Steel Design - Tradeoff On Structural System

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I - PROJECT BACKGROUND........................................................................................................7
1.2 The Project..............................................................................................................................................7
1.3 Project Location......................................................................................................................................8
1.4 Project Objectives...................................................................................................................................8
1.5 The Client................................................................................................................................................9
1.6 Project Scope and Limitation..................................................................................................................9
1.7 Project Development............................................................................................................................10
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS......................................................................................................................12
2.1 Description of the Structure..................................................................................................................12
2.2 Classification of the Structure...............................................................................................................14
2.2.1 Seismic Load Parameters.............................................................................................................14
2.2.2 Wind Load Parameters.................................................................................................................15
2.2.3 Dead Loads and Live Loads.........................................................................................................15
2.3 Architectural Plans................................................................................................................................18
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS, AND STANDARDS...............................................24
3.1 Design Constraints...............................................................................................................................24
3.2 Tradeoffs...............................................................................................................................................25
3.3 Initial Comparison of Tradeoffs.............................................................................................................25
3.3.1 Ranking Scale...............................................................................................................................25
3.3.2 Initial Assessment of Tradeoffs.....................................................................................................26
3.3.3 Raw Designers Ranking...............................................................................................................27
3.4 Design Standards.................................................................................................................................28
CHAPTER IV: STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN...............................................................................30
4.1 Design Methodology for Tradeoff A......................................................................................................30
4.1.1 Structural Plan...............................................................................................................................31
4.1.2 Material Properties........................................................................................................................32
4.1.3 Structural Models..........................................................................................................................32
4.1.4 Load Models..................................................................................................................................33
4.1.5 Structural Analysis.........................................................................................................................37
4.1.6 Structural Design...........................................................................................................................41
4.2 Design Methodology for Tradeoff B......................................................................................................42
2
4.2.1 Structural Plan...............................................................................................................................43

4.2.3 Structural Models..........................................................................................................................44
4.2.4 Load Models..................................................................................................................................45
4.3 Design Methodology for Tradeoff C......................................................................................................54
4.3.1 Structural Plan...............................................................................................................................55
4.3.3 Structural Models for Tradeoff C...................................................................................................56
4.3.4 Load Models..................................................................................................................................57
4.4 Validation of Multiple Constraints, Tradeoffs, and Standards..............................................................66
4.4.1 Final Estimated Values..................................................................................................................66
4.4.2 Final Designers Ranking..............................................................................................................66
4.4 Influence of Multiple Constraints, Tradeoffs and Standards in the Final Design.................................68
CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN.........................................................................................................................71
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Total Areas and Functions per Floor...............................................................................................12
Table 2-2. Dead Loads and Live Loads of the Structure................................................................................16
Table 3-1 Raw Designers Ranking.................................................................................................................27
Table 4-1 Result of Analysis for Tradeoff A.....................................................................................................40
Table 4-2 Result of Design for Tradeoff A.......................................................................................................41
Table 4-3 Result of Analysis for Tradeoff B.....................................................................................................52
Table 4-4 Result of Design for Tradeoff B.......................................................................................................53
Table 4-5 Result of Analysis for Tradeoff C.....................................................................................................64
Table 4-6 Result of Design for Tradeoff C.......................................................................................................65
Table 4-7 Final Estimate of Values..................................................................................................................66
Table 4-8 Final Designers Ranking................................................................................................................66
Table 5-1 Design Schedule of the Structures.................................................................................................71
LIST OF TABLES
Figure 1-1. Perspective of the Proposed Seminary..........................................................................................7
Figure 1-2. Vicinity Map of the Seminary..........................................................................................................8
Figure 1-3 Project Development Process.......................................................................................................10
Figure 2-1 Distance of the Project Location to the Nearest Fault Line...........................................................15
Figure 2-2 Ground Floor Plan of the Seminary...............................................................................................18
Figure 2-3 Second Floor Plan of the Seminary..............................................................................................19
Figure 2-4 Third Floor Plan of the Seminary...................................................................................................20
Figure 2-5 Fourth Floor Plan of the Seminary................................................................................................21
Figure 2-6 Fifth Floor Plan of the Seminary....................................................................................................22
Figure 2-7 Front Elevation of the Seminary....................................................................................................23
Figure 2-8 Side View of the Seminary............................................................................................................23
Figure 3-1 Ranking Scale for Importance Factor............................................................................................25
Figure 3-2 Ranking Scale for Satisfactory......................................................................................................26
Figure 4-1 Design Methodology for Tradeoff A...............................................................................................30
Figure 4-2. Second Fifth Floor Framing Plan..............................................................................................31
Figure 4-3 Perspective View of Tradeoff A.....................................................................................................32
Figure 4-4 Geometric Model of Tradeoff A (Moment Resisting Frames)........................................................33
Figure 4-5 Dead Load Model..........................................................................................................................33
Figure 4-6 Live Load Model............................................................................................................................34
Figure 4-7 Wind Load (X)................................................................................................................................34
Figure 4-8 Wind Load (Z)................................................................................................................................35
Figure 4-9 Seismic Load (X)...........................................................................................................................35
Figure 4-10 Seismic Load (Z).........................................................................................................................36
Figure 4-11 Governing Load Combination Model (1.2DL + 1.0LL + 1.0EQX)................................................37
Figure 4-12 Moment Diagram for Tradeoff A..................................................................................................38
Figure 4-13 Shear Diagram for Tradeoff A......................................................................................................38
Figure 4-14 Axial Diagram for Tradeoff A........................................................................................................39
Figure 4-15 Joint Displacement Diagram for Tradeoff A.................................................................................39
Figure 4-16 Design Methodology for Tradeoff A.............................................................................................42
Figure 4-17. Second Fifth Floor Framing Plan............................................................................................43
5
Figure 4-18 Perspective View of Tradeoff B...................................................................................................44

Figure 4-19 Geometric Model of Tradeoff B...................................................................................................45
Figure 4-20 Dead Load Model........................................................................................................................45
Figure 4-21 Live Load Model..........................................................................................................................46
Figure 4-22 Wind Load (X)..............................................................................................................................46
Figure 4-23 Wind Load (Z)..............................................................................................................................47
Figure 4-24 Seismic Load (X).........................................................................................................................48
Figure 4-26 Governing Load Combination Model (1.2DL + 1.0LL + 1.0EQX)...............................................49
Figure 4-27 Moment Diagram for Tradeoff B..................................................................................................50
Figure 4-28 Shear Diagram for Tradeoff B.....................................................................................................50
Figure 4-29 Axial Diagram for Tradeoff B.......................................................................................................51
Figure 4-30 Joint Displacement Diagram for Tradeoff B................................................................................51
Figure 4-31 Design Methodology for Tradeoff A.............................................................................................54
Figure 4-32 Second to Fifth Floor Framing Plan............................................................................................55
Figure 4-33 Perspective View of the Geometric Model for Tradeoff C...........................................................56
Figure 4-34 Geometric Model of Tradeoff C...................................................................................................57
Figure 4-35 Dead Load Model........................................................................................................................57
Figure 4-36 Live Load Model..........................................................................................................................58
Figure 4-37 Wind Load (X)..............................................................................................................................58
Figure 4-38 Wind Load (Z)..............................................................................................................................59
Figure 4-39 Seismic Load (X).........................................................................................................................60
Figure 4-41 Governing Load Combination Model (1.2DL + 1.0LL + 1.0EQX)...............................................61
Figure 4-42 Moment Diagram for Tradeoff C..................................................................................................61
Figure 4-43 Shear Diagram for Tradeoff C.....................................................................................................62
Figure 4-44 Axial Diagram for Tradeoff C.......................................................................................................62
Figure 4-45 Joint Displacement Diagram for Tradeoff C................................................................................63
Figure 4-46 Economic Constraint Comparison...............................................................................................68
Figure 4-47. Constructability Constraint Comparison.....................................................................................69
Figure 4-48 Environmental Constraint Comparison.......................................................................................70
6
CHAPTER :1PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.2 The Project

The project is a seminary whose structure is made up of steel. It is intended to be built in Antipolo, Rizal.
Building a seminary is important for the Antipoleneos since the city contains the National Shrine of the
Philippines, and thus needs training areas for students who want to become priests someday. The
seminary contains all the necessary rooms for the residents of the building.
Figure 1- 1. Perspective of the Proposed Seminary
As seen in Figure 1, the building has five floors with a flat roof, and is rectangular in shape. It has a
total floor area of 700 sq. m with dimensions of 50 m x 14 m. The first floor contains the refectory (dining),
chapel, lobby, infirmary (clinic), recreation area, kitchen and staff room. The second and third floors contain
class rooms, laboratories, library, and offices. The fourth and fifth floor contain the study area and
7
dormitories. It has a main stair, fire exit, ramps, and an elevator. The height of each floor is 3 m having a
total of 15 m.
1.3 Project Location

The project area is located in Antipolo City, Rizal, which is included in the areas under seismic zone 4. The
address of the area lot is Lot 6 Blk.1, Sampaguita St. Bermuda Hts. Subd., Brgy. San Luis, Antipolo City.
Figures 2 and 3 show the vicinity map of the area and its distance from the nearest fault line which is the
Makati Valley Fault System, respectively.
Figure 1-2. Vicinity Map of the Seminary
1.4 Project Objectives

The main objective of this project is to analyse and design a steel structure in accordance with the
principles written in NSCP 2001. Other objectives of the project are as follows:
a. To design a five-story steel seminary main building that will have an acceptable probability of
performing satisfactorily during its intended life time.
b. To provide all the necessary architectural plans, structural plans, and the estimate of the
building cost.
c. To plan the structure considering balanced constraints, trade-offs and standards on the design.
1.5 The Client

The client of this structure is a set of religious people led by Mrs. Sharon Umayam. She is a
businesswoman and at the same time the president of the lectors in Our Lady of Peace and Good Voyage
Church (National Shrine of the Philippines).
1.6 Project Scope and Limitation

The following were the scope covered by the design project:
1.) The project was designed in accordance to the National Building Code of The Philippines and the
National Structural Code of the Philippines applying the Allowable Strength Design (ASD).
2.) Structural analysis was done manually and was checked through STAAD.
3.) All the needed architectural plans and structural plans of the building were provided.
The following were the limitations of the design project:

1.) Only the main structure (includes beams, columns, and connections) were considered in the
design.
2.) The cost estimates for the mechanical, plumbing and architectural plan were not included.
3.) The plumbing and electrical plans are not included in this design.
4.) The interior design of the structure was not considered.
10
1.7 Project Development
PLANNING/CONCEPTUALIZATION
IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN STANDARDS

AND PARAMETERS
PRESENTATION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL PLANS WITH INITIAL ESTIMATE
IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN CONSTRAINTS,

TRADE-OFF
LOAD IDENTIFICATION, STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS,

AND FINAL DESIGN
Figure 1- 3 Project Development Process
The project development process started with the planning/conceptualization. In this stage, the
identification of client was the most important so as to know the structure to be build. In this case, the
structure requested by the client was a seminary. It also included the identification of the location where the
structure was intended to be built.
The next stage was the identification of design standards. Knowing the structure to be constructed, the next
part was to know the specific design standards that are required before coming up to the design (i.e.,
minimum dimension of a classroom, minimum size of an elevator shaft, etc.). These will set the parameters
in the creation of the architectural and floor plans which is the next stage in the process.
11
In the third stage, the plans will be presented to the client so that alterations could be made. After all has
been settled, constraints can now be identified, which is the next stage. In this, the constraints that were
projected will then be classified as either qualitative or quantitative. Knowing the quantitative trade-offs will
pave the way to the determination of the trade-offs for the structure.
In the last stage, the geometric design, computation, and final estimation for each trade-offs will be made.
Then, all of these will be presented to the client. The client will then rate each trade-off. The one which has
the most favorable rating among all will then be chosen for the design of the structure.
12
CHAPTER :2DESIGN INPUTS
2.1 Description of the Structure

The structure contains five floors with each floor having different function from the other. Table 1 shows the
total floor area and the different areas of the rooms contained in each floor.
Table 2-1 Total Areas and Functions per Floor

FUNCTION
AREA (m2)
1ST Floor
Ramps and Elevator
49
Stairs
25
C.R.
22.5
Chapel
168
Refectory
168
Staff Room
63
Clinic
49
Lobby
70
Kitchen
63
Hallway
22.5
TOTAL
700
2nd Floor
Ramps and Elevator
49
Stairs
25
C.R.
22.5
Offices
3(45)
Class Rooms & Laboratories
4(63)
Other Rooms
32.5
Lounge
35
13
Hallway
79
TOTAL
700
3rd Floor
Ramps and Elevator
49
Stairs
25
C.R.
22.5
Offices
45
Class Room
2(63)
Other Rooms
133
Faculty Room
65
Library
94.5
Hallway
73.5
Sisters Room
66.5
TOTAL
700
4th Floor
Ramps and Elevator
49
Stairs
12.5
C.R.
22.5
Study Area
178.5
Dormitory
255.5
Vice Rectors and Prefects Room
66.5
Toilet & Bath
59.5
Laundry
28
Hallway
28
TOTAL
700
5th Floor
Ramps and Elevator
49
Stairs
25
Hallway
28
14
Dormitory (1)
201
Dormitory (2)
196
Toilet & Bath
2(59.5)
Laundry
28
Rectors Room
66.5
TOTAL
700
TOTAL FLOOR AREA
3500
2.2 Classification of the Structure
Using the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2010, the designer was able to
classify and determine the classifications and parameters of the structure.
2.2.1 Seismic Load Parameters
Since the structure is a seminary, the occupancy category of the building is classified as an Essential
Facility, whose value of importance factor (I) is equal to 1.50. For the site geology, the soil profile type was
considered as SD because the soil properties of the area was not known. Since the area is in Region IV-A,
the structure is included in the areas under seismic zone 4, with seismic zone factor (Z) of 0.4.
As seen in the figure below, the fault line nearest to the area is the Makati Valley Fault System which is 16
km away. The seismic source type is considered as Type C since this fault line is not prone on producing
large magnitude of earthquakes. With these data, the near source factors N a and Nv are both 1.0. The
values of Ca and Cv are now determined as 0.44 and 0.64 respectively.
Since the building is rectangular, it is a regular structure. Special Moment Resisting Frame System (SMRF)
was utilized in the longitudinal, and special steel concentric braces frame was utilized in the transverse
axis, thus, the seismic response coefficient (R) is 7. Static force procedure was utilized for the
determination of the seismic forces acting on the strcture.
15
Figure 2- 4 Distance of the Project Location to the Nearest Fault Line

2.2.2 Wind Load Parameters
In this part, the parameters for the determination of the wind loads will be presented, but those
which are presented already in the seismic part will not be repeated.
As the area is included in the zone 4, it has a basic wind speed (V) of 200 kph. The structural type
of the building is a Main Wind Resisting Force System, thus, the value of Directionality Factor (K d) is 0.85.
The surface roughness of the building is B because it is intended to be built in an urban area. The seminary
is a medium rise building and an enclosed structure. The gust effect factor is considered as 0.85. Other
parameters such as topographic factor (k zt) and velocity pressure exposure coefficients (k z) will be
computed. These values are those needed in the determination of the wind pressure acting on the
structure.
2.2.3 Dead Loads and Live Loads

The minimum design for dead loads and live loads used in the structure is presented in this part.
For the live loads and dead loads (includes ceiling, floors and floor finishes) of the structure, the materials
and their respective uniform load are in shown In Table 2
16
Table 2-2. Dead Loads and Live Loads of the Structure

DEAD LOADS
Component
Load (kPa)
Ceiling
Gypsum Board
Mechanical Duct Allowance
Wood Furring Suspension System
Floor and Floor Finishes
Cement Finish on
Stone Concrete Fill
Ceramic Quarry Tile
Masonry
For Plastering (both sides)
0.008
0.2
0.12
1.53
1.1
0.24
LIVE LOADS
Basic Floor Area
1.9
17
18
2.3 Architectural Plans
Figure 2- 5 Ground Floor Plan of the Seminary
19
Figure 2-6 Second Floor Plan of the Seminary
20
Figure 2-7 Third Floor Plan of the Seminary
21
Figure 2- 8 Fourth Floor Plan of the Seminary
22
Figure 2-9 Fifth Floor Plan of the Seminary
23
Figure 2- 10 Front Elevation of the Seminary
Figure 2-11 Side View of the Seminary
24
Chapter 3 : DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS, AND STANDARDS
3.1 Design Constraints
Constraint based design takes the parameters associated with a design problem and links them to the
attributes of the formal components and relationships of a solution. The forms that compose a building are
defined by a set of attributes. Constraints have to be managed effectively throughout the decision making
process, and also could be reduced or eliminated.
In this project, there are specific constraints and general constraints. The specific constraints will serves
as the criteria for ranking. The general constraints are the basis of the tradeoffs which will be ranked. The
specific constraints were divided into two types, namely, quantitative and qualitative constraints.
Quantitative constraints are those constraints that can be measured using engineering methods
(estimation, direct counting, etc.). The qualitative constraints are those which cannot be measured but
are ranked through the designers perception and experience (unranked in this project).
The next sections present the specific constraints selected among all others that will have a significant
impact in the design of the structure.
3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints

1. Economic (Material Cost). The design of the building will comprise steel for the structural
framing. The tradeoffs presented in the next section are compared so as to determine which of
those could be the cheapest choice for the client. The cost of the structure is highly significant
both to the designer and the client.
2. Constructability (Project Duration). In this constraint, the designer considered the amount of
time needed for the construction of the structure. The tradeoffs to be presented would be
compared so as to know which among the tradeoffs will require lesser amount of man-hour for
construction.
3. Safety (Beam Deflection). The designer considered the safety of the structure with respect to
its vertical axis. Although the project focuses on the lateral stability of the structure, it still needs
to withstand gravity loads in the best way it can to prevent cracking of horizontal members.
4. Environmental (Lateral Joint Displacement). The designer considered the lateral
displacement of the structure since the proposed location is near at a fault line. Designing a
seismic restraint structure is always the best for the client to attain the structures necessary life
span.
3.1.2 Qualitative Constraints
25
1. Aesthetics. The beauty of the structure lies upon its final output. This constraint depends on
the taste of a person therefore it is considered as a qualitative constraint. It depends on a
persons perception which design is more presentable.
2. Social. People are very influential when it comes to ideas and other things. In this project, the
friends and relatives of the client might give him an idea which might alter the work of the
designer. Demands from these people might affect the decision of the client and the designer.
3. Health and Safety. Different areas surrounding commercial building might affect the people
that might use the commercial building. Smoke from the cars using the roads and cigarettes,
smell from the nearby canal, laundry areas, restaurants, etc., are examples of these hazardous
odor that might affect health and safety of the people in the building.
3.2 Tradeoffs
Design trade-off strategies are always present in the design process. Considering design constraints, tradeoffs that have a significant effect on the structural design of the structure was provided by the designer. As
a trade-off, the designer will have to evaluate which of the two is more effective considering each
constraint. The following are the tradeoffs that were chosen by the designer because they are the most
fitted to the said constraints.
1. Moment Resisting Frames
2. Moment Resisting Frames with Shear Walls
3. Moment Resisting Frames with X-Bracing
3.3 Initial Comparison of Tradeoffs

3.3.1 Ranking Scale
The ranking scale that will be used in this design is based on the model on tradeoff strategies formulated by
Otto and Antonsson (1991). The importance factor in each constraint is scaled from 0 to 5, while the ability
to satisfy the constraint is scaled from -5 to 5, 5 being the highest for both. After obtaining the results, the
product of the importance and ability to satisfy the criteria will be summed of from each constraint. The
result will then be the overall ranking of the tradeoff.
Figure 3- 12 Ranking Scale for Importance Factor
26
Figure 3- 13 Ranking Scale for Satisfactory
Computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials:

Difference( )=
Higher valueLower value

100( )
Low er value
Subordinate rank =Governing rank (
difference
)
10
The above equations will be used for the manipulation of the rankings of each constraint given to the
tradeoffs. The governing rank is the highest possible value set by the designer. The subordinate rank in
second equation is a variable that corresponds to its percentage difference from the governing rank along
the ranking scale.
3.3.2 Initial Assessment of Tradeoffs

To be able to rank each tradeoff initially, the designer researched data that are related to the project. To be
able to present the designers perspective of the difference between the tradeoffs, the designer made an
initial tradeoff assessment.
For economic constraint, the designer considered SMRF to have the lowest cost among all tradeoffs, thus,
it is given a rank of 5. The SMRF with Shear Wall and SMRF with Bracing is given a rank 4 and 3
respectively since they will use additional material, wherein the bracing is more costly than shear walls.
For constructability constraint, the designer still considered SMRF to have the lowest time of
manufacturability because it has lesser members and thus given a rank of 5. The SMRF with Shear Wall
and SMRF with Bracing is given a rank 2 and 4 respectively since they will use additional material, wherein
there will be additional time. A rank of 2 is given for SMRF with Shear Walls because it will apply concrete
in its structure, thus, will need more time for curing.
27
For environmental constraint, the designer considered the SMRF with Shear Walls to have the governing
rank of 5 because of its more solid reinforcement for lateral forces. SMRF with Bracing is given a rank of 4,
and 1 is given to SMRF because it has the least strength to support lateral forces.
3.3.3 Raw Designers Ranking

Table 3-3 Raw Designers Ranking
Ability to Satisfy the Criterion
Criterion
IMPORTANCE
Tradeoff A
Tradeoff B
Tradeoff C
SMRF
SMRF w/ Shear Walls
SMRF w/ Bracing
Economic
Constructability
Environmental
39
44
39
OVERALL
*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.
http://www.design.caltech.edu/Research/Publications/90e.pdf on January 27, 2016
The winning tradeoff for the raw designers ranking is the SMRF with Shear Walls. These values came from
the subjective point of the designer and thus they are not yet reliable. The values will still be validated
through the final designers ranking.
28
3.4 Design Standards

The design standards used are taken from the following codes and standards:
1. National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) vol. 1-2001 edition (PD1096)
2. National Building Code of the Philippines
3. ASEP Steel Handbook 2004 vol. 1
1. The National Structural Code of the Philippines 2001.This structural code provides minimum
requirements for building structural systems using prescriptive and performance-based provisions. It is
founded on broad-based principles that make possible the use of new materials and new building designs.
It is also designed to meet these needs through various model codes/regulations, to safeguard the public
health and safety nationwide. This is the main reference for the design procedure of the structure.
Material Strength. Materials conforming specifications of NSCP 6th edition 2010 were used in the design
of the project.
Loadings. Dead loads, live loads and environmental loads (wind and earthquake) are the forces acting on
the structure. Dead loads are consists of the weight of all materials of construction and partition loads that
are presented in the next chapter. Live loads shall be the maximum loads expected by the occupancy;
these loads are attached in chapter 4 as well. The required lateral loads due to wind and earthquake forces
shall be separately calculated.
Wind Loads. The wind load is calculated in STAAD Pro using specifications adopted in American Society
of Civil Engineers ASCE7-05 and based on procedure as stated in NSCP 2010, section 207.
Seismic Loads. The structure shall be designed and constructed to resist the effect of seismic ground
motion as provided in section 208 of NSCP 6th edition (2010).
Load Combinations. Steel sections shall be designed using the Allowable Stress Design method using
the following combination
DL + LL
DL + 0.75 LL
DL + WL
DL + 0.7 EL
DL + 0.75 WL + 0.75 LL
0.6 DL + WL : 0.6 DL + 0.7 E
Deformation Limits. Structures or structural members shall be checked such that the maximum
deformation does not exceed the following:
29
a. Beams and Girders. Beams and girders supporting floors and roof shall be proportioned with due regard
to the deflection produced by the design loads. Considering then the total deflection, which is due to the
additional live loads, occurring after attachment of non-structural elements shall not exceed L/360.
2. The National Building Code of the Philippines (PD 1096).The National Building Code of the
Philippines, also known as Presidential Decree No. 1096 was formulated and adopted as a uniform building
code to embody up-to-date and modern technical knowledge on building design, construction, use,
occupancy and maintenance. The Code provides for all buildings and structures, a framework of minimum
standards and requirements to regulate and control location, site, design, and quality of materials,
construction, use, occupancy, and maintenance.
A. Loading
: UBC 97, ASCE 7-05
B. Steel
: A36
3. Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP) Steel Handbook, 3rd Edition,
Volume 1. This provide the civil and structural engineering practitioners with a handy reference to locally
available rolled shapes, built-up shapes, cold-formed steel sections and light gage steel sections.
a. Hot-rolled Sections Dimensions and Properties
b. Built-up Sections Dimensions and Properties
30
Chapter 4 : STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
4.1 Design Methodology for Tradeoff A

The design was done in accordance with the codes and standards appropriate for a reinforced concrete
structure. The figure below shows the step by step process of the design of the building.
STRUCTURAL PLANS
FRAMING PLANS
DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
NSCP
NBCP
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
MODULUS OF ELASTICITY
STRUTURAL MEMBER DIMENSIONS
STRUCTURAL MODEL
GEOMETRIC MODELING
LOAD MODELS
DEAD AND LIVE LOAD

SEISMIC AND WIND LOAD
LOAD COMBINATIONS
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
SHEAR DIAGRAMS
MOMENT DIAGRAMS
REACTIONS AND DEFLECTIONS
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
DESIGN SCHEDULES
DETAILING
Figure 4- 14 Design Methodology for Tradeoff A

The first process in design methodology was the creation of structural plans. The structural plans included
the foundation plans of the two trade-offs. The next step was to know the design specifications. These
specifications are the codes and standards needed for the structures classification and description. The
31
National Building Code and National Structural Code of the Philippines are the main references used for
design specifications.
The third step in the process was the identification of the material properties. The compressive stresses
and modulus of elasticity of the concrete and steel to be used were determined. Also, the structural
member dimensions (b, d, etc.) were assumed. The fourth step was the creation of the structural model.
These models included geometric modelling, which showed the positioning of the structural members
(beams, columns, slabs) in 3D form.
The fifth step was the presentation of load models. In this part, the loads acting on the structure were
computed. These loads were the dead load, live load, wind load, and seismic (earthquake) load, applying
also the load combinations. After computing for these loads, load models was presented also in 3D form.
The sixth step was the structural analysis. In structural analysis, member (beams and columns) forces and
reactions were determined. The member forces included were the axial force, shear force, and moment
acting on the member.
The last part was the structural design. The structural design did not include the design of footings. The
values from the structural analysis was utilized to design the structural members of the structures, mainly
the beams and columns. The maximum moment acting on a beam was used to design the beam, and the
maximum value of the axial force acting on a column was used to design the column. To design the slab,
the total load on the floors was utilized.
4.1.1 Structural Plan
Figure 4-15. Second Fifth Floor Framing Plan

4.1.2 Material Properties
Material Properties conforming to specifications of NSCP 6th Edition (2010) were used in the design of the
structure using rolled sections. The properties for rolled sections were based on rolled section of
Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc. (2004).Steel Handbook, Dimensions and
Properties. Philippines. ASEP. Locally produced rolled shapes were applicable only for structural steel
32
whose minimum yield stress is 230 MPa. In this structure, the designers used A36 for rolled sections with
minimum yield stress of 248 MPa and tensile strength of 400-551 MPa.
4.1.3 Structural Models
Structural Models for Tradeoff A Moment Resisting Frames
Figure 4-16 Perspective View of Tradeoff A
33
Figure 4- 17 Geometric Model of Tradeoff A (Moment Resisting Frames)
4.1.4 Load Models

The loads considered in this project are the dead load, live load, wind load and seismic loads. Load
combinations were also applied to these loads. The figures below show the load models used for the
structure.
Figure 4-18 Dead Load Model
34
Figure 4- 19 Live Load Model
Figure 4-20 Wind Load (X)
35
Figure 4-21 Wind Load (Z)
Figure 4-22 Seismic Load (X)
36
Figure 4-23 Seismic Load (Z)
37
4.1.5 Structural Analysis

The designer also applied load combinations which are generated in the software used which is STAAD.
The load combination chosen as the governing one is the load that produced maximum lateral joint
displacement, because the structure is intended to resist lateral forced especially seismic load. The figure
below shows the model of the load combination that governed in the analysis.
Figure 4-24 Governing Load Combination Model (1.2DL + 1.0LL + 1.0EQX)
The designer also presented the axial, shear, moment, and joint displacement diagrams for the result of
analysis. The result of the analysis for this tradeoff is summarized as follows.
38
Figure 4- 25 Moment Diagram for Tradeoff A
Figure 4-26 Shear Diagram for Tradeoff A
39
Figure 4-27 Axial Diagram for Tradeoff A
Figure 4- 28 Joint Displacement Diagram for Tradeoff A
.
40
Table 4- 4 Result of Analysis for Tradeoff A

LEVEL
2ND FLOOR
3RD FLOOR
4TH FLOOR
5TH FLOOR
ROOF
Fx kN
-15.353
1.099
5.493
8.676
50.693
MAXIMUM BEAM FORCES

Fy kN
Fz kN Mx kNm
143.597 -0.247 -0.015
-141.19 -0.828 -0.175
-140.273 -1.251 -0.033
-137.144 -1.682
0.059
-119.601 -2.701
0.211
My kNm
0.83
-1.961
-2.954
-3.965
-6.066
MAXIMUM COLUMN FORCES

Fx kN
Fy kN Fz kN Mx kNm
2843.741 68.153 -3.729
-0.002
1111.568 25.976 -2.04
-0.002
My kNm
5.696
3.064
MAXIMUM JOINT DISPLACEMENT

X mm Y mm
Z mm
Maximum Value
-0.101 -2.799 27.05
mm
27.198
LEVEL
GRD-4TH FLR
4TH FLR-ROOF
Mz kNm
259.723
219.395
207.635
190.578
136.924
Mz kNm
109.988
38.742
41
4.1.6 Structural Design

To be able to arrive to a final ranking, the designer designed the beams and columns prior to connections.
Connections will be designed after the designer has chosen the winning tradeoff. The summary of design of
beams and columns are presented below
Table 4- 5 Result of Design for Tradeoff A

Level
2ND FLOOR
3RD FLOOR
4TH FLOOR
5TH FLOOR
ROOF
W Section
W 14x74
W 10x88
W 12x72
W 12x65
W 10x54
Weight (kg/m)
110.26
131.12
107.28
96.85
80.46
Level
GRD-4TH FLR
4TH FLR-RF
W Section
W 14x176
W 14x74
Weight (kg/m)
262.24
110.26
42
4.2 Design Methodology for Tradeoff B

STRUCTURAL PLANS
FRAMING PLANS
NSCP
NBCP
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
STRUCTURAL MODEL
GEOMETRIC MODELING
LOAD MODELS
DEAD AND LIVE LOAD

LOAD COMBINATIONS
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
SHEAR DIAGRAMS
MOMENT DIAGRAMS
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
DESIGN SCHEDULES
DETAILING
43
Figure 4-30. Second Fifth Floor Framing Plan

44
4.2.3 Structural Models
Figure 4-31 Perspective View of Tradeoff B
Figure 4- 32 Geometric Model of Tradeoff B

45
4.2.4 Load Models

structure.

46
47
48


The designer also presented the axial, shear, moment, and joint displacement diagrams for the result of
analysis. The result of the analysis for this tradeoff is summarized as follows.
49
Figure 4- 40 Moment Diagram for Tradeoff B
Figure 4-41 Shear Diagram for Tradeoff B
50
Figure 4-42 Axial Diagram for Tradeoff B
Figure 4- 43 Joint Displacement Diagram for Tradeoff B
51
Table 4-6 Result of Analysis for Tradeoff B

LEVEL
2ND FLOOR
3RD FLOOR
4TH FLOOR
5TH FLOOR
ROOF
Fx kN
-21.014
-28.269
-38.295
-32.405
27.483
LEVEL
GRD-4TH FLR
4TH FLR-ROOF
MAXIMUM BEAM FORCES

Fy kN
Fz kN Mx kNm
177.323
3.547
1.226
178.37
7.532
1.141
177.331 11.236
1.072
-143.482 1.595
0.094
166.498 15.641
1.01
My kNm
-4.53
-9.61
-14.34
5.595
-20.482

Fx kN
Fy kN
Fz kN Mx kNm
1871.878 -89.833 -0.563
0.045
251.701 -106.25 8.704
0.058

X mm
Y mm Z mm
Maximum Value
-0.082 -3.644 12.61
My kNm
-0.773
13.619
Mz kNm
276.338
278.831
273.462
271.715
223.74
Mz kNm
136.816
198.252
mm
13.13
52

Connections will be designed after the designer have chosen the winning tradeoff. The summary of design
of beams and columns are presented below
Table 4-7 Result of Design for Tradeoff B

Level
2ND FLOOR
3RD FLOOR
4TH FLOOR
5TH FLOOR
ROOF
W Section
W 18x65
W 16x67
W 14x82
W 12x87
W 14x68
Weight (kg/m)
96.85
99.83
122.18
129.63
101.32
Level
GRD-4TH FLR
4TH FLR-RF
W Section
W 21x111
W 8x24
Weight (kg/m)
165.39
35.67
53
4.3 Design Methodology for Tradeoff C

STRUCTURAL PLANS
FRAMING PLANS
NSCP
NBCP
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
STRUCTURAL MODEL
GEOMETRIC MODELING
LOAD MODELS
DEAD AND LIVE LOAD

LOAD COMBINATIONS
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
SHEAR DIAGRAMS
MOMENT DIAGRAMS
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
DESIGN SCHEDULES
DETAILING
54
Figure 4- 45 Second to Fifth Floor Framing Plan
55

4.3.3 Structural Models for Tradeoff C
Figure 4- 46 Perspective View of the Geometric Model for Tradeoff C
56
Figure 4- 47 Geometric Model of Tradeoff C

4.3.4 Load Models
structure.
57
58
59

60
Figure 4- 55 Moment Diagram for Tradeoff C
61
Figure 4-56 Shear Diagram for Tradeoff C
Figure 4-57 Axial Diagram for Tradeoff C
62
Figure 4- 58 Joint Displacement Diagram for Tradeoff C
63
Table 4- 8 Result of Analysis for Tradeoff C

LEVEL
2ND FLOOR
3RD FLOOR
4TH FLOOR
5TH FLOOR
ROOF
LEVEL
GRD-4TH FLR
4TH FLR-ROOF
ALL BRACING
Fx kN
-15.18
-28.971
-4.662
-11.519
21.565
MAXIMUM BEAM FORCES

Fy kN
Fz kN Mx kNm
150.771 -0.358
-0.435
180.004 3.853
0.521
134.516 0.869
0
137.174 1.133
0.003
140.436 10.716
-0.109

Fz
Fx kN
Fy kN
kN Mx kNm
0.31
3104.674 -39.021
8
0.001
0.30
1234.907 -52.109
8
0.001
My kNm
0.414
-4.992
-3.119
-4.016
-13.978
Mz kNm
207.258
209.954
214.965
220.3
147.644
My kNm
Mz kNm
-0.398
-55.789
-0.47
-76.961
MAXIMUM TENSION MEMBER FORCES

Fx kN
Fy kN Fz kN Mx kNm My kNm
361.228 -1.147 -0.24
0.005
-0.433
Mz kNm
1.05

X mm Y mm
Z mm
Maximum Value
-0.494 -3.514 13.908
mm
14.354
64

Connections will be designed after the designer have chosen the winning tradeoff. The summary of design
of beams and columns are presented below
Table 4- 9 Result of Design for Tradeoff C

Level
2ND FLOOR
3RD FLOOR
4TH FLOOR
5TH FLOOR
ROOF
BEAMS
W Section
W 12x72
W 16x57
W 14x61
W 12x72
W 12x50
Weight (kg/m)
107.28
84.93
90.89
107.28
74.50
Level
GRD-4TH FLR
4TH FLR-RF
COLUMNS
W Section
W 30x191
W 14x82
Weight (kg/m)
284.59
122.18
ALL
TENSION MEMBERS
L Section
Weight (kg/m)
L 6x3.5x3/8
38.39
65
4.4 Validation of Multiple Constraints, Tradeoffs, and Standards

In this part, the designer gathered all the results needed to be able to finally rank the tradeoffs depending
on the constraints enumerated in Chapter 2. Through the final designers ranking, the initial ranking that the
designer gave to each tradeoffs will be validated. The winning tradeoff will be the proposal of the designer
to the client.
4.4.1 Final Estimated Values
The estimated values for each tradeoff are presented below. The computation for the cost and duration of
manufacturing the materials in each tradeoff is presented in the Appendices.
Table 4- 10 Final Estimate of Values
Tradeoff A
SMRF
17,114,908
66
27.198
Economic (Php)
Constructability (Days)
Environmental (mm)
Tradeoff B
SMRF w/ Shear Walls
14,412,933
50
13.13
Tradeoff C
SMRF w/ Bracing
18,474,971
70
14.354
4.4.2 Final Designers Ranking

Table 4-11 Final Designers Ranking
Ability to Satisfy the Criterion
Criteria
Importance
Tradeoff A
Tradeoff B
Tradeoff C
SMRF
SMRF w/ Shear Walls
SMRF w/ Bracing
Economic
3.4
2.8
Constructability
2.58
2.14
Environmental
-0.17
4.15
21.48
55
34.88
Overall
For economic constraint, SMRF with Shear Walls got the governing rank because of the presence of
concrete shear walls, which lessens the forces to be resisted by the structural members, and thus, making
the members smaller and lighter. The SMRF with Bracing, whose bracing functions like the shear walls is
quite more costly than the SMRF. One possible reason is that the combination of structural frame and
bracing got higher amount than that of simple structural frame. Constructability constraint, it is almost
proportional to the economic constraint. For environmental constraint, the SMRF with Shear Walls, and
SMRF with Bracing, got a result with only a difference of almost 1 mm for lateral displacement, compared
to the SMRF only which has difference of 14 mm from the governing tradeoff.
66
After all the results were gathered, the designer now was able to conclude which of the three tradeoffs is
the best. In the table shown, the SMRF with Shear Walls got the highest rank of 55, getting governing ranks
in all criteria. The second in overall is the Shear Wall with Lateral X Bracing, which had a rank of 34.88. The
tradeoff that got lowest rank of 21.48 is the SMRF.
67
4.4 Influence of Multiple Constraints, Tradeoffs and Standards in the Final Design
Economic, constructability, and environmental are the constraints which influenced the design
process of all the alternatives studied by the designer. The charts below show the differences between all
of the tradeoffs.
Economic Constraint
The figure below shows the difference in the economic cost between the three tradeoffs in each
structural member. Knowing the total cost of the structure is essential both for the designer and the client,
so that one can easily choose between which tradeoff to take. The winning tradeoff in each might have a
very large discrepancy against the losing tradeoff, but sometimes have a very small difference, which can
change the mind of the client to pick the losing tradeoff, considering the other constraints in the design.
ECONOMIC CONSTRAINT
20,000,000
18,000,000
16,000,000
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
Cost
SMRF
SMRF with Shear Wall
SMRF with Bracing
Figure 4- 59 Economic Constraint Comparison
Constructability Constraint
68
The figure below shows the difference in the constructability between the two tradeoffs in each
structural member. Knowing the total duration of the structure is essential both for the designer and the
client, so that one can easily choose between which tradeoff to take. The winning tradeoff in each might
have a very large discrepancy against the losing tradeoff, but sometimes have a very small difference,
which can change the mind of the client to pick the losing tradeoff, considering the other constraints in the
design.
CONSTRUCTABILITY CONSTRAINT
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Duration
SMRF
SMRF with Bracing
Figure 4-60. Constructability Constraint Comparison
Environmental Constraint
The figure below shows the difference in the safety between the two tradeoffs in the beams of the
structure. Although only one structural part was designed with this kind of constraint, it is still necessary to
look at the outcome. Having a beam with a very much large possible deflection is very dangerous, thats
why the designer really need to consider this constraint.
69
SAFETY CONSTRAINT
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Lateral Displacement
SMRF
SMRF with Bracing
Figure 4- 61 Environmental Constraint Comparison
70
Chapter 5 : FINAL DESIGN

After all the processes done by the designer, he came up to the final design of the structure. The final
design of the structure consists of Special Moment Resisting Frames which will resist the gravity loads, and
Shear Walls which will resists the gravity loads. The following tables below show the sections to be used in
the construction of the seminary building.
Table 5-12 Design Schedule of the Structures
Level
2ND FLOOR
3RD FLOOR
4TH FLOOR
5TH FLOOR
ROOF
BEAMS
W Section
W 12x72
W 16x57
W 14x61
W 12x72
W 12x50
Weight (kg/m)
107.28
84.93
90.89
107.28
74.50
Level
GRD-4TH FLR
4TH FLR-RF
COLUMNS
W Section
W 30x191
W 14x82
Weight (kg/m)
284.59
122.18
TENSION MEMBERS
L Section
Weight (kg/m)
L 6x3.5x3/8
38.39
ALL
Orientation
Beam to Corner Column
Beam to Exterior Column
Beam to Interior Column
Column to Column Splice
CONNECTION
Plate
L 6x6x7/16
L 6x6x7/16
L 6x6x7/16
40 mm Plate
All Columns
BASE PLATE
N
650
B
400
Total Number of 25 mm Bolts

12
18
24
20
t
30
# of Anchor Bolts
6
71

Steel Design - Tradeoff On Structural System

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Steel Design - Tradeoff On Structural System

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

1

4.2.1 Structural Plan...............................................................................................................................43

Figure 4-18 Perspective View of Tradeoff B...................................................................................................44

CHAPTER :1PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.2 The Project

Figure 1- 1. Perspective of the Proposed Seminary

1.3 Project Location

Figure 1-2. Vicinity Map of the Seminary

1.4 Project Objectives

1.5 The Client

1.6 Project Scope and Limitation

The following were the limitations of the design project:

1.7 Project Development

IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN STANDARDS

PRESENTATION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL PLANS WITH INITIAL ESTIMATE

IDENTIFICATION OF DESIGN CONSTRAINTS,

LOAD IDENTIFICATION, STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS,

Figure 1- 3 Project Development Process

CHAPTER :2DESIGN INPUTS

2.1 Description of the Structure

Table 2-1 Total Areas and Functions per Floor

Ramps and Elevator

Class Rooms & Laboratories

Ramps and Elevator

Ramps and Elevator

Vice Rectors and Prefects Room

Toilet & Bath

Ramps and Elevator

Toilet & Bath

TOTAL FLOOR AREA

2.2 Classification of the Structure

Figure 2- 4 Distance of the Project Location to the Nearest Fault Line

2.2.3 Dead Loads and Live Loads

Table 2-2. Dead Loads and Live Loads of the Structure

2.3 Architectural Plans

Figure 2- 5 Ground Floor Plan of the Seminary

Figure 2-6 Second Floor Plan of the Seminary

Figure 2-7 Third Floor Plan of the Seminary

Figure 2- 8 Fourth Floor Plan of the Seminary

Figure 2-9 Fifth Floor Plan of the Seminary

Figure 2- 10 Front Elevation of the Seminary

Figure 2-11 Side View of the Seminary

Chapter 3 : DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS, AND STANDARDS

3.1 Design Constraints

3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints

3.3 Initial Comparison of Tradeoffs

Figure 3- 12 Ranking Scale for Importance Factor

Figure 3- 13 Ranking Scale for Satisfactory

Computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials:

Higher valueLower value

Subordinate rank =Governing rank (

3.3.2 Initial Assessment of Tradeoffs

3.3.3 Raw Designers Ranking

SMRF w/ Shear Walls

3.4 Design Standards

: UBC 97, ASCE 7-05

Chapter 4 : STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN

4.1 Design Methodology for Tradeoff A

DEAD AND LIVE LOAD

Figure 4- 14 Design Methodology for Tradeoff A

4.1.1 Structural Plan

Figure 4-15. Second Fifth Floor Framing Plan

Figure 4-16 Perspective View of Tradeoff A