Final Paper With Appendix

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES
938 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City
CE 509
CE PROJECTS 2
ENTITLED:
DESIGN OF TWO-STOREY FIRE STATION IN BARANGAY BAGONG NAYON COGEO,
ANTIPOLO CITY
LEADER:
LLARENAS, KRYSTAL CLAIRE R.
MEMBERS:
CO, CHRISTIAN C.
TAMAYO III, ANDRES A.
SUBMITTED TO:
ENGR. RHONNIE C. ESTORES
DATE:
March 2020
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND...........................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................1
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION...........................................................................................................................1
1.3 THE CLIENT........................................................................................................................................2
1.3.1 Client’s Specification...................................................................................................................2
1.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES.........................................................................................................................2
1.4.1 General Objectives......................................................................................................................2
1.4.2 Specific Objectives......................................................................................................................3
1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATION....................................................................................................................3
1.5.1 Scope of the Project....................................................................................................................3
1.5.2 Limitation of the Project.............................................................................................................3
1.6 PERSPECTIVE......................................................................................................................................4
1.7 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................................................4
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE..........................................................6
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT..........................................................................................................6
2.1.2 Topography of the Project..........................................................................................................9
2.2 Soil Profile..........................................................................................................................................9
2.2.1 Geotechnical Investigation.........................................................................................................9
2.3 DATA INPUTS...................................................................................................................................11
2.3.1 Structural Design Inputs............................................................................................................11
2.3.2 Design Loads.............................................................................................................................17
2.3.4 Geotechnical Design Inputs......................................................................................................24
2.4 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES..................................................................................................35
2.4.1 Local Literature and Studies......................................................................................................35
2.4.2 Foreign Literature and Studies..................................................................................................37
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, TRADEOFFS AND STANDARDS..........................................................40
3.1 DESIGN CONSTRAINTS.....................................................................................................................40
3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints...........................................................................................................40
3.1.2 Qualitative Constraints.............................................................................................................41
3.2 TRADEOFFS......................................................................................................................................42
3.2.1 Structural Engineering Context (Moment Resisting Frame)......................................................42
3.2.2 Geotechnical Engineering Context (Ground Improvement)......................................................45
3.3 RAW DESIGNERS RANKING..............................................................................................................48
3.3.1 Computation for Ranking of Economic Constraints (Vibro Replacement vs. WSM)..................55
3.3.2 Computation for Ranking of Economic Constraint (Jet Grouting vs Vibro-Replacement).........55
3.3.3 Computation for Ranking of Sustainability Constraint (Vibro-Replacement vs. WSM).............56
3.3.4 Computation for Ranking of Sustainability Constraint (WSM vs Jet Grouting).........................56
3.3.5 Computation for Ranking of Constructability Constraint (Vibro-Replacement vs WSM)..........57
3.3.6 Computation for Ranking of Constructability Constraint (WSM vs Jet Grouting).....................57
3.3.7 Computation for Ranking of Constructability Constraint (Jet Grouting vs Vibro-Replacement)
...........................................................................................................................................................58
3.3.8 Computation for Ranking of Safety Constraint (Vibro-Replacement vs WSM).........................58
3.3.9 Computation for Ranking of Safety Constraint (WSM vs Jet Grouting).....................................58
3.3.10 Computation for Ranking of Safety Constraint (Jet Grouting vs Vibro-Replacement).............59
3.3.11 Tradeoffs Assessment.............................................................................................................59
3.4 DESIGN STANDARDS....................................................................................................................59
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE..........................................................................................................60
4.1 DESIGN METHODOLOGY (Structural Context).................................................................................60
4.2 DESIGN OF TRADEOFF 1 (SPECIAL MOMENT RESISTING FRAME)....................................................61
4.2.1 Design Specification..................................................................................................................61
4.2.2 Design Loads.............................................................................................................................62
4.2.3 Live Loads...........................................................................................................................63
4.2.4 Seismic load parameter.....................................................................................................64
4.2.5 Load Combination.....................................................................................................................65
4.2.6 Structural Analysis....................................................................................................................66
4.2.7 Structural Design......................................................................................................................79
4.3 DESIGN OF TRADEOFF 2 (DUAL SYSTEM WITH INTERMEDIATE MOMENT FRAME – SPECIAL
REINFORCED CONCETE SHEAR WALL).................................................................................................117
4.3.1 Design Specification................................................................................................................117
4.3.2 Design Loads...........................................................................................................................118
4.3.3 Live Loads.........................................................................................................................119
4.3.4 Seismic load parameter...................................................................................................120
4.3.5 Load Combination...................................................................................................................121
4.3.6 Structural Analysis..................................................................................................................122
4.3.7 Structural Design....................................................................................................................136
4.4 DESIGN OF TRADEOFF 3 (DUAL SYSTEM – SPECIAL REINFORCED CONCETE SHEAR WALL)............170
4.4.1 Design Loads...........................................................................................................................170
4.4.2 Design Loads...........................................................................................................................171
4.4.3 Live Loads.........................................................................................................................172
4.4.4 Seismic load parameter...................................................................................................173
4.4.5 Load Combination...................................................................................................................174
4.4.7.3 Column/Wall Design................................................................................................................214
4.2 DESIGN METHODOLOGY (Geotechnical Context)......................................................................222
4.2.2 Design Process........................................................................................................................222
4.2.3 Design Parameters..................................................................................................................223
4.2.4 Structural Tradeoffs Bearing Capacity Design Process............................................................223
4.2.5 Bearing Capacity Computation of SMRF Structure.................................................................224
4.2.6 Bearing Capacity Computation of DS w/ IMF Structure..........................................................234
4.2.7 Bearing Capacity Computation of DS......................................................................................243
4.3 Validation of Trade-Offs (Geotechnical)........................................................................................251
4.3.1 Final Estimate:........................................................................................................................251
4.3.2 Final Constructability Estimate:..............................................................................................252
4.3.3 Final Safety Estimate:..............................................................................................................252
4.5. Validation of Trade-Offs................................................................................................................253
4.5.2 Validation of Trade-Offs (Geotechnical Context)........................................................................258
4.6 Final Trade-off Assessment............................................................................................................264
4.6.1 Trade-offs Assessment (Structural Context)...........................................................................264
4.6.2 Trade-offs Assessment for Geotechnical Context...................................................................265
4.7 Influence of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards........................................................265
4.7.1 Structural Context...................................................................................................................266
4.7.2 Geotechnical Context.............................................................................................................268
4.8 Sensitivity Report...........................................................................................................................271
4.9 NORMALIZATION...........................................................................................................................279
CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN.......................................................................................................................283
5.1 Final Design (Structural Context)...................................................................................................283
5.1.1 Framing System......................................................................................................................283
5.1.2 Beam Design...........................................................................................................................285
5.1.3 COLUMN DESIGN....................................................................................................................295
5.1.5 SLAB DESIGN...........................................................................................................................299
5.2 Final Design (Geotechnical Context)..............................................................................................307
5.2.1 Footing Details........................................................................................................................307
5.2.2 Ground Improvement Details.................................................................................................308
APPENDIX A.1: COST ESTIMATES.............................................................................................................310
APPENDIX A.2: DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.........................................................................318
APPENDIX A.3: FINAL ESTIMATES FOR SUSTAINABILITY (MAINTENANCE COST).....................................333
APPENDIX A.4: FINAL ESTIMATES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (CO2 EMITTED)........................334
APPENDIX B.1: COMPUTATION OF BEAM (SMRF)...................................................................................335
APPENDIX B.2: COMPUTATION OF COLUMN(SMRF)...............................................................................361
APPENDIX B.3: COMPUTAION OF SLAB(SMRF)........................................................................................389
APPENDIX B.4: COMPUTATION OF BEAM (DS W/ IMF)...........................................................................394
APPENDIX B.5: COMPUTATION OF SHEAR WALL / COLUMN (DS W/ IMF)..............................................418
APPENDIX B.6: COMPUTATION OF SLAB (DS W/ IMF).............................................................................483
APPENDIX B.7: COMPUTATION OF BEAM (DS W/ SMF)..........................................................................487
APPENDIX B.8: COMPUTATION OF SHEAR WALL / COLUMN (DS W/ SMF).............................................507
APPENDIX B.9: COMPUTATION OF SLAB (DS W/ SMF)............................................................................577
APPENDIX B.10: Bearing Capacity Computation of SMRF Structure........................................................581
APPENDIX B.11: Ground Improvement Using Jet Grouting.....................................................................583
APPENDIX B.12: Ground Improvement Using Wet Soil Mixing Using Lime..............................................590
APPENDIX B.13: Ground Improvement Using Vibro-Replacement..........................................................598
APPENDIX B.14: Bearing Capacity Computation of DS w/ IMF Structure................................................602
APPENDIX B.18: Bearing Capacity Computation of DS.............................................................................622
APPENDIX B.21: Footing Calculation using Geo5.....................................................................................642
APPENDIX B.22: Trade off Estimate.........................................................................................................644
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
A fire station is a structure or other area for storing firefighting apparatus such as fire engines and
related vehicles, personal protective equipment, fire hoses and other specialized equipment. Fire station
supports the needs of the fire department and the community in which it is located. It must accommodate
extremely diverse functions, including housing, recreation, administration, training, community education,
equipment and vehicle storage, equipment and vehicle maintenance, and hazardous materials storage.
While it is usually only occupied by trained personnel, the facility may also need to accommodate the
general public for community education or outreach programs.
In terms of size, Antipolo City is the second largest in Rizal Province next only to Rodriguez,
formerly Montalban. Its total land area of 38,504.44 hectares represents 29.9% of the entire land area of
the Rizal Province. Since Antipolo is a large city, building a fire station is necessary. There are two fire
stations currently existing in Antipolo, the Annex Fire Station, located along Sumulong Highway, and
Antipolo City Fire Station, located at Barangay Dela Paz. The location of these fire stations is far from other
Barangays, specifically in Barangay Bagong Nayon. Bagong Nayon is a Barangay in the city of Antipolo
and according to 2015 Census, it has a population of around 46000 which represent 5.92% of the total
population of Antipolo. The distance of Annex Fire station and Antipolo City Fire Station in this barangay is
5.9 km and 5.5 km respectively. The total estimated travel time using a normal vehicle is around 15 minutes
to 25 minutes without considering the traffic. The duration of travel time is quite long and it might cause a
problem for the fire rescue team to respond.
The proposed two-storey Fire Station will cater to the needs of the people living in Barangay
Bagong Nayon, Antipolo City. This proposed project envisions to serve as a primary rescue in fire incidents
and lessen the damage caused by manmade and natural disasters.
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The location of this project is at Barangay Bagong Nayon, Antipolo City, along Marilaque Highway
in front of The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints. The setting is accessible to road, transportation
and also for the people.
1
Figure 1.1 Satellite View of Marikina-Infanta Highway, Antipolo City - Bearing 14°37'20.9"N 121°10'26.7"E
Source: https://www.google.com/maps/@14.6225942,121.1752831,360m/data=!3m1!1e3
Figure 1.2 Street view of Marikina-Infanta Highway, Antipolo City
Source: https://www.google.com/maps/@14.6225942,121.1752831,360m/data=!3m1!1e3
1.3 THE CLIENT

The client of this project is the City Government of Antipolo, Rizal as represented by Hon. Andrea
A. Ynares, the client agreed upon when the project shall be done as soon as possible.
2
1.3.1 Client’s Specification
The designers went to Antipolo City Hall and were able to talk and had a chance to interview Engr.
Jesus Gonzaga, the head of the Engineering Department. According to Engr. Gonzaga, a fire station
usually contains the following:
● Fire station costs around 20000 Php - 30000 Php per volume
● The duration of construction of the project ends at around 18 months
● The structure can resist Earthquake Forces since it is an essential type of facility
● The life span of the structure can last 50 years
● The structure must be environment friendly and has a low maintenance cost in which it can
maintain its quality up to its design lifespan.
1.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
1.4.1 General Objectives
The main objective of this project is to design a Two-Storey Fire Station Building in Barangay Bagong
Nayon, Antipolo City using the structural analysis with accordance to structural and building code in order
to meet the client's specification and to provide a facility that will aid the area in case of fire incident. To
provide the most effective and feasible material that will yield the most suited system in the project location.
1.4.2 Specific Objectives
● To enhance the knowledge and skills of making use of Theory of Structures and Soil Mechanics
Principles to design a building
● To evaluate the trade-offs based on the limitations in order to differentiate what is the effective
design choice
● To identify the soil classification of the chosen location in which the structure will be built
● To provide the client with plans and cost estimates of the project.
● To evaluate the impact of important constraints in relation with trade-offs, programs and specific
standards in order to determine the most efficient design for the project
3
1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATION
1.5.1 Scope of the Project
The following are the scope covered by the design project:
● Provide design plan such as structural plans and architectural plans as well as structural detail
● The project is conceptualized with accordance to the National Structural Code of the Philippines
(NSCP 2015) and National Building Code of the Philippines (PD 1096)
● Analyze the strength and safety of structure by the use of the software program, STAAD pro and
STAAD RCDC.
● The design project specifies the plans, reinforcements needed and the properties and capacity of
soil.
● The design project provides the material, equipment and labor cost estimates of the chosen trade-
offs for comparison.
1.5.2 Limitation of the Project
The following are the limitation of the design project:
● The design of Electrical, Mechanical and Plumbing Plan are not included
● The interior design of the project is not included
● The designers shall not assess other constraints with no relation on the design of water distribution
system
● The designers will limit the cost estimate on the materials used for the structural members
● The designers will not provide the detailed construction activities and the estimate cost of operation
and machineries
4
1.6 PERSPECTIVE
Figure 1.3 Perspective view of the building
1.7 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
The designers prepared for the design of a 2-storey fire station in Barangay Bagong Nayon,
Antipolo City. In the first stage of the project, the designers will identify the problems currently existing in
the society that the designers intend to make a solution. As the problem is being identified, there is a lack of
fire station around Barangay Bagong Nayon, Antipolo City resulting in severe damage to properties. After
having the solution, the designers will look for the location where the said project will be constructed, then
conceptualization of the project begins conforming to the request of the client. The conceptualization of the
design of a four-storey fire station includes different inputs strengthening design process, materials and
construction techniques, purpose, ground characteristics and set of standards and codes provided in the
Philippines. After the conceptualization, data were gathered using different types of method.
Then designers identify the constraints and different trade-offs to solve the evident problem
considering the constraints. There will be a provide design for each trade-off to properly explain each of its
capabilities and advantages. After presenting each trade-off with their specific aspects; results will be
compared and evaluated in order to come up with the most efficient alternative. The final design is based
on the most effective result evaluated by the designer. This output will be recommended to be able to
design a four-storey fire station.
5
Figure 1-3. Project Development flowchart
6
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

This chapter describes the data parameters collected to be used in designing the structural and
geotechnical tradeoffs. Review of related literature and studies are also presented in this part, which will
introduce former studies regarding the problem and proposed solution, and also the constraints and trade-
offs utilized in the design projects.
The Four-storey Fire Station has a dimension of 16m by 15m, it has floor area of 240 square meters and a
total floor area of 960 square meters. The height of the first floor is 3.5m. The height of second to fourth
floor is 3m. The total height of the structure is 13m including the parapet wall at roof deck. The Fire station
is equipped with different rooms and facilities such as office for the staff, conference room, training room,
fitness gym, dormitory, storage and archive. The fire station is categorized as Essential Facility in chapter
2, section 208 of National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015
The project aims to construct a fire station in Barangay Bagong Nayon, Antipolo City. This project will be
using three (3) trades-offs as a proposed design and be evaluated according to the constraint formulated.
2.1.1 Demography of the Project
Among the 14 city/municipalities of Rizal, Antipolo City had the largest population with 776,386, followed by
Rodriguez (Montalban) with 369,222 and Cainta with 322,128. The population of these three municipalities
together comprised more than half (50.89 percent) of the entire population of the province as shown in the
table below.
7
Table 2.1 Total population of Municipalities of Rizal
Table 2.2 Total Population of Antipolo City
The population of Bagong Nayon grew from 18,002 in 1990 to 45,976 in 2015, an increase of 27,974
people. The latest census figures in 2015 denote a positive growth rate of 0.34%, or an increase of 824
people, from the previous population of 45,152 in 2010.
8
Figure 2.1 Population of Barangay Nayon categorized by age group
Source: https://www.philatlas.com/luzon/r04a/rizal/antipolo/bagong-nayon.htmla
Figure 2.2 Population and Growth of Barangay Bagong Nayon

9
2.1.2 Topography of the Project
Figure 2.3 Topographic view of Barangay Bagong Nayon

2.2 Soil Profile
The following data that were gathered as a basis for the design loads on the given location.
Unfortunately, the designers were not able to obtain a Geotechnical Report from the Antipolo City Hall due
privacy of their data. We tried to convince the officials but they refused to give us information unless we
have a valid consent from the land owners. The designers find another Geotechnical Report from other
places nearby, but still applicable as the basis for the design loads on the given location
2.2.1 Geotechnical Investigation
This report presents the result of the geotechnical investigation conduction for the above cited
project of the City Government of Marikina. The investigation work involving borehole drilling was carried
out in March 2012 by Universal Testing Laboratory and Inspection, Inc(UTLII) upon the request of
proponent/client.
The purpose of the investigation is to determine the general subsurface condition at site by the test boring
with SPT sampling and core drilling and to evaluate the results and with respect to the concept and
foundation design of the proposed structure. The samples obtained from the boring were tested in the
laboratory for engineering classification and strength determination and analysis.
This report covers the methodology of the field and laboratory investigations, assessment of the subsurface
conditions, and estimation of the allowable soil bearing capacity, settlement analysis and citing other
related construction problems.
10
2.2.1.1 Field Investigation Program
The investigation involved the drilling of the two (2) boreholes to a depth 15m each below the
present ground level at the site with the use of a rotary drilling machine. The drilling was executed on the
whole day of 27 March 2012 following the ASDTM procedures as briefly described below. The location of
the boreholes is shown in Figure 1.0.
The hole was advanced by wash boring and standard penetration test (SPT). The Standard Penetration
Test (SPT) is performed every 1.0 meter of depth measured from the ground surface. Initially an NW-
casting was driven into the ground using the driver hammer weighing 63.5 kg. up to a depth of 0.50 m. The
section of the casting which was driven into the ground was cleaned up to the bottom wash boring. The
term “Wash Boring” refers to the process in which a hole is advanced by combination of chopping and
jetting to break the soil or rock into small fragments called cuttings and washing to remove cuttings from the
hole. TH tools used to consist of the drill rods with a chopping bit at the bottom and a water swivel and
lifting the bail at the top. This is connected to the water pump by a heavy-duty hose attached to the water
swivel. This assembly is attached to the cathead by means of a rope which passes through the sheave and
tied to the lifting bail. The tool is then lowered to the level of soil in the casing, and the water under pressure
is introduced to the bottom of the hole means of the water passages in the drill rods and the chopping bit.
At the same time, the bit is raised and dropped by means of the rope attached to the lifting bail. Each time
the rods are dropped they are also partially rotated manually by means of a wrench placed around the rods.
The latter process helps to break up the material at the base of the hole. The resulting cuttings are carried
to the surface in the drilling water which flows in the annular space between the drill rods and the inside of
the casing. The process is continued until the depth for taking SPT samples is reached.
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was used to extract relatively distributed samples from the borehole
at intervals not exceeding 1:50 meters. This was done by driving a standard split-barrel sampler with the
following specifications:
: Make : Std. Sprague and Henwood Type

: Outside Diameter : 5.40 cm.
: Inside Diameter : 3.50 cm.
: Length : 61.0 cm.
CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION FOR FINE-GRANED SOILS

(Terzaghi and Peck, 1969)
Classification SPT, N Undrained Shear Strength, su (kPa)
Very soft <2 <12

Soft 2 -4 12-25
Medium Stiff 4–8 25-50
Stiff 8 – 15 50-100
Very Stiff 15 – 30 100-200
Hard >30 >200
11
RELATIVE DENSITY CLASSIFICATION FOR COARSE-GRAINED SOILS
(U.S. NAVY, 1982 & Lambe and Whitman, 1969)
Classification SPT, N Undrained Shear Strength, su (kPa)
Very loose <4 0-15

Loose 4 - 10 15-35
Medium dense 10 – 30 36-65
Dense 30 – 50 65-85
Very Dense >50 85-100
All SPT samples were placed in a properly labeled air tight plastic bag before they were transported to the
laboratory office of UTLII in Pasig City for the required testing.
2.2.2.2 Subsurface as Found
The subsurface of the site is represented by the soil profile derived along the drilled boreholes as shown in
Figure 2.0 As can be seen from the profile, the subsoil around BH-1 is underlain by overburden composed
soil of moderately/highly plastic clay (CL/CH) starting from the ground surface down all the way to the
bottom end of the borehole. N-values ranged from 21 to 62 blows/ft suggesting a consolidated to over
consolidated stratum. Over the vicinity of BH-2, silty sand (SM) covers the upper 4.5m thick layer before
clayey materials were hit down to the bottom end of the borehole. The silty sands are non-plastic with
recorded N-values of 20 - 29 blows/ft while the clays are highly plastic and have registered a blow count
ranging from 33 - 65 blows/ft. These blow counts indicated compacted sand deposits while the
consolidation and consistency of the clays are the same as those in BH-1.
The groundwater level was measured at 8.0m or more inside the boreholes after completing the drilling.
Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity at Foundation level
A spread or combined type of a shallow foundation can be adopted. The footings can be embedded to a
depth of 1.5m or deeper below the present ground level. For purposes of designing the footings, the
estimated allowable soil bearing capacity at varying footing level and base width are tabulated below:
Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity, kPa (Basis: BH-1)h
Depth, Base of Footing Bearing

meter Base = 1.5m B = 3.0m Layer
1.5 227 Clay

2.0 240 Clay
2.2.2.3 Settlement
For footings resting on clays, a long-term settlement of 50mm to 100mm should be anticipated. On the
other hand, a maximum settlement of 25mm can be allowed for footings resting sand. Crucial to these
tolerable settlements is the excessive differential settlement that could affect the engineering integrity of the
structure. Provision for footing tie beams therefore be incorporated as an integral part of the foundation
system to minimize such excessive settlement to a manageable limit.
12
2.2.2.4 Site Coefficient S and Seismic Zone Factor Z
The site coefficient S and seismic zone factor Z required determining the design base shear V for structural
design is defined in terms of the soil profile as specified in the National Building Code of the Philippines.
Based on the soil profiles as determined from borings, the Structural Engineer for the project could classify
the site the corresponding S factor for given type of soil by referring to the Building Code.
The seismic map of the Philippines divides the country into two zones, namely Zone 2 and 4. For the site
under study, the maximum zone factor Z is also found in the said Building Code.
2.3 DATA INPUTS

2.3.1 Structural Design Inputs
The gathered data and parameters are used for designing the structural tradeoffs and design.
Function Quantity
Fire Truck Garage 2 units
Toilet and Bathroom 2 units
Storage Room 2 units
Conference Room 1 unit
Office 1 unit
Clinic and Dormitory 1 unit
Training Room 1 unit
Total 34 units
Table 2.3 Room Classification with Corresponding Area
Floor Function Area Unit
Ground Floor Fire Truck Garage 1 and 2 150 m2
Ground Floor Toilet and Bathroom 5 m2
Ground Floor Storage and Facility 15 m2
Ground Floor Lobby 20 m2
Second Floor Training Area 60 m2
13
Second Floor Clinic and dormitory 40 m2
Second Floor Conference Room 20 m2
Second Floor Administration’s Office 20 m2
Second Floor Toilet and Bathroom 20 m2
Table 2.4 Room Classification with Corresponding Area
2.2.2 Architectural Plans
As for the design of the two-storey fire station building, the designer exceed the minimum sizes of the
rooms but some are considered to the minimum to maximize the lot provided for the building.
14
Figure 2.4 Ground Floor Plan
15
Figure 2.5 2nd Floor Plan
16
Figure 2.6 Front Elevation
Figure 2.7 Rear Elevation
17
Figure 2.8 Left Side Elevation
Figure 2.9 Right Side Elevation
18
2.3.2 Design Loads
Using the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP 2015) the Fire Station is considered
as an essential facility with regards to occupancy category.
2.3.2.1 Dead Loads
Below are the components and minimum design load of each component for each function of the said room
descriptions based on section 204 of chapter 2 in the code it consists of the weight of all materials to be
used in the construction of the structure.
Figure 2.10 Minimum Design Dead Loads in NSCP 2015
Member Load
st th
Components ( 1 to 2 floor) Design Load (KPa)
Frame Walls
Windows, Glass, Frame and Sash 0.38
Concrete Masonry Unit
19
CHB Wall, 150mm, Full Grout (Plastered both 3.11
sides)
CHB Wall, 100mm, Full Grout (Plastered both 2.98

sides)
Wall covering
Waterproofing Membrane: Bituminous smooth 0.07

surface
Table 2.5 Other Minimum Design Loads
Floor Load
Components ( 1st to 2th floor) Design Load (KPa)
Ceilings
Gypsum board (per mm thickness) 0.008
Plaster on tile or concrete 0.24
Floor Fills
Lightweight Concrete, per mm 0.015
Floor and Floor Finishes
Cement Finish (25MM) on stone concrete fill 1.53
Frame Partitions
Wood or Steel studs, 13 mm gypsum board each 0.38

side
20
Frame Walls
Total Dead Load 2.553
Table 2.6 Other Minimum Design Loads
2.3.3.2 Live Loads
The maximum live loads expected by the intended use or occupancy based on section 205 of the
code. Below are the occupancy descriptions and the equivalent design live loads in KPa:
Figure 2.11 Minimum Live Loads in NSCP 2015
Use or Occupancy Description Description Design Load (KPa)
Parking garages and ramps Public parking and ramps 4.8
Roof Decks Same as area served or occupancy --
Office (Other offices) 2.4
Table 2.6 Minimum Design Live Loads
2.3.3.3 Seismic load parameter
The seismic load parameters were obtained with the geographical data and were based on chapter
2, section 208 of the code.
21
Figure 2.12 Nearest active fault trace
Source: http://faultfinder.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/
Figure 2.13 Occupancy Category in NSCP 2015
22
Figure 2.14 Seismic importance factor in NSCP 2015
Figure 2.15 Seismic zone in NSCP 2015
Figure 2.16 Near source factor in NSCP 2015
23
Figure 2.17 Seismic Coefficient in NSCP 2015
Figure 2.18 Structure period in NSCP 2015
24
Figure 2.19 Structure period in NSCP 2015
Parameters
Importance Factor 1.5
Soil Profile Type Stiff Soil, Sd
Seismic Zone ZONE 4: Z=0.4
Seismic source type A
Near Source Factor (Na) 1.2
Near Source Factor (Nv) 1.6
Seismic Coefficient (Ca) 0.44Na = 0.53
Seismic Coefficient (Cv) 0.64 Nv = 1.02
R (Special Reinforced Concrete Moment 8.5
25
Frame)
Numerical Coefficient (Ct) .0731
R (Intermediate Reinforced Concrete 5.5

Moment Frame)
R (Ordinary Reinforced Concrete Moment 3.5

Frame)
Table 2.7 Seismic Load Parameter

2.3.3.4 Wind Parameters
The wind load parameters were based on the NSCP 2010 and it was determined through the
location of the proposed structure. As stated on the code, buildings and other vertical structures shall be
designed and constructed to resist wind loads as specified and presented in chapter 2 section 207 of the
code.
Parameters
Basic Wind Speed 200 kph
Wind Directionality Factor, Kd 0.85
Exposure Category B
Topographic Factor, Kzt 1
Building Classification Category III
Structure Type Building Structure
Enclosure Classification Enclosed Building
Internal Pressure Coefficient, GCpi -0.55, +0.55
Table 2.8 Wind Parameter
2.3.4 Geotechnical Design Inputs
Here are the design parameters for the geotechnical, here are some tables, figures and data’s to
be used in the design.
2.3.4.1 Soil Classification

There are several systems of soil classification which are based generally on particle size or on
some additional soil properties such as plasticity and compressibility.
26
Source: SOIL SUITABILITY CLASSIFICATION FOR AQUACULTURE
2.3.4.2 Unit Weight of Soil
In this table shown here the SPT N-Value from Soil Profile.
By Interpolating the data with the SPT N-Value from Soil Profile we get the value and converting the unit.
2.3.4.3 Angle of Internal Friction
Shown here the angle of friction data’s, that will be used in the design.
Soil friction angle [°]

Description USCS
Specific
min max
value
Well graded gravel, sandy gravel, with little or no fines GW 33 40
27
Poorly graded gravel, sandy gravel, with little or no fines GP 32 44
Sandy gravels - Loose (GW, GP) 35
Sandy gravels - Dense (GW, GP) 50
Silty gravels, silty sandy gravels GM 30 40
Clayey gravels, clayey sandy gravels GC 28 35
Well graded sands, gravelly sands, with little or no fines SW 33 43
Well-graded clean sand, gravelly sands - Compacted SW - - 38
Well-graded sand, angular grains - Loose (SW) 33
Well-graded sand, angular grains - Dense (SW) 45
Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, with little or no fines SP 30 39
Poorly-garded clean sand - Compacted SP - - 37
Uniform sand, round grains - Loose (SP) 27
Uniform sand, round grains - Dense (SP) 34
Sand SW, SP 37 38
Loose sand (SW, SP) 29 30
Medium sand (SW, SP) 30 36
Dense sand (SW, SP) 36 41
Silty sands SM 32 35
Silty clays, sand-silt mix - Compacted SM - - 34
Silty sand - Loose SM 27 33
28
Silty sand - Dense SM 30 34
Clayey sands SC 30 40
Calyey sands, sandy-clay mix - compacted SC 31
Loamy sand, sandy clay Loam SM, SC 31 34
Inorganic silts, silty or clayey fine sands, with slight plasticity ML 27 41
Inorganic silt - Loose ML 27 30
Inorganic silt - Dense ML 30 35
Inorganic clays, silty clays, sandy clays of low plasticity CL 27 35
Clays of low plasticity - compacted CL 28
Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity OL 22 32
Inorganic silts of high plasticity MH 23 33
Clayey silts - compacted MH 25
Silts and clayey silts - compacted ML 32
Inorganic clays of high plasticity CH 17 31
Clays of high plasticity - compacted CH 19
Organic clays of high plasticity OH 17 35
ML, OL, MH,

Loam 28 32
OH
ML, OL, MH,

Silt Loam 25 32
OH
ML, OL, CL,

Clay Loam, Silty Clay Loam 18 32
MH, OH, CH
29
OL, CL, OH,
Silty clay 18 32
CH
CL, CH, OH,

Clay 18 28
OL
Peat and other highly organic soils Pt 0 10
Using the Average Value of Angle of friction of clay which is 23 degrees.
2.3.4.4 Cohesion
Soil friction angle is a shear strength parameter of soils. Its definition is derived from the Mohr-Coulomb
failure criterion and it is used to describe the friction shear resistance of soils together with the normal
effective stress. In the stress plane of Shear stress-effective normal stress, the soil friction angle is the
angle of inclination with respect to the horizontal axis of the Mohr-Coulomb shear resistance line. Typical
values of soil friction angle for different soils according to USCS. Some typical values of soil friction angle
are given below for different USCS soil types at normally consolidated condition unless otherwise stated.
Source: ecorisq.org
30
Using the value of 19 degrees for the angle of friction as the critical data for the design
2.3.4.5 Adhesion
Empirical adhesion coefficient α
Pile material Soil consistency Cohesion range Adhesion coefficient α [-]
cu [kPa]
Timber and concrete piles Very soft 0 - 12 0.00 - 1.00
Soft 12 - 24 1.00 - 0.96
Medium stiff 24 - 48 0.96 - 0.75
Stiff 48 - 96 0.75 - 0.48
Very stiff 96 - 192 0.48 - 0.33
Source: NAVFAC DM 7.2, Foundation and Earth Structures, U.S. Department of the Navy, 1984.
2.3.4.6 Poisson’s Ratio
Summary of Poisson’s ratio, ν and SPT N value relationships
Soil type ν and SPT N value relationship r 2 Range of N
Loose granular soil ν = 0.2 + 0.01 N 0.998 0–20
Dense granular soil ν = 0.2 + 0.005 N 0.998 20–50
Soft clay ν = 0.15 + 0.0167 N 0.998 0–6
Stiff clay ν = 0.125 + 0.0125 N 0.998 6–30
Source: Estimation of Engineering Properties of Soils from Field SPT Using Random Number Generation
31
2.3.4.7 Jet Grout Compressive Strength
Jet grouting with a cement content of approximately 400 kg/m3 (20% by weight) was able to increase the
compressive strength of a soft, plastic clay from a value between 40 to 60 kPa to an average of 4500 kPa.
This result is consistent with previous experience.
Typical Soilcrete Strength
Source: JET GROUTING SYSTEMS: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES, p. 875-886.

2.3.4.8 Stone Columns (Vibro Replacements)
Typical Values of Unit Weight for Soils
Type of soil γsat (kN/m3) γd (kN/m3)
Gravel 20 - 22 15 - 17
Sand 18 - 20 13 - 16
Silt 18 - 20 14 - 18
Clay 16 - 22 14 - 21
32
2.3.4.9 Youngs Modulus of Elasticity
Source: Soil elastic Young's modulus (Geotechdata,2013)
2.3.4.10 Compressive Strength
33
Source: 2012 compiled from Kezdi 1974 and Prat et al. 1995)
2.3.4.11 Undrained Shear Strength
Source: Terzaghi and Peck, 1969

2.3.4.12 Shear Strength and Bulk Unit Weight of Soil Mixing
Shows here the table and datas that has been gathered to be used in the design.
34
35
36
Source: International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 9,pg 149- 154
37
2.3.4.13 Allowable Bearing Capacity of Vibro-Replacement
Source: Principle of Foundation Engineering 6 th Edition, p 770-771
38
2.4 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES
2.4.1 Local Literature and Studies
Unrelenting effects of natural disasters: earthquakes, storm surges, typhoons on different structures
According to O. Ace (2018), recent history has seen the unrelenting effects of natural disasters—
earthquakes, storm surges, typhoons—on different structures. Among these structures are schools,
government office buildings, and homes. Many have been reinforced, renovated, or rebuilt following these
disasters. Most structures, particularly in the Philippines, are designed using the National Structural Code
of the Philippines (NSCP), with which a set of minimum requirements (e.g., strength, stiffness, connections,
etc.) based on the structural loads expected throughout the building’s lifetime. However, with the increasing
frequency of natural disasters—particularly typhoons—which are unusually large loads these structures will
have to carry; one may not have a clear expectation of the performance of these code-designed buildings.
These structures may underperform or be overdesigned. Building back better, more resilient structures
requires one to gain insight on what specifically causes them to fail, how likely these specific causes are to
happen, and ultimately what the consequences of these failures are. Once this information is available, the
weaknesses in these designs may then be better addressed. The objective of the paper is to be able to
quantify the performance of the different structures in order to see the relative influence of changes made in
the different design variables. Understanding the different factors that affect how a structure performs
against a hazard will allow better insight into how to design new structures that are more resilient.
Risk Analysis of Three-storey Reinforced Concrete Moment resisting Frame Structures Using
Performance-based Wind Engineering
Throughout the different levels of analyses conducted, it is evident that, generally, performance of the
structures was influenced by modifications made in the roof pitch. This is due to the larger surface area roof
cover has compared to the total window surface area in any one of the structures. This is also consistent
with what is observed in numerous studies on wind engineering, where severe wind damage follows a
progressive, top to bottom trend. Modifying the building aspect ratio however had a greater effect on
window damage, where more slender structures incurred more damage. Regarding hazard
characterization: the Gumbel distribution function used in this study generally shows a good fit except for
extreme wind speeds, which was evident in the Gumbel plot generated, where data points for higher wind
speeds had larger deviations from the trend line. The test of other distribution functions to describe severe
wind hazard is recommended. Investigating more design components, damage indicators, and types of
structures is recommended to get clearer expectations of performance. This will allow for better insight into
the weaknesses and even strengths of current designs, thus allowing designers to help in building back
more resilient structures.
39
Life cycle analysis of structural systems of residential housing units in the Philippines
In designing a house, or any structure, there are three things commonly considered by the structural
engineer; these are represented in the safety–serviceability–cost triangle. Safety and serviceability ensure
that the structure can fulfill its intended purpose by satisfying code requirements on strength, ductility, and
deflections. Addressing economy, on the other hand, requires value engineering to produce an optimum
design with reasonable cost. However, the triangle is increasingly found to be incomplete. There is the
question of environmental impacts the structure may bear on society. But what parameter may be used to
guide structural designers to make their structures “greener”? This paper proposes the use of a “Structural
Sustainability Index (SSI)”, a single-score based on the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) framework. The SSI
was derived from five environmental impacts, whose respective weights were determined from a survey of
Civil engineering professionals. The impacts and their weights are: Global Warming Potential (36%), Ocean
Acidification (10%), Human Toxicity (12%), Abiotic Materal Depletion (16%), and Energy Use (26%). The
concept was applied to low-cost housing units in the Philippines. Four models with approximately 60 sq.m.
floor area were investigated. structural systems of these houses are conventional reinforced concrete,
modular block system, I beam, and modified system. Among the four, the I beam house incurred the lowest
SSI of 0.682 while the conventional had the greatest at 0.986. The I beam, however, was found to have the
largest contribution in abiotic material depletion due to heavy steel usage. This could be lessened through
recycling of steel, as the manufacturing stage was found to contribute the most damage. Significant
improvements were made in all impact categories when converting from a conventional to a modified
system using T-joists and wall stiffeners, for a total of 9.87% decrease in SSI. Costs likewise decreased.
With the SSI and LCA framework, sustainability concerns can be quantified by structural engineers and
significant improvements can be made in designing.
Structural Assessment of the Three-Storey Engineering Building at Laguna State Polytechnic University,
Sta. Cruz Campus
Structural Assessment is a process to analyze a structural system in order to predict the responses of the
real structure under the excitation of expected loading and external environment during the service life of
the structure. This allows the calculation of the forces and deformations of the various structural
components. A well designed structure will be able to resist all loadings besides the static loads design.
Dynamic loads such as wind load and seismic response also needs to be considered into structural design.
Structural assessment can be initiated, when there has been a change in resistance such as structural
deterioration due to time-depending processes like corrosion and fatigue or structural damage by
accidental actions. Also, when there will be a change in loading, increase in lateral loads for example, or an
extension of the design working life. Assessment can also be carried out to analyze the current structural
reliability for environmental hazards like earthquakes or extreme winds and waves.
40
2.4.2 Foreign Literature and Studies
Comparative Study of OMRF and SMRF
According to the comparative study of G.V.S SivaPrasad and S. Adiseshu, the objective of their study to
analyze the seismic behavior of Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF) and Ordinary Moment Resisting
Frame (OMRF) in the scenario of five-storey, ten-storey, fifteen-storey and twenty-storey reinforced
concrete structure located at seismic zone II. The standards used by the researchers were under IS
1893:2000 and IS 456:2000. The design was also composed of alternate shear wall in the structural frame.
Furthermore, with the progress of the new method that the designers used and the evaluation and analysis
of shear wall system and the serviceability done by the researchers, the engineers who are able to do the
same method as it was stated by the designers, will be able to select the most economic system resulting
in safety of the structure planning to built. Due to the intensive comparative study done by the researchers,
they found that SMRF system was cost effective and resisting to high rise structures.
Damage-control Seismic Design of Moment resisting RC Frame Buildings
H. Jiang, B. Fu and L. Chen proposed a new seismic design for directly and efficiently controlling damage
to structural and non-structural components of moment resisting reinforced concrete building. Using their
proposed design method for a typical six-storey moment resisting RC frame building under the standard of
Chinese Seismic Design Code. The seismic performance of the structure was evaluated under different
levels of earthquake intensity/magnitude by conducting a non-linear time history analysis. The results
showed that the pre-determined seismic performance objectives as design with their proposed method can
be achieved resulting in great efficiency.
A Study of the Various Structural Framing Systems Subjected to Seismic Loads
According to the study of Abhyuday Titiksh (2015), in seismic behavior of the structure having various
structural configurations like OMRCF (Ordinary Moment Resisting Concrete Frames), SMRCF (Special
Moment Resisting Frames) and BSF (Braced Steel Frames). A comparative study of all the types of frames
will shed light on the best suited frame to be adopted for seismic loads in Indian scenario. For this purpose,
a G+4 building was designed for OMRCF, SMRCF and BSF framing configurations in Seismic Zone V
according to Indian codes. Tests were carried out to evaluate their structural efficiencies in terms of storey
drifts, Base shear, amount of reinforcement etc. Moment frames have been widely used for seismic
resisting systems due to their superior deformation and energy dissipation capacities. A moment frame
consists of beams and columns, which are rigidly connected. The components of a moment frame should
41
resist both gravity and lateral load. Lateral forces are distributed according to the flexural rigidity of each
component.
Regularity and optimization practice in structural frames in real design cases
According Dunant, A., Drewniok, M., Eleftheriadis, S., Cullen., J and Allywood, J. (2018), they could confirm
the principal finding that about 35–45% of the steel by mass of the load-bearing frame is not required in
terms of structural efficiency. However, only part of this is over-design, as the cores, trimmers, and ties
representing 6% of the total mass are necessary for the stability of structures and are mandated by the
codes, and a further 3% of the mass is underused in secondary edge beams whose design is frequently
constrained by the available space. Nonetheless, these beams are still oversized in many cases: in
general, the smallest available section should be used. The original study had suggested that
rationalization was a likely culprit for the overdesign. This could show that this was likely not the case. The
remainder of the underutilization can be explained by the design practice of the engineers. To guard
against changes during the project, the engineers seem very reluctant to design beams with ur beyond 0.8.
In effect, this results in at least 20% of the mass of steel frames which is not necessary for the purpose of
safety or service. Small changes in the design target could create important material savings at no cost. For
this to be practical, one should assess how often the defensive design practice prevented re-designs.
There is probably an opportunity, before sending the plans to the fabricator, to perform a round of
optimization. If the model structure is already coded in a computer aided design tool, this operation should
not be onerous. Nonetheless, there may be little incentive to do this after the tender depending on the form
of the tender. Thus, design and build contracts may offer more scope for optimizing designs. Their study
shows that further improvement in the design of steel frames should come from more elaborate strategies,
in particular taking into account the design of connections when choosing the sections or designing
composite deckings. Such a strategy would allow the selection of thinner sections without otherwise
changing the design practice.
A Case Study Of Wet Soil Mixing For Bearing Capacity Improvement In Turkey
According to Arash Maghsoudloo, Asli Can (2018), This paper presents a ground improvement
implementation case under a raft foundation of a local hospital. The selected ground improvement method
is Wet Soil Mixing (WSM) technique. Soil mixing is increasingly applied to environmental applications and
ground stabilization in geotechnical projects. In this technique, weak soil is mixed with cementitious slurry
to improve the characteristics of the soil.The investigated case is one of the pioneering WSM ground
improvement technique implementation cases in Turkey. The soil profile mainly consisted of low plasticity
clay. The effect of ground improvement is verified by a series of laboratory tests and four in-situ pile loading
tests.The results of in-situ pile load tests on constructed soilcrete columns showed an acceptable factor of
safety for the bearing capacity of the WSM columns. Measured bearing capacities in all four tested columns
were nearly 20% higher than calculated values. In addition, a set of samples are obtained from the
42
constructed columns and unconfined compression tests have been conducted.The laboratory test results
indicate that the selected cementitious slurry has a sufficient efficiency to form the stabilizing columns.
In this study, a ground improvement case in Turkey is investigated. The article presents the initial site
investigations and the definition of the performed ground improvement system. In addition the behavior of
the underlying soil is molded in a 2-D finite element program. The input soil of the finite element analysis
was calibrated based on the measured data obtained from field studies. Utilized ground improvement
system so-called Wet Speed Mixing was concluded to be efficient for the improvement of the soft soil
profile in the investigated site. It was observed that, although the exact behavior of the soil cannot be
captured perfectly, with simple constitutive models such as Mohr-Coulomb and Isotropic Hardening Soil
model, overall physical behavior of the soil profile can be predicted with acceptable accuracy. It can be
concluded that in practical works, due to insufficient laboratory test data use of such simple constitutive
models may also be beneficial. Another conclusion of this study was the confirmation that the bearing
capacity was improved and the settlements were reduced by ground improvement application, and the
amounts can be calculated or estimated by the analytical and numerical methods and empirical
correlations.
Ground Improvement Using the Vibro Replacement Column Technique
According to, McCabe B., McNeill J., Black J.,(2007), The Vibro Stone Column technique is one of the most
widely-used ground improvement processes in the world, although its potential for improving Irish sites has
yet to be fully exploited. Historically the system has been used to densify loose granular soils, but over the
past 35 years, the system has been used increasingly to reinforce soft cohesive soils and mixed fills. This
paper will describe the technique, applicable soil types, settlement and bearing capacity calculations,
recent research areas and an Irish case study.
The Irish construction industry has been slower than many of its European counterparts to recognise the
technical and economic advantages that Vibro Stone Columns can provide. Ireland has an abundance of
soft estuarine and alluvial soils and these may be improved sufficiently to allow standard foundations to be
constructed at shallow depth, without the need to resort to deep piling. Where ground conditions are
suitable, stone column solutions have been shown to be more cost effective than trench fill in excess of 2m
depth. In addition, stone columns can offer considerable contract programme savings over other ground
improvement methods, such as preloading and vertical drains. As with all geotechnical projects, a
thorough site investigation with adequate information on soil strength and compressibility is essential.
43
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, TRADEOFFS AND STANDARDS
3.1 DESIGN CONSTRAINTS
Constraints are the factors or hindrance affects the design or refers to some limitations under the desire
project to be constructed or developed. In the design of the project, it is important to consider the different
effects of the design constraints and limitations to the structure. Constraint is defined as the limiting
condition that may affect the design and construction of the project. Construction projects have a specific
set of objectives and constraints such as a required time frame for completion. The following were
considered to have relevant impact on the design of the Fire Station building.
3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints
The quantitative constraints indicate limitations on the resources which are to be allocated among various
decision variables. These resources may be production capacity, manpower, time, space or machinery.
Capable of being estimated or expressed with numeric values, that is being measurable.
44
3.1.1.1 Economic Constraints (Cost)
In designing, the budget of the client is the common concern that is why economic is the basic constraint in
a project. Without the investment of the client, the whole project is affected from planning and
conceptualizing up to the construction phase. Thus, the most economical among the trade-offs namely
Special Moment Resisting Frame (SMRF), Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame and Special Reinforced
Concrete Shear Walls (Dual System) are the choices that the designer might choose.
3.1.1.2 Constructability Constraints (Construction Duration)
The duration of construction plays a vital role for both the designer and for the client. The client preferably
wants a shorter time for the construction because it saves more time and financial benefits that are favor for
both parties. The design of the structural elements should not compromise the required strength due to the
client’s desirable choice. In constructing a building, estimating the number of workers or laborers,
equipment needed and materials to be used are considered because of how the project is built without
these three. In this constraint, the time also considered because the delay of the project for some problems
may be technical or any problem. If the project will not reach the desired time to finish the project it will
cause the project to spend more money to finish.
3.1.1.3 Environmental Assessment

Environmental assessment is taken up in this exercise as a rapid assessment technique for determining the
current status of the environment and identifying impact of critical activities on environmental parameters.
As such environmental assessment provides a rational approach to sustainable development. It also
enables us in carrying out environmental cost-benefit analysis of projects at an initial stage. It is thus a
precursor to detailed analysis of environmental impacts, which are taken up only if a need for the same is
established. For this constraint, the designers based the environmental assessment to carbon emission
due to vehicles and machines used in the construction.
3.1.1.4 Sustainability (Maintenance Cost)

Maintaining the structure premises is necessary in order to preserve the assets and protect the building the
building occupants. Proper building maintenance makes sure that the building and the environment remain
healthy, clean and a safe place to work or reside. On the contrary, this also causes the value of your
building higher that keep up regular maintenance. For this constraint, the designers measured the
maintenance cost by multiplying the 15% of total estimate cost to overall estimate cost divided by the
designed life span.
3.1.1.5 Risk Assessment (Deflection)
Safety is taken into consideration since most of the time in designing for accidents cannot be avoided.
Upon the evaluation of the designer, the constraint is based on the deflection to prevent structural damage
caused by loads. Considering the safety of the workers and the future occupants illustrates the quality of
the project and quality of the designer as an engineer without sacrificing the risks of the occupants in the
future. And this also engaged with the cost because the less deflection the less cost to be construct vise-
45
versa, but the large beam can carry heavy loads compared to small beams. But the designer must be
considered the safety of the users and how it takes over a period of time to be stable.
3.1.2 Qualitative Constraints
Qualitative constraints are used to gain an understanding of underlying reasons, opinions, and motivations.
It provides insights into the problem or helps to develop ideas or hypotheses for potential quantitative
research.
3.1.2.1 Social Constraint
The location of the project has residents living within the area and it is just right beside a main road. The
designers considered social as a constraint because those people living and passing by the area may
complain about the project during its construction as it may be seen as a hazard especially during rainy
days and it's possible to cause heavy traffic.
3.1.2.2 Ethical Constraint
The project was located on the Bagong Nayon, Cogeo and it lies with some private properties on its side.
Therefore, the designers need to make sure that upon the construction of the project, the structure must not
affect or damage any other properties near the construction area.
3.1.2.3 Political Constraint
This being a government project, it is important to consider the political constraint in designing and building
a public structure. The designers have to assure the public that the project does not endorse any political
party and its candidates, that this project is purely for the benefit of the public and the infrastructures of the
country.
3.2 TRADEOFFS
To address these multiple constraints, the designers came up with two specialization of trade-offs;
Structural Engineer Geo-technical. There are three alternatives for each specialization that were chosen by
the designer to satisfy the constraints and also, this will help the client to decide for the best option that will
be used for the design. The designer chose the following tradeoffs.
3.2.1 Structural Engineering Context (Moment Resisting Frame)
A moment frame is a special type of frame that uses rigid connections between each of its constituent
members. This configuration is able to resist lateral and overturning forces because of the bending moment
and shear strength that is inherent in its members and the connecting joints. Therefore, the stiffness and
strength of the moment frame in seismic design depends on the stiffness and strength of its members.
46
3.2.1.1Special Reinforced Concrete Moment Frame (SMRF)
The Special Moment-Resisting Frame System (SMRF) is a type of frame system detailed to provide ductile
behavior and comply with requirements in Chapter 4 or 5 of National Structural Code of the Philippines
(NSCP). The ductile behavior is the response to stress of concrete material which undergoes permanent
deformation without fracturing. Also, ductile behavior of concrete is enhanced in high confining pressures
combined with high temperatures and low rates of strain. Special Moment Resisting Frames are designed
so that beams, columns, and beam-column joints in moment frames are proportioned and detailed to resist
flexural, axial, and shearing actions that result as a building sways through multiple displacement cycles
during strong earthquake ground shaking.
Figure 3.1 Special Moment Resisting Concrete Frame
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Reinforcement-details-for-columns_fig1_270393949
Advantages Disadvantages
● Shear failure can be avoided through use ● It is a higher cost compared to other
of a capacity-design approach framing systems.
47
● It can avoid anchorage or splice failure ● Splices in special moment frame columns
● It can attain the design of a strong column also can be critical to system performance.
and weak beam frame because if columns It is important to note that, in many cases,
provide a stiff and strong spine over the the primary demand on steel special
building height, drift will be more uniformly moment frame columns is flexure, or
distributed and localized damage will be flexure combined with axial tension, rather
reduced than axial compression. In effect, these
● Plain concrete has relatively small usable columns act as “vertical beams” rather
compressive strain capacity (around than classical columns.
0.003), and this might limit the ● Proper detailing of the welds between the
deformability of beams and columns of doubler plates and the column web,
special moment frames. column flanges, and/or continuity plates is
needed to ensure that force transfers
through this highly stressed region can be
achieved
Table 3.1 Advantages Disadvantages of SMRF
Source: https://www.nehrp.gov/pdf/nistgcr9-917-3.pdf
3.2.1.2 Dual System with Intermediate Moment Frames
A concrete moment resisting frame designed in accordance with Sec 8.3.10
Figure 3.2 Intermediate Moment Resisting Concrete Frame
48
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Reinforcement-details-for-columns_fig1_270393949
● IMRCF column specimens had strength ● Labor intensive construction
larger than that required by ACI 318, and ● increase of concrete strength even with
they had drift capacities greater than 4.5% relative decrease of structural weight will
● Lightweight lead to increase of structural construction
cost.
Table 3.2 Advantages Disadvantages of IMRF
Source:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287223306_Optimal_Design_of_Intermediate_Reinforced_Concr
ete_Moment_Resisting_Frames_with_Shear_Walls_for_Different_Arrangements_of_Columns
3.2.1.3 Dual System with Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
Essentially complete frame provides support for gravity loads, and resistance to lateral loads is provided by
a specially detailed moment-resisting frame and shear walls or braced frames.
Figure 3.3 Dual System Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
Source: https://theconstructor.org/structural-engg/high-rise-buildings-structural-systems/23076/
49
● Lightweight
● Easier Retrofit ● High construction cost
● Adaptable to architectural layout ● Long Construction Period
Table 3.3 Advantages Disadvantages of Dual System Special Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
Source:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251508673_Seismic_Behaviors_of_Columns_in_Ordinary_and_I
ntermediate_Moment_Resisting_Concrete_Frames
3.2.2 Geotechnical Engineering Context (Ground Improvement)
This field deals with the bearing capacity of soil and defining its strength to resist deformation.
3.2.2.1 Vibro Replacement
Vibro Replacement is a method of constructing densely compacted stone columns using a depth vibrator to
densify the aggregate backfill and surrounding granular soil. The technology is used to treat clays, silts and
mixed stratified soils and improve their load bearing and settlement characteristics.
Application:
● Suitable for very weak, cohesive and organic soils.
● The allowable bearing pressure after improvement is typically in a range of 150 to 400kPa
● Off-shore compaction for quay walls and bridge abutments
● Liquefaction mitigation
50
Figure 3.4 Vibro Replacement
Source: https://www.google.com/search?
q=vibro+replacement+picture&rlz=1C1CHBF_enPH854PH854&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahU
KEwjDk73s6c7nAhXsKqYKHcSjC3IQ_AUoAXoECA0QAw&biw=1536&bih=754#imgrc=QMnP6HbpoiBa6M
● An effective treatment for soft/weak soils at ● Vibro-compaction is only effective on

depths of 2m >20m. granular and non-cohesive soils.
● Optimised and localised treatment solution ● Densification generally cannot be achieved

for differing soils. when the granular soil contains more than
12 to 15 percent silt or more than 2 percent
● Highly economical and often results in clay.
greater time savings.
● A comprehensive analysis of the soil profile
● Reduces the risk of seismically induced is needed with continuous sampling or in-situ
liquefaction. testing.
● Minimal noise and vibration. ● Not suitable for sites with contaminated land
if vibratory techniques use water jetting.
● Allows high production rates being quicker
to complete than piling.
51
Table 3.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of Vibro Replacement
Source:https://www.premierguarantee.com/resource-hub/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-vibro-piling/
3.2.2.2 Wet Soil Mixing
Wet soil mixing or also known as deep mixing method is a ground improvement technique that uses dry
cementitious binder to create soilcrete that improves high moisture clays and other weak soils by
mechanically mixing. It can be used in nearly any soil type, including organics. Stiff soils and obstruction
must be pre-drilled ahead of soil mixing process.
Application
● Increase bearing capacity
● Decrease settlement
● Mitigate liquefaction
● Provide structural support
● Reduce permeability
Figure 3.5 Wet Soil Mixing

Source: https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=608&tbm
52
=isch&sxsrf=ACYBGNTmSsL3NMIdupemtoFHjGMKX35BFg
%3A1571353878510&sa=1&ei=FvWoXe3jHpP6wQOBsrT4BA&q=wet+soil+mixing&oq=wet+&gs_l=img.1.0
.35i39j0i67j0l8.13857.15699..16301...0.0..0.199.518.4j1......0....1..gws-wiz-img.......0i10.-wvkKys8Bhs
● Can be used up to a depth of 30m and by ● High cost of mobilization

theory can be used for most subsurface
● Uneconomical for small structur
● Low vibration and noise
● Design verification is subjective
● Reduced in amount of waste materials
● Must have in depth investigation of
● Economical than remove and replaced geotechnical report
Table 3.5 Advantages and Disadvantages of Wet Soil Mixing
Source: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/engineering/technical-services/geotechnical-engineering-
bureau/geotech-eng-repository/GDM_Ch-14_Ground%20Improvement.pdf
3.2.2.3 Jet Grouting
Jet grouting is a ground improvement or soil stabilization method. Jet grouting is a method of soil
stabilization which involves the injection of a stabilizing fluid into the subsoil (or the soil under treatment)
under high pressure under high velocity. The injection process involves a certain amount of site preparation
as well as injection equipment.
Application
 For construction of horizontal barriers

 Control of groundwater
 Underpinning
 Tunneling
 Support for excavation
53
Figure 3.6 Jet Grouting
Source: https://www.google.com/search?
q=jet+grouting&rlz=1C1CHBF_enPH854PH854&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjkka247s7
nAhVExIsBHSVID_EQ_AUoAXoECA8QAw&biw=1536&bih=754#imgrc=HPEtbwMOSOJ7cM
● Large cemented material column creation ● limited depth

without causing huge ground disturbances
(subsoil) ● weak in tensile strength
● Columns form continuous elements forming ● availability of the equipment

in different shapes thus improving the
mechanical properties and decreasing ● it cannot use in small area projects
porosity.
● Improvement in construction process thus

emerging out with a better design
philosophy
● It’s attractive nature in terms of confined

space working and under difficult site
conditions
54
Table 3.6 Advantages and Disadvantages of Jet Grouting
Source: https://theconstructor.org/geotechnical/jet-grouting-procedure-advantages/14470/
3.3 RAW DESIGNERS RANKING
Based on the constraints stated above, three construction methodologies were considered on the structural
framing system to be design to satisfy the requirements of cost, speed of construction, life span and
structural safety. Using the model on trade off strategies in engineering design by Otto and Antonsson
(1991), the importance of each criterion (on scale 1 to 5, 5 with the highest importance) was assigned and
each design methodology’s ability to satisfy the criterion.
Figure 3.7 Ranking Scale
After considering the design constraints, the designers performed an initial evaluation of the two framing
system based on the constraints above and came up with the raw designer’s ranking shown in the table
below.
The outcome of the set criterion therefore will constitute the decision of the client and the designers. Above
all, economical, will be given an importance value of 10. Safety or risk assessment will be given an
importance value of 9, sustainability constraints and constructability will be given an importance value of 8,
and lastly, environmental assessment will be given an importance value of 8
Design Criteria Criterion’s Ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale of 0 to 10)
Importance (on a Special Reinforced Dual System with Dual System with
scale of 0 to 10) Concrete Moment Intermediate Special Moment
Frame Moment Frame Frame
Economic 10 7 8 9
Safety 9 9 7 6
Sustainability 9 8 7 6
Constructability 9 6 6 5
55
Environmental 8 7 7 7
assessment
Overall Rank 313 297 283
Table 3.7: Designer’s Raw Ranking
Cost
Constraint Dual System with Dual System with

Special Reinforced Intermediate Moment Special Moment Frame
Concrete Moment Frame Frame
Economic Php 2,440,595.00 Php 2,616,075.00 Php 3,036,999.00
Constructability 95 days 98 days 102 days
Safety 7.06 mm 9.09 mm 11.26 mm
Sustainability Php 12,200.00 Php 12,900.00 Php 12,750.00
Environmental 35.94 kg of CO2 per km 43.13 35.94 kg of CO2 per 40.25 35.94 kg of CO2
Assessment km per km
Table 3.8: Initial Estimate Value
Cost Difference of Trade off A and Trade off B
higher value−lower value

% difference= ×10
higher value
2616075−2440595
% difference= ×10
2616075
% difference=0.67
Subordinaterank =Governing rank −%difference
Subordinate rank =10−0.67
Subordinaterank =9.33
56
Cost Difference of Trade off B and Trade off C

% difference= ×10
higher value
3036999−2616075
% difference= ×10
3036999
% difference=1.39
Subordinate rank =Governing rank −%difference
Subordinate rank =8.04
Cost Difference of Trade off A and Trade off C

% difference= ×10
higher value
3036999−2440595
% difference= ×10
3036999
% difference=1.39
57
Duration Difference of Trade off A and Trade off B

% difference= ×10
higher value
98−95
% difference= × 10
98
% difference=0.31=1
Subordinate rank =10−1
Subordinate rank =9
Duration Difference of Trade off B and Trade off C

% difference= ×10
higher value
102−98
% difference= ×10
102
% difference=0.4=1
58
Subordinate rank =9
Duration Difference of Trade off A and Trade off C

% difference= ×10
higher value
102−95
% difference= ×10
102
% difference=0.69=1
Subordinate rank =9
Safety Difference of Trade off A and Trade off B

% difference= ×10
higher value
59
9.09−7.06
% difference= ×10
9.09
% difference=2.23=3
Subordinate rank =7
Safety Difference of Trade off B and Trade off c

% difference= ×10
higher value
11.26−9.09
% difference= × 10
11.26
% difference=1.92=2
Subordinaterank =10−2
Subordinate rank =8
Safety Difference of Trade off A and Trade off C
60
% difference= ×10
higher value
11.26−7.06
% difference= × 10
11.26
% difference=3.73=4
Subordinate rank =6
Sustainability Difference of Trade off A and Trade off B

% difference= ×10
higher value
12900−12200
% difference= ×10
12900
% difference=0.5=1
Subordinate rank =9
61
Sustainability Difference of Trade off B and Trade off C

% difference= ×10
higher value
12900−12750
% difference= ×10
12900
% difference=0.11
Subordinate rank =9
Sustainability Difference of Trade off A and Trade off C

% difference= ×10
higher value
12750−12200
% difference= ×10
12750
% difference=0.43=1
Subordinate rank =9
62
Criterion’s Ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale 0 to 10)
Design Criteria Importance (on a
scale of 0 to 10) Vibro-
Wet Soil Mixing Jet Grouting
Replacement
Economic 10
2.6 1.53 2.6
Safety 9
8.45 1.62 1.92
Sustainability 9
10 8.33 8.33
Constructability 8
9.18 9.41 9.38
Over-all Rank 246 162.39 175.58
Trade-offs Design constraints

GEOTECHNICAL Economic Sustainability Constructability Safety
Cost (Php) Bearing (Duration - days) Service life - years
SYSTEM capacity
(Kpa)
Low Mobility 672.30 per 75

861.8 50
Compaction cubic yard
2585.78 per
Wet Soil Mixing 1019.89 50 85
cubic yard
395.62 per
Preloading of soil cubic yard 165.6 60 80
63
3.3.1 Computation for Ranking of Economic Constraints (Vibro Replacement vs. WSM)
HigherValue−LowerValue
% difference= x 10
HigherValue
2585.78−672.30
% difference= x 10
2585.78
% difference=7.4
SubordinateRank=GoverningRank −( % difference )
SubordinateRank=10−7.4
SubordinateRank=2.6
Computation for Ranking of Economic Constraint (WSM vs Jet Grouting)
% difference= x 10o
HigherValue
2585.78−395.62
% difference= x 10
2585.78
% difference=8.47
SubordinateRank=1.53 ≈ 1
64
3.3.2 Computation for Ranking of Economic Constraint (Jet Grouting vs Vibro-Replacement)
% difference= x 10
HigherValue
2585.78−672.30
% difference= x 10
2585.78
% difference=7.4
SubordinateRank=2.6
3.3.3 Computation for Ranking of Sustainability Constraint (Vibro-Replacement vs. WSM)
% difference= x 10
HigherValue
1019.89−861.8
% difference= x 10
1019.89
% difference=1.55
SubordinateRank=8.45
65
3.3.4 Computation for Ranking of Sustainability Constraint (WSM vs Jet Grouting)
% difference= x 10
HigherValue
1019.89−165.6
% difference= x 10
1019.89
% difference=8.38
Computation for Ranking of Sustainability Constraint (Jet Grouting vs Vibro-Replacement)
% difference= x 10
HigherValue
861.8−165.6
% difference= x 10
861.8
% difference=8.08
66
3.3.5 Computation for Ranking of Constructability Constraint (Vibro-Replacement vs WSM)
% difference= x 10
HigherValue
50 days−50 days
% difference= x 10
50 days
% difference=0
SubordinateRank=10
SubordinateRank=10
3.3.6 Computation for Ranking of Constructability Constraint (WSM vs Jet Grouting)
% difference= x 10
HigherValue
60 days−50 days
% difference= x 10
60 days
% difference=1.67
67
3.3.7 Computation for Ranking of Constructability Constraint (Jet Grouting vs Vibro-Replacement)
% difference= x 10
HigherValue
60 days−50 days
% difference= x 10
60 days
% difference=1.67
3.3.8 Computation for Ranking of Safety Constraint (Vibro-Replacement vs WSM)
% difference= x 10
HigherValue
85 years−75 years
% difference= x 10
85 years
% difference=.82
SubordinateRank=10−.82
SubordinateRank=9.18
68
3.3.9 Computation for Ranking of Safety Constraint (WSM vs Jet Grouting)
% difference= x 10
HigherValue
85 years−80 years
% difference= x 10
85 years
% difference=0.59
SubordinateRank=9.41≈ 9
3.3.10 Computation for Ranking of Safety Constraint (Jet Grouting vs Vibro-Replacement)
% difference= x 10
HigherValue
80 years−75 years
% difference= x 10
80 years
% difference=0.63
SubordinateRank=9.38≈ 9
69
3.3.11 Tradeoffs Assessment
The governing rank is the subjective choice of the designers in appointing the value for the criterion’s
importance and the ability to satisfy the criterion, the designers would subjectively choose any desired
value. In this case, economic constraint was given an importance of ten (10). Also, risk assessment
constraint was given importance of nine (9) for the quality and integrity of the project. The constructability
constraint is given an importance of nine (9) since it will be based on the duration of construction phase.
The sustainability constraint is given an importance of nine (9) since the life span of the building in different
factors arises will determine if the project is sustainable or not, and lastly the environmental assessment
was given an importance factor of eight (8).
3.4 DESIGN STANDARDS
The designers come up with the design of the fire station building with accordance to the following codes
and standards:
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.
The National Structural Code of the Philippines. This code provides minimum standards to safeguard life or
limb, property and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials
pertaining to the structural aspects of all buildings and structures within its jurisdiction. The provision of this
code shall apply to the construction, alteration, moving, demolition, repair, maintenance and use of any
building or structure within its jurisdiction, except work located primarily in a public way, public utility towers
and poles, hydraulic flood control structures, and indigenous family dwellings.
70
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF STRUCTURE
4.1 DESIGN METHODOLOGY (Structural Context)

The structure was designed with accordance to various codes and standards, codes provided in this design
project. The structure was designed as reinforced concrete using ultimate stress design (USD). The codes
and standards that were used in the design process are specified in Chapter 3
DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
STRUCTURAL MODEL
LOAD MODELS
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
Figure 4.1 Design Process
In designing the structure, the designer provided a flow chart which shows the respective design stage
process. The design starts with conceptualizing what structure is to be built and what functions in order to
what geometric modelling is appropriate for the structure. In geometric modelling, the frame was
conceptualized with accordance to the National Building Code of the Philippines (NBCP) and the design
specifications was conformed to the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP 2015). The designer
used a structural software STAAD Pro v8i for the geometric modelling and structural analysis to calculate
the needed values for the structural design. The designer has used different load combination specified by
the code in generating the structural data to be used in the structural design. The design process takes
place after gathering the values generated by the software.
71
4.2 DESIGN OF TRADEOFF 1 (SPECIAL MOMENT RESISTING FRAME)
Figure 4.2 3D Rendered view of the Reinforced Concrete SMRF Structure
4.2.1 Design Specification
Figure 4.3 Design Properties in STAAD Pro
ELEMENT DIMENSION MATERIAL

COLUMN 450mm x 450mm Concrete
72
BEAM 400mm x 250mm Concrete
SLAB 150 mm (Thickness) Concrete
Table 4.1 Design Properties
4.2.2 Design Loads

The Design Loads and Parameters shown are project design inputs from the National Structural Code of
the Philippines (NSCP) 2015.
Figure 4.4 Dead Load input in STAAD Pro
Member Load
st th
Components (1 to 2 floor) Design Load (KPa)
Frame Walls
CHB Wall, 150mm, Full Grout (Plastered both sides) 3.11
Wall covering

surface
Table 4.2 Member Loads
Floor Load
Components (1st to 2th floor) Design Load (KPa)
73
Ceilings
Floor Fills
Frame Partitions

side
Frame Walls

Table 4.3 Dead Loads
4.2.3 Live Loads

The maximum live loads expected by the intended use or occupancy based on section 205 of the code.
Below are the occupancy descriptions and the equivalent design live loads in KPa:
Figure 4.5 Live Load input in STAAD Pro
Use or Occupancy Description Design Load (KPa)

Description
74
Roof Decks Same as area served or --
occupancy
Table 4.4: Minimum Design Live Loads
4.2.4 Seismic load parameter
Figure 4.6 Seismic Parameters in STAAD Pro
Parameters
R (Special Reinforced Concrete Moment Frame) 8.5
Table 4.5 Seismic Parameters
4.2.5 Load Combination

The following table defines the different types of load combination used in the structural analysis of the
building. All these combinations will be applied and the designer will determine the load combination that
75
will produce the maximum stress in the building. This governing load combination will then be used to
calculate the member forces for the design.
Figure 4.7 NSCP 2015 Load Combination generated in STAAD Pro
Figure 4.8 NSCP 2015 generated Drift code in STAAD Pro
76
Figure 4.9 NSCP 2015 – ACI-FOOTING Load Combination code generated in STAAD Pro
4.2.6 Structural Analysis

The parameters that were previously stated in this chapter were now then used for the structural analysis of
the configuration using computer software (STAAD). The designer defined all load combinations, seismic
and wind load definitions, dead and live loads and trial structural members to obtain the member forces that
will be used in the design. The following figures show the highlights of the structural analysis process.
77
Figure 4.10 Allowable drift factor in NSCP 2015
78
Δs = Δm / (0.7 x R)
Where:
Δm = 0.025h or h/40, if T < 0.7 sec
Δm = 0.020h or h/50, if T > 0.7 sec
T = fundamental period of building
h = structural height
Ct = .0731
T = Ct(H).75 = .0731(8.5).75 = 0.364 < 0.7
Δs = Δm / (0.7 x R) = 1 / 0.7 x 8.5 x 40 = .0042
Figure 4.11 Allowable drift factor input in STAAD Pro
79
Figure 4.12 Maximum Shear Forces result in STAAD Pro
Figure 4.13 Maximum Bending Moment result in STAAD Pro
80
Figure 4.14 Earthquake force at x-direction result in STAAD Pro
Figure 4.15 Earthquake force at z-direction result in STAAD Pro
81
Figure 4.16 Dead Load
Figure 4.17 Live Loads
82
Figure 4.18 1.4 DL
Figure 4.19 1.2 DL + 1.2 LL
83
Figure 4.20 1.42 DL + .5 LL + 1.25 EQ
Figure 4.21 1.42 DL + .5 LL - 1.25 EQ
84
Figure 4.22 1.42 DL + 1.25 EQ
Figure 4.23 1.42 DL - 1.25 EQ
85
Figure 4.24 0.68 DL + 1.25 EQ
Figure 4.25 0.68 DL - 1.25 EQ

4.2.6.1 STAAD Pro Results
86
Figure 4.26 Center of Mass Result
Figure 4.27 Center of Mass Result
87
Figure 4.28 Center of Rigidity result
88
Figure 4.29 Storey Drift Check
Figure 4.30 Soft storey Check
89
Figure 4.31 Design Base Shear in NSCP 2015
Check:
W = 6554.58 kN
I = 1.5
R = 8.5
Na = 1.2
Nv = 1.6
Ca = 0.44Na = 0.53
Cv = 0.64Nv = 1.02
T = 0.364
V = Cv(I)(W) / RT = 3241.23 kN (design base shear)
V = 2.5Ca(I)(W) / R = 1526.83 kN (maximum design base shear) GOVERNS!
V = 0.11Ca(I)(W) = 571.03 kN (minimum design base shear)
V = 0.8ZNV(I)(W) / R = 444.16 kN (minimum design base shear)
4.2.7 Structural Design
After analyzing the structure using STAAD Pro, the designers used the STAAD RCDC for designing the
beams, columns, slabs and walls.
4.2.7.1 Design of Beam
90
Figure 4.32 Design process of singly reinforced beams
Figure 4.33 Design process of doubly reinforced beams
91
Figure 4.34 Design process of shear reinforcement
92
Figure 4.35 Beam Layout Result in STAAD RCDC
BEAM DESIGN SUMMARY
93
Group No : G1
Analysis Reference(Member) 5.5m : 4
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Material Properties : C20 : Fy420 : Clear Cover = 40 mm
Design Code : ACI 318M - 2011
Beam Type : Ductile Beam
Flexure Design
Beam Bottom Beam Top
Left Mid Right Left Mid Right
Mu (kN) 99.84 74.56

91.69 175.097 58.861 190.265
1 3
PtClc (%) 1.13 0.8 1.02 2.04 0.619 2.21
Ast Calc 929.8 1013.4

663.7 1681.99 510.96 1820.35
(sqmm) 5 2
Ast Prv 1191.3

992.8 992.8 2026.84 573.04 2026.84
(sqmm) 6
Reinforcement 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#19 2-#25

2-#16 2-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#25
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 112.84 104.04 119.2
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 0 0 0
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 616.788 486.998 669.374
94
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
Reinforcement 2L-#10 @ 100 2L-#10 @ 125 2L-#10 @ 100
SFR : -
Beam No : B2
Group No : G1
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 65.38 178.26 56.71

85.755 79.01 165.86
6 5 5
PtClc (%) 0.94 0.7 0.86 2.07 0.595 1.94
Ast Calc 573.4 1710.8 490.7

1013.42 1013.42 1597.73
(sqmm) 1 9 2
Ast Prv 595.6 2026.8 573.0

1191.36 1191.36 2026.84
(sqmm) 8 4 4
Reinforcemen 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#19 2-#25
95
t 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#25
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 111.77 96.61 110.24
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 614.384 416.629 615.282
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
SFR : -
Beam No : B3
Group No : G1
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
96
Mu (kN) 85.60 84.25

110.49 181.309 66.421 187.834
3 3
PtClc (%) 0.94 0.92 1.27 2.11 0.707 2.18
Ast Calc 776.5 762.4 1051.2

1738.66 583.45 1798.18
(sqmm) 4 8 3
Ast Prv 1191.3

992.8 992.8 2026.84 794.24 2026.84
(sqmm) 6
Reinforcement 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25

2-#16 2-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 119.39 104.24 114.37
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 668.632 479.578 624.347
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
SFR : -
Beam No : B4
Group No : G2
97
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 84.79 202.58 67.43

115.236 102.84 204.676
3 7 6
PtClc (%) 1.34 0.93 1.17 2.34 0.719 2.37
Ast Calc 1932.7 593.3

1107.45 768.1 1013.42 1951.82
(sqmm) 6 3
Ast Prv 2026.8 794.2

1191.36 992.8 1191.36 2026.84
(sqmm) 4 4
Reinforcemen 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25

t 3-#16 2-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 120.95 116.6 124.98
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 688.643 603.402 726.284
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
98
SFR : -
Beam No : B5
Group No : G2
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 68.74 189.05 58.95

90.278 82.81 180.62
3 9 3
PtClc (%) 1 0.73 0.91 2.19 0.62 2.1
Ast Calc 1809.3 511.8

1013.42 606.1 1013.42 1732.37
(sqmm) 5 3
Ast Prv 2026.8 573.0

1191.36 992.8 1191.36 2026.84
(sqmm) 4 4
Reinforcemen 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#19 2-#25

t 3-#16 2-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#25
Shear Design 99
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 114.54 106.16 114.28
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 667.152 505.249 667.298
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
SFR : -
Beam No : B6
Group No : G2
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 70.60 178.84 53.94

78.04 88.21 176.839
2 7 8
PtClc (%) 0.85 0.76 0.97 2.08 0.563 2.06
100
Ast Calc 624.3 464.8
1013.42 1013.42 1716.2 1697.88
(sqmm) 6 4
Ast Prv 2026.8 573.0

1191.36 992.8 1191.36 2026.84
(sqmm) 4 4
Reinforcemen 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#19 2-#25

t 3-#16 2-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#25
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 114.3 105.92 110.92
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 666.074 492.767 668.376
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
SFR : -
Beam No : B7
Group No : G3
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
101
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 87.76 208.16 70.44

120.748 107.49 209.238
8 7 3
PtClc (%) 1.42 0.97 1.23 2.4 0.755 2.42
Ast Calc 799.2 1983.6 622.7

1174.57 1016.36 1993.44
(sqmm) 6 7 9
Ast Prv 2026.8 794.2

1191.36 992.8 1191.36 2026.84
(sqmm) 4 4
Reinforcemen 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25

t 3-#16 2-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 123 118.61 126.99
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 708.876 623.699 745.93
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
SFR : -
Beam No : B8
102
Group No : G3
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 72.33 199.26 62.28

100.845 100.48 198.335
5 1 3
PtClc (%) 1.14 0.78 1.14 2.31 0.659 2.3
Ast Calc 1902.4 543.5

1013.42 641.5 1013.42 1893.98
(sqmm) 2 4
Ast Prv 2026.8 573.0

1191.36 992.8 1191.36 2026.84
(sqmm) 4 4
Reinforcemen 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#19 2-#25

t 3-#16 2-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#25
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 120.11 111.73 119.96
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 680.134 559.283 678.52
103
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
SFR : -
Beam No : B9
Group No : G3
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 87.52 208.14 69.99

106.01 119.92 206.938
3 7 2
PtClc (%) 1.21 0.97 1.41 2.4 0.75 2.39
Ast Calc 796.6 1983.4 618.3

1013.42 1164.38 1972.45
(sqmm) 8 8 5
Ast Prv 2026.8 794.2

1191.36 992.8 1191.36 2026.84
(sqmm) 4 4
Reinforcemen 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25
104
t 3-#16 2-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 126.63 118.25 122.43
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 742.382 619.861 703.354
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
SFR : -
Beam No : B10
Group No : G4
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
105
Mu (kN) 83.80 193.46 67.57

118.094 109.45 207.931
5 9 1
PtClc (%) 1.38 0.92 1.26 2.24 0.721 2.4
Ast Calc 757.8 1849.5 594.6

1142 1039.07 1981.51
(sqmm) 3 8 4
Ast Prv 2026.8 794.2

1191.36 992.8 1191.36 2026.84
(sqmm) 4 4
Reinforcemen 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25

t 3-#16 2-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 120.07 111.22 126.38
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 678.253 560.083 739.955
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
SFR : -
Beam No : B11
Group No : G4
106
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 72.09 188.67 63.82

95.432 81.03 167.268
8 1 1
PtClc (%) 1.07 0.77 0.88 2.19 0.677 1.95
Ast Calc 639.1 1805.8 558.3

1013.42 1013.42 1610.57
(sqmm) 6 2 1
Ast Prv 2026.8 573.0

1191.36 992.8 1191.36 2026.84
(sqmm) 4 4
Reinforcemen 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#19 2-#25

t 3-#16 2-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#25
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 114.3 99.14 112.41
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 623.955 446.118 615.39
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
107
SFR : 1-#13EF
Beam No : B12
Group No : G4
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 77.70
78.73 100.82 172.327 62.018 180.018
2
PtClc (%) 0.84 0.86 1.14 2.01 0.656 2.09
Ast Calc 695.2 705.7 1013.4

1656.72 541 1726.88
(sqmm) 9 3 2
Ast Prv 1191.3

992.8 992.8 2026.84 573.04 2026.84
(sqmm) 6
Reinforcement 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#19 2-#25

2-#16 2-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#25
Shear Design 108

Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 115.53 100.37 111.3
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 630.438 439.404 594.091
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
SFR : -
Beam No : B13
Group No : G5
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 77.06
147.97 90.974 134.25 186.879 197.06
9
PtClc (%) 1.74 1.01 1.63 2.17 0.835 2.28
109
Ast Calc 1348.5
1434.52 833.28 1789.47 688.9 1882.34
(sqmm) 2
Ast Prv 1410.5 794.2

1586.46 1013.42 2026.84 2026.84
(sqmm) 4 4
Reinforcemen 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25

t 2-#19 2-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 124 112.29 132.09
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 731.563 605.582 812.4
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
SFR : -
Beam No : B14
Group No : G5
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
110
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 73.98
134.429 79.289 134.56 188.158 187.856
3
PtClc (%) 1.64 0.86 1.64 2.18 0.797 2.18
Ast Calc 1352.6

1350.94 711.42 1801.14 657.9 1798.38
(sqmm) 8
Ast Prv 1410.5 794.2

1410.54 1013.42 2026.84 2026.84
(sqmm) 4 4
Reinforcemen 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25

t 2-#16 2-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 125.23 105.43 125.08
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 755.2 541.234 753.004
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
SFR : -
Beam No : B15
111
Group No : G5
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 134.146 91.18 148.2 197.384 77.06 186.676
PtClc (%) 1.63 1.01 1.74 2.29 0.835 2.17
Ast Calc 1436.5

1347.13 835.48 1885.3 688.8 1787.62
(sqmm) 9
Ast Prv 1586.4 794.2

1410.54 1013.42 2026.84 2026.84
(sqmm) 6 4
Reinforcemen 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25

t 2-#16 2-#19 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 132.27 112.47 123.89
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 814.58 607.303 729.384
112
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
SFR : 1-#13EF
Beam No : B16
Group No : G6
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 79.49
144.768 89.071 130.84 192.551 186.038
9
PtClc (%) 1.7 0.99 1.58 2.23 0.865 2.16
Ast Calc 713.5

1405.32 813.02 1303.2 1841.21 1781.8
(sqmm) 6
Ast Prv 1410.5 794.2

1410.54 1013.42 2026.84 2026.84
(sqmm) 4 4
Reinforcemen 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25
113
t 2-#16 2-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 121.83 108.54 124.36
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 743.909 572.172 782.272
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
SFR : -
Beam No : B17
Group No : G6
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
114
Mu (kN) 68.12
123.041 73.378 123.09 177.208 176.643
9
PtClc (%) 1.46 0.79 1.46 2.06 0.727 2.06
Ast Calc 1203.6 600.0

1203.12 651.88 1701.25 1696.09
(sqmm) 7 8
Ast Prv 1410.5 794.2

1410.54 1013.42 2026.84 2026.84
(sqmm) 4 4
Reinforcemen 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25

t 2-#16 2-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 116.19 102.9 115.98
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 764.622 513.869 761.559
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
SFR : -
Beam No : B18
Group No : G6
115
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 79.56
130.5 89.465 145.15 186.301 192.288
2
PtClc (%) 1.57 0.99 1.71 2.16 0.866 2.23
Ast Calc 714.1

1298.73 817.21 1408.8 1784.2 1838.82
(sqmm) 9
Ast Prv 1410.5 794.2

1410.54 1013.42 2026.84 2026.84
(sqmm) 4 4
Reinforcemen 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25

t 2-#16 2-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 124.58 111.29 121.62
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 785.415 591.116 740.766
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
116
SFR : -
Beam No : B19
Group No : G7
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 66.59 148.59 62.79

104.953 106.5 165.823
9 7 6
PtClc (%) 1.2 0.71 1.22 1.75 0.665 1.94
Ast Calc 585.1 1440.2 548.4

987.34 1013.42 1597.39
(sqmm) 7 4 6
Ast Prv 595.6 1586.4 573.0

992.8 1191.36 2026.84
(sqmm) 8 6 4
Reinforcemen 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#19 2-#25

t 2-#16 3-#16 2-#19 2-#25
Shear Design 117

Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 104.39 91.1 109.71
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 671.61 407.519 684.127
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
SFR : 1-#13EF
Beam No : B20
Group No : G7
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 109.40 68.00 103.4

165.529 63.749 154.889
2 7 7
PtClc (%) 1.26 0.73 1.18 1.93 0.676 1.82
118
Ast Calc 1038.5 598.8 970.5
1594.71 557.61 1497.65
(sqmm) 3 9 3
Ast Prv 1191.3

992.8 992.8 2026.84 573.04 1586.46
(sqmm) 6
Reinforcement 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#19 2-#25

3-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#25 2-#19
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 108.55 95.27 106.95
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 656.789 454.893 698.948
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
SFR : 1-#13EF
Beam No : B21
Group No : G7
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
119
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 99.61 72.56

112.39 158.479 61.418 156.859
9 2
PtClc (%) 1.12 0.78 1.3 1.86 0.649 1.84
Ast Calc 927.3 643.7 1073.6

1530.39 535.26 1515.62
(sqmm) 9 6 3
Ast Prv 1191.3

992.8 992.8 1586.46 573.04 1586.46
(sqmm) 6
Reinforcement 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#19 2-#25

2-#16 2-#16 3-#16 2-#19 2-#19
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 109.67 96.38 104.77
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 681.078 459.737 662.675
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
SFR : -
Beam No : B22
120
Group No : G8
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 111.46 101.5

71.6 153.222 59.243 162.006
3 5
PtClc (%) 1.29 0.77 1.15 1.8 0.624 1.89
Ast Calc 1062.6 634.2 948.9

1482.44 514.58 1562.56
(sqmm) 5 2 3
Ast Prv 1191.3

992.8 992.8 1586.46 573.04 1586.46
(sqmm) 6
Reinforcement 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#19 2-#25

3-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#19 2-#19
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 107.62 87.81 113.95
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 644.494 381.608 681.283
121
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
SFR : -
Beam No : B23
Group No : G8
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 95.23 61.21 56.44

89.02 149.925 141.016
5 7 4
PtClc (%) 1.07 0.65 0.98 1.76 0.592 1.66
Ast Calc 879.2 533.3 812.4 488.1

1452.36 1371.09
(sqmm) 1 5 9 8
Ast Prv 595.6 573.0

992.8 992.8 1586.46 1586.46
(sqmm) 8 4
Reinforcemen 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#19 2-#25
122
t 2-#16 2-#16 2-#19 2-#19
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 104.39 84.59 103.49
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 641.975 351.913 629.454
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
SFR : 1-#13EF
Beam No : B24
Group No : G8
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
123
Mu (kN) 68.41
96.771 81.446 122.51 156.557 163.592
5
PtClc (%) 1.09 0.89 1.45 1.83 0.731 1.91
Ast Calc 1196.4 602.8

895.99 733.48 1512.86 1577.04
(sqmm) 7 8
Ast Prv 1410.5 794.2

1013.42 1013.42 1586.46 1586.46
(sqmm) 4 4
Reinforcemen 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25

t 2-#16 2-#19 2-#16 2-#19
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 115.41 95.61 109.07
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 687.642 432.672 696.153
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
SFR : 1-#13EF
124
4.2.7.2 Design of Slab
 Identify the load consists of:
Live load pressure
Dead load pressure
Ceiling load and other attached below the slab

 Determine the minimum thickness “h” from NSCP 2010 or 2015.
 Compute the weight of slab (Pa), Weight =уconc x h
 Calculate the factored moment (Mu) uniform load wu=factored pressure x 1m
 Compute the effective depth,d
d=h−covering ( usually 20 mm )−0.5(main diameter)
 Required Steel ratio, ρ:

 Solve for Rn from Mu = 𝟇 Rn bd2
0.85 f ' c
ρ= ¿)
fy
 Solve for ρmax and ρmin
If ρ is <ρmax and >ρmin, use ρ

If ρ is >ρmax, increase depth of slab to ensure ductile failure
If ρ is <ρmin, use ρ=ρmin
 Compute the required spacing
As= ρbd
A
One way slab ≤ 0.5
B
A
Two way slab ≥ 0.5
B
L
=SIMPLY SUPPORTED
20
L
=ONE END CONTINOUS
24
L
=BOTH ENDS
28
125
L
=CANTILEVER
10
As temp.= 0.002bt
Abar ( 1000 )
s= <smax use sax if s is>smax
AS
1. When S/L<0.5 it is one way slab

2. Min. Steel bars (main reinforced)=12mm𝟇
3. Min. Temp. Bars=10mm𝟇
4. Max. Spacing of main bars greater than not equal to 3 times thickness of slab of 500mm
5. Max. Spacing of temperature bars less than not equal to 5 times thickness of slab of 500mm
As=0.0018 bt for grade 400 bars fy=400 MPa
For Two way Slab
1. S/L>0.5 it is two way slab

2. Min. Thickness t=perimeter / 180
3. Max. Spacing of main bars =3t greater than not equal to 500mm
4. Spacing of bars within the column strips is 3/2 times the spacing t the center.
126
Table 4.36 Slab layout result from STAAD RCDC
127
Two Way Slab: 1. Interior Panel
2. One Short Edge Discontinuous
3. One Long Edge Discontinuous
4. Two Adjacent Edges Discontinuous
5. Two Short Edges Discontinuous
6. Two Long Edges Discontinuous
7. Three Edges Discontinuous (One Long Edge Continuous)
8. Three Edges Discontinuous (One Short Edge Continuous)
9. Four Edges Discontinuous
10.Simply Supported On Four Sides

Level: 5.5m

Slab No. : S1
Ly = 5 m Lx = 4 m
Live Load = 2.4

Imposed Load = 2.553 kN/sqm
kN/sqm
Thickness = 150 mm Span Type = 2-Way Panel Type = 4
Design Code = ACI

Grade of Concrete = C20 Grade of Steel = Fy420
318 - 2011
Bottom SS Bottom LS Top SS Top LS Distribution
#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250
128

Slab No. : S2
Ly = 5 m Lx = 4 m
Live Load = 2.4

kN/sqm
Design Code = ACI

318 - 2011
#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250

Slab No. : S4
Ly = 5 m Lx = 4 m
Live Load = 2.4

kN/sqm
Design Code = ACI

318 - 2011
#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250

129

Slab No. : S5
Ly = 5 m Lx = 4 m
Live Load = 2.4

kN/sqm
Design Code = ACI

318 - 2011
#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250

Slab No. : S6
Ly = 5 m Lx = 4 m
Live Load = 2.4

kN/sqm
Design Code = ACI

318 - 2011
#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250

Slab No. : S7
130
Ly = 5 m Lx = 4 m
Live Load = 2.4

kN/sqm
Design Code = ACI

318 - 2011
#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250

Slab No. : S8
Ly = 5 m Lx = 4 m
Live Load = 2.4

kN/sqm
Design Code = ACI

318 - 2011
#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250

Slab No. : S9
Ly = 5 m Lx = 4 m
131
Live Load = 2.4
kN/sqm
Design Code = ACI

318 - 2011
#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250
4.2.7.3 Column Design
Table 4.37 Column layout Result from STAAD RCDC

132
Load Combinations:
1. 1.4 (LOAD 3: DL)
2. 1.2 (LOAD 3: DL) +1.6 (LOAD 4: LL)
3. 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25 (LOAD 1: EQ X)
4. 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25 (LOAD 2: EQ Z)
5. 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25 (LOAD 1: EQ X)
6. 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25 (LOAD 2: EQ Z)
7. 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +1.25 (LOAD 1: EQ X)
8. 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +1.25 (LOAD 2: EQ Z)
9. 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) -1.25 (LOAD 1: EQ X)
10. 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) -1.25 (LOAD 2: EQ Z)
11. 0.68 (LOAD 3: DL) +1.25 (LOAD 1: EQ X)
12. 0.68 (LOAD 3: DL) +1.25 (LOAD 2: EQ Z)
13. 0.68 (LOAD 3: DL) -1.25 (LOAD 1: EQ X)
14. 0.68 (LOAD 3: DL) -1.25 (LOAD 2: EQ Z)
Levels: 1. FOUNDATION
2. 2m
3. 5.5m
4. 8.5m
Column/Wall: C1
Level Size Material LC Analysis P (kN) Mx My Pt Interaction Main Links

(mm) LC No (kNm) (kNm) (%) Ratio Reinforcement
133
#10
@ 75
1 TO 450 X C25: -
6 41 1131.79 3.54 2.4 0.64 4-#32 + 8-#16 + #10
2 450 Fy420 245.18
@
225
#10
@ 75
2 TO 450 X C25:
12 47 153.16 -7.91 203.55 1.18 0.9 12-#16 + #10
3 450 Fy420
@
225
#10
@ 75
3 TO 450 X C25:
5 40 333.61 145.96 38.2 1.18 0.62 12-#16 + #10
4 450 Fy420
@
225
Column/Wall: C2

450 #10 @
1 TO C25:
X 11 46 217.44 224.96 6.42 2.4 0.54 4-#32 + 8-#16 75 + #10
2 Fy420
450 @ 225
450 #10 @
2 TO C25: -
X 13 48 163.98 -6.9 2.4 0.85 4-#32 + 8-#16 75 + #10
3 Fy420 195.06
450 @ 225
450 #10 @
3 TO C25:
X 11 46 58.39 -137.1 9.22 2.4 0.65 4-#32 + 8-#16 75 + #10
4 Fy420
450 @ 225
Column/Wall: C3

1 TO 450 C25: 13 48 270.85 -220.7 4.24 1.18 0.91 12-#16 #10 @
134
75 +
X
2 Fy420 #10 @
450
225
#10 @
450
2 TO C25: 75 +
X 13 48 207.91 213.64 -16.87 1.18 0.92 12-#16
3 Fy420 #10 @
450
225
#10 @
450
3 TO C25: 75 +
X 13 48 57.27 142.05 6.93 2.4 0.67 4-#32 + 8-#16
4 Fy420 #10 @
450
225
Column/Wall: C4

#10 @
450
1 TO C25: - 75 +
X 13 48 215.6 26.01 1.18 0.94 12-#16
2 Fy420 217.16 #10 @
450
225
#10 @
450
2 TO C25: 75 +
X 11 46 304.47 174.67 -26.41 1.18 0.73 12-#16
3 Fy420 #10 @
450
225
#10 @
450
3 TO C25: - 75 +
X 3 38 335.92 36.43 1.18 0.61 12-#16
4 Fy420 142.59 #10 @
450
225
Column/Wall: C5

1 TO 450 C25: 14 49 191.32 6.17 - 2.4 0.61 4-#32 + 8-#16 #10 @

2 X Fy420 254.22 75 + #10
135
450 @ 225
450 #10 @
2 TO C25:
X 12 47 161.53 -9.33 239.63 2.4 0.58 4-#32 + 8-#16 75 + #10
3 Fy420
450 @ 225
450 #10 @
3 TO C25: -
X 4 39 131.74 53.35 2.4 0.8 4-#32 + 8-#16 75 + #10
4 Fy420 166.69
450 @ 225
Column/Wall: C6

#10 @
450
1 TO C25: - 75 +
X 14 49 221.97 6.94 2.4 0.57 4-#32 + 8-#16
2 Fy420 236.85 #10 @
450
225
#10 @
450
2 TO C25: - 75 +
X 14 49 203.15 6.86 1.18 0.95 12-#16
3 Fy420 222.28 #10 @
450
225
#10 @
450
3 TO C25: - 75 +
X 12 47 92.6 3.53 2.4 0.69 4-#32 + 8-#16
4 Fy420 151.43 #10 @
450
225
Column/Wall: C7

#10 @
450
1 TO C25: 75 +
X 11 46 218.58 232.87 -9.49 1.18 0.99 12-#16
2 Fy420 #10 @
450
225
2 TO 450 C25: 11 46 187.46 - -14.27 1.18 0.97 12-#16 #10 @
136
75 +
X
3 Fy420 222.39 #10 @
450
225
#10 @
450
3 TO C25: 75 +
X 13 48 93.46 151.6 -0.3 2.4 0.68 4-#32 + 8-#16
4 Fy420 #10 @
450
225
Column/Wall: C8

#10 @
450
1 TO C25: - 75 +
X 13 48 53.08 19.35 1.18 0.98 12-#16
2 Fy420 206.83 #10 @
450
225
#10 @
450 -
2 TO C25: 75 +
X 12 47 155.26 3.19 197.9 1.18 0.87 12-#16
3 Fy420 #10 @
450 8
225
#10 @
450 -
3 TO C25: 75 +
X 4 39 126.1 -46.72 132.7 1.18 0.65 12-#16
4 Fy420 #10 @
450 5
225
Column/Wall: C9

450 #10 @
1 TO C25:
X 12 47 191.82 6.06 254.26 2.4 0.61 4-#32 + 8-#16 75 + #10
2 Fy420
450 @ 225
450 #10 @
2 TO C25: -
X 14 49 161.17 -8.8 2.4 0.58 4-#32 + 8-#16 75 + #10
3 Fy420 239.49
450 @ 225
137
450 #10 @
3 TO C25:
X 6 41 131.56 52.96 166.35 2.4 0.8 4-#32 + 8-#16 75 + #10
4 Fy420
450 @ 225
Column/Wall: C10

#10 @
450
1 TO C25: - 75 +
X 13 48 226.75 -7.15 2.4 0.59 4-#32 + 8-#16
2 Fy420 247.51 #10 @
450
225
#10 @
450
2 TO C25: 222.3 75 +
X 12 47 203.44 6.1 1.18 0.95 12-#16
3 Fy420 4 #10 @
450
225
#10 @
450
3 TO C25: 75 +
X 12 47 85.3 -5.07 -150.5 2.4 0.69 4-#32 + 8-#16
4 Fy420 #10 @
450
225
Column/Wall: C11

#10 @
450
1 TO C25: 75 +
X 11 46 225.38 246.94 -7.18 2.4 0.59 4-#32 + 8-#16
2 Fy420 #10 @
450
225
#10 @
450
2 TO C25: 75 +
X 11 46 203.94 215.81 -6.51 1.18 0.92 12-#16
3 Fy420 #10 @
450
225
3 TO 450 C25: 13 48 91.65 148.45 -2.97 2.4 0.67 4-#32 + 8-#16 #10 @
4 X Fy420 75 +
138
#10 @
450
225
Column/Wall: C12

#10 @
450
1 TO C25: - 75 +
X 13 48 52.01 22.22 2.4 0.56 4-#32 + 8-#16
2 Fy420 221.21 #10 @
450
225
#10 @
450
2 TO C25: 184.2 75 +
X 12 47 152.6 9.05 1.18 0.82 12-#16
3 Fy420 7 #10 @
450
225
#10 @
450
3 TO C25: 128.3 75 +
X 6 41 127.87 -48.3 1.18 0.63 12-#16
4 Fy420 1 #10 @
450
225
Column/Wall: C13

#10
450 @ 75
1 TO C25: -
X 5 40 1072.97 -10.25 2.4 0.66 4-#32 + 8-#16 + #10
2 Fy420 252.92
450 @
225
#10
450 @ 75
2 TO C25: -
X 14 49 152.81 -7.25 1.18 0.9 12-#16 + #10
3 Fy420 203.47
450 @
225
3 TO 450 C25: 5 40 330.69 155.57 -22.43 1.18 0.64 12-#16 #10
139
@ 75
X + #10
4 Fy420
450 @
225
Column/Wall: C14

450 #10 @
1 TO C25: -
X 13 48 206.64 -6.22 2.4 0.62 4-#32 + 8-#16 75 + #10
2 Fy420 258.74
450 @ 225
450 #10 @
2 TO C25: -
X 13 48 155.33 -1.61 2.4 0.97 4-#32 + 8-#16 75 + #10
3 Fy420 221.66
450 @ 225
450 #10 @
3 TO C25:
X 11 46 59.67 -154 -13.73 2.4 0.73 4-#32 + 8-#16 75 + #10
4 Fy420
450 @ 225
Column/Wall: C15

450 #10 @
1 TO C25:
X 11 46 281.26 250.38 -5.56 2.4 0.59 4-#32 + 8-#16 75 + #10
2 Fy420
450 @ 225
450 #10 @
2 TO C25: -
X 11 46 220.49 6.42 2.4 0.65 4-#32 + 8-#16 75 + #10
3 Fy420 271.74
450 @ 225
450 #10 @
3 TO C25:
X 13 48 60.37 167.13 -14.13 2.4 0.79 4-#32 + 8-#16 75 + #10
4 Fy420
450 @ 225
140
Column/Wall: C16

#10 @
450
1 TO C25: 75 +
X 3 38 992.54 253.47 -10.75 2.4 0.64 4-#32 + 8-#16
2 Fy420 #10 @
450
225
#10 @
450
2 TO C25: - 75 +
X 13 48 123.18 1.92 1.18 0.86 12-#16
3 Fy420 192.54 #10 @
450
225
#10 @
450
3 TO C25: - 75 +
X 3 38 334.65 -25.75 1.18 0.66 12-#16
4 Fy420 160.72 #10 @
450
225
141
4.3 DESIGN OF TRADEOFF 2 (DUAL SYSTEM WITH INTERMEDIATE MOMENT FRAME – SPECIAL
REINFORCED CONCETE SHEAR WALL)
Figure 4.38 3D Rendered view of Tradeoff 2
4.3.1 Design Specification

142
SHEAR WALL 300 mm (Thickness) Concrete
4.3.2 Design Loads

Member Load
Frame Walls
Wall covering

surface
143
Floor Load
Ceilings
Floor Fills
Frame Partitions

side
Frame Walls

4.3.3 Live Loads
144

Description
occupancy
Parameters
R (DUAL SYSTEM with Intermediate Moment Frame) 6.5
145
146

147
148
Δs = Δm / (0.7 x R)
Where:
Δm = 0.025h or h/40, if T < 0.7 sec
Δm = 0.020h or h/50, if T > 0.7 sec
Ct = .0731
T = Ct(H).75 = .0731(8.5).75 = 0.364 < 0.7
Δs = Δm / (0.7 x R) = 1 / 0.7 x 6.5 x 40 = .0055
149
Figure 4.48 Maximum Shear Forces
Figure 4.49 Maximum Bending Moment
150
Figure 4.50 Earthquake force at x-direction
Figure 4.51 Earthquake force at z-direction
151
Figure 4.52 Dead Loads
152
Figure 4.54 1.4 DL
Figure 4.55 1.2 DL + 1.2 LL
153
Figure 4.56 1.42 DL + .5 LL + 1.25 EQ
Figure 4.57 1.42 DL + .5 LL - 1.25 EQ
154
Figure 4.58 1.42 DL + 1.25 EQ
Figure 4.59 1.42 DL - 1.25 EQ
155
Figure 4.60 0.68 DL + 1.25 EQ
Figure 4.61 0.68 DL - 1.25 EQ
156
Figure 4.62 Summary of Result in STAAD Pro
Figure 4.63 Center of Mass
157
Figure 4.64 Center of Rigidity
158
Figure 4.66 Soft Storey Check
159
Check:
W = 6854.52 kN
I = 1.5
R = 6.5
Na = 1.2
Nv = 1.6
Ca = 0.44Na = 0.53
Cv = 0.64Nv = 1.02
T = 0.364
V = 2.5Ca(I)(W) / R = 2087.99kN (maximum design base shear) GOVERNS!
V = 0.8ZNV(I)(W) / R = 506.18 kN (minimum design base shear
4.3.7 Structural Design

After analyzing the structure using STAAD Pro, the designers used the STAAD RCDC for designing the
beams, columns, slabs and walls.
160
161
162
Figure 4.71 Beam layout result from STAAD RCDC
163
Beam No : B1
Group No : G1
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 73.15 25.09

0 70.4 143.007 0
6 2
PtClc (%) 0.13 0.87 0.83 1.76 0.333 0.13
Ast Calc 528.8 715.2 687.9

1454.82 275 317.29
(sqmm) 2 3 3
Ast Prv 595.6 397.1

992.8 992.8 1586.46 397.12
(sqmm) 8 2
Reinforcement 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#16

2-#16 2-#16 2-#19
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 100.46 85.3 33.36
164
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 301.619 301.619 301.619
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 790.491 580.757 301.619
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
Beam No : B2
Group No : G2
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 45.38
122.591 114.538 0 0 193.036
6
PtClc (%) 1.52 1.41 0.13 0.13 0.537 2.31
Ast Calc 107.2 443.2

1254.53 1160.23 675.61 1902.68
(sqmm) 5 2
Ast Prv 1410.54 1410.54 1013.4 397.1 573.0 2026.84
165
(sqmm) 2 2 4
Reinforcemen 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#16 2-#19 2-#25

t 2-#16 2-#16 2-#25
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 9.11 109.55 124.71
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 506.334 506.334 506.334
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 506.334 1074.796 1250.621
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
Beam No : B3
Group No : G3
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
166
Mu (kN) 30.77 59.87 20.71 16.45

0 122.382
2 7 6 6
PtClc (%) 0.38 0.71 0.13 0.33 0.307 1.52
Ast Calc 315.3 582.7 470.1

275 253.4 1253.7
(sqmm) 6 6 8
Ast Prv 397.1 595.6 595.6 397.1 397.1

1410.54
(sqmm) 2 8 8 2 2
Reinforcement 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#25

2-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 49.86 77.79 86.17
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 366.3 366.3 366.3
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 371.32 559.479 721.643
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
Beam No : B4
Group No : G3
167
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 39.64 13.04

0 0 99.871 102.271
8 7
PtClc (%) 0.13 0.41 0.13 1.13 0.256 1.16
Ast Calc 470.1 334.6 323.3 138.1

930.19 957
(sqmm) 8 1 9 7
Ast Prv 595.6 397.1 397.1 397.1

1410.54 1410.54
(sqmm) 8 2 2 2
Reinforcemen 3-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25

t 2-#16 2-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 78.67 53.04 80.09
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 382.836 208.333 430.965
168
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
Beam No : B5
Group No : G3
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 54.72 14.70

0 20.41 114.035 25.26
3 4
PtClc (%) 0.13 0.65 0.33 1.39 0.276 0.33
Ast Calc 470.1 537.6 227.5

275 1146.51 282.11
(sqmm) 8 4 8
Ast Prv 595.6 595.6 397.1 397.1

1410.54 397.12
(sqmm) 8 8 2 2
Reinforcement 3-#16 3-#16 2-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#16

2-#16
Shear Design 169

Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 84.25 64.53 51.78
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 375.028 375.028 375.028
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 712.046 521.171 405.864
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
Beam No : B6
Group No : G4
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 31.56 59.18 24.80

0 22.06 130.499
5 7 4
PtClc (%) 0.4 0.69 0.13 0.33 0.333 1.65
170
Ast Calc 326.6 572.0 470.1
275 275 1361.96
(sqmm) 8 1 8
Ast Prv 397.1 595.6 595.6 397.1 397.1

1410.54
(sqmm) 2 8 8 2 2
Reinforcement 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#25

2-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 46.57 77.2 85.58
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 401.927 401.927 401.927
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 401.927 587.162 751.328
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
Beam No : B7
Group No : G4
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
171
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 41.06 17.13

7.936 7.74 109.343 109.382
1 2
PtClc (%) 0.13 0.42 0.13 1.26 0.256 1.26
Ast Calc 470.1 347.2 382.0 182.3

1037.84 1038.3
(sqmm) 8 3 3 8
Ast Prv 595.6 397.1 397.1 397.1

1410.54 1410.54
(sqmm) 8 2 2 2
Reinforcemen 3-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25

t 2-#16 2-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 83.28 52.39 83.34
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 382.419 208.333 431.382
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
Beam No : B8
172
Group No : G4
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 21.62
0 59.22 31.49 129.845 24.878
6
PtClc (%) 0.13 0.69 0.4 1.64 0.333 0.33
Ast Calc 470.1 573.2 327.3

1354.76 275 282.11
(sqmm) 8 4 5
Ast Prv 595.6 595.6 397.1 397.1

1410.54 397.12
(sqmm) 8 8 2 2
Reinforcement 3-#16 3-#16 2-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#16

2-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 86.3 77.92 45.85
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 381.444 381.444 381.444
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 738.441 579.268 381.444
173
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
Beam No : B9
Group No : G5
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 28.89 41.21 99.97 20.70

15.16 113.899
7 1 1 8
PtClc (%) 0.33 0.42 0.2 1.13 0.268 1.32
Ast Calc 348.5 397.1 221.4

275 931.3 1091.47
(sqmm) 7 2 6
Ast Prv 397.1 397.1 397.1 595.6

992.8 1191.36
(sqmm) 2 2 2 8
Reinforcement 2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16

2-#16 3-#16
174

Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 82.48 50.66 88.46
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 352.949 208.333 387.65
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
Beam No : B10
Group No : G5
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 12.31 38.97 19.23

11.54 106.377 95.148
5 9 8
175
PtClc (%) 0.16 0.4 0.15 1.22 0.256 1.06
Ast Calc 397.1 328.6 330.9 205.3

1003.6 878.26
(sqmm) 2 5 3 5
Ast Prv 397.1 397.1 397.1 595.6

1191.36 992.8
(sqmm) 2 2 2 8
Reinforcement 2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16

3-#16 2-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 84.13 49.18 81.29
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 345.274 208.333 325.507
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
Beam No : B11
Group No : G5
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
176
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 41.66
7.641 18.5 104.749 17.99 98.137
7
PtClc (%) 0.13 0.43 0.24 1.19 0.256 1.1
Ast Calc 330.9 352.6 330.9 191.7

985.01 911
(sqmm) 3 5 3 2
Ast Prv 397.1 397.1 397.1 595.6

992.8 992.8
(sqmm) 2 2 2 8
Reinforcement 2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16

2-#16 2-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 85.5 50.08 80.72
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 368.384 208.333 322.413
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
Beam No : B12
177
Group No : G6
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 54.70 25.88

0 56.93 106.648 0
5 7
PtClc (%) 0.13 0.65 0.68 1.3 0.339 0.13
Ast Calc 397.1 537.4 558.3 279.9

1072.25 238.27
(sqmm) 2 3 2 5
Ast Prv 397.1 595.6 595.6 595.6

1191.36 595.68
(sqmm) 2 8 8 8
Reinforcement 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16

3-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 78.81 59 20.29
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 512.188 512.188 512.188
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 791.574 580.798 512.188
178
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
Beam No : B13
Group No : G7
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 58.89 57.15 25.27

0 0 106.158
7 5 3
PtClc (%) 0.69 0.67 0.13 0.13 0.333 1.29
Ast Calc 570.2 553.8 397.1 107.2

275 1066.67
(sqmm) 5 1 2 5
Ast Prv 595.6 595.6 397.1 595.6 595.6

1191.36
(sqmm) 8 8 2 8 8
Reinforcement 3-#16 3-#16 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16

3-#16
179

Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 10.71 68.59 88.39
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 275.855 275.855 275.855
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 275.855 436.707 729.531
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
Beam No : B14
Group No : G8
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
180
Mu (kN) 16.56 27.63 60.40
8.72 11.066 63.48
2 6 3
PtClc (%) 0.21 0.33 0.13 0.64 0.256 0.67
Ast Calc 176.1 198.5 525.5

275 116.9 555.02
(sqmm) 8 6 9
Ast Prv 397.1 397.1 397.1 595.6

595.68 595.68
(sqmm) 2 2 2 8
Reinforcemen 2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16

t
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 39.84 30.38 42.3
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 208.333 208.333 234.209
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
Beam No : B15
Group No : G8
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
181
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 13.02 14.53

21.92 5.18 58.7 71.25
3 5
PtClc (%) 0.17 0.28 0.13 0.62 0.256 0.76
Ast Calc 137.9 397.1 509.4 154.2

234.8 630.76
(sqmm) 1 2 4 1
Ast Prv 397.1 397.1 397.1 595.6 595.6

1191.36
(sqmm) 2 2 2 8 8
Reinforcement 2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16

3-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 38.39 31.84 43.76
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 329.044 208.333 208.333
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
182
Beam No : B16
Group No : G8
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 28.75 33.82

0 22.36 104.579 2.196
1 4
PtClc (%) 0.13 0.35 0.33 1.25 0.404 0.13
Ast Calc 397.1 289.2 332.8

275 1032.82 238.27
(sqmm) 2 6 9
Ast Prv 397.1 397.1 397.1 595.6

1191.36 595.68
(sqmm) 2 2 2 8
Reinforcement 2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16

3-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 70.98 57.69 21.94
183
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 709.647 709.647 709.647
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 928.897 782.796 709.647
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
Beam No : B17
Group No : G9
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 13.61 26.68 51.95

4.67 9.866 63.059
9 6 5
PtClc (%) 0.17 0.33 0.13 0.54 0.256 0.67
Ast Calc 144.3 264.7 446.3

275 107.25 550.98
(sqmm) 4 5 4
Ast Prv 397.1 397.1 397.1 573.0

397.12 573.04
(sqmm) 2 2 2 4
184
Reinforcemen 2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#19 2-#16 2-#19
t
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 38.52 31.71 43.63
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 208.333 208.333 251.666
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
Beam No : B18
Group No : G9
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
185
Mu (kN) 11.99 20.64 55.44 16.32

0 73.234
8 6 3 9
PtClc (%) 0.15 0.27 0.13 0.58 0.256 0.79
Ast Calc 220.7 528.8 173.6

126.9 478.8 650.44
(sqmm) 8 2 5
Ast Prv 397.1 397.1 595.6 573.0 397.1

1586.46
(sqmm) 2 2 8 4 2
Reinforcement 2-#16 2-#16 3-#16 2-#19 2-#16 2-#25

2-#19
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 36.69 33.53 45.45
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 395.499 208.333 218.304
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
Beam No : B19
Group No : G9
186
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 43.63 60.55

0 46.35 152.063 0
4 3
PtClc (%) 0.13 0.54 0.59 1.87 0.726 0.13
Ast Calc 528.8 442.5 487.0 598.8

1543.73 317.29
(sqmm) 2 1 9 9
Ast Prv 595.6 595.6 595.6 794.2

1586.46 397.12
(sqmm) 8 8 8 4
Reinforcement 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#16

2-#19 2-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 94.01 80.72 14.38
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 939.94 939.94 939.94
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 1376.449 1243.249 939.94
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1288.73 1417.6
187
Beam No : B20
Group No : G10
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 56.54 24.10

0 56.86 104.067 0
8 4
PtClc (%) 0.13 0.65 0.67 1.26 0.333 0.13
Ast Calc 397.1 539.3 554.3

1039.58 275 238.27
(sqmm) 2 9 5
Ast Prv 397.1 595.6 595.6 595.6

1191.36 595.68
(sqmm) 2 8 8 8
Reinforcement 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16

3-#16
Shear Design 188

Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 78.77 58.97 20.33
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 512.248 512.248 512.248
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 791.057 580.554 512.248
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
Beam No : B21
Group No : G11
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 77.16 69.03 29.58

0 0 119.124
5 6 6
PtClc (%) 0.84 0.81 0.13 0.13 0.333 1.4
189
Ast Calc 689.8 667.8 397.1 107.2
275 1154.58
(sqmm) 7 3 2 5
Ast Prv 397.1 595.6 595.6

992.8 992.8 1191.36
(sqmm) 2 8 8
Reinforcement 3-#16 3-#16 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16

2-#16 2-#16 3-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 12.27 66.97 86.77
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 294.054 276.663 276.663
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 294.054 421.924 866.989
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6
Live load pressure
Dead load pressure


190
0.85 f ' c
ρ= ¿)
fy

As= ρbd
A
B
A
B
L
=SIMPLY SUPPORTED
20
L
=ONE END CONTINOUS
24
L
=BOTH ENDS
28
L
=CANTILEVER
10
As temp.= 0.002bt
Abar ( 1000 )
AS

191
For Two way Slab

8. Spacing of bars within the column strips is 3/2 times the spacing of the center.
192
Figure 4.72 Slab layout result from STAAD RCDC
193

Level: 5.5m

Slab No. : S1
Ly = 5 m Lx = 4 m
Live Load = 2.4

kN/sqm
Design Code = ACI

318 - 2011

#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250

Slab No. : S2
194
Ly = 5 m Lx = 3.85 m
Live Load = 2.4

kN/sqm
Design Code = ACI

318 - 2011

#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 --- --- #10 @ 250

Slab No. : S4
Ly = 4.85 m Lx = 4 m
Live Load = 2.4

kN/sqm
Design Code = ACI

318 - 2011

#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 --- --- #10 @ 250

195
Slab No. : S5
Ly = 5 m Lx = 4 m
Live Load = 2.4

kN/sqm
Design Code = ACI

318 - 2011

#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250

Slab No. : S6
Ly = 4.85 m Lx = 4 m
Live Load = 2.4

kN/sqm
Design Code = ACI

318 - 2011

#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 --- --- #10 @ 250

196

Slab No. : S7
Ly = 5 m Lx = 4 m
Live Load = 2.4

kN/sqm
Design Code = ACI

318 - 2011

#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250

Slab No. : S8
Ly = 5 m Lx = 4 m
Live Load = 2.4

kN/sqm
Design Code = ACI

318 - 2011

#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250

197

Slab No. : S9
Ly = 5 m Lx = 4 m
Live Load = 2.4

kN/sqm
Design Code = ACI

318 - 2011

#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250
4.3.7.3 Column Design
198
199
Figure 4.73 Column layout result from STAAD RCDC
200
Load Combinations :
1. 1.4 (LOAD 3: DL)
2. 1.2 (LOAD 3: DL) +1.6 (LOAD 4: LL)
7. 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +1.25 (LOAD 1: EQ X)
8. 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +1.25 (LOAD 2: EQ Z)
9. 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) -1.25 (LOAD 1: EQ X)
10. 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) -1.25 (LOAD 2: EQ Z)
11. 0.68 (LOAD 3: DL) +1.25 (LOAD 1: EQ X)
12. 0.68 (LOAD 3: DL) +1.25 (LOAD 2: EQ Z)
13. 0.68 (LOAD 3: DL) -1.25 (LOAD 1: EQ X)
14. 0.68 (LOAD 3: DL) -1.25 (LOAD 2: EQ Z)
Levels : 1. FOUNDATION
2. 2m
3. 5.5m
4. 8.5m
Column/Wall : C1

1 TO 400 C25 : 9 44 1074.62 -44.46 -27.79 1.21 0.37 4-#19 + 4-#16 #10 @
201
125 +
X
2 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
2 TO C25 : 125 +
X 5 40 719.7 56.04 41.23 1.21 0.49 4-#19 + 4-#16
3 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
3 TO C25 : 125 +
X 5 40 359.13 104.38 67.85 1.21 0.86 4-#19 + 4-#16
4 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
Column/Wall : C2

#10
@
300
1 TO C25 : 14870.3 1.3 36-#19 + 34- 150 +
X 11 46 507.3 0.17 0.88
2 Fy420 3 4 #19 #10
5000
@
300
#10
@
300
2 TO C25 : 397.4 10506.8 1.3 36-#19 + 34- 150 +
X 11 46 1.6 0.63
3 Fy420 4 2 4 #19 #10
5000
@
300
300 #10
3 TO C25 : 148.9 1.3 36-#19 + 34-
X 13 48 -2922.31 2.94 0.18 @
4 Fy420 5 4 #19
5000 300
202
Column/Wall : C3

#10 @
400
1 TO C25 : 125 +
X 7 42 960.05 41.94 -27.62 1.21 0.35 4-#19 + 4-#16
2 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
2 TO C25 : 125 +
X 3 38 604.47 -80.06 44.73 1.21 0.62 4-#19 + 4-#16
3 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
3 TO C25 : 125 +
X 3 38 376.61 114.75 -67.23 1.21 0.91 4-#19 + 4-#16
4 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
Column/Wall : C4

#10 @
400
1 TO C25 : 125 +
X 11 46 238.71 40.58 8.21 1.21 0.28 4-#19 + 4-#16
2 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
2 TO C25 : 125 +
X 3 38 511.29 -33.93 -22.58 1.21 0.28 4-#19 + 4-#16
3 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
3 TO C25 : 125 +
X 3 38 229.92 -65.86 -35.92 1.21 0.53 4-#19 + 4-#16
4 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
203

Column/Wall : C5

#10 @
400
1 TO C25 : 125 +
X 13 48 279.17 -39.55 7.9 1.21 0.26 4-#19 + 4-#16
2 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
2 TO C25 : 125 +
X 5 40 595.06 45.78 -31.68 1.21 0.38 4-#19 + 4-#16
3 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
3 TO C25 : 125 +
X 5 40 243.23 -69.6 43.89 1.21 0.58 4-#19 + 4-#16
4 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
Column/Wall : C6

#10 @
300
1 TO C25 : - 28-#19 + 28- 150 +
X 14 49 398.11 -5.39 1.34 0.82
2 Fy420 8801.42 #19 #10 @
4000
300
#10 @
300
2 TO C25 : - 28-#19 + 28- 150 +
X 14 49 304.78 -2.41 1.34 0.58
3 Fy420 6157.41 #19 #10 @
4000
300
300
3 TO C25 : - 28-#19 + 28- #10 @
X 6 41 294.39 -13.59 1.34 0.18
4 Fy420 1866.49 #19 300
4000
204

Column/Wall : C7

#10 @
300
1 TO C25 : 28-#19 + 28- 150 +
X 14 49 414.49 -7214.9 -6.29 1.34 0.67
2 Fy420 #19 #10 @
4000
300
#10 @
300
2 TO C25 : - 28-#19 + 28- 150 +
X 14 49 321.83 -1.84 1.34 0.48
3 Fy420 5067.01 #19 #10 @
4000
300
300
3 TO C25 : - 28-#19 + 28- #10 @
X 6 41 293.28 10.91 1.34 0.15
4 Fy420 1560.12 #19 300
4000
Column/Wall : C8

#10 @
400
1 TO C25 : 125 +
X 11 46 214.76 49.94 6.39 1.21 0.34 4-#19 + 4-#16
2 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
2 TO C25 : 125 +
X 11 46 199.65 36.03 4.92 1.21 0.25 4-#19 + 4-#16
3 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
3 TO 400 C25 : 3 38 209.28 -72.86 -2.2 1.21 0.5 4-#19 + 4-#16 #10 @
4 X Fy420 125 +
400 #10 @
205
200
Column/Wall : C9

#10 @
400
1 TO C25 : 125 +
X 13 48 216.78 -49.74 6.45 1.21 0.34 4-#19 + 4-#16
2 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
2 TO C25 : 125 +
X 13 48 201.21 -36.08 4.85 1.21 0.25 4-#19 + 4-#16
3 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
3 TO C25 : 125 +
X 5 40 211.71 72.44 -1.75 1.21 0.5 4-#19 + 4-#16
4 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
Column/Wall : C10

#10 @
400
1 TO C25 : 125 +
X 5 40 1015.19 -65.28 -6.19 1.21 0.41 4-#19 + 4-#16
2 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
2 TO C25 : 125 +
X 5 40 675.33 -52.26 14.59 1.21 0.33 4-#19 + 4-#16
3 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
206
#10 @
400
3 TO C25 : 125 +
X 5 40 331.75 85.06 -36.88 1.21 0.62 4-#19 + 4-#16
4 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
Column/Wall : C11

#10 @
400
1 TO C25 : 125 +
X 13 48 196.88 -60.96 -5.88 1.21 0.43 4-#19 + 4-#16
2 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
2 TO C25 : 125 +
X 11 46 164.11 44.85 5.87 1.21 0.32 4-#19 + 4-#16
3 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
3 TO C25 : 125 +
X 3 38 134.56 -72.48 -31.02 1.21 0.58 4-#19 + 4-#16
4 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
Column/Wall : C12

#10 @
400
1 TO C25 : 125 +
X 11 46 286.7 58.76 -6.06 1.21 0.38 4-#19 + 4-#16
2 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
2 TO 400 C25 : 11 46 230.56 -51.88 -2.71 1.21 0.35 4-#19 + 4-#16 #10 @
3 X Fy420 125 +
207
#10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
3 TO C25 : 125 +
X 5 40 131.59 75.4 -29.33 1.21 0.6 4-#19 + 4-#16
4 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
Column/Wall : C13

#10 @
400
1 TO C25 : 125 +
X 3 38 922.3 66.17 -6.31 1.21 0.41 4-#19 + 4-#16
2 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
2 TO C25 : 125 +
X 3 38 581.31 53.42 15.74 1.21 0.34 4-#19 + 4-#16
3 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
3 TO C25 : 125 +
X 3 38 334.09 -89.84 -38.52 1.21 0.65 4-#19 + 4-#16
4 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
208
4.4 DESIGN OF TRADEOFF 3 (DUAL SYSTEM – SPECIAL REINFORCED CONCETE SHEAR WALL)
Figure 4.74 3D Rendered view of Tradeoff 3
4.4.1 Design Loads


209
SHEAR WALL 300 mm (Thickness) Concrete
4.4.2 Design Loads

Member Load
Frame Walls
Wall covering

surface
Floor Load
210
Ceilings
Floor Fills
Frame Partitions

side
Frame Walls

4.4.3 Live Loads

211
Description
occupancy
Parameters
R (DUAL SYSTEM – Special Reinforced Concrete 8.5
Shear Wall)
212
213

214
215
Δs = Δm / (0.7 x R)
Where:
Δm = 0.025h or h/40, if T < 0.7 sec
Δm = 0.020h or h/50, if T > 0.7 sec
Ct = .0731
T = Ct(H).75 = .0731(8.5).75 = 0.364 < 0.7
Δs = Δm / (0.7 x R) = 1 / 0.7 x 8.5 x 40 = .0042
216
Figure 4.84 Maximum Shear Forces
Figure 4.85 Maximum Bending Moment
217
Figure 4.86 Earthquake force at x-direction
Figure 4.87 Earthquake force at z-direction
218
Figure 4.88 Dead Loads
219
Figure 4.90 1.4 DL
Figure 4.91 1.2 DL + 1.2 LL
220
Figure 4.92 1.42 DL + .5 LL + 1.25 EQ
Figure 4.93 1.42 DL + .5 LL - 1.25 EQ
221
Figure 4.94 1.42 DL + 1.25 EQ
Figure 4.95 1.42 DL - 1.25 EQ
222
Figure 4.96 0.68 DL + 1.25 EQ
Figure 4.97 0.68 DL - 1.25 EQ

223
Figure 4.98 Summary of Result in STAAD Pro
Figure 4.99 Center of Mass
224
Figure 4.100 Center of Rigidity
225
Figure 4.102 Soft Storey Check
226
Check:
W = 6854.52 kN
I = 1.5
R = 6.5
Na = 1.2
Nv = 1.6
Ca = 0.44Na = 0.53
Cv = 0.64Nv = 1.02
T = 0.364
V = 2.5Ca(I)(W) / R = 2087.99kN (maximum design base shear) GOVERNS!
V = 0.8ZNV(I)(W) / R = 506.18 kN (minimum design base shear
227
228
229
Figure 4.107 Column Design Result from STAAD RCDC
Beam No : B1 230
Group No : G1
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Beam Type : Regular Beam
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 72.82 22.64

0 69.61 139.172 0
6 5
PtClc (%) 0.13 0.86 0.82 1.72 0.333 0.13
Ast Calc 107.2 711.9 680.1

1419.84 275 107.25
(sqmm) 5 5 4
Ast Prv 397.1 397.1

992.8 992.8 1586.46 397.12
(sqmm) 2 2
Reinforcement 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#16

2-#16 2-#16 2-#19
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 100.7 60.76 33.12
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 276.56 276.56 276.56
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 767.826 386.398 276.56
231
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08
Beam No : B2
Group No : G2
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 42.55
121.972 114.261 0 0 188.915
7
PtClc (%) 1.51 1.4 0.13 0.13 0.504 2.26
Ast Calc 107.2 415.7

1244.85 1154.01 107.25 1863.13
(sqmm) 5 4
Ast Prv 1013.4 397.1 573.0

1410.54 1410.54 2026.84
(sqmm) 2 2 4
Reinforcemen 2-#25 2-#25 2-#25 2-#16 2-#19 2-#25

t 2-#16 2-#16 2-#25
232

Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 31.05 84.98 124.92
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 476.595 476.595 476.595
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 476.595 695.159 1222.966
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1232.7
Beam No : B3
Group No : G3
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 29.74 59.87 18.62 13.75

0 118.085
7 7 8 5
233
PtClc (%) 0.37 0.71 0.13 0.33 0.273 1.46
Ast Calc 582.7 107.2

307.2 275 225.1 1201.42
(sqmm) 6 5
Ast Prv 397.1 595.6 397.1 397.1 397.1

1410.54
(sqmm) 2 8 2 2 2
Reinforcement 2-#16 3-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#25

2-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 49.79 50.22 86.24
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 338.014 338.014 338.014
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 342.345 355.774 694.114
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08
Beam No : B4
Group No : G3
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
234
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 39.64
7.294 5.32 93.051 9.57 95.719
8
PtClc (%) 0.13 0.41 0.13 1.04 0.13 1.07
Ast Calc 107.2 334.6 107.2 107.2

855.57 884.49
(sqmm) 5 1 5 5
Ast Prv 397.1 397.1 397.1 397.1

1410.54 1146.08
(sqmm) 2 2 2 2
Reinforcemen 2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#19

t 2-#16 2-#19
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 76 28.75 77.42
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 258.572 208.333 281.314
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08
Beam No : B5
235
Group No : G3
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 55.06 12.48

0 20.1 110.995 25.26
5 5
PtClc (%) 0.13 0.65 0.33 1.35 0.249 0.33
Ast Calc 107.2 535.4 205.6

275 1112.09 275
(sqmm) 5 2 4
Ast Prv 397.1 595.6 397.1 397.1

1146.08 397.12
(sqmm) 2 8 2 2
Reinforcement 2-#16 3-#16 2-#16 2-#19 2-#16 2-#16

2-#19
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 84.19 48.17 51.84
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 349.41 349.41 349.41
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 694.799 349.41 381.28
236
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08
SFR : 1-#13EF
Beam No : B6
Group No : G4
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 30.18 59.18 21.93 18.02

0 124.439
1 7 2 9
PtClc (%) 0.38 0.69 0.13 0.33 0.333 1.55
Ast Calc 313.3 572.0 107.2

275 275 1282.66
(sqmm) 8 1 5
Ast Prv 397.1 595.6 397.1 397.1 397.1

1410.54
(sqmm) 2 8 2 2 2
Reinforcement 2-#16 3-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#25
237
2-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 46.36 49.76 85.79
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 375.024 375.024 375.024
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 375.024 389.004 726.595
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08
Beam No : B7
Group No : G4
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
238
Mu (kN) 12.08 41.06 12.62

11.95 100.333 100.4
8 1 1
PtClc (%) 0.15 0.42 0.15 1.13 0.162 1.13
Ast Calc 127.8 347.2 126.3 133.5

935.33 936.08
(sqmm) 6 3 5 8
Ast Prv 397.1 397.1 397.1 397.1

1410.54 1410.54
(sqmm) 2 2 2 2
Reinforcemen 2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25

t 2-#16 2-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 79.68 28.1 79.74
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 295.276 208.333 295.872
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08
Beam No : B8
Group No : G4
239
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 17.65
0 59.22 30.1 123.861 22.023
3
PtClc (%) 0.13 0.69 0.38 1.55 0.33 0.33
Ast Calc 107.2 573.2 272.5

314 1276.66 275
(sqmm) 5 4 6
Ast Prv 397.1 595.6 397.1 397.1

1410.54 397.12
(sqmm) 2 8 2 2
Reinforcement 2-#16 3-#16 2-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#16

2-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 86.31 50.29 55.42
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 356.877 356.877 322.035
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 714.011 373.645 388.849
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08
240
Beam No : B9
Group No : G5
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 21.49 88.93 15.36

39.21 16.09 103.102
8 3 9
PtClc (%) 0.28 0.4 0.21 0.98 0.198 1.17
Ast Calc 230.1 330.7 171.0 811.5 163.2

966.36
(sqmm) 5 1 8 7 4
Ast Prv 397.1 397.1 397.1 859.5 595.6

992.8
(sqmm) 2 2 2 6 8
Reinforcement 2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 3-#19 3-#16 3-#16

2-#16
Shear Design 241

Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 78.11 27.7 84.1
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 294.983 208.333 350.304
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08
Beam No : B10
Group No : G5
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 15.42 36.94 96.59

14.5 14.107 86.341
8 4 9
PtClc (%) 0.2 0.38 0.19 1.08 0.181 0.95
242
Ast Calc 163.8 310.6 153.8
894.1 149.59 784.26
(sqmm) 7 2 7
Ast Prv 397.1 397.1 397.1

992.8 595.68 992.8
(sqmm) 2 2 2
Reinforcemen 2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16

t 2-#16 2-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 80.41 26.22 77.57
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 314.195 208.333 284.208
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08
Beam No : B11
Group No : G5
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
243
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 11.73 39.45 95.84

19.5 12.597 87.98
4 1 6
PtClc (%) 0.15 0.4 0.25 1.07 0.162 0.97
Ast Calc 124.0 332.8 208.2 885.8

133.33 801.49
(sqmm) 6 5 1 7
Ast Prv 397.1 397.1 397.1

992.8 595.68 859.56
(sqmm) 2 2 2
Reinforcemen 2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#19

t 2-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 81.69 27.12 76.91
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 325.689 208.333 283.553
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08
Beam No : B12
244
Group No : G6
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 54.54
0 56.18 101.472 22.49 0
2
PtClc (%) 0.13 0.65 0.67 1.23 0.333 0.13
Ast Calc 107.2 535.1 550.4

1012.81 275 107.25
(sqmm) 5 3 4
Ast Prv 397.1 595.6 595.6 595.6

1191.36 595.68
(sqmm) 2 8 8 8
Reinforcement 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16

3-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 79.63 52.08 19.47
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 448.705 448.705 448.705
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 737.556 450.74 448.705
245
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08
Beam No : B13
Group No : G7
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 57.81 56.54 0 0 21.94 101.037
PtClc (%) 0.68 0.67 0.13 0.13 0.333 1.22
Ast Calc 562.3 550.4 107.2 107.2

275 1008.76
(sqmm) 8 2 5 5
Ast Prv 595.6 595.6 397.1 595.6 595.6

1191.36
(sqmm) 8 8 2 8 8
Reinforcement 3-#16 3-#16 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16

3-#16
246

Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 15.42 59.43 86.98
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 251.384 251.384 251.384
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 251.384 324.163 647.673
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08
Beam No : B14
Group No : G8
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
247
Mu (kN) 12.20 26.36 53.99
9.05 7.741 57.553
9 7 4
PtClc (%) 0.16 0.33 0.13 0.56 0.13 0.6
Ast Calc 129.1 107.2 465.2

275 107.25 498.61
(sqmm) 6 5 7
Ast Prv 397.1 397.1 397.1 595.6

595.68 595.68
(sqmm) 2 2 2 8
Reinforcemen 2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16

t
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 39.84 24.43 42.3
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 208.333 208.333 208.333
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08
Beam No : B15
Group No : G8
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
248
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 21.62 52.99 11.53

9.25 6.4 65.348
5 1 5
PtClc (%) 0.13 0.28 0.13 0.55 0.148 0.69
Ast Calc 107.2 231.5 107.2 455.9 121.9

573.04
(sqmm) 5 4 5 4 3
Ast Prv 397.1 397.1 397.1 595.6 595.6

1191.36
(sqmm) 2 2 2 8 8
Reinforcement 2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16

3-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 38.39 25.89 43.76
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 208.333 208.333 208.333
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08
249
Beam No : B16
Group No : G8
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 28.75 31.59

0 21.84 101.168 0.891
1 2
PtClc (%) 0.13 0.35 0.33 1.21 0.38 0.13
Ast Calc 107.2 289.2 313.6

275 994.65 107.25
(sqmm) 5 6 8
Ast Prv 397.1 397.1 397.1 595.6

1191.36 595.68
(sqmm) 2 2 2 8
Reinforcement 2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16

3-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 70.93 50.93 21.99
250
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 664.721 664.721 664.721
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 883.398 664.721 664.721
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08
Beam No : B17
Group No : G9
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 10.19 26.68 46.79

7.16 7.223 57.815
4 6 6
PtClc (%) 0.13 0.33 0.13 0.48 0.13 0.61
Ast Calc 107.5 107.2 398.9

275 107.25 501.08
(sqmm) 7 5 8
Ast Prv 397.1 397.1 397.1 573.0

397.12 573.04
(sqmm) 2 2 2 4
251
Reinforcemen 2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#19 2-#16 2-#19
t
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 38.52 25.76 43.63
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 208.333 208.333 208.333
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08
Beam No : B18
Group No : G9
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
252
Mu (kN) 19.99 50.20 13.80

8.487 2.41 68.124
8 8 5
PtClc (%) 0.13 0.26 0.13 0.52 0.177 0.73
Ast Calc 107.2 213.6 107.2 430.2 146.3

600.04
(sqmm) 5 7 5 2 4
Ast Prv 397.1 397.1 397.1 573.0 397.1

1586.46
(sqmm) 2 2 2 4 2
Reinforcement 2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#19 2-#16 2-#25

2-#19
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 36.69 27.58 45.45
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 208.333 208.333 208.333
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08
Beam No : B19
Group No : G9
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
253
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 43.15 58.75

0 46.59 149.603 0
3 3
PtClc (%) 0.13 0.53 0.59 1.84 0.705 0.13
Ast Calc 107.2 438.1 484.5 581.8

1521.32 107.25
(sqmm) 5 4 4 4
Ast Prv 397.1 595.6 595.6 794.2

1586.46 397.12
(sqmm) 2 8 8 4
Reinforcement 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#16

2-#19 2-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 93.94 73.95 21.02
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 891.559 891.559 891.559
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 1327.279 1094.505 891.559
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1350.1 1134.08 1134.08
254
Beam No : B20
Group No : G10
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 54.68 99.78

0 56.15 21.319 0
4 6
PtClc (%) 0.13 0.65 0.66 1.2 0.333 0.13
Ast Calc 107.2 547.7 991.5

534 275 107.25
(sqmm) 5 1 5
Ast Prv 397.1 595.6 595.6

992.8 595.68 595.68
(sqmm) 2 8 8
Reinforcemen 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16

t 2-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
255
Vu (kN) 79.7 52.15 19.4
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 448.553 448.553 448.553
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 746.58 451.273 448.553
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08
Beam No : B21
Group No : G11
Breadth : 250 mm
Depth : 400 mm
Flexure Design
Mu (kN) 70.62 68.99 26.54

0 0 114.591
7 1 2
PtClc (%) 0.83 0.81 0.13 0.13 0.333 1.33
Ast Calc 687.9 671.8 107.2 107.2

275 1099.73
(sqmm) 6 7 5 5
256
Ast Prv 397.1 595.6 595.6
992.8 992.8 1191.36
(sqmm) 2 8 8
Reinforcement 3-#16 3-#16 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 3-#16

2-#16 2-#16 3-#16
Shear Design
Left Mid Right
Vu (kN) 15.64 45.22 88.08
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 248.338 248.338 230.947
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 248.338 248.338 636.049
Asv Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08
Live load pressure
Dead load pressure


0.85 f ' c
ρ= ¿)
fy
257

As= ρbd
A
B
A
B
L
=SIMPLY SUPPORTED
20
L
=ONE END CONTINOUS
24
L
=BOTH ENDS
28
L
=CANTILEVER
10
As temp.= 0.002bt
Abar ( 1000 )
AS

258
For Two way Slab

12. Spacing of bars within the column strips is 3/2 times the spacing of the center.
259
260

Level: 5.5m

Slab No. : S1
Ly = 5 m Lx = 4 m
Live Load = 2.4

kN/sqm
Design Code = ACI

318 - 2011

261
#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250

Slab No. : S2
Ly = 5 m Lx = 3.85 m
Live Load = 2.4

kN/sqm
Design Code = ACI

318 - 2011

#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 --- --- #10 @ 250

Slab No. : S4
Ly = 4.85 m Lx = 4 m
Live Load = 2.4

kN/sqm
Design Code = ACI

318 - 2011

Bottom SS Bottom LS Top SS Top LS Distribution 262

#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 --- --- #10 @ 250

Slab No. : S5
Ly = 5 m Lx = 4 m
Live Load = 2.4

kN/sqm
Design Code = ACI

318 - 2011

#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250

Slab No. : S6
Ly = 4.85 m Lx = 4 m
Live Load = 2.4

kN/sqm
Design Code = ACI

318 - 2011


#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 --- --- #10 @ 250

Slab No. : S7
Ly = 5 m Lx = 4 m
Live Load = 2.4

kN/sqm
Design Code = ACI

318 - 2011

#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250

Slab No. : S8
Ly = 5 m Lx = 4 m
Live Load = 2.4

kN/sqm
Design Code = ACI

318 - 2011


#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250

Slab No. : S9
Ly = 5 m Lx = 4 m
Live Load = 2.4

kN/sqm
Design Code = ACI

318 - 2011
#10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250 #10 @ 250
4.4.7.3 Column/Wall Design
265
266
Load Combinations:
267
1. 1.4 (LOAD 3: DL)
2. 1.2 (LOAD 3: DL) +1.6 (LOAD 4: LL)
7. 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +1.25 (LOAD 1: EQ X)
8. 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +1.25 (LOAD 2: EQ Z)
9. 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) -1.25 (LOAD 1: EQ X)
10. 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) -1.25 (LOAD 2: EQ Z)
11. 0.68 (LOAD 3: DL) +1.25 (LOAD 1: EQ X)
12. 0.68 (LOAD 3: DL) +1.25 (LOAD 2: EQ Z)
13. 0.68 (LOAD 3: DL) -1.25 (LOAD 1: EQ X)
14. 0.68 (LOAD 3: DL) -1.25 (LOAD 2: EQ Z)
Levels : 1. FOUNDATION
2. 2m
3. 5.5m
4. 8.5m
Column/Wall: C1

1 TO 400 C25: 9 44 1055.37 38.55 22.24 1.21 0.3 4-#19 + 4-#16 #10 @
2 X Fy420 75 +
400 #10 @
268
200
#10 @
400
2 TO C25 : 75 +
X 5 40 713.38 52.76 38.31 1.21 0.42 4-#19 + 4-#16
3 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
3 TO C25 : 75 +
X 5 40 356.3 97.3 62.29 1.21 0.71 4-#19 + 4-#16
4 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
Column/Wall : C2

#10
300 @ 75
1 TO C25: 506.7 11379.6 0.7 36-#16 + 34-
X 11 46 0.17 0.88 + #10
2 Fy420 6 5 6 #13
5000 @
300
#10
300 @ 75
2 TO C25 : 0.7 36-#16 + 34-
X 11 46 396.9 8042.14 1.67 0.63 + #10
3 Fy420 6 #13
5000 @
300
300 #10
3 TO C25 : 148.9 0.7 36-#16 + 34-
X 13 48 -2239.95 2.86 0.18 @
4 Fy420 6 6 #13
5000 300
Column/Wall : C3

269
#10 @
400
1 TO C25: 75 +
X 7 42 952.83 34.64 -22.96 1.21 0.28 4-#19 + 4-#16
2 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
2 TO C25: 75 +
X 3 38 599.41 -78.73 43.49 1.21 0.55 4-#19 + 4-#16
3 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
3 TO C25: 75 +
X 3 38 373.89 111.24 -64.2 1.21 0.79 4-#19 + 4-#16
4 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
Column/Wall : C4

#10 @
400
1 TO C25: 75 +
X 7 42 527.96 32.34 8.89 1.21 0.18 4-#19 + 4-#16
2 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
2 TO C25 : 75 +
X 3 38 515.07 -29.54 -21.81 1.21 0.23 4-#19 + 4-#16
3 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
3 TO C25 : 75 +
X 3 38 231.67 -56.94 -34.66 1.98 0.41 4-#25 + 4-#19
4 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
Column/Wall : C5
270
#10 @
400
1 TO C25 : 75 +
X 5 40 665.89 -30.8 7.64 1.21 0.17 4-#19 + 4-#16
2 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
2 TO C25 : 75 +
X 5 40 598.34 40.28 -31.61 1.21 0.33 4-#19 + 4-#16
3 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
3 TO C25 : 75 +
X 5 40 244.99 -61.16 43.49 1.98 0.47 4-#25 + 4-#19
4 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
Column/Wall : C6

#10 @
300
1 TO C25 : - 32-#13 + 28- 75 +
X 14 49 397.82 -3.96 0.63 0.97
2 Fy420 6749.43 #13 #10 @
4000
300
#10 @
300
2 TO C25 : - 32-#13 + 28- 75 +
X 14 49 304.57 -1.94 0.63 0.69
3 Fy420 4725.58 #13 #10 @
4000
300
300
3 TO C25 : - 32-#13 + 28- #10 @
X 6 41 294.3 -13.48 0.63 0.21
4 Fy420 1452.86 #13 300
4000
271
Column/Wall : C7

#10 @
300
1 TO C25 : - 32-#13 + 28- 75 +
X 14 49 414.55 -4.86 0.63 0.79
2 Fy420 5536.33 #13 #10 @
4000
300
#10 @
300
2 TO C25 : - 32-#13 + 28- 75 +
X 14 49 321.84 -1.36 0.63 0.57
3 Fy420 3891.97 #13 #10 @
4000
300
300
3 TO C25 : - 32-#13 + 28- #10 @
X 6 41 293.34 11.03 0.63 0.18
4 Fy420 1212.53 #13 300
4000
Column/Wall : C8

#10 @
400
1 TO C25 : 75 +
X 11 46 219.1 38.34 4.79 1.21 0.22 4-#19 + 4-#16
2 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
2 TO C25 : 75 +
X 11 46 202.66 28.31 3.52 1.21 0.17 4-#19 + 4-#16
3 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
3 TO C25 : 75 +
X 3 38 210.47 -61.29 -0.04 1.98 0.35 4-#25 + 4-#19
4 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
272

Column/Wall : C9

#10 @
400
1 TO C25 : 75 +
X 13 48 221.02 -38.17 4.85 1.21 0.22 4-#19 + 4-#16
2 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
2 TO C25 : 75 +
X 13 48 204.09 -28.33 3.4 1.21 0.16 4-#19 + 4-#16
3 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
3 TO C25 : 75 +
X 5 40 212.93 60.9 0.46 1.98 0.35 4-#25 + 4-#19
4 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
Column/Wall : C10

#10 @
400
1 TO C25 : 75 +
X 5 40 1005.17 -51.42 -2.57 1.21 0.3 4-#19 + 4-#16
2 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
2 TO C25 : 75 +
X 5 40 668.29 -43.12 16.32 1.21 0.27 4-#19 + 4-#16
3 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
3 TO C25 : 75 +
X 5 40 328.99 71.86 -39.11 1.21 0.5 4-#19 + 4-#16
4 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
273

Column/Wall : C11

#10 @
400
1 TO C25 : 75 +
X 11 46 213.97 47.33 4.31 1.21 0.27 4-#19 + 4-#16
2 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
2 TO C25 : 75 +
X 11 46 162.29 34.43 5.02 1.21 0.21 4-#19 + 4-#16
3 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
3 TO C25 : 75 +
X 3 38 134.08 -56.74 -29.94 1.98 0.41 4-#25 + 4-#19
4 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
Column/Wall : C12

#10 @
400
1 TO C25 : 75 +
X 13 48 309.73 -45.92 4.18 1.21 0.25 4-#19 + 4-#16
2 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
2 TO C25 : 75 +
X 3 38 520.11 -41.99 -9.98 1.21 0.23 4-#19 + 4-#16
3 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
3 TO 400 C25 : 5 40 130.97 58.78 -28.21 1.98 0.41 4-#25 + 4-#19 #10 @
4 X Fy420 75 +
274
#10 @
400
200
Column/Wall : C13

#10 @
400
1 TO C25 : 75 +
X 3 38 911.13 52.24 -2.61 1.21 0.29 4-#19 + 4-#16
2 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
2 TO C25 : 75 +
X 3 38 554.47 -35.96 -25.63 1.21 0.28 4-#19 + 4-#16
3 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
#10 @
400
3 TO C25 : 75 +
X 3 38 331.15 -76.42 -40.52 1.21 0.52 4-#19 + 4-#16
4 Fy420 #10 @
400
200
275
4.2 DESIGN METHODOLOGY (Geotechnical Context)
The designers followed the procedures in “Principles of Foundation Engineering Sixth Edition” for the design of
ground improvement using Soil Improvement and Ground Modification published by the Braja M. Das of the
California State University, USA. For the design of ground improvement using jet grouting and Wet Soil Mixing, the
designers used “Shallow Foundation: Allowable Bearing Capacity and Settlement” and “Pile Foundation” of the book
“Principles of Foundation Engineering Sixth Edition” by Braja M. Das. For the design of ground improvement vibro-
replacement or stone columns, the designers used Priebe’s method and stone columns in “Principles of Foundation
Engineering Sixth Edition by Braja M. Das”.
4.2.2 Design Process
As the preceding chapters of this document stated, the footing will be constructed over soft soil or clay and soil
improvement and ground modification of the soil using jet grouting, wet soil mixing, or vibro-replacement was the
proposed solution to the problem.
276
4.2.3 Design Parameters
The following table were the summary of design parameters in the actual design of the ground improvement.
Table 1: Summary of Design Parameters
Input Parameter Values Reference/Remark
Cross Section
Height (H) 15m Figure 2.3-2 Soil Profiles
Footing 1m x 1m RCDC
Column 0.4m x 0.4m RCDC
FG 2m RCDC
277
Soil Properties Refer to Geotechnical Report in Chapter 2
Ground Water Table Refer to Geotechnical Report in Chapter 3
Backfill Properties
Layer 1
Angle of Friction 23 º
Refer to Input Parameters in
Unit Weight 19.3356 kN/m^3
Chapter 2
Cohesion 20 kPa
Layer 2
Angle of Friction 19 º
Unit Weight 21.4480 kN/m^3
Chapter 2
Cohesion 25 kPa

Factor of Safety 4
Chapter 2
4.2.4 Structural Tradeoffs Bearing Capacity Design Process
In this section, the analysis is performed with shallow foundations ultimate bearing capacity analysis and each
structural tradeoffs has different values of vertical forces and moments, and the designers will pick the maximum
bearing capacity that acts on the structure. And the designers will compare the results from the maximum bearing
capacity of the structure and allowable bearing capacity of the soil to determine if the structre will fail.
278
4.2.5 Bearing Capacity Computation of SMRF Structure
279
Flow Chart of Ground Improvement for SMRF
The figure below shows results that was manually computed and applied to MS Excel. These data will be used for
further computation of the design.
280
SMRF
PARAMETERS UNITS
Mz 177.162 kN-m
Mx 175.343 kN-m
Q 939.055 kN
B 2 m
ECCENTRICITY
ex 0.186722822 m
ez 0.188659876 m
Bearing Capacity due to load
qmin 185.143467 kPa
qmax 284.384033 kPa
FIGURE: DATA INPUT-OUTPUT FOR SMRF STRUCTURE
Normal Ground
19.335
 6 kN/m³ Unit weight of soil (gamma)
c' (or cu) 20 kN/m² For undrained soils use phi' = 0
 23 deg Angle of friction (phi')
m²/M
mv 0.014 N Coefficient of volume compressibility
MN/m
E 30 ² Young's Modulus
 0.4125 Poisson's ratio
Water Table 0.8 m Depth to Water Table

281
Foundation
Shape sq sq=Square, re=Rectangular, st=Strip
Enter only a width for this

Square foundation type
Width 2 m Width of foundation
Length 2 m Length not used for this foundation type
Founding
Depth 2 m Depth to Base of foundation

1137.5 Applied load - includes weight of

Load 3 kN foundation

Safety Factor
4 Required safety factor
FIGURE: DATA INPUT FOR NATURAL GROUND
Results
Square foundation
2m x 2m
Drained Analysis
Actual Bearing Stress
284 kN/m²
Net Bearing Stress
246 kN/m²
Ultimate Bearing Stress
971 kN/m²
Allowable Bearing Stress
272 kN/m²
282
Actual Safety Factor
3.8
FAIL!
Actual Bearing Stress >

Allowable
Settlement
1
Elastic 3 mm
Consolidation 6 mm
1
Total 9 mm
FIGURE: DATA OUTPUT FOR NATURAL GROUND
FIGURE: STRESS DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM
283
4.2.5.1 Ground Improvement Using Jet Grouting
JET GROUTING COLUMN DATA
jet grout column diameter D 1.00 m
horizontal spacing Lx 1.00 m
vertical spacing Ly 1.00 m
length of column L 2.05 m
Pul
jet grout column strength target t 3,884.0 kN/m2
jet grout column shear strength fJG 153.33 kN/m2
jet grout unit weight γJG 11.16 kN/m2
FIGURE: Data Parameters for Jet Grout
SOIL DATA
natural ground allowable stress σs 1088.00 m
σs
bearing capacity of ground b 284.00 m
soil unit weight γs 19.34 m
safety factor FS 4.00 m
poisson's ratio ν 0.4 kN/m2
cohesion C 20.00 kN/m2
adhesion cu 0.97 kN/m2
angle of internal friction φ 23.00 kN/m2
FIGURE: Data Parameters for Soil
LIQUEFACTION DATA
284
SPT N-Values N 23.00 m
Layer Thick H 10.00 m
Correction Factor due to Surface FS 1.09 m
Vertical Stress σv 40.46 m
Effective Vertical Stress σ'v 28.7 kN/m2
ama
ground acceleration x 0.40 kN/m2
FIGURE: Data Parameters for Liquefaction
SOIL STRESS
284.0
σsb 0 kN/m σsb > σjs
820.9
σjs 9 kN/m ok
LOADINGS
838.9
Pv 6 kN Pv < Q
843.7
Q 6 kN ok
SLIP SAFETY
Vcol 12.85 kN Vcol < Vult
291.7
Vult 6 kN ok
FIGURE: Data Output of Jet Grouting
JET GROUTING FINAL SETTLEMENT
Qwp 574.29 Qwp 574.29 Qws 269.47
Qws 269.47 Cp 0.025 Cs 0.029
285
ᶓ 0.67 D 1 L 2.05
L 2.05 qp 838.96 qp 838.96
Ap 0.7854
Ep 29478000
Se1 6.68E-05 Se2 0.017113 Se3 0.004544
TOTAL SETTLEMENT 21.72372723 mm
FIGURE: FINAL SETTLEMENT OF JET GROUT PER FOOTING
JET GROUT DESIGN
jet grout column diameter 1.00 m
horizontal spacing 1.00 m
vertical spacing 1.00 m
length of column 2.05 m
Number of Jet Grout Column per Footing 9.00 pcs
FIGURE: FINAL DESIGN OF JET GROUT PER FOOTING
286
FIGURE: FINAL DESIGN OF JET GROUT PER FOOTING LAYOUT
4.2.5.2 Ground Improvement Using Wet Soil Mixing Using Lime
WET SOIL COLUMN DATA
wet soil column diameter D 0.80 m
Pul
wet soil column strength target t 3,884.0 kN/m2
wet soil column shear strength fJG 57.01 kN/m2
wet soil unit weight γJG 13.61 kN/m2
FIGURE: Data Parameters for Wet Soil
SOIL DATA
σs
LIQUEFACTION DATA
287
ama
SOIL STRESS
284.0
623.3
σjs 6 kN/m Ok
LOADINGS
639.7
Pv 8 kN Pv < Q
655.9
Q 9 kN Ok
SLIP SAFETY
113.8
Vult 7 kN Ok
FIGURE: Data Output of Wet Soil
WET SOIL MIXING FINAL SETTLEMENT
Qwp 403.59 Qwp 403.59 Qws 262.92
Qws 262.92 Cp 0.025 Cs 0.03
ᶓ 0.67 D 0.8 L 2.4
L 2.4 qp 639.78 qp 639.78
288
Ap 0.5
Ep 29478000
Se1 9.44E-05 Se2 0.019713 Se3 0.005137
FIGURE: FINAL SETTLEMENT OF WET SOIL PER FOOTING
WET SOIL DESIGN
0.8
Wet soil column diameter 0 m
1.0
horizontal spacing 0 m
1.0
vertical spacing 0 m
2.4
length of column 0 m
9.0 pc
Number of Wet Soil per Footing 0 s
FIGURE: FINAL DESIGN OF WET SOIL PER FOOTING
289
FIGURE: FINAL DESIGN OF WET SOIL MIXING PER FOOTING LAYOUT
4.3.5.3 Ground Improvement Using Vibro-Replacement
290
291
VIBRO-REPLACEMENT DESIGN
stone column diameter 1.0 m
pc
Number of Wet Ssoil per Column 9.00 s
774.757 kP
Bearing Capacity 4 a
FIGURE: FINAL DESIGN OF VIBRO-REPLACEMENT PER FOOTING
292
FIGURE: FINAL DESIGN OF STONE COLUMN PER FOOTING LAYOUT
293
4.2.6 Bearing Capacity Computation of DS w/ IMF Structure
Flow Chart of Ground Improvement for DS w/ IMF
294
further computation of the design
DS w/ IMF (SPECIAL REINFORCED SHEAR WALL)
PARAMETERS UNITS
Mz 105.102 kN-m
Mx 56.109 kN-m
Q 2763.708 kN
B 2 m
ECCENTRICITY
ex 0.020302072 m
ez 0.038029343 m
qmin 687.7263174 kPa
qmax 694.1276826 kPa
FIGURE: DATA INPUT-OUTPUT FOR DS w/ IMF STRUCTURE
Normal Ground
 19.3356 kN/m³ Unit weight of soil (gamma)
295
mv 0.014 m²/MN Coefficient of volume compressibility
E 30 MN/m² Young's Modulus

Foundation

Founding



Safety Factor
Results
Square foundation
2m x 2m
Drained Analysis
296
694 kN/m²
Net Bearing Stress
655 kN/m²
971 kN/m²
272 kN/m²
1.4
FAIL!

Allowable
Settlement
3
Elastic 4 mm
1
Consolidation 7 mm
5
Total 1 mm
297
Pul
SOIL DATA
298
σs
LIQUEFACTION DATA
ama
SOIL STRESS
694.0
716.6
σjs 8 kN/m ok
LOADINGS
299
1654.
Pv 07 kN Pv < Q
1670.
Q 42 kN ok
SLIP SAFETY
531.7
Vult 3 kN ok
Qwp 1209.03 Qwp 1209.03 Qws 461.39
Qws 461.39 Cp 0.025 Cs 0.029
ᶓ 0.67 D 1.35 L 2.6
L 2.6 qp 1654.07 qp 1654.07
Ap 1.43
Ep 29478000
Se1 9.36E-05 Se2 0.013536 Se3 0.003111
JET GROUT DESIGN
300
Pul
301
SOIL DATA
σs
LIQUEFACTION DATA
ama
302
SOIL STRESS
694.0
697.1
σjs 4 kN/m ok
LOADINGS
1120.
Pv 97 kN Pv < Q
1127.
Q 49 kN ok
SLIP SAFETY
215.2
Vult 6 kN ok
Qwp 773.21 Qwp 773.21 Qws 354.28
Qws 354.28 Cp 0.025 Cs 0.029
ᶓ 0.67 D 1.1 L 2.45
L 2.45 qp 1120.97 qp 1120.97
Ap 0.95
Ep 29478000
Se1 8.84E-05 Se2 0.015677 Se3 0.003741
303
WET SOIL DESIGN
Wet soil column diameter 1.1 m
1.2
1.2
2.4
4.0 pc
FIGURE: FINAL DESIGN OF WET SOIL PER FOOTING LAYOUT
304
305
pc
774.757 kP
306
4.2.7 Bearing Capacity Computation of DS
307
Flow Chart of Ground Improvement for DS
308
further computation of the design.
DS (SPECIAL REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALL
PARAMETERS UNITS
Mz 81.741 kN-m
Mx 43.652 kN-m
Q 2268.575 kN
B 2 m
ECCENTRICITY
ex 0.019242035 m
ez 0.03603187 m
qmin 564.7844552 kPa
qmax 569.5030448 kPa
Normal Ground
19.335 kN/m
 6 ³ Unit weight of soil (gamma)
kN/m
c' (or cu) 20 ² For undrained soils use phi' = 0
m²/M
MN/m
309
Water Table -0.8 m Depth to Water Table

Foundation

Length not used for this foundation

Length 2 m type
Founding



Safety Factor
Results
Square foundation
2m x 2m
Drained Analysis
310
kN/m
570 ²
Net Bearing Stress
kN/m
531 ²
kN/m
971 ²
kN/m
272 ²
1.8
FAIL!

Allowable
Settlement
2 m
Elastic 7 m
1 m
Consolidation 4 m
4 m
Total 1 m
311
Pul
312
SOIL DATA
σs
LIQUEFACTION DATA
ama
SOIL STRESS
570.0
623.3
σjs 6 kN/m Ok
313
LOADINGS
635.7
Pv 0 kN Pv < Q
636.6
Q 9 kN Ok
SLIP SAFETY
186.7
Vult 3 kN Ok
Qwp 400.44 Qwp 400.44 Qws 236.25
Qws 236.25 Cp 0.025 Cs 0.03
ᶓ 0.67 D 0.8 L 2.2
L 2.2 qp 635.7 qp 635.7
Ap 0.5
Ep 29478000
Se1 8.34E-05 Se2 0.019685 Se3 0.005068
JET GROUT DESIGN
314
315
Pul
SOIL DATA
σs
LIQUEFACTION DATA
316
ama
SOIL STRESS
570.0
599.8
σjs 1 kN/m Ok
LOADINGS
745.0
Pv 8 kN Pv < Q
746.6
Q 8 kN Ok
SLIP SAFETY
128.5
Vult 3 kN Ok
Qwp 467.33 Qwp 467.33 Qws 279.35
Qws 279.35 Cp 0.025 Cs 0.03
ᶓ 0.67 D 0.85 L 2.5
L 2.5 qp 745.08 qp 745.08
Ap 0.57
317
Ep 29478000
Se1 9.74E-05 Se2 0.018448 Se3 0.004499
WET SOIL DESIGN
0.8
1.1
1.1
2.5
9.0 pc
318
319
320
pc
774.757 kP
4.3 Validation of Trade-Offs (Geotechnical)
To confirm the Designer’s Raw Ranking that was stated in Chapter 3, the designer computed the
necessary details for the validation of tradeoffs. The validation will prove if the assumptions on the initial
estimates presented in Chapter 3 is right.
321
In this chapter, the drafted tradeoffs for geotechnical (Vibro-Replacement, Wet Soil Mixing, and Jet
Grouting) on Ground Improvement methodology, we compared with initial estimates from the designer. The
tables below would signify which tradeoff fits perfectly to the client’s constraints.
4.3.1 Final Estimate:
The Total Cost Estimate of the Designer using the methodologies indicated in chapter 3.
Table 2: Total Cost Estimate of the Methodologies.
SMRF
No. of
Tradeoffs Area Height Price Cost (Php)
Column No. of Footing
Jet Grouting 0.7854 2.05 9 16 19282.074 4470550.399
Wet Soil
0.5027 2.4 9 12740.04519 2213367.8
Mixing 16
Stone Column 0.7854 3.8 9 16 7786.486622 3346405.208
DS w/ IMF
No. of
Jet Grouting 1.4314 2.6 4 16 19282.074 4592700.024
Wet Soil
0.9503 2.45 4 12740.04519 1898356.424
Mixing 16
Stone Column 0.7854 4 9 16 7786.486622 3522531.798
DS
No. of
Jet Grouting 0.5027 2.2 9 16 19282.074 3070773.636
Wet Soil
0.5675 2.5 9 12740.04519 2602791.233
Mixing 16
Stone Column 0.7854 2.6 9 16 7786.486622 2289645.669
322
4.3.2 Final Constructability Estimate:
The Total Estimated time for the projects construction to be completed:
Table 3: Total Duration Estimate of the Methodologies
SMRF
Tradeoffs Area Height No. of No. of Duration of Jet Duration

Column Footing Grout (days)
Jet Grouting 0.7854 2.05 9 16 0.011574074 2.68345
Wet Soil 0.5027 2.4 9 16 0.011574074 2.0108

Mixing
Stone Column 0.7854 3.8 9 16 0.011574074 4.9742
DS w/ IMF

Jet Grouting 1.4314 2.6 4 16 0.011574074 2.75677037
Wet Soil 0.9503 2.45 4 16 0.011574074 1.724618519

Mixing
Stone Column 0.7854 4 9 16 0.011574074 5.236
DS

Jet Grouting 0.5027 2.2 9 16 0.011574074 1.843233333
Wet Soil 0.5675 2.5 9 16 0.011574074 2.364583333

Mixing
Stone Column 0.7854 2.6 9 16 0.011574074 3.4034
4.3.3 Final Safety Estimate:
The Total Estimated Settlement for the projects construction:
323
Table 4: Total Safety Estimate of the Methodologies.
SMRF
TRADEOFF SETTLEMENT (mm)
Jet Grouting 21.72372723
Wet Soil Mixing 24.94464351
Vibro Replacement 7.90000000
DS w/ IMF
DS
4.5. Validation of Trade-Offs
This section will provide and confirm the validation results of the initial ranking on Chapter 3. As a review,
the strategy used was the trade-off system by Otto & Antonsson to select the final design of the structure.
4.5.1 Final Estimates of Trade-Offs (Structural Context)
Considering the price of the structural materials, construction time, and safety, the designer provides final
Estimate of the two flooring systems according to the constraints discussed in Chapter 3.
The outcome of the set criterion therefore will constitute the decision of the client and the designers. Above
all, economical, will be given an importance value of 10. Constructability, Sustainability and Risk
324
Assessment will be given an importance value of 9 and lastly, Environmental Assessment will be given an
importance value of 8.
Constraint Special Moment Dual System with Dual System with
Resisting Frame Intermediate Moment Special Moment Frame
Frame
Constructability 37 days 51 days 65 days
Risk Assessment 1.329 mm 1.479 mm 1.455 mm
Sustainability Php 12,200.00 Php 12,900.00 Php 12,750.00
Environmental 35.94 kg of CO2 per km 43.13 kg of CO2 per km 40.25 kg of CO2 per km
Assessment
Table 4.21 Final Estimate Value

% difference= ×10
higher value
Economic Difference of Special Moment Resisting Frame and Dual System with Intermediate Moment
Frame
1,926,400−1,828,100
% difference= × 10
1,926,400
% difference=0.510
Economic Difference of Dual System with Intermediate Moment Frame and Dual System with Special
Moment Frame
1,926,400−1,905,700
% difference= × 10
1,926,400
325
% difference=¿0.11
Subordinate rank =¿ 9.89
Economic Difference of Special Moment Resisting Frame and Dual System with Special Moment Frame
1,905,700−1,828,100
% difference= × 10
1,905,700
% difference=0.41
Constructability Difference of Special Moment Resisting Frame and Dual System with Intermediate
Moment Frame
51−37
% difference= ×10
51
% difference=0.41
326
Constructability Difference of Dual System with Intermediate Moment Frame and Dual System with Special
Moment Frame
65−51
% difference= ×10
65
% difference=2.15
Constructability Difference of Special Moment Resisting Frame and Dual System with Special Moment
Frame
65−37
% difference= ×10
65
% difference=0.43
Risk Assessment Difference of Special Moment Resisting Frame and Dual System with Intermediate
Moment Frame
1.479−1.329
% difference= ×10
1.479
327
% difference=1.01
Risk Assessment Difference of Dual System with Intermediate Moment Frame and Dual System with
Special Moment Frame
1.479−1.455
% difference= ×10
1.479
% difference=0.16
Risk Assessment Difference of Special Moment Resisting Frame and Dual System with Special Moment
Frame
1.455−1.329
% difference= ×10
1.455
% difference=0.87
328
Sustainability Difference of Special Moment Resisting Frame and Dual System with Intermediate Moment
Frame
12,900−12,200
% difference= ×10
12,900
% difference=0.54
Sustainability Difference of Dual System with Intermediate Moment Frame and Dual System with Special
Moment Frame
12,900−12,750
% difference= ×10
12,900
% difference=0.12
Sustainability Difference of Special Moment Resisting Frame and Dual System with Special Moment Frame
329
12,750−12,200
% difference= ×10
12,750
% difference=0.43
Subordinaterank =10−0.43
Environmental Assessment Difference of Special Moment Resisting Frame and Dual System with
Intermediate Moment Frame
43.13−35.94
% difference= ×10
43.13
% difference=1.66
Environmental Assessment Difference of Dual System with Intermediate Moment Frame and Dual System
with Special Moment Frame
43.13−40.25
% difference= ×10
43.13
% difference=0.72
330
Environmental Assessment Difference of Special Moment Resisting Frame and Dual System with Special
Moment Frame
40.25−35.94
% difference= ×10
40.25
% difference=1.07
Subordinate rank =¿8.93
Importance (on a Special Reinforced Dual System with Dual System with
scale of 0 to 10) Concrete Moment Intermediate Special Moment
Frame Moment Frame Frame
Economic 10 10 8 8
Constructability 9 8 8 8
Sustainability 9 8 8 8
Risk Assessment 9 9 7 8
Environmental 8 7 7 7
Assessment
Overall Rank 381 343 352
Table 4.22 Final Raw Ranking
4.5.2 Validation of Trade-Offs (Geotechnical Context)
To confirm the Designer’s Raw Ranking that was stated in Chapter 3, the designer computed the
necessary details for the validation of tradeoffs. The validation will prove if the assumptions on the initial
estimates presented in Chapter 3 is right.
331
In this chapter, the drafted tradeoffs for geotechnical (Vibro-Replacement, Wet Soil Mixing, and Jet
Grouting) on Ground Improvement methodology, we compared with initial estimates from the designer. The
tables below would signify which tradeoff fits perfectly to the client’s constraints.
Cost
Constraint
Vibro Replacement Wet Soil Mixing Jet Grouting
Constructability 4.9742 days 2.0108 days 2.68345 days
Safety 7.9 mm 24.94464351 mm 21.72372723 mm
Sustainability 774.7574 kPa 623.36 kPa 820.99 kPa
Environmental 31067.91072 kg 23280.23808 kg 57589.29792 kg
Table 4.23 Final Estimate Value for SMRF

Cost Difference of Vibro Replacement and Wet Soil Mixing

% difference= ×10
higher value
3346405.21−2213367.8
% difference= × 10
3346405.21
% difference=3.39
Cost Difference of Vibro Replacement and Jet Grouting

% difference= ×10
higher value
332
4470550.4−3346405.21
% difference= × 10
4470550.4
% difference=2.51
Cost Difference of Jet Grouting and Wet Soil Mixing

% difference= ×10
higher value
4470550.4−2213367.8
% difference= × 10
4470550.4
% difference=5.05
Duration Difference of Vibro Replacement and Wet Soil Mixing

% difference= ×10
higher value
4.9747−2.0108
% difference= × 10
4.9747
333
% difference=5.96
Duration Difference of Vibro Replacement and Jet Grouting

% difference= ×10
higher value
4.9747−2.6835
% difference= × 10
4.9747
% difference=4.61
Duration Difference of Jet Grouting and Wet Soil Mixing

% difference= ×10
higher value
2.86345−2.0108
% difference= ×10
2.86345
% difference=2.98
334
Safety Difference of Vibro Replacement and Wet Soil Mixing

% difference= ×10
higher value
24.94464351−7.9
% difference= × 10
24.94464351
% difference=6.83
Safety Difference of Vibro Replacement and Jet Grouting

% difference= ×10
higher value
21.72372723−7.9
% difference= ×10
21.72372723
% difference=6.36
335
Safety Difference of Wet Soil Mixing and Jet Grouting

% difference= ×10
higher value
24.94464351−21.72372723
% difference= × 10
24.94464351
% difference=1.29
Sustainability Difference of Vibro Replacement and Wet Soil Mixing

% difference= ×10
higher value
774.7574−623.36
% difference= × 10
774.7574
% difference=1.95
336
Sustainability Difference of Vibro Replacement and Jet Grouting

% difference= ×10
higher value
820.99−774.7574
% difference= ×10
820.99
% difference=0.56

Sustainability Difference of Wet Soil Mixing and Jet Grouting

% difference= ×10
higher value
820.99−623.36
% difference= ×10
820.99
% difference=2.41
Difference of Vibro Replacement and Wet Soil Mixing

% difference= ×10
higher value
57589.29792−23280.23808
% difference= × 10
57589.29792
% difference=5.96
337
CO2 Difference of Vibro Replacement and Jet Grouting

% difference= ×10
higher value
57589.29792−31067.91072
% difference= ×10
57589.29792
% difference=4.61
CO2 Difference of Jet Grouting and Wet Soil Mixing

% difference= ×10
higher value
31067.91072−23280.23808
% difference= × 10
31067.91072
% difference=2.51
338
Importance (on a Vibro Wet Soil Mixing Jet Grouting
scale of 0 to 10) Replacement
Economic 10 6.61 10 4.95
Constructability 8 4.04 10 7.02
Safety 9 10 3.17 3.64
Sustainability 9 8.05 10 7.59
Environmental 6 4.04 10 7.49
Overall Rank 285.11 358.53 251.67
Table 4.24 Designer’s Raw Ranking
4.6 Final Trade-off Assessment
The comprehensive discussion presented below covers the designer’s justification in the rating criteria
above:
4.6.1 Trade-offs Assessment (Structural Context)
In this section, the designers present a comparative discussion off the results in the final ranking for the
Structural Context.
For the designer’s final raw ranking, the winning trade-offs is the Special Moment RC Frame that has the
highest score rank which is 381 followed by Dual System with Special RC Shear walls that has a score of
352 and then the Dual System with Intermediate Moment Frame that has a score of 343 in the designer’s
raw ranking.
4.6.1.1 Economic Assessment (Material Cost)
In this criterion, Special Moment RC Frame is the governing trade-off the final material cost for this trade-off
is Php 1,828,100.00, the Material Cost is the cheapest compared to Dual System with Special RC Shear
walls and Dual System with Intermediate Moment Frame.
4.6.1.2 Serviceability Assessment (Deflection)
In this criterion the governing trade-off is Special Moment RC Frame, it only has 1.329 mm vertical
deflection and it is the lowest deflection compared to Dual System with Special RC Shear walls and Dual
339
System with Intermediate Moment Frame. This value is significant in the structural integrity of the structure
since the higher the magnitude of deflection the higher the risk of failure.
4.6.1.3 Constructability Assessment (Construction Duration)
In this criterion, the governing trade-off is the Special Moment RC Frame since it has the least number of
expected days to complete the project, which is 37 days.
4.6.1.4 Sustainability Assessment (Maintenance Cost)
In this criterion, Special Moment RC Frame is the governing trade-off the final maintenance cost for this
trade-off is only Php 12,200.00 per year, this maintenance cost is the cheapest compared Dual System with
Special RC Shear walls and Dual System with Intermediate Moment Frame because of the material used to
build the structure. Dual System with Intermediate Moment Frame has the largest cost for the maintenance.
4.6.1.5 Environmental Assessment (Carbon Emission)
In this criterion, Special Moment RC Frame is the governing trade-off. It only produces 35.94 kg of Carbon
Emission per km which is the lowest compared to Dual System with Special RC Shear walls and Dual
System with Intermediate Moment Frame.
4.6.2 Trade-offs Assessment for Geotechnical Context
In this section, the designers present a comparative discussion off the results in the final ranking for the
Geotechnical Context.For the designer’s final raw ranking, the winning trade-offs is the Wet Soil Mixing that
has the highest score rank which is 358.53 followed by Vibro Replacement that has a score of 285.11 and
lastly the Jet Grouting that has a score of 251.67 in the designer’s final ranking.
4.6.2.1 Economic Assessment (Material Cost)
In this criterion, Wet Soil Mixing is the governing trade-off the final material cost for this trade-off is only Php
2,213,367.80. This material is the cheapest compared to Vibro Replacement and the Jet Grouting.
4.6.2.2 Serviceability Assessment (Deflection/Settlement)
In this criterion the governing trade-off is the Vibro Replacement, it has the least magnitude of settlement
which is 7.9 mm. This is the lowest settlement compared to Wet Soil Mixing and Jet Grouting.
4.6.2.3 Constructability Assessment (Construction Duration)
In this criterion, the governing trade-off is Wet Soil Mixing since it has the least number of expected days to
complete the project, which is 2 days. It is the lowest number of days to complete the project compared to
Vibro Replacement and the Jet Grouting.
340
4.6.2.4 Sustainability Assessment (Bearing Capcity)
In this criterion, Jet Grouting is the governing trade-off. It has a bearing capacity of 820.99 kPa. It is the
largest bearing capacity compared to Wet Soil Mixing and Vibro Replacement.
4.6.2.5 Environmental Assessment (Carbon Emission)
In this criterion, Wet Soil Mixing is the governing trade-off. It only produces 23.3 kg of Carbon Emission per
km which is the lowest compared to Vibro Replacement and the Jet Grouting.
4.7 Influence of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards

Through the consideration of multiple constraints, the designers have chosen what particular designs
among the trade-offs they will use. The trade-off is very significant in the design for it will solve the problem
regarding the concern of expenses.
4.7.1 Structural Context
4.7.1.1 Graphical Comparison of Final Estimates for Economic Constraint
ECONOMIC CONSTRAINT
1,905,700.00
1,926,400.00
CO S T (PhP)
Dual System
with Special
1,950,000.00 Moment...
1,900,000.00 Dual System
1,828,100.00 with
1,850,000.00 Intermediat...
1,800,000.00 Special
Moment
Resisting...
1,750,000.00
Special Moment Resisting Frame Dual System with Intermediate Moment Frame
Dual System with Special Moment Frame
Bar Chart 4.1 Graphical Comparison for Economic Constraints
341
The Bar Chart above shows that the most expensive trade-offs among the three is the Dual System with
Intermediate Moment Frame having a total material cost of Php 1,926,400.00. the cost difference between
the governing trade-off is Php 98,300.00.
4.7.1.2 Graphical Comparison of Final Estimates for Risk Assessment Constraint
SAFETY CONSTRAINT
1.46
1.48
Deflection (MM)
Dual System
with Special
1.5 Moment...
1.45
Dual System
1.4 1.33 with
Intermediat...
1.35
Special
1.3 Moment
Resisting...
1.25
Bar Chart 0.2 Graphical Comparison for Safety Constraints
The Bar Chart above indicates the comparison of each trade-offs with respect to their deflection values, the
trade-off with the largest value for deflection among the three is the Dual System with Intermediate Moment
Frame with deflection value of 1.479 mm. The difference in total soil displacement between the governing
trade-off between it is 0.15mm
.
4.7.1.3 Graphical Comparison of Final Estimates for Constructability Constraint
CONSTRUCTABI LITY CONSTRAINTS
65
D U R ATIO N (D AYS )
51

70
60
37
50
40 Dual System with Intermediate Moment Frame
30
20
10 Special Moment Resisting Frame
0
Bar Chart 0.3 Graphical Comparison for CONSTRUCTABILITY Constraints
342
The Bar Chart above indicates the comparison of each trade-offs with respect to their total construction
duration. The trade-off with the longest phase of construction duration among the three is the Dual System
with Special Moment Frame having a total construction duration of 65 days. The difference in construction
duration between the governing trade-off between it is 28 days.
4.7.1.4 Graphical Comparison of Final Estimates for Sustainability Constraint
SUSTAINABILITY CONSTRAINTS
12,750.00
Maintenance cost
13,000.00
12,900.00
12,800.00 Dual System with Special Moment Frame
. (Php)
12,600.00
12,400.00 12,200.00
Dual System with Intermediate Moment Frame
12,200.00
12,000.00 Special Moment Resisting Frame
11,800.00
Bar Chart 0.4 Graphical Comparison for SUSTAINABILITY Constraints
The Bar Chart above indicates the comparison of each trade-offs with respect to their maintenance cost.
The trade-off with the highest value for maintenance cost among the three is Dual System with
Intermediate Moment Frame having a cost of Php 12,900. The difference in maintenance cost between the
governing trade-off is Php 700.
4.7.1.5 Graphical Comparison of Final Estimates for Environmental Constraint

ENVI RONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
CO 2 E M IS S IO N (K G pe r k m )
40.25
Dual System
43.13 with Special
50 35.94 Moment
Frame
40
30
20 Special
10 Moment
Resisting
0 Frame
343
The Bar Chart above indicates the comparison of each trade-offs with respect to their total CO2 emissions.
The trade-off with the highest value for the CO2 emission among the three is the Dual System with
Intermediate Moment Frame having a total CO2 emission of 43.13 kg. The difference maintenance cost
between the governing trade-off between is 7.19 kg.
4.7.2 Geotechnical Context
4.7.2.1 Graphical Comparison of Final Estimates for Economic Constraint

ECONOMI C CONSTRA I NT
3346405
CO S T (PhP)
4470550 2213368
VIBRO REPLACEMENT
5000000
4000000
3000000 WET SOIL MIXING
2000000
1000000 JET GROUTING FOOTING
0
JET GROUTING FOOTING WET SOIL MIXING VIBRO REPLACEMENT
Bar Chart 4.6 Graphical Comparison for Economic Constraints
The Bar Chart above that the most expensive trade-offs among the three is the Jet Grouting having a total
material cost of 4,470,550 Php. the cost difference between the governing trade-off is 2,257,182 Php.
4.7.2.2 Graphical Comparison of Final Estimates for Safety Constraint

SA F ETY CONSTRA I NT
S E T T LE M E N T (M M )
24.94
7.9
21.72
VIBRO REPLACEMENT
25
20
15 WET SOIL MIXING
10
5 JET GROUTING FOOTING
0
JET GROUTING FOOTING WET SOIL MIXING VIBRO REPLACEMENT
Bar Chart 4.7 Graphical Comparison for Safety Constraints
The Bar Chart above indicates the comparison of each trade-offs with respect to their total settlement the
trade-off with the largest value for the total settlement among the three is the Wet Soil Mixing with total
settlement of 24.94464351 mm. The difference in total soil displacement between the governing trade-off
between it is 0 mm.
344
4.7.2.3 Graphical Comparison of Final Estimates for Constructability Constraint
CONSTRUCTABILITY CONSTRAI NTS
4.97
D U R A T IO N ( D A Y S )
2.01 VIBRO REPLACEMENT

5
4 2.68
3 WET SOIL MIXING
2
1 JET GROUTING
0
JET GROUTING WET SOIL MIXING VIBRO REPLACEMENT
Bar Chart 4.8 Graphical Comparison for CONSTRUCTABILITY Constraints
The Bar Chart above indicates the comparison of each trade-offs with respect to their total construction
duration. The trade-off with the slowest phase of construction duration among the three is the Vibro
Replacement having a total construction duration of 4.9742 days. The difference in construction duration
between the governing trade-off between it is 2.9634 days.
4.7.1.4 Graphical Comparison of Final Estimates for Sustainability Constraint
774.76
Bearing capacity (kPa)
820.99 VIBRO
1000 623.36 REPLACEMENT
800
WET SOIL
600 MIXING
400
200 JET
GROUTING
0
The Bar Chart above indicates the comparison of each trade-offs with respect to their total bearing
capacity. The trade-off with the highest value for the bearing capacity among the three is the jet grouting
having a total bearing capacity of 820.99 kPa. The difference maintenance cost between the governing
trade-off between it is197.63 kPa.
345
4.7.1.5 Graphical Comparison of Final Estimates for Environmental Constraint
57589.3
CO2 EMISSION (KG)
VIBRO
60000 REPLACEMENT
50000 23280.24
31067.91
40000 WET SOIL
MIXING
30000
20000
JET
10000 GROUTING
0
The Bar Chart above indicates the comparison of each trade-offs with respect to their total co2 emissions.
The trade-off with the highest value for the co2 emission among the three is the VIbro Replacement having
a total co2 emission of 57589.29792 kg. The difference maintenance cost between the governing trade-off
between it is 34309.05984 kg.
4.8 Sensitivity Report
4.8.1.1 Economic vs Safety
The table below shows that when the designers considered the construction cost of the Structural trade-offs
and its effect to the settlement of the soil. The analysis of this graph between the economical and
serviceability of the structure, the higher the amount of Material cost will lessen the chance of Deflection of
the structure. Because of a high standard and quality of the materials can reduce the calculated deflection
of the structure.
ECONOMIC VS SAFETY
SPECIAL MOMENT RESISTING DUAL SYSTEM WITH DUAL SYSTEM WITH SPECIAL
FRAME INTERMEDIATE MOMENT MOMENT FRAME
PERCENT FRAME
INCREASE
DEFLECTION DEFLECTION DEFLECTION
COST (Php) COST (Php) COST (Php)
(mm) (mm) (mm)
1,905,700.0
0 1,828,100 1.329 1,926,400.00 1.479 1.455
0
346
3,513,725.4
5 1,919,505 1.263 2,324,036.19 1.405 1.382
7
3,681,045.7
10 2,010,910 1.196 2,434,704.58 1.331 1.31
3
3,848,365.9
15 2,102,315 1.13 2,545,372.97 1.257 1.237
9
4,015,686.2
20 2,193,720 1.0632 2,656,041.36 1.183 1.164
5
4,183,006.5
25 2,285,125 0.998 2,766,709.75 1.109 1.091
1
Table 0.25 Economic vs Serviceability
Economic vs Deflection
4.5
4
3.5
3
Deflection (mm)
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cost Increased (%)
SMRF DS W/ IMF DS W/ SMF
Line Graph 4.1 Economical vs Serviceability
4.8.1.2 Economical vs Constructability
The table below shows that when the designers considered the construction cost of the Geotechnical trade-
offs and its effect to the duration of the structure. The analysis of this graph between the economical and
duration of construction, the higher the amount of Material cost can accomplish the project beyond the
347
expected number of days of work. Because of a different mechanism or apparatus can help our project
accomplish as soon as possible, but expecting the cost of that tools will consume a lot of cost.
ECONOMIC VS CONSTRUCTABILITY
FRAME
PERCENT
INCREASE DURATIO DURATIO
DURATION
MATERIAL COST N MATERIAL N MATERIAL
(Php) COST(Php) COST(Php) (days)
(days) (days)
0 1,828,100 37 2,213,367.80 51 3,346,405.21 65
5 1,919,505 35 2,324,036.19 48 3,513,725.47 62
10 2,010,910 33 2,434,704.58 45 3,681,045.73 59
15 2,102,315 31 2,545,372.97 43 3,848,365.99 55
20 2,193,720 29 2,656,041.36 40 4,015,686.25 52
25 2,285,125 27 2,766,709.75 38 4,183,006.51 49
Table 0.26 Economic vs Constructability
348
Economic vs Constructability
90
80
70
60
Duration (days)
50 DS W/ SMF
DS W/ IMF
40 SMRF
30
20
10
0
0 10 15 20 25
Cost Increaded (%)
Line Graph 4.2 Economic vs Constructability
4.8.1.3 Economical vs Sustainability
offs and its effect to the maintenance of the structure. The analysis of this graph between the economical
and sustainability of the structure, the higher the amount of Material cost will increase the bearing capacity.
Because of a high standard and quality of the materials can reduce the maintenance of the structure.
ECONOMIC VS SUSTAINABILITY
PERCENT FRAME
INCREASE
MATERIAL MAINTENANCE MATERIAL MAINTENANCE MATERIAL MAINTENANCE
COST(PHP) COST (PHP) COST(PHP) COST (PHP) COST(PHP) COST (PHP)
0 1,828,100 12,200 2,213,367.80 12,900 3,346,405.21 12,750
5 1,919,505 11,590 2,324,036.19 12,255 3,513,725.47 12,113
10 2,010,910 10,980 2,434,704.58 11,610 3,681,045.73 11,475
15 2,102,315 10370 2,545,372.97 10,965 3,848,365.99 10,838
349
20 2,193,720 9,760 2,656,041.36 10,320 4,015,686.25 10,200
25 2,285,125 9,150 2,766,709.75 9,675 4,183,006.51 9,563
Table 4.27 Economic vs Sustainability
Economic vs Sustainability
16,000
14,000
12,000
Maintenance Cost(Php)
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cost increased (%)
SMRF DS W/ SMF DS W/ IMF
Line Graph 4.3 Economic vs Sustainability

4.8.1.4 Economical vs Environmental
offs and its effect to the vicinity or environment of the structure. The analysis of this graph between the
economical and environment of the structure, the higher the amount of Material cost will lessen the CO2
Emissions. Because of a high standard and quality of the materials can reduce the maintenance of the
structure.
Table 0-5 Economic vs Sustainability
ECONOMIC VS ENVIRONMENTAL
PERCENT SPECIAL MOMENT RESISTING DUAL SYSTEM WITH DUAL SYSTEM WITH SPECIAL
INCREASE FRAME INTERMEDIATE MOMENT MOMENT FRAME
FRAME
350
CO2 CO2
CO2
MATERIAL MATERIAL EMISSION MATERIAL EMISSION
EMISSION
COST (Php) COST(Php) COST(Php)
(kg/km) (kg/km) (kg/km)
0 1,828,100 35.94 2,213,367.80 43.13 3,346,405.21 40.25
5 1,919,505 34.14 2,324,036.19 40.97 3,513,725.47 38.24
10 2,010,910 32.35 2,434,704.58 38.82 3,681,045.73 36.23
15 2,102,315 30.55 2,545,372.97 36.66 3,848,365.99 34.21
20 2,193,720 28.75 2,656,041.36 34.5 4,015,686.25 32.2
25 2,285,125 26.96 2,766,709.75 32.35 4,183,006.51 30.19
Chart Title
50
45
40
CO2 emission (kg/lm)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cost Increased (%)
SMRF DS W/SMF DS W/IMF
Line Graph 4.4 Economic vs Environment

4.8.2.1 Economical vs Safety
offs and its effect to the settlement of the soil. The analysis of this graph between the economical and
serviceability of the structure, the higher the amount of Material cost will lessen the chance of settlement of
351
the soil. Because of a high standard and quality of the materials can reduce the calculated settlement of the
soil.
ECONOMIC VS SAFETY

PERCENT
INCREASE SETTLEMENT SETTLEMENT SETTLEMENT
COST (Php) COST (Php) COST (Php)
(mm) (mm) (mm)
4,470,550.4 3,346,405.2
0 21.72 2,213,367.80 24.94 7.9
0 1
4,694,077.9 3,513,725.4
5 20.63 2,324,036.19 23.69 7.51
2 7
4,917,605.4 3,681,045.7
10 19.55 2,434,704.58 22.45 7.11
4 3
5,141,132.9 3,848,365.9
15 18.46 2,545,372.97 21.20 6.72
6 9
5,364,660.4 4,015,686.2
20 17.38 2,656,041.36 19.95 6.32
8 5
5,588,188.0 4,183,006.5
25 16.29 2,766,709.75 18.71 5.93
0 1
Table 0.29 Economic vs Serviceability
352
Economical vs Serviceability
30
25
Deflection (mm)
20
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cost Increased (%)
Line Graph 4.5 Economical vs Serviceability

4.8.2.2 Economical vs Constructability
offs and its effect to the duration of the structure. The analysis of this graph between the economical and
duration of construction, the higher the amount of Material cost can accomplish the project beyond the
expected number of days of work. Because of a different mechanism or apparatus can help our project
accomplish as soon as possible, but expecting the cost of that tools will consume a lot of cost.
ECONOMIC VS CONSTRUCTABILITY

PERCENT
INCREASE DURATIO DURATIO
MATERIAL COST MATERIAL COST MATERIAL COST DURATION
N N
0 4,470,550.40 2.68 2,213,367.80 2.01 3,346,405.21 4.97
5 4,694,077.92 2.55 2,324,036.19 1.91 3,513,725.47 4.72
10 4,917,605.44 2.41 2,434,704.58 1.81 3,681,045.73 4.47
15 5,141,132.96 2.28 2,545,372.97 1.71 3,848,365.99 4.22
20 5,364,660.48 2.14 2,656,041.36 1.61 4,015,686.25 3.98
25 5,588,188.00 2.01 2,766,709.75 1.51 4,183,006.51 3.73
353
Table 4.30 Economic vs Constructability
Economical vs Constructability
6
4
Duration (days)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cost Increased (%)
Line Graph 4.6 Economic vs Constructability

4.8.2.3 Economical vs Sustainability
offs and its effect to the maintenance of the structure. The analysis of this graph between the economical
and sustainability of the structure, the higher the amount of Material cost will increase the bearing capacity.
Because of a high standard and quality of the materials can reduce the maintenance of the structure.
ECONOMIC VS SUSTAINABILITY

PERCENT
INCREASE MATERIAL BEARING MATERIAL BEARING MATERIAL BEARING
COST CAPACITY COST CAPACITY COST CAPACITY
0 4,470,550.40 820.99 2,213,367.80 623.36 3,346,405.21 774.76
5 4,694,077.92 862.04 2,324,036.19 654.53 3,513,725.47 813.50
10 4,917,605.44 903.09 2,434,704.58 685.70 3,681,045.73 852.23
15 5,141,132.96 944.14 2,545,372.97 716.86 3,848,365.99 890.97
354
20 5,364,660.48 985.19 2,656,041.36 748.03 4,015,686.25 929.71
25 5,588,188.00 1,026.24 2,766,709.75 779.20 4,183,006.51 968.45
Economic vs Sustainability
1200
1000
Bearing Capacity (kPa)
800
600
400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cost Increased (%)
LineGraph 4.7 Economic vs Sustainability
4.8.2.4 Economical vs Environmental
offs and its effect to the vicinity or environment of the structure. The analysis of this graph between the
economical and environment of the structure, the higher the amount of Material cost will lessen the CO2
Emissions. Because of a high standard and quality of the materials can reduce the maintenance of the
structure.
ECONOMIC VS ENVIRONMENTAL

PERCENT
INCREASE MATERIAL CO2 MATERIAL CO2 MATERIAL CO2
COST EMISSION COST EMISSION COST EMISSION
0 4,470,550.40 31,067.91 2,213,367.80 23,280.24 3,346,405.21 57,589.30
355
5 4,694,077.92 29,514.51 2,324,036.19 22,116.23 3,513,725.47 54,709.84
10 4,917,605.44 27,961.12 2,434,704.58 20,952.22 3,681,045.73 51,830.37
15 5,141,132.96 26,407.72 2,545,372.97 19,788.20 3,848,365.99 48,950.91
20 5,364,660.48 24,854.33 2,656,041.36 18,624.19 4,015,686.25 46,071.44
25 5,588,188.00 23,300.93 2,766,709.75 17,460.18 4,183,006.51 43,191.98
Economic vs Environment
70,000.00
60,000.00
CO2 Emission (kg)
50,000.00
40,000.00
30,000.00
20,000.00
10,000.00
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cost Increased (%)
Line Graph 4.8 Economic vs Environmet
356
4.9 NORMALIZATION
Raw Data
PC1 (Cost in PC4 (Maintenance
Design PC2 (Duration in days) PC3 (Deflection)
Pesos) Cost )
1 1,828,100.00 37 1.329 12,200.00
1,926,40
2 0.00 51 1.479 12,900.00
1,905,70
3 0.00 65 1.455 12,750.00
Normalized data
PC1 (Cost in PC4 (Maintenance
Design PC2 (Duration in days) PC3 (Deflection)
Pesos) Cost )
1 10 10 10 10
2 1.00 1 1 1
3 2.9 5.5 2.44 2.93
Table 3
PC Weight (%) D1 D2 D3
1 0.4 10 1 2.9
2 0.3 10 1 5.5
3 0.2 10 1 2.44
4 0.1 10 1 2.94
357
Weighte 10 1
d Sum 3.59
Table 4
1 0.38 10 1 2.9
2 0.28 10 1 5.5
3 0.22 10 1 2.44
4 0.12 10 1 2.94
Weighte 10 1
d Sum 3.53
Table 5
1 0.35 10 1 2.9
2 0.15 10 1 5.5
3 0.38 10 1 2.44
4 0.12 10 1 2.94
Weighte 10 1
d Sum 3.12

1. RAW DATA
PC4 (Bearing PC5 (CO2
Design PC1 (Cost in Pesos) PC2 (Duration in days) PC3 (Settlement)
Capacity ) EMISSION
4,470,550.3
1 4 2.68345 21.72372723 820.99 31067.91072
2,213,367.8
2 0 2.0108 24.94464351 623.36 23280.23808
3,346,405.2
3 1 4.9742 7.9 774.7574 57589.29792
358
2. Normalized data
PC4 (Bearing PC5 (CO2
Design PC1 (Cost in Pesos) PC2 (Duration in days) PC3 (Settlement)
Capacity ) EMISSION
1.0
1 0 7.957126949 2.700724718 1 7.957126949
10.0
2 0 10 1 10 10
5.4
3 8 1 10 3.105416182 1
Table 3
1 0.3 1 10 5.48
2 0.2 7.957126949 10 1
3 0.1 2.700724718 1 10
4 0.3 1 10 3.105416182
5 0.1 7.957126949 10 1
Weighte
d Sum 3.257210557 9.1 3.875624855
Table 4
1 0.23 1 10 5.48
2 0.22 7.957126949 10 1
3 0.12 2.700724718 1 10
4 0.33 1 10 3.105416182
5 0.1 7.957126949 10 1
Weighte
d Sum 2.634654895 7.92 3.70518734
Table 5
359
1 0.3 1 10 5.48
2 0.15 7.957126949 10 1
3 0.12 2.700724718 1 10
4 0.33 1 10 3.105416182
5 0.1 7.957126949 10 1
Weighte
d Sum 2.147656009 7.92 4.01878734
360
CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN
5.1 Final Design (Structural Context)
The designer has come up to a design that conforms to the National Building Code of the
Philippines and the National Structural Code of the Philippines. The structural parts of the design were able
to pass the necessary test for adequacy needed for the design.
Concluding up the design of the Two-Storey Fire Station, as proven from the previous chapters, the
Special Moment Concrete Resisting Frame was the ruling trade-off.
5.1.1 Framing System

Special Moment-Resisting Frame is a rectilinear assembly of beams and columns, rigidly
connecting the beams to the column. Resistance to lateral forces is given primarily by rigid frame action
and bending moment and shear force production in the frame members and joints. A moment frame cannot
displace laterally without bending the beams or columns depending on the geometry of the connection, due
to the rigid beam–column connections. Hence the frame members' bending rigidity and strength is the
primary source of lateral stiffness and strength for the entire frame.
Figure 5.1 1st floor to Roof Deck Framing Plan
361
Figure 5.2 Foundation Plan
362
5.1.2 Beam Design
Figure 5.3 Typical Beam Design Along Long Span
Figure 5.4 Typical Beam Design Along Short Span
363
Figure 5.5 Beam Elevation Along Long Span
364
Figure 5.8 Beam Elevation Along Short Span
365
366
Figure 5.11 Beam Schedule
Figure 5.12 Bar Cutting Disk Along Long Span
367
Figure 5.13 Bar Cutting Disk Along Long Span (Continuation)
368
Figure 5.14 Bar Cutting Disk Along Long Span (Continuation)
369
Figure 5.15 Bar Cutting Disk Along Short Span
370
Figure 5.16 Bar Cutting Disk Along Short Span (Continuation)
371
Figure 5.17 Summary of Bar Cutting Disk
372
5.1.3 COLUMN DESIGN
Figure 5.18 Column Elevation
373
Figure 5.19 Column Schedule
374
Figure 5.20 Bar Cutting Disk
375
Figure 5.21 Bar Cutting Disk (Continuation)
376
Figure 5.22 Summary of Bar Cutting Disk
5.1.5 SLAB DESIGN
Figure 5.23 Slab Reinforcement Layout
377
Figure 5.24 Slab Schedule
378
Figure 5.25 Bottom Reinforcement Cutting Disk
379
Figure 5.26 Bottom Reinforcement Cutting Disk (Continuation)
380
Figure 5.27 Bottom Reinforcement Cutting Disk (Continuation)
381
Figure 5.28 Top Reinforcement Cutting Disk
382
Figure 5.29 Top Reinforcement Cutting Disk (Continuation)
383
Figure 5.30 Top Reinforcement Cutting Disk (Continuation)
384
5.2 Final Design (Geotechnical Context)
The designer has come up to a design that conforms to the National Building Code of the
Philippines and the National Structural Code of the Philippines. The Geotechnical parts of the design were
able to pass the necessary test for adequacy needed for the design.
Concluding up the design of the Two-Storey Fire Station, as proven from the previous chapters, the
Wet Soil Mixing was the ruling trade-off.
5.2.1 Footing Details
Figure 5.31 Typical Schedule of Footings
Figure 5.32 Typical Details of Footings
385
5.2.2 Ground Improvement Details
WET SOIL DESIGN

Number of Wet Soil Column per Footing 9.00 pcs
Figure 5.33 Typical Details of Wet Soil Column
Figure 5.34 Typical Details of Wet Soil Column
386
Figure 5.35 Perspective of Footing with Ground Improvement
387
APPENDIX A.1: COST ESTIMATES
STRUCTURAL CONTEXT
BOQ SUMMARY (ECONOMIC COST)

Project Name
Special Moment Concrete Resisting Frame
:

Element: Beam (1st Floor to Roof

Deck)

No. Material Unit Quantity Rate ₱ Cost ₱
1 Concrete C20 (cum) 29.52 4600.00 45264
Sub Total 29.52 ₱ 135,792

2 Rebar #10 (Fy420) (kg) 1941.96 45.00 87388
3 Rebar #13 (Fy420) (kg) 148.05 45.00 6662.25
4 Rebar #16 (Fy420) (kg) 3184.59 45.00 143306.55
5 Rebar #16 (Fy420) (kg) 85.5 45.00 3847.5
6 Rebar #19 (Fy420) (kg) 1032.22 45.00 46449.9
7 Rebar #25 (Fy420) (kg) 237.48 45.00 10686.6
8 Rebar #25 (Fy420) (kg) 5057.73 45.00 227597.85
Sub Total 3899.80 ₱ 525938.65

(sq.m
9 Shuttering 83.64 58.00 4851.12
)
Sub Total ₱ 4,851.12

Total Cost ₱ 666,581.77

Design Metrics
1 Consumption: Reinforcement/Concrete ratio = 132.12 kg/cum
2 Consumption: Reinforcement/Plan area = 46.63 kg/sqm
3 Consumption: Concrete/Plan area = 0.35 cum/sqm
4 Concrete % C20 = 100.00 %
5 Shuttering = 8.50 sqm/cum
Element: Column

388
1 Concrete C25 (cum) 27.54 5180.00 142657
Sub Total 27.54 ₱ 142,657

2 Rebar #10 (Fy420) (kg) 2586.09 45.00 116374
3 Rebar #16 (Fy420) (kg) 3049.00 45.00 137205
4 Rebar #32 (Fy420) (kg) 4101.00 45.00 184545
Sub Total 9736.09 ₱ 438,123

5 Shuttering (sq.m) 227.52 58.00 13196
Sub Total ₱ 13,196

Total Cost ₱ 593,977

Design Metrics
4 Concrete % C25 = 100.00 %
Element: Slab (1st Floor to

Roof Deck)

1 Concrete C20 (cum) 75.9 4600.00 349140
Sub Total 75.9 ₱ 349,140

2 Rebar #10 (Fy420) (kg) 4646.88 45.00 209109.6
Sub Total 4646.88 ₱ 209,109.6

3 Shuttering (sq.) 159.95 58.00 9277.1
Sub Total ₱ 9,277.1
389

Total Cost ₱ 567,526.7

Design Metrics
1 Consumption: Reinforcement/Concrete ratio = 61 kg/cum
4 Concrete % C20 = 100.00 %
GRAND TOTAL = ₱ 666,581.77 + ₱ 593,977 + ₱ 567,526.7 = ₱ 1,828,084.00
Project Name: DS WITH IMF

Element: Beam (1st Floor to Roof

Deck)

1 Concrete C20 (cum) 30.24 4600.00 121578
Sub Total 30.24 ₱ 139,104

2 Rebar #10 (Fy420) (kg) 2010 45.00 90450
3 Rebar #13 (Fy420) (kg) 378 45.00 17010
4 Rebar #16 (Fy420) (kg) 3482 45.00 156690
5 Rebar #16 (Fy420) (kg) 42.6 45.00 1917
6 Rebar #19 (Fy420) (kg) 180.27 45.00 8112.15
7 Rebar #25 (Fy420) (kg) 50.19 45.00 2258.55
8 Rebar #25 (Fy420) (kg) 1142 45.00 51390
Sub Total 7285.04 ₱ 327,828

9 Shuttering (sq.m) 256.23 58.00 13030.86
Sub Total 14,861.34

390
Total Cost ₱ 481,793.06

Design Metrics
4 Concrete % C20 = 100.00 %
Element: Column

No. Material Unit Quantity Quantity Rate ₱ Cost ₱
Column Wall
1 Concrete C25 (cum) 13.60 33.15 5180.00 242165
Sub Total 13.60 33.15
Total 46.75 ₱ 242,165

2 Rebar 10 (Fy420) (kg) 969.36 497.00 60.00 87982
3 Rebar 10 (Fy420) (kg) 0.00 631.87 60.00 37912
4 Rebar 16 (Fy420) (kg) 800.00 0.00 60.00 48000
5 Rebar 19 (Fy420) (kg) 1220.00 5479.00 60.00 401940
Sub Total 2989.36 6607.87
Total 9597.23 ₱ 575,833

6 Shuttering (sq.m) 127.00 234.50 70.00 25305
Sub Total 361.50
Total ₱ 25,305


Design Metrics Column Wall Total
1 Consumption: Reinforcement/Concrete ratio = 219.81 199.33 205.29 kg/cum
391
4 Concrete % C25 = 100.00 100.00 100.00 %
5 Shuttering = 9.34 7.07 7.73 sqm/cum

Element: Slab (1st Floor to

Roof Deck)

1 Concrete C20 (cum) 71.94 4600.00 330924
Sub Total 71.94 ₱ 330,924

2 Rebar #10 (Fy420) (kg) 5388.54 45.00 242484.3
Sub Total 5388.54 ₱ 242,484.3

3 Shuttering (sq.m) 479.61 58.00 27817
Sub Total ₱ 27,817

Total Cost ₱ 601,225.3

Design Metrics
4 Concrete % C20 = 100.00 %
GRAND TOTAL = ₱ 481,793.04 + ₱ 843,303 + ₱ 601,225.3 = ₱ 1,926,322.00
392
Element: Beam

1 Concrete C20 (cum) 30.24 4600.00 139104
Sub Total 30.24 ₱ 139,104

2 Rebar #10 (Fy420) (kg) 1743 45.00 78435
3 Rebar #13 (Fy420) (kg) 378 45.00 17010
4 Rebar #16 (Fy420) (kg) 3228 45.00 145260
5 Rebar #16 (Fy420) (kg) 36 45.00 1620
6 Rebar #19 (Fy420) (kg) 12 45.00 540
7 Rebar #19 (Fy420) (kg) 390 45.00 17550
8 Rebar #25 (Fy420) (kg) 63 45.00 2835
9 Rebar #25 (Fy420) (kg) 1017 45.00 45765
Sub Total 6867 ₱ 309,015

10 Shuttering (sq.m) 224.67 58.00 13030.86
Sub Total ₱ 13,030.86


Design Metrics
4 Concrete % C20 = 100.00 %
Element: Column

No. Material Unit Quantity Quantity Rate ₱ Cost ₱
Column Wall
1 Concrete C25 (cum) 13.60 33.15 5180.00 242165
Sub Total 13.60 33.15
393
Total 46.75 ₱ 242,165

2 Rebar 10 (Fy420) (kg) 969.36 497.00 60.00 87982
3 Rebar 10 (Fy420) (kg) 0.00 631.87 60.00 37912
4 Rebar 16 (Fy420) (kg) 800.00 0.00 60.00 48000
5 Rebar 19 (Fy420) (kg) 1220.00 5479.00 60.00 401940
Sub Total 2989.36 6607.87
Total 9597.23 ₱ 575,833

6 Shuttering (sq.m) 127.00 234.50 70.00 25305
Sub Total 361.50
Total ₱ 25,305


Design Metrics Column Wall Total
1 Consumption : Reinforcement/Concrete ratio = 219.81 199.33 205.29 kg/cum
2 Consumption : Reinforcement/Planarea = 53.32 kg/sqm
3 Consumption : Concrete/Planarea = 0.26 cum/sqm
4 Concrete % C25 = 100.00 100.00 100.00 %
5 Shuttering = 9.34 7.07 7.73 sqm/cum
394
DETAILED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WEEK 1
TRADE OFF 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
BUILDING PERMIT
MOBILIZATION
STAKE OUT
CLEARING AND GRUBBING
EXCAVATION
DEWATERING (IF NECESSARY)
POURING OF FOUNDATION
DAMPROOF OF WATERPOOF AND SETTING TILE
CONSTRUCTION OF WALLS
CONSTRUCT ROUGH FRAMING
INSTALLING OF LONGITUDINAL BAR
BEAM AND COLUMN CONFINEMENT
BAR SPLICING
CONCRETE PLACEMENT
INSTALLING INSULATON
COMPLETION OF DRY WALL
PRIME AND PAINTING
MOLDING AND TRIM
CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY
MODIFICATIONS
MOVING IN
APPENDIX A.2: DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
395
WEEK 2 WEEK 3
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

WEEK 4 WEEK 5
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 1 2 3 4

396

WEEK 6 WEEK 7
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

397


TRADE OFF 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
BUILDING PERMIT
MOBILIZATION
STAKE OUT
EXCAVATION
398
BAR SPLICING
CONCRETE PLACEMENT
POURING OF CONCRETE IN SHEAR WALL
PRIME AND PAINTING
MOLDING AND TRIM
MODIFICATIONS
MOVING IN
WEEK 2 WEEK 3
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

399

WEEK 4 WEEK 5
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 1 2 3 4

400

WEEK 6 WEEK 7
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

401

WEEK 8
19 20 21 22 23 24 25

402


TRADE OFF 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
BUILDING PERMIT
MOBILIZATION
STAKE OUT
EXCAVATION
INSTALLATION OF HOLDOWN POST
FRAME ADJUSTMENT
BAR SPLICING
WEB PENETRATION
FLANGE PENETRATION
CONCRETE PLACEMENT
POURING OF CONCRETE IN SHEAR WALL
PRIME AND PAINTING
403
MOLDING AND TRIM
MODIFICATIONS
MOVING IN
WEEK 2 WEEK 3
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

404

WEEK 4 WEEK 5
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 1 2 3 4

405

WEEK 6 WEEK 7
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

WEEK 8 WEEK 9
406
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

WEEK 10

407

408
APPENDIX A.3: FINAL ESTIMATES FOR SUSTAINABILITY (MAINTENANCE COST)
Maintenance Cost Over 15 years Computation
SMRF = Php 1,828,100
DS WITH IMRF = Php 1,926,400.00
DUAL SYSTEM = Php 1,905,700.00
SMRF
10 % Material Cost
Maintenance Cost =
15 years
10 %(1 Php1,828,100)
Maintenance Cost =
15 years
Maintenance Cost =Php 12200.00
DS W/ IMF
10 % Material Cost
Maintenance Cost =
15 years
10 %( Php 1,926,400.00)
Maintenance Cost =
15 years
DS
10 % Material Cost
Maintenance Cost =
15 years
10 %( Php 1,905,700.00)
Maintenance Cost =
15 years
409
APPENDIX A.4: FINAL ESTIMATES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (CO2 EMITTED)
The amount of CO2 produced per liter or gallon of fuel is fairly consistent, so you just need to know the
amount of fuel you used, the type of fuel and the number of miles or kilometers you’ve covered to calculate
the total CO2 emitted.
Diesel produces around 2.68kg per liter burned while petrol produces around 2.31kg per liter burned.
Total kilogram pf CO2 produced per km = (Amount of fuel used x Type of fuel used) / Distance Travelled
Tradeoff 1 (Special Moment RC Frame)

Type of fuel Amount of fuel CO2 Produced (kg) Total Distance Total kilogram of
used (L) Traveled(km) CO2 produced per
km
Diesel 25 67 3 35.94
Tradeoff 2 (Dual System with IMF)

km
Diesel 30 80.4 3 43.13
Tradeoff 3 (Dual System w/ Special moment RC frame)

km
Diesel 28 75.04 3 40.25
410
APPENDIX B.1: COMPUTATION OF BEAM (SMRF)
STRUCTURAL CONTEXT
Sr.No. Symbol Definitions

1 α = Angle formed with horizontal by diagonal reinforcement
Cross sectional area of structural member measures to the outside edge of transverse
2 Ach =
reinforcement in sqmm
3 Ag = Cross sectional area of concrete in sqmm
Total cross sectional area transverse reinforcement (including cross ties) within spacing S in
4 Ash =
sqmm
5 Avd = Area of diagonal reinforcement in coupler beam in sqmm
6 As = Area of Tension reinforcement required in sqmm
7 As,min = Minimum area of flexural reinforcement in sqmm
8 As,nominal = Nominal area of reinforcement in sqmm
9 Al = Area of longitudinal reinforcement required to resist torsion in sqmm
10 Al,face = Area of longitudinal reinforcement required on each face to resist torsion in sqmm
11 At = Area of one leg of a closed stirrup resisting torsion within spacing 's' in sqmm
12 AstPrv = Area of longitudinal reinforcement provided at given section in sqmm
13 Av = Area of shear reinforcement required per meter length in sqmm
14 Av,min = Minimum area of shear reinforcement as per clause 11.4.6.1 in sqmm
15 Al,min = Minimum area of longitudinal torsional reinforcement as per clause 11.5.5.3 in sqmm
16 Av Total Reqd = Total area of shear reinforcement required, including that for torsion in sqmm
17 Av Total Prv = Total area of shear reinforcement provided, including that for torsion in sqmm
18 Ao = Gross area enclosed by shear flow path in sqmm
Area enclosed by centerline of the outermost closed transverse torsional reinforcement sqmm,
19 Aoh =
as per clause 11.5.3.1
20 Ast = Total area of longitudinal reinforcement calculated at a given section in sqmm
21 Asr = Area of Skin reinforcement calculated for given section in sqmm
Area of Compression reinforcement required for doubly reinforced section or if torsion exists in
22 Asc =
sqmm
23 b = Width of the Beam in mm
411
24 bw = Width of Web in mm
25 b' = C/C distance between longitudinal reinforcement along B in mm
26 bc = Oustside dimension of transverse reinforcement in mm
27 Cc = Effective Cover to tension reinforcement in mm
28 Cmin = Clear cover in mm
29 c' = Effective cover to reinforcement at compression face in mm
30 d = Effective depth of Beam in mm
31 d' = C/C distance between longitudinal reinforcement along D in mm
32 D = Depth of Beam in mm
33 Ec = Modulus of elasticity of concrete in N/sqmm
34 Es = Modulus of elasticity of steel in N/sqmm
35 fs = Calculated tensile stress in reinforcement at service loads, N/sqmm
36 Hf = Thickness of Flange in mm
37 hx = Maximum C/C horizontal spacing of hoops legs on all faces in mm
38 l = Effective Length of Beam in mm
39 Legs = Number of legs of the shear reinforcement
40 Mpr1 = Hogging moments of resistance of member at the joint faces in kNm
41 Mpr2 = Sagging moments of resistance of member at the joint faces in kNm
42 Mu = Factored Bending Moment at a section in kNm
43 Mubal = Nominal flexural strength of Singly Reinforced Section At Balance Neutral Axis in kNm
44 Ptmin = Minimum percentage steel as per clause 10.5
45 PtPrv = Provided percentage steel
46 Stirrup = Bar mark representing shear stirrup
47 S = spacing of confining links in mm
48 SCalc = Stirrup spacing calculated as per Asv in mm
49 Sprv = Stirrup spacing provided in mm
50 Tcr = Cracking torque under pure Torsion in kNm
51 Tu = Factored Torsional Moment at a section in kNm
52 Ve = Earthquake induced shear in kN
53 φVc = Nominal shear strength provided by concrete in kN
412
54 Vu = Factored Shear Force at a section in kN
55 Vu-A1(sway Left) = VD+Lleft - (Mpr1left + Mpr2right / L ) in kN
56 Vu-A2(sway Left) = VD+Lleft + (Mpr2left + Mpr1right / L ) in kN
57 Vu-B1(sway Right) = VDLRight - (Mpr1left + Mpr2right / L ) in kN
58 Vu-B2(sway Right) = VDLRight + (Mpr2left + Mpr1right / L ) in kN
59 Vud = Design Shear Force in kN
60 Vs = Nominal shear strength provided by shear reinforcement in kN
61 Vu sway = Max (Vu-A1,Vu-A2) & (Vu-B1,Vu-B2) in kN
62 Φ = Strength reduction factor

All Forces are In kN, kNm, Stress in N/sqmm & Dimension are in mm.

Code References
ACI 318M:2011
Sr.No. Item Clause / Table
1. Ptmax : 10.3.5
2. Ptmin : 10.5.1
3. Vc : 11.2
4. Asv : 11.4.7.2
5. Min Shear Reinf : 11.4.6
6. Max Stirrup Spacing : 11.4.5.1
7. Shear Reinf - Torsion : 11.5.3.5
8. Side Face Reinforcement : 10.6.7
9. Tcr : 11.5.1

ACI 318M:2011 Chapter 21
Sr.No. Item Clause / Table
1. Ptmin : 21.5.2.1
2. Asmin : 21.5.2.1
413
3. Sclc : 21.5.3.1 & 21.5.3.2
Group : G2
Beam No : B4
Analysis Reference (Member) 5.5m : 25
Beam Length : 4999.99 mm
Breadth (B) : 300 mm
Depth (D) : 400 mm
Effective Depth (d) : 330 mm
Beam Type : Ductile Beam (Special Frame)
Grade Of Concrete (Fck) : C20 N/sqmm
Grade Of Steel : Fy420 N/sqmm
Clear Cover (Cmin) : 40 mm
Es : 2x10^5 N/sqmm
Mubal : 165.6 kNm
As,min (flex) (B) : 330 sqmm
As,nominal (Bn) : 198 sqmm

For Longitudinal Reinf
Critical L/C - Analysis 46 38 48 40 48 38
Critical L/C - RCDC 11 3 13 5 13 3
Mu (kNm) 113.348 83.152 103.75 205.335 67.2 206.566
As (flex) (sqmm) (C) 1044.92 733.79 942.54 1974.77 580.82 1986
Asc (flex) (sqmm) (A) - - - 513.56 - 524.8
Tu (kNm) 0.569 0.534 0.63 0.665 0.631 0.534
414
Tcr/4 (kNm) 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86
Al, min(sqmm)(Tor.) (D) - - - - - -
Al (sqmm) (Tor.) (E) - - - - - -
Al (Dist) (sqmm) (D) - - - - - -
Ast (sqmm) 1044.92 733.79 1057.9 1974.77 580.82 1986
AstPrv (sqmm) 1191.36 794.24 1191.36 2115.81 595.68 2115.81
4-#16 4-#16 4-#16 3-#25 3-#16 3-#25
Reinforcement
2-#16 2-#16 3-#16 3-#16

Note: Calculation of Ast

Ast = Max {B, C+D, A+D} (for Mu > 0)
Ast = Bn (for Mu = 0)
Where,
A = Asc (flex) = Compression reinforcement required for bending moment
B = As,min (flex) = Min area of flexural reinforcement
Bn = As,nominal = Nominal area of reinforcement
C = As (flex) = Total area of longitudinal reinforcement calculated at a given section
D = Al (Dist) = Distributed longitudinal torsional reinforcement at section considered
Ast (Dist) (sqmm) = Max(Al,min (Tor), Al (Tor)) x ((2B) / (2B + 2D))

For Transverse Reinf
Left Mid Right
Critical L/C - RCDC 5 3 3
PtPrv (%) 2.137 2.137 2.137
Vu (kN) 123.29 117.36 126.3
Mu-Sect (kNm) - 104.6 -
Vc (kN) 80.11 63.12 80.11
415
Vs (kN) 57.59 72.33 61.59
VD+L (kN) 58.53 58.29
Mh (kNm) 245.6 245.6
Ms (kNm) 168.05 168.05
Sway-Right (kN) 32.38 149.2
Sway-Left (kN) 149.44 32.62
Vu-Sway (kN) 149.44 149.2
Vud (kN) 149.44 149.2
Av (sqmm) 415.48 521.83 444.4
Tu (kNm) 0.67 0.53 0.53
Ao= Φ*Aoh - - -
At (sqmm) - - -
Legs 2 2 2
Stirrup Rebar 10 10 10
Av Total Reqd (sqmm) 415.48 521.83 444.4
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 666.999 521.831 664.706
SCalc (mm) 100 140 100
SPrv (mm) 100 140 100
Av Total Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1012.57 1417.6

Maximum Spacing Criteria

Basic
Spc1 = 300 mm
Spc2 = 140 mm

416

For Ductility (Special Frames)
Left Section, Right Section
Spc3 = 6 x Small Longitudinal Dia = 95.4 mm
Spc4 = d / 4 = 82 mm
Spc5 = 150 mm
Provided Spacing = 100 mm

Mid Section

Skin reinforcement

Beam Width = 300 mm
Beam Depth = 400 mm
Depth = 400 <= 1000

Group : G2
Beam No : B5
Depth (D) : 400 mm
417
Es : 2x10^5 N/sqmm
Mubal : 165.6 kNm

Mu (kNm) 94.16 70.794 88.63 194.959 60.641 188.203
As (flex) (sqmm) (C) 843.66 614.68 787.97 1880.11 519.86 1818.48
Asc (flex) (sqmm) (A) - - - 418.91 - 357.28
Tu (kNm) 1.478 1.463 1.5 1.519 1.504 1.463
Tcr/4 (kNm) 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86
Al, min(sqmm)(Tor.) (D) - - - - - -
Al (sqmm) (Tor.) (E) - - - - - -
Al (Dist) (sqmm) (D) - - - - - -
Ast (sqmm) 1057.9 614.68 958.62 1880.11 519.86 1818.48
AstPrv (sqmm) 1191.36 794.24 1191.36 2115.81 595.68 1917.25
4-#16 4-#16 4-#16 3-#25 3-#16 3-#25
Reinforcement
2-#16 2-#16 3-#16 2-#16

418

Where,

Left Mid Right
PtPrv (%) 2.137 2.137 1.937
Vu (kN) 118.44 109.5 118.11
Mu-Sect (kNm) - 99.55 -
Vc (kN) 80.11 62.92 77.57
Vs (kN) 51.11 62.1 54.04
VD+L (kN) 58.4 58.42
Mh (kNm) 245.6 232.83
Ms (kNm) 168.05 168.05
Sway-Right (kN) 29.71 146.53
Sway-Left (kN) 149.31 32.49
Vu-Sway (kN) 149.31 146.53
Vud (kN) 149.31 146.53
Av (sqmm) 368.74 448.06 389.92
Tu (kNm) 1.52 1.52 1.46
419
Ao= Φ*Aoh - - -
At (sqmm) - - -
Legs 2 2 2
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 665.744 448.062 663.335
SCalc (mm) 100 140 100
SPrv (mm) 100 140 100
Av Total Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1012.57 1417.6


Basic
Spc1 = 300 mm
Spc2 = 140 mm

Spc4 = d / 4 = 82 mm
Spc5 = 150 mm

Mid Section

420

Skin reinforcement

Beam Width = 300 mm
Beam Depth = 400 mm
Depth = 400 <= 1000

Group : G2
Beam No : B6
Depth (D) : 400 mm
Es : 2x10^5 N/sqmm
Mubal : 165.6 kNm

421
Mu (kNm) 85.003 72.873 93.47 187.319 57.247 186.055
As (flex) (sqmm) (C) 752 634.42 836.62 1810.42 488.74 1798.89
Asc (flex) (sqmm) (A) - - - 349.22 - 337.69
Tu (kNm) 1.445 1.549 1.51 1.549 1.445 1.406
Tcr/4 (kNm) 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86
Al, min(sqmm)(Tor.) (D) - - - - - -
Al (sqmm) (Tor.) (E) - - - - - -
Al (Dist) (sqmm) (D) - - - - - -
Ast (sqmm) 958.62 634.42 958.62 1810.42 488.74 1798.89
AstPrv (sqmm) 1191.36 794.24 1191.36 1917.25 595.68 1917.25
4-#16 4-#16 4-#16 3-#25 3-#16 3-#25
Reinforcement
2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#16


Where,

422
Left Mid Right
PtPrv (%) 1.937 1.937 1.937
Vu (kN) 118.42 109.49 115.73
Mu-Sect (kNm) - 91.92 -
Vc (kN) 77.57 62.74 77.57
Vs (kN) 54.47 62.33 50.87
VD+L (kN) 58.3 58.52
Mh (kNm) 232.83 232.83
Ms (kNm) 168.05 168.05
Sway-Left (kN) 146.41 29.59
Vu-Sway (kN) 146.41 146.62
Vud (kN) 146.41 146.62
Av (sqmm) 392.99 449.72 367.03
Tu (kNm) 1.55 1.55 1.41
Ao= Φ*Aoh - - -
At (sqmm) - - -
Legs 2 2 2
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 662.199 449.716 664.253
SCalc (mm) 100 140 100
SPrv (mm) 100 140 100
Av Total Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1012.57 1417.6

423

Basic
Spc1 = 300 mm
Spc2 = 140 mm

Spc4 = d / 4 = 82 mm
Spc5 = 150 mm

Mid Section

Skin reinforcement

Beam Width = 300 mm
Beam Depth = 400 mm
Depth = 400 <= 1000

Group : G8
Beam No : B22
424
Depth (D) : 400 mm
Es : 2x10^5 N/sqmm
Mubal : 165.6 kNm

Mu (kNm) 113.991 72.917 104.49 158.002 60.996 163.933
As (flex) (sqmm) (C) 1051.89 634.84 950.36 1576.94 523.13 1656.65
Asc (flex) (sqmm) (A) - - - - - -
Tu (kNm) 0.607 0.455 0.77 0.921 0.77 0.518
Tcr/4 (kNm) 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86
Al, min(sqmm)(Tor.) (D) - - - - - -
Al (sqmm) (Tor.) (E) - - - - - -
Al (Dist) (sqmm) (D) - - - - - -
Ast (sqmm) 1051.89 634.84 950.36 1576.94 523.13 1656.65
425
AstPrv (sqmm) 1191.36 794.24 1191.36 1719.12 595.68 1719.12
4-#16 4-#16 4-#16 3-#19 3-#16 3-#19
Reinforcement
2-#16 2-#16 3-#19 3-#19


Where,

Left Mid Right
PtPrv (%) 1.736 0.802 1.736
Vu (kN) 110.81 90.33 116.68
Mu-Sect (kNm) - 56.63 -
Vc (kN) 75.05 58.46 75.05
Vs (kN) 47.68 42.5 55.51
VD+L (kN) 34.56 43.34
Mh (kNm) 217.98 217.98
Ms (kNm) 168.05 168.05
426
Sway-Left (kN) 74.18 152.08
Vu-Sway (kN) 143.3 152.08
Vud (kN) 143.3 152.08
Av (sqmm) 344 306.62 400.5
Tu (kNm) 0.92 0.92 0.46
Ao= Φ*Aoh - - -
At (sqmm) - - -
Legs 2 2 2
Av Total Reqd (sqmm) 344 306.62 400.5
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 656.571 319.44 741.035
SCalc (mm) 100 140 100
SPrv (mm) 100 140 100
Av Total Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1012.57 1417.6


Basic
Spc1 = 300 mm
Spc2 = 140 mm

Spc4 = d / 4 = 82 mm
427
Spc5 = 150 mm

Mid Section

Skin reinforcement

Beam Width = 300 mm
Beam Depth = 400 mm
Depth = 400 <= 1000

Group : G8
Beam No : B23
Depth (D) : 400 mm
Es : 2x10^5 N/sqmm
Mubal : 165.6 kNm
428

Mu (kNm) 99.949 63.494 95.73 155.772 58.37 148.865
As (flex) (sqmm) (C) 903.01 546.24 859.65 1547.63 499 1459.03
Asc (flex) (sqmm) (A) - - - - - -
Tu (kNm) 0.622 0.666 0.55 0.508 0.551 0.666
Tcr/4 (kNm) 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86
Al, min(sqmm)(Tor.) (D) - - - - - -
Al (sqmm) (Tor.) (E) - - - - - -
Al (Dist) (sqmm) (D) - - - - - -
Ast (sqmm) 903.01 546.24 859.65 1547.64 499 1459.02
AstPrv (sqmm) 1191.36 794.24 1191.36 1719.12 595.68 1719.12
4-#16 4-#16 4-#16 3-#19 3-#16 3-#19
Reinforcement
2-#16 2-#16 3-#19 3-#19


Where,
429

Left Mid Right
PtPrv (%) 1.736 0.802 1.736
Vu (kN) 108.77 88.3 107.87
Mu-Sect (kNm) - 56.43 -
Vc (kN) 75.05 58.36 75.05
Vs (kN) 44.97 39.92 43.76
VD+L (kN) 39.61 38.28
Mh (kNm) 217.98 217.98
Ms (kNm) 168.05 168.05
Sway-Right (kN) 148.35 70.46
Sway-Left (kN) 69.13 147.02
Vu-Sway (kN) 148.35 147.02
Vud (kN) 148.35 147.02
Av (sqmm) 324.44 288.04 315.72
Tu (kNm) 0.51 0.51 0.67
Ao= Φ*Aoh - - -
At (sqmm) - - -
Legs 2 2 2
430
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 705.203 300.614 692.403
SCalc (mm) 100 140 100
SPrv (mm) 100 140 100
Av Total Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1012.57 1417.6


Basic
Spc1 = 300 mm
Spc2 = 140 mm

Spc4 = d / 4 = 82 mm
Spc5 = 150 mm

Mid Section

Skin reinforcement

Beam Width = 300 mm
Beam Depth = 400 mm
431
Torsion = 0.67 > 0 kNm
Beam Depth >1000 Or Torsion > 0,
Hence SFR Provided
Al Tor. (max) = 0 sqmm
Asr = Max(Al(min)(Tor.), Al(Tor.)) x (2D / (2B+2D))
= 226.66 sqmm
SR provided = 1-#13EF
Asr provided = 253.35 sqmm
Provided Spacing = 107.5 mm

Spacing Criteria

Maximum Spacing = 280 mm

Group : G8
Beam No : B24
Depth (D) : 400 mm
432
Es : 2x10^5 N/sqmm
Mubal : 165.6 kNm

Mu (kNm) 101.126 79.547 121.44 161.528 67.522 163.706
As (flex) (sqmm) (C) 915.21 698.6 1133.98 1624 583.84 1653.55
Asc (flex) (sqmm) (A) - - - - - -
Tu (kNm) 1.804 1.756 1.81 1.756 1.804 1.802
Tcr/4 (kNm) 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86
Al, min(sqmm)(Tor.) (D) - - - - - -
Al (sqmm) (Tor.) (E) - - - - - -
Al (Dist) (sqmm) (D) - - - - - -
Ast (sqmm) 915.21 698.6 1133.98 1624 583.84 1653.55
AstPrv (sqmm) 1191.36 794.24 1191.36 1719.12 595.68 1719.12
4-#16 4-#16 4-#16 3-#19 3-#16 3-#19
Reinforcement
2-#16 2-#16 3-#19 3-#19


Where,
433

Left Mid Right
PtPrv (%) 1.736 0.802 1.736
Vu (kN) 117.44 96.97 111.96
Mu-Sect (kNm) - 53.52 -
Vc (kN) 75.05 59.18 75.05
Vs (kN) 56.53 50.38 49.22
VD+L (kN) 43.06 34.84
Mh (kNm) 217.98 217.98
Ms (kNm) 168.05 168.05
Sway-Left (kN) 65.68 143.58
Vu-Sway (kN) 151.8 143.58
Vud (kN) 151.8 143.58
Av (sqmm) 407.83 363.49 355.11
Tu (kNm) 1.76 1.76 1.85
Ao= Φ*Aoh - - -
At (sqmm) - - -
Legs 2 2 2
434
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 738.336 378.048 659.27
SCalc (mm) 100 140 100
SPrv (mm) 100 140 100
Av Total Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1012.57 1417.6


Basic
Spc1 = 300 mm
Spc2 = 140 mm

Spc4 = d / 4 = 82 mm
Spc5 = 150 mm

Mid Section

Skin reinforcement

Beam Width = 300 mm
435
Beam Depth = 400 mm
Depth = 400 <= 1000
APPENDIX B.2: COMPUTATION OF COLUMN(SMRF)

Definitions Of Terms:
All forces in units kN and m
All reinforcement details like area, spacing in mm
Neutral axis angle for resultant design moment is with respect to local major axis.
Ratio to account for reduction of stiffness of columns due to sustained
1 βdns =
axial loads
2 δns = Moment magnification factor for frames not braced against sidesway
First-order relative deflection between the top and bottom of the story
3 Δo =
due to Vu in mm
Total factored vertical load in the story corresponding to the lateral
4 ∑Pu =
loading case for which ∑Pu is greatest, kN (Clause 10.10.5)
5 δu = Design displacement in mm
Modification factor reflecting the reduced mechanical properties of
6 λ =
lightweight concrete
436
7 Φ = Strength reduction factor
Coefficient defining the relative contribution of concrete strength to
8 ac =
nominal wall shear strength
Cross-sectional area of a structural member measured to the outside
9 Ach =
edges of transverse reinforcement in sqmm
Gross area of concrete section bounded by web thickness and length
10 Acv =
of section in the direction of shear force considered in sqmm
Effective cross-sectional area within a joint in a plane parallel to plane
11 Aj =
of reinforcement generating shear in the joint in sqmm
12 As = Area of non-prestressed longitudinal tension reinforcement in sqmm
13 Avmin = Minimum area of shear reinforcement within spacing 's' in sqmm
14 B = Width of column/ wall in mm
15 B' = width of beam along B / column width in mm
Cross-sectional dimension of member core measured to the outside
16 bc =
edges of the transverse reinforcement composing area Ash in mm
17 c = Distance from extreme compression fiber to neutral axis in mm
18 Cc = Clear cover of reinforcement in mm
Factor relating actual moment diagram to an equivalent uniform
19 Cm =
moment diagram
20 D = Depth / diameter of column in mm
21 D' =
Distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of longitudinal
22 d =
tension reinforcement in mm
Distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of longitudinal
23 d' =
compression reinforcement,mm
24 Ec = Modulus of elasticity of concrete in N/sqmm
25 EI = Flexural stiffness of compression member in N-sqmm
26 f'c = Specified strength of concrete cylinder in N/sqmm
27 fy = Specified yield strength of reinforcement in N/sqmm
28 fyt = Specified yield strength fy of transverse reinforcement in N/sqmm
29 hw = Height of entire wall from base to top, or clear height of wall segment or
437
wall pier considered in mm
30 k = Effective length factor for compression member
31 lc = Length of compression member in a frame in mm
Moment of inertia of gross concrete section about centroidal axis
32 lg =
neglecting reinforcement in mm4
33 lw = Length of entire wall in mm
34 lux = Un-supported length for compression member along D in mm
35 luy = Un-supported length for compression member along B in mm
36 MCap = Moment capacity of section for NA angle at design Pu in kNm
37 MRes = Resultant design moment at angle to local major axis in kNm
Factored moment amplified for the effects of member curvature used
38 Mc =
for design of compression member in kNm
Factored moment modified to account for effect of axial compression in
39 mm =
kNm
40 Mux = Factored moment at section along D in kNm (From Analysis)
41 Muy = Factored moment at section along B in kNm (From Analysis)
42 M1 = Smaller factored end moment on a compression member in kNm
Factored end moment on a compression member at the end at which
43 M1ns =
M1 acts, due to loads that cause no appreciable sidesway in kNm
Factored end moment on compression member at the end at which M1
44 M1s =
acts, due to loads that cause appreciable sidesway in kNm
Smaller factored end moment on a compression member due to
45 M1sldr =
slenderness effect in kNm
46 M2 = Larger factored end moment on compression member in kNm
47 M2min = Minimum value of M2
48 M2ns =
acts, due to loads that cause no appreciable sidesway in kNm
49 M2s =
acts, due to loads that cause appreciable sidesway in kNm
Largest factored end moment on a compression member due to
50 M2sldr =
slenderness effect in kNm
438
51 Mnb = Flexure Capacity for Beam
52 Mnc = Flexure Capacity for Column
53 Mnty = Flexure strength at top along column depth, kNm
54 Mnby = Flexure strength at bottom along column depth, kNm
55 Mntx = Flexure strength at top along column width, kNm
56 Mnbx = Flexure strength at bottom along column width, kNm
Factored axial force normal to cross section occurring simultaneously
57 Nu =
with Vu in kN
58 Pc = Critical buckling load in kN
Ratio of area of distributed transverse reinforcement to gross concrete
59 pt =
area perpendicular to that reinforcement
60 Pω = Ratio of As to B x d
61 Q = Stability index for storey
62 r = Radius of gyration of cross section of a compression member in mm
63 Vc = Nominal shear strength provided by concrete in kN
64 Vj = Shear Force acting at the joint in kN
65 Vn = Nominal shear strength in kN
66 Vn' = Nominal shear strength in kN
67 Vus = Factored horizontal shear in a storey of section in kN
68 Vux = Factored shear at section along D in kN (From Analysis)
69 Vux1 = Shear induced due to column flexural capacity along width, kN
70 Vux2 = Shear due to enhanced earthquake factor along width, kN
71 Vuy = Factored shear at section along B in kN (From Analysis)
72 Vuy1 = Shear induced due to column flexural capacity along depth, kN
73 Vuy2 = Shear due to enhanced earthquake factor along depth, kN
74 β = It is a Neutral Axis angle corresponding to load angle to find out MCap
75 φ = Strength Reduction Factor
Code References:
ACI 318M-2011
439
Sr.No Element Clause / table
1 Minimum area of longitudinal reinforcement for column : 21.6.3
2 Maximum area of longitudinal reinforcement for column : 21.6.3
3 Minimum longitudinal and transverse reinforcement for wall : 21.9.2.1
4 Minimum diameter of transverse ties : 7.10.5
5 Minimum spacing of transverse ties : 7.10.5
Maximum spacing of longitudinal and transverse
6 : 21.9.2.1
reinforcement for wall
7 Applicability of boundary element : 21.9.6
8 Area and spacing of special confining reinforcement : 21.6.4
9 Slenderness Moments : 10.10
10 Shear Strength provided by concrete for column : 11.2
11 Design of shear for non-ductile wall : 11.9
12 Design of shear for ductile wall : 21.9.4
13 Minimum Flexural Strength of Columns : 21.6.2.2
14 Shear Check at Column Joint : 21.7.4.1
15 Shear Strength of Column : 21.3.3 & 21.5.4

Sway Calculation (Stability Index)

For Global-X Direction
Level Load Name Story Height Gravity Load P Relative Story Shear Stability Index Sway Condition
(m) (kN) Displacements (mm) (kN)
A B C D B x C / (A x D)
LOAD 1: EQ
0m to 2m 2 7421.55 3.401 1527.443 0.008 Non Sway
X
LOAD 1: EQ
2m to 5.5m 3.5 5806.09 13.183 1386.367 0.016 Non Sway
X
5.5m to 8.5m LOAD 1: EQ 3 2690.636 7.752 768.459 0.009 Non Sway
440
X
For Global-Y Direction

LOAD 2: EQ
0m to 2m 2 7421.55 3.092 1527.443 0.008 Non Sway
Z
LOAD 2: EQ
2m to 5.5m 3.5 5806.09 12.06 1386.367 0.014 Non Sway
Z
LOAD 2: EQ
5.5m to 8.5m 3 2690.636 6.838 768.459 0.008 Non Sway
Z
General Data
Column No. : C5
Level : 0m To 2m
Design Code = ACI 318M - 2011
Grade Of Concrete = C25 N/sqmm
Grade Of Steel = Fy420 N/sqmm
Consider Ductile = Yes
Type of Frame = Special
Column B = 450 mm
Column D = 450 mm
Clear Cover = 40 mm
Clear Floor Height @ lux = 1600 mm
Clear Floor Height @ luy = 1600 mm
No Of Floors = 1
No Of Columns In Group = 1
441
Load Data
Analysis Reference No. = 31
Critical Analysis Load Combination : 49
Load Combination = [14] : 0.68 (LOAD 3: DL) -1.25 (LOAD 2: EQ Z)
Critical Location = Bottom Joint
Put = 184.83 kN
Muxt = 1.44 kNm
Muyt = 46.8 kNm
Vuxt = 150.55 kN
Vuyt = 2.37 kN
Pub = 191.32 kN
Muxb = 6.17 kNm
Muyb = -254.22 kNm
Vuxb = 150.55 kN
Vuyb = 2.37 kN
Effective Length Calculation

Calculation Along Major Axis Of Column
Joint Column Stiffness Beam Sizes Beam Stiffness Beta
Beam 1 Beam 2 Beam 1 Beam 2
(Length x Width x (Length x Width x
Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 170.859 No Beam No Beam - - 1
Top 170.859 5000 x 300 x 400 No Beam 32 - 8.39
442
Sway Condition (as per Stability Index) = Non Sway
Effective Length Factor along Major Axis = 0.87
Calculation Along Minor Axis Of Column

Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Top 170.859 4000 x 300 x 400 4000 x 300 x 400 40 40 3.356

Effective Length Factor along Minor axis = 0.87
Check For Stability Index

Along D
Q = 0.008
0.008< 0.05, Column shall be designed as non-sway frame (Braced)

Along B
Q = 0.008
Slenderness Check
Column Is Braced Along D
Slenderness Check along D
K = 0.87
r = 129.9 mm
Kluy /r = 10.72
443
M1 = 1.44 kNm
M2 = 6.17 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 31.19
10.72 < 31.19, Column not slender along D
Column Is Braced Along B
Slenderness Check along B
K = 0.87
r = 129.9 mm
Klux /r = 10.72
M1 = 46.8 kNm
M2 = -254.22 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 36.21
10.72 < 36.21, Column not slender along B
Calculation of Design Moment

Direction Manalysis Msldr or Mc Mdesign-final
A B C
Major Axis Mux (top) 1.44 - 1.44
Major Axis Mux (bottom) 6.17 - 6.17
Minor Axis Muy (top) 46.8 - 46.8
Minor Axis Muy (bottom) -254.22 - -254.22
Where
A = Moments from analysis
B = Moment due to slenderness effect
C = Final design Moment = Maximum of (Manalysis, Maximum of (Msldr or Mc))

Final Critical Design Forces
Critical Case - Axial Load & BiAxial Bending
Pu = 191.32 kN
444
Mux = 6.17 kNm
Muy = -254.22 kNm
Resultant Moment (Combined Action)

Moment Capacity Check
Pt Calculated = 2.4
Reinforcement Provided = 4-#32 + 8-#16
Load Angle = Tan-1(Muy/Mux)
= 88.61 deg
MRes = 254.3 kNm
( φ ) MCap = 415.25 kNm
Capacity Ratio = MRes/ MCap
= 0.612 < 1
Design Of Shear
Design for shear along D
Critical Load Combination = [11] : 0.68 (LOAD 3: DL) +1.25 (LOAD 1: EQ X) kN
Nu = 56.82 kN
Muy = 27.24 kNm
Vuy = 92.0121 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
deff = 394 mm
ρw = 0.012
mm = 17.25 kNm
Vcy Permissible = 190.04 kN
Vuy < Vcy Permissible
Link For Shear Design Along D are not required

445
Design for shear along B
[4] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
Critical Load Combination = kN
(LOAD 2: EQ Z)
Nu = 440.77 kN
Mux = 49 kNm
Vux = -152.1825 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
deff = 394 mm
ρw = 0.012
mm = 28.46 kNm
Vcx Permissible = 328.35 kN
Vux < Vcx Permissible
Link For Shear Design Along B are not required
Design Of Links
Links in the zone where special confining links are not required
Normal Links
Diameter of link = 10 mm
> Max. longitudinal bar dia / 4
= 8 mm
Criterion for spacing of normal links
Min. Longitudinal Bar dia X 16 = 256 mm
48 x diameter of links = 480 mm
Provided spacing = 225 mm

Criterion for spacing of Ductile links:
446
Min. Longitudinal Bar dia x 6 = 96 mm
B/4 = 112.5 mm
So = 191.67 mm
Spacing = 150 mm

Special confining reinforcement as per ACI
Along D
No of bars along D = 4
S1 = 75 mm
Ag = 202500 sqmm
dc2 = 390 mm
Ach = 152100 sqmm
AshD = 173.08 sqmm
Along B
No of bars along B = 4
S1 = 75 mm
Ag = 202500 sqmm
bc2 = 390 mm
Ach = 152100 sqmm
AshB = 173.08 sqmm
Provided Links = #10@75 c/c

Table For Links
Required Provided
Normal Design Shear Design Ductile Design Normal Zone Ductile Zone
Link Dia. 10 --- 10 10 10
Spacing 225 --- 75 225 75
447

General Data
Column No. : C5
Level : 2m To 5.5m
Column B = 450 mm
Column D = 450 mm
Clear Cover = 40 mm
No Of Floors = 1
Load Data
Load Combination = [12] : 0.68 (LOAD 3: DL) +1.25 (LOAD 2: EQ Z)
Put = 150.17 kN
Muxt = 13.37 kNm
Muyt = -228.25 kNm
Vuxt = -133.72 kN
Vuyt = -6.49 kN
Pub = 161.53 kN
448
Muxb = -9.33 kNm
Muyb = 239.63 kNm
Vuxb = -133.72 kN
Vuyb = -6.49 kN

Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 97.634 5000 x 300 x 400 No Beam 32 - 8.39
Top 97.634 5000 x 300 x 400 No Beam 32 - 6.611

Effective Length Factor along Major Axis = 1

Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 97.634 4000 x 300 x 400 4000 x 300 x 400 40 40 3.356
Top 97.634 4000 x 300 x 400 4000 x 300 x 400 40 40 2.644
449
Effective Length Factor along Minor axis = 1

Along D
Q = 0.016

Along B
Q = 0.014
Slenderness Check
K = 1
r = 129.9 mm
Kluy /r = 23.86
M1 = -9.33 kNm
M2 = 13.37 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 42.37
K = 1
r = 129.9 mm
Klux /r = 23.86
M1 = -228.25 kNm
M2 = 239.63 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 45.43
450

A B C
Major Axis Mux (bottom) -9.33 - -9.33
Minor Axis Muy (top) -228.25 - -228.25
Minor Axis Muy (bottom) 239.63 - 239.63
Where

Pu = 161.53 kN
Mux = -9.33 kNm
Muy = 239.63 kNm

Pt Calculated = 2.4
= 87.77 deg
MRes = 239.81 kNm
( φ ) MCap = 410.78 kNm
451
= 0.584 < 1
Design Of Shear
[3] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
(LOAD 1: EQ X)
Nu = 235.61 kN
Muy = 115.8 kNm
Vuy = 74.2114 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
deff = 394 mm
ρw = 0.012
mm = 74.39 kNm

Critical Load Combination = [10] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) -1.25 (LOAD 2: EQ Z) kN
Nu = 293.79 kN
Mux = 225.14 kNm
Vux = 132.0474 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
deff = 394 mm
ρw = 0.012
mm = 173.51 kNm
452
Design Of Links
Normal Links
= 8 mm

B/4 = 112.5 mm
So = 191.67 mm
Spacing = 150 mm

Along D
S1 = 75 mm
Ag = 202500 sqmm
453
dc2 = 390 mm
Ach = 152100 sqmm
AshD = 173.08 sqmm
Along B
S1 = 75 mm
Ag = 202500 sqmm
bc2 = 390 mm
Ach = 152100 sqmm
AshB = 173.08 sqmm

Table For Links
Required Provided
Link Dia. 10 --- 10 10 10
Spacing 225 --- 75 225 75

General Data
Column No. : C5
Level : 5.5m To 8.5m
Column B = 450 mm
Column D = 450 mm
454
Clear Cover = 40 mm
No Of Floors = 1
Load Data
Load Combination = [4] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25 (LOAD 2: EQ Z)
Critical Location = Top Joint
Put = 131.74 kN
Muxt = 53.35 kNm
Muyt = -166.69 kNm
Vuxt = -86.07 kN
Vuyt = -32.19 kN
Pub = 152.07 kN
Muxb = -43.18 kNm
Muyb = 91.45 kNm
Vuxb = -86.07 kN
Vuyb = -32.19 kN

455
Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 113.906 5000 x 300 x 400 No Beam 32 - 6.611
Top 113.906 5000 x 300 x 400 No Beam 32 - 3.56


Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 113.906 4000 x 300 x 400 4000 x 300 x 400 40 40 2.644
Top 113.906 4000 x 300 x 400 4000 x 300 x 400 40 40 1.424


Along D
Q = 0.009

Along B
Q = 0.008
456
Slenderness Check
K = 1
r = 129.9 mm
Kluy /r = 20.01
M1 = -43.18 kNm
M2 = 53.35 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 43.71
K = 1
r = 129.9 mm
Klux /r = 20.01
M1 = 91.45 kNm
M2 = -166.69 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 40.58

A B C
Where
457

Pu = 131.74 kN
Mux = 53.35 kNm
Muy = -166.69 kNm

Pt Calculated = 2.4
= 72.25 deg
MRes = 175.02 kNm
( φ ) MCap = 379.91 kNm
= 0.461 < 1
Design Of Shear
Critical Load Combination = [9] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) -1.25 (LOAD 1: EQ X) kN
Nu = 169.58 kN
Muy = 43.91 kNm
Vuy = -56.3209 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
458
deff = 394 mm
ρw = 0.012
mm = 14.11 kNm

Critical Load Combination = [10] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) -1.25 (LOAD 2: EQ Z) kN
Nu = 136.35 kN
Mux = 82.89 kNm
Vux = 79.2514 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
deff = 394 mm
ρw = 0.012
mm = 58.93 kNm
Design Of Links
Normal Links
= 8 mm
459

B/4 = 112.5 mm
So = 191.67 mm
Spacing = 150 mm

Along D
S1 = 75 mm
Ag = 202500 sqmm
dc2 = 390 mm
Ach = 152100 sqmm
AshD = 173.08 sqmm
Along B
S1 = 75 mm
Ag = 202500 sqmm
bc2 = 390 mm
Ach = 152100 sqmm
AshB = 173.08 sqmm

460
Table For Links
Required Provided
Link Dia. 10 --- 10 10 10
Spacing 225 --- 75 225 75
APPENDIX B.3: COMPUTAION OF SLAB(SMRF)

Definitions Of Terms: :
1. αf = Ratio of flexural stiffness of beam section to flexural stiffness of slab.
Ratio of torsional stiffness of edge beam section to flexural stiffness of
2. βt =
slab.
461
3. Φt = Strength reduction factor.
4. As = Area of Tension reinforcement required in sqmm.
5. As,min = Min area of flexural reinforcement in sqmm.
6. AstPrv = Area of longitudinal reinforcement provided at given section in sqmm.
Total area of longitudinal reinforcement calculated at a given section in
7. Ast =
sqmm.
8. b = Width of the Slab in mm.
9. B1 to B4 = Width of beams around slab in mm.
10. Cc = Effective Cover to tension reinforcement in mm.
11. deff = Effective depth of slab in mm.
12. D1 to D4 = Depth of beams around slab.
13. Mu = Factored Bending Moment at a section in kNm.
14. Ptmin = Minimum percentage steel as per clause 10.
15. PtPrv = Provided percentage steel.
16. Vc = Nominal shear strength provided by concrete in kN.
17. Vu = Factored Shear Force at a section in kN.
18. Vud = Design Shear Force in kN.
Length of clear span in direction that moment are being determined in
19. Ln =
mm.
20. L2 = Length of adjacent span of Ln in mm.
21. lb1 to lb2 = Moment of inertia of beams around slab in mm 4.
22. CA and CB = cross-sectional constant to define torsional properties of slab and beam.

Design Code = ACI 318 - 2011

Grade Of Concrete = C20
Grade Of Steel = Fy420
Clear Cover = 20.000 mm
462
Long Span, Ly = 5.000 m
Short Span, Lx = 4.000 m
Live Load, Qk = 2.400 kN/sqm
Slab Thickness = 150.000 mm
Effective Depth Along LX, Deffx = 125.000 mm
Effective Depth Along LY, Deffy = 115.000 mm
Self Weight = 3.750 kN/sqm
Total Load, TL (ultimate) = 11.404 kN/sqm
Span = 2-Way
Load Combination = 1.2 DL + 1.6 LL

Short Span Long Span
Side1 Side2 Side1 Side2
Beam
B (mm) 300 300 300 300
D (mm) 400 400 400 400
Ib (mm4) x106 1600 1600 1600 1600
Adjacent Slab
Thk (mm) - 150 150 -
Span (mm) - 5000 5000 -
Ib (mm4) x106 562.5 1265.62 1406.25 703.12
αf lx, αf ly 2.84 1.26 1.14 2.28
αf 1.88
Ln (mm) 3700 4700
L2 (mm) 2650 2150
Total BM (kNm) 51.71 67.7
Bottom
463
Moment Coefficent 0.57 0.57
Distributed Moment (kNm) 29.48 38.59
CS Moment (kNm) 19.9 26.05
MS Moment (kNm) 9.58 12.54
Moment on Beam (kNm) 16.91 22.14
Design Moment M1, M3 (kNm) 2.98 3.91
Top
Design Moments:
Short Span Positive Moment At Midspan -
M1 = 2.984 kNm
Area Of Reinforcement = 63.563 kN/sqmm
Required (BM)
Reinforcement Provided = #10 @ 250 C/C
= 284.000 kN/sqmm
Short Span Negative Moment At Continuous Support -
M2 = 3.665 kNm
Required (BM)
= 284.000 kN/sqmm
Long Span Positive Moment At Midspan -
M3 = 3.907 kNm
464
Required (BM)
= 284.000 kN/sqmm
Long Span Negative Moment At Continuous Support -
M4 = 4.798 kNm
Required (BM)
= 284.000 kN/sqmm
Distribution Reinforcement @ 0.18% -
Area Of Reinforcement = 225.000 sqmm
Required
= 284.000 kN/sqmm
Shear Check :
Along Short Span
Vsx (TL(ultimate) x Lx / 4) = 11.404 kN
Nominal Shear, Vc = 95.033 kN
> 11.404 Slab Is Safe In Shear
Along Long Span
Vsy (TL(ultimate) x Lx / 2 x (1 - = 13.684 kN
(Lx / (2 x Ly))))
465
APPENDIX B.4: COMPUTATION OF BEAM (DS W/ IMF)
Group : G3
Beam No : B3
Depth (D) : 400 mm
Beam Type : Ductile Beam (Intermediate Frame)
466
Es : 2x10^5 N/sqmm
Mubal : 138 kNm
As,nominal (Bn) : 107.25 sqmm

Critical L/C - Analysis 38 37 - 40 42 38
Critical L/C - RCDC 3 2 - 5 7 3
Mu (kNm) 30.772 59.877 - 20.716 16.456 122.382
As (flex) (sqmm) (C) 256.54 520.59 - 170.43 134.64 1194.88
Asc (flex) (sqmm) (A) - - - - - -
Tu (kNm) 4.407 3.865 - 3.42 4.171 4.407
Tcr/4 (kNm) 2.14 2.14 - 2.14 2.14 2.14
Al, min(sqmm)(Tor.) (D) 305.88 323.27 - 337.54 313.48 305.88
Al (sqmm) (Tor.) (E) 141.33 123.95 - 109.67 133.74 141.33
Al (Dist) (sqmm) (D) 58.82 62.17 - 64.91 60.28 58.82
Ast (sqmm) 315.36 582.76 470.18 275 253.4 1253.7
AstPrv (sqmm) 397.12 595.68 595.68 397.12 397.12 1410.54
2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#25
Reinforcement
2-#16


467
Where,

Left Mid Right
PtPrv (%) 0.481 1.71 1.71
Vu (kN) 49.86 77.79 86.17
Mu-Sect (kNm) - 34.36 -
Vc (kN) 49.34 57.71 62.26
Vs (kN) 0.7 26.77 31.88
VD+L (kN) 58.38 56.08
Mh (kNm) 51.77 154.21
Ms (kNm) 51.77 75.2
Sway-Right (kN) 14.08 100.38
Sway-Left (kN) 85.68 28.78
Vu-Sway (kN) 85.68 100.38
Vu (2*Eq Comb) (kN) 58.24 95.16
Vud (kN) 85.68 100.38
Av (sqmm) 371.32 559.48 596.34
Tu (kNm) 5.83 5.83 5.83
Ao= Φ*Aoh 44550 44550 44550
At (sqmm) 366.3 366.3 366.3
468
Legs 2 2 2
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 366.3 366.3 366.3
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 371.32 559.479 721.643
SCalc (mm) 100 125 100
SPrv (mm) 100 125 100
Av Total Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6


Basic
Spc1 = 250 mm
Spc2 = 127 mm
For Torsion
(X1 = 180, Y1 = 330)
Spc3 = X1 = 180 mm
Spc4=(X1+Y1)/4 = 125 mm

For Ductility (Intermediate Frames)
Spc6 = 24 x ∅sv = 228 mm
Spc7 = d / 4 = 82 mm
Spc8 = 300 mm

469
Mid Section

Skin reinforcement

Beam Width = 250 mm
Beam Depth = 400 mm
Hence SFR Provided
Al Tor. (max) = 337.54 sqmm
= 209.82 sqmm

Spacing Criteria


Group : G3
Beam No : B4
470
Depth (D) : 400 mm
Es : 2x10^5 N/sqmm
Mubal : 138 kNm

Critical L/C - Analysis - 37 - 40 48 38
Critical L/C - RCDC - 2 - 5 13 3
Mu (kNm) - 39.648 - 99.871 13.047 102.271
As (flex) (sqmm) (C) - 334.61 - 930.19 106.29 957
Asc (flex) (sqmm) (A) - - - - - -
Tu (kNm) - 0.466 - 0.281 0.583 1.467
Tcr/4 (kNm) - 2.14 - 2.14 2.14 2.14
Al, min(sqmm)(Tor.) (D) - - - - - -
Al (sqmm) (Tor.) (E) - - - - - -
Al (Dist) (sqmm) (D) - - - - - -
Ast (sqmm) 470.18 334.61 323.39 930.19 138.17 957
471
AstPrv (sqmm) 595.68 397.12 397.12 1410.54 397.12 1410.54
3-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#25
Reinforcement
2-#16 2-#16


Where,

Left Mid Right
PtPrv (%) 1.71 1.71 1.71
Vu (kN) 78.67 53.04 80.09
Mu-Sect (kNm) - 17.98 -
Vc (kN) 62.26 61.79 62.26
Vs (kN) 21.89 - 23.78
VD+L (kN) 57.28 57.19
Mh (kNm) 154.21 154.21
Ms (kNm) 75.2 51.77
472
Sway-Left (kN) 102.05 12.41
Vu-Sway (kN) 102.05 107.06
Vu (2*Eq Comb) (kN) 85.5 86.91
Vud (kN) 102.05 107.06
Av (sqmm) 208.33 208.33 208.33
Tu (kNm) 0.28 0.6 1.47
Ao= Φ*Aoh - - -
At (sqmm) - - -
Legs 2 2 2
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 382.836 208.333 430.965
SCalc (mm) 100 125 100
SPrv (mm) 100 125 100
Av Total Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6


Basic
Spc1 = 250 mm
Spc2 = 127 mm

473
Spc4 = 24 x ∅sv = 228 mm
Spc5 = d / 4 = 82 mm
Spc6 = 300 mm

Mid Section

Skin reinforcement

Beam Width = 250 mm
Beam Depth = 400 mm
Depth = 400 <= 1000

Group : G3
Beam No : B5
Depth (D) : 400 mm
474
Es : 2x10^5 N/sqmm
Mubal : 138 kNm

Critical L/C - Analysis - 38 38 40 44 37
Critical L/C - RCDC - 3 3 5 9 2
Mu (kNm) - 54.723 20.41 114.035 14.704 25.26
As (flex) (sqmm) (C) - 472.07 167.8 1093.08 120.03 209.05
Asc (flex) (sqmm) (A) - - - - - -
Tu (kNm) - 3.183 3.18 5.283 5.023 4.191
Tcr/4 (kNm) - 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14
Al, min(sqmm)(Tor.) (D) - 340.96 340.96 277.8 286.16 312.83
Al (sqmm) (Tor.) (E) - 102.06 102.06 169.41 161.06 134.38
Al (Dist) (sqmm) (D) - 65.57 65.57 53.42 55.03 60.16
Ast (sqmm) 470.18 537.64 275 1146.51 227.58 282.11
AstPrv (sqmm) 595.68 595.68 397.12 1410.54 397.12 397.12
3-#16 3-#16 2-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#16
Reinforcement
2-#16


Where,
475

Left Mid Right
PtPrv (%) 1.71 0.481 0.481
Vu (kN) 84.25 64.53 51.78
Mu-Sect (kNm) - 5.04 -
Vc (kN) 62.26 49.34 49.34
Vs (kN) 29.32 20.26 3.26
VD+L (kN) 56.26 58.21
Mh (kNm) 154.21 51.77
Ms (kNm) 75.2 51.77
Sway-Left (kN) 100.55 13.91
Vu-Sway (kN) 100.55 85.51
Vu (2*Eq Comb) (kN) 88.47 56.5
Vud (kN) 100.55 85.51
Av (sqmm) 586.55 521.17 398.57
Tu (kNm) 5.96 5.96 5.96
Ao= Φ*Aoh 44550 44550 44550
At (sqmm) 375.03 375.03 375.03
Legs 2 2 2
476
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 375.028 375.028 375.028
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 712.046 521.171 405.864
SCalc (mm) 100 125 100
SPrv (mm) 100 125 100
Av Total Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6


Basic
Spc1 = 250 mm
Spc2 = 127 mm
For Torsion
(X1 = 180, Y1 = 330)
Spc3 = X1 = 180 mm
Spc4=(X1+Y1)/4 = 125 mm

Spc6 = 24 x ∅sv = 228 mm
Spc7 = d / 4 = 82 mm
Spc8 = 300 mm

Mid Section
477

Skin reinforcement

Beam Width = 250 mm
Beam Depth = 400 mm
Hence SFR Provided
= 209.82 sqmm

Spacing Criteria


Group : G9
Beam No : B17
478
Depth (D) : 400 mm
Es : 2x10^5 N/sqmm
Mubal : 138 kNm

Mu (kNm) 13.619 26.686 4.67 51.955 9.866 63.059
As (flex) (sqmm) (C) 111.03 221.26 37.62 446.33 80.05 550.98
Asc (flex) (sqmm) (A) - - - - - -
Tu (kNm) 0.287 0.901 0.5 0.994 0.287 0.78
Tcr/4 (kNm) 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14
Al, min(sqmm)(Tor.) (D) - - - - - -
Al (sqmm) (Tor.) (E) - - - - - -
Al (Dist) (sqmm) (D) - - - - - -
Ast (sqmm) 144.34 275 264.75 446.34 107.25 550.98
AstPrv (sqmm) 397.12 397.12 397.12 573.04 397.12 573.04
Reinforcement 2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#19 2-#16 2-#19

479

Where,

Left Mid Right
PtPrv (%) 0.695 0.481 0.695
Vu (kN) 38.52 31.71 43.63
Vc (kN) 51.58 49.34 51.58
Vs (kN) - - -
VD+L (kN) 34.69 43.19
Mh (kNm) 72.61 72.61
Ms (kNm) 51.77 51.77
Sway-Left (kN) 0.14 77.74
Vu-Sway (kN) 69.24 77.74
Vu (2*Eq Comb) (kN) 61.46 66.84
Vud (kN) 69.24 77.74
480
Av (sqmm) 208.33 208.33 208.33
Tu (kNm) 0.81 0.81 0.81
Ao= Φ*Aoh - - -
At (sqmm) - - -
Legs 2 2 2
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 208.333 208.333 251.666
SCalc (mm) 100 125 100
SPrv (mm) 100 125 100
Av Total Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6


Basic
Spc1 = 250 mm
Spc2 = 127 mm

Spc4 = 24 x ∅sv = 228 mm
Spc5 = d / 4 = 82 mm
Spc6 = 300 mm

481
Mid Section

Skin reinforcement

Beam Width = 250 mm
Beam Depth = 400 mm
Depth = 400 <= 1000

Group : G9
Beam No : B18
Depth (D) : 400 mm
Es : 2x10^5 N/sqmm
Mubal : 138 kNm

482
Mu (kNm) 11.998 20.646 - 55.443 16.329 73.234
As (flex) (sqmm) (C) 97.61 169.83 - 478.8 133.57 650.44
Asc (flex) (sqmm) (A) - - - - - -
Tu (kNm) 0.55 0.876 - 0.343 0.859 0.876
Tcr/4 (kNm) 2.14 2.14 - 2.14 2.14 2.14
Al, min(sqmm)(Tor.) (D) - - - - - -
Al (sqmm) (Tor.) (E) - - - - - -
Al (Dist) (sqmm) (D) - - - - - -
Ast (sqmm) 126.9 220.78 528.82 478.8 173.65 650.44
AstPrv (sqmm) 397.12 397.12 595.68 573.04 397.12 1586.46
2-#16 2-#16 3-#16 2-#19 2-#16 2-#25
Reinforcement
2-#19


Where,
483

Left Mid Right
PtPrv (%) 0.695 0.481 1.923
Vu (kN) 36.69 33.53 45.45
Vc (kN) 51.58 49.34 64.5
Vs (kN) - - -
VD+L (kN) 31.74 46.14
Mh (kNm) 72.61 167.65
Ms (kNm) 51.77 75.2
Sway-Left (kN) 9.31 87.19
Vu-Sway (kN) 92.69 87.19
Vu (2*Eq Comb) (kN) 59.47 68.63
Vud (kN) 92.69 87.19
Av (sqmm) 208.33 208.33 208.33
Tu (kNm) 0.58 0.58 0.58
Ao= Φ*Aoh - - -
At (sqmm) - - -
Legs 2 2 2
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 395.499 208.333 218.304
SCalc (mm) 100 125 100
484
SPrv (mm) 100 125 100
Av Total Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1134.08 1417.6


Basic
Spc1 = 250 mm
Spc2 = 127 mm

Spc4 = 24 x ∅sv = 228 mm
Spc5 = d / 4 = 82 mm
Spc6 = 300 mm

Mid Section

Skin reinforcement

Beam Width = 250 mm
Beam Depth = 400 mm
Depth = 400 <= 1000
485

Group : G9
Beam No : B19
Depth (D) : 400 mm
Es : 2x10^5 N/sqmm
Mubal : 138 kNm

Critical L/C - Analysis - 41 40 39 39 -
Critical L/C - RCDC - 6 5 4 4 -
Mu (kNm) - 43.634 46.35 152.063 60.553 -
As (flex) (sqmm) (C) - 370.34 394.9 1471.86 527.02 -
Asc (flex) (sqmm) (A) - - - 254.19 - -
Tu (kNm) - 11.704 14.95 11.654 11.654 -
486
Tcr/4 (kNm) - 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 -
Al, min(sqmm)(Tor.) (D) - 71.9 32.16 73.51 73.51 -
Al (sqmm) (Tor.) (E) - 375.31 479.37 373.7 373.7 -
Al (Dist) (sqmm) (D) - 72.17 92.19 71.87 71.87 -
Ast (sqmm) 528.82 442.51 487.09 1543.73 598.89 317.29
AstPrv (sqmm) 595.68 595.68 595.68 1586.46 794.24 397.12
3-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#16
Reinforcement
2-#19 2-#16


Where,

Left Mid Right
PtPrv (%) 1.923 0.963 0.722
Vu (kN) 94.01 80.72 14.38
Mu-Sect (kNm) - 54.81 -
Vc (kN) 64.5 49.2 51.87
487
Vs (kN) 39.35 42.04 -
VD+L (kN) 114.36 36.48
Mh (kNm) 167.65 51.77
Ms (kNm) 75.2 75.2
Sway-Right (kN) 149.14 71.27
Sway-Left (kN) 47.83 30.05
Vu-Sway (kN) 149.14 71.27
Vu (2*Eq Comb) (kN) 98.2 8
Vud (kN) 149.14 71.27
Av (sqmm) 1223.84 1243.25 939.94
Tu (kNm) 14.95 14.95 14.95
Ao= Φ*Aoh 44550 44550 44550
At (sqmm) 939.94 939.94 939.94
Legs 2 2 2
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 939.94 939.94 939.94
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 1376.449 1243.249 939.94
SCalc (mm) 100 110 110
SPrv (mm) 100 110 100
Av Total Prv (sqmm) 1417.6 1288.73 1417.6


Basic
Spc1 = 250 mm
Spc2 = 127 mm
488
For Torsion
(X1 = 180, Y1 = 330)
Spc3 = X1 = 180 mm
Spc4=(X1+Y1)/4 = 125 mm

Spc6 = 24 x ∅sv = 228 mm
Spc7 = d / 4 = 82 mm
Spc8 = 300 mm

Mid Section

Skin reinforcement

Beam Width = 250 mm
Beam Depth = 400 mm
Hence SFR Provided
= 295 sqmm
489

Spacing Criteria

APPENDIX B.5: COMPUTATION OF SHEAR WALL / COLUMN (DS W/ IMF)

LOAD 1: EQ
0m to 2m 2 7721.609 0.91 2088.828 0.002 Non Sway
X
LOAD 1: EQ
2m to 5.5m 3.5 6050.522 3.274 1890.941 0.003 Non Sway
X
LOAD 1: EQ
5.5m to 8.5m 3 2799.534 3.135 1033.441 0.003 Non Sway
X

LOAD 2: EQ
0m to 2m 2 7721.609 0.532 2088.828 0.001 Non Sway
Z
LOAD 2: EQ
2m to 5.5m 3.5 6050.522 2.013 1890.941 0.002 Non Sway
Z
LOAD 2: EQ
5.5m to 8.5m 3 2799.534 2.039 1033.441 0.002 Non Sway
Z
490
General Data
Wall No. : C2
Level : 0m To 2m
Wall B = 300 mm
Wall D = 5000 mm
Clear Cover = 50 mm
Clear Floor Height @ B = 1600 mm
Clear Floor Height @ D = 1600 mm
No Of Floors = 1
No Of Walls In Group = 1
Load Data
Load Combination = [11] : 0.68 (LOAD 3: DL) +1.25 (LOAD 1: EQ X)
Put = 459.22 kN
Muxt = 10489.18 kNm
Muyt = -2.66 kNm
Vuxt = -1.42 kN
Vuyt = 2191.15 kN
Pub = 507.3 kN
Muxb = 14870.33 kNm
Muyb = 0.17 kNm
491
Vuxb = -1.42 kN
Vuyb = 2191.15 kN
Check For Requirement Of Boundary Element

Check For Maximum Compressive Stress
Having maxstress in between level's (2m - 8.5m)
At level (2m)
[3] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
Load Combination =
(LOAD 1: EQ X)
Maximum Stress = 12.66 N/sqmm
0.2 x Fck = 5 N/sqmm
Maximum Stress in Wall > 0.2 x Fck
Hence Boundary Element is applicable

At level (2m)
[3] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
Load Combination =
(LOAD 1: EQ X)
0.15 x Fck = 3.75 N/sqmm

Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
492
Bottom 156250 No Beam No Beam - - 1
Top 156250 5000 x 250 x 400 5000 x 250 x 400 26.667 26.667 1753.827


Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Top 562.5 4000 x 250 x 400 No Beam 33.333 - 8.839


Along D
Q = 0.002
0.002< 0.05, Wall shall be designed as non-sway frame (Braced)

Along B
Q = 0.001
Slenderness Check
493
K = 0.87
r = 1443.38 mm
Kluy /r = 0.96
M1 = 10489.18 kNm
M2 = 14870.33 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 25.54
0.96 < 25.54, Wall not slender along D
K = 0.87
r = 86.6 mm
Klux /r = 16.07
M1 = 0.17 kNm
M2 = -2.66 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 34.77
16.07 < 34.77, Wall not slender along B

A B C
Where
494

Pu = 507.3 kN
Mux = 14870.33 kNm
Muy = 0.17 kNm

Pt Calculated = 1.34
= 0 deg
MRes = 14870.33 kNm
( φ ) MCap = 16913.09 kNm
= 0.879 < 1
Check For Boundary Element

Length of boundary element = 700 mm
Ast provided in BE = 20056.48 mm2
δu = 0.91 mm
Hw = 8500 mm
lw = 5000 mm
c (due to deflection) = 1190.48 mm
Design Of Shear
Critical Load Combination = [4] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25 kN
495
(LOAD 2: EQ Z)
Nu = 1067.89 kN
Muy = 60.99 kNm
Vuy = 13.67 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
d = 4940.5 mm
αc = 0.25
pt = 0.0067
Vn (Maximum) = 0.83 x Sqrt(Fc) x ColB x d
= 6150.92
Vcy = 6086.84 kN

[4] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
(LOAD 2: EQ Z)
Nu = 1088.85 kN
Mux = 0.26 kNm
Vux = 2.78 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
b = 240.5 mm
αc = 0.17
pt = 0.0067
Vn (Maximum) = 0.83 x Sqrt(Fc) x ColD x b
= 4990.38
Vcx = 5486.84 kN
496
Design Of Links
Main Links
Normal Links
Min. Horizontal Reinforcement = 0.25% of cross sectional area
= 750 sqmm
Diameter of main horizontal steel = 10 mm
Thus, Spacing = 300 mm
Spacing of horizontal reinforcement is minimum of following
D/5 = 1000 mm
3xB = 900 mm
Maximum = 450 mm
Spacing considered = 300 mm

Table For Links
Required Provided
Link Dia. 10 --- 10 10 10
Spacing 300 --- 150 300 150

General Data
Wall No. : C2
Level : 2m To 5.5m
497
Wall B = 300 mm
Wall D = 5000 mm
Clear Cover = 50 mm
No Of Floors = 1
Load Data
Put = 313.29 kN
Muxt = 2921.4 kNm
Muyt = -3.29 kNm
Vuxt = -1.4 kN
Vuyt = 2167.84 kN
Pub = 397.44 kN
Muxb = 10506.82 kNm
Muyb = 1.6 kNm
Vuxb = -1.4 kN
Vuyb = 2167.84 kN

498
At level (2m)
[3] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
Load Combination =
(LOAD 1: EQ X)

At level (5.5m)
[3] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
Load Combination =
(LOAD 1: EQ X)
0.15 x Fck = 3.75 N/sqmm

Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 89285.714 5000 x 250 x 400 5000 x 250 x 400 26.667 26.667 1753.827
Top 89285.714 5000 x 250 x 400 5000 x 250 x 400 26.667 26.667 1381.803

499
Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 321.429 4000 x 250 x 400 No Beam 33.333 - 8.839
Top 321.429 4000 x 250 x 400 No Beam 33.333 - 6.964


Along D
Q = 0.003

Along B
Q = 0.002
Slenderness Check
K = 1
r = 1443.38 mm
Kluy /r = 2.15
M1 = 2921.4 kNm
M2 = 10506.82 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 30.66
500
K = 1
r = 86.6 mm
Klux /r = 35.8
M1 = 1.6 kNm
M2 = -3.29 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 39.84

A B C
Where

Pu = 397.44 kN
Mux = 10506.82 kNm
Muy = 1.6 kNm
501
= 0.01 deg
MRes = 10506.82 kNm
( φ ) MCap = 16726.13 kNm
= 0.628 < 1

δu = 3.27 mm
Hw = 8500 mm
lw = 5000 mm
Design Of Shear
[3] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
(LOAD 1: EQ X)
Nu = 859.39 kN
Muy = 10542.2 kNm
Vuy = 2161.81 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
d = 4940.5 mm
502
αc = 0.25
pt = 0.0067
= 6150.92
Vcy = 6086.84 kN

[3] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
(LOAD 1: EQ X)
Nu = 297.52 kN
Mux = 0.13 kNm
Vux = 10 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
b = 240.5 mm
αc = 0.17
pt = 0.0067
= 4990.38
Vcx = 5486.84 kN
Design Of Links
Main Links
Normal Links
503
= 750 sqmm
D/5 = 1000 mm
3xB = 900 mm
Maximum = 450 mm

Table For Links
Required Provided
Link Dia. 10 --- 10 10 10
Spacing 300 --- 150 300 150

General Data
Wall No. : C2
Wall B = 300 mm
Wall D = 5000 mm
Clear Cover = 50 mm
No Of Floors = 1
504
Load Data
Load Combination = [13] : 0.68 (LOAD 3: DL) -1.25 (LOAD 1: EQ X)
Put = 76.83 kN
Muxt = 29.54 kNm
Muyt = -1.6 kNm
Vuxt = -1.51 kN
Vuyt = -984.21 kN
Pub = 148.95 kN
Muxb = -2922.31 kNm
Muyb = 2.94 kNm
Vuxb = -1.51 kN
Vuyb = -984.21 kN

At level (2m)
[3] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
Load Combination =
(LOAD 1: EQ X)
505

At level (8.5m)
[5] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
Load Combination =
(LOAD 1: EQ X)
Maximum Stress = 2.65
0.15 x Fck = 3.75
Maximum Stress in Wall < 0.15 x Fck
Hence Boundary Element is not applicable

Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 104166.667 5000 x 250 x 400 5000 x 250 x 400 26.667 26.667 1381.803
Top 104166.667 5000 x 250 x 400 5000 x 250 x 400 26.667 26.667 744.048


Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 375 4000 x 250 x 400 No Beam 33.333 - 6.964
506
Top 375 4000 x 250 x 400 No Beam 33.333 - 3.75


Along D
Q = 0.003

Along B
Q = 0.002
Slenderness Check
K = 1
r = 1443.38 mm
Kluy /r = 1.8
M1 = 29.54 kNm
M2 = -2922.31 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 34.12
K = 1
r = 86.6 mm
Klux /r = 30.02
M1 = -1.6 kNm
507
M2 = 2.94 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 40.52

A B C
Where

Pu = 148.95 kN
Mux = -2922.31 kNm
Muy = 2.94 kNm

= 0.06 deg
MRes = 2922.31 kNm
508
( φ ) MCap = 16303.07 kNm
= 0.179 < 1
Design Of Shear
[6] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
(LOAD 2: EQ Z)
Nu = 333.78 kN
Muy = 10.87 kNm
Vuy = 4.48 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
d = 4940.5 mm
αc = 0.25
pt = 0.0067
= 6150.92
Vcy = 6086.84 kN

[6] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
(LOAD 2: EQ Z)
Nu = 76.83 kN
Mux = 1.6 kNm
Vux = 1.51 kN
509
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
b = 240.5 mm
αc = 0.17
pt = 0.0067
= 4990.38
Vcx = 5486.84 kN
Design Of Links
Main Links
Normal Links
= 750 sqmm
D/5 = 1000 mm
3xB = 900 mm
Maximum = 450 mm

Table For Links
Required Provided
Link Dia. 10 --- --- 10 ---
Spacing 300 --- --- 300 ---
510

General Data
Column No. : C5
Level : 0m To 2m
Type of Frame = Intermediate
Column B = 400 mm
Column D = 400 mm
Clear Cover = 50 mm
No Of Floors = 1
Load Data
Put = 274.04 kN
Muxt = 10.58 kNm
Muyt = -5.44 kNm
Vuxt = -6.67 kN
Vuyt = -25.07 kN
511
Pub = 279.17 kN
Muxb = -39.55 kNm
Muyb = 7.9 kNm
Vuxb = -6.67 kN
Vuyb = -25.07 kN

Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Top 106.667 5000 x 250 x 400 5000 x 250 x 400 26.667 26.667 3.148


Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Top 106.667 4000 x 250 x 400 4000 x 250 x 400 33.333 33.333 2.511
512

Along D
Q = 0.002

Along B
Q = 0.001
Slenderness Check
K = 0.87
r = 115.47 mm
Kluy /r = 12.06
M1 = 10.58 kNm
M2 = -39.55 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 37.21
K = 0.87
r = 115.47 mm
Klux /r = 12.06
M1 = -5.44 kNm
M2 = 7.9 kNm
513
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 42.27

A B C
Where

Pu = 279.17 kN
Mux = -39.55 kNm
Muy = 7.9 kNm

= 11.3 deg
MRes = 40.33 kNm
( φ ) MCap = 152.98 kNm
514
= 0.264 < 1
Design Of Shear
Critical Load Combination = [2] : 1.2 (LOAD 3: DL) +1.6 (LOAD 4: LL) kN
Nu = 708.13 kN
Muy = 0.42 kNm
Vuy = -0.7508 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
deff = 340.5 mm
ρw = 0.006
mm = 111.07 kNm

Nu = 708.13 kN
Mux = 1.88 kNm
Vux = -3.4044 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
deff = 340.5 mm
ρw = 0.006
mm = 109.61 kNm
515
Design Of Links
Normal Links
= 4.75 mm

B/2 = 200 mm
Spacing = 300 mm

Table For Links
Required Provided
Link Dia. 10 --- 10 10 10
Spacing 200 --- 125 200 125
516

General Data
Column No. : C5
Level : 2m To 5.5m
Column B = 400 mm
Column D = 400 mm
Clear Cover = 50 mm
No Of Floors = 1
Load Data
Load Combination = [5] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25 (LOAD 1: EQ X)
Put = 595.06 kN
Muxt = 45.78 kNm
Muyt = -31.68 kNm
Vuxt = -15.18 kN
Vuyt = -24.32 kN
517
Pub = 613.8 kN
Muxb = -39.32 kNm
Muyb = 21.43 kNm
Vuxb = -15.18 kN
Vuyb = -24.32 kN

Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 60.952 5000 x 250 x 400 5000 x 250 x 400 26.667 26.667 3.148
Top 60.952 5000 x 250 x 400 5000 x 250 x 400 26.667 26.667 2.48


Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 60.952 4000 x 250 x 400 4000 x 250 x 400 33.333 33.333 2.511
Top 60.952 4000 x 250 x 400 4000 x 250 x 400 33.333 33.333 1.978
518

Along D
Q = 0.003

Along B
Q = 0.002
Slenderness Check
K = 1
r = 115.47 mm
Kluy /r = 26.85
M1 = -39.32 kNm
M2 = 45.78 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 44.31
K = 1
r = 115.47 mm
Klux /r = 26.85
M1 = 21.43 kNm
M2 = -31.68 kNm
519
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 42.12

A B C
Where

Pu = 595.06 kN
Mux = 45.78 kNm
Muy = -31.68 kNm

= 34.68 deg
MRes = 55.67 kNm
( φ ) MCap = 144.83 kNm
520
= 0.384 < 1
Design Of Shear
Nu = 663.1 kN
Muy = 11 kNm
Vuy = -9.3354 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
deff = 340.5 mm
ρw = 0.006
mm = 93.4 kNm

Nu = 663.1 kN
Mux = 15.59 kNm
Vux = -12.5283 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
deff = 340.5 mm
ρw = 0.006
mm = 88.81 kNm
521
Design Of Links
Normal Links
= 4.75 mm

B/2 = 200 mm
Spacing = 300 mm

Table For Links
Required Provided
Link Dia. 10 --- 10 10 10
Spacing 200 --- 125 200 125
522

General Data
Column No. : C5
Column B = 400 mm
Column D = 400 mm
Clear Cover = 50 mm
No Of Floors = 1
Load Data
Put = 227.17 kN
Muxt = 68.85 kNm
Muyt = -38.46 kNm
Vuxt = -27.46 kN
Vuyt = -46.16 kN
523
Pub = 243.23 kN
Muxb = -69.6 kNm
Muyb = 43.89 kNm
Vuxb = -27.46 kN
Vuyb = -46.16 kN

Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 71.111 5000 x 250 x 400 5000 x 250 x 400 26.667 26.667 2.48
Top 71.111 5000 x 250 x 400 5000 x 250 x 400 26.667 26.667 1.335


Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 71.111 4000 x 250 x 400 4000 x 250 x 400 33.333 33.333 1.978
Top 71.111 4000 x 250 x 400 4000 x 250 x 400 33.333 33.333 1.065
524

Along D
Q = 0.003

Along B
Q = 0.002
Slenderness Check
K = 1
r = 115.47 mm
Kluy /r = 22.52
M1 = 68.85 kNm
M2 = -69.6 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 45.87
K = 1
r = 115.47 mm
Klux /r = 22.52
M1 = -38.46 kNm
M2 = 43.89 kNm
525
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 44.52

A B C
Where

Pu = 243.23 kN
Mux = -69.6 kNm
Muy = 43.89 kNm

= 32.23 deg
MRes = 82.28 kNm
( φ ) MCap = 140.7 kNm
526
= 0.585 < 1
Design Of Shear
Nu = 199.23 kN
Muy = 65.89 kNm
Vuy = -44.3256 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
deff = 340.5 mm
ρw = 0.006
mm = 34.53 kNm

Critical Load Combination = [8] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +1.25 (LOAD 2: EQ Z) kN
Nu = 201.65 kN
Mux = 61.38 kNm
Vux = -43.5032 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
deff = 340.5 mm
ρw = 0.006
mm = 29.63 kNm
527
Design Of Links
Normal Links
= 4.75 mm

B/2 = 200 mm
Spacing = 300 mm

Table For Links
Required Provided
Link Dia. 10 --- 10 10 10
Spacing 200 --- 125 200 125
528

General Data
Wall No. : C6
Level : 0m To 2m
Wall B = 300 mm
Wall D = 4000 mm
Clear Cover = 50 mm
No Of Floors = 1
Load Data
Put = 359.64 kN
Muxt = -6131.78 kNm
Muyt = -2.62 kNm
Vuxt = -1.39 kN
Vuyt = 1335.17 kN
Pub = 398.11 kN
Muxb = -8801.42 kNm
529
Muyb = -5.39 kNm
Vuxb = -1.39 kN
Vuyb = 1335.17 kN

At level (2m)
[6] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
Load Combination =
(LOAD 2: EQ Z)

At level (2m)
[6] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
Load Combination =
(LOAD 2: EQ Z)
0.15 x Fck = 3.75 N/sqmm

Depth) Depth)
530
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Top 80000 4000 x 250 x 400 4000 x 250 x 400 33.333 33.333 785.714


Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Top 450 5000 x 250 x 400 No Beam 26.667 - 8.839


Along D
Q = 0.001

Along B
Q = 0.002
Slenderness Check
531
K = 0.87
r = 1154.7 mm
Kluy /r = 1.21
M1 = -6131.78 kNm
M2 = -8801.42 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 25.64
K = 0.87
r = 86.6 mm
Klux /r = 16.07
M1 = -2.62 kNm
M2 = -5.39 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 28.18

A B C
Major Axis Mux (top) -6131.78 - -6131.78
Where
532

Pu = 398.11 kN
Mux = -8801.42 kNm
Muy = -5.39 kNm

= 0.04 deg
MRes = 8801.42 kNm
( φ ) MCap = 10741.99 kNm
= 0.819 < 1

δu = 0.91 mm
Hw = 8500 mm
lw = 4000 mm
Design Of Shear
533
[4] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
(LOAD 2: EQ Z)
Nu = 779.02 kN
Muy = 5897.45 kNm
Vuy = 1322.22 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
d = 3940.5 mm
αc = 0.25
pt = 0.0067
= 4905.92
Vcy = 4869.48 kN

[4] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
(LOAD 2: EQ Z)
Nu = 779.02 kN
Mux = 0.87 kNm
Vux = 4.25 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
b = 240.5 mm
αc = 0.17
pt = 0.0067
= 3992.3
534
Vcx = 4389.48 kN
Design Of Links
Main Links
Normal Links
= 750 sqmm
D/5 = 800 mm
3xB = 900 mm
Maximum = 450 mm

Table For Links
Required Provided
Link Dia. 10 --- 10 10 10
Spacing 300 --- 150 300 150

General Data
Wall No. : C6
Level : 2m To 5.5m
535
Wall B = 300 mm
Wall D = 4000 mm
Clear Cover = 50 mm
No Of Floors = 1
Load Data
Put = 237.46 kN
Muxt = -1759.23 kNm
Muyt = 2.21 kNm
Vuxt = -1.32 kN
Vuyt = 1256.96 kN
Pub = 304.78 kN
Muxb = -6157.41 kNm
Muyb = -2.41 kNm
Vuxb = -1.32 kN
Vuyb = 1256.96 kN
536
At level (2m)
[6] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
Load Combination =
(LOAD 2: EQ Z)

At level (5.5m)
[6] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
Load Combination =
(LOAD 2: EQ Z)
0.15 x Fck = 3.75 N/sqmm

Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 45714.286 4000 x 250 x 400 4000 x 250 x 400 33.333 33.333 785.714
Top 45714.286 4000 x 250 x 400 4000 x 250 x 400 33.333 33.333 619.048

537
Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 257.143 5000 x 250 x 400 No Beam 26.667 - 8.839
Top 257.143 5000 x 250 x 400 No Beam 26.667 - 6.964


Along D
Q = 0.002

Along B
Q = 0.003
Slenderness Check
K = 1
r = 1154.7 mm
Kluy /r = 2.68
M1 = -1759.23 kNm
M2 = -6157.41 kNm
538
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 30.57
K = 1
r = 86.6 mm
Klux /r = 35.8
M1 = 2.21 kNm
M2 = -2.41 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 45.02

A B C
Where

Pu = 304.78 kN
Mux = -6157.41 kNm
Muy = -2.41 kNm
539
= 0.02 deg
MRes = 6157.41 kNm
( φ ) MCap = 10615.47 kNm
= 0.58 < 1

δu = 3.27 mm
Hw = 8500 mm
lw = 4000 mm
Design Of Shear
[5] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
(LOAD 1: EQ X)
Nu = 545.06 kN
Muy = 1092.1 kNm
Vuy = 912.98 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
d = 3940.5 mm
540
αc = 0.25
pt = 0.0067
= 4905.92
Vcy = 4869.48 kN

[5] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
(LOAD 1: EQ X)
Nu = 506.46 kN
Mux = 2.09 kNm
Vux = 11.41 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
b = 240.5 mm
αc = 0.17
pt = 0.0067
= 3992.3
Vcx = 4389.48 kN
Design Of Links
Main Links
Normal Links
541
= 750 sqmm
D/5 = 800 mm
3xB = 900 mm
Maximum = 450 mm

Table For Links
Required Provided
Link Dia. 10 --- 10 10 10
Spacing 300 --- 150 300 150

General Data
Wall No. : C6
Wall B = 300 mm
Wall D = 4000 mm
Clear Cover = 50 mm
No Of Floors = 1
542
Load Data
Load Combination = [6] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25 (LOAD 2: EQ Z)
Put = 173.9 kN
Muxt = 46.43 kNm
Muyt = 18.02 kNm
Vuxt = -10.54 kN
Vuyt = 637.81 kN
Pub = 294.39 kN
Muxb = -1866.49 kNm
Muyb = -13.59 kNm
Vuxb = -10.54 kN
Vuyb = 637.81 kN

At level (2m)
[6] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
Load Combination =
(LOAD 2: EQ Z)
543

At level (8.5m)
[6] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
Load Combination =
(LOAD 2: EQ Z)
0.15 x Fck = 3.75

Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 53333.333 4000 x 250 x 400 4000 x 250 x 400 33.333 33.333 619.048
Top 53333.333 4000 x 250 x 400 4000 x 250 x 400 33.333 33.333 333.333


Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 300 5000 x 250 x 400 No Beam 26.667 - 6.964
544
Top 300 5000 x 250 x 400 No Beam 26.667 - 3.75


Along D
Q = 0.002

Along B
Q = 0.003
Slenderness Check
K = 1
r = 1154.7 mm
Kluy /r = 2.25
M1 = 46.43 kNm
M2 = -1866.49 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 34.3
K = 1
r = 86.6 mm
Klux /r = 30.02
M1 = -13.59 kNm
545
M2 = 18.02 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 43.05

A B C
Where

Pu = 294.39 kN
Mux = -1866.49 kNm
Muy = -13.59 kNm

= 0.42 deg
MRes = 1866.54 kNm
546
( φ ) MCap = 10599.77 kNm
= 0.176 < 1
Design Of Shear
[5] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
(LOAD 1: EQ X)
Nu = 302.8 kN
Muy = 1124.12 kNm
Vuy = 385.98 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
d = 3940.5 mm
αc = 0.25
pt = 0.0067
= 4905.92
Vcy = 4869.48 kN

[5] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
(LOAD 1: EQ X)
Nu = 285.19 kN
Mux = 0.62 kNm
Vux = 1.23 kN
547
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
b = 240.5 mm
αc = 0.17
pt = 0.0067
= 3992.3
Vcx = 4389.48 kN
Design Of Links
Main Links
Normal Links
= 750 sqmm
D/5 = 800 mm
3xB = 900 mm
Maximum = 450 mm

Table For Links
Required Provided
Link Dia. 10 --- --- 10 ---
Spacing 300 --- --- 300 ---
548
549
APPENDIX B.6: COMPUTATION OF SLAB (DS W/ IMF)

Span = 2-Way

Beam
B (mm) 250 250 250 250
D (mm) 400 400 400 400
Ib (mm4) x106 1333.33 1333.33 1333.33 1333.33
Adjacent Slab
Thk (mm) - 150 150 -
Span (mm) - 4850 5000 -
Ib (mm4) x106 562.5 1244.53 1406.25 703.12
550
αf lx, αf ly 2.37 1.07 0.95 1.9
αf 1.57
Ln (mm) 3750 4750
L2 (mm) 2625 2125
Total BM (kNm) 52.62 68.34
Bottom
Top
Design Moments:
M1 = 3.037 kNm
Required (BM)
= 284.000 kN/sqmm
M2 = 3.729 kNm
551
Required (BM)
= 284.000 kN/sqmm
M3 = 3.944 kNm
Required (BM)
= 284.000 kN/sqmm
M4 = 4.844 kNm
Required (BM)
= 284.000 kN/sqmm
Required
= 284.000 kN/sqmm
Shear Check :
Along Short Span
Along Long Span
(Lx / (2 x Ly))))
552
APPENDIX B.7: COMPUTATION OF BEAM (DS W/ SMF)
Group : G3
Beam No : B3
553
Depth (D) : 400 mm
Es : 2x10^5 N/sqmm
Mubal : 138 kNm

Mu (kNm) 29.747 59.877 - 18.628 13.755 118.085
As (flex) (sqmm) (C) 247.66 520.59 - 152.83 112.15 1141.88
Asc (flex) (sqmm) (A) - - - - - -
Tu (kNm) 4.291 3.865 - 3.536 4.054 4.291
Tcr/4 (kNm) 2.14 2.14 - 2.14 2.14 2.14
Al, min(sqmm)(Tor.) (D) 309.61 323.27 - 333.82 317.2 309.61
Al (sqmm) (Tor.) (E) 137.61 123.95 - 113.4 130.01 137.61
Al (Dist) (sqmm) (D) 59.54 62.17 - 64.2 61 59.54
554
Ast (sqmm) 307.2 582.76 107.25 275 225.1 1201.42
AstPrv (sqmm) 397.12 595.68 397.12 397.12 397.12 1410.54
2-#16 3-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#25
Reinforcement
2-#16


Where,

Left Mid Right
PtPrv (%) 0.481 0.722 1.71
Vu (kN) 49.79 50.22 86.24
Mu-Sect (kNm) - 20.47 -
Vc (kN) 49.34 50.42 62.26
Vs (kN) 0.6 - 31.98
Av (sqmm) 342.34 338.01 568.74
Tu (kNm) 5.38 5.38 5.38
Ao= Φ*Aoh 44550 44550 44550
555
At (sqmm) 338.01 338.01 338.01
Legs 2 2 2
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 338.014 338.014 338.014
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 342.345 355.774 694.114
SCalc (mm) 125 125 125
SPrv (mm) 125 125 125
Av Total Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08


Basic
Spc1 = 250 mm
Spc2 = 127 mm
For Torsion
(X1 = 180, Y1 = 330)
Spc3 = X1 = 180 mm
Spc4=(X1+Y1)/4 = 125 mm

Skin reinforcement

Beam Width = 250 mm
Beam Depth = 400 mm
Hence SFR Provided
556
= 209.82 sqmm

Spacing Criteria


Group : G3
Beam No : B4
Depth (D) : 400 mm
Es : 2x10^5 N/sqmm
Mubal : 138 kNm
557

Mu (kNm) 7.294 39.648 5.32 93.051 9.57 95.719
As (flex) (sqmm) (C) 59 334.61 42.91 855.57 77.62 884.49
Asc (flex) (sqmm) (A) - - - - - -
Tu (kNm) 0.96 0.466 0.38 0.075 0.377 1.262
Tcr/4 (kNm) 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14
Al, min(sqmm)(Tor.) (D) - - - - - -
Al (sqmm) (Tor.) (E) - - - - - -
Al (Dist) (sqmm) (D) - - - - - -
Ast (sqmm) 107.25 334.61 107.25 855.57 107.25 884.49
AstPrv (sqmm) 397.12 397.12 397.12 1410.54 397.12 1146.08
2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#19
Reinforcement
2-#16 2-#19


Where,
558

Left Mid Right
PtPrv (%) 1.71 0.481 1.389
Vu (kN) 76 28.75 77.42
Mu-Sect (kNm) - 17.53 -
Vc (kN) 62.26 47.01 58.89
Vs (kN) 18.32 - 24.71
Av (sqmm) 208.33 208.33 208.33
Tu (kNm) 0.08 0.6 1.26
Ao= Φ*Aoh - - -
At (sqmm) - - -
Legs 2 2 2
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 258.572 208.333 281.314
SCalc (mm) 125 125 125
SPrv (mm) 125 125 125
Av Total Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08


559
Basic
Spc1 = 250 mm
Spc2 = 127 mm

Skin reinforcement

Beam Width = 250 mm
Beam Depth = 400 mm
Depth = 400 <= 1000

Group : G3
Beam No : B5
Depth (D) : 400 mm
Es : 2x10^5 N/sqmm
Mubal : 138 kNm

560
Critical L/C - Analysis - 37 38 40 44 37
Critical L/C - RCDC - 2 3 5 9 2
Mu (kNm) - 55.065 20.1 110.995 12.485 25.26
As (flex) (sqmm) (C) - 475.26 165.24 1057.14 101.63 209.05
Asc (flex) (sqmm) (A) - - - - - -
Tu (kNm) - 4.191 3.43 5.036 4.775 4.191
Tcr/4 (kNm) - 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14
Al, min(sqmm)(Tor.) (D) - 312.83 337.23 285.73 294.08 312.83
Al (sqmm) (Tor.) (E) - 134.38 109.99 161.49 153.13 134.38
Al (Dist) (sqmm) (D) - 60.16 64.85 54.95 56.55 60.16
Ast (sqmm) 107.25 535.42 275 1112.09 205.64 275
AstPrv (sqmm) 397.12 595.68 397.12 1146.08 397.12 397.12
2-#16 3-#16 2-#16 2-#19 2-#16 2-#16
Reinforcement
2-#19


Where,
561

Left Mid Right
PtPrv (%) 1.389 0.722 0.481
Vu (kN) 84.19 48.17 51.84
Mu-Sect (kNm) - 19.21 -
Vc (kN) 58.89 50.56 49.34
Vs (kN) 33.74 - 3.34
Av (sqmm) 592.82 349.41 373.5
Tu (kNm) 5.56 5.56 5.56
Ao= Φ*Aoh 44550 44550 44550
At (sqmm) 349.41 349.41 349.41
Legs 2 2 2
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 349.41 349.41 349.41
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 694.799 349.41 381.28
SCalc (mm) 125 125 125
SPrv (mm) 125 125 125
Av Total Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08


Basic
Spc1 = 250 mm
562
Spc2 = 127 mm
For Torsion
(X1 = 180, Y1 = 330)
Spc3 = X1 = 180 mm
Spc4=(X1+Y1)/4 = 125 mm

Skin reinforcement

Beam Width = 250 mm
Beam Depth = 400 mm
Hence SFR Provided
= 209.82 sqmm

Spacing Criteria


Group : G9
563
Beam No : B17
Depth (D) : 400 mm
Es : 2x10^5 N/sqmm
Mubal : 138 kNm

Mu (kNm) 10.194 26.686 7.16 46.796 7.223 57.815
As (flex) (sqmm) (C) 82.75 221.26 57.92 398.98 58.42 501.08
Asc (flex) (sqmm) (A) - - - - - -
Tu (kNm) 0.313 0.901 0.48 0.969 0.313 0.805
Tcr/4 (kNm) 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14
Al, min(sqmm)(Tor.) (D) - - - - - -
Al (sqmm) (Tor.) (E) - - - - - -
564
Al (Dist) (sqmm) (D) - - - - - -
Ast (sqmm) 107.57 275 107.25 398.98 107.25 501.08
AstPrv (sqmm) 397.12 397.12 397.12 573.04 397.12 573.04
Reinforcement 2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#19 2-#16 2-#19


Where,

Left Mid Right
PtPrv (%) 0.695 0.481 0.695
Vu (kN) 38.52 25.76 43.63
Mu-Sect (kNm) - 12.21 -
Vc (kN) 51.58 47.8 51.58
Vs (kN) - - -
Av (sqmm) 208.33 208.33 208.33
Tu (kNm) 0.81 0.81 0.81
Ao= Φ*Aoh - - -
565
At (sqmm) - - -
Legs 2 2 2
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 208.333 208.333 208.333
SCalc (mm) 125 125 125
SPrv (mm) 125 125 125
Av Total Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08


Basic
Spc1 = 250 mm
Spc2 = 127 mm

Skin reinforcement

Beam Width = 250 mm
Beam Depth = 400 mm
Depth = 400 <= 1000

Group : G9
Beam No : B18
566
Depth (D) : 400 mm
Es : 2x10^5 N/sqmm
Mubal : 138 kNm

Mu (kNm) 8.487 19.998 2.41 50.208 13.805 68.124
As (flex) (sqmm) (C) 68.75 164.36 19.39 430.22 112.57 600.04
Asc (flex) (sqmm) (A) - - - - - -
Tu (kNm) 0.487 0.556 0.08 0.406 0.796 0.813
Tcr/4 (kNm) 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14
Al, min(sqmm)(Tor.) (D) - - - - - -
Al (sqmm) (Tor.) (E) - - - - - -
Al (Dist) (sqmm) (D) - - - - - -
Ast (sqmm) 107.25 213.67 107.25 430.22 146.34 600.04
567
AstPrv (sqmm) 397.12 397.12 397.12 573.04 397.12 1586.46
2-#16 2-#16 2-#16 2-#19 2-#16 2-#25
Reinforcement
2-#19


Where,

Left Mid Right
PtPrv (%) 0.695 0.481 1.923
Vu (kN) 36.69 27.58 45.45
Vc (kN) 51.58 49.34 64.5
Vs (kN) - - -
Av (sqmm) 208.33 208.33 208.33
Tu (kNm) 0.58 0.58 0.58
Ao= Φ*Aoh - - -
At (sqmm) - - -
568
Legs 2 2 2
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 208.333 208.333 208.333
SCalc (mm) 125 125 125
SPrv (mm) 125 125 125
Av Total Prv (sqmm) 1134.08 1134.08 1134.08


Basic
Spc1 = 250 mm
Spc2 = 127 mm

Skin reinforcement

Beam Width = 250 mm
Beam Depth = 400 mm
Depth = 400 <= 1000

Group : G9
Beam No : B19
569
Depth (D) : 400 mm
Es : 2x10^5 N/sqmm
Mubal : 138 kNm

Critical L/C - Analysis - 41 40 39 39 -
Critical L/C - RCDC - 6 5 4 4 -
Mu (kNm) - 43.153 46.59 149.603 58.753 -
As (flex) (sqmm) (C) - 366 397.1 1449.42 509.94 -
Asc (flex) (sqmm) (A) - - - 231.75 - -
Tu (kNm) - 11.698 14.18 11.66 11.66 -
Tcr/4 (kNm) - 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 -
Al, min(sqmm)(Tor.) (D) - 72.09 7.48 73.32 73.32 -
Al (sqmm) (Tor.) (E) - 375.12 454.7 373.89 373.89 -
Al (Dist) (sqmm) (D) - 72.14 87.44 71.9 71.9 -
Ast (sqmm) 107.25 438.14 484.54 1521.32 581.84 107.25
AstPrv (sqmm) 397.12 595.68 595.68 1586.46 794.24 397.12
570
2-#16 3-#16 3-#16 2-#25 2-#16 2-#16
Reinforcement
2-#19 2-#16


Where,

Left Mid Right
PtPrv (%) 1.923 0.963 0.963
Vu (kN) 93.94 73.95 21.02
Mu-Sect (kNm) - 28.81 -
Vc (kN) 64.5 52.85 54.4
Vs (kN) 39.26 28.13 -
Av (sqmm) 1174.79 1094.5 891.56
Tu (kNm) 14.18 14.18 14.18
Ao= Φ*Aoh 44550 44550 44550
At (sqmm) 891.56 891.56 891.56
Legs 2 2 2
571
Asv Torsion (sqmm) 891.559 891.559 891.559
Asv Reqd (sqmm) 1327.279 1094.505 891.559
SCalc (mm) 105 125 125
SPrv (mm) 105 125 125
Av Total Prv (sqmm) 1350.1 1134.08 1134.08


Basic
Spc1 = 250 mm
Spc2 = 127 mm
For Torsion
(X1 = 180, Y1 = 330)
Spc3 = X1 = 180 mm
Spc4=(X1+Y1)/4 = 125 mm

Skin reinforcement

Beam Width = 250 mm
Beam Depth = 400 mm
Hence SFR Provided
572
= 279.81 sqmm

Spacing Criteria

APPENDIX B.8: COMPUTATION OF SHEAR WALL / COLUMN (DS W/ SMF)

LOAD 1: EQ
0m to 2m 2 7721.609 0.696 1597.339 0.002 Non Sway
X
LOAD 1: EQ
2m to 5.5m 3.5 6050.522 2.504 1446.014 0.003 Non Sway
X
LOAD 1: EQ
5.5m to 8.5m 3 2799.534 2.397 790.278 0.003 Non Sway
X
573
LOAD 2: EQ
0m to 2m 2 7721.609 0.407 1597.339 0.001 Non Sway
Z
LOAD 2: EQ
2m to 5.5m 3.5 6050.522 1.539 1446.014 0.002 Non Sway
Z
LOAD 2: EQ
5.5m to 8.5m 3 2799.534 1.559 790.279 0.002 Non Sway
Z
General Data
Wall No. : C2
Level : 0m To 2m
Wall B = 300 mm
Wall D = 5000 mm
Clear Cover = 40 mm
No Of Floors = 1
Load Data
574
Put = 458.68 kN
Muxt = 8028.55 kNm
Muyt = -2.59 kNm
Vuxt = -1.38 kN
Vuyt = 1676 kN
Pub = 506.76 kN
Muxb = 11379.65 kNm
Muyb = 0.17 kNm
Vuxb = -1.38 kN
Vuyb = 1676 kN

At level (2m)
[3] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
Load Combination =
(LOAD 1: EQ X)

At level (2m)
[3] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
Load Combination =
(LOAD 1: EQ X)
0.15 x Fck = 3.75 N/sqmm
575

Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Top 156250 5000 x 250 x 400 5000 x 250 x 400 26.667 26.667 1753.827


Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Top 562.5 4000 x 250 x 400 No Beam 33.333 - 8.839

576
Along D
Q = 0.002

Along B
Q = 0.001
Slenderness Check
K = 0.87
r = 1443.38 mm
Kluy /r = 0.96
M1 = 8028.55 kNm
M2 = 11379.65 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 25.53
K = 0.87
r = 86.6 mm
Klux /r = 16.07
M1 = 0.17 kNm
M2 = -2.59 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 34.78

577
A B C
Where

Pu = 506.76 kN
Mux = 11379.65 kNm
Muy = 0.17 kNm

= 0 deg
MRes = 11379.65 kNm
( φ ) MCap = 12880.78 kNm
= 0.883 < 1

578
δu = 0.7 mm
Hw = 8500 mm
lw = 5000 mm
Design Of Shear
[4] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
(LOAD 2: EQ Z)
Nu = 1072.29 kN
Muy = 29.34 kNm
Vuy = 9.61 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
d = 4952 mm
αc = 0.25
pt = 0.0038
= 6165.24
Vcy = 4280.61 kN

[4] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
(LOAD 2: EQ Z)
Nu = 1088.31 kN
579
Mux = 0.26 kNm
Vux = 2.74 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
b = 252 mm
αc = 0.17
pt = 0.0038
= 5229
Vcx = 3680.61 kN
Design Of Links
Main Links
Normal Links
= 750 sqmm
D/5 = 1000 mm
3xB = 900 mm
Maximum = 450 mm
mm
Spacing considered = 300

Along D
580
S1 = 75 mm
Ag = 210000 sqmm
dc2 = 640 mm
Ach = 153600 sqmm
AshD = 257.14 sqmm
Along B
S1 = 75 mm
Ag = 210000 sqmm
bc2 = 240 mm
Ach = 153600 sqmm
AshB = 96.43 sqmm

Table For Links
Required Provided
Link Dia. 10 --- 10 10 10
Spacing 300 --- 75 300 75

General Data
Wall No. : C2
Level : 2m To 5.5m
Wall B = 300 mm
Wall D = 5000 mm
581
Clear Cover = 40 mm
No Of Floors = 1
Load Data
Put = 312.75 kN
Muxt = 2246.15 kNm
Muyt = -3.35 kNm
Vuxt = -1.43 kN
Vuyt = 1656.44 kN
Pub = 396.9 kN
Muxb = 8042.14 kNm
Muyb = 1.67 kNm
Vuxb = -1.43 kN
Vuyb = 1656.44 kN

At level (2m)
Load Combination = [3] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
582
(LOAD 1: EQ X)

At level (5.5m)
[3] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
Load Combination =
(LOAD 1: EQ X)
0.15 x Fck = 3.75 N/sqmm

Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 89285.714 5000 x 250 x 400 5000 x 250 x 400 26.667 26.667 1753.827
Top 89285.714 5000 x 250 x 400 5000 x 250 x 400 26.667 26.667 1381.803


583
Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 321.429 4000 x 250 x 400 No Beam 33.333 - 8.839
Top 321.429 4000 x 250 x 400 No Beam 33.333 - 6.964


Along D
Q = 0.003

Along B
Q = 0.002
Slenderness Check
K = 1
r = 1443.38 mm
Kluy /r = 2.15
M1 = 2246.15 kNm
M2 = 8042.14 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 30.65
584
K = 1
r = 86.6 mm
Klux /r = 35.8
M1 = 1.67 kNm
M2 = -3.35 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 39.98

A B C
Where

Pu = 396.9 kN
Mux = 8042.14 kNm
Muy = 1.67 kNm

585
= 0.01 deg
MRes = 8042.15 kNm
( φ ) MCap = 12668.07 kNm
= 0.635 < 1

δu = 2.5 mm
Hw = 8500 mm
lw = 5000 mm
Design Of Shear
[3] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
(LOAD 1: EQ X)
Nu = 858.86 kN
Muy = 8077.52 kNm
Vuy = 1650.4 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
d = 4952 mm
αc = 0.25
pt = 0.0038
586
= 6165.24
Vcy = 4280.61 kN

[3] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
(LOAD 1: EQ X)
Nu = 300.7 kN
Mux = 0.73 kNm
Vux = 8.01 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
b = 252 mm
αc = 0.17
pt = 0.0038
= 5229
Vcx = 3680.61 kN
Design Of Links
Main Links
Normal Links
= 750 sqmm
587
D/5 = 1000 mm
3xB = 900 mm
Maximum = 450 mm
mm

Along D
S1 = 75 mm
Ag = 210000 sqmm
dc2 = 640 mm
Ach = 153600 sqmm
AshD = 257.14 sqmm
Along B
S1 = 75 mm
Ag = 210000 sqmm
bc2 = 240 mm
Ach = 153600 sqmm
AshB = 96.43 sqmm

Table For Links
Required Provided
Link Dia. 10 --- 10 10 10
Spacing 300 --- 75 300 75
588

General Data
Wall No. : C2
Wall B = 300 mm
Wall D = 5000 mm
Clear Cover = 40 mm
No Of Floors = 1
Load Data
Put = 76.83 kN
Muxt = 22.36 kNm
Muyt = -1.6 kNm
Vuxt = -1.49 kN
Vuyt = -754.3 kN
Pub = 148.96 kN
Muxb = -2239.95 kNm
589
Muyb = 2.86 kNm
Vuxb = -1.49 kN
Vuyb = -754.3 kN

At level (2m)
[3] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
Load Combination =
(LOAD 1: EQ X)

At level (8.5m)
[5] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
Load Combination =
(LOAD 1: EQ X)
0.15 x Fck = 3.75

Depth) Depth)
590
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 104166.667 5000 x 250 x 400 5000 x 250 x 400 26.667 26.667 1381.803
Top 104166.667 5000 x 250 x 400 5000 x 250 x 400 26.667 26.667 744.048


Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 375 4000 x 250 x 400 No Beam 33.333 - 6.964
Top 375 4000 x 250 x 400 No Beam 33.333 - 3.75


Along D
Q = 0.003

Along B
Q = 0.002
Slenderness Check
591
K = 1
r = 1443.38 mm
Kluy /r = 1.8
M1 = 22.36 kNm
M2 = -2239.95 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 34.12
K = 1
r = 86.6 mm
Klux /r = 30.02
M1 = -1.6 kNm
M2 = 2.86 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 40.71

A B C
Where
592

Pu = 148.96 kN
Mux = -2239.95 kNm
Muy = 2.86 kNm

= 0.07 deg
MRes = 2239.95 kNm
( φ ) MCap = 12187.81 kNm
= 0.184 < 1
Design Of Shear
[3] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
(LOAD 1: EQ X)
Nu = 327.18 kN
Muy = 2171.38 kNm
Vuy = 732.45 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
d = 4952 mm
593
αc = 0.25
pt = 0.0038
= 6165.24
Vcy = 4280.61 kN

[3] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
(LOAD 1: EQ X)
Nu = 76.83 kN
Mux = 1.6 kNm
Vux = 1.49 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
b = 252 mm
αc = 0.17
pt = 0.0038
= 5229
Vcx = 3680.61 kN
Design Of Links
Main Links
Normal Links
594
= 750 sqmm
D/5 = 1000 mm
3xB = 900 mm
Maximum = 450 mm

Table For Links
Required Provided
Link Dia. 10 --- --- 10 ---
Spacing 300 --- --- 300 ---

General Data
Column No. : C5
Level : 0m To 2m
Column B = 400 mm
Column D = 400 mm
Clear Cover = 40 mm
595
No Of Floors = 1
Load Data
Put = 655.18 kN
Muxt = 9.42 kNm
Muyt = -8.22 kNm
Vuxt = -7.93 kN
Vuyt = -20.12 kN
Pub = 665.89 kN
Muxb = -30.8 kNm
Muyb = 7.64 kNm
Vuxb = -7.93 kN
Vuyb = -20.12 kN

Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
596
Top 106.667 5000 x 250 x 400 5000 x 250 x 400 26.667 26.667 3.148


Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Top 106.667 4000 x 250 x 400 4000 x 250 x 400 33.333 33.333 2.511


Along D
Q = 0.002

Along B
Q = 0.001
Slenderness Check
597
K = 0.87
r = 115.47 mm
Kluy /r = 12.06
M1 = 9.42 kNm
M2 = -30.8 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 37.67
K = 0.87
r = 115.47 mm
Klux /r = 12.06
M1 = 7.64 kNm
M2 = -8.22 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 45.16

A B C
Where
598

Pu = 665.89 kN
Mux = -30.8 kNm
Muy = 7.64 kNm

= 13.94 deg
MRes = 31.73 kNm
( φ ) MCap = 181.58 kNm
= 0.175 < 1
Design Of Shear
Nu = 708.13 kN
Muy = 0.42 kNm
Vuy = -0.7508 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
deff = 350.5 mm
ρw = 0.006
599
mm = 110.18 kNm

Nu = 708.13 kN
Mux = 1.88 kNm
Vux = -3.4044 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
deff = 350.5 mm
ρw = 0.006
mm = 108.72 kNm
Design Of Links
Normal Links
= 4.75 mm
600

B/4 = 100 mm
So = 191.67 mm
Spacing = 150 mm

Along D
S1 = 75 mm
Ag = 160000 sqmm
dc2 = 340 mm
Ach = 115600 sqmm
AshD = 174.89 sqmm
Along B
S1 = 75 mm
Ag = 160000 sqmm
bc2 = 340 mm
Ach = 115600 sqmm
AshB = 174.89 sqmm

Table For Links
Required Provided
601
Link Dia. 10 --- 10 10 10
Spacing 200 --- 75 200 75

General Data
Column No. : C5
Level : 2m To 5.5m
Column B = 400 mm
Column D = 400 mm
Clear Cover = 40 mm
No Of Floors = 1
Load Data
Put = 598.34 kN
Muxt = 40.28 kNm
602
Muyt = -31.61 kNm
Vuxt = -14.92 kN
Vuyt = -20.91 kN
Pub = 617.09 kN
Muxb = -32.88 kNm
Muyb = 20.6 kNm
Vuxb = -14.92 kN
Vuyb = -20.91 kN

Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 60.952 5000 x 250 x 400 5000 x 250 x 400 26.667 26.667 3.148
Top 60.952 5000 x 250 x 400 5000 x 250 x 400 26.667 26.667 2.48


Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
603
Bottom 60.952 4000 x 250 x 400 4000 x 250 x 400 33.333 33.333 2.511
Top 60.952 4000 x 250 x 400 4000 x 250 x 400 33.333 33.333 1.978


Along D
Q = 0.003

Along B
Q = 0.002
Slenderness Check
K = 1
r = 115.47 mm
Kluy /r = 26.85
M1 = -32.88 kNm
M2 = 40.28 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 43.79
K = 1
r = 115.47 mm
Klux /r = 26.85
604
M1 = 20.6 kNm
M2 = -31.61 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 41.82

A B C
Where

Pu = 598.34 kN
Mux = 40.28 kNm
Muy = -31.61 kNm

= 38.13 deg
605
MRes = 51.2 kNm
( φ ) MCap = 156.81 kNm
= 0.327 < 1
Design Of Shear
Nu = 663.1 kN
Muy = 11 kNm
Vuy = -9.3354 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
deff = 350.5 mm
ρw = 0.006
mm = 92.57 kNm

Nu = 663.1 kN
Mux = 15.59 kNm
Vux = -12.5283 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
deff = 350.5 mm
606
ρw = 0.006
mm = 87.98 kNm
Design Of Links
Normal Links
= 4.75 mm

B/4 = 100 mm
So = 191.67 mm
Spacing = 150 mm

Along D
607
S1 = 75 mm
Ag = 160000 sqmm
dc2 = 340 mm
Ach = 115600 sqmm
AshD = 174.89 sqmm
Along B
S1 = 75 mm
Ag = 160000 sqmm
bc2 = 340 mm
Ach = 115600 sqmm
AshB = 174.89 sqmm

Table For Links
Required Provided
Link Dia. 10 --- 10 10 10
Spacing 200 --- 75 200 75

General Data
Column No. : C5
608
Column B = 400 mm
Column D = 400 mm
Clear Cover = 40 mm
No Of Floors = 1
Load Data
Put = 228.92 kN
Muxt = 59.72 kNm
Muyt = -37.38 kNm
Vuxt = -26.96 kN
Vuyt = -40.3 kN
Pub = 244.99 kN
Muxb = -61.16 kNm
Muyb = 43.49 kNm
Vuxb = -26.96 kN
Vuyb = -40.3 kN

609
Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 71.111 5000 x 250 x 400 5000 x 250 x 400 26.667 26.667 2.48
Top 71.111 5000 x 250 x 400 5000 x 250 x 400 26.667 26.667 1.335


Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 71.111 4000 x 250 x 400 4000 x 250 x 400 33.333 33.333 1.978
Top 71.111 4000 x 250 x 400 4000 x 250 x 400 33.333 33.333 1.065


Along D
Q = 0.003

Along B
Q = 0.002
610
Slenderness Check
K = 1
r = 115.47 mm
Kluy /r = 22.52
M1 = 59.72 kNm
M2 = -61.16 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 45.72
K = 1
r = 115.47 mm
Klux /r = 22.52
M1 = -37.38 kNm
M2 = 43.49 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 44.31

A B C
611
Where

Pu = 244.99 kN
Mux = -61.16 kNm
Muy = 43.49 kNm

= 35.41 deg
MRes = 75.04 kNm
( φ ) MCap = 199.23 kNm
= 0.377 < 1
Design Of Shear
Nu = 200.98 kN
Muy = 56.75 kNm
Vuy = -38.4637 kN
λ = 1
612
φ = 0.65
deff = 347.5 mm
ρw = 0.01
mm = 25.29 kNm

Critical Load Combination = [8] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +1.25 (LOAD 2: EQ Z) kN
Nu = 202.83 kN
Mux = 54.27 kNm
Vux = -38.8676 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
deff = 347.5 mm
ρw = 0.01
mm = 22.51 kNm
Design Of Links
Normal Links
613
= 6.25 mm

B/4 = 100 mm
So = 191.67 mm
Spacing = 150 mm

Along D
S1 = 75 mm
Ag = 160000 sqmm
dc2 = 340 mm
Ach = 115600 sqmm
AshD = 174.89 sqmm
Along B
S1 = 75 mm
Ag = 160000 sqmm
bc2 = 340 mm
Ach = 115600 sqmm
AshB = 174.89 sqmm
614

Table For Links
Required Provided
Link Dia. 10 --- 10 10 10
Spacing 200 --- 75 200 75

General Data
Wall No. : C6
Level : 0m To 2m
Wall B = 300 mm
Wall D = 4000 mm
Clear Cover = 40 mm
No Of Floors = 1
Load Data
Put = 359.35 kN
615
Muxt = -4705.92 kNm
Muyt = -2.25 kNm
Vuxt = -0.85 kN
Vuyt = 1022.03 kN
Pub = 397.82 kN
Muxb = -6749.43 kNm
Muyb = -3.96 kNm
Vuxb = -0.85 kN
Vuyb = 1022.03 kN

At level (2m)
[6] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
Load Combination =
(LOAD 2: EQ Z)

At level (2m)
[6] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
Load Combination =
(LOAD 2: EQ Z)
0.15 x Fck = 3.75 N/sqmm
616
Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Top 80000 4000 x 250 x 400 4000 x 250 x 400 33.333 33.333 785.714


Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Top 450 5000 x 250 x 400 No Beam 26.667 - 8.839


Along D
Q = 0.001
617

Along B
Q = 0.002
Slenderness Check
K = 0.87
r = 1154.7 mm
Kluy /r = 1.21
M1 = -4705.92 kNm
M2 = -6749.43 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 25.63
K = 0.87
r = 86.6 mm
Klux /r = 16.07
M1 = -2.25 kNm
M2 = -3.96 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 27.17

A B C
618
Where

Pu = 397.82 kN
Mux = -6749.43 kNm
Muy = -3.96 kNm

= 0.03 deg
MRes = 6749.43 kNm
( φ ) MCap = 6965.34 kNm
= 0.969 < 1

δu = 0.7 mm
Hw = 8500 mm
619
lw = 4000 mm
Design Of Shear
[4] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
(LOAD 2: EQ Z)
Nu = 779.31 kN
Muy = 4471.58 kNm
Vuy = 1009.08 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
d = 3953.5 mm
αc = 0.25
pt = 0.0032
= 4922.11
Vcy = 3096.17 kN

[4] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) +1.25
(LOAD 2: EQ Z)
Nu = 747.49 kN
Mux = 1.07 kNm
Vux = 3.59 kN
λ = 1
620
φ = 0.65
b = 253.5 mm
αc = 0.17
pt = 0.0032
= 4208.1
Vcx = 2616.17 kN
Design Of Links
Main Links
Normal Links
= 750 sqmm
D/5 = 800 mm
3xB = 900 mm
Maximum = 450 mm
mm

Along D
S1 = 75 mm
Ag = 172500 sqmm
dc2 = 515 mm
621
Ach = 123600 sqmm
AshD = 206.92 sqmm
Along B
S1 = 75 mm
Ag = 172500 sqmm
bc2 = 240 mm
Ach = 123600 sqmm
AshB = 96.43 sqmm

Table For Links
Required Provided
Link Dia. 10 --- 10 10 10
Spacing 300 --- 75 300 75

General Data
Wall No. : C6
Level : 2m To 5.5m
Wall B = 300 mm
Wall D = 4000 mm
Clear Cover = 40 mm
622
No Of Floors = 1
Load Data
Put = 237.25 kN
Muxt = -1356.37 kNm
Muyt = 2.16 kNm
Vuxt = -1.17 kN
Vuyt = 962.89 kN
Pub = 304.57 kN
Muxb = -4725.58 kNm
Muyb = -1.94 kNm
Vuxb = -1.17 kN
Vuyb = 962.89 kN

At level (2m)
[6] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
Load Combination =
(LOAD 2: EQ Z)
623

At level (5.5m)
[6] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
Load Combination =
(LOAD 2: EQ Z)
0.15 x Fck = 3.75 N/sqmm

Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 45714.286 4000 x 250 x 400 4000 x 250 x 400 33.333 33.333 785.714
Top 45714.286 4000 x 250 x 400 4000 x 250 x 400 33.333 33.333 619.048


Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
624
Bottom 257.143 5000 x 250 x 400 No Beam 26.667 - 8.839
Top 257.143 5000 x 250 x 400 No Beam 26.667 - 6.964


Along D
Q = 0.002

Along B
Q = 0.003
Slenderness Check
K = 1
r = 1154.7 mm
Kluy /r = 2.68
M1 = -1356.37 kNm
M2 = -4725.58 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 30.56
K = 1
r = 86.6 mm
Klux /r = 35.8
625
M1 = -1.94 kNm
M2 = 2.16 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 44.78

A B C
Where

Pu = 304.57 kN
Mux = -4725.58 kNm
Muy = -1.94 kNm

= 0.02 deg
626
MRes = 4725.58 kNm
( φ ) MCap = 6821.6 kNm
= 0.693 < 1

δu = 2.5 mm
Hw = 8500 mm
lw = 4000 mm
Design Of Shear
[5] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
(LOAD 1: EQ X)
Nu = 540.52 kN
Muy = 860.63 kNm
Vuy = 701.84 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
d = 3953.5 mm
αc = 0.25
pt = 0.0032
= 4922.11
Vcy = 3096.17 kN
627

[5] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
(LOAD 1: EQ X)
Nu = 479.2 kN
Mux = 2.11 kNm
Vux = 8.57 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
b = 253.5 mm
αc = 0.17
pt = 0.0032
= 4208.1
Vcx = 2616.17 kN
Design Of Links
Main Links
Normal Links
= 750 sqmm
D/5 = 800 mm
628
3xB = 900 mm
Maximum = 450 mm
mm

Along D
S1 = 75 mm
Ag = 172500 sqmm
dc2 = 515 mm
Ach = 123600 sqmm
AshD = 206.92 sqmm
Along B
S1 = 75 mm
Ag = 172500 sqmm
bc2 = 240 mm
Ach = 123600 sqmm
AshB = 96.43 sqmm

Table For Links
Required Provided
Link Dia. 10 --- 10 10 10
Spacing 300 --- 75 300 75
629
General Data
Wall No. : C6
Wall B = 300 mm
Wall D = 4000 mm
Clear Cover = 40 mm
No Of Floors = 1
Load Data
Load Combination = [6] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25 (LOAD 2: EQ Z)
Put = 173.8 kN
Muxt = 35.92 kNm
Muyt = 17.87 kNm
Vuxt = -10.45 kN
Vuyt = 496.39 kN
Pub = 294.3 kN
Muxb = -1452.86 kNm
Muyb = -13.48 kNm
Vuxb = -10.45 kN
Vuyb = 496.39 kN
630
At level (2m)
[6] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
Load Combination =
(LOAD 2: EQ Z)

At level (8.5m)
[6] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
Load Combination =
(LOAD 2: EQ Z)
0.15 x Fck = 3.75

Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 53333.333 4000 x 250 x 400 4000 x 250 x 400 33.333 33.333 619.048
Top 53333.333 4000 x 250 x 400 4000 x 250 x 400 33.333 33.333 333.333
631

Depth) Depth)
N-M mm mm N-M N-M
Bottom 300 5000 x 250 x 400 No Beam 26.667 - 6.964
Top 300 5000 x 250 x 400 No Beam 26.667 - 3.75


Along D
Q = 0.002

Along B
Q = 0.003
Slenderness Check
K = 1
632
r = 1154.7 mm
Kluy /r = 2.25
M1 = 35.92 kNm
M2 = -1452.86 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 34.3
K = 1
r = 86.6 mm
Klux /r = 30.02
M1 = -13.48 kNm
M2 = 17.87 kNm
34 - 12 x (M1/M2) = 43.05

A B C
Where

633
Pu = 294.3 kN
Mux = -1452.86 kNm
Muy = -13.48 kNm

= 0.53 deg
MRes = 1452.92 kNm
( φ ) MCap = 6804.36 kNm
= 0.214 < 1
Design Of Shear
[5] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
(LOAD 1: EQ X)
Nu = 300.73 kN
Muy = 885.16 kNm
Vuy = 303.81 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
d = 3953.5 mm
αc = 0.25
pt = 0.0032
634
= 4922.11
Vcy = 3096.17 kN

[5] : 1.42 (LOAD 3: DL) +0.5 (LOAD 4: LL) -1.25
(LOAD 1: EQ X)
Nu = 271.18 kN
Mux = 1.81 kNm
Vux = 1.95 kN
λ = 1
φ = 0.65
b = 253.5 mm
αc = 0.17
pt = 0.0032
= 4208.1
Vcx = 2616.17 kN
Design Of Links
Main Links
Normal Links
= 750 sqmm
635
D/5 = 800 mm
3xB = 900 mm
Maximum = 450 mm

Table For Links
Required Provided
Link Dia. 10 --- --- 10 ---
Spacing 300 --- --- 300 ---
636
APPENDIX B.9: COMPUTATION OF SLAB (DS W/ SMF)

Span = 2-Way

Beam
B (mm) 250 250 250 250
D (mm) 400 400 400 400
Ib (mm4) x106 1333.33 1333.33 1333.33 1333.33
Adjacent Slab
Thk (mm) - 150 150 -
Span (mm) - 4850 5000 -
637
Ib (mm4) x106 562.5 1244.53 1406.25 703.12
αf lx, αf ly 2.37 1.07 0.95 1.9
αf 1.57
Ln (mm) 3750 4750
L2 (mm) 2625 2125
Total BM (kNm) 52.62 68.34
Bottom
Top
Design Moments:
M1 = 3.037 kNm
Required (BM)
= 284.000 kN/sqmm
638
M2 = 3.729 kNm
Required (BM)
= 284.000 kN/sqmm
M3 = 3.944 kNm
Required (BM)
= 284.000 kN/sqmm
M4 = 4.844 kNm
Required (BM)
= 284.000 kN/sqmm
Required
= 284.000 kN/sqmm
Shear Check :
Along Short Span
Along Long Span

(Lx / (2 x Ly))))
639
640
APPENDIX B.10: Bearing Capacity Computation of SMRF Structure
641
642
APPENDIX B.11: Ground Improvement Using Jet Grouting
jet grout column
data
horizantal spacing Lx 1.00 m
jet grout column target strength Pult 3,884.0 kN/m2
shear strength of the jet grout
column fJG 153.33 kN/m2
unit weight of jet grout γJG 11.16 kN/m3
soil data
1088.0
natural ground allowable stress σs 0 kN/m2
bearing capacity of the ground is
expected to σsb 284.00 kN/m2
unit weight of soil γs 19.34 kN/m3
saffety factor Sf 4.00
poisson rate ν 0.41
adhesion cu 0.97
angle of internal friction φ 23.00 drc
liquefaction data
SPT_N numbers N 23 #
layer thick H 10.00 m
correction factor due to surface F 1.09
vertical stress σ v 40.46 kN/m2
effective vertical stress σ 'v 28.69 kN/m2
max. acceleration on the surface of the
ground amax 0.40 m/s2
643
644
Sr
GR1 GR1 GR2 GR2 GR3 GR4 GR5 GR7 GR1 GR1 GR1
ar 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 00 25 50
0.30 0.28 0.20 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02
0.28 0.29 0.21 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02
0.25 0.31 0.22 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03
0.23 0.33 0.25 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03
0.20 0.36 0.27 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.04
0.18 0.39 0.29 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.04
0.15 0.43 0.32 0.26 0.22 0.19 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.05
0.13 0.47 0.37 0.30 0.25 0.22 0.17 0.14 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.05
0.10 0.53 0.42 0.34 0.30 0.26 0.21 0.17 0.12 0.09 0.08 0.07
0.08 0.60 0.49 0.41 0.35 0.32 0.25 0.22 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.08
0.05 0.69 0.59 0.51 0.46 0.41 0.34 0.29 0.22 0.17 0.14 0.12
0.03 0.82 0.74 0.68 0.63 0.58 0.51 0.45 0.35 0.29 0.25 0.21
GR 10.31
ar 3.66
Sr 0.82
645
0.90
0.820
0.80
0.70 GR10
GR15
0.60 GR20
GR25
0.50
GR30
GR40
Sr
0.40
GR50
GR75
0.30
GR100
GR125
0.20
GR150
10.31
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
-0.05
ar
φ Nc Nq Nγ
0.0 5.7 1.0 0.0
2.5 6.5 1.3 0.2
5.0 7.3 1.6 0.4
7.5 8.5 2.2 0.8
10.0 9.6 2.7 1.2
12.5 11.3 3.6 1.9
15.0 12.9 4.4 2.5
17.5 15.3 5.9 3.8
20.0 17.7 7.4 5.0
23.0 22.1 10.6 7.8
25.0 25.1 12.7 9.7
27.5 31.2 17.6 14.7
30.0 37.2 22.5 19.7
32.5 47.6 31.8 30.9
35.0 58.0 41.0 42.0
37.5 77.0 61.0 71.0
40.0 96.0 81.0 100.0
42.5 134.0 127.0 199.0
45.0 172.0 173.0 298.0
47.5 260.0 294.0 725.5
50.0 348.0 415.0 1153.0
646
φ 23.0
Nc 22.1
Nq 10.6
Nγ 7.8
80.00
77.0
70.00 71.0
60.00 61.0
50.00
40.00
x
Ais le
it
T
30.00
22.14
20.00
10.00 10.58
7.82
0.00
φ
0
0
.0
.0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
0
0
1

647
Pul
SOIL DATA
σs
LIQUEFACTION DATA
ama
SOIL STRESS
284.0
820.9
σjs 9 kN/m ok
LOADINGS
838.9
Pv 6 kN Pv < Q
843.7
Q 6 kN ok
SLIP SAFETY
291.7
Vult 6 kN ok

Qwp 574.29 Qwp 574.29 Qws 269.47
648
Qws 269.47 Cp 0.025 Cs 0.029
ᶓ 0.67 D 1 L 2.05
L 2.05 qp 838.96 qp 838.96
Ap 0.7854
Ep 29478000
Se1 6.68E-05 Se2 0.017113 Se3 0.004544
JET GROUT DESIGN

649
APPENDIX B.12: Ground Improvement Using Wet Soil Mixing Using Lime
wet soil mixing column data
wet soil column target strength Pult 3,884.0 kN/m2
shear strength of the wet soil
unit weight of wet soil γJG 13.61 kN/m3
soil data
1088.0
adhesion cu 0.97
liquefaction data
650
651
ar 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 5 0
0.3
0 0.28 0.20 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02
0.2
8 0.29 0.21 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02
0.2
5 0.31 0.22 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03
0.2
3 0.33 0.25 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03
0.2
0 0.36 0.27 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.04
0.1
8 0.39 0.29 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.04
0.1
5 0.43 0.32 0.26 0.22 0.19 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.05
0.1
3 0.47 0.37 0.30 0.25 0.22 0.17 0.14 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.05
0.1 0.53 0.42 0.34 0.30 0.26 0.21 0.17 0.12 0.09 0.08 0.07
652
0
0.0
8 0.60 0.49 0.41 0.35 0.32 0.25 0.22 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.08
0.0
5 0.69 0.59 0.51 0.46 0.41 0.34 0.29 0.22 0.17 0.14 0.12
0.0
3 0.82 0.74 0.68 0.63 0.58 0.51 0.45 0.35 0.29 0.25 0.21
GR 10.31
ar 1.01
Sr 0.82
0.90
0.820
0.80
0.70 GR10
GR15
0.60 GR20
GR25
0.50
GR30
GR40
Sr
0.40
GR50
GR75
0.30
GR100
GR125
0.20
GR150
10.31
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
-0.05
ar
φ Nc Nq Nγ
0.0 5.7 1.0 0.0
2.5 6.5 1.3 0.2
5.0 7.3 1.6 0.4
7.5 8.5 2.2 0.8
10.0 9.6 2.7 1.2
12.5 11.3 3.6 1.9
15.0 12.9 4.4 2.5
17.5 15.3 5.9 3.8
20.0 17.7 7.4 5.0
23.0 22.1 10.6 7.8
25.0 25.1 12.7 9.7
653
27.5 31.2 17.6 14.7
30.0 37.2 22.5 19.7
32.5 47.6 31.8 30.9
35.0 58.0 41.0 42.0
37.5 77.0 61.0 71.0
40.0 96.0 81.0 100.0
42.5 134.0 127.0 199.0
45.0 172.0 173.0 298.0
47.5 260.0 294.0 725.5
50.0 348.0 415.0 1153.0
φ 23.0
Nc 22.1
Nq 10.6
Nγ 7.8
654
80.00
77.0
70.00 71.0
60.00 61.0
50.00
40.00
x
Ais le
it
T
30.00
22.14
20.00
10.00 10.58
7.82
0.00
φ
0
0
.0
.0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
0
0
1

Pul
655
SOIL DATA
σs
LIQUEFACTION DATA
ama
SOIL STRESS
284.0
623.3
σjs 6 kN/m Ok
LOADINGS
639.7
Pv 8 kN Pv < Q
655.9
Q 9 kN Ok
SLIP SAFETY
113.8
Vult 7 kN Ok
Qwp 403.59 Qwp 403.59 Qws 262.92
Qws 262.92 Cp 0.025 Cs 0.03
ᶓ 0.67 D 0.8 L 2.4
L 2.4 qp 639.78 qp 639.78
Ap 0.5
Ep 29478000
Se1 9.44E-05 Se2 0.019713 Se3 0.005137
656
WET SOIL DESIGN
0.8
1.0
1.0
2.4
9.0 pc
FIGURE: FINAL DESIGN OF WET SOIL MIXING PER FOOTING LAYOUT
657
APPENDIX B.13: Ground Improvement Using Vibro-Replacement
658
659
stone column diameter 1.0 m
660
pc
774.757 kP
661
APPENDIX B.14: Bearing Capacity Computation of DS w/ IMF Structure
DS w/ IMF (SPECIAL REINFORCED SHEAR WALL)

PARAMETERS UNITS
Mz 105.102 kN-m
Mx 56.109 kN-m
Q 2763.708 kN
B 2 m
ECCENTRICITY
ex 0.020302072 m
ez 0.038029343 m
qmin 687.7263174 kPa
qmax 694.1276826 kPa
FIGURE: DATA INPUT-OUTPUT FOR DS w/ IMF STRUCTURE
662
Normal Ground
 19.3356 kN/m³ Unit weight of soil (gamma)
mv 0.014 m²/MN Coefficient of volume compressibility
E 30 MN/m² Young's Modulus

Foundation
Founding


Safety Factor
Results
Square foundation
2m x 2m
Drained Analysis
694 kN/m²
Net Bearing Stress
655 kN/m²
971 kN/m²
272 kN/m²
1.4
FAIL!
Allowable
Settlement
Elastic 3 mm
663
4
1
Consolidation 7 mm
5
Total 1 mm
664
jet grout column
data
soil data
natural ground allowable stress σs 1088.00 kN/m2
adhesion cu 0.97
liquefaction data
F 1.09
max. acceleration on the surface of
the ground amax 0.40 m/s2
665
666
ar 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 5 0
0.3
0 0.28 0.20 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02
0.2
8 0.29 0.21 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02
0.2
5 0.31 0.22 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03
0.2
3 0.33 0.25 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03
0.2
0 0.36 0.27 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.04
0.1
8 0.39 0.29 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.04
0.1
5 0.43 0.32 0.26 0.22 0.19 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.05
0.1
3 0.47 0.37 0.30 0.25 0.22 0.17 0.14 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.05
0.1
0 0.53 0.42 0.34 0.30 0.26 0.21 0.17 0.12 0.09 0.08 0.07
0.0
8 0.60 0.49 0.41 0.35 0.32 0.25 0.22 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.08
0.0
5 0.69 0.59 0.51 0.46 0.41 0.34 0.29 0.22 0.17 0.14 0.12
0.0
3 0.82 0.74 0.68 0.63 0.58 0.51 0.45 0.35 0.29 0.25 0.21
GR 10.31
ar 1.75
Sr 0.82
667
0.90
0.820
0.80
0.70 GR10
GR15
0.60 GR20
GR25
0.50
GR30
GR40
Sr
0.40
GR50
GR75
0.30
GR100
GR125
0.20
GR150
10.31
0.10
0.00
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
ar
φ Nc Nq Nγ
0.0 5.7 1.0 0.0
2.5 6.5 1.3 0.2
5.0 7.3 1.6 0.4
7.5 8.5 2.2 0.8
10.0 9.6 2.7 1.2
12.5 11.3 3.6 1.9
15.0 12.9 4.4 2.5
17.5 15.3 5.9 3.8
20.0 17.7 7.4 5.0
23.0 22.1 10.6 7.8
25.0 25.1 12.7 9.7
27.5 31.2 17.6 14.7
30.0 37.2 22.5 19.7
32.5 47.6 31.8 30.9
35.0 58.0 41.0 42.0
37.5 77.0 61.0 71.0
40.0 96.0 81.0 100.0
42.5 134.0 127.0 199.0
45.0 172.0 173.0 298.0
47.5 260.0 294.0 725.5
668
50.0 348.0 415.0 1153.0
φ 23.0
Nc 22.1
Nq 10.6
Nγ 7.8
80.00
77.0
70.00 71.0
60.00 61.0
50.00
40.00
x
Ais le
it
T
30.00
22.14
20.00
10.00 10.58
7.82
0.00
φ
0
0
.0
.0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
0
0
1

669
Pul
SOIL DATA
σs
LIQUEFACTION DATA
ama
SOIL STRESS
694.0
716.6
σjs 8 kN/m ok
LOADINGS
1654.
Pv 07 kN Pv < Q
1670.
Q 42 kN ok
SLIP SAFETY
531.7
Vult 3 kN ok
670
Qwp 1209.03 Qwp 1209.03 Qws 461.39
Qws 461.39 Cp 0.025 Cs 0.029
ᶓ 0.67 D 1.35 L 2.6
L 2.6 qp 1654.07 qp 1654.07
Ap 1.43
Ep 29478000
Se1 9.36E-05 Se2 0.013536 Se3 0.003111
JET GROUT DESIGN
671
`
soil data
1088.0
adhesion cu 0.97
liquefaction data
672
673
ar 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 5 0
0.3
0 0.28 0.20 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02
0.2
8 0.29 0.21 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02
0.2
5 0.31 0.22 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03
0.2
3 0.33 0.25 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03
0.2
0 0.36 0.27 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.04
0.1
8 0.39 0.29 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.04
0.1
5 0.43 0.32 0.26 0.22 0.19 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.05
0.1
3 0.47 0.37 0.30 0.25 0.22 0.17 0.14 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.05
0.1
0 0.53 0.42 0.34 0.30 0.26 0.21 0.17 0.12 0.09 0.08 0.07
0.0
8 0.60 0.49 0.41 0.35 0.32 0.25 0.22 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.08
0.0
5 0.69 0.59 0.51 0.46 0.41 0.34 0.29 0.22 0.17 0.14 0.12
0.0
3 0.82 0.74 0.68 0.63 0.58 0.51 0.45 0.35 0.29 0.25 0.21
GR 10.31
ar 1.55
Sr 0.82
674
0.90
0.820
0.80
0.70 GR10
GR15
0.60 GR20
GR25
0.50
GR30
GR40
Sr
0.40
GR50
GR75
0.30
GR100
GR125
0.20
GR150
10.31
0.10
0.00
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
ar
φ Nc Nq Nγ
0.0 5.7 1.0 0.0
2.5 6.5 1.3 0.2
5.0 7.3 1.6 0.4
7.5 8.5 2.2 0.8
10.0 9.6 2.7 1.2
12.5 11.3 3.6 1.9
15.0 12.9 4.4 2.5
17.5 15.3 5.9 3.8
20.0 17.7 7.4 5.0
23.0 22.1 10.6 7.8
25.0 25.1 12.7 9.7
27.5 31.2 17.6 14.7
30.0 37.2 22.5 19.7
32.5 47.6 31.8 30.9
35.0 58.0 41.0 42.0
37.5 77.0 61.0 71.0
40.0 96.0 81.0 100.0
42.5 134.0 127.0 199.0
45.0 172.0 173.0 298.0
47.5 260.0 294.0 725.5
675
50.0 348.0 415.0 1153.0
φ 23.0
Nc 22.1
Nq 10.6
Nγ 7.8
80.00
77.0
70.00 71.0
60.00 61.0
50.00
40.00
x
Ais le
it
T
30.00
22.14
20.00
10.00 10.58
7.82
0.00
φ
0
0
.0
.0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
0
0
1

676
Pul
SOIL DATA
σs
LIQUEFACTION DATA
ama
SOIL STRESS
694.0
697.1
σjs 4 kN/m ok
LOADINGS
1120.
Pv 97 kN Pv < Q
1127.
Q 49 kN ok
SLIP SAFETY
215.2
Vult 6 kN ok
677
Qwp 773.21 Qwp 773.21 Qws 354.28
Qws 354.28 Cp 0.025 Cs 0.029
ᶓ 0.67 D 1.1 L 2.45
L 2.45 qp 1120.97 qp 1120.97
Ap 0.95
Ep 29478000
Se1 8.84E-05 Se2 0.015677 Se3 0.003741
WET SOIL DESIGN

1.2
1.2
2.4
4.0 pc
678
679
680
pc
774.757 kP
681
682
APPENDIX B.18: Bearing Capacity Computation of DS
DS (SPECIAL REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEAR WALL

PARAMETERS UNITS
Mz 81.741 kN-m
Mx 43.652 kN-m
Q 2268.575 kN
B 2 m
ECCENTRICITY
ex 0.019242035 m
ez 0.03603187 m
qmin 564.7844552 kPa
qmax 569.5030448 kPa
683
Normal Ground
19.335 kN/m
 6 ³ Unit weight of soil (gamma)
kN/m
c' (or cu) 20 ² For undrained soils use phi' = 0
m²/M
MN/m
Water Table -0.8 m Depth to Water Table

Foundation
Length not used for this foundation
Length 2 m type
Founding


Safety Factor
Results
Square foundation
2m x 2m
Drained Analysis
kN/m
570 ²
Net Bearing Stress
kN/m
531 ²
kN/m
971 ²
kN/m
272 ²
1.8
684
FAIL!
Allowable
Settlement
2 m
Elastic 7 m
1 m
Consolidation 4 m
4 m
Total 1 m
685
jet grout column
data
soil data
adhesion cu 0.97
liquefaction data
layer tick H 10.00 m
686
687
ar 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 5 0
0.3
0 0.28 0.20 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02
0.2
8 0.29 0.21 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02
0.2
5 0.31 0.22 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03
0.2
3 0.33 0.25 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03
0.2
0 0.36 0.27 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.04
0.1
8 0.39 0.29 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.04
0.1
5 0.43 0.32 0.26 0.22 0.19 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.05
0.1
3 0.47 0.37 0.30 0.25 0.22 0.17 0.14 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.05
0.1
0 0.53 0.42 0.34 0.30 0.26 0.21 0.17 0.12 0.09 0.08 0.07
0.0
8 0.60 0.49 0.41 0.35 0.32 0.25 0.22 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.08
0.0
5 0.69 0.59 0.51 0.46 0.41 0.34 0.29 0.22 0.17 0.14 0.12
0.0
3 0.82 0.74 0.68 0.63 0.58 0.51 0.45 0.35 0.29 0.25 0.21
GR 9.57
ar 1.01
Sr 0.82
0.90
0.820
0.80
0.70 GR10
GR15
0.60 GR20
GR25
0.50
GR30
GR40
Sr
0.40
GR50
GR75
0.30
GR100
GR125
0.20
GR150
9.57
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
-0.05
ar
688
φ Nc Nq Nγ
0.0 5.7 1.0 0.0
2.5 6.5 1.3 0.2
5.0 7.3 1.6 0.4
7.5 8.5 2.2 0.8
10.0 9.6 2.7 1.2
12.5 11.3 3.6 1.9
15.0 12.9 4.4 2.5
17.5 15.3 5.9 3.8
20.0 17.7 7.4 5.0
23.0 22.1 10.6 7.8
25.0 25.1 12.7 9.7
27.5 31.2 17.6 14.7
30.0 37.2 22.5 19.7
32.5 47.6 31.8 30.9
35.0 58.0 41.0 42.0
37.5 77.0 61.0 71.0
40.0 96.0 81.0 100.0
42.5 134.0 127.0 199.0
45.0 172.0 173.0 298.0
47.5 260.0 294.0 725.5
50.0 348.0 415.0 1153.0
φ 23.0
Nc 22.1
Nq 10.6
Nγ 7.8
689
80.00
77.0
70.00 71.0
60.00 61.0
50.00
40.00
x
Ais le
it
T
30.00
22.14
20.00
10.00 10.58
7.82
0.00
φ
0
0
.0
.0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
0
0
1

Pul
690
SOIL DATA
σs
LIQUEFACTION DATA
ama
SOIL STRESS
570.0
623.3
σjs 6 kN/m Ok
LOADINGS
635.7
Pv 0 kN Pv < Q
636.6
Q 9 kN Ok
SLIP SAFETY
186.7
Vult 3 kN Ok

Qwp 400.44 Qwp 400.44 Qws 236.25
Qws 236.25 Cp 0.025 Cs 0.03
ᶓ 0.67 D 0.8 L 2.2
L 2.2 qp 635.7 qp 635.7
Ap 0.5
Ep 29478000
691
Se1 8.34E-05 Se2 0.019685 Se3 0.005068
JET GROUT DESIGN

692
soil data
bearing capacity of the ground
is expected to σsb 570.00 kN/m2
adhesion cu 0.97
liquefaction data
693
694
ar 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 5 0
0.3
0 0.28 0.20 0.15 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02
0.2
8 0.29 0.21 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02
0.2
5 0.31 0.22 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03
0.2
3 0.33 0.25 0.19 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03
0.2
0 0.36 0.27 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.04
0.1
8 0.39 0.29 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.04
0.1
5 0.43 0.32 0.26 0.22 0.19 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.05
0.1
3 0.47 0.37 0.30 0.25 0.22 0.17 0.14 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.05
0.1
0 0.53 0.42 0.34 0.30 0.26 0.21 0.17 0.12 0.09 0.08 0.07
0.0
8 0.60 0.49 0.41 0.35 0.32 0.25 0.22 0.15 0.12 0.10 0.08
0.0
5 0.69 0.59 0.51 0.46 0.41 0.34 0.29 0.22 0.17 0.14 0.12
0.0
3 0.82 0.74 0.68 0.63 0.58 0.51 0.45 0.35 0.29 0.25 0.21
GR 10.31
ar 0.88
Sr 0.82
695
0.90
0.820
0.80
0.70 GR10
GR15
0.60 GR20
GR25
0.50
GR30
GR40
Sr
0.40
GR50
GR75
0.30
GR100
GR125
0.20
GR150
10.31
0.10
0.00
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
ar
φ Nc Nq Nγ
0.0 5.7 1.0 0.0
2.5 6.5 1.3 0.2
5.0 7.3 1.6 0.4
7.5 8.5 2.2 0.8
10.0 9.6 2.7 1.2
12.5 11.3 3.6 1.9
15.0 12.9 4.4 2.5
17.5 15.3 5.9 3.8
20.0 17.7 7.4 5.0
23.0 22.1 10.6 7.8
25.0 25.1 12.7 9.7
27.5 31.2 17.6 14.7
30.0 37.2 22.5 19.7
32.5 47.6 31.8 30.9
35.0 58.0 41.0 42.0
37.5 77.0 61.0 71.0
40.0 96.0 81.0 100.0
42.5 134.0 127.0 199.0
45.0 172.0 173.0 298.0
47.5 260.0 294.0 725.5
696
50.0 348.0 415.0 1153.0
φ 23.0
Nc 22.1
Nq 10.6
Nγ 7.8
80.00
77.0
70.00 71.0
60.00 61.0
50.00
40.00
x
Ais le
it
T
30.00
22.14
20.00
10.00 10.58
7.82
0.00
φ
0
0
.0
.0
0
0
0
0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
0
0
1

697
Pul
SOIL DATA
σs
LIQUEFACTION DATA
ama
SOIL STRESS
570.0
599.8
σjs 1 kN/m Ok
LOADINGS
745.0
Pv 8 kN Pv < Q
746.6
Q 8 kN Ok
SLIP SAFETY
128.5
Vult 3 kN Ok
698
Qwp 467.33 Qwp 467.33 Qws 279.35
Qws 279.35 Cp 0.025 Cs 0.03
ᶓ 0.67 D 0.85 L 2.5
L 2.5 qp 745.08 qp 745.08
Ap 0.57
Ep 29478000
Se1 9.74E-05 Se2 0.018448 Se3 0.004499
WET SOIL DESIGN

0.8
1.1
1.1
2.5
9.0 pc
699
700
701
pc
774.757 kP
702
703
APPENDIX B.21: Footing Calculation using Geo5
704
705
APPENDIX B.22: Trade off Estimate
The computation of Cost Estimate is by measuring the volume of the actual column and multiplying it to
the cost of the trade-off per cubic meter. As the cost of the equipment and operator are already
considered in the cost per cubic meter of the trade-off.
SMRF
Tradeoffs Area Height No. of Column No. of Footing Price Cost
Jet Grouting 0.7854 2.05 9 16 19282.074 4470550.399
Wet Soil Mixing 0.5027 2.4 9 16 12740.04519 2213367.8
Stone Column 0.7854 3.8 9 16 7786.486622 3346405.208
DS w/ IMF
Jet Grouting 1.4314 2.6 4 16 19282.074 4592700.024
Wet Soil Mixing 0.9503 2.45 4 16 12740.04519 1898356.424
Stone Column 0.7854 4 9 16 7786.486622 3522531.798
DS
Jet Grouting 0.5027 2.2 9 16 19282.074 3070773.636
Wet Soil Mixing 0.5675 2.5 9 16 12740.04519 2602791.233
Stone Column 0.7854 2.6 9 16 7786.486622 2289645.669
The method used to compute the constructability is by measuring the actual volume of the trade-off and
multiplying it to the discharge per cubic meter of the machine/equipment as the time used to get the
equipment is not considered.
SMRF
Tradeoffs Area Height No. of Column No. of Footing Duration of Jet Grout Duration (days)
Jet Grouting 0.7854 2.05 9 16 0.011574074 2.68345
Wet Soil Mixing 0.5027 2.4 9 16 0.011574074 2.0108
Stone Column 0.7854 3.8 9 16 0.011574074 4.9742
DS w/ IMF
Jet Grouting 1.4314 2.6 4 16 0.011574074 2.75677037
Wet Soil Mixing 0.9503 2.45 4 16 0.011574074 1.724618519
Stone Column 0.7854 4 9 16 0.011574074 5.236
DS
Jet Grouting 0.5027 2.2 9 16 0.011574074 1.843233333
Wet Soil Mixing 0.5675 2.5 9 16 0.011574074 2.364583333
Stone Column 0.7854 2.6 9 16 0.011574074 3.4034
706

Final Paper With Appendix

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

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

Final Paper With Appendix

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

938 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION

Figure 1.2 Street view of Marikina-Infanta Highway, Antipolo City

1.3 THE CLIENT

● The duration of construction of the project ends at around 18 months

● The life span of the structure can last 50 years

1.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

1.4.1 General Objectives

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

1.5.1 Scope of the Project

The following are the scope covered by the design project:

1.5.2 Limitation of the Project

The following are the limitation of the design project:

● The interior design of the project is not included

Figure 1.3 Perspective view of the building

1.7 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

2.1.1 Demography of the Project

Table 2.2 Total Population of Antipolo City

Figure 2.2 Population and Growth of Barangay Bagong Nayon

Figure 2.3 Topographic view of Barangay Bagong Nayon

2.2 Soil Profile

2.2.1 Geotechnical Investigation

: Make : Std. Sprague and Henwood Type

CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION FOR FINE-GRANED SOILS

Classification SPT, N Undrained Shear Strength, su (kPa)

Very soft <2 <12

Classification SPT, N Undrained Shear Strength, su (kPa)

Very loose <4 0-15

Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity at Foundation level

Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity, kPa (Basis: BH-1)h

Depth, Base of Footing Bearing

1.5 227 Clay

2.3 DATA INPUTS

Fire Truck Garage 2 units

Toilet and Bathroom 2 units

Storage Room 2 units

Conference Room 1 unit

Clinic and Dormitory 1 unit

Training Room 1 unit

Table 2.3 Room Classification with Corresponding Area

Floor Function Area Unit

Ground Floor Fire Truck Garage 1 and 2 150 m2

Ground Floor Toilet and Bathroom 5 m2

Ground Floor Storage and Facility 15 m2

Ground Floor Lobby 20 m2

Second Floor Training Area 60 m2

Second Floor Conference Room 20 m2

Second Floor Administration’s Office 20 m2

Second Floor Toilet and Bathroom 20 m2

Table 2.4 Room Classification with Corresponding Area

2.2.2 Architectural Plans

Figure 2.7 Rear Elevation

Figure 2.9 Right Side Elevation

Figure 2.10 Minimum Design Dead Loads in NSCP 2015

Windows, Glass, Frame and Sash 0.38

Concrete Masonry Unit

CHB Wall, 100mm, Full Grout (Plastered both 2.98

Waterproofing Membrane: Bituminous smooth 0.07

Table 2.5 Other Minimum Design Loads