FYP Final Report G1 - Merged - Compressed

FEASIBILITY REPORT
Project CE1: Bon Air North Affordable

HousingSettlement
Course Codes & Title:

CVNG 3014/3020
Civil Engineering Design Project
Supervisor: Dr. Richard Clarke

Submission Date: 19/01/2022
Prepared By: ID No.

Damian Frank 816012255
Sydneé-Faith Cyrus 816016406
Aaron George 816020448
Caitlyn Maharaj 816022723
i
1
Plagiarism Form
THE UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES
The Office of the Board for Undergraduate Studies
GROUP PLAGIARISM DECLARATION
COURSE TITLE Civil Engineering Design Project
COURSE CODE CVNG 3014/3020
TITLE OF ASSIGNMENT CE1 Bon Air North Affordable Housing Settlement
When submitting a group assignment for assessment each member of the group will be required to sign the
following declaration of ownership which will appear on the coursework submission sheet.
We the undersigned declare that:
1. We have read the Plagiarism Regulations as set out in the Faculty or Open Campus Student
Handbook and on university websites related to the submission of coursework for assessment.
2. We understand that plagiarism is a serious academic offence for which the University may
impose severe penalties.
3. The submitted work indicated above is our own work, except where duly acknowledged and
referenced.
4. This work has not been previously submitted for credit either in its entirety or in part within the
UWI or elsewhere. Where work was previously submitted, permission has been granted by my
Supervisor/Lecturer/Instructor as reflected by the attached Accountability Statement.
5. We understand that we may be required to submit the work in electronic form and accept that the
University may check the originality of the work using a computer-based similarity detection
service.
2
NAME: Damian Frank
SIGNATURE ________ ______________________________________
NAME: Sydnee-Faith Cyrus

SIGNATURE ___________S. Cyrus___________________________________
NAME: Aaron George
SIGNATURE ________ ______________________________________
NAME: Caitlyn Maharaj

SIGNATURE ______ ________________________________________
19/01/22
DATE____________________________________________________
3
STUDENT AND SUPERVISOR MEETING LOG
Meeting Date: Wednesday, September 22 nd, 2021
Group #: 1
PROGRESS:
⮚ N/A
CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS:
SUPERVISOR’S REMARKS:
⮚ Produce a draft Gantt Chart with tasks/ activities from start of project to its completion.
⮚ Get basic wind parameters and topographical map from Dr. Cooper, that shows contours etc. of
the site before any construction.
⮚ Get soil investigation/geotechnical report of the site from Dr. Cooper.
GROUP’S SIGNATURES:
4
Meeting Date: Wednesday, September 29 th, 2021
Group #: 1
PROGRESS:
⮚ Acquired topographic map, rivers, soils and Trinshed map.
Challenges:
➢ Problems opening files with a suitable software.
➢ Delay in acquiring wind data.
Solutions:
➢ Software issues were resolved by informing Dr. Cooper about the challenges, and a session
was conducted showing which software to use and how to open files.
➢ Dr. Cooper was contacted in regards to obtaining data, and said he will provide the relevant
information when it has been provided to him.
➢ Complete the Gantt chart by inputting the relevant commencement and completion dates.
➢ Get seismic information for the site, from Seismic Research Centre.
5
Meeting Date: Wednesday, October 06th, 2021
Group #: 1
PROGRESS:
⮚ Revised Gantt chart by inputting dates for tasks.
⮚ Got link to seismic website, and a rough estimate was given of the wind parameters.
Challenges:
➢ Problems operating and adding data in the QGIS Software.
Solutions:
➢ Watching videos and lecture recording to learn how to operate the QGIS.
➢ Revise the Gantt chart by inputting additional tasks discussed, and proper ordering of works.
➢ Get an actual estimate of the seismic information (SS and S1 values) for the site.
6
Group #: 1
PROGRESS:
⮚ Gantt chart revised and completed.
⮚ Got information on the seismic parameters.
Challenges:
Solutions:
➢ Proceed with the tasks outlined in Gantt Chart.
➢ Start to visualize and document how you will size the buildings (using the building codes and
architectural books recommended etc.).
7
Group #: 1
PROGRESS:
⮚ Started conceptual design of buildings. Created some sketches for the residential buildings.
Challenges:
Solutions:
➢ Size all buildings, including those besides residential.
➢ Start to set out the site layout.
➢ Can use the library resources for how to proceed with setting out the site.
8
Group #: 1
PROGRESS:
⮚
Challenges:
➢ Difficulty in attaining setback values for reference, for site layout.
Solutions:
➢ Undertake corrective action to get back on track with the Gantt Chart. Complete the two site
layouts by Monday, November 1st, 2021, and be prepared to perform the Preliminary designs.
➢ Send an email to Dr. Clarke with the hand sketches of the two alternatives by Monday,
November 1st 2021, including the necessary details (i.e. location of the outfall drains, drains
and their runs (using arrows), building locations, and roads etc.)
9
Meeting Date: Wednesday, November 03rd, 2021
Group #: 1
PROGRESS:
⮚ Completed the two alternative site layouts.
Challenges:
Solutions:
➢ Proceed as according to Gantt Chart.
➢ Prepare the preliminary designs and start to do the costing.
10
Meeting Date: Wednesday, November 10 th, 2021
Group #: 1
PROGRESS:
⮚ Started the preliminary designs for each individual section.
Challenges:
Solutions:
➢ Continue with the preliminary designs.
11
Meeting Date: Wednesday, November 17th, 2021
Group #: 1
PROGRESS:
⮚ Continued the preliminary designs for each individual section.
Challenges:
Solutions:
➢ Continue to finalise the preliminary designs, so a materials list can be compiled, to provide a cost
estimate of the entire budget. Start to focus on decision matrix.
12
Meeting Date: Wednesday, November 30th, 2021
Group #: 1
PROGRESS:
⮚ Continued the preliminary designs for each individual section.
Challenges:
Solutions:
➢ Procedure for drainage design explained
➢ Continue to finalise the preliminary designs
13
Note all meeting logs were signed with the following signatures above.
14
Table of Contents
1.Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 24
1.1. Project Scope ............................................................................................................................. 24
1.2. Project References..................................................................................................................... 24
1.3. Points of Contact ....................................................................................................................... 25
1.4. Aim ............................................................................................................................................. 25
1.5. Objectives................................................................................................................................... 26
2. Project Overview ................................................................................................................27
2.1. Limitations ................................................................................................................................. 27
2.2. Assumptions............................................................................................................................... 27
3. Feasibility Analysis .............................................................................................................28
3.1 Preliminary Study ..................................................................................................................... 28
3.1.1 Site Location .............................................................................................................................. 28
3.1.2 Soils............................................................................................................................................. 29
3.1.3 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................. 31
3.1.4 Topography ............................................................................................................................... 33
3.1.5 Climate ....................................................................................................................................... 37
3.1.6 Natural Hazards ........................................................................................................................ 40
3.2 Environmental Impact Assessment ......................................................................................... 49
3.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 49
3.2.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................... 49
3.2.3 Major Project Activities: .......................................................................................................... 50
3.2.4 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) .............................................................................. 53
3.3 Engineering Alternatives:......................................................................................................... 61
3.3.1 Structural Designs ..................................................................................................................... 61
3.3.2 Pavement Design ..................................................................................................................... 216
3.3.3 Storm Water Management ..................................................................................................... 280
3.3.4 Water Supply System .............................................................................................328
3.3.5 Wastewater Management .......................................................................................345
4. Sustainability.....................................................................................................................357
5. Health & Safety ..................................................................................................................360
6. Selected Alternative ..........................................................................................................364
7. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................365
15
8. References.........................................................................................................................366
9. Appendix ...........................................................................................................................371
16
List of Figures
Figure 1. Showing a General Location of the Proposed Settlement ............................................. 29

Figure 2. Showing the Plasticity Chart ........................................................................................... 31
Figure 3. Showing the Watershed of Trinidad and the Drainage Basin of the General Area of
the Proposed Site ............................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 4. Showing the Tributaries running along the Boundaries of the Proposed Site ............ 33
Figure 5. Showing the Topography of Trinidad and highlighting the Three Mountain Ranges
of the island........................................................................................................................................ 34
Figure 6. Showing the Northern Range where the site area is closely located. ........................... 35
Figure 7. Showing the Longitudinal Profile of the Site Area. ....................................................... 36
Figure 8. Showing the Section Profile at the Southwestern part of the Site Area. ...................... 36
Figure 9. Showing the Section Profile along the Central part of the Site Area. .......................... 37
Figure 10. Showing the Section Profile along the North-eastern part of the Site Area. ............. 37
Figure 11. Showing the Possible Rainfall Totals for December 2021 ........................................... 38
Figure 12. Showing the Possible Rainfall Totals for January to March 2022 ............................. 38
Figure 13. Showing the Possible Rainfall Totals for March to May 2022.................................... 39
Figure 14. Showing the Possible Accumulated Rainfall Totals for Dry Season 2022 ................. 39
Figure 15. Showing the Flood Susceptibility Map of Trinidad ..................................................... 41
Figure 16. Showing the Landslide Multi Risk Map of Trinidad................................................... 42
Figure 17. Showing the Landslide Susceptibility Map of Trinidad .............................................. 43
Figure 18. Showing Tectonic Plates in the region .......................................................................... 44
Figure 19. Showing the Fault Lines in the region .......................................................................... 45
Figure 20. Showing the Fault Lines in Trinidad ............................................................................ 45
Figure 21. Showing Spectral Acceleration Map Trinidad ............................................................. 46
Figure 22. Showing Spectral Acceleration Map Trinidad ............................................................. 47
Figure 23. shows the tracks and likelihood of how Hurricanes would have affected the region
in August ............................................................................................................................................ 48
in September ...................................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 25: Sketch of the Community Centre Floor Plan for Reinforced Concrete Moment
Resisting Frame ................................................................................................................................. 64
Figure 26: Sketch of the Polyclinic Floor Plan for Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting
Frame ................................................................................................................................................. 79
17
Figure 27: Sketch of the Double Bedroom Apartment Complex Ground, 1st, 2nd&,3rd Floor
Plan for Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame .............................................................. 94
Figure 28: Sketch of the Single Bedroom Apartment Complex Ground, 1st & 2nd Floor Plan
for Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame ..................................................................... 109
Figure 29: Sketch of the Two (2) Bedroom Triplex Floor Plan for Reinforced Concrete
Moment Resisting Frame ............................................................................................................... 124
Figure 30: Sketch of the Three (3) Bedroom Duplex Floor Plan for Reinforced Concrete
Moment Resisting Frame ............................................................................................................... 138
Figure 31: Sketch of the Community Centre Floor Plan for Steel Moment Resisting Frame . 152
Figure 32: Sketch of the Policlinic Floor Plan for Steel Moment Resisting Frame................... 162
Plan for Steel Moment Resisting Frame ....................................................................................... 172
for Steel Moment Resisting Frame ................................................................................................ 184
Figure 35: Sketch of the Two (2) Bedroom Triplex Floor Plan for Steel Moment Resisting
Frame ............................................................................................................................................... 196
Figure 36. Flexible versus Rigid Pavement Structural Layout ................................................... 217
Figure 37. Flexible versus Rigid Pavement Load Distribution ................................................... 217
Figure 38. Collector road cross section ......................................................................................... 218
Figure 39. Access road cross section.............................................................................................. 218
Figure 40. Proposed Access Road cross section............................................................................ 219
Figure 41. Proposed Collector Road cross section ....................................................................... 220
Figure 42. Car Parking Layout...................................................................................................... 256
Figure 43. Concrete Car Parking Driveway ................................................................................ 257
Figure 44. showing Tarmac Car Parking Driveway and damage caused due to oil spill on
surface .............................................................................................................................................. 258
Figure 45. showing Grass Block Pavers for a driveway. ............................................................. 260
Figure 46. showing Gravel paving for a residential driveway. ................................................... 260
Figure 47. showing Asphalt paving for a residential driveway and commercial car parking lot.
.......................................................................................................................................................... 261
Figure 48. showing Resin bound driveway on the left, and on the right, a variety of textures
and colours for this type of paving material. ................................................................................ 262
Figure 49. showing Block paving for a residential driveway. ..................................................... 262
Figure 50. showing Grass Block paving layout. ........................................................................... 272
Figure 51. showing the layout of Gravel and Grass Block Pavers. ............................................. 272
Figure 52. showing the various layouts of Clay Brick Pavers. .................................................... 274
18
Figure 53 shows the comparison between stormwater runoff on natural vs impervious
environments ................................................................................................................................... 281
environments ................................................................................................................................... 282
environments ................................................................................................................................... 282
Figure 56: Image of corrugated HDPE pipe ................................................................................. 283
Figure 57: Image showing section of typical storm sewer manhole/catch basin with slump ... 284
Figure 58: Image showing HDPE manhole................................................................................... 284
Figure 59: Image showing rain garden ......................................................................................... 285
Figure 60: Image showing box drain ............................................................................................. 286
Figure 61: Image showing curb and gutters ................................................................................. 287
Figure 62: Image showing Tree well ............................................................................................. 288
Figure 63: Image showing infiltration trench ............................................................................... 289
Figure 64: Image showing Tree well ............................................................................................. 290
Figure 65: Image showing section of detention basin .................................................................. 291
Figure 66: Image showing detention basin being used as a green area when empty. ............... 291
Figure 67 showing entire catchment of proposed site with the left sub catchment in blue and
the right sub catchment in green ................................................................................................... 292
Figure 68 showing the section upstream of the right tributary. ................................................. 295
Figure 69 showing the section upstream of the left tributary. .................................................... 295
Figure 70 showing pipe sizes and flow velocity layout 1 .............................................................. 308
Figure 71 showing the effect the detention basin has on the post-development peak discharge.
.......................................................................................................................................................... 309
Figure 72. Sketch showing plan view of the detention basin on site for layout 1 ...................... 312
Figure 73. Sketch showing sectional view of the detention basin on site for layout 1 ............... 313
Figure 74 showing the effect the detention basin has on the post-development peak discharge.
.......................................................................................................................................................... 319
Figure 75 showing total costs of storm sewer system ................................................................... 321
Figure 76 shows costing of detention basin layout 1 .................................................................... 322
Figure 77 shows costing of Box Drain System layout 2 ............................................................... 323
Figure 78 shows costing of detention basin layout 2 .................................................................... 323
Figure 79. Image of a Grid/Looped Distribution System ............................................................ 330
Figure 80. Image of a Branched/Tree Distribution System......................................................... 331
Figure 81. Extended Aeration Treatment Process ....................................................................... 349
19
List of Tables
Table 1. Shows the Properties of the Soil Found on the Proposed Site ........................................ 30
Table 2. Showing Borehole Data (Geotechnical Assessment for the Slope Stability Analyses at
the Bon Air North Site,2015)............................................................................................................ 30
Table 3. Showing Borehole Groundwater Depth (Geotechnical Assessment for the Slope
Stability Analyses at the Bon Air North Site,2015) ........................................................................ 32
Table 4. Potential Environmental Impacts on environmental resources on proposed site. ....... 50
Table 5. Scale of how severe impacts can be on the environmental resources on the proposed
site. ...................................................................................................................................................... 51
Table 6. Impact Rating of Occurrences ......................................................................................... 51
Table 7. Probability Rating of an occurrence taking place ........................................................... 52
Table 8. Environmental Impact Assessment: Pre-Construction, During Construction, Post
Construction ...................................................................................................................................... 60
Table.9 Showing multi-criteria ranking and description .............................................................. 62
Table.10 Showing ranking of alternatives ...................................................................................... 62
Table.11 Showing weighting factors ................................................................................................ 63
Table.12 Showing scores of alternatives ......................................................................................... 63
Table 13. Calculated AADT for Layout #1. .................................................................................. 221
Table 13. Calculated AADT for Layout #2. .................................................................................. 221
Table 14. Calculated ESAL values for each vehicle type. ........................................................... 223
Table 15. Summary Table showing total cost of Asphalt Pavement for Proposed Collector
Road. ................................................................................................................................................ 242
Table 16. Summary Table showing total cost of Asphalt Pavement for Proposed Access Road.
.......................................................................................................................................................... 244
Table 17. Summary Table showing total cost of PCC Pavement for Proposed Collector Road.
.......................................................................................................................................................... 246
Table 18. Summary Table showing total cost of PCC Pavement for Proposed Access Road. . 248
Table 19. Summary Table showing Total Road cost of Asphalt Road works for Alternative # 1.
.......................................................................................................................................................... 249
Table 20. Summary Table showing Capital cost of PPC roadworks for Alternative # 1. ........ 250
Table 21. Summary Table showing Capital cost of roadworks for Alternative # 2. ................. 250
Table 22. Summary Table showing Capital cost of roadworks for Alternative # 2. ................. 251
Table 23. Rating System for Multicriteria Analysis. ................................................................... 252
20
Table 24. Table showing Measure of Effectiveness of the Proposed Alternatives. ................... 253
Table 25. Table showing Calculated Weighting Factor for each Criteria. ................................ 254
Table 26. Table showing the Weighted Score for each Alternative. ........................................... 254
Table 27. Summary Table showing Estimated Road User Cost. ................................................ 255
Table 28. Potential Environmental Impacts on environmental resources of proposed Paving
Material............................................................................................................................................ 259
Table 29. Calculated ESAL value for Car Parking lots. ............................................................. 264
Table 30. Summary Table showing total cost of Asphalt Pavement for Proposed Car Parks. 271
Table 31. Summary Table showing cost of various alternatives for the Proposed Car Parks. 276
Multicriteria Analysis of Paved Driveways: ................................................................................. 276
Table 32. Rating System for Multicriteria Analysis. ................................................................... 277
Table 33. Table showing Measure of Effectiveness for the Proposed Paved Driveways. ......... 277
Table 34. Table showing total score of each Alternative for the Proposed Car Parks. ............ 278
Table 35. Summary Table showing Total cost of Car Parks for Alternative # 1. ..................... 279
Table 36. showing land cover characteristics corresponding runoff coefficients and percentage
of area covered by land cover. ....................................................................................................... 303
Table 37 showing land cover characteristics corresponding runoff coefficients and percentage
of area covered by land cover. ....................................................................................................... 314
Table 38 showing ranking and description ................................................................................... 325
Table 39 showing ranking of alternatives ..................................................................................... 326
Table 40 showing weighting factors .............................................................................................. 326
Table 41 showing scoring of alternatives ...................................................................................... 327
Table 42. Residential/Domestic Water Consumption .................................................................. 333
Table 43. Commercial and Institutional Water Consumption ................................................... 334
Table 44. Ranking Key ................................................................................................................... 342
Table 45. Measure of Effectiveness for the Proposed Alternatives ............................................ 343
Table 46. Calculated Weighting Factor for each Criteria ........................................................... 343
Table 47. Weighted Score for each Alternative ............................................................................ 344
Table 48. Residential/Domestic Wastewater Flows...................................................................... 347
Table 49. Commercial and Institutional Wastewater Flows ....................................................... 348
Table 50. Ranking Key ................................................................................................................... 354
Table 51. Measure of Effectiveness for the Proposed Alternatives ............................................ 355
Table 52. Calculated Weighting Factor for each Criteria ........................................................... 355
Table 53 showing scores of alternatives ........................................................................................ 356
21
Table 54 showing infrastructural cost break down ..................................................................... 365
22
Executive Summary
The purpose of this project is to propose at least two suitable alternative designs for an affordable
housing development at the Bon Air Gardens North location. This development is to include a
total of 354 units, a community centre, health centre and other recreational facilities. A detailed
feasibility study for each alternative will be conducted to determine the best possible design for
the development. Numerous factors were taken into consideration for this project such as the
topographic and geological features, the seismic region of the site, the hydrological data (I.e.,
rainfall data etc.) and other environmental data, as these would impact the designs and layout of
the proposed community. Such data would impact the structural design and orientation of the
buildings, drainage, water supply designs and pavement designs.
23
1. Introduction
1.1. Project Scope
The scope of this study aims to evaluate 2 proposed alternatives and the preliminary designs for
all infrastructure in the proposed settlement at Bon Air North. The following considerations must
be incorporated within or a part of the settlement design to satisfy the requirements outlined for
the proposed settlement.
● The settlement is expected to have 354 housing units.
● Proper site planning of settlement
● Architectural Designs of housing
● Civil and Environmental Engineering Design (Structures, Transportation, Surface
water drainage, Potable Water and Wastewater systems).
As part of site planning and the development of 354 housing units, the settlement is expected to
include a community centre, health services, and recreational facilities. The design will also be
centred on being sustainable, by having a minimal carbon footprint and using greener alternatives
to traditional infrastructure.
The development will also take into consideration storm water runoff ensuring that there is a net
zero increase in flows within the ravines, adequate and proper drainage on site and no increase in
flooding or runoff lower catchment due to the site. Covid 19 protocols, environmental impacts and
feasibility of the alternatives will also be considered in the design of the settlement.
1.2. Project References
Guidelines for sub-division, residential and road layout, wastewater, water supply and storm
water management are:
● WASA Guidelines for Design and Construction of Water and Wastewater Systems in
Trinidad and Tobago (WASA 2014)
● International Building Code (ICC 2018)
● SMALL BUILDING CODE GUIDE (1997)
● Preliminary Design of Structural Members (Clarke 2020)
24
● Environmental Management Act No. 34 (1995)
● The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
1993 Manual.
● Guide to Developers and Applicants for Planning Permission (Town and Country
Planning Division of The Ministry of Planning and Division 1988)
● Traffic and Highway Engineering 4th Edition Manual (Garber and Hoel 2009)
1.3. Points of Contact
● Dr. Vincent Cooper – Provided guidance on the water supply, stormwater management
design and wastewater treatment designs.
● Dr. Trevor Townsend – Provided guidance on the economic analysis of roads and site
location
● Keeshan Ramkissoon, Curtis Dookie, Sasier Gokool, Ian Cox - Mentors
● Ms. Allison Elecock - Fortune - Manager, Wastewater Treatment Plant
● Dr. Richard Clarke – Provided guidance on the preliminary
● Mr. Ovi Mottley – Provided guidance on the QGIS software
● Mr. Derek Outridge - Provided guidance on costings
● Mr. Mel Best - Wastewater plant operator
● Mr. Lacey Williams
1.4. Aim
● To determine the overall feasibility of the construction of this settlement at the location
based on the current and projected physical, economic, social, and environmental
conditions of the location in Bon Air North.
● To provide conceptual designs for the most practicable infrastructural and structural system
alternatives to be suggested in the residential community's final planned design.
● To determine the comparative feasibility of each alternative considered for the
development of the residential community using the method of multi-criteria decision
analysis.
25
1.5. Objectives
● To research and design the alternatives for the structural systems and infrastructure systems
that will be used for the development of a residential community in Bon Air North. The
alternative structural systems which were used in the structural designs are reinforced
concrete moment resisting frame and steel moment resisting frame. The alternative
infrastructure systems are on the stormwater drainage system, road network layout, and
road structural design
● To conduct a preliminary environmental impact assessment on the Bon Air North Housing
Development. These findings will be used in the multi-criteria decision-making process to
determine the most feasible option of alternatives considered for the infrastructure and
structural systems
● To comply with engineering standards, layout standards, site development standards, local
policies and legislation listed under Project References to create the housing development
and to include the principle of sustainable development, within the feasibility, throughout
the design process.
26
2. Project Overview
Climate Change has been over the headlines recently, especially amid the COP-26 Climate
Summit, in which more than 200 countries participated to discuss the issue. It has been projected
and slowly being realized that climate change will exacerbate extreme weather conditions which
will affect us drastically in the Caribbean as our small island states are particularly at risk due to
the effects of climate change. In addition to climate change, the challenges brought by increasing
populations include the lack of affordable housing, as a result, this housing development is
intended to be resilient against the effects of climate change while being affordable to potential
settlers. The proposed 354 units will be derived from having 2 story 3-bedroom townhouses,
triplex apartment complexes, 5 story double room apartment complexes, and 3 story single room
apartment complexes. The development is catered for the middle class of society and will be
designed around sustainability, Covid 19, and flood control. The settlement will include as
mentioned prior a community centre with an administrative office, gym, mini-Mart, youth centre,
laundry mart, health services, and recreational facilities, making the development somewhat self-
sufficient. The design of structures on site are influenced by the site topography as it is very
elevated, as a result, measures will be put in place so that the development of this site, which is
located higher up the catchment, would not bring adverse effects to the residents on the lower
catchment. Soil retaining measures will also be applied to preserve natural slopes and prevent land
slippage.
2.1. Limitations
Due to the ongoing pandemic, access to the site was limited. Therefore, most data came from
secondary sources. These sources included information gathered from points of contact, online
resources and the data provided from the lecturers.
2.2. Assumptions
The assumptions made were that the data given was accurate and the most recent, and that there
was no development yet on site.
27
3. Feasibility Analysis
3.1 Preliminary Study
3.1.1 Site Location
The proposed location of the settlement is in Bon Air Gardens North, and its surrounding
communities located in Arouca, Eastern Trinidad. Arouca is a planned community situated in
eastern Trinidad, it is located along the East-West corridor, West of Trincity and East of D’Abadie.
The proposed site is approximately 24 hectares of land situated north of the Priority Bus Route at
the foothills of the Northern Range. The proposed site is bordered between the north of Pine Ridge
Heights neighbourhood off Lopinot Road, as well as two tributaries, Jamba Ravine Tributary and
Jamba Ravine, on the East and West of the site respectively, which trail down to the Oropuna River
in Oropune, South-West to site. According to Town and Country Planning, the lands for the
proposed site are currently classified for urban development. Currently the Housing Development
Corporation (HDC) has an on-going housing settlement project to date, but for this study the
proposed location will be assumed as undeveloped land.
With reference to road maps from Google Earth and Google Maps, the only access to the entire
site is through two entry points on a collector road, Nathaniel Critchlow Boulevard, both running
from the South of the site. Nathaniel Critchlow Boulevard intersects Pine Ridge Drive which both
intersect the collector street, Lopinot Road. Lopinot Road further intersects the main highway, the
Eastern Main Road, as well as the Priority Bus Route. As a result, the site has close access to a
main transportation hub. The lands consist of overgrown bushes and weeds or farming
development and is very sloped and has two tributaries running through the site. As a result, cutting
and filling will be considered in developing the land for housing.
28
Figure 1. Showing a General Location of the Proposed Settlement
3.1.2 Soils
The Design team obtained GIS data for the soil distribution in the Bon Air North region. The
attribute information for the soil was utilized to categorize the different soil types in the area using
this data, which was entered into QGIS. Fine sandy loam soil, sandy clay loam soil, and gravelly
sandy clay loam soil were the three (3) soil types found within the site area. Fine Sandy Loam soil
was determined to make up most of the soil within the project's perimeter. Texture code No. 32
along the West to North-West region of the site, the drainage classification was noted as free
drained with an infiltration rate of 2.0- 6.0 in/hr. Texture code No.34 along the North-East region
of the site, the drainage classification was also noted as free drained with an infiltration rate of
0.50-2.0 in/hr. Lastly, texture code No.41 along the South- South-West region of the site, the
drainage classification was impeded, resulting in an infiltration rate of 25.0-50.0 in/hr. Table.1
shows the properties of the soil found on the proposed site.
As it relates to the Alternatives (Layout one & Layout two), all components including buildings,
most infrastructure fall mainly on two soils, Texture Code No.32 (Fine Sandy Loam) and Texture
Code No.34 (Sandy Clay Loam) and a small percentage of the infrastructure and buildings on
texture Code No.41 falls on the Gravelly Sandy Clay Loam.
29
Soil Texture Infiltration rate
Texture Code Soil Texture Name Drainage
Abbreviation (in/hr.)
32 Fine Sandy Loam FSL Free 2.0 – 6.0
34 Sandy Clay Loam SCL Free 0.50 - 2.0
Gravelly Sandy Clay

41 GSCL Impeded 25.0 – 50.0
Loam
Table 1. Shows the Properties of the Soil Found on the Proposed Site
To further investigate the Bon Air North site, a pre-existing geotechnical report was also analysed
in conjunction with the QGIS data file. Based on the field investigation conducted on March 14th
and 15th in the year 2015 by Trinitoplan Consultants LTD., four (4) boreholes were analysed. The
main soil stratigraphy found on the site is Phyllite which is a sedimentary rock which is a form of
shale. This soil was described as dense to very dense sand and gravel with a natural moisture
content ranging from 8% - 22%.
Borehole No. Location (m) Depth (m)
Elevation Northing Easting
1 53 1161344.521 697707.703 15.7
2 53 1161329.284 697693.628 15.7
3 53 1161329.643 697688.390 8.1
4 53 1161329.643 697688.390 9.6

Table 2. Showing Borehole Data (Geotechnical Assessment for the Slope Stability Analyses at
the Bon Air North Site,2015)
The Atterberg Limits Tests reveal that the samples fall within the CL part of the Plasticity Chart
shown below, indicating that they are low plasticity clays with Liquid Limits ranging from 48 to
58, Plastic Limits of 26, and Plasticity Indices of 22 to 32. The Grain Size Distribution shows that
silt and sand make up most of the soils. Clay concentrations ranged from 4 % to 40 %, silt contents
30
from 14 % to 35 %, and contents from 24 % to 56 %, and gravel contents from 0 % to 22 %, based
on the soil investigation.
Figure 2. Showing the Plasticity Chart
3.1.3 Hydrology
Due to the numerous peaks in height in the island's northern sections and the varying distributions
in soil composition in these areas, the drainage pattern on Trinidad is dendritic. Many tributaries
are generated along a main river when water naturally carves a passage from higher to lower
elevation, through soft soil or around less permeable material, because surface runoff flows from
the Northern Range's higher elevations to lower elevations. The Jamba Ravine and the Jamba
Ravine Tributary run along the boundaries of the proposed site due to its position. The larger of
the two tributaries (Jamba Ravine) flows closer to the Bon Air North site's northern section, while
the smaller tributary (Jamba Ravine Tributary) flows south-west (See Figure.3). It should also be
noted that the proposed site is located within the Arouca watershed which is found within the
western Peninsula (Hydrometric Area 9) (See Figure.2).
The site is situated on a sloping piece of ground. This will exacerbate design concerns with the
new drainage system. As a result, rivers are found in valleys, which are one of the least desirable
areas for residential construction since the slope of the terrain favours the flow of water, generating
a channel that may cause significant flood damage to buildings and infrastructure. Given that
Trinidad receives about 70 inches of rain per year on average, this is a major factor. Because of its
31
tropical environment, the nation has two distinct seasons which are rainy and dry. The water levels
encountered on the site during the ground study and the groundwater table are revealed to be
phreatic, and their level is likely to fluctuate with seasonal rainfall, according to a field
investigation done by Trinitoplan Consultants LTD on March 14th and 15th, 2015.
Borehole ID Groundwater Depth (m)
BH 1 11.0
BH 2 9.5
BH 3 None Recorded
BH 4 None Recorded
Table 3. Showing Borehole Groundwater Depth (Geotechnical Assessment for the Slope
Stability Analyses at the Bon Air North Site,2015)
32
Figure 3. Showing the Watershed of Trinidad and the Drainage Basin of the General Area of
the Proposed Site
Figure 4. Showing the Tributaries running along the Boundaries of the Proposed Site
3.1.4 Topography
Topography can be defined as the physical makeup of an object or surface, inclusive of its
structural composition, both natural and man-made, and the relief of the land (Merriam-Webster
Dictionary n.d.). The country of Trinidad is located off the northern edge of South America and is
approximately situated 11 kilometres off the coast of northeast Venezuela and 113 kilometres
south of Grenada. Similarly, it’s topography can be compared to that region (Encyclopaedia
Britannica Inc n.d.). The island’s topography varies according to location, and this can be more
easily seen when considering the three ranges of the island; The Northern, Central and Southern
Ranges, that gradually increase in elevation from South to North. In the northern part of the island,
the land is more elevated. There, the Northern Range was formed, where the highest peak of the
island, Mount Aripo can be found. Near this range, the town of Arouca is located, and within it is
the Bon Air North site.
33
Figure 5. Showing the Topography of Trinidad and highlighting the Three Mountain Ranges
of the island.
(Source adapted from Google Image, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-Sun-shaded-digital-
elevation-model-showing-Trinidads-principal-geomorphic-features_fig3_228431933)
34
Figure 6. Showing the Northern Range where the site area is closely located.
(Source adapted from Google Image, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Map-of-Trinidad-showing-
the-location-of-the-study-area-after-Darsan-et-al-2012_fig11_272790222)
As previously stated, the Bon Air North development site is located in the town of Arouca, near
the Northern Range of Trinidad. The site can be described as predominantly steep with the land
sloping towards both the northwest and southeast sides. In the figures below, the general relief of
the site area can be seen. The area at the southwest position/entrance of the site, the land is
relatively flat, gaining elevation as one moves towards the northeast part of the site.
35
Figure 7. Showing the Longitudinal Profile of the Site Area.
Figure 8. Showing the Section Profile at the Southwestern part of the Site Area.
36
Figure 9. Showing the Section Profile along the Central part of the Site Area.
Figure 10. Showing the Section Profile along the North-eastern part of the Site Area.
3.1.5 Climate
Climate is defined as the average weather over a given area or region over an extended period. It
is concerned with data such as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine,
cloudiness, and wind speeds. The climate in the Caribbean is tropical and it is controlled by the
North-eastern trade winds and the elevations of given areas in the region. Trinidad and Tobago
are located in the Southernmost parts of the region and is within close proximity of the equator, as
a result, the temperatures in Trinidad and Tobago, from 73 to 90°F which is approx. 23 to 32°C,
with a mean daily temperature of 27°C. There are also only two seasons experienced by the twin
republic of Trinidad and Tobago; a dry season from January to May which can be identified by
moderate to strong low-level winds along with warm days and cool nights, and a rainy season from
June to December, which can be identified by low winds speeds, humid days, humid nights, and
increased rainfall. It must be noted though, that generally, the wet season is warmer than the dry
season with September being the warmest in the wet season and March being the driest in the dry
season. It must also be noted that the months of transition from both the dry to the wet season and
vice versa are the months of May and December respectively. The hurricane season which is in
effect during the months of June to November, the wet season, must also be mentioned as this
season usually can be very disastrous for the Caribbean islands, with the season peaking in the
months between August and October. This information of the seasons and the characteristics
37
specific to each season is very important and it greatly affects any given project both during the
pre-construction phase and during the construction phase.
Figure 11. Showing the Possible Rainfall Totals for December 2021
Figure 12. Showing the Possible Rainfall Totals for January to March 2022
38
Figure 13. Showing the Possible Rainfall Totals for March to May 2022
Figure 14. Showing the Possible Accumulated Rainfall Totals for Dry Season 2022
39
3.1.6 Natural Hazards
A natural hazard can be defined as a natural event that can cause fatalities, disruption of day-to-
day human activities, and extreme damage to property. The island of Trinidad is primarily faced
with hazards such as flooding, landslides, earthquakes, and sometimes hurricanes. These hazards
can potentially be of substantial risk to project sites before, during, and after construction. It must
be noted though that their effects can be mitigated by proper design practices, having adequate
infrastructure on site (i.e., drainage etc.), and by properly layout out a given site, other mitigating
strategies can further be taken to ensure that the effects of these hazards are kept at a minimum.
The following images below show the typical hazards faced by the island of Trinidad and a brief
explanation of each hazard.
Increased precipitation due to climate change and increased impervious surfaces have increased
the frequency of flooding events due to current drainage infrastructure not being able to facilitate
increased surface runoff. From the map, the circled area is estimated to be our area of interest,
within this area according to the flood map. We can see that this area’s flood susceptibility ranges
from very high to low flooding susceptibility.
40
Figure 15. Showing the Flood Susceptibility Map of Trinidad
Landslides can simply be defined as the movement of land due to gravity. During heavy rainfall
landslides occur due to groundwater pressures destabilizing slopes, deforestation of elevated
areas and earthquakes, as they also destabilize slopes. From the landslide multi risk map, we can
see that our estimated area of interest is of very high to very low risk. From the landslide
susceptibility map, we can see that our area of interest ranges from very high to very low
susceptibility.
41
Figure 16. Showing the Landslide Multi Risk Map of Trinidad
42
Figure 17. Showing the Landslide Susceptibility Map of Trinidad
Earthquakes can be defined simply as the shaking of the earth due to tectonic or volcanic origins.
The island of Trinidad is at high risk of earthquakes as it is located on the boundary between two
tectonic plates: The Caribbean plate and the South American plate and a couple of faults can be
found on the island. As a result, structures are to be designed in such a way to deal with the
effects of earthquakes according to code. Values used in designing earthquake-resistant
structures, the spectral acceleration and peak ground acceleration can all be obtained from the
UWI seismic research centre for a given return period.
43
Figure 18. Showing Tectonic Plates in the region
44
Figure 19. Showing the Fault Lines in the region
Figure 20. Showing the Fault Lines in Trinidad
45
Figure 21. Showing Spectral Acceleration Map Trinidad
Note: S1 value for Bon Air North area with RP = 2475yrs is 0.381 from range of 0.371 - 0.391
46
Figure 22. Showing Spectral Acceleration Map Trinidad
Note: Ss value for Bon Air North area with RP = 2475yrs is 1.51 from range of 1.461 - 1.550
A hurricane is defined as a type of storm called a tropical cyclone and they tend to form over both
tropical and subtropical waters. Tropical cyclones can be classified based on their wind speeds;
tropical cyclones with maximum sustained winds less than 39 miles per hour are called tropical
depressions, tropical cyclones which have maximum sustained winds of 39 mph or higher are
called tropical storms and tropical cyclones with maximum sustained winds of 74 mph and above
are called hurricanes.
A wind scale called the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale is a 1 to 5 category scale, and it is
based on a hurricane's maximum sustained winds. The higher the category of the hurricane, the
greater the hurricane's potential for property damage.
47
As mentioned prior the hurricane season ranges from the months of June to November, with the
season peaking in the months between August and October. From the NOAA maps we can see
that the likelihood of Trinidad getting a direct hit from hurricanes are very low.
in August
in September
48
3.2 Environmental Impact Assessment
3.2.1 Introduction
An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is defined as a process of evaluating the probable

environmental impacts of a proposed development, considering the socio-economic, cultural, and
human-health impacts, both beneficial and adverse and is a very important document that must
and should be developed to evaluate the impacts that proposed projects would have socially, and
environmentally during preconstruction, construction, and post construction. The Environmental
Impact Assessment in this report was created in accordance with and with reference to the
Environmental Management Act Chapter 35:05 of 2000. Within this assessment, evaluations will
be made in accordance with the guidelines laid out by the Environmental Management Act (EMA),
so as to minimize and mitigate the detrimental effects that will be associated with the development
of the proposed site, and the effect that the proposed development will have on environs, flora and
fauna and neighbouring residents. As mentioned prior, the purpose of this report will be to predict
and estimate the levels of risks and potential impacts that the proposed site at Bon Air North will
have socially and economically during all phases of construction.
3.2.2 Project Description
Your design team has been hired to provide affordable housing within a 24-hectare site in Bon Air
Gardens North. The Housing Development Corporation proposes to develop the site for 354
housing units. The new community will have amenities such as a community centre, health
services and recreational facilities. The site is in a catchment drained by the Dunderhill Ravine.
Several floods occurred recently in the lower catchment and at the bridges of the Eastern Main
Road and the Priority Bus Route. Part of the problem is inadequate stormwater management
facilities, made worse by unplanned housing developments surrounding the proposed site. Your
design team must develop the infrastructure to control flooding, even with the new housing
community. Sustainability must be the hallmark of your design. You are therefore to choose
solutions for your housing community such that it makes zero net increase in flows within the
ravine and has a minimum carbon footprint. It means therefore that your design should be partial
to green technologies, including pervious pavements, rooftop gardens, rainwater harvesting and
retention basins, and the choice of materials for the buildings. Bear in mind the lessons from the
49
pandemic in terms of changes in social interaction and how the economy might be transformed in
the future.
3.2.3 Major Project Activities:
Pre-Construction: This entails design of site infrastructure and site preparation, clearance,
grading etc.
Construction: This entails the actual construction of site infrastructure.
Post Construction: This entails the removal of excess material and equipment from the site and
long-term mitigation strategies.
Environmental Resource Impact
Water Water Pollution
Air Air Pollution
Ecology Displacement, Destruction and Loss of

ecosystems
Landscape Loss of soil integrity
Soundscape Noise Pollution
Table 4. Potential Environmental Impacts on environmental resources on proposed site.
50
Impacts
Severity Description of Rating Rating
Very Low Impacts not occurring 1
Low Minimal Damage 2
Medium Operational but affected 3
High Operational but will have long 4

term effects
Very High Operational but will fail 5

eventually
Table 5. Scale of how severe impacts can be on the environmental resources on the proposed
site.
Probability
Chances of Occurrence Description of Rating Rating
No Chance Impacts not occurring 1
Not Likely Probability of impact occurrence 2

Low
Probable Possibility of occurrence is not 3

clear
Very Likely Probability of impact occurrence 4

High
Definitely Occurring Occurring despite mitigation 5
Table 6. Impact Rating of Occurrences
51
Probability Impact
Moderate (5) High (10) High (15) Catastrophic Catastrophic

(20) (25)
Moderate (4) Moderate (8) High (12) Catastrophic Catastrophic

(16) (20)
Low (3) Moderate (6) Moderate (9) High (12) High (15)
Low (2) Moderate (4) Moderate (6) Moderate (8) High (10)
Low (1) Low (2) Low (3) Moderate (4) Moderate (5)
Table 7. Probability Rating of an occurrence taking place
52
3.2.4 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Pre-Construction Phase
Environmen Effect(s) Impact Probability Risk Mitigation Impact Probability Risk

tal Factor Score Score
Air Quality ● Greenhouse 3 4 12 ● Provide awareness 3 2 6

emissions emitted to the community in
by machinery and order that residents
vehicles degrading may take
air quality during preventative
site preparation measure
● Use of proper PPE
by site personnel
● Wetting of
sand/soil before
excavation to lessen
dust particles
entering the air
Water ● Deposition of 3 3 9 ● Develop buffer 2 3 6

sediments into the zones in accordance
tributaries passing with any water
through the site features on the site
increasing the to eliminate the
turbidity in the possibility of
water bodies, material being
ultimately affecting directly deposited
any aquatic flora or ● Introduction of
fauna present sediment traps near
● Increased the mouth of the
sedimentation in rivers to avoid
tributaries due to excess pollution
dust particles from
53
trenchworks
entering nearby
water courses
Soundscapes ● Generation of loud 3 5 15 ● Having sound 3 3 9

noise from vehicles dampers equipped
and machinery over on equipment to
threshold levels reduce noise
during daily generated
operations ● Following
regulations set for
noise level by the
EMA, Noise
Pollution Control
Rules, 2001
(NPCR)
Ecology ● Displacement and 3 4 12 ● Assessment, 3 3 9

destruction of flora analysis, and study
and fauna to of site to ensure
facilitate site that no endangered
preparation for the flora or fauna will
construction phase be affected
Landscape ● Disruption/erosion 3 5 15 ● Implementation of 4 3 12

of soil strata due to slope stability
the removal of measures to help
topsoil and other reduce soil
soil layers movement due to
erosion
54
During Construction Phase

Air Quality ● Heavy greenhouse 4 4 16 ● To reduce or 4 3 12

gasses, the prevent dust
extensive use of particles from being
cement and airborne, constantly
chemical emissions wet the surrounding
by heavy area to trap dust
machinery particles before
degrading air being spread
quality
● Airborne
contaminants
including dust and
sand particles
affecting the air
quality would
spread in the
neighbourhood
south of the site
Water ● Runoff depositing 4 3 12 ● Build storm drains 3 2 6

contaminated designed to be
construction enclosed also, the
materials in nearby installation of a
tributaries detention pond to
eliminate the
pollution content
entering the
tributaries.
● Test water in
detention ponds
55
regularly to adhere
to the Water
Pollution Rules,
2019 Trinidad and
Tobago before
being discharged

regulations set for
noise level by the
EMA, Noise
Pollution Control
Rules, 2001
(NPCR)
● Planting trees
around site to act as
sound barriers and
dampers

and fauna to of site to ensure
facilitate site that no endangered
flora or fauna will
be affected
● Creation of green
areas and
incorporation and
consideration of
green designs to
cater for the
56
regeneration,
creation, and
protection of
ecosystems on site
Landscape ● Degradation of soil 4 5 20 ● Appropriate 3 4 12

due to disturbances phasing of works to
caused by constant ensure land has a
construction “break” between
● Removal of native construction to
soil during the recover
construction phase ● Storage and reuse
● Changes in slope of soil material
stability when deemed appropriate
cutting and filling for certain
for certain construction works
construction works ● Implementation of
(e.g., constructing slope stability
buildings and measures (i.e.,
pavement planting of crops
infrastructures) e.g., vetiver grass
and use of gabion
baskets)
57
Post Construction Phase

Air Quality ● Due to road 3 3 9 ● Vegetation barrier 3 2 6

development of the may remove some
development, a of the smallest
small percent of particulate
emission from pollutants from
vehicles will be near-road
emitted into the environment
atmosphere
● Electricity wastage 3 2 6 ● Educate residents 3 1 3
goes back to large about energy
amounts of air conservation
pollutants released practices
by its production of
fossil fuels
Water ● Water resources 3 3 9 ● Frequent discharge 2 3 6

will be affected by testing and
the project compliance with
activities during the Water Pollution
construction phase Rules, 2019
● Water quality Trinidad and
would be typically Tobago
polluted by
anthropogenic
contaminants and
does not support
human use

58
regulations set for
noise level by the
EMA, Noise
Pollution Control
Rules, 2001
(NPCR)
● Planting trees
around the site to
act as sound barrier
and dampers

and fauna of site to ensure
that no endangered
flora or fauna will
be affected
● Creation of green
areas to cater for
the regeneration,
creation, and
protection of
ecosystems on site
Landscape ● Changes in slope 3 5 15 ● Planting of crops 2 5 10

due to soil erosion and flora such as
both natural and vetiver grass to help
manmade remove excess
● Debris left during water that
construction can contributes to soil
potentially have erosion. Movement
negative impacts on ● Careful removal of
59
the environment debris. Solid waste
(i.e., waste left by to ensure the area is
animals and safe for use
rodents, areas, and ● Adequate provision
materials prone to of garbage bins
mosquito around the
promoting) development to
help reduce
likelihood of
littering
● Development of an
appropriate
schedule regarding
garbage collection
and disposal (both
commercially and
residentially)
Table 8. Environmental Impact Assessment: Pre-Construction, During Construction, Post Construction
60
3.3 Engineering Alternatives:
3.3.1 Structural Designs
The designs include a mixture of housing to provide 354 units for all demographics. Many people
from all various financial levels and backgrounds may live in this welcoming atmosphere because
of the range of housing accommodations offered to interested members. The affordable housing
development will provide recreation and entertainment facilities (community centre), green areas,
stormwater and wastewater management, road and traffic considerations, a policlinic which was
designed fully equipped for the safety and well-being of occupancy in the community, especially
in the event of a pandemic.
On both the alternative sites can be found a two-story community centre which contains the
administration department for the community, fully equipped gym, mini market, laundry mart,
training centre, conference room, and a multi-purpose hall to host events. The roof was designed
as a concrete slab to cater for water tanks on the roof, and the possibility of future expansion. The
fully equipped policlinic was designed to handle events such as a pandemic where the roof was
also designed as a concrete slab to cater for water tanks on the roof, and the possibility of future
expansion to accommodate quarantine areas. In this design you'll find two consultation rooms,
four (4) examination rooms, a nurse station, procedure and lab and a pharmacy. Four (4) five-story
double bedroom apartment complexes containing 30 units, four (4) three-story apartment single
bedroom complexes containing 30 units, eighteen (18) triplex double room structure with two
bedrooms, one being a master bedroom, kitchen, and dining/living area to cater for middle class
people. These structures can be identified on both alternatives with the difference in material for
the construction. Alternative one (layout one), thirty (30) three-bedroom reinforced concrete
duplex structure containing 60 units can be seen which may differ from alternative two (layout
two) where sixty (60) single unit steel frame townhouses can be seen which will be catered for the
upper-class people. The variety of living accommodations, all designed in reference to Trinidad
Building code, would be available to interested future occupants to allow for many different
income brackets and backgrounds.
61
Multi-Criteria Analysis
A multicriteria analysis will be performed to determine the buildings to be constructed in the

housing development and to assess the feasibility of the structural alternatives. Alternative 1;
Reinforced Concrete moment resisting frame will be compared to Alternative 2; Steel moment
resisting frame. Both alternatives will be assessed on measures of effectiveness: Capital Cost,
Design life, Time of Construction, Material Availability, Sustainability and Aesthetics.
Rank Description of
Rating
5 Ideal
4 Very Good
3 Moderate
2 Poor
1 Very Poor
Table.9 Showing multi-criteria ranking and description
Number Measure of Effectiveness

Alternatives
I II
Reinforced Concrete Steel Frame
1 Capital Cost $467,526,628.60 $767,386,632.60

TTD TTD
2 Material Availability 5 2
3 Time of Construction 2 3
4 Design Life 3 4
5 Sustainability 2 3
6 Aesthetic 4 3
Table.10 Showing ranking of alternatives
62
Objective Ranking Relative Weight Weight Factors
(x100)
1 1 6: (n) (6/22) x100=27.27
2 2 5: (n - 1) (5/22) x100=22.72
3 4 3: (n -3) (3/22) x100=13.63
4 3 4: (n -2) (4/22) x100=18.18
5 3 2: (n - 2) (2/22) x100=9.1
6 5 2: (n - 4) (2/22) x100=9.1
Total 22 100
Table.11 Showing weighting factors
Objective
Alternatives
I II
1 27.27 (2/4) x 27.27=13.64
2 22.72 (2/5) x 22.72=9.1
3 (2/3) x 13.63=9.1 13.63
4 (3/4) x 18.18=13.64 18.18
5 (2/3) x 9.1=6.06 9.1
6 9.1 (3/4) x 9.1=6.83
Total 87.89 70.48

Table.12 Showing scores of alternatives
The results obtained from conducting the Multiple Criteria Analysis proved that reinforced
concrete is the better option as it achieved the highest value, that of 87.89 points.
63
Community Centre
Alternative 1: Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Resisting Frame.
Figure 25: Sketch of the Community Centre Floor Plan for Reinforced Concrete Moment
Resisting Frame
64
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Calculation - Preliminary Structural Design of a Reinforced
Concrete Framed for the Community Centre
Community Centre
Reinforced PLAN
Concrete
Designer’s Dead Load = 3.6 kN/m2
Handbook, Live Load = 1.4 kN/m2
Reynolds & Density of Normal weight concrete = 24 kN/m3
Steedman
Calculating Building Weight
Floor Slabs Weight

Floor slab area = 446.4 m2
Thickness, h=6in = 0.152 m
Density of concrete = 24 kN/m3
Floor slab weight = 24 x 446.4 x 0.152 = 1628.5 kN
No. of floor slabs = 2
Therefore, total floor slab weight = 1628.5 x 2 = 3257
kN
Beams Weight
No. of beams = 17
Maximum span = 8.95 m
Therefore, use beam sizes of 0.35m = 350
For d = (8950/26) + 300 = 644= 650mm = 0.650m
Total beam length = (24.49 x 3) + (18.30 x 4) = 134.4 m
No. of floors = 2
65
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Therefore, total beam weight = 24 x 134.4 x 0.650 x 0.35 x 2 = Total
1467.6kN Building
Weight, W
= 5007 kN
Columns Weight
Maximum beam span = 8.95 m
Therefore, h = 0.35m
No. of columns = 12
Column height = 4m
No. of floors = 2
Therefore, total column weight = 24 x 0.35 x 0.35 x 4 x 12 x 2 =
282.24 kN
Building Total Weight, W

W = 3257 + 1467.6 + 282.2 = 5007 kN
Plan
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of
Structural
66
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Members
Notes
Part A
Internal Frame
Calculating Vertical Distribution of Seismic Load
Assuming equal spans in the longer direction

Seismic
Load, V =
Seismic Load, V = 0.1W = 0.1 x 5007 = 500.7 kN 500.7kN
Also, V = F1
F2/F1 = 10/6 → F2 = 1.67F1
F1 + F2 = 500.7
F1 + 1.67F1 = 500.7
2.67F1 = 500.7
F1 = 187.5 kN
F2 = 313.2 kN
Tributary
Calculate Moments Due to Seismic Load in Shorter Direction width =
8.95 m
Average Tributary width = (8.95+8.95)/2=8.95 Dead
m Load=32.2
Dead Load = 3.6 x 8.95 = 32.22 kN/m 2 kN/m
Live Load = 1.4 x 8.95 = 12.53 kN/m Live
Load=
12.53
kN/m
67
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
𝑀𝑎𝑐=Σ𝐹𝑖=2, 𝑛×ℎ1 / 2(𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑙−1)

𝑀𝑎𝑑=Σ𝐹𝑖=1, 𝑛×ℎ2 / 2(𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑙−1)
Mab = Mae = ½ (Mac + Mad)
External moment = ½ internal
moment
F2 = 313.2/ (3-1) = 156.6

F1 = (187.5 + 313.3) / (3-1) =250.4 kN
Moment of 1st floor internal column

Mac = [(156.6) x 4] / 2(3-1) = 156.6 kNm
Moment of 1st floor external column

Ext = 1/2 x 156.6 =78.3 kNm
Moment of ground floor internal column

Mad = [(250.4) x 6] / 2(3-1) = 375.6 kNm
Moment of ground floor external column

Ext = ½ x 375.6= 187.8 kNm
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary End moments of 1st floor internal beams
Design of Mab = Mae = ½ (156.6 + 375.6) = 266.1 kNm
Structural
Members Moment of any internal beam=266.1 (3-1) = 133.05kNm
Notes Part B Moment of any external beam=133.05/2 = 66.5kNm
68
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Summary
Calculate Axial Loads Due to Seismic

Loads
Overturning Moment, Mo = [(187.7 x 6) + (313.2 x 4)] / [ 3-1] =

Dr. R. Clarke 1189.5 kNm
Preliminary MO =
Design of 𝑃𝐴=𝑃𝐶 𝑃𝐶L =0 1189.5
Structural kNm
Members TMA centreline: Pa =
Notes Part C 17.9𝑃𝐴=M𝑂 66.5kN
Pb =
17.9𝑃𝐴=1189.5 66.5kN
𝑃𝐴= (1189.5/17.9) =
66.5𝑘𝑁
Therefore Pc = 66.5 kN
69
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Calculate Gravity Moments in Beams

Consider a UDL of 1kN/m and using equal spans with F total load:
Mg, support = -FL2/10 = -8.952/10 = -8.01 kNm

Mg, span = -0.08FL2 = 0.08 x 8.952 = 6.4 kNm M D,
support= -
Therefore, 258.1kNm
MD, SUPPORT = -32.22 x 8.01 = -258.1 kNm MD, span =
MD, SPAN = 32.22 x 6.4 = 206.21 kNm 206.21kNm
ML,
ML, SUPPORT = -12.53 x 8.01 = -100.37 kNm
support = -
ML, SPAN = 12.53 x 6.4 = 80.2 kNm 100.37kNm
ML, span =
Dr. R. Clarke Calculate Gravity Moments in Columns 80.2 kNm
Preliminary By Moment Distribution of subframes
Design of
Structural
Members
Notes Part D Internal Column:
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of
Structural
Members Internal Column
Notes Part E
Recall:
Beam depth, d = 650mm
Beam width, b = 350 mm
Therefore, I = (350 x 6503)/12 = 8.0 x 109 mm4
Column size = 350 x 350 mm

Therefore, I = (350 x 3503)/12 = 1.25 x 109 mm4
Kb = I/L = 8.0 x109/8950 = 0.9 x 106 mm4

KL = I/L = 1.25 x109 /6000 = 0.2 x 106 mm4
70
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
KU = I/L = 1.25 x109 /4000 = 0.3 x 106 mm4
Total out-of-balance FEM = 32.22 x 8.952/12 – (32.22 +

12.53)8.952/12
= -83.6 kNm
Mupper = 83.6 x (0.3/ (0.9+0.2+0.3)) = 17.9 kNm
Mlower = 83.6 x (0.2/ (0.9+0.2+0.3)) = 11.9 kNm
Mupper =
17.9 kNm
Mlower =
11.9 kNm
External Column
Total out-of-balance FEM = 32.22 x 8.952/12= 215.1 kNm

Mupper = 215 x (0.3/ (0.9+0.2+0.3)) = 46.1 kNm
Mlower = 215.1 x (0.2/ (0.9+0.2+0.3)) = 30.7 kNm
Calculate Gravity Axial Forces in Columns Mupper =

46.1 kNm
Dead load = 3 x 3.6 x 8.952 +10 x 0.352 +(10 x 0.352 x 24) = Mlower =
895.7kN 30.7 kNm
Live load = 3 x 1.4 x 8.952 = 336.4 kN
External column dead load = 867.11/2 + (10 x 0.352 x 24) = 463kN
Beam Moment (long) Rebar

d = 650mm
b = 350mm
Calculate Beam Moment (Longitudinal) Rebar
Ultimate (Applied) Moment, MU:

Consider load case U = 1.4D +0.5L + 1.4E
Near mid-span, consider U = 1.4D + 1.6L
71
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Internal support at top, MU = 1.4(258.1) + 0.5(100.37) + 1.4(133.05) =

597.8kNm
Ext support at top, MU = 1.4(258.1) + 0.5(100.37) + 1.4(66.5) = 504.6 kNm
Span at bottom, MU = 1.4(206.21) + 1.6(80.2) = 417 kNm
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of Internal Support Rebar:
Structural
Members MU = 0.9Asfy(d-a/2)
Notes Part F a = Asfy/(0.85fc’b)
fy = 410 MPa
fc’= 30 Mpa
Mu = 0.9Asfy x (d – a/2) where a = Asfy/ (0.85f’cb)

Mu = 0.9As x 410 x (650 – As x (410)/ 0.85 x 30 x 350 x 2)
Mu = 23.9 x 104As – 8.49As2
597.8 x 106 = 23.9 x 104As – 8.49As2
Therefore, As = 2774.8mm2
Use 4 T32 bars = 3216.8mm2
ϕMn = 0.9 x 3216.8 x 410 x (650 – (3216.8 x 410)/ (0.85 x 30 x 350

x 2)) 10-6 = 683.8> 597.8 kNm
Therefore OK
External Support Rebar: Use 4 T32

Mu = 23.9 x 104As – 8.49As2 bars for
504.6 x106 = 23.9 x 104As – 8.49As2 Internal
Required As = 2299.1 mm2 Rebar
Try 3 T32 bar, As = 2412.6 mm2
ϕMn = 0.9 x 2412.6 x 410 x (650 – (2412.6 x 410)/ (0.85 x 30 x 350
x 2))10-6 = 529.3 > 504.6 kNm
Therefore OK
Span Rebar
Mu = 23.9 x 104As – 8.49As2
417 x 106 = 23.9 x 104As – 8.49As2 Use 3 T32
Therefore, As = 1868.8 mm2 bars for
Use 3 T29 bars = 1981.5mm2 External
ϕMn = 0.9 x 1981.5 x 410 x (650 – (1981.5 x 410)/ (0.85 x 30 x 350 Rebar
x 2))10-6 = 442> 417 kNm
72
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Therefore OK
Summary:
Calculate Beam Transverse Rebar
W= 1.2(D+L) = 1.2(32.22 + 12.53) = 53.7

kN/m
Mpr1 = 2412.6 x 1.25 x 410 x (650– (2412.6 x 410)/ 0.85 x 30 x 350

x 2)10-6 = 735.2kNm
Mpr2 = 3216.8.4x 1.25 x 410 x (650 – (3216.8 x 410)/ 0.85 x 30 x

350 x 2)10-6 = 949.8kNm
Shear Force in Hinge, S
(0.75 x 53.7 x 8.95)/ 2 + (735.2+949.8)/ 8.95 = 368.5 kN

Consider hoops with fyv = 410Mpa
Av/s = S/fyvd where S ≈ Vs
368.5 x 103/ 410 x 650 = 1.4 mm
73
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
For s = 100mm, Av (2 legs) = 100 x 1.4 = 140 mm2

Use 2 T10 = 157.08mm2 > 140mm2
Therefore OK
Summary
Use T10 at
100mm c/c
Calculate Column Moment Rebar spacing in
the
Consider Load Case, U = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.4E confinemen
Section = 350mm x 350mm t zone of
Ultimate (applied) Moments: 1800mm
from the
Internal Column, MU = 0+ 0.5(11.9) + 1.4(375.6) = 531.8 kNm top and
bottom of
External Column, MU = 1.4(30.7 x 32.22/32.22+ 12.53) + 0.5(30.7 x 12.53/32.22
+12.53) + 1.4(187.8) = 298.2 kNm the column.
Otherwise,
Ultimate Axial Loads:
use T10 at
Internal Column, PU = 1.4(895.7) + 0.5(336.4) + 1.4(66.5)
200 c/c
= 1515.3 kN
spacing
External Column, PU = 1.4(463) + 0.5(336.4/2) + 1.4(66.5)
= 825.4 kN
Therefore, Design (PU, MU):
Internal Column = 1515.3, 1.4 x 531.8 = (1515.3, 744.52)

External Column = 825.4, 1.4 x 298.2= (825.4, 417.5)
Internal
Kn = Pu/(ϕfc’Ag) = 1515.3 x103/ (0.8 x30 x 3502) = 0.5
Rn = MU / (ϕfc’Agh = 455.6 x106/ (0.8 x 30 x 3503) = 0.4
Therefore, from strength iteration chart, 𝝆𝒈 = 1% ≥ 1%
Assuming 3ksi concrete, 40mm cover, 10mm stirrup, 10mm bar
74
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
⸫ γ = 0.8
(ACI Interaction Chart R3 60.8)
1< ρg = 5.9 < 6 OK
As req = (5.9 x 3502)/100 = 7227.5mm2
Use 16 T25 bars = 7854.4mm2 > 7227.5 mm2

OK
External
Kn = Pu/(ϕfc’Ag) = 825.4 x103/ (0.8 x30 x 3502) = 0.3
Rn = MU / (ϕfc’Agh = 417.5 x106/ (0.8 x 30 x 3503) = 0.4
1< ρg = 5.5 < 6 OK
As req = (5.5 x 3502)/100 = 6737.5mm2
Use 16 T25 bars = 7854.4mm2 > 6737.5mm2

OK
Column Hoops:
Use T12 at 100mm c/c spacing in the confinement zone of 1000mm

from the top and bottom of the column. Use T12 at 200 c/c spacing
outside of the confinement zone. For the internal and external
column, use 2 legs in each direction with 2 cross ties and one closed
hoop.
75
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Summary
Check Foundation Design:
Design Pu for external column = 1515.3 kN

Tributary area = 8.95m
Allowable bearing Capacity for sand-clay mixtures = 2 tons/ft2 = 214.5
kN/m2
Number of columns = 12
Required area of footing per column = 1515.3/214.5 = 7.06 m2
Total required = 7.06 x 12 = 84.72 m2
Applying a Factor of Safety, size of footing = 7.06 m2 x 1.2 = 8.5m2
Try 3 m2 square footing = 9.0 m2 > 8.5m2
Therefore
Size of Foundation = 9.0 x 12 = 108 m2
76
Cost Estimation
CONCRETE
Slabs = 2 x 24.0 x 17.9 x 0.152 = 130.60m3
Beams = 0.35 x 0.65 x (24.0 x 3 + 17.9 x 4) x 2 = 65.34 m3
Columns = 12 x 0.352 x 10 = 14.7 m3
Footings (assume pad footing 3 x 3 x 0.5) = 12 x 32 x 0.5 = 54 m3
Total= 264.64 m3
REBAR
Slabs @1tonne per 12m3 concrete = 130.60/12= 10.88 tonne
Beams 4t32mm = 4 x (24.0 x 1 + 17.9 x 2) x 2 x 6.14/1000 = 2.94 tonne
Beams 3t29mm (span) = 3 x (24.0 x 3 + 17.9 x 4) x 2 x 5.04/1000 = 4.34 tonne
Beams 10mm = 12 x (3600/100 + 5000/200) x 1.68 x 2 x 0.6/1000 = 1.5 tonne
Columns 16t25 = 16 x 12 x 10 x 3.75/1000 = 7.2 tonnes
Column 12mm hoop = [12 x 4 x (2000/100 + 3000/200) x 1.08) + (12 x 6 x
(2000/100+4000/200) x 1.08] x 0.86/1000 = 6.02 tonne
Footings = 54/12 = 4.5 tonne
Total = 40.17 tonne
MASONRY
Consider 400 x 200 x 150 ASTM C90 unreinforced hollow concrete unit
Nr of blocks = 24.0 x 17.90 x 10/0.4 x 0.2 = 53700 m
Mortar = 53700 x (0.1 + 0.1 + 0.4) x 0.15 x 0.012 = 58 m3
Nr bags of cement = 0.25 x 58 x 1440/42.5 = 491.29
Sand = 0.75 x 58 = 43.5 m3
77
GRADE SLAB
Consider 125mm thick and 610 BRC (30.5m x1.8m roll)
Concrete = 24.0 x 17.9 x 0.125 = 53.7 m2
BRC =24.0 x 17.9 /30.5 x 1.8 = 8 rolls
ITEM AMOUNT UNIT RATE (TT$) TOTAL (TT$)

Conc. for superstructure 264.64 m3 1,380.00 365,203.20
Rebar 40.17 Tonne 7,498.00 301,194.66
Formwork @ 25% 166,599.47
material
Labour @ 65% of above 541,448.26
Blocks 53700 Nr. 5.75 308,775.00
Bags of cement for blocks 491.29 Nr. 69.95 34365.74
Sand for blocks 43.5 m3 200.00 8700.00
Labour for blocks @ 65% 223,041.48
Grade slab conc. 53.7 m3 1,380.00 74,106.00
Grade slab BRC 8 Nr. 449.00 3,592
Labour for grade slab @ 38,849.00
50%
TOTAL STRUCTURAL 2,065,874.80
TOTAL SERVICES 2,065,874.80
TOTAL 4,131,749.60
ARCHITECTURAL
TOTAL STR, SERV, 8,263,499.20
ARCH
Preliminaries @ %5 413174.96
Contingency @ 15% 1,301,501.12
CONSTRUCTION COST 9,978,175.28
Overhead & Profit @ 30% 2,993,452.58
GRAND TOTAL TT$
12,971,627.87
78
Policlinic
Figure 26: Sketch of the Polyclinic Floor Plan for Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting
Frame
79
Calculation - Preliminary Structural Design of a Reinforced Concrete Framed for the Policlinic
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Policlinic
PLAN
2
Dead Load = 3.6 kN/m
Live Load = 1.4 kN/m2
Density of Normal weight concrete = 24 kN/m3
Reinforced
Concrete
Designer’s
Handbook,
Floor Slabs Weight
Reynolds & Floor slab area = 373.4 m2
Steedman Thickness, h=6in = 0.152 m
Therefore, total floor slab weight = 1362.2 x 1 = 1362.2
kN
Beams Weight
No. of beams = 17
For d = (8000/26) + 300 = 607= 625mm = 0.625m
No. of floors = 1
Therefore, total beam weight = 24 x 134.4 x 0.625 x 0.35 x 1 =
705.6kN
Columns Weight
80
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
No. of columns = 12
Column height = 3m
No. of floors = 1
105.84 kN
Building Total Weight, W Total

W = 1362.2 + 705.6 + 105.84 = 2173.6 kN Building
Weight, W
= 2173.6 kN
Plan
Internal Frame
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of
Structural
81
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Members
Notes Assuming equal spans in the longer direction
Part A
Seismic Load, V = 0.1W = 0.1 x 2173.6 = 217.4 kN
Also, V = F1
F1 = 217.4 N
Seismic
Load, V =
Calculate Moments Due to Seismic Load in Shorter 217.4kN
Direction
Average Tributary width = (7.45+7.45)/2=7.45m

Dead Load = 3.6 x 7.45 = 26.8 kN/m Tributary
Live Load = 1.4 x 7.45 = 10.4 kN/m width = 7.45
m
Dead
Load=26.8
kN/m
Live
Load=
10.4kN/m

moment
F2 = 0
F1 = (217.4) / (3-1)
=108.7 kN
82
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES

Mac = 0 kNm

Ext = 1/2 x 0 =0 kNm

Mad = [(108.7) x 6] / 2(3-1) = 163.05 kNm

Ext = ½ x 163.05= 81.5 kNm
End moments of 1st floor internal beams

Mab = Mae = ½ (0 + 163.05) = 81.5 kNm
Moment of any internal beam=81.5/ (3-1) =

40.75kNm
Moment of any external beam=40.75/2 = 20.34kNm
Summary
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of
Structural
Members
Notes Part B
83
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES

Loads
Overturning Moment, Mo = [(217.4 x 6)] / [ 3-1] = 652.2 kNm
𝑃𝐴=𝑃𝐶 𝑃𝐶L =0
MO =
TMA centreline: 652.2 kNm
Pa =
14.9𝑃𝐴=M𝑂
43.8kN
14.9𝑃𝐴=652.2 Pb =
𝑃𝐴= (652.2/14.9) = 43.8kN
43.8𝑘𝑁
Dr. R. Clarke Therefore Pc = 43.8 kN
Preliminary
Design of Calculate Gravity Moments in Beams
Structural Consider a UDL of 1kN/m and using equal spans with F total
Members load:
Notes Part C
Mg, support = -FL2/10 = -7.452/10 = -5.6 kNm
Mg, span = -0.08FL2 = 0.08 x 7.452 = 4.4 kNm
Therefore,
MD, SUPPORT = -26.8 x 5.6 = -150.1 kNm
MD, SPAN = 26.8 x 4.4 = 117.9 kNm
ML, SUPPORT = -10.4 x 5.6 = -58.2kNm M D,
ML, SPAN = 10.4 x 4.4 = 45.8 kNm support= -
150.1kNm
Calculate Gravity Moments in Columns MD, span =
By Moment Distribution of subframes 117.9kNm
ML, support
= -58.2kNm
84
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
ML, span =
45.8kNm
Internal Column:
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of
Structural
Members
Notes Part D
Internal Column
Recall:
Dr. R. Clarke Beam depth, d = 625mm
Preliminary Beam width, b = 350 mm
Design of Therefore, I = (350 x 6253)/12 = 7.1 x 109 mm4
Structural
Members Column size = 350 x 350 mm
Notes Part E Therefore, I = (350 x 3503)/12 = 1.25 x 109 mm4
Kb = I/L = 7.1 x109/7450 = 1.0 x 106 mm4

KL = I/L = 1.25 x109 /6000 = 0.2 x 106 mm4
KU = I/L = 0
Total out-of-balance FEM = 26.8 x 7.452/12 – (26.8 +

10.4)7.452/12
= -1165.2 kNm
Mupper = 1165.2 x (0/ (1.0+0.2+0)) = 0 kNm
Mupper = 0
Mlower = 1165.2x (0.2/ (1.0+0.2+0)) = 194.2 kNm
kNm
Mlower =
194.2kNm
85
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
External Column
Total out-of-balance FEM = 26.8 x 7.452/12= 124 kNm

Mupper = 124 x (0/ (1.0+0.2+0)) = 0 kNm
Mlower = 124 x (0.2/ (1.0+0.2+0)) = 20.7 kNm
Mupper =
Calculate Gravity Axial Forces in Columns 0 kNm
Mlower =
Dead load = 3 x 3.6 x 7.452 +6 x 0.352 +(6 x 0.352 x 24) = 20.7 kNm
617.8kN
Live load = 3 x 1.4 x 7.452 = 233.1kN
External column dead load = 599.4/2 + (6x 0.352 x 24) =
317.34kN

d = 625mm
b = 350mm

Internal support at top, MU = 1.4(150.1) + 0.5(58.2) + 1.4(40.75) = 296.3

kNm
Dr. R. Clarke Span at bottom, MU = 1.4(117.9) + 1.6(45.8) = 238.3 kNm
Preliminary
Design of
86
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Structural Internal Support Rebar:
Members
MU = 0.9Asfy(d-a/2)
Notes Part F
a = Asfy/(0.85fc’b)
fy = 410 MPa
fc’= 30 Mpa

Mu = 0.9As x 410 x (625 – As x (410)/ 0.85 x 30 x 350 x 2)
Dr. R. Clarke Mu = 24.8 x 104As – 8.49As2
Preliminary
296.3 x 106 = 24.8 x 104As – 8.49As2
Design of
Structural Therefore, As = 1248.1mm2
Members Use 3 T25 bars = 1472.7mm2
Notes Part G
ϕMn = 0.9 x 1472.7 x 410 x (625 – (1472.7 x 410)/ (0.85 x 30 x 350
x 2)) 10-6 = 321.3> 296.3 kNm
Therefore OK
External Support Rebar: Use 3 T25

Mu = 24.8 x 104As – 8.49As2 bars for
267.7 x106 = 24.8 x 104As – 8.49As2 Internal
Required As = 1122.6 mm2 Rebar
Try 3 T25 bar, As = 1472.7 mm2
ϕMn = 0.9 x 1472.7 x 410 x (625 – (1472.7 x 410)/ (0.85 x 30 x 350
x 2))10-6 = 321.3 > 267.7 kNm
Therefore OK
Span Rebar Use 3 T25

Mu = 24.8 x 104As – 8.49As2 bars for
238.3 x 106 = 24.8 x 104As – 8.49As2 External
Therefore, As = 994.8 mm2 Rebar
Use 3 T22 bars = 1140.3mm2
ϕMn = 0.9 x 1140.3 x 410 x (625 – (1140.3 x 410)/ (0.85 x 30 x 350
x 2))10-6 = 251.9> 238.3 kNm
Therefore OK
Use 3 T22
bars for
Span
Rebar
87
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Summary:
W= 1.2(D+L) = 1.2(26.8 + 10.4) = 44.64 kN/m

Mpr1 = 1472.7 x 1.25 x 410 x (625– (1472.7x 410)/ 0.85 x 30 x 350
x 2)10-6 = 446.2kNm
Mpr2 = 1472.7.4x 1.25 x 410 x (625 – (1472.7 x 410)/ 0.85 x 30 x

350 x 2)10-6 = 446.2kNm
(0.75 x 44.64 x 7.45)/ 2 + (446.2+446.2)/ 7.45 = 140.6kN

140.6 x 103/ 410 x 625 = 1.5 mm
Use 2 T10 = 157.08mm2 > 150mm2
Therefore OK
88
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Summary
Calculate Column Moment Rebar

Use T10 at
100mm c/c
Considerr Load Case, U = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.4E spacing in
Section = 350mm x 350mm the
Ultimate (applied) Moments: confinemen
t zone of
Internal Column, MU = 0+ 0.5(194.2) + 1.4(163.05) = 325.4 kNm
1500mm
from the
+10.4) + 1.4(10.2) = 38.6 kNm top and
Ultimate Axial Loads: bottom of
Internal Column, PU = 1.4(617.8) + 0.5(233.1) + 1.4(43.8)the column.
= 1042.8 kN Otherwise,
External Column, PU = 1.4(317.34) + 0.5(233.1/2) + 1.4(43.8)
use T10 at
= 563.9 kN 200 c/c
spacing
Internal Column = 1042.8, 1.4 x 325.4 = (1042.8, 455.6)

Internal
Kn = Pu/(ϕfc’Ag) = 1042.8 x103/ (0.8 x30 x 3502) = 0.35
Rn = MU / (ϕfc’Agh = 455.6 x106/ (0.8 x 30 x 3503) = 0.4
Assuming 3ksi concrete, 40mm cover, 10mm stirrup, 10mm bar, γh

= 350 – (80+20+50) = 290
⸫ γ = 0.8
1< ρg = 5.5 < 6 OK
89
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
As req = (5.5 x 3502)/100 = 6737.5mm2

Use 16 T25 bars = 7854.4mm2 > 6737.5 mm2
OK
External
Kn = Pu/(ϕfc’Ag) = 563.9 x103/ (0.8 x30 x 3502) = 0.2
Rn = MU / (ϕfc’Agh = 54.04 x106/ (0.8 x 30 x 3503) = 0.1
1< ρg = 1.2 < 6 OK
As req = (1.2 x 3502)/100 = 1470mm2
Use 8T16 bars = 1608.8mm2 > 1470mm2

OK
Column Hoops:

hoop.
90
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Summary

kN/m2
Try 2.4 m2 square footing = 5.76 m2 = 5.76m2
Therefore
Size of Foundation =5.76 x 12 = 69.12m2
91
Cost Estimation
CONCRETE
Slabs = 1 x 24.0 x 14.9 x 0.152 = 54.36 m3
Beams = 0.35 x 0.625 x (24.0 x 3 + 14.90 x 4) x 1 = 28.79 m3
Columns = 12 x 0.42 x 6 = 11.52 m3
Footings (assume pad footing 2.4 x 2.4 x 0.4) = 12 x 2.42 x 0.4 = 27.65 m3
Total= 122.32 m3
REBAR
Column 10mm hoop = [8 x 6 x (2000/100 + 4000/200) x 1.08)] x 0.6/1000 = 1.24 tonne
Footings = 27.65/12 = 2.3 tonne
Total = 12.77 tonne
MASONRY
Nr of blocks = 24.0 x 14.9 x 6/0.4 x 0.2 = 26820 m
Mortar = 26820 x (0.1 + 0.1 + 0.4) x 0.15 x 0.012 = 28.97 m3
Nr bags of cement = 0.25 x 28.97 x 1440/42.5 = 245.39
Sand = 0.75 x 28.97 = 21.72 m3
92
GRADE SLAB
Concrete = 24.0 x 14.9 x 0.125 = 44.7 m2
BRC =24.0 x 14.9 /30.5 x 1.8 = 7 rolls

Rebar 12.77 Tonne 7,498.00 95,749.46
Formwork @ 25% 66,137.77
material
Blocks 26820 Nr. 5.75 154,215.00
Sand for blocks 21.72 m3 200.00 4344.00
Grade slab conc. 44.7 m3 1,380.00 61,686.00
50%
TOTAL STRUCTURAL 930,116.53
TOTAL 1,860,233.06
ARCHITECTURAL
ARCH
Contingency @ 15% 732,466.77
Overhead & Profit @ 30% 1,684,673.56
GRAND TOTAL TT$
7,300,252.11
93
Double Bedroom Apartment Complex
Plan for Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame
94
Calculation - Preliminary Structural Design of a Reinforced Concrete Framed for the Double
Bedroom Apartment Complex Ground, 1st, 2nd ,3rd & 4th Floor Plan
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
PLAN
2
Dead Load = 3.6 kN/m
Reinforced Density of Normal weight concrete = 24 kN/m3
Concrete
Designer’s Calculating Building Weight
Handbook,
Reynolds & Floor Slabs Weight
Steedman Thickness, h=6in = 0.152 m
kN
Beams Weight
No. of beams = 67
For d = (5590/26) + 300 = 515 = 550mm = 0.55m
No. of floors = 5
7597.6kN
Columns Weight
Therefore, h = 0.5m
No. of columns = 42
Column height = 3m
No. of floors = 5
3780 kN
95
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
W = 11504 + 7597.6 + 3780 = 22881.6 kN Building
Weight, W
= 22881.6
kN
Plan
Internal Frame

Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary Seismic Load, V = 0.1W = 0.1 x 22881.6 = 2288.2 kN Seismic
Design of Also, V = F1 + F2 + F3 + F4 + F5 Load, V =
Structural 2288.2kN
Members F2/F1 = 7/4 → F2 = 1.75F1
Notes
Part A F3/F2 = 10/7 → F3 = 1.4F2
F4/F3 = 13/10 → F4 = 1.3F3
F5/F4 = 16/13 → F5 = 1.2F4
F1 + F2 + F3 + F4 + F5= 2288.2
96
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
F1 + 1.75F1 + (1.4 x 1.75) F1+(1.3 x 1.4 x 1.75) F1+(1.2 x 1.3 x 1.4 x 1.75) F1
= 2288.2
12.2F1 = 2288.2
F1 = 187.5 kN
F2 = 328.2 kN
F3 = 459.5 kN
F4 = 597.4 kN
F5 = 716.8 kN
Calculate Moments Due to Seismic Load in Shorter

Direction
Average Tributary width = (4.06+5.59)/2=4.8

m Tributary
Dead Load = 3.6 x 4.8 = 17.3 kN/m width = 4.8
Live Load = 1.4 x 4.8 = 6.72 kN/m m
Dead
Load=17.3
kN/m
Live
Load=
6.72kN/m
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of 𝑀𝑎𝑐=Σ𝐹𝑖=2, 𝑛×ℎ1 / 2(𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑙−1)
Structural 𝑀𝑎𝑑=Σ𝐹𝑖=1, 𝑛×ℎ2 / 2(𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑙−1)
Members Mab = Mae = ½ (Mac + Mad)
Notes Part B External moment = ½ internal
moment
F2 = (328.2+459.5+597.4+716.8) / (3-1)
= 1050.95kN
F1 = (187.9+328.2+459.5+597.4+716.8) / (3-1)
=1144.9 kN

Mac = [(1050.95) x 3] / 2(3-1) = 788.21 kNm
97
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES

Ext = 1/2 x 788.21 =394.11 kNm

Mad = [(1144.9) x 4] / 2(3-1) = 1144.9 kNm

Ext = ½ x 1144.9= 572.45 kNm

Mab = Mae = ½ (788.21 + 1144.9) = 966.6 kNm
End moment of 1st floor external beam

Ext = 966.6/ 2 = 483.3 kNm
Moment of any internal beam=483.3 (3-1) =

241.7kNm
Summary
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of
Structural
98
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Members Calculate Axial Loads Due to Seismic
Notes Part C Loads
Overturning Moment, Mo = [(187.5 x 4) + (328.2 x 7) + (459.5 x

10) + (597.5 x13) + (716.8 x 16)] / [ 3-1] = 8958.6 kNm
𝑃𝐵/ 0.77=(𝑃𝐴−𝑃𝐵)/ 4.06 MO =

4.06𝑃𝐵=0.77𝑃𝐴−0.77𝑃𝐵
8958.6
kNm
4.83𝑃𝐵=0.77𝑃𝐴 Pa =
𝑃𝐵= (0.77/4.83) 𝑃𝐴 821.8kN
Pb =
𝑃𝐴= (4.83/0.77) 𝑃𝐵 131kN
𝑃𝐴=𝑃𝐶 , 𝑃𝐵
TMA centreline: 10.10𝑃𝐴+4.06𝑃𝐵=M𝑂
=
10.10𝑃𝐴+4.06(0.77/4.83) 𝑃𝐴=8958.6
10.7𝑃𝐴=8958.6
𝑃𝐴= (8958/10.9) = 821.8𝑘𝑁 M D,
Therefore PB = 131 kN support= -
39.8kNm
Dr. R. Clarke Calculate Gravity Moments in Beams MD, span =
Preliminary Consider a UDL of 1kN/m and using equal spans with F total 31.14kNm
Design of load: ML, support
Structural = -15.5kNm
Members Mg, support = -FL2/10 = -4.82/10 = -2.3 kNm ML, span =
Notes Part D Mg, span = -0.08FL2 = 0.08 x 4.82 = 1.8 kNm 12.1kNm
Therefore,
MD, SUPPORT = -17.3 x 2.3 = -39.8 kNm
99
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
MD, SPAN = 17.3 x 1.8 = 31.14 kNm
ML, SUPPORT = -6.72 x 2.3 = -15.5kNm
ML, SPAN = 6.72 x 1.8 = 12.1 kNm
Dr. R. Clarke Calculate Gravity Moments in Columns

Preliminary By Moment Distribution of subframes
Design of
Structural
Members
Notes Part E Internal Column:
Internal Column
Recall:
Dr. R. Clarke Beam depth, d = 550mm
Preliminary Beam width, b = 350 mm
Design of Therefore, I = (350 x 5503)/12 = 4.85x 109 mm4
Structural
Members Column size = 500 x 500 mm
Notes Part F Therefore, I = (500 x 5003)/12 = 5.2 x 109 mm4
Kb = I/L = 4.85 x109/4800 = 1.01 x 106 mm4

KL = I/L = 5.2 x109 /4000 = 1.3 x 106 mm4
KU = I/L = 5.2 x109/3000 = 1.7 x 106 mm4
Total out-of-balance FEM = 17.3x 4.82/12 – (17.3 +6.72

)4.82/12
= -12.9 kNm
Mupper = 12.9 x (1.01/ (1.01+1.3+1.7)) = 3.2 kNm
Mlower = 12.9x (1.3/ (1.01+1.3+1.7)) = 4.2 kNm
100
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Mupper =
3.2 kNm
Mlower =
4.2kNm
External Column

Mupper = 33.2 x (1,01/ (1,01+1.3+1.7)) = 8.4 kNm
Mlower = 33.2 x (1.3/ (1.01+1.3+1.7)) = 10.8 kNm
Calculate Gravity Axial Forces in Columns

Mupper =
Dead load = 3 x 3.6 x 4.82 +16 x 0.52 +(16 x 0.52 x 24) = 8.4 kNm
280.8kN Mlower =
Live load = 3 x 1.4 x 4.82 = 96.8kN 10.8 kNm
External column dead load = 248.8/2 + (16x 0.52 x 24) =
220.4kN

d = 550mm
b = 350mm


kNm
Span at bottom, MU = 1.4(31.14) + 1.6(12.1) = 62.9 kNm
101
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Internal Support Rebar:
MU = 0.9Asfy(d-a/2)
fy = 410 MPa
fc’= 30 Mpa

Mu = 0.9As x 410 x (550 – As x (410)/ 0.85 x 30 x 350 x 2)
Mu = 20.3 x 104As – 8.49As2
401.84 x 106 = 20.3 x 104As – 8.49As2
Use 6 T25
Therefore, As = 2177.9mm 2 bars for
Use 6 T25 bars = 2945.4mm2 External
Rebar
ϕMn = 0.9 x 2945.4 x 410 x (550 – (2945.4 x 410)/ (0.85 x 30 x 350
x 2)) = 524.23> 401.84 kNm
Therefore OK
External Support Rebar:
Mu = 20.3 x 104As – 8.49As2
232.6x106 = 20.3 x 104As – 8.49As2
Required As = 1206.7 mm2
Try 3 T25 bar, As = 1472.7 mm2
ϕMn = 0.9 x 1472.7 x 410 x (550 – (1472.7 x 410)/ (0.85 x 30 x 350
x 2))10-6 = 280.5 > 232.6 kNm
Therefore OK
Span Rebar
Mu = 20.3 x 104As – 8.49As2 Use 3 T25
62.9 x 106 = 20.3 x 104As – 8.49As2 bars for
Therefore, As = 313.9 mm2 External
Use 3 T12 bars = 339.3mm2 Rebar
ϕMn = 0.9 x 339.3 x 410 x (550 – (339.3 x 410)/ (0.85 x 30 x 350 x
2))10-6 = 67.9> 62.9 kNm
Therefore OK
102
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Summary:
W= 1.2(D+L) = 1.2(17.3+6.72) = 28.8

kN/m
Mpr1 = 1472.7 x 1.25 x 410 x (550 – (1472.7x 410)/ 0.85 x 30 x 350
x 2)10-6 = 389.6kNm
Mpr2 = 2945.4x 1.25 x 410 x (550 – (2945.4x 410)/ 0.85 x 30 x 350

x 2)10-6 = 728.1kNm
(0.75 x 28.8 x 4.8)/ 2 + (389.6+728.1)/ 4.8 = 284.7kN

284.7 x 103/ 410 x 550 = 1.3 mm
Use 2 T10 = 157.08mm2 > 130mm2
Therefore OK
103
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Summary
Use T10 at
100mm c/c
spacing in
Calculate Column Moment Rebar the
confinemen
Consider Load Case, U = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.4E t zone of
Section = 500mm x 500mm 1150mm
Ultimate (applied) Moments: from the
top and
bottom of
the column.
Otherwise,
+6.72) + 1.4(286.2) = 413.1 kNm use T10 at
Ultimate Axial Loads: 200 c/c
Internal Column, PU = 1.4(280.8) + 0.5(96.8) + 1.4(131) spacing
= 624.9 kN
= 1483.3 kN
Internal Column = 624.9, 1.4x803.5 = (624.9, 1124.9)

Internal
Kn = Pu/(ϕfc’Ag) = 624.9 x103/ (0.8 x30 x 5002) = 0.1
Rn = MU / (ϕfc’Agh = 1124.9 x106/ (0.8 x 30 x 5003) = 0.4

= 500 – (80+20+32) = 368
⸫ γ = 0.8
1< ρg = 5.5 < 6 OK
104
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
As req = (5.5 x 5002)/100 = 13750mm2

Use 16T34 bars = 14526.4mm2 > 13750 mm2
OK
External
Kn = Pu/(ϕfc’Ag) = 1483.3 x103/ (0.8 x30 x 5002) = 0.2
Rn = MU / (ϕfc’Agh = 578.34 x106/ (0.8 x 30 x 5003) = 0.2
1< ρg = 2 < 6 OK
As req = (2 x 5002)/100 = 5000mm2
Use 8T29 bars = 5284mm2 > 5000mm2

OK
Column Hoops:

hoop.
105
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Summary

kN/m2
Total required = 6.9 x 42 = 2m2
Try 2.9 m2 square footing = 8.41 m2 > 8.28m2
Therefore
106
Cost Estimation
CONCRETE
Slabs = 5 x 62.11 x 10.10 x 0.152 = 476.75m3
Beams = 0.35 x 0.55 x (62.11 x 3 + 10.10 x 10) x 5 = 276.56 m3
Columns = 42 x 0.52 x 17 = 178.5 m3
Total= 1143.74 m3
REBAR
Column 12mm hoop = [42 x 3 x 4 x (2000/100 + 1000/200) x 1.68) + (42 x 5 x
(2000/100+2000/200) x 1.68] x 0.86/1000 = 28.82 tonne
Footings = 211.93/12 = 17.66 tonne
Total = 163.25 tonne
MASONRY
Nr of blocks = 62.11 x 10.10 x 17/0.4 x 0.2 = 133,303.59 m
Mortar = 133303.59 x (0.1 + 0.1 + 0.4) x 0.15 x 0.012 = 143.98 m3
Sand = 0.75 x 143.98 = 107.99 m3
107
GRADE SLAB
Concrete = 62.11 x 10.10 x 0.125 = 78.41 m2
BRC =62.11 x 10.10 /30.5 x 1.8 = 11 rolls

Rebar 163.25 Tonne 7,498.00 1,224,048.50
Formwork @ 25% 470,490.88
material
Labour @ 65% of above 1,529,095.34
Blocks 133,303.59 Nr. 5.75 766,495.64
Bags of cement for blocks 1,219.60 Nr. 69.95 85,311.02
Sand for blocks 107.99 m3 200.00 21,598.00
Grade slab conc. 78.41 m3 1,380.00 108,205.80
50%
TOTAL 15,339,368.55
ARCHITECTURAL
ARCH
Contingency @ 15% 3,710,209.77
Overhead & Profit @ 30% 8,533,482.47
GRAND TOTAL TT$
36,978,424.03
Therefore, Total Cost= Grand Total x No. of Structure=$ 36,978,424.03 x 4
=$147,913,696.10
108
Single Bedroom Apartment Complex
for Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frame
109
Calculation - Preliminary Structural Design of a Reinforced Concrete Framed for the Single
Bedroom Apartment Complex Ground, 1st & 2nd Floor Plan
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
PLAN
Dead Load = 3.6 kN/m2

Reinforced Live Load = 1.4 kN/m2
Concrete Density of Normal weight concrete = 24 kN/m3
Designer’s
Handbook, Calculating Building Weight
Reynolds &
Steedman Floor Slabs Weight
Floor slab weight = 24 x 642. x 0.153 = 2360 kN
Therefore, total floor slab weight = 2360 x 3 = 7080
kN
Beams Weight
No. of beams = 47
For d = (1680/26) + 300 = 564 = 600mm = 0.6m
No. of floors = 3
3487.1kN
Columns Weight
Therefore, h = 0.4m
No. of columns = 30
Column height = 3m
No. of floors = 3
110
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
1036.8 kN Total
Building
Weight, W
Building Total Weight, W = 11604 kN
W = 7080 + 3487.1 + 1036.8 = 11604kN
Plan
Internal Frame
Seismic
Dr. R. Clarke Load, V =
Preliminary 1160.4kN
Design of
Structural
Members
Notes
Part A
111
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Seismic Load, V = 0.1W = 0.1 x 11604 = 1160.4 kN

Also, V = F1 + F2 + F3
F2/F1 = 7/4 → F2 = 1.75F1
F3/F2 = 10/7 → F3 = 1.4F2
F1 + F2 + F3 = 1160.4
F1 + 1.75F1 + (1.75 x 1.4) F1 = 1160.4 Tributary
5.2F1 = 1160.4 width = 5.14
m
F1 = 223.2 kN Dead
F2 = 390.5 kN Load=18.5
F3 = 546.7 kN kN/m
Live
Dr. R. Clarke Load=
Preliminary 7.2kN/m
Design of
Direction
Structural
Members
Notes Part B
m
Dead Load = 3.6 x 5.14 = 18.5 kN/m
Live Load = 1.4 x 5.14 = 7.2 kN/m

moment
112
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Mac = [(390.5+546.7) x 3] / 2(3-1) = 702.9 kNm

Ext = 1/2 x 702.9 = 351.5 kNm

Mad = [(223.4 + 390.5 + 546.7) x 4] / 2(3-1) = 1160.6 kNm

Ext = ½ x 2936.2 = 580.3 kNm

Mab = Mae = ½ (702.9+ 1160.6) = 931.8 kNm

Ext = 931.8/ 2 = 465.9 kNm
Summary
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of
Structural
Members
Notes Part C
113
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Loads
Overturning Moment, Mo = [(223.4 x 4) + (390.5x 7) + (546.7 x

MO =
10)] / [ 3-1] = 4547.1kNm 4547.1
kNm
𝑃𝐵/ 1.03=(𝑃𝐴−𝑃𝐵)/ 4.11 Pa = 409.6
4.11𝑃𝐵=1.03𝑃𝐴−1.03𝑃𝐵 kN
Pb =
5.14𝑃𝐵=1.03𝑃𝐴 82.1kN
𝑃𝐵= (1.03/5.14) 𝑃𝐴
𝑃𝐴= (5.12/1.03) 𝑃𝐵
TMA centreline: 10.28𝑃𝐴+4.11𝑃𝐵=M𝑂
=
10.28𝑃𝐴+4.11(1.03/5.14) 𝑃𝐴=4547.1
11.1𝑃𝐴=4547.1
𝑃𝐴= (4547.1/11.1) =409.6𝑘𝑁
Therefore PB = 82.1kN
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of
Structural
Members
Notes Part D
114
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Consider a UDL of 1kN/m and using equal spans with F total
Design of
load:
Structural
Members
Mg, support = -FL2/10 = -6.862/10 = -4.7 kNm
Notes Part E
Mg, span = -0.08FL2 = 0.08 x 6.862 = 3.8 kNm
Therefore,
MD, SUPPORT = -18.5 x 4.7 = -86.95 kNm
MD, SPAN = 18.5 x 3.8 = 70.3 kNm
M D,
ML, SUPPORT = -7.2 x 4.7 = -33.84 kNm support= -
ML, SPAN = 7.2 x 3.8 = 27.36 kNm 86.95kNm
MD, span =
Calculate Gravity Moments in Columns 70.3kNm
By Moment Distribution of subframes ML, support
= -
Internal Column: 33.84kNm
ML, span =
27.36kNm
Internal Column
Recall:
Therefore, I = (400 x 6003)/12 = 7.2 x 109 mm4

Therefore, I = (400 x 4003)/12 = 2.1 x 109 mm4
Kb = I/L = 7.2 x109/6860 = 1.05 x 106 mm4

KL = I/L = 2.1 x109 /4000 = 0.53 x 106 mm4
KU = I/L = 2.1 x109/3000 = 0.7 x 106 mm4
115
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Total out-of-balance FEM = 18.5x6.862/12 –

(18.5+7.2)6.862/12
= -28.2 kNm
Mupper = 28.2 x (0.7/ (1.05+0.53+0.7)) = 8.7 kNm
Mlower = 28.2 x (0.53/ (1.05+0.53+0.7)) = 6.6 kNm
Mupper =
8.7 kNm
Mlower =
6.6 kNm
External Column
Dr. R. Clarke Total out-of-balance FEM = 18.5 x 6.862/12= 72.6 kNm

Preliminary Mupper = 72.6 x (0.7/1.05+0.53+0.7)) = 22.3 kNm
Design of Mlower = 72.6 x (0.53 / (1.05+0.53+0.7)) = 16.9 kNm
Structural
Members Calculate Gravity Axial Forces in Columns
Notes Part F
Dead load = 3 x 3.6 x 6.862 +10 x 0.42 +(10 x 0.42 x 24) =
548.2kN
Live load = 3 x 1.4 x 6.862 = 197.7kN
External column dead load = 508.2/2 + (10 x 0.42 x 24) = 292.5kN Mupper =
22.3 kNm
Beam Moment (long) Rebar Mlower =
d = 600mm 16.9 kNm
b = 400mm

116
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
kNm
Ext support at top, MU = 1.4(86.95) + 0.5(33.84) + 1.4(232.5) = 464.15kNm
Internal Support Rebar:

MU = 0.9Asfy(d-a/2)
fy = 410 MPa
fc’= 30 Mpa

Mu = 0.9As x 410 x (600 – As x (410)/ 0.85 x 30 x 400 x 2)
Mu = 22.1 x 104As – 7.38As2
790.9 x 106 = 22.1 x 104As – 7.38As2
Use 6 T32 bars = 4825.2mm2
ϕMn = 0.9 x 4825.2 x 410 x (600 – (4825.2 x 410)/ (0.85 x 30 x 400

x 2)) = 895.6 > 790.9 kNm
Therefore OK
Use 6 T32
External Support Rebar: bars for
Mu = 22.1 x 104As – 7.38As2 Internal
464.15x106 = 22.1 x 104As – 7.38As2 Rebar
Required As = 2272.7 mm2
Try 3 T32 bar, As = 2412.6 mm2
ϕMn = 0.9 x 2412.6 x 410 x (600 – (2412.6 x 410)/ (0.85 x 30 x 400
x 2)) = 490.98 > 464.15 kNm
Therefore OK
Span Rebar Use 3 T32
Mu = 22.1 x 104As – 7.38As2 bars for
142.2 x 106 = 22.1 x 104As – 7.38As2 External
Therefore, As = 657.9 mm2
Rebar
Use 3 T19 bars = 850.5mm2
ϕMn = 0.9 x 850.5 x 410 x (600 – (850.5 x 410)/ (0.85 x 30 x 400 x
2)) = 182.9> 142.2kNm
Therefore OK
117
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Summary: Use 3 T19
bars for
Span
Rebar
W= 1.2(D+L) = 1.2(18.5+7.2) = 30.84

kN/m
Mpr1 = 2412.6 x 1.25 x 410 x (600 – (2412.6x 410)/ 0.85 x 30 x 400

x 2)10-6 = 618.9kNm
Mpr2 = 4825.2 x 1.25 x 410 x (600 – (4825.2x 410)/ 0.85 x 30 x 400

x 2)10-6 = 1243.9kNm

(0.75 x 30.84 x 6.86)/ 2 + (618.9+1243.9)/ 6.86 = 350.9kN
350.9 x 103/ 410 x 600 = 1.4 mm
Use 2 T10 = 157.08mm2 > 140mm2
Therefore OK
118
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Summary
Consider Load Case, U = 1.4D + 0.5L + 1.4E

Section = 400mm x 400mm
Ultimate (applied) Moments:

External Column, MU = 1.4(16.9 x 18.5/18.5+ 7.2) + 0.5(16.9 x 7.2/18.5 +7.2) +
1.4(175.75) = 286.8kNm

Internal Column, PU = 1.4(580.3) + 0.5(197.7) + 1.4(82.1)
= 1026.2 kN
Use T10 at
= 1032.4 kN 100mm c/c
spacing in
Therefore, Design (PU, MU): the
confinemen
Internal Column = 1026.2, 1.4x495.3 = (1026.2, 693.4) t zone of
External Column = 1032.4, 1.4 x 286.8= (2019.8, 401.5) 1980mm
from the
Internal top and
bottom of
Kn = Pu/(ϕfc’Ag) = 1026.2 x103/ (0.8 x30 x 4002) = 0.3 the column.
Rn = MU / (ϕfc’Agh = 693.4 x106/ (0.8 x 30 x 4003) = 0.45 Otherwise,
use T10 at
200 c/c
spacing
= 400 – (80+20+32) = 266
⸫ γ = 0.9
1< ρg = 3.1 < 6 OK
As req = (3.1 x 4002)/100 = 4960mm2
Use 8T29 bars = 5284mm2 > 4960 mm2

OK
119
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
External
Kn = Pu/(ϕfc’Ag) = 2019.8 x103/ (0.8 x30 x 4002) = 0.5
Rn = MU / (ϕfc’Agh = 401.5 x106/ (0.8 x 30 x 4003) = 0.3
1< ρg = 3.1 < 6 OK
As req = (3.4 x 4002)/100 = 4960mm2

Use 8T29 bars = 5284mm2 > 4960mm2
OK
Column Hoops:

hoop.
120
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Summary

kN/m2
Total required = 4.8 x 30 = 144 m2
Applying a Factor of Safety, size of footing = 4.8m2 x 1.2 = 5.76m2
Try 2.4 m2 square footing = 5.76 m2 = 5.76m2
Therefore
121
Cost Estimation
CONCRETE
Slabs = 3 x 59.80 x 10.28 x 0.152 = 280.32m3
Beams = 0.4 x 0.6 x (59.80 x 3 + 10.28 x 10) x 3 = 203.18 m3
Columns = 30 x 0.42 x 10 = 48 m3
Total= 617.9 m3
REBAR
Column 12mm hoop = [30 x 3 x 2 x (2000/100 + 1000/200) x 1.28) + 30 x 4 x
(2000/100+2000/200) x 1.28] x 0.86/1000 = 4.27 tonne
Footings = 86.312 = 7.19 tonne
Total = 79.88 tonne
MASONRY
Nr of blocks = 59.80 x 10.28 x 10/0.4 x 0.2 = 76,843 m
Mortar = 76843 x (0.1 + 0.1 + 0.4) x 0.15 x 0.012 = 83 m3
Nr bags of cement = 0.25 x 83 x 1440/42.5 = 703.1
Sand = 0.75 x 83 = 62.25 m3
122
GRADE SLAB
Concrete = 59.80 x 10.28 x 0.125 = 76.84 m2
BRC =59.80 x 10.28 /30.5 x 1.8 = 11 rolls

Conc. for superstructure 617.9 m3 1380.00 852,702.00
Rebar 79.88 Tonne 7498.00 598,940.24
Formwork @ 25% material 362,910.56
Labour @ 65% of above 1,179,459.32
Blocks 76843 Nr. 5.75 441,847.25
Sand for blocks 62.25 m3 200.00 12450.00
Grade slab conc. 76.84 m3 1380.00 106,039.20
Labour for grade slab @ 50% 55,489.10
TOTAL ARCHITECTURAL 11,152,756.79
TOTAL STR, SERV, ARCH 17,127,447.94
Contingency @ 15% 2,697,573.05
Overhead & Profit @ 30% 6,204,418.01
GRAND TOTAL TT$
26,885,811.40
=$107,543,245.60
123
Two (2) Bedroom Triplex
Figure 29: Sketch of the Two (2) Bedroom Triplex Floor Plan for Reinforced Concrete
Moment Resisting Frame
124
Calculation – Preliminary Structural Design of a Reinforced Concrete Framed for the Two (2)
Bedroom Triplex Building.
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
Three (3) Bedroom Duplex
PLAN

Reinforced Live Load = 1.4 kN/m2
Concrete Density of Normal weight concrete = 24 kN/m3
Designer’s
Handbook, Calculating Building Weight
Reynolds &
Steedman Floor Slabs Weight
2
Floor slab area = 188.7 m
Floor slab weight = 24 x 188.7 x 0.153 = 692.9kN
kN
Beams Weight
No. of beams = 10
Therefore, use beam sizes of 0.4m = b
For d = (9690/26) + 300 = 679.7 = 700mm = 0.7m
No. of floors = 2
1104kN
125
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
Columns Weight
Therefore, h = 0.4m
No. of columns = 8
Column height = 3m
No. of floors = 2
184.32 kN

W = 1385.8 + 1104 + 184.32 = 2674.12kN
Total Building
Weight, W =
2674.12 kN
Plan
Internal Frame
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of
Structural
Members
Notes
Part A
126
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
Assuming equal spans in the shorter direction

Seismic Load,
Seismic Load, V = 0.1W = 0.1 x 2674.12 = 267.4 kN V = 267.4 kN
Also, V = F1 + F2
F2/F1 = 7/4 → F2 = 1.75F1
F1 + F2 = 267.4
F1 + 1.75F1 = 267.4
2.75F1 = 267.4
F1 = 97.2kN
F2 = 170.2
kN
Calculate Moments Due to Seismic Load

Tributary
width = 3.00 m
Tributary width = 3.00 m
Dead
Dead Load = 3.6 x 3.00 = 10.8
kN/m Load=10.8
Live Load = 1.4 x 3.00 = 4.2 kN/m kN/m
Live Load=
4.2kN/m
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of
Structural
Members Notes
Part B

moment
127
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES

Mac = [(170.2) x 3] / 2(2-1) = 255.3 kNm

Ext = ½ x 255.3 = 127.7 kNm

Mad = [(97.2 + 170.2) x 4] / 2(2-1) = 534.8
kNm

Ext = ½ x 534.8 = 267.4 kNm

Mab = Mae = ½ (255.3+ 534.8) = 395.05 kNm

Ext = 395.05 / 2 = 197.5 kNm
Summary
128
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES

Loads
MO = 1580.2
kNm
Dr. R. Clarke Pa = 790.1 kN
Preliminary Pb = 790.1
Design of Kn
Structural
Members Overturning Moment, Mo = [(97.2 x 4) + (170.2 x 7)] / [ 2-1]
Notes Part C
= 1580.2 kNm
Pa = Pb
Taking moments about Centreline:
9.69Pa = Mo
Pa = 1580.2/9.69
Pa = 790.1 kN
Pb = 790.1 kN
MD, support= -
25.92kNm
Calculate Gravity Moments in Beams MD, span =
20.52kNm
ML, support =
Consider a UDL of 1kN/m and using equal spans with F total -10.08kNm
load: ML, span =
7.98kNm
Mg, support = -FL2/10 = -4.852/10 = 2.4 kNm
Mg, span = -0.08FL2 = 0.08 x 4.852 = 1.9 kNm
Therefore,
MD, SUPPORT = -10.8 x 2.4 = -25.92 kNm
129
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
Dr. R. Clarke MD, SPAN = 10.8 x 1.9 = 20.52 kNm
Preliminary ML, SUPPORT = -4.2 x 2.4 = -10.08 kNm
Design of ML, SPAN = 4.2 x 1.9 = 7.98 kNm
Structural
Members
Notes Part D
Calculate Gravity Moments in Columns

By Moment Distribution of subframes
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of
Structural
Members
Notes Part E
Recall:
Therefore, I = (400x7003)/12 = 1.14 x 1010 mm4

Therefore, I = (400 x 4003)/12 = 2.1 x 109 mm4
Kb = I/L = 1.14 x1010/9690 = 1.18 x 106 mm4

KL = I/L = 2.1 x109 /4000 = 5.25 x 105 mm4 Mupper =
KU = I/L = 2.1 x109/3000 = 7 x 105 mm4 41.5 kNm
Mlower =
External Column 18.4 kNm

Mupper = 84.5 x (1.18/1.18+0.525+0.7)) = 41.5 kNm
Mlower = 84.5 x (0.525 / (1.18+0.525+0.7)) = 18.4 kNm
130
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
Dead load = 2 x 3.6 x 62 +7 x 0.42 +(7 x 0.42 x 24) = 237.2kN

Live load = 2 x 1.4 x 62 = 100.8kN
External column dead load = 259.2/2 + (7 x 0.42 x 24) =
156.5kN

d = 700mm
b = 400mm

Ext support at top, MU = 1.4(25.92) + 0.5(10.08) + 1.4(197.5) =

317.8kNm
Dr. R. Clarke Span at bottom, MU = 1.4(20.52) + 1.6(7.98) = 41.5 kNm
Preliminary
Design of
Structural
Members MU = 0.9Asfy(d-a/2)
Notes Part F a = Asfy/(0.85fc’b)
fy = 410 Mpa
fc’= 30 Mpa

Mu = 0.9As x 410 x (700 – As x (410)/ 0.85 x 30 x 400 x 2) Use 4 T21 bars
Mu = 25.8 x 103As – 2.52As2 for External
317.8 x 106 = 25.8 x 104As – 2.52As2 Rebar
Use 4 T21 bars = 1385.6mm2
ϕMn = 0.9 x 1385.6 x 410 x (700 – (1385.6 x 410)/ (0.85 x 30 x

400 x 2)) = 343.6 > 317.8kNm
Therefore OK Use 2 T11
bars for
Span Rebar External
41.5 x 106 = 25.8 x 104As – 2.52As2 Rebar
Use 2 T11 bars = 190.06mm2
131
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
ϕMn = 0.9 x 190.06 x 410 x (700 – (190.06 x 410)/ (0.85 x 30 x
400 x 2)) = 190.06 > 48.8kNm
Therefore OK
Summary:
W= 1.2(D+L) = 1.2(10.8+4.2) = 18
kN/m
Mpr1 = 1385.6 x 1.25 x 410 x (700 – (1385.6 x 410)/ 0.85 x 30

x 400 x 2)10-6 = 477.3kNm
(0.75 x 18 x 9.69)/ 2 + (2 x 477.3)/ 9.69 = 163.9kN

163.9 x 103/ 410 x 700 = 0.6 mm
For s = 100mm, Av (2 legs) = 100 x 0.6 = 60mm2
132
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
Use 2 T8 = 100.54mm2 > 60mm2
Use T10 at
Therefore OK
100mm c/c
spacing in the
confinement
Summary zone of
1000mm from
the top and
bottom of the
column.
Otherwise, use
T10 at 200 c/c
spacing


+4.2) + 1.4(127.7) = 199.9 kNm

= 1350.44 kN
Kn = Pu/(ϕfc’Ag) = 1350.44 x103/ (0.8 x30 x 4002) = 0.001

Rn = MU / (ϕfc’Agh = 279.9 x106/ (0.8 x 30 x 4003) = 0.20
Assuming 4ksi concrete, 40mm cover, 10mm stirrup, 25mm bar,

γh = 400 – (80+20+32) = 266
⸫ γ = 0.6
133
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
1< ρg = 4.3 <6 OK
As req = (4.3 x 4002)/100 = 6880mm2

Use 8T34 bars = 7263.2mm2 > 6880 mm2
OK
Column Hoops:
Use T10 at 100mm c/c spacing in the confinement zone of

1000mm from the top and bottom of the column. Use T10 at 200
c/c spacing outside of the confinement zone. For the internal and
external column, use 2 legs in each direction with 2 cross ties
and one closed hoop.
Summary
134
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES

Tributary area = 3m
kN/m2
Total required = 1.75 x 8 = 14 m2
Try 1.5m2 square footing = 2.25 m2 > 1.75m2
Therefore
Size of Foundation =2.25 x 8 = 18m2
135
Cost Estimation
CONCRETE
Slabs = 2 x 29.07 x 6.0 x 0.152 =57.36m3
Beams = 0.4 x 0.7 x (29.07 x 2 + 6.0 x 4) x 2 = 45.99 m3
Columns = 8 x 0.42 x 7 = 8.96 m3
Footings (assume pad footing 2.25 x 2.25 x 0.4) = 8 x 2.252 x0.4 = 16.2 m3
Total= 128.51 m3
REBAR
Beams 2t11mm (span) = 2 x (29.07 x 2 + 6.0 x 4) x 2 x 1/1000 = 0.73 tonne
Column 10mm hoop = [8 x 3 x (2000/100 + 1000/200) x 1.28) + 8 x 4 x (2000/100+2000/200) x
1.28] x 0.62/1000= 1.24 tonne
Total = 13.49 tonne
MASONRY
Nr of blocks = 29.07 x 6 x 7/0.4 x 0.2 = 15261.75 m
Mortar = 15261.75 x (0.1 + 0.1 + 0.4) x 0.15 x 0.012 = 16.48 m3
Sand = 0.75 x 16.48 = 12.36 m3
136
GRADE SLAB
Concrete = 29.07 x 6.0 x 0.125 = 21.8 m2
BRC =29.07 x 6.0 /30.5 x 1.8 = 4 rolls

Rebar 13.49 Tonne 7498.00 101,148.02
Blocks 15261.75 Nr. 5.75 87,755.06
Sand for blocks 12.39 m3 200.00 2478.00
Grade slab conc. 21.8 m3 1380.00 30,084.00
TOTAL SERVICES 392,797.76
Preliminaries @ %5 168,903.04
Contingency @ 15% 532,044.56
Overhead & Profit @ 30% 1,223,702.49
GRAND TOTAL TT$
5,302,710.81
=$ 95,448,794.58
137
Sketch:
Figure 30: Sketch of the Three (3) Bedroom Duplex Floor Plan for Reinforced Concrete
Moment Resisting Frame
138
Calculation - Preliminary Structural Design of a Reinforced Concrete Framed for the Three (3)
Bedroom Duplex Building.
REFERENCES CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
PLAN

Reinforced Density of Normal weight concrete = 24 kN/m3
Concrete
Designer’s
Handbook,
Reynolds &
Steedman
139
Floor Slabs Weight

kN
Beams Weight
No. of beams = 7
For d = (9600/26) + 300 = 669.23 = 700mm = 0.7m
No. of floors = 2
726.84kN
Columns Weight
Therefore, h = 0.4m
No. of columns = 6
Column height = 3m
No. of floors = 2
138.24 kN
Concrete Slab Roof

Roof Slab Area = 130.45 m2
Thickness = 0.153 m
Roof slab weight = 24 x 130.45 x 0.153 = 479.01kN
Therefore, total roof slab weight= 24 x 130.45 x 0.153= 479.01 kN
140

W = 958 + 726.84 + 138.24 + 479.01= 2302.09kN Building
Weight, W
= 2302.09
kN
Plan
Internal Frame
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary Calculating Vertical Distribution of Seismic
Design of Load
Structural
Members Notes Assuming equal spans in the shorter direction
Part A
Also, V = F1 + F2 + F3
Seismic
Load, V =
F2/F1 = 4/1 → F2 = 4F1 230.21 kN
F3/F2 = 7/4 → F3 = 1.75F2
F1 + F2 + F3 = 230.21
141
F1 + 4F1 + (1.75 x 4) F1 = 230.21

12F1 = 230.21
F1 = 19.2 kN
F2 = 76.7 kN
F3 = 134.2
kN
Using avg tributary width = (6.32 + 6.32)/2 = 6.32

m
Dead Load = 3.6 x 6.32 = 22.8 kN/m
Live Load = 1.4 x 6.32 = 8.8 kN/m Tributary
width =
6.32 m
Dead
Load=22.
8 kN/m
Live
Load=
8.8kN/m
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of
Structural
Members Notes
Part B 𝑀𝑎𝑐=Σ𝐹𝑖=2, 𝑛×ℎ1 / 2(𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑙−1)
moment
142

Mac = [(76.7 + 134.2) x 3] / 2(2-1) = 316.4 kNm

Ext = 1/2 x 316.4 = 158.2 kNm

Mad = [(19.2 + 76.7 + 134.2) x 1] / 2(2-1) = 115.1
kNm

Ext = ½ x 115.1 = 57.6 kNm
Dr. R. Clarke End moments of 1st floor internal beams
Preliminary
Mab = Mae = ½ (316.4 + 115.1) = 215.8 kNm
Design of
Structural
Members Notes Ext = 215.8 / 2 = 107.9 kNm
Part C
Summary
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of
143
Structural Calculate Axial Loads Due to Seismic

Members Notes Loads
Part D
Overturning Moment, Mo = [(19.2 x 1) + (76.7 x 3) + (134.2

x 3)] / [ 2-1] = 651.9 kNm
Dr. R. Clarke MO =
Pa = Pb
Preliminary 651.9
Design of kNm
Structural Pa = 67.9
Members Notes 9.6Pa = Mo kN
Part E Pb = 67.9
Pa = 651.9/9.6 Kn
Pa = 67.9 kN
Pb = 67.9 kN
Consider a UDL of 1kN/m and using equal spans with F total

load:
Mg, support = -FL2/10 = -4.82/10 = 2.3 kNm

Mg, span = -0.08FL2 = 0.08 x 4.82 = 1.8 kNm
Therefore,
MD, SUPPORT = -22.8 x 2.3 = -52.44 kNm
MD, SPAN = 22.8 x 1.8 = 41.04 kNm
ML, SUPPORT = -8.8 x 2.3 = -20.24 kNm
ML, SPAN = 8.8 x 1.8 = 15.84 kNm
144
M D,
Calculate Gravity Moments in Columns support= -
By Moment Distribution of subframes 52.44kNm
MD, span =
41.04kNm
ML,
support = -
20.24kNm
ML, span
=
15.84kN
m
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of
Structural
Members Notes
Recall:
Part F
Therefore, I = (400x7003)/12 = 1.14 x 1010 mm4

Therefore, I = (400 x 4003)/12 = 2.1 x 109 mm4
Kb = I/L = 1.14 x1010/9600 = 1.19 x 106 mm4

KL = I/L = 2.1 x109 /1000 = 2.1 x 106 mm4
KU = I/L = 2.1 x109/3000 = 0.7 x 106 mm4
External Column

Mupper = 175.1 x (0.7/0.7+2.1+1.19)) = 30.7 kNm
Mlower = 175.1 x (2.1 / (0.7+2.1+1.19)) = 90 kNm
Dead load = 2 x 3.6 x 6.322 +7 x 0.42 +(7 x 0.42 x 24) = 315.6kN

Live load = 2 x 1.4 x 6.322 = 111.1kN
145
External column dead load = 287.6/2 + (7 x 0.42 x 24) =

170.7kN
Beam Moment (long) Rebar Mupper =
d = 700mm 30.7 kNm
b = 400mm Mlower =
90 kNm

Ext support at top, MU = 1.4(52.44) + 0.5(20.24) + 1.4(107.9) =

234.6kNm

MU = 0.9Asfy(d-a/2)
fy = 410 MPa
fc’= 30 MPa

Mu = 0.9As x 410 x (700 – As x (410)/ 0.85 x 30 x 400 x 2)
Mu = 25.8 x 103As – 2.52As2
234.6 x 106 = 25.8 x 104As – 2.52As2
Use 4 T18 bars = 1018mm2
ϕMn = 0.9 x 1018 x 410 x (700 – (1018 x 410)/ (0.85 x 30 x 400

x 2)) = 255.3 > 234.6kNm
Therefore OK
Span Rebar
82.8 x 106 = 25.8 x 104As – 2.52As2
Use 3 T13 bars = 339.3mm2
ϕMn = 0.9 x 339.3 x 410 x (700 – (339.3 x 410)/ (0.85 x 30 x 400
x 2)) = 86.8 > 82.8kNm
Therefore OK
146
Summary:
W= 1.2(D+L) = 1.2(22.8+8.8) = 37.92

kN/m
Mpr1 = 1018 x 1.25 x 410 x (700 – (1018 x 410)/ 0.85 x 30 x 400

x 2)10-6 = 354.53kNm
(0.75 x 37.92 x 9.6)/ 2 + (2 x 354.53)/ 7 = 237.8kN

Consider hoops with fyv = 410MPa
237.8 x 103/ 410 x 700 = 0.83 mm
For s = 100mm, Av (2 legs) = 100 x 0.83 = 83mm2
Use 2 T9 = 127.24mm2 > 83mm2
Therefore OK
Summary
147

Use T9 at
External Column, MU = 1.4(90 x 22.8/22.8+ 8.8) + 0.5(90 x 8.8/22.8
+8.8) + 1.4(158.2) = 324.9 kNm 100mm c/c
spacing in
Ultimate Axial Loads: the
External Column, PU = 1.4(170.7) + 0.5(111.1/2) + 1.4(67.9) confineme
= 171.7 kN nt zone of
1000mm
from the
Therefore, Design (PU, MU): top and
bottom of
the
External Column = 171.7, 1.4x324.9= (171.7, 454.86) column.
Otherwise,
3 2
Kn = Pu/(ϕfc’Ag) = 171.7 x10 / (0.8 x30 x 400 ) = 0.04 use T9 at
Rn = MU / (ϕfc’Agh = 454.86 x10 / (0.8 x 30 x 400 ) = 0.30 200
6 3 c/c
spacing
As required = 1 x (4002/ 100) = 1600mm2
Use 8 No. 16 = 1608 > 1600
Column Hoops:
Use T10 at 100mm c/c spacing in the confinement zone of

1000mm from the top and bottom of the column. Use T10 at 200
c/c spacing outside of the confinement zone. For the internal and
148
external column, use 2 legs in each direction with 2 cross ties and
one closed hoop.
Summary

kN/m2
Try 1 m2 square footing = 1 m2 > 0.96m2
Therefore
Size of Foundation =1 x 6 = 6 m2
149
COST ESTIMATION
CONCRETE
Slabs = 2 x 10 x 13.05 x 0.152 =39.67 m3
Beams = 0.4 x 0.7 x (12.64 x 2 + 9.60 x 3) x 2 = 30.3 m3
Columns = 6 x 0.42 x 7 = 6.72 m3
Footings (assume pad footing 1 x 1 x 0.4) = 6 x 12 x0.4 = 2.4 m3
Total= 79.09 m3
REBAR
Slabs @1tonne per 12m3 concrete = 59.5/12= 5 tonne
Beams 4t18mm = 4 x (12.64 x 2 + 9.60 x 3) x 2 x 2/1000 = 0.9 tonne
Beams 3t13mm (span) = 3 x (12.64 x 2 + 9.60 x 3) x 2 x 1/1000 = 0.32 tonne
Beams 9mm = 4 x (3700/100 + 5500/200) x 2 x 2 x 0.47/1000 = 0.5 tonne
Columns 8t16 = 8 x 6 x 7 x 1.58/1000 + = 0.53 tonnes
Column 10mm hoop = [ 6 x 3 x (2000/100 + 1000/200) x 1.28) + 6 x 4 x (2000/100+2000/200) x
1.28] x 0.62/1000= 0.85 tonne
Total = 8.3 tonne
MASONRY
Nr of blocks = 13.05 x 10 x 7/0.4 x 0.2 = 11418.75 m
Mortar = 11418.75 x (0.1 + 0.1 + 0.4) x 0.15 x 0.012 = 12.33 m3
Sand = 0.75 x 12.33 = 9.25 m3
150
GRADE SLAB
Concrete = 13.05 x 10 x 0.125 = 16.31 m2
BRC = 13.05 x 10 /30.5 x 1.8 = 3 rolls
ITEM AMOUNT UNIT RATE (TT$) TOTAL

(TT$)
Rebar 8.3 Tonne 7498.00 62,233.40
Blocks 11418.75 Nr. 5.75 65,657.81
Sand for blocks 9.25 m3 200.00 1850.00
Grade slab conc. 16.31 m3 1380.00 22,507.80
Contingency @ 15% 322,237.50
Overhead & Profit @ 30% 741,146.25
GRAND TOTAL TT$
3,211,633.74
=$96,349,012.20
151
Community Centre
Alternative 2: Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame.
Figure 31: Sketch of the Community Centre Floor Plan for Steel Moment Resisting Frame
152
Calculation - Preliminary Structural Design of a Steel Framed for the Community Centre
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
Community Centre
PLAN

Floor Slabs Weight

kN
153
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
Beams Weight
No. of beams = 17
For d = (8950/26) + 300 = 644= 650mm = 0.650m
No. of floors = 2
1467.6kN
Columns Weight
No. of columns = 12
Column height = 4m
No. of floors = 2
282.24 kN

W = 3257 + 1467.6 + 282.2 = 5007 kN Building
Weight, W
Connection Preliminary Design = 6008.4 kN
Seismic Load:
Increasing building weight by 20% (catering for connections)
5007 x (120/100) = 6008.4 kN
Plan
154
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
Internal Frame
Assuming equal spans in the shorter direction

Also, V = F1 Seismic
Load, V =
F2/F1 = 10/6 → F2 = 1.67F1 600.8kN
F1 + F2 = 600.8
F1 + 1.67F1 = 600.8
2.67F1 = 600.8
F1 = 225.02 kN
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary F2 = 375.78 kN
Design of
Structural
Members Calculate Moments Due to Seismic Load in Longer
Notes Part 3 Direction
Average Tributary width = (8.0+8.0 + 8.0)/3 =8.0

m
Dead Load = 3.6 x 8.0 = 28.8 kN/m Tributary
Live Load = 1.4 x 8.0 = 11.2 kN/m width = 8.0
m
Dead
Load=28.8
kN/m
155
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
Live
Load= 11.2
kN/m
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of
Structural
Members
Notes Part 2

moment
F2 = 375.78/ (4-1) = 125.26

F1 = (225.02 + 375.78) / (4-1) =200.26 kN

Mac = [(125.6) x 4] / 2(4-1) = 83.73 kNm

Ext = 1/2 x 83.73 =41.86 kNm

Mad = [(200.26) x 6] / 2(4-1) = 200.26 kNm

Ext = ½ x 200.26= 100.13 kNm

Mab = Mae = ½ (83.73 + 200.26) = 142 kNm
Moment of any external beam=142/2 = 71kNm
∴ MAC = 125.26 x 4/2 = 250.52 kNm

MAD = 200.26 x 6/2 = 600.78 kNm
MAB = MAE = ½ (250.52 + 600.78) = 425.65
kNm
156
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
Summary

Loads
Overturning Moment, Mo = [(225.02 x 6) + (375.78 x 10)] / [ 4- MO =

1702.64kN
1] = 1702.64 kNm
m
Pa =
𝑃𝐴=𝑃𝐶 𝑃𝐶L =0
70.94kN
TMA centreline: Pc =
24𝑃𝐴=M𝑂 70.94kN
24𝑃𝐴=1702.64 Pe =
𝑃𝐴= (1702.64/24) = 70.94𝑘𝑁 319.25kN
Therefore Pc = 70.94 kN
Therefore, PE = 1702.64 x 3/ (2 x 8) = 319.25
Kn
From Previous Concrete Section

Dead load: 3.6 KN/m
Live loads: 1.4 KN/m
Consider as a continuous beam and use standard

tables
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
157
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
Design of
Structural
Members
Notes Part 3
WD = 3.6 x (8/2) x (8/2) = 57.6 kN

WL =57.6 x (1.4/3.6) = 22.4 kN
Therefore, M D,
support= -
MD, SUPPORT = -0.133 x 2 x 57.6 x 8 = -122.57 kNm
122.57kNm
MD, SPAN = 0.122 x 2 x 57.6 x 8 = 112.44 kNm MD, span =
ML, SUPPORT = -0.133 x 2 x 22.4 x 8 = -47.67 kNm 112.44kNm
ML, SPAN = 0.122 x 2 x 22.4 x 8 = 43.72 kNm ML, support
= -
Calculate Gravity Moments in Columns 47.67kNm
By Moment Distribution of subframes ML, span =
43.72 kNm
External Column
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary Since the subframe analysis requires the beams and column I’s which
Design of are not known yet. The following assumption was made:
Structural Mupper = 60% out-of-balance moment
Members Mlower = 35% out-of-balance moment
Notes Part 4 Therefore,
Mupper = 83.6 x 0.6 = 50.16 kNm
Mupper =
Mlower= 83.6 x 0.35 = 29.26 kNm
50.16 kNm
Mlower =
29.26 kNm
Dead = 4 x 3.6 x 82 /2= 460.8 kN
Live = 460.8 x (1.4/3.6) =179.2
kN
Beam Size:
Consider U= 1.4D+0.5L+1.4E
Therefore, Mu = 1.4 x 122.57 + 0.5 x 47.67 + 1.4 x 212.83 = 493.4 kNm
For ASTM A992 Grade 50
Therefore, Zrequired = 493.4 x 106 / (0.9 x 345 x 103) = 1589.05 cm3 =
96.97in3
Use
Use W24 x 162 (468 > 96.97 in3: OK)
W24x162
Check Beam Local Buckling instability (i.e., Seismic
Compactness):
158
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
b/2tf= 5.31; λmax = 0.3√29000/50 = 7.22 > 5.31
h/w = 30.6; λmax = 2.45√29000/50 = 59 > 30.6
Check Unbraced Length of beam flanges:

Dr. R. Clarke For W24 X 162 ry =
Preliminary 3.05
Design of Max length = 0.086 x 3.05 x 29000/50= 152.134 in = 3864.2mm
Structural Unbraced length = 8000/3 = 2666.6 < 3864.2 mm which is OK
Members
Notes Part 5 Column Size for Strong-Column-Weak beam (SCWB):
Beam plastic moment strength, Mp= FyZ= 50 x 468/12= 1950 kip-ft
Beam depth = 25 in
Therefore,
Shear force in plastic hinge, Vp = 2 x 1950/ (8 x 3.28-2 x 1.6 x 25/12)
+ 1.2(28.8 + 11.2) x 0.74(8 x 3.28 – 2 x 1.6 x 25/12)/2 = 546.87 kip =
2432.6kN
Dr. R. Clarke Use
Preliminary Moment due to Vp= 546.87 x 1.6 x 25/12 = 1822.9kip ft W40x183
Design of Σ𝑀𝑝𝑏= 1.1 x 1.1 x 1950 + 1822.9= 4182.4 kip-ft
Structural Σ𝑀𝑝𝑐= 2Zcx50
Members Therefore 2Zcx50= 1.5 x 4182.4 x 12 → 752.8in3
Notes Part 6-
11 Use W40 x 183(774 > 752.8 in3) Mupper =
Check: 45.98 kNm
Mupper = 55% out-of-balance moment Mlower =
Mlower = 38% out-of- balance moment 31.77 kNm
Therefore,
Mupper = 83.6 x 0.55 = 45.98 kNm
Mlower = 83.6 x 0.38 = 31.77 kNm
Check Column Local Buckling:

b/2tf= 4.92; λmax = 0.3√29000/50 = 7.22> 4.92 which is OK
h/w = 52.6; λmax = 2.45√29000/50 = 59> 52.6 which is OK

Check Drift:
For the beam and column sizes selected:
Dr. R. Clarke
Beam W24 x 262 Ixx = 5170
Preliminary
Column W40 x 183 Ixx = 13200
Design of OK
Structural
Members Ib */L = 5170 x 0.02544/8 = 2.69 x 10-4.
4 -3
Notes Part 12 Ic */h = 2 x 13200 x 0.0254 /6 = 1.83x 10
159
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
VG = 2.69/18.3 = 0.15 → =1.15
Therefore, Drift= [5.5 (3 x 1.15-1)62/ (12 x 210 x 106 x 5.49 x10-3) x
(0.1 x 6008.4/2) x 100%= 1.05 <2% which is OK
Check Unity Equation (Column strength):

Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Consider U=1.4D+0.5L+1.4E
Design of
PU= 1.4 x 460.8 + 0.5 x 179.2 + 1.4 x 319.25 = 1181.67Kn
Structural
Members λc= 1.1 x 6 x 3.28 x 12 x √ (50/29000)/ (3.14 x 2.49) = 1.4 → 1.96
Notes Part 13 Fcr = 0.6581.96 x 50 = 22 ksi
Therefore,
ФPn=v0.8FcrA= 0.8 x 22 x 53.3 = 938.1 kip= 4172.9 kN
PU/ФPn = 1181.67/ 4172.9= 0.28 > 0.2
As the-out-of-balance load is due to the live load,
MUZ = 0.5 x 29.26 + 1.4 x 300.39= 435.18kNm
Column moment strength, Mnz = ZcFyc = 13200 x 50 = 660000 kip-in = 54999.9
kip-ft Use
Therefore W16x26
demand factor= 0.28/2 + 8/9(435.18/0.8 x 54999.9 x 1.35) =
0.15< 1 which is OK
Non-Seismic Beams:
Dr. R. Clarke
Consider U= (1.2D + 1.6L)
Preliminary
Design of MU= 1.2 x 122.57 + 1.6 x 47.67 = 223.36kNm
Structural Therefore Zrequired = 223.36 x 106 / (0.9 x 345 x 103) = 719.4cm3 = 43.9
Members in3
Notes Part Use W16 x 26 (44.2 >43.9 in3) which is OK
14-15
Non-Seismic Columns: Use
Consider U= (1.2D+1.6L) W14x99
Max moment on internal column, Mu= 1.6 x 29.26 x 2 = 93.63 kNm
Max axial force on internal column, PU = 1.2 x 460.8 x 2 + 1.6 x 179.2
x 2 =839.68kN = 188.77 kips
Effective height= 0.85 x 6000= 6800mm = 22.3ft
Therefore, Zrequired= (93.63 x 106)/ (0.9 x 345x 103) = 301.55cm3 =

18.4in3
Use W 14 x 99
160
Cost Estimation
CONCRETE
Concrete for decking for 125mm equivalent thickness= 2 x 24.39 x 18.3 x 0.125 = 112.19 m3
Footings (assume pad footing 3 x 3 x 0.5) = 12 x 32 x 0.5 = 54 m3
Total = 166.19 kN/m3
STEEL WORK
Seismic beams = 10 x 8 x 3.28 x 262 x 0.46=31624.45kg
Seismic column =10 x 10 x 3.28 x 183 x 0.46= 27611.04kg
Non-seismic beams = 7 x 2 x 8 x 3.28 x 26 x 0.46= 4393.63kg
Non seismic columns = 2 x 10 x 0.46 x 99 x 3.28= 2987.42kg
Composite beams = 12 x 2 x 8 x 3.28 x 26 x 0.46= 7531.93kg
Total = 74148.47kg
Composite decking, 20 ft long x 25” wide= 2(24.39 x 3.28 x 12/25) 18.3 x 3.28= 4609.8ft
Decking BRC, 610 x 6 x 100= 2x (24.39 x 18.3)/ (30.5x1.8) = 16.26 rolls

Conc. for decking 166.19 m3 1380.00 229,342.20
Decking 4609.8 ft 22 101,415.60
BRC for decking 16.26 Nr. rolls 598.2 9,726.73
Steelwork 74148.47 kg 21.1 1,564,532.72
Accessories (end plates, bolts,
391133.18
etc. @ 25%
Blocks (inc. mortar) 343140.74
Labour for blocks @ 65% 223041.48
Grade slab 116,547.00
Contingency @ 15% 1,876,694.18
Overhead & Profit @ 30% 4,316,396.61
GRAND TOTAL TT$
18,704,385.31
161
Polyclinic
Figure 32: Sketch of the Policlinic Floor Plan for Steel Moment Resisting Frame
162
Calculation - Preliminary Structural Design of a Steel Framed for the Policlinic
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Policlinic
PLAN

Floor Slabs Weight
kN
Beams Weight
No. of beams = 17
For d = (8000/26) + 300 = 607= 625mm = 0.625m
No. of floors = 1
705.6kN
163
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Columns Weight
No. of columns = 12
Column height = 3m
No. of floors = 1
Therefore, total column weight = 24 x 0.35 x 0.35 x 3 x 12 x 1
= 105.84 kN

W = 1362.2 + 705.6 + 105.84 = 2173.6 kN
Connection Preliminary Design

Seismic Load: Total
Increasing building weight by 20% (catering for connections) Building
2173.6 x (120/100) = 2608.32 kN Weight, W =
2608.32 kN
Plan
Internal Frame
164
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary Calculating Vertical Distribution of Seismic
Design of Load
Structural
Members Assuming equal spans in the shorter direction
Notes Part 1
Also, V = F1
Seismic Load,
F1 = 260.83 kN V = 260.83kN
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary Calculate Moments Due to Seismic Load in Shorter
Design of Direction
Structural
Members Average Tributary width = (8.0+ 8.0 + 8.0)/2=8.0
Notes Part 2 m
Tributary
Dead Load = 3.6 x 8.0 = 28.8 kN/m
width = 8.0 m
Live Load = 1.4 x 8.0 = 11.2 kN/m
Dead
Load=28.8k
N/m
Live Load=
11.2kN/m

moment
F2 = 0
F1 = (260.83) / (4-1) =86.94 kN
Mac = 0 kNm
165
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES

Ext = 1/2 x 0 =0 kNm

Mad = [(86.94) x 6] / 2(4-1) = 86.94 kNm

Ext = ½ x 86.94 = 43.47 kNm

Mab = Mae = ½ (0 + 86.94) = 43.47 kNm
Moment of any internal beam= 43.47/ (4-1) = 14.49

kNm
Moment of any external beam=14.49/2 = 7.25 kNm
∴ MAC = 0 x 3/2 = 0 kNm

MAD = 86.94 x 6/2 = 260.82 kNm
MAB = MAE = ½ (0 + 260.82) = 130.41 kNm
Summary
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of
Structural
Members
Notes Part 3
166
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES

Loads
MO = 521.66
Dr. R. Clarke Overturning Moment, Mo = [(260.83 x 6)] / [ 4-1] = 521.66 kNm
Preliminary
kNm
Design of PE = 97.8kN
Structural
Therefore, PE = 521.66 x 3/ (2 x 8) = 97.8
Members Kn
Notes Part 4
Dead load: 3.6 KN/m

tables
WD = 3.6 x (8/2) x (8/2) = 57.6 kN

WL =57.6 x (1.4/3.6) = 22.4 kN
Therefore,
MD, SUPPORT = -0.133 x 2 x 57.6 x 8 = -122.57 kNm
MD, SPAN = 0.122 x 2 x 57.6 x 8 = 112.44 kNm
ML, SUPPORT = -0.133 x 2 x 22.4 x 8 = -47.67 kNm
ML, SPAN = 0.122 x 2 x 22.4 x 8 = 43.72 kNm
MD, support=
Dr. R. Clarke -122.57kNm
Preliminary MD, span =
Design of 112.44kNm
Structural ML, support =
External Column
Members -47.67kNm
Notes Part 5 Since the subframe analysis requires the beams and column I’s which ML, span =
are not known yet. The following assumption was made: 43.72kNm
Mupper = 60% out-of-balance moment
Mlower = 35% out-of-balance moment
Therefore,
Mupper = 1165.2 x 0.6 = 699.12 kNm
Mlower= 1165.2 x 0.35 = 407.82 kNm
Dr. R. Clarke Calculate Gravity Axial Forces in Columns

Preliminary
167
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Design of Dead = 4 x 3.6 x 82 /2= 460.8 kN Mupper =
Structural Live = 460.8 x (1.4/3.6) =179.2 0699.12kNm
Members kN Mlower =
Notes Part 6- Beam Size: 407.82kNm
11
Use
Therefore, Mu = 1.4 x 122.57 + 0.5 x 47.67 + 1.4 x 130.25 = 377.78
W24x162
kNm
Therefore, Zrequired = 377.78 x 106 / (0.9 x 345 x 103) = 1216.68 cm3 =
74.25in3
Use W24 x 162 (468 > 74.25 in3: OK)
Compactness):
b/2tf= 5.31; λmax = 0.3√29000/50 = 7.22 > 5.31
h/w = 30.6; λmax = 2.45√29000/50 = 59 > 30.6

For W24 X 162 ry =
3.05
Max length = 0.086 x 3.05 x 29000/50= 152.134 in = 3864.2mm
Unbraced length = 8000/3 = 2666.6 < 3864.2 mm which is OK
Column Size for Strong-Column-Weak beam (SCWB):
Beam plastic moment strength, Mp= FyZ= 50 x 468/12= 1950 kip-ft
Beam depth = 25 in
Therefore,
Shear force in plastic hinge, Vp = 2 x 1950/ (8 x 3.28-2 x 1.6 x 25/12)
+ 1.2(28.8 + 11.2) x 0.74(8 x 3.28 – 2 x 1.6 x 25/12)/2 = 546.87 kip
= 2432.6kN Use
W40x183
Moment due to Vp= 546.87 x 1.6 x 25/12 = 1822.9kip ft
Σ𝑀𝑝𝑏= 1.1 x 1.1 x 1950 + 1822.9= 4182.4 kip-ft
Σ𝑀𝑝𝑐= 2Zcx50
Mupper =
Therefore 2Zcx50= 1.5 x 4182.4 x 12 → 752.8in3 640.86 kNm
Use W40 x 183(774 > 752.8 in3) Mlower =
Check: 442.78 kNm
Mlower = 38% out-of- balance moment
Therefore,
168
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Mupper = 1165.2 x 0.55 = 640.86 kNm
Dr. R. Clarke Mlower = 1165.2 x 0.38 = 442.78 kNm
Preliminary
Design of Check Column Local Buckling:
Structural
Members b/2tf= 4.92; λmax = 0.3√29000/50 = 7.22> 4.92 which is OK
Notes Part 12 h/w = 52.6; λmax = 2.45√29000/50 = 59> 52.6 which is OK
Check Drift:
Beam W24 x 262 Ixx = 5170
Column W40 x 183 Ixx = 13200
Dr. R. Clarke Ib */L = 5170 x 0.02544/8 = 2.69 x 10-4.

Preliminary Ic */h = 2 x 13200 x 0.02544/6 = 1.83x 10-3
Design of VG = 2.69/18.3 = 0.15 → =1.15
Structural Therefore, Drift= [5.5 (3 x 1.15-1)62/ (12 x 210 x 106 x 5.49 x10-3) x
Members (0.1 x 2608.32/2) x 100%= 0.46 <2% which is OK
Notes Part 13
PU= 1.4 x 460.8 + 0.5 x 179.2 + 1.4 x 97.8 = 871.64Kn
λc= 1.1 x 6 x 3.28 x 12 x √ (50/29000)/ (3.14 x 2.49) = 1.4 →
1.96
Fcr = 0.6581.96 x 50 = 22 ksi
Therefore,
ФPn=v0.8FcrA= 0.8 x 22 x 53.3 = 938.1 kip= 4172.9 kN
Dr. R. Clarke PU/ФPn = 871.64/ 4172.9= 0.21 > 0.2
Preliminary As the-out-of-balance load is due to the live load,
Design of MUZ = 0.5 x 407.82 + 1.4 x 260.82= 569.1kNm
Structural Column moment strength, Mnz = ZcFyc = 13200 x 50 = 660000 kip-in =
Members 54999.9 kip-ft
Notes Part Therefore
Use W16x26
14-15 demand factor= 0.21/2 + 8/9(569.1/0.8 x 54999.9 x 1.35) =
0.11< 1 which is OK
Non-Seismic Beams:
MU= 1.2 x 122.57 + 1.6 x 47.67 = 223.36kNm
Therefore Zrequired = 223.36 x 106 / (0.9 x 345 x 103) = 719.4cm3 = 43.9
in3
169
REFEREN
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
CES
Use W16 x 26 (44.2 >43.9 in3) which is OK Use
W14x145
Non-Seismic Columns:
Consider U= (1.2D+1.6L)
Max moment on internal column, Mu= 1.6 x 407.82 x 2 = 1305 kNm
Max axial force on internal column, PU = 1.2 x 460.8 x 2 + 1.6 x 179.2
x 2 =839.68kN = 188.77 kips
Therefore, Zrequired= (1305 x 106)/ (0.9 x 345x 103) = 4202.9cm3
= 256.5in3
Use W 14 x 145
170
Cost Estimation
CONCRETE
Concrete for decking for 125mm equivalent thickness= 1 x 24.0 x 14.9 x 0.125 = 44.7 m3
Total = 72.35 kN/m3
STEEL WORK
Seismic beams = 10 x 8 x 3.28 x 262 x 0.46=31624.45kg
Non-seismic beams = 7 x 1 x 8 x 3.28 x 26 x 0.46= 2196.8kg
Composite beams = 12 x 1 x 8 x 3.28 x 26 x 0.46= 3765.96kg
Total = 56755.13kg
Composite decking, 20 ft long x 25” wide= 1(24 x 3.28 x 12/25) 14.9 x 3.28= 1846.66ft
Decking BRC, 610 x 6 x 100= 1 x (24 x 14.9)/ (30.5x1.8) = 7 rolls

Decking 1846.66 ft 22 40,626.52
BRC for decking 7 Nr. rolls 598.2 4,187.40
Steelwork 56755.13 kg 21.1 1,197,533.24
299383.31
etc. @ 25%
Contingency @ 15% 1,592,096.19
Overhead & Profit @ 30% 3,661,821.23
GRAND TOTAL TT$
15,867,892.00
171
Plan for Steel Moment Resisting Frame
172
Calculation - Preliminary Structural Design of a Steel Framed for the Double Bedroom Apartment
Complex Ground, 1st, 2nd ,3rd & 4th Floor Plan
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
PLAN
Dr. R. Clarke Dead Load = 3.6 kN/m2

Preliminary Live Load = 1.4 kN/m2
Design of Density of Normal weight concrete = 24 kN/m3
Structural
Members Calculating Building Weight
Notes
Part 1 Floor Slabs Weight
kN
Beams Weight
No. of beams = 67
For d = (5590/26) + 300 = 515 = 550mm = 0.55m
No. of floors = 5
7597.6kN
Columns Weight
Therefore, h = 0.5m
No. of columns = 42
Column height = 3m
No. of floors = 5
173
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
Therefore, total column weight = 24 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 3 x 42 x 5 = 3780
kN
Total
Building Total Weight, W Building
W = 11504 + 7597.6 + 3780 = 22881.6 kN Weight, W
= 27456.72
Connection Preliminary Design kN
Seismic Load:
22881.6 x (120/100) = 27456.72kN
Plan
Internal Frame
Calculating Vertical Distribution of Seismic Seismic

Load Load, V =
2745.67kN
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary Seismic Load, V = 0.1W = 0.1 x 27456.72 = 2745.67 kN
Design of Also, V = F1 + F2 + F3 + F4 + F5
Structural
Members
Notes
Part 2
174
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
F2/F1 = 7/4 → F2 = 1.75F1
F3/F2 = 10/7 → F3 = 1.4F2
F4/F3 = 13/10 → F4 = 1.3F3
F5/F4 = 16/13 → F5 = 1.2F4
F1 + F2 + F3 + F4 + F5= 2745.67
F1 + 1.75F1 + (1.4 x 1.75) F1+(1.3 x 1.4 x 1.75) F1+(1.2 x 1.3 x 1.4 x 1.75) F1
= 2745.67
12.2F1 = 2745.67
F1 = 225.05 kN
F2 = 393.85 kN
F3 = 551.38 kN
F4 = 716.8 kN
F5 = 860.16 kN
Tributary
width = 4.8
Calculate Moments Due to Seismic Load in Shorter Direction m
Dead
Average Tributary width = (4.06+5.59)/2=4.8 Load=17.
m 3 kN/m
Dead Load = 3.6 x 4.8 = 17.3 kN/m Live
Live Load = 1.4 x 4.8 = 6.72 kN/m Load=
6.72kN/m
175
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES

moment
F2 = (393.85+551.38+716.8+860.16) / (3-1)
= 1261.1kN
F1 = (225.05+393.85+551.38+716.8+860.16) / (3-1)
=1373.62 kN

Mac = [(1261.1) x 3] / 2(3-1) = 945.83 kNm

Ext = 1/2 x 945.83 = 472.91 kNm
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary Moment of ground floor internal column
Design of Mad = [(1373.62) x 4] / 2(3-1) = 1373.62 kNm
Structural
Members Moment of ground floor external column
Notes Part 2 Ext = ½ x 1373.62= 686.81 kNm

Mab = Mae = ½ (945.83 + 1373.62) = 1159.73 kNm
Moment of any internal beam=1159.73 (3-1) =

579.86kNm
∴ MAC = 1261.1 x 3/2 = 1891.65 kNm

MAD = 1373.62 x 4/2 = 2747.24 kNm
MAB = MAE = ½ (1891.65 + 2747.24) = 2319.45 kNm
176
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
Summary

Loads
177
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
MO =
16125.96
kNm
Pa =
1479.45k
Dr. R. Clarke N
Preliminary Pb
Design of =235.85k
Structural N
Members
Notes Part 3
PE
Overturning Moment, Mo = [(225.05 x 4) + (393.85 x 7) + =5039.36
(551.38 x 10) + (716.8 x13) + (860.16 x 16)] / [ 3-1] = 16125.96 kN
kNm
𝑃𝐵/ 0.77=(𝑃𝐴−𝑃𝐵)/ 4.06

4.06𝑃𝐵=0.77𝑃𝐴−0.77𝑃𝐵
4.83𝑃𝐵=0.77𝑃𝐴
𝑃𝐵= (0.77/4.83) 𝑃𝐴
𝑃𝐴= (4.83/0.77) 𝑃𝐵
TMA centreline: 10.10𝑃𝐴+4.06𝑃𝐵=M𝑂 =
10.10𝑃𝐴+4.06(0.77/4.83) 𝑃𝐴= 16125.96
10.7𝑃𝐴= 16125.96
𝑃𝐴= (16125.96/10.9) = 1479.45𝑘𝑁
Therefore PB = 235.85 kN
Therefore, PE = 16125.96 x 3/ (2 x 4.8) = 5039.36
Kn

Dead load: 3.6 KN/m

tables
178
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
M D,
support= -
37.43kNm
Dr. R. Clarke MD, span =
Preliminary 31.06kNm
Design of ML,
Structural support = -
Members 14.62kNm
Notes Part 4 WD = 3.6 x (4.8/2) x (4.8/2) = 20.74 kN ML, span
WL =20.74 x (1.4/3.6) = 8.1 kN =
12.13kN
Therefore, m
MD, SUPPORT = -0.188 x 2 x 20.74 x 4.8 = -37.43 kNm
MD, SPAN = 0.156 x 2 x 20.74 x 4.8 = 31.06 kNm
ML, SUPPORT = -0.188 x 2 x 8.1 x 4.8 = -14.62kNm
ML, SPAN = 0.156 x 2 x 8.1 x 4.8 = 12.13 kNm

Mupper =
External Column 7.74 kNm
Mlower =
Since the subframe analysis requires the beams and column I’s which are 4.52 kNm
not known yet. The following assumption was made:
Therefore,
Mupper = 12.9 x 0.6 = 7.74 kNm
Mlower= 12.9 x 0.35 = 4.52 kNm

Dead = 3 x 3.6 x 4.82 /2= 124.42 kN
Live = 124.42 x (1.4/3.6) =48.39
kN
Beam Size: Use
Consider U= 1.4D+0.5L+1.4E W30x108
179
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
Therefore, Mu = 1.4 x 37.43 + 0.5 x 14.62 + 1.4 x 1159.72 = 1683.32
Dr. R. Clarke kNm
Preliminary For ASTM A992 Grade 50
Design of Therefore, Zrequired = 1683.32 x 106 / (0.9 x 345 x 103) = 5421.32 cm3 =
Structural 330.83in3
Members Use W30 x 108 (346 > 330.83 in3: OK)
Notes Part 5- Check Beam Local Buckling instability (i.e., Seismic Compactness):
9
b/2tf= 6.89; λmax = 0.3√29000/50 = 7.22 > 6.89
h/w = 49.6; λmax = 2.45√29000/50 = 59 > 49.6

For W30 X 108 ry =
2.15
Max length = 0.086 x 2.15 x 29000/50= 107.24 in = 2723.9 mm
Unbraced length = 4800/2 = 2400 < 2723.9 mm which is OK
Beam plastic moment strength, Mp= FyZ= 50 x 346/12= 1441.67 kip-ft
Beam depth = 29.8 in
Therefore,
Shear force in plastic hinge, Vp = 2 x 1441.67/ (4.8 x 3.28-2 x 1.6 x
29.8/12) + 1.2(17.3 + 6.72) x 0.74(4.8 x 3.28 – 2 x 1.6 x 29.8/12)/2 = Use
1364.45 kip = 6069.38kN
W33x354
Moment due to Vp= 1364.45 x 1.6 x 29.8/12= 5421.41kip ft

Σ𝑀𝑝𝑏= 1.1 x 1.1 x 1441.67 + 5421.4= 7165.82 kip-ft
Σ𝑀𝑝𝑐= 2Zcx50 Mupper =
Therefore 2Zcx50= 1.5 x 7165.82 x 12 → 1289.85in3 7.1 kNm
Use W33 x 354 (1420 > 1289.85 in3) Mlower =
Check: 4.9kNm
Therefore,
Mupper = 12.9 x 0.55 = 7.1 kNm
Dr. R. Clarke Mlower = 12.9 x 0.38 = 4.9 kNm
Preliminary Use
Design of Check Column Local Buckling: W33x354
Structural b/2tf= 3.85; λmax = 0.3√29000/50 = 7.22> 3.85 which is OK
Members
Notes Part 10 h/w = 25.7; λmax = 2.45√29000/50 = 59> 25.7 which is OK
180
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES
Check Drift:
Beam W30 x 108 Ixx = 4470
Column W33 x 354 Ixx = 22000
Ib */L = 4470 x 0.02544/4.8 = 3.88 x 10-4.

Ic */h = 2 x 22000 x 0.02544/4 = 4.58 x 10-3
VG = 3.88/45.8 =0.1 → =1.39
Therefore, Drift= [5.5 (3 x 1.39-1)42/ (12 x 210 x 106 x 9.16x10-3) x (0.1
x 27456.72/2) x 100%= 1.7 <2% which is OK
PU= 1.4 x 124.42+ 0.5 x 48.39 + 1.4 x 5039.36 = 7253.49 KN
λc= 1.1 x 4 x 3.28 x 12 x √ (50/29000)/ (3.14 x 3.74) = 0.61 → 0.37
Fcr = 0.6580.37 x 50 = 42.8 ksi
Therefore,
ФPn=v0.8FcrA= 0.8 x 42.8 x 104 = 3569.281 kip= 15876.95 kN
PU/ФPn = 7253.49/ 15876.95= 0.46 > 0.2
MUZ = 0.5 x 4.52 + 1.4 x 1373.62= 1925.33kNm
kip-ft
Therefore
demand factor= 0.46/2 + 8/9(1925.33/0.8 x 5916.6 x 1.35) = 0.48<
1 which is OK
Non-Seismic Beams:
MU= 1.2 x 37.43 + 1.6 x 14.63 = 68.32kNm
Therefore Zrequired = 68.32 x 106 / (0.9 x 345 x 103) = 220.3 cm3 = 13.44
in3
Use W16 x 26 (44.2>13.44 in3) which is OK
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary Non-Seismic Columns: Use
Design of Consider U= (1.2D+1.6L) W10x12
Structural Max moment on internal column, Mu= 1.6 x 4.52 x 2 = 14.46 kNm
Members Max axial force on internal column, PU = 1.2 x 124.42 x 2 + 1.6 x 48.39
Notes Part x 2 =453.46kN = 101.95 kips
13-15 Effective height= 0.85 x 4000= 3400mm = 11.2ft
181
REFERENC
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
ES

2.8in3
Use W 10 x 12
182
Cost Estimation
CONCRETE
Concrete for decking for 125mm equivalent thickness= 5 x 62.75 x 10.05 x 0.125 = 394.15m3
Total: = 606.08 kN/m3
STEEL WORK
Seismic beams = 30 x 4.8 x 3.28 x 108 x 0.46=23464.86kg
Non-seismic beams = 37 x 5 x 4.8 x 3.28 x 26 x 0.46= 34835.17kg
Composite beams = 52 x 5 x 4.8 x 3.28 x 26 x 0.46= 48957.54kg
Total = 268035.32kg
Decking BRC, 610 x 6 x 100= 5 x (62.75 x 10.05)/ (30.5x1.8) = 57.44 rolls

Decking 17012.26 ft 22 374,269.72
Steelwork 268035.32 kg 21.1 5,655,545.25
1413886.31
etc. @ 25%
Contingency @ 15% 6,697,765.79
Overhead & Profit @ 30% 15,404,861.32
GRAND TOTAL TT$
66,754,399.04
Therefore, Total Cost= Grand Total + No. of Structure=$ 66,754,399.04 x 4
=$267,017,596.20
183
Alternative 2: Steel Moment Resisting Frame.
for Steel Moment Resisting Frame
184
Calculation - Preliminary Structural Design of a Reinforced Concrete Framed for the Single
Bedroom Apartment Complex Ground, 1st & 2nd Floor Plan
REFERENC OUTPU
CALCULATIONS
ES T
PLAN
Floor Slabs Weight

Dr. R. Clarke Floor slab weight = 24 x 642. x 0.153 = 2360 kN
Preliminary No. of floor slabs = 3
Design of Therefore, total floor slab weight = 2360 x 3 = 7080
Structural kN
Members
Notes Beams Weight
Part 1 No. of beams = 47
For d = (1680/26) + 300 = 564 = 600mm = 0.6m
No. of floors = 3
3487.1kN
Columns Weight
Therefore, h = 0.4m
No. of columns = 30
Column height = 3m
No. of floors = 3
185
REFERENC OUTPU
CALCULATIONS
ES T
Therefore, total column weight = 24 x 0.4 x 0.4 x 3 x 30 x 3 = 1036.8
kN Total
Building
Weight,
Building Total Weight, W W
W = 7080 + 3487.1 + 1036.8 = 11604kN =13924.8
kN
Seismic Load:
11604 x (120/100) = 13924.8kN
Plan
Internal Frame
Calculating Vertical Distribution of Seismic

Load

Seismic
Seismic Load, V = 0.1W = 0.1 x 13924.8 = 1392.48 kN Load, V =
Also, V = F1 + F2 + F3 1392.48k
N
F2/F1 = 7/4 → F2 = 1.75F1
186
REFERENC OUTPU
CALCULATIONS
ES T
F3/F2 = 10/7 → F3 = 1.4F2
F1 + F2 + F3 = 1392.48
F1 + 1.75F1 + (1.75 x 1.4) F1 =
1392.48
5.2F1 = 1392.48
F1 = 267.78 kN
F2 = 468.62 kN
F3 = 656.07 kN
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Direction
Design of
Structural Tributar
Members y width =
m
Notes Part 2 5.14 m
Dead Load = 3.6 x 5.14 = 18.5 kN/m
Dead
Live Load = 1.4 x 5.14 = 7.2 kN/m
Load=18
.5 kN/m
Live
Load=
7.2kN/m

moment
F2 = (468.62 +656.07) / (3-1) = 562.35

F1 = (267.78 + 468.62 + 656.07) / (3-1) =696.24 kN

Mac = [(562.35) x 3] / 2(3-1) = 421.76 kNm
187
REFERENC OUTPU
CALCULATIONS
ES T

Ext = 1/2 x 421.76 = 210.88 kNm

Mad = [(696.24) x 4] / 2(3-1) = 696.24 kNm

Ext = ½ x 696.24 = 348.12 kNm

Mab = Mae = ½ (421.76 + 696.24) = 559 kNm
Moment of any internal beam=559/ (3-1) = 279.5kNm

∴ MAC = 562.35 x 3/2 = 843.53 kNm

MAD = 696.24 x 4/2 = 1392.48 kNm
MAB = MAE = ½ (843.53 + 1392.48) = 1118 kNm
Summary
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of
Structural
Members
Notes Part 3
188
REFERENC OUTPU
CALCULATIONS
ES T

Loads
Overturning Moment, Mo = [(267.78 x 4) + (468.62 x 7) + (656.07

x 10)] / [ 3-1] = 5456.08 kNm
𝑃𝐵/ 1.03=(𝑃𝐴−𝑃𝐵)/ 4.11

4.11𝑃𝐵=1.03𝑃𝐴−1.03𝑃𝐵
5.14𝑃𝐵=1.03𝑃𝐴
𝑃𝐵= (1.03/5.14) 𝑃𝐴
𝑃𝐴= (5.12/1.03) 𝑃𝐵
TMA centreline: 10.28𝑃𝐴+4.11𝑃𝐵=M𝑂 =
10.28𝑃𝐴+4.11(1.03/5.14) 𝑃𝐴= 5456.08
11.1𝑃𝐴= 5456.08 MO =
𝑃𝐴= (5456.08/11.1) =491.54𝑘𝑁 5456.08
kNm
Therefore PB = 98.5kN
Pa =
Therefore, PE = 5456.08 x 3/ (2 x 5.14) = 1592.24 Kn 491.54
Dr. R. Clarke kN
Preliminary From Previous Concrete Section Pb =
Design of Dead load: 3.6 KN/m 98.5kN
Structural Live loads: 1.4 KN/m
Members PE =
Notes Part 4 1592.24k
N
189
REFERENC OUTPU
CALCULATIONS
ES T

tables
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of
Structural
Members
Notes Part 5
WD = 3.6 x (5.14/2) x (5.14/2) = 23.78 kN

WL =23.78 x (1.4/3.6) = 9.25 kN
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary MD,
Therefore, support=
Design of
Structural -
MD, SUPPORT = -0.188 x 2 x 23.78 x 5.14 = -45.96 kNm 45.96kN
Members
MD, SPAN = 0.156 x 2 x 23.78 x 5.14 = 38.14 kNm m
Notes Part 6- MD, span
11 =
ML, SUPPORT = -0.188 x 2 x 9.25 x 5.14 = -17.88 kNm
38.14kN
ML, SPAN = 0.156 x 2 x 9.25 x 5.14 = 14.83 kNm m
ML ,
support =
-
17.88kN
m
ML,
span =
14.83kN
m
190
REFERENC OUTPU
CALCULATIONS
ES T

External Column
Since the subframe analysis requires the beams and column I’s which
are not known yet. The following assumption was made:
Therefore,
Mupper = 28.2 x 0.6 = 16.92 kNm
Mlower= 28.2 x 0.35 = 9.87 kNm

Dead = 3 x 3.6 x 5.142 /2= 142.67
kN
Live = 142.67 x (1.4/3.6) =55.48 kN
Beam Size:
Therefore, Mu = 1.4 x 45.96 + 0.5 x 17.88 + 1.4 x 559 = 855.88 kNm
Therefore, Zrequired = 855.88 x 106 / (0.9 x 345 x 103) = 2686.4 cm3 = Mupper
163.93in3 = 16.92
Use W30 x 108 (346 > 163.93 in3: OK) kNm
Mlower
Check Beam Local Buckling instability (i.e., Seismic = 9.87
Compactness): kNm
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary b/2tf= 6.89; λmax = 0.3√29000/50 = 7.22 > 6.89
Design of h/w = 49.6; λmax = 2.45√29000/50 = 59 > 49.6
Structural
Members
Notes Part 12
For W30 X 108 ry =
2.15
Unbraced length = 5140/2 = 2572 < 2723.9 mm which is OK
Use
Column Size for Strong-Column-Weak beam (SCWB): W30x10
8
191
REFERENC OUTPU
CALCULATIONS
ES T
Dr. R. Clarke Beam plastic moment strength, Mp= FyZ= 50 x 346/12= 1441.67 kip-
Preliminary ft
Design of Beam depth = 29.8 in
Structural Therefore,
Members Shear force in plastic hinge, Vp = 2 x 1441.67/ (5.14 x 3.28-2 x 1.6 x
Notes Part 13 29.8/12) + 1.2(18.5 + 7.2) x 0.74(5.14 x 3.28 – 2 x 1.6 x 29.8/12)/2 =
517.61 kip = 2302.44kN
Moment due to Vp= 517.61x 1.6 x 29.8/12= 2056.64kip ft

Σ𝑀𝑝𝑏= 1.1 x 1.1 x 1441.67 + 2056.4= 3800.82 kip-ft
Therefore 2Zcx50= 1.5 x 3800.82 x 12 → 684.15in3
Use W27 x 217 (711 > 684.15 in3)
Check:
Therefore,
Dr. R. Clarke Mupper = 28.2 x 0.55 = 15.51 kNm
Preliminary Mlower = 28.2 x 0.38 = 9.87 kNm
Design of
Structural Check Column Local Buckling:
Members b/2tf= 4.71; λmax = 0.3√29000/50 = 7.22> 4.71 which is OK
Notes Part h/w = 28.7; λmax = 2.45√29000/50 = 59> 28.7 which is OK
Use
14-15 W27x21
Check Drift: 7
Beam W30 x 108 Ixx = 4470
Column W27 x 217 Ixx = 8910
Ib */L = 4470 x 0.02544/5.14 = 3.62 x 10-4.

Ic */h = 2 x 8910 x 0.02544/4 = 1.85 x 10-3 Mupper
VG = 3.62/18.5 =0.2 → =1
= 15.51
kNm
Therefore, Drift= [5.5 (3 x 1-1)42/ (12 x 210 x 106 x 3.7x10-3) x (0.1 x
Mlower
13924.8/2) x 100%= 1.3 <2% which is OK
= 9.87
kNm
PU= 1.4 x 142.67 + 0.5 x 55.48 + 1.4 x 1592.24 = 2456.6 kN
λc= 1.1 x 4 x 3.28 x 12 x √ (50/29000)/ (3.14 x 3.32) = 0.69 → 0.48
Fcr = 0.6580.48 x 50 = 40.9 ksi
Therefore,
192
REFERENC OUTPU
CALCULATIONS
ES T
ФPn=v0.8FcrA= 0.8 x 40.9 x 63.9 = 2090.81 kip= 9300.39 kN
PU/ФPn = 2456.6/ 9300.39= 0.26 > 0.2
MUZ = 0.5 x 9.87 + 1.4 x 696.24= 979.67kNm
kip-ft
Therefore
demand factor= 0.26/2 + 8/9(979.67/0.8 x 2962.6 x 1.35) = 0.4 <

1 which is OK
Non-Seismic Beams:
MU= 1.2 x 45.96 + 1.6 x 17.88 = 83.76kNm
Therefore Zrequired = 83.76 x 106 / (0.9 x 345 x 103) = 269.76 cm3 =
16.46 in3
Use W16 x 31(82.3 >16.46 in3) which is OK
Max moment on internal column, Mu= 1.6 x 9.87 x 2 = 31.58 kNm
Max axial force on internal column, PU = 1.2 x 142.67 x 2 + 1.6 x
55.48 x 2 =259.97kN = 58.44 kips

Use
6.2in3
W16x31
Use W 10 x 12
193
REFERENC OUTPU
CALCULATIONS
ES T
Use
W10x12
194
Cost Estimation
CONCRETE
Concrete for decking for 125mm equivalent thickness= 3 x 59.80 x 10.28 x 0.125 = 280.32m3
Total: = 366.62 kN/m3
STEEL WORK
Seismic column = 14 x 10 x 3.28 x 217 x 0.46= 45837.34kg
Total =108271.16kg
Decking BRC, 610 x 6 x 100= 3 x (59.78 x 10.28)/ (30.5x1.8) = 33.58 rolls
Decking 9520.49 ft 22 209,450.78
Steelwork 108271.16 kg 21.1 2,284,521.48
571130.37
etc. @ 25%
Contingency @ 15% 3,093,536.52
Overhead & Profit @ 30% 7,115,133.99
GRAND TOTAL TT$
30,832,247.28
=$123,328,989.10
195
Two (2) Bedroom Triplex
Figure 35: Sketch of the Two (2) Bedroom Triplex Floor Plan for Steel Moment Resisting
Frame
196
Calculation – Preliminary Structural Design of a Steel Framed for the Two (2) Bedroom Triplex
Building.
REFERENCE
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
S
PLAN
Dr. R. Clarke Dead Load = 3.6 kN/m2
Preliminary Live Load = 1.4 kN/m2
Design of Density of Normal weight concrete = 24 kN/m3
Structural
Members Notes Calculating Building Weight
Part 1
Floor Slabs Weight
kN
Beams Weight
No. of beams = 10
For d = (9690/26) + 300 = 679.7 = 700mm = 0.7m
No. of floors = 2
1104kN
Columns Weight
Therefore, h = 0.4m
No. of columns = 8
Column height = 3m
No. of floors = 2
197
REFERENCE
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
S
Therefore, total column weight = 24 x 0.4 x 0.4 x 3 x 8 x 2
= 184.32 kN

W = 1385.8 + 1104 + 184.32 = 2674.12kN

Total Building
Seismic Load: Weight, W =
Increasing building weight by 20% (catering for 3208.94 kN
connections)
2674.12 x (120/100) =3208.94kN
Plan
Internal Frame

Seismic Load,
Seismic Load, V = 0.1W = 0.1 x 3208.94 = 320.89 kN V = 320.89 kN
Also, V = F1 + F2
F2/F1 = 7/4 → F2 = 1.75F1
F1 + F2 = 320.89
F1 + 1.75F1 = 32.89
198
REFERENCE
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
S
2.75F1 = 320.89
F1 = 116.69kN
F2 = 204.20kN
Dr. R. Clarke Calculate Moments Due to Seismic Load Tributary

Preliminary width = 9.69 m
Design of Tributary width = (9.69 + 9.69 + 9.69)/3= 9.69m Dead
Structural Dead Load = 3.6 x 9.69 = 34.88 kN/m Load=34.88k
Members Notes Live Load = 1.4 x 9.69 = 13.57 kN/m N/m
Part 2 Live Load=
13.57kN/m

moment
F2 = 240.20/ (4-1) = 80.06

F1 = (116.69 + 204.20) / (4-1) =250.4 kN
199
REFERENCE
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
S
Mac = [(80.06) x 3] / 2(4-1) = 40.03 kNm

Ext = ½ x 40.03 = 20.02 kNm

Mad = [(80.06 + 250.4) x 4] / 2(4-1) = 220.31 kNm

Ext = ½ x 220.31 = 110.15 kNm

Mab = Mae = ½ (40.03+ 220.31) = 130.17 kNm
Summary
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of
Structural Calculate Axial Loads Due to Seismic Loads
Members Notes
Part 3
200
REFERENCE
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
S
Overturning Moment, Mo = [(116.69 x 4) + (204.20 x 7)] /
MO = 632.1
[ 4-1] = 632.1 kNm
kNm
Pa = 65.23 kN
Pa = Pb
Pb = 65.23 Kn
9.69Pa = Mo PE = 98 Kn
Pa = 632.1/9.69
Pa = 65.23 kN
Pb = 65.23 kN
Therefore, PE = 632.1 x 3/ (2 x 9.69) = 98 Kn

Dead load: 3.6 KN/m
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary Calculate Gravity Moments in Beams
Design of
Structural Consider as a continuous beam and use standard
tables
Members Notes
Part 4
WD = 3.6 x (9.69/2) x (9.69/2) = 84.51 kN

WL =84.51 x (1.4/3.6) = 32.76 kN
Therefore,
MD, SUPPORT = -0.133 x 2 x 84.52 x 9.69 = -217.85 kNm
MD, SPAN = 0.122 x 2 x 84.52 x 9.69 = 199.84 kNm MD, support=
ML, SUPPORT = -0.133 x 2 x 32.76 x 9.69 = -84.44 kNm 217.85kNm
ML, SPAN = 0.122 x 2 x 32.76 x 9.69 = 77.46 kNm MD, span =
199.84kNm
Calculate Gravity Moments in Columns ML, support =
84.44kNm
Dr. R. Clarke By Moment Distribution of subframes
Preliminary
201
REFERENCE
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
S
Design of External Column ML, span =
Structural 77.46kNm
Members Notes Since the subframe analysis requires the beams and column I’s
Part 5 which are not known yet. The following assumption was made:
Therefore,
Mupper = 84.5 x 0.6 = 50.7 kNm
Mlower= 84.5 x 0.35 = 29.58 kNm
Mupper =
Calculate Gravity Axial Forces in Columns 50.7 kNm
Mlower =
Dead = 4 x 3.6 x 9.692 /2= 676.05 kN 29.58 kNm
Live = 676.05x (1.4/3.6) =262.90 kN
Beam Size:
Dr. R. Clarke Consider U= 1.4D+0.5L+1.4E
Preliminary Therefore, Mu = 1.4 x 217.85 + 0.5 x 84.44 + 1.4 x 65.1= 438.35
Design of kNm
Structural For ASTM A992 Grade 50
Members Notes Therefore, Zrequired = 438.35 x 106 / (0.9 x 345 x 103) = 1411.76
Part 6-11
cm3 =86.15in3
Use W14 x 132 (234 >86.15 in3: OK)
Compactness): Use W14x132
b/2tf= 7.15; λmax = 0.3√29000/50 = 7.22 > 7.15

h/w = 17.7; λmax = 2.45√29000/50 = 59 > 17.7

For W14 X 132 ry = 3.71
Unbraced length = 9690/3 = 3230 < 3420.87 mm which is
OK
Beam plastic moment strength, Mp= FyZ= 50 x 234/12= 975kip-
ft
Beam depth = 14.7 in
Therefore,
202
REFERENCE
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
S
Shear force in plastic hinge, Vp = 2 x 975/ (9.69 x 3.28-2 x 1.6 x
14.7/12) + 1.2(34.88 + 13.57) x 0.74(9.69 x 3.28 – 2 x 1.6 x
14.7/12)/2 = 751.73 kip =3343.86kN
Moment due to Vp= 751.73 x 1.6 x 14.7/12= 1473.4-kip ft

Σ𝑀𝑝𝑏= 1.1 x 1.1 x 975 + 1473.4 = 2653.15 kip-ft
Σ𝑀𝑝𝑐= 2Zcx50 Use W24x176
Therefore 2Zcx50= 1.5 x 2653.15 x 12 →477.57in3
Use W24x 176 (511 >477.57 in3)
Check:
Mupper = 55% out-of-balance moment Mupper =
Mlower = 38% out-of- balance moment 46.48 kNm
Therefore, Mlower =
Mupper = 84.5 x 0.55 = 46.48nkNm 32.11 kNm
Mlower = 84.5 x 0.38 = 32.11 kNm
Check Column Local Buckling:

b/2tf= 4.81; λmax = 0.3√29000/50 = 7.22> 4.81 which is OK
h/w = 28.7; λmax = 2.45√29000/50 = 59> 28.7 which is
OK
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of
Check Drift:
Structural
Members Notes For the beam and column sizes selected:
Part 12 Beam W14 x 132 Ixx = 1530
Ib */L =1530 x 0.02544/9.69 = 6.6 x 10-5.

Ic */h = 2 x 5680 x 0.02544/4 = 1.18 x 10-3
VG = 6.6/118=0.1 → =1.39
Therefore, Drift= [5.5 (3 x 1.39-1)42/ (12 x 210 x 106 x 2.364 x
10-3) x (0.1 x 3208.94/2) x 100%= 0.75 <2% which is OK

Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary Consider U=1.4D+0.5L+1.4E
Design of PU= 1.4 x 676.05 + 0.5 x 262.90 + 1.4 x 98 = 1346.6 kN
Structural
203
REFERENCE
CALCULATIONS OUTPUT
S
Members Notes λc= 1.1 x 4 x 3.28 x 12 x √ (50/29000)/ (3.14 x 3.76) = 0.6
Part 13
→ 0.36
Fcr = 0.6580.36 x 50 = 43 ksi
Therefore,
ФPn=v0.8FcrA= 0.8 x 43 x 51.7 = 1778.48 kip= 7911 kN
PU/ФPn = 1346.6/ 7911= 0.2 =0.2
MUZ = 0.5 x 29.58 + 1.4 x 110.5= 169.49kNm
Column moment strength, Mnz = ZcFyc = 511x 50 = 25550 kip-in =
2129.17 kip-ft
Therefore
demand factor= 0.2/2 + 8/9(169.49/0.8 x 2129.17 x 1.35) = Use W16x45
0.16 < 1 which is OK
Dr. R. Clarke Non-Seismic Beams:
Preliminary Consider U=1.2D + 1.6L
Design of MU= 1.2 x 217.85 + 1.6 x 84.44 = 396.52kNm
Structural Therefore Zrequired = 396.52 x 106 / (0.9 x 345 x 103) = 1277.04
Members Notes cm3 = 77.9 in3
Part 14-15 Use W16 x 45 (82.3 >77.9 in3) which is OK
Use W12x16
Max moment on internal column, Mu= 1.6 x 29.58 x 2 = 94.66
kNm
Max axial force on internal column, PU = 1.2 x 676.05 x 2 + 1.6
x 265.90 x 2 =2473.4kN = 556.04 kips
Therefore, Zrequired= (94.66 x 106)/ (0.9 x 345x 103) =

304.86cm3 = 18.60in3
Use W 12 x 16
204
Cost Estimation
CONCRETE
Concrete for decking for 125mm equivalent thickness= 2 x 29.07 x 6.0 x 0.125 =43.61m3
Footings (assume pad footing 2.25 x 2.25 x 0.4) = 8 x 2.252 x0.4 = 16.2 m3
Total: = 59.81 kN/m3
STEEL WORK
Seismic beams = 8 x 9.69 x 3.28 x 132 x 0.46= 15439kg
Seismic column = 4 x 7 x 3.28 x 176 x 0.46= 7562.11kg
Non seismic columns =4 x 7 x 0.46 x 16 x 3.28= 657.94kg
Total =34185.65kg
Composite decking, 20 ft long x 25” wide= 2(29.07 x 3.28 x 12/25) 6 x 3.28= 1801.421ft
Decking BRC, 610 x 6 x 100=2 x (29.07 x 6)/ (30.5x1.8) = 6.35 rolls

Decking 1801.42 ft 22 39,631.24
Steelwork 34185.65 kg 21.1 721,317.22
180329.30
etc. @ 25%
Contingency @ 15% 837,312.79
Overhead & Profit @ 30% 1,925,819.43
GRAND TOTAL TT$
8,345,217.52
=$150,213,915.40
205
Calculation - Preliminary Structural Design of a Steel Framed Three (3) Bedroom Building.
REFERENC OUTPU
CALCULATIONS
ES T
Three (3) Bedroom
PLAN

Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of Calculating Building Weight
Structural
Members Floor Slabs Weight
Notes Floor slab area = 130.45 m2
Part 1 3
Density of concrete = 24 kN/m
Therefore, total floor slab weight = 479.01 x 2= 958.02
kN
206
REFERENC OUTPU
CALCULATIONS
ES T
Beams Weight
No. of beams = 7
For d = (9600/26) + 300 = 669.23 = 700mm = 0.7m
No. of floors = 1
368.42kN
Columns Weight
Therefore, h = 0.4m
No. of columns = 6
Column height = 3m
No. of floors = 1
Therefore, total column weight = 24 x 0.4 x 0.4 x 3 x 6 x 1 = 69.12
kN
Total
Building
W = 958.02 + 368.42 + 69.12 = 1395.6kN Weight,
W =
Connection Preliminary Design 1674.72
Seismic Load: kN
Increasing building weight by 20% (catering for
connections)
1395.6 x (120/100) =1674.72kN
207
REFERENC OUTPU
CALCULATIONS
ES T
Plan
Internal Frame

Also, V = F1 Seismic
Load, V =
F1 = 167.5 kN 167.5 kN
Using avg tributary width = (6.32 + 6.32)/2 = 6.32

m
Dead Load = 3.6 x 6.32 = 22.8 kN/m
Live Load = 1.4 x 6.32 = 8.8 kN/m Tributar
y width =
6.32 m
208
REFERENC OUTPU
CALCULATIONS
ES T
Dr. R. Clarke Dead
Preliminary Load=22
Design of .8 kN/m
Structural Live
Members Load=
Notes Part 2 8.8kN/m

moment
F1 = (167.5) / (3-1)
=83.8 kN

Mac = 0 kNm

Ext = 0 kNm

Mad = [(167.5) x 4] / 2(3-1) = 167.5 kNm

Ext = ½ x 167.5 = 83.75 kNm

Mab = Mae = ½ (0 + 167.5) = 83.75 kNm

Ext = 83.75 / 2 = 41.88 kNm
Moment Due to Seismic Loads:
Therefore,
MAC= 0 kNm
MAD= (167.6 x 4)/2= 335.2 kNm
209
REFERENC OUTPU
CALCULATIONS
ES T
Moment of any internal beam=335.2/ (3-1) =

167.6kNm
Summary
Calculate Axial Loads Due to Seismic Loads
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of
Structural
Members
Notes Part 3
Overturning Moment, Mo = [(167.5 x 4)] / [ 3-1] = 335kNm
210
REFERENC OUTPU
CALCULATIONS
ES T
Pa = Pb MO =
335kNm
Taking moments about Centreline: Pa =
34.89 kN
9.6Pa = Mo Pb =
34.89 Kn
Pa = 335/9.6
Pa = 34.89 kN PE = 69.8
Kn
Pb = 34.89 kN
Therefore, PE = 335 x 2/ (2 x 4.8) = 69.8 Kn

Dead load: 3.6 KN/m

tables
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary
Design of
Structural
Members
Notes Part 4
WD = 3.6 x (6.32/2) x (6.32/2) = 35.95 kN

WL =35.95 x (1.4/3.6) = 13.98 kN
Therefore,
MD, SUPPORT = -0.188 x 1 x 35.95 x 6.32 = - 42.71
KNm
MD, SPAN = 0.156 x 2 x 35.95 x 6.32 = 17.54 kNm
ML, SUPPORT = -0.188 x 1 x 13.98 x 6.32 = -16.61 kNm
211
REFERENC OUTPU
CALCULATIONS
ES T
ML, SPAN = 0.156 x 2 x 13.98 x 6.32 = 27.57 kNm
MD,
Calculate Gravity Moments in Columns support=
By Moment Distribution of subframes -
42.71kN
External Column m
Since the subframe analysis requires the beams and column I’s which are MD, span
not known yet. The following assumption was made: =
Mupper = 60% out-of-balance moment 17.54kN
Mlower = 35% out-of-balance moment m
Therefore, ML ,
Mupper = 175.1 x 0.6 = 106.06 kNm support =
-
Mlower= 175.1 x 0.35 = 61.29 kNm
16.61kN
m
Calculate Gravity Axial Forces in Columns ML,
span =
Dead = 3.6 x 4 x 9.62 /2= 663.6 kN 27.57kN
Live = 662.6 x (1.4/3.6) =258.1 m
kN
Dr. R. Clarke Beam Size: Mupper =
Preliminary Consider U= 1.4D+0.5L+1.4E 106.06
Design of Therefore, Mu = 1.4 x 42.71 + 0.5 x 16.61 + 1.4 x 82.50= 183.60 kNm
Structural kNm Mlower =
Members For ASTM A992 Grade 50 61.29
Notes Part 5 kNm
Therefore, Zrequired = 183.60 x 106 / (0.9 x 345 x 103) = 591.30 cm3
=36.08in3
Use W18 x 130 (198 >36.08 in3: OK)

Compactness):
b/2tf= 4.62; λmax = 0.3√29000/50 = 7.22 > 4.62

h/w = 23.9; λmax = 2.45√29000/50 = 59 > 23.9
Dr. R. Clarke
Preliminary Check Unbraced Length of beam flanges:
Design of For W18 X 130 ry =
Structural 2.70 Use
Members Max length = 0.086 x 2.70 x 29000/50= 134.68 in = 3420.87 mm W18x130
Notes Part 6 Unbraced length = 9600/3 = 3200 < 3420.87 mm which is OK
212
REFERENC OUTPU
CALCULATIONS
ES T
Beam plastic moment strength, Mp= FyZ= 50 x 290/12= 1208.3kip-
Dr. R. Clarke ft
Preliminary Beam depth = 19.3in
Design of Therefore,
Structural Shear force in plastic hinge, Vp = 2 x 1208.3/ (6.32 x 3.28-2 x 1.6 x
Members 19.3/12) + 1.2(22.8 + 8.8) x 0.74(6.32 x 3.28 – 2 x 1.6 x
Notes Part 7- 19.3/12)/2=373.67 kip =1662.17kN
11
Moment due to Vp= 373.67 x 1.6 x 19.3/12= 961.58-kip ft
Σ𝑀𝑝𝑏= 1.1 x 1.1 x 1208.9 +961.58 = 2424.35 kip-ft
Therefore 2Zcx50= 1.5x 2424.35 x 12 →436.4in3
Use W24x 162 (468>436.4 in3)
Check:
Therefore,
Dr. R. Clarke Mupper = 175.1 x 0.55 = 96.31kNm Use
Preliminary Mlower = 175.1 x 0.38 = 66.58 kNm W24x162
Design of
Structural Check Column Local Buckling:
Members b/2tf= 5.31; λmax = 0.3√29000/50 = 7.22> 5.31 which is
Notes Part 12 OK
Mupper =
h/w = 30.6; λmax = 2.45√29000/50 = 59> 30.6 which is OK 96.31
kNm
Check Drift:
Mlower =
66.58
Beam W18 x 130 Ixx = 2460 kNm
Dr. R. Clarke
Ib */L = 2460 x 0.02544/9.60 = 1.07 x 10-4.
Preliminary
Ic */h = 2 x 5170 x 0.02544/4 = 1.08 x 10-3
Design of
VG = 1.07/10.8=0.1 → =1.39
Structural
Members Therefore, Drift= [5.5 (3 x 1.39-1)42/ (12 x 210 x 106 x 2.15 x 10-3)
Notes Part 13 x (0.1 x 1099.86/2) x 100%= 0.28 <2% which is OK
PU= 1.4 x 663.6 + 0.5 x 258.1 + 1.4 x 69.8 = 1155.81Kn
λc= 1.1 x 4 x 3.28 x 12 x √ (50/29000)/ (3.14 x 2.7) = 0.85 → 0.72
213
REFERENC OUTPU
CALCULATIONS
ES T
Fcr = 0.6580.72 x 50 = 37 ksi
Therefore,
ФPn= 0.8 x 37 x 38.3 = 1133.7 kip=5042.9 kN
PU/ФPn = 1155.81/5042.9= 0.23>0.2
MUZ = 0.5 x 61.29 + 1.4 x 83.75= 147.9kNm
Column moment strength, Mnz = ZcFyc = 100x50 = 5000 kip-in =416.7 kip-
Dr. R. Clarke ft
Preliminary Therefore
Design of
Structural demand factor= 0.23/2 + 8/9(147.7/0.8 x 416.7 x 1.35) = 0.40
Members < 1 which is OK
Notes Part 14-
15
Non-Seismic Beams:
Consider U=1.2D + 1.6L
MU= 1.2 x 42.71 + 1.6 x 16.61 = 77.83kNm
Therefore Zrequired = 77.83 x 106 / (0.9 x 345 x 103) = 244.29cm3 =
14.9 in3
Use W10 x 15 (16 >14.9 in3) which is OK
Max moment on internal column, Mu= 1.6 x 61.29 x 2 =
196.13kNm
Max axial force on internal column, PU = 1.2 x 663.6 x 2 + 1.6 x
258.1 x 2 =2418.56kN = 543.71 kips
Effective height= 0.85 x 4000= 3400mm = 11.2ft Use
W10x15
38.55in3
Use W 8x35
Use
W8x35
214
COST ESTIMATION
CONCRETE
Concrete for decking for 125mm equivalent thickness= 1 x 10 x 13.05 x 0.125 =16.31 m3
Footings (assume pad footing 1 x 1 x 0.4) = 6 x 12 x0.4 = 2.4 m3
Total: = 18.71 kN/m3
STEEL WORK
Seismic column = 4 x 4 x 3.28 x 162 x 0.46= 3910.81 kg
Non seismic columns =2 x 4 x 0.46 x 35 x 3.28= 422.46kg
Total =10525.38kg
Composite decking, 20 ft long x 25” wide= 1(12.64 x 3.28 x 12/25) 9.6 x 3.28=626.62ft
Decking BRC, 610 x 6 x 100=1 x (12.64 x 9.6)/ (30.5x1.8) = 2.21 rolls

Decking 626.62 ft 22 13,785.64
Steelwork 10525.38 kg 21.1 222,085.52
55521.38
etc. @ 25%
Contingency @ 15% 321,494.74
Overhead & Profit @ 30% 739,437.90
GRAND TOTAL TT$
3,204,230.91
=$192,253,854.60
215
3.3.2 Pavement Design
This section focuses on the pavement design within the community. Pavement design is a
principal factor to consider when creating developments. These road networks help with ease of
access in and around the site. Major factors that need to be considered when designing the road
network within a residential community include the ease of accessibility to and around homes
and other structures, and the flow of traffic (in order to avoid congestion). The main aim of the
structural design of pavements is to determine the material constituents, and the number and
thickness of varying layers within the structure, that can carry a given loading.
Pavements can be categorised into two main sections:

● Flexible pavements:
These types of pavements are surfaced with bituminous or asphalt materials (Dr.
Leon 2021). They can either be HMA surface courses (usually used in high
volume traffic) or bituminous surface treated (generally used in low volume
traffic conditions). These types of roads get their name due to how the pavement
“deflects” the traffic loading applied on it. They mostly differ from rigid
pavements in that they are usually thicker since they are composed of more
courses/ layers.
● Rigid pavements:
Rigid pavements generally consist of a slab of Portland Cement Concrete (PCC)
overlying a granular base and subbase. They differ from flexible pavements in
that they are considered stiffer, due to the high modulus of elasticity of the PCC
used in its construction. They are generally also thinner than flexible pavements,
as they require less layers in their infrastructure.
Various properties for the pavement design were taken into consideration, such as the material
properties and the thickness of each layer.
Two approaches that are commonly used in the structural design of HMA pavements are:
● The Empirical Approach and
● The Mechanistic-Empirical Approach
Many design processes use the empirical approach.
216
The figures below provide a comparison to the two main types of pavements.
Figure 36. Flexible versus Rigid Pavement Structural Layout

(Sources adapted from Google Image, https://www.britannica.com/technology/rigid-pavement)
Figure 37. Flexible versus Rigid Pavement Load Distribution

(Sources adapted from Google Image, https://pavementinteractive.org/reference-desk/pavement-
types-and-history/pavement-types/)
217
Proposed Road Layout
Due to the steep slopes of the land, the traditional grid system would not be the best fit for the
road network. Therefore, the road system adopted was the curvilinear road system. This system
caters more to the sensitive topography of the site area, allowing for more flexibility in the road
design. The road network established was designed for allowance of two-way traffic within the
community. The two types of roads considered for this site were collector streets and access
roads (see Figures 3 and 4 below. Source: Town and Country Planning Division: “Guide to
Developers and Applicants for Planning Permission”).
Figure 38. Collector road cross section
Figure 39. Access road cross section
218
The access roads had a carriageway width of 5 metres, and a right-of-way width of 8 metres.
Allowances for sidewalks on both sides (1.045m) and drain (0.91m) were accommodated within
the total width of the access road. The road had a minimum allowable slope of 2.5% to assist
with drainage runoff.
Figure 40. Proposed Access Road cross section
The collector roads had a carriageway width of 7 metres (inclusive of kerb and slipper), and a
right-of-way width of 12 metres. Allowances for sidewalks (1.59m) and drains (0.91m) on both
sides were accommodated within the total width of the collector road.
219
Figure 41. Proposed Collector Road cross section
Assumptions and Limitations
Due to the limited access to the site amid the ongoing pandemic, some assumptions based on our
engineering judgement needed to be made. The information gathered was mostly from secondary
sources, including persons involved in the current project and from manuals such as the
AASHTO and Town and Country Manuals including the Town and Country Planning Division:
“Guide to Developers and Applicants for Planning Permission”. These calculations were based
on the worst-case scenario.
To determine the thickness of a road pavement, we must consider the number, weight, and speed
of loading iterations/ repetitions from the tyres of the vehicles travelling on the structure. The
standard axle during the design life of the structure is composed of four factors. These include:
● The number of vehicles per lane per day
● The vehicle wear factor (standard axles per vehicle)
● The design life of the structure and
● The estimated growth factor in vehicles, over the design life.
220
Calculating the AADT
To get an estimation of the AADT value for the community, the trip generation rates were used for each
building type (Sourced: Institute of Transportation Engineering 2018).
Unit of Trip Generation

Code Land use Type No. of Units AADT
Measure Rate
220 2 Story Townhouse DU 30x2 = 60 7.32 439.2
220 Triplex Apartment Complex DU 18x3 = 54 7.32 395.28
221 5 Story Apartment Complex DU 4x30=120 5.44 652.8
630 Health Centre/ Polyclinic ksf 4.01851 38.16 153.35
495 Community Centre/ ksf 4.806202 28.82 138.51

Administrative Office
Total 2431.94
Table 13. Calculated AADT for Layout #1.
Unit of Trip Generation

Code Land use Type No. of Units AADT
Measure Rate
220 2 Story Townhouse DU 60x1= 60 7.32 439.2
220 Triplex Apartment Complex DU 18x3 = 54 7.32 395.28
630 Health Centre/ Polyclinic ksf 4.01851 38.16 153.35
495 Community Centre/ ksf 4.806202 28.82 138.51

Administrative Office
Total 2431.94
Table 13. Calculated AADT for Layout #2.
221
DU = Dwelling Unit
ksf = square feet (*1000)
Calculating the ESAL Value

It is important to consider the ESAL (Equivalent Single Axis Load) over the design life of the
specific pavement being used, as this helps with determining the structural design.
As stated before, the expected growth rate of the pavement over its design life must be
considered:
G = ((1 + g) n - 1)/ g = [(1 + (1/100))20 – 1]/ (1/100) = 22.019
Where g = growth rate/100 (is not equal to zero) = 1% (AASHTO 1993)
n= analysis period (in years) = 20 years (AASHTO 1993)
:. G = [(1 + (1/100))20 – 1]/ (1/100) = 22.019
The equation used to estimate the ESAL is seen below:

ESALi = fd x Gjt x AADTi x 365 x Ni x FEi
Where ESALi = equivalent accumulated 18,000-lb (80 kN) single-axle load for axle category, i
fd = design lane factor = 1.0
Gjt = growth factor for a given growth rate, j and design period, t = 22.019
AADTi = first year annual average daily traffic for axle category, i
Ni = number of axles on each vehicle in axle category, i
FEi = load equivalency factor for axle category, i
(N.B. AADT values used here are the total for both directions)
ESAL Sample calculation for Passenger cars:

ESAL = (2) (0.0001) (1.0) (22.019) (365) (2620) (63.1/100) = 2657.36
(Engineering Judgment was used to determine the % distribution for each vehicle type in the
table below).
222
Vehicle Ni FEi fd Gjt Days AADT AADTi ESAL
classification
Passenger Car 2 0.0001 1.0 22.019 365 2431.94 63% 2462.713
SUV 2 0.0011 1.0 22.019 365 2431.94 22% 9459.46
Pickup 2 0.0023 1.0 22.019 365 2431.94 14% 12,587.20
Vans 2 0.0106 1.0 22.019 365 2431.94 0.30% 1243.084
Small trucks 2 0.0748 1.0 22.019 365 2431.94 0.02% 584.7967
Medium trucks 2 0.4759 1.0 22.019 365 2431.94 0.05% 9301.629
Bus 3 2.2444 1.0 22.019 365 2431.94 0.23% 302,686.20
Small maxi taxi 2 0.0066 1.0 22.019 365 2431.94 0.20% 515.9971
Large maxi taxi 2 0.0511 1.0 22.019 365 2431.94 0.20% 3995.068
Total 342,836.70
6
The total ESAL value was estimated to be 342,836.70 = 0.342x10 million
Table 14. Calculated ESAL values for each vehicle type.
223
Structural Design
Flexible Design:
To estimate the thicknesses of the pavement layers, the structural number must be calculated.
Structural number, SN = a1m1D1 + a2m2D2 + a3m3D3 …....
SN = flexible pavement structural number
a, = layer strength coefficient (structural)
m, = drainage coefficient
D = thickness of layer in inches
1, 2, 3 = pavement layers
To calculate SN, the following data was used:

● CBR Value of existing subgrade (clay soil) = 2% (AASHTO)
● Reliability, R = 80%
(Range 50-80% (local urban) and 80=95%(collectors); Source Barger and Hoel, pg.
1047)
● Standard Deviation, So = 0.45 (flexible pavement)
(Range 0.40-0.50, according to AASHTO; Source Garber and Hoel, pg. 1047)
● ΔPSI:
Initial Serviceability Index, Po = 4.2
Terminal Serviceability Index, Pt = 2.0
(For flexible pavements-AASHTO; Source Garber and Hoel, pg. 1035)
Therefore, ΔPSI = Po – Pt = 4.2 - 2.0 = 2.2
● Asphalt concrete (Surface Layer): E = 450,000 psi (at 68° F)
a1 (usually between 0.40 and 0.44)
m1 = 1.0
● Limestone Crusher Run (Base Layer): CBR = 80% (minimum value assumed)
m2 = 0.8 (assuming drainage is fair)
● Sandy Gravel (Sub-base Layer): CBR = 30%
m = 0.8 (assuming drainage is fair)
a3 = 0.11 (from AASHTO testing)
224
Reference Calculations Output
Determining the Structural Layer Coefficients for each layer:
Asphalt Layer:
Structural Layer Coefficient, a1:
Source:
Garber and Hoel,
pg. 1043
a1 = 0.44 (recommended range 0.40 to 0.44)

a1 = 0.44
E = 450,000 psi
E = 450 ksi
Base Course Layer:

Source:
Garber and Hoel,
pg. 1042
225
a2 = 0.133 = 0.13 a2 = 0.13
CBR = 80% (AASHTO recommended value)
Mr = 28,000 psi Mr = 28 ksi
Subbase Layer:
Source:
Garber and Hoel,
pg. 1041
a3 = 0.11 (from AASHTO tests)

a3 = 0.11
CBR = 30%
Mr = 14,500 psi
Mr = 14.5 ksi
To find the Effective Modulus of the Subgrade soil the below equation
was used:
Source:
Garber and Hoel,
pg. 1040
Using the formula Mr = 1500 CBR
226
Mr = 1500 (2%) = 3000 lb/in2 Mr = 3 ksi
Source:
Garber and Hoel,
pg. 1052
ESAL = 342,836.70
This value lies within the range that corresponds to row 3 in the figure
above, with a minimum asphalt layer thickness of 2.5” and minimum
base of thickness 4”.
Determining Structural Number for Asphalt Layer:
Source:
Garber and Hoel,
pg. 1049
SN1 = 1.75
227
Calculating for Layer Thickness (Asphalt Layer):
SN1 = a1m1D1; assuming m1 = 1.0 (assuming layer impermeable)
i.e., 1.75 = (0.44) (1.0) (D1)
:. D1 = 1.75/ ((0.44) (1.0)) = 3.98 inches ≈ 4 in.
Use D1* = 4 in.
SN1 = a1m1D1* = (0.44) (1.0) (4.0) = 1.76
Source: Determining Structural Number for Base Course Layer:

Garber and Hoel,
pg. 1049
SN1 = 1.75
SN2 = 2.15
D1 = 4 in.
Calculating for Layer Thickness (Base Course Layer):

SN2 = a1m1D1 + a2m2D2
i.e., 2.15 = (0.44) (1.0) (4.0) + (0.13) (0.8) (D2)
:. D2 = 2.15 - ((0.44) (1.0) (4.0))/ ((0.13) (0.8)) = 3.75

inches ≈ 4.0 in.
Use D2* = 4 in.

SN2 = a1m1D1* + a2m2D2* = (0.44) (1.0) (4.0) + (0.13) (0.8) (4.0) =
2.18
Source:
228
Garber and Hoel,
pg. 1049 SN2 = 2.15
Determining Structural Number for Subbase Layer:
D2 = 4 in.
SN3 = 3.49
Calculating for Layer Thickness (Subbase Course Layer):

SN3 = a1m1D1 + a2m2D2 + a3m3D3
i.e., 3.49 = (0.44) (1.0) (4.0) + (0.13) (0.8) (4.0) + (0.11) (0.8) (D3)
:. D3 = 3.49 - ((0.44) (1.0) (4.0) - (0.13) (0.8) (4.0))/ ((0.11) (0.8))

= 14.93 inches ≈ 15 in.
Use D3* = 15 in.
SN3 = a1m1D1* + a2m2D2* + a3m3D3*
= (0.44) (1.0) (4.0) + (0.13) (0.8) (4.0) + (0.11) (0.8) (15) = 3.50
SN3 = 3.49
229
D3 = 15 in.
230
Rigid Pavement Design
To calculate the layer thicknesses for the rigid pavement design, the data below was used:
● Total ESAL = 342,836.70 = 0.342x106 million
● AADT = 2431.94
● So = 0.35 (range for rigid pavements = 0.30 - 0.40; Garber and Hoel, pg. 1047)
● R = 90%
● ΔPSI:
Initial Serviceability Index, Po = 4.25
Terminal Serviceability Index, Pt = 2.0 (assumed value)
(For rigid pavements-AASHTO; Source Garber and Hoel, pg. 1094)
Therefore, ΔPSI = Po – Pt = 4.5 - 2.0 = 2.5
Assume a subbase thickness to estimate the modulus value.
(Graph taken from Manual; Garber and Hoel pg. 1097)

Source:
Garber and Hoel,
pg. 1049
DSB = 7 in. (assumed value; range 4” – 8”)

ESB = 20,000 lb/in2 (psi)
231
Mr = 1500(2%) = 3000 lb/in2 (psi)
From graph, the composite modulus of subgrade reaction k∞= 200 psi
To determine the damage factor, an estimated slab thickness was

used:
Assuming projected slab thickness of 10 in.
k∞ = 200 pci
Source:
AASHTO 1993,
pg. 131
k∞ = 200 pci
From graph, relative damage factor, U = 130
232
Source:
AASHTO 1993,
pg. 116
For jointed pavements without load transfer devices at joints the Load
Transfer value (J-value) range = 3.8 to 4.4. Using J-value = 4.1
Typically, dowel diameters should be the 1/8” times the thickness of

the slab. The dowel spacing is generally 12 inches and the length 18
inches.
:. Steel dowel spacing = 1/8” x thickness of slab
= 1/8” x 10”
= 1.25” spacing at 12” intervals
U = 130
Source:
AASHTO 1993,
pg. 116
Determining the coefficient of drainage:

Assuming poor drainage conditions, the coefficient of drainage,
Cd or m = 0.8
J-value = 4.1
233
Determining the loss of support (LS):
Source:
AASHTO 1993,
pg. 117
Cd = 0.8
For Fine-grained/ Natural Subgrade Materials, the LS range

is 2.0 -3.0.
Therefore, using an LS value of 2.5
Source:
AASHTO 1993,
pg. 118
Grade 60 steel rebar ¾” with a steel working stress of 45,000 psi, was
the chosen reinforcement.
(Recommended from AASHTO 1993 Manual)
Determining the friction factor:
234
Source:
AASHTO 1993,
pg. 118
The friction factor, F = 0.9 was chosen for Natural Subgrade.
To determine the correction of effective modulus of subgrade

reaction, the figure below was used:
LS = 2.5
Source:
AASHTO 1993,
pg. 132
Grade 60 steel
chosen
k = 200 pci
LS = 2.5
:. From graph, k (corrected) = 17 (Ls corrected)
235
Source:
AASHTO 1993,
pg. 134
F = 0.9
In cases where the slab is placed on the subgrade without any
subbase, the composite modulus of subgrade reaction was determined
using the equation below:
[Mr value for subgrade = 1500*CBR = 1500(2%) = 3000 psi]
k = Mr/19.4
i.e.
k = 3000/19.4
Therefore, k = 154.64 psi
Determining slab thickness:
Source:
AASHTO 1993,
pg. 134
k (corrected) = 17
236
Using the nomograph below, the required slab thickness can be found:
Effective modulus of subgrade reaction, k (corrected) = 17 pci

Concrete Elastic Modulus, Ec = 5x106 psi
Mean Concrete Modulus of Rupture, S’c = 650 psi
Load Transfer Coefficient, J = 4.1
Drainage Coefficient, Cd = 0.8
Source:
AASHTO 1993,
pg. 135
From the graph, the Match Line = 96

Design Serviceability Loss, ΔPSI = 2.5
Overall Standard Deviation, So = 0.35
Reliability, R = 90%
ESAL = 342,836.70 = 0.342x106 million
Match Line = 96
237
Source:
AASHTO 1993,
pg. 136
The thickness of the slab was determined to be Match Line = 96

8.7” ≈ 9”
238
Determining the percentage of steel required:
Source:
AASHTO 1993,
pg. 141
Slab thickness = 9in.
For Grade 60 steel, the yield stress, fs = 45,000 psi

Slab length = 36 ft.
Friction factor = 0.9
239
Source:
AASHTO 1993,
pg. 142
From the graph, the percentage of steel, Ps = 0.035% (transverse and Ps = 0.035%
longitudinal bars)
240
Cost Estimations for Pavement Designs:
Costing for Asphalt Concrete Pavement (flexible design):
Collector Roads:
Road width = 7m
Asphalt Layer thickness = 0.1016 m
Base Layer thickness = 0.1016 m
Subbase Layer thickness = 0.381 m
Total Pavement thickness = 0.5842 m
Subgrade preparation depth = 0.5842 m
Sample length = 100m
Asphalt Concrete Layer Cost:

Volume of Asphalt layer = thickness * road width * sample length
= (0.1016) (7) (100) = 71.12 m3
Cost per m3 of Asphalt = $ 1806
Cost of Asphalt = (71.12) (1806) = $ 128,442.72
Base Layer Cost:

Volume of Base layer = thickness * road width * sample length
= (0.1016) (7) (100) = 71.12 m3
Cost per m3 = $ 200.56
Cost of Base = volume * cost/m3
= (71.12) (200.56) = $ 14,263.83
Subbase Layer Cost:
Volume of Subbase layer = thickness * road width * sample length
= (0.381) (7) (100) = 266.7 m3
Cost per m3 = $ 550.00
Cost of Subbase = volume * cost/m3
= (266.7) (550) = $ 146,685.00
241
Excavation cost:
Volume of Excavation = thickness * road width * sample length
= (0.5842) (7) (100) = 408.94 m3
Cost per m3 = $ 156.95
Cost of Excavation = volume * cost/m3
= (408.94) (156.95) = $ 64,183.13
Total cost of a 100m sample of road = Asphalt layer cost + Base layer cost + Subbase layer cost
+ Excavation cost
= $ (128,442.72 + 14,263.83 + 146,685.00 + 64,183.13)
= $ 353,574.68
Cost of Asphalt Concrete Pavement

Item Quantity Units Rate ($/unit) Total Cost ($)
Surface Course 71.12 m3 1806.00 128,442.72
Base Course 71.12 m3 200.56 14,263.83
Subbase Course 248.92 m3 550.00 146,685.00
Excavation 391.16 m3 156.95 64,183.13
Total Cost per 100m length 353,574.68

Table 15. Summary Table showing total cost of Asphalt Pavement for Proposed Collector
Road.
Access Roads:
Road width = 5 m
242
Volume of Asphalt layer = thickness * road width * sample length
= (0.1016) (5) (100) = 50.8 m3
Cost per m3 = $ 1806
Cost of Asphalt = volume * cost/m3
= (50.8) (1806) = $ 91,744.80
Base Layer Cost:
Volume of Base layer = thickness * road width * sample length
= (0.1016) (5) (100) = 50.8 m3
Cost per m3 = $ 200.56
= (50.8) (200.56) = $ 10,188.45
Subbase Layer Cost:
= (0.381) (5) (100) = 190.5 m3
Cost per m3 = $ 550.00
= (190.5) (550.00) = $ 104,775.00
Excavation cost:
= (0.5842) (5) (100) = 292.1 m3
Cost per m3 = $ 156.95
= (292.10) (156.95) = $ 45,845.10
Total cost of a 100m sample of road = Asphalt layer cost + Base layer cost + Subbase layer cost
+
Excavation cost
= $ (91,744.80 + 10,188.45 + 104,775.00+ 45,845.10)
= $ 252,553.35
243
Cost of Asphalt Concrete Pavement
Surface Course 50.8 m3 1806.00 91,744.80
Base Course 50.8 m3 200.56 10,188.45
Subbase Course 177.8 m3 550.00 104,775.00
Excavation 279.40 m3 156.95 45,845.10

Table 16. Summary Table showing total cost of Asphalt Pavement for Proposed Access Road.
Total cost of Asphalt Pavement per 100m sample length = Cost of Collector + Access Road
= $ (353,574.68+ 252,553.35) = $ 606,128.03
244
Costing for Concrete Pavement (rigid design):
Collector Road:
Road width = 7m
Concrete Layer thickness = 0.2286 m
Concrete Layer Cost:
Volume of Concrete layer = thickness * road width * sample length
= (0.2286) (7) (100) = 160.02 m3
Cost per m3 = $ 1694.98
Cost of Concrete = volume * cost/m3
= (160.02) (1694.98) = $ 271,230.70
Subbase Layer Cost:
= (0.1778) (7) (100) = 124.46 m3
Cost per m3 = $ 550.00
= (124.46) (550.00) = $ 68,453.00
Excavation cost:
= (0.4064) (7) (100) = 284.48 m3
Cost per m3 = $ 156.95
= (284.48) (156.95) = $ 44,649.14
Steel cost:
Amount of reinforcement required is expressed as a percentage of the cross-sectional area of
concrete. (Source: AASHTO 1993 Manual, pg.141)
Amount of reinforcement required = 0.035% of the C.S.A of Concrete
= (0.035%) (7*0.2286) = 0.00056 m3
245
Volume of steel for a 100m sample length = (0.00056) (100) = 0.056m3)
Density of steel = 7850 kg/m3
Weight of steel = volume * density = (0.056) (7850) = 439.60 kg = 0.4396 tons (kg to ton divide
by 1000)
Cost of Grade 60 steel rebar (3/4”) = $ 9800.00/ton
Accounting for transverse rebars, weight of steel = 2(0.4396) tons = 0.8792
Cost of Steel per 100m length = weight * cost/ton
= (0.8792) (9800.00) = $ 8616.16
Total cost of a 100m sample of road = Concrete layer cost + Subbase layer cost + Excavation
cost + Steel
= $ (271,230.70+ 68,453.00 + 44,649.14+ 8616.16)
= $ 392,949.00
Cost of Portland Cement Concrete Pavement
Surface Course 151.13 m3 1694.98 271,230.70
Subbase Course 124.46 m3 550.00 68,453.00
Steel 0.832 tonnes 9800.00/ton 8616.16

Excavation 275.59 m3 156.95 44,649.14

Table 17. Summary Table showing total cost of PCC Pavement for Proposed Collector Road.
Access Road:
Road width = 5m
Concrete Layer thickness = 0.2286 m
246
Concrete Layer Cost:
Volume of Concrete layer = thickness * road width * sample length
= (0.2286) (5) (100) = 114.30 m3
Cost per m3 = $ 1694.98
Cost of Concrete = volume * cost/m3
= (114.30) (1694.98) = $ 193,736.21
Subbase Layer Cost:
= (0.1778) (5) (100) = 88.9 m3
Cost per m3 = $ 550.00
= (88.9) (550.00) = $ 48,895.00
Excavation cost:
= (0.4064) (5) (100) = 203.2 m3
Cost per m3 = $ 156.95
= (203.2) (156.95) = $ 31,892.24
Steel cost:
Amount of reinforcement required is expressed as a percentage of the cross-sectional area of
concrete. (Source: AASHTO 1993 Manual, pg.141)
Amount of reinforcement required = 0.035% of the C.S.A of Concrete
= (0.035%) (5*0.2286) = 0.00040 m3
Volume of steel for a 100m sample length = (0.00038) (100) = 0.040m3)
Density of steel = 7850 kg/m3
Weight of steel = volume * density = (0.040) (7850) = 314 kg = 0.314 tons (kg to ton divide by
1000)
Cost of Grade 60 steel rebar (3/4”) = $ 9800.00/ton
Accounting for transverse rebars, weight of steel = 2(0.314) tons = 0.628
Cost of Steel per 100m length = weight * cost/ton
= (0.628) (9800.00) = $ 6154.40
247
Total cost of a 100m sample of road = Concrete layer cost + Subbase layer cost + Excavation
cost + Steel
= $ (193,736.21 + 48,895.00 + 31,892.24 + 6154.40)
= $ 280,677.85
Cost of Portland Cement Concrete Pavement
Item Quantity Units Rate ($TTD/unit) Total Cost ($)
Surface Course 107.95 m3 1694.98 193,736.21
Subbase Course 88.9 m3 550.00 48,895.00
Steel 0.596 tonnes 9800.00 6154.40

Excavation 196.85 m3 156.95 31,892.24

Table 18. Summary Table showing total cost of PCC Pavement for Proposed Access Road.
Total cost of PPC Pavement per 100m sample length = Cost of Collector + Access Road
= $ (392,948.86+ 280,677.85)
= $ 673,626.85
248
Calculating costs for Alternatives
Site Layout #1:

Asphalt (flexible pavement)
To calculate the costs for each design, a sample length of 100m was used. Using this value, the
actual cost of the collector and access roads for Layout #1 can be determined.
Calculating costs of roads using total lengths:

● Collector Road = 1983.55m
For a 100m length sample, the cost of the collector road = $ 353,574.68
Therefore, for a length of 1983.55m, the cost = (1983.55/100) * (cost)
= $ 7,013,330.57
● Access Road = 621.29m
For a 100m length sample, the cost of the access road = $ 252,553.35
= $ 1,569,088.71
Classification Width (m) Length(m) Cost ($)

Collector 7 1983.55 7,013,330.57
Access 5 621.29 1,569,088.71
Total 2604.84 8,582,419.28
Table 19. Summary Table showing Total Road cost of Asphalt Road works for Alternative # 1.
Concrete (rigid pavement)

To calculate the costs for each design, a sample length of 100m was used. Using this value, the
actual cost of the collector and access roads for Layout #1 can be determined.
Calculating costs of roads using Total lengths:
= $ 7,794,339.89
249
= $ 1,743,823.41
Collector 7 1983.55 7,794,339.89
Access 5 621.29 1,743,823.41
Total 2604.84 9,538,163.30
Table 20. Summary Table showing Capital cost of PPC roadworks for Alternative # 1.
Site Layout # 2:
Using the cost of a sample length of 100m for the roads, the actual cost of the collector and
access roads for Layout #2 can also be determined.
Asphalt (flexible pavement)
Calculating costs of roads using Total lengths:
Therefore, for a length of 2306.65m, the cost = (2306.65/100) * cost
= $ 8,155,730.36
= $ 1,856,014.57
Collector 7 2306.65 8,155,730.36
Access 5 734.90 1,856,014.57
Total 3041.55 10,011,744.93
Table 21. Summary Table showing Capital cost of roadworks for Alternative # 2.
250
Concrete (rigid pavement)
Total lengths and areas:
= $ 9,063,958.11
= $ 2,062,701.52

Collector 7 2306.65 9,063,958.11
Access 5 734.90 2,062,701.52
Total 3041.55 11,126,659.63
Table 22. Summary Table showing Capital cost of roadworks for Alternative # 2.
Determining Maintenance costs for the Pavements:

Taking Maintenance Costs as 5% of Capital Cost:
Layout 1:
Maintenance cost of Asphalt Pavement:
Taking 5% of Capital Cost = 5% (8,582,419.28)
= $ 429,120.96
Maintenance cost of Concrete Pavement:
= $ 476,908.17
Layout 2:
Maintenance cost of Asphalt Pavement:
= $ 500,587.25
Maintenance cost of Concrete Pavement:
= $ 556,332.98
251
Multi-criteria Analysis:
A multi-criteria analysis will be performed to determine the feasibility of each pavement design
and decide which will be the better option. The analysis will be based on the following criteria:
● Construction costs (per 100m sample length)
● Constructability
● Sustainability
● Durability
● Pavement Service Life
● Maintenance
● Aesthetics
The rating system below was used to perform the assessment.
Rank Description of Rating
5 Ideal
4 Very Good
3 Moderate
2 Poor
1 Very Poor
Table 23. Rating System for Multicriteria Analysis.
252
Analysis of Flexible versus Rigid Pavement:
Criteria Measure of Effectiveness of Alternatives
Site Alternative #1 Site Alternative #2
Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Concrete Pavement

Pavement Pavement Pavement
Construction Cost ($) $ 8,582,419.28 $ 9,538,163.30 $ 10,001,744.93 $ 11,126,659.63
Durability 3 5 3 5
Sustainability 4 3 4 3
Constructability 4 4 4 4
Service Life 4 5 4 5
Maintenance Cost ($) $ 429,129,96 $ 476,908.17 $ 500,587,25 $ 556,332.98
Aesthetics 5 3 5 3
Table 24. Table showing Measure of Effectiveness of the Proposed Alternatives.
253
The measures of effectiveness are then ranked, weighted, and allotted a score.
Criteria Rank Relative Weight Weighting Factor
Construction Cost ($) 1 7 (n) 7/36*100 = 19.44
Durability 2 n-1=6 6/36*100 = 16.67
Sustainability 2 n-1=6 6/36*100 = 16.67
Constructability 3 n-2=5 5/36*100 = 13.89
Service Life 3 n-2=5 5/36*100 = 13.89
Maintenance Cost ($) 4 n-3=4 4/36*100 = 11.11
Aesthetics 5 n-4=3 3/36*100 = 8.33
Total 36 100
Table 25. Table showing Calculated Weighting Factor for each Criteria.
Criteria Weighting Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Factor
Asphalt Concrete Asphalt Concrete
Pavement Pavement Pavement Pavement
Construction Cost ($) 19.44 19.44 17.49 16.66 14.99
Durability 16.67 10.00 16.67 10.00 16.67
Sustainability 16.67 16.67 12.50 16.67 12.50
Constructability 13.89 13.89 13.89 13.89 13.89
Service Life 13.89 11.11 13.89 11.11 13.89
Maintenance Cost ($) 11.11 11.11 10.00 9.52 8.57
Aesthetics 8.33 8.33 5.00 8.33 5.00
Total 100 90.55 89.44 86.18 85.51

Table 26. Table showing the Weighted Score for each Alternative.
From the analysis, the pavement option for Site Layout #1 was determined to be the better of the
two sites. This was mainly due to Construction costs, as the roads for Site Layout #1 were
shorter than those for Site Layout #2.
254
Determining the Present Worth Cost of the Road Design:
The Present Worth Factor, PWF is determined using the formula below:
PWF = (1+i) n – 1/ i (1+i) n
Number of years, n = 20 years

Interest rate, i = 4%
Therefore,
PWF = ((1+4%) 20 – 1)/ (1+4%) 20 = 13.59
Taking Maintenance cost as 5% of Capital Cost = 5% (8,582,419.28)

= $ 429,120.96
Agency Cost = Capital Cost + PWF (Maintenance Cost)
= 8,582,419.28+ (13.59) (429,120.96)
= $ 14,414,173.13
Road user
Operation Daily cost ($) Days Annual cost ($)
Fuel cost 14.00 365 5110
Tyres 14.00 365 5110
Brake cost 6.00 365 2190
Depreciation 40.00 365 14,600
Total 27,010
Table 27. Summary Table showing Estimated Road User Cost.
The Total Present Worth Cost (TPWC) = Agency Cost + User Cost
= 14,414,173.13 + 27,010
= $ 14,441,183.13
255
Car Parking
In both residential and commercial developments, consideration must be made for car parking
areas. These car parks will be accessible to both the residents and visitors that access the site.
Parking areas should be such that they are durable, easy to manoeuvre, of low maintenance and
allows for proper runoff during and after rainfall events. One factor that should be considered
apart from cost and sustainability when choosing the type of material to construct the car park, is
the aesthetics. The more visually pleasing elements there are, the more it will help to attract
consumers and potential homeowners to the development. The car park layout used was one that
provided a 90° angle to allow for two-way traffic, as seen in the figure below (Source: obtained
from the Town and Country Planning Division: “Guide to Developers and Applicants for
Planning Permission”).
Figure 42. Car Parking Layout
Types of Car Parking Materials:
Some types of materials that may be used when constructing a parking lot include:
Concrete pavement:
One of the more traditional options, concrete is proven as a durable and long-lasting solution for
parking areas. It is also one of the easier solutions to maintain and makes for easy marking for
256
layouts of parking bays and is also recyclable. There is also a more diverse range of colours to
choose from when selecting your pavement. Some things that must be considered when choosing
concrete as the driveway material, is:
i. The process of installation, as concrete needs time to cure. This may have an impact
on the functionality/ operations of businesses.
ii. Drainage: concrete is impermeable, therefore allowance for drainage must be taken
into consideration to prevent flooding of areas.
Figure 43. Concrete Car Parking Driveway

(Sources: adapted from Google Images, https://directcolors.com/diy/wp-
content/uploads/2018/07/Concrete-Stain-Driveway-1-940x705.jpg; Killian Masonry and
Concrete Inc. 2010)
Tarmac:
Modern designs now allow for various colours of tarmac to be used as paving materials. Tarmac
is made by combining crushed stone and bound together with tar. This choice of material is both
durable and visually appealing. One factor to consider is that diesel can stain/mar this type of
pavement, and if gaps are present, it will need to be maintained to remove any weeds present.
257
Figure 44. showing Tarmac Car Parking Driveway and damage caused due to oil spill on
surface
(Sources: https://bestcosurfacing.co.uk/services/coloured-tarmac-driveways; Peter Jordan 2017)
Porous (Grass/turf block or gravel) pavers:
These pavers are a more environmentally friendly alternative to using the traditional paving
materials. They can be made of concrete or recyclable plastic, with open cells that allow for the
growth of grass (when grass is the fill material) or they can be filled with gravel. These types of
pavers are suitable for driveways, parking areas and also walkways. They are porous and good
for areas of sloping land, where erosion can be problematic. Below is a table that lists the
possible pros and cons of using this type of material as paving.
258
Pros Cons
● They assist in reducing stormwater ● They will need to be properly
runoff, which can pose a major maintained especially if they are filled
problem in terms of water pollution. with grass. They may need to be
In storm events, water that is flowing over watered at times (especially in long
the asphalt or concrete pavement may periods of hot weather), fertilized, and
collect chemical pollutants (oils, diesel mowed as necessary, as the grass
etc.) and other debris which then is carried grows and weeds sprout.
away to nearby rivers and streams.
These help with infiltration of the water
thus helping to prevent erosion. ● They are usually more expensive as
compared to other alternatives.
● They help in recharging the
groundwater. As they absorb water ● Their durability is not as good as
from rainfall etc., it filters out compared to say asphalt or concrete
pollutants and allows for that water to pavements, which need to be repaired
be put back into aquifers. This is of every 20-30 years. In residential
great consideration where areas are driveways, these may need to be
more depleted in water supply. replaced every 10 -15 years, and in
commercial driveways, that time
● These pavers are porous and due to period is even more so reduced.
their makeup allow for the air in and
around the area to be cooler (as ● These pavers due to their nature, may
compared to some other paving be less conducive to assisted access,
alternatives) in warmer weather, due to where persons with disabilities may
transpiration. find manoeuvring challenging, as
compared to the standard asphalt or
● They are aesthetically pleasing as concrete surfaces.
compared to concrete or asphalt
pavements, thus improving its overall
value.
Table 25. Potential Environmental Impacts on environmental resources of proposed Paving
Material.
259
Figure 45. showing Grass Block Pavers for a driveway.
(Sources: https://www.tremron.com/pavers/turf-block; https://westerninterlock.com/products/turf-stone/)
Gravel:
Gravel is a fast and easy alternative to paving. It is easy to install and is suitable for projects that
need to adhere to a strict budget. This material offers a great variety of colours and textures as
well, and easily conforms to the contours of the surface. However, this type of paver is more
high maintenance as compared to others and will require more weeding to maintain its
appearance. This can prove tedious especially when dealing with large areas.
Figure 46. showing Gravel paving for a residential driveway.
(Source: adapted from Google Images, https://merrillpaving.com/gravel-driveway-installation/)
260
Asphalt:
This, like concrete, is one of the standard options when considering paving materials. It is
durable, low maintenance and impermeable (waterproof). It provides a classic clean, smooth
finish to paving areas, and is more time efficient to use as compared to say concrete, that requires
more time to cure. It is also easy to repair when the surface is damaged and can come in many
varieties of mixtures.
Figure 47. showing Asphalt paving for a residential driveway and commercial car parking lot.
(Sources: https://masticasphaltcontractor.co.uk/asphalt-car-parks/;
https://masticasphaltcontractor.co.uk/asphalt-car-parks/)
Resin Bound:
This type of surface paving definitely enhances the visual appeal to surrounding areas. It is made
up of a mixture of aggregate ad resin, that results in a smooth, clean finish. Another upside to
using resin bound as paving material is that it is low maintenance and also porous. It allows for
water to infiltrate through the aggregates back into the ground. It is durable, resistant to cracking
and chipping, and provides adequate traction. It is provided in a variety of colours and textures to
suit the consumers’ specific preference.
261
Figure 48. showing Resin bound driveway on the left, and on the right, a variety of textures
and colours for this type of paving material.
(Sources: https://www.simonslandscaping.co.uk/2018/12/01/resin-bound-driveway-norfolk/;
https://www.hazellj.co.uk/why-opt-for-a-resin-bound-driveway)
Brick Pavers:
In many residential settings, brick pavers are still considered as one of the popular choices. It
allows for flexibility in terms of their layout and design (varying sizes, colours, and shapes), thus
allowing for a more customized/ personalized touch. It is cost effective as well, however, with
this type of pavement, care must be taken to maintain its appearance and structure (where blocks
may become loose). Regular weeding and washing may be required to keep the aesthetic quality
up to par.
Figure 49. showing Block paving for a residential driveway.

(Source: adapted from Google Images, https://www.myjobquote.co.uk/costs/block-paving-cost)
262
Proposed Paving Materials:
In comparing the types of materials mentioned above, the three materials chosen for the car
parking design were asphalt, brick pavers and porous (gravel or grass) block pavers. These were
chosen as:
● Asphalt is a proven car parking material that is both reliable and feasible in terms of
the areas of commercial parking lots to be paved.
● Brick driveways also aid in enhancing visual appearance and are durable.
● Porous block pavers aid in creating a more environmentally friendly and aesthetically
pleasing visual, while allowing adequate drainage of runoff.
Alternative 1: a combination of asphalt paving for commercial buildings and (15.5”x15.5”) grass
pavers for residential housing areas.
Alternative 2: asphalt paving for commercial buildings and clay brick for residential housing
areas.
Asphalt Car Parking Lots:
In determining Asphalt as the paving material, the ESAL will need to be determined for these
carparks. As the car parks will be traversed mainly by the residents (particularly the apartment
parking lots) and some small commercial businesses (health centre and clinic), a design ESAL
was calculated considering the following class/ types of vehicles:
● Passenger cars
● SUVs
● Pickups
● Vans
● Small trucks
263
Vehicle Ni FEi fd Gjt Days AADT AADTi ESAL
classification
Passenger Car 2 0.0001 1.0 22.019 365 2431.94 60% 2345.44
SUV 2 0.0011 1.0 22.019 365 2431.94 23.2% 9975.94
Pickup 2 0.0023 1.0 22.019 365 2431.94 16% 14,385.37
Vans 2 0.0106 1.0 22.019 365 2431.94 0.30% 1243.08
Small trucks 2 0.0748 1.0 22.019 365 2431.94 0.50% 14,619.92
Total ESAL = 42,569.75
The total ESAL value was estimated to be 42,569.75 = 0.043x106 million
Table 28. Calculated ESAL value for Car Parking lots.
References Calculations Output
Asphalt design for car parks (flexible pavement)
Overall Standard Deviation, So = 0.45

ΔPSI = Po – Pt = 4.2 - 2.0 = 2.2
R = 80%
Following the same procedure for flexible pavements:
Determining the Structural Layer Coefficients for each layer:
Asphalt Layer:
Source:
Garber and Hoel,
pg. 1043
264
a1 = 0.44 (recommended range 0.40 to 0.44) a1 = 0.44
E = 450,000 psi E = 450 ksi
Source: Base Course Layer:
Garber and Hoel, Structural Layer Coefficient, a2:

pg. 1042
265
a2 = 0.133 = 0.13
CBR = 80% (AASHTO recommended value)

Mr = 28,000 psi
a2 = 0.13
Mr = 28 ksi
Source:
266
Garber and Hoel,
pg. 1041
Subbase Layer:
a3 = 0.11 (from AASHTO tests)
CBR = 30%
Mr = 14,500 psi
To find the Effective Modulus of the Subgrade soil the below equation
Source:
was used:
Garber and Hoel,
pg. 1040
Using the formula Mr = 1500 CBR
Mr = 1500 (2) = 3000 lb/in2
267
CBR = 30%
Mr = 14.5 ksi
Source:
Garber and Hoel,
pg. 1052
Determining Structural Number for Layers: Mr = 3000 lb/in2

Since the nomograph below only has ESAL ranges up to 0.05 million,
then the minimum thicknesses for each layer were determined using the
table above:
Source:
Garber and Hoel,
pg. 1049
268
269
Cost Estimate for Car Parking Lots:
Costing for Asphalt Concrete Parking lot:

Sample Parking lot area = 1000 m2

Volume of Asphalt layer = thickness * area of car park
= (0.0254) (1000) = 25.4 m3
Cost per m3 = $ 1806.00 TTD/m3
Cost of Asphalt = volume * cost/m3
= (25.4) (1806) = $ 45,872.40 TTD
Base Layer Cost:
Volume of Base layer = thickness * area of car park
= (0.1016) (1000) = 101.6 m3
= (101.6) (200.56) = $ 20,376.90 TTD
Excavation cost:
Volume of Excavation = thickness * area of car park
= (0.127) (1000) = 127 m3
= (127) (156.95) = $ 19,932.65
Total cost of a 1000m2 sample of car park = Asphalt layer cost + Base layer cost + Excavation
cost
= $ (45872.40 + $ 20,376.90 + 19,932.65)
= $ 86,181.95
270
Cost of Asphalt Concrete Paved Car Parks
Surface Course 25.40 m3 1806.00 45,872.40
Base Course 101.6 m3 200.56 20,376.90
Excavation 127.00 m3 156.95 19,932.95
Total Cost 86,181.95
Table 29. Summary Table showing total cost of Asphalt Pavement for Proposed Car Parks.
Porous Paved Driveways:

Porous pavers will be utilized for the driveways of the townhouses and the triplex units. These
were chosen as an alternative to the standard concrete driveways, to allow for a more
aesthetically pleasing and environmentally friendly surrounding. In using these types of pavers, it
allows for natural drainage to occur. These pavers are installed by first excavating and
compacting the soil subgrade. Afterward, the gravel base is placed and compacted (for
residential use a 6” base is recommended) (NDS Inc. Since the existing subgrade is clay, which
has a relatively low CBR value, it is recommended that filter cloth be used. The bedding sand is
then spread and screeded and left undisturbed. The porous block pavers are then placed on the
bedding sand and compacted into it. Another layer of gravel or topsoil is spread over the pavers
and compacted again. A layer of chosen fill material is then placed over the pavers and
compacted (about ½ to ¾ in. below the top surface as seen in the figure below.
271
Figure 50. showing Grass Block paving layout.
(Source: adapted from Google images, https://www.nitterhousemasonry.com/resource-
center/installation-guides/turfstone-installation/)
Figure 51. showing the layout of Gravel and Grass Block Pavers.
(Source: adapted from Google Images, https://www.abg-
geosynthetics.com/products/truckcell.html)
272
Cost Estimate for Porous Paved Driveways:
Sample Area = 1 m2
Gravel Base thickness = 6” = 0.1524m
Volume of gravel = area * thickness = (1) (0.1524) = 0.1524m3
Cost per m3 = $ 200.56
Cost of gravel = (volume x cost)
= (0.1524) (200.56) = $30.57
Sand layer thickness = 1” = 0.0254m

Volume of sand = area * thickness = (1) (0.0254) = 0.0254m3
Cost per m3 = $ 114.81
Cost of sand = (volume x cost) = (0.0254) (114.81) = $2.92
Concrete Paver size = 15.5 sq. in. = 0.1550 m2

The cost of one concrete paver = $ 35.00
One square metre requires approximately 1/0.1550 = 6.5 pavers ≈ 7
pavers
:. Cost of paver per sq. m. = (7) (35.00) = $ 245.00
Total Cost per sq. m. (excluding preparation work) = $ (30.57 + 2.92 + 245.00)
= $ 278.49
273
Clay Brick Paved Driveways:
The alternative to using porous blocks for the driveways, was the use of clay brick pavers. These
bricks are also aesthetically pleasing, low maintenance and recyclable. They allow little
infiltration to the soil beneath and can also be laid in various patterns according to the users’
preference. Below, some of the types of various patterns in brick paving can be seen:
Figure 52. showing the various layouts of Clay Brick Pavers.

(Source: Elle Fredine 2015)
Although bonded patterns such as herringbone bone and basket weave can be used, it is
recommended that patterns for these bricks be laid in more suitable patterns such as running
bond, 45° running bond, 45° chevron or herringbone, or a stacked bond. As these bricks allow
for little infiltration, they should be sloped appropriately to allow for proper drainage
(approximately a minimum of 1 in. drop for every 4 ft. or a 2% slope).
These pavers are installed by first excavating the area to the required depth (approximately 7 in.
minimum), removing any material such as roots and weeds that may cause issues (such as
ingrown roots and uneven driveways) later in the service life of the driveway. After excavation,
the subgrade should be compacted and an appropriate base (such as loose bedding sand), placed
over it and compacted as well.
274
This base material should be laid in two separate layers (approximately 3 in. each) and if
necessary, a geotextile fabric placed in between (to help if there is movement in the soil below).
This layering of material is done to allow for proper stability (settling of underlying soil) and to
remove excess moisture. The area should then be checked to determine if it is levelled and
sloped appropriately. If any voids are present, they should be filled and compacted where
necessary. More base is then added and compacted before laying of the bricks. The compacted
layers should be approximately 1” to 2” thick.
Before laying the bricks, a barrier or edging must be laid to keep the bricks in place so there is no
shifting. Devices such as metal barriers or an application of PCC can be used. It should be noted
that when laying the bricks, using a suitable pattern (e.g., the 45° herringbone pattern), they
should have a gap (about 1/8”) between each brick. In cases where there are voids within the
pattern, then the bricks should be cut to an appropriate size and inserted in the space. After the
bricks are laid out in the desired design, a layer of filler sand is placed over the area and swept
into the joints. The bricks are then compacted, and the process repeated. After compaction, any
excess material should be swept away.
Cost Estimate for Brick Paved Driveways:

Sample Area = 1 m2
Filler Sand Cost per m3 = $ 243.25; using approximately 20% = $48.65
Sand Base thickness = 6” = 0.1524m

Cost per m3 = $ 114.81
Cost of bedding sand = (volume x cost)
= (0.1254x1x1) (114.81) = $14.40
The cost of one brick paver = $ 3.15

Standard size of paver = 4” x 8” = 32 in2 = 0.021m2
One square metre requires approximately 1/0.021 = 47.6 brick pavers ≈
48 pavers
:. Cost of paver per sq. m. = (48) (3.15) = $ 151.20
275
Total Cost per sq. m. (excluding preparation work) = $ (14.40 + 48.65 + 151.20)
= $ 214.25
Item Quantity Units Total Cost ($)
Asphalt Pavement 1000 m2 86,181.95
Porous block pavers 1 m2 278.49
Brick pavers 1 m2 214.25
Table 28. Summary Table showing cost of various alternatives for the Proposed Car Parks.
Multicriteria Analysis of Paved Driveways:
A multi-criteria analysis will be performed to determine the feasibility of each residential

driveway design and decide which will be the better option. The analysis will be based on the
following criteria:
● Costs (per m2)
● Constructability
● Sustainability
● Service Life and Maintenance
● Aesthetics
The rating system below was used to perform the assessment.
5 Ideal
4 Very Good
3 Moderate
2 Poor
1 Very Poor
276
Table 30. Rating System for Multicriteria Analysis.
Analysis of Alternatives:
Analysis of Porous Block vs Brick Block Pavers:
Criteria Measure of Effectiveness of Alternatives
Porous Pavers Brick Pavers
Cost ($) $ 278.49 $ 214.25
Durability 4 4
Sustainability 5 3
Constructability 4 4
Service Life and Maintenance 3 4
Aesthetics 5 4
Table 31. Table showing Measure of Effectiveness for the Proposed Paved Driveways.
277
The measures of effectiveness are then ranked, weighted, and allotted a score.
Criteria Rank Relative Weighting Alternatives

Weight Factor
Porous Pavers Brick Pavers
Cost ($) 1 6 (n) 6/25*100 = 24 18.46 24
Durability 2 n-1=5 5/25*100 = 20 20 20
Sustainability 2 n-1=5 5/25*100 = 20 20 12
Constructability 3 n-2=4 4/25*100 = 16 16 16
Service Life and 4 n-3=3 3/25*100 = 12 9 12

Maintenance
Aesthetics 5 n-4=2 2/25*100 = 8 8 6.4
Total 25 100 91.46 90.4
Table 32. Table showing total score of each Alternative for the Proposed Car Parks.
From the analysis, the porous block pavers were determined to be the better pavement alternative
for the residential driveways.
278
Costing for Car Parks and Driveways Site Layout #1:
To perform the previous multi-criteria analysis, a sample area of 1m2 was used to cost the
driveways. Similarly, a sample area of 1000m2 was used to cost the Asphalt car parking lots.
Using these values, the actual cost of the driveways for the selected Layout #1 can be
determined.
● Car Parking lots (Apartments and Commercial Buildings) = 7809.45m2
For a 1000m2 sample area of parking lot, the Asphalt surface costs = $ 86,181.95
Therefore, the cost for the commercial parking lots = (area*cost)
= (7809.45/1000) (86,181.95) = $ 673,033.63
● Residential Driveways = 2448.6m2
For a 1m2 sample area of driveway, the porous pavers costs = $ 278.49
Therefore, the cost for the residential driveways = (2448.6) (278.49) = $ 681, 910.61
Classification Area (m2) Cost ($)
Car Parking Lots 7809.45 673,033.63
Residential Driveways 2448.60 681, 910.61
Total 10,258.05 1,354,944.24
Table 33. Summary Table showing Total cost of Car Parks for Alternative # 1.
Total cost of project:

Cost of Roads = $ 14,441,183.13
Cost of Parking Areas = $ 1,354,944.24
Total Cost = $ 14,441,183.13 + $ 1,354,944.24 = $ 15,796,127.37
279
3.3.3 Storm Water Management
Storm water, also known as rainwater runoff, is precipitation that travels over a surface from the
area where it initially fell with minimal infiltration of said precipitation occurring on the surface
it travels over (EPA, 2021). In urban areas, where there is high impervious cover, water cannot
penetrate surfaces such as roofs, driveways, concrete, and roads, making it even harder for
infiltration/seepage to occur in these environments (EPA, 2021). High impervious cover in these
urban areas also led to increased runoff volumes and higher peak flows of runoff. Adequate
stormwater management practises are therefore employed to deal with the issues of stormwater
runoff as if this isn’t catered for, the issue of flooding, health hazards, contamination of receiving
waters and other indirect consequences and threats to human health, property and safety can
arise. Stormwater management can simply be defined as the knowledge used to understand and
manage water in its different forms within the hydrological cycle (Larry W. Mays, 2010).
Stormwater is usually transported by a series of pipes known as the stormwater drainage network
to our natural water bodies, i.e., rivers, mangroves, and the sea (EPA, 2021). which generate
more runoff and lead to higher stormwater volumes and discharges.
280
environments
281
environments

environments
Drainage Alternatives
Alternatives to be considered for the drainage systems include a HDPE storm sewer system,
along with a manhole/catchment basin with slump, and rain gardens for alternative 1. Alternative
2 includes a box drain system combined with curb and slipper drains with grate inlets, along with
tree box filters and infiltration trenches. Other stormwater management practises such as
domestic rainwater harvesters and detention basins will also be considered in both alternatives to
further aid in stormwater runoff reduction whilst also conserving water, encouraging water
savings, reducing strain on the central water supply system, and adhering to
regulations/guidelines laid out by the Ministry of Works and Transport. These alternatives have
subsurface and surface drainage accounted for and will be assessed via a multiple criteria
analysis in which both alternatives will be ranked and scored according to a number of objectives
to be met to determine which alternative is more feasible than the other.
These objectives include and consider the economic, social, sustainable, and environmental
impacts that both drainage alternatives will have on the environment if they are to be chosen.
282
Double Wall Corrugated HDPE Pipes
HDPE Pipes have largely grown in popularity and are now one of the most efficient and cost-
effective ways of transporting stormwater. HDPE corrugated pipe is strong, economical,
lightweight, and easy to install which makes it a more favourable subsurface drainage alternative
to reinforced concrete pipe. The corrugated exterior of HDPE pipes allows for increased
structural strength while the smooth interior wall provides smooth flow. Double Wall Corrugated
Pipe has been tested to have a 100-year service life and they are able to withstand and prevent
corrosion, chemical abrasion, pollution to groundwater, root ingression and the tough demands
of heavy construction.
Figure 56: Image of corrugated HDPE pipe

Source: colonial-materials.com/products-services/stormwater-management/pipe/hdpe-pipe/
Manhole/Catchment Basins with Slump

Storm drain catch basins are designed to collect heavy debris and solids flowing through storm
sewer pipes. Stormwater drain manholes contain a slump pit that extends below the inlet and
outlet pipes. The slump is designed to collect dirt and debris heavier than water. The collection
of debris material in the slump prevents the debris from collecting in pipes and thus reducing
flow capacity and preventing the debris from reaching outflow areas such as streams, rivers, or
oceans. The cleaning of storm drain catch basins should be regular to maintain flow capacity and
prevent ecosystem pollution.
283
Figure 57: Image showing section of typical storm sewer manhole/catch basin with slump
Source: https://www.jtv-cipp.com/storm-drain-cleaning-florida.html
HDPE manholes are prefab manholes made of HDPE and can be easily connected to HDPE
pipes. These manholes, given that they are made of the same materials as the corrugated pipes
have the same properties and characteristics in terms of strength, longevity, chemical resistance,
root ingression and the ability to prevent groundwater from being polluted.
Figure 58: Image showing HDPE manhole

Source: http://ruselboru.com/en/products-and-service/hdp-pipe/manholes
Rain Garden
A rain garden is a garden of shrubs and flowers planted in a small depression or along road
verges. It is designed to temporarily store and allow rainwater runoff that flows from roofs,
driveways, lawns etc to infiltrate into the ground and recharge aquifers/water tables. Rain
gardens are effective in removing up to 90% of nutrients and chemicals and up to 80% of
284
sediments from the rainwater runoff. Compared to lawns, rain gardens can allow for 30% more
water to infiltrate into the ground.
Figure 59: Image showing rain garden

Source: https://xerces.org/blog/rain-gardens-are-winwin
Box Drain with Grating

A box drain is a rectangular concrete channel that is traditionally used and very popular in
Trinidad and Tobago. These box drains will be placed on either side of the road to allow gravity
inflow from catchments on both sides, where water must crossroads, culverts will be placed.
Inlets will also be placed along roadways to allow for runoff to enter into drains. Debris is caught
with the grates on top of the drain and water with smaller solids enter the box through the
grating. Box drain can be readily constructed as it is easily obtained and accessible. It must be
noted though that box drains require regular maintenance to ensure that outlets and inlets are not
clogged with solids to allow for backup of water and reduction of drainage volume and to
prevent any water contamination.
285
Figure 60: Image showing box drain
Curbs & Gutters

Curbs and gutters will be used along the roadways throughout the development as surface
drainage to direct water from the roads towards subsurface drainage systems. The weight of
vehicles can push asphalt toward the dirt that surrounds it, causing the surface to crack and
crumble. Water can then seep through the cracks formed, resulting in significant damage to
pavement structures.
The gutter portion of the curb creates a channel that directs run-off into specified collection
points such as sewers and storm drains as mentioned prior. Sitting water on the surface of an
asphalt or concrete road can damage pavement material, causing it to crack and separate and
even potholes. Therefore, proper water redirection using gutters is important in order to protect
the surface and maintain longevity of road surfaces.
286
Figure 61: Image showing curb and gutters
Source: https://www.civilconcept.com/curb-and-gutter/
Tree Box Filters/ Tree wells

Tree box filters are stormwater mitigation and biotreatment devices that are designed to reflect
natural systems through the process of bioretention. Tree box filters are installed at curb level
and consist of an open bottom concrete barrel filled with a porous soil underdrain in crushed
gravel with a tree planted above. Tree boxes are placed along roads, sidewalks and parking areas
and can reduce the rate and volume of runoff, tree boxes also act as stormwater treatment devices
and are assumed to remove 80% of total suspended solids.
Tree box filters can also act as a mitigation strategy against the heat island effect and facilitate a
cooler environment, they add aesthetic value to a developed environment and also act as shade in
the daytime. It must be noted though that special trees with vertical roots systems are to be
selected for these devices so that root ingression issues into surrounding infrastructure do not
arise.
287
Figure 62: Image showing Tree well
Source: http://www.ladstudios.com/ladsites/sustainability/strategies/Strategies_TreeWell.shtml
Infiltration trenches
An infiltration trench is a Low Impact Development (LID) technique in which a trench is filled
with gravel or other aggregate lined with geotextiles and covered with topsoil. Stormwater is
directed to the trench and is stored in the voids between the stone temporarily. Over time, the
stormwater infiltrates into the natural soil around the infiltration trench, recharging underground
water tables. These trenches can be placed around areas of parking, road verges and even yards
since they take up minimal space, it must also be said that infiltration trenches act as storage
reservoirs which facilitate flood reduction and reduction of peak flows.
288
Figure 63: Image showing infiltration trench
Domestic Rainwater Harvesting System

According to Nihersts (2013) rainwater harvesting simply involves the collection of water from
surfaces on which rain falls, and subsequently storing this water for later use. The domestic
rainwater harvester is a stormwater mitigation strategy which can be used to reduce stormwater
runoff and peak flows, along with encouraging water savings by capturing water from roof tops
and yard surfaces mainly roof tops and treating and reusing it for potable and non - potable
purposes. Implementation of these harvesters on individual buildings or even sharing harvesters
creating “community” harvesters for the proposed settlement can allow for greater testing and
modifications to be made to the existing Nihersts system along with testing its efficiency in
runoff and peak flow reduction and water savings. Given that models have been developed and is
being researched by Niherst it was established that models are low cost, easily assembled, easily
made from locally ready material and low maintenance.
289
Figure 64: Image showing Tree well
Rainwater Harvesting systems can also be equipped with water treatment devices to improve the
quality of potable water.
Detention Basins
Detention basins provide flow control through attenuation of stormwater runoff and facilitate
some settling of particulate pollutants. The purposes of the detention basin on site will be to
allow for water to be stored for a period of time and then be discharged into both tributaries at a
slower controlled manner using an outlet control structure to control the flow rate and to protect
against flooding and downstream erosion lower down the Arouca catchment. During the dry
season, both detention ponds can be designed in such a way to be used as parks for recreation
and leisure and habitats for fauna in the area.
290
Figure 65: Image showing section of detention basin
Source: CVNG 3016 Design of Environmental Systems; Stormwater Systems 1; Detention Basin
Design
Figure 66: Image showing detention basin being used as a green area when empty.
Source: https://www.susdrain.org/delivering-suds/using-suds/suds-
components/retention_and_detention/Detention_basins.html
291
Water
Resources River Flow Calculations
Engineering,
Second Area of catchment in hectares = 24 hectares
Edition,
Chapter 15. Therefore, the rational method can be used to river analysis
(Larry W.
Mays)
Figure 67 showing entire catchment of proposed site with the left sub
catchment in blue and the right sub catchment in green
The Rational formula can be used to estimate the storm runoff peak.
By the rational formula:
Q= kCiA
292
Where in SI Units K = 0.0028
A- Area in hectares
i- Rainfall intensity in mm/h
C- Runoff coefficient which is dimensionless
Q –Peak discharge in m3/s

Using Kirpich Formula to find the time of concentration:
0.77
𝐿
tc = 0.0195 0.385
𝑆
Right Tributary (Right Sub Catchment Approx. 12 ha)
Length = approx. 716.738m
Elevation Upstream = 90m
Elevation Downstream = 40m

Derivation
of the
Slope Right Tributary
Kirpich
(1940)
90𝑚 − 40𝑚
= 0.0698m —> 6.98%
716.738𝑚 equation
corresponds
tc(right) = 8.58mins approx. 8.6 mins to the
proposed
From IDF Curve in appendix
site.
i = 190mm/hr
Left Tributary (Left Sub Catchment Approx. 12 ha)
293
Slope Left Tributary
70𝑚 − 40𝑚
= 0.0421m —> 4.21%
712.811𝑚
tc(left) = 10.3 mins approx. 10 mins
From IDF Curve in appendix
i = 180mm/hr
Calculating Q
Using c = 0.40 for Undeveloped; Good Condition (Grass cover larger than 75%) of
area; Average 2% - 7%
Q = kCiA
Q(left) = 0.0028*0.40*180mm/hr*12ha = 2.42m3/s

Using c =
Q(right) = 0.0028*0.40*190mm/hr*12ha = 2.55m3/s 0.40 for

Undeveloped;
Therefore, the peak flows occurring in both tributaries left and right Good
Condition
respectively are Q(left) = 2.42m3/s & Q(right) = 2.55m3/s
(Grass cover
larger than
Analysing the peak flow for both tributaries on the left and right of the
75%) of area;
294
proposed site and examining the sections along the tributaries upstream since Average 2% -
they are expected to be smallest to determine whether it can handle a peak 7%
flow of 2.42m3/s coming from the left sub-catchment and 2.55 m3/s coming
from the right sub-catchment.
Figure 68 showing the section upstream of the right tributary.
Figure 69 showing the section upstream of the left tributary.
Assuming that the smallest sections of the river would be higher upstream of
both tributaries
Using the manning equation and assuming the river as a trapezoidal channel
(Right Tributary):
(𝐴𝑅𝑅 2/3 𝑆𝑆 1/2 )

Q=
𝑛𝑛
Where A is area; R is ratio of area to wetted perimeter; P is wetted perimeter;

S is slope; y flow depth and n is manning's roughness number.
For the right channel above S = 0.0698m = 6.98%
295
b =7.506m - 6.435m = 1.071m
y - assuming max flow depth is 55.415m - 54.842m = 0.573m
Equations listed below are equations used in the computation of Q above.
Area (A) = (b+zy) y Values of for

river
Wetted Perimeter (P) = b + 2y √1+z2 obtained
from profile
Surface width of river (B) = b + 2zy of rivers
Using B = b + 2zy; given b and y were estimated to be 1.071m and 0.573m

respectively
Finding for z
Given B = 8.58m - 6.435m = 2.145m
B = b + 2zy
𝐵𝐵 − 𝑏𝑏
—> =z
2∗𝑦𝑦
296
2.145𝑚𝑚 − 1.07𝑚1𝑚
z= = 0.94
2∗0.57𝑚𝑚
Finding for Area (A)
Area (A) = (b+zy) y
Therefore A = ((1.071) +(0.94*0.573)) *0.573 = 0.92m2
Finding for P
P = b + 2y √1+z2
→ 1.071 + 2*0.573 (1+ 0.942)0.5 = 2.64m
𝐴𝐴 0.92𝑚𝑚2
R= = = 0.35 m
𝑃𝑃 2.64𝑚𝑚
Taking n as 0.035 for major rivers
(𝐴𝐴𝑅𝑅 2/3 𝑆𝑆 1/2 ) (0.92∗0.352/3 0.06981/2 )

Q= =
𝑛𝑛 0.035
Q = 3.45 m3/s
Given the peak flow the tributary can accommodate is 3.45m3/s and the peak
flow of the tributary currently is calculated to be 2.55 m3/s. The tributary will
not overflow and cause flooding on site.
Using the manning equation and assuming the river as a trapezoidal channel
(Left Tributary):
297
(𝐴𝐴𝑅𝑅 2/3 𝑆𝑆 1/2 )
Q=
𝑛𝑛
Where A is area; R is ratio of area to wetted perimeter; P is wetted perimeter;

Fluid S is slope; y flow depth, b is width/base of channel and n is manning's Capacity >
Mechanics roughness number. Flow OK!
Frank M.
White For the right channel above S = 0.0421m = 4.21%
Seventh
Edition b =12.801m-10.473m = 2.323m
y - assuming max flow depth is 63.287m-62.201m = 1.08m
Equations listed below are equations used in the computation of Q above.
Area (A) = (b+zy) y
Wetted Perimeter (P) = b + 2y √1+z2
Surface width of river (B) = b + 2zy
Using B = b + 2zy; given b and y were estimated to be 2.323m and 1.08m

respectively
Finding for z
Given B = 13.965m-9.31m = 4.655m
B = b + 2zy
298
𝐵4.655𝑚 −2.323 𝑚𝑏
—> =z
2∗𝑦1.08
4.655𝑚𝑚 − 2.323𝑚𝑚
z= = 1.08
2∗1.08𝑚𝑚
Finding for Area (A)
Area (A) = (b+zy) y
Therefore A = (2.323) +(1.08*1.08) *1.08 = 3.77m2
Finding for P
P = b + 2y √1+z2
→ 2.323 + 2*1.08 (1+ 3.772)0.5 = 5.44m
𝐴𝐴 3.77𝑚𝑚2
R= = = 0.69 m
𝑃𝑃 5.44𝑚𝑚
Taking n as 0.035 for major rivers
(𝐴𝐴𝑅𝑅 2/3 𝑆𝑆 1/2 ) (3.77∗0.692/3 0.04211/2 )

Q= =
𝑛𝑛 0.035
Q = 17.30 m3/s
Given the peak flow the tributary can accommodate is 17.30m3/s and the peak
flow of the tributary currently was calculated to be 2.42 m3/s. The tributary
will not overflow and cause flooding on site.
299
Alternative 1
Pre-development Peak Flow
Note the same calculations for determining river flows will be applied to
obtain pre-development flows on site using the rational method given that
both catchments are the same.
Water
The Rational formula can be used to estimate the storm runoff peak.
Resources Capacity >
Engineering, Flow OK!
By the rational formula:
Second
Edition,
Q= kCiA
Chapter 15.
(Larry W.
Where in SI Units K = 0.0028
Mays)
A- Area in hectares
i- Rainfall intensity in mm/h
C- Runoff coefficient which is dimensionless

Q –Peak discharge in m3/s
Using Kirpich Formula to find the time of concentration:

0.77
𝐿𝐿
tc = 0.0195 0.385
𝑆𝑆
Right Tributary (Right Sub Catchment Approx. 12 ha)
300
Slope Right Tributary
90𝑚𝑚 − 40𝑚𝑚
= 0.0698m —> 6.98%
716.738𝑚𝑚
tc(right) = 8.58mins approx. 8.6 mins
From IDF Curve listed in Appendix
i = 190mm/hr
Left Tributary (Left Sub Catchment Approx. 12 ha)
Slope Left Tributary
70𝑚𝑚 − 40𝑚𝑚
= 0.0421m —> 4.21%
712.811𝑚𝑚
tc(left) = 10.3 mins approx. 10 mins
301
From IDF Curve listed in Appendix
i = 180mm/hr
Given tc(left) is larger than tc(right), use tc = 10mins and i = 180mm/hr for both
tributaries.
Calculating Q
Q = kCiA
Q = 0.0028*0.40*180mm/hr*12ha = 2.42m3/s
Given tc; i; A and C are the same for both tributaries Q value is the same.
Therefore, pre-development peak flow = 2.42 m3/s
Post-development Peak Flow Using c =

0.40 for
Area of Asphaltic Surface = 4.35 hectares Undeveloped;
Good
Condition
Area of Concrete/Roof Surface = 1.37 hectares
(Grass cover
larger than
Water
Area of Grass Surface = 18.24 hectares 75%) of area;
Resources
Average 2% -
Engineering,
Land Cover Runoff Coefficient Area Percentage (%) 7%
Second
Edition, Asphaltic Surface 0.86 18.9
Chapter 15.
Concrete/Roof 0.88 5.7
(Larry W.
Mays) Developed; Good 0.39 76
Condition (Grass cover
302
larger than 75%) of
Table 33. showing land cover characteristics corresponding runoff

coefficients and percentage of area covered by land cover.
For 25 Year Return Period
Calculating Composite C
C = CA (x) + CA(y) + CA(z)A
18.9 5.7 76
[0.86( 100 )24] + [0.88(100)24] + [0.39(100)24]
C= = 0.51
24
Calculating Q
Q = kCiA
Q = 0.0028*0.51*180mm/hr*24ha = 6.17m3/s
Therefore, peak flows post-development = 6.17m3/s Given peak
flow pre-
development
not less than
peak flow
post-
development
Detention
basins must
303
be designed
to reduce
peak flows
post-
development
according to
regulations.
Pipe Sizing Segment
Using a return period of 25 years
Manning’s roughness of 0.011 for HDPE Pipes
Water Sample Calculation for Sizing Sewer 3.1

Resources
Engineering, Length = 44.72m ‘Calculated
Second slope was 0
Edition, Slope = 0.0001 since both
Chapter 15. inlets were
(Larry W. Subcatchments 2.1 & 2.2 drain into inlet 3.1 at same
Mays) elevation so
Area of catchment 3.1 = 0.24 hectares slope was
assumed to
Runoff coefficient C =0.42 be 0.01%
CA= 0.24 x 0.42 = 0. 10
Sum CA = 𝛴𝛴CA (2.1) + CA (2.2) + CA (3.1)
Sum CA = 0.75
304
𝐿𝐿0.77
Inlet time(min) = 0.0195
𝑆𝑆0.385
44.720.77
Inlet time(min) = 0.0195( )= 12.6mins
0.00010.385
Water flows into sewer 3.1 from catchment 2.1 & 2.2 therefore upstream
sewer times are 2.91 and 3.43 for catchment 2.1 and 2.2 respectively.
Time of concentration (tc) & rainfall duration (td) is taken as the longest of the
different times of concentration from sub catchments 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 + the sum
of upstream sewer times from sewer 2.1 and 2.2.
Therefore
td = 12.6min +2.91 + 3.43 = 18.9 mins approx. 19 mins
Intensity (i) is obtained from the IDF curve from the appendix and multiplied
by a factor of 1.2 to account for climate change.
i = 110 x 1.2 = 132mm/hr
Design Discharge (Q) = KCiA
Q = 0.0028 (0.75) (132) = 0.28 m3/s
Where mD is 3.21 for S.I units
305
n is Manning’s Roughness Coefficient. For a HDPE pipe n = 0.011
3.21∗0.28∗0.011 3/8 From Pipe
D=( √0.0001
)
Chart in
References
D = 0.99m = 990mm
Nearest commercial nominal pipe size is chosen; DN = 1000mm
Sewer Flow time (min) = L/V
= (44.71 m/0.36 m/s)/60
= 2.1 min
This entire process was repeated for the other sewers in order to obtain
the sizes below:
306
307
Figure 70 showing pipe sizes and flow velocity layout 1
Detention Basin Design
According to guidelines laid out by the Ministry of Works and Transport -

Drainage Division
Design provisions to enable post-development discharge into a main outfall

must be not exceed pre-development discharge
Given post-development flow was calculated to be 6.17m3/s and the pre-

development flow was 2.42m3/s a detention basin is needed to bring the post-
development flows down to 2.42m3/s
Allowable Design Outflow from Detention Basin = Pre-development flow =

2.42m3/s
Calculating for Outlet Structure Circular Discharge Orifice
Assuming hmax = 3m & Freeboard = 0.3 m
Assuming Cd = 0.61
Orifice Diameter = 1m
Ministry of Orifice Area = 0.5m

Works and
Transport – Orifice Radius = 0.5m
Drainage
division Therefore, peak discharge at maximum elevation (q) = cd
308
(Requirement × A × √2gh = 0.61*(0.5) *(√2(9.81) *3 = 2.3 m3/s
s for drainage
design Given 2.3 m3/s < 2.42m3/s, the orifice design is OK.
approval-
#18)
Calculating Storage of Basin
Using tc = 10 mins from before
Time to base (tb) = 10*2 = 20 mins
CVNG 3016
Design of
Environment
al Systems;
Stormwater
Systems 1;
Detention
Basin Design
Figure 71 showing the effect the detention basin has on the post-
development peak discharge.
Therefore, using AASHTO (1991) equation #1 Procedure for Volume storage
Vs = 0.5tb (Qp - Qa)
Where Qp is inflow hydrograph
309
Qa is the allowable outflow from the detention basin
tb is the time base
Vs= Area under graph= 0.5(20x60) (6.17- 2.42) = 2250m3
Using a 3:1 length to width ratio for hydraulic retention
Max Detention Storage, V = L x W x H = 2250m3
Let L = 3W
V = (3W x W x 3) = 2250m3
—> 9W2 = 2250m3
2250 0.5
Therefore Width (W) = ( )
9
W= 16m; Length, L = 48m & Height, H = 3m
Volume of 2309m3 can be designed for
310
Method used
AASHTO when inflow
(1991)
hydrographs
equation #1
are not
Procedure for
available
Volume
storage
CVNG 3016
Design of
Environment
al Systems;
Stormwater
Systems 1;
Detention
Basin Design
311
Figure 72. Sketch showing plan view of the detention basin on site for layout 1
312
Figure 73. Sketch showing sectional view of the detention basin on site for layout 1
Note: Basins for layout 2 is designed the same but with differing dimensions
313
Water
Resources Alternative 2
Engineering
, Second
Pre-development Peak Flow
Edition,
Chapter 15.
Given the site is unchanged pre-development, the
(Larry W.
predevelopment flow for alternative 2 = predevelopment flow
Mays)
alternative 1 = 2.43m3/s
Post-development Peak Flow
Area of Asphaltic Surface = 5.34 hectares
Area of Concrete/Roof Surface = 1.76 hectares
Area of Grass Surface = 16.9 hectares
Land Cover Runoff Coefficient Area Percentage (%)
Asphaltic Surface 0.86 22.25
Concrete/Roof 0.88 7.35
Developed; Good 0.39 70.41

Condition (Grass cover
larger than 75%) of
Table 34 showing land cover characteristics corresponding

runoff coefficients and percentage of area covered by land cover.
314
For 25 Year Return Period
Calculating Composite C
C = CA (x) + CA(y) + CA(z)A
22.25 7.35 70.41

[0.86( )24] + [0.88( )24] + [0.39( )24]
100 100 100
C= = 0.53
24
Calculating Q
Q = kCiA
Q = 0.0028*0.53*180mm/hr*24ha = 6.41m3/s
Therefore, peak flows post-development = 6.41m3/s
Box Drain Sizing

Fluid
Mechanics Using manning’s equation to size box drains on site.
Frank M.
White (𝐴𝐴𝑅𝑅 2/3 𝑆𝑆 1/2 )
Q= 𝑛𝑛
Seventh
Edition
Where A is area; R is ratio of area to wetted perimeter; P is wetted
perimeter; S is slope; y is flow depth/depth of drain, b is base
315
width of drain and n is manning's roughness number.
Assuming a slope of 0.02 = 2%
Using Q, discharge as post developmental flow; 6.41m3/s
Taking n as 0.015 for concrete produced by wooden forms
See
𝑦𝑦
Let b =2y; P = 4y and R = for rectangular channels Appendix
2
Note
Taking A as A = by
Substituting b into A
A = 2y*y = 2y2 = by2
Using manning’s equation
1 1⅔
6.41 = 0.015 * 2y2* * y2 /3 *(0.02)1/2
2
6.41 = 66.667*2y2*0.629960524*y2/3*0.141421356
Finding for y
316
0.539620933 = y2 * y2/3
—> 0.539620933 = y2 + ⅔
—> y = 0.5396209333/8
Therefore y = 0.793m & b = 2*(0.793) = 1.586m approx. 1.6m
Based on value above, take b = 1.6m and y as 0.9m with a

freeboard of 0.2m
Finding for Design Flow/Capacity
(𝐴𝐴𝑅𝑅 2/3 𝑆𝑆 1/2 )

Q=
𝑛𝑛
1 𝑦𝑦⅔ *
Q= * 2y2* (0.02) ½
0.015 2
1 0.9⅔ *
Q= * (0.9*1.6) * (0.02) ½
0.015 2
Q = 8m3/s
Given Design Flow/Capacity > Post Development Discharge
8m3/s > 6.41m3/s
Detention Basin Design Design

Ok.
According to guidelines laid out by the Ministry of Works and
317
Transport
Design provisions to enable post-development discharge into a

main outfall must be not exceed pre-development discharge
Ministry of
Works and Given post-development flow was calculated to be 6.41m3/s and
Transport – the pre-development flow was 2.42m3/s a detention basin is needed
Drainage to bring the post-development flows down to 2.42m3/s
division
(Requireme Allowable Design Outflow from Detention Basin = Pre-
nt s for development flow = 2.42m3/s
drainage
design
approval-
#18)
Calculating for Outlet Structure Circular Discharge Orifice
Assuming hmax = 3m & Freeboard = 0.3 m
Assuming Cd = 0.61
Orifice Diameter = 1m
CVNG 3016 Orifice Area = 0.5m

Design of
Environmen Orifice Radius = 0.5m
tal Systems;
Stormwater
Therefore, peak discharge at maximum elevation
Systems 1;
(q) = cd × A × √2gh = 0.61*(0.5) *(√2(9.81) *3 = 2.3
Detention
m3/s
318
Basin
Design Given 2.3 m3/s < 2.42m3/s, the orifice design is OK.
Calculating Storage of Basin
Using tc = 10 mins from before
Time to base (tb) = 10*2 = 20 mins
Figure 74 showing the effect the detention basin has on the post-
development peak discharge.
Therefore, using AASHTO (1991) equation #1 Procedure for

Volume storage
Vs = 0.5tb (Qp - Qa)
Where Qp is inflow hydrograph
319
Qa is the allowable outflow from the detention basin
tb is the time base Method

used when
Vs= Area under graph= 0.5(20x60) (6.41- 2.42) = 2394m3 inflow
hydrograp
Using a 3:1 length to width ratio for hydraulic retention hs are not
available
AASHTO Max Detention Storage, V = L x W x H = 2394m3
(1991)
equation #1 Let L = 3W
Procedure for
Volume V = (3W x W x 3) = 2394m3
storage
—> 9W2 = 2394m3
2394 0.5
Therefore Width (W) = ( )
9
W= 17m; Length, L = 51m & Height, H = 3m
Volume of 2601m3 can be designed for
320
Costing
Maintenance cost and Installation costs were assumed to be 5% and 30% respectively.
Layout 1 costing
Figure 75 showing total costs of storm sewer system
321
Sum of Sewer System = Total for Pipes + Total Cost for HDPE Manholes = $8,923,325 TTD
Maintenance cost = 5% of Sum of Sewer System = ($8,933,315 *0.05) = $446,166.25
Installation Cost = 30% of Sum of Sewer System = ($8,933,315 *0.30) = $2,676,997.50
Therefore, Total Cost of Sum of Sewer System = Sum of Sewer System + Maintenance cost +
Installation Cost
—> Cost of Sewer System = $12,046,488.75 approx. $12,046,489TTD
Figure 76 shows costing of detention basin layout 1
Detention Basin = Volume of detention basin * rate per m3 = (2309*1500) = $3,463,500 TTD
Maintenance cost = 5% of Sum of Detention Basin = ($3,463,500 *0.05) = $173,175
Installation Cost = 30% of Sum of Detention Basin = ($3,463,500 *0.30) = $1,039,050
Therefore, Total Cost of Detention Basin = Detention Basin Sum + Maintenance cost +
Installation Cost
—> Cost of Detention Basin System = $4,675,725 TTD
Cost of 2 on site Detention Basins = Cost of Detention Basin* 2 = $9,351,450 TTD
Therefore, Total Cost of Alternative 1 = Cost of Sewer System + Cost of 2 Detention Basins
322
—> Cost of Alternative 1 = $21,397,938.75 approx. $21,397,939 TTD
Layout 2 Costing
Figure 77 shows costing of Box Drain System layout 2
Box Drain System = Total Length of Box Drain * Rate of Box Drain per m = (5612.51m*$700)
= $3,928,757 TTD
Maintenance cost = 5% of Box Drain Cost = ($3,928,757*0.05) = $196,437.85
Installation Cost = 30% of Box Drain Cost = ($3,928,757*0.30) = $1,178,627.10
Therefore, Total Cost of Box Drain System = Sum of Box Drain System + Maintenance cost +
Installation Cost
—> Cost of Box Drain System = $5,363,821.95 approx. $5,363,822 TTD
Figure 78 shows costing of detention basin layout 2
Detention Basin = Volume of detention basin * rate per m3 = (2601*1500) = $3,901,500 TTD
Maintenance cost = 5% of Sum of Detention Basin = ($3,901,500*0.05) = $195,075
Installation Cost = 30% of Sum of Detention Basin= ($3,045,000 *0.30) = $1,170,450
323
Therefore, Total Cost of Detention Basin = Sum of Detention Basin + Maintenance cost +
Installation Cost
—> Cost of Detention Basin = $5,267,025 TTD
Cost of 2 on site Detention Basins = Cost of Detention Basin* 2 = $10,534,050 TTD
Therefore, Total Cost of Alternative 2 = Cost of Box Drain System + Cost of 2 Detention Basins
—> Cost of Alternative 2 = $15,837,871.95 approx. $15,837,872 TTD
324
A multicriteria analysis will be performed to assess the feasibility of both drainage alternatives.
Alternative 1; A HDPE pipe storm sewer system will be compared to alternative 2; concrete box
drains. Both alternatives will be assessed on measures of effectiveness: Capital Costs,
Environmental impact, Social Impact and Performance.
5 Ideal
4 Very Good
3 Moderate
2 Poor
1 Very Poor
Table 34 showing ranking and description
Number Objective Description Ranking Measure of Effectiveness

Alternatives
I II
Storm Sewer Box Drains
1 Capital Costs ● Construction 1 3 4

Costs
● Maintenance
Cost
● Installation
2 Environmental ● Impact on 3 4 3
impact Environment
● Sustainability of
325
Design
3 Social Impact ● Aesthetic 4 4 3

● Labour
Opportunity
4 Performance ● Efficiency of 2 5 4
drainage system
Table 35 showing ranking of alternatives
Objective Ranking Relative Weight Weight Factors

(x100)
1 1 5: (n) 5/14*100 = 35.71
2 3 3: (n - 2) 3/14*100 = 21.43
3 4 2: (n -3) 2/14*100 = 14.29
4 2 4: (n - 1) 4/14*100 = 28.57
Total 14 100
Table 36 showing weighting factors
Objective
Alternatives
I II
Storm Sewer Box Drains
1 ¾*35.71 = 26.78 35.71
326
2 21.43 ¾*21.43 = 16.07
3 14.29 ¾*14.29 = 10.72
4 28.57 ⅘*28.57 = 22.87
Total 85.37
91.07
Table 37 showing scoring of alternatives
The results obtained from conducting the Multiple Criteria Analysis shows that the Storm Sewer
system is the best option as it achieved the highest value, that of 91.07 points.
327
3.3.4 Environmental Design
Water Supply System
Water is vital in many domestic needs such as cooking, washing, drinking potable water, and
flushing wastes, hence the proposed housing development requires a consistent water supply
system to satisfy the needs of the community.
The objective of designing a water supply system for any project is to ensure that the residents of
the development always have consistent water supply at an adequate pressure to all their fixtures,
and to obtain the most economical pipe size. There are several important reasons why designing
proper water distribution systems is essential, the most notable being that inadequate sizing can
result in pressure decreases in some parts of the piping system, which can lead to contamination
of the water supply due to backflow and siphonage, adversely affecting the health of individuals
who use the system.
In Trinidad and Tobago, the Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA) is responsible for
delivering potable water to all residents. In the Arouca area specifically, the water supply comes
from the Hollis Reservoir and the Caroni Arena Reservoir. For the proposed settlement, the
Hollis Reservoir will be considered as the settlement’s source of water. To determine the
required water demand, pipe sizes, and storage tank capacities for the project, the WASA’s
Guidelines for Design and Construction of Water and Wastewater Systems in Trinidad and
Tobago was used. Using the water supply from the Hollis Reservoir through a WASA main, the
method to manage and distribute the water within the development must be evaluated.
The two alternatives considered are the Grid/Looped Distribution System with one emergency
storage tank and the other is the Branched Distribution System with two emergency storage
tanks. The emergency storage tanks would be situated in a location where the pipe networks can
be utilised to meet the water demand for the site in the event of a water shortage. The WASA
main will also be connected to the storage tanks without distributing its contents to the
community to allow for the tank to be filled when required. A bypass water line would be
designed to allow for direct water flow to the development. During periods of water shortage or
emergencies, the stored water from the tanks will be distributed with the use of a booster pump
328
to ensure the required water supply reaches the units. A pressure sustaining valve would be
applied to achieve a reasonable supply pressure for the network when the bypass line is in use,
and when the storage tanks are being filled. To prevent backflow into the storage tanks when
they are being used, a non-return flow valve is implemented to the supply lines connected to the
tanks.
There are two main water distribution systems considered when designing a water supply to a
community, the Grid Distribution System, and the Branched Distribution System. These systems
provide the water to the residential and commercial buildings in the area and must be able to
cater for the increases in water demand due to climate change and population growth.
Grid/Looped System
The Grid distribution system is one of the more desirable distribution system layouts as they can
provide water to all consumers from multiple areas and directions. This configuration allows the
water to circulate throughout the entire system with little to no ends in its layout design,
providing better water quality, flow rates and pressures. These types of systems are usually
implemented in large urban areas. The system consists of a continuous looped main pipe
bordering the area and is connected to the secondary mains and then travels along the
distribution pipes.
Some advantages are:
● Minimal disruptions during maintenance as the surrounding areas will receive water from
another direction in the system.
● Water reaches all connections of the system with minimal head loss.
● Stagnant water rarely occurs since the water is free to flow in multiple directions.
● The water supply can be controlled and conveyed to certain areas during firefighting
events or emergencies where there is a short supply of water.
The two main disadvantages for this system are that the materials and installation costs may be
costly when compared to the branched distribution system and that the calculations required are
more complex.
329
Figure 79. Image of a Grid/Looped Distribution System
Branched System
The Branched Distribution System is the least desirable design. The system is also known as the
Tree system since its layout is similar to that of a tree branch. This system typically starts with
the main water source pipe entering the development, which then connects to the secondary
mains which travel along the main roads of the community. The secondary mains then connect to
the distribution pipes and “branches” off to their respective buildings.
However, as shown in the figure below, most of the distribution pipes' paths end and are referred
to as “dead ends”. These dead ends typically occur when a water main’s path stops at the end of
a cul-de-sac or other areas where the pipe cannot connect to another distribution main. As a
result, dead ends produce reduced water quality, pressure, and flows. If a dead-end distribution
main is too large, the water in the main can become stagnant and result in undesirable taste,
odour, and colour water quality concerns.
Therefore, when using this system, undersize the dead-end water mains so as to reduce the
pressures and flows of the water demand.
The advantages would be that:
● This is a very straightforward system, and the required calculations are simple.
330
● The pipe dimensions used are affordable and economical.
● Less cut-off valves are needed.
Some disadvantages would be that:
● During maintenance, the water supply for that area would be very limited or cut off until
the repairs are completed.
● Stagnation occurs at the dead-ends resulting in bacterial growth and sedimentation
lowering the quality of the water supply.
● For firefighting purposes, the water supply may be limited due to the existence of a single
water main and limited directions the supply can travel through.
Figure 80. Image of a Branched/Tree Distribution System
331
Reference Calculations Outp
s ut
WASA Water Demand

Guidelines
Designing for a capacity of 354 units,
for Design
and
Residential / Domestic Flows
Constructi
on of Avera
No. Domesti
Water and Occupa ge
of Descript Consump c
Wastewat Facility ncy Flow
Uni ion tion (lpd) Populat
er Systems Rate (m^3/
ts ion
in d)
Trinidad
2 Storey
and
Townhou 60 Person 4.5 350 94.50 270
Tobago –
ses
Design
Guidelines Triplex
for Water Apartme 54 Person 4.5 350 85.05 243
System nts
(Section
5 Storey
2.2.1.2
Double
Water 120 Person 4.5 350 189 540
Apartme
Consumpt
nts
ion)
3 Storey
Single
120 Person 4.5 350 189 540
Apartme
nts
332
Total 354 557.5 1593
5
Table 38. Residential/Domestic Water Consumption
Commercial & Institutional Flows
Average
No. of Consumption
Facility Description Flow
Units (lpd)
(m^3/d)
4 Bed 568 2.27

Polyclinic
15 Employee 38 0.57
(Hospital,
Medical) Toilet
8 2083 16.66
Room
Waiting
Area
56 Seat 12 0.67
(Assembly
Hall)
Community Toilet
16 2083 33.33
Centre / Room
Admin
Office 20 Employee 38 0.76
333
Laundry 19 Machine 2083 39.58
Mart (in
CC/AO) 75 Wash 158 11.85
Showers
8 Person 95 0.76
(in CC/AO)
Total 106.45
Table 39. Commercial and Institutional Water Consumption
Average Flow (Residential, Commercial, Institutional) = 557.55 +

106.45 = 664.00 m3/d
Peak Flow Rate = (2*Average Flow) + Flow for Firefighting Purposes +

2275
0.2[(2*Average Flow) + Flow for Firefighting Purposes] = 2(664) +
1000
2275
+ 0.2[(2(664)) + 1000] = 1596.33 m3/d
According to WASA Guidelines (2014), pipes shall be designed to

accommodate this Peak Flow Rate.
WASA Water Tank Storage

Guidelines
According to WASA (2014), the Capacity of Tank = Average Daily
for Design
Requirement
and
Constructi
on of
Water and Volume of Tank = 664.00 m3/d * 1d = 664.00 m3
Wastewat
Volume of Tank = 664m3 * 264 gal/m3 = 175, 300 gal
er Systems
in
Trinidad
334
and Using Glass Lined Steel (GSL) Storage Tanks,
Tobago –
The storage tanks will be placed above ground.
Design
Guidelines Referencing the Aquastore Tank Capacity Chart – AWWA Seismic 0, 1
for Water English Units,
System
(Section Using Model Diameter 20ft,
2.2.2
Volume of Tank ~ 177, 000 gal
Storage
Facilities) Diameter of Tank = 19.58 ft ~ 20 ft
No. of Sheets = 7
Aqua Actual Sidewall Height = 78.84 ft ~ 79 ft

Store
Tank
Capacity Since 177, 000 gal > 175, 300 gal,
Chart
Design is OK.
(2020)
WASA Pipe Sizing

Guidelines
According to WASA (2014), the velocity flow in any pipeline for either
for Design
average or peak flow, the velocity shall normally be between 0.91m/s to
and
1.52m/s.
Constructi
on of Taking water from the WASA Main supplied by the Hollis Reservoir.
Water and
Wastewat WASA Distribution Line – Storage Tank
er Systems
Using the minimum velocity of 0.91m/s and Q = 1596.33 m3/d to design
in
the pipe sizes,
335
Trinidad 1
Q = 1596.33 m3/d * 86400 𝑠/𝑑 = 18.48 x 10-3 m3/s
and
Tobago – Recall Q=Av
Design
Where: Q – flow, A – area, v – velocity
Guidelines
for Water 𝜋𝐷 2
Recall A = 4
System
(Section ∴ A = Q/v
2.2.1.3)
𝜋𝐷 2
∴ = Q/v
4
⇒ D2 = 4Q/πv
(Section
2.2.1.4)
⇒ D = 0.16 m * 3.281 ft/m = 0.52 ft * 12 in/ft = 6.24 inches approx. 6

inches
To generate the required flow at the minimum velocity, a pipe with a 6-

inch diameter from the WASA Main is required
Storage Tank – Distribution Main/Lateral
To produce the same flow (Q) and maintain the minimum allowable
velocity, let:
Distribution Mains = 6-inch Schedule 40 pipes
Laterals = 6-inch Schedule 40 pipes
336
According to WASA, the minimum size of any distribution pipeline shall
be 100mm (4 inches).
⸫ The designs are OK.
This alternative considers a grid water distribution system.
Cost Estimation
For the purposes of this project, it is assumed that the installation and maintenance costs of the
water tanks are 30% and 5% of the capital costs respectively. The average price of a water tank
with the required size was obtained online as well as the average cost per meter of a 6-inch PVC
Schedule 40 pipe. Guidance and estimations on the costing of the materials were also given by
Mr. Derek Outridge. These pricings obtained were used to acquire a rough estimate for the cost
of the water distribution system.
Average Tank Cost (Capital Cost) = $75.00 per gal * 177, 000 = $13, 275, 000 (TTD)
Installation Cost = 0.30(13, 275, 000) = $3, 982, 500 (TTD)
Maintenance Costs = 0.05(13, 275, 000) = $ 663, 750 (TTD)
Total Tank Cost = $13, 275, 000 + $3, 982, 500 + $663, 750 = $17, 921, 250 (TTD)
Distribution Line Costs = $250 per metre of PVC Schedule 40 pipes
= $250 * 9895m of pipe in the distribution system
= $2, 473, 750 (TTD)
Total Distribution System Cost (Alternative 1) = $17, 921, 250 + $2, 473, 750 = $20, 395,
000 (TTD)
337
Alternative 2
WASA Water Demand

Guidelines
The water demand for this alternative will be the same as in
for Design
Alternative 1 since the type of buildings and their units sum up to
and
the same value for Average Flow.
Construction
of Water and
Wastewater
Systems in Average Flow (Residential, Commercial, Institutional) = 557.55 +
Trinidad and 106.45 = 664.00 m3/d
Tobago –
Peak Flow Rate = 1596.33 m3/d
Design
Guidelines
for Water
According to WASA Guidelines, pipes shall be designed to
System
accommodate this Peak Flow Rate.
(Section
2.2.1.2 Water
Consumption)
WASA Water Tank Storage

Guidelines
According to WASA, the Capacity of Tank = Average Daily
for Design
Requirement
and
Construction Volume of Tank = 664.00 m^3/d * 1d = 664.00 m^3
of Water and
338
Wastewater Volume of Tank = 664m^3 *264gal/m^3 = 175, 300 gal
Systems in
Trinidad and
Tobago – Using Glass Lined Steel (GLS) Storage Tanks,
Design
Guidelines The storage tanks will be placed above ground.
for Water
Using 2 GLS tanks,
System
(Section 2.2.2 Volume of one Tank = 175300 = 87, 650 gal
2
Storage
Facilities)
Referencing the Aquastore Tank Capacity Chart – AWWA Seismic

0, 1 English Units,
Aqua Store
Tank Using Model Diameter 25ft,
Capacity
Volume of Tank ~ 88, 000 gal
Chart (2020)
Diameter of Tank = 25.17 ft ~ 25 ft
No. of Sheets = 9
Actual Sidewall Height = 23.84 ft ~ 24 ft
Since 88, 000 gal > 87, 650 gal,
Design for the 2 tanks is OK.
WASA Pipe Sizing

Guidelines
for Design
339
and Since the demand flow (Q) and the required velocity are the same
Construction for both alternatives and following WASA regulations where the
of Water and velocity flows fall within the range of 0.91m/s and 1.52m/s.
Wastewater
Thus, the calculation for determining the required pipe sizing and
Systems in
diameter would also be the same.
Trinidad and
Tobago – Taking water from the WASA Main supplied by the Hollis
Design Reservoir.
Guidelines
for Water
System
WASA Distribution Line – Storage Tank
(Section
2.2.1.3) Using the minimum velocity of 0.91m/s and Q to design the pipe
sizes,
Q = 1596.33 m3/d = 18.48 x 10-3 m3/s
Recall Q = Av
(Section
2.2.1.4) ⇒ D = 0.16m = 0.52 ft = 6.24 inches approx. 6 inches
To generate the required flow at the minimum velocity, a pipe with

a 6-inch diameter from the WASA Main is required
Storage Tank – Distribution Main/Lateral
To produce the same flow (Q) and maintain the minimum allowable
velocity, let:
Distribution Mains = 6-inch Schedule 40 pipes
Laterals = 6-inch Schedule 40 pipes
340
According to WASA, the minimum size of any distribution pipeline
shall be 100mm (4 inches).
This alternative considers a branched water distribution

system.
Cost estimation
For the purposes of this project, it is also assumed that the installation and maintenance costs of
the water tanks are 30% and 5% of the capital cost respectively. The average prices for a water
tank with the required size and the average cost per metre of a 6-inch PVC Schedule 40 pipe
were also obtained online, with reference to the cost estimates given by Mr. Outridge and used to
acquire a rough cost estimate for the water distribution system.
Average Tank Cost (Capital Cost) = 2($75 per gal * 88000) = $13, 200, 000 (TTD)
Maintenance Costs = 0.05(13, 200, 000) = $660, 000 (TTD)
Distribution Line Costs = $250 per metre of PVC Schedule 40 pipes
= $250 * 9742 m of pipe in the distribution system
= $2, 435, 500 (TTD)
Total Distribution System Cost (Alternative 2) = $17, 820, 000 + $2, 435, 500 = $20, 255, 500
(TTD)
341
This multicriteria analysis will be performed to assess the feasibility of both water distribution
alternatives. Where Alternative 1 is a grid distribution system with one above ground water
storage tank against Alternative 2 which is a branched distribution system with two above
ground water tanks.
Both alternatives will be assessed on the following measures of effectiveness: Capital Costs for
Piping and Tanks, Performance, and Maintenance Costs.
Rank Description of
Rating
5 Ideal
4 Very Good
3 Moderate
2 Poor
1 Very Poor
Table 40. Ranking Key
Measure of Effectiveness of Alternatives
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Criteria
Grid Distribution System + 1 Branched Distribution System

Above Ground Tank + 2 Above Ground Tanks
Water Quality 5 3
Construction Costs ($TTD) $ 20, 395, 000 $ 20, 255, 500
Efficiency (%) 5 3
Maintenance 4 3
342
Ease of Implementation and
4 4
Installation
Table 41. Measure of Effectiveness for the Proposed Alternatives
Water Quality 1 5 (n) 5/17*100 = 29.41
Construction Cost
2 n-1=4 4/17*100 = 23.52
($TTD)
Efficiency (%) 3 n-2=3 3/17*100 = 17.65
Maintenance 3 n -2 = 3 3/17*100 = 17.65
Ease of Implementation
4 n-3=2 2/17*100 = 11.76
and Installation
Total 17 100
Table 42. Calculated Weighting Factor for each Criteria
Criteria Weighting Factor Grid Distribution Branched Distribution

System + 1 Above System + 2 Above
Ground Tank Ground Tanks
Water Quality 29.41 29.41 17.65
Construction Costs
23.52 23.52 23.35
(STTD)
Efficiency (%) 17.65 17.65 10.59
Maintenance 17.65 17.65 10.59
343
Ease of Implementation
11.76 11.76 11.76
and Installation
Total 99.99 73.94
Table 43. Weighted Score for each Alternative
The results obtained from conducting the Multiple Criteria Analysis show that the Grid Water
Distribution System is the better option as it achieved the higher value of 99.99.
344
3.3.5 Wastewater Management
Wastewater treatment is a relatively modern practice implemented in communities in response to

the concerns regarding public health and environmental impacts of discharging untreated
wastewater directly into our environments and ecosystems. Prior to discharging the wastewater
into the environment, treatment is required where the removal of suspended and inorganic
materials from the wastewater occurs, treating biodegradable organics to an acceptable level, and
the elimination of pathogenic organisms.
A Package Plant will be considered as one alternative and the other will consider connecting the
wastewater flows to a nearby wastewater treatment plant, Bon Air West Wastewater Treatment
Plant. According to the EPA, “Package plants are pre-manufactured treatment facilities used to
treat wastewater in small communities or on individual properties”. Manufacturers highlight that
package plants are appropriate for treating flows ranging from 0.002MGD and 0.5MGD.
Common types of package plants are Extended Aeration Plants, Sequencing Batch Reactors, and
Oxidation Ditches.
345
Alternative 1
Reference Calculations Outp

s ut
WASA Wastewater Flows

Guidelines
Catering for a capacity of 354 units,
for Design
and
Residential / Domestic Flows
Constructi
on of No. Avera Domesti
Occupa
Water and of Descript Consump ge c
Facility ncy
Wastewate Uni ion tion (lpd) Flow Populat
Rate
r Systems ts (m3/d) ion
in Trinidad
2 Storey
and
Townhou 60 Person 4.5 280 75.60 270
Tobago –
ses
Design
Guidelines Triplex
for Apartme 54 Person 4.5 264 64.15 243
Wastewate nts
r System
5 Storey
(Table 3.1
Double 142.5
Wastewate 120 Person 4.5 264 540
Apartme 6
r Flow)
nts
3 Storey
142.5
Single 120 Person 4.5 264 540
6
Apartme
346
(Sections nts
3.1 –
3.1.6) 424.8
Total 354 1593
7
Table 44. Residential/Domestic Wastewater Flows
Commercial & Institutional Flows
Average
No. of Consumption
Facility Description Flow
Units (lpd)
(m^3/d)
4 Bed 78.2 0.31

Polyclinic
15 Employee 48 0.72
(Medical,
Hospital) Toilet
8 2000 16
Room
Community Toilet
16 2000 32
Centre / Room
Admin
Office 20 Employee 40 0.80
Laundry 19 Machine 2198 41.76

Mart (in
CC/AO) 75 Wash 190 14.25
Showers (in
8 Person 96 0.77
CC/AO)
Total 106.61
347
Table 45. Commercial and Institutional Wastewater Flows
Let Infiltration = 5000 l/ha/d
= 5 m3/ha/d * 24 ha
= 120 m3/d
Average Flow (Residential, Commercial, Institutional) = 424.87 + 106.61

= 531.48 m3/d
Peak Flow Rate = (3*Average Flow) + Infiltration = 3(531.48) + 120 =

1714.44 m^3/d ÷ 4546.09 = 0.38MGD
United
Wastewater Management System
States
Environme Extended Aeration Package Plant
ntal
The aeration process in treating wastewater is one variation to the
Protection
activation sludge process where biological treatment is used to remove
Agency
biodegradable organic wastes under aerobic conditions. To maintain the
(EPA 832-
aerobic conditions, air is typically supplied using mechanical means or
F-00-016,
by diffusing air into the chamber. Mixing the contents is essential to
September
ensure the microbial bacteria bonds with dissolved organics (waste
2000) –
organisms) and is generally maintained by the aeration mechanisms
Wastewate
mentioned previously.
r
Technolog The figure below summarises and portrays the process for an Extended
y Fact Aeration Treatment.
Sheet
348
Figure 81. Extended Aeration Treatment Process
This package treatment plant will be located at the Southern end of the
proposed settlement, near the lower entry/exit access road.
349
Cost estimation
For the purposes of this project, it is also assumed that the installation and maintenance costs of
the water tanks are 30% and 5% of the capital cost respectively. The average prices for a water
tank with the required size and the average cost per meter of a 6-inch PVC Schedule 40 pipe
were also obtained online, with reference to the cost estimates given by Mr. Outridge and used to
acquire a rough cost estimate for the water distribution system.
Average Tank Cost (Capital Cost) = 2($75 per gal * 88000) = $13, 200, 000 (TTD)
Maintenance Costs = 0.05(13, 200, 000) = $660, 000 (TTD)
Distribution Line Costs = $250 per meter of PVC Schedule 40 pipes
= $250 * 9742 m of pipe in the distribution system
= $2, 435, 500 (TTD)
Total Distribution System Cost (Alternative 1) = $17, 820, 000 + $2, 435, 500 = $20, 255, 500
(TTD)
350
Alternative 2
WASA Wastewater Flows

Guidelines
Catering for a capacity of 354 units,
for Design
and The average and peak flows are the same as Alternative 1 above since the
Construction type of buildings and their units sum up to the same flow values.
of Water
Let Infiltration = 5000 l/ha/d
and
Wastewater = 5 m3/ha/d
Systems in
Trinidad and = 120 m3/d
Tobago –
Average Flow (Residential, Commercial, Institutional) = 424.87 +
Design
106.61 = 531.48 m3/d
Guidelines
for Peak Flow Rate = (3*Average Flow) + Infiltration = 3(531.48) + 120
Wastewater = 1714.44 m3/d ÷ 4546.09 = 0.38MGD
System
(Table 3.1
Wastewater According to WASA Guidelines, pipes shall be designed to
Flow) & accommodate this Peak Flow Rate.
(Sections
3.1 – 3.1.6)
WASA Pipe Sizing

Guidelines
for Design
351
and According to WASA, the velocity flow in any pipeline for either
Construction average or peak flow, the velocity shall normally be between 0.6m/s
of Water to 3.0m/s.
and
Using the minimum velocity of 0.6m/s and Q = 1714.44 m3/d to
Wastewater
design the pipe sizes,
Systems in
Trinidad and 1
Q = 1714.44 m3/d * = 19.84 x 10-3 m3/s
Tobago– 86400 𝑠/𝑑
Design
Recall Q = Av
Guidelines
for Where: Q – flow, A – area, v – velocity
Wastewater
𝜋𝐷 2
System Recall A =
4
⇒ D = 0.205m * 3.281 ft/m = 0.67 ft * 12 = 8.07 inches
To generate the required flow at the minimum velocity, a pipe with an

8-inch diameter is required.
According to WASA, the minimum size of any distribution pipeline

shall be 100mm (4 inches).
352
This alternative follows the sewer system shown in the Sewer System
Design and will be connected to the Bon Air West Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
Cost Estimation
For this alternative, the installation and maintenance costs of the wastewater collection piping
system are 30% and 5% of the capital cost respectively. The average cost per metre of an 8-inch
PVC Schedule 40 pipe was obtained online and used to determine a rough estimate of the
wastewater piping system on the site.
Wastewater Piping System Costs = $350 per metre of PVC Schedule 40 pipes
= $350 * 1700 m of piping in the sewer system
= $595, 000 (TTD)
Installation Cost = 0.3(595, 000) = $178, 500 (TTD)

Maintenance Cost = 0.05(510, 132) = $29, 750 (TTD)
Total Piping System Cost (Alternative 2) = $595, 000 + $178, 500 + $29, 750 = $803, 250
(TTD)
353
This multi-criteria analysis will compare the wastewater treatment processes stated in Alternative
1 with connecting the wastewater flows to the nearby Bon Air West Wastewater Treatment Plant
in Alternative 2, assuming that the plant will be upgraded and can cater for the flows from the
proposed site. The alternatives and both treatment processes will be compared based on its
applicability, performance, total costs and their operation and maintenance.
Rank Description of
Rating
5 Ideal
4 Very Good
3 Moderate
2 Poor
1 Very Poor
Table 46. Ranking Key
Measure of Effectiveness of Alternatives
Criteria
Connecting Wastewater Flows
Extended Aeration Treatment
to Bon Air West Wastewater
Process
Treatment Plant
Construction Costs ($TTD) $ 4, 554, 927 $ 803, 250
Maintenance 4 4
Performance (BOD Effluent -

5 4
monthly average) (mg/L)
354
Applicability (min. flow rate
3 4
MGD)
Installation Time 3 5
Table 47. Measure of Effectiveness for the Proposed Alternatives
Performance 1 5 (n) 5/18*100 = 27.78
Applicability 2 n-1=4 4/18*100 = 22.22
Construction Costs
2 n-1=4 4/18*100 = 22.22
($TTD)
Maintenance 3 n-2=3 3/18*100 = 16.67
Installation Time 4 n-3=2 2/18*100 = 11.11
Total 18 100
Table 48. Calculated Weighting Factor for each Criteria
Criteria Weighting Factor Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Extended Aeration Connecting

Treatment Process Wastewater Flows to
Bon Air West
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Performance 27.78 27.78 21.82
Applicability 22.22 16.67 22.22
Construction Costs ($) 22.22 22.22 3.91
355
Maintenance 16.67 16.67 16.67
Installation Time 11.11 6.67 11.11
Total 90.01 75.73
Table 49 showing scores of alternatives
The results obtained from conducting the Multiple Criteria Analysis show that the Extended
Aeration Treatment Process is the better option as it achieved a higher value of 90.01.
356
4. Sustainability
Sustainable development is defined as development that meets the needs of the present, without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Sustainable Development
Commission, 2022).
Sustainability in the building design
In the Bon Air North affordable development, natural ventilation and lighting were the first
alternatives explored throughout the design phase since it is less expensive to create, run, and
maintain than mechanical ventilation. The passive design approach was used to maximise the use
of natural ventilation and natural lighting. Building ventilation is required to remove 'stale' air and
replace it with 'fresh' air: Helping to moderate internal temperatures. Creating air movement which
improves the comfort of occupants. Also, the glass in the windows incorporated in the design
would be tinted or coated with a glazing compound that would limit the amount of solar energy
that enters the house. This not only minimises glare, but it also increases the Solar Heat Gain
Coefficient (SHGC) of the windows, which is a measurement of how well the windows prevent
sunlight from boosting the internal temperature of the residence. Natural ventilation and natural
lighting reduce the energy consumption by extension making the units more affordable. The roof
was designed as a concrete slab to cater for water tanks on the roof or solar panels to allow for
directly harness the sun’s radiation to be converted into reusable energy, by doing so reduces the
unbearable temperatures during the day.
Another factor that must be considered in regard to sustainability when designing for developments
such as these, are the type of materials used in the infrastructure. It is important to consider the
effects these materials have on the environment, whether during the construction phase (i.e., CO2
emissions) or during their service life. For example, environmentally friendly options that can be
used in pavement designs include elements such as natural aggregates and recyclable materials,
and the use of green alternatives to driveways and parking areas. These are not only vital in moving
towards an eco-friendlier environment, but they can also enhance the visual appeal of housing
developments, thus attracting more consumers.
357
The structural alternative which was chosen was layout one where the material selection was
reinforced concrete. Portland Cement Concrete is the most often used concrete nowadays. Cement
is one of the key components of concrete, and it is wreaking havoc on the environment at an
alarming rate. For every ton of cement produced, approximately 0.9 tons of carbon dioxide is
discharged into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that is responsible for much
of the world's warming. Cement replacement materials are materials that can be used to substitute
cement in the production of concrete and will be incorporated in this development and a deep
consideration was made to incorporate Premium Plus Cement (Type IP) which is locally produced
by Trinidad Cement Limited. Premium Plus was designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions into
the environment, consequently reducing our carbon footprint and with additional properties such
as decreased permeability, durability and longevity, increased workability along other properties.
This would decrease the carbon footprint significantly and cost since it is locally produced making
it ideal in the construction of the development.
Solar Panels
Solar Panels will be equipped on an average of 1.6 hectares of roof area within the proposed
development and this number represents all rooftops of buildings within the proposed Bon Air
North Development. Solar panels are being used to harness solar energy to reduce energy usage,
energy costs, strain on centralised systems, the amount fossil fuel that would have been burnt to
completely supply the development with power, to promote sustainability and to add to the
excess power generated to the national grid and receive points which may further reduce energy
costs for the development.
Solar Heater
Solar heaters, just like solar panels, use solar energy to heat water rather than electricity and will
be equipped on roofs of the buildings in the Bon Air North Development, this would provide the
same benefits that the solar panels provide with an exception for sending power back to the
national grid.
358
LED Lights
LED streetlights equipped with photocells will be used throughout the community for lighting
along streets and green areas as they are more energy efficient than traditional streetlights and
are much brighter. LED bulbs will also be used in households for the same reason rather than
traditional CFL and Incandescent bulbs.
Rain gardens & Infiltration wells
As mentioned prior, rainwater gardens and or infiltration wells will be used in the proposed
layouts for stormwater runoff reduction and bioretention. Rain gardens in particular absorb
runoff 30% - 40% more efficiently than normal yards, they reduce mosquito breeding, they are
aesthetically pleasing, self-sustaining, they can recharge water tables and conserve water.
(NRCS, 2022).
Heat Island Reduction
Trees will be planted about the site to deal with the issue of the heat island effect as well as tree
wells along roadway verges, these trees will provide shade keeping the community cool and
benches can also be placed under said trees so that residence and visitors of the community can
have some leisure time and also sit and socialise.
Domestic rainwater harvester
Domestic rainwater harvesters will be equipped to homes and shared among some in an effort to
capture and reuse water for both potable and non - potable purposes, promoting water savings,
promoting water recycling and conservation, and also reducing the strain on centralised water
systems, these domestic rainwater harvesters will also be equipped with solar pumps making
them even more sustainable.
359
5. Health & Safety
Health and Safety can simply be defined as the laws, rules, and principles that are intended to
keep people safe from injury or disease at work and in public places according to Cambridge
Dictionary (2022). As a result, countries tend to have a regulatory body which enforces these
laws, rules, and principles in said nation. In Trinidad and Tobago, the Occupational Health and
Safety Agency, (OSHA) is a regulatory agency that ensures these laws are enforced and safe,
risk free, clean working conditions are provided for and by employers for employees and the
general public using the rules and laws outlined by the Occupational Health and Safety (OSH)
Act as minimum standard (OSHA, 2022). As a result, in accordance with the OSH Act of 2004,
amended 2006 consideration and attention will be paid to the aforementioned act to ensure that
the safety of all personnel on and around the proposed site in neighbouring environs are always
safe and out of harm's way. Enforcing the laws and rules of this Act will be the responsibility of
the “employer” of the proposed site whether or not workers or civilians have a personal
responsibility to ensure their own safety. As a result, the issue of health and safety at all phases,
Pre- Construction, Construction and Post - Construction of the proposed site will be discussed,
along with special considerations for COVID 19.
360
Pre - Construction Phase
Phase 1, the Pre - Construction Phase of the project is the phase in which the site is inspected,
cleared, prepared and all relevant earthworks i.e., grading and stabilisation of soils along with all
relevant engineering tests and analysis will be performed. As a result, there will be the issue of
noise and movement of heavy vehicles and equipment on and off site. Therefore, it is imperative
to notify residences and businesses in neighbouring environs in advance ahead of the
commencement of works on the proposed site. Large signs alerting the public of construction in
the area and heavy vehicle traffic are to be placed at reasonable distances from the site before the
commencement of works. The proposed construction site should also be fenced and signs which
read, “Construction site; Restricted access; PPE required on entry” etc should be placed on
fencing at the entrances to the sites as to keep the project and site safe from trespassers,
interruptions and to keep civilians from entering site and getting injured. When preparation of
the site has started and earthworks, clearing, grading etc has begun works are to be conducted
during the day within reasonable hours as to not discomfort surrounding residence and
businesses, the site should also be constantly wetted to minimize large concentrations of dusts
getting into the atmosphere and affecting neighbouring environs. While these works are being
done, guidelines according to the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 2004, PART IV: Safety,
No. 24. “Removal of dust and fumes” and PART VI: Health, No. 32. “Respiratory protection” is
to be followed and PART VII: Welfare is to also be followed in preparing the site for the
construction phase.
361
Construction Phase
The construction phase of any project can be the most risky and dangerous phase of construction
and as a result good health and safety practices must be employed and enforced. Risks such as
being electrocuted, falling objects, trips, and falls, inhaling dust, noise, punctures, structures
collapsing, retaining walls collapsing, being buried under soil and dehydration can all occur
along with others. Hence, the reason that all personnel on site should always wear appropriate
PPE as risks can range from minor to fatal and only by using PPE can these risks be substantially
minimized. One measure that can be taken to identify and plan for risk reduction on site is by
having safety officers on site who regularly inspect the site for risks and ensure the proper PPE is
always being worn, as well as said safety officers performing regular risk assessments on site. If
an assessment of risks is conducted before the construction phase even begins, as mentioned
prior, risks can be reduced and by wearing PPE can be brought to a minimum. Another important
personnel on site will be a security guard to prevent the unauthorised access of persons on site.
Muster points and signs should also be placed on site to alert workers and visitors of the dangers
onsite and where to go in an emergency. All visitors to the site should be briefed on where the
muster points are and on what to do in the case of an emergency, this is also applied to works as
regular briefings and emergency evacuations will be performed so that workers know what to do
in the event of an emergency.
Post -Construction Phase
Post - Construction Phase is the phase in construction where the health and safety aspects of
designs for the residence of the development will be implemented. Therefore, this includes clean
and well-maintained facilities. Health and safety plans such as an evacuation plan for the site in
the event of natural disasters, fires, or security breach of the site perimeter and briefing of
emergency response and where the various muster points are located on site will also be
developed. Devices such as fire sprinklers and early warning systems will be placed on site.
362
Given that there are two tributaries in close proximity to the proposed site, even though it is
believed that both tributaries will not break their banks, river calculations were performed to
ensure that there will be no instance where this happens, and the tributaries flood our site. In
addition to this 10m setbacks from the rivers were taken to ensure that there is enough distance
between the site and the river in the event this happens. A lot of green spaces and storm water
mitigation strategies which use the process of bioretention, recycling and infiltration were also
implemented on site to deal with the issue and risk of onsite flooding and to reduce flooding and
peak flows downstream. The site was also graded in such a way to allow for water to run to
drains and sewer outlets to prevent the issue of water ponding on site as this facilitates
mosquitoes which can transfer various diseases and sicknesses.
Proper traffic signage as well as speed bumps will be implemented into the traffic and pavement
design to avoid speeding within the community and possible crashes which can cause loss of life.
Considerations for COVID-19
Rules and regulations in accordance with THE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDINANCE, CH. 12 NO. 4
will be implemented during all construction phases and will be considered in design. Few
considerations of COVID 19 will include; Encouraging workers to stay home if sick, reminding
persons of social distancing and having signs placed in the community, fully functional poli
clinic on site, development and implement a social distancing plan for maintaining at least 6 feet
of separation, cleaning and disinfect frequently touched objects, encouraging the use of face
coverings in addition to social and physical distancing, designate a COVID-19 health and safety
officer responsible for responding to COVID-19 concerns, restricting access and capacity in
enclosed areas such as elevators, small spaces and break areas and lastly, keep temperature logs
and contacts of everyone on site during all phases to facilitate contact tracing if necessary.
363
6. Selected Alternative
The highest scoring alternative in terms of the multicriteria analysis will be the winning
alternative.
Won Fail
Asphalt Road Concrete Road
Storm Sewer Box Drain
Grid/Looped Water Distribution Branched/Tree Water Distribution

System System
Package WWTP Connection to Bon Air North WWTP
According to the table above, alternative 1 won all out of the 5 categories assessed via multi-
criteria analysis and therefore will be the chosen alternative to be developed.
364
7. Conclusion
Factors such as Sustainability, Design life, Capital Costs and Aesthetics were all taken into
consideration when selecting the most feasible alternative. Based on the feasibility analysis and
the multi criteria analysis performed. Overall, alternative Layout 1 was deemed the better option
of the two proposed layouts. This layout comprises the Asphalt Road networks, subsurface
HDPE storm sewer pipe system, Reinforced Concrete moment resisting frame buildings and a
package Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). An Environmental Impact Analysis was
performed to assess how the development of the community would affect environs within and in
close proximity to the site and during the entire life cycle of the project.
The total cost of the alternative selected was $519,256,931.10 and an infrastructural cost
breakdown is shown in the table below.
Infrastructure Costs (TTD)
Reinforced Concrete $467,526,628.60
Asphalt Road $9,937,363.52
Storm Sewer $21,397,939
Grid/Looped Water Distribution System $ 20, 395, 000
Package WWTP $ 4, 554, 927
Total $519,256,931
Table 50 showing infrastructural cost break down
365
8. References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 1993. AASHTO Guide for
Design of Pavement Structures. 444 N Capitol Street N. W. Suite 249 Washington D.C.
Bestco. Coloured Tarmac Driveways. Accessed January 19, 2022.
(https://bestcosurfacing.co.uk/services/coloured-tarmac-driveways)
Boral Limited. Guide to Laying Pavers. 2017. Accessed January 12, 2022. PDF File.
(https://www.boral.com.au/sites/default/files/media/field_document/14654_How_to_Lay
_Pavers_LR.pdf)
Clarke, Richard. EXAMPLE OF PRELIMINARY SEISMIC DESIGN OF FRAMES for CVNG
6005. 019-2020 v2, 2019. UWI, St. Augustine, Civil Engineering Department
Clarke, Richard. PRELIMINARY DRIFT ANALYSIS, n.d. UWI, St. Augustine, Civil Engineering
Department
“Climate.” Climate | Trinidad & Tobago Meteorological Service. Accessed December 2, 2021.
(https://www.metoffice.gov.tt/Climate#:~:text=The%20dry%20season%20which%20occ
urs,showers%20due%20to%20daytime%20convection).
Direct Colors LLC. Resurfacing and Staining a Faded Concrete Driveway. Photograph.
Accessed January 19, 2022. (https://directcolors.com/diy/wp-
content/uploads/2018/07/Concrete-Stain-Driveway-1-940x705.jpg)
Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. Trinidad and Tobago. Accessed December 17, 2021.
(https://www.ttconnect.gov.tt/gortt/portal/ttconnect/!ut/p/a1/jdDBCoJAEAbgp_HqjIqR3
TxYqUFoVLqX0NhWY90VNe3xM29iWXOb4fvhZ4BABEQkbc6SJpci4e-dLC5-
oKPpWgbuA7RQD13NQdM3NqHWg3gEws26B46pbf2TgYj_5fHL2D_zByrgDGSWeT
gB05oDmOnhAWFcpsNPYlukxpIBqeiNVrRSH1V_zpqmrFcKKth1ncqkZJyqV1ko-
366
CmSybqBaCyhLI7R072bvN3ZL9sCR6M!/dl5/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/?WCM_G
LOBAL_CONTEXT=/gortt/wcm/connect/GorTT%20Web%20Content/ttconnect/home/a
bout+t+and+t/general+information/geography).
Flannery, Katie. Managing Construction. Updated September 22, 2021.
(https://www.bobvila.com/articles/asphalt-driveway-cost/)
Fredine, Elle. Backyard Renovations - How to Build a Patio. Photograph. October 27, 2015.
Pinterest. (https://www.pinterest.com/pin/486881409698424571/)
Garber, Nicholas J., and Lester A. Hoel. Traffic and Highway Engineering. Pacific Grove Calif.
London: Brooks/ Cole Publishing Company 1999.
Hazell and Jefferies Ltd. Why opt for a Resin Bound Driveway. December 9, 2019.
(https://www.hazellj.co.uk/why-opt-for-a-resin-bound-driveway)
“HDPE Pipe Dimensions and Weights - pe100 PN10 SDR 17.” 2022. Piping Engineering and
Design Reference. Accessed January 15. (https://www.piping-world.com/hdpe-pipe-

dimensions-and-weights-pe100-pn10-sdr-17).
Heritage Asphalt. Asphalt Car Park Repairs and Car Park Waterproofing Systems. Accessed
January 19, 2022. (https://masticasphaltcontractor.co.uk/asphalt-car-parks/)
“Hurricanes and Tropical Storms”, Odpm.gov.tt. Accessed January 18th, 2021,
(https://odpm.gov.tt/node/21)
Jordan, Peter. 2017. Rainbow coloured oil spill on wet Tarmac Road surface. Photograph.
Alamy.
March 21, 2017. (https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-rainbow-coloured-oil-spill-on-

wet-tarmac-road-surface-136686520.html?pv=1&stamp=2&imageid=2B772694-E171-
367
4834-B634-
98378D947DC0&p=18776&n=0&orientation=0&pn=1&searchtype=0&IsFromSearch=1
&srch=foo%3dbar%26st%3d0%26pn%3d1%26ps%3d100%26sortby%3d2%26resultvie
w%3dsortbyPopular%26npgs%3d0%26qt%3dpetrol%2520diesel%2520tarmac%26qt_ra
w%3dpetrol%2520diesel%2520tarmac%26lic%3d3%26mr%3d0%26pr%3d0%26ot%3d0
%26creative%3d%26ag%3d0%26hc%3d0%26pc%3d%26blackwhite%3d%26cutout%3d
%26tbar%3d1%26et%3d0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3d0%26loc%3d0%26imgt
%3d0%26dtfr%3d%26dtto%3d%26size%3d0xFF%26archive%3d1%26groupid%3d%26
pseudoid%3d%26a%3d%26cdid%3d%26cdsrt%3d%26name%3d%26qn%3d%26apalib
%3d%26apalic%3d%26lightbox%3d%26gname%3d%26gtype%3d%26xstx%3d0%26si
mid%3d%26saveQry%3d%26editorial%3d1%26nu%3d%26t%3d%26edoptin%3d%26cu
stomgeoip%3d%26cap%3d1%26cbstore%3d1%26vd%3d0%26lb%3d%26fi%3d2%26ed
rf%3d%26ispremium%3d1%26flip%3d0%26pl%3d)
Killian Masonry and Concrete Inc. 2010. Decorative Concrete. Photograph. Accessed January
19, 2022. (http://www.killianmasonry.com/photo_gallery/decorative_concrete.html)
“Landslides.” Trinidad and Tobago Weather Centre. (2019, November 20). Accessed January
19,
2022, from https://ttweathercenter.com/severe-weather/landslides/
Leon, Lee. Pavement Materials Characterisation. Lecture Course CVNG 3009. 2021. The
University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Civil Engineering Department.
Mays, Larry W. 2011. Water resources engineering / Larry W. Mays. 2nd ed. ed. Hoboken, NJ:
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, s.v. Topography. Accessed December 18, 2021.

(https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topography)
368
Merrill Paving. Gravel Driveway Installations. Photograph. Accessed January 19, 2022.
(https://merrillpaving.com/gravel-driveway-installation/)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Homepage | National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. (n.d.). Accessed January 19, 2022, from

(https://www.noaa.gov/).
“Natural Ventilation of Buildings.” Natural ventilation of buildings - Designing Buildings.
DESIGNING BUILDINGS. Accessed January 18, 2022.

(https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Natural_ventilation_of_buildings).
NDS Inc. Tufftrack grass paver. Accessed January 10, 2022. PDF File.
(https://www.ndspro.com/PDFs/Tech-Spec-Guides/Grassroad-Pavers-Tufftrack.pdf)
“OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT”, rgd.legalaffairs.gov.tt. Accessed January

18th 2021, (https://rgd.legalaffairs.gov.tt/laws2/alphabetical_list/lawspdfs/88.08.pdf)
Simons Landscaping Ltd. Resin Bound Driveway - Norfolk. Accessed January 19, 2022.
(https://www.simonslandscaping.co.uk/2018/12/01/resin-bound-driveway-norfolk/)
“Tectonic” agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com. Accessed January 18th, 2021,

(https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014TC003665)
“THE PUBLIC HEALTH ORDINANCE” health.gov.tt. Accessed January 18th, 2021,

(https://health.gov.tt/sites/default/files/2022-
01/Legal%20Notice%20No.%205%20of%202022.pdf)
TREMRON. Turf Block. Photograph. Accessed January 19, 2022.

(https://www.tremron.com/pavers/turf-block)
369
Town and Country Planning Division. Guide to Developers and Applicants for Planning
Permission. n.d. PDF File.
(https://tcpd.gov.tt/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Guide-to-Developers-and-Applicants-
for-Planning-Permission-1988.pdf)
“Understanding Stormwater.” 2022. EPA South Australia. Accessed January 15.
(https://www.epa.sa.gov.au/environmental_info/water_quality/programs/stormwater/unde
rstanding_stormwater#:~:text=Stormwater%2C%20or%20rainwater%20runoff%2C%20i
s,as%20roofs%2C%20driveways%20and%20roads).
Western Interlock Inc. Turf Stone. Photograph. Accessed January 19, 2022.
(https://westerninterlock.com/products/turf-stone/)
“What is a hurricane?” oceanservice.noaa.gov. Accessed January 18th, 2021,
(https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/hurricane.html)
370
9. Appendix
371
372
373
374
375
N
W E
LAYOUT ONE
SCALE: 1:1500
NOTES:
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPT. DRAWN BY: GROUP 1
CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER:
DRAWN BY:
CIV-A01
GROUP 1
LAYOUT PLAN ONE DATE: 17/01/2022
SCALE: 1:1500 SHEET NO: A101

N
W E
LAYOUT TWO
SCALE: 1:1500
NOTES:
DRAWN BY:
CIV-A01
GROUP 1
LAYOUT PLAN TWO DATE: 17/01/2022

SEWER SYSTEM DETAIL SEWER SYSTEM
SCALE: 1:2
SCALE: 1:2
NOTES:
DRAWN BY:
CIV-A01
GROUP 1
SEWER SYSTEM DATE: 17/01/2022

BOX DRAIN SYSTEM
SCALE: 1:2
NOTES:
DRAWN BY:
CIV-A01
GROUP 1
BOX DRAIN SYSTEM DATE: 17/01/2022

GRID SYSTEM DETAIL
SCALE: 1:2 GRID SYSTEM
SCALE: 1:2
NOTES:
DRAWN BY:
CIV-A01
GROUP 1
WATER SUPPLY DATE: 17/01/2022

BRANCH SYSTEM DETAIL SEWER SYSTEM
SCALE: 1:2
SCALE: 1:2
NOTES:
DRAWN BY:
CIV-A01
GROUP 1
SEWER SYSTEM DATE: 17/01/2022

COMMUNITY CENTER COLUMN GRID
SCALE: 1:50
NOTES:
COLUMN GRID FOR
DRAWN BY:
CIV-A01
GROUP 1
COMMUNITY CENTER DATE: 17/01/2022

FIRST FLOOR
SCALE: 1:50
NOTES:
DRAWN BY:
CIV-A01
GROUP 1
LAYOUT PLAN 2 DATE: 31/10/2021

GROUND FLOOR
SCALE: 1:50
NOTES:
COMMUNITY CENTER
DRAWN BY:
CIV-A01
GROUP 1
GROUND FLOOR DATE: 31/10/2021

FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1:60
SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 1:60
NOTES:
CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER: CIV-A01

COMMUNITY CENTER DATE: 17/01/2022
DRAWN BY: GROUP 1
ELEVATION
1ST,2ND,3RD & 4TH FLOOR
SCALE: 1:90
GROUND FLOOR
SCALE: 1:90
NOTES:
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPT.
DO
DRAWN BY:
CIV-A01
GROUP 1 AP
SCALE: 1:90
SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 1:100
FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1:85
NOTES:
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPT. DOUBLE COMPLEX DRAWN BY: GROUP 1
CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER: CIV-A01 ELEVATION DATE: 17/01/2022
DRAWN BY: GROUP 1
SCALE: 1:100,1:85 SHEET NO: A113

POLICLINIC COLUMN GRID
DUPLEX COLUMN GRID SCALE: 1:60
SCALE: 1:60
NOTES:
COLUMN GRID FOR
DRAWN BY:
CIV-A01
GROUP 1
DUPLEX & POLICLINIC DATE: 17/01/2022

GROUND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR
SCALE: 1:50
SCALE: 1:50
NOTES:
DRAWN BY:
CIV-A01
GROUP 1
DUPLEX DATE: 31/10/2021

FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1:40
SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 1:40
NOTES:
THREE-BEDROOM
DRAWN BY:
CIV-A01
GROUP 1
DUPLEX DATE: 17/01/2022

GROUND FLOOR
SCALE: 1:50
NOTES:
DRAWN BY:
CIV-A01
GROUP 1
POLICLINIC DATE: 31/10/2021

FRONT ELEAVTION
SCALE: 1:40
SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 1:40
NOTES:
POLICLINIC ELEVATION
DRAWN BY:
CIV-A01
GROUP 1
DATE: 17/01/2022

DOUBLE COMPLEX COLUMN GRID
SCALE: 1:85
SINGLE COMPLEX COLUMN GRID

SCALE: 1:85
NOTES:
DRAWN BY:
CIV-A01
GROUP 1
LAYOUT PLAN 2 DATE: 17/01/2022

1ST & 2ND FLOOR
SCALE: 1:85
GROUND FLOOR
SCALE: 1:85
NOTES:
SINGLE ROOM
DRAWN BY:
CIV-A01
GROUP 1
APARTMENT COMPLEX DATE: 31/10/2021

SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 1:60
FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1:85
NOTES:
SINGLE COMPLEX
DRAWN BY:
CIV-A01
GROUP 1
ELEVATION DATE: 17/01/2022
SCALE: 1:60,1:85 SHEET NO: A12

FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1:30
SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE: 1:30
NOTES:
TOWN-HOUSE
CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGN PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER: CIV-A01
ELEVATION DATE: 17/01/2022
DRAWN BY: GROUP 1

TRIPLEX COLUMN GRID
SCALE: 1:50
NOTES:
DRAWN BY:
CIV-A01
GROUP 1
TRIPLEX COLUMN GRID DATE: 17/01/2022

FIRST FLOOR
SCALE: 1:50
GROUND FLOOR
SCALE: 1:50
NOTES:
DRAWN BY:
CIV-A01
GROUP 1
TRIPLEX DATE: 31/10/2021

FYP Final Report G1 - Merged - Compressed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FYP Final Report G1 - Merged - Compressed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FEASIBILITY REPORT

Project CE1: Bon Air North Affordable

Course Codes & Title:

Supervisor: Dr. Richard Clarke

Prepared By: ID No.

The Office of the Board for Undergraduate Studies

GROUP PLAGIARISM DECLARATION

COURSE TITLE Civil Engineering Design Project

COURSE CODE CVNG 3014/3020

TITLE OF ASSIGNMENT CE1 Bon Air North Affordable Housing Settlement

We the undersigned declare that:

SIGNATURE ________ ______________________________________

NAME: Sydnee-Faith Cyrus

NAME: Aaron George

SIGNATURE ________ ______________________________________

NAME: Caitlyn Maharaj

STUDENT AND SUPERVISOR MEETING LOG

Meeting Date: Wednesday, September 22 nd, 2021

Supervisor: Dr. Richard Clarke

CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS:

STUDENT AND SUPERVISOR MEETING LOG

Meeting Date: Wednesday, September 29 th, 2021

Supervisor: Dr. Richard Clarke

CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS:

STUDENT AND SUPERVISOR MEETING LOG

Meeting Date: Wednesday, October 06th, 2021

Supervisor: Dr. Richard Clarke

CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS:

STUDENT AND SUPERVISOR MEETING LOG

Meeting Date: Wednesday, October 13th, 2021

Supervisor: Dr. Richard Clarke

CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS:

STUDENT AND SUPERVISOR MEETING LOG

Meeting Date: Wednesday, October 20th, 2021

Supervisor: Dr. Richard Clarke

CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS:

STUDENT AND SUPERVISOR MEETING LOG

Meeting Date: Wednesday, October 27th, 2021

Supervisor: Dr. Richard Clarke

CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS:

STUDENT AND SUPERVISOR MEETING LOG

Meeting Date: Wednesday, November 03rd, 2021

Supervisor: Dr. Richard Clarke

CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS:

STUDENT AND SUPERVISOR MEETING LOG

Meeting Date: Wednesday, November 10 th, 2021

Supervisor: Dr. Richard Clarke

CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS:

STUDENT AND SUPERVISOR MEETING LOG

Meeting Date: Wednesday, November 17th, 2021

Supervisor: Dr. Richard Clarke

CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS:

STUDENT AND SUPERVISOR MEETING LOG

Meeting Date: Wednesday, November 30th, 2021

Supervisor: Dr. Richard Clarke

CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS:

Figure 1. Showing a General Location of the Proposed Settlement ............................................. 29

1.2. Project References

1.3. Points of Contact

32 Fine Sandy Loam FSL Free 2.0 – 6.0

34 Sandy Clay Loam SCL Free 0.50 - 2.0

Gravelly Sandy Clay

SIGNATURE ______________________________

SIGNATURE ______________________________