Ce502 Ce51fc1 Design Project Alcantara John Floren C. Cabras John Rey Nicole

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES
938 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

Civil Engineering Department
CE 502 – CE51FC1
REINFORCED CONCRETE DESIGN
DESIGN OF A PROPOSED FOUR-STOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE HOSPITAL BUILDING
Submitted by:
ALCANTARA, JOHN FLOREN

CABRAS, JOHN REY NICOLE
to:
Engr. BRYLLE JERALD P. TIMBAL

Faculty, Civil Engineering Department
on:
MARCH 2019
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 5
1.2 Project Location .................................................................................................................................. 6
1.3 The Client ............................................................................................................................................ 6
1.4 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 6
1.4.1 General Objective ........................................................................................................................ 6
1.4.2 Specific Objective ......................................................................................................................... 6
1.5 Scopes and Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 7
1.5.1 Scopes .......................................................................................................................................... 7
1.5.2 Limitations.................................................................................................................................... 7
1.6 Project Development Plan .................................................................................................................. 7
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS ......................................................................................................................... 9
2.1 Description of the Project ................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Data and Statistics............................................................................................................................. 10
2.3 Input Parameters .............................................................................................................................. 11
2.3.1 Load Definition and Parameters ................................................................................................ 11
2.4 Architectural Plans ............................................................................................................................ 14
2.4.1 Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................... 14
2.4.2 Site Development Plan ............................................................................................................... 15
2.4.3 Ground Floor Plan ...................................................................................................................... 16
2.4.4 Second Floor Plan....................................................................................................................... 17
2.4.5 Third Floor Plan .......................................................................................................................... 18
2.4.6 Fourth Floor Plan........................................................................................................................ 19
2.4.7 Roof Deck Plan ........................................................................................................................... 20
2.4.8 Left Side Elevation ...................................................................................................................... 21
2.4.9 Front Elevation ........................................................................................................................... 22
2.4.10 Right Side Floor ........................................................................................................................ 23
2.4.11 Rear Elevation .......................................................................................................................... 24
2.2.4 Review of Related Literature ......................................................................................................... 25
2.2.5 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................... 26
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN CONSTRAINTS , TRADE OFFS AND DESIGN STANDARDS ........................................... 27
3.1 Design Constraints ............................................................................................................................ 27
3.1 Design Constraints ............................................................................................................................ 27
3.2 Trade-offs .......................................................................................................................................... 28
3.3 Seismic Force-Resisting System ........................................................................................................ 30
3.4. Raw Designer’s Ranking ................................................................................................................... 30
3.4. Tradeoffs Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 31
3.2.5.1 Economic Assessment ............................................................................................................. 31
3.2.5.2 Constructability Assessment ................................................................................................... 31
3.2.5.3 Sustainability Assessment ....................................................................................................... 31
3.2.5.4 Environmental Assessment ..................................................................................................... 31
3.2.6 Initial Cost Estimate ................................................................................................................... 32
3.5. Design Standards ............................................................................................................................. 37
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................. 0
4.1.Design Methodology: .......................................................................................................................... 0
4.2 Framing Plans ...................................................................................................................................... 1
4.3 Geometric Plan.................................................................................................................................... 6
4.5 Validation of Multiple Constraints, Tradeoffs and Standards ............................................................ 2
4.5.1 Final Estimates of Tradeoffs .......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.6 Influence of Multiple Constraints, Tradeoffs, and Standards in the Final Design .... Error! Bookmark
not defined.
4.6.1 Computation for Final Designer’s Ranking.................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN ............................................................................................................................ 8
5.1 Design Schedule .................................................................................................................................. 8
Appendix B: Initial Cost Estimate .............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix C: Manual Computation of Slab using Moment Coefficient Interpolation Method and excel
program .................................................................................................................................................. 21
COMPUTATION OF TWO-WAY SLAB ....................................................................................................... 21
COMPUTATIONS OF ONE WAY SLAB ...................................................................................................... 76
Appendix D: Design of Beams Computation Using Excel Program ......................................................... 79
Appendix E: Design of Columns Computation Using Excel Program ...................................................... 93
Appendix F: Manual Computation of Load Distribution ........................................................................... 0
Table of Figures
Figure 1-1 Project Perspective .......................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 1-2 Google Earth view of the site location of the proposed 4-storey hospital building © Google
Earth .............................................................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 1-3 Project Delopment Plan ............................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2-1 3D Model of Reinforce Concrete ................................................................................................. 9
Figure 2-2 Population Census of Quezon City © Philippine Statistics Authority ........................................ 10
Figure 4-1. Design Stage Process ..................................................................................................................... 0
Figure 4-2. Second Floor Framing Plan ......................................................................................................... 1
Table of tables
Table 3-1: Raw Designer's Ranking ............................................................................................................. 30

Table 3-2. Summary of Initial Cost Estimate ............................................................................................... 32
Table 4-1. Material Cost Comparison of Roofing Materials........................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 4-2. Final Estimate ................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Quezon City is a former capital of the Republic of the Philippines, located in Metro Manila and is considered
as the most populated city in the Philippines having a population of 2,936,116 as of 2015. Being highly
urbanized city means that there are many opportunities for its people leading to the increase of basic need
and building of new infrastructure. An urbanized city means higher birth rate, has a high risk on having health
problems and also the existence of many kinds of accidents due to human error and other considered factors.
The problem there is the need of affordable hospitals for people that can provide complete medical services.
The design project is a 4-storey hospital building in accordance to all design codes and standards having a
dimension of 20 meters by 25 meters with a total floor area of 2000 square meters located at the 15th Avenue,
Cubao, Quezon City.
Figure 1-1 Project Perspective

1.2 Project Location
In the Figure 1-2 shows the Google Earth view of the site location of 4-storey residential building designated
with red box. It is located at 15th Avenue, Cubao, Quezon City.
Figure 1-2 Google Earth view of the site location of the proposed 4-storey hospital building © Google Earth
1.3 The Client

The client of the project is the Quezon City Local Government under the mayoralty of Herbert Bautista.
Aside from being a mayor, he is a well known actor and an outstanding politician in his own background,
starting as a barangay youth leader. He graduated in San Beda College (now San Beda University) in
Manila with the Baccalaureate Degree in Philosophy and Letters and had obtained a Master’s degree of
Arts in Public Administration at the University of the Philippines. Mayor Bautista is concerned not only
with the health of the city’s people but also the quality of healthcare service to them by means of universal
access to public hospitals, and is very specific with the cost and materials to be used in hospital building.
1.4 Project Objectives
1.4.1 General Objective

The project aims to design a 4-storey hospital building that can provide a complete medical
services.
1.4.2 Specific Objective

1. To design a multistory car park building in accordance to the National Structural Code of the
Philippines 2010 and National Building Code of the Philippines.
2. To provide the Structural plans, Details, and cost estimate of the structure.
3. To evaluate the trade-offs based on the design constraints given by the client and the design
requirements.
1.5 Scopes and Limitations
1.5.1 Scopes
The following are the scopes of the project:
1. Design of a 4-storey hospital building in accordance to the NSCP 2010 for structural loadings and
specifications needed.
2. Structural design and analysis of 3 trade-offs.
3. Cost estimate of materials to be used in the design.
1.5.2 Limitations
The following are the limitations of the project:
1. The project does not include cost estimates for electrical, mechanical, and plumbing works.
2. Electrical, mechanical and plumbing plans will not be provided in the project.
1.6 Project Development Plan
CONCEPTUALIZATION
Formulation of
Constraint
Develop
Gathering Develop
of data
Develop
1st Trade-Off 2nd Trade-Off 3rd Trade-Off

Review of Standards Review of Standards Review of Standards
Design of the 1st Design of the 2nd Design of the 3rd

Trade-off Trade-off Trade-off
Proceed to
Proceed to
Result Proceed to
Evaluation
Finalize to
Designer s Decisions
Figure 1-3 Project Delopment Plan

1. Identifying the problem - Identifying the problem that the designers intend to address and to provide a
proper solution to the said problem.
2. Planning and Conceptualizing Ideas - The designers will conceptualize a design which will provide the
designated place with a proper Parking structure. Also considering different input such as the location, the
materials and the construction methods.
3. Data Gathering - The designers will gather relevant data that are necessary to the project. Gathering of
data will be accomplished by various means, such as surveying and by communicating with the public.
4. Constraints - The designers should be able to identify the constraints which will hinder the
implementation of the project and be able to provide a solution that will deal with it.
5. Tradeoffs - The designers will provide three tradeoffs to ease the problem that is affected by the
constraints. This will also provide the client a knowledge on which will be the most effective one for the
project.
6. Design of Tradeoffs - Tradeoffs shall be designed individually to discuss and show its advantages and
disadvantages and the tradeoff which is the most effective and fit shall be chosen.
7. Result - This where the tradeoffs will be provided with their necessary designs and all the computations
for the tradeoffs will also be discussed thoroughly. Tradeoffs will also be ranked in accordingly by the
designers and thus be the way to know the tradeoff who will govern.
8. Evaluation - The designers already have deducted which tradeoff governs and shall provide the
additional information which will strengthen the information on why it was chosen.
9. Final Design - The designers shall provide all necessary computations, data and information on the
chosen Tradeoff. This will be the very basis of the proposed project. All constraints should not cause more
problems than before in this step.
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS
2.1 Description of the Project

The design of hospital building will be done in 15th Avenue, Cubao Quezon City, Metro Manila the project
aims to design and develop a 4-storey hospital building with a total floor area of 2000 square meters in order
to address the necessity of people in Quezon City on increasing risk in health due to large number of
population. This chapter shows the architectural plans of the building, review of related literature and also
the parameters that will be used in the project.
Figure 2-1 3D Model of Reinforce Concrete

2.2 Data and Statistics
This project will come to many beneficiaries therefore, The designers need to present a demographic
profile of the chosen social beneficiaries, which is mainly the residents of from Cubao Quezon City.
Quezon City’s population in 2015 census was enumerated at 2,936,116 inhabitants. It grew at a high rate
per year according to statistics and figures 2-1.
Figure 2-2 Population Census of Quezon City © Philippine Statistics Authority
Quezon City is divided into 6 districts with 142 barangays and the location of project is located in district 3
and nearly closed to district 4 with a total population of 324,669 although it is not populated district in
Quezon City compared to others it is still considered populous according to 2015 census.
2.3 Input Parameters
2.3.1 Load Definition and Parameters

2.3.1.1 Dead Loads
Dead loads consists of the weight of all materials and fixed equipment incorporated into the
building or other structure. (NSCP 2010, Section 202)
Dead loads consists of the weight of all materials of the construction incorporated into the
building or other structure, including but not limited to walls, floors, roofs, ceilings, stairways,
built-in partitions, finishes, cladding and other similarly incorporated architectural and
structural item, fixed service equipment, including weigh of cranes. (NSCP 2010, 204.1)
Table 2-1: Dead Loads from Table 204-1 (NSCP 2010 Section 204)
Materials Design Load (kPa)

CHB Wall (100mm) 2.11
CHB Wall (150mm) 2.73
Plaster (both sides) 0.48
Asphalt Shingles 0.1
Masonry Grout (Full) 0.11
Mechanical duct allowance 0.2
Acoustical Fiber board 0.05
Ceramic or quarry tile (20mm) on
1.1
25mm mortar bed
Suspended Steel Channel System 0.1
Table 2-2: Dead Loads from Table 204-1 (NSCP 2010 Section 204)
Materials Density (kN/cu.m)

Concrete 23.54
Glass 25.1
Aluminum 26.7
Steel 76.93
2.3.1.2 Live Loads

Live loads shall be the maximum loads expected by the intended use or occupancy but is
no case shall be less than the loads required by this section. (NSCP 2010, 205.1)
Table 2-3: Loads Occupancy based from Table 205-1 (NSCP 2010 Section 205)
User or Occupancy Uniform Load (kPa)

Basic Floor 1.9
Wards and rooms 1.9
Laboratories and operating room 2.9
Corridors Above Ground Floor 3.8
Storage room (heavy) 12
Storage room (light) 6
Deck 1.9
Office 2.4
Dining Rooms 4.8
Lobbies and Ground Floor Corridors 4.8
2.2.1.3 Wind Loads
The following are the parameters taken from NSCP 2010 used in the design process
considering the wind load.
Table 2-3: Wind Load Parameters (NSCP 2010 Section 207)
Wind Load Parameters
Basic Wind Speed 200 kph
Exposure Category B
Building Classification Category IV
Structure Type Hospital Building
Enclosure Classification Partially Enclosed
Importance Factor 1
2.3.1.4 Earthquake Loads
NSCP 2010 Section 208 provides a general procedure in dealing with Seismic loads which
is patterned from the Uniform Building Code. The structure limitations and design are guided
with seismic zoning, field characteristics, occupancy and structural configuration.
Table 2-4: Earthquake Load Parameters from (NSCP 2010 section 208)
Earthquake Load Parameters

Importance Factor 1
Soil Profile Type Type 4
Seismic Zone Zone 4
Seismic Source Type A
Near-Source Factor (Na) 1.2
Near-Source Factor (Nv) 1.6
2.3.1.5 Load Combinations
The most critical effect on the structure can occur when one or more contributing loads are
not acting. We input all possible applicable loads including wind and earthquake loads as
stated under National Structural Code of the Philippines. (NSCP 2010, 203-1)
Table 2-5: Total Factored Load Combination from (NSCP 2010 section 203)
Loads Required Strength

Dead Load (DL) and Live Load (LL) 1.4DL
1.2DL + 1.6LL
Dead Load (DL), Live Load (LL) and Wind Load 1.2DL +1.0LL
(WL) 1.2DL + 0.8WL
1.2DL + 0.8WL + 1.0LL
0.9DL + 1.6WL
Dead Load (DL), Live Load (LL), and 1.2DL + 1.0LL + 1.0EL
Earthquake Load (EL) 0.9DL + 1.0EL
2.4 Architectural Plans
2.4.1 Vicinity Map
2.4.2 Site Development Plan
2.4.3 Ground Floor Plan
2.4.4 Second Floor Plan
2.4.5 Third Floor Plan
2.4.6 Fourth Floor Plan
2.4.7 Roof Deck Plan
2.4.8 Left Side Elevation
2.4.9 Front Elevation
2.4.10 Right Side Floor
2.4.11 Rear Elevation
2.2.4 Review of Related Literature
Hospitals are one of the most complex of building types. Each hospital is comprised of a wide range of
services and functional units. That services includes a lot such as diagnostic and treatment functions, such
as clinical laboratories, imaging, emergency rooms, and surgery; hospitality functions, such as food service
and housekeeping; and the fundamental inpatient care or bed-related function.
In addition to the wide range of services that must be accommodated, hospitals must serve and support
many different users and stakeholders. Ideally, the design process incorporates direct input from the owner
and from key hospital staff early on in the process. The designer also has to be an advocate for the
patients, visitors, support staff, volunteers, and suppliers who do not generally have direct input into the
design. Good hospital design integrates functional requirements with the human needs of its varied users.
According to the National Institute of Building Sciences there must be a several ideal forms of an
hospital to be considered based on its functions. These Involves bed-related inpatient functions,
outpatient-related functions, diagnostic and treatment functions, administrative functions, service
functions (food, supply), research and teaching functions.
Building Attributes is one of the things that is needed to be considered due to the big aspect that it can
contribute to the function of an hospital. Every Building should have a common attribute specifically an
hospital in a manner that it analyzes the locations of every functional units as well as considerations of
overall sizes and budget that the structure have.
Wind Loads :
In Every structure especially in an higher part of the elevation there is always existence of wind loads in
which it is a external or actual forces that act on a certain part of the structure in any direction. The
materials that undergoes this forces is usually a rigid part which is a concrete or a steel but notice that that
usual designs of the hospital nowadays usually used a material which is a glass on some part of the front
elevation and also to the sides and can replace a big part of the walls in which this material is also
subjected to undergoes the said external forces such as wind loads.
Wind loads are randomly applied dynamic loads. The intensity of the wind pressure on the surface of a
structure depends on wind velocity, air density, orientation of the structure, area of contact surface, and
shape of the structure. Because of the complexity involved in defining both the dynamic wind load and the
behavior of an indeterminate steel structure when subjected to wind loads, the design criteria adopted by
building codes and standards have been based on the application of an equivalent static wind pressure.
Earthquake Loads :
Designs of recent buildings nowadays involves considerations of seismic loads during an earthquake
conditions especially in the Asian country like Philippines, Japan, and china who is usually subjected to this
kind of load conditions. That’s why in Earthquake Engineering it is crucial to analyze and calculate for the
seismic design force and the seismic base shear for a reinforced concrete building.
The seismic loads on the structure during an earthquake result from inertia forces which were created by
ground accelerations. The magnitude of these loads is a function of the following factors: mass of the
building, the dynamic properties of the building, the intensity, duration, and frequency content of the ground
motion, and soil-structure interaction. In recent years, a lot of achievements have been made to incorporate
these influential factors into building codes accurately as well as practically.
According to the Building design and Civil Engineering the basis for IBC 2000 seismic provisions is the
1997 NEHRP ‘‘Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings and Other Structures’’ (FEMA 302). The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program
(NEHRP) is managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
In IBC 2000, the seismic loads are on a strength level limit state rather than on a service load level, which
was used in UBC 94 and prior versions.
2.2.5 Bibliography
 https://www.engineeringexamples.net/calculating-seismic-design-force-seismic-base-shear-
reinforced-concrete-building-structure/
 https://www.wbdg.org/building-types/health-care-facilities/hospital
 http://www.civilengineeringx.com/bdac/earthquake-loads/
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN CONSTRAINTS , TRADE OFFS AND DESIGN STANDARDS
3.1 Design Constraints

Constraints are conditions that we need to happen or would like to happen with a design. Constraint should
be managed well, because it evaluates the relationships between objects and processes.
It is Crucial to discuss and analyze the possible constraints that can affect and may be applicable to the
project, among many constraints several are been considered and discussed in relation to constructing a
hospital building.
3.1 Design Constraints
1. Economic Constraints: As for Considering the effectiveness of the cost of the structure based on
the budget of the client for the whole project it came up to a several structural techniques. The trade-
offs were designed to be compared whether which of the discussed several designs trade-off is more
economical. The tradeoffs will be assessed by enumerating and classifying the materials needed for
the structure to be constructed and computing the total costs of the structure. The structural design
which will typify a much more lesser amount of structural cost will be more favorable to use and will
be considered as more economical compared with the other materials and trade-offs to be used.
(Php).
2. Constructability: In designing a structure, time is a big constraint to be considered which may affect
the phase and the deadline of which the project is needed to be accomplished. The tradeoffs to be
considered as a replacement or innovation of the materials in Reinforced concrete to be used, will
be compared whether which of these three methods has the easiest time to construct. The Methods
in for structural design are the Building Frame system, Special Moment-Resisting Frame, Dual Frame
System. It will be evaluated based on the equipment’s and number of Man-days needed for the
materials to be constructed. (Days).
3. Environmental: Having Considered the Economic and Constructability Constraints, the stability and
safety of the structure should also be considered. As it is stated in the related Literature the lateral
loads such as gravity, seismic and wind loads that can occur to the structure should be given an
attention and should be analyzed well in the manner that the structure should withstand these kinds
of loads.
4. Sustainability : The spontaneous calamities brought by the Mother Nature are a great factor in
designing the structure. That is why; the designer has considered it as a constraint on the design of
the structure. In the Philippines, there a lot of different unexpected calamities so, we should consider
the lifespan of the building. The three-design trade-off will be evaluated according to it’s prolong
lifespan. The evaluation will be done by comparing the lifespan of the 3 trade-offs. The structural
design which will exhibit to have a longer lifespan will be proved to be more satisfactory to build.
(Years).
In considering design constraints, trade-offs were provided by the designers that have a significant
effect on the structural design of the hospital building. The designers will have to evaluate whether
what type of materials to be used in constructing the hospital structure considering the economic,
constructability, sustainability and environmental constraints.
Overall the designers will choose which materials have much more well efficiency and lesser cost
that will satisfy the demands and needs of the clients and also for the consumers of this matter.
3.2 Trade-offs
Building Frame System:

Framing, in construction, is the fitting together of pieces to give a structure support and shape. Framing
materials are usually wood, engineered wood, or structural steel. The alternative to framed construction is
generally called mass wall construction, where horizontal layers of stacked materials such as log
building, masonry, rammed earth, adobe, etc. are used without framing.
Building framing is divided into two broad categories, heavy-frame construction (heavy framing) if the
vertical supports are few and heavy such as in timber framing, pole building framing, or steel framing;
or light-frame construction (light-framing) if the supports are more numerous and smaller called light-frame
construction, for example balloon, platform and light-steel framing. Light-frame construction using
standardized dimensional lumber has become the dominant construction method in North
America and Australia due to the economy of the method; use of minimal structural material allows builders
to enclose a large area at minimal cost while achieving a wide variety of architectural styles.
Sample of Building Concrete Frame System

Source : www.google.com/search
Special Moment-Resisting Frame:
Reinforced concrete special moment frames are used as part of seismic force-resisting systems in
buildings that are designed to resist earthquakes. Beams, columns, and beam-column joints in moment
frames are proportioned and detailed to resist flexural, axial, and shearing actions that result as a building
sways through multiple displacement cycles during strong earthquake ground shaking. Special
proportioning and detailing requirements result in a frame capable of resisting strong earthquake shaking
without significant loss of stiffness or strength. These moment-resisting frames are called “Special Moment
Frames” because of these additional requirements, which improve the seismic resistance in comparison
with less stringently detailed Intermediate and Ordinary Moment Frames.
Sample of Special Moment Frame System

Source: Nehrpsearch.pdf
Dual Frame System:

A dual system is a structural system in which an essentially complete frame provides support for gravity
loads, and resistance to lateral loads is provided by a specially detailed moment-resisting frame and shear
walls or braced frames. Both shear walls and frames participate in resisting the lateral loads resulting from
earthquakes or wind or storms, and the portion of the forces resisted by each one depends on its rigidity,
modulus of elasticity and its ductility, and the possibility to develop plastic hinges in its parts. The moment-
resisting frame may be either steel or concrete, but concrete intermediate frames cannot be used in seismic
zones 3 or 4. In the dual system, both frames and shear walls contribute in resisting the lateral loads. The
frame is a group of beams and columns connected with each other by rigid joints, and the frames bend in
accordance with shear mode, whereas the deflection of the shear walls is by a bending mode like the
cantilever walls. As a result of the difference in deflection properties between frames and walls, the frames
will try to pull the shear walls in the top of the building, while in the bottom, they will try to push the walls. So
the frames will resist the lateral loads in the upper part of the building, which means an increase in the
dimensions of the cross section area of the columns in the upper part of the frame more than what it needs
to resist the gravity loads, while the shear walls will resist most of the vertical loads in the lower part of the
building. So the distribution of the lateral loads in the top depends on the rigidity of the frames where we
suppose a spring support, whose rigidity equals the rigidity of the frames in the top, and the reaction of this
spring is the share of the frames, and the rest is the share of the walls. So, the walls are pinned or
supported by the frames at the top and fixed at the bottom and they are resisting the seismic loads.
Example of Dual Frame System

Source: IACSIT International Journal of Engineering and Technology
3.3 Seismic Force-Resisting System
3.4. Raw Designer’s Ranking
After considering the design constraints, the designer came up with the raw rankings on the
conventional slab and filler slab for roofing. The discussion on how the designer came up with the raw
rankings values are shown and computed below.
Criterion’s
Ability to satisfy the criterion
Importance
(on a scale
Decision Criteria (on a scale from 0 to 10)
of 0 to 10)
Building Frame Special Moment Dual Frame
Design Resistant Frame Design
1. Economic 10 10 9 9
2. Constructability 9 9 8 7
3.Environmental 9 9 8 7
4.Sustainability 10 9 9 10
Over-all Rank 352 324 316
Table 3-1: Raw Designer's Ranking
*Reference: Otto, K. N. and Antonsson, E. K., (1991). Trade-off strategies in engineering design. Research
in Engineering Design, volume 3, number 2, pages 87-104.
Retrieved from http://www.design.caltech.edu/Research/Publications/90e.pdf
3.5. Tradeoffs Assessment
The criterion’s importance is subjective and its value will still depend on the mutual decision of the
client and designer. The Constructability and Labor constraint was given an importance value of
Nine(9),because with the less men work number needed but can be done with the short period of time.. While
both the sustainability and Economic constraints were given an importance value of nine (10) because the
structure, while being cheap, but it is very important to consider on how long can it function without affecting
the environment as much as possible.
3.5.1. Economic Assessment
The designer has calculated the initial cost estimate of the three structural designs based on the
typical cost floor area of the structure to determine which of the three designs is more economical over the
other. It turns out that the structural cost of Building Frame system design is most economical compared with
the initial estimate of the structural cost of Special Moment Resisting frame design and Dual System concrete
design.
3.5.2 Constructability Assessment
Based on the initial estimate of the labor works needed for the construction of the three structural
designs, it seems that it takes more time to construct and transport the Dual system concrete design and
Special Moment Resisting Frame design compared to the Building Frame design. The longer duration for the
Moment Resisting Frame Design and Dual Frame design is mainly because of the difficulty in constructing
the connection. In this case, the Building Frame design becomes a more favorable design with respect to the
constructability of the structure. The initial cost is elaborated in the Appendix B.
3.5.3 Sustainability Assessment
As for the sustainability constraint, it’s longevity of the structure is something that we consider for
this kind of constraint based on what we estimated Dual Frame design have a much longer lifespan than the
other two tradeoffs. Based on the Building component life expectancy which is the minimum is 81 years of
concrete frame system, the designers came up to an idea of how long each framing system will be sustainable
through the years. For sustainability Dual System Design will govern.
3.5.4 Environmental Assessment
As for the Environmental constraint, Building Frame System is more reliable in terms of less
number of materials that produces carbon dioxide and waste needed to finish the project, however
SMRF has also a grade of about nearer but less than that of Dual System.
3.5.6 Initial Cost Estimate
In the following table, the designer had provided an initial structural estimate for Reinforced Concrete
Design, Design and Concrete Design. With the aid of this estimate that is elaborated in Appendix B, the
designer was able to identify on which engineering design will govern for All constraint.
Estimates
Constraint Special Moment
Building Frame Design Dual Frame Design
Resistant Frame
Php 1,620,015
Economic (Cost) Php 1,678,133
Php 1 525, 574
Constructability 120 days 127 days 145 days
Sustainability 81 years 86 years 91 years
Table 3-2. Summary of Initial Cost Estimate
(Building Frame vs SMRF)
 Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint
Higher Value - Lower Value

% difference = × 10
Higher Value
1,620,015 − 1,525,574
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10
1,620,015
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 =0.58=1
Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank - % difference
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 1 = 9
𝑺𝑼𝑩𝑶𝑹𝑫𝑰𝑵𝑨𝑻𝑬 𝑹𝑨𝑵𝑲 =9
Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Building Frame System in comparison to SMRF Plotted In a
Rank Line
 Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint

Higher Value
127 − 120
127
Subordinate rank =9-1

𝑺𝑼𝑩𝑶𝑹𝑫𝑰𝑵𝑨𝑻𝑬 𝑹𝑨𝑵𝑲 = 𝟖
Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Building Frame System in comparison to SMRF Plotted In
a Rank Line
 Computation of ranking for Sustainability Constraint

Higher Value
61 − 55
61
Subordinate rank =-10-1

Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Building Frame System in comparison to SMRF Plotted In a
Rank Line
(Building Frame vs Dual System)

Higher Value
1,678,133 − 1,525,574
1,678,133
Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Building Frame System in comparison to Dual System Plotted
In a Rank Line

Higher Value
145 − 120
145
Subordinate rank =9-2

𝑺𝑼𝑩𝑶𝑹𝑫𝑰𝑵𝑨𝑻𝑬 𝑹𝑨𝑵𝑲 = 𝟕
Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Building Frame System in comparison to Dual System
Plotted In a Rank Line

Higher Value
91 − 81
91
𝑺𝑼𝑩𝑶𝑹𝑫𝑰𝑵𝑨𝑻𝑬 𝑹𝑨𝑵𝑲 = 𝟗
Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Building Frame System in comparison to Dual System
(Dual System vs SMRF)

Higher Value
91 − 86
91
Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of SMRF in comparison to Dual System Plotted In a Rank Line
3.6. Design Standards
The designer some come up with the design of the hospital building with accordance to the following
codes and standards:
1. National Building Code of the Philippines (P.D. 1096)

2. National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2010 - Vol. 1
The National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010.

The designer has based the design of the school green building in accordance with the codes, technical
specifications, and standards that are indicated in the National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010,
Volume 1. This code provides the minimum load requirements for the design of the buildings, towers and
other vertical structures, and minimum standards and guidelines to safeguard life or limb, property and
welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials pertaining to the
structural aspects of all buildings and structures within jurisdiction.
The sections and codes used were specified in design computations included in the Appendices of
this Paper.
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE
4.1.Design Methodology:
The Figure in the Illustration below shows the design methodology of the proposed hospital building.
The tradeoffs ranking will be validated and the presentation final’s designers ranking will be illustrated.
As for the whole project. Reinforcement
Five-Storey for the concrete was used. The design of the flow of the whole
Apartment Building
project system is also presented in this part.
Geometric Modelling
° National Building Code

Design Specifications
° National Stuctural Code of the Phils.
Material Strength
Material Properties
°Compressive Strength
° Bar Grade
Structure Models Frame Models
Load Models Load Transfer
Shear Diagrams
Structural Analysis Moment Diagrams
Deflections
Structural Design Design Schedules
Figure 4-1. Design Stage Process

4.2 Framing Plans
Figure 4-2. Second Floor Framing Plan

Figure 4-4. Third Floor Framing Plan
Figure 4-5. Fourth Floor Framing Plan
Figure 4-6. Roof Deck Framing Plan
Figure 4-7. Ground Floor Framing Plan
4.3 Geometric Plan
Figure 4-8. Geometric Model of the Structure

4.4 Load Diagrams
Figure 4-9. Shear Diagram

Figure 4-10. Beam Stresses Diagram
Figure 4-10. Displacement Diagram
Figure 4-11. Torsion Diagram
4.4 Load Map
Figure 4-12 Load Map at Second Floor

Figure 4-12 Load Map at Second Floor
4.5 Validation of Multiple Constraints, Tradeoffs and Standards
The Validation of the tradeoffs is analyzed by the designers in order to confirm the results of
Designer’s Raw Ranking in Chapter 3. The initial estimates done and presented in the chapter 3 will
be compared to the finals cost estimates and will show the results of the validation and certainty of
the assumptions.
As presented in the Chapter 3 based on the raw designer’s ranking, the drafted tradeoffs (particularly,
the Building frame system, SMRF, and Dual system) were compared through initial estimates. The
one that will govern among all the tradeoffs from the results is Building Frame System.
A comparison of the materials between one-way slab and two-way slab is done to prove the costs
savings. The cost estimate for this comparison is presented on the Appendix B of this paper.
MATERIAL COSTS COMPARISON

Material Building Frame (₱) SMRF (₱) Savings (₱) % Savings
Description
Cement 265,781 282,234 16,453 5.83
Sand 2,953 3,136 183 5.84
Gravel 94,500 100,350 5,850 5.83
Steel 147,856 140,099 7,757 5.25
Table 4-1: Material Cost Comparison of Roofing Materials

Material Building Frame (₱) SMRF (₱) Savings (₱) % Savings
Description
Cement 265,781 292,359 26,578 9.09
Sand 2,953 3,248 295 9.08
Gravel 94,500 103,950 9,450 9.09
Steel 147856 142212 5644 3.82
The table above shows the consumption of materials and cost savings. The following are the certain
differences between the two framing method:
 3.26% of Savings for Cement, Sand and Gravel
 1.43% of Savings for Steel
4.5.1 Final Estimates of Tradeoffs
Estimate
Constraint
Building Frame SMRF Dual System
Economic (Cost) ₱ 1,806,671 ₱ 1,363,866 ₱ 1,912,282
Constructability 139 days 120 days 146 days
Sustainability 92 years 81 years 87 years
Table 4-2: Final Estimate
4.6 Influence of Multiple Constraints, Tradeoffs, and Standards in the Final Design
For the design of the framing of the four-storey hospital building the engineering standards is
provided and has guided the designers to design a safe and sustainable design. It is crucial to have
an accurate data so the designers conform with the code and assure that the details they have is
aligned in the standards. Through the multiple constraints considerations, the designers have chosen
what type of design from the systems among the tradeoffs they will use. Solving the problems
regarding the interests of client’s expenses is very crucial and significant, so the trade-offs is very
relevant to the process.
4.6.1 Computation for Final Designer’s Ranking
(Building Frame vs. SMRF)

Higher Value
1,806,671 − 1,363,866
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10 = 2.45 ≈ 2
1,806,671
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 2 = 𝟖
Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Building Frame System in comparison to SMRF Plotted in a
Rank Line

139 − 120
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10 = 1.37 ≈ 1
139
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 9 − 1 = 𝟖
Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Building Frame System in comparison to SMRF Plotted In
a Rank Line

92 − 81
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10 = 1.20 ≈ 1
92
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 1 = 𝟗
Rank Line
(Building Frame vs. Dual System)

1,912,282 − 1,806,671
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10 = 0.55 ≈ 1
1,912,282
Economic Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Building Frame System in comparison to Dual System Plotted in
a Rank Line

146 − 139
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10 = 0.48 ≈ 1
146
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 9 − 1 = 8
Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Building Frame System in comparison to Dual System
92 − 87
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10 = 0.54 ≈ 1
92
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 1 = 𝟗
Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Building Frame System in comparison to Dual System
Plotted in a Rank Line
(Dual System vs SMRF)
1,912,282 − 1,363,866
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10 = 2.87 ≈ 3
1,912,282
Sustainability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of SMRF in comparison to Dual System Plotted In a Rank Line

146 − 120
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10 = 1.78 ≈ 2
146
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 9 − 2 = 7
Constructability Constraint: Subordinate Rank of Building Frame System in comparison to SMRF Plotted in
a Rank Line
87 − 81
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10 = 0.69 ≈ 1
87
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 1 = 𝟗
Rank Line
Criterion’s
Ability to satisfy the criterion
Importance
(on a scale
Decision Criteria (on a scale from 0 to 10)
of 0 to 10)
Special Moment Dual Frame
Building Frame
Resistant Frame Design
1. Economic 10 9 10 8
2. Constructability 9 8 9 7
3.Environmental 9 8 9 7
4.Sustainability 10 10 9 9
Over-all Rank 334 352 296
Table 4-3: Final Designer's Ranking
4.6.2.1 Designer’s Final Ranking Assessment
Based on the Designer’s Final Ranking, the trade-off that will govern is the special moment-reisting
frame system compared to the initial raw designer’s ranking. In terms of economic constraints, it got
the rank of 10, considering that its price cost in the market as well as the volume of concrete to be
used is cheaper than in other two systems. As for constructability and sustainability constraints, the
building frame system emerges in terms of duration of its construction and the longevity and
performance of a structure.
CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN
5.1 Design Schedule

Appendix A: Initial Cost Estimate
Tradeoff 1:
COST ESTIMATE - TWO WAY
CONCRETE WORKS-Ground Floor
GRAVE
L b t pc V CEMENT SAND L
Member
s
(m) (m) (m) (m3) (bags) (m) (m)
0.2 0.3
B-1 20 5 5 5 8.75 78.75 4.375 8.75
0.2 0.3
B-2 25 5 5 5 10.9375 98.4375 5.46875 10.9375
C-1 3 0.5 0.5 25 18.75 168.75 9.375 18.75
TOTAL 345.9375 19.21875 38.4375
GRAVE
L1 L2 t pc V CEMENT SAND L
Slab
s
(m) (m) (m) (m3) (bags) (m) (m)
7.3 0.1
S-1 8 5 5 4 22.14 199.26 11.07 22.14
5.1 0.1
S-2 2 5 5 4 15.36 138.24 7.68 15.36
6.2 0.1
S-3 5 5 5 4 18.75 168.75 9.375 18.75
6.2 0.1
S-4 5 5 5 5 23.4375 210.9375 11.71875 23.4375
TOTAL 717.1875 39.84375 79.6875
PRICES
ITEM TOTAL per
pc ITEM LABOR
CEMENT 1063.125 Bags 250 265781.3 106312.5 GRAND
SAND 59.0625 m3 50 2953.125 1181.25 TOTAL
GRAVEL 118.125 m3 800 94500 37800
TOTAL PRICE 363234.4 145293.8 508528.1
CONCRETE WORKS- Second Floor
GRAVE
L b T pc V CEMENT SAND L
Member
s
(m) (m) (m) (m3) (bags) (m) (m)
0.2 0.3
B-1 20 5 5 5 8.75 78.75 4.375 8.75
0.2 0.3
B-2 25 5 5 5 10.9375 98.4375 5.46875 10.9375
C-1 3 0.5 0.5 25 18.75 168.75 9.375 18.75
TOTAL 345.9375 19.21875 38.4375
GRAVE
L1 L2 T pc V CEMENT SAND L
Slab
s
(m) (m) (m) (m3) (bags) (m) (m)
7.3 0.1
S-1 8 5 5 4 22.14 199.26 11.07 22.14
5.1 0.1
S-2 2 5 5 4 15.36 138.24 7.68 15.36
6.2 0.1
S-3 5 5 5 4 18.75 168.75 9.375 18.75
6.2 0.1
S-4 5 5 5 5 23.4375 210.9375 11.71875 23.4375
TOTAL 717.1875 39.84375 79.6875
PRICES
ITEM TOTAL per
pc ITEM LABOR
CEMENT 1063.125 Bags 250 265781.3 106312.5 GRAND
SAND 59.0625 m3 50 2953.125 1181.25 TOTAL
GRAVEL 118.125 m3 800 94500 37800
TOTAL PRICE 363234.4 145293.8 508523

CONCRETE WORKS- Third Floor
GRAVE
Member
s
(m) (m) (m) (m3) (bags) (m) (m)
B-1 20 0.25 0.35 5 8.75 78.75 4.375 8.75
B-2 25 0.25 0.35 5 10.9375 98.4375 5.46875 10.9375
C-1 3 0.5 0.5 25 18.75 168.75 9.375 18.75
TOTAL 345.9375 19.21875 38.4375
GRAVE
Slab
s
(m) (m) (m) (m3) (bags) (m) (m)
7.3
S-1 8 5 0.15 4 22.14 199.26 11.07 22.14
5.1
S-2 2 5 0.15 4 15.36 138.24 7.68 15.36
6.2
S-3 5 5 0.15 4 18.75 168.75 9.375 18.75
6.2
S-4 5 5 0.15 5 23.4375 210.9375 11.71875 23.4375
TOTAL 717.1875 39.84375 79.6875
PRICES
ITEM TOTAL per
pc ITEM LABOR
CEME 1063.12 265781. 106312 GRAN
NT 5 Bags 250 3 .5 D
2953.12 1181.2 TOTA
SAND 59.0625 m3 50 5 5 L
GRAV
EL 118.125 m3 800 94500 37800
363234. 145293 50852
TOTAL PRICE 4 .8 3

CONCRETE WORKS- Fourth Floor
GRAVE
L b T pc V CEMENT SAND L
Member
s
(m) (m) (m) (m3) (bags) (m) (m)
0.2 0.3
B-1 20 5 5 5 8.75 78.75 4.375 8.75
0.2 0.3
B-2 25 5 5 5 10.9375 98.4375 5.46875 10.9375
C-1 3 0.5 0.5 25 18.75 168.75 9.375 18.75
TOTAL 345.9375 19.21875 38.4375
GRAVE
L1 L2 T pc V CEMENT SAND L
Slab
s
(m) (m) (m) (m3) (bags) (m) (m)
7.3 0.1
S-1 8 5 5 4 22.14 199.26 11.07 22.14
5.1 0.1
S-2 2 5 5 4 15.36 138.24 7.68 15.36
6.2 0.1
S-3 5 5 5 4 18.75 168.75 9.375 18.75
6.2 0.1
S-4 5 5 5 5 23.4375 210.9375 11.71875 23.4375
TOTAL 717.1875 39.84375 79.6875
PRICES
ITEM TOTAL per
pc ITEM LABOR
CEMENT 1063.125 bags 250 265781.3 106312.5 GRAND
SAND 59.0625 m3 50 2953.125 1181.25 TOTAL
GRAVEL 118.125 m3 800 94500 37800
TOTAL PRICE 363234.4 145293.8 508523

CONCRETE WORKS- Fourth Floor
GRAVE
Member
s
(m) (m) (m) (m3) (bags) (m) (m)
0.2 0.3
B-1 20 5 5 5 8.75 78.75 4.375 8.75
0.2 0.3
B-2 25 5 5 5 10.9375 98.4375 5.46875 10.9375
C-1 3 0.5 0.5 25 18.75 168.75 9.375 18.75
TOTAL 345.9375 19.21875 38.4375
pc GRAVE
Slab
L1 L2 t s V CEMENT SAND L
(m) (m) (m) (m3) (bags) (m) (m)
7.3 0.1
S-1 8 5 5 4 22.14 199.26 11.07 22.14
5.1 0.1
S-2 2 5 5 4 15.36 138.24 7.68 15.36
6.2 0.1
S-3 5 5 5 4 18.75 168.75 9.375 18.75
6.2 0.1
S-4 5 5 5 5 23.4375 210.9375 11.71875 23.4375
TOTAL 717.1875 39.84375 79.6875
PRICES
ITEM TOTAL per
pc ITEM LABOR
SAND 59.0625 m3 50 2953.125 1181.25 TOTAL
GRAVEL 118.125 m3 800 94500 37800
TOTAL PRICE 363234.4 145293.8 508523
152557
From Ground Floor to Roof Deck the Estimated Cost is equal to: 4 Php
Trade-off 2: (Typical cost estimate from first to roof deck)

L b t V CEMENT SAND GRAVEL
pc
Member (m s
(m) ) (m) (m3) (bags) (m) (m)
0.
B-1 20 3 0.4 5 12 108 6 12
0.
B-2 25 3 0.4 5 15 135 7.5 15
0.
C-1 3 5 0.5 25 18.75 168.75 9.375 18.75
TOTAL 411.75 22.875 45.75
L1 L2 t V CEMENT SAND GRAVEL
pc
Slab (m s
(m) ) (m) (m3) (bags) (m) (m)
7.3 0.1
S-1 8 5 5 4 22.14 199.26 11.07 22.14
5.1 0.1
S-2 2 5 5 4 15.36 138.24 7.68 15.36
6.2 0.1
S-3 5 5 5 4 18.75 168.75 9.375 18.75
6.2 0.1
S-4 5 5 5 5 23.4375 210.9375 11.71875 23.4375
TOTAL 717.1875 39.84375 79.6875
PRICES
ITEM TOTAL per
pc ITEM LABOR
SAND 62.71875 m3 50 3135.938 1254.375 TOTAL
GRAVEL 125.4375 m3 800 100350 40140
TOTAL PRICE 385720.3 154288.1 540008.4
162001
Trade-off 3: (Typical cost estimate from first to roof deck)

GRAVE
Member
s
(m) (m) (m) (m3) (bags) (m) (m)
0.3
B-1 20 5 0.4 5 14 126 7 14
0.3
B-2 25 5 0.4 5 17.5 157.5 8.75 17.5
C-1 3 0.5 0.5 25 18.75 168.75 9.375 18.75
TOTAL 452.25 25.125 50.25
GRAVE
Slab
s
(m) (m) (m) (m3) (bags) (m) (m)
7.3 0.1
S-1 8 5 5 4 22.14 199.26 11.07 22.14
5.1 0.1
S-2 2 5 5 4 15.36 138.24 7.68 15.36
6.2 0.1
S-3 5 5 5 4 18.75 168.75 9.375 18.75
6.2 0.1
S-4 5 5 5 5 23.4375 210.9375 11.71875 23.4375
TOTAL 717.1875 39.84375 79.6875
PRICES
ITEM TOTAL per
pc ITEM LABOR
SAND 64.96875 m3 50 3248.438 1299.375 TOTAL
GRAVEL 129.9375 m3 800 103950 41580
TOTAL PRICE 399557.8 159823.1 559380.9
167813
Tradeoff 1: Constructability Initial cost:
Members b(mm) t(mm) L(m) Quantity Volume

B-1 250 350 20 5 8.75
B-2 250 350 25 5 10.9375
C-1 500 500 3 25 18.75
t s l
S-1 150 5 7.38 4 22.14
S-2 150 5 5.12 4 15.36
S-3 150 5 6.25 4 18.75
S-4 150 5 6.25 4 18.75
TOTAL VOLUME 113.4375
Assuming that 500% of Total Volume of Concrete Works is equal to Total Man Days,
Adding 200% For Rebar Works and 350% For
Finishing
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 5(113.44) + 2(113.44) +

3.5(113.44)
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 1192
days
Given that there will be 10
workers
Days

Members b(mm) t(mm) L(m) Quantity Volume
B-1 300 400 20 5 12
B-2 300 400 25 5 15
C-1 500 500 3 25 18.75
t s l
S-1 150 5 7.38 4 22.14
S-2 150 5 5.12 4 15.36
S-3 150 5 6.25 4 18.75
S-4 150 5 6.25 4 18.75
TOTAL VOLUME 120.75
Finishing
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 5(120.75) + 2(120.75) +

3.5(120.75)
TOTAL MAN DAYS
= 1267
Given that there will be 10
workers
Days
Quantit
Members b(mm) t(mm) L(m) y Volume
B-1 350 400 20 5 14
B-2 350 400 25 5 17.5
C-1 500 500 3 25 18.75
t s l
S-1 150 5 7.38 4 22.14
S-2 150 5 5.12 4 15.36
S-3 150 5 6.25 4 18.75
S-4 150 5 6.25 4 18.75
TOTAL VOLUME 125.25
Finishing
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 5(125.25) + 3(125.25) +

3.5(125.25)
TOTAL MAN DAYS
= 1440
Given that there will be 10 workers
Days
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 5(125.25) + 3(125.25) + 3.5(125.25)
Given that there will be 10 workers
TOTAL MAN DAYS = 145 Days
Appendix C: Manual Computation of Slab using Moment Coefficient Interpolation Method and excel
program
COMPUTATION OF TWO-WAY SLAB

CASE 6: (SLAB 1)
Parameters:
L= 7.38m
S=5m
t= 150mm
CC=20
Bar diameter = 12mm
F’c= 20.7MPa
Fy= 375Mpa
d= 150-20-6= 124mm
I. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Dead Loads in Slab

Weight of Slab 3.541 Kpa
Ceramic or quarry tile (20mm)
on 25mm mortar bed 1.53 Kpa
Suspended Steel Channel 0.1 Kpa
Mechanical Duct Allowance 0.2 Kpa
Grout 0.11 Kpa
CHB 2.11 Kpa
Total 7.581 Kpa
Live Loads
Basic Floor 4.8 Kpa
Total 4.8 Kpa
Total Uniform Load = 1.2 (DL) + 1.6 (LL) ~ Based on 2010 NSCP
Total Uniform Load = 16.7772 Kpa
II. CALCULATE THE MOMENT COEFFICIENTS USING INTERPOLATION
Compute the Ratio (m)

La = 5 m
Lb = 7.38 m
m = 0.6775
a. Coefficients for Negative Moments (Using Interpolation)
Neg. Ca = 0.0918946
Neg. Cb = 0.0918946
Ma. Neg. = Ca. neg. Wla2 (Where w= total uniform dead load plus live load)
Ma. Neg. = (0.0918946) (12.381 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Neg. = 28.44368 KN.m
Mb. Neg. = Cb. neg. Wlb2 (Where w= total uniform dead load plus live load)
Mb. Neg. = (0.0918946)( 12.381 Kpa) (7.38 m)2

Mb. Neg. = 61.96671 KN.m
b. Coefficients for Dead Load Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca DL = 0.052329
Cb DL = 0.00803762
Ma. Pos. DL = Ca. DL. Wla2 (Where w= total uniform dead load)
Ma. Pos. DL = (0.052329) (7.581 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Pos. DL = 9.917616 KN.m
Mb. Pos. DL = Cb. DL. Wlb2 (Where w= total uniform dead load)
Mb. Pos. DL = (0.00803762) (4.8 Kpa) (7.38 m)2

Mb. Pos. DL = 2.10127 KN.m
c. Coefficients for LiveLoad Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca LL = 0.0617681
Cb LL = 0.01005
Ma. Pos. LL = Ca. LL. Wla2 (Where w= total uniform live load)
Ma. Pos. LL = (0.0617681) (4.8 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Pos. LL = 7.412172 KN.m
Mb. Pos. LL = Cb. DL. Wlb2 (Where w= total uniform dead load)
Mb. Pos. LL = (0.01005) (7.581 Kpa) (7.38 m)2

Mb. Pos. LL = 4.14959 KN.m
d. Ratio of Load w in La and Lb Directions for Shear in Slab and Loads on Supports
Ca./Wa. = 0.918946
Cb./Wb. = 0.080376
III. Ma. Along Short Direction = ma. Pos. Dl + ma. Pos. Ll

Ma. Along Short Direction = 9.917616 KN.m + 7.412172 KN.m
Ma.(Total) = 17.329788 KN. m
Mb. Along Long Direction = Mb. Pos. DL + Mb. Pos. LL
Mb. Along Long Direction = 4.58848 KN.m + 5.8121 KN.m
Mb.(Total) = 6.25086 KN. m
IV. CALCULATE THE SPACING OF BARS
a. ALONG SHORT DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = ᶲfc'bd^2 ῳ (1-0.59ῳ) (Where Mu = 17.329788 KN.m)
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.062826255
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.062826255)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.003468
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333
Comparing the 3 ρ’s

ρ < ρmin. < ρmax. Therefore; use ρmin
Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2
Number of Bars = As/Av

Number of Bars = 462.933292 mm2
(π(122)/4)
Number of Bars = 4.093229 or 5 bars
Therefore Use 5-12mmØ bars
Spacing of bars = 1/5 (1000)

Spacing of bars = 200mm
Therefore use = 200mm spacing
b. ALONG LONG DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.02211
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.02211)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.00122046
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

CASE 9: (SLAB 1)
Parameters:
L= 7.38m
S=5m
t= 150mm
CC=20
Bar diameter = 12mm
F’c= 20.7MPa
Fy= 375Mpa
d= 150-20-6= 124mm
V. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Dead Loads in Slab

Grout 0.11 Kpa
CHB 2.11 Kpa
Total 7.581 Kpa
Live Loads
Basic Floor 1.9 Kpa
Total 1.9 Kpa
VI. CALCULATE THE MOMENT COEFFICIENTS USING INTERPOLATION

La = 5 m
Lb = 7.38 m
m = 0.6775
e. Coefficients for Negative Moments (Using Interpolation)

Neg. Ca = 0.08189397
Neg. Cb = 0.0095314
Ma. Neg. = (0.08189397) (9.481 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Neg. = 19.410918 KN.m
Mb. Neg. = (0.0095314)( 9.481 Kpa) (7.38 m)2

Mb. Neg. = 4.9218 KN.m
f. Coefficients for Dead Load Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca DL = 0.0334463
Cb DL = 0.00552738
Ma. Pos. DL = (0.0334463) (7.581 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Pos. DL = 6.33891 KN.m
Mb. Pos. DL = (0.00552738) (1.9 Kpa) (7.38 m)2

Mb. Pos. DL = 0.571986 KN.m
g. Coefficients for LiveLoad Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca LL = 0.051762
Cb LL = 0.01005
Ma. Pos. LL = (0.051762) (1.9 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Pos. LL = 2.458695 KN.m
Mb. Pos. LL = (0.01005) (7.581 Kpa) (7.38 m)2

Mb. Pos. LL = 4.14959 KN.m
h. Ratio of Load w in La and Lb Directions for Shear in Slab and Loads on Supports
Ca./Wa. = 0.903377
Cb./Wb. = 0.095314
VII. Ma. Along Short Direction = ma. Pos. Dl + ma. Pos. Ll

Ma.(Total) = 8.797605 KN. m
Mb.(Total) = 4.721576 KN. m
VIII. CALCULATE THE SPACING OF BARS
c. ALONG SHORT DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.0312896
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.062826255)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.0017272
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

d. ALONG LONG DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.01664
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.01664)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.00091856
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

CASE 9: (SLAB 1)
Parameters:
L= 7.38m
S=5m
t= 150mm
CC=20
Bar diameter = 12mm
F’c= 20.7MPa
Fy= 375Mpa
d= 150-20-6= 124mm
IX. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Dead Loads in Slab

Grout 0.11 Kpa
CHB 2.11 Kpa
Total 7.581 Kpa
Live Loads
Basic Floor 1.9 Kpa
Total 1.9 Kpa
X. CALCULATE THE MOMENT COEFFICIENTS USING INTERPOLATION

La = 5 m
Lb = 7.38 m
m = 0.6775
i. Coefficients for Negative Moments (Using Interpolation)

Neg. Ca = 0.08189397
Neg. Cb = 0.0095314
Ma. Neg. = (0.08189397) (9.481 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Neg. = 19.410918 KN.m
Mb. Neg. = (0.0095314)( 9.481 Kpa) (7.38 m)2

Mb. Neg. = 4.9218 KN.m
j. Coefficients for Dead Load Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca DL = 0.0334463
Cb DL = 0.00552738
Ma. Pos. DL = (0.0334463) (7.581 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Pos. DL = 6.33891 KN.m
Mb. Pos. DL = (0.00552738) (1.9 Kpa) (7.38 m)2

Mb. Pos. DL = 0.571986 KN.m
k. Coefficients for LiveLoad Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca LL = 0.051762
Cb LL = 0.01005
Ma. Pos. LL = (0.051762) (1.9 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Pos. LL = 2.458695 KN.m
Mb. Pos. LL = (0.01005) (7.581 Kpa) (7.38 m)2

Mb. Pos. LL = 4.14959 KN.m
l. Ratio of Load w in La and Lb Directions for Shear in Slab and Loads on Supports
Ca./Wa. = 0.903377
Cb./Wb. = 0.095314
XI. Ma. Along Short Direction = ma. Pos. Dl + ma. Pos. Ll

Ma.(Total) = 8.797605 KN. m
Mb.(Total) = 4.721576 KN. m
XII. CALCULATE THE SPACING OF BARS
e. ALONG SHORT DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.0312896
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.062826255)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.0017272
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

f. ALONG LONG DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.01664
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.01664)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.00091856
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

CASE 9: (SLAB 1)
Parameters:
L= 7.38m
S=5m
t= 150mm
CC=20
Bar diameter = 12mm
F’c= 20.7MPa
Fy= 375Mpa
d= 150-20-6= 124mm
XIII. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Dead Loads in Slab

Grout 0.11 Kpa
CHB 2.11 Kpa
Total 7.581 Kpa
Live Loads
Basic Floor 1.9 Kpa
Total 1.9 Kpa
XIV. CALCULATE THE MOMENT COEFFICIENTS USING INTERPOLATION

La = 5 m
Lb = 7.38 m
m = 0.6775
m. Coefficients for Negative Moments (Using Interpolation)

Neg. Ca = 0.0827762
Neg. Cb = 0.0494418
Ma. Neg. = (0.0827762) (9.481 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Neg. = 19.62 KN.m
Mb. Neg. = (0.0494418)( 9.481 Kpa) (7.38 m)2

Mb. Neg. = 25.53061 KN.m
n. Coefficients for Dead Load Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca DL = 0.06005
Cb DL = 0.015067
Ma. Pos. DL = (0.06006) (7.581 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Pos. DL = 11.38287 KN.m
Mb. Pos. DL = (0.015067) (1.9 Kpa) (7.38 m)2

Mb. Pos. DL = 1.559169 KN.m
o. Coefficients for LiveLoad Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca LL = 0.0591980
Cb LL = 0.0125602
Ma. Pos. LL = (0.0591980) (1.9 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Pos. LL = 2.811805 KN.m
Mb. Pos. LL = (0.0125602) (7.581 Kpa) (7.38 m)2

Mb. Pos. LL = 5.186038 KN.m
p. Ratio of Load w in La and Lb Directions for Shear in Slab and Loads on Supports
Ca./Wa. = 0.85776
Cb./Wb. = 0.17083
XV. Ma. Along Short Direction = ma. Pos. Dl + ma. Pos. Ll

Ma.(Total) = 14.19468 KN. m
Mb.(Total) = 6.74521 KN. m
XVI. CALCULATE THE SPACING OF BARS
g. ALONG SHORT DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.051093
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.051093)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.0028203
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

h. ALONG LONG DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.02388
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.02388)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.00132
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

CASE 2: (SLAB 3)
Parameters:
L= 5.12m
S=5m
t= 150mm
CC=20
Bar diameter = 12mm
F’c= 20.7MPa
Fy= 375Mpa
d= 150-20-6= 124mm
XVII. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Dead Loads in Slab

Grout 0.11 Kpa
CHB 2.11 Kpa
Total 7.581 Kpa
Live Loads
Basic Floor 1.9 Kpa
Total 1.9 Kpa
XVIII. CALCULATE THE MOMENT COEFFICIENTS USING INTERPOLATION

La = 5 m
Lb = 5.12 m
m = 0.97656
q. Coefficients for Negative Moments (Using Interpolation)

Neg. Ca = 0.04728
Neg. Cb = 0.04308
Ma. Neg. = (0.04728) (9.481 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Neg. = 11.206542 KN.m
Mb. Neg. = (0.04308)( 9.481 Kpa) (5.12 m)2

Mb. Neg. = 10.70705 KN.m
r. Coefficients for Dead Load Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca DL = 0.01891
Cb DL = 0.01703
Ma. Pos. DL = (0.01891) (7.581 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Pos. DL = 3.5839 KN.m
Mb. Pos. DL = (0.01703) (1.9 Kpa) (5.12 m)2

Mb. Pos. DL = 0.84822 KN.m
s. Coefficients for LiveLoad Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca LL = 0.03782
Cb LL = 0.02604
Ma. Pos. LL = (0.03782) (1.9 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Pos. LL = 1.79645 KN.m
Mb. Pos. LL = (0.02604) (7.581 Kpa) (5.12 m)2

Mb. Pos. LL = 5.17496 KN.m
t. Ratio of Load w in La and Lb Directions for Shear in Slab and Loads on Supports
Ca./Wa. = 0.52285
Cb./Wb. = 0.47590
XIX. Ma. Along Short Direction = ma. Pos. Dl + ma. Pos. Ll

Ma.(Total) = 5.38035 KN. m
Mb.(Total) = 6.02318 KN. m
XX. CALCULATE THE SPACING OF BARS
i. ALONG SHORT DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.018995
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.018995)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.0010485
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

j. ALONG LONG DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.02129
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.02129)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.001175
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

CASE 2: (SLAB 3)
Parameters:
L= 5.12m
S=5m
t= 150mm
CC=20
Bar diameter = 12mm
F’c= 20.7MPa
Fy= 375Mpa
d= 150-20-6= 124mm
XXI. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Dead Loads in Slab

Grout 0.11 Kpa
CHB 2.11 Kpa
Total 7.581 Kpa
Live Loads
Basic Floor 1.9 Kpa
Total 1.9 Kpa
XXII. CALCULATE THE MOMENT COEFFICIENTS USING INTERPOLATION

La = 5 m
Lb = 5.12 m
m = 0.97656
u. Coefficients for Negative Moments (Using Interpolation)

Neg. Ca = 0.04728
Neg. Cb = 0.04308
Ma. Neg. = (0.04728) (9.481 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Neg. = 11.206542 KN.m
Mb. Neg. = (0.04308)( 9.481 Kpa) (5.12 m)2

Mb. Neg. = 10.70705 KN.m
v. Coefficients for Dead Load Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca DL = 0.01891
Cb DL = 0.01703
Ma. Pos. DL = (0.01891) (7.581 Kpa) (5 m)2

Mb. Pos. DL = (0.01703) (1.9 Kpa) (5.12 m)2

Mb. Pos. DL = 0.84822 KN.m
w. Coefficients for LiveLoad Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca LL = 0.03782
Cb LL = 0.02604
Ma. Pos. LL = (0.03782) (1.9 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Pos. LL = 1.79645 KN.m
Mb. Pos. LL = (0.02604) (7.581 Kpa) (5.12 m)2

Mb. Pos. LL = 5.17496 KN.m
x. Ratio of Load w in La and Lb Directions for Shear in Slab and Loads on Supports
Ca./Wa. = 0.52285
Cb./Wb. = 0.47590
XXIII. Ma. Along Short Direction = ma. Pos. Dl + ma. Pos. Ll

Ma.(Total) = 5.38035 KN. m
Mb.(Total) = 6.02318 KN. m
XXIV. CALCULATE THE SPACING OF BARS
k. ALONG SHORT DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.018995
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.018995)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.0010485
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

l. ALONG LONG DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.02129
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.02129)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.001175
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

CASE 8: (SLAB 3)
Parameters:
L= 5.12m
S=5m
t= 150mm
CC=20
Bar diameter = 12mm
F’c= 20.7MPa
Fy= 375Mpa
d= 150-20-6= 124mm
XXV. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Dead Loads in Slab

Grout 0.11 Kpa
CHB 2.11 Kpa
Total 7.581 Kpa
Live Loads
Basic Floor 1.9 Kpa
Total 1.9 Kpa
XXVI. CALCULATE THE MOMENT COEFFICIENTS USING INTERPOLATION

La = 5 m
Lb = 5.12 m
m = 0.97656
y. Coefficients for Negative Moments (Using Interpolation)

Neg. Ca = 0.03526
Neg. Cb = 0.05860
Ma. Neg. = (0.03526) (9.481 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Neg. = 8.35750 KN.m
Mb. Neg. = (0.05860)(9.481 Kpa) (5.12 m)2

Mb. Neg. = 13.88967 KN.m
z. Coefficients for Dead Load Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca DL = 0.02091
Cb DL = 0.02204
Ma. Pos. DL = (0.02091) (7.581 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Pos. DL = 3.96471 KN.m
Mb. Pos. DL = (0.02204) (1.9 Kpa) (5.12 m)2

Mb. Pos. DL = 1.09774 KN.m
aa. Coefficients for LiveLoad Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca LL = 0.02937
Cb LL = 0.02855
Ma. Pos. LL = (0.02937) (1.9 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Pos. LL = 1.39500 KN.m
Mb. Pos. LL = (0.02855) (7.581 Kpa) (5.12 m)2

Mb. Pos. LL = 5.67462 KN.m
bb. Ratio of Load w in La and Lb Directions for Shear in Slab and Loads on Supports
Ca./Wa. = 0.35256
Cb./Wb. = 0.64608
XXVII. Ma. Along Short Direction = ma. Pos. Dl + ma. Pos. Ll

Ma.(Total) = 5.35971 KN. m
Mb.(Total) = 6.77236 KN. m
XXVIII. CALCULATE THE SPACING OF BARS
m. ALONG SHORT DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.02398
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.02398)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.001324
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

n. ALONG LONG DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.02129
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.02129)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.001175
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

CASE 6: (SLAB 4)
Parameters:
L= 6.25m
S=5m
t= 150mm
CC=20
Bar diameter = 12mm
F’c= 20.7MPa
Fy= 375Mpa
d= 150-20-6= 124mm
XXIX. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Dead Loads in Slab

Grout 0.11 Kpa
CHB 2.11 Kpa
Total 7.581 Kpa
Live Loads
Basic Floor 1.9 Kpa
Total 1.9 Kpa
XXX. CALCULATE THE MOMENT COEFFICIENTS USING INTERPOLATION

La = 5 m
Lb = 6.25 m
m = 0.8
cc. Coefficients for Negative Moments (Using Interpolation)
Neg. Ca = 0.086
Neg. Cb = 0.086
Ma. Neg. = (0.086) (9.481 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Neg. = 20.38415 KN.m
Mb. Neg. = (0.086)( 9.481 Kpa) (6.25 m)2

Mb. Neg. = 31.85023 KN.m
dd. Coefficients for Dead Load Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca DL = 0.045
Cb DL = 0.015
Ma. Pos. DL = (0.045) (7.381 Kpa) (5 m)2

Mb. Pos. DL = (0.015) (7.831 Kpa) (6.25 m)2

Mb. Pos. DL = 4.58848 KN.m
ee. Coefficients for LiveLoad Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca LL = 0.051
Cb LL = 0.019
Ma. Pos. LL = (0.051) (1.9 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Pos. LL = 2.4225 KN.m
Mb. Pos. LL = (0.019) (7.831 Kpa) (6.25 m)2

Mb. Pos. LL = 5.8121 KN.m
ff. Ratio of Load w in La and Lb Directions for Shear in Slab and Loads on Supports
Ca./Wa. = 0.86
Cb./Wb. = 0.14
XXXI. Ma. Along Short Direction = ma. Pos. Dl + ma. Pos. Ll

Ma.(Total) = 11.2324 KN. m
Mb.(Total) = 10.40058 KN. m
XXXII. CALCULATE THE SPACING OF BARS
o. ALONG SHORT DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.0401635
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.0401635)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.00221702
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

p. ALONG LONG DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.037121
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.037121)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.00204907
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

CASE 2: (SLAB 4)
Parameters:
L= 6.25m
S=5m
t= 150mm
CC=20
Bar diameter = 12mm
F’c= 20.7MPa
Fy= 375Mpa
d= 150-20-6= 124mm
XXXIII. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Dead Loads in Slab

Grout 0.11 Kpa
CHB 2.11 Kpa
Total 7.581 Kpa
Live Loads
Basic Floor 1.9 Kpa
Total 1.9 Kpa
XXXIV. CALCULATE THE MOMENT COEFFICIENTS USING INTERPOLATION

La = 5 m
Lb = 6.25 m
m = 0.8
gg. Coefficients for Negative Moments (Using Interpolation)

Neg. Ca = 0.065
Neg. Cb = 0.027
Ma. Neg. = (0.065) (9.481 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Neg. = 15.40663 KN.m
Mb. Neg. = (0.027)( 9.481 Kpa) (6.25 m)2

Mb. Neg. = 10 KN.m
hh. Coefficients for Dead Load Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca DL = 0.026
Cb DL = 0.011
Ma. Pos. DL = (0.026) (7.581 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Pos. DL = 4.92765 KN.m
Mb. Pos. DL = (0.011) (1.9 Kpa) (6.25 m)2

Mb. Pos. DL = 0.81641 KN.m
ii. Coefficients for LiveLoad Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca LL = 0.041
Cb LL = 0.017
Ma. Pos. LL = (0.041) (1.9 Kpa) (5 m)2

Mb. Pos. LL = (0.017) (7.581 Kpa) (6.25 m)2

Mb. Pos. LL = 2.96133 KN.m
jj. Ratio of Load w in La and Lb Directions for Shear in Slab and Loads on Supports
Ca./Wa. = 0.71
Cb./Wb. = 0.29
XXXV. Ma. Along Short Direction = ma. Pos. Dl + ma. Pos. Ll
Ma.(Total) = 6.87515 KN. m
Mb.(Total) = 3.77774 KN. m
XXXVI. CALCULATE THE SPACING OF BARS
q. ALONG SHORT DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.02435
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.02435)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.001344
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

r. ALONG LONG DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.02129
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.02129)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.001175
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

CASE 2: (SLAB 4)
Parameters:
L= 6.25m
S=5m
t= 150mm
CC=20
Bar diameter = 12mm
F’c= 20.7MPa
Fy= 375Mpa
d= 150-20-6= 124mm
XXXVII. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Dead Loads in Slab

Grout 0.11 Kpa
CHB 2.11 Kpa
Total 7.581 Kpa
Live Loads
Basic Floor 1.9 Kpa
Total 1.9 Kpa
XXXVIII. CALCULATE THE MOMENT COEFFICIENTS USING INTERPOLATION

La = 5 m
Lb = 6.25 m
m = 0.8
kk. Coefficients for Negative Moments (Using Interpolation)

Neg. Ca = 0.065
Neg. Cb = 0.027
Ma. Neg. = (0.065) (9.481 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Neg. = 15.40663 KN.m
Mb. Neg. = (0.027)( 9.481 Kpa) (6.25 m)2

Mb. Neg. = 10 KN.m
ll. Coefficients for Dead Load Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca DL = 0.026
Cb DL = 0.011
Ma. Pos. DL = (0.026) (7.581 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Pos. DL = 4.92765 KN.m
Mb. Pos. DL = (0.011) (1.9 Kpa) (6.25 m)2

Mb. Pos. DL = 0.81641 KN.m
mm. Coefficients for LiveLoad Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca LL = 0.041
Cb LL = 0.017
Ma. Pos. LL = (0.041) (1.9 Kpa) (5 m)2

Mb. Pos. LL = (0.017) (7.581 Kpa) (6.25 m)2

Mb. Pos. LL = 2.96133 KN.m
nn. Ratio of Load w in La and Lb Directions for Shear in Slab and Loads on Supports
Ca./Wa. = 0.71
Cb./Wb. = 0.29
XXXIX. Ma. Along Short Direction = ma. Pos. Dl + ma. Pos. Ll

Ma.(Total) = 6.87515 KN. m
Mb.(Total) = 3.77774 KN. m
XL. CALCULATE THE SPACING OF BARS
s. ALONG SHORT DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.02435
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.02435)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.001344
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

t. ALONG LONG DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.02129
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.02129)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.001175
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

CASE 8: (SLAB 4)
Parameters:
L= 6.25m
S=5m
t= 150mm
CC=20
Bar diameter = 12mm
F’c= 20.7MPa
Fy= 375Mpa
d= 150-20-6= 124mm
XLI. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Dead Loads in Slab

Grout 0.11 Kpa
CHB 2.11 Kpa
Total 7.581 Kpa
Live Loads
Basic Floor 1.9 Kpa
Total 1.9 Kpa
XLII. CALCULATE THE MOMENT COEFFICIENTS USING INTERPOLATION

La = 5 m
Lb = 6.25 m
m = 0.8
oo. Coefficients for Negative Moments (Using Interpolation)

Neg. Ca = 0.055
Neg. Cb = 0.041
Ma. Neg. = (0.055) (9.481 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Neg. = 13.03638 KN.m
Mb. Neg. = (0.041)( 9.481 Kpa) (6.25 m)2

Mb. Neg. = 15.18441 KN.m
pp. Coefficients for Dead Load Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca DL = 0.032
Cb DL = 0.015
Ma. Pos. DL = (0.032) (7.581 Kpa) (5 m)2

Mb. Pos. DL = (0.015) (1.9 Kpa) (6.25 m)2

Mb. Pos. DL = 1.11328 KN.m
qq. Coefficients for LiveLoad Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca LL = 0.044
Cb LL = 0.019
Ma. Pos. LL = (0.044) (1.9 Kpa) (5 m)2

Mb. Pos. LL = (0.019) (7.581 Kpa) (6.25 m)2

Mb. Pos. LL = 5.62652 KN.m
rr. Ratio of Load w in La and Lb Directions for Shear in Slab and Loads on Supports
Ca./Wa. = 0.55
Cb./Wb. = 0.45
XLIII. Ma. Along Short Direction = ma. Pos. Dl + ma. Pos. Ll

Ma.(Total) = 8.1548 KN. m
Mb.(Total) = 6.7398 KN. m
XLIV. CALCULATE THE SPACING OF BARS
u. ALONG SHORT DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.028963
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.02435)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.0015988
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

v. ALONG LONG DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.023864
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.02129)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.0013173
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

CASE 9: (SLAB 6)
Parameters:
L= 6.25m
S=5m
t= 150mm
CC=20
Bar diameter = 12mm
F’c= 20.7MPa
Fy= 375Mpa
d= 150-20-6= 124mm
XLV. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Dead Loads in Slab

Grout 0.11 Kpa
CHB 2.11 Kpa
Total 7.581 Kpa
Live Loads
Basic Floor 1.9 Kpa
Total 1.9 Kpa
XLVI. CALCULATE THE MOMENT COEFFICIENTS USING INTERPOLATION

La = 5 m
Lb = 6.25 m
m = 0.8
ss. Coefficients for Negative Moments (Using Interpolation)

Neg. Ca = 0.075
Neg. Cb = 0.017
Ma. Neg. = (0.075) (9.481 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Neg. = 17.77688 KN.m
Mb. Neg. = (0.017)( 9.481 Kpa) (6.25 m)2

Mb. Neg. = 6.29598 KN.m
tt. Coefficients for Dead Load Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca DL = 0.029
Cb DL = 0.010
Ma. Pos. DL = (0.029) (7.581 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Pos. DL = 5.49623 KN.m
Mb. Pos. DL = (0.010) (1.9 Kpa) (6.25 m)2

Mb. Pos. DL = 0.74219 KN.m
uu. Coefficients for LiveLoad Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca LL = 0.042
Cb LL = 0.017
Ma. Pos. LL = (0.042) (1.9 Kpa) (5 m)2

Mb. Pos. LL = (0.017) (7.581 Kpa) (6.25 m)2

Mb. Pos. LL = 2.96133 KN.m
vv. Ratio of Load w in La and Lb Directions for Shear in Slab and Loads on Supports
Ca./Wa. = 0.83
Cb./Wb. = 0.17
XLVII. Ma. Along Short Direction = ma. Pos. Dl + ma. Pos. Ll

Ma.(Total) = 7.49123 KN. m
Mb.(Total) = 3.70352 KN. m
XLVIII. CALCULATE THE SPACING OF BARS
w. ALONG SHORT DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.026568
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.026568)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.001467
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

x. ALONG LONG DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = ᶲfc'bd^2 ῳ (1-0.59ῳ) (Where Mu = 3.70352KN.m)
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.013029
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.013029)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.0007192
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

CASE 9: (SLAB 6)
Parameters:
L= 6.25m
S=5m
t= 150mm
CC=20
Bar diameter = 12mm
F’c= 20.7MPa
Fy= 375Mpa
d= 150-20-6= 124mm
XLIX. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Dead Loads in Slab

Grout 0.11 Kpa
CHB 2.11 Kpa
Total 7.581 Kpa
Live Loads
Basic Floor 1.9 Kpa
Total 1.9 Kpa
L. CALCULATE THE MOMENT COEFFICIENTS USING INTERPOLATION

La = 5 m
Lb = 6.25 m
m = 0.8
ww. Coefficients for Negative Moments (Using Interpolation)

Neg. Ca = 0.075
Neg. Cb = 0.017
Ma. Neg. = (0.075) (9.481 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Neg. = 17.77688 KN.m
Mb. Neg. = (0.017)( 9.481 Kpa) (6.25 m)2

Mb. Neg. = 6.29598 KN.m
xx. Coefficients for Dead Load Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca DL = 0.029
Cb DL = 0.010
Ma. Pos. DL = (0.029) (7.581 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Pos. DL = 5.49623 KN.m
Mb. Pos. DL = (0.010) (1.9 Kpa) (6.25 m)2

Mb. Pos. DL = 0.74219 KN.m
yy. Coefficients for LiveLoad Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca LL = 0.042
Cb LL = 0.017
Ma. Pos. LL = (0.042) (1.9 Kpa) (5 m)2

Mb. Pos. LL = (0.017) (7.581 Kpa) (6.25 m)2

Mb. Pos. LL = 2.96133 KN.m
zz. Ratio of Load w in La and Lb Directions for Shear in Slab and Loads on Supports
Ca./Wa. = 0.83
Cb./Wb. = 0.17
LI. Ma. Along Short Direction = ma. Pos. Dl + ma. Pos. Ll

Ma.(Total) = 7.49123 KN. m
Mb.(Total) = 3.70352 KN. m
LII. CALCULATE THE SPACING OF BARS
y. ALONG SHORT DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.026568
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.026568)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.001467
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

z. ALONG LONG DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = ᶲfc'bd^2 ῳ (1-0.59ῳ) (Where Mu = 3.70352KN.m)
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.013029
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.013029)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.0007192
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

CASE 4: (SLAB 6)
Parameters:
L= 6.25m
S=5m
t= 150mm
CC=20
Bar diameter = 12mm
F’c= 20.7MPa
Fy= 375Mpa
d= 150-20-6= 124mm
LIII. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Dead Loads in Slab

Grout 0.11 Kpa
CHB 2.11 Kpa
Total 7.581 Kpa
Live Loads
Basic Floor 1.9 Kpa
Total 1.9 Kpa
LIV. CALCULATE THE MOMENT COEFFICIENTS USING INTERPOLATION

La = 5 m
Lb = 6.25 m
m = 0.8
aaa. Coefficients for Negative Moments (Using Interpolation)

Neg. Ca = 0.071
Neg. Cb = 0.029
Ma. Neg. = (0.071) (9.481 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Neg. = 16.82878KN.m
Mb. Neg. = (0.029)( 9.481 Kpa) (6.25 m)2

Mb. Neg. = 10.7402 KN.m
bbb. Coefficients for Dead Load Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca DL = 0.039
Cb DL = 0.016
Ma. Pos. DL = (0.039) (7.581 Kpa) (5 m)2

Ma. Pos. DL = 7.391475 KN.m
Mb. Pos. DL = (0.016) (1.9 Kpa) (6.25 m)2

Mb. Pos. DL = 1.1875 KN.m
ccc. Coefficients for LiveLoad Positive Moments in Slabs (Using Interpolation)
Ca LL = 0.048
Cb LL = 0.020
Ma. Pos. LL = (0.048) (1.9 Kpa) (5 m)2

Mb. Pos. LL = (0.020) (7.581 Kpa) (6.25 m)2

Mb. Pos. LL = 5.92266 KN.m
ddd. Ratio of Load w in La and Lb Directions for Shear in Slab and Loads on Supports
Ca./Wa. = 0.71
Cb./Wb. = 0.29
LV. Ma. Along Short Direction = ma. Pos. Dl + ma. Pos. Ll

Ma.(Total) = 9.67148 KN. m
Mb.(Total) = 7.11016 KN. m
LVI. CALCULATE THE SPACING OF BARS
aa. ALONG SHORT DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.034463
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.026568)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.0019024
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

bb. ALONG LONG DIRECTION:

Midspan
Mu = (0.90)(20.7 Mpa)(1000mm)(124mm)2(ῳ) (1-0.59ῳ )
ῳ = 0.025196
ρ = ῳfc’/fy
ρ = (0.025196)( 20.7 Mpa)/ (375 Mpa)
ρ = 0.0013908
Checking:
ρmax. = (0.75)(0.85)(fc’)( β)(600)
fy (600 + fy )
ρmax. = 0.018407077
ρmin. = 1.4/fy
ρmin. = 0.003733333

Using 12 mm Ø bar
As = ρbd
As= (0.003733333)(1000 mm)(124 mm)
As= 462.933292 mm2

(π(122)/4)

COMPUTATIONS OF ONE WAY SLAB

For Slab 2
DESIGN OF ONE-WAY SLAB
GIVEN DATA
Dead Loads (kPa) f'c 20.7 MPa
Weight
of Slab 3.541 fy 375 MPa
Other
Materials 4.04 L 5.12 m
0 t 150 mm
Total 7.581 b 1000 mm
Live Load (kPa) Φbar 12 mm
Basic
Floor
Area 1.9 Φtie 10 mm
d 114 mm
Step 1. Calculate the Factored Loads and the Moment in

the Slab SLAB MOMENTS
W = 1.2DL + 1.6LL W 12.13720 kN/m
For Midspan, M = W*(L2)/14 Mmid 22.72639 kN/m
For Continuous Edge, M = W*(L2)/10 Mc.e. 31.81694 kN/m
Step 2. Calculate the Steel Ratio and Check for the
Midspan
R = Mu/(b*(d2)) STEEL RATIO
ρ = (0.85*f'c/fy)*(1-(sqrt(1-
((2*R)/(0.85*f'c)))) R 1.94302
ρmax = 0.75*0.85*f'c*β*600/(fy*(600+fy)) ρi 0.00550
ρmin = 1.4/fy ρmax 0.01841
* If ρ > ρmax, redesign ρmin 0.00373
* If ρmin < ρ < ρmax, ok ρf 0.00550
* If ρmin > ρ, use ρmin
Step 3. Calculate the Steel Area and Spacing of Bars STEEL BARS FOR MIDSPAN
As = ρ*b*d As 627.48490 mm2
S = b*Abar/As, Abar = pi*(Φbar^2)/4 Abar 113.09734 mm2
N = b/S S 180 mm
N 6 pcs
For Slab 5
DESIGN OF ONE-WAY SLAB
GIVEN DATA
Dead Loads (kPa) f'c 20.7 MPa
Weight of
Slab 3.541 fy 375 MPa
Other
Materials 4.04 L 6.25 m
0 t 150 mm
Total 7.581 b 1000 mm
Live Load (kPa) Φbar 12 mm
Basic Floor
Area 1.9 Φtie 10 mm
d 114 mm
Step 1. Calculate the Factored Loads and the Moment in the

Slab SLAB MOMENTS
W = 1.2DL + 1.6LL W 12.13720 kN/m
For Midspan, M = W*(L2)/14 Mmid 33.86496 kN/m
For Continuous Edge, M = W*(L2)/10 Mc.e. 47.41094 kN/m
Step 2. Calculate the Steel Ratio and Check for the Midspan
R = Mu/(b*(d2)) STEEL RATIO
ρ = (0.85*f'c/fy)*(1-(sqrt(1-
((2*R)/(0.85*f'c)))) R 2.89533
ρmax = 0.75*0.85*f'c*β*600/(fy*(600+fy)) ρi 0.00849
ρmin = 1.4/fy ρmax 0.01841
* If ρ > ρmax, redesign ρmin 0.00373
* If ρmin < ρ < ρmax, ok ρf 0.00849
* If ρmin > ρ, use ρmin
Step 3. Calculate the Steel Area and Spacing of Bars STEEL BARS FOR MIDSPAN
As = ρ*b*d As 967.72096 mm2
S = b*Abar/As, Abar = pi*(Φbar^2)/4 Abar 113.09734 mm2
N = b/S S 110 mm
N 10 pcs
Appendix D: Design of Beams Computation Using Excel Program
Design of Beam - 1
Design Parameters
kN-
102.312 50
Mu m d' mm
fy 415 Mpa d 300 mm
bar
20.7 20
f'c Mpa dia. mm
b 250 mm β 0.85
h 350 mm Ø 0.9
1. Solve for ρ-max and Mu.max

ρ-max = 0.75ρb
ρ-max = 0.75[(0.85 F'c β (600))/Fy (600 + Fy)]
ρ-max =
0.75[(0.85)(25Mpa)(0.85)(600Mpa)]/[415Mpa(600Mpa+415Mpa)]
ρ-max = 0.01598
Mu.max = Ø*ρ-max*Fy*b*d^2( 1 - 0.59 ( ρ-max(fy)/f'c))

Mu.max KN-
= 108894635.5 or 108.89464 m
Mu is less than Mu.max no need to proceed to step 2, instead,

design Doubly with minimum 4 bars.
Design of Beam - 2
Design Parameters
Mu 47.3055 kN-m d' 50 mm
fy 415 Mpa d 300 mm
bar
20.7 20
f'c Mpa dia. mm
b 250 mm β 0.85
h 350 mm Ø 0.9

ρ-max = 0.75ρb
ρ-max = 0.75[(0.85 F'c β (600))/Fy (600 + Fy)]
ρ-max =
ρ-max = 0.01598

KN-
Mu.max = 108894635.5 or 108.89464 m
Mu is less than Mu.max no need to proceed to step 2, instead,

design Doubly with minimum 4 bars.
Design of Beam - 3
Design Parameters
Mu 88.92 kN-m d' 50 mm
fy 415 Mpa d 300 mm
bar
20.7 20
f'c Mpa dia. mm
b 250 mm β 0.85
h 350 mm Ø 0.9

ρ-max = 0.75ρb
ρ-max = 0.75[(0.85 F'c β (600))/Fy (600 + Fy)]
ρ-max = 0.75[(0.85)(25Mpa)(0.85)(600Mpa)]/[415Mpa(600Mpa+415Mpa)]
ρ-max = 0.01598

KN-
Mu.max = 108894635.5 or 108.89464 m
Mu is less than Mu.max no need to proceed to step 2, instead, design as

Doubly with minimum 4 bars.
Design of Beam – 4
Design Parameters
Mu 39.332 kN-m d' 50 mm
fy 415 Mpa d 300 mm
bar
20.7 20
f'c Mpa dia. mm
b 250 mm β 0.85
h 350 mm Ø 0.9

ρ-max = 0.75ρb
ρ-max = 0.75[(0.85 F'c β (600))/Fy (600 + Fy)]
ρ-max = 0.01598

Mu.max = 108894635.5 or 108.89464 KN-m

Doubly with minimum 4 bars
Design of Beam - 5
Design Parameters
Mu 67.33 kN-m d' 50 mm
fy 415 Mpa d 300 mm
f'c 20.7 Mpa bar dia. 20 mm
b 250 mm β 0.85
h 350 mm Ø 0.9

ρ-max = 0.75ρb
ρ-max = 0.75[(0.85 F'c β (600))/Fy (600 + Fy)]
ρ-max =
ρ-max = 0.01598

Mu.max = 108894635.5 or 108.89464 KN-m
Mu is less than Mu.max no need to proceed to step 2, instead, design

as Doubly with minimum 4 bars
Design of Beam - 6
Design Parameters
Mu 67.33 kN-m d' 50 mm
fy 415 Mpa d 300 mm
b 250 mm β 0.85
h 350 mm Ø 0.9

ρ-max = 0.75ρb
ρ-max = 0.75[(0.85 F'c β (600))/Fy (600 + Fy)]
ρ-max =
ρ-max = 0.01598

Mu.max = 108894635.5 or 108.89464 KN-m

Design of Beam - 7
Design Parameters
Mu 126.59 kN-m d' 50 mm
fy 415 Mpa d 300 mm
b 250 mm β 0.85
h 350 mm Ø 0.9

ρ-max = 0.75ρb
ρ-max = 0.75[(0.85 F'c β (600))/Fy (600 + Fy)]
ρ-max = 0.01598

Mu.max = 108894635.5 or 108.89464 KN-m
Mu is greater than Mu.max therefore design as Doubly Reinforced Beam and

proceed to step 2
2. Mu > Mu.max
As1 = bd
As1 = 1198.31 mm^2
Mu1 = Mumax
Mu2 = Mu - Mmax
Mu2 = 126.59 KN-m - 108.89464 KN-m
Mu2= 17.6954 KN-m or 17695364.5 N-mm
Mu2= Ø As2 Fy (d-d')

As2= Mu2/Ø Fy (d-d')
As2= 189.509 mm^2
3. Solve for the stress of compression steel
Solve for a and c

C1 = T1
0.85 F'c a b = As1 Fy
a=(As1 Fy)/(0.85 F'c b)
a= 113.054 mm
c= a / β
c= 133.005 mm
F's= 600(c-d')/c
F's= 374.444 Mpa
F's < Fy, proceed to step 5
4. F's > Fy, then use F's = Fy (compression steel yields)
A's= As2
A's= Use step 5
5. F's < Fy, then use F's (compression steel does not yield)
A's= As2(fy/f's)
A's= 210.034 mm^2
6. Sovling for the quantity of reinforcement (N)

As= As1 + As2
As= 1198.31 mm^2 - 189.50859 mm^2
As= 1387.81 mm^2
N= As/A
A=π/4(D^2)
A= 314.159 mm^2
N= 4.41755 Therefore use: 5 pcs

20 mm Bars
A's= 210.034 mm^2

N'= A's/A
A=π/4(D^2)
A= 314.159 mm^2
N'= 2 mm^2 Therefore use: 2 pcs

20 mm Bars
Design of Beam - 8
Design Parameters
Mu 193.38 kN-m d' 50 mm
fy 415 Mpa d 300 mm
b 250 mm β 0.85
h 350 mm Ø 0.9

ρ-max = 0.75ρb
ρ-max = 0.75[(0.85 F'c β (600))/Fy (600 + Fy)]
ρ-max = 0.01598

Mu.max = 108894635.5 or 108.89464 KN-m
Mu is greater than Mu.max therefore design as Doubly Reinforced Beam and

proceed to step 2
2. Mu > Mu.max
As1 = bd
As1 = 1198.31 mm^2
Mu1 = Mumax
Mu2 = Mu - Mmax
Mu2 = 193.38 KN-m - 108.89464 KN-m
Mu2= 84.4854 KN-m or 84485364.5 N-mm

As2= 904.796 mm^2
Solve for a and c

C1 = T1
0.85 F'c a b = As1 Fy
a=(As1 Fy)/(0.85 F'c b)
a= 113.054 mm
c= a / β
c= 133.005 mm
F's= 600(c-d')/c
F's= 374.444 Mpa
A's= As2
A's= Use step 5
A's= As2(fy/f's)
A's= 1002.79 mm^2

As= As1 + As2
As= 1198.31 mm^2 - 904.79641 mm^2
As= 2103.1 mm^2
N= As/A
A=π/4(D^2)
A= 314.159 mm^2

20 mm Bars
A's= 1002.79 mm^2

N'= A's/A
A=π/4(D^2)
A= 314.159 mm^2

20 mm Bars
Design of Beam - 9
Design Parameters
Mu 72.4 kN-m d' 50 mm
fy 415 Mpa d 300 mm
b 250 mm β 0.85
h 350 mm Ø 0.9

ρ-max = 0.75ρb
ρ-max = 0.75[(0.85 F'c β (600))/Fy (600 + Fy)]
ρ-max = 0.01598

Mu.max = 108894635.5 or 108.89464 KN-m
Mu is less than Mu.max no need to proceed to step 2, instead, design as Doubly

with minimum 4 bars
Design of Beam - 10
Design Parameters
Mu 8.06 kN-m d' 50 mm
fy 415 Mpa d 300 mm
b 250 mm β 0.85
h 350 mm Ø 0.9

ρ-max = 0.75ρb
ρ-max = 0.75[(0.85 F'c β (600))/Fy (600 + Fy)]
ρ-max = 0.01598

Mu.max = 108894635.5 or 108.89464 KN-m
Mu is less than Mu.max no need to proceed to step 2, instead, design as Doubly with
minimum 4 bars
Design of Beam - 11
Design Parameters
Mu 116.72 kN-m d' 50 mm
fy 415 Mpa d 300 mm
b 250 mm β 0.85
h 350 mm Ø 0.9

ρ-max = 0.75ρb
ρ-max = 0.75[(0.85 F'c β (600))/Fy (600 + Fy)]
ρ-max = 0.01598

Mu.max = 108894635.5 or 108.89464 KN-m
Mu is greater than Mu.max therefore design as Doubly Reinforced Beam and proceed
to step 2
2. Mu > Mu.max
As1 = bd
As1 = 1198.31 mm^2
Mu1 = Mumax
Mu2 = Mu - Mmax
Mu2 = 116.72 KN-m - 108.89464 KN-m
Mu2= 7.82536 KN-m or 7825364.502 N-mm

As2= 83.8058 mm^2
Solve for a and c

C1 = T1
0.85 F'c a b = As1 Fy
a=(As1 Fy)/(0.85 F'c b)
a= 113.054 mm
c= a / β
c= 133.005 mm
F's= 600(c-d')/c
F's= 374.444 Mpa
A's= As2
A's= Use step 5
A's= As2(fy/f's)
A's= 92.8827 mm^2

As= As1 + As2
As= 1198.31 mm^2 - 83.805778 mm^2
As= 1282.11 mm^2
N= As/A
A=π/4(D^2)
A= 314.159 mm^2

20 mm Bars
A's= 92.8827 mm^2
N'= A's/A
A=π/4(D^2)
A= 314.159 mm^2

20 mm Bars
Design of Beam - 12
Design Parameters
Mu 79.49 kN-m d' 50 mm
fy 415 Mpa d 300 mm
b 250 mm β 0.85
h 350 mm Ø 0.9

ρ-max = 0.75ρb
ρ-max = 0.75[(0.85 F'c β (600))/Fy (600 + Fy)]
ρ-max = 0.01598

Mu.max = 108894635.5 or 108.89464 KN-m

with minimum 4 bars
Design of Beam - 11
Design Parameters
Mu 73.78 kN-m d' 50 mm
fy 415 Mpa d 300 mm
b 250 mm β 0.85
h 350 mm Ø 0.9

ρ-max = 0.75ρb
ρ-max = 0.75[(0.85 F'c β (600))/Fy (600 + Fy)]
ρ-max = 0.01598

Mu.max = 108894635.5 or 108.89464 KN-m

with minimum 4 bars
Design of Beam - 14
Design Parameters
Mu 44.87 kN-m d' 50 mm
fy 415 Mpa d 300 mm
b 250 mm β 0.85
h 350 mm Ø 0.9

ρ-max = 0.75ρb
ρ-max = 0.75[(0.85 F'c β (600))/Fy (600 + Fy)]
ρ-max = 0.01598

Mu.max = 108894635.5 or 108.89464 KN-m

Design of Beams
Design Parameters
Mu 5.413 kN-m d' 50 mm
fy 415 Mpa d 300 mm
b 250 mm β 0.85
h 350 mm Ø 0.9

ρ-max = 0.75ρb
ρ-max = 0.75[(0.85 F'c β (600))/Fy (600 + Fy)]
ρ-max = 0.01598

Mu.max = 108894635.5 or 108.89464 KN-m

Design of Beam - 16
Design Parameters
Mu 8.07 kN-m d' 50 mm
fy 415 Mpa d 300 mm
b 250 mm β 0.85
h 350 mm Ø 0.9

ρ-max = 0.75ρb
ρ-max = 0.75[(0.85 F'c β (600))/Fy (600 + Fy)]
ρ-max = 0.01598

Mu.max = 108894635.5 or 108.89464 KN-m

Appendix E: Design of Columns Computation Using Excel Program
COLUMN CAPACITY FOR ROOF DECK TO GROUND FLOOR:
Design of Column – 1 and 21

Design Parameters
P 559.7896 kN d 440 mm
My 250 kN-m f'c 20.7 MPa
b 500 mm fy 415 MPa
t 500 mm Φbar 32 mm
d' 60 mm Φtie 10 mm
1. Determine Actual Steel Area and Steel Ratio

Assume ρg = 0.02
As = ρgAg
As = 5000 mm²
N = As/Abar then determine actual As

Abar = π/4(Φbar)²
Abar = 804.2477193 mm²
Use N = 7
As(actual) = N(Abar)
As(actual) = 5629.734 mm²
Find Actual ρg
Ag=b*t --------> 250000 mm²
ρg= As/Ag = 0.022519 mm²
Pcap = Φ*0.8*Ag(0.85*f'c*(1-ρg)+fy*ρg) where Φ = 65
Pcap = 3450.737916 kN REMARKS SAFE
*If Pcap > P, the dimensions are adequate

*If Pcap < P, redesign
Part 2. Checking of Capacity due to Eccentric Load

Determine if Tension or Compression Controlled
fy = 600*(d-c)/c, Solve for c

c= 260.0985222 mm
a = βc
a= 221.0837438 mm
Pb = 0.85*f'c*a*b
Pb = 1944.984236 kN
Pb*(eb+x) = As(actual)*(d-d')+0.85*f'c*a*b*(d-a/2)
Solve
eb:
eb= 330.5580336 mm
ex=My/P
ex = 446.5963641 mm
ex<eb = compression controls ex>eb = tension controls
REMARKS
Tension Controls
Solving for Spacing of Ties
Spacing = 16(dia.MRSB) 512 mm

Spacing = 48(dia.Ties) 480 mm
Spacing = Least dim. 500 mm
Therefore
480 mm
use =
SPACING
Design of Column - 2
Design Parameters
P 649.06 kN d 440 mm
b 500 mm fy 415 MPa

Assume ρg = 0.02
As = ρgAg
As = 5000 mm²

Abar = 804.2477193 mm²
Use N = 7
Find Actual ρg
Ag=b*t --------> 250000 mm²
ρg= As/Ag = 0.022519 mm²



c= 260.0985222 mm
a = βc
a= 221.0837438 mm
Pb = 0.85*f'c*a*b
Pb = 1944.984236 kN
Solve
eb:
eb= 330.5580336 mm
ex=My/P
ex = 385.1724032 mm
REMARKS
Tension Controls

Therefore
480 mm
use =
SPACING
Design Parameters
P 574.8852 kN d 440 mm
b 500 mm fy 415 MPa

Assume ρg = 0.02
As = ρgAg
As = 5000 mm²

Abar = 804.2477193 mm²
Use N = 7
Find Actual ρg
Ag=b*t --------> 250000 mm²
ρg= As/Ag = 0.022519 mm²



c= 260.0985222 mm
a = βc
a= 221.0837438 mm
Pb = 0.85*f'c*a*b
Pb = 1944.984236 kN
Solve
eb:
eb= 330.5580336 mm
ex=My/P
ex = 434.8694313 mm
REMARKS
Tension Controls

Therefore
480 mm
use =
SPACING
Design of Column – 4
Design Parameters
P 594.24 kN d 440 mm
b 500 mm fy 415 MPa

Assume ρg = 0.02
As = ρgAg
As = 5000 mm²

Abar = 804.2477193 mm²
Use N = 7
Find Actual ρg
Ag=b*t --------> 250000 mm²
ρg= As/Ag = 0.022519 mm²


c= 260.0985222 mm
a = βc
a= 221.0837438 mm
Pb = 0.85*f'c*a*b
Pb = 1944.984236 kN
Solve
eb:
eb= 330.5580336 mm
ex=My/P
ex = 420.7054389 mm
REMARKS
Tension Controls

Therefore
480 mm
use =
SPACING
Design Parameters
P 133.4 kN d 440 mm
b 500 mm fy 415 MPa

Assume ρg = 0.02
As = ρgAg
As = 5000 mm²

Abar = 804.2477193 mm²
Use N = 7
Find Actual ρg
Ag=b*t --------> 250000 mm²
ρg= As/Ag = 0.022519 mm²



c= 260.0985222 mm
a = βc
a= 221.0837438 mm
Pb = 0.85*f'c*a*b
Pb = 1944.984236 kN
Solve
eb:
eb= 330.5580336 mm
ex=My/P
ex = 1874.062969 mm
REMARKS
Tension Controls

Therefore
480 mm
use =
SPACING
Design of Column – 6, 11 and 16
Design Parameters
P 1083 kN d 440 mm
b 500 mm fy 415 MPa

Assume ρg = 0.02
As = ρgAg
As = 5000 mm²

Abar = 804.2477193 mm²
Use N = 7
Find Actual ρg
Ag=b*t --------> 250000 mm²
ρg= As/Ag = 0.022519 mm²



c= 260.0985222 mm
a = βc
a= 221.0837438 mm
Pb = 0.85*f'c*a*b
Pb = 1944.984236 kN
Solve
eb:
eb= 330.5580336 mm
ex=My/P
ex = 230.8402585 mm
REMARKS
Compression Controls

Therefore
480 mm
use =
SPACING
Design of Column – 8
Design Parameters
P 1738.84 kN d 440 mm
b 500 mm fy 415 MPa

Assume ρg = 0.02
As = ρgAg
As = 5000 mm²
Abar = 804.2477193 mm²
Use N = 7
Find Actual ρg
Ag=b*t --------> 250000 mm²
ρg= As/Ag = 0.022519 mm²



c= 260.0985222 mm
a = βc
a= 221.0837438 mm
Pb = 0.85*f'c*a*b
Pb = 1944.984236 kN
Solve
eb:
eb= 330.5580336 mm
ex=My/P
ex = 143.7740103 mm
REMARKS

Therefore
480 mm
use =
SPACING
Design Parameters
P 1528.39 kN d 440 mm
b 500 mm fy 415 MPa

Assume ρg = 0.02
As = ρgAg
As = 5000 mm²

Abar = 804.2477193 mm²
Use N = 7
Find Actual ρg
Ag=b*t --------> 250000 mm²
ρg= As/Ag = 0.022519 mm²



c= 260.0985222 mm
a = βc
a= 221.0837438 mm
Pb = 0.85*f'c*a*b
Pb = 1944.984236 kN
Solve
eb:
eb= 330.5580336 mm
ex=My/P
ex = 163.5708163 mm
REMARKS

Therefore
480 mm
use =
SPACING
Design Parameters
P 818.2 kN d 440 mm
b 500 mm fy 415 MPa

Assume ρg = 0.02
As = ρgAg
As = 5000 mm²

Abar = 804.2477193 mm²
Use N = 7
Find Actual ρg
Ag=b*t --------> 250000 mm²
ρg= As/Ag = 0.022519 mm²



c= 260.0985222 mm
a = βc
a= 221.0837438 mm
Pb = 0.85*f'c*a*b
Pb = 1944.984236 kN
Solve
eb:
eb= 330.5580336 mm
ex=My/P
ex = 305.5487656 mm
REMARKS

Therefore
480 mm
use =
SPACING
Design Parameters
P 1824.28 kN d 440 mm
b 500 mm fy 415 MPa

Assume ρg = 0.02
As = ρgAg
As = 5000 mm²

Abar = 804.2477193 mm²
Use N = 7
Find Actual ρg
Ag=b*t --------> 250000 mm²
ρg= As/Ag = 0.022519 mm²



c= 260.0985222 mm
a = βc
a= 221.0837438 mm
Pb = 0.85*f'c*a*b
Pb = 1944.984236 kN
Solve
eb:
eb= 330.5580336 mm
ex=My/P
ex = 137.0403666 mm
REMARKS

Therefore
480 mm
use =
SPACING
Design Parameters
P 1681.52 kN d 440 mm
b 500 mm fy 415 MPa

Assume ρg = 0.02
As = ρgAg
As = 5000 mm²

Abar = 804.2477193 mm²
Use N = 7
Find Actual ρg
Ag=b*t --------> 250000 mm²
ρg= As/Ag = 0.022519 mm²




c= 260.0985222 mm
a = βc
a= 221.0837438 mm
Pb = 0.85*f'c*a*b
Pb = 1944.984236 kN
Solve
eb:
eb= 330.5580336 mm
ex=My/P
ex = 148.6750083 mm
REMARKS

Therefore
480 mm
use =
SPACING

Design Parameters
P 1824.28 kN d 440 mm
b 500 mm fy 415 MPa

Assume ρg = 0.02
As = ρgAg
As = 5000 mm²

Abar = 804.2477193 mm²
Use N = 7
Find Actual ρg
Ag=b*t --------> 250000 mm²
ρg= As/Ag = 0.022519 mm²



c= 260.0985222 mm
a = βc
a= 221.0837438 mm
Pb = 0.85*f'c*a*b
Pb = 1944.984236 kN
Solve
eb:
eb= 330.5580336 mm
ex=My/P
ex = 137.0403666 mm
REMARKS

Therefore use
480 mm
=
SPACING
Design of Column 15 and 20

Design Parameters
P 940.24 kN d 440 mm
B 500 mm fy 415 MPa
T 500 mm Φbar 32 mm

Assume ρg = 0.02
As = ρgAg
As = 5000 mm²

Abar = 804.2477193 mm²
Use N = 7
Find Actual ρg
Ag=b*t --------> 250000 mm²
ρg= As/Ag = 0.022519 mm²




c= 260.0985222 mm
a = βc
a= 221.0837438 mm
Pb = 0.85*f'c*a*b
Pb = 1944.984236 kN
Solve eb:
eb= 330.5580336 mm
ex=My/P
ex = 265.8895601 mm
REMARKS

Therefore
480 mm
use =
SPACING
Design Parameters
P 943.4 kN d 440 mm
b 500 mm fy 415 MPa

Assume ρg = 0.02
As = ρgAg
As = 5000 mm²

Abar = 804.2477193 mm²
Use N = 7
Find Actual ρg
Ag=b*t --------> 250000 mm²
ρg= As/Ag = 0.022519 mm²



c= 260.0985222 mm
a = βc
a= 221.0837438 mm
Pb = 0.85*f'c*a*b
Pb = 1944.984236 kN
Solve
eb:
eb= 330.5580336 mm
ex=My/P
ex = 264.99894 mm
REMARKS

Therefore
480 mm
use =
SPACING
Design Parameters
P 869.24 kN d 440 mm
b 500 mm fy 415 MPa

Assume ρg = 0.02
As = ρgAg
As = 5000 mm²
Abar = 804.2477193 mm²
Use N = 7
Find Actual ρg
Ag=b*t --------> 250000 mm²
ρg= As/Ag = 0.022519 mm²



c= 260.0985222 mm
a = βc
a= 221.0837438 mm
Pb = 0.85*f'c*a*b
Pb = 1944.984236 kN
Solve
eb:
eb= 330.5580336 mm
ex=My/P
ex = 287.6075652 mm
REMARKS

Therefore
480 mm
use =
SPACING
Design Parameters
P 943.44 kN d 440 mm
b 500 mm fy 415 MPa

Assume ρg = 0.02
As = ρgAg
As = 5000 mm²
Abar = 804.2477193 mm²
Use N = 7
Find Actual ρg
Ag=b*t --------> 250000 mm²
ρg= As/Ag = 0.022519 mm²



c= 260.0985222 mm
a = βc
a= 221.0837438 mm
Pb = 0.85*f'c*a*b
Pb = 1944.984236 kN
Solve
eb:
eb= 330.5580336 mm
ex=My/P
ex = 264.9877046 mm
REMARKS

Therefore
480 mm
use =
SPACING
Design Parameters
P 485.6 kN d 440 mm
b 500 mm fy 415 MPa

Assume ρg = 0.02
As = ρgAg
As = 5000 mm²

Abar = 804.2477193 mm²
Use N = 7
Find Actual ρg
Ag=b*t --------> 250000 mm²
ρg= As/Ag = 0.022519 mm²


c= 260.0985222 mm
a = βc
a= 221.0837438 mm
Pb = 0.85*f'c*a*b
Pb = 1944.984236 kN
Solve
eb:
eb= 330.5580336 mm
ex=My/P
ex = 514.8270181 mm
REMARKS
Tension Controls

Therefore
480 mm
use =
SPACING
Appendix F: Manual Computation of Load Distribution
Concrete unit weight = 23.6 kN/m3
Cross sectional area of beam = (0.25m)(0.35m) = 0.0875m2
Uniform load (kPa) = 12.1372 kPa
Wbeam = (23.6kN/m3)(0.0875m2)(1.2) = 2.478kN/m
Triangular loading Trapezoidal loading

W = Uniform load (kPa) x Ls/3 W = Uniform load (kPa) x Ls/2 x [1 – 1/2β]
where; Ls (short beam) where; Ls (short beam)
β = Ly/Ls
Beam 1
β = Ly/Ls
= 7.38/5 = 1.476
Wu = (Uniform load)(Ls/2)[1 – 1/2β]
= (12.1372 kPa)(5m/2)(1 – ½(1.476)) = 20.06420596 kN/m
W(total) = 2.478 + 20.06420596
= 22.542205 kN/m
Beam 2
Wu = (Uniform load)(Ls/3)
= (12.1372 kPa)(5m/3) = 20.228666667 kN/m
W(total) = 2.478 + 20.228666667
= 22.70666667 kN/m
Beam 3
= (12.1372 kPa)(5m/3) = 20.228666667 kN/m
W(total) = 2.478 + 20.228666667(2)
= 42.93533332 kN/m
Beam 4
β = Ly/Ls
= 5.12/5 = 1.024
= (12.1372 kPa)(5m/2)(1 – ½(1.024)) = 15.52708203 kN/m
W(total) = 2.478 + 15.52708203
= 18.00508203 kN/m
Beam 5
β = Ly/Ls
= 6.25/5 = 1.25
= (12.1372 kPa)(5m/2)(1 – ½(1.25)) = 18.2058 kN/m
W(total) = 2.478 + 18.2058
= 20.6838 kN/m
Beam 6
β = Ly/Ls
= 5.12/5 = 1.024
= (12.1372 kPa)(5m/2)(1 – ½(1.024)) = 15.52708203 kN/m
W(total) = 2.478 + 15.52708203(2)
= 33.53216412 kN/m
Beam 7
β = Ly/Ls
= 6.25/5 = 1.25
= (12.1372 kPa)(5m/2)(1 – ½(1.25)) = 18.2058 kN/m
W(total) = 2.478 + 18.2058(2)
= 38.8896 kN/m
Beam 8
β = Ly/Ls
= 7.38/5 = 1.476
= (12.1372 kPa)(5m/2)(1 – ½(1.476)) = 20.06420596 kN/m
W(total) = 2.478 + 20.06420596 (2)
= 42.60641192 kN/m
Beam 9
β = Ly/Ls
= 5.12/5 = 1.024
= (12.1372 kPa)(5m/2)(1 – ½(1.024)) = 15.52708203 kN/m
W(total) = 2.478 + 15.52708203 + 15.1715
= 33.176582 kN/m
Beam 10
W(total) = 2.478 + 15.1715
= 17.6495 kN/m
Beam 11
β = Ly/Ls
= 6.25/5 = 1.25
= (12.1372 kPa)(5m/2)(1 – ½(1.25)) = 18.2058 kN/m
W(total) = 2.478 + 18.2058 + 15.1715
= 35.8553 kN/m
Beam 12
= (12.1372 kPa)(5m/3) = 20.228666667 kN/m
W(total) = 2.478 + 20.228666667
= 22.70666667 kN/m
Beam 13
= (12.1372 kPa)(5m/3) = 20.228666667 kN/m
W(total) = 2.478 + 20.228666667
= 22.70666667 kN/m
Beam 14
W(total) = 2.478 kN/m

Ce502 Ce51fc1 Design Project Alcantara John Floren C. Cabras John Rey Nicole

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Ce502 Ce51fc1 Design Project Alcantara John Floren C. Cabras John Rey Nicole

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

938 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

DESIGN OF A PROPOSED FOUR-STOREY REINFORCED CONCRETE HOSPITAL BUILDING

ALCANTARA, JOHN FLOREN

Engr. BRYLLE JERALD P. TIMBAL

Table 3-1: Raw Designer's Ranking ............................................................................................................. 30

Figure 1-1 Project Perspective

1.3 The Client

1.4.1 General Objective

1.4.2 Specific Objective

1st Trade-Off 2nd Trade-Off 3rd Trade-Off

Design of the 1st Design of the 2nd Design of the 3rd

Figure 1-3 Project Delopment Plan

2.1 Description of the Project

Figure 2-1 3D Model of Reinforce Concrete

Figure 2-2 Population Census of Quezon City © Philippine Statistics Authority

2.3.1 Load Definition and Parameters

Materials Design Load (kPa)

Materials Density (kN/cu.m)

2.3.1.2 Live Loads

User or Occupancy Uniform Load (kPa)

Earthquake Load Parameters

Loads Required Strength

3.1 Design Constraints

Building Frame System:

Sample of Building Concrete Frame System

Sample of Special Moment Frame System

Dual Frame System:

Example of Dual Frame System

3.3 Seismic Force-Resisting System

3.4. Raw Designer’s Ranking

3.5.3 Sustainability Assessment

3.5.4 Environmental Assessment

(Building Frame vs SMRF)

 Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint

Higher Value - Lower Value

Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank - % difference

 Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint

Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank - % difference

Subordinate rank =9-1

 Computation of ranking for Sustainability Constraint

Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank - % difference

Subordinate rank =-10-1

(Building Frame vs Dual System)

 Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint

Higher Value - Lower Value

Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank - % difference

 Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint

Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank - % difference

Subordinate rank =9-2

 Computation of ranking for Sustainability Constraint

Higher Value - Lower Value

Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank - % difference

(Dual System vs SMRF)

 Computation of ranking for Sustainability Constraint

Higher Value - Lower Value

Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank - % difference

3.6. Design Standards

1. National Building Code of the Philippines (P.D. 1096)

The National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010.

° National Building Code

Structure Models Frame Models