TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

938 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

Civil Engineering Department

Reinforced Concrete Design

CE 502

DESIGN OF A FIVE-STOREY SCHOOL BUILDING

Submitted by:
Cortez, Benderlip F.

CE51FA2

Submitted to:
Engr. Rhonnie Estores

Date of Submission:
March 16, 2017
 APPROVAL SHEET

The design project entitled “Five-Storey School Building” prepared by

Cortez, Benderlip F. of the Civil Engineering Department was examined and
evaluated by the members of the of the Students Design Evaluation Panel,
and is hereby recommended for approval.

Engr. Rhonnie Estores

Member/Adviser

2
 Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND...............................................5
1.1 The Project..............................................................................................5
1.2 Project Location......................................................................................5
1.3 Project Objectives...................................................................................6
1.3.1 General Objectives............................................................................6
1.3.2 Specific Objectives............................................................................6
1.4 The Client................................................................................................6
1.5 Project Development...............................................................................7
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS..........................................................8
2.1 Description of the Structure....................................................................8
2.2 Classification of the Structure.................................................................9
2.3 Architectural Plans................................................................................10
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN CONSTRAINTS..............................................21
3.1 Design Constraints................................................................................21
3.2 Trade-offs..............................................................................................22
3.2.1 Special Moment Resisting Frame....................................................22
3.2.2 Dual Systems..................................................................................23
3.2.3 Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames................................................25
3.2.4 Initial Raw Designer’s Ranking........................................................26
3.2.5Trade-offs Assessment.....................................................................26
3.2.6 Initial Estimate of Trade-Offs...........................................................28
3.3 Design Standards..................................................................................33
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE.............................................35
4.1 Design Methodology.............................................................................35
4.3 Framing Plans.......................................................................................36
4.4 Trade-Off A (Special Moment Resisting Frame).....................................37
4.4.1 Load Diagrams................................................................................37
4.4.2 Load Combinations.........................................................................45
4.4.3 Results............................................................................................51
4.5 Trade-Off B (Dual System Frame)..........................................................57
4.5.1 Load Diagram..................................................................................57

3
 4.5.2 Load Combinations.........................................................................65
4.5.3 Results............................................................................................70
4.6 Trade-Off C (Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame)...................................87
4.6.1 Load Diagram..................................................................................87
4.6.2 Load Combinations.........................................................................95
4.6.3 Results..........................................................................................100
4.7 Design Loads......................................................................................106
4.7.1 Dead Loads...................................................................................106
4.7.2 Live Loads.....................................................................................107
4.7.3 Seismic / Earthquake Loads..........................................................107
4.7.4 Wind Loads....................................................................................108
4.8 Design Procedure................................................................................109
4.8.1 Design of Beams...........................................................................109
4.8.2 Design of Columns........................................................................110
4.8.3 Design of Slabs.............................................................................111
4.9 Validation of Estimate.........................................................................112
4.9.1 Final Estimate of Trade-offs...........................................................112
4.9.2 Designer’s Final Ranking and Assessment....................................113
4.10 Influence of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards in the Final
Design.......................................................................................................119
4.10.1 Cost Variation of Trade-off...........................................................120
4.10.2 Duration Variation of Trade-off....................................................121
4.10.3 Displacement Variation of Trade-off............................................121
4.10.4 Environmental Variation of Trade-off...........................................122
4.11 Sensitivity Analysis...........................................................................123
4.11.1 Case A.........................................................................................124
4.11.2 Case B.........................................................................................124
4.11.3 Case C.........................................................................................125
CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN.........................................................126
5.1 Design Schedules................................................................................126
5.1.1 Beam Schedule.............................................................................126
5.1.2 Column Schedule..........................................................................128
5.1.3 Slabs Schedule..............................................................................128
5.2 Design Details.....................................................................................129

4
 5.2.1 Beam Details.................................................................................129
5.2.1 Column Details..............................................................................132

CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.1 The Project
The project is about to design a five storey school building with a roof
deck located in Libongco St. Manggahan, Rodriguez, Rizal. This project tends
to add more classroom due to increasing population of students and also the
new system in education, they change its curriculum and add to more years.
So, secondary education is divided into two, the Junior High School and
Senior High School. Roosevelt College is one of the populated private school
in Rodriguez, Rizal averaging 50 students per room.

The school have already 2 three storey building, for pre-school,

elementary and secondary. The project can accommodate all program in
senior high school and they can offer more programs in College because as
of now the branch of Roosevelt College in Rodriguez is also offering technical
vocational track just like Home Economics, Tourism Services, Caregiver and
etc.

Figure 1.1 The Perspective

1.2 Project Location

5
1.3 Project Objectives
Every design has its own specific purpose. In this project, the designer
aims to achieve the following:

1.3.1 General Objectives

The purpose of the project is to design a 5-Storey School Building
with Roof Deck using reinforced concrete that is intended to provide
more classrooms for Senior High School and College Students without
compromising the quality and durability of the structure.
1.3.2 Specific Objectives

 To utilize reinforced concrete as the main structural element to

be incorporated with other utilities.
 To illustrate detailed structural analysis considering the required
standards of National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP)
 To evaluate the influence of multiple constraints, trade-offs and
standards in the final design.

1.4 The Client

The client for the project is Mr. Romeo P. Dela Paz, the President and
Founder of Roosevelt College. In a memorandum to members of the Board of
Trustees dated January 11, 1990, Mr. Romeo P. Dela Paz, Chairman and
President of the Roosevelt College System, Inc., expressed his deep concern
over the deterioration of Philippine education which he attributed to the poor

6
training of teachers. Accordingly, he recommended the organization of a
Center for Teacher Education (CTE) which would initially train quality
teachers for the Roosevelt College System, and eventually help and extend
assistance to other schools in the surrounding areas.

On January 19, 1990, the Board of Trustees of the Roosevelt College

System, Inc. approved the recommendation of president Romeo P. Dela Paz.
The Board also recommended the pilot CTE classes be opened starting SY
1990-1991. Subsequently, a Commission for the Preparation of the
Development Plan was created, chaired by the late Dr. Antonio Isidro with Dr.
Lily C. de Guzman, member. The Commission’s first move was to request the
DECS to allow the CTE to open one curriculum year as the corresponding
classes of the Institute of Education of the Roosevelt College System were
being phased out, and while the formal preparations and organization of the
new Center were being finalized. The request was approved by the DECS.

1.5 Project Development

The initial stage of the development process is conceptualization. It starts
by having plans and initial design of the project in congruence to the
required standards. Data gathering follows, which is important before
continuing to the technical aspect of the study, to learn ideas that will
establish profound details of the project. It is also substantial to determine
the location of the project in order to impose the boundaries that can
affect the study. Due to some factors and circumstances, constraints of
the project have to be essentially considered. Assessment of the
constraints leads to classification of trade-offs. With absolute research,
the project will continue to the evaluation of trade-offs. The process ends
with the detailing of the final design that is based on the chosen set of
trade-offs.

7
 CONCEPTUALIZATION

DATA GATHERING

SELECTION OF LOCATION

CONSIDERATION OF
CONTRAINTS

DETERMINATION OF
TRADE-OFFS

EVALUATION OF TRADE-
OFFS

FINAL DESIGN

CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS

2.1 Description of the Structure

The project is proposed to be established at Libongco St. Manggahan

Rodriguez, It is the northernmost town in the province and comes
after San Mateo, Rizal, and Quezon City coming from Metro Manila. Rizal is
approximately It borders San Mateo, Rizal and Antipolo City, Rizal on the
south, Norzagaray, Bulacan and San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan on the
north, Quezon City on the west and General Nakar, Quezon on the east.

8
 ROOM AREA
Classroom 60 m2
Clinic 54.5 m2
AVR 71 m2
Administrative Office 56.8 m2
Registrar Office 51.8 m2
Finance Office 62.6 m2
Guidance Office 51.3 m2
Laboratory 73 m2
T&B 14.4 m2
Canteen 161 m2
Total Area 656.4 m2
The structure is a regular rectangular shaped building that has a land area
of 940 square meters and a total floor area of 4700 square meters. The
building has a dimension of 50 meters long by 18.8 meters wide that
perfectly fits the location where the project will be established.

The building encloses 38 rooms; each one has an area of approximately

50 square meters. It compose of classrooms, offices and laboratory. Each
floor has 4 toilet and bath placed at both ends of the building together
with the elevator and stairs.
The structure will be designed as a reinforced concrete building that will
comply to the required standards of the National Structural Code of the
Philippines.

2.2 Classification of the Structure

The classification of the structure regarding occupancy is based on the

codes provided by the National Structural Code of the Philippines. It is
relative that the classification of the structure according to occupancy is

9
 determined considering it will be the basis for the parameters required for
seismic and earthquake analysis.

The building in the project is classified as Standard Occupancy structure.

2.3 Architectural Plans

Figure 2-1: First Floor Plan

10
Figure 2-2: Second Floor Plan

Figure 2-3: Third Floor Plan

11
Figure 2-4: Fourth Floor Plan

Figure 2-5: Fifth Floor Plan

12
Figure 2-6: Front Elevation Plan

Figure 2-7: Rear Elevation Plan

13
Figure 2-8: Right Side Elevation Plan

Figure 2-9: Left Side Elevation Plan

14
2.4 Related Literature
1. A STUDY OF COMBINED BENDING AND AXIAL LOAD IN
REINFORCED CONCRETE MEMBERS
Eivind Hognestad (November 1951)
This bulletin presents the methods and results of an experimental and
analytical investigation undertaken in an attempt to throw new light on
the behavior of reinforced concrete members subject to combined
bending and axial load. It is the purpose of this report to describe
observations regarding the basic behavior of such members and to
develop mathematical expressions for ultimate loads. A total of 120
column specimens was tested, 90 of which were 10-in. square tied
columns with 1.46 to 4.8 percent reinforcement, and 30 were 12-in.
cylindrical spiral columns with 4.25 percent longitudinal reinforcement.
The concrete quality was varied from 1500 to 5500 p.s.i., and the
eccentricity of loading varied from 0 to 1 1/4 times the lateral
dimension of the columns. An inelastic flexural theory was developed,
by means of which the behavior of the test columns may be explained
and the measured ultimate loads may be predicted with a satisfactory
accuracy.

2. SHEAR BEHAVIOR OF TIED AND MULTI-SPIRAL COLUMNS

WITH HIGH STRENGTH STEEL AND CONCRETE UNDER LOW
AXIAL LOAD
Nuraziz Handika (June 2012)
The development of High Strength Concrete (HSC) and High Strength
Steel (HSS) facilitate the realization of high-rise building especially in
seismic region to resist earthquake excitation. Innovative multi-spiral
shear reinforcement which is designed for square cross section column
offers technical and cost advantages comparing to conventional tied
column stirrup. This research has objective to recognize the shear

15
behavior of two types of stirrups with high strength steel and concrete
under low axial load. The square hoops columns and multi-spiral
columns are tested under 20% and 10% axial load ratio, respectively.
Concrete compressive strength (70 MPa and 100 MPa) and spacing of
the transverse reinforcement are two parameters that will be
examined. Longitudinal and transversal reinforcements with specified
yield strengths of 685 MPa and 785 MPa, respectively, are considered.
Critical crack angle; shear strain and curvature; stress of transverse
reinforcement; effect of axial compression load of six large-scale
columns will be explained. Test results show that the maximum
strength of columns appears before the yielding of stirrups. Thus,
stress at transverse reinforcement that can be predicted from drift
ratio and stress at hoops relationship derived from test result becomes
important as the limitation for design calculation. Moreover, smaller
critical crack angle, stiffer column and higher lateral strength will be
occurred from higher axial load application. Current codes provisions in
shear strength provide the conservative estimation as 45 degrees of
crack angle applied.

3. REINFORCED CONCRETE DESIGN PROJECT FIVE-STORY

OFFICE BUILDING
Andrew Bartolini (December 2012)
This report outlines the structural design of a five-story reinforced
concrete office building following ACI 318-11. The framing arrangement
and column locations of the building were provided based on
architectural and structural requirements. The structure system of the
office building is a reinforced concrete frame with a one-way slab and
beam floor system. This report covers the design process in the
following order: the calculation of the expected loads on the structure,
the design of the slab depth, the estimation of the column sizes, the
design of the slab reinforcement, the design of the T-beam

16
reinforcement for both flexural and shear, the calculation to check
crack control, the calculation to check T-beam deflections and finally
the design of the column reinforcement. Additionally, figures displaying
the placement of the steel rebar in the structure are contained in the
report.

4. A STUDY INTO THE BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED-CONCRETE

COLUMNS UNDER FIRE EXPOSURES USING A SPREADSHEET-
BASED NUMERICAL MODEL
Richard Lawrence Emberley (May 2013)
Fire is a significant threat to the structural integrity of buildings.
Depending on the architecture of the structure and the intensity and
duration of the fire event, structural members may lose strength and
stiffness eventually leading to collapse whether by flexural buckling or
crushing. The focus of this research is on the behavior and fire
performance of reinforced-concrete columns under fire conditions. In
order to effectively study column performance with differing loading,
aggregate and dimensional characteristics under varying time-
temperature curves and fire exposures, a numerical model was
constructed in Microsoft Excel. The spreadsheet model allowed for
complete transparency of the calculations and provided a means to
visualize the data in flexible ways. ANSYS and several published
column furnace tests were used to benchmark the heat transfer and
structural analysis portions of the model. One, three and four-sided fire
exposures along with the ASTM E119 fire curve and a natural fire curve
were used to study latent heating effects, increasing and decreasing
eccentricities, moment magnification, and failure modes. Assessments
of column structural capacity were performed in accordance with the
provisions of ACI 318. The completed model served as an effective tool
for the thesis and is available to help aid students and engineers
investigate the design of reinforced concrete columns under fire

17
conditions through integration the heat transfer analyses and the
structural evaluations.

5. FAILURE BEHAVIOR MODELING OF SLENDER REINFORCED

CONCRETE COLUMNS SUBJECTED TO ECCENTRIC LOAD
E.A. Rodrigues, O.L. Manzoli, L.A.G. Bitencourt Jr., P.G.C. dos Prazeres,
T.N. Bittencourt (October 2014)
This work presents a numerical model to simulate the failure behavior
of slender reinforced concrete columns subjected to eccentric
compression loads. Due to the significant influence of the lateral
displacements on the loading state provided by an eccentric load,
geometric nonlinearity is considered. The responses of the concrete in
tension and compression are described by two scalar damage variables
that reduce, respectively, the positive and negative effective stress
tensors, which lead to two different damage surfaces that control the
dimension of the elastic domain. To describe the behavior of the
reinforcements, truss finite elements with elastoplastic material model
are employed. Interaction between the steel bars and concrete is
modeled through the use of interface finite elements with high aspect
ratio and a damage model designed to describe the bond-slip behavior.
The results showed that the numerical model is able to represent the
nonlinear behavior of slender concrete columns with good accuracy,
taking into account: formation of cracks steel yielding crushing of the
concrete in the compressive region and interaction between rebars and
concrete.

6. BEHAVIOR AND PERFORMANCE OF GFRP REINFORCED

CONCRETE COLUMNS WITH VARIOUS TYPES OF STIRRUPS
Woraphot Prachasaree,Sitthichai Piriyakootorn, Athawit Sangsrijun,
Suchart Limkatanyu (September 2015)
Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composites are gaining acceptance in
concrete structural applications due to their high ratio of
strength/stiffness to self-weight and corrosion resistance. This study

18
focused on the structural behavior and the performance of concrete
columns internally reinforced with glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP)
rebars. Twelve series of concrete columns with varied longitudinal
reinforcement, cross section, concrete cover, and type of lateral
reinforcement were tested under compression loading. The results
show that the amount of GFRP longitudinal and lateral reinforcement
slightly affects the column strength. The lateral reinforcement affects
the confining pressure and inelastic deformation, and its contribution
to the confined compressive strength increases with the GFRP
reinforcement ratio. In addition, the confining pressure increases both
concrete strength and deformability in the inelastic range. The
confinement effectiveness coefficient varied from 3.0 to 7.0 with
longitudinal reinforcement. The average deformability factors were 4.2
and 2.8 with spirals and ties, respectively. Lateral reinforcement had a
more pronounced effect on deformability than on column strength.

7. IMPACT RESISTANCE OF REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS:

EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
8. Alexander Remennikov, Sakdirat Kaewunruen (2006)
There are instances where reinforced concrete structures designed for
static loads are subjected to accidental or deliberate impact or blast
loads because of industrial or transportation accidents, military or
terrorist activities. Analysis and design of structures for such events
require realistic assessment of the ultimate impact resistance and a
mode of failure of the structure. In this paper, a series of falling weight
impact tests on conventionally designed reinforced concrete columns
are described. The behavior of quarter-scale reinforced concrete
columns under static and impact loads is presented. An impact load
was applied at the mid-height of the columns by a free-falling 160 kg

19
mass using a drop hammer test rig. The impact force, the peak mid-
span deflection, and the reaction forces were recorded using a high-
speed digital storage oscilloscope. The aim of the static tests was to
compare the load-deflection and cracking response of the columns
under static and impact loads and to determine the resistance
functions for shear deficient reinforced concrete columns to be used in
a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) simulation of the response of
conventional concrete columns subjected to impact and blast loads.

9. A STUDY ON PUSHOVER ANALYSES OF REINFORCED

CONCRETE COLUMNS
Chi Sung Yu, Yen Liu Kuang, Kuo Su Chin, Chau Tsai I, Chun Chang Kuo
(April 2005)
This paper proposes a realistic approach to pushover analyses of
reinforced concrete (RC) structures with single column type and frame
type. The characteristic of plastic hinge of a single RC column
subjected to fixed axial load was determined first according to
column’s three distinct failure modes which were often observed in the
experiments or earthquakes. By using the determined characteristic of
plastic hinge, the pushover analyses of single RC columns were
performed and the
analytical results were investigated to be significantly consistent with
those of cyclic loading tests. Furthermore, a simplified methodology
considering the effect of the variation of axial force for each RC column
of the frame structure during pushover process is proposed for the first
time. It would be helpful in performing pushover analysis for the
structures examined in this study with efficiency as well as accuracy.

10. PERFORMANCE-BASED DAMAGE ASSESSMENT OF LOW-

RISE REINFORCED CONCRETE BUILDINGS
Chi Sung Yu, Kuo Su Chin, Chau Tsai I, Wei Wu Chuan (May 2005)
For any places located in zones with high seismic risk, seismic damage
assess-ment of buildings is a crucial issue. In the past few years, much

20
attention has beenpaid to the concept of performance-based
assessment due to ATC-40. However, itstedious procedure and
deficiency in precision have left room for improvement. In thepresent
paper, a modified procedure is introduced. It is expected to improve
the effi-ciency as well as accuracy of the assessment. The main idea
of the modification is totreat the performance points on the structural
capacity curve as input, and subsequentlydetermine the corresponding
seismic demands of RC structures. The proposed ap-proach is also
capable of finding the correlations between peak ground
acceleration(PGA) and various structural performances. On the other
hand, it is well known thatthe accuracy of pushover analysis is greatly
affected by the proper setting of the plas-tic hinges. Here, an
algorithm for determining plastic hinges with respect to threewell-
known distinct failure modes is also suggested. To further testify to the
ad-equacy of the new approach, a practical low-rise traditional RC
school building dam-aged in the Chi-Chi earthquake is adopted as a
case study. Following the proposedseismic damage assessment
procedures, a pushover analysis based on the suggestedalgorithm is
performed to find the ultimate PGA that the building could sustain.
Theaccuracy of the results is then verified by applying the nonlinear
time history analysis.It is seen that the proposed method gives
acceptable results and is expected to behelpful both in facilitating
seismic damage assessment, as well as in formulating strat-egies for
repairing, retrofitting, or strengthening for RC buildings.

11. EFFECT OF LATERAL CONFINING REINFORCEMENT ON THE

DUCTILE BEHAVIOUR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS
Hitoshi Tanaka (March 1990)
This thesis is concerned with the effects of lateral confining
reinforcement on the ductile behaviour of reinforced concrete columns.
The general problems in seismic design are discussed and earthquake
design methods based on the ductile design approach are described.

21
After reviewing previous research on confined concrete, the factors
which affect the effectiveness of lateral confinement are discussed.
Especially the effects of the yield strength of transverse reinforcement,
the compressive strength of plain concrete and the strain gradient in
the column section due to bending are discussed based on tests. In the
axial compression tests on spirally reinforced concrete cylinders (150
mm in diameter by 300 mm in height), the yield strength of transverse
reinforcement and the compressive strength of plain concrete were
varied from 161 MPa to 1352 MPa and from 17 MPa to 60 MPa,
respectively, as experimental parameters. It is found that, when high
strength spirals are used as confining reinforcement, the strength and
ductility of the confined core concrete are remarkably enhanced but
need to be estimated assuming several failure modes which could
occur. These are based on the observations that concrete cylinders
with high strength spirals suddenly failed at a concrete compressive
strain of 2 to 3.5 % due to explosive crushing of the core concrete
between the spiral bars or due to bearing failure of the core concrete
immediately beneath the spiral bars, while the concrete cylinders with
ordinary strength spirals failed in a gentle manner normally observed.
In addition, eccentric loading tests were conducted on concrete
columns with 200 mm square section confined by square spirals. It is
found that the effectiveness of confining reinforcement is reduced by
the presence of the strain gradient along the transverse section of
column. The effectiveness of transverse reinforcement with various
types of anchorage details which simplify the fabrication of reinforcing
cages are investigated. Eight reinforced concrete columns, with either
400 mm or 550 mm square cross sections, were tested subjected to
axial compression loading and cyclic lateral loading which simulated a
severe earthquake. The transverse reinforcement consisted of
arrangements of square perimeter hoops with 135° end hooks, cross
ties with 90° and 135° or 180° end hooks, and 'U' and 'J' shaped cross

22
 ties and perimeter hoops with tension splices. Conclusions are reached
with regard to the effectiveness of the tested anchorage details in the
plastic hinge regions of columns designed for earthquake resistance.
The effectiveness of interlocking spirals as transverse reinforcement is
studied. Three columns with interlocking spirals and, for comparison,
one rectangular column with rectangular hoops and cross ties, were
tested under cyclic horizontal loading which simulated a severe
earthquake. The sections of those columns were 400 mm by 600 mm.
Analytical models to investigate the buckling behavior of longitudinal
reinforcement restrained by cross ties with 90° and 135° end hooks
and by peripheral hoops are proposed. The analyzed results using the
proposed models compare well with the experimental observations.
Using those proposed models, a method to check the effectiveness of
cross ties with 90° and 135° end hooks is proposed for practical design
purposes.

CHAPTER 3: DESIGN CONSTRAINTS

3.1 Design Constraints

Constraint is defined as a factor that limits one individual to act

or proceed to its process. This constraints factor maybe in a form of
physical, social, financial, environmental, and political. Constraints are
also considered in the design in such that it would come up to one
most favorable design process. This design process would be used as
its basis in the final design.
The following were the constraints that will have a significant
impact on the design of five-storey mixed commercial and residential
building based on designer’s judgement.

The purpose of constraints in a design is to control and limit the

behaviour of the entities and bodies in relation to another

23
entity, plane or body. Effective constraints or mates between two or
more bodies may exist at the assembly level of these or between two
or more entities in defining a sketch, but adding conflicting,
unnecessary or redundant constraints may result in an over defined
sketch and an error message. (Wikipedia 2016)

Economic Constraints (Cost)

In every project, economic constraints are the main concern to the

client. The client has to insist their allotted budget to a project. The
trade-offs which is preferred by the designer determines the cost in
each project. Evaluating each trade-off used will give the client and the
designer the best option to choose in the design. Special Moment
Resisting Frames, Dual Systems, and Moment Resisting Frames were
the trade-offs chosen by the designer. A direct comparison between
the costs of each trade-off used in the structural elements will be
performed in order to obtain the economical design.

Constructability Constraints (Duration)

Projects that are constructed with specific time can lead to financial
benefits especially to the client. The speed of the construction should
not jeopardize the quality of work, safety and the strength of the
structural elements. The Construction Duration is significant since
there was allotted time that the structure must be done. The design
that would only accumulate a short range of time will be the most
effective to be used. In the trade-offs chosen by the designer in
construction of the structure, both economic and constructability
constraint will matter in evaluating the trade-offs.

24
 Safety Constraints (Deflection)

In the designing a structure, there would always be a basis of the

design. The structure has an assumed limit depending on how the
structures behave. Though the location of the structure is also
considered, the greater values obtained since the structure is damaged
and exceeds to its limits. With the provided trade-off, in relation to the
seismic analysis since the structure will be built near a fault line Dual
Systems would provide safe lateral deflections.

Environmental Constraints (Equipment Cost)

In the field of civil engineering, construction activities should be

isolated in an area in which it wouldn’t interfere in the public area. The
environment also would suffer damages as construction goes on.

3.2 Trade-offs

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 were provided by the designer.
As a trade-off, the designer will have to evaluate which of the trade-off
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.

3.2.1 Special Moment Resisting Frame

Special Moment Resisting Frames are designed so that beams,

columns, and beam-column joints in moment frames are proportioned
and detailed to resist flexural, axial, and shearing actions that result as

25
 a building sways through multiple displacement cycles during strong
earthquake ground shaking. These moment-resisting frames are called
“Special Moment Frames” because of these additional requirements,
which improve the seismic resistance in comparison with less
stringently detailed Intermediate and Ordinary Moment Frames.

(Souce: Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Special Moment

Frames)
Source: http://www.whatsontheare.com/2012/04/04/lateral-load-resisting-
systems/

Figure 3-1 Special Reinforce Concrete Moment Resisting Frame

3.2.2 Dual Systems

26
 Dual Systems provide both shear walls and frames participate in
resisting the lateral loads resulting from earthquakes or wind or
storms, and the portion of the forces resisted by each one depends on
its rigidity, modulus of elasticity and its ductility, and the possibility to
develop plastic hinges in its parts. In the dual system, both frames and
shear walls contribute in resisting the lateral loads.
(Souce: Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Dual Structural System:
Strength, Deformation Characteristics. And Failure Mechanism by
Govindan Nandini Devi)

Figure 3-4 Ranking Scale for

Importance Factor

Figure 3-2 Dual Systems

27
 3.2.3 Ordinary Moment Resisting Frames

“It is a moment-resisting frame not meeting special detailing

requirement for ductile behaviour “quoted by Dr. Valsson Varghese.
The overall behavior of the OMRCF was quite stable without abrupt
strength degradation. The measured base shear strength was larger
than the design base shear force for seismic zones 1, 2A and 2B
calculated using UBC 1997. Moreover, this study used the capacity
spectrum method to evaluate the seismic performance of the frame.
The capacity curve was obtained from the experimental results for the
specimen and the demand curve was established using the earthquake
ground motions recorded at various stations with different soil
conditions. Evaluation of the test results shows that the 3-story OMRCF
can resist design seismic loads.

Source
(http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/eqe.367/abstract)

28
 Figure 3-3 Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame

Computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials:

Higher value−Lower value

Difference( )= ×100( ) Equation 1
Lower value

difference
Subordinate rank =Governing rank −( )
10

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

29
 corresponds to its percentage difference from the governing rank
along the ranking scale.

3.2.4 Initial Raw Designer’s Ranking

Criterio
n's
Import
Ability to satisfy the criterion
ance
Design (on a scale from -5 to 5)
(on a
Criteria
scale of
0 to 5)
Dual
SMRF OMRF
System
1.
Economic(Co 5 2 2 5
st)
2.
Constructabil 4 5 2 0
ity
3. Safety 4 3 5 0
4.
Environment 4 2 1 5
al
Over-all Rank 50 42 45
Table 3-1. Raw Designer's Ranking
*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.

3.2.5Trade-offs Assessment
Design trade-off strategies are always present in the design
process. Considering design constraints, trade-offs that have
significant effects on the structural design of the structure were
provided by the designer. As a trade-off, the designers will have
to evaluate which of the three is effective considering each
constraint. The following are the tradeoffs that were chosen by
the designers.

30
3.2.5.1 Economic Assessment

The designer calculated the difference between the

provided trade-offs of the building based on the economic
constraint. From the initial cost calculated by the designer,
among the trade-offs the Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame
system was the cheapest in cost. This methodology tends to
have at least build a structure with no other special treatments in
each elements.

3.2.5.2 Constructability Assessment

As for the constructability constraint, the designer calculated the

possible duration and the labour needed in the construction of
each trade-off provided. Then latter turned that the construction
of an OMRF system structure tend to provide the earliest possible
duration since it neglects the construction of additional elements
of the structure especially shear walls.

3.2.5.3 Safety Assessment

As for the serviceability constraint, the designer approximated

the maximum deflection on each structural member. It turns out
that the one-way slab system has the lesser values on the
deflections. This is due to the additional support were given on
each structural member.

3.2.5.4 Environmental Assessment

As for environmental constraint, structures with the same type of

framing will be used. Though each of the trade-off will have its
different types of methodology used. With the Dual Systems, it
has been studied and planned that Dual Systems will provide a

31
 great amount of input in cost in its casualties. Structures will
have its surroundings be isolated enough.

3.2.6 Initial Estimate of Trade-Offs

In the following table, the designer shows the initial estimates of each
trade-offs performed. The initial data below is used for initial
comparative analysis of the trade-offs.

Ability to satisfy the criterion

Design (on a scale from -5 to 5)
Criteria Dual
SMRF OMRF
System
1. P6,850,0
P6670000 P5,150,000
Economic(Cost) 00
2. 11
6 months 8 months
Constructability months
3. Safety 10 8mm 15mm
4.
P95000 P125000 P75000
Environmental

Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint: (Dual System vs. OMRF)

higher value−lower value

% difference= ×10
higher value

6850000−5150000
% difference= × 10
6850000

%difference=2.49 ≈ 3

32
 Subordinate rank =Governing rank −%difference

Subordinate rank =5−3

Subordinate rank =2

Figure 3.4 Cost Difference (SMRF vs. OMRF)

Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint: (SMRF vs. OMRF)

higher value−lower value

% difference= ×10
higher value

6670000−5150000
% difference= × 10
6670000

%difference=2.27 ≈ 3

Subordinate rank =Governing rank −%difference

Subordinate rank =5−3

Subordinate rank =2

33
 Figure 3.4 Cost Difference (SMRF vs. OMRF)

Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint: (DUAL SYSTEM vs.

SMRF)

higher value−lower value

% difference= ×10
higher value

11−6
% difference= ×10
11

%difference=4.55≈ 5

Subordinate rank =Governing rank −%difference

Subordinate rank =5−5

Subordinate rank =0

Figure 3.4 Duration Difference (DUAL SYSTEM vs. SMRF)

34
Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint: (OMRF vs. SMRF)

higher value−lower value

% difference= ×10
higher value

8−6
% difference= ×10
8

%difference=2.5 ≈ 3

Subordinate rank =Governing rank −%difference

Subordinate rank =5−3

Subordinate rank =2

Figure 3.4 Duration Difference (Dual System vs. SMRF)

Computation of ranking for Safety Constraint: (Dual System vs. SMRF)

higher value−lower value

% difference= ×10
higher value

10−8
% difference= ×10
10

%difference=2

35
 Subordinate rank =Governing rank −%difference

Subordinate rank =5−2

Subordinate rank =3

Figure 3.4 Safety Difference (Dual System vs. SMRF)

Computation of ranking for Safety Constraint: (SMRF vs. OMRF)

higher value−lower value

% difference= ×10
higher value

15−8
% difference= ×10
15

%difference=4.67 ≈5

Subordinate rank =Governing rank −%difference

Subordinate rank =5−5

Subordinate rank =0

36
 Figure 3.4 Safety Difference (Dual System vs. OMRF)

Computation of ranking for Environmental Constraint: (Dual System vs.

OMRF)

higher value−lower value

% difference= ×10
higher value

125000−75000
% difference= × 10
125000

%difference=4

Subordinate rank =Governing rank −%difference

Subordinate rank =5−4

Subordinate rank =1

Figure 3.4 Sustainability Difference (Dual System vs. SMRF)

Computation of ranking for Environmental Constraint: (SMRF vs. OMRF)

higher value−lower value

% difference= ×10
higher value

37
 95000−75000
% difference= ×10
75000

%difference=2.11≈ 3

Subordinate rank =Governing rank −%difference

Subordinate rank =5−3

Subordinate rank =2

Figure 3.4 Sustainability Difference (SMRFvs. OMRF)

3.3 Design Standards

The designers some come up with the design of the apartment
building with accordance to the following codes and standards:

1 National Building Code of the Philippines

2 National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) vol. 1-2010
edition (PD1096)
3 Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete code of practice (IS
456-2000 design guidelines)
(For the design of filler slab)

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

38
provides for all buildings and structures, a framework of minimum
standards and requirements to regulate and control location, site,
design, and quality of materials, construction, use, occupancy, and
maintenance.

The National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010.This code

provides minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, property and public
welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of
materials pertaining to the structural aspects of all buildings and
structures within its jurisdiction. The provision of this code shall apply to
the construction, alteration, moving, demolition, repair, maintenance and
use of any building or structure within its jurisdiction, except work located
primarily in a public way, public utility towers and poles, hydraulic flood
control structures, and indigenous family dwellings.

Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced Concrete code of practice.

The designers only used this code for the guideline on how to design the
Filler Slab. Specifically, the designers followed the IS 456-2000 design
guidelines.

 IS 456-2000 design guidelines

The sections and codes used were specified in design computations

included in the Appendices of this Paper.

39
 CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE

4.1 Design Methodology

The design of the 5-storey mixed commercial and residential building

was designed in accordance to the National Building Code of the
Philippines (NBCP) and National Structural Code of the Philippines
(NSCP). The structural elements were designed using Ultimate Stress
Designed in line with the Reinforced Concrete Design.

40
 F
Design
Specification
Geometric
FIVE-STOREY s
Modelling
SCHOOL (National
BUILDING (STAAD Pro
Building
V8i)
Code of the
Philippines)
Design Load
Details Structural
Structural (Pressure Analysis
Element Loads, Seismic (Shear Diagram,
Model Loads, Wind
Moment Diagram,
Loads, Live
loads and Dead Deflection)
loads
Design of Slabs
(EFM), Beam Structural
Scheduling
(Tension & Modelling
Compression) (Structural
(Frame
and Column Design)
Models)
(Tied Column)

igure 4-1 Design Stage Process

The flowchart provided by the designer is the step by step design

process performed. The chart was the design process the design come
up in order to perform the final structural design that will be used in
the project. The first process is to provide geometric model. This model
will have its reference which corresponds to the codes and provisions.
This model was based from the architectural plans, plans in accordance
with the National Building Code of the Philippines. Next, modelling the
design in a computer software. STAAD Pro was the computer software
used in the project design.

The modelling of loads will be performed next by applying the

different types of loadings that will act on the structure. When the load
modelling is done, the structural analysis of the framing system can
now be performed to obtain, shear and bending moment) that will be
used in the Structural Design. And finally, the structural design of the

41
 mentioned structural elements will be performed by the design
methodology suggested by the code (Ultimate Strength Design).

4.3 Framing Plans

Figure 4-3 Ground Floor Framing Plan

42
 Figure 4-6 2nd – 5th Floor Framing Plan

4.4 Trade-Off A (Special Moment Resisting Frame)

4.4.1 Load Diagrams

Shear Diagram X

43
 Shear Diagram Y

Shear Diagram Z

Moment Diagram at X

44
Moment Diagram at Y

Moment Diagram at Z

45
Seismic Diagram at X

Seismic Diagram at –X

46
Shear Diagram at Z

Shear Diagram at –Z

47
Wind Load Diagram at X

Wind Load Diagram at –X

48
Wind Load Diagram at Z

Wind Load Diagram at –Z

49
 Dead Load Diagram

Live Load Diagram

4.4.2 Load Combinations

50
 Load Case 11 1.4DL

Load Case 12 1.2DL + 1.6LL

51
Load Case 13 1.2DL + 0.8WLX

Load Case 14 1.2 DL + 0.8WLZ

52
Load Case 15 1.2DL + 1.6WLX + 0.55LL

Load Case 16 1.2DL + 1.0EQX + 0.55LL

53
Load Case 17 1.2DL + 1.0EQZ + 0.55LL

Load Case 18 0.9DL + 1.6WLX

54
Load Case 19 0.9DL + 1.6WLZ

Load Case 20 0.9DL + 1.0EQX

55
 Load Case 21 0.9DL + 1.0EQZ

4.4.3 Results

RESULT BEAMS
Mar Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Sign
k Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 1875.293 0.164 -20.148 -0.026 20.177 0.203
1
Max -ve -42.648 0.001 20.236 0.057 -41.166 -0.051
Max +ve -12.69 144.689 0.249 9.674 -0.267 164.775
2
Max -ve -1.606 -137.066 0.035 -8.701 0.04 156.699
Max +ve 1133.945 -0.281 53.543 -0.015 -84.134 -0.532
3
Max -ve 1064.113 4.645 -59.786 -0.104 93.761 6.667
Max +ve -1.889 -28.319 0.022 12.779 -0.018 -83.542
4
Max -ve -2.882 109.45 -0.068 -12.698 0.1 125.383
Max +ve 1064.113 4.645 -59.786 -0.104 93.761 6.667
5
Max -ve 403.055 4.722 -58.875 -0.085 -91.244 -6.837
Max +ve 2.816 143.9 -0.067 9.464 0.073 164.935
6
Max -ve -12.69 35.273 0.249 9.674 0.48 -126.404
Table -1 Result of Beams

56
 GRID 1 ROOF BEAMS
Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 26.095 4.397 2.813 0.833 5.585 39.915
1
Max -ve -26.095 -4.397 -2.813 -0.833 -12.537 -13.972
Max +ve 2.342 9.35 4.408 0.315 6.637 14.036
2
Max -ve -7.668 -12.153 -4.408 -0.322 -6.637 -14.036
Max +ve 26.001 35.559 2.699 0.968 3.655 40.52
3
Max -ve -26.001 -32.227 -2.699 -0.968 -12.541 -14.058
Table 2 Results for Roof Beams

GRID 2 ROOF BEAMS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 38.149 51.533 1.632 0.527 5.536 55
1
Max -ve -3.301 -1.49 -1.632 -0.527 -5.536 -4.608
Max +ve 10.798 2.826 1.899 0.154 2.869 20.204
2
Max -ve -0.284 -18.916 -1.899 -0.154 -2.869 -4.268
Max +ve 38.641 52.077 1.643 0.613 4.335 57.23
3
Max -ve -3.683 -50.54 -1.643 -0.613 -5.569 -4.594
Table 3 Results for Roof Beams

GRID 3 ROOF BEAMS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 38.729 51.565 0.736 0.533 2.14 55.011
1
Max -ve -1.648 -1.602 -0.736 -0.533 -2.14 -5.485
Max +ve 11.395 6.103 1.247 0.189 1.878 20.234
2
Max -ve -0.174 -18.912 -1.247 -0.189 -1.878 -9.141
Max +ve 39.219 52.054 1.312 0.62 3.913 57.077
3
Max -ve -1.871 -50.563 -1.286 -0.62 -3.805 -5.335
Table 4 Results for Roof Beams

GRID 4 ROOF BEAMS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 39.713 53.077 0.694 0.565 2.048 56.937
1
Max -ve -0.896 -52.806 -0.694 -0.581 -2.114 -4.461
Max +ve 12.163 17.379 1.044 0.217 1.553 18.391
2
Max -ve -0.054 -17.058 -1.044 -0.217 -1.579 -9.368
Max +ve 39.81 53.016 1.344 0.696 3.92 56.791
3
Max -ve -0.844 -52.867 -1.29 -0.666 -3.82 -5.643

57
 Table 5 Results for Roofs Beams

GRID 5 ROOF BEAMS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 37.68 51.38 0.296 0.53 1.211 54.659
1
Max -ve -4.104 -51.237 -0.296 -0.881 -1.045 -4.178
Max +ve 10.557 16.731 1.833 0.25 2.776 16.63
2
Max -ve -0.327 -17.706 -1.833 -0.25 -2.722 -6.965
Max +ve 40.314 51.934 1.665 0.952 4.345 57.088
3
Max -ve -4.567 -50.683 -1.553 -0.619 -4.971 -4.438
Table 6 Results for Roof Beams

GRID 6 ROOF BEAMS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 32.628 4.932 3.325 0.775 6.149 37.573
1
Max -ve -32.628 -33.674 -3.325 -1.257 -6.149 -13.969
Max +ve 2.199 11.889 1.519 0.394 2.832 15.313
2
Max -ve -8.257 -12.752 -1.519 -0.394 -1.726 -15.221
Max +ve 32.754 34.365 3.308 1.444 6.062 40.483
3
Max -ve -32.754 -30.155 -3.308 -0.875 -13.784 -15.072
Table 7 Results for Roof Beams

GRID D ROOF BEAMS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 38.131 3.243 5.972 1.374 9.247 28.674
1
Max -ve -37.578 -27.573 -5.972 -1.374 -9.247 -7.532
Max +ve 18.321 3.709 1.725 0.46 2.252 20.578
2
Max -ve -18.321 -19.608 -1.725 -0.46 -2.252 -7.359
Max +ve 2.739 2.853 0.776 0.153 1.93 26.742
3
Max -ve -1.578 -25.838 -0.776 -0.026 -1.93 -7.153
Max +ve 19.436 2.962 1.052 0.216 2.606 27.916
4
Max -ve -19.48 -26.008 -1.052 -0.39 -2.606 -7.47
Max +ve 38.784 4.111 3.879 2.004 11.811 20.16
5
Max -ve -42.612 -19.59 -4.141 -2.004 -12.382 -8.86
Table 8 Results for Roof Beams

GRID C ROOF BEAMS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 38.237 38.257 1.37 0.838 3.707 37.783
1
Max -ve -5.395 -36.554 -1.351 -0.838 -3.049 -4.099

58
 Max +ve 28.755 2.24 0.774 0.291 1.645 23.417
2
Max -ve -3.579 -27.133 -0.774 -0.291 -1.635 -4.562
Max +ve 33.818 37.82 0.897 0.008 2.257 36.141
3
Max -ve -2.322 -36.991 -0.897 -0.065 -2.257 -3.525
4 Max +ve 31.589 37.9 0.675 0.121 2.018 35.77
Max -ve -2.11 -36.911 -0.625 -0.121 -1.44 -2.944
Max +ve 17.355 2.95 5.617 1.326 11.604 27.542
5
Max -ve -3.86 -28.674 -5.617 -1.326 -11.604 -6.18
Table 9 Results for Roof Beams

GRID B ROOF BEAMS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 37.908 37.598 0.725 0.847 1.77 38.271
1
Max -ve -5.76 -37.212 -0.648 -0.847 -1.548 -5.491
Max +ve 27.292 26.407 0.482 0.279 1.116 23.625
2
Max -ve -4.44 -27.128 -0.482 -0.279 -0.814 -6.031
Max +ve 33.845 38.588 0.899 0.01 2.291 38.365
3
Max -ve -3.408 -36.223 -0.899 -0.16 -2.203 -4.844
Max +ve 31.883 37.382 0.653 0.178 2.079 34.446
4
Max -ve -2.162 -37.429 -0.653 -0.131 -1.184 -4.278
Max +ve 16.996 3.677 5.729 1.299 11.861 27.385
5
Max -ve -1.703 -28.555 -5.729 -1.299 -11.861 -7.712
Table 10 Results for Roof Beams

GRID A ROOF BEAMS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 38.131 3.243 5.972 1.374 9.247 28.674
1
Max -ve -37.578 -27.573 -5.972 -1.374 -9.247 -7.532
Max +ve 18.321 3.709 1.725 0.46 2.252 20.578
2
Max -ve -18.321 -19.608 -1.725 -0.46 -2.252 -7.359
Max +ve 2.739 2.853 0.776 0.153 1.93 26.742
3
Max -ve -1.578 -25.838 -0.776 -0.026 -1.93 -7.153
Max +ve 19.436 2.962 1.052 0.216 2.606 27.916
4
Max -ve -19.48 -26.008 -1.052 -0.39 -2.606 -7.47
Max +ve 38.784 4.111 3.879 2.004 11.811 20.16
5
Max -ve -42.612 -19.59 -4.141 -2.004 -12.382 -8.86
Table 11 Results for Roof Beams

RESULTS ROOF BEAMS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
GRID 1 Max +ve 13.969 35.559 0.126 0.538 0.382 40.52

59
 Max -ve -7.668 -32.227 -0.131 -0.48 -0.404 -3.556
Max +ve 38.641 52.077 0.096 0.135 0.307 57.23
GRID 2
Max -ve -0.067 -50.54 -0.105 -0.15 -0.324 -4.608
Max +ve 39.219 52.054 0.058 0.104 0.087 57.077
GRID 3
Max -ve -0.029 -50.563 -0.039 -0.069 -0.172 -4.754
Max +ve 39.81 53.077 0.059 0.032 0.097 56.937
GRID 4
Max -ve -0.017 -52.867 -0.033 -0.022 -0.068 -4.912
Max +ve 40.314 51.934 0.13 0.358 0.382 57.088
GRID 5
Max -ve -0.055 -50.683 -0.122 -0.374 -0.182 -4.529
Max +ve 15.711 34.365 0.125 0.623 0.181 40.483
GRID 6
Max -ve -8.257 -30.155 -0.137 -0.53 -0.215 -3.419
Max +ve 7.309 26.291 0.248 1.133 0.286 26.61
GRID D
Max -ve -8.214 -26.28 -0.158 -0.812 -0.449 -2.448
Max +ve 38.237 38.257 0.197 0.342 0.395 36.141
GRID C
Max -ve -0.162 -36.911 -0.173 -0.359 -0.393 -3.576
Max +ve 37.908 38.588 0.175 0.373 0.343 38.101
GRID B
Max -ve -0.295 -37.429 -0.195 -0.16 -0.357 -3.519
Max +ve 7.564 26.114 0.173 0.753 0.536 26.688
GRID A
Max -ve -7.254 -27.573 -0.293 -1.161 -0.294 -2.382
Table 12 Results for Roof Beams

C-1 ( Corner) COLUMNS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 1145.443 17.658 18.867 0.945 41.436 41.846
1
Max -ve -40.192 -17.658 -16.778 -0.945 -41.436 -41.846
Max +ve 1140.98 19.327 16.772 0.893 41.426 45.865
2
Max -ve -39.595 -19.327 -18.505 -0.893 -41.426 -45.865
Max +ve 1059.122 29.13 19.615 0.618 48.945 56.315
3
Max -ve -57.811 -20.59 -23.558 -0.618 -48.945 -47.229
Max +ve 1026.033 24.562 20.113 0.825 49.598 49.022
4
Max -ve -56.024 -18.665 -20.113 -0.825 -49.598 -42.91
Table 13 Results for Corner Columns

C-2 ( Edge) COLUMNS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 1351.796 28.032 17.715 0.812 43.486 54.904
1
Max -ve -28.4 -25.59 -28.844 -0.812 -43.486 -52.411
Max +ve 1349.714 25.356 18.38 0.809 45.049 52.202
2
Max -ve -24.867 -25.356 -28.917 -0.809 -45.049 -52.202
3 Max +ve 1470.62 24.625 19.417 0.821 47.168 51.606

60
 Max -ve -28.336 -24.425 -27.024 -0.821 -47.168 -51.244
Max +ve 1386.307 27.582 19.82 0.764 48.563 54.705
4
Max -ve -30.68 -25.633 -31.063 -0.764 -48.563 -52.492
Max +ve 1208.962 18.747 23.696 0.881 48.644 43.909
5
Max -ve -54.536 -18.747 -23.696 -0.881 -48.644 -43.909
Max +ve 1204.427 19.086 23.69 0.843 48.636 44.715
6
Max -ve -54.532 -19.086 -23.69 -0.843 -48.636 -44.715
Max +ve 994.27 27.317 27.959 0.683 57.716 53.404
7
Max -ve -64.643 -19.878 -27.959 -0.683 -57.716 -45.455
Max +ve 1047.121 27.589 28.367 0.854 58.182 53.217
8
Max -ve -62.857 -19.76 -28.367 -0.854 -58.182 -44.965
Max +ve 1358.625 27.118 26.39 0.906 43.838 51.489
9
Max -ve -29.891 -23.259 -18.014 -0.906 -43.838 -47.693
Max +ve 1356.333 23.036 26.524 0.904 45.353 47.481
10
Max -ve -26.388 -23.036 -18.653 -0.904 -45.353 -47.481
Max +ve 1476.139 22.274 27.528 0.896 47.188 46.662
11
Max -ve -28.274 -22.243 -19.429 -0.896 -47.188 -46.662
Max +ve 1357.331 27.007 26.473 0.867 48.854 51.576
12
Max -ve -32.532 -23.287 -20.094 -0.867 -48.854 -47.73
Table 14 Results for Edge Columns

C-3 ( Interior) COLUMNS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 1606.234 31.052 25.148 0.84 51.21 56.994
1
Max -ve -48.738 -25.041 -25.148 -0.84 -51.21 -50.879
Max +ve 1614.872 24.766 26.073 0.794 53.029 50.623
2
Max -ve -46.857 -24.766 -26.073 -0.794 -53.029 -50.623
Max +ve 1869.383 24.259 27.467 0.817 55.507 50.193
3
Max -ve -46.955 -24.102 -27.467 -0.817 -55.507 -49.945
Max +ve 1632.262 31.064 28.081 0.803 57.137 57.264
4
Max -ve -52.854 -25.049 -28.081 -0.803 -57.137 -50.882
Max +ve 1688.04 29.931 28.402 0.86 57.464 55.622
5
Max -ve -51.026 -24.736 -28.402 -0.86 -57.464 -50.123
Max +ve 1875.293 23.771 27.472 0.879 55.513 49.176
6
Max -ve -47.074 -23.625 -27.472 -0.879 -55.513 -48.99
Max +ve 1696.751 29.553 25.459 0.891 51.543 54.981
7
Max -ve -47.163 -24.712 -25.459 -0.891 -51.543 -50.101
Max +ve 1705.568 24.423 26.377 0.877 53.348 49.817
8
Max -ve -45.332 -24.423 -26.377 -0.877 -53.348 -49.817
Table 15 Results for Interior Columns

61
 RESULTS COLUMNS
Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 1145.443 24.562 20.113 0.945 49.598 56.315
C-1
Max -ve -57.811 -19.327 -23.558 -0.945 -49.598 -47.229
Max +ve 1476.139 27.589 28.367 0.906 58.182 54.904
C-2
Max -ve -64.643 -25.633 -31.063 -0.906 -58.182 -52.202
Max +ve 1875.293 31.064 28.402 0.891 57.464 57.264
C-3
Max -ve -52.854 -25.049 -28.402 -0.891 -57.464 -50.879
Table 15 Results for Maximum Forces in Columns

4.5 Trade-Off B (Dual System Frame)

4.5.1 Load Diagram

Shear Diagram X

62
Shear Diagram Y

Shear Diagram Z

63
Moment Diagram at X

Moment Diagram at Y

64
Moment Diagram at Z

Seismic Diagram at X

65
Seismic Diagram at –X

Shear Diagram at Z

66
 Shear Diagram at –Z

Wind Load Diagram at X

67
Wind Load Diagram at –X

Wind Load Diagram at Z

68
Wind Load Diagram at –Z

Dead Load Diagram

69
 Live Load Diagram

4.5.2 Load Combinations

Load Case 11 1.4DL

70
Load Case 12 1.2DL + 1.6LL

Load Case 13 1.2DL + 0.8WLX

71
 Load Case 14 1.2 DL + 0.8WLZ

Load Case 15 1.2DL + 1.6WLX + 0.55LL

72
Load Case 16 1.2DL + 1.0EQX + 0.55LL

Load Case 17 1.2DL + 1.0EQZ + 0.55LL

73
Load Case 18 0.9DL + 1.6WLX

Load Case 19 0.9DL + 1.6WLZ

74
 Load Case 20 0.9DL + 1.0EQX

Load Case 21 0.9DL + 1.0EQZ

4.5.3 Results

RESULTS ROOF BEAMS

75
 Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 10.154 55.381 5.568 0.572 8.384 59.789
GRID 1
Max -ve -13.085 -6.418 -5.568 -0.48 -8.384 -10.2
Max +ve 62.428 91.534 6.541 5.489 10.154 98.438
GRID 2
Max -ve -35.235 -19.286 -6.541 -4.567 -10.154 -27.157
Max +ve 25.082 91.424 6.108 6.364 10.588 97.839
GRID 3
Max -ve -53.372 -20.351 -7.151 -6.636 -9.462 -55.288
Max +ve 12.886 95.683 5.729 0.268 8.729 105.459
GRID 4
Max -ve -3.868 -5.344 -5.729 -0.268 -8.729 -8.73
Max +ve 16.774 91.616 5.712 4.328 8.677 98.582
GRID 5
Max -ve -14.042 -14.761 -5.712 -3.961 -8.677 -20.664
Max +ve 42.548 52.002 3.792 5.586 7.914 55.202
GRID 6
Max -ve -42.548 -13.339 -3.792 -4.927 -7.914 -18.682
Max +ve 18.773 41.44 3.435 1.747 6.859 38.408
GRID D
Max -ve -18.773 -11.645 -3.435 -1.291 -6.859 -24.237
Max +ve 13.805 65.284 3.47 0.899 6.986 62.789
GRID C
Max -ve -4.088 -11.495 -3.47 -1.226 -6.986 -24.082
Max +ve 22.295 65.665 2.946 2.195 6.235 63.43
GRID B
Max -ve -20.308 -12.364 -2.946 -2.214 -6.235 -26.351
Max +ve 51.114 66.464 6.615 2.535 6.296 49.548
GRID A
Max -ve -33.391 -73.893 -6.615 -2.703 -5.382 -52.589
Figure -1 Results for Roof Beams

RESULTS COLUMNS
Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 1222.67 77.135 83.453 2.966 156.04 160.979
Column 1
Max -ve -497.759 -77.135 -83.453 -2.278 -156.04 -160.979
Max +ve 2005.293 116.158 89.976 3.538 160.533 201.756
Column 2
Max -ve -705.514 -112.117 -89.976 -3.538 -160.533 -197.73
Max +ve 2068.612 80.815 84.528 1.635 150.241 161.474
Column 3
Max -ve -652.364 -76.439 -84.528 -1.707 -150.241 -151.199
Figure – 2 Results for Columns

RESULTS BEAMS
Mark Sign Axial Shear Torsion Bending

76
 Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 42.664 95.099 5.568 0.592 8.384 105.287
GRID 1
Max -ve -42.664 -37.27 -5.568 -0.592 -8.384 -55.865
Max +ve 148.606 129.886 6.541 5.489 10.154 148.617
GRID 2
Max -ve -196.971 -26.566 -6.541 -4.567 -10.154 -66.826
Max +ve 148.606 129.886 6.541 11.118 10.588 148.041
GRID 3
Max -ve -196.971 -45.005 -6.541 -11.118 -9.462 -77.799
Max +ve 12.886 132.953 5.729 0.326 8.729 153.776
GRID 4
Max -ve -11.578 -36.135 -5.729 -0.326 -8.729 -54.166
Max +ve 115.572 129.886 6.541 5.489 10.154 148.617
GRID 5
Max -ve -139.599 -45.005 -6.541 -4.567 -10.154 -66.826
Max +ve 18.773 73.131 3.435 1.747 6.859 84.92
GRID D
Max -ve -18.773 -44.213 -3.435 -1.291 -6.859 -84.92
Max +ve 15.521 91.381 3.47 0.899 6.986 89.283
GRID C
Max -ve -15.521 -43.226 -3.47 -1.226 -6.986 -82.744
Max +ve 29.655 93.831 2.946 2.195 6.235 88.074
GRID B
Max -ve -29.655 -38.618 -2.946 -2.214 -6.235 -83.977
Max +ve 187.21 202.861 9.286 2.638 5.978 110.217
GRID A
Max -ve -187.21 -295.217 -9.286 -2.703 -5.978 -140.774
Figure - 3 Results for Beams

GRID 1 BEAMS
Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 11.034 92.423 0.596 0.308 1.836 95.961
1
Max -ve -15.197 -12.53 -0.596 -0.067 -1.836 -39.823
Max +ve 5.13 93.736 0.629 0.278 1.89 101.348
2
Max -ve -3.713 -5.368 -0.629 -0.278 -1.89 -16.53
Max +ve 5.312 94.774 0.951 0.217 2.864 104.309
3
Max -ve -5.141 -5.108 -0.951 -0.179 -2.864 -15.963
Max +ve 6.176 95.099 1.246 0.169 3.756 105.287
4
Max -ve -6.176 -4.747 -1.246 -0.078 -3.756 -14.756
Max +ve 10.154 55.381 1.446 0.572 4.355 59.789
5
Max -ve -1.745 -3.208 -1.446 -0.029 -4.355 -10.2
Max +ve 42.664 37.27 1.021 0.096 2.012 55.865
6
Max -ve -42.664 -37.27 -1.021 -0.067 -2.012 -55.865
Max +ve 7.528 41.685 2.482 0.373 3.704 36.368
7
Max -ve -4.248 -15.993 -2.482 -0.373 -3.704 -23.915
Max +ve 18.38 40.768 3.781 0.201 5.645 35.487
8
Max -ve -18.38 -13.644 -3.781 -0.272 -5.645 -20.382
Max +ve 18.664 38.354 4.942 0.057 7.375 30.718
9
Max -ve -18.664 -12.394 -4.942 -0.088 -7.375 -18.527

77
 Max +ve 8.934 18.804 5.568 0.288 8.384 21.23
10
Max -ve -13.085 -6.418 -5.568 -0.317 -8.384 -9.477
Max +ve 20.305 92.97 0.14 0.084 0.857 97.81
11
Max -ve -20.305 -12.466 -0.302 -0.285 -0.434 -35.199
Max +ve 5.066 92.796 0.643 0.592 1.95 98.651
12
Max -ve -2.949 -5.353 -0.643 -0.592 -1.95 -15.596
13 Max +ve 9.486 93.374 1.027 0.286 3.104 99.965
Max -ve -9.486 -5.018 -1.027 -0.404 -3.104 -14.414
Max +ve 7.282 93.255 1.342 0.209 4.051 99.614
14
Max -ve -7.282 -4.594 -1.342 -0.209 -4.051 -13.279
Max +ve 8.163 55.148 1.462 0.395 4.409 59.279
15
Max -ve -5.376 -3.147 -1.462 -0.48 -4.409 -8.852
Table -1 GRID 1 (BEAMS)

GRID 2 BEAMS
Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 37.089 126.47 0.356 0.11 1.059 136.849
1
Max -ve -37.089 -12.054 -0.356 -0.172 -1.059 -38.853
Max +ve 6.98 127.978 0.665 0.246 2.004 143.215
2
Max -ve -6.98 -4.538 -0.665 -0.304 -2.004 -14.528
Max +ve 9.09 129.174 1.011 0.174 3.052 146.257
3
Max -ve -9.09 -4.462 -1.011 -0.254 -3.052 -14.571
Max +ve 11.641 129.886 1.328 0.069 4.007 148.617
4
Max -ve -11.641 -4.329 -1.328 -0.114 -4.007 -13.961
Max +ve 25.685 91.534 1.532 0.041 4.62 98.438
5
Max -ve -8.077 -2.53 -1.532 -0.235 -4.62 -9.126
Max +ve 128.048 45.005 1.305 0.258 2.088 66.826
6
Max -ve -128.048 -45.005 -1.305 -0.303 -2.088 -66.826
Max +ve 21.115 37.066 2.42 0.101 3.687 38.004
7
Max -ve -21.502 -25.306 -2.42 -0.252 -3.687 -38.004
Max +ve 34.657 34.798 3.693 0.158 5.628 39.019
8
Max -ve -34.657 -26.566 -3.693 -0.299 -5.628 -39.019
Max +ve 46.057 30.75 4.838 0.196 7.374 38.938
9
Max -ve -46.057 -26.413 -4.838 -0.337 -7.374 -38.938
Max +ve 54.849 32.799 5.627 0.351 8.57 31.996
10
Max -ve -30.692 -19.286 -5.627 -0.351 -8.57 -27.157
Max +ve 49.579 47.488 5.413 0.406 8.151 8.963
11
Max -ve -85.482 -14.341 -5.413 -0.827 -8.151 -7.303
Max +ve 148.606 63.267 5.25 4.606 8.423 47.962
12
Max -ve -196.971 -9.132 -5.25 -2.417 -8.423 -23.639
13 Max +ve 12.242 59.976 2.358 1.197 3.47 24.504

78
 Max -ve -12.242 -1.811 -2.358 -1.954 -3.47 -2.98
Max +ve 24.457 51.331 1.789 3.59 4.027 32.809
14
Max -ve -24.457 -1.217 -2.6 -1.974 -2.81 -1.978
Max +ve 9.184 63.192 2.25 1.123 3.231 30.046
15
Max -ve -9.184 -2.181 -2.25 -1.841 -3.231 -2.505
Max +ve 34.273 47.275 4.468 3.614 6.971 27.69
16
Max -ve -34.273 -1.278 -4.468 -2.449 -6.971 -3.322
Max +ve 9.306 64.516 2.665 1.433 3.809 32.092
17
Max -ve -9.306 -1.249 -2.665 -2.087 -3.809 -1.739
Max +ve 46.384 45.79 5.902 3.893 9.166 25.787
18
Max -ve -46.384 -1.99 -5.902 -2.933 -9.166 -4.72
Max +ve 5.326 48.121 4.62 2.307 9.57 24.627
19
Max -ve -3.404 -1.173 -6.54 -2.799 -6.683 -2.208
Max +ve 62.428 28.999 6.541 5.489 10.154 16.656
20
Max -ve -35.235 -4.013 -6.541 -4.567 -10.154 -9.381
Table -2 GRID 2 (BEAMS)

GRID 3 BEAMS
Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 9.535 126.902 0.271 0.115 0.802 137.727
1
Max -ve -9.862 -12.299 -0.271 -0.105 -0.802 -39.244
Max +ve 4.335 128.151 0.672 0.24 2.023 143.39
2
Max -ve -3.418 -4.606 -0.672 -0.24 -2.023 -14.098
Max +ve 3.88 129.107 1.034 0.171 3.122 145.848
3
Max -ve -3.345 -4.438 -1.034 -0.171 -3.122 -13.907
Max +ve 3.498 129.713 1.356 0.081 4.095 148.041
4
Max -ve -7.037 -4.268 -1.356 -0.081 -4.095 -13.296
Max +ve 7.67 91.424 1.571 0.189 4.735 97.839
5
Max -ve -4.282 -2.897 -1.571 -0.091 -4.735 -9.255
Max +ve 40.434 36.81 1.405 0.303 2.012 54.833
6
Max -ve -40.434 -36.81 -1.405 -0.113 -2.012 -54.833
Max +ve 12.886 26.38 2.388 0.315 3.681 25.103
7
Max -ve -3.808 -14.362 -2.388 -0.27 -3.681 -21.311
Max +ve 18.525 27.122 3.606 0.417 5.582 25.109
8
Max -ve -18.525 -12.035 -3.606 -0.292 -5.582 -17.878
Max +ve 17.286 26.253 4.715 0.516 7.303 22.362
9
Max -ve -17.286 -11.49 -4.715 -0.244 -7.303 -17.105
Max +ve 18.405 28.074 5.595 0.433 8.623 29.897
10
Max -ve -36.688 -6.025 -5.595 -0.419 -8.623 -8.9
Max +ve 40.604 16.271 6.164 8.516 9.263 28.251
11
Max -ve -40.604 -17.128 -6.164 -8.516 -9.263 -86.369
12 Max +ve 78.725 116.945 5.73 11.118 9.265 132.98

79
 Max -ve -78.725 -21.321 -5.73 -11.118 -9.265 -32.806
Max +ve 8.52 13.05 2.297 6.958 3.311 26.436
13
Max -ve -2.72 -13.05 -2.297 -6.958 -3.311 -77.799
Max +ve 27.257 113.768 1.85 9.889 3.848 132.165
14
Max -ve -13.511 -22.478 -2.407 -9.889 -2.862 -37.16
Max +ve 20.688 11.842 2.213 6.491 3.144 23.719
15
Max -ve -20.265 -11.842 -2.213 -7.823 -3.144 -70.232
Max +ve 35.004 108.529 4.618 8.439 7.411 124.637
16
Max -ve -34.378 -20.514 -4.618 -8.439 -7.411 -34.054
Max +ve 18.421 11.727 2.664 5.988 3.779 20.663
17
Max -ve -18.421 -11.102 -2.664 -8.591 -3.779 -64.295
Max +ve 31.822 104.029 5.523 8.43 8.525 117.663
18
Max -ve -31.822 -18.034 -5.523 -6.901 -8.525 -29.941
Max +ve 8.275 14.255 4.985 2.98 10.588 26.191
19
Max -ve -8.484 -14.255 -7.151 -6.636 -7.405 -55.288
Max +ve 25.082 76.402 6.108 6.364 9.462 88.33
20
Max -ve -53.372 -20.351 -6.108 -3.808 -9.462 -30.986
Table -3 GRID 3 (BEAMS)

GRID 4 BEAMS
Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 5.064 130.872 0.392 0.112 1.186 143.564
1
Max -ve -8.158 -12.324 -0.392 -0.112 -1.186 -39.331
Max +ve 4.643 132.076 0.659 0.249 1.984 149.211
2
Max -ve -3.33 -4.029 -0.659 -0.249 -1.984 -12.272
Max +ve 4.211 132.953 1.009 0.18 3.037 151.459
3
Max -ve -0.678 -4.079 -1.009 -0.185 -3.037 -12.776
Max +ve 4.299 133.578 1.321 0.083 3.976 153.776
4
Max -ve -5.485 -3.985 -1.321 -0.089 -3.976 -12.397
Max +ve 9.188 94.829 1.549 0.031 4.651 102.487
5
Max -ve -1.438 -2.748 -1.549 -0.035 -4.651 -8.73
Max +ve 9.973 36.135 0.975 0.079 1.665 54.166
6
Max -ve -11.578 -36.135 -0.975 -0.079 -1.665 -54.166
Max +ve 2.834 29.59 2.48 0.233 3.753 29.251
7
Max -ve -2.672 -12.024 -2.48 -0.233 -3.753 -17.991
Max +ve 5.422 30.847 3.747 0.147 5.702 31.752
8
Max -ve -5.422 -10.425 -3.747 -0.187 -5.702 -15.575
Max +ve 5.884 31.039 4.894 0.044 7.449 31.479
9
Max -ve -7.007 -10.156 -4.894 -0.105 -7.449 -15.17

80
 Max +ve 3.247 28.845 5.729 0.168 8.729 35.579
10
Max -ve -0.842 -5.344 -5.729 -0.227 -8.729 -7.895
Max +ve 3.172 131.18 0.106 0.215 0.602 144.615
11
Max -ve -3.172 -12.276 -0.22 -0.158 -0.249 -34.493
Max +ve 3.787 130.541 0.618 0.326 1.868 144.711
12
Max -ve -0.865 -3.91 -0.618 -0.326 -1.868 -11.6
13 Max +ve 3.537 130.639 0.939 0.216 2.827 144.49
Max -ve -2.531 -3.996 -0.939 -0.216 -2.827 -11.443
Max +ve 3.693 130.289 1.222 0.162 3.68 143.84
14
Max -ve -5.058 -3.862 -1.222 -0.162 -3.68 -11.155
Max +ve 12.886 95.683 1.408 0.268 4.247 105.459
15
Max -ve -3.868 -2.697 -1.408 -0.268 -4.247 -7.586
Table -4 GRID 4 (BEAMS)

GRID 5 BEAMS
Mark Sign Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
1 Max +ve 26.971 126.863 0.284 0.113 0.854 138.049
Max -ve -26.971 -12.205 -0.284 -0.166 -0.854 -39.298
2 Max +ve 9.011 128.076 0.666 0.234 2.011 143.433
Max -ve -9.011 -2.982 -0.666 -0.306 -2.011 -9.4
3 Max +ve 5.257 129.111 1.004 0.172 3.018 145.97
Max -ve -3.878 -3.519 -1.004 -0.262 -3.018 -11.469
4 Max +ve 5.216 129.772 1.306 0.074 3.927 148.166
Max -ve -5.142 -3.577 -1.306 -0.166 -3.927 -11.484
5 Max +ve 15.833 91.616 1.501 0.025 4.497 98.582
Max -ve -1.463 -2.194 -1.501 -0.199 -4.497 -7.798
6 Max +ve 77.849 42.736 0.723 0.127 1.858 63.541
Max -ve -77.849 -42.736 -1.353 -0.133 -1.124 -63.541
7 Max +ve 25.424 34.295 2.435 0.058 3.726 31.2
Max -ve -25.424 -17.581 -2.435 -0.123 -3.726 -26.291
8 Max +ve 15.907 31.193 3.718 0.061 5.682 29.011
Max -ve -15.907 -19.852 -3.718 -0.14 -5.682 -29.011
9 Max +ve 17.754 26.843 4.884 0.096 7.451 29.799
Max -ve -17.754 -20.252 -4.884 -0.223 -7.451 -29.799
10 Max +ve 16.774 30.377 5.712 0.157 8.677 28.335
Max -ve -5.189 -14.761 -5.712 -0.132 -8.677 -20.664
11 Max +ve 14.395 49.325 2.148 3.609 1.602 9.584
Max -ve -99.624 -16.449 -1.127 -7.188 -3.961 -9.584
12 Max +ve 115.572 62.498 2.271 7.68 2.322 46.632
Max -ve -139.599 -7.653 -1.709 -3.454 -2.322 -22.6
13 Max +ve 12.986 60.891 1.946 1.106 2.942 25.759
Max -ve -12.986 -0.559 -1.946 -4.432 -2.942 -2.692

81
14 Max +ve 35.867 50.433 2.139 4.996 3.3 31.614
Max -ve -35.867 -0.411 -2.139 -1.444 -3.3 -2.743
15 Max +ve 4.58 64.03 2.861 1.011 4.169 31.264
Max -ve -2.768 -2.098 -2.861 -4.701 -4.169 -2.689
16 Max +ve 20.176 47.038 2.871 5.17 4.579 27.799
Max -ve -20.176 -1.008 -2.871 -1.147 -4.579 -2.816
17 Max +ve 4.921 65.122 3.936 0.827 5.749 32.96
Max -ve -3.827 -0.952 -3.936 -4.807 -5.749 -1.485
18 Max +ve 23.146 46.037 3.505 5.309 5.612 26.761
Max -ve -23.146 -1.37 -3.505 -0.772 -5.612 -3.554
19 Max +ve 2.824 48.099 4.565 1.254 6.585 24.478
Max -ve -9.501 -0.757 -4.565 -3.961 -6.585 -1.562
20 Max +ve 11.118 29.847 3.63 4.328 5.977 18.686
Max -ve -14.042 -2.936 -3.63 -1.114 -5.977 -7.093
Table -5 GRID 5 (BEAMS)

GRID 6 BEAMS
Mar
Sign
k Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
1 Max +ve 45.233 88.988 0.194 0.061 0.781 92.1
Max -ve -45.233 -12.6 -0.252 -0.152 -0.613 -40.41
2 Max +ve 13.741 89.8 0.716 0.239 2.187 95.701
Max -ve -13.741 -2.419 -0.716 -0.327 -2.187 -7.585
3 Max +ve 8.146 90.699 1.027 0.159 3.105 98.098
Max -ve -8.146 -3.191 -1.027 -0.266 -3.105 -10.346
4 Max +ve 12.457 91 1.34 0.087 4.048 98.905
Max -ve -12.457 -3.334 -1.34 -0.131 -4.048 -10.657
5 Max +ve 12.741 52.002 1.464 0.068 4.406 55.202
Max -ve -12.109 -2.087 -1.464 -0.311 -4.406 -7.357
6 Max +ve 115.044 43.322 1.724 0.292 1.706 64.477
Max -ve -115.044 -43.322 -1.724 -0.094 -1.697 -64.477
7 Max +ve 31.847 40.903 1.969 0.325 3.342 30.703
Max -ve -31.847 -13.991 -1.969 -0.238 -3.342 -21.152
8 Max +ve 28.786 39.989 3.197 0.358 5.235 29.198
Max -ve -28.786 -17.436 -3.197 -0.109 -5.235 -25.512
9 Max +ve 45.46 37.628 4.199 0.411 6.887 26.685
Max -ve -45.46 -18.066 -4.199 -0.086 -6.887 -26.685
10 Max +ve 42.548 19.725 4.94 0.183 7.914 18.682
Max -ve -42.548 -13.339 -4.94 -0.043 -7.914 -18.682
11 Max +ve 25.846 26.343 1.645 11.329 2.014 9.096
Max -ve -125.144 -16.836 -1.17 -4.783 -2.014 -9.096

82
12 Max +ve 102.588 47.771 2.297 4.684 3.897 35.34
Max -ve -166.824 -8.478 -2.297 -11.373 -3.897 -25.072
13 Max +ve 7.048 34.223 1.709 6.131 2.46 15.283
Max -ve -7.048 -0.812 -1.709 -1.963 -2.46 -1.813
14 Max +ve 23.379 39.293 1.203 2.5 1.72 23.586
Max -ve -23.379 -0.624 -1.203 -6.541 -1.72 -3.197
15 Max +ve 3.621 35.899 2.539 5.949 3.79 18.609
Max -ve -3.621 -1.964 -2.539 -1.812 -3.79 -2.375
16 Max +ve 15.445 37.207 2.013 2.057 2.991 21.417
Max -ve -15.445 -0.708 -2.013 -6.243 -2.991 -1.963
17 Max +ve 4.591 36.771 3.472 5.541 5.199 19.825
Max -ve -5.152 -0.864 -3.472 -1.417 -5.199 -1.307
18 Max +ve 23.582 36.477 2.294 1.407 3.386 20.607
Max -ve -23.582 -1.031 -2.294 -5.699 -3.386 -2.686
19 Max +ve 8.67 18.588 3.792 5.586 5.671 10.506
Max -ve -11.948 -0.82 -3.792 -1.863 -5.671 -1.533
20 Max +ve 25.077 18.382 2.293 1.744 3.603 11.36
Max -ve -25.077 -2.366 -2.293 -4.927 -3.603 -5.714
Table -6 GRID 6 (BEAMS)

GRID D BEAMS
Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 10.73 70.93 0.667 0.064 1.838 78.762
1
Max -ve -13.167 -30.152 -0.667 -0.566 -1.838 -78.762
Max +ve 9.946 71.379 0.945 0.264 2.338 72.74
2
Max -ve -1.698 -28.082 -0.945 -0.606 -2.338 -72.74
Max +ve 10.762 72.053 1.419 0.172 3.51 63.174
3
Max -ve -3.881 -23.294 -1.419 -0.595 -3.51 -60.415
Max +ve 9.241 73.131 1.859 0.074 4.6 65.95
4
Max -ve -1.846 -16.95 -1.859 -0.429 -4.6 -43.794
Max +ve 8.647 41.44 2.132 0.073 5.281 37.366
5
Max -ve -2.377 -9.146 -2.132 -1.291 -5.281 -24.237
Max +ve 7.14 51.124 0.77 0.051 1.59 80.707
6
Max -ve -10.001 -40.455 -0.77 -0.047 -1.59 -80.707
Max +ve 3.802 49.576 1.511 0.209 3.023 76.826
7
Max -ve -2.206 -38.427 -1.511 -0.22 -3.023 -76.826
Max +ve 6.239 49.479 2.275 0.139 4.541 63.286
8
Max -ve -4.42 -31.664 -2.275 -0.175 -4.541 -63.286
Max +ve 6.766 50.181 2.979 0.064 5.948 46.377
9
Max -ve -6.766 -23.188 -2.979 -0.084 -5.948 -46.377
Max +ve 10.736 26.825 3.435 0.06 6.859 22.567
10
Max -ve -10.736 -11.293 -3.435 -0.068 -6.859 -22.567

83
 Max +ve 17.558 70.511 0.46 0.052 1.051 68.562
11
Max -ve -17.558 -27.618 -0.46 -0.082 -1.051 -68.562
Max +ve 2.304 70.175 0.979 0.176 2.457 65.533
12
Max -ve -5.148 -26.343 -0.979 -0.213 -2.457 -65.533
Max +ve 9.445 70.307 1.484 0.114 3.741 61.081
13
Max -ve -9.445 -22.108 -1.484 -0.178 -3.741 -55.025
Max +ve 14.492 70.962 1.941 0.07 4.899 62.661
14
Max -ve -14.492 -16.568 -1.941 -0.099 -4.899 -41.27
Max +ve 18.773 40.196 2.251 0.045 5.674 37.153
15
Max -ve -18.773 -8.689 -2.251 -0.149 -5.674 -21.743
Max +ve 4.265 71.726 0.384 0.131 1.022 69.285
16
Max -ve -4.265 -27.455 -0.395 -0.048 -1.022 -69.285
Max +ve 3.168 70.531 0.992 0.228 2.472 66.217
17
Max -ve -3.561 -26.341 -0.992 -0.228 -2.472 -66.217
Max +ve 6.171 70.348 1.492 0.115 3.744 60.727
18
Max -ve -6.171 -22.124 -1.492 -0.115 -3.744 -55.581
Max +ve 10.423 70.731 1.95 0.093 4.901 61.671
19
Max -ve -10.423 -16.648 -1.95 -0.093 -4.901 -41.742
Max +ve 14.82 40.988 2.247 0.216 5.671 38.408
20
Max -ve -14.82 -8.783 -2.247 -0.036 -5.671 -21.896
Max +ve 13.127 51.181 0.502 0.883 1.243 84.92
21
Max -ve -13.127 -44.213 -0.63 -0.118 -0.965 -84.92
Max +ve 6.293 46.87 1.59 0.654 3.12 78.341
22
Max -ve -4.568 -40.482 -1.59 -0.273 -3.12 -78.341
Max +ve 6.789 45.287 2.327 0.735 4.627 63.59
23
Max -ve -0.72 -32.958 -2.327 -0.194 -4.627 -63.59
Max +ve 6.623 44.987 3.037 0.571 6.039 45.079
24
Max -ve -2.689 -23.323 -3.037 -0.106 -6.039 -45.079
Max +ve 5.876 24.688 3.396 1.747 6.812 21.569
25
Max -ve -2.76 -11.645 -3.396 -0.113 -6.812 -21.569
Table – 7 GRID D (BEAMS)

GRID C BEAMS
Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 15.521 91.717 0.499 0.439 1.348 79.943
1
Max -ve -15.521 -29.514 -0.499 -0.247 -1.348 -77.3
Max +ve 11.265 92.76 0.941 0.361 2.338 83.586
2
Max -ve -1.831 -26.193 -0.941 -0.361 -2.338 -67.918
Max +ve 10.614 93.711 1.416 0.454 3.513 85.718
3
Max -ve -4.048 -22.031 -1.416 -0.348 -3.513 -57.243
Max +ve 7.787 95.01 1.847 0.475 4.578 89.283
4
Max -ve -4.88 -16.508 -1.847 -0.288 -4.578 -42.727

84
 Max +ve 8.621 64.88 2.11 0.899 5.235 57.62
5
Max -ve -4.088 -9.077 -2.11 -0.47 -5.235 -24.082
Max +ve 9.78 65.399 1.127 0.268 2.301 78.255
6
Max -ve -9.78 -39.239 -1.127 -0.209 -2.301 -78.255
Max +ve 6.779 63.886 1.444 0.27 2.882 71.287
7
Max -ve -0.957 -35.669 -1.444 -0.27 -2.882 -71.287
Max +ve 6.839 63.876 2.109 0.253 4.211 59.313
8
Max -ve -3.218 -29.684 -2.109 -0.253 -4.211 -59.313
Max +ve 6.008 64.451 2.757 0.227 5.506 47.717
9
Max -ve -3.753 -22.338 -2.757 -0.227 -5.506 -44.688
Max +ve 7.692 43.77 3.245 0.501 6.476 36.615
10
Max -ve -2.784 -11.054 -3.245 -0.501 -6.476 -22.11
Max +ve 5.926 91.381 0.435 0.06 1.014 82.768
11
Max -ve -5.926 -26.825 -0.435 -0.038 -1.014 -66.601
Max +ve 3.01 91.411 0.963 0.143 2.415 83.076
12
Max -ve -1.727 -24.554 -0.963 -0.163 -2.415 -61.089
Max +ve 3.495 91.733 1.449 0.092 3.642 83.792
13
Max -ve -2.386 -20.82 -1.449 -0.138 -3.642 -51.835
Max +ve 3.394 92.505 1.895 0.047 4.768 85.681
14
Max -ve -2.99 -15.988 -1.895 -0.119 -4.768 -39.853
Max +ve 13.805 64.044 2.222 0.017 5.578 60.335
15
Max -ve -2.191 -8.484 -2.222 -0.087 -5.578 -21.267
Max +ve 2.97 92.94 0.29 0.127 0.929 86.534
16
Max -ve -2.97 -26.649 -0.369 -0.185 -0.76 -67.273
Max +ve 3.349 91.753 0.993 0.353 2.481 83.463
17
Max -ve -0.802 -24.598 -0.993 -0.353 -2.481 -61.811
Max +ve 3.386 91.581 1.483 0.277 3.721 82.854
18
Max -ve -1.373 -20.858 -1.483 -0.277 -3.721 -52.391
Max +ve 3.404 91.9 1.938 0.237 4.865 83.632
19
Max -ve -2.516 -16.094 -1.938 -0.237 -4.865 -40.328
Max +ve 9.03 65.284 2.258 0.374 5.69 62.789
20
Max -ve -0.291 -8.595 -2.258 -0.374 -5.69 -21.408
Max +ve 12.993 66.078 0.546 0.145 1.435 82.744
21
Max -ve -12.993 -43.226 -0.7 -0.71 -1.102 -82.744
Max +ve 5.587 61.235 1.515 0.115 3.013 73.053
22
Max -ve -4.041 -37.828 -1.515 -0.603 -3.013 -73.053
Max +ve 5.821 59.412 2.292 0.038 4.582 59.833
23
Max -ve -2.885 -31.104 -2.292 -0.678 -4.582 -59.833
Max +ve 5.84 58.68 3.026 0.023 6.046 43.598
24
Max -ve -3.348 -22.625 -3.026 -0.663 -6.046 -43.598
Max +ve 3.744 43.058 3.47 0.062 6.986 30.405
25
Max -ve -1.917 -11.495 -3.47 -1.226 -6.986 -21.183
Table – 8 GRID C (BEAMS)

85
 GRID B BEAMS
Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 13.442 92.878 0.222 0.304 0.662 82.293
1
Max -ve -6.605 -30.189 -0.25 -0.099 -0.662 -78.527
Max +ve 6.665 93.125 0.952 0.627 2.413 84.145
2
Max -ve -1.313 -26.07 -0.952 -0.389 -2.413 -66.892
Max +ve 6.706 92.789 1.449 0.803 3.664 83.111
3
Max -ve -3.808 -22.374 -1.449 -0.176 -3.664 -57.541
Max +ve 7.19 92.967 1.891 0.901 4.78 83.834
4
Max -ve -4.259 -17.298 -1.891 -0.145 -4.78 -44.379
Max +ve 15.968 62.674 2.065 1.182 5.181 52.444
5
Max -ve -5.344 -10.202 -2.065 -0.135 -5.181 -26.351
Max +ve 17.542 41.353 1.761 0.578 3.397 77.619
6
Max -ve -17.542 -38.618 -1.761 -1.036 -3.397 -77.619
Max +ve 10.522 40.15 1.187 0.441 2.399 67.548
7
Max -ve -3.066 -33.553 -1.187 -1.159 -2.399 -67.548
Max +ve 9.597 42.078 1.637 0.527 3.331 55.53
8
Max -ve -9.597 -27.539 -1.637 -1.41 -3.331 -55.53
Max +ve 11.081 44.193 2.126 0.519 4.329 40.861
9
Max -ve -12.549 -20.198 -2.126 -1.416 -4.329 -40.861
Max +ve 17.58 43.171 2.668 1.09 5.398 37.584
10
Max -ve -10.111 -9.294 -2.668 -2.214 -5.398 -19.233
Max +ve 14.48 91.539 0.284 0.334 0.816 82.791
11
Max -ve -14.48 -26.957 -0.284 -0.378 -0.816 -66.881
Max +ve 6.739 92.237 0.869 0.152 2.142 84.674
12
Max -ve -1.508 -24.281 -0.869 -0.385 -2.142 -60.513
Max +ve 5.119 92.928 1.288 0.211 3.186 86.051
13
Max -ve -5.119 -20.954 -1.288 -0.519 -3.186 -52.241
Max +ve 7.44 93.831 1.684 0.233 4.168 88.074
14
Max -ve -7.44 -16.531 -1.684 -0.511 -4.168 -41.222
Max +ve 6.015 65.665 1.986 0.696 4.931 63.43
15
Max -ve -6.015 -9.19 -1.986 -1.046 -4.931 -23.14
Max +ve 13.131 93.34 0.26 0.899 0.76 87.352
16
Max -ve -10.469 -26.886 -0.366 -0.036 -0.6 -67.637
Max +ve 4.733 91.097 0.968 1.09 2.445 81.692
17
Max -ve -3.569 -24.284 -0.968 -0.345 -2.445 -60.585
Max +ve 7.105 89.407 1.382 1.367 3.482 77.364
18
Max -ve -7.105 -20.676 -1.382 -0.12 -3.482 -51.612
Max +ve 11.081 88.675 1.808 1.395 4.55 75.456
19
Max -ve -11.081 -16.133 -1.808 -0.118 -4.55 -40.208
Max +ve 13.474 61.755 2.098 2.195 5.272 54.452
20
Max -ve -13.474 -8.537 -2.098 -0.084 -5.272 -21.102

86
 Max +ve 29.655 45.174 0.945 0.406 2.316 83.977
21
Max -ve -29.655 -43.81 -1.072 -0.129 -1.531 -83.977
Max +ve 8.651 41.231 1.028 0.186 2.276 73.927
22
Max -ve -8.651 -38.227 -1.028 -0.186 -2.276 -73.927
Max +ve 12.102 40.778 1.742 0.074 3.733 61.414
23
Max -ve -12.102 -31.831 -1.742 -0.074 -3.733 -61.414
Max +ve 17.905 41.096 2.351 0.07 5.044 45.973
24
Max -ve -17.905 -23.754 -2.351 -0.07 -5.044 -45.973
Max +ve 22.295 44.753 2.946 0.044 6.235 34.915
25
Max -ve -20.308 -12.364 -2.946 -0.19 -6.235 -23.08
Table – 9 GRID B (BEAMS)

GRID A BEAMS
Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 70.023 70.456 0.26 0.13 1.496 89.483
1
Max -ve -70.023 -35.938 -0.468 -0.564 -0.723 -89.483
Max +ve 16.106 70.911 0.915 0.496 2.332 68.287
2
Max -ve -16.106 -27.85 -0.915 -0.935 -2.332 -68.287
Max +ve 16.343 71.846 1.432 0.106 3.648 64.558
3
Max -ve -15.366 -26.33 -1.432 -0.922 -3.648 -64.558
Max +ve 22.157 71.867 1.878 0.216 4.791 62.651
4
Max -ve -22.157 -22.513 -1.878 -0.898 -4.791 -55.357
Max +ve 12.082 40.157 2.028 0.473 5.146 38.877
5
Max -ve -12.082 -16.521 -2.028 -1.208 -5.146 -38.877
Max +ve 187.21 202.861 4.485 2.247 0.899 107.675
6
Max -ve -187.21 -295.217 -4.485 -0.922 -0.891 -170.18
Max +ve 45.834 125.354 2.999 0.995 5.978 78.068
7
Max -ve -91.818 -49.447 -2.999 -0.502 -5.978 -19.645
Max +ve 43.103 185.182 4.938 2.638 2.278 110.217
8
Max -ve -43.103 -236.982 -4.938 -0.714 -2.278 -140.774
Max +ve 6.056 115.439 1.156 0.584 1.834 82.739
9
Max -ve -8.167 -61.735 -1.156 -0.584 -1.834 -47.71
Max +ve 76.468 151.599 7.201 2.564 3.81 91.398
10
Max -ve -76.468 -173.509 -7.201 -0.438 -3.81 -104.215
Max +ve 6.114 95.709 0.702 0.261 1.249 68.407
11
Max -ve -10.968 -51.448 -0.593 -0.078 -1.249 -40.01
Max +ve 85.871 114.348 9.286 2.362 5.015 70.31
12
Max -ve -87.412 -120.567 -9.286 -0.35 -5.015 -73.988
Max +ve 6.103 80.08 1.201 0.365 2.403 58.378
13
Max -ve -8.259 -40.829 -1.647 -0.365 -1.62 -33.506
Max +ve 34.731 66.464 6.615 2.535 2.251 49.548
14
Max -ve -26.481 -73.893 -6.615 -0.246 -2.251 -52.589

87
 Max +ve 38.743 53.211 2.529 0.989 6.296 45.749
15
Max -ve -33.391 -32.664 -3.011 -0.543 -5.074 -29.999
Max +ve 119.486 72.97 0.122 0.42 0.868 70.362
16
Max -ve -119.486 -24.907 -0.269 -0.313 -0.695 -57.21
Max +ve 18.872 70.461 0.853 0.632 2.147 62.02
17
Max -ve -21.684 -21.621 -0.853 -0.632 -2.147 -50.007
Max +ve 59.431 70.892 1.304 0.588 3.234 62.366
18
Max -ve -59.431 -21.367 -1.304 -0.361 -3.234 -50.585
Max +ve 61.246 71.249 1.707 0.535 4.225 62.556
19
Max -ve -61.246 -19.688 -1.707 -0.123 -4.225 -47.683
Max +ve 51.114 40.394 1.979 1.366 4.902 36.632
20
Max -ve -19.623 -12.545 -1.979 -0.273 -4.902 -30.321
Max +ve 46.988 71.825 0.09 0.168 1.208 70.041
21
Max -ve -37.749 -27.746 -0.392 -1.164 -0.323 -70.041
Max +ve 10.179 70.053 0.916 0.342 2.364 60.292
22
Max -ve -10.179 -22.878 -0.916 -1.091 -2.364 -56.89
23 Max +ve 27.992 69.294 1.292 0.122 3.334 58.308
Max -ve -27.992 -20.131 -1.292 -1.531 -3.334 -50.117
Max +ve 27.978 68.894 1.679 0.031 4.333 57.317
24
Max -ve -27.978 -16.413 -1.679 -1.438 -4.333 -40.833
Max +ve 27.352 39.099 1.885 0.229 4.875 34.096
25
Max -ve -9.55 -8.896 -1.885 -2.703 -4.875 -21.7
Max +ve 30.758 49.039 1.272 0.081 1.315 84.721
26
Max -ve -21.311 -44.128 -0.598 -0.352 -2.028 -84.721
Max +ve 7.13 44.233 1.104 0.309 2.187 68.151
27
Max -ve -7.13 -35.146 -1.104 -0.309 -2.187 -68.151
Max +ve 9.803 44.712 1.63 0.158 3.36 57.901
28
Max -ve -9.803 -29.969 -1.63 -0.175 -3.36 -57.901
Max +ve 9.083 45.372 2.229 0.161 4.602 44.705
29
Max -ve -9.083 -23.076 -2.229 -0.161 -4.602 -44.705
Max +ve 14.012 25.243 2.565 0.135 5.382 22.843
30
Max -ve -3.573 -12.225 -2.565 -0.32 -5.382 -22.843
Table – 10 GRID A (BEAMS)

88
 Column -1 ( CORNER) COLUMN
Mar Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Sign
k Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 962.676 52.135 55.404 2.278 111.981 121.761
1
Max -ve -112.097 -52.135 -55.404 -2.278 -111.981 -121.761
Max +ve 952.192 77.135 54.653 1.238 110.738 160.979
2
Max -ve -148.245 -77.135 -54.653 -1.337 -110.738 -160.979
Max +ve 1222.67 74.139 83.453 2.966 156.04 153.196
3
Max -ve -497.759 -68.746 -83.453 -1.542 -156.04 -147.113
Max +ve 973.978 62.198 69.692 1.163 135.443 134.286
4
Max -ve -167.45 -55.612 -69.692 -1.428 -135.443 -125.813
Table – 11 COLUMNS

Column -2 ( EDGE) COLUMN

Mar Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Sign
k Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 1439.231 72.41 58.604 1.387 116.865 144.373
1
Max -ve -34.371 -68.248 -58.604 -1.387 -116.865 -138.734
Max +ve 1457.875 67.846 59.694 1.18 118.659 138.514
2
Max -ve -51.488 -67.846 -59.694 -1.18 -118.659 -138.514
Max +ve 1583.548 66.248 62.823 1.704 123.744 138.41
3
Max -ve -32.807 -65.645 -62.823 -1.704 -123.744 -136.249
Max +ve 1428.332 73.499 67.864 1.383 131.966 146.02
4
Max -ve -54.642 -68.687 -67.864 -1.383 -131.966 -139.428
Max +ve 1275.881 57.814 68.452 1.973 125.88 130.304
5
Max -ve -113.099 -57.814 -68.452 -1.973 -125.88 -130.304
Max +ve 1262.991 62.043 68.182 1.483 125.51 136.914
6
Max -ve -140.318 -62.043 -68.182 -1.623 -125.51 -136.914
Max +ve 2005.293 79.655 71.394 2.561 136.648 165.952
7
Max -ve -705.514 -79.655 -71.394 -2.561 -136.648 -165.952
Max +ve 1978.034 116.158 58.584 2.538 116.546 201.756
8
Max -ve -683.675 -112.117 -58.584 -2.538 -116.546 -197.73
Max +ve 1565.222 81.855 63.484 1.126 124.784 162.485
9
Max -ve -46.077 -81.855 -63.484 -1.126 -124.784 -162.485
Max +ve 1691.363 84.17 78.487 2.038 147.656 164.371
10
Max -ve -595.159 -82.701 -78.487 -2.038 -147.656 -162.076
Max +ve 1231.847 69.355 87.252 0.964 155.385 144.539
11
Max -ve -168.332 -60.611 -87.252 -1.271 -155.385 -133.315
12 Max +ve 1334.448 68.834 89.976 3.538 160.533 144.887

89
 Max -ve -390.48 -61.058 -89.976 -3.538 -160.533 -134.409
Table – 12 COLUMNS

Column -3 ( INTERIOR) COLUMN

Mar Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Sign
k Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 1861.818 80.556 76.035 1.442 136.343 156.013
1
Max -ve -118.701 -74.429 -76.035 -1.442 -136.343 -147.732
Max +ve 2068.612 83.99 78.744 1.029 141.74 161.474
2
Max -ve -652.364 -75.622 -78.744 -1.707 -141.74 -150.688
Max +ve 1849.992 73.744 72.525 1.247 131.857 147.102
3
Max -ve -66.662 -73.744 -72.525 -1.247 -131.857 -147.102
Max +ve 1606.128 76.439 70.263 1.548 128.836 151.199
4
Max -ve -116.131 -76.439 -70.263 -1.548 -128.836 -151.199
Max +ve 2030.911 72.555 76.137 1.635 137.675 147.796
5
Max -ve -56.645 -71.321 -76.137 -1.635 -137.675 -144.425
Max +ve 2008.128 75.856 76.08 1 137.639 153.252
6
Max -ve -42.556 -74.49 -76.08 -1.138 -137.639 -149.415
Max +ve 1428.332 73.499 67.864 1.383 131.966 146.02
7
Max -ve -54.642 -68.687 -67.864 -1.383 -131.966 -139.428
Max +ve 1836.904 80.815 84.528 1.372 150.241 156.378
8
Max -ve -96.777 -74.317 -84.528 -1.414 -150.241 -147.523
Table – 13 COLUMNS

90
4.6 Trade-Off C (Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame)

4.6.1 Load Diagram

Shear Diagram X

91
Shear Diagram Y

Shear Diagram Z

92
Moment Diagram at X

Moment Diagram at Y

93
Moment Diagram at Z

Seismic Diagram at X

94
Seismic Diagram at –X

Shear Diagram at Z

95
 Shear Diagram at –Z

Wind Load Diagram at X

96
Wind Load Diagram at –X

Wind Load Diagram at Z

97
Wind Load Diagram at –Z

Dead Load Diagram

98
 Live Load Diagram

4.6.2 Load Combinations

Load Case 11 1.4DL

99
 Load Case 12 1.2DL + 1.6LL

Load Case 13 1.2DL + 0.8WLX

100
 Load Case 14 1.2 DL + 0.8WLZ

Load Case 15 1.2DL + 1.6WLX + 0.55LL

101
Load Case 16 1.2DL + 1.0EQX + 0.55LL

Load Case 17 1.2DL + 1.0EQZ + 0.55LL

102
Load Case 18 0.9DL + 1.6WLX

Load Case 19 0.9DL + 1.6WLZ

103
 Load Case 20 0.9DL + 1.0EQX

Load Case 21 0.9DL + 1.0EQZ

4.6.3 Results

RESULT BEAMS

104
Mar Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Sign
k Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 1875.293 0.164 -20.148 -0.026 20.177 0.203
1
Max -ve -42.648 0.001 20.236 0.057 -41.166 -0.051
Max +ve -12.69 144.689 0.249 9.674 -0.267 164.775
2
Max -ve -1.606 -137.066 0.035 -8.701 0.04 156.699
Max +ve 1133.945 -0.281 53.543 -0.015 -84.134 -0.532
3
Max -ve 1064.113 4.645 -59.786 -0.104 93.761 6.667
Max +ve -1.889 -28.319 0.022 12.779 -0.018 -83.542
4
Max -ve -2.882 109.45 -0.068 -12.698 0.1 125.383
Max +ve 1064.113 4.645 -59.786 -0.104 93.761 6.667
5
Max -ve 403.055 4.722 -58.875 -0.085 -91.244 -6.837
Max +ve 2.816 143.9 -0.067 9.464 0.073 164.935
6
Max -ve -12.69 35.273 0.249 9.674 0.48 -126.404
Table -1 Result of Beams

GRID 1 ROOF BEAMS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 26.095 4.397 2.813 0.833 5.585 39.915
1
Max -ve -26.095 -4.397 -2.813 -0.833 -12.537 -13.972
Max +ve 2.342 9.35 4.408 0.315 6.637 14.036
2
Max -ve -7.668 -12.153 -4.408 -0.322 -6.637 -14.036
Max +ve 26.001 35.559 2.699 0.968 3.655 40.52
3
Max -ve -26.001 -32.227 -2.699 -0.968 -12.541 -14.058
Table 2 Results for Roof Beams

GRID 2 ROOF BEAMS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 38.149 51.533 1.632 0.527 5.536 55
1
Max -ve -3.301 -1.49 -1.632 -0.527 -5.536 -4.608
Max +ve 10.798 2.826 1.899 0.154 2.869 20.204
2
Max -ve -0.284 -18.916 -1.899 -0.154 -2.869 -4.268
Max +ve 38.641 52.077 1.643 0.613 4.335 57.23
3
Max -ve -3.683 -50.54 -1.643 -0.613 -5.569 -4.594
Table 3 Results for Roof Beams

GRID 3 ROOF BEAMS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)

105
 Max +ve 38.729 51.565 0.736 0.533 2.14 55.011
1
Max -ve -1.648 -1.602 -0.736 -0.533 -2.14 -5.485
Max +ve 11.395 6.103 1.247 0.189 1.878 20.234
2
Max -ve -0.174 -18.912 -1.247 -0.189 -1.878 -9.141
Max +ve 39.219 52.054 1.312 0.62 3.913 57.077
3
Max -ve -1.871 -50.563 -1.286 -0.62 -3.805 -5.335
Table 4 Results for Roof Beams

GRID 4 ROOF BEAMS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 39.713 53.077 0.694 0.565 2.048 56.937
1
Max -ve -0.896 -52.806 -0.694 -0.581 -2.114 -4.461
Max +ve 12.163 17.379 1.044 0.217 1.553 18.391
2
Max -ve -0.054 -17.058 -1.044 -0.217 -1.579 -9.368
Max +ve 39.81 53.016 1.344 0.696 3.92 56.791
3
Max -ve -0.844 -52.867 -1.29 -0.666 -3.82 -5.643
Table 5 Results for Roofs Beams

GRID 5 ROOF BEAMS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 37.68 51.38 0.296 0.53 1.211 54.659
1
Max -ve -4.104 -51.237 -0.296 -0.881 -1.045 -4.178
Max +ve 10.557 16.731 1.833 0.25 2.776 16.63
2
Max -ve -0.327 -17.706 -1.833 -0.25 -2.722 -6.965
Max +ve 40.314 51.934 1.665 0.952 4.345 57.088
3
Max -ve -4.567 -50.683 -1.553 -0.619 -4.971 -4.438
Table 6 Results for Roof Beams

GRID 6 ROOF BEAMS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 32.628 4.932 3.325 0.775 6.149 37.573
1
Max -ve -32.628 -33.674 -3.325 -1.257 -6.149 -13.969
Max +ve 2.199 11.889 1.519 0.394 2.832 15.313
2
Max -ve -8.257 -12.752 -1.519 -0.394 -1.726 -15.221
Max +ve 32.754 34.365 3.308 1.444 6.062 40.483
3
Max -ve -32.754 -30.155 -3.308 -0.875 -13.784 -15.072
Table 7 Results for Roof Beams

GRID D ROOF BEAMS

Mark Sign Axial Shear Torsion Bending

106
 Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 38.131 3.243 5.972 1.374 9.247 28.674
1
Max -ve -37.578 -27.573 -5.972 -1.374 -9.247 -7.532
Max +ve 18.321 3.709 1.725 0.46 2.252 20.578
2
Max -ve -18.321 -19.608 -1.725 -0.46 -2.252 -7.359
Max +ve 2.739 2.853 0.776 0.153 1.93 26.742
3
Max -ve -1.578 -25.838 -0.776 -0.026 -1.93 -7.153
Max +ve 19.436 2.962 1.052 0.216 2.606 27.916
4
Max -ve -19.48 -26.008 -1.052 -0.39 -2.606 -7.47
Max +ve 38.784 4.111 3.879 2.004 11.811 20.16
5
Max -ve -42.612 -19.59 -4.141 -2.004 -12.382 -8.86
Table 8 Results for Roof Beams

GRID C ROOF BEAMS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 38.237 38.257 1.37 0.838 3.707 37.783
1
Max -ve -5.395 -36.554 -1.351 -0.838 -3.049 -4.099
Max +ve 28.755 2.24 0.774 0.291 1.645 23.417
2
Max -ve -3.579 -27.133 -0.774 -0.291 -1.635 -4.562
Max +ve 33.818 37.82 0.897 0.008 2.257 36.141
3
Max -ve -2.322 -36.991 -0.897 -0.065 -2.257 -3.525
Max +ve 31.589 37.9 0.675 0.121 2.018 35.77
4
Max -ve -2.11 -36.911 -0.625 -0.121 -1.44 -2.944
Max +ve 17.355 2.95 5.617 1.326 11.604 27.542
5
Max -ve -3.86 -28.674 -5.617 -1.326 -11.604 -6.18
Table 9 Results for Roof Beams

GRID B ROOF BEAMS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 37.908 37.598 0.725 0.847 1.77 38.271
1
Max -ve -5.76 -37.212 -0.648 -0.847 -1.548 -5.491
Max +ve 27.292 26.407 0.482 0.279 1.116 23.625
2
Max -ve -4.44 -27.128 -0.482 -0.279 -0.814 -6.031
Max +ve 33.845 38.588 0.899 0.01 2.291 38.365
3
Max -ve -3.408 -36.223 -0.899 -0.16 -2.203 -4.844
Max +ve 31.883 37.382 0.653 0.178 2.079 34.446
4
Max -ve -2.162 -37.429 -0.653 -0.131 -1.184 -4.278
Max +ve 16.996 3.677 5.729 1.299 11.861 27.385
5
Max -ve -1.703 -28.555 -5.729 -1.299 -11.861 -7.712
Table 10 Results for Roof Beams

GRID A ROOF BEAMS

107
 Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 38.131 3.243 5.972 1.374 9.247 28.674
1
Max -ve -37.578 -27.573 -5.972 -1.374 -9.247 -7.532
Max +ve 18.321 3.709 1.725 0.46 2.252 20.578
2
Max -ve -18.321 -19.608 -1.725 -0.46 -2.252 -7.359
3 Max +ve 2.739 2.853 0.776 0.153 1.93 26.742
Max -ve -1.578 -25.838 -0.776 -0.026 -1.93 -7.153
Max +ve 19.436 2.962 1.052 0.216 2.606 27.916
4
Max -ve -19.48 -26.008 -1.052 -0.39 -2.606 -7.47
Max +ve 38.784 4.111 3.879 2.004 11.811 20.16
5
Max -ve -42.612 -19.59 -4.141 -2.004 -12.382 -8.86
Table 11 Results for Roof Beams

C-1 ( Corner) COLUMNS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 1145.443 17.658 18.867 0.945 41.436 41.846
1
Max -ve -40.192 -17.658 -16.778 -0.945 -41.436 -41.846
Max +ve 1140.98 19.327 16.772 0.893 41.426 45.865
2
Max -ve -39.595 -19.327 -18.505 -0.893 -41.426 -45.865
Max +ve 1059.122 29.13 19.615 0.618 48.945 56.315
3
Max -ve -57.811 -20.59 -23.558 -0.618 -48.945 -47.229
Max +ve 1026.033 24.562 20.113 0.825 49.598 49.022
4
Max -ve -56.024 -18.665 -20.113 -0.825 -49.598 -42.91
Table 12 Results for Corner Columns

C-2 ( Edge) COLUMNS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 1351.796 28.032 17.715 0.812 43.486 54.904
1
Max -ve -28.4 -25.59 -28.844 -0.812 -43.486 -52.411
Max +ve 1349.714 25.356 18.38 0.809 45.049 52.202
2
Max -ve -24.867 -25.356 -28.917 -0.809 -45.049 -52.202
Max +ve 1470.62 24.625 19.417 0.821 47.168 51.606
3
Max -ve -28.336 -24.425 -27.024 -0.821 -47.168 -51.244
Max +ve 1386.307 27.582 19.82 0.764 48.563 54.705
4
Max -ve -30.68 -25.633 -31.063 -0.764 -48.563 -52.492
Max +ve 1208.962 18.747 23.696 0.881 48.644 43.909
5
Max -ve -54.536 -18.747 -23.696 -0.881 -48.644 -43.909
Max +ve 1204.427 19.086 23.69 0.843 48.636 44.715
6
Max -ve -54.532 -19.086 -23.69 -0.843 -48.636 -44.715
7 Max +ve 994.27 27.317 27.959 0.683 57.716 53.404

108
 Max -ve -64.643 -19.878 -27.959 -0.683 -57.716 -45.455
Max +ve 1047.121 27.589 28.367 0.854 58.182 53.217
8
Max -ve -62.857 -19.76 -28.367 -0.854 -58.182 -44.965
Max +ve 1358.625 27.118 26.39 0.906 43.838 51.489
9
Max -ve -29.891 -23.259 -18.014 -0.906 -43.838 -47.693
Max +ve 1356.333 23.036 26.524 0.904 45.353 47.481
10
Max -ve -26.388 -23.036 -18.653 -0.904 -45.353 -47.481
Max +ve 1476.139 22.274 27.528 0.896 47.188 46.662
11
Max -ve -28.274 -22.243 -19.429 -0.896 -47.188 -46.662
Max +ve 1357.331 27.007 26.473 0.867 48.854 51.576
12
Max -ve -32.532 -23.287 -20.094 -0.867 -48.854 -47.73
Table 13 Results for Edge Columns

C-3 ( Interior) COLUMNS

Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 1606.234 31.052 25.148 0.84 51.21 56.994
1
Max -ve -48.738 -25.041 -25.148 -0.84 -51.21 -50.879
Max +ve 1614.872 24.766 26.073 0.794 53.029 50.623
2
Max -ve -46.857 -24.766 -26.073 -0.794 -53.029 -50.623
Max +ve 1869.383 24.259 27.467 0.817 55.507 50.193
3
Max -ve -46.955 -24.102 -27.467 -0.817 -55.507 -49.945
Max +ve 1632.262 31.064 28.081 0.803 57.137 57.264
4
Max -ve -52.854 -25.049 -28.081 -0.803 -57.137 -50.882
Max +ve 1688.04 29.931 28.402 0.86 57.464 55.622
5
Max -ve -51.026 -24.736 -28.402 -0.86 -57.464 -50.123
Max +ve 1875.293 23.771 27.472 0.879 55.513 49.176
6
Max -ve -47.074 -23.625 -27.472 -0.879 -55.513 -48.99
Max +ve 1696.751 29.553 25.459 0.891 51.543 54.981
7
Max -ve -47.163 -24.712 -25.459 -0.891 -51.543 -50.101
Max +ve 1705.568 24.423 26.377 0.877 53.348 49.817
8
Max -ve -45.332 -24.423 -26.377 -0.877 -53.348 -49.817
Table 14 Results for Interior Columns

RESULTS COLUMNS
Axial Shear Torsion Bending
Mark Sign
Fx Fy(kN) Fz(kN) Mx (kN-m) My (kN-m) Mz (kN-m)
Max +ve 1145.443 24.562 20.113 0.945 49.598 56.315
C-1
Max -ve -57.811 -19.327 -23.558 -0.945 -49.598 -47.229

109
 Max +ve 1476.139 27.589 28.367 0.906 58.182 54.904
C-2
Max -ve -64.643 -25.633 -31.063 -0.906 -58.182 -52.202
C-3 Max +ve 1875.293 31.064 28.402 0.891 57.464 57.264
Max -ve -52.854 -25.049 -28.402 -0.891 -57.464 -50.879
Table 15 Results for Maximum Forces in Columns

4.7 Design Loads

The design loads provided are in line with the National Structural Code
of the Philippines (2010)

4.7.1 Dead Loads

Minimun Design Loads is Located in the National Structural Code
of the Philippines (2010)

Materials Design Loads

110
 (kPa)
Ceramic Tile 0.77
Gypsum Board (13mm) 0.104
Mechanical Duct Allowance 0.2
CHB Wall (100mm) 2.11
CHB Wall (150mm) 2.73
Plaster (both sides) 0.48
Masonry Grout (Full) 0.11
Table 16 Minimun Design Loads (Walls, Ceilings, and Floors)

4.7.2 Live Loads

Occupancy Uniform Load

(kPa)
Basic Floor Load 1.9
Table 17 Minimum Live Loads

4.7.3 Seismic / Earthquake Loads

Parameters
See Section 208.4.2

Occupancy Category IV, Standard Occupancy

Structures
Seismic Importance Factor 1.0

See Section 208.4.4.1

111
 Zone Location Rodriguez Rizal, Zone 4
Seismic Zone Factor Z = 0.4

See Section 208.4.3.1

Soil Profile Type SD (Stiff Soil Profile)

Seismic Source Type Type B
Near Source Factor Na = 1.0
Near Source Factor Nv = 1.2
Seismic Coefficient Ca= 0.44
Seismic Coefficient Cv = 0.64

Type of Seismic-Force Resisting System (Table 208-11A)

SMRF with R= 8.5

Height of Structure = 23.3 meters

4.7.4 Wind Loads

Parameters

Wind Classification (Basic Wind Speed) - Zone 2, 200 kph

Structural Type (Buildings) - Main Wind Force Resisting
System (0.85)
Exposure B
Occupancy Category - IV, Standard Occupancy
Importance Factor - 1.0

112
 Enclosure Classification - Partially Enclosed Buildings

4.8 Design Procedure

4.8.1 Design of Beams

I. Determine the values of loads, DL, LL and other loads.

II. Compute the factored load on different load combinations
III. Try a value of steel ratio ρ of 90 percent of ρmax, but not be less
than ρmin. This value of ρ will provide enough allowance in the
actual value of ρ due to rounding-off of the number of bars to be
used so that it will not exceed the maximum ρ.
IV.
'
0.85 f cβ 600
ρb=
fy(600+ fy)
β=0.85 for f ’ c ≤28 Mpa
0.05
β=0.85 – (f ’ c – 28) for f ’ c >28 Mpa
7

ρ max ¿ 0.75 ρb
1.4
ρ min ¿
fy

V. Compute the value of ω, ω = ρfy/f’c

VI. Solve for the bd2;
Mu = ∅f’cωbd2 (1-0.59ω)
bd2 =
VII. Try a ration d/b (from d = 1.5b to d = 2b), and solve for d.
(round-off this value to reasonable dimension)
Check also the minimum thickness of beam required by the Code;
NSCP 2010
After solving for d, substitute its value to Step VI, and solve for b.

113
 Compute the weight of the beam and compare it to the assumption
made in Step II.
VIII. Solve for the required steel area and number of bars.
As = ρbd
As
N=
π
( db )2
4

IX. Compare the result in step VII from the maximum Mu in the
element.

4.8.2 Design of Columns

Columns considered to be Short Axially Loaded Columns

1. Identify the factored axial load Pu acting on the column.

2. Decide on the reinforcement ratio ρ that is between 0.01-0.08
as required by the code. Determine the gross sectional area
Ag of the concrete section using the assumed ρ.

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

3. Choose the dimensions of the cross section based on its

shape. For rectangular section, the ratio of the longer and
shorter side is recommended to not exceed 3.
4. Readjust the reinforcement ratio by substituting the actual
cross sectional area. The ration has to fall to the specified
code limits.
5. Calculate the needed area of the longitudinal reinforcement
ratio based on the adjusted reinforced ratio and the chosen
concrete dimension.
6. Choose the number and diameter of needed reinforcing bars.
For rectangular sections, a minimum of four bars is needed.
7. Design the lateral reinforcement according to the type of
column, either ties or spirals.
114
 Use the smallest of the following :
¿ 16 db
¿ 48 tie db
¿ least dimensionof column

8. Check whether the spacing between longitudinal reinforcing

bars satisfies the NSCP 2010 code requirements.

4.8.3 Design of Slabs

I. Identify the uniform floor pressure (kPa) to be carried by the slab.

II. Determine the minimum slab thickness “t” from NSCP 2010.
III. Compute the weight of slab (kPa)
weight= y concrete x thickness
IV. Calculate the factored moment (Mu) to be carried by the slab per
meter strip
V. Compute the effective depth of the slab. Clear cover must at least
20mm
VI. Compute the required steel ratio, ρ:
2
Solve for Rn from Mu=∅ R n b d where b= 1000 mm

ρ=
fy ( √
0.85 f ' c
1− 1−
2 Rn
0.85 f ' c )
Solve for ρmax and ρmin
 If ρ is less than ρmax and greater than ρmin, use ρ
 If ρ is greater than ρmax , increase depth of slab to ensure
ductile failure
 If ρ is less than ρmin , use ρ= ρmin
VII. Compute the require main bar spacing

As = ρbd

115
 As 1000(1 meter strip)
N= S=
π 2 N
( db )
4

Use the smallest of the following for the main bar spacing:
a. S 1
b. 3 xh

c. 450 mm
VIII. Temperature bars
At =0.002 bt
1000(1 meter strip )
S=
N

Use the smallest of the following for temperature bar spacing:

a. S2

b. 5 xh

c. 450 mm

4.9 Validation of Estimate

In this chapter, the validation will show the certainty of the
assumptions done in the initial. The trade-offs propose was designed in
accordance with the engineering standards and with the considerations
of the constraints available. This validation will show the true values of
the following constraints.

4.9.1 Final Estimate of Trade-offs

Ability to satisfy the criterion

Design (on a scale from -5 to 5)
Criteria Dual
SMRF OMRF
System

116
 1. P594635 P6400548.
P7102404.43
Economic(Cost) 0.17 76
2.
7 months 6 months 6.3 months
Constructability
3. Safety 2.297 mm 1.567mm 1.348 mm
4.
P49716.83 P53517.2 P51204.4
Environmental
Table 4-1 Designer’s Final Estimate

4.9.2 Designer’s Final Ranking and Assessment

Criterio
n's
Import
Ability to satisfy the criterion
ance
Design (on a scale from -5 to 5)
(on a
Criteria
scale of
0 to 5)
Dual
SMRF OMRF
Systems
1.
Economic(Co 5 3 5 4
st)
2.
Constructabil 4 3 5 4
ity
3. Safety 4 0 3 5
4. 4 5 4 4
Environment

117
 al
Over-all Rank 47 73 73
Table 4-2 Final Designer’s Ranking
*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.

Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint:

Dual Systems P7102404.43

SMRF P5946350.17
Table 4-3 Final Cost Estimate for Economic Constraint

higher value−lower value

% difference= ×10
higher value

7,102404.4−5946350.17
% difference= ×10
7,102404.4

%difference=1.63=2

Subordinate rank =Governing rank −%difference

Subordinate rank =5−2

Subordinate rank =3

118
 Figure 4-4 Cost Difference

Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint:

OMRF P6400548.76
SMRF P5946350.17
Table 4-4 Final Cost Estimate for Economic Constraint

higher value−lower value

% difference= ×10
higher value

7,102404.4−5946350.17
% difference= ×10
7,102404.4

%difference=0.71=1

Subordinate rank =Governing rank −%difference

Subordinate rank =5−1

Subordinate rank =4

Figure 4-4 Cost Difference

Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint:

Dual Systems 7 months

SMRF 6 months
Table 4-5a Final Duration Estimate for Constructability Constraint

119
 higher value−lower value
% difference= ×10
higher value

7−6
% difference= ×10
7

%difference=1.43=2

Subordinate rank =Governing rank −%difference

Subordinate rank =5−2

Subordinate rank =3

Figure 4-5 Duration Difference

Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint:

OMRF 6.3 months

SMRF 6 months
Table 4-5b Final Duration Estimate for Constructability Constraint

higher value−lower value

% difference= ×10
higher value

120
 6.3−6
% difference= ×10
6.3

%difference=0.48=1

Subordinate rank =Governing rank −%difference

Subordinate rank =5−1

Subordinate rank =4

Figure 4-5 Duration Difference

Computation of ranking for Safety Constraint:

Dual Systems 2.297 mm

OMRF 1.348 mm
Table 4-6a Final Estimate for Safety Constraint

higher value−lower value

% difference= ×10
higher value

2.297−1.348
% difference= ×10
1.348

%difference=4.13=5

Subordinate rank =Governing rank −%difference

121
 Subordinate rank =5−5

Subordinate rank =0

Figure 4-6 Safety Difference

Computation of ranking for Safety Constraint:

SMRF 1.567 mm
OMRF 1.348 mm
Table 4-6b Final Estimate for Safety Constraint

higher value−lower value

% difference= ×10
higher value

1.567−1.348
% difference= ×10
1.567

%difference=1.4=2

Subordinate rank =Governing rank −%difference

Subordinate rank =5−2

Subordinate rank =3

122
 Figure 4-6 Safety Difference

Computation of ranking for Environmental Constraint:

Dual System P49716.83

OMRF P51204.4
Table 4-7a Final Estimate for Environmental Constraint

higher value−lower value

% difference= ×10
higher value

P51204.4−P 49716.83
% difference= × 10
P 51204.4

%difference=0.29=1

Subordinate rank =Governing rank −%difference

Subordinate rank =5−1

Subordinate rank =4

Figure 4-7 Environmental Difference

Computation of ranking for Environmental Constraint:

123
 Dual System P49716.83
SMRF P53517.2
Table 4-7b Final Estimate for Environmental Constraint

higher value−lower value

% difference= ×10
higher value

P53517.2−P 49716.83
% difference= ×10
P 53517.2

%difference=0.7=1

Subordinate rank =Governing rank −%difference

Subordinate rank =5−1

Subordinate rank =4

Figure 4-7 Environmental Difference

4.10 Influence of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards in

the Final Design

The multiple constraints and trade-offs presented in chapter 3 significantly

influences the final design in various ways. Some influences benefit both
systems and some only favoured one system. The standards provided by the

124
code that was used in the design process also affects the final design of the
structure.

The economic constraint affects the design in term of its financial, this limits
the extent of the capacity of the design in such that the budget and
resources will have its limitation.

In constructability constraint the complexity of the frame is affected because

the more irregular and unsymmetrical the frame is, the longer the time of
construction the frame will require. Due to this, the designers designed the
frame system as symmetric as possible without compromising the client’s
requirement in order to ease the construction time period.
4.10.1 Cost Variation of Trade-off

The graphical representation between the trade-offs shows the

economic difference of the designer’s chosen trade-offs.

Cost Variation
7200000
7000000
6800000
6600000
6400000
6200000
6000000
5800000
5600000
5400000
5200000

Cost in Peso

125
 Figure 4-8 Graphical Comparison of Cost

4.10.2 Duration Variation of Trade-off

The graph shows the difference of the duration of construction of each

system. The duration has a close fight with each other, but latter turn out
that the SMRF has an edge with the other trade-offs.

126
 Duration Variation

Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame

Special Moment Resisting Frame

Dual Systems

5.4 5.6 5.8 6 6.2 6.4 6.6 6.8 7 7.2

Column2

Figure 4-9 Graphical Comparison of Duration

4.10.3 Displacement Variation of Trade-off

The graph shows how the structure will behave with respect to the
loads applied.

Displacement

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0

Displacement

Figure 4-10 Graphical Comparison of Displacement

127
4.10.4 Environmental Variation of Trade-off
The graph shows the variation of the environmental equipment
cost that was used in each systems. This shows the cost on how much
each equipment costs.

Environmental Cost

54000
53000
52000
51000
50000
49000
48000
47000

Environmental Cost

Figure 4-11 Graphical Comparison of Environmental Cost

4.11 Sensitivity Analysis

After the designer validated all the constraints in the previous part of
the design. However, the designer came up to a point where to change
the scale of the importance factor. What if the designer will change
each factor, how would the design will be changed up to far?

In this cases, the designer came up to a sensitivity analysis wherein to

study the effects of the changes in the design.

128
 Criterio
n's
Importa
Ability to satisfy the criterion
nce
Design (on a scale from -5 to 5)
(on a
Criteria
scale of
0 to 5)
Dual
SMRF OMRF
Systems
1.
Economic(Co 5 3 5 4
st)
2.
Constructabi 4 3 5 4
lity
3. Safety 4 0 3 5
4.
Environment 4 5 4 4
al
Over-all Rank 47 73 73
Table 4.11.1 Final Designer’s Ranking
*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.

4.11.1 Case A
In this case, the designer considered constructability and
economic constraints to be the important.

129
 Criterio
n's
Importa
Ability to satisfy the criterion
nce
Design (on a scale from -5 to 5)
(on a
Criteria
scale of
0 to 5)
Dual
SMRF OMRF
Systems
1.
Economic(Co 5 3 5 4
st)
2.
Constructabi 5 3 5 4
lity
3. Safety 4 0 3 5
4.
Environment 4 5 4 4
al
Over-all Rank 50 78 76
Table 4.11.1 Final Designer’s Ranking
*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.

4.11.2 Case B
In this case, the designer considered safety and economic
constraints to be the important.

Design Criterio Ability to satisfy the criterion

Criteria n's (on a scale from -5 to 5)
Importa
nce
(on a

130
 scale of
0 to 5)
Dual
SMRF OMRF
Systems
1.
Economic(Co 5 3 5 4
st)
2.
Constructabi 4 3 5 4
lity
3. Safety 5 0 3 5
4.
Environment 4 5 4 4
al
Over-all Rank 50 76 77
Table 4.11.1 Final Designer’s Ranking
*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.

4.11.3 Case C
In this case, the designer considered environmental and
economic constraints to be the important.

Criterio
n's
Importa
Ability to satisfy the criterion
nce
Design (on a scale from -5 to 5)
(on a
Criteria
scale of
0 to 5)
Dual
SMRF OMRF
Systems
1. 5 3 5 4

131
Economic(Co
st)
2.
Constructabi 4 3 5 4
lity
3. Safety 4 0 3 5
4.
Environment 5 5 4 4
al
Over-all Rank 52 77 76
Table 4.11.1 Final Designer’s Ranking
*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.

CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN

The purpose of the project is to design the structural detailing of the five-
story school building in Rodriguez, Rizal in consideration with the multiple
constraints, trade-offs and standards. The trade-offs were the Dual Systems,
Special Moment Resisting Frame, and Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame.

132
The final Design was in accordance with the National Building Code of the
Philippines for the standards and specifications for the architectural plan.
National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010 for the structural plans and
details, considering all structural members such as slabs, beams, girders and
columns.

The design schedules and details of the figures below were the values and
dimensions of the plans obtain in Special Moment Resisting Frame as the
chosen by the designer.

5.1 Design Schedules

5.1.1 Beam Schedule

BEAMS

LEFT SUPPORT MIDSPAN RIGHT SUPPORT

MARK DIMENSIONS
TOP BARS BOTTOM BARS TOP BARS
B - 1 300mm x 450mm 3 - 25 mm ∅ 3- 25 mm ∅ 3 - 25 mm ∅
B - 2 300mm x 450mm 3 - 25 mm ∅ 3- 25 mm ∅ 3 - 25 mm ∅
B - 3 300mm x 450mm 3 - 25 mm ∅ 3- 25 mm ∅ 3 - 25 mm ∅
B - 4 300mm x 450mm 3 - 25 mm ∅ 3- 25 mm ∅ 3 - 25 mm ∅
B - 5 300mm x 450mm 3 - 25 mm ∅ 3- 25 mm ∅ 3 - 25 mm ∅
B - 6 300mm x 450mm 3 - 25 mm ∅ 3- 25 mm ∅ 3 - 25 mm ∅
B - 7 300mm x 450mm 3 - 25 mm ∅ 3- 25 mm ∅ 3 - 25 mm ∅
B - 8 300mm x 450mm 3 - 25 mm ∅ 3- 25 mm ∅ 3 - 25 mm ∅
B - 9 300mm x 450mm 3 - 25 mm ∅ 3- 25 mm ∅ 3 - 25 mm ∅
B - 10 300mm x 450mm 3 - 25 mm ∅ 3- 25 mm ∅ 3 - 25 mm ∅
B - 11 300mm x 450mm 3 - 25 mm ∅ 3- 25 mm ∅ 3 - 25 mm ∅

133
 Table 5.1 Beam Schedule

ROOF BEAMS
LEFT SUPPORT MIDSPAN RIGHT SUPPORT
MARK DIMENSIONS
TOP BARS BOTTOM BARS TOP BARS
RB - 1 250mm x 450mm 3 - 20 mm ∅ 2- 20 mm ∅ 3 - 20 mm ∅
RB – 2 250mm x 450mm 3 - 20 mm ∅ 2- 20 mm ∅ 3 - 20 mm ∅
RB – 3 250mm x 450mm 3 - 20 mm ∅ 2- 20 mm ∅ 3 - 20 mm ∅
RB – 4 250mm x 450mm 3 - 20 mm ∅ 2- 20 mm ∅ 3 - 20 mm ∅
RB – 5 250mm x 450mm 3 - 20 mm ∅ 2- 20 mm ∅ 3 - 20 mm ∅
RB – 6 250mm x 450mm 3 - 20 mm ∅ 2- 20 mm ∅ 3 - 20 mm ∅
RB – 7 250mm x 450mm 3 - 20 mm ∅ 2- 20 mm ∅ 3 - 20 mm ∅
RB – 8 250mm x 450mm 3 - 20 mm ∅ 2- 20 mm ∅ 3 - 20 mm ∅
RB – 9 250mm x 450mm 3 - 20 mm ∅ 2- 20 mm ∅ 3 - 20 mm ∅
RB –
250mm x 450mm 3 - 20 mm ∅ 2- 20 mm ∅ 3 - 20 mm ∅
10
RB -
250mm x 450mm 3 - 20 mm ∅ 2- 20 mm ∅ 3 - 20 mm ∅
11
Table 5.2 Roof Beams Schedules

5.1.2 Column Schedule

COLUMNS
LEFT SUPPORT
MARK DIMENSIONS
TOP BARS
C-1 500mm x 500mm 10 - 25 mm ∅

134
 Table 5.3 Column Schedules

5.1.3 Slabs Schedule

Span Long span Short span

lengths: Spacing of bars @ O.C.
Bar
Sla (meters) Thicknes (mm)
Diameter:
b s: (mm) Sup Middl Sup Middl
(mm) Lon
Short por e por e
g
t Span t Span
Sla
12 6.65 7.1 150 200 200 200 200
b1
Sla
12 7.1 8.7 150 200 200 200 200
b2
Sla
12 7.1 7.6 150 200 200 200 200
b3
Sla
12 3.35 7.1 150 200 200 200 200
b4
Sla
12 7.1 8.7 150 200 200 200 200
b5
Sla
12 7.23 7.1 150 200 200 200 200
b6
Sla
12 4.3 8.7 150 200 200 200 200
b7
Sla
12 1.75 10.8 150 200 200 200 200
b8
Sla
12 4 8.7 150 200 200 200 200
b9
Sla
b 12 4 7.6 150 200 200 200 200
10
Sla 12 4 7.23 150 200 200 200 200
b

135
 11
Sla
b 12 4 3.35 150 200 200 200 200
12
Sla
b 12 7.2 8.7 150 200 200 200 200
13
Sla
b 12 7.2 7.6 150 200 200 200 200
14
Sla
b 12 7.2 8.7 150 200 200 200 200
15
Sla
b 12 7.2 7.23 150 200 200 200 200
16
Sla
b 12 2.45 4.3 150 200 200 200 200
17
Sla
b 12 3.1 6.8 150 200 200 200 200
18
Figure 5-1 Slab Schedules

5.2 Design Details

5.2.1 Beam
Details

136
Figure 5.1 B-1 and B-2 Details

Figure 5.2 B-3 and B-4 Details

137
Figure 5.5 Continuous Beam Details

138
 Figure 5.6 Roof Beam Detials RB-1 and R -2

Figure 5.7 Roof Beam Details RB-3 and RB-4

5.2.1 Column Details

139
140