Group 3 - Capstone Design

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES
938 Aurora Blvd, Cubao, Quezon City
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

Civil Engineering Department
In Partial Fulfillment for the Requirements

In CE 509 CE DESIGN PROJECTS II
DESIGN OF MALICNAO BRIDGE IN BARANGAY POBLACION EAST, ROSARIO, LA UNION
Submitted By:
Agresor, Wilson B.
Manlapaz, Emmanuel T.
Subiza, Genelyn B.
Villanueva, Maricris R.
CE52FB1
Submitted to:
Engr. Jennifer Camino

Faculty, Civil Engineering Department
March 2018
APPROVAL SHEET
The design project entitled “DESIGN OF MALICNAO BRIDGE IN BARANGAY POBLACION EAST,
ROSARIO, LA UNION” prepared by Emmanuel T. Manlapaz, Genelyn B. Subiza, Maricris R. Villanueva and
Wilson B. Agresor of the Civil Engineering Department was evaluated by the Students Design Evaluation
Panel, and is hereby recommended for approval.
______________________________
Engr. Ronald Miguel David
External Adviser
______________________________
Engr. Jennifer Camino
Adviser
_______________________________
Engr. James Victor Cerezo
Panel Member
_____________________________
Engr. Alden De Guzman
Panel Member
______________________________
Engr. Asisclo Villafuerte
Panel Member
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Our deepest gratitude to our external adviser, Engr. Ronald Miguel David, for all the patience, guidance and
assistance he gave to us, as well as the knowledge that he willingly shared. His kindness and encouragement
broke the worries we used to have and made us be more passionate to every step we do.
A genuine appreciation to our family and friends for their continuous motivation and support that made us
even more determined to accomplish this project. As well as to other people who offered their help in getting
the data necessary for this work.
Special acknowledgment to our adviser, faculty members and department chair of the Civil Engineering
Department who helped us to provide request letters addressed to different institutions when we were
gathering data necessary for the project.
Thank you to our capstone defense panelists who provided us their expertise and ideas for the improvement
of our work.
And lastly, all our praises to Almighty God for giving us the strength, guidance, presence of mind and good
health that lead us to this point and be able to accomplish this project. Nothing would be possible without
Him.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPROVAL SHEET .............................................................................................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ......................................................................................................................................... ii
LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................................................................viii
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter I ............................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 The Project ..................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................................................. 4
1.3 Project Objectives .......................................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1 General Objective ................................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.2 Specific Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 4
1.4 The Client ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.5 Project Scope and Limitation ......................................................................................................................... 5
1.5.1 Scope ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
1.5.2 Limitation ................................................................................................................................................. 5
1.6 Project Development ..................................................................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER II ......................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Description of the Project .............................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Description of the Structure ........................................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Geometrics .............................................................................................................................................. 7
2.2.1.1 Bridge Alignment ............................................................................................................................. 7
2.2.1.2 Proposed Plan Layout ..................................................................................................................... 7
2.2.2 Site Definition .......................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.2.1 Surface Elevation ............................................................................................................................ 9
2.2.2.2 Boring Data with SPT ...................................................................................................................... 9
2.2.2.3 Discharge Measurements ............................................................................................................. 11
2.2.2.4 Flood Level .................................................................................................................................... 12
2.2.2.5 Seismic Design Criteria ................................................................................................................. 13
2.2.2.6 Wind Load Parameter ................................................................................................................... 14
2.2.3 Design Loadings ................................................................................................................................... 14
2.2.3.1 Dead Load ..................................................................................................................................... 14
2.2.3.2 Vehicular Live Loading .................................................................................................................. 14
2.2.3.3 Impact Load ................................................................................................................................... 16
iii
2.2.3.4 Sidewalk Loading .......................................................................................................................... 16
2.2.3.4 Wind Load ...................................................................................................................................... 16
2.2.3.5 Seismic Load ................................................................................................................................. 17
2.2.3.5a Load Case 1 ................................................................................................................................ 17
2.2.3.5b Load Case 2 ................................................................................................................................ 17
2.3 Topographic Map ......................................................................................................................................... 18
2.4 Elevation Map .............................................................................................................................................. 19
2.5 Review Related Literature and Studies ...................................................................................................... 19
2.5.1 Foreign Reviews ................................................................................................................................... 19
2.5.2 Local Reviews ....................................................................................................................................... 22
CHAPTER III ...................................................................................................................................................... 23
3.1 Design Constraints....................................................................................................................................... 23
3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints ....................................................................................................................... 23
3.1.1.1 Economic (Overall Cost) ............................................................................................................... 23
3.1.1.2 Constructability (Duration) ............................................................................................................ 23
3.1.1.3 Serviceability (Deflection) ............................................................................................................. 24
3.1.1.4 Sustainability (Maintenance Cost) ................................................................................................ 24
3.1.2 Qualitative Constraints .................................................................................................................. 24
3.1.2.1 Social ............................................................................................................................................. 24
3.2 Trade-offs ..................................................................................................................................................... 24
3.2.1 Prestressed Post-Tensioned Concrete I-Girder Bridge ...................................................................... 25
3.2.2 Steel Plate Girder Bridge...................................................................................................................... 25
3.2.3 Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder Bridge ............................................................................................ 26
3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking ............................................................................................................................. 27
3.4 Trade-off Assessment.................................................................................................................................. 28
a. Economic Constraint (Cost) .................................................................................................................. 28
b. Constructability Constraint (Duration) ................................................................................................... 29
c. Serviceability Constraint (Deflection).................................................................................................... 29
d. Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost) ...................................................................................... 29
3.5 Design Standards ........................................................................................................................................ 30
CHAPTER IV ...................................................................................................................................................... 31
4.1 Design Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 31
4.2 Unfactored Design Loads ............................................................................................................................ 32
iv
4.3 Foundation Design Specifications ............................................................................................................... 38
4.3.1 Concrete Mix for Pile Foundation ........................................................................................................ 38
4.3.2 Design of Shear Key in the Abutment ................................................................................................. 38
4.3.3 Bored Pile.............................................................................................................................................. 39
4.3.4 Pile Arrangement .................................................................................................................................. 39
4.4 Design of Prestressed Post-Tensioned Concrete I-Girder Bridge............................................................. 42
4.4.1 Design Process..................................................................................................................................... 42
4.4.2 Material Properties ............................................................................................................................... 43
4.4.2.1 Concrete Mix.................................................................................................................................. 44
4.4.2.2 Constructability Activities .............................................................................................................. 44
4.4.3 Computation of Girder Design ............................................................................................................. 45
4.4.3.1 Determining Appropriate Section .................................................................................................. 45
4.4.3.2 Prestressing Bar Location......................................................................................................... 45
4.4.3.3 Flexure and Fatigue Adequacy................................................................................................. 45
4.4.3.4 Prestress Losses ........................................................................................................................... 46
4.4.3.5 Deflection ................................................................................................................................... 46
4.4.3.6 Design of main reinforcing bars ................................................................................................ 47
4.4.3.7 Design of Stirrups...................................................................................................................... 48
4.4.3.8 Design of Diaphragm .................................................................................................................... 48
4.4.3.9 Design of Foundation .................................................................................................................... 49
4.4.4 Design Drawings................................................................................................................................... 49
4.5 Design of Steel Plate Girder Bridge ............................................................................................................ 58
4.5.1 Design Process..................................................................................................................................... 58
4.5.2.1 Constructability Activities .................................................................................................................. 59
4.5.3 Steel Girder Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 60
4.5.3.1 Proportion Limits............................................................................................................................ 60
4.5.3.2 Strength Limit State (Flexure Adequacy) ..................................................................................... 60
4.5.3.3 Fatigue Limit State ........................................................................................................................ 61
4.5.3.4 Service Limit State ........................................................................................................................ 61
4.5.3.5 Constructability .............................................................................................................................. 62
4.5.3.6 Shear Connectors ..................................................................................................................... 62
4.5.3.7 Design of Stiffener ......................................................................................................................... 63
v
4.5.3.8 Design of Cross Frame ............................................................................................................ 64
4.5.3.9 Camber ..................................................................................................................................... 66
4.5.3.10 Deflection ..................................................................................................................................... 67
4.5.3.11 Design of Foundation .................................................................................................................. 67
4.5.4 Design Drawings................................................................................................................................... 68
4.6 Design of Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder Bridge .................................................................................. 76
4.6.1 Design Process..................................................................................................................................... 76
4.6.2.1 Concrete Mix.................................................................................................................................. 77
4.6.2.2 Constructability Activities .............................................................................................................. 77
4.6.3 Computation of Girder Design ............................................................................................................. 78
4.6.3.1 Tension steel reinforcements using pmax.................................................................................... 78
4.6.3.2 Flexure Adequacy ..................................................................................................................... 78
4.6.3.3 Design for Stirrups .................................................................................................................... 79
4.6.3.4 Design of Diaphragm .................................................................................................................... 80
4.6.3.4 Deflection ................................................................................................................................... 80
4.6.3.5 Design of Foundation .................................................................................................................... 80
4.6.4 Design Drawings................................................................................................................................... 81
4.7 Validation of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards ................................................................... 88
4.8 Trade-off Assessment.................................................................................................................................. 92
4.8.1 Economic Constraint ............................................................................................................................ 92
4.8.2 Constructability Constraint ................................................................................................................... 92
4.8.3 Serviceability Constraint ....................................................................................................................... 92
4.8.4 Sustainability Constraint ........................................................................................................................... 92
4.9 Design Optimization ..................................................................................................................................... 93
4.9.1 Economy vs Constructability ................................................................................................................ 93
4.9.2 Economy vs Serviceability ................................................................................................................... 96
4.9.3 Economy vs Sustainability ................................................................................................................... 99
CHAPTER V ..................................................................................................................................................... 102
APPENDIX A: COMPARATIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... 111
APPENDIX B: CONCRETE DECK DESIGN .................................................................................................. 115
APPENDIX C: DESIGN OF PRESTRESSED POST-TENSIONED CONCRETE I-GIRDER BRIDGE ....... 124
APPENDIX D: DESIGN OF STEEL PLATE GIRDER BRIDGE ..................................................................... 160
vi
APPENDIX E: DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE DECK GIRDER BRIDGE ................................... 202
APPENDIX F: SCHEDULE OF BEARING PAD ............................................................................................. 234
APPENDIX G: COMPUTATION OF INITIAL ESTIMATE .............................................................................. 235
APPENDIX H: COMPUTATION OF FINAL ESTIMATE ................................................................................. 243
APPENDIX I: DETAILS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 251
APPENDIX J: MINUTES OF MEETING ......................................................................................................... 255
APPENDIX K: CURRICULUM VITAE ............................................................................................................. 258
Reference ......................................................................................................................................................... 266
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Project Location Map ........................................................................................................................ 1
Figure 1-2. View of Malicnao River ..................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 1-3. Pier Side of Existing Bridge .............................................................................................................. 3
Figure 1-4. View of Existing Bridge ..................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 1-5. Current situation of Malicnao Bridge (as of 2017) ........................................................................... 4
Figure 1-6. Project Development Process .......................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2-1. Initial Deck Layout ............................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 2-2. Girder Spacing Outline...................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2-3. Elevation ............................................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 2-4. Cross-Section .................................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2-5. Surface Elevation of Malicnao Bridge .............................................................................................. 9
Figure 2-6. Soil Profile ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 2-7. Bued River Scope Boundaries ....................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2-8. River Elevation ................................................................................................................................ 13
Figure 2-9. Route Considered for Determination of River Elevation ............................................................... 13
Figure 2-10. Design Truck ................................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 2-11. Design Tandem Alternate Military Loading .................................................................................. 15
Figure 2-12. Design Lane Load ......................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2-13. Special Permitted Design Load .................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2-14. Forces on Vehicle Collision .......................................................................................................... 16
Figure 2-15. Seismic Load for Load Case 1 ..................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2-16. Seismic Load for Load Case 2 ..................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2-17. Topographic Map of Project Area ................................................................................................ 18
Figure 2-18. Topographic Map of La Union ...................................................................................................... 18
Figure 2-19. Elevation Map of La Union ........................................................................................................... 19
Figure 2-20. Bridge Type Selection System (Itoh, 2000) ................................................................................. 20
Figure 3-1. Prestressed Concrete I-Girder........................................................................................................ 25

Figure 3-2. Steel Plate Girder ............................................................................................................................ 26
Figure 3-3. Reinforced Concrete Deep Beam .................................................................................................. 26
Figure 4-1. Design Process ............................................................................................................................... 31

Figure 4-2. Position of Bearing Pads (Trade-off 1)........................................................................................... 34
Figure 4-5. Seismic Forces 1 (Trade-off 1) ....................................................................................................... 34
Figure 4-10. Seismic Forces 2 (Trade-off 3) ..................................................................................................... 36
viii
Figure 4-11. Wind Load Intensity (Trade-off 1)................................................................................................. 36
Figure 4-14. Pile Arrangements at Abutment Side ........................................................................................... 40
Figure 4-15. Pile Arrangements at Pier Side .................................................................................................... 41
Figure 4-16. AASHTO Type V PSC Girder ....................................................................................................... 43
Figure 4-17. PSC Section Details at Midspan .................................................................................................. 49
Figure 4-18. PSC Section Details at End Span ................................................................................................ 50
Figure 4-19. Reinforcement Details of End Diaphragm ................................................................................... 50
Figure 4-20. Transverse End Diaphragm Reinforcement Details .................................................................... 51
Figure 4-21. Intermediate Diaphragm Reinforcement Details ......................................................................... 51
Figure 4-22. Diaphragm Layout (PSC).............................................................................................................. 51
Figure 4-23. Cross Section at Pier Side ............................................................................................................ 52
Figure 4-24. Cross Section at Abutment Side .................................................................................................. 52
Figure 4-25. Transverse Elevation of Abutment ............................................................................................... 53
Figure 4-26. Reinforcement Details of Abutment ............................................................................................. 53
Figure 4-27. Details of Section B-B ................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 4-28. Details of “X”.................................................................................................................................. 54
Figure 4-29. Details of Pier Cap ........................................................................................................................ 54
Figure 4-30. Reinforcement Details of Pier Footing ......................................................................................... 54
Figure 4-31. Reinforcement Details of Pier ....................................................................................................... 55
Figure 4-32. Reinforcement Details of Pile Cap (Abutment) ............................................................................ 55
Figure 4-33. Reinforcement Details of Pile Cap (Pier) ..................................................................................... 55
Figure 4-34. Reinforcement Details of Pile (Abutment) .................................................................................... 55
Figure 4-35. Reinforcement Details of Pile (Pier) ............................................................................................. 55
Figure 4-36. Details of Pile Cap and Pile Arrangement (Abutment) ................................................................ 56
Figure 4-37. Details of Pile Cap and Pile Arrangement (Pier) ......................................................................... 56
Figure 4-38. Front Elevation at Pier .................................................................................................................. 56
Figure 4-39. PSC Bridge Elevation ................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 4-40. Steel W-shaped I-Girder ............................................................................................................... 59
Figure 4-41. Bearing Stiffener ........................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 4-42. Cross Frame Dimension ............................................................................................................... 64
Figure 4-43. Strut BA Section ............................................................................................................................ 64
Figure 4-44. Steel Girder Camber Details......................................................................................................... 66
Figure 4-45. W 36 x 798 Steel Girder Section .................................................................................................. 68
Figure 4-46. Bearing Stiffener ........................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 4-47. Pitch of Shear Studs ..................................................................................................................... 69
Figure 4-48. Typical Cross Frame ..................................................................................................................... 69
Figure 4-49. Strut Bolted Connection ................................................................................................................ 69
Figure 4-50. Cross Frame Layout ..................................................................................................................... 70
ix
Figure 4-67. Steel Bridge Elevation .................................................................................................................. 75
Figure 4-68. Outline of RC T-Beam .................................................................................................................. 76
Figure 4-69. RC Section Reinforcement Details ............................................................................................... 81
Figure 4-70. Reinforcement Details of End Diaphragm ................................................................................... 81
Figure 4-71. Transverse End Diaphragm Reinforcement Details .................................................................... 82
Figure 4-72. Intermediate Diaphragm Reinforcement Details ......................................................................... 82
Figure 4-73. Diaphragm Layout (RC) ................................................................................................................ 82
Figure 4-90. RC Deck Bridge Elevation ............................................................................................................ 88
Figure 4-91. Cost Difference ............................................................................................................................. 90
Figure 4-92. Duration Difference ....................................................................................................................... 90
Figure 4-93. Deflection Difference..................................................................................................................... 91
Figure 4-94. Maintenance Cost Difference ....................................................................................................... 91
Figure 4-95. Overall Cost vs Duration (PSC).................................................................................................... 94
Figure 4-96. Overall Cost vs Duration (Steel) ................................................................................................... 94
Figure 4-97. Overall Cost vs Duration (RCDG) ................................................................................................ 95
Figure 4-98. Overall Cost vs Duration – Comparison....................................................................................... 96
x
Figure 4-99. Overall Cost vs Deflection (PSC) ................................................................................................. 97
Figure 4-100. Overall Cost vs Deflection (Steel) .............................................................................................. 97
Figure 4-101. Overall Cost vs Deflection (RCDG) ............................................................................................ 98
Figure 4-102. Overall Cost vs Deflection – Comparison .................................................................................. 99
Figure 4-103. Overall Cost vs Maintenance Cost (PSC).................................................................................. 99
Figure 4-104. Overall Cost vs Maintenance Cost (Steel) ............................................................................... 100
Figure 4-105. Overall Cost vs Maintenance Cost (RCDG) ............................................................................ 101
Figure 4-106. Overall Cost vs Maintenance Cost – Comparison................................................................... 101
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Proposed Dimension of Bridge .......................................................................................................... 7
Table 2-2. Surface Elevation ............................................................................................................................... 9
Table 2-3. Borehole Log Data ........................................................................................................................... 10
Table 2-4. Hydraulic Data of Bued River .......................................................................................................... 11
Table 2-5. Seismic Design Parameters ............................................................................................................ 14
Table 3-1. Initial Estimate .................................................................................................................................. 28

Table 3-2. Initial Raw Ranking........................................................................................................................... 30
Table 4-1. Unfactored Maximum Shear and Moment ...................................................................................... 32

Table 4-2. Unfactored Support Forces (Trade-off 1) ........................................................................................ 32
Table 4-3. Unsupported Support Forces (Trade-off 2) ..................................................................................... 33
Table 4-4. Unsupported Support Forces (Trade-off 3) ..................................................................................... 33
Table 4-5. Wind Load parameters (Trade-off 1) ............................................................................................... 36
Table 4-6. Wind Load Parameters (Trade-off 2)............................................................................................... 37
Table 4-7. Wind Load Parameters (Trade-off 3)............................................................................................... 37
Table 4-8. Properties of Aggregates ................................................................................................................. 38
Table 4-9. Concrete Mix Ratio ........................................................................................................................... 38
Table 4-10. AAHSTO Type V PSC Girder Section Dimension ........................................................................ 43
Table 4-11. Other Properties of PSC ................................................................................................................ 43
Table 4-12. Properties of Aggregates ............................................................................................................... 44
Table 4-13. Concrete Mix Ratio ......................................................................................................................... 44
Table 4-14. Required Section Modulus ............................................................................................................. 45
Table 4-15. Location of Prestressing Bar.......................................................................................................... 45
Table 4-16. Checking of Flexural Adequacy ..................................................................................................... 46
Table 4-17. Details of Prestress Losses ........................................................................................................... 46
Table 4-18. Details of Deflection ....................................................................................................................... 47
Table 4-19. Factored Moment and Shear ........................................................................................................ 47
Table 4-20. Result of Moment Capacity ............................................................................................................ 47
Table 4-21. Details of Main Reinforcing Bars ................................................................................................... 48
Table 4-22. Details of Stirrups ........................................................................................................................... 48
Table 4-23. Details of Intermediate Diaphragm ................................................................................................ 48
Table 4-24. Details of End Diaphragm .............................................................................................................. 48
Table 4-25. Details of Bottom End Diaphragm ................................................................................................. 49
Table 4-26. Steel Section Properties (W 36 x 798) .......................................................................................... 59
Table 4-27. Checking of Section Proportion Limits .......................................................................................... 60
Table 4-28. Checking of Flexure for Strength Limit State ................................................................................ 61
Table 4-29. Checking for Fatigue Limit State ................................................................................................... 61
Table 4-30. Checking for Service Limit State ................................................................................................... 62
Table 4-31. Checking for Constructability ......................................................................................................... 62
Table 4-32. Details of Shear Studs ................................................................................................................... 63
Table 4-33. Details of Transverse Stiffeners .................................................................................................... 63
xii
Table 4-34. Details of Bearing Stiffeners .......................................................................................................... 63
Table 4-35. Top and Bottom Strut Section Details ........................................................................................... 65
Table 4-36. Diagonal Strut Section Details ....................................................................................................... 65
Table 4-37. Limiting Factors .............................................................................................................................. 66
Table 4-38. Strut Connection Details ................................................................................................................ 66
Table 4-39. Camber Details ............................................................................................................................... 67
Table 4-40. Dimension Details of RC T-Beam.................................................................................................. 77
Table 4-41. Other Details................................................................................................................................... 77
Table 4-42. Properties of Aggregates ............................................................................................................... 77
Table 4-43. Concrete Mix Ratio ......................................................................................................................... 77
Table 4-44. Details of Tension Reinforcement Bars......................................................................................... 78
Table 4-45. Details of Compression Bars ......................................................................................................... 79
Table 4-46. Details of Reinforcing Bars ............................................................................................................ 79
Table 4-47. Details of Stirrups ........................................................................................................................... 79
Table 4-48.Details of Intermediate Diaphragm ................................................................................................. 80
Table 4-49. Details of End Diaphragm .............................................................................................................. 80
Table 4-50. Details of Bottom End Diaphragm ................................................................................................. 80
Table 4-51. Final Estimate ................................................................................................................................. 89
Table 4-52. Final Designer’s Raw Ranking ...................................................................................................... 92
Table 4-53. Duration Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (PSC) ......................................................... 93
Table 4-54. Duration Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (Steel) ......................................................... 94
Table 4-55. Duration Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (RCDG) ...................................................... 95
Table 4-56. Deflection Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (PSC) ....................................................... 96
Table 4-57. Deflection Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (Steel) ...................................................... 97
Table 4-58. Deflection Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (RCDG) .................................................... 98
Table 4-59. Maintenance Cost Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (PSC).......................................... 99
Table 4-60. Maintenance Cost Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (Steel) ....................................... 100
Table 4-61. Maintenance Cost Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (RCDG) .................................... 100
xiii
CHAPTER I
Project Background
1.1 The Project

Being the principal center of Ilocos region, La Union was developed to have sustainable roads to aid the
trading in and out of the region and nearby areas. But these developments are commonly focused on main
highways and those situated at towns and barrios are given the least priority.
In Barangay Poblacion East, Rosario, a bridge of more than fifty meters in length is composed of steel barriers
and I-beams which are both of poor condition and a damaged wood deck which makes it susceptible to
accidents. This bridge is the only connection of barangay Alipang, Vila, Cadumanian and Carunoan East to
the central zone of Rosario used for transporting their agricultural crops like palays, mais, and tobacco to
Manila and even in neighboring provinces. To have this bridge completely damage would mean a great loss
for the farmers who only rely to this kind of business.
This project is made to address this concern through designing an improved and economical bridge which
will replace the existing Malicnao Bridge that will be sustainable and of low maintenance. Factors such as
the soil profile, environmental conditions, and traffic volume will be the governing elements for the design.
The location of the project is along Alipang-Cadumanian Barangay Road in Poblacion East, Rosario, La
Union.
Figure 1-1. Project Location Map
1
Natural Environmental Considerations
The implementation of construction of the project has no direct impact on natural resources such as trees,
and biodiversity of the river.
Figure 1-2. View of Malicnao River
The pictures above were taken during the onslaught of Typhoon Jolina in Northern Luzon which shows the
flood level on Malicnao River to be 5 meters below the deck of the existing river as measured by one of the
designers.
2
Figure 1-3. Pier Side of Existing Bridge
Figure 1-4. View of Existing Bridge
Social Environmental Considerations

The impact of the implementation of the project is to the population of four barangays and other individuals
who are currently using the existing bridge. Also, businesses related to agricultural sector is also affected.
In this regard, it is recommended that for the next phase of the project, the following issues must be
addresses:
3
 Monitoring of compensation procedure for the affected families. Individuals, and agricultural
businesses.
 Loss of access route to properties during construction of the project
1.2 Statement of the Problem

It has been years since the Malicnao Bridge was developed along Alipang-Cadumanian Road in Brgy.
Poblacion East. It is composed of wood deck and steel beam that - according to the residents, is not in its
safe condition anymore. The team decided to take part in resolving this problem through providing an
economical and sustainable design that will replace the existing bridge.
Figure 1-5. Current situation of Malicnao Bridge (as of 2017)
1.3 Project Objectives

1.3.1 General Objective
The designers are to provide a design of bridge to replace the existing Malicnao Bridge along Alipang-
Cadumanian Barangay Road in Poblacion East that is economical and sustainable and at the same time
addresses safety and other concerns for the residents and commuters which conforms to codes and
standards as applicable.
1.3.2 Specific Objectives
1. To design the most efficient bridge that is suitable to the environmental and economic limitations
2. To provide a design that will conform to the codes and standards provided in the National Structural
Code of the Philippines (NSCP) Volume II Bridges and American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Bridge Design Specifications 2012
3. To establish and assess trade-offs’ advantages and disadvantages based on the given situation and
multiple constraints provided
4
1.4 The Client
The client of this project is the Municipal Planning and Development Department of Rosario, La Union headed
by Engr. Juanito M. Quinto Jr. This is in line with the on-going rural development being carried out by the
administration to provide sustainable structures to give an easy access to all provinces and its locality which
is related to the abovementioned objective of the proponents.
To satisfy the condition of the client, the final design of the project is planned to be within the allocated budget
and any further increase in costing has no guarantee to be negotiable.
1.5 Project Scope and Limitation

1.5.1 Scope
1. Design a bridge that is bounded by the provisions specified in NSCP Volume II Bridges and AASHTO
Bridge Specifications 2012
2. Design analysis (computation) for each trade-off
3. Provide structural plans for the final design
1.5.2 Limitation
1. Detailed breakdown of estimate for cost and construction activities
1.6 Project Development

This project involves different stages in order to come up with the final design that is suitable in completing
this project. A site visit is important to investigate the actual location in determining what data constraints and
conditions starting from identifying the location in order to extract ideas on methods that are needed to be
collected and to know the maximum dimensions for the design. From this, a set of trade-offs will be presented
and assessed through the constraints provided by the designer. Three selected trade-offs will now be
designed which will then be evaluated again to have the final design. Related documents and plans will be
prepared along with the completion of the design which will be presented to the clients.
5
Figure 1-6. Project Development Process
6
CHAPTER II
Design Inputs
2.1 Description of the Project

The project is a design of a two-way traffic bridge along Alipang-Cadumanian Barangay Road in Poblacion
East, Rosario, La Union with approximately 57 m in length. Parameters and standards will be used to identify
restrictions and correct outline of the design in order to provide a sustainable bridge that is safe and cost-
effective.
2.2 Description of the Structure

2.2.1 Geometrics
2.2.1.1 Bridge Alignment
The bridge is under normal type where the alignment of the structure is perpendicular to the bank of the river.
2.2.1.2 Proposed Plan Layout
In DPWH Standard Specifications, it was stated (based on AASHTO Bridge Specifications) that the minimum
total width for bridge structure in rural areas is 6.7 meters composed of 2 lanes and 4 girders.
For this project, the designer used a 3.4 m roadway width per lane, 1.4 m shoulder width and 300 mm total
deck thickness which will be supported by 5 girders spaced at 2 meters on center. Abutments are used on
both ends of the structure and a pier at the connecting span composed of columns and piles as applicable.
Table 2-1. Proposed Dimension of Bridge

Measurement
Total Span Length 57 m
Total Width 9.6 m
Number of Road Lanes 2
Width of each road lane 3.4 m
Number of Sidewalk 2
Width of each Sidewalk 1.4 m
Total Deck Thickness 300 mm
Figure 2-1. Initial Deck Layout
7
Figure 2-2. Girder Spacing Outline
Figure 2-3. Elevation
Figure 2-4. Cross-Section
8
2.2.2 Site Definition
2.2.2.1 Surface Elevation
The figure below shows the surface elevation below Malicnao Bridge. The data presented are measured from
the existing bridge at a specific reference point. The vertical clearance of the bridge to be designed will have
at least 1.0 m vertical clearance below the girder to the land or water surface.
Table 2-2. Surface Elevation

Location (m) Elevation (m)
0+005 2.00
0+010 5.92
0+015 5.97
0+020 5.90
0+025 4.95
0+030 4.32
0+035 4.38
0+040 4.38
0+045 4.63
0+050 3.84
0+055 3.70
0+058 2.00
Figure 2-5. Surface Elevation of Malicnao Bridge
2.2.2.2 Boring Data with SPT

The table below shows the soil exploration data for the classification of soil present in the project site with a
casing depth of 18.0 meters.
9
Table 2-3. Borehole Log Data1
Sampling SPT Blows Consistency /
N-value Soil Description
Depth (m) per 15 cm RQD (Coring)
3.45 1 6 12 18 Med. Dense Grayish Fine Sand
4.95 5 7 10 17 Med. Dense Grayish Fine Sand
6.45 8 11 16 27 Dense Grayish Fine Sand
16.95 21 47 48 95 Very Dense Grayish Fine Sand
18.45 34 43 30 73 Very Dense Grayish Fine Sand
19.95 10 19 28 47 Hard Grayish Fine Sand
The first three meters is composed of gravel soils from the backfill (rivermix) in the project site. Sand
classification started at depth 3.0 m up to 19.50 m. At that point, the soil type underneath is classified as
grayey clayey soil.
10
Figure 2-6. Soil Profile
2.2.2.3 Discharge Measurements

The following data were taken from the recorded measurements of Bued River upstream with the latest date
of report as of May 2017.
Average Discharge 4.015 m
Mean Velocity 0.410 m
Average Gage Height 3.200 m
Table 2-4. Hydraulic Data of Bued River2

Width Area Discharge Velocity (m/s) Gage
Date
(m) (m²) (m³/s) Mean Max Min Height (m)
17-May 21.0 8.01 2.951 0.368 0.518 0.222 3.280

17-Apr 19.0 5.13 2.003 0.390 0.752 0.237 2.970
17-Mar 19.0 3.98 1.479 0.387 0.845 0.258 2.740
17-Feb 25.0 5.25 2.543 0.485 1.025 360.000 2.900
17-Jan 25.0 8.81 4.154 0.471 1.114 0.204 3.260
16-Dec 28.0 15.48 5.305 0.343 0.810 - 3.400
16-Nov 28.0 15.98 5.776 0.361 0.860 0.073 3.780
16-Oct 27.0 15.40 5.700 0.370 0.796 0.108 3.750
16-Sep 26.0 14.64 5.778 0.395 0.782 0.075 3.800
11
16-Aug 27.0 14.39 5.786 0.402 0.771 0.038 3.900
16-Jun 25.5 12.82 4.572 0.357 0.573 0.086 3.450
16-Apr 25.0 12.50 4.300 0.344 0.541 0.103 3.260
16-Feb 25.0 12.20 3.837 0.315 0.603 0.056 3.340
16-Jan 24.0 12.19 4.057 0.333 0.553 0.089 3.370
15-Dec 25.0 11.08 3.941 0.356 0.572 - 3.470
15-Oct 24.0 10.96 3.559 0.325 0.533 - 3.300
2.2.2.4 Flood Level

According to Engr. Delgado, Chief of Hydrology Department - DPWH Region I, Bued River is already
abandoned from annual investigation due to low water level occurrence in its system although there is still a
data gathering for discharge measurements as of 2017. The location for this project is situated in one of the
small branches of the river which is at a higher elevation. For this reason, there is a low probability that the
project location will experience high flood level which was also certified by Engr. Quinto as per experience
and history. Also, the pictures presented in Chapter 1.1 are proofs that even during typhoon, the water level
in the river is still within its range and did not overflow.
To prove that that the small branch of river located in the project site is not a catch basin, the designers used
an alternative way and are presented as follows:
Figure 2-7. Bued River Scope Boundaries
12
Figure 2-8. River Elevation
Figure 2-9. Route Considered for Determination of River Elevation
Based from the data presented, the project location is proved to be a downstream area from the main Bued
River but is not considered as a catchment basin for a larger scale.
2.2.2.5 Seismic Design Criteria

The following seismic parameters will be used for the design of substructure as provided from NSCP Volume
II Section 21 – Seismic Design:
13
Table 2-5. Seismic Design Parameters
Acceleration coefficient (A) 3.924
Site Coefficient (S) 1.0
Response Modification Factor (R) 1.0
Seismic Coefficient (kh) 1.962
2.2.2.6 Wind Load Parameter

As stated from NSCP, the basic wind speed in La Union where the project is located is 200 kph. This basic
wind speed shall be increased where records and experience indicate that the wind speeds are higher than
what is reflected (Section 207.5.4.1).
2.2.3 Design Loadings

2.2.3.1 Dead Load
The density of concrete used for the deck, barrier and foundation is 24 kN/m³. The dead load due to barrier
and other utilities (street lightings, etc.) and wearing surface are 6.55 kN/m and 5.0 kN/m, respectively.
2.2.3.2 Vehicular Live Loading

A theoretical vehicular loading HL-93 is a proposed by AASHTO in 1993. It is used as the design loadings
for highway structures in most countries where AASHTO code is followed. This type of load is a combination
of three different loads.
1. HL-93 Design Truck
2. HL-93 Design Tandem
3. Design Lane Load
HL 93 Design Truck
The design truck consist of three axles, with a front axle weighing 36 kN and two rear axles weighing 144 kN.
The distance between front and rear axle is 4.27 m and for the distance between two rear axles is 4.27 m to
9.14 m to obtain the worst design force. The tire to tire distance in any axle is 1.8 m.
Figure 2-10. Design Truck
HL-93 Design Tandem

It is consist of twin axles spaced 1.22 m apart, weight of axle is 110kN. The distance between any axles is
1.8 m.
14
Figure 2-11. Design Tandem Alternate Military Loading
It is the former alternate military load. In order, to obtain maximum negative moments, a pair of tandems
should be considered, spaced at 8.0m to 12.0m along with design lane load to produce worse hogging effect.
Code doesn’t specify maximum number of tandems that can be considered in a lane, nor does it explicitly
specify minimum tandem to tandem distance.
Design Lane Load

The design load consist of load of 9.4 kN/m which is uniformly distributed in the longitudinal direction. In
transverse direction, the design lane load shall be assumed to be uniformly distributed over a 3 m width.
Figure 2-12. Design Lane Load
Permit Design Load

It is the special permit required before passing the bridge.
Figure 2-13. Special Permitted Design Load
Placement of HL-93 Load

The extreme force effect is obtained when design vehicle and lane loads should be applied in the design. In
case the multiple lanes, multiple lane factors is considered.
15
Vehicular Collision
It refers to collisions that occur with the barrier rail or at unprotected columns. The test level four (TL-4)
applies most of the time. The expected height of barrier is 0.81 m and for every 3 m contact:
Figure 2-14. Forces on Vehicle Collision
Ft = 240.2 kN
Fc = 80.1 kN
240.2 x 0.8
MCT = = 64.05 kN-m/m
3
Applying 20% factor of safety results:
1.2 x 64.05 = 76.86 kN-m/m
2.2.3.3 Impact Load

The impact load for the design of both PSC and Steel is 23% and 27% for RCDG of the total live load which
was obtained by the equation,
15.24
I= , as provided in NSCP Volume II (where L is the length of bridge)
L+28
2.2.3.4 Sidewalk Loading

The sidewalk live load for a span of 28.5 m is 2870 Pa.
2.2.3.4 Wind Load

For a velocity of 160km/hr the bridge superstructure carries 2390 Pa applied horizontally. For the usual girder
and slab bridges having maximum span length of 38m the wind load on structure should resist the 2390 Pa
in transverse direction and 575 Pa in longitudinal direction and both forces shall be applied simultaneously.
The wind load on live load is equivalent to 1.5kN/m for transverse direction, 0.60kN/m in longitudinal direction
and both forces shall be applied simultaneously. Since the wind load is only applicable for 160km/hr the
designers added 20% of the total wind load to account for the 200 km/hr wind load in the project area.
16
2.2.3.5 Seismic Load
The earthquake analysis for the proposed bridge is the combination of orthogonal seismic forces which is
used to resolve the directional vagueness of earthquake motions and the simultaneous occurrence of
earthquake for in two perpendicular horizontal motion.
2.2.3.5a Load Case 1

Seismic forces at the longitudinal direction is 100% of the total dead load of the superstructure and 30% of
its dead weight in transverse direction.
Figure 2-15. Seismic Load for Load Case 1
2.2.3.5b Load Case 2

The seismic force at the transverse direction is 100% of the total dead load of the superstructure and 30% of
its dead weight in longitudinal direction.
Figure 2-16. Seismic Load for Load Case 2
17
2.3 Topographic Map
Project
Location
Figure 2-17. Topographic Map of Project Area
Figure 2-18. Topographic Map of La Union3
The highlighted barangay boundaries in Figure 2-18 shows the 4 barangays connected to the existing
Malicnao Bridge. According to Engr. Quinto, this bridge is the nearest way used by the residents of four
barangays to travel to the central area of Rosario.
18
2.4 Elevation Map
The elevation map below supports the contour map presented in the previous section where the project
location is only within 120 to 150 meters above sea level.
Figure 2-19. Elevation Map of La Union4
2.5 Review Related Literature and Studies

2.5.1 Foreign Reviews
Designing a suitable bridge for any given location requires full attention to the general setting where it will be
built and to the details of the structure itself. There are cases, well most of the time, that constructing bridges
are crossing environmentally and ecologically sensitive sites. With this, the designer must be considerate on
the short and long term impacts of the project in order to preserve the hydrologic and ecologic value present
on the location. The overall design from the span length to structural layout is need to be adjusted in order to
lessen the negative impacts it might produce in its environment. Well, bridges can actually be designed in a
ways that it can serve as an additional beauty to the landscape. It is necessary to develop alternatives based
on local conditions such as geologic, hydrologic, shipping, construction, etc. and apply initiative in selecting
the correct choice.
In a review paper conducted by Kiamarsi and Mohamed (2015), a bridge is said to be functional in terms of
its quality, optimization and cost if it has an innovative design, a well-managed construction process, time-
efficient and it uses an innovative material.5
19
One of the context in Bridge Design Handbook (2000) mentioned that the most efficient functional bridge is
something that considers the most requirements in transport associated with safety factors and that is
convenient to all users which must also be effective in terms of labor and material as well as cost-efficient
that can be completed in a reasonable time.6
According to Fisher Associates (2013), there are two essential choices to build a bridge, it’s either made of
concrete or steel.7 The utilization of pre-stressed concrete increased excessively since it was first introduced
than steel, however steel is practical and economical in many ways. Pre-stressed concrete box girder bridges
are in demand because workers may not be pleasant with concrete deck formwork, drilling and scaffolding
required for steel bridges. However, advances in technology made steel easier to install which may result in
decreasing the labor needed to construct a bridge. Pre-stressed concrete beams can be fabricated within a
short period of time compared to steel that takes a longer time to order, depending on the site of the steel
plant that can cause higher transportation costs. However, steel is more readily fabricated to meet skewed
or curved design over concrete. Steel bridges are easy to repair or replaceable compare to concrete bridge
that needs great repairs when damage occurs. Steel bridges are not easily affected by seismic damage. In
terms of aesthetics, both concrete and steel can be designed to be appealing to the eye, but still depends on
the location on which material best suits the surroundings. About initial and life-cycle costs, many steel
structures nowadays remain in service indefinitely with proper maintenance.
Several factors need to be considered before the designing phase of the project. In the planning stage,
conceptualizing the overall project would help to assess what type of approach must be applied. The figure
below is a sample of a bridge type selection process by Itoh (2000) which was presented in his journal Bridge
Type Selection System Incorporating Environmental Impacts.8
Figure 2-20. Bridge Type Selection System (Itoh, 2000)
20
In the study “Temperature Effects on Soil Behavior in Relation to Transportation Infrastructure” (2016), the
author discussed about how temperature affects the soil behavior which in return will give an effect to the
bridge’s foundation. The presence of thermo-hydro-mechanical coupling between the soil particles and pore
water is the cause of the effect of sudden change in temperature to the behavior of the soil. Studies have
shown that temperature change affects the Atterberg limit and preconsolidation pressure of fine-grained soils
as well as the shear strength and compressibility of soil. Temperature increase also results in excess pore
water pressures for undrained conditions and induces volume change during drained conditions. At 15-20
feet depth, the soil temperature remains constant. At this point the soil above this range undergoes
temperature changes overtime due to seasonal variation in the ground surface which will later have an effect
to deep foundations. According to the author of this article, the behavior of deep foundations under lateral
loads can be considerably affected by temperature-induced variation of soil strength and compressibility at
these upper levels. The magnitude of this effect will be related to seasonal temperatures at a given location,
thermal conductivity of the soils at the site, the extent of temperature-induced effects on the soils at the site
and the dimensions of the deep foundation. It is important to take note of this temperature-induced effects in
soil strength and compressibility because lack of considerations will result to an overdesign or unsafe
conditions to all transportation structures. Moreover, the author stated that “The urgency of this challenge
lies in the need to evaluate the lateral capacity of existing bridge foundations under earthquakes and other
lateral loads, which would be critical for the serviceability and safety of bridges. It is unlikely that there would
be failures but it is highly likely that there will be a reduction in the service level of structures as a result of
this issue during normal operational lateral load levels.” Any shortcomings in the design without considering
the seasonal temperature effects will place the bridge foundation at risk during earthquakes. Thus, old bridges
must be subjected to retrofitting if needed and the new ones must be designed in a systematic and robust
manner.9
Dicleli and Erhan (2010) performed a study on the effect of soil–bridge interaction on the magnitude of internal
forces in integral abutment bridge components due to live load effects through providing a structural model
of a typical integral abutment bridge (IAB) by including and excluding the effect of backfill and foundation soil
and was analyzed under AASHTO live load. They found out that indeed it has significant effect on the
magnitude of the live load moments in the components of IABs. Also, the effect of the backfill behind the
abutment in the structural model is generally found to result in larger superstructure support and abutment
moments and smaller superstructure span and pile moments. Furthermore, the difference between the live
load moments for the cases with and without soil–bridge interaction effects is found to be a function of the
foundation soil stiffness. However, the soil-interaction was found to have neglible effect on the live load
moments of the superstructure.10
During an earthquake, gravity loads are not the only forces produced in this event but also dynamic loadings
due to the flexible nature of suspension-tire systems. However, this seismic response is yet unclear. There
are only few design specifications about the inclusion of this parameters in designing. Wibowo et al. (2012)
in their study focuses on experimental approach wherein they used a shake table testing of 0.4 scale model
of a curved steel girder bridge loaded by different representative trucks. The results showed the indeed the
presence of live load has significant effect on the performance of the bridge even during a small amplitude
motions but became insignificant with increasing amplitude.11
Bridge crossing waterways during flood events can be partially or fully submerged in water that will result to
a significant hydrodynamic loading in the bridge deck. Estimation of this loading during design phase is very
important. The designer must take into account different situations that may happen. During flood events,
hydrodynamic loadings will result in a possible shearing and overturning of the deck and failure to the
21
superstructure. Multiple modeling for this can be acquired through scaled experiments to estimate the
response of the structure to the flood flow. 12
2.5.2 Local Reviews
In a case study by Vallejo entitled Evaluation of Major Bridges in Cagayan Valley, Philippines, presented and
discussed defects seen by the researcher in all major bridges of Cagayan Valley. As most of the bridges here
in the Philippines are concrete slab-on girder types, it is actually common to see cracks and fatigues on
structures that are not well-constructed and maintained. Defects observed on the superstructure were cracks
on deck, spalling at the expansion joints, poor anchorage of plates, scaling of asphalt overlay, spalling of the
roadbed, corrosion of the roller support. In case of the substructures damages were also seen in the
embankment, there were corrosion present on sheet piles, cracking on abutments and exposed piles.
Spalling is commonly caused by corrosion of the steel reinforcement bars embedded in the concrete matrix
or by the exposure of the concrete to high temperature causing the chunks of the concrete to separate from
the concrete structure. In the study of Hoopwood (2004), the average condition ratings of major bridge
elements and for specific deck components decreases over 7-8 year intervals. The damaged embankments
for some bridges were obtained from the sinking or settlement of soil fill. It is evident that some defects were
caused by environmental factors such as change in weather, heavy weight of passing vehicles and even
fatigue. In old bridges, cases of increased in heavy loads from vehicles more than the design capacity of the
bridge greatly affects the pavement for which it will flex slightly and will then result to fatigues and cracking. 13
In the editorial section on Philstar webpage in 2012, a writer named J. Bondoc discussed about the difference
of steel and concrete as a material used for bridge structure.14 According to him, this topic came up during
last year’s senate hearing on the President’s Bridge Program. Government and private engineers and
economists gave some points. Concrete is cheaper, but steel is more economical over a long period of time.
Steel spans are long lasting than concrete. The damage to any steel structure is easily seen but repairable.
In contrast, the damage in the concrete such as cracks may not be visible but it can affect the rated lifespan
of a structure. Steel bridges take a short period of time to construct compared to concrete that takes months
or years to construct and use. Lastly, steel bridges can be low-cost than concrete.
22
CHAPTER III
Constraints, Tradeoffs and Standards
3.1 Design Constraints

An important factor to be considered in designing a project is the presence of constraints which serves as a
basis of conditions and limitations that will aid in deciding what type from different kinds is ideal. During the
designing phase, choosing from many options would be difficult since there will be a lot of contradicting
opinions as to what type is the best. Constraint is the restriction and will set what aspect is significant for that
particular project. Design constraints have different forms and categories which can either be in terms of
functionality, material consideration, technology-based or external concerns.
Design constraint is divided into two groups – the qualitative and quantitative constraints. Qualitative
constraints are those which cannot be measured or counted but are evaluated by the designer’s perception
and experience. The quantitative constraints are those that can be measured by estimation of the designer.
The following are the design constraints for this project:
3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints
3.1.1.1 Economic (Overall Cost)
Cost has been the top determining factor in identifying what type of bridge can be designed and constructed
within a certain range of budget that the client can only provide. Limits inhibited by financial constraint are at
almost each detail - from planning, designing and during construction of the bridge. The allocation of budget
will control the time, cost and quality in which a simple change in one will have an impact to the other. Thus,
the designers need to do adjustment to satisfy the cost limit without sacrificing the aesthetics, quality,
serviceability and functionality of the structure. For this project, it would not be focusing on the actual
construction itself but only in the design part of the proposed bridge in Rosario, La Union. Through this
economic constraint, the designers will be able to create a design that can save money and time while
increasing the quality and acceptable to the desire of the client since it will be funded either by government
or other private institution.
The client allotted a fund of Php 25,000,000.00 for the project. Any further increase in costing of the project
has no guarantee to be negotiable.
3.1.1.2 Constructability (Duration)

As mentioned above, limit on the allocated budget affects time just like how time can control cost. Higher
financial capabilities of the client can support great number of workers needed or it can increase machineries
to lessen the labors which can be both time-efficient. However, lower financial capacity can slow down the
construction which will require money overtime. On the other hand, failure to estimate the duration of the
project properly can also affect cost. Hence, it is significant to have estimation for how long a specific design
can be constructed.
The designers will determine the number of man-hours and/or days required for the construction of the three
types of bridges preferably chosen by the designers themselves. The materials and labour costs will be
initially estimated for each type of bridge based on existing bridge to know if there are other options can be
applied to lessen the duration of the project. The design that would accumulate the least period of time is
ideal.
23
The client wants to finish this project as soon as possible to reduce possible impacts on loss of profit to the
affected residents and businesses related to agriculture. In this regard, the construction of the project is
limited only to 200 days excluded the time needed to conduct further investigations and studies necessary
for the project.
3.1.1.3 Serviceability (Deflection)

On top of all concerns regarding the bridge design, safety is a priority of the designers. The maximum loading
the design can carry should be taken into consideration to prevent deflection, buckling, or worst - failure of
the structure itself. It is important to take note that this proposed bridge will be used by small trucks loaded
with sand, gravel and agricultural crops at most. So, any failure in the design of this bridge would give an
impact to the business of the community.
Moreover, since the project is located near a fault zone, the designers will make sure that the design of each
type can withstand lateral loadings caused by seismic forces, wind land hydrodynamic loadings as well as
the earth pressure. Three studies presented in Chapter 2 about the importance of soil interaction, earthquake
and hydrodynamic loadings are very important to take into account in designing the bridge. These factors will
determine the safety of the structure if it can actually survive its actual design loads and such abrupt changes
in loadings.
Specifications from NSCP Bridges stated that the deflection of the girder due to live load (design moving
load) with impact load is only limited to 800th of the span length.
3.1.1.4 Sustainability (Maintenance Cost)

Generally, the main objective of any project is to make it efficient and sustainable. Just like in bridge
construction, a design is preferable to have a longer life to get a visible return of investment from cost to a
good service. The designers have a set of selection of materials presented in the next section that are
comparable with each other as to what type of material will perform longer and which are not. Also, longer
life-span of the structure can be a proof that it was designed with quality and has been effective.
In this project, the design among the three types to be proven cheaper in maintenance but has longer life-
span based on the design is more favorable to both the designer and the client as well as to commuters.
To maintain the aesthetics of the structure, the client allotted Php 500,000.00 as the budget a one-time
maintenance of the bridge.
3.1.2 Qualitative Constraints

3.1.2.1 Social
This constraint is more on determining how useful this project is to the community. One of the factors that
may affect the residents especially when it comes to their agricultural business is the duration of the project.
The shorter the time to construct the better but time approach along with finance capacity is another.
3.2 Trade-offs
The design trade-offs are set to address the constraints presented in section 3.1 of this chapter. The
designers came up with three trade-offs which will be assessed according to its impact and importance to
the project. A final deliberation and evaluation will be conducted later on to determine which among the three
24
trade-offs is the most effective and efficient to use. For the following trade-offs, all are determined based on
bridge deck support design.
3.2.1 Prestressed Post-Tensioned Concrete I-Girder Bridge

One of the reasons I-shaped for girders is known because of its efficiency in carrying loads with its capacity
in resisting shear forces and increased flexural strength through its web and flange section, respectively.
Even with a lesser cross-sectional area, I-section still produces more bending resistance which makes it cost-
effective. Added to this, the effect of precast members is advantageous with the high performance of concrete
for its strength, durability, constructability which is efficient and competitive. This will make a faster
construction that will reduce traffic disruption and environmental impact where a minimal construction
clearance is available.
Figure 3-1. Prestressed Concrete I-Girder15
3.2.2 Steel Plate Girder Bridge

Using a multi-girder as an option for superstructure is very effective if the project is limited to a certain depth.
This is also widely used for single spans and continuous multiple spans. With the different advantages steel
material can offer, this has been a very popular bridge construction. Composite girder is aesthetically
approved and easy to fabricate and erect. Though using steel girder is costly, it is still very acceptable with
its design considerations in such a way that it is durable and sustainable. It also has lesser maintenance and
can vary from different sizes and shape.
25
Figure 3-2. Steel Plate Girder16
3.2.3 Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder Bridge

Reinforced concrete deep girder is used for bridges with a span of 8.00 m to 24.00 m. An advantage of deep
beam compared to regular beam is that it can carry higher loads and the flexural behavior of the section is
not critical. The cross-sectional area of the beam also helps to lessen the deflection.
Figure 3-3. Reinforced Concrete Deep Beam17
26
3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking
To give the client an overview to which design will prevail among the trade-offs based on each constraint,
the designers used an engineering design model on trade-off strategies and assessment. This process
involves a modified evaluation approach by Otto and Antonsson (1991). Originally, each constraint is rated
based on its importance to the designer’s perspective in a scale of 0 to 5 and each trade-off will be ranked
following the concept of percentage analyzation according to its ability to satisfy the given criterion from -5 to
5. However, to account for a much ideal ranking, an alteration of this process is used for this project where
the importance factor for each constraint is from 0 to 10 whereas the computation for the percentage
difference remains the same.
Equation to be used in the computation of ranking for the ability to satisfy the criterion:
Higher value - Lower value

% difference= x 10 Equation 3-1
Higher value
Subordinate Rank = Governing rank - %difference Equation 3-2
The governing rank will be subjected based on how important each constraint is to the designer’s own
perspective for the project. The subordinate rank according to Otto & Antonsson (1991) on the other hand is
a variable that corresponds to its percentage distance from the governing rank.
Different instances may occur in this assessment since it is subjective and only depends on designer’s own
judgment. As explained previously in this chapter, cost affects time and quality and vice versa. When time
means money, saving a lot of time from a costly design and construction is acceptable. On the other hand,
low budget means more time and can be more costly in the long run.
Among the quantitative constraints, economic and safety aspects were given ten (10) since both are the top
priorities of the designers. A balance between cost and serviceability is something that must be accounted
for. The design, may it be too costly or not, must be able to withstand any worst scenario that may occur in
the location which can be controlled through following all specified codes and standards. Minimizing the cost
as much as possible is important but should be in an effective manner. On the other hand, constructability
was rated eight (8), since the duration of the project is more likely to depend in financial aspect. More
allocated budget for equipment and labor force would result, ideally, to a faster construction of the project
whereas poor apportionment would possibly lead to substandard and lower production. For sustainability
constraint, it was ranked nine (9) where the project must be within acceptable span of time in which
maintenance cost will be the factor to consider.
27
Table 3-1. Initial Estimate
Trade-offs
Decision Criteria
PSC I-Girder Steel Plate Girder RC Deck Girder
Economic
1 Php 23,807,195.11 Php 22,555,076.78 Php 25,050,840.10
(Material Cost)
Constructability
2 120 days 115 days 133 days
(Duration)
Serviceability
3 14.278 mm 32.964 mm 60.311 mm
(Deflection)
Sustainability
4 Php 361,500.00 Php 320,338.88 Php 285,000.00
(Maintenance Cost)
Table 3-1 shows the initial estimate of the trade-offs for each constraint. Estimated cost includes material
cost, fabrication, installation, equipment, labor and maintenance cost. The consideration for duration is based
on the number of days of fabrication of the material, transportation to the project site and installation. In terms
of calculating the deflection, the designers used the highest section possible based on the availability of the
material that is within the required clearance below the superstructure as defined in Chapter 2. For the
maintenance cost, it is only equivalent to a onetime maintenance expenses expected for each trade-off.
The designers estimated the over-all cost which is in accordance with the Department of Public Works and
Highways summary cost rates. In regards, the designers able to calculate the expected cost of the project in
each tradeoffs. For the constructability of the project, the designers surveyed construction engineers for the
possible construction duration of the project. In serviceability of the project design, the designers assumed
the possible cross section of each tradeoff and use STAAD software to produce the deflection. Last, for the
sustainability the designers based the cost of maintaining the bridge in DPWH summary sheet of material
cost and labor cost.
3.4 Trade-off Assessment

This section will present the preliminary assessment of the trade-offs for each constraint that is based on the
initial estimate of the designer. Detailed computation of each ranking is shown here.
a. Economic Constraint (Cost)

Governing Rank: Steel Plate Girder = 10.0
* PSC I-Girder
23,807,195.11 - 22,555,076.78
% difference = x 10 = 0.5259411385
23,807,195.11
Subordinate Rank = 10 - 0.5259411385 = 9.474058862 ≈ 9.47
* RC Deck Girder
25,050,840.10 - 22,555,076.78
% difference = x 10 = 0.9962792904
25,050,840.10
28
b. Constructability Constraint (Duration)
* PSC I-Girder
120 - 115
% difference = x 10 = 0.4166666667
120
* RC Deck Girder
133 - 115
% difference = x 10 = 1.353383459
133
c. Serviceability Constraint (Deflection)
Governing Rank: PSC I-Girder = 10.0
* Steel Plate Girder
32.964 - 14.278
% difference = x 10 = 5.668608179
32.964
* RC Deck Girder
60.311 - 14.278
% difference = x 10 = 7.632604334
60.311
d. Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost)
Governing Rank: RC Deck Girder = 10.0
* PSC I- Girder
361,500 - 285,000
% difference = x 10 = 2.116182573
361,500
320,338.88 - 285,000
% difference= x 10 = 1.103171741
320,338.88
29
Table 3-2. Initial Raw Ranking
Criterion's
Ability to satisfy the criterion
Importance
Decision Criteria
(on a scale on a scale of 0 to 10
of 0 to 10) PSC I-Girder Steel Plate Girder RC Deck Girder
Economic
1 10 9.47 10.0 9.0
(Overall Cost)
Constructability
2 8 9.58 10.0 8.65
(Duration)
Serviceability
3 10 10.0 4.33 2.37
(Deflection)
Sustainability
4 9 7.88 8.90 10.0
(Maintenance Cost)
Overall Rank 342.26 303.40 272.90
3.5 Design Standards

The codes and standards used as a basis in this project are stated as follows where it defines all needed
requirements, design procedures, use of materials and correct computation and analysis of the bridge design
in accordance with the characteristics of the locality:
1. National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) Volume II Bridges

2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) LRFD Bridge Design
Specifications 2012
3. Department of Public Works and Highways Design Guidelines and Standards: Volume 5 - Bridge
Design
30
CHAPTER IV
Design of Structure
4.1 Design Methodology

Three tradeoffs are presented to address the problem of unstable Bailey bridge in Barangay Alipang, Rosario,
La Union. The designer used AASHTO LRFD specifications and NSCP Volume II Bridges for the design
parameters. The codes and formulas were used to design appropriate section of girder and its components
that is sufficient to support stresses due to applied loads. The design was analyzed using BEAVA, a special
feature of STAAD, to determine the maximum design loads due to dead loads and live loads applied on the
structure.
Preliminary Layout of Proposed Bridge

 Determination of water opening and bridge elevation
 Survey data, geometrics and bridge requirements
 Preliminary layout and arrangement of superstructure
and substructure
Establish design criteria and standards

 Design specifications and standards
 Material and construction specifications
Performing Structural Analysis

 Design Loads
 Actual Stresses
 Comparison to allowable stresses
Evaluation of Multiple Constraints

 Economic Criteria
 Constructability Criteria
 Serviceability Criteria
 Sustainability Criteria
Selection of Final Design

 Prestressed Concrete I-Girder Bridge
 Steel Plate Girder Bridge
 Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder Bridge
Figure 4-1. Design Process
31
4.2 Unfactored Design Loads
The following list is used as reference for the designation of design loads applied on the girder:
1. DC1 –dead load due to concrete deck and self-weight of the girder
2. DC2 – dead load due to barrier and other utilities (street lightings, etc.)
3. DW – dead load due to wearing surface
4. LL – pedestrian load
5. ML – moving load (HL-93)
The unfactored loads are analyzed in STAAD to get the maximum moment and shear were DC1 is equivalent
to 29.4 kN/m for trade-off 1 (PSC), 25.65 kN/m for trade-off 2 (Steel) and 28.014 kN/m for trade-off 3 (RCDG),
DC2 is 6.55 kN/m, DW is 5.0 kN/m, LL is 5.74 kN/m and ML is the combination of concentrated and lane load
of HL-93 including the impact load as indicated in NSCP Volume II.
The following tables show the unfactored maximum shear and moment produced by each load component
on the girder and the unfactored axial force that will transfer from the superstructure to the substructure for
each trade-off.
Table 4-1. Unfactored Maximum Shear and Moment

Load Fy (kN) Mz (kNm)
Component PSC Steel RCDG PSC Steel RCDG
Dc1 377.842 363.866 261.166 2589.032 2494.205 1204.677
-302.118 -290.751 -208.156 2697.1 2598.578 1255.467
92.901 92.901 61.313 -636.823 -636.823 -282.818
Dc2
-74.234 -74.234 -48.868 663.463 663.463 294.742
70.917 70.917 46.804 -486.124 -486.124 -215.892
DW
-56.667 -56.667 -37.304 506.461 506.461 224.994
LL 81.413 81.413 53.731 -558.071 -558.071 -247.844
-65.054 -65.054 -42.825 581.417 581.417 258.293
163.708 163.758 132.694 -1671.58 -1722.18 -873.275
ML
-163.708 -163.758 -132.694 1762.397 1760.318 878.894
Table 4-2. Unfactored Support Forces (Trade-off 1)

Moving Total
Bearing DC1 DC2 DW Live Load
Loads Diaphragm Axial
pad (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
(kN) Load (kN)
A.1 1047.375 233.344 178.125 204.288 363.622 228.024 2254.778
A.2 1047.375 233.344 178.125 204.288 361.249 228.024 2252.405
P.1 1047.375 233.344 178.125 204.288 355.805 228.024 2246.961
P.2 1047.375 233.344 178.125 204.288 386.424 228.024 2277.58
P.3 1047.375 233.344 178.125 204.288 355.805 228.024 2246.961
P.4 1047.375 233.344 178.125 204.288 386.424 228.024 2277.58
32
A.3 1047.375 233.344 178.125 204.288 363.622 228.024 2254.778
A.4 1047.375 233.344 178.125 204.288 361.249 228.024 2252.405
Table 4-3. Unsupported Support Forces (Trade-off 2)

Moving
Bearing DC1 DC2 DW Live Load Total Axial
Loads Diaphragm
pad (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN) Load (kN)
(kN)
A.1 365.575 93.338 72.25 81.795 53.953 0.24217 667.15317
A.2 365.575 93.338 72.25 81.795 196.912 0.48434 810.35434
A.3 365.575 93.338 72.25 81.795 227.78 0.48434 841.22234
A.4 365.575 93.338 72.25 81.795 196.64 0.48434 810.08234
A.5 365.575 93.338 72.25 81.795 51.133 0.24217 664.33317
P.1 365.575 93.338 72.25 81.795 50.233 0.24217 663.43317
P.2 365.575 93.338 72.25 81.795 193.151 0.48434 806.59334
P.3 365.575 93.338 72.25 81.795 225.49 0.48434 838.93234
P.4 365.575 93.338 72.25 81.795 193.503 0.48434 806.94534
P.5 365.575 93.338 72.25 81.795 53.488 0.24217 666.68817
P.6 365.575 93.338 72.25 81.795 50.233 0.24217 663.43317
P.7 365.575 93.338 72.25 81.795 193.151 0.48434 806.59334
P.8 365.575 93.338 72.25 81.795 225.49 0.48434 838.93234
P.9 365.575 93.338 72.25 81.795 193.503 0.48434 806.94534
P.10 365.575 93.338 72.25 81.795 53.488 0.24217 666.68817
A.6 365.575 93.338 72.25 81.795 53.953 0.24217 667.15317
A.7 365.575 93.338 72.25 81.795 196.912 0.48434 810.35434
A.8 365.575 93.338 72.25 81.795 227.78 0.48434 841.22234
A.9 365.575 93.338 72.25 81.795 196.64 0.48434 810.08234
A.10 365.575 93.338 72.25 81.795 51.133 0.24217 664.33317
Table 4-4. Unsupported Support Forces (Trade-off 3)

Moving Total
Bearing DC1 DC2 DW Live Load
Loads Diaphragm Axial
pad (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
(kN) Load (kN)
A.1 665.333 155.163 118.75 136.325 322.156 170.534 1568.261
A.2 665.333 155.163 118.75 136.325 315.687 170.534 1561.792
P.1 665.333 155.163 118.75 136.325 307.749 170.534 1553.854
P.2 665.333 155.163 118.75 136.325 315.372 170.534 1561.477
P.3 665.333 155.163 118.75 136.325 307.749 170.534 1553.854
P.4 665.333 155.163 118.75 136.325 315.372 170.534 1561.477
P.5 665.333 155.163 118.75 136.325 307.749 170.534 1553.854
P.6 665.333 155.163 118.75 136.325 315.372 170.534 1561.477
P.7 665.333 155.163 118.75 136.325 307.749 170.534 1553.854
33
P.8 665.333 155.163 118.75 136.325 315.372 170.534 1561.477
A.3 665.333 155.163 118.75 136.325 322.156 170.534 1568.261
A.4 665.333 155.163 118.75 136.325 315.687 170.534 1561.792
Figure 4-2. Position of Bearing Pads (Trade-off 1)
For the analysis of seismic forces, the following figures show the intensity of load applied to the structure
used for the design of foundation:
a. Load Case 1
Figure 4-5. Seismic Forces 1 (Trade-off 1)
34
b. Load Case 2
35
On the other hand, the following tables show the wind load intensity for each trade-off:
Table 4-5. Wind Load parameters (Trade-off 1)

Length 28.5 m
Mean Height 4.5 m
Girder depth 1.3 m
Column Width 1 m
WL on Structure
Transverse WL 2868 Pa
Longitudinal WL 690 Pa
WL on Live Load
Transverse WL 1800 N/m
Longitudinal WL 720 N/m
Uniform Load
Horizontal 5528.4 N/m
Vertical 1410 N/m
Figure 4-11. Wind Load Intensity (Trade-off 1)
36
Table 4-6. Wind Load Parameters (Trade-off 2)
Length 28.5 m
Mean Height 4.5 m
Girder depth 1 m
Column Width 1 m
Wind Load on Structure
Wind Load on Live Load
Total Wind Load
Horizontal 4668 N/m
Vertical 1410 N/m
Table 4-7. Wind Load Parameters (Trade-off 3)

Length 19 m
Mean Height 4.5 m
Girder depth 1.4 m
Column Width 1 m
WL on Structure
WL on Live Load
Uniform Load
Horizontal 5815.2 N/m
Vertical 1410 N/m
37
4.3 Foundation Design Specifications

4.3.1 Concrete Mix for Pile Foundation
Consistency of concrete to be used for the piles must be suitable to the method of installation of piles. The
grade of concrete to be used for piling should be a minimum of M25. Mixing is carried out in mechanical mixer
only.
The table below specifies the properties of the aggregates necessary in determining the concrete mix ratio.
Table 4-8. Properties of Aggregates

Specified Strength 25 MPa
Required Slump 50-75 mm
Maximum Size of aggregate 20 mm
Specific gravity of fine aggregates 2.64
Specific gravity of coarse aggregates 2.84
Rodded bulk density of coarse aggregate 1600 kg/m3
Absorption Coarse 1%
Absorption Fine 2%
Moisture Content of aggregates 0
Control Factor 0.8
Table 4-9. Concrete Mix Ratio

25 MPa
Cement : Fine Aggregate : Coarse Aggregate 1 1 2
Aggregate / Cement ratio 3
W/C ratio 0.47
4.3.2 Design of Shear Key in the Abutment

Shear is being provided below the base of the abutment if the wall is found to be unsafe against sliding. Such
a key develops passive pressure which resists completely the sliding tendency of the wall. In determining the
external stability of retaining walls, failure modes like bearing failure, sliding and overturning are normally
38
considered in design. In considering the criterion of sliding, the sliding resistance of retaining walls is derived
from the base friction between the wall base and the foundation soils. To increase the sliding resistance of
retaining walls, other than providing a large self-weight or a large retained soil mass, shear keys are to be
installed at the wall base.
The principle of shear keys is to increase the extra passive resistance developed by the height of shear keys.
However, active pressure developed by shear keys also increases simultaneously. The success of shear
keys lies in the fact that the increase of passive pressure exceeds the increase in active pressure, resulting
in a net improvement of sliding resistance. Since the factor of safety against sliding of the abutment is greater
than the required factor of safety, the designer did not consider shear key in the design. Detailed calculations
are presented in the appendices.
4.3.3 Bored Pile

Bored pile is a circular, cast-in-situ reinforced concrete pile which is used as foundations to support high-rise
buildings, bridges and other heavy industrial complexes which diverts severe structural loads deep into a
more stable soil stratum. It is design and categorized into two types – skin friction piles and end bearing piles,
depending on the soil condition where the piles shall be constructed. The bored piles construction entails two
main steps, the drilling phase (demolition, removal and stabilization) and the construction phase (reinforcing
case, casting and curing).
The size of the piles to be used depends upon the availability of bored piling rigs that a foundation contractor
have. One of those foundation contractor have bored piling rigs that have the capacity to drill from 800 mm
Ø to 1500 mm Ø, fully complemented with allied equipment and accessories. The different pile diameter and
pile cap arrangement will be provided based on the available sizes of bored piling rigs.
4.3.4 Pile Arrangement

The diameters of piles to be used are dependent on the available sizes of bored piling rigs that a foundation
contractor can provide. Upon checking its available sizes which is from 800mm to 1500 mm, different pile
arrangement will be provided.
Set of pile arrangements for both abutment and pier side are presented as follows:
39
Figure 4-14. Pile Arrangements at Abutment Side
40
Figure 4-15. Pile Arrangements at Pier Side
41
4.4 Design of Prestressed Post-Tensioned Concrete I-Girder Bridge
4.4.1 Design Process
START
DETERMINE UNFACTORED
AND FACTORED LOADS
SELECT A PROPER SECTION
DESIGN AND LOCATE

PRESTRESSING BAR USING
UNFACTORED LOADS
NO IS SECTION ADEQUATE
TO FLEXURE STRESSES
AND DEFLECTION?
YES
COMPUTE PRESTRESS
PARTIAL LOSSES
DESIGN OF NON-
PRESTRESSING BARS USING
FACTORED LOADS
DESIGN STIRRUPS USING

FACTORED LOADS
DESIGN DIAPHRAGM
END
42
4.4.2 Material Properties
Through series of investigation, standard PSC AASHTO Type V is found to be the least section appropriate
for the design.
Figure 4-16. AASHTO Type V PSC Girder
The details and section properties of PSC Girder are presented on the following tables:
Table 4-10. AAHSTO Type V PSC Girder Section Dimension

Type V Unit
Ac 1013 in²
Igx 521180 in⁴
Igy 61236 in⁴
St 16790 in³
Sb 16307 in³
Bf 42 in
Tf 7 in
B2 28 in
T2 13 in
H 63 in
Bw 8 in
Ct 31.04 in
Cb 31.96 in
R2 514 in
Self-weight 1055 plf
Table 4-11. Other Properties of PSC

Compressive Strength of Concrete 41.37 MPa
Rebar Strength 1861.58 MPa
Haunch Thickness 1 in
43
Prestressing Bar Diameter 0.5 in.
Main Bar Diameter 1.29 in.
Prestressing Force 5076 kN
Total Girder Volume 186.2 m3
Total Haunch Volume 7.72 m3
Total Concrete Deck Volume 109.44 m3
Total Diaphragm Volume 27.26 m3
4.4.2.1 Concrete Mix

The table below specifies the properties of the aggregates necessary in determining the Concrete Mix Ratio.

Specified Strength 41.4 MPa
Required Slump 50 mm
Fineness Modulus of fine aggregate 2.2
Specific gravity of aggregates 2.65
Absorption Coarse 0.5%
Absorption Fine 0.7%
Control Factor 0.8

27.6 MPa
Cement : Fine Aggregate : Coarse Aggregate 1 1.74 2.76
Aggregate / Cement ratio 4.499626105
W/C ratio 0.469
41.4 MPa
W/C Ratio 0.43
4.4.2.2 Constructability Activities

Incorporating post-tensioning method for prestressed girder is more economical since the location of the
project is far from available plants that can offer fabrication and delivery of the girder to the site.
With regards to the fabrication of the girder, it will start with placing the prestressing and non-prestressing
bars readied to be poured with high-strength concrete. Achieving the curing of 28 days, the strands of the
girder is to be pulled using a portable machine and to be mounted above the bearing pads above the
abutment using a crawler crane. Diaphragms are to be constructed right after the placement of the girder.
44
4.4.3 Computation of Girder Design
4.4.3.1 Determining Appropriate Section
In determining the appropriate section for the given loadings, use these formulas.
t MD + MSD + ML
S ≥
γfti - fc
b MD + MSD + ML
S ≥
fc - γfci
where:
MD = Moment due to dead load ; fci = Allowable initial compressive stress
MSD = Moment due to superimposed dead load ; fti = Allowable initial tensile stress
ML = Moment due to live load ; ft = Allowable tensile stress at service condition
fc = Allowable compressive stress at service condition
Table 4-14. Required Section Modulus

Required Top Section Modulus 9617.067685 in3
Required Bottom Section Modulus 11536.2417 in3
4.4.3.2 Prestressing Bar Location

The location of prestressing bar is obtained using the formula,
t
S
ec =(fti - fci )
Pi
where, St is the section modulus at top, Pi is the initial prestressing force and ec is the distance of
prestressing bar from centroid of the section.
Table 4-15. Location of Prestressing Bar

Pi 1140740.074 lb
St 30663.87 in³
ec 5.53 in. from bottom
4.4.3.3 Flexure and Fatigue Adequacy

In checking for flexure and fatigue adequacy, a little allowance is permitted up to 1% since the main
reinforcing steel is not included yet. The formulas used in checking the flexure and fatigue adequacy and
determination of the required number of prestressing bars are as follows:
Fatigue I : 1.75 (LL+IM) MS18
45
t Pe e' c t Pe e' c b
f = - (1 + 2 ) fb = - (1 - 2 )
Ac r Ac r
Pi e' cb MD Pi e' c b MD
ft = - (1 - 2 ) - t fb = - (1 + 2 ) + t
Ac r S Ac r S
Pi e' c b 1.75ML
fb = - (1 + 2 ) + t
Ac r S
where:
Pi = Initial prestressing force ; Cb = Distance from centroid to bottom section
Ac = Area of section ; Sb = Bottom Section Modulus of section
Ct = Distance from centroid to topmost section
Table 4-16. Checking of Flexural Adequacy

# of Prestressing Tendons ½” 28 pcs.
Fti Adequate
Fbi Adequate
Ft Adequate
Fb Adequate
Ff Adequate
4.4.3.4 Prestress Losses

In determining the jacking stress needed for the prestressing bars, prestress losses should be considered.
Table 4-17. Details of Prestress Losses

Partial Losses Value Unit
fpCR 1395.911759 Psi
fpSH 2786.313143 Psi
fR 12639.76654 Psi
Total 33619.61949 Psi
Jacking Stress 221809.6195 psi
4.4.3.5 Deflection
In determining the maximum deflection of a prestressed girder, the deflection (upward) produced by the
prestressing bars is deducted to the sum of the deflection produced by the weight of the girder itself and the
applied loads.
5Wu l4 Pel2
Δf = +Δ -
384EI ML 8EI
46
where:
Wu = Distributed loadings in kN/m ; l = Length of span of Girder
ΔML = deflection due to moving loads ; E = Modulus of Elasticity
P = Effective Force of Prestressing Bars in
e = distance of prestressing bars from gross center of gravity of the section
I = Gross Moment of inertia of the section
Table 4-18. Details of Deflection

Camber of prestress 33.10 mm ↑
Deflection due to loads 50.143 mm ↓
Total Deflection 17.043 mm ↓
4.4.3.6 Design of main reinforcing bars

The load combination applicable to the limit state listed below is based from AASHTO 3.4 and Table 3.4.1-
1. The loads being considered in the equation are the unfactored value and (LL + IM) denotes to a one-lane
loaded effect only.
Strength I: 1.25(DC) + 1.5(DW) + 1.75(LL + IM) MS 18
Table 4-19. Factored Moment and Shear

Strength I Moment Shear
DC 39445842.28 140342.09
DW 12938954.03 46018.97
LL+ML 36290478.91 96153.73
Total 88675275.23 282514.79
Aps fps + As fy -A's fy

c=
f
0.85f'c βb+kAps ( pu⁄d )
p
Mn
≤A f (d - a⁄ ) +As fy (ds - a⁄2) -A's fy (a⁄2 -d's )
0.9 ps py p 2
|Mu | Nu Vu
Aps fps + As fy ≥ + 0.5 + (| - Vp | - 0.5Vs ) cotθ
d v Øf Øc Øc
Table 4-20. Result of Moment Capacity

c 5.63 in
Factored Moment 88675275.23 lbin
Moment Capacity 104323853.2 lbin
Reinforcement Adequacy Adequate
47
Table 4-21. Details of Main Reinforcing Bars
Type of bar 32 mm
4 bars @ top
# of bars required
4 bars @ bottom
Location Corners of girder
4.4.3.7 Design of Stirrups

The design for shear and torsional adequacy uses the formula below in determining the number of stirrups
and spacing required for the girder as well as for the dowels.
Vu dp
Vc = (0.60λ√fc' + 700 ) bw dp ≥ 2λ√fc' bw dp ≤ 2λ√fc' bw dp
Mu
Table 4-22. Details of Stirrups

Type of reinforcement #3 U stirrups, 0.11 in²
Spacing of stirrups 3.6 in
4.4.3.8 Design of Diaphragm

The design of diaphragms is the same as designing reinforced concrete beams using the formulas below.
Mn
≤A f (d - a⁄ ) - A's fy (a⁄2 -d's )
0.9 s y s 2
Vu ≤ ØVn
Vn = Vc + Vs
1
Vc = √fc' bw d
6
Av fy d
Vs =
S
Table 4-23. Details of Intermediate Diaphragm

Top bar reinforcement 3-16mm bars
Bottom bar reinforcement 7-16mm bars
Stirrups 600mm spacing
Thickness 254mm
Depth 1143mm
Location Every 7125 mm from the support
Table 4-24. Details of End Diaphragm

Top bar reinforcement 2-16mm Bars
Bottom bar reinforcement 9-16mm Bars
Stirrups 600mm Spacing
48
Thickness 500mm
Depth 1600mm
Table 4-25. Details of Bottom End Diaphragm
Top Reinforcing bars 12-16mm Bars
Base Reinforcing Bars 10-16mm Bars
Stirrups 12mm every 200mm
4.4.3.9 Design of Foundation

Refer to Appendix C for the detailed design of foundation.
4.4.4 Design Drawings
Figure 4-17. PSC Section Details at Midspan
49
Figure 4-18. PSC Section Details at End Span
Figure 4-19. Reinforcement Details of End Diaphragm
50
Figure 4-20. Transverse End Diaphragm Reinforcement Details
Figure 4-21. Intermediate Diaphragm Reinforcement Details
Figure 4-22. Diaphragm Layout (PSC)
51
Figure 4-23. Cross Section at Pier Side
Figure 4-24. Cross Section at Abutment Side
52
Figure 4-25. Transverse Elevation of Abutment
Figure 4-26. Reinforcement Details of Abutment
53
Figure 4-27. Details of Section B-B
Figure 4-28. Details of “X”
Figure 4-29. Details of Pier Cap
Figure 4-30. Reinforcement Details of Pier Footing
54
Figure 4-31. Reinforcement Details of Pier
Figure 4-32. Reinforcement Details of Pile Cap (Abutment)
Figure 4-33. Reinforcement Details of Pile Cap (Pier)
Figure 4-34. Reinforcement Details of Pile (Abutment)
Figure 4-35. Reinforcement Details of Pile (Pier)
55
Figure 4-36. Details of Pile Cap and Pile Arrangement (Abutment)
Figure 4-37. Details of Pile Cap and Pile Arrangement (Pier)
Figure 4-38. Front Elevation at Pier
56
Figure 4-39. PSC Bridge Elevation
57
4.5 Design of Steel Plate Girder Bridge
START
SELECT GIRDER LAYOUT, FRAMING

SYSTEMS AND SECTIONS
PERFORM LOAD AND

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
DETERMINE LOAD
COMBINATION
COMPUTE LIVE LOAD

DISTRIBUTION FACTORS
COMPUTE FACTORED
MAXIMUM SHEAR AND MOMENT
FOR EACH LIMIT STATE
CHECK FLEXURE FOR

STRENGTH LIMIT STATE
CHECK REQUIREMENT FOR FATIGUE

AND SERVICE LIMIT STATE
CHECK REQUIREMENT
FOR CONSTRUCTABILITY
DESIGN SHEAR CONNECTOR,

CROSS FRAME
COMPUTE DEFLECTION
AND CAMBER
END
58
The dimension of steel girder is based from the ASEP Steel Manual Volume 1. This section is subjected to
investigation to determine its actual stresses and to check its adequacy in terms of the limitations and
specifications applicable to the design based from AASHTO LRFD 2012 and NSCP.
Figure 4-40. Steel W-shaped I-Girder
Table 4-40 shows the dimension and properties of W 36 x 798 steel section. The design strength used is 248
MPa.
Table 4-26. Steel Section Properties (W 36 x 798)

Unit
Area 150,967 mm²
Depth 1,066.04 mm
tw 60.45 mm
bf 456.95 mm
tf 108.97 mm
Nominal Weight 1,188 kg/m
rt 121.92 mm
Ix 26,056 x 10⁶ mm⁴
Sx 48,833 x 10³ mm³
Iy 1,748 x 10⁶ mm⁴
Sy 7,653 x 10³ mm³

The steel girder used in the design is pre-fabricated. Concrete deck and substructures are all cast-in-place.
59
4.5.3 Steel Girder Analysis
The details presented in this section are calculated manually in accordance with AASHTO LRFD 2012 and
NSCP. The computations are designed to check the conformity of the chosen steel section to various
limitations, specifications and comparison of actual to allowable stresses and for the design of other
components needed.
4.5.3.1 Proportion Limits

Table 4-27. Checking of Section Proportion Limits
Remark
D
Web w/o Longitudinal Stiffeners < 150 OK
tw
bf
< 12 OK
2tf
D
Flange Proportion bf > OK
6
tf > 1.1tw OK
Iyc
Flange Ratio 0.1< OK
Iyt
Table 4-27 shows the checking of the proportionality of the steel section in accordance with AASHTO
6.10.2.2.
4.5.3.2 Strength Limit State (Flexure Adequacy)

The maximum moment for strength limit state is situated at the mid-span of the mid-interior girder of the
structure. For this limit state, the composite compact steel section shall satisfy the requirement as follows:
Mu ≤ Øf Mn
where, Mu is the value of the maximum moment, Øf is the flexure resistance factor which is equal to 1.0 and
Mn is the flexural resistance of the section computed as,
Dp
My - 0.1
D
Mn = [1- (1- ) ( t )] Mp
Mp 0.32
60
Table 4-28. Checking of Flexure for Strength Limit State
Check Section Compactness
Web Proportion D OK
< 150
tw
Web Slenderness Limit 2Dcp

≤√
E OK
tw Fyc
Calculate Plastic Moment

ybar 140.5579111 mm
Mp 18690329772 Nmm
Calculate Yield Moment
My 13568497546 Nmm
Calculate Flexural
Resistance
Mu 11084427388 Nmm
Øf Mn 13006789918 Nmm
OK
4.5.3.3 Fatigue Limit State

The fatigue stress ranges are also checked for the design which involves live loads including moving and
impact load multiplied to its distribution factor.
|+M| |-M|
γ(Δf)= +
SST SNC
Table 4-29. Checking for Fatigue Limit State

Stress Range
Factored +M 4098036250 Nmm
Factored -M 3990439250 Nmm
Top Flange y(Δf)f 119.232092 MPa
Bottom Flange y(Δf)b 150.586809 MPa
4.5.3.4 Service Limit State

The service limit state is used to control the elastic permanent deflection under design live load HL-93. The
loads DC1, DC2, DW and (LL + IM) are considered in the calculation with all taken as factored values. To
check the flange stresses, the computation and results are as follows:
ff ≤ 0.95Rh Fyf
where, Rh is the hybrid factor which is for this computation is equivalent to 1.0, Fyf is the flange yield strength
and ff is computed as,
61
MDC1 MDC2 + MDW M(LL+IM)
+ +
SNC SLT SST
Table 4-30. Checking for Service Limit State

Check Flange Stresses
ff ≤ 0.95Rh Fyf 235.6 MPa
Compression Flange 127.03087 MPa
Tension Flange 159.265717 MPa
OK
4.5.3.5 Constructability
The flexural stresses of the section is checked to prevent the nominal yielding on post-buckling resistance of
the girder during construction stage. The load being considered in the calculation is the dead load due to
concrete deck and the self-weight of the girder.
The slenderness ratio for a non-compact web is determined. For the nominal flexural resistance, the
compression and tension flange is checked if it met the requirement.
Mu
< Øf FNC
SNCt
Also, the web bend-buckling resistance is also checked if it met the requirement in accordance with AASHTO
3.10.3.2.1-3.
fbu < Øf FCRW
Table 4-31. Checking for Constructability

Web Compactness
2Dc
tw
< λrw WEB IS NOT LENDER
Calculate Flexural Resistance
Øf Fnc > Fbu OK
Calculate Web Bend-buckling Resistance
Øf Fcrw > Fbu OK
Check Tension Flange
fbu ≤ Øf Rh Fyt OK
4.5.3.6 Shear Connectors

The shear connector for the span is designed for fatigue in accordance to AASHTO 6.10.10. A 7/8 inch (22
mm) stud shear connector, 3 per row, is used with an allowable range for horizontal shear for each individual
shear connector of 32,313.45 N.
62
Table 4-32. Details of Shear Studs
Span No. of Studs Strength
0 - 5.7 m 3 - 22 mm Ø @ 550 mm
414
5.7 - 22.8 m 3 - 22 mm Ø @ 275 mm
22.8 - 28.5 m 3 - 22 mm Ø @ 550 mm MPa
4.5.3.7 Design of Stiffener

The bearing stiffeners are placed at all bearing locations which are at abutment and pier. The capacity of the
stiffener is checked for both axial resistance and bearing resistance in accordance with AASHTO 6.10.11.2.3-
4. Also transverse stiffeners were included in the design to increase the shear capacity of the web member.
The details are as follows:
Table 4-33. Details of Transverse Stiffeners

width 90 mm
height 848.1 mm
thickness 12.5 mm
Table 4-34. Details of Bearing Stiffeners

Load
Vu 3404.175 kN
Stiffener Details
B.S. Fraction 1-5/8 "
Thickness 41.3 mm
Width 152.400 mm
Bearing Resistance 3275.829 kN
Axial Resistance 17777.180 kN
Fillet Weld
Thickness 7.938 mm
Clip 25.400 mm
Length of weld 797.300 mm
Resistance 4145.926 kN
OK
63
Figure 4-41. Bearing Stiffener
4.5.3.8 Design of Cross Frame

To resist lateral forces such as wind load, cross frame is designed consisting of single angles spaced every
7.125 m of the span. The design wind load used is 200 kph.
Figure 4-42. Cross Frame Dimension
Figure 4-43. Strut BA Section
Tables 4-42 and 43 show the single angle section used for the design components of cross frame.
64
Table 4-35. Top and Bottom Strut Section Details
Section L 90 x 90 x 6
Length 1.9545 m
H 90 mm
B 90 mm
t 6 mm
Ag 1057 mm²
Xc = Yc 24.05 mm
Ix = Iy 803000000 mm⁴
rx =ry 27.57 mm
K 1
Fy 275 MPa
Table 4-36. Diagonal Strut Section Details

Length 1.232 mm
H 75 mm
B 75 mm
t 6 mm
Ag 1501 mm²
Xc = Yc 25.4 mm
Ix = Iy 761 mm⁴
rx =ry 22.5 mm
K 1
Fy 275 Mpa
The factored bending stress of the top and bottom strut due to wind load is checked by:
fl < 0.6 Fyf
At the strength limit state, the composite compact section in positive moment regions satisfies the
requirement as follows:
1
Mu+ ft Sxt < Øf Mn
3
The effective slenderness ratio of the compression bracing member is 119.90 which complies with the
following standards.
65
Table 4-37. Limiting Factors
Check Limiting Slenderness Ratio
KLd/rz < 140 OK
Check Member Strength
L/rx < 80 OK
Slender Element Reduction Factor
b/t < k*SQRT(E/Fy) OK
Effective Slender Ratio
(KL/r)eff 125.1692057
The actual strength capacity of the section is 103.8 kN. The cross frame is attached in the girder using bolt
connections and the details are shown as follows:
Table 4-38. Strut Connection Details

Bolt Diameter 20 mm
Bolt Spacing 60 mm
Bolt Edge Distance 32 mm
Bolt Yield Strength 830 MPa
No. of Bolts 4 Bolts
4.5.3.9 Camber
To counter the expected deflection due to dead load which is 38.703 mm, camber is made to the steel girder.
Figure 4-44. Steel Girder Camber Details
The radius of curvature of the girder and camber at specific span of the steel girder is computed by the
following standard formula:
37bD
R=
√Fy Ψtw
where:
b = widest flange width tw = web thickness
D = clear distance between flanges R = radius
66
The total camber at any point along the span is computes as,
∆DL
∆= (∆M + ∆R)
∆M
where:
∆DL = camber at any point along the length of girder
∆M = maximum value of ∆DL
Table 4-39. Camber Details

Asg 110968.000 mm²
Ψ 2.229
R 784480.970 mm
∆R 0.000 mm
∆DL1/5 12.696 mm
∆DL2/5 25.393 mm
∆DL1/2 38.089 mm
∆DL3/5 25.393 mm
∆DL4/5 12.696 mm
∆ Span 1/5 4.232 mm

∆ Span 2/5 16.928 mm
∆ Span 1/2 38.089 mm
∆ Span 3/5 16.928 mm
∆ Span 4/5 4.232 mm
4.5.3.10 Deflection
The deflection of the girder produced by live and moving loads is 5.917 mm and 16.441 mm, respectively
which gives a total deflection of 22.358 mm.

Refer to Appendix D for the detailed design of foundation.
67
Figure 4-45. W 36 x 798 Steel Girder Section
Figure 4-46. Bearing Stiffener
68
Figure 4-47. Pitch of Shear Studs
Figure 4-48. Typical Cross Frame
Figure 4-49. Strut Bolted Connection
69
Figure 4-50. Cross Frame Layout
70
71
72
73
74
Figure 4-67. Steel Bridge Elevation
75
4.6 Design of Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder Bridge
START
DETERMINE FACTORED LOADS
DETERMINE PROPERTIES OF
MATERIALS TO BE USED
DEVELOP APPROPRIATE T-
BEAM SECTION
DESIGN FOR FLEXURE

REINFORCEMENT AS
DOUBLE-REINFORED
DESIGN SHEAR
REINFORCEMENT
DESIGN OF DIAPHRAGMS
END

The designer used the ultimate stress design approach to obtain a satisfactory design for reinforced concrete
girder.
Figure 4-68. Outline of RC T-Beam
76
Table 4-40. Dimension Details of RC T-Beam
Unit
Length 19 m
Effective Depth of beam 1225 mm
Breadth of beam 500 mm
Concrete Slab thickness 200 mm
Ideal flange width of T-Girder 1200 mm
Type of concrete Normal weight
Table 4-41. Other Details

Total Girder Volume 159.76 m3
Total Concrete Deck Volume 109.44 m3
Total Diaphragm Volume 24.87 m3
4.6.2.1 Concrete Mix

The table below specifies the properties of the aggregates necessary in determining the Concrete Mix Ratio.

Specified Strength 41.4 MPa
Required Slump 50 mm
Fineness Modulus of fine aggregate 2.2
Specific gravity of aggregates 2.65
Absorption Coarse 0.5%
Absorption Fine 0.7%
Control Factor 0.8

27.6 MPa
W/C ratio 0.469

The reinforced concrete girder used for this design is cast-in-place as well as the end and intermediate
diaphragm and the substructure. The process to be used is in accordance with the standard construction
methods.
77
4.6.3 Computation of Girder Design
4.6.3.1 Tension steel reinforcements using pmax
In determining the appropriate steel reinforcements, the formula used is:
0.85ß1 fc' 600

ρMAX = 0.75 * *( )
fy 600+ fy
where:
As
ρMAX = Steel area to concrete area ratio, ρmax =
bd
ß1 = Ratio of depth of compression zone to the neutral axis
fc’ = Compressive strength of concrete
fy = Yield strength of steel
Table 4-44. Details of Tension Reinforcement Bars

Actual Steel area using the chosen steel diameter 12867.96 mm²
Diameter of Main Reinforcement Bars 32 mm
Number of Main Reinforcement Bars 16 pcs.
4.6.3.2 Flexure Adequacy

For flexure adequacy, additional compression bars are needed. This addition of reinforcement bars is
computed as the moment capacity of the initial reinforcing bars using the formula:
a
Mu = ∅[As fy (d- ) + Acf fcf (d")]
2
This initial capacity is subtracted to the factored actual moment and is equivalent to the moment capacity of
the compression bars where the needed area can be obtained.
Mactual - Mu = ∅A' s fy (d-d' )

where:
Fcf = Yield strength of CRFP
Acf = Area of section
d” = distance of centroid of reinforcements to centroid of CRFP
A’s = Compressive steel area
d’ = distance of centroid of compressive steel area to topmost concrete fiber
78
Table 4-45. Details of Compression Bars
Steel area 1608.50 mm²
Bar Diameter 32 mm
# of compressive bars 2
Table 4-46. Details of Reinforcing Bars

Location Quantity
at support
Support Top Bar 2
Support Bottom Bar 12
at midspan
Midspan Top Bar 2
Midspan Bottom Bar 16
32 mm Bar Diameter
4.6.3.3 Design for Stirrups

The shear and torsional adequacy is checked and design using the following formulas:
Vu ≤ ØVn
Vn = Vc + Vs
1
Vc = √fc' bw d
6
Av fy d
Vs =
S
where:
Vu = ultimate shear ; Vn = nominal shear
Vc = shear capacity of concrete ; Vs = shear of stirrups
S = spacing ; Av = Area of shear reinforcements
Table 4-47. Details of Stirrups

Vu 606.25 kN
Vn 673.71 kN
Vs 699.45 kN
Av 226.19 mm²
Vc 536.30 kN
Bar Diameter 12 mm
Stirrups Spacing at outer third of span 200 mm
Stirrups Spacing at middle third of span 300 mm
79
4.6.3.4 Design of Diaphragm
The design of diaphragms is the same as designing reinforced concrete beams using the formulas below.
Mn
≤A f (d - a⁄ ) -A's fy (a⁄2 -d's )
0.9 s y s 2
Vu ≤ ØVn
Vn = Vc + Vs
1
Vc = √fc' bw d
6
Av fy d
Vs =
S
Table 4-48.Details of Intermediate Diaphragm

Stirrups 200mm spacing
Thickness 254mm
Depth 921.12mm
Location Midspan
Table 4-49. Details of End Diaphragm

Thickness 500mm
Depth 1121.12mm
Table 4-50. Details of Bottom End Diaphragm

Stirrups 12mm every 200mm
4.6.3.4 Deflection
The deflection for this design is 34.274 mm due to the effect of dead and live loads.

Refer to Appendix E for the detailed design of foundation.
80
Figure 4-69. RC Section Reinforcement Details
Figure 4-70. Reinforcement Details of End Diaphragm
81
Figure 4-71. Transverse End Diaphragm Reinforcement Details
Figure 4-72. Intermediate Diaphragm Reinforcement Details
Figure 4-73. Diaphragm Layout (RC)
82
83
84
85
86
87
Figure 4-90. RC Deck Bridge Elevation
4.7 Validation of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards

To verify the initial ranking assumed by the designer as presented in the previous chapter, a more conclusive
estimation based from the design of each trade-off was performed. The new estimates will be compared to
the designer’s raw ranking to obtain the final ranking which will set as a basis of the final design for this
project. The formula used is the same as that of presented in the initial estimate in Chapter 3.
Higher value - Lower value
% difference = x 10 Equation 4-1
Higher value
Subordinate Rank = Governing rank - %difference Equation 4-2
Among the quantitative constraints, economic and safety aspects were given ten (10) since both are the top
priorities of the designers. A balance between cost and serviceability is something that must be accounted
for. The design, may it be too costly or not, must be able to withstand any worst scenario that may occur in
the location which can be controlled through following all specified codes and standards. Minimizing the cost
as much as possible is important but should be in an effective manner. On the other hand, constructability
was rated eight (8), since the duration of the project is more likely to depend in financial aspect. More
allocated budget for equipment and labor force would result, ideally, to a faster construction of the project
whereas poor apportionment would possibly lead to substandard and lower production. For sustainability
constraint, it was ranked nine (9) where the project must be within acceptable span of time in which
maintenance cost will be the factor to consider.
The economic cost comprises the materials, labor, equipment, installation, fabrication and one-time
maintenance expenses. For the duration, the data is computed based on the required works for the project
and the average capability range of skilled workers available to complete a specific scope of work. And for
uniformity, same number of workers is assigned for each trade-off to generate a more justifiable analysis. In
terms of deflection, it is obtained through the use of STAAD BEAVA application which is applied only for the
effect of live load and moving loads. The maintenance cost is only a one-time estimate which only involves
the primary materials needed to prevent the deterioration of the structure since the project area has a portion
of water body in one of its sides.
88
Table 4-51. Final Estimate
Trade-offs
Decision Criteria
PSC I-Girder Steel Plate Girder RC Deck Girder
Economic
1 Php 23,853,765.80 Php 23,453,889.48 Php 22,049,853.20
(Overall Cost)
Constructability
2 144 days 138 days 179 days
(Duration)
Serviceability
3 17.043 mm 23.358 mm 34.274 mm
(Deflection)
Sustainability
4 Php 330,660.00 Php 312,255.18 Php 256,650.00
(Maintenance Cost)
For the final estimate the designers, conducts more specific information than the initial estimate and it is also
based on the final designs of each tradeoffs. The economic cost of the project is based on the summary of
labor and materials cost of DPWH and the operators and equipment cost of the ACEL equipment guidebook.
In construction duration, the designers created construction activities and assigned number of labors to be
deploy in the project. In accordance with it the designers able to set the expected construction duration of
the project. For the deflection of the project, it is based on the strength of material and its moment of inertia
based on the cross section of each tradeoff. Using the STAAD software the designers able to generate the
deflection of each tradeoffs. In the sustainability of the project, the designers allotted needed materials for
maintaining each bridge which cost is based on the DPWH standard material and labor cost and other cost
from different suppliers. Cleaning as maintenance of the bridge is done in order to avoid expected
uncertainties that may develop to the structure that can cause damage on the structure.
a. Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint

*PSC I-Girder
23,853,765.80 - 22,049,853.20
% difference = x 10 = 0.7562380779
23,853,765.80
*Steel Plate Girder

23,453,889.48 - 22,049,853.20
% difference = x 10 = 0.598636862
23,453,889.48
89
Figure 4-91. Cost Difference
b. Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint

* PSC I-Girder
144 - 138
% difference = x 10 = 0.4166666667
144
* RC Deck Girder
179 - 138
% difference = x 10 = 2.290502793
179
Figure 4-92. Duration Difference
c. Computation of ranking for Serviceability Constraint

Governing Rank: PSC I-Girder = 10.0
22.358 - 17.043
% difference = x 10 = 2.377225154
22.358
90
*RC Deck Girder
34.274 - 17.043
% difference = x 10 = 5.027426037
34.274
Figure 4-93. Deflection Difference
d. Computation of ranking for Sustainability Constraint

*PSC I-Girder
330,600 - 256,650
% difference = x 10 = 2.239564428
330,600

312,255.18 - 256,650
% difference = x 10 = 1.780760851
312,255.18
Figure 4-94. Maintenance Cost Difference
Table 4-52 shows the designer’s final ranking based on multiple constraints and importance factor of each
criteria. This assessment used an engineering design approach introduced by Otto and Antonsson (1991) as
previously discussed in Chapter 3.
91
Table 4-52. Final Designer’s Raw Ranking
Criterion's
Ability to satisfy the criterion
Importance
Decision Criteria
(on a scale on a scale of 0 to 10
of 0 to 10) PSC I-Girder Steel Plate Girder RC Deck Girder
Economic
1 10 9.24 9.40 10.0
(Overall Cost)
Constructability
2 8 9.58 10.0 7.71
(Duration)
Serviceability
3 10 10.0 7.46 4.81
(Deflection)
Sustainability
4 9 7.76 8.22 10.0
(Maintenance Cost)
Overall Rank 338.88 322.58 299.78
4.8 Trade-off Assessment

4.8.1 Economic Constraint
Reinforced Concrete Girder Bridge has the advantage since the material used is composed of an average
type of concrete mix which comes with a lower price compare to what is used for the Prestressed Concrete
I-Girder design. As for the Steel Plate Girder Bridge, the cost of the beam itself is already expensive. Both
steel and prestressed concrete needs to have a camber to reduce its deflection which resulted to a difference
in cost of more than a million to the third trade-off. Also, prestressed concrete girder involves prestressing
which made it the most costly among the three.
4.8.2 Constructability Constraint

Two of the trade-offs used for this project involves concrete and one factor needed for its maintenance is to
apply sealant for protection. For this reason, finishing these two trade-offs would take longer to accomplish
compare to the overall duration needed for the steel plate girder. Moreover, the reinforced concrete bridge is
composed of three spans and has one additional pier. To install the extra part for RC Bridge means additional
time.
4.8.3 Serviceability Constraint

The prestressing involved in prestressed concrete bridge really helped to reduce its final deflection. Through
it is noted that the camber for a girder is applicable only to oppose the effect of dead load at initial stage, the
camber for prestressed concrete exceeds what is only needed which minimizes in return some of the effect
of live loads. Steel also has a camber application for dead load alone. However, for reinforced concrete, no
camber is applied to the girder so it carries all the effects of different design loads from initial stage to service
period.
4.8.4 Sustainability Constraint

The maintenance cost for all the trade-offs are quite close to each other since the limit for this expense is to
only account for a one-time maintenance activity. Steel is prone to rusting that is why it needs more coating
92
to protect its layer. And prestressed section, on the other hand has more edges so it requires more sealant
than reinforced concrete.
4.9 Design Optimization

The design of each trade-off shown in this chapter is the most efficient design that is suggested and can be
provided based on designer’s perspective. In considering the client’s choice which is governed by the budget
allocated, an analysis is done to see the effect of increase in cost to other components which are the
construction hours, deflection and life span. The percentage increase is 5, 10, 15 and 20 of the total estimated
cost based on the final design of each trade-off. This analysis will help the client to choose from a variety of
conditions to know what would be the significant choice that is advantageous to his intent for the project. The
final design will now be based on the selection of the client. Details are presented in Appendix I.
4.9.1 Economy vs Constructability
The percent increase in cost for each trade-off is divided into different components to lessen the number of
days required to finish the construction of each type. These adjustments are stated as follows:
a. 5 % - increase in number of skilled workers and laborers
b. 10 % - increase in number of machine operators
c. 15 % - increase in number of engineers, skilled workers and laborers
d. 20 % - increase in number of machine operators, skilled workers and laborers
The changes in these components are also subjected to additional expenses for equipment and labor which
will justify the increase in overall cost.
The following tables and figures present the data assessment of the effect of increase in overall cost to the
duration of the project for each trade-off.
Table 4-53. Duration Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (PSC)

Prestressed Concrete I-Girder Bridge
Percent
Increase Overall Cost (Php) Days Percent (%)
0 23853765.8 144 0.00

5 25046454.09 138 4.96
10 26239142.38 128 9.97
15 27431830.67 120 14.97
20 28624518.96 108 19.98
93
160
140
120
DURATION (DAYS)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20
ECONOMIC COST % INCREASE
Figure 4-95. Overall Cost vs Duration (PSC)
The variation of the estimated duration for Prestressed Concrete I-Girder Bridge is about 36-day difference
between actual duration and that of modified with an increase of 20% of overall cost.
Table 4-54. Duration Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (Steel)
Steel Plate Girder Bridge

Percent
0 23453889.48 138 0.00

5 24624737.02 130 4.99
10 25794925.9 122 9.98
15 26968108.16 111 14.98
20 28136363.92 100 19.96
160
140
120
DURATION (DAYS)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 4-96. Overall Cost vs Duration (Steel)
94
The variation of the estimated duration for Steel Plate Girder Bridge is about 38-day difference between
actual duration and that of modified with an increase of 20% of overall cost.
Table 4-55. Duration Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (RCDG)

Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder Bridge
Percent
0 22049853.2 179 0.00

5 23146583.27 172 4.97
10 24247713.67 160 9.97
15 25351850.06 151 14.98
20 26455420.46 144 19.98
200
180
160
DURATION (DAYS)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 4-97. Overall Cost vs Duration (RCDG)
The variation of the estimated duration for Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder Bridge is about 35-day difference
between actual duration and that of modified with an increase of 20% of overall cost.
95
200
180
160
DURATION (DAYS)
140
120
100 PSC
80 Steel
60
40 RCDG
20
0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 4-98. Overall Cost vs Duration – Comparison
Even with the help of additional component such as skilled workers to decrease the duration of each type,
trade-off 2 still has the advantage and remains to have the shortest required days to finish its construction.
On the other hand, trade-off 3 is visible to have the longest duration among the three.
4.9.2 Economy vs Serviceability

The deflection of the girder is dependent on the section itself and the strength of the material used. It is
somehow difficult to maintain the final design while decreasing the deflection of the girder. For this reason,
any future increase in cost would not have a significant impact to the deflection of the girder considering that
there will be no alteration in the design.
Table 4-56. Deflection Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (PSC)

Percent
Increase Overall Cost (Php) Deflection (mm) Percent (%)
0 23985414.1 17.043 0.00

5 25137998.13 17.043 4.81
10 26359869.34 17.043 9.90
15 27541109.64 17.043 14.82
20 28704242.52 17.043 19.67
96
18
16
14
12
DEFLECTION
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 4-99. Overall Cost vs Deflection (PSC)
The variation of the deflection for Prestressed Post-Tensioned Concrete I-Girder Bridge is constant even up
to 20% increase in cost.
Table 4-57. Deflection Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (Steel)

Percent
0 23453889.48 22.358 0.00

5 24613432.42 22.358 4.94
10 25763201.25 22.358 9.85
15 26899295.52 22.358 14.69
20 28093221.42 22.358 19.78
25
20
DEFLECTION
15
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 4-100. Overall Cost vs Deflection (Steel)
97
The variation of the deflection for Steel Plate Girder Bridge is constant.
Table 4-58. Deflection Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (RCDG)

Percent
0 22049853.2 34.274 0.00

5 23136458.9 34.274 4.93
10 24255801.28 34.274 10.00
15 25351436.47 34.274 14.97
20 26451389.6 34.274 19.96
40
35
30
DEFLECTION
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 4-101. Overall Cost vs Deflection (RCDG)
The variation of the deflection for Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder Bridge is constant
40
35
30
DEFLECTIION
25
20 PSC
15 Steel
10 RCDG
5
0
0 5 10 15 20
98
Figure 4-102. Overall Cost vs Deflection – Comparison
Based on the graph, trade-off 3 has the most flexible changes in deflection with respect to increasing cost to
the point that at 20%, its deflection is comparably close to that of steel but with a lower overall cost of about
26.5 million – a difference of 1.5 million to steel. On the other hand, trade-off 1 is still the most efficient design
to choose if serviceability is considered to be the governing factor for the final selection.
4.9.3 Economy vs Sustainability

The increase in economic cost will fund the maintenance activities of the bridge. This amount would
determine the span of time that the bridge can undergo maintenance. With this additional aspect, the life-
span of the bridge is expected to be longer than its projected life.
Table 4-59. Maintenance Cost Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (PSC)
Percent
Increase Overall Cost (Php) Maintenance Cost (Php) Percent (%)
0 23985414.10 330600.00 0.00

5 25184684.80 1199270.705 5.00
10 26383955.51 2398541.41 10.00
15 27583226.21 3597812.115 15.00
20 28782496.92 4797082.82 20.00
6000000
MAINTENANCE COST (Php)
5000000
4000000
3000000
2000000
1000000
0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 4-103. Overall Cost vs Maintenance Cost (PSC)

The variation for Prestressed Concrete I-Girder Bridge is about 4.5 million difference between actual and that
of modified with an increase of 20% of overall cost which is sufficient for 14 years of maintenance.
99
Table 4-60. Maintenance Cost Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (Steel)
Percent
0 23453889.48 312255.18 0.00

5 24626583.95 1172694.474 5.00
10 25799278.43 2345388.948 10.00
15 26971972.9 3518083.422 15.00
20 28144667.37 4690777.896 20.00
5000000
4500000
4000000
3500000
3000000
2500000
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000
0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 4-104. Overall Cost vs Maintenance Cost (Steel)
The variation of the maintenance cost for Steel Plate Girder Bridge is about 4.4 million difference between
actual maintenance cost and that of modified with an increase of 20% of overall cost which is already
sufficient for 15 years of maintenance.
Table 4-61. Maintenance Cost Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (RCDG)
Percent
0 22049853.2 256650 0.00

5 23152345.86 1102492.66 5.00
10 24254838.52 2204985.32 10.00
15 25357331.18 3307477.98 15.00
20 26459823.84 4409970.639 20.00
100
5000000
4500000

4000000
3500000
3000000
2500000
2000000
1500000
1000000
500000
0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 4-105. Overall Cost vs Maintenance Cost (RCDG)
The variation of the maintenance cost for Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder Bridge is about 4.2 million
difference between actual maintenance cost and that of modified with an increase of 20% of overall cost
which is already sufficient for 17 years of maintenance.
6000000
5000000
4000000
3000000 PSC
2000000 Steel
RCDG
1000000
0
0 5 10 15 20
Figure 4-106. Overall Cost vs Maintenance Cost – Comparison
The maintenance cost of each trade-off is undeniably close to each other as what is seen on the graph.
However, trade-off 3 still has the lower expenses for maintenance which is already sufficient for a longer
span of time.
101
CHAPTER V
Final Design
In the earlier chapters, it was stated that the concern of the client is more on the economic aspect in which
the design must be within the specified limit of the budget. Through series of comparative analysis, the
increase in overall cost is proven to produce only a minimal effect on other constraints. For this reason, the
final design of the project will be based on the result of ranking as presented in Chapter 4.8 where Prestressed
Post-Tensioned Concrete I-Girder Bridge is found to be the most efficient and applicable to the demand of
the client.
The architectural and structural plans are presented on the following figures:
102
APPENDIX A: COMPARATIVE SUMMARY
Item Trade-off 1 Trade-off 2 Trade-off3
Description
No. PSC Steel RC
1 No. of Span 2 2 3
2 Length per Span 28.5 m 28.5 m 19.0 m
Dia Length Dia Length Dia Length
3 Piles Quantity Quantity Quantity
(mm) (m) (mm) (m) (mm) (m)
Abutment 6 0.9 10 6 0.9 9 6 0.8 10
Pier 4 0.9 10 4 0.9 9 4 0.8 10
4 Volume of Concrete (m³)
Superstructure
Concrete Deck 109.44 109.44 109.44
Wearing Surface 54.72 54.72 54.72
Sidewalk 23.94 23.94 23.94
Barrier 69.83 69.83 69.83
Girder 186.2 - 159.76
Intermediate Diaphragm 10.904 - 8.29
End Diaphragm 16.356 - 16.58
Abutment Side
Abutment 55.899 52.992 54.144
Footing 65.664 63.936 62.208
Pile Cap 64.8 58.32 40.96
Piles 76.34 61.072 60.319
Pier Side
Pier Cap 4.8 3.888 3.072
Pier 8.14 6.842 9.161
Footing 31.5 28.8 46.8
111
Pile Cap 40.5 36.45 51.2
Piles 50.89 45.804 80.42
dia Length Length Length
5 Steel Bars wt. (kg)
(mm) (m)
wt. (kg) dia (mm)
(m)
wt. (kg) dia (mm)
(m)
Concrete Deck
Longitudinal 7773.3 16 425 7773.3 16 425 7773.3 16 425
Transverse 10533.6 25 2736 10533.6 25 2736 10533.6 25 2736
Wearing Surface 3323.1 12 3734 3323.1 12 3734 3323.1 12 3734
Sidewalk 3805.3 12 4276 3805.3 12 4276 3805.3 12 4276
Girder
Prestressing Strands 6180.7 0.5 in. 7987 - - - - - -
Main Reinforcing Bars 1799.3 16 1140 - - - 28788.9 32 4560
Compression Bars 1799.3 16 1140 - - - 3598.6 32 570
Temperature Bars - - - - - - 2403.8 6 10830
Stirrups 1023.4 8 2594 - - - 3573 12 4024
Diaphragm
Intermediate 586.4 16 371.6 - - - 488.7 16 309.6
End 681.8 16 432 - - - 568.2 156 360
Abutment Side
Abutment 23925 28 3984 21979 28 3748 27152 28 4256
Footing 1058 28 741 1023 28 721 976 28 678
Pile Cap 2755 25 895 2543 25 752 2388 25 643
Piles 28226.88 20 1176.12 23522.4 20 980.1 316335.8 20 1568.16
Pier Side
Pier Cap 5088.384 32 806.4 4912.634 32 806.4 3856.34 32 806.4
Pier 1181.232 32 187.2 817 32 129.6 1211.52 32 192
Footing 528.58 20 321 497.65 20 321 418.07 20 321
112
Pile Cap 1819.125 25 472.5 1745.564 25 472.5 1598.55 25 421.7
Piles 16598 20 1512 15965 20 1421.6 13954 20 1523
6 For Trade-off 2
1188 W 36 x 28.5 /
Steel Girder - - -
kg/m 798 girder
- - -
Intermediate Cross Frame - - - 993.76 - - - - -

End Cross Frame - - - 993.76 - - - - -
Transverse Stiffener - - - 3957.07 1 5/8 “ - - - -
Bearing Stiffener - - - 1675.16 1 5/8 “ - - - -
Concrete Mix Design:

*Trade-off 1 (PSC)
27.6 MPa
W/C ratio 0.469
41.4 MPa
W/C Ratio 0.43
*Trade-off 3 (RC)
27.6 MPa
W/C ratio 0.469
113
*Piles
27.6 MPa
W/C ratio 0.469
114
APPENDIX B: CONCRETE DECK DESIGN
LRFD Reinforced Concrete Deck Design
The designers use the strip or approximate elastic method for the concrete deck. It is designed for flexural
resistance and control cracking. Shear design is not required for deck slabs according to AASHTO C4.6.2.1.6.
Also fatigue and fracture design is also not required according to AASHTO 9.5.3. It is a cast-in-place concrete
deck design. The design procedure of the reinforced concrete deck are as follows:
1. Assume the deck design parameters which includes

a) Design stresses
b) Design thickness
c) Design reinforcements
For Positive Moment (Transverse Bottom Reinforcement) and Negative Moment (Transverse Top
Reinforcement)
Bridge Parameters
Girder Length 28.5 m
Girder spacing 2 m
Design Stresses
fy 415 MPa
f'c 25 MPa
For Positive Moment (Transverse Bottom Reinforcement)

Design Deck and Reinforcement
t 200 mm
Ø RSB 25 mm
Spacing of RSB 200 mm
Clear Cover 30 mm
For Negative Moment (Transverse Top Reinforcement)

t 200 mm
Ø RSB 25 mm
Clear Cover 25 mm
2. Determination of Maximum Factored Load

MSTRENGTH I =γp DC+γp DW+1.75(LL+IM)
Where γp is equal to 1.25 for DC and 1.5 for DW
MSERVICE I =1.0(DC+DW+LL+IM)
The load abbreviations are defined as follows:
115
DC = dead load of structural components (DC1) and non-structural attachments (DC2).
DW = dead load of future wearing surface
IM = dynamic load allowance (impact)
LL = vehicular live load
Reinforcement)
Unfactored Loads and Moments

MDC1 2.5 kN-m
MDC2 1.169175 kN-m
MDW 0.8925 kN-m
MLL+IM 8.68 kN-m
3. Determination of Maximum Moment Load

All factored loads shall then be multiplied by the load modifier ηi, defined as:
ηi = ηDηRηI ≥ 0.95
Where:
ηD = ductility factor, taken as 1.00 for conventional designs
ηR = redundancy factor, taken as 1.00 for conventional levels of redundancy
ηI = importance factor, taken as 1.00 for typical bridges
For most bridges, ηi = (1.00)(1.00)(1.00) = 1.00
Reinforcement)
Factored Moments
Mstrength I 21.1152188 kN-m
Mservice I 13.241675 kN-m
4. Check Control Cracking

The spacing of reinforcement, s (in.), in the layer closest to the tension face shall satisfy the following:
700γe
S≤ - 2dc
ßsfs
Where:
dc = thickness of concrete cover from extreme tension fiber to center of the flexural
reinforcement located closest thereto (in.).
dc
ßs = 1+
0.7(h-dc )
fs = stress in mild steel tension reinforcement at service load condition
116
γe = 0.75 for Class 2 Exposure. C5.7.3.4 defines Class 2 Exposure as decks and any
substructure units exposed to water
Positive Moment (Transverse Bottom Reinforcement)

фMn 27.997 kN-m
фMn>Mstrength I ADEQUATE
Check Control Cracking

(700γe/ßsfs - 2dc) 344.380514 mm
s < (700γe/ßsfs - 2dc) ADEQUATE
Negative Moment (Transverse Top Reinforcement)

фMn 28.914 kN-m

s 200 mm
(700γe/ßsfs - 2dc) 368.421533 mm
5. Check Limits of Reinforcement

0.003(dt-c)
εt =
c
Where:
dt = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of bottom row of reinforcement (in.)
As there is typically only one row of reinforcement in slab bridges, dt = ds.
6. Check Flexural Resistance
The factored resistance, Mr (k-in.), shall be taken as:

a
Mr = ΦMn =Φ [As fs ( ds - )] ≥ Mstrength I
2
Where:
φ = Assumed to be 0.9, then checked in Limits of Reinforcement check
a = depth of equivalent stress block (in.), taken as a = cβ1
117
As fs
c = (in.)
0.85ß1f'cb
As = area of tension reinforcement in strip (in.²)
b = width of design strip (in.)
ds = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tensile reinforcement (in.)
fs = stress in the mild steel tension reinforcement as specified at nominal flexural resistance
(ksi). If c / ds < 0.6, then fy may use in lieu of exact computation of fs.
f’c = specified compressive strength of concrete (ksi) 'cf
β1 = stress block factor

Check Maximum Reinforcement
εt > 0.005 ADEQUATE
Check Minimum Reinforcement

Mcr 25.208 kN-m
Mr 27.997 kN-m
Mcr <Mr SAFE


Mcr 25.208 kN-m
Mr 28.914 kN-m
Mcr <Mr SAFE
Positive moment (bottom of slab transverse) reinforcement and negative moment (top of slab transverse)
reinforcement are designed using approximate elastic method. Haunch is designed to have a depth of 50mm.
Longitudinal reinforcement is not designed. The top and bottom longitudinal reinforcement need only satisfy
shrinkage and temperature requirements according to AASHTO 5.10.8, where 16mmØ at 300mm center to
center are adequate. In accordance with it designers use top and bottom longitudinal reinforcement of
16mmØ at 250mm O.C. and 16mmØ at 200mm O.C respectively
According to AASHTO LRFD 5.11.1.2 additional longitudinal reinforcement over supports shall be extended
to the end of slab negative moment reinforcement and positive moment reinforcement of 300mm to satisfy
the requirement.
Summary of Concrete Deck Reinforcement
118
Top Reinforced Steel Bars
Use 25mm Ø @ 200mm center to center spacing for transverse moment
Use 16mm Ø @ 250mm center to center spacing for longitudinal moment
Bottom Reinforced Steel Bars
Use 25mm Ø @ 200mm center to center spacing for transverse moment
Use 16mm Ø @ 200mm center to center spacing for longitudinal moment
119
Detailed Computation
Bridge Parameters
Girder spacing 2 m
Design Stresses
fy 415 MPa
f'c 25 MPa

t 200 mm
Ø RSB 25 mm
As 490.873852 mm²
Clear Cover 30 mm
ds 157.5 mm
dc 42.5 mm
ß1 0.85
Determination of Maximum Factored Load

WDC1 5 kN/m
WDC2 2.33835 kN/m
WDW 1.785 kN/m
MDC1 2.5 kN-m
MDC2 1.169175 kN-m
MDC3 0.8925 kN-m
MLL+IM 8.68 kN-m
Factored Moments
n1 1
b 1000 mm
Design Flexural Resistance

ф 0.9
Assume fs 415 MPa
c 11.278 mm
c/ds 0.072
fs VALID
120
фMn 27.997 kN-m
ßs 1.181
γe 0.750
ρ 0.003
n 8.511
k 0.165
j 0.945
fs 181.243 MPa
s 200 mm
(700γe/ßsfs - 2dc) 344.380514 mm
Check Limits of Reinforcement

εt 0.017
S 6666666.67 mm
fr 3.151 MPa
γ3 0.750
γ1 1.600
Mcr 25.208 kN-m
Mr 27.997 kN-m
Mcr <Mr SAFE
Summary
Use 25mm Ø @ 200mm center to center spacing for negative moment

Bridge Parameters
Girder spacing 2 m
Design Stresses
fy 415 MPa
f'c 25 MPa

t 200 mm
Ø RSB 25 mm
121
As 490.873852 mm²
Clear Cover 25 mm
ds 162.5 mm
dc 37.5 mm
ß1 0.85
Determination of Maximum Factored Load

WDC1 5 kN/m
WDC2 2.33835 kN/m
WDW 1.785 kN/m
MDC1 2.5 kN-m
MDC2 1.169175 kN-m
MDC3 0.8925 kN-m
MLL+IM 8.68 kN-m
Factored Moments
n1 1
b 1000 mm
Design for Ultimate Capacity

ф 0.9
Assume fs 415 MPa
c 11.278 mm
c/ds 0.069
fs VALID
фMn 28.914 kN-m
ßs 1.181
γe 0.750
ρ 0.003
n 8.511
k 0.162
j 0.946
fs 175.504 MPa
s 200 mm
(700γe/ßsfs - 2dc) 368.421533 mm
Check Limits of Reinforcement

122
εt 0.018
S 6666666.67 mm
fr 3.151 MPa
γ3 0.750
γ1 1.600
Mcr 25.208 kN-m
Mr 28.914 kN-m
Mcr <Mr SAFE
Summary
Use 25mm Ø @ 200mm center to center spacing for negative moment
123
APPENDIX C: DESIGN OF PRESTRESSED POST-TENSIONED CONCRETE I-GIRDER BRIDGE
Transformed Section Properties

The transformed section moment of inertia, location of centroid, and section modulus are shown in the
following table:
Properties of Transformed Girder Section
Factored Moments and Shears

loaded effect only.
Strength I : 1.25(DC) + 1.5(DW) + 1.75(LL + IM) MS 18
Fatigue I : 1.75(LL + IM) MS 18
Factored Maximum Shear and Moment for Strength I

DC 40222944.33 143049.0418
DW 6723836.328 23905.99574
LL+ML 57878923.11 142453.5578
Total 104825703.8 309408.5954
Factored Maximum Shear and Moment for Fatigue I

Fatigue I Moment Shear
LL+ML 57878923.11 142453.5578
Recommended Section
Allowable Stresses
fti 6*√f’ci 415.69 psi
fci 0.6*f’ci -2880 psi
fpy 0.85*fpu 229500 psi
fpi 0.7*fpu 188190 psi
fpe 0.9*fpi 169371 psi
fc 0.45*f’c -2700 psi
ft 6*√f’c 464.76 psi
Unfactored Moment
124
MD 4482557.552 inlb
MSD 32178355.46 inlb
ML 33073670.35 inlb
Recommended Section Modulus
St 9617.067685 in3
Sb 11536.2417 in3
Design of Prestressing Bars

Location of Prestressing Strands
ct
f̅ci fti - (fti -fci ) -922.51 psi
h
t
S
ec ̅
(fti -fci ) 5.53 in
Pi
Number of Prestressing Strands
Pi f̅ci Ac 1140740.074 lb
Ap 6.992 In2
# of tendons 28
Stresses Adequacy
fti 415.6921938 psi
fbi -2880 psi
ft -1905.758959 psi
fb 441.5623327 psi
ffb -1171.8511 psi
fti>fti OK
fci>fbi OK
fc>ft OK
ft>fb OK
ffb>0.4f’c OK
Prestress Losses and Jacking Stress

Prestress Losses
fpCR 1395.911759 Psi
fpSH 2786.313143 Psi
fR 12639.76654 Psi
Total 33619.61949 Psi
Jacking Stress
Jacking stress 221809.6195 psi
Design of Reinforcing Bars

Results of Moment Capacity
Depth of compression 5.63 in
125
Actual Factored Moment 88675275.23 lbin
Moment Capacity 104323853.2 lbin
Details of Main Reinforcing Bars
Type of bar 32mm diameter, Fy=276 MPa
Top Bars 4 bars
Bottom Bars 4 bars
Location Corners of girder
Design of Shear Reinforcement

Results of Shear Capacity
Vudp/Mu 1
Vc 185791.236 lb
Av 0.016477139 in2
Details of Shear Reinforcing Bars
Type of bar #3 U Stirrups, 0.11 in2
Spacing 3.6 in
Design of Diaphragms
Intermediate - Flexure Reinforcement
Actual Factored Moment 34.38 kN-m
Moment Capacity 45.63 kN-m
Mu<0.9Mn OK
Shear Reinforcement
Vu 12.63 kN
Vc 34.44 kN
Vu<0.9Vc OK, minimum reinforcement
Type of Bar 12mm bars
Spacing 500 mm
End Diaphragm
Mu 17.19 kN-m
Thickness 500mm
Depth 1600mm
Bottom End Diaphragm
pmin 0.00509
pmax 0.04972
126
Design of Pier Cap
DESIGN MOMENTS
At Mid Span 1,814.26 kN-m
Cantilever Moments 3,663.07 kN-m
DESIGN FOR BENDING OF MIDSPAN
Design Moment 1,814.26 kN-m
Span Length 6,500 mm
Depth Of Slab/Deck 300 mm
Depth Of Pier Cap 500 mm
Width Of Pier Cap 1000 mm
Cover Of Reinforcement 40.0 mm
Size Of Reinforcement 32.0 mm
Stirrup Diameter 10.0 mm
Effective Depth 434 mm
K 0.385
K' 0.156 Compression Steel Required
TENSILE REINFORCEMENT
At The Top 10 no of 32 mm bar
At The Bottom 18 no of 32 mm bar
Design For Shear
Shear Force 5,890 kN
Shear Stress 13.571 N/mm2
Concrete Shear Stress 0.913 N/mm2
Provide 12 Mm Stirrups At 175 Mm Center To Center
DESIGN FOR BENDING (CANTILEVER)
K 0.778
K' 0.156 Compression Steel Required
DESIGN FOR SHEAR
Provide 12 Mm Stirrups At 200 Mm Center To Center
127
Design of Pier
Design Load per Pier 23,835.56 kN

f'c 28 Mpa
fy 415 Mpa
Diameter of Main Bar 32 mm
Diameter of Spiral Reinforcement 12 mm
Diameter of Gross Section 1200 mm
Area of Gross Section 1130400 sq.mm
Area of Steel 20509.91 sq.mm
Limits of Reinforcement 0.01814394
No. of Reinforcing Bars 26 mm
Concrete Cover 50 mm
Core Diameter 1100 mm
Area of Core Diameter 949850 sq.mm
Area of Spiral Reinforcement 113.04 sq.mm
Ratio of Spiral Reinforcement 0.005771184
Spacing 70 mm
Use the computed Spacing
Design of Pier Footing
DESIGN FOR BENDING

Design moment 19,585.37 kn-m
Base depth, h 1,750.00 mm
Width of base, bw 3,000.00 mm
Cover to reinforcement, d' 50.0 mm
Reinforcement size, f 20.0 mm
Stirrup diameter, t 12.0 mm
Effective depth, d 1,678 mm
As 36,152 sq.mm
Apply (bottom) 69 pcs
Apply (top) 18 pcs
TRANSVERSE BENDING MOMENT
Design moment 954.870 kN-m
Span length 1,550 mm
Base depth, h 1,750.00 mm
Width of base, bw 3,000.00 mm
Cover to reinforcement, d' 50.0 mm
Reinforcement size, f 20.0 mm
Stirrup diameter, t 12.0 mm
Effective depth, d 1,678 mm
As 1,424 sq.mm
128
Apply (top) 20 pcs
135 mm centres in the transverse direction
CHECKS FOR PUNCHING SHEAR
Design shear force ,v 5,478 kN
Design shear stress, v 1.088 n/sq.mm
Apply 12 mm @ 300 mm on centers
Design of Abutment
Depth of Girder Seat [d1] 1.7 m

Thickness of wall [t] 0.7 m
Height of Retained Earth [H] 5 m
Width of wall [B] 9.6 m
Equivalent height of Earth for Live Load Surcharge [d2] 1 m
Thickness of Approach Slab [d3] 0.3 m
Length of base in back of wall [L1] 1.6 m
Length of base in wall location [L2] 1 m
Length of base at front of wall [L3] 1.2 m
Total Length of Base [D] 3.8 m
Thickness of wall at the Top [L4] 0.3 m
Thickness of Base [d4] 0.9 m
Angle between wall and Horizontal base on Earth side [θ] 90
Inclination of Earth fill side with the Horizontal [δ] = 0° 0
Angle of friction between Earth and Wall [z] 24
Coefficient of friction between Earth and wall [µ] 0.5
Unit weight of Back fill Earth [γ_b] 17 kN/m^3
Unit weight of Concrete [γ_c] 25 kN/m^3
Angle of Internal friction of backfill [φ] 48
Bearing Capacity [p] 230 kN/m^2
Concrete Grade [f_ck] 28 Mpa
Steel Grade [f_y] 415 Mpa
Live Load from vehicles [w6] 63.63211 kN/m
Permanent Load from Super Structure [w5] 142.052 kN/m
Vehicle Braking Force [F] 200 kN
Bending Moment and Shear Force Factor [Fact] 1.5
Reinf. Clear Cover [cover] 50 mm
H Distance
V(kN) H(long) MV MH(long) MH(trans)
(trans) (m)
w1 42 1.55 65.1
w2 30.75 2.05 63.0375
w3 28.5 1.9 54.15
w4 111.52 3 334.56
w5 119 1.55 184.45
129
P1 29.8987 2.1 62.7873
w8 44.64 3 133.92
P3 11.9595 2.5 29.8987
Seismic(long) 29.8593 3.3 98.5356
Seismic
23.8401 9.6 228.865
(trans)
Sum in
unloaded 376.41 71.7175 23.8401 835.2175 191.221 228.865
condition
Design Values 376.41 71.717 23.8401 835.2175 191.221 228.865
Horizontal
Break Force 10.41667 3.3 34.375
(P2)
Vehicle
Breaking 2.33918128 1.55 3.62573099
Force
Vehicle load
From 538.103 1.55 834.05965
Superstructure
Additional
Seismic Force 48.6398 5.3 257.7909
(transverse)
sum of loaded
916.852181 82.1342 72.479 1672.90288 225.596 486.655
condition
design values 916.852181 82.1342 72.479 1672.90288 225.596 486.655
STEP 3 : Check for Stability against Overturning

CASE I : Span Unloaded Condition
Overturning Moment about toe (MH1) 191.221815
Restoring Moment about toe (MV1) 835.2175
Factor of Safety against overturning 4.36779402 Safe
Location of Resultant for toe(Xo) 1.710888884
Maximum permissible Eccentricity 0.633333333
Eccentricity of Resultant (e2) 0.189111116 OK
CASE II : Span Loaded Condition
Overturning Moment about toe (MH2) 225.596815 kN-m
Restoring Moment about toe (MV2) 1672.902881 kN-m
Location of Resultant from toe (Xo) 1.578559876
STEP 4 : Check for Stresses at Base For Span Loaded Condition
Total downward forces (V2) 916.8521813
Bearing Capacity 230
Stress at base 217.1492008 OK
130
Extreme Stresses at Base 363.7338476
118.819932
STEP 5 : Check for Sliding
Longitudinal Sliding Force 82.13421667
Force resisting Sliding 458.4260906
Factor of Safety against Sliding 5.581426466 Safe
Transverse Sliding Force 72.47989632
Design of Shear Key is not Needed
STEP 6 : Reinforcement Steel Bars
Design of Base Slab at Front Toe for Steel requirements.
Thickness of Base Slab 0.9 m
Deff 850 mm
Shear Force factor 1.5
ON BASE :
Pr1 = Upward pressure at Toe 363.7338476 kN/m^2
Pr2 = Upward Pressure at a distance of effective depth from
371.45 kN/m^2
Front of wall
Pr3 = Upward Pressure at The Front Face of wall 283.698 kN/m^2
Pr4 = Upward Pressure at The Backfill Face of wall 189.132 kN/m^2
Pr5 = Upward Pressure at Heel 118.819932 kN/m^2
Dpr = downward Pressure by Self weight of Base 22.5 kN/m^2
Design Shear Force 181.17326 kN
Design Bending Moment 282.5241385 kN-m
Area of Steel required at bottom Base slab at Toe
Ast 1793.98
Provided T20 bars @ 200 mm c/c at bottom of Base Slab at Toe
Provided Provided Ast 1884.96 sq.mm
Percent of Tension Steel 0.15
Applied Shear Stress τ_v 0.261 OK
Distribution Steel 1020 sq.mm
Provide T10 @ 90 mm c/c
Steel Area Provided 942.478 sq.mm
STEP 7 : Design of Base Slab at Backfill Heel Side for Steel Reinforcement
Upward Pressure 118.819932 kN/m^2
downward Pressure 133.7 kN/m^2
Tension reinforcement steel will be required at the top
Effective Depth of Base Slab at Heel 264.66 mm
Area of Steel required at top of base slab at Heel 799.91 sq.mm
Provide T20 bars @ 200 mm c/c at Top of bar slab at Heel
Steel Area Provided 1884.96
Percentage 0.22
131
Applied Shear Stress 0.21 OK
Ast Provided 864.94 sq.mm
STEP 8 : Design of Wall Reinforcement
At the bottom of the front face of the wall
Design Shear 143.871 kN
Factored Bending Moment 2162.625 kN-m
Factored Shear Force 215.8065 kN
Effective Thickness of wall at the base 274.66 mm
Area of steel required 3166.66 sq.mm
Provide T32 bars @200 mm c/c at Top of bar slab at Heel
Distribution Steel for Temperature Reinforcements:
Area of Temperature Steel 6048 sq.mm
Use 10 mm bars 65 pcs
Provide 43 bars horizontally on the Front face @ 80 mm c/c
Provide 21 bars horizontally on the Backfill side face @ 240 mm c/c
Design of Piles
Using 800 mm bored piling rig
Pile Diameter [D] 0.8 m

Applied Load on Pile Group [P] 922.4344546 ton
Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure [K] 1.5
Factor of Safety [FS] 3
Allowable Flexural Stress in Concrete [σ_c] 11.67 N/sq.mm
Steel Grade [fy] 415 N/mm^2
Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st] 200
Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c] 2.5
Total Piles [Np] 4
Total Piles in front row [N] 2
γ_sub 0.92
FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP
Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression
116.7 kg/sq.cm
[σ_cbc]
Allowable stress in steel [σ_st] 2000 kg/sq.cm
Modular Ratio [m] = 10 10
Load Factor [F] = 1.5 1.5
Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] 20 mm
Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] 25 mm
Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] 16 mm
Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter 10 mm
Reinforcement Clear Cover 75 mm
132
Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars 150 mm
Pile Cap Length [LPC] 4800 mm
Pile Cap Width [BPC] 4800 mm
Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] 1000 mm
Pier Length [LPr] 3000 mm
Pier Width [BPr] 1200 mm
Distance [L1] 1800 mm
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION
Pile Length 14 m
Embedded Length 12 m
Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) 0.5024 m^2
(A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT OF SOIL :
SKIN FRICTION :
Borehole No. : BH:1
Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction :
For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 ton
For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 ton
For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 ton
For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 ton
For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 ton
For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 ton
For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 ton
For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 ton
For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 ton
Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) 370.6865646 ton
END BEARING
Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing :
Nc 95.7
Nq 81.3
Ny 100.4
Rus 434.7729408 ton
Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile 805.4595054 ton
Safe Load on Pile (Qus) 268.4865018 ton
(B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL :
133
Depth
Thickness of
Layers Below Surface Area Ultimate
the Layer α (deg) c (deg)
No. Scour Level (m^2) Resistance(ton)
(m)
(m)
1 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 0.813
2 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
3 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 0.70725
4 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 0.35325
5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 0.82425
6 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 0.7065
7 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
8 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 0.11775
9 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 0.27875
Total Ultimate Resistance 4.27175 ton

End Bearing 2.403984 ton
Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu 6.675734 ton
Safe Load on Pile (Quc) 2.225244667 ton
Permissible safe Load on Pile 270.7117465 ton
Applied Load on Pile 922.4344546 ton
Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group 57.6 ton
Self-weight of each Pile 10.5504 ton
Total Load on Pile = Pu 255.5590137 SAFE
STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE
Pile Diameter 800 mm
Pile Reinforcement Cover 95 mm
Cover / Pile Dia 0.11875
Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.073016861
Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10
In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide p = 0.4%, here p = 0%
Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4
Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 2009.6 sq.mm
Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20
Area of one Steel reinforcement bar 314 sq.mm
Total number of bars 7
Radius of Pile up to Rebars 325 mm
Perimeter along Rebars 2041 mm
Spacing of bars 226.7777778 mm
So, Provide Spacing 200 mm
Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties
the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm
< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm
< 300 mm
Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c
STEP 3 : DESIGN OF PILE CAP :
134
Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528
Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824
Q 18.86026676
Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 511.1180273
Moment at the Face of Pier 306.6708164
Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 21.6
Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 19.44 ton-m
Total Moment at the Face of Pier 287.2308164 ton-m
Moment per Linear metre 59.83975341 ton-m/m
Depth required 563.2756561 mm
Overall Depth Provided 1000
Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay
deff 91.25 cm
Required Steel Reinforcement 37.38029706 sq.cm/m
Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m
Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm
Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing.
Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of the Pile Cap
Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m
Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar
16 mm
Diameter
Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing
Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m
Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap
16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing
Shear Reinforcement :
Critical section at deff 912.5 mm
Reaction on Piles in Front row 511.1180273 ton
Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v 4.971147937
Percent of bottom main reinforcement 0.409647091
Minimum Shear Reinforcement 27.5 sq.cm/m
Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing

Total Piles [Np] 4
135
γ_sub 0.92
116.7 kg/sq.cm
[σ_cbc]
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Pile Length 13 m
SKIN FRICTION :
Borehole No. : BH:1
Depth
Depth up to Thickness φ δ
Layer Below Surfac γ_sub
the bottom of Sub (deg (deg P_D( P_Di
No. Scour e Area (ton/cu.m)
Layer Layer ) )
level
1 3.45 3.45 3.45 10.84 39 26 1.81 6.245 3.12
2 4.95 1.5 4.95 4.71 38.4 25.6 1.86 9.207 7.72
3 7.95 3 4.5 9.43 50 33.3 1.19 8.595 8.90
4 9.45 1.5 4.5 4.71 46.8 31.2 1.9 8.55 8.57
5 10.95 1.5 3 4.71 47.9 32 1.91 5.73 7.14
6 12.45 1.5 3 4.71 49 32.7 1.92 5.76 5.74
7 13.95 1.5 3 4.71 51.6 34.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
8 15.45 1.5 3 4.71 48.6 32.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
9 19.95 4.5 5.05 11.15 50.7 33.8 1.92 9.696 7.72
136
For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 ton
For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 ton
For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 ton
For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 ton
For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 ton
For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 ton
For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 ton
For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 ton
For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 ton
END BEARING
Nc 95.7
Nq 81.3
Ny 100.4
Rus 556.3880798 ton

Layers Thickness of Depth Below Surface Area α (deg) c (deg) Ultimate
No. the Layer Scour Level (m^2) Resistance(ton)
(m) (m)
1 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 0.813
2 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
3 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 0.70725
4 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 0.35325
5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 0.82425
6 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 0.7065
7 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
8 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 0.11775
9 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 0.27875

137
Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.074637911
Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10
< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm
< 300 mm
Q 18.86026676
deff 91.25 cm
Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of
16 mm
Diameter
138
Pile Diameter [D] 1 m

Total Piles [Np] 4
γ_sub 0.92
116.7 kg/sq.cm
[σ_cbc]
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Pile Length 12 m
139
SKIN FRICTION :
Borehole No. : BH:1
Depth
Thicknes φ
Layer Depth up to the Below Surfac δ γ_sub
s of Sub (deg P_D( P_Di
No. bottom Layer Scour e Area (deg) (ton/cu.m)
Layer )
level
1 3.45 3.45 3.45 10.84 39 26 1.81 6.245 3.12
2 4.95 1.5 4.95 4.71 38.4 25.6 1.86 9.207 7.72
3 7.95 3 4.5 9.43 50 33.3 1.19 8.595 8.90
4 9.45 1.5 4.5 4.71 46.8 31.2 1.9 8.55 8.57
5 10.95 1.5 3 4.71 47.9 32 1.91 5.73 7.14
6 12.45 1.5 3 4.71 49 32.7 1.92 5.76 5.74
7 13.95 1.5 3 4.71 51.6 34.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
8 15.45 1.5 3 4.71 48.6 32.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
9 19.95 4.5 5.05 11.15 50.7 33.8 1.92 9.696 7.72

For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 ton
For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 ton
For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 ton
For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 ton
For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 ton
For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 ton
For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 ton
For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 ton
For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 ton
END BEARING
Nc 95.7
Nq 81.3
Ny 100.4
Rus 694.465008 ton

Thickness of
Layers Depth Surface Area Ultimate
the Layer α (deg) c (deg)
No. Below (m^2) Resistance(ton)
(m)
140
Scour Level
(m)
1 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 0.813
2 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
3 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 0.70725
4 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 0.35325
5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 0.82425
6 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 0.7065
7 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
8 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 0.11775
9 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 0.27875

Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group 90 ton
Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.07635389
Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10
Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 3140 sq.mm
< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm
< 300 mm
141
Q 18.86026676
deff 91.25 cm
16 mm
Diameter

Total Piles [Np] 4
γ_sub 0.92
142
116.7 kg/sq.cm
[σ_cbc]
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Pile Length 11 m
Embedded Length 9 m
SKIN FRICTION :
Borehole No. : BH:1
Depth up to Thickness Depth γ_sub

Layer Surface φ δ
the bottom of Sub Below (ton/cu.m P_D( P_Di
No. Area (deg) (deg)
Layer Layer Scour level )
1 3.45 3.45 3.45 10.84 39 26 1.81 6.245 3.12
2 4.95 1.5 4.95 4.71 38.4 25.6 1.86 9.207 7.72
3 7.95 3 4.5 9.43 50 33.3 1.19 8.595 8.90
4 9.45 1.5 4.5 4.71 46.8 31.2 1.9 8.55 8.57
5 10.95 1.5 3 4.71 47.9 32 1.91 5.73 7.14
6 12.45 1.5 3 4.71 49 32.7 1.92 5.76 5.74
7 13.95 1.5 3 4.71 51.6 34.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
8 15.45 1.5 3 4.71 48.6 32.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
9 19.95 4.5 5.05 11.15 50.7 33.8 1.92 9.696 7.72

For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 ton
For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 ton
For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 ton
143
For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 ton
For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 ton
For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 ton
For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 ton
For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 ton
For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 ton
END BEARING
Nc 95.7
Nq 81.3
Ny 100.4
Rus 849.4576939 ton

No. the Layer (m) Scour Level (m) (m^2) Resistance(ton)
1 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 0.813
2 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
3 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 0.70725
4 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 0.35325
5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 0.82425
6 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 0.7065
7 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
8 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 0.11775
9 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 0.27875

Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.078144611
Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10
144
< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm
< 300 mm
Q 18.86026676
deff 91.25 cm
16 mm
Diameter
145

Total Piles [Np] 4
γ_sub 0.92
Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression [σ_cbc] 116.7 kg/sq.cm
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Pile Length 10 m
Embedded Length 8 m
SKIN FRICTION :
Borehole No. : BH:1
146
Layer Surface φ δ
the bottom of Sub Below (ton/c P_D( P_Di
Layer Layer Scour level u.m)
1 3.45 3.45 3.45 10.84 39 26 1.81 6.245 3.122
2 4.95 1.5 4.95 4.71 38.4 25.6 1.86 9.207 7.726
3 7.95 3 4.5 9.43 50 33.3 1.19 8.595 8.901
4 9.45 1.5 4.5 4.71 46.8 31.2 1.9 8.55 8.572
5 10.95 1.5 3 4.71 47.9 32 1.91 5.73 7.14
6 12.45 1.5 3 4.71 49 32.7 1.92 5.76 5.745
7 13.95 1.5 3 4.71 51.6 34.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
8 15.45 1.5 3 4.71 48.6 32.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
9 19.95 4.5 5.05 11.15 50.7 33.8 1.92 9.696 7.728

For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 ton
For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 ton
For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 ton
For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 ton
For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 ton
For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 ton
For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 ton
For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 ton
For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 ton
END BEARING
Nc 95.7
Nq 81.3
Ny 100.4
Rus 1021.820106 ton

Thickness of Depth Below
Layers Surface Area Ultimate
the Layer Scour Level α (deg) c (deg)
No. (m^2) Resistance(ton)
(m) (m)
1 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 0.813
2 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
3 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 0.70725
4 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 0.35325
5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 0.82425
6 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 0.7065
7 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
8 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 0.11775
147
9 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 0.27875

Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.07998989
Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10
< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm
< 300 mm
Q 18.86026676
148
deff 91.25 cm
Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar 16 mm
Diameter

Total Piles [Np] 2
γ_sub 0.92
149
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Pile Length 11 m
Embedded Length 9 m
SKIN FRICTION :
Borehole No. : BH:1
Depth up to Thicknes Depth φ γ_sub

Layer Surfac
the bottom s of Sub Below (deg δ (deg) (ton/cu.m P_D( P_Di
No. e Area
Layer Layer Scour level ) )
1 3.45 3.45 3.45 10.84 39 26 1.81 6.245 3.122
2 4.95 1.5 4.95 4.71 38.4 25.6 1.86 9.207 7.726
3 7.95 3 4.5 9.43 50 33.3 1.19 8.595 8.901
4 9.45 1.5 4.5 4.71 46.8 31.2 1.9 8.55 8.572
5 10.95 1.5 3 4.71 47.9 32 1.91 5.73 7.14
6 12.45 1.5 3 4.71 49 32.7 1.92 5.76 5.745
7 13.95 1.5 3 4.71 51.6 34.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
8 15.45 1.5 3 4.71 48.6 32.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
9 19.95 4.5 5.05 11.15 50.7 33.8 1.92 9.696 7.728

For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 ton
For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 ton
For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 ton
For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 ton
For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 ton
For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 ton
For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 ton
For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 ton
For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 ton
END BEARING
Nc 95.7
Nq 81.3
150
Ny 100.4
Rus 1212.006214 ton

1 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 0.813
2 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
3 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 0.70725
4 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 0.35325
5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 0.82425
6 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 0.7065
7 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
8 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 0.11775
9 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 0.27875

Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.148894844
Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10
151
< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm
< 300 mm
Q 18.86026676
deff 91.25 cm
Diameter

152
Total Piles [Np] 2
γ_sub 0.92
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Pile Length 10 m
Embedded Length 8 m
SKIN FRICTION :
Borehole No. : BH:1
Depth
Depth up to Thicknes γ_sub
Layer Below Surfac φ δ
the bottom s of Sub (ton/cu.m P_D( P_Di
No. Scour e Area (deg) (deg)
Layer Layer )
level
1 3.45 3.45 3.45 10.84 39 26 1.81 6.245 3.12
2 4.95 1.5 4.95 4.71 38.4 25.6 1.86 9.207 7.72
3 7.95 3 4.5 9.43 50 33.3 1.19 8.595 8.90
4 9.45 1.5 4.5 4.71 46.8 31.2 1.9 8.55 8.57
5 10.95 1.5 3 4.71 47.9 32 1.91 5.73 7.14
6 12.45 1.5 3 4.71 49 32.7 1.92 5.76 5.74
153
7 13.95 1.5 3 4.71 51.6 34.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
8 15.45 1.5 3 4.71 48.6 32.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
9 19.95 4.5 5.05 11.15 50.7 33.8 1.92 9.696 7.72

For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 ton
For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 ton
For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 ton
For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 ton
For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 ton
For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 ton
For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 ton
For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 ton
For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 ton
END BEARING
Nc 95.7
Nq 81.3
Ny 100.4
Rus 1420.469985 ton

Layers Thickness of Depth Below Surface Area Ultimate
α (deg) c (deg)
1 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 0.813
2 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
3 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 0.70725
4 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 0.35325
5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 0.82425
6 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 0.7065
7 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
8 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 0.11775
9 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 0.27875

Self weight of each Pile 23.079 ton
154
Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.150970351
Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10
< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm
< 300 mm
Q 18.86026676
deff 91.25 cm
Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar Diameter 16 mm
155

Total Piles [Np] 2
γ_sub 0.92
Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression 116.7 kg/sq.cm
[σ_cbc]
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
156
Pile Length 10 m
Embedded Length 8 m
SKIN FRICTION :
Borehole No. : BH:1
Depth up
Thickness φ γ_sub
Laye to the Depth Below Surfac
of Sub (deg δ (deg) (ton/cu.m P_D( P_Di
r No. bottom Scour level e Area
Layer ) )
Layer
1 3.45 3.45 3.45 10.84 39 26 1.81 6.245 3.122
2 4.95 1.5 4.95 4.71 38.4 25.6 1.86 9.207 7.726
3 7.95 3 4.5 9.43 50 33.3 1.19 8.595 8.901
4 9.45 1.5 4.5 4.71 46.8 31.2 1.9 8.55 8.572
5 10.95 1.5 3 4.71 47.9 32 1.91 5.73 7.14
6 12.45 1.5 3 4.71 49 32.7 1.92 5.76 5.745
7 13.95 1.5 3 4.71 51.6 34.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
8 15.45 1.5 3 4.71 48.6 32.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
9 19.95 4.5 5.05 11.15 50.7 33.8 1.92 9.696 7.728

For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 ton
For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 ton
For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 ton
For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 ton
For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 ton
For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 ton
For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 ton
For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 ton
For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 ton
END BEARING
Nc 95.7
Nq 81.3
Ny 100.4
Rus 1647.665388 ton

(m) (m)
157
1 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 0.813
2 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
3 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 0.70725
4 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 0.35325
5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 0.82425
6 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 0.7065
7 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
8 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 0.11775
9 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 0.27875

Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.153810279
Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10
Spacing of bars 471 mm
< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm
< 300 mm
Q 18.86026676
158
deff 91.25 cm
159
APPENDIX D: DESIGN OF STEEL PLATE GIRDER BRIDGE
Elastic Properties
The elastic properties of the steel section, steel section and slab and its longitudinal reinforcement for short
term and long term composite section are shown in the following tables:
Properties of Steel Section and Concrete Deck
Ai yi Aiyi yi-y N C b Ai(yi-y N C b ) ² Io yNCb 533.02 mm

Top Flange 49793.84 1011.555 50369209 478.535 11402577892 49272918.7 yNCt 533.02 mm
Web 51267.65 533.02 27326680 0 0 3072955341 I N C 25976656962 mm⁴
Bottom Flange 49793.84 54.485 2713017 -478.535 11402577892 49272918.7 S N C b 48734863.54 mm³
∑ 150855.3 80408907 22805155783 3171501179 S N C t 48734863.54 mm³
Properties of Short-Term Composite Section (n = 8)
Ai yi Aiyi yi-y S Tb Ai(yi-y S Tb ) ² Io y S Tb 690.6010824 mm

Steel Section 150855.3 533.02 80408907 -157.581 3746008963 2.5977E+10 y S Tt 375.4389176 mm
Concrete Slab 50000 1166.04 58302000 475.4389 11302108217 166666667 IS T 41191440808 mm⁴
∑ 200855.3 1.39E+08 15048117180 2.6143E+10 S S Tb 59645780.84 mm³
S S Tt 109715426.1 mm³
Properties of Long-Term Composite Section (3n = 24)
Ai yi Aiyi yi-y LTb Ai(yi-y LTb ) ² Io y LTb 595.9987948 mm

Steel Section 150855.3 533.02 80408907 -62.9788 598341801.8 2.5977E+10 y LTt 470.0412052 mm
Concrete Slab 16666.67 1166.04 19434000 570.0412 5415782926 55555555.6 I LT 32046337246 mm⁴
∑ 167522 99842907 6014124728 2.6032E+10 S LTb 53769130.95 mm³
S LTt 68177719.09 mm³
The distance of the centroid of each component from the bottom extreme fiber is denoted by y and S
represents the section modulus with respect to top and bottom part of the section.
Live Load Distribution Factors

The live load distribution factor is calculated in accordance with AASHTO Tables 4.6.2.2.2b-1 and 4.6.2.2.3a-
1. The application of live loads to the structure are assumed to either be one or two lanes or both.
One-Lane loaded
S
0.4
S
0.3
Kg 0.1
DFm = 0.06 + ( ) + ( ) + ( )
14 L 12Lt3g
S
DFv = 0.36 +
25
160
Two-Lane Loaded
S
0.6
S
0.2
Kg 0.1
DFm = 0.06 + ( ) + ( ) + ( )
9.5 L 12Lt3g
2
S S
DFv = 0.32 + -( )
12 35
where:
S = girder spacing ; Kg = longitudinal stiffness parameter
L = span length ; t = deck thickness
Live Load Distribution Factor for Strength and Service Limit State
DFm DFv
Span Length One Lane Two Lane One Lane Two Lane
28.5 m 0.431841 0.64137 0.6224 0.711537
Live Load Distribution Factor for Fatigue Limit State
DFm DFv
Span Length One Lane One Lane
28.5 m 0.431841 0.6224

loaded effect only.
Strength I : 1.25(DC) + 1.5(DW) + 1.75(DF)(LL + IM)M 13.5
Service II : 1.0(DC) + 1.0(DW) + 1.3(DF)(LL + IM) M 13.5
Fatigue I : 1.75(DF)(LL + IM) M 13.5
Moment Shear
Strength I
One Lane Two Lane One Lane Two Lane
Dc1 31.6543 kN/m 4017.37327 4017.37327 563.8418625 563.8418625
Dc2 17.375 kN/m 2205.131836 2205.131836 309.4921875 309.4921875
DW 5 kN/m 761.484375 761.484375 106.875 106.875
LL 5.74 kN/m 1019.881406 1019.881406 143.14125 143.14125
ML 3080.5565 3080.5565 286.5765 286.5765
Total 11084.42739 11084.42739 1409.9268 1409.9268
161
Factored Maximum Shear and Moment for Service II
Moment Shear
Service II
One Lane Two Lane One Lane Two Lane
Dc1 31.6543 kN/m 3213.898616 3213.898616 451.07349 451.07349
Dc2 17.375 kN/m 1764.105469 1764.105469 247.59375 247.59375
DW 5 kN/m 507.65625 507.65625 71.25 71.25
LL 5.74 kN/m 757.6261875 757.6261875 106.3335 106.3335
ML 2288.4134 2288.4134 212.8854 212.8854
Total 8531.699923 8531.699923 1089.13614 1089.13614
Factored Maximum Shear and Moment for Fatigue I
Moment Shear
Fatigue I
Positive Negative One Lane
LL 5.74 kN/m 1017.47975 976.62425 143.14125
ML 3080.5565 3013.815 286.5765
Total 4098.03625 3990.43925 429.71775
Checking for Strength Limit State

Check Section Compactness
Web Proportion d/tw ≤ 150 OK
2Dcp / tw 1.045092179
Web Slenderness Limit
3.76 (√E/Fyc) 106.7768248
OK
Plastic Moment Mp
γbar 140.5579111 mm
Mp 18690329772 Nmm
Ps = 0.85F'cbeffts 8500000 N
Pc = AfcFyc 12348872.69 N
Pw = AwFyw 12714375.96 N
Pt = AftFyt 12348872.69 N
Ps + Pc 20848872.69
Pw + Pt 25063248.65
if PNA @ top flange DISREGARD
γbar 127.5644321 mm
Mp 18984275692 Nmm
if PNA @ web
γbar 140.5579111 mm
Mp 18690329772 Nmm
For Strength I
Mu 11084427388 Nmm
Md1 4017373270 Nmm
Md2 2966616211 Nmm
Yield Moment My
162
My = Md1+Md2+Mad
My 13568497546 Nmm
MAD
Top 13391180420 Nmm
Bottom 6584508064 Nmm
Flexural Resistance
Mu < ØfMn ? OK
Mu 11084427388 Nmm
Mn 13006789918 Nmm
Dt 1266.04 mm
Dp 449.5279111 mm
0.42Dt 531.7368 mm
0.1Dt 126.604 mm
Dp ≤ 0.42Dt OK
Dp ≥ 0.1Dt OK
Checking for Fatigue Limit State

Factored +M 4098036250 Nmm
Factored -M 3990439250 Nmm
Top Flange
y(Δf) 119.232092 MPa
Bottom Flange
y(Δf) 150.5868092 MPa
Checking for Strength Limit State

For Service II
Mdc1 3213898616 Nmm
Mdc2 + Mdw 2271761719 Nmm
M(LL+IM) 3046039588 Nmm
Flange Stresses
0.95RhFyf 235.6
ff (topflange) 127.0308696 OK
ff (bottomflange) 159.2657167 OK
Checking for Constructability

Check Compression Flange
λrw 161.8691228
OK
2Dc / tw 14.02977667
Fnc 248 MPa
rt 131.7232735 mm
Lp 3740.689602 mm
0.7Fyc 173.6 MPa
Fyr 173.6
163
Lr 14045.99551 mm
Fnc 223.5666939 MPa
Fbu 82.43325166 MPa
OK
Web Bend-Buckling Resistance
k 56.87944833
Fcrw 32921.03571 MPa
248 MPa
Use Fcrw 248 MPa
OK
Check Tension Flange
Fbu 82.43325166 MPa
ØRhFyt 248 MPa
OK
Design of Shear Connectors

Dia of stud 0.875 in
Vsr 0.000577109
Zr 32313.44453 N
ΔF n 165.4742 MPa
n (# of shear conn) 3
Check for Ultimate Strength
89.01639344
n OK
65.08433104
P 8500000 N
Qr 130599.7905 N
Qn 153646.8124 N
Ec 3640 ksi
Details of Pitch
x/L Vf (N) Vsr p (mm)
1 178365.21 102.94 941.75
2 263717.10 152.19 636.95
3 234767.26 135.49 715.50
4 209626.34 120.98 801.31
5 41531.20 23.97 4044.57
6 49672.97 28.67 3381.63
7 143993.33 83.10 1166.55
8 204097.56 117.79 823.02
9 234640.91 135.41 715.88
10 272748.75 157.41 615.86
USE No. of Studs Spacing Strength
0 - 5.7 m 3 610
414
5.7 - 22.8 m 3 305
22.8 - 28.5 m 3 610 Mpa
164
Design of Transverse Stiffener
Shear Resistance
3D 3198.12 mm
do 2000 mm
k 6.420551602
D/tw 17.63507031
1.4sqrt(Ek/Fy) 85.44460645
C 0.801020408
Vp 12885073.48 N
Vcr 10321206.82 N
2Dtw/bf 1.294178478
Vn 10321934.33 N
Vu 1409926.8 N
OK
Projecting Width 90 mm
2+(D/30) 86.33466667 mm
OK
tp 12.5 mm
16tp 200 mm
bf/4 114.2375 mm
OK
USE
width 90 mm
height 848.1 mm
thickness 12.5 mm
Design of Bearing Stiffener

Design Loads
Rdc1 1142.417 kN
Rdc2 291.680 kN
Rdw 267.188 kN
Rll 357.853 kN
Rml 1345.208 kN
Total 3404.345 kN
Parameters
Flange Width 456.950 mm
Web Thickness 60.450 mm
Web Height 848.100 mm
Depth 1066.040 mm
Fys 248.000 MPa
Stiffener Details
As rqd 16149.644 mm²
B.S. Fraction 1-5/8 "
tp 41.3 mm
165
width 152.400 mm
562.623 mm
Check Projecting Width
OK
Check Bearing Resistance
Assume: 38.100 mm cope to BS
Apn 9435.465 mm²
(Rsb)r 3275.829 kN
OK
Check Axial Resistance
Stiffener Area 12580.620 mm²
Web Area 68234.752 mm²
Eff. Column Area 80815.372 mm²
I x-x 290811.279 mm⁴
rs 1223.844 mm
KD/rs 10705.571
kl/r ≤ 120 OK
Pe 579297.917 kN
Po 20040.508 kN
Pe/Po 128.575 kN
Pn 19752.422 kN
Pr 17777.180 kN
Pr > Vu OK
Bearing Stiffener-to-web Weld
tw (weld) 7.938 mm
clip 25.400 mm
Fexx 482.650 MPa
Rr 231.672 MPa
Length of weld 797.300 mm
Shear Resistance of Weld 4145.926 kN
Vr > Vu OK
Design of Cross Frame

Bottom Strut and Top Strut
Wind Load
Vwind 200 kph
Ws 0.517895903 N/mm
Wsbf 0.15928776 N/mm
Wstf 0.358608143 N/mm
Flexure Resistance
Mws 808.6342705 Nmm
fl-ws 0.000213235 MPa
fl 8.52941E-05 MPa
fl<0.6Fyf OK
166
Mu+1/3ftSxt < ØfMn OK
Forces acting on Cross Frame
Pu 1588.895409 N
Pudiagonal 2002.887213 N
Design of Top Strut = Bottom Strut
Check Limiting Slenderness Ratio
KLd/rz < 140 OK
Check Member Strength
L/rx < 80 OK
Slender Element Reduction Factor
b/t < k*SQRT(E/Fy) OK
Effective Slender Ratio
(KL/r)eff 125.1692057
Nominal Axial Compression Strength
Pe 133171.02 N
Po 266629.40 N
Pe/Po 0.50
Pn 115336.72 N
Pu 103803.05 N
Diagonals
Check Limiting Ratio
KL/rmin 53.98773006
KL/rmin < 140 OK
Connections
Bolt Diameter 20 mm
Bolt Spacing 60 mm
N 4.00 Bolts pcs
Fu 400.00 MPa
t 12.70 MPa
φs 0.80
Lc 6.00 mm
2d 40.00 mm
Rn 36576.00 N
Use: Bottom and Top Strut

Length 1.9545 m
H 90 mm
B 90 mm
t 6 mm
Ag 1057 mm²
Xc = Yc 24.05 mm
167
Ix = Iy 803000000 mm⁴
rx =ry 27.57 mm
K 1
Fy 275 MPa
Use: Diagonals
Length 1.232 mm
H 75 mm
B 75 mm
t 6 mm
Ag 1501 mm²
Xc = Yc 25.4 mm
Ix = Iy 761 mm⁴
rx =ry 22.5 mm
K 1
Fy 275 MPa
Use: Bolt Details

Bolt Diameter 20 mm
Bolt Spacing 60 mm
No. of Bolts 4 Bolts
Camber Details
Asg 110968.000 mm²
Ψ 2.229
R 784480.970 mm
∆R 0.000 mm
∆DL1/5 12.696 mm
∆DL2/5 25.393 mm
∆DL1/2 38.089 mm
∆DL3/5 25.393 mm
∆DL4/5 12.696 mm
∆ Span 1/5 4.232 mm

∆ Span 2/5 16.928 mm
∆ Span 1/2 38.089 mm
∆ Span 3/5 16.928 mm
∆ Span 4/5 4.232 mm
168
Design of Pier Cap
DESIGN MOMENTS
k 0.421
k' 0.156 COMPRESSION STEEL REQUIRED
DESIGN FOR SHEAR
Provide 12 mm stirrups at 175 mm center to center
k 0.973
DESIGN FOR SHEAR
169
Design of Pier

f'c 28 Mpa
fy 415 Mpa
Spacing 70 mm
Design For Bending

base depth, h 1,600.00 mm
width of base, bw 3,000.00 mm
cover to reinforcement, d' 50.0 mm
reinforcement size, f 20.0 mm
stirrup diameter, t 12.0 mm
effective depth, d 1,528 mm
As 34,273 sq.mm
Apply (top) 18 pcs
Transverse Bending Moment
Design Moment 954.870 kN-m
170
As 1,564 sq.mm
Apply (top) 20 pcs
135 mm centres in the transverse
direction
Design Shear Force ,V 5,478 kN
Design Shear Stress, v 1.195 N/sq.mm
Apply 12 mm @ 300 mm on centers
Design of Abutment

H H Distance MH MH
V(kN) MV
(long) (trans) (m) (long) (trans)
w1 50.75 1.55 78.6625
w2 30.75 2.05 63.0375
w3 27.75 1.85 51.3375
171
w4 104.55 2.95 308.4225
w5 119 1.55 184.45
P1 29.89875 2.1 62.78738
w8 41.85 2.95 123.4575
P3 11.9595 2.5 29.89875
Seismic(long) 29.952 3.8 113.8176
Seismic
24.309 9.6 233.3664
(trans)
Sum in
unloaded 374.65 71.81025 24.309 809.3675 206.5037 233.3664
condition
Design Values 374.65 71.81025 24.309 809.3675 206.5037 233.3664
Horizontal
Break Force 10.41667 3.8 39.58333
(P2)
Vehicle
Breaking 1.9737 1.55 3.059210526
Force
Vehicle load
From 538.103 1.55 834.05965
Superstructure
Additional
Seismic Force 48.6069 5.3 257.6166
(transverse)
sum of loaded
914.7267 82.22692 72.9159 1646.486361 246.0871 490.983
condition
design values 914.7267 82.22692 72.9159 1646.486361 246.0871 490.983

172
119.3147078
Deff 850 mm
ON BASE :
371.45 kN/m^2
Front of wall
Ast 1793.98
173
Percentage 0.22
Design of Piles

Total Piles [Np] 4
γ_sub 0.92
174
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Pile Length 11 m
Embedded Length 9 m
SKIN FRICTION :
Borehole No. : BH:1
Depth up Depth
Thickness
Layer to the Below Surface φ δ γ_sub
of Sub P_D( P_Di
No. bottom Scour Area (deg) (deg) (ton/cu.m)
Layer
Layer level
1 3.45 3.45 3.45 10.84 39 26 1.81 6.245 3.122
2 4.95 1.5 4.95 4.71 38.4 25.6 1.86 9.207 7.726
3 7.95 3 4.5 9.43 50 33.3 1.19 8.595 8.901
4 9.45 1.5 4.5 4.71 46.8 31.2 1.9 8.55 8.572
5 10.95 1.5 3 4.71 47.9 32 1.91 5.73 7.14
6 12.45 1.5 3 4.71 49 32.7 1.92 5.76 5.745
7 13.95 1.5 3 4.71 51.6 34.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
8 15.45 1.5 3 4.71 48.6 32.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
9 19.95 4.5 5.05 11.15 50.7 33.8 1.92 9.696 7.728

For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 ton
For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 ton
For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 ton
For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 ton
For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 ton
For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 ton
For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 ton
For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 ton
For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 ton
END BEARING
175
Nc 95.7
Nq 81.3
Ny 100.4
Rus 434.7729408 ton

(m) (m)
1 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 0.813
2 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
3 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 0.70725
4 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 0.35325
5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 0.82425
6 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 0.7065
7 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
8 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 0.11775
9 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 0.27875

Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.061566365
Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10
176
< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm
< 300 mm
Q 18.86026676
deff 91.25 cm

177
Total Piles [Np] 4
γ_sub 0.92
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Pile Length 11 m
Embedded Length 9 m
SKIN FRICTION :
Borehole No. : BH:1
Depth up to Thickness Depth

Layer Surface φ δ γ_sub
the bottom of Sub Below P_D( P_Di
No. Area (deg) (deg) (ton/cu.m)
Layer Layer Scour level
1 3.45 3.45 3.45 10.84 39 26 1.81 6.245 3.122
2 4.95 1.5 4.95 4.71 38.4 25.6 1.86 9.207 7.726
3 7.95 3 4.5 9.43 50 33.3 1.19 8.595 8.901
4 9.45 1.5 4.5 4.71 46.8 31.2 1.9 8.55 8.572
5 10.95 1.5 3 4.71 47.9 32 1.91 5.73 7.14
6 12.45 1.5 3 4.71 49 32.7 1.92 5.76 5.745
7 13.95 1.5 3 4.71 51.6 34.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
178
8 15.45 1.5 3 4.71 48.6 32.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
9 19.95 4.5 5.05 11.15 50.7 33.8 1.92 9.696 7.728

For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 ton
For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 ton
For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 ton
For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 ton
For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 ton
For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 ton
For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 ton
For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 ton
For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 ton
END BEARING
Nc 95.7
Nq 81.3
Ny 100.4
Rus 556.3880798 ton

Layers Thickness of Depth Surface Area α (deg) c (deg) Ultimate
No. the Layer Below (m^2) Resistance(ton)
(m) Scour Level
(m)
1 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 0.813
2 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
3 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 0.70725
4 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 0.35325
5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 0.82425
6 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 0.7065
7 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
8 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 0.11775
9 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 0.27875

179
Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.063288344
Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10
< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm
< 300 mm
Q 18.86026676
deff 91.25 cm
180

Total Piles [Np] 4
γ_sub 0.92
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
181
Pile Length 11 m
Embedded Length 9 m
SKIN FRICTION :
Borehole No. : BH:1
Depth up to Thicknes Depth γ_sub

Layer Surface φ δ
the bottom s of Sub Below (ton/cu. P_D( P_Di
Layer Layer Scour level m)
1 3.45 3.45 3.45 10.84 39 26 1.81 6.245 3.122
2 4.95 1.5 4.95 4.71 38.4 25.6 1.86 9.207 7.726
3 7.95 3 4.5 9.43 50 33.3 1.19 8.595 8.901
4 9.45 1.5 4.5 4.71 46.8 31.2 1.9 8.55 8.572
5 10.95 1.5 3 4.71 47.9 32 1.91 5.73 7.14
6 12.45 1.5 3 4.71 49 32.7 1.92 5.76 5.745
7 13.95 1.5 3 4.71 51.6 34.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
8 15.45 1.5 3 4.71 48.6 32.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
9 19.95 4.5 5.05 11.15 50.7 33.8 1.92 9.696 7.728

For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 ton
For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 ton
For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 ton
For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 ton
For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 ton
For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 ton
For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 ton
For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 ton
For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 ton
END BEARING
Nc 95.7
Nq 81.3
Ny 100.4
Rus 694.465008 ton

(m) (m)
1 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 0.813
182
2 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
3 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 0.70725
4 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 0.35325
5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 0.82425
6 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 0.7065
7 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
8 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 0.11775
9 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 0.27875

Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.065212908
Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10
< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm
< 300 mm
Q 18.86026676
183
deff 91.25 cm

Total Piles [Np] 4
γ_sub 0.92
184
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Pile Length 11 m
Embedded Length 9 m
SKIN FRICTION :
Borehole No. : BH:1
Depth up Depth
γ_sub
Layer to the Thickness of Below Surfac δ
φ (deg) (ton/cu.m P_D( P_Di
No. bottom Sub Layer Scour e Area (deg)
)
Layer level
1 3.45 3.45 3.45 10.84 39 26 1.81 6.245 3.122
2 4.95 1.5 4.95 4.71 38.4 25.6 1.86 9.207 7.726
3 7.95 3 4.5 9.43 50 33.3 1.19 8.595 8.901
4 9.45 1.5 4.5 4.71 46.8 31.2 1.9 8.55 8.572
5 10.95 1.5 3 4.71 47.9 32 1.91 5.73 7.14
6 12.45 1.5 3 4.71 49 32.7 1.92 5.76 5.745
7 13.95 1.5 3 4.71 51.6 34.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
8 15.45 1.5 3 4.71 48.6 32.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
9 19.95 4.5 5.05 11.15 50.7 33.8 1.92 9.696 7.728

For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 ton
For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 ton
For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 ton
For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 ton
For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 ton
For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 ton
For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 ton
185
For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 ton
For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 ton
END BEARING
Nc 95.7
Nq 81.3
Ny 100.4
Rus 849.4576939 ton

(m) (m)
1 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 0.813
2 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
3 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 0.70725
4 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 0.35325
5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 0.82425
6 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 0.7065
7 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
8 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 0.11775
9 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 0.27875

Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.067340058
Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10
186
< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm
< 300 mm
Q 18.86026676
deff 91.25 cm
187

Total Piles [Np] 2
γ_sub 0.92
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Pile Length 11 m
Embedded Length 9 m
SKIN FRICTION :
Borehole No. : BH:1
Depth
Depth up to Thickness γ_sub
the bottom of Sub (ton/cu.m P_D( P_Di
Layer Layer )
level
1 3.45 3.45 3.45 10.84 39 26 1.81 6.245 3.122
188
2 4.95 1.5 4.95 4.71 38.4 25.6 1.86 9.207 7.726
3 7.95 3 4.5 9.43 50 33.3 1.19 8.595 8.901
4 9.45 1.5 4.5 4.71 46.8 31.2 1.9 8.55 8.572
5 10.95 1.5 3 4.71 47.9 32 1.91 5.73 7.14
6 12.45 1.5 3 4.71 49 32.7 1.92 5.76 5.745
7 13.95 1.5 3 4.71 51.6 34.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
8 15.45 1.5 3 4.71 48.6 32.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
9 19.95 4.5 5.05 11.15 50.7 33.8 1.92 9.696 7.728

For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 ton
For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 ton
For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 ton
For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 ton
For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 ton
For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 ton
For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 ton
For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 ton
For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 ton
END BEARING
Nc 95.7
Nq 81.3
Ny 100.4
Rus 1021.820106 ton

(m) (m)
1 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 0.813
2 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
3 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 0.70725
4 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 0.35325
5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 0.82425
6 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 0.7065
7 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
8 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 0.11775
9 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 0.27875

189
Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.124753417
Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10
< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm
< 300 mm
Q 18.86026676
deff 91.25 cm
190

Total Piles [Np] 2
γ_sub 0.92
191
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Pile Length 11 m
Embedded Length 9 m
SKIN FRICTION :
Borehole No. : BH:1
Depth
Depth
up to γ_sub
Layer Thickness of Below Surfac φ δ
the (ton/cu.m P_D( P_Di
No. Sub Layer Scour e Area (deg) (deg)
bottom )
level
Layer
1 3.45 3.45 3.45 10.84 39 26 1.81 6.245 3.122
2 4.95 1.5 4.95 4.71 38.4 25.6 1.86 9.207 7.726
3 7.95 3 4.5 9.43 50 33.3 1.19 8.595 8.901
4 9.45 1.5 4.5 4.71 46.8 31.2 1.9 8.55 8.572
5 10.95 1.5 3 4.71 47.9 32 1.91 5.73 7.14
6 12.45 1.5 3 4.71 49 32.7 1.92 5.76 5.745
7 13.95 1.5 3 4.71 51.6 34.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
8 15.45 1.5 3 4.71 48.6 32.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
9 19.95 4.5 5.05 11.15 50.7 33.8 1.92 9.696 7.728

For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 ton
For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 ton
For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 ton
For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 ton
For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 ton
For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 ton
For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 ton
For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 ton
For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 ton
END BEARING
Nc 95.7
Nq 81.3
Ny 100.4
Rus 1212.006214 ton
192

(m) (m)
1 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 0.813
2 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
3 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 0.70725
4 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 0.35325
5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 0.82425
6 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 0.7065
7 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
8 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 0.11775
9 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 0.27875

Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.127285738
Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10
< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm
< 300 mm
193
Q 18.86026676
deff 91.25 cm

Total Piles [Np] 2
194
γ_sub 0.92

DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Pile Length 10 m
Embedded Length 8 m
SKIN FRICTION :
Borehole No. : BH:1
Depth
Depth up to Thickness γ_sub
Layer Below Surface φ δ
the bottom of Sub (ton/cu. P_D( P_Di
No. Scour Area (deg) (deg)
Layer Layer m)
level
1 3.45 3.45 3.45 10.84 39 26 1.81 6.245 3.122
2 4.95 1.5 4.95 4.71 38.4 25.6 1.86 9.207 7.726
3 7.95 3 4.5 9.43 50 33.3 1.19 8.595 8.901
4 9.45 1.5 4.5 4.71 46.8 31.2 1.9 8.55 8.572
5 10.95 1.5 3 4.71 47.9 32 1.91 5.73 7.14
6 12.45 1.5 3 4.71 49 32.7 1.92 5.76 5.745
7 13.95 1.5 3 4.71 51.6 34.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
8 15.45 1.5 3 4.71 48.6 32.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
9 19.95 4.5 5.05 11.15 50.7 33.8 1.92 9.696 7.728
195
For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 ton
For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 ton
For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 ton
For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 ton
For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 ton
For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 ton
For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 ton
For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 ton
For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 ton
END BEARING
Nc 95.7
Nq 81.3
Ny 100.4
Rus 1420.469985 ton

(m) (m)
1 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 0.813
2 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
3 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 0.70725
4 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 0.35325
5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 0.82425
6 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 0.7065
7 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
8 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 0.11775
9 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 0.27875

196
Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.129361245
Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10
< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm
< 300 mm
Q 18.86026676
deff 91.25 cm
197

Total Piles [Np] 2
γ_sub 0.92
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Pile Length 10 m
Embedded Length 8 m
198
SKIN FRICTION :
Borehole No. : BH:1

Layer Surfac φ δ
the bottom of Sub Below (ton/cu.m P_D( P_Di
No. e Area (deg) (deg)
1 3.45 3.45 3.45 10.84 39 26 1.81 6.245 3.122
2 4.95 1.5 4.95 4.71 38.4 25.6 1.86 9.207 7.726
3 7.95 3 4.5 9.43 50 33.3 1.19 8.595 8.901
4 9.45 1.5 4.5 4.71 46.8 31.2 1.9 8.55 8.572
5 10.95 1.5 3 4.71 47.9 32 1.91 5.73 7.14
6 12.45 1.5 3 4.71 49 32.7 1.92 5.76 5.745
7 13.95 1.5 3 4.71 51.6 34.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
8 15.45 1.5 3 4.71 48.6 32.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
9 19.95 4.5 5.05 11.15 50.7 33.8 1.92 9.696 7.728

For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 ton
For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 ton
For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 ton
For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 ton
For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 ton
For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 ton
For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 ton
For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 ton
For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 ton
END BEARING
Nc 95.7
Nq 81.3
Ny 100.4
Rus 1647.665388 ton

(m) (m)
1 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 0.813
2 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
3 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 0.70725
4 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 0.35325
199
5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 0.82425
6 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 0.7065
7 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
8 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 0.11775
9 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 0.27875

Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.132201174
Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10
< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm
< 300 mm
Q 18.86026676
200
deff 91.25 cm
201
APPENDIX E: DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE DECK GIRDER BRIDGE
Transformed Section Properties

The transformed section moment of inertia, location of centroid, and section modulus are shown in the
following table:
Properties of Transformed Girder Section

loaded effect only.
Strength I : 1.3[(DC) + 1.67(LL + IM)] MS 18

DC 675.66 117.13
LL+ML 3762.12 330.99
Total 5615.21 448.11
Flexural Reinforcement
Moment Capacity
Mu 5615.21 kN-m
Mn 6109.47 Psi
Mu<0.9Mn OK
Reinforcement Details (Midspan)
Top Bars 2-32mm Compression Bars
Bottom Bars 16-32mm Tension Bars
Reinforcement Details (Support)
Top Bars 2-32mm Bars
Bottom Bars 12-32mm Bars
ft 6*√f’c 464.76 psi
202
Shear Reinforcement
Vu 606.25 kN
Vn 673.71 kN
Vs 699.45 kN
Av 226.19 mm2
Vc 536.30 kN
Stirrups Spacing at outer third of the span 200 mm

Stirrups Spacing at middle third of the span 300 mm
Design of Diaphragms
Intermediate Diaphragm
Flexural Capacity
Mu 34.48 kN-m kN-m
Mn 40.43 kN-m kN-m
Top Bar Reinforcement 2-16mm bars
Bottom Bar Reinforcement 4-16mm bars
Shear Capacity
Vu 12.63 kN
Vc 36.12 kN
Vu<0.9Vc OK, minimum reinforcement
Type of Bar 12mm bars
Spacing 200 mm
End Diaphragm
Mu 17.19 kN-m
Bottom End Diaphragm
pmin 0.00509
pmax 0.04972
Design of Pier Cap

DESIGN MOMENTS
203
k 0.521
DESIGN FOR SHEAR
k 1.186
DESIGN FOR SHEAR
Design of Pier
f'c 28 Mpa
204
fy 415 Mpa
Diameter of Spiral
12 mm
Reinforcement
Diameter of Spiral
12 mm
Reinforcement
Spacing 65 mm

DESIGN FOR BENDING
As 31,872 sq.mm
Apply (top) 18 pcs
Transverse Bending Moment
Design Moment 954.870 kN-m
205
As 1,946 sq.mm
Apply (top) 20 pcs
Mm on centres in the
135
transverse direction
Design Shear Force ,V 5,478 kN
Design Shear Stress, v 1.487 N/sq.mm
Apply 12 mm @ 300 Mm on centres
Design of Abutment
206
H H Distance MH MH
V(kN) MV
(long) (trans) (m) (long) (trans)
w1 47.25 1.45 68.5125
w2 30.75 1.95 59.9625
w3 27 1.8 48.6
w4 104.55 2.85 297.9675
w5 119 1.45 172.55
P1 29.8987 2.1 62.78738
w8 41.85 2.85 119.2725
P3 11.9595 2.5 29.89875
Seismic(long) 29.5695 3.6 106.4502
Seismic(trans) 23.9265 9.6 229.694
Sum in
unloaded 370.4 71.4277 23.9265 766.865 199.1363 229.694
condition
Design Values 370.4 71.4277 23.9265 766.865 199.1363 229.694
Horizontal
Break Force 10.4166 3.6 37.5
(P2)
Vehicle
Breaking 2.1198830 1.45 3.07383040
Force
Vehicle load
From 538.103 1.45 780.24935
Superstructure
Additional
Seismic Force 48.6200 5.3 257.686
(transverse)
sum of loaded
910.62288 81.8444 72.5465 1550.18818 236.6363 487.380
condition
design values 910.62288 81.8444 72.5465 1550.18818 236.6363 487.380

207
102.2242573
Deff 850 mm
ON BASE :
371.45 kN/m^2
Front of wall
Ast 1793.98 sq.mm
208
Percentage 0.22
Design of Piles

Total Piles [Np] 4
γ_sub 0.92
209
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Pile Length 11 m
Embedded Length 9 m
SKIN FRICTION :
Borehole No. : BH:1
Depth
Depth up to Thicknes γ_sub
the bottom s of Sub (ton/cu.m P_D( P_Di
Layer Layer )
level
1 3.45 3.45 3.45 10.84 39 26 1.81 6.245 3.122
2 4.95 1.5 4.95 4.71 38.4 25.6 1.86 9.207 7.726
3 7.95 3 4.5 9.43 50 33.3 1.19 8.595 8.901
4 9.45 1.5 4.5 4.71 46.8 31.2 1.9 8.55 8.572
5 10.95 1.5 3 4.71 47.9 32 1.91 5.73 7.14
6 12.45 1.5 3 4.71 49 32.7 1.92 5.76 5.745
7 13.95 1.5 3 4.71 51.6 34.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
8 15.45 1.5 3 4.71 48.6 32.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
9 19.95 4.5 5.05 11.15 50.7 33.8 1.92 9.696 7.728

For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 ton
For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 ton
210
For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 ton
For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 ton
For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 ton
For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 ton
For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 ton
For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 ton
For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 ton
END BEARING
Nc 95.7
Nq 81.3
Ny 100.4
Rus 434.7729408 ton

Layers Thickness of Depth Surface Area α (deg) c (deg) Ultimate
No. the Layer Below (m^2) Resistance(ton)
(m) Scour Level
(m)
1 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 0.813
2 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
3 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 0.70725
4 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 0.35325
5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 0.82425
6 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 0.7065
7 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
8 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 0.11775
9 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 0.27875

211
Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.051849439
Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10
< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm
< 300 mm
Q 18.86026676
deff 91.25 cm
212

Total Piles [Np] 4
γ_sub 0.92
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Pile Length 11 m
Embedded Length 9 m
SKIN FRICTION :
Borehole No. : BH:1
213
Depth up to Thicknes Depth γ_sub
Layer Surface φ δ
the bottom s of Sub Below (ton/cu. P_D( P_Di
1 3.45 3.45 3.45 10.84 39 26 1.81 6.245 3.122
2 4.95 1.5 4.95 4.71 38.4 25.6 1.86 9.207 7.726
3 7.95 3 4.5 9.43 50 33.3 1.19 8.595 8.901
4 9.45 1.5 4.5 4.71 46.8 31.2 1.9 8.55 8.572
5 10.95 1.5 3 4.71 47.9 32 1.91 5.73 7.14
6 12.45 1.5 3 4.71 49 32.7 1.92 5.76 5.745
7 13.95 1.5 3 4.71 51.6 34.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
8 15.45 1.5 3 4.71 48.6 32.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
9 19.95 4.5 5.05 11.15 50.7 33.8 1.92 9.696 7.728

For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 ton
For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 ton
For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 ton
For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 ton
For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 ton
For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 ton
For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 ton
For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 ton
For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 ton
END BEARING
Nc 95.7
Nq 81.3
Ny 100.4
Rus 556.3880798 ton

(m) (m)
1 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 0.813
2 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
3 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 0.70725
4 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 0.35325
5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 0.82425
6 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 0.7065
7 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
214
8 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 0.11775
9 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 0.27875

Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.053571417
Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10
< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm
< 300 mm
Q 18.86026676
215
deff 91.25 cm

Total Piles [Np] 4
γ_sub 0.92
[σ_cbc]
216
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Pile Length 11 m
Embedded Length 9 m
SKIN FRICTION :
Borehole No. : BH:1

Layer Surface φ
the bottom of Sub Below δ (deg) (ton/cu. P_D( P_Di
No. Area (deg)
1 3.45 3.45 3.45 10.84 39 26 1.81 6.245 3.122
2 4.95 1.5 4.95 4.71 38.4 25.6 1.86 9.207 7.726
3 7.95 3 4.5 9.43 50 33.3 1.19 8.595 8.901
4 9.45 1.5 4.5 4.71 46.8 31.2 1.9 8.55 8.572
5 10.95 1.5 3 4.71 47.9 32 1.91 5.73 7.14
6 12.45 1.5 3 4.71 49 32.7 1.92 5.76 5.745
7 13.95 1.5 3 4.71 51.6 34.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
8 15.45 1.5 3 4.71 48.6 32.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
9 19.95 4.5 5.05 11.15 50.7 33.8 1.92 9.696 7.728

For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 ton
For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 ton
For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 ton
For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 ton
For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 ton
For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 ton
For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 ton
For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 ton
For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 ton
END BEARING
Nc 95.7
217
Nq 81.3
Ny 100.4
Rus 694.465008 ton

(m) (m)
1 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 0.813
2 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
3 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 0.70725
4 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 0.35325
5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 0.82425
6 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 0.7065
7 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
8 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 0.11775
9 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 0.27875

Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.055495982
Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10
218
< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm
< 300 mm
Q 18.86026676
deff 91.25 cm
Diameter

219
Total Piles [Np] 2
γ_sub 0.92
[σ_cbc]
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Pile Length 11 m
Embedded Length 9 m
SKIN FRICTION :
Borehole No. : BH:1

Layer Surface φ δ
the bottom of Sub Below (ton/cu. P_D( P_Di
1 3.45 3.45 3.45 10.84 39 26 1.81 6.245 3.12
2 4.95 1.5 4.95 4.71 38.4 25.6 1.86 9.207 7.72
3 7.95 3 4.5 9.43 50 33.3 1.19 8.595 8.90
4 9.45 1.5 4.5 4.71 46.8 31.2 1.9 8.55 8.57
220
5 10.95 1.5 3 4.71 47.9 32 1.91 5.73 7.14
6 12.45 1.5 3 4.71 49 32.7 1.92 5.76 5.74
7 13.95 1.5 3 4.71 51.6 34.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
8 15.45 1.5 3 4.71 48.6 32.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
9 19.95 4.5 5.05 11.15 50.7 33.8 1.92 9.696 7.72

For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 ton
For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 ton
For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 ton
For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 ton
For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 ton
For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 ton
For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 ton
For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 ton
For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 ton
END BEARING
Nc 95.7
Nq 81.3
Ny 100.4
Rus 849.4576939 ton

Layers Thickness of Depth Below Surface Area Ultimate
α (deg) c (deg)
1 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 0.813
2 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
3 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 0.70725
4 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 0.35325
5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 0.82425
6 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 0.7065
7 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
8 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 0.11775
9 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 0.27875

221
Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.110768399
Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10
< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm
< 300 mm
Q 18.86026676
deff 91.25 cm
222
Diameter
Using 1300mm bored piling rig

Applied Moment on Pile Group [AM] 5 ton-m
Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure [K] 1.5
Total Piles [Np] 2
γ_sub 0.92
[σ_cbc]
223
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Pile Length 11 m
Embedded Length 9 m
SKIN FRICTION :
Borehole No. : BH:1
Depth up to Thicknes Depth φ

Layer Surface δ γ_sub
the bottom s of Sub Below (deg P_D( P_Di
No. Area (deg) (ton/cu.m)
1 3.45 3.45 3.45 10.84 39 26 1.81 6.245 3.122
2 4.95 1.5 4.95 4.71 38.4 25.6 1.86 9.207 7.726
3 7.95 3 4.5 9.43 50 33.3 1.19 8.595 8.901
4 9.45 1.5 4.5 4.71 46.8 31.2 1.9 8.55 8.572
5 10.95 1.5 3 4.71 47.9 32 1.91 5.73 7.14
6 12.45 1.5 3 4.71 49 32.7 1.92 5.76 5.745
7 13.95 1.5 3 4.71 51.6 34.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
8 15.45 1.5 3 4.71 48.6 32.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
9 19.95 4.5 5.05 11.15 50.7 33.8 1.92 9.696 7.728

For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 ton
For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 ton
For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 ton
For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 ton
For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 ton
For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 ton
For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 ton
For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 ton
For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 ton
END BEARING
Nc 95.7
Nq 81.3
Ny 100.4
Rus 1212.006214 ton
224
(m) (m)
1 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 0.813
2 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
3 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 0.70725
4 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 0.35325
5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 0.82425
6 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 0.7065
7 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
8 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 0.11775
9 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 0.27875

Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.112544742
Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10
< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm
< 300 mm
225
Q 18.86026676
deff 91.25 cm
Diameter

226
Total Piles [Np] 2
γ_sub 0.92
[σ_cbc]
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Pile Length 11 m
Embedded Length 9 m
SKIN FRICTION :
Borehole No. : BH:1

Layer Surface φ δ
1 3.45 3.45 3.45 10.84 39 26 1.81 6.245 3.122
2 4.95 1.5 4.95 4.71 38.4 25.6 1.86 9.207 7.726
3 7.95 3 4.5 9.43 50 33.3 1.19 8.595 8.901
4 9.45 1.5 4.5 4.71 46.8 31.2 1.9 8.55 8.572
5 10.95 1.5 3 4.71 47.9 32 1.91 5.73 7.14
6 12.45 1.5 3 4.71 49 32.7 1.92 5.76 5.745
7 13.95 1.5 3 4.71 51.6 34.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
8 15.45 1.5 3 4.71 48.6 32.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
227
9 19.95 4.5 5.05 11.15 50.7 33.8 1.92 9.696 7.728

For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 ton
For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 ton
For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 ton
For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 ton
For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 ton
For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 ton
For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 ton
For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 ton
For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 ton
END BEARING
Nc 95.7
Nq 81.3
Ny 100.4
Rus 1420.469985 ton

Layers Thickness of the Depth Below Surface Area α c Ultimate
No. Layer (m) Scour Level (m) (m^2) (deg) (deg) Resistance(ton)
1 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 0.813
2 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
3 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 0.70725
4 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 0.35325
5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 0.82425
6 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 0.7065
7 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
8 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 0.11775
9 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 0.27875

228
Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.116501077
Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10
< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm
< 300 mm
Q 18.86026676
deff 91.25 cm
Diameter
229
Using 1500mm bored piling rig

Total Piles [Np] 2
γ_sub 0.92
[σ_cbc]
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Pile Length 11 m
230
Embedded Length 9 m
SKIN FRICTION :
Borehole No. : BH:1

Layer Surface φ δ
1 3.45 3.45 3.45 10.84 39 26 1.81 6.245 3.122
2 4.95 1.5 4.95 4.71 38.4 25.6 1.86 9.207 7.726
3 7.95 3 4.5 9.43 50 33.3 1.19 8.595 8.901
4 9.45 1.5 4.5 4.71 46.8 31.2 1.9 8.55 8.572
5 10.95 1.5 3 4.71 47.9 32 1.91 5.73 7.14
6 12.45 1.5 3 4.71 49 32.7 1.92 5.76 5.745
7 13.95 1.5 3 4.71 51.6 34.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
8 15.45 1.5 3 4.71 48.6 32.4 1.92 5.76 5.76
9 19.95 4.5 5.05 11.15 50.7 33.8 1.92 9.696 7.728

For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 ton
For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 ton
For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 ton
For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 ton
For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 ton
For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 ton
For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 ton
For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 ton
For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 ton
END BEARING
Nc 95.7
Nq 81.3
Ny 100.4
Rus 1647.665388 ton

(m) (m)
1 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 0.813
2 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
231
3 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 0.70725
4 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 0.35325
5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 0.82425
6 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 0.7065
7 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 0.2355
8 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 0.11775
9 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 0.27875

Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.12078857
Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10
< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm
< 300 mm
Q 18.86026676
232
deff 91.25 cm
Diameter
233
APPENDIX F: SCHEDULE OF BEARING PAD
Position Bearing Pad Position Bearing Pad

PSC I-Girder Bridge
A.1 TE 4a P.3 TE 4a
A.2 TA 4 P.4 TA 4
P.1 TE 4a A.3 TE 4a
P.2 TA 4 A.4 TA 4
A.1 TE 2a P.6 TE 2a
A.2 TE 2a P.7 TE 2a
A.3 TA 2 P.8 TA 2
A.4 TA 2 P.9 TA 2
A.5 TA 2 P.10 TA 2
P.1 TE 2a A.6 TE 2a
P.2 TE 2a A.7 TE 2a
P.3 TA 2 A.8 TA 2
P.4 TA 2 A.9 TA 2
P.5 TA 2 A.10 TA 2
RC Deck Girder Bridge
A.1 TE 3a P.5 TE 3a
A.2 TA 3 P.6 TA 3
P.1 TE 3a P.7 TE 3a
P.2 TA 3 P.8 TA 3
P.3 TE 3a A.3 TE 3a
P.4 TA 3 A.4 TA 3
234
APPENDIX G: COMPUTATION OF INITIAL ESTIMATE
A. Overall Cost
1. Prestressed Concrete I-Girder Bridge
Task Labor Cost Equipment Cost
Excavation ₱ 797,299.60 ₱ 956,275.60
Piling ₱ 830,336.80 ₱ 1,724,270.20
Footing ₱ 633,820.80 ₱ 580,207.35
Abutment ₱ 423,208.80 ₱ 403,301.94
Pier Column ₱ 209,008.00 ₱ 183,707.73
Pier Head ₱ 364,110.00 ₱ 296,665.45
Pier Diaphragm ₱ 364,110.00 ₱ 296,665.45
Girder ₱ 617,253.20 ₱ 632,855.94
Deck ₱ 479,861.20 ₱ 592,962.43
Shoulder & W. Surface ₱ 328,635.60 ₱ 342,640.41
Railings ₱ 172,011.20 ₱ 110,526.77
Finishing ₱ 172,011.20 ₱ 110,526.77
Total ₱ 5,391,666.40 ₱ 6,230,606.03
Material Cost
Girder ₱ 6,509,454.62
Wearing Surface ₱ 439,705.60
Deck ₱ 860,514.40
Gutter ₱ 241,911.60
Barrier ₱ 384,702.04
Diaphragm ₱ 185,179.79
Pier Head ₱ 124,275.81
Post ₱ 61,786.26
Footing ₱ 349,870.04
Pier Piles ₱ 320,004.19
Abutment ₱ 1,148,667.69
Abutment Piles ₱ 677,463.05
Intermediate Diaphragm ₱ 390,327.59
Form Lumber ₱ 28,000.00
Bolts, Nuts, And Washers ₱ 80,880.00
Tie Wire # 16 ₱ 5,600.00
Paint ₱ 12,500.00
Nails ₱ 2,580.00
Total Material Cost ₱11,823,422.68
Summary
Material Cost ₱ 11,823,422.68
Labor Cost ₱ 5,391,666.40
Equipment Cost ₱ 6,230,606.03
235
Maintenance Cost ₱ 361,500.00
Total Cost ₱ 23,807,195.11
2. Steel Plate Girder Bridge

Excavation ₱ 824,228.00 ₱ 1,244,539.20
Piling ₱ 918,504.00 ₱ 2,760,750.12
Footing ₱ 582,960.00 ₱ 531,623.71
Abutment ₱ 389,301.60 ₱ 370,912.85
Pier Column ₱ 189,408.00 ₱ 145,833.82
Pier Head ₱ 329,810.00 ₱ 230,386.11
Pier Diaphragm ₱ 329,810.00 ₱ 230,386.11
Girder ₱ 371,447.20 ₱ 456,341.65
Deck ₱ 435,761.20 ₱ 507,746.15
Railings ₱ 152,411.20 ₱ 72,652.86
Finishing ₱ 152,411.20 ₱ 72,652.86
Total ₱ 4,970,388.00 ₱ 6,900,186.53
Material Cost
Girder ₱ 6,386,800.00
Deck ₱ 860,514.40
Gutter ₱ 241,911.60
Barrier ₱ 384,702.04
Pier Head ₱ 119,325.90
Post ₱ 48,653.75
Footing ₱ 240,973.91
Pier Piles ₱ 263,721.75
Abutment ₱ 980,601.27
Cross Frame ₱ 38,551.50
Tie Wire # 16 ₱ 5,600.00
Paint ₱ 12,500.00
Nails ₱ 2,580.00
Total Material Cost ₱ 10,405,075.05
Summary
Labor Cost ₱ 4,970,388.00
Total Cost ₱ 22,555,076.78
236
3. RC Deck Girder Bridge
Excavation ₱ 933,965.10 ₱ 1,799,377.20
Piling ₱ 1,008,338.40 ₱ 3,740,798.73
Footing ₱ 761,181.70 ₱ 557,082.18
Abutment ₱ 527,938.90 ₱ 406,382.84
Pier Column ₱ 283,924.90 ₱ 153,846.55
Pier Head ₱ 451,368.80 ₱ 207,922.19
Pier Diaphragm ₱ 451,368.80 ₱ 207,922.19
Girder ₱ 885,516.30 ₱ 818,450.36
Deck ₱ 518,871.70 ₱ 475,081.88
Railings ₱ 178,549.20 ₱ 42,225.01
Finishing ₱ 182,949.20 ₱ 42,225.01
Total ₱ 6,541,550.10 ₱ 8,702,269.68
Material Cost
Girder ₱ 5,475,189.63
Deck ₱ 860,514.40
Gutter ₱ 241,911.60
Barrier ₱ 384,702.04
Pier Head ₱ 97,634.71
Post ₱ 277,643.77
Footing ₱ 254,295.54
Pier Piles ₱ 130,890.44
Abutment ₱ 772,840.80
Bolts, Nuts, And Washers ₱ -----------------
Tie Wire # 16 ₱ 5,600.00
Paint ₱ 12,500.00
Nails ₱ 2,580.00
Summary
Labor Cost ₱ 6,541,550.10
Total Cost ₱ 25,050,840.10
237
B. Duration
PSC STEEL RCDG
Task
(days) (days) (days)
Excavation 23 23 27
Piling 22 22 24
Footing 12 12 13
Abutment 8 8 9
Pier Column 4 4 5
Pier head 7 7 8
Pier diaphragm 7 7 8
Girder Fabrication 13 8 15
Deck 9 9 9
Shoulder & W. Surface 7 7 7
Railings 4 4 4
Finishing 4 4 4
Total number of days 120 115 133
C. Deflection
1. Prestressed I-Girder
Girder type: AASHTO Type 6
11
Ix: 3.0523 x 10 mm
Self-weight: 30.4867 kN/m
Deflection due to Live load: 4.767 mm
Deflection due to Moving load: 9.511 mm
Total Deflection: 14.278 mm
*Deflection due to Live Load
238
*Deflection due to Moving Load
2. Steel Plate Girder

Girder type: W 36 x 848
10
Ix: 2.8056 x 10 mm

239
3. RC Girder
Girder type: 1.6 x 0.5 m
11
Ix: 3.88 x 10 mm
Deflection due to Dead load: 40.922 mm

*Deflection due to Dead Load
240
D. Maintenance Cost

Description Cost
Concrete Sealant Cost Php 161,500.00
Others PSC Cleaning Materials Php 82,325.00
Labor and Equipment Cost Php 117,675.00
Total Cost Php 361,500.00

Description Cost
Air Drying Paint Php 37,200.00
Primer Php 18,727.20
Sand shot Php 23,500.00
Other Steel Cleaning Materials Php 140,169.44
241
Description Cost
Concrete Sealant Cost Php 85,500.00
Others RCDG Cleaning Materials Php 91,750.00
242
APPENDIX H: COMPUTATION OF FINAL ESTIMATE
A. Overall Cost
The following cost is based on summary sheet of unit price rate of Department of Public Works and
Highways and the construction rental rates based ACEL equipment guidebook.

Excavation ₱ 600,319.20 ₱ 2,125,980.48
Piling ₱ 661,096.16 ₱ 1,816,179.84
Footing ₱ 462,755.36 ₱ 612,240.96
Abutment ₱ 330,917.60 ₱ 454,511.60
Pier Column ₱ 159,901.36 ₱ 153,135.84
Pier Head ₱ 254,677.76 ₱ 220,849.04
Pier Diaphragm ₱ 275,477.76 ₱ 220,849.04
Girder ₱ 496,346.52 ₱ 434,008.72
Deck ₱ 554,775.62 ₱ 844,986.08
Railings ₱ 174,299.50 ₱ 96,288.00
Finishing ₱ 174,299.50 ₱ 96,288.00
Total ₱ 4,437,737.22 ₱ 7,474,833.28
Material Cost
Girder ₱ 6,169,422.93
Deck ₱ 720,396.21
Gutter ₱ 205,386.00
Barrier ₱ 369,707.32
Pier Head ₱ 137,537.12
Post ₱ 67,771.44
Footing ₱ 270,281.28
Pier Piles ₱ 465,958.84
Abutment ₱ 1,384,868.33
Free Bearing Pad ₱ 69,363.00
Guided Bearing Pad ₱ 141,616.12
Tie Wire # 16 ₱ 5,600.00
Paint ₱ 12,500.00
Nails ₱ 2,580.00
243
Summary
Material ₱ 11,610,595.30
Labor ₱ 4,437,737.22
Equipment ₱ 7,474,833.28
Maintenance ₱ 330,600.00
Total ₱ 23,853,765.80

Excavation ₱ 600,319.20 ₱ 2,125,980.48
Piling ₱ 661,096.16 ₱ 1,816,179.84
Footing ₱ 470,035.36 ₱ 540,672.96
Abutment ₱ 336,117.60 ₱ 403,391.60
Pier Column ₱ 162,501.36 ₱ 127,575.84
Pier Head ₱ 258,837.76 ₱ 179,953.04
Pier Diaphragm ₱ 279,637.76 ₱ 179,953.04
Girder ₱ 232,041.76 ₱ 414,805.52
Deck ₱ 562,575.62 ₱ 768,306.08
Railings ₱ 179,499.50 ₱ 70,728.00
Finishing ₱ 179,499.50 ₱ 70,728.00
Total ₱ 4,219,192.46 ₱ 7,056,894.08
Material Cost
Girder ₱ 7,454,331.00
Deck ₱ 720,396.21
Gutter ₱ 205,386.00
Barrier ₱ 369,707.32
Intermediate Cross Frame ₱ 154,834.04
Pier Head ₱ 74,996.16
Post ₱ 45,508.40
Footing ₱ 320,490.00
Pier Piles ₱ 228,205.40
Abutment ₱ 1,267,550.96
Pier Cross Frame ₱ 50,116.95
Tie Wire # 16 ₱ 5,600.00
Paint ₱ 12,500.00
Nails ₱ 2,580.00
244
Summary
Material ₱ 11,865,547.76
Labor ₱ 4,219,192.46
Equipment ₱ 7,056,894.08
Total ₱ 23,453,889.48

Excavation ₱ 831,211.20 ₱ 2,943,665.28
Piling ₱ 865,324.64 ₱ 2,384,839.36
Footing ₱ 660,776.64 ₱ 870,976.96
Abutment ₱ 331,976.16 ₱ 467,297.04
Pier Column ₱ 256,265.60 ₱ 250,131.52
Pier Head ₱ 255,207.04 ₱ 227,241.76
Pier Diaphragm ₱ 271,847.04 ₱ 227,241.76
Girder ₱ 825,052.60 ₱ 760,867.92
Deck ₱ 546,975.62 ₱ 904,650.08
Railings ₱ 158,699.50 ₱ 96,288.00
Finishing ₱ 171,699.50 ₱ 96,288.00
Total ₱ 5,442,946.42 ₱ 9,660,824.16
Material Cost
Girder ₱ 6,416,430.78
Deck ₱ 720,396.21
Gutter ₱ 205,386.00
Barrier ₱ 369,707.32
Pier Head ₱ 79,848.16
Post ₱ 54,230.08
Footing ₱ 413,232.00
Pier Piles ₱ 269,785.28
Abutment ₱ 1,324,745.84
Tie Wire # 16 ₱ 5,600.00
Paint ₱ 12,500.00
Nails ₱ 2,580.00
245
Summary
Material ₱ 6,689,432.62
Labor ₱ 5,442,946.42
Equipment ₱ 9,660,824.16
Total ₱ 22,049,853.20
B. Duration
Task PSC STEEL RCDG

Excavation 26 26 36
Piling 26 26 34
Footing 14 14 20
Abutment 10 10 10
Pier Column 5 5 8
Pier head 8 8 8
Deck 15 15 15
Railings 5 5 5
Finishing 5 5 5
Total days 144 138 179
C. Deflection
Due to Dead Loads 32.728 mm
Due to Moving Loads 12.862 mm
Due to Live Loads 4.553 mm
Total 50.143 mm (camber not included)
Actual Deflection 17.415 mm
246
2. Steel Plate Girder

Due to Dead Load 38.703 mm
Due to Moving Load 16.441 mm
Due to Live Load 5.917 mm
247
Total Load 61.061 mm (camber not included)
248
Due to Dead Loads 21.04 mm
Due to Moving Loads 10.182 mm
Due to Live Loads 3.052 mm
249
D. Maintenance
1. PSC
Concrete Sealant Cost (1800m²) = ₱ 153,000.00
Others PSC Cleaning Materials = ₱ 75,000.00
Labor and Equipment Cost = ₱ 102,600.00
Total Cost = ₱ 330,600.00
2. STEEL
Air Drying Paint (250kg) = ₱ 46,500.00
Primer (52 cans) = ₱ 21,848.40
Sand shot (2MT) = ₱ 47,000.00
Other Steel Cleaning Materials = ₱ 100,000.00
Total Cost = ₱ 312,255.18
3. RCDG
Concrete Sealant Cost (1200m²) = ₱ 102,000.00
Others RCDG Cleaning Materials = ₱ 75,000.00
Total Cost = ₱ 256,650.00
250
APPENDIX I: DETAILS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
A. Economic vs. Constructability

 Economic Cost
Material Labor Equipment Maintenance Total
PSC 11610595.30 4437737.22 7474833.28 330600.00 23853765.80
STEEL 11865547.76 4219192.46 7056894.08 312255.18 23453889.48
RCDG 6689432.62 5442946.42 9660824.16 256650.00 22049853.20
PSC STEEL RCDG

Task
Excavation 26 26 36
Piling 26 26 34
Footing 14 14 20
Abutment 10 10 10
Pier Column 5 5 8
Pier head 8 8 8
Deck 15 15 15
Railings 5 5 5
Finishing 5 5 5
 5% Increase in Economic Cost

PSC 11610595.30 5242103.52 7863155.27 330600.00 25046454.09
STEEL 11865547.76 5190672.00 7256262.08 312255.18 24624737.02
RCDG 6689432.62 6261072.49 9939428.16 256650.00 23146583.27
PSC STEEL RCDG

Task
Excavation 26 26 36
Piling 26 25 34
Footing 14 14 20
Abutment 10 10 10
Pier Column 5 5 8
Pier head 8 8 8
Deck 15 15 15
251
Railings 5 5 5
Finishing 5 5 5

PSC 11610595.30 5719178.832 8578768.25 330600.00 26239142.38
STEEL 11865547.76 5337409.28 8279713.68 312255.18 25794925.90
RCDG 6689432.62 6864267.69 10437363.36 256650.00 24247713.67
PSC STEEL RCDG

Task
Excavation 25 25 34
Piling 24 24 31
Footing 13 13 18
Abutment 9 9 9
Pier Column 5 5 8
Pier head 8 8 8
Deck 14 14 14
Railings 5 5 5
Finishing 5 5 5

PSC 11610595.30 6196254.15 9294381.22 330600.00 27431830.67
STEEL 11865547.76 5871511.54 8918793.68 312255.18 26968108.16
RCDG 6689432.62 7184771.04 11220996.40 256650.00 25351850.06
PSC STEEL RCDG

Task
Excavation 23 23 33
Piling 22 22 29
Footing 12 12 17
Abutment 9 9 9
Pier Column 5 5 7
Pier head 7 7 7
Deck 13 13 13
252
Railings 5 5 5
Finishing 5 5 5

PSC 11610595.30 6673329.46 10009994.20 330600.00 28624518.96
STEEL 11865547.76 6204223.54 9754337.44 312255.18 28136363.92
RCDG 6689432.62 7790406.24 11718931.60 256650.00 26455420.46
PSC STEEL RCDG

Task
Excavation 23 23 33
Piling 22 22 29
Footing 12 12 17
Abutment 9 9 9
Pier Column 5 5 7
Pier head 7 7 7
Deck 13 13 13
Railings 5 5 5
Finishing 5 5 5
D. Economic vs. Serviceability

The increase in cost for 5, 10, 15, and 20 % for the three trade-offs do not have significant effect on the actual
deflection of the girder considering that there will be no modification provided in the final design.
C. Economic vs. Sustainability

a. Prestressed Concrete I-Girder Bridge
Increase Project Cost Maintenance Years
0% ₱ 23,853,765.80 ₱ 330,600.00 1.00
5% ₱ 25,046,454.09 ₱ 1,199,270.70 3.63
10% ₱ 26,239,142.38 ₱ 2,398,541.41 7.26
15% ₱ 27,431,830.67 ₱ 3,597,812.11 10.88
20% ₱ 28,624,518.96 ₱ 4,797,082.82 14.51
b. Steel Plate Girder Bridge

0% ₱ 23,453,889.48 ₱ 312,255.18 1.00
5% ₱ 24,626,583.95 ₱ 1,172,694.47 3.76
253
10% ₱ 25,799,278.43 ₱ 2,345,388.95 7.51
15% ₱ 26,971,972.90 ₱ 3,518,083.42 11.27
20% ₱ 28,144,667.37 ₱ 4,690,777.90 15.02
c. Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder

0% ₱ 22,049,853.20 ₱ 256,650.00 1.00
5% ₱ 23,152,345.86 ₱ 1,102,492.66 4.30
10% ₱ 24,254,838.52 ₱ 2,204,985.32 8.59
15% ₱ 25,357,331.18 ₱ 3,307,477.98 12.89
20% ₱ 26,459,823.84 ₱ 4,409,970.64 17.18
254
APPENDIX J: MINUTES OF MEETING
Minutes of Meeting
Location España, Manila
Date December 17, 2017
Time 3:00 pm – 7:00 pm
Attendees  Emmanuel Manlapaz
 Genelyn Subiza
 Maricris Villanueva
 Wilson Agresor
 Ronald Miguel David (External Adviser)
Agenda:
1. Reviewing of project proposal
2. Brainstorming of design layout
3. Dividing works regarding the initial design of each trade-off
Item Assigned to Deadline Status

Agenda 1 - - Completed
Agenda 3
 Trade-off 1 Manlapaz Jan 7, 2018 Completed
 Trade- off 2 Subiza Jan 7, 2018 Completed
 Trade-off 3 Manlapaz Jan 7, 2018 Completed
 Foundation Villanueva Jan 7, 2018 Completed
 Staad Works Agresor Dec 24, 2017 Completed
255
Minutes of Meeting
Location Ermita, Manila
Date January 14, 2018
Time 3:00 pm – 6:00 pm
 Genelyn Subiza
 Wilson Agresor
Agenda:
1. Discussion on how to input moving loads to STAAD BEAVA application
- For correction of design moving loads
2. Checking of initial design of each trade-off
3. Modification of design (as applicable)
Item Assigned to
Agenda 1 Agresor Deadline
Agenda 2 -
Jan 28, 2018 Status
Agenda 3 -
 Trade-off 1 Completed
Manlapaz
 Trade- off 2 Completed
Subiza
Feb 10, 2018
 Trade-off 3 Manlapaz
Feb 10, 2018
 Foundation Villanueva Completed
Feb 10, 2018
Completed
Feb 10, 2018
Completed
Completed
256
Minutes of Meeting
Location Ermita, Manila
Date Feb 11, 2018
Time 4:00 pm – 6:00 pm
 Genelyn Subiza
 Wilson Agresor
Agenda:
1. Checking of final design of each trade-off
2. Modification of design (as applicable)
Item Assigned to Deadlines Status

Agenda 2
 Trade-off 1 Manlapaz Feb 17, 2018 Completed
 Trade- off 2 Subiza Feb 17, 2018 Completed
 Trade-off 3 Manlapaz Feb 17, 2018 Completed
 Foundation Villanueva Feb 17, 2018 Completed
257
APPENDIX K: CURRICULUM VITAE
EMMANUEL TAN MANLAPAZ JR.

CIVIL ENGINEERING
Address: Block 7, Lot 8, Katiyagaan Road, Karangalan Village, Pasig City

E-mail Address: emmanlapazjr@yahoo.com
Contact No.: 09156148756
I. PERSONAL INFORMATION
Date of Birth: November 5, 1996

Age: 21
Gender: Male
Nationality: Filipino
Religion: Roman Catholic
II. EDUCATION
Tertiary Technological Institute of the Philippines

Quezon City Campus (TIP–QC)
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
2013–present
III. ORGANIZATIONS
 Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers (PICE)

TIP–QC Student Chapter
Member, 2015–present
 American Concrete Institute (ACI)

IV. SEMINARS AND TRAININGS ATTENDED
 2nd Philippine Engineering Student Congress

Technological Institute of the Philippines QC
258
Mar 10, 2017
 1st Philippine Engineering Student Congress

Mar 08, 2016
V. REFERENCES
Engr. Niño Pozon Arch. Kimberly Romualdo

Site Operations Engineer Site Architect
DDT Konstract, Inc. kimromualdo@gmail.com
nino23ph@yahoo.com
09087955134
259
GENELYN BANGAY SUBIZA
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Address: 415 Del Rosario Compound, Talipapa, Novaliches, Quezon City

E-mail Address: subizagenelyn@gmail.com
Contact No.: 0926-533-0548
Date of Birth: July 31, 1997

Age: 20
Gender: Female
II. EDUCATION

2013–present
III. ORGANIZATIONS
 TIP-QC Department Student Council

Civil Engineering Department
Auditor, 2016-2017


 Inhinyera TIPQC
Project Extension Service Committee Vice-Chair, 2015–2016
Auditor, 2016-2017
260
IV. ACADEMIC AWARDS
1st place, English Day Speech Choir Competition (2014)

2nd place, English Day Essay Writing Contest (2014)
3rd place, PE Day Cheer Dance Competition (2013)
2nd place, Freshmen Day Creative Dance Competition (2013)
3rd place, English Day Spelling Bee (2013)
Hon. Marivic Co-Pilar Scholarship Grantee (2014–present)
V. SEMINARS AND TRAININGS ATTENDED

Mar 10, 2017
 National Civil Engineering Symposium 2016

University of the Philippines Diliman
Sep 15, 2016

Mar 08, 2016
VI. REFERENCES
Engr. Fatima Jade C. Ang Arch. Robert Valera

Drainage Design Engineer Free Lancer Architect
Arcadis Manila GEC robertvalera74@gmail.com
fatimajadeang@yahoo.com 09286964596
09175006524
261
MARICRIS REAZO VILLANUEVA
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Address: 14 Potsdam St., Silangan, Cubao, Quezon City

E-mail Address: mhriecriszvillanueva@yahoo.com
Contact No.: 09461108637
Date of Birth: July 28, 1997

Age: 20
Gender: Female
II. EDUCATION

2015–present
Rizal Technological University

Boni Campus
2013–2015
III. ORGANIZATIONS


262
IV. SEMINARS AND TRAININGS ATTENDED

Mar 10, 2017
V. REFERENCES
Engr. Noel M. Gahoz Engr. Lorenzo Caranguian

Project Manager Department Head, Civil Engineering
Archipelago Builders Rizal Technological University
noelgahoz@yahoo.com lorenzocaraguian@yahoo.com
09303308788 09123651326
263
WILSON BALTAZAR AGRESOR
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Address: 2035 MRB Complex Phase II Brgy Commonwealth, Quezon City

E-mail Address: wilsonbaltazaragresor@gmail.com
Contact No.: 0905-701-1403
Date of Birth: June 27, 1997

Age: 20
Gender: Male
Religion: Pentecostal
II. EDUCATION

2013–present
III. ORGANIZATIONS


IV. ACADEMIC AWARDS
1st place, English Day Speech Choir Competition (2014)
V. SEMINARS AND TRAININGS ATTENDED

264
Mar 10, 2017
 National Civil Engineering Symposium 2016

University of the Philippines Diliman
Sep 15, 2016

Mar 08, 2016
VI. REFERENCES
Engr. Jem G. Eripol Engr. Billy Rudolfh Rejuso

Project Engineer Instructor
Agtekpin Eco-Bricks National University
jemeripol@gmail.com billy.rejuso@gmail.com
09057061020 09278310348
265
Reference
1 Department of Public Works and Highways Regional Office I – Materials Testing Division (2017).
Subsurface Exploration Data (Boring Log)
2Department of Public Works and Highways Central Office NCR – Waterways Division (2017). Discharge
Measurements of Bued River
3National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA). Topographic Map. Available from
Municipality Office of Rosario, La Union
4National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA). Elevation Map. Available from
Municipality Office of Rosario, La Union
5Kiamarsi, F. & Mohamed, G. (2015). Critical Success Factors for Efficient Bridge Construction [E-reader
Version]. Retrieved from publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/213286/213286.pdf
6Bridge Design Handbook (2000). [E-reader Version]. Retrieved from igs.nigc.ir/STANDS/BOOK/HB-
BRIDGE.PDF
7 Fisher Associates. (2013). Bridge Design. Retrieved from www.fisherassociates.com/article/14/
8Itoh, Y. et al. (2000). Bridge Type Selection System Incorporating Environmental Impacts [E-reader
Version]. Retrieved from users.encs.concordia.ca/~hammad/papers/J17.pdf
9 Temperature Effects on Soil Behavior in Relation to Transportation Infrastructure (2016). Retrieved from
rns.trb.org/dproject.asp?n=40671
10Dicleli, M. et al. (2010). Effect of soil–bridge interaction on the magnitude of internal forces in integral
abutment bridge components due to live load effects [E-reader Version]. Retrieved from
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S01410296090 02892
11Wibowo, H. et al. (2012). Evaluation of Vehicle-Bridge Interaction during Earthquakes [E-reder Version].
Retrieved from www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/WCEE2012_1560.pdf
12 Hydrodynamic forces on Inundated Bridge Decks (2009). [E-reader Version].
13 Vallejo, S. (2015). Evaluation of Major Bridges in Cagayan Valley, Philippines [E-reader Version].
14Bondoc, J. (2012). What’s Better: Steel or Concrete Bridge?. Retrieved from www.philstar.com/opinion/
2012-11-28/875423/what%E2%80%99s-better-steel-or-concrete-bridge
15 Retrieved from www.stressconindustries.com
16 Retrieved from www.steelconstruction.info
17 Retrieved from www.google.com/images
266
For Estimates:
Association of Carriers and Equipment Lessors (2012). ACEL Equipment Rental Guidebook
Construction Equipment Rental Rates. Retrieved from http://ppmu.bohol.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/
11/consolidatedPricing/costOfMaterial/construction_equipment.pdf
Department of Public Works and Highways (2016 November). Summary Sheet of Unit Price Rates
Ma, J. (November). Global trade. Retrieved from https://www.alibaba.com/showroom/alibaba.com.ph.html
Payscale Philippines. Retrieved from https://www.payscale.com/research/PH/Job
267

Group 3 - Capstone Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Group 3 - Capstone Design

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Group 3 - Capstone Design

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

938 Aurora Blvd, Cubao, Quezon City

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

In Partial Fulfillment for the Requirements

DESIGN OF MALICNAO BRIDGE IN BARANGAY POBLACION EAST, ROSARIO, LA UNION

Engr. Jennifer Camino

Figure 2-1. Initial Deck Layout ............................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 3-1. Prestressed Concrete I-Girder........................................................................................................ 25

Figure 4-1. Design Process ............................................................................................................................... 31

Table 3-1. Initial Estimate .................................................................................................................................. 28

Table 4-1. Unfactored Maximum Shear and Moment ...................................................................................... 32

1.1 The Project

Figure 1-1. Project Location Map

Figure 1-2. View of Malicnao River

Figure 1-4. View of Existing Bridge

Social Environmental Considerations

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Figure 1-5. Current situation of Malicnao Bridge (as of 2017)

1.3 Project Objectives

1.5 Project Scope and Limitation

1.6 Project Development

2.1 Description of the Project

2.2 Description of the Structure

Table 2-1. Proposed Dimension of Bridge

Figure 2-1. Initial Deck Layout

Figure 2-3. Elevation

Figure 2-4. Cross-Section

Table 2-2. Surface Elevation

Figure 2-5. Surface Elevation of Malicnao Bridge

2.2.2.2 Boring Data with SPT

4.95 5 7 10 17 Med. Dense Grayish Fine Sand

6.45 8 11 16 27 Dense Grayish Fine Sand

7.95 12 20 25 45 Dense Grayish Fine Sand

9.45 7 13 23 36 Dense Grayish Fine Sand

10.95 10 16 23 39 Dense Grayish Fine Sand

12.45 9 19 23 42 Dense Grayish Fine Sand

13.95 10 21 29 50 Dense Grayish Fine Sand

15.45 7 16 25 41 Dense Grayish Fine Sand

16.95 21 47 48 95 Very Dense Grayish Fine Sand

18.45 34 43 30 73 Very Dense Grayish Fine Sand

19.95 10 19 28 47 Hard Grayish Fine Sand

2.2.2.3 Discharge Measurements

Table 2-4. Hydraulic Data of Bued River2

17-May 21.0 8.01 2.951 0.368 0.518 0.222 3.280

2.2.2.4 Flood Level

Figure 2-7. Bued River Scope Boundaries

Figure 2-9. Route Considered for Determination of River Elevation

2.2.2.5 Seismic Design Criteria

2.2.2.6 Wind Load Parameter

2.2.3 Design Loadings

2.2.3.2 Vehicular Live Loading

Figure 2-10. Design Truck

HL-93 Design Tandem

Design Lane Load

Figure 2-12. Design Lane Load

Permit Design Load

Figure 2-13. Special Permitted Design Load

Placement of HL-93 Load