CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.1 Project Background

Quezon City is a highly urbanized city and the most populous city in the Philippines According to the 2015
Census, the population of the city was 2,936,116, making it by the most populous city in the Philippines.

Matandang Balara is a barangay in Quezon City. Its population as determined by the 2015 Census was
71,022. This represented 2.42% of the total population of Quezon City. According to the 2015 Census, the
age group with the highest population in Matandang Balara is 20 to 24, with 7,823 individuals. Conversely,
the age group with the lowest population is 80 and over, with 325 individuals.

Agriculture is an important part in the growth and development of a country. Agricultural industry allows a
country to produce its own food. Therefore, it is not a necessity for a country to trade and import goods from
other countries. Agriculture allows to satisfy the scarcity of a country in terms of food supply and other
agricultural products.

Agricultural lands are where we cultivate, harvest, and raise livestock which reinforce a community’s food
security. Philippines a “Third World country” who continues to develop its nation. Moreover, these
developments of farm lands, forests and seas are being converted for commercial use. The loss of agricultural
lands means the decrease of food production. Experts, agriculturist and environmentalist come up a solution
for this particular issue on the Philippines — one of the solution is called Urban Farming. Urban farming is
the practice of cultivating, processing and distributing food in or around urban areas.

Hydroponic farming is a method of growing plants using mineral nutrient solutions, in water, without soil. The
hydroponic gardener regulates the composition of nutrients in the liquid solution used to water the plants.
Simply, the hydroponic gardener controls the growing environment of the plants. The system is highly
automated of course but still requires to be well manage
1.2 Project Location

Figure 1.1: Site Location

Source: Google Maps

Matandang Balara is situated at approximately 14.6656° N, 121.0822° E, in the island of Luzon. Elevation at
these coordinates is estimated at 78.8 meters or 258.5 feet above mean sea level. The location of the project
will be along Commonwealth Avenue in Matandang Balara, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines.

1.3 Project Client

The clients for this project are the local government of Quezon City under the City Planning
Development Office headed by Jorge John B. Banal, Jr. and the Department of Agriculture headed by William
Dar.

1.4 Project Objective

GENERAL OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this project is to design a five-storey hydroponic vertical farm to help the
production of agricultural plants.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

1. To design an efficient hydroponic farm having an economic cost

2. To maximize the crop production by means of hydroponic farming
 3. To compare the trade-offs by differentiating the efficiency and having the most effective design
choice.

1.5 Scope and Limitation

SCOPE
The scope of this design project involves:
 The design of the structure will be based on its location and soil type
 Design plans include architectural and structural only.
 The project was designed in accordance to the National Code of the Philippines 2015.
 Architectural and structural plans were included in this project proposal.
 Cost estimates were included for each trade-off.
 Structural analysis will be done using STAAD, ETABS, and SAFE.

LIMITATIONS
The limitations of this design project are the following:
 Interior design is not provided.
 The detailed activities of the construction are excluded
 Traffic flow analysis is not included.
 Architectural Plans are design by the architect.
 The design system of hydroponic farm is not include.

1.6 Project Perspective

Figure 1.2: Perspective

1.7 Development Plan

This project is a design of hydroponic farm located along Commonwealth Avenue in Matandang Balara,
Quezon CIty. The hydroponic will be design as a vertical farm to reduce the use of soil in agricultural farming.
The said project will undergo different phases. The first phase is to identify the problems through site
investigation where the designers will personally visit the site location. Also to gather the soil characteristic
of the site in order to have adequate and efficient design of the foundation of the structure of the hydroponic
farm. The designer must also take into account the existing fault lines within the proximity of the location. The
second phase of the project is the conceptualization, where designers where formulate rightful ideas that will
suit or address the problems identified from the first phase and try to come up with the optimum solution
through comparison, brainstorming and idealization. After conceptualizing that, the hydroponic farm will be a
fifteen-storey, the designers move on to the next phase, which is the gathering of the data. The data gathering
usually comes after the investigation and researches because the designers will be able to identify the
parameters that they will need for the project. The designers also gathered related studies regarding the
design of hydroponic farm. The next phase is the design of trade-off where the designers will create an
alternative design of the structure. The last phase is the evaluation of trade-off. The designer will weigh the
efficiency of the design. The following steps in systematic approach are:

1. Identifying the Problems – identifying the problems in order for the designers to share their ideas
and formulate solutions regarding on the problems
2. Conceptualization – designers conceptualize design of a 5-storey vertical hydroponic farm at
Matandang Balara, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines.
3. Data Gathering – after the conceptualization, data are gathered before the project and the review
of related concepts will take place in order to begin the project with its problems and possible
solutions
4. Constraints – the designers identify conflicts that the project will be facing that will greatly affect the
formulation and conceptualization of the design of the project
5. Trade-off – the trade-off will be responsible for the design alternative to solve evident problems
considering constraints
6. Design of Trade-off – the trade-off presented will be provide to compare with the conventional
design of the structure of vertical hydroponic farm to compare the advantages and disadvantages
7. Final Design – the trade-off will be used by the designer for the design and analysis of the project
 START

IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEM

PROJECT CONCEPTUALIZATION

DATA GATHERING

IDENTIFICATION OF CONSTRAINTS

TRADE-OFF

DESIGN OF TRADE-OFFS

FINAL DESIGN

FINISH

Figure 1.3: Development Plan

 CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES

2.1 Design Criteria

The project should not be any development of scope for future development around the site. Moreover, it
must be well connected with water transport and road ways. The project is within the city limit to cut down
transportation cost.

2.1.1 Demography

2.1 Demographic and Topographic Profile of the Social Beneficiaries

Figure. 2-1 Topographic Profile of Quezon City

Source: Google Map

The city has an area of almost 64 square miles (165.33 kilometers squared). This means that the
population density is approximately 46,000 people per square mile (17,759 residents per square kilometer).
:
The majority of inhabitants in Quezon City are Roman Catholic. About 90% of residents follow this
religion. There are also other religions practiced throughout the city, including but not limited to Protestant
and Islamic faiths. Almost one-quarter of Metro Manila’s population lives within Quezon City. The city is
very culturally diverse.
The national language is Filipino, but many people throughout Quezon City speak English, particularly
those in the trade, government, education and media industries.
The city has a recent annual growth rate of over 2%. The population has grown significantly since
the city’s incorporation and is only expected to grow more through the years, with projections putting the
population over 3 million by the year 2020 and reaching 4 million between 2025 and 2030.

Population Census of Quezon

City
Year Population ±%p.a.
1939 39, 013 —
1948 107, 977 11.98%
1960 397, 990 11.48%
1970 754, 452 6.60%
1975 956, 864 4.88%
1980 1, 165, 865 4.03%
1990 1, 669, 776 3.66%
1995 1, 989, 419 3.34%
2000 2, 173, 831 1.93%
2007 2, 679, 450 1.93%
2010 2, 761, 720 1.11%
2015 2, 936, 116 1.17%
Table. 2-1
Source: Philippine Statistics Authority

2.1.2 Agricultural Output

The Philippine Statistics Authority reports that crops and livestock production slowed down.
According to the latest report of the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), the agricultural output growth
slowed down to 1.47% in the first quarter of 2018.
The figure is much lower than the 5.28% recorded in 2017.
The first quarter performance was below the 2.5-3.5% annual farm growth target under the Philippine
Development Plan.

Source: Philippine Statistics Authority

2.1.2.1 Performance of Philippine Agriculture (January to March 2019)
In the first quarter of 2019, agriculture grew by 0.67 %. Production increases were noted for livestock,
poultry and fisheries during the period. On the other hand, crops recorded a decrease in output. At current
prices, the gross value of agricultural production amounted to Php 429.7 Billion. This represented a 3.12 %
reduction from previous year’s level.
Crops, which accounted for 52.71% of the total agricultural output contracted by 1.01%.

Source: Philippine Statistics Authority

2.1.2.2 Crop Statistics of the Philippines

Volume production of:

Source: Philippine Statistics Authority

2.1.3 Floor Plans

Floor Plans
Floor plans are use in order to assign properly the location of all structural members of the project. Also the
plan will be one of a major consideration since it will determine what structural systems are feasible for the
project. The designer will use Fig. 2-2 to Fig. 2-7 developing structural plans

Figure 2-1: First Floor Plan

Figure 2-2: Second Floor Plan
Figure 2-3: Third Floor Plan
Figure 2-4: Fourth Floor Plan

Figure 2-5: Fifth Floor Plan

Elevation Plans
Elevation plans are useful in preliminary sizing of beams, determining floor to floor height, and computing of
storey drift. The designer will refer occasionally to Fig 2-8 for modelling, analysis and design structure.
 Figure 2-8: Elevations

2.1.4 Live Loads

Live loads shall be the maximum loads expected by the intended use or occupancy but in no case shall be
less than the loads required by Section 205.1.
Based from Section 205.1, floors shall be for the unit live loads shall be taken as the minimum live loads of
the horizontal projection to be used in the design of the building.
 Live Loads
Use or Occupancy
Design Pressure (KPa) Reference
Category Description
Basic Floor Area 1.9 NSCP Table 205-1
Exterior balconies 2.9 NSCP Table 205-1
RESIDENTIAL
Decks 1.9 NSCP Table 205-1
Storage 1.9 NSCP Table 205-1

Table 2-2: Live Load Parameters

2.1.5 Dead Loads

The dead load on a structural element is the weight of the member itself, plus the weights of all materials
permanently incorporated into the structure and supported by the member in question (MacGregor & Wight,
2012). Table 4-2 shows the dead loads used in computer model. The value of each is adapted in NSCP
Table 204-1 and Table 204-2.
Dead Loads (Area Load)
Description Value Remarks Reference
NSCP Table
Ceiling 1 KPa Suspended metal lath and gypsum, Electrical Systems
204-2
NSCP Table
Floor Finish 1.2 KPa Ceramic tile on mortar bed and allowance
204-2
NSCP Table
4" Masonry 3.17 KPa 4" and plaster
204-1
NSCP Table
6" Masonry 3.3 KPa CHB 6" and plaster
204-1
NSCP Sec.
Movable Partition 1 KPa
204.3
Miscellaneous 0.33 KPa Others Electrical
TOTAL 6.83 kPan
Wind Load
The pressure exerted by the wind in the building is used calculating wind loads. To estimate the pressure
and distribute it to each structural element the following parameters needed to be specified (see Table 4-3).
Wind loads is calculated with the aid of NSCP Section 207. Wind load on the structure is dependent on
occupancy, highest wind speed expected through its life span, exposure category and classification and
importance factor. Using these parameters the StaadProV8i will automatically compute the design and
distribute it using tributary areas.
WIND LOAD PARAMETERS
Parameters Value Remarks Reference
Building Classification Category Category III Standard Occupancy NSCP Table 103-1
Basic Wind Speed 200 Kph Zone 2 NSCP Table 207-1
Exposure Category B Urban and Suburban NSCP 207.5.6.2
Structure Type Building Structure
Exposure Classification Enclosed NSCP 207.5.9
Importance Factor 1 Special Occupancy NSCP Table 207-3

2.1.6 Seismic Loads

Earthquake load is dependent on seismicity of location, occupancy, ductility of the lateral load resisting
system, soil profile stiffness, and importance factor. Table 4-5 shows the parameters used in estimating the
earthquake load for the structure.
EARTHQUAKE LOAD PARAMETERS
Parameters Value Remarks Reference
Zone 0.4 Zone 4 NSCP Table 208-3
Importance Factor 1 Standard Occupancy NSCP Table 208-1
Response Modification Factor 8.5 SMRF / Dual System NSCP Table 208-11
Very Dense Soil and Soft
Soil Profile Type Sc NSCP Table 208-2
Rock
Seismic Source Type Type A M=7.4(7.0≤M≤8.4) NSCP Table 208-

Seismic Coefficient (Ca) 0.4Na NSCP Table 208-7

Seismic Coefficient (Cv) 0.56Nv NSCP Table 208-8

Near Source Factor (Na) 1.0 ≥10 km NSCP Table 208-4
Near Source Factor (Nv) 1.0 ≥10 km NSCP Table 208-5
 RC Moment Resisting
Ct 0.0731 NSCP 208.5.2.2
Frame

Table 2-3

2.2 Review of Related Literatures

2.2.1 Local Literature

The Introduction of SNAP Hydroponics as an Alternative way of Farming to Augment Income

The main purpose of this study is to assess the respondents’ level of acceptability on the SNAP Hydroponics
in terms of quality of harvest and quantity of harvest. The objectives of the study are to identify the
demographic profile of the farmers, to determine the respondents’ level of acceptability on the SNAP
Hydroponics in terms of quality of harvest and quantity of harvest and to determine the aspects to be
considered in the introduction of SNAP Hydroponics as a source of income in terms of Technical Aspects,
Management Aspects and Socio-Economic Aspects to the farmers of the City of Cabuyao as a source of
income.
The descriptive research method was applied in this study. The respondent of the study includes farmers
from Barangay San Isidro City because the researchers believes that they can give an accurate data for the
study since they have the most number of farmers in City of Cabuyao. The frequency, percentage, weighted
mean and t-test were used to evaluate the level of acceptability of produced crops from SNAP Hydroponics
as a source of income to the farmers of Barangay San Isidro City of Cabuyao Laguna.
In this study, the level of acceptability of the farmers with regards to SNAP hydroponics was assessed through
the performance indicators adopted and modified by the researchers.
Based on the result, farmers answered mostly ‘maybe’ when asked whether they know/aware of what a
SNAP Hydroponics is. Most of them don’t have any idea of what hydroponics is but upon having a glimpse
and simple introduction and discussion of it, they've agreed that certain aspects are needed to be considered.
They also agreed that possibly SNAP hydroponics can compete with the traditional way of gardening. Most
of the hydroponics growers has already tested and proven that they get higher many time greater than the
conventional method. Upon certain consideration, farmers also agreed that this study is beneficial to the
farmers of Barangay San Isidro and to the Barangay itself. It indicates that due to the fact that greater yields
can be made through hydroponics which results to greater income, most of the farmers are willing to try the
SNAP hydroponics.
As evaluated, the level of acceptability of the farmers with regards to quality of the harvest through traditional
farming is acceptable and the quantity is average. It indicates that the farmers are not satisfied on the quality
and quantity of crops due to pests, natural calamity and insects that most of the time destroy their crops.
Thus, this study aims to the help the farmers to adapt a low-cost hydroponics system at the same time yield
higher than the usual. (Gelyn C. Cruz, et. al., 2017)

Vertical Farming Using Hydroponic System: Toward a Sustainable Onion Production in Nueva Ecija,
Philippines
The development of new technology for food production is essential to sustain man’s needs for survival. The
use of farmlands for food production and industrial purposes goes beyond the carrying capacity of the
environment. The study determined the applicability of Vertical Farming using Hydroponic Technology to
onion production in Nueva Ecija, Philippines. The country is known as the onion capital of Southeast Asia.
The study measured the technology’s sustainability and acceptability to onion farmers. By using experimental
method, interview, and Focused Group Discussions (FGD), the study established its viability. Three phases
of field experiments were conducted in August 2016, May 2017 and July 2017 using the Vertical Farming
and Hydroponics Technology and Single Factor Analysis of Variance. The results showed that there is
significant difference in the growth of onion bulb per week and the suitability and comparability of the
technology to conventional farming. The study concluded that the VFH technology is acceptable to most
onion farmers except the aspect of the cost of initial investment which re-quires government subsidy for the
ordinary onion grower to avail of this new and sustainable technology in onion production. (Marilou P.
Pascual, et. al., 2018)

Development of an Indoor Hydroponic Tower for Urban Farming

Urban farming is one of the key solutions to global food insecurity, however due to land scarcity inside urban
areas, implementation of this solution is challenging. To address this, urban hydroponic farming is introduced
since hydroponics is an effective way of conserving both water and space. However, hydroponics itself is
complicated because there are more growing factors that can affect the growth of plants. This can be
addressed by constantly monitoring the system parameters, therefore this study shows the design,
fabrication, and testing of an indoor hydroponic tower prototype coupled with an automated monitoring
system. The study includes an analysis on various parameters such as, plant length, leaf height, fresh weight,
water temperature, ambient temperature, relative humidity, pH level, water level, and total dissolved solids.
An Arduino-based monitoring system was built from scratch and was utilized to collect the necessary data
along with physical instruments for better calibration in data collection. Plant growth, environmental
conditions, and sensor accuracy showed that the indoor hydroponic tower was a success in terms of its
design for urban farming, productivity and performance, and its automated monitoring system. (Sean Tagle,
2018)

Hydroponic system for watercress suits in urban areas

IN LA TRINIDAD, Benguet, a usual scenario of a regular consumer will have a stop at the public market
looking for fresh meat and vegetables definitely good for dinner. ‘Pinikpikan’ – a chicken culturally dressed
added with vegetable and sort of spices has been one of the favorite. Among the vegetables being combined
to this menu is the watercress which is leafy green grown in natural spring water and paddies along
riverbanks. However, pollution with the accumulation of heavy metals, chemicals and harmful
microorganisms due to human activities affected the cleanliness of rivers and spring water especially in the
urban communities. This is evident in any developing community like in the case of the Balili River in La
Trinidad that in its earlier years provide aquatic species and a clean habitat for watercress. Benguet is among
of the provinces in the country where watercress naturally grows. In line with the mandate of the Benguet
State University (BSU) to develop technologies on agriculture, a researcher of the said institution initiates to
adopt hydroponic system on watercress production which simply means growing plants without soil using
nutrient solution. Sergio T. Gayao, Senior Research Specialist believes that using the said technique can
possibly minimize and eliminates problems in the watercress production. This technique is believed to have
been practiced in the famous hanging gardens of the ancient city of Babylon and at present it is not a new
concept in the country. In the Philippines, Etoy Gregorio who is an aquarist grows watercress at his rooftop
in Quezon City using a circulating pump according to the Philippine Star Newspaper (2010). Further,
hydroponics system development in Benguet had been appreciated and adapted by some farmers
specifically on crops like lettuce and strawberry among others.
(“Hydroponic system for watercress suits in urban areas”, 2017)

2.2.2 Foreign Literature

A Versatile System to Study Nutrient Allocation and Plant Responses to Nutrient Availability and
Exposure to Toxic Elements
Hydroponic systems have been utilized as one of the standard methods for plant biology research and are
also used in commercial production for several crops, including lettuce and tomato. Within the plant research
community, numerous hydroponic systems have been designed to study plant responses to biotic and abiotic
stresses. Here we present a hydroponic protocol that can be easily implemented in laboratories interested in
pursuing studies on plant mineral nutrition.
This protocol describes the hydroponic system set up in detail and the preparation of plant material for
successful experiments. Most of the materials described in this protocol can be found outside scientific supply
companies, making the set up for hydroponic experiments less expensive and convenient.
The use of a hydroponic growth system is most advantageous in situations where the nutrient media need to
be well controlled and when intact roots need to be harvested for downstream applications. We also
demonstrate how nutrient concentrations can be modified to induce plant responses to both essential
nutrients and toxic non-essential elements. (J Vis Exp., 2016)

Hydroponics: Its history and use in plant nutrition studies

Hydroponics is a widely and frequently used technique for growing plants without soil, providing for a
considerable degree of control of the elemental environment surrounding the root. The technique has an
interesting history of development and use dating back into the mid-18th‐century, although the growing of
plants in nutrient rich water may have dated back into the early history of man. The determination of the
essential elements required by plants were discovered using solution culture techniques. This paper
discusses the past history of solution culture as well as its importance and use today. (J. Benton Jones Jr.,
2008)

Comparison between Growing Plants in Hydroponic System and Soil Based System
As the world population grows, the demand and need for different products, especially food products, grow
as well. Because of this growing demand, there will be an expected food crisis in the coming years. To
prevent that crises from happening, other methods -farming methods- and sources of food must be used.
This paper studies two farming systems to compare and find the best system that will cover the current and
future demand with the least cost and natural resources consumption. The first system is the soil-based
system (traditional), and the other is the hydroponic system. Two types of seeds were used, cucumber and
Armenian cucumber. Over a period of 30 days, the heights of the plants for both systems were measured.
After collecting data, the data were analyzed using Design-Expert and the variance test (ANOVA). The
hypothesis of the test is the type of seeds, planting system, and their interaction do have a significant effect
on the height of the plant or not. The experiment resulted in that the type of seeds doesn’t have a significant
effect on the plant growth. However, the planting system has a significant effect on the plant growth, the
hydroponic system has a higher growth rate. This result achieves the aim of this paper which is finding a
planting system that can increase the productivity to cover the food demand. (Raneem Gashgari, n.d.)

The Vertical Farm: A Review of Developments and Implications for the Vertical City. University of
Illinois at Chicago, Chicago
This paper discusses the emerging need for vertical farms by examining issues related to food security, urban
population growth, farmland shortages, “food miles”, and associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Urban planners and agricultural leaders have argued that cities will need to produce food internally to respond
to demand by increasing population and to avoid paralyzing congestion, harmful pollution, and unaffordable
food prices. The paper examines urban agriculture as a solution to these problems by merging food
production and consumption in one place, with the vertical farm being suitable for urban areas where
available land is limited and expensive. Luckily, recent advances in greenhouse technologies such as
hydroponics, aeroponics, and aquaponics have provided a promising future to the vertical farm concept.
These high-tech systems represent a paradigm shifts in farming and food production and offer suitable and
efficient methods for city farming by minimizing maintenance and maximizing yield. Upon reviewing these
technologies and examining project prototypes, we find that these efforts may plant the seeds for the
realization of the vertical farm. The paper, however, closes by speculating about the consequences,
advantages, and disadvantages of the vertical farm’s implementation. Economic feasibility, codes,
regulations, and a lack of expertise remain major obstacles in the path to implementing the vertical farm.
(Kheir Al-Kodmany, 2018)

Vertical Farms, Urban Restructuring and The Rise of Capitalist Urban Agriculture
This paper seeks to examine the rise of vertical farms, and the ways in which they advance the corporate
food regime and encourage urban elite consumption. It will discuss two contemporary ‘localizing’ trends: the
call for local food systems and local urban restructuring in the era of neoliberalism. I argue that the intersection
of these two trends, spatially and temporally, created market opportunities for capital to appropriate social
movement demands for local agricultural production, and encouraged the rise of capitalist forms of local food
production (vertical farms). I will first introduce the vertical farm concept and currently operating vertical farms
referred to throughout the paper. Then, using a theoretical tool developed by Robbins (2013), I will
differentiate these farms as local food projects thatreproduce the capitalist industrial system, rather than
challenging it. In the third chapter, I discuss the analytical frameworks used in the paper: uneven geographic
development and food regime analysis. The next chapter discusses how class struggle produced the calls
for local food movements, as a response to inequity in the global corporate food regime. I then detail how
devalued built environments and labor surplus, characteristics of cities under “actually existing neoliberalism”,
facilitated corporate appropriation of the local foods concept by producing profitable conditions for capitalist
urban agriculture, which was hailed as local economic development. In the last chapter, I will discuss how
these farms serve to reproduce troubling trends in the corporate food regime, and signify new developments
in capital’s ability to standardize the food cultivation process, and to incorporate it into factory like production
systems. (Lindsey Sarann Hallock, 2013)
Reference:
J Vis Exp. 2016. Hydroponics: A Versatile System to Study Nutrient Allocation and Plant Responses to
Nutrient Availability and Exposure to Toxic Elements. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5091364/
J. Benton Jones Jr. 2008. Hydroponics: Its history and use in plant nutrition studies. Retrieved from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01904168209363035
Raneem Gashgari. (n.d.). Comparison between Growing Plants in Hydroponic System and Soil Based
System. Retrieved from https://avestia.com/MCM2018_Proceedings/files/paper/ICMIE/ICMIE_131.pdf
Kheir Al-Kodmany, 2018. The Vertical Farm: A Review of Developments and Implications for the Vertical
City. University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago
Lindsey Sarann Hallock, 2013. Vertical Farms, Urban Restructuring and The Rise of Capitalist Urban
Agriculture
Gelyn C. Cruz, et. al., 2017. The Introduction of SNAP Hydroponics as an Alternative way of Farming to
Augment Income.
Marilou P. Pascual, et. al., 2018. Vertical Farming Using Hydroponic System: Toward a Sustainable Onion
Production in Nueva Ecija, Philippines.
Sean Tagle, 2018. Development of an Indoor Hydroponic Tower for Urban Farming.
Hydroponic system for watercress suits in urban areas. (2017). https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/132713
 CHAPTER 3: CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS AND STANDARDS

3.1 Design Constraints

The design constraints served as a groundwork or perhaps a parameter to be set so as to conform with the
entire necessities meant both for the patron and the designers. These constraints had been applied in ready
to fulfill the preferences ordered by the client such because the rate, completion time, and many others.
However, these constraints were once also part of the drawback of the designers corresponding to protection
and sustainability. Consequently, these constraints might straight indicate the possible final output of the
design mission governed by way of the selection of the client and the discretion of the designers.
It is main to determine them early in the mission considering failure to take action will result in dissatisfaction
of the customer.

3.1.1 Structural Context

3.1.1.1 Economic

Cost is always an integral part of marketing and livelihood. Thus, this constraint is considered in this design.
A cost - effective project is always the choice of the client, so that every project is designed and built at the
lowest possible cost. Therefore, a comparison of the price per weight of each alternative will be the basis for
addressing the constraint in order to measure the economy of the structure. The budget is a factor that
controls the design's time and quality. The client allocated a Php 30,000,000.00 fund for the entire design
and construction process for this project.
3.1.1.2 Sustainability

In civil engineering, sustainability refers to the conditions in which a building is still considered useful. If these
limits are exceeded, a structure that can still be structurally sound would nevertheless be considered unfit. In
order to prevent unforeseen structural damage and to know the stresses caused by loads, the calculations
of long-term deflections must be included in the design procedure. Long-term deflection can be calculated
by calculating the member's instant deflection and multiplying it by a factor between 2 and 3. The deflection
value shall not exceed the length of the member divided by 360. This limitation is addressed in five years by
selecting the structure with the lowest possible deflection.
3.1.1.3 Constructability

Each construction project has a project schedule to be considered. The supply of materials, whether near or
far from the construction site, would also affect the schedule of the project. The higher the client’s ability to
provide financial support, the more options to accelerate the project. The maximum permissible project
completion is set in 548 calendar days for this project. In order to measure the constructability of the structure,
the time it takes for the project to be completed is assessed and the design is governed by the least possible
construction time.
3.1.1.4 Structural Safety (Risk Assessment)

The integrity of the structure, based on its capacity to withstand lateral forces, increases the invulnerability of
the building during earthquakes. The higher the frame structure's storey drift, the more dangerous it is
because it receives massive lateral forces. For this reason, the aim is to select the design with the least
possible storey drift to ensure the structure's safety.
3.1.1.5 Environmental

Concrete is the world's most abundant man-made material, but concrete has a problem with emissions. Its
essential ingredient, cement, has a huge carbon footprint. Cement is the glue that makes concrete strong,
but the cement process requires calcium carbonate or calcareous steel to be overheated and releases
massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Depending on the concrete performance
requirements, concrete uses about 7 to 15 percent cement by weight. The average amount of cement is
approximately 250 kg / m3. One cubic meter (m3) of concrete weighs approximately 2400 kg. Therefore,
each cubic meter of concrete contains approximately 100 to 300 kg of Carbon. Moreover, one kilogram of
steel emits 1.77 kg of carbon dioxide. The higher the material mass, the more carbon dioxide it emits, the
more harmful it is to the environment.
3.1.2 Geotechnical Context

3.1.2.1 Economical

For the Geotechnical aspect, the area of the location, machine equipment and manpower must be considered
to accumulate the cost of each ground improvement technique.
3.1.2.2 Constructability

In order to assess the constructability of each trade-off, the duration will be based on machinery installation
and the trade-offs process.
3.1.2.3 Geotechnical Safety

Bearing capacity is the capacity of soil to support the loads applied to the ground. The bearing capacity of
soil is the maximum average contact pressure between the foundation and the soil which should not produce
shear failure in the soil. Hence, this factor is the one being measured in terms of geotechnical safety.
3.1.2.4 Sustainability

Settlement is the movement of the foundation in downward direction due to the load of the entire structure
over it, which thus displaces the soil below it which results in the movement. For this reason, the aim is to
select the design with the least possible settlement to ensure sustainability of the foundation of the structure.
3.2 Trade-Offs

The trade-offs presented in this section are based on the designer’s assessment on which configuration might
be the best solution to address the constraints provided in the previous section. The basis for the selection
of each trade-offs were various case studies and experiments, textbooks and websites that provided relevant
ideas. These ideas had significant influences on the preliminary configuration of the designer.
3.2.1 Structural Context

3.2.1.1 Special Moment Resisting Frame

A special moment resisting frame (SMRF) is used in mid- to high-seismic areas. They are intended to
withstand significant permanent damage following high level forces. They must sustain a high level of inter
story drift. 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.

Figure 3- 3 Special Moment Resisting Frame

Source: The Constructor Civil Engineering Home

3.2.1.2 Concrete Dual System (Special Reinforced Concrete Shear wall and Special Moment Frames)

Like Special moment frames, another good structural system to use in this project is dual system or
commonly called frame-wall system. The Dual system to be used is the combination of Special Moment
frame and Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls since it has a response modification factor of 8.5 (the
same as for Special Moment Frame System). Decrease in size of beams and columns will result to more
economical lateral load resisting system than the 1st trade-off but foundation is more expensive compared
to the former. The designer will consider analysis requirement of section 208 and detailing requirement of
Section 421 of NSCP. In contrast to Special moment frames, dual system generates smaller drifts since it
offers a great stiffness in the direction of the load. It also offers economy and good fire resisting capability
like special moment frame.
 Figure 0-1: Dual System
Source: http://www.nexus.globalmodel.org/gem-building-taxonomy/overview/glossary/dual-wall-system--
Idual

Trade offs Advantages

 provide large strength and stiffness in the direction of orientation.

 significantly reduces lateral sway.

 Shear walls are easy to construct, because reinforcement detailing

DUAL FRAMING of walls is relatively straightforward and therefore easily
SYSTEM implemented at site.
 efficient in terms of construction cost and effectiveness in minimizing
earthquake damage.
 Provide a potentially high-ductile system with a good degree of redundancy,
which can allow freedom in architectural planning of internal spaces and
external.
 Their flexibility and associated long period may serve to detune the structure
from the forcing motions on stiff soil or rock sites.
 Moment Frames are still viable although are very expensive.

SMRF (CONCRETE)  Concrete ductile moment resisting frames now make it possible to design
structures with the ductility and energy dissipation capability of steel
structures.
 Trade offs Disadvantages

 less energy dissipation

 cause higher loses to non-structural components
 obstruct the internal planning and the locations of the windows and doors
 lateral-load resistance in shear wall buildings is usually concentrated on a
DUAL FRAMING few walls rather than on large number of columns.
SYSTEM
 Beam column joints represent an area of high stress concentration, which
needs considerable skill to design successfully.

 Poorly designed, moment resisting frames have been observed to fail

catastrophically in earthquakes, mainly by formation of weak stories and
failures around beam-column joints.
 Concrete itself has poor ductility in shear and is, therefore, a brittle material.
SMRF (CONCRETE)  Limited ductility, combined with its higher mass. Higher mass increases the
seismic force and lower tolerance to errors in design and workmanship.
 The weight is bigger, which increases the seismic forces.
Table 3-1: Advantages and Disadvantages of chosen trade-offs

3.2.1.3 Special Concentrically-Braced Frame System (SCBF)

Special Concentrically Braced Frame is a system in which there are diagonal supports to reinforce the
framing system of a building to increase its resistance against lateral loads. It uses two diagonal
members crossing each other. These only need to be resistant to tension, one brace at a time acting
sideways forces depending on the direction of loading. The members in this system are usually made
up steel members.
The beams and columns of the framing system resist gravity loads while the cross brace resists the lateral
loads. The brace members work like a truss.

Figure 3. 2 Special Cross-Braced Frame System

 Advantages Disadvantages
 Economic  Can interfere with the placing of
 Simple to analyse windows
 Minimizing Moments and greatly  Limited ductility
reducing lateral displacement

Table 3. 2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Special Cross-Braced Frame System

3.2.2 Geotechnical Context

3.2.2.1 Stone Column

The building of stone columns is a technique now used to improve the load-bearing ability of shallow
foundations on smooth clay layers. Improvement of the stone column floor includes adding vertical stone
columns to the floor at a depth of at least 4 meters below the floor. A compact gravel layer can then be
placed over the top of the columns, ready to build fresh foundations for the house. The technique of the
stone column is fast to build and can be achieved at any moment of the year. Stone columns help to
reduce the amount and consequences of future liquefaction by densifying the soil through vibration and
introducing stone into the soil and by strengthening the soil by creating a rigid composite soil mass. Once
the stone columns have been built, the filling material should always be put over the floor surface and
compacted before the foundation is built. The stone columns tend to decrease the settlement of the
foundations at permissible loads. Stone columns operate more efficiently when used to stabilize a big
region where the shear strength of the subsoil is 10 to 50 kN / m2 (200 to 1000 lb / ft2) than when used
to enhance the bearing capacity of the structural foundations.

Figure 3- 4 Stone Column

 Source: Principles of Foundation Engineering by Braja Das
Table 3- 4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Stone Column

Advantages
 The stone columns provide the soil with
resistance strengthening and a big part of the
load applied to the floor surface is transmitted
to them owing to their comparatively elevated
modulus.
 Increased stability strength
 Reduced deformation owing to soil weight
distortion or compressibility
 Reduced liquefaction sensitivity
 Reduction of settlements
 Increase the load bearing capacity
Disadvantages
 Sensitive clays do not regain the shear
strengthproperly.
 Stone columns can cause high lateral
pressures and displacement of adjacent
structures when installed at a distance of less
than 3.66 m.
 Severe cracks could be seen in structures
close to the stone column sit due to vibration
of 30-50 Hz.

3.2.2.2 Cement Grouting

Grouting method that fills gaps or voids in soil and rock and permeates large, granular soils to produce a
cemented mass. Cement grouting, also known as slurry grouting or high-mobility grouting, fills pores in
granular soil or in rock/soil, with flowing particulate grouting. The size of the grout and the size of the vacuum
must be correctly matched to allow the cement groove to permeate. Depending on the circumstances,
Portland cement or micro-fine cement groove is injected under pressure at strategic places through single or
multiple port tubes. The ground mass has improved strength, stiffness and decreased permeability.

Figure 3- 5 Cement Grouting

 Source: Hayward Baker
Table 3- 5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Cement Grouting

Advantages Disadvantages
 Increase soil strength and rigidity  Difficult quality control in a coherent soil
 Reduce ground movement  Bit messy and may need to be cleaned
 Groundwater control  It is more expensive and time consuming
 Predictable degree of improvement
Source: Hayward Baker
3.2.2.3 Polyurethane Grouting

Grouting process that involves injection of expanded polyurethane to fill and seal cracks and voids
and re-level slabs. The polyurethane groove is injected under low pressure through or adjacent to a
foundation slab. Then the crack expands to fill the crack or the void. Many polyurethane cavity
techniques are available with variations in viscosity, reaction time, water reaction, expansion
characteristic and flexibility of the reacted cavity. Polyurethane grouts may be single or multi-
component and may require a reagent or may react when encountering water. It is important to
choose the correct grout for each application. Polyurethane Injection is a re-leveling method that
increases concrete slabs and fills voids by means of a controlled injection of lightweight, non-
hazardous polyurethane groove.

Figure 3- 6 Polyurethane Grouting

(Source: Hayward Baker)
Table 3- 6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Polyurethane Grouting

Advantages
 Polyurethane grouting is the cleanest
concrete lifting and stabilization process.
 Quietest and fastest process for
stabilizing and raising settled concrete
slabs.
 Crews can lift up to 12 times faster than
standard slab jacking or mud jacking
crews in many situations.
 Lightweight material reduces the
overburden on underlying soils, reducing
the chances for
 High density polyurethane is waterproof,
so treated slabs are thoroughly
undersealed.
Disadvantages
 Typically, harder to pump than less
viscous cementitious grouts.
 Additionally, with water, Polyurethane
grouting may foam and expel through
open fractures on a rock face, requiring
quick cleanup of the overrun material,
before it hardens and removal
becomes a more difficult task.
 Higher in cost than other types of
cementitious grouts.
 Hydro-fracturing and rock falls may be
an issue if pressure is not adequately
controlled during pumping operations.

3.3 Designers Raw Ranking

The tradeoffs are based on the stated constraints on the Chapter 3.1 Design Constraints of the project. Three
structural designs and geotechnical designs were considered by the designers which can meet then
necessary requirements for the satisfaction of the multiple constraints. By providing the client an option into
which one of the interchange designs that will be chosen, the designer used the model on tradeoff strategies
in Engineering Design by Otto and Antonsson (1991), scaled the criterion’s importance from 0 to 10, 10 being
the highest and likewise, to satisfy the ability of the criterion it was scaled also from 0 to 10, and 10 being the
highest.
Computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials:

𝐻𝐼𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
Equation 0-1: % Difference

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − (% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 × 10)

Equation 0-2: Subordinate Rank

The Governing Rank is an independent variable set by the designer subjectively in ranking the constraints
which depends on the designer’s own perception of the importance of each constraint in the design of the
structure. The Subordinate Rank is the dependent variable that corresponds to its percentage distance from
the governing rank along the ranking scale of 0 to 10.

Figure 0-2: Ranking Scale Value

(Source: 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.)

3.4 Initial Estimate and Raw Ranking Computation

Table 0-1: Initial Estimates of Structural Trade-Offs

Constraints Structural Trade – Offs Importance

Factor
Special Moment Dual System Concentrically
Resisting Frame Braced Frame
Economic
11,787,381 8,674,482 12,719,131 10
(Cost - Php)
Sustainability
18.108 42.320 4.774 9
(Deflection)
Constructability
250 300 275 8
(Duration-Days)
Risk Assessment
23.664 0.862 5.000 10
(Storey-Drift)
Environmental
167.9 153.2 148.4 8
(CO2 Emission)

Table shows the initial design estimates of the three tradeoffs for each constraint. The estimated cost consists
of the material costing for beams, columns and slab only. The duration is based on the estimated number of
days the project needs to be finished for each trade off with the reference to the previous studies with the
same trade-offs. For the Story Drift and Carbon Dioxide emission, results were identified and determined
through the previous studies gathered by the designers.
Table 0-2: Initial Estimates of Geotechnical Trade-Offs

Constraints Geotechnical Trade – Offs Importance

Factor
Stone Column Dynamic Jet Grouting
Compaction
Economic 1,400,000.00 700,000.00 10,000,000.00 10
(Cost - Php)
Sustainability 50 years 55 years 50 years 9
(Life Span – Years)
Constructability 5 days 10 days 28 days 8
(Duration - Days)

The estimated values for the economic constraint were computed using a table named “Comparative costs
of ground improvement methods” in a book entitled Dynamic Compaction by the US Department of
Transportation.
A specification list by Subsurface Constructors Inc. denotes that the life span of stone column is 50 years.
Based from a study by Durgunoglu entitled “A Case History of Ground Treatment with Jet Grouting against
Liquefaction, for a Cigarette Factory in Turkey”, it is said that jet grouting has a life span of 50 years.
The estimated duration for stone column is based from a case study named “Ground Improvement” by
Shivakumar Babu. According to a study in 2015 entitled “Dynamic Compaction and Dynamic Surcharging at
Dubai’s Palm Jumeira Sewage Treatment Plants” by Hamidi, the estimated duration using dynamic
compaction is 10 days. The duration for jet grouting was estimated using an article entitled “Advances in the
Construction and Design of Jet Grouting Methods in South America” by Guatteri.

3.4.1 Raw Ranking for Structural Trade-Offs

3.4.1.1 Computation of Ranking for Economic Constraint

Since Dual System is the one having the lowest amount, the designer gave it a scale of ten (10). The table
below shows the initial cost estimate of the given tradeoffs. Through this initial result, the designers may find
out what trade-off governs in terms of economic cost whichever has the lower price for material cost.

Table 0-3: Initial Estimated Value for Economic Constraint

Description Special Moment Dual System Concentrically Braced

Resisting Frame Frame
Economic
( Cost, Php ) 11,787,381 8,674,482 12,719,131

Subordinate Rank 6.36 10 5.82

The computation for the ranking of the three tradeoffs is illustrated below using the formula stated above.
Special Moment Resisting Frame vs. Dual System

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
11787381 − 8674482
= × 10
11,787,381
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟐. 𝟔𝟒

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 10 − 2.64
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟕. 𝟑𝟔

Figure 0-3: Subordinate Rank of Special Moment Resisting Frame plotted in a rank line

Concentrically Braced Frame vs. Dual System

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
12,719,131 − 8674482
= × 10
12,719,131
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟑. 𝟏𝟖

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 10 − 3.18
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟔. 𝟖𝟐

Figure 0-4: Subordinate Rank of Concentrically Braced Frame plotted in a rank line
3.4.1.2 Computation of Ranking for Sustainability Constraint
Since Concentrically Braced Frame is the one having the least value for deflection, the designer gave it a
scale of nine (9). The table below shows the initial deflection of the given tradeoffs. Through this initial result,
the designers may find out what trade-off governs in terms of sustainability whichever has the least long-term
defelction.

Table 0-4: Initial Estimated Value for Sustainability Constraint

Description Special Moment Dual System Concentrically Braced

Resisting Frame Frame
Sustainability
18.108 42.320 4.774
(Deflection, mm)
Subordinate Rank 1.64 0.13 9

The computation for the ranking of the three tradeoffs is illustrated below using the formula stated above.
Special Moment Resisting Frame vs. Concentrically Braced Frame

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
18.108 − 4.774
= × 10
18.108
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟕. 𝟑𝟔

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 9 − 7.36
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟏. 𝟔𝟒

Figure 0-5: Subordinate Rank of Special Moment Resisting Frame plotted in a rank line

Dual System vs. Concentrically Braced Frame

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
 42.320 − 4.774
= × 10
42.320
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟖. 𝟖𝟕

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 9 − 8.87
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟎. 𝟏𝟑

Figure 0-6: Subordinate Rank of Dual System plotted in a rank line

3.4.1.3 Computation of Ranking for Constructability Constraint

Since Special Moment Resisting Frame is the one having the lowest amount, the designer gave it a scale of
eight (8). The table below shows the initial construction period estimate of the given tradeoffs. Through this
initial result, the designers may find out what trade-off governs in terms of constructability whichever has the
shortest duration of construction.

Table 0-5: Initial Estimated Value for Constructability Constraint

Description Special Moment Dual System Concentrically Braced

Resisting Frame Frame
Constructability
250 300 275
(Duration, Days)
Subordinate Rank 8 6.33 7.09

The computation for the ranking of the three tradeoffs is illustrated below using the formula stated above.
Dual System vs. Special Moment Resisting Frame

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
300 − 250
= × 10
300
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟏. 𝟔𝟕
 𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= 8 − 1.67
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟔. 𝟑𝟑

Figure 0-7: Subordinate Rank of Dual System plotted in a rank line

Concentrically Braced Frame vs. Special Moment Resisting Frame

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
275 − 250
= × 10
275
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟗𝟏

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 8 − 0.91
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟕. 𝟎𝟗

Figure 0-8: Subordinate Rank of Concentrically Braced Frame plotted in a rank line

3.4.1.4 Computation of Ranking for Risk Assessment Constraint

Since Dual System is the one having the lowest story drift, the designer gave it a scale of ten (10). The table
below shows the identified story drift of the given tradeoffs. Through this initial result, the designers may find
out what trade-off governs in terms of Risk Assessment whichever has the lowest story drift.

Table 0-6: Initial Estimated Value for Risk Assessment Constraint

 Description Special Moment Dual System Concentrically Braced
Resisting Frame Frame
Risk Assessment
23.664 0.862 5.000
(Storey Drift, mm)
Subordinate Rank 0.36 10 1.72

The computation for the ranking of the three tradeoffs is illustrated below using the formula stated above.
Special Moment Resisting Frame vs. Dual System

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
23.664 − 0.862
= × 10
23.664
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟗. 𝟔𝟒

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 10 − 9.64
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟔

Figure 0-9: Subordinate Rank of Special Moment Resisting Frame plotted in a rank line

Concentrically Braced Frame vs. Dual System

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
5.000 − 0.862
= × 10
5.000
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟖. 𝟐𝟖

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 10 − 8.28
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟏. 𝟕𝟐
 Figure 0-10: Subordinate Rank of Concentrically Braced Frame plotted in a rank line

3.4.1.4 Computation of Ranking for Environmental Constraint

Since Concentrically Braced Frame is the one having the lowest amount, the designer gave it a scale of eight
(8). The table below shows the carbon emission of the given tradeoffs. Through this initial result, the
designers may find out what trade-off governs in terms of Environmental Constraint whichever has the lowest
CO2 Emission.

Table 0-7: Initial Estimated Value for Environmental Constraint

Description Special Moment Dual System Concentrically Braced

Resisting Frame Frame
Environmental
(CO2 Emission, kg/m3) 167.9 153.2 148.4
Subordinate Rank 6.84 7.69 8

The computation for the ranking of the three tradeoffs is illustrated below using the formula stated above.
Special Moment Resisting Frame vs. Concentrically Braced Frame

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
167.9 − 148.4
= × 10
167.9
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟏. 𝟏𝟔

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 8 − 1.16
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟔. 𝟖𝟒
 Figure 0-11: Subordinate Rank of Special Moment Resisting Frame plotted in a rank line

Dual System vs. Concentrically Braced Frame

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
153.2 − 148.4
= × 10
153.2
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟑𝟏

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 8 − 0.31
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟕. 𝟔𝟗

Figure 0-12: Subordinate Rank of Concentrically Braced Frame plotted in a rank line

Table 0-8: Designers’ Raw Ranking for Structural

Constraints Importance Structural Trade – Offs

Factor (scale from 0 to 10)
(scale from 0 to Special Moment Dual System Concentrically
10) Resisting Frame Braced Frame
Economic
(Cost - Php) 10 6.36 10 5.82

Sustainability
9 1.64 0.13 9
(Deflection)
 Constructability
8 8 6.33 7.09
(Duration-Days)
Risk Assessment
10 0.36 10 1.72
(Storey-Drift)
Environmental
8 6.84 7.69 8
(CO2 Emission)
Overall Ranking 200.68 313.33 277.12
*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.

3.4.2 Raw Ranking for Geotechnical Trade-Offs

3.4.2.1 Raw Ranking for Economical Constraint

Table 3-: Initial Estimated value for Economic Constraint of Geotechnical Trade-offs

Geotechnical Trade-Offs Initial Estimate Cost, in (Php) Subordinate Rank

Stone Column 1,400,000.00 5

Dynamic Compaction 700,000.00 10

Jet Grouting 10,000,000.00 0.7

Dynamic Compaction vs. Stone Column

 𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

1,400,000−700,000
= x 10
1,400,000

Percent Difference = 5

Subordinating rank = Governing rank - Percent Difference

= 10 - 5

Subordinating Rank = 5

Figure 3-: Subordinate rank of Stone Column plotted in Ranking Scale

Dynamic Compaction vs. Jet Grouting

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

10,000,000−700,000
= x 10
10,000,000

Percent Difference = 9.3

Subordinating rank = Governing rank - Percent Difference

= 10 – 9.3
 Subordinating Rank = 0.7

Figure 3-: Subordinate rank of Jet Grouting plotted in Ranking Scale

3.4.2.2 Raw Ranking for Sustainability Constraint

Table 3-: Initial Estimated value for Sustainability Constraint of Geotechnical Trade-offs

Geotechnical Trade-Offs Life Span - Years Subordinate Rank

Stone Column 50 9.1

Dynamic Compaction 55 10

Jet Grouting 50 9.1

Dynamic Compaction vs. Stone Column

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

55−50
= x 10
55

Percent Difference = 0.9

Subordinating rank = Governing rank - Percent Difference

= 10 – 0.9
 Subordinating Rank = 9.1

Figure 3-: Subordinate rank of Stone Column plotted in Ranking Scale

Dynamic Compaction vs. Jet Grouting

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

55−50
= x 10
55

Percent Difference = 0.9

Subordinating rank = Governing rank - Percent Difference

= 10 – 0.9

Subordinating Rank = 9.1

Figure 3-: Subordinate rank of Jet Grouting plotted in Ranking Scale

3.4.2.3 Raw Ranking for Constructability Constraint

Table 3-: Initial Estimated value for Constructability Constraint of Geotechnical Trade-offs

Geotechnical Trade-Offs Duration - Days Subordinate Rank

 Stone Column 5 10

Dynamic Compaction 10 5

Jet Grouting 25 1.8

Stone Column vs. Dynamic Compaction

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

10−5
= x 10
10

Percent Difference = 5

Subordinating rank = Governing rank - Percent Difference

= 10 – 5

Subordinating Rank = 5

Figure 3-: Subordinate rank of Dynamic Compaction plotted in Ranking Scale

Stone Column vs. Jet Grouting

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
 28−5
= x 10
28

Percent Difference = 8.2

Subordinating rank = Governing rank - Percent Difference

= 10 – 8.2

Subordinating Rank = 1.8

Figure 3-: Subordinate rank of Jet Grouting plotted in Ranking Scale

Table 3-: Designer’s Raw Ranking for Geotechnical

Geotechnical Trade-Offs

(0-10)
Constraints Importance Factor
(0-10)

Stone Column Dynamic Jet Grouting

Compaction
Economic 10 5 10 0.7

Sustainability 9 9.1 10 9.1

Constructability 8 10 5 1.8

Overall Ranking 211.9 235 103.3

*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.
3.5 Trade-Offs Assessment

3.5.1 Trade-Offs Assessment for Structural Trade-Offs

Considering the multiple design constraints presented, the tradeoffs discussed were ranked according to its
ability to satisfy the given constraint. For the designer’s raw ranking, the winning tradeoff is the Dual System
with a rank of 313.33, followed by the Concentrically Braced Frame with a rank of 277.12, and lastly the
Special Resisting Moment Frame with a rank of 200.68.
Table 0-9: Designers’ Raw Ranking for Structural

Constraints Importance Structural Trade – Offs

Factor (scale from 0 to 10)
(scale from 0 to Special Moment Dual System Concentrically
10) Resisting Frame Braced Frame
Economic
(Cost - Php) 10 6.36 10 5.82

Sustainability
9 1.64 0.13 9
(Deflection)
Constructability
8 8 6.33 7.09
(Duration-Days)
Risk Assessment
10 0.36 10 1.72
(Storey-Drift)
Environmental
8 6.84 7.69 8
(CO2 Emission)
Overall Ranking 200.68 313.33 277.12
*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.

3.5.1.1 Economic Constraint (Material Cost)

In terms of the initial estimation for the cost of the materials to be utilized in the construction of the project,
taking into the account of the columns, beams and slab, the Dual system yields to be the trade-off with the
least expensive material cost. For that reason, the said trade-off is given ten (10) for economic constraint.
3.5.1.2 Sustainability Constraint (Deflection)
From the results of the previous studies gathered for each trade-off presented, the designers identified the
long-term deflection value for each of the trade-offs. Based on the studies and data gathered, the trade-off
with the least deflection is the Concentrically Braced Frame which is given nine (9) for sustainability.
3.5.1.3 Constructability (Duration)
When it comes to the number of days that the whole construction duration will run, the winning trade-off is
the Special Moment Resisting Frame. Based on the previous studies and data gathered by the designers,
the special moment resisting frame has the shortest period of construction mainly because steel construction
does not require formworks and curing unlike the Dual system and also would not require additional
installation of bracing.
3.5.1.4 Risk Assessment (Storey Drift)
Regarding the storey drift, the emerging trade-off is the Dual System with the least tallied story drift based
on the previous researches and studies accomplished comparing the story drift ratios of the trade-offs. The
result of the studies shows that the Dual system clearly emerges among the three trades offs.
3.5.1.5 Environmental Constraint (CO2 Emission)
The carbon dioxide emission of the trade-offs being assessed are in closed figures, but the trade-offs,
based on the information collected from the previous studies, Concentrically Braced Frames release the
least amount of carbon dioxide during the whole construction process.

3.5.2 Trade-Offs Assessment for Geotechnical Trade-Offs

3.5.2.1 Economic Constraint

Out of the three geotechnical trade-offs that are given, it is concluded that the Dynamic Compaction is the
most cost-effective out of the three trade-offs. The three techniques does not differ in value that much, but
one trade-off is just more economic than the others.

3.5.2.2 Sustainability Constraint

In line with the evaluation of this trade-offs sustainability, the Dynamic Compaction has probably the longest
life span. Nevertheless, all the trade-offs have much more or perhaps less the exact same life span with lower
variation in ranking.

3.5.2.3 Constructability Constraint

In terms of Constructability, Stone Column offers the least working days to be completed against the other
two trade-offs. The process of Stone Column is quite simple but effective. The other two trade-offs are clearly
at a huge disadvantage against Stone Column. However, the Importance Factor of Constructability is the
least of all the constraints.

3.6 Design Standards

The design standards used are taken from the following codes and standards:

National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) vol. 1-2015 edition (PD 1096)
National Building Code of the Philippines
American Concrete Institute (ACI 318-08)
1. The National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015.This structural code provides minimum
requirements for building structural systems using prescriptive and performance-based provisions. It is
founded on broad-based principles that make possible the use of new materials and new building designs. It
is also designed to meet these needs through various model codes/regulations, to safeguard the public health
and safety nationwide. This is the main reference for the design procedure of the structure.

Loadings. The loadings include Dead, Live, Wind, and Earthquake Loads. The loads used in the design are
based on the information provided by the code.

Wind Loads. The wind load is calculated in STAAD Pro v8i using specifications that is based on the
procedure as stated in NSCP 2015 7th Ed. 2015, Section 207.

Seismic Loads. The seismic load is calculated in STAAD Pro v8i using specifications that are based on the
procedure as stated in NSCP 2015 7th Ed. 2015, Section 208 (which is adopted from UBC 1997)

2. The National Building Code of the Philippines (PD 1096). The National Building Code of the Philippines,
also known as Presidential Decree No. 1096 was formulated and adopted as a uniform building code to
embody up-to-date and modern technical knowledge on building design, construction, use, occupancy and
maintenance. The Code provides for all buildings and structures, a framework of minimum standards and
requirements to regulate and control location, site, design, and quality of materials, construction, use,
occupancy, and maintenance.

3. American Concrete Institute (ACI 318-08). Also known as building code requirements for Structural
Concrete which covers the materials, design, and construction of structural concrete used in buildings and
where applicable in nonbuilding structures (ACI, 2008)

4. Code of Practice for Structural Use of Glass 2018. This Code of Practice for the Structural Use of Glass
(the Code) provides guidelines on the design, construction, testing and quality assurance of structural glass
in buildings.

5. The Philippine Green Building Code (June 2015 A Referral Code of the NATIONAL BUILDING
CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (P.D. 1096)).
The Code's overall regulations ensure that individuals are protected from the damaging impacts of climate
change.The Code aims to improve the effectiveness of building performance through a system of norms th
at will improve sound environmental and resource management in order to combat damaging gasses throu
ghout the life cycle of the building, including effective use of materials, choice of sites, planning, design,
construction, use, occupancy, operation and maintenance, without significant increase in cost.
Reference:
ACI. (2008). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete. Farmington Hills, HI: American Concrete
Institute.

ASEP. (2010). National Structural Code of the Philippines. Quezon City: Association of Structural Engineers
of the Philippines.
MacGregor, J. G., & Wight, J. K. (2012). Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design. Chicago, IL.: Pearson
Education Inc.
Otto, K. N., & Antonsson, E. K. (1991). Tradeoff Strategies in Engineering Design: Research in Engineering
Design (Vol. 3).
51