4.

7 Validation of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards

To verify the initial ranking assumed as presented in Chapter 3, a more comprehensive estimation of
multiple constraints based on each designed trade-off was performed. The new estimates will be compared
to the designer’s raw ranking to obtain the final ranking which will set as basis of the final design for this
project. The formula used is the same as that of presented in the initial estimate of the previous chapter.
The table below shows the Final Estimates of the trade-offs that the designers conducted. The initial data
will be used for the analysis and comparing of the three trade-offs
4.7.1 Final Estimates for Structural Engineering Trade-offs
Table 4-38: Final Estimates of Structural Trade-offs

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

4.7.1.1 Computation of Ranking for Economical Constraints

For Reinforced Concrete and Eccentrically Braced Frame:

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

224,232,745.08 − 103,188,097.54
= × 10
224232745.08
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 4.40

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 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:

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

213,631,744.92 − 103,188,097.54
= × 10
213631744.92
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 4.17

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 10 − 4.17

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 5.83

Figure 4-11: Subordinate Rank of Eccentrically Braced Frame plotted in a rank line – Economical

4.7.1.2 Computation of of Ranking for Sustainability Constraints

For Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame and Reinforce Concrete:
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
214,425,064.90 − 104,386,177.50
= × 10
214,425,064.90
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 4.13
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
 = 9 − 4.13
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 4.87

Figure 4-12: Subordinate Rank of Reinforce Concrete plotted in a rank line - Sustainability

For Steel Special Moment Resisting and Eccentrically Braced Frame:

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = × 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
225,506,281.10 − 104,386,177.50
= × 10
225,506,281.10
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 4.37
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= 9 − 4.37
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 4.63

Figure 4-13: Subordinate Rank of Eccentrically Braced Frame plotted in a rank line – Sustainability

4.7.1.3 Computation of Ranking for Constructability Constraints

For Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame and Reinforce Concrete:
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
6,367,680.00 − 3,966,600
= 𝑥10
6,367,680.00
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 2.77
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= 8 − 2.77
 𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 5.23

Figure 4-15: Subordinate Rank of Reinforce Concrete plotted in rank line – Constructability

For Steel Special Moment Resisting and Eccentrically Braced Frame:

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
5,990,400.00 − 3,966,600
= 𝑥10
5,990,400.00
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 2.38
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= 8 − 2.38
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 5.62

Figure 4-14: Subordinate Rank of Eccentrically Braced Frame plotted in rank line - Constructability

4.7.1.4 Computation of Ranking for Risk Assessment Constraint

For Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame and Reinforce Concrete:
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
6,408,952.348 − 3,095,642.926
= 𝑥10
6,408,952.348
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 4.17
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= 7 − 4.17
 𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 2.83

Figure 4-18: Subordinate Rank of Reinforce Concrete plotted in a rank line – Risk Assessment

For Steel Special Moment Resisting and Eccentrically Braced Frame:

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
6,726,982.352 − 3,095,642.926
= 𝑥10
6,726,982.352
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 4.40
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= 7 − 4.40
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 2.60

Figure 4-17: Subordinate Rank of Eccentrically Braced Frame plotted in a rank line – Risk Assessment

4.7.1.4 Raw Ranking and Assessment for Structural Engineering Trade-offs

After considering the design constraints, the designer came up with the raw rankings on the three Trade-
offs which are Reinforced Concrete Design, Eccentrically Braced Frame and Structural Steel Special
Moment Resisting Frame. The ranking scales calculated earlier are provided below
Table 4-39: Summary of Result for the Structural Engineering Trade-Offs (For Carpark)

Structural Trade – Offs (scale from 0 to 10)

Criterion’s
Decision Criteria importance (on a Structural Steel
Reinforced Eccentrically
scale 1 to 10) Special Moment
Concrete Braced Frame
Resisting Frame

Economic 10 10 5.60 5.83

 Sustainability 9 4.87 4.63 9

Constructability 8 5.23 5.62 8

Risk Assessment 7 2.83 2.60 7

Overall Rank 205.48 160.83 252.30

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)

4.7.2.1 Computation of Ranking for Economical Constraints

For Two-Way Bay and Express Ramp:

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

38,759,856.50 − 32,446,678.20
= 𝑥10
38,759,856.50

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 1.63

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 1.63

 𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 8.37

Figure 4-18: Subordinate Rank of Express Ramp plotted in a rank line – Economical

For Two-Way Bay and Four Bay:

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

43,474,315.75 − 32,446,678.20
= 𝑥10
43,474,315.75

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 2.54

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 2.54

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 7.46

Figure 4-19: Subordinate Rank of Four Bay plotted in a rank line – Economical

4.7.1.3 Computation of of Ranking for Sustainability Constraints

For Express Ramp and Two-Way Bay:

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

63 − 48
= 𝑥10
63
 % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 2.38

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 9 − 2.38

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 6.62

Figure 4-20: Subordinate Rank of Two-Way Bay plotted in a rank line – Sustainability

For Express Ramp and Four Bay:

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

63 − 55
= 𝑥10
63
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 1.27

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 9 − 1.27

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 7.73

Figure 4-21: Subordinate Rank of Four Bay plotted in a rank line – Sustainability

4.7.2.3 Computation of Ranking for Risk Assessment Constraint

For Two-Way Bay and Express Ramp:

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
 156−133
= 𝑥10
156

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 1.47

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 8 − 1.47

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 6.53

Figure4-22: Subordinate Rank of Express Ramp plotted in a rank line – Risk Assessment

For Two-Way Bay and Four Bay:

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
156−143
= 𝑥10
156

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 0.83

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 8 − 0.83

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 7.17

Figure 4-23: Subordinate Rank of Four Bay plotted in a rank line - Risk Assessment

4.7.2.4 Raw Ranking and Assessment for Transportation Engineering Trade-offs

After considering the design constraints, the designer came up with the raw rankings on the three Trade-
offs which are Two-Way Bay, Express Ramp and Four Bay. The ranking scales calculated earlier are
provided below
Table 4-40: Summary of Result for the Transportation Engineering Trade-Offs (For Carpark)

Criterion’s Transportation Trade – Offs (scale from 0 to 10)

Decision Criteria importance (on a
scale 1 to 10) Two-Way Bay Express Ramp Four Bay

Economic 10 10 8.37 7.46

Sustainability 9 6.62 9 7.73

Risk Assessment 8 8 6.53 7.17

Overall Rank 223.58 216.94 201.53

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.