85f’c*b
154
c = a/ β
fsc = 600(c-d’/c)
A’s = As2fy/fsc-0.85f’c
N = As/Ab, For tensions reinforcement bars
N’ = A’s/Ab, For compression reinforcement bars
RESULTS:
β 0.85
ρb 0.028374545
ρmax 0.021280909
ω 0.278678571
φ 0.9
Mumax 113.2277631 kN-m
DOUBLY
As 3303.824281 mm2
A's 1585.621017 mm2
N 4 pcs
N' 2 pcs
Part 2. Designing the Vertical Stirrup

Step 1. Calculate the Shear Strength by Concrete (Vc)
Vc = sqrt(f'c)*b*d/6
* If Vu > ΦVc, stirrups needed, go to Step II
* If Vu < ΦVc, but Vu > .5*ΦVc Stirrups needed
* If Vu < .5*Φ*Vc, stirrups are not needed
Step 2. Calculate the Shear Strength by Stirrup (Vs)
Vn = Vu/Φ
Vs = Vn – Vc
* If Vs < 0.67*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, go to Step 3.
* If Vs > 0.67*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, redesign.
Step 3. Spacing of Stirrups
Si = Av*fy*d/Vs, Av = pi*(Φtie^2)/4
For Smax,
155
* If Vs < 0.33*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, Smax = d/2 or 600mm (get smaller)
* If Vs > 0.33*sqrt(f'c)*b*d, Smax = d/4 or 400mm (get smaller)
RESULTS:
Vc 79.39312392 kN
φVc 71.45381152 kN
0.5φVc 35.72690576 kN
STIRRUPS NEEDED
Vn 93.77777778 kN
Vs 14.38465386 kN
Parameter 319.1603581 kN
Av 78.53981634 mm2
Si 371.6193869 mm
Parameter 157.1983854 mm
Smax1 123.75 mm
Smax2 600 mm
Sf 130 mm
Part 3. Development Length

The following are the supplementary data.
Cc = 40 mm, Bar Coat = Epoxy
Step 1. Determine the Value of the Coefficients (ψt,ψe,ψs,λ)
ψt = 1.0 for all other situations
ψe = 1.5 for epoxy-coated bars with cover less than 3d or 6d, = 1.2 for all other epoxy-
coated bars, = 1 for uncoated or zinc coated bars
ψt = .8 for 20 mm bars and smaller, = 1 for 25 mm bars and larger
λ = 1 for normal weight concrete
Step 2. Compute for the development length
ld = (fy*ψt*ψe*ψs*d)/(1.1*λ*sqrt(f'c)*((cc+Ktr)/d))
Ktr = 40*Atr/(S*N), Atr = 2*pi*(Φtie^2)/4
RESULTS:
ψt = 1
ψe = 1.2
ψt = 1
λ= 1
156
Atr 157.0796327 mm2
Ktr 24.51472131
ld 62.15888111 mm
For Midspan
Mu = 176.91 kN-m Es = 200000 Mpa

Vu = 75.05 kN Ec = 21383.71 Mpa
f'c = 21 Mpa n= 10
fy = 275 Mpa L= 5 m
b= 420 mm
t= 310 mm
d' = 62.5 mm
d= 247.5 mm
Φbar = 32 mm
Φtie = 10 mm

ρb = (0.75*0.85*f'c*β1*600)/(fy*(600+fy)
β = 0.85, for f'c < 28 MPa
ω = ρ*fy/f'c
Mu(max) = Φ*f'c*ω*b*(d^2)*(1-.59ω)
Φ = 0.9
Step 2. Using Doubly Reinforcement. Solving As and N bars
As1 = ρmax*b*d
M2 = Mu/ Φ – M1, Where M1 = Mu(max)
As2 = M2/ fy(d-d’)
157
As = As1 + As2
a = As1*fy/0.85f’c*b
c = a/ β
fsc = 600(c-d’/c)
A’s = As2fy/fsc-0.85f’c
N = As/Ab, For tensions reinforcement bars
N’ = A’s/Ab, For compression reinforcement bars
RESULTS:
β 0.85
ρb 0.028374545
ρmax 0.021280909
ω 0.278678571
φ 0.9
Mumax 113.2277631 kN-m
DOUBLY
As 3850.261627 mm2
A's 2379.303669 mm2
N 5 pcs
N' 3 pcs

Vn = Vu/Φ
Vs = Vn – Vc
158
For Smax,
RESULTS:
Vc 79.39312392 kN
φVc 71.45381152 kN
0.5φVc 35.72690576 kN
STIRRUPS NEEDED
Vn 83.38888889 kN
Vs 3.995764974 kN
Parameter 319.1603581 kN
Av 78.53981634 mm2
Si 1337.820489 mm
Smax1 123.75 mm
Smax2 600 mm
Sf 130 mm

The following are the supplementary data:
159
RESULTS:
ψt = 1
ψe = 1.2
ψt = 1
λ= 1
Atr 157.0796327 mm2
Ktr 16.33715689
ld 71.18149216 mm
Part 4. Checking the Beam in Deflection

Step 1. Calculate the Gross Moment of Inertia and the Cracking Moment of the Beam
Ig = b(t^3)/12
Mcr = Ig*fr/ϒt, fr = 0.62*λ*sqrt(f'c), ϒt = t/2
Step 2. Calculate the Moment of Inertia of the Cracked Section
Icr = b*(c^3)/12 + nAs(d-c)+nAs'(c-d')
Step 3. Calculate the Effective Moment of Inertia
Ie = ((Mcr/Mu)^3)*Ig + ((1-(Mcr/Mu)^3)*Icr)
Step 4. Determine and Check the Deflection
Mu = W(L^2)/8, W=____
δ = 5*W*(L^4)/(384*Ec*Ie)
δmax = L/360
RESULTS:
Ig 1042685000 mm4
fr 2.841196931 Mpa
ϒt 155 mm
Mcr 19.11273175 kN-m
Icr 37088340.7 mm4
Ie 38356386.58 mm4
W 9.04 kN/m
δ 0.280295746 mm
δmax 13.88888889 mm
OK
160
Beam with Maximum Moment was Designed (Two-Way Tradeoff)
For Support

Mu = 75.63 kN-m Es = 200000 Mpa
Vu = 101.37 kN Ec = 21383.71 Mpa
f'c = 21 Mpa n= 10
fy = 275 Mpa L= 5 m
b= 310 mm
t= 420 mm
d' = 62.5 mm
d= 357.5 mm
Φbar = 32 mm
Φtie = 10 mm

ρb = (0.75*0.85*f'c*β1*600)/(fy*(600+fy)
β = 0.85, for f'c < 28 MPa
ω = ρ*fy/f'c ρmax
Mu(max) = Φ*f'c*ω*b*(d^2)*(1-.59ω)
Φ = 0.9
Step 2. Using Singly Reinforcement. Solving As and N bars
As1 = ρmax*b*d
N = As/Abar, Abar = pi*(Φbar^2)/4
RESULTS:
β 0.85
ρb 0.028374545
ρmax 0.021280909
161
ω 0.278678571
φ 0.9
Mumax 174.3680925 kN-m
SINGLY
As 2358.45675 mm2
N 3 pcs

Vn = Vu/Φ
Vs = Vn – Vc
For Smax,
RESULTS:
Vn 84.6439919 kN
Vs 76.17959271 kN
0.5φVc 34.28081672 kN
STIRRUPS NEEDED
Vn 112.6333333 kN
Vs 27.98934143 kN
Parameter 340.2688474 mm2
Av 78.53981634 mm
162
Si 275.8709315 mm
Smax1 178.75 mm
Smax2 600 mm
Sf 180 mm

RESULTS:
ψt 1
ψe 1.2
ψt 1
λ 1
Atr 157.0796327 mm2
Ktr 11.90335223
ld 161.2012078 mm2
163
For Midspan
Mu = 158.9 kN-m Es = 200000 Mpa

Vu = 97.94 kN Ec = 21383.71 Mpa
f'c = 21 Mpa n= 10
fy = 275 Mpa L= 5 m
b= 310 mm
t= 420 mm
d' = 62.5 mm
d= 357.5 mm
Φbar = 32 mm
Φtie = 10 mm

ρb = (0.75*0.85*f'c*β1*600)/(fy*(600+fy)
β = 0.85, for f'c < 28 MPa
ω = ρ*fy/f'c ρmax
Mu(max) = Φ*f'c*ω*b*(d^2)*(1-.59ω)
Φ = 0.9
Step 2. Using Singly Reinforcement. Solving As and N bars
As1 = ρmax*b*d
N = As/Abar, Abar = pi*(Φbar^2)/4
RESULTS:
β 0.85
ρb 0.028374545
ρmax 0.021280909
ω 0.278678571
φ 0.9
Mumax 174.3680925 kN-m
164
SINGLY
As 2358.45675 mm2
N 3 pcs

Vn = Vu/Φ
Vs = Vn – Vc
For Smax,
RESULTS:
Vn 84.6439919 kN
Vs 76.17959271 kN
0.5φVc 34.28081672 kN
STIRRUPS NEEDED
Vn 108.8222222 kN
Vs 24.17823032 kN
Parameter 340.2688474 mm2
Av 78.53981634 mm
Si 319.3552874 mm
Smax1 178.75 mm
Smax2 600 mm
Sf 180 mm
165
RESULTS:
ψt 1
ψe 1.2
ψt 1
λ 1
Atr 157.0796327 mm2
Ktr 11.90335223
ld 161.2012078 mm2
Part 4. Checking the Beam in Deflection

Step 1. Calculate the Gross Moment of Inertia and the Cracking Moment of the Beam
Ig = b(t^3)/12
Mcr = Ig*fr/ϒt, fr = 0.62*λ*sqrt(f'c), ϒt = t/2
Step 2. Calculate the Moment of Inertia of the Cracked Section
Icr = b*(c^3)/12 + nAs(d-c)+nAs'(c-d')
Step 3. Calculate the Effective Moment of Inertia
Ie = ((Mcr/Mu)^3)*Ig + ((1-(Mcr/Mu)^3)*Icr)
Step 4. Determine and Check the Deflection
Mu = W(L^2)/8, W=____
166
δ = 5*W*(L^4)/(384*Ec*Ie)
δmax = L/360
RESULTS:
Ig 1042685000 mm4
fr 2.841196931 Mpa
ϒt 155 mm
Mcr 19.11273175 kN-m
Icr 37088340.7 mm4
Ie 38356386.58 mm4
W 25.29 kN/m
δ 0.784145953 mm
δmax 13.88888889 mm
OK
167
APPENDIX D: DESIGN OF ONE-WAY SLAB
Design of S-1
Considering Longer Side
Dead Loads f'c = 21 Mpa
Weight of Slab = 3.6 kPa fy = 415 Mpa
Stone Concrete Fill = 1.53 kPa L= 5 m
Gypsum Board = 0.2 kPa t= 150 mm
Total = 5.33 kPa b= 1000 mm
Live Loads Φbar = 12 mm
Basic Floor Area = 1.9 kPa Φtie = 10 mm
d= 134 mm
β= 0.850000
Step 1. Calculate the Factored Loads and the Moment in the Slab
W = 1.2DL + 1.6LL
For Midspan, M = W*(L^2)/14
For Continuous Edge, M = W*(L^2)/10
Step 2. Calculate the ρ and check for the Midspan
R = Mu/(b*(d^2))
ρ = (0.85*f'c/fy)*(1-(sqrt(1-((2*R)/(0.85*f'c))))
ρmax = 0.75*0.85*f'c*β*600/(fy*(600+fy))
ρmin = 1.4/fy
* If ρ > ρmax, redesign
* If ρmin < ρ < ρmax, ok
* If ρmin > ρ, use ρmin
Step 3. Calculate the Steel Area and Spacing of Bars
As = ρ*b*d
S = b*Abar/As, Abar = pi*(Φbar^2)/4
Step 4. Calculate the ρ and check for the Continuous Edge
168
STEP 1 RESULTS:
W 9.436 kN/m
Mmid 16.85 kN-m
Mc.e. 23.59 kN-m
STEP 2 RESULTS:
R 0.93840499
ρi 0.002324001
ρmax 0.016208974
ρmin 0.003373494
ρf 0.003373494
STEP 3 RESULTS:
As 452.0481928 mm2
Abar 113.0973355 mm2
S 250.1886687 mm
STEP 4 RESULTS:
R 1.313766986
ρi 0.003291657
ρmax 0.016208974
ρmin 0.003373494
ρf 0.003373494
STEP 5 RESULTS:
As 452.0481928 mm2
Abar 113.0973355 mm2
S 250.1886687 mm
Considering Shorter Side

Stone Concrete Fill = 1.53 kPa L= 2.5 m
d= 134 mm
β= 0.850000
W = 1.2DL + 1.6LL
169
R = Mu/(b*(d^2))
ρ = (0.85*f'c/fy)*(1-(sqrt(1-((2*R)/(0.85*f'c))))
ρmax = 0.75*0.85*f'c*β*600/(fy*(600+fy))
ρmin = 1.4/fy
As = ρ*b*d
STEP 1 RESULTS:
W 9.436 kN/m
Mmid 4.2125 kN-m
Mc.e. 5.8975 kN-m
STEP 2 RESULTS:
R 0.234601247
ρi 0.000569069
ρmax 0.016208974
ρmin 0.003373494
ρf 0.003373494
STEP 3 RESULTS:
As 452.0481928 mm2
Abar 113.0973355 mm2
S 250.1886687 mm
STEP 4 RESULTS:
R 0.328441746
ρi 0.000798844
ρmax 0.016208974
ρmin 0.003373494
170
ρf 0.003373494
STEP 5 RESULTS:
As 452.0481928 mm2
Abar 113.0973355 mm2
S 250.1886687 mm
Design of S-2
Considering Longer Side
d= 134 mm
β= 0.850000
W = 1.2DL + 1.6LL
R = Mu/(b*(d^2))
ρ = (0.85*f'c/fy)*(1-(sqrt(1-((2*R)/(0.85*f'c))))
ρmax = 0.75*0.85*f'c*β*600/(fy*(600+fy))
ρmin = 1.4/fy
As = ρ*b*d
171
STEP 1 RESULTS:
W 9.436 kN/m
Mmid 4.12867125 kN-m
Mc.e. 5.78013975 kN-m
STEP 2 RESULTS:
R 0.229932683
ρi 0.00055767
ρmax 0.016208974
ρmin 0.003373494
ρf 0.003373494
STEP 3 RESULTS:
As 452.0481928 mm2
Abar 113.0973355 mm2
S 250.1886687 mm
STEP 4 RESULTS:
R 0.321905756
ρi 0.0007828
ρmax 0.016208974
ρmin 0.003373494
ρf 0.003373494
STEP 5 RESULTS:
As 452.0481928 mm2
Abar 113.0973355 mm2
S 250.1886687 mm
172
Considering Shorter Side
d= 134 mm
β= 0.850000
W = 1.2DL + 1.6LL
R = Mu/(b*(d^2))
ρ = (0.85*f'c/fy)*(1-(sqrt(1-((2*R)/(0.85*f'c))))
ρmax = 0.75*0.85*f'c*β*600/(fy*(600+fy))
ρmin = 1.4/fy
As = ρ*b*d
STEP 1 RESULTS:
W 9.436 kN/m
Mmid 3.56546 kN-m
Mc.e. 4.991644 kN-m
173
STEP 2 RESULTS:
R 0.198566496
ρi 0.000481165
ρmax 0.016208974
ρmin 0.003373494
ρf 0.003373494
STEP 3 RESULTS:
As 452.0481928 mm2
Abar 113.0973355 mm2
S 250.1886687 mm
STEP 4 RESULTS:
R 0.277993094
ρi 0.000675162
ρmax 0.016208974
ρmin 0.003373494
ρf 0.003373494
STEP 5 RESULTS:
As 452.0481928 mm2
Abar 113.0973355 mm2
S 250.1886687 mm
174
APPENDIX E: DESIGN OF TWO-WAY SLAB
The following are the given and results for S1:

DESIGN OF SLAB BY LIMIT STATE METHOD (SIMPLY SUPPORTED TWO WAY )
1 DIMENSIONS OF ROOM Ly 5000 mm LONGER
Lx 5000 mm SHORTER
2 THICKNESS OF SUPPORT b' 200 mm q 0.133
3 GRADE OF CONCRETE fck 20 N/mm^2 LL 4 KN/M^2
4 GRADE OF STEEL fy 415 N/mm^2 FF 1 KN/M^2
5 CLEAR COVER d'' 40 mm ALPHA X 0.086
ASSUMED DATA ALPHA Y 0.058
DIA. OF BAR FOR ASTx 10 mm b 1000 mm
DIA. OF BAR FOR ASTy 10 mm MF 1.3
CALCULATION
d=Lx/(20*1.
1 ASSUMPTION FOR EFFECTIVE d 192.307692 mm FOR S.S.
4)
DEPTH OF SLAB
d= 120 mm
OVERALL DEPTH D= 165 mm 0.165 m
2 EFFECTIVE SPAN
lx 1 5200 mm Lx+b'
2 5120 mm Lx+d
lx 5120 mm WHICH EVER IS LESSER FOR ONE
5.12 M WAY AND
ly 1 5200 mm Ly+b' TWO WAY
2 5120 mm Ly+d
ly 5120 mm WHICH EVER IS LESSER
5.12 M
3 CHECK ly/lx 1
NEED TO DESIGN AS TWO WAY SLAB
4 LOADING CALCULATION FOR DEAD LOAD 5.33 KN/M Dx25X1

ONE METER STRIP LIVE LOAD 1.9 KN/M LL.x1
FLOAR FINISH 1 KN/M FF.x1
TOTAL LOAD 8.23 KN/M DL+LL+FF
TOTAL FACTORED
12.345 KN/M TLx1.5
LOAD(wd)
5 BENDING MOMENT Mux 27.83104205 KN.M (ALPHA X) x( Wd)x(lx^2)
CALCULATION Muy 18.76977254 KN.M (ALPHA Y) x( Wd)x(lx^2)
Mu max 27.83104205 KN.M
175
6 CHECK FOR DEPTH DEPTH REQUIRED dreq.
Mur max Qxfckxbxdxd d=√(Mur*10^6)/(fck*10
d req.= 102.2878183 mm 00*Q)
d provided > d required HENCE OK
6 AST CALCULATION
1 ASTx CALCULATION ASTx= 736.473544 mm^2 . .
( d
SPACING OF 10 MM BAR 106.6431 mm

AREA OF ONE BAR= 78.53982 1000`
CHECK FOR MIN. 360 mm 3Xd
SPACING 300 mm 300 mm
TAKE SPACING = 106.64 mm LESSER OF ABOVE 3
CHECK FOR AST MIN.

ASTmin= 198.00 mm^2
ASTprovided>ASTmin HENCE OK
2 ASTy CALCULATION ASTy= 524.79416 mm^2 . .

( d
SPACING 149.658 mm
AREA OF ONE BAR= 78.53982
X1000
CHECK FOR MIN. 360.000 3Xd
SPACING 300.00 300 mm
The following are the results for the Design of S1:

SLAB SCHEDULE
SLAB EFFECTIVE SLAB EFFECTIVE SPACING SPACING

SLAB SIZE DIA OF BAR DEPTH ASTx ASTy
MARK SIZE DEPTH FOR ASTx FOR ASTy
Ly mm Lx mm ly mm lx mm #1 mm #2 mm D mm d mm #1 mm^2 #1 mm #2 mm^2 #2 mm
S1 5000 5000 5120 5120 10 10 165 120 736.47354 106.6431 524.79416 149.658
176
The following are the given and results for S2:
DESIGN OF SLAB BY LIMIT STATE METHOD (SIMPLY SUPPORTED TWO WAY )
1 DIMENSIONS OF ROOM Ly 2475 mm LONGER
Lx 2300 mm SHORTER
2 THICKNESS OF SUPPORT b' 230 mm q 0.133
3 GRADE OF CONCRETE fck 20 N/mm^2 LL 4 KN/M^2
4 GRADE OF STEEL fy 415 N/mm^2 FF 1 KN/M^2
5 CLEAR COVER d'' 40 mm ALPHA X 0.086
ASSUMED DATA ALPHA Y 0.058
DIA. OF BAR FOR ASTx 16 mm b 1000 mm
DIA. OF BAR FOR ASTy 10 mm MF 1.3
CALCULATION
d=Lx/(20*1.
1 ASSUMPTION FOR EFFECTIVE d 88.4615385 mm FOR S.S.
4)
DEPTH OF SLAB
d= 80 mm
OVERALL DEPTH D= 128 mm 0.128 m
2 EFFECTIVE SPAN
lx 1 2530 mm Lx+b'
2 2380 mm Lx+d
lx 2380 mm WHICH EVER IS LESSER FOR ONE
2.38 M WAY AND
ly 1 2705 mm Ly+b' TWO WAY
2 2555 mm Ly+d
ly 2555 mm WHICH EVER IS LESSER
2.555 M
3 CHECK ly/lx 1.073529
NEED TO DESIGN AS TWO WAY SLAB
4 LOADING CALCULATION FOR DEAD LOAD 5.33 KN/M Dx25X1

ONE METER STRIP LIVE LOAD 1.9 KN/M LL.x1
FLOAR FINISH 1 KN/M FF.x1
TOTAL LOAD 8.23 KN/M DL+LL+FF
TOTAL FACTORED
12.345 KN/M TLx1.5
LOAD(wd)
5 BENDING MOMENT Mux 6.013723548 KN.M (ALPHA X) x( Wd)x(lx^2)
CALCULATION Muy 4.055767044 KN.M (ALPHA Y) x( Wd)x(lx^2)
Mu max 6.013723548 KN.M
177
6 CHECK FOR DEPTH DEPTH REQUIRED dreq.
Mur max Qxfckxbxdxd d=√(Mur*10^6)/(fck*10
d req.= 47.54785301 mm 00*Q)
d provided > d required HENCE OK
6 AST CALCULATION
1 ASTx CALCULATION ASTx= 220.971564 mm^2 . .
( d
SPACING OF 10 MM BAR 909.8996 mm

AREA OF ONE BAR= 201.0619 1000`
CHECK FOR MIN. 240 mm 3Xd
SPACING 300 mm 300 mm
CHECK FOR AST MIN.

ASTmin= 153.60 mm^2
ASTprovided>ASTmin HENCE OK
2 ASTy CALCULATION ASTy= 177.502133 mm^2 . .

( d
SPACING 442.473 mm
AREA OF ONE BAR= 78.53982
X1000
CHECK FOR MIN. 240.000 3Xd
SPACING 300.00 300 mm
The following are the results for the Design of S2:

SLAB SCHEDULE
SLAB EFFECTIVE SLAB EFFECTIVE SPACING SPACING

SLAB SIZE DIA OF BAR DEPTH ASTx ASTy
MARK SIZE DEPTH FOR ASTx FOR ASTy
Ly mm Lx mm ly mm lx mm #1 mm #2 mm D mm d mm #1 mm^2 #1 mm #2 mm^2 #2 mm
S2 2475 2300 2555 2380 16 10 128 80 220.97156 909.8996 177.50213 240.000
178
APPENDIX F: SAMPLE DESIGN OF COLUMNS
One-Way Slab Tradeoff

The column with the maximum axial force was designed.
P= 1523.17 kN
My = 283.25 kN-m
b= 650 mm
t= 600 mm
cc = 40 mm
d= 534 mm
f'c = 21 Mpa
fy = 415 Mpa
Φbar = 32 mm
Φtie = 10 mm
Step 1. Determine the Steel Area and N bars

ρg = ____, assumed value from 0.02 - 0.04
As = ρgAg
N = As/Abar then determine actual As
Get actual ρg,
Pcap = Φ*0.8*Ag(0.85*f'c*(1-ρg)+fy*ρg)
* If Pcap > P, the dimensions are adequate
* If Pcap < P , Redesign
RESULTS
ρg 0.02
Ag 390000 mm2
As 7800 mm2
Asactual 8042.477 mm2
Abar 804.2477 mm2
N 10 pcs
Actual ρg 0.020622
Φ 0.65
Pcap 5280.896 kN
Adequate
179
Two-Way Slab Tradeoff
The column with the maximum axial force was designed.
P= 1410.74 kN
My = 283.25 kN-m
b= 650 mm
t= 600 mm
cc = 40 mm
d= 534 mm
f'c = 21 Mpa
fy = 415 Mpa
Φbar = 32 mm
Φtie = 10 mm
Step 1. Determine the Steel Area and N bars

ρg = ____, assumed value from 0.02 - 0.04
As = ρgAg
N = As/Abar then determine actual As
Get actual ρg,
Pcap = Φ*0.8*Ag(0.85*f'c*(1-ρg)+fy*ρg)
* If Pcap > P, the dimensions are adequate
* If Pcap < P , Redesign
RESULTS
ρg 0.02
Ag 390000 mm2
As 7800 mm2
Asactual 8042.477 mm2
Abar 804.2477 mm2
N 10 pcs
Actual ρg 0.020622
Φ 0.65
Pcap 5280.896 kN
Adequate
180
APPENDIX G: COST ESIMATE
COST ESTIMATE OF ONE-WAY OMRF TRADEOFF
CONCRETE WORKS
CEMENT GRAVEL
MEMBER L (m) b (m) t (m) pcs V (m3) (bags) SAND (m) (m)
B-1 5 0.55 0.5 347 477.125 4294.125 238.5625 477.125
B-2 2.5 0.55 0.5 280 192.5 1732.5 96.25 192.5
C-1 3.2 0.65 0.6 245 305.76 2751.84 152.88 305.76
TOTAL 8778.465 487.6925 975.385
CEMENT GRAVEL
SLAB L (m) b (m) t (m) pcs V (m3) (bags) SAND (m) (m)
S-1 5 2.5 0.15 350 656.25 5906.25 328.125 656.25
S-2 2.475 2.3 0.15 5 4.269375 38.424375 2.1346875 4.269375
S-3 0.925 2.7 0.15 5 1.873125 16.858125 0.9365625 1.873125
TOTAL 5961.5325 331.19625 662.3925
PRICE
ITEM TOTAL per pc ITEM LABOR
CEMENT 14739.9975 bags 250 3684999 1473999.75
TOTAL
SAND 818.88875 m3 50 40944.44 16377.775
GRAVEL 1637.7775 m3 800 1310222 524088.8
TOTAL PRICE 5036166 2014466.325 7050632.138
REBAR WORKS
BAR Ø
MEMBER (mm) As (mm2) L (m) N bars N - members Total W (kg)
B-1 32 804.2477 5 6 347 65718.33
B-2 25 490.8739 5 6 280 32365.2
C-1 32 804.2477 3.2 10 245 49493.92
Slonger 12 113.0973 30 300 7920
Sshorter 12 113.0973 30 300 7920
PRICE
ITEM TOTAL
per kg ITEM LABOR TOTAL
Steel 163417.45 22.7 3709576 7419152 11128728.35
TOTAL COST 18179360.48
181
COST ESTIMATE OF ONE-WAY SMRF TRADEOFF
CONCRETE WORKS
CEMENT GRAVEL
MEMBER L (m) b (m) t (m) pcs V(m3) (bags) SAND (m) (m)
B-1 5 0.42 0.31 347 225.897 2033.073 112.9485 225.897
B-2 2.5 0.42 0.31 280 91.14 820.26 45.57 91.14
C-1 3.2 0.65 0.6 245 305.76 2751.84 152.88 305.76
TOTAL 5605.173 311.3985 622.797
CEMENT GRAVEL
S-1 5 2.5 0.15 350 656.25 5906.25 328.125 656.25
S-2 2.475 2.3 0.15 5 4.269375 38.424375 2.1346875 4.269375
S-3 0.925 2.7 0.15 5 1.873125 16.858125 0.9365625 1.873125
TOTAL 5961.5325 331.19625 662.3925
PRICE
CEMENT 11566.7055 bags 250 2891676 1156670.55
TOTAL
SAND 642.59475 m3 50 32129.74 12851.895
GRAVEL 1285.1895 m3 800 1028152 411260.64
TOTAL PRICE 3951958 1580783.085 5532740.798
REBAR WORKS
BAR Ø
B-1 32 804.2477 5 6 347 65718.33
B-2 25 490.8739 5 6 280 32365.2
C-1 32 804.2477 3.2 10 245 49493.92
Slonger 12 113.0973 30 300 7920
Sshorter 12 113.0973 30 300 7920
PRICE
ITEM TOTAL
Steel 163417.45 22.7 3709576 7419152 11128728.35
182
COST ESTIMATE OF TWO-WAY OMRF TRADEOFF
CONCRETE WORKS
CEMENT GRAVEL
B-1 5 0.6 0.55 360 594 5346 297 594
- - - - - - - - -
C-1 3.2 0.65 0.6 245 305.76 2751.84 152.88 305.76
TOTAL 8097.84 449.88 899.76
CEMENT GRAVEL
S-1 5 5 0.15 180 675 6075 337.5 675
S-2 2.475 2.3 0.15 5 4.269375 38.424375 2.1346875 4.269375
S-3 0.925 2.7 0.15 5 1.873125 16.858125 0.9365625 1.873125
TOTAL 6130.2825 340.57125 681.1425
PRICE
CEMENT 14228.1225 bags 250 3557031 1422812.25
TOTAL
SAND 790.45125 m3 50 39522.56 15809.025
GRAVEL 1580.9025 m3 800 1264722 505888.8
TOTAL PRICE 4861275 1944510.075 6805785.263
REBAR WORKS
BAR Ø
B-1 32 804.2477 5 6 360 68180.4
- - - - - - -
C-1 32 804.2477 3.2 10 245 49493.92
Slonger 12 113.0973 30 300 7920
Sshorter 12 113.0973 30 300 7920
PRICE
ITEM TOTAL
Steel 133514.32 22.7 3030775 6061550 9092325.192
183
COST ESTIMATE OF TWO-WAY SMRF TRADEOFF
CONCRETE WORKS
CEMENT GRAVEL
B-1 5 0.42 0.31 360 234.36 2109.24 117.18 234.36
- - - - - - - - -
C-1 3.2 0.65 0.6 245 305.76 2751.84 152.88 305.76
TOTAL 4861.08 270.06 540.12
CEMENT GRAVEL
S-1 5 5 0.15 180 675 6075 337.5 675
S-2 2.475 2.3 0.15 5 4.269375 38.424375 2.1346875 4.269375
S-3 0.925 2.7 0.15 5 1.873125 16.858125 0.9365625 1.873125
TOTAL 6130.2825 340.57125 681.1425
PRICE
CEMENT 10991.3625 bags 250 2747841 1099136.25
TOTAL
SAND 610.63125 m3 50 30531.56 12212.625
GRAVEL 1221.2625 m3 800 977010 390804
TOTAL PRICE 3755382 1502152.875 5257535.063
REBAR WORKS
BAR Ø
B-1 32 804.2477 5 6 360 68180.4
- - - - - - 0
C-1 32 804.2477 3.2 10 245 49493.92
Slonger 12 113.0973 30 300 7920
Sshorter 12 113.0973 30 300 7920
PRICE
ITEM TOTAL
Steel 133514.32 22.7 3030775 6061550 9092325.192
184
APPENDIX H: ESTIMATE OF MAN HOURS
For Trade-Off One (One-Way Slab OMRF)
ESTIMATE OF MAN HOURS

Beam b (m) t (m) L (m) Quantity Volume (m3)
B-1 0.5 0.55 5 347 477.125
B-2 0.5 0.55 2.5 280 192.5
C-1 0.65 0.6 3.2 245 305.76
t (m) s (m) L (m) Quantity Volume (m3)
S-1 0.15 2.5 5 350 656.25
S-2 0.15 2.3 2.475 5 4.269375
S-3 0.15 0.925 2.7 5 1.873125
TOTAL VOLUME 1637.7775
Assuming that 500% of Total Volume of Concrete Works is equal to Total Man Days,
Adding 200% For Rebar Works and 350% For Finishing
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 5 (1637.7775) + 2 (1637.7775) + 3.5 (1637.7775)
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 17197 days
Given that there will be 30 workers
185
For Trade-Off Two (One-Way Slab SMRF)

B-1 0.31 0.42 5 347 225.897
B-2 0.31 0.42 2.5 280 91.14
C-1 0.65 0.6 3.2 245 305.76
S-1 0.15 2.5 5 350 656.25
S-2 0.15 2.3 2.475 5 4.269375
S-3 0.15 0.925 2.7 5 1.873125
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 5 (1285.1895) + 2 (1285.1895) + 3.5 (1285.1895)
186
For Trade-Off Three (Two-Way Slab OMRF)

B-1 0.55 0.6 5 360 594
- 0 0 0 0 0
C-1 0.65 0.6 3.2 245 305.76
S-1 0.15 5 5 180 675
S-2 0.15 2.3 2.475 5 4.269375
S-3 0.15 0.925 2.7 5 1.873125
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 5 (1580.9025) + 2 (1580.9025) + 3.5 (1580.9025)
187
For Trade-Off Four (Two-Way Slab SMRF)

B-1 0.31 0.42 5 360 234.36
- 0 0 0 0 0
C-1 0.65 0.6 3.2 245 305.76
S-1 0.15 5 5 180 675
S-2 0.15 2.3 2.475 5 4.269375
S-3 0.15 0.925 2.7 5 1.873125
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 5 (1221.2625) + 2 (1221.2625) + 3.5 (1221.2625)
188
APPENDIX I: PERCENTAGE DEFLECTION FROM ALLOWABLE
Tradeoff 1 (One Way Slab OMRF)
(Beam with maximum moment was used)

Beam Deflection at Midspan
0.39010528 mm
Allowable Deflection
13.88888889 mm
Percentage of Computed Deflection from Allowable
% = (LV/HV)*100%
% = (0.39010528/13.88888889)*100%
% = 2.808758016 %
Tradeoff 2 (One Way Slab SMRF)

0.280295746 mm
13.88888889 mm
% = (LV/HV)*100%
% = (0.280295746/13.88888889)*100%
% = 2.018129371 %
Tradeoff 3 (Two Way Slab OMRF)

0.54028932
189
13.88888889 mm
% = (LV/HV)*100%
% = (0.54028932/13.88888889)*100%
% = 3.890083104 %
Tradeoff 4 (Two Way Slab SMRF)

0.784145953
13.88888889 mm
% = (LV/HV)*100%
% = (0.784145953 /13.88888889)*100%
% = 5.645850861 %
190
APPENDIX J: REFERENCES
Books
• McCormac, J.C., & Brown, R. H. (2014). Design of Reinforced Concrete 9th Edition. United States:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
• Everrad & Tanner (1996). Theory and Problems of Reinforced Concrete Design. New York:
Schaum Publishing Company.
• Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines. National Structural Code of the Philippines
2010. Quezon City, Philippines: Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc.
• National Building Code of the Philippines (1977). Philippines.
Website References
• https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/1230/1/012050/pdf
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705817336081
• https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Active-Control-of-Pendulum-Tuned-Mass-Dampers-for-
Eltaeb/a33b1682592681e0a3d16030938d766be0cc8b5d
• https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/13_53.pdf
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303818187_Structural_Analysis_and_Design_of_Comme
rcial_Building_for_Earthquake_Resistance
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317767808_Study_of_OMRF_and_SMRF_structures_for
_different_earthquake_zones_of_India
• http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/13_53.pdf
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/239545693_Seismic_Conceptual_Design_of_Buildings_-
_Basic_principles_for_engineers_architects_building_owners_and_authorities
191
• https://www.northernarchitecture.us/resisting-system/info-ybx.html
• https://www.irjet.net/archives/V5/i6/IRJET-V5I6160.pdf
• https://recentscientific.com/sites/default/files/10104-A-2018.pdf
• http://sknlazoce.blogspot.com/2018/10/how-to-determine-coefficient-of-over.html
• https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Active-Control-of-Pendulum-Tuned-Mass-Dampers-for
Eltaeb/a33b1682592681e0a3d16030938d766be0cc8b5d
• www.wikipedia.com
• www.google.com
192

Amer Manuscript 4-4-2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Amer Manuscript 4-4-2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Amer Manuscript 4-4-2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

i

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

A DESIGN OF A FIVE-STOREY REINFORCED

December 11, 2021

(Reinforced Concrete Design).

TABLE 1. AREAS AND FUNCTIONS PER FLOOR ...................................................................................... 6

FIGURE 1. MAP LOCATION OF THE FIVE-STOREY COMMERCIAL BUILDING ....................................... 2

1.1 The Project

constructing a commercial building is appropriate.

a roof deck. Each floor has a height of 3 meters.

the Philippines (NSCP), 2015, Volume 1, 7th Edition.

Figure 1. Map Location of the Five-Storey Commercial Building

1.3 Project Objectives

1.4.1 General Objective

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

1) To design a 5-storey school building made of reinforced concrete materials.

2) To provide detailed plans and programmed design of the project

1.4 The Client

after it had a devastating collapse in economy due to the siege.

1.5 Project Scope and Limitations

The following are the scope covered by the project:

• Analysis of structural elements using STAADPro CONNECT v22 program.

• Detailed illustrations of structural member and design

• Design by reinforced concrete materials

The following are the limitations of the design project:

• The detailed activities within the span of construction of the project.

• The interior perspective each floor of the school building project.

• The maintenance and alterations of the project.

Identifying the project objectives, target

Determining design standards and

Architectural and Structural Plans

Identification of Constraints and Trade-

Weighing of constraints and trade-offs

Loadings and Structural Analysis

Final Design Output

Figure 2. Project Development Process

2.1 Description of Structure

Figure 3. Geometric Model

2.2 Classification of Structure

Table 1. Areas and Functions per Floor

FUNCTION AREA (m2)

2.4 Architectural Plans

2.4.1 Floor Plans

Figure 4. Ground Floor Plan

Figure 9. Front Elevation

Figure 10. Left Side Elevation

Figure 12. Rear Elevation

2.5.1 Seismic Resistance of Buildings

Bachmann, January 2002).

2.5.2 Floor Slab Analysis

the safe category. (Yayuk Setyaning Astutik, 2019)

2.5.2.1 One Way Slab

Behaviour and Strength of One Way Reinforced Concrete Slabs

dimensions of building structures which results in turn in self weight structure

Enhancing the Behavior of One-Way Reinforced Concrete Slabs by Using

This paper studies experimentally the behavior of laced reinforced concrete

three simply supported one-way slabs of dimensions (1500 mm length, 600 mm

load) gradually applying up to failure. The specimens showed an enhanced in

reinforcement are more ductility than specimen without lacing reinforcement so