Comparison of As required (simply supported beam) Name Type of beam As required (mm) Manually Haziq Nazrin Azrai Akmal

Syazwan 1B7 1B4 GB9 GB3 GB10 116 118.44 131.58 152 377.89 Esteem 50 85 352 104 357 56.9% 28.23% 62.62% 31.58% 5.53% % Difference

Comparison of As provided (simply supported beam) Name Haziq Nazrin Azrai Akmal Syazwan Type of beam 1B7 1B4 GB9 GB3 GB10 As provided (mm) 226 226 157 226 452 135 135 352 135 357 % Difference 40.27% 40.27% 55.4% 40.27% 21.02%

Comparison of main steel (simply supported beam)

Name Haziq Nazrin Azrai Akmal Syazwan

Type of beam 1B7 1B4 GB9 GB3 GB10 2T12 2T12 2T10 2T12 4T12

Main steel 2T12 2T12 2T16 2T12 2T16

Comparison of bending moment

Name Haziq Nazrin Azrai Akmal Syazwan

Type of beam 1B7 1B4 GB9 GB3 GB10

Bending moment 10.28 10.38 21.69 17.17 45.79 8.3 14 55.1 17.2 55.8

% Difference 19.26% 25.86% 60.64% 0.17% 17.94%

Comparison of shear force Name Haziq Nazrin Azrai Akmal Syazwan Type of beam 1B7 1B4 GB9 GB3 GB10 Shear force (kN) 13.27 19.76 24.78 32.71 54.52 10.7 25.2 56.8 29.8 57.3 % Difference 9.35% 21.59& 56.37% 3.36% 4.85%

Comparison of Shear link

Name Haziq Nazrin Azrai Akmal Syazwan

Type of beam 1B7 1B4 GB9 GB3 GB10

Shear link (mm) 8 8 10 8 8 10 10 10 10 10

% Difference 20% 20% 0% 20% 20%

Comparison of As Required (continuous beam)

Name

Type of beam GB12

As required (mm) Manually Top reinforcement 112.74 Bottom reinforcement 34.74 Esteem Top reinforcement 82 Bottom reinforcement 55 Top reinforcement 71 Bottom reinforcement 48 Top reinforcement 407 Bottom reinforcement 364 Top reinforcement 24 Bottom reinforcement 167 Top reinforcement 215 Bottom reinforcement 25

Percentage difference (%) 27.27

Haziq

36.84

Nazrin

1B16

Top reinforcement 63.68 Bottom reinforcement 42.14

10.31

12.21

Azrai

1B10

Top reinforcement 109.67 Bottom reinforcement 73.60

73.05

79.78

Akmal

1B14

Top reinforcement 58 Bottom reinforcement 191.7

58.62

12.88

Syazwan

1B5

Top reinforcement 73.10 Bottom reinforcement 36.50

66.0

31.51

Comparison of As Provided (continuous beam)

Name

Type of beam GB12

As Provided (mm) Manually Top reinforcement 628 Bottom reinforcement 628 Esteem Top reinforcement 135 Bottom reinforcement 135 Top reinforcement 135 Bottom reinforcement 135 Top reinforcement 407 Bottom reinforcement 364 Top reinforcement 135 Bottom reinforcement 167 Top reinforcement 215 Bottom reinforcement 135

Percentage difference (%)

Haziq

78.5

78.5

Nazrin

1B16

Top reinforcement 628 Bottom reinforcement 628

78.5

78.5

Azrai

1B10

Top reinforcement 628 Bottom reinforcement 628

35.20

42.04

Akmal

1B14

Top reinforcement 628 Bottom reinforcement 628

78.5

73.41

Syazwan

1B5

Top reinforcement 628 Bottom reinforcement 628

65.76

78.5

Comparison of Main steel (continuous beam)

Name

Type of beam GB12

Main steel Manually Top reinforcement 2T20 Bottom reinforcement 2T20 Top reinforcement 2T20 Bottom reinforcement 2T20 Top reinforcement 2T20 Bottom reinforcement 2T20 Top reinforcement 2T20 Bottom reinforcement 2T20 Top reinforcement 2T20 Bottom reinforcement 2T20 Esteem Top reinforcement 2T12 Bottom reinforcement 2T12 Top reinforcement 2T12 Bottom reinforcement 2T12 Top reinforcement 2T16 Bottom reinforcement 2T16 Top reinforcement 2T12 Bottom reinforcement 2T12 Top reinforcement 2T12 Bottom reinforcement 2T12

Haziq

Nazrin

1B16

Azrai

1B10

Akmal

1B14

Syazwan

1B5

Comparison of Shear force (continuous beam) Name Type of Beam Shear force (kN) Manually Esteem 33.14 29.17 39.29 25.74 27.22 35.50 29.80 85 24.30 74.90 Percentage difference (%) 6.65 2.11 53.78 5.59 63.68

Haziq Nazrin Azrai Akmal Syazwan

GB12 1B16 1B10 1B14 1B5

Comparison of Bending Moment (continuous beam) Name Type of beam GB12 Bending Moment (kNm) Manually Top reinforcement 19.04 Bottom reinforcement 5.87 Nazrin 1B16 Top reinforcement 10.75 Bottom reinforcement 7.12 Azrai 1B10 Top reinforcement 18.44 Bottom reinforcement 12.38 Akmal 1B14 Top reinforcement 9.81 Bottom reinforcement 8.53 Syazwan 1B5 Top reinforcement 12.34 Bottom reinforcement 6.17 Esteem Top reinforcement 14.2 Bottom reinforcement 13.0 Top reinforcement 11.80 Bottom reinforcement 8 Top reinforcement 62.6 Bottom reinforcement 56.80 Top reinforcement 186.7 Bottom reinforcement 27.2 Top reinforcement 34.70 Bottom reinforcement 27.40 Percentage Difference

Haziq

25.42

54.85

8.90

11.00

70.54

78.20

94.75

68.64

64.44

77.48

Comparison of Shear link (continuous beam)

Name Haziq Nazrin Azrai Akmal Syazwan

Type of Beam GB12 1B16 1B10 1B14 1B5

Shear Link Required (mm) Manually Esteem 8 10 8 10 10 10 8 10 8 10

Comparison of Column Name Haziq Nazrin Azrai Akmal Syazwan Type of column C13 C7 C16 C6 C3 Axial load (kN) Manually Esteem 165.82 122.00 220.47 183.00 106.71 115.00 174.42 159.00 183.20 149.00 Spacing Manually R6-175 R6-150 R6-175 R6-175 R6-150 Main steel Manually 4T16 4T16 4T16 4T16 4T16

Esteem R6-125 R6-125 R6-125 R6-125 R6-125

Esteem 4T12 4T12 4T12 4T12 4T12

Comparison of Foundation Name Haziq Nazrin Azrai Akmal Syazwan Type of foundation F5 F8 F5 F7 F7 Size pad footing (m) Manually Esteem 1000x1000 800x800 1200x1200 1000x1000 1000x1000 800x800 1000x1000 900x900 1000x1000 900x900 Main steel Manually 5T20 5T16 5T20 5T20 5T20

Esteem 7T10 9T10 7T10 8T10 8T10

DISSCUSSION AFTER PLEANTFUL OFF TIME WASTED ON THIS CRAP, As of the key element in this task is to give a better understanding, thus comparing the value from calculation with using software that is ESTEEM. From analysis done by the group, there are a lot differences between the manual calculations with the ESTEEM programme. The different can be seeing as early as the calculation is done. For instance, the calculated As for a simply supported beam 1B7 is 116mm meanwhile the programme calculate 50mm. This indicates that there are calculation errors throughout the analysis where even the slightest miscalculation would affect the whole data of the project. Certain example of why the data output is different from each other is due to miscalculations during the analysis. This mostly occur due to the data used to obtain each result does not tally with each other for example the data used as the loading from the actual trusses does not comply with the loading inputted into the esteem software hence will most definitely produce a result different from one another as seen in the previous table. Next factor is due to the comparison on specific calculations done manually as well as using esteem software where in esteem the data output would used the lowest possible value as compare to manual calculation where a safety limit as well as respect towards method of construction are applied for example, reinforcement bars of 4T16 are taken as the minimum value not only to ensure the reinforcement is sufficient but as well as to withstand any sudden change of loading during construction where for esteem on the other hand, it propose the most economical as well as the most precise loading that it could sustain without any consideration upon any sudden changes thus safety isnt respected in this software. The other possibility factor is due to lack of knowledge and skill on using the programme that is ESTEEM. The programme is new to us and we are never using such programme. Thus we tend to make silly mistake and adjust the design without proper analysis and understanding. In some cases, the design would be over design thus giving numerous results. So the values between the manual calculations with the programme are not the same. For instance, to proceed with the slab analysis, we should determine the slab thickness and any concrete cover related to the slab design. However, without any knowledge and guidance we tends to neglect that parts and proceed the analysis without proper design thus affected the whole system of the design. Next contribution is due to loading that acting on the structural elements. Each structure will have its own design load that is calculated from dead load and live load. The transfers of loading will affect the design of the structure. To design beam, we need to consider the slab that acting on the beam. The load from the slab should be transfer accordingly to the beams. In some cases, we wrongly calculated the transfer of loading from two way slabs without using suitable conditions thus ruined the design that we need to propose.