Chapter 4 Ranking
Chapter 4 Ranking
Structural Trade-offs
Structural Steel Importance
Constraints Reinforced Eccentrically
Special Moment Factor
Concrete Braced Frame
Resisting Frame
Economic
₱103,188,097.54 ₱224,232,745.08 ₱213,631,744.92 10
(Material Cost)
Sustainability
₱214,425,064.90 ₱225,506,281.10 ₱104,386,177.50 9
(Maintenance Cost)
Constructability
(Labor Cost) ₱6,367,680.00 ₱5,990,400.00 ₱3,966,600 8
Risk Assessment
(Annual) ₱6,408,952.348 ₱6,726,982.352 ₱3,095,642.926 7
224,232,745.08 − 103,188,097.54
= × 10
224232745.08
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 4.40
= 10 − 4.40
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 5.60
Figure 4-10: Subordinate Rank of Eccentrically Braced Frame plotted in a rank line - Economical
For Reinforced Concrete and Structural Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame:
213,631,744.92 − 103,188,097.54
= × 10
213631744.92
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 4.17
= 10 − 4.17
Figure 4-11: Subordinate Rank of Eccentrically Braced Frame plotted in a rank line – Economical
Figure 4-12: Subordinate Rank of Reinforce Concrete plotted in a rank line - Sustainability
Figure 4-13: Subordinate Rank of Eccentrically Braced Frame plotted in a rank line – Sustainability
Figure 4-15: Subordinate Rank of Reinforce Concrete plotted in rank line – Constructability
Figure 4-14: Subordinate Rank of Eccentrically Braced Frame plotted in rank line - Constructability
Figure 4-18: Subordinate Rank of Reinforce Concrete plotted in a rank line – Risk Assessment
Figure 4-17: Subordinate Rank of Eccentrically Braced Frame plotted in a rank line – Risk Assessment
The design with the highest overall rank using Otto and Antonsson (1991) will govern as the best design as
it is measured using the applicable constraints. The Structural Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame
yielded the highest ability to satisfy the criterion with 252.30, followed by Reinforced concrete with 205.48
and lastly, Eccentrically Braced Frame with 160.83.
4.7.2 Final Estimates for Transportation Engineering Trade-offs
Table 4-39: Final Estimates of Transportation Trade-offs
Transportation Trade-offs Importance
Constraints
Two-Way Bay Express Ramp Four Bay Factor
Economic
₱32,446,678.20 ₱38,759,856.50 ₱43,474,315.75 10
(Material Cost)
Sustainability
48 63 55 9
(Capacity, vehicles)
Risk Assessment
156 133 143 8
(Vehicle/hour)
38,759,856.50 − 32,446,678.20
= 𝑥10
38,759,856.50
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 1.63
Figure 4-18: Subordinate Rank of Express Ramp plotted in a rank line – Economical
43,474,315.75 − 32,446,678.20
= 𝑥10
43,474,315.75
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 2.54
Figure 4-19: Subordinate Rank of Four Bay plotted in a rank line – Economical
63 − 48
= 𝑥10
63
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 2.38
Figure 4-20: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bay plotted in a rank line – Sustainability
63 − 55
= 𝑥10
63
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 1.27
Figure 4-21: Subordinate Rank of Four Bay plotted in a rank line – Sustainability
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 1.47
Figure4-22: Subordinate Rank of Express Ramp plotted in a rank line – Risk Assessment
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 0.83
Figure 4-23: Subordinate Rank of Four Bay plotted in a rank line - Risk Assessment
The design with the highest overall rank using Otto and Antonsson (1991) will govern as the best design as
it is measured using the applicable constraints. The Two-Way Bay yielded the highest ability to satisfy the
criterion with 223.58, followed by Express Ramp with 216.94 and lastly, the Four Bay with 201.53.