4.

5 Designer’s Raw Ranking Using the Normalization Method

4.5.1 Final Raw Data

Trade-Offs
Constraints Finger Pier Transporter Linear Importance
Terminal Terminal Terminal Factor
Economic (Land
Area Cost) 543,836,498.40 375,698,691.75 302,462,644.74 10
[Php]
Sustainability
(Service Life) 20 12 20 9
[Years]
Risk Assessment
(Delayed and
Cancelled Flights
22.52 11.40 20.77 10
Percentage)
[%]
Uncertainty (Land
Cost with 560,042,826.05 379,380,538.93 305,426,778.66 9
Inflation)
[Php]
Functionality
(Congestion 20.04 31.78 21.26 10
Percentage)
[ %]
Safety (Noise
Control) [dB] 73.80 67.80 79.80 9

Normalized Data
Show below is the summarized table of normalized values of respective trade-offs considered in the
design project.
Table 3.2: Normalized Data

Context I Trade-Offs
Constraints Finger Pier Transporter Linear
Terminal Terminal Terminal
Economic
(Land Area Cost) 1 7.27 10
[Php]
Sustainability
(Service Life of Passenger Boarding 10 1 10
Bridge)
 [Years]
Risk Assessment (Delayed and
Cancelled Flights Percentage) 1 10 2.42
[%]
Uncertainty
(Land Cost with Inflation) 1 7.39 10
[Php]
Functionality
(Congestion Percentage) 10 1 9.06
[%]
Safety
(Noise Control) 5.50 10 1
[dB]

Weighted Sum of Various Percentage Weight

The table below shows the weighted percentages distributed uniformly among the constraints. All
constraints received a weighted percentage of 0.167 each. Initially, the designers deemed that the
constraints equally share the same weight percentage. Ultimately, the highest weighted sum was
calculated to be 7, in favour of the trade-off “Transporter Terminal”. This data shows that the transporter
terminal configuration is the most efficient design to be used in the project.
Table 3.3: 1st Weighted Sum of Various Percentage

Constraints Weighted Trade-Offs

Percentage Finger Pier Transporter Linear Terminal
Terminal Terminal
Economic
(Land Area Cost) 0.167 1 7.27 10
[Php]
Sustainability
(Service Life of
0.167 10 1 10
Passenger Boarding
Bridge)
[years]
Risk Assessment
(Delayed & Cancelled 0.167 1 10 2.42
Flights Percentage)
Uncertainty
(Land Cost with 0.167
1 7.39 10
Inflation)
[Php]
Functionality
(Congestion 0.167 10 1 9.06
 Percentage) [%]
Safety
(Noise Control) 0.167 5.50 10 1
[dB]

Weighted Sum 4.75 6.11 7.08

Table 3.4 shows the weight for economic constraint, risk assessment constraint, and functionality
constraint to be 0.18 each while the remaining constraints is weighted 0.15 each. Ultimately, the
highest weighted sum was calculated to be 7.09, in favour of the trade-off “Linear Terminal”. This data
shows that the linear terminal configuration is the most efficient design to be used in the project.
Table 3.4: 2nd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage

Constraints Weighted Trade-Offs

Percentage Finger Pier Transporter Linear Terminal
Terminal Terminal
Economic
(Land Area Cost) 0.18 1 7.27 10
[Php]
Sustainability
(Service Life of
0.15 10 1 10
Passenger Boarding
Bridge)
[years]
Risk Assessment
(Delayed & Cancelled 0.15 1 10 2.42
Flights Percentage)
Uncertainty
(Land Cost with
0.18 1 7.39 10
Inflation)
[Php]
Functionality
(Congestion 0.18 10 1 9.06
Percentage) [%]
Safety
(Noise Control) [dB] 0.15 5.50 10 1

Weighted Sum 4.64 5.97 7.24

Table 3.5 on the other hand, shows the weight for economic constraint, safety constraint, and
functionality constraint to be 0.18 each while the remaining constraints is weighted 0.15 each.
Ultimately, the highest weighted sum was calculated to be 7.14, in favor of the trade-off “Linear
Terminal”. This data shows that the linear terminal configuration is the most efficient design to be used
in the project.
Table 3.5: 3rd Weighted Sum of Various Percentage

Constraints Weighted Trade-Offs

Percentage Finger Pier Transporter Linear Terminal
Terminal Terminal
Economic
(Land Area Cost) 0.18 1 7.27 10
[Php]
Sustainability
(Service Life of
0.15 10 1 10
Passenger Boarding
Bridge)
[years]
Risk Assessment
(Delayed & Cancelled 0.15 1 10 2.42
Flights Percentage)
Uncertainty
(Land Cost with 0.15
1 7.39 10
Inflation)
[Php]
Functionality
(Congestion 0.18 10 1 9.06
Percentage) [%]
Safety
(Noise Control) 0.18 5.50 10 1
[dB]

Weighted Sum 4.77 6.05 6.97

Overall Assessment
The weighted percentage of the transportation engineering context concluded the Linear Terminal
Configuration to be the leading tradeoff. The Linear Terminal tradeoff governed in all of the weighted
sum of various percentages. Initially, the designers recommended the Linear Terminal Configuration as
the best transportation engineering tradeoff for the design project, and after the final design, Linear
Terminal still govern and has been deemed to be the most recommended design to be used.
Sensitivity Analysis
Sensitivity Analysis for Context I: Transportation Engineering
Economic vs. Functionality
 The figure and table below show the variation of the project cost to the functionality of the project when
increased by percentage. It can be concluded that when the construction cost increases, the
congestion from each configuration reduces. The conclusion is if the land area is increasing it requires
the land cost to increase as well. Therefore, the congestion lessens due to the increase in land area
which is a result of the increase of land cost. The relationship between the overall cost and congestion
rate can be used for each trade-off of the design project.
Table: Economic vs. Functionality for Transportation Engineering
Finger Pier Transporter Linear
Terminal Terminal
Percentage Terminal
Increase
Cost Congestion Cost Congestion Cost Congestion
Rate Rate Rate

543.836.498 20.04% 375.698.69 31.78% 302.462.644 21.26%

,40 1,75 ,74
0%

571.028.323 19.13% 394.483.62 30.19% 317.585.776 20.20%

,32 6,34 ,98
5%

17.13% 27.17% 18.18%

10% 598.220.148 413.268.56 332.708.909
,24 0,93 ,21

14.56% 23.09% 347.832.041 15.45%

,45
15% 625.411.973 432.053.49
,16 5,51

11.65% 18.47% 362.955.173 12.36%

,69
20% 652.603.798 450.838.43
,08 0,10

8.74% 13.85% 378.078.305 9.27%

,93
25% 679.795.623 469.623.36
,00 4,69
 ECONOMIC VS. FUNCTIONALITY

Economic Vs. Functionality

0.35
CONGESTION PERCENTAGE (Php)

0.30

0.25

0.20 Finger Pier Terminal

Transporter Terminal
0.15
Linear Terminal
0.10

0.05

-
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
INCREASE in COST (%)

Economic vs. Uncertainty

The figure and table below show the variation of the project cost to the uncertainty of the project when
increased by percentage. It can be concluded that when the construction cost increases, the inflation
price also increases. Their relationship can be summarized as directly proportional. The relationship
between the initial cost and the inflation price can be used for each trade-off of the design project.
Table: Economic vs. Uncertainty for Transportation Engineering
Finger Pier Transporter Linear
Terminal Terminal
Percentage Terminal
Increase
Cost Inflation Cost Inflation Cost Inflation
Price Price Price

375.698.69 302.462.64
0% 543.836.49 560.042.82 311.476.
1,75 4,74
8,40 6,05 386.894.512,76 031,55
5% 571.028.323,32 588.044.967,35 394.483.626,34 406.239.238,40 317.585.776,9 327.049.833,1
8 3

598.220.148,24 616.047.108,66 413.268.560,93 425.583.964,04 332.708.909,2 342.623.634,7

10% 1 1

625.411.973,16 644.049.249,96 432.053.495,51 444.928.689,68 347.832.041,4 358.197.436,2

15% 5 9

20%
672.051.391,26 450.838.430,10 464.273.415,32 362.955.173,6 373.771.237,8
652.603.798,08
9 6

25%
679.795.623,00 700.053.532,57 469.623.364,69 483.618.140,96 378.078.305,9 389.345.039,4
3 4

ECONOMIC VS. UNCERTAINTY

Economic Vs. Uncertainty

0.35

0.30
INFLATION PRICE (Php)

0.25

0.20 Finger Pier Terminal

Transporter Terminal
0.15
Linear Terminal
0.10

0.05

-
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
INCREASE in COST (%)

Economic vs. Safety (Noise Control (dB))

 The figure and table below show the variation of the project cost to the safety (in terms of the noise
control) of the project when increased in increments of 5%. The inverse square law dictates that as the
distance of the sound origin increases from the receiver, the perceived level of noise decreases. The
relationship between land area cost and noise level can be summarized as inversely proportional. It can
be concluded that as the land area cost is increased, the level of noise produced by the aircrafts has
more area to dissipate resulting to dramatic noise reduction which improves the safety and passenger
experience inside the terminal building. The relationship between the initial cost and the safety in noise
control can be used for each trade-off of the design project.

Table: Economic vs. Safety for Transportation Engineering

Finger Pier Transporter Linear
Terminal Terminal
Percentage Terminal
Increase
Cost Noise Cost Noise Control Cost Noise Control
Control

67.8 302,462,644
73.80 0 .74 79.80
0% 543,836,498.40 375,698,691.75

571,028,323 394,483,6 317,585,776

.32 70.11 26.34 64.41 .98 75.81
5%

68.23
10% 598,220,148 413,268,5 332,708,909
.24 63.01 60.93 57.97 .21

347,832,041
.45 58.00
15% 625,411,973 432,053,4
.16 53.56 95.51 49.27

362,955,173
.69
652,603,798 450,838,4
20% .08 42.85 30.10 39.42 46.40

378,078,305
.93
25% 679,795,623 469,623,3
.00 32.14 64.69 29.57 34.80

ECONOMIC VS. SAFETY (NOISE CONTROL (dB))

Economic Vs. Safety (Noise Control (dB))

90.00
80.00
NOISE CONTROL (dB) (Php)

70.00
60.00
50.00 Finger Pier Terminal
Transporter Terminal
40.00
Linear Terminal
30.00
20.00
10.00
-
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
INCREASE in COST (%)