Hahaja

Major Design Experience Information
CE 511 Structural Steel Design

2 nd Semester, SY 2017-2018
Student Bigay, Asher Bailey A.

Project Title Design of 5-storey Hospital Building in Rodriguez, Montalban Rizal
Program Concentration Area Structural, Construction
Constraints
Economic constraint is one of the most important things that can affect the building
design as a whole. The designer must limit the design of the building to meet the
Economic
expected budget of the client. Therefore cost estimates must be taken into
consideration first to overcome the said constraint. This is considered a constraint
because it will put boundary on the construction process of the building.
A project is assumed to be sustainable if it can able to encounter current needs

without compromising the opportunities of future generations to meet the needs and
refers to the degree to which a product that is developed can continue to be viable
and useful for a reasonable amount of time. A product that fails soon after it is built
and cannot be repaired, updated or modified to fit new needs is not a sustainable
Sustainability product instead if that uses its resources effectively where can sustain its life for a
long time is said to be sustainable. To comprehend whether which of the two design
is more sustainable to use, the designer will analyze each of the trade-offs if does
the manufacture and the use of the product employ renewable resources. The
designer also have to pick whether to use a bolted or welded for the connections to
be mounted that will satisfy the factor of this constraint.
Deflection of structural members must be prevented in order to make the structures

safe. The constraint will affect the subjective preference of the client but deflections
Structural Safety/ serviceability must be countered in order to ensure the safety of the future occupants that will be
residing on the building. Structural Analysis will be performed to know the expected
deflections from the members cause by the varying loads.
Constructability constraint is also important since time efficiency will be needed on

the project. As a designer, one must estimate the expected time of the whole project
in order to meet the demand of the client in a favorable time. In order to counter the
Constructability constraints, thorough scheduling must be done using the critical path method. It will
be evaluated according to the number of man hours needed for the construction
and that will result to labor cost. Manpower must be leveled in order to decrease the
labor cost of the project. Thus this is considered a constraint because it will affect
the design to meet the expected time a client gives for the construction process.
Tradeoffs
Welding is a process by which metallic parts are connected by heating their
surfaces to a plastic or fluid state and allowing the parts to flow together and join
Welded Connection (with or without the addition of other molten metal). It is impossible to determine
when welding originated, but it was at least several thousand years ago. Metal-
working, including welding, was quite an art in ancient Greece three thousand years
ago, but welding had undoubtedly been performed for many centuries before that.
Ancient welding probably was a forging process in which the metals were heated to
a certain temperature (not to the melting stage) and hammered together.
Bolted connections are widely used in almost every mechanical and structural
system due to added flexibility of assembly and disassembly of sub-systems for
inspections, replacement and routine maintenance. A bolted connection often
Bolted Connection constitutes the weakest link in the design; in many cases, the bolted connection can
be responsible for determining the overall reliability and safety of the entire system.
A simple bolted connection may just include a threaded fastener (bolts/screw/stud),
a nut or a tapped hole, and the parts that would be clamped together by preloading
and the bolt; mostly by tightening the head or the nut.
Standards
1. National structural code of the Frame design: NSCP Section 208.4.6.2
Philippines (NSCP) Seismic loads: NSCP Section 208
Wind loads: NSCP Section 207
Live loads: NSCP Section 205
Dead loads: NSCP Section 205
Room Classification: NSCP Section 205
Structural Steel (Chapter 5):
Connection, Joints and Fasteners: Section 510
Tension Members: Section
Columns and other compression members: Section 505
Beam and other flexural members: Section 506
TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES
RUBRIC FOR STUDENT DESIGN PROJECT REPORT
Design Project
Title: Design of 5-storey Hospital Building in Rodriguez, Montalban Rizal
Group members Bigay, Asher Course Title: Structural Steel Design
Bailey A.
Sem./School Year: 2018-2019
Instructor: Engr. Rhonnie Estores
Intended Learning Outcome: Ability to write a design project report that illustrates effective writing in English.
UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY EXEMPLARY

CRITERIA 1.1.1.1 SCOR
1 2 3 E
Content (Substance) The report presents The report lacks The report presents
irrelevant relevant complete and relevant
data/information data/information data/information
Format The report does not The report follows some The report fully
follow the prescribed of the prescribed format complies with the
format prescribed format
Coherence (Logical flow of The report does not Some parts of the The whole report
discussion) present a logical flow of report present a logical presents a logical flow
discussion flow of discussion of discussion
Grammar, Spelling, Writing There are many There are occasional The report is free of
Mechanics (punctuation, grammatical and spelling errors and violations errors and violations
italics, capitalization, etc.) errors, and writing
mechanic violations
TOTAL SCORE
TotalScore
Mean Score=
4
Rating= ( Total12Score ) x 100
Evaluated by:
______________________________________ Date:
_________________________________
Signature over Printed Name
Design Project Title: Design of 5-Storey Hospital Building In Rodriguez, Montalban Rizal
Name: Bigay, Asher Bailey A.. Course Code: CE 511
Course Title: Structural Steel Design
ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECT ASSESSMENT TOOL

Scale
SOs Addressed by the Course Performance Indicators Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Exemplary Score
1 2 3
Identify, formulate, and solve Identify an engineering The engineering problem The engineering problem The engineering
complex engineering problems problem and/or satisfy a need and/or need is unidentified and/or need is identified problem and/or need
(student outcome b) is clearly and
specifically identified
Formulate engineering The engineering solution to The engineering solution to The engineering
solutions to a given problem a given problem and/or a given problem and/or solution to a given
and/or need need is not formulated need is partly formulated problem and/or need
is correctly and
completely formulated
Solve the engineering problem The engineering problem The engineering problem The engineering
and/or satisfy the need and/or need is unsolved and/or need is solved by problem and/or need
adopting existing is innovatively solved
technologies, systems, by adopting new
components, or processes technologies,
and methods systems,
components, or
processes and
methods
Solve complex engineering Apply appropriate constraints Less than three constraints Three constraints are More than three
problems by designing in the design process are applied in the design applied in the design appropriate
systems, components, or process process constraints are
processes to meet applied in the design
specifications within realistic process
constraints such as economic, Apply appropriate standards Appropriate standards and Appropriate local Appropriate local and
environmental, cultural, social, and codes in the design codes are not applied in standards and codes are international
societal, political, ethical, process the design process applied in the design standards and codes
health and safety, process are applied in the
manufacturability, and design process
sustainability in accordance Use trade-offs to determine Less than three options Three options were used in More than three
with standards final design choice were used in the trade-offs the trade-offs to determine options were used in
(student outcome c) to determine the final the final design choice the trade-offs to
design choice determine the final
design choice
Scale
SOs Addressed by the Course Performance Indicators Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Exemplary Score
1 2 3
Use the techniques, skills, and Identify appropriate techniques, Techniques, skills, and Techniques, skills, and Techniques, skills,
modern engineering tools skills, and modern engineering modern engineering tools modern engineering tools and modern
necessary for engineering tools necessary in the design are not clearly identified in are well identified in the engineering tools are
practice in complex process the design process design process appropriately
engineering activities identified in the
(student outcome e) design process
Use appropriate techniques, Techniques, skills, and Techniques, skills, and Appropriate
skills, and modern engineering modern engineering tools modern engineering tools techniques, skills, and
tools in the design process are not appropriately used are appropriately used in modern engineering
in the design process the design process tools are accurately
used in the design
process
Apply principles of ethics and Demonstrate ethics by Design project submitted Design project submitted Design project
commit to professional ethics submitting or presenting a or presented does not cite or presented partly cited submitted or
and responsibilities design project that cites references references based on presented completely
(student outcome h) references Turnitin results cited references
based on Turnitin
results
Demonstrate professionalism Design project is not Design project is submitted Design project is
by submitting or presenting the submitted or presented on or presented on schedule submitted or
design projects on schedule as schedule as planned as planned presented ahead of
planned schedule as planned
Communicate effectively on Deliver effective oral
complex engineering activities presentations Use the mean score from the rubric for oral presentation of design projects
with various communities
including engineering experts Write a design project report
and society at large using that illustrates effective writing
appropriate levels of discourse Use the mean score from the rubric for design project report
in English
(student outcome j)
Total Score
Percentage Rating= (Total

12
Score
) x 100
Evaluated by:
______________________________________ Date: _________________________________

Signature over Printed Name
TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE
PHILIPPINES 938 AURORA BOULEVARD
CUBAO QUEZON CITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CE 511
STRUCTURAL STEEL DESIGN
DESIGN OF 5-STOREY HOSPITAL BUILDING IN RODRIGUEZ, MONTALBAN

RIZAL
SUBMITTED BY:
BIGAY, ASHER BAILEY A.
SUBMITTED TO:
ENGR. RHONNIE C. ESTORES

MARCH 2018
APPROVAL SHEET
The members of the Students Design Evaluation Panel inspected and evaluated the design project
entitled “5-Storey Hospital Building in Rodriguez, Montalban Rizal” prepared by Asher Bailey A. Bigay of
the Civil Engineering Department. Thus, is now recommended for approval.
Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores

Adviser
2 Contents
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................1
1.1 The Project..................................................................................................................................1
2.1 Project objective..........................................................................................................................2
2.2 Project Scope and Limitations.....................................................................................................3
2.3 Project Development....................................................................................................................3
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS....................................................................................................................5
2.1 Description of the Structure.........................................................................................................5
2.2 Classification of the Structure......................................................................................................5
2.3 Architectural Plans.......................................................................................................................6
2.4 Review of related literature..........................................................................................................9
CHAPTER 3 CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS AND STANDARDS..............................................................12
3.1 Design Constraints.....................................................................................................................12
1.1.1. Economic constraints.........................................................................................................12
1.1.2. Constructability constraint..................................................................................................12
1.1.3. Environmental constraints..................................................................................................12
1.1.4. Serviceability/safety constraints.........................................................................................12
1.1.5. Sustainability constraints...................................................................................................13
3.2 Trade-offs...................................................................................................................................13
3.2.1 Raw designers ranking...........................................................................................................16
3.2.2 Economic Cost.......................................................................................................................17
3.2.3 Constructability (Duration).....................................................................................................18
3.2.4 Sustainability Constraints......................................................................................................19
3.3 Design Standards.......................................................................................................................20
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE...................................................................................................26
4.1 Methodology...............................................................................................................................26
4.2 Structural Design.......................................................................................................................26
4.3 Structural modeling....................................................................................................................27
4.4 Loadings....................................................................................................................................28
4.4.1 Dead loads.............................................................................................................................28
4.4.2 Wind Load parameters...........................................................................................................28
4.4.3 Earthquake load Parameter...................................................................................................28
4.4.4 Load combination...................................................................................................................29
4.5 Geometric Modeling...................................................................................................................29
4.6 Design of the structure...............................................................................................................30
4.6.1 Design of Purlins....................................................................................................................30
4.6.2 Design of truss.......................................................................................................................31
4.6.3 Design of Beams....................................................................................................................31
4.6.4 Design of Column...................................................................................................................32
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION......................................................................................................................34
APPENDIX A. LOAD COMPUTATION........................................................................................................35
APPENDIX B. DESIGN OF PURLIN..........................................................................................................36
APPENDIX C. DESIGN OF TRUSS...........................................................................................................37
APPENDIX D. DESIGN OF BEAM.............................................................................................................40
APPENDIX E. DESIGN OF COLUMN........................................................................................................49
APPENDIX F WELDED CONNECTION......................................................................................................76
APPENDIX G BOLTED CONNECTION........................................................................................................8
Figure 1-1 Perspective View of 5-Storey Hospital Building..............................................................................4
Figure 1-2 Location Map Hospital of Building..................................................................................................5
Figure 1-3 Project Development Phases..........................................................................................................7
Y
Figure 2- 1 Ground Floor plan...........................................................................................................................9

Figure 2- 2 Second to fifth floor pan...............................................................................................................10
Figure 2- 3 Roof plan......................................................................................................................................10
Figure 2- 4 Front elevation..............................................................................................................................11
Figure 2- 5 Rear elevation...............................................................................................................................11
Figure 2- 6 Right and left side elevation.........................................................................................................12
Figure 3- 1 Bolted Connection........................................................................................................................17

Figure 3- 2 Welded connection.......................................................................................................................18
Figure 3- 3 Percent Difference of Cost...........................................................................................................21
Figure 3- 4 Percent Difference for Constructability.........................................................................................22
Figure 4 - 1 Structural Design Flowchart........................................................................................................29

Figure 4 -2 First to fifth floor framing plan.......................................................................................................30
Figure 4 - 3 Roof framing plan........................................................................................................................31
Figure 4 - 4 Framing Plan Generated by STAAD...........................................................................................32
Figure 4 - 5 Dead load generated by STAAD.................................................................................................34
Figure 4-6 Earthquake load at X direction......................................................................................................34
Figure 4-7 Earthquake load at Z direction......................................................................................................35
Figure 4-8 Wind load at X- direction...............................................................................................................35
Figure 4-9 Wind Load at Z-direction...............................................................................................................36
Table 2-2 Cost Estimate of Bolted and Welded Connections.........................................................................20
Table 2- 1 Rooms Classifications with Corresponding Area.............................................................................9

Table 2- 2 Rooms function and Corresponding Quantity..................................................................................9
Table 4- 1 Dead loads.....................................................................................................................................33

Table 4- 2 Wind load.......................................................................................................................................34
Table 4- 3 Earthquake load.............................................................................................................................34
Table 4- 4 Load Combination..........................................................................................................................34
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1 The Project
The project tends to develop a structural design of a five-storey hospital building that will be located on the
municipality of Burgos. The project focuses to provide medical services and satisfies the medical needs of
the people in Burgos Montalban Rizal, with 11 Barangays. Also this will serve as the nearest public hospital
not just for Burgos but also for people of near barangays. The designers focus to design a structurally safe
hospital building and economical type hospital. The proposed hospital building is rectangular in shape with
5 levels with a floor dimension of 25.4 m x 18.05 m.
The structural members of the hospital building will have different design parameters and tradeoffs that will
be evaluated by the designers and will mostly choose the best design option. The frame of the structure
utilizes the study on Steel Design to come up with best design for the proposed hospital building. The
standards that will serve as a guideline in designing the structural frame of the building is the National
Structural Code of the Philippines (2015).
Figure 1-1 Perspective View of 5-storey Hospital Building
1
In this project, trade-offs strategy has been used by the designer to in designing a building structure using
steel design. It will be designed to ensure the integrity of the building and the safety of all occupants in the
most economical way following the standards of the NSCP (National Structural Code of the Philippines).
Figure 1-1 Location Map of Hospital Building
(Source: Google Map/ Google Earth)
2.1 Project objective

The project design objectives are subdivided into general and specific. These are as follows:
General Objectives
 To design a five storey hotel building codes and standards
Specific Objective
 To provide the five (5) storey Hospital building by following the standards and specifications as
set forth by the codes as well as by applying engineering principles and methodology, in
consideration of trade-offs that will be based on the constraints Economical, Constructability,
safety of the proposed structure;
 To provide a detailed architectural and structural design, and cost estimate of the proposed
project which will also be based on the Code and Standards; and
 To provide complete structural analysis of the building with an aid of a software STAADProV8i
2
2.2 Project Scope and Limitations
The following were the scope covered by the design project:
1) The project was conceptualized with accordance to the National Building Code of the
Philippines and National Structural Code of the Philippines.
2) The structure was analyzed through STAAD Pro.
3) Manual computation of the design structural steel of the commercial building
The following were the limitations of the design project:
1) Structural steel as the main materials for the design of the project.
2) The cost estimates for mechanical and plumbing were not considered.
3) The interior design of the structure was not considered.
4) Other Structural Plans weren’t considered(Electrical, Mechanical and Plumbing)
2.3 Project Development
The project will undergo numerous processes in order to construct it successfully. The figure below
shows the flow of the project development. Conceptualization is the first step on the design process.
Ideas were patterned based on the designer’s preference in order to meet the demand of the client in
constructing the building. After the conceptualization comes the planning were structural plans and
scheduling were made to reach a certain goal which is the efficient construction of the Hospital
building. The Structural Plans will be based on the National Structural Code of the Philippines to ensure
the integrity and strength of the structure. After making the designated plans, the designer will use the
tradeoffs strategy in order to choose the good design that will be economical but will meet the strength
requirements of the said code. Trade-offs are then evaluated and whichever gives the most economical
results is then chosen for the final design.
3
Figure 1-2 Project Development Phases
4
5
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS
2.1 Description of the Structure

The Hospital building is proposed to be design of structural steel. The facility is composing a five floors
and a roof. It has 2 numbers of consulatation rooms,. The commercial building is categorized as a
standard occupancy structure (occupancy category IV), and is located at seismic zone 4 near the east
valley fault line 3 km away from the site. The hospital building has two access stairs located at the each
side of the building facing north and south at the corner of the building. The elevator located at the
corner of the structure, constructed with reinforced concrete around that act as shear wall and should
be taken advantage of resisting earthquake forces.
2.2 Classification of the Structure

The designers classified the occupancy of the structure based on the codes provided by National
Structural Code of the Philippines 2010. It is significant for the structure to be categorized according to
its occupancy for it will be the basis for the parameters necessary for seismic and earthquake analysis.
As for the commercial building, it is categorized as Standard Occupancy Structure. These data will help
in designing the structure especially in the determination of the seismic forces acting on the structure.
The structure has special moment reinforced concrete frames both in longitudinal and transverse axes.
The structural model of the 5-storey commercial building was created using STAAD Pro V8i Geometric
Model. The table 2-1 shows the room classifications with their corresponding area and the table 2-2
shows the functions of the room and its quantity.
Table 2- 1 Rooms Classifications with Corresponding Area
ROOM DESCRIPTION FUNCTION AREA
6
For Medical purposes Patient rooms 96 sq. m
For elevator, Medical stations and fire control Mechanical room 12.1sq. m
system
Comfort room Toilet 20 sq. m
Total area ( Not including the hallways and 128.1 sq. m
stairways)
Table 2- 2 Rooms function and Corresponding Quantity
FUNCTION QUANTITY
Consultation , Operating,, Emergency 6
room
Patient room 59
Comfort room 10
Doctors and Nursing station 15
Mechanical room 20
Total 110
7
2.3 Architectural Plans
Figure 2- 1 Ground Floor plan
8
Figure 2- 2 Second to fifth floor pan
Figure 2- 3 Site Development Plan
Figure 2-4 Front Elevation
9
Figure 2- 5 Rear elevation
Figure 2- 6 Right and left side elevation
10
2.4 Review of related literature
1.) End-Plate connection moment-rotation relationship (A.R. Kukreti, T.M. Murray, A.

Abolmaali)
A methodology, based on finite element modelling, is presented to analytically develop the
moment-rotation relationship for a bolted steel end-plate connection. The methodology is
demonstrated for a flush end-plate connection. Experimental testing of a few selected specimens
was conducted to verify the finite element modelling and associated computer analysis procedure.
The finite element model was used to conduct a parametric study to determine the effect of various
geometric and force related variables on the prediction of maximum end-plate separation.
Sufficient cases were then analyzed, which cover the variation of these variables within practical
ranges. The analyses data collected were regressed to develop a prediction equation
characterizing the general behavior of the connection.
2.) New Development in Studies on the Characteristics of Bolted Pipe Flange

Connections in JPRVC (Toshiyuki Sawa, Satoshi Nagata and Hirokazu Tsuji)
This paper deals with some studies carried out in the bolted flange connection committee (BFC) in
Japan Pressure Vessel Council (JPVRC) on the stress analysis of a pipe flange connection using
elastoplastic finite element method. The characteristics of the connections with the different
nominal diameters from 2 inches to 20 inches such as the contact gasket stress distribution, the
hub stresses, and the load factors were examined. The results from the finite element analyses
were fairly consistent with the experimental results concerning the variation in the axial bolt force.
By using the contact stresses distribution and the results of the leakage test, the new gasket
constant were evaluated. As a result, it was found out that the variations in the contact stresses
distributions were substantial due to the flange rotation in the pipe flange connections with the
larger nominal diameter.
3.) Hysteretic behavior of bolted-angle connections (ScienceDirect.com)
This paper presents an experimental investigation on the hysteretic behavior of bolted-angle beam-
to-column connections. The investigation focused on: (1) the inelastic behavior under large cyclic
deformation, (2) the failure modes under cyclic loading, and (3) the energy-dissipation capacity of
the bolted-angle connections. Two deformation patterns, distinguished by the relative strength of
11
angles and bolts, had a significant influence on the hysteretic behavior of the connections. Based
on the experimental results, hysteresis rules were established to lay a foundation for the
development of a behavioral hysteresis model of bolted-angle connections.
4.) Parametric analysis of steel bolted end plate connections using finite element
modeling (Y.I. Maggi, R.M. Goncalves, R.T Leon, L.F. Ribeiro)
This paper presents and discusses results of parametric analyses on the behavior of bolted
extended end plate connections using Finite Element (FE) modeling tools. The analyses were
calibrated to experimental results that are also briefly reviewed in this paper. The analytical models
took into account material nonlinearities, geometrical discontinuities and large displacements.
Comparisons between numerical and experimental data for moment-rotation curves,
displacements of the end plate, and forces on bolts showed satisfactory agreement.
Phenomenological T-stub failure models were also used for calculations of the flexural strength for
the end plate. These models clearly support the numerical results and show how the interaction
between the end plate and the bolts changes the connections’ behavior. The results presented
herein show that failures associated with either formation of yield lines in the plate (Mode 1) or bolt
tension failure (Mode 3) are well-defined, while failures due to combinations of these mechanisms
(Mode 2) represent levels of interaction between the end plate and bolts that are difficult to predict
accurately. These results also indicate that the T-stub analogy has limitations in representing the
yield lines at the end plate, leading to limitations both in accounting for prying action and in
predicting values for strength and stiffness of the connection.
5.) Bolted large seismic steel beam-to-column connections Part 1: experimental study
(Egor P. Popov, Shakhzod M. Takhirov)
Two large bolted steel moment-resisting connections were studied by experiments. These
connections were single-sided beam-to-column assemblies that are representative of exterior
beam-to-column connections, and they were composed of W36×150 Grade 50 beams and
W14×283 Grade 50 columns. T-stubs were cut from W40×264 sections of Grade 50 steel. The T-
stub stems were welded to the beams and prestressed by bolts to the beam flanges in the shop.
Final beam-to-column assembly required no additional welding: the T-stub flanges were bolted to
the column and the column shear tab was bolted to the beam web. The specimens had two
symmetrically located T-stubs with different stem geometry: Specimen 1 had rectangular-shaped
12
stems, whereas Specimen 2 had U-shaped stems. During the cyclic testing the beam deformation
was minimal controlled by active participation of the T-stub flanges: a separation between T-stub
flanges and the column flanges was observed. This separation was caused by bending plastic
deformation in the T-stub flanges and plastic deformation in the high-strength bolts. This
phenomenon allowed energy dissipation and prevented severe buckling of the beam flanges and
beam web.
CHAPTER 3 CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS AND STANDARDS
3.1 Design Constraints

Constraints must be identified in the planning of the Commercial Building in order to know the limits of
the construction process. Constraints are the possible factors that can affect or hinder the project.
Constraints may be in form of economic, safety, constructability, environmental, material, sustainability
and manufacturability.
The following were the expected constraints that have been considered before the designing of the
Structural steel Commercial Building:
1.1.1. Economic constraints

The economic constraint of the project deals with allocation of resources as well as the
budget of the project. If the budget is improperly allocated, this would cause negative
impact on the project’s success in terms of quality, safety, functionality and performance. It
is the designers’ duty to create a project that suffice the required strength and durability will
minimizing the cost of it by finding alternative solutions and to come up with a design
suitable to the client’s interest.
1.1.2. Constructability constraint
Constructability constraint deals with the duration needed to finish the project. This is one
of the factors that affects the cost of the project. The designers will determined which trade
off would require lesser amount of man-hour for construction.
13
1.1.3. Environmental constraints
Environmental constraint considers the uncertainty of the effects of climate change. The
proposed project is near at coastline in which wind loads are considered. There is a
possibility that earthquake forces may or may not occur which can affect the cost of the
project considering its design strength and life which are directly related to the cost of the
project.
1.1.4. Serviceability/safety constraints

Deflection of structural members must be prevented in order to make the structures safe. The
constraint will affect the subjective preference of the client but deflections must be countered in
order to ensure the safety of the future occupants that will be residing on the building.
Structural Analysis will be performed to know the expected deflections from the members
cause by the varying loads.
1.1.5. Sustainability constraints

This has a huge impact on the design since one of its goals is the safeness and quality of the
building. I address this constraint because when it comes to safety, buildings with higher
capacity of resisting loads are better and steel members with larger cross section are
hypothetically much safer. The alternatives that will have the smallest deflection after the
evaluation will be the one the designer will consider. A product that fails soon after it is built
and cannot be repaired, updated or modified to fit new needs is not a sustainable product
instead if that uses its resources effectively where can sustain its life for a long time is said to
be sustainable. To comprehend whether which of the two design is more sustainable to use,
the designer will analyze each of the trade-offs if does the manufacture and the use of the
product employ renewable resources. The designer also have to pick whether to use a bolted
or welded for the connections to be mounted that will satisfy the factor of this constraint.
3.2 Trade-offs
Design Trade-off is a method of construction which is appropriate to address the design constraints
efficiently and effectively. In the trade-off analysis, a set of trade-offs are being compared to be able to
come up with the best trade-off among the given selection.
14
Bolted connections are widely used in almost every mechanical and structural system due to added
flexibility of assembly and disassembly of sub-systems for inspections, replacement and routine
maintenance. A bolted connection often constitutes the weakest link in the design; in many cases, the
bolted connection can be responsible for determining the overall reliability and safety of the entire
system. A simple bolted connection may just include a threaded fastener (bolts/screw/stud), a nut or a
tapped hole, and the parts that would be clamped together by preloading and the bolt; mostly by
tightening the head or the nut.
Figure 3- 1 Bolted Connection
Source: https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%F978-0-387-92897-5_1079
file:///C:/Users/hp/Documents/pdf,SchoolFiles%20etc.%20files/5th%20Year/5th%20Year%20-%202nd
%20Sem/CE%20511%20(Structural%20Steel%20Design)/Strcutural%20Steel%20Design%20by
%20McCormac%20and%20Csernack.pdf
Welded connections is the process of joining two pieces of metal by creating a strong metallurgical
bond between them by heating or pressure or both. It is distinguished from other forms of mechanical
connections, such as riveting or bolting, which are formed by friction or mechanical interlocking. It is
one of the oldest and reliable methods of joining.
15
A welded connection is often simpler in concept and requires few, if any, holes (sometimes erection
bolts may be required to hold the members in position for the welding operation). Connections that are
extremely complex with fasteners can become very simple when welds are used.
Welding is a process by which metallic parts are connected by heating their surfaces to a plastic or
fluid state and allowing the parts to flow together and join (with or without the addition of other molten
metal). It is impossible to determine when welding originated, but it was at least several thousand
years ago. Metal-working, including welding, was quite an art in ancient Greece three thousand years
ago, but welding had undoubtedly been performed for many centuries before that. Ancient welding
probably was a forging process in which the metals were heated to a certain temperature (not to the
melting stage) and hammered together.
Figure 3- 2 Welded connection
Source: file:///C:/Users/hp/Documents/pdf,SchoolFiles%20etc.%20files/5th%20Year/5th%20Year%20-
%202nd%20Sem/CE%20511%20(Structural%20Steel%20Design)/Strcutural%20Steel%20Design
%20by%20McCormac%20and%20Csernack.pdf
16
The Trade-offs is based on the constraints stated on Chapter 3.1 Design Constraints, three design
methodologies were considered to satisfy the multiple constraints. These are listed in Table Raw
Designer’s Ranking. By giving the client an option into which one of the interchange design that will be
chosen, the designer used the model on trade-off strategies in engineering design by Otto and
Antonsson (1991), scaled the criterion’s importance from 0 to 10, 10 being the highest and likewise, to
satisfy the ability of the criterion it was scaled also from 0 to 10, and 10 being the highest.
Computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials:
Higher Value-Lower Value

%difference= x 10
Higher Value
Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank – (% difference) x 10
The governing rank is the subjective value set by the designers. It depends on the designers own
discrepancy on ranking the importance of each constraint. The subordinate rank in Equation is a
variable that corresponds to its percentage distance from the governing rank along the ranking scale.
Ranking Scale
3.2.1 Raw designers ranking
17
*Reference: Otto, K. N. and Antonsson, E. K., (1991). Trade-off strategies in engineering design.
Research in Engineering Design, volume 3, number 2, pages 87-104. Retrieved from
http://www.design.caltech.edu/Research/Publications/90e.pdf on March 11, 2013
The criterion must obtain the following values by advantage and disadvantage of bolted and
welded connection itself.
3.2.2 Economic Cost
The designers provided cost estimates for the two design alternatives. From these initial cost estimates, the
designers can come up on an initial decision of which of the two design alternatives is more economical.
Table 2-2 shows the summary of initial cost estimate for the two types of connection.
Cost Estimate
Table 1-2 Cost Estimate of Bolted and Welded Connections
18
Bolted Connection Welded Connection
₱ ₱
Total Cost 55,000,000.00 Total Cost 60,700,000.00
Source: [CITATION Rob08 \l 4105 ]
From this table, the designers used the model on trade-off strategies in engineering design by Otto and
Antonsson (1991) in order to come up an initial decision on which of the two types of beams will be used.
The designers abide to the computations on how to rank the two types connection based on economic
constraints.
Computation of ranking for economic:
Higher cost value: Welded Connection: ₱ 60,700.00
Governing cost value: Bolted Connection: ₱ 55,000.00
Governing rank: 10
60,700−55,000
Difference= x 10=1.04
55,000
Subordinate rank =10−1.04=8.96=9
19
Thus, welded connection is equal to five (10) while bolted connection is equal to three (9).
Figure 3- 3 Percent Difference of Cost
3.2.3 Constructability (Duration)
In quantifying the constructability constraints, the designers provided a time motion study what systems to
be used. Installation of connections were included in the initial man-hour estimate and from this initial
estimate the designers can choose of which of the two types of member connection will be faster to
construct. Table 3-3 shows the summary of initial man-hour estimate for the two types of member
connection.
Table 3-3 Man Hour Estimate of Bolted and Welded Connection
Bolted Connection
Labor Duration 1134 man-hr ₱ 114,820.00
Welded Connection
Labor Duration 617 man-hr ₱ 86,770.00
Source: National Building and Services
20
From this table, the designers used the model on trade-off strategies in engineering design by Otto and
Antonsson (1991) in order to come up an initial decision on which of the two types of structural connection
that will be used. The designers upholds to the computations on how to rank the two types of connections
based on constructability constraints.
Computation of ranking for constructability:
Higher cost value: Bolted Connection: ₱ 114,820.00
Governing cost value: Welded Connection: ₱ 86,770.00
Governing rank: 10
114,820.00−86,770.00
86,770.00
Subordinate rank =10−3.2=6.8=7
Figure 3- 4 Percent Difference for Constructability
21
Thus welded connection to five (10) while bolted connection is equal to two (7).
3.2.4 Sustainability Constraints

In the sustainability constraints, the maintenance cost for the two trade-offs were quantified to assess the
effectiveness of the trade-offs regarding this constraints.
TRADE-OFF MAINTENANCE COST

Bolted connection 86216.85
Welded connection 102643.2
Computation of ranking for sustainability:
Higher cost value: Bolted Connection: ₱ 114,820.00
Governing cost value: Welded Connection: ₱ 86,770.00
Governing rank: 10
102643.20−86216.85
86,216.85
Subo r dinate rank =10−1.9=8.1=8
Thus welded connection to five (10) while bolted connection is equal to two (8).
22
Figure 4- 0 Percent difference of sustainability
3.3 Design Standards

The proposed structural design of the structure shall conform to the following codes and standards.
 National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010 (NSCP) vol. 1 Buildings, towers, and other vertical
structures - 6th edition
 National Building Code of the Philippines (PD 1096)
 National Structural Code of the Philippines 2001
SECTION 505 – COLUMNS AND OTHER COMPRESSION MEMBERS
505.1 SCOPE
505.1.1 This section applies to prismatic members with compact and non-compact sections subject to axial
compression through the centroidal axis. For members with slender elements, see Section 502.6.2. For
23
members subject to combined axial compression and flexure, see Section 508. For tapered members, see
Section 506.8
505.2 EFFECTIVE LENGTH AND SLENDERNESS RATIO
505.2.1 The effective-length factor K shall be determines in accordance with Section 503.3
505.2.2 In determining the slenderness ratio of an axially loaded compression member, the length shall be
taken as its effective length Kl and r as the corresponding radius of gyration. For limiting slenderness ratios,
see Section 502.8.
505.3 ALLOWABLE STRESS

505.3.1 On the gross section of axially loaded compression members whose cross sections meet the
provisions of Table 502-1, when Kl/r, the largest effective slenderness ratio of any unbraced segment is less
than Cc, the allowable stress is:
505.2.2 On the gross section of axially loaded compression members, when Kl/r exceeds Cc the allowable
stress is:
SECTION 506 – BEAMS AND OTHER FLEXURAL MEMBERS
506.1 SCOPE
506.1.1 Beams shall be distinguished from plate girders on the basis of the web slenderness ratio h/tw.
When this value is greater than 2547/√𝐹�, the allowable bending stress is given in Section 507. The
allowable shear stresses and stiffener requirements are given in Section 506 unless tension field action is
used, then the allowable shear stress are given in Section 507.
506.2 ALLOWABLE STRESS: STRONG AXIS BENDING OF I-SHAPED MEMBERS AND CHANNELS
506.2.1 MEMBERS WITH COMPACT SECTIONS
24
506.2.1.1 For members with compact section as defined in Section 502.6.1 (excluding hybrid beams and
members with yield points greater than 448 MPa) symmetrical about, and loaded in, the plane of their minor
axis the allowable stress is:
Provided the flanges are connected continuously to the web or webs and the laterally unsupported length of
the compression flange L does not exceed the value of Lc, as given by the smaller of:
506.2.2 MEMBERS WITH NON-COMPACT SECTIONS
506.2.2.1 for members meeting the requirements of Section 506.2.1 except that their flanges are non-
compact (excluding built-up members and members with yield points greater than 448 MPa), the allowable
stress is:
506.2.2.3 For members with a non-compact section (Section 502.6), but not included above, and loaded
through the shear center and braced laterally in the region of compression stress at intervals not
exceeding:
506.2.2.3 For members with a non-compact section (Section 502.6), but not included above, and loaded
through the shear center and braced laterally in the region of compression stress at intervals not
exceeding:
The allowable stress is:
25
506.2.3 MEMBERS WITH COMPACT OR NON-COMPACT SECTIONS WITH UNBRACED
LENGTH GREATER THAN L
506.2.3.1 For flexural members with compact or non-compact sections as defined in Section 502.6.1, and
with unbraced lengths greater than Lc, as defined in Section 506.2.1, the allowable bending stress in
tension is determined from Equation (506-5).
506.2.3.2 For such members with an axis of symmetry in, and loaded in the plane of their web, the
allowable bending stress in compression is determined as the larger value from Equations (506-6) or (506-
7) and (506-8), except that Equation (506-8) is applicable only to sections with a compression flange that
has an area not less than the tension flange. Higher values of the allowable compressive stress are
permitted if justified by a more precise analysis. Stresses shall not exceed those permitted by Section 507,
if applicable
506.2.3.3 For channel bent about their major axis, the allowable compressive stress is determined from
Equation (506-8).
When
26
506.3 ALLOWABLE STRESS: WEAK AXIS BENDING OF I-SHAPED MEMBERS, SOLID BARS
AND RECTANGULAR PLATES
506.3.1 Lateral bracing is not required for members loaded through the shear center about their weak axis
nor for members of equal strength about both axes.
506.3.1.1 MEMBERS WITH COMPACT SECTIONS
506.3.1.1.1 For doubly symmetrical I- and H-shape members with compact flanges (Section 502.6)
continuously connected to the web and bent about their weak axes (except members with yield points
greater than 448 MPa); solid round and square bars; and solid rectangular sections bent about their weaker
axes, the allowable stress is:
506.3.1.2 MEMBERS WITH NON-COMPACT SECTIONS
506.3.1.2.1 For members not meeting the requirements for compact sections of Section 502.6 and not
covered in Section 506.4, bent about their minor axis, the allowable stress is,
506.5 ALLOWABLE SHEAR STRESS
506.5.1 For ℎ/𝑡�≤998/√𝐹�, on the overall depth times the web thickness, the allowable shear stress is
𝐹�=0.40𝐹�
SECTION 508 – COMBINED STRESSES
508.1 SCOPE
508.1.1 The strength of members subjected to combined stresses shall be determined according to the
provisions of this Section.
508.1.2 This Section pertains to doubly and singly symmetrical members only. See Section 505 for
determination of Fa and Section 506 for determination of Fbx and Fby.
508.2 AXIAL COMPRESSION AND BENDING
27
508.2.1 Members subjected to both axial compression and bending stresses shall be proportioned to
satisfy the following requirements:
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE

4.1 Methodology
The warehouse is made of American cold form steel. It shall be designed using Allowable Stress
Design (WSD) method. This is also called as Working Stress Design. The design of the structure is
administered by the several standards and codes presented in Chapter 3. The designers used steel to
design beams and columns and concrete for slab of the structure.
Working Stress Design is a method of proportioning and designing structural members such that
elastically computed stresses produced in the members by nominal loads do not exceed specified
allowable stresses. (National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP 2010 Edition), 2010).
4.2 Structural Design
For the purpose of accomplishing the design project, the designers followed the steps shown in the
flowchart in Figure 4.1. The designers started the design by designing a geometric model of the structure
using STAADPro and AutoCAD. Then next is the consideration of the design specifications from the codes
28
and standards which were stated on the previous chapter. After which is the setting of material properties
for all structural members wherein the material to be used is steel. Then load specification is reflected
depending on the type of structure. This includes live load, dead load, seismic load and wind load. Having
obtained needed data, the structure then can be analyzed and structural details were designed.
Load Design
Geometric Material Structural Structural
Specificatio Detail
Model Properties Analysis Design
n Schedule
Figure 4 - 1 Structural Design Flowchart
4.3 Structural modeling

The following images are the structural design of the project:
29
Figure 4 -2 First to fifth floor framing plan
30
Figure 4 - 5 Framing Plan Generated by STAAD
4.4 Loadings
4.4.1 Dead loads
This loads is based on National structural code of the Philippines minimum dead loads, computed
according to its designation.
Table 4- 1 Dead loads
Designation Dead load (Kpa)

Ceiling 0.05
Coverings, Roof and wall 0.22
Floor and Floor finishes 2.323
Frame walls 0.38
Wall 2.98
4.4.2 Wind Load parameters
Table 4- 2 Wind load
31
WIND LOAD PARAMETERS
Building Classification Category 1 (Essential Facilities)
Basic Wind Speed 290 kmph
Exposure Category B
Structure Type Building Structure
Enclosed Classification Partially Enclosed
4.4.3 Earthquake load Parameter
Table 4- 3 Earthquake load
Specifications Coefficient
Type of structure Standard occupancy structure
Occupancy category 4
Seismic zone 4; 0.4
Length from the fault 4 km (West valley fault)
Soil profile Sd
Seismic source type A
Near source factor (Na) 1.0
Near source factor (Nv) 1.2
Seimic Coefficient (Ca) 0.44
Seismic coefficient (Cv) 0.768
4.4.4 Load combination

Since the design is using ASD the load combinations to be are in accordance with Section 203.4.1
of the NSCP.
Table 4- 4 Load Combination
1.2DL+1.6LL
1.2 DL +0.8 WL
1.2DL + 1.6WL
1.2DL+1.0E
0.9DL+1.6WL
0.9DL+1.0E
4.5 Geometric Modeling
32
Figure 4 - 3 Earthquake load generated by STAAD
Figure 4-6 Wind Load at Diagram
33
4.6 Design of the structure
4.6.1 Design of Purlins

The design of purlins is like a design of beam but it acquires load at X and Y direction of the section
designed for the purlins. The load combination obtained from adding the dead load and what is
greater between live load and wind load shall be used in the design. Then the flexural stress
induced by the loads shall be compared with the allowable stress of the used section.
Mx
f x=
Sx
My
f y=
Sy
The allowable stress in each section differs with the slenderness of the member. It shall be
computed using the formulas shown below which shall be used only if passes the requirement
indicated.
Fy∧b f 170
Fbx =0.66 <
2t f √f y
Then the relationship of the stresses should be as shown below, to be considered safe.
f bx f by
+ ≤ 1.0
F bx F by
4.6.2 Design of truss

Since each members of the truss was designed to support axial load only. Then it shall follow the
codes stated of Section 505 of the NSCP 2001. The formula used for the design is Euler’s formula
shown below:
π 2 EI
P= 2
L
This formula can only be used if:
P
<200
A
And:
L
<100
r
For the connection of each member, it shall be welded since the members are too thin to insert
hole for bolts.
4.6.3 Design of Beams
34
For the design of beam, the load used came from the load generated by the STAAD. The
proponent shall the maximum load used among the different load combination for the design which
are indicated before in this chapter. By this load the actual flexural stress, shear stress, and
deflection should be formulated using the following formula:
M
f b=
Sx
V
f v=
dtw
3
WL
δ act =
384 EI
While the deflection came from the STAAD. This stresses are then compared to the allowable
stresses of the assumed section, which the formulas used to find the result are shown below:
Fb =0.66 Fy
If the beam is compacted, this is obtained if the conditions shown below are followed:
bf 170
<
2 tf √ Fy
And
d 1680
<
tw √ Fy
For the shear stress:

F v =0.75 Fy
If this condition is followed:

h 998
<
tw √ Fy
For deflection:
L
δ=
180
The actual stresses should be less than the allowable stresses of the assumed beam for it to be
considered adequate for the load supporting the beam. The computations are shown at Appendix
E.
4.6.4 Design of Column
35
Column is a compression member that should resist bending at both axis. For this project the
stresses induced by the loads are then related to the stresses that the assumed section of member
could hold and it shall meet a certain relationship for the section to be safe. The actual stresses are
computed using the formulas shown below:
P
f a=
A
Mx
f bx=
Sx
My
f by=
Sy
While the allowable stresses shall be computed as follows:

r
kl/¿
¿
¿2
Fy
¿
F .S.
¿
1−¿
Fa=¿
If:
C c=
√
2 π 2 E kl
Fy
>
r
Where:
3
kl kl
5
F . S .= +
r
3
−
( ) ( )
r
3 8 C c 8 Cc3❑
For flexural at X-direction:

Fbx =0.75 Fy
If:
200 bf 137900
> L>
√ fy Fyd
b f tf
For flexural at Y-direction
Fby =0.66 Fy
36
If:
Cm
Magnification Factor= <1
fa
1− '
Fe
Where:
12 π 2 E
F e'=
23(kl/r )2
And the relationship of the actual stresses should be as follows to be considered safe:
fa Cmx fbx Cmy fby
+ + <1
Fa fa fa
( ) (
1− ' Fbx 1− ' Fby
Fe x Fe y )
fa fbx fby
+ + <1
0.6 Fa Fbx Fby
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
For this design which are bolted and welded connections, I considered first the codes and standards to be
the basis for these design. To have a successful design the designer should not be condemned with only
the codes and standards here on the Philippines but considering the international codes also to be part of
the design that would help or could may help in the design. For some reason what we needed in the design
cannot be seen in our codes and standards so the designer validates first what is needed in the design. In
this project, the designer basis for the design are the NSCP 2010 and 2015
The designer considered two trade-offs which are Bolted Connections and Welded Connections as the
designer mentioned earlier. Welded connection is easier to design but when it comes to inspection, both of
them have the same status. Bolted connection is a lot costly to initial cost compared to welded connection.
But it takes longer time to finish for the welded connection. For this design the winner is the Welded
Connection. Comparing the two using the ranking used in the previous chapter, it better to use the welded
37
connection for the designed structure stated in the final result of estimate in the chapter 4 which is the
design.
APPENDIX A. LOAD COMPUTATION
A.1 Dead Load

Ceilings:
0.05 Kpa
Ceilings and roof:
0.12+0.1= 0.22 Kpa
Floor and Floor finishes:
0.77+1.53+0.023 = 2.323 Kpa
Frame walls:
0.38 Kpa
Wall:
Interior plaster + Exterior plaster + CHB
0.24+0.24+2.5= 2.98Kpa
A.2 Wind Load

Tabulated wind load computation
Basic wind speed (V) 200 kph
Wind directionality factor (Kd) 0.85
Importance Factor (Iw) 1.15
Velocity Pressure and exposure coefficient 1.09
Topography Factor (Kzt) 4
Zmin 4.5
Q 0.88725
Lz 144.823
Gq 3.4
Gu 3.4
38
Gust effect factor (G) 0.87044
Wind ward roof -2.71 Kpa
Leeward Roof -6.5 Kpa
A-3 Tabulated seismic load computation

Type of structure Standard occupancy structure
Occupancy category 4
Seismic zone 4; 0.4
Length from the fault 4 km (West valley fault)
Soil profile Sd
Seismic source type A
Near source factor (Na) 1.0
Near source factor (Nv) 1.2
Seimic Coefficient (Ca) 0.44
Seismic coefficient (Cv) 0.768
Ct 0.0853
h 16
T 0.6824
APPENDIX B. DESIGN OF PURLIN
GIVEN: DL 0.22 Kpa
WL 6.4 Kpa
Purlin Spacing 1.2 m
Distance between Trusses 4.4 m
Angle 8.8 degree
Fy 248 Mpa
39
Solution
:
DL 0.264 KN/m
WL 7.68 KN/m
Wx 7.940892271 KN/m
Wy 0.040388251 KN/m
Mx 19.2169593 Kn-m
My 0.02443489
Sx 117405.6653 mm^3
Sy 131.370387 mm^3
LC 220 x 75 x 25 x
Use section: 5.0
Sx 118,500.00 mm^3
APPENDIX C. DESIGN Sy 23700 mm^3 OF TRUSS
Fbx 162.1684329 mpa

Truss design at top and bottom chord
Fby 1.0310081 mpa
Answer: 0.99630816 Safe!
40
41
42
APPENDIX D. DESIGN OF BEAM
Grid 1-(A-B)
ASTM DESIGNATION: A 36
Minimum yield stress (Fy), Mpa : 248 Mpa (248 Mpa)
Beam Dimension:
Maximum Lateral
Length, L : 4m Bracing: 0m
510.969
Steel Section: W18x35 Wt. of beam (N/m): 7
Properties of steel
Section
Elastic
Dimensions: Properties:
6645.15
Area, A (mm2) : sq.mm (X-X axis)
212278027.
4
depth, d (mm) : 449.58 mm Moment of Inertia, Ix , mm : 1
Modulus of elasticity, Sx , 943894.886

thickness of web, tw , (mm): 7.62 mm mm3 : 4
Width of flange, bf , (mm): 152.4 mm Radius of gyration, rx , mm : 178.816
Thickness of flange, tf ,
(mm): 10.795 mm (Y-Y axis)
6368340.81
Plate buckling coefficient, k , (mm): 28.575 mm Moment of Inertia, Iy , mm4 : 2
Modulus of elasticity, Sy , 83901.7676

Distance between web toes, T, (mm): 393.7 mm mm3 : 8
Radius of gyration, rt ,
(mm) : 37.846 mm Radius of gyration, ry , mm : 30.988
Structural Analysis:
43
Maximum Moments (KN-m): 0 KN-m
Maximum Shear (KN): 70.13 KN
Actual Deflection,Δ (per

EI) : 0 /EI
Computations (Bending Stress):
Mu = M(factored) + Moment due to wt. of beam
Mwt. = 1.022 KN-m
Mu = 1.022 KN-m
fb, Actual Bending Stress = 2.165 Mpa
Check Compactness:
bf 170
<
Width-thickness ratio: 2 tf √ F y
7.058823529 < 10.7950108 . : The flange is compact
Depth-thickness
d 1680
ratio: <
tw √F y
59 < 106.6801067 . : The Web is compact
Since the flanges is contunuously connected to web, The section is classified as compact section
Compute for Bending Stress:
Lb, Laterally unsupported length

= 4000 mm
Compute Lc, Minimum of:
Compute Lu, Maximum of:

200b f
L1 =
√F y
L1 = 1935.482 mm
137,900
L2 =
Fyd L2= 2034.76 mm
bf t f
44
1935
Lc = mm Lu= 2034.76 mm
Allowable Bending Stress:
For Lb < Lc
For Compact Section:
Fb = 0.66 Fy Fy < 65 Ksi
Fb = 0.60 Fy Fy > 65 Ksi
For Partially Compact Section:
Fy < 65 Ksi
bf
(
Fb =F y 0.79−0.000762
tf
√F y )
Fy > 65 Ksi , Fb = 0.60 Fy
Slenderness Ratio:
For Lc < Lb < Lu, Fb = 0.60 Fy
if Lb > Lc & Lb > Lu:
L/rt = 106 mm
Case I
√703270 Cb L
Fy
< <
rt Fy √
3516330 C b
53.25191 - 119.0746
Allowable bending stress is:
Fb =F y −
2
[ F y ( L/r t )2
3 10.55 x 106 C b ]
Fb= 100.211 Mpa
Case II
L
rt
>
√3516330 Cb
Fy
45
1172100 C b
Fb =
L 2
Case I and ()
rt
Case II
should not
less than:
82740C b
Fb =
Ld Fb= 75.69308 Mpa
bf t f
Case I and Case II should not greater than 0.60Fy
Fb= 148.8 Mpa
Where Cb:
2
M1 M1
Cb =1.75+1.05 ( ) ( )
M2
+0.3
M2
M1= 0 KN-m
M2= 0 KN-m
Cb = 1.0 for simply supported and
cantilever beam
Cb = 1.0 if moment at the segment is greater than Mb
Cb = 1.75 for bracings
Use Cb = 1
fb(actual) < Fb(allowable)
2.165 Mpa < 100.2108558 Mpa
. : The beam is adequate to support the loads in bending
Computations (Shearing Stress):
Allowable
Shear F v =0.40 Fy
46
Fv= 99.2 Mpa
V
F ave=
d tw
20.77
Fave= Mpa (Including wt. of beam)
20.77 Mpa < 99.2 Mpa
. :The beam is adequate against Shearing Stress
Computations (Deflection):
L
δ a=
360
11.111
δa= mm
Δ
δ actual=
δact= 0.04 mm (Including
EI wt. of beam)
11.111
0.04 mm < mm
. :The beam is adequate against deflection
Grid 1-(C-D)
Beam Dimension:
Maximum Lateral
Length, L : 4m Bracing: 0m
510.969
Steel Section: W18x35 Wt. of beam (N/m): 7
Properties of steel
Section
Dimensions: Elastic
47
Properties:
6645.15
Area, A (mm2) : sq.mm (X-X axis)
212278027.
depth, d (mm) : 449.58 mm Moment of Inertia, Ix , mm4 : 1
Modulus of elasticity, Sx , 943894.886

thickness of web, tw , (mm): 7.62 mm mm3 : 4
Thickness of flange, tf ,
(mm): 10.795 mm (Y-Y axis)
6368340.81
Plate buckling coefficient, k , (mm): 28.575 mm Moment of Inertia, Iy , mm4 : 2
Modulus of elasticity, Sy , 83901.7676

Distance between web toes, T, (mm): 393.7 mm mm3 : 8
Radius of gyration, rt ,
(mm) : 37.846 mm Radius of gyration, ry , mm : 30.988
Structural Analysis:
Maximum Moments (KN-m): 0 KN-m
Maximum Shear (KN): 70.13 KN
Actual Deflection,Δ (per

EI) : 0 /EI
Computations (Bending Stress):
Mu = M(factored) + Moment due to wt. of beam
Mwt. = 1.022 KN-m
Mu = 1.022 KN-m
fb, Actual Bending Stress = 2.165 Mpa
Check Compactness:
48
bf 170
<
Width-thickness ratio: 2 tf √ F y
7.058823529 < 10.7950108 . : The flange is compact
Depth-thickness
d 1680
ratio: <
tw √F y
59 < 106.6801067 . : The Web is compact
Since the flanges is contunuously connected to web, The section is classified as compact section
Compute for Bending Stress:
Lb, Laterally unsupported length

= 4000 mm

200b f
L1 =
√F y
L1 = 1935.482 mm
137,900
L2 =
Fyd L2= 2034.76 mm
bf t f
1935
Lc = mm Lu= 2034.76 mm
For Lb < Lc
Fb = 0.66 Fy Fy < 65 Ksi
Fb = 0.60 Fy Fy > 65 Ksi
Fy < 65 Ksi
bf
(
Fb =F y 0.79−0.000762
tf
√F y )
49
Fy > 65 Ksi , Fb = 0.60 Fy
Slenderness Ratio:
L/rt = 106 mm
Case I
√703270 Cb L
Fy
< <
rt Fy √
3516330 C b
53.25191 - 119.0746
[ ]
2
2 F y ( L/r t )
Fb =F y −
3 10.55 x 106 C b
Fb= 100.211 Mpa
Case II
L
rt √
>
3516330 Cb
Fy
1172100 C b
Fb =
L 2
Case I and ()
rt
Case II
should not
less than:
82740C b
Fb =
Ld Fb= 75.69308 Mpa
bf t f
Fb= 148.8 Mpa
Where Cb:
2
M1 M1
Cb =1.75+1.05
M2
+0.3 ( ) ( )
M2
50
M1= 0 KN-m
M2= 0 KN-m
cantilever beam
Cb = 1.0 if moment at the segment is greater than Mb
Use Cb = 1
fb(actual) < Fb(allowable)
2.165 Mpa < 100.2108558 Mpa
. : The beam is adequate to support the loads in bending
Computations (Shearing Stress):
Allowable
Shear F v =0.40 Fy
Fv= 99.2 Mpa

V
F ave=
d tw
20.77
Fave= Mpa (Including wt. of beam)
20.77 Mpa < 99.2 Mpa
. :The beam is adequate against Shearing Stress
Computations (Deflection):
L
δ a=
360
11.111
δa= mm
Δ
δ actual=
EI
51
δact= 0.04 mm (Including wt. of beam)
11.111
0.04 mm < mm
. :The beam is adequate against deflection
APPENDIX E. DESIGN OF COLUMN
Column 2-D
Minimum yield stress (Fy), Mpa

345 Mpa (248 Mpa)
:
E(Modulus of Elasticity): 200000 Mpa
Column Dimension:
HEIGHT, H : 4m Maximum Lateral Bracing (X - axis): 0m
Top Fixity: Fixed Maximum Lateral Bracing (Y - axis): 0m
Bottom Fixity: Fixed Recommended Efective length factor, K: 1
52
Axial Stress:
P= 191400 N
fa=P/A
Steel Section: W18x55
fa= 18.31299959 Mpa a.) Fixed/Fixed-0.65, b.) Fixed/Pinned-0.8, c.)
Fixed/Roller-1.2
Bending Stress:
d.) Pinned/Pinned-1.0, e.) Fixed/Free-2.10, d.) Pinned/Roller-2.0
Mx= 0 N-mn
Properties of steel Section
My= 0 N-mm
Dimensions: Elastic Properties:
fb=M/S
Area, A (mm2) : 10452 sq.mm (X-X axis)
fbx= 0 Mpa
depth, d (mm) : 459.994 mm Moment of Inertia, Ix , mm4 : 370445968.8
fby= 0 Mpa
thickness of web, tw , (mm): 9.906 mm Modulus of elasticity, Sx , mm3 : 1610848.391
Allowable Stress:
Axial Stress:
Thickness of flange, tf , (mm): 16.002 mm (Y-Y axis)
Max Slenderness Ratio (KL/r):
Plate buckling coefficient, k , (mm): 33.3375 mm Moment of Inertia, Iy , mm4 : 18688791.01
(X-asis) L = 4000 mm
Distance between web toes, T, bx(mm): 393.7 mm Modulus of elasticity, Sy , mm3 : 195006.0616
r = 188 mm K= 1
Radius ofx gyration, rt , (mm) : 49.53 mm Radius of gyration, ry , mm : 42.418
(KL/r) = 21.2524
Dist: fromx web centerline to bf toe,k1: 20.6375 mm Wt. of beam (N/m): 803
(Y-asis) Lby= 4000 mm
Loadings:
ry= 42 mm K= 1
Moment(X-axis): -0.02 KN-
(KL/r)y= 94.2996m
Moment(Y-axis):
(KL/r)max= 94.29960 KN-m
Axial Load(P)-KN: 191.4 KN ex: 0 mm ey: (mm)
0 mm
(mm)
Cc= 106.9720505
Distribution of moments along member length: Sway frame
94.29959 < 106.972 (Intermediate Column)
Allowable axial stresses: 200b

if Cc < KL/r , It is classified as intermediate column
1172100
Fb82740C
=
CFFca=
√ (√( [ ( √) ) ( ]) )
703270
L
=√
L= F12
2 π
Cbb=1.75+1.05
L 2
C
a=F
F
=1b =F
r23
y bf
tFS(2
EC2 /F
d2π3516330
<
√tf1−
w yF<
F yKL/r
1680
E
b f( 170
2 y
3y√√)F2rF10.55
yyM
tC 2
yC
L/rbt )f2M 1C2b
LMF1C)y2b3516330
KL/r (
−2 <2 +0.3F6 √ F y
<
>y t 0.79−0.000762
x 10t f MC
y 2
b
()
b
Compute for Bending Stress about weak axis: Fb = 137,900 3
Ld r t L 5= 3 ( KL/ r ) ( KL/ r )
b f t f FS= 3 + F8C +
2
For Compact Section: yd 3
c 8C c
FS= 2.08287 bf t f
Fb = 0.75 Fy Fy < 65 Ksi
Fa= 101.2782069 Mpa
53
if KL/r > Cc , It is classified as Long column
Fb = 0.60 Fy Fy > 65 Ksi
Fb= 258.75 Mpa
For Partially bf
compact
section:
(
Fb =F y 1.075−0.0 019
tf
√F y )
Fy > 65 Ksi , Fb = 0.60 Fy
Interaction Value
fa/Fa = 0.18082
if fa/Fa > 0.15

fa Cmx f bx C my f by
+ + ≤ 1.0
Fa fa fa
0.18081876
(
F by 1− '
) (
F ex
<
F by 1− '
1
)
F ey Saf
e
fa f f
+ bx + by ≤1.0
0.6 F y F bx F by
Saf
0.088 Mpa < 1
e
Grid 2-A
Minimum yield stress (Fy),

345 Mpa (248 Mpa)
Mpa :
Column Dimension:
54
a.) Fixed/Fixed-0.65, b.) Fixed/Pinned-0.8, c.)

Fixed/Roller-1.2
Distance between web toes, T, (mm): 393.7 mm Modulus of elasticity, Sy , mm3 : 195006.0616
Radius of gyration, rt , (mm) : 49.53 mm Radius of gyration, ry , mm : 42.418
Dist: from web centerline to bf toe,k1: 20.6375 mm Wt. of beam (N/m): 803
Loadings:
Moment(X-axis): 0 KN-m
Moment(Y-axis): 0 KN-m
340.97 ex:
Axial Load(P)-KN: 0 mm ey: (mm) 0 mm
KN (mm)
Actual Stress:
Axial Stress:
P= 340970 N
fa=P/A
55
fa= 32.62373809 Mpa
Bending Stress:
Mx= 0 N-mn
My= 0 N-mm
fb=M/S
fbx= 0 Mpa
fby= 0 Mpa
Allowable Stress:
Axial Stress:
(X-asis) Lbx= 4000 mm
rx= 188 mm K= 1
(KL/r)x= 21.2524
ry= 42 mm K= 1
(KL/r)y= 94.2996
(KL/r)max= 94.2996
C c =√ 2 π 2 E /F y
Cc= 106.9720505
Allowable axial stresses:

Fy ( KL/r )2
F a=
FS ( 1−
2 C2C)
FS=
5 32.08287
( KL/ r ) ( KL/ r )3
FS= + + 3
3 8C c 8C c
56
Fa= 101.2782069 Mpa

12 π 2 E
F a=
23 ( KL/r )2
Bending Stress:
Check Compactness:
Width-thickness bf 170
ratio: <
2 tf √ F y
5.97619 < 9.152492335
. : The flange is compact
Depth-thickness d 1680
<
ratio: tw √F y
46.4359 < 90.44815955
. : The Web is compact
Since the flanges is continuously connected to web, The section is

Compute for Bending Stress about strong axis:
Lb, Laterally unsupported length = 0 mm

200b f
L1 =
√F y
137,900 L1 = 2059.44 mm
L2 =
Fyd
L2= 2659.475 mm
bf t f
Lc = 2059 mm Lu= 2659.475 mm
For Lb < Lc
57
Fy < 65
Fb = 0.66 Fy
Ksi
Fy > 65
Fb = 0.60 Fy
Ksi
Fb= 227.7 Mpa
Fy < 65 Ksi
bf
(
Fb =F y 0.79−0.000762
tf
√F y )
Fy > 65 Ksi , Fb = 0.60 Fy
Slenderness Ratio:
L/rt = 0 mm
Case I
√703270 Cb L
Fy
< <
rt Fy √
3516330 C b
Fb =F y −
2
[ F y ( L/r t )2
3 10.55 x 106 C b ]
Case II
L
rt
>
√3516330 Cb
Fy
Allowable
bending 1172100 C b
stress is: Fb =
L 2
()
rt
82740C b
Fb =
Case I and Ld
bf t f
58
Case II
should not
less than:
Where Cb:
2
M1 M1
Cb =1.75+1.05
M2 ( ) ( )
+0.3
M2
M1= 0 KN-m
M2= 0 KN-m
cantilever beam
Cb = 1.0 for Positive moment is

greater
than negative moment at both
ends
Use Cb = 1
227.7
Fbx=
Mpa
Compute for Bending Stress about weak axis:
Fb = 0.75 Fy Fy < 65 Ksi
Fb = 0.60 Fy Fy > 65 Ksi
Fb= 258.75 Mpa
bf
For Partially
compact
(
Fb =F y 1.075−0.0 019
tf
√F y )
59
section:
Fy > 65 Ksi , Fb = 0.60 Fy
Interaction Value
fa/Fa = 0.32212
if fa/Fa > 0.15

+ + ≤ 1.0
Fa fa fa
0.32212002
(
F by 1− '
) (
F ex
<
F by 1− '
1
)
F ey Saf
e
fa f bx f by
+ + ≤1.0
0.6 F y F bx F by
Saf
0.158 Mpa < 1
e
Grid 1-B

345 Mpa (248 Mpa)
Mpa :
Column Dimension:

Fixed/Roller-1.2

60
Loadings:
0.001 KN-
Moment(X-axis):
m
ex:
Axial Load(P)-KN: 66.64 KN 0 mm ey: (mm) 0 mm
(mm)
Actual Stress:
Axial Stress:
P= 66640 N
fa=P/A
fa= 6.376062135 Mpa
Bending Stress:
Mx= 1000 N-mn
My= 0 N-mm
fb=M/S
61
fbx= 0.000620791 Mpa
fby= 0 Mpa
Allowable Stress:
Axial Stress:
rx= 188 mm K= 1
(KL/r)x= 21.2524
ry= 42 mm K= 1
(KL/r)y= 94.2996
(KL/r)max= 94.2996
C c =√ 2 π 2 E /F y
106.972050
Cc=
5
94.29959 < 106.972 (Intermidiate Column)

Fy ( KL/ r )2
F a=
FS ( 1− 2
2 CC )
FS=
5 32.08287
( KL/r ) ( KL /r )3
FS= + +
3 8C c 8C 3c
Fa= 101.2782069 Mpa

12 π 2 E
F a= 2
23 ( KL/r )
Bending Stress:
Check Compactness:
62
ratio: <
2 tf √ F y
5.9761 9.15249233
<
9 5
<
ratio: tw √F y
46.435 90.4481595
<
9 5
Since the flanges is contunuously connected to web, The


200b f
L1 =
√F y
137,900 L1 = 2059.44 mm
L2 =
Fyd
2659.475
bf t f L2=
mm
2059 2659.475
Lc = Lu=
mm mm
For Lb < Lc
Fb = 0.66 Fy Fy < 65 Ksi
Fb = 0.60 Fy Fy > 65 Ksi
Fb= 227.7 Mpa
63
Fy < 65 Ksi
bf
(
Fb =F y 0.79−0.000762
tf
√F y )
Fy > 65 Ksi , Fb = 0.60 Fy
Slenderness Ratio:
L/rt = 0 mm
Case I
√703270 Cb L
Fy
< <
rt
3516330 C b
Fy √
Fb =F y −
2
[ F y ( L/r t )2
3 10.55 x 106 C b ]
Case II
L
rt
>
√3516330 Cb
Fy
Allowable
bending 1172100 C b
Fb = 2
stress is: L
()
rt
Case I and
Case II 82740C b
should not Fb =
Ld
less than: bf t f
Where Cb:
64
2
M1 M1
Cb =1.75+1.05
M2 ( ) ( )
+0.3
M2
M1= 0 KN-m
M2= 0 KN-m
cantilever beam

greater
ends
Use Cb = 1
227.7
Fbx=
Mpa
Fb = 0.75 Fy Fy < 65 Ksi
Fb = 0.60 Fy Fy > 65 Ksi
Fb= 258.75 Mpa
For Partially compact section:

b
(
Fb =F y 1.075−0.0 019 f √ F y
tf )
Fy > 65 Ksi , Fb = 0.60 Fy
Interaction Value
fa/Fa = 0.06296
if fa/Fa > 0.15
65
+ + ≤ 1.0
Fa fa fa
(
f a F by f1− f
) (
F by 1− '
+ bx +F 'exby ≤1.0
0.6 F y F bx F by
)
F ey
Modification factor:
Cmx= 0.85
Cmy= 0.85
Use
Cm > 0.4 0.85
Cm=
Use
0.85
Cm=
Euler's 2
12 π E
buckling F'ex = 2
KL
formula: 23 ( )
r
2280.17
F'ex=
Mpa
115.815
F'ey=
Mpa
amplification factor 1-fa/F'ex > 1.0
cm/(1-fa/F'ex)-1: 0.85238 Use: 1
cm/(1-fa/F'ey)-1: 0.89952 Use: 1
f a f bx f by
if fa/Fa<0.15 F + F + F ≤1.0
a bx bx
0.06295864 < 1 Safe
Grid A-6 Fifth floor

345 Mpa (248 Mpa)
Mpa :
66
Column Dimension:

Fixed/Roller-1.2
Loadings:
0.004 KN-
Moment(X-axis):
m
ex:
(mm)
67
Actual Stress:
Axial Stress:
P= 1182 N
fa=P/A
fa= 0.113092819 Mpa
Bending Stress:
Mx= 4000 N-mn
My= 0 N-mm
fb=M/S
fbx= 0.002483164 Mpa
fby= 0 Mpa
Allowable Stress:
Axial Stress:
rx= 188 mm K= 1
(KL/r)x= 21.2524
ry= 42 mm K= 1
(KL/r)y= 94.2996
(KL/r)max= 94.2996
C c =√ 2 π 2 E /F y
Cc= 106.9720505
94.29959 < 106.972 (Intermidiate Column)

68

F ( KL/r )2
F a= y 1−
FS ( 2 C2C)
FS=
5 32.08287
( KL/ r ) ( KL/ r )3
FS= + + 3
3 8C c 8C c
Fa= 101.2782069 Mpa

12 π 2 E
F a=
23 ( KL/r )2
Bending Stress:
Check Compactness:
ratio: <
2 tf √ F y
5.97619 < 9.152492335
<
ratio: tw √F y
46.4359 < 90.44815955
Since the flanges is continuously connected to web, The section is


200b f
L1 =
√F y
137,900 L1 = 2059.44 mm
L2 =
Fyd
L2= 2659.475 mm
bf t f
69
Lc = 2059 mm Lu= 2659.475 mm
For Lb < Lc
Fb = 0.66 Fy Fy < 65 Ksi
Fb = 0.60 Fy Fy > 65 Ksi
Fb= 227.7 Mpa
Fy < 65 Ksi
bf
(
Fb =F y 0.79−0.000762
tf
√F y )
Fy > 65 Ksi , Fb = 0.60 Fy
Slenderness Ratio:
L/rt = 0 mm
Case I
√703270 Cb L
Fy
< <
rt Fy √
3516330 C b
[ ]
2
2 F y ( L/r t )
Fb =F y −
3 10.55 x 106 C b
Case II
L
rt
>
√3516330 Cb
Fy
Allowable
bending
70
1172100 C b
Fb = 2
L
()
rt
stress is:
Case I and
Case II 82740C b
should not Fb =
Ld
less than:
bf t f
Where Cb:
2
M1 M1
Cb =1.75+1.05
M2 ( ) ( )
+0.3
M2
M1= 0 KN-m
M2= 0 KN-m
cantilever beam
Cb = 1.0 for Positive moment is greater
ends
Use Cb = 1
Fbx= 227.7 Mpa
Fb = 0.75 Fy Fy < 65 Ksi
Fb = 0.60 Fy Fy > 65 Ksi
Fb= 258.75 Mpa
71
bf
(
Fb =F y 1.075−0.0 019
tf
√F y )
Fy > 65 Ksi , Fb = 0.60 Fy
Interaction Value
fa/Fa = 0.00112
if fa/Fa > 0.15

+ + ≤ 1.0
Fa fa fa
(
f a F by f1− f
) (
F by 1− '
+ bx +F 'exby ≤1.0
0.6 F y F bx F by
F ey )
Cmx= 0.85
Cmy= 0.85
Cm > 0.4 Use Cm= 0.85
Use Cm= 0.85
Euler's 2
buckling 12 π E
F'ex = 2
formula: KL
23 ( )
r
2280.17
F'ex=
Mpa
115.815
F'ey=
Mpa
cm/(1-fa/F'ex)-1: 0.85004 Use: 1
cm/(1-fa/F'ey)-1: 0.85083 Use: 1
f a f bx f by
+ + ≤1.0
if fa/Fa<0.15 F a F bx F bx
0.00112756 < 1 Safe
72
Grid 1-B

345 Mpa (248 Mpa)
Mpa :
Column Dimension:

Fixed/Roller-1.2
Loadings:
73
0.001 KN-
Moment(X-axis):
m
ex:
(mm)
Actual Stress:
Axial Stress:
P= 66640 N
fa=P/A
fa= 6.376062135 Mpa
Bending Stress:
Mx= 1000 N-mn
My= 0 N-mm
fb=M/S
fbx= 0.000620791 Mpa
fby= 0 Mpa
Allowable Stress:
Axial Stress:
rx= 188 mm K= 1
(KL/r)x= 21.2524
ry= 42 mm K= 1
74
(KL/r)y= 94.2996
(KL/r)max= 94.2996
C c =√ 2 π E /F y
2
106.972050
Cc=
5

Fy ( KL/r )2
F a=
FS ( 1− 2
2 CC )
FS=
5 32.08287
( KL/ r ) ( KL/ r ) 3
FS= + + 3
3 8C c 8C c
Fa= 101.2782069 Mpa

12 π 2 E
F a=
23 ( KL/r )2
Bending Stress:
Check Compactness:
ratio: <
2 tf √ F y
5.9761 9.15249233
<
9 5
<
ratio: tw √F y
46.435 90.4481595
<
9 5
Since the flanges is continuously connected to web, The
75

200b f
L1 =
√F y
137,900 L1 = 2059.44 mm
L2 =
Fyd
2659.475
bf t f L2=
mm
2059 2659.475
Lc = Lu=
mm mm
For Lb < Lc
Fb = 0.66 Fy Fy < 65 Ksi
Fb = 0.60 Fy Fy > 65 Ksi
Fb= 227.7 Mpa
Fy < 65 Ksi
bf
(
Fb =F y 0.79−0.000762
tf
√F y )
Fy > 65 Ksi , Fb = 0.60 Fy
Slenderness Ratio:
L/rt = 0 mm
76
Case I
√703270 Cb L
Fy
< <
rt
3516330 C b
Fy √
Fb =F y −
2
[ F y ( L/r t )2
3 10.55 x 106 C b ]
Case II
L
rt √
>
3516330 Cb
Fy
Allowable
bending 1172100 C b
Fb = 2
stress is: L
()
rt
Case I and
Case II 82740C b
should not Fb =
Ld
less than: bf t f
Where Cb:
2
M1 M1
Cb =1.75+1.05 ( ) ( )
M2
+0.3
M2
M1= 0 KN-m
M2= 0 KN-m
cantilever beam

greater
ends
77
Use Cb = 1
227.7
Fbx=
Mpa
Fb = 0.75 Fy Fy < 65 Ksi
Fb = 0.60 Fy Fy > 65 Ksi
Fb= 258.75 Mpa

b
(
Fb =F y 1.075−0.0 019 f √ F y
tf )
Fy > 65 Ksi , Fb = 0.60 Fy
Interaction Value
fa/Fa = 0.06296
if fa/Fa > 0.15

+ + ≤ 1.0
Fa fa fa
(
f a F by f1− f
) (
F by 1− '
+ bx +F 'exby ≤1.0
0.6 F y F bx F by
F ey )
Cmx= 0.85
Cmy= 0.85
Use
Cm > 0.4 0.85
Cm=
Use
0.85
Cm=
12 π 2 E
F'ex = 2
KL
23 ( )
r
78
Euler's
buckling
formula:
2280.17
F'ex=
Mpa
115.815
F'ey=
Mpa
cm/(1-fa/F'ex)-1: 0.85238 Use: 1
cm/(1-fa/F'ey)-1: 0.89952 Use: 1
f a f bx f by
if fa/Fa<0.15 F + F + F ≤1.0
a bx bx
0.06295864 < 1 Safe
APPENDIX F WELDED CONNECTION
DESIGN OF WELDED CONNECTION (BEAM TO TRUSS)
Minimum tensile strength of electrodes: E 70 485 Mpa
A
3
ASTM DESIGNATION: 6
248
Minimum yield stress (Fy), Mpa : Mpa (248 Mpa)
Properties of Angle: 2 Angle
H(mm)= 100 mm y= 33.3
79
mm
B(mm)= 75 mm ϴ= 30
t(mm)= 12 mm
Tension Load:
P(KN)= 34.95 KN
Thickness of plate
(mm)= 16 mm
Size of welds (mm)= 10 mm
L= 125 mm
Value of a:
Tensile force for 1 angle:
T=P/2= 71500 N
Length of fillet weld:
T = 0.707 tL(0.30)Fu
L= 69.50621 mm
a+b= 69.50621 mm
capacity of fillet weld
q = 0.707 t(1)(0.30)Fu
q= 1028.685 N/mm
qaH=Py
a= 23.11082 mm
b=L-a= 46.3954 mm
Allowable tensile stress:
80
T = Pcosϴ
T= 30.26758786 KN
Allowable shear stress:
V=Psinϴ
V= 17.475 KN
For double-bevel full penetration groove weld:
Effective length of throat = thickness of

plate
Effective length of throat = 16 mm
Shearing stress of groove weld:
fv=V/tL
fv= 4.369 Mpa
Tensile stress of groove weld:
ft = T/tL
ft= 7.566896966 Mpa
Allowable tensile stress (Shear & tension)
[ ( )]
2
fv
Frt = 1− Ft
Ft
Ft=0.60Fy
Ft= 148.8 Mpa
Frt= 148.671734 Mpa
Since:
149 Mpa > 7.57 Mpa
The Connection is adequate to support the load
81
DESIGN WELDED CONNECTIONS (COLUMN TO BEAM)
Minimum tensile strength of electrodes: E 60 415 Mpa
Angle t
dimension: H: 100 mm B: 100 mm : 14 mm
D
: 200 mm a: 65 mm
LOAD, P(KN): 70.31 KN
Design shop weld to beam

connections: Torsional Moment:
cL P/2= 35157 N
a/2= 32.5 mm M = (P/2)(a-x)
82
100 mm M= 1835062.765 N-mm
fx A
cg
100 mm R fy
x' x M
fv
65 mm
Consider 1mm thick if fillet weld
Location of centroid of fillet welds: Torsional Stress:
L = L1 + L2 + L3 = 330 mm fx = My/J fx= 88 N/mm
Lx=L1x1+L2x2+L3x3 fy = Mx/J fy = 46 N/mm
x= 12.8 mm Direst shear:
107
x'= 19.7 mm fv = R/L fv= N/mm
Polar moment of inertial of fillet weld Max force per mm to be resisted by fillet w.
Ix= [D3/12]+[a(D/2)(2)] R2 =fx2+(fy+fv)2
Ix= 1966666.667 mm4 R= 175.6274409 N/mm
Iy= [2(a-x)3/3]+[2(x)3/3]+[Dx2] thickness of fillet weld:
a-x= 52.2 mm q = R = 0.707 t (1) (0.3) Fu
1.9952
Iy= 128990.5303 mm4 t= 79 say 2 mm
thickness fillet
J = Ix+Iy= 2095657.197 mm4 Use 2 mm weld
to beam
83
Design field fillet weld to column flange:
NSCP Specs:
The field welds are subject to a rotation

effect w/c cause the web angles to be forced
Summation of moment at 0 shear
Fh = F(2/3)(5D/6) = (P/2)(H)
D/6= 33.33 mm
5D/6= 166.7 mm
F= 31640.85 N
F = (1/2)(5D/6)fx
fx = 379.6902 N/mm
Direst shear:
fv = R/L
fv= 175.7825 N/mm
Max force per mm to be resisted by fillet w.
R2 =fx2+(fy+fv)2
R= 418.4066626 N/mm
thickness of fillet weld:
q = R = 0.707 t (1) (0.3) Fu
4.753459 5
t= 8 say mm
thickness fillet
Use 5 mm weld
to beam
84
Adequacy of web angle
q= 418.4066626 N/mm
Capacity of fillet weld = capacity of angle

qD = tangleD(0.4Fy)
ta = 4.218 mm
t= 14 mm
14 mm > 4.22 mm
The angular section is

adequate
APPENDIX G BOLTED CONNECTION
Critical beam at fifth floor

Parameters
Fy= 248 Mpa
Fu=400 Mpa
Bolt diameter= 22mm
85
Fv=0.3Fu
Fv= 0.3(400)
Fv= 120 Mpa
P= 70.313 KN
Properties of angle
L8 x 8 x 1
Properties of column
18 x 55
Properties of beam
18 x 35
For shear capacity of bolts

R= AvFv
1
70.313 (1000) = (π )(222)(120)(n)
4
N= 2
Therefore use 3 bolts
Bearing Capacity
P=ApFp
70.313 (1000) = 22(25)(1.2)( 400)(n)
N= 0.266
Critical column at ground floor
Parameters
Fy= 248 Mpa
Fu=400 Mpa
Bolt diameter= 22mm
Fv=0.3Fu
Fv= 0.3(400)
86
Fv= 120 Mpa
P= 340.97 KN
Properties of angle
L8 x 8 x 1
18 x 55
Properties of beam
18 x 35

R= AvFv
1
340.97 (1000) = (π )(222)(120)(n)
4
N= 7.47
Bearing Capacity
P=ApFp
340.97 (1000) = 22(25)(1.2)( 400)(n)
N= 1.29
Critical beam at fifth floor

Parameters
Fy= 248 Mpa
Fu=400 Mpa
Bolt diameter= 22mm
Fv=0.3Fu
Fv= 0.3(400)
87
Fv= 120 Mpa
P= 191.426 KN
Properties of angle
L8 x 8 x 1
18 x 55
Properties of beam
18 x 35

R= AvFv
1
191.426 (1000) = (π )(222)(120)(n)
4
N= 4.2
Bearing Capacity
P=ApFp
191.426 (1000) = 22(25)(1.2)( 400)(n)
N= 0.725
Reflection Essay
Structural Steel design is one of the subject that I preferred before I step on the 5 th year second semester.
Because someone says you need to exert an effort in order to pass, getting a 3.0 is like a steel, really hard.
But later on I conclude that when you practice and work hard difficulties will become easy. This course is
very important to me especially I’m civil engineering student and I know that this material is preferred by
many clients in different structure design. Up until now steel is one of the most important materials in
construction, they choose this because of its properties and its ability to lessen the time of work. That is
88
why I this subject is counted, I believe the learnings that I know in this course will apply someday when I
become a licensed civil engineering.
From bolted to welded connection, beams and columns and everything that needed is talked in this course.
Such a good addition to the curriculum plus the project that I pass I think it helps a lot to sharpen my
experience in designing. Difficult but it’s okay because this is for my future.
I would like to thank to my friends for helping me for this course most especially to my professor for
teaching and guiding us to know the concept of this course and for sharing as well his life and experience
outside the industry of engineering which makes an inspiration to me.
89
STRUCTURAL
STEEL DESIGN
SECOND SEMESTER
CE52FB1
ASHER BAILEY A. BIGAY
90

Hahaja

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Hahaja

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Major Design Experience Information

CE 511 Structural Steel Design

Student Bigay, Asher Bailey A.

A project is assumed to be sustainable if it can able to encounter current needs

Deflection of structural members must be prevented in order to make the structures

Constructability constraint is also important since time efficiency will be needed on

UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY EXEMPLARY

Rating= ( Total12Score ) x 100

ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECT ASSESSMENT TOOL

Percentage Rating= (Total

______________________________________ Date: _________________________________

PHILIPPINES 938 AURORA BOULEVARD

CUBAO QUEZON CITY

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

DESIGN OF 5-STOREY HOSPITAL BUILDING IN RODRIGUEZ, MONTALBAN

BIGAY, ASHER BAILEY A.

ENGR. RHONNIE C. ESTORES

Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores

Figure 2- 1 Ground Floor plan...........................................................................................................................9

Figure 3- 1 Bolted Connection........................................................................................................................17

Figure 4 - 1 Structural Design Flowchart........................................................................................................29

Table 2-2 Cost Estimate of Bolted and Welded Connections.........................................................................20

Table 2- 1 Rooms Classifications with Corresponding Area.............................................................................9

Table 4- 1 Dead loads.....................................................................................................................................33

Figure 1-1 Perspective View of 5-storey Hospital Building

Figure 1-1 Location Map of Hospital Building

(Source: Google Map/ Google Earth)

2.1 Project objective

2) The structure was analyzed through STAAD Pro.

3) Manual computation of the design structural steel of the commercial building

The following were the limitations of the design project:

3) The interior design of the structure was not considered.

4) Other Structural Plans weren’t considered(Electrical, Mechanical and Plumbing)

2.3 Project Development

2.1 Description of the Structure

2.2 Classification of the Structure

Table 2- 1 Rooms Classifications with Corresponding Area

ROOM DESCRIPTION FUNCTION AREA

Table 2- 2 Rooms function and Corresponding Quantity

Figure 2- 1 Ground Floor plan

Figure 2- 3 Site Development Plan

Figure 2-4 Front Elevation

Figure 2- 6 Right and left side elevation

1.) End-Plate connection moment-rotation relationship (A.R. Kukreti, T.M. Murray, A.

2.) New Development in Studies on the Characteristics of Bolted Pipe Flange

3.) Hysteretic behavior of bolted-angle connections (ScienceDirect.com)

CHAPTER 3 CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS AND STANDARDS

3.1 Design Constraints

1.1.1. Economic constraints

1.1.2. Constructability constraint

1.1.4. Serviceability/safety constraints

1.1.5. Sustainability constraints

Figure 3- 1 Bolted Connection

Figure 3- 2 Welded connection

Computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials:

Higher Value-Lower Value

Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank – (% difference) x 10

3.2.1 Raw designers ranking

3.2.2 Economic Cost

Table 1-2 Cost Estimate of Bolted and Welded Connections

Source: [CITATION Rob08 \l 4105 ]

Computation of ranking for economic:

______ Date: _