Achuchu

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES
938 AURORA BOULEVARD CUBAO QUEZON CITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
CE502
REINFORCED CONCRETE DESIGN
DESIGN OF 5-STOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDING
SUBMITTED BY:
DAMPIOS, ALLAN PAUL B.
SUBMITTED TO:
ENGR. RONNIE C. ESTORES
MARCH 17, 2017

APPROVAL SHEET
The design project entitled “Five-Storey School Building” prepared by Allan Paul B. Dampios of the Civil Engineering
Department was examined and evaluated by the members of the of the Students Design Evaluation Panel, and is
hereby recommended for approval.
Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores
Adviser
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1 : PROJECT BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 4
1.1 The Project ...................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Project Location ............................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 4
1.4 The Client........................................................................................................................................ 4
1.5 Project Scope and Limitation ............................................................................................................. 5
1.6 Project Development ........................................................................................................................ 5
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS ......................................................................................................................... 6
2. 1 Description of the Structure .................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Classification of the Structure ............................................................................................................ 6
2.3 Architectural Plans .................................................................................................................................. 7
2.3.1 Floor Plans .............................................................................................................................. 8
2.3.2 ELEVATION PLANS ........................................................................................................................ 9
CHAPTER 3: CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS AND STANDARDS....................................................................... 11
3. 1 Design Constraints .............................................................................................................................. 11
3.2 Trade-offs ............................................................................................................................................ 12
3.2.1 Raw Designer’s Ranking................................................................................................................. 14
3.2.2 Trade-offs Assessment ................................................................................................................... 15
3.2.2 Initial Cost Estimate ....................................................................................................................... 15
3.3 Design Standards ................................................................................................................................. 22
Chapter 4: DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURE...................................................................................................... 23
4.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 23
4.2 Structural Design .................................................................................................................................. 23
4.2.1 Design of Structure using Special Moment Resisting Frame............................................................... 24
4.2.2 Design of Structure using Dual Wall Frame System........................................................................... 39
4.2.3 Design of Structure using Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame ............................................................. 52
4.2.4 Design of Members ........................................................................................................................ 65
4.3 Validation of Multiple Constraints, Tradeoffs and Standards...................................................................... 68
4.3.1 Final Estimates of Tradeoffs............................................................................................................ 68
Chapter 5: Final Design ............................................................................................................................... 73
Reflection Paper .......................................................................................................................................... 76
CHAPTER 1 : PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1 The Project

The project aims to design a five-storey school building using reinforced concrete located at Cream st.,
Marikina, Metro Manila. This project will give Ingenium School additional facilities such as classrooms for
incoming senior highschool students, offices, clinic and canteen.
The ground floor is consist of library, canteen, boys and girls comfort room, registrar, a classroom and clinic.
Second floor have several laboratories and AVRs. An elevator is positioned at the center of the building for
the convenience of old persons, pregnant women, and PWDs. It is also placed at center to resolve the
mobility issue of transporting files and belongings. The dimension of the structure is 26m by 23m with an
elevation of 17.8m. The total computed floor area is 2282.504 m2.
1.2 Project Location
1.3 Project Objectives

• To provide the students with a convenient classrooms.
• To design a five story reinforced concrete building.
• To determine the factors that will affect in constructing the building and to solve it with possible
solutions.
1.4 The Client
The client for the project is the Municipal of Marikina, an associate of SBDE Company and the
owner of Catleah Homes.
1.5 Project Scope and Limitation
- The following were the scope of the design project:
• Estimated cost of the project

• Design of structural members
• Design of structural members including the effect of constraints, trade-offs and standards.
- The following were the limitations of the design project:
• The project was just focused on structural and architectural plans and was not concern on
other plans such as electrical, plumbing, etc.
1.6 Project Development

The project has undergone the following processes that are represented at the chart below. The first step in
designing the five storey educational building is conceptualization. Next is the design standard which is
needed to be followed base on what is applied in construction codes of the Philippines. After following the
design standards, the identification of design constraints is considered so that the proposed project will be
acceptable and valid. Then choosing the location of the project comes up next. Working up the floor plan
and computation of the geometric design is the final process to be considered.
CONCEPTUALIZATION
DESIGN STANDARDS
LOCATION
DESIGN
CONSTRAINTS
FLOOR PLAN
GEOMETRIC DESIGN
COMPUTATION
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS
2. 1 Description of the Structure
The building is for educational purposes which consist of two stairs and one elevator located beside the
guidance and administration office. The figure shows the geometric model the of the main frame system of
the five-storey school building. The figure is modelled through STAAD software that will also be used on
analysing the structure.
Figure 2.1 Geometric model of the structure
2.2 Classification of the Structure
The classification of the five-storey school building is based on the National Structural Code of the
Philippines 2010. It is important to classify the category of the building according to its occupancy for determining the
necessary parameters for earthquake and seismic analysis. The classification of the building is Category III which is
categorized as Special Occupancy Structure.
The designers classified the occupancy of the structure based on the codes provided by National Structural Code of
the Philippines. It is significant for the structure to be categorized according to its occupancy for it will be the basis for
the parameters necessary for seismic and earthquake analysis. As for the educational building, it is categorized as
Special Occupancy Structure.
GROUND FLOOR AREA
DESCRIPTION TOTAL FLOOR AREA (Sq. m.)
Library 103.79
Canteen 103.72
CR male 13.11
CR female 13.11
Administration/Guidance Office 50.36
ELEVATOR 17.8
clinic 26.73
registrar 26.73
staircases 23.16
hallway 177.94
TOTAL FLOOR AREA 556.45
Table 2-1 Functional Areas for Ground Floor
2nd to 5th Floor Area

DESCRIPTION TOTAL FLOOR AREA (Sq. m.)
CLASSROOM 1 and 4 55.0597
CLASSROOM 2 and 3 46.42
CLASSROOM 5 55.09
CLASSROOM 6 46.4338
SEMINAR ROOM 50.09
OFFICE 36.72
C.R BOYS AND GIRLS 26.22
HALLWAY 92.32
STAIRCASES 23.16
TOTAL FLOOR AREA 431.5135
Table 2-2 Functional Areas for 1st to 5th Floor
2.3 Architectural Plans

The following figures are the architectural plans of the five-storey school. The architectural plans are
provided by the designer for the client. The structural plans of the building must conform to these plans.
2.3.1 Floor Plans
Ground Level Architectural Floor Plan
Second to Fifth Level Architectural Floor Plan

Roof Deck Plan
2.3.2 ELEVATION PLANS
FRONT ELEVATION
REAR ELEVATION
SIDE ELEVATION
CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 3: CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS AND STANDARDS
3. 1 Design Constraints
Constraints are factors that hinder the progress of a project construction. It is necessary to recognize these
constraints and provide solutions to address them.
Stated below are the different constraints involved in the design:
1. Economic Constraint (Material Cost): The project is needed to be constructed effectively using only
the allotted budget. This will be done by estimating the cost of the materials that will be used in
constructing the structure. The Special Moment Resisting Frame, the Dual Frame Wall System and the
Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame are the options to be compared to identify which framing system will
turn out to be the most economical option.
2. Constructability Constraint (Construction Duration): The project is preferred to be done according to

the set of the schedule to avoid the additional cost due to delay. Therefore, the designers will compare
the framing systems and will select which system will be the best to satisfy the allotted time given by the
client.
3. Serviceability Constraint (Settlement): The structure should be design not only with its strength but
also with its capability to resist phenomenon like earthquake. In this constraint, the designers will compare
the trade-offs to choose which system is capable of reducing the deflection to satisfy the costumer with
the structural integrity of the building.
4. Environmental Constraint (Resistance to Story Drifts): In this constraint, the resistance of the
structural framing system will be identified when it is subjected to lateral forces. The lateral loads are
critical and must be reduced as possible. Lateral deflections will be determine by having a comparative
analysis between the trade-offs.
After considering the design constraints, the designer must present trade-offs and evaluate
whether to use Special Moment Resisting Frame, Dual Frame Wall System or Ordinary Moment Resisting
Frame. After the assessment, the frame that conforms to the design considering the said constraints herein
will be chosen.
3.2 Trade-offs
The Special Moment Resisting Frame
http://www.abkj.com/uploads/small/4fed13261e889__0029_alyeska-2.jpg
Figure 3-3 Special Moment Resisting Frame
Moment-resisting frames are rectilinear assemblages of beams and columns, with the beams rigidly connected to the
columns. Resistance to lateral forces is provided primarily by rigid frame action-that is, by the development of
bending moment and shear force in the frame members and joints.
https://www.nexus.globalquakemodel.org/gem-building-taxonomy/overview/glossary/dual-frame-wall-system--ldual
Figure 3-3 Dual Frame Wall System

The Dual Frame Wall System is a combination of moment resisting frames and shear walls or braced
frames designed in accordance with the criteria of Section 208.4.6.4 of the National Structural Code of the
Philippines 2010.
Dual Systems are nowadays perhaps most frequently used structural solution for high and super-high-rise
seismic prone buildings. (Crainic & Munteanu, 2012)
The Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame
http://nisee.berkeley.edu/elibrary/getpkg?id=GoddenF69-70
Figure 3-3 Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frame
The Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame (OMRF) is a moment resisting frame not meeting special detailing
requirements for ductile behavior.
In considering design constraints, trade-offs were provided by the designers that have a significant effect on the
structural design of the school building. The Trade Offs is based on the constraints stated on the Chapter 3.1 Design
Constraints. These are listed in Table 3-1. To make an option for the client to choose which framing system will be
use.
The designer used the model on trade-off strategies in engineering design by Otto and Antonsson (1991), scaled the
criterion’s importance from 0 to 5, 5 being the highest and likewise, to satisfy the ability of the criterion it was scaled
also from 0 to 5, and 5 being the highest.
Computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials:
Equation 0-1
Higher value−Lower value
% difference = Lower value
×10
Equation 0-2
Subordinate rank = Governing rank − (%difference)×10
The governing rank is the subjective value set by the designer. It depends on the designer own discrepancy on
ranking the importance of each constraint. The subordinate rank in Equation 3-2 is a variable that corresponds to
its percentage distance from the governing rank along the ranking scale.
Figure 3-1 Ranking Scale
3.2.1 Raw Designer’s Ranking
Criterion’s Ability to satisfy the criterion

Importance
(on a scale from -5 to 5)
Decision Criteria
(on a scale of
SMRF DFWS OMRF
0 to 5)
1. Economic (Cost) 5 -1 1 3
2. Constructability (Duration) 4 2 3 5
3.Serviceability (Deflection) 4 5 3 2
4. Environmental Constraint (Story Drift) 4 5 1 -1
Over-all Rank 43 33 39
Table 3-1 Raw Designer's Ranking
*Reference: Otto, K. N. and Antonsson, E. K., (1991). Trade-off strategies in engineering design.
Research in Engineering Design, volume 3, number 2, pages 87-104.
Retrieved from http://www.design.caltech.edu/Research/Publications/90e.pdf on March 11, 2013

3.2.2 Trade-offs Assessment
Since the criterion’s importance is subjective, its value will then depend on the client’s and designers’ decision.
The economic constraint was given an importance value of five (5) because the client wanted the project to have the
least cost framing system. An importance value of four (4) is then given to both constructability, serviceability and
environmental constraints since it is desired that the construction of the project should be done on the shortest possible
time and the design should resist the deflection and story drifts.
3.2.2.1 Economic Assessment
Based on the initial cost estimates calculated by the designer, it turned out that Ordinary Moment
Resisting Frame (OMRF) costs cheaper than the Special Moment Resisting frame and Dual Frame
Wall System because these systems need more volume of concrete to construct the building.
3.2.2.2 Constructability Assessment
Comparing the three trade-offs, the OMRF got the shortest time to be constructed than DFWS and
SMRF. Based on the initial estimation of time, DFWS and SMRF require more man-hours to be
done.
3.2.2.3 Serviceability Assessment
Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame will be designed with larger sections of beam and columns to be
able to meet the serviceability constraint. The other framing systems were built with shear walls
where it results to the increasing of stiffness of the structure that results to cause a smaller
deflection.
3.2.2.4 Environmental Assessment
As for the environmental constraint, Dual System is more reliable in resisting earthquakes however
SMRF has also a grade of about nearer but less than that of Dual System
3.2.2 Initial Cost Estimate
The designer provided initial cost estimates for both framing system. From these estimates, the designer can
come up with which of the two framing system is more efficient for the stated constraints. The initial cost
estimates were elaborated in Appendix B of this paper. The designers consider the cost provided in the
Philippine Market.
Cost
Constraint
SMRF DFWS OMRF
Economic (Cost) Php15,621,342.64 Php9,098,796.84 Php6,362,907.80
Constructability 4307.3 Man-Hours 3346.8 Man-Hours 3040.2 Man-Hours
Serviceability 4.001 mm 4.220 mm 5.245 mm
Environmental 10.215 mm 10.520 mm 35.675 mm
Table 3-2 Summary of Initial Cost Estimate
3.2.3.1 Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint
SMRF-OMRF
higher value − lower value

% difference = ×10
higher value
15,621,342.64 − 6,362,907.80
% difference = ×10
15,621,342.64
%difference = 5.93
Subordinate rank = Governing rank − %difference
Subordinate rank = −0.92
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = −𝟏
DFWS-OMRF

% difference = ×10
higher value
9,098,796.84 − 6,362,907.80
% difference = ×10
9,098,796.84
%difference = 3
Subordinate rank = 2
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟐
Figure 3-2: Cost Difference
3.2.3.1 Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint
DFWS-OMRF

% difference = ×10
higher value
4307.3 − 3040.2
% difference = ×10
4307.3
%difference = 2.94
Subordinate rank = 1.05
DFWS-OMRF

% difference = ×10
higher value
3346.8 − 3040.2
% difference = ×10
3346.8
%difference = 0.92
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = 𝟒
Figure 3-5: Constructability Difference
3.2.3.3 Computation of ranking for Serviceability Constraint
DFWS-SMRF

% difference = ×10
higher value
4.220 − 4.001
% difference = ×10
4.220
%difference = 0.52
OMRF-SMRF

% difference = ×10
higher value
5.245 − 4.001
% difference = ×10
5.245
%difference = 2.37
Figure 3-6: Serviceability Difference

3.2.3.4 Computation of ranking for Environmental Constraint
DFWS-SMRF

% difference = ×10
higher value
35.675 − 10.215
% difference = ×10
35.675
%difference = 7.136
𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = −𝟒
OMRF-SMRF

% difference = ×10
higher value
10.520 − 10.215
% difference = ×10
10.520
%difference = 0.3
Figure 3-6: Environmental Difference
3.3 Design Standards
The designers come up with the design of the hotel building with accordance to the following codes and standards:
1. National Building Code of the Philippines

2. National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2010 C101-10 4th printing
The National Building Code of the Philippines (PD 1096).The National Building Code of the Philippines, also
known as Presidential Decree No. 1096 was formulated and adopted as a uniform building code to embody up-to-
date and modern technical knowledge on building design, construction, use, occupancy and maintenance. The
Code provides for all buildings and structures, a framework of minimum standards and requirements to regulate
and control location, site, design, and quality of materials, construction, use, occupancy, and maintenance.
The National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010.This code provides minimum standards to safeguard life or
limb, property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials pertaining
to the structural aspects of all buildings and structures within its jurisdiction. The provision of this code shall apply to
the construction, alteration, moving, demolition, repair, maintenance and use of any building or structure within its
jurisdiction, except work located primarily in a public way, public utility towers and poles, hydraulic flood control
structures, and indigenous family dwellings.
Chapter 4: DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURE
4.1 Methodology
The structure is designed as reinforced concrete using the method, Ultimate Strength Design (USD). The
designer assured that the design conforms to codes and standards stated in Chapter 3.
4.2 Structural Design
The design of the 5-storey school building’s structural elements is in accordance with the standards of National
Structural Code of the Philippines (2010). The design methodology used for the structural elements (beams, columns,
slabs and shear wall) is the Ultimate Strength Design Method. The building information model and analysis was
performed through computer software (STAAD).
Geometric Modeling
Design Specifications
Structural Element Modeling
Design Load Modeling
Structural Analysis
Structural Design
Figure 4-1 Design Stage Process

4.2.1 Design of Structure using Special Moment Resisting Frame
4.2.1.1 Geometric Modelling of the Structure
Figure 4-2 Geometric Modelling STAAD Pro v8i
Figure 4-3 3D Geometric Model of the Structure

Figure 4-4 Second Floor to Fifth Floor Framing Plan
Figure 4-5 Roof Deck Framing Plan

4.2.1.2 Primary Loading Definitions
Figure 4-6 Shear Y-force
Figure 4-7 Shear Z-force

Figure 4-8 Bending Y-Moment
Figure 4-9 Bending Z-Moment

Figure 4-10: Wind Load Along X
Figure 4-11: Wind Load along Z

Figure 4-12: Earthquake Load Along X
Figure 4-13: Earthquake Load along Z

Figure 4-14: Dead Load
Figure 4-15: Live Load

4.2.1.3 Load Combinations
Figure 4-16: 1.4DL
Figure 4-17: 1.2DL+1.6LL+0.5Lr

Figure 4-18: 1.2DL+1.6Lr+LL
Figure 4-19: 1.2DL+1.6Lr+WLx

Figure 4-20: 1.2DL+1.6Lr+WLz
Figure 4-21: 1.2DL+1.6WLx+fLL+0.5Lr

Figure 4-22: 1.2DL+1.6WLz+fLL+0.5Lr
Figure 4-23: 1.2DL+1.0Ex+fLL

Figure 4-24: 1.2DL+1.0Ez+fLL
Figure 4-25: 0.9DL+1.6WLx

Figure 4-26: 0.9DL+1.6WLz
Figure 4-27: 0.9DL+Ex

Figure 4-28: 0.9DL+Ez
4.2.1.4 Structural Analysis
MARK BEAM SIGN AXIAL SHEAR TORSION BENDING

Fx(kN) Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx(kN-m) My(kN-m) Mz(kN-m)
GRID A
+ve 1368.443 19.812 0.104 0.428 4.57 34.552

GRID B 247
-ve 0 -1.085 -2.761 -0.546 -0.049 -1.351
+ve 6.508 12.228 3.328 0.004 7.726 8.941
GRID C 477
-ve -5.049 0 -3.234 -0.097 -7.958 -0.808
+ve 3.9 12.228 3.382 0.104 7.809 8.941
GRID D 478
-ve -5.049 0 -3.272 0 -8.134 -0.808
+ve 11.718 12.043 3.174 0.53 7.27 8.471
GRID E 479
-ve -9.331 0 -3.034 0 -7.719 -3.361
GRID F
+ve 40.956 25.523 1.907 1.154 4.65 13.006

GRID 1 25
-ve -16.715 0 -1.58 0 -5.644 -5.093
+ve 11.483 9.896 0.541 0 3.389 7.089
GRID 2 611
-ve -0.381 -13.803 -1.703 -0.85 -1.146 -35.773
+ve 0.729 0 6.641 0.185 1.407 14.338
GRID 3 618
-ve -32.047 -16.016 -1.987 0 -4.337 -10.003
+ve 30.801 0 6.786 0 1.291 15.273
GRID 4 615
-ve 0 -16.585 -2.069 -0.28 -4.109 -9.656
+ve 7.908 9.612 2.394 0.023 6.069 1.001
GRID 5 245
-ve -4.307 -1.972 -2.05 -0.212 -7.065 -24.787
+ve 19.116 26.525 2.168 0 6.089 17.544
GRID 6 300
-ve -16.701 0 -2.049 -1.231 -6.382 -4.982
Table 4.1 Floor Beams Maximum Forces
MARK BEAM SIGN AXIAL SHEAR BENDING

Fx(kN) Fy(kN) Fz(kN) My(kN-m) Mz(kN-m)
+ve 47.073 10.633 4.437 0 9.954
C-1 330
-ve 0 0 0 -6.174 0
+ve 183.075 21.98 0 10.661 29.728
C-2 329
-ve 0 0 -8.066 0 0
+ve 268.859 26.377 1.015 3.298 35.783
C-3 274
-ve 0 0 -2.292 -1.331 0
Table 4.2 Column Maximum Forces
LATERAL
At Z- 1.008mm
Table 4.3 Maximum Lateral Deflection Generated

4.2.2 Design of Structure using Dual Wall Frame System
4.2.2.1 Geometric Modeling
Figure 4-29 Geometric Modelling STAAD Pro v8i
Figure 4-30 3D Geometric Model of the Structure


Figure 4-33: Earthquake Load along X

Figure 4-35: Wind Load along X

Figure 4-39: 1.4DL







+ve 13.882 23.769 5.038 1.632 10.715 13.486
GRID A 475
-ve -7.505 -2.154 -4.461 0 -12.093 -10.062
+ve 3.433 11.724 5.066 0.605 11.043 7.419
GRID B 476
-ve -12.738 -2.245 -4.606 -0.233 -12.158 -12.618
+ve 2.046 11.919 5.082 0.491 10.965 8.309
GRID C 477
-ve -10.267 -2.263 -4.566 -0.136 -12.2 -11.514
+ve 2.046 11.919 5.153 0.618 11.019 8.541
GRID D 478
-ve -10.267 -2.263 -4.588 0 -12.365 -12.229
+ve 3.623 12.673 5.303 0.884 11.146 15.15
GRID E 479
-ve -12.738 -2.245 -4.645 -0.027 -12.702 -15.135
+ve 4.534 27.54 5.329 0.589 10.884 24.782
GRID F 480
-ve -7.765 -2.154 -4.53 -0.803 -12.731 -6.679
+ve 7.763 29.796 2.738 0.513 7.057 22.956
GRID 1 25
-ve -2.925 -0.176 -2.433 -0.544 -7.849 -0.818
+ve 23.62 10.226 0.849 0 4.273 9.561
GRID 2 611
-ve 0 -29.849 -2.148 -0.227 -1.822 -67.896
+ve 9.739 11.687 2.809 1.764 6.865 5.173
GRID 3 135
-ve -21.849 -2.678 -2.337 -1.138 -8.251 -22.993
+ve 39.039 1.007 13.365 1.619 1.536 65.963
GRID 4 622
-ve -45.422 -40.466 -4.416 -0.524 -5.641 -5.429
+ve 5.145 14.872 3.608 0.193 9.073 13.279
GRID 5 245
-ve -8.046 -3.697 -3.116 -0.489 -10.466 -26.989
+ve 9.66 30.714 3.686 1.391 9.096 27.311
GRID 6 300
-ve -4.787 0 -3.119 -0.037 -10.663 -26.304
LATERAL
At Z- 13.753mm

4.2.3 Design of Structure using Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame
4.2.3.1 Geometric Modelling of the Structure
Figure 4-52: Geometric Modelling STAAD Pro v8i
Figure 4-53: 3D Geometric Model of the Structure


Figure 4-56: Earthquake Load along X

Figure 4-58: Wind Load along X


Figure 4-62: 1.4DL







+ve 6.757 24.504 5.469 1.455 12.719 16.558
GRID A 475
-ve -9.74 0 -5.286 0 -13.142 -7.999
+ve 7.683 11.736 5.481 0.468 12.894 7.6
GRID B 476
-ve -11.093 0 -5.37 -0.2 -13.168 -14.292
+ve 4.283 11.855 5.473 0.432 12.867 8.167
GRID C 477
-ve -8.877 0 -5.359 -0.135 -13.145 -13.44
+ve 2.583 11.855 5.56 0.571 12.876 8.167
GRID D 478
-ve -8.877 0 -5.364 0 -13.346 -14.128
+ve 2.295 11.926 5.736 0.649 12.925 13.851
GRID E 479
-ve -11.093 -0.205 -5.383 0 -13.754 -16.493
+ve 5.525 27.744 5.771 0.391 12.805 28.07
GRID F 480
-ve -9.74 0 -5.323 -0.773 -13.811 -7.836
+ve 5.903 29.736 2.947 0.262 8.868 22.808
GRID 1 25
-ve -4.615 0 -3.065 -0.514 -8.454 0
+ve 21.237 12.195 1.041 1.256 5.705 13.563
GRID 2 611
-ve 0 -48.688 -2.863 -0.265 -2.218 -105.577
+ve 20.651 0 15.336 1.585 4.631 41.678
GRID 3 618
-ve 0 -33.518 -3.295 -0.204 -8.545 -4.344
+ve 6.746 0 18.156 0.885 3.36 48.101
GRID 4 622
-ve -30.191 -32.492 -4.875 -0.294 -8.352 -3.076
+ve 4.236 14.944 3.923 0.474 10.726 13.409
GRID 5 245
-ve -7.347 -3.503 -3.693 -0.059 -11.37 -26.457
+ve 8.459 30.686 3.973 1.17 10.636 27.238
GRID 6 300
-ve -3.426 0 -3.655 0 -11.492 -25.593
MARK BEAM SIGN AXIAL SHEAR BENDING

Fx(kN) Fy(kN) Fz(kN) My(kN-m) Mz(kN-m)
+ve 126.157 42.223 5.694 33.112 47.687
C-1 330
-ve 0 0 -25.289 -3.441 0
+ve 191.083 57.592 4.337 29.697 75.047
C-2 329
-ve 0 -5.728 -22.611 -3.934 -7.3
+ve 280.232 51.079 14.759 37.339 67.584
C-3 274
-ve 0 -4.336 -26.735 -19.372 -5.535
LATERAL
At Z- 24.079mm
4.2.4 Design of Members
4.2.4.1 Procedure in Designing of Beams
I. Determine the values of loads, DL, LL and other loads.

II. Compute the factored load on different load combinations
Governing Load Combinations:
a.) 1.2D+1.6LL
b.) 1.2D+1LL+1E
III. Compute the factored moment to be resisted by the beam, Mu.
IV. Try a value of steel ratio ρ of 90 percent of ρmax, but not be less than ρmin. This value of ρ will provide
enough allowance in the actual value of ρ due to rounding-off of the number of bars to be used so that it
will not exceed the maximum ρ.
V.
0.85f ′ cβ600
ρb =
fy(600 + fy)
β = 0.85 for f’c ≤ 28 Mpa
0.05
β = 0.85 – (f’c – 28) for f’c > 28 Mpa
7
ρ max = 0.75 ρb
1.4
ρ min =
fy
VI. Compute the value of ω, ω = ρfy/f’c

VII. Solve for the bd2;
Mu = ∅f’cωbd2 (1-0.59ω)
bd2 =
VIII. Try a ration d/b (from d = 1.5b to d = 2b), and solve for d. (round-off this value to reasonable dimension)
Check also the minimum thickness of beam required by the Code; NSCP 2010
After solving for d, substitute its value to Step VI, and solve for b.
Compute the weight of the beam and compare it to the assumption made in Step II.
IX. Solve for the required steel area and number of bars.
As = ρbd
As
N=π
(db)2
4
4.2.4.2 Procedure in Designing Columns
Design Procedure for Short Axially Loaded Columns:
1. Identify the factored axial load Pu acting on the column.

2. Decide on the reinforcement ratio ρ that is between 0.01-0.08 as required by the code. Determine the gross
sectional area Ag of the concrete section using the assumed ρ.
Pu = φ 0.80 Ag [0.85f ′ c(1 − ρg ) + fyρg ]
3. Choose the dimensions of the cross section based on its shape. For rectangular section, the ratio of the longer
and shorter side is recommended to not exceed 3.
4. Readjust the reinforcement ratio by substituting the actual cross sectional area. The ration has to fall to the
specified code limits.
5. Calculate the needed area of the longitudinal reinforcement ratio based on the adjusted reinforced ratio and
the chosen concrete dimension.
6. Choose the number and diameter of needed reinforcing bars. For rectangular sections, a minimum of four
bars is needed.
7. Design the lateral reinforcement according to the type of column, either ties or spirals.
Use the smallest of the following:

< 16db
< 48 tie db
< least dimension of column
8. Check whether the spacing between longitudinal reinforcing bars satisfies the NSCP 2010 code requirements.
4.2.4.3 Procedure in Designing Slab
I. Identify the uniform floor pressure (kPa) to be carried by the slab.

II. Determine the minimum slab thickness “h” from NSCP 2010.
III. Compute the weight of slab (kPa)
weight = yconcrete x thickness
IV. Calculate the factored moment (Mu) to be carried by the slab per meter strip
V. Compute the effective depth of the slab. Clear cover must at least 20mm
VI. Compute the required steel ratio, ρ:
Solve for Rn from Mu = ∅R n bd2 where b= 1000 mm
0.85 f ′ c 2R n
ρ= (1 − √1 − )
fy 0.85 f ′ c
Solve for ρmax and ρmin

• If ρ is less than ρmax and greater than ρmin, use ρ
• If ρ is greater than ρmax , increase depth of slab to ensure ductile failure
• If ρ is less than ρmin , use ρ= ρmin
VII. Compute the require main bar spacing
As = ρbd
As 1000 (1meter strip)

N=π S=
(db)2 N
4
Use the smallest of the following for the main bar spacing:
a. S1
b. 3 x h
c. 450 mm
VIII. Temperature bars
At = 0.002bt
1000 (1meter strip)
S=
N
Use the smallest of the following for temperature bar spacing:
a. S2
b. 5 x h
c. 450 mm
4.3 Validation of Multiple Constraints, Tradeoffs and Standards
In order to confirm the results of Designer’s Raw Ranking in Chapter 3, the designers had this validation of
tradeoffs. This validation will show the certainty of the assumptions done through the initial estimates
presented in Chapter 3 and compared it to the final cost estimates.
Based on the raw designer’s ranking presented in chapter 3 of this paper, the drafted tradeoffs were
compared through initial estimates. The result shows that the one that governs among the tradeoff is the
filler slab.
4.3.1 Final Estimates of Tradeoffs
Cost
Constraint
SMRF DFWS OMRF
Economic (Cost) Php13,917,531.38 Php11,799,683.043 Php10,541,504.08
Constructability 12 months 9months 8 months
Serviceability 1.008 mm 13.753 mm 24.079 mm
Environmental 11.365 mm 15.89 mm 30.68 mm
3.2.3.1 Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint
SMRF-OMRF

% difference = ×10
higher value
13,917,531.38 − 10,541,504.08
% difference = ×10
13,917,531.38
%difference = 5.93

𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤 = −𝟏
DFWS-OMRF

% difference = ×10
higher value
9,098,796.84 − 6,362,907.80
% difference = ×10
9,098,796.84
%difference = 3
Subordinate rank = 2
Figure 3-2: Cost Difference
3.2.3.2 Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint
DFWS-OMRF

% difference = ×10
higher value
4307.3 − 3040.2
% difference = ×10
4307.3
%difference = 2.94
DFWS-OMRF

% difference = ×10
higher value
`
3346.8 − 3040.2
% difference = ×10
3346.8
%difference = 0.92
Figure 3-5: Constructability Difference

3.2.3.3 Computation of ranking for Serviceability Constraint
DFWS-SMRF

% difference = ×10
higher value
4.220 − 4.001
% difference = ×10
4.220
%difference = 0.52
OMRF-SMRF

% difference = ×10
higher value
5.245 − 4.001
% difference = ×10
5.245
%difference = 2.37
Figure 3-6: Serviceability Difference
3.2.3.4 Computation of ranking for Environmental Constraint
DFWS-SMRF

% difference = ×10
higher value
35.675 − 10.215
% difference = ×10
35.675
%difference = 7.136
Chapter 5: Final Design
The final conclusion that was made by the designers after the series of comparative analysis was that the Ordinary
Moment Resisting Frame system will satisfy the client’s requirements more effectively than the Dual system. The final
design was in accordance with the National Building Code of the Philippines for the standards and specifications of the
architectural plan and National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010 for the structural plans and details. The
structural members that were considered by the designers were the beams or girders, slabs and columns.
The tables and figures presented below are the structural schedules and details of the Ordinary Moment Resisting
Frame obtained from the previous chapters. The manual computation of the structural elements were presented in the
Appendix.
5.1 Beam Schedule and Details
Dimensions Spacing
Mark Bottom Bars Top Bars Stirrups
(mm) (mm)
GRID-A 300 x 500 2-20mmΦ 5-16mmΦ 10mmΦ 225
GRID-B 300 x 500 4-16mmΦ 4-16mmΦ 10mmΦ 225
GRID-C 300 x 500 4-16mmΦ 4-16mmΦ 10mmΦ 225
GRID-D 300 x 500 4-16mmΦ 4-16mmΦ 10mmΦ 225
GRID-E 300 x 500 4-16mmΦ 4-16mmΦ 10mmΦ 225
GRID-F 300 x 500 2-20mmΦ 2-25mmΦ 10mmΦ 200
GRID-1 300 x 500 4-16mmΦ 4-16mmΦ 10mmΦ 200
GRID-2 300 x 500 3-16mmΦ 4-16mmΦ 10mmΦ 225
GRID-3 300 x 500 4-20mmΦ 3-20mmΦ 10mmΦ 225
GRID-4 300 x 500 4-20mmΦ 3-20mmΦ 10mmΦ 200
GRID-5 300 x 500 3-16mmΦ 2-16mmΦ 10mmΦ 225
GRID-6 300 x 500 3-16mmΦ 2-16mmΦ 10mmΦ 225
GRID-7 300 x 500 6-16mmΦ 3-16mmΦ 10mmΦ 225
Figure 5-1 Beam Section Details
5.2 Column Schedule and Details
Mark Dimensions Reinforcement Tie Bar Ties Spacing

C1 400 x 400 4-36mmΦ 12mmΦ 400mm
C2 400 x 400 4-36mmΦ 12mmΦ 400mm
C3 400 x 400 4-36mmΦ 12mmΦ 400mm
Tie Bars
Main Reinforcements
5.3 Slab Schedule and Details
Long span Section details

Reflection Paper
The subject reinforced concrete design had me hoping that I’d take it only just this once. The course itself is
time consuming and requires unbelievably long patience for long hours of problem solving but ending up on a wrong
answer. And it is worth it, the learning is worth it. This course makes me realize that I’m walking the right path to my
dream of becoming an engineer. That this path is not always as smooth as you know, there are more unpaved road
and obstacles along the way.
Having perseverance and inner self-motivating thoughts while reviewing because there will come a time that
your review will be a waste and non-productive. Those times are the hardest; thinking that it’s easier to give up
practice solving problems than to hold onto it for a while.There will be times that the lessons don’t come in handy, or
just it wasn’t enough, going to classes wasn’t always enough. Giving extra effort and extra time for review and
reading materials and you’ll see that the hardwork will pay-off.
The product of the late night reviews and practice is bound to be seen in our outputs but sometimes or most
of the times it will not. I don’t know what happened in those cases but sometimes working hard is just a piece of it, or
rather a part of it. You can just sit down, assess what happened, accept it and move on because that’s not always the
case. One thing is for sure, if you’re working hard and aiming for excellence, success awaits you.

Achuchu

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Achuchu

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

938 AURORA BOULEVARD CUBAO QUEZON CITY

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

DESIGN OF 5-STOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDING

MARCH 17, 2017

Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores

1.1 The Project

1.2 Project Location

1.3 Project Objectives

1.4 The Client

• Estimated cost of the project

- The following were the limitations of the design project:

1.6 Project Development

2. 1 Description of the Structure

Figure 2.1 Geometric model of the structure

2.2 Classification of the Structure

Table 2-1 Functional Areas for Ground Floor

2nd to 5th Floor Area

Table 2-2 Functional Areas for 1st to 5th Floor

2.3 Architectural Plans

Ground Level Architectural Floor Plan

Second to Fifth Level Architectural Floor Plan

2.3.2 ELEVATION PLANS

CHAPTER 3: CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS AND STANDARDS

Stated below are the different constraints involved in the design:

2. Constructability Constraint (Construction Duration): The project is preferred to be done according to

The Special Moment Resisting Frame

Figure 3-3 Special Moment Resisting Frame

Figure 3-3 Dual Frame Wall System

The Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame

Figure 3-3 Ordinary Moment-Resisting Frame

Subordinate rank = Governing rank − (%difference)×10

Figure 3-1 Ranking Scale

3.2.1 Raw Designer’s Ranking

Criterion’s Ability to satisfy the criterion

4. Environmental Constraint (Story Drift) 4 5 1 -1

Table 3-1 Raw Designer's Ranking

Research in Engineering Design, volume 3, number 2, pages 87-104.

Retrieved from http://www.design.caltech.edu/Research/Publications/90e.pdf on March 11, 2013

3.2.2.1 Economic Assessment

3.2.2.2 Constructability Assessment

3.2.2.3 Serviceability Assessment

3.2.2.4 Environmental Assessment

3.2.2 Initial Cost Estimate

Economic (Cost) Php15,621,342.64 Php9,098,796.84 Php6,362,907.80

Constructability 4307.3 Man-Hours 3346.8 Man-Hours 3040.2 Man-Hours

Serviceability 4.001 mm 4.220 mm 5.245 mm

Environmental 10.215 mm 10.520 mm 35.675 mm

Table 3-2 Summary of Initial Cost Estimate

3.2.3.1 Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint

higher value − lower value

Subordinate rank = Governing rank − %difference

Subordinate rank = −0.92

higher value − lower value

Subordinate rank = Governing rank − %difference

Figure 3-2: Cost Difference

3.2.3.1 Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint

higher value − lower value

Subordinate rank = Governing rank − %difference

Subordinate rank = 1.05

higher value − lower value

Subordinate rank = Governing rank − %difference

Subordinate rank = 3.08