REVISIONS

 MEASUREMENT OF SEISMIC RESISTANCE

 PRESENT SITUATION OF SOIL

 COST OF BUILDING

 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SITE

 ADD ON CRITERION/CONSTRAINTS ON RAW RANKING

 DESIGN OF CONTEXT 2
1. MEASUREMENT OF SEISMIC RESISTANCE
The designers are not going to do seismic resistance, instead we are going to do story drift for Risk
Constraints as a replacement. Using the analysis the designers are able to get the value of story drift in
every tradeoff presented below:

Figure A-A Story Drift for Composite Structure

Figure A-B Story Drift for RC Structure

 Figure A-C Story Drift for Steel Structure

2. PRESENT SITUATION OF SOIL

As you can see on the figure below, the bearing capacity of the soil without the SG Bed is 683.30
kPa.

Figure B-A Bearing Capacity without SG Bed

What if we apply different type of SG Bed under the footing. What will happen to the bearing
capacity of the soil? See figure below:

Figure B-B Bearing Capacity with clayey gravel

Figure B-C Bearing Capacity with clayey sand

 Figure B-D Bearing Capacity with silty gravel
3. COST OF BUILDING
We provide a manual estimation for the cost of the building.

Figure C-A Estimate for the building cost of the building

 4. DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE SITE
Figure D-A shows the map view of our Project location and Figure D-B show the site development
plan with an area, so that we can determine the number of building we need to design.

Figure D- A Map View of the Project Location with lot area in Barangay Santo Niño Cainta, Rizal

Figure D- B Site Development Plan

5. ADD ON CRITERION/ CONSTRAINTS ON RAW RANKING

Since we already do analyzation, we add serviceability that focus on deflection or settlement of the beam
caused by vertical loadings.
  Designers Raw Ranking
Once the presentation and evaluation of the designs for the selected trade-offs to satisfy constraints on economic
and structural safety are done, the designers can finally decide which of these design trade-offs will be
satisfactorily appropriate as the final design. The assessment of the considered trade-offs involves the comparison
of their structural design and cost estimate results that will affect the selection of the most suitable trade-off.
Table E- A Ranking of Trade-Offs

Criterion’s
Ability to satisfy the criterion
Importance

(on a scale from 0 to 10)

Decision Criteria
(on a scale of 0 Reinforced Composite
to 10) Concrete Steel Design Structure
Design Design
1 Economic (Cost) 10 10 9.17 9.68

2 Risk (story drift) 9 10 7 5

3 Constructability (duration) 8 8 10 9

4 Serviceability (deflection) 7 7 8 10

Over-all Rank 303 290.7 211.8

Table E- B Summary Final Design Inputs

Constraints Reinforce Concrete Steel Composite

Economic (cost) 36,006,567.33 PHP 39,256,426.69 PHP 37,211,843.48 PHP

Risk (story drift) 1.15 mm 1.73 mm 2.75 mm

Constructability (duration) 440 days 345 days 417 days

Serviceability (settlement) 1.56 mm 1.37 mm 1.02 mm

 Figure E- A Cost Difference
Computation subordinate rank under governing rank for Economic Constraint (RC – Steel)
Higher value-lower value
% Difference = x10
Higher value
39,256,426.69 - 36,006,567.33
% Difference = x10 = 0.83
39,256,426.69

Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank – (% difference)

Subordinate Rank = 10 –0.83 = 9.17

Figure A- B Cost Difference

Computation subordinate rank under governing rank for Economic Constraint (RC –COMPOSITE)
Higher value-lower value
% Difference = x10
Higher value
37,211,843.48 - 36,006,567.33
% Difference = x10 = 0.324
37,211,843.48
Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank – (% difference)
Subordinate Rank = 10 – 0.324 = 9.68
 Figure A- C Story Drift Difference
Computation subordinate rank under governing rank for Risk Constraint (RC-STEEL)
Higher value-lower value
% Difference = x10
Higher value
1.73 - 1.15
% Difference = x10 = 3.35
1.73
Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank – (% difference)
Subordinate Rank = 10 – 3.35 = 7

Figure E- D Story Drift Difference

Computation subordinate rank under governing rank for Risk Constraint (RC–Composite)
Higher value-lower value
% Difference = x10
Higher value
2.75 - 1.15
% Difference = x10 = 5.8
2.75
Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank – (% difference)
Subordinate Rank = 10 – 5.8 = 5

Figure E- E Duration Difference

Computation subordinate rank under governing rank for Constructability Constraint (Steel-RC)
Higher value − lower value
% Difference = x10
Higher value
440 - 345
% Difference = x10 =2.16
345
Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank – (% difference)
Subordinate Rank = 10 – 2.16 = 8
 Figure 4- 1 Duration Difference
Computation subordinate rank under governing rank for Constructability Constraint (Steel-
Composite)
Higher value − lower value
% Difference = x10
Higher value
417 - 345
% Difference = x10 =1.73
417
Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank – (% difference)
Subordinate Rank = 10 – 1.73 = 9

Figure 4- 2 Settlement Difference

Computation subordinate rank under governing rank for Constructability Constraint (Composite –
RC)
Higher value − lower value
% Difference = x10
Higher value
1.56 - 1.02
% Difference = x10 =3.46
1.56
Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank – (% difference)
Subordinate Rank = 10 – 3.46 = 7
 Figure 4- 3 Settlement Difference
Computation subordinate rank under governing rank for Constructability Constraint (Composite-
Steel)
Higher value − lower value
% Difference = x10
Higher value
1.37 - 1.02
% Difference = x10 =2.55
1.37
Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank – (% difference)
Subordinate Rank = 10 – 2.55 = 8

6. DESIGN OF CONTEXT 2
For us to be able to design the bearing capacity of soil using different materials the second context
we need to design first the footing, as you can see the figure below the detailed column footing and
the computation for spacing.
 DESIGN OF SQUARE FOOTING

Lenth of side of
Column Dimension footing 2m

C1 = 300 mm unit weight of soil 15.6 kN/m3

soil bearing
C2 = 600 mm capacity 1087.42 kPa

depth of footing 3m

thickness of
f'c = 34 mPa footing 0.7 m

fy = 276 mPa bar diameter 25 mm

clear cover 75 mm

Axial Load 2526.58 kN

Moment 340 kN-m

Computation

qe = 1034.74 kPa

qu1 = 376.645 kPa

qu2 = 886.645 kPa

Wide Beam Shear

d= 0.6625 m

x= 0.1875 m

qu3 = 838.8325 kPa

Vu = 323.527 Kn

ΦVc = 1094.518 > Vu

Punching Shear

d= 0.6625 m

c= 0.9625 m

x1 = 0.51875 m

x2 = 1.48125 m

z= 510 kPa

y1 = 132.2813 kPa

y2 = 377.7188 kPa

qu 4 = 508.9263 kPa

qu 5 = 754.3638 kPa

Fuc = 585.1599 kPa

Vu = 1941 kN

ΦVc = 2106.948 > Vu

Steel Requirements

d= 662.5 mm

x= 850 mm

qu1 = 376.645 kPa

qu2 = 886.645 kPa

qu6 = 669.895 kPa

 Fu1 = 569.4108 kPa

Fu2 = 753.6483 kPa

Mu = 588.4004 kN-m

Rn = 0.788592 MPa

ρ= 0.002897

ρ min = 0.005282

use ρ = 0.005282

As = 6998.199 sq. mm

Ab = 490.8739 sq. mm

N= 15 bars

Spacing = 120 mm