DESIGN OF A 5-STOREY NEW SCHOOL BUILDING AT GENERAL JULIAN CRUZ ST.

,
MARIKINA CITY
Santos, RJoseph C.
Technological Institute of the Philippines
Cubao, Quezon City

2014

Table of contents

CHAPTER 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND........................................................................1

1.1 The Project................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Objective............................................................................................ 2
1.3 Client.......................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Project Scope and Limitations............................................................................2
1.4.1 Scope of the Project................................................................................... 2
1.4.2 Limitation of the Project............................................................................... 3
1.5 Project Development........................................................................................ 3
CHAPTER 2 DESIGN INPUTS................................................................................... 4
2.1 Description of the Structure............................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 3: CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS, CODES AND STANDARDS................................15
3.1 Design Constraints........................................................................................ 15
3.2 Design Trade-offs.......................................................................................... 15
3.3 Codes and Standards..................................................................................... 18
CHAPTER 4 DESIGN OF A STRUCTURE....................................................................20
4.1 Methodology............................................................................................... 20
4.2 Design Process of the Structure........................................................................20
4.3 General Design Process..................................................................................21
4.4 Structural Loadings....................................................................................... 25
4.4.1 Primary Loadings.................................................................................... 25
4.4.2 Secondary Loadings................................................................................. 27
4.4.3 Load Combination................................................................................... 32
4.4.4 Load Transfer......................................................................................... 34
4.5 Modeling of Loads......................................................................................... 36
4.6 Validation of Trade-offs...................................................................................43
4.6.1 Final Estimate of Trade-offs........................................................................44
4.7 Influence of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs, and Standards in the Final Design...............47
4.7.1 Designers Final Choice............................................................................. 47
CHAPTER 5 FINAL DESIGN STRUCTURE...................................................................48
References......................................................................................................... 53

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Perspective View

Figure 1-2: Site Location
Figure 1-3: Design Procedures for the Project
Figure 2-1: Front Elevation
Figure 2-2: Rear Elevation
Figure 2-3: Left-Sided Elevation
Figure 2-4: Right-Sided Elevation
Figure 2-5: Ground Floor Plan
Figure 2-6: Second Floor Plan
Figure 2-7: Third Floor Plan
Figure 2-8: Fourth Floor Plan
Figure 2-9: Fifth Floor Plan
Figure 4-1: Flowchart of Design Process
Figure 4-2: Typical Floor Framing Plan
Figure 4-3: Roof Deck Floor Framing Plan
Figure 4-4: Typical Floor Framing Plan
Figure 4-5: Roof Deck Floor Framing Plan
Figure 4-6: Front View Elevation
Figure 4-7: Front View Elevation
Figure 4-8: Left-Sided View Elevation
Figure 4-9: Left-Sided View Elevation
Figure 4-10: Right-Sided View Elevation
Figure 4-11: Right-Sided View Elevation
Figure 4-12: Rear View Elevation
Figure 4-13: Rear View Elevation
Figure 4-14: Deadload Geometry Model
3

Figure 4-15: Live Load Geometric Model

Figure 4-16: Windward Wall Geometric Model
Figure 4-17: Leeward Wall Geometric Model
Figure 4-18: Side Wall Geometric Model
Figure 4-19: Seismic Analysis along Z-Direction for Geometric Model
Figure 4-20: Seismic Analysis along X-Direction for Geometric Model
Figure 4-21: Sample of Load Combination Distribution
Figure 4-22: Load Transfer without Intermediate Beam
Figure 4-23: Load Transfer with Intermediate Beam
Figure 4-24: Load Distribution for Second to Fifth Floor Live Load without Intermediate Beam
Figure 4-25: Load Distribution for Second to Fifth Floor Live Load with Intermediate Beam
Figure 4-26: Maximum Deflection from Section Displacement
Figure 4-27: Maximum Moment along moment - Z
Figure 4-28: Maximum Axial force
Figure 4-29: Maximum Deflection from Section Displacement
Figure 4-30: Load Modeling for Load Case
Figure 4-31: Load Modeling for Wind Analysis
Figure 4-32: Load Modeling for Seismic Analysis
Figure 4-33: Cost Difference between with Intermediate Beam and with Intermediate
Figure 4-34: Man-hour differences between with Intermediate Beam and without Intermediate
Beam
Figure 5-1: Final Design for Steel Beam
Figure 5-2: Final Design for Steel Column
Figure 5-3: Final Design for Welded Connections
Figure 5-4: Final Design for Base Plate

Lists of Tables

Table 2-1: Room Description with Corresponding Area of the Building

Table 3-1: Designer Raw Ranking
Table 3-2: Initial Cost Estimate for Trade-offs
Table 3-3: Initial Man-Hour Estimate for Trade-offs
Table 4-1: Design Specification for Dead Load
Table 4-2: Design Specification for Live Load
Table 4-3: Specification for Wind Load
Table 4-4: Specification for Seismic Analysis
Table 4-5: Load Cases
Table 4-6: Designers Ranking for Floor Framing
Table 4-7: Detailed Cost Estimate for Trade-offs
Table 4-8: Detailed Man-Hour Estimate for Trade-offs
Table 5-1: Final Design Schedules for Steel Columns
Table 5-2: Final Design Schedules for Steel Beams
Table 5-3: Final Design Schedules for Base Plate
Table 5-4: Final Design Schedules for Welding Connection
CHAPTER 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1 The Project
The design project is a proposed 5-storey private new school building for Barangka Elementary
School which will be expanding to a High School located at General Julian Cruz St., Marikina City.
The new building will provide students more space for learning and will accompany incoming new
population of elementary and high school students.
The proposed new school building consists of a total of forty (40) classrooms from ground to fifth
floor, with a male and female comfort rooms per floor. It has four (4) offices located at ground to
fifth fourth floor, a library at fifth floor, three (3) laboratories from second to fourth floor, and a
storage room at the fifth floor. It also has a wide hallway that can accompany the number of
students in groups going to respective rooms. It is a rectangular-shaped building with a footprint
5

dimension of 18.50 m x 34.0 m. The total floor area of the building is 3,145 sq. m. including the
hallways. Each level of the building has a floor area of 628 sq. m. All levels have height of 3.0 m.
Each level has hallway to provide access to exist in case of fire and other emergencies, both ends
of hallway heads to stairways.
The building is made up of steel framing system for beams and columns. It has one (1) elevator
that operate from ground to fifth floor located at the central part of the structure, holding. Such
details of the design will be compared using design trade-off subjected to its constraints.

Figure 1-1: Perspective View

Figure 1-2: Site Location

1.2 Project Objective
The project aims the following:
To evaluate the multiple constraints for the client together with the engineering codes and
standards, and consideration for trade offs that will come up to the most economical
design.
To provide the estimated cost for the structural works.
1.3 Client
The client of the design project is the private group of Daimler Group Inc. headed by the president
Rumualdo Cojuangco.
1.4 Project Scope and Limitations
1.4.1 Scope of the Project
The following for the designed project is to provide:
The design layout of the steel structure is made by utilizing pertinent and relevant
freeware and software applications (Staad V8i, Google Earth, AutoCAD 2013,
Google Skecth-Up)
The computation of cost estimate for beam and column for a steel structure

1.4.2 Limitation of the Project

The following were not included in the design project:
Detailed activities for construction management
Detailed cost estimates of plumbing, mechanical, architectural and electrical
design for the facilities of the designed structure
Detailed computation for concrete design for slab, footing and the stair load
Structural designed for impact load like elevator.
1.5 Project Development
To begin the designed project of a 5-storey new school building, Figure 1-3 shows the step-by-step
procedure on how to determine the required data and information needed. This information was
acquired from identified sources. Consideration the engineering codes and standards, constraints
and trade-offs are considered to determine the most effective way that should be used on the
design project.

1
Project Proposal

2
3
4

Consideration of Codes and

Standards, Multiple Constraints
and Trade-offs
Design Structure

Final Design Output of the Project

Figure 1-3: Design Procedures for the Project

8

CHAPTER 2 DESIGN INPUTS

2.1 Description of the Structure
The structure is made of steel to comprise the required desire of the client. The structure is built in
symmetrical form where it has two (2) access stairs located at the side of the building and one (1)
elevator at the center of the building. Table 2-1 discusses the classification of the room with
corresponding area from the ground to fifth floor. The design criteria is followed by the requirement
for the Department of Education (DepEd). Figures 2-1 to 2-9 shows the front, rear, right and left
sided elevations and floor plans of the structure that applied from the design.

Table 2-1 Room Description with Corresponding Area of the Building

Room Description
Classrooms
Dimensions:
6.0m by 8.0m
Area : 48 sq.m.
Comfort Rooms
Male CR
Dimensions:
3.0m by 8.0m
Area : 24 sq.m.
Female CR
Dimensions:
3.0m by 8.0m
Area : 24 sq.m.
Stairway
Dimensions:
3.0m by 4.0m
Area : 12 sq.m.
School Offices
Dimensions:
4.0m by 4.0m
Area : 16 sq.m.
Library
Dimensions:
4.0m by 8.0m

Total Area

Floor location

1,920 sq. m.

All floors (Ground to

Fourth floor)

120 sq. m.

All floors (Ground to

Fourth floor)

120 sq. m.

120 sq. m.

All floors (Ground to

Fourth floor)

64 sq. m.

Second Floor and

Third Floor

32 sq. m.

Fourth Floor

Area : 32 sq.m.
Laboratories
Dimensions:
4.0m by 8.0m
Area : 32 sq.m.
Hallways

96 sq. m.

Ground Floor Hallways

Dimensions:
2.5m by 34.0 m
Area : 85 sq.m.

85 sq. m.

Above Ground Floor Hallways

Dimensions:
2.5m by 34.0 m
Area : 85 sq.m.
Storage Room
Dimensions:
4.0m by 4.0m
Area : 16 sq.m.
TOTAL AREA
(excluding hallways)

Fifth Floor

All floors (Ground to

Fourth floor)

340 sq. m

16 sq. m.

Fifth Floor

2,488 sq. m.

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

3.1 Design Constraints
The following constraints were to be discussed according to the impact on the design of a steel
structure:
1. Economic (Cost): The design will be based on the limitation to the lowest cost of materials
to be used but have a good quality. Money dictates the course of the construction so the
designer must look for lower cost resources. With that, the designer should also consider
the quality of items that used since if the designer settle on second-class materials and it
deteriorated before the allotted duration, it will end up spending more on it to replace the
broken materials.
The design comprises between two steel structures for floor framing: with intermediate
beam and without intermediate beam. In terms of floor framing, the two trade-off will be
considered. The designer will come up either it will put the intermediate beam or not for

10

floor framing to determine cheapest and become the potential savings in the budget of the
design.
2. Constructability (Duration): Time is very important to contribute greatly on a project
construction considering the means and its resources available. Early time to finish a
project construction could help alleviate expenses for labor and its materials. The designer
will also consider the structure to qualify the engineering codes and standards in spite of
the fast phase activities being made during construction.

3.2 Design Trade-offs

Design trade-off strategies are always present in a design process. Let us use the word
conservative design strategy to describe a design strategy in trading off to improve the lower
performing goals. The design overall preference will be based on the lowest one but good in
quality.
On the other hand, the designer may wish to slightly lessen the some weaker goals in a design if
large gains can be made in other goals which would more than compensate for the slight cost.
Trade-offs is needed to have options on which to use or which is more convenient. It is usually
affected by costs and potential bias of sample design. By having trade-offs, the designer can
properly rate which is more effective and remove his/her preferences.
To have a proper design, the designer need to follow typical requirements for selecting a sample.
This includes:

Minimize overall error. The use of conventional procedures for computation to deliver the
minimum error.
Match the case distribution. This is needed in order to be exact on its design. The design is
already a rough estimate so over-estimating or under-estimating, it will have a major gap in
result.
Permit analysis using special software. It is conventional to use the software to help in the
computation needed by the design.

There are two alternative patterns in order to accomplish the best design and mitigate future
probable conflicts. The designers used a ranking comparison to determine the accurate to use. The
weight of each criterion is based on the assessment of Otto and Anderson in 1991, which indicates
zero (0) as least important and five (5) as highly necessary parameter for the design of the project
(Otto & Antonsson, 1991).
Computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials:

11

(Higher Value Lower Value)

% difference = (Higher Value)
Equation 3-1
Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank (% difference) x 10

Equation 3-2

Equation 3-2 is a subordinate rank which corresponds to its percentage distance from the
governing rank along the ranking scale. The governing rank is a personal choice of the designer
which assign the value for the criterions importance and the ability to satisfy the criterion. It
depends on the initial estimate on the decision criteria which the designer can initially select.
In Table 3-1, the designer ranked the design considerations and constraints as an initial estimate to
help them visualize the possible outcome. Raw ranking is to be used to assigned the design
methodologys ability and satisfy the criterion (on a scale from -5 to 5, 5 with the highest ability to
satisfy the criterion) was likewise tabulated. The designer set the criterions important for economic
constraints (cost) as five (5) since the cost for the design is much observed. For constructability
(duration), it is rank as four (4) because of its early completion of the project.
After considering the constraints and the consideration for the proposed design, the initial estimate
of the trade-offs were made by the designer to help then to visualize the possible result.

Table 3-1 Designer Raw Rankings

Decision Criteria

Criterions
Importance
(on a scale
of 0 to 5)

Ability to satisfy the criterion

(on a scale from -5 to 5)
With Intermediate
Without Intermediate Beam
Beam

1. Economic (Cost)

3.3641

1.6359

2. Constructability (Duration)

2.2826

2.7174

25.95

19.05

Over-all Rank

12

Source: Otto, K. N. and Antonsson, E. K., (1991). Trade-off strategies in engineering design.
Research in Engineering Design, volume 3, number 2, pages 87-104.Retrieved from
http://www.design.caltech.edu/Research/Publications/90e.pdf

The following tables shows the summary of the material cost estimates for both trade-offs:
Table 3-2 Initial Cost Estimate for Trade-offs
STRUCTURAL STEEL
COST ESTIMATE
With Intermediate Beam
Php 8,822,645.00
Without Intermediate Beam
Php 10,216,245.00
Source: http://manufacturer.ec21.com/steel_w_beam&column_price.html
Computation for economic rank:
Difference=

Php ( 10,216,245 )Php(8,822,645)

x 10=1.6359
Php(10,216,245)

Subordinate rank =51.6359=3.3641

Table 3-3 Initial Man-hour estimate for Trade-offs

STRUCTURAL STEEL
MAN-HOUR ESTIMATE
With Intermediate Beam
Php 2907.561
Without Intermediate Beam
Php 2243.895
Source: Technical Calculation and Estimators Man-Hour Manual by Marko Bulic
Computation for constructability rank:
Difference=

Php ( 2907.561 )Php(2243.895)

x 10=2.2826
Php(2907.561)
13

Subordinate rank =52.2826=2.7174

Table 3-2 shows the initial cost estimates and Table 3-3 shows the initial man-hour estimate for
both trade-offs: without intermediate beam and with intermediate beam. To satisfy the raw
designers ranking, the initial computation for cost-estimate is attached in Appendix A and for manhour estimate is attached in Appendix B.

3.3 Codes and Standards

In lieu with the design of the structure for the school, the Department of Education (DepEd)
educational facilities manual was used. For the codes and standards for steel, see Appendix L. In
connection to this, the following standards stated hereafter are patterned in the design manual for
school:

Every corridor shall not be less than 1.10 meters wide and shall be unobstructed. Above
ground level, the minimum clear width is 2 meters provided that the provisions of the
National Building and Fire Codes of the Philippines and other relevant rules and
regulations are observed.
Window openings shall be equal to or at least ten (10) percent of the floor area of the
room, provided that such opening shall be not less than one square meter, except those in
toilets and baths which shall be not less than one-twentieth of the floor area of such rooms,
or not less than 240 square millimeters.
The ceiling height of rooms with natural ventilation shall be not less than 2.70 meters
measured from the floor to the ceiling; rooms provided with artificial ventilation shall have
ceiling heights not less than 2.40 meters.
All floors shall be so framed and secured into the framework and supporting walls so as to
form an integral part of the whole building; the type of floor construction used shall provide
means to keep the beam and girders from lateral buckling.
At least two (2) exit doors are required where the number of room occupants is over 50 in
the case of classrooms, conference rooms, exhibit rooms, gymnasia, school shops,
vocational institutions, laboratories, and auditorium; a door shall not be less than 2.10
meters high and 900 millimeters wide.
Door shutters shall be swing out and be capable of opening at least 90 degrees so that the
clear width of the exit way is not less than 700 millimeters. No door shutter shall exceed
1.20 meters in width.
Stairways serving an occupant load of 50 or less must be 1.10 meters wide; those serving
more than 50 shall not be less than 1.50 meters. The rise of every step shall not exceed
200 millimeters and the tread shall not be less than 250 millimeters. Handrails shall be
provided on each side of every stairway having more than four steps.
CHAPTER 4 DESIGN OF A STRUCTURE

14

4.1 Methodology
Steel structure is to be designed in accordance with the Codes and Standards given by the
Department of Education (DepEd) and the National Building Code of the Philippines Volume 1 and
10. With the help of the references and different guidelines specified by the client, the design
process will be developed. The design structure for the codes and standards that were used in the
design process are discussed on the previous chapter.
4.2 Design Process of the Structure

Designing a
Steel Structure
Scope and Limitation
of the Project

Gathering of
Data

Consideration
of Codes and
Standards

Design
Assumption
s

Layout of the
Design Plan

Trade Offs
Computation of
the Design
Designers Ranking
Rate for Trade Offs
Figure 4-1: Flowchart of Design
Process

Final Detailed
Design
Figure 4-1 describes the process of activities
for Structure
the designer. The design process will be start with
the planning stage and then getting all the data and assumptions that the design project may need.
15

Once the designer computed the data needed by the structure using engineering software like
STAAD and Excel, the designer will choose the tradeoffs based on the performance of the
structure.

4.3 General Design Process

Figure 4-2 to 4-11 illustrates the comparison between the two (2) trade-offs, with and without beam,
from the framing plan of the designed building. This is also include the framing plan from STAAD
and its loading.

Without Intermediate Beam

Figure 4-2 Typical Floor Framing Plan

16

Figure 4-3 Roof Deck Floor Framing Plan

With Intermediate Beam

Figure 4-4 Typical Floor Framing Plan

17

Figure 4-5 Roof Deck Floor Framing Plan

Geometric Modeling of the whole structure using STAADPro V81

WITHOUT INTERMEDIATE BEAM
WITH INTERMEDIATE BEAM
Front View Elevation

Figure 4-6

Figure 4-7
Left-Side View Elevation
18

Figure 4-8

Figure 4-9
Right-Side View Elevation

Figure 4-10

Figure 4-11
Rear View Elevation

19

Figure 4-12

Figure 4-13

4.4 Structural Loadings

Loads are external forces acting on a structure. Stresses are the internal forces that resist the
loads. The following are the loads forces and stresses to be considered in designing the structures
of building.

4.4.1 Primary Loadings

Table 4-1 and 4-2 indicates the corresponding loadings (Dead load and Live load) to be used for
the proposed steel building. It specifies the summary of loadings for type occupancy to be
considered in the design from NSCP 6 th Edition (2010). Figure 4-12 and 4-13 shows the geometric
modeling of its corresponding loadings. Detailed specification for loadings is attached in the
Appendix C.

Table 4-1 Design Specification for Dead Load

DEAD LOADS
For Ground to Fourth Floor
CHB Wall (plaster on both sides)
Ceramic Finish (concrete fill)
Ceiling Fiber Board (all areas)
Plumbing and Electrical Layout
Metal Lath Gypsum Plaster
Acoustical Fiber Board

=
=
=
=
=
=

2.30
1.53
0.05
1.00
1.00
0.05

kPa
kPa
kPa
kPa
kPa
kPa
20

Concrete Fill Finish

Partition Loads
Weight of Slab
Total Dead Load

=
=
=
=

0.21
1.00
3.53
10.67

kPa
kPa
kPa
kPa

For Fifth Floor

CHB Wall (plaster on both sides)
Plumbing and Electrical Layout
Concrete Fill Finish
Weight of Slab
Total Dead Load

=
=
=
=
=

2.30
1.00
0.21
3.53
7.04

kPa
kPa
kPa
kPa
kPa

Figure 4-14 Dead Load Geometric Model

21

Table 4-2 Design Specification for Live Load

LIVE LOADS
Second to Fifth Floor Offices
Corridor above Ground Floor
Storage
Total Live Load

=
=
=
=

2.4
3.80
6
12.20

kPa
kPa
kPa
kPa

Figure 4-15 Live Load Geometric Model

22

4.4.2 Secondary Loadings

To help achieve the desired level of reliability of a designed structure, these loadings (Wind loads
and Seismic Loads) are loads that act as a result of weather, topography and other phenomena.

4.4.2.1 Wind Load

Computing wind load is essential for preventing wind damage on structures. Table 4-3 listed the
specification needed to be considered in the design from NSCP 6 th Edition (2010). Figure 4 14 to
4 16 shows the loadings along windward, leeward and side in the design structure. Detailed
specification and computation for wind loadings is attached in the Appendix D.

Table 4-3 Specification for Wind Load

WIND LOADS
Description
Site Location =
Zone Location =
Exposure Category =
Importance Factor =
Wind Directionality Factor =
Topographic Factor =
Occupancy Importance =
Enclosure =
External Pressure Coefficient
for windward wall =
for leeward wall =
for side wall =

Value
General Julian Cruz St., Marikina City
Zone 2
B (Case 1)
1
1
1
Standard Occupancy
Partially Enclosed Building
0.8
-0.2
-0.7

23

Figure 4-16 Windward Wall Geometric Model

Figure 4-17Leeward Wall Geometric Model

24

Figure 4-18 Side Wall Geometric Model

4.4.2.2 Seismic Load
When designing a proposed building in a location with high seismic activity, it is critical to have a
firm understanding of the seismic requirements of the access floor and understructure from the
onset to avoid re-planning or reinstallation of an appropriate system to cater for those needs. Table
4-4 listed the specification needed to be considered for seismic analysis in the design from NSCP
6th Edition (2010). Figure 4 17 and 4 18 shows the direction of the seismic in the design
structure. Detailed specification and computation for wind loadings is attached in the Appendix E.

Table 4-4 Specification for Seismic Analysis

SEISMIC ANALYSIS
Description
Value
Seismic Zone Factor, Z =
0.4
Reinforced Concrete Moment- = 0.0853
Resisting Frame
Seismic Coefficient, Ca = 0.44N
a
Seismic Coefficient, Cv = 0.64Nv
Near Source Factor, Na =
1.2
Near Source Factor, Nv =
1.6
Seismic Importance Factor, I =
1
Earthquake-Force-Resisting =
8
Structural System of Steel
Height above Ground Level = 15 m

25

Figure 4-19 Seismic Analysis along Z-Direction for Geometric Model

26

Figure 4-20 Seismic Analysis along X-Direction for Geometric Model

4.4.3 Load Combination
Combining load patterns within load cases for designing a building is used to envelopes the
analysis results of certain load cases. These results include displacements and forces at joint
locations, and internal member forces and stresses. There are 64 load combination for a proposed
building. These include the dead load, live load, seismic load and wind load. Table 4-5 shows the
load combination used for a proposed building. Alternate live load is considered to reduce in
accordance with the provision in the code. Figure 4-19 shows the sample of the load combination
distribution using STAAD.

Table 4-5 Load Cases

LOAD NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

LOAD COMBINATION
DESCRIPTION
DL
DL + LL
DL + LL (Alternate 1)
DL + LL (Alternate 2)
DL + LL (Alternate 3)
DL + LL (Alternate 4)
DL + LL (Alternate 5)
DL + WL (Windward)
DL + WL (Leeward)
DL + WL (Side)
DL + 0.7143EL (along x-direction)
DL + 0.7143EL (along z-direction)
27

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

0.9DL + 0.7143EL (along x-direction)

0.9DL + 0.7143EL (along z-direction)
0.9DL - 0.7143EL (along x-direction)
0.9DL - 0.7143EL (along z-direction)
DL + 0.75LL + WL (Windward)
DL + 0.75LL + WL (Leeward)
DL + 0.75LL + WL (Side)
DL + 0.75LL + 0.7143EL (along x-direction)
DL + 0.75LL + 0.7143EL (along y-direction)

28

Figure 4-21 Sample of Load Combination Distribution

4.4.4 Load Transfer

All loads of the beam, if it is dead load or live load, transferred to the columns or walls including its
self-weight of the beam in all cases. Figure 4-20 and 4-21 shows the distribution of load transfer
used for structural loadings.

For Without Intermediate Beam

29

Figure 4-22 Load Transfer without Intermediate Beam

For With Intermediate Beam

Figure 4-23 Load Transfer with Intermediate Beam

4.4.4.1 Load Distribution for Live Load

Since the structure is made of steel, then Figure 4-22 and 4-23 shows the one-way distribution for
slab.
For Without Intermediate Beam

30

Figure 4-24 Load Distribution for Second to Fifth Floor Live Load without Intermediate Beam
For With Intermediate Beam

Figure 4-25 Load Distribution for Second to Fifth Floor Live Load with Intermediate Beam

4.5 Modeling of Loads

Using STAAD the two trade-offs for floor framing: with intermediate beam and without intermediate
beam had come up the result for the maximum moment, maximum shear and maximum deflection.
Figure 4-24 to 4-29 indicates the results that establish from STAAD. Also, Figure 4-30 to 4-32
31

shows the model of the structure which indicate the load combination used in the analysis of the
structure. Detailed computation for beams and columns are attached in the Appendix F and G.

Without Intermediate Beam:

Figure 4-24 Maximum Moment along Moment-Z

32

Figure 4-25 Maximum Axial Force

Figure 4-26 Maximum Deflection from Section Displacement

With Intermediate Beam:

33

Figure 4-27 Maximum Moment along Moment-Z

Figure 4-28 Maximum Axial Force

34

Figure 4-29 Maximum Deflection from Section Displacement

35

Figure 4-30 Load Modeling for Load Case

36

Figure 4-31 Load Modeling for Wind Analysis

37

Figure 4-32 Load Modeling for Seismic Analysis

4.6 Validation of Trade-offs

Providing the initial ranking presented in Chapter 3, this section made a scheme to select the best
performance for steel structure which if it is required to have an intermediate beam or not. The two
design trade-offs are designed in accordance with engineering codes and standards and in
consideration of design constraints such as economic and constructability. While evaluating
through the design constraints and final design, the designer came up with the final design ranking.
To gather the completion for the structural design for the whole structure including the adequate of
the beams and columns, the designer come up into validating the estimates for both economic and
constructability. In here the designer validates based on the raw designers ranking as shown in
previous chapter. The final design to be adopt by the designer would be based on the result on the
result of the validation that will show.

Table 4-6 Designers Ranking for Floor Framing

Criterions
Importance
(on a scale
of 0 to 5)

With Intermediate Beam

Without Intermediate Beam

1. Economic (Cost)

3.6359

1.3641

2. Constructability (Duration)

2.2816

2.7184

27.31

17.69

Decision Criteria

Over-all Rank

Ability to satisfy the criterion

(on a scale from -5 to 5)

38

Source: Otto, K. N. and Antonsson, E. K., (1991). Trade-off strategies in engineering design.
Research in Engineering Design, volume 3, number 2, pages 87-104.Retrieved from
http://www.design.caltech.edu/Research/Publications/90e.pdf

4.6.1 Final Estimate of Trade-offs

Table 4-7 and 4-8 shows the final cost and man-hour estimate and that was introduced on the
previous chapter. This final estimate of trade-offs had been furnished all sections based on the
design structure. The designer accept the computations on how to rank the two trade-offs based on
economical and constructability. Detailed cost estimate and man-hour estimate for trade-offs were
showed in Appendix H and I.

Table 4-7 Detailed Cost Estimate for Trade-offs

STRUCTURAL STEEL
COST ESTIMATE
With Intermediate Beam
Php 10,858,640.00
Without Intermediate Beam
Php 12,573,840.00
Source: http://www.worldsteelprices.com/

Computation for economic rank:

Difference=

Php ( 12,573,840 )Php(10,858,640)

x 10=1.3641
Php(12,573,8405)

Subordinate rank =51.3641=3.6359

39

Table 4-8 Detailed Man-Hour Estimate for Trade-offs

STRUCTURAL STEEL
MAN-HOUR ESTIMATE
With Intermediate Beam
Php 3,213.9945
Without Intermediate Beam
Php 2,480.6775
Source: Jm Eagle Building Essentials for a better tomorrow Cost Estimates

Computation for constructability rank:

Difference=

Php ( 3,213.9945 )Php(2,480.6775)

x 10=2.2816
Php(3,213.9945)

Subordinate rank =52.2816=2.7184

4.6.1.1 Cost Estimates

The factors to be considered in cost estimate are includes the beams and columns. With the
corresponding prices, it is presented that having the intermediate beam at the floor framing
produced economical compared without intermediate beam at the floor framing.

40

Figure 4-33 Cost Difference between with Intermediate and without Intermediate Beam

Figure 4-33 evaluates the two trade-offs for floor framing namely: with intermediate beam and
without intermediate beam. The evaluation of the two trade-offs has a cost difference of Php
1,715,200.00 which is in favor for applying for floor framing the intermediate beam.

4.6.1.2 Man-Hour Estimate

Since the table of Appendix B includes number of tons that the steel structure weight and its
specification, having without intermediate beam at the floor framing produced the time to contribute
greatly on a project construction considering the means and its resources available.

41

Figure 4-34 Man-Hour Difference between with Intermediate and without Intermediate Beam

Figure 4-33 shows the man-hour difference between the two trade-offs: with intermediate beam
and without intermediate beam. The result for constructability is almost same but without
intermediate beam obtains the low value for this constraint.
With the aide of the raw designers ranking and validations of the two water source trade-off the
designers has now a basis to be consider on what to adapt in the final design of water supply.

4.7 Influence of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs, and Standards in the Final Design
Multiple constraints, trade-offs and standards influence the impact in making of decision to choose
the final design. The selection for constraints provide limitation for the design process. Trade-offs
give the ideas to choose whether the floor framing will have the intermediate beam or without
intermediate beam.

42

The main concern for economic constraints is being compared with the cost for the materials used
for trade-offs. On the other hand, the constructability constraints integrate the rate of man-hour for
the building framing.

4.7.1 Designers Final Choice

To sum up this chapter, the designer presented the two applicable way for the floor framing: with
intermediate beam or without intermediate beam. The two trade-offs assessed and compared
based from the cost of materials used and the rate of man-hour. As a result, applying for
intermediate beam applying intermediate beam to the steel structure is more preferable with
respect to the final cost estimate of trade-offs. On the other hand, without applying intermediate
beam is more time to finish a project construction based from the result of raw designers ranking.

CHAPTER 5 FINAL DESIGN STRUCTURE

Based on the result with respect on its economic and constructability constraints and its ranking,
both trade-offs for floor framing (with or without intermediate beam) have satisfied the constraints
and the standard set by the client. In the design, the designer found out that the applying
intermediate beam is considered by the decision criteria for economical and constructability for the
proposed steel structure. In lieu of the analysis, the reactions at the intermediate supports cause
43

moment at a section of the continuous beam. This moment is linear between the supports and is in
addition to the moment due to the eccentricity of the force.
It is usually to provide intermediate beam in a main beam web for the practical purpose of
connecting torsional bracing between the beams. As a first step in design for beam located at
Appendix F, it is suggested that initially it is assumed there are no intermediate beam at all, and it
come up that the beam is to be adequate in shear then the benefit of applying an intermediate
beam gives better improvement.
Table 5-1 to 5-4 indicates the final detailing for the chosen design structure for a 5-storey private
new school building. Figure 5-1 to 5-4 shows the final figure for the design. Detailed computation
for base plate and welding connection is attached in Appendix J and K.

Table 5-1 Final Design Schedules for Steel Column

Floor Level
Ground Floor
Second Floor
Third Floor
Fourth Floor
Fifth Floor
Roof Deck

COLUMNS
Length (m)
3
3
3
3
3
0.70

Section
W 24 x 207
W 24 x 207
W 24 x 207
W 24 x 207
W 24 x 207
W 24 x 207

Table 5-2 Final Design Schedules for Steel Beams

BEAMS
Floor Level
Second to Fifth Floor
Plan

Section
W 16 x 45
W 16 x 46

Description
Beam 1
Beam 2

Remarks
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
44

W 16 x 47
W 16 x 48
W 16 x 49
W 16 x 50
W 16 x 51
W 16 x 52
W 16 x 45

Roof Deck Plan

W 16 x 45
W 16 x 46
W 16 x 47
W 16 x 48
W 16 x 49
W 16 x 50
W 16 x 51
W 16 x 52
W 16 x 45

Beam 3
Beam 4
Beam 5
Beam 6
Beam 7
Beam 8
Beam 9 (Intermediate
Beam)
Beam 9
Beam 10
Beam 11
Beam 12
Beam 13
Beam 14
Beam 15
Beam 16
Beam 9 (Intermediate
Beam)

Longitudinal
Transverse
Transverse
Transverse
Transverse
Transverse
Transverse
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Longitudinal
Transverse
Transverse
Transverse
Transverse
Transverse
Transverse

Table 5-3 Final Design Schedules for Base Plate

BASE PLATE
Description
Thickness
Width
Length

Value
30 mm
390 mm
750 mm

Table 5-4 Final Design Schedules for Welding Connection

WELDING CONNECTION
Description
Value
Thickness of Fillet Welds
14 mm
59.1143 mm
Centroid of Fillet
x =
125.2713 mm
y

=
Total Length
1900.70 mm
45

Polar Moment of Inertia

611526.6935 mm4

Figure 5-1 Final Design for Steel Beam

46

Figure 5-2 Final Design for Steel Column

Figure 5-3 Final Design for Welded Connection

47

Figure 5-4 Final Design for Base Plate

References
(2012). Retrieved from World Steel Prices: http://www.worldsteelprices.com/
(2014). Retrieved from MEPS: http://www.meps.co.uk/world-price.htm
Buic, M. (2003). Technical Calculation and Estimator's Man-Hour Manual. Croatia.
DepEd Educational Facilities Manual: Revised Edition of the 2007 Handbook on Educational
Facilities - Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction in School Construction. (2010). Pasig City.
48

EC21.

(n.d.).
Retrieved
from
Global
B2B
http://manufacturer.ec21.com/steel_w_beam&column_price.html

Marketplace:

Jm Eagle - Building Essentials for a better tomorrow - Cost Estimates

National Structural Code of the Philippines 2001 (5th ed., Vol. 1). (2001). Quezon City: Association
of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc.
National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010 (6th ed., Vol. 1). (2010). Quezon City: Association
of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc.
Otto, K. N. and Antonsson, E. K., (1991). Trade-off strategies in engineering design. Research in
Engineering Design, volume 3, number 2, pages 87-104.Retrieved from
http://www.design.caltech.edu/Research/Publications/90e.pdf

49