CHAPTER 4. Constraints, Standards and Trade - Offs Design Constraints

CHAPTER 4.
Constraints, Standards and Trade – Offs
Design Constraints
1. Economic
The monetary value of a construction is the first thing to be taken into account. The quality
is never sacrificed in choosing the material to be used. This is done with the help of the different
design technologies.
2. Factor of Safety
The factor of safety is the one responsible for the material degradation and unexpected
stresses. This will be done by computing the factor of safety of the Moment Capacity over the
Designing Moment. The monetary value of the material increases as the factor of safety increases.
3. Constructability
The client wants the six-storey parish church to be finished on the basis of the project’s
anticipated completion date. If possible, be completed at the shortest time interval, since Liputan,
Meycauayan, Bulacan will be one of the municipalities of the New Metro Manila. Also, to commerce
immediate start-up operation. The parameter used by the designers is based on the weight of the
reinforcement used for the structure.
4. Strength Capacity
In this design, consideration was given to the first-order elastic analysis of the bending of
structural beams section including the effects of elastic restraints. Section capacities under bending
which approximated the effects of full plasticity in compact sections were considered and became
the benchmark of designing within the parameters of safe design as articulated on the design
standards.
Design Standards
This design project conforms to the following codes and standards and references:
1. The American Standards for Testing and materials (ASTM)
2. The Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP)
3. National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP)
4. American Concrete Institute (ACI)
Material Specification
F’c = 34.5 MPa (28 days) for footings and elevated slabs
Fy = 414 MPa
Design Load Criteria
FIRST TO SIXTH FLOOR

Dead Load
Concrete
𝐾𝑛
Reinforced Concrete = 24 𝑚3
Ceiling
Gypsum Board (PEFC mm Thickness) = 0.19 Kpa
Plaster on Tile or Concrete = 0.24 Kpa
Gypsum Plaster on suspended metal lath= 0.48 Kpa
Couplings
Cement Tile = 0.77 Kpa
Floor and Floor Finishes

Cement Finish (25mm) on stone concrete fill = 1.53 Kpa
Concrete Fill Finish (per mm Thickness) = 0.023 Kpa
Miscellaneous Materials
Glass, Double Strength = 0.0767 Kpa
Masonry, Marble = 8.28 Kpa
Roof
Sheathing = 0.081 Kpa
Roof Trusses = 0.1 Kpa
Insulation (150mm) = 0.030 Kpa
Ceiling = 0.1 Kpa
Sprinklers = 0.030 Kpa
Other Fixtures = 0.030 Kpa
Floors
Interior Partitions = 1.0 Kpa
Carpets = 0.1 Kpa
Walls and Partitions
Brick (per inch of Thickness) = 0.48 Kpa
Hollow Concrete Block = 3.83 Kpa
LIVE LOAD
Residential = 1.9 Kpa
Hallway = 2.4 Kpa
Assembly areas and Theaters (Movable Seats) = 4.79 Kpa
Assembly areas and Theaters (Stage Floors) = 7. 18 Kpa
Dining Rooms = 4.79 Kpa
Office = 2.40 Kpa
Walkways and Elevated Platforms = 2.87 Kpa
Corridors = 4.79 Kpa
Storage (Light) = 6.00 Kpa
Columbarium = 1.92 Kpa
Stairs and exitways = 4.79 Kpa
WIND LOAD
For each wind direction considered, the upwind exposure category shall be based on ground
surface roughness that is determined from natural topography, vegetation, and Constructed facilities.
Occupancy Description Iⱳ
Category
II Standard 1.0
Occupancy
Zone 2(NCR) = 200 Kph

Gust Effect Factor (G) = 0.85
External Wall Pressure Coefficient (Cp):
Windward = 0.80
Leeward; Wind Parallel to Traverse:
𝐿 22.45
= 24 = 0.935 < 1.0 ; Cp = -0.5
𝑊
Internal Wall Pressure Coefficient: Leeward = 0.55
Wind Pressure (P):

qz(GCp – GCpi)
Wind Force:
P(Tributary Area)
SEISMIC LOAD
Occupancy Categories
For purposes of earthquake-resistant design, each structure shall be placed in one
of the occupancy categories Listed in Table 103-1. Table 208-1 assigns importance factors,
I and Ip, and structural observation requirement for each category.
Seismic Importance Factor I = 1.5

Seismic Importance Factor Ip = 1.5
Soil Profile Type

Se = Soft Soil Profile
Seismic Zone Factor = 0.4
Assign Near Source Factor (Type A):
Na = 0.34
Nv = 0.6
Assign Seismic Coefficient:
Ca = 0.44Na = 0.15
Cv = 0.64Nv = 0.38
Design Base Shear
The total design base shear in a given direction shall be determined by the
following equation:
𝐶𝑣𝑙𝑊
V= 𝑅𝑇
The total design base shear need not exceed the following
2.5 𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑊
V= 𝑅
The total design base shear shall not be less than the following
0.11𝐶𝑎𝑙
V= 𝑊
In addition, for Seismic Zone 4, the total base shear shall also not be less than the
following
0.8𝑍𝑁𝑣𝑙𝑊
V= 𝑅
Seismic Parameters
Static Analysis
Z Zone Coefficient (0.4)
S Site profile coefficient representing the soil
characteristics (Se)
I Importance Factor (1.5) for Standard
Occupancy
R Response modification factor = 8.5 (Moment resisting
frame systems – Concrete)
LOAD COMBINATIONS
Ultimate Strength Design

Where Load and Resistance Factor Design (Strength Design) is used, structures and
all portions thereof shall resist the most critical effects from the following combinations of
factored loads:
1.4D
1.2D + 1.6L + 0.5lr
1.2D + 1.6Lr + (fL or 0.8W)
1.2D + 1.6W + fL + 0.5Lr
1.2D + 1.0E + fL
0.9D ± (1.0E 0r 1.6W)
Where:
D Dead Load
L Live Load
Lr Roof Live Load
W Wind Load
E Earthquake Load
F 1.0 for floors in place of public assembly, for live loads in excess of
4.9 Kpa, -and for garage live load 0.5 for all other live load
Allowable Stress Design
Where allowable stress design (working stress design) is used, structures and all portions
thereof shall resist the most critical effects from the following combinations:
D
D + L +Lr
D + (W or E/1.4)
D + 0.75(L + Lr)
No increase in allowable stresses shall be used with these load combinations except as
specified by Section 203.4.2 of NSCP C101-20 (Alternate Basic Load Combinations)
Alternate Basic Load Combinations
In lieu of basic load combinations specified in allowable stress design, structures and all
portions thereof shall resist the most critical effects from the following combinations. When using
these alternate basic load combinations, a one-third increase shall be permitted in allowable
stresses for all combinations, including W or E.
D + 0.75[L + Lr + (W or E/1.4)]
0.6D + W
0.6D + E/1.4
D + L + Lr
D+L+W
D + L +E/1.4
TRADE OFFS
On the latter part of this chapter, the designers will present the different constraints that were
considered. Economic is given the highest importance among the four because the value is not fixed. It can
vary from one or another. Also, the other constraints namely factor of safety and constructability depend on
it.
The next constraint after economic is Factor of Safety. It is the second to the most important because
it gives the level of the structural member to resist applied loads. It also determines if the section is safe by
how large the increase in its resistance to bending form is.
The third constraint which is ranked as 3 is the Constructability. This determines which of the
following methods are done at the shortest possible time interval. The parameter that will be used is based
on the weight of the reinforcement.
This design project will analyse different methods for beams, columns, slab, foundation, and
miscellaneous design. For beams, the technologies that will be used are RCD (USD vs. WSD), STEEL (LRFD
vs. ASD), and PCD. For columns, RCD (USD vs. WSD) and STEEL (LRFD vs. ASD) will be used. Only RCD
(USD vs. WSD) will be the technology for slab. Then, for foundation, USD and WSD are the technologies to
be used. Lastly, for the miscellaneous design, this includes Shear Wall, Retaining Wall, Ramp, and
Breakwater. This will only have the USD vs. WSD. This part will be called the trade-off.
Under miscellaneous designs, first is the Shear Wall. Shear wall is a structural system composed of
braced panels or shear panels to counter the effects of lateral load acting on a structural. Next is the
Breakwaters, this are structures constructed on coasts as part of coastal defence, its main purpose is to
reduce the intensity of wave action on inshore waters and thereby reduce coastal erosion or provide safe
harbourage. To bound soil between two different elevations, Retaining Wall is used. Also on miscellaneous
designs are: Helipad and Ramp, used for landing area or platform for helicopters and a slopping path or floor
that joins two surfaces of different levels.
The Final Design will be the compilation of the final design to be used in every member of the whole
project. The technology to be used will be in the final design.
For Beams
BEAMS
RCD PCD STEEL
USD WSD LRFD ASD
Figure 4-1
For Columns
COLUMNS
RCD STEEL
USD WSD LRFD ASD
Figure 4-2
For Slab
SLAB
RCD
USD WSD
Figure 4-3
For Miscellaneous Design
MISCELLANEOUS DESIGN
SHEAR WALL RETAINING WALL RAMP BREAKWATER
USD WSD
Figure 4-4
FOR BEAMS
Reinforced Concrete Design Technology (USD and WSD) vs. Structural Design Technology (LRFD
and ASD) vs. Prestressed Concrete Design
The first trade off that the designers considered is RCD vs. Steel Design vs. PCD for Economic, Safety,
Constructability, and Strength Capacity. Under RCD, the technologies are USD and WSD. Under Steel
Design, the technologies are LRFD and ASD.
Table 4-1. Economical for Beam (RCD vs. Steel vs. PCD)
BEAMS
REINFORCED CONCRETE DESIGN STRUCTURAL STEEL DESIGN
DESIGN METHOD PCD
USD WSD LRFD ASD
DESIGNATION B16 B16 B16 B16 B16
SECTION 500x750 950x1100 W14x500 W14x605 16RB32
MATERIAL COST 107983.9006 117691.9797 335143.316 405524.658 28195
LABOR COST 32395.17017 35307.59392 100542.9948 121657.3974 8458.5
TOTAL COST 140379.0707 152999.5736 435686.3108 527182.0554 36653.5
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
USD WSD LRFD ASD PCD
B16
Figure 4-5. Comparison of the Total Cost of Beam in terms of RCD, Steel, and PCD
As you can see in Table 4-1, among the five technologies used, Allowable Stress Design for the
most expensive total cost of P527,182.06. The one that got the cheapest total cost goes to Prestressed
Concrete Design having a total cost of P36,653.5. This means that when it comes to economical, PCD
governs among the five technologies used.
Figure 4-5 shows the comparison of the total cost of the technologies used. The designers have
considered B16 since it is critical.
Table 4-2. Safety for Beam (RCD vs. Steel vs. PCD)
RCD SSD
DESIGNATION Beam PCD
USD WSD LRFD ASD
Section Capacity 2891.16 4723.53 5327.107 6202.261 2731
B16 Design Section 1729.4 2532.992 5062.572 5166.393 2639.3
Factor of Safety 1.67 1.86 1.05 1.20 1.03
1.5
0.5
0
B16
Figure 4-6. Comparison of the Factor of Safety of Beam in terms of RCD, Steel, and PCD
In Table 4-2, the Factor of Safety for USD, WSD, LRFD, ASD, and PCD is 1.67,1.86,1.05,1.20, and
1.03 respectively. As you can see, Working Stress Design got the highest factor of safety while Prestressed
Concrete Design got the lowest factor of safety. This means that among the five technologies, WSD is the
safest to construct while PCD is the least safe.
Figure 4-6 shows the graphical representation of the tabulated values for the five technologies. It is
clearly shown that Working Stress Design has really the highest factor of safety while Prestressed Concrete
Design has the lowest factor of safety.
Table 4-3. Constructability of Beam (RCD vs. Steel vs. PCD)
BEAM
DESIGNATION Design Method DIMENSION Bar Ø Number of Bars Total No. of Bars WEIGHT
Top Bar 11
Ultimate Strength Design 500x750 25mm 39 587.808
Bottom Bar 28
RCD Top Bar 33
Working Stress Design 950x1100 25mm 35 527.52
B22 Bottom Bar 2
Prestressed Concrete Design 16RB32 No. of Strands 18 271.296
LRFD W14x500 746.18 11246.425
SSD ASD W14x605
WEIGHT
902.88
TOTAL WEIGHT
13608.207
15000
10000
5000
0
B16
Figure 4-7. Comparison of the Constructability of Beam in terms of RCD, Steel, and PCD
In Table 4-3, there are five technologies used to compare for the weight of the reinforcement. These
are USD, WSD, LRFD, ASD, and PCD. USD and WSD are under RCD, LRFD and ASD are under Steel
Design. For this particular beam, Prestressed Concrete Design got the lightest weight of 271.296 while
Allowable Stress Design got the heaviest weight of 13608.207. Figure 4-7 shows the graphical representation
of the tabulated values for constructability. As a result, the designers have concluded that among the five
technologies, Prestressed Concrete Design is easiest to construct. This means that the construction period
is also shorter compared to others.
Table 4-4. Strength Capacity of Beam (RCD vs. Steel vs. PCD)
BEAM CAPACITY
BEAM PRESTRESSED
ULTIMATE WORKING STRESS LOAD AND RESISTANCE ALLOWABLE STRESS
DESIGNATION CONCRETE DESIGN
STRENGTH DESIGN DESIGN FACTOR DESIGN DESIGN
B22 2891.16 4723.53 5327.106765 6202.260735 2731
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
B16
Figure 4-8. Comparison of Strength Capacity of Beam in terms of RCD, Steel, and PCD
Table 4-4 shows the beam capacity for B16 under USD, WSD, LRFD, ASD, and PCD. The highest
beam capacity falls under Allowable Stress Design with 6202.260735. On the other hand, Prestressed
Concrete Design got the lowest beam capacity of 2731. This means that ASD governs for the strength
capacity of the beam.
Figure 4-8 shows the graphical representation of the strength capacity of beam for USD, WSD,
LRFD, ASD, and PCD. It is obvious that ASD is the highest while PCD is the lowest. As a result, the designers
have concluded that ASD has the ability to resist imposed loads.
FOR COLUMN
Reinforced Concrete Technology (USD and WSD) vs. Structural Steel Design Technology (LRFD
and ASD)
Table 4-5. Economic for Column (RCD vs. Steel)

COLUMN
DESIGN METHOD
USD WSD LRFD ASD
DESIGNATION C196 C196 C196 C196
SECTION 800x800 1100x1100 W14X398 W14X605
LENGTH 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
MATERIAL COST 60392.50388 64800.79987 74130 112680
LABOR COST 18117.75116 19440.23996 22239 33804
TOTAL COST 78510.25504 84241.03983 96369 146484
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
USD WSD LRFD ASD
C196
Figure 4-9. Comparison of Total Cost for Column in terms of RCD, Steel, and PCD
As you can see in Table 4-5, among the four technologies used, Allowable Stress Design got the
most expensive total cost of P146,484.00. The one that got the cheapest total cost goes to Ultimate Strength
Design having a total cost of P78,510.25504. This means that when it comes to economical, USD governs
among the five technologies used.
considered B22 since it is critical.
Table 4-6. Factor of Safety for Column (RCD vs. Steel)
RCD SSD
DESIGNATION Column
USD WSD LRFD ASD
Section Capacity 21594.63 25799 21956.34 22367.53
C196 Design Section 21064.89 19136 21064.89 19136.39
Factor of Safety 1.03 1.35 1.04 1.17
1.5
0.5
0
USD WSD LRFD ASD
C196
Figure 4-10. Comparison of Factor of Safety for Column in terms of RCD and Steel
In Table 4-6, the Factor of Safety for USD, WSD, LRFD, and ASD is 1.03, 1.35, 1.04, and 1.17
respectively. As you can see, Working Stress Design got the highest factor of safety while Ultimate Strength
Design got the lowest factor of safety. This means that among the four technologies, WSD is the safest to
construct while USD is the least safe.
Figure 4-10 shows the graphical representation of the tabulated values for the four technologies. It
is clearly shown that Working Stress Design has really the highest factor of safety while Ultimate Strength
Table 4-7. Constructability for Column (RCD vs. Steel)
COLUMN
DESIGNATION
Design Method DIMENSION Bar Ø Total No. of Bars WEIGHT
USD 800x800 32mm 64 964.608
WSD 1100x1100 32mm 67 1009.824
C196 LRFD W14X398 593.96 8952.165
ASD W14X605 WEIGHT 902.88 13608.21
15000
10000
5000
0
USD WSD LRFD ASD
C196
Figure 4-11. Comparison of Constructability for Column in terms of RCD, Steel, and PCD
In Table 4-7, there are four technologies used to compare for the weight of the reinforcement. These
are USD, WSD, LRFD, and ASD. USD and WSD are under RCD, LRFD and ASD are under Steel Design.
For this particular column, Ultimate Strength Design got the lightest weight of 964.608 while Allowable Stress
Design got the heaviest weight of 13608.21. Figure 4-11 shows the graphical representation of the tabulated
values for constructability. As a result, the designers have concluded that among the four technologies,
Ultimate Strength Design is easiest to construct. This means that the construction period is also shorter
compared to others.
Table 4-8. Strength Capacity for Column (RCD vs. Steel vs. PCD)
COLUMN CAPACITY
BEAM
ULTIMATE WORKING STRESS LOAD AND RESISTANCE ALLOWABLE STRESS
DESIGNATION
STRENGTH DESIGN DESIGN FACTOR DESIGN DESIGN
C196 21594.63 25799 21956.33614 22367.52621
27000
26000
25000
24000
23000
22000
21000
20000
19000
USD WSD LRFD ASD
C196
Figure 4-12. Comparison of Strength Capacity for Column in terms of RCD and Steel
Table 4-8 shows the column capacity for C196 under USD, WSD, LRFD, and ASD. The highest
column capacity falls under Working Stress Design with 25799. On the other hand, Ultimate Strength Design
got the lowest column capacity of 21594.63. This means that WSD governs for the strength capacity of the
column.
Figure 4-12 shows the graphical representation of the strength capacity of column for USD, WSD,
LRFD, and ASD. It is obvious that WSD is the highest while USD is the lowest. As a result, the designers
have concluded that WSD has the ability to resist imposed loads.
FOR SLAB
Reinforced Concrete Design Technology: Ultimate Strength Design (USD) vs. Working Stress
Design (WSD)
Table 4-9. Economic for Slab (USD vs. WSD)
86000
85500
85000
84500
84000
83500
83000
USD WSD
S7
Figure 4-13. Comparison of Total Cost for Slab in terms of USD and WSD
As you can see in Table 4-9, among the two technologies used, Working Stress Design got the most
expensive total cost of P85,677.59252. The one that got the cheapest total cost goes to Ultimate Strength
Design having a total cost of P84,212.02858. This means that when it comes to economical, USD governs
among the two technologies used.
considered S7 since it is critical.
Table 4-10. Constructability for Slab (USD vs. WSD)
580
560
540
520
500
480
460
USD WSD
S7
Figure 4-14. Comparison of Constructability for Slab in terms of USD and WSD
In Table 4-10, there are two technologies used to compare for the weight of the reinforcement. These
are USD and WSD which are under RCD. For this particular slab, Ultimate Strength Design got the lightest
weight of 497.376 while Working Stress Design got the heaviest weight of 557.664. Figure 4-14 shows the
graphical representation of the tabulated values for constructability. As a result, the designers have
concluded that among the two technologies, Ultimate Strength Design is easiest to construct. This means
that the construction period is also shorter compared to others.
FOR FOUNDATION
Reinforced Concrete Technology: Ultimate Strength Design (USD) vs. Working Stress Design (WSD)
Table 4-11. Economic for Foundation (USD vs. WSD)

PILE FOUNDATION
REINFORCED CONCRETE DESIGN
DESIGN METHOD
ULTIMATE STRENGTH DESIGN WORKING STRESS DESIGN
DESIGNATION C1 A5 E3 C1 A5 E3
SECTION 3x3x0.7 3x3x0.7 3x3x0.7 3x3x0.7 3x3x0.7 3x3x0.7
NO. OF PILES 6 4 4 6 4 4
NO. OF BARS OF PILE CAP 62 19 37 80 45 66
MATERIAL COST 115239.3 56994.05 80113.67 138123.9 90154.06 117127
LABOR COST 34571.79 17098.215 24034.101 41437.17 27046.218 35138.1
TOTAL COST 149811.09 74092.265 104147.771 179561.07 117200.278 152265.1
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
C1 A5 E3
USD WSD
Figure 4-15. Comparison of Economic for Foundation (USD vs. WSD)
As you can see in Table 4-11, among the two technologies used, Working Stress Design got the
most expensive total cost of P179,561.07, P117,200.278, P152,265.1 for C1, A5, and E3 respectively. The
one that got the cheapest total cost goes to Ultimate Strength Design having a total cost of P149,811.09,
P74,092.265, P104,147.771 for C1, A5, and E3 respectively. This means that when it comes to economical,
USD governs among the two technologies used.
considered C1, A5, and E3 since they are critical.
Table 4-12. Factor of Safety for Foundation (USD vs. WSD)
RCD
DESIGNATION Foundation
USD WSD
Moment Capacity 5857.236 3934.163
C1 Design Moment 2300.81 2284.17
Factor of Safety 2.55 1.72
A5 Design Moment 418.46 412.98
E3 Design Moment 1006.73 998.93
5
4
3
2
1
0
C1 A5 E3
USD WSD
Figure 4-16. Comparison of Factor of Safety for Foundation in terms of USD and WSD
In Table 4-12, the Factor of Safety of C1, A5, and E3 for USD is 2.55, 4.57, and 3.61 respectively.
While for WSD, the values are 1.72, 2.96, and 2.68. As you can see, Ultimate Strength Design got the highest
factor of safety while Working Stress Design got the lowest factor of safety. This means that among the two
technologies, USD is the safest to construct while WSD is the least safe.
Figure 4-16 shows the graphical representation of the tabulated values for the two technologies. It is
clearly shown that Ultimate Strength Design has really the highest factor of safety while Working Stress
Table 4-13. Constructability of Foundation (USD vs. WSD)
FOUNDATION
DESIGNATION Number of Bars
Bothways pcs
Ultimate Strength 3x3x0.7 25mm Bar 62 124 1868.928
C1 Working Stress Design 3x3x0.7 25mm Bar 80 160 2411.52
A5 Working Stress Design 3x3x0.7 25mm Bar 45 90 1356.48
E3 Working Stress Design 3x3x0.7 25mm Bar 66 132 1989.504
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
C1 A5 E3
USD WSD
Figure 4-17. Comparison of Constructability for Foundation in terms of USD and WSD
are USD and WSD which are under RCD. For C1, Ultimate Strength Design got the lighter weight of 1868.928
while Working Stress Design got the heavier weight of 2411.52. For A5, USD got 572.736 while WSD got
1356.48. For E3, USD got 1115.328 while WSD got 1989.504. Figure 4-17 shows the graphical
representation of the tabulated values for constructability. As a result, the designers have concluded that
among the two technologies, Ultimate Strength Design is easiest to construct because the weights obtained
are lighter than the Working Stress Design. This means that the construction period is also shorter compared
to others.
Table 4-14. Strength Capacity for Foundation (USD vs. WSD)
FOUNDATION CAPACITY
ULTIMATE
BEAM WORKING STRESS
STRENGTH DESIGN
DESIGNATION DESIGN (KN-m)
(KN-m)
C1 5857.236325 3934.163374
A5 1913.363866 1221.191703
E3 3637.343758 2675.368128
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
C1 A5 E3
USD WSD
Figure 4-18. Comparison of Strength Capacity for Foundation in terms of USD and WSD
Table 4-14 shows the foundation capacity for C1, A5, and E3 under USD and WSD. The highest
foundation capacity falls under Ultimate Strength Design with 5857.24 for C1, 1913.36 for A5, and 3637.34
for E3. On the other hand, Working Stress Design got the lowest column capacity of 3934.16 for C1, 1221.19
for A5, and 2675.37 for E3. This means that USD governs for the strength capacity of the foundation.
Figure 4-18 shows the graphical representation of the strength capacity of foundation for USD and
WSD. It is obvious that USD is the highest while WSD is the lowest. As a result, the designers have concluded
that USD has more ability to resist imposed loads.
FOR RAMP
Table 4-15. Economic for Beam of Ramp (USD vs. WSD)

BEAM OF RAMP
DESIGN METHOD ULTIMATE STRENGTH DESIGN WORKING STRESS DESIGN
DESIGNATION RB1 RB2 RB1 RB2
SECTION 250x500 250x500 300x400 500x600
LENGTH 7.7 11.46 7.7 11.46
MATERIAL COST 14078.97688 21650.19636 17491.1909 42110.25048
LABOR COST 4223.693064 6495.058907 5247.35727 12633.07514
TOTAL COST 18302.66994 28145.25526 22738.54817 54743.32563
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
RB1 RB2
USD WSD
Figure 4-19. Comparison of Total Cost for Beam of Ramp (USD vs. WSD)
most expensive total cost of P22,738.55 for RB1 and P54,743.33 for RB2 respectively. The one that got the
cheapest total cost goes to Ultimate Strength Design having a total cost of P18,302.67 for RB1 and
P28,145.26 for RB2 respectively. This means that when it comes to economical, USD governs among the
two technologies used. Figure 4-19 shows the comparison of the total cost of the technologies used.
Table 4-16. Factor of Safety for Beam of Ramp (USD vs. WSD)
RAMP
Beam
USD WSD
Design Moment 144.43 84.7327
RB1
Factor of Safety
1.00 1.76
Design Moment 357.24 368.0807
RB2
Factor of Safety
1.03 1.06
1.5
0.5
0
RB1 RB2
USD WSD
Figure 4-20. Comparison of Factor of Safety for Beam of Ramp (USD vs. WSD)
In Table 4-16, the Factor of Safety of RB1 and RB2 for USD is 1.00 and 1.03 respectively. While for
WSD, the values are 1.03 and 1.06. As you can see, Working Stress Design got the highest factor of safety
while Ultimate Strength Design got the lowest factor of safety. This means that among the two technologies,
WSD is the safest to construct while USD is the least safe.
clearly shown that Working Stress Design has really the highest factor of safety while Ultimate Strength
Table 4-17. Constructability for Beam of Ramp (USD vs. WSD)
BEAM OF RAMP
Number of Bars
Left Right
Top Bar 2 2
Ultimate Strength 250x500 25mm 8 120.576
Bottom Bar 2 2
RB1 Top Bar 7 2
Bottom Bar 2 4
Number of Bars
Left Right
Top Bar 6 2
Ultimate Strength 250x500 25mm 13 195.936
Bottom Bar 2 3
RB2 Top Bar 11 2
Bottom Bar 2 10
400
300
200
100
0
RB1 RB2
USD WSD
Figure 4-21. Comparison of Constructability for Ramp (USD vs. WSD)
are USD and WSD which are under RCD. For RB1 (Ramp Beam 1), Ultimate Strength Design got the lighter
weight of 120.576 while Working Stress Design got the heavier weight of 226.08. For RB2, USD got 195.936
while WSD got 376.8. Figure 4-21 shows the graphical representation of the tabulated values for
constructability of Ramp Beam. As a result, the designers have concluded that among the two technologies,
Ultimate Strength Design is easiest to construct because the weights obtained are lighter than the Working
Stress Design. This means that the construction period is also shorter compared to others.
Table 4-18. Capacity of Beam of Ramp (USD vs. WSD)
OPTION BEAM CAPACITY
BEAM ULTIMATE STRENGTH DESIGN WORKING STRESS DESIGN

DESIGNATION (KN-m) (KN-m)
RB1 144.43 149.174

RB2 367.203 389.53
500
400
300
200
100
0
RB1 RB2
USD WSD
Figure 4-22. Comparison of Strength Capacity of Beam of Ramp (USD vs. WSD)
Table 4-18 shows the beam capacity for Ramp Beam 1 (RB1), and Ramp Beam 2 (RB2) under USD
and WSD. The highest beam capacity falls under Working Stress Design with 149.174 for RB1, and 389.53
for RB2. On the other hand, Ultimate Strength Design got the lowest beam capacity of 144.43 for RB1, and
367.203 for RB2. This means that WSD governs for the strength capacity of the ramp beam.
Figure 4-22 shows the graphical representation of the strength capacity of ramp beam for USD and
WSD. It is obvious that WSD is the highest while USD is the lowest. As a result, the designers have concluded
that WSD has more ability to resist imposed loads.
Table 4-19. Economic for Slab of Ramp (USD vs. WSD)
SLAB OF RAMP
DESIGNATION R1 R2 R1 R2
SECTION 7.7x0.35 11.46x0.5 7.7x0.39 11.46x0.58
LENGTH 7.7 11.46 7.7 11.46
MATERIAL COST 19690.82694 35815.95143 19753.4387 47289.82635
LABOR COST 5907.248081 10744.78543 5926.031611 14186.94791
TOTAL COST 25598.07502 46560.73686 25679.47032 61476.77426
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
R1 R2
USD WSD
Figure 4-23. Comparison of Total Cost for Slab of Ramp (USD vs. WSD)
most expensive total cost of P25,679.47032 for R1 (Ramp 1) and P61,476.77426 for R2 (Ramp 2)
respectively. The one that got the cheapest total cost goes to Ultimate Strength Design having a total cost of
P25,598.07502 for R1 and P46,560.73686 for R2 respectively. This means that when it comes to economical,
USD governs among the two technologies used. Figure 4-23 shows the comparison of the total cost of the
technologies used.
Table 4-20. Constructability of Slab of Ramp (USD vs. WSD)
SLAB OF RAMP
Number of Bars
pcs
Ultimate Strength 7.7x0.35 25mm Bar 11 11 165.792
R1 Working Stress Design 7.7x0.39 25mm Bar 13 13 195.936
Number of Bars
pcs
Ultimate Strength 11.46x0.5 25mm Bar 19 19 286.368
R2 Working Stress Design 11.46x0.58 25mm Bar 22 22 331.584
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
R1 R2
USD WSD
Figure 4-24. Comparison of Constructability of Slab of Ramp (USD vs. WSD)
are USD and WSD which are under RCD. For R1, Ultimate Strength Design got the lighter weight of 165.792
while Working Stress Design got the heavier weight of 195.936. For R2, USD got 286.368 while WSD got
331.584. Figure 4-24 shows the graphical representation of the tabulated values for constructability of Slab
of Ramp. As a result, the designers have concluded that among the two technologies, Ultimate Strength
Design is easiest to construct because the weights obtained are lighter than the Working Stress Design. This
means that the construction period is also shorter compared to others.
FOR SHEAR WALL
Table 4-21. Economic for Shear Wall (USD vs. WSD)

SHEAR WALL
DESIGNATION S5 S5
THICKNESS (mm) 400 450
LENGTH 3.6 3.6
MATERIAL COST 13950.12367 14310.48199
LABOR COST 4185.037101 4293.144597
TOTAL COST 18135.16077 18603.62659
18800
18600
18400
18200
18000
17800
USD WSD
S5
Figure 4-25. Comparison of Total Cost (USD vs. WSD)
most expensive total cost of P18,603.62659 for S5. The one that got the cheapest total cost goes to Ultimate
Strength Design having a total cost of P18,135.16077 for S5. This means that when it comes to economical,
USD governs among the two technologies used. Figure 4-25 shows the comparison of the total cost of the
technologies used.
Table 4-22. Factor of Safety of Shear Wall (USD vs. WSD)
SHEAR WALL
Beam
USD WSD
S6 Design Moment 417.86 147.846
5
4
3
2
1
0
S6 S5 S2
USD WSD
Figure 4-26. Comparison of Factor of Safety (USD vs. WSD)
In Table 4-22, the Factor of Safety of S6, S5, and S2 for USD is 1.40, 1.41, and 1.16 respectively.
While for WSD, the values are 3.94, 2.68, and 3.27. As you can see, Working Stress Design got the highest
factor of safety while Ultimate Strength Design got the lowest factor of safety. This means that among the
two technologies, WSD is the safest to construct while USD is the least safe.
clearly shown that Working Stress Design has really the highest factor of safety while Ultimate Strength
Table 4-23. Constructability of Shear Wall (USD vs. WSD)
SHEAR WALL
THICKNESS Number of Bars
Design Method Bar Ø Total No. of Bars WEIGHT
(mm) Left Right
Top Bar 17 11
Ultimate Strength 300 25mm 56 844.032
Bottom Bar 11 17
S6 Top Bar 37 2
Working Stress Design 300 25mm 78 1175.616
Bottom Bar 2 37
Top Bar 24 9
Bottom Bar 9 24
S5 Top Bar 39 2
Bottom Bar 2 39
Top Bar 12 7
Bottom Bar 7 12
S2 Top Bar 25 2
Bottom Bar 2 25
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
S6 S5 S2
USD WSD
Figure 4-27. Comparison of Constructability for Shear Wall (USD vs. WSD)
are USD and WSD which are under RCD. For S6, Ultimate Strength Design got the lighter weight of 844.032
while Working Stress Design got the heavier weight of 1175.616. For S5, USD got 994.752 while WSD got
1235.904. For S2, USD got 572.736 while WSD got 813.888. Figure 4-27 shows the graphical representation
of the tabulated values for constructability of Shear Wall. As a result, the designers have concluded that
among the two technologies, Working Stress Design is easier to construct because the weights obtained are
lighter than the Ultimate Strength Design. This means that the construction period is also shorter compared
to others.
Table 4-24. Strength Capacity of Shear Wall (USD vs. WSD)
OPTION SHEAR WALL
BEAM ULTIMATE STRENGTH DESIGN WORKING STRESS DESIGN

DESIGNATION (KN-m) (KN-m)
S6 582.916 582.916
S5 1194.39 1061.68
S2 300.168 300.168
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
S6 S5 S2
USD WSD
Figure 4-28. Comparison of Strength Capacity for Shear Wall (USD vs WSD)
Table 4-24 shows the strength capacity for Shear Wall under USD and WSD. The highest strength
capacity falls under Ultimate Strength Design with 582.916 for S6, 1194.39 for S5, and 300.168 for S2. On
the other hand, Working Stress Design got the lowest beam capacity of 582.916 for S6, 1061.68 for S5, and
300.168 for S2. This means that USD governs for the strength capacity of the shear wall.
Figure 4-28 shows the graphical representation of the strength capacity of shear wall for USD and
WSD. It is obvious that USD is the highest while WSD is the lowest. As a result, the designers have concluded
that USD has more ability to resist imposed loads.
FOR RETAINING WALL
Reinforced Concrete Design Technology: Ultimate Strength Design (USD) vs. Working Stress Design
(WSD)
Table 4-25. Economic for Retaining Wall (USD vs. WSD)

RETAINING WALL (SOIL)
DESIGNATION RW1 RW1
MATERIAL COST 13985.05478 14767.9415
LABOR COST 4195.516433 4430.382449
TOTAL COST 18180.57121 19198.32395
19500
19000
18500
18000
17500
USD WSD
RW1
Figure 4-29. Comparison of Total Cost for Retaining Wall (USD vs. WSD)
most expensive total cost of P19,198.32395. The one that got the cheapest total cost goes to Ultimate
Strength Design having a total cost of P18,180.57121. This means that when it comes to economical, USD
governs among the two technologies used. Figure 4-29 shows the comparison of the total cost of the
technologies used.
Table 4-26. Factor of Safety for Retaining Wall (USD vs. WSD)
RETAINING WALL
USD WSD
RW1 Factor of Safety Against Overturning 6.96 6.96
RW1 Factor of Safety Against Sliding 2.74 2.74
8
6
4
2
0
USD WSD
RW1 (Against Overturning)

RW1 (Against Sliding)
Figure 4-30. Comparison of Factor of Safety for Retaining Wall (USD vs. WSD)
In Table 4-26, the Factor of Safety of both USD and WSD are the same for the two ramps. This
means that among the two technologies, either of them is suitable and is safe.
clearly shown that Working Stress Design and Ultimate Strength Design has the same factor of safety.
Table 4-27. Constructability for Retaining Wall (USD vs. WSD)

Number of Bars
Design Method Bar Ø Total No. of Bars WEIGHT
STEM BASE
Top Bar 20
Ultimate Strength 16mm 67 99 1492.128
Bottom Bar 12
RW1 Top Bar 32
Working Stress Design 10mm 45 84 1266.048
Bottom Bar 7
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
USD WSD
RW1
Figure 4-31. Comparison of Constructability for Retaining Wall (USD vs. WSD)
are USD and WSD which are under RCD. For the given Retaining Wall, Ultimate Strength Design got the
heavier weight of 1492.128 while Working Stress Design got the lighter weight of 1266.048. Figure 4-31
shows the graphical representation of the tabulated value for constructability of Retaining Wall. As a result,
the designers have concluded that among the two technologies, Working Stress Design is easier to construct
because the weights obtained are lighter than the Ultimate Strength Design. This means that the construction
period is also shorter compared to others.
 Using the same trade-off strategies in engineering design presentation by Otto and Antonson
(1991), trade-off between beam, column, slab, foundation, and miscellaneous design were
derived as shown below.
FOR BEAMS
Table 4-31. Over-all Ranking for Beam

BEAM
Criterion’s Ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale from -5 to 5)

Importance
Design Criteria RCD SSD
(on a scale of PCD
USD WSD LRFD ASD
0 to 5)
B16 B16 B16 B16 B16
Economic 5 -5 -5 -5 -5 5
Safety 4 3 5 0 1 0
Contructability 3 -5 -4 -5 -5 5
Capacity 2 0 2 3 5 0
Over-all Rank -28 -13 -34 -26 40
𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑑

(1 − ) ∗ 10 − 5
𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
To sum it up, The Design should use Prestressed Concrete Design (PCD) Technology to come up with the
best design regarding the constraints given.
FOR COLUMNS
Table 4-32. Over-all Ranking for Column
COLUMN
Ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale
Criterion’s from -5 to 5)
Design Criteria Importance (on RCD SSD
a scale of 0 to 5) USD WSD LRFD ASD
C196 C196 C196 C196
Economic 5 5 4 2 -3
Safety 4 2 5 2 3
Contructability 3 5 4 -5 -5
Capacity 2 3 5 3 3
Over-all Rank 52 63 17 -4

(1 − ) ∗ 10 − 5
To sum it up, The Design should use Reinforced Concrete Design Technology to come up with the best
design regarding the constraints given. Under Reinforced Concrete Design, the method to be used is Working
Stress Design (WSD).
FOR SLAB
Table 4-33. Over-all Ranking for Slab
SLAB
Criterion’s Ability to satisfy the
Importance criterion (on a scale
Design Criteria
(on a scale of from -5 to 5)
0 to 5) USD WSD
Economic 5 5 4
Contructability 4 5 3
Over-all Rank 45 32
(1 − ) ∗ 10 − 5
To sum it up, The Design should use Reinforced Concrete Design Technology to come up with the best
design regarding the constraints given. Under Reinforced Concrete Design, the method to be used is Ultimate
Strength Design (USD).
FOR FOUNDATION
Table 4—34. Over-all Ranking for Foundation
FOUNDATION
Criterion’s
Ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale from -5 to 5)
Importance
Design Criteria
(on a scale of USD WSD
0 to 5) C1 A5 E3 C1 A5 E3
Economic 5 5 5 5 3 0 0
Safety 4 5 5 5 1 1 2
Contructability 3 5 5 5 2 0 0
Capacity 2 5 5 5 1 1 2
Over-all Rank 70 70 70 27 6 12

(1 − ) ∗ 10 − 5
To sum it up, The Design should use Ultimate Strength Design Technology to come up with the best design
regarding the constraints given.
BEAM OF RAMP
Table 4-35. Over-all Ranking for Beam of Ramp
BEAM OF RAMP
Ability to satisfy the criterion (on a
Criterion’s Importance scale from -5 to 5)
Design Criteria
(on a scale of 0 to 5) USD WSD
RB1 RB2 RB1 RB2
Economic 5 5 5 2 -4
Safety 4 0 4 5 5
Constructability 3 5 5 -3 -4
Beam Capacity 2 4 4 5 5
Over-all Rank 48 64 31 -2

(1 − ) ∗ 10 − 5
SLAB OF RAMP
Table 4-36. Over-all Ranking for Slab of Ramp

SLAB OF RAMP
Ability to satisfy the criterion (on a
Criterion’s Importance scale from -5 to 5)
Design Criteria
R1 R2 R1 R2
Economic 5 5 5 4 1
Constructability 3 5 5 3 3
Over-all Rank 40 40 29 14

(1 − ) ∗ 10 − 5
SHEAR WALL
Table 4-37. Over-all Ranking for Shear Wall
SHEAR WALL
Ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale from -5 to 5)

Criterion’s Importance
Design Criteria
S6 S5 S2 S6 S5 S2
Economic 5 -4 5 5 5 4 4
Safety 4 -1 0 -1 5 5 5
Constructability 3 5 5 5 1 2 0
Beam Capacity 2 5 5 5 5 3 5
Over-all Rank 1 50 46 58 52 50

(1 − ) ∗ 10 − 5
To sum it up, The Design should use Working Stress Design Technology to come up with the best design
FOR RETAINING WALL
Table 4-38. Over-all Ranking for Retaining Wall
RETAINING WALL
Ability to satisfy the
Criterion’s Importance criterion (on a scale
Design Criteria
RW1 RW1
Economic 5 5 4
Safety 4 5 5
Constructability 3 3 5
Over-all Rank 54 55

(1 − ) ∗ 10 − 5
To sum it up, The Design should use Working Stress Design Technology to come up with the best design

CHAPTER 4. Constraints, Standards and Trade - Offs Design Constraints

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CHAPTER 4. Constraints, Standards and Trade - Offs Design Constraints

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CHAPTER 4.

Constraints, Standards and Trade – Offs

FIRST TO SIXTH FLOOR

Floor and Floor Finishes

Zone 2(NCR) = 200 Kph

Wind Pressure (P):

Seismic Importance Factor I = 1.5

Soil Profile Type

Ultimate Strength Design

Allowable Stress Design

Alternate Basic Load Combinations

RCD PCD STEEL

USD WSD LRFD ASD

USD WSD LRFD ASD

SHEAR WALL RETAINING WALL RAMP BREAKWATER

Table 4-5. Economic for Column (RCD vs. Steel)

Table 4-9. Economic for Slab (USD vs. WSD)

Table 4-11. Economic for Foundation (USD vs. WSD)

Figure 4-15. Comparison of Economic for Foundation (USD vs. WSD)

Table 4-15. Economic for Beam of Ramp (USD vs. WSD)

Figure 4-21. Comparison of Constructability for Ramp (USD vs. WSD)

OPTION BEAM CAPACITY

BEAM ULTIMATE STRENGTH DESIGN WORKING STRESS DESIGN

RB1 144.43 149.174

Figure 4-24. Comparison of Constructability of Slab of Ramp (USD vs. WSD)

Table 4-21. Economic for Shear Wall (USD vs. WSD)

Figure 4-25. Comparison of Total Cost (USD vs. WSD)

Figure 4-26. Comparison of Factor of Safety (USD vs. WSD)

BEAM ULTIMATE STRENGTH DESIGN WORKING STRESS DESIGN

Table 4-25. Economic for Retaining Wall (USD vs. WSD)

RW1 (Against Overturning)

RETAINING WALL (SOIL)

Table 4-31. Over-all Ranking for Beam

Criterion’s Ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale from -5 to 5)

𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑑

Table 4-32. Over-all Ranking for Column

𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑑

Table 4-33. Over-all Ranking for Slab

Table 4—34. Over-all Ranking for Foundation

𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑑

Table 4-35. Over-all Ranking for Beam of Ramp

𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑑

Table 4-36. Over-all Ranking for Slab of Ramp

𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑑

Table 4-37. Over-all Ranking for Shear Wall

Ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale from -5 to 5)

𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑑

Table 4-38. Over-all Ranking for Retaining Wall

𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘𝑒𝑑

Você também pode gostar