CHAPTER 1:

INTRODUCTION
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The project is a 5,625 m2 indoor theme park to be built upon a one-hectare land in Cuta,
Batangas. The design project includes the structural design of an indoor amusement park,
specifically its reinforced concrete members. The members are designed in accordance to several
codes, primarily the National Structural Code of the Philippines.

An amusement park is a commercially operated park having various devices for

entertainment and usually booths for the sale of food and drink. (Merriam-webster.com)
Amusement parks, having been remarkable factors in promoting tourism and boosting
land value, provide demand for the civil engineering practice.

The structures in this project are analyzed as moment frames comprising mostly
of reinforced concrete members. The frames are analyzed through manual (Microsoft
Excel) and software (ETABS) calculations.

The sustainability of the structure through the use of natural lighting will also be
analyzed in further studies.

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 2

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 CHAPTER 2:
RELATED DESIGN

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 3

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 CHAPTER 2: RELATED DESIGN

PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE

BUILDING

AUTHOR/S:
Dr. Rehan A. Khan

ABSTRACT/SUMMARY:

The basic concept of Performance Based Seismic Design is to provide engineers with the
capability to design buildings that have a predictable and reliable performance in earthquakes.
Performance based Seismic design is an elastic design methodology done on the probable
performance of the building under input ground motions. The present study is an effort to
understand Performance Based Design Approach. In this, a five storey symmetrical building is
designed using STAAD.Pro and the performance based seismic design is performed by N2
method using a simple computer-based pushover analysis technique using SAP2000, a product
of Computers and Structures International. The procedure compares the capacity of the structure
(in the form of a pushover curve) of a MDOF system with the demands on the structure (in the
form of inelastic response spectra of a single degree freedom system). The method is formulated
in acceleration displacement format. The graphical intersection of the two curves approximates
the performance point of the structure. The proposed method is illustrated by finding the seismic
performance point for a five storey reinforced concrete framed building located in Zone-IV,
symmetrical in plan (designed according to IS 456:2002) subjected to three different PGA levels
as input ground motion. An extensive parametric study is conducted to investigate the effect of
many important parameters on the Performance point. The parameters include effect of input
ground motion on performance point, changing percentage of reinforcement in columns, size of
columns, beams individually.The results of analysis are compared in terms of base shear and
storey displacements.

NEHRP, 2009, “Research Required to Support Full Implementation of Performance-

Based Seismic Design”, prepared by The Building Seismic.

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 4

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
REFERENCES:

1. NEHRP, 2009, “Research Required to Support Full Implementation of Performance-

Based Seismic Design”, prepared by The Building Seismic

2. ICC, 2001, “International Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities”,

International Code Council, Whittier, California

3. ATC, 1997a, “NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings”, FEMA
273 Report, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Building Seismic Safety
Council, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF REINFORCED CONCRETE MOMENT RESISTING

FRAMES

AUTHOR/S:

R. Sadjadi, M. R. Kianoush, S. Talebi

ABSTRACT/SUMMARY:

Moment resisting frames (MRF) are typically classified as “ductile”, “nominally ductile”,
and “GLD” (Gravity Load Designed). The seismic performance of these structures can be
evaluated in terms of its lateral load resistance, distribution of interstory drift, and the sequence
of yielding of the members. In this study a typical 5-story frame is designed as (a) ductile, (b)
nominally ductile, (c) GLD, and (d) retrofitted GLD. This study presents an analytical approach
for seismic assessment of RC frames using nonlinear time history analysis and push-over
analysis. The analytical models are validated against available experimental results and used in a
study to evaluate the seismic behavior of these 5-story frames. It is concluded that both the
ductile and the nominally ductile frames behaved very well under the considered earthquake,

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 5

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
while the seismic performance of the GLD structure was not satisfactory. After the damaged
GLD frame was retrofitted the seismic performance was improved.

REFERENCES:

1. NEHRP, 2009, “Research Required to Support Full Implementation of Performance-

Based Seismic Design”, prepared by The Building Seismic

2. ICC, 2001, “International Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities”,

International Code Council, Whittier, California

3. ATC, 1997a, “NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings”, FEMA
273 Report, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Building Seismic Safety
Council, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.

DUCTILE CONNECTIONS IN PRECAST CONCRETE MOMENT RESISTING

FRAMES

AUTHOR/S:
O. Ertas, S. Ozden, T. Ozturan

ABSTRACT/SUMMARY:

Precast concrete provides high-quality structural elements, construction efficiency, and

savings in time and overall cost of investment. In order to validate these benefits, and to expand
the market for precast concrete structures in seismic regions, the performance and capacity May–
June 2006 of specially designed connections were evaluated. Many precast concrete structures
were heavily damaged by the recent earthquakes (Adana-Ceyhan in 1997 and Koaceli and Duzce

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 6

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
in 1999) that hit the industrial heartland of Turkey, and the poor performance of their
connections may be the primary reason for the widespread damage. As a result, a two-phase
research program on the performance of ductile beam–column connections of precast concrete
was developed in the Bogazici and Kocaeli Universities after the 1999 earthquakes. This
program was funded by the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK)
(Project No: ICTAG I589) and the Turkish Precast Concrete Association. In Phase I of the
research program, cast-in-place, composite, and bolted connections were investigated and
compared with a monolithic connection counterpart. The Phase I connection types were chosen
from the most widely used types according to construction practices in North America, Europe,
and Japan. In Phase II, post-tensioned hybrid connections with different mild steel reinforcement
ratios were examined. Only Phase I test results and proposed recommendations are presented in
this paper. Performance comparisons are made according to strength predictions, stiffness
degradation, and energy dissipation of the connections. All test specimens in this research
program are detailed according to the governing building codes or the available literature

REFERENCES:

1. Restrepo, J. I., R. Park, and A. H. Buchanan. 1995. Tests on Connections of

Earthquake Resisting Precast Reinforced Concrete Perimeter Frames of Buildings. PCI
Journal, V. 40, No. 4 (July–August): pp. 44–61.

2. Alcocer, S. M., R. Carranza, D. Perez-Navaratte, and R. Martinez. 2002. Seismic Tests

of Beam to Column Connections in a Precast Concrete Frame. PCI Journal, V. 47, No. 3
(May–June): pp. 70–89.

3. Rodriguez, M. E., and J. J. Blandon. 2005. Tests on Half-Scale Two-Story Seismic-

Resisting Precast Concrete Building. PCI Journal, V. 50, No. 1 (January–February): pp.
94–114. 4. Blandon, J. J., and M. E. Rodriguez. 2005. Behavior of Connections and Floor
Diaphragms in Seismic-Resisting Precast Concrete Buildings. PCI Journal, V. 50, No. 2
(March–April): pp. 56–75.

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 7

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 4. Blandon, J. J., and M. E. Rodriguez. 2005. Behavior of Connections and Floor
Diaphragms in Seismic-Resisting Precast Concrete Buildings. PCI Journal, V. 50, No. 2
(March–April): pp. 56–75.

5. Soubra, K. S., J. K. Wight, and A. E. Naaman. 1993. Cyclic Response of Fibrous Cast-
in-Place Connections in Precast BeamColumn Subassemblages. ACI Structural Journal,
V. 90, No. 3 (May–June): pp. 316–323.

6. Vasconez, R.M., A. E. Naaman, and J. K. Wight. 1998. Behavior of HPFRC

Connections for Precast Concrete Frames Under Reversed Cyclic Loading. PCI Journal,
V. 43, No. 6 (November–December): pp. 58–71.

7. Bhatt, P., and D. W. Kirk. 1985. Test on an Improved Beam Column Connection for
Precast Concrete. ACI Journal, V. 82, No. 6 (November–December): pp. 834–843.

8. Seckin, M., and H. C. Fu. 1990. Beam-Column Connections in Precast Reinforced

Concrete Construction. ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 3 (May–June): pp. 252–261.

9. Ochs, J. E., and M. R. Ehsani. 1993. Moment Resistant Connections in Precast

Concrete Frames for Seismic Regions. PCI Journal, V. 38, No. 5 (September–October):
pp. 64–75.

10. Stanton, J. F., N. M. Hawkins, and T. R. Hicks. 1991. PRESSS Project 1.3:
Connection Classification and Evaluation. PCI Journal, V. 36, No. 5 (September–
October): pp. 62–71.

11. Yee, A.A. 1991. Design Considerations for Precast Prestressed Concrete Building
Structures in Seismic Areas. PCI Journal, V. 36, No. 3 (May–June): pp. 40–55.

12. Mast, R. F. 1992. A Precast Concrete Frame System for Seismic Zone Four. PCI
Journal, V. 37, No. 1 (January–February): pp. 50–64.

13. French, C. W., O. Amu, and C. Tarzikhan. 1989. Connections between Precast
Elements—Failure Outside Connection Region. Journal of Structural Engineering, V.
115, No. 2: pp. 316–340.

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 8

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 14. French, C. W., M. Hafner, and V. Jayashankar. 1989. Connection between Precast
Elements—Failure within Connection Region. Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 115,
No. 12: pp. 3171–3192.

15. Priestley, M. J. N. 1996. The PRESSS Program—Current Status and Proposed Plans
for Phase III. PCI Journal, V. 41, No. 2 (March–April): pp. 22–40.

16. Ghosh, S. K., S. D. Nakaki, and K. Krishan. 1997. Precast Structures in Region of
High Seismicity: 1997 UBC Design Provision. PCI Journal, V. 42, No. 6 (November–
December): pp. 76–93.

17. International Conferences of Building Officials (ICBO). 1997. Uniform Building

Code: V. 2, Structural Engineering Design Provisions. Whittier, CA: ICBO.

18. Hawkins, N. M., and S. K. Ghosh. 2000. Proposed Revisions to 1997 NEHRP
Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for Precast Concrete Structures Part
2—Seismic-ForceResisting Systems. PCI Journal, V. 45, No. 5 (September–October): pp.
34–44.

19. Nakaki, S.D., R. E. Englekirk, and J. L. Plaehn. 1994. Ductile Connectors for a Precast
Concrete Frame. PCI Journal, V. 39, No. 5 (September–October): pp. 46–59.

20. American Concrete Institute (ACI) Innovation Task Group 1 and Collaborators and ACI
Committee 374. 2001. T1.1-01/ T1.1R-01: Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on
Structural Testing. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI.

21. Turkish Civil Engineering Chamber. 1998. Specifications for Structures to be Built in
Disaster Areas. Turkey: Turkish Civil Engineering Chamber.

22. Chopra, A. K. 1995. Dynamic of Structures—Theory and Applications to Earthquake

Engineering. International Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 9

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMES DESIGNED FOR DIFFERENT
LEVELS OF DUCTILITY

AUTHOR/S:
S. Talebi, M. R. Kianoush

ABSTRACT/SUMMARY:

This paper describes the seismic performance of a reinforced concrete frame structure
designed and detailed according to the current Canadian practice. On this basis, designers have
two options for the seismic design of reinforced concrete frames. The first option is to design a
ductile frame, which involves special design and detailing provisions to ensure ductile behavior.
The second option is to design a nominally ductile frame. This option involves designing for
twice the seismic lateral load as that for ductile frames, but without taking all the special
provisions for good detailing in the design of the frame members. By allowing such a choice, the
Code implies that either type of frames will provide equivalent seismic performance under the
design level earthquake. In this study, a typical 5- story frame building is designed for both
conditions. Analytical investigation in the form of pushover analysis is performed to evaluate
and to compare the performance of each frame. The results in terms of story displacement,
ductility, drift, sequence of cracking and yielding and the damage potential are presented. It is
concluded that the performance of the ductile frame is much better than that of the nominally
ductile frame.

REFERENCES:

1. CAN3.A23.3.1994. “Design of Concrete Structures” Canadian Standards Association,

Rexdale, Ontario, Canada, 1994.

2. National Building Code of Canada, (NBCC), Associate Committee on the National

Building Code, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 1995.

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 10

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 3. SAP2000 ,“Linear and Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analysis and Design of
Structures”, Ver. 8.0, Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California, USA, 2002.

4. Reinhorm, A.M., Kunnath, S.K., and Valles, R.E., “IDARC2D, A Computer Program
for Inelastic Damage Analysis of Buildings”, Version 4, Department of Civil
Engineering, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1996.

5. Filiatrault A., Lachapelle E., and Lamontagne P., “Seismic Performance of Ductile and
Nominally Ductile Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames”, Analytical Study,
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Volume 25, Issue 2, Ottawa, Canada., 1998.

6. Park, Y. J. and Ang, A.H.S., “Mechanistic seismic damage in reinforced concrete”,

Journal of Structural Engineering, Volume 111, No. 4, 1985

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF BEAM COLUMN JOINTS IN REINFORCED CONCRETE

MOMENT RESISTING FRAMES

AUTHOR/S:
C. A. Goulet, C. B. Haselton, J. Mitrani-Reiser, J. L. Beck, G. G. Deierlein, K. A. Porter,
J. P. Stewart

ABSTRACT/SUMMARY:

The behaviour and expected performance of flexural members of reinforced concrete

moment resisting frames can be realised only when the joints are strong enough to sustain the
severe forces set up under lateral loads. Hence, the design and detailing of joints is critical,
especially in seismic conditions. A comprehensive discussion of the issues and recommended
procedures to be considered in the design of joints has been presented. The design aspects
covered by ACI 318M02, NZS 3101:1995 and EN 1998-1:2003 international codes of prac 33

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 11

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 • The criteria for minimum flexural strength of columns required to avoid soft storey
mechanism is very stringent as per NZS 3101:1995 while the other two codes recommendations
are comparable.

• The shear reinforcement required to ensure truss mechanism and to confine the core
concrete varies considerably between the three codes. ACI 318M-02 requires transverse
reinforcement in proportion to the strength of the concrete where as NZS 3101:1998 sets limits
based on the level of nominal shear stress that is experienced by the joint core. EN 1998-1:2003
provides shear reinforcement to confine the joint and to bring down the maximum tensile stress
to design value. Also, the code gives a bound on the estimate of shear reinforcement to maintain
the integrity of joint after diagonal cracking. The design shear reinforcement is decided based on
the above two criteria.

• NZS and EN code require 60% of horizontal shear reinforcement as vertical shear
reinforcement. All three codes accept the intermediate column bars as a part of vertical shear
reinforcement.

• The detailing requirements ensure adequate confinement of core concrete and preclude
the buckling of longitudinal bar. The horizontal and vertical transverse reinforcements are to be
distributed within the joint to resist the diagonal shear cracking and to contain the transverse
tensile strain in core concrete. NZS and EN codes emphasize on provision of 135o hook on both
ends of the cross-ties; whereas ACI code accepts 135o at one end and 90o hook at the other end
and insists on proper placement of stirrups to provide effective confinement.

REFERENCES:

1. ACI 352R-02 (2002), “Recommendations for design of beam-column-joints in

monolithic reinforced concrete structures,” American Concrete Institute, ACI-ASCE,
Committee 352, Detroit
2. ENV 1998-1:2003, “General Rules-Specific Rules for Various Materials and Elements,”
3. Eurocode 8: Design Provisions for Earthquake Resistant Structures.

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 12

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 4. French, C.W. and Moehle, J. P. (1991), “Effect of floor slab on behavior of slab-beam-
column connections,” Design of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance, SP-123,
American
5. Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 225-258.
6. Ichinose, T. (1991), “Interaction between bond at beam bars and shear reinforcement in
RC interior joints”, Design of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance, SP-123,
American
7. Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 379-400.
8. IS:456-2000, “Indian Standard code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete,”
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
9. IS:13920-1993, “Indian Standard code of practice for ductile detailing of concrete
structures subjected to seismic forces, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 1993.
10. Leon, R.T. (1990), “Shear Strength and Hysteretic Behavior of Beam-Column Joints,”
ACI Structural Journal, 87(1), 3-11.
11. NZS 3101 (1995), “Concrete structures standard, Part 1 and 2, Code and commentary on
the design of concrete structures,” New Zealand Standard, New Zealand.
12. Park, R. and Hopkins, D. C. (1989), “United States/New Zealand/Japan/China
Collaborative Research Project on the Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Beam-
Column-Salb Joints,”
13. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 22(2), 122-
126.
14. Paulay, T., Park, R. and Priestley, M. J. N. (1978), “Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column
Joints under Seismic Actions,” Journal of ACI, 75(11), 585-593
15. Paulay, T. and Priestley, M. J. N. (1992), Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and
Masonry Buildings, John Wiley and Sons
16. Shahrooz, B. M. and Moehle, J. P. (1990), “Seismic response and design of setback
buildings,”
17. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 116 (5), 1423-1429
18. SP:34(S&T)- 1987, “Handbook on concrete reinforcement detailing,”, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 13

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 19. Subramanian, N. and Prakash Rao, D. S. (2003), “Seismic Design of Joints in RC
Structures,”
20. The Indian Concrete Journal, 77(2), 883-892.
21. Uma, S. R., “Seismic Behaviour of Beam Column Joints in Moment Resisting Reinforced
22. Concrete Frame Structures,” submitted to Indian Concrete Journal, October 2004
23. Wakabayashi, M., Minami, K., Nishimura, Y. and Imanaka, N. (1983), “Anchorage of
bent bar in reinforced concrete exterior joints,” Transactions of the Japan Concrete
Institute, 5, 317-324

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 14

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 CHAPTER 3:
PROJECT
BACKGROUND

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 15

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 CHAPTER 3: PROJECT BACKGROUND

The Project

The project is a 5,625 m2 indoor theme park to be built upon a one-hectare land in Cuta,
Batangas. The project will include commercial buildings and attraction space along with a larger
structure which will contain them. The project will analyze and design the reinforced concrete
beams in the structures.

Fig. 3.1 Map of Cuta, Batangas

The indoor theme park is part of a land development project in Cuta, Batangas and will
be constructed to compliment the neighborhood and promote the land value. It has a maximum
capacity of 500 people at a given time.

The project includes (1) a 75 m x 75 m open-space building, (2) three commercial

buildings, and (3) a 3,125 m2 attraction space. Each structure has footings and other structural
members independent of the others.

The designers will use manual (Microsoft Excel) and software-based (ETABS)
calculations for the design of the structure.

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 16

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
  Open-space Dome

The open-space dome is expected to hold a conservative capacity of 300 people. It

contains the attractions and the three following substructures. It has a floor area of
about 5,625 m2.

 Restaurant

The restaurant is expected to hold a seating capacity of 80-100 people at once. It

contains a kitchen, a counter, a pair of comfort rooms and a dining space in its first
floor. The second floor is a roof deck which contains a larger dining space.

 Arcade and Horror House

The arcade and horror house building is a multi-purpose building whose first floor
serves as a horror house while the second serves as an arcade. Combined, they are
expected to hold about 50 people at once. They have a combined floor area of 700m2.

 Office and Maintenance Building

The office and maintenance building is a multi-purpose structure. Its first floor
contains a pair of comfort rooms and a 10 m x 10 m maintenance room. The second
floor contains a 5 m x 10 m accounting office, a 5 m x 10 m security office and a 10
m x 10 m clinic.

Sustainability

Natural Lighting

The main dome will use insulated glass panels for its walls which will allow
natural light to pass through them. This will illuminate the building during day hours and
reduce the building’s dependence to electric lighting.

The reduced consumption in electricity does not only benefit the owner
financially but also the environment by reducing the carbon footprint induced by electric
generation.

Project Objectives

 To exercise and exhibit knowledge of civil engineering

 To design a structure in accordance to the constraints set by the National Structural
Code of the Philippines
 To apply knowledge of modern tools and computer software such as Microsoft Excel,
AutoCAD and ETABS

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 17

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
The Client

The project is funded by Star Parks Corporation, a subsidiary of Elizalde Holdings,

owner of Star City in Pasay.

Project Scope and Delimitations

Scope

The following structural elements are designed:

 Reinforced concrete slabs

 Reinforced concrete beams
 Reinforced concrete columns

The following loads are taken into account:

 Dead loads
 Live loads

The following software are used for the plans and designs:

 Autodesk AutoCAD
 Microsoft Excel
 ETABS

Delimitations

The following structural elements will not be designed:

 Foundations
 Steel structures
 Prestressed concrete members
 Veneers and pre-fabricated elements such as glass and masonry
 Definitive elements such as signs and park rides

The following loads are not yet taken into account:

 Wind load
 Earthquake load
OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 18
*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
  Flood loads
 Rain loads
 Soil pressure loads

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 19

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 CHAPTER 4:
DESIGN INPUTS

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 20

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 CHAPTER 4: DESIGN INPUTS

Architectural Plans

The architectural plans consist of perspectives, floor plans and elevations in necessary
planes.

Each of the four structures, (1) open-space dome, (2) restaurant, (3) indoor attraction
[horror house], and (4) arcade, will have its own set of architectural plans.

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 21

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 OPEN-SPACE DOME

PERSPECTIVES

Fig. 4.1 Open-space Dome Exterior Perspective

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 22

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.2 Open-space Dome Interior Perspective 1

Fig. 4.3 Open-space Dome Interior Perspective 2

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 23
*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 FLOOR PLANS

Fig. 4.4 Open-space Dome First Floor Plan

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 24

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.5 Open-space Dome Roof Plan

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 25

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 ELEVATION PLANS

Fig. 4.6 Open-space Dome Front Elevation

Fig. 4.7 Open-space Dome Section X Elevation

Fig. 4.8 Open-space Dome Back Elevation

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 26

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.9 Open-space Dome Right Elevation

Fig. 4.10 Open-space Dome Section Y Elevation

Fig. 4.11 Open-space Dome Left Elevation

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 27

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 ARCADE

PERSPECTIVE

Fig. 4.12 Arcade Perspective

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 28

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 FLOOR PLANS

Fig. 4.13 Arcade First Floor Plan

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 29

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.14 Arcade Second Floor Plan

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 30

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.15 Arcade Roof Plan

ELEVATION PLANS

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 31

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.16 Arcade Front Elevation

Fig. 4.17 Arcade Back Elevation

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 32

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.18 Left Elevation

Fig. 4.19 Right Elevation

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 33

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 OFFICE AND MAINTENANCE

PERSPECTIVE

Fig. 4.20 Office and Maintenance Perspective

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 34

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 FLOOR PLANS

Fig. 4.21 Office and Maintenance First Floor Plan

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 35

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.22 Office and Maintenance Second Floor Plan

Fig. 4.23 Office and Maintenance Roof Plan

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 36

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.24 Office and Maintenance Front Elevation

Fig. 4.25 Office and Maintenance Back Elevation

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 37

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.26 Office and Maintenance Left Elevation

Fig. 4.27 Office and Maintenance Right Elevation

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 38
*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 RESTAURANT

PERSPECTIVE

Fig. 4.28 Restaurant Perspective

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 39

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 FLOOR PLANS

Fig. 4.29 Restaurant First Floor Plan

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 40

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.30 Restaurant Roof Deck Plan

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 41

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 ELEVATION PLANS

Fig. 4.31 Restaurant Front Elevation

Fig. 4.32 Restaurant Back Elevation

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 42

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.33 Restaurant Left Elevation

Fig. 4.34 Restaurant Right Elevation

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 43

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
Structural Plans

The structural plans consist of floor plans and elevations in necessary planes.

Each of the four structures, (1) open-space dome, (2) arcade, (3) restaurant, and (4) office
and maintenance, will have its own set of structural plans.

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 44

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 OPEN-SPACE DOME

Fig. 4.35 Open-space Dome Foundation Plan

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 45

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.36 Open-space Dome Second Floor Structural Plan

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 46

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.37 Open-space Dome Third Floor Structural Plan

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 47

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.38 Open-space Dome Roof Structural Plan

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 48

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.39 Open-space Dome Section 1 Structural Elevation

Fig. 4.40 Open-space Dome Section 2 Structural Elevation

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 49

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.41 Open-space Dome Section A Structural Elevation

Fig. 4.42 Open-space Dome Section B Structural Elevation

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 50

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 ARCADE

Fig. 4.43 Arcade Foundation Plan

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 51

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.44 Arcade Second Floor Structural Plan

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 52

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.45 Arcade Roof Structural Plan

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 53

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.46 Arcade Section 1 Structural Elevation

Fig. 4.47 Arcade Section 2 Structural Elevation

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 54

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.48 Arcade Section 3 Structural Elevation

Fig. 4.49 Arcade Section A Structural Elevation

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 55

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.50 Arcade Section B Structural Elevation

Fig. 4.51 Arcade Section C Structural Elevation

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 56

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 OFFICE AND MAINTENANCE

Fig. 4.52 Office and Maintenance Foundation Plan

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 57

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4. 53 Office and Maintenance Second Floor Structural Plan

Fig. 4.54 Office and Maintenance Second Floor Roof Plan

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 58

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.55 Office and Maintenance Section A Structural Elevation

Fig. 4.56 Office and Maintenance Section B Structural Elevation

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 59

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.57 Office and Maintenance Section 1 Structural Elevation

Fig. 4.58 Office and Maintenance Section 2 Structural Plan

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 60

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.59 Office and Maintenance Section 3 Structural Plan

Fig. 4.60 Office and Maintenance Section 4 Structural Plan

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 61

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.61 Office and Maintenance Section 5 Structural Plan

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 62

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 RESTAURANT

Fig. 4.62 Restaurant Foundation Structural Plan

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 63

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.63 Restaurant Second Floor Structural Plan

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 64

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.64 Restaurant Section A Structural Elevation

Fig. 4.65 Restaurant Section B Structural Elevation

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 65

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 4.66 Restaurant Section 1 Structural Elevation

Fig. 4.67 Restaurant Section 2 Structural Elevation

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 66

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 PRELIMINARY MEMBER SIZES
Table 4.1 SCHEDULE OF COLUMNS

STRUCTURE COLUMN HEIGHT (mm) B (mm) H (mm)

1-C1 7000 600 600

1-C2 7000 600 600
1-C3 7000 500 500
1-C4 7000 650 650
2-C1 7000 600 600
OPEN-SPACE 2-C2 7000 600 600
DOME 2-C3 7000 500 500
2-C4 7000 650 650
3-C1 7000 600 600
3-C2 7000 600 600
3-C3 7000 500 500
3-C4 7000 650 650
C-1 4000 300 300
C-2 4000 300 300
C-3 4000 300 300
C-4 4000 300 300
C-5 4000 300 300
C-6 4000 300 300
ARCADE
2C-1 4000 300 300
2C-2 4000 300 300
2C-3 4000 300 300
2C-4 4000 300 300
2C-5 4000 300 300
2C-6 4000 300 300
C-1 7000 300 300
RESTAURANT C-2 7000 300 300
C-3 7000 300 300
C-1 4000 300 300
C-2 4000 300 300
C-3 4000 300 300
OFFICE
C-4 4000 300 300
AND
2C-1 3000 300 300
MAINTENANCE
2C-2 3000 300 300
2C-3 3000 300 300
2C-4 3000 300 300

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 67

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Table 4.2 SCHEDULE OF BEAMS
LENGTH
STRUCTURE BEAM BEAM TYPE B (mm) H (mm)
(mm)
2PC1 One-end cont. 25,000 500 800
2PC2 Both-end cont. 25,000 500 800
2PC3 One-end cont. 25,000 500 800
2PC4 Both-end cont. 25,000 500 800
2PC5 One-end cont. 25,000 500 800
2PC6 Both-end cont. 25,000 500 800
2PC7 One-end cont. 25,000 500 800
2PC8 Both-end cont. 25,000 500 800
3PC1 One-end cont. 25,000 500 800
3PC2 Both-end cont. 25,000 500 800
3PC3 One-end cont. 25,000 500 800
3PC4 Both-end cont. 25,000 500 800
DOME
3PC5 One-end cont. 25,000 500 800
3PC6 Both-end cont. 25,000 500 800
3PC7 One-end cont. 25,000 500 800
3PC8 Both-end cont. 25,000 500 800
4PC1 One-end cont. 25,000 500 800
4PC2 Both-end cont. 25,000 500 800
4PC3 One-end cont. 25,000 500 800
4PC4 Both-end cont. 25,000 500 800
4PC5 One-end cont. 25,000 500 800
4PC6 Both-end cont. 25,000 500 800
4PC7 One-end cont. 25,000 500 800
4PC8 Both-end cont. 25,000 500 800
2B-1 One-end cont. 5,000 250 350
2B-2 Both-end cont. 5,000 250 350
2B-3 One-end cont. 5,000 250 350
ARCADE 2B-4 Both-end cont. 5,000 250 350
RB-1 One-end cont. 5,000 250 350
RB-2 Both-end cont. 5,000 250 350
RB-3 One-end cont. 5,000 250 350
RB-4 Both-end cont. 5,000 250 350
B1 One-end cont. 5,000 200 350
RESTAURANT
B2 One-end cont. 5,000 200 350
2B-1 One-end cont. 5,000 200 350
2B-2 Both-end cont. 5,000 200 350
2B-3 Both-end cont. 5,000 200 350
2B-4 One-end cont. 5,000 200 350
OFFICE 2B-5 One-end cont. 5,000 200 350
AND 2B-6 Both-end cont. 5,000 200 350
MAINTENANCE 2B-7 Both-end cont. 5,000 200 350
2B-8 One-end cont. 5,000 200 350
2B-9 One-end cont. 5,000 200 350
2B-10 One-end cont. 5,000 200 350
2B-11 One-end cont. 5,000 200 350
2B-12 One-end cont. 5,000 200 350

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 68

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 2B-13 One-end cont. 5,000 200 350
RB-1 One-end cont. 5,000 200 350
RB-2 Both-end cont. 5,000 200 350
RB-3 Both-end cont. 5,000 200 350
RB-4 One-end cont. 5,000 200 350
RB-5 One-end cont. 5,000 200 350
RB-6 Both-end cont. 5,000 200 350
RB-7 Both-end cont. 5,000 200 350
RB-8 One-end cont. 5,000 200 350
RB-9 One-end cont. 5,000 200 350
RB-10 One-end cont. 5,000 200 350
RB-11 One-end cont. 5,000 200 350
RB-12 One-end cont. 5,000 200 350
RB-13 One-end cont. 5,000 200 350

Table 4.3 SCHEDULE OF SLABS

STRUCTURE SLAB THICKNESS (mm) TYPE
2S-1 120 TWO WAY
S-2 120 TWO WAY
ARCADE
RS-1 120 TWO WAY
RS-2 120 TWO WAY
RESTAURANT RS-1 120 TWO WAY
OFFICE 2S-1 120 TWO WAY
AND 2S-2 120 TWO WAY
MAINTENANCE RS-1 120 TWO WAY

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 69

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 CHAPTER 5:
PRELIMINARY
DESIGN

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 70

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 CHAPTER 5: PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Introductory Paragraph

The preliminary design will focus on determining the adequate dimensions and
reinforcements of the columns, beams and slabs in the structure.

All structures are analyzed as moment-resisting frames consisting of beams and

columns. The moment distribution method, with consideration of member stiffnesses, is
used in calculating the member reactions.

Design Criteria

The designs of the structural members are obtained by satisfying the following
member reactions along with the design codes:

 Critical Moment
 Critical Shear
 Critical Axial Load

Design Codes, Standards and Specifications

The preliminary design of the structures conforms to the standards set by The
National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015 (NSCP 2015).

Material Specifications

 Concrete Compressive Strength, f’c: 28 MPa

 Steel Yield Strength, fy: 420 MPa

Computer Software and Programs

The following computer software are used in the necessary calculations:

(1) ETABS
(2) Microsoft Excel

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 71

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT FLOWCHART

For Reinforced Concrete Design:

START

Ultimate Strength Design Working Stress Design

(USD) (WSD)

Determine most
economical design

FINAL DESIGN

END

Fig. 5.1 Design Development Flowchart

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 72

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
Design Loads

All loads, as much as possible, are obtained from the minimum design loads set
by the NSCP 2015.

Dead Load

All dead loads are as stated in Section 204 of NSCP 2015.

Dead loads are determined by using the architectural dimensions and unit weights
stated in Table 204-1 and Table 204-2 of NSCP 2015.

Table 5.1 DEAD LOADS CONSIDERED

Material Quantity Unit
Concrete (Beams) 24.00 kN/m3
Concrete (Columns) 24.00 kN/m3
Concrete (Slabs) 23.60 kN/m3
Masonry, Concrete (Normal Weight) 21.20 kN/m3
Deck Metal 18 gage 0.14 kPa
Floor Fill – stone concrete (25 mm) 0.60 kPa
Floor Finish – ceramic or quarry tile (20
1.10 kPa
mm) on 25 mm mortar bed
Glass 25.10 kN/m3
Insulation 0.04 kPa
Metal Frame 0.38 kPa
Plaster 0.48 kPa
Suspended Metal Lath with Gypsum Plaster 0.48 kPa
*Utilities 0.50 kPa
*Utilities 1.50 kPa
*Utilities 0.10 kPa
Wall Finish 1.10 kPa
Wall Finish with Mullions 1.10 kPa
*approximated

Live Load

All live loads for occupied floor areas are as stated in Section 205 of NSCP 2015.

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 73

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Table 5.2 LIVE LOADS CONSIDERED
Floor Usage Floor Pressure
Dining Rooms and Restaurants 4.80 kPa
Roof Decks 4.80 kPa
Computer Use 4.80 kPa
Wards and Room 1.90 kPa

Wind Load

Wind load is determined in accordance to the procedures set by Section 207 of

NSCP 2015. Only the open-space dome is affected by wind load.

Factors Considered for Wind Load

 Basic Wind Speed, V = 240 km/h

 Occupancy Category III
 Exposure Category B
 Computed Windward Pressure = 13,355.55 Pa
 Computer Leeward Pressure = 6544.22 Pa

Earthquake Load

Lateral seismic loads are determined in accordance to the standards set by Section
208 of NSCP 2015. Computations for loads due to earthquake are discussed in the
succeeding section (see Seismic Analysis).

LOAD COMBINATIONS

Basic Load Combinations from Section 203.3.1 of NSCP 2015:

1.4(D+F) (203-1)
1.2(D+F+T) + 1.6(L+H) + 0.5(Lr or R) (203-2)
1.2D + 1.6(Lr or R) + (f1L or 0.5W) (203-3)
1.2D + 1.0W + f1L + 0.5(Lr or R) (203-4)
1.2D + 1.0E + f1L (203-5)
0.9D + 1.0W + 1.6H (203-6)
0.9D + 1.0E + 1.6H (203-7)

Where:
f1 = 1.0 for floors in places of public assembly, for live loads in excess of 4.8 kPa, and for
garage live load, or
= 0.5 for other live loads

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 74

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
Basic Load Combination where Allowable Stress or Allowable Strength Design is used
from Section 203.4.1 of NSCP 2015:

D+F (203-8)
D+H+F+L+T (203-9)
D + H + F + (Lr or R) (203-10)
D + H + F + 0.75[L + T(Lr or R) ] (203-11)
𝐸
D + H + F + (0.6𝑊 𝑜𝑟 1.4) (203-12)
No increase in allowable stresses shall be used with these load combinations
except as specifically permitted by Section 203.4.2.

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 75

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
SEISMIC ANALYSIS

SEISMIC ANALYSIS FLOWCHART

Fig. 5.2 Seismic Analysis Flowchart

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 76

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Cuta, Batangas has an approximate distance of 21.3 km from the nearest active fault.

TABLE 5.3 SEISMIC PARAMETERS

Seismic Importance Factor, I 1.25
Soil Profile Type Sc (very Dense Soil and Soft Rock)

Seismic Zone Zone 4 (Z = 0.40)

Sismic Source Type A

Near Source Factor, Nv 1.0
Near Source Factor, Na 1.0
Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.40 Na
Seismic Coefficient, Cv 0.56 Nv
Response Modification Factor, R (Moment
Resisting Frame Systems – Ordinary 8.5
Reinforced Concrete Moment Frames)

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 77

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
Modern Tool Analysis

DESIGN BASE SHEAR FOR OPEN-SPACE DOME

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 78

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 DESIGN BASE SHEAR FOR ARCADE

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 79

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 DESIGN BASE SHEAR FOR OFFICE AND MAINTENANCE

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 80

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 DESIGN BASE SHEAR FOR RESTAURANT

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 81

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 LATERAL FORCE DISTRIBUTION

OPEN-SPACE DOME

ARCADE

RESTAURANT

OFFICE AND MAINTENANCE

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 82

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
Table of Summary of Design Load

SLAB LOADS

Table 5.3 shows the loads carried by the slab, including their self-weight,
superimposed dead loads and live loads.

For the dimensions of the slabs, refer to Table 4.3. For the live loads, refer to
Table 5.2.
Table 5.4 SLAB LOADS
SELF DEAD LIVE
THICKNESS
STRUCTURE SLAB WEIGHT LOAD LOAD
(mm)
(kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
2S-1 120 2.832 1.35 4.8

2S-2 120 2.832 1.35 4.8

ARCADE
RS-1 120 2.832 1.78 0

RS-2 120 2.832 1.78 0

RESTAURANT RS-1 120 2.832 2.680 4.8

OFFICE 2S-1 120 2.832 1.91 4.8

AND 2S-2 120 2.832 1.91 1.9

MAINTENANCE RS-1 120 2.832 1.91 0

BEAM LOADS

Table 5.4 shows the loads carried by the beams, including their self-weight, walls,
and dead loads and live loads from the slabs. The self-weight is calculated by multiplying
the cross-sectional area of the beams to the unit weight of concrete. The uniform loads
from the slabs are obtained using the load analysis for two-way slabs. The wall loads are
calculated by multiplying the height of the walls to their unit pressures.

For the dimensions of the beams and the loads applied by the slabs, refer to Table
4.2 and Table 5.3, respectively. For the unit weights and unit pressures of the materials,
refer to Table 5.1.

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 83

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Table 5.5 BEAM LOADS

PANEL 1 PANEL 2 TOTAL TOTAL

WALL
WEIGHT DEAD LIVE
STRUCTURE BEAM LOAD
(kN/m) DEAD LIVE DEAD LIVE LOAD LOAD
(kN/m)
LOAD LOAD LOAD LOAD (kN/m) (kN/m)
(kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m) (kN/m)
2B-1 1.68 5.02 6.97 8.00 - - 6.97 8
2B-2 1.68 5.02 6.97 8.00 - - 6.97 8
2B-1 1.68 - 6.97 8.00 6.97 8.00 13.94 16
ARCADE
2B-2 1.68 - 6.97 8.00 6.97 8.00 13.94 16
RB-1 1.68 - 7.69 - - - 7.69 -
RB-2 1.68 - 7.69 - - - 7.69 -
RB-1 1.68 - 7.69 - 7.69 - 15.38 -
RB-2 1.68 - 7.69 - 7.69 - 15.38 -
B1 - - 14.57 8
1.68 3.7 9.19 8
RESTAURANT
B2 20.06 16
1.68 - 9.19 8 9.19 8
2B-1 - - 27.35 8
1.68 16.86 8.81 8
2B-2 - - 27.35 8
1.68 16.86 8.81 8
2B-3 - - 27.35 3.17
1.68 16.86 8.81 3.17
2B-4 - - 27.35 3.17
1.68 16.86 8.81 3.17
2B-5 - 8.06 16
1.68 3.19 8 3.19 8
2B-6 - 8.06 16
1.68 3.19 8 3.19 8
2B-7 - 8.06 6.34
1.68 3.19 3.17 3.19 3.17
OFFICE
AND 2B-8 - 8.06 6.34
1.68 3.19 3.17 3.19 3.17
MAINTENANCE
2B-9 - - 27.35 8
1.68 16.86 8.81 8
2B-10 - 8.06 16
1.68 3.19 8 3.19 8
2B-11 - 8.06 11.17
1.68 3.19 8 3.19 3.17
2B-12 - 8.06 11.17
1.68 3.19 8 3.19 3.17
2B-13 - - 27.35 3.17
1.68 16.86 8.81 3.17
RB-1 - - - - 4.87 -
1.68 3.19
RB-2 - - - - 4.87 -
1.68 3.19
RB-3 - - - - 4.87 -
1.68 3.19

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 84

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 RB-4 - - - - 4.87 -
1.68 3.19
RB-5 - - - 8.06 -
1.68 3.19 3.19
RB-6 - - - 8.06 -
1.68 3.19 3.19
RB-7 - - - 8.06 -
1.68 3.19 3.19
RB-8 - - - 8.06 -
1.68 3.19 3.19
RB-9 - - - 4.87 -
1.68 3.19 0
RB-10 - - - 8.06 -
1.68 3.19 3.19
RB-11 - - - 8.06 -
1.68 3.19 3.19
RB-12 - - - 8.06 -
1.68 3.19 3.19
RB-13 - - - 4.87 -
1.68 3.19 0

COLUMN LOADS

Table 5.5 shows the axial loads carried by the columns. The self-weights are
calculated by multiplying the unit weight of concrete to the height of the column. The
superimposed dead loads and live loads are obtained by multiplying the uniform loads
from the beams to the tributary lengths carried by the columns.

For the dimensions of the columns, refer to Table 4.1. For the uniform loads used
to calculate the loads, refer to Table 5.4.

Table 5.6 COLUMN GRAVITY LOADS

SELF TOTAL
HEIGHT SUPERIMPOSED SUPERIMPOSED
STRUCTURE COLUMN WEIGHT DEAD
(mm) DEAD LOAD (kN) LIVE LOAD (kN)
(kN) LOAD (kN)
-
1-C1 7000 60.48 3457.4 3517.88

1-C2 7000 60.48 3844.27 3904.75 -

1-C3 7000 42 2514.17 2556.17 -
1-C4 7000 70.98 4289.27 4360.25 -
OPEN-SPACE 2-C1 7000 60.48 2078.49 2138.97 -
DOME 2-C2 7000 60.48 2344.74 2405.22 -
2-C3 7000 42 2031.67 2073.67 -
2-C4 7000 70.98 2548.49 2619.47 -
3-C1 7000 60.48 699.58 760.06 -
3-C2 7000 60.48 845.21 905.69 -
3-C3 7000 42 1549.17 1591.17 -

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 85

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 3-C4 7000 70.98 928.33 999.31 -
C-1 4000 8.64 71.75 80.39 30
C-2 4000 8.64 135.08 143.72 60
C-3 4000 8.64 135.08 143.72 60
C-4 4000 8.64 253.4 262.04 120
C-5 4000 8.64 253.4 262.04 120
C-6 4000 8.64 253.4 262.04 120
ARCADE
2C-1 4000 8.64 37.22 45.86 -
2C-2 4000 8.64 70.23 78.87 -
2C-3 4000 8.64 70.23 78.87 -
2C-4 4000 8.64 132.10 140.74 -
2C-5 4000 8.64 132.10 140.74 -
2C-6 4000 8.64 132.10 140.74 -
C-1 4000 8.64 76.35 84.99 30
RESTAURANT C-2 4000 8.64 141 149.64 60
C-3 4000 8.64 184.4 193.24 120
C-1 4000 8.64 81.48 90.12 12.5
C-2 4000 8.64 176.15 184.79 26.75
C-3 4000 8.64 74.44 83.08 25
C-4 4000 8.64 162.95 171.59 53.5
C-5 4000 8.64 171.28 179.92 26.1
C-6 4000 8.64 157.2 165.84 52.2
C-7 4000 8.64 81.48 90.12 12.5
C-8 4000 8.64 176.15 184.79 26.75
C-9 4000 8.64 74.44 83.08 25
C-10 4000 8.64 162.95 171.59 53.5
OFFICE
AND
2C-1 3000 6.48 12.7 19.18 -
MAINTENANCE 2C-2 3000 6.48 33.49 39.97 -
2C-3 3000 6.48 30.16 36.64 -
2C-4 3000 6.48 75.7 82.18 -
2C-5 3000 6.48 33.22 39.7 -
2C-6 3000 6.48 71.87 78.35 -
2C-7 3000 6.48 12.7 19.18 -
2C-8 3000 6.48 33.49 39.97 -
2C-9 3000 6.48 30.16 36.64 -
2C-10 3000 6.48 75.7 82.18 -

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 86

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Table 5.6 shows the lateral wind loads applied to the columns. The windward and
leeward loads are calculated by multiplying the tributary width to the windward and leeward
pressures.

For the wind parameters, refer to Wind Load.

Table 5.7 COLUMN WIND LOADS

WINDWAR WINDWAR LEEWARD

TRIBUTAR LEEWARD
HEIGH D D LOAD LOAD
STRUCTURE COLUMN Y WIDTH PRESSURE
T (m) PRESSURE (kN/m) (kN/m)
(m) (kPa)
(kPa)
1-C1 7 13.5 13.36 180.36 6.65 89.78

1-C2 7 25 13.36 334 6.65 166.25

1-C3 7 - - - - -

2-C1 7 13.5 13.36 180.36 6.65 89.78

OPEN-
2-C2 7 25 13.36 334 6.65 166.25
SPACE
DOME
3-C3 7 - - - - -

3-C1 7 13.5 13.36 180.36 6.65 89.78

3-C2 7 25 13.36 334 6.65 166.25

3-C3 7 - - - - -

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 87

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 FRAME
ANALYSIS

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 88

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 FRAME ANALYSIS FLOWCHART

START

GIVEN: Specifications,
Beam and Column
Dimensions, Dead Loads

Construct Construct moment

frame distribution table

Set member and

Compute for section properties:
restraint
properties 𝑏ℎ 3
I= 12
, Es = 200,000 MPa, Ec =
Apply dead loads and
4700ඥ𝑓′𝑐
live loads separately

Compute for fix-end

Run analysis
moments due to dead loads
and live loads separately

Display
reactions Compute for
moments using the
moment distribution

1 Tabulate moments
from dead loads and
live loads separately

Compute for shear

and axial forces using
equilibrium formulas

1 END

Fig. 5.3 Frame Analysis Flowchart

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 89

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Modern-tool Analysis

The software calculation was done using ETABS, while the manual calculation
was done using the moment distribution method in Microsoft Excel.

The loads used for the analysis are as stated in Tables 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5.

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 90

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 SOFTWARE ANALYSIS

OPEN-SPACE DOME

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 91

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 5.4 Dome Frame Analysis at Section 1 (Dead Load)

Fig. 5.5 Dome Frame at Section B (Dead Load)

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 92

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig 5.6 Dome Frame at Section 2 (Dead Load)

Fig. 5.7 Dome Frame at Section A (Dead Load)

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 93

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 ARCADE

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 94

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 5.8 Arcade Frame Analysis at Section 1 (Dead Load)

Fig. 5.9 Arcade Frame Analysis at Section 2 (Dead Load)

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 95

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 5.10 Arcade Frame Analysis at Section 3 (Dead Load)

Fig. 5.11 Arcade Frame Analysis at Section 1 (Live Load)

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 96

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 5.12 Arcade Frame Analysis at Section 2 (Live Load)

Fig. 5.13 Arcade Frame Analysis at Section 3 (Live Load)

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 97

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 RESTAURANT

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 98

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 5.14 Restaurant Frame Analysis at Section 1 (Live Load)

Fig. 5.15 Restaurant Frame Analysis at Section 2 (Live Load)

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 99

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 5.16 Restaurant Frame Analysis at Section 1 (Dead Load)

Fig. 5.17 Restaurant Frame Analysis at Section 2 (Dead Load)

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 100

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 OFFICE AND MAINTENANCE

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 101

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 5.18 Office and Maintenance Frame Analysis at Section A (Dead Load)

Fig. 5.19 Office and Maintenance Frame Analysis at Section B (Dead Load)

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 102

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 5.20 Office and Maintenance Frame Analysis at Section A (Live Load)

Fig. 5.21 Office and Maintenance Frame Analysis at Section B (Live Load)

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 103

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 5.22 Office and Maintenance Frame Analysis at Section 1 (Dead Load)

Fig. 5.23 Office and Maintenance Frame Analysis At Section 3 (Dead Load)

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 104

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 5.24 Office and Maintenance Frame Analysis at Section 1 (Live Load)

Fig. 5.25 Office and Maintenance Frame Analysis at Section 5 (Live Load)

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 105

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 5.26 Office and Maintenance Frame Analysis at Section 2 (Live Load)

Fig. 5.27 Office and Maintenance Frame Analysis at Section 4 (Live Load)
OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 106
*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig 5.28 Office and Maintenance Frame Analysis at Section 3 (Live Load)

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 107

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 TABLES OF SUMMARIES OF DESIGN REACTIONS

Table 5.8 CRITICAL MOMENTS DUE TO DEAD LOAD

MANUAL (kN.m)
SOFTWARE (kN.m)
CLEAR DEAD (MOMENT DISTRIBUTION
BEAM (ETABS)
STRUCTURE SPAN LOAD METHOD)
DESIGNATION
(m) (kN/m) OUTER INNER OUTER INNER
CENTER CENTER
END END END END
2B-1 4.70 13.67 17.60 14.82 28.25 17.12 16.28 25.82
2B-2 4.70 13.67 26.09 12.35 24.70 24.05 14.09 23.27
2B-3 4.70 15.62 22.35 16.17 31.57 20.66 18.23 29.14
2B-4 4.70 15.62 29.27 14.25 28.50 27.18 16.17 26.74
ARCADE
RB-1 4.70 9.37 10.27 10.81 19.86 9.86 11.89 18.10
RB-2 4.70 9.37 18.42 8.33 16.67 16.85 9.55 15.79
RB-3 4.70 17.06 18.83 19.63 36.12 16.40 22.19 33.44
RB-4 4.70 17.06 33.51 15.18 30.35 31.12 17.28 28.54
B-1 4.70 14.57 11.55 19.71 29.48 11.74 19.14 31.10
RESTAURANT
B-2 4.70 20.05 15.90 27.13 40.57 16.84 26.08 42.43
2B - 1 4.70 26.412 35.99 28.01514 53.84 32.58 31.59 50.11
2B - 2 4.70 26.412 50.08 23.94514 47.89 46.68 27.17 44.84
2B - 3 4.70 26.412 47.89 23.94514 50.08 44.84 27.17 46.68
2B - 4 4.70 26.412 53.84 28.01514 35.99 50.11 31.59 32.58
2B - 5 4.70 15.8 23.24 16.17275 31.67 21.36 18.27 29.36
2B - 6 4.70 15.8 29.52 14.43275 28.87 27.41 16.38 27.08
2B - 7 4.70 15.8 28.87 14.43275 29.52 27.08 16.38 27.41
2B - 8 4.70 15.8 31.68 16.16775 23.24 29.36 18.27 21.36
2B - 9 4.70 26.412 35.48 27.59514 55.19 32.26 31.18 51.24
2B - 10 4.70 15.8 23.03 16.05775 32.11 21.33 18.18 29.57
2B - 11 4.70 15.8 23.03 16.05775 32.11 21.33 18.18 29.57
2B - 12 4.70 15.8 23.03 16.05775 32.11 21.33 18.18 29.57
OFFICE 2B - 13 4.70 26.412 35.48 27.59514 55.19 32.26 31.18 51.24
AND
MAINTENANCE RB - 1 4.70 7.9 12.65 7.728875 15.52 11.62 8.85 14.31
RB - 2 4.70 7.9 14.5 7.283875 14.56 13.28 8.3 13.75
RB - 3 4.70 7.9 14.56 7.283875 14.5 13.75 8.3 13.28
RB - 4 4.70 7.9 15.52 7.728875 12.65 14.31 8.85 11.62
RB - 5 4.70 15.8 19.57 17.43775 32.81 17.14 19.78 30.56
RB - 6 4.70 15.8 30.46 14.19775 28.4 28.23 16.16 26.7
RB - 7 4.70 15.8 28.4 14.19775 30.46 26.7 16.16 28.23
RB - 8 4.70 15.8 32.81 17.43775 19.57 30.56 19.78 17.14
RB - 9 4.70 7.9 12.6 7.763875 15.5 11.83 8.91 13.98
RB - 10 4.70 15.8 19.16 22.02275 24.05 17.08 19.37 31.44
RB - 11 4.70 15.8 19.16 22.02275 24.05 17.08 19.37 31.44
RB - 12 4.70 15.8 19.16 22.02275 24.05 17.08 19.37 31.44
RB - 13 4.70 7.9 12.6 7.763875 15.5 11.83 8.91 13.98

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 108

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Table 5.9 CRITICAL MOMENTS DUE TO LIVE LOAD
MANUAL (kN.m)
SOFTWARE (kN.m)
CLEAR LIVE (MOMENT DISTRIBUTION
BEAM (ETABS)
STRUCTURE SPAN LOAD METHOD)
DESIGNATION
(m) (kN/m) OUTER INNER OUTER INNER
CENTER CENTER
END END END END
2B-1 4.70 8.00 10.13 8.75 16.55 9.06 9.85 15.43
2B-2 4.70 8.00 15.35 7.21 14.41 14.34 8.18 13.49
2B-3 4.70 16.00 20.27 17.49 33.11 18.12 19.69 30.85
2B-4 4.70 16.00 30.70 14.41 28.83 28.68 16.35 26.97
ARCADE
RB-1 4.70 0.00 1.20 0.78 0.35 1.34 0.46 0.42
RB-2 4.70 0.00 0.33 0.25 0.17 0.38 0.10 0.18
RB-3 4.70 0.00 2.41 1.56 0.71 2.68 0.92 0.84
RB-4 4.70 0.00 0.66 0.50 0.33 0.75 0.20 0.36
B-1 4.70 8 6.34 10.82 16.19 6.32 10.58 17.09
RESTAURANT
B-2 4.70 16 12.69 21.65 32.38 13.76 20.71 33.63
2B - 1 4.70 5.23 6.36 6.306338 9.91 6.19 6.34 10.01
2B - 2 4.70 5.23 9.21 5.471338 8.73 9.32 5.36 8.84
2B - 3 4.70 5.23 8.73 5.466338 9.22 8.84 5.36 9.32
2B - 4 4.70 5.23 9.91 6.306338 6.36 10.01 6.34 6.19
2B - 5 4.70 5.23 12.72 -1.83366 19.83 12.37 12.69 20.02
OFFICE
2B - 6 4.70 5.23 18.43 -3.50366 17.46 18.63 10.72 17.69
AND 2B - 7 4.70 5.23 17.46 -3.50366 18.43 17.69 10.72 18.63
MAINTENANCE
2B - 8 4.70 5.23 19.83 -1.83366 12.72 20.02 12.69 12.37
2B - 9 4.70 5.23 6.25 6.211338 10.21 6.1 6.24 10.3
2B - 10 4.70 5.23 12.5 -2.00866 20.4 12.2 12.48 20.6
2B - 11 4.70 5.23 12.5 -2.00866 20.4 12.2 12.48 20.6
2B - 12 4.70 5.23 12.5 -2.00866 20.4 12.2 12.48 20.6
2B - 13 4.70 5.23 6.25 6.216338 10.2 6.1 6.24 10.3

Table 5.10 CRITICAL SHEAR DUE TO DEAD LOAD

CLEAR DEAD MANUAL (kN)
BEAM SOFTWARE (kN)
STRUCTURE SPAN LOAD (MOMENT DISTRIBUTION
DESIGNATION (ETABS)
(m) (kN/m) METHOD)
2B-1 4.70 13.67 29.86 2.26 34.39 30.27 1.85 33.98
2B-2 4.70 13.67 32.42 0.30 31.83 32.29 0.17 31.96
2B-3 4.70 15.62 34.75 1.96 38.67 34.90 1.80 38.51
2B-4 4.70 15.62 36.87 0.06 36.54 36.80 0.09 36.61
ARCADE
RB-1 4.70 9.37 19.98 2.04 24.06 20.27 1.75 23.77
RB-2 4.70 9.37 22.39 0.37 21.65 22.24 0.23 21.79
RB-3 4.70 17.06 36.41 3.68 43.77 36.46 3.63 43.72
RB-4 4.70 17.06 40.76 0.67 39.42 40.64 0.55 39.54
B-1 4.70 14.57 30.42 4.24 38.05 30.12 4.12 38.36
RESTAURANT
B-2 4.70 20.05 41.87 5.83 52.37 41.67 5.44 52.56
OFFICE 2B - 1 4.70 26.412 35.99 28.01514 53.84 32.58 31.59 50.11
AND 2B - 2 4.70 26.412 50.08 23.94514 47.89 46.68 27.17 44.84
MAINTENANCE 2B - 3 4.70 26.412 47.89 23.94514 50.08 44.84 27.17 46.68

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 109

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 2B - 4 4.70 26.412 53.84 28.01514 35.99 50.11 31.59 32.58
2B - 5 4.70 15.8 23.24 16.17275 31.67 21.36 18.27 29.36
2B - 6 4.70 15.8 29.52 14.43275 28.87 27.41 16.38 27.08
2B - 7 4.70 15.8 28.87 14.43275 29.52 27.08 16.38 27.41
2B - 8 4.70 15.8 31.68 16.16775 23.24 29.36 18.27 21.36
2B - 9 4.70 26.412 35.48 27.59514 55.19 32.26 31.18 51.24
2B - 10 4.70 15.8 23.03 16.05775 32.11 21.33 18.18 29.57
2B - 11 4.70 15.8 23.03 16.05775 32.11 21.33 18.18 29.57
2B - 12 4.70 15.8 23.03 16.05775 32.11 21.33 18.18 29.57
2B - 13 4.70 26.412 35.48 27.59514 55.19 32.26 31.18 51.24
RB - 1 4.70 7.9 17.95 0.61 19.17 17.99 0.6129 19.14
RB - 2 4.70 7.9 18.42 1.05 18.58 18.46 1.08 18.67
RB - 3 4.70 7.9 18.58 1.24 18.42 18.67 1.29 18.46
RB - 4 4.70 7.9 19.17 1.75 17.95 19.14 1.78 17.99
RB - 5 4.70 15.8 34.24 0.46 39.92 34.27 0.49 39.99
RB - 6 4.70 15.8 37.44 2.56 36.6 37.45 2.7 36.8
RB - 7 4.70 15.8 36.6 2.02 37.44 36.8 2.04 37.46
RB - 8 4.70 15.8 39.92 2.33 34.24 39.99 2.35 34.27
RB - 9 4.70 7.9 18.09 0.71 19 18.11 0.73 19.02
RB - 10 4.70 15.8 18.09 0.65 40.15 34.08 0.68 40.18
RB - 11 4.70 15.8 34.05 0.65 40.15 34.08 0.68 40.18
RB - 12 4.70 15.8 34.05 0.65 40.15 34.08 0.68 40.18
RB - 13 4.70 7.9 18.09 0.71 19 18.11 0.73 19.02

Table 5.11 CRITICAL SHEAR DUE TO LIVE LOAD

MANUAL (kN)
SOFTWARE (kN)
CLEAR LIVE (MOMENT DISTRIBUTION
BEAM (ETABS)
STRUCTURE SPAN LOAD METHOD)
DESIGNATION
(m) (kN/m) OUTER INNER OUTER INNER
CENTER CENTER
END END END END
2B-1 4.70 8.00 17.43 1.37 20.17 17.45 1.35 20.15
2B-2 4.70 8.00 19.00 0.20 18.60 18.98 0.18 18.62
2B-3 4.70 16.00 34.87 2.73 40.33 34.89 2.71 40.31
2B-4 4.70 16.00 38.00 0.40 37.20 37.96 0.36 37.24
ARCADE
RB-1 4.70 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.37 0.37 0.37
RB-2 4.70 0.00 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12
RB-3 4.70 0.00 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.75 0.75 0.75
RB-4 4.70 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.24 0.24
B-1 4.70 8 16.71 2.33 20.89 16.51 2.22 21.09
RESTAURANT
B-2 4.70 16 33.41 4.66 41.79 33.37 4.23 41.83
2B - 1 4.70 5.23 11.46 0.022 12.89 11.48 0.029 13.1
2B - 2 4.70 5.23 12.37 0.87 12.22 12.39 0.8846 12.19
2B - 3 4.70 5.23 12.22 0.59 12.37 12.19 0.6844 12.39
2B - 4 4.70 5.23 12.89 0.32 11.46 13.1 0.34 11.48
OFFICE 2B - 5 4.70 5.23 22.87 0.045 26.14 22.95 0.058 26.21
AND 2B - 6 4.70 5.23 24.64 1.64 24.1 24.78 1.77 24.38
MAINTENANCE 2B - 7 4.70 5.23 24.1 1.45 24.64 24.38 1.37 24.78
2B - 8 4.70 5.23 26.14 3.12 22.87 26.21 3.2 22.95
2B - 9 4.70 5.23 10.95 0.1291 12.87 11.4 0.1091 13.18
2B - 10 4.70 5.23 21.86 0.2092 26.232 22.79 0.2182 26.37
2B - 11 4.70 5.23 21.86 0.2092 26.232 22.79 0.2182 26.37

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 110

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 2B - 12 4.70 5.23 21.86 0.2092 26.232 22.79 0.2182 26.37
2B - 13 4.70 5.23 10.96 0.108 12.89 11.4 0.1091 13.18

Table 5.12 CRITICAL AXIAL LOAD FOR COLUMNS

MANUAL
SOFTWARE
(MOMENT DISTRIBUION
(ETABS)
COLUMN METHOD)
STRUCTURE
DESIGNATION CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL
AXIAL DEAD AXIAL LIVE AXIAL DEAD AXIAL LIVE
LOAD LOAD LOAD LOAD
C-1 59.71931064 34.86725958 60.5444 34.892
C-2 101.5548341 74.03305319 101.1722 74.0277
C-3 98.40355957 72.06841914 98.8171 72.1286
C-4 151.0791447 156.6631617 150.6248 156.5428
C-5 148.6254021 152.7338958 148.537 152.7446
C-6 146.1716596 148.8046298 146.4492 148.9464
ARCADE
2C-1 39.96017446 0.662461277 40.5328 0.7498
2C-2 82.86294043 1.09933617 82.4822 1.2432
2C-3 79.71184895 0.873749575 80.0536 0.9868
2C-4 169.0626426 1.747499149 168.7106 1.9734
2C-5 163.3726404 1.296325745 163.4431 1.4605
2C-6 157.6826383 0.84515234 158.1756 0.9476
C-1 60.85 33.41 64.62 35.42
RESTAURANT C-2 102.72 66.82 125.77 80.35
C-3 209.47 167.16 222.28 176.92
2C-1 89.2188 12.375 90.12 12.5
2C-2 182.9421 26.4825 184.79 26.75
2C-3 82.2492 24.75 83.08 25
2C-4 169.8741 52.965 171.59 53.5
2C-5 178.1208 25.839 179.92 26.1
2C-6 164.1816 51.678 165.84 52.2
2C-7 89.2188 12.375 90.12 12.5
OFFICE 2C-8 182.9421 26.4825 184.79 26.75
AND
MAINTENANCE 2C-9 82.2492 24.75 83.08 25.01
2C-10 169.8741 52.965 171.59 53.5
RC-1 18.9882 0.239283 19.18 0.2417
RC-2 39.5703 0.31284 39.97 0.316
RC-3 36.2736 0.478665 36.64 0.4835
RC-4 81.3582 0.625779 82.18 0.6321
RC-5 39.303 0.147114 39.7 0.1486
RC-6 77.5566 0.294228 78.34 0.2972

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 111

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 RC-7 18.9882 0.239283 19.18 0.2417
RC-8 39.5703 0.31284 39.97 0.316
RC-9 36.2736 0.478665 36.64 0.4835
RC-10 81.3582 0.625779 82.18 0.6321

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 112

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 BEAM
DESIGN

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 113

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 ULTIMATE STRENGTH DESIGN FLOW CHART

Fig. 5.29 Beam USD Flowchart

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 114

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 SAMPLE DESIGN

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 115

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 116
*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 TABLE OF SUMMARY

Table 5.13 SCHEDULE OF BEAMS (USD)

Dimensions Bar No. of longitudinal bars Stirrups
Beam Length B H dia. Bar
STRUCTURE Outer End Center Inner End Number and Spacing
Name (mm) (mm (mm (mm dia.
) Top Bot Top Bot Top Bot (Critical Section)
) ) (mm)
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
2B-1 5000 250 350 16 2 2 2 2 3 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
2B-2 5000 250 350 16 3 2 2 2 3 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
2B-3 5000 250 350 16 5 2 2 3 5 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
2B-4 5000 250 350 16 4 2 2 2 2 2 10
ARCADE 250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
RB-1 5000 250 350 16 2 2 2 2 2 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
RB-2 5000 250 350 16 2 2 2 2 2 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
RB-3 5000 250 350 16 2 2 2 2 2 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
RB-4 5000 250 350 16 2 2 2 2 2 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
B1 5000 200 350 16 2 2 2 2 3 2 10
250 mm
RESTAURANT
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
B2 5000 200 350 16 2 2 2 4 6 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
2B-1 5000 200 350 16 3 2 2 2 4 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
2B-2 5000 200 350 16 4 2 2 2 4 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
2B-3 5000 200 350 16 4 2 2 2 4 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
2B-4 5000 200 350 16 4 2 2 2 3 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
2B-5 5000 200 350 16 3 2 2 2 4 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
2B-6 5000 200 350 16 4 2 2 2 3 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
2B-7 5000 200 350 16 3 2 2 2 4 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
2B-8 5000 200 350 16 4 2 2 2 3 2 10
250 mm
OFFICE Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
2B-9 5000 200 350 16 3 2 2 2 4 2 10
AND 250 mm
MAINTENANCE Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
2B-10 5000 200 350 16 3 2 2 2 4 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
2B-11 5000 200 350 16 3 2 2 2 4 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
2B-12 5000 200 350 16 3 2 2 2 4 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
2B-13 5000 200 350 16 3 2 2 2 4 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
RB-1 5000 200 350 16 2 2 2 2 2 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
RB-2 5000 200 350 16 2 2 2 2 2 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
RB-3 5000 200 350 16 2 2 2 2 2 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
RB-4 5000 200 350 16 2 2 2 2 2 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
RB-5 5000 200 350 16 3 2 2 3 4 2 10
250 mm

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 117

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
RB-6 5000 200 350 16 4 2 2 3 4 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
RB-7 5000 200 350 16 4 2 2 3 4 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
RB-8 5000 200 350 16 4 2 2 3 3 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
RB-9 5000 200 350 16 2 2 2 2 2 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
RB-10 5000 200 350 16 3 2 2 4 3 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
RB-11 5000 200 350 16 3 2 2 4 3 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
RB-12 5000 200 350 16 3 2 2 4 3 2 10
250 mm
Use 2-10 mm ø @ 150 mm, Rest @
RB-13 5000 200 350 16 2 2 2 2 2 2 10
250 mm

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 118

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 WORKING STRESS DESIGN FLOW CHART

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 119

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 5.30 Beam WSD Flowchart

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 120

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 SAMPLE DESIGN

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 121

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 TABLE OF SUMMARY
Table 5.14 SCHEDULES OF BEAMS (WSD)
Dimensions
Bar No. of
Beam Length
STRUCTURE B H dia. longitudinal
Name (mm)
(mm) (mm) (mm) bars

2B-1 5000 250 500 16 4

2B-2 5000 250 450 16 4
2B-3 5000 300 550 16 5
ARCADE 2B-4 5000 250 500 16 5
RB-1 5000 200 350 16 3
RB-2 5000 200 350 16 3
RB-3 5000 250 450 16 4
RB-4 5000 250 450 16 3
B1 5000 200 350 16 5
RESTAURANT
B2 5000 200 350 16 7
2B-1 5000 300 550 16 5
2B-2 5000 250 500 16 5
2B-3 5000 250 500 16 5
2B-4 5000 300 550 16 5
2B-5 5000 250 500 16 4
2B-6 5000 250 500 16 4
2B-7 5000 250 500 16 4
2B-8 5000 250 500 16 4
2B-9 5000 300 550 16 5
2B-10 5000 250 500 16 4
2B-11 5000 250 500 16 4
OFFICE 2B-12 5000 250 500 16 4
AND
2B-13 5000 300 550 16 5
MAINTENANCE
RB-1 5000 200 350 16 2
RB-2 5000 200 350 16 2
RB-3 5000 200 350 16 2
RB-4 5000 200 350 16 2
RB-5 5000 250 450 16 3
RB-6 5000 200 400 16 3
RB-7 5000 200 400 16 3
RB-8 5000 250 450 16 3
RB-9 5000 200 350 16 2
RB-10 5000 200 400 16 3
RB-11 5000 200 400 16 3
RB-12 5000 200 400 16 3

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 122

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 RB-13 5000 200 350 16 2

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 123

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 COLUMN
DESIGN

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 124

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 ULTIMATE STRENGTH DESIGN FLOW CHART

Fig. 5.31 Column USD Flowchart

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 125
*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 SAMPLE DESIGN

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 126

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 127
*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 TABLE OF SUMMARY

Table 5.15 SCHEDULE OF COLUMNS (USD)

Column
Structure Section Reinforcement Ties
Designation
1-C1 950 x 950 12 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 230 mm O. C.

1-C2 1150 x 1150 16 - 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 280 mm O. C.

1-C3 500 x 500 4 - 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.

1-C4 650 x 650 4 - 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 160 mm O. C.
2-C1 950 x 950 12 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 230 mm O. C.
OPEN-SPACE 2-C2 1150 x 1150 16 - 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 280 mm O. C.
DOME
2-C3 500 x 500 4 - 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
2-C4 650 x 650 4 - 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 160 mm O. C.
3-C1 950 x 950 12 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 230 mm O. C.
3-C2 1150 x 1150 16 - 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 280 mm O. C.
3-C3 500 x 500 4 - 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
3-C4 650 x 650 4 - 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 160 mm O. C.
C-1 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
C-2 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
C-3 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
C-4 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
C-5 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
C-6 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
ARCADE
2C-1 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
2C-2 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
2C-3 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
2C-4 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
2C-5 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
2C-6 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
C-1 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10 mm @ 100 mm O.C.
RESTAURANT C-2 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10 mm @ 100 mm O.C.
C-3 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10 mm @ 100 mm O.C.
C-1 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
C-2 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
C-3 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.

OFFICE C-4 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.

AND C-5 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
MAINTENANCE C-6 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
C-7 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
C-8 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
C-9 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 128

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 C-10 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
2C - 1 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
2C - 2 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
2C - 3 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
2C - 4 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
2C - 5 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
2C - 6 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
2C - 7 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
2C - 8 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
2C - 9 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
2C - 10 300 x 300 4 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 129

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 WORKING STRESS DESIGN FLOW CHART

Fig. 5.32 Column WSD Flowchart

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 130

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 SAMPLE DESIGN

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 131

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 132
*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 TABLE OF SUMMARY

Table 5.16 SCHEDULE OF COLUMNS (WSD)

Column
Structure Section Reinforcement Ties
Designation
1-C1 750 x 750 8 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 180 mm O. C.
1-C2 900 x 900 8 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 220 mm O. C.
1-C3 500 x 500 4 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
1-C4 500 x 500 4 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
2-C1 750 x 750 8 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 180 mm O. C.
OPEN-SPACE 2-C2 900 x 900 8 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 220 mm O. C.
DOME 2-C3 500 x 500 4 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
2-C4 500 x 500 4 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
3-C1 750 x 750 8 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 180 mm O. C.
3-C2 900 x 900 8 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 220 mm O. C.
3-C3 500 x 500 4 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
3-C4 500 x 500 4 – 36 mm ø 12mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
C-1 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
C-2 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
C-3 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
C-4 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
C-5 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
C-6 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
ARCADE
2C-1 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
2C-2 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
2C-3 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
2C-4 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
2C-5 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
2C-6 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10mm ø @ 120 mm O. C.
C-1 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm @ 120 mm O.C.
RESTAURANT C-2 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm @ 120 mm O.C.
C-3 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm @ 120 mm O.C.
C-1 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
C-2 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
C-3 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
C-4 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
OFFICE C-5 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
AND
C-6 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
MAINTENANCE
C-7 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
C-8 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
C-9 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
C-10 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 133

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 2C - 1 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
2C - 2 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
2C - 3 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
2C - 4 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
2C - 5 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
2C - 6 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
2C - 7 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 100 mm O. C.
2C - 8 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
2C - 9 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.
2C - 10 500 x 500 8 – 20 mm ø 10 mm ø @ 150 mm O. C.

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 134

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 SLAB
DESIGN

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 135

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 ULTIMATE STRENGTH DESIGN FLOW CHART

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 136

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 Fig. 5.33 Slab USD Flowchart

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 137

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 SAMPLE DESIGN

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 138

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 139
*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 TABLE OF SUMMARY
Table 5.17 SCHEDULE OF SLABS (USD)
REINFORCEMENT
EDGE STRIP EDGE STRIP
MIDDLE TEMPERATU
(CONTINUO (DISCONTINUO
STRIP RE BARS
Slab Thickn US) US)
Structure Designati ess No. No. No.
on (mm) of of No. of of
Spaci Spacin Spacin
12m 12m 12mm Spacing 12m
ng g g
m m bars m
bars bars bars
2S-1 120 46 110 39 130 21 240 11 480
2S-2 120 46 110 39 130 21 240 11 480
ARCADE
RS-1 120 21 240 21 240 21 240 11 480
RS-2 120 21 240 21 240 21 240 11 480
RESTAURAN
RS-1 120 50 100 42 120 21 240 11 480
T
OFFICE 2S-1 120 50 100 42 120 21 240 11 480
AND 2S-2 120 32 160 27 190 21 240 11 480
MAINTENA
RS-1 120 21 240 21 240 21 240 11 480
NCE

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 140

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 WORKING STRESS DESIGN FLOW CHART

Start

Given: Design loads (LL and DL)

Design parameters:𝜙 = 0.9, f’c, fy, ∅𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛 , and ∅𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑝

fc = 0.35f’c
fs = 0.4fy

Determine the minimum required depth:

fy
ln(0.8+ )
tmin = 1400
36+9𝛽
d = t - 20

Solve for weight of beam:

𝑡
𝐷𝐿 = 𝛾𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑐𝑟ete
1000

Compute the total load:

𝑾 = 𝑫𝑳 + 𝑳𝑳

Compute Mu at midspan:
𝑾𝒖𝑳𝟐
𝑴𝒖 =
𝟏𝟐

Solve for n:
𝐸𝑠
𝑛=
𝐸𝑐

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 141

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 A

Solve for K:
𝒏𝒇′𝒄
𝑲=
𝒇𝒔 + 𝒏𝒇𝒄

Solve for j:
𝟏
𝑹 = 𝒇𝒄𝑲𝒋
𝟐

Compute the depth:

𝑴
𝒅=ඨ
𝑹𝒃

Compute the steel requirement:

𝑴
𝑨𝒔 =
𝒇𝒔𝒋𝒅

Solve for the number of bars:

𝑨𝒔
𝑵 = 𝑨𝒃 (round up to the next whole number)

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 142

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 B

Determine the spacing, s:

𝑨𝒃
𝒔=
𝝆∅

Determine the maximum spacing required by the Code:

a) 3h
b) 450mm

Solve for temperature bars:

𝐼𝑓 𝑓𝑦 < 414𝑀𝑃𝑎, 𝜌𝑡emp = 0.002
𝐼𝑓 𝑓𝑦 ≥ 414𝑀𝑃𝑎, 𝜌𝑡emp = 0.0018
𝐴𝑠𝑡 = 𝜌𝑡emp 𝑏ℎ

Solve for the number of bars:

𝐴𝑠
𝑁 = 𝐴𝑏 (round up to the next whole number)

Determine the spacing, s:

𝑨𝒃
𝒔=
𝝆∅

Determine the maximum spacing required by the Code:

c) 5h
d) 450mm

End

Fig. 5.34 Slab WSD Flowchart

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 143

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 SAMPLE DESIGN

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 144

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano
 TABLE OF SUMMARY
Table 5.18SCHEDULE OF SLABS (WSD)
REINFORCEMENT
EDGE STRIP
EDGE STRIP TEMPERATURE
Slab Thickness MIDDLE STRIP (DISCONTINUOU
STRUCTURE (CONTINUOUS) BARS
Designation (mm) S)
No. of No. of No. of No. of
12mm Spacing 12mm Spacing 12mm Spacing 12mm Spacing
bars bars bars bars
2S-1 120 34 150 28 180 21 240 11 480
2S-2 120 34 150 28 180 21 240 11 480
ARCADE
RS-1 120 21 240 21 240 21 240 11 480
RS-2 120 21 240 21 240 21 240 11 480
RESTAURANT RS-1 120 36 140 30 170 21 240 11 480
2S-1 120 34 150 28 180 21 240 11 480
OFFICE
AND 2S-2 120 24 210 21 240 21 240 11 480
MAINTENANCE
RS-1 120 21 240 21 240 21 240 11 480

OLD CITY CARNIVAL: A PROPOSED THREE-STOREY INDOOR THEME PARK 145

*Gadon *Ople *Peña *Pulmano