Mitigation of Seismic Disasters in Bridges Part 1

CHAPTER 16 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT OUTLINE DESIGN
OF SELECTED BRIDGES
16.1 Design Criteria and Conditions for Bridge Replacement
16.1.1 Design Criteria and Conditions for Bridge Replacement

The following items show design criteria and conditions utilized for outline design of new bridges.
(1) Design Standards utilized for Outline Design of New Bridges

The Design standards utilized for outline design of new bridges shall be given as follows:
Table 16.1.1-1 Design Standards Utilized for Outline Design of New Bridges
Item Design Condition Specification
1) General
Design Load Combination LV2 Seismic Design: Extreme Event I LRFD (2012)
Seismic Design Design Spectrum (1,000year) JICA Study Team
Response Spectrum Analysis JICA Study Team
2) Superstructure
3350 mm (Pack and Guadalupe)
Design Lane Width DPWH, AASHTO
3000 mm (Lambingan)
Dead Load LRFD (2012)
Live Load HL-93 and Lane Loads LRFD (2012)
3) Substructure
Seismic Earth Pressure LRFD(2012)
Column Section Design R-factor method LRFD(2012)
4) Foundation
Pile Foundation Analysis JICA Study Team (JRA)
Soil Type JICA Study Team (JRA)
Liquefaction design JICA Study Team (JRA)
Pile Bearing L1: FS=2, L2: FS=1 JICA Study Team (JRA)
Pile Section Design M-N chart ( =1.0) LRFD(2012)
16-1
(2) Load Factors and Combination
The outline design calculation shall be carried out based on LRFD methodology given in AASHTO
LRFD 2012 as follows:
1) Loads
Table 16.1.1-2 Permanent and Transient Loads
Permanent Loads DD = Down drag
DC = Dead load of structural components and nonstructural attachment
DW = Dead load of wearing surfaces and utilities
EH = Horizontal earth pressure load
EL = Accumulated locked-in force effects resulting from the construction
process, including the secondary forces from post-tensioning
ES = Earth surcharge load
EV = Vertical pressure from dead load of earth fill
Transient Loads BR = Vehicular braking force
CE = Vehicular centrifugal force
CR = Creep
CT = Vehicular collision force
CV = Vessel collision force
EQ = Earthquake
FR = Friction
IM = Vehicular dynamic load allowance
LL = Vehicular live load
LS = Live load surcharge
PL = Pedestrian live load
SE = Settlement
SH = Shrinkage
TG = Temperature gradient
TL = Train Load
TU = Uniform temperature
WA = Water load and stream pressure
WL = Wind on live load
WS = Wind load on structure
Source: LRFD 2012
2) Load Factors and Combination
Table 16.1.1-3 Load Combinations and Factors

Load DC LL TL WA WS WL FR TU TG SE Use One of These
Combination DW IM CR At a Time
EH CE SH
EV BR
Limit State ES PL EQ CT CV
LS
EL
Extreme
γp 0.50 0.50 1.00 - - 1.00 - - - 1.00 - -
Event I
Source: LRFD 2012
16-2
Table 16.1.1-4 Load Factors for Permanent Loads, γp
Type of Load Load Factor
Maximum Minimum
DC : Component and Attachments 1.25 0.90
DW : Wearing Surfaces and Utilities 1.50 0.65
EH : Horizontal Earth Pressure
Active 1.50 0.90
At Rest 1.35 0.90
EL : Locked-in Erection Stress 1.00 1.00
EV : Vertical Earth Pressure
Overall Stability 1.00 N/A
Retaining Structures 1.35 1.00
Rigid Buried Structures 1.30 0.90
Rigid Frames 1.35 0.90
ES : Earth Surcharge 1.50 0.75
Source: LRFD 2012
16-3
(3) Design Spectrum
The design spectrum utilized for modal analysis and response spectrum analysis shall be as following
figure and table, evaluated in this project.
Sｓ= 0.38 Site-Specfic Design Spectrum

= 0.93 (0.38<T<0.55)
10.00
5% Damped
= 0.51/T (0.55<T)
1.00
Csm
0.10
Mawo Br. at A1(1000-Year)

Guadarupe Br. at B2(1000-year)
Wawa Br. at A1(1000-year)
Lambingan Br. at A1(1000-year)
Palanit Br. at A1(1000-year)
0.01
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0

Tm(sec)
Soil Type & Response Coefficement

Soil Profile Type
Guadarupe Br. Mawo Br. at A1 Wawa Br. at A1 Lambingan Br. Palanit Br.
at B2 at A1 at A1 at A1 & B1 at A1
T(sec) Cs(g) T(sec) Cs(g) T(sec) Cs(g) T(sec) Cs(g) T(sec) Cs(g)
0.010 0.380 0.010 0.380 0.010 0.380 0.010 0.380 0.010 0.630
0.120 0.920 0.200 0.820 0.150 0.880 0.110 0.920 0.070 1.570
0.120 0.920 0.200 0.820 0.150 0.880 0.110 0.920 0.070 1.570
0.590 0.920 1.120 0.820 0.730 0.880 0.560 0.920 0.340 1.570
0.590 0.915 1.120 0.820 0.730 0.877 0.560 0.911 0.340 1.559
0.610 0.885 1.200 0.767 0.750 0.853 0.600 0.850 0.600 0.883
0.700 0.771 3.000 0.307 0.800 0.800 0.700 0.729 0.700 0.757
0.810 0.667 4.000 0.230 0.850 0.753 0.800 0.638 0.800 0.663
0.900 0.600 5.000 0.184 0.900 0.711 0.900 0.567 0.900 0.589
1.000 0.540 6.000 0.153 1.000 0.640 1.000 0.510 1.000 0.530
2.000 0.270 7.000 0.131 2.000 0.320 2.000 0.255 2.000 0.265
3.000 0.180 8.000 0.115 3.000 0.213 3.000 0.170 3.000 0.177
4.000 0.135 9.000 0.102 4.000 0.160 4.000 0.128 4.000 0.133
5.000 0.108 10.000 0.092 5.000 0.128 5.000 0.102 5.000 0.106
6.000 0.090 0.000 0.000 6.000 0.107 6.000 0.085 6.000 0.088
7.000 0.077 0.000 0.000 7.000 0.091 7.000 0.073 7.000 0.076
8.000 0.068 0.000 0.000 8.000 0.080 8.000 0.064 8.000 0.066
9.000 0.060 0.000 0.000 9.000 0.071 9.000 0.057 9.000 0.059
10.000 0.054 0.000 0.000 10.000 0.064 10.000 0.051 10.000 0.053
Figure 16.1.1-1 Design Spectrum for New Bridge Design
16-4
(4) Materials
The material properties for concrete, reinforcing bar, PC cable, piles and steel structure mainly
utilized for steel deck superstructures shall be given as follows:
1) Concrete
Table 16.1.1-5 Concrete Strength by Structural Member

Compressive Strength
at 28 days (MPa) Structural Member
(Cylinder Specimen)
Post-tensioned PC I-Girder
40
Cast-in-situ PC Slab/Girder
Cast-in-situ PC Slab
35
Cast-in-situ PC Crossbeam
Substructure (Pier, Abutment, Pile Caps, Wing wall)
Retaining Wall, Box Culvert
28
Precast Reinforced Concrete Plate
Precast Parapet
21 Approach Slab
28 Cast-in-situ Bored Pile
Non-reinforced Concrete Structure
18
Lean Concrete
Source: DPWH
2) Reinforcing Bar
Table 16.1.1-6 Properties and Stress Limit of Reinforcing Bars

Yield Strength f y Tensile Strength f u Modulus of Elasticity Diameter of Bar
Type
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (mm)
Grade 275 275 500 200,000 D10, D12, D16,D20
Grade 415 414 620 200,000 D25,D28,D32,D36
Source: DPWH
3) PC Cable
Table 16.1.1-7 Properties and Stress Limit of PC Cable for T girder bridge
Min. Ultimate Strength Temporary Stress Stress at Service Load
(MPa) Before Loss due to Creep After Losses =0.7fs'
and Shrinkage = 0.8fs'
Grade 270 1862 1488 1300
Source: AASHTO
Table 16.1.1-8 Properties and Stress Limit of PC Cable for PC Box Girder bridge
Diameter Tensile Strength Modulus of Elasticity
(mm) (kN) (MPa)
12S15.2mm (SWPR7BL) 15.2mm 3130 200,000
Source: JIS
16-5
4) Steel Pipe Pile
Table 16.1.1-9 Properties and Stress Limit of Steel Pipe

Yield Strength f y Tensile Strength f u Modulus of Elasticity
Type
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Grade SKK 400 235 400 200,000
Grade SKK 490 315 490 200,000
Source: JIS
5) Steel Pipe Sheet Pile
Table 16.1.1-10 Properties and Stress Limit of Steel Pipe for Steel Pipe Sheet Pile
Type
(MPa) (MPa) (Mpa)
Grade SKY 400 235 400 200,000
Grade SKY 490 315 490 200,000
Source: JIS
6) Steel members for superstructure
Table 16.1.1-11 Properties and Stress Limit of Steel Members

Type
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
450 t < 40mm

SM570 430 40mm < t < 75mm 570 200,000
420 75mm < t < 100mm
355 t < 40mm

SM490W 335 40mm < t < 75mm 490 200,000
325 75mm < t < 100mm
235 t < 40mm

SM400AW 400 200,000
215 40mm < t < 100mm
355 t < 40mm

SM490Y 335 40mm < t < 75mm 490 200,000
325 75mm < t < 100mm
235 t < 40mm

SS400 400 200,000
215 40mm < t < 100mm
Source: JIS
16-6
16.1.2 Determination of New Bridge Types for Outline Design
Bridge types to be conducted in the outline design are determined based on comparison study
considering multiple elements such as costs, structure advantage, constructability, environmental
impact and maintenance ability. The following flowchart shows the basic procedure of the
comparison study for selection of new bridge types.
STEP 1. Confirmation of ROAD CONDITION

- Cross Section of Bridge, Lane Arrangement
- Road Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
STEP 2. Confirmation of HYDRAULIC CONDITION

- Confirmation of River Condition From Interim Report
- HWL/ HTW for Navigation Clearance
STEP 3. Examination of SUBSTRUCTURE LOCATION

- Abutment Location
- Span Arrangement
STEP 4. Confirmation of BASIC CONCEPT
STEP 5. COMPARISON STUDY of New Bridge Types

- Extraction of Applicable Basic Types based on Actual Results
- Selection of Logically Suitable Types from above the Basic Types
- Applicability of Modern/ Rational/ Advanced Technological Types
- Comprehensive Comparison Study of New Bridge Types
Cost, Structure, Environment, Construction and Maintenance
Figure 16.1.2-1 Procedure of Comparison Study for Selection of New Bridge Types
For extraction of applicable basic types based on actual results shown at STEP 5 in the above
procedure, the following table regarding the relationship between actual results of basic bridge types
and span length is organized on the basis of '11 Design Data Book ('11 JBA Manual) and PC Bridge
Planning Manual ('2007 JPPCA).
Figure 16.1.2-2 Relationships between Actual Results of Basic Bridge Types and Span Length
16-7
(1) Lambingan Bridge
i) Bridge Width
For the cross section and lane arrangement of new bridge, the examined results of road planning
including approach roads shall be applied, shown as follows. For the current condition of Lambingan
bridge, a water pipe bridge, which is a trussed arch bridge, is currently located at 2.0m separated from
the existing road bridge for downstream side; thereby, adequate superstructure type without any
influence against the water pipe bridge even during construction phase shall be selected.
Figure 16.1.2-3 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Lambingan Bridge
ii) Road Horizontal and Vertical Alignment

For horizontal and vertical alignment of new bridge, the examined results of road planning including
approach roads shall be applied, shown as follows. In the road planning, multiple planning in
consideration of river condition such as height of design flood level and required free board are
examined, from the conclusion of which the girder height of Lambingan bridge is restricted within
2.0m.
Figure 16.1.2-4 Vertical Alignment by Road Planning of New Lambingan Bridge
For hydraulic condition in the new bridge selection, the determined results in this project shall be
applied. From the result of hydraulic examination, existing free board and navigation width shall be
strongly secured from the aspect of safety of vessels.
16-8
i) Location of Abutments for Simple Supported Bridge Type

For the location of abutments for simple supported bridge type, the abutment shall be planned at the
section, at which the wing walls of new abutments and existing retaining walls can be continuously
connected. Consequently, the bridge length for the simple supported bridge type can be resulted as
90m long.
Figure 16.1.2-5 Determination of Abutment Location of Lambingan Bridge

(Simple Supported Condition)
ii) Location of Abutments for 3-Span Continuous Bridge Type

2-Span and 4-Span bridges are negative to be applied in this location because the pier(s) would be
naturally installed in the center of the river. Therefore, following the above mentioned simple
supported bridge, applicability of 3-Span bridge type shall be considered in the multiple comparison
study. In case that the new piers were planned at the same location of existing piers based on
navigation condition, inadequate negative reactions would be caused at the abutments even in the
dead load condition due to ambulanced span arrangement. Thereby, the location of new abutments
shall be determined considering such the occasion.
16-9
Figure 16.1.2-6 Determination of Abutment Location of Lambingan Bridge (3-Span Condition)
iii) Span Arrangement in Comparison Study

Following figure shows the span arrangements using in comparison study, resulted from above
examination. 2-Span and 4-Span bridges are not included in the comparison study because they can
not absolutely meet the navigation and river required conditions.
Figure 16.1.2-7 Span Arrangements of Lambingan Bridge in Comparison Study
iv) Examination of Applicable Bridge Types Considering Construction Condition

Lambingan bridge is of urban bridge, the both sides of approach roads of which have a lot of houses
and buildings. Besides, other useful alternative bridges to be utilized as Detour bridge during
construction phase do not exist near Lambingan bridge. Thereby, the adequate construction method is
required not to affect existing traffic flow and residential removal. Based on such the background,
following construction methodologies are compared in consideration of two of construction
conditions such as Stage Construction and Total Construction.
16-10
< STAGE CONSTRUCTION>
The construction method to elect new bridge separately
Figure 16.1.2-8 Construction Steps of Stage Construction
<Advantage>
- No need secure detour roads such as other alternative bridge or temporary bridge
- Minimum residential removal
<Disadvantage>
- Complicated construction steps and longer schedule, rather than Total Construction
- Limited superstructure type because even 1st phase structure should meet live loads influences.
< TOTAL CONSTRUCTION>

In order to secure existing traffic flow, detour road such like temporary bridge across the river is to be
utilized and all of structure will be erected after demolishing the existing structure.
Figure 16.1.2-9 Detour Temporary Bridge under Total Construction Method
<Advantage>
- Erection schedule is to be shorter and familiar method is available to applied
- Structurally rational superstructure can be designed
<Disadvantage>
- A temporary detour bridge is required to secure existing wide navigation width (W=60m)
- The span length of the temporary detour bridge is needed over 61m, which may be extremely
expensive because familiar structure can not apply.
- Influence of residential removal may be quite significant due to detour road and its approaches
16-11
Based on the above comparison, application of the total construction may not be realistic method;
hence, the selection of bridge type of Lambingan bridge shall be examined based on the stage
construction method.
The basic concept resulted from above STEP 1 to STEP 3 is enumerated. The basic concept may be
significantly important factor for bridge selection under the comparison study.
 New abutments locations are newly and carefully determined in consideration of existing and
planning condition around the location
 Existing navigation width and navigation height shall be strictly secured.
 Based on road alignment examination, the girder height should be kept within 2.0m to secure
the existing navigation clearance
 The longest span of New Bridge: 90m (Simple), 61m (3-Spans)
 2-Span or 4 or more Span bridge not applicable
 In the Comparison Study of New Bridge Type, the concept of bridge construction should be
reflected into the evaluation. Stage construction method is applicable to this bridge
i) Extraction of Applicable Basic Types based on Actual Results

Based on the basic concept and several conditions, applicable bridge types are extracted from the table
of Relationships between Actual Results of Basic Bridge Types and Span Length, shown as follows.
Table 16.1.2-1 Extraction of Applicable Basic Types based on Actual Results

STEEL PC
Simple Supported
Steel Truss PC Cable Stayed
Steel Langer Concrete Lohse Arch
Steel Lohse Arch
Steel Lohse Arch Stiffened Steel Deck Box
(Rational Structure)
2-Span
--- ---
3-Span
Continuous RC Slab Steel Box Continuous PC Box
Continuous Steel Deck Box
16-12
ii) Selection of Logically Suitable Types from above the Basic Types
Steel Truss bridge shall be included in one of the candidates. 2.0m of girder height is realizable.
Because Floor system and trusses are separated structurally, connection between 1st and 2nd phase
structures is smoothly executable using simple counter weights. Structurally 3-face truss type should
be applied due to stage construction method.
3-span continuous steel deck box girder bridge shall be included in one of the candidates. 2.0m of
girder height is realizable.
Simple steel Langer and Lohse arch bridges shall not be included in the detail comparison study.
General Langer and Lohse arch bridges consist of 2 of arch ribs and floor system that is structurally
separated and that is installed between the two arch ribs. Therefore, to realize stage construction, 3-
arch-rib structure system should be applied. Consequently, in case of application of such the 3-arch-
rib system, absolutely it will be much more expensive than the above truss bridge.
As structurally rational bridge type, other rational arch type bridge that arch ribs stiffen girder type
bridge may be applicable. Thus, simple supported steel Lohse arch stiffening steel deck box girder
bridge would be efficiently applicable to be included as a candidate, which is obviously erectable in
this site. 90 m of span length of the steel deck box girder can not be applicable in this site because the
girder height will be over 3.0m high, otherwise, application of steel Langer or Lohse arch bridges are
as mentioned above concern about expensive costs. Therefore, the effectiveness of such the rational
structure may be absolutely confirmed. Structurally separated Lohse stiffened box girders are needed
because of application of stage construction; however, by applying same structures to 1st and 2nd
phase superstructure types, connection between them is smoothly executable using simple counter
weight.
PC cable stayed bridge and simple supported concrete Lohse arch bridge will be naturally the most
expensive bridge type in this site, and there are no land spaces where stiffening concrete arch or
towers can be constructed. Therefore, such the bridge types are not realistic bridge type to be included
into the detail comparison study. Additionally, 3 span RC slab steel box girder and PC box girder can
not be applicable because the girder height will be beyond 3.0m which can not meet the road and river
required condition.
Based on the above evaluation, multiple comparison study is conducted considering cost, structure,
environmental impact, constructability and maintenance ability.
Table 16.1.2-2 Candidates of comparison study

SEEL PC
Simple Supported
Steel Truss ―
Steel Lohse Arch Stiffening Steel Deck Box
3-Span
Continuous Steel Deck Box ―
Based on the evaluation, shown in the comparison table, the recommendable bridge type for outline
design is Simple Supported Lohse Arch Stiffening Steel Deck Girder Bridge.
iii) Selection of Logically Suitable Types of Bridge Foundations

In the study on selection of bridge foundation, study of site conditions for selecting an appropriate
foundation type is a key discussion.
The site conditions are shown in below table. In the abutment, particularly it was located very close to
existing abutment, meanwhile, the Pier foundation is located very close to navigation channel.
16-13
Table 16.1.2-3 Site Condition for Study of Type-1
Study Type Abutment Foundation Pier Foundation
Foundation location On the ground In the River
Closed to narrow navigation

proximity structure Closed to existing abutment
channel
in a curve with close to existing
Navigation condition -
piers
Max. Water depth (m) - Around 10.5 m
Depth of bearing layer (m) Around GL-17.5 to 19.0m Around GL-15.0m
Type of bearing layer Rock Rock
Liquefaction liquefiable site liquefiable site
Lateral spreading - -
Based on the above site conditions, applicable foundation types are extracted, shown as follows.

Abutment Foundation Pier Foundation
Large Diameter Bored Pile Steel Pipe Sheet Pile Foundation
(Rotary all casing boring method) (Press-in method)
Commonly used Cast-in-place Concrete Pile Commonly used Cast-in-place Concrete Pile
(Reverse circulation drill method) (Reverse circulation drill method)
According to the above evaluation, multiple comparison study is conducted considering cost,
construction period, neighboring construction, constructability, and environmental impact.
The result of comparative study of abutment foundation are shown in the next tables, the
recommendable abutment foundation type for outline design is Large Diameter Bored Pile, because of
its advantages in low construction cost and shortest construction period on account of consider
neighboring Constructability.
The recommendable pier foundation type for outline design is Steel Pipe Sheet Pile (SPSP)
Foundation, because of its advantages in minimum term of construction period & traffic control with
efficient workability in the river. (refer to Chapter 16.1.2. (2) Guadarupe bridge)
Table 16.1.2-5 Site Candidates of Comparison Study

Simple Supported
Large Diameter Bored Pile
-
(Rotary all casing boring method)
3-Span
16-14
Table 16.1.2-6 Comparison on Foundation Type of Lambingan Bridge Abutment（A2)
Alternative-1　(reverse circulation drill method) Alternative-2 (rotary all casing boring method)
Evaluation Items
Commonly used Cast-in-place Concrete Pile D= 1.2m Large Diameter Bored Pile(Cas-in-place Pile D= 2.5m)
Diameter of pile : 1200 mm Diameter of pile : 2500 mm
Total number of pile : 16 Total number of pile :5
Pile length : 18.0 m Pile length : 18.0 m
Total length of pile : 288.0 m Total length of pile : 90.0 m OUTLINE DESIGN
8,500
Side View
Pile arrangement
3,500
CCP φ2,500
L=18,000 n=5
CCP φ1,200
L=18,000,n=16
16-15
- Pile Displacement Ratio (Pile dosplacement/displacement limit) is 0.872 - Pile Displacement Ratio (Pile dosplacement/displacement limit) is 0.980
Structural Aspect and Stability - Need to the large number of Cast-in-Place Concrete A B
Unit Cost Total Unit Cost
Quantity (Php) (1,000Php) Quantity (Php) Total (1,000Php)
Pile Cap Concrete 290m3 7,559.8 2,195 Pile Cap Concrete 185m3 7,559.8 1,397
Construction Cost Reinforcement steel 58ton 52,600.0 3,055 Reinforcement steel 37ton 52,600.0 1,944
C A
(for　Foundation） Pile 288m 45,898.5 13,219 Pile 90m 116,987.0 10,529
Cofferdam 1077m2 21,181.9 22,813 Cofferdam 1017m2 21,181.9 21,542
Total 41,282 Total 35,412
Ratio 1.166 Ratio 1.000
- Working in Temporary cofferdam & low spaces of under the temporary stage. - Working in Temporary cofferdam & low spaces of under the temporary stage.
Cofferdam Work 40 days Cofferdam Work 38 days
Pile work (1.5pile/day) 24 days Pile work (2pile/day) 10 days
Construction Plan and Period C A
Pile Cap 29 days Pile Cap 18 days
Total 1.404891487 93 days Total 1 66 days
- Keep out of exsisting abutment and new abutment foundation by rotary all casing boring
Neighboring Construction - Not keep out of exsisting abutment and new abutment foundation. C A
method.
Constructability - Constructability is inferior due to large number of Cast-in-place concrete Pile work. B -Constructability is superior with small number of foundation work. A
Environmental Aspect - Inferior in Environmental aspect due to large number of excavated soil. B - Superior in Environmental aspect with small number of excavated soil. A
- Construction cost is highest with long construction period. - Construction cost is lowest with minimum Construction period with efficient workability.
Evaluation B A
Not Recommended Most Recommended
Table 16.1.2-7 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Lambingan bridge
OUTLINE DESIGN
16-16
(2) Guadalupe Bridge
i) Bridge Width
The superstructure of new bridge shall be the outer bridge, which is currently PC girder bridge.
Figure 16.1.2-10 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Existing Guadalupe Bridge
including approach roads shall be applied, shown as follows.
Figure 16.1.2-11 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of New Guadalupe Bridge
ii) Road Horizontal and Vertical Alignment

Horizontal and vertical alignment of the new bridge shall be adjusted to existing center bridge.
applied. From the result of hydraulic examination, existing free board and navigation width shall be
strongly secured from the aspect of safety of vessels.
16-17
i) Location of Abutments for Simple Supported Bridge Type

Existing center bridge does not be replaced therefore automatically the span arrangement of side
bridge can be determined as 3-span bridge. For determination of the location of abutments, the
following items can be carefully evaluated.
 For the abutment A1 at left side bank, excavation during construction phase shall not affect
existing roads.
 For the abutment A2 at right side bank, existing bank protection in front of new abutment A2
shall not be affected by the new abutment during completion as well as construction phase.
Based on above consideration, the locations of both abutments are appropriate to be planned in front
of existing abutments. The new bridge length is 125m (41.1m+42.8m+41.1m).
Figure 16.1.2-12 Determination of Abutment Location of Guadalupe Bridge
ii) Span Arrangement in Comparison Study

Following figure shows the span arrangement for comparison study of bridge types.
Figure 16.1.2-13 Span Arrangement for Comparison Study
16-18
 New abutments locations are newly determined by the condition of existing structure based on
constructability and cost efficiency.
 The location of the piers are not changed >>> 3 Span Bridge Only
 Bridge Length of New Bridge (Side): 125m
 The Span arrangement is 41.1m + 42.8m + 41.1m
 Same navigation clearance and width as those of existing center bridge shall be secured for the
new side bridges, the girder height shall be within 2.1m
 To minimize influences of current traffic even during bridge construction stage
 To minimize land acquisition and resettlement of inhabitants even during bridge construction
stage


STEL PC
3-Span
Continuous RC Slab Steel I-Shape Girder Continuous PC-I Girder
Continuous RC Slab Steel Box Girder
Continuous Steel Deck I-Shape Girder
Continuous Steel Deck Box Girder
Continuous Steel Truss (Tubular)
Continuous Steel Truss (Deck Truss)

Continuous RC slab steel I-shape girder bridge is not included in the comparison study. The girder
height including RC slab thickness will be approx. 2.5m, which can not secure existing free board.
Besides, slab concrete will be constructed by cast-in-place method, therefore, the construction
duration of superstructure will be longer and will affect significant traffic flow.
Continuous steel truss bridge is not included in the comparison. The truss height is to be approx. 4.5m
or higher. Logically and structurally this superstructure type can be applied, but the bridge with heavy
traffic like Guadalupe bridge, the bridge type that an important structural member exists on the bridge
surface and on the same traffic lane affects significantly traffic function and may not be a realistic
planning from the point of view of traffic safety and performance of accident processing on the bridge.
Continuous steel truss bridge (deck type truss) is not included in the comparison study. The girder
height including RC slab thickness will be approx. 2.5m, which can not secure existing free board.
Besides, slab concrete will be constructed by cast-in-place method, therefore, the construction
duration of superstructure will be longer and will affect significant traffic flow.
For PC-I shape girder bridge, the girder height will be 2.3m which can not secure existing free board.
Otherwise, both of steel deck box and I-shape girder bridges are included into the comparison study.
Both bridge type can be meet the requirement of free board of 2.1m. Generally, steel box girders are
more expensive than steel I-shape girders. However because the bridge width of Guadalupe bridge is
comparatively narrow, one-box type can be applied, which may reduce its cost efficiently.
16-19
Table 16.1.2-9 Candidates of Comparison Study
SEEL PC
3 Span
Continuous Steel Deck I-Shape Girder ―
Based on the study shown in the comparison table, the recommendable bridge type for outline design
is 3-Span Continuous Steel Deck Box Girder Bridge.

foundation type is a key discussion. In the study on selection of Guadarupe bridge foundation, study
of an abutment foundation type, pier foundation type and comparison of structure (pile type) are the
key discussions.
The site conditions are shown in below table. In the abutment, particularly it was located very close to
existing abutment, meanwhile, the Pier foundation is located very close to navigation channel.

Closed to narrow navigation

proximity structure Closed to existing abutment
channel
Navigation condition - Very close to existing piers

Around GL- 1.0m (A1)
Depth of bearing layer (m) Around GL-15.0m
Around GL-9.0m(A2)
Type of bearing layer Rock/Sand Sand
Liquefaction liquefiable site liquefiable site
Based on the above site conditions, applicable foundation types are extracted, shown as follows.

Commonly used Cast-in-place Concrete Pile Commonly used Cast-in-place Concrete Pile
(Reverse circulation drill method) (Reverse circulation drill method)
According to the above evaluation, multiple comparison study is conducted considering cost,
construction period, neighboring construction, constructability, and environmental impact.
16-20
The result of comparative study of abutment foundation are shown in the next tables, the
recommendable abutment foundation type for outline design is Large Diameter Bored Pile, because of
its advantages in low construction cost and shortest construction period on account of consider
neighboring Constructability.
The recommendable pier foundation type for outline design is Steel Pipe Sheet Pile (SPSP)
Foundation, because of its advantages in minimum term of construction period & traffic control with
efficient workability in narrow navigation.
Table 16.1.2-12 Candidates of Comparison Study

3-Span
16-21
Table 16.1.2-14 Comparison on Abutment Foundation Type of Guadarupe Bridge
Alternative-1　(reverse circulation drill method) Alternative-2 (rotary all casing boring method)
Evaluation Items
Cas-in-place Concrete Pile D= 1.2m Cas-in-place Concrete Pile D= 2.5m
Diameter of pile : 1200 mm Diameter of pile : 2500 mm
Total number of pile :6 Total number of pile :2
Pile length : 19.0 m Pile length : 19.0 m
Total length of pile : 114.0 m Total length of pile : 38.0 m
OUTLINE DESIGN
Side View
Pile arrangement
CCP φ1,200 CCP φ2,500

L=19,500,n=6 L=19,500,n=2
16-22
- Pile Displacement Ratio (Pile dosplacement/displacement limit) is 0.767 - Pile Displacement Ratio (Pile dosplacement/displacement limit) is 0.768
Structural Aspect and Stability - Need to the large number of Cast-in-Place Concrete A A
Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total
Quantity (Php) (1,000Php) Quantity (Php) (1,000Php)
Pile Cap Concrete 212m3 7,559.8 1,603 Pile Cap Concrete 182m3 7,559.8 1,376
Construction Cost　(for Reinforcement steel 42ton 52,600.0 2,230 Reinforcement steel 36ton 52,600.0 1,915
Pile 114m 45,898.5 5,232
C Pile 38m 116,987.0 4,446
A
Foundation）
Cofferdam 390m2 21,181.9 8,261 Cofferdam 360m2 21,181.9 7,625
- Working in Temporary cofferdam & low spaces of under the temporary - Working in Temporary cofferdam & low spaces of under the temporary
stage. stage.
Cofferdam Work 14 days Cofferdam Work 13 days
Construction Plan and Period Pile work (1.5pile/day) 9 days C Pile work (2pile/day) 4 days A
Pile Cap 21 days Pile Cap 18 days
Total 1.256410256 45 days Total 1 36 days
- Keep out of existing abutment and new abutment foundation by Press-in Pile
Neighboring Construction - Not keep out of existing abutment and new abutment foundation. C A
Driving Method
- Constructability is inferior due to large number of Cast-in-place concrete
Constructability B - Constructability is superior with small number of foundation work. A
Pile work.
Environmental Aspect - Inferior in Environmental aspect due to large number of excavated soil. B - Superior in Environmental aspect with small number of excavated soil. A
- Construction cost is highest with long construction period. - Construction cost is lowest with minimum Construction period with efficient
Evaluation B workability. A
- Recommended
Table 16.1.2-15 Comparison on Pier Foundation（P2) Type of Guadarupe Bridge
Alternative-2
Alternative-1
Cas-in-place Concrete Pile Foundation（D=1.2m, L=14m）
SPSP Foundation (D=0.8m, L=16m)
with Temporary SPSP (self-support type)
OUTLINE DESIGN
3,500 3,500
Side View
16-23
Structural Aspect - Small number of Pile Cap concrete. A - Large number of Pile Cap concrete and C.I.P. Piles B
Navigation Width at during construction) - Wilder (Over 25.0m) A - Narrow (Under 25.0m) due to temporary SPSP cofferdam C
- Superior in neightborning construction with Press-in Pile - Inferior in neightborning construction with the reverse
Neighboring Construction A B
Driving Method. circulation drill method.
- Constructability in superior with small number of - Constructability is inferior due to large number of
Constructability of under girder A B
foundation work. foundation work.
Term of Foundation Construction - Shorter (48 months) A - Longer (61months) C

Term of Traffic Control - Shorter (20 months) A - Longer (26months) B
　Total　Cost (Ratio) - A Little Expensive (1.111) B - A Little Inexpensive (1.000) A

- Superior in Environmental aspect with small number of - Inferior in Environmental aspect due to large number of
Environmental Aspect A B
excavated soil. excavated soil.
- Minimum term of construction period & traffic control with - Maximum term of construction period & traffic control.
efficient workability. - Workability is inferior due to large number of foundation work in
　Evaluation - Superior in Environmental aspect with small number of excavated narrow river.
Recommended -
Table 16.1.2-16 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Guadalupe Side bridge
OUTLINE DESIGN
16-24
(3) Palanit Bridge
i) Bridge Width
Figure 16.1.2-14 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Palanit Bridge
ii) Rising of Vertical Alignment

Existing bridge is steel truss type bridge with 1.3m of substance girder height, which can secure 1.5m
of free board. However, in this project, applicability of other bridge types except steel truss tubular
bridge should be examined based on multiple new bridge comparison study. Therefore, road condition
around the approach bridge is verified in case of rising of vertical alignment for the purpose to
evaluate the applicability of other bridge type, the substance girder height of which is over 1.3m.
<1.5m rising of vertical alignment >
Impact:
 20 - 25cm rising caused in approach road
 Impact against settlements beside the approach roads may be slight because the influence of
rising can be stay around 20 or 25cm
 In case that amount of rising can be keep under 1.0m, the rising caused around approach roads
can be absorbed by vertical slope on the bridge
 Therefore, as above, for Palanit bridge, 1.5m rising of vertical alignment can be acceptable,
and the additional costs due to the rising shall be partly included to the relevant structure
Figure 16.1.2-15 Rising of Vertical Alignment
16-25
applied shown as follows. For the design flood level, the level of 1.9m (197m3/s) which is a design
high water level may be suitable for the design. The free board is determined as 1.5m or more.
This water level is determined by simple hydraulic analysis and interview. Therefore, in the detail
design stage, detail hydraulic analysis should be carried out to verify the level of high water level.
Table 16.1.2-17 DHW of Palanit Bridge
Figure 16.1.2-16 DHW and Free Board of Palanit Bridge
16-26
i) Location of Abutments
The locations of abutments are determined based on high water level, determined by hydraulic
analysis and site interview. The abutment shall not be affected by the boundary lines of high water
level. The new bridge length considering such the condition is 82m.
Figure 16.1.2-17 Location of Abutments

The water depth under the bridge is very shallow such as 50cm to 100cm and hard rocks are exposed.
Therefore, even middle size of barges is not passable under the bridge; inhabitants bring small boats
directly into the river. Therefore, following four of points shall be considered:
- Piers should not interrupt inhabitants' small boat
- Centerline of stream should be opened not to interrupt navigating boats
- As reference, understand the value of water rising due to inhibition ration by gross hydraulic
analysis
Therefore, piers can basically be installed outside the area by red dashed lines in the following figure.
Figure 16.1.2-18 Installable Area of Piers
16-27
<2-Span Bridge>
A pier should be installed at the center of the river, which affect navigating boats. Otherwise, water
rising is not confirmed by gross hydraulic analysis. Therefore, this span arrangement is not the most
appropriate span arrangement but is included into comparison study.
Figure 16.1.2-19 2 Span Bridge
<3-Span Bridge>
For 3-span bridge, the center span can be a role of opening section for the navigating boats, which
may be very advantage. Otherwise, the inhibition ratio due to the substructures is approx 4.9%,
however the water rising calculated by this condition is very slight.
16-28
<4-Span Bridge>
For 4-span bridge, piers in the river must interrupt navigating boats. Besides, the inhibition ratio due
to substructures is approx. 6.8% that causes about 15cm water rising from the result of gross
calculation. Therefore, to apply this number or more spans cause hydraulic problems absolutely;
hence this span arrangement is not included into the comparison study.
 New abutments locations are determined by Hydraulic analysis

 Such the new abutments are not affected by the Flood and High Tide
 Bridge Length of New Bridge: 82m, Other section is embankment of 123m
 Oceanfront/ Shelving bottom/ No utilization as a Port

 No settlement at the upstream area of the river
 Only small boats passing , normal barge or ships can not pass due to shallow water and No
need to use such the barges because no settlements at the upstream area
 2-Span (Max 41m) or 3-Span (Max 28m) is available span arrangement
 Minimal maintenance bridge will be recommended, reflecting on-site request.
 Girder height can be allowed until 2.8m
16-29


STEEL PC
Simple Supported
Steel Deck Box ―
Steel Truss (Tubular)
Steel Lohse Arch
2-Span
Continuous RC Slab Steel I-Shape Girder Continuous PC Box
Continuous PC-I Girder
3-Span
Continuous RC Slab Steel I-Shape Girder Continuous PC-I Girder
Continuous RC Slab Steel Box Girder
Suitable bridge types are selected logically among above extracted bridges, to be utilized for final
comparison study as follows:
Table 16.1.2-19 Extraction of Basic Types for Final Comparison Study (Steel)
STEEL Inclusion of Final Comparison Study
Simple supported Steel Deck Box - Not Included in Final Comparison Study
- Girder height 3.0m, Not accepted
- Over Specification
- Disadvantage for Maintenance ability
Simple Supported Steel Truss (Tubular) - Included in Final Comparison Study
- Classic Truss
Simple Supported Steel Lohse Arch - Not Included in Final Comparison Study
2-Span RC Slab Steel I-Shape Girder - Included in Final Comparison Study
- Classic Type Steel Girder Bridge
- Girder height 2.4m, 1.1m road rising
- Disadvantage for navigating small boat
3-Span RC Slab Steel I-Shape Girder - Included in Final Comparison Study
- Classic Type Steel Girder Bridge
- Girder height 1.8m, approx. 0.5m road rising
16-30
Table 16.1.2-20 Extraction of Basic Types for Final Comparison Study (PC)
PC Inclusion of Final Comparison Study
2-Span PC Box Girder - Included in Final Comparison Study
- Girder height 2.1m, approx 0.8m road rising
2-Span PC-I Girder - Included in Final Comparison Study
3-Span PC-I Girder - Included in Final Comparison Study
Table 16.1.2-21 Candidates of Final Comparison Study

STEEL PC
Simple Supported
Simple Supported Steel Truss (Tubular) ―
2 Span
2-Span RC Slab Steel I-Shape Girder 2-Span PC Box Girder
2-Span PC-I Girder
3 Span
3-Span RC Slab Steel I-Shape Girder 3-Span PC-I Girder
design is 3-Span Connected PC-I Girder bridge.

foundation type is a key discussion.
The site conditions are shown in below table. In the abutments & Piers were located on the rock with
shallow water.

Proximity structure - -
Navigation condition - No navigation
Around GL- 1.0m (A1)
Depth of bearing layer (m) Around GL-3. m
Around GL-9.0m(A2)
Type of bearing layer Rock Rock
Liquefaction - -
Based on the above site conditions, applicable foundation types are recommended spread footing type.
16-31
Table 16.1.2-23 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Palanit bridge (STEEL)
16-32
Table 16.1.2-24 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Palanit bridge (PC)
OUTLINE DESIGN
16-33
(4) Mawo Bridge
i) Bridge Width
Figure 16.1.2-22 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Mawo Bridge
ii) Rising of Vertical Alignment

Existing bridge consists of two of simple supported steel Langer bridges with 1.6m of substance
girder height, which can secure 1.5m of free board. However, in this project, applicability of other
bridge types except steel arch bridge should be examined based on multiple new bridge comparison
study. Therefore, road condition around the approach bridge is verified in case of rising of vertical
alignment for the purpose to evaluate the applicability of other bridge type, the substance girder
height of which is over 1.6m.
<1.5m rising of vertical alignment>
Impact:
 45cm road rising at left side approach road and 1.6m road rising at right side approach road
 The gradient of sub approach road joining to main road will be approx. 8% over
 In case of 1.6m road rising at right side bank, inhabitants can not utilize the main road as
residential road. They need new detour long sub approach road
 Therefore, as above, for Mawo bridge, 1.5m rising of vertical alignment, what is called as large
scale rising, can not acceptable.
 Otherwise, in case that amount of rising can be keep under 0.5m, the rising caused around
approach roads can be absorbed by vertical slope on the bridge, which should be included as
additional costs due to the rising shall be partly included to the relevant structure
45cm Rise up
New Abutment
1.6ｍ Rise up
Longitudinal Slope changes to 8% more, current condition is 4.8%
Figure 16.1.2-23 Rising of Vertical Alignment
16-34
applied shown as follows. The design flood level is 1.35m (1245m3/s, 100yrs). However, the High
Tide Water Level is observed as 1.40m. Therefore, as the design water level the High Tide Water
Level should be utilized. The free board is determined as 1.5m.
However, around this area, the water flows is comparatively complicated condition hydraulically. And
the results of hydraulic analysis will affect critically the results of bridge planning. Therefore, in detail
design stage, detail hydraulic analysis based upon further investigation shall be implemented by river/
hydraulic engineers.
Table 16.1.2-25 DHW of Mawo Bridge
Figure 16.1.2-24 DHW and Free Board of Mawo Bridge
16-35
hydraulic engineers.
Figure 16.1.2-25 Location of Abutments

The location of piers, which is important factor for study of span arrangement, is determined in
consideration of bridge structure and environmental conditions. In contrast to the condition of Palanit
bridge, there are some settlements around the area of upstream side of Mawo bridge. And the water
depth of the river is enough condition that middle size barge can pass under the bridge. Therefore,
same as to the existing bridge, the new bridge planning may be implemented considering the
possibility of water logistics for development of upstream side of the river. Thus, minimum size of
barge passable under the river should be estimated to realize such the future situation.
Firstly, in order to study applicable span arrangement to be included in comparison study, classes of
barges and required width from the classes should be estimated on the basis of existing condition. In
this project, the estimation is implemented based on a specification of "Guide Specifications and
Commentary for Vessel Collision Design of Highway Bridges, Second Edition 2009".
16-36
<Assumed barge>
The classes consist of various classes corresponding to their purposes such like open hopper and tank
barge, etc. According to the river condition, the water depth from standard water level (EL=0.5m) to
river bed is approximately 3.3m, in which normal small barge, full loaded draft 12.5ft/3.8m, may be
passable in 53m width at left side bank and in 67m width at right side bank, shown as following figure.
Therefore, existing two of 130m class Langer bridges have not their major purpose to secure
horizontal clearance for navigating barge; the new bridge type can be planned in the scope that span
length does not interrupt navigating barges.
Figure 16.1.2-26 Study of Navigation Width
<The navigation width to be applied in new bridge planning>

As shown in the above figure, the width in which the assumed barge is passable are 53m at left side
bank and 67m at right side bank. These navigation widths are respectively 0.86LOA and 1.1LOA for
the LOA that is overall length of the assumed barge. According to the relationship between ship
collision and span length specified in "Guide Specifications and Commentary for Vessel Collision
Design of highway Bridges, Second Edition 2009, AASHTO", the values of 0.86 and 1.1 may be
close to the limited value of span length, which ship collision is incident. Consequently, the number of
span must not reduce such the limited value that can secure opining of 53m width.
16-37
Figure 16.1.2-27 Relationship between ship collision and span length specified
"Guide Specifications and Commentary for Vessel Collision Design of highway Bridges, Second
Edition 2009, AASHT"
Figure 16.1.2-28 Assumed barges
"Guide Specifications and Commentary for Vessel Collision Design of highway Bridges, Second
Edition 2009, AASHT"
16-38
<2-Span Bridge>
The navigation width is almost same to existing condition. The span arrangement is adequate
structurally and hydraulically. However, the costs of the bridges may be more expensive than any
other case.
<3-Span Bridge>
For 3-span bridge, the center span length should be keep 80m in consideration structural balance. The
center span can secure wider navigation clearance than existing condition.
16-39
<4-Span Bridge>
For 4-span bridge, the center span length should be keep 52m in consideration structural balance.
Therefore, the navigation width is 49m that is narrower than that of existing bridge. Additionally the
width is 0.8 LOA, dangerousness of ship collision would be significantly increased. This span
arrangement is not recommendable but as reference, final cost comparison is examined between the
finally recommended bridge type and the suitable type of 4-span bridge.
 New abutments locations are newly determined by Hydraulic analysis

 Such the new abutments are not affected by the Flood and High Tide
 Bridge Length of New Bridge: 205m
 Enough water depth

 Possibility of development plan for the settlements of the upstream area in the future
 Existing maritime transportation capacity under the bridge shall be secured for development of
the upstream area
 2-Span (Max 102.5m), 3-Span (Max 80m) is available span arrangement

16-40
STEEL PC
Simple Supported
Self-Anchored Suspension Bridge ―
Nielsen Lohse Arch
2-Span
Continuous Lohse Arch PC Cable Stayed Bridge
Continuous Langer
Continuous Truss (Tubular)
3-Span
Continuous Truss (Tubular) PC Cable Stayed Bridge
Continuous Steel Deck Box Girder PC Extradosed Bridge
PC Panel Stayed Bridge
(Rational Structure)e
Continuous PC Fin Back Girder
Self-Anchored Suspension Bridge - Not Included in Final Comparison Study
- Clearly expensive
Nielsen Lohse Arch - Not Included in Final Comparison Study
- Clearly expensive
2-Span Continuous Steel Lohse Arch - Included in Final Comparison Study
- Low girder height
- No Road Rising
2 of Steel Langer - Not Included in Final Comparison Study
- Not continuous bridge
- Disadvantage seismically
2- Span Continuous Steel Truss (Tubular) - Included in Final Comparison Study
- Low girder height
- No Road Rising
2- Span Continuous Steel Deck Box - Included in Final Comparison Study
- Girder height 3.6m
- 1.5m of Road Rising
3-Span Continuous Steel Lohse Arch - Included in Final Comparison Study
3- Span Continuous Steel Truss (Tubular) - Included in Final Comparison Study
3- Span Continuous Steel Deck Box - Included in Final Comparison Study
- 0.8m of Road Rising
16-41
2-Span Continuous PC Cable-Stayed Bridge - Not Included in Final Comparison Study
- Clearly expensive
3-Span Continuous PC Cable-Stayed Bridge - Not Included in Final Comparison Study
- Clearly expensive
3-Span Continuous PC Box Girder - Cost is comparatively high because this new
bridge will be over span length of 77m that is the
actual results of general PC erection method
- 3.2m of road rising necessary
- Not Acceptable the amount of road rising
- Propose Rational Structure of this Type
- Included the Rational Structure
For PC bridges, basic PC bridges can not adequately meet the fundamental requirements of Mawo
bridge, therefore, in addition to the above basic bridge types, following rational structures that are
lately constructed in Japan are proposed and included in the final comparison study.

16-42
Table 16.1.2-29 Bridge Types for Final Comparison Study, including Rational Structures (PC)
2-Span Continuous PC Extradosed Bridge - Not Included in Final Comparison Study
- Intermediate structure between Cable-stayed
bridge and girder bridge
- Girder height 3.4m at Towers
- Clearly expensive
2-Span Continuous PC Panel-Stayed Bridge - Not Included in Final Comparison Study
- Intermediate structure between Cable-stayed
bridge and girder bridge
- The cables of extradosed bridge were covered
by concrete.
- Anticorrosion property of the cables covered by
concrete is positive but replacements are not easy
to repairing work
- Girder height 3.4m at Towers
- Clearly expensive
3-Span Continuous PC Extradosed Bridge - Not Included in Final Comparison Study
- Applicable adequately but maintenance ability
beside the coast is negative
3-Span Continuous PC Panel Stayed Bridge - Included in Final Comparison Study
- No road rising
3-Span Continuous PC Box Girder Explained Above
3-Span Continuous PC Fin Back Box Girder - Included in Final Comparison Study
- PC Half-Through bridge
- Intermediate structure between PC extradosed
bridge and PC girder bridge
- PC cables are installed in the wing walls decent
ring prestressing forces
- Rational structure
- 50cm road rising but can be absorbed in vertical
alignment of the bridge itself

SEEL PC
Simple Supported
― ―
2-Span
2-Span Continuous Steel Lohse Arch ―
2- Span Continuous Steel Truss (Tubular)
2- Span Continuous Steel Deck Box
3-Span
3-Span Continuous Steel Lohse Arch 3-Span Continuous PC Panel Stayed Bridge
3- Span Continuous Steel Truss (Tubular) 3-Span Continuous PC Box Girder
3- Span Continuous Steel Deck Box 3-Span Continuous PC Fin Back Box Girder
16-43
design is 3-Span Continuous PC Fin Back Box Girder Bridge.

foundation type and comparison of structure (pile diameter) are the key discussions.
The site conditions are shown in below table. In the abutment A2 and Piers, there were located deep
bearing layer with liquefiable soil.

proximity structure Small houses -
Navigation condition - -
Around GL- 6.0m (A1) Around GL-16.0m (P1)

Depth of bearing layer (m)
Around GL-38.0m(A2) Around GL-34.0m(P2)
Liquefaction liquefiable site (for A2) liquefiable site
Based on the above site conditions, applicable type of Abutment A1 foundation is recommended
spread footing type, Abutment A2 & Piers are recommended cast-in-site pile foundation.
According to the above evaluation, the pile diameter comparison study is conducted considering cost,
construction period, constructability, and environmental impact.
The result of comparative study of pier foundation are shown in the next tables, the recommendable
pile diameter of pile foundation for outline design is 1.5m Bored Pile, because of its advantages in
low construction cost, minimum construction period and efficient constructability.
16-44
Table 16.1.2-32 Comparison on Pile Diameter of Mawo Bridge at P1 Pier
Alternative-1 Alternative-2 Alternative-3
Evaluation Items
Cas-in-place Concrete Pile D= 1.2m Cas-in-place Concrete Pile D= 1.5m Cas-in-place Concrete Pile D= 2.0m
Diameter of pile : 1200 mm Diameter of pile : 1500 mm Diameter of pile : 2000 mm
Total number of pile : 16 Total number of pile : 12 Total number of pile :7
Pile length : 14.0 m Pile length : 14.0 m Pile length : 14.5 m
Total length of pile : 224.0 m Total length of pile : 168.0 m Total length of pile : 101.5 m
OUTLINE DESIGN
Side View
Pile arrangement
16-45
- Pile Bearing Ratio (Pile Reaction/Pile Bearing) is 0.733 - Pile Bearing Ratio (Pile Reaction/Pile Bearing) is 0.707 - Pile Bearing Ratio (Pile Reaction/Pile Bearing) is 0.734.
Structural Aspect and Stability - Large number of Steel Sheet Piles and steel B A B
i
Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total
Quantity (Php) (1,000Php) Quantity (Php) (1,000Php) Quantity (Php) (1,000Php)
Pile Cap Concrete 328m3 7,559.8 2,482 Pile Cap Concrete 294m3 7,559.8 2,223 Pile Cap Concrete 392m3 7,559.8 2,963
Construction Cost Reinforcement steel 66ton 52,600.0 3,454 Reinforcement steel 59ton 52,600.0 3,093 Reinforcement steel 78ton 52,600.0 4,124
B A B
(for　Foundation） Pile 224m 45,898.5 10,281 Pile 168m 52,238.6 8,776 Pile 102m 88,169.5 8,949
Cofferdam 894m2 21,181.9 18,937 Cofferdam 855m2 21,181.9 18,111 Cofferdam 960m2 21,181.9 20,335
Total 35,154 Total 32,202 Total 36,371
Ratio 1.092 Ratio 1.000 Ratio 1.129
- Working in temporary cofferdam at the river. - Working in temporary cofferdam at the river. - Working in temporary cofferdam at the river.
Cofferdam Work 33 days Cofferdam Work 32 days Cofferdam Work 36 days

C
Construction Plan and Period Pile work (1.5pile/day) 24 days Pile work (1.5pile/day) 18 days A Pile work (2pile/day) 14 days C
Pile Cap 33 days Pile Cap 29 days Pile Cap 39 days
Total 3.059289494 90 days Total 2.689342404 79 days Total 3.018896447 89 days
- Constructability is inferior due to large number of Cast-in- - Constructability is superior with small number of foundation - Need to large number of Steel Sheet Pile & Pile Cap
Constructability C A B
place concrete Pile work. work. cconcrete works.
- Inferior in Environmental aspect due to large number of - Better in Environmental aspect with small number of - Superior in Environmental aspect with small number of
Environmental Aspect C B A
excavated soil. excavated soil & bentonite water. excavated soil & bentonite water.
- Construction cost is highest with long construction period. - Construction cost is lowest with minimum Construction period - Construction cost is highest with long construction period.
Evaluation C with efficient workability. A B
Not Recommended Most Recommended Not Recommended
Table 16.1.2-33 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Mawo bridge (STEEL 1/2)
16-46
Table 16.1.2-34 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Mawo bridge (STEEL 2/2)
16-47
Table 16.1.2-35 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Mawo bridge (PC)
OUTLINE DESIGN
16-48
(5) Wawa Bridge
i) Bridge Width
Figure 16.1.2-32 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Wawa Bridge
ii) Horizontal Alignment

For Wawa bridge, horizontal alignment of new bridge structure may be shiftable comparing to other
bridges because no houses and buildings besides approach roads exist and because there are no other
sub approach roads entering to the main road. Therefore, the horizontal alignment of new bridge shall
be shifted to 20m down stream side from the following advantage points, and the existing bridge can
be utilized as detour road during construction stage.
- In case of upstream side shifting, significant amount of rock cutting may be caused
- In case of downstream side shifting, existing small road descending to the site is already exist; hence,
mobilization of heavy equipment is quite facility
- The specific location shall be determined in the area of down stream side based on:
- Smoothly linkable to main roads
- No impact to settlements on the right side bank
- Boundary lines of ROW shall be strictly secured
- The amount of shifting is to be 15m
Figure 16.1.2-33 Horizontal Alighment
16-49
iii) Rising of Vertical Alignment
For Wawa bridge, rising of vertical alignment of bridge and approach roads may be acceptable partly
comparing to other bridge site because no houses and buildings besides approach roads exist and
because there are no other sub approach roads entering to the main road. However, the influences for
crossing conditions between existing approach road and newly installed approach road to be installed
20m or downstream side should be confirmed.
Existing superstructure is 2 of steel truss bridge, the free board of which is approximately 3.8m
against observed high water level. That is too enough allowance. Therefore, not only same type of
existing structure but also applicability of deck type steel composite bridge may be available to be
examined based on multiple comparison study. Beside, this site is located in mountainous area,
application of rational truss structure using weathering steel may be acceptable. Thereby, in order to
include such the bridge type, the girder height of which will be higher than existing bridge, into
comparison study, the crossing condition between new and old approach bridges is examined in case
of rising of vertical alignment.
< 2.0m rising of vertical alignment>
Impact:
 Need 50m of longitudinal execution right side bank
 However, inadequate influences against existing houses and buildings of settlements will not
be caused.
 Naturally additional cost needed
 As above, for Wawa bridge, 2.0m rising of vertical alignment can be acceptable, and the
additional costs due to the rising shall be partly included to the relevant structure
applied shown as follows. For the design flood level, the water level of 41.65m (2159m3/s) which is a
observed water level may be suitable for the design. The free board is determined as 1.5m.
hydraulic engineers. Based on the detail examination, the free board to be secured, level of high water
level, abutment location and reevaluation of comparison study may be preferable to be re-
implemented in the detail design stage.
16-50
Figure 16.1.2-34 DHW and Free Board of Wawa Bridge
Figure 16.1.2-35 Determination of Abutment Location of Wawa Bridge
16-51
Span arrangement including determination of pier location shall be executed based on above
mentioned bridge length and river condition. Therefore, as basic concept to determine suitable span
arrangements to be included comparison study, following attentions should be considered.
- This site is filled with nature beauty such as mountain and clean rivers. The possibility of future
large-scale development may be low but certain level of aesthetic elements may be preferable to be
included.
- Adequate spam length shall be determined considering influences of debris or flood wood from
upstream.
- Existing bridge is desirable to be removed after new bridge completion from the aspect of river
hydraulics.
- Applicability of Steel bridges consisting of weathering steel members may be acceptable.
- Past flood level against the settlement at the right side bank shall be carefully verified.
- Condition of Inhibition ratio due to piers, which becomes the major cause of flood water rising, shall
be carefully verified.
- Therefore, existing inhibition ratio, new inhibition ratio and outline estimation water rising shall be
conducted for each candidate of span arrangement.
The following figure shows the boundary lines of high water level and its influence area. As shown in
the figure, the line of the high water level is just near the area of the settlement at the right side bank
even under 3.0% of existing inhibition ratio by existing piers. Therefore, careful verification regarding
inhibition ratio and water rising by outline hydraulic calculation is required for examination of span
arrangement.

Figure 16.1.2-36 Boundary Lines of HWL and Influence Area
16-52
<2-Span Bridge>
The pier location of 2-span bridge may be adequate point, the separation from existing pier is 13.1m
(<15m). Also, the new inhibition ratio is 1.5% that is less than 3.0% of existing inhibition ratio.
Therefore, the influences of impact to river condition are not confirmed; this span arrangement is
applicable to be included in comparison study
.
<3-Span Bridge>
The pier location of 3-span bridge may also be adequate points, the separation from existing pier is
26.0m (>15m). Also, the new inhibition ratio is 2.6% that is less than 3.0% of existing inhibition ratio.
Therefore, the influences of impact to river condition are not confirmed; this span arrangement is
applicable to be included in comparison study
16-53
<4-Span Bridge>
4-span bridge may not be recommendable structure from the reasons of new inhibition ratio and
separation between new and existing piers. The new inhibition ratio is 3.8% that has become over
3.0% of existing inhibition ratio. However, because that may not be critical impact to river condition
including water rising, this 4-span bridge is included into comparison study.
<5-Span Bridge>
The new inhibition ratio due to 4 piers in 5-span bridge is over 5.2% that is significantly larger than
3.0% of existing inhibition ratio. And 20cm of water rising resulted by outline hydraulic calculation is
confirmed, which would affect the area of settlement at right side bank critically. Therefore, the span
arrangements of 5-span or more shall not absolutely be included into the bridge comparison study.
16-54
 New horizontal alignment is newly determined based on cost efficiency and surrounding
conditions of the bridge. 20m shifted to downstream side.
 New abutments locations are newly determined by Hydraulic analysis
 The effect of the right side abutment and new embankment to the flood shall be carefully
evaluated based on Hydraulic analysis. The left side abutment has no problems.
 Bridge Length of New Bridge: 230m
 Pier location is determined based on multiple verification of hydraulic analysis consisting of
existing and planning bridge/river condition
 2-Span (Max 115.0m), 3-Span (Max 80m), 4-Span (Max 57m) is available span arrangement


STEEL PC
Simple Supported
Suspension Bridge ―
2-Span
Steel Lohse Arch PC Cable Stayed Bridge
Steel Truss
Steel Composite Deck Truss
Steel Deck Box
3-Span
Steel Lohse Arch PC Cable Stayed Bridge
Steel Truss PC Extradosed Bridge
Steel Composite Deck Truss PC Panel Stayed Bridge
(Rational Structure) PC Hybrid Box
Steel Deck Box (Rational Structure)
16-55
Suspension Bridge - Not Included in Final Comparison Study
- Clearly expensive
2-Span Continuous Steel Lohse Arch - Not Included in Final Comparison Study
- Much expensive than steel truss (existing type)
2-Span Continous Steel Truss (Tubular) - Included in Final Comparison Study
- Same type to existing main bridge
- As a candidate of basic tubular steel truss
2-Span Continuous Steel Deck Box - Included in Final Comparison Study
- Girder height 4.0m, 1.0m road rising necessary
3-Span Continuous Steel Lohse Arch - Not Included in Final Comparison Study
- Clearly expensive
3-Span Continous Steel Truss (Tubular) - Included in Final Comparison Study
- Same type to existing main bridge
- As a candidate of basic tubular steel truss
- No influence to vertical alignment
4-Span Continuous RC Slab Steel Box - Included in Final Comparison Study
- No influence to vertical alignment。
2-Span Continuous PC Cable Stayed Bridge - Not Included in Final Comparison Study
- Clearly expensive
3-Span Continuous PC Panel Stayed Bridge - Included in Final Comparison Study
3-Span Continuous PC Box - Included in Final Comparison Study
- Cost is comparatively high because this new
bridge will be over span length of 77m that is the
actual results of general PC erection method
4-Span Continuous PC Box - Included in Final Comparison Study
In addition to the above basic bridge types, following rational structures that are lately constructed in
Japan are proposed and included in the final comparison study.
16-56
Table 16.1.2-39 Bridge Types for Final Comparison Study, including Rational Structures (Steel)
2-Span Continuous Steel Truss (Tubular) Explained Above
2-Span Steel Composite Deck Truss - Included in Final Comparison Study
- A lot of overloaded lorries passed
- Gate member of existing truss bridge damaged
- Deck type bridge advantageous from visibility
of driver
- Application of PC Slab
- Minimize steel members by composite structure
- Truss height 7.0m
- 3.2m road rising necessary
2-Span Continuous Steel Deck Box Explained Above
3-Span Continous Steel Truss (Tubular) Explained Above
3-Span Steel Composite Deck Truss - Included in Final Comparison Study
- A lot of overloaded lorries passed
- Gate member of existing truss bridge damaged
- Deck type bridge advantageous from visibility
of driver
- Application of PC Slab
- Minimize steel members by composite structure
- Truss height 4.5m
- 1.0m road rising necessary
4-Span Continuous RC Slab Steel Box Explained Above
Table 16.1.2-40 Bridge Types for Final Comparison Study, including Rational Structures (Steel)
3-Span Continuous PC Panel Stayed Bridge Explained Above
3-Span Continuous PC Box Explained Above
3-Span Continuous PC Hybrid Box - Included in Final Comparison Study
- Web: wave shape steel plate
- Reduction of dead weight
- Girder height is same to PC box girder
- Complicated connection work
4-Span Continuous PC Box Explained Above
4-Span Continuous PC Hybrid Box - Included in Final Comparison Study
- Web: wave shape steel plate
- Reduction of dead weight
- Girder height is same to PC box girder
- Complicated connection work
16-57
SEEL PC
2 Span
2-Span Continuous Steel Truss (Tubular) ―
2-Span Steel Composite Deck Truss
2-Span Continuous Steel Deck Box
3 Span
3-Span Continuous Steel Truss (Tubular) 3-Span Continuous PC Panel Stayed Bridge
3-Span Steel Composite Deck Truss 3-Span Continuous PC Box
3-Span Continuous Steel Deck Box 3-Span Continuous PC Hybrid Box
4 Span
4-Span Continuous Steel Deck Box 4-Span Continuous PC Box
4-Span Continuous RC Slab Steel Box 4-Span Continuous PC Hybrid Box
design is 3-Span Continuous Steel Composite Deck Truss bridge.

foundation type and comparison of structure (pile diameter) are the key discussions.
The site conditions are shown in below table. In the abutment A2 and Piers, there were located deep
bearing layer with liquefiable soil.

proximity structure - -
Navigation condition - -
Water depth (m) - Around 6.0 to 8.5 m

Around GL- 6.0m (A1) Around GL-16.0m (P1)
Depth of bearing layer (m)
Around GL-38.0m(A2) Around GL-34.0m(P2)
Liquefaction - -
-
Lateral spreading -
16-58
Based on the above site conditions, applicable type of Abutment A2 foundation is recommended
spread footing type, Abutment A1 & Piers are recommended cast-in-site pile foundation.
According to the above evaluation, the pile diameter comparison study is conducted considering cost,
construction period, constructability, and environmental impact.
The result of comparative study of pier foundation are shown in the next tables, the recommendable
pile diameter of pile foundation for outline design is 1.2m Bored Pile, because of its advantages in
low construction cost, minimum construction period and efficient constructability.
16-59
Table 16.1.2-43 Comparison on Pile Diameter of Wawa Bridge at P1 Pier
Alternative-1 Alternative-2 Alternative-3
Evaluation Items
Cas-in-place Concrete Pile D= 1.0m Cas-in-place Concrete Pile D= 1.2m Cas-in-place Concrete Pile D= １.5m
Diameter of pile : 1000 mm Diameter of pile : 1200 mm Diameter of pile : 1500 mm
Total number of pile : 16 Total number of pile : 12 Total number of pile :9
Total length of pile : 112.0 m Total length of pile : 84.0 m Total length of pile : 63.0 m
OUTLINE DESIGN
Side View
Pile arrangement
16-60
- Pile Bearing Ratio (Pile Reaction/Pile Bearing) is 0.598 - Pile Bearing Ratio (Pile Reaction/Pile Bearing) is 0.615 - Pile Bearing Ratio (Pile Reaction/Pile Bearing) is 0.562.
Structural Aspect and Stability - Need to the large number of Cast-in-Place Concrete Piles. A B A
Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total
Quantity (Php) (1,000Php) Quantity (Php) (1,000Php) Quantity (Php) (1,000Php)
Pile Cap Concrete 168m3 7,559.8 1,270 Pile Cap Concrete 192m3 7,559.8 1,448 Pile Cap Concrete 221m3 7,559.8 1,667
Construction Cost　(for Reinforcement steel 34ton 52,600.0 1,767 Reinforcement steel 38ton 52,600.0 2,015 Reinforcement steel 44ton 52,600.0 2,320
B A B
Foundation） Pile 105m 45,898.5 4,819 Pile 84m 45,898.5 3,855 Pile 63m 52,238.6 3,291
Cofferdam 552m2 21,181.9 11,692 Cofferdam 571m2 21,181.9 12,099 Cofferdam 600m2 21,181.9 12,709
Total 19,549 Total 19,417 Total 19,987
- Working in temporary cofferdam at the river. - Working in temporary cofferdam at the river. - Working in temporary cofferdam at the river.
Cofferdam Work 20 days Cofferdam Work 21 days Cofferdam Work 22 days

Construction Plan and Period Pile work (1.0pile/day) 16 days B Pile work (1.0pile/day) 12 days A Pile work (1.0pile/day) 9 days B
Pile Cap 17 days Pile Cap 19 days Pile Cap 22 days
Total 3.169312169 53 days Total 3.113544974 52 days Total 3.170965608 53 days
- Constructability is inferior due to large number of Cast-in- - Constructability is superior with small number of foundation - Need to large number of Steel Sheet Pile & Pile Cap cconcrete
Constructability C A B
place concrete Pile work. work. works.
- Inferior in Environmental aspect due to large number of - Better in Environmental aspect with small number of - Superior in Environmental aspect with small number of
Environmental Aspect C B A
excavated soil. excavated soil & bentonite water. excavated soil & bentonite water.
- Construction cost is highest with long construction period. - Construction cost is lowest with minimum Construction period - Construction cost is highest with long construction period.
Evaluation C with efficient workability. A B
Not Recommended Most Recommended Not Recommended
Table 16.1.2-44 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Wawa bridge (STEEL 1/3)
16-61
OUTLINE DESIGN
16-62
16-63
Table 16.1.2-47 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Wawa bridge (PC 1/2)
16-64
Table 16.1.2-48 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Wawa bridge (PC 2/2)
16-65
16.1.3 Methodology of Seismic Analysis of New Bridge
(1) Methodology of Seismic Analysis

For seismic design, responses of structure by assumed seismic forces must not be exceeded allowable
limitation values. As the calculation methodologies to obtain such the responses of structure, various
numerical computing analytical approaches are worldwidely utilized such as static analysis, dynamic
analysis, liner analysis and non-linear analysis.
Currently, familiar analytical approaches utilized in earthquake countries including Japan is
categorized into static analysis and dynamic analysis, furthermore dynamic analysis can be
categorized into eigenvalue analysis, response spectrum analysis and time-history response analysis.
In this sentence, the characteristic properties of such the various methodologies are organized and the
seismic methodology utilized in outline design is explained.
(2) Static Analysis

In JRA, static analysis is utilized for the seismic design under LV 1 earthquake motion except
seismically irregular bridges such as high influences of higher mode and laxness of the places where
plastic hinges cause. Additionally it's utilized for the seismic design under LV2 earthquake motion on
seismically regular bridges such as defined dominance of basic mode and basic bearing support
system.
According to previously explained, verification approaches of seismic performance of bridges have
two methodologies which are static method and dynamic method. The static analysis is the most
simplified method because vibration characteristic has been transposed to static load system under the
precondition that equal energy assumption is approval. However, the load system of static analysis is
commonly based on a basic vibration mode vector, what it is a basic shape of mode vector that can be
transposed to mono-mass system model so is not applicable to seismically irregular bridge.
Furthermore, damping matrix as well as mass matrix does not exist naturally; because responses
should be computed depending on only stiffness matrix and because structural damping and hysteresis
damping of seismic countermeasure devices such as LRB and viscosity damper can not be considered
in the methodology, the design freedom may be quite low. The concept of the static analysis is shown
in the following equation.
< Static Analysis >
Internal Forces (Member Forces) = External Forces (Horizontal Loads):

K U  P Eq.
K: Stiffness matrix, U: Displacement of Nodes, P: Horizontal Forces
< Dynamic Analysis >
Internal Forces (Inertial Forces + Damping Forces + Member Forces) = Seismic Forces:
M  U  C  U  K  U  M  Z Eq.
M: Mass matrix, C: Damping matrix, K: Stiffness Matrix, Z :Acceleration Vector,
U : Acceleration Vector of Nodes, U : Velocity of Nodes, U : Displacement of Nodes
16-66
Therefore, modeling to the static analysis and estimation of seismic behavior must not be applicable
to all of bridge types and structural conditions from the aspect of its property; firstly, based on
eigenvalue analysis, basic vibration mode shown below should be confirmed whether the deformation
shape obtained by static analysis are similar to the basic vibration mode, which can be defined as first
mode, or not. In case of not synchronization, response spectrum analysis with eigenvalue modal
analysis or time history response analysis should be applied.
Du
Dp1 Dp2
Figure 16.1.3-1 Basic Vibration Mode (Longitudinal Direction)
(3) Eigenvalue Analysis

Responses of bridges are calculated based on vibration property of the bridge and inputted seismic
motion. Therefore, before calculating specific response values such as sectional forces and
displacement against the inputted seismic motions, understanding the vibration property of the bridge
must be extremely important phase because not only understanding dynamic behaviors but also
previously mentioned dominant basic vibration mode can be understood to be utilized for static
analysis. The most familiar methodology to clear this problem is eigenvalue analysis. Multi-Degree-
of-Freedom and Multi-Mass-Vibration system such as bridge structure has same number of natural
periods and vibration modes to number of mass. Such like that, eigenvalue analysis can be defined as
calculating characteristic values of multi-mass-vibration system; the following values are commonly
utilized.
(i) Natural Frequency and Natural Period

Natural frequency is defined as the vibration frequency (Hz), and Natural Period is the time (seconds)
for a cycle, which indicates the period of well-vibrated vibration system. Eigenvalue analysis is to
obtain characteristic values of vibration system, the principal is conformed to the above mentioned
equation regarding dynamic analysis in which right side member is zero. Then, damping term should
be separated from eigenvalue analysis but should be considered to determine mode damping based on
various damping property when response spectrum analysis or time history response analysis.
Therefore:
 No effects from inputted seismic motion and its direction
 Effects from mass and structural system
 Non-linear performance of structural members not considered
 Damping coefficient not considered, but later can be considered for response spectrum analysis
or time history response analysis
In eigenvalue analysis, the natural frequency  is obtained without consideration of damping factor,
using the following equation. Where, the natural period T is the inverse number of the natural
frequency.
K    2 M   0 Eq.
K  : Stiffness matrix, M  : Mass matrix
16-67
(ii) Participation factor and Effective mass
The participation factor at "j" th mode can be obtained by following the equation. The standard
coordination "qj" that is the responses of the mode with larger participation factor become larger and
commonly the participation factor have both positive and negative values.
 j   j T M L/ M j Eq.
 j : Model participation factor,  j : Mode matrix, M  : Mass matrix,
L: Acceleration distribution vector: Z  zL : Z: Acceleration vector, z :Ground motion
acceleration, M j : Equivalent mass
From the participation factor, the effective mass at "j" th mode can be obtained by the following
equation and have always positive value and the summation of effective mass of all of the vibration
modes must conform to total mass of the structure. This effective mass indicates "vibrating mass in all
of mass". In case of modal analysis, accurate analytical results are generally obtained on the basis of
adoption of the vibration modes including generally 90% of total mass. Thus, the participation factor
and the effective mass can present useful indicator of dominant property regarding mass of each
vibration mode such as which mass, which direction, how much amount.
m j  ( j  M L) 2 / M
T
j Eq.
m j : Effective mass
(iii) Natural Vibration Mode (Mode Vector)

Natural vibration mode, what is called as mode vector, indicated the vibration shape at any mode
based on dynamic equation of n-freedom system, which is very important factor because it is required
in all the terms consisting of dynamic equation such as mass, damping and stiffness matrix. Generally,
 
standard vibration mode vector  j can be obtained by modal coordination which is transformed
from displacement vector u  under ratio constant condition; then, coupling parameters are
disappeared; n-freedom problem can be treated as "n" of mono-freedom systems. Such the analytical
method is called and modal analysis method.
16-68
(4) Response Spectrum Analysis
Response spectrum analysis method can be defined as one of dynamic analytical approach under
elastic conditions; maximum responses of structural members are easily confirmed for seismically
irregular bridges. In JRA, this methodology can be utilized except the bridges the behavior of which is
not complicated under seismic motion and except the seismic verification for the bridges with
multiple plastic hinges under LV 1 seismic motion.
When standard vibration mode vector can be obtained based on previously explained eigenvalue
analysis, the modal analysis for the mode vector corresponding to the natural period and damping
factors can be easily implemented and can compute maximum response of structural members.
Dynamic analysis consists this response spectrum analysis and time history response analysis for
which response can be computed historically by inputting wave shape historical seismic motion.
However, it is not usually necessary to obtain complicated historical responses on seismic design but
is frequently necessary to obtain only maximum responses of the structural members. Therefore,
maximum responses for each vibration mode under a seismic motion are preliminarily prepared until
a certain mode, and then the spectrum processed and organized by natural period and mode damping
factor is absolutely response spectrum.
Natural modes can be called as 1st mode, 2nd mode and 3rd mode in the order corresponding to
longer natural period or shorter natural vibration.
Where, the vibration modes that should be preliminarily prepared are to be adopted until the mode
that over 90% of effective mass against total mass has been accumulated. For the bridges in this
project, the bridge types such as Guadalupe, Lambingan, Palanit, Mawo and Wawa, are all
categorized in girder type bridge not cable supported bridge; hence, 1st mode shape may be dominant
mode. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider high modes like suspension bridges.
For superposition of maximum responses of multiple-mass system using response spectrum of each
mode, SRSS, Square Rood of Sum of Square, and CQC method, Complete Quadratic Combination
are worldwidely utilized.
(5) Damping
Structural damping usually strongly affects the results of dynamic analysis; appropriate examined
damping coefficient must be incorporated into the model regardless linear, non-linear, modal analysis
or time history response analysis.
For superstructures of general bridge types, viscous damping material internal damping, friction
damping at bearing supports and aero dynamical damping can be considered. Also, for piers, material
internal damping and friction damping as well as fugacity damping and friction damping between
ground and footing can be considered.
Superstructure
Material, Viscous, Friction damp.
Substructure Bearing
Material, Viscous damp. Material, Viscous
Friction, History damp.
Foundation
Material dapm of Piers
Friction dapm between
footing and ground,
Fugacity damp, Friction,
Figure 16.1.3-2 Damping in Bridge Structure History damp.
16-69
However, the specific mechanism of each damping factors are absolutely complicated, for execution
of dynamic analysis, such the specific mechanism is not necessary to be understood. Generally
damping forces are treated as equivalent damping forces in proportional to mass and strain energy.
Generally, because equivalent damping factor of each structural member can not directly be
incorporated into dynamic equation, for response spectrum analysis, damping forces should be
transformed to mode damping factors in order to be considered in the analysis.
<Dynamic Equation> Damping
M  U  C  U  K  U  M  Z Eq.
Where, generally for girder type bridge, strain energy proportional method, shown in the following
equation, are utilized because this method can be incorporated into the dynamic in proportional to the
amount of strain of the members and structural springs that do not have any mass.
<Mode damping hi: Strain Energy Proportional Method>

n
c
j 1
j xit k j xi
hi  Eq.
xit Kxi
c j : Structure damping factor of each element, xi : Mode at i, k j : Stiffness matrix of each element,
K : Stiffness matrix of all structure
For the bridges in this project, as the Cj in the above equation, following values are adopted.
- 0.01 for steel members
- 0.02 for concrete members
- 0.1 for foundation
- 0.03 for LRB under force distribution method
(6) Time History Analysis

Time history analysis is a dynamic analytical approach to obtain historical responses by inputting
historical wave seismic motion. Generally, fiber elements are utilized for analytical model that may be
complicated model because historical curves should be inputted into each element. However, in
contrast to above mentioned response spectrum method, more advanced and high freedom dynamic
behaviors can be obtained because the vibration system under material non-linearity as well as
nonlinear historical properties of piers and rubber bearings can be accurately incorporated into the
fiber elements.
16-70
(7) Applied Methodology of Seismic Analysis
Based on the new seismic specification prepared in this project, application of dynamic analysis to
obtain definite solution of seismic behavior is highly recommended.
In this project, a lot of design spectrum are produced and proposed. These spectrums are all processed
by equalization of various seismic forces. The analytical methodology that can highly and efficiently
utilize the results may be preferable to be applied in the seismic analysis. Also, damping forces by
LRB should be appropriately incorporated into the analysis and higher modes should be partially
considered because the recommendable bridge type of Lambingan is arch type bridge that may have
irregular behavior under seismic motion.
Otherwise, the philosophy of seismic analysis is based on linear analysis supplemented by R-factor,
besides, time history analysis requiring validity of historical properties of each members between
AASHTO and JRA may not be ready in that specification.
Consequently, the response spectrum analysis based on modal analysis may be the most efficient and
most appropriate method to be applied to replace bridges in this project.
Table 16.1.3-1 Seismic Analysis

Seismic Non-linear Historical Damping Applicability for
Analysis
Motion Member Properties Factor this Project
Seismic Specific
Static Negative Uniform Positive
Coefficient Point
Response Spectrum Design Assumed Damping Positive
Negative
"Dynamic Analysis" Spectrum Point Matrix Recommendable
Time History
Historical Historical Damping
Response Positive Negative
Wave Property Matrix
"Dynamic Analysis"
16-71
16.2 Outline Design of Lambingan Bridge
16.2.1 Design Condition

The following items show design condition for the outline design of Lambingan Bridge.
(1) Road Conditions

 Road Design Standard : AASHTO STANDARD VALUE
 Design Speed : V = 50 kmph
 Live Loads : AASHTO Live Loads HL93 and Lane Loads
 Road Width : Shown as follows:
(2) Soil Conditions

The results of ground investigation are shown in below illustrations and following tables. The
weathered rock layer that can be regarded as the bearing layer is distributed E.L. -40.0m to E.L.-
50.0m depth, and has a thick surface layer predominant with clay on top. Specialty, liquefiable sand
(AS) is thickly deposited from ground surface to GL-15m, of which N-value is 0 to 2, will be affected
by liquefaction occurs with reduction of geotechnical parameter. .
Table 16.2.1-1 Summary for Soil Parameters (1)

Input by Tanaka - A2 Side - Lambingan B1 EL.3.0m Input by EASCON Soil Parameters
Nu Depth S- Soil Soil Classification GSA-J Specifi γt C ϕ E0 Vsn
S- N.M.
mbe Nstd wave Vsn Laye Grave Sand Fines PI c Nd (tf/m2 (kN/m2 (m/sec
Upper Lower wave Observation C (%) (º) (kN/m2)
r Ave. r l (%) (%) (%) Gravity ) ) )
1 0.55 1.00 12 134 134 183 Bs Medium sand 25.4 73.66 0.9 21.2 N/A 2.63 12 17 0 35 8,400 183
2 1.55 2.00 7 134 178 Sandy silt 0.0 82.70 17.3 27.8 N/A 2.67 17
3 2.55 3.00 6 134 178 Silty fine sand 7.2 64.76 28.0 44.6 N/A 2.65 17
4 3.55 4.00 8 134 134 178 As Fine sand w/ silt 22.6 65.40 12.0 41.4 N/A 2.63 11 17 0 34 7,700 178
7 6.55 7.00 7 134 191 Clay w/ sand 0.0 41.90 58.1 55.7 12 2.69 15
8 7.55 8.00 9 169 191 Clay w/ sand 0.0 22.93 77.1 53.9 33 2.70 15
160 Ac 7 44 0 4,900 191
9 8.55 9.00 6 169 191 Sandy clay 0.0 33.13 66.9 48.5 19 2.69 15
10 9.55 10.00 8 169 191 Sandy clay 0.0 49.03 51.0 62.9 45 2.69 15
11 10.55 11.00 28 169 169 243 WGF Gravel/sand w/ fines 55.2 44.58 0.2 38.4 N/A 2.70 28 17 - 37 19,600 243
12 11.55 12.00 150 169 300 Sandy weathered rock 15.8 83.74 0.5 41.6 N/A 2.68 21
13 12.55 13.00 150 165 300 Rock 21
14 13.55 14.00 300 165 300 Rock 21
15 14.55 15.00 300 165 300 Rock 21
16 15.55 16.00 300 165 300 Rock 21
17 16.55 17.00 300 165 300 Rock 21
18 17.55 18.00 300 469 300 Rock 21
19 18.55 19.00 300 469 300 Rock 21
20 19.55 20.00 300 469 300 Rock 21
21 20.55 21.00 300 469 385 300 GF Rock 268 21 480 21 126,044 300
22 21.55 22.00 300 469 300 Rock 21
23 22.55 23.00 300 469 300 Rock 21
24 23.55 24.00 300 469 300 Rock 8.4 90.47 1.1 25.1 N/A 2.65 21
25 24.55 25.00 300 506 300 Fine sand 10.9 88.08 1.0 27.6 N/A 2.66 21
26 25.55 26.00 150 506 300 Fine sand 20.5 79.29 0.2 28.8 N/A 2.64 21
27 26.55 27.00 150 506 300 (Fine sand) 21
28 27.55 28.00 300 506 300 (Fine sand) 21
29 28.55 29.00 300 506 300 Rock 21
30 29.55 30.00 300 506 300 Rock 21
16-72
Gravel (2mm) Sand Fines Vs (m/sec)

Depth (m) N-value N.M.C (%) Specific Gravity (g/cm3) Vsn (m/sec)
0 10 20 30 40 50 0.0 50.0 100.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 2.40 2.60 2.80 0 200 400 600
0
BS
As
5
Ac
10
WGF
15
20
GF
25
30
TO TAFT AVE. TO KALENTONG
A1 A2
Bottom of Existing Girder

BL-5
EL+13.29m
E E
DFL Lambingan B1
EL+12.652m
Sandy Clay
CH
Dep.30.00m
BPRL-33 0 10 20 30 40 50
EL+10.150.m
Dep.15.00m
Silty Fine Sand
SP
MSL P10-CW
N-Val.
0 10 20 30 40 50
Sandy Silt
EL+8.106m
Fine to Dep.22.00m
Medium Sand
As
SP N-Val.
0 10 20 30 40 50
Gravelly Sand Sandy Clay
Sandy Clay Sandy Silt
As Silty Clay
Gr avelly Sand
SW
Silty Sand
Gravelly Sand
Silty Clay CH Sandy Clay
Tuffaceous Sandstone
UDS-1
Silty Clay
Ac
Silty Sand SM
Ac Tuffaceous Sandstone
Silts tone ST
Medium to Fine Sand
Ds
Tuffaceous Sandstone
Siltstone
GF Tuffaceous Sandstone
Figure 16.2.1-2 Soil Profile of Lambingan Bridge (Included previous SPT)
(3) Hydraulic Conditions

 Design Water Level : EL= 1.48m
 Freeboard from Design Flood Level : H = 3.75m (To secure existing freeboard)
Hydraulic condition shall be carefully verified and examined by detail hydraulic analysis in the detail
design stage, based on which the road and bridge planning shall be reevaluated in such the phase
including comparison study of bridge types.
16-73
(4) Bridge Type
 Superstructure Type : Steel Deck Lohse Arch Stiffening Box Girder
 Bridge Length : L=90m
 Transversal Slope : 2.0%
 Longitudinal Slope : 5.0%/ -5.0% (Crown at the center of the bridge)
 Horizontal Alignment : R=∞
 Angle of Alignment : 90 Degrees
Wearing coat : Guss asphalt and Polymer Modified Asphalt
t=80mm for Vehicle lane, t=30mm for walkway
 Railing : Steel railing for vehicle and pedestrian
 Bearing : NRB Rubber Bearings - Force Distribution Bearing
 Expansion Joint : Steel type
 Drainage Appliances : PVC pipe
 Bridge Falling Prevention Device : Cable type
 Substructure Type : RC wall type

 Foundation Type : Cast-in-place Pile (D=2.5m)
 Bearing Soil Condition : Clay with Gravel Layer (N>45)
(5) Design Cases of Outline Design

The outline design of superstructure shall be designed based on the above load condition, specified in
AASHTO 2012. On the basis of various reactions and forces, substructures and foundation shall be
designed throughout response spectrum analysis under the limit state of "Extreme Event I" specified
in AASHTO 2012.
STEP 1. Outline Design of Superstructure

- Design Load, specified in AASHTO 2012
- Stress check
STEP 2. Organization of Reaction Forces

- Organization of reaction forces for substructure design
- Organization of masses for response spectrum analysis
STEP 3. Modal Analysis and Response Spectrum Analysis

- Eigenvalue analysis based on modal analysis
- Organization of response values by the seismic analysis
STEP 4. Substructure and Foundation Design

- Extreme Event I
Figure 16.2.1-3 Flow of Outline Design
16-74
16.2.2 Outline Design of Superstructure
(1) Design Condition
 Superstructure Type : Steel Deck Lohse Arch Stiffening Box Girder
 Wearing coat : Guss asphalt and Polymer Modified Asphalt
Based on stage construction, half of structure should be designed separately, shown as follows.
Water
Bridge
70cm
Separated
Figure 16.2.2-2 Design Section of Lambingan Bridge
(2) Design Loads

 Dead Loads : AASHTO 2012
 Live Loads : HL93 and Lane Loads in AASHTO 2012, utilized by influence line evaluation
 Limit State and Load Combination : Strength I in AASHTO 2012
Table 16.2.2-1 Load Combinations and Factors at Strength I in AASHTO 2012

Load DC LL WA WS WL FR TU TG SE Use One of These
Combination DD IM At a Time
DW CE
EH BR
Limit State EV PL EQ CT CV
ES LS
EL
PS
CR
Strength I γp 1.75 1.00 - - 1.00 0.5/1.2 γtg γse - - -
Source: LRFD 2012
16-75
(3) Analytical model
In the outline design, only the first stage structural system is conducted by using fish-born frame
model based on stage construction. The following figure shows the analytical model for outline design
of Lambingan bridge. All elements in the analysis are truss and beam model which have 6 of DOFs
3112 3113
3111
3114
3110
118
3115
3109
5115 117
7114
5114 116
3108 7113
5113 115
7112
5112 114
3107 7111
5111 113
7110
3106
7109
5109
5110
111
112
E
7108
5108 110
7107
5107 109
7106
Y
5106 108
3105
5105 107
106
105
104
X
103 Z
102
E
Figure 16.2.2-3 Analytical Model for Superstructure
(4) Sectional forces under Load Combination Strength I

Based on the analytical model, various sectional forces to be utilized for outline design can be
obtained. In this report, two of figures regarding distribution of bending moments and axial forces
under the combination sectional forces of "Strength I" are in the following figures.
The length of arch rib is determined based on constructability. And the height of arch rib is
determined from the balances between cased sectional forces of arch rib and steel deck. The balances
are well adjusted, in which the dimension of arch rib and steel deck can be worked efficiently
Table 16.2.2-2 Distribution of Sectional Forces under Combination of Strength I

Bending Moment in the Steel Deck Axial Forces in the Arch Rib
"Strength I" "Strength I"
Arch rib works efficiently and rationally to The length of arch rib, which is 50m, is
reduce huge bending moment in the steel deck. If determined based on constructability and
the arch rib were not installed on the deck, the separation length of existing piers. Axial forces
maximum bending moment would be beyond caused in the arch rib are less than 30,000kN.
200,000kNm, by which the thickness of the steel The horizontal size of arch rib can not be larger
deck box would be approx. 100mm around. than about 900mm because of water bridge in the
downstream side. Therefore, such the caused
axial forces can be acceptable for such the arch
rib size.
16-76
(5) Stress Check
Based on the sectional forces of the load combination Strength I, stress checks are conducted for the
following sections of the superstructure.
3112 3113
3111
3114
3110
118
3115
3109
5115 117
7114
3107 3108 7113 5114 116
509 7112 5113 115
5112 114
3107 7111
3106 7110
5110
5111
112
113
7109
3106 5109 111
BS
7108
7107 5108 110

Y
7106 5107 S5
109
108
S4
3105 5106
X
5105 107
105
S3
106
Z
103
S2
104
S1
102
Figure 16.2.2-4 Sections for Stress Check
The results of stress checks are shown as follows.
<Steel Deck>
Table 16.2.2-3 Stress Check of Steel Deck
Distribution of Normal Stresses Results
S1 N = 120kN
Mz = 29800kNm
S = 6620 kN
<SM490Y>
Upper flange : 18mm
Web : 20mm
Lower flange : 18mm
σmax = 53Mpa < 355 Mpa
τmax = 86 Mpa < 178 Mpa
S2 N = 120kN
Mz = 129000kNm
S = 6700 kN
<SM490Y>
Upper flange : 21mm
Web : 17mm
Lower flange : 24mm
16-77
S3 N = 26000kN
Mz = 66000kNm
S = 350 kN
<SM490Y>
Upper flange : 19mm
Web : 14mm
Lower flange : 19mm
S4 N = 25000kN
Mz = 58000kNm
S = 4500 kN
<SM490Y>
Upper flange : 17mm
Web : 11mm
Lower flange : 14mm
τmax = 103 Mpa < 178 Mp
S5 N = 25000kN
Mz = 23000kNm
S = 2100 kN
<SM490Y>
Upper flange : 14mm
Web : 10mm
Lower flange : 9mm
τmax = 48 Mpa < 178 Mp
<Arch Rib>
Table 16.2.2-4 Stress Check of Arch Rib
BS N = -25100 kN
Mz = 86500 kNm
<SM570>
Upper flange : 40mm
Web : 22mm
Lower flange : 40mm
σmin = -403Mpa < -450 Mpa
When considering resistance factor
σmin = -403Mpa < -413 Mpa
16-78
3106 N = -27000 kN
Mz = 31200 kNm
<SM490Y>
Upper flange : 35mm
Web : 23mm
Lower flange : 35mm
σmax = -146Mpa < 355 Mpa
3107 N = -25000 kN
Mz = 6650 kNm
<SM490Y>
Upper flange : 35mm
Web : 23mm
Lower flange : 35mm
<Hangers>
Table 16.2.2-5 Stress Check of Hangers
509 N = 3114 kN
<SM490Y>
Upper flange : 10mm
Web : 13mm
Lower flange : 10mm
16-79
(6) Summary
Based on that the following dimensions are obtained as the superstructure of Lambingan bridge
Figure 16.2.2-5 Side View of Superstructure of Lambingan Bridge
Figure 16.2.2-6 Sectional View of Superstructure of Lambingan Bridge
Table 16.2.2-6 Summary of Calculated Results

Web (mm)
Steel Deck Material U-Flange (mm) L-Flange (mm)
H=2000mm
Sec.1 BOX-SM490Y 18 20 18
Sec.2 BOX-SM490Y 21 17 24
Sec.3 BOX-SM490Y 25 14 30
Sec.4 BOX-SM490Y 29 11 33
Sec.5 BOX-SM490Y 29 10 33
Web (mm)
Arch Rib Material U-Flange (mm) L-Flange (mm)
H=2000mm
BS BOX-SM570 40 22 40
106 BOX-SM490Y 35 23 35
107 BOX-SM490Y 35 23 35
108 BOX-SM490Y 35 23 35
109 BOX-SM490Y 35 23 35
110 BOX-SM490Y 35 23 35
Web (mm)
Hanger Material U-Flange (mm) L-Flange (mm)
H=2000mm
Min. Thick I-SM490Y 10 13 10
16-80
16.2.3 Seismic Design
In this project, as seismic analysis, modal response spectrum analysis is conducted for seismic design.
Based on the response results, various structural members can be determined such as piers,
foundations, bearings and expansion joints. Analytical model to be utilized for modal analysis
commonly utilizes truss and beam type elements in the world.
Based on the results of the outline design of superstructure such as member dimension and masses,
analytical model and results of modal response spectrum analysis are explained in this item.
The analytical model for response spectrum analysis is not 1st-stage structure utilized in outline
design of superstructure but final stage structure of the superstructure. The connection between 1st
stage and 2nd stage may be joined with bolting connection defined as hinge -connection under live
loads and seismic loads. Therefore, such the connection is accurately modeled in the analytical model.
Besides, in this design, abutments are not modeled in the seismic analysis because abutments may
have enough strength and stiffness fixed by grounds for seismic vibration; if abutments are modeled
in the analysis, excess damping efficiency would be expected to the whole of structural responses.
Additionally, as bearings, forces distribution bearings consisting of natural rubber bearing are applied
in order to reduce actual seismic forces affecting structures. The stiffness of the bearing is determined
based on cyclic evaluation of horizontal response displacements and period of eigenvalue analysis.
(1) Analytical Model

 Seismic Analysis : Response Spectrum Analysis based on Modal Eigenvalue Analysis
 Superstructure Type: Steel Deck Lohse Arch Stiffening Box Girder
 Angle of Alignment: 90 Degrees
 Analytical Model :
X
Z
Figure 16.2.3-1 Analytical Mode of Seismic Analysis
Table 16.2.3-1 Support Condition

X Y Z RX RY RZ
Abutment 1 Elastic Fix Fix Fix Free Free
Connection Fix Fix Fix Free Free Free
16-81
 Abutments : Not Modeled
 Piers : No piers
 Bearing : Following Force Distribution Bearing:
Table 16.2.3-2 Force Distribution Bearing

Supports Nos. Dimension Thickness G
Abutment 1 4 700mmx700mm 17mmx6layers 1.4 N/mm2
 Foundation : Following springs shall be :
Table 16.2.3-3 Springs of Foundations

Foundations X: Longitudinal Z: Transversal RX RZ
kN/m kN/m kNm/rad kNm/rad
Abutment 1 Fix Fix Fix Fix
Abutment 2 Fix Fix Fix Fix
 Damping coefficient :Following damping coefficients are applied:
Table 16.2.3-4 Damping Coefficient

Structural Element Damping
Steel 0.01
Concrete 0.02
Force Distribution Bearing 0.03
Foundation 0.10
16-82
(2) Comparison Studies of Seismic Capacity Improvement Schemes
In order to improve seismic capacity of this bridge, the following methodologies are applied based on
technical comparison studies.
< Adequate Bearing Type >
Force distribution method by laminated rubber bearings (LRB) shown in the following figure are
commonly utilized in viaducts and bridges in Japan as efficient devices to achieve appropriate seismic
design.
This bearing consists of rubber and steel plate layers. By
changing the stiffness of the laminated rubber, such for
thickness, number of layers and sizes, seismic horizontal
forces can be freely and evenly shared to substructures.
Therefore, the boundary condition between superstructure
and substructure is "E" that means "elastic".
Otherwise, in Philippines, commonly thin-rubber bearing

Fig. Laminated Rubber Bearing with anchor bars is utilized as bearing. By this bearing,
only two ways of the boundary condition such as "Fix" or
"Move" can be applied, which means that controlling of
horizontal seismic forces or contribution forces to
substructures depends on not horizontal stiffness of
bearing but just only the period of its dynamic properties.
Otherwise, for steel deck girder bridge like Lambingan

Fig. Steel Bearing bridge, it is appropriate to apply steel type bearing instead
of above bearings, which shall resist LV2 seismic forces.
Naturally the boundary condition will be two ways such
as "FIX" and "MOVE", which can not apply force
distribution method. Generally, steel type bearings for
viaducts are utilized under following conditions in Japan:
- Light weight superstructure
- No advantage to extend the period of the superstructure
- Slender piers can be maintained without high dumping
In this item, as an improvement scheme, technical comparison study between laminated rubber
bearing, thin-rubber bearing with anchor bars and steel bearing is explained from the point of view of
seismic behavior, shown as following table.
16-83
Table 16.2.3-5 Comparison Study of Bearing in Lambingan Bridge
Bearing Results of Evaluation
Boundary Condition:
Laminated Rubber Bearing LD: Elastic (A1), Elastic (A2), TD: Fix (A1), Fix (A2)
Under Force Distribution Method Time Period
LD: 1.2S, TD: 0.52s
Modal Dumping of 1st mode
LD: 3%. TD: 1%
Total Horizontal Forces of Superstructure using Modal Dumping
LD: 10000kN of 20800kN
Seismic Force Distribution
LD: A1:A2=1:1, TD: A1:A2=1:1
Boundary Condition:
Pad Rubber Bearing with Dowel LD: Fix (A1), Move (A2), TD: Fix (A1), Fix (A2)
Under Not Force Distribution Time Period
LD: 0.66S, TD: 0.52s
LD: 1%. TD: 1%
LD: 19800kN of 20800kN
LD: A1:A2=1:0, TD: A1:A2=1:1
Boundary Condition:
Steel Bearing LD: Fix (A1), Move (A2), TD: Fix (A1), Fix (A2)
LD: 0.66S, TD: 0.52s
LD: 1%. TD: 1%
LD: 19800kN of 20800kN
LD: A1:A2=1:0, TD: A1:A2=1:1
By using LRB, the period of longitudinal 1st mode achieves beyond 1.2s, which is much longer than
the structure applying Pad Rubber bearing and Steel bearing.
Therefore, the seismic forces based on design spectrum are significantly reduced by extended period.
And also, dominant deformation of the 1st mode is obviously longitudinal deformation of
superstructure, which caused by shearing deformation of the LRB; hence, the modal damping of 1st
mode can achieve 3% despite just only 1%, modal damping, which is the damping factor of steel
structure, of the structure using Pad Rubber bearing or Steel bearing.
Consequently the total horizontal forces of superstructure using LRB is greatly decreased comparing
to the structure using common bearing due to extended period and higher structural mode dumping.
Additionally, the seismic forces can be distributed evenly by LRB.
Therefore, structurally, superiority of application of LRB is extremely high.
* LD: Longitudinal Direction, TD: Transversal Direction
16-84
(3) Summary of Seismic Analysis
i) Results of Eigenvalue Analysis
The following figure and table shows the results of eigenvalue analysis.
Table 16.2.3-6 Results of Eigenvalue Analysis

Frequency Period Ratio of Effective Mass
Modes Mode Damping
(Hz) (s) Longitudinal Transversal
1 0.800 1.248 1.000 0.000 0.030
2 1.909 0.524 0.000 0.101 0.010
3 1.928 0.519 0.000 0.101 0.010
4 4.943 0.202 0.000 0.101 0.010
5 4.962 0.202 0.000 0.101 0.010
6 5.901 0.169 0.000 0.675 0.010
7 9.433 0.106 0.000 0.000 0.010
8 9.581 0.104 0.000 0.004 0.010
9 15.122 0.067 0.000 0.000 0.010
10 15.401 0.065 0.000 0.000 0.010
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3
Figure 16.2.3-2 Results of Eigenvalue Analysis
According to the results, predominant mode for longitudinal direction is obviously obtained at 1st
mode, in which its period is 1.2s and effective mass ration is 100% of modes for longitudinal direction.
Therefore, the period of 1.2s is so important mode.
And the mode damping of the 1st mode is 0.03 that is same to damping coefficient of rubber bearing.
The reasons would be definitely understood from the aspect that predominant mode of the 1st mode is
caused by mainly the displacements of the rubber bearing. Therefore, in this modal analysis with
strain energy proportional method, the mode damping of the 1st mode has been consonant with the
damping coefficient of the rubber bearing.
ii) Response Displacement by Response Spectrum Analysis (EQ)

The following table shows the response displacement of relative displacements between substructure
and superstructure.
Table 16.2.3-7 Relative Displacement between Substructure and Superstructure

Location Longitudinal (mm) Transversal (mm)
Abutment 1 185 0.00
Abutment 2 185 0.00
According to the results, the longitudinal displacements are well converged in realistic scale, for
which common expansion joints can be applied.
16-85
(4) Seismic Design of Substructure and Foundation
i) Ground Surface in Seismic Design
The following figure shows the ground surface in seismic design.
A1
A2
BL-5
EL+13.29m
Sandy Clay
CH
Ground surface Silty Fine Sand

SP
in seismic design
As Ground surface
in seismic design
As
Gravelly Sand
SW
Silty Clay CH
UDS-1
Ac
Silty Sand SM
Figure 16.2.3-3 Ground Surface of an Abutment in Seismic Design
ii) Assessment of Soil Liquefaction

According to the design specifications, sandy layer requiring liquefaction Assessment is obviously
obtained as following table.
Table 16.2.3-8 Assessment of Soil Liquefaction

Assessment of Liquefaction Potential
Ground
Soil Water D50 D10
GL-(m)
Layers
N by SPT
Level (-
Fc (%) PI
(mm) (mm)
Liquefiable N by SPT
m) 1020304050
<30 <35% <15 <10mm <1mm 0
0.70 Bs 12 1.50 0.9 0.74 0.21 ○ 0.00
1.70 As 7 1.50 17.3 0.14 ○
2.70 As 6 1.50 28.0 0.12 ○ -2.00
3.70 As 8 1.50 12.0 0.21 ○
-4.00
4.70 As 15 1.50 7.3 0.42 0.12 ○
5.70 As 21 1.50 7.3 0.20 0.08 ○ -6.00
6.70 Ac 7 1.50 58.1 12
7.70 Ac 9 1.50 77.1 33 -8.00
Depth (m)
8.70 Ac 6 1.50 66.9 19

9.70 Ac 8 1.50 51.0 45 -10.00
10.70 WGF 28 1.50 0.2 2.38 0.43
11.70 GF 50 1.50 0.5 0.60 0.23 -12.00
12.70 GF 50 1.50
13.70 GF 50 1.50 -14.00
14.70 GF 50 1.50
15.70 GF 50 1.50 -16.00
16.70 GF 50 1.50
17.70 GF 50 1.50 -18.00
18.70 GF 50 1.50
19.70 GF 50 1.50 -20.00
20.70 GF 50 1.50
21.70 GF 50 1.50 N-value
22.70 GF 50 1.50
23.70 GF 50 1.50
24.70 GF 50 1.50
16-86
Based on the results of liquefaction assessment, reduction of geotechnical parameters shall be
conducted in accordance with the following tables.
Table 16.2.3-9 Assessment of Soil Liquefaction Parameters

Basic Soil Profile Information
Ground
Water
Soil N by γｔ Water σU σv σv'
GL-(m) Fc (%) unit
Layers SPT γt1 Level (Kpa) (Kpa) (Kpa)
weight
(-m)
0.70 Bs 12 0.9 17 10.00 1.50 0.00 11.90 11.90
1.50 Bs 12 0.9 17 10.00 1.50 0.00 25.50 25.50
1.70 As 7 17.3 18 10.00 1.50 2.00 29.10 27.10
2.70 As 6 28.0 18 10.00 1.50 12.00 47.10 35.10
3.70 As 8 12.0 18 10.00 1.50 22.00 65.10 43.10
4.70 As 15 7.3 18 10.00 1.50 32.00 83.10 51.10
5.70 As 21 7.3 18 10.00 1.50 42.00 101.10 59.10
Table 16.2.3-10 Results on Liquefaction Resistance Factor (FL) & Reduction Factor (DE)
Calculation for FL Reduction Factor DE
Depth N1 C1 C2 Na R L FL R(Ave.) FL(Ave.) DE
-0.70 24.91 1.000 0.000 24.908 0.412 0.376 1.097 0.369 0.986 1.00
-1.50 21.36 1.000 0.000 21.361 0.325 0.371 0.876
-1.70 12.26 1.146 0.406 14.450 0.257 0.398 0.647
-2.70 9.71 1.361 1.002 14.210 0.255 0.489 0.521
-3.70 12.02 1.040 0.111 12.617 0.240 0.542 0.443 0.327 0.652 2/3
-4.70 21.06 1.000 0.000 21.057 0.321 0.574 0.559
-5.70 27.65 1.000 0.000 27.653 0.561 0.594 0.944
iii) Design Loads

Based on the results of seismic analysis, the abutment design is conducted for the following load
combinations.
Results of Eigenvalue Analysis is

VERTICAL REACTIONS FOR SUBSTRUCTURE STABLE CALCULATION (KN)
Dead load Live load Sum. 橋
A1 10,390 4,260 14,650
A2 10,390 4,260 14,650
Note: Impact factor exclusive
Total Forces of Two Bridges (Two Arches)
HORISONTAL/ TRANSVERSAL REACTIONS BY RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS UNDER L2 (at bearing)

Longitudinal Direction Transversal Direction
H(KN) M(KNm) V(KN) H(KN) M(KNm) V(KN)
A1 (E) 4,990 - - 10310 ‐ ‐
A2 (E) 4,990 - - 10310 ‐ ‐
Note: Total Forces of Two Bridges (Two Arches)
- Design Combination Loads

LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION(at bearing)
DL LL EQ SUM of LONGITUDINAL
N (kN) φ N (kN) φ H (kN) M (kNm) φ N (kN) H (kN) M (kNm)
A1（Nmax) 10,390 1.25 4,260 0.50 4,990 - 1.00 15,120 4,990 -
（Nmin) 10,390 1.25 4,260 0.50 4,990 - 1.00 15,120 4,990 -
A2（Nmax) 10,390 0.90 4,260 0.50 4,990 - 1.00 11,490 4,990 -
（Nmax) 10,390 0.90 4,260 0.50 4,990 - 1.00 11,490 4,990 -
16-87
iv) Design Result
Based on that the following dimensions are obtained as the abutment with foundation of Lambingan
bridge.
26,400
2,500 900 12,300 12,300 900
1,900 600 600 9,900 600 9,900 600
1,500 1,500
CL
250
100
100
200
200
2,000 4,000 2,500
1.5% 2.0% 2.0% 1.50%
8,500
8,500
3,500
2,500 21,400 2,500
100 26,400 100
CCP φ2,500
L=18,000 n=5
Figure 16.2.3-4 Side View & Sectional View of Abutment of Lambingan Bridge
(5) Unseating Prevention System

The superstructure is generally connected to the substructure through bearings. As such, the
superstructure and the substructure are separated functionally and significantly critical state such as
bridge falling down may be caused due to large relative displacements between them, in case of
failure of bearings under unexpected seismic forces.
For a functional system preventing such severe state, detailed philosophy and articulate design
concepts are explicitly specified in JRA as “Unseating Prevention System” based on accumulated data
and experiences from large number of seismic damages. The aim is to provide multiple mechanisms
that can complement each other efficiently, shown as follows.
16-88
Collapse of expansion
joint or joint protector
Functional point:
0.75Se
Bearing Supporting length: Se

Functional under 0.25Se remains when the
Lv2 Force Cable activates
Figure 16.2.3-5 Philosophy of Unseating Prevention System in JRA
The Unseating Prevention System consists as following devices or functions:
Table 16.2.3-11 Devices and Functions of Unseating Prevention System

Devices Function
Bearing (Type B) "Type B" bearing in JRA, enables to resist the seismic forces of LV2 by itself.
The final function of the unseating prevention system.
The equation to determine the length is given as follows:
Supporting Length
Se=μr+μg : μr: Relative responses of girder, μg: Displacement of ground
Minimum length: Semin=0.7+0.005l (m)
Design forces are given as 1.5Rd, where Rd is the reaction force of dead loads
Maximum movable length: 0.75Se, where Se is supporting length.
Longitudinal Restrainer
Generally for new bridges in Japan, cable type devices connecting between parapet
of abutment and cross beam of superstructure are commonly utilized.
Expansion joint shall resist LV1 seismic forces, otherwise, the capability to resist
Expansion Joint
LV2 seismic forces is not required.
Based on the philosophy and functions above, specification of each devices applied in this new bridge
is shown as the results of outline design.
i) Bearing
For Lambingan bridge, following force distributing bearing is obviously advantageous for seismic
behavior.

16-89
From the point of view of the philosophy of unseating prevention system, those bearing shall be resist
the LV2 seismic forces. As a part of outline design, following outline verification is conducted to
clarify they can resist such the forces.
Table 16.2.3-13 Outline Verification of Bearing under LV2 Seismic Forces

Value/ LV2 Allowance Judge
Longitudinal Dir. 1.8 2.5 OK
Shear Strain
Transversal Dir. 0.0 2.5 OK
ii) Supporting Length
SER SER SER
Figure 16.2.3-6 Supporting Length
Following equation gives the supporting length.

Se=0.7+0.005l (m) l: Span length
Se = 0.7+0.005*90 = 1.15m
Figure 16.2.3-7 Secure the Length of "Se", Supporting Length
iii) Longitudinal Restrainer

The reaction forces by dead loads are 10390kN.
The following verification can be obtained.
Table 16.2.3-14 Verification of Longitudinal Restrainer

1.5Rd: Design Forces Allowance
PC Cable Type 19 x φ12.7mm
2598 kN 2964 kN
6-nos/ Abutment
16-90
Figure 16.2.3-8 Longitudinal Restrainer for Lambingan Bridge
(6) Miscellaneous devices and others

Miscellaneous devices in the bridge are defined as following items:
- Bearing: Evaluated above clause
- Expansion joint
- Drainage
- Wearing coat
In this clause, the devices which are not explained in other clause are explained based on seismic
behaviors and current bridge condition.
i) Expansion joint
For the design methodology of expansion joint, its seismic capacity shall be secured under LV1 forces
and it does not have to be secured under LV2 forces. The expansion gap between girder end and
abutment shall be determined from results of dynamic modal analysis under LV2 and another
expansion gap of expansion joint itself shall be determined based on seismic analysis of LV1.
Gap 2
Gap 1 Gap 1: Determined by LV1 Spectrum

Gap 2: Determined by LV2 Spectrum
Expansion Joint:
Function Capacity Secured Under LV1
Not Functionable Under LV2
Figure 16.2.3-9 Design Methodology of Expansion Joint
16-91
However, expansion gap using laminated rubber bearing generally tends to be larger than common
bearing and the size of the expansion joint tends to be larger and more expensive. Therefore, the both
of expansion gap especially the gap between girder end and abutment should be carefully pay
attention to displacement controlling during dynamic modal analysis, evaluating the size of expansion
joint. When the gaps were so large comparing to general behavior, the stiffness of rubber bearing
should be adjusted and should try the modal analysis again.
In this project, on the basis of above consideration, appropriate modal analysis are carried out,
controlling caused displacements based on evaluation of stiffness of rubber bearing.
The final displacements to be used for determination of expansion joint are as follows.
- LV1: Gap 1: 10.5cm + 1.5cm (Excess allowance 15mm (JRA) ≒ 12cm

Therefore, the expandable gap of the joint in this bridge shall be 12cm or more, and the gap between
girder and abutment shall be 20cm or more, which are common results achieved under careful
controlling in the dynamic analysis. Consequently, general steel type expansion joint can be
adequately applied to this bridge.
ii) Drainage
Drainage system on the bridge is estimated based on current condition. In the next stage such as basic
design or design stage, appropriate location of catch basins and drainage pipes shall be designed and
drawn based on further investigation of accumulated rainfall data of corresponding area.
iii) Wearing coat

Lambingan bridge will consist of steel deck. The steel deck is definitely flexible member which may
causes fracture and crack of wearing coat if the selection of the wearing coat engineeringly mistakes.
In Japan, we have a lot of steel deck bridges, in which generally utilized following wearing coat
system on the steel deck bridge, consisting of two of layers, in order to appropriately follow the
deformation of steel deck.
In detail design stage, comparison study of bridge wearing coat based on costs and structure as well as
maintenance such as guss or epoxy asphalt, which are of Japan's advanced products, suitable for
flexible steel deck should be conducted. And also, in Japan, as asphalt concrete, polymer modified
asphalt is usually applied to wearing coat on bridges, which is excellent at flowability, flexibility,
durability, rutting resistance and heat resistance.
Tack Coat
Emulsion
Top Layer Modified Asphalt for Steel Deck 40mm

Polymer Modified Asphalt
Base Layer Guss asphalt 40mm
Steel Deck
Figure 16.2.3-10 Wearing Coat System of Steel Deck
16-92
16.2.4 Summary of Outline Design Results
(1) Superstructure
Superstructure is designed based on AASHTO LRFD for the bridge type determined in multiple
comparison study in consideration of various conditions. The bridge type is Steel Deck Lohse Arch
Stiffening Box Girder. And laminated rubber bearing considering 3% of damping coefficient in
dynamic modal analysis is applied in consideration of seismic behavior calculated dynamic modal
analysis.
(2) Substructure and Foundation

bridge.
26,400
2,500 900 12,300 12,300 900
1,900 600 600 9,900 600 9,900 600
1,500 1,500
CL
250
100
100
200
200
2,000 4,000 2,500
1.5% 2.0% 2.0% 1.50%
8,500
8,500
3,500
2,500 21,400 2,500
100 26,400 100
CCP φ2,500
L=18,000 n=5
Figure 16.2.4-1 Side View & Sectional View of Abutment of Lambingan Bridge
(3) Further Verification to be Examined in the Next Phase

The following items may be necessary to be verified or evaluated further in the next phase such as
basic or detail design stages.
 Optimization and re-verification of bridge length, span arrangement and bridge types, on the
basis of latest existing road condition, newly future planning and detail river condition resulted
by detail hydraulic analysis
 Applicability of utilization of high-damping bearing based on specific organization regarding
non-linear time history response analysis based upon comparison study regarding bearing
system
 Comparison study of bridge wearing coat based on costs and structure as well as maintenance
such as guss or epoxy asphalt, which are of Japan's advanced products, suitable for flexible
steel deck should be conducted. And also, in Japan, as asphalt concrete, polymer modified
asphalt is usually applied to wearing coat on bridges, which is excellent at flowability,
flexibility, durability, rutting resistance and heat resistance.
16-93
(Structural Drawings are shown in Appendix-4)
Figure 16.2.4-2 General View
16-94
16.3 Outline Design of Guadalupe Outer Side Bridge

The following items show design condition for the outline design of Guadalupe Bridge.
(1) Road Conditions

Figure 16.3.1-1 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Guadalupe Bridge
16-95
(2) Soil Conditions
The results of ground investigation are shown in below illustrations and following tables. The sand
with gravel layer that can be regarded as the bearing layer is distributed G.L. -15.0m to G.L.-30.0m
depth, and has a thick surface layer predominant with sand on top. Specialty, liquefiable sand (AS) is
thickly deposited from ground surface to GL-5.0m, of which N-value is 8 to 28, will be affected by
liquefaction occurs with reduction of geotechnical parameter. .

Input by Tanaka - A2 Side - Guadalupe B1 E.L 4.3m
Depth SPT S- Soil Classification GSA-J γt C ϕ E0 Vsn Layer
Num S- Soil N.M.C Specific
wave Vsn Grave Sand Fines PI Nd (kN/m2 (m/sec Thickn
ber Upper Blows wave Layer Observation (%) Gravity (tf/m2) (º) (kN/m2)
ave. l (%) (%) (%) ) ) ess
1 0.55 263 Fill soils 18
263 197 BF 15 - - - 197 2
2 1.55 263 Fill soils 18
3 2.55 8 263 Sand w/ gravel 22.2 76.7 1.1 23.4 N/A 2.64 17
4 3.55 9 263 Co. to med. sand 0.9 96.5 2.6 23.9 N/A 2.67 17
263 197 As 15 0 35 10,500 197 4
5 4.55 28 263 Gravel /w sand 50.3 48.4 1.3 19.5 N/A 2.63 17
6 5.55 16 263 Clayey gravel w/ sand 23.7 69.6 6.7 25.4 N/A 2.63 17
7 6.55 34 263 Sand and gravel 57.0 41.8 1.2 10.9 N/A 2.65 18
8 7.55 44 168 Gravel /w sand 61.9 37.7 0.4 10.4 N/A 2.65 18
192 280 Dg 43 0 39 30,100 280 4
9 8.55 44 168 Gravel 67.4 32.4 0.2 8.8 N/A 2.63 18
10 9.55 50 168 Clayey gravel w/ sand 0.0 84.4 15.6 31.8 N/A 2.65 18
11 10.55 34 228 Co. sand w/ gravel 53.5 45.8 0.7 8.3 N/A 2.67 17
12 11.55 37 228 Med./fine sand w/ gravel 10.6 89.2 0.2 25.4 N/A 2.65 17
13 12.55 37 228 Med./co. sand 19.1 79.8 1.1 23.4 N/A 2.64 17
14 13.55 35 228 17
15 14.55 46 228 Med./co. sand 11.9 87.6 0.5 21.0 N/A 2.64 17
16 15.55 37 228 med. sand 7.4 91.3 1.3 23.5 N/A 2.63 17
17 16.55 38 228 17
18 17.55 34 228 med. sand 2.5 97.3 0.2 28.3 N/A 2.67 17
19 18.55 37 228 med. sand 1.6 97.7 0.7 31.1 N/A 2.63 17
20 19.55 40 254 Coarse sand 17.5 81.8 0.7 32.4 N/A 2.64 17
21 20.55 37 254 Med./fine sand 14.5 83.8 1.8 24.2 N/A 2.63 17
22 21.55 38 254 17
23 22.55 41 254 Sand w/ gravel 28.1 71.4 0.5 23.0 N/A 2.65 17
24 23.55 41 254 Med./fine sand w/ gravel 49.5 50.3 0.2 9.3 N/A 2.63 17
25 24.55 37 254 17
257 264 Ds1 36 0 36 25,200 264 30
26 25.55 35 254 Fine to med. sand 4.9 94.3 0.8 33.5 N/A 2.63 17
27 26.55 33 254 17
28 27.55 33 254 Sand 5.0 94.5 0.5 27.9 N/A 2.64 17
29 28.55 34 254 17
30 29.55 36 254 Med. to fine sand 15.6 84.2 0.2 29.1 N/A 2.67 17
32 31.55 33 209 Sand 17
35 34.55 38 209 Sand 17
36 35.55 36 355 Fine sand 4.4 89.5 6.2 89.5 N/A 2.64 17
37 36.55 36 355 Fine sand 2.0 95.3 2.7 65.9 N/A 2.64 17
38 37.55 35 355 Med to fine sand 2.0 95.7 2.3 52.7 N/A 2.65 17
39 38.55 39 355 Fine to med. sand 2.2 80.5 17.3 46.5 N/A 2.64 17
40 39.55 35 355 Sand 0.5 99.3 0.2 75.2 N/A 2.65 17
41 40.55 50 355 Sand 19
42 41.55 50 355 Sand 19
43 42.55 50 355 Sand 19
355 300 Ds2 222 0 35 155,128 300 6
16-96
Depth (m) N-value Gravel (2mm) Sand Fines N.M.C (%) Specific Gravity (g/cm3)
Vs (m/sec)
Vsn (m/sec)
0 10 20 30 40 50 0.00 50.00 100.00 0 50 100 2.40 2.60 2.80 0 200 400
0
BF
As 5
Dg
10
15
20
Ds1
25
30
35
40
Ds2
45
TO PASAY CITY TO QUEZON CITY

TOTAL BRIDGE LENGTH 125,000
41,100 42,800 41,100
P1 P2
M
Guadalupe B1
EL+12.652m
BR-7 Dep.30.00m
N-value
EL+14.823m 0 10 20 30 40 50
N-Val.
0 10 20 30 40 50
Fill
BF
H.T.L
BF
As
BPLW-30 BPRW-30 Silty Clay CH As1
Coarse to medium
EL+9.485m EL+9.490 sand
Dep.20.00m Dep.30.00m
N-Val.
P12-CW N-Val.
UDS-1
0 10 20 30 40 50
Silty Gravelly Sand
EL+8.046m 0 10 20 30 40 50
Gravelly Sand
Poorly Graded
Gravel GP
Dep.16.65m
N-Val.
0 10 20 30 40 50
Fine to Coarse Sand
Gravel
Dg
Silty Sand SM
SW
Gravelly Sand
Silty Gravelly Sand
Gravelly Sand
SP
Gravelly Silty Sand Silty Sand

Ds1-1
Gravelly Sand
Silty Sand SM
Tuffaceous Silty Sand
Conglomerate
Tuffaceous fine to medium Sand

Conglomerate
Medium to fine
sand
Tuffaceous
Conglomerate
Fine Sand SP
Tuffaceous
Conglomerate
Fine to
Tuffaceous Medium Sand
Conglomerate SP
Silty Sand
Silty fine Sand
Ds1-2
Ds1
Fine Sand SP
Silty fine Sand
Silty Sand
Fine to medium
sand
Ds2
Medium to fine
sand Ds2
Figure 16.3.1-2 Soil Profile of Guadalupe Bridge (Included previous SPT)
16-97
 Freeboard from Design Flood Level : H = 3.75m (To secure existing freeboard)
(4) Bridge Type

 Superstructure Type : Steel Deck Box Girder
 Span Arrangement : 41.1m + 42.8m + 41.1
 Bearing : Steel Bearings
 Substructure Type : RC wall type

 Foundation Type : Steel Pipe Sheet Pile Foundation

in AASHTO 2012.

- Stress check



- Extreme Event I
16-98
 Superstructure Type : Steel Deck Box Girder
 Bearing : Steel Bearings
Figure 16.3.2-1 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Guadalupe Side Bridge
(2) Design Loads


DW CE
EH BR
ES LS
EL
PS
CR
Source: LRFD 2012
16-99
(3) Analytical model
In the outline design, the following figure shows the analytical model for outline design of Guadalupe
Side bridge. All elements in the analysis are beam element model which have 6 of DOFs
123
122
M
121
120
119
118
117
116
115
F
114
113
112
111
110
109
108
107
F
106
105
104
Y
103
102
101
M
X
Z

obtained. In this report, two of figures regarding distribution of bending moments and shear forces
under the combination sectional forces of "Strength I" in the following figures.
Table 16.3.2-2 Distribution of Sectional Forces under Combination of Strength I

Bending Moment in the Steel Deck Shear Forces in the Arch Rib
"Strength I" "Strength I"
Red: Focus on Side Span Red: Focus on Side Span
Yellow: Focus on Center Span Yellow: Focus on Center Span
Green: Focus on Mmin at P1 Green: Focus on Mmin at P
The maximum bending moment is about The distribution of shear forces are between -
32000KNm in the side span, 24000KNM in the 3800kN to 3500kN, which are common results
center span and the minimum bending moment is for such the superstructure.
about -33000KNm on the Piers. These values are
quite common results for such the superstructure
type.
16-100
(5) Stress Check
Based on the sectional forces of the load combination Strength I, stress checks are conducted for the
following sections of the superstructure. In this report, the results of the sectional stress check are
explained for 3 sections shown as in the following figures.
A2
123
122
121
P2 118
119
120
117
116
115
Center
114
P1
113
112
111
110
P1
109
108
107
A1
106
Side
105
104
103
101
102
Y
X
Z
Figure 16.3.2-3 Sections for Stress Check
<Bending Moment>
Table 16.3.2-3 Stress Check of Steel Deck for Bending Moment

Side Mz = 32000kNm
<SM490Y>
Upper flange : 14mm
Web : 10mm
Lower flange : 13mm
P1 Mz = -33000kNm
<SM490Y>
Upper flange : 14mm
Web : 10mm
Lower flange : 15mm
16-101
Center Mz = 23000 kNm
<SM490Y>
Upper flange : 14mm
Web : 10mm
Lower flange : 11mm
(6) Summary
Based on that the following dimensions are obtained as the superstructure of Guadalupe Side bridge
Figure 16.3.2-4 Side View of Superstructure of Guadalupe Side Bridge
Figure 16.3.2-5 Sectional View of Superstructure of Guadalupe Side Bridge
16-102
Table 16.3.2-4 Summary of Calculated Results
Web (mm)
Steel Deck Material U-Flange (mm) L-Flange (mm)
H=2000mm
Sec.1 (Sec.11) BOX-SM490Y 14 10 13
Sec.2 (Sec.10) BOX-SM490Y 14 10 13
Sec.3 (Sec.9) BOX-SM490Y 14 10 11
Sec.4 (Sec.8) BOX-SM490Y 14 10 15
Sec.5 (Sec.7) BOX-SM490Y 14 10 11
Sec.6 BOX-SM490Y 14 10 11


 Superstructure Type: Steel Deck Box Girder
A2
P2
P1
Y
A1 X
Z

X Y Z RX RY RZ
Abutment 1 Move Fix Fix Fix Free Free
Pier 1 Fix Fix Fix Fix Free Free
Pier 2 Fix Fix Fix Fix Free Free
Abutment 2 Move Fix Fix Fix Free Free
16-103
 Piers : Beam Type Elements for Wall Type Piers
 Bearing : Steel Bearing

Pier 1 1.06x107 1.02x107 4.37x108 4.99x108
Pier 2 7.37x106 7.09x106 3.75x108 4.28x108

Steel 0.01
Concrete 0.02
Steel Bearing 0.01
Foundation 0.10

i) Application of Continuous Girder

In order to prevent bridge falling down and to reduce the number of bearings, expansion joint and to
simplify related devices around pier top, continuous girders are generally applied for multiple span
bridges in Japan. For Guadalupe bridge, 3-Span Steel Deck Box Girder is recommended based on
above mentioned comparison study, which also meet such the improvement scheme.
Figure 16.3.3-2 Application of Continuous Girder
ii) Adequate Bearing Type

design. But comparing to other new bridges in this project, the dead loads of new superstructure of
Guadalupe bridge is much lighter than the others. Therefore, the usual such the methodology may not
apply to this bridge, which means that the appropriate and obvious advantages by application of LRB
may not be achieved adequately.
16-104

Otherwise, for steel deck girder bridge like Guadalupe

Fig. Steel Bearing bridge, it is appropriate to apply steel type bearing instead
of above bearings, which shall resist LV2 seismic forces.
Naturally the boundary condition will be two ways such
as "FIX" and "MOVE", which can not apply force
distribution method because stiffness of the bearing itself
can not be changed. Generally, steel type bearings for
viaducts are utilized under following conditions in Japan:
- No advantage to extend the period of the superstructure
- Not require damping and force distribution, structurally
16-105
Table 16.3.3-4 Comparison Study of Bearing in Guadalupe Bridge
Boundary Condition:
Laminated Rubber Bearing LD: Elastic (A1-P1-P2-A2), TD: Fix (A1 -P1-P2-A2)
LD: 1.1S, TD: 0.39s
LD: 4.8%. TD: 4.8%
LD: 6800kN of 8000kN
LD: A1:P1:P2:A2=1:1:1:1
Boundary Condition:
Pad Rubber Bearing with Dowel LD: Move (A1, A2), Fix (P1, P2), TD: Fix (A1-P1-P2-A2)
LD: 0.84S, TD: 0.39s
LD: 2.1%. TD: 2.1%
LD: A1:P1:P2:A2=0:1:1:0
Boundary Condition:
Steel Bearing LD: Move (A1, A2), Fix (P1, P2), TD: Fix (A1-P1-P2-A2)
LD: 0.84S, TD: 0.39s
LD: 2.1%. TD: 2.1%
LD: A1:P1:P2:A2=0:1:1:0
By using LRB, the period of longitudinal 1st mode achieves beyond 1.1s under controlling relative
displacement of 22cm at girder end, which is slightly longer than the structure applying other
bearings.
Therefore, the seismic forces based on design spectrum can not be significantly reduced between LRB
and other bearings. And also, for steel bearing, the piers are adequately slender that the mode vectors
in the 1st mode for such the piers are so large that the mode damping of 1st mode reaches more than
2.0%. Therefore, there may be no need to use LRB to pay high cost for reducing damping factor and
extend the period. Consequently the total horizontal forces of superstructure using LRB seem as even
as that of other bearings.
Therefore, structurally, application of steel bearings has enough function in Guadalupe bridge, the
causes of such the result may be estimated as follows:
- Adequately slender piers under dead and live load condition
- Response mode vectors of piers are large, which brings large damping modal factor
- Consequently, enough period and enough damping modal factor even in steel bearing
- No advantage to extend the period of the superstructure by using LRB
- Not require damping and force distribution, structurally
16-106

Modes Mode Damping
1 1.186 0.843 0.877 0.000 0.021
2 2.568 0.389 0.000 0.743 0.021
3 4.003 0.250 0.000 0.000 0.016
4 8.373 0.119 0.000 0.035 0.013
5 10.762 0.093 0.000 0.000 0.010
6 11.078 0.090 0.000 0.000 0.010
7 15.816 0.063 0.000 0.001 0.013
8 15.845 0.063 0.005 0.000 0.023
9 16.159 0.062 0.071 0.000 0.023
10 22.262 0.045 0.004 0.000 0.011
mode whose period is 0.8s and effective mass ration is 88% of modes for longitudinal direction.
Therefore, the 1st mode is so important one for longitudinal direction. And for 2nd mode, the
effective mass ratio is 0.74 with the period of 0.4s for transversal direction; hence the 2nd mode is
also very important model shape for transversal direction.

and superstructure.

Locationt Longitudinal (mm) Transversal (mm)
Abutment 1 157 0.00
Abutment 2 157 0.00
According to the results, the longitudinal displacements are well converged in realistic scale, for
which common expansion joints can be applied.
16-107
Ground surface
in seismic design
Ground surface
in seismic design


Ground
Soil Water D50 D10
GL-(m) N by SPT Fc (%) PI N by SPT
Layers Level (- (mm) (mm) Liquefiable
m)
0 10 20 30 40 50
<30 <35% <15 <10mm <1mm 0.00
0.70 BF 8 2.20 0.9 ○ ○
1.70 BF 8 2.20 17.3 ○ ○ -2.00
2.70 As 8 2.20 28.0 0.52 0.18 ○ ○
3.70 As 9 2.20 12.0 0.49 0.15 ○ ○ -4.00
4.70 As 28 2.20 7.3 2.06 0.25 ○ ○
5.70 As 16 2.20 7.3 0.56 0.09 ○ ○ -6.00
6.70 Dg 34 2.20 58.1 3.54 0.29
7.70 Dg 44 2.20 77.1 3.35 0.29 -8.00
Depth (m)
8.70 Dg 44 2.20 66.9 5.76 1.70

9.70 Dg 50 2.20 51.0 0.39
-10.00
10.70 Ds1 34 2.20 0.2 2.51 0.26
11.70 Ds1 37 2.20 0.5 0.61 0.24
12.70 Ds1 37 2.20 0.61 0.25
-12.00
13.70 Ds1 35 2.20
14.70 Ds1 46 2.20 0.61 0.23 -14.00
15.70 Ds1 37 2.20 0.47 0.20
16.70 Ds1 38 2.20 -16.00
17.70 Ds1 34 2.20 0.41 0.25
18.70 Ds1 37 2.20 0.40 0.22 -18.00
19.70 Ds1 40 2.20 0.65 0.27
20.70 Ds1 37 2.20 0.38 0.13 -20.00
21.70 Ds1 38 2.20
22.70 Ds1 41 2.20 0.67 0.26 N-value
23.70 Ds1 41 2.20 1.96 0.30
24.70 Ds1 37 2.20
16-108

Ground
Water
GL-(m) Fc (%) unit
weight
(-m)
0.70 Bs 12 17 10.00 2.20 0.00 11.90 11.90
2.20 Bs 12 17 10.00 2.20 0.00 37.40 37.40
2.70 As 7 18 10.00 2.20 5.00 46.40 41.40
3.70 As 6 18 10.00 2.20 15.00 64.40 49.40
4.70 As 8 18 10.00 2.20 25.00 82.40 57.40
5.70 As 15 18 10.00 2.20 35.00 100.40 65.40
-0.70 24.91 1.000 0.000 24.908 0.412 0.376 1.097 0.355 0.953 1.00
-2.20 18.99 1.000 0.000 18.994 0.297 0.367 0.808
-2.70 10.68 1.000 0.000 10.682 0.221 0.409 0.541
-3.70 8.54 1.000 0.000 8.543 0.198 0.468 0.423 0.269 0.569 1/3
-4.70 10.68 1.000 0.000 10.675 0.221 0.507 0.436
-5.70 18.83 1.000 0.000 18.833 0.295 0.533 0.554
16-109
iii) Design Loads
combinations.
- Results of Eigenvalue Analysis

Dead load Live load Sum.
A1 1,040 1,100 2,140
A2 1,040 1,100 2,140
Note: Reaction forces for the upstream side bridge
Impact factor exclusive

- LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION (at bearing)
ＤＬ LL EQ SUM
A1（Nmax) 1,040 1.25 1,100 0.50 156 - 1.00 1,850 156 -
（Nmax) 1,040 0.90 1,100 0.50 156 - 1.00 1,490 156 -
A2（Nmax) 1,040 1.25 1,100 0.50 156 - 1.00 1,850 156 -
（Nmax) 1,040 0.90 1,100 0.50 156 - 1.00 1,490 156 -
*Friction coefficient shall be given for stable calculation of Abutments

P1 2,960 1,980 4,940
P2 2,960 1,980 4,940
Note: Reaction forces for the upstream side bridge
Impact factor exclusive
SECTIONAL FORCES BY RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS FOR PIERS (at bottom of Piers)
H(KN) M(KNm) V(KN) H(KN) M(KNm) V(KN) 1,800 (ｈ)
P1 (F) 4,170 50,070 0 4,060 49,640 0
P2 (F) 4,160 49,950 0 4,060 49,580 0
4,000
Note: Friction coefficient shall be given for stable calculation of Abutments (Ｂ)
- Dead Loas (for Pier column)

13,500 (P1)
15,000(P2)
Pier Column (H)
ｈＢ Aria Height Unit Weight Self Weight
(m) (m) (m2) (m) (kN/m3) (kN)
P1 1.8 4.0 6.5 13.5 24.5 2,152
P2 1.8 4.0 6.5 15.0 24.5 2,391

LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION (at bottom of column,Nmax)
P1(Nmax) 5,112 1.25 1,980 0.50 4,170 50,070 1.00 7,380 4,170 50,070
(Nmin) 5,112 0.90 1,980 0.50 4,170 50,070 1.00 5,600 4,170 50,070
P2(Nmax) 5,351 1.25 1,980 0.50 4,160 49,950 1.00 7,680 4,160 49,950
(Nmin) 5,351 0.90 1,980 0.50 4,160 49,950 1.00 5,810 4,160 49,950
TRANSVERSAL DIRECTION (at bottom of column,Nmax)

DL LL EQ SUM of TRANSVERSAL
P1(Nmax) 5,112 1.25 1,980 0.50 4,060 49,640 1.00 7,380 4,060 49,640
(Nmin) 5,112 0.90 1,980 0.50 4,060 49,640 1.00 5,600 4,060 49,640
P2(Nmax) 5,351 1.25 1,980 0.50 4,060 49,580 1.00 7,680 4,060 49,580
(Nmin) 5,351 0.90 1,980 0.50 4,060 49,580 1.00 5,810 4,060 49,580
16-110
vi)Design Result
Based on that the following dimensions are obtained as the substructure with foundation of Guadalupe
bridge.
P1
P2
F
F
13,500
15,000
8,000
9,500
18,500
25,500
10,500
9,500
16,000
6,500
STEEL PIPE SHEET PILE FOUNDATION
t=9&12mm

t=9&16mm
Figure 16.3.3-5 Side View of Pier of Guadalupe Bridge Substructure with Foundation.
9,700
400 1,500 3,600 3,600 600
4,435 2,130 3,135
CL
A1
100
200
2.0% 2.0%
2,300
5,000
5,000
700
M
2,000
2,000 5,700 2,000
100 9,700 100
CCP D2.5m, N=2*2, L=8.0m

(A1),L=19.5m(A2)
Figure 16.3.3-6 Side View & Sectional View of Abutment of Guadalupe Bridge Substructure
with Foundation.
16-111
v) General of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile (SPSP) Foundation
A Steel pipe sheet pile consists of a steel pipe pile as the main component member, to with the joints
illustrated in detail of following figure are attached. Compared to an ordinary steel sheet pile, it has an
advantage of considerable rigidity; witch lends itself highly useful for wall structures such as earth
retaining walls for deep excavation and deep water foundations.
Steel pipe sheet pile foundation is consisted of outside steel pipe sheet pile well and diaphragm steel
pile sheet pile well. Open end steel pipe sheet piles are driven to the designated depth, loads from
superstructure are transmitted to the upper slab and then to the sheet piles and finally to soil by
friction and tip bearing.
Steel pipe sheet pile foundation lets the Outside sheet pipe well itself get up over the water surface, its
joints being filled with cut off materials to serve as temporary cofferdam with temporary braces and
wales. The inside of well is dried, and after a pile cap and a pier are erected there, the pipe pile
temporary cofferdam planning cutting passion around above the top end of the footing is underwater
cut and removed.
Detailed of steel pipe joint
Figure 16.3.3-7 Conceptual View of Steel Sheet Pile Foundation
16-112
Based on that, the following design flow is obtained the design of steel pipe sheet pile foundation.
Start
Step 1: Verify the Foundation Dimension
Assume structural dimensions
Considered on scour depth and elevation of pile cap
Verify Out
by after completion loads
OK
Verify
Out Verify Out
the allowable bearing
by during construction loads
capacity and displacement
*with cofferdam planning

OK
OK
Verify Out
the combined　stress* in
the steel pipe sheet pile
OK
*due to during construction and

Verify the structural dimension after construction
Step 2: Verify the Structural Member
Design of top slab
Design of connection between top slab and steel pipe sheet pile
Design of connection between top slab and pile
Out
Verify
the structural member
OK
End
Figure 16.3.3-8 Design Flow for Basic Design of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile Foundation
16-113
Construction Step
The procedure for construction method of steel pipe sheet pile foundations and points of construction
at each stage are shown as below.
1) Steel pipe sheet pile setting and driving

In setting and driving steel pipe sheet piles, to prevent the rotating and tilting of pipe pile, guide frames are installed
inside and outside the circumference of the well are attached. Pile setting and driving work is performed by the pile
driver on the boat or on the scaffold at site. Piles are set, one by one, by the Vibro hammer, at positions determined by
the guides.
2) Joint work and bottom slab concrete casting

When the pipe pile driving is completed to the designed depth, earth and sand in the joint are removed and filling
mortar into the joints to below the pile cap. Next comes pouring of cut off material into the joint of temporary
cofferdam section by Nylon bags. Then the internal excavation to the prescribed depth by a clamshell and water pump
is performed. Upon completion of the excavation, the ground surface is evened with sand gravel, and under water slab
concrete is cast.
3) Braces setting with drying up

After curing of underwater bottom slab concrete, drying up of the inside of the temporary cofferdam is started. The
water level is lowered to the lower level of the stage braces and a wale is set up, one by one.
4) Shear connection setting

In order to make the pile cap and the internal wall of steel pipe sheet pile foundation in one body, a shear connection is
welded to the pipe pile.
Guide Under water Temporary Sear Connection

Frame bottom slab con. Braces & wales
Temporary
Cofferdam
Foundation
Body
1)Steel pipe sheet pile 2)Joint work and slab 3)Braces setting with 4)Sear connection
setting driving casting drying up dry up
Figure 16.3.3-9 The Procedure for Construction Method of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile Foundations (1)
16-114
5) Pile cap and column construction
The arrangement on pile cap reinforcement as well as concrete casting follows. Then, a column is erected.
6) Temporary Braces & wales removal and underwater cutting of sheet pile
While water is poured inside the temporary cofferdam, braces and wales are removed, one by one. After external and
internal pressure are balanced, steel pipe sheet pile are cut under the water at the top of the pile cap.
5) Pile cap and column 6) Temporary Braces & wales removal

construction and underwater cutting of sheet pile
Figure 16.3.3-10 The Procedure For Construction Method of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile Foundations (2)
16-115
Vertical Bearing Capacity
Vertical bearing capacity (Ra) and safety factor (n) of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile foundation shall be
calculated as follows.
1
Ra  Ru
n
Ru  q d  A1 
1
U 1  Li f i  U 2  L j f j 
n1  n 2  n3
where
A1 : Tip closed section of sheet pile (m2)

qd : Tip resistance per unit area (kN/m2)
n1 : number of sheet piles in exterior wall
n2 : number of sheet piles in bulkhead
U1 : circumference envelop length of exterior wall (m)
U2 : circumference envelop length of interior wall and bulkhead (m)
Li : length of each layer considering side friction for exterior wall (m)
fi : maximum friction coefficient for exterior wall (kN/m2)
Lj : length of each layer considering side friction for exterior wall (m)
fj : maximum friction coefficient for interior wall (kN/m2)
Figure 16.3.3-11 Region Where the Skin Friction Force at the Inter Peripheral Surface of the
Well Portion of the Foundation Should Be Taken into Account
16-116
Design Model
The steel pipe sheet pile foundation has a very wide range of Le, which indicates the applicable
scope of the design method, and generally belongs to elastic foundations of finite length. Judging
from Le, some are regarded as an elastic foundation with a value less than 1, however, the steel
pipe sheet pile foundation is a structure consisting of steel pipe sheet pile mutually joined by
joint pipes of smaller rigidity than the steel pipe body and with mortar filled in the joint pipes,
and a shear slippage deformation easily occurs in it. Therefore, verification of the slippage at the
foundation bottom may be omitted. That is, stability should be verified on vertical bearing
capacity and horizontal displacement.
An outline of the stability calculation model used in verification for ordinary, storm and seismic
condition is shown in following table.
Table 16.3.3-10 Stability Calculation Model

Verification for ordinary conditions,
storm and Level 1 earthquake conditions
B≦30m , L/B＞1 B＞30m , L/B≦1
and βLe＞1 or βLe≦1
Analysis by an imaginary
Finite-length beam
well beam that considering
Design model on an elastic floor
shear slippage of the joints
(Beam Model)
(Well Model)
Steel pipe sheet pile Linear
Foundation
body
Evaluation by composite
Shear resistance of joint efficiency and moment Bilinear
distribution factor
Horizontal ground resistance
Linear considering strain dependency
at the foundation front face
Horizontal shear ground
Ground hesitance element
resistance at the foundation Included in the horizontal resistance of the front ground
peripheral faces
Vertical shear ground
resistance at the foundation Included in the bearing capacity of the steel pipe sheet pile
outer and inner peripheral faces
Vertical ground resistance
Linear Linear
at the foundation bottom face
Horizontal shear ground
resistance at the foundation Linear Linear
bottom faces
16-117
Finite-length beam Model
The sectional forces, displacement and unit ground reaction force of a well-type steel pipe sheet
pile foundation may be derived by regarding the steel pipe sheet pile foundation as a finite-length
beam on an elastic model, as shown in following model.
Figure 16.3.3-12 Calculation Model of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile Foundation

16-118
Functional point: 0.75Se
Bearing Supporting length: Se

Functional under 0.25Se remains when
Lv2 Force the Cable activates

Devices Function
"Type B" bearing in JRA, enables to resist the seismic forces of LV2 by
Bearing (Type B)
itself.
Supporting Length
Design forces are given as 1.5Rd, where Rd is the reaction force of dead
loads
Longitudinal Maximum movable length: 0.75Se, where Se is supporting length.
Restrainer Generally for new bridges in Japan, cable type devices connecting between
parapet of abutment and cross beam of superstructure are commonly
utilized.
Expansion joint shall resist LV1 seismic forces, otherwise, the capability to
Expansion Joint
resist LV2 seismic forces is not required.
i) Bearing
For Guadalupe bridge, common steel bearing is advantageous because the weight of superstructure is
extremely light weight. Therefore, in the stage of detail design, appropriate steel bearing that can
resist surely LV2 seismic forces shall be selected.
16-119
SER SER SER

Se = 0.7+0.005*41 = 0.91m
1300
16-120
The reaction forces by dead loads are 1040 kN.

780 kN 826 kN
2-nos/ Abutment
Figure 16.3.3-16 Longitudinal Restrainer for Guadalupe Bridge

- Expansion joint
- Drainage
- Wearing coat
i) Expansion joint
Gap 2

Expansion Joint:
16-121
The final displacements to be used for determination of expansion joint based on dynamic modal
analysis are as follows.

ii) Drainage
iii) Wearing coat

Guadalupe Side bridge will consist of steel deck. The steel deck is definitely flexible member which
may causes fracture and crack of wearing coat if the selection of the wearing coat engineeringly
mistakes.
In Japan, we have a lot of steel deck bridges, in which generally utilized following wearing coat
system on the steel deck bridge, consisting of two of layers, in order to appropriately follow the
deformation of steel deck.
In detail design stage, comparison study of bridge wearing coat based on costs and structure as well as
maintenance such as guss or epoxy asphalt, which are of Japan's advanced products, suitable for
flexible steel deck should be conducted. And also, in Japan, as asphalt concrete, polymer modified
asphalt is usually applied to wearing coat on bridges, which is excellent at flowability, flexibility,
durability, rutting resistance and heat resistance.
Tack Coat
Emulsion
Top Layer Modified Asphalt for Steel Deck 40mm

Base Layer Guss asphalt 40mm
Steel Deck
Figure 16.3.3-18 Wearing Coat System of Steel Deck
16-122
(1) Superstructure
comparison study in consideration of various conditions. The bridge type is Steel Deck Box Girder.
And steel bearing is applied in consideration of seismic behavior calculated dynamic modal analysis.

The following substructures and foundations are resulted by the outline design.
P1 P2
F
F
13,500
15,000
9,500
8,000
18,500
25,500
9,500
10,500
16,000
6,500
t=9&12mm

t=9&16mm
Figure 16.3.4-1 Side View of Pier of Guadalupe Bridge
9,700
400 1,500 3,600 3,600 600
4,435 2,130 3,135
A1 CL
100
200
5,000
2.0% 2.0%
2,300
5,000
M
700
2,000
2,000 5,700 2,000
100 9,700 100
CCP D2.5m, N=2*2, L=8.0m

(A1),L=19.5m(A2)
Figure 16.3.4-2 Side View & Sectional View of Abutment of Guadalupe Bridge
16-123
(3) Further Verification to Be Examined in The Next Phase
system
 Comparison study of bridge wearing coat based on costs and structure as well as maintenance
such as guss or epoxy asphalt, which are of Japan's advanced products, suitable for flexible
steel deck should be conducted. And also, in Japan, as asphalt concrete, polymer modified
asphalt is usually applied to wearing coat on bridges, which is excellent at flowability,
flexibility, durability, rutting resistance and heat resistance.
16-124
16-125
16.4 Outline Design of Palanit Bridge

The following items show design condition for the outline design of Palanit Bridge.
(1) Road Conditions

(2) Soil Conditions

weathered rock layer that can be regarded as the bearing layer is distributed E.L. -2.0m to E.L.-6.5m
depth, and has a thick surface layer predominant with gravely sand on top. Specialty, liquefiable sand
(Dsg) is thickly deposited from ground surface to GL-2.0m, of which N-value is 15 to 29, will be
affected by liquefaction occurs with reduction of geotechnical parameter. .
Table 16.4.1-1 Summary for Soil Parameters (1) at A1 side
Input by Tanaka - A2 Side - Palanit PAL-R1 (left bank) EL.2.40m Input by EASCON Soil Parameters
Layer
Depth SPT Soil GSA Speci γt C ϕ E0 Vsn Thickn
Numb Soil N.M.C
Penet Nstd S-wave Vsn Gravel Sand Fines PI fic Nd (tf/m2 (kN/m2 (m/sec ess (m)
er Upper Lower Blows Layer Observation (%) (º) (kN/m2)
ration (%) (%) (%) Gravi ) ) )
1 0.55 1.00 9 30 9 208 160 Asg Gravely sand 38.00 59.3 2.7 21.0 N/A 2.64 17
8 0 33 5,600 160 2
2 1.55 2.00 8 30 8 208 160 Asg Gravely sand 41.50 55.5 3.0 20.3 N/A 2.63 17
3 2.55 3.00 50 5 300 208 798 VR Rock 21
4 3.55 4.00 50 5 300 431 798 VR Rock 21
5 4.55 5.00 50 5 300 431 798 VR Rock 21
6 5.55 6.00 50 5 300 431 798 VR Rock 21
7 6.55 7.00 50 5 300 431 798 VR Rock 21
8 7.55 8.00 50 5 300 830 798 VR Rock 21
9 8.55 9.00 50 5 300 830 798 VR Rock 21
10 9.55 10.00 50 5 300 830 798 VR Rock 21
11 10.55 11.00 50 5 300 830 798 VR Rock 21
12 11.55 12.00 50 5 300 830 798 VR Rock 21
13 12.55 13.00 50 5 300 830 798 VR Rock 21
14 13.55 14.00 50 5 300 830 798 VR Rock 21
15 14.55 15.00 50 5 300 963 798 VR Rock 21
16 15.55 16.00 50 5 300 963 798 VR Rock 21
300 514 21 136,098 300 28
17 16.55 17.00 50 5 300 963 798 VR Rock 21
18 17.55 18.00 50 5 300 963 798 VR Rock 21
19 18.55 19.00 50 5 300 963 798 VR Rock 21
20 19.55 20.00 50 5 300 963 798 VR Rock 21
21 20.55 21.00 50 5 300 963 798 VR Rock 21
22 21.55 22.00 50 5 300 963 798 VR Rock 21
23 22.55 23.00 50 5 300 963 798 VR Rock 21
24 23.55 24.00 50 5 300 911 798 VR Rock 21
25 24.55 25.00 50 5 300 911 798 VR Rock 21
26 25.55 26.00 50 5 300 911 798 VR Rock 21
27 26.55 27.00 50 5 300 911 798 VR Rock 21
28 27.55 28.00 50 5 300 911 798 VR Rock 21
29 28.55 29.00 50 5 300 911 798 VR Rock 21
30 29.55 30.00 50 5 300 911 798 VR Rock 21
16-126
Table 16.4.1-2 Summary for Soil Parameters (2) at A1 side
Gravel (2mm) Sand Fines
Depth (m) N-value N.M.C (%) Specific Gravity (g/cm3)
0 10 20 30 40 50 0.0 50.0 100.0 0.0 50.0 100.0 2.40 2.60 2.80
0
Dsg
Ds 5
Dc
10
15
VR
20
25
30
Figure 16.4.1-2 Soil Profile of Palanit Bridge (Included previous SPT)

 Design Flood Discharge : Q = 197 m3/s
 Design Water Level : EL= 1.90 m
 Freeboard from Design Flood Level : H = 1.50 m
16-127
(4) Bridge Type
 Superstructure Type : 3-Span PC-I Shape Girder
 Span Arrangement : 27m +28m +27m
 Wearing coat : Polymer Modified Asphalt, Coarse/ Dense-Graded
 Substructure Type : Circular Type

 Foundation Type : Spread Sheet Foundation
 Bearing Soil Condition : Rock (N>50)

in AASHTO 2012.

- Stress check



- Extreme Event I
16-128
 Superstructure Type : Continuous PC-I girder
(2) Design Loads

(3) Design girder

For Palanit bridge, AASHTO girder type that is usually utilized in Philippines is applied to the
superstructure. Therefore, complicated analysis and design methodology are not required for the
outline design; hence, applied girder types and the results of the prestress estimation are shown in the
following figures and tables.
Figure 16.4.2-2 Designed and Applied AASHTO Girder Type-IV
16-129
(4) Design of AASHTO girder type-IV
For the AASHTO girder type-IV, following approximate amount of prestressing forces are calculated.
Table 16.4.2-1 Determination of Approximate Amount of Prestressing Force

At Service Condition Allowable Tension Ft =3 Mpa
Assumed Centroid of Cables from Bottom Dps = 0.1m
Eccentricity at Midspan Emid = 0.528m
Approximate Prestressing Force Pi = 4116.3 kN
Assumed Percentage of Prestress Loss 22%
Effective Prestressing Force Pieff = 107.4
Number of Dia 15.2mm HTS G270) 40
(5) Summary
Based on that the following dimensions are obtained as the superstructure of Guadalupe Side bridge
Figure 16.4.2-3 Side View of Superstructure of Palanit Bridge
Figure 16.4.2-4 Sectional View of Superstructure of Palanit Bridge
16-130

 Superstructure Type: Continuous PC-I girder
A2
Y 1144
1244
1344 2144
2244
2344 144
P2
143 3244
142 3344 4144
141 4244
X
140 4344 5144
139 5244
138 5344
Z
137
136
1131 135
1129 134
1231
1331 133
1229
1330
1329 2131
2129 132
2231
2331
2229
2330 131
2329 129130
128 3231
3331
3229
3330
3329 4131
4129
P1
127 4231
126 42294331
4330
7001 4329 5131
125 5129
5231
5331
124 7002 5229
5330
5329
123
122 7003
121
1116 120 7004
1114 119
1216
1316 118 7005
1214
1315
1314 2116
2114 117
2216
2316 7006
2214
2315
2314 116
115
114
113 3216 7007
32143316
3315 4116
112 3314 4114 7008
A1
111 4216
4316
4214
4315
6001 4314 5116
110 5114
109 5216
5316
6002 5214
5315
5314
108
107 6003
106
1101 105 6004
104
1201
1301 103
2101 6005
2201 102
2301 101 6006
3201
3301 6007
4101
4201 6008
4301 5101
5201
5301

X Y Z RX RY RZ
Pier 1 Elastic Fix Elastic Fix Free Free
16-131
 Piers : Beam Type Elements for Circular Type Piers

Supports Nos. Rub. Dimension Rub. Thickness G
Pier 1 5 320mmx320mm 10mmx5layers 1.4 N/mm2

Pier 1 2.77x106 2.77x106 3.39x107 3.39x107
Pier 2 2.77x106 2.77x106 3.39x107 3.39x107

Concrete 0.02
Foundation 0.10
16-132

bridges in Japan. For Palanit bridge, AASHTO-IV girders are applied, for which continuous girder are
applied for the superstructure based on connecting each girder at the piers. Therefore, this bridge can
also meet such the improvement scheme.
ii) Adequate Bearing Type >
design.

Fig. Steel Bearing
16-133
Table 16.4.3-5 Comparison Study of Bearing in Palanit Bridge
Boundary Condition:
Laminated Rubber Bearing LD: Elastic (A1-P1-P2-A2), TD: Fix (A1,A2) Elastic (P1,P2)
LD: 0.9S, TD: 0.6s
LD: 3%. TD: 1.6%
LD: 10000kN of 15120kN, TD: 17000kN of 15120kN
LD: A1:P1:P2:A2=1:2:2:1, TD: A1:P1:P2:A2=3:1:1:3
Boundary Condition:
LD: 0.7S, TD: 0.6s
LD: 1%. TD: 1%
LD: A1:P1:P2:A2=0:1:1:0,
Boundary Condition:
LD: 0.7S, TD: 0.6s
LD: 1%. TD: 1%
LD: A1:P1:P2:A2=0:1:1:0,
By using LRB, the period of transversal 1st mode achieves beyond 1.1s, which is much longer than
16-134


Modes Mode Damping
1 1.057 0.946 0.731 0.000 0.030
2 1.763 0.567 0.000 0.615 0.016
3 5.974 0.167 0.000 0.000 0.011
4 7.362 0.136 0.000 0.108 0.044
5 7.421 0.135 0.000 0.000 0.043
6 8.985 0.111 0.000 0.000 0.049
7 9.698 0.103 0.173 0.000 0.054
8 12.640 0.079 0.000 0.000 0.010
9 13.349 0.075 0.000 0.063 0.010
10 19.839 0.050 0.000 0.141 0.088

1st Mode for Longitudinal Dir. 1st Mode for Transversal Dir. 2nd Mode for Transversal Dir.
Therefore, the 1st mode for longitudinal direction is so important one, which have enough effective
mass ratio. And for the 1st mode for transversal direction is the mode with the effective mass ratio of
0.615s and with the period of 0.57s for transversal direction. Both of the behaviors of longitudinal and
transversal direction are efficiently functioned against strong seismic forces, using Force Distribution
Bearings and appropriate dumping coefficient of them.

and superstructure.

Abutment 1 147 0.00
Abutment 2 147 0.00
The longitudinal displacements are well converged in realistic scale, for which common expansion
joints can be applied.
16-135
A1
N-value
0 10 20 30 40 50
Clayey
sand
Dsg
Ds
Silty
sand
Ground surface
Dc
Clay with gravel in seismic design
Rock
(welded tuff)
Figure 16.4.3-4 Ground Surface of Abutment & Pier in Seismic Design


N by SPT
Ground
Soil Water D50 D10 0 10 20 30 40 50
GL-(m)
Layers
N by SPT
Level (-
Fc (%) PI
(mm) (mm)
Liquefiable 0.00
m) -1.00
<30 <35% <15 <10mm <1mm -2.00
Depth (m)
0.70 Dsg 15 3.00 3.2 43 0.49 0.12 ○ -3.00

1.70 Dsg 29 3.00 3.2 1.27 0.14 ○ -4.00
2.70 Dsg 38 3.00 5.0 0.27 0.09
3.70 Dsg 46 3.00 4.2 0.36 0.10 -5.00
4.70 Ds 50 3.00 2.8 0.49 0.13 -6.00
5.70 Dc 49 3.00 51.7 -7.00 N-value
6.70 VR 50 3.00 -8.00
7.70 VR 50 3.00


Ground
Water
GL-(m) Fc (%) unit
weight
(-m)
0.70 Dsg 15 3.2 18 10.00 3.00 0.00 12.60 12.60
1.70 Dsg 29 3.2 18 10.00 3.00 0.00 30.60 30.60
16-136
-0.70 30.87 1.000 0.000 30.872 0.908 0.623 1.457

7.799 12.692 1.00
-1.70 49.01 1.000 0.000 49.006 14.689 0.614 23.926
16-137
iii) Design Loads
combinations.

A1 2,520 690 3,210
A2 2,520 690 3,210

A1 (E) 1,780 - - A1 (F) 6370 - -
A2 (E) 1,780 - - A2 (F) 6370 - -
Note:

LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION(at bearing)
DL LL EQ SUM
A1（Nmax) 2,520 1.25 690 0.50 1,780 - 1.00 3,500 1,780 -
（Nmax) 2,520 0.90 690 0.50 1,780 - 1.00 2,620 1,780 -
A2（Nmax) 2,520 1.25 690 0.50 1,780 - 1.00 3,500 1,780 -
（Nmax) 2,520 0.90 690 0.50 1,780 - 1.00 2,620 1,780 -

P1 5,040 1,550 6,590
P2 5,040 1,550 6,590
P1 (E) 3,830 11,620 0 4,470 17,600 0
P2 (E) 3,830 11,620 0 4,470 17,600 0
- Dead Loas (for Pier)

1)　Cross　Beam 2)　Circular　Column 1)+2)
Beam Width Beam Thickness Beam Height Beam Height Cross Aria Diameter Cross Aria Column Heigh Unit Weight Self Weight
(m) (m) (m) (m) (m2) (m) (m2) (m) (kN/m3) (kN)
P1 11.6 2.0 2.0 1.2 19.36 2.0 3.1 4.0 24.5 1,257
P2 11.6 2.0 2.0 1.2 19.36 2.0 3.1 4.0 24.5 1,257

LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION (at bottom of column)
P1(Nmax) 6,297 1.25 1,550 0.50 3,830 11,620 1.00 8,650 3,830 11,620
(Nmin) 6,297 0.90 1,550 0.50 3,830 11,620 1.00 6,450 3,830 11,620
P2(Nmax) 6,297 1.25 1,550 0.50 3,830 11,620 1.00 8,650 3,830 11,620
(Nmin) 6,297 0.90 1,550 0.50 3,830 11,620 1.00 6,450 3,830 11,620
TRANSVERSAL DIRECTION (at bottom of column)

P1(Nmax) 6,297 1.25 1,550 0.50 4,470 17,600 1.00 8,650 4,470 17,600
(Nmin) 6,297 0.90 1,550 0.50 4,470 17,600 1.00 6,450 4,470 17,600
P2(Nmax) 6,297 1.25 1,550 0.50 4,470 17,600 1.00 8,650 4,470 17,600
(Nmin) 6,297 0.90 1,550 0.50 4,470 17,600 1.00 6,450 4,470 17,600
16-138
iv) Design Result
bridge.
Figure 16.4.3-5 Sectional View of Pier & Abutment of Palanit Bridge

16-139
Bearing
Functional under Supporting length: Se
Lv2 Force 0.25Se remains when the
Cable activates

Devices Function
Supporting Length
Expansion Joint
16-140
i) Bearing
For abutment of Palanit bridge, following force distributing bearing is obviously advantageous for
seismic behavior.

From the point of view of the philosophy of unseating prevention system, those bearing shall be
resisted the LV2 seismic forces. As a part of outline design, following outline verification is
conducted to clarify they can resist such the forces.

Shear Strain
SER SER SER

Se = 0.7+0.005*27 = 0.84m
Therefore, the length of Se should be secured over 85cm.

The reaction force by dead loads is 2520 kN.

945 kN 952 kN
4-nos/ Abutment
16-141
Figure 16.4.3-8 Longitudinal Restrainer for Palanit Bridge

- Expansion joint
- Drainage
- Wearing coat
i) Expansion joint
Gap 2

Expansion Joint:
16-142

ii) Drainage
iii) Wearing coat

Palanit bridge will have concrete slab deck on the girder. Therefore, usual asphalt concrete can be
applied as follows.
Tack Coat
Emulsion
Top Layer Modified Dense-Graded Asphalt " 40mm

Modified Coarse-Graded Asphalt "

Base Layer 40mm
Water Proof Layer

Concrete Slab
Figure 16.4.3-10 Wearing Coat System of Concrete Slab
16-143
(1) Superstructure
The bridge type is PC-I girder bridge, and laminated rubber bearing considering 3% of damping
coefficient in dynamic modal analysis is applied. As the girder of superstructure, AASHTO Type IV
girders are applied based on AASHTO LRFD design specification.
Figure 16.4.4-1 Sectional View of Pier & Abutment of Palanit Bridge

 Utilization of high-damping bearing based on specific organization regarding non-linear time
history response analysis
16-144
16-145
16.5 Outline Design of Mawo Bridge

The following items show design condition for the outline design of Mawo Bridge.
(1) Road Conditions

Note: Basically, 400mm width of the end curb can be applied to the road condition at Mawo bridge;
however, for finback bridge, wider width of the curb shall be secured not to affect the fin-back-shaped
structural members in case of vehicle collision.
(2) Soil Conditions

weathered rock layer that can be regarded as the bearing layer is distributed E.L. -8.0m to E.L.-38.0m
depth, and has a thick surface layer predominant with clay with sand on top. Specialty, liquefiable
sand (Ag) is thickly deposited from ground surface to GL-15m, of which N-value is 8 to 24, will be
affected by liquefaction occurs with reduction of geotechnical parameter. .
16-146
- A2 Side - Mawo MAW-L1 (right bank) EL.1.20m Soil Parameters
Layer
Depth SPT Soil Classification GSA Specifi γt C ϕ E0 Vsn Thickn
Soil N.M.C D50≤ D10≤
Number S-wave Vsn Gravel Sand Fines PI c Nd 2 2 2 ess (m)
Upper Blows Layer Observation (%) 10mm 1mm (tf/m ) (kN/m ) (º) (kN/m ) (m/sec)
(%) (%) (%) Gravity
1 0.55 2 81 144 Ac1 Clay 0.0 37.7 62.3 46.4 16 2.67 N/A N/A 14
2 1.55 3 81 144 Ac1 Clay 0.0 43.7 56.3 72.6 2 2.67 N/A N/A 14
3 2.55 4 81 144 Ac1 Silty clay 0.0 43.7 56.3 54.7 2 2.65 N/A N/A 3 14 19 0 2,100 144 5
4 3.55 3 81 144 Ac1 Claye silt 0.0 20.3 79.7 73.8 8 2.65 N/A N/A 14
5 4.55 4 81 144 Ac1 Silty v.f. sand 3.1 94.7 2.2 69.1 N/A 2.66 0.3 0.1 14
6 5.55 8 81 172 As Silty fine sand 3.2 95.3 1.5 56.9 N/A 2.67 0.2 0.1 10 17 0 34 7,000 172 2
7 6.55 12 81 172 As Fine sand with silt 13.2 85.3 1.5 46.3 N/A 2.63 0.6 0.1 17
8 7.55 24 164 221 Ag2 Gravel w/ silt 82.1 17.7 0.2 6.9 N/A 2.65 12.6 0.5 18
9 8.55 23 164 221 Ag2 Gravel w/ silt 56.3 43.1 0.6 15.7 N/A 2.66 2.8 0.2 18
10 9.55 21 164 221 Ag2 Gravel 56.7 43.1 0.2 24.7 N/A 2.63 2.6 0.8 18
11 10.55 21 164 221 Ag2 Sandy gravel 55.6 43.3 1.1 13.7 N/A 2.67 4.6 0.2 21 18 0 36 14,700 221 8
12 11.55 24 164 221 Ag2 Gravel with sand 59.0 39.7 1.3 14.9 N/A 2.63 3.2 0.2 18
13 12.55 17 164 221 Ag2 Gravel with silt 53.7 43.2 3.1 13.5 N/A 2.67 2.8 0.1 18
14 13.55 22 164 221 Ag2 Gravel with silt 79.6 20.2 0.2 13.9 N/A 2.65 10.3 0.5 18
15 14.55 22 164 221 Ag2 Corse sand with gravel 19.4 79.0 1.6 24.1 N/A 2.65 0.9 0.2 18
16 15.55 7 207 200 Ac2 Silty clay 0.0 38.2 61.8 58.0 12 2.67 N/A N/A 18
17 16.55 7 207 200 Ac2 Sandy silt 0.0 32.0 68.0 54.9 9 2.70 N/A N/A 18
18 17.55 7 207 200 Ac2 Clayey silt 0.0 27.9 72.1 56.0 4 2.67 N/A N/A 18
19 18.55 12 207 200 Ac2 Sandy clay 0.0 43.4 56.6 59.6 2 2.70 N/A N/A 18
20 19.55 7 207 200 Ac2 Clay with sand 0.0 24.3 75.7 64.1 4 2.69 N/A N/A 18
22 21.55 9 207 200 Ac2 Clayey sand 0.0 64.4 35.6 44.6 4 2.70 0.3 N/A 8 18 50 0 5,600 200 13
23 22.55 9 207 200 Ac2 Clay with sand 0.0 56.6 43.4 66.2 4 2.68 0.1 N/A 18
25 24.55 8 207 200 Ac2 Sandy silt 0.0 64.7 35.3 53.4 N/A 2.67 0.1 N/A 18
26 25.55 8 207 200 Ac2 Clay with sand 5.5 92.1 2.4 46.1 N/A 2.67 0.4 0.1 18
27 26.55 11 207 200 Ac2 Clay with sand 7.3 91.1 1.6 51.8 N/A 2.65 0.3 0.1 18
28 27.55 11 190 200 Ac2 Sandy clay 0.7 30.0 69.3 42.6 12 2.68 N/A N/A 18
29 28.55 17 190 206 Ds1 Sand with clay 4.7 94.4 0.9 55.3 N/A 2.65 0.3 0.1 17
30 29.55 24 190 206 Ds1 Fine to med. sand 1.4 97.8 0.8 57.3 N/A 2.65 0.3 0.1 17 17 0 32 11,900 206 3
31 30.55 10 190 206 Ds1 17
32 31.55 22 190 251 Ds2 Fine to med. sand 1.4 96.3 2.3 26.5 N/A 2.64 0.4 0.1164 19
33 32.55 43 190 251 Ds2 Fine to med. sand 19.4 80.2 0.4 22.0 N/A 2.63 0.7 0.2033 19
34 33.55 31 190 251 Ds2 Sand with gravel 15.2 82.3 2.5 39.8 N/A 2.65 0.5 0.1219 19
35 34.55 31 190 251 Ds2 Gravelly sand 30.7 67.9 1.4 33.3 N/A 2.63 0.8 0.1614 31 19 0 34 21,700 251 7
36 35.55 23 190 251 Ds2 Silty grravel 64.2 34.6 1.2 14.1 N/A 2.65 11.3 0.2151 19
37 36.55 23 190 251 Ds2 Silty sand with gravel 3.3 94.5 2.2 30.0 N/A 2.63 0.5 0.1225 19
38 37.55 50 317 251 Ds2 Med. sand with gravel 6.3 92.2 1.5 25.6 N/A 2.66 0.4 0.1348 19
39 38.55 50 317 300 VR Rock 21
40 39.55 50 317 300 VR Rock 21
41 40.55 50 317 300 VR Rock 21
300 170 38 136,098 300 6
42 41.55 50 317 300 VR Rock 21
43 42.55 50 317 300 VR Rock 21
44 43.55 50 317 300 VR Rock 21

Vs (m/sec)
Depth (m) N-value Gravel (2mm) Sand Fines N.M.C (%) Specific Gravity (g/cm3)
0.0 50.0 100.0 Vsn (m/sec)
0 10 20 30 40 50 0.0 50.0 100.0 2.40 2.60 2.80 0 200 400 600
0
Ac1
5
As
10
Ag2
15
20
Ac2
25
Ds1 30
Ds2 35
40
VR
16-147
Figure 16.5.1-2 Soil Profile of Mawo Bridge (Included previous SPT)

 Design Flood Discharge : Q = 1,245m3/s
 Design Water Level : EL= 1.40 m
Note: Hydraulic condition shall be re-evaluated based on detail hydraulic analysis and site interview
in the next stage such as detail design stage.
Around this area, the water flows is comparatively complicated condition hydraulically. And the
results of hydraulic analysis will affect critically the results of bridge planning. Therefore, in detail
(4) Bridge Type

 Superstructure Type : 3-Span Continuous PC Fin-Back Box Girder
 Span Arrangement : 62.5m + 80.0m + 62.5m
 Substructure Type : Wall Type

 Foundation Type : Cast-in-place Pile
 Bearing Soil Condition : Rock (N>50)
16-148
in AASHTO 2012.

- Stress check



- Extreme Event I

 Superstructure Type : Continuous PC Fin-Back Box Girder
16-149
(2) Design Loads
(3) Design Philosophy

Concrete box girder will be casted in place with cantilever method. Side span will be constructed
using scaffolding. The cantilever shall be erected with acceptable support condition, fixed by
temporary PC bars at interior supports. As prestressing system and cables, 12S15.2mm (SWPR7BL)
is applied in this bridge.
(4) Summary
Based on that the following dimensions are obtained as the superstructure of Mawo Side bridge
Figure 16.5.2-2 Side View and PC Cable Arrangement of Superstructure of Mawo Bridge
Figure 16.5.2-3 Sectional View of Superstructure of Mawo Side Bridge
Table 16.5.2-1 Reaction Forces of Superstructure

A1 8350 1700 10050
P1 33900 3800 37700
P2 33900 3800 37700
A2 8350 1700 10050
16-150
Based on the results of the outline design of superstructure such as member dimension and mass,

 Superstructure Type: PC Fin-Back Box Girder
A2
Y 2150
3150
8150 150
149 4550
148 8350 4150
147 5150
8550
146
145
144
X
143
P2
142
141
Z
140
139
138
137
2135 136
3135
8135 135
134 4535
7001 4135
133 5135
132 7002 8535
131
130 7003
129
128 7004
127
P1
126 7005
125 7006
124 7007
123
122
121
120
119
118
2116 117
3116
8116 116
115 4516
6001 4116
114 5116
113 6002 8516
112
111 6003
110
A1
109 6004
108
107 6005
106 6006
105 6007
104
103
2101 102
3101
8101 101
4501
8301 4101
5101
8501

X Y Z RX RY RZ

 Piers : Beam Type Elements for Circular Type Piers

16-151

Pier 1 7.41x106 7.41x106 1.58x108 1.05x108
6 6
Pier 2 7.40x10 7.40x10 2.02x108 1.238x108
 Damping coefficient : Following damping coefficients are applied:

Concrete 0.02
Foundation 0.10


bridges in Japan. For Mawo bridge, 3-span composite PC Fin-back is recommended based on above
mentioned comparison study, which also meet such the improvement scheme.
16-152
design.

Fig. Laminated Rubber Bearing with anchor bars are utilized as bearing. By this bearing,
Fig. Steel Bearing
Table 16.5.3-5 Comparison Study of Bearing in Mawo Bridge

Boundary Condition:
LD: 1.31S, TD: 1.14s
LD: 3%. TD: 2%
LD: A1:P1:P2:A2=1:1:1:1, TD: A1:P1:P2:A2=1:1:1:1
Boundary Condition:
LD: 0.8S, TD: 0.9s
LD: 2%. TD: 2%
LD: A1:P1:P2:A2=0:1:1:0,
16-153
Boundary Condition:
LD: 0.8S, TD: 0.9s
LD: 2%. TD: 2%
LD: A1:P1:P2:A2=0:1:1:0,


Modes Mode Damping
1 0.762 1.312 0.764 0.000 0.031
2 0.876 1.142 0.000 0.617 0.021
3 2.574 0.388 0.000 0.000 0.011
4 5.561 0.180 0.000 0.071 0.010
5 6.849 0.146 0.097 0.000 0.086
6 7.896 0.127 0.000 0.126 0.096
7 8.053 0.124 0.099 0.000 0.083
8 8.551 0.117 0.000 0.000 0.011
9 8.829 0.113 0.000 0.101 0.096
10 9.894 0.101 0.000 0.000 0.011
16-154
1st Mode for Longitudinal Dir. 1st Mode for Transversal Dir. 2nd Mode for Transversal Dir.

3rd Mode for Transversal Dir. 1st Mode for Pier1 Long. Dir. 2nd Mode for Pier1 Trsv. Dir.
0.62 and with the period of 1.14s for transversal direction. Both of the behaviors of longitudinal and

and superstructure.

Abutment 1 349 0.00
Abutment 2 349 0.00
16-155
Ground surface
Ground surface in seismic design
in seismic design


Ground
Soil Water D50 D10
GL-(m)
Layers
N by SPT
Level (-
Fc (%) PI
(mm) (mm)
m)
<30 <35% <15 <10mm <1mm 0 10 20 30 40 50
0.70 Ac1 2 0.50 62.3 16 0.00
1.70 Ac1 3 0.50 56.3 2
-2.00
2.70 Ac1 4 0.50 56.3 2
3.70 Ac1 3 0.50 79.7 8
-4.00
4.70 Ac1 4 0.50 2.2 0.30 0.10
5.70 As 8 0.50 1.5 0.24 0.11 ○ -6.00
6.70 As 12 0.50 1.5 0.63 0.13
Depth (m)
○
7.70 Ag 24 0.50 0.2 12.61 0.49 ○ -8.00
8.70 Ag 23 0.50 0.6 2.75 0.21 ○
9.70 Ag 21 0.50 0.2 2.57 0.76 ○ -10.00
10.70 Ag 21 0.50 1.1 4.57 0.20 ○
11.70 Ag 24 0.50 1.3 3.24 0.23 ○ -12.00
12.70 Ag 17 0.50 3.1 2.85 0.14 ○
13.70 Ag 22 0.50 0.2 10.30 0.47 ○ -14.00
14.70 Ag 22 0.50 1.6 0.86 0.16 ○
15.70 Ac2 7 0.50 61.8 12.0 -16.00
16.70 Ac2 7 0.50 68.0 9.0
17.70 Ac2 7 0.50 72.1 4.0 -18.00
18.70 Ac2 12 0.50 56.6 2.0
19.70 Ac2 7 0.50 75.7 4.0 -20.00
20.70 Ac2 7 0.50 56.6 5.0
21.70 Ac2 9 0.50 35.6 4.0 0.34
22.70 Ac2 9 0.50 43.4 4.0 0.09
N-value
23.70 Ac2 10 0.50 60.5 4.0
24.70 Ac2 8 0.50 35.3 0.14
16-156

Ground
S=1 Water
GL-(m) Fc (%) G=2 unit
C=3 weight
(-m)
5.70 As 8 1.5 1 18 10.00 0.50 52.00 87.80 35.80
6.70 As 12 1.5 1 18 10.00 0.50 62.00 105.80 43.80
7.70 Ag 24 0.2 1 19 10.00 0.50 72.00 124.80 52.80
8.70 Ag 23 0.6 1 19 10.00 0.50 82.00 143.80 61.80
9.70 Ag 21 0.2 1 19 10.00 0.50 92.00 162.80 70.80
10.70 Ag 21 1.1 1 19 10.00 0.50 102.00 181.80 79.80
11.70 Ag 24 1.3 1 19 10.00 0.50 112.00 200.80 88.80
12.70 Ag 17 3.1 1 19 10.00 0.50 122.00 219.80 97.80
13.70 Ag 22 0.2 1 19 10.00 0.50 132.00 238.80 106.80
14.70 Ag 22 1.6 1 19 10.00 0.50 142.00 257.80 115.80
-5.70 12.85 1.000 0.000 12.854 0.243 0.852 0.285 0.265 0.316 0.00
-6.70 17.93 1.000 0.000 17.926 0.287 0.826 0.348
-7.70 33.22 1.000 0.000 33.225 1.348 0.794 1.697
-8.70 29.67 1.000 0.000 29.666 0.750 0.769 0.975
-9.70 25.36 1.000 0.000 25.355 0.430 0.747 0.576
-10.70 23.83 1.000 0.000 23.832 0.377 0.727 0.519 0.533 0.719 1.00
-11.70 25.69 1.000 0.000 25.693 0.445 0.708 0.628
-12.70 17.22 1.000 0.000 17.223 0.281 0.691 0.407
-13.70 21.15 1.000 0.000 21.154 0.322 0.675 0.477
-14.70 20.13 1.000 0.000 20.129 0.309 0.659 0.469
16-157
iii) Design Loads
combinations.
LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION (at bearing)
DL LL EQ SUM
N (kN) φ N (kN) φ H (kN) φ N (kN) H (kN) M (kNm)
A1（Nmax) 8,350 1.25 1,700 0.50 17,780 1.00 11,290 17,780 -
（Nmax) 8,350 1.25 1,700 0.50 17,800 1.00 11,290 17,800 -
A2（Nmax) 8,350 1.25 1,700 0.50 17,780 1.00 11,290 17,780 -
（Nmax) 8,350 1.25 1,700 0.50 17,780 1.00 11,290 17,780
P1 33,900 3,800 37,700
P2 33,900 3,800 37,700
P1 (F) 17,350 134,700 0 4,060 49,640 0
P2 (F) 17,590 137,100 0 4,060 49,580 0

Pier Column
(m) (m) (m2) (m) (kN/m3) (kN)
P1 2.8 13.7 36.7 8.0 24.5 7,189
P2 2.8 13.7 36.7 8.0 24.5 7,189

P1(Nmax) 41,089 1.25 3,800 0.50 17,350 134,700 1.00 53,270 17,350 134,700
(Nmin) 41,089 0.90 3,800 0.50 17,350 134,700 1.00 38,890 17,350 134,700
P2(Nmax) 41,089 1.25 3,800 0.50 17,590 137,100 1.00 53,270 17,590 137,100
(Nmin) 41,089 0.90 3,800 0.50 17,590 137,100 1.00 38,890 17,590 137,100
P1 33,900 3,800 37,700
P2 33,900 3,800 37,700
P1 (F) 17,350 134,700 0 4,060 49,640 0
P2 (F) 17,590 137,100 0 4,060 49,580 0

Pier Column
(m) (m) (m2) (m) (kN/m3) (kN)
P1 2.8 13.7 36.7 8.0 24.5 7,189
P2 2.8 13.7 36.7 8.0 24.5 7,189

P1(Nmax) 41,089 1.25 3,800 0.50 17,350 134,700 1.00 53,270 17,350 134,700
(Nmin) 41,089 0.90 3,800 0.50 17,350 134,700 1.00 38,890 17,350 134,700
P2(Nmax) 41,089 1.25 3,800 0.50 17,590 137,100 1.00 53,270 17,590 137,100
(Nmin) 41,089 0.90 3,800 0.50 17,590 137,100 1.00 38,890 17,590 137,100

P1(Nmax) 41,089 1.25 3,800 0.50 4,060 49,640 1.00 53,270 4,060 49,640
(Nmin) 41,089 0.90 3,800 0.50 4,060 49,640 1.00 38,890 4,060 49,640
P2(Nmax) 41,089 1.25 3,800 0.50 4,060 49,580 1.00 53,270 4,060 49,580
(Nmin) 41,089 0.90 3,800 0.50 4,060 49,580 1.00 38,890 4,060 49,580
16-158
iv) Design Result
Based on that the following dimensions are obtained as the abutment with foundation of Mawo bridge.
A1: Spread foundation P1: CCP D=1.5m, L=14.0m,N=12

A2: CCP D=1.5m,L=36.5m,N=12 P2: CCP D=1.5m, L=31m, N=12
Figure 16.5.3-5 Sectional View of Abutment & Pier of Mawo Bridge

16-159
Bearing
Functional under Supporting length: Se
Lv2 Force 0.25Se remains when
the Cable activates

Devices Function
Supporting Length
Expansion Joint
16-160
i) Bearing
For the abutments of Mawo bridge, following force distributing bearing is obviously advantageous for
seismic behavior.


Shear Strain
SER SER SER
Figure 16.5.3-7 Supporting length

Se = 0.7+0.005*62.5 = 1.1m
Therefore, the supporting length shall be secured over 1.1m.
2400
16-161
The reaction force by dead loads is 8350kN.

PC Cable Type 19 x 12.7Hmm
3131 kN 3667 kN
4-nos/ Abutment
Figure 16.5.3-9 Longitudinal Restrainer for Mawo Bridge

- Expansion joint
- Drainage
- Wearing coat
i) Expansion joint
Gap 2

Expansion Joint:
16-162
However, expansion gap using laminated rubber baring generally tends to be larger than common

ii) Drainage
iii) Wearing coat

Mawo bridge will have concrete slab deck on the girder. Therefore, usual asphalt concrete can be
applied as follows.
Tack Coat
Emulsion


Base Layer 40mm
Water Proof Layer

Concrete Slab
16-163
(1) Superstructure
comparison study in consideration of various conditions. The bridge type is PC Fin-Back Box Girder.
And laminated rubber bearing considering 3% of damping coefficient in dynamic modal analysis is
applied in consideration of seismic behavior calculated dynamic modal analysis.
A1: Spread foundation P1: CCP D=1.5m, L=14.0m,N=12

A2: CCP D=1.5m,L=36.5m,N=12 P2: CCP D=1.5m, L=31m, N=12
Figure 16.5.4-1 Sectional View of Abutment & Pier of Mawo Bridge
(3) Further Verification to Be Examined in the Next Phase

 Utilization of high-damping bearing based on specific organization regarding non-linear time
history response analysis
16-164
16-165
16.6 Outline Design of Wawa Bridge

The following items show design condition for the outline design of Wawa Bridge.
(1) Road Conditions

(2) Soil Conditions

The results of ground investigation are shown in below illustrations and following tables. The clay
with gravel layer that can be regarded as the bearing layer is distributed E.L. -5.0m to E.L.-10.0m
depth, and has a thick surface layer predominant with sand on top. Specialty, liquefiable sand (AS) is
thickly deposited from ground surface to GL-8.0m, of which N-value is 12 to 23, will be affected by
liquefaction occurs with reduction of geotechnical parameter. .
16-166
Table 16.6.1-1 Summary for Soil Parameters at A2side (1)
A1 Side - Wawa WAW-R1 (right bank) EL.38.50m
Depth SPT Soil Classification GSA-J Spec D50 γt C ϕ E0 Vsn Layer
S- D10
Soil N.M. ific ≤ Thick
Number wave Vsn Gravel Sand Fines PI ≤ Nd 2 2 2
Upper Blows Layer Observation C (%) Grav 10m (tf/m ) (kN/m ) (º) (kN/m ) (m/sec) ness
Ave. (%) (%) (%) 1mm
ity m (m)
1 0.55 12 210 Ag Sand and gravel 37.2 62.2 0.6 13.7 N/A 2.64 1.35 0.23 18
2 1.55 20 210 Ag Clayey gravel and sand 14.6 85.0 0.4 8.6 N/A 2.65 0.52 0.17 18
233 18 0 36 12,600 210 4
3 2.55 21 210 Ag Clay w/ gravel 30.9 27.3 41.8 40.8 14 2.70 0.17 N/A 18
4 3.55 20 210 Ag Clay w/ gravel 49.7 17.7 32.6 21.5 N/A 2.67 1.91 N/A 18
5 4.55 23 271 As Clayey gravel and sand 53.3 18.8 27.9 14.4 N/A 2.66 3.93 N/A 19
6 5.55 47 271 As Clayey gravel and sand 9.4 42.4 48.2 22.2 7 2.69 0.08 N/A 19
7 6.55 45 233 271 As V.f. sand w/ fines and gravel 2.0 96.6 1.4 16.7 N/A 2.63 0.31 0.1 39 19 0 39 27,300 271 5
8 7.55 42 271 As Weathered rock (boulder) RK RK 19
9 8.55 44 271 As Weathered rock (boulder) RK RK 19
10 9.55 51 300 Qc Clay 19.7 25.6 54.7 20.9 16 2.67 N/A N/A 18
11 10.55 46 300 Qc Clay 8.5 18.3 73.2 21.4 11 2.70 N/A N/A 18
12 11.55 60 300 Qc Clay w/ gravel 0.0 9.7 90.3 16.4 12 2.68 N/A N/A 18
13 12.55 47 300 Qc Clay w/ gravel 35.0 18.3 46.7 17.7 13 2.70 0.16 N/A 18
14 13.55 57 300 Qc Clay w/ gravel 14.3 20.5 65.2 20.1 13 2.70 N/A N/A 18
15 14.55 51 300 Qc boulder RK RK 18
16 15.55 62 300 Qc Gravel 28.4 37.8 33.8 19.1 N/A 2.65 0.61 N/A 18
17 16.55 69 300 Qc Gravel 26.9 41.8 31.3 17.5 N/A 2.65 0.62 N/A 18
18 17.55 63 300 Qc Silt 1.2 8.7 90.1 29.6 14 2.70 N/A N/A 18
19 18.55 69 300 Qc Clay 0.4 7.5 92.1 47.7 15 2.69 N/A N/A 18
20 19.55 50 351 300 Qc Clay 0.7 5.4 93.9 46.5 14 2.69 N/A N/A 127 18 793 0 88,810 368 21
21 20.55 50 300 Qc Gravelly clay 0.2 3.4 96.4 47.1 17 2.70 N/A N/A 18
Table 16.6.1-2 Summary for Soil Parameters at A1side (2)

Vs (m/sec)
Gravel (2mm) Sand Fines Specific Gravity (g/cm3)
Depth (m) N-value N.M.C (%) Vsn (m/sec)
0.0 50.0 100.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0.0 50.0 100.0 2.40 2.60 2.80 0 200 400
0
Ag
As
10
15
Qc 20
25
30
16-167
Figure 16.6.1-2 Soil Profile of Wawa Bridge (included previous SPT)

 Design Flood Discharge : Q = 1,770m3/s
Note: Hydraulic condition shall be re-evaluated based on detail hydraulic analysis and site interview
in the next stage such as detail design stage.
Around this area, the water flows is comparatively complicated condition hydraulically. And the
results of hydraulic analysis will affect critically the results of bridge planning. Therefore, in detail
(4) Bridge Type

 Superstructure Type : 3-Span Continuous Composite Steel Truss
 Span Arrangement : 75.0m + 80.0m + 75.0m
 Substructure Type : Wall Type

 Foundation Type : Cast-in-place Pile
16-168
in AASHTO 2012.

- Stress check



- Extreme Event I

 Superstructure Type : Composite Steel Truss Steel Deck Box Girder
16-169
(2) Design Loads

DW CE
EH BR
ES LS
EL
PS
CR
Source: LRFD 2012

In the outline design, the following figure shows the analytical model for outline design of Wawa
bridge. All elements in the analysis are truss and beam element model which have 6 of DOFs
4178
4177178
4176177 8177 8178
4175176
4174175 8175 8176 5178
5177 1178
4173174 5176 1177
4172173 8173 8174 5175 1176
4171172 5174 1175 256
255 8656
4170171 8171 8172
170 5173
1173
1174
254
4169
4168169 8169 8170 5172 253
5171 1172 1256
4167168 5170 1171 252 1255 8756
4166167 8167 8168 5169 1170 251 1254
4165166 5168 1169 250 1253
4164165 8165 8166
164 5167
1167
1168 249 1252
4163
4162163 8163 8164 5166 247 248 1251
4161162 5165 1166 1250
4160161 8161 8162 5164 1165 246 1249
5163 1164 245
Y
1248
4159160 5162 1163 244 1247
4158159 8159 8160 5161 1162 243 1246
4157158 5160 1161 242 1245
4156157 8157 8158 5159 1160 241 1244
4155156
E
4154155 8155 8156 5158 1159 240 1243
4153154 5157 1158 239 1242
4152153
152 8154 5156 1157
1156 237
238
1240
1241
5155
4151
4150151 5154 1155 236
8152815351531154 1239
4149150 8150 8151 1153234 235 1238
4148149 5152
1152
233 1237
4147148 8148 8149 5151
1151
232 1236
4146147 5150
11508631
1149 230 231
1235
4145146 8146 8147 5149 1234
4144145 5148
1148
1147 228 229 7601 1233
4143144 8144 8145 5147 12311232
4142143 5146
1146
1145 226 227 12308731
X
4141142 8142 8143
141 5144
1144
5145
225 12297602
4140 1228
4139140 8140 8141 5143
1143 224 1227
4138139 5142
1142
1141 222 223 1226
4137138 8138 8139 5141
Z
1225
4136137 5140
1140
1139 220 221 1224
4135136 8136 8137 5139
E
1223
4134135 5138
1138
1137 218 219 1222
4133134 8134 8135 5137 1221
4132133 5136
1136
1135 216 217 1220
4131132 8132 8133 5135 1219
4130131 5134
1134
1133 214 215 1218
4129130 8130 8131
129 5132
1132
5133
213 1216
1217
4128
4127128 8128 8129
4126127
5131
1131
1130 211 212
5130 1215
4125126 5129
1129 1214
4124125 1128 209 210
812681275127 5128 1213
4123124 8124 8125 11261127 208 1212
4122123 5126207 1211
4121122 8122 8123 5125
1125
206 1210
4120121 5124
1124
205 1209
4119120 8120 8121 5123
1123204
8604
1208
4118119 5122
1122
1121 202 203
1207
4117118 8118 8119
117 5120
5121 6601 1205
1206
4116
4115116 5119 1120 201 1204
12038704
4114115 8115 8116
8117 5118 1119 200
12026602
4113114 5117 1118 199
4112113 8113 8114 5116 1117 198 1201
4111112 5115 1116 197 1200
4110111 8111 8112 5114 1115 196 1199
4109110 5113 1114 195 1198
5112 1113 194 1197
E
4108109 8109 8110 5111 1112 193 1196
4107108 5110 1111 192 1195
4106107 8107 8108
106 5109
1109
1110
190
191 1194
4105 1193
4104105 8106 5108 189
5107 1108 1192
4103104 8104 8105 5106 1107 188 1191
4102103 5105 1106 187 1190
4101102 8102 8103
101 5104 1105 186 1189
5103 1104 185 1188
8101 5102 1103 184 1187
5101 1102
1101 182
183
1185
1186
181 1184
180 1183
179
8579 1182
1181
1180
1179
8679

obtained. In this report, following figures regarding axial forces for all chords focusing on "side span,
"center span" and "pier 1" are shown under the combination sectional forces of "Strength I" in the
following figures.
16-170
Table 16.6.2-2 Distribution of Axial Forces under Combination of Strength I
Axial Forces in the Upper Chord Axial Forces in the Lower Chord
Axial Forces in the Diagonals

The distribution of axial forces in both chords
and diagonals are common values for such the
truss bridges, which can be designed in ordinal
dimension of steel members. Especially, the
thickness of diagonals utilizing "lattice truss" can
be reduced comparing to common truss bridges
because of reduction of buckling length.
* Red: Focus on Side Span, Yellow: Focus on Center Span, Green: Focus on P1
(5) Stress Check

Based on the axial forces of the load combination Strength I, stress checks are conducted for all the
members consisting of lattice truss. In this report, the results of following the section are introduced.
The all of the calculation results are shown in calculation report.
Upper Chord for Side Span Upper Chord for Center Span
4178
4177178
4176177 8177 8178
4175176
Upper Chord at P1 4174175 8175 8176 5178

1178
4173174 5177
1177
4172173 8173 8174 5176
1176
4171172 5175
1175 8656
1174 255 256
4170171 8171 8172 5174
4169170 5173
1173
1172 253 254
4168169 8169 8170
168 5171
5172 1256
4167 1171 252 1255 8756
4166167 8168 5170
1170
1169 250 251 1254
4165166 8166 8167
165 5168
1168
5169
249 1253
4164 1252
4163164 8165 5167
1167 248 1251
4162163 8163 8164 5166
1166
1165 246 247 1250
4161162 5165 1249
Y
4160161 8161 8162 5164
1164
1163 244 245 1248
4159160 5163 1247
4158159 8159 8160 5162
1162
1161 242 243 1246
4157158 5161 1245
4156157 8157 8158 5160
E
1160
4155156 1159 240 241
5159 1243
1244
41534154155 8155 8156
154 5157
5158
1158
1157 238 239 1242
153 8154 5156
1156 1241
4152
4151152 81528153 5155 236 237 1240
4150151 5154 1155 1239
4149150 8150 8151 11531154
5153234
235 1238
4148149 5152
1152
233 1237
4147148 8148 8149 5151
1151
232 1236
4146147 5150231
5149 1150
1235
4145146 8146 8147 5148 1149 230 8631 1234
4144145 5147 1148 229 7601 1233
4143144 8144 8145 5146 1147 228
12301231
1232
4142143
X 4141142 8142 8143 5145 1146

1145 226
227
12297602
8731
141 5144
4140
4139140 5143 1144 225 1228
4138139 8139 8140
8141 5142 1143
1142 223
224 1227
Z
1226
4137138 5141
1141
1140 221 222 1225
4136137 8137 8138 5140
E
1224
4135136 5139
1139
1138 219 220 1223
4134135 8135 8136 5138 1222
4133134 5137
1137
1136 217 218 1221
4132133 8133 8134 5136 1220
4131132 5135
1135
1134 215 216 1219
4130131 8131 8132
130 5133
1133
5134
214 1218
4129 1217
4128129 8130 5132 213
5131 1132 1216
4127128 8128 8129
127 5130 1131 212 1215
4126
4125126 5129 1130 211 1214
4124125 81258126
8127 5128 1129 210 1213
4123124 5127 1128 209 1212
4122123 8123 8124 11261127
5126207
208 1211
4121122 5125
1125
206 1210
4120121 8121 8122 5124
1124
205 1209
4119120 5123
11238604
1122 203 204
1208
4118119 8119 8120
118 5121
1121
5122
202 6601 1206
1207
4117
4116117 8117 8118 5120
1120 201
12031204
1205
4115116 5119
1119
1118 199 200
8704
4114115 8115 8116 5118 12026602
4113114 5117
1117
1116 197 198 1201
4112113 8113 8114 5116 1200
4111112 5115
1115
1114 195 196 1199
4110111 8111 8112 5114 1198
4109110 5113
E
1113
4108109 8109 8110 1112 193 194
5112 1196
1197
4107108 5111
1111
1110 191 192 1195
4106107 8107 8108
106 5109
5110
1109 190 1194
Lower Chord and Diagonals for Center Span

4105 1193
4104105 8106 5108
1108
1107 188 189 1192
4103104 8104 8105 5107 1191
4102103 5106
1106
1105 186 187 1190
4101102 8102 8103
101 5104
1104
5105 1189
8101 5102 1103 184 185
5103 1187
1188
1102
1101 182 183
5101 1185
1186
181 1184
180 1183
179
8579 1182
1181
1180
1179
8679
E Lower Chord, Diagonals and Vertical at P1
Lower Chord and Diagonals for Side Span
Figure 16.6.2-3 Members for Stress Check
16-171
Table 16.6.2-3 Stress Check of Truss

Live Loads Upper Chord Lower Chord Diagonals Verticals
Focus on N= -510 kN N=-13700 kN N=-2910 kN N=-1355 kN
Side Span <SM490W <SM490W <SM490W <SM490W
A = 0.0488 m2 A = 0.0488 m2 A = 0.01782 m2 A = 0.01464 m2
σ= -11 Mpa σ= 285 Mpa σ= -165 Mpa σ= -93 Mpa
< 355 Mpa (Tens) < 355 Mpa (Tens) < 355 Mpa (Tens) < 355 Mpa (Tens)
< -352 Mpa (Comp) < -172 Mpa (Comp) < -240 Mpa (Comp) < -163 Mpa (Comp)
Focus on N=-940 kN N=-15900 kN N=-2570 kN N=-3510 kN
P1 <SM490W <SM490W <SM490W <SM490W
A = 0.0497 m2 A = 0.0568 m2 A = 0.01782 m2 A = 0.01901 m2
σ= -20 Mpa σ= -280 Mpa σ= -144 Mpa σ= -185 Mpa
< -173 Mpa (Comp) < -355 Mpa (Comp) < -240 Mpa (Comp) < -283 Mpa (Comp)
Focus on N=-880 kN N=-16830 kN N=-4106 kN N=-3100 kN
Center Span <SM490W <SM490W <SM490W <SM490W
A = 0.0497 m2 A = 0.0568 m2 A = 0.01978 m2 A = 0.01901 m2
σ= -18 Mpa σ= -300 Mpa σ= -210 Mpa σ= -165 Mpa
< -173 Mpa (Comp) < -355 Mpa (Comp) < -240Mpa (Comp) < -283 Mpa (Comp)
(6) Summary
Based on that the following dimensions are obtained as the superstructure of Wawa Side bridge
Figure 16.6.2-4 Side View of Superstructure of Wawa Bridge
16-172
Figure 16.6.2-5 Sectional View of Superstructure of Wawa Side Bridge
Table 16.6.2-4 Reaction Forces of Superstructure
Reaction forces for Substructure Stable Calculation (KN)
A1 4920 1210 6130
P1 14930 2530 17460
P2 14930 2530 17460
A2 4920 1210 6130
16-173

 Superstructure Type: Composite Steel Truss Steel Deck Box Girder
A2 4178
4177178
4176177 8177 8178
4175176
4174175 8175 8176 5178
5177 1178
4173174 5176 1177
4172173 8173 8174 5175 1176
4171172 5174 1175 256
255 8656
4170171 8171 8172 5173 1174
4169170 5172 1173 254
P2
4168169 8169 8170
168 5171
1171
1172 253 1256
1255 8756
4167
4166167 5170 251 252
4165166 8166 8167
8168 5169 1170
1169 250 1253
1254
165 5168
4164
4163164 5167 1168 249 1252
4162163 8163 8164
8165 5166 1167 248 1251
4161162 5165 1166 247 1250
4160161 8161 8162
160 5164 1165
1164 245
246
1248
1249
4159 5163
1163 244 1247
4158159 8159 8160 5162
1162
1161 242 243 1246
4157158 5161 1245
4156157 8157 8158 5160
1160
1159 240 241 1244
4155156 5159 1243
4154155 8155 8156
4153154 5157
5158
1158
1157 238 239 1241
1242
4152153 815381545154 5155
5156
1156
1155 236 237
4151152 1240
4150151 8151 8152 11531154 235 1239
4149150 5153234 1238
4148149 8149 8150
148 5151
1151
5152
1152
233 1236
1237
4147
4146147 8148 11508631232
5150 1235
4145146 8146 8147 1149 230 231
5149 1234
4144145 5148
1148
1147 228 229 7601 1233
Y
4143144 8144 8145 5147
12301231
1232
4142143 5146 8731
P1
1146
4141142 8142 8143 1145 226 227
5145 12297602
4140141 5144
1144
1143 224 225 1228
4139140 8140 8141 5143 1227 7603
4138139 5142
1142
1141 222 223 1226
4137138 8138 8139
137 5140
1140
5141
221 1224
1225 7604
7605
4136
4135136 8136 8137 5139
1139
1138 219 220 1223 7606
4134135 5138 1222
4133134 8134 8135 5137
1137
1136 217 218 1221
4132133 5136 1220
4131132 8132 8133 5135
1135
1134 215 216 1219
4130131 5134 1218
4129130 8130 8131 5133
1133
1132 213 214 1217
4128129 5132 1216
4127128 8128 8129
127 5131
1131
1130 211 212 1215
X
4126 5130 1214
4125126
125 8127 5128
1128
5129
1129 210 1213
4124
4123124 8125812651265127
1127 208 209 1212
4122123 8123 8124 11251126207
1211
Z
4121122 5125
1124 206
1210
4120121 8121 8122 5124
11238604205
1209
4119120 5123
1122 203 204
1208
4118119 8119 8120 5122 1207
4117118 5121
1121
1120 201 202 6601 1206
4116117 8117 8118 5120 12041205
4115116 5119
1119
1118 199 200 12038704
4114115 8115 8116
114 5117
1117
5118
198 1201
12026602
4113
4112113 8114 5116
1116
1115 196 197
A1
1200 6603
4111112 8112 8113 5115 1199
4110111 5114
1114
1113 194 195 1198 6604
4109110 8110 8111 5113 1197 6605
4108109 5112
1112
1111 192 193 1196 6606
4107108 8108 8109 5111 1195
4106107 5110
1110
1109 190 191 1194
4105106 8106 8107 5109 1193
4104105 5108
1108
1107 188 189 1192
4103104 8104 8105
103 5106
1106
5107
187 1190
1191
4102
4101102 8102 8103
101 5104
1104
5105
1105 186 1189
8101 5102 1103 184 185
5103 1187
1188
1102
1101 182 183
5101 1185
1186
181 1184
180 1183
179
8579 1182
1181
1180
1179
8679

X Y Z RX RY RZ
16-174
 Piers : Beam Type Elements for Wall Type Piers


Pier 1 7.69x106 7.69x106 2.75x108 1.69x108
6 6
Pier 2 7.69x10 7.69x10 2.75x108 1.69x108

Steel 0.01
Concrete 0.02
Foundation 0.10


bridges in Japan. For Wawa bridge, 3-Span Composite Steel Truss is recommended based on above
mentioned comparison study, which also meet such the improvement scheme.
design.
16-175

Fig. Steel Bearing
Table 16.6.3-5 Comparison Study of Bearing in Wawa Bridge

Boundary Condition:
LD: 1.4S, TD: 1.6s
LD: 3%. TD: 3%
LD: A1:P1:P2:A2=1:1:1:1, TD: A1:P1:P2:A2=1:1.5:1.5:1
Boundary Condition:
LD: 0.85S, TD: 0.88s
LD: 1%. TD: 1%
LD: A1:P1:P2:A2=0:1:1:0,
Boundary Condition:
LD: 0.85S, TD: 0.88s
LD: 1%. TD: 1%
LD: A1:P1:P2:A2=0:1:1:0,
16-176
And also, dominant deformation of the 1st mode is obviously transversal deformation of


Modes Mode Damping
1 0.643 1.556 0.000 0.717 0.027
2 0.707 1.414 0.882 0.000 0.030
3 1.160 0.862 0.000 0.000 0.015
4 2.168 0.461 0.000 0.931 0.010
5 3.802 0.263 0.000 0.000 0.011
6 5.569 0.180 0.000 0.046 0.010
7 7,392 0.135 0.202 0.000 0.010
8 9.594 0.104 0.000 0.023 0.010
9 11.973 0.084 0.000 0.000 0.010
10 14.925 0.067 0.000 0.005 0.010

1st Mode for Transversal Dir. 1st Mode for Longitudinal Dir. 2nd Mode for Transversal Dir.

3rd Mode for Transversal Dir 4th Mode for Transversal Dir 5th Mode for Transversal Dir
16-177
0.717s and with the period of 1.56s for transversal direction. Both of the behaviors of longitudinal and

and superstructure.

Location Longitudinal (mm) Transversal (mm)
Abutment 1 265 0.00
Abutment 2 265 0.00

Ground surface Ground surface

in seismic design in seismic
16-178

Ground
Soil Water D50 D10
GL-(m)
Layers
N by SPT
Level (-
Fc (%) PI
(mm) (mm)
m)
0 10 20 30 40 50
<30 <35% <15 <10mm <1mm
0.00
0.70 Ag 12 0.00 0.6 1.35 0.23 ○
1.70 Ag 20 0.00 0.4 0.52 0.17 ○ -2.00
2.70 Ag 21 0.00 41.8 14 0.17
3.70 Ag 20 0.00 32.6 1.91 -4.00
4.70 As 23 0.00 27.9 3.93 ○
5.70 As 47 0.00 48.2 7 0.08 -6.00
6.70 As 45 0.00 1.4 0.31 0.10
7.70 As 42 0.00 -8.00
Depth (m)
8.70 As 44 0.00
9.70 Qc 51 0.00 54.7 16 -10.00
10.70 Qc 46 0.00 73.2 11
11.70 Qc 60 0.00 90.3 12.0 -12.00
12.70 Qc 47 0.00 46.7 13.0 0.16
13.70 Qc 57 0.00 65.2 13.0 -14.00
14.70 Qc 51 0.00
15.70 Qc 62 0.00 33.8 0.61 -16.00
16.70 Qc 69 0.00 31.3 0.62
17.70 Qc 63 0.00 90.1 14.0 -18.00
18.70 Qc 69 0.00 92.1 15.0
19.70 Qc 50 0.00 93.9 14.0 -20.00
20.70 Qc 50 0.00 96.4 17.0
21.70 Qc 50 0.00 94.0 16.0
22.70 Qc 50 0.00 91.7 13.0 N-value
23.70 Qc 50 0.00 80.2 15.0
24.70 Qc 50 0.00 86.3 12.0

Table 16.6.3-9 Result Assessment of Soil Liquefaction Parameters

Ground
Water
GL-(m) Fc (%) unit
weight
(-m)
0.70 Ag 12 0.9 19 10.00 1.50 0.00 13.30 13.30
1.00 Ag 12.0 0.9 19 10.00 1.50 0.00 19.00 19.00
4.70 As 23 27.9 20 10.00 1.50 32.00 90.30 58.30
-0.70 24.49 1.000 0.000 24.490 0.398 0.376 1.057 0.376 0.801 1.000
-1.00 22.92 1.000 0.000 22.921 0.354 0.374 0.946
-4.70 30.48 1.358 0.994 42.380 5.970 0.547 10.912 5.970 10.912 1.000
16-179
iii) Design Loads
combinations.

A1 4,920 1,210 6,130
A2 4,920 1,210 6,130

A1 (E) 5,340 - - A1 (E) 3870 - -
A2 (E) 5,340 - - A2 (E) 3870 - -
- Design Combination Loads(at bearing)

LONGITUDINAL DIRECTION (at bearing)
DL LL EQ SUM
A1（Nmax) 4,920 1.25 1,210 0.50 5,340 - 1.00 6,760 5,340 -
（Nmax) 4,920 1.25 1,210 0.50 5,340 - 1.00 6,760 5,340 -
A2（Nmax) 4,920 1.25 1,210 0.50 5,340 - 1.00 6,760 5,340 -
（Nmax) 4,920 1.25 1,210 0.50 5,340 - 1.00 6,760 5,340 -

P1 14,930 2,530 17,460
P2 14,930 2,530 17,460
P1 (E) 5,390 27,690 0 5,430 38,470 0
P2 (E) 5,390 27,690 0 5,430 38,470 0

Pier Column
(m) (m) (m2) (m) (kN/m3) (kN)
P1 2.1 6.5 12.7 6.0 24.5 1,868
P2 2.1 6.5 12.7 6.0 24.5 1,868

P1(Nmax) 16,798 1.25 2,530 0.50 5,390 27,690 1.00 22,270 5,390 27,690
(Nmin) 16,798 0.90 2,530 0.50 5,390 27,690 1.00 16,390 5,390 27,690
P2(Nmax) 16,798 1.25 2,530 0.50 5,390 27,690 1.00 22,270 5,390 27,690
(Nmin) 16,798 0.90 2,530 0.50 5,390 27,690 1.00 16,390 5,390 27,690

P1(Nmax) 16,798 1.25 2,530 0.50 5,430 38,470 1.00 22,270 5,430 38,470
(Nmin) 16,798 0.90 2,530 0.50 5,430 38,470 1.00 16,390 5,430 38,470
P2(Nmax) 16,798 1.25 2,530 0.50 5,430 38,470 1.00 22,270 5,430 38,470
(Nmin) 16,798 0.90 2,530 0.50 5,430 38,470 1.00 16,390 5,430 38,470
16-180
iv) Design Result
Based on that the following dimensions are obtained as the abutment with foundation of Wawa bridge.
A1: CPP D1.2m,L=7m, n=12 CPP D1.2m,L=7m, n=12(P1,P2)

A2: Spread foundation
Figure 16.6.3-5 Sectional View of Substructure of Wawa Bridge

16-181
Bearing
Functional under
Lv2 Force Supporting length: Se
0.25Se remains when the
Cable activates

Devices Function
Supporting Length
Expansion Joint
16-182
i) Bearing
For the abutments of Wawa bridge, following force distributing bearing is obviously advantageous for
seismic behavior.


Shear Strain
SER SER SER

Se = 0.7+0.005*75 = 1.1m
Therefore, the supporting length shall be secured over 1.1m.
1900
16-183
The reaction force by dead loads is 4920kN.

PC Cable Type 19 x 12.4mm
2460 kN 2584 kN
3-nos/ Abutment
Figure 16.6.3-9 Longitudinal Restrainer for Wawa Bridge
(6) Miscellaneous Devices and Others

- Expansion joint
- Drainage
- Wearing coat
i) Expansion joint
Gap 2

Expansion Joint:
16-184

ii) Drainage
iii) Wearing coat

Wawa bridge will have concrete slab deck on the girder. Therefore, usual asphalt concrete can be
applied as follows.
Tack Coat
Emulsion


Base Layer 40mm
Water Proof Layer

Concrete Slab
16-185
(1) Superstructure
comparison study in consideration of various conditions. The bridge type is Continuous Composite
Steel Truss. And laminated rubber bearing considering 3% of damping coefficient in dynamic modal
analysis is applied in consideration of seismic behavior calculated dynamic modal analysis.

Based on that the following dimensions are obtained as the abutment with foundation of Wawa bridge.
A1: CPP D1.2m,L=7m, n=12 CPP D1.2m,L=7m, n=12(P1,P2)

A2: Spread foundation
Figure 16.6.4-1 Sectional View of Substructure of Wawa Bridge

system
16-186
16-187
CHAPTER 17 BRIDGE SEISMIC RETROFIT OUTLINE
DESIGN OF SELECTED BRIDGES
17.1 Design Criteria and Conditions for Bridge Retrofit Design
17.1.1 Design Criteria

The seismic retrofit planning and design were conducted in accordance with the provisions of Bridge
Seismic Design Specifications (BSDS), which was prepared in this project.
17.1.2 General Conditions for Bridge Retrofit Design

(1) Design Load Conditions
1) Load Combination and Load Factors
In the design example, the following load combination is applied.
Load combination: [1.0DL] + [0.5LL] + [1.0EQ]
Where,
DL: Dead Load
LL: Live Load
EQ: Earthquake load
2) Unit Weight
The following unit weights are applied in the design.
- Reinforced concrete: γc= 24.0 (kN/m3); rounded up for modification
Note: - (Unit weight of concrete)= 2320(kg/m3); normal density concrete
- (Unit weight of re-bars in 1m3 of concrete)= 200 (kg/m3)
- Wearing surface: γws= 22.5 (kN/m3)
- Water: γw= 10.0 (kN/m3)
- Soil: γt= (result of soil tests)
(2) Material Properties

The following material properties are applied in the design.
Table 17.1.2-1 Material Properties

Material Strength Remarks
fc’=28.0 (MPa); -To be applied to all the substructure members
Concrete
Compressive Strength at 28 days
Fy=415 (N/mm2); -To be applied to all the substructure members
Re-bars Grade60 - Applicable diameter:
D16, D20, D25, D28, D32, D36
- Young’s modulus
- Concrete: Ec=4800 fc’ =25,000 (MPa); rounded down for modification
- Steel: Es=20,000 (MPa)
17-1
(3) Construction Conditions
Basically, seismic retrofit planning was conducted under the following conditions.
- Existing roads are open to traffic with no traffic regulations during construction except for the
retrofit work of abutments, in which at least one-lane-closure was indispensable for its
implementation.
- Construction with one-lane-closure was assumed as night work in the planning.
- No temporary detour bridge installation during the construction
- Construction field is limited within the “right of way (ROW) range”.
17.2 Outline Design of Lilo-an Bridge
17.2.1 Structural Data of the Existing Bridge

(1) Outline of the Existing Bridge
1) Construction year: 1979
2) Total bridge length: 297.5m (topographic survey result)
(each bridge length)
- Simply-supported steel Langer arch bridge: 128.5m
- Simply-supported PC I-girder bridge: 28.0+28.0+28.0+28.0+28.0+29.0m
Other structural information is unknown.
17-2
(2) General View
Profile
Plan
17-3
Cross-section at Pier-2
Cross-section Simply-supported steel Langer arch bridge Simply-supported PC I-girder bridge
Source: topographic survey of this project

(3) Bridge/Span Length, Bridge Continuity and Bearing Restraint Conditions
Items Contents
Span-1 297500
128440
(Simply-supported)
AA P1
M F M
F: Fixed
M: Movable
Only “Fixed substructure” in the simply-supported bridge

(The substructure shoulders total superstructure weight under EQ.)
Span-7 to
Span-9
297500
28000 28000 28000 28000 28000 29000
(Simply-supported)
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 AB
F M F M F M F M F M F M F
F: Fixed
M: Movable
17-4
(4) Existing Pier Condition
Items Contents
Concrete [Results of Concrete Strength Test]
Strength 1) Compressive Strength Test (P3) : 25.0 (MPa)
2) Schmidt Rebound Hammer Test
- P1: 25.0 (MPa)
- P3: 28.3 (MPa)
Ave.: 26.5
Rebar [Results of Rebar Detection]

Condition 1) Pier-1
Detected
Main Lateral
2) Pier-3
Detected
Main Lateral
3) Pier-4
Detected
Main Lateral
Note: Existing rebars are ignored in the seismic retrofit design.: only for capacity check
17-5
Items Contents
Dimension
P1
F M
P2
F M
P3
F M
Note: Foundation structures are unknown:

to be ignored in the foundation design
17-6
Items Contents
Dimension
P4
F M
P5
F M
P6
F M
Note:
- Cross-sectional view was assumed with Pier-3 condition
- Foundation structures are unknown: to be ignored in the
foundation design
17-7
17.2.2 Design Conditions
(1) Design Loads
1 Simply-supported steel Langer arch bridge
Sub-total Total 0.5Rl Rd+0.5Rl
Brige Type Substructure
(kN) "Rd" (kN) (kN) (kN)
Simply-supported steel Abut- A - M 8300 R1 8300 R1 1300 9600
Langer arch bridge L F 8300 R1
Pier- 1 9900 R1 + R2 1500 11400
Simply-supported PC R M 1600 R1
I-girder bridge L F 1600 R1
Pier- 2 3200 R2 + R2 850 4050
Simply-pupported PC R M 1600 R1
Pier- 3 3200 R2 + R2 850 4050
2 Simply-supported PC I-girder bridge
Pier- 4 3200 R2 + R2 850 4050
Pier- 5 3200 R2 + R2 850 4050
17-8

Pier- 6 3300 R2 + R3 850 4150
I-girder bridge Abut- B - F 1700 R1 1700 R3 650 2350
1 qd = 129.2 kN/m 2 qd = 114.3 kN/m

qd: distributed dead load
qd = 117.2 kN/m
q q
q
R2 R2 R3 R3
R1 R1
Design calculation of Lilo-an Bridge is not available. Therefore, the reaction forces of the target
bridges are assumed as follows.
(1) Reaction Forces of "Simply-supported Steel Langer Arch Bridge"

- Simply-supported
- Bridge Length: L= 128.5 m
- Total Width of Road: W = 9.5 m
Superstructure Line Load
Unit Load Quantity Remarks
Components (kN/m)
Railing kN/m 0.6 num 2 1.2
Deck Slub kN/m3 24.0 m 9.5 0.382 87.1 W = 9.5m, t = 0.382m
Steel Members kg/m2 420 m 9.5 39.9 Steel Langer Arch Bridge
Sum: q = 128.2 kN/m
q 128.5
Loading Length: m
Total Load： 16,500 kN
R1 R1 R1 = 16,500 / 2 = 8300 kN (rounded up)
(2) Reaction Forces of "Simply-supported PC I-girder Bridge"

- Simply-supported
Components (kN/m)
PC I-girder kN/no. 617 m 4 24.7 PC-I Girder Bridge
Sum: q = 113.0 kN/m
q 28.0
Loading Length: m
R2 R2 R2 = 3,200 / 2 = 1600 kN
(3) Reaction Forces of "Simply-supported PC I-girder Bridge"

- Simply-supported
Components (kN/m)
PC I-girder t/no. 639 m 4 25.6 PC-I Girder Bridge
Sum: q = 113.9 kN/m
q Loading Length: 29.0 m
R3 R3 R3 = 3,400 / 2 = 1700 kN
17-9
The following figure summarizes “site-specific design spectrum of 50-, 100-, 500-, and 1000-year
return period for Lilo-an Bridge site” which were developed in this study.
Note: in this outline design,

- Level-1 earthquake: 100-year return period
- Level-2 earthquake: 1000-year return period
Figure 17.2.2-1 Site-Specific Design Spectrum of 50-, 100-, 500-, and 1000-Year Return Periods
for Lilo-an Bridge Site
17-10
The following table summarizes “the load distribution of existing bridge under earthquakes” and
“application point of seismic inertial forces”.
Table 17.2.2-1 Load Distribution under EQ and Application Point of Seismic Inertial Forces
Longitudinal Direction Transeverse Direction
Rd
Substructure Restraint h Restraint h
(kN) Wu (kN) Wu (kN)
Condition (m) Condition (m)
Abut- A - 8300 M - - - F - - -
L 8300 F 16600 0 F 8300
Pier- 1 16600 9900 1.6
R 1600 M 0 0 F 1600
L 1600 F 3200 0 F 1600
Pier- 2 3200 3200 1.4
R 1600 M 0 0 F 1600
L 1600 F 3200 0 F 1600
Pier- 3 3200 3200 1.4
R 1600 M 0 0 F 1600
L 1600 F 3200 0 F 1600
Pier- 4 3200 3200 1.4
R 1600 M 0 0 F 1600
L 1600 F 3200 0 F 1600
Pier- 5 3200 3200 1.4
R 1600 M 0 0 F 1600
L 1600 F 3200 0 F 1600
Pier- 6 3200 3300 1.4
R 1700 M 0 0 F 1700
Abut- B - 1700 F 3400 3400 0 F - - -
L: Left side bearing to the longitudinal direction
R: Right side bearing to longitudinal direction
h (m): Height from the top of the substructure body to the height of the superstructural inertia force
Wu (kN): Weight of the superstructure portion supported by the substructure body concerned
17-11
(2) Soil Conditions
Soil condition of Lillo-an Bridge is summarized as follows.
Design Soil Parameters for "Lilo-an Bridge" (LIL-N1 Site) Soil Type: I
α E0 DE
Layer Soil N γt C Φ Vs
α=4 α=8 L2
Name Type 3 2 2 2
- (kN/m ) (kN/m ) (º) (kN/m ) (kN/m ) (m/sec) -
CL1 Clay 50 18 313 0 140,000 280,000 292 -
CL2 Rock 50 21 514 21 532,000 1,064,000 292 -
α = 4 (Service state), 8 (Under earthquake)
Based on results of SPT & laboratory tests
Assumed bearing layer
Bor.-log Assumed bearing layer

Bor.-log
Design Soil Parameters for "Lilo-an Bridge" (LIL-S1 Site) Soil Type: I
α E0 DE
Layer Soil N γt C Φ Vs
α=4 α=8 L2
Name Type
- (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (º) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) - -
Asg Gravel 36 18 0 41 100,800 201,600 264 -
Sandy
Dsg1 32 20 0 39 89,600 179,200 292 -
gravel
Sandy
Dsg2 50 20 0 38 140,000 280,000 295 -
gravel
Assumed bearing layer
Bor.-log
17-12
(3) Hydrological Condition
The Hydrological condition of 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge is as follows.
1. Observed water level (OWL): -0.254m from mean sea level (MSL: 0m)
2. Observed high tide level (OHTL): 1.11m from mean sea level (MSL: 0m)
3. Navigation Clearance under the arch bridge: not defined (no large ships go under the bridge.)
The above conditions are illustrated in the following figure.
Figure 17.2.2-2 Hydrological Condition of Lilo-an Bridge
17-13
17.2.3 Seismic Capacity Verification of Existing Structures
(1) Summary of Seismic Capacity Verification
Seismic capacity verification of existing structures was conducted for Pier-1 and Pier-2, in accordance
with provisions of LRFD for pier columns, and JRA for pier foundations. The following figure
highlights the result of the seismic capacity verification of the existing structures. The detail of the
verification is shown from the next page.
128500
AA (Simply-supported) P1
Rd=8300 Rd=9900
(kN) Wu=17625
M F M
F: Fixed
M: Movable
(Verification of Column Capacity) (Verification of Foundation Capacity)

- Flexural strength (kN*m) - Overturning (load eccentricity)
Md= 34958 (2.54) > 13752 (1.00) (NG) eB= 10.86 (1.85) > 5.86 (1.00) (NG)
- Shear strength (kN) - Sliding
Vd= 4163 (2.37) > 1756 (1.00) (NG) Hd= 5553 (0.41) < 13563 (1.00) (OK)
- Bearing resistance
qmax= 19503 (4.13) > 4727 (1.00) (NG)
(Simply-supported)
28000 28000 28000 28000 28000 29000
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 AB
Rd=13450 Rd=3000 Rd=3000 Rd=3000 Rd=3000 Rd=3050 Rd=1550
(kN) Wu=4125
F M F M F M F M F M F M F: Fixed
F
M: Movable

- Flexural strength (kN*m) - Overturning (load eccentricity)
Md=16615 (1.42) > 12,566 (1.00) (NG) eB= 11.94 (2.96) > 4.03 (1.00) (NG)
- Shear strength (kN) - Sliding
Vd=2287 (1.43) > 1600 (1.00) (NG) Hd= 2860 (0.54) < 5262 (1.00) (OK)
- Bearing resistance
qmax= 7566 (3.63) > 2086 (1.00) (NG)
Figure 17.2.3-1 Summary of Seismic Capacity Verification
17-14
(2) Seismic Capacity Verification of Pier-1
1) Verification of Column Seismic Capacity
- Rebars: (Longitudinal reinforcement)
(1st row) - diameter: 25 (mm) - fy= 415 (N/mm2)
- No. of rebars: 26 - spacing: 280 (mm)
- concrete cover thickness: 75 (mm)
(Transverse reinforcement)
- diameter: 13 (mm) - fy= 415 (N/mm2)
Rebars - spacing: 100 (mm)
Existing concrete (2nd row) (Longitudinal reinforcement)

jacketing - diameter: 28 (mm) - fy= 415 (N/mm2)
Note: Pier-1 & 3 condition is applied.
- Bearing restraint condition: Fixed(L) + Movable(R)
- Reaction force: Rd+0.5Rl = 11,400 (kN)
- Weight of single column Wp = 1,245 (kN)
- Horizontal seismic coefficient: Csm= 0.38 (longitudinal dir.: T=1.39 (s) )
0.89 (transverse dir.T=0.54 (s) )
- R-factor: 1.5 (importance: critical)
- Direction of seismic force: Transverse dir.
- Loads for capacity verification
Seismic Forces (per Column) in Longitudinal dir.
W Csm H=Wu*Csm h M=H*h
(kN) - (kN) (m) (kN*m)
Superstructure 5,533 0.38 2,110 13.4 28,270
Pier 1,245 0.38 475 6.2 2,944
Sum VL= 2,584 ML= 31,213
Seismic Forces (per Column) in Transverse dir.
(kN) - (kN) (m) (kN*m)
Superstructure 3,350 0.89 2,982 15.0 44,723
Pier 1,245 0.89 1,108 6.2 6,872
Sum VT= 4,090 MT= 51,595
Where,
W (kN): Weight of the structures under consideration
H (kN): Horizontal seismic inertial force
h (m): Height from the botttom of column to the height of seismic inertial force
M (kN*m): Bending moment
VL, VT (kN): Shear force which acts at the bottom of pier columns/walls
ML, MT (kN): Bending moment which acts at the bottom of pier columns/walls
- Forces for verification (transverse dir.)
Nd= Rd+0.5*Rl+Wp Nd: Design axial force for M-N interaction diagram
= 5,045 (kN)
Vd= (Vmax2+(0.3Vmin)2)0.5 Vd: Shear force for capacity verification
= 4,163 (kN) (Vmax= 4,090 Vmin= 2,584 )
Md= (Mmax2+(0.3Mmin)2)0.5/R Md: Bending moment for capacity verification
34,958 (kN*m) (Mmax= 51,595 Mmin= 31,213 )
Note: - R-factor is applied to only bending moment.
- Load combination: consideration of 30% of perpendicular force
- Verification of "flexural strength"
Md= 34,958 > 13,752 (=ф*Mn) (NG)
(2.54) (1.00)
- Verification of "shear strength"
Vd= 4,163 > 1,756 (=ф*Vn) (NG)
(2.37) (1.00)
17-15
2) Verification of Foundation Stability
2. Verification of foundation stability
- Direction of seismic force: Longitudinal dir.

- Load condition
Rd+0.5Rl= 11,400 (kN)
Wu= 16,600 (kN)
Wp= 3,736 (kN)
As= 0.36 (g)
Mu= 45,840 (kN*m)
Ws= 1,463 (kN) Ws: weight of sand
Fw= -3,241 (kN) Fw: buoyancy
Seismic forces of footing
Wf 0.5*As Ff=Wf*(0.5*As) hf/2 Mf=H*h
(kN) (g) (kN) (m) (kN*m)
Footing 6,144 0.18 1,106 0.63 700
Where,
Wu (kN): Weight of superstructure under consideration
Wp (kN): Weight of pier column & coping
Wf (kN): Weight of pier footing
Ff (kN): Horizontal seismic inertial force
hf (m): height of footing
Mf (kN*m): Bending moment
- Forces for capacity verification
Vd= Rd+0.5Rl+Wp+Wf+Ws+Fw
= 19,503 (kN)
Hd= Mp/h+Ff (Mp= 59,592 Ff= 1,106 )
= 5,553 (kN)
Md= Mp+Mf=1.3Mu+Mf
= 60,292 (kN*m) (Mu= 45,840 Mf= 700 )
Note: h= 13.4 (m) h: Height from the botttom of column to the point of seismic
inertial force
- Verification of "overturning (load eccentricity) "
eB= 10.86 > 5.86 = 0.733*L (NG)
(1.85) (1.00)
Where,
L= 8.0 (m) L: footing length
- Verification of "sliding"
Hd= 5,553 < 13,563 =Rr (OK)
(0.41) (1.00)
- Verification of "bearing resistance"
qmax=Vd= 19,503 > 4,727 = φb*qn (NG)
(4.13) (1.00)
17-16
- Rebars: (Longitudinal reinforcement)
(1st row) - diameter: 25 (mm) - fy= 415 (N/mm2)
- spacing: 100 (mm)
Rebars
(2nd row) (Longitudinal reinforcement)
Existing concrete
jacketing - No. of rebars: 24 - spacing: 200 (mm)
Note: Pier-1 & 3 condition is applied.
- Bearing restraint condition: Fixed(L) + Movable(R)
- Weight of single column Wp = 878 (kN)
Seismic Forces (per Column) in Longitudinal dir.
(kN) - (kN) (m) (kN*m)
Superstructure 1,650 0.54 893 12.5 11,179
Pier 878 0.54 475 5.3 2,518
Sum V L= 1,368 M L= 13,697
Seismic Forces (per Column) in Transverse dir.
(kN) - (kN) (m) (kN*m)
Superstructure 1,650 0.89 1,469 13.9 20,442
Pier 878 0.89 781 5.3 4,140
Sum VT= 2,250 MT= 24,582
Where,
W (kN): Weight of the structures under consideration
- Forces for verification (transverse dir.)
Nd= Rd+0.5*Rl+Wp Nd: Design axial force for M-N interaction diagram
= 5,028 (kN)
= 2,287 (kN) (Vmax= 2,250 Vmin= 1,368 )
2 2 0.5
Md= (Mmax +(0.3Mmin) ) /R Md: Bending moment for capacity verification
16,615 (kN*m) (Mmax= 24,582 Mmin= 13,697 )
Md= 16,615 > 11,739 (NG)
(1.42) (1.00)
Vd= 2,287 > 1,600 (NG)
(1.43) (1.00)
17-17
2. Verification of foundation stability

- Load condition
Rd+0.5Rl= 4,150 (kN)
Wu= 3,300 (kN)
Wp= 1,755 (kN)
As= 0.36 (g)
Mu= 26,087 (kN*m)
Ws= 533 (kN) Ws: weight of sand
Fw= -1,229 (kN) Fw: buoyancy
(kN) (g) (kN) (m) (kN*m)
Footing 2,356 0.18 424 0.58 245
Where,
Vd= Rd+0.5Rl+Wp+Wf+Ws+Fw
= 7,566 (kN)
Hd= Mp/h+Ff (Mp= 33,913 Ff= 424 )
= 2,860 (kN)
Md= Mp+Mf=1.3Mu+Mf
= 34,158 (kN*m) (Mu= 26,087 Mf= 245 )
Note: h= 13.9 (m) h: Height from the botttom of column to the point of seismic
inertial force
- Verification of "overturning (load eccentricity) "
eB= 11.94 > 4.03 = 0.733*L (NG)
(2.96) (1.00)
Where,
L= 5.5 (m) L: footing length
- Verification of "sliding"
Hd= 2,860 < 5,262 =Rr (OK)
(0.54) (1.00)
- Verification of "bearing resistance"
qmax=Vd= 7,566 > 2,086 = φb*qn (NG)
(3.63) (1.00)
17-18
17.2.4 Comparative Studies on Seismic Capacity Improvement Schemes
(1) Outline of Comparison Studies on Seismic Capacity Improvement Schemes
Selection of “Seismic Capacity Improvement Methods” was done in accordance with the following
flowchart process.
Control of Seismic Inertial Force by

Changing Bearing Restraint Condition
Seismic Capacity Improvement Scheme for Pier Columns
Seismic Capacity Improvement Scheme for Pier Copings
Seismic Capacity Improvement Scheme for Foundations

(1) Improvement scheme for foundation of piers
(2) Improvement scheme for abutments
Planning for Unseating Prevention System

(1) Planning for replacement of bearings
(2) Planning for seat extender
(3) Planning for unseating prevention devices
(4) Planning for structural limiting (shear keys)
Planning for Repair Works

(not part of seismic capacity improvement)
Outline design
Figure 17.2.4-1 Outline of Comparative Studies on Seismic Capacity Improvement Schemes
17-19
(2) Control of Seismic Inertial Force by Changing Bearing Restraint Conditions
Old long-span simply-supported bridges are likely to have only one substructure with fixed bearings
in longitudinal direction. The fixed substructures are regarded as the weakest point of the bridge
structures, for the fixed piers shoulder total superstructure weight under earthquakes. In this case,
recombination of bearing restraint conditions should be considered with the application of seismic
devices (ex. elastomeric bearing and seismic damper) in order to control the scale of seismic inertial
forces on each substructure and save the only fixed substructures. The mechanism of seismic device
application is shown below.
Seismic inertial force by total superstructure weight
Collapse F: Fixed
M: Movable
M F
Only fixed substructure shoulders total superstructure weight under EQ.
Recombination of bearing restraint condition

(allocation of shared weight under EQ)
Application of seismic devices (ex. seismic dampers & base isolation bearings)
Seismic inertial force caused by shared superstructure weight (controlled)
F: Fixed
E: Elastic
E F
Figure 17.2.4-2 Control of Seismic Inertial Force by Application of Seismic Devices
In this study, the following two seismic devices are compared for the application.
- Alternative-1: Seismic damper (hydraulic cylinder type)
- Alternative-2: Elastomeric bearing
17-20
As a result, “seismic damper” is recommended to mitigate the seismic inertial force of fixed piers.
Generally speaking, elastomeric bearings are more cost-effective than seismic dampers. However,
they have problems in “structural characteristics” and “constraints of construction”. Elastomeric
bearings are recommended to be applied to newly-constructed bridges, considering its structural and
constructive restrictive conditions. The detail of the comparison is shown in the following table.
Table 17.2.4-1 Comparison of Seismic Devices

Seismic damper (hydraulic cylinder type) Base isolation bearing
Superstructure
Substructure Bracket Lead

Seismic damper Plug
Outline of (cylinder type) High damping rubber Rubber with lead type
improvement type
method (Source: Japan Bridge Association) (Source: Japan Bridge Association)
- To absorb seismic energy and control seismic - To reduce seismic inertial force to
inertial force on substructures substructures
- To make natural period longer; base isolation
- To avoid the “Sympathetic Vibration” of
substructure and superstructure.
- Easy to control the seismic inertial force - Difficult To control the seismic inertial
on substructures force on substructures
- Possible to restrain/control the amout of - New bearings are wider and taller than old
structural movement under EQ ones: need of larger space for the
Structural
- Possible to be used as unseating A installation D
characteristic
prevention device - Impossible to restrain/control the amout of
structural movement under EQ;
superstructures and backwalls collide with
each other under EQ
- Quick and easy installtation - Need of partial removal of existing pier
Constraints of - No need of removal of existing structures coping to fit new bearings into the space;
A new bearing height is higer than that of old C
construction for the installation
one
Duration Short A Typical priod of bearing installation B
Recommend-
Recommended Not applicable
ation
17-21
Recommendation for installation location of seismic dampers is shown in the following figure.
Plan for seismic device installation

AA P1
(Case-1)
M F
Seismic device installation F: Fixed
AA P1 M: Movable
E: Elastic (seismic device)
E F
128500
(Simply-supported)
AA P1
E F M
F: Fixed
Seismic damper
M: Movable
Abutment-A
E: Elastic
Figure 17.2.4-3 Recommendation for Location of Seismic Damper Installation
(3) Seismic Capacity Improvement Scheme for Pier Columns

The following two improvement schemes were compared for pier columns so as to improve flexural
resistance and shear resistance.
- Alternative-1: Concrete jacketing
- Alternative-2: Steel plate jacketing
As a result of evaluation, “Concrete jacketing” was selected for its structural advantage and overall
suitability for its implementation. The detail of the comparison is shown in the next page.
17-22
Table 17.2.4-2 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Pier Columns
Concrete jacketing Steel plate jacketing

Cross-section Cross-section
Removal of existing cross-beam Removal of existing cross-beam
Profile Profile
Concrete
Concrete
Outline of jacketing
improvement Steel
method jacketing
Thickness: 586mm (at bottom) Thickness: 40mm
(Source: OCAJI) (Source: OCAJI)

- Improvement of flexural strength and - Improvement of flexural strength and
shear strength shear strength
Structural - Large impact to clearance/river flow B - Low impact to clearance/river flow D
characteristic - Effect of weight increase on foundation - Unable to develop required flexural
structures strength
Typical durability of cast-in-place concrete Need of constant maintenance to prevent
structure: no need of maintenance B corossions: every 30 years C
- Need of cast-in-place concrete - Need of installation of shear connectors

Constraints of construction - Need of splicing of steel plates
construction -Need of smoothing of existing column -Need of smoothing of existing column
B B
surface surface
- Need of installation of shear connectors - Need of painting for corossion protection
- Need of larger construction space
Duration Long B Long B
Recommend- Recommended
ation
Compared under “Pier-1 condition”.
17-23
(4) Seismic Capacity Improvement Scheme for Pier Coping
The following three improvement schemes were compared for pier copings so as to improve flexural
- Alternative-3: Carbon fiber sheet jacketing
As a result of evaluation, “concrete jacketing” was selected for its structural advantage and overall
suitability for its implementation. The detail of the comparison is shown below.
Table 17.2.4-3 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Pier Copings

Concrete jacketing Steel plate jacketing Carbon fiber sheet jacketing
Cross-section Cross-section Cross-section
Outline of
improvement
Profile Profile Profile
method
Thickness: 250mm Thickness: 9mm Sheet Tickness

- Improvement of both - Improvement of shear - Improvement of shear
flexural strength and shear strength strength
Structural strength - Unable to improve flexural - Limited Improvement of
A C B
characteristic - Able to extend seat width; strength without additional flexural strength
250mm structure at the coping edges
- Effect of weight increase on
No need of maintenance Need of constant Need of constant
Durability /
A maintenance to prevent C maintenance for surface C
Maintenance corossions: every 30 years protection: every 30 years
- Need of cast-in-place - Need of installation of shear - No need of installation of
concrete construction connectors shear connectors: to be
-Need of smoothing of - Need of splicing of steel attached
Constraints existing column surface plates - Temprature and humidity
of - Need of installation of shear B -Need of smoothing of B must be checked for the A
construction connectors existing column surface construction quality
- Need of larger construction - Need of painting for - Need of placement of
space corossion protection polymer cement mortar as
surface protection
Duration Long B Long B Short A
Recommend-
Recommended
ation
Compared with “Pier-2 condition”.
17-24
(5) Seismic Capacity Improvement Scheme for Foundations
1) Foundation Improvement Scheme for Piers
For improvement of existing pier foundation capacities, “additional piles for reinforcement” is
recommended for piers. In case of Lilo-an Bridge, construction types for the foundation retrofit
work are categorized into the following two.
Type-1: Open excavation Type-2: Sand bag cofferdam
(Ex. Pier-4) (Ex. Pier-2)
Excavation
line Sand bag
Additional pile Additional pile cap
Figure 17.2.4-4 Construction Types for the Foundation Retrofit Work
Many pile-driving methods are available these days. However, in case of additional pile driving,
applicability under lower vertical clearance must be considered in the selection of pile driving method.
Lower vertical clearance under existing

superstructure
Pile driving machine must fit and

function in the space
Figure 17.2.4-5 Restrictive Condition for Additional Pile Driving
In consideration with the above restrictive condition, the following two applicable pile driving
methods were compared.
- Alternative-1: Cast-in-place concrete pile foundation (revolving all casing method)
- Alternative-2: Steel pipe pile foundation (jacked pile method)
As a result of the comparison, “cast-in-place pile foundation (revolving all casing method)” is
recommended for its suitability for the construction site which has gravel layers with cobbles. The
detail of comparison study is shown in the next page.
17-25
Table 17.2.4-4 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Foundations
Cast-in-place concrete pile (CCP) foundation Steel pipe pile (SPP) foundation
(revolving all casing method) (revolving type press-in method)
CCP φ1000 SPP φ1000
Construction Procedure Construction Procedure

1. Installation of casing 1. Setting of a pile
Steel pipe pile
Pile driving machine

2. Excavation using hammer glove Casing
Outline of
improvement 3. Installation of built-up rebars Hammer glove
method 2. Pile driving
Splice
Steel pipe pile
(grip-connection type)
4. Installation of tremie pipe Built-up rebars
Tremie pipe
Pile driving with
5. Concrete placement rotation
Concrete
placement
3. Finishing pile-driving with pincer
6. Removal of tremie pipe & casing
Tremie pipe Pincer
Pincer
Casing
(Source: NETIS plus) (Source: NETIS plus)

Cost* 1.00 A 1.08 B
- Rigid concrete structure: valid against soft - Non-rigid structure: vulnerable to lateral
layer movement and liquefaction-induced forces such as liquefaction-induced lateral
Structural lateral spreaading spreaading
A B
characteristic - Cast-in-place concrete pile: Structural - Fabricated product: reliable structure
reliability depends on construction quality - Maximum pile diameter: ɸ1500
- Maximum pile diameter: ɸ1500
- Minimum reuired vertical clearance: 5m - Minimum reuired vertical clearance: 5-6m:
- Cast-in-place concrete pile: need of it depends on the pile diameter size
Constraints of accurate field work - Need of many welding splices
A A
construction - Need of many rebar splices - Able to penetrate solid substance such as
- Able to penetrate solid substance such as rock
rock
Long Short: twice as short as CIP pile foundation
Duration C A
Recommend-
Recommended
ation
Cost*: The cost is compared with “Pier-2 condition”.
17-26
2) Seismic Capacity Improvement Scheme for Abutments
Structural information of existing abutments is unknown as shown in the following figure.
Therefore, study on improvement schemes for abutments was conducted assuming the
underground structures. The unknown structure must be revealed by certain survey during detail
design stage. As explained in “Change of Bearing Restraint Conditions”, seismic dampers will
be installed at the abutment as shown below; the abutment undertakes seismic inertial force of
superstructure through the damper.
M F
E
Unknown: assumed
Unknown: assumed Seismic
damper
M: movable E: elastic Fixed
Abutment-A Abutment-B
Figure 17.2.4-6 Assumed Abutment Conditions for Comparison Study
First of all, as the result of study on countermeasure for Abutment-A, expansion of spread
foundation for improvement of foundation stability is recommended. Abutment-A is already
structurally stable with spread footing on rock. However, larger seismic inertial force will act on
the abutment through the installed seismic dampers. The foundation stability must be improved
so as to resist against the larger force. In case of lack of stability with expansion of spread
footing, ground anchor method can be additionally applied for the support. The image of the
improvement work is illustrated below. Need of the ground anchor application will be confirmed
in the detail design stage.
Expansion of
spread footing
(Ground anchor for
additional support)
Figure 17.2.4-7 Improvement Work Image of Abutment-A
Secondary, Abutment-B must be improved with appropriate improvement method because the
abutment is not supported by rock unlike Abutment-A, but alluvial gravel layer, which is not
reliable as bearing layer of spread foundation. Therefore, the following three improvement
schemes were compared for the stability improvement.
- Alternative-1: Soil improvement work with application of movable bearings
- Alternative-2: Additional piles for reinforcement
- Alternative-3: Total reconstruction
As a result of the comparison shown below, “additional piles for reinforcement” is recommended
as improvement scheme of Abutment-B for the cost-effectiveness and overall suitability.
17-27
Table 17.2.4-5 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Abutments
Additional piles for Total reconstruction Soil improvement with

reinforcement (Cast-in-place concrete pile) application of movable bearings
Profile Profile Profile Change from "Fixed"
F to "Movable"
F
Temporary Reconstruction
support
Soil improvement; sand pile
(earth preassure reduction)
Additional pile CCP φ1000
(CCp φ1000)
Outline of
improvement
Plan
method
Plan
Plan
Cost* 1.00 A 3.00 B 3.67 C

- Improved stability with - Total reconstruction of - Soil improvement (sand
additional piles abutment pile) for earth preassure
- Application of cast-in-place - Application of cast-in-place reduction
Structural
pile foundation B pile foundation A - Change of bearing restraint B
characteristic
- Need of firm connection condition from "Fix" to
between existing pile cap and "Movable": reduction of
additional pile cap seismic inertia force
- No need of large-scale - Need of large-scale - No need of excavation &
excavation excavation &demolishing of demolishing work
- No need of pile driving exiting structure - Need of lane-closure during
under superstructure - Installation of temporary construction
support within very close to
the existing bearings to
Constraints prevent cracks in PC I-
of A girders C A
construction - Need of pile driving under
superstructure: small vertical
clearance
- Need of lane-closure during
construction
- Risk of superstructure
damage during construction
- Need of existing pile cap - Need of existing pile cap - Need of existing pile cap
Necessary
information for detail design B information for detail design B information for detail design B
information
of sand pile
Duration Short A Long C Medium B
Recommend-
Recommended
ation
17-28
(6) Planning for Unseating Prevention System
1) Planning Procedure of Unseating Prevention System
Besides the strengthening of bridge structures, installation of unseating prevention system is very important in order to prevent superstructure-fall-down,
which could happen in case retrofitted structures are devastated by unexpectedly large-scale earthquakes. In this study, the planning of unseating
prevention system was done in accordance with the following procedure.
Start
- Supports at abutments, or
- Supports at piers of seated sections Intermediate supports of continuous bridge
Classification of support locations
Replacement of bearings Replacement of bearings

(Improvement of bearing strength) (Improvement of bearing strength)
Possible Possible
Impossible Impossible
Need of shear keys/blocks Need of shear keys/blocks
Possibledir.
for transverse Possibledir.
for transverse
17-29
Yes No Yes No
Unseating prevention Unseating prevention Unseating prevention Unseating prevention
Yes Unseating
No prevention Unseating prevention
system (type-1) system (type-2) system (type-3) system (type-4) system (type-5) system (type-6)
1. Replacement of 1. Replacement of 1. For longitudinal dir. 1. Replacement of 1. Replacement of 1. For longitudinal dir.
bearings bearings - Seat extender bearings bearings - Shear keys
2. For longitudinal dir. 2. for longitudinal dir. - Unseating prevention 2. For transverse dir. 2. For transverse dir.
- Seat extender - Seat extender device (belt or chain) - Shear keys - Shear keys
- Unseating prevention - Unseating prevention 2. For transverse dir.
device (belt or chain) device (belt or chain) - Shear keys
3. For transverse dir.
- Shear keys
Applied to;
- all the substructures
Figure 17.2.4-8 Basic Concept of Unseating Prevention System Planning

2) Planning for Replacement of Bearings
All the existing bearings will be replaced with new bearings which can resist level-2-scale
earthquakes and fit in the space between existing structures.
3) Planning for Seat Extender

Seat length of abutments and piers at seated sections must be checked with the following formula.
Required minimum seat length: SEM = 0.7 + 0.005L (m)
Where,
L: seat-length-related span length (m)
Seat extenders will be installed at abutments and piers at seated sections, where seat length
doesn’t satisfy the above requirement. In consideration of construction efficiency and quality,
“steel bracket” was selected for piers which needs seat length extension. Concrete blocks will be
installed at abutments where no scaffolding is required for the installation of seat extenders.
Extended seat length Extended seat length
Steel bracket
Concrete block
Steel bracket (applied to piers) Concrete block (applied to abutments)

- Easy and quick installation - Cast-in-place concrete structure;
- Fabricated product; good quality - Inefficient installation at higher locations
- Structural reliability depends on construction quality
Figure 17.2.4-9 Concrete Block and Steel Bracket
4) Planning for Unseating Prevention Devices

Unseating prevention devices will be installed at abutments and piers at seated sections. The
device type was selected in accordance with the following rules.
Abutments Piers at seated sections

More than or equal to 2.0
Weight ratio of adjacent two superstructures
Less than 2.0
Natural frequency ratio of adjacent two
bridge structures
Shear key installation at superstructure Less than 1.5

Possible Impossible
Installation of Connection of Connection of
shear keys superstructure superstructures
& substructure
Figure 17.2.4-10 Selection of Unseating Prevention Device Type
17-30
Connection of superstructure and substructure Connection of superstructures
Applied to; Applied to;

- Abutments - Pier-2 - Pier-5
- Pier-1 - Pier-3 - Pier-6
- Pier-4
Note: no unseating prevention devices are needed at Abutment-A
Figure 17.2.4-11 Selection of Unseating Prevention Device Type (continued)
5) Planning for Structure Limiting Horizontal Displacement (Shear Keys)

Structure limiting horizontal displacement (shear keys) for transverse direction will be installed
at all the substructures for the following reasons.
- Existing bearings of steel arch bridge can’t be replaced with new one due to its heavy weight.
Therefore, the following devices should be installed as fail-safe system at Abutment-A and
Pier-1(L).
a) For longitudinal direction: unseating prevention chain
b) For transverse direction: shear keys
- Although all the existing bearings of pier-2 through Pier-6 can be replaced with new one which
can resist level-2 scale earthquakes, there’s no cross beam at end supports. Therefore, shear
keys should be installed at pier-2 through Pier-6 to improve horizontal rigidity of
superstructures at end supports.
Shear keys/blocks
(Structure limiting horizontal displacement for both
longitudinal and transverse direction)
Figure 17.2.4-12 Structure Limiting Horizontal Displacement (Shear Keys)
No cross beam;
seismically vulnerable
due to lack of rigidity
Figure 17.2.4-13 Non-existence of Cross Beam at End Supports
17-31
17.2.5 Planning for Repair Works
In addition to the seismic retrofit plans, the following three repair work
- Replacement/installation of expansion joints
- Repainting of steel members
- Repair of connection/splice points of steel members
- Epoxy injection of deck slab
[Replacement/installation of expansion joints]

As for Abutment-A and Pier-1, the expansion joints should be replaced in order to repair the opened
or closed gap between joint members. In case of the rest of substructures, expansion joints should be
installed to improve the bridge function.
Closed Opened
gap gap No joint No joint
Abutment-A Pier-1 Pier-2 through 6 Abutment-B
Figure 17.2.5-1 Current Condition of Existing Expansion Joints
[Repainting of steel members]

Repainting of existing steel members is recommended, especially for bottom flange of lower chord
members which are heavily corroded. Besides the lower chord members, it’s better to repaint other
steel components for maintenance.
Corroded
Heavily corroded
Heavily corroded
Lower chord member Lower chord member Arch rib
Figure 17.2.5-2 Current Condition of Existing Steel Members
[Repair of connection/splice points of steel members]

Repair of connection/splice points of steel members is recommended as a part of regular maintenance
work. The condition of the connection is not critical. However, its better to repair them before their
condition becomes worse because these connection points are one of the most important components
of bridge structures. Deficiency of the connection points could cause fatal damage of whole entire
bridge structure regardless of seismic issues.
Corrosion & loss of bolts
Corroded
Connection point of steel members Splice point of steel members

Figure 17.2.5-3 Current Condition of Connection/Splice Points of Existing Steel Members
17-32
[Epoxy injection of deck slab]
Epoxy injection of deck slab is recommended to repair cracking, Hanycomb, and water leaking of the
existing deck slab. Additionally, repair by mortar covering is suggested as supplementary method.
Hanycomb
Water leaking
Cracking
Bottom of deck slab Bottom of deck slab Overhanging deck slab
Figure 17.2.5-4 Current Condition of Existing Deck Slab
17-33
17.2.6 Summary of the Seismic Retrofit Planning & Repair Work
Unseating prevention system

Abutment-A Pier-1 (side view)
Unseating prevention
device (chain) Simply-supported Simply-supported
Shear keys Pier-1 (front view; arch bridge side)
Replacement
Shear keys of bearings Shear key Unseating prevention
device (chain)
Seat extender Unseating prevention

Seat extender device (chain) Steel
Seismic damper bracket
(cylinder type)
Underground structure is unknown: assumed

(General View & Structural Drawings are shown in Appendix-4)
17-34
Pier-3 (side view) Pier-3 (front view) Abutment-B

Unseating prevention Replacement
device (belt) Unseating prevention of bearings
Simply-supported PC Girder
Simply-supported device (chain)
Unseating prevention Shear key
device (belt) Replacement
of bearings Seat extender
Shear keys
Steel
Seat extender bracket
17-35
17.3 Outline Design of 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge
17.3.1 Structural Data of the Existing Bridge

(1) Outline of the Existing Bridge
1) Construction year: 1972
2) Total bridge length: 860m (topographic survey result)
(Span length)
- Simply-supported composite steel I-girder bridge: 37.2m
- 3-span continuous non-composite steel I-girder bridge: 50+50+50m
- 3-span continuous steel truss bridge: 112+144+112m
3) Applied specifications (superstructure)
(JRA: Japanese Road Association)
- The Specification for Steel Highway Bridge (except for live load methodology)
- The Specification for Welding Steel Highway Bridge
- Steel Highway Bridge of Composite Girder
(AASHTO: American Association of State Highway Officials)
- Standard Specification for Highway Bridges (only for live load methodology)
Applied Live Load: H-20-S-16-44
4) Steel Material (superstructure)
- SS41 (JIS G3101): corresponding to ASTM A7
- SM 50 (JIS G3106): corresponding to ASTM 242 or A441
- High strength bolt (JIS B1186): corresponding to ASTM A326
5) Reinforcing bars (superstructure): SD24 (JIS G3112): corresponding to ASTM A306
6) Concrete Compressive Strength (superstructure): Ϭ28 = 240kg/cm2 (Strength at 28 days)
17-36
(2) General View
Profile
Underground structure is unknown: assumed.

Plan
17-37
Cross-section Continuous Steel Through Truss Bridge

Simply-supported Composite
Steel I-girder Bridge Continuous Steel I-girder Bridge
Source: Drawings prepared in previous projects

Note: - As-built drawing is not available.
- Modified based on the topographic survey
result of this project
(3) Bridge/Span Length, Bridge Continuity and Bearing Restraint Conditions
Items Contents
Span-1
to 3@37200=111800 3@50000=150000
Span-6 (Simply-supported) (Continuous)
AA P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
M M
F M
M F M M
F M F
F: Fixed Only “Fixed Pier” in the continuous bridge

M: Movable (The pier shoulders total superstructure weight under EQ.)
Span-7
to 112000+144000+112000=368000
Span-9 (Continuous)
112000 144000 112000
P6 P7 P8 P9
M M F M M M
F: Fixed - Only “Fixed Pier” in the continuous bridge

- Collided by a large ship in 1990
(High possibility for collapse under large scale EQ)
Span-10
to 2@37200=74400
3@50000=150000
Span-14 (Continuous) (Simply-supported)
P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 AB
M M
F M M F M F M
F: Fixed Only “Fixed Pier” in the continuous bridge

17-38
(4) Existing Pier Condition
Items Contents
Concrete [Results of Concrete Strength Test[
Strength 1) Compressive Strength Test (P4) : 40.5 (MPa)
2) Schmidt Rebound Hammer Test
- P2: 38.6 (MPa)
- P3: 39.7 (MPa)
- P4: 40.5 (MPa)
Ave.: 39.6 (MPa)
Rebar [Results of Rebar Detection]

Condition 1) Pier-2
Detected
Main Lateral
2) Pier-3
Main Lateral
Detected
Note: Existing rebars are ignored in the seismic retrofit design.: only for capacity
check
17-39
Items Contents
Dimension
P1
P2
17-40
Items Contents
Dimension
P3
P4
17-41
Items Contents
Dimension
P5
P6
17-42
Items Contents
Dimension
P7
Crack by Ship
Collision in 1990
(repaired)
P8
17-43
Items Contents
Dimension
P9
P10
17-44
Items Contents
Dimension
P11
P12
17-45
Items Contents
Dimension
P13
17-46
17.3.2 Design Conditions
(1) Design Loads Sub-total Total 0.5Rl Rd+0.5Rl
Brige Type Substructure
(kN) "Rd" (kN) (kN) (kN)
1 Simply-supported Composite 3 Continuous Steel Through Truss Simply-pupported Abut- A - F 1386 R1 1386 R1 750 2136
Steel I-girder Bridge Bridge steel I-girder bridge L M 1386 R1
Pier- 1 2772 R1 + R1 1000 3772
Simply-pupported R F 1386 R1
steel I-girder bridge L M 1386 R1
Pier- 2 2772 R1 + R1 1000 3772
Pier- 3 2931 R1 + R2 1100 4031
R M 1545 R2
3-span continuous Pier- 4 - F 4321 R3 4321 R3 1200 5521
steel I-girder bridge Pier- 5 - M 4321 R3 4321 R3 1200 5521
L M 1545 R2
Pier- 6 4915 R2 + R4 1650 6565
R M 3370 R4
2 Continuous Steel I-girder 3-span continuous Pier- 7 - F 14230 R5 14230 R5 2300 16530
Bridge steel truss bridge Pier- 8 - M 14230 R5 14230 R5 2300 16530
L M 3370 R4
Pier- 9 4915 R4 + R2 1650 6565
17-47
R M 1545 R2
3-span continuous Pier- 10 - F 4321 R3 4321 R3 1200 5521
steel I-girder bridge Pier- 11 - M 4321 R3 4321 R3 1200 5521
L M 1545 R2
Pier- 12 2931 R2 + R1 1100 4031
Pier- 13 2772 R1 + R1 1000 3772
steel I-girder bridge Abut- B - M 1386 R1 1386 R1 750 2136
1 2 3 2 1
qd = 74.52 kN/m qd = 78.21 kN/m qd = 95.65 kN/m qd = 78.21 kN/m qd = 74.52 kN/m
AA P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 AB
q q q q q
R1 R1 R2 R3 R3 R2 R4 R5 R5 R4 R2 R3 R3 Li R1 R1
The following figure summarizes “site-specific design spectrum of 50-, 100-, 500-, and 1000-year
return period for 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge site” which were developed in this study.

- Level-1 earthquake: 100 year return period

Figure 17.3.2-1 Site-Specific Design Spectrum of 50-, 100-, 500-, and 1000-Year return Periods
for 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge Site
17-48
Figure 17.3.2-2 Site-Specific Design Spectrum of 50-, 100-, 500-, and 1000-Year Return Periods
for 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge Site
17-49
The following table summarizes “the load distribution of existing bridge under earthquakes” and
“application point of seismic inertial forces”.
Table 17.3.2-1 Load Distribution under EQ and Application Point of Seismic Inertial Forces
Longitudinal Direction Transeverse Direction
Rd
Substructure Restraint h Restraint h
(kN) Wu (kN) Wu (kN)
Condition (m) Condition (m)
Abut- A - 1386 F 2772 2772 - F - - -
L 1386 M 0 0 F 1386
Pier- 1 2772 2772 1.9
R 1386 F 2772 0 F 1386
L 1386 M 0 0 F 1386
Pier- 2 2772 2772 1.9
R 1386 F 2772 0 F 1386
L 1386 M 0 0 F 1386
Pier- 3 0 2931 2.5
R 1545 M 0 0 F 1545
Pier- 4 - 4321 F 11732 11732 0 F 4321 4321 2.5
Pier- 5 - 4321 M 0 0 0 F 4321 4321 2.5
L 1545 M 0 0 F 1545
Pier- 6 0 4915 1.7
R 3370 M 0 0 F 3370
Pier- 7 - 14230 F 35200 35200 0 F 14230 14230 7.9
Pier- 8 - 14230 M 0 0 0 F 14230 14230 7.9
L 3370 M 0 0 F 3370
Pier- 9 0 4915 1.7
R 1545 M 0 0 F 1545
Pier- 10 - 4321 F 11732 11732 0 F 4321 4321 2.5
Pier- 11 - 4321 M 0 0 0 F 4321 4321 2.5
L 1545 M 0 0 F 1545
Pier- 12 2772 2931 2.5
R 1386 F 2772 0 F 1386
L 1386 M 0 0 F 1386
Pier- 13 2772 2772 1.9
R 1386 F 2772 0 F 1386
Abut- B - 1386 M - - - F - - -
L: Left side bearing to the longitudinal direction
R: Right side bearing to longitudinal direction
h (m): Height from the top of the substructure body to the height of the superstructural inertia force
Wu (kN): Weight of the superstructure portion supported by the substructure body concerned
17-50
(2) Soil Conditions
Soil condition of 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge is summarized as follows. The results of the
liquefaction potential analysis are shown from the next page.
Design Soil Parameters for "1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge" (MAN-E1 Site) Soil Type: II
α E0
Layer Soil N γt C Φ Vs DE
α=4 α=8
Name Type
- (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (º) (kN/m ) (kN/m2)
2
- -
Ag Gravel 23 18 0 37 64,400 128,800 228 -
Ac Clay 7 15 44 0 19,600 39,200 191 -
As Sand 7 17 0 29 19,600 39,200 153 -
Ds1 Sand 27 17 0 35 75,600 151,200 240 -
Dg1 Gravel 32 18 0 36 89,600 179,200 254 -
Dc1 Clay 25 18 156 0 70,000 140,000 292 -
Dg2 Gravel 35 18 0 36 98,000 196,000 262 -
Dc2u Clay 23 18 144 0 64,400 128,800 284 -
Dc2ℓ Clay 23 18 144 0 64,400 128,800 284 -
Dc3 Clay 13 18 81 0 36,400 72,800 235 -
Dc4 Clay 48 18 300 0 134,400 268,800 292 -
Dc5 Clay 16 18 100 0 44,800 179,200 252 -
Dc6 Clay 33 18 206 0 92,400 369,600 292 -
Ds2 Sand 50 19 0 41 140,000 280,000 295 -
Assumed bearing layer boundary Bor.-log
Design Soil Parameters for "1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge" (MAN-W1 Site) Soil Type: I
α E0
Layer Soil N γt C Φ Vs DE
α=4 α=8
Name Type
- (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (º) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) (m/sec) -
Ac Clay 23 18 144 0 64,400 128,800 284 -
As Sand 26 17 0 38 72,800 145,600 237 -
Dgs Gravel 50 20 0 40 140,000 280,000 295 -
Lm Rock 50 21 – – – – 295 -
Bor.-log Assumed bearing layer boundary
17-51
Table 17.3.2-2 Result of Liquefaction Potential Assessment (MAN-E1 side)
Water Lv. 0.00 (m) As=Fpga*PGA 0.26 (g)
Depth Layer γt2 γt1=γt2-1 D50 σv σv’ Depth (m) N-value

N-value Soil detail FC (%) N1 C1 C2 Na
X (m) symbol (kN/m3) (kN/m3) (mm) (kN/m2) (kN/m2) 0 10 20 30 40 50
0.00 - - - 0.0 0.0 - - - 0
0.70 18 5 Non-liequefiable 19.0 - - - 13.3 6.3 40.1 - - - 1
1.70 Ag 19 5 Non-liequefiable 19.0 - - - 32.3 15.3 37.9 - - - 2
7.70 Ac 8 5 Non-liequefiable 16.0 - - - 137.3 60.3 10.4 - - - 8
10.70 7 1 Alluvial (sand) 18.0 17.0 0.09 49.3 187.3 80.3 7.9 1.786 2.183 16.324 11
11.70 7 1 Alluvial (sand) 18.0 17.0 0.09 53.3 205.3 88.3 7.5 1.865 2.404 16.427 12
12.70 As 22 1 Alluvial (sand) 18.0 17.0 0.26 23.6 223.3 96.3 22.5 1.272 0.756 29.362 13
13.70 27 1 Alluvial (sand) 18.0 17.0 0.18 23.3 241.3 104.3 26.3 1.266 0.739 34.078 14
14.70 29 1 Alluvial (sand) 18.0 17.0 0.56 0.5 259.3 112.3 27.0 1.000 0.000 27.043 15
15.70 30 1 Alluvial (sand) 18.0 17.0 0.69 0.2 277.3 120.3 26.8 1.000 0.000 26.800 16
16.70 Dg 32 5 Non-liequefiable 19.0 - - - 296.3 129.3 27.3 - - - 17
17-52
17.70 Dc1 25 5 Non-liequefiable 19.0 - - - 315.3 138.3 20.4 - - - 18

18.70 Dg 35 5 Non-liequefiable 19.0 - - - 334.3 147.3 27.4 - - - 19
19.70 Dc2u 41 5 Non-liequefiable 19.0 - - - 353.3 149.1 31.8 - - - 20
: N-value (SPT)
Depth Layer Depth
N-value Soil detail R L FL Layer R (Ave.) FL (Ave.) DE : Na: modified N-value
X (m) symbol (m)
0.00 - - - 0.00 Ag - - -
0.70 18 Non-liequefiable - - - 5.70
1.70 19 Non-liequefiable - - -
Ag Ac - - -
3.70 23 Non-liequefiable - - - As 0.641 1.338 1 (FL>1; Not liquefiable)
5.70 6 Non-liequefiable - - - Dg - - -
7.70 Ac 8 Non-liequefiable - - - Dc1 - - -
9.70 7 Non-liequefiable - - - Dg - - -
10.70 7 Alluvial (sand) 0.273 0.509 0.537 19.70
11.70 7 Alluvial (sand) 0.274 0.498 0.550 Dc2u - - -
12.70 22 Alluvial (sand) 0.716 0.488 1.467
As 20.70
13.70 27 Alluvial (sand) 1.560 0.478 3.264
14.70 29 Alluvial (sand) 0.519 0.468 1.109
15.70 30 Alluvial (sand) 0.504 0.458 1.100
16.70 Dg 32 Non-liequefiable - - -
17.70 Dc1 25 Non-liequefiable - - - Liquefiable layer
18.70 Dg 35 Non-liequefiable - - -
19.70 Dc2u 41 Non-liequefiable - - -
Table 17.3.2-3 Result of Liquefaction Potential Assessment (MAN-W1 side)
Water Lv. 0.00 (m) As=Fpga*PGA 0.26 (g)
Depth Layer γt2 γt1=γt2-1 D50 σv σv’ Depth (m) N-value

N-value Soil detail FC (%) N1 C1 C2 Na 0 10 20 30 40 50
X (m) symbol (kN/m3) (kN/m3) (mm) (kN/m2) (kN/m2)
0.00 5 Non-liequefiable 19.0 - - - 0.0 0.0 - - - 0
0.70 Ac 21 5 Non-liequefiable 19.0 - - - 13.3 6.3 46.8 - - - 1
2.70 24 1 Alluvial (sand) 18.0 17.0 1.97 0.00 50.3 23.3 43.7 1.000 0.000 43.7 3
3.70 As 26 1 Alluvial (sand) 18.0 17.0 3.46 0.30 68.3 31.3 43.6 1.000 0.000 43.6 4
4.70 29 1 Alluvial (sand) 18.0 17.0 1.85 0.30 86.3 39.3 45.1 1.000 0.000 45.1 5
7.70 Dgs 50 5 Non-liequefiable 21.0 - - - 149.3 72.3 59.7 - - - 8
Lm
17-53

: N-value (SPT)
Depth Layer Depth
N-value Soil detail R L FL Layer R (Ave.) FL (Ave.) DE : Na: modified N-value
X (m) symbol (m)
0.00 Non-liequefiable - - - 0.00 Ac - - -
0.70 Ac 21 Non-liequefiable - - - 2.70
1.70 24 Non-liequefiable - - - As 7.744 14.483 1 (FL>1; Not liquefiable)
2.70 24 Alluvial (sand) 7.263 0.539 13.486 5.70
3.70 As 26 Alluvial (sand) 7.163 0.536 13.367 Dgs - - -
4.70 29 Alluvial (sand) 8.808 0.531 16.597 10.70
5.70 50 Non-liequefiable - - - Lm - - -
7.70 Dgs 50 Non-liequefiable - - -
Lm
17.70 50 Non-liequefiable - - - Liquefiable layer
(3) Hydrological Condition
The Hydrological condition of 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge is as follows.
1. Mean high water level (MSWL) : 0.51m from mean sea level (MSL: 0m)
2. Navigation Clearance under the truss bridge
- Vertical Clearance: 22.860m above Mean High Water Level (MHWL)
- Horizontal Clearance: 112.78m: 6.644m from existing piers, Pier-7 & Pier-8
Closeup
Navigation Clearance
The above conditions are illustrated in the following figure.
Figure 17.3.2-3 Hydrological Condition of 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge
17-54
17.3.3 Seismic Capacity Verification of Existing Structures
(1) Summary of Seismic Capacity Verification
Seismic capacity verification of existing structures was conducted for Pier-4 and Pier-7, in accordance
with BSDS provisions. In case of Pier-7, seismic capacity verification of foundation was conducted
using provisions for columns because those piles are highly projected from the ground surface.
The following figure highlights the result of the seismic capacity verification of the existing structures.
The detail of the verification is shown from the next page.
3@37200=111800 3@50000=150000
(Simply-supported) (Continuous)
Rd=1386 Rd=2772 Rd=2772 Rd=2931 Rd=4321 Rd=4321 Rd=4915
(kN) Wu=11732 M M
F M
M F M M
F M F
F: Fixed
M: Movable

- Flexural strength (kN*m) - Stability (kN)
Md= 43044 (1.29) > 33311 (1.00) (NG) (Pni)max= 6422 (1,19) > 5381(1.00) (NG)
- Shear strength (kN) (Pni)min= -2738 (0.23) > -11794(1.00) (OK)
Vd= 4027 (2.06) > 1953 (1.00) (NG) - Flexural strength (kN*m)
Md= 1679 (3.01) > 557 (1.00) (NG)
- Shear strength (kN)
Vd= 625 (1.58) > 395 (1.00) (NG)
112000+144000+112000=368000
(Continuous)
112000 144000 112000
P6 P7 P8 P9
Rd=4915 Rd=14230 Rd=14230 Rd=4915
(kN) Wu=35200
M M F M M M
F: Fixed
M: Movable

- Flexural strength (kN*m) - Flexural strength (kN*m)
Md= 283656 (1.61) > 176337 (1.00) (NG) Md= 134456 (1.12) > 120106 (1.00) (NG)
- Shear strength (kN) - Shear strength (kN)
Vd= 25676 (9.65) > 2661 (1.00) (NG) Vd= 12407 (5.59) > 2220 (1.00) (NG)
Note: Seismic capacity of Pier-7 foundation was verified as column for its pile projection.
Figure 17.3.3-1 Summary of Seismic Capacity Verification
17-55
(Longitudinal reinforcement)
- diameter: 28 (mm)
- fy= 415 (N/mm2)
- No. of rebars: 68
- spacing: 150 (mm)
- diameter: 16 (mm)
- fy= 415 (N/mm2)
- spacing: 300 (mm)
Note: Pier-3 condition is applied.
- Bearing restraint condition: Fixed

Seismic Forces in Longitudinal dir.
(kN) - (kN) (m) (kN*m)
Superstructure 11,732 0.29 3,423 16.9 57,853
Pier 1,810 0.29 528 10.1 5,335
Sum VL= 3,951 ML= 63,188
Seismic Forces in Transverse dir.
(kN) - (kN) (m) (kN*m)
Superstructure 5,521 0.35 1,948 19.4 37,783
Pier 1,810 0.35 639 10.1 6,450
Sum V L= 2,586 M L= 44,233
Where
W (kN): Weight of the structures under consderation
- Forces for verification (longitudinal dir.)
Nd= Rd+0.5Rl+Wp Nd: Design axial force for M-N interaction diagram
= 7,331 (kN)
= 4,027 (kN) (Vmax= 3,951 Vmin= 2,586 )
43,044 (kN*m) (Mmax= 63,188 Mmin= 44,233 )
Md= 43,044 > 33,311 (=ф*Mn) (NG)
(1.29) (1.00)
Vd= 4,027 > 1,953 (=ф*Vn) (NG)
(2.06) (1.00)
17-56
(Assumed pile condition)

- Cast-in-place concrete pile foundation
- Diameter: 1200 (mm)
- Number of piles: 5
- Pile length: L=27 (m)
- Rebar conditon
- Longitudinal: 12-D20 (ctc.300)
- Transverse: D16 ctc.300 (mm)
- Yeild strength: fy= 415 (N/mm2)

- Load condition
Rd+0.5Rl= 5,521 (kN)
Wu= 5,521 (kN)
Wp= 1,810 (kN)
As= 0.26 (g)
Mu= 37,012 (kN*m)
(kN) (g) (kN) (m) (kN*m)
Footing 1,882 0.13 245 0.80 196
Where,
Nd= Rd+0.5Rl+Wp+Wf
= 9,213 (kN)
Vd= Mp/h+Ff (Mp= 48,116 Ff= 245 )
= 3,092 (kN)
Md= Mp+Mf=1.3Mu+Mf
= 48312 (kN*m) (Mu= 37,012 Mf= 196 )
Note: h= 16.9 (m) h: Height from the botttom of column to the point of seismic inertial force
- Capacity verification
1) Verification of "maximum axial load at the pile head"
(Pni)max = 6,422 > 5,381 (NG)
(1.19) (1.00)
2) Verification of "maximum axial pull-out force at the pile head"
(Pni)min = -2,738 < -11,794 (OK)
(0.23) (1.00)
3) Verification of "flexural strength"
Md = 1,679 > 557 (NG)
(3.01) (1.00)
4) Verification of "shear strength" for longitudinal direction
Vd = 625 > 395 (NG)
(1.58) (1.00)
17-57
(Longitudinal reinforcement)
- diameter: 28 (mm)
- fy= 415 (N/mm2)
No. of rebars: 68
- spacing: 150 (mm)
- diameter: 16 (mm)
- fy= 415 (N/mm2)
- spacing: 300 (mm)
Note: Pier-3 condition is applied.
- Bearing restraint condition: Fixed

Seismic Forces in Longitudinal dir.
(kN) - (kN) (m) (kN*m)
Superstructure 35,200 0.60 21,048 17.5 368,338
Pier 7,235 0.60 4,326 11.4 49,318
Sum VL= 25,374 ML= 417,656
Seismic Forces in Transverse dir.
(kN) - (kN) (m) (kN*m)
Superstructure 14,230 0.61 8,680 25.4 220,480
Pier 7,235 0.61 4,413 11.4 50,312
Sum V T = 13,094 M T= 270,792
Where
W (kN): Weight of the structures under consderation
- Forces for verification (longitudinal dir.)
Nd= Rd+0.5*Rl+Wp
= 21,465 (kN) Nd: Design axial force for M-N interaction diagram
= 25,676 (kN) (Vmax= 25,374 Vmin= 13,094 )
283,656 (kN*m) (Mmax= 417,656 Mmin= 270,792 )
Md= 283,656 > 176,337 (=ф*Mn) (NG)
(1.61) (1.00)
Vd= 25,676 > 2,661 (=ф*Vn) (NG)
(9.65) (1.00)
17-58
- Cast-in-place concrete pile foundation

(Hollow section)
- Diameter: 6200 (mm)
- Number of piles: 4
- Pile projection length: 14.8 (m)
- Rebar conditon
- Longitudinal: 128-D25 (ctc.150)
- Transverse: D16 ctc.300 (mm)
- Yeild strength: fy= 415 (N/mm2)
Hollow Pile projection length: 14.8 (m)
section
t= 550 Gound surface level
Cross-section for capacity verification: regarded as column base

- Load condition
Rd+0.5Rl= 16,530 (kN)
Wp= 7,235 (kN)/column
Wf= 15,763
Csm= 0.60 (g)
Mp= 1.3*Mu = 254,709 (kN*m) (Mu= 195,930 (kN*m) )
Vp= Mp/h = 14,555 (kN) ( h= 17.5 (m) )
n= 4 ; number of piles
Seismic forces acting on single pile
W Csm F h M
(kN) (g) (kN) (m) (kN*m)
Column Vp/n= Vp/n= 3,639 Mp/n= 63,677
Footing 3,941 0.60 2,356 9.9 23,328
Single Pile 10,724 0.60 6,412 7.4 47,451
Vd= 12,407 Md= 134,456
Where,
W (kN): Weight of structures
h (m): height of seismic inertial force
Nd= (Rd+0.5Rl+Wp+Wf)/n+Wpile (n= 4 ; number of piles)
= 20,606 (kN)
Vd= 12,407 (kN)
Md= 134,456 (kN*m)
Md= 134,456 > 120,106 (=ф*Mn) (NG)
(1.12) (1.00)
Vd= 12,407 > 2,220 (=ф*Vn) (NG)
(5.59) (1.00)
17-59
17.3.4 Comparative Studies on Seismic Capacity Improvement Schemes
(1) Outline of Comparison Studies on Seismic Capacity Improvement Schemes
Selection of “Seismic Capacity Improvement Methods” was done in accordance with the following
flowchart process.
Control of Seismic Inertial Force by

Changing Bearing Restraint Conditions
Seismic Capacity Improvement Scheme for Pier Columns
Seismic Capacity Improvement Scheme for Pier Copings
Seismic Capacity Improvement Scheme for Foundations

(1) Improvement scheme for foundation of piers on land and piers
in shallow water
(2) Improvement scheme for foundation of piers in deep water
(3) Improvement scheme for abutments
Planning for Unseating Prevention System

(1) Planning for replacement of bearings
(2) Planning for seat extender
(3) Planning for unseating prevention devices
(4) Planning for structural limiting (shear keys)
Planning for Repair Works

(not part of seismic capacity improvement)
Outline design
Figure 17.3.4-1 Outline of Comparison Studies on Seismic Capacity Improvement Schemes
17-60
(2) Control of Seismic Inertial Force by Changing Bearing Restraint Conditions
Old continuous bridges are likely to have only one pier with fixed bearings in longitudinal direction.
The fixed piers are regarded as the weakest point of the bridge structures, for the fixed piers shoulder
total superstructure weight under earthquakes. In this case, recombination of bearing restraint
conditions should be considered with the application of seismic devices (ex. elastomeric bearing and
seismic damper) in order to control the scale of seismic inertial forces on each substructure and save
the only fixed substructures. The mechanism of seismic device application is shown below.
Seismic inertial force by total superstructure weight
Collapse
M F M M
F: Fixed
Only fixed pier shoulders total superstructure weight under EQ. M: Movable
Recombination of bearing restraint condition

(allocation of shared weight under EQ)
Application of seismic devices (ex. seismic dampers & base isolation bearings)
Seismic inertial force caused by shared superstructure weight (controlled)
F: Fixed
E F E E E: Elastic
Figure 17.3.4-2 Control of Seismic Inertial Force by Application of Seismic Devices
In this study, the following two seismic devices are compared for the application.
- Alternative-1: Seismic damper (hydraulic cylinder type) & shear panel damper
- Alternative-2: Elastomeric bearing
As a result, “seismic damper & shear panel damper” are recommended to mitigate the seismic inertial
force of fixed piers. Generally speaking, elastomeric bearings are more cost-effective than seismic
dampers. However, they have problems in “structural characteristics” and “constraints of
construction”. Elastomeric bearings are recommended to be applied to newly-constructed bridges,
considering its structural and constructive restrictive conditions. The detail of the comparison is
shown in the following table.
17-61
Table 17.3.4-1 Comparison of Seismic Devices
Seismic damper (hydraulic cylinder type) &
Base isolation device
Shear panel damper
Seismic damper (hydraulic cylinder type)
Lead Plug
Superstructure
Substructure Bracket
Seismic damper
Shear damper (cylinder type)
Shear panel damper
Deck
slab
Additional beam
Girder High damping rubber Rubber with lead type
Outline of type
improvement (Source: Japan Bridge Association)

Existing bearings
method
Force Additional beam
Shear panel damper
Substructure
(Source: Japan Bridge Association)
- To absorb seismic energy and control seismic - To reduce seismic inertial force to
inertial force on substructures substructures
- To make natural period longer; base isolation
- To avoid the “Sympathetic Vibration” of
substructure and superstructure.
- Easy to control the seismic inertial force - Difficult To control the seismic inertial
on substructures force on substructures
- Possible to restrain/control the amout of - New bearings are wider and taller than old
structural movement under EQ ones: need of larger space for the
Structural
- Possible to be used as unseating A installation D
characteristic
prevention device - Impossible to restrain/control the amout of
structural movement under EQ;
superstructures and backwalls collide with
each other under EQ
- Quick and easy installtation - Need of partial removal of existing pier
- No need of removal of existing structures coping to fit new bearings into the space;
for the installation new bearing eight is higer than that of old
Constraints of
- For shear panel dampers, need of A one C
construction
installation of additional beams to be
attached to esisting superstructure members
Duration Short A Typical priod of bearing installation B

Recommend-
Recommended Not applicable
ation
Recommendation for installation location of seismic dampers & shear panel dampers is shown in the
next page. The location and number of the installation will be optimized during calculation process,
studying the scale of seismic retrofit works for piers.
17-62
Plan for seismic device installation
(Case-1) (Case-2) (Case-3)
P3 P4 P5 P6 P6 P7 P8 P9 P9 P10 P11 P12
M F M M M F M M M M F M
Seismic device
installation
P3 P4 P5 P6 P6 P7 P8 P9 P9 P10 P11 P12
E F E E E E E E E E F E
F: Fixed M: Movable E: Elastic (seismic device)
(Case-1)
3@37200=111800 3@50000=150000
(Simply-supported) (Continuous)
E E E
M E F
M F M F
F
Seismic
damper
F: Fixed
M: Movable Only “Fixed Pier” in the continuous bridge
E: Elastic (shared superstructure weight under EQ = 11732 (kN))
(Case-2)
112000+144000+112000=368000
(Continuous)
P6 Seismic damper P7 P8 Shear panel damper P9
E E E E E E
Only “Fixed Pier” in the continuous bridge E: Elastic

(shared superstructure weight under EQ = 35200 (kN))
(Case-3)
3@50000=150000 2@37200=74400
(Continuous) (Simply-supported)
P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 AB
E E
F
E E F M F M
F: Fixed
Seismic M: Movable
damper E: Elastic
Only “Fixed Pier” in the continuous bridge

(shared superstructure weight under EQ = 11732 (kN))
Figure 17.3.4-3 Recommendation for Location of Seismic Damper Installation
17-63
(3) Seismic Capacity Improvement Scheme for Pier Columns
The following three improvement schemes were compared for pier columns so as to improve flexural
resistance, shear resistance.
- Alternative-2: PC panel jacketing
As a result of evaluation, “Concrete jacketing” was selected for its cost-effectiveness and overall
Table 17.3.4-2 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Pier Columns

Concrete jacketing PC panel jacketing Steel plate jacketing
Concrete PC-panel Steel

jacketing jacketing platel
Outline of
improvement Hollow Hollow Hollow
method section section section
Thickness: 400mm Thickness: 400mm Thickness: 40mm
Detail image
(Source: OCAJI) (Source: OCAJI) (Source: OCAJI)
Cost* 1.00 A 4.17 C Excluded

- Improvement of flexural - Improvement of flexural - Improvement of flexural
strengthand shear strength strengthand shear strength strengthand shear strength
- Large impact to - High improvement of - Low impact to clearance/river
Structural clearance/river flow confinment by PC strands fllow
B A D
characteristic - Effect of weight increase on - Large impact to - Unable to develop required
existing foundation structures clearance/river flow flexural strength
foundation structures
Typical durability of cast-in- High durability by the Need of constant maintenance
Durability /
place concrete structure: no B application of precast panel: no A to prevent corossions: every 30 C
Maintenance
need of maintenance need of maintenance years
- Need of cast-in-place - No need of cast-in-place - Need of installation of shear
concrete construction concrete construction: precast connectors
-Need of smoothing of panel - Need of splicing of steel
Constraints of existing column surface -Need of smoothing of existing plates
B A B
construction - Need of installation of shear column surface -Need of smoothing of existing
connectors column surface
- Need of larger construction - Need of painting for corossion
space protection
Duration Long B Short A Long B
Recommend-
Recommended
ation
17-64
(4) Seismic Capacity Improvement Scheme for Pier Coping
The following three improvement methods were compared for pier copings so as to improve flexural
- Alternative-3: Carbon fiber sheet jacketing
As a result of evaluation, “concrete jacketing” was selected for its structural advantage and overall
Table 17.3.4-3 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Pier Copings

Concrete jacketing Steel plate jacketing Carbon fiber sheet jacketing
Cross-section Cross-section Cross-section
Outline of
improvement Profile Profile Profile
method
Thickness: 250mm Thickness: 9mm Sheet Tickness

- Improvement of both flexural - Improvement of shear strength - Improvement of shear strength
strength and shear strength - Unable to develop flexural - Unable to develop enough
Structural - Able to extend seat width; strength flexural strength
A D D
characteristic 250mm
foundation structures
No need of maintenance Need of constant maintenance Need of constant maintenance
Durability /
A to prevent corossions: every 30 C for surface protection: every 30 C
Maintenance
years years
- Need of cast-in-place - Need of installation of shear - No need of installation of
concrete construction connectors shear connectors: to be attached
-Need of smoothing of - Need of splicing of steel plates - Temprature and humidity
Constraints of existing column surface -Need of smoothing of existing must be checked for the
B column surface B construction quality A
construction - Need of installation of shear
connectors - Need of painting for corossion - Need of placement of polymer
- Need of larger construction protection cement mortar as surface
space protection
Duration Long B Long B Short A
Recommend-
Recommended
ation
17-65
(5) Seismic Capacity Improvement Scheme for Foundations
1) Foundation Improvement Scheme for Piers on Land and Piers in Shallow Water
For improvement of existing pier foundation capacities, “additional piles for reinforcement” is
recommended for piers on land and piers in shallow water. In case of 1st Mandaue-Mactan
Bridge, construction types for the foundation retrofit work are categorized into the following
three.
Type-1: Open excavation Type-2: Sheet pile cofferdam Type-3: Sand bag cofferdam
(Ex. Pier-2) (Ex. Pier-6) (Pier-9)
Sheet pile
Excavation
line Sand bag
Additional pile Additional pile cap

Figure 17.3.4-4 Construction Types for the Foundation Retrofit Work
Many pile-driving methods are available these days. However, in case of additional pile driving,
applicability under lower vertical clearance must be considered in the selection of pile-driving method.
Lower vertical clearance under existing

superstructure
Pile driving machine must fit and

function in the space
Figure 17.3.4-5 Restrictive condition for additional pile driving
In consideration with the above restrictive condition, the following two applicable pile driving
- Alternative-1: Cast-in-place concrete pile foundation (revolving all casing method)
- Alternative-2: Steel pipe pile foundation (jacked pile method)
As a result of the comparison, “cast-in-place pile foundation (revolving all casing method)” is
recommended for its suitability for the construction site which has rock layer and gravel layers.
The detail of comparison study is shown in next page..
17-66
Table 17.3.4-4 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Foundations (1)
Cast-in-place concrete pile (CCP) foundation Steel pipe pile (SPP) foundation
(revolving all casing method) (revolving type press-in method)
CCP ɸ1200 SPP ɸ1000
Construction Procedure Construction Procedure

1. Installation of casing 1. Setting of a pile
Steel pipe pile
Pile driving machine

2. Excavation using hammer glove Casing
Outline of 3. Installation of built-up rebars Hammer glove

improvement
Splice
method 2. Pile driving
(grip-connection type)
Steel pipe pile
4. Installation of tremie pipe Built-up rebars
Tremie pipe
5. Concrete placement Pile driving with
Concrete rotation
placement
6. Removal of tremie pipe & casing 3. Finishing pile-driving with pincer

Tremie pipe
Casing
Pincer
Pincer
(Source: NETIS plus) (Source: NETIS plus)

Cost* 1.00 A 1.27 B
- Rigid concrete structure: valid against soft - Non-rigid structure: vulnerable to lateral
layer movement and liquefaction-induced lateral forces such as liquefaction-induced lateral
Structural spreaading spreaading
A B
characteristic - Cast-in-place concrete pile: Structural - Fabricated product: reliable structure
reliability depends on construction quality - Maximum pile diameter: ɸ1500
- Maximum pile diameter: ɸ1500
- Minimum reuired vertical clearance: 5m - Minimum reuired vertical clearance: 5-6m:
- Cast-in-place concrete pile: need of accurate it depends on the pile diameter size
Constraints of field work - Need of many welding splices
A - Able to penetrate solid substance such as rock A
construction - Need of many rebar splices
- Able to penetrate solid substance such as rock - Same machine is aplicable to SPSP
installation.
Duration Long C Short; twice as short as CIP pile foundation A

Recommend- Recommended
ation
Cost*: The cost is compared with “Pier-4 condition”.
17-67
2) Foundation Improvement Scheme for Piers in Deep Water
As illustrated below, in the selection of foundation improvement method for existing piers in
deep water, the following two restrictive conditions must be considered.
a) Navigation width
Targets for the improvement, Pier-7 & Pier-8, are located in the vicinity of navigation clearance
range. The additional structures must be outside the range. Also, obstacles such as temporary
work platform should be minimized during construction.
b) Additional rigid structure for the solution of pile projection problem

The target pier foundations have a problem with lack of stiffness due to large pile projection
length from riverbed surface. The improvement scheme must be selected focused on
improvement of foundation stiffness around projected pile range.
Closeup
Navigation Clearance
20m
Pile projection from riverbed surface
(Need of rigid structure)
Figure 17.3.4-6 Restrictive Conditions for Selection of Foundation Improvement Method
In consideration with the above restrictive condition, the following two applicable pile-driving
- Alternative-1: Steel pipe sheet pile (SPSP) foundation
- Alternative-2: Multi-column foundation (Large diameter concrete pile foundation)
As a result of the comparison, “steel pipe sheet pile (SPSP) foundation” is recommended for its
structural reliability. The detail of comparison study and construction procedure of “steel pipe sheet
pile (SPSP) foundation” is shown from the next page.
17-68
Table 17.3.4-5 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Foundations (2)
Multi-column foundation
Steel pipe sheet pile (SPSP) foundation
(Large diameter pile foundation)
Profile Profile
Pier-8 Pier-8
Navigation
Navigation
Additional pile cap clearance Additional pile cap
clearance
Interferance with
navigation clearance
Outline of
improvement
method Steel pipe sheet pile (SPSP) foundation ɸ1000 Additional pile
(CCP foundation ɸ5000)
Plan
Plan
Existing foundation structures are not considered Existing foundation structures are not considered
in the design. in the design.
- Column type foundation structure: valid - Large diameter cast-in-place concrete pile
for "pile projection problem"; improvement foundation: ɸ5000
of flexural resistance - Permanent effect on navigation clearance
Structural
- Fabricated product: reliable structure A interfarance D
characteristic
- No effect on navigation clearance - The structure can't develop enough
interfarance flexural resistance against level-2 scale
earthquakes
- Need of accurate splice work - Cast-in-place concrete pile: need of
- Unable to penetrate solid substance such accurate field work
as rock: need of additional excavation - Need of many rebar splices
Constraints of machine - Able to penetrate solid substance such as
A C
construction - Less effect on navigation clearance rock
interfarance even during construction by the - No need of installation of sheet piles
application of "non-staging method". - Large effect on navigation clearance
interfarance during construction
Duration Long C Long C
Recommend-
Recommended
ation
17-69
Construction Procedure of SPSP Note: the example is the case of new pier construction.
1. Installation of SPSP 2. Jointing of SPSP & concrete slab placement
Guide frame for SPSP installation Slab
Temporary
cofferdam
Foundation
body
3. Installation of braces & wales 4. Installation of shear connections

Braces & wales Shear connections
5. Construction of pile cap & column 6. Removal of braces & wales, and Cut-off of SPSP
Removal
Cutting off SPSP
Figure 17.3.4-7 Construction Procedure of SPSP Foundation
Pile-driving works are done on the

installed piles: no need of working
platform
Figure 17.3.4-8 “None-stage method” for SPSP Foundation Installation
17-70
3) Seismic Capacity Improvement Scheme for Abutments
Structural information of existing abutments is unknown as shown in the following figure.
Therefore, study on improvement schemes for abutments was conducted assuming the
underground structures. The unknown structure must be revealed by certain survey during detail
design stage.
F M
Unknown: assumed Unknown: assumed
Abutment-A Abutment-B
Figure 17.3.4-9 Assumed Existing Abutment Condition
In consideration with the structural characteristics of abutments, the following three

improvement methods were compared.
- Alternative-1: Soil improvement work with application of movable bearings
- Alternative-2: Additional piles for reinforcement
- Alternative-3: Total reconstruction
As a result of the comparison, “additional piles for reinforcement” is recommended as abutment

improvement method for the cost-effectiveness and overall suitability. The detail of comparative
study is shown in the next page.
17-71
Table 17.3.4-6 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Abutments
Additional piles for reinforcement Total reconstruction Soil improvement with application
(Cast-in-place concrete pile) (Cast-in-place concrete pile) of movable bearings
Profile Profile Temporary support Profile Application of movable
Additional pile cap
bearings
F Newly-constructed F
M
abutment
Soil improvement: sand pile

(earth preassure reduction)
Additional pile CCP ɸ1000
(CCP ɸ1200)
Outline of
improvement
method
Plan Plan
Plan
Cost* 1.00 A 2.00 B 4.26 C

- Improved stability with - Total reconstruction of - Soil improvement (sand pile)
additional piles abutment for earth preassure reduction
- Application of cast-in-place - Application of cast-in-place - Soil improvement (chemical
pile foundation as friction pile pile foundation as friction pile grouting)
foundation to minimize the foundation to minimize the pile for liquefaction protection
Structural pile length length - Change of bearing restraint
B A B
characteristic - The additional piles resist - The piles resist liquefaction- condition
liquefaction-induced lateral induced lateral spreading from "Fix" to "Movable":
spreading reduction of seismic inertia
- Need of firm connection force
between existing pile cap and
additional pile cap
- Need of large-scale - Need of large-scale excavation - No need of excavation &
excavation &demolishing of exiting demolishing work
- Need of pile driving under structure - Need of a specific machine for
superstructure: small vertical - Installation of temporary chemical grouting work under
clearance support existing structure
Constraints of - Need of pile driving under - Need of lane-closure during
B superstructure: small vertical C sand pile development work A
construction
clearance
- Need of lane-closure during
construction
- Risk of superstructure damage
during construction
- Need of detail existing - No need of detail existing - Need of existing pile cap
Necessary structure information for detail
C structure information for detail A information for detail design of B
information design design sand pile
Duration Medium B Medium B Long C
Recommend-
Recommended
ation
Cost*: The cost is compared with “Abutment-A condition”.
17-72
17.3.4.2Planning for Unseating Prevention System
1) Planning Procedure of Unseating Prevention System
Besides the strengthening of bridge structures, installation of unseating prevention system is very important in order to prevent superstructure-fall-down,
which could happen in case that retrofitted structures are devastated by unexpectedly large-scale earthquakes. In this study, the planning of unseating
prevention system was done in accordance with the following procedure.
Start
- Supports at abutments, or
- Supports at piers of seated sections Intermediate supports of continuous bridge
Classification of support locations
Replacement of bearings Replacement of bearings

Possible (Improvement of bearing strength) Possible (Improvement of bearing strength)
Impossible Impossible
Need of shear keys/blocks Need of shear keys/blocks
Possibledir.
for transverse Possibledir.
for transverse
|17-73
Yes No Yes No
Unseating prevention Unseating prevention Unseating prevention Unseating prevention
Yes Unseating
No prevention Unseating prevention
system (type-1) system (type-2) system (type-3) system (type-4) system (type-5) system (type-6)
1. Replacement of 1. Replacement of 1. For longitudinal dir. 1. Replacement of 1. Replacement of 1. For longitudinal dir.
bearings bearings - Seat extender bearings bearings - Shear keys
2. For longitudinal dir. 2. For longitudinal dir. - Unseating prevention 2. For transverse dir. Applied to; 2. For transverse dir.
- Seat extender - Seat extender device (belt or chain) - Shear keys - Pier-4 - Shear keys
- Unseating prevention - Unseating prevention 2. For transverse dir. - Pier-5 Applied to;
device (belt or chain) device (belt or chain) - Shear keys - Pier-10 - Pier-7
3. For transverse dir. - Pier-11 - Pier-8
- Shear keys
- Abutments - Pier-6 (L) - Pier-6 (R)
- Pier-1 - Pier-9 (R) - Pier-9 (L)
- Pier-2 - Pier-12
- Pier-3 - Pier-13
Figure 17.3.4-10 Basic Concept of Unseating Prevention System Planning
2) Planning for Replacement of Bearings
All the existing bearings will be replaced with steel bearings which can resist level-2-scale
earthquakes and fit in the space between existing structures, except for bearings of continuous
steel truss bridge whose superstructure is too heavy to jack up for the bearing replacement work.
3) Planning for Seat Extender

Seat length of abutments and piers at seated sections must be checked with the following formula.
Required minimum seat length: SEM = 0.7 + 0.005L (m)
Where,
L: seat-length-related span length (m)
Seat extenders will be installed at abutments and piers at seated sections, where seat length
doesn’t satisfy the above requirement. In consideration of construction efficiency and quality,
“steel bracket” was selected for piers which needs seat length extension. Concrete blocks will be
installed at abutments where no scaffolding is required for the installation of seat extenders.
Extended seat length Extended seat length
Steel bracket
Concrete block
Steel bracket (applied to piers) Concrete block (applied to abutments)
- Easy and quick installation - Cast-in-place concrete structure;
- Fabricated product; good quality - Inefficient installation at higher locations
- Structural reliability depends on construction quality
Figure 17.3.4-11 Concrete block and Steel Bracket
17-74
4) Planning for Unseating Prevention Devices
Unseating prevention devices will be installed at abutments and piers at seated sections. The
device type was selected in accordance with the following rules.
Abutments Piers at seated sections

Weight ratio of adjacent two superstructures
Less than 2.0
Natural frequency ratio of adjacent two
bridge structures
Shear key installation at superstructure Less than 1.5

Possible Impossible
Installation of Connection of Connection of
shear keys superstructure superstructures
& substructure
Figure 17.3.4-12 Selection of unseating prevention device type
Connection of superstructure and substructure Connection of superstructures

- Abutments - Pier-9 - Pier-1
- Pier-3 - Pier-12 - Pier-2
- Pier-6 - Pier-13
Note: no unseating prevention devices are needed at Pier-3, Pier-6, Pier-9, & Pier-12
Figure 17.3.4-13 Selection of Unseating Prevention Device type (continued)
5) Planning for Structure Limiting Horizontal Displacement (Shear Keys)

“Structure limiting horizontal displacement (shear keys)” must be installed for unseating
prevention at piers where their bearings can’t be replaced with new one which can resist large-
scale earthquakes. In case of 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge, existing bearings of Pier-6 (R), Pier-7,
Pier-8, and Pier-9 (L) can’t be replaced because of heavy superstructure weight.
As for Pier-7 and Pier-8 at intermediate supports of continuous bridge, shear keys will be
installed for both longitudinal and transverse direction.
As for Pier-6 (R) and Pier-9 (L) at seated sections, shear keys will be installed only for
transverse direction because unseating prevention device will be installed for longitudinal
direction instead.
The image of shear key installation is illustrated below.
17-75
Shear keys/blocks
(Structure limiting horizontal displacement for both
longitudinal and transverse direction)
Figure 17.3.4-14 Structure Limiting Horizontal Displacement (Shear Keys)
17.3.5 Planning for Repair Works

In addition to the seismic retrofit plans, the following three repair work
- Replacement/installation of expansion joints
- Repainting of steel members
- Epoxy injection of deck slab
[Replacement/installation of expansion joints]

Apparently, existing expansion joints are in good condition. However, water leaking was confirmed at
piers under expansion joints. It’s better to replace them with new one for maintenance reason.
Water leaking
Abutment-B Pier-9 Pier-6 Pier-1
Figure 17.3.5-1 Current Condition of Existing Expansion Joints
[Repainting of steel members]

Repainting of existing steel members is recommended, especially for primary and secondary members
of I-girders which are heavily corroded. Besides the I-girders, it’s better to repaint steel members of
truss bridge for maintenance.
Corroded
Heavily corroded
Secondary member of I-girder Primary member of I-girder
Figure 17.3.5-2 Current Condition of Existing Steel Members
17-76
[Epoxy injection of deck slab]
Epoxy injection of deck slab is recommended to repair cracking, water leaking of the existing deck
slab. Also, mortar covering is recommended to repair rebar exposure of the overhanging deck slab.
Water leaking Water leaking

Rebar exposure
Bottom of deck slab Bottom of deck slab Overhanging deck slab
Figure 17.3.5-3 Current Condition of Existing Deck Slab
17-77
17.3.6 Summary of Proposed Seismic Retrofit Schemes & Repair Works

Abutment-A Pier-1 Pier-3
Unseating prevention Unseating prevention device (belt) Replacement of bearings
device (chain) Simply-supported
Simply-supported Simply-supported Continuous
Replacement Replacement
of bearings of bearings Seat extender
Unseating Seismic damper
prevention (cylinder type)
Underground structure is unknown: device (chain)
assumed Seat extender
17-78
Pier-6 Pier-8 (side view) Pier-8 (front view)
Shear keys Unseating prevention Seismic damper Seismic damper (panel type)
Shear keys (for
device (chain) (panel type) Shear keys (for
longitudinal dir.)
Replacement of bearings longitudinal dir.)
Additional steel
member
Seat
Shear keys (for extender
Seat extender Seismic damper transverse dir.) Shear keys (for
(cylinder type) transverse dir.)
17-79
Pier-12 Pier-13 Abutment-B
Unseating prevention Replacement

Replacement of bearings device (belt) of bearings
Replacement of
bearings
Seat extender
Unseating prevention
Seismic damper Unseating prevention device (chain)
(cylinder type) device (chain)
Seat extender
17-80
CHAPTER 18 CONSTRUCTION PLANNING AND COST
ESTIMATE
18.1 General
18.1.1 Bridge type

The construction planning and the cost estimate were considered as the result of the outline design as
shown in Table 18.1.1-1.
Table 18.1.1-1 The Recommended Structure Type of Selected Bridges

Retrofit /
Bridge Structure Type (Outline)
Replace
- Simple Supported Steel Deck Stiffened Lohse Bridge
Lambingan Replace
- Cast in Place Concrete Pile (CCP)
- 3-Span Continuous Steel Deck Box-Shape Girder
<Outer>
- Steel Pipe Sheet Pile (SPSP)
Replace
Guadalupe - CCP
<Inner> - Reconstruction of Piers with SPSP
Retrofit - Ground Improvement of Abutments
1st - Concreting Jacket
Mandaue Retrofit - Additional CCP
Mactan - SPSP
- 3-Span Continuous PC I-Shape Girder
Palanit Replace
- Spread Foundation
- 3-Span Continuous PC Fin Back
Mawo Replace
- CCP
- Concreting Jacket
Lilo-an Retrofit
- Additional CCP
- 3-Span Continuous Composite Steel Lattice Truss
Wawa Replace
- CCP
18.2 Construction Planning
18.2.1 General
(1) Purpose of Construction Planning
The Purposes of construction planning are as follows:
- To study the construction method of the selected replace/retrofit plan;
- To study the traffic detour plan under minimum influence to the existing traffic; and
- To plan the temporary structure for cost estimation.
18-1
(2) Right of Way
The construction is to be conducted in the Right-of-Way, after the removal of squatter and facilities.
As a result the meeting with the DPWH engineer in field survey, the Right-of-Way width is as shown
in Table 18.2.1-1,
Table 18.2.1-1 The Width of Right of Way

Bridge Width of Right of Way
Lambingan Width of Bridge
Guadalupe Width of Bridge
1st Mandaue Mactan 30m
Palanit 30m
Mawo 30m
Lilo-an 30m
Wawa 60m
(3) Procurement Planning

Most of the construction materials and equipment will be procured generally in the Philippines. On
the other hand, steel materials and special equipment as shown in Table 18.2.1-2 are to be imported
from other countries.
Table 18.2.1-2 List of Imported Items

Item Remark
Steel and Fabrication - Import fabricated girder
Steel
Girder - Skilled Labor
Erection
- Equipment for Slide and Block erection
PC PC steel - Material
structure Casting - Skilled Labor
CIP Pile (Under limited space) - Equipment and Skilled Labor
Steel Pipe Sheet Pile - Material ,Equipment and Skilled Labor
Bearing, Expansion, - Material (Installation cost includes the girder
Unseating Prevention System erection cost)
(4) Temporary Road

The temporary road for construction and detour traffic was planned utilizing the Right-of-Way. The
drawing of temporary road is among the Outline Design Drawings.
18-2
18.2.2 Construction Planning of Lambingan Bridge
(1) Construction Site

The construction of Lambingan bridge will need a construction site for fragmentation of the existing
girders and assembling of the new girders. The construction site of Pasig river improvement project
near Lambingan bridge will be used for this construction. Since the aqueduct bridge crosses Pasig
River at downstream side of Lambingan bridge, the assembled arch girder can be transported from
downstream side. The assembly stage should be planned at the upstream side, and the site was
planned near Makati-Mandaluyong bridge as shown in Figure 18.2.2-1.
Lambingan Bridge Private Projects

Makati-Mandaluyong Bridge
Temporary Stage for the Assembly of The Gieders

Rxisting Construction Site ( beside The Dike Road )
Figure 18.2.2-1 Location Site of Lambingan Bridge
(2) Traffic Detour Plan

As a result of outline design, superstructure type as shown in Figure 18.2.2-2 was recommended to be
erected by stage construction.
(Simple Supported Steel Deck Stiffened Lohse Bridge)

Figure 18.2.2-2 Recommend superstructure Type of Lambingan Bridge
18-3
Based on the traffic count survey and traffic analysis of this project, lane control from six (6) lanes to
two (2) lanes control will not make a queue at New Panaderos road around Lambingan bridge as
Table 18.2.2-1 Result of Traffic Analysis

Dir-1 from Sta. Ana to Sta. Mesa Dir-2 from Sta. Mesa to Sta. Ana
Year Year
2018 2018
Volume Capacity Cap-Vol Queue Vehicle Queue Length Volume Capacity Cap-Vol Queue Vehicle Queue Length
Time Time
(PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (m) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (m)
6:00 837 2,156 -1,319 0 0 6:00 1,589 2,156 -567 0 0
7:00 967 2,156 -1,189 0 0 7:00 2,024 2,156 -132 0 0
8:00 1,100 2,156 -1,056 0 0 8:00 1,951 2,156 -205 0 0
9:00 1,178 2,156 -978 0 0 9:00 1,578 2,156 -578 0 0
10:00 1,026 2,156 -1,130 0 0 10:00 1,339 2,156 -817 0 0
11:00 1,259 2,156 -897 0 0 11:00 1,309 2,156 -847 0 0
12:00 949 2,156 -1,207 0 0 12:00 1,117 2,156 -1,039 0 0
13:00 1,112 2,156 -1,044 0 0 13:00 1,314 2,156 -842 0 0
14:00 1,390 2,156 -766 0 0 14:00 1,249 2,156 -907 0 0
15:00 1,086 2,156 -1,070 0 0 15:00 1,175 2,156 -981 0 0
16:00 1,361 2,156 -795 0 0 16:00 1,215 2,156 -941 0 0
17:00 1,577 2,156 -579 0 0 17:00 1,470 2,156 -686 0 0
18:00 1,546 2,156 -610 0 0 18:00 954 2,156 -1,202 0 0
19:00 1,525 2,156 -631 0 0 19:00 808 2,156 -1,348 0 0
20:00 1,330 2,156 -826 0 0 20:00 781 2,156 -1,375 0 0
21:00 1,070 2,156 -1,086 0 0 21:00 623 2,156 -1,533 0 0
22:00 1,097 2,156 -1,059 0 0 22:00 525 2,156 -1,631 0 0
23:00 629 2,156 -1,527 0 0 23:00 415 2,156 -1,741 0 0
0:00 486 2,156 -1,670 0 0 0:00 451 2,156 -1,705 0 0
1:00 240 2,156 -1,916 0 0 1:00 187 2,156 -1,969 0 0
2:00 247 2,156 -1,909 0 0 2:00 214 2,156 -1,942 0 0
3:00 274 2,156 -1,882 0 0 3:00 264 2,156 -1,892 0 0
4:00 406 2,156 -1,750 0 0 4:00 321 2,156 -1,835 0 0
5:00 521 2,156 -1,635 0 0 5:00 573 2,156 -1,583 0 0
* The left table is in case of 1 lane (northbound), the right is in case of 1 lane (southbound)
Incidentally, the number of traffic lane is four (4) beside the bridge and six (6) at bridge and there is
no queue as shown in Figure 18.2.2-3.
Figure 18.2.2-3 Pictures of Field Survey
As the result of these studies, two (2) lanes will be utilized during construction.
18-4
(3) Navigation Width
Because of the Lambingan bridge is at the curve point of the Pasig river, Navigation will be kept as
present condition at daytime.
(4) Erection Method

Based on the outline design, the superstructure can be erected without a temporary bent in the
navigation area. The existing piers will be able used as bent, the erection method was recommended
as shown in Figure 18.2.2-4.
- End side girders : Crane erection method

- Arch block : Block erection method with water course temporary closed at night
block erection
Crane erection Winch the arch block Crane erection
Existing Piers : Use as bent
Figure 18.2.2-4 Erection Method of Lambingan Bridge
The stage erection was planned as shown in Figure 18.2.2-5.
Figure 18.2.2-5 Erection steps of superstructure
18-5
- STEP 1
- Traffic lane control from six (6) lanes to two (2) lanes at downstream side
- Demolish the upstream side of existing girders
- STEP 2
- Erect the new girder (downstream side) at upstream side
- STEP 3
- Detour the traffic lane from downstream side to upstream side
- Demolish the downstream side of existing girders
- STEP 4
- Close the road at one night
- Slide the erected girder from upstream side to downstream side
- Open the road at downstream side
- STEP 5
- Erect the upstream side new girder
- STEP 6
- Close the road at a few nights
- Connect the downstream side cross girders and upstream side cross girders
- Open the road to traffic
(5) Construction Method under Limited Space

Result of erection method study, the new abutment should be constructed before the demolition of the
existing girder. According to this order, the cast-in-place concrete pile should be constructed under
the existing superstructure as shown in Figure 18.2.2-6.
6.5m
6.0m
Figure 18.2.2-6 Construction Condition of Cast in Place Concrete Pile
The example of cast-in-place concrete pile installation method under limited space is as shown in
Figure 18.2.2-7. This technology is possible to construct a D=2.5m pile.
18-6
(Equipment Height =1.8m, Equipment Weight = 4 ton, D = 0.8m~3.0m)
Figure 18.2.2-7 Example of Cast in Place Concrete Pile Method
(6) Construction Schedule
1) Construction Steps
The construction steps are shown in Figure 18.2.2-8~10.
- Construct the new abutments
LEGEND
Red : Construction Work
Blue : Finished Work
Green : Temporary Work
- Detour the traffic from 6

lanes to 2 lanes
(Downstream side)
- Demolish the existing
Girders
(Upstream side)
Figure 18.2.2-8 Construction Steps of Lambingan Bridge 1/3
18-7
- Erect the end side girders
(Upstream side)
(The downstream side
girder will be used)
LEGEND
- Detour the traffic to

upstream side
- Demolish the existing
superstructure
(Downstream side)
- Improve the road
(Downstream side)
18-8
- Stop the traffic at night
- Slide the erected girder
from upstream side
to downstream side
- Detour the traffic to

downstream side
- Erect the girders
(Upstream side)
LEGEND
- Stop the traffic at night

- Connect the cross girders
18-9
2) Construction Schedule
The construction schedule is shown in Table 18.2.2-2 based on the construction steps.
Construction duration will be twenty eight (28) months and Detour duration will be ten (10)
months.
Table 18.2.2-2 Construction Schedule of Lambingan Bridge

YEAR 1 2 3
ITEM
MONTH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
1 Preparation
2 General Work
Downstream Side Upstream Side

3 Steel Girder fabrication
4 Temporary stage
Upstream side Downstream side

5 Demolition Work
Piers
6 Abutment (CIP-Pile)
Erection Slide
7 Superstructure
Erection
Upstream side
8 Road Work
9 Miscellaneous, Clearance
Construction Steps 0 1 2 3 6,7,8
6 lanes
Traffic
2 lanes（Downstream side)
2 lanes（Upwnstream side)
18-10
18.2.3 Construction Planning of Guadalupe Bridge

The pictures of field survey are shown in Figure 18.2.3-1. The MMDA/Makati Park is not open to the
public, but the house in the park was used as MMDA road maintenance base.
MMDA/Makati Park MMDA/Makati Park
MMDA/Makati Park Private Car Park
The construction will need yards, such as assembling and erection of the new girders, fragmentation
of the existing girders, material stock yard.
The construction yards were planned as shown in Figure 18.2.3-2.
18-11
Figure 18.2.3-2 Construction Base and Site Location of the Guadalupe Bridge
(2) Traffic Detour Plan

Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA) is an arterial road that has 220,000 veh/day traffic volume and
ten (10) lanes at Guadalupe bridge. During construction, influence of traffic congestion should be
reduced.
The result of the traffic analysis, the travel time will not change from five (5) lanes to four (4) lanes at
each direction as shown in Figure 18.2.3-3.
20
18
Travel Tim e (m in u tes)
16
14
12
10 7:00-
8 7:30
7:30-
6 8:00
4 8:00-
2 8:30
0
5-lane 4-lane 3-lane
(From Ayala Ave. to Shaw Blvd. approx. 3.5km)
Figure 18.2.3-3 Travel Time in Case of Different Number of Traffic Lanes
18-12
The width of inner bridge has wide deck slab, and the deck slab will not be used for traffic lanes
around the median. According to these information, EDSA detour will be planned as shown in Figure
18.2.3-4 and Figure 18.2.3-5.
Figure 18.2.3-4 EDSA Detour Plan
18-13
Southbound
Northbound
Figure 18.2.3-5 EDSA Traffic Control Plan of Guadalupe Bridge
18-14
(3) Navigation Width
The navigation width at the existing bridges in Pasig River is as shown in Table 18.2.3-1. The
temporary navigation width under construction was carried out 23m as the currently minimum
navigation width and the straight line section of Pasig River.
Table 18.2.3-1 Navigation Width of Existing Bridges at the Pasig River

Existing Bridge Navigation Width
Delpan 47 m
Jones 41 m
McArthur 37 m
LRT1 37 m
Quzon 82 m
Ayala (right) 55 m
Ayala (Left) 56 m
Nagtahan 54 m
PASIG MWSS (water pipe) 23 m
PNR (Railway) 23 m Minimum
Pandacan 32 m
Lambingan 56 m
Makati-Mandaluyong 47 m
Estrella-Pantaleon 52 m
Guadalupe 38 m
Sta Monica-Lawton 90 m Under planning
C-5 43 m
(4) Erection Method

The removal of existing girder and the erection of new girder will be recommended as block erection
method with water course temporary closed only at night.
Figure 18.2.3-6 Erection Method of Center span of Guadalupe Bridge
18-15
The comparison study of the construction method at the outline design, the several construction
methods were introduced and recommended. The recommended construction method were studied
focusing on construction planning, some of Japan special technology were introduced.
1) Pile Construction under Limited Space

The steel pile sheet pile (SPSP) was recommended by outline design under limited space. The
SPSP can be constructed using the Press-in-Method under limited space as shown in Figure 18.2.3-
7.
Ordinary Method Press in Method
Figure 18.2.3-7 Installation method of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile
2) Retrofitting under Temporary Support

The retrofitting method of inner pier was recommended for replacement under the existing
superstructure. There was the achievement of replacement work under temporary support in Japan
as shown in Figure 18.2.3-8. The Usage of this technology was recommended.
Shear Failure Temporary Support of superstructure

Figure 18.2.3-8 Pier Replacement Work with Temporary support
18-16
1) Construction Steps of the Pier Replacement

The construction step of the pier replacement was planned as shown Figure 18.2.3-9.
STEP SPSP-1
- Install the SPSP using Press-In Method
- Install the tempoorary support for superstructure
STEP SPSP-2
- Dry up and Excavate the inside of SPSP
- Demolish the existing pier
LEGEND
STEP SPSP-3
- Construct new pier
Temporary
- Backfill
Area
- Pour water into the SPSP

- Remove the temporary support
- Cut off the temporary area of SPSP
Example of Connection
between SPSP and Footing
STEP SPSP-4 Pier

- Construction Completed
SPSP Footing
Figure 18.2.3-9 Construction Steps of Pier Replacement
The recommended methods used construction steps as follow;

- Steel Pipe Sheet Pile (SPSP) Foundation (Temporary area will be used as cofferdam)
- SPSP will be installed using Press-In Method
- The superstructure will be supported with the temporary support installed on SPSP
18-17
2) Construction Steps of the Outer Superstructure Replacement
According to the construction plan of pier replacement, the outer superstructure will be replaced
after pier replacement, and EDSA traffic will be detour without increasing travel time. The
construction step of the outer superstructure was planned as shown in Figure 18.2.3-10.
4 Lanes
4@3.0m=12.0m
Remove
STEP (Superstructure Replacement) SR-1
- Limit EDSA traffic 5 lanes to 4 lanes
Replaced Pier
- Remove the existing outer superstructure
Installed SPSP
4 Lanes
Erection
- Erect the new outer superstructure
LEGEND
3@3.3m=9.9m 2@3.0m=6.0m

- Open EDSA traffic
Figure 18.2.3-10 Construction Steps of Outer Superstructure
18-18
3) Construction Steps of the whole Construction
As a result of studies about construction planning, the entire construction steps was planned as
shown in Figure 18.2.3-11.
STEP 1
- Install the temporary stage in the river
- Press-in the steel pipe sheet pile (SPSP)
- Install the temporary support of superstructure on the SPSP
- Replace the Piers
- Improve ground for inner abutments
STEP 2
LEGEND
- Limit the EDSA traffic from 10 lanes to 8 lanes
- Construct the outer abutments
- Repalec the outer superstructures
Figure 18.2.3-11 Construction Steps of the Guadalupe Bridge
18-19
4) Construction Schedule
The construction schedule is shown in Table 18.2.3-2 based on the construction steps.
Construction duration will be thirty one (31) months and EDSA lane limit duration will be seven
(7) months.
Table 18.2.3-2 Construction Schedule of Guadalupe Bridge

YEAR 1 2 3
ITEM
MONTH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
1 Preparation
2 General Work
SPSP Superstructure
3 Steel fabrication
4 Temporary stage Installation
5 Steel Pipe Seet Pile(Pier)
6 Demolition Work Pier（Under temporary support) Outer superstructure
7 Substructure Pier（Under temporary support) abutmnet Surface work
8 Superstructure(outside) Both side Surface work
9 Ground improvement
Construction Steps 1 1-1 1-2 1-3,1-4 2-1 2-2
E
D 5 + 5 lanes
S 4 + 4 lanes
A
18-20
18.2.4 Construction Planning of 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge
(1) Construction Site and Temporary Road

The concrete jacketing and the additional piles were recommended for the outline design of retrofit.
The result of field survey is as shown figure 18.2.4-1~2, the construction will be done in the thirty
meter (30m) right-of-way without land acquisition.
<Mactan Side> Side-Way <Mactan Side> In the Right of WAY
<Mactan Side> Location of Sea Side <Mactan Side> Location of the Piers in the Sea
Figure 18.2.4-1 Pictures of Field Survey <Mactan Side>
18-21
<Cebu Side> Cross Road <Cebu Side>In the Right of WAY
<Cebu Side> Location of Sea Side <Cebu Side> Location of the Pier in the Sea
<Cebu Side> Location of Right of Way <Cebu Side> Location of the Piers in the Sea
Figure 18.2.4-2 Pictures of Field Survey <Cebu Side>
18-22
The retrofit construction will need heavy equipment such as pile and crane, the temporary road width
was planned as six (6) meter in the Right –of-Way as shown Figure 18.2.4-3.
Cebu Side
Mactan Side
Figure 18.2.4-3 Basic Plan of Temporary Road of 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge
(2) Navigation Width Control

The navigation width during construction will be the same as the current condition as in Figure
18.2.4-4.
Navigation Width =113m

(Same as currently condition)
Figure 18.2.4-4 Navigation Width Control of 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge
18-23
The additional piles should be installed under the existing superstructure. There are some cast-in-
place concrete pile methods as shown in Figure18.2.4-5. In case of additional piling, an All-Rotary-
Casing-Method was recommended for neighboring construction of existing foundation.
All Rotary Casing (Minimum High = 5.5m) Reverse Circulation (Minimum High = 3.5m)
Figure 18.2.4-5 Construction Method of Cast in Place Concrete Pile under Limited Space
The steel pipe sheet pile (SPSP) for the piers in the sea, was recommended the Press in pile Method
without temporary heavy-duty stage as shown in Figure 18.2.4-6.
Ordinary Method Press in Method
Figure 18.2.4-6 Installation method of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile
18-24
The construction schedule was planned as shown in Table 18.2.4-1. Construction duration will be
twenty (20) months.
Table 18.2.4-1 Construction Schedule of 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge

YEAR 1 2
ITEM
MONTH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
1 Preparation, General Work
2 SPSP fabrication
Remove
3 Temporary Work
4 Pier P7, P8 (SPSP)
Pier P7, P8
5
(Concrete work)
Substructure
6
(Without P7, P8)
Temporary Road
18-25
18.2.5 Construction Planning of Palanit Bridge

The result of field survey as shown in Figure 18.2.5-1 and the detour road was planned in the thirty
meter (30m) Right-of-Way
Basketball Court Ground Condition of The PC- Girder casting site

The construction site was planned as shown in Figure 18.2.5-2.

- The PC- Girder casting site: The existing plate-girder area
- The construction base: Temporary land acquisition (basketball court)
Figure 18.2.5-2 Site Location of Palanit Bridge
18-26
(2) Traffic Detour Plan and Temporary Road
As a result of the comparison study as shown Table 18.2.5-1, the detour to upstream side was
recommended.
Table 18.2.5-1 Comparison Study of Detour Plan of Palanit Bridge

Alternative -1 : Upstream Side
Recommended
Plan
No. of
Affected - :4 houses (1 concrete house) should be removed Positive
Houses
Alternative -2 : Downstream Side
Plan
No. of
Affected - 13 houses (7 concrete houses) should be removed Negative
Houses
(3) Erection Method

The recommended erection method was the crane erection from the detour road.

twenty (20) months.
Table 18.2.5-2 Construction Schedule of Palanit Bridges

YEAR 1 2
ITEM
MONTH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Installation Remove
2 Temporary Bridge & Embankment
3 Demolition Work
4 Substructure
Fabrication
5 Superstructure
6 Embankment, Road Work
Detor (Temporary Road)
18-27
18.2.6 Construction Planning of Mawo Bridge

The result of field survey as shown in Figure 18.2.6-1, the detour road was planned in the thirty meter
(30m) Right-of-Way
Park Existing Side Way

- Install the temporary embankment, bridge, stage in the river
- Install the sheet pile for construction and demolish piers
- Construction base: Temporary land acquisition (Park)
Figure 18.2.6-2 Site Location of Mawo Bridge
The transportation of heavy equipment and materials will utilize Mawo port as shown in Figure
18.2.6-3. Moreover, same for Palanit bridge, where this bridge is near.
18-28
Figure 18.2.6-3 Picture of Mawo Port (At Right side of Rivermouth)
(2) Traffic Detour Plan and Temporary Road

As a result of the comparison study as shown Table 18.2.6-1, the detour to downstream side was
recommended.
Table 18.2.6-1 Comparison Study of Detour Plan of Mawo Bridge

Alternative -1 : Detour to Upstream Side
Outline
No. of
Affected - 10 houses (6 concrete houses) Negative
Houses
Alternative -2 : Detour to Downstream Side
Recommended
Outline
No. of
Affected - 7 houses (1 concrete house) Positive
Houses
18-29
The selected type of superstructure will be erected with cantilever and erection girder as shown in
Figure 18.2.6-4.
(Erection Girder and Wagen) (Low profile Wagen)
Figure 18.2.6-4 Construction Situation of PC Fin Back Bridge
There were some wagen of 1.5m clearance from bottom of girder to wagen floor in Japan. The use of
wagen will be applicable under a limited vertical clearance.

twenty five (25) months.
Table 18.2.6-2 Construction Schedule of Mawo Bridge

YEAR 1 2
ITEM
MONTH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Installation Remove
2 Temporary Bridge & Stage
3 Demolition Work
4 Substructure
5 Superstructure
6 Embankment, Road Work
Detour(Temporary Road)
* 2 sets of erection girder and 4 sets of wagen
18-30
18.2.7 Construction Planning of Lilo-an Bridge

The result of field survey is shown in figure 18.2.7-1, the retrofit work will be done in the thirty meter
(30m) Right-of-Way. On the other hand, retrofit work need heavy equipment like pile and crane, the
construction area can access from existing road as shown Figure 18.2.7-2, and the transportation of
heavy equipment and materials will utilize Lilo-an Ferry Port as shown in Figure 18.2.7-3.
Figure 18.2.7-2 Site Location of the Lilo-an Bridge
Figure 18.2.7-3 Pictures of Lilo-an Port
18-31
The additional piles should be constructed under the existing superstructure. There are some cast-in-
place concrete pile methods in as shown in Figure18.2.7-4. In case of additional piling, an All-Rotary-
Casing-Method was recommended for neighboring construction of existing foundation.
All Rotary Casing (Minimum High = 5.5m) Reverse Circulation (Minimum High = 3.5m)
Figure 18.2.7-4 Construction Method of Cast in Place Concrete Pile under Limited Space

fifteen (15) months.
Table 18.2.7-1 Construction Schedule of Lilo-an Bridge

YEAR 1 2
ITEM
MONTH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
2 Foundation
3 Substructure
18-32
18.2.8 Construction Planning of Wawa Bridge
(1) Construction Site and Temporary Stage

The result of field survey is shown in figure 18.2.8-1, the construction will be done in the sixty meter
(60m) right-of-way and river floor.
Figure 18.2.8-2 Site Location of the Wawa Bridge
18-33
(2) Construction Method
The 2nd Magsaysay bridge near Wawa bridge constructed to utilize some new technologies as follow;
- Steel Pipe Sheet Pile Foundation (Guadalupe Bridge, 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge)
- Pc Precast Deck slab (Wawa Bridge)
- Anti-corrosion Steel (Wawa Bridge)
These technologies will be used in this project.
PC-Precast Deck slab Anti-corrosion Steel

Figure 18.2.8-3 Pictures of Field Survey (2nd Magsaysay)

twenty four (24) months.
Table 18.2.8-1 Construction Schedule of Wawa Bridge

YEAR 1 2
ITEM
MONTH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Installation
2 Temporary Stage Remove
3 Steel Girder fabrication
4 Substructure
5 Embankment
6 Superstructure
Casting Installation
7 PC Deck-siab
8 Road Work
9 Demolition Work
Existing road
New road
18-34
18.2.9 Construction Schedule of the Project
The construction schedule of the project was planned as shown in Table 18.2.9-1. Construction
duration will be thirty two (32) months.
Table 18.2.9-1 Construction Schedule of the Project

Construct 1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year
Bridge
Duration 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36
Lambingan 28 Months
Guadalupe 31 Months
1st Mandauc
Mactan
20 Months # # # # #
Palanit 20 Months
Mawo 24 Months
Liloan 15 Months
Wawa 24 Months
This schedule was conducted as follows;

- Construction duration of the Project: Guadalupe 31 months
- Detour of Package B (Overpass of Pasig River) <Blue>: Lambingan -> Guadalupe
18-35
18.3 Cost Estimate
The project cost consisting of construction cost, land acquisition cost, compensation cost, consultancy
service cost, administrative cost and tax were estimated.
18.3.1 General
(1) Basic Condition of Cost Estimate
1) Price Level
The cost estimates are updated on the price level as of August 2013.
2) Exchange Rate
Exchange rates are referred to the monthly average in August 2013 of Central Bank of the
Philippines.
- 1.0 PHP = 2.222 JPY
- 1.0 USD = 97.229 JPY = 43.756 PHP.
3) Currency for Cost Estimation

The project cost component shall consist of foreign currency and local currency portions.
Philippine Peso shall be used for both portions. The classifications of local and foreign portions are
as given below.
1) Local Currency Portion

- Labor Costs without foreign technical service
- Cost of construction material and equipment lease locally procured
- Administrative cost
- Land acquisition and compensation cost
- Tax
2) Foreign Currency Portion
- Cost of construction materials, equipment and technical services procured from foreign
countries
4) Reference Guidelines/Manuals
The cost estimates are referred to the following guidelines/manuals indicated below:
1) DPWH Department Order No. 72, Series of 2012 (Amendment to D.O. 29 Series of 2011 Re:
Revised Guidelines on the Preparation of Approved Budget for the Contract)
2) DPWH Department Order No. 71, Series of 2012 (Guidelines for the Establishment of
Construction Materials Price, Standard Labor and Equipment Rental Rates Data Base)
18-36
(2) Methodology of Cost Estimate
Costs for construction works are essentially estimated on the unit price basis. The construction cost
consists of direct cost and indirect costs. The direct cost consists of equipment, material and labor
costs. Indirect cost includes overhead expenses, preparation cost, administrative cost, contingencies,
miscellaneous expenses, contractor’s profit margin and tax.
The quantity of each direct cost items were calculated from the result of the out-line design.
1) Direct Cost
The unit prices of typical construction items were estimated by Approved Budget for the Contract
(ABC). The items with imported material, equipment and technical service were estimated by
quotation. The unit price of construction items were estimated shown in Appendix 4.
Result of the construction projects in the Philippines is shown in Table 18.3.1-1, the general work
was estimated as 10% for package B and 5% for package C of the other estimated direct cost. The
general work is as follow;
- Facilities for the engineer

- Facilities for the contractor and other
- Site Preliminaries
Table 18.3.1-1 General Work Ratio of the Past Project
Ground General
Project Ratio
Total work
Manila
C-2/R-7 Interchange Project Under The Metro

685 M Php 62 M Php 9%
Manila Interchange Construction Project
Sixth Road Project ADB Loan No,1473-PHI,

JEXIM United Loan 173 M Php 5 M Php 3%
Suburb
(Mindanao Bridge Replace/Retrofit) 2005

Arterial Road Links Development Project, Phase
III 965 M Php 35 M Php. 4%
(San Juanico Bridge) 2005
18-37
2) Indirect Cost
a) Overhead Cost
The overhead cost was estimated by Approved Budget for the Contract (ABC).
Table 18.3.1-2 Overhead Ratio

INDIRECT COST
TOTAL
ESTIMATED % FOR
INDIRECT COST
DIRECT COST OCM AND PROFIT
% FOR
(EDC) OCM PROFIT
OCM AND PROFIT
(% OF EDC) (% OF EDC)
Up to P5Million 12 10 22
Above P5M up to P50M 9 8 17
Above P50M up to P150M 7 8 15
Above P150M 6 8 14
b) Consultancy Service Cost

Consultancy service cost was required for the detailed design including tender assistance and
construction supervision. The summary of consultancy service cost estimate is shown in Table
18.3.1-3 and the detail of consultancy service cost estimation is shown in Appendix 4.
Table 18.3.1-3 Summary of Estimated Consultancy Service Cost

Bridge
1st Mandaue Mactan
Lambingan
Guadalupe
Total
Palanit
Liloan
Consultancy Item
Mawo
Wawa
(M Php)
Foreign 20.4 32.4 42.3 3.0 12.1 2.2 7.5 119.8

Detailed
Local (Labor) 11.8 20.4 27.6 2.3 6.6 1.8 5.8 76.3
Design
(M Php) Local (ohers) 9.6 15.8 21.0 1.6 5.6 1.2 4.0 58.8
Total 41.8 68.5 90.9 7.0 24.4 5.2 17.2 254.9
Foreign 33.6 36.3 23.3 19.1 25.8 15.6 25.8 179.4
Construction
Local (Labor) 8.4 9.3 6.0 6.0 7.2 4.5 7.2 48.6
supervision
(M Php) Local (ohers) 12.6 13.7 8.8 7.5 9.9 6.0 9.9 68.4
Total 54.6 59.3 38.0 32.6 42.9 26.1 42.9 296.4
Foreign 54.0 68.7 65.6 22.1 37.9 17.8 33.3 299.2
Total Local (Labor) 20.2 29.7 33.6 8.3 13.8 6.3 13.0 124.9
(M Php) Local (ohers) 22.2 29.5 29.8 9.1 15.5 7.2 13.9 127.2
Total 96.4 127.8 128.9 39.5 67.3 31.3 60.1 551.3
18-38
c) Physical Contingency
Physical Contingency was estimated to be 5% of direct cost.
d) Administrative Cost
The administrative cost was estimated to be 3.0% of direct cost.
e) Land Acquisition
The land acquisition cost was estimated based on the zonal valuation by Bureau of Internal
Revenue, or BIR as shown in Table 18.3.1-4.
Table 18.3.1-4 Unit Price of Land Acquisition

Temporary
Zonal Valuation Land Acquisition
Location Acquisition
(Php / sq-m) (p / sq-m)
(p / sq-m)
Dike 3,290.00 8,225.00 -
Lambingan
River Project Site 3,740.00 - 3,740.00
MMDA Park 9,000.00 - 9,000.00
Guadalupe
Dike 13,000.00 - 13,000.00
Palanit 175.00 - 175.00
Mawo 150.00 - 150.00
Wawa 150.00 - 150.00
2.5* Basic Price 1*Basic Price
f) Compensation
The compensation of house relocation was estimated with a financial assistance of 25,000
Php/House.
18-39
g) Tax
VAT component shall be 12% of the sum of Estimated Direct Cost, Land acquisition cost,
Compensation cost, Engineering service cost, Contingency cost and Administrative cost.
Customs duty will be 3% of the imported steel material price.

- Imported materials are steel sections and steel parts of bridge
- ASEAN Harmonized Tariff Nomenclature (AHTN) Book 2012
- HDG.No.73.08 Structures (excluding prefabricated buildings of heading 94.06) and parts of
structures (for example, bridges and bridge-sections, lock gates, towers, lattice masts, roofs,
roofing frame-works, doors and windows and their frames and thresholds for doors, shutters,
balustrades, pillars and columns), of iron or steel; plates, rods, angles, shapes, sections, tubes
and the like, prepared for use in structures, of iron or steel
3) Quantity
The quantity is a result of the outline design. Summary of quantity is shown in Appendix.
18.3.2 Construction Cost
(1) Summary of Construction Cost

The construction cost was estimated as shown in Table 18.3.2-1 and Table 18.3.2-2.
Table 18.3.2-1 Summary of Construction cost 1/2

Item Price (M Php) Remark
1. Civil Work 5,379 Estimate Direct Cost + overhead cost
1-1. Foreign portion 4,030
1-2. Local portion 1,350
2. Consultancy Service Cost 551

2-1. Detail Design 255
2-2. Construction Supervision 296
3. Physical Contingency 236 5% of Estimate Direct Cost
4. Administrative Cost 137 3% of Estimate Direct Cost
5. Preparation Cost 124

5-1. Land Acquisition 117
5-2. Compensation 7
6. Tax 810
6-1. VAT 705 12%
6-2. Custom Duty 39 3% for Imported Steel Items
Grand Total 7,238
18-40
Table 18.3.2-2 Summary of Construction cost 2/2
Construction Cost (M Php) Remark
1st
Lambingan Guadalupe Mandaue Palanit Mawo Liloan Wawa
Item Mactan
Total
Replace
Replace + Retrofit Replace Replace Retrofit Replace Price Level : August 2013
Retrofit
1. Construction Cost 6,620.1 1,110.1 1,898.2 1,912.2 99.0 800.3 203.8 596.4
1-1. Civil Work 5,379.3 868.2 1,518.9 1,579.6 81.9 665.8 172.8 492.2
1) Foreign 4,029.7 752.4 1,187.7 1,213.8 11.7 381.1 87.9 395.1 Estimate Direct Cost + overhead cost
2) Local 1,349.6 115.8 331.2 365.9 70.2 284.7 84.8 97.0
% of 1) 74.9% 86.7% 78.2% 76.8% 14.3% 57.2% 50.9% 80.3% Foreign / Civil Work
1-3. Physical Contingency 235.9 38.1 66.6 69.3 3.6 29.2 7.6 21.6 5% of Estimate Direct Cost
1-4. Administrative Cost 137.2 22.8 40.0 41.6 2.2 17.5 0.2 13.0 3% of Estimate Direct Cost
1-5. Preparation Cost 123.6 54.1 61.6 4.3 0.5 1.2 0.5 1.4
1) Temporary Land Acquisition 117.0 52.4 61.2 0.0 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.8
2) Land Acquisition 1.5 1.5 - - - - - -
3) Compensation 6.6 0.3 0.4 4.3 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6
1-5. TAX 744.0 126.9 211.1 217.5 10.9 86.6 22.8 68.3
1) VAT 705.1 118.0 202.5 203.4 10.6 85.6 21.7 63.4 12%
2) Custom Duty 38.9 8.9 8.6 14.1 0.3 1.0 1.1 4.9 3% for Imported Steel Items
Per Surface Area (1000 Php / sq-m) 501.4 347.6 222.7 104.1 285.0 72.1 254.2
Surfce Area (sq-m) 2,214.0 5,460.5 8,588.0 951.2 2,808.5 2,826.3 2,346.0
Bridge Length (m) 90.0 (Outer) 125.0 (Truss) 368.0 82.0 205.0 297.5 230.0
114.4 492.0
Bridge Width (m) 24.6 (Outer) 19.3 (Truss) 9.7 11.6 13.7 9.5 10.2
26.6 10.2
Per Pair Lane (1000 Php / sq-m) 4,112 3,200 2,223 1,207 3,904 685 2,593
Nubmer of lanes 6 (Outer) 4 2 2 2 2 2
6
Length of pair lane 270.0 593.2 860.0 82.0 205.0 297.5 230.0
2. Consultancy Service Cost 617.5 108.0 143.3 144.4 44.3 75.3 35.1 67.3
2-1. Consultancy Service Cost 551.3 96.4 127.8 128.9 39.5 67.3 31.3 60.1
1) Detail Design 254.9 41.8 68.5 90.9 7.0 24.4 5.2 17.2 Estimate Direct Cost + overhead cost
2) Construction Supervision 296.4 54.6 59.3 38.0 32.6 42.9 26.1 42.9
2-3. VAT 66.2 11.6 15.5 15.5 4.7 8.1 3.8 7.2 12%
Grand Total (M Php) 7,238 1,218 2,041 2,057 143 876 239 664
The summary of civil works cost for Figure 18.3.2-1 is shown in Table 18.3.2-3.
Table 18.3.2-3 Summary of Civil Works cost

1st
ITEM Lambingan Guadalupe Mandaue Palanit Mawo Liloan Wawa Total
Mactan
PART A 26.5 46.4 16.8 0.9 7.1 2.0 5.2 104.9
PART B (With Temporary Works) 120.0 324.7 141.3 7.4 133.6 8.9 22.8 758.8
PART C (EARTHWORK with Demolish Works) 25.2 41.8 18.3 73.0 48.6 206.8
PART F (BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION)
Foundation (Pile) 39.4 16.4 218.0 66.0 28.3 14.8 382.9
Foundation (SPSP) 427.7 723.2 1,150.9
Substructure 26.9 244.9 256.0 10.1 53.5 68.6 32.5 692.6
Superstructure 703.1 521.5 179.1 54.7 412.0 57.5 427.3 2,355.2
PART H (MISCELLANEOUS with Maintenance Wo 31.2 77.7 234.6 0.5 0.5 39.9 384.4
TOTAL COST OF CIVIL WORKS 972.4 1,701.1 1,769.2 91.8 745.7 205.1 551.2 6,036.5
Note) Cost not include Physical contingency cost, Administrative cost, Preparation cost, Custom duty.
18-41
The composition of civil work cost is shown in Figure 18.3.2-1 and unit price (per bridge surface
area) is shown in Figure 18.3.2.2.
A
Wawa - 3span continuous composite steel lattice truss was recommended
B (w/ Temporary Works)
C (w/ Demolish Works)
Liloan - Retrofit (Additional pile, concrete jacketing) was recommended
F: Foundation (Pile)
F: Foundation (SPSP)
Mawo - 3span continuous PC fin back was recommended
F: Substructure
F: Superstructure
Palanit - AASHTO PC-Girder and spred foundation was recommended
H (w/ Maintenance Works)
1st Mandaue Mactan - SPSP (Sea piers) was recommended
Guadalupe
- SPSP (EDSA traffic time will not change) was recommended
-3span continuous steel deck box-shape girder was recommended
Lambingan
- Simple supported steel deck stiffened lohse bridge was recommended
(stage construction)
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800
M Php
<Price = Estimated Direct Cost + Overhead Cost + VAT>
Figure 18.3.2-1 Composition of Civil work Cost
450 2nd Mandaue Mactan
400 Lambingan
Construction Cost (k Php/sq-m)
350
Guadalupe
300
250 1st Mandaue Mactan

200
150 Mawo Wawa

100 Liloan Replacement
Retrofit
50
Existing
Palanit
0
0 50 100 150 200
Longest Span (m)
* 2nd Mandaue Mactan price (1999 completion) was exchanged to currently price level
<Price = Pile + SPSP + Substructure+ Superstructure>
Figure 18.3.2-2 Construction Price per Bridge Surface Area
18-42
(2) Constriction Cost of Bridges
The estimated construction cost is shown as follow sections. The detail of cost estimation is shown in
Appendix 4.
1) Lambingan Bridge
The estimated construction cost of Lambingan Bridge was estimated as shown in Table 18.3.2-4.
Table 18.3.2-4 Construction Cost of Lambingan Bridge

Item Price (Php) Remark
1. Civil Work 868,175,191 Estimate Direct Cost + overhead cost
1-1. Foreign portion 752,412,771
1-2. Local portion 115,762,420
2. Consultancy Service Cost 96,401,500

2-1. Detail Design 41,801,500
2-2. Construction Supervision 54,600,000
3. Physical Contingency 38,077,859 10% of Estimate Direct Cost
4. Administrative Cost 22,846,716 3% of Estimate Direct Cost
5. Preparation Cost 54,139,850

5-1. Temporary Land Acquisition 52,360,000
5-2. Land Acquisition 1,529,850
5-3. Compensation 250,000
6. Tax 138,465,800
6-1. VAT 129,556,934 12%
6-2. Custom Duty 8,908,866 3% for Imported Steel Items
Grand Total 1,218,106,916
18-43
2) Guadalupe Bridge
The estimated construction cost of Lambingan Bridge was estimated as shown in Table 18.3.2-5.
Table 18.3.2-5 Construction Cost of Guadalupe Bridge

1. Civil Work 1,518,881,921 Estimate Direct Cost + overhead cost
1-1. Foreign portion 1,187,652,928


5-1. Temporary Land Acquisition 61,200,000
6. Tax 226,419,681
6-1. VAT 202,451,415 12%
18-44
3) 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge
The estimated construction cost of 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge was estimated as shown in Table
18.3.2-6.
Table 18.3.2-6 Construction Cost of 1st Mactan Bridge

1. Civil Work 1,579,644,257 Estimate Direct Cost + overhead cost
1-1. Foreign portion 1,213,766,390


5-1. Temporary Land Acquisition 0
5-2. Compensation 4,250,000
6. Tax 232,932,310
6-1. VAT 203,369,578 12%
18-45
4) Palanit Bridge
The estimated construction cost of Palanit Bridge was estimated as shown in Table 18.3.2-7.
Table 18.3.2-7 Construction Cost of Palanit Bridge


5. Preparation Cost 487,500

5-1. Temporary Land Acquisition 262,500
6. Tax 15,612,675
6-1. VAT 10,577,001 12%
6-2. Custom Duty 292,884 3% for Imported Steel Items
Grand Total 143,277,601
18-46
5) Mawo Bridge
The estimated construction cost of Mawo Bridge was estimated as shown in Table 18.3.2-8.
Table 18.3.2-8 Construction Cost of Mawo Bridge



6. Tax 94,708,307
6-1. VAT 85,644,881 12%
6-2. Custom Duty 992,376 3% for Imported Steel Items
18-47
6) Lilo-an Bridge
The estimated construction cost of Lilo-an Bridge was estimated as shown in Table 18.3.2-9.
Table 18.3.2-9 Construction Cost of Lilo-an Bridget


4. Administrative Cost 216,486 3% of Estimate Direct Cost
5. Preparation Cost 450,000

5-1. Temporary Land Acquisition 0
6. Tax 26,569,556
6-1. VAT 21,719,876 12%
18-48
7) Wawa Bridge
The estimated construction cost of Wawa Bridge was estimated as shown in Table 18.3.2-10.
Table 18.3.2-10Construction Cost of Wawa Bridge


3. Physical Contingency 1,435,000

6. Tax 75,490,553
6-1. VAT 63,376,604 12%
18-49
CHAPTER 19 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND ECONOMIC
EVALUATION
19.1 Traffic Analysis
This chapter describes the traffic analysis and economic evaluation for the seven (7) bridges project.
The purpose of the traffic analysis is to estimate traffic congestion during bridge improvement, and to
prepare the base traffic data for benefit estimation of economic evaluation.
The procedure for the traffic analysis and economic evaluation is illustrated in Figure 19.1-1. The
detailed procedure is described in the adequate section.
1. Traffic Analysis (19.2~19.4)
(a) Package B (19.2) (b) Package C (19.4)

 Lambingan Bridge  1st Mandaue – Mactan Bridge
 Guadalupe Bridge  Palanit Bridge
 Present Traffic Assignment  Mawo Bridge
 Future Traffic Assignment  Liloan Bridge
 Wawa Bridge
↓  Present Traffic Volume
 To estimate Traffic Condition  Growth Rate
during construction
↓
※ Using Traffic Microsimulator in
 Future Traffic Volume
Guadalupe Bridge Improvement
(19.3) ↓
 To evaluate designable traffic  To estimate Traffic Condition
restriction. during construction.
2. Economic Evaluation (19.5)
(a) Package B (b) Package C

 Economic Cost  Economic Cost
 Benefit (VOC, TTC)  Benefit (VOC, TTC)
 Traffic Assignment  Simplified Impact Analysis
(Do Case / Do Nothing Case) (Do Case / Do Nothing Case)
Figure 19.1-1 Procedure for Traffic Analysis and Economic Evaluation
Though Lambingan Bridge and Guadalupe Bridge will be reduced of the number of lanes during
construction, the traffic will not be affected for the other five (5) bridges during construction due to
temporally bridge or retrofits substructure only, shown in Table 19.1-1.
19-1
Table 19.1-1 Basic Traffic Restriction during Construction
Present No. of No. of lane during
No. Bridge Improvement Remarks
lane Construction
1 Lambingan Replacement 6(3+3) 2(1+1)
Replacement only outer

2 Guadalupe 10(5+5) 9(5+4)
bridge
1st Mandaue- Traffic will not
3 Retrofit only substructure 2(1+1) 2(1+1)
Mactan be affected
during
4 Palanit Replacement 2(1+1) 2(1+1)
construction
because of
5 Mawo Replacement 2(1+1) 2(1+1)
preparation for
temporary
6 Liloan Retrofit 2(1+1) 2(1+1)
bridge
7 Wawa Replacement 2(1+1) 2(1+1)
In this study, how many lanes can be reduced without creating traffic congestion at each bridge will
be verified.
19.2 Traffic Analysis of Package B
19.2.1 Traffic Assignment

In Metro Manila, traffic assignment to road network with bridge plan is made using JICA STRADA
highway type assignment model.
Procedure for the present traffic assignment and future traffic assignment is presented in Figure
19.2.1-1. After obtaining the accuracy of present traffic assignment, future traffic assign is estimated.
In estimating the future traffic volume, future road network was taken into account.
19-2
Package B
Present Traffic Assignment
Year 2011 OD
(by NAIAX F/S)
Revised Year 2012 OD Present Road Network
Traffic Count Survey Traffic Assignment
No
Validation
Yes
Go to future Assignment
Future Traffic Assignment
Future OD table Traffic Restriction during Future Road Network

(2018, 2020 and 2030 Construction
Traffic Assignment
- W/O Project Case
- W/ Project Case
Figure 19.2.1-1 Procedure for Preparation of Present and Future Assignment
(1) Traffic Model Validation

The procedure of model validation entails two steps: first, the current OD matrix is assigned on an
existing network. Second, the assigned traffic volume is compared with the result of the traffic count
surveys at each corresponding location. This verification aims to check the accuracy of both the
current OD matrix and an existing network model representing the existing transport situation.
Table 19.2.1-1 presents traffic volume generated from traffic assignment and observed traffic (traffic
count survey). Figure 19.2.1-2 shows the result of comparison between the assigned traffic volume
and observed traffic volume. This comparison between observed traffic count and assigned traffic
flow at individual sites is done via the Mean Absolute Difference (MAD)1 Ratio. For daily traffic
counts, the value of the MAD ratio is 0.094 which is considered to reflect a good calibration. By all
indicators, the assignment is acceptable level to replicate year 2012.
1
MAD Ratio is defined by the following formula: MAD Ratio = where n is the number of
observations.
19-3
Table 19.2.1-1 Comparison of Observed (Survey data) and Assigned Traffic Volume
Observed Traffic Assigned Traffic Difference
Bridge Name Rate
(100 Veh./day) (100 Veh./day) (100 Veh./day)
1.MARIKINA Bridge 400 451 -51 11%
2.MARCOS Bridge 791 712 79 -11%
3.GUADALUPE Bridge 2,009 2,047 -38 2%
4.C-5 Bridge 1,322 1,284 38 -3%
5.ESTRELLA PANTALEON Bridge 210 185 25 -14%
6.LAMBINGAN Bridge 209 193 16 -8%
7.MAKATI-MANDALUYON Bridge 311 271 40 -15%
8.PANDACAN Bridge 238 211 27 -13%
9.NAGTAHAN Bridge 753 803 -50 6%
10.AYALA Bridge 312 296 16 -5%
11.DELPAN Bridge 417 514 -97 19%
12.JONES Bridge 391 414 -23 6%
Total 7,363 7,381 -18 0%
Figure 19.2.1-2 Comparison of Observed and Assigned Traffic Volume
19-4
(2) Future Traffic Assignment
1) Traffic Assignment Model
Divided OD Road Network Speed – Flow
The traffic assignment to Traffic Volume Data Relationship
road network is made using
STRADA highway-type
Initial Speeds on Link
incremental assignment
model. The traffic
assignment can be calculated Shortest Route Using Re-estimation of
Road Network Speed on Link
by the following traffic
assignment step. (See Figure
Assignment to Shortest
19.2.1-3)
Route for each Iteration
2) Road Network Conditions

No
Last Iteration
Based on the other road
project, maturity in Metro Yes
Manila road network
Assigned Traffic
assumptions are prepared. Volumes on Road
Figure 19.2.1-3 Traffic Assignment Method

Open Year Road Project
2018 NAIAX
2020 NLEX-SLEX Connector, C3 Missing Link, Lawton - Bridge
2030 C6
3) Result of Traffic Assignment

Table 19.2.1-23 shows the future traffic volume of bridge crossing Pasig River or Marikina
River. Though Traffic volume of Guadalupe Bridge and Lambingan Bridge will increase in
Year 2018, those Traffic Volume will drastically decrease in Year 2020 due to new construction
of C3 Road, NS Connector Road and Sta. Monica – Lawton Bridge.
Table 19.2.1-2 Future Traffic Volume Crossing Pasig River / Marikina River
Unit: 100 vehicles per day
Bridge Name Year2012 Year2018 Year2020 Year2030
1.MARIKINA Bridge 451 458 474 524
2.MARCOS Bridge 712 700 664 705
3.GUADALUPE Bridge (target bridge) 2,047 2,194 1,563 1,738
4.C-5 Bridge 1,284 1,349 1,169 1,315
5.ESTRELLA PANTALEON Bridge 185 171 175 344
6.LAMBINGAN Bridge (target bridge) 193 209 174 182
7.MAKATI-MANDALUYON Bridge 271 453 300 324
8.PANDACAN Bridge 211 221 137 144
9.NAGTAHAN Bridge 803 799 455 469
10.AYALA Bridge 296 408 254 236
11.DELPAN Bridge 514 625 493 533
12.JONES Bridge 414 419 289 351
13.C3 (Future) 528 600
14.NS-Connector (Future) 939 1,138
15.Sta. Monica-Lawton Bridge (Future) 770 1,059
16.C6 (Future) 765
Total 7,381 8,006 8,384 10,427
19-5
19.2.2 Analysis of Traffic Congestion during Bridge Improvement
(1) Guadalupe Bridge
Based on the assignment and survey results, traffic queue length during construction was estimated.
1) Target Year 2018 (construction year 2017 ~ 2018)
2) Traffic Capacity
CL = CB ×ɤL × ɤC × ɤT
CL = Traffic Capacity per lane (pcu/h/lane)
CB = Base Traffic Capacity (pcu/h/lane) = 2,200
ɤL, ɤC, ɤT : Adjustment Parameter

ɤL : Lane Width WL = 3.25m or more than, ɤL = 1.00
= 3.00 m ɤL = 0.94
ɤC : Shoulder With WC = 0.75 m or more than ɤT = 1.00
0.0 m ɤT = 0.93
ɤT : Track Occupancy Rate ɤT = 100
ɤT = (100 –T) × 1.7-T
T = 9% - ɤT 0.93
Case - 0 5 lane WL = 3.25 m, WC = 0.75 m, Truck 9%
CL = 2,200 × 1.00 × 1.00 × 0.93 = 2,046
CC = CL × 5 = 10,230 pcu/h (per direction)
Case -1 4 lane WL = 3.25 m, WC = 0.75 m, Truck 9%
CL = 2,200 × 1.00 × 1.0 × 0.93 = 2,046
Case -2 3 lane WL = 3.25 m, WC = 0.95 m, Truck 9%
CL = 2,200 × 1.00 × 1.00 × 0.93 = 2,046
CC = CL × 3 = 6,138 pcu /h (per direction)
3) Volume vs. Capacity

Table 19.2.2-1 - Table 19.2.2-3 show the hourly volume vs. capacity during construction year.
Though traffic queue will not occur in case-1(4-lane traffic restriction), long traffic queue may
occur in case-2 (3-lanes). Estimated queue length in Case-2 is 26.5km at 5PM to northbound
(from Buendia to Shaw Blvd.) and 3.5km at 7PM to southbound (from Shaw Blvd. to Buendia).
At present, traffic of southbound is approximately 20,000 (vehicles/day) lower than that of
northbound.
19-6
Table 19.2.2-1 Hourly Volume vs. Capacity in Guadalupe Bridge (1/3)
(Case-0, No traffic restriction 5-lane)
Dir-1 from Buendia/Ayala to Shaw Blvd. Dir-2 from Shaw Blvd. to Buendia/Ayala
Year Year
2018 2018
Time Time
(PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (km) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (PCU) (km)
6:00 4,828 10,230 -5,402 0 0.0 6:00 6,690 10,230 -3,540 0 0.0
7:00 6,751 10,230 -3,479 0 0.0 7:00 5,818 10,230 -4,412 0 0.0
8:00 6,234 10,230 -3,996 0 0.0 8:00 5,011 10,230 -5,219 0 0.0
9:00 7,668 10,230 -2,562 0 0.0 9:00 4,848 10,230 -5,382 0 0.0
10:00 7,255 10,230 -2,975 0 0.0 10:00 4,811 10,230 -5,419 0 0.0
11:00 6,724 10,230 -3,506 0 0.0 11:00 4,972 10,230 -5,258 0 0.0
12:00 5,966 10,230 -4,264 0 0.0 12:00 4,968 10,230 -5,262 0 0.0
13:00 7,551 10,230 -2,679 0 0.0 13:00 4,185 10,230 -6,045 0 0.0
14:00 7,839 10,230 -2,391 0 0.0 14:00 4,921 10,230 -5,309 0 0.0
15:00 8,101 10,230 -2,129 0 0.0 15:00 4,297 10,230 -5,933 0 0.0
16:00 7,260 10,230 -2,970 0 0.0 16:00 5,013 10,230 -5,217 0 0.0
17:00 7,539 10,230 -2,691 0 0.0 17:00 4,998 10,230 -5,232 0 0.0
18:00 3,765 10,230 -6,465 0 0.0 18:00 5,755 10,230 -4,475 0 0.0
19:00 4,761 10,230 -5,469 0 0.0 19:00 7,541 10,230 -2,689 0 0.0
20:00 4,454 10,230 -5,776 0 0.0 20:00 4,957 10,230 -5,273 0 0.0
21:00 4,335 10,230 -5,895 0 0.0 21:00 4,629 10,230 -5,601 0 0.0
22:00 4,736 10,230 -5,494 0 0.0 22:00 4,325 10,230 -5,905 0 0.0
23:00 6,274 10,230 -3,956 0 0.0 23:00 3,138 10,230 -7,092 0 0.0
0:00 3,175 10,230 -7,055 0 0.0 0:00 2,818 10,230 -7,412 0 0.0
1:00 2,457 10,230 -7,773 0 0.0 1:00 2,203 10,230 -8,027 0 0.0
2:00 2,123 10,230 -8,107 0 0.0 2:00 1,643 10,230 -8,587 0 0.0
3:00 1,702 10,230 -8,528 0 0.0 3:00 1,667 10,230 -8,563 0 0.0
4:00 2,350 10,230 -7,880 0 0.0 4:00 2,545 10,230 -7,685 0 0.0
5:00 2,669 10,230 -7,561 0 0.0 5:00 4,402 10,230 -5,828 0 0.0
Total 126,516 Total 106,156
Table 19.2.2-2 Hourly Volume vs. Capacity in Guadalupe Bridge (2/3) (Case-1, 4-lane)
Year Year
2018 2018
Time Time
6:00 4,828 8,184 -3,356 0 0.0 6:00 6,690 8,184 -1,494 0 0.0
7:00 6,751 8,184 -1,433 0 0.0 7:00 5,818 8,184 -2,366 0 0.0
8:00 6,234 8,184 -1,950 0 0.0 8:00 5,011 8,184 -3,173 0 0.0
9:00 7,668 8,184 -516 0 0.0 9:00 4,848 8,184 -3,336 0 0.0
10:00 7,255 8,184 -929 0 0.0 10:00 4,811 8,184 -3,373 0 0.0
11:00 6,724 8,184 -1,460 0 0.0 11:00 4,972 8,184 -3,212 0 0.0
12:00 5,966 8,184 -2,218 0 0.0 12:00 4,968 8,184 -3,216 0 0.0
13:00 7,551 8,184 -633 0 0.0 13:00 4,185 8,184 -3,999 0 0.0
14:00 7,839 8,184 -345 0 0.0 14:00 4,921 8,184 -3,263 0 0.0
15:00 8,101 8,184 -83 0 0.0 15:00 4,297 8,184 -3,887 0 0.0
16:00 7,260 8,184 -924 0 0.0 16:00 5,013 8,184 -3,171 0 0.0
17:00 7,539 8,184 -645 0 0.0 17:00 4,998 8,184 -3,186 0 0.0
18:00 3,765 8,184 -4,419 0 0.0 18:00 5,755 8,184 -2,429 0 0.0
19:00 4,761 8,184 -3,423 0 0.0 19:00 7,541 8,184 -643 0 0.0
20:00 4,454 8,184 -3,730 0 0.0 20:00 4,957 8,184 -3,227 0 0.0
21:00 4,335 8,184 -3,849 0 0.0 21:00 4,629 8,184 -3,555 0 0.0
22:00 4,736 8,184 -3,448 0 0.0 22:00 4,325 8,184 -3,859 0 0.0
23:00 6,274 8,184 -1,910 0 0.0 23:00 3,138 8,184 -5,046 0 0.0
0:00 3,175 8,184 -5,009 0 0.0 0:00 2,818 8,184 -5,366 0 0.0
1:00 2,457 8,184 -5,727 0 0.0 1:00 2,203 8,184 -5,981 0 0.0
2:00 2,123 8,184 -6,061 0 0.0 2:00 1,643 8,184 -6,541 0 0.0
3:00 1,702 8,184 -6,482 0 0.0 3:00 1,667 8,184 -6,517 0 0.0
4:00 2,350 8,184 -5,834 0 0.0 4:00 2,545 8,184 -5,639 0 0.0
5:00 2,669 8,184 -5,515 0 0.0 5:00 4,402 8,184 -3,782 0 0.0
Total 126,516 Total 106,156
19-7
Table 19.2.2-3 Hourly Volume vs. Capacity in Guadalupe Bridge (3/3) (Case-2, 3-lane)
Year Year
2018 2018
Time Time
6:00 4,828 6,138 -1,310 0 0.0 6:00 6,690 6,138 552 552 1.3
7:00 6,751 6,138 613 613 1.4 7:00 5,818 6,138 -320 232 0.5
8:00 6,234 6,138 96 709 1.7 8:00 5,011 6,138 -1,127 0 0.0
9:00 7,668 6,138 1,530 2,239 5.2 9:00 4,848 6,138 -1,290 0 0.0
10:00 7,255 6,138 1,117 3,356 7.8 10:00 4,811 6,138 -1,327 0 0.0
11:00 6,724 6,138 586 3,942 9.2 11:00 4,972 6,138 -1,166 0 0.0
12:00 5,966 6,138 -172 3,770 8.8 12:00 4,968 6,138 -1,170 0 0.0
13:00 7,551 6,138 1,413 5,184 12.1 13:00 4,185 6,138 -1,953 0 0.0
14:00 7,839 6,138 1,701 6,884 16.1 14:00 4,921 6,138 -1,217 0 0.0
15:00 8,101 6,138 1,963 8,848 20.6 15:00 4,297 6,138 -1,841 0 0.0
16:00 7,260 6,138 1,122 9,970 23.3 16:00 5,013 6,138 -1,125 0 0.0
17:00 7,539 6,138 1,401 11,371 26.5 17:00 4,998 6,138 -1,140 0 0.0
18:00 3,765 6,138 -2,373 8,998 21.0 18:00 5,755 6,138 -383 0 0.0
19:00 4,761 6,138 -1,377 7,621 17.8 19:00 7,541 6,138 1,403 1,403 3.3
20:00 4,454 6,138 -1,684 5,936 13.9 20:00 4,957 6,138 -1,181 223 0.5
21:00 4,335 6,138 -1,803 4,133 9.6 21:00 4,629 6,138 -1,509 0 0.0
22:00 4,736 6,138 -1,402 2,731 6.4 22:00 4,325 6,138 -1,813 0 0.0
23:00 6,274 6,138 136 2,867 6.7 23:00 3,138 6,138 -3,000 0 0.0
0:00 3,175 6,138 -2,963 0 0.0 0:00 2,818 6,138 -3,320 0 0.0
1:00 2,457 6,138 -3,681 0 0.0 1:00 2,203 6,138 -3,935 0 0.0
2:00 2,123 6,138 -4,015 0 0.0 2:00 1,643 6,138 -4,495 0 0.0
3:00 1,702 6,138 -4,436 0 0.0 3:00 1,667 6,138 -4,471 0 0.0
4:00 2,350 6,138 -3,788 0 0.0 4:00 2,545 6,138 -3,593 0 0.0
5:00 2,669 6,138 -3,469 0 0.0 5:00 4,402 6,138 -1,736 0 0.0
Total 126,516 Total 106,156
As this traffic analysis was only point of Guadalupe Bridge, traffic simulation was conducted.
The traffic simulation result is described in next section.
19-8
(2) Lambingan Bridge
As same method used for Guadalupe Bridge, the traffic queue length during construction was
estimated.
1) Target Year: 2018 (Construction Year 2017 ~ 2018)

2) Traffic Capacity
CL = CB × ɤL × ɤC × ɤT
CL= Traffic Capacity per lane (pcu/h/lane)
CB = Base Traffic Capacity (pcu/h/lane) = 2,200
ɤL, ɤC, ɤT, ; Adjustment Parameter

ɤL : Lane
Case – 0 3 lane WL = 3.25, WC = 0.75 m, Truck 3%
CL = 2,200 × 1.00 × 1.00 × 0.98 = 2,156
CC = CL × 3 = ~ 6,468 pcu/h (per direction)
Case – 1 2 lane WL = 3.25, WC = 0.75 Truck 3%
CL = 2,156
Case – 2 1 lane WL = 3.25, WC = 0.75 Truck 3%
CL = 2,156
CC = 2,156 pcu/h (per direction)
3) Volume vs. Capacity

Table 19.2.2-4 - Table 19.2.2-6 show the hourly volume vs. capacity during the construction
year.
The entire hourly volume is lower than capacity in Case-1 and Case-2. At Lambingan Bridge, it
is possible for a 2-lane traffic restriction (one lane each direction only) for all the day in year
2018 based on this result. Since morning peak hour’s (7:00-8:00) volume from Sta. Mesa to Sta.
Ana is higher than usual, it is recommended that implementation of traffic restriction should be
carefully studied.
19-9
Table 19.2.2-4 Hourly Volume vs. Capacity in Lambingan Bridge (1/3)
(Case-0, No traffic restriction 3-lane)
Year Year
2018 2018
Time Time
6:00 837 6,468 -5,631 0 0 6:00 1,589 6,468 -4,879 0 0
7:00 967 6,468 -5,501 0 0 7:00 2,024 6,468 -4,444 0 0
8:00 1,100 6,468 -5,368 0 0 8:00 1,951 6,468 -4,517 0 0
9:00 1,178 6,468 -5,290 0 0 9:00 1,578 6,468 -4,890 0 0
10:00 1,026 6,468 -5,442 0 0 10:00 1,339 6,468 -5,129 0 0
11:00 1,259 6,468 -5,209 0 0 11:00 1,309 6,468 -5,159 0 0
12:00 949 6,468 -5,519 0 0 12:00 1,117 6,468 -5,351 0 0
13:00 1,112 6,468 -5,356 0 0 13:00 1,314 6,468 -5,154 0 0
14:00 1,390 6,468 -5,078 0 0 14:00 1,249 6,468 -5,219 0 0
15:00 1,086 6,468 -5,382 0 0 15:00 1,175 6,468 -5,293 0 0
16:00 1,361 6,468 -5,107 0 0 16:00 1,215 6,468 -5,253 0 0
17:00 1,577 6,468 -4,891 0 0 17:00 1,470 6,468 -4,998 0 0
18:00 1,546 6,468 -4,922 0 0 18:00 954 6,468 -5,514 0 0
19:00 1,525 6,468 -4,943 0 0 19:00 808 6,468 -5,660 0 0
20:00 1,330 6,468 -5,138 0 0 20:00 781 6,468 -5,687 0 0
21:00 1,070 6,468 -5,398 0 0 21:00 623 6,468 -5,845 0 0
22:00 1,097 6,468 -5,371 0 0 22:00 525 6,468 -5,943 0 0
23:00 629 6,468 -5,839 0 0 23:00 415 6,468 -6,053 0 0
0:00 486 6,468 -5,982 0 0 0:00 451 6,468 -6,017 0 0
1:00 240 6,468 -6,228 0 0 1:00 187 6,468 -6,281 0 0
2:00 247 6,468 -6,221 0 0 2:00 214 6,468 -6,254 0 0
3:00 274 6,468 -6,194 0 0 3:00 264 6,468 -6,204 0 0
4:00 406 6,468 -6,062 0 0 4:00 321 6,468 -6,147 0 0
5:00 521 6,468 -5,947 0 0 5:00 573 6,468 -5,895 0 0
Table 19.2.2-5 Hourly Volume vs. Capacity in Lambingan Bridge (2/3) (Case-1, 2-lane)
Year Year
2018 2018
Time Time
6:00 775 4,312 -3,537 0 0 6:00 1,471 4,312 -2,842 0 0
7:00 895 4,312 -3,418 0 0 7:00 1,874 4,312 -2,439 0 0
8:00 1,018 4,312 -3,294 0 0 8:00 1,806 4,312 -2,507 0 0
9:00 1,091 4,312 -3,222 0 0 9:00 1,461 4,312 -2,852 0 0
10:00 950 4,312 -3,363 0 0 10:00 1,240 4,312 -3,073 0 0
11:00 1,165 4,312 -3,147 0 0 11:00 1,212 4,312 -3,101 0 0
12:00 878 4,312 -3,434 0 0 12:00 1,034 4,312 -3,279 0 0
13:00 1,029 4,312 -3,283 0 0 13:00 1,216 4,312 -3,096 0 0
14:00 1,286 4,312 -3,026 0 0 14:00 1,156 4,312 -3,157 0 0
15:00 1,005 4,312 -3,307 0 0 15:00 1,088 4,312 -3,225 0 0
16:00 1,260 4,312 -3,053 0 0 16:00 1,125 4,312 -3,188 0 0
17:00 1,459 4,312 -2,853 0 0 17:00 1,360 4,312 -2,952 0 0
18:00 1,431 4,312 -2,882 0 0 18:00 883 4,312 -3,429 0 0
19:00 1,412 4,312 -2,901 0 0 19:00 748 4,312 -3,564 0 0
20:00 1,231 4,312 -3,081 0 0 20:00 723 4,312 -3,589 0 0
21:00 991 4,312 -3,322 0 0 21:00 577 4,312 -3,735 0 0
22:00 1,016 4,312 -3,297 0 0 22:00 486 4,312 -3,827 0 0
23:00 582 4,312 -3,730 0 0 23:00 384 4,312 -3,928 0 0
0:00 450 4,312 -3,862 0 0 0:00 418 4,312 -3,895 0 0
1:00 222 4,312 -4,090 0 0 1:00 173 4,312 -4,139 0 0
2:00 229 4,312 -4,084 0 0 2:00 199 4,312 -4,114 0 0
3:00 254 4,312 -4,058 0 0 3:00 244 4,312 -4,068 0 0
4:00 376 4,312 -3,937 0 0 4:00 297 4,312 -4,015 0 0
5:00 483 4,312 -3,830 0 0 5:00 530 4,312 -3,782 0 0
19-10
Table 19.2.2-6 Hourly Volume vs. Capacity in Lambingan Bridge (3/3) (Case-2, 1-lane)
Year Year
2018 2018
Time Time
6:00 837 2,156 -1,319 0 0 6:00 1,589 2,156 -567 0 0
7:00 967 2,156 -1,189 0 0 7:00 2,024 2,156 -132 0 0
8:00 1,100 2,156 -1,056 0 0 8:00 1,951 2,156 -205 0 0
9:00 1,178 2,156 -978 0 0 9:00 1,578 2,156 -578 0 0
10:00 1,026 2,156 -1,130 0 0 10:00 1,339 2,156 -817 0 0
11:00 1,259 2,156 -897 0 0 11:00 1,309 2,156 -847 0 0
12:00 949 2,156 -1,207 0 0 12:00 1,117 2,156 -1,039 0 0
13:00 1,112 2,156 -1,044 0 0 13:00 1,314 2,156 -842 0 0
14:00 1,390 2,156 -766 0 0 14:00 1,249 2,156 -907 0 0
15:00 1,086 2,156 -1,070 0 0 15:00 1,175 2,156 -981 0 0
16:00 1,361 2,156 -795 0 0 16:00 1,215 2,156 -941 0 0
17:00 1,577 2,156 -579 0 0 17:00 1,470 2,156 -686 0 0
18:00 1,546 2,156 -610 0 0 18:00 954 2,156 -1,202 0 0
19:00 1,525 2,156 -631 0 0 19:00 808 2,156 -1,348 0 0
20:00 1,330 2,156 -826 0 0 20:00 781 2,156 -1,375 0 0
21:00 1,070 2,156 -1,086 0 0 21:00 623 2,156 -1,533 0 0
22:00 1,097 2,156 -1,059 0 0 22:00 525 2,156 -1,631 0 0
23:00 629 2,156 -1,527 0 0 23:00 415 2,156 -1,741 0 0
0:00 486 2,156 -1,670 0 0 0:00 451 2,156 -1,705 0 0
1:00 240 2,156 -1,916 0 0 1:00 187 2,156 -1,969 0 0
2:00 247 2,156 -1,909 0 0 2:00 214 2,156 -1,942 0 0
3:00 274 2,156 -1,882 0 0 3:00 264 2,156 -1,892 0 0
4:00 406 2,156 -1,750 0 0 4:00 321 2,156 -1,835 0 0
5:00 521 2,156 -1,635 0 0 5:00 573 2,156 -1,583 0 0
19.3 Traffic Influence Analysis during Rehabilitation Works at Guadalupe Bridge
19.3.1 Background
Guadalupe Bridge is a bridge along EDSA about 200,000 vehicles passes through per day. It is
selected as one of the bridges that need to be repaired to be earthquake resistant. This is to make sure
that the bridge would be used as the safety route or to prevent the bridge from a possible collapse.
Thus, prompt attention is needed.
19.3.2 Purpose
In the present condition, heavy traffic congestion occurs in the morning peak and the evening peak. In
case of the reduction of the number of lanes during Rehabilitation Works, the influence of traffic
congestion needs to be analyzed.
This section analyzes the influence of traffic condition during Guadalupe Bridge Rehabilitation
Works with the use of a traffic microscopic simulation.
19-11
19.3.3 Present Traffic Condition at Guadalupe Bridge
The present traffic congestion condition at Guadalupe Bridge is as follows.
(1) Northbound (Bound to Quezon City)

1) Morning Peak
a) Present traffic condition
Traffic lane is decreased by takingen up the entire lane with some longtime parking queuing
of jeepnieys right at the mouth of the Guadalupe Bridge. The vehicles which go passes
through Guadalupe Bridge can use only 3 lanes instead of 5 lanes as shown in Figure
19.3.3-1. The volume of the traffic here counts is about 5,000~6,000 vehicles per hour as
Only 3 lanes
Jeepney Stop
OFF Ramp Guadalupe Bridge
Figure 19.3.3-1 Traffic Condition at MRT Line-3 Guadalupe Station
19-12
Table 19.3.3-1 Traffic Volume (Bound to Guadalupe Bridge)
1. Motorcycle 2. Car / Taxi / 5. 2-Axle 6. 3-Axle 7. Truck
Time Period 3. Jeepney 4. Large Bus TOTAL
/ Tricycle Pick-up / Van Truck Truck trailer
6:00 7:00 488 5,297 5 412 96 2 1 6,301
7:00 8:00 561 3,828 6 413 107 3 0 4,918
8:00 9:00 434 4,137 1 293 82 8 0 4,955
Date of Survey: 2013.4.11
b) Situation of Traffic Lane Operation at Guadalupe Bridge

The situation of traffic lane operation at Guadalupe Bridge is shown as follows.
 The traffic volume at Guadalupe Bridge is about 7,000 vehicles per hour in the morning peak
(Table 19.3.3-2).
 The vehicles which pass through from Guadalupe MRT Line-3 Station to Guadalupe Bridge
uses the inner 3 lanes (Figure 19.3.3-2).
 The traffic volume at ON Ramp is at a maximum of about 2,000 vehicles per hour during
morning peak. And it merges into the main road from ON Ramp using 2 lanes (Table
19.3.3-3).
Guadalupe Station On Ramp

Figure 19.3.3-2 Traffic Condition at Guadalupe Bridge
Table 19.3.3-2 Traffic Volume (Guadalupe Bridge)

6:00 7:00 686 5,850 5 417 102 9 2 7,071
7:00 8:00 825 5,016 6 418 115 5 0 6,385
8:00 9:00 665 5,788 1 298 101 13 0 6,866
19-13
Table 19.3.3-3 Traffic Volume (On Ramp)
6:00 7:00 198 553 0 5 6 7 1 770
7:00 8:00 264 1,188 0 5 8 2 0 1,467
8:00 9:00 231 1,651 0 5 19 5 0 1,911
2) Evening Peak
During the evening peak, the traffic congestion occurring at the bottleneck point after the
Guadalupe Bridge is extending across Guadalupe Bridge as shown in Figure 19.3.3-3.
However, the traffic volume of vehicles which passes through Guadalupe Bridge decreases
sharply after the peak time as shown in Table 19.3.3-4.
Figure 19.3.3-3 Traffic Congestion at Guadalupe Bridge
Table 19.3.3-4 Traffic Volume (Bound to Guadalupe Bridge)

16:00 17:00 386 5,960 0 355 123 7 0 6,831
17:00 18:00 328 3,883 3 351 128 3 0 4,696
18:00 19:00 415 1,938 1 483 35 3 3 2,878
19:00 20:00 381 1,561 0 385 48 11 0 2,386
20:00 21:00 398 2,113 0 516 53 2 1 3,083
21:00 22:00 402 2,154 3 485 46 1 0 3,091
The traffic volume decrease sharply.

19-14
(2) Southbound (Bound to Makati)
1) Morning Peak
The traffic lane is decreased by longtime parallel queuing of buses at the bus stop in Figure
19.3.3-4.
Longtime parallel
queuing of buses
Bound to Guadalupe Bridge
Longtime parallel
queuing of buses
Figure 19.3.3-4 Bus Stop at Guadalupe Bridge
The number of lanes decreases from 5 to 4 at Kalayaan Flyover as shown in Figure 19.3.3-5.
The traffic congestion bound to Makati occurs from this point and is extended across
Guadalupe Bridge as shown in Figure 19.3.3-6. As a result, the traffic volume at Guadalupe
Bridge decreases sharply between 8:00 and 9:00 as shown in Table 19.3.3-5.
19-15
2 lanes after 2 lanes after
diverging points diverging points
5 lanes before
diverging points
Figure 19.3.3-5 Bottleneck at Kalayaan Fly Over

6:00 7:00 903 4,724 3 497 88 4 0 6,219
7:00 8:00 761 4,950 3 404 45 2 0 6,165
8:00 9:00 614 3,575 0 336 48 4 0 4,577
9:00 10:00 530 3,667 4 361 63 1 0 4,626
10:00 11:00 517 3,745 0 354 98 0 0 4,714
The traffic volumes decrease sharply.

19-16
Figure 19.3.3-6 Traffic condition at Guadalupe Bridge
2) Evening Peak
The present traffic congestion occurs from Kalayaan Flyover and is extended to Guadalupe
Bridge as shown in Figure 19.3.3-7. The traffic volume of Guadalupe Bridge decreases
between 18:00 and 19:00 as shown in Table 19.3.3-6.
Figure 19.3.3-7 Traffic Condition at Guadalupe Bridge
19-17
16:00 17:00 539 4,944 6 494 90 7 0 6,080
17:00 18:00 505 4,076 6 379 47 5 0 5,018
18:00 19:00 597 3,766 7 487 34 3 0 4,894
The traffic volumes decrease sharply.
(3) Travel Speed Survey

The travel speed survey was conducted at about 4 km including Guadalupe Bridge. This survey
utilized a GPS.
Overview of the travel speed survey is as follows.
1) Overview
a) Survey method
The vehicle which carried GPS obtained latitude, longitude and time.
b) Survey day and time

■Survey Day
2013.4.16(Tue)
■Survey time
Survey data was obtained once or twice per hour in the morning peak and in the evening
peak.
c) Data collection interval

A data collection interval is 1 second.
2) Result of the Travel Speed Survey

Result of the travel speed survey is shown as follows (Figure 19.3.3-8).
a) Northbound (Bound to Quezon City)

 Travel speed decreases from Guadalupe Bridge in the morning peak.
 Travel speed decreases at the point past Guadalupe Bridge in the evening peak.
b) Southbound (Bound to Makati City)

 Travel speed decreases before and after Guadalupe Bridge in the morning peak and in the
evening peak.
 Travel speed decreases at Kalayaan Flyover and this influence is extended up to Guadalupe
Bridge.
19-18
Low speed Low speed
Result of Travel Speed Survey
Bound to Makati City
【Southbound】
17.1 7.9 9.0 10.3 17.9 50.6
18:00～19:00
PM_peak 13.5 12.1 32.7 28.7 18.9 39.9
17:00～18:00 9.9 23.0 24.5 36.6 13.2 32.3
18.6 9.7 5.3 7.4 5.3 13.3
8:00～9:00
16.9 10.0 7.6 15.0 10.8 38.9
AM_peak 7:00～8:00 16.4 17.1 42.9 41.8 11.7 13.5
38.0 26.7 21.4 40.6 13.6 41.0
6:00～7:00
28.5 35.0 40.4 38.5 15.8 33.7
NO.6 No.5 NO.4 NO.3 No.2 NO.1
Ayala Ave Kalayaan Flyover Guadalupe Bridge
Buendia Station Boni Avenue Station Shaw Boulevard Station

19-19
【Northbound】 NO.1 NO.2 NO.3 NO.4 NO.5

37.5 29.1 41.2 43.0 42.7
6:00～7:00
39.6 29.5 40.9 45.0 38.0
AM_peak 33.9 20.7 35.6 39.4 43.6
7:00～8:00
33.4 18.7 14.9 43.0 39.5
8:00～9:00 20.9 18.1 13.6 52.5 44.5
13.5 17.2 20.8 39.4 18.2
17:00～18:00
PM_peak 14.4 17.0 12.2 16.6 12.5
18:00～19:00 6.2 10.3 5.9 5.4 10.3
【km/h】
Bound to Quezon City
Low speed Low speed
0～20km/h
20～30km/h
30km/h～
Figure 19.3.3-8 Result of Travel Speed Survey
19.3.4 Reappearance of the Traffic Condition around Guadalupe Bridge
The traffic condition around Guadalupe Bridge was created based on the result of the present traffic
survey by using microscopic traffic simulation.
(1) Overview of VISSIM

The microscopic traffic simulation software used is versatile VISSIM which can evaluate traffic
congestion and travel time.
1) Sale Agency
 PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG（Germany）
2) Feature
 VISSIM is used in more than 80 countries in the world.
 Basic Car-Following Model was developed at Technical University of Karlsruhe
 This simulation model can simulate different traffic conditions that are globally acceptable.
3) Driving Behavior
The VISSIM simulates the traffic flow by moving “driver-vehicle-units” through the network.
Every driver with his specific behavior or characteristics is assigned to a specific vehicle. As a
consequence, the driving behavior corresponds to the technical capabilities of his vehicle.
Attributes characterizing each driver-vehicle unit can be discriminated into three categories:
 Technical specification of the vehicle,:

 Length
 Maximum speed
 Potential acceleration
 Behavior of driver-vehicle units,:
 Psycho-physical sensitivity thresholds of the driver (ability to estimate, aggressiveness)
 Acceleration based on current speed and driver’s desired speed
 Interdependence of driver-vehicle units,:
 Reference to leading and following vehicles on own and adjacent travel lanes
 Reference to current link and next intersection
 Reference to next traffic signal
19-20
(2) Construction of Simulation Model
The construction of simulation model is shown as follows.
1) Target Area
Target area of the microscopic traffic simulation is shown in Figure 19.3.4-1.
SHAW BLVD.
STATION
Guadalupe Bridge
BUENDIA About 4.0km

STATION
Figure 19.3.4-1 Target Area of Microscopic Traffic Simulation
2) Time Period
The simulation about the traffic condition was conducted in the morning peak and in the evening
peak.
 Morning peak : 7:00~9:00
 Evening peak : 17:00~19:00
19-21
3) Input Data
a) Geometric structure
 The number of lanes and a lane width according to the present traffic condition.
 A priority rule, a stop position, etc. in a ramp merging section.
b) Traffic volume
 Five types of vehicle classification (Passenger car, Heavy truck, Bus, Motor Cycle, Jeepney).
 Average speed for every vehicle type (For example, Passenger car was input 60km/h).
 The simulated traffic volume was validated by the result of the traffic count survey at
Guadalupe Bridge.
c) Others
 A bus stop and a jeepney stop were included to the present traffic condition.
4) Output Data
 Traffic volume
 Average speed
 Average travel time
19-22
(3) Verification of the Simulation Model
Verification of the simulation model was validated by the traffic volume and the average speed.
1) Morning Peak
a) Traffic volume
Traffic volume was validated by the comparison of the result of the traffic count survey and a
microscopic traffic simulation (Figure 19.3.4-2).
The multiple correlation coefficient is 0.9 or more as shown in Figure 19.3.4-3. Result of the
simulation is the same as the present traffic condition.
Traffic Volume of Guadalupe Bridge（7:00～8:00） Traffic Volume of Guadalupe Bridge（8:00～9:00）
8,000 8,000
SIM SIM
7,000 7,000
6,000 Survey 6,000 Survey
5,000 5,000
4,000 4,000
3,000 3,000
2,000 2,000
1,000 1,000
0 0
Truck
Truck
Jeepney
Jeepney
Jeepney
Jeepney
Car
Car
Bus
Bus
Total
Total
Truck
Bus
Truck
Bus
M/C
M/C
Car
M/C
Total
Car
M/C
Total
Bound for Makati Bound for Quezo Bound for Makati Bound for Quezo
Traffic Volume of Ramp（7:00～8:00） Traffic Volume of Ramp（8:00～9:00）
2,500 2,500
SIM SIM
1,500 1,500
1,000 1,000
500 500
0 0
Jeepney
Jeepney
Truck
Truck
Truck
Bus
Truck
Bus
Jeepney
Jeepney
Car
Car
Car
M/C
Total
Car
M/C
Total
Bus
Bus
Total
Total
M/C
M/C
ON_Ramp OFF_Ramp ON_Ramp OFF_Ramp
Figure 19.3.4-2 Comparison of Traffic Volume (Morning Peak)
Survey(V/h) Validation(7:00～8:00) Survey(V/h) Validation(8:00～9:00)

7,000 7,000
6,000 6,000
5,000 5,000
4,000 4,000
3,000 3,000
2,000 2,000
1,000 y = 1.0403x 1,000 y = 1.0542x

R² = 0.9982 R² = 0.9972
0 0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
SIM(V/h) SIM(V/h)
Figure 19.3.4-3 Verification of the Simulation Model (Traffic Volume during Morning Peak)
19-23
b) Average speed-1
 The average speed from Buendia Station to Shaw Boulevard Station was validated by the
comparison of the result of the GPS survey and a microscopic traffic simulation.
 The average speed difference is less than 5km/h as shown in Figure 19.3.4-4. Result of the
simulation is the same as the present traffic condition.
(km/h) Average Speed【Buendia Station⇒Shaw Boulevard Station】 (km/h) Average Speed【Shaw Boulevard Station⇒Buendia Station】

40.0 40.0
33.7 35.0
35.0 32.2
30.0 30.0
23.7 24.3 23.3 22.8
25.0 21.5 25.0
20.8
20.0 20.0 17.9 16.5
14.7
15.0 15.0 12.2
9.7 8.4
10.0 10.0
5.0 5.0
(‐1.5km/h) (2.2km/h) (3.5km/h) (1.4km/h) (2.5km/h) (1.3km/h)
0.0 0.0
SIM Survey SIM Survey SIM Survey SIM Survey SIM Survey SIM Survey SIM Survey SIM Survey
7:00‐7:30 7:30‐8:00 8:00‐8:30 8:30‐9:00 7:00‐7:30 7:30‐8:00 8:00‐8:30 8:30‐9:00
【Northbound (Bound to Quezon City)】【Southbound (Bound to Makati City)】

Figure 19.3.4-4 Comparison of the Travel Speed (Average speed-1, Morning Peak)
c) Average speed-2
Detailed result of the GPS survey and the simulation is shown as follows (Figure 19.3.4-5).
(I) Northbound (Bound to Quezon City)

 Traffic congestion occurs before Guadalupe Bridge by longtime queuing of buses and
jeepneys between 7:00 and 9:00.
 Result of the simulation is the same as the present traffic condition.
(II) Southbound (Bound to Makati City)

 Partial traffic congestion occurs between 7:00 and 8:00 at the bus stop of Boni Avenue
Station and the influence at Kalayaan Flyover.
 There is no traffic at Guadalupe Bridge between 7:00 and 8:00.
 There is traffic congestion from Kalayaan Flyover extended to Guadalupe Bridge between
8:00 and 9:00.
19-24
The comparative result of survey and simulation(AM peak)
【Southbound】
8:30-9:00 7.0 7.2 7.9 9.4 9.1
8:00-8:30 11.3 12.7 15.4 16.9 16.8
SIM
7:30-8:00 13.0 20.9 41.9 19.5 20.7
7:00-7:30 19.7 43.3 46.6 20.0 21.6
18.6 9.7 5.3 7.4 5.3 13.3
8:00～9:00
Survey 16.9 10.0 7.6 15.0 10.8 38.9
7:00～8:00 16.4 17.1 42.9 41.8 11.7 13.5

19-25
【Northbound】
33.9 20.7 35.6 39.4 43.6
7:00～8:00
Survey 33.4 18.7 14.9 43.0 39.5
8:00～9:00 20.9 18.1 13.6 52.5 44.5
7:00-7:30 27.1 22.3 45.6 45.5
7:30-8:00 15.4 17.8 45.6 45.3
SIM
8:00-8:30 15.4 18.2 44.7 44.9
8:30-9:00 14.9 17.6 43.8 44.6 【km/h】
0～20km/h
20～30km/h
30km/h～
Figure 19.3.4-5 Comparison of the Travel Speed (Average speed-2, Morning Peak)
2) Evening Peak
a) Traffic volume
Traffic volume was validated by the comparison of the result of the traffic count survey and a
microscopic traffic simulation (Figure 19.3.4-6).
The multiple correlation coefficient is 0.9 or more as shown in Figure 19.3.4-7. The result of
the simulation is the same as the present traffic condition.
Traffic Volume of Guadalupe Bridge（17:00～18:00） Traffic Volume of guadalupe Bridfe（18:00～19:00）
8,000 8,000
SIM SIM
7,000 7,000
5,000 5,000
4,000 4,000
3,000 3,000
2,000 2,000
1,000 1,000
0 0
Truck
Truck
Jeepney
Car
Jeepney
Car
Jeepney
Jeepney
Bus
Bus
Truck
Bus
Truck
Bus
Total
Total
Car
Car
M/C
M/C
M/C
Total
M/C
Total
Bound for Makati Bound for Quezo Bound for Makati Bound for Quezo
Traffic Volume of Ramp（17:00～18:00） Traffic Volume of Ramp（18:00～19:00）
2,500 2,500
SIM SIM
1,500 1,500
1,000 1,000
500 500
0 0
Jeepney
Jeepney
Jeepney
Jeepney
Truck
Bus
Truck
Bus
Truck
Bus
Truck
Bus
Car
M/C
Total
Car
M/C
Total
Car
M/C
Total
Car
M/C
Total
ON_Ramp OFF_Ramp ON_Ramp OFF_Ramp
Figure 19.3.4-6 Comparison of Traffic Volume (Evening Peak)
Survey Validation(17:00～18:00) Survey Validation(18:00～19:00)

7,000 7,000
6,000 6,000
5,000 5,000
4,000 4,000
3,000 3,000
2,000 2,000
1,000 1,000 y = 0.9506x

y = 1.0339x
R² = 0.9698 R² = 0.9807
0 0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
SIM SIM
Figure 19.3.4-7 Verification of the Simulation model (Traffic Volume, Evening Peak)
19-26
b) Average speed-1
Average speed from Buendia Station to Shaw Boulevard Station was validated by the
comparison of the result of the GPS survey and a microscopic traffic simulation.
The average speed difference is less than 5km/h as shown in Figure 19.3.4-8. The result of
the simulation is the same as the present traffic condition.
(km/h) Average Speed【Buendia Station⇒Shaw Boulevard Station】 (km/h) Average Speed【Shaw Boulevard Station⇒Buendia Station】

25.0 25.0
21.9
19.9
20.0 20.0 18.7 18.3
17.1 16.7
16.1
15.0 13.3 15.0
11.6 11.7 11.8 11.7
10.8
10.0 7.6 10.0
5.0 5.0
(2.0km/h) (‐1.7km/h) (4.1km/h) (0.4km/h) (‐0.6km/h) (‐0.9km/h)
0.0 0.0
SIM Survey SIM Survey SIM Survey SIM Survey SIM Survey SIM Survey SIM Survey SIM Survey
17:00‐17:30 17:30‐18:00 18:00‐18:30 18:30‐19:00 17:00‐17:30 17:30‐18:00 18:00‐18:30 18:30‐19:00
【Northbound (Bound to Quezon City)】【Southbound (Bound to Makati City)】

Figure 19.3.4-8 Comparison of the Travel Speed (Average Speed-1, Evening)
c) Average speed-2
Detailed result of the GPS survey and the simulation is as follows (Figure 19.3.4-9).

 Traffic congestion occurs by longtime queuing of buses and jeepneys before Guadalupe
Bridge between 17:00 and 18:00.
 Traffic congestion occurs from the bottleneck point after Guadalupe Bridge between 17:00
and 18:00.
 Traffic congestion which occurs from the bottleneck point after Guadalupe Bridge was
extended to Guadalupe Bridge between 18:00 and 19:00.

 Partial traffic congestion occurs at a bus stop at Boni Avenue Station and the influence of
Kalayaan Flyover between 17:00 and 18:00.
 There is no traffic congestion at Guadalupe Bridge between 17:00 and 18:00.
 There is traffic congestion from Kalayaan Flyover extended to Guadalupe Bridge between
18:00 and 19:00.
19-27
The comparative result of survey and simulation(PM peak)
【Southbound】
18:30-19:00 7.2 8.1 9.7 11.4 11.0
18:00-18:30 11.3 20.3 22.6 18.3 17.6
SIM
17:30-18:00 11.8 46.5 35.3 20.8 23.2
17:00-17:30 13.8 47.2 44.1 19.7 18.7
17.1 7.9 9.0 10.3 17.9 50.6
18:00～19:00
Survey 13.5 12.1 32.7 28.7 18.9 39.9
17:00～18:00 9.9 23.0 24.5 36.6 13.2 32.3

19-28
【Northbound】
13.5 17.2 20.8 39.4 18.2
17:00～18:00
Survey 14.4 17.0 12.2 16.6 12.5
18:00～19:00 6.2 10.3 5.9 5.4 10.3
17:00-17:30 20.8 19.5 23.4 20.1
17:30-18:00 9.5 10.8 13.6 11.3
SIM
18:00-18:30 9.4 11.1 13.7 11.5
18:30-19:00 9.9 11.4 14.1 11.2 【km/h】
0～20km/h
20～30km/h
30km/h～
Figure 19.3.4-9 Comparison of the Travel Speed (Average speed-2)

19.3.5 Influence of the Lane Reduction
(1) Analysis Flow

The analysis method of the influence of lane reduction was conducted as follows (Figure 19.3.5-1).
Present traffic condition
Operation of lane reduction
Yes a) Occurrence of new No

bottleneck point
b) Change of traffic
Yes No
volume and travel time
Traffic condition Traffic condition does

change not change
Figure 19.3.5-1 Flow of Analysis
19-29
(2) Geometric Structure
1) 4-Lanes
【5-lanes (Present traffic condition)】
4-lanes
【4-lanes】
Figure 19.3.5-2 Geometric Structure of 4-Lanes
19-30
4-lanes
【4-lanes】
19-31
2) 3-Lanes
3-lanes
【3-lanes】
19-32
3-lanes
【3-lanes】
19-33
(3) Traffic Condition during Rehabilitation Works (Morning peak)
1) Bottleneck Point
The result of analysis is shown as follows (Figure 19.3.5-6).
a) 4-lanes
 In case of the reduction of the number of lanes from 5 to 4, the bottleneck point would be
before the bridge which is the same as the present traffic condition.

 In case of the reduction of the number of lanes from 5 to 4, low speed occurred before
Guadalupe Bridge.
 However, the bottleneck point was before the bridge, the same as the present traffic
condition.
b) 3-lanes
 In case of the reduction of the number of lanes from 5 to 3, the bottleneck point would be
before the bridge which is the same as the present traffic condition.

 In case of the reduction of the number of lanes from 5 to 3, the bottleneck point would
change from Kalayaan Flyover to Guadalupe Bridge.
 The traffic condition of 3-lanes would be changed from the present traffic condition.
19-34
Bottleneck point
Average Speed Comparison in case of No. of lanes(AM peak)
【Southbound】
8:30-9:00 49.3 41.9 22.2 12.3 11.9
SIM 8:00-8:30 50.9 40.8 20.4 11.4 11.4
(3lane) 7:30-8:00 49.2 40.0 21.2 11.8 11.4
7:00-7:30 47.5 40.2 21.0 11.8 11.7
8:30-9:00 6.9 9.5 9.6 9.8 8.9
SIM 8:00-8:30 11.3 18.7 17.8 18.3 17.0
(4lane) 7:30-8:00 14.9 34.9 27.2 21.5 21.1
7:00-7:30 21.1 38.1 26.2 22.0 21.6
8:30-9:00 7.0 7.2 7.9 9.4 9.1
SIM 8:00-8:30 11.3 12.7 15.4 16.9 16.8
(5lane) 7:30-8:00 13.0 20.9 41.9 19.5 20.7
7:00-7:30 19.7 43.3 46.6 20.0 21.6

19-35
【Northbound】
7:00-7:30 27.1 22.3 45.6 45.5
SIM 7:30-8:00 15.4 17.8 45.6 45.3
(5lane) 8:00-8:30 15.4 18.2 44.7 44.9
8:30-9:00 14.9 17.6 43.8 44.6
7:00-7:30 25.7 21.4 39.1 47.2
SIM 7:30-8:00 15.6 18.2 39.6 48.2
(4lane) 8:00-8:30 15.6 18.1 38.2 48.0
8:30-9:00 14.7 17.2 38.1 46.5
7:00-7:30 6.9 8.3 43.0 52.4
SIM 7:30-8:00 6.9 7.8 41.4 52.4
(3lane) 8:00-8:30 7.7 8.6 40.8 51.7
8:30-9:00 9.0 9.8 40.5 51.9 【km/h】
0～20km/h
Bottleneck point 20～30km/h
30km/h～
Figure 19.3.5-6 Average Speed Comparison in Case of No. of Lanes (Guadalupe Bridge, Morning Peak)
2) Comparison of Travel Time and Traffic Volume
The travel time and traffic volume of the same case as the present bottleneck point is shown
as follows.
a) 4-lanes
 The travel time and the traffic volume are the same as the present traffic condition as

b) 3lanes
 In case of the reduction of the number of lanes from 5 to 3, the travel time increased
sharply and also the traffic volume of Guadalupe Bridge decreased sharply as shown in
Figure 19.3.5-7.
(S) Travel Time【Buendia Station⇒Shaw Boulevard Station】 (km/h) Average Speed【Buendia Station⇒Shaw Boulevard Station】

1,200 35.0
31.0 32.2
959 30.0
1,000 901
24.2 23.7 24.5 24.3
796 770 25.0 22.8 23.3
800
20.0
600 479 487 472 476 508 498 14.5 15.0
15.0 12.1 12.8
373 360
400
10.0
200 5.0
0 0.0
3Lane 4Lane 5Lane 3Lane 4Lane 5Lane 3Lane 4Lane 5Lane 3Lane 4Lane 5Lane 3Lane 4Lane 5Lane 3Lane 4Lane 5Lane 3Lane 4Lane 5Lane 3Lane 4Lane 5Lane
7:00‐7:30 7:30‐8:00 8:00‐8:30 8:30‐9:00 7:00‐7:30 7:30‐8:00 8:00‐8:30 8:30‐9:00
(V/h) Traffic Volume of Guadalupe Bridge （Bound for Quezo）
8,000
3Lane
7,000 6,301 6,274 6,556 6,657
4Lane
6,000
4,689 5Lane
5,000 4,325
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Total Total
7:00～8:00 8:00～9:00
Figure 19.3.5-7 Traffic Condition Comparison in Case of No. of Lanes-Guadalupe Bridge

(Northbound (Bound to Quezon City))
19-36
(S) Travel Time【Shaw Boulevard Station⇒Buendia Station】 (km/h) Average Speed【Shaw Boulevard Station⇒Buendia Station】
1,400 40.0
1,208 1,238
1,200 35.0
30.0
1,000
820 25.0 23.4 22.7
767
800 672 19.9
605 20.0 17.9
514 530 15.7 14.7
600
15.0
10.0 9.7
400 10.0
200 5.0
0 0.0
4Lane 5Lane 4Lane 5Lane 4Lane 5Lane 4Lane 5Lane 4Lane 5Lane 4Lane 5Lane 4Lane 5Lane 4Lane 5Lane
7:00‐7:30 7:30‐8:00 8:00‐8:30 8:30‐9:00 7:00‐7:30 7:30‐8:00 8:00‐8:30 8:30‐9:00
(V/h) Traffic Volume of Guadalupe Bridge （bound for Makati）
8,000
4Lane
7,000
5,815 5,748 5Lane
6,000
5,000 4,283 4,267
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Total Total
7:00～8:00 8:00～9:00

(Southbound (Bound to Makati City))
3) Obtained Result and Consideration

 In case of the reduction of the number of lanes from 5 to 4; the bottleneck point, the travel
time and the traffic volume of Guadalupe Bridge are the same as the present traffic condition.
 In case of the reduction of the number of lanes from 5 to 3; the bottleneck point is the same as
the present traffic condition. However, travel time and traffic volume are changed.
 The result of analysis, in case of the reduction of the number of lanes from 5 to 4, the traffic
condition is the same as the present traffic condition. However, in case of the reduction of the
number of lanes from 5 to 3, the traffic condition would change from the present traffic
condition.

 In case of the reduction of the number of lanes from 5 to 3; the bottleneck point would change
from Kalayaan Flyover to Guadalupe Bridge.
condition is the same as the present traffic condition. However, in the case of the reduction of
the number of lanes from 5 to 3, the traffic condition would change from the present traffic
condition.
19-37
4) Traffic Condition of 3-Lanes
In case of the reduction of the number of lanes from 5 to 3, the traffic condition would change
from the present traffic condition. The traffic volume and the traffic congestion of the traffic
condition of 3-lanes are shown as follows.

【Traffic volume 】
Figure 19.3.5-9 shows change of traffic volume.
 Traffic volume reduced by 2,000(Veh/hr)【7:00-8:00】
 Traffic volume reduced by 2,000(Veh/hr)【8:00-9:00】
(V/h) Traffic Volume of Guadalupe Bridge（Bound for Quezon）
8,000
3Lane 6,700
7,000 6,300
5Lane
6,000
4,700
5,000 4,300
4,000
3,000
2,000 32%reduction 30%reduction
1,000
0
7:00～8:00 8:00～9:00
Figure 19.3.5-9 Traffic Volume at Guadalupe Bridge in Case of 3-Lanes

【Queue length】
 Bottleneck point is the same as the present condition
 The increase of queue length【7:00-8:00】:2,000(Veh/hr)×7.5(m)÷5(m)=3,000m
※The number of lanes:5-lanes
※Average headway:7.5m
【Obtained Result and Consideration】

In case of the reduction of the number of lanes from 5 to 3, the traffic volume of Guadalupe
Bridge decreased by about 30% in the morning peak of 2 hours.
As a result, traffic congestion was extended to 6 km in the morning peak that is 2 hours as
compared with the present traffic condition.
19-38
Figure 19.3.5-10 shows change of traffic volume.
Traffic volume reduced by 1,300(Veh/hr)【7:00-8:00】
 Traffic volume is the same as the present condition【8:00-9:00】
(V/h) Traffic Volume of Guadalupe Bridge（Bound for Makati）
8,000
3Lane
7,000
5Lane 5,700
6,000
5,000 4,400 4,300 4,300
4,000
3,000
2,000 23%reduction
1,000
0
7:00～8:00 8:00～9:00
Figure 19.3.5-10 Traffic Volume of Guadalupe Bridge in Case of 3-Lanes

【Queue length】
Bottleneck point would change from Kalayaan Flyover to Guadalupe Bridge.
There would be an increase of queue length 【 7:00-8:00 】 :1,300(Veh/hr) × 7.5(m) ÷
5(m)=1,950m

In case of the reduction of the number of lanes from 5 to 3, the bottleneck point would
change from Kalayaan Flyover to Guadalupe Bridge. The traffic volume at Guadalupe
Bridge would be reduced by 20% between 7:00 and 8:00. It is the same as the present traffic
condition between 8:00 and 9:00.
The reason for the difference in the change of traffic volume is the influence of the present
traffic congestion. The present traffic congestion is not extended to Guadalupe Bridge
between 7:00 and 8:00. However, it is extended to Guadalupe Bridge between 8:00 and 9:00.
Therefore, the traffic volume of Guadalupe Bridge decreases in the present traffic condition
between 8:00 and 9:00. However, the traffic volume of Guadalupe Bridge in 3-lanes did not
change in the morning peak of 2 hours.
As a result, the traffic congestion was extended 2 km in the morning peak by 2 hours as
19-39
(4) Traffic Condition during Rehabilitation Works (Evening peak)
1) Bottleneck Point
The result of analysis is shown as follows (Figure 19.3.5-11).
a) 4-lanes
 In case of the reduction of the number of lanes from 5 to 4, the bottleneck point is before
the bridge, the same as the present traffic condition.

 In case of the reduction of the number of lanes from 5 to 4, low speed occurred before
Guadalupe Bridge.
 However, the bottleneck point is still before the bridge, the same as the present traffic
condition.
b) 3-lanes
change from the point before Guadalupe Bridge to Guadalupe Bridge.
 The traffic condition of 3-lanes would change from the present traffic condition.

change from Kalayaan Flyover to Guadalupe Bridge.
 The traffic condition of 3-lanes would change from the present traffic condition.
19-40
Bottleneck points
Average Speed Comparison in case of No. of lanes(PM peak)

【Southbou nd】
18:30-19:00 30.4 36.9 21.6 11.9 11.5
SIM 18:00-18:30 51.5 36.5 20.7 11.7 11.5
( 3lan e) 17:30-18:00 52.6 35.3 20.9 11.6 11.2
17:00-17:30 52.3 38.1 20.6 11.7 11.6
18:30-19:00 7.7 12.5 12.5 12.2 11.1
SIM 18:00-18:30 14.3 35.3 20.6 19.1 16.8
( 4lan e) 17:30-18:00 12.0 30.3 18.7 20.7 22.1
17:00-17:30 11.6 24.7 19.6 20.6 21.6
18:30-19:00 7.2 8.1 9.7 11.4 11.0
SIM 18:00-18:30 11.3 20.3 22.6 18.3 17.6
( 5lan e) 17:30-18:00 11.8 46.5 35.3 20.8 23.2
17:00-17:30 13.8 47.2 44.1 19.7 18.7

19-41
【North bou n d】
17:00-17:30 20.8 19.5 23.4 20.1
SIM 17:30-18:00 9.5 10.8 13.6 11.3
( 5lan e) 18:00-18:30 9.4 11.1 13.7 11.5
18:30-19:00 9.9 11.4 14.1 11.2
17:00-17:30 22.6 22.0 30.2 26.1
SIM 17:30-18:00 8.9 10.5 14.7 12.0
( 4lan e) 18:00-18:30 8.7 10.3 14.6 12.0
18:30-19:00 9.4 10.7 15.3 12.1
17:00-17:30 8.6 9.7 40.8 51.9
SIM 17:30-18:00 7.6 8.5 41.4 51.3
( 3lan e) 18:00-18:30 8.7 9.3 41.6 53.1
18:30-19:00 11.0 11.2 40.8 53.1 【km/ h】
0～20km/h
20～30km/h
Bottleneck points 30km/h～
Figure 19.3.5-11 Average Speed Comparison in Case of No. of Lanes (Guadalupe Bridge, Evening Peak)
2) Comparison of Travel Time and Traffic Volume
Travel time and the traffic volume of the same case as the present bottleneck point is shown as
follows.
a) 4-lanes

(S) Travel Time【Buendia Station⇒Shaw Boulevard Station】 (km/h) Average Speed【Buendia Station⇒Shaw Boulevard Station】

1,400 40.0
1,200 35.0
30.0 28.1
1,000 891 921 885 907 881
860 24.4
25.0
800
20.0
600 474 13.4 13.0 13.1 13.1
412 15.0 12.6 12.8
400 10.0
200 5.0
0 0.0
17:00‐17:30 17:30‐18:00 18:00‐18:30 18:30‐19:00 17:00‐17:30 17:30‐18:00 18:00‐18:30 18:30‐19:00
(V/h) Traffic Volume of Guadalupe Bridge（Bound for Quezo）
8,000
4Lane
7,000
5Lane
6,000 5,343 5,262
4,816 4,790
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Total Total
17:00～18:00 18:00～19:00

19-42
(S) Travel Time【Shaw Boulevard Station⇒Buendia Station】 (km/h) Average Speed【Shaw Boulevard Station⇒Buendia Station】
1,400 40.0
1,181
1,200 35.0
1,059
30.0
1,000
757 748 792 25.0
800 739 708
682
20.0 16.3 17.7 17.0
15.9 16.1 15.2
600
15.0 11.4 10.2
400 10.0
200 5.0
0 0.0
17:00‐17:30 17:30‐18:00 18:00‐18:30 18:30‐19:00 17:00‐17:30 17:30‐18:00 18:00‐18:30 18:30‐19:00
8,000
4Lane
7,000
5Lane
6,000 5,565 5,640
4,756 4,675
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Total Total
17:00～18:00 18:00～19:00

3) Obtained Result and Consideration

time and the traffic volume of Guadalupe Bridge are the same as the present traffic
condition.
 In case of the reduction of the number of lanes from 5 to 3; the bottleneck point would
change from the point before Guadalupe Bridge to Guadalupe Bridge.
 The result of analysis, in case of the reduction of the number of lanes from 5 to 4; the traffic
condition is the same as the present traffic condition. However, in case of the reduction of
condition.

 In case of the reduction of the number of lanes from 5 to 3, the bottleneck point would change
from Kalayaan Flyover to Guadalupe Bridge.
condition is the same as the present traffic condition. However, in the case of the reduction of
condition.
19-43
4) Traffic Condition of 3-Lanes
In the case of the reduction of the number of lanes from 5 to 3; the traffic condition would
change from the present traffic condition. The traffic volume and traffic congestion of the traffic
condition of 3-lanes are as follows.

Figure 19.3.5-14 shows the change of traffic volume.
 Traffic volume reduced by 700(Veh/hr)【17:00-18:00】
 Traffic volume reduced by 500(Veh/hr)【18:00-19:00】
(V/h) Traffic Volume of Guadalupe Bridge（Boud for Quezon）
8,000
3Lane
7,000
5Lane
6,000 5,300
4,600 4,800
5,000 4,300
4,000
3,000
1,000
0
17:00～18:00 18:00～19:00

【Queue length】
 Bottleneck point would change from the point before Guadalupe Bridge to Guadalupe
Bridge.
 The increase of queue length【7:00-8:00】:700(Veh/hr)×7.5(m)÷5(m)=1,050m
 The increase of queue length【7:00-8:00】:500(Veh/hr)×7.5(m)÷5(m)=750m

In case of the reduction of the number of lanes from 5 to 3; the bottleneck point would
change from the point before Guadalupe Bridge to Guadalupe Bridge. The traffic volume of
Guadalupe Bridge would be reduced by 10% between 17:00 and 19:00.
As a result, traffic congestion is extended by 2 km in the evening peak for 2 hours as

19-44
Figure 19.3.5-15 shows the change of traffic volume.

 Traffic volume is reduced by 1,300(Veh/hr)【17:00-18:00】
 Traffic volume is reduced by 300(Veh/hr)【18:00-19:00】
8,000
3Lane
7,000 5Lane
6,000 5,600
4,400 4,700
5,000 4,300
4,000
3,000
1,000
0
17:00～18:00 18:00～19:00

【Queue length】
 Bottleneck point would change from Kalayaan Flyover to Guadalupe Bridge.
 The increase of queue length【18:00-19:00】:300(Veh/hr)×7.5(m)÷5(m)=450m

In case of the reduction of the number of lanes from 5 to 3; the bottleneck point would
change from Kalayaan Flyover to Guadalupe Bridge. The traffic volume of Guadalupe
Bridge would decrease by 23% between 17:00 and 18:00 and would decrease by 6 %
between 18:00 and 19:00.
The reason of the difference in change of traffic volume is the influence of the present traffic
congestion. The present traffic congestion would not be extended to Guadalupe Bridge
between 17:00 and 18:00. However, it would be extended to Guadalupe Bridge between
18:00 and 19:00. Therefore, the traffic volume of Guadalupe Bridge would decrease from the
present traffic condition between 18:00 and 19:00. The traffic volume of Guadalupe Bridge
in 3-lanes did not change in the evening peak for 2 hours.
As a result, traffic congestion is extended by 2.5 km in the evening peak for 2 hours as
19-45
19.3.6 Result of the Traffic Analysis of Guadalupe Bridge
(1) Northbound (Bound to Quezon City)
■Morning peak
No. of lane Traffic condition at Guadalupe Bridge
5-lanes Bottleneck point Guadalupe Bridge
(Present Traffic 7:00-8:00 6,300veh/hr
condition) volume 8:00-9:00 6,700veh/hr
Bottleneck point Guadalupe Bridge
 Traffic condition is the same as
4-lanes Traffic 7:00-8:00 6,300veh/hr
the present traffic condition.
volume 8:00-9:00 6,600veh/hr
Bottleneck point Guadalupe Bridge  Traffic capacity is reduced by
7:00-8:00 4,300veh/hr about 30%.
3-lanes Traffic
 Traffic congestion is extended
volume 8:00-9:00 4,700veh/hr
by 6 km.
■Evening peak
The point before
5-lanes Bottleneck point
Guadalupe Bridge
(Present
Traffic 17:00-18:00 5,300veh/hr
condition)
volume 18:00-19:00 4,800veh/hr
The point before
Bottleneck point
Guadalupe Bridge  Traffic condition is the same as
4-lanes
Traffic 17:00-18:00 5,300veh/hr the present traffic condition.
volume 18:00-19:00 4,800veh/hr
Bottleneck point Guadalupe Bridge  Bottleneck point is changed.
17:00-18:00 4,600veh/hr  Traffic capacity is reduced by
3-lanes Traffic about 10%.
volume 18:00-19:00 4,300veh/hr  Traffic congestion is extended
by 2 km.
19-46
(2) Southbound (Bound to Makati City)
■Morning peak
5-lanes Bottleneck point Kalayaan Flyover
(Present Traffic 7:00-8:00 5,700veh/hr
condition) volume 8:00-9:00 4,300veh/hr
Bottleneck point Kalayaan Flyover
 Traffic condition is the same as
4-lanes Traffic 7:00-8:00 5,800veh/hr
the present traffic condition.
volume 8:00-9:00 4,300veh/hr
Bottleneck point Guadalupe Bridge  Bottleneck point is changed.
3-lanes Traffic about 20%.
by 2 km.
■Evening peak
The point before
5-lanes Bottleneck point
Guadalupe Bridge
(Present
Traffic 17:00-18:00 5,600veh/hr
condition)
volume 18:00-19:00 4,700veh/hr
The point before
Bottleneck point
Guadalupe Bridge  Traffic condition is the same as
4-lanes
Traffic 17:00-18:00 5,600veh/hr the present traffic condition.
volume 18:00-19:00 4,800veh/hr
Bottleneck point Guadalupe Bridge  Bottleneck point is changed
3-lanes Traffic about 6-23%.
by 2.5 km.
19-47
19.4 Traffic Analysis of Package C
19.4.1 Analysis of Traffic Congestion during Bridge Improvement
(1) Assumption
As mentioned in section 19.1, there will be no traffic restriction during construction outside Metro
Manila. But it may be used as some two- way traffic alternating along a single lane in some work
duration. The traffic analysis was done in case of a two-way traffic alternating along a single lane.
1) Traffic Growth Rate
The traffic growth rate used was the 2011 Atlas data of DPWH. This growth rate was estimated
from the past traffic count result. Based on the growth rate, the traffic volume during construction
in year 2018 was estimated as seen in Table 19.4.1-1.
Table 19.4.1-1 2011 DPWH Traffic Growth Rate

unit: %
MC/
Bridge Name Province Car Jeepney L-Bus Truck
Tricycle
st
1 Mactan Br. Cebu 2.28 2.70 2.28 2.28 2.17
Palanit Br.
N. Samar 2.21 2.51 2.21 2.21 2.15
Mawo Br.
Liloan Br. S.Leyte 2.25 2.61 2.25 2.25 2.18
Wawo Br. Butuan 2.06 2.27 2.06 2.06 1.99
Note: MC: Motor Cycle
Source: DPWH ATLAS 2011
2) Traffic Restriction during Construction Stage
The existing number of lanes is two lanes. Although there will be no traffic restriction during
construction, the traffic analysis was done basically for a two-way alternating traffic along a
single lane except at 1st Mactan Bridge, shown in Table 19.4.1-2
Table 19.4.1-2 Assumed Traffic Restriction during Construction

Existing No. of Traffic Analysis case of traffic
Bridge Name Remarks
Lane restriction
st
1 Mactan Br. 2 No Traffic Restriction Sub-structure retrofitting
only, traffic may not be
affected.
Palanit Br. 2 Two-way traffic alternating along
Mawo Br. 2 a single lane
Liloan Br. 2
Wawo Br. 2
Sourc: JICA Study Team
19-48
3) Traffic Capacity during Construction Stage
Traffic capacity during construction stage was assumed as follows.
 Traffic Capacity is 700 vehicles /hour for two-way traffic alternating along a single lane
( Source: Road Construction Capacity of Tokyo Metropolitan Police, Japan)
 Traffic Capacity is converted as PCU: 840 PCU/hr (It is assumed that large vehicle occupancy
rate is 20% in Tokyo. 700*1.2 = 840 PCU/hr.)
 Actually the capacity of a two-way traffic alternating along a single lane depends on the length.
For these bridges lengths are not so long, thus, it is assumed to be as the same capacity.
(2) Traffic Restriction during Construction Stage
Figure 19.4.1-1 - Figure 19.4.1-4 show the hourly volume and hourly capacity.
 The entire hourly volume along these four (4) bridges are lower than capacity, thus, traffic
congestion may not occur.
 Since morning and evening peak’s volume along Mawo Bridge and Wawo Bridge will be
nearing capacity, it is recommended to avoid two- way alternating traffic along a single lane
during peak hours for Mawo and Wawo Bridges.
Figure 19.4.1-1 Hourly Traffic Vlume vs.Capacity during Traffic Restriction at Palanit Bridge
(Y2018)
19-49
Figure 19.4.1-2 Hourly traffic volume vs. capacity during traffic restriction at Mawo Bridge
(Y2018)
Figure 19.4.1-3 Hourly Traffic Volume vs. Capacity during Traffic Restriction at Liloan
Bridge (Y2018)
19-50
Figure 19.4.1-4 Hourly Traffic Volume vs. Capacity during Traffic Restriction at Wawa
Bridge (Y2018)
19-51
19.5 ECONOMIC EVALUATION
19.5.1 General
The economic evaluation of the bridge improvement project is carried out by comparing the economic
cost of the project with the economic benefit that will be brought about by the bridge
replacement/retrofit.
The following three indexes are used to assess the project viability:
 Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
 Net Present Value (NPV)
 Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C Ratio)
19.5.2 Basic Assumption and Condition

In general, the economic analysis method for new road construction is established and formulated, but
for improvement especially for bridges has not been established, it is still under academic study.
Based on the “with case” and “without case” for bridge improvement, project cost and benefit are
estimated as shown in Table 19.5.2-1.
The project benefits are evaluated as the reduction costs which are the costs in case of ‘without case’.
Note that “without case” is estimated under the scenario which will happen when the bridge will not
be replaced or retrofitted in the future.
Table 19.5.2-1 Basic Concepts of Cost and Benefit

With Case Without Case
Scenario To conduct improvement of bridge Not to conduct improvement of bridge
- To extend the life of bridge - To become unusable when the bridge has
- To withstand a large sale reached its life
earthquake - To fall down if a large earthquake occurs.
Cost Work cost for replacement or -
retrofit
Bridge life Scenario
- Work cost for re-construction
- Detour cost due to traffic closure in
re-construction period
Huge earthquake Scenario
- Work cost for re-construction
- Detour cost due to traffic closure during
re-construction period
Benefit Reduction Cost of Without Case
Source: JICA Study Team
Based on the concepts, the characteristics of Cost and Benefit appearance is shown below.
It is clear that the benefits appear only when the events occurs under the scenarios due to bridge life
and large earthquake.
- Benefits from bridge’s life will appear will appear at “each year” because there is a probability of
bridge yearly deterioration.
- Benefits from large earthquake will appear at “each year” because there is a probability of
earthquake occurrence.
19-52
(1) Implementation Schedule
The project is proposed to be implemented for the following schedule:
2015~2016 : Detailed design
2016~2017 : Procurement of contractors
2017~2020 : Replacement/retrofit of bridges
2020~2021 : Opening to traffic (Opening year depends on the bridge construction)
Construction period of bridges are variable depending on the length of bridge, location and
construction method. Construction schedule was shown in Table 18.2.9-1
(2) Project Life

Economic life of the project is set as 30 years (2013-2042), although the physical bridges are much
longer. Economic viability of bridge shall be verified with the period of 30 years.
(3) Discount Rate

The rate of the capital opportunity cost is estimated at 15%. This rate is generally used as the discount
rate for the evaluation of infrastructure projects in the Philippines.
19.5.3 Economic Cost

Financial cost need to be converted into that of the economic cost when conducting an economic
evaluation, and the way of conversion from financial cost to economic cost is described below and
illustrated by the following chart.
 The Shadow Exchange Rate (SER) which is 20% higher than the official rate is used to
convert the items of foreign currency portion from dollar into Peso.
 The Shadow Wage Rate (SWR) which is 60% of current wage rate is used to convert the
unskilled worker cost (10% of the local currency portion) into economic price.
 The value of VAT (12%) is deducted from all the cost items.
Conversion
SER SWR VAT (12%)
Financial Cost (20% plus) (60%) Deducted Economic Cost
Foreign Currency Portion Foreign Currency
Portion
Unskilled
Local Labor (10%)
Currency Local Currency
Portion Equipment Portion
(90%)

Figure 19.5.3-1 Process of Converting the Initial Cost from Financial to Economic Value
19-53
The results of above-mentioned process of conversion from financial cost to economic cost are
indicated in the table below.
Table 19.5.3-1 Financial Cost

Financial Cost (Million Php)
1st
Item Mactan
Total
Replace
Replace + Retrofit Replace Replace Retrofit Replace
Retrofit
1. Civil Work 6,359.4 1,033.2 1,796.6 1,866.4 96.4 781.7 203.2 582.0
1-1. Direct Cost 5,379.4 868.2 1,518.9 1,579.6 81.9 665.8 172.8 492.2
1-2. Physical Contingency 235.9 38.1 66.6 69.3 3.6 29.2 7.6 21.6
1-3. Tax 744.0 126.9 211.1 217.5 10.9 86.6 22.8 68.3
2-1. Detail Design 236.1 38.2 63.0 87.5 5.8 22.1 4.5 14.9
2-2. Tender Assisitance 18.8 3.6 5.6 3.4 1.1 2.3 0.7 2.3
2-3. Construction Supervision 296.4 54.6 59.3 38.0 32.6 42.9 26.1 42.9
2-3. VAT 66.3 11.6 15.5 15.5 4.7 8.1 3.8 7.2
3. Land Acquistion Cost 123.6 54.2 61.6 4.3 0.5 1.2 0.5 1.4
2) Land Acquisition 1.5 1.5
3) Compensation 6.6 0.3 0.4 4.3 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6
4. Administrative Cost 138.8 22.8 41.6 41.6 2.2 17.5 0.2 13.0
Grand Total (M Php) 7,239 1,218 2,043 2,057 143 876 239 664
Table 19.5.3-2 Estimated Economic Cost

Economic Cost (Million Php)
1st
Item Mactan
Total
Replace
Retrofit
1. Civil Work 5,346.9 871.5 1,524.7 1,585.7 82.2 615.1 173.5 494.1
1-1. Foreign 5,110.9 833.4 1,458.1 1,516.5 78.6 585.9 165.9 472.5
1-3. Physical Contingency 235.9 38.1 66.6 69.3 3.6 29.2 7.6 21.6
1-4. Tax 0.0
2-1. Detail Design 236.1 38.2 63.0 87.5 5.8 22.1 4.5 14.9
2-2. Tender Assisitance 18.8 3.6 5.6 3.4 1.1 2.3 0.7 2.3
2-3. VAT 0.0
3. Land Acquistion Cost 108.8 47.7 54.2 3.7 0.4 1.0 0.4 1.3
2) Land Acquisition 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3) Compensation 5.8 0.3 0.4 3.7 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6
4. Administrative Cost 122.2 20.1 36.6 36.6 1.9 15.4 0.2 11.4
Grand Total (M Php) 6,129 1,036 1,743 1,755 124 699 205 567
19-54
Table 19.5.3-3-Table 19.5.3-9 show the economic cost per year considering the implementation
schedule for each bridge.
Table 19.5.3-3 Estimated Economic Cost per Year of Lambingan Bridge

Unit: Million Php
Economic Cost 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
1.ROW Acquisition Cost 47.7 0.0 31.8 15.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
2.Detailed Engineering Design 38.2 19.1 19.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3.Tendering Assistant 3.6 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
4. Construction Cost 871.5 0.0 0.0 174.3 348.6 348.6 0.0
5. Construction Supervision Cost 54.6 0.0 0.0 10.9 21.8 21.8 0.0
6. Administration Cost 20.1 2.2 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 0.0
Total 1,035.7 21.3 55.4 209.2 374.9 374.9 0
Table 19.5.3-4 Estimated Economic Cost per Year of Guadalupe Bridge

Unit: Million Php
Economic Cost 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
4. Construction Cost 1,524.7 0.0 0.0 286.6 573.2 573.2 91.7
Total 1,743.4 35.4 75.5 329.2 603.3 603.3 97
Table 19.5.3-5 Estimated Economic Cost per Year of 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge
Unit: Million Php
Economic Cost 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
4. Construction Cost 1,585.7 0.0 0.0 466.4 932.8 186.6 0.0
Total 1,755.0 48.7 56.2 492.1 965.0 193.0 0
Table 19.5.3-6 Estimated Economic Cost per Year of Palanit Bridge

Unit: Million Php
Economic Cost 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Total 124.1 3.2 3.7 35.5 68.0 13.6 0
19-55
Table 19.5.3-7 Estimated Economic Cost per Year of Mawo Bridge
Unit: Million Php
Economic Cost 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Total 698.8 13.0 15.6 39.3 300.0 330.9 0
Table 19.5.3-8 Estimated Economic Cost per Year of Liloan Bridge

Unit: Million Php
Economic Cost 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Total 205.4 2.3 2.6 77.6 122.9 0.0 0
Table 19.5.3-9 Estimated Economic Cost per Year of Wawa Bridge

Unit: Million Php
Economic Cost 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Total 566.8 8.9 11.2 34.3 243.6 268.9 0
19.5.4 Benefits
This section shows the benefit estimation method for two scenarios, those that are caused by bridge
deterioration and by huge earthquake.
(1) Scenario Caused by Bridge Life (deterioration)

Substantial part of benefits derived from replacement or retrofitting of bridges are saving of Vehicle
Operating Cost (VOC) and Travel Time Cost (TTC) of passing vehicles by reducing the probability of
bridge collapse. As shown in the following sketch, if a bridge will collapse, vehicles crossing the
bridge will be obliged to take another bridge (or sea transport) located along detour route, which are
normally with longer travel distance and/or inferior surface condition.
19-56
Probability of bridge collapse depends on the condition of bridge and replacement or retrofit.
Traffic impact of collapse for Lambingan Bridge, Guadalupe Bridge and 1st Mactan Bridge was
estimated based on the traffic assignment.
Other four (4) bridges are assumed with the following condition based on the present transport
network. Table 19.5.4-1 shows that the travel length and travel time of regular route and detour route
based on present transport condition.
Table 19.5.4-1 Estimation of Travel Time and Length for Regular Route and Detour Route
Bridge Regular Route Detour Route Remarks
Name
Lambingan - - Traffic impact analysis
Guadalupe - - was done by traffic
1st Mandaue- - - assignment.
Mactan
Travel length; 75m Travel length; 200m No alternate Route, must
Travel Time; 0.1 min. Travel Time; 60.9min. use water transport
Palanit
(incl. ferry waiting time, loading and
unloading time)
Travel length; 260m Travel length; 800m No alternate Route, must
Travel Time;0.3 min. Travel Time; 82.4 min. use water transport, no
Mawo visible ferry terminal
unloading time)
Travel length;130m Travel length;400m No alternate Route, must
Travel Time;0.2min. Travel Time; 61.2min. use water transport
Liloan
unloading time)
Wawa Travel length;2,700m Travel length;9,000m via Magsaysay Viaduct
Travel Time;2.35 min. Travel Time; 27 min.
(assumed 20km/h as detour route)
Construction of new bridge will reduce the probability of bridge collapse and entailing bridge
un-service which requires vehicle to take detour road. Differences in vehicle operating costs
between detour road and regular road is considered as benefit.
19-57
1) Probability Model of Bridge Un-serviceability
Annual probability of bridge un-serviceability is assumed to follow a normal distribution with
the following parameters.
F(x) = N [m.2] = N [50,16.72]*

1   ( x  m)2 
= x EXP  
 2
2
2 2 
where, F(x) = Probability of bridge un-serviceability at year x
m = Average bridge life (50 years)
 = Standard deviation (16.7 years)
Probability Density of Bridge Un-service

3.0000%
2.5000%
2.0000%
Probability (%)
1.5000%
1.0000%
0.5000%
0.0000%
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Year
Figure 19.5.4-1 Probability Density of Bridge Un-Service1
1
The Study on the Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Bridges in Malaysia, 1992 (JICA)
19-58
2) Bridge Age
Residual life of bridges differs by structure type, traffic volume, geography, present structural
conditions and other factors even calendar age is same. Since bridges identified for
reconstruction in this study are in an advanced stage of dilapidation, their physical lives are
assumed to be elapsed. Hence, age for bridges proposed for reconstruction in this study is set as
50 years.
The probability densities for bridge age of 50 and newly constructed bridge are shown in Table
19.5.4-2 in comparison with original probability densities.
Table 19.5.4-2 Probability Density of Bridges

Year Original Probability Replacement Bridge Retrofit Bridge Bridge age 502
Sq
Density (with project) (with project) (without project)
51 2020 2.3846% 0.0270% 2.536% 4.8862%
52 2021 2.3718% 0.0323% 2.574% 4.8599%
53 2022 2.3506% 0.0384% 2.607% 4.8166%
54 2023 2.3213% 0.0455% 2.634% 4.7565%
55 2024 2.2842% 0.0538% 2.655% 4.6804%
56 2025 2.2396% 0.0633% 2.671% 4.5890%
57 2026 2.1880% 0.0743% 2.680% 4.4833%
58 2027 2.1299% 0.0868% 2.683% 4.3643%
59 2028 2.0660% 0.1011% 2.680% 4.2333%
60 2029 1.9968% 0.1173% 2.671% 4.0915%
61 2030 1.9230% 0.1356% 2.656% 3.9403%
62 2031 1.8453% 0.1563% 2.635% 3.7812%
63 2032 1.7644% 0.1794% 2.608% 3.6154%
64 2033 1.6811% 0.2052% 2.575% 3.4446%
65 2034 1.5959% 0.2339% 2.537% 3.2701%
66 2035 1.5096% 0.2657% 2.494% 3.0933%
67 2036 1.4229% 0.3007% 2.446% 2.9156%
68 2037 1.3364% 0.3391% 2.398% 2.7383%
69 2038 1.2506% 0.3810% 2.350% 2.5625%
70 2039 1.1661% 0.4265% 2.302% 2.3895%
71 2040 1.0835% 0.4758% 2.206% 2.2201%
72 2041 1.0031% 0.5289% 2.045% 2.0554%
73 2042 0.9254% 0.5858% 1.890% 1.8961%
Total 42.4697% 4.8538% 57.5330% 83.6833%
Source: JBIC SAPROF for Eastern Bangladesh Bridge Improvement Project
3) Un-service Duration of Bridges

In order to estimate the un-service duration of bridges, the number of months required for bridge
construction was assumed as a function of bridge length as follows:3
Log (M) = 0.5721 log (L) + 0.043
Where;
M = Standard number of months required for bridge construction
L = Bridge length (m)
Based on the above formula, reconstruction month is estimated as the purpose of economic
analysis shown in Table 19.5.4-3.
2
JBIC SAPROF for Eastern Bangladesh Bridge Improvement Project
3
JBIC SAPROF for Eastern Bangladesh Bridge Improvement Project
19-59
Table 19.5.4-3 Assumed Un-service Duration of Bridges
Bridge name Length Reconstruction months
Lambingan 144m 19
Guadalupe 98m 15
1st Mandaue- Mactan 859m 52
Palanit 123m 18
Mawo 259m 26
Liloan 298m 29
Wawa 228m 25
Source: Calculated by the JICA Study Team
4) Benefit Calculations
VOC and TTC savings from replacement of permanent bridge is calculated from the following
formulae:
Bxc =∑ [fo(x)-fw(x)]*d*AADTxi*(DLo*VOCoi-DLw*VOCwi) + [fo(x)-fw(x)]*C
Bxt =∑ [fo(x)-fw(x)]*d*AADTxi*(OLo/VOi - DLw/Vwi)*TTCi
where:
Bxc = VOC savings at year x
Bxt = TTC savings at year x
fo(x) = Probability of bridge unusable in year x for without project case
fw(x) = Probability of bridge unusable in year x for with project case
d = Number of days required for bridge reconstruction
AADTxi = Average Annual Daily Traffic of vehicle type i in year x
DLo = Length of detour route (km)
DLw = Length of regular route (km)
VOCoi = Vehicle operating cost of vehicle type i along detour route (peso/km)
VOCwi = Vehicle operating cost of vehicle type i along regular route (peso/km)
TTCi = Travel time cost of vehicle type i (peso/h)
C = Bridge reconstruction cost
Voi = Vehicle operating speed of vehicle type i along detour route (km/h)
Vwi = Vehicle operating speed of vehicle type i along regular route (km/h)
5) Benefit Measurement
Unit Vehicle Operating Cost (VOC)
Benefit derived from road and bridge project is mainly accrued from savings in Vehicle
Operating Cost (VOC) that consists of cost of operation and maintenance of each vehicle
category such as fuel and lubrication cost, oil consumption cost, tire cost, repair/maintenance
cost and depreciation cost.
The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) has been periodically updating VOC
data in order to use as input to the HDM Model for the appraisal of highway development and
maintenance projects. There are the detailed data of VOC in 2008 (see Table 19.5.4-4), therefore,
these data are revised and updated in accordance with the consumer price indices (average CPI
3.6%) . They are summarized in Table 19.5.4-5.
19-60
Table 19.5.4-4 Unit VOC by Vehicle Type in September 2008
(Pesos per veh-km)
Speed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(km/h) Motor- Car Jeepney Goods Small Large Rigid Rigid Semi- Semi-
Tricycle Utility Bus Bus Truck Truck Trailer Trailer
2ax 3ax 4ax 5ax
20 3.32 12.33 9.54 10.85 23.81 33.37 23.17 37.71 41.40 43.79
30 2.78 10.51 8.09 9.06 20.31 28.11 20.02 32.50 36.37 38.73
40 2.43 9.19 7.13 7.83 17.78 24.40 17.89 29.06 33.26 35.63
50 2.32 8.53 6.75 7.31 16.53 22.66 17.01 27.86 32.46 34.86
60 2.35 8.22 6.72 7.18 15.96 22.00 16.76 27.85 32.79 35.13
70 2.46 8.14 6.91 7.32 15.79 22.04 16.83 28.51 33.55 35.78
80 2.48 8.21 7.24 7.61 15.83 22.55 17.06 29.45 34.52 36.69
90 2.48 8.37 7.63 7.97 15.95 22.57 17.35 29.45 35.58 37.73
100 2.48 8.58 8.00 8.32 16.10 22.57 17.51 29.45 36.04 38.19
110 2.48 8.78 8.30 8.59 16.22 22.57 17.51 29.45 36.04 38.19
120 2.48 8.83 8.52 8.78 16.30 22.57 17.51 29.45 36.04 38.19
Source: DPWH
Table 19.5.4-5 Unit VOC by Vehicle Type in 2013

(Pesos per veh-km)
Motorcycle
Speed (km) Passenger Car Jeepney Bus Truck
/Tricycle
20 3.00 14.92 11.54 40.36 35.66
30 2.56 12.71 9.79 34.01 30.95
40 2.24 11.12 8.62 29.52 27.85
50 2.08 10.32 8.17 27.40 26.72
60 2.00 9.94 8.13 26.61 26.60
70 1.98 9.84 8.36 26.66 26.96
80 2.00 9.93 8.76 27.27 27.56
90 2.04 10.13 9.23 27.31 27.99
Source: DPWH, JICA Study Team
Based on traffic assignment results for Guadalupe Bridge, Lambingan Bridge and 1st Mactan
Bridge, the VOC saving for the whole road network will be calculated based on the product of
the estimated traffic volumes and unit VOC. Other four (4) bridges will be calculated based on
the product of the traffic volume and unit VOC (assumed speed of the regular route is 60kph,
detour route is 20kph).
Unit Travel Time Cost (TTC)
The Travel Time Cost (TTC) is normally calculated based on the average labor productivity in
the Philippines. The basic costs for TTC by type of passenger were obtained also from the
DPWH. The values are 2013 price level. In the derivation of the TTC, the average income,
employment and the gross national product were used as the basis to calculate for the working
time and non-working time per person-hour for representative vehicle type and then estimate for
the passenger time cost per person.
The unit TTC cost by type of vehicles in year 2013 which were updated based on the consumer
price indices (Average CPI 3.6%), is shown in Table 19.5.4-6-Table 19.5.4-7.
19-61
Table 19.5.4-6 Unit Travel Time Cost in 2008
Peso/min/veh.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
Motorcy Passeng Jeepney Goods Small Large Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid
cle/ er Car Utility Bus Bus Truck Truck Truck Truck
Tricycle 2axle 3axle 4axle 5axle
1.37 6.81 7.44 2.57 12.69 27.82 1.02 1.46 2.10 2.10
Source: DPWH
Table 19.5.4-7 Unit Travel Time Cost in 2013

Peso/min/veh.
Vehicle Type 2013
Motorcycle/Tricycle 1.66
Passenger Car 8.23
Jeepney 9.00
Bus 33.65
Truck 1.57
(2) Scenario Caused by Large Earthquake

Scenario caused by “Earthquake” is assumed that the bridge will collapse if an earthquake occurs.
Therefore, it is not predictable; it only has the probability for each year.
If the Earthquake’s Probability of Occurrence is assumed to be 30years, the benefit in each year
will take the 1/30 of benefit when the earthquake occurs at the year.
1) Occurrence Probability of Earthquake in the Philippine

The intensity scale or PGA (Peak Ground Acceleration) was used as a measure of damageability.
Table 19.5.4-8 shows the PEIS (Philippine Earthquake Intensity Scale) and equivalent PGA
range. Though bridge collapse is expected at PEIS VIII according to the PEIS description, PEIS
–VII was applied as the threshold of bridge collapse because these selected bridges were already
damaged.
Table 19.5.4-8 PHILVOLCS Earthquake Intensity Scale

PGA
PEIS Description (g values)
PEIS-I.  Perceptible to people only under favorable circumstances. 0.0005
Scarcely  Delicately-balanced objects are disturbed slightly.
Perceptible Still water in containers oscillates slightly.
PEIS-II.  Felt by few individuals at rest indoors. 0.0009
Slightly Felt  Hanging objects swing slightly.
Still water in containers oscillates noticeably.
PEIS-III.  Felt by many people indoors specially in upper floors of buildings. 0.0011
Weak Vibration is felt like the passing of a light truck. Dizziness and nausea
are experienced by some people.
 Hanging objects swing moderately.
Still water in containers oscillates moderately.
PEIS-IV.  Felt generally by people indoors and some people outdoors. Light 0.0050
Moderately sleepers are awakened. Vibration is felt like the passing of a heavy
Strong truck.
 Hanging objects swing considerably. Dinner plates, glasses, windows
and doors rattle. Floors and walls of wood-framed building creak.
Standing motor cars may rock slightly.
 Water in containers oscillates strongly.
19-62
PGA
PEIS Description (g values)
Rumbling sounds may sometimes be heard.
PEIS-V.  Generally felt by most people indoors and outdoors many sleeping 0.0100
Strong people awakened. Some are frightened; some run outdoors. Strong
shaking and rocking are felt throughout the building.
 Hanging objects swing violently. Dining utensils clatter and clink;
some are broken. Small light and unstable objects may fall or
overturn. Liquids spill from filled open containers. Standing vehicles
rock noticeably.
Shaking of leaves and twigs of trees is noticeable.
PEIS-VI.  Many people are frightened; many run outdoors, some people lose 0.1200
Very Strong their balance. Motorists feel like driving with flat tires.
 Heavy objects and furniture move or may be shifted. Small church
bells may ring. Wall plaster may crack. Very old or poorly built
houses and man-made structures are slightly damaged. Though
well-built structures are not affected.
Limited rock falls and rolling boulders occur in hilly to mountainous
areas and escarpments. Trees are noticeably shaken.
PEIS-VII.  Most people are frightened and run outdoors. People find it difficult to 0.2100
Destructive stand in upper floors.
 Heavy objects and furniture overturn or topple. Big church bells may
ring. Old or poorly built structures suffer considerable damage. Some
well-built structures are slightly damaged. Some crocks may appear
on dikes, fishponds, road surfaces, or concrete hollow block walls.
Limited liquefaction, literal spreading and landslides are observed.
Trees are shaken strongly. (Liquefaction is a process by which loose
saturated sand loses strength during an earthquake. And behaves like
liquid.)
PEIS-VIII.  People are panicky. People find it difficult to stand even outdoors. 0.3600-0.5300
Very  Many well-buildings are considerably damaged. Concrete dikes and
Destructive foundations of bridges are destroyed by ground setting or topping.
Railway tracks are bent or broken.
 Tombstones may be displaced. Twisted or overturned. Utility posts,
towers and monuments may tilt or topple. Water and sewer pipes may
be bent, twisted or broken.
Liquefaction and literal spreading causes man-made structures to
sink, tilt or topple. Numerous landslides and rock falls occur in
mountainous and hilly areas. Boulders are thrown out from their
positions particularly near the epicenter. Fissures and fault rupture
may be observed. Trees are violently shaken. Water splashes of slops
over dikes or banks of rivers.
PEIS-IX.  People are forcibly thrown to the ground. Many cry and shake with 0.71100-0.8600
Devastating fear.
 Most buildings are totally damaged. Bridges and elevated concrete
structures are toppled or destroyed.
 Numerous utility posts, towers and monuments are titled, toppled or
broken. Water and sewer pipes are bent, twisted or broken.
Landslides and liquefaction with lateral spreading and sand boils are
widespread. The ground is distorted into undulations. Trees are
shaken very violently with some toppled or broken. Boulders are
commonly thrown out. River water splashes violently or slops over
dikes and banks.
PEIS-X.  Practically all man-made structures are destroyed. >1.1500
Completely Massive landslides and liquefaction, large scale subsidence and
Devastating uplifting of landforms. And many ground fissures are observed.
Changes in river courses and destructive seiche in lakes occur. Many
trees are toppled, broken or uprooted.
Source: Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
19-63
The JICA Study Team computed the return period in years that PGA value is exceeding as
shown in Table 19.5.4-9
Table 19.5.4-9 Return Period of PGA Value

Lambingan and 1st Mandaue Palanit and Liloan Bridge Wawa Bridge
Guadalupe Bridge Mactan Bridge Mawo Bridge
PEIS-VI(0.12g) 22yrs 97yrs 9yrs 30yrs 19yrs
PEIS-VII(0.21g) 83yrs 550yrs 43yrs 142yrs 78yrs
PEIS-VIII(0.36g) 412yrs 4,249yrs 260yrs 959yrs 438yrs
PEIS-IX(0.6g) 2,658yrs 43,461yrs 1,900yrs 8,651yrs 3,116yrs
PEIS-X(0.9g) 15,747yrs 396,840yrs 12,011yrs 67,921yrs 19,233yrs
Source: Calculated by the JICA Study Team
2) Benefit Calculations
VOC and TTC savings from replacement of permanent bridge considering the earthquake
occurrence is calculated from the following formula:
Bxc = P*d*AADTxi*(DLo*VOCoi-DLw*VOCwi) + P*C
Bxt = P*d*AADTxi*(OLo/VOi - DLw/Vwi)*TTCi
where:
P = Probability of Earthquake’s Occurrence
Bxc = VOC savings at year x
Bxt = TTC savings at year x
d = Number of days required for bridge reconstruction
AADTxi = Average Annual Daily Traffic of vehicle type i in year x
DLo = Length of detour route (km)
DLw = Length of regular route (km)
VOCoi = Vehicle operating cost of vehicle type i along detour route (peso/km)
VOCwi = Vehicle operating cost of vehicle type i along regular route (peso/km)
TTCi = Travel time cost of vehicle type i (peso/h)
C = Bridge reconstruction cost
Voi = Vehicle operating speed of vehicle type i along detour route (km/h)
Vwi = Vehicle operating speed of vehicle type i along regular route (km/h)
19.5.5 Result of Economic Evaluation

Results of economic evaluation by bridges are shown in Table 19.5.5-1. All bridges were evaluated as
economically feasible. Cost benefit stream of each bridge is presented in Table 19.5.5-2 - Table
19.5.5-9.
Table 19.5.5-1 Results of Economic Evaluation by Bridges

Bridge EIRR B/C NPV
(Million Peso @i=15%)
Lambingan 26.5% 1.84 439.2
Guadalupe 26.8% 2.08 933.2
1st Mandaue- Mactan 20.3% 1.42 381.3
Palanit 19.1% 1.27 17.3
Mawo 16.1% 1.06 21.6
Liloan 19.8% 1.27 28.9
Wawa 15.4% 1.02 6.3
Projects (all seven bridges) 22.8% 1.59 1823.5
19-64
Table 19.5.5-2 Cost-Benefit Stream (Lambingan Bridge)
19-65
Table 19.5.5-3 Cost-Benefit Stream (Guadalupe Bridge)
19-66
Table 19.5.5-4 Cost-Benefit Stream (1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge)
19-67
Table 19.5.5-5 Cost-Benefit Stream (Palanit Bridge)
19-68
Table 19.5.5-6 Cost-Benefit Stream (Mawo Bridge)
19-69
Table 19.5.5-7 Cost-Benefit Stream (Liloan Bridge)
19-70
Table 19.5.5-8 Cost-Benefit Stream (Wawa Bridge)
19-71
Table 19.5.5-9 Cost-Benefit Stream (Total, all seven bridges)
19-72
19.5.6 Project Sensibility
The Project Sensitivity to the identified risks is shown in Table 19.5.6-1
Table 19.5.6-1 Project Sensitivity

Base Cost plus 10% Cost plus 20%
Base 22.8% 21.0% 19.5%
Benefit less 10% 20.8% 19.2% 17.7%
Benefit less 20% 18.8% 17.2% 15.9%
Results show that the project is able to hurdle the minimum acceptable criteria of EIRR that is15%.
Even if cost goes up and/or benefit goes down as shown in the following condition, the minimum
criteria of 15% EIRR would still meet.
● Cost plus 59%

● Benefit less 47%
● Cost plus 22% and Benefit less 22%
19-73
CHAPTER 20 NATURAL AND SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT
ASSESSMENT
20.1 Environmental and Social Consideration
20.1.1 Legal Framework

(1) National and Local Environmental Assessment Laws, Regulation and Standard
The proposed Project will be governed by the existing environmental assessment laws and regulations
specifically under the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System (PEIS). It will also be
guided by the DENR/EMB policies and other local environmental and social instruments specifically
for projects experiencing adverse impacts within the direct impact area (DIA). Table 20.1.1-1 shows
the national and local environmental assessment laws, regulations and standards applicable for the
proposed Project. Table 20.1.1-2 also shows other related environmental laws and regulations that
might be applicable once the Project starts its construction depending on the scale of construction
activities that will be implemented.
Table 20.1.1-1 National and Local Environmental Assessment Laws, Regulations and Standards
Number Title/Description
PD 1151 Philippine Environmental Policy
PD 1586 Establishing an Environmental Impact Statement System including

other Environmental Management related Measures and for other
purposes
DAO 2009-15 Implementation of EIS-Information System, CNC Automated
Processing System, GIS Maps of Environmentally Critical Areas
DAO 2003-30 Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) for the Philippine
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System
DAO 2000-37 Addendum to Article VIII Section 1.0 of DAO 96-37 re: Standard Costs
and Fees for Various Services of the EMB relative to the
Implementation of the Philippine EIS System
DAO2000-05 Revising DAO No. 94-11, supplementing the DAO No. 96-37 and
providing for Programmatic Compliance Procedures within the EIS
System
DAO 1999-37 Implementing Rules and Regulations for the Operationalization of the
Environmental Revolving Fund under PD 1586
DENR MC 2010-14 Standardization of Requirements and Enhancement of Public
participation in the Streamlined Implementation of the Philippine EIS
System
DENR MC 2007-08 Simplifying the Requirements for Environmental Compliance
Certificate or certificate of Non-Coverage Applications
DENR MC 2008-08 Clarification of the Role of LGUs in the Philippine EIS System in
relation to MC 2007-08
EMB MC 2011-005 Incorporating Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Climate Change
Adaptation (CCA) concerns in the Philippine EIS System
EMB MC 2010-004 Guidelines for use of Screening and Environmentally Critical Area
(ECA) Map Systems
EMB MC 2010-002 Clarification to DENR MC 2010-14 and other EIS System Policy
Issuances
EMB MC 2007-002 Revised Procedural Manual for DENR Administrative Order No. 30,
Series of 2003 (DAO 03-30)
EMB MC 2007-001 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Review Manual
20-1
Table 20.1.1-2 Other National and Local Environmental Laws, Regulations and Standards
Number Title/Description
AIR QUALITY
RA 8749 Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999
DAO 2000-82 Integrated Air Quality Improvement Framework – Air Quality Control Action
Plan
DAO 2000-81 Implementing Rules and Regulations for RA 8749
DAO 1998-46 1998 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations for the Prevention,
Control and
Abatement of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles
DAO 1993-14 Air Quality Standards of the Philippines
WATER QUALITY
RA 9275 The Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004
DAO 2003-27 Amending DAO 26, DAO 29 and DAO 2000-81 among others on the
Preparation and
Submission of Self-Monitoring Report (SMR)
DAO 1990-35 Revised Effluent Standards of 1990
DAO 1990-34 Revised Water Usage and Classification – Water Quality Criteria
MC 2009-014 Strict Implementation of the 50 meters Buffer Zone
MC 2003-008 Procedural and Reference Manual for DAO 2003-27
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
RA 6969 Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Wastes Control Act of 1990
DAO 2004-36 Procedural Manual for DAO 1992-29
DAO 1992-29 Implementing Rules and Regulations for RA 6969
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
RA 9003 Ecological Solid Waste Management Act of 2000
Legend:
PD – Presidential Decree
RA – Republic Act
DAO – Department Administrative Order
MC – Memorandum Circular
Source: EMB-EIA website
(2) JICA Environmental and Social Screening Requirement

Determination of environmental and social impacts is one of the studies included in the seismic
improvement prioritization of the proposed Project. The process is based on the “JICA Guidelines for
Environmental and Social Considerations – April 2010”. The following activities and policies must be
considered for the evaluation of environmental and social aspects:
・ Collection and analysis of data and information
・ Scoping
・ Prediction of environmental and social impacts of works on selected bridges
・ Consideration alternatives
・ Consideration of mitigation method
・ Consideration of Environmental Management and Monitoring Plan
・ Support for Stakeholders’ Meeting
・ Support for preparing a draft Resettlement Action Plan
An environmental screening checklist was also used as guidelines for the conduct of the
environmental and social survey.
20-2
(3) Philippine Environmental impact Assessment System for Road and Bridge Project
The Philippine EIS, under Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1586, is a key planning tool and a
decision-making guide for any major project to ensure a rational balance between socio-economic
development and environmental protection for the benefit of present and future generations. It
involves assessing the direct and indirect impacts of the Project to its surrounding physical and human
environment, and requiring the incorporation of appropriate enhancement and mitigating measures for
environmental protection throughout the different development phases of a Project.
The DENR Administrative Order No. 30 Series of 2003 (DAO 03-30), otherwise known as the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of PD No. 1586, presents the requirements, document reporting
outline, screening and evaluation procedures, and other provisions regarding the issuance of an ECC
for new and existing projects.
Depending on the scope of the rehabilitation and retrofitting works, the Proponent may be required to
secure an ECC from the DENR-EMB prior to start of works. The project screening matrix determines
the type of document that the Proponent must prepare. The requirement is specifically stated in Annex
2-1b Item No. 77-C.4.a (bridges and viaducts projects) of DAO 03-30. An IEE Report is required for
bridges or viaducts with length of > 80m but < 10km. The outline and modules for this IEE report are
based on Annex 2-15 of DAO 03-30.
However, DENR-EMB may further require additional information or studies aside from what is
indicated in the IEE Report. Under special circumstances, a full Environmental Impact Study (EIS)
may be required for the project. This requirement shall be made after thorough assessment by
DENR-EMB on the impact of the proposed project. Such circumstances may include but not limited
to the following:
・ Potential project impact on critical protected areas, historical or cultural properties

・ Presence of indigenous people/communities in the direct impact area
・ Construction activities, such as drilling of foundation piles, significant expansion of ROW and
road approaches, may have massive and irreversible impacts on the present environmental and
social conditions.
Figure 20.1.1-1 shows a simplified flowchart for the ECC application and review processes.
20-3
Figure 20.1.1-1 Flowchart for ECC applications and review processes
20-4
(4) Required EIA Process for Candidate Bridges
Infrastructure Projects including construction of Major Road and Bridge (80m <length< 10km) is still
not considered as Environmental Critical Project under Philippine EIS system. (Shown in)
The entire Projects sites are not located in historical, cultural and national reserve but with water
bodies are technically considered to locate Environmental Critical Area.
Thus all Replacement/Retrofitting Bridge Projects are required IEE Report as shown in Table 20.1.1-3.
Max time to grant or deny ECC (Environmental Compliance Commitment) Application is 60 working
days for Replacement/Retrofitting Bridge Projects as shown in Table 20.1.1-3.
In case that PAPs is over 200 full RAP Report and procedures are required and also it is necessary to
consult JICA committee (Advisory committee for environmental and social considerations).
Supposed schedule of EIA process after second screening is shown in.
After decided the Bridges to replace or retrofit, DPWH of proponent will initiate EIA processes
obtained result of outline design such as construction method and construction yards.
Then submitted IEE are reviewed at EMB for at least 45 days and ECC (Environmental Compliance
Commitment) issued.
After the L/A between Japan and the Philippines, proponent of Project (DPWH) will initiate LARAP
(Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Plan).
It is though that necessary period for LARAP will takes more than one year.
20-5
Table 20.1.1-3 Summary Table of Project Groups, EIA Report Types, Decision Documents, Processing/Deciding Authorities and Processing Duration
20-6
Source: REVISE PROCEDURAL MANUAL FOR DAO 2003-30

(5) Environmental Standard
Environmental standard and regulations for Air, water and noise are shown in following tables.
Table 20.1.1-4 National Ambient Air Quality Guideline Values
Table 20.1.1-5 Effluent Standard: Conventional and Other Pollutants in Land Waters Class C
and Coastal Waters Class
Parameter Unit Inland waters Coastal Waters
(Class C) for NPI (Class SC) for NPI
Color PCU 150(C) -
Temperature (max rise in deg.) ﾟC rise 3 3
PH (range) 6.5 – 9.0 6.0 – 9.0
COD mg/L 100 200
Settleable Solid (1hr) mg/L 0.5 -
BOD (5days, 20ﾟC) mg/L 50 100
Total suspended Solids mg/L 70 150
Surfactant (MBAS) mg/L 5.0 10
Oil/Grease (Petroleum Ether Extract) mg/L 5.0 10
Phenolic Substances as Phenols mg/L 0.1 0.5
Total Coliforms MPN/100mL 10,000 -
NPI: New/Proposed Industry or wastewater treatment plant to be constructed (applied for during construction)
20-7
Table 20.1.1-6 Ambient Noise Level (unit:db(A))
Category of Area Description of Area Daytime Morning & nighttime
Evening
AA Within 100 m from school sites, nursery 50 45 40
schools, hospitals and special homes for the
aged.
A Primarily used for Residential purpose 55 50 45
B Zone or used as heavy industrial area 65 60 55
C zone or used as light industrial area 70 65 60
D Reserved or used as a heavy industrial area 75 70 65
Areas directly fronting or facing a four-lane road +5db (A)
Areas directly fronting or facing a four-lane or wide road +10db (A)
Table 20.1.1-7 Noise standards for construction activities

Classification Construction activities At a distance of 30m from the noise
source (unit db(A))
Class 1 Pile drivers, pile extractors, reveting, hammers or
90
combination thereof
Class 2 Rock drills, jack hammers, pavement breakers 85
Class 3 Air compressors 75
Class 4 Batching plant 75
20.1.2 Project Rationale

The proposed Project is one of the bridges selected under the screening and investigation for possible
retrofitting or replacement. The bridge was constructed in 1962-1979 and the structural integrity
may have been weakened over time. This Project aims to restore the stability and structural
guarantee of the bridge especially during strong earthquakes.
20.1.3 Brief Discussion and Assessment of Predicted Impact

The proposed Project will inevitably create various impacts on the surrounding land, air, water,
biological environment and local population throughout its construction, operations and abandonment
phases.
Table 20.1.3-1 summarizes the identified environmental impact that may be created based on the
proposed Project’s different activities. The most affected sector and the significance of each impact
are also marked to determine the following:
Will the identified/perceived impact generate positive/negative impacts;

Will the identified/perceived impact cause direct/indirect effects;
Will the identified/perceived impact cause long/short term effects; and
Will the identified/perceived impact be reversible/irreversible effects on the surrounding environment
20-8
Table 20.1.3-1 Matrix of Proposed Project’s Environmental Impacts
Activities Aspects Environmental Parameter Significance of Impact
Impacts Most +/- D/In L/S R/I
Affected
A. Construction
Implementation Earth-movemen Generation of solid Land - D S R
of major civil and t and other civil wastes
construction works Dust propagation Air - D S
activities along and migration
the proposed Restriction or Water - D S R
Project and Road alteration of stream
Right of Way flows
(ROW) Stormwater run-off Water - In S R
Siltation and Water - D S R
increased water
turbidity
Disturbance/ Flora - D S R
displacement of Fauna
flora and fauna
Traffic congestion People - D S R
Displacement of People - D L I
human settlements
Use of heavy Ground vibration Land - D S R
equipment Generation of Land - D S R
hazardous wastes
(i.e. used oil)
Increase in air Air - D S R
emission levels People
Increase in noise Air - D S R
levels People
Increased risks to People - D S R
occupational safety
Influx of heavy Generation of solid Land - D S R
equipment and wastes
construction Generation of Water - D S R
personnel wastewater
Traffic congestion People - D S R
Generation of People + D S R
employment
B. Operations
Bridge Bridge Stormwater run-off Water - In L R
operation maintenance Faster traffic flow People + D L R
C. Abandonment
Closure Bridge Generation of solid Land - D S R
demolition wastes
Generation of Water - D S R
wastewater
Traffic congestion People - D L R
LEGEND:
(+) positive, (-) negative
(D) direct, (In) indirect
(L) long-term, (S) short-term
(R) reversible, (I) irreversible
20-9
20.1.4 Brief Discussion on the Proposed Mitigation Measures
Table 20.1.4-1 details the summary of the proposed Project’s environmental aspects and impacts, with corresponding mitigating and enhancement measures,
including responsible parties and guarantees involved.
Table 20.1.4-1 Matrix of the Proposed Project’s Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement Measures
Activity Environmental Environmental Mitigation and Enhancement Measures Responsibility Cost Guarantees
Aspects Impacts
A. Construction
Implementation of Earth-movement Generation of Application of Solid Waste Management DPWH contractor Part of MOA
major civil and and other civil solid wastes Plan (SWMP) construction
construction works Segregation of solid waste according to costs
activities along the recyclables and non-recyclables
proposed Project and Repair or re-use of available construction
Road Right of Way materials and equipment
(ROW) Hauling of discarded/recyclable items by
licensed haulers
20-10
Dust propagation Minimize/prevent unnecessary earth DPWH contractor Part of MOA

and migration movement construction
Regular watering of construction sites that costs
have high dust concentration
Avoid long exposure of excavated soil and
sand piles to strong winds by applying
canvass covers
Establishment of construction buffer zones
and containment barriers
Regular clean-up and housekeeping of
construction areas
Equip trucks with canvass that haul dusty
items (i.e., dry soil, sand)
Provide construction personnel with PPEs
(i.e., goggles, masks)
Restriction or Fast-track construction activities (i.e., DPWH contractor Part of MOA
alteration of foundation laying) construction
stream flows Provide alternative drainages or channeling costs
for affected water bodies
Aspects Impacts
Stormwater Avoid long exposure of excavated soil to rain DPWH contractor Part of
run-off Prevent/minimize chemical spills and construction
unauthorized discharges costs
Siltation and Avoid long exposure of excavated soil to rain DPWH contractor Part of MOA
increased water Establishment of construction buffer zones construction
turbidity and containment barriers costs
Disturbance/ Perform earth balling for applicable trees DPWH contractor Part of MOA
displacement of Avoidance of unnecessary tree cutting construction
flora and fauna Implement tree re-planting activities after costs
full completion of the project
Record/inventory of affected trees
20-11
Displacement of Perform additional consultations and IEC DPWH in To be RA 8974,

human settlements activities, with the coordination of the LGUs, coordination with determine DPWH
with the affected residents about the LGUs Ministry
relocation/resettlement Order 65
Give sufficient time for the affected residents
to perform relocation
Provide rightful and immediate
compensation to affected residents
Possible traffic Provide alternate routes through a Traffic DPWH contractor Part of MOA
congestion Management Plan in coordination with construction
LGUs costs
Provide directional signage and traffic
control officers
Use of heavy Ground vibration Apply non-vibrating methods (i.e., bored DPWH contractor Part of MOA
equipment piles) in construction sites that are nearby to construction
residential areas costs
If piling is necessary, perform monitoring for
nearby concrete structures that may be
Aspects Impacts
affected
Notify nearby residents about the activities
of using heavy equipment
For hauling trucks, comply with road weight
limit standards to avoid ground vibration
Generation of Segregation of hazardous wastes from DPWH contractor Part of MOA
hazardous wastes regular wastes construction
(i.e. used oil) Storage of hazardous items on sealed, sturdy, costs
and properly marked containers
Hauling of hazardous items by accredited
haulers/treaters
Increase in air Regular maintenance of equipment DPWH contractor Part of MOA
emission levels Installation of air emission control devices construction
for air emitting equipment costs
Increase in noise Installation of mufflers DPWH contractor Part of MOA

20-12
levels Perform noisy activities during daytime construction

Use of low-noise machines/equipment costs
Strict maintenance of equipment and vehicles
Increased risks to All personnel are required to wear proper DPWH contractor Part of MOA, Labor
occupational PPEs construction Code
safety All works must be supervised by trained and costs
competent engineers and workers
First aid stations, safety equipment and
signage shall be made available on working
areas
Influx of heavy Generation of Application of Solid Waste Management DPWH contractor Part of MOA
equipment and solid wastes Plan (SWMP) construction
construction Segregation of solid waste according to costs
personnel recyclables and non-recyclables
Repair or re-use of available construction
materials and equipment
Hauling of discarded/recyclable items by
licensed haulers
Aspects Impacts
Generation of Follow basic housekeeping policies DPWH contractor Part of MOA
wastewater Provision of sanitation facilities (i.e., construction
portable comfort rooms) costs
Traffic congestion Provide alternate routes through a Traffic DPWH contractor Part of MOA
Management Plan in coordination with construction
LGUs costs
control officers
Generation of Prioritize hiring of qualified residents in the DPWH contractor Part of MOA
employment host communities construction
costs
B. Operations
Bridge operation Bridge Stormwater Provide adequate drainage systems and direct DPWH Part of
maintenance run-off flows into the nearest outfall maintenance
cost
20-13
Faster traffic flow Regular maintenance and monitoring of the DPWH Part of
bridge MMDA maintenance
Remove stalled vehicles immediately cost
C. Abandonment
Closure Bridge Generation of Segregation of solid waste according to DPWH Contractor To be EMP,
demolition solid wastes recyclables and non-recyclables determined Abandonment
Hauling of discarded/recyclable items by Plan
licensed haulers
Generation of Follow basic housekeeping policies DPWH Contractor To be EMP,
wastewater Provision of sanitation facilities (i.e., determined Abandonment
portable comfort rooms) Plan
Traffic congestion Provide alternate routes through a Traffic DPWH Contractor To be EMP,
Management Plan in coordination with determined Abandonment
LGUs Plan
control officers
20.1.5 Environmental Monitoring Plan
The Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMoP) presents the proposed protocols that the DPWH and its designated contractor undertake to continuously check
and supervise the environmental performance of the proposed Project. This EMoP will allow DPWH to monitor, verify, and make the necessary corrective
actions on the Project’s various environmental impacts. Table 20.1.5-1details the matrix of environmental monitoring plan to be conducted by DPWH during
the different phases of the Project.
Table 20.1.5-1 Matrix of the Proposed Project’s Environmental Monitoring Plan

Concern Parameter to be Sampling Measurement Plan Responsibility Estimated Cost
Monitored Method Frequency Location
A. Construction
Affected houses and No. of houses and Survey Twice (Initial and Along the bridge DPWH Part of Construction
trees other establishments Confirmatory) ROW DPWH Contractor Cost
to be directly
affected
No. of trees Terrestrial Survey/
20-14
Inventory
Air Quality Dust Visual observation Daily Immediate vicinity DPWH Contractor Minimal
of construction sites
NOx, SOx Air sampler Quarterly Identified sampling DPWH Contractor PhP 10,000 per
stations sampling station
TSP High volume Quarterly DPWH Contractor
sampler
Noise Digital sound level Quarterly DPWH Contractor
meter
Water Quality TSS, Oil& Grease, Grab sampling Monthly Upstream and DPWH Contractor PhP 5,000 per
color downstream portions sampling activity
of identified/affected
water bodies
Solid Wastes Tons/day, no. of Visual observation, Daily Construction field DPWH Contractor Part of Construction
items/day office/warehouse Costs
Hazardous Wastes Liters/No. of drums Visual inspection/ Monthly Construction field DPWH Contractor Minimal
(liquids) weighing office/warehouse
Kilograms (solids)
Occupational Safety No. of work-related Log-book Daily Immediate vicinity DPWH Contractor Minimal
Concern Parameter to be Sampling Measurement Plan Responsibility Estimated Cost
Monitored Method Frequency Location
injuries registration of the construction
No. of safety sites, command
man-hours center
Public Perception/ No. of valid Consultations with Variable Affected barangay/s DPWH Contractor To be determined
Acceptability complaints local officials and
residents
B. Operations
Stormwater Run-off BOD, COD, pH, Grab sampling Quarterly Drainage outlets DPWH Maintenance PhP 20,000 per
heavy metals, TPH Dept sampling activity
Occupational Safety No. of work-related Log-book/database Daily Field Operations DPWH Maintenance Part of Operations
injuries registration Center Dept Costs
No. of safety
man-hours
Bridge Safety No. of vehicular Log-book/database Daily Field Operations DPWH Maintenance Part of Operations
accidents registration Center Dept Costs
20-15
C. Abandonment
Water Quality BOD, TSS, Total Grab Sampling To be determined To be determined To be determined To be determined
coliforms,
Solid/Hazardous Liters/No. of drums Visual inspection/ To be determined To be determined To be determined To be determined
Wastes (liquids) weighing
Kilograms (solids)
20.1.6 Stakeholder Meeting
First time courtesy Meetings were held to get permission to conduct survey and to introduce proposed
project as shown in Table.
Table 20.1.6-1 First time courtesy Meeting

Name of Bridge Date Place
1stMandaue-Mactan Mandaue and Lapu-lapu
C07 September 17 & 19, 2012
Bridge Barangay Hall
C14 Liloan Bridge September 12, 2012 San Roque Barangay Hall
Brgy894, 892, 888, 891
B08 Lambingan Bridge September 4 & 5, 2012
Hall
Viejo, Nuevo, Llaya
B10 Guadalupe Bridge September 11 & 12, 2012
Barangay Hall
C09 Palanit Bridge September 3 & 4, 2012 Palanit Barangay Hall
C11 Mawo Bridge September 3 & 4, 2012 Poblacion Victoria
C15 Wawa Bridge September 26 & 27, 2012 San Vicente Covered Court
Summary of Consultation such as concern/issues are in Appendix.

Second time Stakeholder Meetings were held as shown in table.
Attendance list and minutes were shown in Appendix.
Table 20.1.6-2 Second time Stakeholder Meeting

No. of
Name of Bridge Date Place
Attendance
1stMandaue-Mactan
C07 July 1, 2013 Looc Barangay Hall 35
Bridge
San Roque Covered
C14 Liloan Bridge July 3, 2013 77
Court
Brgy894 Multipurpose
B08 Lambingan Bridge June 20, 2013 23
Hall
Llaya Multipurpose
B10 Guadalupe Bridge June 21, 2013 24
Hall
C09 Palanit Bridge June 25, 2013 Palanit Barangay Hall 34
C11 Mawo Bridge June 26, 2013 Poblacion Victoria 34
San Vicente Covered
C15 Wawa Bridge June 20, 2013 55
Court
20.2 Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Framework
20.2.1 Justification of the Land Acquisition with Respect to the Bridge Repair and
Rehabilitation
Table 20.2.1-1 shows two possible project implementation options for the bridges as well as their
corresponding activities.
20-16
Table 20.2.1-1 Possible Implementation Options for the Project
Options Possible Activities
Option 1 – Retrofitting Retrofit of substructure
Estimated Implementation Period: 6 to Strengthening for collapse protection
12 months Improvement or strengthening of ground approach and bridge
C07 1stMandaue-Mactan Bridge Navigation protection works against collision (from ships,
C14 Liloan Bridge ferries)
Rehabilitation of bridge drainage
Option 2 – Replacement Replacement of foundation, substructure and superstructure

Estimated Implementation Period: 12 Navigation protection works against collision (i.e., from ships,
to 18 months ferries)
B08: Lambingan Bridge Replacement of approach road
B10: Guadalupe Bridge Bridge pavement and installation of bridge railings
C09 Palanit Bridge Installation of drainage systems
C11 Mawo Bridge Installation of street lights, if necessary
C15 Wawa Bridge
20.2.2 Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Framework

(1) National and Local Environmental Law
The detailed RAP should be governed by existing Philippine laws and regulations for the protection of the
rights of families and establishments who will be displaced by the proposed Project. These regulations
shall be consistent with the JICA and World Bank policies on Involuntary Resettlement. It should also be
guided by DPWH land acquisitions and resettlement policies specifically for this type of project. Table
20.2.2-1 shows the national and local laws, regulations and standards on involuntary resettlement
applicable for the proposed Project. Table 20.2.2-1 also shows the various land acquisition and
resettlement manuals and references currently used by DPWH.
Table 20.2.2-1 National and Local Laws, Regulations and Standards for Involuntary
Resettlement
Reference Title/Description
1987 Philippine Indicating that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
Constitution without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws” and that “private property shall not be taken for
public use without just compensation”
PD 1472 Amending Republic Acts Nos. 4852 And 6026 By Providing Additional
Guidelines In The Utilization, Disposition And Administration Of All
Government Housing And Resettlement Projects.
RA 8974 An Act To Facilitate The Acquisition Of Right-Of-Way, Site Or Location
For National
Government Infrastructure Projects And For Other Purposes
RA 7835 Comprehensive and Integrated Shelter Financing Act of 1994
RA 7279 An Act To Provide For A Comprehensive And Continuing Urban
Development And Housing Program, Establish The Mechanism For Its
Implementation, And For Other Purposes.
RA 6657 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988
RA 6389 Code of Agrarian Reforms of the Philippines of 1971
EO 1035 Providing The Procedures And Guidelines For The Expeditious
Acquisition By The Government Of Private Real Properties Or Rights
Thereon For Infrastructure And Other Government Development Projects
CA 141 An Act To Amend And Compile The Laws Relative To Lands Of The
Public Domain
DPWH DO 2007-34 Simplified Guidelines for the Validation and Evaluation of Infrastructure
20-17
Reference Title/Description
Right-Of-Way Claims
DPWH DO 2003-05 Creation Of The Infrastructure Right Of Way And Resettlement Project
Management Office (PMO) And The Implementation Of The Improved
IROW Process
DPWH DO 2002-187 Strict Compliance to Inclusion of Preparation of Parcellary Plans and
Cost Estimates for ROW Acquisition in Detailed Engineering of
Infrastructure Projects
DAO 1996-34 Guidelines on the Management of Certified Ancestral Domain Claims
DAO 1993-02 Rules And Regulations For The Identification, Delineation And
Recognition Of Ancestral And Domain Claims
DPWH LARR Policy Framework for Land Acquisition, Resettlement, and Rehabilitation
(LARR)
LARRIPP Land Acquisition, Resettlement Rehabilitation and Indigenous People
Policy
IROW Infrastructure Right-of-Way Procedural Manual 2003
Legend:
PD – Presidential Decree
RA – Republic Act
EO – Executive Order
CA – Commonwealth Act
DAO – Department Administrative Order (DENR)
DO – Department Order (DPWH)
(2) JICA Land Acquisition Requirement

As stipulated in the JICA guidelines on Compliance with Laws, Standards and Plans, “Projects must
comply with the laws, ordinances and standards related to environmental and social considerations
established by the governments that have jurisdiction over project sites (including national and local
governments) They must also conform to the environmental and social consideration policies and
plans of the governments that have such jurisdiction.”
Given that land acquisition and resettlement are necessary in the implementation of this project,
relevant laws and guidelines will serve as the basis for lawful and proper procurement acts.
(3) Philippine LAPRAP for Road and Bridges Project

Based on DPWH’s Department Order No 1993-05, a Land Acquisition Plan and Resettlement Action
Plan (LAPRAP) report shall be prepared for all locally funded or foreign assisted infrastructure
projects.
Prior to any land acquisition, construction or resettlement activities of this project a RAP, containing
detailed description and procedures on how social and economic resettlement concerns will be
addressed, will be drafted. Should there be less than 200 people affected or if land acquisition is minor
and no physical relocation is required, then an ARAP will be acceptable.
The following are the necessary information that must be included in the full report:
 Number and identity of Project Affected Persons (PAPs)
 Degree (marginal or severe) and scale of adverse impacts that will be brought about as a
consequence of project implementation, particularly in terms of loss of land and fixed assets
as well as income
 Mitigation measures to minimize foreseeable said adverse socio-economic impacts;
 Appropriate compensation package for PAPs
 LAPRAP implementation schedule
 Overall estimated resettlement cost
20-18
(4) Justification of the Land Acquisition with Respect to the Bridge Repair and Rehabilitation
Works
Justification of land acquisition will be based on the following issues:
 Final location of proposed project
 Number of households or structures that will be affected
 Type of structures (i.e., residential, commercial)
 Type of construction work
(5) Gaps in JICA and Philippine Involuntary Resettlement Frameworks

To ensure that all issues on land acquisition and resettlement will be addressed and are consistent with
JICA and Philippine policies, the JICA Guidelines on Involuntary Resettlement were reviewed and
compared to existing Philippine IR guidelines. The results of the comparison are summarized in Table
20.2.2-2.
Table 20.2.2-2 Gaps in JICA and Philippine Involuntary Resettlement Frameworks

(B) Philippine IR Gaps Between Considerations in this
No. (A) JICA Guidelines
Guidelines (A) and (B) PRAP
Involuntary resettlement
and loss of means of Houses and other
livelihood are to be Same structures within the DIA
1 None
avoided when feasible (LARRIPP*) where already identified
by exploring all viable and tagged in this PRAP
alternatives. (JICA GL)
When population
displacement is
Depending on the type of
unavoidable, effective
rehabilitation works,
measures to minimize Same
2 None possible households that
impact and to (LARRIPP)
will be displaced can be
compensate for losses
assessed in this PRAP.
should be taken. (JICA
GL)
People who must be
resettled involuntarily
and people whose means
of livelihood will be
Guided by the LARRIPP,
hindered or lost must be
DPWH will initiate the
sufficiently compensated
inventory of the affected
and supported, so that Same
3 None households and conduct
they can improve or at (LARRIPP)
appropriate valuation of
least restore their
properties and livelihood
standard of living,
that will be affected.
income opportunities
and production levels to
pre-project levels. (JICA
GL)
Compensation must be
Whenever applicable,
based on the full
Same compensation will be
4 replacement cost. (JICA None
(LARRIPP) based on full
GL)
replacement cost.
20-19
LARRIPP does not
clearly state the timing
of provision. In socially
accepted procedure,
compensation and other
Guided by the LARRIPP,
kinds of assistance for
Compensation and other DPWH will initiate the
resettling informal
kinds of assistance must inventory of the affected
setters is provided on
5 be provided prior to None households and conduct
site, prior to
displacement. (JICA appropriate valuation of
displacement, right after
GL) properties and livelihood
the ISFs and staff of
that will be affected.
governmental
institutions together
inspect the completion
of the demolition of
existing structures.
For projects that entail This PRAP will be
large-scale IR, submitted to DPWH.
resettlement action plans Same The proponent can do
6 None
must be prepared and (LARRIPP) public disclosure
made available to the especially to the LGU
public. (JICA GL) affected.
This PRAP will be the
In preparing a basis of a detailed RAP.
resettlement action plan, Initial consultations with
consultations must be the barangay officials
held with the affected and several stakeholders
Same
7 people and their None were already conducted.
(LARRIPP)
communities based on A more intensive
sufficient information consultation will be done
made available to them after the detailed
in advance. (JICA GL) engineering has been
completed.
When consultations are
held, explanations must Consultations shall be
be given in a form, conducted in local dialect
Same
8 manner, and language None supported by illustrations
(LARRIPP)
that are understandable on the scope of the
to the affected people. project
(JICA GL)
Appropriate
participation of affected An IEC (Information,
people must be Education and
promoted in planning, Same Communication) plan
9 None
implementation, and (LARRIPP) will be an integral
monitoring of component of the full
resettlement action RAP.
plans. (JICA GL)
Appropriate and
The GRS (Grievance and
accessible grievance
Redress System) will
mechanisms must be
Same also be imbedded in the
10 established for the None
(LARRIPP) RAP. The framework is
affected people and their
initially discussed in this
communities.
PRAP.
(JICA GL)
20-20
Affected people are to
be identified and
recorded as early as
possible in order to
LARRIPP states the A more detailed census
establish their eligibility
cut-off date as the date will be conducted taking
through an initial
of commencement of General public, from the initial inventory
baseline survey
the census. including PAFs, presented in this PRAP.
(including population
Resettlement project may have At this point of the
census that serves as an
conducted by LGUs pre-conception project, the cut-off date
eligibility cut-off date,
11 nationwide notifies to that cut-off date is not yet identified since
asset inventory, and
public the last day of is either the the exact number of
socioeconomic survey),
the census work, and starting date or PAFs is not yet
preferably at the project
use the date as the the ending date of determined. The setting
identification stage, to
cut-off date, so that no the census work of the cut-off date shall
prevent a subsequent
eligible PAFs are left be guided by the
influx of encroachers of
out in the inventory. LARRIPP.
others who wish to take
advance of such
benefits. (WB OP 4.12
Para.6)
Professional Squatters
(as defined by Republic
Act 7279) applies to
persons who have
previously been All affected people will
awarded home lots or be eligible for
housing units by the compensation and
government but who rehabilitation assistance,
sold, leased or regardless of tenure of
Eligibility of benefits transferred the same to status, social or
includes: the PAPs who settle illegally in the economic standing and
have formal legal rights same place or in another any such factors that may
to land (including urban area, and non Professional discriminate against
customary and bona fide occupants and “squatters” and achievement of the
traditional land rights intruders of lands “squatting objectives of JICA
recognized under law), reserved for socialized syndicates” are Guidelines. However,
the PAPs who don't have housing. Squatting not eligible for those who have
12 formal legal rights to Syndicates (as defined compensation. previously been awarded
land at the time of by Republic Act 7279) They may home lots or housing
census but have a claim refers to groups of salvage the units by the government
to such land or assets, persons who are structure but who sold, leased or
and the PAPs who have engaged in the business materials by transferred the same to
no recognizable legal of squatter housing for themselves. settle illegally in the
right to the land they are profit or gain. same place or in another
occupying. (WB OP urban area, and non bona
4.12 Para. 15) Those persons are fide occupants and
ineligible for structure intruders of lands
compensation, reserved for socialized
relocation, and housing will not be
rehabilitation/ eligible for
inconvenience/ compensation.
income-loss assistance
in case their structures
are to be demolished in
resettlement project
20-21
according to Republic
Act 7279. This
definition excludes
individuals or groups
who simply rent land
and housing from
professional squatters or
squatting syndicates.
Preference should be If feasible, land for land
given to land based will be provided in
resettlement strategies terms of a new parcel of This shall be one of the
13 for displaced persons land of equivalent None main considerations
whose livelihoods are productivity, at a during resettlement
land-based. (WB OP location acceptable to
4.12 Para. 11) PAFs. (LARRIPP)
All PAFs shall be
considered for
Provide support for the
Livelihood
transition period
Specific details Rehabilitation Assistance
(between displacement Same
14 are provided in whose details will be
and livelihood (LARRIPP)
the LARRIPP. provided in the full RAP
restoration). (WB OP 4.
after intensive and
12 Para. 6)
participatory
consultations.
Particular attention must
be paid to the needs of
the vulnerable groups The LARRIPP requires
among those displaced, that all vulnerable groups
especially those below Same are included in the
15 None
the poverty line, (LARRIPP) resettlement process.
landless, elderly, women This will be considered
and children, ethnic in this project.
minorities etc. (WB OP
4.12 Para. 8)
This PRAP shall be
reviewed and updated
when the study on the
For projects that entail
Minimum bridge rehabilitation
land acquisition or
number of PAPs works is completed. This
involuntary resettlement Minimum number of
for regular RAP will serve as a guide in
of fewer than 200 PAPs for regular RAP is
16 is not mentioned drafting the full RAP or
people, abbreviated not mentioned in related
in Laws of the ARAP, depending on the
resettlement plan is to be laws.
Republic of number of PAPs. At
prepared. (WB OP 4.12
Philippines. that point, the ROW and
Para. 25)
the exact number of
PAFs would have been
determined.
*LARRIPP: Land Acquisition, Resettlement, Rehabilitation and Indigenous Peoples’ Policy (LARRIPP),
Department of Public Works and Highways, Republic of the Philippines, April.2007.
Source: JICA
20-22
20.2.3 Status of settlement around the Bridge
Based on environmental survey status of settlers around the Projects area is summarize in Table
20.2.3-1 and Table 20.2.3-2.
Table 20.2.3-1 and Table20.2.3-2 show Environmental Category in Philippine and Category in JICA
Guideline.
As shown in Table 20.1.1-3 Ⅱ-A category project required IEE report and RAP report. In case the
number of PAPs exceeds 200 in each Bridge, full RAP is required, but not required for EIA. Full RAP
is necessary to provide resettlement place for PAPs.
Table 20.2.3-1 Status of settlers around candidate Bridges (Package-B)

Along Approach and Environmental Environmental
Name Crossing Road Under Bridge Category in Category in
Philippine JICA Guideline
There are many legal and (Right side)
illegal houses, factory Out of new dyke wall
and venders. Also there there is one house with 5
B08 are many informal PAPs.
Lambingan houses are confirmed Ⅱ-A B
immediately beneath the
Bridge.
There is water pipe
bridge adjacent.
(North side) (North side)
Alongside walk and There are 12 units’
immediately beneath the informal houses and
B10 Bridge there are many some stores with 27 PAPs
Guadalupe houses and business were confirmed. Ⅱ-A B
buildings.
(South side)
Both sides of the road
are used for parks.
Table 20.2.3-2 Status of settlers around candidate Bridges (Package-C)

(North side) There are 189 houses and
Around the bridge there Number of PAPs are733.
1 st Mandaue Ⅱ-A A
are many houses and
stores.
There are many houses (North side)
immediately beside the Under the bridge is used
Bridge (within the ROW for shed of boat. Within
that is 10 meter from the the ROW (=20m), there
centre of the road each are two informal settlers
side). families. Number of
people is 12.
(South side)
Mawo Ⅱ-A B
Under the bridge is used
for breeding place for
domestic animal such as
fighting cock, pig and for
hanging out the washing
to dry.
Within the ROW there is
no housing.
20-23
There are many houses (North side)
immediately beside the Under the bridge is used
Bridge. (within the ROW for shed of fishing tool
Palanit that is 10 meter from the (bawn). Within the ROW
Ⅱ-A B
centre of the road each (=20m), there are 7 PAPs.
side). Water pipe is held
by the bridge.
There is no house along (South side)

the road near the bridge. Under the Bridge near
strait is used for basket
court. There are two
venders under the Bridge.
Liloan
Some parts of under the Ⅱ-A B
Bridge are used for
orchard, block storage
site, chicken house, waste
collection point and dock
for boat.
(North side) (South side)
Along the road there are There is no object under
some thatch houses. In the Bridge.
case of replacement of
Wawa Ⅱ-A B
the approach road
between existing bridge
and dam structure, there
may be some PAPs.
Table 20.2.3-3 Estimated Number of Household members to be resettle

House/
Name of Bridge Household members
Structure
Lambingan 10 52
Guadalupe 17 67
1st Mandaue-Mactan(cebu) 107 444
1st Mandaue-Mactan(mactan) 63 213
Palanit 9 42
Mawo 13 70
Liloan 18 85
Wawa 25 90
Table 20.2.3-4 Number of Households/Structures within the DIA

Bridge Name Formal Settlers Informal Settlers Total
Structures HH Members Structures HH Members Structures HH Members
Lambingan 10 52
Guadalupe 15 2 17 67
1st 170 657
Mandaue-Mactan
Palanit 9 42
Mawo 13 70
Liloan 18 85
Wawa 56 54 235 2 2 4 58 56 244
20-24
20.2.4 Compensation and Entitlements
(1) Compensation
When directly affected residents are clearly identified and validated, Compensation packages and
entitlements must then be established as guided by the matrix in
Figure 20.2.4-1, prescribed in the Land Acquisition, Resettlement, Rehabilitation and Indigenous
People’s Policy (LARRIPP) 3rd Edition (2007). Eligible residents, compensation packages, channels
and procedures for grievances should be clearly communicated to the PAPs.
Establishing the Cut-off Date for Compensations

The cut-off date will be on the last day of the detailed census of PAPS. This is established to ensure
reliable documentation of eligible PAPS and to control speculators and illegal settlers after the census
and survey of the project area. People who are not covered by the census will not be entitled to
compensations.
For Residential and Commercial Land Owners

The title holder will be entitled to cash payment or land-for-land compensation. RA 8974 shall govern
the computation for the replacement cost of the land. Existing zonal laws and practices issued by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) will be the basis for the initial offer to the PAF. Should the PAF
decline the initial offer, the second offer will then be the actual market value of the land at the time of
taking.
As for land-for-land compensation the new replacement land must be of equivalent size or at least a
size acceptable to the owner, with adequate physical and social infrastructure as based on existing
zoning laws. If the lost land is larger than the lot sizes for relocation, cash compensation will be paid
to cover the difference.
For Residential Land Tenants/Renters
Concerned tenants/renters shall only be entitled to compensation if they physically reside in the directly
affected areas at the cut-off date. Residential tenants or renters are entitled to rental subsidy equivalent to
the current average monthly rental for structures similar to the house lost.
For Crops and Trees Lost

Owners of the trees lost shall be entitled to cash compensation calculated on the basis of type, age, and
productive value of affected trees. For fruit-bearing trees, payment shall be based on tax declaration or
schedule of values by the Provincial Assessor. For perennials of commercial value, valuation can be based
on DENR schedule of valuation or concerned Appraisal Committee.
For Informal Settlers (Squatters)

Informal settlers or squatters who built their own house shall be entitled to compensation in full for their
affected house or structure, without deduction for salvaged building materials. Professional squatters can
collect salvaged materials but will not be entitled to receive compensation. As described in RA 7279,
professional squatters are the intruders of the land or people who have previously received housing from
the government but sold, leased or transferred it and settled in the same place or another urban area. This
term also applies for people who live in areas without the consent of the landowner and who have
sufficient funds to live in legitimate housings.
For Temporary Relocates

As stipulated in RA 7279, adequate relocation, whether temporary or permanent, will be provided for all
relocates. Temporary relocates will also be considered as PAPs. As such, if relocation is not immediately
available or if means of livelihood is directly affected then just compensation, other entitlements and
assistance, such as income loss, inconvenience allowance, rehabilitation assistance and other
compensations agreed upon by the PAPs and the proponent, should be provided.
20-25
Source: Infrastructure Right-of-Way (IROW) Procedural Manual.2003
Figure 20.2.4-1 Flow Chart for Payment of Compensation to PAPs
(2) Restoration Guidelines

After resettlement, income restoration and livelihood rehabilitation of PAPs should be undertaken.
DPWH will be actively involved in the implementation of the rehabilitation and livelihood restoration
programs in partnership with NGOs and national government agencies.
Income restoration and livelihood rehabilitation planning will begin during the final engineering
design phase. The plan should be responsive to the needs of the PAPs and in consonance with the
development thrust of the affected LGU. Sample restoration needs and possible solutions to these
concerns are summarized in Table 20.2.4-1.
20-26
Table 20.2.4-1 Sample Restoration and Possible Solutions
Sample Restoration Needs Possible Solutions
Sustainable agriculture, agro-forestry and food security programs

Agricultural
Related processing activities to products/harvest for value added
Income restoration strategy to provide for the immediate need for

employment and economic opportunities at the relocation site
Match manpower needs of project during construction and operations
Cash Income /
phase.
Job Opportunities/
Development of comprehensive and sustainable program that will
Regular Employment
address continuous supply of raw materials and food resources and to
provide for sustainable income for the relocates even after
construction
Establishment of the Homeowners Association to address concerns

on-site maintenance, peace and order, sanitation and cleanliness,
building social relationships and network, among others
Establishment of cooperatives to promote self-reliance among PAPs
Social through capital build-up and savings formation and to serve as
conduits of capital/loan assistance, micro-enterprise and livelihood
programs.
Capacity enhancement of cooperatives to ensure sustainability in their
efforts at providing services to their members
Skills training/vocational technical education to provide opportunities

for technical jobs
Educational
Educational Scholarship Program to upgrade their educational
achievement up to college
(3) Entitlement Matrix
Table 20.2.4-2 Sample Entitlements Matrix

Type of Loss Application Entitled Person Compensation/Entitlements
PAPs will be entitled to:
Cash compensation for loss of land at
100% replacement cost at the informed
request of PAPs
If feasible, land for land will be provided in
terms of a new parcel of land of equivalent
More than 20% of
PAPs with productivity at a location acceptable to
the total
Transfer PAPs, or
LAND (Classified as landholding is lost
Certificate of Title Holders of free or homestead patents and
Agricultural/ or where less than
(TCT) or tax CLOAs under CA 141. Public Lands Act
Residential/ 20% lost but the
declaration (tax will be compensated on land Improvements
Commercial/ remaining land
declaration can be only
Industrial/Institutional) holding becomes
legalized to full Holders of Certificates of Land Ownership
economically
title) Award (CLOA) granted under will be
unviable.
compensated for the land at zonal value
Cash compensation for damaged crops at
market value at the time of taking
Rehabilitation assistance in the form of
skills training equivalent to the amount of
Php 15,000.00 per family, if the present
20-27
Type of Loss Application Entitled Person Compensation/Entitlements
means of livelihood is no longer viable and
the PAPs will have to engage in a new
income activity
Cash compensation, for damaged crops at
Agricultural lessors are entitled to
PAPs without TCT
disturbance compensation equivalent to 5
times the average of the gross harvest, for
the past 3 years but not less than Php
15,000.00
Cash compensation for loss of land at
100% replacement cost at the informed
request of PAPs
Holders of free or homestead patents and
PAPs with TCT or
CLOAs under CA 141. Public Lands Act
tax declaration
Less than 20% of shall be compensated on Land
(tax declaration
the total Improvements only
can be legalized to
landholding loss Holders of Certificates of Land Ownership
full title)
or less Award (CLOA) granted under the
than 20% loss or Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Act shall
where the be compensated for the land at zonal value
remaining Cash compensation for damaged crops at
structures still market value at the time of taking
viable for use Cash compensation for damaged crops at
Agricultural lessors are entitled to
PAPs without TCT disturbance compensation equivalent to 5
times the average of the gross harvest, for
the past 3 years but not less than Php
15,000.00
More than 20% of PAPs will be entitled to:
PAPs with TCT or
the total Cash compensation for entire structure at
tax declaration
landholding is loss 100% of replacement cost
(tax declaration
or where less than Rental subsidy for the time between the
can be legalized to
20% loss but the submission of complete documents and the
full title)
remaining release of payment on land
structures no Cash compensation for entire structure at
longer function as 100% of replacement cost
STRUCTURES
intended or no PAPs without TCT Rental subsidy for the time between the
(Classified as
longer viable for submission of complete documents and the
Residential/
continued use release of payment on land
Commercial/
Less than 20% of PAPs with TCT or
Industrial)
the total tax declaration
Compensation for affected portion of the
landholding lost (tax declaration
structure
or where the can be legalized to
remaining full title)
structure can still
function and is Compensation for affected portion of the
PAPs without TCT
viable for structure
continued use
Severely or PAPs with or PAPs will be entitled to:
IMPROVEMENTS marginally without TCT, tax Cash compensation for the affected
affected declaration, etc. improvements at replacement cost
Cash compensation for crops, tress and
CROPS, TREES,
perennials at current market value as
PERRENIALS
prescribed by the concerned LGUs and
DENR
20-28
20.2.5 Grievance Redress System
A Grievance Redress System (GRS) should be established to ensure transparency in the use of funds
and that grievances regarding the project are effectively and expeditiously resolved. This will
provide the affected communities the opportunity to voice out any complaints and grievances
regarding the overall implementation and process of the proposed Project.
The Resettlement Implementation Committee (RIC) will be responsible for receiving these and in the
preparation and implementation of appropriate measures. Project-affected persons (PAPs) may also
forward their concerns to the Regional Director or the concerned division of the LGU.
During community meetings, hand-outs/leaflets indicating the channels and related procedures in the
submission of grievances shall be distributed to the public during community meetings. The same
hand-out shall be used to explain GRS procedures to PAPs that come to file their grievances.
Received documentation of their concerns will then be discussed during meetings for immediate
action.
The grievances will be addressed through negotiations that aim to reach a consensus and will abide by
the following procedure:
The PAPs will file their grievances by writing to the RIC for immediate resolution. When received
verbally, the grievances may be translated in writing by the staff of the regional director, LGU, or
PMO, or staff assigned by PMO, for submission.
If the complaint is not properly addressed, no understanding or amicable solution is attained or if
PAPs does not receive a response from the RIC in 15 days, PAPs can file an appeal to the DPWH
NCR Regional Office (RO).
As a last resort, if the PAP is still not satisfied with the resolution from the DPWH RO, the PAPs can
file a legal complaint in any appropriate Court of Law
Grievances of PAPs shall be handled free of monetary charge and PAPs shall be exempted from all
administrative and legal fees incurred pursuant to the GRS procedures.
Source: Land Acquisition, Resettlement Rehabilitation and Indigenous People Policy.2007

Figure 20.2.5-1 Redress Grievance Flow Chart
20-29
20.2.6 Implementation Framework
Proper implementation and monitoring of the resettlement action plan should be done by the
following institutions, which will be responsible for specific roles:
Table 20.2.6-1 Implementation Framework

Institution Roles
The Project Implementation In-charge of overall implementation of the project
Office/ Project Management Manage and supervise all activities of the project, including
Office (PMO) of the DPWH resettlement and land acquisition
Safeguard funds for the RAP, with regards to its timely implementation
and accounting of expenses
Environmental and Social Provide technical guidance and support to PMO in the implementation
Services Office (ESSO) of the RAP
Assist in the preparation and planning of the RAP, including the RAP
budget plan
Guide District Engineering Offices and Regional Offices in their
tasks (verification of PAPs, information dissemination and others)
With PMO, amend/revise the RAP to incorporate resettlement concerns
identified during monitoring
Monitor actual payment of compensation to PAPs
Prepare periodic supervision and monitoring reports on RAP
implementation prior to submission to DPWH and JICA
District Engineering Offices of Shall serve as the technical coordinator for the project
the DPWH Member of the Resettlement Implementation Committee
Oversee the staking-out, verification and validation of PAPs assets
Conduct inventories of properties that will be affected
Approve disbursement vouchers/payments
Submit reports on compensation to PAPs and monthly progress reports
to the regional office and PMO
Regional Office (RO) of the Shall serve as liaison between the ESSO and the District office
DPWH Monitor RAP implementation and fund disbursement, including
payment to PAPs and submit monthly reports to ESSO
Address grievances and concerns of PAPs with regards to the project
Resettlement Implementation Shall be composed of representatives from the Regional Office and
Committee (RIC) District Engineering Office, LGU, PAPs
Assist in the RAP activities, including validation of PAPs and their
affected assets, payment of compensation to PAPs and in monitoring
and implementation of RAP
Take part during public information campaign, public participation and
consultation activities
Receive and address grievances and concerns of PAPs
Records all public meetings, grievances and solutions to these
Assist in enforcing the laws regarding Right-of-Way (ROW)
Department of Social Welfare
and Development (DSWD),
Assist in the monitoring of the PAPs and resettlement activities,
Technical Education and Skills
including consultations and ensuring just compensation
Development Authority
Provide livelihood rehabilitation trainings to relocated PAPs
(TESDA), and Cooperative
Development Authority (CDA)
Source: LARRIPP, 3rd Edition (2007)
20-30
20.2.7 Schedule
Supposed schedule of IEE and LARAP procedures are shown in table.
Table 20.2.7-1 Schedule of IEE & LARAP

Implementation of LARAP year 2014 2015
month Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
at least one year is necessary
responsibility for clearance of land after
detailed survey
L/A between Japan and Philippine after the issue of ECC actual
Approval of Project in Philippine LARAP process will start
45days to 6 months in case IEE
Stakeholders Meeting/Consultation DPWH/LGU
submission of IEE DPWH/ESSO
Report Review and Evaluation EMB
Substantive Review EMB
Endorsement of Recommendation EMB
Sign-off/Issurance of Decision Document EMB
Detailed Measurement Survey DPWH, LGU(MDAA)
Installation of cut-off date DPWH, LGU(MDAA)
Consultation meeting for Resettlement DPWH, LGU(MDAA)
Cost estimation, budjeting DPWH, LGU(MDAA)
Clearance of site
Monitoring of resettlement DPWH, LGU(MDAA) will continue for two years
20.2.8 Cost Estimation

Outline of cost estimation of Land acquisition and compensation based on survey are shown in table.
Cost Estimation for 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge
Type Unit Number Cost/Unit Total Cost (Php) Basis of Unit Numbers Source of Estimation Remarks
Land (m2) 0 1,900 0.00 Inquired from Municipal Hall or BIR Zonal Value
Structures
Re-validated Resettlement Action Plan for
CP-RI 2.1: Magapit-Sta. ana Road (Magapit-
Mission Section) under the National Roads Value from Sample RAP
Improvement and Management Program was estimated at a lower
Severe 170 20,000 3,400,000.00 Structures Under the Bridge Phase II (NRIMP-2). June 2012 cost
Compensation Re-validated Resettlement Action Plan for
Mission Section) under the National Roads Value from Sample RAP
Improvement and Management Program was estimated at a lower
Marginal 0 10,000 0.00 Structures Near the Bridge Phase II (NRIMP-2). June 2012 cost
Tree
Bearing Trees 0 0.00
Non-Bearing Trees 0 0.00
RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN-
PASIG-MARIKINA RIVER CHANNEL Value from Sample RAP
Transportation Allowance 170 1,050 178,500.00 For relocating severely affected HH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PHASE III). September 2011 was increased by 5%
Rental Subsidy 0 3,000 0.00 No. of Severely Affected Renting Residents IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PHASE III). September 2011 was increased by 5%
Assistance Incovenience Allowance Rate from LARRIPP:
and Allowance Inconvenience Allowance 170 10,000 1,700,000.00 No. of Severely Affected Structures (under the bridge) DPWH Policy and Guideline on Resettlement (2007)
Livelihood Rehabilitation Assistance Rate from LARRIPP:
Livelihood Rehabilitation Assistance 0 15,000 0.00 No. of All Residential Structures DPWH Policy and Guideline on Resettlement (2007)
Disturbance Compensation Rate from LARRIPP:
Disturbance Compensation 0 15,000 0.00 Severely Affected Agricultural Land DPWH Policy and Guideline on Resettlement (2007)
Income Loss Rate from LARRIPP:
Income Loss 0 15,000 0.00 No. of Commercial Structures Under the Bridge DPWH Policy and Guideline on Resettlement (2007)
Subtotal 5,278,500.00
5 % Management Cost 263,925.00
10 % Contingencies 527,850.00
Estimated 6,070,275.00
Cost Estimation for Liloan Bridge

Land (m2) 0 0.00 Inquired from Municipal Hall or BIR Zonal Value
Structures
Mission Section) under the National Roads
Improvement and Management Program Value from Sample RAP was
Severe 3 70,000 210,000.00 Structures Under the Bridge Phase II (NRIMP-2). June 2012 increased by 10%
Marginal 15 20,000 300,000.00 Structures Near the Bridge Phase II (NRIMP-2). June 2012 increased by 10%
Tree
Bearing Trees 0.00
Non-Bearing Trees 0.00
PASIG-MARIKINA RIVER CHANNEL Value from Sample RAP was
Transportation Allowance 15 1,050 15,750.00 For relocating severely affected HH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PHASE III). September 2011 increased by 5%
Rental Subsidy 0 3,000 0.00 No. of Severely Affected Renting Residents IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PHASE III). September 2011 increased by 5%
and Allowance Inconvenience Allowance 15 10,000 150,000.00 No. of Severely Affected Structures (under the bridge) DPWH Policy and Guideline on Resettlement (2007)
Income Loss 1 15,000 15,000.00 No. of Commercial Structures Under the Bridge DPWH Policy and Guideline on Resettlement (2007)
Subtotal 690,750.00
Estimated 794,362.50
20-31
Cost Estimation for Lambingan Bridge
Structures
Improvement and Management Program
Severe 1 70,000 70,000.00 Structures Under the Bridge Phase II (NRIMP-2). June 2012 Value from Sample RAP was increased by 10%
Improvement and Management Program
Marginal 41 20,000 820,000.00 Structures Near the Bridge Phase II (NRIMP-2). June 2012 Value from Sample RAP was increased by 10%
Tree
PASIG-MARIKINA RIVER CHANNEL
Transportation Allowance 1 1,050 1,050.00 For relocating severely affected HH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PHASE III). September 2011 Value from Sample RAP was increased by 5%
PASIG-MARIKINA RIVER CHANNEL
Rental Subsidy 0 3,000 0.00 No. of Severely Affected Renting Residents IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PHASE III). September 2011 Value from Sample RAP was increased by 5%
Subtotal 901,050.00
Estimated
total compensation 1,036,207.50
Cost Estimation for Guadalupe Bridge

Structures
Improvement and Management Program Value from Sample RAP
Severe 6 70,000 420,000.00 Structures Under the Bridge Phase II (NRIMP-2). June 2012 was increased by 10%
Marginal 11 20,000 220,000.00 Structures Near the Bridge Phase II (NRIMP-2). June 2012 was increased by 10%
Tree
Subtotal 706,300.00
Estimated 812,245.00
Cost Estimation for Palanit Bridge

Land (m2) 0 150 0.00 Inquired from Municipal Hall or BIR Zonal Value
Structures
Severe 2 70,000 140,000.00 Structures Under the Bridge Phase II (NRIMP-2). June 2012 increased by 10%
Compensation Marginal 0 20,000 0.00 Structures Near the Bridge Phase II (NRIMP-2). June 2012 increased by 10%
Tree

Transportation Allowance 2 1,050 2,100.00 For relocating severely affected HH IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PHASE III). September 2011 increased by 5%
Rental Subsidy 0 3,000 0.00 No. of Severely Affected Renting Residents IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (PHASE III). September 2011 increased by 5%
Subtotal 162,100.00
total compensation 186,415.00
Cost Estimation for Mawo Bridge

Land (m2) 0 150 0.00 Inquired from Municipal Hall or BIR Zonal Value
Structures
Severe 9 70,000 630,000.00 Structures Under the Bridge Phase II (NRIMP-2). June 2012 was increased by 10%
Marginal 4 20,000 80,000.00 Structures Near the Bridge Phase II (NRIMP-2). June 2012 was increased by 10%
Tree
Subtotal 809,450.00
total compensation 930,867.50
20-32
Cost Estimation for Wawa Bridge
Land (m2) 2,620 80 209,612.89 Inquired from Municipal Hall or BIR Zonal Value
Structures
Severe 25 70,000 1,750,000.00 Structures Under the Bridge Phase II (NRIMP-2). June 2012 was increased by 10%
Marginal 0 20,000 0.00 Structures Near the Bridge Phase II (NRIMP-2). June 2012 was increased by 10%
Tree
Bearing Trees 0.00
Non-Bearing Trees 0.00
Subtotal 2,235,862.89
Estimated 2,571,242.32
20.2.9 Internal and External Monitoring and Evaluation

(1) Internal Monitoring Evaluation
Internal monitoring will be conducted by the Multi-partite committee, composed of representatives of
the following:
 Local Government Units (LGUs)

 AP representatives (cooperatives/HOAs)
 NGOs
 Resettlement Unit
 DPWH-PMO
 National Agencies (i.e., DENR, DAR, DA, DTI)
The committee will assess the status and progress of the delivery of entitlements and assistance,
income restoration and rehabilitation efforts as defined in the resettlement plan. It will also
determine the PAPs socio-economic conditions at the relocation site and what type of assistance is
further needed to improve their living conditions. This internal monitoring will ensure the
immediate response to the problems and issues that may arise immediately after relocation.
Monitoring will be undertaken at the household level on a monthly basis for the first (1st) year after
relocation and quarterly on the second (2nd) year onwards.
Monthly monitoring will also be undertaken by the Community Relations and Resettlement Unit to
document the entitlement received and the involvement of each family in the programs and services
being provided. It will also look at the extent of community participation to determine the level of
social interaction and degree of relationships established within the relocation site.
(2) External Monitoring and Evaluation

An external monitoring and evaluation will be undertaken by a qualified independent agency which
can be from an NGO, academe or a consulting group.
External monitoring and evaluation will be conducted to assess the implementation of the resettlement
process, the operation and management of resettlement sites and the delivery and responsiveness of
the entitlement and benefit package. It will also verify the results of the internal monitoring and
evaluate whether objectives of the resettlement program are met.
The independent group will conduct semi-annual reviews for the entire duration of the resettlement
process and an End-of-Project Evaluation. Both qualitative and quantitative methods will be used in
the process. Table 20.2.9-1 shows a sample of monitoring/evaluation indicators.
20-33
Table 20.2.9-1 Sample of Monitoring/Evaluation Indicators
Scope Indicators
a. Monitoring Indicators
Project Implementation Number of home lots and farm lots developed and used by relocates
Resettlement procedure carried out as planned and scheduled
Social preparation carried out and results achieved
Delivery of Compensation/ Number of AFs provided with transport services during relocation
Delivery of Entitlement
Number of AFs provided with residential/farm lots
Number of AFs provided with livelihood skills training
Number of AFs employed with the project
Number of AFs trained and have access to loans/micro-credit
Number of women/men engaged in productive activities
Number of AFs provided with employment and job referrals
Consultation and Grievance Frequency of community meetings and consultation
Number of relocates in the resettlement site who are assisted in their
grievances
b. Evaluation Indicators
Benefit Impact /Evaluation Changes in housing conditions of AFs
Changes in income and expenditures
Changes and improvement in the general community situation
Changes in health condition of women and children
Changes in relationship of family and community
Changes in quality life among relocates
Sustainability Mechanisms Number of organizations established and number of members at the
Established relocation sites (HOA, livelihood associations, cooperatives, etc.)
Level of savings/capital saved by livelihood associations and
cooperatives
Linkages and Network established by associations and cooperatives
Financial net worth of cooperatives and associations
20.3 Others
20.3.1 Categorization on JICA Guidelines for Environmental and Social Considerations

JICA classifies projects into four categories according to the extent of environmental and social
impacts, taking into account an outline of projects, scale, site condition, etc.
According to this study result proposed project of 1st Mandaue rehabilitation is classified as Category
A because of significant adverse impact on society, large-scale involuntary resettlement. (See Table
20.2.3-3 Estimated Number of Household members to be resettle)
(Abstract from JICA Guidelines refer to Category A procedures as follows)
On necessary projects among Categories A and Category B, the Advisory Committee for
Environmental and Social Considerations gives advice on environmental and social considerations in
preparatory surveys. JICA reports to the Committee, and the Committee gives advice as needed at the
environmental review and monitoring stages. On the projects of technical cooperation for
development planning, the Advisory Committee gives advice at full-scale study stage.
Project proponents etc. must submit EIA reports for Category A projects. For projects that will result
in large-scale involuntary resettlement, a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) also must be submitted.
JICA publishes the status of host countries’ submission of major documents on environmental and
social considerations on its website. Prior to its environmental review, JICA also discloses the
following: (1) EIA reports and environmental permit certifications, (2) RAPs for projects that will
result in large-scale involuntary resettlement. Specifically, JICA discloses EIA reports 120 days prior
to concluding agreement documents. In addition, JICA discloses a translated version of these major
documents, subject to approval by project proponents etc.
20-34
PART 5
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER 21 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
21.1 Project Outline

As a result of the evaluation of conditions of existing bridges thru the first and second screening, the
priority ranks and improvement measures of the target bridges are studied. Based on the studies, the
outline design of two (2) bridges from Package B and five (5) bridges from Package C are conducted
with recommendable improvement measures as shown in Table 21.1-1.
The project in Metro Manila shall be implemented under severe urban environment such as
construction work at traffic congested areas and narrow working space and satisfactory work to
minimize the traffic disturbance, safety construction. Most of Japanese contractors have enough
experiences and technologies to cope with such severe conditions in densely urbanized areas.
Moreover, the Project needs special technology for the bridge seismic improvements. Thus, this
project can be one of the model projects for which Japanese contractors can exercise their
technologies in the following fields,
(1) Seismic Retrofitting of Bridge Pier
(2) Installation of Unseating/Fall-down Prevention System
(3) Seismic Retrofitting of Foundation
(4) Ground Improvement against Liquefaction
(5) Base Isolation/Menshin Technology
(6) Neighboring/Proximity Construction Technology
(7) Rapid Construction Technology
Table 21.1-1 Project Outline
Package B
Proposed
Bridge Name Improvement Description
Measures
Length
Bridge: 90 m
Approach Rd.: 240 m (119 m+121 m)
Type
1 Lambingan Br. Replacement
Superstructure: Simple Steel Deck Lohse Arch Stiffening Box
Girder
Substructure: RC Reversed T Type Abutment
Foundation: Cast-in-place Concrete Pile
Length
Bridge: 125 m (41.1 m + 42.8 m + 41.1 m)
Approach Rd.: N/A
Type
Replacement/
Superstructure: 3-span Continuous Steel Deck Box Girder
2. Guadalupe Br. Partial Seismic
Retrofit Substructure: RC Wall Type Pier/RC Reversed T Type
Abutment
Foundation: Steel Pipe Sheet Pile Foundation
Seismic Retrofit
Soil Improvement
21-1
Table 21.1-1 Project Outline
Package C
Proposed
Bridge Name Improvement Description
Measures
Length
st Bridge: 860 m (Existing)
1. 1 Mandaue- Seismic
Seismic Retrofit
Mactan Br. Retrofit
Seismic Damper, Concreting Jacket, Cast-in-place Concrete Pile,
Steel Pipe Sheet Pile Foundation and Unseating Prevention System
Length
Bridge: 82 m (27 m + 28 m + 27 m)
Approach Rd.: 135 m (98 m + 37 m)
Type
2. Palanit Br. Replacement
Superstructure: 3-span PC-I Girder
Substructure: RC Single Column Pier (Circular Type)/
RC Reversed T Type Abutment
Foundation: Spread Footing Foundation
Length
Bridge: 205 m (62.5 m + 80.0 m + 62.5 m)
Approach Rd.: 267 m (151 m + 112 m)
Type
3. Mawo Br. Replacement
Superstructure: 3-Span Continuous PC Fin-back Box Girder
Substructure: RC Wall Type Pier/RC Reversed T Type
Abutment
Length
Bridge: 298 m (Existing)
Seismic
4. Lilo-an Br. Seismic Retrofit
Retrofit
Seismic Damper, Concreting Jacket, Cast-in-place Concrete Pile
and Unseating Prevention System
Length
Bridge: 230 m (75.0 m + 80.0 m + 75.0 m)
Approach Rd.: 296 m (197 m + 99m)
Type
5. Wawa Br. Replacement
Superstructure: 3-Span Continuous Composite Steel Truss
Substructure: RC Wall Type Pier/RC Reversed T Type
Abutment
Note: All replacement bridges including instauration of unseating prevention system.
21-2
21.2 Project Cost
The estimated Project cost, which base year is 2013 is shown in Table 21.2-1.
Table 21.2-1 Estimated Project Cost
Construction Cost (M Php) Remark
1st
Item Mactan
Total
Replace
Price Level
August 2013
Retrofit
1. Construction Cost (M Php) 5,379.3 868.2 1,518.9 1,579.6 81.9 665.8 172.8 492.2
1-1 Civil Work(Bridge (M Yen) 11,952.9 1,929.1 3,375.0 3,510.0 182.0 1,479.4 383.9 1,093.6 Estimate Direct Cost
1) Foreign 4,029.7 752.4 1,187.7 1,213.8 11.7 381.1 87.9 395.1 + overhead cost
2) Local 1,349.6 115.8 331.2 365.9 70.2 284.7 84.8 97.0
% of 1) 74.9% 86.7% 78.2% 76.8% 14.3% 57.2% 50.9% 80.3% Foreign / Construction Cost
Per Surface Area (K Php/sq-m) 392.1 278.2 183.9 86.1 237.1 61.1 209.8 Without VAT
(K Yen/sq-m) 871.3 618.1 408.7 191.3 526.8 135.8 466.2
Surfce Area (sq-m) 2,214.0 5,460.5 8,588.0 951.2 2,808.5 2,826.3 2,346.0
Bridge Length (m) 90.0 (Outer) 125.0 (Truss) 368.0 82.0 205.0 297.5 230.0
(Inner) 114 (Girder) 492
Bridge Width (m) 24.6 (Outer) 19.3 (Truss) 9.7 11.6 13.7 9.5 10.2
(Inner) 27 (Girder) 10
Per Pair Lane (K Php/m) 3,215 2,560 1,837 999 3,248 581 2,140 Without VAT
(K Yen/m) 7,144.8 5,689.4 4,081.4 2,219.5 7,216.8 1,290.3 4,754.7
Nubmer of lanes 6 (Outer) 4 2 2 2 2 2
6
Length of pair lane 270.0 593.2 860.0 82.0 205.0 297.5 230.0
1-3. Physical Contingency 235.9 38.1 69.3 69.3 3.6 29.2 7.6 21.6 5% of Estimate Direct Cost
1-4. Administrative Cost 137.2 22.8 41.6 41.6 2.2 17.5 0.2 13.0 3% of Estimate Direct Cost
1-5. Preparation Cost 123.6 54.1 61.6 4.3 0.5 1.2 0.5 1.4
2) Land Acquisition 1.5 1.5 - - - - - -
3) Compensation 6.6 0.3 0.4 4.3 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6
1-5. TAX 744.0 126.9 211.1 217.5 10.9 86.6 22.8 68.3
1) VAT 705.1 118.0 202.5 203.4 10.6 85.6 21.7 63.4 12%
2) Custom Duty 38.9 8.9 8.6 14.1 0.3 1.0 1.1 4.9 3% for Imported Steel Items
Construction Cost Subtot (M Php) 6,620 1,110 1,902 1,912 99 800 204 596
(M Yen) 14,710 2,467 4,227 4,249 220 1,778 453 1,325
2-1. Detail Design 254.9 41.8 68.5 90.9 7.0 24.4 5.2 17.2
2-3. VAT 66.2 11.6 15.5 15.5 4.7 8.1 3.8 7.2 12%
Consultancy Service Subt (M Php) 684 120 159 160 49 83 39 75

(M Yen) 1,519 266 353 355 109 185 86 166
Grand Total (M Php) 7,304 1,230 2,061 2,072 148 884 243 671
(M Yen) 16,229 2,732 4,580 4,604 329 1,964 539 1,491 1 Php = 2.222 Yen
Exchange Rate: 1PHP=2.222JPY (August, 2013)
21-3
21.3 Implementation Schedule
The proposed implementation schedule is shown in Table 21.3-1.
Table 21.3-1 Proposed Implementation Schedule
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
ECC (Environmental
Compliance Certificate) X
NEDA-ICC (NEDA Board,

Investment Coordination X
Committees)
Appraisal Mission X
Selection
Detailed Design and Tender
Assistance
12 month
Tendering
15 month
32 month
Construction
Jan. 2021
Operation & Maintenance
21.4 Project Organization

Project implementing agency is the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and project
implementing office is Project Management Office (PMO).
The proposed project organization is shown in Figure 21.4-1.
21-4
21-5
Figure 21.4-1 Proposed Project Organization

21.5 Financial Analysis and Funding
The economic evaluation of the bridge improvement project is carried out by comparing the economic
cost of the project with the economic benefit that will be brought about by the bridge
replacement/retrofit.
The following three indexes are used to assess the project viability:
- Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR)
- Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C Ratio)
- Net Present Value (NPV)
The result of economic evaluation by bridges is shown in Table 21.5-1. All bridges were evaluated as
economically feasible.
Table 21.5-1 Results of Economic Evaluation by Bridges
Bridge EIRR B/C Ratio NPV
(Million Peso @ i=15%)
Lambingan 27.1% 1.90 451.5
Guadalupe 26.8% 2.08 933.7
st
1 Mandaue- Mactan 20.3% 1.42 381.3
Palanit 19.1% 1.27 17.3
Mawo 16.1% 1.06 21.6
Liloan 19.6% 1.25 28.0
Wawa 15.4% 1.02 6.3
Projects (all seven bridges) 22.9% 1.60 1839.7
The Project Sensitivity to the identified risks is shown in Table 21.5-2.
Table 21.5-2 Project Sensitivity
Base Cost plus 10% Cost plus 20%
Base 22.9% 21.1% 19.6%
Benefit less 10% 20.9% 19.3% 17.8%
Benefit less 20% 18.9% 17.3% 16.0%
Results show that the project is able to hurdle the minimum acceptable criteria of EIRR that is 15%.
Even if cost goes up and/or benefit goes down as shown in the following condition, the minimum
criteria of 15% EIRR would still meet.
● Cost plus 60%
● Benefit less 47%
● Cost plus 23% and Benefit less 23%
21-6
CHAPTER 22 RECOMMENDATIONS
22.1 Proposed Bridge Seismic Design Specifications (BSDS)

The major points of the proposed BSDS that is different from the current bridge seismic design
specifications are as follows.
(A) Establishment of Seismic Performance Requirements

 Seismic performance requirements and bridge operational classification were established,
which is to be for the first time in the Philippines.
(B) Localized Seismic Hazard Maps
 Distribution of active faults and ocean trenches in the Philippines were reflected in the
seismic hazard maps which are shown as design seismic ground acceleration and response
spectral acceleration coefficient contour maps by region at the surface of soil type B
specified in AASHTO, which is likewise for the first time in the Philippines.
 The design seismic ground accelerations specified in the BSDS will be the basis for
sustainable development of the bridge seismic design in the Philippines because the future
data gained from new earthquake events in the Philippines can be reflected into the
specifications following the process done in this study.
(C) Adoption of Latest Design Method
 The Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) method was employed following AASHTO
2012 version as the base specifications, including change in design earthquake return period
from 500 years to 1,000 years.
(D) Introduction of JRA Falling Down Prevention System
 The JRA falling down prevention system was introduced, considering similarity of ground
conditions between the Philippines and Japan.
 Components of the system are: (a) design method on effects of seismically unstable ground,
(b) unseating prevention system, and (c) requirements for seismically isolated bridges.
(E) Other major points
 Ground types for seismic design were classified into three types based on the JRA methods,
which can be identified with the Characteristic Value of Ground (TG(s)) which are to be
calculated with N-values.
 Effects and extent of liquefaction were reflected in the foundation design.
In this study, a seismic design manual and two seismic design examples were prepared to deepen the
understanding and prevent misunderstanding of the proposed BSDS. The following six (6) actions are
recommended for DPWH in order to make the proposed BSDS effective and useful, leading to
mitigation of disasters caused by large scale earthquakes.
22-1
(1) Since the major points of Items (A), (B) and (C) above largely affect the scale of bridge
substructures including foundations, the DPWH should make careful trial design and
accumulate design experiences from the various angles so as to avoid sudden large change in
the scale of bridge substructures including foundations compared to the one designed by the
current seismic design procedures. When determining the acceleration response spectra acting
on the structure as seismic forces, administrative judgment sometimes is required considering
uncertainties of the analysis results without referring to actual recorded ground motion data
and the country’s budgetary capacity.
Figure 22.1-1 shows recommendation on the acceleration response spectra at present for
Level-2 earthquake, which recommends setting the upper and lower limits for PGA
considering the present situations of experience and the progress of technology and research
in this field.
Future Recommended Range of PGA for Level-2 Earthquake Future

Issue Issue
As and SDS corresponding to PGA
PGA= PGA= PGA= PGA= PGA= PGA= PGA=
PGA (Soil Type B) SDS/As SDS/As SDS/As SDS/As SDS/As SDS/As SDS/As
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.80
Fpga(=Fa) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Reference
As(Fpga*PGA) 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.80
(Soil Type B) 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
SDS(Fa*Ss) 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 2.00
Fpga(=Fa) 1.20 1.20 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Soil Type I (C) As(Fpga*PGA) 0.12 0.24 0.33 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.80
2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
SDS(Fa*Ss) 0.30 0.60 0.83 1.00 1.25 1.50 2.00
Fpga(=Fa) 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.90 0.89 0.88
Soil Type II (D) As(Fpga*PGA) 0.16 0.28 0.36 0.40 0.45 0.54 0.70
2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.51 2.50 2.50
SDS(Fa*Ss) 0.40 0.70 0.90 1.00 1.13 1.35 1.75
Fpga(=Fa) 2.50 1.70 1.20 0.90 0.80 0.77 0.75
Type III (E, F) As(Fpga*PGA) 0.25 0.34 0.36 0.36 0.40 0.47 0.60
2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.51 2.50
SDS(Fa*Ss) 0.63 0.85 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.18 1.50
Future Issues*):
Elastic Seismic Coefficient, Csm
S DS  Fa S S Upper and lower limits will be expanded based

on the future experience, development of
S D1 technology and research in this field including
Csm  recommended As and SDS corresponding to each
Tm PGA.
S D1  FvS1 Regarding Fv corresponding to the above, please
AS  Fpga PGA refer to this report.
Minimum PGA=0.2 is recommended only for

Palawan and Sulu islands, for the other areas 0.3
S D1
0 0.2 TS  1.0 is recommended as a minimum PGA taking
S DS account of the 2013 Bohol Earthquake.
T0  0.2TS
Period, Tm (seconds)
Figure 22.1-1 Recommendation on Acceleration Response Spectra
(2) Major points of Items (B), (D) and (E) above should be authorized immediately after
submission of this final report because they are directly linked with the safety of bridges
during earthquakes. DPWH does not need to fix, at present, the return periods in the major
point Item (B) for the seismic design. It is better to improve the proposed BSDS through the
above trial design, which means that transition period is to be required.
22-2
(3) Through the above process, the proposed BSDS should be totally authorized as soon as
possible, and the DPWH should take actions to disseminate the authorized BSDS nationwide
in order to firmly make it rooted in bridge seismic design practice.
(4) The Standard design procedure and the standard design drawings should be revised based on
the new BSDS.
In addition to the above, action (5) and (6) below is recommended to be taken.
(5) With data on the new fault of the 2013 Bohol Earthquake, seismic hazard maps are
recommended to be verified and updated.
(6) The BSDS categorizes bridges according to its operational class, which is a function of the
bridge importance. In this regards, it is recommended that DPWH-BOD coordinates with the
Planning Service division in order to designate the bridge operational classification according
to the road function especially roads belonging to the regional disaster prevention routes.
(7) Since the current design practice in AASHTO has been shifting from the force-based R factor
design approach to the displacement-based design approach, it is recommended for DPWH to
consider the displacement-based design approach in the future so that design engineers could
easily imagine and judge the behavior of the structures’ displacement according to the scales
of the seismic design lateral forces. It should be noted that the BSDS is based on the current
design procedure being employed by the DPWH.
With respect to the activities or items shown in Table 22.1-1, further supports seem to be needed as a
transition period so as to make the outcome of this study meaningful and sustainable.
Table 22.1-1 Transition Period Recommended for Sustainable Development
1st Year 2nd Year
(1) Trial Design/Accumulation of Design Trial and Accumulation Stage Revision Stage
Design Experience
Repeated Training and Holding Seminar

(2) Capacity Development
Target Bridge Selection and Detailed Design Implementation

(3) Implementation of a Pilot Project
(4) Preparation of New Standard Preparation

Design Procedure and Drawings
(5) Preparation of Bridge Retrofit Preparation

Manual
(6) Inter Agency Committee Meeting*
* Inter Agency Committee Meeting (IACM) consists of DPWH, PHILVOCS,

Remarks ASEP, UP, Geological Society, under which working group will be
needed to maintain close coordination.
22-3
22.2 Implementation of the project for seismic strengthening of bridges recommended
in the Study
(1) Urgency of Project Implementation
Seismic resistance capacities of seven (7) bridges out of 33 subject bridges are recommended to be
strengthened urgently after conducting the various careful investigation and study in this project.
Among them, Lambingan Bridge and the outer section of Guadalupe Bridges are strongly
recommended to be replaced immediately in terms of not only seismic safety but also the
superstructures’ safety against traffic loads considering their importance. Though both bridges are
located on the soft ground having high potential of liquefaction, nobody knows the foundation types
and conditions of both bridges including whether the foundations are being placed in the stable
bearing layers. If Guadalupe Bridge collapses similar to the bridges which collapsed mainly due to
liquefaction by the 2013 Bohol Earthquake, the 2012 Negros Earthquake and the 1990 North Luzon
Earthquake, its impact on the Philippine economy and the human lives cannot be imagined which may
lead to devastation.
Properly designed and constructed new Lambingan Bridge and Guadalupe Bridges will have reliable
resistance capacity against expected large earthquakes, which will perform as if they were the “Savior
Bridges” because the real seismic resistance capacities of the other old bridges crossing over the Pasig
and Marikina Rivers against expected large earthquakes are unknown.
The other five (5) bridges of Package C, of which three (3) bridges are to be replaced and two (2)
bridges are to be retrofitted, are all vulnerable to large scale earthquakes and recommended to be
implemented according to the implementation schedule of this report at appropriate timing,
considering their importance.
(2) Utilization of Japanese Technology for Project Implementation

Seismic resistance improvements of bridges require experience and special technology for design and
construction. Therefore, it is recommended that this project be a model project for Philippine seismic
performance improvement of bridges utilizing Japan’s rich technology in the area of:
(a) Seismic Retrofitting of Bridge Piers.

(b) Installation of Unseating/Fall-down Prevention System.
(c) Seismic Retrofitting of Foundation
(d) Improvement of soil layers with liquefaction potential.
(e) Base Isolation/ Menshin Technology.
(f) Construction Technology under limited space or constrained working conditions / very near by
existing Structures).
(g) Rapid Construction Technology.
22-4
(a) Seismic retrofitting of bridge pier (b) Installation of falling down prevention system and dampers
(f) Foundation construction technology under limited

(c) Seismic retrofitting of foundation
space and constrained working conditions with
press-in method for piles
(3) Importance of Construction Quality and Proper Maintenance Activities

Seismic resistance capacity of structures will not be governed only by appropriate seismic design but
also by the construction quality. Proper maintenance activities, on the other hand, are also essential to
maintain the quality of the constructed structures having appropriate seismic resistance capacity. It is
recommended that the DPWH take proper care to construct structures with high quality and maintain
their quality through proper maintenance activities.
22-5
22.3 Recommendation of Improvement Project for Traffic Conditions in Traffic
Intermodal Area through Guadalupe Bridge Seismic Strengthening Project
Makati side of Guadalupe Bridge is the intermodal area connecting such public transport as MRT,
buses, taxies and Jeepneys, the situation of which has been giving rise to traffic confusion involving
their passengers’ and customers’ movement using the public market located near by the area. By
making the most of the opportunity of the Guadalupe Bridge seismic strengthening works, solving the
traffic situation above is strongly recommended, because there is no room but the bridge section for
widening and improving the area.
22.3.1 Present Issues on the Traffic Intermodal Area

The following three (3) issues on traffic conditions in the intermodal area are summarized, which is
shown visually in Figure 22.3.1-1
 [Issue 1] Traffic movement on ramps in diverting and merging.
 [Issue 2] Disturbance by buses and Jeepneys, which may cause traffic congestion and
accidents.
 [Issue 3] Accessibility to traffic intermodal facilities.
22-6
Our Lady of Guadalupe Minor Seminary
[Issue 2] Disturbance by buses and Jeepneys

(traffic congestion and accidents)
[Issue 1] Traffic Movement on Ramps
in Diverting and Merging
Bus Stop Illegal Park by Bus Illegal Park by Jeepney
MRT Guadalupe.ST
Bus Stop
Illegal Park by Bus Guadalupe.Br
Guadalupe Commercial Complex

Robinson
Makati Side
22-7
[Issue 3] Accessibility to Intermodal

Facilities
：Main Pedestrians’ Movement Bank Jeepney Pool
(1) Present Issues on Traffic Conditions in the Intermodal Area
Converging by Low Disturbance by Traffic Congestion Occurrence of Buses’ Illegal Parking Passengers Waiting
Speed Vehicles Pedestrians Crossing near Bus Stop Accidents when near Station for Jeepneys in a
Traffic Congested Queue
[Issue 2] Disturbance by Buses and Jeepneys [Issue 3] Accessibility to Intermodal Facilities
(Traffic congestion and accidents)
(2) Description of the Issues
Figure 22.3.1-1 Present Issues on Traffic Conditions in the Intermodal Area
22.3.2 Improvement Measures
(1) Improvement Level
The improvement measures for the three (3) issues above are to be expressed as improvement levels
closely related to the project costs as shown in Figure 22.3.2-1.
Improvement Level Contents of Measures Descriptions

*To improve the situations
Improvement Level 1 *Installing additional by separating traffic on
lanes on both ramps. ramps and main
carriageway.
Level Up +
*To reduce accidents and
*Installing bus stops
Improvement Level 2 mitigate congestion by
adding to
controlling main traffic
Improvement Level 1.
with bus stops.
Level Up +
*Improvement of
*To improve the intermodal
Improvement Level 3 Intermodal Facilities’
facilities’ function through
Function adding to
integrated development.
Improvement Level 2.
Figure 22.3.2-1 Improvement Measures
22-8
(2) Comparison on Improvement Measures
Table 22.3.2-2 shows comparison on improvement measures by improvement levels. Seismic
strengthening work itself does not contribute to traffic conditions’ improvement around the bridge,
which is shown for reference.
From the following reasons described in Table 22.3.2-1, Improvement Level 3 is recommended not
only for solving traffic confusion around the traffic intermodal facilities but also for improving
environmental circumstances in the area, which leads to the mitigation measures for the climate
change.
Table 22.3.2-1 Features of Improvement Levels

Improvement Level 1 Improvement Level 2 Improvement Level 3
Merits Merits Merits
・ Merging at an appropriate ・ Traffic jam will be ・ Accessibility will be
speed is possible with the mitigated with dispersed improved by integrating
additional lane bus stops preventing public transport.
・ Waiting space for passengers converging. ・ Traffic jam will be
pedestrian crossing is to ・ Accidents due to traffic improved by controlling
be secured. jam will be reduced, illegal parking.
resulting in reducing ・ Traffic safety of
Demerits traffic confusion by pedestrians will be
・ Traffic congestion due to accidents. improved utilizing
buses and Jeepneys is not pedestrian decks.
to be solved. Demerits ・ Environmental
・ Traffic safety of ・ Disturbance by Jeepneys circumstances will be
pedestrians is to be low and taxies is not to be drastically improved,
because they need to cross prevented which has a potential to
roads. ・ Since crossing the road become a major attraction
for pedestrians is needed, point.
traffic safety will not be
secured. Issues
・ Securing existing park
beside the bridge for
Jeepney pool is needed.
・ (Existing Jeepney pool is
to be transformed to park
in exchanging new
Jeepney pool)
・ Agreement between
stakeholders including
land owners is needed.
22-9
Table 22.3.2-2 Proposal for the Improvement of Traffic Situations around MRT Guadalupe Station
Present Condition (P-0) Improvement Level 1 (L-1) Improvement Level 2 (L-2) Improvement Level 3 (L-3)
(Bridge Seismic Strengthening Only) ( Improvement of Traffic Conditions on Ramps) (L-1 + Providing New Bus Stops) (L-2 + Development of Traffic Intermodal Facilities)
Retrofitting
Plan View
Improvement Jeepny
Replaced of Geometry Bus Stops Parking Plaza
Bridge
of Ramps
Pedestrian Deck
Replaced with New Bridge Added Ramp Lane Installing New Bus Stops
Ramp Bus stop Ramp
Cross Section
of Bridges
Outer Bridge
Central Bridge
Cross Section  To maintain present configuration including the  To separate main traffic and traffic on ramps, with  To install bus stop adding to L-1.  L-2 + to develop such traffic square as pedestrian
Plan number of lanes and lane width. one lane added for each side. decks connecting intermodal facilities, Jeepney and
taxi pools.
 No improvement in terms of traffic congestion  To improve traffic conditions entering/going out  To mitigate traffic congestion due to buses’ illegal  L-2 + to intend to prevent buses, Jeepneys and
Mitigation of
around Guadalupe Station and Bridge. main carriageway from/to ramps. parking on main carriage way. taxies illegal parking.
Traffic
Congestion  To intend to prevent buses’ double parking.
0 1 2 3
 No change in traffic safety after the bridge seismic  To reduce traffic accident potential in diverting and  L-1 + to reduce traffic accident potential due to  L-2 + to largely improve traffic safety for
Traffic Safety strengthening project merging. changing travel lane in loading and unloading. pedestrians
0 1 2 3
 No Change in accessibility after the bridge seismic  No Change in accessibility after the project..  To improve accessibility for passengers between  P-2 + to largely improve accessibility for people
Accessibility strengthening project. bus stops and MRT station. between MRT station, public transport and
commerce facilities.
0 0 1 3
 No increase in bridge surface area ratio after the  The number of lanes in one direction from 5 lanes  L-1 + bus stop area (area ratio increase of 1.7  P-2 + traffic square (area ratio increase of 1.7 times)
Additional
bridge seismic strengthening project. to 6 lanes (area ratio increase of 1.2 times） times)
Cost
3 2 1 0
 No change in the situations of traffic congestion,  To improve the extent of disturbance by traffic on  L-1 + to improve traffic congestion through  L-1 + to improve traffic congestion through
traffic safety and accessibility. ramps to main traffic preventing buses’ illegal parking preventing buses, Jeepneys and taxies illegal and
random parking.
 To improve traffic safety and accessibility for
Evaluation pedestrians by developing traffic plaza including
additional pedestrian decks
(Recommended).
3 4 6 9
22-10
22.3.3 Recommendations
Improvement Level 3 is recommended for solving traffic confusion and improving environmental circumstances in and around traffic intermodal area by utilizing the opportunity of seismic strengthening project. Figure 22.3.3-1 shows
the recommended scheme.
Bus Stop
B Additional Lane（Off Ramp）
Jeepney Stop
Improvement of function of Preventing Jeepney illegal parking

existing bus stop Illegal parking on main lanes
The function will be improved and ramps by Jeepney will be Additional Lane（On Ramp）
with new bus stops being improved with new Jeepney
provided on the bridge. pool provided.
Jeepney Pool
Replacement of the Park Pedestrian Decks

Public Market
The function of the present Taxi Pool
park could be transferred to
the existing Jeepney pool. A
(1) Plan View of Recommended Improvement Scheme
Pedestrian Deck Pedestrian Deck Sidewalk
Sidewalk Bus Stop

Off-Ramp On-Ramp
Bus Stop Sidewalk Jeepney Taxi Pool
B Side A Side
(2) Section View (A-B)
Figure 22.3.3-1 Recommended Improvement Scheme in and around Traffic Intermodal Area near Guadalupe Bridge
22-11

Mitigation of Seismic Disasters in Bridges Part 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mitigation of Seismic Disasters in Bridges Part 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 16 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT OUTLINE DESIGN

16.1 Design Criteria and Conditions for Bridge Replacement

16.1.1 Design Criteria and Conditions for Bridge Replacement

(1) Design Standards utilized for Outline Design of New Bridges

2) Load Factors and Combination

Table 16.1.1-3 Load Combinations and Factors

Sｓ= 0.38 Site-Specfic Design Spectrum

Mawo Br. at A1(1000-Year)

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0

Soil Type & Response Coefficement

Figure 16.1.1-1 Design Spectrum for New Bridge Design

Table 16.1.1-5 Concrete Strength by Structural Member

Table 16.1.1-6 Properties and Stress Limit of Reinforcing Bars

Table 16.1.1-9 Properties and Stress Limit of Steel Pipe

5) Steel Pipe Sheet Pile

6) Steel members for superstructure

Table 16.1.1-11 Properties and Stress Limit of Steel Members

450 t < 40mm

355 t < 40mm

235 t < 40mm

355 t < 40mm

235 t < 40mm

STEP 1. Confirmation of ROAD CONDITION

STEP 2. Confirmation of HYDRAULIC CONDITION

STEP 3. Examination of SUBSTRUCTURE LOCATION

STEP 4. Confirmation of BASIC CONCEPT

STEP 5. COMPARISON STUDY of New Bridge Types

STEP 1. Confirmation of ROAD CONDITION

Figure 16.1.2-3 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Lambingan Bridge

ii) Road Horizontal and Vertical Alignment

Figure 16.1.2-4 Vertical Alignment by Road Planning of New Lambingan Bridge

STEP 2. Confirmation of HYDRAULIC CONDITION

i) Location of Abutments for Simple Supported Bridge Type

Figure 16.1.2-5 Determination of Abutment Location of Lambingan Bridge

ii) Location of Abutments for 3-Span Continuous Bridge Type

iii) Span Arrangement in Comparison Study

Figure 16.1.2-7 Span Arrangements of Lambingan Bridge in Comparison Study

iv) Examination of Applicable Bridge Types Considering Construction Condition

Figure 16.1.2-8 Construction Steps of Stage Construction

< TOTAL CONSTRUCTION>

Figure 16.1.2-9 Detour Temporary Bridge under Total Construction Method

STEP 4. Confirmation of BASIC CONCEPT

STEP 5. COMPARISON STUDY of New Bridge Types

i) Extraction of Applicable Basic Types based on Actual Results

Table 16.1.2-1 Extraction of Applicable Basic Types based on Actual Results

Table 16.1.2-2 Candidates of comparison study

iii) Selection of Logically Suitable Types of Bridge Foundations

Foundation location On the ground In the River

Closed to narrow navigation

Max. Water depth (m) - Around 10.5 m

Depth of bearing layer (m) Around GL-17.5 to 19.0m Around GL-15.0m

Type of bearing layer Rock Rock

Liquefaction liquefiable site liquefiable site

Table 16.1.2-4 Extraction of Applicable Basic Types based on Actual Results

Table 16.1.2-5 Site Candidates of Comparison Study

STEP 1. Confirmation of ROAD CONDITION

Figure 16.1.2-10 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Existing Guadalupe Bridge

Figure 16.1.2-11 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of New Guadalupe Bridge

ii) Road Horizontal and Vertical Alignment

STEP 2. Confirmation of HYDRAULIC CONDITION

i) Location of Abutments for Simple Supported Bridge Type

Figure 16.1.2-12 Determination of Abutment Location of Guadalupe Bridge

ii) Span Arrangement in Comparison Study

Figure 16.1.2-13 Span Arrangement for Comparison Study

　Total　Cost (Ratio) - A Little Expensive (1.111) B - A Little Inexpensive (1.000) A