TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

938 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

Civil Engineering Department

CE 511
Structural Steel Design

DESIGN OF FIVE– STOREY STEEL HOSTEL BUILDING SUMULONG HIGHWAY, MARIKINA CITY

PREPARED BY:

CE52S1

SUBMITTED TO:
ENGR. ALLAN B. BENOGSUDAN
Instructor
 February 17, 2022

Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT 6
1.1 The Project 6
1.2 Project Location 7
1.3 Project Objectives 8
1.3.1 General Objectives 8
1.3.2 Specific Objectives 8
1.4 Project’s Client 9
1.5 Scope and Limitation 9
1.5.1 Scope of the Project 9
1.5.2 Limitation of the Project 9
1.6 Project Development Plan 9
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 12
2.1 Project Location 12
2.1.1 Vicinity Map 12
2.1.2 Topography 12
2.1.3 Geologic Map 13
2.2 Hazards 14
2.2.1 Flood Hazard 14
2.2.2 Earthquake Hazard 16
2.3 Demography 20
2.4 Geotechnical Investigation Report 21
2.4.1 Introduction 21
2.4.2 Field Investigation Program 21
2.4.3 Laboratory Testing Program 23
2.4.4 Site Geology 24
2.4.5 Subsurface as Found 24
2.4.6 Discussions and General Recommendations 25
2.4.7 General Remarks 26
2.5 Description of Structure 29

2
 2.6 Structural Classification 29
2.7 Building Plans 32
2.7.1 Floor Plans 32
2.7.2 Elevation Plans 37
2.7.3 Schedule of Finishes 40
2.8 Design Loads 41
2.8.1 Dead load 41
2.8.2 Live Loads 42
2.8.3 Wind Loads 42
2.8.4 Seismic Loads 43
2.8.5 Primary Load and Load Combinations 44
2.9 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES 45
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS AND STANDARDS 48
3.1 Design Constraints 48
3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints 48
3.1.2 Qualitative Constraints 49
3.2 Trade-offs 49
3.2.1 Bracing 50
3.2.2 Beams 52
3.2.3 Column 54
3.2.4 Connections 55
3.3 Initial Assessment and Ranking of Tradeoffs 57
3.4 Initial Estimate 57
3.4.1 Initial Computation for Economic Constraint (Bracing Trade-offs) 58
3.4.2 Initial Computation for Constructability Constraint (Bracing Trade-offs) 58
3.4.3 3.4.3 Initial Computation for Serviceability Constraint (Bracing Trade-offs) 59
3.4.4 Initial Computation for Economic Constraint (Beam Trade-offs) 60
3.4.5 Initial Computation for Constructability Constraint (Beam Trade-offs) 60
3.4.6 Initial Computation for Serviceability Constraint (Beam Trade-offs) 60
3.4.7 Initial Computation for Constructability Constraint (Column Trade-offs) 61
3.4.8 Initial Computation for Serviceability Constraint (Column Trade-offs) 62

3
 3.4.9 3.4.10 Initial Computation for Economic Constraint (Connection Trade-offs) 62
3.4.10 3.4.11 Initial Computation for Constructability Constraint (Connection Trade-offs) 63
3.5 Trade-off Assessment 63
3.6 Design Codes and Standards 64

4
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Projects' Perspective 9
Figure 1-2 Vicinity Map Marikina City, Sumulong Highway 10
Figure 1-3Project Development Plan 13
Figure 2-1Vicinity Map 14
Figure 2-2Topography of the Project Location 15
Figure 2-3Geologic Map of the Project Location 16
Figure 2-4 25 Year Flood Hazard Map of Marikina City 17
Figure 2-5 25 Year Flood Hazard Map of Marikina City 18
Figure 2-6 Ground Shaking Hazard Map of Marikina City 19
Figure 2-7 PHIVOLCS Fault Finder 20
Figure 2-8 Liquefaction Hazard Map of Marikina City 21
Figure 2-9 Borehole Location Map 29
Figure 2-10 Final Borehole Log and Summary of Test 31
Figure 2-11 Ground Floor Plan 34
Figure 2-12 Second Floor Plan 35
Figure 2-13 Third Floor Plan 35
Figure 2-14 Fourth Floor Plan 36
Figure 2-15 Fifth Floor Plan 36
Figure 2-16 Front Elevation Plan 37
Figure 2-17 Rear Elevation Plan 37
Figure 2-18 Left Side Elevation 38
Figure 2-19 Right Side Elevation 38
Figure 2-20 Longitudinal Section 39
Figure 2-21 Cross Section 39
Figure 2-22 PHIVOLCS Fault Finder (Active Faults in Sta. Elena, Marikina City) 44
Figure 3-1 Multistory X - Bracing
Figure 3-2 Inverted V – Bracing (Chevron)
Figure 3-3 Composite Beam Design
Figure 3-4 Built-Up Shape Beam Design
Figure 3-5 Concrete-filled Tube HSS Design
Figure 3-6 Rolled Shaped Wide Flange Steel Column
Figure 3-7Welded Connection
Figure 3-8 Bolted Connection
Figure 3-9 Economic Constraints Cross bracing vs. Chevron Bracing (Bracing Trade-offs)
Figure 3-10 Constructability Constraints Cross bracing vs. Chevron Bracing (Bracing Trade-offs)
Figure 3-11 Serviceability Constraints Cross bracing vs. Chevron Bracing (Bracing Trade-offs)
Figure 3-12Economic Constraints Composite Beam vs. Built-up Beam (Beam Trade-offs)
Figure 3-13 Constructability Constraints Composite Beam vs. Built-up Beam (Beam Trade-offs)
Figure 3-14 Serviceability Constraints Composite Beam vs. Built-up Beam (Beam Trade-offs)

5
Figure 3-15 Economic Constraints Rolled Shaped Wide Flange vs. Concrete-filled tube HSS (Column
Trade-offs)
Figure 3-16 Constructability Constraints Rolled Shaped Wide Flange vs. Concrete-filled tube HSS (Column
Trade-offs)
Figure 3-17 Serviceability Constraints Rolled Shaped Wide Flange vs. Concrete-filled tube HSS (Column
Trade-offs)
Figure 3-18 Economic Constraints Bolted Double Angle vs Welded Double Angle (Connection Trade-offs)
Figure 3-19 Constructability Constraints Bolted Double Angle vs Welded Double Angle (Connection Trade-
offs)

LIST OF TABLES

6
 Table 2-1 Marikina Demographic Profile 22
Table 2-2 Marikina Population 23
Table 2-3 Ground Floor Structural Classification 32
Table 2-4 Second Floor Structural Classification 32
Table 2-5 Third Floor Structural Classification 33
Table 2-6 Fourth Floor Structural Classification 33
Table 2-7 Fifth Floor Structural Classification 33
Table 2-8 Dead Loads 35
Table 2-9 Live Loads 36
Table 2-10 Wind Loads 37
Table 2-11 Primary Load and Load Combinations 38
Table 3-1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Cross (X) Braced Frame System Configuration
Table 3-2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Chevron (Inverted – V) Braced Frame System Configuration
Table 3-3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Composite Beam
Table 3-4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Built – Up Shape Beam
Table 3-5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Concrete – filled Tube HSS
Table 3-6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Rolled Shaped Wide Flange Steel Column
Table 3-7 Advantages and Disadvantages of Welded Connection
Table 3-8 Advantages and Disadvantages of Bolted Connection
Table 3-9 Trade-off for Bracing Quantitative Initial Estimate
Table 3-10 Designers’ Initial Raw Ranking of Bracing
Table 3-11 Trade-off for Beam Quantitative Initial Estimate
Table 3-12 Designers’ Initial Raw Ranking of Beam
Table 3-13 Trade-off for Column Quantitative Initial Estimate
Table 3-14 Designers’ Initial Raw Ranking of Column
Table 3-15 Trade-off for Connection Quantitative Initial Estimate
Table 3-16 Designers’ Initial Raw Ranking of Connections

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT

1.1 The Project
The project consists of a dormitory building with a steel structure. This project intends to develop a
structural five-story dormitory building located along Sumulong, Highway Sta. Elena, Marikina City. This
location was bounded by several villages and subdivisions. The dormitory building will provide services and
7
 the needs of the people, particularly the students. This project will help the students who leave for away
from their school and so that they will not experience the traffic. And also if you have an emergency or
important event to attend your school it is easy to go there. And they’ll learn self-discipline and develop
confidence in their own identity. And students have easy access to school so that they’ll not arrive late and
also they have a lot of time to study.

Figure 1-1 Perspective of 5-Storey Dormitory Building

The building is a rectangular shape and made up of steel and it has an area of 348 sq.m with
dimension of 14.5m x 24m dimension. The first floor contains library, chapel, canteen, office for the staffs,
common area and lobby. The second-third floor contains room for girls, kitchen, study area and toilet and
bath. The fourth-fifth floor contains room for boys, kitchen, study area, and toilet and bath. Each floor
contains an elevator; two accessible stairs located at the right and left side of the building, and restroom.
And the elevation of the building is 3m and a total of 15m.

1.2 Project Location

The location of the project will be at Sta. Elena, Marikina City along Sumulong Highway. Santa Elena is
situated at approximately 14.6322, 121.0974, in the island of Luzon. Having an elevation at these
coordinates is estimated at 12.3 meters or 40.4 feet above mean sea level. The location will serve a new
space for the people who will occupy the school building.

8
 Figure 1-2 Vicinity Map Marikina City, Sumulong Highway

1.3 Project Objectives

This project aims to design a dormitory building of the said location focusing on high-quality outcomes
through the following:

1.3.1 General Objectives

The main objective of the project is to design a dormitory building for incoming students in the residential
area of Sta. Elena, Marikina City. The design of a dormitory building is based on engineering methods,
applications, analysis and evaluation of trade-offs based on constraints such as economy, constructability
and sustainability of the client.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of this design project are to:
● To design the project that will comply the needs and expectations of the client.
● To design and provide an efficient cost and estimate of the structure.
● To provide services and to satisfy the needs of people.
● To evaluate the influence of multiple constraints provided by the client and design standards in the
selection of final design.

9
1.4 Project’s Client
The client of this project is Mr. Marcelino Teodoro, mayor of Marikina City, who wants to meet the needs of
his fellow citizens. The clients want the dormitory building to be economical, neither cheap nor expensive,
and they want to complete the project as soon as possible for immediate occupancy in the coming school
year.
1.5 Scope and Limitation
1.5.1 Scope of the Project
The following are the scope covered by the design project:

● Focus only on the structural integrity and stability of the structure.

● To apply the Civil Engineering knowledge
● To provide design drawings as well as structural member details.
● Conceptualized to the National Building Code of the Philippines and National Structural Code of
the Philippines.

1.5.2 Limitation of the Project

The following are the limitation of the design project:

● The interior design of the structure was not considered.

● No foundation plan for this project.
● The plumbing and electrical plans are not included in this design.
● As for the trade-offs, the comparison that the designers considered an economic criterion was the
cost estimates in connections.

1.6 Project Development Plan

The designers have designed a five-storey dormitory building along the Sumulong Highway, Marikina City.
The project has different phases; the first phase distinguishes the current problem that designers are
planning to address in order to share specific ideas and to formulate solutions to the current problem.
The second phase is the conceptualization of the project; the client's request for compliance and the
requirements for the project will begin. The third is the collection of data; this data will be collected by
means of different methods; it may be requested from the office or by questioning and observation of the
residence in the said area. The data collected will be used for the purpose of project constraints and
standards. It will also serve as a basis and proof for designers to improve their structure.

10
The constraints and standards provide designers with an overview of the specific elements that will affect
the project, resulting in completely different solutions that need to be assessed prior to construction. The
next phase is the trade-off, in which the designers will design potential engineering solutions in this area.
Includes the effects of multiple constraints and trade-offs on the original design of the designer in order to
select the most economical, safest and most beneficial for the project.
The interpretation of the result would be made in comparison with the proposed trade-offs by means of a
ranking that will be governed by and chosen by the designers. When validating the trade-offs, it will provide
a final governance design that will be applied for the project and will end up with total cost estimates,
complete details, design and analysis as the basis for the selection of the governing trade off. The following
steps will be the systematic approach, and these are shown in figure 1-3:

11
Figure 1-3 Project Development Plan

12
 CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS AND REVIEW OF
RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Project Location
2.1.1 Vicinity Map
The proposed structure rest at Brgy. Sta. Elena, Marikina City along Sumulong Highway. The following
figure is the vicinity map where the proposed structure is located:

Figure 2-1Vicinity Map (Source:Google Maps)

2.1.2 Topography
The elevation of a geographic location is its height above or below a fixed reference point, most commonly
a reference geoid, a mathematical model of the Earth's sea level as an equipotential gravitational surface
(see Geodetic system, vertical datum). Elevation, or geometric height, is mainly used when referring to
points on the Earth's surface, while altitude or geopotential height is used for points above the surface,
such as an aircraft in flight or a spacecraft in orbit, and depth is used for points below the surface.
This image was generated by NOAA from digital data bases of land and sea-floor elevations on a 2-minute
latitude/longitude grid (1 minute of latitude = 1 nautical mile, or 1.853 km). Assumed illumination is from the
west; shading is computed as a function of the east-west slope of the surface with a nonlinear exaggeration

13
 favoring low-relief areas. A Mercator projection was used for the world image, which spans 390° of
longitude from 270° West around the world eastward to 120° East; latitude coverage is ±80°. The
resolution of the gridded data varies from true 2-minute for the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Ocean floors
and all land masses to 5 minutes for the Arctic Ocean floor.
Less commonly, elevation is measured using the center of the Earth as the reference point. [citation
needed] Due to equatorial bulge, there is debate as to which of the summits of Mt. Everest or Chimborazo
is at the higher elevation, [citation needed] as the Chimborazo summit is further from the Earth's center,
while the Mt. Everest summit is higher above mean sea level.

Figure 2-2Topography of the Project Location (Source: Maplogs)

2.1.3 Geologic Map

Marikina is primarily a valley nestled amidst Mountain ranges and rolling Hills, its topography is generally
characterized as flat terrain with only a portion that is mildly sloping. These mildly sloping areas are
particularly evident in the eastern section of the city. Its surface features also highly favor agricultural land
use that was the predominant land use of the town about two decades ago. These topographic
characteristics have rendered the city to be generally suitable for urban settlements as evidenced by the
increasing number of subdivisions and industrial establishments in the area in recent years.

14
 Figure 2-3 Geologic Map of the Project Location (Source: WHO Project Entry)

2.2 Hazards
A hazard is an agent which has the potential to cause harm or damage to a vulnerable target. There is no
risk if there is no exposure to hazard. Then, a negative consequence might result of there is an exposure to
hazard. The following hazards identified in this section displays risk on the proposed structure in the area.
Based on a case study about the urban design of the City of Marikina, Marikina is said to be prone to many
various disasters including the Typhoon Ketsana and several southwest monsoon flooding such as 2012
Habagat. Landslides are another threat, particularly at the foot of the higher grounds.
Another major threat are the earthquakes in Marikina. The West Valley Fault System lies at the west of
Marikina, the east of the fault line constantly sinking which the large portion of Marikina is included. It
generates as the epicenter of the earthquake is in Marikina itself if the earthquake struck.

2.2.1 Flood Hazard

Marikina City, being a valley with a river running through it, has had a long history of problems with
flooding. The river swells and overflows in times of excessive rain and at the same time, the city become a
catch basin of water coming from Quezon City and Rizal. Typhoon Ondoy brought in a record of 448.5mm
of rain just a span of 12 hours causing a drastic 10.99m rise in the water level of Marikina River despite the
efforts by the local government for flood control projects. Ondoy left Marikina with 121 deaths and worse
flood and monsoon rains come after it.

15
The following illustrations of 5 years and 25 years flood hazard maps of Marikina City as to where the
proposed steel school building is to be built were created and reproduced by the Phil-LiDAR 1 Program.
This program is an expansion project of the Disaster Risk and Exposure Assessment for Mitigation
(DREAM) Program which is Program-funded effort Grants-In-Aid of Department of Science and Technology
(DOST) and is implemented by the University of the Philippines Training Center for Applied Geodesy and
Photogrammetry (UO TCAGP). These maps are just one of the high-quality models that LiDAR technology
generates and can be accessible by the public through the Project NOAH website.
Based on the 5 years flood hazard map, the site area is in a medium level hazard which means that the
location might experience a 1/5 (20%) probability of a flood with a return period occurring in a single year
with a height between 0.5m – 1.5m.
Whereas, the site of the proposed steel building in the high-level hazard for which there is a 1/25 (4%)
probability of a flood with a 25-year return period occurring in a single year and has a rainfall intensity
duration frequency of 373.6mm. Also, the area might experience a flood height beyond 1.5m. Lastly, refer
to the Appendix section of this paper for the 5 year and 25-year flood hazard maps of Marikina City.

Figure 2-4 25 Year Flood Hazard Map of Marikina City (Source: 2016 DOST-UP and Phil-LiDar 1 PROGRAM)

16
 Figure 2-5 25 Year Flood Hazard Map of Marikina City (Source: 2016 DOST-UP and Phil-LiDar 1 PROGRAM)

2.2.2 Earthquake Hazard

Primary earthquake hazards such as earthquake-induced landslide (EIL), ground rupture (GR), ground
shaking (GS), and liquefaction (L) post unfortunate threats to life of the people in the community, to the
economy, and to their properties. These primary hazards often produce secondary hazards which disrupt
the essential needs of communities. The following models are from the Philippine Institute of Volcanology
and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) Geology and Geophysics Research and Development Division (GGRD)
which provides hazard information through these maps to the public.

2.2.2.1 Ground Shaking

Ground Shaking is the most familiar effect of earthquake which is a result of the passage of seismic waves
through the ground. The intensity of shaking is dependent on certain factors such as topography, bedrock
type, location, and the orientation of the fault rupture. It is also the primary cause of earthquake damage to
man-made structures which were not designed to withstand such seismic loads. Based on the map below
for the ground shaking hazard of the proposed site location, the area is considered to be in Intensity High 8
(PHIVOLCS Earthquake Intensity Scale). The fault parameter and maximum credible magnitude used for

17
 different earthquake scenario were based on instrumental seismicity, historical seismicity, and mapped
active earthquake generators in the area.

Figure 2-6 Ground Shaking Hazard Map of Marikina City (Source: 2016 DOST-UP and Phil-LiDar 1 PROGRAM)

2.2.2.2 Distance of the Project Location from the Fault Line

The most famous fault line in the Philippines is the West Valley Fault System (WVFS). It is a dextral strike-
slip fault system in the region of Luzon. WVFS runs through the provinces of CALABARZON and major
cities of Metro Manila such as Quezon, Marikina, Pasig, Makati, Taguig and Muntinlupa City. There is a
threat of a large-scale earthquake which is the “Big One” with an estimated magnitude of 7-7.6 which is
truly devastating. The movement of the fault line is ranging from 10 mm to 12 mm (0.39 in to 0.47 in) yearly.

18
 Figure 2-7 PHIVOLCS Fault Finder (Active Faults in Sta. Elena, Marikina City (Source: Faultfinder Philvolcs)

2.2.2.3 Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength and stiffness of a soil (acts as fluid) is reduced by
intense shaking or other rapid loading. There are three conditions for which liquefaction most likely to
occur, namely, in a soil which is loose, granular sediment or fill, saturated by groundwater, and when there
is a strong shaking. During these phenomena, the ability of the soil deposit to support the foundations for
structures is reduced which can cause overturning. The location where the proposed structure is to be built
sits on a high susceptible of liquefaction area based on the map below. This map was based on the
geology, earthquake source zone, historical accounts, geomorphology and hydrology of the area utilized to
validate type of underlying materials. Lastly, refer to the Appedix section of this paper for the Ground
Shaking (7.2 Magnitude Earthquake) and Liquefaction Hazard Maps of Marikina City.

The geotechnical investigation report included different tests for testing the Atterberg Limits of the soil
sample taken from the chosen boreholes. These parameters of soil include liquid limit, plastic limit and
moisture content of soil for which the standard test such as ASTM D-425-66, ASTM D44-59, ASTM D
2216-98 are used respectively. Then, the soil was classified in accordance to Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS ASTM 02487-69).
Also, based from the result of geotechnical investigation report, a long-term settlement of 50mm to 100mm
should be expected for footings resting on clays and a maximum of 25 mm settlement is allowed for footing
resting on sand. Recommendation for the use of tie beams was stated on the report to minimize those
settlements and clay and sand.

19
 Figure 2-8 Liquefaction Hazard Map of Marikina City

2.3 Demography
Marikina’s population has grown considerably over the past years. From a total population of 8,187 in 1903,
the latest census conducted by the NSO in year 2000 revealed a population count of 407,732. According to

20
the 2015 Census, the age group with the highest population in Marikina is 15 to 19, with 44,465 individuals.
Conversely, the age group with the lowest population is 80 and over, with 3,431 individuals. Combining age
groups together, those aged 14 and below, consisting of the young dependent population which include
infants/babies, children and young adolescents/teenagers, make up an aggregate of 27.33% (123,176).
Those aged 15 up to 64, roughly, the economically active population and actual or potential members of the
work force, constitute a total of 67.76% (305,428). Finally, old dependent population consisting of the senior
citizens, those aged 65 and over, total 4.91% (22,137) in all.
The computed Age Dependency Ratios mean that among the population of Marikina, there are 40 youth
dependents to every 100 of the working age population; there are 7 aged/senior citizens to every 100 of the
working population; and overall, there are 48 dependents (young and old-age) to every 100 of the working
population. The median age of 27 indicates that half of the entire population of Marikina are aged less than
27 and the other half are over the age of 27.
Table 2-1 Marikina Demographic Profile
BARANGAY POPULATION CY 2000
KALUMPANG 17,859
BARANGKA 23,648
TAÑONG 11,743
J. DELA PEÑA 11,213
IVC 15,942
SAN ROQUE 18,919
STA. ELENA 6,809
STO. NIÑO 31,355
MALANDAY 44,320
CONCEPCION I 71,761
MARIKINA HEIGHTS 32,537
PARANG 69,355
NANGKA 29,887
CONCEPCION II 22,384
TOTAL 407,732

21
 Table 2-2 Marikina Population

Population Census Population Census Population Census Population Census

1990-05-01 2000-05-01 2010-05-01 2015-08-01

310,227 391,170 424,150 450,741

2.4 Geotechnical Investigation Report

The following data that were gathered as a basis for the design loads on the given location.
2.4.1 Introduction
This report presents the result of the geotechnical investigation conduction for the above cited project of the
City Government of Marikina. The investigation work involving borehole drilling was carried out in March
2012 by Universal Testing Laboratory and Inspection, Inc(UTLII) upon the request of proponent/client.

This report presents the result of the geotechnical investigation conduction for the above cited project of the
City Government of Marikina. The investigation work involving borehole drilling was carried out in March
2012 by Universal Testing Laboratory and Inspection, Inc(UTLII) upon the request of proponent/client.

The purpose of the investigation is to determine the general subsurface condition at site by the test boring
with SPT sampling and core drilling and to evaluate the results and with respect to the concept and
foundation design of the proposed structure. The samples obtained from the boring were tested in the
laboratory for engineering classification and strength determination and analysis.

22
 This report covers the methodology of the field and laboratory investigations, assessment of the subsurface
conditions, and estimation of the allowable soil bearing capacity, settlement analysis and citing other
related construction problems.

2.4.2 Field Investigation Program

The investigation involved the drilling of the two (2) boreholes to a depth 15m each below the present
ground level at the site with the use of a rotary drilling machine. The drilling was executed on the whole day
of 27 March 2012 following the ASDTM procedures as briefly described below.

The hole was advanced by wash boring and standard penetration test (SPT). The Standard Penetration
Test (SPT) is performed every 1.0 meter of depth measured from the ground surface. Initially an NW-
casting was driven into the ground using the driver hammer weighing 63.5 kg. up to a depth of 0.50 m. The
section of the casting which was driven into the ground was cleaned up to the bottom wash boring. The
term “Wash Boring” refers to the process in which a hole is advanced by combination of chopping and
jetting to break the soil or rock into small fragments called cuttings and washing to remove cuttings from the
hole. TH tools used to consist of the drill rods with a chopping bit at the bottom and a water swivel and
lifting the bail at the top. This is connected to the water pump by a heavy duty hose attached to the water
swivel. This assembly is attached to the cathead by means of a rope which passes through the sheave and
tied to the lifting bail. The tool are then lowered to the level of soil in the casing, and the water under
pressure is introduced to the bottom of the hole means of the water passages in the drill rods and the
chopping bit. At the same time, the bit is raised and dropped by means of the rope attached to the lifting
bail. Each time the rods are dropped they are also partially rotated manually by means of a wrench placed
around the rods. The latter process helps to break up the material at the base of the hole. The resulting
cuttings are carried to the surface in the drilling water which flows in the annular space between the drill
rods and the inside of the casing. The process is continued until the depth for taking SPT samples is
reached.
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was used to extract relatively distributed samples from the borehole
at intervals not exceeding 1:50 meters. This was done by driving a standard split-barrel sampler with the
following specifications:
: Make :Std. Sprague and Henwood Type
: Outside Diameter :5.40cm.
23
 : Inside Diameter 3.50cm.
: Length : 61.0 cm.
This split-barrel sampler is attached to the end of a string of rods and is driven into the ground by means of
blows from a donut type or center-hole cell hammer weighing 63.50 kg. The hammer is dropped repeatedly
and freely from a height of 76.2 cm. into a special anvil until the required 45.0 cm. penetration is attained.
The sample is initially driven a distance of 15.0 cm. to seat it on undisturbed soil and the blow count also
recorded (unless the weight of the assembly sinks the sampler, so no N can be counted). The blow count
for each of the next two-cm-increment is summed up and used as the penetration number N, unless the
last increment cannot be completed either from encountering rock/ gravelly layer or the blow count exceeds
60. Where N-blow count s exceeds to 60, the test is stopped and he penetration attained is recorded as a
denominator to the number of blows e.g. 60/10 meaning 60 blows for 10 cm. penetration. This would be
indicated as “refusal” in the borehole log. The method described above is the standard penetration tests
(SPT). N-values derived from the borings are reflected in appropriate columns in the Final Borehole Log in
Appendix A.
Correlation of SPT data with other soil parameters have been developed for estimates of stiffness and
densities of a soil and is very useful supplementary classification as shown in the tables below:
CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION FOR FINE-GRANED SOILS
(Terzaghi and Peck, 1969)
Classification SPT,N Undrained Shear Strength, su (kPa)
Very soft <2 <12
Soft 2 -4 12-25
Medium Stiff 4–8 25-50
Stiff 8 – 15 50-100
Very Stiff 15 – 30 100-200
Hard >30 >200
RELATIVE DENSITY CLASSIFICATION FOR COARSE-GRAINED SOILS
(U.S. NAVY, 1982 & Lambe and Whitman, 1969)
Classification SPT,N Undrained Shear Strength, su (kPa)
Very loose <4 0-15
Loose 4 - 10 15-35
Medium dense 10 – 30 36-65
Dense 30 – 50 65-85
Very Dense >50 85-100
All SPT samples were placed in a properly labeled air tight plastic bag before they were transported to the
laboratory office of UTLII in Pasig City for the required testing.

24
2.4.3 Laboratory Testing Program
The procedures used in testing the samples for this project conform with the ASTM Standards and from
selected references such as Soil testing for Engineers by T. William Lambe etc..
All SPT samples were subjected to the following specific tests with the procedures are briefly described
below:
Soil Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D 422-63, Re-approved 1998)
This test covers the quantitative determination of the distribution of particle in soils. The distribution of
particle sized retained on the No. 200 sieve is determined by sieving. The individual particles found in
particular soil is indicative of the performance characteristics of the soil. The percentage by weight of the
material passing through its succession sieve is recorded.

The Atterberg Limits

The liquid limit and the plastic limit tests define the upper and lower moisture content points at which a
particular soil ceases to perform as a plastic. The use of this test is restricted to cohesive soils.
● Liquid Limit (ASTEM D-425-66) – This is the water content of the soils expressed as percentage of the
weight of the oven-dried soil at the boundary between liquid and plastic states.
● Plastic Limit (ASTM D44-59) – This is expressed as percentage of the mass of the oven-dried soil at
the laboratory between the plastic and semi-solid states.
● Moisture Content of Soils (ASTM D-2216-98) - This test is based on the weight of the water in the soil.
It indicates imperative behavior of different soil types at various levels of moisture. It is the ratio
expressed as percentage of the weight of water in a given mass of soil to the weight of solid particles.
● Unified Soil Classification System (USCS,ASTM D2487-69) - The system is used in foundation works
for classifying a soils with symbols such as GP, GW, SM, SC, CL, CH, ML, MH, etc.

2.4.4 Site Geology

The geologic map within Metro Manila which includes Marikina City and its immediate vicinities used to be
a submerged area at one time in the past intermittent volcanic activities resulting to the deposition of
volcanic materials on top of the previously-laid volcanic materials. Thus, alternating beds and transported
sediments became a characteristic feature of the geologic deposit.

25
 Recent deposits at the site are the Quaternary volcanic rocks generally known in geologic literature as the
Guadalupe Formation which consists of the lower Alat Conglomerate member of the Upper Diliman Tuff
Member. This tuff includes the tuff sequence in the Angat-Novaliches region and along Pasig River in the
vicinity of Guadalupe, Makati and extending some areas of Manila and most of Quezon City, it is composed
of an almost flat-laying sequence of vitric tuffs and welded volcanic breccia with subordinate amounts of
tuffaceous, fie to medium-grained sandstone. The tuff is thin to medium-bedded, regularly stratified, tan or
light gray in color, fine-grained, lithified and consists of volcanic ash and dust.

2.4.5 Subsurface as Found

The subsurface of the site is represented by the soil profile derived along the drilled boreholes as shown in
Figure 2.0 As can be seen from the profile, the subsoil around BH-1 is underlain by overburden composed
soil of moderately/highly plastic clay (CL/CH) starting from the ground surface down all the way to the
bottom end of the borehole. N-values ranged from 21 to 62 blows/ft suggesting a consolidated to over
consolidated stratum. Over the vicinity of BH-2, silty sand (SM) covers the upper 4.5m thick layer before
clayey materials were hit down to the bottom end of the borehole. The silty sands are non-plastic with
recorded N-values of 20 - 29 blows/ft while the clays are highly plastic and have registered a blow count
ranging from 33 - 65 blows/ft. These blow counts indicated compacted sand deposits while the
consolidation and consistency of the clays are the same as those in BH-1
The groundwater level was measured at 8.0m or more inside the boreholes after completing the drilling.

2.4.6 Discussions and General Recommendations

Assessment of the Subsoil
Based on the boring results, the site is generally sound and stable to build on for the proposed structure
without failure. The founding clay materials as revealed by their SPT counts are not compressible,
expansive and collapsible. On the other hand, the sandy materials are not settlement prone nor susceptible
to liquefaction in the event of strong earthquakes. The use of a shallow foundation to support the structure
can be used under such soil conditions.
Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity at Foundation level
A spread or combined type of a shallow foundation can be adopted. The footings can be embedded to a
depth of 1.5m or deeper below the present ground level. For purposes of designing the footings, the
estimated allowable soil bearing capacity at varying footing level and base width are tabulated below:
Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity, kPa (Basis: BH-1)h

26
Depth, Base of Footing Bearing
meter Base = 1.5m B = 3.0m Layer
1.5 227 Clay
2.0 240 Clay
2.5 247 Clay
3.0 257 Clay
Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity, kPa (Basis: BH-1)
Depth, Base of Footing Bearing
meter Base = 1.5m B = 3.0m Layer
1.5 359 264 Clay
2.0 359 276 Clay
2.5 689 555 Clay
3.0 689 579 Clay

Settlement
For footings resting on clays, a long term settlement of 50mm to 100mm should be anticipated. On the
other hand, a maximum settlement of 25mm can be allowed for footings resting sand. Crucial to these
tolerable settlements is the excessive differential settlement that could affect the engineering integrity of the
structure. Provision for footing tie beams therefore be incorporated as an integral part of the foundation
system to minimize such excessive settlement to a manageable limit.

Foundation Excavation
The excavation for the foundation can proceed with relative ease as no dewatering work is necessary due
to deep groundwater level in the area, however, extensive protection of the walls around the vicinity of BH-
2 would be required as the sand materials to be excavated are highly erosive and could not vertically stand
if the pits are left unprotected during the course of the excavation. Over BH-1, the wall protection may no
longer necessary. The clays to be excavated are not collapsible such that the walls could vertically stand
even if the pits are left unsupported.

Site Coefficient S and Seismic Zone Factor Z

The site coefficient S and seismic zone factor Z required determining the design base shear V for structural
design is defined in terms of the soil profile as specified in the National Building Code of the Philippines.
Based on the soil profiles as determined from borings, the Structural Engineer for the project could classify
the site the corresponding S factor for given type of soil by referring to the Building Code.
The seismic map of the Philippines divides the country into two zones, namely Zone 2 and 4. For the site
under study, the maximum zone factor Z is also found in the said Building Code.

27
 2.4.7 General Remarks
This geotechnical evaluation was carried out by the Undersigned based on the soil borings and laboratory
tests shown in the Appendices as prepared by UTLII. Variations in subsurface conditions existing between
the borings may not become evident until the course of soil improvement and subsequent construction.
2.4.7.1 Borehole Location Map

Figure 2-9 Borehole Location Map

28
2.4.7.2 Final Borehole Log and Summary of Test

29
 Figure 2-10 Final Borehole Log and Summary of Test

2.5 Description of Structure

As the structural model represents, the hostel building has two access stairs located at both side of the
building, and has an elevator. The building consists of twenty-two rooms in total (from ground level up to
fifth level), fire exit, and common kitchen and comfort rooms. Basically, the hostel building includes steel
trusses and structural steel along the longitudinal and transverse sections of the structure as shown in
figure 2-1. The table 2-1 shows the room classifications with their corresponding area and the table 2-2
shows the functions of the room and its quantity.

2.6 Structural Classification

The designers classified the structure occupancy type based on the Philippine codes provided by the
National Structural Code. The structure needs to be categorized according to its occupancy, for it will be
used for the parameters necessary for wind and earthquake analysis.

Table 2-3 Ground Floor Structural Classification

Ground Floor

30
Room Description Quantity Area

Bedroom A 1 23.40m²
Bedroom B 1 39.25m²
Bedroom C 1 18.6725m²
Toilet and Bath 1 27.65m²
Kitchen Room 1 27.65m²
Total GFL Area (Excluding area of hallways and stairways) 771.235m²

Table 2-4 Second Floor Structural Classification

Second Floor

Room Description Quantity Area

Bedroom D 1 23.40m²
Bedroom E 1 39.25m²
Bedroom F 1 18.6725m²
Toilet and Bath 1 27.65m²
Kitchen Room 1 27.65m²
Total 2FL Area (Excluding area of hallways and stairways) 771.235m²

Table 2-5 Third Floor Structural Classification

Third Floor

Room Description Quantity Area

Bedroom G 1 23.40m²
Bedroom H 1 39.25m²
Bedroom I 1 18.6725m²
Toilet and Bath 1 27.65m²
Kitchen Room 1 27.65m²
Total 3FL Area (Excluding area of hallways and stairways) 771.235m²

31
 Table 2-6 Fourth Floor Structural Classification
Fourth Floor

Room Description Quantity Area

Bedroom J 1 23.40m²
Bedroom K 1 39.25m²
Bedroom L 1 18.6725m²
Toilet and Bath 1 27.65m²
Kitchen Room 1 27.65m²
Total 4FL Area (Excluding area of hallways and stairways) 771.235m²

Table 2-7 Fifth Floor Structural Classification

Fifth Floor

Room Description Quantity Area

Bedroom M 1 23.40m²
Bedroom N 1 39.25m²
Bedroom O 1 18.6725m²
Toilet and Bath 1 27.65m²
Kitchen Room 1 27.65m²
Total 5FL Area (Excluding area of hallways and stairways) 771.235m²

32
2.7 Building Plans
2.7.1 Floor Plans

Figure 2-11 Ground Floorplan

STEEL
Date Structural Members Section Modeling Properties
2/27/2022/10:09 PM/Sun Columns
GF – 2F W18 X 46 Angle: 90°
2F – 3F W18 X 46
3F – 4F W18 X 46
4F – 5F W18 X 46
5F – RD W18 X 46

33
Date Structural Members Section Modeling Properties
RD – Roof Apex W18 X 46

Beams
2F W21 X 57
3F
4F
5F
RD
Roof Apex

34
Figure 2-12 Second Floorplan

35
Figure 2-13 Third Floorplan

36
Figure 2-14 Fourth Floorplan

37
Figure 2-15 Fifth Floorplan

38
2.7.2 Elevation Plans

Figure 2-16 Front Elevation

39
Figure 2-17 Rear Elevation

40
Figure 2-18 Left Side Elevation

41
 Figure 2-19 Right Side Elevation

FEMALE AND MALE CR

Wall Finish Plaster, skim coat and white paint

Ceiling Finish Skim coat

Floor Finish Mosaic Tiles

2.7.3 Schedule of Finishes

KITCHEN

Wall Finish Plaster, skim coat and white paint

Ceiling Finish Skim coated

42
 Floor Finish Ceramic Tiles

BEDROOMS

Wall Finish Wall Finish

Ceiling Finish Ceiling Finish

Floor Finish Floor Finish

Other Finish Other Finish

2.8 Design Loads

2.8.1 Dead load
Corresponding loads of the following materials listed below were based on section 204 of NSCP 7 th edition
(2015). The actual weights of materials are applied in determining dead loads; minimum values per floor
are permitted in Tables below.
Table 2-8 Dead Loads
Dead Loads
Masonry Concrete (Solid Portion) 23.6 kPa
Steel Decking 18 Gage 0.14 kPa
Ceramic Quarry Tile (20mm) on 25mm mortar bed 1.53 kPa
Concrete Masonry Units
Exterior wall Concrete masonry, 150 mm width 3.32 kPa
thickness (Including plaster w/ an additional of 0.24
kPa on both sides)
Interior wall Concrete masonry, 100 mm width 3.17 kPa
thickness (Including plaster w/ an additional of 0.24
kPa on both sides)
Wall partition loads based on section 204.3 of NSCP 1 kPa
th
7 edition (2015) where office buildings and other
buildings where partition location are subject to
change shall designed to support, in addition to all
other loads, a uniformly distributed dead load
Ceiling System
Suspended Metal Lath and Gypsum Board 0.48 kPa
Mechanical Duct Allowance 0.2 kPa

43
2.8.2 Live Loads
The table below shows the summarized loadings for types of occupancy to be considered in the design of
live load which is based on section 205.3.1 table 205.1 of NSCP 7 th edition (2015) for the Minimum uniform
floor live load.

2.8.3 Wind Loads

The structure shall be designed and constructed to resist wind load. The designed wind load, determined
using STAAD Pro shall not be less than specified in section 207 of NSCP 7 th edition (2015).

● Frame system for wind load resistance: Components and cladding

● Zone classification: Zone 2 (with corresponding wind speed of 250 km/h by means of its
location as stated in the previous chapter)
● Exposure category: Surface roughness B (Where the structure is located in a suburban
area)
● Occupancy category: standard occupancy
● Enclosure classification: Partially enclosed building (NSCP section 207.2)

Table 2-10 Wind Loads

PARAMETERS
Building Classification Category
Basic Wind Speed (V)
Exposure Category
Structure Type
Importance Factor (Iw)
Topographic Factor, Kzt
Gust Effect Factor, G
Wind Directionality Factor, Kd
Enclosure Classification
Internal Pressure Coefficient (GCpi)
VALUE
CATEGORY III
280kph (NSCP 2015 Vol.1 Section 207A.5-1C)
Exposure B (NSCP 2015 Vol.1 Section 201A.7)
Building Structures
1.0
1.0 (Flat Terrain; NSCP 2015 Vol.1 Section 201A.8)
0.85 (NSCP 2015 Vol.1 Section 207A.2, Section 207A-9)
0.85 (MWFRS; NSCP 2015 Vol.1 Section 207A.6)
Enclosed (NSCP 2015 Vol.1 Section, 207A-11)
0.18 (NSCP 2015 Vol.1 Section 207A-11)

44
2.8.4 Seismic Loads
Parameters for seismic analysis stated below are based on section 208 of NSCP 7th edition (2015). These
earthquake provisions herein are primarily to safeguard against major structural failures and human
casualty, and to limit damages or maintain function.
1. Earthquake force resisting system: Dual system for both X and Z axis of frames.
2. Seismic zone: Zone 4 (Where the structure is located in NCR region)
3. Seismic Source Type A as influenced by valley fault system
4. Soil profile type: Sc (foundations on sedimentary rock)
Having Near-Source Factor of Na = 1.00 and Nv = 1.00
5. Seismic source: The structure is almost 2.2 km away from the nearest fault line which is the west valley
fault.
The image below shows the distance of an active fault line from the location of the proposed project. The
nearest fault line from the location is named as the Valley Fault System with a 7.2 magnitude earthquake;
the highest magnitude earthquake recorded from this fault line. The movement of the fault line is ranging
from 10 mm to 12 mm (0.39 in to 0.47 in) yearly.

Figure 2-11 PHIVOLCS Fault Finder (Active Faults in Sta. Elena, Marikina City)

2.8.5 Primary Load and Load Combinations

The structural members are designed to resist the following primary loads and load combinations in order
for the structural design to diminish the unnecessary forces. The seismic load and wind load will depend on

45
 the location of the structure itself. The dead, live, and superimposed loads will be the building's loads
subjected to different functions.
Table 2-11 Primary Load and Load Combinations
Load Case No. Description
Primary Loads
1 Earthquake Load X-direction (Eqx)
2 Earthquake Load Z-direction (Eqz)
3 Wind Load X-Direction(WLX)
4 Wind Load Z-Direction(WLZ)
5 Dead Load (DL)
6 Live Load(LL)
7 Roof Live Load (Lr)
Basic Load Combinations (ASD)
1 1DL
2 1DL+1LL
3 1DL+0.75LL
4 1LL+0.75W
5 1DL+0.75(LL+W)

2.9 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

- Must be thematic
- Themes in terms of the tradeoffs
- Used APA format 6th edition

What Makes a Special Moment Resisting Frame SPECIAL? BEHZAD RAFEZY, PhD

Design of Tension Members

Tension members supports bracings in the lateral frames of the structure. Behzad (2020) indicated that
absence of bracings in steel can have detrimental effect in the overall performance of the structure.

Special moment frames (SMFs) are expected to withstand significant inelastic deformation during a design
earthquake, so special proportioning and detailing requirements are therefore essential to resisting strong
earthquake shaking. Experience from the Northridge earthquake significantly expanded knowledge
regarding the seismic response of steel moment frames, and the design of SMFs—and their connections in
particular—has undergone a significant change in the post-Northridge era.

46
According to the Seismic Provisions, the SMF connection should be capable of sustaining an inter-story
drift angle of at least 0.04 radians, with the measured resistance of the connection being at least 80% of the
connected beam’s nominal plastic flexural strength.

2012 IBC SEAOC Structural/Seismic Design Manual, Vol. 4

Structural steel special moment frames (SMF) are typically comprised of wide-flange beams, columns, and
beam-column connections. Connections are proportioned and detailed to resist internal forces (flexural,
axial, and shear) that result from imposed displacement as a result of wind or earthquake ground shaking.
Inelasticity and energy dissipation are achieved through localized yielding of the beam element outside of
the beam-column connection. Special proportioning and detailing of this connection is essential to
achieving the desired inelastic behavior.

The anticipated seismic behavior of the SMF system is long-period, high-displacement motion, with well
distributed inelastic demand shared by all participating beam-column connections. System yielding
mechanisms are generally limited to frame beams with the intent to invoke yielding at the base of frame
columns. In many cases, engineers may model a SMF system with pin-based columns as significant
stiffness is required to yield the base of large wide-flange members. If yielding at the base of the frame is
desired to occur within the column section, the column might be extended below grade and tied into a
basement wall or a ground-level beam, which is added to create a beam-column connection. Economies of
construction usually limit the size of beam and column elements based on imposed displacement/drift
limits.

Performance Evaluation of Different Types of Steel Moment Resisting Frames Subjected to Strong Ground
Motion through Incremental Dynamic Analysis Behrouz Asgarian*, Hamideh Khazaee, and Masoud
Mirtaheri K.N.Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

Comparative studies on seismic performance for various types of steel moment resisting frames subjected
to near field and far field earthquakes are performed through Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) method in
this study. Near field earthquake has a pulse like effects on the structures. It imports immediate force in
very short duration to buildings. Therefore, destructive effects of surge energy are not negligible. Four
intensity indices are used, namely, peak acceleration (PGA), spectral acceleration at the structure’s first-
mode period (Sa(T1, 5%)), spectral acceleration at the structure’s nth effective-mode period (Sa(Tn, 5%))

47
and the Spectral velocity at the structure’s first-mode period (Sv(T1, 5%)). Numerical results illustrate that
the intensity measure parameters related to ground velocity and the higher mode-related parameters
present better correlation with the seismic responses of near source ground motion for given systems. The
higher mode-related parameters are more suitable for tall systems subjected to near field earthquakes.
Moreover, the chosen parameters Sa(Tn, 5%) and Sv(T1, 5%) of near-fault impulsive ground motions
enhance the performance of intensity measure of corresponding conventional parameters, i.e. Sa(T1, 5%).
A comparison for the special and intermediate steel moment resisting frames is made as regard to
performance using IDA method. A more efficient performance is observed for the special moment resisting
frames compare to intermediate ones.

Seismic Performance and Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH-
ASL 1998 T. R. Higgins Lectureship Award Winner

In recent years, particularly in southern California, moment frames with only a few spans, and sometimes
only with one span have been used. In this system, selected spans in the entire planar frame have rigid
connections while all other connections are shear connections. The columns that are not part of the
moment frame are gravity columns and are not considered as part of the lateral load resisting system in
design. Information on the actual behavior and design of the frames with only a few rigid spans was very
limited and almost non-existent prior to the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Engelkirk (1994) provides some
information on seismic design of steel moment frames with a few rigid bays. However, a large percentage
of the steel structures damaged during the 1994 Northridge earthquake had this structural system. The
relatively poor performance of moment frames with only a few spans can be due to several factors. It
appears that in these moment frames, the members and connections become extraordinarily large. As a
result, it is possible that the large members (jumbo shapes) connected by very large size welds could not
behave in a ductile manner due to material brittleness in large size welds and steel elements. Other factors
such as characteristics of the ground motion and relatively small redundancy of the frames could have also
contributed to the failures. The definite cause of these failures has been under investigation for the last five
years and a number of parameters have been identified as possible contributors to fractures (SAC, 1994
and 1997).

Seismic Design of Steel Special Moment Frames: A Guide for Practicing Engineers NIST GCR 09-917-3
Ronald O. Hamburger Helmut Krawinkler James O. Malley Scott M. Adan

48
 Structural steel special moment frames often are used as part of the seismic force-resisting systems in
buildings designed to resist earthquakes with substantial inelastic energy dissipation. They are one of a few
select systems that U.S. building codes permit without restriction in buildings exceeding 160 ft in height,
even in the most critical occupancies and in areas mapped as having the highest ground motions. Beams,
columns, and beam-column connections in steel special moment frames are proportioned and detailed to
resist flexural, axial, and shearing actions that result as a building sways through multiple inelastic
displacement cycles during strong earthquake ground shaking. Special proportioning and detailing
requirements are therefore essential in resisting strong earthquake shaking with substantial inelastic
behavior. These moment-resisting frames are called Special Moment Frames because of these additional
requirements, which improve the inelastic response characteristics of these frames in comparison with less
stringently detailed Intermediate and Ordinary Moment Frames.

In a severe earthquake, frame structures have the potential to collapse in a sidesway mode due to P-delta
effects. These effects are caused by vertical gravity loads acting on the deformed configuration of the
structure. For design purposes, the P-delta effect is assessed in codes by means of elastic and static
concepts, even though in reality the response of the structure in a severe earthquake is inelastic and
dynamic. The simple P-delta provisions in ASCE 7, §12.8.7 provide some protection against sidesway
failures, but do not provide accurate information on the susceptibility of a structure to such failure.

CHAPTER 3: DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS

AND STANDARDS

3.1 Design Constraints

One of the essential parts of a design is the constraints. Design constraints are factors that limit the range
of potential design solutions that can be adopted. This section will review multiple constraints, as the
constraint defined as a constraining condition, agency, or force that limits the systems’ performance in a
given context/environment. Constraints are helpful in the development of a design, as they limit the number

49
 of feasible options and point towards the solution. To make the design more effective and efficient,
constraints set parameters that must be considered.
In this project, constraints were divided into two groups the quantitative constraints and the qualitative
constraints. Quantitative constraints are those constraints that can be measured using engineering
methods. Qualitative constraints are those constraints that cannot be measured but can be evaluated
through the designer’s perspective. The following were the constraints considered to have a relevant
impact on the Design of five-storey school building along Sumulong Highway, Marikina city.

3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints

Economic Constraint (Project Cost)
The design of the building contains steel for the structural framing, as stated by the client. The designer
decides to use steel as a material for framing instead of reinforced concrete or composite design because it
will be cheaper. That is why the designers are planning to use either bolted, welded and shear connections.
Constructability Constraint (Project Duration).
The client wants the facility to be fully operational as soon as possible. Early completion of the project
would mean more opportunities to conduct training and assessments to possible clients to promote the
company. The choices between using a Bolted and Welded connections are the basis of the designers in
moderating the time construction. Finishing the design as soon as possible using either of the two will
reduce the total amount of the project cost.
Sustainability Constraint (Life Span)
The building should be strong enough to resist earthquakes and strong winds. It should also use quality
materials so that there would be no sections that may fail over time. The material to be used in the project
should also be durable and easy to maintain, resulting in low maintenance costs.
Risk Assessment (Maintenance Cost)
It is examining the considerable number of dangers that may happen during the term of structure life.
Recognizing perils during the planning phase of the structure should be distinguished and recorded.
Appraisal of dangers happens after perils have been recognized during the planning phase of the structure.
Individuals around the area can whine about it due to various dangers. We originators break down and
evaluate the dangers related to that peril. We cautiously break down and evaluate the conceivable mischief
around the area to stay away from checks during the office development.

50
 3.1.2 Qualitative Constraints
Environmental
Having considered the constructability of structure either using bolted or welded connections. Pollution is
the major contributor to Global Warming, so environmental constraints are on the priority checklist in
building the structure. Minimizing the use of the equipment’s may help the ecosystem lessen its pollution
Health/Safety
The designer’s primary concern is the safety of the building. The building should be well-designed because
the occupants are students. There should be enough air ventilation in the classrooms. The materials to be
used should consider not only their appearances but also their content and toxicity. The design of the
project should require specials safety considerations for children since the main occupants are students.
Political
The City Government impost the maximum building height as 20 meters. The designer considered this,
thus limiting the structure’s overall height.
Ethical
The mayor wants his workers to be in charge of the construction of the building. By his decision, the
construction may not be as perfect due to his workers' knowledge, especially on steel. Workers of this kind
of project must have a full understanding of steel construction because if not, the money will be wasted,
and the building's maximum capacity will not be used.

3.2 Trade-offs
The trade-offs displayed right now dependent on the architect's appraisal on which design may be the best
answer for address the limitations gave in the past area. The reasons for the choice of each trade-offs were
different contextual analyses and trials, course books and sites that gave applicable thoughts. These
thoughts had huge effects on the starter arrangement of the creator.

3.2.1 Bracing
Bracing the frame in a steel structure is very important; it will resist heavy lateral loads like wind and
earthquake. Primarily bracing is done to resist the lateral loads. Sometimes, when there is a heavy
transverse load in the steel beam, bracing is also done to resist the transverse load to increase the bay's
length. In other words, column to column distance can be increased. The principal purpose of bracing in the
steel structure is to increase the steel structure's ductility so that the structure can stretch without breaking
suddenly.

51
3.2.1.1 Cross (X) Bracing system
Cross bracing can increase a building's capability to withstand seismic activity. Cross bracing is usually
seen with two diagonal supports placed in an X-shaped manner; these support compression and tension
forces. Connections are located at the beam to column joints. Bracing connections may require relatively
large gusset plates at the beam to column joint. This method of construction maximizes the weight of the
load a structure can support. It is a typical application when constructing earthquake-safe buildings. Cross
bracing may employ full diagonals, or corner bracing, or knee bracing.

Figure 3-1 Multistory X - Bracing

Source: https://slideplayer.com/slide/1566151/

Table 3-1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Cross (X) Braced Frame System Configuration

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
▪ The lateral storey displacement, storey drifts ▪ More number of members.
as well as axial force and bending moment in ▪ Difficult to provided openings.
columns reduces to a remarkable level. ▪ Heavy bracings are required for long spans.
▪ Reduction in lateral displacement is a major ▪ Loads need to act essentially on joints.
advantage. ▪ Design load is always debatable.
▪ It resists the wind and seismic forces, much
more than non-braced buildings.
▪ It is economical, easy to erect, occupies less
space and has flexibility to design for meeting
the required strength and stiffness.

Source: https://slideplayer.com/slide/3816299/

52
3.2.1.2 Chevron (Inverted - V) Bracing system
Inverted V-bracing involves the two members meeting at a center point on the upper horizontal member.
This braced frame system can significantly reduce the compression brace's buckling capacity so that it is
less than the tension yield capacity of the tension brace. This can mean that when the braces reach their
resistance capacity, the load must instead be resisted in the horizontal member's bending.

Figure 3-2 Inverted V – Bracing (Chevron)

Source: https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Braced_frame_structures

Table 3-2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Chevron (Inverted – V) Braced Frame System Configuration

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
▪ High elastic stiffness and strength ▪ Low natural frequency
▪ Compression and tension exert on each side ▪ Unbalances forces created in braces
of braces respectively beam
▪ Tension braces sustain tension ▪ Compression braces are deformed
▪ Both braces distribute lateral load equally ▪ Cause elastic deformation
before buckling ▪ Poor performance
▪ Compression lost axial load capacity
after buckling
▪ Contribute unbalanced distributed load
capacity after buckling
▪ Large bending moment on intersection
of beam and braces.
Source: https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/pdf/2018/09/e3sconf_cenviron2018_01010.pdf

53
 3.2.2 Beams
3.2.2.1 Composite Beams
It is a structural member composed of two or more dissimilar materials joined together to act as a unit, just
like a steel-concrete composite beam in which a steel wide-flange shape is attached to a concrete floor
slab. The many other kinds of composite beam include steel-wood, wood-concrete, and plastic-concrete or
advanced composite materials–concrete. Composite beams as defined here are different from beams
made from fiber-reinforced polymeric materials.

Figure 3-3 Composite Beam Design

Source: https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/composite+beam
Table 3-3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Composite Beam

ADVANTAGES
▪ Excellent spanning capacities for greater
strength and less deflection.
▪ The time taken for installation is shorter.
▪ Acts as permanent formwork with minimal
propping and no stripping of formwork is
required.
DISADVANTAGES
▪ All composite will crack sooner or later
▪ Composite are more brittle than
wrought metals and thus are more
easily damaged.
▪ During placement of concrete, care
should be taken to avoid overloading or
supporting structural members.
▪ Materials require refrigerated transport
and storage and have limited shelf
lives.

Source: https://www.slideshare.net/sohshing/building-technology-1-project-1

3.2.2.2 Built-Up Shape Beam

A built-up section is constructed from two or more parts joined together to form a single unit. The moment-
resisting capacity of such a section will be most significant for the greatest moment of inertia. Thus, most of

54
 the material should be built furthest from the neutral axis. For huge loads, we use a deep I-shaped section
to resist the moments. The sections are usually welded or bolted to form the built-up section.

Figure 3-4 Built-Up Shape Beam Design

Source: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-built-up-section-and-a-rolled-section

Table 3-4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Built – Up Shape Beam

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
▪ It can be much more versatile. ▪
It is more expensive than standard
section.
▪ Galvanizing difficulties
▪ More potential fatigue issues
▪ Cost of weld/bolt inspection
▪ Difficulties evaluating capacity for
future.
Source: https://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=376110

3.2.3 Column
3.2.3.1 3.2.3.1 Concrete-filled Tube HSS
A hollow structural section (HSS) is a type of metal profile with a hollow cross-section. HSS members can
be circular, square, or rectangular sections, although other shapes such as elliptical are also available.
HSS is a cold-formed, welded steel tube used for welded or bolted building construction, bridges, and other
structures and manufactured products.

55
 Figure 3-5 Concrete-filled Tube HSS Design

Source:
http://www.doc.learnwithseu.com/seusessions/2014/01jan/handouts_slides_6pp_seu_jan_2014_hss_mome
nt.pdf

Table 3-5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Concrete – filled Tube HSS

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
▪ It can be much more versatile. ▪ It is more expensive than standard
section.

Source: https://www.slideshare.net/sohshing/building-technology-1-project-1

3.2.3.2 Rolled Shaped Wide Flange Steel Columns

Figure 3-6 Rolled Shaped Wide Flange Steel Column

Source:
http://www.doc.learnwithseu.com/seusessions/2014/01jan/handouts_slides_6pp_seu_jan_2014_hss_mome
nt.pdf

Table 3-6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Rolled Shaped Wide Flange Steel Column

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

56
 ▪ It can be much more versatile. ▪ It is more expensive than standard
section.

Source: https://www.slideshare.net/sohshing/building-technology-1-project-1

3.2.4 Connections
3.2.4.1 Welded Connections
Structural welding is a process by which the parts that are to be connected are heated and fused, with
supplementary molten metal at the joint. A relatively small depth of material will become molten, and upon
cooling, the structural steel and weld metal will act as one continuous part where they are joined.

Figure 3-7Welded Connection

Source:
http://www.doc.learnwithseu.com/seusessions/2014/01jan/handouts_slides_6pp_seu_jan_2014_hss_mome
nt.pdf
Table 3-7 Advantages and Disadvantages of Welded Connection

ADVANTAGES
▪ As no hole is required for welding, hence no
reduction of area. So structural members are
more effective in taking the load.
▪ In welding filler plates, gusseted plates,
connecting angles etc, are not used, which
leads to reduced overall weight of the
structure.
▪ Welded joints are more economical as less
labor and less material is required.
▪ The efficiency of welded joint is more than
that of the riveted joint.
▪ The welded joints look better than the bulky
riveted/butted joints.
▪ The speed of fabrication is faster in
DISADVANTAGES
▪ Welded joints are more brittle and
therefore their fatigue strength is less
than the members joined.
▪ Due to uneven heating & cooling of the
members during the welding, the
members may distort resulting in
additional stresses.
▪ Skilled labor and electricity are required
for welding.
▪ No provision for expansion and
contraction is kept in welded
connection & therefore, there is
possibility of racks.
▪ The inspection of welding work is more

57
 comparison with the riveted joints. difficult and costlier than the riveting
work.

Source: https://civilblog.org/2015/01/24/what-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-welding-joints/

3.2.4.2 Bolted Connections

Figure 3-8 Bolted Connection

Source:
http://www.doc.learnwithseu.com/seusessions/2014/01jan/handouts_slides_6pp_seu_jan_2014_hss_mome
nt.pdf
Table 3-8 Advantages and Disadvantages of Bolted Connection

ADVANTAGES
▪ Use of unskilled labour and simple tools
▪ Noiseless and quick fabrication
▪ No special equipment/process needed for
installation
▪ Fast progress of work
▪ Accommodates minor discrepancies in
dimensions
▪ The connection supports loads as soon as
the bolts are tightened
Source: https://civilsnapshot.com/bolted-connections-advantages-bolted-connections/
DISADVANTAGES
▪
Bolted connections have lesser
strength in axial tension as the net area
at the root of the thread is less.
▪ Under vibratory loads the strength is
reduced if the connections get
loosened.
▪ Unfinished bolts have lesser strength
because of non-uniform diameter.
▪ Architectural look.

3.3 Initial Assessment and Ranking of Tradeoffs

The constraint evaluations are summarized and ranked using the Framework on Trade-Off Strategies in
Engineering Design (Otto and Antonsson, 1991) based on the level of significance for each criterion (with a

58
 scale of 0 to 10 as 10 being the most important). The ability of each design approach to meet the criterion
has been assigned. Each design methodology’s ability to satisfies the criterion (on a scale of 0 to 10, 10
being the highest satisfaction in the criterion) was also tabulated. The computation ranking ability to satisfy
the criteria of the design is as follows:

Higher value−Lower value

% Difference= × 10
Higher value
Equation 1

Subordinate rank =Governing rank −(% Difference)

Equation 2

The governing rank is the subjective value set by the client’s decision. The importance of each constraint is
obtained by the recommendations of the client’s perspective on the constraint. The subordinate rank in is a
variable that corresponds to its percentage distance from the governing rank along the ranking scale.

3.4 Initial Estimate

The designers provided an initial cost estimate for all the proposed trade-offs. With this, the designer can
decide is best suitable to the structure considering the constraints: economic, constructability, and
sustainability whichever will possess the highest bid in the ranking.
Table 3-9 Trade-off for Bracing Quantitative Initial Estimate

Constraint Trade-off

Cross (X) Bracing Chevron (Inverted K) Bracing

Economic (Cost) Php 275,065.73 Php 209,573.89

Constructability (Man-hour duration) 183 hours 139 hours

Serviceability (Lateral Deflection) 72.147 mm 88.064 mm

3.4.1 Initial Computation for Economic Constraint (Bracing Trade-offs)

Cross bracing vs. Chevron Bracing

275,065.73−209,573.89
% Difference= x 10
275,065.73

59
 % Difference=2.4

Subordinate Rank = 10– 2.4= 7.6

3.4.2 Initial Computation for Constructability Constraint (Bracing Trade-offs)

F Cross bracing vs. Chevron Bracing

183−139
% Difference= x 10
183
% Difference=2.4

Subordinate Rank = 10 – 2.4= 7.6

F

3.4.3 3.4.3 Initial Computation for Serviceability Constraint (Bracing Trade-offs)

Cross bracing vs. Chevron Bracing

88.064−72.147
% Difference= x 10
88.064

% Difference=0.18

Subordinate Rank = 10 – 1.8= 8.2

Table 3-10 Designers’ Initial Raw Ranking of Bracing

Decision Criteria Criterion’s Importance Ability to satisfy the criterion

(on a scale of 0 to 10) (on a scale from 1 to 10)

Cross (X) Bracing Chevron (Inverted V)

Bracing

Economic 10 7.6 10
Constructability 10 7.6 10

60
 Serviceability 9 10 8.2
Over-all Rank 242 273.8

Table 3-11 Trade-off for Beam Quantitative Initial Estimate

Constraint Trade-off

Composite Beam (Hot-rolled Section) Built-up Beam

Economic (Cost) Php 983,791.76 Php 1,241,407.64

Constructability (Man-hour duration) 1045 hours 685 hours

Serviceability (Beam Deflection) 30 mm 19.5 mm

3.4.4 Initial Computation for Economic Constraint (Beam Trade-offs)

Composite Beam vs. Built-up Beam

1,241,407.64−983,791.76
% Difference= x 10
1,241,407.64
% Difference=2.1

Subordinate Rank = 10-2.1 = 7.9

3.4.5 Initial Computation for Constructability Constraint (Beam Trade-offs)

Composite Beam vs. Built-up Beam

1045−685
% Difference= x 10
1045
% Difference=3.4
Subordinate Rank = 10-3.4 = 6.6
F
3.4.6 Initial Computation for Serviceability Constraint (Beam Trade-offs)

Composite Beam vs. Built-up Beam

30−19.5
% Difference= x 10
30

61
 % Difference=3.9
Subordinate Rank = 10-3.9 = 6.1

Figure 3-14 Serviceability Constraints Composite Beam vs. Built-up Beam (Beam Trade-offs)

Table 3-12 Designers’ Initial Raw Ranking of Beam

Decision Criteria Criterion’s Importance Ability to satisfy the criterion

(on a scale of 0 to 10) (on a scale from 1 to 10)

Composite Beam (W- Built-up Beam

section)

Economic 10 10 7.9
Constructability 10 6.6 10
Serviceability 9 6.1 10
Over-all Rank 220.9 269

Table 3-13 Trade-off for Column Quantitative Initial Estimate

Constraint Trade-off

Rolled Shaped Wide Flange Steel Concrete-filled Tube HSS

Section
Economic (Cost) Php 745,108.00 Php 995,030.31

Constructability (Man-hour duration) 514 hours 654 hours

Serviceability (Slenderness Ratio) 52.2 48

3.4.7 Initial Computation for Economic Constraint (Column Trade-offs)

Rolled Shaped Wide Flange vs. Concrete-filled tube HSS

995,030.31−745,108
% Difference= x 10
995,030.31
% Difference=2.5
Subordinate Rank = 10-2.5 = 7.5
F
3.4.7 Initial Computation for Constructability Constraint (Column Trade-offs)

Rolled Shaped Wide Flange vs Concrete-filled tube HSS

62
 654−514
% Difference= x 10
654
% Difference=2.1
Subordinate Rank = 10-2.1 = 7.9

3.4.8 Initial Computation for Serviceability Constraint (Column Trade-offs)

Rolled Shaped Wide Flange vs. Concrete-filled tube HSS
52.2−48
% Difference= x 10
52.2
% Difference=1
Subordinate Rank = 10-1 = 9
F

Table 3-14 Designers’ Initial Raw Ranking of Column

Decision Criteria Criterion’s Importance Ability to satisfy the criterion

(on a scale of 0 to 10) (on a scale from 1to 10)

Rolled Wide Flange Concrete-filled Tube

HSS

Economic 10 10 7.5
Constructability 10 10 7.9
Serviceability 9 9 10
Over-all Rank 281 244

Table 3-15 Trade-off for Connection Quantitative Initial Estimate

Constraint Trade-off

Bolted Double Angle (Bolted Welded Double Angle ( Welded

connection) connection)
Constructability (Man-hour duration) 136 hours 139 hours

Economic (Cost) Php 101,520.00 Php 70,200.00

3.4.9 3.4.10 Initial Computation for Economic Constraint (Connection Trade-offs)

Bolted Double Angle vs Welded Double Angle

63
 101,520−70,200
% Difference= x 10
101,520
% Difference=3.1
Subordinate Rank = 10-3.1 = 6.9
F
3.4.10

3.4.11 Initial Computation for Constructability Constraint (Connection Trade-offs)

Bolted Double Angle vs. Welded Double Angle
139−136
% Difference= x 10
139
% Difference=0.2
Subordinate Rank = 10-0.2 = 9.8
F

Table 3-16 Designers’ Initial Raw Ranking of Connections

Decision Criteria Criterion’s Importance Ability to satisfy the criterion

(on a scale of 0 to 10) (on a scale from 1 to 10)

Bolted Double Angle Welded Double Angle

Economic 10 5.9 10
Constructability 10 10 9.8
Over-all Rank 159 198

3.5 Trade-off Assessment

Economic Constraint Assessment
The economic assessment of trade-off yields the result of using the chevron for bracing, composite as the
beam, rolled wide flange as the column and welded double angle the connection of the five-story school
building along Sumulong Highway in Marikina City. This outcome is the result of considering the material
cost involved for each trade-off’.

Constructability Constraint Assessment

The constructability assessment of trade-off yields the result of using the chevron for bracing, built-up as
the beam, rolled wide flange as the column and bolted double angle as the connection of the five-story
school building along Sumulong Highway in Marikina City. This outcome is the result of considering the
duration or time needed to accomplish the construction each trade-offs.

Serviceability Constraint Assessment

64
 The serviceability assessment of trade-off yields the result of using the cross for bracing, built-up as the
beam and concrete filled HSS as the column of the five-story school building along Sumulong Highway in
Marikina City. This outcome is the result of considering the lateral deflection for each trade-offs’.

Over-all Assessment of Trade-offs

For the overall assessment of the trade-offs, the chevron as the bracing, built-up as the beam, rolled wide
flange as the column and welded double angle as the connection of the five-story school building along
Sumulong Highway in Marikina City. The chevron bracing garnered a score of 273.8. The built-up beam
garnered a score of 269. The rolled wide flange column garnered a score of 281. The welded double angle
connection garnered a score of 198. The outcome is the result of considering the material cost, lateral
deflection and duration of construction involved for each trade-offs.

3.6 Design Codes and Standards

The design standards used are taken from the following codes and standards:

1. National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) vol. 1-2015 edition (PD1096)
2. National Building Code of the Philippines
3. ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials)
4. ASEP Steel Handbook 2004 vol. 1
5. Steel Designers’ Manual of the Steel Construction Institute 6 th Edition

1. The National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015. This structural code provides minimum
requirements for building structural systems using prescriptive and performance-based provisions. It is
founded on broad-based principles that make possible the use of new materials and new building
designs. It is also designed to meet these needs through various model codes/regulations, to
safeguard the public health and safety nationwide. This is the main reference for the design procedure
of the structure.
Material Strength. Materials conforming specifications of NSCP 7 th edition 2015 were used in the
design of the project.
Dead loads, live loads and environmental loads (wind and earthquake) are the forces acting on the
structure. Dead loads are consisting of the weight of all materials of construction and partition loads
that are presented in the next chapter. Live loads shall be the maximum loads expected by the
occupancy; these loads are attached in chapter 4 as well. The required lateral loads due to wind
and earthquake forces shall be separately calculated.

Wind Loads. The wind load is calculated in STAAD Pro using specifications adopted in American
Society of Civil Engineers ASCE7-05 and based on procedure as stated in NSCP 2015, section
207.

Seismic Loads. The structure shall be designed and constructed to resist the effect of seismic
ground motion as provided in section 208 of NSCP 2015
Load Combinations. Steel sections shall be designed using the “Allowable Stress Design” method
using the following combination

: DL + LL
65
 : DL + 0.75 LL
: DL + WL
: DL + 0.7 EL
: DL + 0.75 WL + 0.75 LL
: 0.6 DL + WL
: 0.6 DL + 0.7

Deformation Limits. Structures or structural members shall be checked such that the maximum deformation
does not exceed the following:

a. Beams and Girders. Beams and girders supporting floors and roof shall be proportioned with due
regard to the deflection produced by the design loads. Considering then the total deflection, which
is due to the additional live loads, occurring after attachment of non-structural elements shall not
exceed L/360.

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

A. Loading : UBC 97, ASCE 7-05

B. Steel : A36

66
 CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE

Para 1

Para

Design of Tension Members

Tradeoff 1
The design of the structure against lateral loads consisted of chevron and cross bracing. From

Figure 2-16 Front Elevation

67
Tradeoff 2
The design of the structure against lateral loads consisted of chevron and cross bracing. From

Figure 2-16 Front Elevation

68
 Figure 4-1 Gridline A / Grid 3

Design of Beams

Tradeoff 1
1, 2nd , …..nth floor

69
Validation of Tradeoffs

Tension
Compression
Flexural
Members subjected to both
Connections

Conclude

70
 CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN

Para 1

Group Hotel – Borras, et.al. (2022)

File 1 – manuscript – word, pdf
File 2 – structural analysis of the structure (staad)
File 3 – Design of structural members (Excel)
File 4 – AutoCAD (Connection details, beam and column schedules)

71