COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

Civil Engineering Department
 
 
 
CE 511
Structural Steel Design
 
 
DESIGN OF 5-STOREY LOW-COST HIGH RISE BUILDING IN BRGY HOLY SPIRIT QUEZON CITY

Submitted by:
BUENVIAJE, JUAN MIGUEL
CASTAÑEDA, JOANN
CENTINO, JOHN PAUL
COMING, JEREMIAH
JOSHUA, CARMELO

 
Submitted to:
ENGR. ADAMS ROYCE DIONISIO
Instructor

Section:
CE52S1

Date Submitted:
NOVEMBER 05, 2022
 CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1 The Project

The project aims to develop a structural design of a five-story low-cost high rise building that will be
located along BF Homes Road, Barangay Batasan Hills, Quezon City. Considering Quezon City as a first-
class urban municipality that is surrounded by villages and subdivisions. The building will serve as the new
home of informal settlers in the squatter’s area in Batasan Quezon City.

1.2 Project Location

Figure 0-1: Satellite View of Location

 (Source: Google Maps)

1.3 Project Objective

1.4 General Objective
The project aims to help the informal settlers in the squatter’s area to build the building that will serve
as their new home.
1.5 Specific Objective

- To design and present a detailed plan of the project that adheres to the National Building Code of
the Philippines, and the National Structural Code of the Philippines
- To provide an estimated cost of the structure
- To provide at least three (3) trade-offs which will be chosen based on design constraints
-

1.6 The Client

The client for the five-storey low-cost high-rise building is The Honorable Joy Belmonte who is the mayor of
Quezon City.

1.7 Project Scope and Limitations

1.7.1 Scope
Only the following are provided by the project:
- Architectural and structural plans of the building
- Material costs
- Design focuses on superstructure

1.7.2 Limitations
The following are not provided by the project:
- Plumbing plans, electrical, and other plans not mentioned on the scope
- Computations for substructure is not included
- Geotechnical assessments are not included

1.8 Project Development

The finalization of the design had passed various stages as shown in Figure 0-3.The project is required to
follow specific design standards to follow before coming up to the design. The designers considered the
design constraints so that the proposed design will be valid and agreeable. External and internal factors are
commonly encountered in the design where the design constraints are considered in evaluating the
tradeoffs. After considering the constraints, the geometric design computation comes next. Based on the
multiple constraints, the most effective design will be selected as the final output.   
1. Identifying the problem, this is the part of the project where the team finds a problem within a
certain area or locality.
2. Conceptualization, the designer forms an idea of an integrated terminal that will address the
existing problem in the commercial area of Barangay Batasan Hills, Quezon City.
3. Data Gathering, after the designer came up with an idea to address the problem, then the
designer gathered significant data and information.
4. Analysis of Proposed Low-Cost High-rise Building, the designer performs structural analysis to
ensure that the proposed terminal is safe, and efficient.
5. Trade Offs, the design consists of 3 trade-offs; Steel, Reinforced Concrete, and Pre-stressed
Concrete.
6. Determination of design constraints, in this part the designer finds out hindrances that will be
encountered in this project.
7. Designing stage, the assessment of the initial design of the project.
8. Estimation of cost total estimated cost of the project.
9. Evaluation, the finalization of the project where the designer evaluates and check all the
components if it meets all the provisions needed in the project.
10.  Conclusion, the verdict of the designer in the design of the project.
 Identifying the Problem

Conceptualization

Data Gathering
- Location
-Site Profiling
- Site Visit

Analysis of Proposed Solution

Trade-Offs
- Steel
-Reinfroced Concrete
-Pre-stressed Concrete

Conclusion
Figure 0-2: Project Development Flowchart
 CHAPTER 2: DESIGN CRITERIA AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Design Criteria
The design criteria are the necessary reports, data, design or course of action that serves as goals
that the project must achieve in order to prove the proposal as successful. The following design criteria
gathered in this particular project to design a five-story low-cost high rise building along Barangay Batasan
Hills, Quezon City are interpreted and sorted out by means of its significance to the project. 
2.1.1 Loads
2.1.1.1 Dead Loads
Dead loads include loads that are relatively constant over time, including the weight of the structure
itself, and immovable fixtures such as walls, plasterboard or carpet. The roof is also a dead load. Dead
loads are also known as permanent or static loads.

Table 2-1: Minimum Densities for Design Loads from Materials

Classification Density (KN/m3)

Reinforced Concrete
Stone including gravel 23.6
Steel
Cold-drawn 77.3
Earth Submerged
Sand or gravel 9.4
Glass 25.1
Masonry Ashlar Stone
Granite 25.9
Marble 27.2
Sandstone 22.6
Masonry Concrete (Solid Portion)
Light-weight units 16.5
Medium-weight units 19.6
Normal-weight units 21.2
(Source: National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2015; Chapter 2, Table 204-1)
Table 2-2: Minimum Design Dead Loads

Load (kPa)
Ceilings:
Accoustical Fiber Board 0.05
Gypsum Board (per mm. Thk) 0.008
Plaster on tile of concrete 0.24
Suspend steel channel system 0.1
Floor Fill:
Cinder concrete (per mm) 0.017
Light-weight concrete (per mm) 0.015
Cement finish (25 mm) on stone 1.44
Frame Walls:
Window glass frame and sash 0.38
(Source: National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2015; Chapter 2, Table 204-2)

2.1.1.2 Live Loads

Live loads would be one of the significant variables that could influence the structure’ integrity as it
would serve as a structure for the 5-storey building. The vehicles permitted in the framework will give the
biggest live loads.

Table 2-3: Minimum Uniform and Concentrated Live Loads

Category Description Uniform Load Concentrated Load

(kPa) (kPa)
Residential Basic floor area 1.9 0
Exterior balconies 2.9 0
Deck 1.9 0
Storage 1.9 0
Access Floor Systems Office Use 2.4 9.0
Computer Use 4.8 9.0
Theaters, assembly areas, and Fixed Seats 2.9 0
auditoriums Movable Seats 4.8 0
Lobbies and platforms 4.8 0
Stage areas 7.2 0
Catwalk for maintenance - 1.9 1.3
access
Cornices and marquees - 3.6 0
Exit facilities - 4.8 0
Offices Call centers and business 2.9 9.0
processing offices
Lobbies and ground floor 4.8 9.0
corridors
Other offices 2.4 9.0
 Restrooms - - -
Roof decks Sane as area served or - -
Sidewalks and driveways occupancy
Public access 12.0 -
Storage Light 6.0 -
Roof decks Heavy 12.0 -
Stores Retail 4.8 4.5
Storage Wholesale 6.0 13.4
Pedestrian bridges and - 4.8 -
walkways
(Source: National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2015; Chapter 2, Table 205-2)

Table 2-4: Special Loads

Category Description Vertical Load (kPa) Lateral Load

(kPa)
Construction, public access Walkway 7.2 -
at site (live load) Canopy 7.2 -
Ceiling framing (live load) Over stages 1.0 -
All uses except over stages 0.5 -
Partition and interior walls - - 0.25
Elevators and dumbwaiters - 2*total load -
(dead and live loads)
Balcony railings and Exit facilities serving an - 0.75 kN/m2
guardrails occupant load greater than 50
persons
Other than exit facilities - 0.3 kN/m2
Components - 1.2
Vehicle barriers - - 27
Handrails - See Note 10 See Note 10
Fire sprinkler structural - 1.1 kN plus weight See NSCP
support of water filled pipe (2015) Table
208-13
(Source: National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2015; Chapter 2, Table 205-2)
2.1.1.3 Seismic Loads
Based on the data provided by PHIVOLCS’ web application called “Fault Finder”, the nearest fault
system, West Valley Fault System, is located about 436 m away from the location and is categorized as
seismic source type A by NSCP 2015 standards.

Figure 0-3: Distance between the Location and Nearest Fault System

(Source: Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS), Fault Finder)

LEGEND:
- Red Pin = Location of Integrated Terminal
- Red Lines = West Valley Fault System
- Blue Solid Lines = Distance from West Valley Fault System to Car park

Table 2-5: Seismic Data

Distance from fault 436m

Seismic Source type A
Seismic Zone Factor Zone 4
Soil Profile Type Sd
Occupancy Category III
Inherit Over Strength 8.0
(R) of SMRF
(Source: PHIVOLCS Fault Finder, Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and NSCP 2015; Chapter 2: Minimum
Design Loads – Section 208, Earthquake Loads)

2.1.1.5 Load Combinations

Table 2-6: Load Combinations

LOAD COMBINATION
Designing column, beams, and slab
1.4 DL Sec 203-1
1.2(D+F+T) + 1.6(L+H) + 0.5(Lr or R) Sec. 203-1
1.2D + 1.0E + 1.0L Sec. 203-1
(Source: National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2015; Chapter 2, Sec. 203, Combination of Loads)

2.1.2 Architectural Plan

2.2 Review of Related Literature
2.2.1 Local Literature
With Philippines building taller and taller structures, structural steel has become more common
than reinforced concrete. Steel has a higher compressive, and tensile strength when compared to that of
concrete, meaning a concrete beam with smaller dimensions can theoretically handle forces much better
than a concrete beam with similar dimensions; compressive strength of concrete shown to be capable of
reaching 10,000 psi while steel can easily reach 22,000psi. Another reason is the amount of time steel can
save due to steel structures’ construction; there is no waiting time unlike concrete which requires curing
and drying time.

According to Census of Philippine Business and Industry (CPBI) by the National Statistics Office
(NSO) referencing the year 2001, there almost 6,400 firms in the manufacturing sector with average
employment of about 20. Steel industries and other steel-related industries recorded a total of nearly 1,900
establishments; of this, there are 403 industries from the intermediate steel sector while 1,246 were from
the heavy steel sector. Of these establishments, about 248 workers per firm are employed by the heavy
sector while 78 workers per firm are employed by the intermediate sector.

2.2.2 Foreign Literature

With various studies revealing negative environmental impacts of human activity such as depletion
of natural resources, generation of waste and pollution to be increasing, it is becoming more important to
discover a new, more renewable, and greener way of construction. One such way of construction is by
using more efficient or more sustainable construction materials; one material is steel. Being able to reduce,
reuse, or even recycle materials used in construction is a big step in helping achieve greener, more
environmental way of construction. Steel is tougher than concrete, meaning it can withstand more force
than concrete, and even withstand forces longer than regular concrete; meaning it has higher durability
than regular concrete. Lessening the amount of materials needed in construction is also important in not
wasting valuable resources. A36 steel is made up of carbon and iron which means only these two
resources are to be depleted each time steel is made unlike regular or reinforced concrete which requires
numerous ingredients. Another way of being environmentally friendly is reducing the amount of time
consumed when constructing a building. More time consumed means more labor hours, more fuel, more
human resources, more electricity costs, etc., generally speaking; more time means more resources
consumed. The rapid construction of steel structures helps minimize that time which in turn, minimizes
consumption. Another way of being more environmentally friendly is the recycle-ability of the structure.
Since Steel can be bolted/fastened using bolts, it requires lesser energy to recycle and reuse when
compared to the recycling or reusing of concrete. Concrete has to be crushed and/or pulverized, requiring
even more energy, and other resources to be used.

CHAPTER 3: DESIGN TRADE-OFFS, CONSTRAINTS, AND STANDARDS

3.1 Design Constraints

Design constraints, these constraints are real-life limitations encountered when designing or
constructing a project. Design constraints help the designer make early decisions within the field of
constraints.

Design constraints are split into two parts: quantitative constraints, and the qualitative constraints.
Quantitative constraints can be measured by computations and estimations. Qualitative constraint cannot
be assessed and will be evaluated based on the designer' knowledge and verdict.

3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints

These constraints are tangible and can be directly measured.

3.1.1.1 Economic Constraints (Material Cost)

Almost every project that has ever been made was limited by the amount of money available, and it
is widely considered to be the main driving force of the project itself. Without money, the owner would not
be able to hire people to design, supervise construction, and to construct the project itself.
 Limitation: The designer will provide estimates of the cost of materials used; specifically,
materials used for structural elements: beams, truss elements, and columns.
3.1.1.2 Constructability Constraint (Construction Duration)

Most project owners have a clear goal, and part of that goal is to finish the project in time. The
owner would want the project to be finished ahead of time in order to save money on labor costs, and the
like.
 Limitation: The designer will provide estimated construction duration based on previous
projects whether local or foreign.

3.1.1.3 Risk Assessment (Factor of Safety)

The owner, like everyone, would prefer a cheaper alternative of constructing the project without
sacrificing safety of the workers, and the future occupants of the project. To assess the factor of safety of
the project, the designer will compare the design strength of components from the three (3) trade-offs to the
working load to be carried by the said components.
 Limitation: The designer will consider only the design flexural strength, and the working
loads carried by beams as basis for computing factor of safety.

3.1.1.4 Sustainability (Maintenance Cost)

Every project has a design life, where it shall maintain functionality throughout. The designer’s goal
is to design a building that could last for at least the minimum design life required by the law while not being
costly to maintain.
 Limitation: The designer will only take into consideration the minimum design life of 50
years.

3.1.1.5 Environmental Constraint (Carbon Dioxide Emissions)

Every project will have an impact on the environment whether positive or negative. The aim is to
minimize the negative effects of the project on the environment.
 Limitation: The designer is to consider the carbon dioxide emissions produced by the
structural materials used.

3.1.2 Qualitative Constraints

These constraints are intangible, and can’t be measured directly but by doing surveys and the like.

3.1.2.1 Social Constraints

Social constraints takes into consideration the reaction of the public towards the project whether
during construction or after construction.
  Limitation: The designer will not conduct surveys but instead measure public reaction
based on previous projects in the country.

3.1.2.2 Legal Constraints

Legal limitations are referring to the numerous laws that must be followed by the work and practice
of building projects, which most frequently concern labor law, security requirements, scheduling and
building regulations, economic conditions, etc.
 Limitation: The designer will not conduct surveys but instead measure public reaction
based on previous projects in the country.
3.2 Design Trade-offs

The designer has come up with three trade-offs or choices for the owner to make, evaluating them
based on their ability to satisfy the constraints above mainly the quantitative constraints. All trade-offs
mentioned below are of, roughly, the same area and the only difference is the section shapes.

3.2.1 W-Sections (W40x397)

W-shaped sections are shaped like the letters “I” and “H”, also referred to as I-beams with a wide
flange section in some cases.

Figure 0-4: Section of a W-Section Beam

(Source: engineeringtoolbox.com)
Table 7: Advantages and Disadvantages of W-Sections

Advantages Disadvantages
- Conservation of steel compared to rectangular or square - Little resistance to torsion
section
- Can be used in a variety of applications
- Wide range of sizes available
3.2.2 Built-up Sections (B923010)

In the absence of appropriate beam sections listed in the ASEP steel handbook, an engineer can
design a built-up section that can withstand loads imposed on the structure. Built-up sections can be of
numerous shapes but since it is, in a way, customized the cost of production is higher than normal sections.

Figure 0-5: Built-up Section

(Source: civilsnapshot.com)

Table 8: Advantages and Disadvantages of Built-up Sections

Advantages Disadvantages
- Conservation of steel compared to rectangular or - Greater cost compared to other
square section sections
- Can be used in a variety of applications
- Wide range of sizes available
- Numerous possible shapes

3.2.3 S-Sections (S24x121)

W-shaped sections are shaped like the letters “I” and “H”, also referred to as I-beams with a
sloping flange section in some cases.

Figure 0-6: S-Section Beam

(Source: deformedsteelbar.com)
Table 9: Advantages and Disadvantages of S-Sections

Advantages Disadvantages
- Conservation of steel compared to rectangular or square - Little resistance to torsion
section
- Can be used in a variety of applications
- Wide range of sizes available

3.3 Designer Raw Ranking

The trade-offs mentioned in section 3.2 are to be ranked based on how they satisfy the constraints
provided in section 3.1. The trade-offs are to be scored on a scale of 1 to 10; 1 being the least desirable,
and 10 the most desirable. The constraints mentioned in section 3.1 shall also be scored based on
importance to be decided by the client, from 1 to 10; 1 being the least important, and 10 being the most
important.

Computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials: 

Higher Value−Lower Value

% Difference= x 10
Higher Value
Equation 1

Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank−% Difference

Equation 2

The governing rank is the subjective choice of the designer. In assigning the value for the
criterion’s importance and the ability to satisfy the criterion, the designer would subjectively choose any
desired amount. This subjective value depends on the initial estimate, say for economic criterion, which the
designer can initially select. The subordinate rank in Eq. 3.2 is a variable that corresponds to its percentage
distance from the governing rank along the ranking scale.
Percentage difference would then be plotted from the number line that ranges from 0 to 10 shown in Figure
3-3

Figure 0-1: Ranking Scale Value

(Source: Otto, K. N. and Antonson, E. K, (1991). Trade-off strategies in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design.
Volume 3, Number 2, Pages 87-104)
3.3.1 Initial Cost Estimates
The designer utilized the use of a parametric cost estimating model for buildings. The model is
provided by an internationally acclaimed association for cost estimation, namely the “AACE International” –
formerly the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering. The model is readily available online
and is free for use.

Figure 3-7: Initial Cost Estimate of First Trade-off Using AACE International’s Parametric Cost Estimating Model for Buildings

Figure 3-8: Input Parameters for Cost Estimation Modelling for Trade-off 1
 Figure 3-9: Initial Cost Estimate of Second Trade-off Using AACE International’s Parametric Cost Estimating Model for Buildings

Figure 3-10: Input Parameters for Cost Estimation Modelling for Trade-off 1

3.3.1.1 Initial Estimate and Ranking Computation

Table 10: Criterion’s Importance

Design Criteria Criterion’s Importance on a scale of 1-10

Economic (Cost – PHP) 10
Sustainability (Maintenance Cost) 8
Constructability (Project Duration – Days) 6
Risk Assessment (Factor of Safety) 9
Environmental (Emission of Carbon Dioxide) 7
Table 11: Initial Estimates

Constraints Trade-offs
W-Section Built-up Section S-Section
Economic (Cost – PHP) 50,000,000 70,000,000 60,000,000
Sustainability (Maintenance Cost) 1,583,333 2,216,666 1,900,000
Constructability (Project Duration – Days) 240 350 280
Risk Assessment (Factor of Safety) 1.5 2.4 2
Environmental (CO2 - Kg) 300,000 500,000 350,000

3.3.1.1.1 Computation for Raw Ranking for Economic Constraint

Table 12: Subordinate Ranking for Economic Constraint

Constraints W-Section Built-up Section S-Section

Economic (Cost – PHP) 50,000,000 70,000,000 60,000,000
Subordinate Rank 10 7.14 8

Subordinate Rank Computation:

- W-Section vs S-Section
60,000,000−50,000,000
%Difference= x 10=2
60,000,000
Equation 3: Percent Difference between W-Section and S-Section

Subordinate Rank=10−2=8
Equation 4: Subordinate rank of S-Section

- W-Section vs Built-up Section

70,000,000−50,000,000
%Difference= x 10=2.86
70,000,000
Equation 5: Percent Difference between W-Section and Built-up Section

Subordinate rank =10−2.86=7.14

Equation 6: Subordinate rank of Built-up Section
3.3.1.1.2 Computation of Raw Ranking for Sustainability Constraint

Table 13: Subordinate Ranking for Sustainability Constraint

Constraints W-Section Built-up Section S-Section

Sustainability 1,583,333 2,216,666 1,900,000
(Maintenance Cost –
PHP)
Subordinate Rank 8 5.71 6.67

Subordinate Rank Computation:

- W-Section vs S-Section

1,900,000−1,583,333
%Difference= x 10=1.67
1,900,000
Equation 7: Percent Difference of W-Section and S-Section

Subordinate rank =8−1.67=6.33

Equation 8: Subordinate rank of S-Section

- W-section vs Built-up Section

2,216,666−1,583,333
%Difference= x 10=2.86
2,216,666
Equation 9: Percent Difference of W-Section and Built-up Section

Subordinate rank =8−2.86=5.14

Equation 10: Subordinate rank of S-Section
3.3.1.1.3 Computation of Raw Ranking for Constructability Constraint

Table 14: Subordinate Ranking for Constructability Constraint

Constraints W-Section Built-up Section S-Section

Constructability 240 350 280
Subordinate Rank 6 4.11 5.14

Subordinate Rank Computation:

- W-Section vs S-Section

280−240
%Difference= x 6=0.86
280
Equation 11: Percent Difference of W-Section and S-Section

Subordinaterank =6−0.86=5.14
Equation 12: Subordinate rank of S-Section

- W-section vs Built-up Section

350−240
%Difference= x 6=1.89
350
Equation 13: Percent Difference of W-Section and Built-up Section

Subordinate rank =6−1.89=4.11

Equation 14: Subordinate rank of S-Section

3.3.1.1.3 Computation of Raw Ranking for Risk Assessment Constraint

Table 15: Subordinate Ranking for Constructability Constraint

Constraints W-Section Built-up Section S-Section

Risk Assessment 1.5 2.4 2
Subordinate Rank 9 5.62 6.75

Subordinate Rank Computation:

- W-Section vs S-Section

2−1.5
%Difference= x 10=2.5
2
Equation 15: Percent Difference of W-Section and S-Section

Subordinate rank =9−2.5=6.5

Equation 16: Subordinate rank of S-Section

- W-section vs Built-up Section

2.4−1.5
%Difference= x 10=3.75
2.4
Equation 17: Percent Difference of W-Section and Built-up Section

Subordinate rank =9−3.75=5.25

Equation 18: Subordinate rank of Built-up Section

3.3.1.1.3 Computation of Raw Ranking for Environmental Constraint

Table 16: Subordinate Ranking for Environmental Constraint

Constraints W-Section Built-up Section S-Section

Constructability 300,000 500,000 350,000
Subordinate Rank 7 4.2 6

Subordinate Rank Computation:

 - W-Section vs S-Section

350,000−300,000
%Difference= x 10=1.43
350,000
Equation 19: Percent Difference of W-Section and S-Section

Subordinate rank =7−1.43=5.57

Equation 20: Subordinate rank of S-Section

- W-section vs Built-up Section

500,000−300,000
%Difference= x 10=4
500,000
Equation 21: Percent Difference of W-Section and Built-up Section

Subordinate rank =7−4=3

Equation 22: Subordinate rank of S-Section

3.3.1.1.6 Initial Raw Ranking Summary

Table 17: Summary of Initial Raw Ranking

Decision Criterion’s Ability to Satisfy the Criterion

Criteria Importanc W-Section Built-up Section S-Section
e
Economic 10 10 100 5.14 51.4 6.33 63.3
Risk 9 9 81 5.25 47.25 6.5 58.5
Assessment
Sustainability 8 8 64 5.71 45.68 6.67 53.36
Environmental 7 7 49 4.2 29.4 6 42
Constructabilit 6 6 36 3 18 5.57 33.42
y
Over-all Ranking 330 194.73 220.58
3.4 Assessment of Trade-offs

3.4.1 Economic Constraint

Based on the table of summary of initial raw ranking, W-sections win when compared to the other
two options. The lowered cost of W-sections could be because of the availability of W- sections, and it
being the most common of the three choices in construction projects. More factories producing W-sections
mean there are more supplies, and prices are generally lower when supplies are high.

3.4.2 Risk Assessment Constraint

The factor of safety is computed by dividing the required force or moment by the actual force or
moment that can be resisted by structural elements. Higher factor of safety values mean that the structural
element can resist more loads or moments but since the designer is considering economic constraints, the
factor of safety is ranked according to how close the value is to 1. Keeping this in mind, W-sections win for
this constraint
3.4.3 Sustainability Constraint

One way to measure sustainability is how much repair is needed during the lifespan of a structure.
Lesser repairs needed usually mean the structure’s service condition is still sustained. W-sections also win
this constraint.

3.4.4 Environmental Constraint

The dimensions of W-sections are small, and since the amount of carbon dioxide given off by steel
depends on the weight of steel being used, W-sections win this constraint.

3.4.5 Constructability Constraint

Workers are well-versed in the construction of buildings with W-section members since it is one of
the more common sections used today. This would mean that construction times are reduced when
compared to other sections. Built-up shapes take longer to construct as delays would happen during the
production of the steel section itself.

3.5 Design Standards

The designer used design standards that are being used locally to be able to design the structure and
to know the provisions in designing an integrated terminal. The codes and standards used by the designer
is/are the following:
3.5.1 National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2015

ASEP acknowledges the need for an up-to-date structural code that addresses structural systems
design and assembly through performance-enhancing demands. Through multiple model codes and
regulations, usually based on the United States’ codes, the new National Structural Code of the Philippines
(NSCP Volume I) is intended to satisfy these requirements in order to protect public health and safety
nationwide.
This revised Structural Code uses prescriptive and performance-based clauses to set minimum demands
for structural systems. It is based on broad-based principles that enable new materials and fresh
construction designs to be used. This code also represents the recent earthquake-resistant structures
seismic design practice.
NSCP Section 204: Dead Loads
NSCP Section 205: Live Loads
NSCP Section 208: Earthquake Loads
3.5.2 ANSI/AISC 360-16 Specification for Structural Steel Buildings

The Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 360), hereafter referred to as this
Specification, shall apply to the design, fabrication and erection of the structural steel system or systems
with structural steel acting compositely with reinforced concrete, where the steel elements are defined in
Section 2.1 of the AISC Code of Standard Practice for Steel Buildings and Bridges (ANSI/AISC 303),
hereafter referred to as the Code of Standard Practice.
3.5.3 ANSI/AISC 341 Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings

The AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (ANSI/AISC 341) shall apply to the design of
seismic force-resisting systems of structural steel or of structural steel acting compositely with
reinforced concrete, unless specifically exempted by the applicable building code.