Sunteți pe pagina 1din 247

Major Design Experience Information

CE 513 Prestressed Concrete Design


2nd Semester, SY 2018-2019

DE MESA, PIA FRANCESCA, G.


MARIN, JOHN DOMINIC M.
Student
ORTEGA, MARCO C.
PAGLICAWAN, JERIC JAMES C.
TORIO, GERALD C.
DESIGN OF TWO-STOREY PRESTRESSED PAMPANGA HIGH SCHOOL
Project Title
BUILDING (B) IN BRGY. LOURDES, SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA
Program Concentration Area Structural, Construction
Constraints
On this constraint, the designers considered the time needed for how long a specific
design can be constructed. The duration of a project can only be estimated once
you know what resources are available. The manpower of the project must be able
to meet the expected duration proposed by the client. The project is expected to be
done in a minimal amount of time if the designers would consider maximizing the
manpower. The designers must determine the accurate number of man-hours
Constructability required on the project because failure to estimate the duration properly can affect
the overall cost. The designers will compare which among all the tradeoffs will
require a lesser amount of man-hour for the whole process. The client wants to
have an additional public school building for students as soon as possible in order
to provide additional classrooms to accommodate all of the students in the area and
to avoid congested classrooms. Depending upon which trade-off will satisfy the
condition set by the client which will not exceed in 2-year project duration.
The designers consider this as the governing constraint since this is significant for
both parties, the designers and to the client. Ideally, financial costs should account
for the full costs during the life cycle of the project, including initial installation
composed of doing activities such as transporting equipment, construction, and
permitting. However, through this economic constraint, the designers will be able to
Economic
produce designs and examine a comparison among the listed tradeoffs below to
determine which of those could be the cheapest yet adequate, effective, and
efficient without sacrificing the quality and functionality of the design for the client.
The allotted and approved budget of the client for the project is Php. 50,000,000.
Any further increase in costing will no longer be negotiable.
Sustainability Sustainability is the study of how natural systems function, remain diverse and
produce everything it needs for the ecology to remain balance. In this case, the
sustainability will be measured by design life of each trade-off. In accordance with
the regulations from PCI Design Handbook 6th Edition, the design life of
prestressed concrete will last until 50 years. Hence, the limitation of the design will
focus only on the maintenance cost of the project throughout its design life. one of
the basic ideas in engineering design is that with greater design strength, there is
an equivalent increase in cost due to the need of higher quality material. It is
undeniable that sustainability of government projects is something that must not be
overlooked to effectively choose the best among the alternatives.
For the risk assessment of the school building, it is the capacity of the building to
withhold loads and the factor of safety that it will impose in the design. Lateral
displacement response is critical to the prestressed concrete performance due to
limited energy dissipation. The designer will take a look of which trade-offs will show
Risk Assessment
a lesser lateral displacement, when the loads are applied. It will be known of which
of the design will give greater efficiency and safety with less lateral displacement
occurs in a system. The risk assessment of the building pertains to the lesser lateral
movement of the structure when loads are applied.
Tradeoffs
The designers will design the beam with use of prestressed rectangular beam.
Unlike the other two trade-offs, the designers will only consider the rectangular
beam all throughout the structure.
A pre-stressed rectangular beam is a horizontal structural member in a framed
RECTANGULAR structure, made of concrete and reinforced steel bars. It is “pre-stressed” by being
placed under compression prior to supporting any loads to provide additional
PRESTRESSED BEAM strength to the structure. By the name itself, this beam is rectangular in shape. The
rectangular beam continues to demonstrate its flexibility by providing design options
using boxes in an adjacent arrangement with either a cast-in-place concrete deck or
an asphalt paved surface or a spread arrangement with stay-in-place forming and a
poured concrete deck.
In designing the beam of the structure, the designers will be going to use the
combination of prestressed Inverted T-Beam and L-Beam. The L-beam will be
placed at the corner beams of the structure while Inverted T-beam is for the interior
beams.
Pre-stressed inverted T-beams have a swallow-tailed upper part and a rough
surface giving a good surface key. It is a pre-stressed concrete element having a
constant in cross section. Like other pre-stressed beams, they are manufactured
COMBINED PRESTRESSED
using high tensile pre-stressed wires which are entrenched within the element. It
INVERTED T-BEAM AND L-
has many uses in construction and varies within certain limits; while L-Beams (end
BEAM
beams) which have slabs on one side only. In most of the reinforced concrete
structures, concrete slabs are cast monolithic. In a floor consisting of several beams
cast monolithically with slab, the intermediate beams acts as T-Beams whereas the
beams at top of the corners of the walls or beams around the staircase of lift
openings. Thus, T-beams and L-beams forms a part of the floor system together
with slab. L-beams are typical floor beams because of the reduced overall structural
depth, the beams are in prestressed or reinforced concrete.
COMBINED PRESTRESSED The designers will design the beam of the structure with the use of prestressed
RECTANGULAR BEAM AND L- rectangular beams and L-beams. The L-beams will be placed at the corner beams
BEAM of the structure while rectangular beam is for the interior beams.
A pre-stressed rectangular beam is a horizontal structural member in a framed
structure, made of concrete and reinforced steel bars. It is “pre-stressed” by being
placed under compression prior to supporting any loads to provide additional
strength to the structure. By the name itself, this beam is rectangular in shape. The
rectangular beam continues to demonstrate its flexibility by providing design options

ii
using boxes in an adjacent arrangement with either a cast-in-place concrete deck or
an asphalt paved surface or a spread arrangement with stay-in-place forming and a
poured concrete deck. ; While L-Beams (end beams) which have slabs on one side
only. In most of the reinforced concrete structures, concrete slabs are cast
monolithic. In a floor consisting of several beams cast monolithically with slab, the
intermediate beams acts as T-Beams whereas the beams at top of the corners of
the walls or beams around the staircase of lift openings. Thus, T-beams and L-
beams forms a part of the floor system together with slab. L-beams are typical floor
beams because of the reduced overall structural depth, the beams are in
prestressed or reinforced concrete.
Standards
1. National Structural Code of Code that provides minimum standards by regulating and controlling the design,
the Philippines 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.
2. PCI Design Handbook, 6th This book is from the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, in which they
Edition disseminate such helpful guidelines about the prestressed and precast concrete.
This 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. This is a design guide for
precast and prestressed concrete that provides easy to follow design procedures;
numerical examples; and both new and updated design aids. It provides the
designer with comprehensive and efficient procedures for the safe design of both
architectural and structural precast and prestressed concrete products.
3. Prestressed Concrete This book is covers different topics about prestressed concrete design that the
Design, A Fundamental designers used for reference in analyzing the context of each structural member
Approached 5th Edition by that will be designed using prestressed concrete. This book helps the designers as
Edward Nawy it included necessary solving process that the designer used as guidelines in order
to solve for prestressing concrete components.

iii
TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES
938 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE


Civil Engineering Department

PRESTRESSED CONCRETE DESIGN


CE 513 / CE52FA1

DESIGN OF TWO-STOREY PRESTRESSED PAMPANGA HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING (B) IN


BRGY. LOURDES, SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA

Submitted by:
De Mesa, Pia Francesca G.
Marin, John Dominic M.
Ortega, Marco C.
Paglicawan, Jeric James C.
Torio, Gerald C.

Submitted to:
Engr. Mico P. Cruzado

Date of Submission

iv
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 : PROJECT BACKGROUND......................................................................................1
1.1 Project Background...............................................................................................................1
1.2 The Project............................................................................................................................1
1.3 Project Location.....................................................................................................................4
1.4 Project Objectives..................................................................................................................4
1.4.1 General Objectives................................................................................................................4
1.4.2 Specific Objectives.................................................................................................................4
1.5 The Client..............................................................................................................................5
1.6 Project Scopes and Limitations..............................................................................................5
1.7 Project Development Plan.....................................................................................................5
Chapter 2 : DESIGN INPUTS...................................................................................................7
2.1 Description of the Structure..................................................................................................7
2.2 Elevations of the Structure....................................................................................................7
2.3 Design of Flexural Members Formula....................................................................................9
2.4 Partial Losses Formula (Pretensioned Beam).......................................................................10
2.4.1 Elastic Shortening (ES).........................................................................................................10
2.4.2 Steel Stress Relaxation (SR).................................................................................................10
2.4.3 Creep Loss (CR)....................................................................................................................10
2.4.4 Shrinkage Loss (SH).............................................................................................................10
2.5 Reinforced Concrete Formulas.............................................................................................11
2.5.1 Design of Slabs.....................................................................................................................11
2.5.2 Design of Columns...............................................................................................................16
2.6 Local Literature....................................................................................................................17
2.6.1 "Design Considerations for Precast Prestressed Concrete Building Structures in Seismic
Areas" by Alfred A. Vee, P.E., Dr. Eng................................................................................................17
2.6.2 “Effect of Cut Prestressed Steel Tendon Wires on the Structural Strength of Normal
Concrete” by Nahum L. Bravo...........................................................................................................17
2.6.3 “Experimental evaluation of the structural performance of deformed wide-flange beam
retrofitted with harped exterior post tension system” by . Lejano et al............................................18
2.6.4 “Panguil Bay Bridge, Northern Mindanao”..........................................................................18
2.6.5 “Structural Retrofitting of Simply Supported Reinforced Concrete Beams Using Turnbuckle
Exterior Post Tensioning” by: B. Lejano, D. Grimares, M. Peñamante, J. Roxas, and K. Toral...........18
2.7 Foreign Literature................................................................................................................19
2.7.1 Precast Prestressed Concrete Construction in Malaysia.......................................................19
2.7.2 Second Precast Prestressed Concrete Construction in Malaysia...........................................19
2.7.3 Elias Issa Saqan, Evaluation of ductile beam-column connections for use in seismic-resistant
precast frames, Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Texas at Austin, 1995.............19
2.7.4 Bindurani, P, A. Meher Prasad, Amlan K. Sengupta, Analysis of Precast Multistoreyed
Building - A Case Study, International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and
Technology (ICEE 2013), 2013...........................................................................................................20
2.7.5 R. Vidjeapriya and K.P. Jaya, Behaviour of Precast Beam-Column Mechanical Connections
under cyclic loading, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing) Vol. 13, No. 2 (2012),
2011 20

i
2.7.6 P. K. Aninthaneni and R. P. Dhakal, Conceptual development: low Loss Precast Concrete
Frame Building System with Steel Connections, 2014 NZSEE Conference, New Zealand, 2014.........21
2.7.7 M.J.Gopinathan and K.Subramanian, High Performance and Efficiency of Joints in Precast
Members, M. J. Gopinathan et.al / International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET), 2009
22
2.7.8 Patrick Tiong Liq Yee, Azlan Bin Adnan, Abdul Karim Mirasa and Ahmad Baharuddin Abdul
Rahman , Performance of IBS Precast Concrete Beam-Column Connections Under Earthquake
Effects: A Literature Review, American J. of Engineering and Applied Sciences 4 (1): 93-101, 2011,
ISSN 1941-7020,2010 Science Publications, 2011.............................................................................22
2.7.9 G. Metelli and P. Riva, Behaviour of a Beam to Column “DRY” Joint for Precast Concrete
Elements, The World Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 12-17, 2008, Beijing, China,
2008 23
2.7.10 M. N. KATAOKA, M. A. FERREIRA, A. L. H. C. EL DEBS, A study on the behavior of beam-
column connections in precast concrete structures: experimental analysis, Ibracon Structures and
Materials Journal, Volume 5, Number 5, 2012..................................................................................23
Chapter 3 :CONSTRAINTS, TRADEOFFS AND STANDARDS.....................................................24
3.1 Design Constraints...............................................................................................................24
3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints.....................................................................................................24
3.1.2 Qualitative Constraints.......................................................................................................25
3.2 Design Trade-offs.................................................................................................................27
3.2.1 TRADE-OFF 1: RECTANGULAR PRESTRESSED BEAM...........................................................27
3.2.2 TRADE-OFF 2: COMBINED PRESTRESSED INVERTED T-BEAM AND L-BEAM.......................29
Source:https://www.nordimpianti.com/Concrete-Elements/Inverted-T-Beams......................................29
3.2.3 TRADE-OFF 3: COMBINED PRESTRESSED RECTANGULAR BEAM AND L-BEAM..................31
3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking.......................................................................................................33
3.3.1 Summary of Initial Total per Unit Cost Estimated Trade off Values.......................................34
3.4 Trade-off Assessment..........................................................................................................40
3.4.1 Economic Constraints (Project Cost).......................................................................................40
3.4.2 Constructability Constraints (Project Duration).....................................................................41
3.4.3 Risk Assessment (Lateral Displacement)................................................................................41
3.4.4 Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost)........................................................................41
3.5 Design Standards.................................................................................................................42
3.5.1 National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015...............................................................42
3.5.2 PCI Design Handbook, 6th Edition........................................................................................42
3.5.3 Prestressed Concrete Design, A Fundamental Approached 5th Edition by Edward Nawy..42
Chapter 4 : DESIGN OF STRUCTURE.....................................................................................43
4.1 Design Methodology............................................................................................................43
4.2 Design Flowchart of Designing Beams..................................................................................44
4.3 Design Flowchart of Designing Slabs....................................................................................47
4.4 Design Flowchart of Designing Columns..............................................................................49
4.5 STRUCTURAL DESIGN...........................................................................................................51
4.5.1 Geometric Design................................................................................................................51
4.5.2 Framing Plans......................................................................................................................52
4.6 Load Diagrams.....................................................................................................................53
4.7 Design Results......................................................................................................................56
4.7.1 Results for Slabs..................................................................................................................56
4.7.2 Results for Beam.................................................................................................................56
4.7.3 Forces and Moments on Beams..........................................................................................59
4.7.4 Results for Columns.............................................................................................................59
4.8 Validation of Constraints with regards to Trade-offs...........................................................60
4.8.1 Final Cost Estimate..............................................................................................................60
4.8.2 Final Ranking.......................................................................................................................61
4.9 Sensitivity Analysis..............................................................................................................65
4.9.1 Sensitivity Analysis for Economic Constraint......................................................................65
4.9.2 Sensitivity Analysis for Constructability Constraint............................................................66
4.9.3 Sensitivity Analysis for Risk Assessment.............................................................................67
4.9.4 Sensitivity Analysis for Sustainability Constraint................................................................68
Chapter 5 : FINAL DESIGN....................................................................................................69
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1Perspective View of the School Building.................................................................................1


Figure 1-2 Location of the Project........................................................................................................4
Figure 1-3 Project Development Flowchart............................................................................................6
Figure 2-1 Front Elevation of the School Building...................................................................................7
Figure 2-2 Rear Elevation of the School Building...................................................................................7
Figure 2-3 Right Side Elevation of the School Building...........................................................................8
Figure 2-4 Left Side Elevation of the School Building.............................................................................8
Figure 3-1 Pre-stressed Rectangular Beam........................................................................................28
Figure 3-2 Perspective View of Rectangular Beam using Sketch Up 2017..............................................28
Figure 3-3 Pre-stressed L-Beam Figure 3-4 Pre-stressed Inverted T- Beam.....................................30
Figure 3-5 Combined Inverted T- Beam and L-Beam...........................................................................31
Figure 3-6 Pre-stressed L-Beam Figure 3-7 Pre-stressed Rectangular Beam....................................32
Figure 3-8 Combined Rectangular Beam and L-Beam..........................................................................33
Figure 3-9 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference............................................................................34
Figure 3-10 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 2 in Economic Constraint....................................................35
Figure 3-11 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 3 in Economic Constraint....................................................35
Figure 3-12 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 2 in Constructability Constraint............................................36
Figure 3-13 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 3 in Constructability Constraint............................................36
Figure 3-14 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 1 in Risk Assessment.........................................................37
Figure 3-15 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 3 in Risk Assessment.........................................................38
Figure 3-16 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 2 in Sustainability Constraint...............................................38
Figure 3-17 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 3 in Sustainability Constraint...............................................39
Figure 4-1 Process for Determining Beams.........................................................................................46
Figure 4-2 Process for Determining Slabs...........................................................................................48
Figure 4-3 Process for Determining Columns......................................................................................50
Figure 4-4 Process for Determining Columns......................................................................................51
Figure 4-5 Second Floor Framing Plan................................................................................................52
Figure 4-6 Foundation Plan................................................................................................................52
Figure 4-7 Dead Loads......................................................................................................................53
Figure 4-8 Earthquake Loads Along X................................................................................................53
Figure 4-9 Earthquake Loads Along Z.................................................................................................54
Figure 4-10 Live Loads......................................................................................................................54
Figure 4-11 Wind Loads Along X........................................................................................................55
Figure 4-12 Wind Loads Along Z........................................................................................................55
Figure 4-13 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 2 in Economic Constraint....................................................62
Figure 4-14 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 3 in Economic Constraint....................................................62
Figure 4-15 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 2 in Constructability Constraint............................................63
Figure 4-16 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 3 in Constructability Constraint............................................63
Figure 4-17 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 1 in Risk Assessment.........................................................63
Figure 4-18 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 3 in Risk Assessment.........................................................64
Figure 4-19 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 2 in Sustainability Constraint...............................................64
Figure 4-20 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 3 in Sustainability Constraint...............................................65
Figure 5-1 Winning trade-off: Prestressed Rectangular beam...............................................................69
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1-1 Pampanga High School Details & Information.........................................................................1


Table 2-1 Coefficients for Negative Moments in Slabs..........................................................................12
Table 2-2 Coefficients for Dead Load Positive Moment in Slabs............................................................13
Table 2-3 Coefficients for Live Load Positive Moments in Slabs............................................................14
Table 2-4 Coefficients for Shear in Slabs............................................................................................15
Table 3-1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Rectangular Prestressed Beam........................................27
Table 3-2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Prestressed Inverted T-Beam...........................................29
Table 3-3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Prestressed L-Beam........................................................30
Table 3-4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Rectangular Prestressed Beam........................................32
Table 3-5 Initial Estimation per Unit Cost.............................................................................................34
Table 3-6 Initial Estimate for Project Cost............................................................................................34
Table 3-7 Initial Estimate for Project Duration......................................................................................35
Table 3-8 Initial Estimate for Lateral Displacement...............................................................................37
Table 3-9 Initial Estimate for Maintenance Cost...................................................................................38
Table 3-10 Importance factor of each constraint..................................................................................39
Table 3-11 Designer’s Initial Raw Ranking..........................................................................................40
Table 4-1 Design Schedule for Slabs..................................................................................................56
Table 4-2 Design Schedule for Rectangular Beam...............................................................................56
Table 4-3 Design Schedule for Prestressed Inverted T-Beam...............................................................57
Table 4-4 Design Schedule for Prestressed L-Beam............................................................................57
Table 4-5 Design Schedule for Rectangular Beam...............................................................................58
Table 4-6 Design Schedule for Prestressed L-Beam............................................................................58
Table 4-7 Governing Forces and Moments on Beams..........................................................................59
Table 4-8 Governing Axial Forces on Columns....................................................................................59
Table 4-9 Governing Shear Demands on Columns..............................................................................59
Table 4-10 Maximum Moment of Columns..........................................................................................60
Table 4-11 Bar dimensions and spacing..............................................................................................60
Table 4-12 Final Cost Estimate..........................................................................................................60
Table 4-13 Final Ranking of Trade-offs...............................................................................................61
Table 4-14 Sensitivity Analysis for Economic Constraint......................................................................65
Table 4-15 Sensitivity Analysis for Constructability Constraint...............................................................66
Table 4-16 Sensitivity Analysis for Risk Assessment............................................................................67
Table 4-17 Sensitivity Analysis for Sustainability Constraint..................................................................68
Chapter 1 : PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.1 Project Background


The beginnings of the Pampanga High School could be traced to the Eusebio Residence located near the
town plaza of San Fernando where classes first began in 1908. Due to the lack of students, it was unable to
form a senior class until 1911-1912. Its first principal was Mr. John W. Osborn. The school was later moved
to this building near the Provincial Capital in order to accommodate more students.The school population
grew to 4000 plus students in the mid 1960s as youths from nearby towns started to enroll. Pablo Pinlac,
the principal, started sports program like Track and Field, Basketball, Volleyball, Soccer, Baseball, etc. 

It was quite a struggle in putting up a new educational system right after the Philippine–American War. New
buildings had to be constructed to provide the students’ need of classrooms due to their larger population
over this year. Pampangan native teachers had to learn the English language and had to be trained in new
methods of teaching. The cooperation of parents and local government officials had to be solicited also.
1.2 The Project
The project is said to be a two-storey prestressedPampanga Public High School Bldg. B in Brgy. Lourdes,
San Fernando, Pampanga. The proposed building will be located inside Pampanga High School (PHS) – a
public high school in the City of San Fernando, Pampanga.The principal requested for another building due
to over population of their students and the classrooms are not enough to sustain them. The school was
formerly known as Jose Abad Santos High School or JASHS.

Figure 1-1Perspective View of the School Building


Table 1-1 Pampanga High School Details & Information

1
PAMPANGA HIGH SCHOOL

Location: Brgy. Lourdes, City of San Fernando,


Pampanga

Area: 5.45 ha (13.5 acres)

Former Name: Jose Abad Santos High School

Type: National High School (Public)

Established: 1908

Principal: Fe Rosalinda Caylao

Staff & Faculty: 380

Enrolment: 9,290 students (S.Y. 2014-15)

 Grade 7 250

 Grade 8 2,283

 Grade 9 2,296

 Grade 10 2,106

Prestressed concrete is a concrete which has been tensioned before the application of the loading. In
simpler explanation, concrete is strong in resisting compressive forces but is very weak in resisting tensile
forces (the compressive strength of concrete is nearly 10 times its tensile strength for a particular grade).
So therefore for structures which are expected to experience significant tensile loads (like pressure vessels
which may experience hoop tensile load due to internal pressure) concrete is prestressed initially so that it
is under compression. This pre compression will ensure that the concrete section will remain under
compression under the application of external tension producing forces. This is achieved by passing highly
stressed (in tension) cables through the concrete section. These tensile cables will take reaction from the
position at which they are anchored at the ends of the concrete section thereby causing the concrete
section to come under compression. This method can be achieved either through pre-tensioning or through
post-tensioning.
Prestressed concrete has the following advantages:

1. Crack resistance, good rigidity. Due to the prestressing of the components, the occurrence of cracks is
greatly delayed. Under the action of the applied load, no cracks may occur in the components, or the
cracks may be delayed. Therefore, the stiffness of the components is increased, and the durability of the
structure is increased.

2. Save materials, reduce weight. The structure must adopt high-strength materials, so it can reduce the
amount of steel bars and the cross-sectional dimensions of components, save steel and concrete, reduce
the weight of the structure, and has obvious advantages for large span and heavy load structures.

3. The vertical shear force and the main tensile stress of the concrete beam can be reduced. The pre-
stressed beam reinforced concrete beams (beams) can reduce the vertical shear near the bearings in the
beams. Because of the existence of prestress on the concrete cross section, the main tensile stress under
load is also reduced. This helps to reduce the web thickness of the beam, so that the self-weight of the
prestressed concrete beam can be further reduced.

4. To improve the stability of the pressure member. When the pressure member is relatively large and thin,
it is easily bent after being subjected to a certain pressure, resulting in loss of stability and destruction. If
the prestressing of the reinforced concrete column is applied, the longitudinal stressed steel tends to be
pulled tightly, not only the prestressed steel itself is not easily bent, but also the surrounding concrete can
improve the ability to resist bending.

5. Improve the fatigue resistance of components. Because of the strong prestressed reinforcement, the
magnitude of the stress change caused by loading or unloading during the service phase is relatively small,
so it can improve the fatigue resistance, which is very favourable for the structure subjected to the dynamic
load.

6. Prestressing can be used as a means of connecting structural members to promote the development of
new systems and construction methods for large span structur

1.3 Project Location


Figure 1-2 Location of the Project
1.4 Project Objectives
1.4.1 General Objectives
The main objective of the project is to design a two-storey prestressed public high school building located
inside Pampanga High School in Brgy. Lourdes, San Fernando, Pampanga. The building will provide more
classrooms for the incoming senior high school students to solve their overpopulation problem.
1.4.2 Specific Objectives
1. To propose a design for a cost-efficient two-storey prestressed public high school building.
2. To design a two-storey prestressed public high school building using specifications and standards
given by PCI Design handbook.
3. To weigh in the trade-offs based on limitations to differentiate effective design choice.
4. To solve their classroom congestion problem and provide students the convenience they need.
5. To assess the design requirements considering the multiple constraints.
1.5 The Client
The client for the proposedtwo-storey prestressed Pampanga Public High School Building (B) is the city
mayor of San Fernando, Pampanga, Hon. Edwin Santiago. The client wants the project to be completed as
soon as possible for the it can be used by the incoming school year. The client wants to provide quality
classrooms under the flagship project of its Barangay.
According to the client, the following are the limitations:
 The project cost should not be greater than Php 50,000,000.
 The duration of the project should cover not greater than two years.

1.6 Project Scopes and Limitations

The following are the scope of the project:


 Provide cost and duration of the project using MS Project.
 Provide structural drawings and floor plans.
 The designers will focus on the analysis and design of the structure based on the PCI Design
handbook.
The following are the limitation of the project:
 The detailed estimates will not be provided.
 The cost estimates and plans for mechanical, plumbing, electrical and architectural were
not considered.
 The interior design of the structure was not considered.
 The computation for the roof is not included.
 The design of the whole structural members including the beams, columns, and slabs are
applicable only on the governing trade-off.
1.7 Project Development Plan
To begin the proposed project design, first is to identify the problem in order to meet the demand of the
community. Second is to plan and conceptualize ideas as the designer’s quality classrooms and design
standards so the client can visualize the design structure. After the process of planning and
conceptualizing, the designers will begin gathering of data needed for the project and then define the
design constraints based on different factors affecting the design. Fifth stage is defining the trade-offs; it is
important for the client to have choices that will address the design constraints. Next is to design these
trade-offs; in this stage, the designers will be able to evaluate the alternatives which will give the client
options to choose the best design and meet his specifications. After the evaluation of alternatives, the final
design will be laid down in mutual agreement of the client and designers.

START

PLANING /
CONCEPTUALIZATION

DATA GATHERING

ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED
PRESTRESSED PUBLIC
SCHOOL BUILDING

PROJECT CONSTRAINTS
AND STANDARDS

TRADE-OFF 1 TRADE-OFF 2 TRADE-OFF 3

RESULT OF
EVALUATION

FINAL DESIGN

END

Figure 1-3 Project Development Flowchart

Chapter 2 : DESIGN INPUTS


2.1 Description of the Structure
The project is a two-storey prestressed public high school building in Brgy. Lourdes, San Fernando,
Pampanga. The designers designed a public high school building to provide more than quality classrooms
but also education to their students. The lot area of the said school will be approximately 800 sqm.
2.2 Elevations of the Structure

Figure 2-4 Front Elevation of the School Building

Figure 2-5 Rear Elevation of the School Building


Figure 2-6 Right Side Elevation of the School Building

Figure 2-7 Left Side Elevation of the School Building


2.3 Design of Flexural Members Formula
(1−γ ) M D + M L + M SD
st =
γfti−fc
( 1−γ ) M D + M L + M SD
sb =
ft−γfci
where:
at transfer/initial condition,
fci=0.60 f ' ci
fti=3 √ f ' ci( not considering deflection)
fti=6 √ f ' ci(considering deflection)
at service condition:
fc=0.45 f ' c ( ¿ isa large part of total service load )
fc=0.60 f ' c ( ¿ istransient )
ft=6 √ f ' c ( not considering deflection )
ft=12 √ f ' c ( considering deflection )
In determining the other parameters of sections of the beam, use the following formulas:
I
r 2=
A
w l2
M=
8
fpi=0.70 ( fpu )
fpu=Grade 270=270,000 psi
fpe=γfpi
Pe=fpe × Aps
Aps= A × no . of strands
A=0.153 ¿ .2 for Grade 270
In determining the adequacy of the beam section:
e ct M
f t=
−Pe
A (
1− 2 − tT
r s )
e cb M T
f b=
−Pe
A (
1+ 2 +
r sb )
2.4 Partial Losses Formula (Pretensioned Beam)

2.4.1 Elastic Shortening (ES)


∆ fρES=nfcs

e2 M D e
fcs=
−Pi
Ac ( )
1+ 2 +
r Ic

Es
n=
Eci / Ec

2.4.2 Steel Stress Relaxation (SR)


∆ f p R=f ' pi ( log t 10−logt )( ff ' −0.55 )
2 1 pi

py

*For low relaxation steel, the divider is 45 instead of 10

2.4.3 Creep Loss (CR)


∆ f pCR =n K CR ( f cs −f csd )

Where: K CR = 2.0 for pretensioned members


= 1.60 for post-tensioned members (both for normal concrete)
f cs = stress in concrete at level of steel cgs immediately after transfer
f csd = stress in concrete at level of steel cgs due to all superimposed dead loads applied after
prestressing is accomplished.
n = modular ratio
Note: K cr = Should be reduced by 20% for lightweight concrete.
2.4.4 Shrinkage Loss (SH)

V
(
∆ f pSH =8.2 x 10−6 K SH E ps 1−0.06
S )
( 100−RH )
Where: K SH = 1.0 for pretensioned
RH = Relative Humility
V
= Volume/Surface ratio
S
2.5 Reinforced Concrete Formulas
2.5.1 Design of Slabs

2.5.1.1 One Way Slab


LongerSpan
Onewayslab= ≥2
ShorterSpan

2.5.1.2 Two Way Slab


Longer Span
Two way slab= <2
Shorter Span

The moments in the middle strips are calculated using formula (1) and (2)
(1) 𝑀𝑎 = 𝐶a𝑤𝑙a²
(2) 𝑀𝑏 = 𝐶𝑏𝑤𝑙𝑏²
Where: Ca = moment coefficient from table
Cb = moment coefficient from table
w = uniform load (psf)
la = clear span length in short direction
lb = clear span length in long direction

ØVc=Ø λ 4 √ f ' c bod


Table 2-2 Coefficients for Negative Moments in Slabs
Table 2-3 Coefficients for Dead Load Positive Moment in Slabs
Table 2-4 Coefficients for Live Load Positive Moments in Slabs
Table 2-5 Coefficients for Shear in Slabs
2.5.2 Design of Columns

Pcap =θ 0.85 ( 0.85 f ' c ( A g− A st ) +f y A st )


Where:
θ=0.75 for composite member with spiral reinforcement
¿ 0.70 for other reinforcement
A st =area of reinforcing steel of strength f y
A g=gross con crete area=b x t
A st =area of steel reinforcement

2.5.2.1 For Shear Reinforcements (Limits of Reinforcement)

A st shall not be less than0.01 A g∧shall not be more than 0.8 A g


NSCP 2010 (Sec 410.10)
08. A g > A st >0.01 A g

1 Nu
V c=
6(1+
14 A g )√ '
f c bd

Where:
θ
d=h−cc−θLT −
2
Nu=Pu

V u=∅ ( Vc+ Vs )

2.5.2.2 For spacing


Av f y d
s=
Vs
0.33 √ f ' c bwd > Vs
d
s=
2
Maximum Spacings:
s=16× d b where d b =longitudinal diameter
¯
s=48 × ∅<¿where ∅ <¿ tie diameter
s = least dimension of column

NOTE: ADOPT THE SMALLEST SPACING

2.6 Local Literature


2.6.1 "Design Considerations for Precast Prestressed Concrete Building Structures in Seismic
Areas" by Alfred A. Vee, P.E., Dr. Eng.

This study Discusses the major design considerations necessary in the successful construction of
precast, prestressed concrete building structures situated in seismic areas. The Ramon Magsaysay
Building, Manila, Philippines, is a 18-story building (including basement) reinforced concrete
structure utilizes precast, prestressed concrete joists and composite in-place floor slabs. The
structural system to resist lateral forces due to seismic or wind loads is a shear wall system. The
shear walls are symmetrically clustered about the center of the building, thus eliminating eccentric
forces. This building experienced severe earthquake forces in 1968 and 1972 (Richter Scale 7.2)
and in July 1990 (Richter Scale 7.7) without suffering any structural damage.

2.6.2 “Effect of Cut Prestressed Steel Tendon Wires on the Structural Strength of Normal
Concrete” by Nahum L. Bravo

According to this study, the results indicate that the pre-stressed steel tendons have relatively no
significant effect on the compressive strength of concrete. On the other hand, cut prestressed steel
tendons added to a concrete mixture produced concrete specimens with significantly high flexure
(bending) strength. The flexure strength of concrete increased by as much as 50% compared to
ordinary concrete with the incorporation of 2.0% volume of cut pre-stressed tendons in the concrete
mixture. The incorporation of cut pre-stressed steel tendons also visibly reduced cracking in
concrete. The resulting concrete also exhibited less brittleness and disintegration at applied failure
loads.
2.6.3 “Experimental evaluation of the structural performance of deformed wide-flange beam
retrofitted with harped exterior post tension system” by . Lejano et al.

An innovative Exterior Post Tensioning (EPT) system is proposed which enables a structural beam
to be retrofitted by simply using a turnbuckle to induce the prestressing force was discussed in this
section. The use of turnbuckle instead of the usual hydraulic jack would greatly reduce the cost of
retrofitting. Previous studies conducted by Adiaz, et al showed that the application of EPT can be
utilized in retrofitting structural steel beams. However, it had failures primarily on the welds of the
anchorages; thus, not maximizing its full use. The solution proposed is to introduce harped tendons
jacked by a turnbuckle. Test results showed that the harped system was able to reach a maximum
significantly higher than the unharped system. The harped EPT also prevented early failure due to
welding failure at the connection.

2.6.4 “Panguil Bay Bridge, Northern Mindanao”

In this study, the approach bridge will be a multi continuous pre-stressed concrete bridge based on
pre-stressed concrete box girders. The main and approach bridges will feature cast-in-place pile
foundations and will be built using free-cantilever and incremental launching methods respectively.
A primary reason for using continuity with precast, prestressed girders is the elimination of the
maintenance costs associated with bridge deck joints and deck drain-age onto the substructure.

2.6.5 “Structural Retrofitting of Simply Supported Reinforced Concrete Beams Using Turnbuckle
Exterior Post Tensioning” by: B. Lejano, D. Grimares, M. Peñamante, J. Roxas, and K. Toral

The T-EPT was effective in bringing the RC beam back to its original condition while still in the
elastic region of the RC beam. In the inelastic region of the RC beam, the T-EPT was only able to
go up to a certain extent to bring back the beam back to the original condition with at least 2mm in
deformation, on average. It is also concluded that the force produced by the T-EPT was able to
resist the load applied to the beam hence shows an increase to the flexural strength of the beam. In
terms of steel ratio and compressive strength, it is concluded that the higher the steel ratio, the
higher energy output that the T-EPT must produce in order to meet the original conditions of the
beam.
2.7 Foreign Literature

2.7.1 Precast Prestressed Concrete Construction in Malaysia

In this study, precast concrete construction showed how it started in Malaysia. The first precast
concrete building was built with the erection of 7 blocks of 17-storey flat, 4 blocks of 4-storey flat and
40 units of shop house opposite the Kuala Lumpur General Hospital at the intersection of Jalan
Pekeliling and Jalan Pahang (Zakaria, 2002). This maiden project used the Larsen-Nielson system
from Denmark. This was the brainchild of the minister and several officers of the Housing and Local
Authority Ministry who visited several countries in Europe to learn about precast concrete
construction.

2.7.2 Second Precast Prestressed Concrete Construction in Malaysia

The second construction project, which used precast concrete, was the construction of 6 blocks of
17-storey flat, 3 blocks of 18-storey flat and 66 units of shop house along Jalan Rifle Range,
Penang. This project used the French’s Estiot system (Tan, 2000). Since then, numerous precast
concrete structures such as high-rises, car parks, warehouses, factories, housings and retail units
have been built all over the country. Some latest examples are the Telekom Headquarter in KL,
townhouses in Cyberjaya, City Square in Johor Bahru, Flextronic Manufacturing Plant in Senai,
Putra Mosque in Putrajaya and Metal Pak Factory in Shah Alam (Eastern, 2004).

2.7.3 Elias Issa Saqan, Evaluation of ductile beam-column connections for use in seismic-
resistant precast frames, Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Texas at Austin,
1995

According to this study, four types of ductile connections were considered in this study.
Four half-scale models of prototype precast beam-column connections subjected to
reversed cyclic loads have been constructed and tested. The experimental study
demonstrated that it is possible to design and construct precast beam- column connections,
where beams and columns are joined with ductile connecting elements, to withstand
severe inelastic deformations resulting from earthquake forces. It was concluded from the
experimental program that the large forces required to be resisted by the perimeter lateral-
force- resisting frames resulted in large beam and column sizes and large amounts of
reinforcement that made detailing of the members extremely difficult. hence use of High
strength steel. Due to the jointed nature of precast frames, special attention must be paid to
the stiffness of the structure

2.7.4 Bindurani, P, A. Meher Prasad, Amlan K. Sengupta, Analysis of Precast Multistoreyed


Building - A Case Study, International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering
and Technology (ICEE 2013), 2013

This study presents the modelling of connections in a wall type precast building system. A case
study on a 23-storeyed building, made up of precast wall panels and slabs, to study the modelling of
vertical joints in terms of shear transfer, is presented in the paper. Two computational models were
investigated to find the effect of modelling the vertical joints between the wall panels, on the drifts
and the generated forces in the walls. It was observed that the model, which was not considering
any shear transfer through the vertical joints, tend to provide conservative results in terms of amount
of steel requirement. The emulative monolithic wall system seems to be adequate in moderate
seismic zones. The provisions of tie reinforcements, reinforced shear keys and dowel bars provide
the required structural integrity for the precast system to avoid progressive collapse. The emulative
monolithic wall system seems to be adequate in moderate seismic zones. The provisions of tie
reinforcements, reinforced shear keys and dowel bars provide the required structural integrity for the
precast system.

2.7.5 R. Vidjeapriya and K.P. Jaya, Behaviour of Precast Beam-Column Mechanical


Connections under cyclic loading, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing)
Vol. 13, No. 2 (2012), 2011

This study shows how the experiments were conducted on 1/3 scale models of two types of precast
beam-column connections and a monolithic connection. The precast connections considered are
the beam-column connections in which beam is connected to column with corbel using (i) J-bolt and
(ii) cleat angle. The specimens were subjected to reverse cyclic loading. The experimental results of
the precast specimens were compared with those of the monolithic connection. Axial load was
applied to the column using 400kN capacity actuator. The cyclic loading is applied in the beam
using another two actuators, one for positive load cycle and the other for the negative load cycle.
The hysteresis behavior, load carrying capacity, energy dissipation capacity and ductility factor were
measured and the performance for the precast and monolithic beam-column connections were
compared. Precast specimens showed increased stiffness in the negative direction due to the
presence of Corbel. In precast connection, the column reinforcements were free from strains
compared to that of monolithic connection.

2.7.6 P. K. Aninthaneni and R. P. Dhakal, Conceptual development: low Loss Precast Concrete
Frame Building System with Steel Connections, 2014 NZSEE Conference, New Zealand, 2014

Schematic development of a sustainable demountable precast RC frame system, in which the


precast members are connected with steel angles/plates, steel tubes/plates and high strength
friction grip (HSFG) bolts, is discussed. The concept of this system allows a mechanical pin to be
used in the gravity frame connections such that only the seismic frames share the lateral force
imposed by earthquakes and the gravity frames do not damage at all in earthquakes. In the
proposed precast structural system, damaged structural elements in seismic frames can be easily
replaced with new ones; thereby rendering it a definitely repairable and low loss system, despite not
being a damage avoidance solution. The load transfer mechanism from the weak beam to the
strong column through the connection is explained and a model is proposed to analyse the
connections. A new precast concrete frame building system is proposed which inherently offers
unique advantages such as; quick construction, simple, demountable and reusable, easily
upgradable, quickly repairable to insurance policy compliant condition etc. The proposed system is
sustainable and can be easily implemented into practice in all RC frame buildings. It is particularly
suitable for temporary structures.
2.7.7 M.J.Gopinathan and K.Subramanian, High Performance and Efficiency of Joints in Precast
Members, M. J. Gopinathan et.al / International Journal of Engineering and Technology (IJET),
2009

The usage of precast concrete began about 70 years ago. Till now the technology has maintained
its status in the construction industry as “The Least Understood form of Construction”. The
advantages of the pre-cast construction are not explored by most part of the world especially by the
developing countries. In the competition between precast and monolithic structures, prefabrication
gains an ever increasing prominence because it is accompanied by the improvement of quality,
while the requirement in materials, working time and cost shows a decreased tendency. This paper
presents the results of a two dimensional 3-bay G+5 storeyed prefabricated frame subjected to
lateral loading. The joints in beam column junction and joints in beam to beam connection were
strengthened by specially designed steel bolts and L-angles by welding and bolting. The frame was
subjected to lateral cyclic load until failure. The results are compared with ANSYS model. The
efficiency and performance of beam-column joints and beam-beam joints were studied and the
behaviour of prefabricated frame is compared with monolithic frame.

2.7.8 Patrick Tiong Liq Yee, Azlan Bin Adnan, Abdul Karim Mirasa and Ahmad Baharuddin
Abdul Rahman , Performance of IBS Precast Concrete Beam-Column Connections Under
Earthquake Effects: A Literature Review, American J. of Engineering and Applied Sciences 4
(1): 93-101, 2011, ISSN 1941-7020,2010 Science Publications, 2011

The main objective of this study was to identify the most appropriate type of beam-column
connections to be introduced to precast concrete industry, particularly for regions of low to moderate
seismicity. Hence, this study presented a comprehensive literature overview of the findings from
studies conducted to analyze and investigate the behavior of precast concrete systems assembled
with typical connections or joints under simulated earthquake loading. The seismic performance of
precast concrete structure very much depended on the ductility capacity of the connectors jointing
each precast components, especially at critical joints such as the beam-tocolumn connections.
2.7.9 G. Metelli and P. Riva, Behaviour of a Beam to Column “DRY” Joint for Precast Concrete
Elements, The World Conference on Earthquake Engineering October 12-17, 2008, Beijing,
China, 2008

In Italy, precast concrete structures are traditionally designed as moment resisting frames with
plastic hinges occurring at the column base and beams hinged to the columns. A ductile moment
resisting connection between the column and the beam can provide the advantage of designing a
seismic resisting frame which can develop plastic hinges at the beam-column joints, besides those
at the column base. This paper aims at presenting the results of experimental tests concerning the
cyclic behaviour of a particular beam column“dry” connection for precast concrete elements. The
joint is characterized by the use of high strength steel bars and of a fibre reinforced grout pad in the
“Z” shaped beam-column interface, increasing the shear resistance of the connection. The
experimental results show a good performance of the joint, in term of resistance, ductility and
energy dissipation, with little damage observed in the connected members.

2.7.10 M. N. KATAOKA, M. A. FERREIRA, A. L. H. C. EL DEBS, A study on the behavior of


beam-column connections in precast concrete structures: experimental analysis, Ibracon
Structures and Materials Journal, Volume 5, Number 5, 2012

Due to the large increase in the use of precast concrete structures in multistory buildings, this work
covers a study on the behavior of beam-column connection with emphasis on the continuity
provided by the slab reinforcement. Two prototypes were tested, each one with a different detail of
the continuity reinforcement distribution. In both connections, the steel area used on the concrete
cover of the hollow core slab was the same, varying the amount of bars that passed through the
column and the ones that were placed adjacent to the column. The experimental results showed
that the connection with bars adjacent to the column presented stiffness increase and a better
cracking control. According to the classification the two tested connections can be considered semi-
rigid. Based on this research, with two tests of connections, it was possible to analyze the behavior
of the beam-column connection between precast concrete elements which is widely used on sites
and also to test an experimental methodology which is not standardized in Brazil. The method used
to measure the rotation which employed the transducers placed on the corbels was very
satisfactory.
Chapter 3 :CONSTRAINTS, TRADEOFFS AND STANDARDS
3.1 Design Constraints
Constraints are the important factor that must be considered in designing to make an effective and efficient
project. Constraints are the limitation of what the designers can’t control yet a parameter that the designers
can consider being able to improve the design of the project. The process of managing constraints must be
practical and effective, for it might be the reason that the performance of the project will reduce or
eliminate.
In this project, the constraints are measured by using quantitative and qualitative engineering methods.
Quantitative constraints are those that can be measured by the designer’s estimation and perception while
the qualitative constraints are those that cannot be measured or calculated but only evaluated through the
designer’s perception and experience.
3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints
These things are measured through engineering methods. The following quantitative constraints to
be enumerated are considered in the design.
3.1.1.1 Economic (Project Cost)
The designers consider this as the governing constraint since this is significant for both parties, the
designers and to the client. Ideally, financial costs should account for the full costs during the life
cycle of the project, including initial installation composed of doing activities such as transporting
equipment, construction, and permitting. However, through this economic constraint, the designers
will be able to produce designs and examine a comparison among the listed tradeoffs below to
determine which of those could be the cheapest yet adequate, effective, and efficient without
sacrificing the quality and functionality of the design for the client.The allotted and approved budget
of the client for the project is Php. 50,000,000. Any further increase in costing will no longer be
negotiable.
3.1.1.2 Constructability (Project Duration)
On this constraint, the designers considered the time needed for how long a specific design can be
constructed. The duration of a project can only be estimated once you know what resources are
available. The manpower of the project must be able to meet the expected duration proposed by
the client. The project is expected to be done in a minimal amount of time if the designers would
consider maximizing the manpower. The designers must determine the accurate number of man-
hours required on the project because failure to estimate the duration properly can affect the overall
cost. The designers will compare which among all the tradeoffs will require a lesser amount of man-
hour for the whole process. The client wants to have an additional public school building for
students as soon as possible in order to provide additional classrooms to accommodate all of the
students in the area and to avoid congested classrooms. Depending upon which trade-off will satisfy
the condition set by the client which will not exceed in 2-year project duration.
3.1.1.3 Risk Assessment (Lateral Displacement)
For the risk assessment of the school building, it is the capacity of the building to withhold loads and
the factor of safety that it will impose in the design. Lateral displacement response is critical to the
prestressed concrete performance due to limited energy dissipation.The designer will take a look of
which trade-offs will show a lesser lateral displacement, when the loads are applied. It will be known
of which of the design will give greater efficiency and safety with less lateral displacement occurs in
a system. The risk assessment of the building pertains to the lesser lateral movement of the
structure when loads are applied.
3.1.1.4 Sustainability (Maintenance Cost)
Sustainability is the study of how natural systems function, remain diverse and produce everything
it needs for the ecology to remain balance. In this case, the sustainability will be measured by
design life of each trade-off. In accordance with the regulations from PCI Design Handbook 6th
Edition, the design life of prestressed concrete will last until 50 years. Hence, the limitation of the
design will focus only on the maintenance cost of the project throughout its design life. one of the
basic ideas in engineering design is that with greater design strength, there is an equivalent
increase in cost due to the need of higher quality material. It is undeniable that sustainability of
government projects is something that must not be overlooked to effectively choose the best
among the alternatives.
3.1.2 Qualitative Constraints
These are the things that are measurable only with one’s perception of its quality. Thus, anyone can
conclude by his or her own thinking, but no one can conclude that there is one standard
measurement for knowing the quality of a certain thing.
3.1.2.1 Social and political
In respect to the surrounding area where there are people living and are greatly affected or not
even affected but in the area near the construction, is where social constraints usually pop out.
This is where the surrounding neighbors of the structure is being understand and tried to be
recognized of what are their thoughts of the construction and their needs or possibly their demands
to approved to the construction. However their demands must be legal and has a basis of where
their rights as an individual is appropriate. This is done to prevent future conflict with the neighbors
because there is a chance that they do not want any noise or any disturbances while the
construction is being done. Furthermore, politics can hinder the construction of the building. Budget
cuts and unexpected transfer of funds can change the materials used, the personnel in charge and
even the final design.
3.1.2.2 Aesthetics
Aside from being functional of the trade-offs, the designers should also take into consideration the
beauty of the design. This constraint pertains to the appearance of the design in terms of shape,
proportion, balance, texture and color. Since the project is a public school building and the
beneficiaries of the design will be the students, so, the aesthetic impact of the school to the
community should be considered. The appearance of the building is highly required to use advance
technology and innovations in the architectural design and should blend naturally to the beauty of
the environment.
3.1.2.3 Environmental
In this constraint, the designers will take into consideration the factors that may affect the
environment while the construction phase of the project is on-going. The materials that will be used
should not have an environmental impact on the environment by using less hazardous materials.
Furthermore, it should promote the preservation of ecology that no habitat must be destroyed
during the construction phase. Additionally, the designers will also consider the weather
disturbances in which the construction of the building might slow down if calamity happens.
Typhoons, earthquakes and flash floods can affect the construction phase and the materials to be
used may be damage or ruined.
3.2 Design Trade-offs

3.2.1 TRADE-OFF 1: RECTANGULAR PRESTRESSED BEAM

The designers will design the beam with use of prestressed rectangular beam. Unlike the other two
trade-offs, the designers will only consider the rectangular beam all throughout the structure.
A pre-stressed rectangular beam is a horizontal structural member in a framed structure, made of
concrete and reinforced steel bars. It is “pre-stressed” by being placed under compression prior to
supporting any loads to provide additional strength to the structure. By the name itself, this beam is
rectangular in shape. The rectangular beam continues to demonstrate its flexibility by providing
design options using boxes in an adjacent arrangement with either a cast-in-place concrete deck or
an asphalt paved surface or a spread arrangement with stay-in-place forming and a poured
concrete deck.
Source:http://www.nppbeams.com/products-services/prestressed-concrete-box-beams/
Table 3-6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Rectangular Prestressed Beam

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
 Prestressed concrete members are free  It is costlier than other rcc structures.
from cracks and the resistance to the effect  Prestressing also reduces the
of impact, shock, and stresses are higher diagonal tension in concrete.
than rcc structures.
 The main disadvantage of prestressing is  The shear resistance of members
that it requires some special equipment like can be increased by using curved
jacks, anchorage etc, which pretends the tendons.
use of prestressing.  It requires a smaller amount of
 Longevity of prestressed structure is construction materials.
greater than rcc structure because the Prestressed members are lighter
reinforcement stays unaffected from outer in weight and easily
agencies. transportable.
 High tensile steel is required for
prestressing that is very difficult to procure.
 High compressive strength of concrete and
high tensile strength of steel are used for
prestressing that makes it more
economical.
 It requires highly skilled workers and
should be prepared under expert
supervision.
 Smaller sections can be used for longer span by
reducing the section of members.
Figure 3-8 Pre-stressed Rectangular Beam

Figure 3-9 Perspective View of Rectangular Beam using Sketch Up 2017

3.2.2 TRADE-OFF 2: COMBINED PRESTRESSED INVERTED T-BEAM AND L-BEAM

In designing the beam of the structure, the designers will be going to use the combination of
prestressed Inverted T-Beam and L-Beam. The L-beam will be placed at the corner beams of the
structure while Inverted T-beam is for the interior beams.
Pre-stressed inverted T-beams have a swallow-tailed upper part and a rough surface giving a good
surface key. It is a pre-stressed concrete element having a constant in cross section. Like other pre-
stressed beams, they are manufactured using high tensile pre-stressed wires which are entrenched
within the element. It has many uses in construction and varies within certain limits; while L-Beams
(end beams) which have slabs on one side only. In most of the reinforced concrete structures,
concrete slabs are cast monolithic. In a floor consisting of several beams cast monolithically with
slab, the intermediate beams acts as T-Beams whereas the beams at top of the corners of the walls
or beams around the staircase of lift openings. Thus, T-beams and L-beams forms a part of the floor
system together with slab. L-beams are typical floor beams because of the reduced overall
structural depth, the beams are in prestressed or reinforced concrete.
Source:https://www.nordimpianti.com/Concrete-Elements/Inverted-T-Beams
https://www.slideshare.net/MatNik1/structure-reinforced-concrete?next_slideshow=1

Table 3-7 Advantages and Disadvantages of Prestressed Inverted T-Beam

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
 The possibility to use them in many areas of  Using these elements floors can be quickly
construction such as residential, and easily constructed because the element
commercial, and agricultural sectors itself works as a formwork
 There is a considerable increase in  There will be small savings in steel too
the shear stress at the junction of the (not a significant amount though)
flange and the web of the beam due to  Excellent rigidity during the loading,
the change in cross section. So unloading, lifting and installation. When
casting should be done very carefully compared to other non-pre-stressed
to ensure both are bonded well. elements of the same height these products
 Large production volumes with uniform offer more rigidity and less deformation
cross sections even with different cable under load and consequently are less likely
reinforcement configurations to suffer surface cracking
 Since the beam slab is monolithic (rigid), it  High load capability due to concrete with a
becomes very weak in resisting lateral low water/cement ratio able to be compliant
shear forces. (Cracks develops quickly). with even the toughest infrastructure
Hence usually in earthquake prone zones requirements
using t beams for high rise building is
reinforced with mechanical stiffeners in the
junction.

Source:https://www.nordimpianti.com/Concrete-Elements/Inverted-T-Beams

Table 3-8 Advantages and Disadvantages of Prestressed L-Beam

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
 L-beams are typical floor beams because of the  It requires high
reduced overall structural depth, the beams are in strength concrete and high tensile
prestressed or reinforced concrete. strength steel wires.
 In bending the beams take tension forces and slabs  The main disadvantage is
takes compression forces. construction requires additional
 L-beams receive their loads from one side only, they special equipment like jacks,
are subjected to considerable amount of torsional anchorage etc.
moments  It requires highly skilled workers
 In most of the reinforced concrete structures, under skilled supervision.
concrete slabs are cast monolithic.
 In a floor consisting several beams cast monolithically  Construction cost is little higher
w/ the slab, the intermediate beams act as T-beams than RCC structures
whereas the beams at a corner of the walls or beams
around the staircase of lift openings.

Source: https://www.slideshare.net/honeysid/l-beams-or-flanged-beams-presentation

Figure 3-10 Pre-stressed L-Beam Figure 3-11 Pre-stressed Inverted T- Beam

Figure 3-12 Combined Inverted T- Beam and L-Beam

3.2.3 TRADE-OFF 3: COMBINED PRESTRESSED RECTANGULAR BEAM AND L-BEAM


The designers will design the beam of the structure with the use of prestressed rectangular beams
and L-beams. The L-beams will be placed at the corner beams of the structure while rectangular
beam is for the interior beams.
A pre-stressed rectangular beam is a horizontal structural member in a framed structure, made of
concrete and reinforced steel bars. It is “pre-stressed” by being placed under compression prior to
supporting any loads to provide additional strength to the structure. By the name itself, this beam is
rectangular in shape. The rectangular beam continues to demonstrate its flexibility by providing
design options using boxes in an adjacent arrangement with either a cast-in-place concrete deck or
an asphalt paved surface or a spread arrangement with stay-in-place forming and a poured
concrete deck. ; While L-Beams (end beams) which have slabs on one side only. In most of the
reinforced concrete structures, concrete slabs are cast monolithic. In a floor consisting of several
beams cast monolithically with slab, the intermediate beams acts as T-Beams whereas the beams
at top of the corners of the walls or beams around the staircase of lift openings. Thus, T-beams and
L-beams forms a part of the floor system together with slab. L-beams are typical floor beams
because of the reduced overall structural depth, the beams are in prestressed or reinforced
concrete.
Source:http://www.nppbeams.com/products-services/prestressed-concrete-box-
beams/https://www.slideshare.net/MatNik1/structure-reinforced-concrete?next_slideshow=1

Table 3-9 Advantages and Disadvantages of Rectangular Prestressed Beam

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
 Prestressed concrete members are free from  It is costlier than other rcc
cracks and the resistance to the effect of impact, structures.
shock, and stresses are higher than rcc  Prestressing also reduces
structures. the diagonal tension in
 The main disadvantage of prestressing is that it concrete.
requires some special equipment like jacks,
anchorage etc, which pretends the use of  The shear resistance of
prestressing. members can be increased
 Longevity of prestressed structure is greater than by using curved tendons.
rcc structure because the reinforcement stays  It requires a smaller
unaffected from outer agencies. amount of construction
 High tensile steel is required for prestressing that materials.
is very difficult to procure. Prestressed members are
 High compressive strength of concrete and high lighter in weight and easily
tensile strength of steel are used for prestressing transportable.
that makes it more economical.
 It requires highly skilled workers and should be
prepared under expert supervision.
 Smaller sections can be used for longer span by
reducing the section of members.

Figure 3-13 Pre-stressed L-Beam Figure 3-14 Pre-stressed Rectangular


Beam

Figure 3-15 Combined Rectangular Beam and L-Beam

3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking

The designers used engineering methods to rate each tradeoff and tradeoff assessment in order to give the
client an accurate analysis and proposal on which is the most ideal design among them while taking into
consideration that the designers designed each trade-off based on constraints. Each tradeoff is measured
accordingly based on its importance on the designers' point of view. This process involves a modified
evaluation approach by Otto and Antonsson (1991). Originally, each trade-off was scaled from -5 to +5.
However, the criterion importance was revised into a scale of 0-10 provided that the computation for the
percentage difference remains the same. Each trade-off will be ranked following the concept of percentage
analyzation according to its ability to satisfy the given criterion.
h ig h ervalue−lowervalue
% Difference= × 10
h ig h ervalue
Subordinate Ranking = Governing ranking – (% Difference) x 10
On the designer's point of view, the governing rank is based on how significant each constraint is. And
since each person has their different perspective towards the constraints, different instances might occur.
According to Otto and Antonsson (1991), the subordinate rank is an entity or variable that corresponds to
its percentage distance from the governing rank.
As stated in this chapter, safety and cost indeed affect the outcome of the project. Time and quality is
merely an important factor that must be considered in project construction. If time is money, then the lesser
amount of time exerted in project completion would definitely save a lot of money. On the other hand, low
budget greatly affects the quality of the project hence might be costly in the long run.
With regards to the constraints, the designers deliberate about the rankings and the ability of each trade-off
to satisfy the criterions. The raw rankings are shown below.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 3-16 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference


3.3.1 Summary of Initial Total per Unit Cost Estimated Trade off Values
Table 3-10 Initial Estimation per Unit Cost

Combined Pre- Combined Pre-


Pre-stressed
DESCRIPTION stressed Inverted T- stressed Rectangular
Rectangular Beam
Beam and L-Beam Beam and L-Beam
Economic Php. 86,557.60
Php. 93,871.23 Php. 92,816.85
(Project Cost)
Constructability
347 calendar days 432 calendar days 414 calendar days
(Project Duration)
Risk Assessment Php. 86,557.60
Php. 93,871.23 Php. 92,816.85
(Lateral Displacement)
Sustainability
Php. 4,327.88 Php. 4,693.56 Php. 4,640.84
(Maintenance Cost)

3.3.1.1 Economic Constraint (Project Cost)

Table 3-11 Initial Estimate for Project Cost

Description Combined Pre-stressed Combined Pre-stressed


Pre-stressed
Inverted T-Beam and L- Rectangular Beam and
Rectangular Beam
Beam L-Beam
Php. 93,871.23 Php. 92,816.85
Economic Php. 86,557.60
(Project Cost)

Subordinated Rank 10 9.22 9.33

Trade-off 1 vs. Trade-off 2


h ig h ervalue−lowervalue
% Difference= × 10
h ig h ervalue
Subordinate Ranking = Governing ranking – (% Difference)

Php . 93,871.23−Php . 86,557.60


% difference= ×10=0 .78
Php . 93,871.23
SubordinateRank=10−0.78=9 .22

Figure 3-17 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 2 in Economic Constraint


Trade-off 1 vs. Trade-off 3
h ig h ervalue−lowervalue
% Difference= × 10
h ig h ervalue
Subordinate Ranking = Governing ranking – (% Difference)

Php . 92,816.85−Php . 86,557.60


% difference= ×10=0 . 67
Php . 92,816.85
SubordinateRank=10−0.67=9 .33
Figure 3-18 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 3 in Economic Constraint
3.3.1.2 Constructability Constraint (Project Duration)

Table 3-12 Initial Estimate for Project Duration

Combined Pre-stressed Combined Pre-stressed


Pre-stressed
Description Inverted T-Beam and L- Rectangular Beam and
Rectangular Beam
Beam L-Beam
Constructability
347 calendar days 432 calendar days 414 calendar days
(Project Cost)

Subordinated Rank 10 8.03 8.38

Trade-off 1 vs. Trade-off 2


h ig h ervalue−lowervalue
% Difference= × 10
h ig h ervalue
Subordinate Ranking = Governing ranking – (% Difference)

432 calendar days−347 calendar days


% difference= ×10=1 . 97
432 calendar days
SubordinateRank=10−1.97=8 .03

Figure 3-19 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 2 in Constructability Constraint


Trade-off 1 vs. Trade-off 3
h ig h ervalue−lowervalue
% Difference= × 10
h ig h ervalue
Subordinate Ranking = Governing ranking – (% Difference)

414 calendar days−347 calendar days


% difference= ×10=1 .62
414 calendar days
SubordinateRank=10−1.62=8 . 38

Figure 3-20 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 3 in Constructability Constraint

3.3.1.3 Risk Assessment (Lateral Displacement)

Table 3-13 Initial Estimate for Lateral Displacement

Combined Pre-stressed Combined Pre-stressed


Pre-stressed
Description Inverted T-Beam and L- Rectangular Beam and
Rectangular Beam
Beam L-Beam
Risk Assessment Php. 86,557.60
Php. 93,871.23 Php. 92,816.85
(Lateral Displacement)

Subordinated Rank 9.43 10 9.89

Trade-off 2 vs. Trade-off 1


h ig h ervalue−lowervalue
% Difference= × 10
h ig h ervalue
Subordinate Ranking = Governing ranking – (% Difference)

Php . 93,871.23−Php . 86,557.60


% difference= ×10=0 .57
Php . 93,871.23
SubordinateRank=10−0.57=9 . 43

Figure 3-21 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 1 in Risk Assessment


Trade-off 2 vs. Trade-off 3
h ig h ervalue−lowervalue
% Difference= × 10
h ig h ervalue
Subordinate Ranking = Governing ranking – (% Difference)

Php . 93,871.23−Php . 92,816.85


% difference= ×10=0 .11
Php . 93,871.23
SubordinateRank=10−0.11=9 . 89

Figure 3-22 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 3 in Risk Assessment


3.3.1.4 Sustainability (Maintenance Cost)

Table 3-14 Initial Estimate for Maintenance Cost

Combined Pre-stressed Combined Pre-stressed


Pre-stressed
Description Inverted T-Beam and L- Rectangular Beam and
Rectangular Beam
Beam L-Beam
Sustainability
Php. 4,327.88 Php. 4,693.56 Php. 4,640.84
(Maintenance Cost)

Subordinated Rank 10 9.22 9.33

Trade-off 1 vs. Trade-off 2


h ig h ervalue−lowervalue
% Difference= × 10
h ig h ervalue
Subordinate Ranking = Governing ranking – (% Difference)
Php . 4,693.56−Php . 4,327.88
% difference= ×10=0 .78
Php . 4,693.56
SubordinateRank=10−0.78=9 .22

Figure 3-23 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 2 in Sustainability Constraint

Trade-off 1 vs. Trade-off 3


h ig h ervalue−lowervalue
% Difference= × 10
h ig h ervalue
Subordinate Ranking = Governing ranking – (% Difference)

Php . 4,640.84−Php. 4,327.88


% difference= ×10=0 .67
Php . 4,640.84
SubordinateRank=10−0.67=9 .33

Figure 3-24 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 3 in Sustainability Constraint


The criterion’s importance is a subjective, thus, the value will depend on the client’s preferable
requirements and the designer’s perspective in the design of the trade-offs. On the constraints above,
Furthermore, economic cost also considered having an important factor of (10) as the allocation of the
budget of the client is much important in the project. They wanted to have a lower cost as much as possible
in order for them to save much money. The risk assessment has given an important factor of (9) as the
lateral displacement of the structure is also considered in the project. The constructability constraint has
given the importance factor of (9) as the client wanted to finish the construction of the school building as
much as possible because they are in immediate need of classrooms to be used by incoming Senior High
School students. The sustainability constraint was given a value of (8) since the maintenance cost of the
project and the rehabilitation is the priority so that the project would be safe for its entire lifespan.
Table 3-15 Importance factor of each constraint

Constraint Importance Factor


Economic Constraint (Project Cost) 10
Constructability Constraint (Project Duration) 9
Risk Assessment (Lateral Displacement) 9
Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost) 8

Table 3-16 Designer’s Initial Raw Ranking


Ability to satisfy the criterion

Criterion’s Combined Pre-


Constraints Combined Pre-
Importance Pre-stressed stressed
stressed Inverted
(on a scale of 0 Rectangular Rectangular
T-Beam and L-
to 10) Beam Beam and L-
Beam
Beam
Economic
10 10 100 9.22 92.2 9.33 93.3
(Project Cost)
Constructability
9 10 90 8.03 72.27 8.38 75.42
(Project Duration)
Risk Assessment
9 9.43 84.87 10 90 9.89 89.01
(Lateral Displacement)
Sustainability
8 10 80 9.22 73.76 9.33 74.64
(Maintenance Cost)
OVERALL RANK: 354.87 328.25 332.37

**Reference: Otto, K. N. and Anstonsson, 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 August 24, 2016

3.4 Trade-off Assessment


3.4.1 Economic Constraints (Project Cost)

With regards to the result of the initial raw ranking, pre-stressed rectangular beam, combined pre-
stressed Inverted T-Beam and L-Beam and combined pre-stressed rectangular beam and L-Beam
has a subordinate ranking of 10, 9.22 and 9.33 respectively. In this constraint, the lower the project
cost is more economical because it should always take into consideration the allocation of budget
of the client all throughout the construction. With regards to this,pre-stressed rectangular beam
governs with a unit cost of Php. 86,557.60. Pre-stressed rectangular beam is followed by combined
pre-stressed rectangular beam and L-Beam, and combined pre-stressed Inverted T-Beam and L-
Beamwith unit cost of Php. 92,816.85 and Php. 93,871.23 respectively.

3.4.2 Constructability Constraints (Project Duration)


Based on the result of initial raw ranking, it says that the double tee slab, pre-stressed rectangular
beam, combined pre-stressed Inverted T-Beam and L-Beam and combined pre-stressed
rectangular beam and L-Beam has a subordinate ranking of 10, 8.03 and 8.38 respectively. This
only shows that the prestressed rectangular beam has the shortest duration for the whole span of
the project.

3.4.3 Risk Assessment (Lateral Displacement)

Based on the result of initial raw ranking, it says that the pre-stressed rectangular beam, combined
pre-stressed Inverted T-Beam and L-Beam and combined pre-stressed rectangular beam and L-
Beam has a subordinate ranking of 9.43, 10 and 9.33 respectively. The combined pre-stressed
Inverted T-Beam and L-Beam governs among the trade-offs as the higher the cost will lead to safe
in lateral displacement with a cost of Php. 93,871.23. It is followed by pre-stressed rectangular
beam and combined pre-stressed rectangular beam and L-Beam with Php. 92,816.85and
₱86,557.60 respectively.

3.4.4 Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost)

With regards to the result of the initial raw ranking, pre-stressed rectangular beam, combined pre-
stressed Inverted T-Beam and L-Beam and combined pre-stressed rectangular beam and L-Beam
has a subordinate ranking of 10, 9.43 and 9.89 respectively. In this constraint, the lower the
maintenance cost is more favorable because it should always take into consideration the allocation
of budget all throughout the life span. With regards to this,pre-stressed rectangular beam governs
with a unit cost of Php. 4,327.88. Pre-stressed rectangular beam is followed by combined pre-
stressed rectangular beam and L-Beam, and combined pre-stressed Inverted T-Beam and L-Beam
with unit cost of Php. 4,640.84 and Php. 4,693.56 respectively.

3.5 Design Standards


The codes and standards used as a basis in this project are stated as follows where it defines all needed
requirements, design procedures, use of materials, and correct computation and analysis in designing the
structure:
3.3.1 National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015

This manual is from the Association Structural Engineering of the Philippines, Inc. which offers
information about structural components of the structure such as dead load, live load etc. The book
contains steps and set of standards in the design of the structure. The designers used this code as
their guidelines in the design process of some structural components of the design structure.
3.3.2 PCI Design Handbook, 6th Edition

This book is from the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute, in which they disseminate such helpful
guidelines about the prestressed and precast concrete. This 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. This is a design guide for precast
and prestressed concrete that provides easy to follow design procedures; numerical examples; and
both new and updated design aids. It provides the designer with comprehensive and efficient
procedures for the safe design of both architectural and structural precast and prestressed concrete
products.
3.3.3 Prestressed Concrete Design, A Fundamental Approached 5 th Edition by Edward Nawy

This book is covers different topics about prestressed concrete design that the designers used for
reference in analyzing the context of each structural member that will be designed using
prestressed concrete. This book helps the designers as it included necessary solving process that
the designer used as guidelines in order to solve for prestressing concrete components.

Chapter 4 : DESIGN OF STRUCTURE

4.1 Design Methodology


The design methodology was composed of different design procedures and parameters a scientific step-by-
step procedure that enables the designers to achieve the desire outcome. It will start on modelling the
structure in software, performing analysis and acquiring the data design the adequate members for each of
the trade-offs. The initial phase of the design project is to consider the layout or architectural plans of the
project. Public school building projects typically have a usual and straight forward designs. And as the main
purpose of this structure which is to serve people, therefore the designer must use all the spaces provided
in each floors. Building codes, such as National Building Code, outline requirements occupancy. Also, the
floor plan must accommodate the structural frame. An initial look into column spacing and locations and
interior furnishings. As the design process continues, the designers’ will design its structural members in
the most critical frame of the structure. Beams were designed by the following the Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute and Prestressed Concrete: A Fundamental Approach 5th Edition Update ACI, AASHTO,
IBC 2009 Codes Version by Nawy. The structural scheme selection process was one of the most difficult
tasks to complete. The designer used computer-aided software specifically STAAD Pro V8i and ETABS in
the structural analysis of the project. After the structural analysis, the designer can proceed to the design of
each member with different trade-offs conforming to each constraint.
4.2 Design Flowchart of Designing Beams
Figure 4-25 Process for Determining Beams
4.3 Design Flowchart of Designing Slabs
Figure 4-26 Process for Determining Slabs
4.4 Design Flowchart of Designing Columns
Figure 4-27 Process for Determining Columns
4.5 STRUCTURAL DESIGN

Structural design shows the design process that the designer undertook to design the Two Storey School
Building. The designer planned and assigned the structure model with the help of the software STAAD Pro
V8i, and the design specifications and specifications of materials that will be using to model the structural
model. In addition, this structural design shows the design of all trade-off that specify in CHAPTER 3 of this
paper. ‘

4.5.1 Geometric Design

Figure 4-28 Process for Determining Columns


4.5.2 Framing Plans

Figure 4-29 Second Floor Framing Plan

Figure 4-30 Foundation Plan

1.1 Load Diagrams


Figure 4-31 Dead Loads

Figure 4-32 Earthquake Loads Along X


Figure 4-33 Earthquake Loads Along Z

Figure 4-34 Live Loads


Figure 4-35 Wind Loads Along X

Figure 4-36 Wind Loads Along Z

4.6 Design Results


4.6.1 Results for Slabs

Table 4-17 Design Schedule for Slabs

Design Schedule for Slabs


Slab Length(m) Width Thickness No. of 12 mm main
Spacing (mm)
(m) (mm) bars
Long. Trav. Long. Trav.
Slab 1 5 3.075 150 166.667 250 6 4
Slab 2 4.5 4.2 150 125 166.667 8 6
Slab 3 4.5 3.1 150 166.667 250 6 4
Slab 4 5 2.5 150 250 250 4 4
Slab 5 4.5 2.5 150 250 250 4 4
Slab 6 4.225 2.025 150 250 250 4 4

4.6.2 Results for Beam

4.6.2.1 Prestressed Rectangular Beam


4.6.2.2
Table 4-18 Design Schedule for Rectangular Beam

Design Schedule for Rectangular Beams:


Beam-1 Beam-2

b=12 in. b=12 in.


h=24 in. h=20 in.

Length (m) 5 4.5


Normal Weight Concrete Normal Weight Concrete
Designation 12RB24 12RB20
No. Strand 108-S 88-S
See Appendix C for detailed computation of Prestressed Rectangular Beam

4.6.2.3 Combined Prestressed Inverted T-Beam and L-Beam

Table 4-19 Design Schedule for Prestressed Inverted T-Beam


Design Schedule for Inverted T-Beam
Beam-1 Beam-2

h= 20 in. h= 20 in.
h1= 12 in. h1= 12 in.
h2= 8 in. h2= 8 in.

Length (m) 5 4.5


Normal Weight Concrete Normal Weight Concrete
Designation 28IT20 28IT20
No. Strand 98-S 98-S

Table 4-20 Design Schedule for Prestressed L-Beam

Design Schedule for Prestressed L-Beam


Beam-1
See Appendix C for detailed
computations.
4.6.2.4 Combin
ed Prestressed
Rectangular
h= 36 in. Beam and L-
h1= 24 in. Beam
h2= 12 in.
Table 4-21 Design Schedule for
Rectangular Beam

Design Schedule for Rectangular Beams:


Beam-1 Beam-2
Length (m) 10
Normal Weight Concrete
Designation 20LB36
No. Strand 168-S
b=12 in. b=12 in.
h=24 in. h=20 in.

Length (m) 5 4.5


Normal Weight Concrete Normal Weight Concrete
Designation 12RB24 12RB20
No. Strand 108-S 88-S

Table 4-22 Design Schedule for Prestressed L-Beam

Design Schedule for Prestressed L-Beam


Beam-1

h= 36 in.
h1= 24 in.
h2= 12 in.

Length (m) 10
Normal Weight Concrete
Designation 20LB36
No. Strand 168-S
See Appendix C for detailed computations.

4.6.3 Forces and Moments on Beams

Table 4-23 Governing Forces and Moments on Beams

Maximum Moment(kN-
2nd Floor Level Axial (kN) Shear (kN) m)
Beam label P/T Fy Mz
B-1 11.493 71.193 68.293
B-2 2.621 117.388 108.892
B-3 5.976 64.723 57.867
B-4 12.241 15.376 13.435
B-5 11.562 32.161 170.281

4.6.4 Results for Columns

Table 4-24 Governing Axial Forces on Columns

Table 4-25 Governing Shear Demands on Columns

Table 4-26 Maximum Moment of Columns

Location Axial (KN) Moment-x (KN-m) Moment-y (KN-m)


Corner 503.777 8.873 119.514
Exterior 794.331 9.029 0.830
Interior 1010 4.156 4.481

Table 4-27 Bar dimensions and spacing

Designation Dimension Reinforcement Tie Bar Spacing


(m m 2)
Corner Column 500x500 6-25mm Ø 10mm Ø 400 O.C.
Interior Column 500x500 8-25mm Ø 10mm Ø 400 O.C.
Exterior Column 500x500 8-25mm Ø 10mm Ø 400 O.C.

4.7 Validation of Constraints with regards to Trade-offs

In this phase, the designers already gathered all the data needed for the final ranking of the proposed
trade-offs in Chapter 3. These data will be compared and evaluated. The designers will do the final ranking
which the trade-off that governs throughout tall the validation processes will be the winning tradeoff. The
winning trade-off with its results (project cost, project duration, lateral displacement, maintenance cost) will
be presented to the client as the best design for the project.
4.7.1 Final Cost Estimate

Table 4-28 Final Cost Estimate

Trade-offs
Combined Pre-stressed Combined Pre-stressed
Constraints Pre-stressed
Inverted T-Beam and L- Rectangular Beam and
Rectangular Beam
Beam L-Beam
1. Economic
Php. 63,187,048 Php. 68,525,997.9 Php. 67,756,300.5
(Project Cost)
2. Constructability
376 calendar days 419 calendar days 398 calendar days
(Project Duration)
3. Risk Assessment
Php. 63,187,048 Php. 68,525,997.9 Php. 67,756,300.5
(Lateral Displacement)
4. Sustainability
Php. 3,159,352.4 Php. 3,426,299.895 Php. 3,387,815.025
(Maintenance Cost)

4.7.2 Final Ranking

Table 4-29 Final Ranking of Trade-offs


Ability to satisfy the criterion

c Criterion’s Combined Pre-


Combined Pre-
Importance stressed
Pre-stressed stressed Inverted
(on a scale of 0 Rectangular
Rectangular Beam T-Beam and L-
to 10) Beam and L-
Beam
Beam
Economic
10 10 100 9.22 92.2 9.33 93.3
(Project Cost)
Constructability
9 10 90 8.97 80.73 9.45 85.05
(Project Duration)
Risk Assessment
9 9.22 82.98 10 90 9.89 89.01
(Lateral Displacement)
Sustainability
8 10 80 9.22 73.76 9.33 74.64
(Maintenance Cost)
OVERALL RANK: 352.98 336.69 342

**Reference: Otto, K. N. and Anstonsson, 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 August 24, 2016

4.7.2.1 Final Ranking for Economic Constraint

Trade-off 1 vs. Trade-off 2


higher value−lower value
%Difference= × 10
hi gher value
Subordinate Ranking = Governing ranking – (% Difference)

Php . 68,525,997.9−Php .63,187,048


% difference= ×10=0.78
Php . 68,525,997.9
Subordinate Rank=10−0.78=9.22

Figure 4-37 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 2 in Economic Constraint


Trade-off 1 vs. Trade-off 3
higher value−lower value
%Difference= × 10
higher value
Subordinate Ranking = Governing ranking – (% Difference)
Php . 67,756,300.5−Php .63,187,048
% difference= ×10=0.67
Php . 67,756,300.5
Subordinate Rank=10−0.67=9.33

Figure 4-38 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 3 in Economic Constraint


4.7.2.2 Final ranking for Constructability Constraint

Trade-off 1 vs. Trade-off 2


higher value−lower value
%Difference= × 10
higher value
Subordinate Ranking = Governing ranking – (% Difference)

419 calendar days−376 calendar days


% difference= ×10=1.03
419 calendar days
Subordinate Rank=10−1.03=8.97

Figure 4-39 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 2 in Constructability Constraint


Trade-off 1 vs. Trade-off 3
higher value−lower value
%Difference= × 10
higher value
Subordinate Ranking = Governing ranking – (% Difference)

398 calendar days−376 calendar days


% difference= × 10=0.55
398 calendar days
Subordinate Rank=10−0.55=9.45
Figure 4-40 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 3 in Constructability Constraint
4.7.2.3 Final Ranking for Risk Assessment

Trade-off 2 vs. Trade-off 1


higher value−lower value
%Difference= × 10
higher value
Subordinate Ranking = Governing ranking – (% Difference)

Php . 68,525,997.9−Php .63,187,048


% difference= ×10=0.78
Php . 68,525,997.9
Subordinate Rank=10−0.78=9.22

Figure 4-41 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 1 in Risk Assessment


Trade-off 2 vs. Trade-off 3
higher value−lower value
%Difference= × 10
higher value
Subordinate Ranking = Governing ranking – (% Difference)
Php . 68,525,997.9−Php .67,756,300.5
% difference= × 10=0.11
Php .68,525,997.9
Subordinate Rank=10−0.67=9.89
Figure 4-42 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 3 in Risk Assessment
4.7.2.4 Final Ranking for Sustainability Constraint

Trade-off 1 vs. Trade-off 2


higher value−lower value
%Difference= × 10
higher value
Subordinate Ranking = Governing ranking – (% Difference)

Php . 3,426,299.895−Php .3,159,352.4


% difference= ×10=0.78
Php . 3,426,299.895
Subordinate Rank=10−0.78=9.22

Figure 4-43 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 2 in Sustainability Constraint


Trade-off 1 vs. Trade-off 3
higher value−lower value
%Difference= × 10
higher value
Subordinate Ranking = Governing ranking – (% Difference)
Php . 3,387,815.025−Php .3,159,352.4
% difference= ×10=0.67
Php . 3,387,815.025
Subordinate Rank=10−0.67=9.33

Figure 4-44 Subordinate Rank of Trade-off 3 in Sustainability Constraint


4.8 Sensitivity Analysis

4.8.1 Sensitivity Analysis for Economic Constraint


Table 4-30 Sensitivity Analysis for Economic Constraint

Ability to satisfy the criterion

Constraint Criterion’s Combined Pre-


Combined Pre-
Importance stressed
Pre-stressed stressed Inverted
(on a scale of 0 Rectangular
Rectangular Beam T-Beam and L-
to 10) Beam and L-
Beam
Beam
Economic
10 10 100 9.22 92.2 9.33 93.3
(Project Cost)
Constructability
9 10 90 8.97 80.73 9.45 85.05
(Project Duration)
Risk Assessment
9 9.22 82.98 10 90 9.89 89.01
(Lateral Displacement)
Sustainability
8 10 80 9.22 73.76 9.33 74.64
(Maintenance Cost)
OVERALL RANK: 352.98 336.69 342

In this table, economic constraint having the importance factor of 10, the governing trade-off is trade-off 1.

4.8.2 Sensitivity Analysis for Constructability Constraint

Table 4-31 Sensitivity Analysis for Constructability Constraint


Ability to satisfy the criterion

Constraint Criterion’s Combined Pre-


Combined Pre-
Importance stressed
Pre-stressed stressed Inverted
(on a scale of 0 Rectangular
Rectangular Beam T-Beam and L-
to 10) Beam and L-
Beam
Beam
Economic
9 10 90 9.22 82.98 9.33 83.97
(Project Cost)
Constructability
10 10 100 8.97 89.7 9.45 94.5
(Project Duration)
Risk Assessment
9 9.22 82.98 10 90 9.89 89.01
(Lateral Displacement)
Sustainability
8 10 80 9.22 73.76 9.33 74.64
(Maintenance Cost)
OVERALL RANK: 352.98 336.44 342.12

In this table, constructability constraint having the importance factor of 10, the governing trade-off is trade-
off 1.

4.8.3 Sensitivity Analysis for Risk Assessment

Table 4-32 Sensitivity Analysis for Risk Assessment


Ability to satisfy the criterion

Constraint Criterion’s Combined Pre-


Combined Pre-
Importance stressed
Pre-stressed stressed Inverted
(on a scale of 0 Rectangular
Rectangular Beam T-Beam and L-
to 10) Beam and L-
Beam
Beam
Economic
9 10 90 9.22 82.98 9.33 83.97
(Project Cost)
Constructability
9 10 90 8.97 80.73 9.45 85.05
(Project Duration)
Risk Assessment
10 9.22 92.2 10 100 9.89 98.9
(Lateral Displacement)
Sustainability
8 10 80 9.22 73.76 9.33 74.64
(Maintenance Cost)
OVERALL RANK: 352.2 337.47 342.56

In this table, risk assessment having the importance factor of 10, the governing trade-off is trade-off 1.

4.8.4 Sensitivity Analysis for Sustainability Constraint

Table 4-33 Sensitivity Analysis for Sustainability Constraint


Ability to satisfy the criterion

Constraint Criterion’s Combined Pre-


Combined Pre-
Importance stressed
Pre-stressed stressed Inverted
(on a scale of 0 Rectangular
Rectangular Beam T-Beam and L-
to 10) Beam and L-
Beam
Beam
Economic
8 10 80 9.22 73.76 9.33 74.64
(Project Cost)
Constructability
9 10 90 8.97 80.73 9.45 85.05
(Project Duration)
Risk Assessment
9 9.22 82.98 10 90 9.89 89.01
(Lateral Displacement)
Sustainability
10 10 100 9.22 92.2 9.33 93.3
(Maintenance Cost)
OVERALL RANK: 352.98 336.69 342

In this table, sustainability constraint having the importance factor of 10, the governing trade-off is trade-off
1.

For each sensitivity analysis, trade-off 1 governs among all the trade-offs.

Chapter 5 : FINAL DESIGN

The designers have come up to a design of public school building (b) for Pampanga High School that is in
line with the code and standards by using multiple constraints and trade-offs that satisfies the criteria and
carefully assessed as per the constraints and carefully as per the constraints. The design had undergone
analysis, multiple assessments and design processes in accordance with the general objectives. The trade-
offs that were given by the designers were analyzed with supporting details and computations.

With the aid of the applications used, the designers were able to gather data for the design of trade-offs.
Microsoft Excel was used to create a program that can design column, slabs and beam structures to build a
public school building and provide Pampanga High School quality and safe building. The design analysis
for each trade-off is adequate and the final raw ranking and sensitivity analysis were validated to choose
which trade-off fits in the project in Brgy. Lourdes, San Fernando, Pampanga.

Concluding up the design of the canals, the designers will suggest the use of Prestressed Rectangular
Beam lining to the weighed trade-offs.

Figure 5-45 Winning trade-off: Prestressed Rectangular beam

Appendix A: INITIAL ESTIMATES


a. Economic Constraints (Project Cost)
For Prestressed Rectangular Beam
Pre-stressed Rectangular Beam
Description Unit Unit Price
Mobilization/ Demobilization L.s 1
Safety and Health    
PPE m.d 8,062
Safety and Health Personnel m.d 12
Signages and Barricades sets 6
Earthworks    
Excavation cu.m. 246.87
Backfilling cu.m. 153.07
Embankment cu.m. 288.09
Gravel Bedding cu.m. 78.2
Termite Control Works    
Soil Poisoning liter 259.98
Concrete Works    
RC for Stair cu.m. 8.68
RC for Sun Breaker cu.m. 3.38
RC for Column Footing & WF cu.m. 57.03

RC for Footing Tie Beam cu.m. 39.56


cu.m. 55.12
RC for Column, PC & Stiffener
RC for First Floor Slab cu.m. 29.66
RC for Second Floor Slab cu.m. 29.66
Steel Works    
Rein. Steel for Stair kg 1758.31
Rein. Steel for Sun Breaker kg 342.58
Rein. Steel for Column Footing & kg 4385.41
WF
kg 1704.39
Rein. Steel for Footing Tie Beam
Rein. Steel for Column, PC & kg 23740.89
Stiffener
kg 8244.85
Rein. Steelfor Second Floor beam
Masonry Works    
Masonry Units (100mm Wall) sq.m. 267.94
Masonry Units (150mm Wall) sq.m. 838.99
Finishing Works    
200x200mm Vitrified Glazed Tiles sq.m. 115.51
Wall Finish
200x200mm Vitrified Unglazed sq.m. 50.68
Floor Finish
Plain Cement Finish with Floor sq.m. 824.92
hardener non-skid
Non-skid Cement Floor Finish w/ sq.m. 14.45
6mm groove lines
Plain Cement Finish sq.m. 3294.6
Carpentry Works    
sq.m. 445.49
Carpentry for Ceiling with Insulation
Roof Framing Works    
kg 5176.53
Steel Trusses and Lateral Struts
Purlins and Channel Beam kg 5584.55
Purlins (Ceiling Support) kg 1417.05
Angular Base Plate kg 277.47
Sag Rod kg 202.67
Pre-stressed Beams    
Rectangular Beam linear meter 7,675.12
     
Equipment Cost per hour 10339.5
Labor Cost per hour 525.4
  Total Unit Cost 86557.60
Source: http://www.ijceronline.com/papers/Vol4_issue06/version-1/C04601011014.pdf

For Combined Pre-stressed Inverted T-Beam and L-Beam


Description Unit Unit Price
Mobilization/ Demobilization L.s 1
Safety and Health    
PPE m.d 8,062
Safety and Health
m.d 12
Personnel
Signages and Barricades sets 6
Earthworks    
Excavation cu.m. 246.87
Backfilling cu.m. 153.07
Embankment cu.m. 288.09
Gravel Bedding cu.m. 78.2
Termite Control Works    
Soil Poisoning liter 259.98
Concrete Works    
RC for Stair cu.m. 8.68
RC for Sun Breaker cu.m. 3.38
RC for Column Footing &
cu.m. 57.03
WF
RC for Footing Tie Beam cu.m. 39.56
RC for Column, PC &
cu.m. 55.12
Stiffener
RC for First Floor Slab cu.m. 29.66
RC for Second Floor Slab cu.m. 29.66
Steel Works    
Rein. Steel for Stair kg 1758.31
Rein. Steel for Sun Breaker kg 342.58
Rein. Steel for Column
kg 4385.41
Footing & WF
Rein. Steel for Footing Tie
kg 1704.39
Beam
Rein. Steel for Column, PC
kg 23740.89
& Stiffener
Rein. Steelfor Second
kg 8244.85
Floor beam
Masonry Works    
Masonry Units (100mm
sq.m. 267.94
Wall)
Masonry Units (150mm
sq.m. 838.99
Wall)
Finishing Works    
200x200mm Vitrified
sq.m. 115.51
Glazed Tiles Wall Finish
200x200mm Vitrified
sq.m. 50.68
Unglazed Floor Finish
Plain Cement Finish with
sq.m. 824.92
Floor hardener non-skid
Non-skid Cement Floor
sq.m. 14.45
Finish w/ 6mm groove lines
Plain Cement Finish sq.m. 3294.6
Carpentry Works    
Carpentry for Ceiling with
sq.m. 445.49
Insulation
Roof Framing Works    
Steel Trusses and Lateral
kg 5176.53
Struts
Purlins and Channel Beam kg 5584.55
Purlins (Ceiling Support) kg 1417.05
Angular Base Plate kg 277.47
Sag Rod kg 202.67
Prestressed Beam  
L-Beam linear meter 6,259.25
Inverted T-Beam linear meter 8,729.50
Equipment Cost per hour 10339.5
Labor Cost per hour 525.4
  Total Unit Cost 93871.23
Source:http://www.ijceronline.com/papers/Vol4_issue06/version-1/C04601011014.pdf

For Combined Pre-stressed Rectangular Beam and L-Beam


Description Unit Unit Price
Mobilization/ Demobilization L.s 1
Safety and Health    
PPE m.d 8,062
Safety and Health m.d 12
Personnel
Signages and Barricades sets 6
Earthworks    
Excavation cu.m. 246.87
Backfilling cu.m. 153.07
Embankment cu.m. 288.09
Gravel Bedding cu.m. 78.2
Termite Control Works    
Soil Poisoning liter 259.98
Concrete Works    
RC for Stair cu.m. 8.68
RC for Sun Breaker cu.m. 3.38
RC for Column Footing &
cu.m. 57.03
WF
RC for Footing Tie Beam cu.m. 39.56
RC for Column, PC &
cu.m. 55.12
Stiffener
RC for First Floor Slab cu.m. 29.66
RC for Second Floor Slab cu.m. 29.66
Steel Works    
Rein. Steel for Stair kg 1758.31
Rein. Steel for Sun
kg 342.58
Breaker
Rein. Steel for Column
kg 4385.41
Footing & WF
Rein. Steel for Footing Tie
kg 1704.39
Beam
Rein. Steel for Column, PC
kg 23740.89
& Stiffener
Rein. Steelfor Second
kg 8244.85
Floor beam
Masonry Works    
Masonry Units (100mm
sq.m. 267.94
Wall)
Masonry Units (150mm
sq.m. 838.99
Wall)
Finishing Works    
200x200mm Vitrified
sq.m. 115.51
Glazed Tiles Wall Finish
200x200mm Vitrified
sq.m. 50.68
Unglazed Floor Finish
Plain Cement Finish with
sq.m. 824.92
Floor hardener non-skid
Non-skid Cement Floor
sq.m. 14.45
Finish w/ 6mm groove lines
Plain Cement Finish sq.m. 3294.6
Carpentry Works    
Carpentry for Ceiling with
sq.m. 445.49
Insulation
Roof Framing Works    
Steel Trusses and Lateral
kg 5176.53
Struts
Purlins and Channel Beam kg 5584.55
Purlins (Ceiling Support) kg 1417.05
Angular Base Plate kg 277.47
Sag Rod kg 202.67
Prestressed Beam    
Rectangular Beam linear meter 7,675.12
L-Beam linear meter 6,259.25
Equipment Cost per hour 10339.5
Labor Cost per hour 525.4
  Total Unit Cost 92816.85
Source: http://www.ijceronline.com/papers/Vol4_issue06/version-1/C04601011014.pdf

Equipment Cost Breakdown


Equipment Cost
Equipment Quantity Hourly Rental Rate
One Bagger Mixer 1 172
Concrete Vibrator 1 91.25
Welding Machine 1 391
Bar Cutter 1 219.75
Bar Bender 1 351.5
Dump Truck 1 1420
Truck Mounted Crane 1 2778
Bulldozer 1 3379
Backhoe 1 1537

  Total Unit Cost Per Hour 10339.5

Labor Cost Breakdown


Labor Cost
Manpower Quantity Hourly Rate Per Day Rate
Project Engineer 1 210 1680
Construction Foreman 1 136.93 1095.44
Skilled Workers 1 100.61 804.88
Unskilled Workers 1 77.86 622.88
    Total Cost Per Day 4203.2
    Total Cost Per Hour 525.4

b. Constructability Constraint (Project Duration)


CONSTRUCTABILITY
PrestressedConrete Rectangular Beam Project Duration
CONSTRUCTION DURATION
TRADEOFFS
( Calendar Days )
PrestressedConrete Rectangular Beam 347

Combined Prestressed Concrete Inverted T-


432
Beam and L-Beam

Combined Prestressed Concrete


414
Rectangular Beam and L-Beam
Source: yeonhousing.org/2015/08/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-an-apartment-building/?fbclid=IwAR11CI-
jRSFoAN1iGTUhYPW6WUAmB6dVwYhb9imq_WcmwHvGyFuadmiciTs
c. Risk Assessment (Lateral Displacement)
Risk Assessment Cost
Description Total Unit Cost

Prestressed Double Tee Slab 86557.60

Combined Prestressed L-beam


93871.23
and Inverted T-Beam

Combined Prestressed L-beam


92816.85
and Rectangular Beam

d. Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost)


Maintenance Cost
(5% of the Project Cost)

Description Unit Cost


Prestressed Rectangular
4327.88
Beam

Combined Prestressed L-
4693.5615
beam and Inverted T-Beam

Combined Prestressed L-
4640.8425
beam and Rectangular Beam

Appendix B: Detailed Computation in Designing a Slab


DESIGN OF SLAB 1 USING COEFFICIENT METHOD OF TWO-WAY SLAB DESIGN
Ls = 3.075m        
Ll = 5m  
End Moment Demand   M= 39.29kN-m
Mid Moment Demand M= 103.875kN-m
Flexure Capacity Reduction Factor ф= 0.9  
Shear Capacity Reduction Factor ф= 0.75  
           
Compressive Concrete Strength f'c = 20.7 Mpa  
Steel Yield Strength Main Bar fy = 415 Mpa  
           
Shorter Side     l1 = 3.75 m  
Longer Side l2 = 5m  
Slab Thickness t= 150 mm  
Bar Diameter Ø= 12 mm  
           
Column Dimension        
  Column Length h= 400 mm  
  Column Width b= 400 mm  
           
Floor Weight (kPa)        
  Floor Dead Load DL = 8.1 kPa  
  Floor Live Load LL = 14.9 kPa  
   
Design Calculation        
   
Checking for Two-way Punching Shear  
  d= t - 20 - Ø/2  
  d= 124 mm  
   
  bo = 2c1 + 2c2  
  bo = 1600 mm2  
   
  qu = 8.1  
   
  Vu = [(l1 x l2) - (c1+d)(c2+d)]qu  
  Vu = 122.3134344  
   
ØVc=Ø λ 4 √ f ' c bod
   
  ØVc = 270.80kN  
ØVc >Vu ∴ Thickness is Safe!
   
           
DESIGN OF SLAB 2 USING COEFFICIENT METHOD OF TWO-WAY SLAB DESIGN
Ls = 4.2m        
Ll = 4.5m        
End Moment Demand M= 73.294kN-m
Mid Moment Demand M= 84.139kN-m
Flexure Capacity Reduction Factor ф= 0.9  
Shear Capacity Reduction Factor ф= 0.75  
           
Compressive Concrete Strength f'c = 20.7 Mpa  
Steel Yield Strength Main Bar fy = 415 Mpa  
           
Shorter Side     l1 = 3.75 m  
Longer Side l2 = 5m  
Slab Thickness t= 150 mm  
Bar Diameter Ø= 12 mm  
           
Column Dimension        
  Column Length h= 400 mm  
  Column Width b= 400 mm  
           
Floor Weight (kPa)        
  Floor Dead Load DL = 8.1 kPa  
  Floor Live Load LL = 14.9 kPa  
   
Design Calculation        
   
Checking for Two-way Punching Shear  
  d= t - 20 - Ø/2  
  d= 124mm  
   
  bo = 2c1 + 2c2  
  bo = 1600 mm2  
   
  qu = 8.1  
   
  Vu = [(l1 x l2) - (c1+d)(c2+d)]qu  
  Vu = 150.86593  
   
ØVc=Ø λ 4 √ f ' c bod
   
  ØVc = 270.80kN
∴ Thickness is Safe!  
ØVc >Vu
   
           
DESIGN OF SLAB 3 USING COEFFICIENT METHOD OF TWO-WAY SLAB DESIGN
Ls = 3.1m        
Ll = 4.5m  
End Moment Demand   M= 39.930kN-m
Mid Moment Demand M= 84.140kN-m
Flexure Capacity Reduction Factor ф= 0.9  
Shear Capacity Reduction Factor ф= 0.75  
           
Compressive Concrete Strength f'c = 20.7 Mpa  
Steel Yield Strength Main Bar fy = 415 Mpa  
           
Shorter Side     l1 = 3.75 m  
Longer Side l2 = 5m  
Slab Thickness t= 150 mm  
Bar Diameter Ø= 12 mm  
           
Column Dimension        
  Column Length h= 400 mm  
  Column Width b= 400 mm  
           
Floor Weight (kPa)        
  Floor Dead Load DL = 8.1 kPa  
  Floor Live Load LL = 14.9 kPa  
   
Design Calculation        
   
Checking for Two-way Punching Shear  
  d= t - 20 - Ø/2  
  d= 124 mm  
   
  bo = 2c1 + 2c2  
  bo = 1600 mm2  
   
  qu = 8.1  
   
  Vu = [(l1 x l2) - (c1+d)(c2+d)]qu  
  Vu = 110.77093  
   
ØVc=Ø λ 4 √ f ' c bod
   
  ØVc = 270.80kN  
ØVc >Vu ∴ Thickness is Safe!
   
           
DESIGN OF SLAB 4 USING COEFFICIENT METHOD OF TWO-WAY SLAB DESIGN
Ls = 2.5m        
Ll = 5m  
End Moment Demand   M= 25.97kN-m
Mid Moment Demand M= 103.875kN-m
Flexure Capacity Reduction Factor ф= 0.9  
Shear Capacity Reduction Factor ф= 0.75  
           
Compressive Concrete Strength f'c = 20.7 Mpa  
Steel Yield Strength Main Bar fy = 415 Mpa  
           
Shorter Side     l1 = 3.75 m  
Longer Side l2 = 5m  
Slab Thickness t= 150 mm  
Bar Diameter Ø= 12 mm  
           
Column Dimension        
  Column Length h= 400 mm  
  Column Width b= 400 mm  
           
Floor Weight (kPa)        
  Floor Dead Load DL = 8.1 kPa  
  Floor Live Load LL = 14.9 kPa  
   
Design Calculation        
   
Checking for Two-way Punching Shear  
  d= t - 20 - Ø/2  
  d= 124 mm  
   
  bo = 2c1 + 2c2  
  bo = 1600 mm2  
   
  qu = 8.1  
   
  Vu = [(l1 x l2) - (c1+d)(c2+d)]qu  
  Vu = 99.0259344  
   
ØVc=Ø λ 4 √ f ' c bod
   
  ØVc = 270.80kN  
ØVc >Vu ∴ Thickness is Safe!
   
           
DESIGN OF SLAB 5 USING COEFFICIENT METHOD OF TWO-WAY SLAB DESIGN
Ls = 2.5m        
Ll = 4.5m  
End Moment Demand   M= 25.97kN-m
Mid Moment Demand M= 84.140kN-m
Flexure Capacity Reduction Factor ф= 0.9  
Shear Capacity Reduction Factor ф= 0.75  
           
Compressive Concrete Strength f'c = 20.7 Mpa  
Steel Yield Strength Main Bar fy = 415 Mpa  
           
Shorter Side     l1 = 3.75 m  
Longer Side l2 = 5m  
Slab Thickness t= 150 mm  
Bar Diameter Ø= 12 mm  
           
Column Dimension        
  Column Length h= 400 mm  
  Column Width b= 400 mm  
           
Floor Weight (kPa)        
  Floor Dead Load DL = 8.1 kPa  
  Floor Live Load LL = 14.9 kPa  
   
Design Calculation        
   
Checking for Two-way Punching Shear  
  d= t - 20 - Ø/2  
  d= 124 mm  
   
  bo = 2c1 + 2c2  
  bo = 1600 mm2  
   
  qu = 8.1  
   
  Vu = [(l1 x l2) - (c1+d)(c2+d)]qu  
  Vu = 88.900934  
   
ØVc=Ø λ 4 √ f ' c bod
   
  ØVc = 270.80kN  
ØVc >Vu ∴ Thickness is Safe!
   
           
DESIGN OF SLAB 6 USING COEFFICIENT METHOD OF TWO-WAY SLAB DESIGN
Ls = 2.025m        
Ll = 4.225m  
End Moment Demand   M= 17.040kN-m
Mid Moment Demand M= 74.170kN-m
Flexure Capacity Reduction Factor ф= 0.9  
Shear Capacity Reduction Factor ф= 0.75  
           
Compressive Concrete Strength f'c = 20.7 Mpa  
Steel Yield Strength Main Bar fy = 415 Mpa  
           
Shorter Side     l1 = 3.75 m  
Longer Side l2 = 5m  
Slab Thickness t= 150 mm  
Bar Diameter Ø= 12 mm  
           
Column Dimension        
  Column Length h= 400 mm  
  Column Width b= 400 mm  
           
Floor Weight (kPa)        
  Floor Dead Load DL = 8.1 kPa  
  Floor Live Load LL = 14.9 kPa  
   
Design Calculation        
   
Checking for Two-way Punching Shear  
  d= t - 20 - Ø/2  
  d= 124 mm  
   
  bo = 2c1 + 2c2  
  bo = 1600 mm2  
   
  qu = 8.1  
   
  Vu = [(l1 x l2) - (c1+d)(c2+d)]qu  
  Vu = 67.076497  
   
ØVc=Ø λ 4 √ f ' c bod
   
  ØVc = 270.80kN  
ØVc >Vu ∴ Thickness is Safe!
   
           
Appendix C: Detailed Computation in Designing a Beam
COMPUTATION OF BEAM 1
COMPUTATION OF LOSSES IN BEAM 1
COMPUTATION OF BEAM 2
COMPUTATION OF LOSSES IN BEAM 2
COMPUTATION OF BEAM 3
COMPUTATION OF LOSSES IN BEAM 3
COMPUTATION OF BEAM 4
COMPUTATION OF LOSSES IN BEAM 4
COMPUTATION OF BEAM 5
COMPUTATION OF LOSSES IN BEAM 5
Appendix D: Detailed Computation in Designing a Column

DESIGN FOR COLUMN - GRID 1


END 1
INTERNAL
END 2
DESIGN FOR COLUMN - GRID 2
END 1

INTERNAL

END 2

DESIGN FOR
COLUMN – GRID 3
END 1
INTERNAL
END 2
DESIGN FOR COLUMN – GRID 4
END 1
INTERNAL
END 2
DESIGN FOR COLUMN – GRID 5
END 1

INTERNAL

END 2
DESIGN FOR COLUMN – GRID 6
END 1
INTERNAL
END 2
DESIGN FOR COLUMN – GRID 7
END 1
INTERNAL
END 2
DESIGN FOR COLUMN – GRID 8
END 1
INTERNAL
END 2
DESIGN FOR COLUMN – GRID 8
END 1
INTERNAL
END 2
DESIGN FOR COLUMN - GRID 9
END 1
INTERNAL
END 2
DESIGN FOR COLUMN – GRID 10
END 1
INTERNAL
END 2
DESIGN FOR COLUMN - GRID 11
END 1
INTERNAL
END 2
DESIGN FOR COLUMN – GRID 12
END 1
INTERNAL
END 2
DESIGN FOR COLUMN – GRID 13
END 1
INTERNAL
END 2
DESIGN FOR COLUMN – GRID 14
END 1
INTERNAL
END 2
DESIGN FOR COLUMN - GRID 15
END 1
INTERNAL
END 2
DESIGN FOR COLUMN - GRID 16
END 1
INTERNAL
END 2
DESIGN FOR COLUMN – GRID 17
END 1
INTERNAL
END 2
Appendix E: FINAL COST ESTIMATES
a. Economic Constraints (Project Cost)
For Prestressed Rectangular Beam
Pre-stressed Rectangular Beam
Description Unit Unit Price
Mobilization/ Demobilization L.s 1
Safety and Health    
PPE m.d 8,062
Safety and Health Personnel m.d 12
Signages and Barricades sets 6
Earthworks    
Excavation cu.m. 246.87
Backfilling cu.m. 153.07
Embankment cu.m. 288.09
Gravel Bedding cu.m. 78.2
Termite Control Works    
Soil Poisoning liter 259.98
Concrete Works    
RC for Stair cu.m. 8.68
RC for Sun Breaker cu.m. 3.38
RC for Column Footing & WF cu.m. 57.03

RC for Footing Tie Beam cu.m. 39.56


cu.m. 55.12
RC for Column, PC & Stiffener
RC for First Floor Slab cu.m. 29.66
RC for Second Floor Slab cu.m. 29.66
Steel Works    
Rein. Steel for Stair kg 1758.31
Rein. Steel for Sun Breaker kg 342.58
Rein. Steel for Column Footing kg 4385.41
& WF
Rein. Steel for Footing Tie kg 1704.39
Beam
Rein. Steel for Column, PC & kg 23740.89
Stiffener
Rein. Steelfor Second Floor kg 8244.85
beam
Masonry Works    
Masonry Units (100mm Wall) sq.m. 267.94
Masonry Units (150mm Wall) sq.m. 838.99
Finishing Works    
200x200mm Vitrified Glazed sq.m. 115.51
Tiles Wall Finish
200x200mm Vitrified Unglazed sq.m. 50.68
Floor Finish
Plain Cement Finish with Floor sq.m. 824.92
hardener non-skid
Non-skid Cement Floor Finish sq.m. 14.45
w/ 6mm groove lines
Plain Cement Finish sq.m. 3294.6
Carpentry Works    
Carpentry for Ceiling with sq.m. 445.49
Insulation
Roof Framing Works    
Steel Trusses and Lateral kg 5176.53
Struts
Purlins and Channel Beam kg 5584.55
Purlins (Ceiling Support) kg 1417.05
Angular Base Plate kg 277.47
Sag Rod kg 202.67
Pre-stressed Beams    
Rectangular Beam linear meter 7,675.12
     
Equipment Cost per hour 10339.5
TOTAL AREA (sq.
per hour 525.4
Labor Cost m) TOTAL COST
  Total Unit Cost 86557.60 730.00 63187048

For Combined Pre-stressed Inverted T-Beam and L-Beam


Combined Pre-stressed Inverted T-Beam and L-Beam
Description Unit Unit Price
Mobilization/ Demobilization L.s 1
Safety and Health    
PPE m.d 8,062
Safety and Health Personnel m.d 12
Signages and Barricades sets 6
Earthworks    
Excavation cu.m. 246.87
Backfilling cu.m. 153.07
Embankment cu.m. 288.09
Gravel Bedding cu.m. 78.2
Termite Control Works    
Soil Poisoning liter 259.98
Concrete Works    
RC for Stair cu.m. 8.68
RC for Sun Breaker cu.m. 3.38
RC for Column Footing & WF cu.m. 57.03
RC for Footing Tie Beam cu.m. 39.56
RC for Column, PC & Stiffener cu.m. 55.12

RC for First Floor Slab cu.m. 29.66


RC for Second Floor Slab cu.m. 29.66
Steel Works    
Rein. Steel for Stair kg 1758.31
Rein. Steel for Sun Breaker kg 342.58
Rein. Steel for Column Footing
kg 4385.41
& WF
Rein. Steel for Footing Tie
kg 1704.39
Beam
Rein. Steel for Column, PC &
kg 23740.89
Stiffener
Rein. Steelfor Second Floor
kg 8244.85
beam
Masonry Works    
Masonry Units (100mm Wall) sq.m. 267.94
Masonry Units (150mm Wall) sq.m. 838.99
Finishing Works    
200x200mm Vitrified Glazed
sq.m. 115.51
Tiles Wall Finish
200x200mm Vitrified Unglazed
sq.m. 50.68
Floor Finish
Plain Cement Finish with Floor
sq.m. 824.92
hardener non-skid
Non-skid Cement Floor Finish
sq.m. 14.45
w/ 6mm groove lines
Plain Cement Finish sq.m. 3294.6
Carpentry Works    
Carpentry for Ceiling with
sq.m. 445.49
Insulation
Roof Framing Works    
Steel Trusses and Lateral
kg 5176.53
Struts
Purlins and Channel Beam kg 5584.55
Purlins (Ceiling Support) kg 1417.05
Angular Base Plate kg 277.47
Sag Rod kg 202.67
Prestressed Beam  
L-Beam linear meter 6,259.25
Inverted T-Beam linear meter 8,729.50
Equipment Cost per hour 10339.5
TOTAL AREA (sq.
per hour 525.4
Labor Cost m) TOTAL COST
  Total Unit Cost 93871.23 730.00 68525997.9

For Combined Pre-stressed Rectangular Beam and L-Beam


Combined Pre-stressed Rectangular Beam and L-Beam
Description Unit Unit Price
Mobilization/ Demobilization L.s 1
Safety and Health    
PPE m.d 8,062
Safety and Health Personnel m.d 12
Signages and Barricades sets 6
Earthworks    
Excavation cu.m. 246.87
Backfilling cu.m. 153.07
Embankment cu.m. 288.09
Gravel Bedding cu.m. 78.2
Termite Control Works    
Soil Poisoning liter 259.98
Concrete Works    
RC for Stair cu.m. 8.68
RC for Sun Breaker cu.m. 3.38
RC for Column Footing & WF cu.m. 57.03
RC for Footing Tie Beam cu.m. 39.56
RC for Column, PC & Stiffener cu.m. 55.12

RC for First Floor Slab cu.m. 29.66


RC for Second Floor Slab cu.m. 29.66
Steel Works    
Rein. Steel for Stair kg 1758.31
Rein. Steel for Sun Breaker kg 342.58
Rein. Steel for Column Footing
kg 4385.41
& WF
Rein. Steel for Footing Tie
kg 1704.39
Beam
Rein. Steel for Column, PC &
kg 23740.89
Stiffener
Rein. Steelfor Second Floor
kg 8244.85
beam
Masonry Works    
Masonry Units (100mm Wall) sq.m. 267.94
Masonry Units (150mm Wall) sq.m. 838.99
Finishing Works    
200x200mm Vitrified Glazed
sq.m. 115.51
Tiles Wall Finish
200x200mm Vitrified Unglazed
sq.m. 50.68
Floor Finish
Plain Cement Finish with Floor
sq.m. 824.92
hardener non-skid
Non-skid Cement Floor Finish
sq.m. 14.45
w/ 6mm groove lines
Plain Cement Finish sq.m. 3294.6
Carpentry Works    
Carpentry for Ceiling with
sq.m. 445.49
Insulation
Roof Framing Works    
Steel Trusses and Lateral
kg 5176.53
Struts
Purlins and Channel Beam kg 5584.55
Purlins (Ceiling Support) kg 1417.05
Angular Base Plate kg 277.47
Sag Rod kg 202.67
Prestressed Beam    
Rectangular Beam linear meter 7,675.12
L-Beam linear meter 6,259.25
Equipment Cost per hour 10339.5
TOTAL AREA (sq.
per hour 525.4
Labor Cost m) TOTAL COST
  Total Unit Cost 92816.85 730.00 67756300.5

b. Constructability Constraints (Project Duration)


PrestressedConrete Rectangular Beam Project Duration
CONSTRUCTION DURATION
TRADEOFFS
( Calendar Days )

PrestressedConrete Rectangular Beam 376

Combined Prestressed Concrete Inverted T-Beam and


419
L-Beam

Combined Prestressed Concrete Rectangular Beam and


398
L-Beam

c. Risk Assessment (Lateral Displacement)


RISK ASSESSMENT (Lateral Displacement)
Description Total Unit Cost
Prestressed Double Tee
63187048.00
Slab
Combined Prestressed L-
beam and Inverted T- 68525997.9
Beam
Combined Prestressed L-
beam and Rectangular 67756300.5
Beam

d. Sustianability Constraint ( Maintenance Cost)


MAINTENANCE COST
(5% of the Project Cost)
Description Unit Cost

Prestressed Rectangular
3159352.4
Beam

Combined Prestressed L-
3426299.895
beam and Inverted T-Beam

Combined Prestressed L-
3387815.025
beam and Rectangular Beam
Appendix F: Computations for Maximum Moment and Bar Dimensions and Spacing for
Columns

C-1 (INTERIOR COLUMN)


Pu = 1010 kN f'c = 28 Mpa
b= 500 mm fy = 414 Mpa
t= 500 mm d= 440 mm
φ= 0.65 β= 0.85
Mx = 4.156 kN m My = 4.481 kN m

Note: C-1 is interior column therefore the eccentricity is equal to zero

For columns subjected to concentric loadings

P=φ 0.80 Ag[0.85 f ' c ( 1−ρ g ) +fy ρg ]


Where:
P = Axial load capacity of section f’c = compressive strength of concrete
As
ρ g = steel ratio ( ) fy = yield strength of steel bars
Ag
Ag = Gross area of section of concrete Ast = Area of steel reinforcement
Φ = reduction factor for column design

Assume steel ratio ( ρ g ¿=0.015

¿ 0.65( 0.80)(500 2)[0.85 ( 28 )( 1−0.015 ) +414 ( 0.015 ) ]


P=Po=3854.89 kN >1010 KN safe
The Section of the Column is Adequate ¿ the Design Force
Compute for the area of reinforcement for the column section

Ast=ρg × Ag

¿ 0.015 ×5002
¿ 3750 mm2

Using 36mm∅ Main Bars


3750
N= ≈ 8 pcs ≈ 8−25 mm ∅
π 2
( × 25 )
4

Spacing:
Use the minimum ties provided by the code:
Choose the smallest
< 16db
< 48 tie db
< Least dimension of column
db (main reinforcement diameter) = 25 mm
Tie db (shear reinforcement diameter) = 12 mm
16db = 16 x 25 = 400mm
48 tie db = 48 x 10 = 480mm
Least dimension = 500m Use 400mm o.c

C-2 (EXTERIOR COLUMN) 794.331


Pu = 794.331 kN f'c = 28 Mpa
b= 500 mm fy = 414 Mpa
t= 500 mm d= 440 mm
φ= 0.65 β= 0.85
Mx = 9.029 kN m My = 0.830 kN m

along x along z
Pu = 794.331 kN Pu = 794.331 kN
kN- Max My
Max Mx = 9.029 m = 0.830 kN-m

ex = Mx/Pu ey = My/Pu
ex = 11.36 mm ey = 1.04494 mm

along x - axis: along y - axis:

11.36mm>40 1.04494mm < 40


Neglect the Eccentricity Neglect the Eccentricity

Assumed steel ratio ρg = 0.015


Assumed dimension of column b= 500 mm
t= 500 mm
diamater of main bar ø= 25 mm
diamater of ties ø= 10 mm
Ag
Assumed gross area of section = 250000 sq mm.

P=φ 0.80 Ag[0.85 f ' c ( 1−ρ g ) +fy ρg ]


Where:
P = Axial load capacity of section f’c = compressive strength of concrete
As
ρ g = steel ratio ( ) fy = yield strength of steel bars
Ag
Ag = Gross area of section of concrete Ast = Area of steel reinforcement
Φ = reduction factor for column design
Assume steel ratio ( ρ g ¿=0.015
¿ 0.65( 0.80)(500 2)[0.85 ( 28 )( 1−0.015 ) +414 ( 0.015 ) ]
P=Po=3854.89 kN >795.331 KN safe
The Section of the Column is Adequate ¿ the Design Force
Compute for the area of reinforcement for the column section

Ast=ρg × Ag

¿ 0.015 ×5002=3750mm 2
Using 36mm∅ Main Bars
3750
N= ≈ 8 pcs ≈ 8−25 mm ∅
π
( × 252)
4
Spacing:
Use the minimum ties provided by the code:
Choose the smallest
< 16db
< 48 tie db
< Least dimension of column
db (main reinforcement diameter) = 25 mm
Tie db (shear reinforcement diameter) = 12 mm
16db = 16 x 25 = 400mm
48 tie db = 48 x 10 = 480mm
Least dimension = 500mm
Use 400mm O.C.

C-3 (CORNER COLUMN)


Pu = 503.77 kN f'c = 28 Mpa
b= 500 mm fy = 414 Mpa
t= 500 mm d= 440 mm
φ= 0.65 β= 0.85
Mx = 8.73 kN m My = 119.514 kN m
along x along y
Pu = 503.77 kN Pu = 503.77 kN
kN- Max My
Max Mx = 8.73 m = 119.514 kN-m

ex = Mx/Pu ey = My/Pu
ex = 17.32 mm ey = 237.2392 mm

along x - axis: along y - axis:

17.32< 40 237.2392 > 40


Neglect the Eccentricity eccentricity is not negligible

Assumed steel ratio ρg = 0.01178


Assumed dimension of column b= 500 mm
t= 500 mm
diamater of main bar ø= 25 mm
diamater of ties ø= 10 mm
Ag
Assumed gross area of section = 250000 sq mm.

Solve for area of steel Solve for number of main bars

Ast = ρgAg Ast = n(Area of main bar)


Ast = 2945.243 n= 6
Check if the bars will yield
600 d 600 ( 440 )
c b= = =260.36 mm
600+ fy 600+ 414
600 (260.36−60 )
f s= =461.727 MPa>414 Mpa A syields
260.36

600 ( 440−260.36 )
fs= =414 MPa=414 Mpa As Yields
260.36
C=T
C+ C1−T 1=Pn

π π 600 ( 440−c )
0.85 ( 28 ) ( 0.85 c )( 500 ) +3 ()
4 () (
( 25 )2 ( 414−0.85 ( 28 ) ) −3
4
( 25 )2
c ) =Pn

883572.9338 ( 440−c )
10115 c +574616.9313− =Pn
c

Sum Moments @ T =0

0.85 c
415 Pn=10115 c 440− ( 2 )+574616.9313 ( 440−60 )

883572.9338 ( 440−c ) 0.85 c


415 (10115 c +574616.9313−
c (
)=10115 c 440−
2 )
+218354433.9

c=262.039mm
883572.9338 ( 440−262.039 )
10115 ( 262.039 ) +574616.9313− =PnPn=2625.07 kN
262.039
Pu=0.65 Pn=1706.298569 kN >503.77 kN
The Section of the Column is Adequate ¿ the Design Force

Spacing:
Use the minimum ties provided by the code:
Choose the smallest
< 16db
< 48 tie db
< Least dimension of column
db (main reinforcement diameter) = 25 mm
Tie db (shear reinforcement diameter) = 12 mm
16db = 16 x 25 = 400mm
48 tie db = 48 x 10 = 480mm
Least dimension = 500mm

Appendix G: Detailed Computation in Designing Beams


DESIGN COMPUTATION FOR BEAM -1
DESIGN COMPUTATION FOR BEAM -2
DESIGN COMPUTATION FOR BEAM -3
DESIGN COMPUTATION FOR BEAM -4
DESIGN COMPUTATION FOR BEAM -5