RCD Final Proj

CE 502 Reinforced Concrete Design
1st Semester, S.Y. 2018-2019
Student Tomo, Mark Jendel

Project Title Design of a Five-Storey Reinforced Concrete Apartment Building
Program Concentration Area Structural
Constraints
The budget of a certain project has been a principal problem to all construction
projects in general. Specifically, the client and the designer come up into the vision
Economic (Cost)
of having a low-cost or economical project, allotting to all possible expenses the
project might require, without of course compromising safety.
Sustainability is also one of the most vital aspects a designer seeks in constructing,
Sustainability (Life Span)
especially if the structure itself is expected to last for the longest time possible.
The duration of the project plays a vital part in the decision making of the trade-offs.
A longer duration in creating the structure most probably would cause unwanted
Constructability (Duration)
delays and further increase in the cost being provided by the project if the original
schedule was followed.
Tradeoffs
They are generally used in the construction of buildings., which are common in
practice; these types of column are provided only if the shape of the room is a square
or rectangular shape.
It is way much easier to construct and cast rectangular or square columns than
Square Column
circular ones. This is primarily for the ease of working with the shuttering and to
support it from it collapsing due to pressure while the concrete is still in flowable form.
The square and rectangular ones are better and less costly to cast.
They are specially designed columns, they are mostly used in piling and elevation of
the buildings. In order to avoid edges, we use this type of columns. they are also
provided in sit out areas, auditoriums or fire assembly zones, where you have enough
Circular Column space for them not to hinder any movement of people or look bad with flat
surfaces You can find circular columns as pillars of Bridges because there you don’t
need to flush them to anything. Also circular looks aesthetic there.
They are generally used in the corners of the boundary wall and has same features
L-Shaped Column of a rectangular or square column. These kind of columns are very less used.
Standards
1. National Structural Code of The NSCP 2015 Edition will be used by the designer to search for the loadings and
the Philippines (NSCP) other seismic coefficients since the project will also cross the field of seismic analysis
and consider it as part of its vision to provide sustainability and safety.
2. American Concrete Institute The ACI Code, particularly the ACI 318-05 and 318-08, provides an in-depth and
(ACI) Code comprehensive discussion regarding provisions and minimum standards to
safeguard life and property by regulating and controlling the design, construction,
quality of materials pertaining to the structural aspects of all buildings and structures
within its jurisdiction that involves concrete as its main component.
3. National Building Code of The National Building Code of the Philippines, also known as Presidential Decree No.
the Philippines (PD 1096) 1096 was formulated and adopted as a uniform building code to embody up-to-date
and modern technical knowledge on building design, construction, use, occupancy
and maintenance. The code provides for all buildings and structures, a framework of
minimum standards and requirements to regulate and control location, site, design,
and quality of materials, construction, use, occupancy, and maintenance.
Modern Tools/Techniques
1. STAAD Pro STAAD Pro is a comprehensive and integrated finite element analysis and design
offering that includes a state-of-the-art user interface, visualization capabilities, and
international design codes. It is capable of analyzing any structure exposed to static
loading, a dynamic response, wind, earthquake, and moving loads. It is the premier
FEM analysis and design tool for any type of project including towers, plants, bridges,
stadiums, and marine structures.
TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES
938 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

Civil Engineering Department
CE 502
REINFORCED CONCRETE DESIGN
DESIGN OF A FIVE-STOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE

APARTMENT BUILDING
Submitted by:
TOMO, MARK JENDEL
CE51FC1
Submitted to:
ENGR. PROSPERO CABORNAY
October 2019
1st Semester, S.Y. 2019-2020
APPROVAL SHEET
The design project entitled “Design of a t-Storey Reinforced Concrete Residential Building” prepared by Mark
Jendel Tomo of the Civil Engineering Department was examined and evaluated by the designer himself, and
is hereby recommended for approval.
Engr. Prospero Cabornay
Adviser
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
It is a genuine pleasure to express my deep sense of thanks and gratitude to the persons below who
made this design project possible. They were there in every instance, providing strength and encouragement.
To Engr. Prospero Cabornay, for his dedication and keen interest and above all, his overwhelming
attitude to help his students finish the task to a great extent; I extremely appreciate your positive attitude, and
unending appreciation.
Above all, I would like to thank God for giving me the chance, the knowledge and wisdom, and more
significantly the perseverance to fulfill this task. I owe Him my deepest and profound gratitude.
Sincerely,
The Designer
ABSTRACT
This project entitled as “Design of a Three-Storey Reinforced Concrete Residential Building” is

presented by Mark Jendel Tomo, in partial fulfillment for the requirements in CE 502 (Reinforced Concrete
Design).
The project entailed structural analysis and design of a Three-Storey Reinforced Concrete
Residential Building which utilized three considerable tradeoffs in order to impose the best possible
transaction. The parts investigated and calculated included the following: beams, columns, and slabs. Also,
the parts of the building selected were considered to be the most critical – computed through the use of a
structural analysis and design software, STAAD Pro. All load combinations were utilized in the analysis.
Consequently, design specifications from the National Building Code of the Philippines and National
Structural Code of the Philippines were applied during the design procedures. The design schedule and
member details of the structure were then created for the design proper.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPROVAL SHEET ...................................................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................................................iii
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................. iv
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 1
1. 1 The Project ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Location ................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 The Client ............................................................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 3
1.4.1 General Objective ......................................................................................................................... 3
1.4.2 Specific Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Scope and Limitation ........................................................................................................................... 4
1.5.1 Scope ........................................................................................................................................... 4
1.5.2 Limitation ...................................................................................................................................... 4
1.6 Project Development ........................................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS ..................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Description of the Structure ................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Room Classification with Corresponding area ................................................................................... 8
2.3 Design Loads ....................................................................................................................................... 8
2.3.1 Dead Loads .................................................................................................................................. 8
2.3.2 Live Loads .................................................................................................................................. 10
2.3.3 Earthquake Loads....................................................................................................................... 10
2.3.4 Wind Load Parameters ............................................................................................................... 10
2.3.5 Load Combinations ..................................................................................................................... 11
2.4 Architectural Plans ............................................................................................................................. 12
2.5 Review of Related Literature and Studies .......................................................................................... 19
CHAPTER 3: CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS AND STANDARDS............................................................. 28
3.1 Design Constraints ............................................................................................................................ 28
3.1.1 Economic (Construction Cost) .................................................................................................... 28
3.1.2 Constructability (Duration of Construction) ................................................................................. 28
3.1.3 Sustainability Constraints (Design Life) ...................................................................................... 29
3.1.4 Structural Safety (Serviceability) ................................................................................................. 29
3.2 Trade-offs .......................................................................................................................................... 29
3.2.1 Square or Rectangular Shaped Column ..................................................................................... 29
3.2.2 Circular Shaped Column ............................................................................................................. 30
3.2.3 L-Shaped Column ....................................................................................................................... 31
3.3 Raw Designer’s Ranking ................................................................................................................... 33
3.4 Trade-offs Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 34
3.4.1 Economic Assessment ............................................................................................................... 34
3.4.2 Constructability Assessment ....................................................................................................... 34
3.4.3 Sustainability Assessment .......................................................................................................... 35
3.5 Initial Design Output .......................................................................................................................... 35
3.6 Design Standards .............................................................................................................................. 39
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE .................................................................................................... 40
4.1 Design Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 40
4.2 Load Specifications............................................................................................................................ 41
4.2.1 Dead Loads ................................................................................................................................ 41
4.2.2 Live Loads .................................................................................................................................. 43
4.2.3 Wind Loads ................................................................................................................................. 43
4.2.4 Earthquake Load ........................................................................................................................ 44
4.2.5 Load Combinations ..................................................................................................................... 44
4.3 Structural Modeling and Analysis....................................................................................................... 46
4.3.1 Square Column ........................................................................................................................... 46
4.4 Structural Design ............................................................................................................................... 66
4.4.1 Procedure in Designing of Beams .............................................................................................. 66
4.4.2 Procedure in Designing Columns ............................................................................................... 68
4.4.3 Procedure in Designing Slab ...................................................................................................... 69
4.5 Validation of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards ............................................................ 70
4.6 Final Estimate of Trade-offs ............................................................................................................... 70
4.7 Final Raw Designer’s Ranking ........................................................................................................... 74
4.8 Designer’s Final Ranking and Assessment ....................................................................................... 75
4.8.1 Influence of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards in the final design .......................... 75
CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN ...................................................................................................................... 76
5.1 Beam Schedule and Details .............................................................................................................. 76
5.2 Column Schedule and Details ........................................................................................................... 77
5.3 Slab Schedule and Details ................................................................................................................. 78
APPENDIX A: CODES AND STANDARDS ................................................................................................. 80
APPENDIX B: COMPUTATION OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS ................................................................. 88
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND
1. 1 The Project
San Mateo is a first class urban municipality in Rizal Province. Conurbated to the urban
agglomeration of the Greater Manila Area, San Mateo is one of the fastest growing municipalities in Rizal
Province, according to the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) and the Provincial
Government of Rizal. The Municipality has many spacious parks, tree-lined streets and roads, and industrial
zones. Most of the municipality is composed of residential areas, whereas the eastern side is composed of
high plateaus and foothills of the Sierra Madre Mountains.
San Mateo is located along the western border of Rizal Province. It is bordered on the west by
Quezon City, to the south by Marikina City and Antipolo City, the capital of Rizal Province, and to the north
by Rodriguez (Montalban). It is approximately 24 kilometers (15 miles) away from Manila and 11 kilometers
(6.8 miles) north of Pasig City. The town lies in the Marikina Valley. The Marikina River runs through the
western portion of the Municipality, while Nangka River runs through the south, bounded by Marikina City.
San Mateo has lush trees in other high areas.
In consideration of the continuous growth of population and urbanization in the location with the
increasing presence of economic and industrial opportunities invites more people to stay and live in San
Mateo. However, most of the land in San Mateo have been developed already except most of the eastern
side where foothills of the Sierra Madre Mountains lie. In order to accommodate the propagating number of
people wanting to live in San Mateo, the designer intends to produce a design of a three (3) storey residential
house that could maximize the space with only forty meters’ square ground floor area.
The project aims to layout and design a residential house which will be able to withstand the
expected hazards and the present condition in the location. The design will only cover forty square meters’
area thereby occupying lesser space and increasing the available lot for more people who will be transferring.
1
1.2 Project Location
The project is designed to suit the location of Richtoneville Subdivision, Ampid, San Mateo Rizal.
The project site has a perimeter of about 43.56 meters and a lot area of 93 square meters. The project
location is near the landmarks like SM City San Mateo and Puregold San Mateo which are both along General
Luna Street. The project site is within the premises of a private subdivision, Richtoneville.
Figure 1-1 Satellite View of the Project Location (Google Earth, 2018)
Figure 1-2 Satellite 3D View of the Project Location (Google Earth, 2018)
1.3 The Client
The client for the project is Mr. Junel Pilot, an overseas Filipino worker in Abu Dhabi. He wants
minimalist style residence suited for his small family. He desires to have a three-storey house and specified
to have a limiting budget of eight hundred thousand to one million and two hundred thousand only.
1.4 Project Objectives
1.4.1 General Objective
The general objective of the design is to apply knowledge of contemporary issues and
consequent responsibilities relevant to professional engineering practice. The project aims to design
a Three-Storey Reinforced Concrete Residential Building in Ampid, San Mateo, Rizal that is
functionally efficient, safe, and in fulfillment of all the requirements of the client in accordance to the
principles of NSCP 2010.
1.4.2 Specific Objectives
The general objective stated above can be broken down into four specific objectives that
would collectively achieve the overall goal of the project as follows:
1) To design a 3-storey school building made of reinforced concrete materials.

2) To provide detailed plans and programmed design of the project
3) To evaluate the effect of multiple constraints, trade-offs and standards in the final design.
4) To provided structural analysis of the project.
1.5 Scope and Limitation
1.5.1 Scope
The following are the scope covered by the project:
 The project is designed with accordance to National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010,
Volume 1 and National Building Code of the Philippines.
 Analysis of structural elements using STAADPro V8i Program.
 Detailed illustrations of structural members.
 Design by reinforced concrete materials
1.5.2 Limitation
The following are the limitations of the design project:
 The detailed activities within the span of construction of the project.

 The project does not include Architectural, Mechanical, Plumbing and Electrical Works.
 The project does not include the cost estimation for Architectural, Mechanical, Plumbing and
Electrical Works.
 The interior perspective each floor of the residential building project.
 The maintenance and alterations of the project.
1.6 Project Development
The following flowchart shown below will be used by the designer himself in choosing the best design
for the project. Also, herein provided a brief understanding of the methods involved:
 Planning/Conceptualization
The project procedure starts with the designer-client collaboration. It is a straightforward
approach to impose a fluid perception of the overall design; and to develop considerable
design aspects for the project.
 Identification of Design Standards and Parameters
The designer will then distinguish design standards and parameters as promulgated by
existing codes and provisions. This is to determine the most suitable and economically viable
construction and engineering methods for the project.
 Design of Architectural and Structural Plans
The initial plans will be presented to the client in order to create a dynamic adoption of the
design output. During this part, necessary revisions and collaboration is extensive.
 Trade-offs and their Design
The designer provides three (3) trade-offs on Reinforced Concrete Design. This is to arrange
a variety of method that balances opposing qualities as preferred by the client and the overall
condition of the development area.
 Evaluation of Trade-offs
The trade-offs are evaluated based on the constraints by means of measurable parameters.
 Selection of Trade-offs
The highest scorer trade-off will be selected as the best design project.
 Conclusion
The designated trade-off will then be inferred vital for the design proper.
Conceptualization
Location/Vicinity map
Identifying the project

objectives, target client and
scope and limitations
Determining design standards

and parameters
Architectural and Structural

Plan
Identification of Constraints
and Trade-offs
Weighing of constraints and trade-offs

based on standard Capstone procedures
Loadings and Structural

Analysis
Final Design Output
Figure 1-3: Project Development Process
The following stages shown in Figure 1-3 takes place in design in a 3-storey residential building.
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS
2.1 Description of the Structure
The building being designed is a five-storey apartment building with the general floor plan shown in
section 2.4 of this chapter. The structure will be composed of five floors and a roof deck, intended for an open
concept floor plan in all apartments having floor-to-ceiling height of 3 meters per level. The ground floor of
the building will be a slab on grade. A lobby and an admission area will be placed on the ground floor; the
upper floors will only be used for residential space. The details of the structural design and necessary codes
used will be discussed in the succeeding chapters.
Figure 2-1 Rendered View of the Structural Model

2.2 Room Classification with Corresponding area
The following spaces of the building and the equivalent area are as follows:
Room Description Area Quantity Total Area

(m2) (m2)
Living Room 1 16.875 1 16.875
Kitchen 9.375 1 9.375
Bedroom 1 10.05 1 10.05
Bedroom 2 9.00 1 9.00
Comfort Room 1 3.00 1 3.00
Dining Room 5.625 1 5.625
Balcony 1 3.125 1 3.125
Office space 9.375 1 9.375
Living Room 2 5.625 1 5.625
Master’s Bedroom 11.875 1 11.875
Terrace 10.925 1 10.925
Stairs 6.00 3 18.00
Table 2-1 Room Classification with Corresponding Area

2.3 Design Loads
The design loads and parameters given below are according to the National Structural Code of the
Philippines (NSCP 2015).
2.3.1 Dead Loads
The dead loads acting on the structure are as follows:

Materials Design Load (kPa)
Ceramic or quarry tile (20mm) on 25mm mortar bed 1.10
Acoustical Fiber board 0.05
Mechanical duct allowance 0.2
Suspended steel channel system 0.1
Masonry Grout (Full) 0.11
CHB Wall (100mm) 2.11
CHB Wall (150mm) 2.73
Plaster (both sides) 0.48
Asphalt Shingles 0.1
Table 2-2 Minimum Design Loads for Ceiling, Floors and Walls
The table shown are according to Table 204-2 Minimum Design Dead Loads of NSCP 2015.
Material Density (kN/m3)
Concrete 23.54
Glass 25.1
Aluminium 26.7
Table 2-3 Minimum Density

The table shown are according to Table 204-1 Minimum Densities for Design Loads from Materials of
NSCP 2015.
2.3.2 Live Loads
The live loads acting on the structure are as follows:
User or Occupancy Uniform Load (kPa)

Basic floor area 1.9
Roof decks 1.9 (same as area served
or occupancy)
Table 2-5 Occupancy Load
The table shown are according to Table 205-1 Minimum Uniform and Concentrated Live Loads of NSCP
2015.
2.3.3 Earthquake Loads
The earthquake loads considered for design are as follows. These standards, however, are not intended to
assure zero-damage to structures:
Parameters
Importance Factor 1
Soil Profile type Stiff soil profile (Type 4)
Seismic Zone Zone 4 (Z=0.4)
Seismic source type A
Near-Source Factor (Na) 1.16
Near-Source Factor (Nv) 1.52
Ct 0.0731
R (Special R.C Moment Resisting Frame) 8.5
R (Dual System) 8.5
Table 2-6 Seismic Design Inputs
The table shown are according to Section 208 Earthquake Loads of NSCP 2015.
2.3.4 Wind Load Parameters
The wind loads considered for design are as follows:
Parameters
Basic Wind Speed 200 kph
Exposure Category B
Building Classification Category II
Structure Type Building
Structure
Enclosure Classification Partially
Enclosed
Importance Factor 1
Table 2-7 Wind Design Inputs
The table shown are according to NSCP 2015 specified and presented in Sections 207A through 207F.
2.3.5 Load Combinations
In accordance with Section 203 Combination of Loads of NSCP 2015, the following load combinations are
used.
LOADS REQUIRED STRENGTH

DEAD LOAD (DL) AND LIVE LOAD (LL) 1.4DL
1.2DL + 1.6LL
DEAD LOAD (DL), LIVE LOAD (LL) AND WIND 1.2DL +1.0LL
LOAD (WL) 1.2DL + 0.8WL
1.2DL + 0.8WL + 1.0LL
0.9DL + 1.6WL
DEAD LAOD (DL), LIVE LOAD (LL), AND 1.2DL + 1.0LL + 1.0EL
EARTHQUAKE LOAD (EL) 0.9DL + 1.0EL
Table 2-8 Load Combinations
The table shown are the load combinations used for design – required by the Association of Structural
Engineers of the Philippines, Inc. (ASEP) in NSCP 2015.
2.4 Architectural Plans
Herein provided the architectural plans of the Three-Storey Residential Building.
Figure 2-2 Ground Floor Plan

Figure 2-3 Second Floor Plan
Figure 2-4 Third Floor Plan
Figure 2-5 Front Elevation
Figure 2-6 Left Side Elevation
Figure 2-7 Right Side Elevation
Figure 2-8 Rear Elevation
2.5 Review of Related Literature and Studies
EFFECT OF DIFFERENT COLUMN SHAPES ON SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS
Shruti S. Ladvikar and Ashok R. Mundhada (2016). Effect Of Different Column Shapes On Seismic
Performance Of Buildings
Based on the studuy of Ladvikar, it is concluded that seismic performance of building with specially
shaped columns is better as compared to the building with rectangular columns. Also, the displacement
in R.C. frame building with specially shaped columns is less than the R.C. frame building with rectangular
columns. It is concluded that drift in R.C. frame building with specially shaped columns is less than the
R.C. frame building with rectangular columns. R.C. frame building with specially shaped columns is
economical than the R.C. frame building with rectangular columns
VARIATION ANALYSIS EFFECTS OF SQUARE AND RECTANGULAR COLUMNS SECTION WITH

DIFFERENT LONGITUDINAL REINFORCEMENT RATES IN THE MAIN REINFORCEMENT TWO
PILE CAPS ANALYSIS
F. S. Munhoz And J.S. Giongo (2017) Variation Analysis Effects Of Square And Rectangular Columns
Section With Different Longitudinal Reinforcement Rates In The Main Reinforcement Two Pile Caps
Analysis.
With the results obtained in this study, it was possible to analyze the influence of square and
rectangular columns and the influence of different longitudinal reinforcement ratios of columns in pile
caps tensile reinforcement.
The results corroborated the Fusco [3] method because showed that section of the columns and
different reinforcement rates influence the two pile caps's behavior.
It was concluded that the experimental ultimate forces in the main reinforcement bars of the pile caps
occur in the central regions, and the cross sections coincide with planes containing the axes of the piles
showed lower strengths. This fact can be understood as the influence of compressive stress fields in the
distribution of tensile stresses in these regions. In models with elongated rectangular columns this
reduction was smaller. This fact shows that the cross section of the columns influences on requests tie.
It is suggested, therefore, that the tie reinforcement bars in such cases must have been anchored to the
hook.
This showed that the strains in the tie reinforcement bars are cut from the central section to the
sections containing the axis of the pile. This reduction is smaller in models with elongated rectangular
columns and large reinforcement rates, thus reducing the anchorage lengths and no provision hooks on
the main reinforcement tie can be a misconception, and should be analyzed more criterion each case.
The analysis also performed proved the influence of column sections and reinforcement rates in the
tensions that limit the nodal zones of the model, with the possible adoption of criteria that take this into
account.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RECTANGULAR AND SQUARE COLUMN FOR AXIAL LOADING,

UNIAXIAL & BIAXIAL BENDING
Umashankar Kandpal (2018). International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology

(IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 05 Issue: 02.
In the construction process, shape of column is so chosen to meet the aesthetic requirements, this
may lead to uneconomical column design. This study gives the general idea in decision making on shape
of column to be used in a building for an economical design and also fulfill the structural requirement of
building for axially loading or uniaxial and biaxial bending.
After comparing the data from all the three cases the arrangement of column using rectangular
column for uniaxial and biaxial bending and square column for axial loading show best results, in general
case, in a building the axial load rarely act on the column small eccentricity always occur which can be
neglected and considered as axially loaded column, the minimum eccentricity can be found from IS 456
- 2000 (Cl. 25.4).
In general, thumb rule tells that; column in which four beams meet, these are mostly subjected to
axial loading and square column can be used in that condition and in outer face of building where 3
beams meet, these are mostly subjected to uniaxial bending and in outer four corners of the building
where two beams meet these columns are mostly subjected to biaxial bending and rectangular column
can be used there.
The orientation of rectangular column should be such that the longer axis of column should be
provided in the shorter direction of the building to provide maximum structural stability in lateral short
direction at the time when earthquake or lateral force acts on the building and try to sway the building
frame. This arrangement of choosing rectangular column for uniaxial and biaxial bending and square
column for axial loading also provide an economical design of column in building which reduce the total
area of concrete and total area of reinforcement for column as compared to the case when all column
are rectangular.
DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Nilson, A. H., Darwin, D., & Dolan, C. W. (2004). Design of concrete structures 13th ed. McGraw-Hill
Higher Education.
Engineers must have a thorough understanding of the basic performance of concrete as a structural
material and at the same time, design with safety, economy and efficiency in mind. This edition has been
written to cover these needs. The chapter topics covered include: an Introduction to the basics of
Concrete, Reinforced Concrete, Structural Forms, Loads, Safety Provisions of the ACI Code; a Materials
chapter covering Cement, Aggregates, Quality Control, Tension Strength, High-Strength Concrete,
Reinforcing Bars and Prestressing Steels; Flexural Analysis and Design of Beams; Shear and Diagonal
Tension in Beams; Bond, anchorage and Development Length; Serviceability; Analysis and Design for
Torsion; Short Columns; Slender Columns; Edge-Supported Slabs; Yield Line Analysis for Slabs;
Footings and Foundations; Concrete Building Systems; Prestressed Concrete; and Seismic Design.
COMPERATIVE STUDY OF S.M.R.F. BUILDING OVER O.M.R.F. BUILDING WITH SEISMIC AND
WIND EFFECT
Frame, S. M. R. Comperative Study of SMRF Building Over OMRF Building With Seismic And Wind
Effect.
Seismic evaluation will provide a general idea about the building performance during an earthquake.
The criteria of evaluation of building will depend on materials, strength and ductility of structural
components and detailing of reinforcement. In this report Special Moment Resisting Frame (Ductile
Detailing) and Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame are considering as structural frame and Comparison
are made for seismic load.
All structural systems are not treated equal when response to earthquake-induced forces is
ofconcern. Aspects of structural configuration, symmetry, mass distribution, and vertical regularity must
be considered. The importance of strength, stiffness, and ductility in relationto acceptable response must
also be appreciated. While considering the lateral force resistingsystems we come up with so many
options to have structural systems like Bearing wall systems, Moment Resisting frames, Lateral Bracing
systems, designing the moment resisting concrete frame structures we have option to use IMRF, OMRF
or SMRF.
SEISMIC DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE SPECIAL MOMENT FRAMES

Moehle, J. P., Hooper, J. D., & Lubke, C. D. (2008). Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Special
Moment Frames. NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief, (1).
Reinforced concrete special moment frames are used as part of seismic force-resisting systems in
buildings that are designed to resist earthquakes. Beams, columns, and beam-column joints in moment
frames are proportioned and detailed to resist flexural, axial, and shearing actions that result as a building
sways through multiple displacement cycles during strong earthquake ground shaking. Special
proportioning and detailing requirements result in a frame capable of resisting strong earthquake shaking
without significant loss of stiffness or strength. These moment-resisting frames are called “Special
Moment Frames” because of these additional requirements, which improve the seismic resistance in
comparison with less stringently detailed Intermediate and Ordinary Moment Frames.
STUDY ON SEISMIC UPGRADE OF 5 STOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDING BY TUNED

MASS DAMPER
Tulei, E., Cretu, D., & Lungu, D. (2009, June). Study on seismic upgrade of 5 storey reinforced
concrete building by Tuned Mass Damper. In Protection of Historical Buildings: Proceedings of the
International Conference on Protection of Historical Buildings, PROHITECH 09, Rome, Italy, 21-24 june
2009: PROHITECH 09 (pp. 563-568).
In civil engineering, Tuned Mass Dampers (TMD) is generally used to reduce the vibrations
induced by strong winds in tall buildings. The TMD efficiency in the case of seismic actions is still in
question. TMD effect on the seismic behavior of a 5 storey reinforced concrete framed structure is
presented in the paper. The structure analysis according to the present Romanian seismic code, P100-
2006, shows that the structure presents a high level of vulnerability and strengthening measures are
necessary. In order to do not interrupt the functioning of the building, and for other well-known
advantages, TMD is chosen as a possible strengthening solution, but the studies show the TMD
inefficiency in improving the seismic response of the building.
SEISMIC DEMAND SENSITIVITY OF REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR-WALL BUILDING USING

FOSM METHOD
Lee, T. H., & Mosalam, K. M. (2005). Seismic demand sensitivity of reinforced concrete shear‐
wall building using FOSM method. Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics, 34(14), 1719-1736.
The uncertainty in the seismic demand of a structure (referred to as the engineering demand
parameter, EDP) needs to be properly characterized in performance-based earthquake engineering.
Uncertainties in the ground motion and in structural properties are responsible for EDP uncertainty. In
this study, sensitivity of EDPs to major uncertain variables is investigated using the first-order second-
moment method for a case study building. This method is shown to be simple and efficient for estimating
the sensitivity of seismic demand. The EDP uncertainty induced by each uncertain variable is used to
determine which variables are most significant. Results show that the uncertainties in ground motion are
more significant for global EDPs, namely peak roof acceleration and displacement, and maximum inter-
storey drift ratio, than those in structural properties. Uncertainty in the intensity measure (IM) of ground
motion is the dominant variable for uncertainties in local EDPs such as the curvature demand at critical
cross-sections. Conditional sensitivity of global and local EDPs given IM is also estimated. It is observed
that the combined effect of uncertainties in structural properties is more significant than uncertainty in
ground motion profile at lower IM levels, while the opposite is true at higher IM levels. Copyright © 2005
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
SOFT STOREY EFFECTS IN UNIFORMLY INFILLED REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES
Dolšek, M., & Fajfar, P. (2001). Soft storey effects in uniformly infilled reinforced concrete frames.
Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 5(01), 1-12.
A large number of multi-storey reinforced concrete frame buildings with masonry infill walls,
which were uniformly distributed over the height of the building, collapsed in the 1999 Kocaeli (Turkey)
earthquake, due to complete failure of the first storey or the bottom two stories. In the paper it is
demonstrated that a soft storey mechanism is formed in such structural systems if the intensity of ground
motion is above a certain level. It is likely that collapse will occur if the global ductilities of the bare frames,
as well as the ductilities of the structural elements, are low, and if the infill walls are relatively weak and
brittle.
OVER STRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS OF MULTISTOREY REINFORCED-

CONCRETE BUILDINGS
Elnashai, A. S., & Mwafy, A. M. (2002). Overstrength and force reduction factors of multistorey
reinforced‐concrete buildings. The structural design of tall buildings, 11(5), 329-351.
This paper addresses the issue of horizontal overstrength in modern code-designed reinforced-
concrete (RC) buildings. The relationship between the lateral capacity, the design force reduction factor,
the ductility level and the overstrength factor are investigated. The lateral capacity and the overstrength
factor are estimated by means of inelastic static pushover as well as time-history collapse analysis for
12 buildings of various characteristics representing a wide range of contemporary RC buildings. The
importance of employing the elongated periods of structures to obtain the design forces is emphasized.
Predicting this period from free vibration analysis by employing ‘effective’ flexural stiffnesses is
investigated. A direct relationship between the force reduction factor used in design and the lateral
capacity of structures is confirmed in this study. Moreover, conservative overstrength of medium and low
period RC buildings designed according to Eurocode 8 is proposed. Finally, the implication of the force
reduction factor on the commonly utilized overstrength definition is highlighted. Advantages of using an
additional measure of response alongside the overstrength factor are emphasized. This is the ratio
between the overstrength factor and the force reduction factor and is termed the inherent overstrength
(Ωi). The suggested measure provides more meaningful results of reserve strength and structural
response than overstrength and force reduction factors. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
DESIGN METHODS OF REINFORCE-CONCRETE FRAME STRUCTURE TO RESIST PROGRESSIVE

COLLAPSE IN CIVIL ENGINEERING
Wang, H., Su, Y., & Zeng, Q. (2011). Design methods of reinforce-concrete frame structure to
resist progressive collapse in civil engineering. Systems Engineering Procedia, 1, 48-54.
Since the “9.11”terrorist event, the World Trade Center progressive collapsed in a flash, U.S.
engineers began to really care about preventing progressive collapse in reinforced concrete buildings.
When the accident has happened, the structures collapse is a serious threat to public safety. In our
country, most public buildings are reinforced concrete frame structure. Comparing with shear wall
structure, frame structure is more likely to collapse. Therefore, the research about progressive collapse
of frame structures is very important. Some standard native and abroad such as British Standards,
GSA2003, U.S. Department of Defense standard (DoD2005) and DoD2009 did researches in this text
and these researches can be used for designers as reference in the project design.
CONVENTIONAL RC FRAME STRUCTURE AND FLAT SLAB STRUCTURE FOR 5 STOREY, 8

STOREY AND 11 STOREY AND COMPARISON OF BOTH STRUCTURE FOR WITH AND WITHOUT
SHEAR WALL IN ZONE V AND ZONE IV
(Bhudiya & Narendrasinh , 2016), in their paper analyze conventional RC frame structure and flat slab
structure for 5 storey, 8 storey and 11 storey and comparison of both structure for with and without shear
wall in Zone V and Zone IV. For present study irregular building is consider. Study is conducted on Plan
irregularity (irregular floor plan) as per IS 1893-2002. To study the effect of shear wall on both structure,
linear dynamic analysis (Response spectrum analysis) in software ETABs is carried out. In each analysis,
the behavior of conventional slab structure and flat slab structure with and without shear wall was
investigated and Top storey displacement, storey shear, Maximum storey drift and time period were
observed. Comparison of analysis results for both structure is done in terms of time period, storey
displacement, storey drift and storey shear. The following conclusions are drawn from the study.
1) Time period is less, lesser is mass of structure and more is the stiffness of structure. There is 50%
to 60 % Reduction in time period of conventional structural system compared Flat slab structural system,
indicates that conventional structural systems has higher Stiffness compared to flat slab structural
system.
2) There is 50% to 60 % Reduction in time period for with shear wall structure to without shear wall
structure indicates that with shear wall structure has higher stiffness compare to without shear wall
structure.
3) The maximum top storey displacement should not exceed H/500, where H=total height of the
building, the permissible limit. It can be seen that when the height of the building is increase, the top
storey displacement is also increase. From graph it can be seen that in Zone V structure has higher
displacement than zone IV structure so as seismic zone level increase displacement is also increase.
Top storey displacement for conventional structure is well within in IS code permissible limit whereas flat
slab structure top storey displacement is not well within in limit in Zone V. But by providing a suitable size
of shear wall at suitable location in plan top storey displacement of flat slab structure with shear wall is
then well within in permissible limit.
4) There is 35% to 40 % Reduction in storey displacement of conventional structural system

compared flat slab structural system and 30% to 50% in reduction in storey displacement of with shear
wall structure to without shear wall structure.
5) There is 30% to 40 % Reduction in storey drift of conventional structural system compared flat
slab structural system and 40% to 50% in reduction in storey drift of with shear wall structure to without
shear wall structure.
6) From graph it is observed for 5 storey structure there is minor difference in storey shear of
conventional structural to flat slab structure but as height of structure increase storey shear of flat slab
structure is also increase and same as seismic zone level is increase shear is also increase.
7) It is also observed that as height of flat slab structure is increase a required thickness of shear
wall to limit a top storey displacement of flat slab structure is also increase.
8) So Building with shear wall is preferred because of considerable difference in storey displacement,
time period, base shear and storey drift.
SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF FLAT SLAB SYSTEMS
The flat-slab system is a special structural form of reinforced concrete construction that possesses
major advantages over the conventional beam column frame. The flat slab system provides easier formwork,
architectural flexibility, unobstructed space, lower building height and shorter construction time. There are
some serious issues that require examination with the flat-slab construction system. One of the issues which
were observed is the potentially large transverse displacements because of the absence of deep beams
and/or shear walls, resulting in low transverse stiffness. This cause excessive deformation which in turn
cause damage of nonstructural members even when subjected to earthquakes of moderate intensity. Another
issue is the brittle punching failure due to the transfer of shear forces and unbalanced moments between
slabs and columns. When subjected to earthquake action, the unbalanced moments can produce high shear
stresses in the slab. Flat-slab systems are also susceptible to significant reduction in stiffness resulting from
the cracking that occurs from construction loads, service gravity loads, temperature and shrinkage effects
and lateral loads. Therefore, it was recommended that in regions of high seismic hazard, flat-slab systems
should only be used as the vertical load carrying system in structures braced by frames or shear walls
responsible for the lateral capacity of the structure (Lande & Raut, 2015).
BEHAVIOUR OF MULTI-STOREY COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS HAVING FLAT SLABS AND

CONVENTIONAL RC FRAME WITH THAT OF HAVING TWO WAY SLABS WITH BEAMS AND TO
STUDY THE EFFECT OF HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING ON THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE TWO TYPES
OF BUILDINGS UNDER SEISMIC FORCES.
(Navyashree & Sahana, 2014), in their paper summarise the behaviour of multi-storey commercial buildings
having flat slabs and conventional RC frame with that of having two way slabs with beams and to study the
effect of height of the building on the performance of these two types of buildings under seismic forces.
Present work provides a good source of information on the parameters lateral displacement, storey drift,
storey shear, column moments and axial forces, time period.In this work six number of conventional RC frame
and Flat Slab buildings of G+3, G+8, and G+12 storey building models are considered. The performance of
flat slab and the vulnerability of purely frame and purely flat slab models under different load conditions were
studied and for the analysis, seismic zone IV is considered. The analysis is done with using E-Tabs software.
It is necessary to analyze seismic behaviour of building for different heights to see what changes are going
to occur if the height of conventional RC Frame building and flat slab building changes. Therefore, the
characteristics of the seismic behaviour of flat slab and conventional RC Frame buildings suggest that
additional measures for guiding the conception and design of these structures in seismic regions are needed
and to improve the performance of building having conventional RC building and flat slabs under seismic
loading.
TO COMPARE BEHAVIOR OF FLAT SLAB WITH OLD TRADITIONAL TWO WAY SLAB ALONG WITH
EFFECT OF SHEAR WALLS ON THEIR PERFORMANCE
(Sumit , Vivek , & Madhavi , 2014), in their paper summarize that to compare behaviour of flat slab with old
traditional two way slab along with effect of shear walls on their performance. The parametric studies
comprise of maximum lateral displacement, storey drift and axial forces generated in the column. For these
case studies we have created models for two way slabs with shear wall and flat slab with shear wall, for each
plan size.This investigation also told us about seismic behavior of heavy slab without end restrained. For
stabilization of variable parameter shear wall are provided at corner from bottom to top for calculation. Results
is comprises of study of 36 models, for each plan size, 18 models are analyzed for varying seismic zone.
Following conclusion had been made with regards of this study as follows-
1. Provision of part shear walls in zone V is not enough to keep maximum displacements within permissible
limits, whether it is a beam slab framed structure or framed structure with flat slabs with drop
2. From lateral displacement view point, in shorter plans master slave approach may be adopted but in larger
plans realistic analysis considering slabs at various floor levels should be carried out. Though time elapsed
in analysis increases, however, it is of tune of 5-10 minutes only.
3. From column design view point, with shear walls master slave approach may be used, however, without
shear walls realistic approach should be adopted.
SEISMIC RESISTANCE OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS
Hanson, N. W., & Conner, H. W. (1967). Seismic resistance of reinforced concrete beam-column
joints. Journal of the Structural Division, 93(5), 533-560.
Full size cast-in-place reinforced concrete beam-column joints representing a critical portion of
a multistory building were tested under simulated earthquake loading. Six of the specimens tested
represented an exterior joint unconfined by spandrel beams. A seventh specimen had short unloaded
spandrels on each side of the joint. Test variables were column size, column axial load, and amount of
joint lateral reinforcement. Reversible elastic and plastic load cycles were applied to each specimen to
simulate earthquake loads. Suitability of recommended reinforcing details for use in earthquake resistant
design was verified by test results. Specifically, closed rectangular hoops surrounding the joint were
shown to be essential in developing ductility and maintaining strength of isolated joints in structural
frames. Energy absorption required in building frames subjected to earthquakes was demonstrated to be
amply provided by a properly designed reinforced concrete frame.
REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS UNDER SEISMIC ACTIONS
Paulay, T., Park, R., & Preistley, M. J. N. (1978, November). Reinforced concrete beam-column
joints under seismic actions. In Journal Proceedings (Vol. 75, No. 11, pp. 585-593).
The behavior of interior beam-column joints unders seismic actions is examined in detail. The
exisitance of two shear resisting mechanisms, one involving joint shear einforcement and the other a
linear concrete strut, is postulated and the effects of reversed cyclic loading on these mechanisms, in
both elastic and inelastic range of response, are discussed. Simple analytical models of behavior are
presented. The determental effects of yield penetration into a joint upon longitudinal bar anchorage are
discussed, and methods to overcome these effects are proposed.
A CASE STUDY OF REINFORCED CONCRETE SHORT COLUMN UNDER EARTHQUAKE USING

EXPERIMENTAL AND THEORETICAL INVESTIGATIONS
Chen, C. Y., Liu, K. C., Liu, Y. W., & Huang, W. J. (2010). A case study of reinforced concrete
short column under earthquake using experimental and theoretical investigations. Structural Engineering
and Mechanics, 36(2), 197-206.
The purpose of this paper is to carry out both experimental and theoretical investigations of R.C.
short column subjected to horizontal forces under constant compressive loading. Eight specimens with
section of 40 cm 40 cm, height 40 cm and 50 cm and different type hoop were used of the steel cage to
detect the seismic behavior of reinforced concrete short columns. Hoop spacing of column, strength of
concrete, and the axial load of experiments were the three main parameters in this test. A series of
equations were derived to reveal the theory could be used on analysis short column, too. Through test
failure model of R.C short column being established; the type of hoop affects the behavior R.C short
column in ductility rather than in strength. And the effect of analysis by Truss Model is evident and reliable
in shear failure model of short column.
ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR PREDICTING SHEAR STRENGTHS OF EXTERIOR REINFORCED

CONCRETE BEAM-COLUMN JOINTS FOR SEISMIC RESISTANCE
Hwang, S. J., & Lee, H. J. (2000). Analytical model for predicting shear strengths of interior reinforced
concrete beam-column joints for seismic resistance. Structural Journal, 97(1), 35-44.
A proposal for determining the shear strengths of exterior beam-column joints for seismic
resistance is made in this paper. The proposed method, termed as the softened strut-and-tie model, is
based on the strut-and-tie concept and derived to satisfy equilibrium, compatibility, and the constitutive
laws of cracked reinforced concrete. The accuracy of the proposed procedure was checked by comparing
calculated shear strengths with experimental data reported in previous literature, and a satisfactory
correlation was found. The proposed physical model can provide valuable insights into the strength
behavior of the exterior beam-column joints under seismic loading.
CHAPTER 3: CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS AND STANDARDS
3.1 Design Constraints
Constraints are the factors or hindrance affects the design or refers to some limitations under the
desire project to be constructed or developed. In a project, the designer should classify all the constraints in
order to identify what are the factors to stop you in making a project. Constraints are divided into two, the
Quantitative Constraints which refers to those that can be measured by applying of engineering principles
and one of this is estimation method. Qualitative Constraints, refers to those constraints that are not
measurable anymore but it can be classified by designer through perception. The following are the constraints
to be considered:
3.1.1 Economic (Construction Cost)
The cost of a building plays an important role in the designing the client’s desire to have a 3-storey
structurally sound school building. Without the investment of the client, the whole project is affected from
planning and conceptualizing up to the construction phase. Thus, the most economical among the trade- offs
is the choice that the designer might choose.
3.1.2 Constructability (Duration of Construction)
The duration of construction plays a vital role for both the designer and for the client. The client
preferably wants a shorter time for the construction because it saves more time and financial benefits that
are favor for both parties. The design of the structural elements should not compromise the required strength
due to the client’s desirable choice. In constructing a building, estimating of the number of workers or laborers,
equipment needed and materials to be used are considered because how the project be built without of this
three. In this constraint, the time also considered because the delaying of the project for some problems
maybe technical or any problem. If the project will not reach the desired time to finish the project it will cause
the project to spend more money to finish. But the shorter the time of the project construction should not put
the life of the workers at risks.
3.1.3 Sustainability Constraints (Design Life)
Considering different factors affecting the final design of the project, the life span of each moment
resisting frame system incorporated in the school building will determine if the project is sustainable or not.
The designer’s final design recommendation will be chosen by the client because of the satisfaction from the
longer life span of the building. Correspondingly, the longer the life span, the favorable it is for the designer
and for the client.
3.1.4 Structural Safety (Serviceability)
In building any structures, safety is taken into consideration since most of the time, accidents cannot
be avoided. Upon the evaluation of the designer, the constraint is based on the deflection to prevent structural
damage caused by loads. Considering the safety of the workers and the future occupants illustrates the
quality of the project and quality of the designer as an engineer without sacrificing the risks of the occupants
in the future. And this also engaged with the cost because the less deflection the less cost to be construct
vise-versa, but the large beam can carry heavy loads compare to small beam. But the designer must be
considered the safety of the users and how it takes over a period of time to be stable.
3.2 Trade-offs
The designers provided trade-offs that will be evaluated based on the given constraints in this
chapter. The trade-offs being utilized were in the form of the varieties of column shapes namely the Square
Column, Rectangular Column and Special Shaped Column.
3.2.1 Square or Rectangular Shaped Column
They are generally used in the construction of buildings., which are common in practice; these types
of column are provided only if the shape of the room is a square or rectangular shape.
It is way much easier to construct and cast rectangular or square columns than circular ones. This is primarily
for the ease of working with the shuttering and to support it from it collapsing due to pressure while the
concrete is still in flowable form. The square and rectangular ones are better and less costly to cast.
(Retrieved from: https://theconstructor.org/tips/types-columns-building-construction/)
Figure 3-1 Square Column

3.2.2 Circular Shaped Column
They are specially designed columns, they are mostly used in piling and elevation of the buildings.
In order to avoid edges, we use this type of columns. they are also provided in sit out areas, auditoriums or
fire assembly zones, where you have enough space for them not to hinder any movement of people or look
bad with flat surfaces You can find circular columns as pillars of Bridges because there you don’t need to
flush them to anything. Also circular looks aesthetic there.
Figure 3-2 Circular Column
3.2.3 L-Shaped Column
They are generally used in the corners of the boundary wall and has same features of a rectangular
or square column. These kind of columns are very less used.
Figure 3-2 L-Shaped Column
The trade-offs, provided in the form of Special Moment Resisting Frames, Dual System, and Lateral
Force Resisting System will be evaluated based on the specified constraints in this chapter. The three design
methods will presumably offer a mix of some advantages and disadvantages over each other’s. In this regard,
the designer will be utilizing the model on trade-off strategies in Engineering Design by Otto and Antonsson
(1991). The criterion was scaled from 0 to 10 with 10 being the highest. Likewise, the ability to satisfy the
criterion is scaled as 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest.
The computation that will be used for ranking for the ability to satisfy criterion of each trade-off are
the following:
𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐕𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞−𝐋𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐕𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞

% 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 = × 𝟏𝟎 (Equation 3.1)
𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐕𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐑𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐑𝐚𝐧𝐤 − (% 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 × 𝟏𝟎) (Equation

3.2)
The governing rank is the subjective value set by the designer. It depends on the designer’s own
discrepancy on ranking the importance of each constraint. The subordinate rank in Equation 3.2 is a variable
that corresponds to its percentage distance from the governing rank along the ranking scale (Otto and
Antonsson, 1991).
Figure 3-4 Ranking Scale
3.3 Raw Designer’s Ranking
The designer performed an initial evaluation of the three (3) tradeoffs based on the constraints above
and came up with the raw designer’s ranking shown in the table below.
Ability to satisfy criterion
(on a scale of 0 to 10)
Criterion's Importance
Decision Criteria *corresponding weights enclosed in parentheses
(on a scale of 0-10)
Square or Circular Shaped
Rectangular Column L-Shaped Column
column
Economic
10 10 (100) 8.32 (83.20) 8.72 (87.20)
(Cost)
Constructability
(Duration of 10 10 (100) 6 (60) 7.5 (75)
Construction)
Sustainability
7 7.14 (49.98) 10 (70) 8.57 (59.99)
(Serviceability)
OVER-ALL RANKING 249.98 213.2 222.19
*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.
Table 3-1 Raw Designer’s Ranking
3.4 Trade-offs Assessment
The criterion’s importance set on the table was from the mutual agreement of the client and the
designer. The comparative analysis of the trade-offs will be based on the constraints above. The designer
will consider the cost of the three (3) tradeoffs for the economic constraint; the duration of construction for
the constructability constraint; the number of years that the structure’s serviceability or provided long-term
safety for sustainability constraint; and the deflection of beams for the safety constraint. The economic and
constructability constraint were given a rank of ten (10) because of limited budget and also the need for
constructing the building was greatly imposed by the client – this was to minimize the cost for labor over the
span of construction. The sustainability constraint was given a rank of seven (7) due to long-term discernment
by the designer and client. Also, safety constraint was given a rank of nine (9) since safety should not be
compromised within any dues and limitations.
3.4.1 Economic Assessment
The initial estimation of the cost of the trade-offs were performed by the designer through estimation
of structural materials that will be used in the three (3) tradeoffs. The elements that were considered were
the weight of reinforcing bars, volume of the concrete that we need in the structure. The designers prefer the
Square Column over the other two tradeoffs as suggested by the results of the initial cost estimates.
3.4.2 Constructability Assessment
The designer estimated the duration of the construction based on the difficulty of the structural
elements and formworks required by the three (3) tradeoffs. The Square Column was the best design in
terms of constructability because its framing system consists of lowest area of shear wall which resulted to
minimized time of construction compared to the other two tradeoffs that needs more time for formworks
assembly.
3.4.3 Sustainability Assessment
Approximately the designer estimated the number of years that the structure was still useable or safe
to use. As for the designer’s perspective, the Circular Shaped column was best suitable in terms of
serviceability but totally contradicted to the economic constraint due to the labor cost and material costs for
formworks.
3.5 Initial Design Output
In the given table below shows the initial estimates of the trade-offs performed by the designer. The data
below will be used for the initial comparative analysis of the trade-offs.
Trade-offs
Constraint
Square or Rectangular column Circular Shaped Column L-Shaped Column
Economic
Php 364,205 Php 441,310 Php 406,970
(Cost)
Constructability
1 months 2.5 months 1.5 months
(Duration of Construction)
Sustainability
50 years 70 years 60 years
(Serviceability)
Table 3-2 Summary of Initial Design Output
Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint:
Square/Rectangular Column VS Circular Column:
𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 − 𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞

% 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 = × 𝟏𝟎
𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞
𝟒𝟒𝟏, 𝟑𝟏𝟎 − 𝟑𝟔𝟒, 𝟐𝟎𝟓

𝟒𝟒𝟏, 𝟑𝟏𝟎
%𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 = 𝟏. 𝟕𝟒
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 − %𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟏𝟎 − 𝟏. 𝟔𝟖
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟖. 𝟐𝟓
Figure 3-5 Cost Difference
Square/Rectangular Column VS L-Shaped Column:

𝟒𝟎𝟔, 𝟗𝟕𝟎 − 𝟑𝟔𝟒, 𝟐𝟎𝟓

𝟒𝟎𝟔, 𝟗𝟕𝟎
%𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 = 𝟏. 𝟎𝟓
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟏𝟎 − 𝟏. 𝟎𝟓
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟖. 𝟗5
Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint:

𝟐. 𝟓 − 𝟏
𝟐. 𝟓
%𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 = 𝟔
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟏𝟎 − 𝟔
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟒
Figure 3-7 Duration Difference

𝟏. 𝟓 − 𝟏
𝟏. 𝟓
%𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 = 𝟑. 𝟑𝟑
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟏𝟎 − 𝟑. 𝟑𝟑
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟔. 𝟔𝟔
Computation of ranking for Sustainability Constraint:
Column Circular Column VS Square/Rectangular Column:

𝟕𝟎 − 𝟓𝟎
𝟕𝟎
%𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 = 𝟐. 𝟖𝟔
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟏𝟎 − 𝟐. 𝟖𝟔
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟕. 𝟏𝟒
Figure 3-9 Life Span Difference
Column Circular Column VSL-Shaped Column:

𝟕𝟎 − 𝟔𝟎
𝟕𝟎
%𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 = 𝟏. 𝟒𝟑
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟏𝟎 − 𝟏. 𝟒𝟑
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟖. 𝟓𝟕

3.6 Design Standards
The designer instigated the design of the apartment building with accordance to the following codes and
standards:
1. National Building Code of the Philippines (PD 1096)

2. American Concrete Institute (ACI 318)
3. National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP 2015)
National Building Code of the Philippines (PD 1096)
The National Building Code of the Philippines, also known as Presidential Decree No. 1096 was
formulated and adopted as a uniform building code to embody up-to-date and modern technical knowledge
on building design, construction, use, occupancy and maintenance. The code provides for all buildings and
structures, a framework of minimum standards and requirements to regulate and control location, site,
design, and quality of materials, construction, use, occupancy, and maintenance.
American Concrete Institute (ACI 318)
The American Concrete Institute (ACI) is a leading authority and resource worldwide for the
development and distribution of consensus-based standards, technical resources, educational programs,
and proven expertise for individuals and organizations involved in concrete design, construction, and
materials, who share a commitment to pursuing the best use of concrete.
This code provides minimum standards to safeguard life and property by regulating and controlling the
design, construction, quality of materials pertaining to the structural aspects of all buildings and structures
within its jurisdiction that involves concrete as its main component.
National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015
This code provides minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, property and public welfare by
regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials pertaining to the structural aspects of
all buildings and structures within its jurisdiction. The provision of this code shall apply to the construction,
alteration, moving, demolition, repair, maintenance and use of any building or structure within its jurisdiction,
except work located primarily in a public way, public utility towers and poles, hydraulic flood control structures,
and indigenous family dwellings.
Material Properties
The following material strengths were used in the design of the project:
1. Concrete – the minimum compressive strength of concrete, fc’ = 28 MPa for:
a. Beams, slabs and girders

b. Columns and footings
2. Reinforcing steel bars shall be deformed and shall conform with PNS 49/ASTM 615:
a. Grade 60, fy = 414 MPa

b. Grage 40, fy= 276 Mpa
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE
4.1 Design Methodology
The design of the proposed Three-Storey Residential Building project was in accordance in the
standard and codes stated in Chapter 3. Also, the methodology of the building was in accordance in the
standard stated in Chapter 3. The design and computation of the structural elements of the project such as
beams, slabs and columns was based in Ultimate Design Method (USD).
STRUCTURAL PLANS
THROUGH FRAMING PLANS
GEOMETRIC MODELLING
THROUGH STAAD v8 PRO MODELING
DESIGN STANDARDS, PARAMETERS, SPECIFICATIONS

NATIONAL STRUCTURAL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (NSCP) 2010 & NATIONAL BUILDING CODE OF
THE PHILIPPINES (NBCP)
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
UTILIZING MATERIAL STRENGTH, DIMENSIONS AND OTHER SPECIFICATIONS
LOAD CASES AND DEFINITIONS
USE OF GRAVITY LOADS (DEAD AND LIVE LOAD), WIND LOADS, AND EARTHQUAKE LOADS
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
DETERMINING VALUES OF AXIAL, SHEAR, BENDING MOMENT AND DEFLECTION IN MEMBERS
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
COMPUTATION FOR DESIGN OUTPUTS ON REINFORCEMENTS IN STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
Figure 4-1: Design Methodology
4.2 Load Specifications
The following were the loads considered for the computer modelling of the structure. STAAD Pro was utilized
for the analysis.
4.2.1 Dead Loads
Dead Load parameters provided were promulgated by Table 204-2 of NSCP 2015.
FLOOR FINISHES
Weight of topping (5cm) 1.20 KPa
Weight of ceramic tiles (200mm) 1.10 KPa
Weight of interior partition (wood studs with plastering two side 1.0 KPa
Weight of ceiling (steel channel and gypsum board (12mm) 0.20 KPa
TOTAL 3.50 KPa
ROOF
Floor Topping 1.20 KPa
Ceiling 0.15 KPa
Utilities 0.24 KPa
Water Proofing 0.07 KPa
TOTAL 1.42 KPa
WALL
EXTERIOR
Front and Rear wall
Weight of exterior (150mm) 2.11 KPa
Weight of plaster 0.48 KPa
TOTAL 2.59 KPa
Firewall 3.88 KPa

Weight of exterior (200mm)
Weight of Plaster 0.48 KPa
TOTAL 4.36 KPa
INTERIOR 1.98 KPa

Weight of interior (100mm)
Weight of plaster 0.48 KPa
TOTAL 2.46 KPa
STAIRS
Plaster on Tile 0.24 KPa
Gypsum Board (Per Thickness) 0.008 KPa

Ceramic or Quarry Tiles 1.12 KPa
Bituminous Smooth Surface 0.08 KPa
Weight of Slab 4.10 KPa
TOTAL 5.55 KPa
Table 4-1 Dead Loads Considered for the Structure
4.2.2 Live Loads
Live Load parameters provided were according to Table 205-1 of NSCP 2015.
Residential Apartment
Roof 1.9 kpa
Basic Floor Area 1.9 kpa
Table 4-2 Live Loads Considered for the Structure
4.2.3 Wind Loads
Wind Load parameters provided were adapted from Section 207 of NSCP 2015.
Zone Classification (Basic Zone 2 (Table 207.1)

wind speed)
V=200Kph
Exposure Category Surface Roughness (Section 207.5.6.2)
B (urban)
Occupancy Category Standard Occupancy (Table 207-3)
Iw=1.00
Enclosure Classification Gcpi = ±0.18
Wind Directionality Factor Kd =0.85 (Table 207-2)

Terrain Exposure ∝ = 7.0 (Table 207-5)
Zg = 365
Table 4-3 Wind Loads Considered for the Structure

4.2.4 Earthquake Load
Earthquake Load parameters provided were promulgated by Section 208 of NSCP 2015. The selected
parameters will be utilized for structural analysis and modelling of the residential building.
SEISMIC PARAMETERS
Importance factor (I) 1 (Table 208-1)
Seismic zone 4 (Table 208-3)
Soil type SD (Table 208-2)
Seismic Source type A (Table 208-6)
Interpolated source factor;
Na 1.16 (Table 208-4)
Nv 1.52 (Table 208-5)
Seismic Coefficient;
Ca 0.51 (Table 208-7)
Cv 0.51 (Table 208-8)
Structural Resiliency 8.5 (Table 208-11A)
Table 4-4 Earthquake Load Considered for the Structure
4.2.5 Load Combinations
LOADS REQUIRED STRENGTH

DEAD LOAD (DL) AND LIVE LOAD (LL) 1.4DL
1.2DL + 1.6LL
DEAD LOAD (DL), LIVE LOAD (LL) AND WIND 1.2DL +1.0LL
LOAD (WL) 1.2DL + 0.8WL
1.2DL + 0.8WL + 1.0LL
0.9DL + 1.6WL
DEAD LOAD (DL), LIVE LOAD (LL), AND 1.2DL + 1.0LL + 1.0EL
EARTHQUAKE LOAD (EL) 0.9DL + 1.0EL
Table 4-5 Load Combinations provided by Section 203 of NSCP 2015
Excerpt from NSCP 2015, Section 203:
U = 1.4(D + F) (Equation 409-1)
U = 1.2(D + F + T) + 1.6(L + H) + 0.5(Lr or S or R) (Equation 409-2)
U = 1.2D + 1.6(Lr or S or R) + (1.0L or 0.8W) (Equation 409-3)
U = 1.2D + 1.6W + 1.0L + 0.5(Lr or S or R) (Equation 409-4)
U = 1.2D + 1.0E + 1.0L + 0.2S (Equation 409-5)
U = 0.9D + 1.6W + 1.6H (Equation 409-6)
U = 0.9D + 1.0E + 1.6H (Equation 409-7)
Symbols and Notation
D = dead load
E = earthquake load
F = load due to fluids with well-defined pressures and maximum heights
Fa = flood load
H = load due to lateral earth pressure, ground water pressure, or pressure of bulk materials
L = live load
Lr = roof live load
R = rain load
S = snow load
T = self-straining force
W = wind load
Wi = wind-on-ice determined in accordance with Chapter 10
Where:
(a) The load factor on the live load L in Eq. (203-3) to (203-5) shall be permitted to be reduced to 0.5 except
for garages, areas occupied as places of public assembly, and all areas where L is greater than 4.8 N/m2.
(b) Where wind load W has not been reduced by a directionality factor, it shall be permitted to use 1.3W in
place of 1.6W in Eq. (203-4)and (203-6).
(c) Where E, the load effects of earthquake, is based on service-level seismic forces, 1.4E shall be used in
place of 1.0E in Eq. (203-5) and (203-7).
(d) The load factor on H, loads due to weight and pressure of soil, water in soil, or other materials, shall be
set equal to zero in Eq. (203-6) and (203-7) if the structural action due to H counteracts that due to W or E.
Where lateral earth pressure provides resistance to structural actions from other forces, it shall not be
included in H but shall be included in the design resistance.
4.3 Structural Modeling and Analysis
The design process of the trade-offs, namely the Special Moment Resisting Frames (SMRF), Dual
System, and Lateral Force Resisting System (LFRS) are presented individually below.
4.3.1 Square Column
4.3.1.1 Geometric Modeling

Figure 4-1 Rendered View of the Structure Using Square Column (STAAD Pro)
4.3.1.2 Framing Plans
Herein provided the structural plans of the Three-Storey Residential Building.

Figure 4-2 Ground Floor Framing Plan
Figure 4-3 Second to Fifth Floor Framing Plan
Figure 4-4 Third Floor Framing Plan
Figure 4-5 Slab Roof Plan
4.3.1.3 Load Diagrams
Figure 4-6 Live Load Diagram

Figure 4-7 Dead Load Diagram
Figure 4-9 Shear Diagram at Y
Figure 4-10 Shear Diagram at Z
Figure 4-11 Bending Diagram at Y
Figure 4-12 Bending Diagram at Z
Figure 4-12 Axial Force Diagram
Figure 4-12 Torsion Diagram
Figure 4-13 Seismic Load Diagram at X
Figure 4-15 Seismic Load Diagram at Z
Figure 4-17 Wind Load Diagram at X
Figure 4-18 Wind Load Diagram at Y
4.3.1.5 Structural Analysis
The following results show the maximum axial, shear, torsion, and bending forces that the structure
will be subjected. The results were obtained through the computer software, STAAD Pro.
SPECIAL MOMENT RESISITING FRAMES (SMRF) - FLOOR BEAMS

AXIAL SHEAR TORSION BENDING
MARK SIGN
FX (KN) FY (KN) FZ (KN) MX (KN-M) MY (KN-M) MZ (KN-M)
Max (+) 4.381 46.928 1.879 0.584 4.669 74.077
GRID E
Max (-) -4.51 -17.483 -1.879 -0.367 -4.669 -45.242
Max (+) 2.289 72.016 1.8 0.28 4.466 93.751
GRID D
Max (-) -1.373 -14.155 -1.8 -0.257 -4.466 -36.928
Max (+) 5.039 61.157 1.693 0.595 4.22 79.701
GRID C
Max (-) -5.229 -12.013 -1.694 -0.481 -4.219 -31.837
Max (+) 79.543 70.117 5.742 5.114 6.553 94.822
GRID B
Max (-) -73.198 -23.152 -5.698 -3.981 -6.611 -46.32
Max (+) 49.078 55.166 2.68 0.51 5.014 71.323
GRID A
Max (-) -39.986 -21.359 -2.649 -0.756 -5.068 -44.537
Max (+) 88.408 66.015 9.601 0.898 9.429 68.346
GRID 1
Max (-) -88.403 -55.941 -9.589 -0.157 -9.442 -58.142
Max (+) 0.693 65.432 1.855 0.265 4.62 76.328
GRID 2
Max (-) -1.081 -8.503 -1.855 -0.377 -4.62 -21.178
Max (+) 3.365 65.639 1.227 0.234 3.045 77.502
GRID 3
Max (-) -3.4 -8.894 -1.227 -0.234 -3.045 -22.309
Max (+) 1.375 66.22 1.845 0.377 4.571 78.287
GRID 4
Max (-) -1.595 -9.291 -1.845 -0.265 -4.571 -23.137
Max (+) 104.723 77.228 8.909 0.228 7.99 79.927
GRID 5
Max (-) -104.717 -67.154 -8.92 -0.969 -7.977 -69.723
Max (+) 9.93 42.206 0.199 0.54 0.241 27.565
B11
Max (-) -13.516 -6.295 -0.198 -0.428 -0.242 -9.613
Max (+) 15.696 33.576 3.392 3.992 5.19 56.654
B12
Max (-) -15.962 -7.306 -3.394 -2.981 -5.191 -22.572
Max (+) 15.696 33.893 3.077 2.981 4.616 57.71
B13
Max (-) -15.962 -7.623 -3.074 -3.992 -4.616 -23.628
Max (+) 9.93 42.212 0.586 0.428 1.024 27.578
B14
Max (-) -13.516 -6.301 -0.588 -0.54 -1.023 -9.625
Table 4-6 Floor Beams Maximum Forces per Grid
SPECIAL MOMENT RESISITING FRAMES (SMRF) - ROOF BEAM

MARK SIGN
Max (+) 3.723 21.055 1.39 0.201 3.463 25.884
GRID E
Max (-) -2.583 -5.174 -1.39 -0.124 -3.465 -13.441
Max (+) 5.708 41.892 1.405 0.052 3.517 43.687
GRID D
Max (-) -3.697 -3.654 -1.405 -0.059 -3.519 -9.145
Max (+) 8.958 34.504 1.324 0.234 3.295 34.89
GRID C
Max (-) -6.317 -3.588 -1.317 -0.151 -3.314 -9.752
Max (+) 58.409 34.507 2.724 2.305 3.228 42.711
GRID B
Max (-) -44.911 -10.784 -2.732 -1.645 -3.23 -20.4
GRID A Max (+) 62.573 17.011 2.046 0.546 3.81 26.865
Max (-) -46.135 -9.043 -2.007 -0.353 -3.883 -18.913
Max (+) 23.719 24.827 6.785 0.51 6.455 25.597
GRID 1
Max (-) -24.726 -19.558 -6.813 -0.186 -6.42 -20.876
Max (+) 1.676 42.284 1.37 0.05 3.41 44.699
GRID 2
Max (-) -0.576 -2.271 -1.368 -0.133 -3.417 -5.652
Max (+) 4.881 42.342 1.372 0.017 3.413 45.281
GRID 3
Max (-) -2.165 -2.368 -1.372 -0.017 -3.413 -5.951
Max (+) 3.492 42.284 1.384 0.148 3.448 44.699
GRID 4
Max (-) -2.391 -2.501 -1.386 -0.072 -3.441 -6.231
Max (+) 53.302 28.394 7.347 0.186 6.849 29.207
GRID 5
Max (-) -54.309 -23.125 -7.319 -0.51 -6.884 -24.486
Max (+) 5.3 15.025 2.737 0.212 4.136 8.859
B11
Max (-) -5.231 -0.683 -2.747 -0.038 -4.124 -1.107
Max (+) 6.195 23.419 2.917 1.573 4.369 26.926
B12
Max (-) -6.036 -1.847 -2.91 -1.17 -4.376 -6.065
Max (+) 6.666 23.419 2.802 1.17 4.241 26.926
B13
Max (-) -6.507 -1.972 -2.809 -1.573 -4.233 -6.496
Max (+) 2.193 15.025 1.349 0.038 2.032 8.859
B14
Max (-) -2.125 -1.028 -1.339 -0.212 -2.043 -1.588
Table 4-7 Roof Beams Maximum Forces per Grid
SPECIAL MOMENT RESISITING FRAMES (SMRF) – COLUMN

MARK SIGN FY FZ
FX (KN) (KN) (KN) MX (KN-M) MY (KN-M) MZ (KN-M)
Max
C1 (INTERIOR) (+) 1160.207 33.849 18.25 2.393 8.592 37.07
Max (-) -976.882 -28.992 -14.473 -2.394 -15.738 -27.36
Max
C2 (EXTERIOR) (+) 848.878 26.285 33.903 2.819 38.487 21.714
Max (-) -698.197 -24.745 -33.16 -2.815 -39.529 -18.815
Max
C3 (CORNER) (+) 1103.987 16.133 23.266 3.425 49.854 39.587
Max (-) -1011.884 -15.47 -21.74 -3.448 -50.918 -38.702
Table 4-8 Column Maximum Forces
SPECIAL MOMENT RESISITING FRAMES (SMRF) - MAXIMUM REACTONS

SIGN
Max (+) 1160.207 77.228 50.674 12.15 77.626 94.822
Max (-) -1011.884 -72.016 -40.217 -12.15 -75.529 -90.363
Table 4-9 Structure Maximum Forces
Deflection (Max)
At -Z 77mm
Table 4-10 Maximum Deflection Generated
4.4 Structural Design
In this section, the beams, columns, and slabs were designed. The main goal of the structural design
of the members is to know the number of bars and their spacing, and check if the assumed dimensions are
adequate for the structure
. For beams and columns, only the most critical parts were designed. For one-way slab, only one slab was
considered both in longitudinal and transverse directions was designed. For two-way slab, only one strip was
designed also considering both longitudinal and transverse directions. For convenience, a sample procedure
of computation for a structural member will be shown.
4.4.1 Procedure in Designing of Beams
Step 1: Determine Mu using Moment Diagram of STAAD Pro.

Step 2: Compute for Balanced Steel Ratio, Pb
0.85𝑓 ′ 𝑐𝛽600
𝑃𝑏 =
𝑓𝑦(600 + 𝑓𝑦)
Step 3: Compute for Maximum Steel Ratio, Pmax
𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 0.75𝑃𝑏
Step 4: Get the value of 𝜔
𝑝𝑓𝑦
𝜔=
𝑓′𝑐
Step 5: Determine Moment Capacity, Mcap
𝑀𝑐𝑎𝑝 = ∅𝑓 ′ 𝑐𝑏𝑑 2 (1 − 0.59𝜔)
Step 6: If Mcap is greater than Mu, proceed to Step 7, if Mcap is less than Mu, proceed to Step 10.
Step 7: Beam is Singly Reinforced. Compute for area of steel, As
𝐴𝑠 = 𝜌𝑏𝑑
Step 8: Compute for Area of Reinforcing Bars

𝜋
𝐴𝑏 = (𝑑 2 )
4
Step 9: Determine number of bars, n.

𝐴𝑠
𝑛= 𝐴𝑏
10: Beam is Doubly Reinforced. Solve for As1.
𝐴𝑠1 = 𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑏𝑑
Step 11: Solve for Mn1, Mn2 and As2.
𝑀𝑛1 = 𝑀𝑛𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑀𝑛2 = 𝑀𝑢 − 𝑀𝑐𝑎𝑝
𝑀𝑛2
𝐴𝑠2 =
𝑓𝑦(𝑑 − 𝑑 ′ )
Step 12: Solve for a and c
𝐴𝑠𝑓𝑦
𝑎=
0.85𝑓 ′ 𝑐𝑏
𝑎
𝑐=
𝛽
Step 13: Solve for stress of compression steel, f’s.
𝑐 − 𝑑′
𝑓 ′ 𝑠 = 600
𝑐
Step 14: If f’s is greater than fy, proceed to Step 15. If f’s is less than fy, proceed to Step 17.
Step 15: Use f’s = fy and A’s = As2.
Step 16: As = As1 + As2. Then compute for number of bars, n.
𝐴𝑠
𝑛=
𝐴𝑏
𝑓𝑦
Step 17: 𝐴′ 𝑠 = 𝐴𝑠2 and 𝐴′ 𝑠 = 𝐴𝑠1 + 𝐴𝑠2. Then compute for number of bars, n.
𝑓′𝑠
𝐴𝑠′
𝑛= 𝐴𝑏
4.4.2 Procedure in Designing Columns
Step 1: Determine the Factored Axial Load Pu acting on column using structural analysis of STAAD Pro.
Step 2: Choose the reinforcement ratio ρ ranging between 0.01 to 0.08
Step 3: Compute for the gross sectional area, Ag.
𝑃𝑢 = 𝜑0.8𝐴𝑔(0.85𝑓 ′ 𝑐(1 − 𝜌𝑔) + 𝑓𝑦𝜌𝑔)

Step 4: Choose the dimensions of the cross section based on its shape. For rectangular section, the
ratio of the longer and shorter side is recommended to not exceed 3.
Step 5: Adjust the reinforcement ratio by substituting the actual cross sectional area. The ration has to
fall to the specified code limits.
Step 6: Calculate the needed area of the longitudinal reinforcement ratio based on the adjusted
reinforced ratio and the chosen concrete dimension.
Step 7: Choose the number and diameter of needed reinforcing bars. For rectangular sections, a
minimum of four bars is needed.
Step 8: Design the lateral reinforcement according to the type of column, either ties or spirals.
Use the smallest of the following:
<16db
<48 tie db
< least dimension of column
Step 9: Check whether the spacing between longitudinal reinforcing bars satisfies the NSCP 2010 code
requirements.
4.4.3 Procedure in Designing Slab
Step 1: Identify the uniform floor pressure (kPa) to be carried by the slab.
Step 2: Determine the minimum slab thickness “h” from NSCP 2010.
Step 3: Compute the weight of slab (kPa).
Step 4: Calculate the factored moment (Mu) to be carried by the slab per meter strip
Step 5: Compute the effective depth of the slab. Clear cover must at least 20mm
Step 6: Compute the required steel ratio, ρ:
Step 7: Solve for Rn from Mu= ∅Rnbd2 where b= 1000 mm ρ= 0.85 f′cfy(1−√1−2Rn0.85 f′c)
Step 8: Solve for ρmax and ρmin
If ρ is less than ρmax and greater than ρmin, use ρ
If ρ is greater than ρmax , increase depth of slab to ensure ductile failure

If ρ is less than ρmin , use ρ= ρmin
Step 9: Use DDM for computation of Moments in middle and column strip in long span and short span
Step 10: Compute for spacing in accordance in NSCP 2010.
4.5 Validation of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards
In order to prove the initial estimates performed in Chapter 3, the designer had to validate the trade-
offs based on the results obtained in the design process. This validation process will either support or oppose
the initial estimates made. Based on the design results performed, the Special Moment Resisting Frame
(SMRF) has a lower cost – in terms of the total cost by the volume of concrete used prior to duration of
construction and the weight of rebar (steel reinforcement) installed in the structure, than the Dual system.
The result showed that the Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF) was more economical than
both the Dual system and Lateral Force Resisting System (LFRS); validated from the initial estimates
performed in Chapter 3. Based on prior observations, the price of the Dual System and Lateral Force
Resisting System (LFRS) was found to be greater than the Special Moment Resisting Frame. This was due
to the large area of shear walls required – inducing such increase in the amount of concrete volume and the
weight of the reinforcement bar (steel).
For the duration of construction, among the three trade-offs, the Special Moment Resisting Frame
(SMRF) was the fastest framing system to construct which tallied a total of 7 months of construction compared
with the two trade-offs that have 9 and 11 months of construction period, respectively.
In terms of deflection of the critical beam, the Lateral Force Resisting Frame (LFRS) provided less
displacement compared with the Dual System and Special Moment Resisting Frames (SMRF). This was
based on the deflection generated by computer software, STAAD Pro.
Lastly, in terms of the life span of the structure, the Dual system was the best framing design.
However, such design governs to be costly than Special Moment Resisting Frames (SMRF) and Lateral
Force Resisting system.
4.6 Final Estimate of Trade-offs
Provided in this section the final estimates that were based on the design results presented – which
shows the final cost of each system, the duration of construction, safety and sustainability satisfactory.
Moreover, the designer considered only the material consumed (concrete and reinforcing bars) for the cost,
man-hour required based on the complexity of the system, and the maximum deflection produced.
Trade-Offs
Constraint Square Column L-Shaped Column
Circular Column
Economic
PHP 675,594.44 PHP 886,337.11 PHP 773,976.32
(Cost)
Constructability
1 month 2 months 1.5 months
(Duration of Construction)
Sustainability
55 years 70 years 60 years
(Serviceability)
Table 4-22 Final Estimates of Trade-Offs
Computation of Ranking for Economic Constraint:

𝐏𝐇𝐏 𝟖𝟖𝟔, 𝟑𝟑𝟕. 𝟏𝟏 − 𝐏𝐇𝐏 𝟔𝟕𝟓, 𝟓𝟗𝟒. 𝟒𝟒

𝐏𝐇𝐏 𝟖𝟖𝟔, 𝟑𝟑𝟕. 𝟏𝟏
%𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 = 𝟐. 𝟑𝟖
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟏𝟎 − 𝟐. 𝟑𝟖
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟕. 𝟔𝟐
Square/Rectangular Column VS :L-Shaped Column:

𝐏𝐇𝐏 𝟕𝟕𝟑, 𝟗𝟕𝟔. 𝟑𝟐 − 𝐏𝐇𝐏 𝟔𝟕𝟓, 𝟓𝟗𝟒. 𝟒𝟒
𝐏𝐇𝐏 𝟕𝟕𝟑, 𝟗𝟕𝟔. 𝟑𝟐
%𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 = 𝟏. 27
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟏𝟎 − 𝟏. 𝟐𝟕
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟖. 𝟕𝟑
Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint:

𝟐−𝟏
2
%𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 = 𝟓
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟏𝟎 − 𝟓
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟓


𝟏. 𝟓 − 𝟏
𝟏. 𝟓
%𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 = 𝟑. 𝟑𝟑
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟏𝟎 − 3.33
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟔. 𝟔𝟔
Computation of ranking for Sustainability Constraint:
Circular Column VS Square/Rectangular Column:

𝟕𝟎 − 𝟓𝟓
𝟕𝟎
%𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 = 𝟐. 𝟏𝟒
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟏𝟎 − 𝟐. 𝟏𝟒
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟕. 𝟖𝟔
Circular Column VS L-shaped Column:

𝟕𝟎 − 𝟔𝟎
𝟕𝟎
%𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 = 𝟏. 𝟒𝟑
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟏𝟎 − 𝟏. 𝟒𝟑
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟖. 𝟓𝟕
4.7 Final Raw Designer’s Ranking
The designer performed an initial evaluation of the three (3) tradeoffs based on the constraints
provided in the preceding portions of this chapter. The raw designer’s ranking evaluated is shown in the table
below.
Ability to satisfy criterion

(on a scale of 0 to 10)
Criterion's Importance
Decision Criteria *corresponding weights enclosed in parentheses
(on a scale of 0-10)
Circular Shaped
Square Column Column L-Shaped column
Economic
10 10 (100) 8.14 (81.40) 8.70 (87)
(Cost)
Constructability
(Duration of 10 10 (100) 6.36 (63.60) 7.78 (77.80)
Construction)
Sustainability
7 7.86 (55.02) 10 (70) 8.57 (59.99)
(Serviceability)
OVER-ALL RANKING 318.92 280.70 314.79
Table 4-23 Final Designer Ranking
4.8 Designer’s Final Ranking and Assessment
The designer’s final ranking provides the results of the quantitative analysis performed throughout
the design process. The Square Column ranked first because of cost efficiency and faster construction
compared to the Circular and L-Shaped columns. Although the Circular ranked first for the sustainability
criterion, Square column for the cost and constructability criterion still went in favor of the Square column.
4.8.1 Influence of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards in the final design
The multiple constraints and trade-offs presented in Chapter 3 significantly influenced the final design
in numerous ways. Some influences benefit both systems and some only favored one system. The standard
provided by the code that was used in the design process also affected the final design of the structure.
The economic constraint affected the design in terms of limiting the budget and resources during the
construction. This factor pushed the designer to strategized the structural members as economic as possible
without sacrificing the safety of the structure.
In terms of constructability, the complexity of the frame was affected because the more irregular and
unsymmetrical the frame is, the longer the time of construction the frame will require. Due to this, the designer
designed the frame system as symmetric as possible without compromising the client’s requirement in order
to ease the construction time period.
In terms of sustainability, the designer intends the structure to last for a long-term period to satisfy
the need of the client. Due to this constraint, the designer included this in the design but because of this
constraint it can result to long term construction together with a high material cost and labor cost. This
constraint, however, totally contradicted to the economical and serviceability constraint.
In terms of safety, the client and designer want the structure to be safe, due to this the designer
opted for the design with the lowest deflection in the most critical beam.
CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN
Upon the trade analysis performed in the previous chapter, the designer has come up with the result
for what design to use. For addressing the economic, constructability and sustainability constraints the design
that will be used for the Three Storey Residential Building is Square Column. This chapter shows the
following results and design schedules and details of structural elements for the winning trade-off.
5.1 Beam Schedule and Details
Mark Fy f'c Fyt β ⌀ base thickness d' Effective Area of Main Diameter of
(mm) (mm) (mm) Depth Bars Stirrups
(mm)
B1 400 27.58 275 0.85 0.9 200 400 60 340 615.7521601 10 mm @ 85
mm spacing
B2 400 27.58 275 0.85 0.9 200 400 60 340 615.7521601 10 mm @ 85
mm spacing
BEAM REMARKS LEFT END MIDSPAN RIGHT END

TOP BARS BOTTOM BARS TOP BARS
B1 SINGLY REINFORCED BEAM 3 - 16 mm ⌀ 3 - 16 mm ⌀ 3 - 16 mm ⌀

B2 SINGLY REINFORCED BEAM 3 - 16 mm ⌀ 3 - 16 mm ⌀ 3 - 16 mm ⌀
Figure 5-1 Detailed Drawing of Beams

Figure 5-2 Beam Span Details
5.2 Column Schedule and Details
COLUMN SCHEDULE AND DETAILS

Ground Floor to Second Floor
MARK DIMENSION REINFORCEMENT TIE BAR SPACING
C-1 500mm x 500mm 8-25 mm Ø 10 mm Ø 450 mm o.c

Second Floor to Third Floor

Third Floor to Roof slab

Figure 5-4 Column Details
5.3 Slab Schedule and Details
Length Reinforcements
Mark Diameter Bar Long Span Short Span Thickness Top bar Bottom Bar
S-1 10 mm ∅ 𝑏𝑎𝑟 8 meters 5 meters 120 mm 10 mm ∅ 𝑏𝑎𝑟 @ 10 mm ∅ 𝑏𝑎𝑟 @

270 mm 270 mm

270 mm 270 mm

270 mm 270 mm
Table 5-4 Slab Schedule

Figure 5-5 Slab Details
APPENDIX A: CODES AND STANDARDS
Herein provided the standards and codes used in designing the architectural and structural plan of
the apartment building. The following are listed below:
National Building Code of the Philippines
 Section 401. Types of Construction

Type IV. The structural elements may be any of the materials permitted by the Code.
 Section 701. Occupancy Classified.

Group E. Business and Mercantile. Division 2 – Wholesale and retail stores, office buildings, drinking
and dining establishments having an occupant load of less than one hundred persons, printing plants,
police and fire stations, factories and workshops using not highly flammable or combustible materials
and paint stores without bulk and handlings.
 Section 805. Ceiling Heights

Habitable rooms provided with artificial ventilation shall have ceiling heights not less than 2.4 meters
measured from the floor to the ceiling; provided that for buildings of more than one (1) storey, the
minimum ceiling height of the first storey shall be 2.70 meters and that for the second story 2.40
meters and the succeeding stories shall have an unobstructed typical head-room clearance of not
less than 2.10 meters above the finished floor. Above-stated rooms with natural ventilation shall have
ceiling heights of not less than 2.70 meters.
 Section 806. Size and Dimension of Rooms

Minimum sizes of rooms and their least horizontal dimensions shall be as follows:
1.) Bath and toilet. 1.20 square meters with at least dimension of 0.9 meters.
 Section 1207. Stairs, Exits and Occupant Loads

General. The construction of stairs and exits shall conform to the occupant load requirements of
buildings, reviewing stands, bleachers and grandstands:
a. Determinations of Occupant Loads. The Occupant load permitted in any building or portion thereof
shall be determined by dividing the floor area assigned to that use by the unit area allowed per
occupant as determined by the Secretary.
b. Exit Requirements. Exit requirements of a building or portion thereof used for different purposes shall
be determined by the occupant load which gives the largest number of persons. No obstruction shall
be placed in the required width of an exit except projections permitted by this Code.
National Structural Code of the Philippines
Notations used for the formulas and codes:
𝐴𝑔 = gross area of section, mm2.
𝐴𝑠 = area of nonprestressed tension reinforcement, mm2.
𝐴𝑠,𝑚𝑖𝑛 = minimum amount of flexural reinforcement, mm2.
𝐴𝑠𝑡 = total area of nonprestressed longitudinal reinforcement (bars and steel shapes), mm 2.
𝐴𝑣 = area of shear reinforcement within a distance s, mm2.
𝐴𝑣𝑓 = area of shear-friction reinforcement, mm2.
𝐴′𝑠 = area of compression reinforcement, mm2.
𝑏 = width of compression face of member, mm.
𝑏𝑤 = web width, mm.
𝑐 = distance from extreme compression fiber to neutral axis, mm.
𝑐𝑐 = clear cover from the nearest surface in tension to the surface of the flexural tension reinforcement,
mm.
𝐶𝑚 = a factor relating actual moment diagram to an equivalent uniform moment diagram.
𝐷 = dead loads, or related internal moments and forces.
𝑑 = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension reinforcement, mm.
𝑑′ = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of compression reinforcement, mm.
𝑑𝑏 = nominal diameter of bar, wire, or prestressing strand, mm.
𝑑𝑐 = thickness of concrete cover measure from extreme tension fiber to center of bar or wire located closest
thereto, mm.
𝑑𝑠 = distance from extreme tension fiber to centroid of tension reinforcement, mm.
𝑑𝑡 = distance from extreme compression fiber to extreme tension steel, mm.
𝐸 = load effects of earthquake, or related internal moments and forces.
𝐸𝑐 = modulus of elasticity of concrete, MPa.

𝐸𝑠 = modulus of elasticity of reinforcement, MPa.
𝐸𝐼 = flexural stiffness of compression member, N-mm2.
𝐹 = loads due to weight and pressures of fluids with well defined densities and controllable maximum
heights, or related internal moments and forces.
𝑓′𝑐 = specified compressive strength of concrete, MPa.
𝑓𝑦 = specified yield strength of nonprestressed reinforcement, MPa.
𝑓𝑦𝑡 = specified yield strength fy
𝐻 = loads due to weight and pressure of soil, water in soil, or other materials, or related internal moments
and forces.
ℎ = overall thickness of member, mm.
𝐼 = moment of inertia of section beam about the centroidal axis, mm4.
𝐼𝑐𝑟 = moment of inertia of cracked section transformed to concrete, mm4.
𝐼𝑒 = effective moment of inertia for computation of deflection, mm4.
𝐼𝑔 = moment of inertia of gross concrete section about centroidal axis, neglecting reinforcement, mm4.
𝐿 = live loads, or related internal moments and forces.
𝐿𝑑 = development length, mm.
𝑙𝑛 = length of clear span measured face-to-face of supports, mm.
𝑀𝑎 = maximum moment in member at stage deflection is computed.
𝑀𝑐𝑟 = cracking moment.
𝑃𝑏 = nominal axial load strength at balanced strain conditions
𝑃𝑛 = nominal axial load strength at given eccentricity.
𝑉𝑐 = nominal shear strength provided by concrete
𝑊 = wind load, or related integral moments and forces.
𝑤𝑐 = unit weight of concrete, kN/m3.
𝑤𝑢 = factored load per unit length of beam or per unit area of slab.
𝛼𝑓 = ratio of flexural stiffness of beam section to flexural stiffness of a width of slab bounded laterally by
center line of adjacent panel, if any on each side of beam.
𝛼𝑓𝑚 = average value of 𝛼𝑓 for all beams on edges of a panel.
𝛽1 = factor
𝜀𝑡 = net tensile strain in extreme tension steel at nominal strength.
𝜆 = modification factor reflection the reduced mechanical properties of lightweight concrete.
𝜆𝛥 = multiplier for additional long-time deflection 𝜌 = ration of nonprestressed tension reinforcement =

𝐴𝑠 ⁄𝑏𝑑
𝜌′ = ratio of nonprestressed compression reinforcement = 𝐴′𝑠 ⁄𝑏𝑑
𝜌𝑏 = reinforcement ratio producing balanced strain conditions
𝛷 = strength-reduction factor.
Minimum Design Loads
 Section 203 – Combination of Load

a. Minimum densities for design loads from materials
b. Minimum design loads
c. Minimum uniform and concentrated load
 Section 206 - Other Minimum Loads

a. 206.3 Impact loads
b. 206.3.1 Elevators
c. 206.3.2 Machinery
 Section 207 - Wind Load

a. 207.4 Basic Wind Speed
b. 207.5 Velocity Pressure
c. 207.6 Exposure
d. 207.7.2 Topographic Factor
e. 207.8 Wind Directionality Factor
f. 207.9 Importance Factor
 Section 208 - Earthquake Loads

a. 208.5.1.1 Earthquake Loads
b. 208.5.2.1 Design Base Shear
c. 208.5.2.2 Structure Period
Wind Load
 Section 207.4 Basic Wind Speed

- The basic wind speed V, used in the determination of design wind loads on buildings and other
structures for the different wind zones of the country is tabulated in Table 207-1
 Section 207.5.4 Wind Directionality Factor
- The wind directionality factor, Kd, shall be determined form Table 207-2. This factor Shall only
be applied when used in conjunction with load combinations specified in Section 203.3 and
203.4.
 Section 207.5.5 Importance factor

- An importance factor Iw, for the building or other structure shall be determined from Table 207-3
based on building and structure categories listed in Table 103-1.
 Section 207.5.6 Exposure

- For each wind direction considered, the upwind exposure category shall be based on ground
surface roughness that is determined from natural topography, vegetation, and constructed
facilities.
 Section 207.5.7 Topographic factor

- The wind speed up effect shall be included in the calculation of design wind loads by using the
factor kzt. If site conditions and locations of structures do not meet all the conditions specified in
Section 207.5.7.1 the kzt= 1.0
 Section 207.5.8 Gust Effect factor

- The gust effect factor shall be calculated as permitted in Sections 207.5.8.1 to 207.5.8.5, using
appropriate values for natural frequency and damping ratio as permitted in Section 207.5.8.6.
 Section 207.5.9 Enclosure Classifications

- For the purpose of determining internal pressure coefficients, all buildings shall be classified as
enclosed, partially enclosed, or open as defined in Section 207.2.
 Section 207.5.10 Velocity Pressure

- Velocity pressure, qz, evaluated at height z shall be calculated by the following equation
qz= 47.3x10-6 kz kzt kd V2 Iw.
 Section 207.5.11 Pressure and Force Coefficients

- Internal Pressure Coefficients, GCpi, shall be determined from fig. 207-5 based on building
enclosure classifications determined from Section 207.5.9
 Section 207.5.12 Rigid Building for all heights
- Design wind pressures for the MWFRS of a buildings of all heights shall be determined by the
following equation;
P= qGCP – qi(GCPi)
 Section 207.5.13 Design Wind Loads on Open Buildings with Monoslope, Pitched, or Troughed
Roofs
- Plus and minus signs signify pressure acting toward and away from the top surface of the roof,
respectively.
 Section 207.5.14 Design Wind Loads on Solid Freestanding Walls and Solid Signs
- The design wind force for solid freestanding walls and solid signs shall be determined by the
following formula:
F= qhGCfAs
 Section 207.5.15 Design Wind Loads on other Structures

- The design wind force for other structures shall be determined by the following equation:
F=qzGfCfAf
Basic Wind Speed Provinces

V = 200 kph Metro Manila
Table 207-1 Basic Wind Speed for the Provinces of the Philippines
Structural Type Directionality Factor Kd

Buildings
0.85
Main Wind Force Resisting System
Table 207-6 Wind Directionality Factor, Kd
Occupancy Catergory Description Iw

I Essential 1.15
II Hazardous 1.15
III Special Occupancy 1.15
IV Standard Occupancy 1
V Miscellaneous 0.87
Table 207-7 Importance Factor, Iw
Exposure (Note 1)
B C D
Height above Ground Level (m) Case 1 Case 2 Cases 1& 2 Cases 1&2
0-4.5 0.7 0.57 0.85 1.03
6 0.7 0.62 0.9 1.08
7.5 0.7 0.66 0.94 1.12
9 0.7 0.7 0.98 1.16
12 0.76 0.76 1.04 1.22
15 0.81 0.81 1.09 1.27
18 0.85 0.85 1.13 1.31
Table 207-8 Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficients
Earthquake Load
 Section 208.4.2 Occupancy Categories

- For purposes of earthquake-resistant design, each structure shall be placed in one of the
occupancy categories. Table 208-1 Assigns importance factors I and Ip, and structural
observation requirements for each category.
 Section 208.5.2.1 Design Base Shear

- The total base shear in a given direction shall be determined from the following equation:
𝐶𝑣𝐼𝑊
𝑉 = 𝑅𝑇
- The total design base shear need not exceed the following
2.5𝐶𝑎𝐼𝑊
𝑉= 𝑅
- The total base shear shall not be less than the following:
𝑉 = 0.11𝐶𝑎𝐼𝑊
- In addition for Seismic Zone 4, the total base shear shall also not be less than the following:
0.8𝑍𝑁𝑣𝐼𝑊
𝑉= 𝑅
 Section 5.2.2 Structure Period
- The value of T shall be determined using Method A:
𝑇 = 𝐶𝑡(ℎ𝑛)3/4
Seismic Importance Factor, Seismic Importance Factor,

Occupancy Category
I Ip
I. Essential Facilities 1.5 1.5
II. Hazardous Facilities 1.25 1.5
III. Special Occupancy Structures 1 1
IV. Standard Occupancy
1 1
Structures
V. Miscellaneous Structures 1 1
Table 208-1 Seismic Importance Factors
Ave Properties for Top 30m Soil Profile

Soil Profile Soil Profile Name
Shear Wave Velocity SPT Undrained Shear Strength
SA Hard Rock >1500
SB Rock 760 to 1500
SC Very Dense Soil 360 to 760 >50 >50
SD Stiff Soil Profile 180 to 360 15 to 50 50 to 100
SE Soft Soil Profile <180 <15 <50
SF Soil Requiring Site-Specific Evaluation See Section 208.4.3.2.1
Table 208-2 Soil Profile Types
Zone 2 4
Z 0.2 0.4
Table 208-3 Seismic Zone Factor Z
Closest Distance Known

Seismic Type Source Seismic Source
≤5 Km ≥10 Km
A 1.2 1
B 1 1
C 1 1
Table 208-4 Near-Source Factor, Na
Closest Distance Known

Seismic Type Source Seismic Source
≤5 Km ≥10 Km ≥ 15 Km
A 1.6 1.2 1
B 1.2 1 1
C 1 1 1
Table 208-5 Near-Source Factor, Nv
Seismic Zone
Soil Profile Type 2 4
Z = 0.2 Z = 0.4
SA 0.16Na 0.32Na
SB 0.2Na 0.40Na
SC 0.24Na 0.40Na
SD 0.28Na 0.44Na
SE 0.34Na 0.44Na
SF See Footnote 1 of Table 208-8
Table 208-7 Seismic Coefficient, Ca
Seismic Zone
Soil Profile Type 2 4
Z = 0.2 Z = 0.4
SA 0.16Nv 0.32Nv
SB 0.20Nv 0.40Nv
SC 0.32Nv 0.56Nv
SD 0.40Nv 0.64Nv
SE 0.64Nv 0.96Nv
SF See Footnote 1 of Table 208-8
Table 208-8 Seismic Coefficient, Cv
System Limitation and

Building Height Limitation by
Basic Seismic-Force Resisting System R Ω0
Seismic Zone, m
Zone2 Zone 4
C. Moment-Resisting Frame Systems
Special reinforced concrete moment frames 8.5 2.8 NL NL
D. Dual Systems
Special reinforced concrete shear walls 8.5 2.8 NL NL
Table 208-11A Earthquake-Force-Resisting Structural Systems of Concrete
APPENDIX B: COMPUTATION OF STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
The following structural schedule and details above were computed through Excel Program shown in this
section:

RCD Final Proj

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RCD Final Proj

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CE 502 Reinforced Concrete Design

1st Semester, S.Y. 2018-2019

Student Tomo, Mark Jendel

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

DESIGN OF A FIVE-STOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE

Engr. Prospero Cabornay

This project entitled as “Design of a Three-Storey Reinforced Concrete Residential Building” is

APPROVAL SHEET ...................................................................................................................................... ii

1.4 Project Objectives

1.4.1 General Objective

1) To design a 3-storey school building made of reinforced concrete materials.

1.5 Scope and Limitation

The following are the limitations of the design project:

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

1.6 Project Development

Identifying the project

Determining design standards

Architectural and Structural

Weighing of constraints and trade-offs

Loadings and Structural

Final Design Output

Figure 1-3: Project Development Process

2.1 Description of the Structure

Figure 2-1 Rendered View of the Structural Model

Room Description Area Quantity Total Area

Kitchen 9.375 1 9.375

Bedroom 1 10.05 1 10.05

Bedroom 2 9.00 1 9.00

Comfort Room 1 3.00 1 3.00

Dining Room 5.625 1 5.625

Balcony 1 3.125 1 3.125

Office space 9.375 1 9.375

Living Room 2 5.625 1 5.625

Comfort Room 2 4.00 1 4.00

Master’s Bedroom 11.875 1 11.875

Terrace 10.925 1 10.925

Comfort Room 3 3.95 1 3.95

Stairs 6.00 3 18.00

Table 2-1 Room Classification with Corresponding Area

2.3.1 Dead Loads

The dead loads acting on the structure are as follows:

Ceramic or quarry tile (20mm) on 25mm mortar bed 1.10

Acoustical Fiber board 0.05

Mechanical duct allowance 0.2

Suspended steel channel system 0.1

Masonry Grout (Full) 0.11

CHB Wall (100mm) 2.11

CHB Wall (150mm) 2.73

Plaster (both sides) 0.48

Asphalt Shingles 0.1

Material Density (kN/m3)

Table 2-3 Minimum Density

The live loads acting on the structure are as follows:

User or Occupancy Uniform Load (kPa)

Table 2-5 Occupancy Load

2.3.3 Earthquake Loads

2.3.4 Wind Load Parameters

The wind loads considered for design are as follows:

2.3.5 Load Combinations

LOADS REQUIRED STRENGTH

Herein provided the architectural plans of the Three-Storey Residential Building.

Figure 2-2 Ground Floor Plan

EFFECT OF DIFFERENT COLUMN SHAPES ON SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS