Ermita Rizal Park: Higher Value Lower Value Higher Value Rank

DESIGN TRADE-OFFS
The National Library of the Philippines complex, located in Ermita on a portion of Rizal Park facing
T.M. Kalaw Avenue is to be designed using Reinforced Concrete Design (RCD) - using concrete materials
and steel reinforcement bars, and Structural Steel Design (SSD). Ultimate Strength Design (USD) and
Working Stress Design (WSD) will undergo comparison through the design constraints for reinforced
concrete while Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) and Allowable Stress Design (ASD) for
structural steel.
TRADE OFFS
On all the Raw Designer Ranking Tables that will be presented on this chapter, Economic (cost)
consideration will be given the highest rank of fifty percent (50%) since the cost is the varying constraint
among others. It is the collective cost composed primarily of the materials, labor, and management, thus,
making the decisions on the last two constraints dependent to it.
The next constraint to the Economic is the Safety will be given the rank of thirty percent (30%). As
designers, it is expected that every design should pass the parameters concerning safety and capacity of
the section. Therefore, it is assumed that all the design must be adequate to carry the imposed loads. It is
also assumed that all the design is all qualified to the requirement stated in the National Building Code of
the Philippines.
Finally, the last constraint, which is the Constructability, will be given the rank of twenty percent
(20%). For it will show the duration of the project.
The results will undergo analysis on which design method is fits best with the design constraints
that help effective project completion. The Final Design will be based on the designer’s ranking with
regards to design constraints.
Raw Designer Ranking

Higher Value−Lower Value
1−¿ ∨¿
Higher Value
¿
Rank=¿
I. REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURAL MEMBER (BEAM)
RCD Design Technology: Ultimate Strength Design (USD) vs. Working Stress Design (WSD)
Two design methods were evaluated under RCD technology: 1.) USD 2.) WSD
Economic Cost
Table 4.1.1: Cost comparison of USD and WSD for Critical Beam 9MB-27
Ultimate
Unit Strength Working Stress Design
Design
Designation 9MB-27 9MB-27
Section mm 700 x 650 650 x 1150
Length m 2.0 2.0
3
Volume of Concrete m 0.91 1.495
Area of Formworks m² 4 5.9
Number of Reinforcing bars Pcs 18 39
Weight of Reinforcing bars Kg 80.22 173.81
Material Cost Php 7,189.76 12,901.98
Labor Cost Php 680.0037 1,249.5331
Total Cost Php 7,869.7637 14,151.5131
Table 4.1.1 shows the resulting section of beam 9MB-27. Being designed using USD and WSD methods,
USD yield section, 700x650 mm. WSD yield section, 650x1150
The table show the cost estimate that includes labor and material cost. Using USD, the section is estimated
to cost Php 7,869.7637 while Php 14,843.5241 for WSD method. The detailed computation of the cost
can be found at the end of this chapter.
Comparing the two design methods, it can be therefore concluded that USD is more economical compared
to WSD.
Ease of Construction
Table 4.1.2 Labor Requirement Comparison of USD and WSD for Beam 9MB-27
Working Stress
Unit Ultimate Strength Design
Design
Section mm 700 x 650 650 x 1150
Length m 2.0 2.0
Volume of Concrete mᶟ 0.91 1.495
Number of Reinforcing bars Pcs 18 39
Area of Formworks m² 4 5.9
Weight of Reinforcing bars Kg 80.22 173.81
Labor Requirement for man-hour 0.27 0.45
Concrete
Formworks
Reinforcing
Total Labor Requirement man-hour 7.9 14.26
Table 4.1.2 shows the labor requirement in the construction of the Beam 9MB-27. The beam is
designed using two methods, one is the Ultimate Strength design (USD) and the other one using Working
Stress design (WSD). The design yields a section of 700 x 650 mm using USD while 650 x 1150 mm using
WSD. The detailed computation can be seen in Chapter 3 of the design samples for beam.
The table shows the labor requirement estimate of the construction of the beam 9MB-27. Using
USD, it is estimated that the beam will require 7.9 man-hours to be installed while using WSD, the beam
will require around 14.26 man-hours to install in its place.
Comparing the two design methods, it can be therefore concluded that USD is easier and quicker
to construct compared to WSD.
Factor of Safety
Table 4.1.3: Factor of Safety Comparison of USD and WSD for Beam 9MB-27
Unit Ultimate Strength Design Working Stress Design

Section 700 x 650 650 x 1150
Moment Capacity kN-m 1179.85 785.94
Actual Moment kN-m 1002.58 727.41
Factor of Safety - 1.20 1.08
Table 4.1.3 shows the comparison of moment capacity and design moment of Beam 9MB-27
using USD and WSD with sections 700x650 mm and 650x1150, respectively, and span of 6.095 m. The
detailed computation can be seen in the Chapter 3 of the design samples for beams.
The table shows the factors of safety for USD and WSD methods. For USD, the factor of safety is
1.20, while 1.08 for WSD.
It clearly shows that the USD design produce greater factor of safety compared to WSD.
Table 4.1.4: Raw Designer Ranking
Ability to Satisfy the Criterion

Criterion
Design Criteria Unit Importance Ultimate Strength Working Stress
Factor Design Design
Value Rank Value Rank
7,869.763 14,151.51
Economic Cost Php 50 5 2.78
7 3
Factor of Safety - 30 1.20 5 1.08 4.5
Ease of Construction Man – hour 20 7.9 5 14.26 2.77
Overall Rank 500 329.4
Table 4.1.4 shows the Raw Designer Ranking on the Ultimate Strength Design (USD) and Working
Stress Design (WSD). The cost of USD is more economical than WSD, thus ranked 5, while the WSD
ranked 2.78. The USD provides a percentage of safety compared to WSD, thus, USD ranked 5 while WSD
ranked 4.5. In ease of construction, USD is easier than WSD with respect to man-hour unit of construction,
thus, USD ranked 5 while WSD ranked 2.77.
Using the standard weighted sum matrix analysis of Alger and Hays (as cited by Otto and
Antonsson, 1991), the USD produces as overall rank of 500, WSD produces an overall rank of 329.4. This
technique guided the designer to finally consider the Reinforced Concrete Design Technology using
Ultimate Strength Design for the beam members.
II. REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURAL MEMBER (COLUMN)
RCD Design Technology: Ultimate Strength Design (USD) vs. Working Stress Design (WSD)
Two design methods were evaluated under RCD technology: 1.) USD 2.) WSD
Economic Cost
Table 4.2.1: Cost comparison of USD and WSD for Column No. 21 (6C-1)

Designation 6C-1 6C-1
Section mm 850 x 850 900 x 900
Length m 3.0 3.0
3
Volume of Concrete m 2.1675 2.43
Area of Formworks m² 7.65 8.1
Number of Reinforcing
Pcs 20 24
bars
Weight of Reinforcing
Kg 133.7 160.44
bars
Labor Cost Php 2,128.6862 2,338.7845
Total Cost Php 16,228.9112 18,305.8045
Table 4.2.1 shows the resulting section of column 6SC-1. Being designed using USD and WSD
methods, USD yield section, 850 x 850 mm. WSD yield section, 900 x 900.
The table show the cost estimate that includes labor and material cost. Using USD, the section is
estimated to cost Php 16,228.9112 while Php 18,305.8045 for WSD method. The detailed computation
of the cost can be found at the end of this chapter.
Comparing the two design methods, it can be therefore concluded that USD is more economical
compared to WSD.
Table 4.2.2 Labor Requirement Comparison of USD and WSD for Column No. 21 (6C-1)
Unit Ultimate Strength Working Stress

Design Design
Section mm 850 x 850 900 x 900
Length m 3.0 3.0
Volume of Concrete m3 2.1675 2.43
Area of Formworks m² 7.65 8.1
Number of Reinforcing bars pcs 20 24
Weight of Reinforcing bars kg 133.7 160.44
Labor Requirement for Concrete man-hour 0.66 0.75
Labor Requirement for Formworks man-hour 7.65 8.1
Labor Requirement for Reinforcing man-hour 6.08 7.3

Table 4.2.2 shows the labor requirement in the construction of the Column 6SC-1. The column is
designed using two methods, one is the Ultimate Strength design (USD) and the other one using Working
Stress design (WSD). The design yields a section of 850 x 850 mm using USD while 900 x 900mm using
WSD. The detailed computation can be seen in Chapter 3 of the design samples for column.
The table shows the labor requirement estimate of the construction of the Column 6SC-1. Using
USD, it is estimated that the column will require 14.39 man-hours to be installed while using WSD, the
column will require around 16.15 man-hours to install in its place.
Comparing the two design methods, it can be therefore concluded that USD is easier and quicker
to construct compared to WSD.
Factor of Safety
Table 4.2.3: Factor of Safety Comparison of USD and WSD for Column No. 21 (6C-1)

Section in 850 x 850 900 x 900
Pu Capacity kN 10094.15 5451.32
Actual Pu kN 1240.186 1240.186
Table 4.2.3 shows the comparison of axial capacity and design Pu of Column 6SC-1 using USD
with section 850 x 850 and WSD with section 900 x 900 mm and height of 3.0 m. The detailed computation
can be seen in the Chapter 3 of the design samples for columns.
The table shows the factors of safety for USD and WSD methods. For USD, the factor of safety as
7.17, while 6.52 for WSD.
It clearly shows that the USD design produce greater factor of safety compared to WSD.
Criterion Ultimate Strength Working Stress

Design Criteria Unit Importance Design Design
Factor Value Rank Value Rank
Economic Cost Php 50 16,228.91 5 18,305.80 4.43
Factor of Safety - 30 7.17 5 6.52 4.5
Table 4.2.4 shows the Raw Designer Ranking on the Ultimate Strength Design (USD) and Working
Stress Design (WSD). The cost of USD is more economical than WSD, thus ranked 5, while the WSD
ranked 4.43. The USD provides a percentage of safety compared to WSD, thus, USD ranked 5 while WSD
ranked 4.5. In ease of construction, USD is easier with WSD with respect to man-hour unit of construction,
thus, USD ranked 5 while WSD ranked 4.46.
Antonsson, 1991), the USD produces as overall rank of 500, WSD produces an overall rank of 445.7. This
Ultimate Strength Design for the column members.
III. STRUCTURAL STEEL MEMBER (BEAM)
SS Design Technology: Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) vs. Allowable Stress
Design (ASD)
Two design methods were evaluated under SSD technology: 1.) LRFD 2.) ASD
Economic Cost
Table 4.3.1: Cost comparison of LRFD and ASD for Critical Beam 9MB-27
Load and
Unit Resistance Allowable Stress Design
Factor Design
Section in 10x39 12x53
Length m 2.0 2.0
Labor Cost Php 1,877.364 2,778.07
Total Cost Php 15,521.164 17,056.91
Table 4.3.1 shows the resulting section of beam 9MB-27. Being designed using LRFD and ASD methods,
LRFD yield section, 10x39. ASD yield section, 12x53.
The table show the cost estimate that includes labor and material cost. Using LRFD, the section is
estimated to cost Php 15,521.164 while Php 17,056.91 for ASD method. The detailed computation of
the cost can be found at the end of this chapter.
Comparing the two design methods, it can be therefore concluded that LRFD is more economical
compared to ASD.
Table 4.3.2 Labor Requirement Comparison of LRFD and ASD for Beam 9MB-27
Load and Resistance Allowable Stress

Unit
Length m 2.0 2.0
machine man-hour 2.2 3.3
installation man-hour 2.06 2.8
fabrication man-hour 3.54 4.8
Table 4.3.2 shows the labor requirement in the construction of the Beam 9MB-27. The beam is
designed using two methods, one is the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) and the other one
using Allowable Stress Design (ASD). The design yields a section of 10X39 using LRFD while 12x53 using
ASD. The detailed computation can be seen in Chapter 3 of the design samples for beam.
The table shows the labor requirement estimate of the construction of the beam 9MB-27. Using
LRFD, it is estimated that the beam will require 7.8 man-hours to be installed while using ASD, the beam
will require around 10.9 man-hours to install in its place.
Comparing the two design methods, it can be therefore concluded that LRFD is easier and quicker
to construct compared to ASD.
Factor of Safety
Table 4.3.3: Factor of Safety Comparison of LRFD and ASD for Beam 9MB-27
Load and Resistance

Allowable Stress Design
Unit Factor Design
Moment Capacity kft 175.5 194.36
Actual Moment kft 67.78 79.474
Table 4.3.3 shows the comparison of moment capacity and design moment of Beam 9MB-27
using LRFD and ASD with sections 10x39 and 12x53, respectively, and span of 2 m. The detailed
computation can be seen in the Chapter 3 of the design samples for beams.
The table shows the factors of safety for LRFD and ASD methods. For LRFD, the factor of safety is
2.59, while 2.45 for ASD.
It clearly shows that the LRFD design produce greater factor of safety compared to ASD.


Criterion Load and
Design Criteria Unit Importance Allowable Stress
Resistance Factor
Factor Design
Design
15,521.16
Economic Cost Php 50 5 17,056.91 4.55
4
Factor of Safety - 30 2.59 5 2.45 4.73
Overall Rank 500 441
Table 4.3.4 shows the Raw Designer Ranking on the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
and the other one using Allowable Stress Design (ASD). The cost of LRFD is more economical than ASD,
thus ranked 5, while the ASD ranked 4.55. The LRFD provides a percentage of safety compared to ASD,
thus, LRFD ranked 5 while ASD ranked 4.73. In ease of construction, LRFD is easier than ASD with respect
to man-hour unit of construction, thus, LRFD ranked 5 while ASD ranked 3.58.
Antonsson, 1991), the LRFD produces as overall rank of 500, ASD produces an overall rank of 441. This
technique guided the designer to finally consider the Steel Structural Design Technology using Load
and Resistance Factor Design for the structural beam members.
IV. STRUCTURAL STEEL MEMBER (COLUMN)

SS Design Technology: Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) vs. Allowable Stress
Design (ASD)
Two design methods were evaluated under SSD technology: 1.) LRFD 2.) ASD
Economic Cost
Table 4.4.1: Cost comparison of LRFD and ASD for Column No. 21 (6C-1)
Load and Resistance Factor
Unit Allowable Stress Design
Design
Length m 3.0 3.0
Labor Cost Php 1,856.4772 1,883.0604
Total Cost Php 26,422.5422 26,539.8454
Table 4.4.1 shows the resulting section of beam 6C-1. Being designed using LRFD and ASD
methods, LRFD yield section, 16x36. ASD yield section, 16x40
The table show the cost estimate that includes labor and material cost. Using LRFD, the section is
estimated to cost Php 26,422.5422 while for ASD method estimated to cost Php 26,539.8454. The
detailed computation of the cost can be found at the end of this chapter.
Comparing the two design methods, it can be therefore concluded that LRFD is more economical
compared to ASD.
Table 4.4.2 Labor Requirement Comparison of LRFD and ASD for Column No. 21 (6C-1)
Load and Resistance Allowable Stress

Unit
Length m 3.0 3.0
machine man-hour 2.2 2.2
installation man-hour 5.44 6.04
fabrication man-hour 6.04 3.62
Table 4.4.2 shows the labor requirement in the construction of the Column 6SC-1. The column is
designed using two methods, one is the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) and the other one
using Allowable Stress Design (ASD). The design yields a section of 16x36 using LRFD while 16x40 using
ASD. The detailed computation can be seen in Chapter 3 of the design samples for column.
The table shows the labor requirement estimate of the construction of the Column 6SC-1. Using
LRFD, it is estimated that the column will require 10.9 man-hours to be installed while using ASD, the
column will require also around 11.86 man-hours to install in its place.
Comparing the two design methods, it can be therefore concluded that LRFD is easier and quicker
to construct compared to ASD.
Factor of Safety
Table 4.4.3: Factor of Safety Comparison of LRFD and ASD for Column No. 21 (6C-1)
Load and Resistance

Allowable Stress Design
Unit Factor Design
Section 16x36 16x40
Pu Capacity kips 306.8 296.65
Actual Pu kips 114.8 123.45
Moment Capacity kft 67.24 130.78
Actual Moment kft 8.63 22.08
Table 4.4.3 shows the comparison of axial capacity and design Pu of Column 6SC-1 using LRFD
with section 16x36 and ASD with section 16x40 and height of 3.0 m. The detailed computation can be seen
in the Chapter 3 of the design samples for columns.
The table shows the factors of safety for LRFD and ASD methods. For LRFD, the factor of safety
as 5.23, while 4.16 for ASD.
It clearly shows that the LRFD design produce greater factor of safety compared to ASD.


Load and
Criterion Allowable Stress
Resistance Factor
Design Criteria Unit Importance Design
Design
Factor
Economic Cost Php 50 26,422.54 5 26,539.85 4.98
Factor of Safety - 30 5.23 5 4.16 3.98
Table 4.4.4 shows the Raw Designer Ranking on the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
and the other one using Allowable Stress Design (ASD). The cost of LRFD is more economical than ASD,
thus ranked 5, while the ASD ranked 4.98. The LRFD provides a higher percentage of safety compared to
ASD, thus, LRFD ranked 5 while ASD ranked 3.98. In ease of construction, LRFD is easier than ASD with
respect to man-hour unit of construction, thus, LRFD ranked 5 while ASD ranked 4.6.
Antonsson, 1991), the LRFD produces as overall rank of 500, ASD produces an overall rank of 460.4. This
technique guided the designer to finally consider the Steel Structural Design Technology using Load
and Resistance Factor Design for the structural column members.
V. FINAL STRUCTURAL MEMBER (BEAM)

Reinforced Concrete Design (USD) vs. Structural Steel Design (LRFD)
Two design methods were evaluated under RCD and Structural Steel technology: 1.) RCD. 2.)
Structural Steel
ECONOMIC COST
Table 4.5.1: Cost comparison of RCD and Structural Steel Design for 9MB-27
Reinforced Concrete Design Structural Steel

Unit
(USD) Design (LRFD)
Section mm 700 x 650 W10X39
Length m 2.0 2.0
Volume of Concrete mᶟ 0.91 0
Number of Reinforcing bars pcs 18 0
Weight of Reinforcing bars kg 80.22 0
Weight of Steel Section kg 0 120.2
Labor Cost Php 680.0037 1,877.364
Total Cost Php 7,869.7637 15,521.164
Table 4.5.1 shows the resulting section of 9MB-27. Being designed using USD under RCD and
LRFD under Structural Steel Design methods. RCD yields section 700 x 650 mm, while W10X39 section for
SSD.
The table shows the cost estimate that includes labor and material cost. Using RCD, the section is
estimated to cost Php 7,869.7637, while Php 15,521.164 SSD method.
Comparing the two design methods, it can be therefore concluded that RCD is more economical
compared to SSD.
FACTOR OF SAFETY
Table 4.5.2: Factor of Safety of RCD and Structural Steel Design for 9MB-27
Reinforced Concrete Structural Steel

Unit
Design (USD) Design (LRFD)
Section 700 x 650 W10X39
Table 4.5.2 shows the comparison of moment capacity and design moment of 9MB-27 using USD
for RCD with a section of 700 x 650 mm and LRFD for SSD with section W10x39 and a span of 2.0 m.
The table shows the factors of safety for USD and LRFD methods. For RCD, the factor of safety is
1.2, while 2.59 for SSD
It clearly shows that the SSD produced greater factor of safety compared to RCD.
DURATION
Table 4.5.3 Duration of RCD and Structural Steel Design for 9MB-27
Reinforced Concrete Design Structural Steel Design
Unit
(USD) (LRFD)
Section 700 x 650 W10X39
Length m 2.0 2.0
Volume of Concrete m^3 1.16 0
Weight of bars kg 80.22 0
Weight per meter length kg/m 52.62
Labor Requirement for 4.26
man-hour
Concrete and forms
Labor Requirement for 3.64
man-hour
Reinforcing bars
machine man-hour 2.2
installation man-hour 2.06
fabrication man-hour 3.54

Total Duration day 0.99 0.98
Table 4.5.3 shows the duration in days of the construction for beam no. 11 in the 6 th floor. The
beam is designed using USD under RCD and LRFD under Structural Steel Design methods. RCD yields
section 700 x 650mm, and W10x39 respectively.
The table shows the estimate duration of the installation of the beam 9MB-27. Using RCD, it is
estimated that the beam will require 0.99 day to be installed while using SSD, the beam will require around
0.98 day to install in its place.
Comparing the two design methods, it can be therefore concluded that SSD is quicker to construct
compared to RCD.
RAW DESIGNER RANKING

Table4.5.4: Raw Designer Ranking
Final Design
Criterion
Design Criteria Unit Ultimate Strength Load and Resistance
Importance
Design Factor Design
Economic (Cost) Php 50 7,869.7637 5 15,521.164 2.54
Factor of Safety - 30 1.2 2.32 2.59 5
Environmental Impact days 20 0.99 4.95 0.98 5
Overall Rank 418.6 377
Table 4.5.4 shows the Raw Designer Ranking on the USD and LRFD. The cost of USD is more economical
than LRFD, thus ranked 5, while the LRFD ranked 2.54. The LRFD provides a higher rank of safety
compared to USD, thus, ranked 5 while USD 2.32. In duration, the LRFD requires only 0.98 day while the
USD requires 0.99 day, therefore LRFD ranked 5 while USD 4.95.
Antonsson, 1991), the USD produces an overall rank of 418.6, LRFD produces an overall rank of 377. This
Ultimate Strength Design for the beam.
Sensitivity Analysis 1
Final Design
Criterion
Importance
Factor of Safety - 20 1.2 2.32 2.59 5
Overall Rank 443.9 426.2
Design Criteria Unit Criterion Ability to Satisfy the Criterion
Importance Final Design
Ultimate Strength Load and Resistance
Factor of Safety - 20 1.2 2.32 2.59 5
Final Design
Criterion
Importance
Factor of Safety - 20 1.2 2.32 2.59 5
Final Design
Criterion
Importance
Factor of Safety - 15 1.2 2.32 2.59 5
ANALYSIS COST % SAFETY % DURATION % USD LRFD
TRADE 50 30 20 418.6 377
SEN 1 30 20 50 443.9 426.2
SEN 2 50 20 30 444.9 377
SEN 3 60 20 20 445.4 352.4
SEN 4 25 15 60 456.8 438.5
VI. FINAL STRUCTURAL MEMBER (COLUMN)
Reinforced Concrete Design (USD) vs. Structural Steel Design (LRFD)
Two design methods were evaluated under RCD and Structural Steel technology: 1.) RCD. 2.)
Structural Steel
ECONOMIC COST
Table 4.6.1: Cost comparison of RCD and Structural Steel Design for Column No. 21 (6C-1)
Reinforced Concrete Design Structural Steel

Unit
(USD) Design (LRFD)
Section mm 850x850 W16x36
Length m 3.0 3.0
Volume of Concrete m^3 2.1675
Weight of bars kg 133.7
Weight of Steel Section kg 727.55
Labor Cost Php 2,128.6862 1,856.4772
Total Cost Php 16,228.9112 26,422.5422
Table 4.6.1 shows the resulting section of 6C-1. Being designed using USD under RCD and LRFD
under Structural Steel Design methods. RCD yields section 850x850 mm, while W16x36 section for SSD.
The table shows the cost estimate that includes labor and material cost. Using RCD, the section is
estimated to cost Php 16,228.9112, while Php 26,422.5422 for SSD method.
Comparing the two design methods, it can be therefore concluded that RCD is more economical
compared to SSD.
FACTOR OF SAFETY
Table 4.6.2: Factor of Safety of RCD and Structural Steel Design for Column No. 21 (6C-1)
Reinforced Concrete Structural Steel

Unit
Design (USD) Design (LRFD)
Section 850X850 W16X36
Load Capacity kN 10094.15 306.8
Actual Load kN 1240.186 114.8

Table 4.6.2 shows the comparison of moment capacity and design moment of 6C-1 using USD for
RCD with a section of 850X850 mm and LRFD for SSD with section W16X36 and a height of 3.0 m.
The table shows the factors of safety for USD and LRFD methods. For RCD, the factor of safety is
7.17, while 5.23 for SSD
It clearly shows that the RCD produced greater factor of safety compared to SSD.
DURATION
Table 4.6.3 Duration of RCD and Structural Steel Design for Column No. 21 (6C-1)
Reinforced Concrete Design Structural Steel Design

Unit
(USD) (LRFD)
Section 850X850 W16X36
Length m 3.0 3.0
Volume of Concrete m^3 2.1675
Weight of bars kg 133.7
Weight per meter length kg/m 242.52
Labor Requirement for
man-hour 8.31
Concrete and forms
Labor Requirement for
man-hour 6.08
Reinforcing bars
machine man-hour 2.2
installation man-hour 5.44
fabrication man-hour 6.04
Total Duration day 1.8 1.36
Table 4.6.3 shows the duration in days of the construction for column no. 21 in the 6 th floor. The
beam is designed using USD under RCD and LRFD under Structural Steel Design methods. RCD yields
section 850X850 mm,and W16X36 respectively.
The table shows the estimate duration of the installation of the beam 6C-1. Using RCD, it is
estimated that the beam will require 1.8 days to be installed while using SSD, the beam will require around
1.36 days to install in its place.
Comparing the two design methods, it can be therefore concluded that SSD is quicker to construct
compared to RCD.
RAW DESIGNER RANKING

Table4.6.4: Raw Designer Ranking
Final Design
Criterion
Importance
Factor of Safety - 30 7.17 5 5.23 3.65
Environmental Impact - 20 1.8 3.78 1.36 5
Table 4.6.4 shows the Raw Designer Ranking on the USD and LRFD. The cost of USD is more economical
than LRFD, thus ranked 5, while the LRFD ranked 3.07. The USD provides a higher percentage of safety
compared to LRFD, thus, ranked 5 while LRFD 3.65. In duration, the LRFD requires only 1.36 days while
the USD requires 1.8 days, therefore LRFD ranked 5 while USD 3.78.
Antonsson, 1991), the USD produces an overall rank of 475.6, LRFD produces an overall rank of 363. This
Ultimate Strength Design for the column.
Final Design
Criterion
Importance
Factor of Safety - 20 7.17 5 5.23 3.65
Duration days 50 1.8 3.78 1.36 5
Final Design
Criterion
Importance
Factor of Safety - 20 7.17 5 5.23 3.65
Duration days 30 1.8 3.78 1.36 5
Final Design
Criterion
Importance
Factor of Safety - 20 7.17 5 5.23 3.65
Duration days 20 1.8 3.78 1.36 5
Final Design
Criterion
Importance
Economic (Cost) Php 33.33 16,228.9112 5 26,422.5422 3.07
Factor of Safety - 33.33 7.17 5 5.23 3.65
Duration days 33.33 1.8 3.78 1.36 5
459.2
Overall Rank 390.63
9
ANALYSIS COST % SAFETY % DURATION % USD LRFD

TRADE 50 30 20 475.6 363
SEN 1 30 20 50 439 415.1
SEN 2 50 20 30 463.4 376.5
SEN 3 60 20 20 475.6 357.2
SEN 4 33.33 33.33 33.33 459.29 390.63

Ermita Rizal Park: Higher Value Lower Value Higher Value Rank

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Ermita Rizal Park: Higher Value Lower Value Higher Value Rank

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

DESIGN TRADE-OFFS

Raw Designer Ranking

Unit Ultimate Strength Design Working Stress Design

Table 4.1.4: Raw Designer Ranking

Ability to Satisfy the Criterion

Unit Ultimate Strength Design Working Stress Design

Unit Ultimate Strength Working Stress

Labor Requirement for Reinforcing man-hour 6.08 7.3

Unit Ultimate Strength Design Working Stress Design

Table 4.2.4: Raw Designer Ranking

Ability to Satisfy the Criterion

Criterion Ultimate Strength Working Stress

Load and Resistance Allowable Stress

Load and Resistance

Raw Designer Ranking

Ability to Satisfy the Criterion

IV. STRUCTURAL STEEL MEMBER (COLUMN)

Load and Resistance Allowable Stress

Load and Resistance

Raw Designer Ranking

Ability to Satisfy the Criterion

V. FINAL STRUCTURAL MEMBER (BEAM)

Reinforced Concrete Design Structural Steel

Labor Cost Php 680.0037 1,877.364

Total Cost Php 7,869.7637 15,521.164

Reinforced Concrete Structural Steel

Actual Moment kN-m 1002.58 67.78

Factor of Safety - 1.20 2.59

installation man-hour 2.06

fabrication man-hour 3.54

Total Labor Requirement man-hour 7.9 7.8

RAW DESIGNER RANKING

Reinforced Concrete Design Structural Steel

Labor Cost Php 2,128.6862 1,856.4772

Total Cost Php 16,228.9112 26,422.5422

Reinforced Concrete Structural Steel

Load Capacity kN 10094.15 306.8

Actual Load kN 1240.186 114.8

Reinforced Concrete Design Structural Steel Design

RAW DESIGNER RANKING

ANALYSIS COST % SAFETY % DURATION % USD LRFD

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen