CHAPTER I - PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.2 The Project

The project is a seminary whose structure is made up of steel. It is intended to be built in Antipolo,
Rizal. Building a seminary is important for the Antipoleneos since the city contains the National Shrine of
the Philippines, and thus needs training areas for students who want to become priests someday. The
seminary contains all the necessary rooms for the residents of the building.

Figure 1. Perspective of the Proposed Seminary

As seen in Figure 1, the building has five floors with a flat roof, and is rectangular in shape. It has a
total floor area of 700 sq. m with dimensions of 50 m x 14 m. The first floor contains the refectory (dining),
chapel, lobby, infirmary (clinic), recreation area, kitchen and staff room. The second and third floors contain
class rooms, laboratories, library, and offices. The fourth and fifth floor contain the study area and
dormitories. It has a main stair, fire exit, ramps, and an elevator. The height of each floor is 3 m having a
total of 15 m.

1.3 Project Location

The project area is located in Antipolo City, Rizal, which is included in the areas under seismic zone
4. The address of the area lot is Lot 6 Blk.1, Sampaguita St. Bermuda Hts. Subd., Brgy. San Luis, Antipolo
City. Figures 2 and 3 show the vicinity map of the area and its distance from the nearest fault line which is
the Makati Valley Fault System, respectively.

Figure 2. Vicinity Map of the Seminary

2

1.4 Project Objectives

The main objective of this project is to analyse and design a steel structure in accordance with the
principles written in NSCP 2001. Other objectives of the project are as follows:
a. To design a five-story steel seminary main building that will have an acceptable probability of
performing satisfactorily during its intended life time.
b. To provide all the necessary architectural plans, structural plans, and the estimate of the
building cost.
c. To plan the structure considering balanced constraints, trade-offs and standards on the design.

1.5 The Client

The client of this structure is a set of religious people led by Mrs. Sharon Umayam. She is a
businesswoman and at the same time the president of the lectors in Our Lady of Peace and Good Voyage
Church (National Shrine of the Philippines).

1.6 Project Scope and Limitation

The following were the scope covered by the design project:
1.) The project was designed in accordance to the National Building Code of The Philippines and the
National Structural Code of the Philippines applying the Allowable Strength Design (ASD).
2.) Structural analysis was done manually and was checked through STAAD.
3.) All the needed architectural plans and structural plans of the building were provided.

The following were the limitations of the design project:

1.) Only the main structure (includes beams, columns, and connections) were considered in the
design.
2.) The cost estimates for the mechanical, plumbing and architectural plan were not included.
3.) The plumbing and electrical plans are not included in this design.
4.) The interior design of the structure was not considered.

1.7 Project Development

PLANNING/CONCEPTUALIZATION

IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN STANDARDS

AND PARAMETERS

PRESENTATION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL PLANS WITH INITIAL ESTIMATE

IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN CONSTRAINTS,

TRADE-OFF

LOAD IDENTIFICATION, STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS,

AND FINAL DESIGN

Figure
4. Project
Development
Process
Figure
3. Project
Development
Process
The project development process started with the planning/conceptualization. In this stage, the
identification of client was the most important so as to know the structure to be build. In this case, the
structure requested by the client was a seminary. It also included the identification of the location where the
structure was intended to be built.
The next stage was the identification of design standards. Knowing the structure to be constructed,
the next part was to know the specific design standards that are required before coming up to the design
(i.e., minimum dimension of a classroom, minimum size of an elevator shaft, etc.). These will set the
parameters in the creation of the architectural and floor plans which is the next stage in the process.
4

In the third stage, the plans will be presented to the client so that alterations could be made. After
all has been settled, constraints can now be identified, which is the next stage. In this, the constraints that
were projected will then be classified as either qualitative or quantitative. Knowing the quantitative tradeoffs will pave the way to the determination of the trade-offs for the structure.
In the last stage, the geometric design, computation, and final estimation for each trade-offs will be
made. Then, all of these will be presented to the client. The client will then rate each trade-off. The one
which has the most favorable rating among all will then be chosen for the design of the structure.

CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS

2.1 Description of the Structure
The structure contains five floors with each floor having different function from the other. The
structure has two access stairs, a set of ramps, and an elevator. The structure has special moment
resisting frames in the longitudinal axis, and special braced frames (X-bracing) in the transverse axis.
Figure 5 shows the geometric model of the structure.

Figure 4. Geometric Model of the Structure

Figure 5. Wire frame Perspective View

6

Table 1 shows the total floor area and the different areas of the rooms contained in each floor.
Table 1. Total Floor Areas and Functions per Floor
FUNCTION

AREA (m2)

1ST Floor
Ramps and Elevator

49

Stairs

25

C.R.

22.5

Chapel

168

Refectory

168

Staff Room

63

Clinic

49

Lobby

70

Kitchen

63

Hallway

22.5

TOTAL

700
2nd Floor

Ramps and Elevator

49

Stairs

25

C.R.

22.5

Offices

3(45)

Class Rooms & Laboratories

4(63)

Other Rooms

32.5

Lounge

35

Hallway

79

TOTAL

700
3rd Floor

Ramps and Elevator

49

Stairs

25
8

C.R.

22.5

Offices

45

Class Room

2(63)

Other Rooms

133

Faculty Room

65

Library

94.5

Hallway

73.5

Sisters Room

66.5

TOTAL

700
4th Floor

Ramps and Elevator

49

Stairs

12.5

C.R.

22.5

Study Area

178.5

Dormitory

255.5

Vice Rectors and Prefects Room

66.5

Toilet & Bath

59.5

Laundry

28

Hallway

28

TOTAL

700
5th Floor

Ramps and Elevator

49

Stairs

25

Hallway

28

Dormitory (1)

201

Dormitory (2)

196

Toilet & Bath

2(59.5)

Laundry

28

Rectors Room

66.5
9

TOTAL

700

TOTAL FLOOR AREA

3500

2.2 Classification of the Structure

Using the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2010, the designer was able to
classify and determine the classifications and parameters of the structure.
2.2.1 Seismic Load Parameters
Since the structure is a seminary, the occupancy category of the building is classified as an
Essential Facility, whose value of importance factor (I) is equal to 1.50. For the site geology, the soil profile
type was considered as SD because the soil properties of the area was not known. Since the area is in
Region IV-A, the structure is included in the areas under seismic zone 4, with seismic zone factor (Z) of 0.4.

10

As
Figure 7, the
nearest

to

Figure 6. Distance of the Nearest Fault Line to the Proposed Seminary

seen

in

fault

line

the area is

the Makati Valley Fault System which is 16 km away. The seismic source type is considered as Type C
since this fault line is not prone on producing large magnitude of earthquakes. With these data, the near
source factors Na and Nv are both 1.0. The values of Ca and Cv are now determined as 0.44 and 0.64
respectively.
Since the building is rectangular, it is a regular structure. Special Moment Resisting Frame System
(SMRF) was utilized in the longitudinal, and special steel concentric braces frame was utilized in the
transverse axis, thus, the seismic response coefficient (R) is 7. Static force procedure was utilized for the
determination of the seismic forces acting on the strcture.

2.2.2 Wind Load Parameters

In this part, the parameters for the determination of the wind loads will be presented, but those
which are presented already in the seismic part will not be repeated.
As the area is included in the zone 4, it has a basic wind speed (V) of 200 kph. The structural type
of the building is a Main Wind Resisting Force System, thus, the value of Directionality Factor (K d) is 0.85.
The surface roughness of the building is B because it is intended to be built in an urban area. The seminary
is a medium rise building and an enclosed structure. The gust effect factor is considered as 0.85. Other
parameters such as topographic factor (k zt) and velocity pressure exposure coefficients (k z) will be
11

computed. These values are those needed in the determination of the wind pressure acting on the
structure.

2.2.3 Dead Loads and Live Loads

The minimum design for dead loads and live loads used in the structure is presented in this part.
For the live loads and dead loads (includes ceiling, floors and floor finishes) of the structure, the materials
and their respective uniform load are in shown In Table 2

12

Table 2. Dead Loads and Live Loads of the Structure

DEAD LOADS
Component

Load (kPa)
Ceiling

Gypsum Board
Mechanical Duct Allowance
Wood Furring Suspension System
Floor and Floor Finishes
Cement Finish on
Stone Concrete Fill
Ceramic Quarry Tile
Masonry
For Plastering (both sides)

0.008
0.2
0.12
1.53
1.1
0.24

LIVE LOADS
Basic Floor Area

1.9

13

2.3 Architectural Plans

Figure 7. Firs Floor Plan of the Seminary

Figure 8. Second Floor Plan of the Seminary

14

Figure 9. Third Floor Plan of the Seminary

Figure 10. Fourth Floor Plan of the Seminary

15

Figure 11. Fifth Floor Plan of the Seminary

Figure 12. Front Elevation of the Seminary

Figure 13. Side View of the Seminary

16

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

3.1 Design Constraints
Constraint based design takes the parameters associated with a design problem and links them to
the attributes of the formal components and relationships of a solution. The forms that compose a building
are defined by a set of attributes. Constraints have to be managed effectively throughout the decision
making process, and also could be reduced or eliminated.
In this project, there are specific constraints and general constraints. The specific constraints will
serves as the criteria for ranking. The general constraints are the basis of the tradeoffs which will be
ranked. The specific constraints were divided into two types, namely, quantitative and qualitative
constraints. Quantitative constraints are those constraints that can be measured using engineering
methods (estimation, direct counting, etc.). The qualitative constraints are those which cannot be
measured but are ranked through the designers perception and experience (unranked in this project).
The next sections present the specific constraints selected among all others that will have a
significant impact in the design of the structure.
3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints
1. Economic (Cost). The design of the building will comprise steel for the structural framing as
specified by the client. The tradeoffs presented in the next section are compared so as to
determine which of those could be the cheaper choice. Davison (2003) noted that frame in the
steel building has a greater percentage in the entire budget of the structural design. The
components of the steel structure (beams and columns) can consist 30% in the total cost of
construction. Total cost outcome of the tradeoffs in sections and connections will be considered
in this design. The cost of the structure is highly significant both to the designer and the client.
2. Constructability (Duration). In this constraint, the designer thought on the process of
manufacturing of structural sections is considered for the tradeoff in sections. For the tradeoffs
in connections, the designer considered the construction time in joining the beams and
columns. The tradeoffs to be presented would be compared so as to know which among the
tradeoffs will require lesser amount of man-hour for construction.
17

3. Safety (Deflection). The designer considered the safety of the structure with respect to its
vertical axis. Having considered the constructability of structure either using rolled or built-up
sections, it is also reasonable to look at the safety of the structure. This must be capable to
withstand the gravity loads.
4. Strength (Capacity). The designer considered the capacity of a connection to resist the
possible failures such as failure in bearing, shearing (double or single), tensile, block shear.
Knowing the capacity of the bolt would lead the designer to know how serviceable the structure
is. The designer also measured the tensile capacity that the tension members can resist, and
the axial capacity that columns can carry.
3.1.2 Qualitative Constraints
1. Aesthetics. The beauty of the structure lies upon its final output. This constraint depends on
the taste of a person therefore it is considered as a qualitative constraint. It depends on a
persons perception which design is more presentable.
2. Social. People are very influential when it comes to ideas and other things. In this project, the
friends and relatives of the client might give him an idea which might alter the work of the
designer. Demands from these people might affect the decision of the client and the designer.
3. Health and Safety. Different areas surrounding commercial building might affect the people
that might use the commercial building. Smoke from the cars using the roads and cigarettes,
smell from the nearby canal, laundry areas, restaurants, etc., are examples of these hazardous
odor that might affect health and safety of the people in the building.

18

CONSTRAINTS

SPECIFIC

QUALITATIVE

GENERAL

QUANTITATIVE

TENSION MEMBERS
BEAMS
COLUMNS

HEALTH AND SAFETY

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

CONSTRUCTABILITY

AESTHETICS

SAFETY

BOLTED CONNECTIONS
WELDED CONNECTIONS

STRENGTH

19

3.2 Tradeoffs
Design trade-off strategies are always present in the design process. Considering design
constraints, trade-offs that have a significant effect on the structural design of the structure was provided by
the designer. As a trade-off, the designer will have to evaluate which of the two is more effective
considering each constraint. The following are the tradeoffs that were chosen by the designer because they
are the most fitted to the said constraints.
Tradeoffs in Beams and Columns. The first part of the project is to determine which section is
more effective for a structural member (beams and columns). The designer utilized the rolled sections (W
Shapes) and built up sections (BW Shapes) as tradeoffs for the structural members. Considering both
tradeoffs to be effective and efficient in the design, the designer sought to find out which section will have
greater performance considering the constraints; economic, constructability, safety, and strength.

Figure 14. Actual (left) and Theoretical (right) Built Up Sections

Tradeoffs in Tension Members. The tension members for the structure are the x-bracing. The
designer chose the tradeoffs to be the section of the tension member, namely single angle with equal legs,

20

and single angle with unequal legs. The designer would like to know if there will be difference in the
performance of the two sections.
Tradeoffs in Bolted Connections. Bolted connections are widely used in almost every
mechanical and structural system due to the added flexibility of assembly and disassembly of sub-systems
for inspection, replacement, and routine maintenance. The designer utilized bolted connections in the
bracing of the structure. The tradeoffs for bolted connections is the bolt hole that will be used, namely
standard hole dimensions and oversized hole dimensions. The designer would like to know if there will be
alterations in the performance of the connection when these two are applied.

Tradeoffs in Welded Connections. Welded connections are joints connected through welding.
The designer planned that the beams and columns of the structure will be connected through welding. The
tradeoffs chosen by the designer for the welded connections are the electrodes that will be used in welding.
COLUMNS

The electrodes are namely E70XX and E60XX.

TRADEOFF IN SECTION

BEAMS

TRADEOFFS

TENSION MEMBERS

TRAFEOFF IN TYPE OF BOLT

BOLTED CONNECTIONS
CONNECTIONS

21
WELDED CONNECTIONS
TRADEOFF IN TYPE OF WELDING EQUIPMEN

22

3.2.3 Ranking Scale

The ranking scale that will be used in this design is based on the model on tradeoff strategies
formulated by Otto and Antonsson (1991). The importance factors in each constraint is scaled from 0 to 5,
while the ability to satisfy the constraint is scaled from -5 to 5, 5 being the highest for both. After obtaining
the results, the product of the importance and ability to satisfy the criteria will be summed of from each
constraint. The result will then be the overall ranking of the tradeoff.

Figure 3.7 Ranking Scale for Importance Factor

Figure 3.8. Ranking Scale for Satisfactory Factor

Computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials:

Difference( )=

Higher valueLower value

100( )
Lower value

Subordinate rank =Governing rank (

difference
)
10

Equation 1
Equation 2

The above equations will be used for the manipulation of the rankings of each constraint given to
the tradeoffs. The governing rank is the highest possible value set by the designer. The subordinate rank in
second equation is a variable that corresponds to its percentage difference from the governing rank along
the ranking scale.

23

3.3 Initial Estimate, Ranking Computation, and Raw Designers Ranking

For the first part of the project, choosing between the rolled section and built-up section, two
sections from each tradeoff was assumed. The designer assumed each to have the same areas. To
determine which of these two is more economic, the price per unit weight of each section were multiplied by
the quantity (with respect to length) of the each section. To measure the serviceability constraint, the
deflections of the assumed sections were computed and compared. All assumed values and the estimates
were shown in Appendix C.
BEAMS
INITIAL ESTIMATED VALUES
Criteria
Economic
Constructability
Safety

Tradeoffs
Rolled
Php 20,596,736
74 days
0.30%

Built Up
Php 16,529,336
84 days
0.22%

INITIAL RANKING COMPUTATION FOR BEAMS

To Determine the Ranking of the Values,
Difference (%) = [(Higher - Lower)/Higher]*100
Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank - (Difference (%)/10)
Summary
Higher Value
Lower Value
Governing Rank
Difference (%)
Subordinate Rank

Economic
20,596,736
16,529,336
5
19.75
3

CRITERIA
Constructability
N/A
N/A
5
N/A
2

Safety
0.297
0.222
5
25.09
2

For the economic constraint, initial cost estimate is provided in the Appendix. To make an initial cost
estimate, the designer considered the two tradeoffs to have the same area, and due to their different weights, the
24

tradeoffs will have different cost. To compute the rank of each tradeoff, the designer used the formula formerly
enumerated.
For the constructability constraint, the designer considered the manufacturability of each section. In this
constraint, the designer gave a rank of 5 to Rolled Sections, and 2 fof Built Up sections. The main reason is that
the rolled sections is manufactured as one, considering only the molding and curing time of the whole member,
while built up section are rolled sections combined together to form another section, thus, aside from molding and
curing time, we also consider the stiffening of the section.
For the safety of the member, the designer considered the deflection per unit of length, of the same
shapes used in the economic section. The deflection was presented in terms of percentage of the allowable
deflection. Like in economic constraint, the rank for each tradeoff was computed.

COLUMNS
INITIAL ESTIMATED VALUES
Criteria
Economic

Tradeoffs
Rolled
Php 20,596,736

Built Up
Php 16,529,336

INITIAL RANKING COMPUTATION FOR COLUMNS

Summary
Higher Value
Lower Value
Governing Rank
Difference (%)
Subordinate Rank

Economic
9,957,151
9,351,936
5
6.08
4

CRITERIA
Constructability
N/A
N/A
5
N/A
2

Strength
N/A
N/A
5
N/A
4

For the economic constraint, initial cost estimate is provided in the Appendix. To make an initial
cost estimate, the designer considered the two tradeoffs to have the same area, and due to their different
weights, the tradeoffs will have different cost. To compute the rank of each tradeoff, the designer used the
formula formerly enumerated.
For the constructability constraint, the designer considered the manufacturability of each section. In
this constraint, the designer gave a rank of 5 to Rolled Sections, and 2 fof Built Up sections. The main
25

reason is that the rolled sections is manufactured as one, considering only the molding and curing time of
the whole member, while built up section are rolled sections combined together to form another section,
thus, aside from molding and curing time, we also consider the stiffening of the section.
For the strength of the member, values cannot be assumed since axial capacity of columns can
only be measured after analyzing the whole structure. Therefore, the designer sought a way to rank this
constraint. The designer gave a higher rank to the rolled beam sections because considering same area of
cross sections, they always give lower value of weight. Thus, they can still carry greater amount of load to
be sum up with their selfweights. Thus, the designer gave a rank of 5 to rolled sections, and 4 for built up
sections.
TENSION MEMBERS
INITIAL ESTIMATED VALUES
Criteria
Economic

Tradeoffs
Rolled
Php 77,520

Built Up
Php 119,321

INITIAL RANKING COMPUTATION FOR TENSION MEMBERS

Summary
Higher Value
Lower Value
Governing Rank
Difference (%)
Subordinate Rank

Economic
119,321
77,520
5
35.03
1

CRITERIA
Constructability
N/A
N/A
5
N/A
4

Safety
N/A
N/A
5
N/A
3

26

For the economic constraint, initial cost estimate is provided in the Appendix. To make an initial
cost estimate, the designer considered the two tradeoffs to have the same area, and due to their different
weights, the tradeoffs will have different cost. To compute the rank of each tradeoff, the designer used the
formula formerly enumerated.
For the constructability constraint, the designer considered the manufacturability of each section. In
this constraint, the designer gave a rank of 5 to Single Angle with Equal Legs because there is equal
distribution in the period of time in both legs, unlike in unequal legs, ranked as 4, because they can have
variation of manufacturing, especially in curing time.
For the strength of the member, In this part, values cannot be assumed since axial capacity of
columns can only be measured after analyzing the whole structure. Therefore, the designer sought a way
to rank this constraint. The designer gave a higher rank of 5 to the single angle with unequal legs because
the axial load is possibly higher since the fasteners are placed in the longer leg, unlike in the single angle
with equal legs ranked as 3, both have same dimensions thus giving high possibly of having lesser leg than
that of single angle with unequal legs. Comparing the longer legs is necessary because there will be
computation of gross area and net area, where the axial capacity of the tension member will depend.

27

WELDED CONNECTIONS
INITIAL ESTIMATED VALUES
Criteria

Tradeoffs

Economic

E70XX
Php 291,600

Constructability
Safety

174.96 man-hrs
485

E60XX
Php 264,600
158.76 manhrs
415

INITIAL RANKING COMPUTATION FOR BEAMS

To Determine the Ranking of the Values,
Difference (%) = [(Higher - Lower)/Higher]*100
Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank - (Difference (%)/10)
Summary
Higher Value
Lower Value
Governing Rank
Difference (%)
Subordinate Rank

Economic
291600
264600
5
9.26
4

CRITERIA
Constructability
175
159
5
9.21
4

Safety
485.000
415.000
5
14.43
4

To have an initial cost estimate in welded connections, the designer assumed equal length of weld
but different thickness. The designer assumed that E70XX will result to thinner weld size, but is more costly.
For constructability, the designer considered that material cost and the labor cost that will be resolved from
the cost estimate. And finally for the strength, E70XX obviously got higher rank because it has greater
strength than the other.

Bolted Connections
28

INITIAL ESTIMATED VALUES

Criteria
Economic
Constructability

Tradeoffs
Standard
Oversized
9,900
11,200
51.48
44.8

INITIAL RANKING COMPUTATION FOR TENSION MEMBERS

To Determine the Ranking of the Values,
Difference (%) = [(Higher - Lower)/Higher]*100
Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank - (Difference (%)/10)
Summary
Higher Value
Lower Value
Governing Rank
Difference (%)
Subordinate Rank

Economic
11,200
9,900
5
11.61
4

CRITERIA
Constructability
51
45
5
12.98
4

Safety
N/A
N/A
5
N/A
3

To have an initial cost estimate in bolted connections, the designer based his estimate on the bolt
hole area. The designer assumed the same number of bolts, but the oversized hole still got higher rank
because it is more costly than the standard. For constructability, it comes the other way around where the
oversized won. And finally for the strength, the designer gave rank of 5 into the oversized because the
holes lessen the load that is transmitted.

3.4 Raw Designers Ranking and Assessment

After making an initial estimate of the structure considering the constraints, the design came up
with the raw rankings on the one-way slab and two-way slab. The values computed in the latter section is
tabulated.
BEAMS
Criterion

Importance

Ability to Satisfy the Criterion

Hot Rolled
Built-Up
29

Economic (Cost)
Constructability (Manufacturability)
Safety (Deflection)
Overall Ranking

5
4
4

3
5
2
43

5
2
5
53

As for economic constraint, it turned out that the rough cost estimate for the rolled sections is
cheaper than the rolled sections. As for constructability, rolled up sections are easier to manufacture than
the built up sections. As for the serviceability constraint, the deflection of the critical beam in the built-up
section is lesser than that of the rolled section. Overall, it turned out that the built up section tradeoff
outranked the rolled section for the raw designers ranking in beams.

COLUMNS
Criterion

Importance

Economic (Cost)
Constructability (Manufacturability)
Strength (Axial Capacity)
Overall Ranking

5
4
4

Ability to Satisfy the Criterion

Hot Rolled
Built-Up
4
5
5
2
4
5
56
53

As for economic constraint, it turned out that the rough cost estimate for the built up sections is
cheaper than the rolled sections. As for constructability, rolled up sections are easier to manufacture than
the built up sections. As for the strength of the member, the axial capacity of the built up columns was
hypothesized to be greater than that of rolled columns. Overall, it turned out that the rolled section tradeoff
outranked the built up section for the raw designers ranking in columns.

TENSION MEMBERS
Criterion

Importance

Economic (Cost)
Constructability (Manufacturability)
Strength (Axial Capacity)
Overall Ranking

5
4
4

Ability to Satisfy the Criterion

SA Equal Legs SA Unequal Legs
5
1
5
4
3
5
57
41

30

As for economic constraint, it turned out that the rough cost estimate for the single angle with equal
legs is cheaper than single angle with unequal legs. As for constructability, the former is easier to
manufacture than the latter. As for the strength of the bracing member, the axial capacity of the equal legs
was hypothesized to be greater than that of the unequal legs rolled columns. Overall, it turned out that the
single angle with equal legs tradeoff outranked single angle with equal legs tradeoff for the raw designers
ranking in tension members.
WELDED CONNECTIONS
Criterion

Importance

Economic (Cost)
Constructability (Manufacturability)
Strength (Ultimate)
Overall Ranking

5
4
4

Ability to Satisfy the Criterion

E70XX
E60XX
4
5
4
5
5
4
56
61

As for economic constraint, it turned out that the rough cost estimate for the welding electrode
E60XX will result to cheaper price of welding connections compared to welding electrode E70XX. For
constructability constraint, the designer considered the amount of man-hour that the welding connections
will incur. To get an initial estimate, the designer used the economic cost to get the percentage of the labor
cost required for the construction (welding), which resulted to number of hours the process will be finished.
For the strength, the designer considered the ultimate tensile strength of two electrodes, which is their main
difference. The E70XX basically has higher strength than E60XX. Overall, it turned out that the E60XX
tradeoff outranked E70XX tradeoff for the raw designers ranking in welded connections.
BOLTED CONNECTIONS
RAW DESIGNER'S RANKING
Criterion

Importance

Economic
Constructability
Strength
Overall Ranking

5
4
4

Ability to Satisfy the Criterion

Standard
Oversized
5
4
5
4
3
5
57
56

31

*Reference: Otto, K. N. and Antonsson, E. K., (1991). Trade-off strategies in engineering design. Research
in Engineering Design, volume 3, number 2, pages 87-104.Retrieved from
http://www.design.caltech.edu/Research/Publications/90e.pdf on January 27, 2016
As per economic constraint, the standard bolt hole is cheaper than the oversized. One reason is
that it is the used by many company, unlike the oversized. Also, the standard bolt hole got higher rank in
constructability. But regarding the strength, the designer gave a rank of 5 into oversized, and 3 to standard,
because the transmission of force is not directly into the bolt.
These tabulated values are just subjective, especially the importance factors. These values will still
go on with the validation after making a final estimate and final ranking.

32

3.9 Design Standards

The design standards used are taken from the following codes and standards:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) vol. 1-2001 edition (PD1096)
National Building Code of the Philippines
ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials)
ASEP Steel Handbook 2004 vol. 1
Steel Designers Manual of the Steel Construction Institute 6th Edition

1. The National Structural Code of the Philippines 2001.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 various model codes/regulations, to safeguard the public
health and safety nationwide. This is the main reference for the design procedure of the structure.
Material Strength. Materials conforming specifications of NSCP 6th edition 2010 were used in the
design of the project.
Loadings. Dead loads, live loads and environmental loads (wind and earthquake) are the forces
acting on the structure. Dead loads are consists of the weight of all materials of construction and partition
loads that are presented in the next chapter. Live loads shall be the maximum loads expected by the
occupancy; these loads are attached in chapter 4 as well. The required lateral loads due to wind and
earthquake forces shall be separately calculated.
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 NSCP 2010, 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 NSCP 6th edition (2010).
Load Combinations. Steel sections shall be designed using the Allowable Stress Design method
using the following combination
DL + LL
DL + 0.75 LL
DL + WL
DL + 0.7 EL
33

DL + 0.75 WL + 0.75 LL
0.6 DL + WL : 0.6 DL + 0.7 E
Deformation Limits. Structures or structural members shall be checked such that the maximum
deformation does not exceed the following:
a. Beams and Girders. Beams and girders supporting floors and roof shall be proportioned with
due regard to the deflection produced by the design loads. Considering then the total deflection, which is
due to the additional live loads, occurring after attachment of non-structural elements shall not exceed
L/360.
2. The National Building Code of the Philippines (PD 1096).The National Building Code of the
Philippines, also known as Presidential Decree No. 1096 was formulated and adopted as a uniform building
code to embody up-to-date and modern technical knowledge on building design, construction, use,
occupancy and maintenance. The Code provides for all buildings and structures, a framework of minimum
standards and requirements to regulate and control

location, site, design, and quality of materials,

construction, use, occupancy, and maintenance.

A. Loading

: UBC 97, ASCE 7-05

B. Steel

: A36
3. Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP) Steel Handbook, 3rd

Edition, Volume 1. This provide the civil and structural engineering practitioners with a handy reference to
locally available rolled shapes, built-up shapes, cold-formed steel sections and light gage steel sections.
a. Hot-rolled Sections Dimensions and Properties b. Built-up Sections Dimensions and Properties

34

CHAPTER IV: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

4.1 Design Methodology
The design was done in accordance with the codes and standards appropriate for a reinforced
concrete structure. The figure below shows the step by step process of the design of the building.
FRAMING PLANS

STRUCTURAL PLANS

NSCP
NBCP

DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

MATERIAL PROPERTIES

MODULUS OF ELASTICITY
STRUTURAL MEMBER
DIMENSIONS

GEOMETRIC MODELING

STRUCTURAL MODEL

LOAD MODELS

DEAD AND LIVE LOAD

SEISMIC AND WIND LOAD
LOAD COMBINATIONS

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

SHEAR DIAGRAMS
MOMENT DIAGRAMS
REACTIONS AND DEFLECTIONS

STRUCTURAL DESIGN

DESIGN SCHEDULES
DETAILING

Figure 15. Design Methodology

35

The first process in design methodology was the creation of structural plans. The structural plans
included the foundation plans of the two trade-offs. The next step was to know the design specifications.
These specifications are the codes and standards needed for the structures classification and description.
The National Building Code and National Structural Code of the Philippines are the main references used
for design specifications.
The third step in the process was the identification of the material properties. The compressive
stresses and modulus of elasticity of the concrete and steel to be used were determined. Also, the
structural member dimensions (b, d, etc.) were assumed. The fourth step was the creation of the structural
model. These models included geometric modelling, which showed the positioning of the structural
members (beams, columns, slabs) in 3D form.
The fifth step was the presentation of load models. In this part, the loads acting on the structure
were computed. These loads were the dead load, live load, wind load, and seismic (earthquake) load,
applying also the load combinations. After computing for these loads, load models was presented also in
3D form. The sixth step was the structural analysis. In structural analysis, member (beams and columns)
forces and reactions were determined. The member forces included were the axial force, shear force, and
moment acting on the member.
The last part was the structural design. The structural design did not include the design of footings.
The values from the structural analysis was utilized to design the structural members of the structures,
mainly the beams and columns. The maximum moment acting on a beam was used to design the beam,
and the maximum value of the axial force acting on a column was used to design the column. To design the
slab, the total load on the floors was utilized.

36

4.1.1 Structural Plans

Figure 16. Second Fifth Floor Framing Plan

37

4.1.2 Design Specifications

The all the design specifications coming from NBCP and NSCP for the structure is stated
Appendix A of the project.

4.1.3 Material Properties

Material Properties conforming to specifications of NSCP 6th Edition (2010) were used in the
design of the structure using rolled sections. The properties for rolled sections were based on rolled section
of Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc. (2004).Steel Handbook, Dimensions and
Properties. Philippines. ASEP. Locally produced rolled shapes were applicable only for structural steel
whose minimum yield stress is 230 MPa. In this structure, the designers used A36 for rolled sections with
minimum yield stress of 248 MPa and tensile strength of 400-551 MPa. The following material properties
were used in the design:

38

4.1.4 Structural Models

Figure 17. Geometric Modelling of Structure

4.1.5 Load Models

The loads considered in this project are the dead load, live load, wind load and seismic loads. Load
combinations were also applied to these loads. The load combinations that were utilized were those that
are written in Section 203 of NSCP 2010. The highlighted row shows the governing load combination.

39

Table 3. Load Combinations

Load Case Combinations (UBC 1997) STAAD Pro
Load Case
Dead Live Wind
Seismic
LC 1
1.4
1.4
LC 2
1.2
1.2
LC 3
1.2
1.2
0.8
LC 4
1.2
1.2
1.3
LC 5
1.2
1.2
1
LC 6
1.2
1.2
1
LC 7
0.9
0.9
1
LC 8
0.9
0.9
1.3

40

Figure 18. Dead Loads of the Structure

Figure 19. Live Loads of the Structure

41

Figure 20. Wind Loads Acting in the Structure

Figure 21. Seismic Loads Acting the Structure

42

4.1.6 Structural Analysis

For the structural analysis of the members, the results considered are those that came from the
load combination which gave the maximum values of member forces and reactions, namely load
combination 1 (1.4L + 1.4LL).

Figure 22. Axial Forces Acting on the Structure

A summary of values of the member forces is presented in the appendices. The following figures
show the results of the structural analysis done through the software STAAD.

43

Figure 23. Moment Forces Acting on the Structure (Y-Axis)

4.1. 7 Structural Design

The flowchart below shows the step by step process on how the designer
designed each member present in the structure.

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

TENSION MEMBERS - SINGLE ANGLE WITH EQUAL LEGS

DESIGN FOR ALL TENSION MEMBERS
Given
Fy
Fu
L
P

248
415
3.807887
24.591

MPa
MPa
m
kN
RESULTS

Part 1. Determine the Trial Section

rmin = L/300
Ag = P/(.6*Fy)
*Select a Trial Section based on the 3

Part 2. Determine the Capacity of the

Member

Ag

12.69295
52
165.2620
97

mm
mm
2

Trial Section
Used L 40 x 40
x5
rx

11.97

mm

ry

11.97

mm
mm
2
mm

rmin

According to Net Area

Pt = 0.5Fu*U*An
*Assume Reduction
Coefficient
U = 0.85

A
t

378.86
5

L
w

40
40

An = Ag - holes

2.87

According to Gross Area

Pt = 0.6Fy*Ag
Governing Pt is smaller of the two

Net Area
U
bolt
An

Part 3. Check the Capacity

*If Pt < P, Reselect another section

0.85
22
268.86

mm
mm
kg/
m

mm
mm
2

Capacity
Pt

47.42018
25
SAFE

kN

54

TENSION MEMBERS - SINGLE ANGLE WITH UNEQUAL LEGS

DESIGN FOR ALL TENSION MEMBERS

Given
Fy
Fu
L
P

248
415
3.807887
24.591

MPa
MPa
m
kN
RESULTS

Part 1. Determine the Trial

Section
12.6929
6
165.262
1

mm
mm
2

rx

15.46

mm

ry

8.44

A
t
L

426.72
5
50

mm
mm
2
mm
mm

40

3.35

rmin = L/300

rmin

Ag = P/(.6*Fy)
*Select a Trial Section based
on the 2

Ag
Trial Section
Used L 50 x 40
x5

Part 2. Determine the Net

Area
*Assume Reduction
Coefficient
U = 0.85
An = Ag - holes
Part 3. Check the Capacity
based on An
Pt = 0.5*Fu*U*An
*If Pt < P, Reselect another
section

Net Area
U
bolt
n
An

0.85
22
3

mm
kg/
m

316.72

mm
pcs
mm
2

55.8614
9

kN

Capacity
Pt

55

SAFE

56

WELDED CONNECTIONS - TRADEOFF 1 (E70XX)

CORNER COLUMN - EXTERIOR LONGITUDINAL BEAM CONNECTION (C1-B1)
Given

Beam

Column

A
bf
tf

12323
192.8
19.1

mm2
mm
mm

P
Fy

200
248

kN
MPa

A
bf
tf

Fu
30581
356.1
27.4

mm2
mm
mm

E60
E70
E80
E90
E100
E110
E120

Part 1. Select the Welding Electrode to be used

*Each eletrode corresponds to different stress
Part 2. Determine the Capacity of the attached
member
Base on Gross
Area
T = 0.6FyAg
Based on Net Area
T = 0.5*Fu*U*Ag
where U is to Reduction Factor

Electrode

E70

Fu

485

MPa

12323
1833.66
2

mm2

Capacity
Gross Area
Ag
T
Net Area
U

If 1.5W > L > W, U = 0.75

T
Governing T

*Lower Tensile Capacity

Governs
Part 3. Check the Tensile Capacity
If T < P, the connections is safe

MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa

RESULTS

If L > 2W, U = 1
If 2W > L > 1.5W, U = 0.87

*Since weld is only in longitudinal, we use U = 0.75

415
485
550
620
690
760
825

kN

0.75
2241.24
6
1833.66
2
SAFE

Dimensions of
Weld
Min t

mm
57

else, Redesign
Part 4. Determine the size
of weld
Min Thickness
Thicker Material
Min t
<6mm
3
>6-12mm
5
>12-20mm
6
>20-38mm
8
>38-57mm
10
>57-150mm

12

>150mm

16

Max t
t (used)
L

17.5
12.75
152.488
6

mm
mm
mm

Max Thickness
Attached Material
<6mm
te = t
>6mm
te = t - 1.6
Part 4. Compute for the Length of Weld
T = 0.707tL*0.3Fu, solve
for L

58

WELDED CONNECTIONS - TRADEOFF 2 (E60XX)

EXTERIOR TRANSVERSE BEAM - COLUMN CONNECTION
Given

Beam

Column

12323

bf
tf

192.8
19.1

mm
2
mm
mm

P
Fy

200
248

kN
MPa

A
bf
tf

Fu
3058
1
356.1
27.4

E60

415

MPa

mm2

E70

485

MPa

mm
mm

E80
E90
E100
E110
E120

550
620
690
760
825

MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa

Part 1. Select the Welding Electrode to be used

*Each eletrode corresponds to different stress
Part 2. Determine the Capacity of the attached
member
Base on Gross Area
T = 0.6FyAg
Based on Net Area
T=
0.5*Fu*U*Ag
where U is to Reduction
Factor
If L > 2W, U =
1
If 2W > L > 1.5W, U =
0.87
If 1.5W > L > W, U = 0.75
*Since weld is only in longitudinal, we use U =
0.75
Lower Tensile Capacity
Governs

RESULTS
Electrode

E60

Fu

415

MPa

Ag

12323

mm2

1833.662
4

kN

Capacity
Gross Area

Net Area
U
T
Governing T

0.75
1917.766
9
1833.662
4
SAFE

59

Part 3. Check the Tensile Capacity

If T < P, the connections
is safe
else,
Redesign
Part 4. Determine the size of
weld
Min Thickness
Thicker Material
Min t
<6mm
3
>6-12mm
5
>12-20mm
6
>20-38mm
8
>38-57mm
10
>57-150mm
12
>150mm
16

Dimensions of
Weld
Min t

mm

Max t

17.5

mm

t (used)

12.75
178.2095
8

mm

mm

Max Thickness
Attached Material
<6mm
te = t
>6mm

te = t - 1.6

Part 4. Compute for the Length of Weld

T = 0.707tL*0.3Fu, solve
for L

60

WELDED CONNECTIONS - TRADEOFF 2 (E60XX)

CORNER COLUMN - TRANSVERSE BEAM CONNECTION (C1-B34)
Given

Beam

Column

12323

bf
tf

192.8
19.1

mm
2
mm
mm

P
Fy

200
248

kN
MPa

E60

Fu
415

MPa

8710

mm2

E70

485

MPa

bf
tf

153.9
8.1

mm
mm

E80
E90
E100
E110
E120

550
620
690
760
825

MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa
MPa

Part 1. Select the Welding Electrode to be used

*Each eletrode corresponds to different stress
Part 2. Determine the Capacity of the attached
member
Base on Gross Area
T = 0.6FyAg
Based on Net Area
T = 0.5*Fu*U*Ag
where U is to Reduction
Factor
If L > 2W, U = 1
If 2W > L > 1.5W, U = 0.87
If 1.5W > L > W, U = 0.75
*Since weld is only in longitudinal, we use U =
0.75
Lower Tensile Capacity
Governs
Part 3. Check the Tensile Capacity
If T < P, the connections is

RESULTS
Electrode

E60

Fu

415

MPa

12323
1833.662
4

mm2

Capacity
Gross Area
Ag
T
Net Area
U
T
Governing T

kN

0.75
1917.766
9
1833.662
4
SAFE

Dimensions of
Weld
Min t

mm
61

safe
else, Redesign
Part 4. Determine the size of
weld
Min Thickness
Thicker Material
Min t
<6mm
3
>6-12mm
5
>12-20mm
6
>20-38mm
8
>38-57mm
10
>57-150mm
12
>150mm
16

Max t
t (used)
L

17.5
11.25
201.9708
6

mm
mm
mm

Max Thickness
Attached Material
<6mm
te = t
>6mm

te = t - 1.6

Part 4. Compute for the Length of Weld

T = 0.707tL*0.3Fu, solve for
L

62

BOLTED CONNECTION - TRADEOFF 1 (STANDARD BOLT HOLES)

P
t
bolts
bolt hole

24.591
5
16
18

kN
mm
mm
mm

RESULTS
Fu

Part 1. Get the required number of

bolts
considering shear in
the bolts
Pu = AvFv, solve for n (number of
bolts)
where Av = n*pi*(^2)/4
Fv = 0.30Fu
Part 2. Get the required number of
bolts
considering bearing in
the bolts
Pu = AbFb, solve for n (number of
bolts)
where Ab = n*Dt
Fb = 1.2Fu
*Choose the greater amount of n

MPa

254.469
62.1
2

mm2
MPa
pcs

Ab
Fb
n

90
248.4
2

mm2
MPa
pcs

n (governs)
s
Le

2
24
32

pcs
mm
mm

Block Shear
Av
At
Fv
Ft
Pt

190
155
62.1
103.5
27.8415

mm2
mm2
MPa
MPa
kN

Shear in Bolts
Av per bolt
Fv
n

Bearing of Bolts

Pary 4. Check for Block Shear

Pt = FvAv + FtAt
where Fv = 0.3*Fu
Ft = 0.5*Fu
Av = Shear Area
At = Tension Area
*If Pt < P, Reselect another section
else, the section chosen is SAFE
Part 3. Determine the spacing of bolt

207

Le

SAFE

and edge distance

s = 1.5*bolt
Le = 2*bolt

63

64

BOLTED CONNECTION - TRADEOFF 1 (OVERSIZED BOLT HOLE)

P
t
bolts
bolt hole

24.591
5
16
20

kN
mm
mm
mm

RESULTS
Fu

Part 1. Get the required number of

bolts
considering shear in
the bolts
Pu = AvFv, solve for n (number of
bolts)
where Av = n*pi*(^2)/4
Fv = 0.30Fu
Part 2. Get the required number of
bolts
considering bearing in
the bolts
Pu = AbFb, solve for n (number of
bolts)
where Ab = n*Dt
Fb = 1.2Fu
*Choose the greater amount of n
Pary 4. Check for Block Shear
Pt = FvAv + FtAt
where Fv = 0.3*Fu
Ft = 0.5*Fu
Av = Shear Area
At = Tension Area
*If Pt > P, Reselect another section
else, the section chosen is
SAFE
Part 3. Determine the spacing of
bolt
and edge distance
s = 1.5*bolt
Le = 2*bolt

207

MPa

314.15927
62.1
2

mm2
MPa
pcs

Ab
Fb
n

100
248.4
1

mm2
MPa
pcs

n (governs)
s
Le

2
24
32

pcs
mm
mm

180
150
62.1

mm2
mm2
MPa

103.5
26.703

MPa
kN

Shear in Bolts
Av per bolt
Fv
n

Bearing of Bolts

Block Shear
Av
At
Fv
Ft
Pt
SAFE

65

4.3 Validation of Trade-offs

This portion will testify if the ranking made in Chapter 3 is against or similar to the results of the
final design and final cost estimates.

4.3.1 Final Estimate and Ranking Computation

Beams
FINAL ESTIMATED VALUES
Criteria
Economic
Constructability
Safety

Tradeoffs
Rolled
Php 12135424
74 days
7.41 mm

Built Up
Php 14,785,004
84 days
5.67 mm

FINAL RANKING COMPUTATION FOR BEAMS

CRITERIA
Economic
Constructability
14,785,004
84
12,135,424
74
5
5
21.83
13.32
3
4

Summary
Higher Value
Lower Value
Governing Rank
Difference (%)
Subordinate Rank

Safety
7.41
5.67
5
30.69
2

Columns
FINAL ESTIMATED VALUES
Criteria
Economic

Tradeoffs
Rolled
Php 7,533,312

Built Up
Php 7,606,979
66

Constructability
Strength

47 days
6385.42 kN

53 days
6762.8 kN

FINAL RANKING COMPUTATION

Summary

Economic
7,606,979
7,533,312
5
0.97
4

Higher Value
Lower Value
Governing Rank
Difference (%)
Subordinate Rank

CRITERIA
Constructability
53
47
5
11.11
4

Strength
2264.896667
2203.336061
5
2.72
4

Tension Members
FINAL ESTIMATED VALUES
Tradeoffs

Criteria
Economic
Constructability
Strength

Single Angle (Equal)

Php 44,765
7 days
47.42 kN

Single Angle
(Unequal)
Php 52,252
9 days
55.86 kN

FINAL RANKING COMPUTATION

CRITERIA

Summary
Higher Value
Lower Value
Governing Rank
Difference (%)
Subordinate Rank

Economic
52,252
44,765
5
14.33
4

Constructability
9
7
5
21.08
3

Strengt
h
55.860
47.420
5
15.11
3

WELDED CONNECTIONS
INITIAL ESTIMATED VALUES
67

Criteria

Tradeoffs

Economic

E70XX
Php 291,600

Constructability
Safety

174.96 man-hrs
485

E60XX
Php 264,600
158.76 manhrs
415

INITIAL RANKING COMPUTATION FOR BEAMS

To Determine the Ranking of the Values,
Difference (%) = [(Higher - Lower)/Higher]*100
Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank - (Difference (%)/10)

Summary
Higher Value
Lower Value
Governing Rank
Difference (%)
Subordinate Rank

Economic
291600
264600
5
9.26
4

CRITERIA
Constructabilit
y
175
159
5
9.21
4

Safety
485.000
415.000
5
14.43
4

BOLTED CONNECTIONS

Criteria
Economic
Constructability
Strength

Tradeoffs
Standard
Oversized
4,800
6,400
24.96
30.72
27.84
26.7

INITIAL RANKING COMPUTATION FOR BOLTED

CONNECTIONS
Summary
Higher Value
Lower Value
Governing Rank

Economic
6,400
4,800
5

CRITERIA
Constructability
25
31
5

Safety
27.840
26.703
5
68

Difference (%)
Subordinate Rank

25.00
3

23.08
3

4.08
4

4.3.2 Final Designers Ranking and Assessment

BEAMS

Criterion

Importance

Economic (Cost)
Constructability (Manufacturability)
Safety (Deflection)
Overall Ranking

5
4
4

Ability to Satisfy the Criterion

Hot Rolled
Built-Up
5
3
5
4
2
5
53
51

The result of the final ranking and assessment for beams validates that the initial ranking is correct,
although in the final ranking, the hot rolled beams with 53, and built up beams with 51, got very close rank.
COLUMNS

Criterion

Importance

Economic (Cost)
Constructability (Manufacturability)
Strength (Axial Capacity)
Overall Ranking

5
4
4

Ability to Satisfy the Criterion

Hot Rolled
Built-Up
5
4
5
4
4
5
61
56

The result of the final ranking and assessment for columns validates that the initial ranking is
correct. The hot rolled beams with 61, and built up beams with 56.
TENSION MEMBERS

Criterion

Importance

Economic
Constructability
Strength
Overall Ranking

5
4
4

Ability to Satisfy the Criterion

SA Equal Legs SA Unequal Legs
5
4
5
3
3
5
57
52
69

The result of the final ranking and assessment for columns validates that the initial ranking is
correct. The table below shows the difference of the two ranks. In the initial, the equal angle got 15 points
higher than unequal, but in the final, only 5 points is the margin, with each having 57 and 52 respectively..

WELDED CONNECTIONS
Ability to Satisfy the Criterion
E70XX
E60XX
Economic (Cost)
5
3
5
Constructability (Manufacturability)
4
3
5
Safety (Deflection)
4
5
4
Overall Ranking
47
61
Same as the other three, the welded connections is also correct. As seen in the raw ranking, they only have
Criterion

Importance

5 points deficit, but in the final, their diminished value is 14 points. The E70XX got 47, while E60XX got 61
points.
BOLTED CONNECTIONS

Criterion

Importance

Economic
5
Constructability
4
Strength
4
Overall Ranking

Ability to Satisfy the Criterion

Standard
Oversized
5
3
5
3
5
4
65
43

In bolted connections, all criteria was won by the standard holes unlike before
that the strength criteria was given to the oversized holes. The standard got 65
while oversized got 43 for a difference of 12 points.
Overall, all the assumptions of the designer on each member are correct.
Some methods are really reliable to come up with an initial estimate of value.

4.4 Influence of Multiple Constraints, Tradeoffs and Standards in the Final Design
70

Economic, constructability, and safety, and strength are among the constraints which influenced the
design process of all the alternatives studied by the designer. The charts below show the differences
between all of the tradeoffs.
Economic Constraint
The figure below shows the difference in the economic cost between the two tradeoffs in each
structural member. Knowing the total cost of the structure is essential both for the designer and the client,
so that one can easily choose between which tradeoff to take. The winning tradeoff in each might have a
very large discrepancy against the losing tradeoff, but sometimes have a very small difference, which can
change the mind of the client to pick the losing tradeoff, considering the other constraints in the design.

ECONOMIC CONSTRAINT

Winning Tradeoff

Losing Tradeoff

Figure 24. Economic Constraint Comparison

Constructability Constraint

71

The figure below shows the difference in the constructability between the two tradeoffs in each
structural member. Knowing the total duration of the structure is essential both for the designer and the
client, so that one can easily choose between which tradeoff to take. The winning tradeoff in each might
have a very large discrepancy against the losing tradeoff, but sometimes have a very small difference,
which can change the mind of the client to pick the losing tradeoff, considering the other constraints in the
design.

CONSTRUCTABILITY CONSTRAINT

Winning Tradeoff

Losing Tradeoff

Figure 25. Constructability Constraint Comparison

Safety Constraint
The figure below shows the difference in the safety between the two tradeoffs in the beams of the
structure. Although only one structural part was designed with this kind of constraint, it is still necessary to
look at the outcome. Having a beam with a very much large possible deflection is very dangerous, thats
why the designer really need to consider this constraint.

72

SAFETY CONSTRAINT

Winning Tradeoff

Losing Tradeoff

Strength Constraint
The figure below shows the difference in the strength between the two tradeoffs in each structural
member. Knowing the difference in the strength of the two would pave the way for the designer to choose
which of the two is better.

STRENGTH CONSTRAINT

Winning Tradeoff

Losing Tradeoff

Figure 26. Constructability Constraint Comparison

73

CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN

After all the processes done by the designer, he came up to the final design of the structure.
Summing up all the results of the design, the winning tradeoffs are enumerated as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

The beams of the structure will be designed using hot rolled sections.
The columns of the structure will be designed using hot rolled sections.
The tension members (X-bracing) will be designed using single angle with equal legs.
The welded connections will be designed using E60XX
The bolted connections will be designed using standard bolt holes.

The tables below show the final design schedule of the project.

BEAMS
BEAMS AT 2ND FLR
Transverse
W 18 x 65
Interior
Longitudinal
W 16 x 40
Exterior
Longitudinal
W 12 x 30
BEAMS AT 3RD FLR
Transverse
W 18 x 65
Interior
Longitudinal
W 16 x 40
Exterior
Longitudinal
W 12 x 30
BEAMS AT 4TH FLR
Transverse
W 18 x 65
Interior
Longitudinal
W 16 x 40
Exterior
Longitudinal
W 12 x 30
BEAMS AT 5TH FLR
Transverse
W 18 x 65
Interior
Longitudinal
W 16 x 40
Exterior
Longitudinal
W 12 x 30
BEAMS ATROOF FLR
Transverse
W 18 x 65

COLUMNS
COLUMNS AT GRD - 2ND FLR
Interior
W 27 x 161
Exterior

W 21 x 83

Corner
W 18 x 46
COLUMNS AT 2ND - 3RD FLR
Interior
W 27 x 161
Exterior

W 21 x 83

Corner

W 18 x 46

COLUMNS AT 3RD - 4TH FLR

Interior

W 27 x 161

Exterior

W 21 x 83

Corner
W 18 x 46
COLUMNS AT 4TH - 5TH FLR
Interior
W 27 x 161
Exterior

W 21 x 83

Corner
W 18 x 46
COLUMNS AT 5TH - ROOF FLR
Interior
W 27 x 161

74

Interior
Longitudinal
Exterior
Longitudinal

W 16 x 40

Exterior

W 21 x 83

W 12 x 30

Corner

W 18 x 46

TENSION MEMBERS
ALL

L 40 X 40
X5

75

APPENDIX A: CODES AND STANDARDS

76

APPENDIX B: RESULTS OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

77

APPENDIX C: INITIAL ESTIMATE OF VALUES

78

APPENDIX D: FINAL ESTIMATE OF VALUES

79

APPENDIX E: MANUAL COMPUTATION OF BEAMS

80

APPENDIX F: DESIGN COMPUTATION OF COLUMNS

81

APPENDIX G. DESIGN COMPUTATION OF TENSION MEMBERS

82

APPENDIX H: BEAM DESIGN OF COLUMN INTERACTION

83

APPENDIX I: DESIGN COMPUTATION OF COLUMN BASE PLATE

84

APPENDIX J: DESIGN OF WELDED CONNECTIONS

85

APPENDIX K: DESIGN OF BOLTED CONNECTIONSAppendix K: References

Arda, T. S. and Yardmc, N. (1989). elik Yapda ngerme, 4. elik Yaplar Semineri, Nov.27-Dec.2, T
Vakf ve naat Fakltesi, stanbul.
Calado L. Non-linear cyclic model of top and seat with web angle for steel beam-to-column connections,
Engineering Structures, 2003; 25:1189-1197

Davison, O. (2006). Experimental investigation on built-up columns, Journal of Constructional Steel

research 62: 1325-1332.
Hart, A. (1992). Multi-storey Buildings, Steel Designers Manual, ed. G. W. Owens and P. R. Knowles,
Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.
Otto, K. N. and Antonsson, E. K., (1991). Trade-off strategies in engineering design. Research in
Engineering Design, volume 3, number 2
Schollar, T. (1993). Chapter 21: Structural Connections for Steelwork, Architecture and Construction in
Steel, ed. Blanc A., McEvoy M., Plank R., pub. E & FN Spon, London.

86