CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE

4.1 Methodology
The designers came up with three possible trade-offs during the previous chapter. In this chapter, they
will be designing each trade-off in accordance with the national standards that they have specified in
Chapter 3. The three trade-offs will be designed using the Ultimate Strength Design Method (USD). The
design of the structure is divided into two parts, the first part will be the analysis and design of the
building structure and the second part will be the analysis and design of the foundation trade-offs. The
process on how each trade off will be designed is as discussed below.

4.2.1 Design of the Building Structure

START
 END OF PART 1

Figure 4.1 Design of Building Structure Process

4.2.2. Design of Trade-Offs

START
 COLUMN
• Get the column reactions from STAAD V8i analysis
REACTIONS

DESIGN LOAD
• Specify the design load combination.
COMBINATION

FACTOR OF
• Specify the factor of safety to be used.
SAFETY

• Calculate the ultimate and allowable soil bearing

SOIL BEARING capacity using the soil parameters from the
CAPACITY geotechnical report.

STRUCTURAL
• Analyze and design the structure in accordance
ANALYSIS AND with ACI-318 code.
DESIGN

STUCTURAL • Specify the details of each members through

DETAILS detailed drawings.

END OF PART 2

Figure 4.2 Design of Trade -Off Process

4.2 Analysis and Design of the Structure
4.2.1 Analysis Process

START
START

GEOMETRIC MODELING

DESIGN SPECIFICATION

LOAD DEFINITIONS

SEISMIC DEFINITION WIND LOAD DEFINITION

LOAD INPUTS

SELF-WEIGHT DEAD LOADS AND SUPER LIVE LOADS

IMPOSED DEAD LOADS
 LOAD COMBINATIONS

STRUCTRAL ANALYSIS

DESIGN OF STRCUTURAL MEMBERS

BEAMS SLABS COLUMNS

STRCUTURAL
DETAILING/SCHEDULING

COST ESTIMATE

END

Figure 4.3 Structure Analysis and Design Process

4.2.1.1 Structural Plans

 Figure 4.4 Geometric Model of the Building Structure

The following are the structural plans of the building.

Figure 4.5 Floor Framing Plan Second Floor
Figure 4.6 Floor Framing Plan Third Floor
Figure 4.7 Floor Framing Plan Roof Deck
Figure 4.8 Slab Schedule Second Floor and Third Floor
Figure 4.9 Slab Schedule Ground Floor and Roof Deck
4.2.1.2 Structural Loadings
The following are the load distribution on each slab and the load map for each floor.
Figure 4.11 Load Distribution Second
Figure 4.12 Load Distribution Third Floor
Figure 4.13 Load Distribution Roof Deck
Figure 4.14 Load Map Ground Floor
Figure 4.15 Load Map Second Floor
Figure 4.16 Load Map Third Floor
Figure 4.17 Load Map Roof Deck
4.2.1.2.1 Primary Loadings
The following are the shear and moment diagrams of the primary load cases generated via STAAD Vi8
Pro.

Figure 4.18 Shear (Y) and Moment (Z) Diagrams for Dead Load

Figure 4.19 Shear (Y) and Moment (Z) Diagrams for Live Load
Figure 4.20 Shear (Y) and Moment (Z) Diagrams for Earthquake Load (+ X axis)

Figure 4.21 Shear (Y) and Moment (Z) Diagrams for Earthquake Load (- X axis)

Figure 4.22 Shear (Y) and Moment (Z) Diagrams for Earthquake Load (+ Z axis)
 Figure 4.23 Shear (Y) and Moment (Z) Diagrams for Earthquake Load (- Z axis)

Figure 4.24 Shear (Y) and Moment (Z) Diagrams for Wind Load Load (X axis)

Figure 4.25 Shear (Y) and Moment (Z) Diagrams for Wind Load ( Z axis)

4.2.1.2.2 Load Combinations

The following are the graphs of the load combinations generated via STAAD Vi8 Pro.

Figure 4.26 1.2 DL + 1.6 LL

Figure 4.27 1.2 DL + 1.6 WL (X axis)

Figure 4.28 1.2 DL + 1.6 WL (Z axis)

Figure 4.29 1.2 DL + 1.0 LL + 1.0 EL (-X axis)

Figure 4.30 1.2 DL + 1.0 LL + 1.0 EL (+X axis)

Figure 4.31 1.2 DL + 1.0 LL + 1.0 EL (-Z axis)

Figure 4.32 1.2 DL + 1.0 LL + 1.0 EL (+Z axis)

Figure 4.33 1.0 DL + 0.75 LL + 0.75 WL (X axis)

Figure 4.34 1.0 DL + 0.75 LL + 0.75 WL (Z axis)

Figure 4.35 1.0 DL + 0.75 LL + EL/1.4 (-X axis)
Figure 4.36 1.0 DL + 0.75 LL + EL/1.4 (+X axis)

Figure 4.37 1.0 DL + 0.75 LL + EL/1.4 (-Z axis)

Figure 4.38 1.0 DL + 0.75 LL + EL/1.4 (+Z axis)

Figure 4.39 0.6 DL + 1.0 WL (X axis)

Figure 4.40 0.6 DL + 1.0 WL (X axis)

Figure 4.41 0.6 DL + EL/1.4 (-X axis)

Figure 4.42 0.6 DL + EL/1.4 (+X axis)
Figure 4.43 0.6 DL + EL/1.4 (-Z axis)
Figure 4.44 0.6 DL + EL/1.4 (+Z axis)

Figure 4.45 1.0 DL + 1.0 LL

Figure 4.46 1.0 DL + 1.0 LL + 1.0 WL (X axis)
Figure 4.47 1.0 DL + 1.0 LL + 1.0 WL (Z axis)

Figure 4.48 1.0 DL + 1.0 LL + EL/1.4 (-X axis)

Figure 4.49 1.0 DL + 1.0 LL + EL/1.4 (+X axis)

Figure 4.50 1.0 DL + 1.0 LL + EL/1.4 (-Z axis)

 Figure 4.51 1.0 DL + 1.0 LL + EL/1.4 (+Z axis)

4.2.1.3 Structural Design

The following figures show the governing load combination on the structural members these
load combinations are the ones used to design the sections of the structural members. The
slabs were designed and analyzed separately.

4.2.1.3.1 Summary of Beam Loads

A. Ground Floor

Table 4.1a Summary of Beam Loads

B. Second Floor
 Table 4.1b Summary of Beam Loads

C. Third Floor

Table 4.1c Summary of Beam Loads

D. Roof Deck
 Table 4.1d Summary of Beam Loads

4.2.1.3.2 Summary of Column Loads

A. Ground Floor

Table 4.2a Summary of Column Loads

B. Second Floor
 Table 4.2b Summary of Column Loads

C. Third Floor

Table 4.2c Summary of Column Loads

Given the the main structure sits upon a weak type of soil, and that the ground floor is an open area, the
designers find it relevant that the structure’s stability should be thoroughly checked. In lieu with this, the
designers checked the structure against soft storey and drift. Here are results of their analysis in STAAD
V8i.

A. Results of Check Against Soft Storey

Table 4. 3a Soft Storey Check (+X axis)

Table 4. 3b Soft Storey Check (-X axis)

Table 4. 3c Soft Storey Check (+Z axis)

 Table 4. 3d Soft Storey Check (-Z axis)

The result of the soft storey check shows that there is no soft storey detected in the structures.

B. Results of Check Against Maximum Allowable Storey Drift

According to the NSCP 2010 earthquake provisions, the equation

h
 M  0 .7 R = 0.025h
238
The structure then was checked against this provision and the result is as follows.
Table 4.4 a Storey Drift Results
Table 4.4 b Storey Drift Results

Table 4.4 c Storey Drift Results

 Table 4.4 d Storey Drift Results

The storey drift results show that the structure passed against the maximum allowable storey drift in all
of the given load combinations.
4.2.2 Design Process
The structural members of the building will be design using the STAAD RCDC.

4.2.2.1 Design Process through STAAD RCDC

START

LOAD STAAD ANALYSIS

SELECT STRUCTURAL MEMBER TO BE DESIGNED

SPECIFY DESIGN PARAMETERS

 LOAD COMBINATIONS

ULTIMATE LOADS SERVICE LOADS

RUN ANALYSIS

CHECK IF SECTIONS PASSED

OR FAILED

IF SECTION PASSED
IF SECTION FAILED

REDESIGN

RE - RUN ANALYSIS

PERFORM RANDOM MANUAL

COMPUTATION CHEKS

STRUCTURAL
DETAILING/SCHEDULING
 END

Figure 4. 52 RCDC Design Process

4.2.2.1 Beam Design Process through STAAD RCDC

Step 1: Load the geometry of the model created in STAAD analysis to STAAD RCDC.
Step 2 : Select the floor level of the beams to be designed.
Step 3 : Select the design code to be used. In this case, the designer used the ACI-318 design code.
Step 4: Load the STAAD RCDC to start designing.
Step 5: Specify the design parameters. In this design, the designer used the following design
parameters:
a. Fy = 414 MPa
b. Fc = 28 MPa
c. Main Steel Reinforcement bars diameter range 16 mm to 32 mm
d. Lateral Ties diameter range 10mm to 16 mm
e. Aggregate size = 20 mm (3/4 in.)
f. The beam s shall be checked against bending, shear, deflection, and ductility.
Step 6: Load the load combinations used in STAAD analysis.
Step 7: Click Auto Design.
Step 8: Check if any beam failed.
Step 9: If a beam fails, check the mode of failure where it fails and re-evaluate the design parameters.
Step 10: Click Re-Design.
Step 11: Check if the beam will be adequate this time. If it is already adequate, Click Accept. If not,
repeat Step 9.
Step 12: Once all beams passed the design, results will appear on the screen and the designs will be
given in detail.

4.2.2.2 Slab Design Process through STAAD RCDC

Step 1: Load the geometry of the model created in STAAD analysis to STAAD RCDC.
Step 2 : Select the floor level of the slabs to be designed.
Step 3 : Select the design code to be used. In this case, the designer used the ACI-318 design code.
Step 4: Load the STAAD RCDC to start designing.
Step 5: Specify the design parameters. In this design, the designer used the following design
parameters:
a. Fy = 414 MPa
b. Fc = 28 MPa
c. Main Steel Reinforcement bars diameter range 16 mm to 32 mm
d. Lateral Ties diameter range 10mm to 16 mm
e. Aggregate size = 20 mm (3/4 in.)
Step 6: Load the load combinations used in STAAD analysis.
Step 7: Click Auto Design.
Step 8: STAAD RCDC will automatically design the slabs in the most optimum way. The designs will be
given in detail.

4.2.2.2 Column Design Process through STAAD RCDC

Step 1: Load the geometry of the model created in STAAD analysis to STAAD RCDC.
Step 2 : Select the floor level of the beams to be designed.
Step 3 : Select the design code to be used. In this case, the designer used the ACI-318 design code.
Step 4: Load the STAAD RCDC to start designing.
Step 5: Specify the design parameters. In this design, the designer used the following design
parameters:
a. Fy = 414 MPa
b. Fc = 28 MPa
c. Main Steel Reinforcement bars diameter range 16 mm to 32 mm
d. Lateral Ties diameter range 10mm to 16 mm
e. Aggregate size = 20 mm (3/4 in.)
f. The columns shall be checked against bending, shear, and ductility.
Step 6: Load the load combinations used in STAAD analysis.
Step 7: Click Auto Design.
Step 8: Check if any column failed.
Step 9: If a column fails, check the mode of failure where it fails and re-evaluate the design parameters.
Step 10: Click Re-Design.
Step 11: Check if the beam will be adequate this time. If it is already adequate, Click Accept. If not,
repeat Step 9.
Note: Most columns fail due to shear. This is because the designer opted to check the shear connection
of beam and column. Redesigning of section will be necessary in type of failure.

Step 12: Once all columns passed the design, results will appear on the screen and the designs will be
given in detail.

4.2.3 Design Results for Slab, Beam and Column

The following are the design results of the design analysis through the STAAD RCDC software.
4.3 Design of Trade-Off 1 (Research Trade - Off): Helical Pile Systems
4.3.1 Design Process

START
 COLUMN • Get the column reactions for dead load
LOADINGS and live load from the staad analysis.

PILE LOADING • Solve for the loading on each pile.

SOIL BEARING • Solve for the ultimate soil bearing capacity

CAPACITY and the allowable soil bearing capacity.

DESIGN THE • Design the helical pile and solve for its
PILE ultimate capacity.

STRUCTURAL • Prepare a structural plan for the trade - off.

DRAWINGS

COST • Estimate the cost of the trade - off.

ESTIMATE

END

Figure 4. 53 Helical Pile Systems Design Process

4.3.2 Structural Loadings
From obtaining the reaction of each column based from the successful analysis of STAAD, the
designers solved for the loading on each pile through manual computation. The computation is
documaneted as follows.

Helical Pile Load Analysis

SLAB ON GRADE

DATA USED

Depth (m) N Value B (m) W (m) Φ Df (m) FS

3.5000 6.0000 24.0000 8.0000 10.0000 0.0000 2.0000

FOR MAT 25.0000 9.0000

LIVE
DEAD LOAD
LOAD

kN NAME kN NAME kN NAME kN

C1 319.6680 C11 725.7160 C1 12.6720 C11 252.5890

C2 232.3800 C12 832.6790 C2 32.1700 C12 168.7210

C3 324.2030 C13 640.6490 C3 37.0320 C13 122.5590

C4 340.1090 C14 681.7530 C4 61.5310 C14 198.7390

C5 644.1690 C15 586.7200 C5 123.1980 C15 189.7430

C6 685.6960 C16 611.2190 C6 199.1840 C16 118.7560

C7 618.6000 C17 326.8760 C7 190.4700 C17 13.9010

C8 629.4650 C18 239.5230 C8 119.6690 C18 33.7140

C9 845.9520 C19 387.5440 C9 168.6850 C19 75.4590

C10 736.6000 C20 390.6340 C10 252.4050 C20 51.4830

TOTAL DEAD LOAD

DL = 10800.1550 kN
TOTAL LIVE LOAD

LL = 2422.6800 kN

SERVICE LOAD

SERVICE LOAD

NAME kN NAME kN

PERIMETER
C1 332.3400 C11 978.3050
COLUMN

INTERNAL
C2 264.5500 C12 1001.4000
COLUMN

C3 361.2350 C13 763.2080

C4 401.6400 C14 880.4920

C5 767.3670 C15 776.4630

C6 884.8800 C16 729.9750

C7 809.0700 C17 340.7770

C8 749.1340 C18 273.2370

C9 1014.6370 C19 463.0030

C10 989.0050 C20 442.1170

SL = 13222.8350 kN

FACTORED LOAD

According to ACI 318-95 (Section 9.2), the Factored Load U = 1.4 DL + 1.7 (LL)

NAME kN NAME kN

PERIMETER
C1 469.0776 C11 1445.4037
COLUMN

C2 380.0210 C12 1452.5763 INTERNAL

 COLUMN

C3 516.8386 C13 1105.2589

C4 580.7553 C14 1292.3105

C5 1111.2732 C15 1143.9711

C6 1298.5872 C16 1057.5918

C7 1189.8390 C17 481.2581

C8 1084.6883 C18 392.6460

C9 1471.0973 C19 670.8419

C10 1460.3285 C20 634.4087

FL = 19238.7730 kN

MOMENT OF INERTIA

Ix = 1518.7500 m4

Iy = 11718.7500 m4

ECCENTRICITY ABOUT X AND Y AXIS

ECCENTRICITY AT X

X=4m X = 12 m

SL = 264.5500 kN SL = 749.1340 kN

809.0700 kN 749.1340 kN

1001.4000 kN 763.2080 kN

340.7770 kN 273.2370 kN

X = 20 m X = 24 m
SL = 401.6400 kN SL = 767.3670 kN

1014.6370 kN 989.0050 kN

880.4920 kN 776.4630 kN

463.0030 kN 442.1170 kN

13222.8350

x' = 12.6050 m

ex = 0.6050 m

ECCENTRICITY AT Y

Y=3m Y=5m

SL = 978.3050 kN SL = 884.8800 kN

1001.4000 kN 809.0700 kN

763.2080 kN 749.1340 kN

880.4920 kN 1014.6370 kN

776.4630 kN 989.0050 kN

Y=8m

SL = 332.3400 kN

264.5500 kN

361.2350 kN

401.6400 kN

767.3670 kN

y' = 3.9666 m
 ey = -0.0334 m

MOMENTS CAUSED BY ECCENTRICITY

Mx = 641.7127 kN-m

My = 11639.7440 kN-m

STRUCTURE'S
PRESSURE LOAD

Perimeter Columns

Q DL = 29.11580889 kPa

Q LL = 6.461497778 kPa

Interiror Columns

Q DL = 18.88488 kPa

Q LL = 4.305968889 kPa

TRANSFER OF LOADS FROM SLAB ON

GRADE TO

GRADE BEAMS

Uniform Load on
Grade Beams

Perimeter Columns

W DL = 262.04228 kN/m
W LL = 58.15348 kN/m

Interior Columns

W DL = 169.96392 kN/m

W LL = 38.75372 kN/m

LOADING ON EACH PILE

Peirmeter Piles

S= 1.5 m

P DL = 393.06342 kN
P LL = 87.23022 kN
Interior Piles

S= 2 m

P DL = 339.92784 kN
P LL = 77.50744 kN

4.3.3 Structural Design

From obtaining the loading on each pile via manual computation, the designers analyzed the load
through a HelixPile. A software developed by RamJack, a pile specialist company from the United
States, which analyzes and designs a Helical Piles. The results of designing in the software are as
follow.
4.3.3.1 Analysis and Design of Exterior Pile

Table 4.5 a Basic Analysis Assumptions

Table 4.5 b Analysis Summary for Helical Pile For Critical Stage

Table 4.5 c Settlement Analysis Result Summary

 Table 4.5 d Depth VS. Capacity Summary

Table 4.5 e Helical Anchor Section Data

Table 4.5 f Helical Pile Analysis Summary for All Stages (Design Values)

Table 4.5 g Helical Pile Analysis Summary for All Stages (Ultimate Values)

Table 4.5 h Individual Plate results Stage for Compression

Figure 4.54 Design Section Failure Mode Results
4.3.3.1 Analysis and Design of Interior Pile

Table 4.6 a Basic Analysis Assumptions

Table 4.6 b Analysis Summary for Helical Pile For Critical Stage
 Table 4.6 c Settlement Analysis Result Summary

Table 4.6 d Depth VS. Capacity Summary

Table 4.6 e Helical Anchor Section Data

Table 4.6 f Helical Pile Analysis Summary for All Stages (Design Values)

Table 4.6 g Helical Pile Analysis Summary for All Stages (Ultimate Values)

Table 4.6 h Individual Plate results Stage for Compression

 Figure 4.55 Design Section Failure Mode Results
4.3.4 Geometric Modeling and Drawing
Figure 4.56 Exterior Helical Pile
 Figure 4.56 Interior Helical Pile
4.3.5 Cost Estimate
4.3 Design of Trade-Off 2: Flat Plate Mat Foundation
4.3.1 Design Process

START
 • Get the column reactions for dead load and live load from
COLUMN LOADINGS
the staad analysis.

CALCULATE SERVICE LOAD AND

FACTORED LOAD • Detemine the service and factored loads

• Determine the moment of inertia of the mat along x and y

DETERMINE MOMENT OF INERTIA
axes.

DETERMINE ECCENTRICITY • Detemine the eccenticity of the loads along x and y axes.

DETERMINE MOMENTS CAUSED BY

ECCENTRICITY
• Determine the moments caused by the eccenticities.

DETERMINE GROSS ULTIMATE

BEARING CAPACITY
• Determine the gross ultimate bearing capacity.

DETERMINE NET ULTIMATE AND • Determine the net ultimate and ad allowable bearing
ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY capacities.

• Design the thickness and required reinforcement for the

DESIGN MAT
mat.

COST ESTIMATE • Estimate the cost of the trade - off.

END

Figure 4. 57 Flat Plate Mat Foundation Design Process

4.3.2 Structural Loadings
The loading on the mat were determined through manual calculation. The documentation of the
calculation is as follows.

Mat Foundation Design

Flat Plate Mat Foundation

DATA USED

Unit
Depth (m) Weight c (kN/m2) q (kPa) B (m) W (m) Φ Df (m) FS
(kN/m3)

3.500
3.5000 8.8000 14.7200 52.8000 24.0000 8.0000 10.0000 3.0000
0

FOR MAT 25.0000 9.0000

LIVE
DEAD LOAD
LOAD

NAME kN NAME kN NAME kN NAME kN

252.589
C1 319.6680 C11 725.7160 C1 12.6720 C11
0

168.721
C2 232.3800 C12 832.6790 C2 32.1700 C12
0

122.559
C3 324.2030 C13 640.6490 C3 37.0320 C13
0

198.739
C4 340.1090 C14 681.7530 C4 61.5310 C14
0

189.743
C5 644.1690 C15 586.7200 C5 123.1980 C15
0

118.756
C6 685.6960 C16 611.2190 C6 199.1840 C16
0

C7 618.6000 C17 326.8760 C7 190.4700 C17 13.9010

C8 629.4650 C18 239.5230 C8 119.6690 C18 33.7140

C9 845.9520 C19 387.5440 C9 168.6850 C19 75.4590

C10 736.6000 C20 390.6340 C10 252.4050 C20 51.4830

TOTAL DEAD LOAD

 10800.155
DL = kN
0

TOTAL LIVE LOAD

LL = 2422.6800 kN

SERVICE LOAD

SERVICE LOAD

NAME kN NAME kN

C1 332.3400 C11 978.3050 PERIMETER COLUMN

C2 264.5500 C12 1001.4000 INTERNAL COLUMN

C3 361.2350 C13 763.2080

C4 401.6400 C14 880.4920

C5 767.3670 C15 776.4630

C6 884.8800 C16 729.9750

C7 809.0700 C17 340.7770

C8 749.1340 C18 273.2370

1014.637
C9 C19 463.0030
0

C10 989.0050 C20 442.1170

13222.835
SL = kN
0
FACTORED LOAD

According to ACI 318-95 (Section 9.2), the Factored Load U = 1.4 DL + 1.7 (LL)

NAME kN NAME kN

PERIMETE
C1 469.0776 C11 1445.4037
R COLUMN

INTERNAL
C2 380.0210 C12 1452.5763
COLUMN

C3 516.8386 C13 1105.2589

C4 580.7553 C14 1292.3105

1111.273
C5 C15 1143.9711
2

1298.587
C6 C16 1057.5918
2

1189.839
C7 C17 481.2581
0

1084.688
C8 C18 392.6460
3

1471.097
C9 C19 670.8419
3

1460.328
C10 C20 634.4087
5

19238.773
FL = kN
0

MOMENT OF INERTIA

Ix = 1518.7500 m4

Iy = 11718.750 m4
 0

ECCENTRICITY ABOUT X AND Y AXIS

ECCENTRICITY AT X

X=4m X = 12 m

SL = 264.5500 kN SL = 749.1340 kN

809.0700 kN 749.1340 kN

1001.400
kN 763.2080 kN
0

340.7770 kN 273.2370 kN

X = 20 m X = 24 m

SL = 401.6400 kN SL = 767.3670 kN

1014.637
kN 989.0050 kN
0

880.4920 kN 776.4630 kN

463.0030 kN 442.1170 kN

13222.835
0

x' = 12.6050 m

ex = 0.6050 m

ECCENTRICITY AT Y

Y=3m Y=5m

SL = 978.3050 kN SL = 884.8800 kN

1001.400
kN 809.0700 kN
0

763.2080 kN 749.1340 kN
 1014.637
880.4920 kN kN
0

776.4630 kN 989.0050 kN

Y=8m

SL = 332.3400 kN

264.5500 kN

361.2350 kN

401.6400 kN

767.3670 kN

y' = 3.9666 m

ey = -0.0334 m

MOMENTS CAUSED BY ECCENTRICITY

Mx = 641.7127 kN-m

11639.744
My = kN-m
0

GROSS ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY

 Bearing Capacity Factors

If Φ = 10

Nc = 8.3449

Nq = 2.4714

Nγ = 1.2242

Shape Factors

Fcs = 1.1066

Fqs = 1.0635

Fγs = 0.8560

Depth Factors

0.3889 < 1.0000

Fcd = 1.1556

Fcd = 1.1329
 Fγd = 1.0000

Inclination Factors

Fci = Fqi = 1.0000

Fγi = 1.0000

c' = 14.7200 kN/m2

qu = 157.0792 + 157.2220 + 46.1089

qu = 360.4101 kN/m2

NET ULTIMATE
BEARING CAPACITY

qnet(u) = 307.6101 kN/m2

NET ALLOWABLE
BEARING CAPACITY

qnet(all) = 102.5367 kN/m2

SOIL PRESSURE
BELOW MAT
 A = 260.0000 m2

q= 73.9953 0.4225 x 0.9933 y

qnet
0.9933 q
POINT Q/A x (m) 0.4225 y (m) and
(kN/m2)
q

A 73.9953 -13.0000 -5.4928 4.0000 3.9730 72.4755 <

B 73.9953 -10.0000 -4.2253 4.0000 3.9730 73.7430 <

C 73.9953 -8.0000 -3.3802 4.0000 3.9730 74.5881 <

D 73.9953 -4.0000 -1.6901 4.0000 3.9730 76.2782 <

E 73.9953 0.0000 0.0000 4.0000 3.9730 77.9683 <

F 73.9953 4.0000 1.6901 4.0000 3.9730 79.6584 <

G 73.9953 8.0000 3.3802 4.0000 3.9730 81.3485 <

H 73.9953 10.0000 4.2253 4.0000 3.9730 82.1936 <

I 73.9953 13.0000 5.4928 4.0000 3.9730 83.4612 <

J 73.9953 13.0000 5.4928 4.0000 3.9730 83.4612 <

K 73.9953 10.0000 4.2253 4.0000 3.9730 82.1936 <

L 73.9953 8.0000 3.3802 4.0000 3.9730 81.3485 <

M 73.9953 4.0000 1.6901 4.0000 3.9730 79.6584 <

N 73.9953 0.0000 0.0000 4.0000 3.9730 77.9683 <

O 73.9953 -4.0000 -1.6901 4.0000 3.9730 76.2782 <

P 73.9953 -8.0000 -3.3802 4.0000 3.9730 74.5881 <

Q 73.9953 -10.0000 -4.2253 4.0000 3.9730 73.7430 <

 R 73.9953 -13.0000 -5.4928 4.0000 3.9730 72.4755 <

The soil pressures at all points are less than the net allowable soil bearing capacity.

THICKNESS OF SLAB

Critical Perimeter Column = C10

From ACI 318-95,

Vu = 1460.3285 kN

Vc = 1.5292 (700d+2d^2)

d= 537.8060 mm

if bar = 25.0000 mm

concrete cover = 75.0000 mm

h= 650.0000 mm

Critical Internal Column = C9

From ACI 318-95,

Vu = 1471.0973 kN

Vc = 1.5292 (2600d+4d^2)

d= 263.3189 mm

if bar = 25.0000 mm

concrete cover = 75.0000 mm

h= 375.0000 mm

h= 650.0000 mm

AVERAGE SOIL
PRESSURE

For Strip ABQR width = 2.5000 m

q1= 73.1093 kN/m2

 q2= 73.1093 kN/m2

qave= 73.1093 kN/m2

For Strip BCDKLM width = 6.0000 m

q3= 74.8698 kN/m2

q4= 81.0668 kN/m2

qave= 77.9683 kN/m2

For Strip DEFMNO width = 8.0000 m

q5= 77.9683 kN/m2

q6= 77.9683 kN/m2

 qave= 77.9683 kN/m2

For Strip FGHKLM width = 6.0000 m

q7= 81.0668 kN/m2

q8= 81.0668 kN/m2

qave= 81.0668 kN/m2

For Strip HIJK width = 2.5000 m

q9= 82.8274 kN/m2

q10= 82.8274 kN/m2

qave= 82.8274 kN/m2

TOTAL SOIL
REACTION
Soil Reaction for Strip ABQR = 1644.9582 kN

Soil Reaction for Strip BCDKLM = 4210.2889 kN

Soil Reaction for Strip DEFMNO = 5613.7186 kN

Soil Reaction for Strip FGHKLM = 4377.6096 kN

Soil Reaction for Strip HIJK = 1863.6159 kN

TOTAL 17710.1912 kN

Checking For ΣFv =0

FL ≥ ΣR

17710.19
19238.7730 >
12

OK!

AVERAGE LOAD

Soil Load for Strip ABQR = 2171.8848 kN

Soil Load for Strip

= 1790.8314 kN
BCDKLM

Soil Load for Strip

= 1588.7001 kN
DEFMNO

Soil Load for Strip

= 2048.0359 kN
FGHKLM

Soil Load for Strip HIJK = 2216.4044 kN

MODIFIED AVERAGE
SOIL PRESSURE

Modified Ave. Soil Pressure for Strip ABQR = 96.5282 kN

Modified Ave. Soil Pressure for Strip BCDKLM = 33.1635 kN

Modified Ave. Soil Pressure for DEFMNO = 22.0653 kN

Modified Ave. Soil Pressure for Strip FGHKLM = 37.9266 kN

Modified Ave. Soil Pressure for Strip HIJK = 98.5069 kN

COLUMN LOAD MODIFICATION FACTOR

F for Strip ABQR = 0.7424

F for Strip BCDKLM = 0.7413

F for DEFMNO = 0.7400

F for Strip FGHKLM = 0.7421

F for Strip HIJK = 0.7450

4.3.3 Structural Design

The structural requirements for this trade - off was also computed manually. The computation is as
follows.
STEEL REINFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS

From the moment diagrams, the maximum moments on the mat are

From Strip HIJK

Max. Positive Moment = 117.9670 kN

Ma. Negative Moment = 124.2620 kN

LOAD FACTOR = 1.3422

25 mm bars

Max. Negative Moment

M' = 49.7048 kN-m/m

Mu = 66.7159 kN - m/m

= 0.9000

fy = 414.0000 MPa

f'c = 28.0000 MPa

d= 650.0000 mm

Rn = 0.1755

preq = 0.0004
pmin = 0.0034

Use pmin = 0.0034

As = 2198.0676 mm2

N= 4.4779 = 5.0000 bars /m

As = 2454.3693 mm2

s= 200.0000 mm

s= 1950.0000 mm

s= 450.0000 mm

USE s = 200.0000 mm

Provide 25 mm dia. bars at 200 mm center - to - center for top steel

Because negative moment occurs at Midway of strip HIJK, reinforcement should be provided.

M' = 47.1868 kN-m/m

Mu = 63.3361 kN - m/m

= 0.9000

fy = 414.0000 MPa

f'c = 28.0000 MPa

d= 650.0000 mm

Rn = 0.1666

preq = 0.0004

pmin = 0.0034

Use pmin = 0.0034

 As = 2198.0676 mm2

N= 4.4779 = 5.0000 bars /m

As = 2454.3693 mm2

s= 200.0000 mm

s= 1950.0000 mm

s= 450.0000 mm

USE s = 200.0000 mm

Provide 25 mm dia. bars at 200 mm center - to - center for top steel

Max. Positive Moment

M' = 47.1868 kN-m/m

Mu = 63.3361 kN - m/m

= 0.9000

fy = 414.0000 MPa

f'c = 28.0000 MPa

d= 650.0000 mm

Rn = 0.1666

preq = 0.0004

pmin = 0.0034

Use pmin = 0.0034

As = 2198.0676 mm2
 N= 4.4779 = 5.0000 bars /m

As = 2454.3693 mm2

s= 200.0000 mm

s= 1950.0000 mm

s= 450.0000 mm

USE s = 200.0000 mm

Provide 25 mm dia. bars at 200 mm center - to - center for bottom steel

4.3.4 Geometric Modeling and Drawing

The following page contains the structural drawing for this trade - off.
Figure 4. 58 Flat Plate Mat Foundation Plan and Details
4.3.5 Structural Analysis
4.3 Design of Trade-Off 2:
4.3.1 Design Process
4.3.2 Structural Loadings
4.3.3 Structural Design
4.3.4 Geometric Modeling
4.3.5 Structural Analysis

4.4 Validation of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards

4.7 Trade-off Assessment
4.7.1 Economic Constraint
4.7.2 Sustainability Constraint
4.7.3Constructability Constraint
4.7.4 Environmental Constraint