Chapter 3

CHAPTER 3
DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, TRADE OFFS, AND STANDARDS

3.1 Design Constraints
Constraints are factor that limits the performance of the design structure. The aim and scope for this design
structure is to identify the possible constraint that may affect the progression and performance of the design
structure. If constraints are better understood to its maximum outset, it believes that the performance can be
assured.
The design team has to meet client’s needs on one hand and to overcome constraints on the other hand. With the
limited literature for the constraints in the construction working environment, it is important to identify the potential
constraints in the construction project, which will help to decrease the unnecessary wastage and loss of both money
and time because of inadequate planning. Controlling the constraints is thus a pre-condition for high performance
of the project.
3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints for Context I: Structural Context

3.1.1.1 Economic Constraints (Cost)
Economic Constraint deals with the material cost or simply the cost of the entire project. It is one of the largest
limiting factors and also the first thing to be considered in any design project. It becomes a limiting factor for it
affects the design especially the quality and quantity of the construction materials for the project. Poor
construction materials may lead to the poor performance of the structure to be built.
3.1.1.2 Constructability Constraints (Duration)
The duration of the project plays a vital part in the decision making of the trade-offs. The client wants to have
information about the duration of the project, for him, the sooner the better. It can contribute to the economical
constraint for every extension of duration occurs, the more it becomes costly. With the main problem of
rehabilitating the drug users as soon as possible also affects the need of fast and efficient construction phase
of the project.
As for constructability constraint, the two-way floor system takes less time to construct than the one-way floor
system. The longer duration for one-way floor system is because beams in the two-way floor system is lesser
than the beams on one-way floor system. In this case, the two-way floor system is favorable with respect to
constructability. And the flat slab floor system is the least time to construct because it has the least number of
beams.
3.1.1.3 Risk Constraints (Story Displacement)
Risk assessment is the process or method of identifying hazards and risk factors that have the potential to
cause harm, and analyzing and evaluating the risk associated with the identified hazard. This constraint can
be associated with the safety of the structure. Safety is a limitation concerned with the strength of the structure
against deflection, collapsing, or any calamity. Being the most important aspect of a structure, safety must be
considered in designing the structure to minimize the effects of the hazards or risks present.
3.1.1.4 Sustainability Constraints (Life Span)
Sustainability constraint is observed in the design since the structure is for long term used and is meant is
how the structure to be build will be sustainable for a long time and on how long the design life of a project is
with respect to its design strength. Sustainability of projects is something that must not be overlooked to
effectively choose the best among the alternatives.
3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints for Context II: Geotechnical Context

3.1.1.1 Economical Constraint (Material Cost)
In designing the second context the designers still considered this as a constraint to select the most
economical ground improvement. To address this constraint, the material cost will be estimated for each
trade-off to instill the low-cost construction of the project as well as for the ground treatment. The designers
included this constraint to assess the trade-offs’ material costs and know which will be the most economical
choice within the client’s budget limit.
3.1.1.2 Constructability Constraint (Duration)
The duration of the ground improvement is considered under this constraint. For this constraint, the
advantageous trade-off is the Jet Grout Column, which is known for its ease of installment unlike the
remaining trade-offs which require more time for curing and compaction.
3.1.1.3 Sustainability Constraint (Life Span)
Under this constraint, the design life of the structure will be considered. The design life of Vacuum
Consolidation Method treated soil is will take up to 80 years, 75 years for Rigid Inclusion Method, and 75
years for the Jet Grout Column. It shows that the Vacuum Consolidation Method is the more preferred ground
improvement for this constraint.
3.1.1.4 Risk Assessment (Cost of Risk)
Under this constraint, the main hazard that the designers considered is the settlement and the factor of safety
from the bearing capacity the structure. The soil type based on the borehole log data recommends of having
ground improvement. Soil erosion is considered a risk because the project location is within 270.6 m from
the shoreline. The soil type of the project location is also having soft and clayey type of soil. The project has
trade-offs that will improve the ground that can also minimize the risk. The settlement of the soil with the
applied trade-off will be assessed to determine the safest choice for the ground improvement.
3.2 Design Trade-offs
The project is to design a five-storey public hospital in Brgy. Dalig, Antipolo City. For this project, the designers
considered the system of duality in the design of the project wherein we consider the Structural and
Geotechnical factors of the project. In the Structural aspect, we considered different material for slab system
namely, Reinforced Concrete Design (Normal Weight Concrete), Reinforced Concrete Design (Pure
Lightweight Concrete), and Structural Steel Design as the project’s trade-offs. In the Geotechnical aspect,
we considered different ground improvement techniques namely, Vacuum Consolidation Method, Rigid
Inclusion Method, and Jet Grout Column as the project’s trade-offs.
3.2.1 Context 1: Structural Trade-Offs
3.2.1.1 Reinforced Concrete Design (Normal Weight Concrete)
Concrete is a construction material composed of cement, fine aggregates (sand) and coarse aggregates
mixed with water which hardens with time. Portland cement is the commonly used type of cement for
production of concrete. Concrete technology deals with study of properties of concrete and its practical
applications.
In a building construction, concrete is used for the construction of foundations, columns, beams, slabs and
other load bearing elements.
Reinforced concrete (RC) is a versatile composite and one of the most widely
used materials in modern construction.
Figure 3-1 Normal Weight Concrete

Source: Google Images
Advantages of Reinforced Concrete

 Reinforced concrete has a high compressive strength compared to other building materials.
 Due to the provided reinforcement, reinforced concrete can also withstand a good amount of tensile
stress.
 Fire and weather resistance of reinforced concrete is fair.
 The reinforced concrete building system is more durable than any other building system.
 Reinforced concrete, as a fluid material, in the beginning, can be economically molded into a nearly
limitless range of shapes.
Disadvantages of Reinforced Concrete:

 The tensile strength of reinforced concrete is about one-tenth of its compressive strength.
 The main steps of using reinforced concrete are mixing, casting, and curing. All of this affects the
final strength.
 The cost of the forms used for casting RC is relatively higher.
 For multi-storied building the RCC column section for is larger than steel section as the compressive
strength is lower in the case of RCC.
 Shrinkage causes crack development and strength loss.
3.2.1.2 Structural Steel Design
Steel structure is a metal structure which is made of structural steel* components connect with each other to
carry loads and provide full rigidity. Because of the high strength grade of steel, this structure is reliable and
requires less raw materials than other types of structure like concrete structure and timber structure.
In modern construction, steel structures are used for almost every type of structure including heavy industrial
building, high-rise building, equipment support system, infrastructure, bridge, tower, airport terminal, heavy
industrial plant, pipe rack, etc.
Advantages of Structural Steel Design:
Figure 3-2 Structural Steel Design

 Steel is tensile. It has a high strength to weight ratio which means it has high strength per unit mass.
So, no matter how large the overall structure is, the steel sections will be small and lightweight, unlike
other building materials.
 Steel can be easily fabricated and produced massively. Steel sections can be produced off-site at
shop floors and then assembled onsite. This saves time and increases the efficiency of the overall
construction process.
 Structural steel is very flexible. You can mold it into any shape, without changing its properties. You
can convert it into sheets or turn it into wires as per the design.
 Structural steel is relatively cheap compared to other building materials.
 It is very durable. Structural steel structures can withstand external pressures such as
earthquakes, thunderstorms, and cyclones. A well-built steel structure can last up to 30 years if
maintained well.
Disadvantages of Structural Steel Design:
 Steel is an alloy of iron. This makes it susceptible to corrosion. This problem can be solved to some
extent using anti-corrosion applications.
 It has high maintenance costs as it has to be painted to make it corrosion-resistant
 There are extensive fireproofing costs involved as steel is not fireproof. In high temperatures, steel
loses its properties.
 Buckling is an issue with steel structures. As the length of the steel column increases the chances
of buckling also increases.
 Steel has a high expansion rate with changing temperatures. This can be detrimental to the overall
structure.
3.2.1.3 Pure Lightweight Concrete
Lightweight concrete is defined as a type of concrete which includes an expanding agent which increases
the volume of the mixture while giving additional qualities such as lessened dead weight.
The density of this type of concrete ranges from 1440 to 1840 kg/m3. Lightweight aggregate concretes can
be used for structural applications, with strengths equivalent to normal weight concrete. The elastic modulus
of lightweight concretes is lower than the equivalent strength normal weight concrete, but when considering
the deflection of a slab or beam, this is counteracted by the reduced self-weight.
Advantages of Pure Lightweight Concrete:
 Rapid and relatively simple construction
Figure 3-3 Pure Lightweight Concrete Design

 Economical in terms of transportation as well as reduction in manpower

 Significant reduction of overall weight results in saving structural frames, footing or piles
 Most of lightweight concrete have better nailing and sawing properties than heavier and stronger
conventional concrete
Disadvantages of Pure Lightweight Concrete:

 Difficult to place and finish because of the porosity and angularity of the aggregate. In some mixes,
the cement mortar may separate the aggregate and float towards the surface.
 Mixing time is longer than conventional concrete to assure proper mixing.
3.2.2 Context 2: Geotechnical Trade-Offs

3.2.2.1 Vacuum Consolidation Method
A technique of applying vacuum suction to an isolated soil mass to reduce the atmospheric pressure in it,
thus by the way of reducing the pore water pressure in the soil the effective stress is increased without
changing the total stress. By improving construction techniques, as well as developing analytical methods for
designing, the technique has become an effective and economical method for soft ground improvement and
capable to conduct in various site conditions. Researches are also extended to other application fields such
as acceleration dewatering and consolidation of fluid-like materials
3.2.2.2 Rigid Inclusion Method
Rigid inclusions are a ground improvement method using high deformation modulus columns constructed
Figure 3-4 Vacuum Consolidation Method

through compressible soils to reduce settlement and increase bearing capacity.
Ground improvement efficiency depends on the stiffness relationship between the soil and the columns. Load
from the structure is distributed to the soil and columns via a load transfer platform or rigid foundation
3.2.2.3 Jet Grouting
Jet grouting is a method of soil stabilization which involves the injection of a stabilizing fluid into the subsoil
(or the soil under treatment) under high pressure under high velocity. The injection process involves a certain
Figure 3-5 Vacuum Consolidation Method

amount of site preparation as well as injection equipment.
The soil stabilization by jet grouting is occurs due to the hardening of grouted fluid within the soil. These
hardened bodies forms like cemented columns which are grouted in numerous numbers as per requirement,
thus stabilizing the soil. These columns are called as jet columns or jet grouted columns.
3.3 Initial Estimates
Design Constraints
Risk
Structural Trade-offs Economic Constructability Assessment Sustainability
Figure 3-6 Jet Grouting

Life Span,
Cost in Peso Duration, Days Drift, mm Years
Normal Weight Concrete 33,856,993.5 390 11 50
Structural Steel Design 46,786,979.32 234 8.45 50
Pure Lightweight
Concrete 29,150,871.4 293 17.6 47
3.3.1 Initial Estimates for Context 1: Structural Trade Offs
The designers estimated the material cost of Reinforced Concrete Design by considering the construction
statistics from approved building permits compiled by the Philippine Statistics Authority where the average cost
per square meter was determined. Then, according to a study, the cost of a Structural Steel Structure is 38.19%
higher than a Normal Weight Reinforced Concrete Structure. According to Y. H. Pan et al. (2014), who
conducted a study about Pure Light-weight Reinforced Concrete who concluded that it is 13.9% cheaper than
Table 3-1 Initial Estimates (Structural)
Normal Weight Concrete. Those factors were used to estimate the cost for Reinforced Concrete and Structural
Steel.
For the constructability, according to Rizal Province’ Approved Budget for Civil Works Bid-out, the average
construction duration for five-storey structures using conventional concrete is 380 to 390 days. Corresponding,
decrease in days was applied for Light-weight Concrete and Structural Steel for having faster construction
duration of up to 25% for Light-weight Concrete and 40% for Structural Steel.
The estimation of risk assessment, structures having a less than 0.7 second, the displacement of one level to
another shall not exceed 0.04Rw nor 0.005 times the storey height. On the other hand, for structures having a
fundamental period of 0.7 seconds or greater, the drift shall exceed 0.03R w or 0.004 times the storey height.
However, based on materials’ properties and strength, reduction in displacement was assumed for Structural
Steel. According to Mohammad Zareh (2012), d for Light- weight Concrete Beam is 40% higher than the Normal
Weight Concrete. And since Structural Steel is stronger than concrete in terms of flexural strength, it also has
lower deflection than the prior trade-offs.
For the structure’s the lifespan, according to Dr. Maiti (2010), Normal Weight and Pure Light-weight Reinforced
Concrete Beams both have a life span of 50 years which varies depending on its shape while Steel beams have
47 years.
3.2.2 Initial Estimates for Context 1: Geotechnical Trade Offs
Design Constraints
Risk
Economic Constructability Assessment Sustainability
Life Span,
Structural Trade-offs Cost in Peso Duration, Days Drift, mm Years
Vacuum Consolidation
Method 7,615,206.104 30 9.6 80
Rigid Inclusion Method 1,538,542.247 39 8 75
Jet Grouting 4,218,140.9 28 9 75

Presented here are estimations of material costs for the different geotechnical trade-offs. For the estimation
of the cost of vacuum consolidation, the estimation of the cost is based on the area of application with a cost
of Php 3,142.17 per cubic meter. For rigid inclusion method according to Griffin (2013), the standard average
Table 3-2 Initial Estimates (Geotechnical)
cost including material cost is Php 634.83 per square meter of the area of building perimeter. In estimating
the material cost for jet grout column, the grout material costs $150 per cubic yard of treatment which was
converted into Php 9,809.63 per cubic meter.
For the duration of vacuum consolidation, by getting the ratio of the a standard size of a 100 square meter
area with the ground area of the hospital, it would take an estimated time of 30 days according to Chu (2008).
The soil would be stable for up to 80 years regardless of the external conditions. Rigid inclusion with
approximately take 39 days including the healing of the concrete filling the voids of the soil. The concrete
would last for 75 years decreasing the soil’s settlement. According to a study of Ibrahin Erkan (2016), it will
take up to 28 days for a jet grout treatment to be completed. The treated soil will take up to 75 years after
improvement, according to Dr. Narayanan (2016).
In estimating the risk assessment, the settlement shall be determined to every treated soil with its respective
trade-off. The estimated settlements were based from the usual performances of each trade-off.
3.4 Designer’s Raw Ranking

The ranking scale that will be used in this design is based on the model on tradeoff strategies formulated by Otto
and Antonsson (1991). The importance factors in each constraint is scaled from 0 to 10, while the ability to satisfy
the constraint is scaled from 0 to 10, 10 being the highest. After obtaining the results, the product of the importance
and ability to satisfy the criteria will be summed of from each constraint. The result will then be the overall ranking
of the tradeoff.
Computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials:
Figure 3-7 Raw Ranking Scale

ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 − (%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒) Equation 3-1
Equation 3-2
In the above equation, the governing rank is the subjective value set by the designers. It depends on the
designer’s 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.
3.4.1 Initial Estimate for Structural Trade-offs
3.4.1.1 Initial Estimate for Economical Constraints
Structural Trade-offs Initial Estimate (Cost, in Peso) Subordinate Rank

1.Normal Weight Concrete 33,856,993.5 7.23
2.Structural Steel Design 46,786,979.32 3.95
3.Light Weight Concrete 29,150,871.4 10
Table 3-3 Initial Estimates for Economical Constraints (Structural)
Solution for Economic Constraint:

Since Reinforced Concrete Design (Pure Lightweight Concrete) has the lowest cost, the designers gave it a
scale of ten (10).
Trade off 1 and Trade off 3

33,856,993.5 − 29,150,871.4
= 𝑥10
33,856,993.5
%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝟏. 𝟑𝟗%
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 − (%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒)

Subordinate rank = 10 – 1.39
Table 3-4 Initial Estimates for Constructability
Subordinate rank = 8.60 Constraints (Structural)
Figure 3-8 Economical Constraints Ranking of Trade-off 1 and 3

46,786,979.32 − 29,150,871.4
= 𝑥10
29,150,871.4
%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝟔. 𝟎𝟓%

Subordinate rank = 3.95
3.4.1.2 Initial Estimate for Constructability Constraints

Structural Trade-offs Duration, Days Subordinate Rank
1.Normal Weight Concrete 390 6
2.Structural Steel Design 234 10
3.Light Weight Concrete 293 7.97
Solution for Constructability Constraint:

Since Structural Steel Design has the least value of duration, the designers gave it a scale of ten (10).

390 − 234
= 𝑥10
390
%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝟒%

Subordinate rank = 10 – 4
Figure 3-10 Constructability Constraints Ranking of Trade-off 1 and 2

293 − 234
= 𝑥10
293
%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝟐. 𝟎𝟏%

Structural Trade-offs Drift, mm Subordinate Rank

1.Normal Weight Concrete 11 7.68
2.Structural Steel Design 8.45 10
3.Light Weight Concrete 17.6 4.80
3.4.1.3 Initial Estimate for Risk Assessment
Solution for Risk Assessment Constraint:

Table 3-5 Initial Estimates for Risk Assessment (Structural)
Since Structural Steel Design has the lowest story drift, the designers gave it a scale of ten (10).

11 − 8.45
= 𝑥10
11
%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝟐. 𝟑𝟐

Figure 3-12 Risk Assessment Constraints Ranking of Trade-off 1 and 2

17.6 − 8.45
= 𝑥10
17.6
%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝟓. 𝟐𝟎%

3.4.1.4 Initial Estimate for Sustainability Constraints
Structural Trade-offs Life Span, Years Subordinate Rank

1.Normal Weight Concrete 50 10
2.Structural Steel Design 47 9.4
3.Light Weight Concrete 50 10
Solution for Sustainability Constraint:

Since Reinforced Concrete Design (Normal Weight Concrete) and Reinforced Concrete Design (Pure
Lightweight Concrete) hasTable
the longest
3-6 Initiallifespan, thefordesigners
Estimates gaveConstraints
Sustainability it a scale (Structural)
of ten (10).

50 − 47
= 𝑥10
50
%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝟎. 𝟔

3.4.1.5 Summary of Context 1: Structural Trade-Offs
Figure 3-14 Sustainability Constraints Ranking of Trade-off 1 and 2
Criterion's Ability to Satisfy the Criterion

Decision Criteria Importance (Scale Normal Weight Pure Lightweight Structural Steel
of 0 to 10) Concrete Concrete Design
Economical 10 7.23 72.3 10 100 3.95 39.5
Constructability 10 6 60 7.97 79.97 10 100
Risk Assessment 10 7.68 76.8 4.8 48 10 84.6
Sustainability 10 10 100 10 100 9.4 94
Over-all
309.1 327.97 318.1
Ranking
Table 3-7 Summary of Results for Structural Trade offs

3.4.1.6 Trade-Off Assessment
3.4.1.6.1 Economical Constraint Assessment
The trade-off assessment for the economic constraint led the designers to use the Pure Light-weight
Reinforced Concrete since it is the most economical choice. This became possible because this system has
lesser structural members due to the absence of beams to support the slab since columns are directly
connected to the slab resulting to less amount of cost. Also, this trade-off is more economic because it has
fast construction duration.
3.4.1.6.2 Constructability Constraint Assessment

In this assessment, the result yielded with the use of Structural Steel Design since it has the least period of
construction. It only requires the fabrication and connection of the structural steel members which resulted
to lesser duration of working days.
3.4.1.6.3 Sustainability Constraint Assessment

Reinforced Concrete Design (Normal Weight Concrete) and Reinforced Concrete Design (Pure Lightweight
Concrete) leads as the best trade-off when it comes to strength having the longest design life.
3.4.1.6.4 Risk Assessment

In this constraint, the safest trade-off for storey drift is the Structural Steel Design having the least value for
the structure’s lateral displacement. This just proves the strength of steel compared to concrete.
3.4.1.6.5 Overall Assessment of Structural Trade-offs

From the over-all assessment, it can be concluded that the third trade-off which is the Pure Lightweight
Concrete is the best option among trade-offs for having the highest ranking of 327.97. It is because it has the
highest ranking for economical constraint. It is followed by the Structural Steel Design with a total score of
318.10. If the sustainability will be considered, these scores can differ because Reinforced Concrete Design
(Pure Lightweight Concrete) and Reinforced Concrete Design (Normal Weight Concrete) has long design life
compare to Structural Steel Design. Based on this assessment using the quantitative constraints, the
designers recommend the use the Reinforced Concrete Design (Pure Lightweight Concrete) as the best
structural framing configuration in constructing the five-story public hospital.
3.4.2 Initial Estimate for Geotechnical Trade Offs

3.4.2.1 Initial Estimate for Economical Constraints
Geotechnical Trade-offs Initial Estimate (Cost, in Peso) Subordinate Rank

1.Vacuum Consolidation Method 7,615,206.104 2.02
2.Rigid Inclusion Method 1,538,542.247 10
3. Jet Grout 4,218,140.9 3.64
Solution for Economic Constraint:

Since Rigid Inclusion Method has the lowest cost, the designers gave it a scale of ten (10).
Table 3-8 Initial Estimate for Economical Constraints (Geotechnical)
7,615,206.104 − 1,538,542.247
= 𝑥10
7,615,206.104
%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝟕. 𝟗𝟖


4,218,140.9 − 1,538,542.247
= 𝑥10
4,218,140.9
%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝟔. 𝟑𝟓

3.4.2.2 Initial Estimate for Constructability Constraints

Geotechnical Trade-offs Duration, Days Subordinate Rank
1.Vacuum Consolidation Method 30 9.33
2.Rigid Inclusion Method 39 7.18
3. Jet Grout 28 10
Solution for Constructability Constraint:

Since Jet Grout Column Method has the least value of duration, the designers gave it a scale of ten (10).
Table 3-9 Initial Estimate
%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = for Economical Constraints (Geotechnical)
𝑥10
30 − 28
= 𝑥10
30
%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝟎. 𝟔𝟕


39 − 28
= 𝑥10
39
%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝟐. 𝟖𝟐

3.4.2.3 Initial Estimate for Risk Assessment Constraints
Geotechnical Trade-offs Settlement,

Figure 3-18 Risk Assessment mm Ranking of Trade-off
Constraints Subordinate
2 and 3 Rank
1.Vacuum Consolidation Method 9.6 8.33
2.Rigid Inclusion Method 8 10
3. Jet Grout 9 8.89
Solution for Risk Assessment Constraint:
Since Rigid Inclusion Method has the least value of settlement, the designers gave it a scale of ten (10).

Table 3-10%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
Initial Estimate for
= Risk Assessment Constraints (Geotechnical)
𝑥10
9.6 − 8
= 𝑥10
9.6
%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝟏. 𝟔𝟕



9−8
= 𝑥10
9
%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝟏. 𝟏𝟏

3.4.2.4 Initial Estimate for Sustainability Constraints
Geotechnical Trade-offs Life Span, Years Subordinate Rank

1.Vacuum Consolidation Method 80 10
2.Rigid Inclusion Method 75 9.375
3. Jet Grout 75 9.375
Solution for Sustainability Constraint:

Since has Vacuum Consolidation Method the longest lifespan, the designers gave it a scale of ten (10).

Table 3-10 Initial Estimate=for Sustainability Constraints (Geotechnical)
%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑥10
80 − 75
= 𝑥10
80
%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 =. 𝟔𝟐𝟓

Subordinate rank = 10 – .625

Figure 3-21 Sustainability Constraints Ranking of Trade-off 1 and 2

80 − 75
= 𝑥10
80
%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝟎. 𝟔𝟐𝟓

3.4.2.5 Summary of Context 1: Structural Trade-Offs
Criterion's Ability to Satisfy the Criterion

Decision Criteria Importance (Scale Vacuum Rigid Inclusion Jet Grout
of 0 to 10) Consolidation Method Method Column
Economical 10 2.02 20.2 10 100 3.64 36.4
Constructability 10 9.33 93.3 7.18 71.8 10 100
Risk Assessment 10 7.68 76.8 4.8 48 10 100
Sustainability 10 10 100 9.375 93.75 9.375 93.75
Over-all
290.3 313.55 330.15
Ranking
3.4.2.6 Trade-Off Assessment

3.4.2.6.1 Economical Constraint Assessment
The trade-off assessment for the Table 3-7 Summary
economic of Results
constraint for Geotechnical
led the designers toTrade offsRigid Inclusion Method
use the
since it is the most Rigid Inclusion Method economical choice for the ground improvement in designing the
foundation of the five- storey public hospital. The second choice is Jet Grout that has a subordinate rank of
3.64.
3.4.2.6.2 Constructability Constraint Assessment

In this assessment, the result yielded with the use of Jet Grout Column Method since it has the least period
of construction as it doesn’t require treatment process unlike the other ground improvement methods. The
treated soil will take up to 75 years after improvement.
3.4.2.6.3 Sustainability Constraint Assessment

Vacuum Consolidation Method protrudes as the best trade-off when it comes to strength having the longest
design life. The soil would be stable for up to 80 years regardless of the external conditions. Both Rigid
Inclusion Method and Jet Grout Column Methods have equal rankings since it will approximately take 39
days including the healing of the concrete filling the voids of the soil for Rigid Inclusion Method.
3.4.2.6.4 Risk Assessment

For the risk assessment of the different trade-offs, we compared the settlements caused by each trade-off to
the soil. Since Rigid Inclusion has the least value for settlement, it is the most viable method for this constraint.
Next to this is Jet Grout Column Method having a subordinate ranking of 8.89.
3.4.2.6.5 Overall Assessment of Geotechnical Trade-Offs

From the over-all assessment, it can be concluded that the second trade-off which is the Jet Grout Column
is the best option among trade-offs for having the highest ranking of 330.15. It is because it has the highest
ranking for two of the constraints which are the constructability and the risk assessment constraints that has
the highest criterion importance. It is followed by the Rigid Inclusion Method with a total score of 313.55.
Based on this assessment using the quantitative constraints, the designers recommend the use of Jet Grout
Column as the best ground improvement method for the foundation of the project which is the five-story public
hospital.
3.5 Design Standards

3.5.1 National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP)
Frame design: NSCP Section 208.4.6

Seismic loads: NSCP Section 208
Wind loads: NSCP Section 207
Dead loads: NSCP Section 204
Live loads: NSCP Section 205
Materials:
F’c of concrete: NSCP 2015 Section 419
Beam: NSCP Section 409
Column: NSCP Section 410
Slab: NSCP Section 407
Walls: NSCP Section 411
Foundation: NSCP Section 413
3.5.2 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318) – American Concrete Institute
The document offers general information on the use and design of buildings with structural concrete. The
document also provides information about flat slabs and other structural systems/elements, with commentaries
or recommendations from the ACI committee based on their studies and experiments.
REFERENCES
Construction Statistics from Approved Building Permits: First Quarter 2018 (Preliminiaty Result).
(2018). Retrieved from Philippine Statistics Authority: •
https://psa.gov.ph/content/construction-statistics- approved-building-permits-first-
quarter-2018-preliminary-results
Rizal Province Bid Results on Civil Works and Services. (2018). Retrieved from •
http://rizalprovince.ph/old%20database/engineering/BID%20RESULTS%20ON%20CIVIL%20WOR
KS/3rd%20Qtr%202018%20Bid%20Results%20on%20Civil%20Works%20Goods%20and%20Ser
vices%20and%20Consulting%20Services.pdf
Abeysuriya, N., & Jayasinghe, T. (n.d.). Deflection Related Serviceability Issues in Steel Buildings
With Large Span Girders. Retrieved from
•
https://www.academia.edu/8339157/DEFLECTION_RELATED_SERVICEABILITY_ISSUES_I
N_S TEEL_BUILDINGS_WITH_LARGE_SPAN_GIRDERS
Fagan, A. J., & Lurie, D. J. (2005). Annual Reports on NMR Spectroscopy. Reinforced Concrete
Structures. Glass, G. (2003). Comprehensive Structural Integrity. Reinforced Concrete Structure.
Kumar, S., Babu, R. K., Kumar, S. K., & Kumar, K. (2010). Experimental Study on Lightweight
Aggregate Concrete. Retrieved
from
https://www.academia.edu/22082708/Experimental_Study_on_Lightweight_Aggregate
_Concrete
Mohit, & Haider. (2015). A Comparaive Study on Structural Performance Between Steel and
Reinforced Concrete Building. Retrieved
from
http://www.duet.ac.bd/DUET_Old_Website/ce/template/IICSD2015/Sustainable%20Inf
rastructure% 20and%20Environment/SIE-005.pdf
N.Subramanian. (2013). Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures. Maryland: Oxford University
Press. Sadat, T. N. (2014, March). Comparative Study on Reinforced Concrete and Steel Framed
Buildings with
Various Floor . Retrieved from
http://lib.buet.ac.bd:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/633/Full%20Thesis.pdf?sequence=1’
Sangave, P., Madur, N., Waghmare, S., Shete, R., Mankondi, V., & Gundla, V. (2015, February).
Comparative Study of Analysis and Design of R.C and Steel Structures. Retrieved from
https://www.ijser.org/researchpaper/Comparative-Study-of-Analysis-and-Design-of-R-
C-and-Steel- Structures.pdf
Sastri, V. (2010). Shreir's Corrosion. Reinforced Concrete
Structure. National Institute of Building Sciences Building
Seismic Council (2010)
Retrieved from: https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1759-25045-
5477/fema_p_749.pdf
Guggemos (2005)
Retrieved from: https://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)1076-0342(2005)11:2(93)
Gebara et al (1998),
Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254538080
Ozaki, (1978)
Retrieved from: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1145407/
 https://psa.gov.ph/content/construction-statistics-approved-building-permits-first-quarter-2018-
preliminary-results
https://web.a.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrn
l=09746528&AN=92605730&h=yOqueiFZ3m%2bnULoqgq9TB3o01UoSfkrqL5d0ut0bzrOVgKd2uR
JvDhTkgPxdCg2Q8ClKihPzZhbxSOeFkySBzg%3d%3d&crl=f&resultNs=AdminWebAuth&resultLocal=ErrCrlNotAut
h&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26profile%3dehost%26scope%3dsite%
26authtype%3dcrawler%26jrnl%3d09746528%26AN%3d92605730
 http://rizalprovince.ph/old%20database/engineering/BID%20RESULTS%20ON%20CIVIL%20WOR
KS/3rd%20Qtr%202018%20Bid%20Results%20on%20Civil%20Works%20Goods%20and%20Ser
vices%20and%20Consulting%20Services.pdf
 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242782868_Time_and_Cost_Evaluation_of_Construction
_of_Steel_Framed_Composite_Floor_with_Precast_Concrete_Floor_Structure
 https://www.irjet.net/archives/V3/i6/IRJET-V3I663.pdf
 https://www.academia.edu/8339157/DEFLECTION_RELATED_SERVICEABILITY_ISSUES_IN_S
TEEL_BUILDINGS_WITH_LARGE_SPAN_GIRDERS
 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15623599.2007.10773095
 https://www.nbmcw.com/tech-articles/concrete/20088-quality-and-durability-of-concrete.html
 https://www.structuremag.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SF-Ground-Improvement-REVISED-
0514041.pdf
 https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GTPM_enPH621PH621&ei=5VlRXKpaicGgBLypupAJ&q=
vibro+compaction+cost+estimate&oq=vibrocompaction+cost&gs_l=psyab.1.0.0i13j0i22i30l2.10390
83.1044807..1047602...1.0..0.366.3143.0j20j0j1......0....1..gwswiz. 0i71j0i67j0i131j0j0i10i67j0i10
.QEElbQFk-mw
 https://waset.org/publications/10006931/the-effect-of-pulling-and-rotation-speed-on-the-jet-grout-
columns
APPENDICES
i) Architectural Plans
(1) Floor Plans
(a) Ground Floor Plan
(b) Second Floor Plan
(c) Third Floor Plan
(d) Fourth Floor Plan
(e) Fifth Floor Plan
(2) Elevation Plans

(a) Front Elevation Plan
(b) Rear Elevation Plan
(c) Right / Left Side Elevation Plan
Figure 3-1. Ground Floor Plan
Figure 3-3. Second Floor Plan
Figure 3-4. Fourth Floor Plan

Chapter 3

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

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

Chapter 3

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CHAPTER 3

DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, TRADE OFFS, AND STANDARDS

3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints for Context I: Structural Context

3.1.1.2 Constructability Constraints (Duration)

3.1.1.3 Risk Constraints (Story Displacement)

3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints for Context II: Geotechnical Context

3.1.1.2 Constructability Constraint (Duration)

3.1.1.3 Sustainability Constraint (Life Span)

3.2.1 Context 1: Structural Trade-Offs

3.2.1.1 Reinforced Concrete Design (Normal Weight Concrete)

Figure 3-1 Normal Weight Concrete

Advantages of Reinforced Concrete

Disadvantages of Reinforced Concrete:

3.2.1.2 Structural Steel Design

Advantages of Structural Steel Design:

Figure 3-2 Structural Steel Design

Disadvantages of Structural Steel Design:

3.2.1.3 Pure Lightweight Concrete

Figure 3-3 Pure Lightweight Concrete Design

 Economical in terms of transportation as well as reduction in manpower

Disadvantages of Pure Lightweight Concrete:

3.2.2 Context 2: Geotechnical Trade-Offs

3.2.2.2 Rigid Inclusion Method

Figure 3-4 Vacuum Consolidation Method

3.2.2.3 Jet Grouting

Figure 3-5 Vacuum Consolidation Method

amount of site preparation as well as injection equipment.

3.3 Initial Estimates

Figure 3-6 Jet Grouting

Normal Weight Concrete 33,856,993.5 390 11 50

Structural Steel Design 46,786,979.32 234 8.45 50

Table 3-1 Initial Estimates (Structural)

Rigid Inclusion Method 1,538,542.247 39 8 75

Jet Grouting 4,218,140.9 28 9 75

3.4 Designer’s Raw Ranking

Computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials:

Figure 3-7 Raw Ranking Scale

Structural Trade-offs Initial Estimate (Cost, in Peso) Subordinate Rank

Table 3-3 Initial Estimates for Economical Constraints (Structural)

Solution for Economic Constraint:

Trade off 1 and Trade off 3

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 − (%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒)

Figure 3-8 Economical Constraints Ranking of Trade-off 1 and 3

Trade off 2 and Trade off 3

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 − (%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒)

Figure 3-9 Economical Constraints Ranking of Trade-off 2 and 3

3.4.1.2 Initial Estimate for Constructability Constraints

Solution for Constructability Constraint:

Trade off 1 and Trade off 2

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 − (%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒)

Figure 3-10 Constructability Constraints Ranking of Trade-off 1 and 2

Trade off 2 and Trade off 3

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 − (%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒)

Figure 3-11 Constructability Constraints Ranking of Trade-off 2 and 3

Structural Trade-offs Drift, mm Subordinate Rank

Solution for Risk Assessment Constraint:

Trade off 1 and Trade off 2

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 − (%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒)

Trade off 2 and Trade off 3

Figure 3-12 Risk Assessment Constraints Ranking of Trade-off 1 and 2

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 − (%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒)

3.4.1.4 Initial Estimate for Sustainability Constraints

Figure 3-13 Risk Assessment Constraints Ranking of Trade-off 2 and 3