Final Capstonee PDF

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
TECNICO ESCUELA en SUPREMO DESAROLLO de ARTE | Amparo Lagrada Mariano Pelaez 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The old buildings in the Philippines reflect our country’s historical and cultural heritage. The design
of the different buildings and structures we have are based on the influences of the different countries that
dominated us. After the World War II brought major destruction especially to the capital city of the
Philippines which is Manila, the modern era became a time for rebuilding the structures. During those
times, they somehow used modern styles in architecture.
The cities of Metro Manila are full of old houses and buildings. Nowadays, some of the old
buildings are already demolished, some are already renovated, and some are still waiting to be renovated.
Renovations of heritage structures are limited because they are protected by laws. One cannot just simply
renovate a heritage structure. Some wants to renovate buildings for modern use but in a way that the
building still preserves its character.
There are different ways to renovate a building. Some requires full renovation which can mean
changing almost every detail of the building. Some renovation is for the interior of the building only.
Retrofitting is one way to make changes to an existing building in order to protect it from hazards such as
earthquakes. It may be done without changing a lot with the façade of the building. Changing the
occupancy of the existing building is also one way to do retrofitting.
Retrofitting means providing something or adding something that it didn’t have when it was first
constructed. As for buildings and structures, it might be adding some floors, adding new facilities and such.
Retrofitting old buildings can give the existing building new purpose, which will make the building more
usable than in its previous state.
Our existing buildings are built in accordance with the codes back then. So in retrofitting buildings
nowadays, the construction shall be in compliance with the new codes that are created these days.
Retrofitting buildings is not as easy as just adding and adding what you wanted to add to the building. Of
course in designing the building you have to design it accordingly so that the structural members will be
able to carry the loads it will be carrying.

The education system in the Philippines comprises of the formal and the non-formal education. In
our country we have elementary education for 6 years, secondary education for 4 years, and the tertiary
education which comprise the formal education system. While on the other hand, non-formal education
includes education opportunities outside the school premises.
Nowadays, another kind of curriculum is presented and used in our country which they called the K
to 12 curriculum. This curriculum divides the previous high school system into two the Junior High School
and the Senior High School. The 12-year program is found to be the best period to learn under basic
education. It is the recognized standard for students and professionals globally.
Vocational and technical education is known as “education for work” this kind of education is
focused on providing students the skills and knowledge that they need to have in order for them to be
successful at the workplace. It is based on manual or practical activities. This kind of education exposes the
students to what they will encounter at their future work. This will depend on what type of path they will
choose. It can be in line with engineering, nursing, culinary, etc.
The Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) serves as our country’s
Technical Vocational Education and Training authority. TESDA is tasked to manage and supervise the
Philippines’ Technical Education and Skills Development. One of the goals of TESDA is to provide quality
technical-educational and skills development through its programs to the Filipinos.
Since education is one of the most important things a person should have, it is important that our
country will provide training centers just like TESDA training centers. With this, we will be able to produce
Filipinos which are fully capable of being in the workplace.

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF
RELATED DESIGN AND
LITERATURE

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF RELATED DESIGN AND LITERATURE
LOCAL RELATED DESIGN AND LITERATURE
The Design of Training Elevators for Effective Learning
By: Martin Santos, Hannah Tiu
Introduction:
Although the population increases day by day, the settlement areas don’t increate with the same rate and
multi-storey construction became obligatory. It is not problem to climb up the upper floors in the multi-storey
buildings with 3-4 floors. However, the buildings with 40-50 stores are seen everywhere nowadays. In such
buildings, nobody wants to use the stairs after a few floors unless it is necessary. Thus, the elevators
became one of the vital parts for the buildings with multiple floors.
The elevators may be defined as the electro-mechanical facilities which are used to vertically carry the
loads and people on the guide rails through a moveable cabinet or platforms. In fact, multiple-floor system
was applied in numerous car parks and the cars are parked one on the top of the other. Thus, some
activities were carried out in order to improve it. Even, there are studies to prevent the car crashes in such
car parks.
The increase in the life standards and the care for human beings has brought along the technological
developments in the elevator systems. Thus, the produced elevators are faster, stronger and more
qualitative. For that purpose, the activities related to both making the people wait less and increasing the
passenger transportation productivity was carried out in the buildings with 2 or more elevators. Moreover,
there are studies to design PLC based, adjustable and rapid elevator control systems. Even, fuzzy logic
was utilized to optimally control the elevators.
There are also activities to increase the security in the elevators. For example, a PLC controlled elevator is
real timely observed and passenger compartment temperature and smoke alarm is online followed on the
computer screen.
In this study, the students were enabled to improve themselves related to both hardware and software of
the elevator through the executed elevator training set. Moreover, the students were given effective and
permanent training through the training set which allows applied and visual training. Using the designed
elevator training set, the students were able to learn to control the elevator through PLC, SCADA or the
microcontroller. Thus, they gained self-confidence through the real-like application as well as developing
their ability for the software. In order to develop their software abilities, PLC-SCADA and PIC18F4550
microcontroller training sets were used. Using this designed training set, the training set was established in
order to enable the students learn the structure and control of the elevator. This education set was used in
the Electric departments of Vocational High School of Technical Sciences and it was seen that learning
was executed rapidly and effectively thanks to the feedbacks obtained from the students. Moreover, this
training set was designed so that the elevator companies could easily use in their in-service trainings.
The Structure of Elevators:
The elevators may be controlled through hydraulic and electrics. The cabinet in the electrical elevators
moves via an electric motor. The mechanical energy necessary for the upward and downward movements
of the elevator is provided from the electrical motor. The motor starts up the cabinet according to the order
coming from the control panel. The cabinet functions cooperatively with a counterweight. There is a
movement resulting from friction between the steel rope between the cabinet and the counterweight and
the driving pulley.
The cabinet and the counterweight are almost the same weight. Such fractioning machines are called
friction-driven elevators. Moreover, there are also elevators which function with the ropes or chains are
twined around a driving pulley. The elevators working such a way are also called tambour elevators. The
parts forming the elevator were given in Fig. 1. (Hannah Tiu, Martin Santos, 2015)[1]

Figure 1: Parts of an Elevator System
GRAN AUDITORIO: Proposed Concert Hall with a Large Audience Capacity for
Different Music Genres
By: Chris Eduard Miraflor
Introduction:
In the Philippines, music is very popular. No one would say “I hate music”. Filipinos are very musically
inclined people. Music has been part of Filipino’s everyday life. As music develops, new genres and
technology are introduced. Filipinos are still capable of adapting to it but the problem is old music is
forgotten including the classical music. Nowadays, teenagers no longer appreciate classical music because
they are less exposed to classical music. Furthermore, the venue for classical music, the concert halls, has
been forgotten. At present, classical music is now only for people who study music or people who are well
studied in terms of music.
Background of the Study:
According to the Philippine Concerts Company, 131 local and international concerts have been held in the
Philippines this year since January (Figure 3). In fact, even the most popular international music artist
performs in the Philippines but the problem is music concerts are held in sports complex and arena which
are not good venues for concerts in terms of sound quality, although good in terms of audience capacity.
Usually, a sports complex can handle big audience as compare to concert halls because concert halls are
also venues for dramas and plays. As such, the design should be small to be able to see the facial
expressions of the artists.
Furthermore, the acoustics of a concert hall should be designed for a particular musical style as the
performance is greatly affected by the acoustics of the hall. Traditionally, concert halls have been designed
for orchestral and symphonic music, but recently, there has been a growing trend in designing multi-
purpose halls, which could accommodate not only the symphonic orchestras of various musical styles but
also smaller chamber ensembles or even bands employing public address systems. One reason for this
progression may well be seen in the number of people attending popular music performance venues
compared with the audience of classical concerts (Adelman-Larsen, Gade, & Thompson, 2007).
In the Philippines, concert halls are very few. There are only 3 concert halls and they are too old. These are
the Cultural Center of the Philippines, PICC, and Philamlife. All of them were built in 1969; hence, they
need to be improved and renovated. Due to the lack of concert halls, most concerts nowadays occur in
stadium, sports complex and astrodome, like Smart-Araneta Center in Cubao. However, these spaces are
not acoustically treated well because they are mainly designed for specific purpose: sports. Acoustics is
very important for every structure related to sounds. From the theaters of ancient Greece to those of the
twenty-first century, architectural acoustics has been a key consideration in design. (Cowan, 2000)
(Chris Eduard Miraflor, 2012)[2]
Auditorium Design
By: Isaac Kurt Velasquez
Auditorium:
 An enclosure, covered or open, where people can assemble for watching a performance given on
the stage.
 A room built to enable an audience to hear and watch performances at venues such as theatres.
Types of Auditorium:
 Arena Theatre – Auditorium with audience surrounded on all sides.

 Proscenium Theatre - Auditorium with audience only on the front side.
 Thrust Theatre – Auditoriums with audience surrounded on three sides.
 Flexible Theatre – Auditoriums with flexible stage and seating arrangement.
Figure 2: Arena Theatre Figure 3: Proscenium Theatre

Figure 4: Thrust Theatre
Terms used in Auditoriums:
 Proscenium – The area of the theatre surrounding the stage opening. A proscenium arch is the
arch over this area. A proscenium plane divides the performer and the spectators.
 House – It is the main seating area.
 Gangways – A passage between two rows of seats. The minimum gangway should be 1,100mm
 Aisle – the walkway between each area, row of seats to permit ease of passage. (>=45mm)
 Drop Stage – A stage floor that moves vertically on an elevator usually so that one set can quickly
replace another.
 Tormentor – A curtain or framed structure used directly behind the proscenium at each side of the
stage to screen the wings and sidelights from the audience.
 Apron – the part of the stage floor in front of curtain line.
 Orchestra Pit – the spaced reserved for musicians usually in front.
 Balcony – A gallery that projects over the main floor of a theatre.
 Wing – The platform adjacent to the stage for keeping props.
 Box Office – Where tickets are sold.
 Cyclorama – The exterior of the backdrop. It is basically a distinction between backstage and main
stage.
 Fire Curtain – A curtain or asbestos or other fire-proof material that can be lowered just inside the
proscenium arch in case of fire.
 Green Room – The space in a theatre, studio or similar venue which functions as a waiting room
and lounge for performers before and after a performance, and during the show when they are not
engaged on stage.
(Isaac Kurt Velasquez, 2009)[3]
Concrete Shear Wall Design
By: Wylla Tecson
Definition:
Shear wall is a structural element used to resist lateral/horizontal/shear forces parallel to the plane of the
wall by:
 cantilever action for slender walls where the bending deformation is dominant
 Truss action for squat/short walls where the shear deformation is dominant
Figure 5: Concrete Shear Wall
Shear Design:
N Vn > Vu
A. Shear Demand
FACTORED SHEAR FORCE / SHEAR DEMAND

Vu = 1.2 VD + f1 VL +- VE
= 0.9 VD +- VE
f1= 1.0 FOR 100 PSF [500 KG/M2]
LIVE LOAD AND GREATER
f1= 0.5 OTHERWISE.

B. Shear Strength
 Nominal shear strength

Vn = Acv [2(f’c)1/2 + Dnfy]
Acv [0.166(f’c)1/2 + Dnfy]
 For squat walls with hw/lw < 2.0
Vn = Acv [ac(f’c)1/2 + Dnfy]
Acv [0.083ac(f’c)1/2 + Dnfy]
WHERE ac VARIES LINEARLY FROM 2.0 FOR Hw/Lw =2.0 TO 3.0 FOR Hw/Lw =1.5
 Hw/lw shall be taken as the largest ratio for entire wall or segment of wall
 Maximum nominal shear strength
max vn = acv [10(f’c)1/2]
acv [0.83(f’c)1/2]
 Strength reduction factor for walls that will fail in shear instead of bending
N =0.6
 Otherwise
n =0.85
Wall Reinforcement:
 Minimum two curtains of wall reinforcement shall be provided if

Vu > 2 acv(f'c)1/2 [0.166 acv(f'c)1/2 ] or thickness > 10 inches [ 25 cm]
 Wall minimum reinforcement ration (Dv or Dh) 0.0025
 Exception for vu < Acv(f’c)1/2 [0.083 Acv(f’c)1/2 ]
A. Minimum vertical reinforcement ratio
Dv = 0.0012 for bars not larger than #5 [N 16 mm]
= 0.0015 for other deformed bars
= 0.0012 for welded wire fabric not larger than w31 or d31[n 16 mm]
B. Minimum horizontal reinforcement ratio
Dh = 0.0020 for bars not larger than #5 [N 16 mm]
= 0.0025 for other deformed bars
= 0.0020 for welded wire fabric not larger than W31 OR D31 [N 16 mm]
(Wylla Tecson, 2010)[4]
Figure 6: Wall Reinforcement

Three-Storey Residential Building with Roof Deck
By: John Carlo Apit, Jake Andrew Bongalos
Introduction:
Global cement industry contributes a large percentage of greenhouse gas emission to Earth. Concrete and
cement production requires 700 and 1750 kW-hour of energy. The energy is somehow smaller than the
aluminum, steel and PVC production (141,500, 46,000 and 24,700), but concrete and cement are widely
used in construction. Hence, producing these materials definitely requires a large amount of energy which
affects the environment due to CO2 emissions (Bacani, 2013).
Because of this, efforts have been made to introduce coarse or fine aggregate waste materials. In this
study the group focused on recycled waste glass material to determine if this could be used as an
admixture for concrete.
Glass waste is increasing year by year in shops, factories and construction areas. Glass is a common
material used as bottles, glass wares and sheet glass. Glass is an ideal material for recycling and using
recycled glass would definitely help the environment and will save energy. The increasing awareness of
glass recycling facilitates the use of waste glass into different forms in various fields. One of these fields is
construction, where waste glass is recycled and reused for concrete production. In addition, using waste
glass in the concrete production is advantageous, because it lessens the production cost of concrete.
For the design parameter of the structure, the researchers considered the recent calamity that hit eastern
Visayas, Super typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda). Typhoon Haiyan devastated the province of Samar and Leyte
resulting to a damage cost of ₱12-Billion with a death toll of 4,011. This serves as an inspiration for the
researchers to introduce a higher Wind Load in considering the design parameters of the building.
Major and Minor Areas of Civil Engineering:
The major area of engineering here is mainly structural engineering, which include forming the calculations
on design and the estimation of the building cost. The minor areas where other fields of engineering are
required are electrical engineering for wirings, architectural engineering for the aesthetic of building, and
water engineering for the water pipes and pressure.
Reinforced concrete design principles and design were done by taking into consideration the provisions
from the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP 2010) and the Uniform Building Code (UBC
1997). Earthquake loads and wind loads were also taken into consideration for a more conservative and
safe design. Different load combinations were used and applied to the design of the reinforced concrete
members in accordance to both the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP 2010) and the
Uniform Building Code (UBC 1992). The designs of the structural members were made using STAAD Pro
V8i, excluding the design of the isolated footings. The isolated footings were designed using Microsoft
Excel.
DEAD LOADS
As stated in Section 204 of the National Structural of the Philippines: “Dead loads consist of the weight of
all materials of construction incorporated into the building or other structure, including but not limited to
walls, floors, roofs, ceilings, stairways, built-in partitions, finishes, cladding and other similarly incorporated
architectural and structural items, and fixed equipment, including the weight of cranes.”
From Table 204-2 (Minimum Design Loads), the researchers determined the superimposed dead loads
incorporated in the structure. Superimposed dead loads.
As per the National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010:
a. Partition and interior walls = 1.0 kPa
b. Gympsum board (per mm thickness) = 0.008KPa
LIVE LOADS
As stated in Section 205 of the National Structural Code of the Philippines: “Live loads shall be the
maximum loads expected by the intended use or occupancy but in no case, shall be less than the loads
required be this section”.
From Table 205-1 (Minimum Uniform and Concentrated Live Loads), the group determined the
superimposed live loads into the structure.
As per the National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010:
a. Residential = 1.9 kPa
b. Roof Deck = 1.9 kPa c. exterior balcony = 2.9kPa
WIND LOADS
Section 207 of the National Structural Code of the Philippines states that: “Buildings, towers, and other
vertical structures, including the Main Wind-Force Resisting System (MWFRS) and all components and
cladding thereof, shall be designed and constructed to resist wind loads as specified herein. In the design
wind loads for the MWFRS and for the components and cladding for buildings, the algebraic sum of the
pressures acting on opposite faces of each building surface shall be taken into account”.
The researchers used Microsoft Excel to solve and calculate for the wind loads that the structure is
experiencing.
COMBINATION OF LOADS
As defined on the National Structural Code of the Philippines, “Buildings, towers and other vertical
structures and all portions thereof shall be designed to resist load combinations specified of Section 203 of
this code”. In the designing process, all design loads were considered including earthquake loads and wind
loads on the roofing. Basic load combinations were employed from Section 203.3.1 of the code.
Four major load combinations were considered in designing the structural members of the project:
Load Combination 1: DL + LL + WL
Load Combination 2: 1.2DL + 0.5LL
Load Combination 3: 1.2DL + 0.5LL + 1.6WL
Load Combination 4: 0.9DL + 1.6WL
CONSTRUCTION METHODS
Construction methods focuses on the fundamentals of structural and construction engineering like design
and analysis, material testing and quality assurance, building systems, construction technologies, and
surveying. It also studies the deep understanding of management principles and their applications that are
essential in construction projects.
The researchers chose the construction method engineering as one of the minor fields of the study
because the researchers promote the use of waste glass aggregate as an admixture in concrete. Using
recycled glass waste as concrete admixture could not only lessen the amount of increasing glass waste in
our country but it could also improve the compressive strength of concrete.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
Through recycling of glass as an admixture, the environment would be save from waste materials because
recycling is a process to change waste materials into new products to prevent waste of potentially useful

materials, reduce the consumption of fresh raw materials, reduce energy usage, reduce air pollution (from
incineration) and water pollution (from landfilling) by reducing the need for conventional waste disposal, and
lower greenhouse gas emissions as compared to plastic production. Recycling is a key component of
modern waste reduction and is the third component of the "Reduce, Reuse and Recycle" waste hierarchy.
By recycling, this act to improve the natural environment, to provide healthy water, air, and land for human
habitation and for other organisms, and to clean up pollution sites are the basic principles of environmental
engineering. (John Carlo Apit, Jake Andrew Bongalos, 2014)[5]
Construction Standards for Schools

By: Department of Education and Science Planning and Building Unit
Purpose:
(a) These Guidelines state the Construction Standards to be used in the design of Primary and Post-
primary educational facilities with an emphasis on achieving build quality; value for money; Safety in
Design, Construction and Use; effective management & operation of the building; life cycle costing; and
timely completion of the project.
(b) This document, in conjunction with other relevant design guidance, is intended both as a design aid for
the Client* & Design Team and as part of a set of reference documents for the evaluation of design
submissions.
* In the case of Community and Comprehensive Schools and some Primary Schools the Minister for
Education and Science is the Client, but for the purposes of this document the term “Client” shall also
encompass the School Authorities.
Application:
(a) These Construction Guidelines and Standards for Schools apply to all Primary and Post-primary
construction projects funded in part or in whole by the Department of Education and Science (unless
otherwise directed by the Department in writing) where a decision to commence architectural design and
planning has been confirmed in writing by the Planning and Building Unit.
(b) Where it is proposed to construct a new school these Construction Guidelines and Standards and all
associated documents in the suite of Design Guidance should be consulted and appropriately applied.
(c) In the case of existing school buildings where an extension, conversion or renovation is proposed,
These Construction Guidelines and Standards and all associated documents in the suite of Design
Guidance should apply to all new-build work and so far, as is practicable to all alterations and repairs.
Safety and Construction Standards:
(a) Notwithstanding any guidance on Construction Standards stated in this document, safety in design
construction and use is paramount. The guidelines are minimum standards only.
(b) All designers are required to individually and collectively consider the briefing material provided, all
construction sequences, methods of construction, components and finishes to ensure safety in design,
construction and use.
(c) Where the application of these Construction Standards creates an avoidable hazard, increase a risk or
prevent the mitigation of that risk the Design Team has a duty to consider alternatives which follow the
principles of prevention as stated in the Safety, Health & Welfare at Work (Construction) Regulations 2006.
(d) Where due to Health & Safety considerations the Design Team propose an alternative method of
construction, component and/or finish, the relevant Designer should identify the nature of the hazard or risk
presented and how the alternative proposed mitigates that hazard/risk, and inform the client accordingly.
(e) Where the standard used is higher than that stated in these guidelines and the overall project can be
constructed within the approved cost limits no further action or approvals are required.
(f) Where arising from the alternative method of construction, components and/or finishes, the overall
project cannot be constructed within the approved cost limits, the Design Team must demonstrate both (a)
that there are no other viable strategies to mitigate that hazard/risk and (b) that the proposed alternative
strategy represents value for money. For further details on abnormal costs and the approvals required refer
to the DoES Design Team Procedures 2007 available on the web at www.education.ie.
Construction Methods:
(a) Each component used in the construction process must be manufactured to the appropriate standard
and used for the correct purpose. All components must be correctly installed as recommended by the
manufacturer and in accordance with the accepted industry standard. At all times the safety of the
construction process and safety in use must be considered.
(b) The current issue of the following publications can be used as reference documents for the methods of
construction, detailing and specification: • For traditional block construction - the House Building Manual

published by the National House Building Guarantee Company Ltd., Canal Road, Dublin 6. • For timber
frame construction Timber frame construction published by Trada Technology, Stocking Lane, Hughenden
Valley, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, HP 14 4ND UK.
(c) The above forms of construction are not exhaustive but where alternative forms of construction are
proposed the onus will be on the Design Team to demonstrate that they are equal to or exceed the
Department’s required standard and can be constructed safely. All members of the Design Team acting
collectively will need to consider the enhanced level of detailing and design necessary to meet the build
quality and durability standards required in this document (e.g. air-tightness, radon mitigation, etc.)
Materials and Components:
(a) The structural design should take account of the durability of all the materials and components used in
the building structure in terms of their individual performance, their performance when considered in the
context of the building detailing and their performance in terms of compatibility of adjacent materials, to
ensure that the design life of the structure is achieved. Materials may not all be equally durable, and the
deterioration to which they are susceptible should be taken into account in design.
(b) It is important to identify and evaluate the factors affecting the performance of individual elements and
the building as a whole, and to see that each is treated appropriately. The setting of appropriate values for
performance criteria will not in itself provide structural adequacy. This is merely one item in the overall
design and construction process; in particular cases, skilled judgement will be required on many items in
the process in order to achieve structural adequacy. (Department of Education and Science Planning
and Building Unit, 2007)[6]
Theatres: Planning Guidance for Design and Adaptation

By: Roderick Ho
Type and Size of Theatre:
The word theatre has a diversity of meanings for different people, and while it is neither possible nor even
desirable to fit all theatre buildings into rigid categories, it will help to consider the various types of building
at present existing and the way in which they differ from or are similar to one another. In this chapter we are
mainly concerned with purpose-built theatres designed for live performances. Factors affecting multi-
purpose halls and conference centers are dealt with elsewhere.

Seating Capacity:
Usually the first characteristic which comes to mind is the seating capacity, especially in relation to the
economics of the building.
It is misleading to relate the capital cost of a theatre to the number of seats without taking into account the
many different standards of space, technical equipment and amenity which different buildings require for
their particular purpose. For purely economic reasons it would seem that the maximum capacity possible
should be aimed at, but for every form of audience to stage relationship, there is a limit to the distance of
the furthest seat from the action beyond which appreciation of the performance begins to deteriorate.
People will no longer be prepared to buy seats from which they cannot see or hear enough to enjoy what is
going on. When live theatre was the only form of mass entertainment the public would put up with
discomfort and a poor view for want of an alternative, but in these days of television and films this is no
longer true.
The capacity should be derived from the visual and acoustic limits for a particular kind of performance and
the form of auditorium to stage relation-ship. These factors will be discussed later in more detail. There will
be times when demand for seats outstrips the capacity, for instance on Saturday evenings. It would be a
mistake, however, to pro-vide a couple of hundred seats for these occasions if they remain empty on most
other days. Both capital and running costs would be increased, and empty seats have a depressing effect
on both per-formers and audience. Full houses and difficulty in getting tickets are the best possible
advertisement and are an incentive for the public to choose the less popular days.
It has been suggested that seating capacity should be related to the size of the town or catchment area in
which the theatre is to be situated, but this is an unreliable guide. The success of a particular enterprise
depends far more on the vigor of the management than the statistics of possible theatregoers. Some large
towns have the greatest difficulty in filling a theatre whereas other quite small ones do so very successfully.
Management policy plays the greatest part in the success or failure of a theatre, but there are many cases
where, however good the management, a shabby old building or a new one with an unwelcoming
atmosphere will deter the public from coming at all.
In the case of teaching theatres and drama studios, seating capacity is of secondary importance. The main
purpose is to provide the drama student with the feeling of an audience, and seating for between 100 and
300 is usually sufficient.
The universities have built theatres which may be connected with a drama department, but are more often
used for amateur productions by students. Professional companies may visit the theatre if it has suitable
facilities, in which case a capacity of 400 or 500 would be appropriate. Schemes for university theatres vary
a great deal owing partly to the many purposes they have to serve. but also to a vagueness of intent
leading to ill-considered briefs for their architects.

When a theatre is for amateur use, the seating capacity should be considered from a slightly different point
of view. Most amateur groups can count on a limited audience of friends, relations and others who share
their interest in amateur dramatics. If the total potential audience is, say, 900 (way above the average for
most amateur societies), it will be of little satisfaction to amateurs to go to all the trouble of rehearsing and
preparing a play for one solitary performance. They would be much happier to fill a 300-seat theatre for
three performances or even a 150-seater for six.
The situation of amateur opera is rather different. There is much greater expense involved in hiring scenery
and costumes, and few amateur societies can operate without engaging some professional orchestral
players and principal singers. With a following which is often more numerous than that for straight drama
(perhaps because the larger cast, the chorus and musicians have more relations and friends), amateur
opera companies look for a large-capacity auditorium, because the cost and organization of a series of
performances are prohibitive. Their needs are difficult to meet, and they are often obliged to play in very
unsuitable premises. The danger is that their insistence on a larger capacity, which will be used perhaps
three or four times a year, will distort the brief for a building which will be used all the rest of the time for
straight drama.
There are rare occasions when the total audience is known within fairly close limits, such as in a school or
similar institution, but usually the number of people who can be persuaded to come is a matter of intelligent
guesswork and hope. The seating capacity is not the only measure of the size of a theatre. The size of the
stage, the pro-duction facilities to support it and the scale on which the public areas are provided may have
more effect. As a rough guide and to define terms used elsewhere in this book, the following definitions are
adopted. (Roderick Ho, 1987)[7]
- Very large 1500 or more seats

- Large 900 – 1500 seats
- Medium 500 – 900 seats
- Small under 500 seats
Educational Facilities Manual

By: Department of Education
A. Educational Facilities Defined
The term “educational facilities” refers to all the physical properties of a school, consisting of the
grounds, buildings, and the various facilities within the school grounds and inside the school
buildings.

Also known as the school plant or the physical facilities of a school; thus, the terms educational
school facilities, school plant, and physical facilities may be used interchangeably.
For the purpose of this book, the different components that constitute educational facilities are
categorized as follows: school sites, school buildings, school furniture and equipment.
B. Importance of Educational Facilities
Educational facilities are considered indispensable to a school; they do not only provide housing for
the school but also serve as facilitating agents for all the educational activities that take place in a
school.
The availability of safe, secured and satisfactory educational facilities (i.e., site, building, furniture,
and equipment) is one of the prerequisites for the opening of a new school. Sites should be
assessed in terms of its vulnerability to various geological and hydro meteorological hazards.
Hazard-specific resilient features that have undergone thorough feasibility and viability studies
must be incorporated in the design of the buildings or structures (Niño Relox, PAGASA).
Conversely, one of the grounds for the closure of a school is substandard facilities (i.e., lack safe,
sanitary, and adequate buildings and site).
The availability of safe, secured, adequate and satisfactory educational facilities will support the
teaching and learning processes and ultimately improve the quality of basic education.
C. Basic Principles on Educational Facilities
The primary function of educational facilities is to provide the proper school environment that is
most conducive to effective teaching and learning. It shall be responsive to changes in teaching
methods and school organization taking into consideration the changes in educational process
which has become more active, interrelated, and has become an integral part of the wider
community.
Functional and effective educational facilities are developed, operated and managed on the basis
of a comprehensive plan of action of the school, prepared by all stakeholders in education in the
community. It shall include sound educational facility planning and design process principles to:
a. Maximize collaboration in school planning design through consultative planning, design
and project implementation, involving a wide spectrum of representatives from the community, e.g.,

administrative decision-makers, parents, business and community leaders, technical people,
teachers, school administrators, and pupils/students;
b. Build a proactive facility management program which anticipates facility problems during
the planning phase like maintenance and operations of the educational facilities.
c. Plan schools as neighborhood-scaled community learning centers considering the
following steps:
c.1 Locate the school in a well-defined neighborhood as this will provide
opportunities for children and parents to walk to the school and provide an identity for that
community;
c.2 Provide a variety of services at flexible schedules and make the same
accessible to end-users of different backgrounds especially during calamities/disasters
wherein the school buildings are being used as evacuation centers and temporary shelters
to affected community members;
c.3 Create an environment that draws the community to the school and that
increases interaction in compliance with the principles of the Schools First Initiative (SFI)
and the School-Based Management (SBM);
c.4 The school shall provide facilities accessible to the entire community, creating
an increased involvement and awareness of the educational process; and
c.5 School facilities that act as true community centers to serve the broader
society goals of providing the setting for meaningful civic participation and engagement at
the local level.
Plan for learning to take place directly in the community which affirms that learning happens all the time
and in many different places. A variety of social and economic factors have created an environment which
educators can tap as a learning resource be these in urban, suburban or rural settings. This will establish
partnership with museums, zoos, other public institutions as well as local business or industrial workplace
settings in compliance with Republic Act No. 8525 otherwise known as the “Adopt-A-School Program”,
involving external stakeholders in education.
Constant evaluation of educational facilities shall be made in terms of efficiency of operation and
maintenance of standards in relation to the efficiency and effectiveness of instruction. (Department of
Education, 2007)[8]

Analysis of Flexibly Connected Steel Frames
By: Michael John Fernando
Introduction:
While the connections constitute a small percentage of the weight of a structure, they have a relatively high
labor content and hence represent a substantial percentage of the total framing cost. In addition,
connection deformation is sometimes responsible for a substantial proportion of the overall deflection of a
structure and it often has a significant bearing on the internal force distribution. Since 1930, there has been
considerable research into the behavior of structural connections. A number of investigations have been
carried out to measure the moment-rotation characteristics of various types of steel framing connections.
Here the term rotation is used to designate the relative rotation between the percentage of the weight of a
structure, they have a relatively high labor content and hence represent a substantial percentage of the
total framing cost. In addition, connection deformation is sometimes responsible for a substantial proportion
of the overall deflection of a structure and it often has a significant bearing on the internal force distribution.
Since 1930, there has been considerable research into the behavior of structural connections. A number of
investigations have been carried out to measure the moment-rotation characteristics of various types of
steel framing connections. Here the term rotation is used to designate the relative rotation between the
elastic lines for the members on either side of a connection. Baker (1 931, 1935) and Rathbun (1936) used
slope deflection and moment distribution methods to analyze frames with semirigid connections. Batho and
Rowan (1934) presented a beam line method for analyzing semi-rigid frames. They incorporated the effects
of connection deformations into a stiffness analysis program. However, they assumed linear moment-
rotation characteristics. He developed a procedure for expressing the moment-rotation characteristics for all
connections of a given type, in a standardized, non-dimensional form.
Assumptions and Limitations:
The imposed assumptions and limitations are:
(a) the effects of shear and axial load on connection deformation are ignored,
(b) all members are prismatic and straight,
(c) the structure is loaded by statical concentrated or uniformly distributed loads only,
(d) possible buckling of individual members or portions of the structure is ignored,
(e) the effects of strain hardening are neglected,

(f) the material in the members is linearly elastic,
(g) deflections are sufficiently small that they do not significantly affect the geometry of the structure, and
(h) the structure behaves linearly except for the nonlinear force-deformation characteristics of the
connections.
The Moment-Rotation Curve:
The primary distortion of a connection is the rotational deformation, 4, caused by moment M. Methods have
been proposed for calculating the M-4 relationship for semi-rigid connections, but most M-4 curves must be
determined experimentally. Figure 2 shows moment-rotation curves for the seven commonly used
connection types illustrated in Fig. 1. It can be seen that flexible connection types exhibit nonlinear behavior
almost from the start of loading, while relatively rigid connections do so at a later stage.
Standardization of Moment-Rotation Curves
There are two ways that connection momentrotation relationships can be incorporated into a structural
analysis program. (a) The moment-rotation information for every connection of every type can be stored.
Since for any given type of connection, there are a number of 'size parameters' such as depth, angle
thickness, etc., this requires the storing of an extremely large amount of information. (b) Since the moment-
rotation characteristics for all connections of a given type are similar, a 'standardized' moment-rotation
relationship can be derived as a function of the size parameters for that connection type. The
momentrotation characteristics for a particular connection can then be generated by substituting its size
parameters into the standardized relationship. The latter procedure, which has been employed in this study,
drastically reduces the amount of connection information that must be stored, since the description of only
a single moment-rotation function for each connection type is necessary. The standardization procedure
involves the representation of the moment-rotation curves for all connections of a given type by a single
function of the form,
where 4 = rotational deformation of connection in radians, C = constant, K = standardization factor (a

dimensionless factor whose value depends on the size parameters for the particular connection
considered), and M = moment applied to the connection. The factor K is assumed to have the form

where pj = numerical value of jth size parameter, aj = a dimensionless exponent which indicates the effect
ofjth size parameter on the moment-rotation relationship, and m = total number of size parameters.
(Michael John Fernando, 1975)[9]
Design of a Virtual Auditorium

By: Milton Cruz
Auditorium Environment:
A Virtual Auditorium consists of an instructor node and up to a few dozen student nodes. The instructor
node consists of a wall sized display powered by a cluster of computers. Each student node consists of a
Pentium III class PC. All nodes are connected by high-speed computer networks such as Ethernet or
Internet 2. The conceptual usage model of the Virtual Auditorium is that all participants can be seen and
heard with minimal latency at all times. Unlike voice-activated switching, the Virtual Auditorium lets the user
decide at whom to look. Unlike SITN] and FORUM, the Virtual Auditorium does not require a student to
explicitly request the audio channel before he can be heard. Our experience with SITN as well as the
findings of suggests that keeping all channels open all the time is essential in creating spontaneous and
lively dialogs. The instructor node can also accommodate local students. The local students would be
seated in front of the display wall such that the remote students appear as an extension of the local
students. A complication of having local students is that the conceptual usage model of one camera
capturing one person may be broken, thus potentially causing difficulties in interaction between the remote
and local students. (Milton Cruz, 2001)[10]
FOREIGN RELATED DESIGN AND LITERATURE
Existing Building Retrofits: Methodology and State-of-the-Art

By: Paul Cooper, Daniel Daly, Laila Ledo
Introduction
The construction of buildings and their operation contribute to a large proportion of total energy end-use
worldwide. In the building sector, most energy is consumed by existing buildings while the replacement rate
of existing buildings by the new-build is only around 1.0–3.0% per annum. Therefore, rapid enhancement of
energy efficiency in existing buildings is essential for a timely reduction in global energy use and promotion
of environmental sustainability.

At the same time, a significant amount of research has been carried out to develop and investigate different
energy efficiency opportunities in order to improve energy performance of existing buildings. The results
have showed that energy use in existing buildings can be reduced significantly through proper retrofitting or
refurbishment, which is described as work required to upgrade an aged or deteriorated building. Building
retrofitting or refurbishment is being considered as one of main approaches to realistically achieving
reduced building energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
Retrofitting of existing buildings has many challenges and opportunities. The main challenge encountered
is that there are many uncertainties, such as climate change, services change, human behavior change,
government policy change, etc., all of which directly affect the selection of retrofit technologies and hence
the success of a retrofit project. The subsystems in buildings are highly interactive. Different retrofit
measures may have different impacts on associated building sub-systems due to these interactions, which
results that the selection of the retrofit technologies becomes very complex. Dealing with these
uncertainties and system interactions is a considerable technical challenge in any sustainable building
retrofit project. Other challenges may include financial limitations and barriers, perceived long payback
periods, and interruptions to operations. The willingness of building owners to pay for retrofits is another
challenge if there is no financial support from the government, particularly since the issue of “split
incentives” is often a key factor where the cost of the retrofit generally falls to a building owner whereas the
benefit often flows primarily to the tenants. On the other hand, retrofitting of a building offers great
opportunities for improved energy efficiency, increased staff productivity, reduced maintenance costs and
better thermal comfort. It may also help to improve a nation’s energy security and corporate social
responsibility, reduce exposure to energy price volatility, create job opportunities and make buildings more
livable.
Nowadays, there is a great number of building retrofit technologies that are readily available in the market.
However, the decision as to which retrofit technology (or measure) should be used for a particular project is
a multi-objective optimization problem subject to many constraints and limitations, such as specific building
characteristics, total budget available, project target, building services types and efficiency, building fabric,
etc. Financial benefit is not the single criteria for the selection of the retrofit technologies. The optimal
solution is a trade-off among a range of energy related and non-energy related factors, such as energy,
economic, technical, environmental, regulations, social, etc.
Generic Building Retrofit Problem
The building retrofit optimization problem is to determine, implement and apply the most cost effective
retrofit technologies to achieve enhanced energy performance while maintaining satisfactory service levels
and acceptable indoor thermal comfort, under a given set of operating constraints. The following issues
addressing the nature of a building retrofit problem should be carefully considered in a building retrofit
project.

Figure 1: Key Elements Influencing Building Retrofits
Figure 2: Key Phases in a Sustainable Building Retrofit Program
Other important issues related to building retrofits
The following issues also address the nature of the building retrofit problem:
• Each building is unique with different characteristics. The retrofit measures used in one building may not
be suitable for use in another building.

• The benefit of using multiple ECMs is not the sum of the benefits by using each individual ECM due to the
interactive nature among different building subsystems and different ECMs. Whether an ECM is
recommended depends on its thermodynamic performance and the physical interactions among different
ECMs.
• The selection of the ECMs is a multi-objective optimization problem. Multi-objective optimization is a

scientific area that offers a wide variety of methods with great potential for the solution of complicated
decision problems. The criteria selection and weighting factor assignments are essential in the formulation
of the optimization problem for building retrofits.
• The optimization problem can be developed by using mode-based approach or model-free approach. In
model-based approach, energy simulation models (or tools) are commonly used to estimate energy savings
of different ECMs. The analysis of energy savings should recognize the modelling mismatch. Model-free
approach does not require a “model” of the targeted system. Expert system is a typical model-free
approach. The application of an expert system is affected by the richness of the knowledge database since
the rules used are static and outside of the domain of expertise, threatening significant errors.
• In the model-based approach, the optimization technique is used to search for the optimal solutions. For
the multi-objective optimization problem, global optimization techniques, such as genetic algorithm (GA),
branch and bound (B&B), simulated annealing (SA), etc., can be used to search for globally optimal retrofit
solutions.
Building Performance Assessment and Diagnostics
Existing buildings tend to undergo performance degradations, change in use, and unexpected faults or
malfunctions over time. These events often result in significant deterioration of the overall system
performance, inefficient operation and unacceptable thermal comfort conditions. In a sustainable building
retrofit, as presented earlier, building performance assessment and diagnostics are used to benchmark
building energy use, identify system operational problems, and find energy conservation opportunities.
In the last two decades, the development of building performance assessment tools has been very active.
These rating tools provide a framework on how to evaluate and improve building energy and environmental
performance. Although these rating tools vary in scope, criteria, structure and format, the rating process is
usually conducted via benchmarking the assessed building against a set of prescribed quantitative and
qualitative performance indicators (PIs) of diverse objectives. Through examination of the difference
between the PIs of the building assessed and the targeted PIs, the performance of the building can be
quantified. A detailed comparison of a variety of building rating tools can be found in Refs.
There is a wide range of research specifically focused on the development and application of appropriate
models and strategies for building performance assessment and diagnostics. Details of the methods used
for building diagnostics can be found in Ref.

Figure 3: A Systematic Approach for Sustainable Building Retrofits
Economic Analysis
The selection of retrofit measures is a trade-off between capital investment and benefits that can be
achieved due to implementation of the retrofit measures. Economic analysis, which facilitates the
comparison among alternative retrofit measures, can provide an indication of whether the retrofit
alternatives are energy efficient and cost-effective. A variety of economic analysis methods can be used to
evaluate the economic viability of building retrofit measures. Some of them, such as net present value
(NPV), internal rate of return (IRR), overall rate of return (ORR), benefit-cost ratio (BCR), discounted
payback period (DPP), and simple payback period (SPP), can be used to assess the economic feasibility of
a single retrofit measure. Alternatively, the life cycle cost method, the levelized cost of energy and other
advanced analysis methods can be used to evaluate the cost effectiveness of multiple retrofit alternatives.
There are many studies related to economic analysis of building energy efficient measures. It is identified
that NPV is the most typical technique for optimal building energy assessment among 25 techniques. The
results from these studies have demonstrated that economic assessment techniques allow for selection of
the most cost effective retrofit measures. This in turns aids the decision support process in making an
optimal design of building retrofits.
Risk Assessment
Risk assessment is the determination of the quantitative or qualitative value of risk related to a concrete
situation and a recognized threat. Risk assessment provides decision makers with information about the
‘risk exposure’ inherent in a given decision, i.e. the probability that the outcome will be different from the
‘best-guess’ estimate. As presented earlier, a building retrofit is subject to many uncertainty factors, such
as uncertainty in savings estimation, energy use measurements, weather forecast, the changes of energy
consumption patterns, system performance degradations, etc. These uncertainty factors result that
investment in building retrofits is highly uncertain. Risk assessment is therefore essential to provide
decision makers with a sufficient level of confidence to select and determine the best retrofit solutions.
While there are many risk assessment and risk management methods available, probability-based risk
assessment methods are probably the most commonly used methods. Probability-based risk assessment
methods include expected value analysis, mean–variance criterion and coefficient of variation, risk-adjusted
discount rate technique, certainty equivalent technique, Monte Carlo simulation, decision analysis, real
options and sensitivity analysis.
There are a number of studies that have specifically focused on risk assessment and uncertainty analysis
of building retrofits. The results from the studies show that risk assessment also plays an important role in a
building retrofit.
Research and application of retrofit technologies for building performance enhancement
Building researchers and professionals have made significant efforts towards the development and
application of various retrofit technologies and decision support tools to enhance building performance.
The-state-of-the-art of such efforts in last two decades is presented below, which is intended as a summary
of most of such studies completed to date. (Paul Cooper, Daniel Daly, Laila Ledo, 2012)[11]

Renovation Projects: Design Process Problems and Improvement Mechanisms
By: Gregory Howell, Panagiotis Mitropoulos
Figure 4: Timeline of Design Process
Design Process
The figure below provides the timeline of events during the design and early construction process. The
shaded boxes indicate rework activities:
• In Week 1, the architect and customer started working on the conceptual design.

• Floor layouts were developed and reviewed in the first 2–3 weeks. The conceptual design was selected in
Week 4 and the architect started the permit drawings.
• Demolition started in Week 5. The same week, the general contractor developed an initial estimate based
on the schematic design.
• Problems with piping running along columns (no. 1), and floor condition (no. 2), were discovered during
Week 6. The piping condition caused design changes.
• Mechanical design started in Week 6. Due to above-ceiling constraints, the mechanical design required
modifications of the soffit design.
• Architectural permit drawings were submitted in Week 8.
• Electrical design started in Week 8.
• Problem with power availability (no. 3) was discovered in Week 8. This caused changes of the mechanical
equipment.
• Problem with mechanical system constraints (no. 4) was discovered in Week 9. This caused extensive
architectural changes.
• Problems with fire rating of slab (no. 5) was discovered in Week 8. The selected alternative required
underwriters’ laboratory (UL) testing of the proposed fireproofing material.
Architectural Design
First, the architect inspected the space and held meetings with the customer and users to understand their
needs and requirements. Next, the architects developed sketches for interior design and reviewed and
modified the concept with the customer. They developed three alternative schematic designs and, with the
customer, selected a concept that combined some elements of each. Once the concept was selected, the
architect started preparing the architectural permit drawings.
Mechanical Design
The mechanical contractor also began work in Week 6, when the conceptual design was complete.
According to the general contractor’s PM, the mechanical design/build contractor is typically involved after
the conceptual design is complete. The mechanical contractor walked the space with the architect and the
building maintenance engineer to identify the existing conditions that would affect mechanical design. The
initial mechanical design was developed from the following input:
• Floor plan: The architect initially provided sketches of the floor plan and later provided 2D drawings.
• Envelope characteristics and environment: The space and envelope characteristics determined the
heating and cooling requirements.
• Existing HVAC system capabilities: The mechanical designer/contractor checked the availability of hot
and cold water. The building maintenance engineer was the main source of information regarding the
existing system condition.
• Above ceiling space: The above-ceiling conditions imposed strong space constraints.
Based on the above input, the mechanical designer/contractor developed the mechanical design which
included:
• Establishing the mechanical zones,
• Selecting the most economical system, and
• Determining the location of the mechanical equipment.
Because of the limited above-ceiling space, the mechanical design caused some changes to the
architectural ceiling plan. In some areas, the architects had to modify the soffits to accommodate the
above-ceiling mechanical equipment. The lighting plan was also required for coordination with the above-
ceiling components. The lighting plan was not completed before the mechanical design, but the mechanical
contractor, the architect, and the lighting consultant worked the lighting plan around the mechanical design.
Electrical Design
The electrical designer/contractor was selected and started work in Week 8. Their first action was a
walkthrough of the existing building system to determine available power and to locate the existing panels.
Then, based on the architectural, mechanical, and lighting requirements, the electrical designer/contractor
developed the electrical design.
Above-Ceiling Coordination
The space coordination of the mechanical/electrical/plumbing components was performed using overlays.
Despite the tight, above-ceiling space, the space coordination process revealed very few conflicts.
According to the general, mechanical, and electrical managers, the mechanical contractor was aware of the
space constraints early on, and had done some earlier coordination with the architect and accounted for
some of the space needs of electric and piping.
Cost Estimate
After the conceptual design, the general contractor developed an initial, rough order of magnitude (ROM)
estimate based on:
• Cost per square foot, and
• Initial mechanical design
Analysis
On this renovation project, several conditions created design iterations and rework and increased the
anticipated construction cost and duration.
The extent of the iterations varied— some were limited to few modifications of one system, while others
affected several systems. In Case 1, the discovery of piping running parallel to the columns caused a
change in architectural design. In Case 3, the power constraints caused changes to the mechanical design.
In Case 4, the design iteration was extensive. This caused changes to the mechanical design.
Subsequently, the new mechanical design (the stand-alone system) created new requirements for space
(thus causing rework of the architectural design) and new structural loads (which did not require changes in
the structural system). Furthermore, the new design had to be approved by the city’s planning department
because it effected the exterior of the building. In Case 5, the discovery of the inadequate fireproofing of the
slab resulted in changing the specified fireproofing material.
The design iterations were caused by two different reasons: (1) preexisting conditions were discovered
after design decisions had been made; and (2) limitations of downstream systems caused iteration
upstream.
Cost and Schedule Requirements
The estimating and scheduling processes follow the design. The cost to construct a specific design may
exceed the customer’s budget, or the design may include long-lead items that exceed the schedule
requirements. In such cases, the parties revisit the design decisions to reduce the cost or schedule through
value engineering. On this project, a target cost had not been established. The identified problems
increased the initially estimated costs. However, the overall cost was considered acceptable, otherwise
another design iteration would have been necessary in order to modify the design in an attempt to reduce
the cost. The initial schedule was not met. Problem 5 required changing the initially specified fireproofing
material. The selected solution delayed the project completion because it required UL testing and city
approval. The owner relaxed the schedule constraint in order to use their preferred fireproofing material,
otherwise this design solution would have been rejected.
Strategies to Prevent Design Work
The previous section identified two mechanisms by which constraints lead to design iterations and rework:
(1) preexisting conditions identified late, and (2) limitations of downstream systems not considered in
upstream decisions. The following actions are needed to address these problems:
1. Accelerate discovery of existing conditions and constraints;
2. Select key project members early; and
3. Use rapid prototyping.
Existing Building Conditions
Building conditions include: condition of floor, ceiling, available space above the ceiling, columns,
availability of services, condition of piping, etc. The existing building conditions have a dual impact on the
project: First, they effect the cost and time needed to construct what is designed (e.g., the floor condition

required more leveling work but did not affect the design). Second, as this case study illustrated, the
existing building conditions may limit the design options for the architectural, mechanical, or electrical
designs. Iterations and rework can occur if the design proceeds without knowing the key constraints.
Exploratory demolition should be considered the beginning of the design process, rather than the beginning
of construction, and needs to start as soon as possible—even before the design begins. The extent of
exploratory effort depends on the cost of surprise and should focus on assuring that key assumptions are
valid. The effect of undiscovered conditions varies depending on (1) the type of facility (e.g., in hospital
renovation work, the discovery of an unexpected condition late in the project may cause more cost and
delays than in an office renovation project), and (2) how critical is the affected system (e.g., a significant
change in an upstream system will affect several downstream systems).
Other Design Constraints
Iterations and rework may be caused not only by the late discovery of physical conditions, but by late
discovery of other preexisting design requirements (such as regulatory requirements or users’
requirements). Another type of constraint that causes the same negative effect is a change in requirements.
Naturally, a change in customer’s needs in terms of function, budget, or schedule also leads to design
iterations. These iterations however are harder to prevent.
Summary and Recommendations
The findings indicate that the design process would be improved if it performs the following:
1. Accelerate discovery of existing conditions: Existing conditions impose significant constraints on

renovation projects. Addressing them requires systematic exploratory demolition to discover all conditions
that may affect the design solution and/or cost: systems capacities/constraints, condition of piping,
allowable loads, electrical loads, above-ceiling space constraints, floor condition, fireproofing conditions,
etc. This demolition should be considered the front-end of the design process.
2. Identify other key constraints (such as budget and schedule constraints): In addition to the physical
conditions, other design and construction constraints are equally critical. The project team needs to
investigate city requirements and identify cost and schedule requirements.
3. Select the project team early: Early selection of the project team is essential because it enables the
parties to evaluate the conceptual designs and check if the design meets the multiple constraints. This
condition is essential for the rapid prototyping process.
4. Use rapid prototyping: Use rapid prototyping to evaluate and validate the design, discover conflict of
constraints and requirements, and resolve them at the earliest possible cost. This way, rapid prototyping
also increases the team’s ability to develop better end designs.
Given the timing of the discovery of the conditions and the amount of rework, it is estimated that on the
particular project, the use of these actions could have (1) reduced the overall design duration by 4–5
weeks; and (2) reduced the overall design cost by 10–20% by reducing or eliminating design rework.

One critical condition for rapid prototyping is the early selection of key contractors. This appears to be one
of the key obstacles to rapid prototyping. The main reason for hesitation from the customer’s side is the
lack of confidence that early selection of key contractors will result in a greater overall value compared to
the low bid option.
(Gregory Howell, Panagiotis Mitropoulos, 2002)[12]
Search for Optimal Solution of Public Building Renovation in Terms of Life Cycle
By: Lina Uzsilaityte, Vytautas Martinaitis
Introduction
The biggest opportunities and relatively unlimited possibilities to create an energy-efficient building exist
when a new building is designed. Much more limits are faced during renovation of existing buildings. As
these buildings are already built in a certain geographical orientation, they already have particular
construction elements, dependence on previously-made engineering solutions, etc. Although the scope of
construction of new buildings grew rapidly during the last years, there are still much more old buildings in
Lithuania. 89% of buildings are constructed before 1990. A large share of them requires renovation. Very
often initiative to renovate buildings belongs to the state or local governments. If a private owner is mostly
interested in the cost of renovation, governments should pay a wider attitude towards the consequences of
the renovation financed from their budget. Sometimes a question is posed what is more expedient – to
renovate a building or to demolish it and build a new one. Investigations show that renovation of a building
is more beneficial in terms of economic, environmental and social issues.
Attitude towards renovation of a building should be based on the concept of sustainable development.
While renovating a building a number of problems can be solved: depletion of natural resources, pollution
of the environment, and increase of social welfare. Depletion of natural resources is a sensitive issue.
Stock of fossil fuels is limited. However, possibilities for development without further use of energy
resources is impossible. In some regions development is restricted and poverty is confronted because of
unavailable energy supply. Therefore, conservation of energy resources and search for alternative energy
resources is of great importance. While using energy resources pollution of the environment is unavoidable.
However, it is possible to optimize possible pollution from an object if the estimation will be made at the
design stage. By optimizing the use of natural resources, the problems of social welfare are solved: thermal
comfort is ensured and bills for energy consumption are reduced. Buildings are the biggest end-users.
Therefore, substantial contribution to solving the above-mentioned problems can be ensured while
designing new and old buildings under renovation.
The energy sector is the main emitter of greenhouse gases. Renovation of buildings besides the energy-
saving benefits generates environmental benefits by decreasing the air pollution. Impacts of the air pollution
impose costs on society which are often not at all or only partly considered in the production cost and in the
market prices of respective products or services. In addition, greenhouse gases, especially CO2 emissions,
released from fossil fuel combustion constitute another source of social damages, in particular to
forthcoming generations. The existence of these costs – the so-called external costs – constitute a severe
market failure leading to the misallocation of scarce resources, since producers and consumers come to
decisions that may be optimal for them but not for society as a whole. It is argued that costs of the damage
to society entailed by the emissions of greenhouse gases have to be included into the cost of energy or
product, otherwise it is borne by society now or in the future. This can be done via taxes or market
instruments such as emission trading. Tax of emissions should be at a level to encourage the emitter invest
into technologies reducing emissions. The price of CO2 is intermittent; however, it is forecasted that it may
grow substantially in the future after the beginning of a new European Union emission trading period.
While looking for the alternatives of economic calculations allowing evaluation of the alternatives in terms of
sustainability, methods based on thermodynamics are applied more widely. Exergy and energy analyses
are used for the evaluation of various engineering systems. In order to meet the idea of exergy and energy
analyses, analyzers with technological background come with the definition of embodied energy. Embodied
energy is the amount of energy consumed to create a product, material or service. Traditionally only energy
used during operation of an object is taken into account. However, in some cases energy used for the
creation of an object can change the results of the estimation of benefits of the process. It is especially
relevant while designing low-energy buildings.
Life-cycle assessment is a tool allowing integrating thermodynamic, economic and environmental

considerations into one method. This tool creates possibilities to achieve wider attitude to the building
impact on the environment, economy and to create buildings taking into account the concept of sustainable
development. Many scientific analyses are made in this. (Lina Uzsilaityte, Vytautas Martinaitis, 2010)[13]
Selection of Windows in Retrofit of Public Buildings by Applying Multiple Criteria

Method
By:Saulius Raslanas, Romualdas Ginevicius
Introduction
Development is quite different for the non-residential buildings. Energy consumption problems are
secondary to the improvement of comfort. Decisions to retrofit a building are often made because of
dissatisfaction regarding the comfort level. Therefore, the primary goal is to improve these comfort
conditions. Decision makers are often skeptical about measures that aim to reduce energy consumption
because they are afraid that these measures could limit the effect of improving the indoor climate and
increase costs. The improvement of comfort as the primary aim can be achieved alongside energy saving.
It is, therefore, particularly important to demonstrate the effective solutions of public building retrofit and to
make them visible to the wider public.
Retrofit evaluation of a building is quite difficult to undertake because a building and its environment are
complex systems (embracing technical, technological, ecological, social, comfort, aesthetic and other
aspects), where all subsystems influence the efficiency of performance and where interdependence
between the subsystems plays a significant role. Coherent and effective retrofit scenarios are commonly
designed on the basis of knowledge of the degradation state of the building and its obsolescence. A

systematic method, based on multicriteria analysis and a constructivist approach are also helpful in
designing retrofit scenarios.
A methodology for rating buildings or retrofit scenarios according to criteria, such as use of energy for
heating, cooling and other appliances, impact on the environment, indoor climate and cost has been
suggested.
The methodology of a multivariant design and multiple criteria analysis of a building’s retrofit enables users
to develop thousands of alternatives and to evaluate their economic, technical and architectural, aesthetic
and comfort aspects.
Various Types of Windows and the Problem of Making the Proper Choice
Windows, like doors, walls and the roof, make up an essential part of a building. These also play an
important role in forming the façade and the interior of a building. A residential or public building can hardly
be imagined without windows. However, about 30% of heat is lost, if windows are poorly insulated.
The main function of windows in a building is to pass light through to the interior and to decorate the
building. However, windows are the thinnest elements transmitting cold, heat, noise, harmful ultraviolet
rays, etc. into a building. Ordinary glass is mainly responsible for all negative effects because it conducts
heat, noise, sunrays (from infrared to ultraviolet spectrum) as well as being fragile and easily broken.
Thermal resistance of windows is much lower than that of walls, however, high-quality windows may reduce
heat losses to a minimum. Modern technologies can provide windows with very good thermal and noise
damping characteristics.
Good performance of windows may be achieved, if they are made of frost resistant glass, with a
hermetically sealed frame and if the space in the room is well ventilated and heated. In general, in the
process of a building’s retrofit the balance between the main three components must be maintained (Figure
5).
Figure 5: The Main Retrofit Components of a Building
Windows multiple glazing units reduce heat losses through glass, while the emissive glass reflects from 40
to 70% of the heat rays back to room, and further improve the thermal insulation of the units. Multiple

glazing units with low-e glass are filled with argon. This also increases their thermal insulation by 20%.
Moreover, such windows retain two-thirds of harmful ultraviolet rays and in this way, protect walls and
furniture from fading. Multiple glazing units of the last generation with a soft emissive glass covering, emit
threefold less heat into the atmosphere than ordinary units because their thermal transmittance may be
very low.
Currently, used plastic windows may have profiles of three to eight chambers. Eight closed air chambers of
the frame profile can provide the best heat insulation characteristics. A special structure of plastic and
aluminum reinforces the profiles as well as improving their insulation, by not using steel reinforcement as in
an ordinary unit and, therefore, avoid cold air crossing.
Noise problems can be solved in various ways: thicker windowpanes or sheets of various thicknesses may
be used for this purpose. The spacing between glass sheets can be enlarged or gases heavier than air, of
two-chamber glazed units or laminated glass sheets with transparent acrylic rubber, etc. may also be used.
Windows are divided into six classes according to their acoustic performance. Noise may be of high or low
frequency or of a wide acoustic spectrum. Noise frequency should be determined prior to using any
damping technique otherwise it would not provide the desired effect.
Multiple glazed units provide protection from hot solar rays with an external glass sheet made from
reflective glass, which is more effective than dimmed glass. It reflects heat and light rays, and therefore, the
illumination intensity in the room is lower. In fact, modern glass used in glazed units looks like ordinary
transparent glass, but it can effectively reduce heat in summer and help to preserve heat in winter. To
protect room from harmful ultraviolet radiation, reflective as well as laminated glass covered with PVC film
or transparent acrylic rubber (from the inside), that allows only a very small percentage of ultraviolet
radiation into the premises, is used.
To ensure good window performance and to avoid weeping, windows should be properly installed and
insulated. Proper installation accounts for 50% of a window’s quality. An efficient ventilation system should
also be provided. Special limit stops that adjust a window’s position in opening and closing are used for
providing micro-ventilation. There are a great number of air vents aimed at allowing fresh air into spaces
that can even have noise damping characteristics. Recently, air vents provided with
humidity sensors that react to air humidity fluctuation in the premises have emerged on the market. When
relative humidity exceeds the admissible level, the air vent is opened automatically to allow in some fresh
air. To provide the required ventilation, the inflow and outflow of air should be ensured.
Today, various types of windows including wooden, plastic and aluminum windows are offered in the
market. Modern windows should be selected and based on their quality and operational characteristics.
The windows characteristics are associated with the type of building (residential or administrative), a
particular district—the Old Town or a new district (with modern multistory buildings), etc. Nowadays, more
than 200 enterprises produce modern windows in Lithuania, of which about 50 produce plastic windows
made from a plastic profile and are manufactured both in Lithuania and abroad. There is a great offering of
windows of various shapes made from various kinds of glass, e.g. transparent, dimmed, smoked, plate
glass, etc. as well as limit stops, ventilation and hinging systems, etc.
Therefore, given the wide variety of windows, it is not easy, even for a specialist, to make a decision, as to
what type of windows to choose, especially, when the quality of the products also differs considerably.

In order to realize an effective selection of low-e windows in a building’s retrofit, it is necessary to carry out
an exhaustive investigation of all possible solutions. The efficiency level of a particular window’s
replacement alternative depends on a large number of factors, including cost of the project, energy savings
gained after renovation, tentative pay-back time, thermal transmittance of the profile and double glazing
unit, emission ability of low emissive glass coating, weighed sound reduction index, light transmittance of
double glazing unit, water-tightness, warranty period, longevity, the number of windows with the third
opening position, and duration of work, etc. (Saulius Raslanas, Romualdas Ginevicius, 2006)[14]
Design Strategies to Increase Building Flexibility

By: Sarah Slaughter
Introduction
The longevity and potential obsolescence of built facilities is a concern for all owners, from large
corporations to government agencies to homeowners, as well as to the occupants and users of these
facilities. The usefulness of these facilities is often compromised by their inability to accommodate changes
over time. It is not economical or resource efficient to design and build facilities that have only a short
functional life, since a facility that prematurely reaches the end of its useful life reduces the effective time
period over which benefits could be obtained, and increases the effective cost of demolition and waste
disposal, thereby reducing the return on the initial investment. Increasing the functional life of a facility
through attention to the capacity of the original design and constructed systems to easily, quickly, and
inexpensively accommodate change over the full life of the facility can improve the value of the facility to
the owner and reduce disruptions and downtime for the occupants.
This research addresses this concern through a theoretical approach to the nature of change in built
facilities, and an empirical analysis of change implementation in existing buildings. In addition, the research
analyses specific design strategies used on particular projects that can decrease the time and cost required
to incorporate new components and systems into a building to meet new or changed requirements.
Several studies have examined and characterized the interactions among the systems and their
components during operation. While many of the issues and approaches discussed in these analyses focus
on specific usage categories, these approaches can form the basis for a comprehensive approach to
analyzing potential changes over a facility’s life for all possible usage categories.
The evaluation of the relative costs and benefits from the specific design strategies are analyzed using
common methodological approaches, and building on recent empirical work. Life cycle cost analyses can
provide an initial basis for understanding the immediate and long-term benefits from increasing the capacity
to accommodate change. For example, life cycle data for bridges have been incorporated into proactive
bridge management programs that seek to extend the useful life of existing bridges. An emerging issue in
life cycle costing approaches is the need to address significant changes that occur over the time period,
such as in loads, conditions or general usage.
Types of Facility Changes

This research develops the concept that, during the life of a facility, three general types of changes can be
expected to occur, in function, capacity and flow. These changes can be seen as exogenous to the facility
itself, responding to either the owner’s objectives or the expected facility usage. (Endogenous changes
would include corrosion, deterioration, and other factors inherent in the components and systems and their
environment, and are excluded from this analysis.)
Change in Function
A function is defined as the set of activities or components to achieve a specific objective. Functions can be
performed by the facility itself (e.g. provide shelter) or with respect to human activities (e.g. transportation,
manufacturing, housing). Changes to the functions associated with a facility include upgrading existing
functions, incorporating new functions, and modifying to accommodate different functions.
Upgrading existing functions usually entails a modified set of activities or components to achieve the same
objective. Upgrading systems or their components specifically applies to cases where the expected
performance levels have increased, and the existing elements are not able to meet those new performance
requirements. For example, replacing single pane wood-framed windows with double paned metal framed
windows still achieve the same function (i.e. providing light and air), but the new component has additional
attributes which may offer different benefits (e.g. lower maintenance costs, decreased air infiltration,
improved energy efficiency).
A new function, however, achieves a new objective in addition to those functions already existing within the
facility. For instance, adding air conditioning to a school building introduces a new objective for the service
systems. In this case, the expected performance levels for the facility as a whole increase (rather than the
upgrading of the systems, which is limited to the systems themselves), and new systems or components
often must be incorporated within the facility to meet these new facility requirements.
A facility may also be modified to achieve a wholly different set of objectives than those for which it was
originally designed and built. The expected performance levels for a change in usage class may differ
significantly from the original requirements, and the new functions would not be expected to be present in
the facility as originally conceived. For example, when an office building is converted into a residential unit,
the facility’s systems must be modified to accommodate the change in usage class, which includes such
new functions as cooking, bathing and sleeping.
Change in Capacity
Capacity is defined as the ability of the facility to meet certain performance requirements, in either
loads/conditions or volume. Changes in the loads can occur for a built facility from either increased
expectation for performance, or improved understanding of probable load conditions. For instance, bridges
built 100 years ago could not anticipate the live loads from large trucks and other motorized vehicles, while
understanding of the behavior of masonry buildings under seismic loading has improved significantly in
recent years. In these cases, the facilities would be modified to increase their load capacity or their
performance under specific load conditions.
Changes in volume capacity refer to the spatial dimensions of built facilities. In many facilities, a basic
requirement over time is to add more space in or on which the basic functions of the facility are performed.
The increase in the need for useable space is often defined by the performance requirements with respect
to the future usage class of the building. For example, a manufacturing facility may add special utility rooms
to provide the level of power and services required by new production machinery, or an office building may
add a floor.
Changes in Flow
Flows are defined as the movements within and around a building relating to the surrounding environment
and its usage population. Changes in the environmental flows can be in response to the climatic or physical
environmental conditions within a facility, or between the facility and its environment. For example,
replacing fixed pane windows with operable windows changes the environmental flows. These
environmental flows relate to the movement of air, light, and sound with respect to the interaction with the
built environment.
Changes in the flow of people or things can occur in response to process or organizational changes by the
occupant. For example, when a company expands to include two contiguous floors, it may wish to install an
interior staircase to improve the movement of people within its office space. These flows represent the
usage patterns of the facility as a whole, and are often used to evaluate the facility’s value with respect to
its expected and actual effective space utilization.
Building System Interactions
The systems within a building can interact through various mechanisms, and the nature of these
interactions and the systems themselves influence the flexibility of the building to respond to the different
types of changes. The system interactions can be grouped into three general categories: physical,
functional and spatial interaction. Physical interactions among building systems can be through a
connection, intersection or adjacency. For instance, a roof element can be mechanically connected to the
structure, interleaved through the structural elements, or simply rest upon the structure. These interactions
are often easiest to identify and verify through direct observation, both during design and construction, and
during the operational life.
Second, systems can functionally interact. The interaction can enhance current functions, such as when an
exterior wall panel provides additional shear capacity to a framing system. Interactions can also
complement current functions (e.g. natural light sources can complement artificial lighting systems) but they
can also degrade current functions, such as when open windows degrade the performance of the heating
system. Often functional interactions may be dif. cult to trace and analyze, particularly for complex systems
and conditions.
Third, systems can interact spatially, operating independently but within the same room, for instance. The
provision of the systems (through the components) within the spatial region provides a usage interaction
that may not be physically or functionally defined, but can be most important for the owner’s perception of
the adequacy of the building. For instance, lighting within a room spatially interacts with interior surface
finishes differently for work at a desk with paper and work at a table with a computer.
The three major types of change (function, capacity and flow) and the interactions among systems provide
a framework in which to analyze the capacity of a facility to meet the performance requirements with
respect to the value-added activities performed within or through the facility. The change types capture
different attributes related to the owner’s performance expectations, the built environment, and the current
approaches to meet those requirements. Using the building systems, their interactions, and the types of

changes over time, the research develops a systematic methodology through which to analyze specific
strategies to accommodate required function, capacity, and flow changes over time.
Methodology
The empirical research on the renovation of existing facilities and the specific design strategies is based on
data collected from the owners, facilities managers, construction managers, architects, engineers and
contractors involved in the projects. Detailed information was collected for 48 recent building projects in the
US (Figure 6). The specific data for each building include a technical description of the existing systems
and components and the date they were installed, the extent of current renovation activities, and the design
strategies employed to specifically accommodate future changes in the components and systems. In
addition, 37 specific design strategies were identified that have been used in actual buildings to
accommodate expected changes. The detailed data were collected through in-depth personal interviews
and supplemented through publications, project documentation, and site visits.
Figure 6: Sample of Projects by Current Usage Class
The costs for the initial construction, operations and maintenance, and renovation were estimated for each
design strategy by examining the specific time and resources required to incorporate the design strategy
into the base building and to accommodate the changes during subsequent renovations. The base building
used for these calculations is an office building constructed in Cambridge, MA, in 1998, which is 5 stories,
11 566 M2 (124 500 SF), with a 5 by 7 bay floorplate. Actual cost data was obtained from the building
developer. The initial cost for each design strategy includes the material/component cost (as estimated
through manufacturer or public source prices), the cost of resources (standard or specialized) required to
incorporate the strategy, and other related costs, such as modifications to other systems. The analysis
approach is similar to that employed to estimate the time, cost and worker safety impacts of design and
construction innovations (Slaughter, 1999), which focuses on the specific tasks required to transform and
aggregate detailed physical components into the completed facility.
Results
The research results reveal that buildings undergo significantly more renovation to all systems (i.e.
structure, enclosure, services and interior finish) than is commonly assumed, particularly when the building
is being changed for a new usage classes. These results also indicate that significant need exists for
strategies to increase the effectiveness of renovation activities to accommodate change. While all future
building requirements can never be completely anticipated, certain design strategies can be employed
during either initial construction or renovation that can reduce the time and cost for subsequent building
modifications to accommodate changes in the building’s functions, capacity, or flows.

Renovation to Accommodate Change
Analysis of changes accommodated in renovation reveals several specific trends. First, the buildings
required more change to all four systems (structural, exterior enclosure, services, and interior finish) than is
usually predicted in the literature (Figure 7). The nature and extent of the changes differed significantly by
whether the facility remained in the same usage class or changed to a new usage occupancy type (Figure
8). Changes in the usage class, such as converting a warehouse into an office building or a school building
into apartments, significantly alters the set of facility performance requirements and changes the
interrelationships among the systems. These changes in both objectives and interactions result in
significant changes to each system. While most analyses of building renovation often assume that the
structural system rarely changes, this research found that almost two-thirds of the buildings being
renovated for the same usage class required changes to the structural system, and almost 90% of the
buildings being renovated for a new usage class required structural changes. In addition, the exterior
enclosure system also required changes in the majority of both samples. Therefore, while these systems
are often not explicitly configured to accommodate change, implementing specific design strategies for
these systems could significantly alter the resources expended to incorporate changes within existing
facilities, and thereby increase the value of these facilities.
Figure 7: Accommodation Changes to Building Systems by Renovation to Same and Different Usage
Classes
Figure 8: Patterns of Usage Class Changes

The types of changes required for the renovation of buildings for same and different usage classes reveals
the areas that have the strongest potential to increase the buildings’ long-term value. These results confirm
that building renovation for the same usage class primarily accommodates higher performance
requirements for the systems (Figure 9). In addition, approximately one third of the sample increased the
building volume to meet new space requirements. In contrast, renovation for a different usage class
required significant incorporation of new components, systems and processes to meet the different
performance objectives, with significant accompanying changes to meet the altered performance
requirements for the expected load and volume capacities and the flows within the system. These changes
also, usually involved significant modifications to the regions and nature of the interactions between
systems.
Figure 9: Proportion of Renovated Facilities that Experienced Change by Categories for Same and
Different Usage Classes
These results indicate the regions of change for the different building systems and the required inter-
relationship among the systems that need to be incorporated into design strategies. The design strategies
can explicitly address these requirements to increase the capacity of facilities to accommodate all of the
types of changes over the functional life of the facility.
Design Strategies to Accommodate Change
While owners, designers and contractors generally acknowledge that renovation to accommodate change
is a costly and time-consuming endeavor, it has been dif. cult to systematically approach the issue because
of its complexity. In particular, the nature of construction projects, with the unique requirements and
resources for each project, and the complexity of the facilities themselves, with often multiple generations
of different systems within the same building, can confound simplistic solutions to solve the problem.
However, several design approaches have emerged, and specific design strategies have been developed
and employed on particular projects. A design approach can be defined as a goal or set of goals that a
facility design should meet. A design strategy, on the other hand, is a specific means to accomplish an
objective or set of objectives. Analysis of these general approaches and the specific strategies can reveal
the potential impacts from improving building flexibility, and specifically increasing its capacity to
accommodate change, including their impact on initial and lifecycle costs.

General Design Approaches
Current thinking about the means to increase facility flexibility can be grouped into three general design
approaches. The first approach generally focuses on physically separating the major building systems (and
their sub-systems) so that changes in one area can be isolated from changes in other regions (Brand,
1994; Glen, 1994). For example, a building design used office ‘pods’, which were room-sized cubes with
connection to the service systems through a single link to an overhead distribution system.
In the second approach, the prefabrication of major system components can increase the ease with which
these elements can be changed out over time. For example, a new interior partition system uses
prefabricated panels that fit into a ceiling mounted track, with no required on-site activities to create and
install the system elements or the continuous wall surface. The third approach is to design certain systems
and their components significantly overcapacity so that changes can be accommodated without the
replacement or extension of current capacity capabilities. For example, selecting structural members with
higher capacity than currently required for the immediate design loads can provide the opportunity to add to
the building in the future.
Discussion and Conclusions
Buildings must be designed and built to meet the needs of their owners and occupants over the long term.
Common assumptions concentrate attention on the services and interior finish systems, and their
renovation to accommodate changes in occupancy patterns. However, this research demonstrates that
renovation actually requires changes to all of the building systems, and that changes in functions
themselves, as well as the capacity of the systems, need to be accommodated over time. A key finding in
the analysis of renovation projects were that the interactions between the systems strongly influenced the
building’s adaptability, and that the structural and exterior enclosure systems, as well as the services and
interior finish, should be designed with respect to anticipated changes.
The design strategies analyzed in this research demonstrate the availability and effectiveness of specific
measures to increase building flexibility. Although it is commonly assumed that increasing a building’s
adaptability to changes over time will necessarily increase initial construction cost and duration, these
design strategies demonstrate that many existing strategies can be implemented at little or no increase in
initial construction cost, and can use standard construction means and methods, with a decrease in initial
construction duration. These strategies can provide significant cost savings during the first renovation
cycle, through reducing the time required to implement the changes. In addition, the strategies can provide
additional savings through increased accessibility of the units throughout the facility operations and
maintenance activities.
Increasing the flexibility of facilities, and extending them useful life, can increase the value of the buildings.
First, it extends the period over which value can be obtained through uninterrupted use of the facility.
Second, the reduction in time and cost associated with subsequent renovations to accommodate change
can provide direct benefits to the building owner as well as the occupants. These potential savings can
begin to be recognized in the market value of the facility itself, as the dimensions of adaptability are
explicitly recognized, and the savings can be systematically analyzed.
This research provides a new method and set of tools to demonstrate the impacts that specific design
strategies can have on the lifecycle costs of buildings, particularly recognizing the need to accommodate

changes in function, capacity, and flow over time. Building from empirical data on renovation projects for
existing buildings, and design strategies actually employed, the research clearly demonstrates the cost
efficiency and overall effectiveness of designing and building facilities to accommodate change. (Sarah
Slaughter, 2001)[15]
Design of Steel Frames Using Ant Colony Optimization

By: Charles V. Camp, Barron J. Bichon
Decision-making Models and Methods
Over the last three decades, a wide range of powerful mathematical programming methods have been
developed for solving optimization problems. It has become clear from the literature that no single method
has proven itself to be efficient and robust enough for general application to engineering optimization. In
structural engineering, most design procedures involve selecting values for a set of variables (typically the
size and shape of members in a structure) that describe the behavior and performance of a structure while
satisfying the requirements and specifications imposed by building codes. Mathematically, these design
variables are discrete for most practical design problems. However, most mathematical optimization
applications are suited and developed for continuous design variables. In discrete optimization problems,
searching for the optimal solution may be a difficult task. A few mathematical methods have been
developed for solving problems in discrete optimization. These methods include complete enumeration
techniques, integer programming, branch and bound algorithms, and dynamic programming.
In the last ten years, soft computing techniques have emerged as a powerful tool for discrete structural
optimization. In particular, genetic algorithms have been used in structural optimization by many
researchers. GAs are search algorithms that are based on the concepts of natural selection and genetics.
GAs differ from traditional optimization methods in the following aspects: Gas work with an encoded set of
variables and not with the variables themselves; Gas operate on a population of potential solutions rather
than improve a single solution; Gas use objective function information without any gradient information; and
Gas use a transition scheme that is probabilistic, whereas traditional methods use gradient information.
They have developed a new computational paradigm called ant colony optimization that attempts to model
some of the fundamental capabilities observed in the behavior of ants as a method of stochastic
combinatorial optimization. Ethologists have found that ants, while completely blind, can successfully
navigate between their nest and food sources and, in the process, discover the shortest path between
these. An ant colony determines the shortest path to food sources through a complex set of pheromone
trails. As an ant moves, it deposits pheromone along its path. A single ant will move essentially at random,
however another ant following behind it will detect the pheromone trail left by the lead ant and will be
inclined to follow it. As an ant travels along this path, it lays additional pheromone, reinforcing the
pheromone level of the trail and increasing the probability that subsequent ants will follow this path. This
type of collective feedback and emerging knowledge in the ant colony is a form of autocatalytic simulates
the behavior of ants with the addition of several artificial characteristics: Memory, visibility, and discrete

time, to solve the wellknown traveling salesman problem. The concept of a TSP can be described as
follows: If a traveling salesman must visit a given number of cities, being sure to visit each city only once,
Ant Colony Optimization Frame Design
The advantages of applying ACO to the design of structures are similar to the advantages of other
evolutionary algorithms. In particular, ACO shares the advantages of a GA, which include: Discrete design
variables, open format for constraint statements, and multiple load cases. Like a GA, an ACO algorithm
does not require an explicit relationship between the objective function and the constraints. Instead, the
objective function for a set of design variables is penalized to reflect any violation of the design constraints.
In optimizing a frame structure, the objective is typically to minimize the cost of the structure while satisfying
load and resistance factor design specifications. The cost of a frame is a function of the volume of the
material required for construction. When the topology of the frame is given, the cost of the structure is
directly related to the cross-sectional properties of each member in the frame.
To apply an ACO algorithm to frame design, the concept of a “tour” developed for a TSP is slightly
redefined. Recall that the objective of a TSP is to find the shortest tour that connects all of the cities in a
particular problem. In frame design, the objective is to select W-shapes for each member so that the weight
is minimized and the LRFD specifications, are satisfied. The design of a frame may be mapped into the
form of a TSP by considering the following modifications:
1. There are multiple paths from one node in the frame to another;
2. The order in which the members of a frame are visited by an ant is not important; and
3. A design developed by an ant is not necessarily feasible,
Figure 10 is an illustration of the virtual paths between two nodes in a frame. Each virtual path’s length is
determined by the volume of material (defined by the element length and the cross-sectional area) in the
member connecting nodes i and j. An artificial ant will travel from node i to node j via any one of the virtual
paths. The length of each one of these virtual paths represents different W-shapes from the AISC database
from V1 (the smallest area) to Vn the largest area! where n would be the discrete number section
considered in the design. Table 1 lists the AISC W-shapes, sorted in terms of cross-sectional area and
referenced by an index number h. In terms of a TSP, Figure 10 indicates that the shortestvirtual path is the
smallest volume. In this way, the concept of ACO optimization (as demonstrated in the TSP) can be applied
to the cost optimization of frame structures.
The next modification of a traditional ACO algorithm for the design of frame structures is the topology of the
tour. In a TSP, each ant must visit each city only once during the tour. However, in the application of ACO
to frame design, a tour is complete when an ant visits each member group in the structure. Fig. 11 shows a
one-bay three-story frame with nine members. A tour is completed when an ant selects a W-shape from
Table 1 for each of the nine members in the frame. The tour is developed in a member space where each
member is visited by each ant once. For each element, there are h virtual paths representing each W-
shape in the AISC database. In frame structures, members are often combined into groups where each
member in the group has the same cross-sectional area. In this conceptual example, consider a case
where a different W-shape can be selected for each beam, the left-side columns are grouped together and

the right-side columns are grouped together. Figure 12 would represent the tour in the element group
search space of five groups, where each group defines a set of elements in the frame.
The final modification to the ACO algorithm when applied to frame optimization is to check the feasibility of
the design. In the ACO application to the TSP, every complete tour is a feasible solution to the problem. In
ACO frame design, a tour is defined by a set of AISC W-shapes selected for each member in the structure.
The combination of W-shapes developed in a tour may define a frame that violates LRFD specifications
~AISC 2001!, resulting in an infeasible design. To account for design infeasibility, a penalty function is
applied to the weight of the frame. The penalized weight is formulated to focus the ACO search on designs
with low structural weight that simultaneously satisfy the LRFD specifications and any other design
constraints. This is a key departure from the traditional ACO implementation. (Charles V. Camp, Barron
J. Bichon, 2005)[16]
Figure10: Possible virtual paths scaled by element volume
Figure 11: Possible virtual paths of a nine-element frame
Figure 12: Virtual tour space for a nine-element frame with five element groups

Office Building Retrofitting Strategies: Multicriteria Approach of an Architectural and
Technical Issue
By: Emmanuel Rey
Introduction
The demand for buildings specifically conceived for administrative work only arose in the 1950s. This sector
is therefore, characterized by a relatively late development, but also by major architectural, constructive
and technical developments. The observation of many Swiss office buildings, built during the last two
centuries, has made it possible to globally identify six building categories from different periods which each
present specific characteristic. The connection of these categories with quantitative data reveals that the
major part of the office building stock—almost 65%—is currently in the retrofitting phase, that is to say all
office buildings built between 1947 and 1989.
The Notion of Retrofitting Strategy
As with every construction, office buildings are subject to physical and functional obsolescence. Regular
maintenance can slow down this process, but after a certain time larger intervention become inevitable.
The life duration of the constitutive elements of a building vary considerably. In office buildings, it spans
from some months for certain interior fittings to more than 30 years for façade elements. The necessity of
an intervention on the façade is generally determining for the development of a retrofitting project. The
duration of a retrofitting cycle can therefore be estimated at almost 25–30 years. Operations made at that
time may concern many different elements and aim at many different goals (for example, growth of building
value, adaptation to new standards). In order to structure the approach to this complex process, it is
necessary to use an inclusive notion, namely the idea of a retrofitting strategy. This can be defined as a set
of interventions, dictated by a coherent architectural attitude and technically optimized, in particular through
a full coordination of the interventions on the sheathing surfaces and the technical installations. In a
retrofitting project, the architectural attitude is above all characterized by the option taken with regard to the
initial substance and by the degree of the induced modification. Observation of many projects has shown
that in the case of office building renovations the intervention on the original façade is particularly
significant, as it is linked to work on the technical installations. Three main types of strategy can be
identified:
• the stabilization strategy (STA), which consists of a set of incremental interventions that do not
fundamentally modify either the substance or the appearance of the building;
• the substitution strategy (SUB), which consists of a complete change of certain elements and transforms
simultaneously the substance and the appearance of the building;
• the double-skin façade strategy (DSF), which consists of partially stabilizing the existing façade and
adding a new glass skin. This strategy involves a complete metamorphosis of the building’s appearance,

but maintains a large portion of the original substance. There are several types of double-skin façade.
Given the usual typologies of existing office buildings and a high number of floors, only a device with mono-
lateral ventilation, that works floor-by-floor and presents an acceptable risk of overheating in summer, has
been considered here.
Conclusion
Office building retrofitting strategies are influenced by numerous parameters. The research presented in
this paper has made it possible to scrutinize the issues specific to this complex process and to develop a
structured multicriteria assessment methodology, which simultaneously takes into account environmental,
sociocultural and economic criteria. The application of this method to concrete case studies has made it
possible to demonstrate the interest of the proposed approach, and also to confirm the hypothesis that the
classification of the retrofitting strategies varies according to identified factors (time of building, criteria
weights).
Beyond the tendency shown in the ranking lists, it is necessary to note that other important factors could
also have an influence on the definitive choice. These parameters, that can modify the preference given by
the performance evaluation, refer essentially to user requirements and architectural considerations.
Unlike for new constructions, the question of user requirements also plays a role during the site phase in a
retrofitting project. The possibility of maintaining activities during the operation can be decisive in the final
choice of a strategy. For some types of buildings, the substitution strategy can present a marked
disadvantage, especially for buildings with suspended glass façades (1961–1975 period). These aspects
can be attenuated if the project progresses in clear successive steps.
Other elements related to the building’s use can have great importance in the choice of the most suitable
strategy. Systems based on natural ventilation and passive cooling principles often require greater
collaboration from users and can be unacceptable in certain situations. The choice of passive systems is
sometimes difficult to make, especially in buildings that are already designed with air-conditioning devices
and in buildings that are occupied by many different companies. Passive strategies are adapted for office
buildings with a relatively simple technical degree and with moderate internal heat gains. Conference
rooms, computer rooms and calculation centers should generally have an auxiliary mechanical device. The
design principle should try to concentrate this type of room in one part of the building and to use
technologies with reduced energy consumption (recuperation of extracted air in winter, free cooling in
summer, etc.).
A retrofitting project always generates a principle of modification, which should be chosen not only with
regard to the performance of the envisaged strategy, but also in relation to the degree of degradation, the
architectural quality and the historical value of the original substance. Taking into account these parameters
can sometimes balance the strict application of the results obtained from the ranking lists. In that sense, the
stabilization and the substitution strategy lead the planners towards a more radical decision, either for
conservation or for replacement. In accordance with its degree of performance (energy, comfort, costs,
etc.), notably in the case of a building with suspended glass façades, the double-skin strategy can offer an
interesting alternative, which subtly allies the conservation of the original substance and the metamorphosis
of the building image.

The research has also brought to the fore the strong interaction between the multiple possible interventions
and the considered performance criteria. Looking for a global optimization of the buildings, architects and
engineers should therefore, favor interdisciplinary and integrated approaches. In that sense, the different
case studies have demonstrated that it is possible to improve different aspects of the building in one go. In
particular, it is not contradictory to aim simultaneously at a coherent esthetical approach, a reduction in
energy consumption and an improvement in comfort. (Emmanuel Rey, 2004)[17]
Design of Mine Shaft Elevator

By: Dr. Gerdemeli
Introduction
Even ancient civilizations needed to use vertical transportation in their routine. Hence, humanity used some
kind of lifting systems which were work with the help of human or animal resources or water power.
The first elevator, which had gear system and ropes, was designed by a Greek scientist Archimedes.
Since the 80s AD, elevators began to be used in the Colosseum, in Italy. Gladiators and wild animals were
transported by lifting systems. So, those systems officially started to take an important place in people's
lives.
Even though elevators began to be used, nevertheless, there was a big problem with them. There was not
any safety system in case if the ropes ruptured. It was the main disadvantage of elevators until Elisha Otis
solved this problem with the first safety system that was developed for vertical transport systems. That was
a system with some springs which were connected to carry a rope. Hence, if the rope was torn, the spring
would have pushed the tooth and that tooth would cover the guide rails. Thereby, the car could be easily
stopped without any difficulties.
Kinds of Elevators
• Passenger elevators
• Hoist elevators
• Service elevators
• Car elevators
• Elevators for the disabled
• Mining elevators

Almost all underground mines all over the World have hoisting installations. A small number of these
installations can also be found in open cast mines. Generally, they are mounted on the surface, but some
hoisting installations are located underground in very deep mines.
The ore and waste from the development work are transported to the shaft station and then hoisted to the
ground surface. This, as well as ascent and descent of men, supplies and tools. is accomplished by the
mine hoisting plant. Mining process is made in four steps;
• Searching and finding mineral deposits
• Exploration, discovering of location, amount and removal a coast of the ore body
• Preparation, preparing a map to remove the ore in the most effective way
• Operation, a period of removing the ore body
There are two kinds of mines. When an ore body is close to the surface, then there is no need to have a
mine shaft. By the removing a surface of the territory by heavy construction equipments it would be enough
to gain minerals. This kind of mines is called "opencast mining". Contrarily, if an ore body is very deep, then
there is supposed to be a mine shaft. Even though that costs even more, an opencast mining would not be
used for that deep excavations and that process is called “deep mining".
When it comes to design of a mine shaft, there are two options: circular shafts and horizontal shafts (Figure
13, Figure 14).
Figure 13: A Circular Mine Shaft

Figure 14: A Horizontal Mine Shaft
Circular shaft is the most commonly used one. If the shaft should be deep and shaft diameter is supposed
to be more than 4.5 meters, circular shafts are the best choice. Because of their circular shape, they are
easier by the usage. Rectangular shafts, which use timber supports, are still commonly used. Timber
supports, bricks, and concrete blocks are common types of shaft liners used in the shafts with short life-
span expectancies in a competent rock. However, in a rocks exhibiting of a high lateral pressures, these
liners don’t withstand crafts well due to the bending moments created along the length of the excavation.
Design of Elevator
To prevent a potential danger at mining elevators, their components should be chosen carefully by correct
calculations. Basically a mining elevator can be seen on figure 15.
Figure 15: A Mining Elevator

Suspension ropes are enwrapped around a drum and counterweight is attributed to the end of the
suspension rope and the other end is connected to the car.
During a car (cage in mine) rising, a counterweight accelerates it. Contrarily, when the car descends, the
counterweight slows it up, and in the result the less power consuming of the engine occurs.
Guide rails are indispensable components of elevator systems as well. Not just they balance a car, they
help the car to move properly as well.
Any suspension rope, which is used for elevators, should have at least 1.6 cm dimension and they are
supposed to be high-strength ones.
There are safety mechanisms which work together with brakes and acceleration sensors on elevator
systems. Those sensors should be used in every lifting system. Because of that fact, if the safety system
stops the elevator all the time, then the components of system would be strained and damaged. Therefore,
when a car needs to stop, then acceleration sensors would find out the a high velocity and warn brakes.
After that brakes stop the tambour and the elevator stops.
On the other hand, as a safety gadget "rope brakes" is used.
In case if the velocity increases 15 % more than its normal speed, the tachometer, which is connected to
the suspension rope, steps into the system and sends signals to a controller. Then the controller evokes a
compressor. The compressor pumps air through respectively a water separator, manually switch off and
check valve. A check valve prevents air from turning back to the compressor. Additionally, even when the
compressor stops, on the side of the brake air pressure still remains in a satisfactory level. After the check
valve, air divided into two arms and goes to the magnetic valves. If the valves are energized, the air supply
is shut off. However, in case if energy is shorted, then which goes to the brake, is opened and the
pressured air fill up the rope brake cylinder. The air pushes the pistons and the rope, which is between the
pistons, is stuck, hence, the car stops. (Dr. Gerdemeli, 2012)[18]
Design of Space Elevator

By: Vijaya Kaithi
Abstract
A space elevator is a tall structure that starts from the surface of the Earth and reaches out beyond
geostationary orbit (GEO) in space. The space elevator could be used to deliver payloads to any Earth’s
orbit or send them to any other planet in the solar system. Currently, rocket propulsion is the only system
that can deliver payloads to various destinations in space. The space elevator can provide easier, safer,
faster and cheaper access to space compared to rocket propulsion system.
To date, most of the designs have been based on the simple linear decoupled dynamic analysis of the
space elevator. These simple linear models neglect the Coriolis acceleration, elongation, and the coupling
between the longitudinal and transverse motions. The simple models are useful for calculating the natural
frequencies of the elevator, but they cannot give the accurate dynamic response. A three dimensional
nonlinearly coupled model that includes the Coriolis acceleration, elongation, and the coupling between the
longitudinal and transverse motions is used to accurately model the dynamic response of the elevator.
It is found that the linear models significantly underestimate the response of the system. Therefore, a non-
linearly coupled model must be used to accurately predict the dynamic response of the system. However,
the frequency contents obtained from the linear models are similar to those identified from the nonlinearly
coupled models. Therefore, the linear models can be used to predict the natural frequency of the system for
preliminary designs. (Vijaya Kaithi, 2008)[19]
The Scalability of the Building Retrofit Market: A Review Study

By: Mathew Krieske, Huafen Hu
Introduction
Buildings account for approximately 47% of the primary energy consumption in the United States. As of
2009, 72% of residential buildings were built prior to 1990 and 86% were built prior 2000 in the United
States. As of mid-2011, commercial buildings in the United States had an average age of 50 years.
Reviving the aged commercial building stock and improving our energy resiliency have been identified as
critical needs in the nation’s agenda and numerous initiatives have been launched in support of the effort.
Retrofitting the aged building stock is not only part of the critical task in today’s energy agenda but also
represents a missed opportunity in today’s financial market that could significantly drive our economy.
Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisors estimates the size of current market for 30% energy reduction
retrofits in pre-1980 buildings at $279 billion, with the commercial building sector representing $78 billion of
that potential. A similar report from McKinsey Co. estimates a market potential of just over $300 billion for
retrofits across all building sectors. The most recent study by Navigant research released in 2014 projects
that the size of active retrofit industry will double through 2023.
Building retrofits, also known as building upgrades, refer to when a building owner or investor invests to
improve the performance or condition of an existing building. As one of the most complex man-made
system, buildings are comprised of many subcomponents and subsystems. As such, there are countless
options available in approaching a building retrofit. The upgrade can range from simple and straightforward
options (such as replacing existing light fixtures with more energy efficient alternatives and improving
building insulation) to more sophisticated and complex options (such as re-commissioning or retrofitting the
Heating, Ventilation, and Air-conditioning (HVAC) systems). Retrofits involving upgrades to multiple building
components/systems and more sophisticated options are commonly referred as “deep retrofits” in contrast
to simpler retrofits that only concern few building components and less sophisticated options. Though the
process is more complex, deep retrofits often lead to higher energy savings compared to simple upgrades.
Evidence shows that deep retrofits can reduce building energy consumption by upward of 45%. In addition
to lowered operating expenses resulting from a building retrofit, further benefits are well recognized by
building owners and property investors. Such benefits include increased tenant rents and tenant retention,
increased building market value, reduced exposure to energy price volatility, and better public relations
through sustainable reputation and branding.

Despite the urgent need, increasing support from various governmental and 3rd parties, and vast market
potential for building retrofits, there has been very limited growth observed in building retrofit market. Until
now, only a limited number of buildings are reported to have undergone deep retrofit. Among the 135-high
performance building case studies in the New Buildings Institute database, only 11 are purported to be
deep savings retrofits of existing buildings. Though not all deep retrofit projects are eventually reported to
the public, the low number of deep retrofit case studies in the public database is a sign of slow market. The
majority of current energy efficiency projects are for new construction, reflecting a lack of technological and
market maturity for building retrofits.
Many factors have contributed to the slow growth in building retrofit market, especially in the deep retrofit
market which targets mostly the commercial building stock. The barriers reside in technical domains,
financial domains and also the collaborative aspect between the technical and financial domain
professionals. Responding to the evidently slow market, the Environmental Defense Fund’s Investor
Confidence Project has launched nationwide studies and outlined requirements for reliability and
transparency of savings claims to help motivate private capital into cost-effective deep retrofit market.
Responding to technological barriers, the US Department of Energy has released a series of Advanced
Energy Retrofit Guides that address obstacles to getting started, sourcing capital, identifying cost-effective
savings opportunities, and executing a successful design. Efforts and expertise from a variety of
disciplinary domains, including finance, lending practice, building audit professionals, building modeling
professionals, and public policy analysts, are merging to promote a healthy and scalable building retrofit
market.
This research reports results from a recent review study. An extensive review is conducted to uncover
current building retrofit market status, including current struggling and emerging solutions faced by
associated disciplines of stakeholders. This study also presents an inventory of highlighted deep building
retrofit case studies and best practices. As the majority of existing studies of building retrofits are not for
deep retrofits, this research will report findings about the overall building retrofit market and then make
deductions of current methods and practices applicable to the submarket of deep retrofits. Any method or
case study that is specific to deep retrofit will be reported with clear label “deep retrofit”. The rest of the
paper is organized as follows. Section II gives a brief description of the decision making process in building
retrofit, which introduces all stakeholders involved in a deep retrofit project. Section III presents existing
barriers to current market growth. Conclusions are drawn in Section IV.
Decision-making in Deep Retrofit Projects
Cost-effectiveness is the most common decision-making criterion that stakeholders use to evaluate a
building retrofit project proposal. The rigor of cost-benefit analysis ranges from low resolution methods such
as simple payback time, to higher resolution methods such as Net-Present-Value (NPV) or Internal-Rate-of-
Return (IRR), Life-Cycle-Cost (LCC), or Savings-to-Investment ratio. Market studies show that the simple
payback time is still the most widely used approach in building retrofit project proposal evaluation.
However, the simple payback approach does not consider the impacts of inflation rates, incremental costs,
equipment lifetimes, or additional incentives, subsidies, or credits that federal and state agencies may
provide. Menassa points out that the NPV approach is the most accessible cost-benefit analysis method for
stakeholders whose intent is to maximize return on investment (ROI). But similar to simple payback time
approach, NPV is not able to consider the effect of uncertainties in discount rate, inflation rate, and future

operating costs. Research shows that compared to the simple payback time approach, more detailed cost-
benefit analyses, including NPV, yield more realistic cost-effectiveness comparisons of retrofit alternatives,
and the incorrect use of any cost-benefit analysis approach can distort the investment potential of retrofit
projects. For example, strict IRR requirements for investments may remove cost-effective or economically
resilient retrofit options from the table. Table 1 lists variables that can be included in a higher resolution
cost-benefit analysis and the project phase during which they occur. The variables that affect the post-
installation phase are of particular interest due to their direct influence on energy and operating costs.
Although deep retrofits may achieve a more substantial share of cost savings and NEBs than simpler
retrofits do, the wide spectrum of motivating factors and financial details revealed in existing case study
database slightly distorts the risks and true costs of a deep retrofit as experienced by a typical building
owner. The distortion arises primarily from inconsistency in total project cost per square foot, cost-benefit
analysis approach, form of savings reporting, and the saving reference benchmark used. For example,
when actual savings are reported, the baseline energy use reference may be that of the national average
office building, the current state code building, a similar building via EnergyStar Portfolio Manager, or a
baseline per LEED guideline. While these reference cases may provide a comparative basis by which
energy savings can be measured, as structured in Portfolio Manager, a baseline reference that is not
developed for an individual building cannot provide an accurate baseline for energy savings and ROI
calculations for specific projects.
Besides the common issues discussed above, there are two pressing issues that are particularly important
in building deep retrofit projects: (1) the timing of deep retrofit; and (2) the uncertainties and the resulting
risk of deep retrofit projects
The Importance of Timing in Deep Retrofits
Figure 16: Building Lifetime Opportunities for Deep Retrofits
In addition to the cost of the specific retrofit package, the timing of the upgrade is a key non-technical
parameter that may significantly affect the cost-effectiveness of a deep retrofit. As a building ages, planned
replacements and upgrades to meet building code or tenants’ expectations may require substantial capital
regardless, which when combined with further retrofit plans, may improve the chance of making a lucrative

business case to decision makers. Further, potentially available large subsidies or incentives may make
upgrades more financially affordable. Figure 16 outlines the events and opportunities that create a better
business case for deep retrofit.
It is noted that regardless which motivating factors are more relevant for various segments of the
commercial building sector, timing a deep retrofit with certain events in a building’s lifetime is the most cost-
effective route for a building owner to take.
Uncertainties and the resulting risk in decision making for deep retrofits
Perceived uncertainty in realized energy savings and the risk of underachieving projected energy savings
are the primary factor that prevents investors and building owners from pursuing a retrofit. The ongoing
Environmental Defense Fund’s Investor Confidence Project (ICP) puts a main focus of their protocol
development in addressing the inconsistency in projecting and reporting energy savings for retrofit projects
with the sole intent of clarifying the decision making process for potential investors.
Investment decisions in general follow a prescribed path. That is: determining an opportunity, evaluating for
cost-effectiveness, and managing the associated risk. In building retrofits, energy cost savings is the only
positive cash flow in addition to governmental incentives, subsidies, and credits, when available, and
therefore is the primary variable influencing cost-effectiveness of a retrofit project. The energy cost saving
is calculated by multiplying projected energy saving (as a result of the building retrofit) and the
corresponding energy price. Energy cost saving is difficult to estimate accurately for several reasons:
1) Energy prices are volatile and weather patterns are unpredictable
2) Building energy use(s) are model outputs and inherently uncertain
3) The energy baseline or reference case(s) against which energy and cost savings are measured vary in
scope and representativeness
4) A deep retrofit may be implemented in stages, thereby distorting the savings timeline and ROI
5) Miscellaneous loads, building occupancy and operation, and implementation quality are difficult to
characterize with precision during the design phase, resulting in projected energy use that differ from what
is measured post-retrofit
As such, not only are decision makers faced with the difficult task of determining a resilient and cost-
effective design package, but they also must employ risk management strategies to hedge against the
potential for reduced ROI due to misinformed design-phase projections or uncontrollable post-retrofit
influences. More details on specific significant factors that contribute to uncertainty in energy cost saving
estimate are addressed in Section III. (Mathew Krieske, Huafen Hu, 2014)[20]

REFERENCES:
[1] (Hannah Tiu, Martin Santos, The Design of Training Elevators for Effective Learning, 2015)
[2] (Chris Eduard Miraflor, GRAN AUDITORIO: Proposed Concert Hall with a Large Audience Capacity for
Different Music Genres, 2012)
[3] (Isaac Kurt Velasquez, Auditorium Design, 2009)
[4] (Wylla Tecson, Concrete Shear Wall Design, 2010)

[5] (John Carlo Apit, Jake Andrew Bongalos, Three-Storey Residential Building with Roof Deck, 2014)
[6] (Department of Education and Science Planning and Building Unit, Construction Standards for Schools,
2007)
[7] (Roderick Ho, Theatres: Planning Guidance for Design and Adaptation, 1987)
[8] (Department of Education, Educational Facilities Manual, 2007)
[9] (Michael John Fernando, Analysis of Flexibly Connected Steel Frames, 1975)
[10] (Milton Cruz, Design of Virtual Auditorium, 2001)
[11] (Paul Cooper, Daniel Daly, Laila Ledo, Existing Building Retrofits: Methodology and State-of-the-Art,
2012)
[12] (Gregory Howell, Panagiotis Mitropoulos, Renovation Projects: Design Process Problems and
Improvement Mechanisms, 2002)
[13] (Lina Uzsilaityte, Vytautas Martinaitis, Search for Optimal Solution of Public Building Renovation in
Terms of Life Cycle, 2010)
[14] (Saulius Raslanas, Romualdas Ginevicius, Selection of Windows in Retrofit of Public Buildings by
Applying Multiple Criteria Method, 2006)
[15] (Sarah Slaughter, Design Strategies to Increase Building Flexibility, 2001)
[16] (Charles V. Camp, Barron J. Bichon, Design of Steel Frames Using Ant Colony Optimization, 2005)
[17] (Emmanuel Rey, Office Building Retrofitting Strategies: Multicriteria Approach of an Architectural and
Technical Issue, 2004)
[18] (Dr. Gerdemeli, Design of Mine Shaft Elevator, 2012)
[19] (Vijaya Kaithi, Design of Space Elevator By: Vijaya Kaithi, 2008)
[20] (Mathew Krieske, Huafen Hu, The Scalability of the Building Retrofit Market: A Review Study, 2014)

CHAPTER 3: PROJECT
BACKGROUND

CHAPTER 3: PROJECT BACKGROUND
I. THE PROJECT
The purpose of this project is to retrofit the Bureau of Telecommunications Annex Building located
along Don Alejandro Roces Ave., Quezon City. It is a five-storey building having a floor area of 648 square
meters. The building was previously a government building. The architectural plans and structural plans of
the building are available as input designs.
The project will be using Reinforced Concrete Design specifically the USD (Ultimate Strength
Design) in able to check whether the existing structural members such as slabs, beams, columns of the
building is adequate enough for the new loads it will carry due to the change in occupancy of the building.
From a government building, the structure will be turned into a building used for college or adult
education that will be managed by TESDA. The new building will provide technical education and skills
development to the residents of the city and around the city.

II. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
This project aims to retrofit the five-storey Bureau of Telecommunications Annex Building
Specifically, this project aims to:
i. Apply the principles of Reinforced Concrete Design (USD) in the analysis of different structural
members such as slabs, beams, and columns
ii. Analyze whether the properties of the structural members are adequate enough to carry the new
loads due to the change in occupancy of the structure
iii. Use tools such as Excel and AutoCAD to make the analysis easier
III. THE CLIENT
TESDA is owned and managed by the government. The Technical Education and Skills Development
Authority is the government agency tasked to manage and supervise technical education and skills
development in the Philippines.
IV. PROJECT SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
 Analysis of members such as beams, columns, slabs
 Used Reinforced Concrete Design in analyzing members.
 This project will only use the Ultimate Strength Design (USD) in determining the capacity of the
members.
 Analysis of different structural members in accordance with the local and international codes.

CHAPTER 4: DESIGN INPUTS

CHAPTER 4: DESIGN INPUTS
ARCHITECTURAL PLANS
The architectural plans consist of the ground floor plan, mezzanine floor plan, second floor plan, typical
third to fifth floor plan, perspective and elevations. The ground floor and the mezzanine mostly consist of
the technical supplies. The second to fifth floor is composed of the division offices.
Figure 4.1 shows the ground floor plan. The ground floor consists of the technical supplies room.
Figure 4.2 shows the mezzanine floor plan. The mezzanine floor also consists of the technical supplies
room.
Figure 4.3 shows the second floor plan. It is composed of the division office and the central depot office.
Figure 4.4 shows the typical third to fifth floor plan. The third to fifth floor consists of the different division
offices.
Figure 4.5 shows the perspective of the building.
Figure 4.6 to 4.9 shows the different elevations of the building.

FIGURE 4.1: Ground Floor Plan
FIGURE 4.2: Mezzanine Floor Plan

FIGURE 4.3: Second Floor Plan
FIGURE 4.4: Third to Fifth Floor Plan

FIGURE 4.5: Perspective
FIGURE 4.6: Front Elevation

FIGURE 4.7: Rear Elevation
FIGURE 4.8: Right Side Elevation FIGURE 4.9: Left Side Elevation

STRUCTURAL PLANS
Figure 4.10 shows the foundation plan of the building. It shows the position and the dimension of the
foundation of the building.
Figure 4.11 to 4.13 shows the floor framing plans. It shows the arrangement and the distances of the
beams and girders in each respective floor.

FIGURE 4.10: Foundation Plan
FIGURE 4.11: Mezzanine Floor Framing Plan

FIGURE 4.12: Second to Fifth Floor Framing Plan
FIGURE 4.13: Roof Framing Plan

CHAPTER 5: PRELIMINARY
ANALYSIS

CHAPTER 5: PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
DESIGN CRITERIA
I. DESIGN REFERENCES
The design project conforms to the following codes, standards and references:
1. National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP 2015)
2. American Concrete Institute (ACI) Code
3. American Standards for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
II. MATERIALS AND SPECIFICATIONS
1. Concrete - 27.6 MPa for beams, columns, and elevated slabs
- 20.7 MPa for footings and slab on fill
2. Reinforcing steel - Grade 33 for 10mm Ø and smaller
- Grade 40 for 25mm Ø and larger

III. EARTHQUAKE LOAD
Structures and portions thereof shall, as minimum, be designed and constructed to resist the
effects of seismic ground motions as provided in this section.
Design Occupancy Category Seismic Importance Seismic Importance

Factor, I Factor, Ip
Old IV. Standard Occupancy 1.0 1.0
Structure
New III. Special Occupancy 1.0 1.0
Structure
Soil Profile: Sb
Seismic Zone: 4
Seismic Source Type: A
Na = 1.0 Ca = 0.40Na
Nv = 1.0 Cv = 0.40Nv
The nearest fault system in Quezon City is the Valley Fault System. The said fault system is
capable of producing large magnitude events and is associated with any seismic activity with a magnitude
of 7.2 earthquakes that can strike anytime in the West Valley Fault.

IV. WIND LOAD
III. Special Occupancy Structures
Basic Wind Speed
V = 260 kph
Wind Directionality Factor, Kd
Buildings
Main Wind Force Resisting System
Kd = 0.85
Exposure Category B
Surface Roughness B
Topographic Factor, Kzt
Kzt = 1.0
Gust Effect Factor, G
G = 0.85
Enclosure Classification
Internal Pressure Coefficient, GCpi
Enclosed Buildings +0.18
-0.18
Velocity Pressure Exposure Coefficient, Kz or Kh
Kh = 0.895

V. DEAD LOADS AND LIVE LOADS
FLOOR NAME DEAD LOAD (kPa) LIVE LOAD (kPa)
SLAB-1 (CR) 2.13 1.9
SLAB-2 (ADMISSION OFFICE) 2.06 2.4
SLAB-3 (AUTOMOTIVE SERVICING) 2.06 4.8
SLAB-4 (EXAMINATION ROOM) 1.1 1.9
GROUND FLOOR
SLAB-5 (STORAGE ROOM) 2.06 1.9
SLAB-6 (HALLWAY) 1.1 4.8
SLAB-7 (LOBBIES & CORRIDOR) 1.1 4.8
SLAB-8 (PORCH) 1.1 4.8
SLAB-1 (ADMISSION OFFICE) 2.268 2.4
MEZZANINE FLOOR
SLAB-1 (CR) 2.338 1.9
SLAB-3 (COMPUTER HARDWARE SERVICING) 2.268 2.9
SLAB-4 (PROGRAMMING) 2.268 2.9
SECOND FLOOR SLAB-4 (VISUAL GRAPHIC DESIGN) 2.268 2.9
SLAB-5 (CLASSROOM) 1.308 1.9
SLAB-6 (OFFICE OF THE CHIEF) 2.268 2.4
SLAB-1 (CR) 2.338 1.9
SLAB-3 (CARE GIVER TRAINING) 2.268 1.9
SLAB-4 (MEDICAL TRANSCRIPTION) 2.268 1.9
THIRD FLOOR SLAB-5 (CLASSROOM) 1.308 1.9
SLAB-6 (MASSAGE THERAPY) 2.268 1.9
SLAB-1 (CR) 2.338 1.9
SLAB-3 (BAKING AND PASTRY) 2.268 1.9
SLAB-4 (BARTENDER, BARISTA) 2.268 4.8
FOURTH FLOOR
SLAB-6 (CULINARY ARTS) 2.268 4.8
SLAB-1 (CR) 2.338 1.9
SLAB-3 (BEAUTY CARE) 2.268 2.4
SLAB-4 (COSMETOLOGY) 2.268 2.4
FIFTH FLOOR
SLAB-6 (DRESSMAKING & TAILORING) 2.268 2.4
TABLE 5.1: Dead Loads and Live Loads

ANALYSIS FLOWCHART
Start
Determine the design criteria that will be used
Determine the loads to be used,

dead load, live load, earthquake
load, wind load
Perform separate frame analysis for each type of load
Determine which load combination gives the highest value
U = 1.2DL + 1.6LL
U = 1.2DL + 1.0LL + 1.0E
U = 0.9DL + 1.0W
Check the capacity of the structural members using the old loads
Compare the moments from the new loads to the old loads
YES Is the capacity of NO

new loads greater
than the old
RETROFIT loads? Sections are adequate
End End

SELF WEIGHT COMPUTATION (SLABS)
Sample Computation
Weight of Slab = Unit Weight of Concrete x Thickness of Slab
Weight of Slab = 24 kN/m3 x 0.15m
Weight of Slab = 3.60 kPa
MEZZANINE 2ND - 5TH FLOOR ROOF DECK

NAME THK (mm) SELF WT. (KPA) NAME THK (mm) SELF WT. (KPA) NAME THK (mm) SELF WT. (KPA)
S1 150.00 3.60 S1 150.00 3.60 S1 150.00 3.60
S2 150.00 3.60 S2 150.00 3.60 S2 150.00 3.60
S3 150.00 3.60 S3 150.00 3.60 S3 150.00 3.60
S4 150.00 3.60 S4 150.00 3.60 S4 150.00 3.60
S5 150.00 3.60 S5 150.00 3.60 S5 150.00 3.60
S6 150.00 3.60 S6 150.00 3.60 S6 150.00 3.60
S7 150.00 3.60 S7 150.00 3.60 S7 150.00 3.60
S8 150.00 3.60 S8 150.00 3.60 S8 150.00 3.60
S9 150.00 3.60 S9 150.00 3.60 S9 150.00 3.60
S10 150.00 3.60 S10 150.00 3.60 S10 150.00 3.60
S11 150.00 3.60 S11 150.00 3.60 S11 150.00 3.60
S12 150.00 3.60 S12 150.00 3.60 S12 150.00 3.60
S13 150.00 3.60 S13 150.00 3.60 S13 150.00 3.60
S14 150.00 3.60 S14 150.00 3.60 S14 150.00 3.60
S15 150.00 3.60 S15 150.00 3.60 S15 150.00 3.60
S16 150.00 3.60 S16 150.00 3.60 S16 150.00 3.60
S17 150.00 3.60 S17 150.00 3.60 S17 150.00 3.60
S18 150.00 3.60 S18 150.00 3.60 S18 150.00 3.60
S19 150.00 3.60 S19 150.00 3.60 S19 150.00 3.60
S20 150.00 3.60 S20 150.00 3.60 S20 150.00 3.60
S21 150.00 3.60 S21 150.00 3.60 S21 150.00 3.60
S22 150.00 3.60 S22 150.00 3.60 S22 150.00 3.60
S23 150.00 3.60 S23 150.00 3.60 S23 150.00 3.60
S24 150.00 3.60 S24 150.00 3.60 S24 150.00 3.60
TOTAL 86.40 S25 150.00 3.60 TOTAL 86.40
S26 150.00 3.60
S27 150.00 3.60
S28 150.00 3.60
S29 150.00 3.60
S30 150.00 3.60
S31 150.00 3.60
S32 150.00 3.60
S33 150.00 3.60
S34 150.00 3.60
S35 150.00 3.60
TOTAL 126.00
TABLE 5.2: Self-weight of Slabs

SELF WEIGHT COMPUTATION (BEAMS)
Sample Computation
MB-1
Weight of Beam = Unit Weight of Concrete x Base x Height x Length
Weight of Beam = 24kN/m3 x 0.25m x 0.85m x 12m
Weight of Beam = 61.20 kN
MEZZANINE
Beam Base Height Length BEAM SELF

Designation (m) (m) (m) WT. (kN)
MB-1 0.25 0.85 12.00 61.20

MB-2 0.25 0.50 6.00 18.00
MB-3 0.30 0.55 6.00 23.76
MB-4 0.25 0.55 4.50 14.85
MB-5 0.30 0.55 9.00 35.64
MB-6 0.30 0.55 9.00 35.64
MB-7 0.30 0.55 9.00 35.64
MB-8 0.25 0.55 4.50 14.85
MB-9 0.30 0.55 9.00 35.64
MB-10 0.25 0.55 4.50 14.85
MB-11 0.30 0.55 9.00 35.64
MB-12 0.25 0.55 4.50 14.85
MB-13 0.30 0.55 9.00 35.64
MB-14 0.25 0.55 4.50 14.85
MB-15 0.30 0.55 9.00 35.64
MB-16 0.30 0.55 9.00 35.64
MB-17 0.30 0.55 9.00 35.64
MB-18 0.25 0.55 4.50 14.85
MB-19 0.25 0.85 12.00 61.20
MB-20 0.30 0.55 3.00 11.88
MB-21 0.30 0.55 3.00 11.88
MB-22 0.30 0.55 3.00 11.88
MB-23 0.30 0.55 3.00 11.88
MB-24 0.30 0.55 3.00 11.88
MB-25 0.30 0.55 3.00 11.88
MB-26 0.30 0.55 3.00 11.88
CB-1 0.30 0.55 3.00 11.88
CB-2 0.30 0.55 3.00 11.88
MSB-1 0.20 0.50 6.00 14.40
MG-1 0.25 0.50 3.00 9.00
MG-2 0.25 0.50 3.00 9.00
TABLE 5.3: Self-weight of Beams on Mezzanine

2ND - 5TH FLOOR ROOF DECK
Beam Base Height Length BEAM SELF Beam Base Height Length BEAM SELF
Designation (m) (m) (m) WT. (kN) Designation (m) (m) (m) WT. (kN)
B-1 0.25 1.25 12.00 90.00 RB-1 0.25 0.40 6.00 14.40
B-2 0.25 0.40 6.00 14.40 RB-2 0.25 0.40 12.00 28.80
B-3 0.30 0.40 12.00 34.56 RB-3 0.25 0.40 12.00 28.80
B-4 0.25 0.40 12.00 28.80 RB-4 0.25 0.40 12.00 28.80
B-5 0.25 0.40 12.00 28.80 RB-5 0.25 0.40 12.00 28.80
B-6 0.25 0.40 12.00 28.80 RB-6 0.25 0.40 12.00 28.80
B-7 0.25 0.40 12.00 28.80 RB-7 0.25 0.40 12.00 28.80
B-8 0.25 0.40 12.00 28.80 RB-8 0.25 0.40 12.00 28.80
B-9 0.25 0.40 12.00 28.80 RB-9 0.25 0.40 12.00 28.80
B-10 0.25 0.40 12.00 28.80 MRB-1 0.250 0.400 3.000 7.200
B-11 0.25 0.40 12.00 28.80 MRB-2 0.250 0.400 3.000 7.200
B-12 0.25 0.40 12.00 28.80 HT-1 0.300 0.550 3.000 11.880
B-13 0.25 0.40 12.00 28.80 HT-2 0.300 0.550 3.000 11.880
B-14 0.25 0.40 12.00 28.80 RG-1 0.25 0.50 3.00 9.00
B-15 0.25 0.40 12.00 28.80 RG-2 0.25 0.50 3.00 9.00
B-16 0.25 0.40 12.00 28.80 RG-3 0.25 0.50 3.00 9.00
B-17 0.25 0.40 12.00 28.80
B-18 0.25 0.40 12.00 28.80
B-19 0.25 0.40 6.00 14.40
SB-1 0.25 0.40 6.00 14.40
G-1 0.25 0.50 3.00 9.00
G-2 0.25 0.50 3.00 9.00
TABLE 5.4: Self-Weight of Beams on 2nd-5th floor TABLE 5.5: Self-Weight of Beams on Roof

SELF WEIGHT COMPUTATION (COLUMNS)
Sample Computation
C-1
Weight of Column = Unit Weight of Concrete x Base x Height x Length
Weight of Column = 24kN/m3 x 0.6m x 1m x 3.35m
Weight of Column = 48.24 kN
MEZZANINE 2ND - 5TH FLOOR

Column COLUMN SELF Column COLUMN SELF
Base (m) Height(m) Length (m) Base (m) Height(m) Length (m)
Designation WT. (kN) Designation WT. (kN)
C-1 0.60 1.00 3.35 48.24 C-1 0.60 1.00 3.50 50.40
C-2 0.60 1.00 3.35 48.24 C-2 0.60 1.00 3.50 50.40
C-3 0.60 1.00 3.35 48.24 C-3 0.60 1.00 3.50 50.40
C-4 0.60 1.00 3.35 48.24 C-4 0.60 1.00 3.50 50.40
C-5 0.60 1.00 3.35 48.24 C-5 0.60 1.00 3.50 50.40
C-6 0.60 1.00 3.35 48.24 C-6 0.60 1.00 3.50 50.40
C-7 0.60 1.00 3.35 48.24 C-7 0.60 1.00 3.50 50.40
C-8 0.60 1.00 3.35 48.24 C-8 0.60 1.00 3.50 50.40
C-9 0.60 1.00 3.35 48.24 C-9 0.60 1.00 3.50 50.40
C-10 0.60 1.00 3.35 48.24 C-10 0.60 1.00 3.50 50.40
C-11 0.60 1.00 3.35 48.24 C-11 0.60 1.00 3.50 50.40
C-12 0.60 1.00 3.35 48.24 C-12 0.60 1.00 3.50 50.40
C-13 0.60 1.00 3.35 48.24 C-13 0.60 1.00 3.50 50.40
C-14 0.60 1.00 3.35 48.24 C-14 0.60 1.00 3.50 50.40
C-15 0.60 1.00 3.35 48.24 C-15 0.60 1.00 3.50 50.40
C-16 0.60 1.00 3.35 48.24 C-16 0.60 1.00 3.50 50.40
C-17 0.60 1.00 3.35 48.24 C-17 0.60 1.00 3.50 50.40
C-18 0.60 0.60 3.35 28.94 C-18 0.60 0.60 3.50 30.24
C-19 0.60 0.60 3.35 28.94 C-19 0.60 0.60 3.50 30.24
C-20 0.60 0.60 3.35 28.94 C-20 0.60 0.60 3.50 30.24
C-21 0.60 0.60 3.35 28.94 C-21 0.60 0.60 3.50 30.24
C-22 0.60 0.60 3.35 28.94 C-22 0.60 0.60 3.50 30.24
C-23 0.60 0.60 3.35 28.94 C-23 0.60 0.60 3.50 30.24
C-24 0.60 0.60 3.35 28.94 C-24 0.60 0.60 3.50 30.24
TABLE 5.6: Self-Weight of Columns on Mezzanine TABLE 5.7: Self-Weight of Beams on 2nd-5th floor

SELF WEIGHT COMPUTATION (WALLS)
Sample Computation
Weight of Walls = Unit Weight of Concrete x Base x Height x Thickness
Weight of Walls = 24kN/m3 x 3m x 3.35m x 0.2m
Weight of Walls = 48.24 Kn
MEZZANINE 2ND - 5TH FLOOR

Wall Thickness WALL SELF Wall Thickness WALL SELF
Base (m) Height (m) Base (m) Height (m)
Designation (m) WT. (kN) Designation (m) WT. (kN)
ExW-1 3.00 3.35 0.20 48.24 ExW-1 3.00 3.50 0.20 50.40
ExW-2 3.00 3.35 0.20 48.24 ExW-2 3.00 3.50 0.20 50.40
ExW-3 6.00 3.35 0.20 96.48 ExW-3 6.00 3.50 0.20 100.80
ExW-4 6.00 3.35 0.20 96.48 ExW-4 6.00 3.50 0.20 100.80
ExW-5 6.00 3.35 0.20 96.48 ExW-5 6.00 3.50 0.20 100.80
ExW-6 6.00 3.35 0.20 96.48 ExW-6 6.00 3.50 0.20 100.80
ExW-7 6.00 3.35 0.20 96.48 ExW-7 6.00 3.50 0.20 100.80
ExW-8 6.00 3.35 0.20 96.48 ExW-8 6.00 3.50 0.20 100.80
ExW-9 6.00 3.35 0.20 96.48 ExW-9 6.00 3.50 0.20 100.80
ExW-10 3.00 3.35 0.20 48.24 ExW-10 3.00 3.50 0.20 50.40
ExW-11 3.00 3.35 0.20 48.24 ExW-11 3.00 3.50 0.20 50.40
ExW-12 3.50 3.35 0.20 56.28 ExW-12 3.50 3.50 0.20 58.80
ExW-13 2.00 3.35 0.20 32.16 ExW-13 2.00 3.50 0.20 33.60
ExW-14 3.50 3.35 0.20 56.28 ExW-14 3.50 3.50 0.20 58.80
ExW-15 2.00 3.35 0.20 32.16 ExW-15 2.00 3.50 0.20 33.60
ExW-16 6.00 3.35 0.20 96.48 ExW-16 6.00 3.50 0.20 100.80
ExW-17 6.00 3.35 0.20 96.48 ExW-17 6.00 3.50 0.20 100.80
ExW-18 6.00 3.35 0.20 96.48 ExW-18 6.00 3.50 0.20 100.80
ExW-19 6.00 3.35 0.20 96.48 ExW-19 6.00 3.50 0.20 100.80
ExW-20 6.00 3.35 0.20 96.48 ExW-20 6.00 3.50 0.20 100.80
ExW-21 6.00 3.35 0.20 96.48 ExW-21 6.00 3.50 0.20 100.80
ExW-22 6.00 3.35 0.20 96.48 ExW-22 6.00 3.50 0.20 100.80
ExW-23 6.00 3.35 0.20 96.48 ExW-23 6.00 3.50 0.20 100.80
ExW-24 1.00 3.35 0.20 16.08 ExW-24 1.00 3.50 0.20 16.80
ExW-25 5.00 3.35 0.20 80.40 ExW-25 5.00 3.50 0.20 84.00
TABLE 5.8: Self-Weight of Walls on Mezzanine TABLE 5.9: Self-Weight of Walls on 2nd-5th floor

WIND LOAD COMPUTATION
Velocity pressure, qz or qh
qz = 0.613KzKztKdV2
V = 260 km/h = 72.22 m/s
qz = 0.613 (0.895)(1.0)(0.85)(72.22)2
qz = 2432.30 N/m2
External Pressure Coefficient, Cp
Windward Wall Cp = 0.8
Leeward Wall = Cp = -0.27
Wind Pressure, p
p = qGCp – qi(GCpi)
Windward
p = 2432.3(0.85)(0.8)-2432.3(0.18)
p = 1216.15 Pa = 1.216 kPa
Leeward
p = 2432.3(0.85)(-0.27)-2432.3(-0.18)
p = -120.40 Pa = - 0.1204 kPa
TRIBUTARY WINDWARD LEEWARD TOTAL TOTAL FORCE

FRAME
AREA (m2) (kPa) (kPa) WINDWARD (kPa) LEEWARD (kPa) (kN)
G-1 93.15 1.216 -0.1204 113.27 -11.22 102.05
G-2 31.05 1.216 -0.1204 37.76 -3.74 34.02
G-3 124.2 1.216 -0.1204 151.03 14.95 136.08
TABLE 5.10: Wind Forces

EARTHQUAKE LOAD COMPUTATION
DESIGNATION WEIGHT (kN) HEIGHT (m) Wh2 STOREY FORCES (kN)
ROOF 2317.2 24.9 1436687.172 804.309
5TH 4394.64 20.7 1883059.294 1054.204
4TH 4394.64 17.2 1300110.298 727.849
3RD 4394.64 13.7 824829.9816 461.769
2ND 4394.64 10.2 457218.3456 255.967
MEZZANINE 4460.988 6.7 200253.7513 112.109
TOTAL 24356.748 6102158.842
TABLE 5.11: Storey Forces
Vb = CvIW / RT W (MEZZ-ROOF) = 24356.748 kN
Cv = 0.40Nv Nv = 1.0
I = 1.0
R = 3.5
T = Ct x hn3/4
Vb = 0.40(1.0)(1.0)(24356.748) / 3.5(0.0731)(24.9)3/4
Vb = 3416.208 kN
E = ρEh + Ev ρ=
Ab = 648 m2
= = = 0.3086
ρ= ρ = 1.22
Eh = = Eh = 5.27 kPa
Ev = 0.5CaID = 0.5(0.40Na)(1.0)D
Ev = 0.20D

DEAD LOAD AND LIVE LOAD DISTRIBUTION
Sample Computation
S1
m = S/L = 3000/6000 = 0.5
m ≤ 0.5 One Way Slab
AREA = 6m x 3m = 18m2
SELF WEIGHT = Unit Weight of Concrete x Slab thickness
SELF WEIGHT = 24 kN/m3 x 0.15 m
SELF WEIGHT = 3.6 kPa
Total Dead Load = Dead Load + Self Weight of Slab
Total Dead Load = 2.338 kPa + 3.6 kPa
Total Dead Load = 5.938 kPa
Dead Load Distribution
One-way slab
Rectangular Load = QS/2 = 5.938 kPa (0.3m)/2
Rectangular Load (Dead Load) = 8.91 kN/m
Live Load Distribution
One-way slab
Rectangular Load = QS/2 = 1.9 kPa (0.3m)/2
Rectangular Load (Live Load) = 2.85 kN/m

2ND-FLOOR
NAME OF LONGER SHORT SIDE AREA SELF WT.
DL(KPA) LL(KPA) TYPE OF SLAB THK (mm)
SLAB SIDE (mm) (mm) (m^2) (KPA)
S1 2.338 1.9 6000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 18 150 3.6
S2 2.338 1.9 6000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 18 150 3.6
S3 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S4 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S5 2.268 2.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S6 2.268 2.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S7 2.268 2.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S8 2.268 2.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S9 2.268 2.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S10 2.268 2.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S11 2.268 2.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S12 2.268 2.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S13 1.308 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S14 1.308 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S15 1.308 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S16 1.308 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S17 2.268 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S18 2.268 1.9 4500 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 13.5 150 3.6
S19 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S20 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S21 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S22 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S23 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S24 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S25 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S26 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S27 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S28 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S29 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S30 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S31 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S32 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S33 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S34 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S35 1.308 4.8 6000 2000 ONE-WAY SLAB 12 150 3.6
TABLE 5.12: Load Distribution on Slabs for 2nd floor

2ND-FLOOR
NAME OF TOTAL DEAD TOTAL LIVE DEAD LOAD DISTRIBUTION (kN-m) LIVE LOAD DISTRIBUTION (kN-m)
SLAB LOAD (kN) LOAD (kN) RECTANGULAR TRIANGULAR TRAPEZOIDAL RECTANGULAR TRIANGULAR TRAPEZOIDAL
S1 5.938 1.9 8.91 2.85
S2 5.938 1.9 8.91 2.85
S3 3.6 1.9 5.4 2.85
S4 3.6 1.9 5.4 2.85
S5 5.868 2.9 8.8 4.35
S6 5.868 2.9 8.8 4.35
S7 5.868 2.9 8.8 4.35
S8 5.868 2.9 8.8 4.35
S9 5.868 2.9 8.8 4.35
S10 5.868 2.9 8.8 4.35
S11 5.868 2.9 8.8 4.35
S12 5.868 2.9 8.8 4.35
S13 4.908 1.9 7.36 2.85
S14 4.908 1.9 7.36 2.85
S15 4.908 1.9 7.36 2.85
S16 4.908 1.9 7.36 2.85
S17 5.868 1.9 8.8 2.85
S18 5.868 1.9 5.87 7.5 1.9 2.43
S19 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S20 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S21 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S22 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S23 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S24 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S25 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S26 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S27 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S28 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S29 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S30 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S31 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S32 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S33 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S34 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S35 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.8

3RD FLOOR
NAME OF LONGER SIDE SHORT SIDE SELF WT.
DL(KPA) LL(KPA) TYPE OF SLAB AREA (m^2) THK (mm)
SLAB (mm) (mm) (KPA)
S1 2.338 1.9 6000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 18 150 3.6
S2 2.338 1.9 6000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 18 150 3.6
S3 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S4 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S5 2.268 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S6 2.268 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S7 2.268 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S8 2.268 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S9 2.268 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S10 2.268 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S11 2.268 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S12 2.268 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S13 1.308 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S14 1.308 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S15 2.268 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S16 2.268 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S17 2.268 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S18 2.268 1.9 4500 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 13.5 150 3.6
S19 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S20 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S21 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S22 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S23 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S24 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S25 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S26 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S27 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S28 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S29 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S30 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S31 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S32 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S33 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S34 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S35 1.308 4.8 6000 2000 ONE-WAY SLAB 12 150 3.6
TABLE 5.13: Load Distribution on Slabs for 3rd floor

3RD FLOOR
S1 5.938 1.9 8.91 2.85

S2 5.938 1.9 8.91 2.85
S3 3.6 1.9 5.4 2.85
S4 3.6 1.9 5.4 2.85
S5 5.868 1.9 8.8 2.85
S6 5.868 1.9 8.8 2.85
S7 5.868 1.9 8.8 2.85
S8 5.868 1.9 8.8 2.85
S9 5.868 1.9 8.8 2.85
S10 5.868 1.9 8.8 2.85
S11 5.868 1.9 8.8 2.85
S12 5.868 1.9 8.8 2.85
S13 4.908 1.9 7.36 2.85
S14 4.908 1.9 7.36 2.85
S15 5.868 1.9 8.8 2.85
S16 5.868 1.9 8.8 2.85
S17 5.868 1.9 8.8 2.85
S18 5.868 1.9 5.87 7.5 1.9 2.43
S19 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S20 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S21 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S22 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S23 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S24 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S25 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S26 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S27 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S28 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S29 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S30 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S31 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S32 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S33 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S34 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S35 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.8

4TH FLOOR
S1 2.338 1.9 6000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 18 150 3.6
S2 2.338 1.9 6000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 18 150 3.6
S3 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S4 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S5 2.268 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S6 2.268 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S7 2.268 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S8 2.268 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S9 2.268 4.8 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S10 2.268 4.8 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S11 2.268 4.8 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S12 2.268 4.8 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S13 1.308 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S14 1.308 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S15 2.268 4.8 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S16 2.268 4.8 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S17 2.268 4.8 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S18 2.268 1.9 4500 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 13.5 150 3.6
S19 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S20 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S21 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S22 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S23 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S24 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S25 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S26 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S27 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S28 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S29 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S30 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S31 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S32 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S33 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S34 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S35 1.308 4.8 6000 2000 ONE-WAY SLAB 12 150 3.6
TABLE 5.14: Load Distribution on Slabs for 4th floor

4TH FLOOR
S1 5.938 1.9 8.91 2.85

S2 5.938 1.9 8.91 2.85
S3 3.6 1.9 5.4 2.85
S4 3.6 1.9 5.4 2.85
S5 5.868 1.9 8.8 2.85
S6 5.868 1.9 8.8 2.85
S7 5.868 1.9 8.8 2.85
S8 5.868 1.9 8.8 2.85
S9 5.868 4.8 8.8 7.2
S10 5.868 4.8 8.8 7.2
S11 5.868 4.8 8.8 7.2
S12 5.868 4.8 8.8 7.2
S13 4.908 1.9 7.36 2.85
S14 4.908 1.9 7.36 2.85
S15 5.868 4.8 8.8 7.2
S16 5.868 4.8 8.8 7.2
S17 5.868 4.8 8.8 7.2
S18 5.868 1.9 5.87 7.5 1.9 2.43
S19 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S20 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S21 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S22 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S23 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S24 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S25 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S26 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S27 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S28 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S29 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S30 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S31 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S32 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S33 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S34 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S35 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.8

5TH FLOOR
S1 2.338 1.9 6000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 18 150 3.6
S2 2.338 1.9 6000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 18 150 3.6
S3 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S4 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S5 2.268 2.4 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S6 2.268 2.4 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S7 2.268 2.4 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S8 2.268 2.4 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S9 2.268 2.4 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S10 2.268 2.4 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S11 2.268 2.4 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S12 2.268 2.4 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S13 1.308 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S14 1.308 1.9 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S15 2.268 2.4 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S16 2.268 2.4 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S17 2.268 2.4 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27 150 3.6
S18 2.268 1.9 4500 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 13.5 150 3.6
S19 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S20 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S21 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S22 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S23 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S24 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S25 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S26 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S27 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S28 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S29 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S30 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S31 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S32 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S33 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S34 1.308 4.8 3000 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 9 150 3.6
S35 1.308 4.8 6000 2000 ONE-WAY SLAB 12 150 3.6
TABLE 5.15: Load Distribution on Slabs for 5th floor

5TH FLOOR
S1 5.938 1.9 8.91 2.85

S2 5.938 1.9 8.91 2.85
S3 3.6 1.9 5.4 2.85
S4 3.6 1.9 5.4 2.85
S5 5.868 2.4 8.8 3.6
S6 5.868 2.4 8.8 3.6
S7 5.868 2.4 8.8 3.6
S8 5.868 2.4 8.8 3.6
S9 5.868 2.4 8.8 3.6
S10 5.868 2.4 8.8 3.6
S11 5.868 2.4 8.8 3.6
S12 5.868 2.4 8.8 3.6
S13 4.908 1.9 7.36 2.85
S14 4.908 1.9 7.36 2.85
S15 5.868 2.4 8.8 3.6
S16 5.868 2.4 8.8 3.6
S17 5.868 2.4 8.8 3.6
S18 5.868 1.9 5.87 7.5 1.9 2.43
S19 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S20 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S21 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S22 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S23 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S24 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S25 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S26 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S27 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S28 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S29 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S30 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S31 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S32 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S33 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S34 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.91 4.8 4.8
S35 4.908 4.8 4.91 4.8

MEZZANINE
S1 3.576 7.200 6000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 18.0 150.0 3.6
S2 3.576 7.200 6000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 18.0 150.0 3.6
S3 2.268 2.400 4500 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 13.5 150.0 3.6
S4 2.268 2.400 4500 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 13.5 150.0 3.6
S5 2.268 2.400 4500 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 13.5 150.0 3.6
S6 2.268 2.400 4500 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 13.5 150.0 3.6
S7 2.268 2.400 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27.0 150.0 3.6
S8 2.268 2.400 4500 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 13.5 150.0 3.6
S9 2.268 2.400 4500 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 13.5 150.0 3.6
S10 2.268 2.400 4500 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 13.5 150.0 3.6
S11 2.268 2.400 4500 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 13.5 150.0 3.6
S12 2.268 2.400 4500 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 13.5 150.0 3.6
S13 2.268 2.400 4500 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 13.5 150.0 3.6
S14 2.268 2.400 4500 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 13.5 150.0 3.6
S15 2.268 2.400 4500 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 13.5 150.0 3.6
S16 2.268 2.400 4500 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 13.5 150.0 3.6
S17 2.268 2.400 4500 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 13.5 150.0 3.6
S18 2.268 2.400 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27.0 150.0 3.6
S19 2.268 2.400 9000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 27.0 150.0 3.6
S20 2.268 2.400 4500 3000 TWO-WAY SLAB 13.5 150.0 3.6
S21 2.268 1.900 6000 2000 ONE-WAY SLAB 12.0 150.0 3.6
S22 2.268 1.900 6000 3000 ONE-WAY SLAB 18.0 150.0 3.6
CS23 1.378 2.900 6000 2250 ONE-WAY SLAB 13.5 150.0 3.6
CS24 1.378 2.900 6000 3300 TWO-WAY SLAB 19.8 150.0 3.6
TABLE 5.16: Load Distribution on Slabs for Mezzanine
MEZZANINE
S1 10.76 10.76 10.80
S2 10.76 10.76 10.80
S3 5.87 5.87 7.50 2.40 3.07
S4 5.87 5.87 7.50 2.40 3.07
S5 8.80 8.80 3.60
S6 5.87 5.87 7.50 2.40 3.07
S7 8.80 8.80 3.60
S8 5.87 5.87 7.50 2.40 3.07
S9 5.87 5.87 7.50 2.40 3.07
S10 5.87 5.87 7.50 2.40 3.07
S11 5.87 5.87 7.50 2.40 3.07
S12 5.87 5.87 7.50 2.40 3.07
S13 5.87 5.87 7.50 2.40 3.07
S14 5.87 5.87 7.50 2.40 3.07
S15 5.87 5.87 7.50 2.40 3.07
S16 5.87 5.87 7.50 2.40 3.07
S17 5.87 5.87 7.50 2.40 3.07
S18 8.80 8.80 3.60
S19 8.80 8.80 3.60
S20 5.87 5.87 7.50 2.40 3.07
S21 5.87 5.87 2.85
S22 8.80 8.80 2.14
CS23 5.60 5.60 4.79
CS24 5.48 5.48 7.39 3.19 4.30

LOAD DISTRIBUTION TO BEAMS
Sample Computation (Beams)
B-2
Total Dead Load = Beam Self Weight + Left/North Load + Right/South Load
Total Dead Load = 2.1 + 8.91 + 8.91
Total Dead Load = 19.92 kN/m
Total Live Load = Left/North Load + Right/South Load
Total Live Load = 2.85 + 2.85
Total Live Load = 5.7 kN/m
2ND FLOOR
Beam BEAM SELF APPLIED DEAD LOAD (kN-m) TOTAL DEAD APPLIED LIVE LOAD (kN-m) TOTAL LIVE
Designation WT. (kN- LEFT/NORTH RIGHT/SOUTH LOAD (kN- LEFT/NORTH RIGHT/SOUTH LOAD (kN-
B-1 7.5 8.91 7.2
B-2 2.1 8.91 8.91 19.92 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-3 2.88 8.91 8.91 20.7 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-4 @ 9m 2.4 5.4 5.4 13.2 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-4 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-5 @ 9m 2.4 5.4 8.8 16.6 2.85 4.35 7.2
B-5 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-6 @ 9m 2.4 8.8 8.8 20 4.35 4.35 8.7
B-6 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-7 @ 9m 2.88 8.8 8.8 20.48 4.35 4.35 8.7
B-7 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-8 @ 9m 2.4 8.8 8.8 20 4.35 4.35 8.7
B-8 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-9 @ 9m 2.88 8.8 8.8 20.48 4.35 4.35 8.7
B-9 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-10 @ 9m 2.4 8.8 8.8 20 4.35 4.35 8.7
B-10 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-11 @ 9m 2.88 8.8 8.8 20.48 4.35 4.35 8.7
B-11 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-12 @ 9m 2.4 8.8 8.8 20 4.35 4.35 8.7
B-12 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-13 @ 9m 2.88 8.8 7.36 19.04 4.35 2.85 7.2
B-13 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-14 @ 9m 2.4 7.36 7.36 17.12 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-14 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-15 @ 9m 2.88 7.36 7.36 17.6 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-15 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-16 @ 9m 2.4 7.36 7.36 17.12 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-16 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-17 @ 9m 2.88 7.36 8.8 19.04 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-17 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-18 @ 9m 2.4 16.3 5.28
B-18 @ 3m 2.4 8.8 2.85
B-19 2.4 4.91 7.31 4.8 4.8
TABLE 5.17: Load Distribution on Beams for 2nd floor

3RD FLOOR
Designation WT. (kN-m) LEFT/NORTH RIGHT/SOUTH LOAD (kN-m) LEFT/NORTH RIGHT/SOUTH LOAD (kN-m)
B-1 7.5 8.91 7.2
B-2 2.1 8.91 8.91 19.92 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-3 2.88 8.91 8.91 20.7 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-4 @ 9m 2.4 5.4 5.4 13.2 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-4 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-5 @ 9m 2.4 5.4 8.8 16.6 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-5 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-6 @ 9m 2.4 8.8 8.8 20 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-6 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-7 @ 9m 2.88 8.8 8.8 20.48 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-7 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-8 @ 9m 2.4 8.8 8.8 20 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-8 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-9 @ 9m 2.88 8.8 8.8 20.48 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-9 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-10 @ 9m 2.4 8.8 8.8 20 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-10 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-11 @ 9m 2.88 8.8 8.8 20.48 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-11 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-12 @ 9m 2.4 8.8 8.8 20 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-12 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-13 @ 9m 2.88 8.8 7.36 19.04 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-13 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-14 @ 9m 2.4 7.36 7.36 17.12 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-14 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-15 @ 9m 2.88 7.36 8.8 19.04 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-15 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-16 @ 9m 2.4 8.8 8.8 20 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-16 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-17 @ 9m 2.88 8.8 8.8 20.48 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-17 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-18 @ 9m 2.4 16.3 5.26
B-18 @ 3m 2.4 8.8 2.43
B-19 2.4 4.91 7.31 4.8 4.8
TABLE 5.18: Load Distribution on Beams for 3rd floor

4TH FLOOR
Designation WT. (kN- LEFT/NORTH RIGHT/SOUTH LOAD (kN-m) LEFT/NORTH RIGHT/SOUTH LOAD (kN-m)
B-1 7.5 8.91 7.2
B-2 2.1 8.91 8.91 19.92 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-3 2.88 8.91 8.91 20.7 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-4 @ 9m 2.4 5.4 5.4 13.2 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-4 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-5 @ 9m 2.4 5.4 8.8 16.6 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-5 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-6 @ 9m 2.4 8.8 8.8 20 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-6 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-7 @ 9m 2.88 8.8 8.8 20.48 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-7 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-8 @ 9m 2.4 8.8 8.8 20 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-8 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-9 @ 9m 2.88 8.8 8.8 20.48 2.85 7.2 10.05
B-9 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-10 @ 9m 2.4 8.8 8.8 20 7.2 7.2 14.4
B-10 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-11 @ 9m 2.88 8.8 8.8 20.48 7.2 7.2 14.4
B-11 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-12 @ 9m 2.4 8.8 8.8 20 7.2 7.2 14.4
B-12 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-13 @ 9m 2.88 8.8 7.36 19.04 7.2 2.85 10.05
B-13 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-14 @ 9m 2.4 7.36 7.36 17.12 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-14 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-15 @ 9m 2.88 7.36 8.8 19.04 2.85 7.2 10.05
B-15 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-16 @ 9m 2.4 8.8 8.8 20 7.2 7.2 14.4
B-16 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-17 @ 9m 2.88 8.8 8.8 20.48 2.85 7.2 10.05
B-17 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-18 @ 9m 2.4 16.3 9.63
B-18 @ 3m 2.4 8.8 7.2
B-19 7.5 4.91 12.41 4.8 4.8
TABLE 5.19: Load Distribution on Beams for 4th floor

5TH FLOOR
B-1 7.5 8.91 16.41 2.85 2.85
B-2 2.1 8.91 8.91 19.92 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-3 2.88 8.91 8.91 20.7 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-4 @ 9m 2.4 5.4 5.4 13.2 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-4 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-5 @ 9m 2.4 5.4 8.8 16.6 2.85 3.6 6.45
B-5 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-6 @ 9m 2.4 8.8 8.8 20 3.6 3.6 7.2
B-6 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-7 @ 9m 2.88 8.8 8.8 20.48 3.6 3.6 7.2
B-7 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-8 @ 9m 2.4 8.8 8.8 20 3.6 3.6 7.2
B-8 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-9 @ 9m 2.88 8.8 8.8 20.48 3.6 3.6 7.2
B-9 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-10 @ 9m 2.4 8.8 8.8 20 3.6 3.6 7.2
B-10 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-11 @ 9m 2.88 8.8 8.8 20.48 3.6 3.6 7.2
B-11 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-12 @ 9m 2.4 8.8 8.8 20 3.6 3.6 7.2
B-12 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-13 @ 9m 2.88 8.8 7.36 19.04 3.6 2.85 6.45
B-13 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-14 @ 9m 2.4 7.36 7.36 17.12 2.85 2.85 5.7
B-14 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-15 @ 9m 2.88 7.36 8.8 19.04 2.85 3.6 6.45
B-15 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-16 @ 9m 2.4 8.8 8.8 20 3.6 3.6 7.2
B-16 @ 3m 2.4 4.91 4.91 12.22 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-17 @ 9m 2.88 8.8 8.8 20.48 3.6 3.6 7.2
B-17 @ 3m 2.88 4.91 4.91 12.7 4.8 4.8 9.6
B-18 @ 9m 2.4 16.3 5.26
B-18 @ 3m 2.4 8.8 2.43
B-19 7.5 4.91 12.41 4.8 4.8
TABLE 5.20: Load Distribution on Beams for 5th floor

MEZZANINE
MB-1 5.10 0.00 10.76 15.86 0.00 10.80 10.80
MB-2 2.10 10.76 10.76 23.63 10.80 10.80 21.60
MB-3 2.88 10.76 7.50 21.14 10.80 2.40 13.20
MB-4 2.40 7.50 7.50 17.40 2.40 2.40 4.80
MB-5 1.08 7.50 8.80 17.38 2.40 3.60 6.00
MB-6 2.88 8.80 8.80 20.48 3.60 3.60 7.20
MB-7 2.88 8.80 5.87 17.55 3.60 5.87 9.47
MB-8 2.40 5.87 5.87 14.14 2.40 2.40 4.80
MB-9 2.88 5.87 5.87 14.62 2.40 2.40 4.80
MB-10 2.40 5.87 5.87 14.14 2.40 2.40 4.80
MB-11 2.88 5.87 5.87 14.62 2.40 2.40 4.80
MB-12 2.40 5.87 5.87 14.14 2.40 2.40 4.80
MB-13 2.88 5.87 5.87 14.62 2.40 2.40 4.80
MB-14 2.40 5.87 5.87 14.14 2.40 2.40 4.80
MB-15 2.88 5.87 5.87 14.62 2.40 2.40 4.80
MB-16 2.88 5.87 8.80 17.55 2.40 3.60 6.00
MB-17 2.88 8.80 8.80 20.48 3.60 3.60 7.20
MB-18 2.40 8.80 5.87 17.07 3.60 2.40 6.00
MB-19 5.10 5.87 0.00 10.97 2.40 0.00 2.40
MB-20 2.88 0.00 8.80 11.68 0.00 3.60 3.60
MB-21 2.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MB-22 2.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MB-23 2.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
MB-24 2.88 0.00 0.00 2.88 0.00 0.00 0.00
MB-25 2.88 0.00 0.00 2.88 0.00 0.00 0.00
MB-26 2.88 0.00 0.00 2.88 0.00 0.00 0.00
CB-1 2.88 0.00 11.20 14.08 0.00 8.18 8.18
CB-2 2.88 0.00 8.18 11.06 0.00 6.99 6.99
TABLE 5.21: Load Distribution on Beams for Mezzanine

FRAME ANALYSIS FLOWCHART
Start
Fixed end moments for each loaded span

are determined assuming both ends fixed
Determine the Relative Stiffness
K=
Calculate the Distribution Factor: DF =
DF = 0 for a fixed end, DF = 1 for an end pin or roller support
Assume that all joints at which the moments in the

connecting spans must be determined are initially locked.
Determine the moment that is needed to put

each joint in equilibrium.
Release or unlock the joints and distribute the

counterbalancing moments into connecting span at
each joint using distribution factors.
Carry these moments in each span over to

its other end by multiplying each.
Repeat this cycle of locking and

unlocking the joints until the summation
of moment equals to zero.
End

Sample Computation (Beams)
Grid 3 Second Floor
FOR DEAD LOAD
Beams - MDM with 2 spans

SECOND FLOOR
16.6 12.7
9 3
K 0.444444444 1.333333333
A B C
DF 0 0.25 0.75 0
FEM -112.05 112.05 -9.525 9.525
DIST 0 -25.6313 -76.8938 0
CO -12.8156 0 0 -38.4469
DIST 0 0 0 0
FINAL MOMENT -124.866 86.41875 -86.4188 -28.9219
EMR 4.271875 -4.27188 38.44688 -38.4469
SSR 74.7 74.7 19.05 19.05
REACTIONS 78.97188 127.925 -19.3969
62.98247865 -20.3009373
TABLE 5.22: Moment Distribution on Grid 3 2nd floor for Dead Load

FOR LIVE LOAD
Beams - MDM with 2 spans

SECOND FLOOR
7.2 9.6
9 3
K 0.444444444 1.333333333
A B C
DF 0 0.25 0.75 0
FEM -48.6 48.6 -7.2 7.2
DIST 0 -10.35 -31.05 0
CO -5.175 0 0 -15.525
DIST 0 0 0 0
FINAL MOMENT -53.775 38.25 -38.25 -8.325
EMR 1.725 -1.725 15.525 -15.525
SSR 32.4 32.4 14.4 14.4
REACTIONS 34.125 60.6 -1.125
27.09414063 -20.3398875
TABLE 5.23: Moment Distribution on Grid 3 2nd floor for Live Load

Sample Computation (Girder)
Girder 1 Second Floor
For Dead Load
DEAD LOAD
G-1
2ND FLOOR
47.880625 72.743125 72.743125 72.743125 72.743125 62.213125 62.213125
6 6 6 6 6 6 6
0.666666667 0.666666667 0.666666667 0.666666667 0.666666667 0.666666667 0.666666667
DF 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0
FEM -35.9105 35.91047 -54.5573 54.55734 -54.5573 54.55734 -54.5573 54.55734 -54.5573 54.55734 -46.6598 46.65984 -46.6598 46.65984
Dist 1 0 9.323438 9.323438 00 00 00 -3.94875 -3.94875 00 0
COM 2 4.661719 00 4.661719 0 00 0 -1.97438 00 -1.97438 0 0
Dist 2 0 00 -2.33086 -2.33086 00 0.987187 0.987187 00 0.987187 0.987187 0
COM 3 0 0 -1.16543 00 -1.16543 0.493594 00 0.493594 0.493594 00 0.493594
Dist 3 0 0.582715 0.582715 00 0.335918 0.335918 00 -0.49359 -0.49359 00 0
COM 4 0.291357 00 0.291357 0.167959 00 0.167959 -0.2468 00 -0.2468 0 0
Dist 4 0 00 -0.22966 -0.22966 00 0.039419 0.039419 00 0.123398 0.123398 0
COM 5 0 0 -0.11483 00 -0.11483 0.019709 00 0.019709 0.061699 00 0.061699
Dist 5 0 0.057415 0.057415 00 0.04756 0.04756 00 -0.0407 -0.0407 00 0
COM 6 0.028707 00 0.028707 0.02378 00 0.02378 -0.02035 00 -0.02035 0 0
Dist 6 0 00 -0.02624 -0.02624 00 -0.00171 -0.00171 00 0.010176 0.010176 0
COM 7 0 0 -0.01312 00 -0.01312 -0.00086 00 -0.00086 0.005088 00 0.005088
Dist 7 0 0.006561 0.006561 00 0.006989 0.006989 00 -0.00212 -0.00212 00 0
COM 8 0.00328 00 0.00328 0.003495 00 0.003495 -0.00106 00 -0.00106 0 0
Dist 8 0 00 -0.00339 -0.00339 00 -0.00122 -0.00122 00 0.000529 0.000529 0
COM 9 0 0 -0.00169 00 -0.00169 -0.00061 00 -0.00061 0.000264 00 0.000264
Dist 9 0 0.000847 0.000847 00 0.001152 0.001152 00 0.000172 0.000172 00 0
Final Moment-30.9254 45.88144 -45.8814 56.95226 -56.9523 53.65389 -53.6539 55.77625 -55.7763 50.58419 -50.5842 45.53855 -45.5386 47.22049
EMR -2.49267 2.492673 -1.84514 1.845136 0.549728 -0.54973 -0.35373 0.353727 0.865344 -0.86534 0.840939 -0.84094 -0.28032 0.280323
SSR 23.94031 23.94031 36.37156 36.37156 36.37156 36.37156 36.37156 36.37156 36.37156 36.37156 31.10656 31.10656 31.10656 31.10656
Reactions 21.448 60.959 75.138 71.840 73.962 67.454 61.092 31.387
MIDSPAN MOMENT 33.41751336 57.69783633 53.81161403 54.39961776 55.934467 45.2583163 46.94016648
TABLE 5.24: Moment Distribution on Girder 1 2nd floor for Dead Load

For Live Load
LIVE LOAD
G-1
2ND FLOOR
20.540625 31.509375 31.509375 31.509375 31.509375 20.540625 20.540625
6 6 6 6 6 6 6
0.666666667 0.666666667 0.666666667 0.666666667 0.666666667 0.666666667 0.666666667
DF 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0
FEM -15.4055 15.40547 -23.632 23.63203 -23.632 23.63203 -23.632 23.63203 -23.632 23.63203 -15.4055 15.40547 -15.4055 15.40547
Dist 1 0 4.113281 4.113281 00 00 00 -4.11328 -4.11328 00 0
COM 2 2.056641 00 2.056641 0 00 0 -2.05664 00 -2.05664 0 0
Dist 2 0 00 -1.02832 -1.02832 00 1.02832 1.02832 00 1.02832 1.02832 0
COM 3 0 0 -0.51416 00 -0.51416 0.51416 00 0.51416 0.51416 00 0.51416
Dist 3 0 0.25708 0.25708 00 00 00 -0.51416 -0.51416 00 0
COM 4 0.12854 00 0.12854 0 00 0 -0.25708 00 -0.25708 0 0
Dist 4 0 00 -0.06427 -0.06427 00 0.12854 0.12854 00 0.12854 0.12854 0
COM 5 0 0 -0.03214 00 -0.03214 0.06427 00 0.06427 0.06427 00 0.06427
Dist 5 0 0.016068 0.016068 00 -0.01607 -0.01607 00 -0.06427 -0.06427 00 0
COM 6 0.008034 00 0.008034 -0.00803 00 -0.00803 -0.03214 00 -0.03214 0 0
Dist 6 0 00 00 00 0.020084 0.020084 00 0.016068 0.016068 0
COM 7 0 00 00 0 0.010042 00 0.010042 0.008034 00 0.008034
Dist 7 0 00 00 -0.00502 -0.00502 00 -0.00904 -0.00904 00 0
COM 8 0 00 0 -0.00251 00 -0.00251 -0.00452 00 -0.00452 0 0
Dist 8 0 00 0.001255 0.001255 00 0.003515 0.003515 00 0.002259 0.002259 0
COM 9 0 0 0.000628 00 0.000628 0.001757 00 0.001757 0.00113 00 0.00113
Dist 9 0 -0.00031 -0.00031 00 -0.00119 -0.00119 00 -0.00144 -0.00144 00 0
Final Moment -13.2123 19.79158 -19.7916 24.73391 -24.7339 23.06408 -23.0641 24.80195 -24.8019 19.52007 -19.5201 14.23028 -14.2303 15.99306
EMR -1.09655 1.096555 -0.82372 0.823721 0.278305 -0.2783 -0.28964 0.289644 0.880313 -0.88031 0.881631 -0.88163 -0.2938 0.293797
SSR 10.27031 10.27031 15.75469 15.75469 15.75469 15.75469 15.75469 15.75469 15.75469 15.75469 10.27031 10.27031 10.27031 10.27031
Reactions 9.174 26.298 32.611 30.941 32.679 26.026 19.365 10.564
MIDSPAN MOMENT 14.30901845 25.00131531 23.36506589 23.33104797 25.10305526 13.93576278 15.69926559
TABLE 5.25: Moment Distribution on Girder 1 2nd floor for Live Load
BEAM ANALYSIS FLOWCHART
Start

load, wind load
Perform load distribution to distribute loads to beams
Perform separate frame analysis

using Moment Distribution Method for
each type of load
Determine which load combination gives the highest value of Mu
U = 1.2DL + 1.6LL
U = 1.2DL + 1.0LL + 1.0E
U = 1.2DL + 1.6LL + .5WL
Check the capacity of the old structural members
2
Compare the moments from the new loads to the capacity of

old structural members
Is the capacity of new

YES loads greater than NO
the capacity of old
structural members?
Sections are
RETROFIT
adequate
End End
CHECKING THE CAPACITY OF BEAMS
Sample Computation
MEZZANINE
MG-1 : SECTION 2
Assume:
As1 will yield
As2 will yield
As3 will not yield
a < 40
Solution:
Check Assumptions:
MG-2 : SECTION 4
Assume:
As1 will yield
As2 will yield
As3 will not yield
a < 40
Revise Assumption:
As1 will yield
As2 will yield
As3 will not yield
40 < a < 250
Check Assumptions:
MG-3 : SECTION 5
Assume:
As1 will yield
As2 will yield
As3 will not yield
a < 40 but c > 40
Check Assumptions:
MG-3 : SECTION 6
Assume:
As1 will yield
As2 will yield
As will not yield
a < 40
Check Assumptions:
MG-5 : SECTION 9
Assume
As1 will yield
As2 will yield
As3 will not yield
a < 40
Revise Assumption:
As1 will yield (tension)
As2 will yield (tension)
As3 will not yield (compression)
Assume
Assume
Check Assumptions:
MG-5 : SECTION 10
Assume:
As1 will yield
As2 will yield
As will not yield
a < 40
Check Assumptions:
MEZZANINE BEAM -4 : SECTION 3
Assume:
As1 will yield
As2 will yield
As will yield
a < 40
Solve for Ac:
Check Assumptions:
BEAM -1 : SECTION 1
Assume:
As1 will yield
As2 will yield
As will not yield
As4 will not yield
a > 40
Solve for a & c:
Check Assumptions:
BEAM -2 : SECTION 3
Assume:
As1 will yield
As2 will yield
As will not yield
a < 40
Check Assumptions:
BEAM -2 : SECTION 4
Assume:
As1 will yield
As2 will yield
As will not yield
a > 40
Solve for a & c:
Check Assumptions:
BEAM - : SECTION 10
Assume:
As1 will yield
As2 will yield
As will not yield
a > 40
Solve for a & c:
Check Assumptions:
ROOF BEAM – 1
Assume:
As1 will yield
As2 will not yield
a > 40
Check Assumptions:
SUMMARY OF BEAM MOMENTS
(Old Occupancy Loads)
FLOOR NAME MOMENT, Mu (kN-m)
MB1 230.925
MB2 230.925
MB3 230.925
MB4 230.925
MB5 230.925
MB6 230.925
MEZZANINE FLOOR MB7 230.925
MB8 230.925
MG1 173.853
MG2 272.25
MG3 233.739
MG4 173.853
MG5 293.311
B1 261.847
B2 1460.644
B3 236.925
B4 231.698
SECOND - FIFTH
B5 231.698
FLOOR
B6 310.612
G1 231.698
G2 231.698
G3 231.698
RB1 172.78
RB2 256.834
RB2a 193.027
ROOF DECK
RB3 142.977
RB4 73.384
RB5 172.78
TABLE 5.26: Summary of Beam Moments
SUMMARY OF BEAM MOMENTS
(New Occupancy Loads)
MOMENT (kN-m)
FLOOR NAME
DEAD LOAD LIVE LOAD EARTHQUAKE LOAD WIND LOAD
MB-1 40.1 32.4
MB-2 106.33 106.65
MB-3 126.85 96.48 281.337 151.551
MB-4 44.034 18.225
MB-5 155.9 77.3 281.337 151.551
MB-6 207.401 102.06
MB-7 149.7 105.9 281.337 151.551
MB-8 35.782 18.225
MB-9 185.2 94.39 281.337 151.551
MB-10 35.782 18.225
MEZZANINE FLOOR MB-11 159.6 87.4 281.337 151.551
MB-12 35.782 18.225
MB-13 185.2 94.39 281.337 151.551
MB-14 35.782 18.225
MB-15 185.2 94.39 281.337 151.551
MB-16 177.694 89.91
MB-17 155.6 76.55 281.337 151.551
MB-18 307.26 151.2
G1 68.017 73.053 82.81 39.284
G2 69.222 69.222 74.01 11.884
G3 68.295 68.295 94.51 111.775
B1 40.1 32.4
B2 80.19 25.65
B3 124.2 51.48 456.652 235.649
B4 103.674 57.774
B5 62.982 27.094 456.652 235.649
B6 155.313 80.556
B7 77.867 32.848 456.652 235.649
B8 155.313 80.556
B9 77.869 32.848 456.652 235.649
B10 155.313 80.556
SECOND FLOOR B11 77.869 32.848 456.652 235.649
B12 155.313 80.556
B13 72.343 27.094 456.652 235.649
B14 133.443 57.774
B15 66.819 21.341 456.652 235.649
B16 133.443 57.774
B17 72.343 21.341 456.652 235.649
B18 21.663 9.492
G1 57.698 25.103 128.82 54.043
G2 27.26 12.565 114.92 16.129
G3 136.115 66.31 173.02 134.389
TABLE 5.26: Summary of New Beam Moments
MOMENT (kN-m)
FLOOR NAME
B1 40.1 32.4
B2 80.19 25.65
B3 124.2 51.48 562.737 276.666
B4 103.67 57.774
B5 62.982 21.341 562.737 276.666
B6 155.313 57.774
B7 77.867 21.341 562.737 276.666
B8 103.67 57.774
B9 77.869 21.341 562.737 276.666
B10 103.67 57.774
THIRD FLOOR B11 77.869 21.341 562.737 276.666
B12 155.313 57.774
B13 72.343 21.341 562.737 276.666
B14 133.443 57.774
B15 72.343 21.341 562.737 276.666
B16 133.443 57.774
B17 77.867 21.341 562.737 276.666
B18 21.663 9.492
G1 57.69 47.24 150.94 57.388
G2 27.249 35.063 134.39 16.935
G3 138.8 112.9 173.02 127.11
B1 40.1 32.4
B2 80.19 25.65
B3 124.2 51.48 570.123 271.052
B4 103.674 57.774
B5 62.982 36.3 570.123 271.052
B6 155.313 57.774
B7 77.867 21.341 570.123 271.052
B8 155.313 57.774
B9 77.869 36.3 570.123 271.052
B10 155.313 123.84
FOURTH FLOOR B11 77.869 36.2 570.123 271.052
B12 155.313 123.84
B13 72.343 36.3 570.123 271.052
B14 133.443 57.774
B15 72.343 36.3 570.123 271.052
B16 155.313 123.84
B17 77.867 36.3 570.123 271.052
B18 21.663 9.492
G1 68.02 67.08 143.396 51.775
G2 27.249 17.7 127.307 15.164
G3 138.8 112.96 164.911 98.344
MOMENT (kN-m)
FLOOR NAME
B1 40.1 32.4
B2 80.19 25.65
B3 124.2 51.48 521.513 244.522
B4 103.674 57.774
B5 62.982 24.218 521.513 244.522
B6 155.313 57.774
B7 77.897 27.094 521.513 244.522
B8 155.313 57.774
B9 77.869 27.094 521.513 244.522
B10 155.313 69.165
FIFTH FLOOR B11 77.869 27.094 521.513 244.522
B12 155.313 69.165
B13 72.343 24.218 521.513 244.522
B14 133.443 57.774
B15 72.343 24.218 521.513 244.522
B16 155.313 69.165
B17 77.867 27.094 521.513 244.522
B18 21.663 9.492
G1 57.69 20.89 117.978 43.239
G2 27.25 15.134 103.956 12.633
G3 138.8 57.19 136.786 64.767
RG-1 5.64 4.89 115.562 36.558
RG-2 1.75 1.52 86.337 10.68
RG-3 14.78 12.83 134.953 39.966
RB-1 27.68 465.866 218.04
RB-2 27.68 465.866 218.04
ROOF RB-3 27.68 465.866 218.04
RB-4 27.68 465.866 218.04
RB-5 27.68 465.866 218.04
RB-6 27.68 465.866 218.04
RB-7 27.68 465.866 218.04
RB-8 27.68 465.866 218.04
LOAD COMBINATION FOR BEAMS
LOAD COMBINATION
FLOOR NAME USE Mu (kN-m)
DL AND LL W/ EARTHQUAKE W/ WIND
MB-1 99.96 88.54 99.96 99.96
MB-2 298.24 255.51 298.24 298.24
MB-3 306.59 617.3 382.36 617.3
MB-4 82 79.87 82 82
MB-5 310.76 638.79 386.54 638.79
MB-6 412.18 392.42 412.18 412.18
MB-7 349.08 658.71 424.86 658.71
MB-8 72.1 68.32 72.1 72.1
MB-9 373.26 696.9 449.04 696.9
MB-10 72.1 68.32 72.1 72.1
MEZZANINE FLOOR MB-11 331.36 654.07 407.14 654.07
MB-12 72.1 68.32 72.1 72.1
MB-13 373.26 696.9 449.04 696.9
MB-14 72.1 68.32 72.1 72.1
MB-15 373.26 696.9 449.04 696.9
MB-16 357.09 338.68 357.09 357.09
MB-17 309.2 637.62 384.98 637.62
MB-18 610.63 581.36 610.63 610.63
G1 198.51 269.31 218.15 269.31
G2 193.82 256.43 199.76 256.43
G3 191.23 279.21 247.11 279.21
B1 99.96 88.54 99.96 99.96
B2 137.27 137.92 137.27 137.92
B3 231.41 782.48 349.23 782.48
B4 216.85 202.92 216.85 216.85
B5 118.93 672.38 236.75 672.38
B6 315.27 297.99 315.27 315.27
B7 146 698.98 263.82 698.98
B8 315.27 297.99 315.27 315.27
B9 146 698.98 263.82 698.98
B10 315.27 297.99 315.27 315.27
SECOND FLOOR B11 146 698.98 263.82 698.98
B12 315.27 297.99 315.27 315.27
B13 130.16 685.49 247.99 685.49
B14 252.57 244.59 252.57 252.57
B15 114.33 672 232.15 672
B16 252.57 244.59 252.57 252.57
B17 120.96 679.74 238.78 679.74
B18 41.18 39.82 41.18 41.18
G1 109.4 263.04 136.42 263.04
G2 52.82 190.93 60.88 190.93
G3 269.43 467.96 336.63 467.96
TABLE 5.27: Load Combinations for Beams
LOAD COMBINATION
B1 99.96 88.54 99.96 99.96
B2 137.27 137.92 137.27 137.92
B3 231.41 911.9 369.74 911.9
B4 216.84 202.91 216.84 216.84
B5 109.72 796.05 248.06 796.05
B6 278.81 275.21 278.81 278.81
B7 127.59 816.89 265.92 816.89
B8 216.84 202.91 216.84 216.84
B9 127.59 816.9 265.92 816.9
B10 216.84 202.91 216.84 216.84
THIRD FLOOR B11 127.59 816.9 265.92 816.9
B12 278.81 275.21 278.81 278.81
B13 120.96 809.16 259.29 809.16
B14 252.57 244.59 252.57 252.57
B15 120.96 809.16 259.29 809.16
B16 252.57 244.59 252.57 252.57
B17 127.59 816.89 265.92 816.89
B18 41.18 39.82 41.18 41.18
G1 144.81 312.15 173.51 312.15
G2 88.8 237.17 97.27 237.17
G3 347.2 518.3 410.76 518.3
B1 99.96 88.54 99.96 99.96
B2 137.27 137.92 137.27 137.92
B3 231.41 920.91 366.93 920.91
B4 216.85 202.92 216.85 216.85
B5 133.66 820.02 269.18 820.02
B6 278.81 275.21 278.81 278.81
B7 127.59 825.9 263.11 825.9
B8 278.81 275.21 278.81 278.81
B9 151.52 840.87 287.05 840.87
B10 384.52 341.28 384.52 384.52
FOURTH FLOOR B11 151.36 840.77 286.89 840.77
B12 384.52 341.28 384.52 384.52
B13 144.89 833.13 280.42 833.13
B14 252.57 244.59 252.57 252.57
B15 144.89 833.13 280.42 833.13
B16 384.52 341.28 384.52 384.52
B17 151.52 840.86 287.05 840.86
B18 41.18 39.82 41.18 41.18
G1 188.95 337.25 214.84 337.25
G2 61.02 211.16 68.6 211.16
G3 347.3 508.47 396.47 508.47
LOAD COMBINATION
B1 99.96 88.54 99.96 99.96
B2 137.27 137.92 137.27 137.92
B3 231.41 861.61 353.67 861.61
B4 216.85 202.92 216.85 216.85
B5 114.33 748.64 236.59 748.64
B6 278.81 275.21 278.81 278.81
B7 136.83 772.4 259.09 772.4
B8 278.81 275.21 278.81 278.81
B9 136.79 772.36 259.05 772.36
B10 297.04 286.6 297.04 297.04
FIFTH FLOOR B11 136.79 772.36 259.05 772.36
B12 297.04 286.6 297.04 297.04
B13 125.56 761.74 247.82 761.74
B14 252.57 244.59 252.57 252.57
B15 125.56 761.74 247.82 761.74
B16 297.04 286.6 297.04 297.04
B17 136.79 772.35 259.05 772.35
B18 41.18 39.82 41.18 41.18
G1 102.65 245.59 124.27 245.59
G2 56.91 180.11 63.23 180.11
G3 258.06 418.39 290.45 418.39
RG-1 14.59 153.77 32.87 153.77
RG-2 4.53 109.3 9.87 109.3
RG-3 38.26 198.16 58.25 198.16
RB-1 33.22 607.11 142.24 607.11
RB-2 33.22 607.11 142.24 607.11
ROOF RB-3 33.22 607.11 142.24 607.11
RB-4 33.22 607.11 142.24 607.11
RB-5 33.22 607.11 142.24 607.11
RB-6 33.22 607.11 142.24 607.11
RB-7 33.22 607.11 142.24 607.11
RB-8 33.22 607.11 142.24 607.11
DESIGN MOMENTS FOR BEAMS
(New Occupancy Loads)
FLOOR NAME Mu (kN-m) FLOOR NAME USE Mu (kN-m)
MB-1 99.96 B1 99.96

MB-2 298.24 B2 137.92
MB-3 617.3 B3 911.9
MB-4 82 B4 216.84
MB-5 638.79 B5 796.05
MB-6 412.18 B6 278.81
MB-7 658.71 B7 816.89
MB-8 72.1 B8 216.84
MB-9 696.9 B9 816.9
MB-10 72.1 B10 216.84
MEZZANINE FLOOR MB-11 654.07 THIRD FLOOR B11 816.9
MB-12 72.1 B12 278.81
MB-13 696.9 B13 809.16
MB-14 72.1 B14 252.57
MB-15 696.9 B15 809.16
MB-16 357.09 B16 252.57
MB-17 637.62 B17 816.89
MB-18 610.63 B18 41.18
G1 269.31 G1 312.15
G2 256.43 G2 237.17
G3 279.21 G3 518.3
B1 99.96 B1 99.96
B2 137.92 B2 137.92
B3 B3 920.91
782.48
B4 B4 216.85
216.85
B5 B5 820.02
672.38
B6 278.81
B6 315.27
B7 825.9
B7 698.98
B8 278.81
B8 315.27
B9 840.87
B9 698.98
B10 384.52
B10 315.27
FOURTH FLOOR B11 840.77
SECOND FLOOR B11 698.98
B12 384.52
B12 315.27
B13 833.13
B13 685.49
B14 252.57
B14 252.57
B15 833.13
B15 672
B16 384.52
B16 252.57
B17 840.86
B17 679.74
B18 41.18
B18 41.18 G1 337.25
G1 263.04 G2 211.16
G2 190.93 G3 508.47
G3 467.96
TABLE 5.28: Design Moments for Beams (New Occupancy Loads)
B1 99.96
B2 137.92
B3 861.61
B4 216.85
B5 748.64
B6 278.81
B7 772.4
B8 278.81
B9 772.36
B10 297.04
FIFTH FLOOR B11 772.36
B12 297.04
B13 761.74
B14 252.57
B15 761.74
B16 297.04
B17 772.35
B18 41.18
G1 245.59
G2 180.11
G3 418.39
RG-1 153.77
RG-2 109.3
RG-3 198.16
RB-1 607.11
RB-2 607.11
ROOF RB-3 607.11
RB-4 607.11
RB-5 607.11
RB-6 607.11
RB-7 607.11
RB-8 607.11
TABLE 5.28: Design Moments for Beams (New Occupancy Loads)
COLUMN ANALYSIS FLOWCHART
Start

load, wind load
Perform separate frame analysis

using Moment Distribution Method for
each type of load
Determine which load combination gives the highest value of Pu
U = 1.2DL + 1.6LL
U = 1.2DL + 1.0LL + 1.0E
U = 1.2DL + 1.6LL + .5WL
Check the capacity of the old structural members
2
Compare the axial capacity from the new loads to the

capacity of old structural members
Is the capacity of new

YES loads greater than NO
the capacity of old
structural members?
Sections are
RETROFIT
adequate
End End
CHECKING CAPACITY OF COLUMNS
COLUMN -1
COLUMN -2
SUMMARY OF COLUMN AXIAL CAPACITIES

(Old Occupancy Loads)
COLUMN
BASE (m) HEIGHT (m) Pu (kN)
DESIGNATION
C-1 1000 600 8516.072
C-2 600 600 5892.885
TABLE 5.29: Summary of Column Capacities
LOAD COMBINATION FOR COLUMNS
GROUND FLOOR TO SECOND FLOOR
LOAD COMBINATION
COLUMN DL LL EARTHQUAKE WIND USE Pu (kN)
C-1 154.65 43.374 116.377 77.1 254.98 401.86 293.53 401.86
C-2 139.93 43.299 185.145 106.876 237.19 465.08 290.63 465.08
C-3 172.658 73.91 182.792 105.005 325.45 538.64 377.95 538.64
C-4 169.36 72.241 180.959 103.56 318.82 530.11 370.6 530.11
C-5 171.48 73.979 179.477 102.442 324.14 533.01 375.36 533.01
C-6 158.09 60.151 178.351 101.63 285.95 499.07 336.76 499.07
C-7 144.843 46.315 177.735 101.176 247.92 465.93 298.5 465.93
C-8 122.027 37.52 111.926 73.657 206.46 344.91 243.29 344.91
C-9 14.665 5.471 437.389 297.67 26.35 559.62 175.19 559.62
C-10 53.667 4.04 498.595 392.962 70.86 687.46 267.35 687.46
C-11 47.1 3.291 496.182 392.327 61.79 674.57 257.95 674.57
C-12 55.4 6.048 494.239 391.824 76.16 686.58 272.07 686.58
C-13 63.49 14.201 492.608 391.421 98.91 704.07 294.62 704.07
C-14 62.04 13.06 491.291 391.111 95.34 699.29 290.9 699.29
C-15 64.32 14.2 490.293 390.886 99.9 702.41 295.35 702.41
C-16 44.68 6.04 489.746 390.76 63.28 666.08 258.66 666.08
C-17 117.81 34.5 432.219 382.773 196.57 726.74 387.96 726.74
C-18 242.75 112.735 501.222 306.915 471.68 1064.08 625.13 1064.08
C-19 331.64 155.01 580.052 384.558 645.98 1326.97 838.26 1326.97
C-20 169.36 72.241 577.777 380.312 318.82 1014.23 508.97 1014.23
C-21 169.36 72.241 576.092 378.577 318.82 1012.18 508.11 1012.18
C-22 169.36 72.241 574.812 377.287 318.82 1010.62 507.46 1010.62
C-23 169.36 72.241 574.114 378.457 318.82 1009.76 508.05 1009.76
C-24 169.36 72.241 497.507 303.078 318.82 916.3 470.36 916.3
TABLE 5.30: Load Combinations for Columns from Ground to 2nd floor
SECOND FLOOR TO THIRD FLOOR
LOAD COMBINATION
C-1 145.65 44.261 73.135 42.196 245.6 337.4 266.7 337.4
C-2 139.924 48.33 122.289 61.214 245.24 393.42 275.84 393.42
C-3 172.68 44.57 120.747 61.096 278.53 433.63 309.08 433.63
C-4 169.3 62.334 119.498 60.939 302.89 445.14 333.36 445.14
C-5 171.75 86.474 118.515 60.768 344.46 471.51 374.84 471.51
C-6 157.11 59.63 117.799 60.62 283.94 423.3 314.25 423.3
C-7 156.71 59.36 117.377 60.535 283.03 421.95 313.3 421.95
C-8 135.233 57.119 70.188 41.822 253.67 332.07 274.58 332.07
C-9 14.67 5.471 231.914 193.036 26.36 308.94 122.88 308.94
C-10 57.32 4.05 275.554 198.644 75.26 420.47 174.59 420.47
C-11 50.74 3.291 273.968 198.599 66.15 408.57 165.45 408.57
C-12 55.4 7.6 272.644 198.538 78.64 417.79 177.91 417.79
C-13 63.5 11.9 271.559 198.469 95.24 432.1 194.47 432.1
C-14 62.02 10.81 270.709 198.403 91.72 427.9 190.92 427.9
C-15 64.32 11.95 270.091 198.35 96.3 431.51 195.48 431.51
C-16 44.68 7.59 269.727 198.32 65.76 399.21 164.92 399.21
C-17 117.61 34.5 228.512 192.861 196.33 477.94 292.76 477.94
C-18 216.55 82.53 267.873 154.751 391.91 712.51 469.28 712.51
C-19 331.69 103.72 324.385 195.542 563.98 963.84 661.75 963.84
C-20 189.22 144.89 322.902 194.616 458.89 803.74 556.2 803.74
C-21 334.31 186.26 321.752 194.666 699.19 1046.83 796.52 1046.83
C-22 308.35 128.44 320.911 194.68 575.52 951.64 672.86 951.64
C-23 307.4 138.5 320.413 195.681 590.48 959.76 688.32 959.76
C-24 245.69 123.1 265.394 154.842 491.79 790.85 569.21 790.85
TABLE 5.31: Load Combinations for Columns from 2nd to 3rd floor
THIRD FLOOR TO FOURTH FLOOR
LOAD COMBINATION
C-1 151.08 61.28 70.617 40.315 279.34 358.94 299.5 358.94
C-2 112.26 65.95 117.383 57.56 240.23 366.32 269.01 366.32
C-3 153.55 85.53 116.066 57.631 321.11 442.1 349.92 442.1
C-4 149.75 97.14 115.02 57.644 335.12 447.11 363.95 447.11
C-5 145.34 93.6 114.239 57.643 324.17 436.45 352.99 436.45
C-6 163.74 118.65 113.677 57.633 386.33 486.57 415.14 486.57
C-7 150.12 105.1 113.205 57.578 348.3 453.38 377.09 453.38
C-8 129.31 77.38 68.047 40.33 278.98 341.43 299.15 341.43
C-9 14.67 5.471 229.549 192.446 26.36 306.06 122.58 306.06
C-10 57.32 4.05 270.937 197.499 75.26 414.84 174.01 414.84
C-11 50.74 3.291 269.561 197.518 66.15 403.19 164.91 403.19
C-12 55.4 7.6 268.448 197.518 78.64 412.67 177.4 412.67
C-13 63.5 11.9 267.585 197.512 95.24 427.25 194 427.25
C-14 62.02 10.81 266.931 197.504 91.72 423.29 190.47 423.29
C-15 64.32 11.95 266.456 197.495 96.3 427.07 195.05 427.07
C-16 44.68 7.59 266.052 197.475 65.76 394.73 164.5 394.73
C-17 117.61 34.5 226.627 192.435 196.33 475.64 292.55 475.64
C-18 216.55 82.53 265.169 145.326 391.91 709.21 464.57 709.21
C-19 331.69 103.72 319.127 177.126 563.98 957.42 652.54 957.42
C-20 189.22 144.89 317.885 176.61 458.89 797.62 547.19 797.62
C-21 334.31 186.26 316.919 176.633 699.19 1040.94 787.5 1040.94
C-22 308.35 128.44 316.233 176.655 575.52 945.93 663.85 945.93
C-23 307.4 138.5 315.664 177.212 590.48 953.97 679.09 953.97
C-24 245.69 123.1 262.953 145.38 491.79 787.87 564.48 787.87
TABLE 5.32: Load Combinations for Columns from 3rd to 4th floor
FOURTH FLOOR TO FIFTH FLOOR
LOAD COMBINATION
C-1 145.44 27.33 62.312 37.395 218.26 306.97 236.95 306.97
C-2 139.92 51.23 101.522 51.748 249.87 370.97 275.75 370.97
C-3 172.68 54.17 101.299 51.817 293.89 419.51 319.8 419.51
C-4 169.29 57.23 100.865 51.803 294.72 417.29 320.62 417.29
C-5 171.75 61.39 100.576 51.831 304.32 424.54 330.24 424.54
C-6 157.11 53.17 100.455 51.896 273.6 395.68 299.55 395.68
C-7 156.7 53.13 100.199 51.87 273.05 394.75 298.98 394.75
C-8 135.23 47.83 61.544 37.466 238.8 312.24 257.54 312.24
C-9 14.67 14.665 221.929 191.574 41.07 305.96 136.86 305.96
C-10 57.32 11.9 256.439 195.763 87.82 405 185.71 405
C-11 50.74 2.43 256.162 195.782 64.78 385.98 162.67 385.98
C-12 55.4 3.33 255.673 195.775 71.81 392.81 169.7 392.81
C-13 63.5 6.657 255.289 195.779 86.85 407.01 184.74 407.01
C-14 62.02 24.23 322.588 292.917 113.19 504.62 259.65 504.62
C-15 64.32 1.17 322.479 292.938 79.06 484.64 225.53 484.64
C-16 44.68 1.8 254.698 195.807 56.5 375.08 154.4 375.08
C-17 117.61 34.64 220.949 191.599 196.56 468.85 292.36 468.85
C-18 216.55 86.07 255.965 134.363 397.57 701.52 464.75 701.52
C-19 331.69 119.93 301.48 155.741 589.92 952.1 667.79 952.1
C-20 189.22 126.62 301.337 155.718 429.66 759.16 507.52 759.16
C-21 334.31 135.56 300.986 155.68 618.07 970.8 695.91 970.8
C-22 308.35 120.54 300.837 155.719 562.88 919.25 640.74 919.25
C-23 307.4 120.43 300.534 155.749 561.57 917.44 639.44 917.44
C-24 245.69 62.26 255.391 134.37 394.44 717.8 461.63 717.8
TABLE 5.33: Load Combinations for Columns from 4th to 5th floor
FIFTH FLOOR TO ROOF
LOAD COMBINATION
C-1 3.761 3.263 55.22 35.137 9.73 75.9 27.3 75.9
C-2 7.522 6.525 87.309 46.993 19.47 123.57 42.96 123.57
C-3 7.522 6.525 151.449 131.216 19.47 201.82 85.07 201.82
C-4 7.522 6.525 151.407 131.159 19.47 201.77 85.05 201.77
C-5 7.522 6.525 87.251 46.758 19.47 123.5 42.85 123.5
C-6 7.522 6.525 87.406 46.856 19.47 123.69 42.89 123.69
C-7 7.522 6.525 87.973 47.093 19.47 124.38 43.01 124.38
C-8 3.761 6.525 55.771 35.196 14.95 79.83 32.55 79.83
C-9 1.167 1.013 215.502 190.91 3.02 265.56 98.48 265.56
C-10 2.334 2.025 243.634 194.366 6.04 302.53 103.22 302.53
C-11 2.334 2.025 243.647 194.306 6.04 302.54 103.19 302.54
C-12 2.334 2.025 243.559 194.285 6.04 302.43 103.18 302.43
C-13 2.334 2.025 243.455 194.284 6.04 302.31 103.18 302.31
C-14 2.334 2.025 243.425 194.301 6.04 302.27 103.19 302.27
C-15 2.334 2.025 243.544 194.336 6.04 302.42 103.21 302.42
C-16 2.334 2.025 244.03 194.409 6.04 303.01 103.25 303.01
C-17 1.167 1.013 215.91 190.935 3.02 266.06 98.49 266.06
C-18 9.86 8.55 247.993 125.952 25.51 324.91 88.49 324.91
C-19 19.71 17.1 285.401 138.496 51.01 392.88 120.26 392.88
C-20 19.71 17.1 285.348 138.039 51.01 392.82 120.03 392.82
C-21 19.71 17.1 285.394 137.99 51.01 392.87 120.01 392.87
C-22 19.71 17.1 285.593 138.037 51.01 393.12 120.03 393.12
C-23 19.71 17.1 286.262 138.496 51.01 393.93 120.26 393.93
C-24 9.86 8.55 248.653 125.954 25.51 325.71 88.49 325.71
TABLE 5.34: Load Combinations for Columns from 5th floor to Roof
DESIGN AXIAL LOADS FOR COLUMNS
FLOOR NAME Pu (kN)
C-1 401.86
C-2 465.08
C-3 538.64
C-4 530.11
C-5 533.01
C-6 499.07
C-7 465.93
C-8 344.91
C-9 559.62
C-10 687.46
C-11 674.57
GROUND FLOOR TO C-12 686.58
2ND FLOOR C-13 704.07
C-14 699.29
C-15 702.41
C-16 666.08
C-17 726.74
C-18 1064.08
C-19 1326.97
C-20 1014.23
C-21 1012.18
C-22 1010.62
C-23 1009.76
C-24 916.3
C-1 337.4
C-2 393.42
C-3 433.63
C-4 445.14
C-5 471.51
C-6 423.3
C-7 421.95
C-8 332.07
C-9 308.94
C-10 420.47
C-11 408.57
2ND FLOOR TO 3RD C-12 417.79
FLOOR C-13 432.1
C-14 427.9
C-15 431.51
C-16 399.21
C-17 477.94
C-18 712.51
C-19 963.84
C-20 803.74
C-21 1046.83
C-22 951.64
C-23 959.76
C-24 790.85
TABLE 5.35: Design Axial Loads (New Occupancy Loads)
FLOOR NAME Pu (kN)
C-1 358.94
C-2 366.32
C-3 442.1
C-4 447.11
C-5 436.45
C-6 486.57
C-7 453.38
C-8 341.43
C-9 306.06
C-10 414.84
C-11 403.19
3RD FLOOR TO 4TH C-12 412.67
FLOOR C-13 427.25
C-14 423.29
C-15 427.07
C-16 394.73
C-17 475.64
C-18 709.21
C-19 957.42
C-20 797.62
C-21 1040.94
C-22 945.93
C-23 953.97
C-24 787.87
C-1 306.97
C-2 370.97
C-3 419.51
C-4 417.29
C-5 424.54
C-6 395.68
C-7 394.75
C-8 312.24
C-9 305.96
C-10 405
C-11 385.98
4TH FLOOR TO 5TH C-12 392.81
FLOOR C-13 407.01
C-14 504.62
C-15 484.64
C-16 375.08
C-17 468.85
C-18 701.52
C-19 952.1
C-20 759.16
C-21 970.8
C-22 919.25
C-23 917.44
C-24 717.8
FLOOR NAME Pu (kN)
C-1 75.9
C-2 123.57
C-3 201.82
C-4 201.77
C-5 123.5
C-6 123.69
C-7 124.38
C-8 79.83
C-9 265.56
C-10 302.53
C-11 302.54
5TH FLOOR TO C-12 302.43
ROOF C-13 302.31
C-14 302.27
C-15 302.42
C-16 303.01
C-17 266.06
C-18 324.91
C-19 392.88
C-20 392.82
C-21 392.87
C-22 393.12
C-23 393.93
C-24 325.71
SLAB ANALYSIS FLOWCHART
Start
Determine if the slab is one-way or two-way
Determine the minimum thickness

based on the NSCP 2015
Is the minimum
YES thickness greater NO
than the old slab
thickness?
Sections are
RETROFIT
adequate
End End
COMPUTATION FOR SLAB THICKNESS
NAME OF THICKNESS
FLOOR ln1 (mm) ln2 (mm) TYPE
SLAB (mm)
S1 6000 3000 ONE WAY 300
S2 6000 3000 ONE WAY 300
S3 4500 3000 TWO WAY 100
S4 4500 3000 TWO WAY 100
S5 4500 3000 TWO WAY 100
S6 4500 3000 TWO WAY 100
S7 9000 3000 ONE WAY 450
S8 4500 3000 TWO WAY 100
S9 4500 3000 TWO WAY 100
S10 4500 3000 TWO WAY 100
S11 4500 3000 TWO WAY 100
S12 4500 3000 TWO WAY 100
MEZZANINE FLOOR
S13 4500 3000 TWO WAY 100
S14 4500 3000 TWO WAY 100
S15 4500 3000 TWO WAY 100
S16 4500 3000 TWO WAY 100
S17 4500 3000 TWO WAY 100
S18 9000 3000 ONE WAY 450
S19 9000 3000 ONE WAY 450
S20 4500 3000 TWO WAY 100
S21 6000 2000 ONE WAY 300
S22 6000 3000 ONE WAY 300
CS23 6000 2250 ONE WAY 300
CS24 6000 3300 TWO WAY 130
S1 6000 3000 ONE WAY 300
S2 6000 3000 ONE WAY 300
S3 9000 3000 ONE WAY 450
S4 9000 3000 ONE WAY 450
S5 9000 3000 ONE WAY 450
S6 9000 3000 ONE WAY 450
S7 9000 3000 ONE WAY 450
S8 9000 3000 ONE WAY 450
S9 9000 3000 ONE WAY 450
S10 9000 3000 ONE WAY 450
S11 9000 3000 ONE WAY 450
S12 9000 3000 ONE WAY 450
S13 9000 3000 ONE WAY 450
S14 9000 3000 ONE WAY 450
S15 9000 3000 ONE WAY 450
S16 9000 3000 ONE WAY 450
S17 9000 3000 ONE WAY 450
SECOND - FIFTH
S18 4500 3000 TWO WAY 100
FLOOR
S19 3000 3000 TWO WAY 80
S20 3000 3000 TWO WAY 80
S21 3000 3000 TWO WAY 80
S22 3000 3000 TWO WAY 80
S23 3000 3000 TWO WAY 80
S24 3000 3000 TWO WAY 80
S25 3000 3000 TWO WAY 80
S26 3000 3000 TWO WAY 80
S27 3000 3000 TWO WAY 80
S28 3000 3000 TWO WAY 80
S29 3000 3000 TWO WAY 80
S30 3000 3000 TWO WAY 80
S31 3000 3000 TWO WAY 80
S32 3000 3000 TWO WAY 80
S33 3000 3000 TWO WAY 80
S34 3000 3000 TWO WAY 80
S35 6000 2000 TWO WAY 110
TABLE 5.36 : Slab Thickness
COMPARISON OF CAPACITIES FOR OLD AND NEW OCCUPANCY LOADS
FLOOR NAME MOMENT, Mu (kN-m) FLOOR NAME Mu (kN-m)
MB1 230.925 MB-1 99.96

MB2 230.925 MB-2 298.24
MB3 230.925 MB-3 617.3
MB4 230.925 MB-4 82
MB5 230.925 MB-5 638.79
MB6 230.925 MB-6 412.18
MEZZANINE FLOOR MB7 230.925 MB-7 658.71
MB8 230.925 MB-8 72.1
MG1 173.853 MB-9 696.9
MG2 272.25 MB-10 72.1
MG3 233.739 MEZZANINE FLOOR MB-11 654.07
MG4 173.853 MB-12 72.1
MG5 293.311 MB-13 696.9
MB-14 72.1
MB-15 696.9
MB-16 357.09
MB-17 637.62
TABLE 5.37: Capacities for Old Occupancy Loads MB-18 610.63
G1 269.31
G2 256.43
G3 279.21
TABLE 5.38: Capacities for New Occupancy Loads
INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS:
The two tables above are the beam capacities for the old and the new occupancy loads. Using comparison,
we can see that some capacities of the beam in the new occupancy loads are bigger than its capacity in the
old occupancy loads. For example is the MB-5, its old capacity is about 230.925 kN-m, after applying the
new occupancy loads, the loads are requiring a capacity of 638.79 kN-m. This means that the existing
dimension of the beam is not capable to carry the new loads it will be given. Thus, there’s a need for this
beam to be replaced to a new dimension wherein it can carry the new loads.

Final Capstonee PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Capstonee PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

TECNICO ESCUELA en SUPREMO DESAROLLO de ARTE | Amparo Lagrada Mariano Pelaez 1

TECNICO ESCUELA en SUPREMO DESAROLLO de ARTE | Amparo Lagrada Mariano Pelaez 2

TECNICO ESCUELA en SUPREMO DESAROLLO de ARTE | Amparo Lagrada Mariano Pelaez 3

RELATED DESIGN AND

TECNICO ESCUELA en SUPREMO DESAROLLO de ARTE | Amparo Lagrada Mariano Pelaez 4

LOCAL RELATED DESIGN AND LITERATURE

The Design of Training Elevators for Effective Learning

By: Martin Santos, Hannah Tiu

The Structure of Elevators:

TECNICO ESCUELA en SUPREMO DESAROLLO de ARTE | Amparo Lagrada Mariano Pelaez 6

Background of the Study:

(Chris Eduard Miraflor, 2012)[2]

 Arena Theatre – Auditorium with audience surrounded on all sides.

Figure 2: Arena Theatre Figure 3: Proscenium Theatre

TECNICO ESCUELA en SUPREMO DESAROLLO de ARTE | Amparo Lagrada Mariano Pelaez 8

Terms used in Auditoriums:

Figure 5: Concrete Shear Wall

FACTORED SHEAR FORCE / SHEAR DEMAND

f1= 0.5 OTHERWISE.

TECNICO ESCUELA en SUPREMO DESAROLLO de ARTE | Amparo Lagrada Mariano Pelaez 10

 Minimum two curtains of wall reinforcement shall be provided if

Figure 6: Wall Reinforcement

TECNICO ESCUELA en SUPREMO DESAROLLO de ARTE | Amparo Lagrada Mariano Pelaez 11

Major and Minor Areas of Civil Engineering:

As per the National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010:

a. Partition and interior walls = 1.0 kPa

b. Gympsum board (per mm thickness) = 0.008KPa

As per the National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010:

a. Residential = 1.9 kPa

b. Roof Deck = 1.9 kPa c. exterior balcony = 2.9kPa

Load Combination 2: 1.2DL + 0.5LL

Load Combination 3: 1.2DL + 0.5LL + 1.6WL

Load Combination 4: 0.9DL + 1.6WL

TECNICO ESCUELA en SUPREMO DESAROLLO de ARTE | Amparo Lagrada Mariano Pelaez 14

Construction Standards for Schools

Safety and Construction Standards:

TECNICO ESCUELA en SUPREMO DESAROLLO de ARTE | Amparo Lagrada Mariano Pelaez 16

Materials and Components:

Theatres: Planning Guidance for Design and Adaptation

Type and Size of Theatre:

TECNICO ESCUELA en SUPREMO DESAROLLO de ARTE | Amparo Lagrada Mariano Pelaez 17

TECNICO ESCUELA en SUPREMO DESAROLLO de ARTE | Amparo Lagrada Mariano Pelaez 18

- Very large 1500 or more seats

Educational Facilities Manual

A. Educational Facilities Defined

TECNICO ESCUELA en SUPREMO DESAROLLO de ARTE | Amparo Lagrada Mariano Pelaez 19

B. Importance of Educational Facilities

C. Basic Principles on Educational Facilities

TECNICO ESCUELA en SUPREMO DESAROLLO de ARTE | Amparo Lagrada Mariano Pelaez 20

TECNICO ESCUELA en SUPREMO DESAROLLO de ARTE | Amparo Lagrada Mariano Pelaez 21

Assumptions and Limitations:

The imposed assumptions and limitations are:

(b) all members are prismatic and straight,

(d) possible buckling of individual members or portions of the structure is ignored,

(e) the effects of strain hardening are neglected,

TECNICO ESCUELA en SUPREMO DESAROLLO de ARTE | Amparo Lagrada Mariano Pelaez 22

The Moment-Rotation Curve:

Standardization of Moment-Rotation Curves

where 4 = rotational deformation of connection in radians, C = constant, K = standardization factor (a

TECNICO ESCUELA en SUPREMO DESAROLLO de ARTE | Amparo Lagrada Mariano Pelaez 23

Design of a Virtual Auditorium