Steel Proj 5storey Condo

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES
938 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

Civil Engineering Department
CE 511
Structural Steel Design
DESIGN OF A FIVE-STOREY CONDOMINIUM IN MAHARLIKA HIGHWAY BARANGAY TRINIDAD

CALBAYOG CITY, SAMAR PROVINCE PHILIPPINES
PREPARED BY:
Pollisco, Medardo O.
SUBMITTED TO:
ENGR. Allan Benogsudan

Instructor
SEPT 2021
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Project
Figure 1-1. Project Perspective of the Five-Storey Condominium

(Source: Sketchup)
According to the 2020 census, Calbayog City has a population of 186,960 people.
It lies along the coastal region of the province stretching about 60 miles (97 km) from the northern tip of the
island and 180 miles (290 km) from southern boundaries.
It is the sixth largest city in terms of land and water areas in the Philippines. It is the nineteenth city of the
Philippines. In 2010, Calbayog has 35,126 households with a population of 172,778 people, making up
23.6% of the total population of the province of Samar. Calbayog is one of the commercial trade centers in
Eastern Visayas. Calbayog is subdivided into three major districts: Calbayog, Tinambacan and Oquendo.
2
A Condominium is a way of life comparable to an apartment that can be sold separately and is therefore
considered a property. The structure of the condominium building is divided into several houses, each of
which is individually owned and surrounded by common areas on communal property. Unlike apartments
that are rented by owners, condos are bought outright. In addition, the individual owners of the apartments
are joint owners of the common areas of the property, such as hallways, sidewalks, laundries, etc., as well
as common facilities and services, such as swimming pools and convenience stores. The main objective of
this project is to provide the residents of the Maharlika Highway, Barangay Trinidad, Calbayog City and its
neighboring cities with a clean, stable, and useful condominium that will last for several years. The actual
floor area of the five-story apartment building is 947.05 m2. The average height of the structure is 18.73 m.
The transparent height from floor to ceiling for each floor is 3.00 m. The formwork houses twenty-nine (29)
residential units.
1.2 Project Location:
The project is located on the Maharlika highway in the city of Barangay Trinidad, Calbayog near Calbayog
airport in Samar province.
Figure 1-2. Project Site Location

(Source: Google Maps)
3
1.3 Project Objectives
1.3.1. General Objectives

The aim of the design project is to provide residents of Brgy.Trinidad and neighboring barangays with a
school, Airport, Companies, Foreigner where their comfort living in Samar Calbayog.
1.3.2. Specific Objective

The following are the project's core objectives:
• To design a five-story condominium in compliance with the National Structural Code of the
Philippines 2015 and the National Building Code of the Philippines.
• To design an appropriate structure capable of supporting its own weight and can endure potential
natural disasters.
• Analyze the effects of various design restrictions and compensations, such as: tax aspects,
sustainability, buildability and risk management, on the client's demand for structural plans and
cost estimates for the condominium project.
1.4 Client
Mayor Diego P. Rivera Mayor in Calbayog City is the project's client. Their mission is to provide
effective and productive public service in the pursuit of excellence by encouraging Samareños to be more
active participants in ensuring political, social, cultural, ecological, moral, and economic growth for a better
quality of life in harmony with God, man, and nature.
1.5 Project Scope & Limitation
The scopes of this project are as follows:
 Architectural plans for the five-story building are present.

 Detailed and conceptualized design in compliance with the Philippine National Building Code and
the Philippine National Structural Code.
 Analysis and Design of the structure were done using STAAD Pro Vi8 software application.
 Estimated structural costs are given.
4
The following are the project's limitations:
 Detailed cost calculation in mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire, sanitary (MEPFS), and
architectural (MEPFS) was not taken into account.
 No electrical, plumbing, or sanitary plans are included.
 The project's interior design is not being used.
 Labor expenses are not included.
1.6 Project Development
The first step in the development plan is to plan and organize ideas to produce the desired results. The
most critical aspect of this phase is to define the requirements and objectives of the builder, which requires
an active decision on the part of the builder when deciding the characteristics of the new building and
project that would be necessary to solve the problems that arise.
Structure Specifications and Design Standard is the second step used to gather the basic design standards
required to base the architecture after project approval and to define the parameters to be used whenever
the structures are loaded (i.e. dead weight, payload, wind load and seismic load). ) .. The third phase is
compromise and various constraints, in which the designers suggested compromises to obtain the best
solution that has the best properties prescribed in the criteria. Constructibility, economic, socioeconomic,
democratic, protective, environmental, and ethical constraints must be identified. The designer could
suggest solutions or compromises taking into account various technical constraints and requirements. The
fourth method is design analysis, which suggests the optimal approach to the problem, taking into account
trade-offs and constraints.
The calculation, the geometric design and the final estimate for each commitment are summarized in the
final result and the recommendation. After the presentation, the client can now choose one of the proposed
commitments. The compromise that can be used in structural modeling is the most beneficial compromise
for the client.
5
START
DETERMINING THE PROBLEM
CONCEPTUALIZATION
DATA GATHERING
PROJECT CONSTRAINTS AND

STANDARDS
TRADE-OFF 1 TRADE-OFF 2 TRADE-OFF 3
DESIGN TRADE- DESIGN TRADE- DESIGN TRADE-

OFF OFF OFF
EVALUATION OF
RESULTS
FINAL OUTPUT
END
Figure 1-3. Project Development Process
6
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES
2.1 Description of the Structure
The figure shows the 3D model of the 5-storey steel structure. The beams and columns will be
design using American W-shape steel sections. The structure will be design in accordance with the
standards of National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010 and the sections will be based on the
dimensions and properties provided by ASEP steel handbook 2004. The classification of the building is
Category IV (standard occupancy structure) and is located approximately 5km from the nearest fault line.
Figure 2.1 3D Model of the framing system
7
2.2 Room And Floor Descriptions
Table 2-1. Ground Floor Room Descriptions
Ground Floor
Description Area (m2) Quantity
Storage 19.40 1
Utility Room 39.12 1
Toilet and Bath 69.05 10
Living Room/Kitchen 205.60 5
Bedroom 134.65 9
Information Center/Lobby 365.5 -
Table 2-2. Second Floor Room Descriptions

Second Floor
Bedroom 154.05 10
Lobby 365.5 -
Table 2-3. Third Floor Room Descriptions

Third Floor
Bedroom 154.05 10
Lobby 365.5 -
8
Table 2-4. Fourth Floor Room Descriptions
Fourth Floor
Bedroom 154.05 10
Lobby 365.5 -
2.3 Architectural Plan

The floor plans below show the layout of the condominium.
Figure 2-4. Ground Floor Plan
(Source: AutoCAD)
9
Figure 2-5. Typical Second to Fifth Floor Plan
(Source: AutoCAD)
10
The elevation plans below show the drawing at one particular side of the condominium.
11
12
13
2.4 Review of Related Literatures
The calculation, the geometric design and the final estimate for each commitment are summarized in the final result
and the recommendation. After the presentation, the client can now choose one of the proposed commitments. The
compromise that can be used in structural modeling is the most beneficial compromise for the client.
2.4.1 Local Related Literature and Studies

Buying a condo unit is one of the latest trends in the real estate industry in the Philippines, with this, demand
for a good condo interior designer and renovator has also arise. When you buy a condo, you own it just as you own a
house. However, there are differences such as the space is already built, therefore construction companies can’t do
construction from scratch, but rather do interior design and renovation in your condo unit. (RMJE Construction
Services Corporation, 2020)
Steel provides a number of benefits to the consumer including: High strength results in safer structures, less
maintenance and slower aging of structure, fire safety, not vulnerable to termites or any type of fungi or organism, less
probability of damage in an earthquake and high winds. (Scottsdale Construction Systems, 2020)
Scottsdale Construction Systems (2020) also stated that steel is a superior construction material because it
has the highest strength-to-weight ratio of any building material, 100% recyclable, non-combustible, dimensionally
stable, and has a consistent material quality.
Since 2005 Habitat for Humanity Philippines has been exposed to SCS steel framing as one of its construction
technologies, since then it has constructed 3,500 houses all over the Philippines. It has used the SCS technology in
different housing design ranging from row houses, duplexes, single detach and even two storey different dweller
housing.(Scottsdale Construction Systems, 2020)
Steel has become a widely used material in the business of construction. According to The World Steel
Association, more than 50% of steelmakers are able to continue doing what they do because of this industry. For a lot
of companies in charge of building new establishments in the Philippines, steel products have become a go-to solution
for many of their issues. It is one of the most environmentally friendly materials out there. It is great because
manufacturers have found ways to make their production more energy-efficient and recyclable. (Regal Industrial
Sales, Inc., 2020)
Regal Industrial Sales, Inc (2020) also stated that the construction of a steel structure is safer. The main
reason why employees are at risk of these different problems is because of the constant exposure. For instance, most
metals need to be fabricated on-site. This procedure can be dangerous because it exposes the workers to burning fire
and toxic fumes that can be inhaled. Steel products in the Philippines are one of the safest construction materials
because the majority of the work associated with using them is already done in the manufacturing plant.
Manufacturers are always challenging themselves to make the next generation of construction materials more
lightweight than the last. The goal is to be able to do so without sacrificing its strength and durability. Heavy materials,
for all their benefits, can impose problems unto workers in the field. First, its size can cause injury to the spinal discs,
backs, and muscles of the people who are in charge of personally carrying them. In fact, repeatedly lifting these will
lead to long-term health conditions. Now, steel has become lightweight thanks to the addition of aluminum. Aluminum
is added in nano-meter sized clusters to steel, and this assures that the material’s strength remains while eliminating
the majority of its brittleness. (Regal Industrial Sales, Inc., 2020)
14
Steel is not only very durable, but it is also resistant to high temperatures and corrosion, making it ideal for
different industries and machinery applications. By identifying the temperature resistance, you will be able to pick the
right type of steel to use for your industrial projects. (Regal Industrial Sales, Inc., 2020)
When it comes to tried and tested materials in the construction industry, few come close to the quality that
construction steel provides. Being the main material used to build structures like buildings, bridges, manufacturing
facilities, commercial centers, railways, and other projects, steel is one of the most versatile building materials around.
Known for being highly durable, flexible, and strong, construction steel is a versatile material that can be shaped and
molded into different forms as well. The qualities that construction steel possesses can be stemmed from its
manufacturing process, which is a step by step procedure that ensures the quality of steel products would always be
properly maintained at all times. Manufacturing steel is a lengthy process that involves delicate procedures and
materials to produce the final product. By identifying the different steps of manufacturing steel, you would be able to
know the process that steel goes through to become a high-quality construction material. (Regal Industrial Sales, Inc.,
2020)
Using steel products such as angle bars in the Philippines can help your company cut on different construction
costs. This metal can help you save money by reducing labor costs. Since steel products have been fabricated for
your workers, you will be saving up to 40% of onsite construction time. Fewer work hours lead to less cash spent on
wages. Additionally, steel helps you spend less by being cheaper than concrete, another material popular for the
construction of buildings. Steel prices have remained low until now because manufacturers make their metal products
using batches of recycled steel instead of new ones. On the other hand, concrete cannot be reused again, and it has a
weak foundation. Materials made out of sand, gravel, and water lead to a high possibility of repair costs. (Regal
Industrial Sales, Inc., 2020)
Man-made steel structures will be able to handle typhoons, strong winds, and earthquakes. Strong vibrations
from the ground or winds will not be felt by a structure’s steel framework. Thanks to technological advancements and
the help of its elastic property, steel can withstand these natural disasters. Elasticity makes a certain metal capable of
absorbing stress from different forces by making the framework move with them. After the earthquake or strong winds
disappear, the frame will go back to its original position. Furthermore, steel will protect your home from powerful rains
especially as plates for roofing. It can accomplish this by being moisture resistant. (Regal Industrial Sales, Inc., 2020)
Akbay (2006) argues that, structural steel utilization has arrived at big ratios in the countries that are
developed and mostly found in earthquake zone such as the USA, Japan, Germany, England, Sweden, Spain, France
and Finland. Also, in Japan, people can come through big earthquakes with small loss of human and money. On the
other hand, in the Philippines, steel framing becomes popular in the construction of residential structures due to the
big earthquakes that occurred in the past.
Venturing into the property market is also a wise investment as local condominium sales continue to rise along
with the bullish performance of the country’s overall economy. According to Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA), the
Philippine economy grew by 6 percent during the second quarter of 2018 and Construction emerges as one of the
main drivers of this data with 13.5 percent. On the one hand, Real Estate and Renting contributed around 3.7 percent
headed by Ownership of Dwellings accelerating from 2.9 percent in the same quarter of previous year to 3.2 percent
this year.Since residential properties in the Philippines are relatively cheaper than the ones abroad, investor demands
in the residential condominium sector is expanding at a faster pace and prices have risen with luxury residential
posting the highest at 28 percent year-on-year, real estate consulting firm Santos Knight Frank (SKF) reports. From
the 22 units stated in the previous quarter, overall monthly take-up in Metro Manila mounted to 27 units this quarter.
(Tokyo Grand Renovation Inc, 2019)
15
2.4.2 Foreign Related Literature and Studies
A W-shape column, a hollow structural section (HSS) that can be circular, square, or rectangular, or a cross-
section made up of shapes or plates are all examples of columns. In multi-tier framing, W-shape columns may be
preferable, while HSS columns may be preferable in single-tier projects. W-shape columns make it easier to make
moment connections when they're needed. Nonetheless, the specific of the project should be evaluated when deciding
which option offers the most desirable benefits (Ruby et al., 2008).
The size of the column on single-story structures with beam framing over the columns can range from a W6 to
a W24, or even larger. The majority of columns for low- to mid-rise buildings will be between W8 and W14 in height.
Columns must, however, fit floor and roof framing on taller structuresW14 shapes are the best choice for columns in
most situations, with W10 and W12 shapes coming in second and third, respectively, depending on the floor beam
shapes and attachment specifications. HSS are extremely effective, but they do necessitate that the SER and the
owner understand connection detail specifications as well as relative material and fabrication costs. (Ruby et al.,
2008).
Strong earthquake resistance. Steel is an outstanding ductile material for high-density residential buildings in
seismic areas, where the protection of a large number of inhabitants is important. In seismic architecture, structural
steel systems have the highest degree of protection. Seismic design is required in approximately half of the
geographic area of the United States. The lightweight nature of steel reduces the seismic base shear by about one-
third compared to an all-concrete structure, which results in a significant reduction in foundation loads. (American
Institute of Architects, 2013)
Beams, girders, stanchions, trusses, floor plates, and purlins are among the elements or components used in
the construction of buildings and other structures, according to Thomas (2003). Many of these components are
constructed from hot rolled parts, cold shaped forms, or plates welded together. These components are joined at
connections using plates, structural components, welding or fasteners. The author also points out that, a variety of
steel types are used to produce these structural elements, plates and other components, depending on the intended
use, cost, weight of the structure and corrosion resistance
According to Dudas (2003), using light steel structures in residential house construction is a modern building
technology that has risen to prominence as a result of the building industry's rapid development; it undoubtedly has a
number of technical advantages that meet all of today's requirements. Apart from the points of view described above,
16
it is more critical that the design of these buildings protects the natural environment, adheres to sustainable
development principles, and provides a safe environment for the users for the duration of the building's lifetime.
Structural steel has historically found great efficiency in the design of office buildings, warehouses, and most
other non-residential building types. Apartment and condominium projects constructed using conventional or
innovative steel systems are now being recognized for high performance and quality. These buildings take full
advantage of the following benefits of using structural steel:
Very long-lasting. Steel is the world's most recycled stuff. In the United States, structural steel beams and
columns have an overall recycled content of 90%. At the end of its life, structural steel is recovered for reuse or
recycling in a staggering 98 percent of cases. The structural steel industry continues to reduce its low greenhouse gas
emissions and energy intensity. Results of these efforts are evident in recent findings on greenhouse gases, which
show the iron and steel industry reduced carbon emissions by 37 percent and energy intensity by 32 percent between
1990 and 2013 on a per ton basis.
More usable space. Longer spans and smaller columns allow for more usable floor area and fewer structural
intrusions in open spaces. Two key selling factors in apartments and condominiums are open views and maximum
free space. For example, in a 10-story residential building with 30-foot structural bays, 13 inch by 13 inch steel
columns would translate to approximately 18 inch by 18 inch concrete columns for the equivalent loads. Steel columns
have a reduced structural footprint compared to concrete, allowing for the greatest flexibility in furniture layout and
more unobstructed views.
Erection and assembly are simple. Structural steel can be manufactured and erected in almost any weather,
and there is no need for formwork, which cuts construction time in half. Structural steel framing meets owner needs to
get apartments and condominiums to market on time, making it an ideal option for fast-track development. A shorter
schedule allows owners to reduce financing costs and generate revenue earlier.
Long-lasting and durable. The combination of a high-strength, low-weight material and resistance to rot and
insects are key factors in structural steel's long-term durability. Because of the material's long-term performance,
apartment and condominium buildings that use structural steel framing have an inherently long life span. Structural
steel can be recaptured from demolition sites and reused multiple times prior to being recycled. The framing
components may be disassembled and salvaged, a cleaner process than the demolition of concrete buildings which
leads to more dust and pollution in the air.
17
Adaptable. Changes in load and occupancy requirements are easily handled by structural steel framing,
extending the functional life of buildings. Steel can be built to accommodate changes in usage, increased loads,
additional floors, and longer spans in a simple and straightforward manner. An ideal system for unit conversion or
adaptive reuse, the versatility of structural steel highlights the benefits for apartment and condominium designs.
Alternatives in terms of appearance. Structural steel comes in a variety of shapes and sizes, allowing for a
wide range of building cladding and speech choices. Steel can be formed into tight curves and wide arches, and used
for long cantilevers, and is known for its slenderness and grace. Steel can be exposed architecturally, but it needs to
be shielded from fire and corrosion. Methods of fire protection range from intumescent coating to cementitious spray-
proofing, while design for corrosion includes options such as galvanizing or painting depending on the exposed
condition.
The Wharf is a mile-long waterfront neighborhood in Washington, DC's storied Southwest quadrant that
includes shopping, residential, hospitality, office, and cultural complexes, as well as a public park and piers. 525 Water
is a 107-unit condominium building in Washington, D.C., and it was the first residential development in The Wharf.
These new condominiums are five floors high with over 105,000 square feet of space. The structure is largely square
in form, with a curved southern exposure that matches the streetscape's radius. The project's main structural
component was load-bearing cold-formed steel framing. For levels three and above, load-bearing wall panels support
concrete over Hambro joists. Over 9,000 linear feet of wall framing containing complex curves and angles was
prefabricated off-site by FrameCo, Inc. On May 5, 2015, the first of over 1,040 panels was placed on the second floor.
In just three months, the structure was topped out with its final pour at the roof. Although masonry elevator and stair
shafts were included in the building design, cold-formed X-braces stabilize the building above the second level. The
garage and first-level structure were constructed with concrete columns supporting reinforced two-way concrete slabs.
The infill curtain wall on the first story exterior wall is fabricated with cold-formed steel framing and a deflection track at
the end. After most of the second floor had already been built, these curtain walls were constructed. The beam
pockets that were needed to achieve a positive load path best exemplify the value of cold-formed prefabricated panels
on this project. With over 100 steel beams at the fifth level, Excel Engineering, Inc coordinated beam depth, width, and
bearing locations so that appropriately sized cold-formed posts could be provided. The posts were capable of
supporting each beam while still allowing adequate space for the field crew to make their connections. This avoided
costly delays associated with traditional ironwork. More than 550 MEP (mechanical, electrical, and plumbing services)
sleeves penetrated each stage, adding to the complexity. Excel arranged every stud position to prevent interference
and speed up the wall panel installation. (Bill Wilde and Joe Wilkum, 2017)
18
E.M. Hines and C.C. Jacob [2009] presented a paper on Eccentric braced frame system performance. The
seismic performance of low-ductility steel systems designed for moderate seismic regions have generated new
interest in the cost-effective design of ductile systems for such regions. Although eccentrically braced frames (EBFs)
have a well-established reputation as high-ductility systems and have the potential to offer cost-effective solutions in
moderate seismic regions, their system performance has not been widely discussed. Eccentrically Braced Frames
(EBFs) are known for their attractive combination of high elastic stiffness and superior inelastic performance
characteristics (AISC2005).
In China, S.H. Chao and M.R. Bayat et al. [2008] investigated performance-based plastic design of steel
concentric braced frames for increased trust. Due to the brace buckling or fracture when exposed to massive cyclic
displacements, concentrically braced frames (CBFs) are commonly considered less ductile seismic resistant structures
than other systems. This is attributed to simpler design and high efficiency of CBFs compared to other systems such
as moment frames, especially after the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. However, recent analytical studies have shown
that CBFs designed by conventional elastic design method suffered severe damage or even collapse. The three- and
six-story Chevron type CBFs originally designed (Sabelli, 2000) as SCBF according to 1997 NEHRP design spectra
(FEMA, 1997) and 1997 AISC Seismic Provisions (AISC, 1997) were used in this study.
Behavior of Braced Steel Frames with Innovative Bracing Schemes was studied by R. Leon and R.
DesRoches [2006]. Typical diagonal and chevron bracing configurations, as well as novel ideas like strut-to-ground
and zipper braced frames, are examples of traditional bracing systems (Khatib et al. 1988, Bruneau et al. 1998). The
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Recommended Lateral Force Requirements (SEAOC 1996),
the International Building Code (IBC 2000), and the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Development of
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings all include seismic regulations and recommendations for the seismic design of
CBFs (BSSC 2000), and the AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC 2002). While diagonal and
chevron systems have high lateral strength and rigidity, they lack ductility because buckling of the diagonals causes
rapid loss of strength with little force redistribution. (Goel 1992).
P. Uriz and S.A. Mahin [2004] Seismic performance evaluation of concentrically braced steel frames was
discussed in a report. Traditional braces, buckling restrained braces, and braces with viscous damping devices are
also part of the overall investigationThe same reliability framework used to evaluate Special Moment Resisting Frame
(SMRF) structures during the FEMA/SAC Steel Project was used to assess the confidence with which Special
Concentric Braced Frames (SCBF) and Buckling Restrained Braced Frames (BRBF) could achieve the seismic
performance required of new SMRF construction in the first portion. The second section is divided into two sections,
19
the design of a nearly full-size, two-story SCBF test specimen is defined as part of a test program to help improve
modeling of SCBF systems. For all meanings of capacity and a seismic hazard corresponding to a 2% likelihood of
extinguishment, the trust that a three-story SCBF built according to the 1997 NEHRP provisions would be able to
achieve the collapse prevention efficiency target was less than 10%, exceedance in 50 years. A similarly designed six-
story BRBF was demonstrated to be much more reliable. The performance-based evaluation approach for
characterizing and improving the performance of steel braced frames incorporating conventional bracing, buckling
restrained braces, friction and hysteretic devices, and viscous dampers.
Steel structures are commonly used in western countries due to their high strength and ductility properties,
which minimize building and erection time. Steel structures are lighter than reinforced concrete structures, reducing
the stress on footings. The size of frame members are less as compared to RC structures which gives more space
inside the building. In steel structures we know much type of frames such as rigid and simple frames. In rigid frames,
beams and columns are joined together with moment resisting connections. Here the bracings are provided to resist
lateral stability of the frame. The rigid frames are those in which the angle between the members remains constant
even after loading, and the beam-column links are moment resisting, meaning they do not allow any relative rotations
at the members' joints. Simply we can say an earthquake is unexpected movement earth. When a structure subjected
to natural wind from a few minutes to hour then a wind speed would produce a static force on a structure.
There is a brief introduction to earthquakes as well as the theory of structural architecture. In addition to the
above, wind loads on steel structures are calculated using simple structural typologies, and earthquake response is
analyzed using non-linear time history analysis. The current study's findings indicate that bracing elements have a
significant impact on structural behavior under lateral loads. The base shear rises up to 40% for zone-III due to
bracings at the structure's periphery, according to the results and discussions. The values of roof displacement
decreased by up to 45 percent. Based on the findings and discussions, we may infer that X-type Bracings are a highly
successful design of bracing style for highly affected earthquake zones and for various wind speeds. The conclusion
shows that steel structures are highly effective against lateral loads, especially braced structures, and that the key
drawback is steel structure corrosion and maintenance. (Imran and Sowjanya, 2014)
Steel structures have been the world's fastest and most enticing design technique for industrial buildings in
the last two decades. Many nations, on the other hand, used their own codes to build steel structures based on their
own experiences. The majority of the architecture, however, was done in accordance with local design philosophy and
country-accepted code provisions. The performance-based design of steel buildings has been addressed in this study
in order to forecast global behavior and optimize steel structures over global behavior. The two case studies were
20
carried out to assess the steel structures' structural efficiency. Both experiments were carried out under the same
loading conditions (lateral) and the results were compared using push over analysis. Elastic spectrums have been
calculated and compared to the demand curve. However, local structural elements also be evaluated based on the
code provision given in order to make sure the ultimate and serviceability limit state. It clearly shows that convectional
design proceedings for the steel structures has been shown less performance compare to performance-based design.
The performance-based analysis was compared and show significant impact on the design phase where the critical
analysis of the structure became the lateral loading condition. The plastic hinge formation of structure used to predict
the overall structural performance. Finally, it has been compared foundation, super structural element separately for
the purpose of doing the cost comparison. In Sri Lanka, the most of the construction are focus to reinforced concrete
and however most of the client brings realizing the advantages of steel structure. Only challenge is the structural
stability over the ductility which earns more on concrete. However, it was discussed in this design for moderate
conditions, where Euro code 8 was defined in relation to Ecurocode 3. (Steel design). The loading combinations of
each structure have been considered in accordance with BS 6399, and lateral loading is more common. (TL Pradeep,
2017)
Copeland, Glover, Hart, Hayott and Marshall (1983) assert that for vertical load transferring in steel
frameworks, universal columns, standard hot rolled parts, are typically used because they provide the simplest
connection information. Rectangular and circular hollow columns, they say, have better stability due to their higher
stiffness to weight ratio, but they require more complicated connections.
Thomas (2003) since welding consists of basically connecting steel component to steel component with steel
that is intimately united to both, states that welding, when used and done properly, helps in the creation of very secure
and efficient structures. It can lead to extremely efficient paths for transferring behaviors and stresses from one
member or part to another. Conversely, welding used or done badly or inappropriately can lead to potentially unsafe or
ineffective structures (welds containing defects or inappropriate types or forms of joints can cause failure or collapse of
members or structures with little or no warning). As a result, caution must be exercised in the design of welds, the
design or specification of welding systems, the actual process of joining parts, and the inspection of welding to ensure
that it is as defined and fit for purpose. According to the author, good welding, like the development of structural steel
parts, necessitates specialized knowledge. This is built on a foundation of knowledge of the metallurgy of steel but
also requires knowledge of the processes and materials involved in welding.
As stated by Akbay (2006), Steel frames are simple to assemble. This is due to the use of factory-produced,
interconnected structural components, pre-painted roof and wall panels, and other elements that can be selected
21
ahead of time and easily assembled on site, according to the author. The construction of Safeco Baseball Stadium in
Seattle, for example, took just 27 months to complete (including the production drawings which took 9 months). It is a
47,000-seat baseball stadium with the ability to close with a roof when necessary. In addition, specific steps were
taken to counteract the effects of earthquakes.
Akbay (2006) claims that reinforced concrete multi-story buildings may be constructed using reinforced
concrete cores or retaining walls. However, reinforced concrete is not a preferred material for high-rise buildings due
to limitations in the number of storeys, difficulties in manufacturing load bearing components on site, and an increase
in construction time. The author continues that, steel framed structures have a great potential in building high-rise
structures, which is why after the developments in the steel construction, number of high-rise buildings and their
heights increased rapidly. In certain steel high-rise buildings, reinforced concrete may be used as a foundation,
increasing the number of storeys and increasing the construction complexity.
Lui (2003) Steel pieces may be fastened together with rivets, bolts, and welds, according to the manufacturer.
Despite the fact that rivets were once widely used, they are now almost obsolete in modern steel construction. Bolts
have largely taken the place of rivets as the main method of joining non-welded structural parts. According to Schollar
(1993), it is generally cheaper to make a bolted joint than a welded one (particularly on site) so a designer will usually
choose bolted work for both site and workshop with some shop welding where warranted by engineering design. Site
welding, according to the author, is used when a member's full strength is required at a connection and tolerance,
geometry, or aesthetics necessitate welded connections. Welding is also preferred in externally exposed work to
prevent rainwater entering behind splice plates on exposed steel.
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS, AND STANDARDS
22
3.1 Design Constraints
A constraint is characterized as a limiting factor or situation that communicates the constraints of a system in a specific
project environment or scenario. There are two types of design constraints: quantitative and qualitative. To minimize
the impact and impact of the project, it is important to understand and consider the limitations of the project. The
following restrictions were found to have a significant impact on the construction of the fire station in this version
3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints
Quantitative restrictions are achieved through technical processes that can be calculated and compared numerically.
The quantitative restrictions that must be taken into account in the design are the following:
3.1.1.1 Economic Constraints (Cost)
One limitation designers must consider when planning is financial constraints. It's about the successful design effort.
When designing the structure, we must consider the strength and reliability required while minimizing effort. The
design of a structure must not only comply with the NSCP 2015 guidelines, but also with the client's budget, as this
limitation would also affect the useful life of the project design. The goal of the designers is to create the most cost-
effective frame while meeting other constraints and standards
3.1.1.2 Sustainability Constraints (Maintenance Cost)
Structure maintenance costs are considered a sustainability constraint when planning this project. One of the
principles of engineering design is that as the strength of the construction increases, so does the cost due to the need
for higher quality materials. With any project commitment, the contractor would only weigh maintenance costs.
23
3.1.1.3 Constructability Constraints (Project Duration)
The constructability constraint takes into account how long the development time takes. The longer the duty cycle, the
higher the cost; Early detection of construction errors increases buildability and saves time and money on the job. The
design that accumulates the most in a short period of time would be the most effective to use. For this restriction,
designers can only consider the duration of the project. Designers will base the duration of each engagement on prior
study and construction.
3.1.1.4Risk Assessment (Displacement)

The risk assessment constraint takes into account the maximum settlement caused by the foundation. Settlement is
the subsidence of the land caused by a load that causes the soil to displace. Smaller settlements result in small fine
cracks in the plaster, while large settlements cause closing problems in doors and walls. Plumbing and electrical
appliances can also be affected. Since the structure is such an important building, it must be built in such a way that it
can be used for a long time, and the settlement is often a factor to remember. Total settlement should not exceed
25mm. For this limit, designers focus on horizontal scrolling.
3.1.2 Qualitative Constraints

Qualitative limitation refers to characteristics of processes and definitions that cannot be calculated, tested, or
measured in terms of quantity, number, strength, or duration. The designers found the following qualitative limits.
3.1.2.1 Safety Constraints

This is taken into account to reduce the risk of floor improvement for neighboring occupants if the procedure fails.
Planners evaluate the extent to which the project will perform without loss under the normal conditions given during
the construction process and beyond. That is the degree to which unintended damage is observed and prevented. To
rule out the possibility of loss, the application and soil improvement method must be done carefully and precisely.
24
.3.1.2.2 Environmental Constraints
Environmental constraints take into account the unpredictability of harsh conditions and the frequency of natural
disasters, all of which can affect the length of the building. Weather fluctuations are exacerbated by man-made climate
change. The interaction of natural forces, such as potential seismic forces, as well as effects of winds and typhoons,
which may or may not occur, will significantly influence project costs due to construction intensity and planning time,
which are directly related to project costs.
3.1.2.3 Social Constraints

Constraints in the construction operating environment are known as social constraints. It is possible that a
comparatively limited number of key personnel in the operational field could cause unfavorable effects. These will
affect many aspects of the project, such as the duration and nature of the work that people do. Such considerations
can get in the way of development and should be closely monitored to avoid unnecessary delays.
3.2 Trade-Offs
The designers devised three distinct Column Sections in order to address the various restrictions. These column
sections will be able to support the structure's various loads. A trade-off analysis will be performed to identify which
system will be employed in the project and whether it will meet the restrictions.
25
Framing System
Steel – Special Moment Resisting Frame
Structural steel special moment frames are frequently employed in buildings designed to withstand severe inelastic
deformation in both members and connections when subjected to lateral stresses. It ensures the ductile behavior of
the beam to column joints in seismically active areas. Steel beam, column, and table-column joints have special
moment frames that are proportioned and constructed to endure flexural, axial, and shearing action, resulting in a
swaying structure.
Figure 3.1 Steel (SMRF)
(Source: Google Image)
Steel (SMRF) Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages
 Moment frames apply less force to foundations than other structural systems, resulting in foundation
constructions that are more cost-effective.
 It has fewer columns, no structural walls, and no vertically oriented diagonal bracing, resulting in greater
useable space and less visual impediments.
Disadvantages
 Moment frames are more expensive to build than braced frames or shear walls.
 It has a weaker beam
26
Special Steel Plate Shear Wall
SPSWs are lateral load resistant materials made up of vertical steel plate infills attached to surrounding columns and
beams positioned in one or more bays to form a cantilever wall that spans the entire height of the structure. When
SPSWs with a high starting stiffness are subjected to nonlinear inelastic deformations, they become extremely ductile
and disperse a lot of energy. Certain features make them appropriate for seismic load resistance and dissipation.
SPSWs are commonly employed in the construction of new buildings and are generally suitable for retrofitting existing
structures.
Figure 3.2 Special Steel Plate Shear Wall
Special Steel Plate Shear Wall Advantages and Disadvantage

Advantages
 When compared to a structure with a concrete shear wall, SPSWs have a lower building weight. Moment
frames apply less force to foundations than other structural systems, resulting in foundation constructions that
are more cost-effective.
 Reduces building time by using a relatively thin steel plate with excellent post-buckling capacity.
Disadvantages
 SPWs are typically more flexible compared to concrete shear walls, mostly because of their flexural flexibility.
 Usually, a contractor would predict a relatively high installed cost due to unfamiliarity with the method.
27
Column
Rolled W-Shape
The I-beam, also called the H-beam, wide beam, W-beam, universal beam (UB), and rolled steel joist, is the shape of
choice for structural steel builds. The design and structure of the I beam makes it uniquely capable of handling a
variety of loads.Engineers use I beams widely in construction, forming columns and beams of many different lengths,
sizes, and specifications.
The I beam consists of two horizontal planes, known as flanges, connected by one vertical component, or the web.
The shape of the flanges and the web create an “I” or an “H” cross-section. Most I beam use structural steel, but some
are made from aluminum. Infra-metal constructions, such as carbon structural steel and high-strength low-alloy
structural steel, have different applications – such as building framing, bridges, and general structural purposes.
Figure 3.3 Rolled W-Shapes
28
Rolled W-Shape Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages
 Can be used for most structural member applications

 Provides good compatibility for connections to other primary or secondary members
 High steel conservation compared to solid rectangular or square section
Disadvantages
 Cannot be loaded in the X-X direction due to the section's low structural capacity as compared to the Y-Y
direction.
 Because it is an open part, it provides less torsional resistance
29
Rolled HP-Shape
The HP-shape is a high-efficiency economic segment profile with an improved cross-sectional area distribution and a
more appropriate weight-to-weight ratio. It is so called because its part corresponds to the English letter "H." Since all
of the components of the H-shaped steel are arranged at right angles, it has the advantages of high bending
resistance, straightforward structure, cost savings, and light weight in all directions, and it is commonly used. The HP-
shape is almost similar to the W-shape except that its webs and flanges have almost equal thicknesses and the flange
diameter is roughly equal to the overall depth.
Figure 3.4 Rolled HP – Shape
Rolled HP – Shape Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages
 Simple installation, taking into account driving as well as handling, transportation, and storage
 The length of the pile is unrestricted due to the ease with which it may be adapted to the soil conditions
through splicing.
 Excellent durability; multiple tests on completely embedded piles revealed a corrosion rate that was close to
zero.
Disadvantages
 Its weight b Excellent durability; multiple trials with completely embedded piles revealed a corrosion rate that
was close to zero.
 Excellent durability; multiple tests on completely embedded piles revealed a corrosion rate that was close to
zero
30
Beam
Rolled W-Shape
The I-beam, also called the H-beam, wide beam, W-beam, universal beam (UB), and rolled steel joist, is the shape of
choice for structural steel builds. The design and structure of the I beam makes it uniquely capable of handling a
variety of loads.Engineers use I beams widely in construction, forming columns and beams of many different lengths,
sizes, and specifications.
The I beam consists of two horizontal planes, known as flanges, connected by one vertical component, or the web.
The shape of the flanges and the web create an “I” or an “H” cross-section. Most I beam use structural steel, but some
are made from aluminum. Infra-metal constructions, such as carbon structural steel and high-strength low-alloy
structural steel, have different applications – such as building framing, bridges, and general structural purposes.
Rolled W – Shape
31
Rolled W – Shape Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages
 It enables contractors to disperse a load across a large region.

 They are lighter than a square beam of the same size, but they can support a greater load, making them more
efficient
Disadvantages
 It has bending failure due to yielding if the cross section exceeds the yield stress.
Rolled S-Shape
The S-beam or S is the most frequent name for the American standard beam. The S-shape is a rolled segment joined
by a web with two parallel flanges. In comparison to W-shapes, S shapes have smaller flanges. The S-shape
categorization provides information on the breadth and weight per unit length. S 12x50, for example, denotes a depth
of 12 inches and a weight of 50 pounds per foot per unit length.
Rolled S – Shape
32
Rolled S – Shape Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages
 High steel conservation compared to solid rectangular or square sections.

 Universal member - can be employed for a wide range of structural member applications.
 Allows for high compatibility with other primary or secondary members.
Disadvantages
 Because it is an open portion, it provides less torsional resistance;

 It is less versatile than W-Shapes
Connections
Bolted
A bolt is a metal pin with a nut-accepting head on one end and a threaded shank on the other. Bolted links are used
more commonly than other types of connections because they are easy to use and require no additional equipment.
This is mostly owing to the increased availability of higher-strength bolts, which make it easier to employ and create
strong structural steel linkages. Tension and shear forces are two types of forces that should be addressed while
designing a bolt.
Bolted Connection
33
Bolted Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages
Less man power is required in making the connections.
Noiseless and quick fabrication
Bolts can be removed, replaced or retightened easily in the event of faulty bolting or damaged bolts due to
accidents/hazards.
Disadvantages
Bolted connection has lesser strength in axial tension as the net area at the root of the thread is less.
Under vibratory loads the strength is reduced if the connections get loosened.
Unfinished bolts have lesser strength because of non-uniform diameter.
Welded
Welding is a structural process in which the pieces to be joined are heated and fused together using extra molten
metal at the junction. When a relatively tiny amount of material is molten, the structural steel and welded metal behave
as one continuous component that is linked when it cools. Other mechanical ties are well-known, such as riveting or
bolting.
Welded Connection
Source: Google Image
34
Welded Advantages and Disadvantages
Advantages
 Cost-effective; removing a significant number of steel plates and splices saves money.
 More applications, particularly for circular portions.
 When compared to bolted connections, these connections are more stiff.
Disadvantages
 It necessitates the use of skilled labor.
 There's a chance that additional stress will develop as a result of inconsistent heating and cooling. To put it
another way, the members may get deformed.
Flooring
Steel Decking
Steel deck slab is developed to use as an efficient and cost-wise on building a structure’s floor systems.
Steel deck
35
Advantages
 Less Weight: Slabs made with steel decking have high structural strength compared to traditional concrete
slabs. ...
 Easy Handling: ...
 Easy Installation of Shuttering Material: ...
 High Strength:
Disadvantages
 Can not be used for load-bearing or structural work

 Expands and contacts at different rates than material needed to be used for structure / frame
 If damaged or faded the material must be replaced
 It is very temperature sensitive and expands and contracts with temperature change
 Very new building material
 It’s a soft material and wears easily
Reinforced Concrete Deck Slab
A reinforced concrete deck slab is an important structural element in structures that offers level surfaces (floors and
ceilings). Based on the reinforcement, beam support, and span ratio, slabs are commonly classified as one-way or
two-way.
.
RC Deck Slab
36
3.3 Trade-off summary
The designers' many trade-offs are summarized in the diagram below. Various case studies, experimental
investigations, journals, published books, the internet, and other sources were used to analyze each trade-off.
CONFIGURATION 1 CONFIGURATION 2
Framing system
V S
Column Members
V
S
Beam
V S
Connections
37
3.2.3 Initial Constraints Estimate
This section shows the initial cost estimate of each trade-off as per constraint. Through these gathered data, the
designers will be able to determine which trade-off is the most suitable for use among the three.
Design Criteria Criterion’s Ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale 0

Importance (on a to 10)
scale of 0 to 10) SMRF SHEAR WALL
Economical 9 10 7.47
Sustainability 8 10 7.47
Constructability 7 10 8.93
Risk Assessment 10 6.0 9.0
Over-all Rank 300 255.62
Table 3-4. Designer’s Raw Ranking of Trade-offs
Design Constraints
Trade-offs Economic Sustainability Constructability
Cost per sqm Maintenance Cost Project Duration
(Php) (Php) (Days)
SMRF
10,900,000.00 650,000.00 98
580,000.00 432,000.00
SHEAR WALL 82
Table 3-5. Initial Estimate of Quantitative Constraints
3.2.3.1 Economic Constraints

38
The table provided below shows the initial constraints estimate of each trade-off. Through these results, the designers
will be able to determine which trade-off is the most economical among the three.
Description SMRF SHEAR WALL

Economic Cost (Php) 10,900,000.00 8,400,000.00
Subordinate Rank 10 7.47475
Table 0-6. Initial Cost Estimates for Economic Constraints
For SMRF and SHEAR WALL

10,900,000.00−8,400,000.00
%difference= x 10
10,900,000.00
%difference=¿2.29
Subordinate Rank= (10−2.29 )
Subordinate Rank=7.70
Figure 0-4. Economic Difference (SMRF and SHEAR WALL)
3.2.3.2 Sustainability Constraints

The table provided below shows the typical life expectancy of each trade-off. With these results, the designers will be
able to determine which trade-off will have the least maintenance cost among the three.

Maintenance Cost 580,000.00 432,000.00
(Php)
Subordinate Rank 10 7.47
Table 0-7. Typical Life Expectancy of Building Components for Sustainability Constraints
39
For SMRF AND SHEAR WALL
580,000.00−432,000.00
%difference= x 10
580,000.00
%difference=2.55
Figure 0-5. Sustainability Difference (SMRF AND SHEAR WALL)

3.2.3.3 Constructability Constraints
The table provided below shows the estimated construction duration of each trade-off. The duration is the time
required to complete specified building component. The data used for the estimation is based on existing building
construction schedules as provided in the references section.

Project Duration (Days) 98 82
Subordinate Rank 8.93617 10
Table 0-8. Estimated Project Duration for Constructability Constraints
For SMRFAND SHEAR WALL
40
98−82
%difference= x 10
98
%difference=1.60
Figure 0-6. Constructability Difference SMRF and SHEAR WALL)
Design Criteria Criterion’s Ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale 0

Importance (on a to 10)
scale of 0 to 10) HP-Section W-Section
Economical 9 7.47 10
Sustainability 8 7.47 10
Constructability 7 8.93 10
Risk Assessment 10 9.0 6.0
Over-all Rank 255.62 300.00
3.2.3 Initial Constraints Estimate

This section shows the initial cost estimate of each trade-off as per constraint. Through these gathered data, the
designers will be able to determine which trade-off is the most suitable for use among the three.
41
Design Constraints
Trade-offs Economic Sustainability Constructability Safety
Cost per sqm Maintenance Cost Project Duration Displacement (mm)
(Php) (Php) (Days)
HP-Section 9,900,000.00 594,000.00 94 1.0

Column
W-Section 7,400,000.00 444,000.00 84 1.5

Column
Table 3-5. Initial Estimate of Quantitative Constraints
The data shown above shows the initial estimates of the different types of footing considered for the structure. The
estimated costs were acquired by computing the volume or quantity of each component then multiplied to the current
market prices of those materials. The duration of each trade-off was computed using the book “Estimator’s General
Construction Man-Hour Manual” by John S. Page. As for the deflection, it was based on existing projects.

The table provided below shows the initial constraints estimate of each trade-off. Through these results, the designers
will be able to determine which trade-off is the most economical among the three.
Description HP-Section W-Section

Economic Cost (Php) 9,900,000.00 7,400,000.00
42
Table 0-6. Initial Cost Estimates for Economic Constraints
For W-Section vs. HP-Section

9,900,000.00−7,400,000.00
%difference= x 10
9,900,000.00
%difference=¿2.52525
Figure 0-7. Economic Difference (W-Section vs. HP-Section)

The table provided below shows the typical life expectancy of each trade-off. With these results, the designers will be
able to determine which trade-off will have the least maintenance cost among the three.

Maintenance Cost 594,000.00 444,000.00
(Php)
Table 0-7. Typical Life Expectancy of Building Components for Sustainability Constraints

594,000.00−444,000.00
%difference= x 10
594,000.00
%difference=2.52525
43
Figure 0-8. Sustainability Difference (W-Section vs. HP-Section)

The table provided below shows the estimated construction duration of each trade-off. The duration is the time
required to complete specified building component. The data used for the estimation is based on existing building
construction schedules as provided in the references section.

Project Duration (Days) 94 84
Table 0-8. Estimated Project Duration for Constructability Constraints

94−84
%difference= x 10
94
%difference=1.06
44
Figure 0-9. Constructability Difference (W-Section vs. HP-Section)
3.2.5.3 Raw Ranking for Column Trade-
offs
Raw Ranking for Beam Trade-offs
Computation of Ranking for Economical Constraint Beam
CONSTRAINTS
45
TRADE-OFFS Economical
(Material Cost) Subordinate
Rank
BEAM 1 W-Shape (14x176) (40m) 524,000 10
BEAM 2 S-Shape (24x121) (40m) 576,000.00 9.099
Table 3.4 Computation of Ranking for Economical Constraint Beam
46
Since the W-Shape Beam has the lowest material cost, the designers gave it the highest rank which is 10.
W-Shape vs S-Shape
576,000.00−520,000.00
%difference= x 10
576,000.00
%difference=0.97
Subordinate Rank 9.3
Figure 3.12 Ranking Scale for W-Shape vs S-Shape
Computation of Ranking for Constructability Constraint Beam
Table 3.5 Computation of Ranking for Constructability Constraint Beam
CONSTRAINTS
Trade Subordinate
Offs Constructability (Labor Rank
Cost)
BEAM 1 W-Shape 264,900.00 9.51
BEAM 2 S-Shape 252,000.00 10
Since the W-Shape Beam has the lowest labor cost, the designers gave it the highest rank which is 10.
S-Shape vs W-Shape
264,000.00−252,000.00
%difference= x 10
264,000.00
%difference=0.45
47
Figure 3.13 Ranking Scale for S-Shape vs W-Shape
Computation of Ranking for Sustainability Constraint Beam
CONSTRAINTS
TRADE- Subordinat
OFFS Sustainability e Rank
(Maintenance
Cost)
BEAM 1 W-Shape 15,700.00 10
BEAM 2 S-Shape 16,500.00 9.50
Table 3.6 Computation of Ranking for Sustainability Constraint Beam
48
Since the W-Shape Beam has the lowest maintenance cost, the designers gave it the highest rank which is
10.
W-Shape vs S-Shape
16,500.00−15,700.00
%difference= x 10
16,500.00
%difference=0.48
Figure 3.14 Ranking Scale for W-Shape vs S-Shape
Raw Ranking for Connection Trade-offs
Computation of Ranking for Economical Constraint Connection
Table 3.7 Computation of Ranking for Economical Constraint Connection
CONSTRAINTS
TRADE- Subordinat
OFFS Economical e Rank
(Material
Cost)
CONNECTION 1 Bolted 157,000.00 8.50
CONNECTION 2 Welded 134,000.00 10
Since Welded Connection has the lowest material cost, the designers gave it the highest rank which is 10.
Welded vs. Bolted
49
157,000−134,000
%difference= x 10
157,000
%difference=1.46
Figure 3.15 Ranking Scale for Welded vs. Bolted
Computation of Ranking for Constructability Constraint Connection
Table 3.7 Computation of Ranking for Constructability Constraint Connection
CONSTRAINTS
TRADE- Subordinat
OFFS Constructabilit e Rank
y (Labor
Cost)
CONNECTION 1 Bolted 29,568.00 10
CONNECTION 2 Welded 35,407.20 8.3508438962
Since Bolted Connection has the lowest labor cost, the designers gave it the highest rank which is 10.
50
35,407.20−29,568.00
%difference= x 10
35,407.20
%difference=¿1.64
Subordinate Rank=¿8.35
Figure 3.16 Ranking Scale Bolted vs Welded
3.2.5.5.2 Computation of Ranking for Sustainability Constraint Connection
Table 3.8 Computation of Ranking for Sustainability Constraint Connection
CONSTRAINTS
TRADE- Subordinat
OFFS Sustainability e Rank
(Maintenance
Cost)
CONNECTION Bolted 3,736.06 9.0688693436
1
CONNECTION Welded 3,388.18 10
2
Since Welded Connection has the lowest maintenance cost, the designers gave it the highest rank which is
10.
3.2.3.4.3.1 Welded vs Bolted
3,736.06−29,568.00
%difference= x 10
3,736.06
%difference=¿0.93
51
Subordinate Rank=¿9.06
Figure 3.17 Ranking Scale Welded vs Bolted
52
Designer’s Raw Ranking
After considering the design constraint, the designers come up with initial raw rankings. The following data
ranking are based all from the computed percent difference and subordinate rank. The overall all rank
winner for Framing System is Steel Special Moment Resisting, for Column HP-Shape, for Beam W-Shape
and for Connection Welded.
Table 3.9 Designer’s Raw Ranking for Framing System
FRAMING
SYSTEM
Criterion's Importance Ability to Satisfy the Criterion
Decision Criteria
(On A Scale From 1 - (Scale From 1 - 10)
10)
Steel- Steel-SPSW
SMRF
Constructabil 9 10 8.73
ity
OVERALL 260 214.18
RANK
53
Table 3.10 Designer’s Raw Ranking for Column
COLU
MN

Decision Criteria
10)
W-Shape HP-Shape
Economical 10 9.89 10
ity
OVERALL 258.93 236.36
RANK
54
Table 3.11 Designer’s Raw Ranking for Beam
BEAM

Decision
Criteria
10)
W-Shape S-Shape
Constructabil 9 9.51 10
ity
OVERALL RANK 255.65 247.69
Table 3.12 Designer’s Raw Ranking for Connection
CONNECTION
Ability to Satisfy the Criterion

Decision Criterion's Importance
Criteria
10)
Bolted Welded
Economical 10 8.52 10.00

ity
Sustainability 7 9.068 10
OVERALL RANK 238.71 245.16
55
3.2.3.4 Risk Assessment Constraints
The table provided below shows the estimated settlement cause by each trade-off. The data used for the estimation is
based on existing building construction schedules as provided in the references section.
3.2.4 Trade-Offs Assessment

The assessment for the Economic Constraints gave results that lead the designer to conclude that the use of W-
Section, which has an initial cost estimate of ₱7,400,000.00, will be the cheapest and most economical among the
three. This outcome is based on the data researched and calculated by the designers.

The assessment for the Sustainability Constraints gave results that lead the designer to conclude that the use of W-
Section is the best choice among the three. W-Section has a maintenance cost of 444,000.00, which makes it the
most suitable trade off.

The assessment for the Constructability Constraints gave results that lead the designer to conclude that the use of W-
Section, which has an estimated construction duration of 84 days, will be the fastest to construct. This outcome is
based on data researched and calculated by the designers.
3.2.4.4 Risk Assessment Constraints

The assessment for the Risk Assessment Constraints gave results that lead the designer to conclude that the use of
HSS Rectangular, which has an estimated displacement of 0.9mm, will be the most effectivetype of column. This
outcome is based on data researched and calculated by the designers.
3.2.5 Overall Trade-offs Assessment

The overall assessment of each trade-offs is determined by using the method of “Trade-off Strategies in Engineering
Design” by Otto and Antonsson (1991), the highest over-all ranking trade-off is W-Section Column with an overall
ranking 300.00.Based on these results, the designer can conclude that the W-Section Column is the recommended
trade-off.
56
3.3 Design Standards
The National Building Code of the Philippines

The Code provides for all buildings and structures, a framework of minimum standards and requirements to regulate
and control location, site, design, and quality of materials, construction, use, occupancy, and maintenance
The following are the sections and standards followed in designing the structure:
 Section 401. Types of Construction
Type I. The structural elements may be any of the materials permitted by this Code.
 Section 805. Ceiling Heights.
Habitable rooms provided with artificial ventilation have\ ceiling heights not less than 2.40 meters measured
from the floor to the ceiling; Provided that for buildings of more than one-storey, the minimum ceiling height of
the first storey shall be 2.70 meters and that for the second storey 2.40 meters and succeeding storeys shall
have an unobstructed typical head-room clearance of not less than 2.10 meters above the finished floor.
Above stated rooms with a natural ventilation shall have ceiling height not less than 2.70 meters.
 Section 808. Window Openings.
Every room intended for any use, not provided with artificial ventilation system as herein specified in this
Code, shall be provided with a window or windows with a total free area of openings equal to at least ten
percent of the floor area of room, and such window shall open directly to a court, yard, public street or alley, or
open water courses.
 Section 1207. Stairs, Exits and Occupant Loads.
General. The construction of stairs and exits shall conform to the occupant load requirements of buildings,
reviewing stands, bleachers and grandstands:
a. Determinations of Occupant Loads. The Occupant load permitted in any building or portion thereof shall be
determined by dividing the floor area assigned to that use by the unit area allowed per occupant as
determined by the Secretary.
b. Exit Requirements. Exit requirements of a building or portion thereof used for different purposes shall be
determined by the occupant load which gives the largest number of persons. No obstruction shall be placed in
the required width of an exit except projections permitted by this Code.
The National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015

This structural code provides minimum requirements for building structural systems using prescriptive and
performance-based provisions. It is founded on broad-based principles that make possible the use of new materials
and new building designs. It is also designed to meet these needs through to guidelines to safeguard life or limb,
property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials pertaining to the
structural aspects of all buildings within this jurisdiction. This is the main reference for the design procedure of the
structure.
 Material Strength. Materials conforming specifications of NSCP 7th edition 2015 were used in the design of
the project.
 Loadings. Dead loads, live loads, wind loads, and earthquake loads are the forces acting on the structure.
Dead loads consist of the weight of all materials of construction incorporated into building and partition loads.
Live loads shall be the maximum loads expected by the occupancy. The required lateral loads due to wind
and earthquake forces shall be separately calculated.
57
 Wind Loads. The wind load is calculated in STAAD Pro using specifications adopted in American Society of
Civil Engineers ASCE7-05 and based on procedure as stated in the National Structural Code of the
Philippines 2015, section 207.
 Seismic Loads. The structure shall be designed and constructed to resist the effect of seismic ground motion
as provided in section 208 of the National Structural Code of the Philippines 7th edition (2015).
Basic Load Combinations. Strength design or load and resistance factor design is used, structures and all portions
thereof shall resist the most critical effects from the following combinations of factored loads
American Society for Testing and Materials
ASTM is an international standards organization that develop and publishes voluntary consensus technical standards
for a wide range of materials, products, systems and services. Two major components of ASTM were Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
58
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN METHODOLOGY
4.1 Design Methodology
This chapter presents the design methodology of the proposed FIVE-STOREY CONDOMINIUM IN
MAHARLIKA HIGHWAY BARANGAY TRINIDAD CALBAYOG CITY, SAMAR PROVINCE PHILIPPINES.
The design specifications, design of each tradeoffs through the design process done by the designer,
evaluation of the govern tradeoffs for the structural context as well as their final estimates with
corresponding working drawings.
4.1.1 Design Flowchart for the Structure
59
4.2 Design Loads
4.2.1 Dead Loads
Category Description Uniform Loads
(KPa)
BASIC FLOOR AREA Cement Finish (25mm) on stone concrete fill 1.53 kPa
STORAGE Cement Finish (25mm) on stone concrete fill 1.53 kPa
4.2.2 Live Loads
LIVE LOAD PARAMETERS
Use of Occupancy
Uniform Load Concentrated Load
(kPa)
Category Description
1.9
Residential Basic floor area
Parking Garages and Ramps

Private (residential) storage 2.4
4.2.3 Seismic Loads

EARTHQUAKE LOAD PARAMETERS
PARAMETER VALUE REFERENCE
TABLE 208-3 (NSCP 2015)
Seismic Zone 4
Seismic Zone Factor, Z 0.4 TABLE 208-3 (NSCP 2015)
Importance Factor, I 1.0 (Standard) TABLE 208-1 (NSCP 2015)
60
Soil Profile Type SD TABLE 208-2 (NSCP 2015)
Seismic Source Type A TABLE 208-4 (NSCP 2015)
Distance from West Valley Fault 38.1 km FIGURE 208-2F (NSCP 2015)
Near source factor, Na 1.00 (38.1 km from West TABLE 208-5 (NSCP 2015)
Valley Fault)
Near source factor, Nv 1.00 (38.1 km from West TABLE 208-6 (NSCP 2015)
Valley Fault)
Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.44 TABLE 208-7 (NSCP 2015)
Seismic Coefficient, Cv 0.64 TABLE 208-8 (NSCP 2015)
Structural Material Factor, R 8.5 TABLE 208-11A to 208-11D
(NSCP 2015)
Frame Material Factor, Ct 0.0731 (Reinforced Concrete
moment resisting frames) SECTION 208.5.2.2 (NSCP 2015)
4.2.4 Wind Loads

WIND LOAD PARAMETERS
CONG. DING TANJUATCO ST. TANAY,

Location RIZAL
Category III
Occupancy Category
310kph (NSCP 2015 Section 207A.5)

Wind Velocity
Gust Effect Factor, G 0.85 (NSCP 2015 Section 207A.9)
C (NSCP 2015 Section 207A.7)

Exposure Category
Topographic Factor, Kzt 1.0 (NSCP 2015 Section 207A.8)
Wind Directional Factor, Kd 0.85 (NSCP 2015 Section 207.6)
Enclosed (NSCP 2015 Section 207A.10)

Enclosure Classification
±0.18 (NSCP 2015Section 207.A.11)

Internal Pressure Coefficient,
GCpi
61
4.3 Design for Special Moment Resisting Frame (Trade-off 1)
Steel special moment frames are made up of beams, columns, and beam-column joints. The
frames are proportioned and detailed to resist flexural, axial, and shearing actions that result as a building
sways through multiple displacement cycles during earthquake ground shaking.
4.3.1 Framing Layout

4.3.1.1 Rendered View of Structure
62
Figure 4.3.1.1 Rendered View of Structure using STAAD.Pro vi8
63
4.3.1.2 Framing Plan of Structure
Typical Floor Framing Plan
64
Front and Rear View (Top), Side Elevations (Bottom)
65
4.3.2 Geometrical Model of the Structure
66
4.3.3 Design Loads Layout
Dead Loads (Self Wt + SDL)
67
Seismic Loads (Top), Wind Loads at x direction (Next Page, Top), Wind Loads at z direction (Next Page,
Bottom)
68
69
Critical Load Combination
70
Axial Force due to Critical Load Combination
71
Beam Stresses due to Critical Load Combination
72
Bending Moment due to Critical Load Combination
73
Deflection due to Critical Load Combination
74
Max Absolute Plate Stress due to Critical Load Combination
75
Shear Bending due to Critical Load Combination
76
Torsional Stress due to Critical Load Combination
77
4.3.4 Design Load Summary
78
79
4.3.5 Beams and Columns Analysis
4.3.5.1 Beam (4 meters)
Beam Properties (Top), Beam Design (Bottom)
80
Beam Deflection (Top) and Shear Bending (Bottom)
81
4.3.5.2 Beam (4.3 meters)
82
83
84
85
86
87
4.3.5.5 Column (1st and 2nd Floor)
Column Properties (Top), Column Design (Bottom)
88
Column Deflection (Top) and Shear Bending (Bottom)
89
4.3.5.6 Column (3rd to 5th Floor)
90
91
4.3.6 Steel Connections Analysis
4.3.6.1 Geometric Model of Connections
92
4.3.6.2 Beam to Column Flange Connection
93
94
95
Current Date: 31/10/2021 3:55:28 pm
Units System: kN_m
Members
Configuration
Exists opposite connection : No
Beam
General
Beam section : W12X96
Beam material : STEEL
Horizontal angle (deg) : 0
Vertical angle (deg) : 0
sb: Beam setback : 0 mm
Horizontal eccentricity : 0 mm
Plastic hinge
sh: Hinge location distance : 0 mm
L: Length between supports : 5m
Vgh: Shear due to gravity loads between plastic hinges : 30.86 kN
Column
General
Support section : W14X132
Support material : STEEL
Is column end : Yes
Flange plate
Connector
Top plate section : PL 1.8x15.24x39.37
L: Top plate length : 393.7 mm
b: Top plate width : 152.4 mm
tp: Top plate thickness : 18 mm
Bottom plate section : PL 1.8x15.24x39.37
Lb: Bottom plate length : 393.7 mm
bb: Bottom plate width : 152.4 mm
tpb: Bottom plate thickness : 18 mm
Plate material : A36
Beam side
Connection type : Bolted
Bolts : 3/4" A325 N
nc: Bolt columns : 2
nr: Rows of Bolts : 5
g: Gage - transverse center-to-center spacing : 76.2 mm
s: Pitch - longitudinal center-to-center spacing : 76.2 mm
Lev: Longitudinal distance to top plate edge : 38.1 mm
Leh: Transverse distance to top plate edge : 38.1 mm
ef: Longitudinal distance to beam edge (top plate) : 50.8 mm
Levb: Longitudinal distance to bottom plate edge : 38.1 mm
Lehb: Transverse distance to bottom plate edge : 38.1 mm
efb: Longitudinal distance to beam edge (bottom plate) : 50.8 mm
Hole type on beam : Standard (STD)
Hole type on top plate : Standard (STD)
Hole type on bottom plate : Standard (STD)
Support side
Top plate weld type : Fillet
Bottom plate weld type : Fillet
Welding electrode to support : E70XX
96
D1: Top weld size to support (1/16 in) : 6
D2: Bottom weld size to support (1/16 in) : 6
Stiffeners
Transverse stiffeners
Position : None
Column web panel zone stiffeners
Stiffener type : Without stiffener
97
Current Date: 31/10/2021 3:55:12 pm
Units System: kN_m
Design code: AISC 360-10 LRFD, AISC 341-10 LRFD
DEMANDS
Description Ru Pu Mu PufTop PufBot PufTop PufBot
Pu Vu Load type
kN kN kN*m kN kN kN kN
kN kN
LC-9 0.00 5.07 -32.56 111.16 -106.09 0.00 0.00

16.05 108.93 Design
LC-10 0.00 4.35 -27.91 95.28 -90.94 0.00 0.00
13.76 93.37 Design
LC-11 0.00 18.42 -192.05 649.98 -631.55 0.00 0.00
30.70 531.95 Design
GEOMETRIC CONSIDERATIONS
Dimensions Unit Value Min. Max. Sta. References
Plate (beam side)

Vertical center-to-center spacing (pitch) [mm] 76.20 50.80 304.80 Sec. J3.3, Sec. J3.5
Horizontal center-to-center spacing (gage) [mm] 76.20 50.80 304.80 Sec. J3.3, Sec. J3.5
Top flange plate data
Vertical edge distance [mm] 38.10 25.40 - Tables J3.4, J3.5
Horizontal edge distance [mm] 38.10 25.40 - Tables J3.4, J3.5
Bottom flange plate data
Plate (support side)
Top plate weld size - column flange [1/16in] 6 - 4.00 table J2.4
Bottom plate weld size - column flange [1/16in] 6 - 4.00 table J2.4
Beam
Support
Thickness [mm] 26.16 7.97 - p. 9-5
Seismic prequalification for selected frame system does not exist WARNINGS
Insufficient bolt gage. It should be greater than beam web thickness (2*k1).
DESIGN CHECK
Verification Unit Capacity Demand Ctrl EQ Ratio References
Top plate (beam side)

Compression [kN] 612.80 0.00 LC-9-0 0.00 Sec. J4.4
Tension yielding [kN] 612.80 573.10 LC-11-2 0.94 Eq. J4-1
Bolts shear [kN] 796.28 604.57 LC-11-2 0.76 Tables (7-1..14)
Bolt bearing (Top plate) [kN] 2334.54 604.57 LC-11-2 0.26 Eq. J3-6
Block shear [kN] 1670.20 573.10 LC-11-2 0.34 Eq. J4-5
Tension rupture [kN] 582.78 573.10 LC-11-2 0.98 Eq. J4-2
Bottom plate (beam side)
Bolt bearing (Bottom plate) [kN] 2334.54 586.14 LC-11-2 0.25 Eq. J3-6
Top plate (support side)
Weld to column [kN] 668.78 649.98 LC-11-2 0.97 Eq. J2-4
98
Bottom plate (support side)
Beam
Bending [kN*m] 548.94 192.05 LC-11-2 0.35 Sec. F13.1
Bolt bearing under shear load [kN] 3196.62 649.98 LC-11-2 0.20 Eq. J3-6
Support
Panel web shear [kN] 836.38 455.08 LC-11-2 0.54 Sec. J10-6, Eq. J10-9
Support - right side
Top local flange bending [kN] 487.41 573.10 LC-11-2 1.18 Eq. J10-1
Local web yielding [kN] 583.05 573.10 LC-11-2 0.98 Eq. J10-3
Bottom web bearing [kN] 1682.46 554.68 LC-11-2 0.33 Eq. J10-4
Global critical strength ratio 0.45
99
4.3.6.3 Beam to Column Web Connection
100
101
102
Current Date: 31/10/2021 3:52:53 pm
Units System: kN_m
Members
Beam
General
Column
General
Is column end : Yes
Flange plate
Connector
Beam side
Bolts : 3/4" A325 N
Support side
Top welding electrode to support : E70XX
Top welding electrode to column web : E70XX
D2: Top weld size to column web (1/16in) : 3
Bottom welding electrode to support : E70XX
Bottom welding electrode to column web : E70XX
D4: Bottom weld size to column web (1/16in) : 3
103
Current Date: 31/10/2021 3:53:04 pm
Units System: kN_m
Design code: AISC 360-10 LRFD
DEMANDS
Description Ru Pu Mu PufTop PufBot Load type
kN kN kN*m kN kN
LC-9 0.00 -2.24 -32.25 106.48 -108.71 Design

LC-10 0.00 -1.92 -27.64 91.27 -93.18 Design
LC-11 0.00 21.98 -53.87 190.74 -168.75 Design
Plate (beam side)

Beam
Support
Flange thickness [mm] 36.58 6.64 - p. 9-5
Web thickness [mm] 22.61 3.99 - p. 9-5
WARNINGS
DESIGN CHECK

Shear yielding due to welds [kN] 466.22 172.98 LC-11-2 0.37 3
104
Shear yielding due to welds [kN] 466.22 151.00 LC-11-2 0.32 3
Beam
REFERENCES
{3} Dowswell, B., 2003, Connection Design For Steel Structures, Structural Design Solutions, LLC.
105
4.3.6.4 Beam to Column Bracing Connection
106
107
108
Current Date: 31/10/2021 3:45:21 pm
Units System: kN_m
Members
Configuration
Beam
General
Vertical angle (deg) : 30.96
Plastic hinge
L: Length between supports : 5.83 m
Column
General
Is column end : Yes
Flange plate
Connector
Beam side
Bolts : 3/4" A325 N
Support side
109
Stiffeners
Position : None
110
Current Date: 31/10/2021 3:45:46 pm
Units System: kN_m
DEMANDS
Pu Vu Load type
kN kN
LC-9 24.50 -40.83 -6.75 2.43 -43.26 0.00 0.00 -

123.69 14.12 Design
LC-10 21.00 -35.00 -5.79 2.08 -37.08 0.00 0.00 -
106.02 12.10 Design
LC-11 -1069.55 1782.58 43.93 742.67 1039.90 0.00 0.00
996.08 223.37 Design
Plate (beam side)

Beam
Support
Thickness [mm] 36.58 9.30 - p. 9-5
Seismic prequalification for selected frame system does not exist
DESIGN CHECK

111
Beam
Support
Bottom local flange bending [kN] 952.68 1012.84 LC-11-2 1.06 Eq. J10-1
Top web bearing [kN] 1645.42 1.73 LC-9-0 0.00 Eq. J10-5a
112
4.4 Design for Special Steel Plate Shear Wall (Trade-off 1)
4.4.1 Framing Layout
Typical Floor Framing Plan
113
114
115
116
117
Front and Rear View (Top), Side Elevations (Bottom)
118
4.4.2 Geometrical Model
119
4.4.3 Design Loads Layout
Dead Loads (Self Weight + SDL)
120
Live Loads
121
Seismic Load at x Direction
122
Seismic Load at z Direction
123
Wind Load at x Direction
124
Wind Load at z Direction
125
Axial Force due to Critical Load Combination
126
Beam Stresses
127
Deflection due to Critical Load Combination
128
Max Absolute Plate Stress due to Critical Load Combination
129
Bending Moment due to Critical Load Combination
130
Bending Shear due to Critical Load Combination
131
Torsion due to Critical Load Combination
132
4.4.4 Design Load Summary
133
134
4.4.5 Beams and Columns Analysis
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
4.3.5.5 Column (1st and 2nd Floor)
143
144
4.3.5.6 Column (3rd to 5th Floor)
145
146
4.4.6 Steel Connections Analysis
4.4.6.1 Geometric Model of Connections
147
4.4.6.2 Beam to Column Flange Connection
148
149
Current Date: 01/11/2021 12:31:55 pm
Units System: kN_m
Members
Beam
General
Beam section : S20X86
Coped
dct: Top cope depth : 0 mm
ct: Top cope length : 0 mm
dcb: Bottom cope depth : 0 mm
cb: Bottom cope length : 0 mm
Column
General
Support section : HP18X157
Is column end : Yes
End plate
Connector
Section : PL 0.6x15.24x22.28
L: Plate length : 222.76 mm
b: Plate width : 152.4 mm
tp: Plate thickness : 6 mm
Material : A36
Beam side
Plate position on beam : Center
Welding electrode to beam : E70XX
D1: Weld size to beam (1/16 in) : 5
Wo: Obtuse side weld size (AWS) (1/16 in) : 5
Wa: Acute side weld size (AWS) (1/16 in) : 5
Wo: Obtuse side weld size (AISC) (1/16 in) : 5
Wa: Acute side weld size (AISC) (1/16 in) : 5
Support side
Connection type : Welded
D2: Weld size to support (1/16 in) : 4
150
Current Date: 01/11/2021 12:31:33 pm
Units System: kN_m
DEMANDS
Description Ru Pu Load type
kN kN
LC-7 27.64 -8.23 Design

LC-8 23.69 -7.05 Design
LC-9 -72.70 11.99 Design
LC-10 36.97 -40.89 Design
LC-11 128.76 -28.67 Design
End plate
Length [mm] 222.76 222.76 445.52 p. 10-49
End plate (beam side)
Weld size [1/16in] 5 - 2.00 table J2.4
Weld length [mm] 222.76 31.75 - Sec. J2.2b
End plate (support side)
Weld size [1/16in] 4 4.00 2.00 table J2.4, Sec. J2.2b
DESIGN CHECK

Weld capacity [kN] 504.37 131.92 LC-11-4 0.26 Eq. J2-4
Shear yielding [kN] 398.10 128.76 LC-11-4 0.32 Eq. J4-3
Beam
Welds rupture [kN/m] 4101.82 850.19 LC-11-4 0.21 p. 9-5
Support
151
4.4.6.3 Beam to Column Web Connection
152
153
Current Date: 01/11/2021 12:34:55 pm
Units System: kN_m
Members
Beam
General
Beam section : S20X86
Coped
dct: Top cope depth : 0 mm
ct: Top cope length : 0 mm
dcb: Bottom cope depth : 0 mm
cb: Bottom cope length : 0 mm
Column
General
Support section : HP18X157
Is column end : Yes
End plate
Connector
Section : PL 0.6x15.24x22.28
L: Plate length : 222.76 mm
b: Plate width : 152.4 mm
tp: Plate thickness : 6 mm
Material : A36
Beam side
Plate position on beam : Center
Welding electrode to beam : E70XX
D1: Weld size to beam (1/16 in) : 2
Wo: Obtuse side weld size (AWS) (1/16 in) : 2
Wa: Acute side weld size (AWS) (1/16 in) : 2
Wo: Obtuse side weld size (AISC) (1/16 in) : 2
Wa: Acute side weld size (AISC) (1/16 in) : 2
Support side
Connection type : Welded
D2: Weld size to support (1/16 in) : 2
154
Current Date: 01/11/2021 12:34:33 pm
Units System: kN_m
DEMANDS
Description Ru Pu Load type
kN kN
LC-7 -35.93 3.50 Design

LC-8 -30.80 3.00 Design
LC-9 -36.74 4.38 Design
LC-10 43.67 -0.35 Design
LC-11 -36.15 2.73 Design
End plate
Length [mm] 222.76 222.76 445.52 p. 10-49
Weld size [1/16in] 2 - 2.00 table J2.4
Weld size [1/16in] 2 4.00 2.00 table J2.4, Sec. J2.2b
DESIGN CHECK

Beam
Support
155
4.5 Designer’s Raw Ranking:
4.5.1 Economic Constraint
Trade-Offs Raw Estimate Subordinate Rank
SMRF with Shear Wall Php. 39,375,000.00 6.596
SMRF Php. 25,970,000.00 10
SMRF with Shear Wall and SMRF:
% Difference:
39,375,000−25,970,000
∗10=3.404
39,375,000
Subordinate Rank:
10−3.404=6.596
4.5.2 Constructability Constraint
SMRF with Shear Wall 828 4.444
SMRF 368 10
% Difference:
828−368
∗10=5.556
828
Subordinate Rank:
10−5.556=4.444
4.5.3 Sustainability Constraint
156
SMRF with Shear Wall 75.0 8.2
SMRF 88.5 10
% Difference:
75−88.5
∗10=1.8
75
Subordinate Rank:
10−1.8=8.2
4.6 Raw Designer’s Ranking and Assessment:
Generally, as the ranking scales shown, having the perfect score in the assessment, SMRF with beam to column
flange connection is the chosen type of structural member to be used on the proposed five storey condominium in
Maharlika Highway, Barangay Trinidad, Calbayog City.
157
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
5.1 Conclusion
After designing all trade-offs and ranking them to acquire the most appropriate trade-off for the said design,
the designers have now come to a final design output for the proposed five-storey condominium.
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
Beam (4 meters)
166
Beam (4.3 meters)
167
Beam (5 meters)
168
Beam (5.5 meters)
169
Column (1st and 2nd Floor)
170
Column (3rd to 5th Floor)
171
Beam to Column Flange Connection
172
173
174
Current Date: 31/10/2021 3:55:28 pm
Units System: kN_m
Members
Configuration
Beam
General
Plastic hinge
L: Length between supports : 5m
Column
General
Is column end : Yes
Flange plate
Connector
Beam side
Bolts : 3/4" A325 N
Support side
175
Stiffeners
Position : None
176
Current Date: 31/10/2021 3:55:12 pm
Units System: kN_m
DEMANDS
Pu Vu Load type
kN kN
LC-9 0.00 5.07 -32.56 111.16 -106.09 0.00 0.00

16.05 108.93 Design
LC-10 0.00 4.35 -27.91 95.28 -90.94 0.00 0.00
13.76 93.37 Design
LC-11 0.00 18.42 -192.05 649.98 -631.55 0.00 0.00
30.70 531.95 Design
Plate (beam side)

Beam
Support
Thickness [mm] 26.16 7.97 - p. 9-5
Seismic prequalification for selected frame system does not exist WARNINGS
DESIGN CHECK

177
Beam
Support
178
BEAM SCHEDULE (PAGE 171-192)
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
5.2 Recommendation
By using a typical design, the designers would get an optimal design for the proposed five storey
condominium. Having the Special Moment Resisting Frame as the winning trade-off showed relevant insights based
on the results of the design.
Using a simple program to have a more accurate result in the design of the steel connections is proven
useful when used in correlation to the structure software. This program could be in a form of an Excel Program,
inputting design parameters with the appropriate constants to have a better result.
201
APPENDIX A: FINAL ESTIMATES OF RAW RANKING
Final Raw Ranking Estimates for Structural Trade-offs
Computation for Maintenance Cost

Maintenance Cost = (Material Cost + Labor Cost) (20%)
For Shear Wall

Maintenance Cost = (₱39,375,000.00 + ₱3,175,400.00) (20%)
Maintenance Cost = ₱40,010.080.00
For Structural Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame

Maintenance Cost = (₱25,970,000.00 + ₱3,161,000.00) (20%)
Maintenance Cost = ₱26,602,200.00
Final Labor Cost Estimates

Initial number of man power and days of construction are based on the research of the designer. Initial rate
per day is based on approximate minimum wage in the Philippines.
Shear Wall
Category Rate/ Day No. of Manpower Days Total
Welder 600 4 200 ₱ 480,000.00

Foreman 590 1 250 ₱ 147,500.00
Carpenter 570 4 180 ₱ 410,400.00
Laborer/ Helper 450 10 250 ₱ 1,125,100.00
Mason 550 4 250 ₱ 550,000.00
Architect 850 1 250 ₱ 212,500.00
Structural Engineer 1,000 1 250 ₱ 250,000.00
202
Total Cost ₱3,175,400
Structural Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame
Category Rate/ Day No. of Manpower Days Total
Steel man 550 5 200 ₱ 550,000.00

Welder 600 4 200 ₱ 480,000.00
Foreman 590 1 250 ₱ 147,500.00
Laborer/ Helper 450 10 250 ₱ 1,125,000.00
Mason 550 4 180 ₱ 396,000.00
Architect 850 1 250 ₱ 212,000.00
Structural Engineer 1,000 1 250 ₱ 250,000.00
Total Cost ₱ 3,161,000.00
203
APPENDIX B: BILL OF QUANTITIES
Summary of Estimates (Bill of Quantities)
Summary of Estimates (Shear Wall)

Table 4.86: Shear Wall Structure Estimates
Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
GENERAL
I.
REQUIREMENTS
Mobilization/
1
Demobilization
1.1 Project Billboard/ Signages 1.00 set ₱ 14,537.75 ₱ 14,537.75
1.3 Temporary Facilities
Construction of Site
1.3.
Office for 1.00 lot ₱ 35,680.00 ₱ 35,680.00
1
Engineers/Staffs
Construction of
1.3.
Barracks for 1.00 lot ₱ 12,890.00 ₱ 12,890.00
2
Workers
1.4 As-Built Plans 1.00 lot ₱ 350,000.00 ₱ 350,000.00
1.5 Surveying and Staking 1.00 set ₱ 180,450.00 ₱ 180,450.00
Construction Safety and
1.6 18.00 mos ₱ 7,712.75 ₱ 138,829.00
Health
Transportation (Service for
1.7 18.00 mos ₱ 13,500.00 ₱ 243,000.00
Worker/Staffs)
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 976,557.75
II. SITE WORKS
2.1 Earthworks
Excavation ( Wall
2.1.
and Columns
1
Footing) 1.00 lot ₱ 76,982.79 ₱ 76,982.79
2.1.
Backfilling
2
2.1.
Gravel Bedding 1.00 lot ₱ 67,614.00 ₱ 67,614.00
3
2.1. Levelling and
1.00 lot ₱ 85,450.00 ₱ 85,450.00
4 Compaction
2.1.
Surface Treatment 1.00 lot ₱ 15,645.00 ₱ 15,645.00
5
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 1,135,691.79
III. STRUCTURAL WORKS
3.1 Rebar Works
3.1. Footing 1.00 lot ₱ 402,681.70 ₱ 402,681.70
204
1
3.1.
Slab 1.00 lot ₱ 5,987,574.70 ₱ 5,987,574.70
2
3.2 Formworks
3.2.
Footing 1.00 lot ₱ 1,197,514.98 ₱ 1,197,514.98
1
3.2. Slab
3.3 Concrete and Steel Works
Concrete Pouring
3.3. cum
Footing 150 ₱ 5,464.10 ₱ 819,615.00
1 .
Fc’ = 4000psi,
14days
3.3.
Columns
2
A36- Structural
Steel Wide Flange
250 Kgs. ₱ 353.658 ₱ 88,414.50
HP18x157,
HP16x162
3.2.
Beams
3
A36- Structural
Steel Wide Flange
S20x86 266 kgs ₱ 363.88 ₱ 96,792.08
3.2.
Steel Bracing
4
A36- Structural
55 kgs ₱ 353.47 ₱ 20,440.00
Steel Wide Flange
S20x66
3.2. cum
Slab 650 ₱ 5,464.10 ₱ 3,551,600.00
5 .
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 12,163,698.81
+ 5% VAT ₱ 608,184.94
IV. ELECTRICAL WORKS
4.1 Installation of Cable Wires 1.00 lot ₱ 85,927.00 ₱ 85,927.00
Installation of Lights and
4.2 1.00 lot ₱ 92,610.00 ₱ 92,610.00
Other Fixtures
4.3 Rough-In Electrical 1.00 lot ₱ 75,420.00 ₱ 75,420.00
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 1,853,957.00
V. PLUMBING WORKS
5.1 Ground Works 1.00 lot ₱ ₱ 75,875.25
205
75,875.25
₱
5.2 Installation of Pipes 1.00 lot ₱ 55,850.20
55,850.20
₱
5.3 Rough-In Plumbing 1.00 lot ₱ 13,400.00
13,400.00
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 1,265,125.45
FINISHING/ FURNISHING
VI.
WORKS
₱
6.1 Masonry Works 1.00 lot ₱ 1,451,751.79
1,451,751.79
₱
6.2 Plastering 1.00 lot ₱ 500,785.54
500,785.54
₱
6.3 Finishes 1.00 lot ₱ 786,265.34
786,265.34
₱
6.4 Waterproofing 1.00 lot ₱ 200,454.00
200,454.00
₱
6.5 Painting Works 1.00 lot ₱ 396,310.24
396,310.24
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 21,121,832.45
10% Total Cost ₱ 16,096,791.40
TOTAL AMOUNT ₱ 39,375,000.00
Summary of Estimates (Structural Steel SMRF)

Table 4.87: Steel SMRF Estimates
Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
GENERAL
I.
REQUIREMENTS
Mobilization/
1
Demobilization
1.1 Project Billboard/ Signages 1.00 set ₱ 14,537.75 ₱ 14,537.75
1.3 Temporary Facilities
Construction of Site
1.3.
Office for 1.00 lot ₱ 35,680.00 ₱ 35,680.00
1
Engineers/Staffs
Construction of
1.3.
Barracks for 1.00 lot ₱ 12,890.00 ₱ 12,890.00
2
Workers
1.4 As-Built Plans 1.00 lot ₱ 350,000.00 ₱ 350,000.00
1.5 Surveying and Staking 1.00 set ₱ 180,450.00 ₱ 180,450.00
Construction Safety and
1.6 18.00 mos ₱ 7,712.75 ₱ 140,000.00
Health
1.7 Transportation (Service for 18.00 mos ₱ 13,500.00 ₱ 243,000.00
206
Worker/Staffs)
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 976,557.75
II. SITE WORKS
2.1 Earthworks
Excavation ( Wall
2.1.
and Columns
1
Footing) 1.00 lot ₱ 76,982.79 ₱ 76,982.79
2.1.
Backfilling
2
2.1.
Gravel Bedding 1.00 lot ₱ 67,614.00 ₱ 67,614.00
3
2.1. Levelling and
1.00 lot ₱ 85,450.00 ₱ 85,450.00
4 Compaction
2.1.
Surface Treatment 1.00 lot ₱ 15,645.00 ₱ 15,645.00
5
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 1,135,691.79
III. STRUCTURAL WORKS
3.1 Rebar Works
3.1.
Footing 1.00 lot ₱ 402,681.70 ₱ 402,681.70
1
3.1.
Slab 1.00 lot ₱ 5,987,574.70 ₱ 5,987,574.70
2
3.2 Formworks
3.2.
Footing 1.00 lot ₱ 1,197,514.98 ₱ 1,197,514.98
1
3.2. Slab
3.3 Concrete and Steel Works
Concrete Pouring
3.3. cum
Footing 150 ₱ 5,464.10 ₱ 819,615.00
1 .
Fc’ = 4000psi,
14days
3.3.
Columns
2
A36- Structural
Steel Wide Flange 246 Kgs. ₱ 353.658 ₱ 87,000.00
W14x193,W14x132
3.2.
Beams
3
A36- Structural
Steel Wide Flange
207
W12x96 371 kgs ₱ 363.88 ₱ 135,000.00
3.2.
Steel Bracing
4
A36- Structural
81 kgs ₱ 353.47 ₱ 28,631.00
Steel Wide Flange
W10x100
3.2. cum
Slab 650 ₱ 5,464.10 ₱ 3,551,600.00
5 .
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 128,204,524.00
+ 5% VAT ₱ 134,614,750.20
IV. ELECTRICAL WORKS
4.1 Installation of Cable Wires 1.00 lot ₱ 85,927.00 ₱ 85,927.00
Installation of Lights and
4.2 1.00 lot ₱ 92,610.00 ₱ 92,610.00
Other Fixtures
4.3 Rough-In Electrical 1.00 lot ₱ 75,420.00 ₱ 75,420.00
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 1,853,957.00
V. PLUMBING WORKS
₱
5.1 Ground Works 1.00 lot ₱ 75,875.25
75,875.25
₱
5.2 Installation of Pipes 1.00 lot ₱ 55,850.20
55,850.20
₱
5.3 Rough-In Plumbing 1.00 lot ₱ 13,400.00
13,400.00
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 1,265,125.45
FINISHING/ FURNISHING
VI.
WORKS
₱
6.1 Masonry Works 1.00 lot ₱ 1,451,751.79
1,451,751.79
₱
6.2 Plastering 1.00 lot ₱ 500,785.54
500,785.54
₱
6.3 Finishes 1.00 lot ₱ 786,265.34
786,265.34
₱
6.4 Waterproofing 1.00 lot ₱ 200,454.00
200,454.00
₱
6.5 Painting Works 1.00 lot ₱ 396,310.24
396,310.24
SUB-TOTAL ₱ 21,121,832.45
10% Total Cost ₱ 16,096,791.40
TOTAL AMOUNT ₱ 25,970,000.00
208

Steel Proj 5storey Condo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Steel Proj 5storey Condo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Steel Proj 5storey Condo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

938 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

DESIGN OF A FIVE-STOREY CONDOMINIUM IN MAHARLIKA HIGHWAY BARANGAY TRINIDAD

ENGR. Allan Benogsudan

1.1 The Project

Figure 1-1. Project Perspective of the Five-Storey Condominium

1.2 Project Location:

Figure 1-2. Project Site Location

1.3.1. General Objectives

1.3.2. Specific Objective

1.5 Project Scope & Limitation

The scopes of this project are as follows:

 Architectural plans for the five-story building are present.

1.6 Project Development

DETERMINING THE PROBLEM

PROJECT CONSTRAINTS AND

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

DESIGN TRADE- DESIGN TRADE- DESIGN TRADE-

Figure 1-3. Project Development Process

2.1 Description of the Structure

Figure 2.1 3D Model of the framing system

Table 2-2. Second Floor Room Descriptions

Table 2-3. Third Floor Room Descriptions

2.3 Architectural Plan

Figure 2-4. Ground Floor Plan

2.4.1 Local Related Literature and Studies

CHAPTER 3: DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS, AND STANDARDS

3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints

3.1.1.1 Economic Constraints (Cost)

3.1.1.2 Sustainability Constraints (Maintenance Cost)

3.1.1.4Risk Assessment (Displacement)

3.1.2 Qualitative Constraints

3.1.2.1 Safety Constraints

3.1.2.3 Social Constraints

Steel – Special Moment Resisting Frame

Figure 3.1 Steel (SMRF)

(Source: Google Image)

Steel (SMRF) Advantages and Disadvantages

Figure 3.2 Special Steel Plate Shear Wall

(Source: Google Image)

Special Steel Plate Shear Wall Advantages and Disadvantage

Figure 3.3 Rolled W-Shapes

(Source: Google Image)

 Can be used for most structural member applications

Figure 3.4 Rolled HP – Shape

(Source: Google Image)

Rolled HP – Shape Advantages and Disadvantages

(Source: Google Image)

 It enables contractors to disperse a load across a large region.

(Source: Google Image)

 High steel conservation compared to solid rectangular or square sections.

 Because it is an open portion, it provides less torsional resistance;

(Source: Google Image)

 Can not be used for load-bearing or structural work

Reinforced Concrete Deck Slab

Design Criteria Criterion’s Ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale 0

Table 3-5. Initial Estimate of Quantitative Constraints

3.2.3.1 Economic Constraints