Print 1 1 PDF

CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
A fire station is a structure or other area for storing firefighting apparatus such as fire engines and related
vehicles, personal protective equipment, fire hoses and other specialized equipment. Fire station supports the needs
of the fire department and the community in which it is located. It must accommodate extremely diverse functions,
including housing, recreation, administration, training, community education, equipment and vehicle storage,
equipment and vehicle maintenance, and hazardous materials storage. While it is usually only occupied by trained
personnel, the facility may also need to accommodate the general public for community education or outreach
program.
In terms of size, Antipolo City is the second largest in Rizal Province next only to Rodriguez, formerly
Montalban. Its total land area of 38,504.44 hectares represents 29.9% of the entire land area of the Rizal Province.
Since Antipolo is a large city, building a fire station is necessary. There are two fire stations currently existing in
Antipolo, the Annex Fire Station, located along Sumulong Highway, and Antipolo City Fire Station, located at
Barangay Dela Paz. The location of these fire stations is far from other Barangays, specifically in Barangay Bagong
Nayon. Bagong Nayon is a Barangay in the city of Antipolo and according to 2015 Census, it has population of
around 46000 which represent 5.92% of the total population of Antipolo. The distance of Annex Fire station and
Antipolo City Fire Station is 5.9 km and 5.5 km respectively. The total estimated travel time using a normal vehicle is
around 20minutes to 25 minutes without considering the traffic. The duration of travel time is quite long and it might
cause a problem for the fire rescue team to respond.
The proposed four-storey Fire Station will cater the needs of the people living in Barangay Bagong Nayon,
Antipolo City. This proposed project envisions to serves as a primary rescue in fire incidents and lessens the damage
caused by manmade and natural disaster.
3
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The location of this project is at Barangay Bagong Nayon, Antipolo City, along Marilaque Highway in front of The
Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints. The setting is accessible to road, transportation and also for the people.
Figure 1.1: Satellite View of Marikina-Infanta Highway, Antipolo City - Bearing 14°37'20.9"N 121°10'26.7"E
Source: https://www.google.com/maps/@14.6225942,121.1752831,360m/data=!3m1!1e3
Figure 1.2: Street view of Marikina-Infanta Highway, Antipolo City

Source: https://www.google.com/maps/@14.6225942,121.1752831,360m/data=!3m1!1e3
1.3 THE CLIENT

4
Mayor Casimiro A. Ynares III will serves as the client for this project. The designers went to Antipolo City hall and
were able to interview Mrs. Joy, one of the City Hall officials. She refused to indicate her full name for some privacy
reason.
1.3.1 Client’s Specification
According to Mrs. Joy, the project must attain the following specification:
 A good quality structure with a reasonable cost of around 20000000 Php - 30000000 Php
 The duration of construction of the project must not exceed 18 months
 The structure can resist Earthquake Force since it is a Government Project
 The life span of the structure can last 50 years
 The project must be environment friendly and has a low maintenance cost in which it can maintain its quality
up to its design lifespan.
1.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
1.4.1 General Objectives
The main objective of this project is to design a Four-Storey Fire Station Building in Barangay Bagong Nayon,
Antipolo City using the structural analysis with accordance to structural and building codes in order to meet the
client's specification and to provide a facility that will aid the area in case of fire incident.
1.4.2 Specific Objectives
 To enhance the knowledge and skills of making use of Theory of Structures and Soil Mechanics Principles
to design a building
 To evaluate the trade-offs based on the limitations in order to differentiate what is the effective design choice
 To identify the soil classification of the chosen location in which the structure will be built
 To provide the client with plans and cost estimates of the project.
1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATION
1.5.1 Scope of the Project
The following are the scope covered by the design project:
 Provide design plan such as structural plans and architectural plans as well as structural detail
 The project is conceptualized with accordance to the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP
2015) and National Building Code of the Philippines (PD 1096)
 analyze the strength and safety of structure by the use of the software program, STAAD pro.
1.5.2 Limitation of the Project
The following are the limitation of the design project:

5
 The design of Electical, Mechanical and Plumbing Plan are not included
 The interior design of the project is not included\
 The designers shall not assess other constraints with no relation on the design of water distribution system
 The designers will limit the cost estimate on the materials used for the structural members
 The designers will not provide the detailed construction activities and the estimate cost of operation and
machineries
1.6 PERSPECTIVE
Figure 1.3: Perspective view of the building
1.7 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
The designers prepared for the design of a 4-storey fire station in Barangay Bagong Nayon, Antipolo City. In the first
stage of the project, the designers will identify the problems currently existing in the society that the designers intend
to make a solution. As the problem being identified, which is lack of fire station around Barangay Bagong Nayon,
Antipolo City resulting in severe damage of properties. After having the solution, the designers will look for the
location where the said project will be constructed, then conceptualization of the project begins conforming to the
request of the client. The conceptualization of the design of a four-storey fire station includes different inputs
strengthening design process, materials and construction techniques, purpose, ground characteristics and set of
6
standards and codes provided in the Philippines. After the conceptualization, data were gathered using different
types of method.
Then designers identify the constraints and different trade-offs to solve the evident problem considering the
constraints. There will be a provide design for each trade-off to properly explain each of its capabilities and
advantages. After presenting each trade-off with their specific aspects; results will be compared and evaluated in
order to come up with the most efficient alternative. The final design is based on the most effective result evaluated
by the designer. This output will be recommended to be able to design a four-storey fire station.
Evaluation of
Start Final Design
results
Identify the Design of

End
problem Tradeoffs
Conceptualizati
on and Client Tradeoffs
Consultaion
Project
Gathering of
Constraints and
data
Standards
Figure 1-3. Project Development flowchart
CHAPTER 2: DEMOGRAPHIC AND TOPOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE SOCIAL BENEFICIARIES

DESIGN INPUTS AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
1 DEMOGRAPHIC AND TOPOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE SOCIAL BENEFICIARIES

2.1.1 Demography of the Project
Among the 14 city/municipalities of Rizal, Antipolo City had the largest population with 776,386, followed by
Rodriguez (Montalban) with 369,222 and Cainta with 322,128. The population of these three municipalities together
comprised more than half (50.89 percent) of the entire population of the province as shown in the table below.
7
Table 2.1: Total population of Municipalities of Rizal
Source: This data was obtained from Antipolo City Hall
Table 2.2: Total Population of Antipolo City

Source: This data was obtained from Antipolo City Hall
The population of Bagong Nayon grew from 18,002 in 1990 to 45,976 in 2015, an increase of 27,974 people. The
latest census figures in 2015 denote a positive growth rate of 0.34%, or an increase of 824 people, from the previous
population of 45,152 in 2010.
8
Figure 2.1: Population of Barangay Nayon categorized by age group
Source: https://www.philatlas.com/luzon/r04a/rizal/antipolo/bagong-nayon.htmla
Figure 2.1.1: Population and Growth of Barangay Bagong Nayon

9
2.1.2 Topography of the Project
Figure 2.1.2: Topographic view of Barangay Bagong Nayon

2.1.3 Soil Profile

The following data that were gathered as a basis for the design loads on the given location. Unfortunately, the
designers were not able to obtain a Geotechnical Report from the Antipolo City Hall due privacy of their data. We
tried to convince the officials but they refused to gave us information unless we have a valid consent from the land
owners. The designers find another Geotechnical Report from other places nearby, but still applicable as the basis for
the design loads on the given location
2.1.3.1 Geotechnical Investigation
This report presents the result of the geotechnical investigation conduction for the above cited project of the City
Government of Marikina. The investigation work involving borehole drilling was carried out in March 2012 by
Universal Testing Laboratory and Inspection, Inc(UTLII) upon the request of proponent/client.
The purpose of the investigation is to determine the general subsurface condition at site by the test boring with SPT
sampling and core drilling and to evaluate the results and with respect to the concept and foundation design of the
proposed structure. The samples obtained from the boring were tested in the laboratory for engineering classification
and strength determination and analysis.
10
This report covers the methodology of the field and laboratory investigations, assessment of the subsurface
conditions, and estimation of the allowable soil bearing capacity, settlement analysis and citing other related
construction problems.
Field Investigation Program

The investigation involved the drilling of the two (2) boreholes to a depth 15m each below the present ground level at
the site with the use of a rotary drilling machine. The drilling was executed on the whole day of 27 March 2012
following the ASDTM procedures as briefly described below. The location of the boreholes is shown in Figure 1.0.
The hole was advanced by wash boring and standard penetration test (SPT). The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) is
performed every 1.0 meter of depth measured from the ground surface. Initially an NW-casting was driven into the
ground using the driver hammer weighing 63.5 kg. up to a depth of 0.50 m. The section of the casting which was
driven into the ground was cleaned up to the bottom wash boring. The term “Wash Boring” refers to the process in
which a hole is advanced by combination of chopping and jetting to break the soil or rock into small fragments called
cuttings and washing to remove cuttings from the hole. TH tools used to consist of the drill rods with a chopping bit at
the bottom and a water swivel and lifting the bail at the top. This is connected to the water pump by a heavy duty
hose attached to the water swivel. This assembly is attached to the cathead by means of a rope which passes
through the sheave and tied to the lifting bail. The tool are then lowered to the level of soil in the casing, and the
water under pressure is introduced to the bottom of the hole means of the water passages in the drill rods and the
chopping bit. At the same time, the bit is raised and dropped by means of the rope attached to the lifting bail. Each
time the rods are dropped they are also partially rotated manually by means of a wrench placed around the rods. The
latter process helps to break up the material at the base of the hole. The resulting cuttings are carried to the surface
in the drilling water which flows in the annular space between the drill rods and the inside of the casing. The process
is continued until the depth for taking SPT samples is reached.
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was used to extract relatively distributed samples from the borehole at intervals
not exceeding 1:50 meters. This was done by driving a standard split-barrel sampler with the following specifications:
: Make :Std. Sprague and Henwood Type

: Outside Diameter : 5.40 cm.
: Inside Diameter : 3.50 cm.
: Length : 61.0 cm.
11
This split-barrel sampler is attached to the end of a string of rods and is driven into the ground by means of blows
from a donut type or center-hole cell hammer weighing 63.50 kg. The hammer is dropped repeatedly and freely from
a height of 76.2 cm. into a special anvil until the required 45.0 cm. penetration is attained. The sample is initially
driven a distance of 15.0 cm. to seat it on undisturbed soil and the blow count also recorded (unless the weight of the
assembly sinks the sampler, so no N can be counted). The blow count for each of the next two-cm-increment is
summed up and used as the penetration number N, unless the last increment cannot be completed either from
encountering rock/ gravelly layer or the blow count exceeds 60. Where N-blow count s exceeds to 60, the test is
stopped and he penetration attained is recorded as a denominator to the number of blows e.g. 60/10 meaning 60
blows for 10 cm. penetration. This would be indicated as “refusal” in the borehole log. The method described above is
the standard penetration tests (SPT). N-values derived from the borings are reflected in appropriate columns in the
Final Borehole Log in Appendix A.
Correlation of SPT data with other soil parameters have been developed for estimates of stiffness and densities of a
soil and is very useful supplementary classification as shown in the tables below:
CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION FOR FINE-GRANED SOILS

(Terzaghi and Peck, 1969)
Classification SPT,N Undrained Shear Strength, su (kPa)
Very soft <2 <12

Soft 2 -4 12-25
Medium Stiff 4–8 25-50
Stiff 8 – 15 50-100
Very Stiff 15 – 30 100-200
Hard >30 >200
RELATIVE DENSITY CLASSIFICATION FOR COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

(U.S. NAVY, 1982 & Lambe and Whitman, 1969)
Classification SPT,N Undrained Shear Strength, su (kPa)
Very loose <4 0-15

Loose 4 - 10 15-35
Medium dense 10 – 30 36-65
Dense 30 – 50 65-85
Very Dense >50 85-100
All SPT samples were placed in a properly labeled air tight plastic bag before they were transported to the laboratory
office of UTLII in Pasig City for the required testing.
12
Laboratory Testing Program
The procedures used in testing the samples for this project conform with the ASTM Standards and from selected
references such as Soil testing for Engineers by T. William Lambe etc..
All SPT samples were subjected to the following specific tests with the procedures are briefly described below:
Soil Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D 422-63, Re-approved 1998)
This test covers the quantitative determination of the distribution of particle in soils. The distribution of particle sized
retained on the No. 200 sieve is determined by sieving. The individual particles found in particular soil is indicative of
the performance characteristics of the soil. The percentage by weight of the material passing through its succession
sieve is recorded.
The Atterberg Limits
The liquid limit and the plastic limit tests define the upper and lower moisture content points at which a particular soil
ceases to perform as a plastic. The use of this test is restricted to cohesive soils.
Liquid Limit (ASTEM D-425-66) – This is the water content of the soils expressed as percentage of the weight of the
oven-dried soil at the boundary between liquid and plastic states.
Plastic Limit (ASTM D44-59) – This is expressed as percentage of the mass of the oven-dried soil at the laboratory
between the plastic and semi-solid states.
Moisture Content of Soils (ASTM D-2216-98)
This test is based on the weight of the water in the soil. It indicates imperative behavior of different soil types at
various levels of moisture. It is the ratio expressed as percentage of the weight of water in a given mass of soil to the
weight of solid particles.
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS,ASTM D2487-69)
The system is used in foundation works for classifying a soils with symbols such as GP, GW, SM, SC, CL, CH, ML,
MH, etc.
Site Geology
The geologic map within Metro Manila which includes Marikina City and its immediate vicinities used to be a
submerged area at one time in the past intermittent volcanic activities resulting to the deposition of volcanic materials
on top of the previously-laid volcanic materials. Thus, alternating beds and transported sediments became a
characteristic feature of the geologic deposit.
13
Recent deposits at the site are the Quaternary volcanic rocks generally known in geologic literature as the
Guadalupe Formation which consists of the lower Alat Conglomerate member of the Upper Diliman Tuff Member.
This tuff includes the tuff sequence in the Angat-Novaliches region and along Pasig River in the vicinity of Guadalupe,
Makati and extending some areas of Manila and most of Quezon City, it is composed of an almost flat-laying
sequence of vitric tuffs and welded volcanic breccia with subordinate amounts of tuffaceous, fie to medium-grained
sandstone. The tuff is thin to medium-bedded, regularly stratified, tan or light gray in color, fine-grained, lithified and
consists of volcanic ash and dust.
Subsurface as Found
The subsurface of the site is represented by the soil profile derived along the drilled boreholes as shown in Figure 2.0
As can be seen from the profile, the subsoil around BH-1 is underlain by overburden composed soil of
moderately/highly plastic clay (CL/CH) starting from the ground surface down all the way to the bottom end of the
borehole. N-values ranged from 21 to 62 blows/ft suggesting a consolidated to over consolidated stratum. Over the
vicinity of BH-2, silty sand (SM) covers the upper 4.5m thick layer before clayey materials were hit down to the
bottom end of the borehole. The silty sands are non-plastic with recorded N-values of 20 - 29 blows/ft while the clays
are highly plastic and have registered a blow count ranging from 33 - 65 blows/ft. These blow counts indicated
compacted sand deposits while the consolidation and consistency of the clays are the same as those in BH-1
The groundwater level was measured at 8.0m or more inside the boreholes after completing the drilling.
Discussions and General Recommendations

Assessment of the Subsoil
Based on the boring results, the site is generally sound and stable to build on for the proposed structure without
failure. The founding clay materials as revealed by their SPT counts are not compressible, expansive and collapsible.
On the other hand, the sandy materials are not settlement prone nor susceptible to liquefaction in the event of strong
earthquakes. The use of a shallow foundation to support the structure can be used under such soil conditions.
Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity at Foundation level
A spread or combined type of a shallow foundation can be adopted. The footings can be embedded to a depth of
1.5m or deeper below the present ground level. For purposes of designing the footings, the estimated allowable soil
bearing capacity at varying footing level and base width are tabulated below:
Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity, kPa (Basis: BH-1)h
Depth, Base of Footing Bearing

meter Base = 1.5m B = 3.0m Layer
1.5 227 Clay

2.0 240 Clay
14
2.5 247 Clay
3.0 257 Clay
Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity, kPa (Basis: BH-1)
Depth, Base of Footing Bearing

meter Base = 1.5m B = 3.0m Layer
1.5 359 264 Clay

2.0 359 276 Clay
2.5 689 555 Clay
3.0 689 579 Clay
Settlement
For footings resting on clays, a long term settlement of 50mm to 100mm should be anticipated. On
the other hand, a maximum settlement of 25mm can be allowed for footings resting sand. Crucial to these
tolerable settlements is the excessive differential settlement that could affect the engineering integrity of the
structure. Provision for footing tie beams therefore be incorporated as an integral part of the foundation
system to minimize such excessive settlement to a manageable limit.
Foundation Excavation
The excavation for the foundation can proceed with relative ease as no dewatering work is
necessary due to deep groundwater level in the area, however, extensive protection of the walls around the
vicinity of BH-2 would be required as the sand materials to be excavated are highly erosive and could not
vertically stand if the pits are left unprotected during the course of the excavation. Over BH-1, the wall
protection may no longer necessary. The clays to be excavated are not collapsible such that the walls could
vertically stand even if the pits are left unsupported.
Site Coefficient S and Seismic Zone Factor Z
The site coefficient S and seismic zone factor Z required determining the design base shear V for
structural design is defined in terms of the soil profile as specified in the National Building Code of the
Philippines. Based on the soil profiles as determined from borings, the Structural Engineer for the project
could classify the site the corresponding S factor for given type of soil by referring to the Building Code.
The seismic map of the Philippines divides the country into two zones, namely Zone 2 and 4. For the site
under study, the maximum zone factor Z is also found in the said Building Code.
15
General Remarks
This geotechnical evaluation was carried out by the Undersigned based on the soil borings and
laboratory tests shown in the Appendices as prepared by UTLII. Variations in subsurface conditions existing
between the borings may not become evident until the course of soil improvement and subsequent
construction.
2.1.3.2 Evidences
Borehole Location Map
16
Final Borehole Log and Summary of Test
17
2 DATA INPUTS
18
2.2.1 Description and Classification of Structure
The Four-storey Fire Station has a dimension of 16m by 15m, it has floor area of 240 square meters and a total floor
area of 960 square meters. The height of the first floor is 3.5m. The height of second to fourth floor is 3m. The total
height of the structure is 13m including the parafet wall at roof deck. The Fire station is equiped with different rooms
and facilities such as office for the staff, conference room, training room, fitness gym, dormitory, storage and archive.
The fire station is categorized as Essential Facility in chapter 2, section 208 of National Structural Code of the
Philippines 2015
Figure 2.2: STAAD Pro V8i Geometric Model
Function Quantity
Fire Truck Garage 2 units
Toilet and Bathroom 8 units
Storage Room 6 units
Conference Room 1 unit
Office 1 unit
Dormitory 12 units
Locker Room 1 unit
Kitchen and Canteen 1 unit
Training Room 1 unit
Fitness Gym 1 unit
Total 34 units
Table 2-2. Room Classification with Corresponding Area
19
Floor Function Area Unit
Ground Floor Fire Truck Garage 1 50 m2
Ground Floor Fire Truck Garage 2 50 m2
Ground Floor Toilet and Bathroom 10 m2
Ground Floor Storage and Facility 20 m2
Ground Floor Guard’s desk/ Lobby 20 m2
Second Floor Archive And storage 20 m2
Second Floor Staff and office Room 50 m2
Second Floor Conference Room 50 m2
Second Floor Lobby 20 m2
Second Floor Toilet and Bathroom 10 m2
Staff Room with locker
Third Floor area 60 m2
Toilet and Bathroom with
Third Floor Shower Area 20 m2
Third Floor Kitchen and Canteen 50
Third Floor Lounge 20 m2
Fourth Floor Storage 20 m2
Training and Discussion
Fourth Floor room 50 m2
Fourth Floor Toilet and Bathroom 10 m2
Fourth Floor Fitness Gym Area 50 m2
Fourth Floor Lobby/lounge 20 m2
2.2.2 Architectural Plans
As for the design of the foor-storey fire station building, the designer exceed the minimum sizes of the rooms but
some are considered to the minimum to maximize the lot provided for the building.
20
Figure 2.3. Ground Floor Plan
Figure 2.4: 2nd Floor
21
Figure 2.5: 3rd Floor Plan
Figure 2.6: 4th Floor Plan
22
Figure 2.7:. Front Elevation
Figure 2.8: Rear Elevation
23
Figure 2.9:. Left Side Elevation
Figure 2.10: Right Side Elevation
24
2.2.3 Design Loads
Using the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP 2015) the Fire Station is considered as a
essential facility with regards to occupancy category.
2.2.1.1 Dead Loads

Below are the components and minimum design load of each component for each function of the said room
descriptions based on section 204 of chapter 2 in the code it consists of the weight of all materials to be used in the
construction of the structure.
Components ( 1st to 5th floor) Design Load (KPa)

Ceilings
SUSPENDED STEEL W/12mm GYPSUM BOARD 0.05
Floor Fills
Lightweight Concrete, per mm 0.015
Floor and Floor Finishes
Cement Finish (25MM) on stone concrete fill 1.53
Frame Partitions
Wood or Steel studs, 13 mm gypsum board each side 0.38
Frame Walls
Ext. Stud walls, 50x100 @ 400mm, 15mm gypsum, insulated,10 mm 0.53
siding
Windows, Glass, Frame and Sash 0.38
Concrete Masonry Unit
Exterior CHB Wall, 200mm, Full Grout 3.32
Interior CHB Wall, 150mm, Full Grout 3.45
Wall covering
Cement Tile 0.77
Wall covering
Waterproofing Membrane: Bituminous smooth surface 0.07
Suspended Steel Channel 0.1
Mechanical Duct Allowance 0.2
Total Dead Load 9.87
Table 2.1 Minimum Design Loads for Ceiling, Floors and Walls
Materials Density (KN/m³)

Aluminum 26.7
Gravel 16.3
Table 2.2: Other Minimum Design Loads
2.2.1.2 Live Loads

The maximum live loads expected by the intended use or occupancy based on section 205 of the code. Below are
the occupancy descriptions and the equivalent design live loads in KPa:
Use or Occupancy Description Design Load (KPa)

25
Lobbies and ground floor Corridors 2.4
Business processing offices 2.9
Dining Area/ Pantry 2.4
Office use 2.4
Computer Use 2.4
Storage(Light) 3.8
Table 2.3: Minimum Design Live Loads
2.2.1.3 Seismic load parameter

The seismic load parameters were obtained with the geographical data and were based on chapter 2, section 208 of
the code.
Figure 2.2: Nearest active fault trace

Source: http://faultfinder.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/
Parameters
Importance Factor 1.5
Soil Profile Type Stiff Soil, Sd
Seismic Zone ZONE 4: Z=0.4
Seismic source type A
Near Source Factor (Na) 1.2
Near Source Factor (Nv) 1.6
Seismic Coefficient (Ca) 0.44Na = 0.53
Seismic Coefficient (Cv) 0.64 Nv = 1.02
R (Special Reinforced Concrete Moment 8.5
Frame)
Structure Period (T) 0.58
Numerical Coefficient (Ct) .0731
R (Intermediate Reinforced Concrete Moment 5.5
Frame)
26
Structure Period (T) .39
R (Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Moment 3.5
Frame)
Structure Period (T) .39
Table 2.4: Seismic Load Parameter
2.2.1.4 Wind Parameters

The wind load parameters were based on the NSCP 2010 and it was determined through the location of the
proposed structure. As stated on the code, buildings and other vertical structures shall be designed and constructed
to resist wind loads as specified and presented in chapter 2 section 207 of the code.
Parameters
Basic Wind Speed 200 kph
Wind Directionality Factor, Kd 0.85
Exposure Category B
Topographic Factor, Kzt 1
Building Classification Category III
Structure Type Building Structure
Enclosure Classification Enclosed Building
Internal Pressure Coefficient, GCpi -0.55, +0.55
Importance Factor 1
Table 2.5: Wind Parameter
2.3 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES
2.3.1 Local Literature and Studies
27
Unrelenting effects of natural disasters: earthquakes, storm surges, typhoons on different structures
According to O. Ace (2018), recent history has seen the unrelenting effects of natural disasters—earthquakes, storm
surges, typhoons—on different structures. Among these structures are schools, government office buildings, and
homes. Many have been reinforced, renovated, or rebuilt following these disasters. Most structures, particularly in the
Philippines, are designed using the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP), with which a set of minimum
requirements (e.g., strength, stiffness, connections, etc.) based on the structural loads expected throughout the
building’s lifetime. However, with the increasing frequency of natural disasters—particularly typhoons—which are
unusually large loads these structures will have to carry; one may not have a clear expectation of the performance of
these code-designed buildings. These structures may underperform or be overdesigned. Building back better, more
resilient structures requires one to gain insight on what specifically causes them to fail, how likely these specific
causes are to happen, and ultimately what the consequences of these failures are. Once this information is available,
the weaknesses in these designs may then be better addressed. The objective of the paper is to be able to quantify
the performance of the different structures in order to see the relative influence of changes made in the different
design variables. Understanding the different factors that affect how a structure performs against a hazard will allow
better insight into how to design new structures that are more resilient.
Source: Ace, O. (2018). unrelenting effects of natural disasters—earthquakes, storm surges, typhoons—on different
structures. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877705818300808.
Risk Analysis of Three-storey Reinforced Concrete Moment resisting Frame Structures Using Performance-
based Wind Engineering
Throughout the different levels of analyses conducted, it is evident that, generally, performance of the structures was
influenced by modifications made in the roof pitch. This is due to the larger surface area roof cover has compared to
the total window surface area in any one of the structures. This is also consistent with what is observed in numerous
studies on wind engineering, where severe wind damage follows a progressive, top to bottom trend. Modifying the
building aspect ratio however had a greater effect on window damage, where more slender structures incurred more
damage. Regarding hazard characterization: the Gumbel distribution function used in this study generally shows a
good fit except for extreme wind speeds, which was evident in the Gumbel plot generated, where data points for
higher wind speeds had larger deviations from the trend line. The test of other distribution functions to describe
severe wind hazard is recommended. Investigating more design components, damage indicators, and types of
structures is recommended to get clearer expectations of performance. This will allow for better insight into the
weaknesses and even strengths of current designs, thus allowing designers to help in building back more resilient
structures.
Source: Olivas, A. (2017). Risk Analysis of Three-storey Reinforced Concrete Moment resisting Frame Structures
Using Performance-based Wind Engineering. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/CM_ENGINEER3/ Downloads/Risk
28
%20Analysis%20of%20Three-storey%20Reinforced%20Concrete%20Moment-resisting%20Frame%20Structures
%20Using%20Performance-based%20Wind%20Engineering.PDF
Life cycle analysis of structural systems of residential housing units in the Philippines
In designing a house, or any structure, there are three things commonly considered by the structural engineer; these
are represented in the safety–serviceability–cost triangle. Safety and serviceability ensure that the structure can fulfill
its intended purpose by satisfying code requirements on strength, ductility, and deflections. Addressing economy, on
the other hand, requires value engineering to produce an optimum design with reasonable cost. However, the triangle
is increasingly found to be incomplete. There is the question of environmental impacts the structure may bear on
society. But what parameter may be used to guide structural designers to make their structures “greener”? This paper
proposes the use of a “Structural Sustainability Index (SSI)”, a single-score based on the Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA) framework. The SSI was derived from five environmental impacts, whose respective weights were determined
from a survey of Civil engineering professionals. The impacts and their weights are: Global Warming Potential (36%),
Ocean Acidification (10%), Human Toxicity (12%), Abiotic Materal Depletion (16%), and Energy Use (26%). The
concept was applied to low-cost housing units in the Philippines. Four models with approximately 60 sq.m. floor area
were investigated. structural systems of these houses are conventional reinforced concrete, modular block system, I
beam, and modified system. Among the four, the I beam house incurred the lowest SSI of 0.682 while the
conventional had the greatest at 0.986. The I beam, however, was found to have the largest contribution in abiotic
material depletion due to heavy steel usage. This could be lessened through recycling of steel, as the manufacturing
stage was found to contribute the most damage. Significant improvements were made in all impact categories when
converting from a conventional to a modified system using T-joists and wall stiffeners, for a total of 9.87% decrease in
SSI. Costs likewise decreased. With the SSI and LCA framework, sustainability concerns can be quantified by
structural engineers and significant improvements can be made in designing.
Source: Arcilla, N.R., Ong, J.K. (2013). Life cycle analysis of structural systems of residential housing units in the
Philippines. Retrieved from https://www.dlsu.edu.ph/colleges/gcoe/academic-departments/civil-engineering/thesis-
archive/life-cycle-analysis-of-structural-systems-of-residential-housing-units-in-the-philippines-2013/
Structural Assessment of the Three-Storey Engineering Building at Laguna State Polytechnic University, Sta.
Cruz Campus
Structural Assessment is a process to analyze a structural system in order to predict the responses of the real
structure under the excitation of expected loading and external environment during the service life of the structure.
This allows the calculation of the forces and deformations of the various structural components. A well designed
structure will be able to resist all loadings besides the static loads design. Dynamic loads such as wind load and
seismic response also needs to be considered into structural design. Structural assessment can be initiated, when
there has been a change in resistance such as structural deterioration due to time-depending processes like
corrosion and fatigue or structural damage by accidental actions. Also, when there will be a change in loading,
29
increase in lateral loads for example, or an extension of the design working life. Assessment can also be carried out
to analyze the current structural reliability for environmental hazards like earthquake or extreme winds and waves.
Ehiorobo, J.O., Izinyon O.C. and Ogirigbo, R.O. (2013). Structural Assessment of the Three-Storey Engineering
Building at Laguna State Polytechnic University, Sta. Cruz Campus. Retrieved from
https://prezi.com/4aprlyny9_eu/structural/
A Dual-Sided Harped Turnbuckle External Post-Tensioning (T-EPT) For Retrofitting Reinforced Concrete
Beams
Deterioration of reinforced concrete structure is inevitable with the passing of time. Its structural members will
eventually weaken due to long term exposure to environmental factors. Consequently, deflection can occur
specifically in reinforced concrete (RC) beams, compromising the strength and serviceability of the structure. Thus,
retrofitting is performed to strengthen these deteriorated members. As a continuation of a study that focused on
retrofitting RC beams using turnbuckle type of external post-tensioning (T-EPT), this research is aimed to establish
an improved design of the setup in terms of practicality and efficiency. This is attained by adopting a double-sided T-
EPT resulting to a smaller and lighter T-EPT frame system. The setup consisted of two M16 turnbuckles that were
used to prestress the steel cables attached to a smaller steel frame. In addition, the anchorage was adjusted into a
horizontal orientation for easier application. Results from the experimental tests demonstrated an increase in the
effectiveness of T-EPT specifically in increasing the load capacity of the beam and decreasing the deflection. The
average increase in load capacity and the average decrease in deflection were 38.65% and 43.18%, respectively.
Furthermore, it was determined that the jacking force generated from the T-EPT on each beam ranged from 29 to 32
kN. The results showed that this is sufficient to significantly increase the strength of the RC beam.
Source: Lejano, B., Ferrer, C., Lee, M., Lopez, J., and Soriano, T. (2017). A Dual-Sided Harped Turnbuckle External
Post-Tensioning (T-EPT) For Retrofitting Reinforced Concrete Beams. Retrieved from https://www.dlsu.edu.ph/wp-
content/uploads/pdf/conferences/research-congress-proceedings/2017/SEE/SEE-I-002.pdf
2.3.2 Foreign Literature and Studies
Comparative Study of OMRF and SMRF
According to the comparative study of G.V.S SivaPrasad and S. Adiseshu, the objective of their study to analyze the
seismic behavior of Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF) and Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame (OMRF) in the
scenario of five-storey, ten-storey, fifteen-storey and twenty-storey reinforced concrete structure located at seismic
zone II. The standards used by the researchers were under IS 1893:2000 and IS 456:2000. The design was also
composed of alternate shear wall in the structural frame. Furthermore, with the progress of the new method that the
designers used and the evaluation and analysis of shear wall system and the serviceability done by the researchers,
the engineers who are able to do the same method as it was stated by the designers, will be able to select the most
30
economic system resulting in safety of the structure planning to built. Due to the intensive comparative study done by
the researchers, they found that SMRF system was cost effective and resisting to high rise structures.
Source: SivaPrasad, G.V.S. and Adiseshu, S (2013). Comparative Study of OMRF and SMRF. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.679.5320&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Damage-control Seismic Design of Moment resisting RC Frame Buildings
H. Jiang, B. Fu and L. Chen proposed a new seismic design for directly and efficiently controlling damage to
structural and non-structural components of moment resisting reinforced concrete building. Using their proposed
design method for a typical six-storey moment resisting RC frame building under the standard of Chinese Seismic
Design Code. The seismic performance of the structure was evaluated under different levels of earthquake
intensity/magnitude by conducting a non-linear time history analysis. The results showed that the pre-determined
seismic performance objectives as design with their proposed method can be achieved resulting in great efficiency.
Source: Jiang, H., Fu, B. and Chen, L. (2013). Damage-control Seismic Design of Moment resisting RC Frame
Buildings. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3130/jaabe.12.49
A Study of the Various Structural Framing Systems Subjected to Seismic Loads
According to the study of Abhyuday Titiksh (2015), in seismic behavior of the structure having various structural
configurations like OMRCF (Ordinary Moment Resisting Concrete Frames), SMRCF (Special Moment Resisting
Frames) and BSF (Braced Steel Frames). A comparative study of all the types of frames will shed light on the best
suited frame to be adopted for seismic loads in Indian scenario. For this purpose, a G+4 building was designed for
OMRCF, SMRCF and BSF framing configurations in Seismic Zone V according to Indian codes. Tests were carried
out to evaluate their structural efficiencies in terms of storey drifts, Base shear, amount of reinforcement etc. Moment
frames have been widely used for seismic resisting systems due to their superior deformation and energy dissipation
capacities. A moment frame consists of beams and columns, which are rigidly connected. The components of a
moment frame should resist both gravity and lateral load. Lateral forces are distributed according to the flexural
rigidity of each component.
Source: Titiksh, A. (2015). A Study of the Various Structural Framing Systems Subjected to Seismic Loads. Retrieved
from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283266570_A_Study_of_the_Various_Structural_Framing_Systems_Subje
cted_to_Seismic_Loads
Regularity and optimization practice in structural frames in real design cases
According Dunant, A., Drewniok, M., Eleftheriadis, S., Cullen., J and Allywood, J. (2018), they could confirm the
principal finding that about 35–45% of the steel by mass of the load-bearing frame is not required in terms of
structural efficiency. However, only part of this is over-design, as the cores, trimmers, and ties representing 6% of the
total mass are necessary for the stability of structures and are mandated by the codes, and a further 3% of the mass
31
is underused in secondary edge beams whose design is frequently constrained by the available space. Nonetheless,
these beams are still oversized in many cases: in general, the smallest available section should be used. The original
study had suggested that rationalization, was a likely culprit for the overdesign. This could show that this was likely
not the case. The remainder of the underutilization can be explained by the design practice of the engineers. To
guard against changes during the project, the engineers seem very reluctant to design beams with ur beyond 0.8. In
effect, this results in at least 20% of the mass of steel frames which is not necessary for the purpose of safety or
service. Small changes in the design target could create important material savings at no cost. For this to be
practical, one should assess how often the defensive design practice prevented re-designs. There is probably an
opportunity, before sending the plans to the fabricator, to perform a round of optimization. If the model structure is
already coded in a computer aided design tool, this operation should not be onerous. Nonetheless, there may be little
incentive to do this after the tender depending on the form of the tender. Thus, design and build contracts may offer
more scope for optimizing designs. Their study shows that further improvement in the design of steel frames should
come from more elaborate strategies, in particular taking into account the design of connections when choosing the
sections or designing composite deckings. Such a strategy would allow the selection of thinner sections without
otherwise changing the design practice.
Source: Dunant, A., Drewniok, M., Eleftheriadis, S., Cullen., J and Allywood, J. (2018). Regularity and optimization
practice in steel structural frames in real design cases. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921344918300090
Experimental study of light gauge steel framing floor systems under fire conditions
Cold-formed steel members can be assembled in various combinations to provide cost-efficient and safe light gauge
floor systems for buildings. Such light gauge steel framing floor systems are widely accepted in industrial and
commercial building construction. Light gauge steel framing floor systems must be designed to serve as fire
compartment boundaries and provide adequate fire resistance. Floor assemblies with higher fire resistance rating are
needed to develop resilient building systems for extreme fire events. Recently, a new composite panel system based
on external insulation has been developed for light gauge steel framing floors to provide higher fire resistance rating
under fire conditions. This article presents the details of an experimental investigation of light gauge steel framing
floors made of both the conventional (with and without cavity insulation) and the new composite panel systems under
standard fires. Analysis of the fire test results showed that the thermal and structural performance of externally
insulated light gauge steel framing floor system was superior than conventional light gauge steel framing floors with
or without cavity insulation. Details of the experimental results including the temperature and deflection profiles
measured during the tests are presented along with the joist failure modes. Such fire performance data can be used
in the numerical modelling of light gauge steel framing floor systems to further improve the understanding of their fire
behaviour and to develop suitable fire design rules.
32
Source: Baleshan, B. and Mahendran, M. (2016). Experimental study of light gauge steel framing floor systems
under fire conditions. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1369433216653508
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, TRADEOFFS AND STANDARDS
3.1 DESIGN CONSTRAINTS
Constraints are the factors or hindrance affects the design or refers to some limitations under the desire
project to be constructed or developed. In the design of the project, it is important to consider the different effects of
the design constraints and limitations to the structure. Constraint is defined as the limiting condition that may affect
the design and construction of the project. Construction projects have a specific set of objectives and constraints
such as a required time frame for completion. The following were considered to have relevant impact on the design of
the Fire Station building.
3.1.1 Economic Constraints (Cost)
In designing, budget of the client is the common concern that is why Economic is the basic constraint in a project.
Without the investment of the client, the whole project is affected from planning and conceptualizing up to the
construction phase. Thus, the most economical among the trade-offs namely Special Moment Resisting Frame
(SMRF), Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame and Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls (Dual System) are the
choices that the designer might choose.
3.1.2 Constructability Constraints (Construction Duration)
The duration of construction plays a vital role for both the designer and for the client. The client preferably wants a
shorter time for the construction because it saves more time and financial benefits that are favor for both parties. The
design of the structural elements should not compromise the required strength due to the client’s desirable choice. In
constructing a building, estimating of the number of workers or laborers, equipment needed and materials to be used
are considered because how the project be built without of this three. In this constraint, the time also considered
because the delaying of the project for some problems maybe technical or any problem. If the project will not reach
the desired time to finish the project it will cause the project to spend more money to finish.
3.1.3 Serviceability Constraints
Safety is taken into consideration since most of the time in designing for accidents cannot be avoided. Upon the
evaluation of the designer, the constraint is based on the deflection to prevent structural damage caused by loads.
Considering the safety of the workers and the future occupants illustrates the quality of the project and quality of the
designer as an engineer without sacrificing the risks of the occupants in the future. And this also engaged with the
cost because the less deflection the less cost to be construct vise-versa, but the large beam can carry heavy loads
33
compare to small beam. But the designer must be considered the safety of the of the users and how it takes over a
period of time to be stable.
3.1.4 Sustainability (Life Span)
Considering different factors affecting the final design of the project, the life span of each moment resisting frame
system incorporated in the residential apartment building will determine if the project is sustainable or not. The
designer’s final design recommendation will be chosen by the client because of the satisfaction from the longer life
span of the building. Correspondingly, the longer the life span, the favorable it is for the designer and for the client
3.2 TRADEOFFS
To address these multiple constraints, the designers came up with two specialization of trade-offs; Structural
Enginand Geo-technical. There are three alternatives for each specialization that were chosen by the designer to
satisfy the constraints and also, this will help the client to decide for the best option that will be using for the design.
The designer chose the following tradeoffs.
3.2.1 Structural Engineering Context (Moment Resisting Frame)
A moment frame is a special type of frame that uses rigid connections between each of its constituent members. This
configuration is able to resist lateral and overturning forces because of the bending moment and shear strength that
is inherent in its members and the connecting joints. Therefore, the stiffness and strength of the moment frame in
seismic design depends on the stiffness and strength of its members.
3.2.1.2 Special Reinforced Concrete Moment Frame (SMRF)

The Special Moment-Resisting Frame System (SMRF) is a type of frame system detailed to provide ductile
behavior and comply with requirements in Chapter 4 or 5 of National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP).
The ductile behavior is the response to stress of concrete material which undergoes permanent deformation
without fracturing. Also, ductile behavior of concrete is enhanced in high confining pressures are combined with
high temperatures and low rates of strain. Special Moment Resisting Frames are designed so that beams,
columns, and beam-column joints in moment frames are proportioned and detailed to resist flexural, axial, and
shearing actions that result as a building sways through multiple displacement cycles during strong earthquake
ground shaking.
34
Figure 3.1: Special Moment Resisting Concrete Frame
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Reinforcement-details-for-columns_fig1_270393949
Advantages Disadvantages
 Shear failure can be avoided through use of a  Higher Cost compared to other framing
capacity-design approach system
 It can avoid anchorage or splice failure  Splices in special moment frame columns also
 It can attain the design of a strong column and can be critical to system performance. It is
weak beam frame because if columns provide important to note that, in many cases, the
a stiff and strong spine over the building primary demand on steel special moment
height, drift will be more uniformly distributed frame columns is flexure, or flexure combined
and localized damage will be reduced with axial tension, rather than axial
 Plain concrete has relatively small usable
compression. In effect, these columns act as
compressive strain capacity (around 0.003),
“vertical beams” rather than classical columns.
and this might limit the deformability of beams  Proper detailing of the welds between the
and columns of special moment frames. doubler plates and the column web, column
flanges, and/or continuity plates is needed to
ensure that force transfers through this highly
stressed region can be achieved
Table 3.1: Advantages Disadvantages of SMRF
Source: https://www.nehrp.gov/pdf/nistgcr9-917-3.pdf
3.2.1.2 Intermediate Reinforced Concrete Moment Frame (IMRF)

A concrete moment resisting frame designed in accordance with Sec 8.3.10
35
Figure 3.2: Intermediate Moment Resisting Concrete Frame
 IMRCF column specimens had strength larger  intermediate reinforced concrete moment
than that required by ACI 318, and they had resisting frames and intermediate with joists
drift capacities greater than 4.5% block beam factors such as the increase of the
floors, the increase of span length and poor
soil will lead to increase of structural cost
 increase of concrete strength even with
relative decrease of structural weight will lead
to increase of structural construction cost.
Table 3.2: Advantages Disadvantages of IMRF
Source:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287223306_Optimal_Design_of_Intermediate_Reinforced_Concrete_Mome
nt_Resisting_Frames_with_Shear_Walls_for_Different_Arrangements_of_Columns
3.2.1.3 Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Moment Frame (OMRF)

The Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frame System (OMRF) is a type of frame system not meeting special
detailing requirements for ductile behavior under National Code of the Philippines (NSCP). OMRF is used in low-
seismic areas and expected to remain elastic through regular conditions. They do not have the rigid standards in
place that a moment frame used in a high seismic region.
36
Figure 3.3: Ordinary Moment Resisting Concrete Frame
 Used in low-seismic areas and expected to  They do not have the rigid standards in place
remain elastic through regular conditions that a moment frame used in a high seismic
 OMRCF column specimens had strength region
larger than that required by ACI 318, and they  It is safer to design a ductile detailing structure
had drift capacities greater than 3.0% than the non-ductile detailing structure
Table 3.3: Advantages Disadvantages of OMRF

Source:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251508673_Seismic_Behaviors_of_Columns_in_Ordinary_and_Intermediat
e_Moment_Resisting_Concrete_Frames
3.2.2 Geotechnical Engineering Context

This field deals with the bearing capacity of soil and defining its strength to resist deformation.
3.2.2.1 Low Mobility Compaction

Low Mobility Compaction injects a low slump or low mobility aggregate grout that densifies and stabilizes subsurface
soils. Compaction grouting raises the friction angle, density, and stiffness of surrounding soils.
Application:
37
 Reduces liquefaction potential
 Decrease settlement
 Increase bearing capacity
Figure 3.4: Low Mobility Compaction

Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=low+mobility+compaction&sxsrf=ACYBGNTqQuMeV6guUAdSnKD-
7dBfqlnwDw:1571353876468&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi89v2staTlAhURat4KHXR2CQoQ_AUI
EigB&biw=1366&bih=657#imgrc=9OdunoeYfbthWM:
 Access difficult and limited spaces, it also offers  .It needs not only experience but needs more
an economical advantage over conventional precise analysis with properties of soil and
approaches. close coordination of the application and
 Changes the treated soils behavioral theory.
characteristics and reduces permeability.
 Labor requirement are minimized, typically it can
be done with 3-5 people (drilling and pumping)
 LMG is flexible because if it’s simple and basic
soil mechanics principles.
Table 3.4: Advantages and Disadvantages of Low Mobility Compaction
Source:http://cigmat.cive.uh.edu/sites/cigmat/files/files/conference/presentation/1999/low-mobility-grouting.pdf
3.2.2.2 Wet Soil Mixing

Wet soil mixing or also known as deep mixing method is a ground improvement technique that uses dry cementitious
binder to create soilcrete that improves high moisture clays and other weak soils by mechanically mixing. It can be
38
used in nearly any soil type, including organics. Stiff soils and obstruction must be pre-drilled ahead of soil mixing
process.
Application
 Increase bearing capacity

 Decrease settlement
 Mitigate liquefaction
 Provide structural support
 Reduce permeability
Figure 3.5: Wet Soil Mixing

Source: https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=608&tbm
=isch&sxsrf=ACYBGNTmSsL3NMIdupemtoFHjGMKX35BFg
%3A1571353878510&sa=1&ei=FvWoXe3jHpP6wQOBsrT4BA&q=wet+soil+mixing&oq=wet+&gs_l=img.1.0.35i39j0i6
7j0l8.13857.15699..16301...0.0..0.199.518.4j1......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i10.-wvkKys8Bhs
 Can be used up to a depth of 30m and by theory  High cost of mobilization
can be used for most subsurface
 Uneconomical for small structure
 Low vibration and noise
 Design verification is subjective

 Reduced in amount of waste materials
39
 Must have in depth investigation of geotechnical
 Economical than remove and replaced report
Table 3.5: Advantages and Disadvantages of Wet Soil Mixing
Source: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/geotechnical-engineering-bureau/geotech-
eng-repository/GDM_Ch-14_Ground%20Improvement.pdf
3.2.2.3 Precompression of Soil

Preloading or pre-compression of soil is a method of placing extra vertical stress on a compressible soil in order to
eliminate pore water for a period of time. Soils that are applicable to use preloading for groundwork improvement are
Organic silt, Varved silt and clays, soft clay, and dredged materials. Bearing capacity, slope stability, and degree of
consolidation are to be considered for this design.
Figure 3.6: Precompression of soil

Source: https://www.google.com/search?q=low+mobility+compaction&sxsrf=ACYBGNTqQuMeV6guUAdSnKD-
7dBfqlnwDw:1571353876468&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi89v2staTlAhURat4KHXR2CQoQ_AUI
EigB&biw=1366&bih=657#imgrc=9OdunoeYfbthWM:
40
 Reduce post- construction  Time dependent
 Reduce secondary compression  Delaying of construction projects makes it not

feasible to use as an alternative
 Settlement
 Improves bearing capacity
Table 4.6: Advantages and Disadvantages of Precompression of Soil
3.2.2 RAW DESIGNERS RANKING
Based on the constraints stated above, three construction methodologies were considered on the structural framing
system to be design to satisfy the requirements of cost, speed of construction, life span and structural safety. Using
the model on trade off strategies in engineering design by Otto and Antonsson (1991), the importance of each
criterion (on scale 1 to 5, 5 with the highest importance) was assigned and each design methodology’s ability to
satisfy the criterion.
Figure 3.7: Ranking Scale
After considering the design constraints, the designers performed an initial evaluation of the two framing system
based on the constraints above and came up with the raw designer’s ranking shown in the table below.
The outcome of the set criterion therefore will constitute the decision of the client and the designers. Above all,
economical, will be given an importance value of 10. Safety or risk assessment will be given an importance value of
9, sustainability constraints will be given an importance value of 8, and lastly, constructability will be given an
importance value of 7
Design Criteria Criterion’s Ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale of 0 to 10)
Special Reinforced Intermediate Ordinary Reinforced
Importance (on a
Concrete Moment Reinforced Concrete Moment
scale of 0 to 10)
Frame Concrete Moment Frame
Frame
41
Economic 10 7 8 9
Safety 9 9 7 6
Sustainability 9 8 7 6
Constructability 8 6 6 5
Overall Rank 257 241 227
Table 3.5: Designer’s Raw Ranking
Cost
Constraint Special Moment Resisting Intermediate Reinforced Ordinary Moment
Frame Concrete Moment Frame Resisting Frame
Economic Php 2,440,595.00 Php 2,616,075.00 Php 3,036,999.00
Constructability 195 days 198 days 202 days
Safety 7.06 mm 9.09 mm 11.26 mm
Sustainability 40% additional lifespan 30% additional life span 15% additional life span
Table 3.6: Initial Estimate Value
Cost Difference of Trade off A and Trade off B
higher value−lower value

% difference= ×10
higher value
2616075−2440595
% difference= × 10
2616075
difference=0.67
Subordinate rank =Governing rank −%difference
Subordinate rank =10−0.67
Subordinate rank =9.33
42
Cost Difference of Trade off B and Trade off C

% difference= ×10
higher value
3036999−2616075
% difference= × 10
3036999
difference=1.39
Cost Difference of Trade off A and Trade off C

% difference= ×10
higher value
3036999−2440595
% difference= × 10
3036999
43
difference=1.39
Duration Difference of Trade off A and Trade off B

% difference= ×10
higher value
198−195
% difference= ×10
198
difference=0.15=1
Subordinate rank =10−1
Subordinate rank =9
Duration Difference of Trade off B and Trade off C
44
% difference= ×10
higher value
202−198
% difference= × 10
202
difference=0.2=1
Subordinate rank =9
Duration Difference of Trade off A and Trade off C

% difference= ×10
higher value
202−195
% difference= × 10
202
difference=0.35=1
Subordinate rank =9
45
Safety Difference of Trade off A and Trade off B

% difference= ×10
higher value
9.09−7.06
% difference= ×10
9.09
difference=2.23=3
Subordinate rank =7
Safety Difference of Trade off B and Trade off c

% difference= ×10
higher value
11.26−9.09
% difference= × 10
11.26
46
difference=1.92=2
Subordinate rank =8
Safety Difference of Trade off A and Trade off C

% difference= ×10
higher value
11.26−7.06
% difference= ×10
11.26
difference=3.73=4
Subordinate rank =6
47
Sustainability Difference of Trade off A and Trade off B

% difference= ×10
higher value
40−30
% difference= ×10
40
difference=2.5=3
Subordinate rank =7
Sustainability Difference of Trade off B and Trade off C

% difference= ×10
higher value
30−15
% difference= ×10
30
difference=5
S ubordinate rank =5
48
Sustainability Difference of Trade off A and Trade off C

% difference= ×10
higher value
40−15
% difference= ×10
40
difference=6.25=7
Subordinate rank =3
Criterion’s Ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale 0

Design Importance to 10)
Criteria (on a scale Low Mobility Wet Soil Preloading
of 0 to 10) Compaction Mixing of Soil

Economic 10
2.6 1.53 2.6
Safety 9
8.45 1.62 1.92
49
Sustainabilit 9
10 8.33 8.33
y
Constructabil 8
9.18 9.41 9.38
ity
Over-all Rank 246 162.39 175.58
Trade-offs Design constraints

GEOTECHNICA Economic Sustainabili Constructabili Safety
L ty ty
Cost (Php) Bearing (Duration - Service life -
SYSTEM capacity(Kpa) days) years
Low Mobility 672.30 per cubic 75

861.8 50
Compaction yard
Wet Soil 2585.78 per

1019.89 50 85
Mixing cubic yard
395.62 per cubic

Preloading of
yard 165.6 60 80
soil
Computation for Ranking of Economic Constraints (LMC vs. WSM)

HigherValue−LowerValue
% difference= x 10
HigherValue
2585.78−672.30
% difference= x 10
2585.78
% difference=7.4
SubordinateRank =GoverningRank− ( % difference )
SubordinateRank =10−7.4
SubordinateRank =2.6
50
Computation for Ranking of Economic Constraint (WSM vs Pre loading)
% difference= x 10 o
HigherValue
2585.78−395.62
% difference= x 10
2585.78
% difference=8.47
SubordinateRank =1.53 ≈ 1
Computation for Ranking of Economic Constraint (Pre loading vs LMC)

% difference= x 10
HigherValue
2585.78−672.30
% difference= x 10
2585.78
% difference=7.4
SubordinateRank =Gove rningRank−( % difference )
51
Computation for Ranking of Sustainability Constraint (LMC vs. WSM)
% difference= x 10
Highe rValue
1019.89−861.8
% difference= x 10
1019.89
% difference=1.55
Computation for Ranking of Sustainability Constraint (WSM vs Preloading)

% difference= x 10
HigherValue
1019.89−165.6
% difference= x 10
1019.89
% difference=8.38
SubordinateRank =1.62 ≈1
52
Computation for Ranking of Sustainability Constraint (Preloading vs LMC)
% difference= x 10
HigherValue
861.8−165.6
% difference= x 10
861.8
% difference=8.08
SubordinateRank =1.92 ≈1
Computation for Ranking of Constructability Constraint (LMC vs WSM)

% difference= x 10
HigherValue
50 days−50 days
% difference= x 10
50 days
% difference=0
SubordinateRank =10
SubordinateRank =10
53
Computation for Ranking of Constructability Constraint (WSM vs Preloading)
% difference= x 10
HigherValue
60 days−50 days
% difference= x 10
60 days
% difference=1.67
Computation for Ranking of Constructability Constraint (Preloading vs LMC)

% difference= x 10
HigherValue
60 days−50 days
% difference= x 10
60 days
% difference=1.67
54
Computation for Ranking of Safety Constraint (LMC vs WSM)
% difference= x 10
HigherValue
85 years−75 years
% difference= x 10
85 years
% difference=.82
SubordinateRank =10−.82
Computation for Ranking of Safety Constraint (WSM vs Preloading)

% difference= x 10
HigherValue
85 years−80 years
% difference= x 10
85 years
% difference=0.59
55
Computation for Ranking of Safety Constraint (Preloading vs LMC)
% difference= x 10
HigherValue
80 years−75 years
% difference= x 10
80 years
% differe nce=0.63
3.2.4 Tradeoffs Assessment
The governing rank is the subjective choice of the designers in appointing the value for the criterion’s importance and
the ability to satisfy the criterion, the designers would subjectively choose any desired value. In this case, economic
constraint was given an importance of five (5). Also, safety constraint was given importance of five (5) for the quality
and integrity of the project. The constructability constraint is given an importance of four (4) since it will be based on
the duration of construction phase. The sustainability constraint is given an importance of (5) since the life span of
the building in different factors arises will determine if the project is sustainable or not.
3.3 DESIGN STANDARDS
The designers come up with the design of the fire station building with accordance to the following codes and
standards:
56
The National Building Code of the Philippines (PD 1096). The National Building Code of the Philippines, also
known as Presidential Decree No. 1096 was formulated and adopted as a uniform building code to embody up-to-
date and modern technical knowledge on building design, construction, use, occupancy and maintenance. The Code
provides for all buildings and structures, a framework of minimum standards and requirements to regulate and control
location, site, design, and quality of materials, construction, use, occupancy, and maintenance.
The National Structural Code of the Philippines. This code provides minimum standards to safeguard life or limb,
property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials pertaining to
the structural aspects of all buildings and structures within its jurisdiction. The provision of this code shall apply to the
construction, alteration, moving, demolition, repair, maintenance and use of any building or structure within its
jurisdiction, except work located primarily in a public way, public utility towers and poles, hydraulic flood control
structures, and indigenous family dwellings.
57
APPENDIX A
Estimates form Chapter 3
Project Name: SMRF
Element : Column
No. Material Unit Quantity Rate (PHP) Cost (PHP)

1 Concrete C25 (cum) 80.64 5053 407473.92
Sub Total 80.64 407473.92
2 Rebar #10 (Fy420) (kg) 3595.22 40.42 145318.7924

3 Rebar #16 (Fy420) (kg) 2424 40.42 97978.08
4 Rebar #19 (Fy420) (kg) 5488 40.42 221824.96
5 Rebar #25 (Fy420) (kg) 5374 40.42 217217.08
Sub Total 16881.22 682338.9124
6 Shuttering (sq.M) 562.56 433.16 243678.4896

Sub Total 243678.4896
Total 1333491.322
Element : Beam

1 Concrete C25 (cum) 20.52 5053 103687.56
Sub Total 20.52 103687.56
2 Rebar #9.5 (Fy420) (kg) 577.19 40.42 23330.0198

3 Rebar #15.9 (Fy420) (kg) 1729.81 40.42 69918.9202
4 Rebar #16 (Fy420) (kg) 35.46 40.42 1433.2932
5 Rebar #19 (Fy420) (kg) 31.74 40.42 1282.9308
6 Rebar #19.1 (Fy420) (kg) 868.95 40.42 35122.959
Sub Total 3243.14 107758.1032
58
7 Shuttering (sq.M) 124.54 433.16 53945.7464
Sub Total 53945.7464
Total 161703.8496
Element : Slab

1 Concrete C20 (cum) 90.25 4693 423543.25
Sub Total 90.25 423543.25
2 Rebar #10 (Fy420) (kg) 11228.9 40.42 453872.138

Sub Total 11228.9 453872.138
3 Shuttering (sq.M) 156.95 433.16 67984.462

Sub Total 67984.462
Total 945399.85
GRAND TOTAL 2440595.022
Project Name: IMRF
Element : Column
Rate
No. Material Unit Quantity Cost (PHP)
(PHP)
1 Concrete C25 (cum) 86.44 5053 436781.32
Sub Total 86.44 436781.32
2 Rebar #10 (Fy420) (kg) 3829.22 40.42 154777.072

3 Rebar #16 (Fy420) (kg) `1010 40.42 40824.2
4 Rebar #19 (Fy420) (kg) 5942 40.42 240175.64
5 Rebar #25 (Fy420) (kg) 9666 40.42 390699.72
Sub Total 19437.22 826476.6324
6 Shuttering (sq.M) 567.26 433.16 245714.342

Sub Total 245714.3416
Total 1508972.294
59
Element : Beam
Rate
(PHP)
1 Concrete C25 (cum) 20.52 5053 103687.56
Sub Total 20.52 103687.56
2 Rebar #9.5 (Fy420) (kg) 577.19 40.42 23330.0198

3 Rebar #15.9 (Fy420) (kg) 1729.81 40.42 69918.9202
4 Rebar #16 (Fy420) (kg) 35.46 40.42 1433.2932
5 Rebar #19 (Fy420) (kg) 31.74 40.42 1282.9308
6 Rebar #19.1 (Fy420) (kg) 868.95 40.42 35122.959
Sub Total 3243.14 107758.1032
7 Shuttering (sq.M) 124.54 433.16 53945.7464

Total 161703.8496
Element : Slab
Rate
(PHP)
1 Concrete C20 (cum) 90.25 4693 423543.25
Sub Total 90.25 423543.25
2 Rebar #10 (Fy420) (kg) 11228.9 40.42 453872.138

Sub Total 11228.9 453872.138
3 Shuttering (sq.M) 156.95 433.16 67984.462

Sub Total 67984.462
Total 945399.85
60
Project Name: OMRF
Element : Column
Rate
(PHP)
1 Concrete C25 (cum) 86.44 5053 436781.32
Sub Total 86.44 407473.92
2 Rebar #10 (Fy420) (kg) 3755.42 40.42 151794.076

3 Rebar #16 (Fy420) (kg) 236 40.42 9539.12
4 Rebar #19 (Fy420) (kg) 1214 40.42 49069.88
5 Rebar #25 (Fy420) (kg) 8714 40.42 352219.88
6 Rebar #29 (Fy420) (kg) 14368 40.42 580754.56
7 Rebar #32 (Fy420) (kg) 3112 40.42 125787.04
Sub Total 31399.42 1269164.556
8 Shuttering (sq.M) 567.26 433.16 245714.342

Sub Total 245714.3416
Total 1922352.818
Element : Beam
Rate
(PHP)
1 Concrete C25 (cum) 21.9564 5053 110945.689
Sub Total 21.9564 110945.6892
2 Rebar #9.5 (Fy420) (kg) 617.5933 40.42 24963.1212

3 Rebar #15.9 (Fy420) (kg) 1850.897 40.42 74813.2446
4 Rebar #16 (Fy420) (kg) 37.9422 40.42 1533.62372
5 Rebar #19 (Fy420) (kg) 33.9618 40.42 1372.73596
6 Rebar #19.1 (Fy420) (kg) 929.7765 40.42 37581.5661
Sub Total 3470.171 115301.1704
7 Shuttering (sq.M) 124.54 433.16 53945.7464

Total 169246.9168
Element : Slab
61
Rate
(PHP)
1 Concrete C20 (cum) 90.25 4693 423543.25
Sub Total 90.25 423543.25
2 Rebar #10 (Fy420) (kg) 11238.65 40.42 454266.233

Sub Total 11238.65 453872.138
3 Shuttering (sq.M) 156.95 433.16 67984.462

Sub Total 67984.462
Total 945399.85
APPENDIX B
Deflection Calculation:
1 Get the Modulus of Rupture, fr

f r=0.62 √ f ' c
f r=0.62 √ 28
f r=3.281 MPa
2 Compute for the Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete, Ec

Ec =4700 √ f ' c Ec =4700 √28
Ec =24870.062 MPa
Es
n=
Ec
62
200000
n=
24870.062
n=8.042
3 Compute for the Moment of Inertia of gross section, Ig

bh3
I g=
12
3
400( 400)
I g=
12
I g=2.13(10)9 mm 4
4 Get the Cracked Moment of Inertia, Mcr

f r Ig
M cr =
yt
3.281(2.13 (10)9 )
M cr =
200
M cr =34.943 kN−m
5 Location of neutral axis
by ( 2y )=n A ( d− y )
s 250 ( y ) ( 2y )=8.042 ( 196 π )( 340− y ) y=137.542 mm
by 3 2
I cr= + nAs ( d− y )
3
3
250(137.542) 2
I cr= +8.042(196 π x 4) (340−137.542 )
3
9 4
I cr=1.028 (10) mm
Mcr
Ma
¿
¿
Ie=¿
63
34.943
194.549
¿
¿
Ie=¿
Ie=1.03(10)9 mm4
4
5w L
δ act=
384 E c I e
5(10.72) ( 6000 )4
δ act=
384 (24870.062)(1.03(10)9 )
δ act=7.06 mm−SMRF
1) Get the Modulus of Rupture, fr

f r=0.62 √ f ' c
f r=0.62 √ 28
f r=3.281 MPa
2) Compute for the Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete, Ec

Ec =4700 √ f ' c Ec =4700 √28
Ec =24870.062 MPa
Es
n=
Ec
200000
n=
24870.062
n=8.042
3) Compute for the Moment of Inertia of gross section, Ig

bh3
I g=
12
64
3
400( 400)
I g=
12
I g=2.13(10)9 mm 4
4) Get the Cracked Moment of Inertia, Mcr

f r Ig
M cr =
yt
3.281(2.13 (10)9 )
M cr =
200
M cr =34.943 kN−m
5) Location of neutral axis
by ( 2y )+(2 n−1)( As ' )( y−d ')=n A ( d− y )

s
250 ( y ) ( 2y )+(2(8.042)−1)(367.861)( y−60)=8.042 ( 196 π )( 340− y )

y=175.782 mm
by 3 ( 2
I cr= + 2n−1 ) ( A s ' ) ( y −d ' ) +nAs ( d− y )
3
250(175.782)3 2
I cr= (2(8.042)−1)(367.861)(175.782−60)2+ 8.042(196 π x 4) ( 340−137.542 )
3
I cr=3.397 (10)8 mm 4
Mcr
Ma
¿
¿
Ie=¿
65
34.943
299.276
¿
¿
Ie=¿
Ie=3.392(10)8 m m4
4
5w L
δ act=
384 E c I e
5(10.72) ( 6000 ) 4
δ act=
384 (24870.062)(3.392(10)8 )
δ act=9.09 mm−IMRF
1) Get the Modulus of Rupture, fr

f r=0.62 √ f ' c
f r=0.62 √ 28
f r=3.281 MPa
2) Compute for the Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete, Ec

Ec =4700 √ f ' c Ec =4700 √28
Ec =24870.062 MPa
Es
n=
Ec
200000
n=
24870.062
n=8.042
3) Compute for the Moment of Inertia of gross section, Ig

bh3
I g=
12
66
3
400( 400)
I g=
12
I g=2.13(10)9 mm 4
4) Get the Cracked Moment of Inertia, Mcr

f r Ig
M cr =
yt
3.281(2.13 (10)9 )
M cr =
200
M cr =34.943 kN−m
5) Location of neutral axis
by ( 2y )+(2 n−1)( As ' )( y−d ')=n A ( d− y )

s
250 ( y ) ( 2y )+(2(8.042)−1)(1293.617)( y−60)=8.042 ( 3163.617) ( 340− y )

y=153.202 mm
3
by ( 2
I cr= + 2n−1 ) ( A s ' ) ( y −d ' ) +nAs ( d− y )
3
3
250(153.202) 2
I cr= (2(8.042)−1)(367.861)(153.202−60)2+ 8.042(196 π x 4) ( 340−153.202 )
3
I cr=9.987(10)8 mm4
Mcr
Ma
¿
¿
Ie=¿
67
34.943
468.835
¿
¿
Ie=¿
Ie=9.875(10)8 mm4
4
5w L
δ act=
384 E c I e
5(10.72) (6000 )4
δ act=
384 (24870.062)(9.875(10)8)
δ act=11.26 mm−OMRF
APPENDIX C
All leters made to get the data
68
TECHNOLOGICAL
INSTITUTE OF THE
69
PHILIPPINES
July 8, 2019
ENGR. PROSPERO CABORNAY
CE Faculty Member
Technological Institute of the Philippines
938 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City
Dear Engr. Cabornay,
This is to introduce KRISTIAN REY C. BALAGOT, CHRISTIAN C. CO and RENDEL MARK DM. GONZALES
are the 5th year Civil Engineering students of Technological Institute of the Philippines (T.I.P) at Quezon City.
Our culminating design requirement is a project in the field of Structural Engineering. The proposed design
entitles
“PROPOSED DESIGN OF FOUR-STOREY FIRE STATION IN COGEO, ANTIPOLO CITY”. We respectfully

approach you for being our Internal Adviser for our Capstone Design 1.
We are hoping for your response for this matter. Have a nice day and God bless you always.
Very yours truly,
RENDEL MARK DM. GONZALES
Group Representativ
Noted:
ENGR. CAROL GRACE ALCID
Capstone Design 1 Instructor
Endorsed:
Engr. Allan B. Benogsudan
Program Chair, Civil Engineering Department
Dr. Jesusa N. Padilla
Dean, College of Engineering and Architecture
APPENDIX D
Self and Peer Evaluation of Group Project
70
Please assess the work of you and your colleagues by using the following criteria. We will consider your
feedback in assigning the grade for the project. Please try to be as honest and fair as possible in your
assessment.
5 = Excellent work; was crucial component to group’s success
4 = Very strong work; contributed significantly to group

3 = Sufficient effort; contributed adequately to group
2 = Insufficient effort; met minimal standards of group
1 = Little or weak effort; was detrimental to group
2
SELF Evaluation (Name: Gonzales, Rendel Mark DM.):
__5__ Participation in developing ideas and planning project
__5__ Willingness to discuss the ideas of others
__4__ Cooperation with other group members
__4__ Interest and enthusiasm in project
__4__ Participation in leading/facilitating discussion
__4__ Ease and familiarity with discussion material
PEER Evaluation (Partner 1: Co, Christian C.):
71
PEER Evaluation (Partner 2: Balagot, Kristian Rey C.):
Self-Reflection
What did you learn from the experience?
 Teamwork
 Professionalism
 Self Confidence
 Time Management and Organization
What do you think went well?
The teamwork of the group went well since everyone did cooperate and contribute for the project.
RENDEL MARK GONZALES
Phone: 09666971343
Email: rmdmgonzalesoriginal@gmail.com
Address: Matalino Street, Sitio Tagumpay Brgy. Bagong Nayon Antipolo City
Birthday: December 27, 1998
CAREER OBJECTIVE
Seeking a challenging career with a progressive organization that provides an opportunity to capitalize my skills &
abilities.
TECHNICAL SKILL
Microsoft Office (MS Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Internet, etc)
Editing Video skills
SEMINARS AND TRAININGS ATTENDED

Career Path Talk Seminar
TIPQC Seminar Rooms A & B
Feb 28, 2018
PERSONAL SKILLS
Excellent in critical thinking skills
Hardworking
Highly organized and efficient
Ability to work independently or as part of a team
EDUCATION
Antipolo National High School (2010 - 2015)
Sta. Cruz Elementary School (2004 - 2010)
ACHIEVEMENTS/RESPONSIBILITIES
Quizzer (high school)
Best in Class (high school)
Honorable Mention (both high school and elementary)
Best in thesis (high school)
Kristian Rey Cinco Balagot

Blk 53 L14 Kaibigan St. Manggahan, Pasig City
09076847420
kristianreybalagot@yahoo.com
OBJECTIVE: To be an expert in my area of work, with a passion for challenges, innovation
and working with people and communities. seeking a role, where I will be able to apply my
skills, work experience in the development of advanced applications by making a difference
through quality, with strict adherence in achieving the organizational goals as quickly as
possible.
PERSONAL DATA
Date of Birth: August 4, 1998 Place of Birth: Bauang, La
Union
Age: 19 Civil Status: Single
Religion: Christian Gender: Male
Father’s Name: Raul Balagot Mother’s Name: Ma. Theresa
Balagot
EDUCATION
LEVEL SCHOOL INCLUSIVE
DATES
Tertiary BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING 2015-present

Technological Institute of the Philippines
938 Aurora Blvd. Cubao, Quezon City
High School San Pablo Colleges 2010-2015

Hermanos Belen Street, San Pablo City, Laguna
Elementary Bagong Bayan Elementary School 2004-2010

Sampaguita Street, San Pablo City, Laguna
KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ATTITUTED
Studying in TIP with its orientation towards outcome-based education, I have acquired and can
demonstrate the following student acquire outcomes (knowledge, skills and attitudes) necessary
to the practice of the computing profession:
 Analyze complex problems and identify and define the computing requirements
appropriate for the solution.
 Handling several tasks simultaneously
 Prioritize work in a fast-paced environment
• Efficient in communication using English and Tagalog language
• Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop
• Dependable
EXTRA CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES
 Humanities and Social Science Society (HSSS) Member

S.Y. 2015-2017
 Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers (PICE) Member
S.Y. 2017-2018
 Abstract Combination with Emotional Quotient (ACE Q) Member
S.Y. 2015-2017
CHRISTIAN CO
Phone: 09995616640
Email: phoebealexaco023@gmail.com
Address: 28 Corumi Street, Masambong Quezon City
Birthday: December 12, 1998
CAREER OBJECTIVE
Seeking a challenging career with a progressive organization that provides an opportunity to capitalize my skills &
abilities.
TECHNICAL SKILLS
Video Editing
Microsoft Office (MS Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Internet, etc)
PERSONAL SKILLS
Excellent in critical thinking skills
Hardworking
Highly organized and efficient
Ability to work independently or as part of a team
EDUCATION
Perpetual Help Learning Academy of Quezon City (2010 - 2015)
San Francisco Elementary School (2004 - 2010)
ACHIEVEMENTS/RESPONSIBILITIES
Dean’s Lister
Honorable Mention (both high school and elementary)
Best in thesis (high school)

Print 1 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Print 1 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Print 1 1 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

Figure 1.2: Street view of Marikina-Infanta Highway, Antipolo City

1.3 THE CLIENT

1.3.1 Client’s Specification

1.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

1.4.1 General Objectives

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATION

1.5.1 Scope of the Project

The following are the scope covered by the design project:

1.5.2 Limitation of the Project

The following are the limitation of the design project:

Figure 1.3: Perspective view of the building

1.7 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

Identify the Design of

Figure 1-3. Project Development flowchart

CHAPTER 2: DEMOGRAPHIC AND TOPOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE SOCIAL BENEFICIARIES

1 DEMOGRAPHIC AND TOPOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE SOCIAL BENEFICIARIES

Table 2.2: Total Population of Antipolo City

Figure 2.1.1: Population and Growth of Barangay Bagong Nayon

Figure 2.1.2: Topographic view of Barangay Bagong Nayon

2.1.3 Soil Profile

2.1.3.1 Geotechnical Investigation

Field Investigation Program

: Make :Std. Sprague and Henwood Type

CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION FOR FINE-GRANED SOILS

Classification SPT,N Undrained Shear Strength, su (kPa)

Very soft <2 <12

RELATIVE DENSITY CLASSIFICATION FOR COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Classification SPT,N Undrained Shear Strength, su (kPa)

Very loose <4 0-15

Soil Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D 422-63, Re-approved 1998)

The Atterberg Limits

Moisture Content of Soils (ASTM D-2216-98)

Unified Soil Classification System (USCS,ASTM D2487-69)

Discussions and General Recommendations

Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity at Foundation level

Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity, kPa (Basis: BH-1)h

Depth, Base of Footing Bearing

1.5 227 Clay

Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity, kPa (Basis: BH-1)

Depth, Base of Footing Bearing

1.5 359 264 Clay

Site Coefficient S and Seismic Zone Factor Z

Borehole Location Map

Figure 2.2: STAAD Pro V8i Geometric Model

Figure 2.4: 2nd Floor

Figure 2.6: 4th Floor Plan

Figure 2.8: Rear Elevation

Figure 2.10: Right Side Elevation

2.2.1.1 Dead Loads

Components ( 1st to 5th floor) Design Load (KPa)

Materials Density (KN/m³)

Table 2.2: Other Minimum Design Loads

2.2.1.2 Live Loads

Use or Occupancy Description Design Load (KPa)

2.2.1.3 Seismic load parameter

Figure 2.2: Nearest active fault trace