TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

938 Aurora BLVD. Cubao, Quezon City

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

CE 502
REINFORCED CONCRETE DESIGN

DESIGN OF A FIVE-STOREY
SCIENCE HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING IN ANTIPOLO CITY

SUBMITTED BY:

ABORITA, DANIELLE JOYCE B.

ACOPIO, DANMARK JOSEPH
ALEMAN, GLOREMAY ANN O.
BERNARDINO, ANGELA DENICE S.
DIAZ, IHLE
SOTELLEZA, MARLON I.
CE51S5

SUBMITTED TO:

ENGR. ALLAN B. BENOGSUDAN

 CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.1 The Project

The project is a school building (National Science High School Building) constituted of five stories
containing all the necessary rooms for the students. It is intended to be built in Antipolo City. As a
city with many public and private schools, constructing a school is appropriate.

The designed structure is composed of five floors with a basic floor area of 826.71 sq.m. The entire
building comprises of state-of-the-art facilities on classrooms, project areas, science and computer
laboratories, faculty, conference rooms, maintenance & control room, canteen, and other offices in
a common school building topped by a roof deck. Each floor has a height of 3 meters.

It is designed with the principles of Reinforced Concrete Design and under the standard and
specifications of National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP) and National Structural Code of
the Philippines (NSCP), 2010, Volume 1, 6th Edition.

1.2 Project Perspective

 Figure 1-1: Project Perspective using SketchUp

Figure 1-2: Rendered Front View of the Building through SketchUp

1.3 Project Location

Figure 1-3: Map Location of the Five-Storey School Building

1.4 Project Objectives

1.4.1 General Objective

1) The purpose of this project is to design a 5-storey school building is to analyze the
structure using reinforced concrete design in accordance with the NSCP 2010 principles.

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

1) To design a 5-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 The Client

The client of this project is the Ynares politicians, a family of ruling class in the Rizal area who sees
an opportunity to build a school for the students in access of advanced education and to help them
have their right of education.

1.6 Project Scope and Limitations

The following are the scope covered by the project:

in with the NSCP 2015 edition
 The project is designed with accordance to National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010,
Volume 1 and National Building Code of the Philippines. and other applicable codes

 Analysis of structural elements using STAADPro V8i Program.

 Detailed illustrations of structural members. design ?

 Design by reinforced concrete materials.

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 school building project.
 The maintenance and alterations of the project.
1.7 Project Development

Conceptualization

Location/Vicinity map

Identifying the project constraints"

objectives, target client and 1. how will it impact the design?
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 1-4: Project Development Process

The following stages shown in Figure 1-4 takes place in design in a 5-storey school building.
 CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUT

2.1 Description of Structure

The figure below shows geometric model of the main frame system of the five-storey building. It is
modeled through STAADPro V8i software and used for structural analysis.

Figure 2-1: Geometric Model

2.2 Classification of Structure

In designing a structure, the designer/s should be able to classify the structure itself using National
Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP- 2010). The structure which is school building classified as
essential facility according to the occupancy category based on the NSCP-2010. It also classified as
Special Moment Resisting Force (SMRF) for the structural components. From these classifications,
the designer will identify all the parameters involve in designing the structure especially for seismic
and earthquake analysis.
2.3 Floor Area
Table 2-1: Ground Floor Area Computation

Area Floor Area

(m2)

Principal’s Office 40.25

Faculty Room 62.45

Research Room 19.37

School Cafeteria 125.16

Restroom 39.875

Display Room 62.35

Lobby (Guard’s Post & Delivered Materials 68.73

Section)

Adoration Chapel 30.3

Music Classroom 72.21

Hallway 87.871

Lift 12.95

Total Floor Area: 826.71

2.4 Architectural Plans
2.4.1 Floor Plans

Figure 2.4.1.1 Ground Floor Plan

Figure 2.4.1.2 Second Floor Plan
Figure 2.4.1.3 Third Floor Plan
Figure 2.4.1.4 Fourth Floor Plan
 ALL PERIMETER FRAMES
ARE SEISMIC FRAMES

ALL INTERIOR ARE

GRAVITY FRAMES.

Figure 2.4.1.5 Fifth Floor Plan

2.4.2 Elevations

Figure 2.4.2.1 Front Elevation

Figure 2.4.2.2 Right Side Elevation
Figure 2.4.2.3 Rear Elevation
 Multiple constraints MC CS
2.5 Review of Related Literature and Studies Codes and Standard

Tradeoffs
TO
2.5.1 Structural Design of Philippine Arena Seismic Resistance of School Buildings

The Philippine Arena Project is a large domed roof structure. The arena volume is significant, with
227 m × 179 m ellipse shaped space standing, which is the largest non-column arena in the world. Reinforced
concrete is used for the bowl structure and main seismic resisting system is considered as dual system. For
the structure above Level 04, steel rakers and columns are applied. To identify seismic resisting performance
of steel structure, push over analysis had been carried out. Pre-cast concrete plank is planned for arena
seating to meet constructing ability. The roof structure is grid type space frame. Tension trusses are located
under the space frame for overall stability of roof structure. Wind tunnel test had been conducted to evaluate
accurate wind pressure for both structure and cladding design. LRB (lead rubber bearing) is located under
the roof structure to reduce seismic force delivered from sub-structure.

Figure 2-2: Philippine Arena

Design of Lower Bowl

As long as Philippine is in strong ground motion area, structural members were mainly governed by seismic
force. For this reason, it was very important to select proper seismic force resisting system from the beginning

Most school buildings in the Philippines were designed using Moment Resisting Frame System (MRSF). 90%
of the schools building in the National Capital region were designed using MRSF (Twin, 2019). It is because that
MRSF is easier to build because it is composed of column and beam framing.
of the structural design [1, 2]. From the analysis, it was found that frame was resisting about 43% of seismic
load and shear wall was resisting 57%. From this result, dual system had been selected for lower bowl. This
means at least 25% of lateral load should be resisted by frames without shear walls. Hence, adequate
reinforcing on column and girder was applied for ductile behavior of the frame.

For seating plank, PC (pre-cast concrete) was applied for constructability and economic quantity of material.
Also, PC stand was planned for diaphragm action of bowl structure. Axial displacement of PC stand, due to
gravity and temperature load, was checked and short slotted hole was applied on connection detail with
rakers. With the slotted hole, displacement only for the amount of the gravity and temperature load can be
acceptable. And if there is more displacement than the length of slotted hole, due to lateral load, stand
elements start to act as a diaphragm. To find out in-plane force (diaphragm force) of PC stand, it was
considered as plate element in FEM (finite element method) analysis.

Design of Upper Bowl

Upper bowl [3, 4] is supported by 4-way inclined columns. From the seismic resisting system
categories on design code, SCBF (special concentrically braced frame) and SMRF (special moment resisting
frame) could be applied for upper bowl system. For SCBF, it was required that plastic hinges shall be
originated on braces first, not columns. This means columns of SCBF shall remain in elastic range to resist
gravity load safely, even under severe earthquake. From the analysis modelling, inclined columns behaved
like braces (axial force governed) but they should resist gravity load, too, as if they were columns. So applying
SCBF for upper bowl was inadequate. Otherwise, SMRF requires the frame action and plastic hinges from
lateral loads shall be originated on girders. However, the upper bowl structure acted like braced frame as
mentioned above. Therefore, applying SMRF was inadequate either. To conclude, it was difficult to apply
seismic resisting system categorized in design code. However, from the shape of structure itself, it is
expected that it has enough stiffness to perform elastic behavior on seismic force. To confirm safety of the
structure, push over analysis was performed which can estimate capacity of structure resisting seismic load.
As a result, it was clarified that columns, rakers and girders of upper bowl remain in elastic range in case of
earthquake.
 Figure 2-3: Detailed Framing Model of the Philippine Arena

Reference: Structural Design of Philippine Arena. Jong Soo Kim, et.al. CS Structural Engineering,
Seongnam, Gyeonggi, Korea
2.5.2 Structural Framing Analysis

The ultimate objective in an earthquake design and an engineering structure is to protect human life:
“Life safety in the event of a severe earthquake is the paramount consideration in the design of buildings”
(ATC 3-06 1984, 2). The philosophy of seismic provisions identifies three major limit states for the design of
new buildings: serviceability limit state, damage control limit state, and the survivability limit state. First, the
serviceability limit state demands that earthquakes should not cause damage that disrupts the functionality
of the structure. The damage control limit state specifies that, while moderate earthquakes will cause damage
to a structure, the structure can be restored to its previous full service state with repair. The survivability limit
state acknowledges that there will be irreparable damage to a structure but inelastic strength will prevent total
collapse. The governing limit state depends on the earthquake level and frequency along with the function of
the building being designed (Michael James Richard, 2009).

For effect on cost estimates under the UBC 1997, the Ordinary Ductile Frame (ODF) is the most
expensive among the ordinary, intermediate and special ductile frames. It was also found that the costs of
special and intermediate ductile frames are quite similar in a low seismic zone because of the requirement
for strong column-weak beam in SDF design. SDF require less main reinforcement but more transverse
reinforcement than intermediate and ordinary ductile frames. The special ductile frame (SDF) with a
modification factor of 8 is more ductile than the Ordinary Ductile Frame (ODF) with a modification factor of 3.
However, the strength of special ductile frame (SDF) is less than that of the Ordinary Ductile Frame (ODF).
For inelastic designs, the Special Ductile Frame (SDF) with a modification factor of decreases stiffness and
increases deflection of structures because energy under this ductile frame is dissipated. As far as the effect
of ductility class is concerned, special, intermediate and ordinary ductility classes are to perform satisfactorily
during a design earthquake. The local drift of the frame building does not exceed the limits of 2-3% of story
height. Although SDF was designed for five-eighths of the value of the designed lateral load of IDF, all
components of SDF had to satisfy the applicable special proportioning and detailing requirement to have a
level of toughness adequate enabling the structure to perform well during a design earthquake. It
demonstrated the successful application of the strong column weak beam implemented in the capacity design
(N. Choopool and V. Boonyapinyo, 2010).
 The OMRCF structure showed a stable energy dissipation capacity without abrupt strength
deterioration, even though the structure was designed for gravity loads only and specified for the
requirements of OMRCF (Sang Whan Han et al, 2004). At the final loading stage, interior columns in the 1st
story was severely damaged, while beams had not experienced any apparent damage. At the exterior joints
of the 1st story, damage was distributed to exterior columns and beams. This shows that interior joints have
the mechanisms of a weak column– strong beam, whereas exterior joints have that of a strong column–weak
beam in the investigated OMRCF. This could be referred to as a hybrid failure mechanism (Sang Whan Han
et al, 2004).

The Philippines geological location is set in the Pacific Ring of Fire and its archipelagic orientation is
the reason why it is visited by more than 20 typhoons every year and even mild or strong earthquakes. Not
all structures in the Philippines are engineered such as residential houses, churches and even schools,
especially in the provinces even structural codes already exist. Another thing is the Philippines is known for
old structures called heritage sites where these buildings are not designed to withstand the current state of
forces of nature. Climate and weather changes is gradually occurring that forces of nature are going stronger.
These are the main concerns of this paper, hence to provide well-designed and engineered structures with
available resilient materials at its lowest cost to resist the occurrence of stronger forces of nature and its
primary purpose is safety of the people.

To have such well-designed and engineered building and to serve its occupants with safety, this
paper introduce minor problems which when collected will result into bigger main problem. To address these
problems in the design of buildings, the dynamic behaviour and movement of the building is analysed under
strong earthquake with magnitudes greater than 7.

Separately, the building is also analysed with strong wind pressure velocity greater than 300 kph.
With the given parameters and variables to be considered, the main problem of this paper is identify whether
an SMRF building is will be the most efficient and effective among the three moment resisting frame and
IMRF building will more economical when both building frames undergo the same parameters.
2.5.2.1 Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame

A moment frame is a box-shaped frame with special moment connections or joints that help resist of
wind and earthquake damage. The frame helps a building to flex as necessary to remain the building's
integrity. There are three types of moment frames: ordinary moment frames (OMF), intermediate moment
frames (IMF), and special moment frames (SMF).

The word "moment" in the term moment frame or joint refers to the force a building experience during
wind or earthquake conditions. When force is applied in such a way to a structural element that the element
bends, it is called bending moment. A building faces two primary types of force. One is outer, caused by wind
pressure which is the same pressure applied to a person if they are standing in a strong wind. The other is
an inner force, like coming from an earthquake, comes from the ground up. A person experiences something
similar when standing on a train that takes off quickly and shaken from the feet up. Buildings are intended to
bend with moderate moment and return to their former state called elasticity. Just like a rubber band, the
building should have no permanent change from being stretched or bent lightly and temporarily.

In order to survive a strong earthquake, the opposite principle is true. A building constructed properly
should have permanent damage following a major earthquake. The frame should bend and absorb energy
without falling. A frame built improperly will become brittle and break during difficult conditions like the case
in Northridge, California in 1994, when an earthquake decimated buildings and spurred the implementation
of new moment frame construction practices. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has
regulations in place to protect structures from significant damage. They provide the standards that buildings
in high seismic regions are intended to keep, including the construction of moment frames. The frame
systems can be classified into three major types.

An ordinary moment frame (OMF) is used in low-seismic areas and expected to remain elastic
through regular conditions. They do not have the rigid standards in place that a moment frame used in a high
seismic region. They are not intended to handle any inter-story drift, which means that the floors should not
shift relative to one another. An intermediate moment frame (IMF) is used in low to mid-seismic areas and
are intended to withstand some permanent damage following limited force. They are required to sustain a
moderate inter-story drift. A special moment frame (SMF) 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.

2.5.2.2 Special Moment Resisting Frame

One of the guiding principles of seismic design is to spread yielding throughout the structure so that
large inelastic deformations do not concentrate in isolated locations. In the design of a special moment
resisting frame (SMRF) it is important to avoid a yielding mechanism dominated by the columns of a single
story building, as this can result into very large local demands in the columns. Instead, it is desirable in a
SMRF that yielding be predominantly in the beams which is a fundamental objective in the design of a SMRF.

Note that even if the beams are targeted as the main elements to yield, some columns yielding must
be anticipated, for example, yielding at the foundation seems likely to occur. Also, it is difficult to completely
protect the columns from yielding in other stories, as will be discussed later. Given this capacity-design
approach of having plastic hinges in the beams, the beams will be sized for the design seismic loads (usually
based on analysis under code-specified loading), they will be detailed for ductile response, and the rest of
the system will be proportioned to reduce the likelihood of inelastic action away from the beam plastic hinges.
As discussed above, the design objective in a SMRF is to provide a stiff and strong spine of columns up the
height of the building so that concentrations of inelastic action in isolated stories are avoided. Therefore, the
objective is for beams to form flexural plastic hinges at targeted locations through the height of the frame.
The design should also attempt to avoid inelastic response in shear as well as anchorage or bond failures.

Reference: Damili, K., Oriola, M., and Sapla, D. (2014). Comparative Study and Cost Analysis of Ordinary
and Special Reinforced Concrete Moment System for a Three-Storey Health Center- Quirino, Manila.
Mapua Institute of Technology
2.5.2.3 Percentage of Buildings in United States of America Using a Variety of Framing Systems

Figure 2-4: Bar Graph on Percentage of Buildings in USA via Various Framing Systems

Reference: MacRae, Gregory (2009). Lateral Load Resisting Systems. IITGN Short Course, Myanmar

2.5.2.4 Comparative Analysis on Moment Resisting Frames

This design project of a three-storey health center will show the difference between ordinary moment
resisting frame and special moment resisting frame. Through this study the researchers are able to compare
the difference between the design of the two frames OMRF (Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting
Frame) and SMRF (Special Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame) based on the structure’s
behavior (stiffness and ductility), the structural detail (space and number of bars), and the estimated cost of
the structure (schedule).

When designing a steel building (a relatively light structure) in the beach location with 120 mph wind,
one may find that lateral loads due to wind are relatively high. This will allow the engineer to use a relatively
low "R" value and still not have seismic lateral loads controlling the design thereby minimizing the extra
detailing. It will be wasteful to use a high "R" value in this case when seismic doesn't control the design but
to pay for the additional detailing expense.

Conversely, when designing a concrete building (a relatively heavy building) in a high seismic area
with low wind loads, the seismic design forces are controlling over wind. In this case, increase the "R" value
to bring the seismic lateral loads down to the wind load levels but not use the maximum "R" so only incur the
additional amount of detailing expense necessary will be incurred.

Figure 2-5: OMRF, IMRF and SMRF Frames

Reference: Damili, K., Oriola, M., and Sapla, D. (2014). Comparative Study and Cost Analysis of Ordinary
and Special Reinforced Concrete Moment System for a Three-Storey Health Center- Quirino, Manila.
Mapua Institute of Technology
 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 (Cost)

The cost of a building plays an important role in the designing the client’s desire to have a 5-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 namely Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF), Dual System, and Ordinary
Moment Resisting Frame (OMRF) is the choice that the designer might choose.

3.1.2 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.
 3.1.3 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.

3.1.4 Sustainability (Life Span)

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.

3.2 Trade-Offs

The designer chose the three tradeoffs under the Moment-Resisting Frame System which classified
as structural systems. These moment frame systems are a box-shaped frame with special moment
connections or joints that support to resist the wind and earthquake damage. The frame helps a
building to flex as necessary to remain the building's integrity. The behavior of SMRF, OMRF and
Dual System structures is studied under seismic loads. The lateral loads, dead loads, live loads and
wind loads are taken into consideration for designing the school building. These tradeoffs, after the
designed we will evaluate which was the most effective for the desired design.
3.2.1 Special Moment Resisting Frame System (SMRF)

The Special Moment-Resisting Frame System (SMRF) is a type of frame system detailed to provide
ductile behavior and comply with requirements in Chapter 4 or 5 of National Structural Code of the
Philippines (NSCP). The ductile behavior is the response to stress of concrete material which
undergoes permanent deformation without fracturing. Also, ductile behavior of concrete is enhanced
in high confining pressures are combined with high temperatures and low rates of strain. Special
Moment Resisting Frames are designed so that 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.

Figure 3-1: Special Moment Resisting Frame

 3.2.2 Hybrid Framing + Shear Walls (Dual System)

Figure 3-2: Dual System Frame

Dual System is a combination of moment resisting frame and shear wall or braced frames designed in
accordance with the criteria of Section 208.4.6.4. Dual frame-wall system is a Hybrid Lateral Load-
Resisting System. It is an essentially complete frame provides support for gravity loads, and resistance
to lateral loads are provided by a specially detailed moment-resisting frame and shear walls or braced
frames.
3.2.3 Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame System (ORMF)

Figure 3-3: Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame

The Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frame System (OMRF) is a type of frame system not meeting
special detailing requirements for ductile behavior under National Code of the Philippines (NSCP).
OMRF is used in low-seismic areas and expected to remain elastic through regular conditions. They
do not have the rigid standards in place that a moment frame used in a high seismic region.

3.3 Initial Design Input

To define the difference among the three trade-offs presented, specific methods were considered by
the designer. For the economic constraint, a cost estimate was provided. For the constructability
constraint, an estimate of the number of working days was provided, at the rate of 50 workers for
construction of each trade-off. For the safety constraint, the deflection of the most critical beam was
considered. For the sustainability constraint, the life span of the building with a certain moment
resisting frame system was considered.
In this part, a rough computation of the estimates was utilized. The values written in the table below
were just an assumption by the designer with the basis coming from his experience. In the given
table below shows the initial estimates of the trade-offs performed by the designers. Furthermore,
the data indicated in the table will be used for the initial comparative analysis of the trade-offs.
 Table 3-1. Summary of Initial Estimate of Values
MOMENT-RESISTING FRAME SYSTEMS
CONSTRAINT
SMRF DUAL SYSTEM OMRF

Economic PHP 18,976,347.55 PHP 20,146,922.38 PHP 17,842,000.75

Safety 9.5 mm 11.10 mm 12.20 mm
Constructability 392 days 428 days 365 days
30 % additional 45 % additional 15 % additional
Sustainability
lifespan lifespan lifespan

3.4 Raw Designer’s Ranking

The ranking scale that will be used in this design is based on the model on tradeoff strategies
formulated by Otto and Antonsson (1991). The importance factors in each constraint are scaled from
0 to 5, while the ability to satisfy the constraint is scaled from -5 to 5, 5 being the highest for both.
After obtaining the results, the product of the importance and ability to satisfy the criteria will be
summed from each constraint. The result will then be the overall ranking of the tradeoff.

Figure 3-4. Ranking Scale for Importance Factor

Figure 3-5. Ranking Scale for Satisfactory Factor

Computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials:

 Higher value−Lower value
Difference (%) = × 100(%) Equation 1
Lower value

% difference
Subordinate rank = Governing rank − ( ) Equation 2
10

The above equations will be used for the manipulation of the rankings of each constraint given to the
tradeoffs. The governing rank is the highest possible value set by the designer. The subordinate rank
in second equation is a variable that corresponds to its percentage difference from the governing
rank along the ranking scale.

Table 3-2: Table Ranking per Trade off

Ability to satisfy the criterion
Criterion’s (on a scale from -5 to 5)
Design Criteria Importance Special Moment Dual Frame Ordinary Moment
(on a scale of 0 to 5) Resisting Frame System Resisting Frame
1. Economic 5 3.8559 4.4022 5
2. Safety 5 3.3158 5 2.1579
3. Constructability 4 3.274 4.2603 5
4. Sustainability 4 5 1.6667 -1.6667
Risk Over-all Rank 68.9545 70.719 49.1227

3.5 Designer’s Raw Ranking

3.5.1 Designer’s Raw Ranking for Economic Constraint

higher value − lower value
% difference = × 10
higher value

18,976,347.55 − 17,842,000.75
% difference = × 10
18,976,347.55
 % difference = 0.5977

Subordinate rank = Governing rank − %difference

Subordinate rank = 5 − 0.5977

𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟒. 𝟒𝟎𝟐𝟐

Figure 3-6: Cost Difference of Trade off A and Trade off C

higher value − lower value

% difference = × 10
higher value

20,146,922.38 − 17,842,001.75
% difference = × 10
20,146,922.38

% difference = 1.1441

Subordinate rank = Governing rank − %difference

Subordinate rank = 5 − 1.1441

𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟑. 𝟖𝟓𝟓𝟗

 Figure 3-7: Cost Difference of Trade off B and Trade off C

3.5.2 Designer’s Raw Ranking for Safety Constraint

higher value − lower value

% difference = × 10
higher value

11.1 − 9.5
% difference = × 10
9.5

% difference = 1.6842

Subordinate rank = Governing rank − %difference

Subordinate rank = 5 − 1.6842

𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟑. 𝟑𝟏𝟓𝟖

Figure 3-8: Safety Difference of Trade off A and Trade off B

higher value − lower value

% difference = × 10
higher value
 12.2 − 9.5
% difference = × 10
9.5

% difference = 2.8421

Subordinate rank = Governing rank − %difference

Subordinate rank = 5 − 2.8421

𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟐. 𝟏𝟓𝟕𝟗

Figure 3-9: Safety Difference of Trade off A and Trade off C

3.5.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking for Constructability Constraint

𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 − 𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞

% 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 = × 𝟏𝟎
𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞

428 − 365
% difference = × 10
428

% difference = 1.7260

Subordinate rank = Governing rank − %difference

 Subordinate rank = 5 − 1.7260

𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟑. 𝟐𝟕𝟒𝟎

Figure 3-10: Duration Difference of Trade off B and Trade off C

higher value − lower value

% difference = × 10
higher value

392 − 365
% difference = × 10
365

% difference = 0.7397

Subordinate rank = Governing rank − %difference

Subordinate rank = 5 − 0.7397

𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟒. 𝟐𝟔𝟎𝟑

 Figure 3-11: Duration Difference of Trade off A and Trade off C

3.5.4 Designer’s Raw Ranking for Sustainability Constraint

𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞 − 𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞

% 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 = × 𝟏𝟎
𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞

45 − 30
% difference = × 10
45

% difference = 3.3333

Subordinate rank = Governing rank − %difference

Subordinate rank = 5 − 3.3333

𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟏. 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟕

Figure 3-12: Sustainability Difference of Trade off A and Trade off B

higher value − lower value

% difference = × 10
higher value

40 − 15
% difference = × 10
40
 % difference = 6.6667

Subordinate rank = Governing rank − %difference

Subordinate rank = 5 − 6.6667

𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = −𝟏. 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟕

Figure 3-13: Sustainability Difference of Trade off B and Trade off C

3.6 Trade-off Assessment

Since the criterion’s importance is independent and subjective, its value will depend on the designer’s
decision. Subsequently, the design of the systems is subject for thorough deliberation, thus it is important to
consider on how to make the project economical as possible. In this case, economic constraint was given an
importance of five (5). Also, safety constraint was given importance of five (5) for the quality and integrity of
the project. The constructability constraint is given an importance of four (4) since it will be based on the
duration of construction phase. The sustainability constraint is given an importance of (4) since the life span
of the building in different factors arises will determine if the project is sustainable or not.

3.7 Constraint Assessment

3.7.1 Economic Assessment

The designer calculated the difference between the tradeoffs based on economic constraint.
Based on the initial cost formulated by the designer, the Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame
 is cheaper than the two other trade offs namely Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF)
and Dual Frame System considering the material used in each trade off.

3.7.2 Safety Assessment

For the assessment of safety constraint, the designer researched different project similarly
to the trade offs used in this project. The difference in deflection in the structural member of
the projects is focused in this constraint. It shows that the Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame
has the highest value of deflection experienced by the structural member than the other two
trade offs.

3.7.3 Constructability Assessment

For the assessment of constructability constraint, the designer researched different projects
showing the duration of the whole project involving designing Moment Resisting Frames.
The Dual System Frame explicit and requires more duration of time involving its construction.

3.7.4 Sustainability Assessment

For the assessment of sustainability constraint, the designer researched different projects
involving the life span of each building designed as Moment Resisting Frames. The Dual
System Frame shows that upon the completion of the building, it sustains more life span
than other two trade offs.
3.8 Design Standards

The designer has taken the codes and standards into considerations to come with the final design of
the structure.

3.8.1. National Building Code of the Philippines

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.

3.8.2. National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2010, Volume 1, 6 th Edition

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.
 CHAPTER 4

beam performance

Structural Analysis and Design of MRSF Discuss from the point of view of multiple constraints (seismic resistance
/design of the schools) and tradeoffs, and standards in the context
of Ultimate Strength Design of Reinforced Concrete.

column performance

flooring (slab) acting as a diaphragm

Structural Analysis and Design of OMRSF

Structural Analysis and Design of SRSF

CHAPTER 5 DESIGN DETAILS