TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

938 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
Civil Engineering Department

DESIGN OF A FIVE-STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING

In partial fulfillment of the requirements in

CE503D1 – Steel Design

Submitted by:
Dacion, John Cedrix M.

Submitted to:
Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores
Instructor

March 2015

1
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents....................................................................................................................................ii
List of Figures.........................................................................................................................................v
List of Tables..........................................................................................................................................vi
CHAPTER 1. PROJECT BACKGROUND...................................................................................................1
1.1. The Project.......................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Project Objectives................................................................................................................ 2
1.3. The Client............................................................................................................................ 2
1.4. Project Scope and Limitations............................................................................................... 3
1.5. Design Project Development................................................................................................. 3
CHAPTER 2. DESIGN INPUTS................................................................................................................4
2.1. Description of the structure................................................................................................... 4
2.2. Architectural Plans of the Structure....................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 3. CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS AND STANDARDS...............................................................10
3.1. Design Constraints and Trade-Offs...................................................................................... 10
3.2. Designers’ Raw Ranking..................................................................................................... 11
3.3. Design Standards............................................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER 4. DESIGN METHODOLOGY................................................................................................14
4.1. Methodology...................................................................................................................... 14
4.2. Design Process.................................................................................................................. 14
4.3. Framing Plan..................................................................................................................... 16
4.4. Loads Acting on Structure................................................................................................... 20
4.4.1. Load Specification for Slab.................................................................................................................20
4.4.2. Load Specification for Walls................................................................................................................21
4.5. Earthquake Load Definitions............................................................................................... 21
4.6. Wind Load Definition.......................................................................................................... 21
4.7. Design of Structural Members............................................................................................. 22
4.7.1. Flow Chart for Beam Design...............................................................................................................22
4.7.2. Column Design...................................................................................................................................27
4.7.3. Checking of Columns for Local Buckling............................................................................................30

2
 4.7.4. Design of Base Plate..........................................................................................................................32
4.7.5. Design of Truss Connection................................................................................................................35
4.7.6. Design of Beam To Column Connection Using Seat Angle................................................................37
4.7.7. COLUMN TO BASE PLATE CONNECTION.......................................................................................39
4.7.8. BEAM TO BEAM AND COLUMN TO COLUMN CONNECTION........................................................42
4.8. Design of the Infrastructure Using Seat Angle Beam to Column Connection ...........................44
4.9. Design of Infrastructure Using Fill-and-Weld Beam to Column Connection .............................45
4.10. Computation for Designer’s Final Ranking........................................................................... 46
4.11. Influence of Multiple constraints, Tradeoffs and Standards in the Final design .......................48
4.11.1. Economic Alternatives.........................................................................................................................48
4.11.2. Structural Safety Alternatives..............................................................................................................49
4.11.3 Sustainability Alternatives...................................................................................................................49
4.12. Final Choice for the Connection System.............................................................................. 50
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................51
Appendices................................................................................................................................... 52
Appendix A: Wall Load Computation............................................................................................... 52
Appendix B: Wind Load Computation.............................................................................................. 53
Appendix C: Slab Load Computation.............................................................................................. 54
Appendix D: Slab Load Computation for Roof Deck......................................................................... 55
Appendix E: Slab Design (Typical).................................................................................................. 56
Appendix E-2: Slab Design (Roof Deck).......................................................................................... 57
Appendix F: Beam Design (Typical)................................................................................................ 58
Appendix F-2: Beam Deisgn (Roof Deck)........................................................................................ 59
Appendix G: Beam Description (Typical)......................................................................................... 60
Appendix G-2: Beam Description (Roof)......................................................................................... 61
Appendix H: Loads at Column........................................................................................................ 62
Appendix I: Column Buckling Check............................................................................................... 63
Appendix J: Column Design (H=3.5)............................................................................................... 64
Appendix J-2: Column Design (H=5)............................................................................................... 65
Appendix K: Column Description.................................................................................................... 66
Appendix L: Base Plate Design...................................................................................................... 67
Appendix M: Base Plate Description............................................................................................... 68
Appendix N: Truss Connection....................................................................................................... 69

3
Appendix O: Beam-Column in Seat Angle....................................................................................... 70
Appendix P: Beam-Column in Fill-and-Weld.................................................................................... 71
Appendix Q: Seismic Analysis........................................................................................................ 72

4
 List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Perspective View of the Building....................................................................................................................1

Figure 1.2 Site Location..................................................................................................................................................2
Figure 1.3 Stages of the Design Project..........................................................................................................................3
Figure 2.1 Structural Model of the Building.....................................................................................................................4
Figure 2.2 Front Elevation...............................................................................................................................................6
Figure 2.3 Left Side Elevation.........................................................................................................................................6
Figure 2.4 Right Side Elevation.......................................................................................................................................7
Figure 2.5 Right Side Elevation.......................................................................................................................................7
Figure 2.6 Ground Floor Plan..........................................................................................................................................8
Figure 2.7 Typical Floor Plan...........................................................................................................................................8
Figure 2.8 Roof Deck Plan..............................................................................................................................................9
Figure 2.9 Sectional Views..............................................................................................................................................9
Figure 3.1 Ranking Scale..............................................................................................................................................11
Figure 4.1 Structural Design Process............................................................................................................................15
Figure 4.2 Framing Plan................................................................................................................................................16
Figure 4.3 First Floor Beam Schedule...........................................................................................................................16
Figure 4.4 Second Floor Beam Schedule.....................................................................................................................17
Figure 4.5 Third Floor Beam Schedule.........................................................................................................................17
Figure 4.6 Fourth Floor Beam Schedule.......................................................................................................................18
Figure 4.7 Roof Deck Beam Schedule..........................................................................................................................18
Figure 4.8 Slab Schedule..............................................................................................................................................19
Figure 4.9 Steel Column Schedule................................................................................................................................19
Figure 4.10 Steel Base Plate Schedule.........................................................................................................................20
Figure 4.11 Flowchart for Beam Computation...............................................................................................................26
Figure 4.12 Flowchart for Column Computation...........................................................................................................30
Figure 4.13 Flowchart for Column Computation (For Buckling)...................................................................................31
Figure 4.14 Flowchart for Base Plate Computation......................................................................................................33
Figure 4.15 Flowchart for Truss Connection.................................................................................................................36
Figure 4.16 Flowchart for Beam to Column Connection Using Seat Angle...................................................................38
Figure 4.17 Flowchart for Base Plate Connection........................................................................................................40
Figure 4.18 Allowable Bearing Capacity Diagram.........................................................................................................42
Figure 4.19 Flowchart for Groove Connection..............................................................................................................43
Figure 4.20 Economic Comparison of Connection System...........................................................................................48
Figure 4.21 Structural Safety Comparison of Connection System................................................................................49
Figure 4.22 Sustainability Comparison of Connection System…………………………………………………………..…49

List of Tables

5
Table 2-1 Rooms Classification with Corresponding Area, Second to Fifth Floor...........................................................4
Table 2-2 Rooms Classification with Corresponding Area, First Floor............................................................................5
Table 2-3 Rooms function and corresponding quantity...................................................................................................5
Table 3-1 Raw Designer Rankings (Otto and Andersson).............................................................................................11
Table 3-2 Economic and Structural Safety Data in Connection System.......................................................................12
Table 4-1 Load Specification For Slab...........................................................................................................................20
Table 4-2 Load Specification For Walls.........................................................................................................................21
Table 4-3 Loads on Bearing Plate.................................................................................................................................34
Table 4-4 Minimum and Maximum Size of Fillet Weld...................................................................................................36
Table 4-5 Schedule for Bolts.........................................................................................................................................41
Table 4-6 Beam to Column Connection Using Seat Angle............................................................................................44
Table 4-7 Detailed Cost Estimate of Seat Angle Beam to Column Connection...........................................................44
Table 4-8 Maximum Displacement of Seat Angle Beam to Column Connection.........................................................44
Table 4-9 Beam to Column Connection Using Fill-and-Weld Connection.....................................................................45
Table 4-10 Detailed Cost Estimate of Fill-and-Weld Beam to Column Connection......................................................45
Table 4-11 Maximum Displacement of Fill-and-Weld Beam to Column Connection...................................................46
Table 4-12 Final Rankings.............................................................................................................................................47

6
 CHAPTER 1. PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.1. The Project

The five-storey apartment building, located at Imelda Avenue, Cainta, Rizal, will be designed for Mr. Andy
Sevilla, an entrepreneur who decided to invest in an apartment rental business.
The infrastructure will have a total floor area of 2,340 square meters. It will have a total height of 22.7
meters, with a 5 meter height at the first floor of the building and 3.5 meters for each succeeding floors.
Having a dimension of 26 m by 15 meters, this infrastructure will be constructed for residential purposes as
noted by the client.
To this purpose, second to fifth floors of the building will have four units each, by which the ground floor will
serve as a reception area with a roof deck that will serve as an event area for owner and tenants alike.

Figure 1.1 Perspective View of the Building

1
 Figure 1.2 Site Location

1.2. Project Objectives

Generally, this project aims to design a structural steel infrastructure which is in line to the governing codes
and standards of the Philippines.

The objectives of the project are to:

• Present a design that are in accordance with codes and engineering standards and in
consideration of trade-offs.
• Provide a cost estimate of the structural works.
• Provide an ample analysis and explanation as to why the governing system was used using
different engineering principles and standards.

1.3. The Client

The client for this project is Mr. Andy Sevilla, an entrepreneur who like to invest in apartment rental
business.

1.4. Project Scope and Limitations

The scope of the project is to provide a design as follows:

2
  Provide conceptual and structural design plans.
 Analyze the structure using STAAD Pro V8i program.
 Provide design drawings as well as structural member details.
 Provide cost estimates of the structural works.
The design presented has the following limitations:

 This design does not cover electrical, mechanical and other detailing other than those which are
connected to structural specifications, estimate and safety.

1.5. Design Project Development

The design undergoes various stages as shown in Figure 1-2. Site area was first investigated. Then
Application of design considerations were done, which includes the application of governing Philippine rules
and regulations at the time of design. After that, design trade-offs were then conceived, and these were
weighed with the application of the constraints of the design. Then, the design was conceptualized and
analyzed in order to determine whether the design passed the considerations taken. Lastly, final design of
members were summarized and presented visually.

Determine the
Architectural plan Constraints of the Determine codes
Design design and Assign the parameters
Possible Trade-of

Designing in Detail of
Laying-out the Selecting the Best
The Structural
Framing Plan or the Trade-of Considering
Members for each
Structural Members the Constraints
Trade-of

Final Design

Figure 1.3 Stages of the Design Project

3
 CHAPTER 2. DESIGN INPUTS
2.1. Description of the structure

The five-storey building is a special moment resisting frame as shown in Figure 2.1. Symmetrical about its
center, the infrastructure has five access stairs at the left and right wing of the building, and an elevator
shaft at the northernmost part. The ground floor consists of a reception area, in addition to four residential
units that are equal in area. Proceeding floors will have two pairs of units, by which each pair has the same
area.

Elevator
Elevator

East
East Stair
Stair

West
West Stair
Stair

Figure 2.4 Structural Model of the Building

The corresponding usable areas, excluding corridors, stairways, hallways and elevators, are described in
Table 2-1 to Table 2-2. Please note that this area applies per storey only

Table 2-1 Rooms Classification with Corresponding Area, Second to Fifth Floor

Room Description Function Area

( 8 persons)
(1room) Residential
( 8 persons)(60m 2/place) = 1920 m2
(480 m 2)(4 rooms per floor) =
1920 m 2
One (1) water closet and (1)
water urinal for
Each residential unit Toilet and Bath 16 m 2
Computed Area = 4 m 2
Four per unit = 16 m2
TOTAL AREAS (not
including the hallways and 1936 m2
stairways and elevators)

4
 Table 2-2 Rooms Classification with Corresponding Area, First Floor
Room Description Function Area
( 8 persons)
(1room) Residential
( 8 persons)(60m 2/place) = 1920 m2
(480 m 2)(4 rooms per floor) =
1920 m 2
One (1) water closet and (1)
water urinal for
Each residential unit Toilet and Bath 16 m 2
Computed Area = 4 m 2
Four per unit = 16 m 2
One lobby for guests Reception Area 30
Computed Area = 30 m 2

TOTAL AREAS (not

including the hallways and 1966 m2
stairways and elevators)

Table 2-3 Rooms function and corresponding quantity

Function Quantity
Residential 20
Toilet and Bath 20
Reception Area 1
Total 41

2.2. Architectural Plans of the Structure

The design of the proposed building is indicated in the following figures which show the front and rear
elevation, transverse cross-sections, right and left side elevations, and floor plans of the structure applied in
the design.

5
 Figure 2.5 Front Elevation

Figure 2.6 Left Side Elevation

6
Figure 2.7 Right Side Elevation

Figure 2.8 Right Side Elevation

7
Figure 2.9 Ground Floor Plan

Figure 2.10 Typical Floor Plan

8
Figure 2.11 Roof Deck Plan

Figure 2.12 Sectional Views

9
 CHAPTER 3. CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS AND STANDARDS

3.1. Design Constraints and Trade-Offs

The five-store residential building will be constructed in a typical steel system, by which the seat angle and
fill-and weld connection system in beam to column connections will be considered as trade-offs. In order to
construct the residential building, some constraints must be considered, as follows:

1. Economic (Cost)
In order to ensure the fulfillment of the construction of the building as noted by the client,
economic considerations must be satisfied. As such, the designer must procure which of seat
angle or fill-and weld beam to column connection will yield to a construction with lesser cost.

2. Structural Safety
For the infrastructure to be safe, several considerations, such as its seismic response, must be
considered. As such, the designer will define which of seat angle and fill-and weld beam to column
connection is structurally safe. I.e. ensuring that the structure will be able to withstand the various
forces that will affect it (e.g. wind load, seismic load, dead load, live load, static load, dynamic
load).

3. Sustainability
For the sustainability of the building, it is the capacity of the maintenance of the building to cost
less in a Thirty(30) year period. The designer will take a look of which trade-offs will show a lesser
cost for the maintenance of the building.

4. Social
In respect to the surrounding area where there are people living and are greatly affected or not
even affected but in the area near the construction. This is where the surrounding neighbours of
the structure is being understand and tried to be recognized of what are their thoughts of the
construction and their needs or possibly their demands to approved to the construction. However
their demands must be legal and has a basis of where their rights as an individual are appropriate.
This is done to prevent future conflict with the neighbours because there is a chance that they do
not want any noise or any disturbances while the construction is being done.

5. Environmental
Environmental constraints are for being earth friendly of the structure to be construct. It is where
there should be still some green areas in the property after the construction. If not done at least
some plants or trees in a vase. Environmental constraint is for he1lping the worlds reduces the
pollution and prevent the cutting of trees in exchange for a construction of a building. But if cannot
be prevented the trees should be replaced by planting new seeding. In the environmental
constraints the place must be study like the properties of the soil foundation of the location and
the seismic strength in the area.

10
Based on the first and second constraints stated above, two technologies were considered on the aspect of
beam to column connection to satisfy the requirements of cost and structural safety. These are listed in
Table 3-1. Using the model on trade-off strategies in engineering design by Otto and Antonsson (1991), the
importance of each criterion (on a scale of 0 to 5, 5 with the highest importance) was assigned and each
design methodology’s ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale from -5 to 5, 5 with the highest ability to
satisfy the criterion) was likewise tabulated.

Table 3-4 Raw Designer Rankings (Otto and Andersson)

Ability to satisfy the criterion

Criterion’s Importance (on a scale from -5 to 5)
Decision Criteria
(on a scale of 0 to 5)
Seat Angle Beam-to Fill-and-Weld Beam
Column Connection to Column Connection
1. Economic (Cost) 4 2.78 5
2. Structural Safety 5 5 3.46
3. Sustainability 4 4.73 5
Over-all Rank 55.04 57.3

Computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials:

Highervalue−Lowervalue
Difference= x 10
Lowervalue

Subordinaterank=Governingrank−( difference ) x 10

In order to come up with values on ranking, the designer assigned a desired value to the governing rank
not exceeding to the value of 5 which will respond to the assigned importance factor of the given
constraints. The subordinate rank is the rank of the trade-offs which gives a lower value. The difference
between the governing rank and subordinate rank corresponds to the percentage distance along the
ranking scale below.

Figure 3.13 Ranking Scale

3.2. Designers’ Raw Ranking

11
The importance of constraints is being ranked to the values assigned by the designer based on their impact
in implementing the project. The rank given to the economic constraint was given to a value of five (4)
because budget has the highest consideration which has to be properly allocated in order to save a larger
cost in the project. Since structural safety is also vital to the design, and is more critical than cost, the rank
of the structural safety constraint is five (5).

Initial Cost Estimate

 Cost of Beam and Column Connection, and Its Displacement in Dynamic Action due to Seismic
and Other Loads

Table 3-5 Economic and Structural Safety Data in Connection System

Seat Angle Fill-and-Weld

Cost 8,103,000 9,967,800
Displacement 78 105
Maintenance 582,300 598,068

Computation of Designer Ranking for Connection System (Economic)

Difference of two Value = Higher Value – Lower Value

Difference
Ranking=5− ( Lower Value )
x 10

Ranking=5− ( 9,967,800−8,103,000
8,103,00 0 ) x 10
Ranking = 2.7

Computation of Designer Ranking for Tank System (Structural Safety)

Difference of two Value = Higher Value – Lower Value.

Difference
Ranking=5− ( Lower Value )
x 10

Ranking=5− ( 105−78
78 )
x 10

Ranking = 3.46

12
Computation of Designer Ranking for 30-year Maintenances (Sustainability)
Difference of two Value = Higher Value – Lower Value.

Difference
Ranking=5− ( Lower Value )
x 10

Ranking=5− ( 598,068−582300
582,300 ) x 10
Ranking = 4.73

3.3. Design Standards

The following codes and standards are needed to proceed for the building design for all the parts of the
structure. Every parameters, codes, specifications, and equations and formulas must be traced and
conform mainly to the following code and standards:

 National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) vol.1-2015 edition (PD1096).

Other referencing codes and standards,

 National Building Code of the Philippines.

 American Concrete Institute (ACI).

 International Building Code IBC 1997.

 American Institute for Steel Construction AISC-05 with supplementary seismic provisions.

The National Building Code of the Philippines (PD 1096). The National Building Code of the Philippines,
also known as Presidential Decree No. 1096 was formulated and adopted as a uniform building code to
embody up-to-date and modern technical knowledge on building design, construction, use, occupancy and
maintenance. The Code provides for all buildings and structures, a framework of minimum standards and
requirements to regulate and control location, site, design, and quality of materials, construction, use,
occupancy, and maintenance.
Loading : UBC 97, ASCE 7-05
Reinforced Concrete : ACI 318M-05

13
Steel : A36
The National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015. This code provides minimum standards to safeguard
life or limb, property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of
materials pertaining to the structural aspects of all buildings and structures within its jurisdiction. The
provision of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, moving, demolition, repair, maintenance
and use of any building or structure within its jurisdiction, except work located primarily in a public way,
public utility towers and poles, hydraulic flood control structures, and indigenous family dwellings.

Material Strengths. The following material strengths were used in the design of the project.
The minimum compressive strength of concrete, f c’ = 20.7MPa for slab and footing.
Reinforcing steel bars shall be deformed and shall conform to PNS 49/ASTM 615 for Grade 40.
Manufactured steel bars should be composed of all-purpose carbon steel (A36).
Allowable Soil Bearing Pressure, qa, should be taken from a geotechnical analysis.
Loadings. This refers to the total load of the structure which was mainly comprised of dead load and live
load.
Seismic Loads. Seismic forces were determined based on the equivalent static force procedure and
computed following the provisions of NSCP 2001, section 2.2.
Load Combinations. Reinforced concrete sections shall be designed using the “Ultimate Strength Design”
and the structural steel sections shall be designed using the “Allowable Strength Design”.
Structural Steel Requirements. The adequacy of the structure must meet the required strengths in bending,
shear and deflection.

CHAPTER 4. DESIGN METHODOLOGY

4.1. Methodology

The structure will be designed using steel system, as well as using the typical reinforced concrete system
for slabs. Steel beams and columns will be covered with concrete, for structural safety and aesthetic
purposes. Parameters in this design will be based on the governing provisions of the National Structural
Code of the Philippines 2001, National Building Code and Association of Structural Engineers in the
Philippines, by which the AS Design (ASD) method will be applied. International standards, such as those
promulgated by the ASCI Committee will also be considered. These design standards are further discussed
in Chapter 3 of this design.

4.2. Design Process

After the design was presented to the client, the framing plan of the structure was then formulated. Loads
due to wind, seismic, dead(static) and live(dynamic) forces was then considered and computed.

Forces and moments were then computed and were factored using the provisions set by the National
Structural Code of the Philippines. These were the basis of slab, beam, column and base plate. When the
design of the structure was done, the connections were considered, by which the analysis of trade-offs took
place. After designing the whole structure, the designer provided a final design output that satisfies the
requirements of the constraints.

14
The figure below shows the structural design process

Geometric Modeling

Structure Detailing

Determination of Loads and

Application of Governing
Provisions

Load Modeling

A. Design of Slab

B. Design of Beam

C. Design of Column

D. Design of Base Plate

E. Design of Connections other

than Beam to Column

Manual Design of Structure Using Manual Design of Structure

Welded Connection Using Bolted Connection

15
 Cost Estimate Cost Estimate

Analysis of Trade-Offs

Final Detailed Design of

Structure

Figure 4.14 Structural Design Process

4.3. Framing Plan

In this section, the designer made a framing plan based on the specifications of the client as well as the
demands of constraints.

Figure 4.15 Framing Plan

16
 Figure 4.16 First Floor Beam Schedule

Figure 4.17 Second Floor Beam Schedule

17
Figure 4.18 Third Floor Beam Schedule

Figure 4.19 Fourth Floor Beam Schedule

18
Figure 4.20 Roof Deck Beam Schedule

Figure 4.21 Slab Schedule

19
 Figure 4.22 Steel Column Schedule

Figure 4.23 Steel Base Plate Schedule

4.4. Loads Acting on Structure

The following loadings were used based from the specifications made of the National Structural Code of the
Philippines 2001, Volume 1:

4.4.1. Load Specification for Slab

20
 Table 4-6 Load Specification For Slab
Load Specification for Slab

Dead Loads
Ceramic or quarry tile on 10 mm mortar 0.77 KPa
Hardwood Flooring, 22 mm 0.19 KPa
Subflooring 0.14 KPa
Slab Load 3.54 KPa
………………………………………………………………………………..
Gypsum Board, 25 mm 0.2 KPa

Live Loads
Exit Facilities 4.8 KPa
Residential (Basic Floor Area) 1.9 KPa
Slab Thickness 150 mm

4.4.2. Load Specification for Walls

Table 4-7 Load Specification For Walls

Load Specification for Walls:

Masonry Load, #4 CHB……………………………………………………………….2.63 kPa

Masonry Load, #6 CHB……………………………………………………………….2.47 kPa
Wall Plaster on both sides……………………………………………………………0.48 kPa

4.5. Earthquake Load Definitions

The following Earthquake Load Coefficients were based to the provisions set by National Structural
Code of the Philippines. Computations were expounded at the Appendix Q of this design

 Occupancy Category: Standard Occupancy Structure

 Seismic Importance Factor (I): 1.00 NSCP 2001, Vol. I, Sec. 208.4.2

 Soil Profile Type: D NSCP 2001, Vol. I, Sec. 208.4.3

21
  Seismic Zone Factor (Z) :0.40 NSCP 2001, Vol. I, Sec.
208.4.4.1

 Type of Frame: Special Moment Resisting Frame NSCP 2001, Vol. I, Sec.
208.4.4.2

 Near Source Factor (N a): 1.20 NSCP 2001, Vol. I, Sec. 208.4.4.2

 Near Source Factor (N v): 1.60 NSCP 2001, Vol. I, Sec. 208.4.4.2

 Seismic Coefficient (C a): 0.528 NSCP 2001, Vol. I, Sec.

208.4.4.3

 Seismic Coefficient (C v): 1.204 NSCP 2001, Vol. I, Sec.

208.4.4.3

 Numerical Coefficient of LFR System (R ):8.0 NSCP 2001, Vol. I, Sec. 208.5.3

 Seismic Force Amplification Factor ( Ω a): 3.00 NSCP 2001, Vol. I, Sec. 515.4.2

 Height Limit: None NSCP 2001, Vol. I, Sec. 515.4.3

4.6. Wind Load Definition

Wind load for tanks were defined using the relation of height of roof to the height of the structure
(h/D). The following computations were made in order to determine the effects of wind pressure to
the overall stability of the structure. The formulas and constants were derived from the existing
rules and regulations of the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2001, Volume I.
Kindly refer to Appendix B for the computation of the wind loads.

 Occupancy Category: Essential Facilities

 Zone: 2.00 NSCP 2001, Vol. I, Sec. 207.5.4

 Velocity (V): 200 kph NSCP 2001, Vol. I, Sec. 207.5.4

22
  Importance Factor (I w): 1.00 NSCP 2001, Vol. I, Sec. 207.5.6

 Surface Roughness: B NSCP 2001, Vol. I, Sec.

207.5.6.2

 Exposure Category: B NSCP 2001, Vol. I, Sec.

207.5.6.3

 Wind Directionality Factor (k d): 0.85 NSCP 2001, Vol. I, Sec. 207.5.4.4

 Enclosure Classification (GC pi): + 0.55 NSCP 2001, Vol. I, Sec.

207.5.6.3

4.7. Design of Structural Members

4.7.1. Flow Chart for Beam Design

In order to design the steel beams of the infrastructure without consuming too much time, a program using
Microsoft Excel was made, by which specific values will be placed and the bending; shear and deflection
parameters will be checked. The process of the program, as well as the inputs and equations, were
illustrated by the flow chart below.

23
24
25
Start

26
27
28
Figure 4.24 Flowchart for Beam Computation

29
 4.7.2. Column Design

In order to design the steel COLUMNS of the infrastructure without consuming too much time, a program
using Microsoft Excel was made, by which specific values will be placed and the bending and axial
parameters will be checked. The process of the program, as well as the inputs and equations, were
illustrated by the flow chart below.

30
31
32
33
 Figure 4.25 Flowchart for Column Computation
4.7.3. Checking of Columns for Local Buckling

34
35
Figure 4.26 Flowchart for Column Computation (For Buckling)

36
 4.7.4. Design of Base Plate

In order to support the column effectively, a base plate must be placed below the column. The following
figures are the flowchart for the program made to design a base plate.

37
38
Figure 4.27 Flowchart for Base Plate Computation

39
 Table 4-8 Loads on Bearing Plate

Weight of Column LOAD CARRIED BY

BASE PLATE Transferred Load
Area Nominal Wt. Height Total Load BASE PLATE
MARK
SBP-1 770.103 8625.71 69 24 140.12769 910.2306935
SBP-2 1510.585 16919.6 140 19 441.5111 1952.096104
SBP-3 1388.738 15554.9 140 19 405.89788 1794.635879
SBP-4 1469.003 16453.9 140 19 429.35759 1898.360591
SBP-5 1102.089 12344.2 106 19 243.8883 1345.977296
SBP-6 1273.15 14141.7 140 24 466.13159 1739.281591
SBP-7 829.675 9292.95 74 24 161.90706 991.5820617
SBP-8 1927.925 21594.1 216 19 869.38534 2797.310341
SBP-9 1486.027 16644.6 140 19 434.33334 1920.360335
SBP-10 1486.027 16644.6 140 19 434.33334 1920.360335
SBP-11 1931.925 21638.9 216 19 871.18911 2803.114115
SBP-12 1047.923 11619 106 24 289.96999 1337.892993
SBP-13 1026.266 11376.4 106 24 283.91616 1310.182162
SBP-14 1920.821 21514.6 216 19 866.18184 2787.002838
SBP-15 1310.911 14683.1 140 19 383.15074 1694.061741
SBP-16 1309.111 14663 140 19 382.62464 1691.73564
SBP-17 1920.621 21512.3 216 24 1094.0105 3014.631504
SBP-18 1026.266 11376.4 106 24 283.91616 1310.182162
SBP-19 745.528 8350.45 69 19 107.39436 852.9223606
SBP-20 1573.952 17747.9 140 19 463.12508 2037.077079
SBP-21 1177.459 13188.4 106 19 260.5674 1438.026404
SBP-22 1177.459 13188.4 106 19 260.5674 1438.026404
SBP-23 1573.952 17629.4 140 19 460.0319 2033.983898
SBP-24 745.528 8468.99 69 19 108.91886 854.4468566

Table 4-3 shows loads that will be transferred to the base plate.

40
 4.7.5. Design of Truss Connection

The following are the computations for the connection in trusses. The designer used Micro-soft Excel
program for calculations, by which the flow of the program were shown and described below

41
 Figure 4.28 Flowchart for Truss Connection

Force of each member and its specifications were gathered. as well as the properties of gusset plate. The
tensile strength of weld was placed, as well as the maximum and minimum weld (kindly refer to the table for
the values of min. and max. weld size.). Then, the designer assumed a size for weld which satisfies the
condition set by weld sizes, and then the length of weld in long (b) and short (a) dimension was computed.

Throughout the design, a gusset plate with thickness of 10 mm was used.

Table 4-9 Minimum and Maximum Size of Fillet Weld

42
43
4.7.6. Design of Beam To Column Connection Using Seat Angle

44
45
Figure 4.29 Flowchart for Beam to Column Connection Using Seat Angle

46
 4.7.7. COLUMN TO BASE PLATE CONNECTION

The tabulations below were made for the design of column to base plate connection with the help of anchor
bolts. Using a Spreadsheet program, the values were calculated and processed. The flow of the program
were illustrated below.

47
Figure 4.30 Flowchart for Base Plate Connection

48
 To start the program, the applied loads, as well as the dimensions of base plate, column and angle
that will be used. Then, the connection will be checked in buckling criteria, as well as the bending and
shear of weld. Then the shear criteria will be checked and the size of weld and anchor bolts will be then
derived.

Table 4-10 Schedule for Bolts

Column Base Plate Remarks M fb fv R t GEN. REMARKS

1 1 770103 200 500 459 150 763864.15 3321.15 65.0278
2 2 1510585 300 700 617 150 1480798 6438.25 90.5397
3 3 1388738 300 700 617 150 1358951 5908.48 86.7347
4 4 1469003 300 700 617 150 1439216 6257.46 89.2594
5 5 1102089 300 550 469 150 1073274.8 4666.41 77.0809
6 6 1273150 300 700 617 150 1243363 5405.93 82.9641
7 7 829675 250 500 457 150 821065.77 3569.85 67.4187
8 8 1927925 550 600 375 150 1746690.2 7594.31 98.333
9 9 1486027 300 700 617 150 1456240 6331.48 89.7858
10 10 1486027 300 700 617 150 1456240 6331.48 89.7858
11 11 1931925 550 600 375 150 1750690.2 7611.7 98.4455
12 12 1047923 300 550 469 150 1019108.8 4430.91 75.1106
13 13 1026266 250 550 469 150 1002254.2 4357.63 74.4869
14 14 1920821 550 600 375 150 1739586.2 7563.42 98.1328
15 15 1310911 300 700 617 150 1281124 5570.1 84.2145
16 16 1309111 300 700 617 150 1279324 5562.28 84.1553
17 17 1920621 550 600 375 150 1739386.2 7562.55 98.1271
18 18 1026266 250 550 469 150 1002254.2 4357.63 74.4869
19 19 745528 200 500 459 150 739289.15 3214.3 63.9732
20 20 1573952 300 700 617 150 1544165 6713.76 92.4566
21 21 1177459 300 600 469 150 1124325 4888.37 78.8927
22 22 1177459 300 600 469 150 1124325 4888.37 78.8927
23 23 1573952 300 700 617 150 1544165 6713.76 92.4566

49
24 24 745528 200 500 459 150 739289.15 3214.3 63.9732

Figure 4.31 Allowable Bearing Capacity Diagram

50
 4.7.8. BEAM TO BEAM AND COLUMN TO COLUMN CONNECTION

The following computations were made for the welding of beam to beam and column to column
connections. A groove weld connection was used, which is applicable for continuous connections.

Using Microsoft Excel, the connections were computed using a spreadsheet program. Flowchart
below shows the process of the data.

51
Figure 4.32 Flowchart for Groove Connection

52
4.8. Design of the Infrastructure Using Seat Angle Beam to Column Connection

The following are the specifications of the design when seat angles were used. Kindly refer to Appendix O
for computations.

Table 4-11 Beam to Column Connection Using Seat Angle

Seat Angle Used Weld thickness Beam-Column Specified
With the Description
C 150 x 150 1 mm
C 150 x 150 2 mm All Members of Frame A/F, RB
32-19,RB32-20, RB28-33,
RB10-5, RB10-6
C 150 x 150 3 mm All Members of Frame B/E, All
Members of Frame C/D,
C 150 x 150 4 mm All Members of Frame 2/3
C 150 x 150 5 mm All Members of Frame 4/5
C 150 x 150 8 mm All Members of Frame 3

The costs computed from the seat angle are tabulated below; note that the computed values are only form
the beam to column connection.

Table 4-12 Detailed Cost Estimate of Seat Angle Beam to Column Connection
DETAILED COST ESTIMATE OF SEAT ANGLE BEAM TO COLUMN CONNECTION
Item DESCRIPT Unit Total Price/unit. TOTAL PRICE
ION Quanitiy (Php)

Weld
Labor man-hours 900 1200 1,080,000
Equipment - 6 5000 30,000
Materials - 10520 750 7,875,000
C 150 x pcs 1260 780 982,800
150
TOTAL COST (SEAT ANGLE CONNECTION) 9,967,800

From the table, it is noted that the total cost for seat angle connection is PhP 9,967,000.00. This is then be
analyzed to rank which of the two technologies stated on Chapter III is more applicable to the design.
The table below presents the maximum displacement of the infrastructure when seat angles were used.

Table 4-13 Maximum Displacement of Seat Angle Beam to Column Connection

Maximum Displacement Location
105 mm At Frame 2

53
From the table, it is noted that the maximum displacement when seat angle connection is used is 105 mm.
This is then be analyzed to rank which of the two technologies stated on Chapter III is more applicable to
the design.
4.9. Design of Infrastructure Using Fill-and-Weld Beam to Column Connection

The following are the specifications of the design when seat angles were used. Kindly refer to Appendix P
for computations.

Table 4-14 Beam to Column Connection Using Fill-and-Weld Connection

Weld thickness Beam-Column Specified

With the Description
5 mm
7 mm All Members of Frame A/F,
8 mm All Members of Frame B/E, All
Members of Frame C/D,
10 mm All Members of Frame 2/3
12 mm All Members of Frame 4/5
15 mm All Members of Frame 3

The costs computed from the Fill-and-Weld Connection are tabulated below; note that the computed values
are only form the beam to column connection.

Table 4-15 Detailed Cost Estimate of Fill-and-Weld Beam to Column Connection

DETAILED COST ESTIMATE OF SEAT ANGLE BEAM TO COLUMN CONNECTION
Item DESCRIPT Unit Total Price/unit. TOTAL PRICE
ION Quanitiy (Php)

Weld
Labor man-hours 1500 1200 1,800,000
Equipment - 6 5000 30,000
Materials - 10520 750 7,875,000
TOTAL COST (SEAT ANGLE CONNECTION) 9,705,000

From the table, it is noted that the total cost for seat angle connection is PhP 9,705,000.00. This is then be
analysed to rank which of the two technologies stated on Chapter III is more applicable to the design.

54
The table below presents the maximum displacement of the infrastructure when Fill-and-Weld Connection
was used.

Table 4-16 Maximum Displacement of Fill-and-Weld Beam to Column Connection

Maximum Displacement Location
78 mm At Frame 3

From the table, it is noted that the maximum displacement when Fill-and-Weld Connection is used is 78
mm. This is then be analyzed to rank which of the two technologies stated on Chapter III is more applicable
to the design.

4.10. Computation for Designer’s Final Ranking

Economic
Fill-and-Weld= 5.00
Computation of Designer Ranking for Seat Angle
Difference of two Value = Higher Value – Lower Value
Difference
Ranking=5− ( Lower Value ) x 10

Ranking=5− ( 9,967,800−9,705,000
9,705,000 ) x 10
Ranking = 3.72

Structural Safety
Seat Angle= 5.00
Computation of Designer Ranking for Fill-and-Weld
Difference of two Value = Higher Value – Lower Value.

Difference
Ranking=5− ( Lower Value )
x 10

Ranking=5− ( 105−78
78 )
x 10

Ranking = 3.46

55
Sustainability
Fill-and-Weld = 5.00
Computation of Designer Ranking for Seat Angle
Difference of two Value = Higher Value – Lower Value.

Difference
Ranking=5− ( Lower Value )
x 10

Ranking=5− ( 598,068−582300
582,300 ) x 10
Ranking = 4.73

The following table shows the final ranking based on the final estimates conducted after the completion of
the actual manual computation of the designing of the structure.

Table 4-17 Final Rankings

Ability to satisfy the criterion

Criterion’s Importance (on a scale from -5 to 5)
Decision Criteria
(on a scale of 0 to 5)
Seat Angle Beam-to Fill-and-Weld Beam
Column Connection to Column Connection
1. Economic (Cost) 4 3.72 5
2. Structural Safety 5 5 3.46
3. Sustainability 4 4.73 5
Over-all Rank 58.8 57.3

Designers’ Final Ranking Assessment

In the design of the walls the structure, two technologies are being introduced which are the seat angle and
fill-and-weld. To satisfy the constraints requirements, both of these technologies are designed in
accordance with codes and standards so that an accurate detailed cost estimate of the both trade-offs will
be provided.
From the Designer’s Final Ranking, the more economical and safe has the higher value of higher ranking
value. The fill-and-weld has a value of 5 since it is more economical compared seat angle system that
ranked to a value of 0.2707 using the ranking equation introduced in the Chapter 3. In terms of structural
safety, the fill-and-weld system is safer; giving it a rank of 5 and seat angle has a rank of 3.46 since they

56
have a significant difference in displacement. At the end of these whole ranking processes, fill-and-weld
prevailed in the design and it was selected to be implemented in the construction of this project.

4.11. Influence of Multiple constraints, Tradeoffs and Standards in the Final design

The connection system can greatly affect the overall construction and estimation of a infrastructure. The
designer determines the multiple constraints that the design may encounter which serves as a limiting
factor in the design process. In this case, it is found out that the constraints to be economic and structural
safety wherein the designer needs to introduce different technologies to satisfy the requirements of these
constraints by the means of trade-offs. These trade-offs are the major alternatives in the design wherein the
client will save cost in terms of materials and ease of construction. The designer will have to choose
between the two alternative technologies, fill-and-weld and seat angle. By designing these two
technologies, it will be easier to determine which of these two can satisfy the requirements of constraints in
accordance with codes and standards.

4.11.1. Economic Alternatives

In the economic constraint aspect, the two technologies are both designed in accordance with codes and
standards. After designing these trade-offs, the designers estimated the cost of each technologies that are
being introduced.

Cost

10000000
9950000
9900000
9850000 Cost
9800000
9750000
9700000
9650000
9600000
9550000
Seat Angle Fill-and-Weld
Figure 4.33 Economic Comparison of Connection System

Figure 4.11 .showed the comparison of cost between the fill-and-weld and seat angle system. From the bar
chart illustrated, it showed that the two alternatives have a large cost difference. It also shows that the fill-
and-weld system is more economical.

57
 4.11.2. Structural Safety Alternatives
The safety of the infrastructure is critical, since it determines the maintenance and serviceability of the
structure.

Displacement

120

100

80 Displacement

60

40

20

0
Seat Angle Fill-and-Weld

Figure 4.34 Structural Safety Comparison of Connection System

Figure 4.12 .showed the comparison of construction duration between fill-and-weld and seat angle system.
From the bar chart illustrated, it showed that the two alternatives have a large displacement difference.
4.11.3 Sustainability Alternatives

The Sustainability of the infrastructure is vital, since it determines the longevity to the serviceability of the
structure.

58
 Cost

600,000.00

595,000.00

590,000.00 Cost

585,000.00

580,000.00

575,000.00

570,000.00
Seat Angle Fill-and-Weld
Figure 4.22 Structural Safety Comparison of Connection System

Figure 4.13 .showed the comparison of cost between the fill-and-weld and seat angle maintenance cost.
From the bar chart illustrated, it showed that the two alternatives have a large cost difference. It also shows
that seat angle system is more economical.

4.12. Final Choice for the Connection System

After designing the two alternatives, it was being compared through the cost and structural safety of
construction. From the detailed estimate, it shows that the seat angle system is more economical and safer.
Using the final designer ranking, it proves that seat angle system has a higher capacity to satisfy the
requirements of multiple constraints. In general, seat angle system will be adapted in the design.

59
 CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION

This design has considered a trade-off in connection design methodologies between seat angle and fill-
and-weld design. Using the Raw Designer Ranking method, criteria to resolve a decision were selected.
These decision criteria were the design constraints considered as economy, structural safety and
sustainability. Close tally for the ability of the criterion to satisfy the decision criteria resulted in a rating of
58.8 and 57.3 between seat angle and fill-and-weld design, which the client ultimately favored in selecting
the cost criterion.

The designer adopted the Seat Angle design for the connection. The designer also designed a
representative post-tensioned for comparison of cost and constructability. The cost variance resulted to
PhP 262,800.00. The constructability criterion was discussed in the context of time and motion study. A
variance of one is to three, with two in favor of seat angle resulted in the evaluation of the time and motion
study.

The designers following a structure design flowchart prepared structural analysis and design. Design codes
and standards of the Philippines were used in the design. The Appendix A contains the specification of the
structure.

60
61
Appendices

Appendix A: Wall Load Computation

62
Appendix B: Wind Load Computation
63
64
Appendix C: Slab Load Computation

65
Appendix D: Slab Load Computation for Roof
Deck

66
Appendix E: Slab Design (Typical)

67
Appendix E-2: Slab Design (Roof Deck)

68
Appendix F: Beam Design (Typical)

69
Appendix F-2: Beam Deisgn (Roof Deck)

70
Appendix G: Beam Description (Typical)

71
Appendix G-2: Beam Description (Roof)

72
73
Appendix H: Loads at Column

74
Appendix I: Column Buckling Check

75
Appendix J: Column Design (H=3.5)

76
Appendix J-2: Column Design (H=5)

77
Appendix K: Column Description

78
Appendix L: Base Plate Design

79
Appendix M: Base Plate Description

80
Appendix N: Truss Connection

81
Appendix O: Beam-Column in Seat Angle

82
83
Appendix P: Beam-Column in Fill-and-Weld

84
Appendix Q: Seismic Analysis

85