Comparison of Structural Designs of… 21

COMPARISON OF STRUCTURAL DESIGNS OF A LOW-RISE

BUILDING USING NSCP 2010 VERSUS USING NSCP 2015

Christian Sean Lymmuel B. Carandang, Julie J. Co, Raven N. Patio, and

Natassha Mae V. Quinsaat
Civil Engineering Program, College of Engineering and Information Technology

ABSTRACT
The study compared the structural designs of a standard three-storey building in Apayao using the NSCP 2010 versus using the NSCP
2015. The existing plans of the building were used for the design of the building model. Dead loads, live loads, wind loads, and earthquake
loads were the loads needed to be compared in the study. The data from these loads were simulated using STAAD and ETABS. Design
adjustments were made during and after obtaining the output. The final analysis and evaluation were made using different parameters such as
stresses, moment diagrams, shear reinforcements, and areas of steel reinforcements.

Keywords: structural design; NSCP; ETABS; STAAD; loads

INTRODUCTION The ASEP continues to improve and update the

NSCP, for there is a need to meet the needs of new
From the perfection of the pyramids of Egypt to the materials and new designs of structural systems. Currently,
erection of the Burj Khalifa, it is proven that civil the seventh edition, the NSCP 2015, is being used.[2]
engineering has tremendously evolved throughout the
years. It is with civil engineering that people from the This study aimed to compare the structural designs of
ancient times continued to strive towards constructing a low-rise building using NSCP 2010 versus using NSCP
facilities and infrastructures to satisfy their needs and 2015. Specifically, it aimed to determine the effect of the
provide safety for them. The ancient technology has been changes in the combination of loads to the design of the
modified to modern advancement through innovation by structural members; to determine the effect of the
utilizing the knowledge of science and mathematics with additional live loads incorporated in NSCP 2015; to
incorporation of engineering. [1] determine the effect of the geographical location-based
wind contour maps incorporated in NSCP 2015 for the
The very concept of structural analysis has led into computation of the wind loads of the structure; and to
the construction of various structures. The fundamental determine the effect of the revised near-source factors for
methods and theories behind this structural analysis paved 2-km distance in the seismic design of the structure.
the way to formulating standard specifications of the
design of a particular structure. This project gave a comparison between the building
codes used in construction. This would be of great help to
Building codes are one of the means of access the designers on whether what specifications should be
formulated to be a guide in following standards for considered and what code is better to use. The NSCP
building structures. These building codes are further 2015gives new information about the codes and standards
improved and developed as some of the factors being that can be passed by professors to their students. The
considered change from time to time. As such, the public project would help professors teach students how the old
welfare and safety, in the end, will always be the priority and the new code differ from one another, providing better
when it comes to construction of structures. understanding to them. It would be beneficial to students
who intend to have a further study with regards to the
In the Philippines, the Association of Structural topic. Moreover, they would already have a prior
Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP) exists to provide knowledge regarding the usage of the National Structural
necessary guidelines to standards and specifications in Code of the Philippines. This project could be a possible
designing structural system which contributes to the basis for the improvement of the structures to be built in
welfare of the community as well as to give importance to the future, thus providing better service for the people in
the environmental sustainability. From this, the first edition the community.
of the National Structural Code for Buildings (NSCB) was
introduced, and various editions were released—second This research project covered the comparison of the
edition in 1982, third edition in 1987, fourth edition in design of the dead loads, live loads, wind loads, and
1992, and fifth edition in 2001—until the release of the earthquake loads of NSCP 2010 and NSCP 2015. It only
sixth edition which is the National Structural Code of the covered changes and developments in the Chapter 2 –
Philippines (NSCP) in 2010.[2] Minimum Design Loads, Sections 203, 205, 207, and 208.
The foundation of the structure was not designed.
22 Carandang , et al.

Theoretical Background load. Dead loads and live loads will be obtained from
NSCP 2010 and NSCP 2015. ETABS will be used to
Literature Review analyse the data.
The National Structural Code of the Philippines
provides civil and structural engineers the design and
evaluation of buildings, towers, and other vertical METHOD
structures around the Philippines since its first edition was
published in 1972. It incorporates procurements to steel, Research Design
concrete, timber, and masonry design and in addition for
evaluating joined impacts of dead loads, live loads, wind This study employed the engineering design method
loads, seismic loads, and other loads. [2][3]The building comparative type of research. The structure of a three-
codes are used to protect life, well-being, and the storey building was designed in accordance with NSCP
environment as well. The purpose of these codes is to 2010 and NSCP 2015. Comparisons of design analysis in
provide the necessary standards and specifications that each case were used to answer the research questions.
should be used in the construction.

The National Structural Code of the Philippines is

produced and updated by the Association of Structural Research Instrument
Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP) and is affirmed by the Structural plans of a low-rise building designed using
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), the the NSCP 2010 building code were used as the basis of
national government organization ordered to uphold preliminary design of its structural elements. The
auxiliary norms in the Philippines. [2][3]Should there be provisions of the old code were used as the basis for the
any modifications, the aesthetic value of the structure requirements needed for the design of the low-rise
should be maintained. building. The provisions of the new code were used as the
NSCP 2010 Wind Loads are based on ASCE 7-05. basis for the requirements needed for the design of the low
Wind loads are now updated according to ASCE 7-10 on -rise building. STAAD was used for the design of the steel
NSCP 2015. [2]ASCE (American Society of Civil truss, and ETABS to analyse and design the structure in
Engineers) 7 gives minimum load prerequisites for the both the old and new provisions.
design of structures. Loads and appropriate load
combinations, which were produced to be utilized
together, are put forward in two design methods: strength Design Procedure
design and allowable stress design. [4][5] For different
categories of building occupancies, ASCE 7-10 uses three The building models were designed based from the
different basic wind speed maps while ASCE 7-05 uses one structural plans of an existing three-storey building. Dead
basic wind speed map. Basic wind speeds that are directly loads, live loads, wind loads, and earthquake loads were
applicable for determining pressures for strength design are then obtained through the use of NSCP 2010 and NSCP
provided in these three maps. 2015. These data and the design requirements, specifically
the STAAD design of the steel roof truss, were transferred
Using spectral acceleration, ASCE 7-10 is recognized to ETABS and were analyzed to obtain the output. Design
as an alternative procedure in the determination of the adjustments were made during the designing and after
earthquake loads instead of the previously used ASCE 7- obtaining the output. The parameters for the comparison
05. [2] ASCE 7-10 requires liquefaction potential were defined, and the final comparison was made from the
assessment utilizing mapped peak ground acceleration data gathered and results obtained.
adjusted for site effects, as opposed to utilizing the ASCE
7-05 approximation for peak ground acceleration equal to
the brief time frame spectral acceleration multiplied by a
factor of 0.4. [5] The new maps give considerably more RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
precise values for peak ground acceleration because they
depend on peak ground acceleration attenuation Failures of Structural Members
relationships.
After the analysis, the following members failed:
Dead Loads comprise of the weights of different
structural members and the weights of any items that are Table 1. Failures of Structural Members
permanently appended to the structure. Consequently, for
a building, the dead loads incorporate the weights of the
girder, beam, column, walls, floors, roofs, ceilings, Second Floor G-13, G-24, B-1, and B-12
stairways and other fixed equipment. Live Loads can be of
different magnitude and location. They are caused by the
weights of items briefly set on a structure.[6] In National Third Floor B-1 and B-12
Structural Code of the Philippines 2015, the table for
minimum uniform and concentrated loads have additional
live loads particularly the parking garage and ramp live

Antorcha Vol. 6 No. 1 (September 2018)

 Comparison of Structural Designs of… 23

Percentage increase in the areas of shear T Test: Paired Two Sample for Means
reinforcements
A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare
The percentage increase in the areas of shear NSCP 2010 and NSCP 2015 designs. t Stat is greater than t
reinforcements of all the members (beams and girders) critical. Therefore, there was a significant difference in the
were tabulated using Microsoft Excel. NSCP 2010 (mean = 542.74, SD = 688.23) and NSCP
2015 (mean = 524.60, SD = 682.18); t = 4.40, P =
For the left bars, an average of 75.19% increase was 0.0000115.
obtained.

For the middle bars, an average of 71.19% increase

was obtained. CONCLUSION
For the right bars, an average of 51.27% increase was The main purpose of the study was to compare the
obtained. structural designs of a three-storey school building using
NSCP 2010 versus using NSCP 2015. A comparative
approach was used to execute the analysis of the designs of
Percentage increase in the Max and Shear max of both provisions. With the conducted analyses and results
failed members shown, the following conclusions are safe to generalize
with regards to the designed standard three-storey building.
For comparison, the percentage increase in the
maximum moment and maximum shear of failed members The difference in the load combinations used for the
were tabulated using Microsoft Excel. analyses shows that the designs in overall aspect changed
significantly. As shown in the STAAD design of the steel
Table 2. Percentage increase in the Max and Shear max of failed members
roof truss, there was a difference in the computed reactions
that were transferred to the ETABS design. In the ETABS
Maximum analyses, it can be inferred that the changes in the
Maximum Moment
Beam / Girder Shear Percent combinations of loads had an impact in the failure of the
Percent Increase (%)
Increase (%) whole system, i.e. some members failed after the analyses.
G13 790.58 1416.39
Additional live loads in the NSCP 2015 did not affect
much of the results of the analyses. This is due to the
G24 101.66 75.16
additional live loads that were not applied or were not
applicable for the designs of the structure. Moreover, most
B1 (2nd Floor) 109.53 35.98
changes in the NSCP 2015 are for the parking garage and
ramp live loads.
B12 (2nd Floor) 63.41 13.94
The changes in the geographical location-based wind
B1 (3rd Floor) 81.61 6.81 contour maps incorporated in NSCP 2015 affected the
designs of both provisions. A lot of differences were
B12 (3rd Floor) 64.17 14.51 presented considering the wind loads applied to the
structure. One instance is the difference of basic wind
T Test Results speed which has significantly contributed to the differences
in the results of both analyses.
To statistically determine if there is a significant
change in the NSCP 2010 and NSCP 2015 design of the The revised near-source factors for 2-km distance in
three-storey building, the researchers conducted a T test in the seismic design of the structure had a significant change
the areas of steel reinforcements of the 2010 and 2015 as shown in the results of the analyses.
design, using Microsoft Excel.
Overall, the study shows that there is a significant
Table 3. T Test Results change in the design of the standard three-storey building
using NSCP 2010 and NSCP 2015. This is mathematically
NSCP 2010 NSCP 2015 shown by the large percentage increase of the areas of
Mean 542.7351892 524.6009993 shear reinforcement and the maximum shear and
Variance 473666.9791 465374.8757 maximum moment of failed members and statistically
Standard Deviation 688.2346832 682.1839017 proven by the T test. Therefore, NSCP 2015, in this
Observations 1401 1401 particular structure, is the building code that should have
Hypothesized Mean been used by the designers and civil engineers involved in
0 the construction.
Difference
df 1400
t Stat 4.403285397
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.15E-05
t Critical two-tail 1.961659905
24 Carandang , et al.

RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES
The following are the recommendations based on the [1] K. Horikawa, “M ES PL C E O – PL C E O –,”
analyses and results gathered in the study. It is suggested to vol. I.
the researchers to address to the professionals involved in
the construction the concern regarding the failed members [2] National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015
in the design of the standard three-storey structure using Volume 1, 7th Editio. Association of Structural
NSCP 2015. Engineers of the Philippines, Inc. (ASEP), 2016.

The building or the structure to be used such further [3] Association of Structural Engineers of the
studies will be done can be a high-rise building. In this way, Philippines (ASEP), National Structural Code of the
a lot of parameters can be put into the analysis and can be Philippines 2010 Volume 1. Buildings, Towers and
used for better comparison. Moreover, an irregularly Other Vertical Structures, 6th Edition. 2010.
shaped structure may be used.
[4] ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers),
In the future studies, it is recommended that the Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
foundation of the substructure be designed, for a lot of Structures, ASCE 7-05. 2005.
factors may be affecting the analysis of the structure.
[5] ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers),
Other loads can also be taken into consideration such Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
as the flood load, soil pressure, temperature loads, and Structures, ASCE 7-10. 2010.
fluid loads for better comparison.
[6] R. C. Hibbeler, Structural Analysis, 8th Edition.
Comparisons regarding the revised NSCP 2015 code 2012.
must be further studied, and comparisons of building
codes and/or other revised building codes must be further
studied as well.

Antorcha Vol. 6 No. 1 (September 2018)