3.

3 Designer’s Raw Ranking

The tradeoffs are based on the stated constraints on the Chapter 3.1 Design Constraints of the project.
Three structural designs and geotechnical designs were considered by the designers which can meet
necessary requirements for the satisfaction of multiple constraints. By providing the client an option into
which one of the interchange designs that will be chosen, the designer used the model on tradeoff
strategies in Engineering Design by Otto and Antonsson (1991), scaled the criterion’s importance from 0 to
10, 10 being the highest and likewise, to satisfy the ability of the criterion it was scaled from 0 to 10, and 10
being the highest.

Computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials:

HIgher Value−Lower Value

difference= × 10
Higher Value

Equation 3-1: % Difference

Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank−( difference ×10)

Equation 3-2: Subordinate Rank

The Governing Rank is an independent variable set by the designer subjectively in ranking the constraints
which depends on the designer’s own perception of the importance of each constraint in the design of the
structure. The Subordinate Rank is the dependent variable that corresponds to its percentage distance
from the governing rank along the ranking scale of 0 to 10.

Figure 3-7: Ranking Scale Value

(Source: Otto, K. N. and Antonsson, E. K., (1991). Trade-off strategies in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design,
volume 3, number 2, pages 87-104.)

3.4 Initial Estimate and Ranking Computation

Table 3-7: Initial Estimates of Structural Trade-Offs

Structural Trade-offs
Constraints Eccentrically Braced Structural Steel Special
Reinforced Concrete
Frame Moment Resisting Frame
Economic (Material
Cost) ₱103,188,097.54 ₱224,232,745.08 ₱213,631,744.92
 Sustainability (Life
50 60 70
Span, years)
Constructability
590 653 588
(Duration, days)
Risk Assessment 1.2 4.2 1.78

Table shows the initial design estimates of the three tradeoffs for each constraint. The estimated cost
consists of the material costing for steel only. The duration is based on the estimated number of days the
project needs to be finished for each trade off. The constructability was estimated by using the book
“Estimator’s General Construction Man-Hour Manual” by John S. Page. For the deflection, the designers
based the estimated values from similar previous projects.
Table 3-8: Initial Estimates of Geotechnical Trade-Offs

Transportation Trade-Offs
Constraints
Two-Way Bay Express Ramp Four Bay

Economic (Material
₱32,446,678.20 ₱38,759,856.50 ₱43,474,315.75
Cost)
Sustainability (Capacity,
48 63 55
vehicles)
Risk Assessment
156 133 143
(Vehicle/hour)

3.4.1 Structural Engineering Trade Offs

Table 3-9: Structural Engineering Trade-offs For Carpark
Structural Trade-offs
Structural Steel Special
Constraints Eccentrically Braced
Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting
Frame
Frame
Economic (Material
Cost) ₱103,188,097.54 ₱224,232,745.08 ₱213,631,744.92

Sustainability (Life
50 60 70
Span, years)
Constructability
590 653 588
(Duration, days)
Risk Assessment 1.2 4.2 1.78
3.4.1.1 Computation of Ranking for Economical Constraints

For Reinforced Concrete

Since reinforced concrete is the one having the lowest amount, the designer gave it a scale of ten (10).

Figure 3-7: Subordinate Rank of Reinforce Concrete plotted in a rank line - Economical

For Eccentrically Braced Frame

Higher Value−Lower Value

Difference= ×10
Higher Value

224232745.08−103188097.54
¿ × 10
224232745.08

Difference=5.40

Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank− Difference

¿ 10−5.40

Subordinate Rank=4.60

Figure 3-9: Subordinate Rank of Eccentrically Braced Frame plotted in a rank line - Economical

For Structural Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame

Higher Value−Lower Value

Difference= ×10
Higher Value
 213631744.92−103188097.54
¿ ×10
213631744.92

Difference=5.17

Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank− Difference

¿ 10−5.17

Subordinate Rank=4.83

Figure 3-10: Subordinate Rank of Eccentrically Braced Frame plotted in a rank line - Economical

3.4.1.2 Computation of Ranking for Sustainability Constraints

For Structural Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame

Since Structural Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame has the highest value of lifespan, the designer
gave it a scale of ten (10).

Figure 3-11: Subordinate Rank of Structural Steel Special Moment plotted in rank line - Sustainability

For Reinforced Concrete

Higher Value−Lower Value

Difference= ×10
Higher Value

70−50
¿ × 10
70

Difference=2.86
 Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank− Difference

¿ 10−2.86

Subordinate Rank=7.14

Figure 3-12: Subordinate Rank of Reinforced Concrete plotted in a rank line - Sustainability

For Eccentrically Braced Frame

Higher Value−Lower Value

Difference= ×10
Higher Value

60−50
¿ × 10
60

Difference=1.67

Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank− Difference

¿ 10−1.67

Subordinate Rank=8.33

Figure 3-13: Subordinate Rank of Eccentrically Braced Frame plotted in a rank line - Sustainability

3.4.1.3 Computation of Ranking for Constructability Constraints

For Structural Steel Special Moment Resisting

Since Structural Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame has the least time to be constructed, the designer
gave it a scale of ten (10).

Figure 3-13: Subordinate Rank of Structural Steel Special Moment plotted in rank line - Constructability

For Reinforced Concrete

Higher Value−Lower Value

Difference= x 10
Higher Value

19.4−19.3
¿ x 10
19.4

Difference=0.05

Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank− Difference

¿ 10−0.05

Subordinate Rank=9.95

Figure 3-14: Subordinate Rank of Reinforced Concrete plotted in rank line - Constructability

For Eccentrically Braced Frame

Higher Value−Lower Value

Difference= x 10
Higher Value

21.5−19.3
¿ x 10
21.5

Difference=0.10
 Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank− Difference

¿ 10−0.10

Subordinate Rank=9.90

Figure 3-15: Subordinate Rank of Eccentrically Braced Frame plotted in rank line - Constructability

3.4.1.4 Computation of Ranking for Risk Assessment Constraint

For Reinforced Concrete

Since reinforced concrete is the one having the least risk assessment, the designer gave it a scale of ten
(10).

Figure 3-16: Subordinate Rank of Reinforce Concrete plotted in a rank line – Risk Assessment

For Eccentrically Braced Frame

Higher Value−Lower Value

Difference= x 10
Higher Value

4.2−1.2
¿ x 10
4.2

Difference=7.14

Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank− Difference

¿ 10−7.14

Subordinate Rank=2.86
 Figure 3-17: Subordinate Rank of Eccentrically Braced Frame plotted in a rank line – Risk Assessment

For Structural Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame

Higher Value−Lower Value

Difference= x 10
Higher Value

1.78−1.2
¿ x 10
1.78

Difference=3.26

Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank− Difference

¿ 10−3.26

Subordinate Rank=6.74

Figure 3-18: Subordinate Rank of Structural Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame plotted in a rank line – Risk Assessment

3.4.1 Transportation Engineering Trade Offs

The designer provided initial estimates for the design of 5 storey carpark building. Through this estimate;
the designers can be able to come up with which of the following types of ramps will win for economic,
sustainability, and risk assessment.
Table 3-10: Initial Estimates of Geotechnical Trade-Offs
Constraints Transportation Trade-Offs
 Two-Way Bay Express Ramp Four Bay

Economic (Material
₱32,446,678.20 ₱38,759,856.50 ₱43,474,315.75
Cost)
Sustainability (Capacity,
48 63 55
vehicles)
Risk Assessment
156 133 143
(Vehicle/hour)

3.4.2.1 Computation of Ranking for Economical Constraints

For Two-Way Bay

Since Two-Way Bay has the lowest cost within the trade-offs, the designer gave it a scale of ten (10).

Figure 3-19: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bay plotted in a rank line – Economical

For Express Ramp

Higher Value−Lower Value

Difference= x 10
Higher Value

38759856.50−32446678.20
Difference= x 10
38759856.50
 Difference=1.63

Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank− Difference

Subordinate Rank=10−1.63

Subordinate Rank=8.37

Figure 3-20: Subordinate Rank of Express Ramp plotted in a rank line – Economical

For Four Bay

Higher Value−Lower Value

Difference= x 10
Higher Value

43,474,315.75−32446678.20
Difference= x 10
43,474,315.75

Difference=2.54

Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank− Difference

Subordinate Rank=10−2.54

Subordinate Rank=7.46

Figure 3-21: Subordinate Rank of Four Bay plotted in a rank line – Economical

3.4.2.2 Computation of Ranking for Sustainability Constraints

For Express Ramp

Since Express Ramp has the greatest number of capacity of vehicles, the designer gave it a scale of ten
(10).
 Figure 3-22: Subordinate Rank of Express Ramp plotted in a rank line – Sustainability

For Two-Way Bay

Higher Value−Lower Value

Difference= x 10
Higher Value

63−48
Difference= x 10
63

Difference=2.38

Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank− Difference

Subordinate Rank=10−2.38

Subordinate Rank=7.62

Figure 3-23: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bay plotted in a rank line – Sustainability

For Four Bay

Higher Value−Lower Value

Difference= x 10
Higher Value

63−55
Difference= x 10
63

Difference=1.27

Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank− Difference

Subordinate Rank=10−1.27

Subordinate Rank=8.73
 Figure 3-24: Subordinate Rank of Four Bay plotted in a rank line – Sustainability

3.4.2.3 Computation of Ranking for Risk Assessments

For Two-Way Bay

Since Two-Way Bay have the greatest capacity of vehicle/hour, the designer gave it a scale of ten (10).

Figure 3-25: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bay plotted in a rank line – Risk Assessment

For Express Ramp

Higher Value−Lower Value

Difference= x 10
Higher Value

156−133
Difference= x 10
156

Difference=1.47

Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank− Difference

Subordinate Rank=10−1.47

Subordinate Rank=8.53

Figure 3-26: Subordinate Rank of Express Ramp plotted in a rank line – Risk Assessment
Two-Way Bay vs. Four Bay

Higher Value−Lower Value

Difference= x 10
Higher Value

156−143
Difference= x 10
156

Difference=0.83

Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank− Difference

Subordinate Rank=10−0.83

Subordinate Rank=9.17

Figure 3-27: Subordinate Rank of Four Bay plotted in a rank line - Risk Assessment

3.5 Trade-offs Assessment

3.5.1 Trade-offs Assessment for Structural Trade-offs

Considering the multiple design constraints presented, the tradeoffs discussed were ranked according to its
ability to satisfy the given constraint. For the designer’s raw ranking, the winning trade-off is the Reinforced
Concrete with a rank of, followed by the Reinforced Concrete with a rank of 351, and lastly the Eccentrically
Braced Frame with a rank of 237.1.
Table 3-11: Summary of Result for the Structural Engineering Trade-Offs (For Carpark)

Ability to satisfy the design criterion (on scale 1 to 10)

Criterion’s
Decision Criteria importance (on a Structural Steel
Reinforced Eccentrically
scale 1 to 10) Special Moment
Concrete Braced Frame
Resisting Frame

Economic 10 10 4.60 4.80

Sustainability 10 7.14 8.33 10

 Constructability 8 9.95 9.90 10

Risk Assessment 10 10 2.86 6.74

Overall Rank 351 237.1 295.4

*Reference: Otto, K. N. and Antonsson, E. K., (1991). Trade-off strategies in engineering design. Research in Engineering
Design, volume 3, number 2, pages 87-104.

3.5.1 Trade-offs Assessment for Transportation Trade-offs

Considering the multiple design constraints presented, the tradeoffs discussed were ranked according to its
ability to satisfy the given constraint. For the designer’s raw ranking, the winning tradeoff is the Two-Way
Bay with a rank of 266.2, followed by the Express Ramp with a rank of 260.63, and lastly the Four Bay with
a rank of 246.14.
Table 3-12: Designers’ Raw Ranking for Transportation

Criterion’s Ability to satisfy the design criterion (on scale 1 to 10)

Decision Criteria importance (on a
scale 1 to 10) Two-Way Bay Express Ramp Four Bay

10 8.37 7.46
Economic 9

Sustainability 10 7.62 10 8.73

Risk Assessment 10 10 8.53 9.17

260.63 246.14
Overall Rank 266.2
*Reference: Otto, K. N. and Antonsson, E. K., (1991). Trade-off strategies in engineering design. Research in Engineering
Design, volume 3, number 2, pages 87-104.

3.5.2.1 Economic Constraint (Material Cost)

In terms of economic constraints, the Two-way Bay yields the least cost among the three trade-offs
because this type of ramp is the least complicated among the others.

3.5.2.2 Sustainability (Capacity, vehicles)

In terms of Sustainability constraint, Express Ramp has the greatest capacity of vehicles that will fit in the
car park. This is because the space in each level is maximized.
3.5.2.3 Risk Assessment (Vehicle/hour)

In terms of Risk Assessment, Two-Way Bay has the least risk among the other trade-offs due to its
less complicated constructability.

3.6 Design Standards

These are the codes and standards that the designers put into practice to come up with the final design of
the 5 storey car park structure:

1. National Building Code of the Philippines (PD 1096)

2. National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2010

3.6.1 National Building Code of the Philippines

The National Building Code of the Philippines, also known as Presidential Decree No. 1096 was formulated
and adopted as a uniform building code to embody up-to-date and modern technical knowledge on building
design, construction, use, occupancy and maintenance. The Code provides for all buildings and structures,
a formwork of minimum standards and requirements to regulate and control location, site, design, and
quality of materials, construction, use, occupancy, and maintenance.

NBCP Chapter 8 Section 806 : Size and dimension of rooms

NBCP Chapter 8 Section 811 : Artificial Ventilation

NBCP Chapter 12 Section 1207 : Stairs, Exits, and Occupant Loads

NBCP Chapter 12 Section 1204 : Enclosure of Vertical Openings

3.6.2 National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP 2015)

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

NSCP Section 203 : Combination of Loads

NSCP Section 204 : Dead Loads

NSCP Section 205 : Live Loads

NSCP Section 207 : Wind Loads

NSCP Section 208 : Earthquake Loads

NSCP Section 504 : Design of Torsion Members

NSCP Section 505 : Design of Compression Members

NSCP Section 507 : Design of Shear Members

NSCP Section 510: Design of Connections