TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

938 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City

CE015 (Principle of Reinforced/Prestressed Concrete)

Assignment 1.1: Introduction to Mathematical

Modeling and Numerical Methods

Submitted by:
Capistrano, Christian Louis A.
1913741

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY PLEDGE

I swear on my honor that I did not use any inappropriate aid, nor give such to others, in
accomplishing this coursework. I understand that cheating and/or plagiarism is a major
offense, as stated in TIP Memorandum No. P-04, s. 2017-2018, and that I will be
sanctioned appropriately once I have committed such acts.

Christian Louis A. Capistrano

 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The growth of informal settlements is a frequent feature of towns and cities in the Philippines. The most
common types of informal settlements are slums and squatter communities. Land is limited,  and urban land
is even scarcer. For the urban poor, access to land is one of the most difficult aspects, and lack of access
to property leads to squatting on abandoned areas.

The Philippines is quickly urbanizing, and the constant rapid emergence of informal settlements is a
prominent element of its urban development. In the Philippines, the problem of informal settlements is
regarded as a national problem. Informal settlements are primarily expanding on abandoned government
properties near coasts, riverbanks, and streams. As a result, housing, infrastructure, and basic services has
put into burden. The number of informal settlers increased from 4.1 percent of the total urban population in
2003 to 5.4 percent in 2012, when 2.2 million people lived in informal settlements (World Bank 2017a).

As being said, this project addresses the problem of informal settlers in the Blue Mountains Monument by
relocating the families in a 7-storey low-cost building located in National Housing Authority Avenue –
Padilla corner lot, Antipolo City. The structure is capable of occupying a hundred 4-member family. The
project also includes a conference area which may be used for a variety of activities such as events,
performances, and gathering. The location is situated in the area close to variety of markets, transportation
terminals, hospitals, schools and other government facilities.
 Figure 1 – Perspective View

1.2 Project Location

The location of the project is along in National Housing Authority Avenue – Padilla corner lot, Antipolo City.
The site is beside the Pangmasa Terminal of Barangay San Luis near Steel Holmes Subdivision. It is a
place located (14.616546 North and 121.18705 East). The main road along the location is National Housing
Authority Avenue. Below is the satellite view of the location of the project.

Figure 2 – Project Location (Satellite View) (Source: http://www.google.com. earth)

1.3 Project Client

The client of this project will be the GCN group of Companies, the company that provides home to the
people who are incapable. The proposed 7-storey high-rise building will provide a long-lasting home for
the families that will be relocated.
1.4 Project Objectives

1.4.1 General Objectives

To design a low-cost Seventh-story high-rise building with a roof deck to provide a relocation site for a
hundred four-member family informal settlers. The structure will be built in line with the National Structural
Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2015.

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

 To design a good quality, safe and economical high-rise building for the informal settlers through a
detailed analysis and computations.
 To design a building structure that has both favorable strength and serviceability, in compliance
with the National Structural Code of Philippines 2015.
 To provide structural details for beams, girders, slabs, and columns in the structural plan.

1.5 Scope and Limitations

The scope of the design project is to produce an architectural and structural blueprint, including structural
details of the structure. Moreover, the design will be having 8 trade-offs that will be compared to each other
in order to give a beneficial design for the house building. The estimation of the cost for the structural
elements will be also included. The structural analysis of the designed structure will be automated to the
Structural Analysis software name ETABS, a popular computer software. The building structures will be
design and analyzed in accordance to the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP 2015) Vol.1
Seventh Edition.

The limitation of the design project includes the footings and foundation plan. These are excluded in the
structural details. Furthermore, roof truss was excluded since the topmost of the building is a roof deck.
Steel bracings for structural frame systems were also not included in the design. Lastly, the cost of
architectural elements will be separate from the project design cost.
1.6 Project Development

The design process has several stages, the first one is the project's conceptualization, which begins with
the client's compliance request and project needs. The planning stage follows. The information received will
be utilized to determine the project's restrictions and requirements. It will also serve as a foundation and
evidence for the designers to design the structure in a cost-effective and sustainable manner.

The constraints and standards provide an overview of the precise components that will affect the project,
following which the designers will present architectural designs for occupancy concerns and other factors.
The next step is to design the building's basic structural dimensions and assign loads in accordance with
the National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015. Then, utilizing computer software, a structural
analysis program will be carried out. The following phase is to design trade-offs and compare them to each
other in order to come up with a potential engineering solution, which will also include a cost estimate for
the structural elements. This includes taking into account the implications of different constraints on the
primary design so that the designers can choose the most cost-effective, safest, and beneficial option for
the project.

The result from comparing the proposed trade-offs to one another and will undergo through ranking and will
be selected by the designer. If the serviceability and safety measurements were satisfied, the designers will
create the final leading design that will be used for the project, as well as all of the project's details, design,
and analysis.
 START CONCEPTUALIZATION PLANNING PHASE

PROJECT CONSTRAINT AND

ARCHITECTURAL PLAN CHOSEN CONSTRAINT
STANDARDS

PRELIMINARY STRUCTURAL
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ESTIMATION OF LOADS
DESIGN

EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS DESIGN OF THE TRADE-OFFS SELECTED RANK 1 TRADE-OFFS

SAFETY AND SERVICEABILITY

REQUIREMENTS
FINAL DESIGN END

Figure 3 – Project Development Flowchart

 CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Location Data
2.1.1 Vicinity
This figure shows the vicinity map of the site location, along are the well-known landmarks to locate the site
easily

PADILLA
PALENKE

ZONTA
Site Location
STEEL HOLMES
SUBDIVISION

Figure 4 – Vicinity Map (Source: google.map.com)

2.1.2 Topography
This figure shows the topography of the site, with contour colors representing different elevations.

Average Site Elevation: 499 ft

 Figure 5: Topography (Source: topographic-map.com)

2.1.3 Hazards
2.1.3.1 Wind Hazard Map

270280 290 300

260

250

Antipolo Wind
Speed = 260 Kph

Figure 6 – Basic Wind Speeds for Occupancy Category III, IV, and V Buildings and Other Structures (Source: NSCP 2015 Volume 1,
Figure 207A.5-1A)

The figure shows the location and basic wind speed of the site that will be used for the design of wind
loads. Based on the figure, it shows that Antipolo city, Rizal wind speed is 260 Kph
2.1.3.2 Earthquake Hazard Map

Figure 7 – Earthquake Hazard Map (Source: http://faultfinder.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/)

The figure shows the distance of the site to the nearest fault line, which is called the Valley Fault System.
The distance from the site to the valley fault system is 9.2 km.
 Figure 8 – Earthquake Zone Map (Source: National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015)

The figure shows the division of the two seismic zone, which are the zone four and zone two. The site is
located at seismic zone four.
2.1.4 Geotechnical Report

Figure 9 – Soil bearing capacity of Metro Manila at depth of 2 meters (Source: Soil Bearing Capacity Reference for Metro Manila,
Philippines)
The figure shows the allowable bearing capacity that shall be used. Thus, Rizal is at 14.6 Latitude and
121.1 Longitude. Hence, the allowable bearing capacity that should be use base on the scale is 300 kPa.

2.1.5 Flood Hazard Map

Figure 10 – Flood Hazard map of Region IV-A Philippines (Source: thinkhazard.org)

The figure shows the flood hazard map of region IV-A CALABARZON. It shows that Rizal areas having a
yellow color which indicates that the area is at very low risk of flood.
2.1.6 Landslide Hazard

Figure 11 – Landslide Hazard Map of Padilla, Antipolo City, Rizal (Source: www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph)

The figure shows the landslide hazard map of Padilla, Antipolo City, Rizal. The area of the structure site is
included to the not susceptible site where there is no landslide threat.
2.1.7 Liquefaction Hazard

Figure 12 – Liquefaction Hazard Map of Padilla, Antipolo City, Rizal (Source: www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph)

The figure shows the liquefaction hazard map of Padilla, Antipolo City, Rizal. Based on the lines pertaining
to the liquefaction potential, it shows that the location site has a low potential of having a liquefaction
hazard.

2.2 Description of the Structure

The proposed Seventh-story high-rise building on National Housing Authority Avenue in Padilla Antipolo
City is classified as a Category IV– Residential building with a capacity of 114 – four-person families. SD -
Stiff soil – is the soil type of the project location. According to the DOST – PHILVOCS Fault Finder, the
structure is in Seismic Zone 4 and 9.2 kilometers from the East Valley Fault. The fundamental wind speed
for wind load analysis is 260kph. The building will be developed as a reinforced concrete structure with
trade-offs determined by the designers' evaluation. Before deciding on the most beneficial design, these
trade-offs will be analyzed based on the constraint and standard considerations offered. The following
chapter will go over the limits, trade-offs, and standards mentioned above.
 Figure 13 – Perspective View of the Building (Source: Modeled on SketchUP Pro 2022)

The classification of the structure is determined by the designer based on the codes and provision of the
National Building Code of the Philippines. The occupancy classification is Group B Residentials, Hotels,
and Apartments. Buildings utilized for informal settlers' relocation homes on Blue Mountains Monument will
be assigned to Group B occupancy. The structure is designed for Type V construction, which means that it
must be fire resistant. Steel, iron, concrete, or masonry construction are used to construct the structural
elements. Incombustible fire-resistant construction shall be used for walls, ceilings, and permanent
partitions. The assigned room classifications and the accompanying floor areas of the building are shown in
the table below.
Table 1–Building Facilities Classification and Corresponding Floor Areas .

Ground Floor Area(m2) Location

Comfort Room Second Floor Area(m2) Location
11.5 m2 Grid 1-2, A-B
1 24 m2 per
Room 1-19 Grid 1-4, A-K
Comfort Room room
11.5 m2 Grid 1-2, J-K
2 Third Floor Area(m2) Location
Conference 24 m2 per
199 Floor
Fifth m2 Grid 1-2, B-J Area(m ) 2
Room 20-38 Location Grid 1-4, B-J
Room room
Commercial Room 58-76 24 m per room
2
Fourth Floor
Grid 1-4, A-K
Area(m2) Location
111.5 m2 Grid 3-4, A-F
Space 1 Sixth Floor Area(m2) Location
24 m2 per
Commercial Room 39-57 Grid 1-4, B-J
111.577-95
Room m2 Grid 3-4, A-F24 m2 per room roomB-J
Grid 1-4,
Space 2
Seventh Floor Area(m2) Location
Room 96-114 24 m2 per room Grid 1-4, B-J
 Roof Deck Line Area(m2) Location

Roof Deck 660.24 m2 Grid 1-4, A-K

2.3 Building Plan

2.3.1 Site Development

Figure 14 – Site Development Plan

2.3.2 Perspective

Figure 15 – Perspective

2.3.3 Floor Plans

2.3.4 Elevation
2.4 Design Criteria
The design loads and parameter provided below are governed by the National Structural Code of the
Philippines 2015 Volume 1, Seventh Edition.
2.4.1 Dead Loads
Table 2 – Materials and Minimum Uniform Design Loads
Materials Design Load
Concrete 24 kN/m3
Steel 77 kN/m3
6” CHB 2.75 kPa
4” CHB 2.15 kPa

2.4.2 Live Loads

Table 3 – Minimum Uniform Live Loads
Category Uniform Load
Exit Facilities 4.8 kPa
Residential (Basic Floor Area) 1.9 kPa
Residential Deck 1.9 kPa
Restrooms 2.4kPa
Roof Decks 1.9 kPa
Stair Live Load 3.8 kPa

2.4.3 Wind Load Parameters

Table 4 – Wind Load Parameters

Basic Wind Speed (V) 260 kph(NSCP 2015 Vol. 1 Section 207A.5-1C)
Wind Directionality Factor (Kd) 0.85(MWFRS; NSCP 2015 Vol.1 Section 207A.6)
Exposure Category Exposure C(NSCP 2015 Vol.1 Section 207.A.7)
Topography Factor (Kzt) 1.0(Flat Terrain; NSCP 2015, Vol.1 Section 207A.8)
Gust Effect Factor 0.85(NSCP 2015 Vol. 1, Section 207A.2, Section 207A.9)
Enclosure Classification Enclosed(NSCP 2015 Vol.1 Section 207A.10)
Internal Pressure Coefficient (GCpi) ±0.18(NSCP 2015 Vol.1 Section 207A-11)
2.4.4 Seismic Load Parameters
Table 5 - Seismic Load Parameters

Parameters Values
Occupancy Category Category IV – Standard Occupancy Structures (All structures housing
occupancies or having functions not listed in Category I, II, or III, and
Category; NSCP 2015 Vol. 1, 7th Edition Section 103-1)
Seismic Importance Factor (I) 1.00(NSCP 2015 Vol.1, 7th Edition Table 208-1)
Soil Profile Type Soil SD (NSCP 2015 Vol.1, 7th Edition Table 208-2)
Soil Profile Name Stiff Soil Profile ((NSCP 2015 Vol.1, 7 th Edition Table 208-2)
Seismic Zone Zone 4(NSCP 2015 Vol.1, 7th Edition Figure 208-1)
Seismic Source Type C((NSCP 2015 Vol.1, 7th Edition Table 208-4)
Nearest Fault Line 1.0((NSCP 2015 Vol.1, 7th Edition Section 207A. 11-1)
Near Source Factor (Na) 1.0(NSCP 2015 Vol.1, 7th Edition Table 208-5)
Near Source Factor (Nv) 1.0(NSCP 2015 Vol.1, 7th Edition Table 208-6)
Seismic Coefficient (Ca) 0.44Na(NSCP 2015 Vol.1, 7th Edition Table 208-7)
Seismic Coefficient (Cv) 0.64(NSCP 2015 Vol.1, 7th Edition Table 208-8)
Basic Seismic – Force Resisting
SMRF
System
Numerical Coefficient for Over
Strength and Global Ductility
SMRF; R=85 (NSCP 2015 Vol.1, 7th Edition Table 208-11A)
Capacity or Response Reduction
Factor ®
Numerical Coefficient for Period of
0.0731(NSCP 2015 Vol.1, 7th Edition Section 208.5.2.2, Method A)
Vibration (Ct)

2.5 Review of Related Literature

Ahmad, Aibinu, Thaheem (2017)
The Effects of High-Rise Residential Construction on Sustainability of Housing System
According to the researchers Ahmad, Aibinu, Thaheem (2017) the increased urban population densities are
being achieved by the construction of high-rise residential buildings. Aspects of high-rise residential
buildings are distinctive. Moreover, High rise related aspects can play a vital role for the sustainable
development. The findings show that the majority of high-rise-related factors have a beneficial impact on
the effectiveness of both the building and environmental systems while having a negative impact on human
psychological needs. The qualitative analysis conducted in this study to better understand the role of high-
rise residential structures in sustainability can lead to more research into the topic and a better
understanding of high-rise complexity, resulting in well-informed sustainable approaches. This means that
high-rise building is a suitable relocation home for the informal settlers in Blue Mountain Monument area. It
is a economic friendly than having a hectares of land for their relocation site.
Patel, Shantilal (July 2018)
Performance Analysis of Braced OMRF and SMRF under Seismic Condition
Earthquake is a tremendously deadly and destructive phenomena caused by the movement of the earth's
tectonic plates. As a result, doing seismic anatomization and delineation to intercept structures against any
disaster is prudent. In this research, performance investigation of both the OMRF and SMRF frames was
carried out under seismic stress conditions in various Indian zones. Numerous criteria such as earthquake
magnitude, proximity to epicenter, and constrained geological environment, which influence on seismic
wave propagation, have been observed in various studies. Maximum displacement and generated shear
stresses were discovered to be important output characteristics. SMRF outperformed all other types of
OMRF frames.
Tarigan, J. (June 2018)
The Effect of Shear Wall Location in Resisting Earthquake
Shear wall is one of the most widely utilized lateral resisting structures. The construction will be stable
because of the high stiffness provided by the shear wall. Shear walls can efficiently limit the structure's
displacement and story-drift. This will lessen the damage caused by lateral loads such as earthquakes.
Previous research has shown that the performance of a shear wall varies depending on its location in a
structure.
 CHAPTER 3: CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS, AND STANDARDS
3.1 Design Constraints
Design constraints are restrictions on what can and cannot be included in a design. Constraints are
variables that limit the number of design options available for approval. It could be due to the sort of facility
required, the location, or restrictions set by the client or a third party. Design restrictions are often
considered to be beneficial in the development of a design since they limit the number of viable possibilities
and point to an obvious solution. It can be difficult to determine where to begin or to justify developing one
option above others when there are no limitations at all. The restrictions that are being considered that may
have an impact on the design of the reinforced concrete building are listed below.
3.1.1 Economic Constraint (Cost - Quantitative)
Economic constraints are related to the project budget and resource allocation. If the money is insufficient
or is allocated in an ineffective manner, it can have a negative impact on the project's quality, safety,
functionality, and performance. The company insisted that the project's budget not be exceeded, therefore
the designers provided many design options that would satisfy the client and were then analyzed to identify
the best design option that would fit the client's budget. The designers devised three structural systems,
which will be compared directly in terms of the costs of structural elements to determine which is the most
cost-effective.
3.1.2 Constructability Constraint (Duration - Quantitative)
These include project milestones and critical dates on the project timeline. In terms of the overall project
completion schedule, sticking to these dates is often very crucial, and fines may be imposed if they are not
met. The designer will have to determine the construction duration of the trade-offs on the given timetable
because the client has given an estimated completion date. A shorter constructability duration trade-off is
likely to be explored.
3.1.3 Sustainability (Life Span - Qualitative)
The life span of each moment resisting frame system used in the high-rise building will indicate whether the
project is sustainable or not, taking into account many elements affecting the final design of the project. The
client will choose the designer's final design recommendation because of the enjoyment gained from the
building's extended life lifetime. As a result, the longer the life span, the better for both the designer, the
people and the client.
3.1.4 Aesthetic Constraint (Architectural - Qualitative)
Architectural constraints were viewed as qualitative constraints by the designers. In order to obey
architectural designs, it sets a limit on the specified structural dimension.
3.2 Trade-offs
For a trade-off, the designers contemplated designing three distinct structural systems. Special Moment-
Resisting Frame (SMRF), RC Frame with Steel Bracing, and RC Frame with Shear Walls are the three
types of frames. These trade-offs are assessed using the constraints presented in this chapter.
3.2.1 One-Way Slab
One-way slabs bend largely along the long axis and have an aspect ratio in plan of 2:1 or more. Shear or
flexure often govern the thickness of heavily loaded slabs, whereas deflection limitations usually drive the
thickness of weakly loaded slabs. Because it is assumed that putting stirrups in slabs is difficult and
expensive, both lightly and heavily burdened slabs are routinely dimensioned so that no shear
reinforcement is required. As if they were a series of individual strips, one-way slabs are constructed for
flexure and shear on a per-meter-width basis. As a result, one-way shear in slabs is sometimes referred to
as beam shear, and flexure and shear design is done in the same way.

Figure 16 – One way slab (source:civilsnapshot.com)

3.2.2 Two-Way Slab

A two-way slab has a length-to-breadth ratio of less than two and is supported on all sides. In all directions,
the slab is orthogonal. A slab that does not fall into the one-way slab category is referred to as a two-way
slab.
 Figure 17 – One way slab (source:civilsnapshot.com)

3.2.3 Rectangular Beam

Rectangular beams are more typically encountered in commercial and office buildings. These can be cast
in place or prefabricated and reinforced as needed.

Figure 18 – Rectangular Beam (source: https://img.archiexpo.com/images_ae/photo-g/105233-4388895)

3.2.4 T Beam/L Beam
For larger load / longer spans, such as bridges, beams are more typically employed. Prefabricated and
reinforced with prestressed steel, these are almost always used. A beam with an inverted L shape that is
typically positioned with its top flange forming part of a floor's edge.

Figure 19 – T Beam/ L Beam (source: https://constructionhow.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/1-4)

3.2.5 Square Column

These columns are often used in the construction of constructions, but they are only available if the room is
square or rectangular in shape. Building and casting rectangular or square columns is significantly easier
than circular ones.
 Figure 20 – Square Column (Source: Dailycivil.com)

3.2.6 Circular Column

Circular columns are used when there is no need to construct barriers on either side of the column. It will
have a pleasing appearance. Circular columns are appropriate for usage in high-traffic areas such as
bridges because of their reduced cross-sectional area.

Figure 21 – Circular Column (Source: Dailycivil.com)

3.2.7 Spread Footing

Spread footings are commonly utilized for shallow foundations in order to handle and diffuse concentrated
stresses caused by columns or pillars. Isolated footings can be reinforced or unreinforced.
 Figure 20 – Spread Footings (Source: dailycivil.com)

3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking

The designers came up with the raw rankings after considering the design constraints and trade-offs. It
explains how the designers arrived at the raw ranks values that are displayed and computed below.
3.3.1 Initial Assessments of Trade-offs
The early estimations of the designers' trade-offs are presented in the table below. The details below will be
used to conduct a preliminary trade-off analysis.
Table 6 – RC Initial Assessments of Trade-offs

Estimated Values
Constraint Two-Way Slab One-Way slab, Two-Way Slab, L- One-Way Slab, L
Rectangular beam, Rectangular beam, beam, circular beam, Rectangular
circular column column column column
Economic Cost
PHP 24,500,000.00 PHP 23,000,000.00 PHP 25,500,000.00 PHP 25,000,000.00
(materials)
Constructability 525 days 550 days 600 days 575 days
Serviceability 6% allowance 6.5% allowance 5% Allowance 5.5% Allowance

Higher Value−Lower Value

Equation 1: Difference % =
Lower Value
Equation 2: Subordinate rank = Governing rank − (percentage difference) × 10

The designers' subjective value is used to determine the governing rank. It is contingent on the designer's
subjective assessment of the importance of each constraint. In Equation 2, the subordinate rank is a
variable that represents the percentage distance from the ruling rank on the ranking scale. (Otto &
Antonsson, 1991).

Figure 21 – Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference

3.3.2 Computations of Rankings
a. Computation of Ranking for Economic Constraint (Material & Equipment Cost)
1. One-Way slab, Rectangular beam, Rectangular column vs Two-Way Slab, L-beam, circular column

Higher Value−Lower Value

Difference % =
Lower Value

25,500,000.00−23,000,000.00
Difference % =
23,000,000.00
Difference % = 0.11%
Subordinate rank = Governing rank − (percentage difference) × 10
Subordinating Rank = 10 – 0.11 x 10
Subordinating Rank = 8.9

Figure 22 – Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Economic Constraints for Trade-off

2. (Two-Way Slab, Rectangular beam, circular column) vs (Two-Way Slab, L-beam, circular column)
Higher Value−Lower Value
Difference % =
Lower Value
25,500,000−24,500,000.00
Difference % =
24,500,000.00
Difference % = 0.04%
Subordinate rank = Governing rank − (percentage difference) × 10
Subordinating Rank = 10 – 0.04 x 10
Subordinating Rank = 9.6

Figure 23 – Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Economic Constraints for Trade-off
3. (One-Way Slab, L-beam, Rectangular column) vs (Two-Way Slab, L-beam, circular column)
Higher Value−Lower Value
Difference % =
Lower Value
25,500,000.00−25,000,000.00
Difference % =
25,500,000.00
Difference % = 0.02%
Subordinate rank = Governing rank − (percentage difference) × 10
Subordinating Rank = 10 – 0.02 x 10
Subordinating Rank = 9.8

Figure 24 – Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Economic Constraints for Trade-off

b. Computation of Ranking for Constructability Constraint

1. (One-Way slab, Rectangular beam, Rectangular column) vs (Two-Way Slab, L-beam, circular column)
Higher Value−Lower Value
Difference % =
Lower Value
600−550
Difference % =
550
Difference % = 0.09%
Subordinate rank = Governing rank − (percentage difference) × 10
Subordinating Rank = 10 – 0.09 x 10
Subordinating Rank = 9.1

Figure 25 – Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Constructability Constraints for Trade-off

2. (Two-Way Slab, Rectangular beam, circular column) vs (Two-Way Slab, L-beam, circular column)
 Higher Value−Lower Value
Difference % =
Lower Value
600−525
Difference % =
525
Difference % = 0.14%
Subordinate rank = Governing rank − (percentage difference) × 10
Subordinating Rank = 10 – 0.14 x 10
Subordinating Rank = 8.6

Figure 26 – Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Constructability Constraints for Trade-off

3. (One-Way Slab, L-beam, Rectangular column) vs (Two-Way Slab, L-beam, circular column)

Higher Value−Lower Value

Difference % =
Lower Value
600−575
Difference % =
575
Difference % = 0.04%
Subordinate rank = Governing rank − (percentage difference) × 10
Subordinating Rank = 10 – 0.04 x 10
Subordinating Rank = 9.6

Figure 27 – Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Constructability Constraints for Trade-off

c. Computation of Ranking for Serviceability

1. (One-Way slab, Rectangular beam, Rectangular column) vs (Two-Way Slab, L-beam, circular
column)
Higher Value−Lower Value
Difference % =
Lower Value
6.5−5
Difference % =
5
Difference % = 0.03%
Subordinate rank = Governing rank − (percentage difference) × 10
Subordinating Rank = 10 – 0.03 x 10
Subordinating Rank = 9.7

Figure 28 – Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Serviceability for Trade-off

2. (Two-Way Slab, Rectangular beam, circular column) vs (Two-Way Slab, L-beam, circular column)
Higher Value−Lower Value
Difference % =
Lower Value
6−5
Difference % =
5
Difference % = 0.02%
Subordinate rank = Governing rank − (percentage difference) × 10
Subordinating Rank = 10 – 0.02 x 10
Subordinating Rank = 9.8

Figure 29 – Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Serviceability for Trade-off

3. (One-Way Slab, L-beam, Rectangular column) vs (Two-Way Slab, L-beam, circular column)
 Higher Value−Lower Value
Difference % =
Lower Value
5.5−5
Difference % =
5
Difference % = 0.01%
Subordinate rank = Governing rank − (percentage difference) × 10
Subordinating Rank = 10 – 0.01 x 10
Subordinating Rank = 9.9

Figure 22 – Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Serviceability for Trade-off

3.3.3 Raw Designers Ranking and Assessment

The importance of the clients' factor, which is the economics of the design, is shown in Table 13 below. For
the client, constructability is the second most important factor. The three trade-offs that the designers will
most likely apply in order to create the High-Rise Building are listed beside the Client's Importance Scale.
The computed values of each trade-off are summarized here, along with a comparison to their ranking.
Table 7 – Raw Designers Ranking and Assessment (Otto, K.N.; Antonsson, E.K., 1991)

Ability to Satisfy The Criterion

Criterion’s Two-Way
Decision One-Way Slab,
Importance( Scal Slab One-Way Slab, L
Criteria Rectangular Two-Way Slab,
e 0 to 10) Rectangular Beam,
beam, L-Beam, Circular
Beam, Rectangular
Rectangular Column
Circular Column
Column
Column
Economic
10 9.6 8.9 10 9.8
(Material Cost)
Constructability
9 8.6 9.1 10 9.6
(Duration)
Serviceability 8 9.8 9.7 10 9.9

Overall 218 215.3 260 246

3.4 Trade-offs Assessment

the designer evaluated four (4) trade-offs to create the design of the High-Rise Building. One-way slab with
rectangular beam and column, two-way slab with rectangular beam and circular column, one-way slab with
L-beam and rectangular column, and two-way slab with L-beam and circular column are the four (4) trade-
offs. Since the importance of the criterion is subjective, its value will vary decision of the client and
designer.
3.4.1 Economic Assessment
After providing an initial estimate of the construction taking into consideration the constraints, the design
came up with the raw rankings on the one-way slab and two-way slab. The final section tabulates the
results of the computations.
3.4.2 Constructability Assessment
For the Constructability Assessment, the designer will offer an initial estimate for each of the tradeoffs,
taking into account the design. By comparing the expected costs of the trade-offs, the output of the
calculated ranking will determine which is the most cost-effective.
3.5 Over-All Assessment of Trade-offs
The overall analysis of the trade-offs shows in table 7. The overall evaluation result of the trade-offs that the
designers were able to obtain. The Two-Way Slab, L-Beam, Circular Column, which has a value of 260,
has the greatest ranking trade-off based on the computed ranking. As a result of the constraints analysis,
we can conclude that a two-way slab with L-beam and circular column is the best design.
3.6 Design Standards
3.6.1 National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015, Volume 1, 7th Edition
ASEP acknowledges the desired latest structural code dealing with the design and installation of structural
systems through requirements that highlight to the accomplishment. The new National Structural Code of
the Philippines (NSCP Volume I) is formulated to meet these needs through different model codes/
restrictions, generally from the United States, for the protection of the public health and safety nationwide
• Table 421.2.1 – Strength reduction factors for flexure, shear, axial and torsion
• Table 421.2.2 – Strength reduction factor for moment, axial force or combine moment & axial force
• Section 409.5.1 – Ultimate strength design
• Table 405.3.1 – Load combinations (USD)
• Table 422.2.2.4.3 – Values for β1, values for equivalent rectangular stress block
• Table 409.3.1.1 – Minimum depth for non-prestressed beam
• Section 409.6 – Reinforcement limits
• Section 409.3.3 – Reinforcement strain limit in non-prestressed beams
• Section 425.2 – Minimum spacings of reinforcements
• Table 422.5.5 – Shear capacity of Non-prestressed without axial force
• Table 422.5.5.1 – Detailed method on calculating shear capacity
• Table 409.6.3.1 – Cases where Av,min is not required
• Table 409.6.3.3 – Cases where Av,min is required
• Table 409.7.6.2.2 – Maximum spacing of shear reinforcement
• Table 425.3.1 – Standard hook geometry for development of deformed bars in tension
• Table 425.3.2 – Minimum inside bend diameters and standard hook geometry
• Section 422.7.6 – Torsional strength
• Table 406.3.1.1 – Minimum thickness of solid non-prestressed one way slabs
• Section 419.2.2 – Modulus of Elasticity of concrete
• Table 419.2.4.2 – Modification factor for concrete
• Section 409.5.4 – Design for torsion
• Section 422.2.2.4.1 – Whitney stress-distribution block assumption
• Table 425.4.2.2 – Development length for deformed bars and deformed wires in tension
• Section 425.4.3 – Development of standard hooks in tension
• Table 425.5.2.1 – Lap splice length (tension)
• Table 425.5.5.1 – Lap splice length (tension)
• Section 418 – Earthquake resistant structures