Chapter 4.

Constraints, Standards and Trade-Offs

Design Constraints

There are multiple possible constraints that can be presented in designing a structure. The following
are the constraints that were considered in this project:

1. Safety. The design focuses with the analytical comparison of moment and axial load capacity of
the considered section calculated under design methodologies with the aid of design standards.
Whichever sections having a higher capacity will be adopted. The design also focuses on the
investigation using three design methods; one is using the ultimate strength design (USD) for
Reinforced Concrete Design and Prestressed Concrete Design, and the other one is the load
resistance factor design (LRFD) and allowable stress design (ASD) for Structural Steel Design.

2. Economic (Cost) In the Philippines, the total cost of construction is usually taken as the most
important constraint consideration. This is of course without prejudice relative to safety. The
design technology and selection of construction materials are normally based on this constraint.
The designers are constrained to choose the appropriate design technology to be used in order
to come up with the most economical construction cost. Consequently, with savings in mind,
between choosing from the two design technologies, the designers also consider the most cost-
effective design method in lieu of material utilization by considering the volume of the structural
section as the basis of determining its economic cost with the aid of unit cost reference from
actual estimation.

3. Ease of Construction. The constructability of the design structure will be compared using the
quantity of materials. The lesser the quantity of materials gathered in both designed
methodologies used will serve as the easiest member to construct.

DESIGN STANDARDS

This design project conforms to the following codes and standards and references:

The American Concrete Institute (ACI) Code

The American Standards for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

The Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP) Steel Handbook

National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010 (NSCP 2010)
The aforementioned standards are already adopted in the National Structural Code of the Philippines which
is the main reference for parameters and controls of the design project.

Eleven-Storey Commercial/Residential with Roof Deck Arriesgado, Fampo, Masinda, Maulion 135
TRADE OFFS

The next constraint to the factor of safety is the Safety will be given the rank of five (5). As
designers, it is expected that every design should pass the parameters concerning safety and capacity of
the section. Therefore, it is assumed that all the design must be adequate enough to carry the imposed
loads. It is also assumed that all the design is all qualified to the requirement stated in the National Building
Code of the Philippines (NSCP 2010).

On all the Raw Designer Ranking Tables that will be presented on this chapter, Economic (cost)
consideration will be given the highest importance ranking of four (4) since the cost is the varying
constraint among others. It is the collective cost composed primarily of the materials, labor, and
management, thus, making the decisions on the last two constraints dependent to it.

Finally, the last constraint which is the Ease of construction will be given the rank of three (3). For
it will only show the capability of the designer to manage the easiest way to solve the given constraints
requirements.

TRADE OFFS ANALYZATION CHART

This design project deals with the final design that was adapted. This deals with the comparison of
the three chosen design in Reinforced Concrete Design, Prestressed Concrete Design and Structural Steel
Design. Then choosing the final best design that address the constraints mentioned above.
 Fig. 5.0 Trade-Off Analysis Procedure for Design Technologies and its Methods

Eleven-Storey Commercial/Residential with Roof Deck Arriesgado, Fampo, Masinda, Maulion 136
 STAGE I

Fig. 5.1 Reinforced Concrete Design and Prestressed Concrete Design Development

The first stage of the design analysis deals with the ultimate strength design of Reinforced Concrete and
Prestressed Concrete Design then its comparison in terms of Cost, Factor of Safety, and Strength
Capacity. Then choosing the best design that will address the constraints mentioned above.

STAGE II
 Fig. 5.2 Structural Steel Design Development

The second stage deals with the Allowable Strength Design and Load Resistance Factor Design and its
comparison in terms of Cost, Factor of Safety and Strength Capacity. Then choosing the best design that will

Eleven-Storey Commercial/Residential with Roof Deck Arriesgado, Fampo, Masinda, Maulion 137
address the constraints mentioned above.

STAGE III

RCD SSD

FINAL DESIGN

Fig. 5.3 Final Design

The stage part deals with the final design that was adapted. This deals with the comparison of the two
chosen design in Reinforced Concrete Design and Structural Steel Design. Then choosing the final best
design that address the constraints mentioned above.

The Reinforced Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Technology Trade-Offs

Stage 1: Reinforced Concrete Design- Ultimate Stress Design (USD) vs. Prestressed Concrete
Design (PCD)

TRADE OFF 1: Economic Cost between Reinforced Concrete Design- Ultimate Stress Design (USD)

vs. Prestressed Concrete Design (PCD)

The critical beam is designed based on the Reinforced Concrete Design - Ultimate Stress Design. The
material specifications used are lifted from the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP
2010) and specific sections where data are lifted are listed in Appendix A. The specifications are as
follows: fc=27.5 MPa, fy=415 MPa, and 25 mm bar.
The same critical beam is designed using Prestressed Concrete Design (PCD). NSCP is also used as
guide in the design and with the following specifications: fc=27.5 MPa, fy=415 MPa, and A bar = 98.7 mm2.

The results of the design based on the above mentioned methodologies such as volume of concrete in m3,
number of required bars, cost of steel reinforcement, material cost, labor cost and the total cost are
computed and is tabulated in Table 4-1.

Eleven-Storey Commercial/Residential with Roof Deck Arriesgado, Fampo, Masinda, Maulion 138
 Table. 5.8 Beam details based on the RCD USD and PCD

Critical Beam ( B-35) UNIT RCD PCD

Section mm x mm 600 x 500 550 x 300

Length meters 8 8

Volume of Concrete m3 2.4 1.32

No. of Bars / Tendons pcs 16 7

Weight of Bars / Tendons Kg 493.18 303.8

Cost of Steel Reinforcement Php 16, 274.94 18, 228.00

Material Cost Php 32, 355.42 27, 527.28

Labor Cost Php 9, 706.626 8, 258.184

Combined Cost Php 42, 062.046 35, 785.464

Table 5.8 shows the resulting section of the critical beam. The beam is designed using two methods; ne is
reinforced concrete design (RCD) - ultimate stress design (USD) and the other one using the prestressed
concrete design (PCD). The design yields a section of 600x500 mm with 16 pcs of 25 mm diameter
reinforcing bars using RCD-USD while using PCD the design yields a section of 550x300 mm with 7 pcs of
12 mm diameter seven-wire strands (As = 98.7 m2) of tendons.
The table also shows the cost estimate that includes labor and material cost. Using RCD-USD, it is
estimated that the beam will cost around Php. 42, 062.046 while in PCD design the beam will cost around
Php. 35, 785.464.

Comparing the two design methodology, it can therefore be concluded that the PCD is more economical
compared to RCD.

TRADE OFF 2: Safety - Capacity of the Designed Section between Reinforced Concrete
Design-Ultimate Stress Design (USD) vs. Prestressed Concrete Design (PCD)

Table. 5.9 Capacity of the Designed Section comparison of RCD and PCD design method

RCD PCD
Critical Beam UNIT
Specified Capacity Specified Capacity

Eleven-Storey Commercial/Residential with Roof Deck Arriesgado, Fampo, Masinda, Maulion 139
 Moment kN-m 824.268 1152.720 824.268 1034.235

Safety 1.4 1.25

Table 5.9 shows the capacity of the critical beam. Between Reinforced Concrete Design and the other one
using the Pre-Stressed Design.

The design yields a moment capacity of 1152.72 kN-m in RCD; while in PCD the design yields a moment
capacity of 1034.235 kN-m.

Comparing the capacity and factor of the two design methodology, it can therefore be concluded that the
RCD has a higher capacity compared to PCD, as well as the Factor of Safety.

TRADE OFF 3: Ease of Construction between Reinforced Concrete Design (RCD) and Prestress
Concrete Design (PCD)

Table. 6.0 Summary Ease of Construction between RCD and PCD

Critical Beam UNIT RCD PCD

Section mm x mm 600 x 500 550 x 300

Length meters 8 8

Labor Cost Php 9, 237.76 19, 198.08

Man hour Man - Hour 102.60 213.22

Table 6.0 shows the resulting section of the critical beam. The beam is designed using two methods; one is
reinforced concrete design (RCD) - ultimate stress design (USD) and the other one using the prestressed
concrete design (PCD). The design yields a section of 600x500 mm with 8 m length both RCD-USD and
PCD.

The table also shows the ease of construction that includes labor cost and number days as prescribed as
man-hour. Using RCD-USD it is estimated that the beam have a labor cost around Php. 9, 237.76 and a
total of 102.60 of man-hour while in PCD design the beam have a labor cost around Php. 19, 198.08 and
has 213.22 number of days of man-hour.

Comparing the two design methodology, it can therefore be concluded that the RCD-USD is more
constructible compared to PCD.

Eleven-Storey Commercial/Residential with Roof Deck Arriesgado, Fampo, Masinda, Maulion 140
The Structural Steel Technology Trade-Offs

Stage 2: Structural Steel Design- Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) vs. Allowable Strength
Design (ASD)

TRADE OFF 1: Economic Cost between Allowable Stress Design (ASD) and Load
Resistance Factored Design (LRFD)

The critical beam is designed based on the Allowable Stress Design. The material specifications used are
lifted from the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) and specific sections where data are
lifted are listed in Appendix A. The specifications are as follows: fc=27.5 MPa, fy=415 MPa.

The same critical beam is designed using Load Resistance Factored Design (LRFD). NSCP is also used as
guide in the design and with the following specifications: fc=27.5 MPa, fy=415 MPa.

The results of the design based on the above mentioned methodologies such as steel sections, cost of web
steel, material cost, labor cost and the total cost are computed and is tabulated in Table 4-5.

Table. 6.1 Beam details based on the ASD and LRFD design method

Critical Beam UNIT ASD LRFD

Section W40 x 167 W40 x 149

Length meters 8 8

Weight kg 1988.18 1773.89

Material Cost PhP 99, 409.00 88, 694.50

 Labor Cost PhP 29, 822.70 26, 608.35

Combined Cost PhP 129, 231.70 115, 302.85

Table 6.1 shows the resulting section of the critical beam. The beam is designed using two methods; one is
allowable stress design (ASD) and the other one using the load resistance factored design (LRFD). The
design yields a section of W40 x 167 with 1988.18 kg using ASD while using LRFD the design yields a
section of W40 x 149 with 1773.89 kg.

The table also shows the cost estimate that includes labor and material cost. Using ASD it is estimated that
the beam will cost around Php. 129, 231.70 while in LRFD design the beam will cost around PhP. 115,
302.85.

Eleven-Storey Commercial/Residential with Roof Deck Arriesgado, Fampo, Masinda, Maulion 141
Comparing the two design methodology, it can therefore be concluded that the LRFD is more economical
compared to ASD.

TRADE OFF 2: Safety - Capacity of the Designed Section between Allowable Stress Design (ASD)
and Load Resistance Factored Design (LRFD)

Table. 6.2 Capacity of the Designed Section comparison of ASD and LRFD design method

ASD LRFD
Critical Beam UNIT
Specified Capacity Specified Capacity

Moment kN-m 424.912 628.59 602.493 932.41

Safety 1.47 1.55

Table 6.2 shows the capacity of the critical beam. The beam is investigated using two methods; one is
allowable stress design (ASD) and the other one using the load resistance factored design (LRFD). The
specified moment are compared with the capacity of steel section.

The design yields a moment capacity of 628.59 kN-m using ASD; while using LRFD the design yields a
moment capacity of 932.41 kN-m.

Comparing the capacity and specified moment and safety; of the two design methodology, it can therefore
be concluded that the LRFD has a higher capacity compared to ASD as well as the Factor of Safety.

TRADE OFF 3: Ease of Construction between Allowable Stress Design (ASD) and Load Resistance
Factor Design.

Table. 6.3 Summary Ease of Construction between ASD and LRFD

 Critical Beam UNIT ASD LRFD

Section W40 x 167 W40 x 149

Length meters 8 8

Weight Kg 1988.18 1773.89

Labor Cost Php 29, 822.70 26, 608.35

Man - hour Man Hour 331.90 295.53

Eleven-Storey Commercial/Residential with Roof Deck Arriesgado, Fampo, Masinda, Maulion 142
 Table 6.3 shows the resulting section of the critical beam. The beam is designed using two methods; one is
allowable stress design (ASD) and the other one using the load resistance factored design (LRFD). The
design yields a section of W40 x 167 with 8 m length and 1988.18 kg weight for ASD and a section of
W140 x 148 with 8 m length and 1773.89 kg weight for LRFD.

The table also shows the ease of construction that includes labor cost and number days as prescribed as
man-hour. Using ASD design it is estimated that the beam have a labor cost around Php. 29, 822.70 and a
total of 331.90 of man-hour while in LRFD design the beam have a labor cost around PhP. 26, 608.35 and
has 295.53 number of man-hour.

Comparing the two design methodology, it can therefore be concluded that the LRFD is more constructible
compared to ASD.

Based on the constraints mentioned above, the various decision criteria were derived. These are listed in
table 4-7. Using the model on trade-off strategies in engineering design presented by Otto and Antonsson
(1991), the importance of each criterion (on a scale of 0 to 5, 5 with the highest importance) was assigned
and each design technologys ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale from -5 to 5, 5 with the highest ability
to satisfy the criterion) was likewise tabulated.

Table. 6.4 Raw Designer Rankings (Critical Beam)

RCD SSD PCD

Criterions
Criteria
Importance
Value Rank Value Rank Value Rank

1. Safety 5 1.4 4 1.55 5 1.25 3

2. Economic 4 42, 062.046 4 115, 302.85 -2 35, 785.464 5

3. Ease of Construction 3 102.60 5 295.53 -2 213.22 0

Over - all Rank 51 11 35

*Reference: Otto, K. N. and Antonsson, E. K., (1991). Trade-off strategies in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design, volume 3, number 2, pages 87-

104. Retrieved from http://www.design.caltech.edu/Research/Publications/90e.pdf on March 11, 2013

Table 6.4 shows the Raw Designer Rankings on the Reinforced Concrete Design (RCD), Structural Steel
Design (SSD) and Prestress Concrete Design (PCD). The ability to satisfy the criterion (Economic, Safety,
and Ease of Construction) has boundary conditions from -5 to 5. It shows the designers ranking on each
criterion with respect to the two design methodology. The cost of RCD is more economical than the SSD
and PCD thus it is rank as 5, while the SSD rank as -2 and PCD rank as 0. The SSD yields a higher
percentage of safety compared to RCD and PCD, thus it is rank 5 while the RCD is rank as 4 and PCD
rank as 3, In ease of construction, RCD has a lower number of man-hours compared to SSD and PCD,
thus RCD is rank 5 while SSD is rank -2 and PCD rank as 0.

Eleven-Storey Commercial/Residential with Roof Deck Arriesgado, Fampo, Masinda, Maulion 143
Using the standard weighted sum matrix analysis of Alger and Hays (as cited by Otto and Antonsson,
1991), the RCD produces an overall rank of 55, SSD produces an overall rank of 11 and PCD produces an
overall rank of 15. This technique guided the designer to finally consider Reinforced Concrete
Technology using Ultimate Strength Design.

The Structural Steel Technology and Reinforced Concrete Design Trade-Offs

Stage 1: Structural Steel Design- Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) vs. Allowable Strength
Design (ASD) vs. Reinforced Concrete Design (USD)

TRADE OFF 1: Economic Cost between Allowable Stress Design (ASD) and Load Resistance
Factored Design (LRFD) and Reinforced Concrete Design (USD)

The critical columnr is designed based on the Allowable Stress Design. The material specifications used
are lifted from the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) and specific sections where data are
lifted are listed in Appendix A. The specifications are as follows: fc=27.5MPa, fy=415 MPa.

The same critical column is designed using Load Resistance Factored Design (LRFD). NSCP is also used
as guide in the design and with the following specifications: fc=27.5 MPa, fy=415 MPa.

The results of the design based on the above mentioned methodologies such as steel sections, material
cost, labor cost and the total cost are computed and are tabulated in Table 4-1.

Table. 6.5 Column details based on the ASD and LRFD design method

Critical Column UNIT ASD LRFD RCD (USD)

Section W14 x 500 W14 x 455 1000 x 1000

Length Meters 3.2 3.2 3.2

 Volume of Concrete cu. meters 3.2

No. of Bars pcs 40

Weight kg 2381.06 2166.77 493.18

Material Cost PhP 119, 053.00 108, 338.50 35, 631.74

Labor Cost PhP 35, 715.90 32, 501.55 10, 689.52

Combined Cost PhP 154, 768.90 140, 840.05 46, 331.26

Table 6.5 shows the resulting section of the critical column. The column is designed using three methods;
one is allowable stress design (ASD), the other one using the load resistance factored design (LRFD) and
using Reinforced Concrete Design (RCD) Ultimate Stress Design (USD). The design yields a section of

Eleven-Storey Commercial/Residential with Roof Deck Arriesgado, Fampo, Masinda, Maulion 144
W14 x 500 with 2381.06 kg using ASD while using LRFD the design yields a section of W14 x 455 with

2166.77 kg, and a 1000 x 1000 mm with 40 pcs of bars (493.18 kg) yields using RCD-USD.

The table also shows the cost estimate that includes labor and material cost. Using ASD it is estimated that
the column will cost around Php. 154, 768.90 while in LRFD the beam will cost around Php. 140, 840.05
and Php. 46, 331.26 is estimated using RCD-USD.

Comparing the two design methodology, it can therefore be concluded that the RCD-USD is more
economical compared to ASD and LRFD.

TRADE OFF 2: Safety - Capacity of the Designed Section between Allowable Stress Design (ASD),
Load Resistance Factored Design (LRFD) and Reinforced Concrete Design (RCD)

Table. 6.6 Capacity of the Designed Section comparison of ASD, LRFD and RCD design method

LRFD ASD RCD

Critical Column
Specified Capacity Specified Capacity Specified Capacity

Load kN 10565.280 25949.944 7679.456 17240.140 12365.366 30430

Safety 2.47 2.25 2.46

Table 6.6 shows the capacity of the critical column. The column is investigated using three methods; one is
allowable stress design (ASD), the other one using the load resistance factored design (LRFD) and
reinforce concrete design (RCD). The specified load is compared with the computed capacity.

The design yields a load capacity of 17240.140 kN using ASD; while using LRFD the design yields a load
capacity of 24949.944 kN, and lastly RCD with the design yield load of 30430 kN.
Comparing the capacity, specified and safety; load; of the three design methodology, it can therefore be
concluded that the RCD has a higher capacity compared to ASD and LRFD.

Eleven-Storey Commercial/Residential with Roof Deck Arriesgado, Fampo, Masinda, Maulion 145
TRADE OFF 3: Ease of Construction between Ultimate Strength Design (USD) and Working Stress
Design (WSD)

Table 6.7 Summary Ease of Construction between Allowable Stress Design and Load Resistance Factored
Design

Critical Column UNIT ASD LRFD RCD

Section W40 x 500 W40 x 455 1000 x 1000

Length meters 3.2 3.2 3.2

Weight kg 2381.06 2166.77 493.18

Labor Cost PhP 35, 715.90 32, 501.55 10, 689.52

Man hour Man Hour 396.69 360.99 118.73

Table 6.7 shows the resulting section of the critical column. The column is designed using three methods;
one is allowable stress design (ASD), the other one using the load resistance factored design (LRFD) and
using Reinforced Concrete Design (RCD) Ultimate Stress Design (USD). The design yields a section of
W14 x 500 with 2381.06 kg using ASD while using LRFD the design yields a section of W14 x 455 with
2166.77 kg, and a 1000 x 1000 mm with 40 pcs of bars (493.18 kg) yields using RCD-USD.

The table also shows the ease of construction that includes labor cost and number days as prescribed as
man-hour. Using ASD it is estimated that the column have a labor cost around Php. 35, 715.90 and a total
of 396.69 of man-hour while in LRFD design the column have a labor cost around Php. 32, 501.55 and has

360.99 number of man-hour, and for RCD-USD it is estimated to cost around Php. 10, 689.52 with 118.73
man-hour.

Comparing the three design methodology, it can therefore be concluded that the RCD-USD is more
constructible compared to ASD and LRFD.
Based on the constraints mentioned above, the various decision criteria were derived. These are listed in
table 4-11. Using the model on trade-off strategies in engineering design presented by Otto and Antonsson
(1991), the importance of each criterion (on a scale of 0 to 5, 5 with the highest importance) was assigned
and each design technologys ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale from -5 to 5, 5 with the highest ability
to satisfy the criterion) was likewise tabulated. Refer to appendix B on the computation for ability to satisfy
the criterion.

Eleven-Storey Commercial/Residential with Roof Deck Arriesgado, Fampo, Masinda, Maulion 146
 Table 6.8 Raw Designer Rankings (Critical Column)

Reinforced Concrete Structural Steel

Criterions Design Design
Criteria
Importance

Value Rank Value Rank

1. Safety 5 2.47 5 2.46 4

2. Economic 4 140840.05 -2 46331.26 5

3. Ease of Construction 3 360.99 -2 118.73 5

Over - all Rank 11 55

*Reference: Otto, K. N. and Antonsson, E. K., (1991). Trade-off strategies in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design, volume 3, number 2, pages 87-

104. Retrieved from http://www.design.caltech.edu/Research/Publications/90e.pdf on March 11, 2013

Table 6.8 Shows the Raw Designer Rankings on the Reinforced Concrete Design (RCD) and Structural Steel Design
(SSD). The ability to satisfy the criterion (Economic, Safety,and Ease of Construction) has boundary conditions from -
5 to 5. It shows the designers ranking on each criterion with respect to the two design methodology. The cost of RCD
is more economical than the SSD thus it is rank as 5, while the SSD
Eleven-Storey Commercial/Residential with Roof Deck Arriesgado, Fampo, Masinda, Maulion 147
 Breakdown for Tradeoffs

REINFORCED CONCRETE DESIGN AND PRESTRESSED CONCRETE DESIGN (BEAM)

Tradeoff 1

Volume of Concrete = Base x Height x Length

RCD = 0.6 m x 0.5 m x 8 m = 2.4 m3

PCD = 0.55 m x 0.3 m x 8 m = 1.32 m3

Weight of Bars = Unit Mass x Length x No. of Pieces

RCD = 3.853 kg/m x 8 m x 16 = 493.18 kg

PCD = 5.425 kg/m x 8 m x 7 = 303.8 kg

Cost of Steel Reinforcement = Unit Cost x Weight of Bars

RCD = Php. 33.0 / kg x 493.19 kg = Php. 16, 274.94

PCD = Php. 60.0 / kg x 303.8 kg = Php. 18, 228.00

Ready Mix Concrete = Unit Cost x Volume of Concrete

Unit Cost: Php. 3, 750.00 / m3 Ready Mix Concrete 4000 PSI @ 28 Days

RCD = Php. 3, 750.00 x 2.4 m3 = Php. 9, 000.00

PCD = Php. 3, 750.00 x 1.32 m3 = Php. 4, 950.00

Forms = Unit Ratio x Volume x Unit Cost

Unit Cost: Php. 20.00 / bd. ft

*Note: 110 140 bd. ft. of form per m3 of concrete

RCD = 110 bd. ft. / m3 x 2.4 m3 x Php. 20.00 = Php. 5, 280.00

PCD = 110 bd. ft. / m3 x 1.32 m3 x Php. 20.00 = Php. 2, 904.00

Eleven-Storey Commercial/Residential with Roof Deck Arriesgado, Fampo, Masinda, Maulion 148
Nails

Unit Cost: Php 90.00 / kg

RCD = 1 kg / 100 bd. ft. x 110 bd. ft. / m3 x 2.4 m3 x Php. 90.00 = Php. 237. 60

PCD = 1 kg / 100 bd. ft. x 110 bd. ft. / m3 x 2.4 m3 x Php. 90.00 = Php. 237. 60

Stirrups Cost = (Length / Spacing) x Perimeter of Beam x Cost per weight

RCD = 40pcs x 2.2m x 0.888kg/m x 20/kg = Php. 1, 562.88

PCD = 40pcs x 1.7m x 0.888kg/m x 20/kg = Php 1, 207.68

Material Cost = Cost of Steel Reinforcement + Ready Mix Concrete + Forms + Nails

RCD = Php. 16, 274.94 + 9, 000.00 + 5, 280.00 + 237.60 + 1, 562.88

= Php. 32, 355.42

PCD = Php. 18, 228.00 + 4, 950.00 + 2, 904.00 + 237.60 + 1, 207.68

= Php. 27, 527.28

Labor Cost = 30% of Material Cost

RCD = 0.30 x Php. 32, 355.42 = Php. 9, 706.626

PCD = 0.30 x Php. 27, 527.28 = Php. 8, 258.184

Combined Cost = Material Cost + Labor Cost

RCD = Php. 32, 355.42 + 9, 706.626 = Php. 42, 062.046

PCD = Php. 27, 527.28 + 8, 258.184 = Php. 35, 785.464

Tradeoff 3

Man-Hour = (Labor Cost / Labor Rate per Day) x Working Hours

RCD = (Php. 9, 237 .76 / Php. 720.28) * 8 Hours = 102.60 Man Hour

PCD = (Php. 19, 198.08 / Php. 720.28) * 8 Hours = 213.22 Man Hour
Eleven-Storey Commercial/Residential with Roof Deck Arriesgado, Fampo, Masinda, Maulion 149
STRUCTURAL STEEL DESIGN (BEAM)

Tradeoff 1

Material Cost = Weight x Unit Cost

Unit Cost: Php. 50.00 / kg

ASD = 1988.18 kg x Php. 50.00 / kg = Php. 99, 409.00

LRFD = 1773.89 kg x Php. 50.00 / kg = Php. 88, 694.50

Labor Cost = 30% of Material Cost

ASD = .30 x Php. 99, 409.00 = Php. 29, 822.70

LRFD = .30 x Php. 88, 694.50 = Php. 26, 608.35

Combined Cost = Material Cost + Labor Cost

ASD = Php. 99, 409.00 + 29, 822.70 = Php. 129, 231.70

LRFD = Php. 88, 694.50 + 26, 608.35 = Php. 115, 302.85

Tradeoff 3

Man-Hour = (Labor Cost / Labor Rate per Day) x Working Hours

ASD = (Php. 29, 822.70 / Php. 720.28) * 8 Hours = 331.90 Man Hour

LRFD = (Php. 26, 608.35 / Php. 720.28) * 8 Hours = 295.53 Man Hour
Eleven-Storey Commercial/Residential with Roof Deck Arriesgado, Fampo, Masinda, Maulion 150
REINFORCED CONCRETE DESIGN AND PRESTRESSED CONCRETE DESIGN

(COLUMN) Tradeoff 1

Volume of Concrete = Base x Height x Length

RCD = 1.0 m x 1.0 m x 3.2 m = 3.2 m3

Weight of Bars = Unit Mass x Length x No. of Pieces

RCD = 3.853 kg/m x 3.2 m x 40 = 493.18 kg

Cost of Steel Reinforcement = Unit Cost x Weight of Bars

RCD = Php. 33.0 / kg x 493.18 kg = Php. 16, 274.94

Ready Mix Concrete = Unit Cost x Volume of Concrete

Unit Cost: Php. 3, 750.00 / m3 Ready Mix Concrete 4000 PSI @ 28 Days

RCD = Php. 3, 750.00 x 3.2 m3 = Php. 12, 000.00

Forms = Unit Ratio x Volume x Unit Cost

Unit Cost: Php. 20.00 / bd. ft

*Note: 110 140 bd. ft. of form per m3 of concrete

RCD = 110 bd. ft. / m3 x 3.2 m3 x Php. 20.00 = Php. 7, 040.00

Nails

Unit Cost: Php 90.00 / kg

RCD = 1 kg / 100 bd. ft. x 110 bd. ft. / m3 x 3.2 m3 x Php. 90.00 = Php. 316.80

Eleven-Storey Commercial/Residential with Roof Deck Arriesgado, Fampo, Masinda, Maulion 151
 = Cost of Steel Reinforcement + Ready Mix Concrete + Forms + Nails
Material Cost

RCD
= Php. 16, 274.94 + 12, 000.00 + 7, 040.00 + 316.80 = Php. 35, 631.74
 Material Cost = Weight x Unit Cost

ASD = 2381.06 kg x Php. 50.00 = Php. 119, 053.00

LRFD = 2166.77 kg x Php. 50.00 = Php. 108, 338.50

Labor Cost = 30% of Material Cost

RCD = 0.30 x Php. 35, 631.74 = Php. 10, 689.52

ASD = 0.30 x Php. 119, 053.00 = Php. 35, 715.90

LRFD = 0.30 x Php. 108, 338.50 = Php. 32, 501.55

Combined Cost = Material Cost + Labor Cost

RCD = Php. 35, 641.74 + 10, 689.52 = Php. 46, 331.26

ASD = Php. 119, 053.00 + 35, 715.90 = Php. 154, 768.90

LRFD = Php. 108, 338.50 + 32, 501.55 = Php. 140, 840.05

Tradeoff 3

Man-Hour = (Labor Cost / Labor Rate per Day) x Working Hours

RCD = (Php. 10, 689.52 / Php. 720.28) * 8 Hours = 118.73 Man Hour

ASD = (Php. 35, 715.90 / Php. 720.28) * 8 Hours = 396.69 Man Hour

LRFD = (Php. 32, 501.55 / Php. 720.28) * 8 Hours = 360.99 Man Hour