the project for study on improvement of bridges through disaster

Transcription

THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH)
THE PROJECT FOR STUDY
ON
IMPROVEMENT OF BRIDGES
THROUGH
DISASTER MITIGATING MEASURES
FOR LARGE SCALE EARTHQUAKES
IN
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FINAL REPORT
MAIN TEXT [2/2]
DECEMBER 2013
JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY (JICA)
CTI ENGINEERING INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD
CHODAI CO., LTD.
NIPPON KOEI CO., LTD.
EI
JR(先)
13-261(3)
Exchange Rate used in the Report is:
PHP 1.00 = JPY 2.222
US$ 1.00 = JPY 97.229 = PHP 43.756
(Average Value in August 2013, Central Bank of the Philippines)
LOCATION MAP OF STUDY BRIDGES (PACKAGE B : WITHIN METRO MANILA)
i
LOCATION MAP OF STUDY BRIDGES (PACKAGE C : OUTSIDE METRO MANILA)
ii
B01 Delpan Bridge
B02 Jones Bridge
B03 Mc Arthur Bridge
B04 Quezon Bridge
B05 Ayala Bridge
B06 Nagtahan Bridge
B07 Pandacan Bridge
B08 Lambingan Bridge
B09 Makati-Mandaluyong Bridge
Photos of Package B Bridges
iii
B10 Guadalupe Bridge
(1/2)
B11 C-5 Bridge
B12 Bambang Bridge
B13-1 Vargas Bridge (1 & 2)
B14 Rosario Bridge
B15 Marcos Bridge
B16 Marikina Bridge
B17 San Jose Bridge
Photos of Package B Bridges
iv
(2/2)
C01 Badiwan Bridge
C02 Buntun Bridge
C03 Lucban Bridge
C04 Magapit Bridge
C05 Sicsican Bridge
C06 Bamban Bridge
C07 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge
C08 Marcelo Fernan Bridge
C10 Jibatang Bridge
C09 Palanit Bridge
Photos of Package C Bridges (1/2)
v
C11 Mawo Bridge
C12 Biliran Bridge
C13 San Juanico Bridge
C14 Lilo-an Bridge
C16 2nd Magsaysay Bridge
C15 Wawa Bridge
Photos of Package C Bridges (2/2)
vi
vii
Perspective View of Lambingan Bridge
(1/2)
viii
Perspective View of Lambingan Bridge
(2/2)
ix
Perspective View of Guadalupe Bridge
x
Perspective View of Palanit Bridge
xi
Perspective View of Mawo Bridge
(1/2)
xii
Perspective View of Mawo Bridge
(2/2)
xiii
Perspective View of Wawa Bridge
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Location Map
Photos
Perspective View
Table of Contents
List of Figures & Tables
Abbreviations
Main Text
Appendices
MAIN TEXT
PART 1 GENERAL
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 1-1
1.1
Project Background .............................................................................................. 1-1
1.2
Project Objectives ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2.1
Project Purpose ............................................................................................. 1-1
1.2.2
Overall Objective of the Project .................................................................... 1-1
1.3
Project Area ......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.4
Scope of the Study ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.4.1
Package A (Seismic Design Guidelines for Bridges) ..................................... 1-1
1.4.2
Package B (Inside Metro Manila Area) ......................................................... 1-2
1.4.3
Package C (Outside Metro Manila Area) ....................................................... 1-2
1.5
Schedule of the Study ........................................................................................... 1-3
1.6
Organization of the Study ..................................................................................... 1-4
1.6.1
Joint Coordinating Committee (JCC) ............................................................ 1-4
1.6.2
Counter Part Team (CP)/Technical Working Group (TWG) .......................... 1-5
1.6.3
JICA Advisory Committee (JAC) .................................................................. 1-6
1.6.4
JICA Study Team (JST) ................................................................................ 1-7
1.7
Major Activities of the Study ............................................................................... 1-8
1.7.1
Seminar and Discussion ................................................................................ 1-8
1.7.2
Meeting ....................................................................................................... 1-15
1.7.3
Training in Japan ........................................................................................ 1-20
1.8
Reports ............................................................................................................... 1-24
xiv
CHAPTER 2 ORGANIZATIONS CONCERNED FOR SEISMIC DESIGN OF
BRIDGES ................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1
Functions of the Concerned Organizations ........................................................... 2-1
2.1.1
Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) ................................... 2-1
2.1.2
Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) ............... 2-4
2.1.3
Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP) ..................... 2-5
2.1.4
Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers (PICE)............................................... 2-7
2.1.5
Geological Society of the Philippines ............................................................ 2-9
2.2
Relationships between Concerned Organizations for Seismic Design Issues on
Bridges .............................................................................................................. 2-10
2.2.1
DPWH Seismic Design Guidelines Development ........................................ 2-10
2.2.2
ASEP Bridge Seismic Structural Code Development .................................. 2-11
2.2.3
Relationship in Functions between Organizations Concerned for Bridge
Seismic Design Issue .................................................................................. 2-12
CHAPTER 3 SEISMIC VULNERABILITIES OF BRIDGES IN THE PHILIPPINES 3-1
3.1
Natural Environment Related to Earthquakes ....................................................... 3-1
3.1.1
Geographical Characteristics ......................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2
Geological Characteristics........................................................................... 3-12
3.1.3
Hydrological Characteristics ....................................................................... 3-21
3.2
Seismic Vulnerabilities of Bridges Based on Typical Damages due to the Past
Relatively Large Earthquakes ............................................................................ 3-22
3.2.1
Outlines of the Past Relatively Large Scale Earthquakes ............................. 3-22
3.2.2
The 1990 North Luzon Earthquake,,,, ........................................................... 3-41
3.2.3
The 2012 Negros Earthquake ...................................................................... 3-53
CHAPTER 4 CURRENT INFORMATION ON EARTHQUAKE RELATED ISSUES 4-1
4.1
Existing Plans for Earthquakes Issues of Concerned Organizations ...................... 4-1
4.1.1
DPWH (Department of Public Works and Highways) ................................... 4-1
4.1.2
ASEP (Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines) ..................... 4-2
4.1.3
PHIVOLCS ................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2
Current Situations of Seismograph Observatories in the Philippines ..................... 4-5
4.2.1
Situations of Seismograph Observatories ...................................................... 4-5
4.2.2
Issues for Future ......................................................................................... 4-11
4.3
Analysis of Recorded Earthquake Ground Motions (EGM) ................................ 4-12
4.3.1
Analysis Method/Procedure and Results ..................................................... 4-12
4.3.2
Records of Earthquake Ground Motions ...................................................... 4-20
xv
PART 2 BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS (PACKAGE A)
CHAPTER 5 CHRONOLOGY OF BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 5-1
5.1
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2
AASHTO Bridge Seismic Design Evolution (USA).............................................. 5-1
5.2.1
Early Design Code Stages ............................................................................. 5-1
5.2.2
AASHO Elastic Design Approach ................................................................. 5-3
5.2.3
AASHTO Force-Based Design Approach (WSD and LFD) ........................... 5-3
5.2.4
AASHTO Force-Based Design Approach (LRFD) ........................................ 5-4
5.2.5
AASHTO LRFD Seismic Bridge Design ....................................................... 5-5
5.3
Japan Bridge Seismic Design Evolution ............................................................... 5-5
5.3.1
Early Stages of Bridge Design ...................................................................... 5-5
5.3.2
Consideration for Soil Liquefaction and Unseating Device ........................... 5-6
5.3.3
Column Ductility, Bearing Strength and Ground Motion............................... 5-6
5.4
Philippine Seismic Bridge Design Evolution ........................................................ 5-7
CHAPTER 6 COMPARISON ON BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
BETWEEN DPWH/NSCP, AASHTO AND JRA ..................................... 6-1
6.1
Purpose of Comparison ........................................................................................ 6-1
6.2
Items for Comparison ........................................................................................... 6-2
6.3
Difference in Major Items between NSCP, AASHTO and JRA ............................ 6-2
6.3.1
Principles of Seismic Design ......................................................................... 6-2
6.3.2
Seismic Performance Requirements .............................................................. 6-5
6.3.3
Design Procedures and Methods ................................................................... 6-8
6.3.4
Acceleration Response Spectra ................................................................... 6-17
6.3.5
Unseating/Fall-Down Devices ..................................................................... 6-20
6.3.6
Foundation Design ...................................................................................... 6-27
6.3.7
Judgment of Liquefaction and its Consideration in Foundation Design ....... 6-35
CHAPTER 7 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES ON CURRENT PRACTICE AND DPWH
SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR BRIDGES ........................ 7-1
7.1
General ................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2
Formulation of Policy on Seismic Performance Requirements .............................. 7-2
7.3
Necessity of Establishment of Acceleration Response Spectra based on the Local
Conditions ........................................................................................................... 7-4
7.3.1
Development Methods of Acceleration Response Spectra for the Philippines 7-4
7.3.2
Recommendations ......................................................................................... 7-7
7.4
Ground Type Classification in Bridge Seismic Design ......................................... 7-7
7.4.1
General ......................................................................................................... 7-7
xvi
7.4.2
Soil Profile Type Classification under NSCP Vol.2 (2005) ........................... 7-8
7.4.3
Site Profile Types under AASHTO LFRD 2007 ............................................ 7-8
7.4.4
Soil Profile Types under AASHTO LFRD 2012 ............................................ 7-8
7.4.5
Soil Profile Types under the Japan Road Association (JRA) ....................... 7-10
7.4.6
Comparison of Soil Profile Types ............................................................... 7-10
7.5
Issues on Seismic Response Modification Factor R ............................................ 7-13
7.5.1
AASHTO Specifications for Response Modification Factor R .................... 7-13
7.5.2
Drawback of the Force-Reduction R-Factor ................................................ 7-14
7.6
Issues on Bridge Falling Down Prevention System ............................................. 7-16
7.6.1
Specified Devices/ Functions in NSCP ........................................................ 7-17
7.6.2
Specified Devices/ Functions in AASHTO .................................................. 7-18
7.6.3
Bridge Falling Down Prevention System in JRA ......................................... 7-19
CHAPTER 8 APPROACH TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOCALIZED SEISMIC
ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR BRIDGE DESIGN ..... 8-1
8.1
Method 1 – Based on AASHTO Acceleration Response Spectra (Currently Utilized
by DPWH) ........................................................................................................... 8-1
8.1.1
Purpose of the Development ......................................................................... 8-1
8.1.2
Development Procedure/Flowchart ............................................................... 8-2
8.1.3
Conversion from Acceleration Response Spectra to Earthquake Ground
Motions ......................................................................................................... 8-4
8.1.4
Objective Soil Layer Conditions ................................................................. 8-10
8.1.5
Dynamic Analysis Methodology for Surface Soil Layers ............................ 8-16
8.1.6
Modeling of Soil Dynamic Properties ......................................................... 8-20
8.1.7
Analysis Results .......................................................................................... 8-21
8.1.8
Comparison on the Shapes of Acceleration Response Spectra between Analysis
Results and AASHTO Specifications .......................................................... 8-42
8.1.9
Development of Design Acceleration Response Spectra .............................. 8-45
8.1.10
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 8-51
8.2
Method 2 – Based on Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis ............................. 8-52
CHAPTER 9 SEISMIC HAZARD MAPS FOR DESIGN OF BRIDGES ...................... 9-1
9.1
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 9-1
9.2
Methodology and Return Periods .......................................................................... 9-4
9.3
Proposed Generalized Seismic Hazard Maps for the Design of Bridges —
Coefficients of PGA, 0.2-sec Acceleration Response and 1.0-sec Acceleration
Response ............................................................................................................. 9-6
9.4
Site Effects ......................................................................................................... 9-24
9.5
Assumptions and Limitations ............................................................................. 9-24
xvii
CHAPTER 10 OUTLINE OF DRAFT BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
(BSDS), MANUAL AND DESIGN EXAMPLES .................................... 10-1
10.1
Development of the Draft Bridge Seismic Design Specifications (BSDS) .......... 10-1
10.1.1
Background ................................................................................................. 10-1
10.1.2
Need for Revision of Current Bridge Seismic Specifications ....................... 10-2
10.1.3
Policy on the Development of Bridge Seismic Design Specifications (BSDS)10-5
10.2
Outline of the Draft Bridge Seismic Design Specifications (BSDS) .................... 10-8
10.2.1
Section 1 : Introduction ............................................................................... 10-8
10.2.2
Section 2 : Definitions and Notations ........................................................ 10-10
10.2.3
Section 3 : General Requirements ............................................................. 10-10
10.2.4
Section 4 : Analysis Requirements ............................................................ 10-18
10.2.5
Section 5 : Design Requirements ............................................................... 10-19
10.2.6
Section 6 : Effects of Seismically Unstable Ground .................................. 10-21
10.2.7
Section 7 : Requirements for Unseating Prevention System ...................... 10-23
10.2.8
Section 8 : Requirements for Seismically Isolated Bridges ........................ 10-24
10.3
Outline of the Seismic Design Calculation Example using the Bridge Seismic
Design Specifications (BSDS) ......................................................................... 10-25
10.3.1
Policy in the Development of Seismic Design Example ............................ 10-25
10.3.2
Outline of Seismic Design Example .......................................................... 10-26
10.4
Comparison between the DPWH Existing Design with the Bridge Seismic Design
Specifications (BSDS) Using the Proposed Design Acceleration Response Spectra10-37
10.4.1
Comparison Objective ............................................................................... 10-38
10.4.2
Comparison Condition .............................................................................. 10-38
10.4.3
Cases for Comparison ............................................................................... 10-39
10.4.4
Results of Comparison .............................................................................. 10-39
10.5
Policy and Outline of Example for Practical Application of Seismic Retrofit ... 10-42
10.5.1
Seismic Lessons Learned from Past Earthquakes ...................................... 10-42
10.5.2
Outline of Seismic Retrofit Schemes ......................................................... 10-43
10.5.3
Detail of Each Seismic Retrofit Scheme .................................................... 10-45
PART 3 SELECTION OF BRIDGES FOR SEISMIC CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT
(PACKAGE B AND C)
CHAPTER 11 PROCEDURES FOR SELECTION OF BRIDGES FOR OUTLINE
DESIGN
............................................................................................... 11-1
11.1
General ............................................................................................................... 11-1
11.2
Flowchart for Selection ...................................................................................... 11-1
11.3
Contents of Survey for the First and Second Screenings ..................................... 11-3
xviii
11.4
Evaluation Criteria for the First Screening ......................................................... 11-5
11.4.1
Construction Year and Applied Specification .............................................. 11-6
11.4.2
Conditions of Bridge ................................................................................... 11-6
11.4.3
Load Capacity ............................................................................................. 11-6
11.4.4
Bridge Importance ...................................................................................... 11-6
11.4.5
Seating Length ............................................................................................ 11-7
11.4.6
Fall-down Prevention Devices..................................................................... 11-7
11.4.7
Type of Bridge ............................................................................................ 11-7
11.4.8
Liquefaction Potential ................................................................................. 11-7
11.4.9
Soil Classification ....................................................................................... 11-8
11.4.10 Impact to Environment ................................................................................ 11-8
11.5
Evaluation Criteria for the Second Screening ..................................................... 11-8
11.5.1
Purpose of the Second Screening ................................................................ 11-8
11.5.2
Process of Establishment of Selection Criteria ............................................ 11-9
11.5.3
Priority Evaluation Criteria ....................................................................... 11-11
CHAPTER 12 THE FIRST SCREENING ...................................................................... 12-1
12.1
The First Screening for Package B...................................................................... 12-1
12.1.1
Results of the First Screening ...................................................................... 12-1
12.1.2
Selection of Target Bridges for the Second Screening ............................... 12-28
12.2
Results of the First Screening for Package C .................................................... 12-30
12.2.1
Results of the First Screening .................................................................... 12-30
12.2.2
Selection of Target Bridges for the Second Screening ............................... 12-55
CHAPTER 13 THE SECOND SCREENING .................................................................. 13-1
13.1
Evaluation of the Second Screening for Package B ............................................. 13-1
13.1.1
Results of the Second Screening ................................................................. 13-1
13.1.2
Comparison of Improvement Measures ..................................................... 13-17
13.2
Evaluation of the Second Screening for Package C ........................................... 13-22
13.2.1
Results of the Second Screening ............................................................... 13-22
13.2.2
Comparison of Improvement Measures ..................................................... 13-44
CHAPTER 14 RECOMMENDATION ON TARGET BRIDGES FOR THE OUTLINE
DESIGN
............................................................................................... 14-1
14.1
Prioritization of Bridges with Evaluation Criteria for the Second Screening ....... 14-1
14.2
Recommendation of Target Bridge Selection for the Outline Design ................ 14-15
14.2.1
Recommendation of Target Bridge Selection Based on the Second Screening14-15
14.2.2
Detail Comparative Study on Improvement Measure Scheme Selection for
Guadalupe Bridge & Mawo Bridge ........................................................... 14-17
xix
14.2.3
Detail Comparative Study on Improvement Measure Scheme Selection for
Mawo Bridge ............................................................................................ 14-42
PART 4 OUTLINE DESIGN OF SELECTED BRIDGES FOR SEISMIC
CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT (PACKAGE B AND C)
CHAPTER 15 DESIGN CONDITIONS FOR SELECTED BRIDGES .......................... 15-1
15.1
Introduction ........................................................................................................ 15-1
15.2
Topographic Features and Design Conditions ..................................................... 15-1
15.2.1
Methodology and Results ............................................................................ 15-1
15.2.2
Topographic Feature and Design Condition ................................................ 15-4
15.3
Geotechnical and Soil Profile Conditions ......................................................... 15-13
15.3.1
Purpose of Geological Investigation, Outlines and Work Methodology ..... 15-13
15.3.2
Results of Geotechnical Investigation inside of Metro Manila ................... 15-22
15.3.3
Results of Geotechnical Investigation outside of Metro Manila ................. 15-39
15.3.4
Reviews and Analysis on Results on Geological Investigation .................. 15-75
15.4
River and Hydrological Conditions ................................................................ 15-101
15.4.1
Package B ............................................................................................... 15-101
15.4.2
Package C ............................................................................................... 15-111
15.5
Existing Road Network and Traffic Condition ................................................ 15-127
15.5.1
National Road Network ........................................................................... 15-127
15.5.2
Road Network in Metro Manila ............................................................... 15-129
15.5.3
Road Classification of Selected Bridges .................................................. 15-130
15.5.4
Traffic Condition .................................................................................... 15-130
15.6
Results of Natural and Social Environmental Survey ...................................... 15-145
15.7
Highway Conditions and Design .................................................................... 15-155
15.7.1
Applicable Standards .............................................................................. 15-155
15.7.2
Objective Roads ...................................................................................... 15-155
15.7.3
Summary of Roads .................................................................................. 15-156
15.7.4
Design Condition .................................................................................... 15-156
15.7.5
Summary of Outline Design .................................................................... 15-164
15.7.6
Pavement Design .................................................................................... 15-196
15.7.7
Drainage Facility Design ......................................................................... 15-199
15.7.8
Revetment Design ................................................................................... 15-201
15.7.9
Property of Traffic Around Guadalupe Bridge ........................................ 15-205
15.7.10 Further Verification to be Examined in the Next Phase ........................... 15-216
xx
CHAPTER 16 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT OUTLINE DESIGN OF SELECTED
BRIDGES ............................................................................................... 16-1
16.1
Design Criteria and Conditions for Bridge Replacement ..................................... 16-1
16.1.1
Design Criteria and Conditions for Bridge Replacement ............................. 16-1
16.1.2
Determination of New Bridge Types for Outline Design ............................. 16-7
16.1.3
Methodology of Seismic Analysis of New Bridge ..................................... 16-66
16.2
Outline Design of Lambingan Bridge ............................................................... 16-72
16.2.1
Design Condition ...................................................................................... 16-72
16.2.2
Outline Design of Superstructure .............................................................. 16-75
16.2.3
Seismic Design ......................................................................................... 16-81
16.2.4
Summary of Outline Design Results .......................................................... 16-93
16.3
Outline Design of Guadalupe Outer Side Bridge .............................................. 16-95
16.3.1
Design Condition ...................................................................................... 16-95
16.3.2
Outline Design of Superstructure .............................................................. 16-99
16.3.3
Seismic Design ....................................................................................... 16-103
16.3.4
Summary of Outline Design Results ........................................................ 16-123
16.4
Outline Design of Palanit Bridge .................................................................... 16-126
16.4.1
16.4.2
Outline Design of Superstructure ............................................................ 16-129
16.4.3
Seismic Design ....................................................................................... 16-131
16.4.4
16.5
Outline Design of Mawo Bridge ..................................................................... 16-146
16.5.1
16.5.2
16.5.3
Seismic Design ....................................................................................... 16-151
16.5.4
16.6
Outline Design of Wawa Bridge ..................................................................... 16-166
16.6.1
16.6.2
16.6.3
Seismic Design ....................................................................................... 16-174
16.6.4
CHAPTER 17 BRIDGE SEISMIC RETROFIT OUTLINE DESIGN OF SELECTED
BRIDGES ............................................................................................... 17-1
17.1
Design Criteria and Conditions for Bridge Retrofit Design ................................. 17-1
17.1.1
Design Criteria ............................................................................................ 17-1
17.1.2
General Conditions for Bridge Retrofit Design ........................................... 17-1
17.2
Outline Design of Lilo-an Bridge ....................................................................... 17-2
17.2.1
Structural Data of the Existing Bridge ......................................................... 17-2
xxi
17.2.2
Design Conditions ....................................................................................... 17-8
17.2.3
Seismic Capacity Verification of Existing Structures ................................ 17-14
17.2.4
Comparative Studies on Seismic Capacity Improvement Schemes ............ 17-19
17.2.5
Planning for Repair Works ........................................................................ 17-32
17.2.6
Summary of the Seismic Retrofit Planning & Repair Work ....................... 17-34
17.3
Outline Design of 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge ................................................ 17-36
17.3.1
Structural Data of the Existing Bridge ....................................................... 17-36
17.3.2
Design Conditions ..................................................................................... 17-47
17.3.3
Seismic Capacity Verification of Existing Structures ................................ 17-55
17.3.4
Comparative Studies on Seismic Capacity Improvement Schemes ............ 17-60
17.3.5
Planning for Repair Works ........................................................................ 17-76
17.3.6
Summary of Proposed Seismic Retrofit Schemes & Repair Works ............ 17-78
CHAPTER 18 CONSTRUCTION PLANNING AND COST ESTIMATE .................... 18-1
18.1
General ............................................................................................................... 18-1
18.1.1
18.2
Bridge type ................................................................................................. 18-1
Construction Planning ........................................................................................ 18-1
18.2.1
General ....................................................................................................... 18-1
18.2.2
Construction Planning of Lambingan Bridge ............................................... 18-3
18.2.3
Construction Planning of Guadalupe Bridge ............................................. 18-11
18.2.4
Construction Planning of 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge .............................. 18-21
18.2.5
Construction Planning of Palanit Bridge ................................................... 18-26
18.2.6
Construction Planning of Mawo Bridge .................................................... 18-28
18.2.7
Construction Planning of Lilo-an Bridge ................................................... 18-31
18.2.8
Construction Planning of Wawa Bridge .................................................... 18-33
18.2.9
Construction Schedule of the Project......................................................... 18-35
18.3
Cost Estimate ................................................................................................... 18-36
18.3.1
General ..................................................................................................... 18-36
CHAPTER 19 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION .................. 19-1
19.1
Traffic Analysis .................................................................................................. 19-1
19.2
Traffic Analysis of Package B ............................................................................ 19-2
19.2.1
Traffic Assignment ..................................................................................... 19-2
19.2.2
Analysis of Traffic Congestion during Bridge Improvement ....................... 19-6
19.3
Traffic Influence Analysis during Rehabilitation Works at Guadalupe Bridge .. 19-11
19.3.1
Background ............................................................................................... 19-11
19.3.2
Purpose ..................................................................................................... 19-11
19.3.3
Present Traffic Condition at Guadalupe Bridge ......................................... 19-12
19.3.4
Reappearance of the Traffic Condition around Guadalupe Bridge ............. 19-20
xxii
19.3.5
Influence of the Lane Reduction ............................................................... 19-29
19.3.6
Result of the Traffic Analysis of Guadalupe Bridge .................................. 19-46
19.4
Traffic Analysis of Package C .......................................................................... 19-48
19.4.1
19.5
Analysis of Traffic Congestion during Bridge Improvement ..................... 19-48
Economic Evaluation ........................................................................................ 19-52
19.5.1
General ..................................................................................................... 19-52
19.5.2
Basic Assumption and Condition .............................................................. 19-52
19.5.3
Economic Cost .......................................................................................... 19-53
19.5.4
Benefits ..................................................................................................... 19-53
19.5.5
Result of Economic Evaluation ................................................................. 19-61
19.5.6
Project Sensibility ..................................................................................... 19-62
CHAPTER 20 Natural and social environment assessment ........................................... 20-1
20.1
Environmental and Social Consideration ............................................................ 20-1
20.1.1
Legal Framework ........................................................................................ 20-1
20.1.2
Project Rationale ......................................................................................... 20-8
20.1.3
Brief Discussion and Assessment of Predicted Impact ................................ 20-8
20.1.4
Brief Discussion on the Proposed Mitigation Measures ............................. 20-10
20.1.5
Environmental Monitoring Plan ................................................................ 20-14
20.1.6
Stakeholder Meeting ................................................................................. 20-16
20.2
Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Framework .................................... 20-16
20.2.1
Justification of the Land Acquisition with Respect to the Bridge Repair and
Rehabilitation............................................................................................ 20-16
20.2.2
Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Framework ............................. 20-17
20.2.3
Status of settlement around the Bridge ...................................................... 20-23
20.2.4
Compensation and Entitlements ................................................................ 20-25
20.2.5
Grievance Redress System ........................................................................ 20-29
20.2.6
Implementation Framework ...................................................................... 20-30
20.2.7
Schedule ................................................................................................... 20-31
20.2.8
Cost Estimation ......................................................................................... 20-31
20.2.9
Internal and External Monitoring and Evaluation ...................................... 20-33
20.3
Others ............................................................................................................... 20-34
20.3.1
Categorization on JICA Guidelines for Environmental and Social
Considerations .......................................................................................... 20-34
PART 5 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
xxiii
CHAPTER 21 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................... 21-1
21.1
Project Outline ................................................................................................... 21-1
21.2
Implementation Schedule ................................................................................... 21-3
21.3
Project Organization ........................................................................................... 21-3
21.4
Financial Analysis and Funding .......................................................................... 21-4
CHAPTER 22 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 22-1
22.1
Proposed Bridge Seismic Design Specifications (BSDS) .................................... 22-1
22.2
Implementation of the project for seismic strengthening of bridges recommended
in the Study ....................................................................................................... 22-4
22.3
Recommendation of Improvement Project for Traffic Conditions in Traffic
Intermodal Area through Guadalupe Bridge Seismic Strengthening Project ....... 22-6
22.3.1
Present Issues on the Traffic Intermodal Area ............................................. 22-6
22.3.2
Improvement Measures ............................................................................... 22-8
22.3.3
Recommendations ..................................................................................... 22-11
xxiv
APPENDICES
VOLUME 1
SEIMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
1-A PROPOSED
DPWH
BRIDGES
SEISMIC
DESIGN
SPECIFICATIONS
(DPWH-BSDS)
1-B
DESIGN EXAMPLE (NEW BRIDGE) USING DPWH-BSDS
1-C
SEISMIC RETROFIT WORKS EXAMPLE
1-D COMPARISON OF SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
(1) COMPARISON TABLE OF BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
BETWEEN JRA AND AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
(6TH Ed., 2012)
(2) COMPARISON TABLE OF BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
BETWEEN JRA AND AASHTO GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS LRFD FOR
SEISMIC BRIDGE DESIGN (2ND Ed., 2011)
(3) COMPARISON TABLE OF BRIDGE SEISMIC SPECIFICATIONS BETWEEN
JRA AND NSCP Vol. II Bridges ASD (Allowable Stress Design), 2nd Ed., 1997
(Reprint Ed. 2005)
VOLUME 2
DEVELOPMENT OF ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA
2-A GENERALIZED ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA DEVELOPMENT BY
PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS (PSHA)
2-B
DETERMINATION OF SITE SPECIFIC DESIGN SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA
FOR SEVEN (7) BRIDGES
2-C
ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA DEVELOPMENT BASED ON AASHTO
VOLUME 3
RESULTS OF EXISTING CONDITON SURVEY
3-A GEOLOGICAL DATA (LOCATION OF BOREHOLES, BORING LOGS, AND
GEOLOGICAL PROFILES)
3-B
DETAILED RESULTS FOR FIRST SCREENING OF CANDIDATE BRIDGES
3-C
SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER MEETING
VOLUME 4
OUTLINE DESIGN
VOLUME 5
RECORDS OF SEMINAR AND MEETING/DISCUSSION
xxv
LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 2.1.1-1 DPWH History ......................................................................................... 2-1
Figure 2.1.1-2 Organization Chart of DPWH ................................................................... 2-2
Figure 2.1.2-1 PHIVOLCS History .................................................................................. 2-4
Figure 2.1.2-2 Organization Chart of PHIVOLCS ............................................................ 2-5
Figure 2.1.3-1 Organization Chart of ASEP ..................................................................... 2-6
Figure 2.1.4-1 PICE History ............................................................................................ 2-7
Figure 2.1.4-2 Organization Chart of PICE ...................................................................... 2-8
Figure 2.1.5-1 Geological Society of the Philippines History ........................................... 2-9
Figure 3.1.1-1 Geodynamic Setting of the Southeast Asia – West Pacific Domain.
(Numbers beside arrows indicate rates of plate motion in cm/yr relative to Eurasia.) 3-2
Figure 3.1.1-2 Simplified Tectonic Map of the Philippines. ............................................. 3-3
Figure 3.1.1-3 Distribution of Active Faults and Trenches in the Philippines ................... 3-4
Figure 3.1.1-4 Intensity Isoseismal Map of the Ms 7.3 Ragay Gulf Earthquake of 1973,
Showing the Elongation of the Source: Philippine Fault. .......................................... 3-6
Figure 3.1.1-5 Focal Mechanism Solutions of Major Earthquakes (>Ms 5.0) Related to the
Philippine Fault from 1964 to 1991. ......................................................................... 3-7
Figure 3.1.1-6 Diagram Explaining the Concept of Shear Partitioning ............................. 3-9
Figure 3.1.1-7 Motion Vectors in the Philippines Deduced from GPS Measurements. .... 3-10
Figure 3.1.1-8 Tsunami Hazards Map ............................................................................ 3-11
Figure 3.1.2-1 Geological Map of the Philippines .......................................................... 3-16
Figure 3.1.2-2 Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of the Philippines ................................. 3-20
Figure 3.1.3-1 Climate Map of the Philippines ............................................................... 3-21
Figure 3.2.1-1 Pacific Ring of Fire ................................................................................ 3-22
Figure 3.2.1-2 Eurasian Plate and Philippine Ocean Trench ........................................... 3-22
Figure 3.2.1-3 Active Faults and Trenches ..................................................................... 3-22
Figure 3.2.1-4 Past Earthquakes in the Philippines ........................................................ 3-23
Figure 3.2.2-1 The 16 July 1990 Luzon Earthquake Rupture .......................................... 3-41
Figure 3.2.2-2 Distribution of Seismic Intensity of Main Shock Modified Rossi-Forel
(MRF) Intensity Scale (1990) ................................................................................. 3-42
Figure 3.2.2-3 Contours of Maximum Acceleration (gal) (3Falts Planes Model, M=7.0) 3-43
Figure 3.2.2-4 Acceleration Coefficient ......................................................................... 3-45
Figure 3.2.2-5 Vega Grande Bridge Damage .................................................................. 3-46
Figure 3.2.2-6 Dupinga Bridge Damage ......................................................................... 3-46
Figure 3.2.2-7 St. Monica Bridge Damage ..................................................................... 3-47
Figure 3.2.2-8 Carmen Bridge Damage .......................................................................... 3-47
Figure 3.2.2-9 Magsaysay Bridge Damage ..................................................................... 3-48
xxvi
Figure 3.2.2-10 Calbo Bridge Damage ........................................................................... 3-48
Figure 3.2.2-11 Cupang Bridge Damage ........................................................................ 3-49
Figure 3.2.2-12 Baliling Bridge Damage ........................................................................ 3-49
Figure 3.2.2-13 Tabora Bridge Damage ......................................................................... 3-50
Figure 3.2.2-14 Manicla Bridge Damage........................................................................ 3-50
Figure 3.2.2-15 Rizal Bridge Damage ............................................................................ 3-51
Figure 3.2.2-1 The Negros Oriental Earthquake ............................................................. 3-53
Figure 4.2.1-1 Strong Motion Network (Metro manila) .................................................... 4-6
Figure 4.2.1-2 The Epicenters of Observed Earthquakes
(For example, Dec. 1999-2005,
36 earthquakes, M2.7-M6.8, depth: 1-153km) .......................................................... 4-7
Figure 4.2.1-3 Observed Peak Horizontal Accelerations (Aug. 1998-Oct. 2008) .............. 4-8
Figure 4.2.1-4 Strong Motion Network (National) ........................................................... 4-9
Figure 4.2.1-5 Strong Motion Network (Near-by MM Provinces and Davao) ................. 4-10
Figure 4.2.1-6 Strong Motion Network (National) ......................................................... 4-11
Figure 4.3.1-1 Analysis Procedure ................................................................................. 4-14
Figure 4.3.1-2 Peak Horizontal Acceleration .................................................................. 4-17
Figure 4.3.1-3 Peak Horizontal Acceleration .................................................................. 4-18
Figure 4.3.1-4 Changes in Acceleration Response Spectrum Due to the Difference in
Nonlinear Behavior of the Ground under Large and Small Earthquake Ground Motions
.............................................................................................................. 4-19
Figure 4.3.2-1 Comparison of Acceleration Spectra for Different Site Conditions and
Design Spectra (Firm gGound) ............................................................................... 4-21
Design Spectra (Moderate Firm Ground) ................................................................ 4-22
Design Spectra (Moderate Firm Ground) ................................................................ 4-23
Design Spectra (Soft Ground) ................................................................................. 4-24
Figure 5.2.1-1 Evolution of Seismic Bridge Design Specifications .................................. 5-3
Figure 5.2.2-1 1971 San Fernando Earthquake Leading to Caltrans Seismic Provision .... 5-3
Figure 5.2.3-1 1971
San
Fernando
Earthquake
Leading
to
Revision
of
Design
Specifications ........................................................................................................... 5-4
Figure 5.2.4-1 Force-based and Displacement-based AASHTO Specifications ................ 5-4
Figure 5.3.1-1 Early Stage of Japan Bridge Design .......................................................... 5-5
Figure 5.3.3-1 Column Ductility Design and Near-Field Ground Motion ......................... 5-6
Figure 7.3.1-1 A Trend on Relationship between Seismic Forces and Ground Conditions 7-5
Figure 7.3.1-2 Study Procedure for Method 1 .................................................................. 7-6
Figure 7.3.1-3 Study Procedure for Method 2 .................................................................. 7-6
xxvii
Figure 7.3.1-4 JRA Method (For Reference) .................................................................... 7-7
Figure 7.3.2-1 Flow of Establishment of Design Seismic Spectra .................................... 7-7
Figure 7.4.6-1 Comparison of Soil Profile Type Classification System .......................... 7-10
Figure 7.4.6-2 Geological Similarities/Difference among Three Countries (Philippines,
Japan, and United States of America) ...................................................................... 7-12
Figure 7.4.6-3 Tectonic Settings of Philippines, Japan, and United States of America .... 7-12
Figure 7.5.1-1 R-Factor Based on Equal Displacement Approximation .......................... 7-14
Figure 7.5.2-1 Mean Force-Reduction Factors ............................................................... 7-15
Figure 7.5.2-2 Moment-Curvature Curves of a 48” Circular Column ............................. 7-15
Figure 7.5.2-3 Moment-Curvature Relationship ............................................................. 7-16
Figure 7.6.1-1 Dimension for Minimum Supporting Length in NSCP ............................ 7-17
Figure 7.6.1-2 Longitudinal Restrainer in NSCP ............................................................ 7-18
Figure 7.6.3-1 Supporting Length in JRA ...................................................................... 7-20
Figure 7.6.3-2 Examples of Unseating Prevention Devices in JRA ................................ 7-21
Figure 7.6.3-3 Example of Transversal Displacement Restrainer in JRA ........................ 7-22
Figure 8.1.2-1 Acceleration Response Spectra Development Flowchart ........................... 8-2
Figure 8.1.2-2 Procedure (STEP1) ................................................................................... 8-3
Figure 8.1.3-1 Flowchart for Developing Earthquake Ground Motion Matching the Target
Spectrum ................................................................................................................. 8-5
Figure 8.1.3-2 Target Spectra ( AASHOTO 2007, Soil Type-Ⅰ) ...................................... 8-6
Figure 8.1.3-3 Design Spectra (AASHTO 2007) .............................................................. 8-6
Figure 8.1.3-4 Three Types of Faults ............................................................................... 8-9
Figure 8.1.4-1 Natural Periods of Ground of Interest ..................................................... 8-10
Figure 8.1.4-2 Locations of Ground of Interest .............................................................. 8-12
Figure 8.1.4-3 Soil Layer Conditions of Site (Soft Ground) ........................................... 8-13
Figure 8.1.4-4 Soil Layer Conditions of Site (Moderate Firm Ground) .......................... 8-14
Figure 8.1.4-5 Relationship between N-Value and Shear Wave Velocity ........................ 8-16
Figure 8.1.5-1 Method of analysis depend on Strain range ............................................. 8-16
Figure 8.1.5-2 Non-Linear One-Dimensional Dynamic Analysis .................................... 8-17
Figure 8.1.5-3 Damping in Soil at Initial Conditions (γ=10-6) ........................................ 8-18
Figure 8.1.5-4 Wave Propagation Method and Multi-Degree of Freedom Analysis ........ 8-19
Figure 8.1.6-1 H-D model (Hardin and Drnevich) .......................................................... 8-20
Figure 8.1.6-2 H-D Model ( Hardin and Drnevich ) ....................................................... 8-21
Figure 8.1.6-3 Relationship between Strain Dependence of Shear Modulus and γr ......... 8-21
Figure 8.1.7-1 Generation of Earthquake Ground Motion Matching the Target Spectrum8-22
Figure 8.1.7-2 Compatible to Target Spectrum (Typical Conclusion: EQ1) .................... 8-23
xxviii
Figure 8.1.7-3 Response Values and Location of Interest ............................................... 8-24
Figure 8.1.7-4 Shear Stress-Strain Hysteretic Behavior of Layers under EQ1 ................ 8-27
Figure 8.1.7-5 Shear Stress-strain Hysteretic Behavior of Layers under EQ1 ................. 8-28
Figure 8.1.7-6 Shear Stress-Strain Hysteretic Behavior of Layers under EQ13 .............. 8-29
Figure 8.1.7-7 Maximum Acceleration, Maximum Displacement, Maximum Shear Strain
and Maximum Shear Stress at Different Layers (Soft Ground, Site No.1) ............... 8-30
Figure 8.1.7-8 Maximum Acceleration, Maximum Displacement, Maximum Shear Strain
and Maximum Shear Stress at Different Layers (Moderate Firm Ground, Site No.1)8-31
Figure 8.1.7-9 Comparison of Maximum Surface Accelerations of Soft Ground and
Moderately Firm Ground and Maximum Acceleration at Outcrop Motion Defined at
Rock Outcrop at Ground Surface ............................................................................ 8-32
Figure 8.1.7-10 Comparison of Maximum Surface Acceleration of Soft Ground and
Maximum Acceleration of Outcrop Motion Defined at Rock Outcrop at Ground
Surface
............................................................................................................ 8-33
Figure 8.1.7-11 Comparison of Maximum Surface Acceleration of Moderate Firm Ground
and Maximum Acceleration of Outcrop Motion Defined at Rock Outcrop at Ground
Surface
............................................................................................................. 8-34
Figure 8.1.7-12 Estimation of Acceleration Amplification Factor .................................. 8-35
Figure 8.1.7-13 Acceleration Amplification Factor (Soft Ground).................................. 8-36
Figure 8.1.7-14 Acceleration Amplification Factor (Moderate Firm Ground) ................. 8-37
Figure 8.1.7-15 Estimation of Spectral Amplification Factor ......................................... 8-39
Figure 8.1.7-16 For Reference Only: Resonance Curves for Absolute Displacement of a
Single-Degree-of-Freedom System Excited by Sinusoidal Displacement ................ 8-40
Figure 8.1.7-17 Spectral Amplification Factor (Soft Ground) ......................................... 8-41
Figure 8.1.7-18 Spectral Amplification Factor (Moderate Firm Ground) ........................ 8-41
Figure 8.1.8-1 Response Values and Location of Interest ............................................... 8-42
Figure 8.1.8-2 Comparison on the Shapes of Acceleration Response Spectra between
Analysis Results and AASHTO Specifications (Soft Ground: Site No.1) ................ 8-43
Figure 8.1.8-3 Comparison on the Shapes of Acceleration Response Spectra between
Analysis Results and AASHTO Specifications (Moderate Firm Ground: Site No.1) 8-44
Figure 8.1.9-1 Estimation of Acceleration Spectra Response ......................................... 8-45
Figure 8.1.9-2 Roles of Site Coefficients S and S0 ......................................................... 8-46
Figure 8.1.9-3 Proposed Design Acceleration Response Spectra Based on Study Results8-47
Figure 8.1.9-4 Comparison Proposed Spectra and Design Spectra of AASHTO (2012) .. 8-50
Figure 10.2.1-1 Seismic Design Procedure Flow Chart ................................................... 10-9
Figure 10.2.3-1 Relationship between Lateral Load-Displacement Curve, Seismic
Performance Level, Earthquake Ground Motion and Operational Classification ... 10-12
Figure 10.2.3-2 Combination Examples of Members with Consideration of Plasticity or
xxix
Non-Linearity ....................................................................................................... 10-13
Figure 10.2.3-3 Seismic Hazard Maps for a 100-year Return Earthquake ..................... 10-15
Figure 10.2.3-4 Seismic Hazard Maps for a 1,000-year Return Earthquake .................. 10-16
Figure 10.2.3-5 Design Response Spectrum .................................................................. 10-17
Figure 10.2.6-1 Determination of Liquefaction Assessment Necessity .......................... 10-22
Figure 10.2.6-2 Model to Calculate Lateral Movement Forces...................................... 10-22
Figure 10.2.7-1 Mechanism of Unseating Prevention System ....................................... 10-23
Figure 10.2.7-2 Fundamental Principles of Unseating Prevention System .................... 10-24
Figure 10.3.2-1 Outline of Seismic Design Example .................................................... 10-26
Figure 10.3.2-2 Bridge Design Example Layout ........................................................... 10-28
Figure 10.3.2-3 Ground Condition for Foundation Design ............................................ 10-29
Figure 10.3.2-4 Characteristics of Soil Layer “As” ....................................................... 10-30
Figure 10.3.2-5 Acceleration Coefficients for Site ........................................................ 10-30
Figure 10.3.2-6 Design Acceleration Response Spectrum ............................................. 10-30
Figure 10.3.2-7 Pile Foundation Model and Spring Properties ...................................... 10-31
Figure 10.3.2-8 Pier Modeled as a Single-Degree-of-Freedom Vibration Unit .............. 10-32
Figure 10.3.2-9 Design Seismic Coefficients ................................................................ 10-33
Figure 10.3.2-10 Combination of Column Design Forces ............................................. 10-33
Figure 10.3.2-11 Pile Foundation Model and Pile Spring Constants ............................. 10-34
Figure 10.3.2-12 Foundation Design Forces ................................................................. 10-35
Figure 10.3.2-13 Reaction Force and Displacement at Pile Body .................................. 10-36
Figure 10.3.2-14 Pile Section Interaction Diagram ....................................................... 10-37
Figure 10.4.2-1 Pier Layout for Comparison Study ....................................................... 10-38
Figure 10.4.2-2 Design Acceleration Response Spectra (3-Cases) ................................ 10-39
Figure 10.5.1-1 Typical Structural Failures Learned from Past Earthquakes ................. 10-42
Figure 10.5.2-1 Basic Concept of Seismic Retrofit Planning ........................................ 10-43
Figure 10.5.2-2 Additional Options for Seismic Retrofit Planning ................................ 10-44
Figure 10.5.3-1 Detail of Each Seismic Retrofit Scheme .............................................. 10-45
Figure 11.2-1 Procedure of Identification of Prioritized Bridges .................................... 11-2
Figure 11.5.2-1 Process for Establishment of Priority Evaluation Criteria and Selection of
Bridges for Outline Design ................................................................................... 11-10
Figure 13.1.1-1 Current Bridge Condition of Delpan Bridge .......................................... 13-2
Figure 13.1.1-2 Location of Delpan
Bridge .................................................................. 13-4
Figure 13.1.1-3 Hourly Traffic Volume ........................................................................... 13-4
Figure 13.1.1-4 Current Bridge Condition of Nagtahan Bridge ....................................... 13-5
Figure 13.1.1-5 Location of Nagtahan Bridge ................................................................. 13-7
Figure 13.1.1-6 Hourly Traffic Volume ........................................................................... 13-7
Figure 13.1.1-7 Current Bridge Condition of Lambingan Bridge .................................... 13-8
xxx
Figure 13.1.1-8 Location of Lambingan Bridge ............................................................ 13-10
Figure 13.1.1-9 Hourly Traffic Volume ......................................................................... 13-10
Figure 13.1.1-10 Current Bridge Condition of Guadalupe Bridge ................................. 13-11
Figure 13.1.1-11 Location of
Guadalupe Bridge ........................................................ 13-13
Figure 13.1.1-12 Hourly Traffic Volume ....................................................................... 13-13
Figure 13.1.1-13 Current Bridge Condition of Marikina Bridge ................................... 13-14
Figure 13.1.1-14 Location of Marikina Bridge ............................................................. 13-16
Figure 13.2.1-1 Structural and Geological Outline of Buntun Bridge ............................ 13-23
Figure 13.2.1-2 Location of Buntun Bridge .................................................................. 13-25
Figure 13.2.1-4 Structural and Geological of 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge ................... 13-26
Figure 13.2.1-5 Location of 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge .............................................. 13-28
Figure 13.2.1-7 Structural and Geological of Palanit Bridge ......................................... 13-29
Figure 13.2.1-8 Location of Palanit Bridge ................................................................... 13-31
Figure 13.2.1-10 Structural and Geological Outline of Mawo Bridge ........................... 13-32
Figure 13.2.1-11 Location of Mawo Bridge .................................................................. 13-34
Figure 13.2.1-13 Structural and Geological Outline of Biliran Bridge .......................... 13-35
Figure 13.2.1-14 Location of Biliran Bridge ................................................................. 13-37
Figure 13.2.1-16 Structural and Geological Outline of Lilo-an Bridge .......................... 13-38
Figure 13.2.1-17 Location of Lilo-an Bridge ................................................................ 13-40
Figure 13.2.1-19 Structural and Geological of Wawa Bridge ........................................ 13-41
Figure 13.2.1-20 Location of Wawa Bridge .................................................................. 13-43
Figure 14.2.2-1 Flowchart of Comparative Study on Improvement Measure Scheme
Selection ............................................................................................................... 14-18
Figure 14.2.2-2 The Structural Characteristics of Inner Bridge and Outer Bridges ........ 14-20
Figure 14.2.2-3 Law for National Heritage Preservation (Section 5) ............................. 14-21
Figure 14.2.2-4 Hourly Traffic Volume of Guadalupe Bridge ....................................... 14-22
Figure 14.2.2-5 Current Hydrological Condition of Guadalupe Bridge ......................... 14-22
Selection ............................................................................................................... 14-23
Figure 14.2.2-7 Image of “Seismic Retrofit with Additional Structure” of Inner Bridge 14-26
xxxi
Figure 14.2.2-8 Images of “Seismic Retrofit by Reconstruction” of Inner Bridge ......... 14-26
Figure 14.2.2-9 Images of Installation of Temporary Detour Bridge ............................. 14-26
Figure 14.2.2-10 Concept of Traffic Control during Replacement Work of Outer Bridges14-27
Figure 14.2.2-11 Option of Replacement Plan for Additional One More Lane .............. 14-29
Figure 14.2.2-12 Construction Difficulties of Inner Bridge ........................................... 14-32
Figure 14.2.2-13 Construction Steps of Outer Bridges (1) ............................................ 14-33
Figure 14.2.2-17 Construction Difficulties of Inner Bridge ........................................... 14-37
Figure 14.2.2-18 Construction Steps of Inner Bridge .................................................... 14-38
Figure 14.2.2-19 Pier reconstruction Steps of Inner Bridge (1) ..................................... 14-39
Figure 14.2.2-20 Pier Reconstruction Steps of Inner Bridge (2) .................................... 14-40
Figure 14.2.2-21 Conclusion of Comparative Study on Improvement Measure Scheme
Selection ............................................................................................................... 14-41
Selection ............................................................................................................... 14-42
Figure 14.2.3-2 Current Condition of Mawo Bridge ..................................................... 14-43
Figure 14.2.3-3 Outline of “PC Fin Back Bridge” ........................................................ 14-45
Figure 14.2.3-4 Conclusion of Comparative Study on Improvement Measure Scheme
Selection ............................................................................................................... 14-45
Figure 15.2.2-1 Topographic
Features
for
the
Target
Bridges
in
Metro
Manila
(Non-Scale) ............................................................................................................ 15-4
Figure 15.2.2-2 Topographic Features for Buntun Bridge (Non-Scale) ........................... 15-5
Figure 15.2.2-3 Topographic Features for Mandaue-Mactan Bridge (Non-Scale) ........... 15-6
Figure 15.2.2-4 Topographic Features for Palanit Bridge and Mawo Bridge (Non-Scale)15-7
Figure 15.2.2-5 Topographic Features for Biliran Bridge (Non-Scale) ........................... 15-8
Figure 15.2.2-6 Topographic Features for Liloan Bridge (Non-Scale) ............................ 15-9
Figure 15.2.2-7 Topographic Features for Wawa Bridge (Non-Scale) ........................... 15-10
Figure 15.2.2-8 Discrimination of Landforms with Aerial Photographs for Wawa Bridge15-11
Figure 15.2.2-9 Site investigation plan of Wawa Bridge (Non-scale) ........................... 15-11
Figure 15.3.1-1 Location map of borehole (Delpan B-1) .............................................. 15-16
Figure 15.3.1-2 Location Map of Borehole (Nagtahan B-1) ......................................... 15-16
Figure 15.3.1-3 Location Map of Borehole (Lambingan B-1) ...................................... 15-17
Figure 15.3.1-4 Location Map of Borehole (Guadalupe B-1) ....................................... 15-17
Figure 15.3.1-5 Location Map of Borehole (Marikina B-1) .......................................... 15-18
Figure 15.3.1-6 Location
Map of Boreholes (Buntun Bridge) .................................... 15-18
Figure 15.3.1-7 Location Map of Boreholes (Palanit Bridge) ....................................... 15-19
xxxii
Figure 15.3.1-8 Location Map of Boreholes (Mawo Bridge) ........................................ 15-19
Figure 15.3.1-9 Location
Map of Borehole s (1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge) .............. 15-20
Figure 15.3.1-10 Location Map of Boreholes (Biliran Bridge) ..................................... 15-20
Figure 15.3.1-11 Location Map of Boreholes (Liloan Bridge) ...................................... 15-21
Figure 15.3.1-12 Location Map of Boreholes (Wawa Bridge) ...................................... 15-21
Figure 15.3.2-1 Geological Profile for Delpan Bridge .................................................. 15-23
Figure 15.3.2-2 Geological Profile for Nagtahan Bridge .............................................. 15-25
Figure 15.3.2-3 Geological Profile for Lambingan Bridge ........................................... 15-28
Figure 15.3.2-4 Geological Profile for the Guadalupe Bridge ...................................... 15-30
Figure 15.3.2-5 Geological Profile for the Marikina Bridge ......................................... 15-33
Figure 15.3.3-1 Geological Profile for the Buntun Bridge ............................................ 15-42
Figure 15.3.3-2 Geological Profile for the Palanit Bridge ............................................ 15-45
Figure 15.3.3-3 Geological Profile for the Mawo Bridge ............................................. 15-49
Figure 15.3.3-4 Geological Profile for the 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge ....................... 15-54
Figure 15.3.3-5 Geological Profile for Biliran Bridge .................................................. 15-57
Figure 15.3.3-6 Geological Profile for Liloan Bridge ................................................... 15-61
Figure 15.3.3-7 Geological Profile for Wawa Bridge ................................................... 15-65
Figure 15.3.4-1 Flow Chart for Evaluation of Liquefiable Soil Layers ......................... 15-90
Figure 15.3.4-2 Summary of liquefaction potential (Delpan B-1) ................................. 15-93
Figure 15.3.4-3 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (Nagtahan B-1) ............................ 15-94
Figure 15.3.4-4 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (Lambingan B-1) ......................... 15-95
Figure 15.3.4-5 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (Guadalupe B-1) .......................... 15-95
Figure 15.3.4-6 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (Marikina B-1) ............................ 15-96
Figure 15.3.4-7 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (BTL-1) ....................................... 15-97
Figure 15.3.4-8 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (BTL-2) ....................................... 15-97
Figure 15.3.4-9 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (MAW-L1) .................................. 15-98
Figure 15.3.4-10 Summary of
Liquefaction Potential (MAW-L2) .............................. 15-98
Figure 15.3.4-11 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (MAN-E1) ................................. 15-99
Figure 15.3.4-12 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (MAN-W1) ................................ 15-99
Figure 15.3.4-13 Summary of
Liquefaction Potential (LIL-S1) ............................... 15-100
Figure 15.3.4-14 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (WAW-R1) ............................... 15-100
Figure 15.4.1-1 Mean annual rainfall in Manila Port area (1981-2010) ...................... 15-103
Figure 15.4.1-2 Design Flood Discharge Distribution against 100-year Return Period (MP
in 1990)
......................................................................................................... 15-104
Figure 15.4.1-3 Design Flood Discharge Distribution against 30-year Return Period (DD in
2002)
......................................................................................................... 15-104
Figure 15.4.1-4 Water Level at Marikina Bridge in Ondoy Typhoon (September 26th 2009)
......................................................................................................... 15-106
xxxiii
Figure 15.4.1-5 Design High Water Level and Vertical Clearance at Delpan Bridge ... 15-110
Figure 15.4.1-6 Design High Water Level and Vertical Clearance
at Nagtahan Bridge
......................................................................................................... 15-110
Figure 15.4.1-7 Design High Water Level and Vertical Clearance at Lambingan Bridge
......................................................................................................... 15-111
at Guadalupe Bridge
......................................................................................................... 15-111
at Marikina Bridge
......................................................................................................... 15-111
Figure 15.4.2-1 Mean Annual Rainfall in Tuguegarao (1981-2010) and Annual Average
Water Level at Buntun Bridge ............................................................................. 15-112
Figure 15.4.2-2 Design High Water Level and freeboard at existing Buntun Bridge ... 15-115
Figure 15.4.2-3 Mean Annual Rainfall in Surigao and Butuan City (1981-2010) ....... 15-116
Figure 15.4.2-4 Design High Water Level and freeboard at existing Wawa Bridge ..... 15-118
Figure 15.4.2-5 Mean Annual Rainfall in Catbalogan (1981-2010) ............................ 15-119
Figure 15.4.2-6 Terms in the Energy Equation ........................................................... 15-120
Figure 15.4.2-7 Design High Water Level and freeboard at existing Palanit Bridge ... 15-123
Figure 15.4.2-8 Design High Water Level and freeboard at existing Mawo Bridge .. 15-123
Figure 15.4.2-9 Mean Annual Rainfall in Cebu and Tacloban City (1981-2010)......... 15-124
Figure 15.4.2-10 Navigation Clearance of 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge ...................... 15-125
Figure 15.4.2-11 Tide Level on Biliran Bridge ........................................................... 15-126
Figure 15.4.2-12 Tide Level on Liloan Bridge ........................................................... 15-126
Figure 15.5.1-1 DPWH Functional Classification (1/3) (Luzon) ................................. 15-128
Figure 15.5.1-2 DPWH Functional Classification (2/3) (Visayas) ............................... 15-128
Figure 15.5.1-3 DPWH Functional Classification
(3/3) (Mindanao) ........................ 15-129
Figure 15.5.2-1 Road Network of Metro Manila ......................................................... 15-129
Figure 15.5.2-2 CBDs and Road Network ................................................................... 15-129
Figure 15.5.4-1 24-Hour Traffic Count Survey Station on the Bridge inside Metro Manila
........................................................................................................................... 15-132
Figure 15.5.4-2 Intersection Traffic Count Survey Station inside Metro Manila ......... 15-132
Figure 15.5.4-3 Bridge and Intersection Traffic Count Survey Station outside Metro Manila
........................................................................................................................... 15-133
Figure 15.5.4-4 Moriones - Bonifacio Drive Intersection ............................................ 15-137
Figure 15.5.4-5 Claro M. Recto - Bonifacio Drive Intersection .................................. 15-137
Figure 15.5.4-6 Padre Burgos - Roxas Blvd. Intersection ........................................... 15-138
Figure 15.5.4-7 Quirino Avenue – Paco Intersection ................................................... 15-138
Figure 15.5.4-8 Lacson – Espana Intersectionl ........................................................... 15-139
Figure 15.5.4-9 Pres. Quirino – Pedro Gil Intersection ............................................... 15-139
xxxiv
Figure 15.5.4-10 Pedro Gil-Tejeron Intersection ......................................................... 15-140
Figure 15.5.4-11 Shaw Blvd. - New Panaderos Intersection ........................................ 15-140
Figure 15.5.4-12 EDSA - Kalayaan Avenue Intersection ............................................. 15-141
Figure 15.5.4-13 EDSA - Shaw Boulevard Intersection .............................................. 15-141
Figure 15.5.4-14 Merit - Kalayaan Avenue Intersection .............................................. 15-142
Figure 15.5.4-15 Marcos Highway-Aurora Blvd. -Bonifacio Ave. Intersection ........... 15-142
Figure 15.5.4-16 ML Quezon-MV Patalinghug-Marigondon Road Intersection .......... 15-143
Figure 15.5.4-17 Plaridel - A. Cortes Avenue Intersection .......................................... 15-143
Figure 15.5.4-18 Bayugan Intersection ....................................................................... 15-144
Figure 15.7.2-1 Objective Roads ................................................................................ 15-155
Figure 15.7.4-1 Typical Cross-Section of Bridge Section ........................................... 15-162
Figure 15.7.4-2 Typical Cross-Section of Approach Road Section .............................. 15-163
Figure 15.7.5-1 Typical Cross-Section at the Taper Section ........................................ 15-167
Figure 15.7.5-2 Typical Cross-Section at the Runoff Section ...................................... 15-168
Figure 15.7.5-3 Issue of Current Vertical Alignment ................................................... 15-169
Figure 15.7.5-4 Issue of the Stopping Sight Distance ................................................. 15-169
Figure 15.7.5-5 Restriction of Vertical Alignment of Lambingan Bridge .................... 15-170
Figure 15.7.5-6 New Vertical Alignment of Lambingan Bridge .................................. 15-170
Figure 15.7.5-7 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Lambingan Bridge .................. 15-171
Figure 15.7.5-8 Improvement of Cross-Section .......................................................... 15-171
Figure 15.7.5-9 New Vertical Alignment of Guadalupe Bridge ................................... 15-175
Figure 15.7.5-10 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Guadalupe Bridge ................. 15-176
Figure 15.7.5-11 Improvement of Cross-Section ......................................................... 15-176
Figure 15.7.5-12 New Vertical Alignment of Palanit Bridge ....................................... 15-180
Figure 15.7.5-13 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Guadalupe Bridge ................. 15-181
Figure 15.7.5-14 Improvement of Cross-Section ........................................................ 15-181
Figure 15.7.5-15 New Vertical Alignment of Mawo Bridge ........................................ 15-186
Figure 15.7.5-16 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Mawo Bridge ........................ 15-187
Figure 15.7.5-18 Image of the Service Road ............................................................... 15-187
Figure 15.7.5-19 Typical Cross Section of Comparison Study .................................... 15-192
Figure 15.7.5-20 New Vertical Alignment of Wawa Bridge......................................... 15-193
Figure 15.7.5-21 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Wawa Bridge ......................... 15-194
Figure 15.7.8-1 General Layout Plan of Revetment Works ......................................... 15-201
Figure 15.7.8-2 Typical Cross-Section of Revetment Works ....................................... 15-202
Figure 15.7.9-1 Pictures Map of Current Traffic Condition of around Guadalupe Bridge
........................................................................................................................... 15-212
xxxv
Figure 15.7.9-2 Pictures Map of Traffic Issue of around Guadalupe Bridge ................ 15-214
Figure 15.7.9-3 Proposal of Improvement around the Guadalupe Bridge .................... 15-215
Figure 15.7.9-4 Typical Cross Section of Proposal of Improvement ........................... 15-215
Figure 16.1.1-1 Design Spectrum for New Bridge Design .............................................. 16-4
Figure 16.1.2-1 Procedure of Comparison Study for Selection of New Bridge Types ...... 16-7
Figure 16.1.2-2 Relationships between Actual Results of Basic Bridge Types and Span
Length .................................................................................................................... 16-7
Figure 16.1.2-3 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Lambingan Bridge ........................ 16-8
Figure 16.1.2-4 Vertical Alignment by Road Planning of New Lambingan Bridge .......... 16-8
Figure 16.1.2-5 Determination of Abutment Location of Lambingan Bridge
(Simple
Supported Condition) .............................................................................................. 16-9
Figure 16.1.2-6 Determination of Abutment Location of Lambingan Bridge (3-Span
Condition) ............................................................................................................ 16-10
Figure 16.1.2-7 Span Arrangements of Lambingan Bridge in Comparison Study .......... 16-10
Figure 16.1.2-8 Construction Steps of Stage Construction ............................................ 16-11
Figure 16.1.2-9 Detour Temporary Bridge under Total Construction Method ................ 16-11
Figure 16.1.2-10 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Existing Guadalupe Bridge ....... 16-17
Figure 16.1.2-11 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of New Guadalupe Bridge ............ 16-17
Figure 16.1.2-12 Determination of Abutment Location of Guadalupe Bridge ............... 16-18
Figure 16.1.2-13 Span Arrangement for Comparison Study .......................................... 16-18
Figure 16.1.2-14 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Palanit Bridge .......................... 16-25
Figure 16.1.2-15 Rising of Vertical Alignment ............................................................. 16-25
Figure 16.1.2-16 DHW and Free Board of Palanit Bridge ............................................. 16-26
Figure 16.1.2-17 Location of Abutments ...................................................................... 16-27
Figure 16.1.2-18 Installable Area of Piers ..................................................................... 16-27
Figure 16.1.2-19 2 Span Bridge .................................................................................... 16-28
Figure 16.1.2-22 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Mawo Bridge ........................... 16-34
Figure 16.1.2-23 Rising of Vertical Alignment ............................................................. 16-34
Figure 16.1.2-24 DHW and Free Board of Mawo Bridge .............................................. 16-35
Figure 16.1.2-25 Location of Abutments ...................................................................... 16-36
Figure 16.1.2-26 Study of Navigation Width ................................................................ 16-37
Figure 16.1.2-27 Relationship between ship collision and span length specified ........... 16-38
Figure 16.1.2-28 Assumed barges ................................................................................. 16-38
xxxvi
Figure 16.1.2-32 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Wawa Bridge ............................ 16-49
Figure 16.1.2-33 Horizontal Alighment ........................................................................ 16-49
Figure 16.1.2-34 DHW and Free Board of Wawa Bridge .............................................. 16-51
Figure 16.1.2-35 Determination of Abutment Location of Wawa Bridge ....................... 16-51
Figure 16.1.2-36 Boundary Lines of HWL and Influence Area ..................................... 16-52
Figure 16.1.3-1 Basic Vibration Mode (Longitudinal Direction) ................................... 16-67
Figure 16.1.3-2 Damping in Bridge Structure ............................................................... 16-69
Figure 16.2.1-1 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Lambingan Bridge ...................... 16-72
Figure 16.2.1-2 Soil Profile of Lambingan Bridge (Included previous SPT) ................. 16-73
Figure 16.2.1-3 Flow of Outline Design ....................................................................... 16-74
Figure 16.2.2-1 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Lambingan Bridge ...................... 16-75
Figure 16.2.2-2 Design Section of Lambingan Bridge .................................................. 16-75
Figure 16.2.2-3 Analytical Model for Superstructure .................................................... 16-76
Figure 16.2.2-4 Sections for Stress Check .................................................................... 16-77
Figure 16.2.2-5 Side View of Superstructure of Lambingan Bridge .............................. 16-80
Figure 16.2.2-6 Sectional View of Superstructure of Lambingan Bridge ....................... 16-80
Figure 16.2.3-1 Analytical Mode of Seismic Analysis .................................................. 16-81
Figure 16.2.3-2 Results of Eigenvalue Analysis ............................................................ 16-85
Figure 16.2.3-3 Ground Surface of an Abutment in Seismic Design ............................. 16-86
Figure 16.2.3-4 Side View & Sectional View of Abutment of Lambingan Bridge ......... 16-88
Figure 16.2.3-5 Philosophy of Unseating Prevention System in JRA ............................ 16-89
Figure 16.2.3-6 Supporting Length ............................................................................... 16-90
Figure 16.2.3-7 Secure the Length of "Se", Supporting Length ..................................... 16-90
Figure 16.2.3-8 Longitudinal Restrainer for Lambingan Bridge .................................... 16-91
Figure 16.2.3-9 Design Methodology of Expansion Joint ............................................. 16-91
Figure 16.2.3-10 Wearing Coat System of Steel Deck ................................................... 16-92
Figure 16.2.4-1 Side View & Sectional View of Abutment of Lambingan Bridge ......... 16-93
Figure 16.2.4-2 General View ....................................................................................... 16-94
Figure 16.3.1-1 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Guadalupe Bridge ...................... 16-95
Figure 16.3.1-2 Soil Profile of Guadalupe Bridge (Included previous SPT) .................. 16-97
Figure 16.3.1-3 Flow of Outline Design ....................................................................... 16-98
Figure 16.3.2-1 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Guadalupe Side Bridge ............... 16-99
Figure 16.3.2-2 Analytical Model for Superstructure .................................................. 16-100
Figure 16.3.2-3 Sections for Stress Check .................................................................. 16-101
xxxvii
Figure 16.3.2-4 Side View of Superstructure of Guadalupe Side Bridge ..................... 16-102
Figure 16.3.2-5 Sectional View of Superstructure of Guadalupe Side Bridge .............. 16-102
Figure 16.3.3-1 Analytical Mode of Seismic Analysis ................................................ 16-103
Figure 16.3.3-2 Application of Continuous Girder ...................................................... 16-104
Figure 16.3.3-3 Results of Eigenvalue Analysis .......................................................... 16-107
Figure 16.3.3-4 Ground Surface of an Abutment in Seismic Design ........................... 16-108
Figure 16.3.3-5 Side View of Pier of Guadalupe Bridge Substructure with Foundation.16-111
Figure 16.3.3-6 Side View & Sectional View of Abutment of Guadalupe Bridge
Substructure with Foundation. ............................................................................ 16-111
Figure 16.3.3-7 Conceptual View of Steel Sheet Pile Foundation ............................... 16-112
Figure 16.3.3-8 Design Flow for Basic Design of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile Foundation ... 16-113
Figure 16.3.3-9 The Procedure for Construction Method of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile
Foundations (1) ................................................................................................... 16-114
Figure 16.3.3-10 The Procedure For Construction Method of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile
Foundations (2) ................................................................................................... 16-115
Figure 16.3.3-11 Region Where the Skin Friction Force at the Inter Peripheral Surface of
the Well Portion of the Foundation Should Be Taken into Account ..................... 16-116
Figure 16.3.3-12 Calculation Model of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile Foundation ................... 16-118
Figure 16.3.3-13 Philosophy of Unseating Prevention System in JRA ........................ 16-119
Figure 16.3.3-14 Supporting Length ........................................................................... 16-120
Figure 16.3.3-15 Secure the Length of "Se", Supporting Length ................................. 16-120
Figure 16.3.3-16 Longitudinal Restrainer for Guadalupe Bridge ................................ 16-121
Figure 16.3.3-17 Design Methodology of Expansion Joint ......................................... 16-121
Figure 16.3.3-18 Wearing Coat System of Steel Deck ................................................. 16-122
Figure 16.3.4-1 Side View of Pier of Guadalupe Bridge ............................................. 16-123
Figure 16.3.4-2 Side View & Sectional View of Abutment of Guadalupe Bridge ........ 16-123
Figure 16.3.4-3 General View ..................................................................................... 16-125
Figure 16.4.1-2 Soil Profile of Palanit Bridge (Included previous SPT) ...................... 16-127
Figure 16.4.1-3 Flow of Outline Design ..................................................................... 16-128
Figure 16.4.2-2 Designed and Applied AASHTO Girder Type-IV ............................... 16-129
Figure 16.4.2-3 Side View of Superstructure of Palanit Bridge ................................... 16-130
Figure 16.4.2-4 Sectional View of Superstructure of Palanit
Bridge ........................ 16-130
Figure 16.4.3-4 Ground Surface of Abutment & Pier in Seismic Design ..................... 16-136
xxxviii
Figure 16.4.3-5 Sectional View of Pier & Abutment of Palanit Bridge ........................ 16-139
Figure 16.4.3-6 Philosophy of Unseating Prevention System in JRA .......................... 16-140
Figure 16.4.3-7 Supporting Length ............................................................................. 16-141
Figure 16.4.3-8 Longitudinal Restrainer for Palanit Bridge ........................................ 16-142
Figure 16.4.3-9 Design Methodology of Expansion Joint ........................................... 16-142
Figure 16.4.3-10 Wearing Coat System of Concrete Slab ............................................ 16-143
Figure 16.4.4-1 Sectional View of Pier & Abutment of Palanit Bridge ........................ 16-144
Figure 16.5.1-2 Soil Profile of Mawo Bridge (Included previous SPT) ....................... 16-148
Figure 16.5.2-2 Side View and PC Cable Arrangement of Superstructure of Mawo Bridge
........................................................................................................................... 16-150
Figure 16.5.2-3 Sectional View of Superstructure of Mawo Side Bridge..................... 16-150
Figure 16.5.3-5 Sectional View of Abutment & Pier of Mawo Bridge ......................... 16-159
Figure 16.5.3-7 Supporting length .............................................................................. 16-161
Figure 16.5.3-8 Secure the Length of "Se", Supporting Length ................................... 16-161
Figure 16.5.3-9 Longitudinal Restrainer for Mawo Bridge ......................................... 16-162
Figure 16.5.4-1 Sectional View of Abutment & Pier of Mawo Bridge ......................... 16-164
Figure 16.6.1-2 Soil Profile of Wawa Bridge (included previous SPT) ....................... 16-168
Figure 16.6.2-2 Analytical Model for Superstructure .................................................. 16-170
Figure 16.6.2-3 Members for Stress Check ................................................................. 16-171
Figure 16.6.2-4 Side View of Superstructure of Wawa Bridge .................................... 16-172
Figure 16.6.2-5 Sectional View of Superstructure of Wawa Side Bridge ..................... 16-173
xxxix
Figure 16.6.3-5 Sectional View of Substructure of Wawa Bridge ................................ 16-181
Figure 16.6.3-7 Supporting Length ............................................................................. 16-183
Figure 16.6.3-8 Secure the Length of "Se", Supporting Length ................................... 16-183
Figure 16.6.3-9 Longitudinal Restrainer for Wawa Bridge .......................................... 16-184
Figure 16.6.4-1 Sectional View of Substructure of Wawa Bridge ................................ 16-186
Figure 17.2.2-1 Site-Specific Design Spectrum of 50-, 100-, 500-, and 1000-Year Return
Periods for Lilo-an Bridge Site ............................................................................. 17-10
Figure 17.2.2-2 Hydrological Condition of Lilo-an Bridge .......................................... 17-13
Figure 17.2.3-1 Summary of Seismic Capacity Verification ......................................... 17-14
Figure 17.2.4-1 Outline of Comparative Studies on Seismic Capacity Improvement
Schemes ................................................................................................................ 17-19
Figure 17.2.4-2 Control of Seismic Inertial Force by Application of Seismic Devices . 17-20
Figure 17.2.4-3 Recommendation for Location of Seismic Damper Installation ........... 17-22
Figure 17.2.4-4 Construction Types for the Foundation Retrofit Work ......................... 17-25
Figure 17.2.4-5 Restrictive Condition for Additional Pile Driving ............................... 17-25
Figure 17.2.4-6 Assumed Abutment Conditions for Comparison Study ........................ 17-27
Figure 17.2.4-7 Improvement Work Image of Abutment-A .......................................... 17-27
Figure 17.2.4-8 Basic Concept of Unseating Prevention System Planning ................... 17-29
Figure 17.2.4-9 Concrete Block and Steel Bracket ....................................................... 17-30
Figure 17.2.4-10 Selection of Unseating Prevention Device Type ................................ 17-30
Figure 17.2.4-11 Selection of Unseating Prevention Device Type (continued) ............. 17-31
Figure 17.2.4-12 Structure Limiting Horizontal Displacement (Shear Keys) ................ 17-31
Figure 17.2.4-13 Non-existence of Cross Beam at End Supports .................................. 17-31
Figure 17.2.5-1 Current Condition of Existing Expansion Joints .................................. 17-32
Figure 17.2.5-2 Current Condition of Existing Steel Members ..................................... 17-32
Figure 17.2.5-3 Current Condition of Connection/Splice Points of Existing Steel Members
............................................................................................................................. 17-32
Figure 17.2.5-4 Current Condition of Existing Deck Slab ............................................. 17-33
Figure 17.3.2-1 Site-Specific Design Spectrum of 50-, 100-, 500-, and 1000-Year return
Periods for 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge Site ........................................................ 17-48
Figure 17.3.2-2 Site-Specific Design Spectrum of 50-, 100-, 500-, and 1000-Year Return
Periods for 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge Site ........................................................ 17-49
xl
Figure 17.3.2-3 Hydrological Condition of 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge ..................... 17-54
Figure 17.3.3-1 Summary of Seismic Capacity Verification ......................................... 17-55
Figure 17.3.4-1 Outline of Comparison Studies on Seismic Capacity Improvement
Schemes
........................................................................................................... 17-60
Figure 17.3.4-2 Control of Seismic Inertial Force by Application of Seismic Devices .. 17-61
Figure 17.3.4-3 Recommendation for Location of Seismic Damper Installation ........... 17-63
Figure 17.3.4-4 Construction Types for the Foundation Retrofit Work ......................... 17-66
Figure 17.3.4-5 Restrictive condition for additional pile driving .................................. 17-66
Figure 17.3.4-6 Restrictive Conditions for Selection of Foundation Improvement Method 68
Figure 17.3.4-7 Construction Procedure of SPSP Foundation ....................................... 17-70
Figure 17.3.4-8 “None-stage method” for SPSP Foundation Installation ...................... 17-70
Figure 17.3.4-9 Assumed Existing Abutment Condition ............................................... 17-71
Figure 17.3.4-10 Basic Concept of Unseating Prevention System Planning .................. 17-73
Figure 17.3.4-11 Concrete block and Steel Bracket ...................................................... 17-74
Figure 17.3.4-12 Selection of unseating prevention device type ................................... 17-75
Figure 17.3.4-13 Selection of Unseating Prevention Device type (continued) .............. 17-75
Figure 17.3.4-14 Structure Limiting Horizontal Displacement (Shear Keys) ................ 17-76
Figure 17.3.5-1 Current Condition of Existing Expansion Joints .................................. 17-76
Figure 17.3.5-2 Current Condition of Existing Steel Members ..................................... 17-76
Figure 17.3.5-3 Current Condition of Existing Deck Slab ............................................ 17-77
Figure 18.2.2-1 Location Site of Lambingan Bridge ....................................................... 18-3
Figure 18.2.2-2 Recommend superstructure Type of Lambingan Bridge ......................... 18-3
Figure 18.2.2-3 Pictures of Field Survey ........................................................................ 18-4
Figure 18.2.2-4 Erection Method of Lambingan Bridge .................................................. 18-5
Figure 18.2.2-5 Erection steps of superstructure ............................................................. 18-5
Figure 18.2.2-6 Construction Condition of Cast in Place Concrete Pile .......................... 18-6
Figure 18.2.2-7 Example of Cast in Place Concrete Pile Method .................................... 18-7
Figure 18.2.2-8 Construction Steps of Lambingan Bridge 1/3 ......................................... 18-7
Figure 18.2.2-9 Construction Steps of Lambingan Bridge 2/3 ......................................... 18-8
Figure 18.2.2-10 Construction Steps of Lambingan Bridge 3/3 ....................................... 18-9
Figure 18.2.3-1 Pictures of Field Survey ...................................................................... 18-11
Figure 18.2.3-2 Construction Base and Site Location of the Guadalupe Bridge ............ 18-12
Figure 18.2.3-3 Travel Time in Case of Different Number of Traffic Lanes .................. 18-12
Figure 18.2.3-4 EDSA Detour Plan ............................................................................... 18-13
Figure 18.2.3-5 EDSA Traffic Control Plan of Guadalupe Bridge ................................. 18-14
Figure 18.2.3-6 Erection Method of Center span of Guadalupe Bridge ......................... 18-15
Figure 18.2.3-7 Installation method of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile ......................................... 18-16
Figure 18.2.3-8 Pier Replacement Work with Temporary support ................................. 18-16
xli
Figure 18.2.3-9 Construction Steps of Pier Replacement .............................................. 18-17
Figure 18.2.3-10 Construction Steps of Outer Superstructure ....................................... 18-18
Figure 18.2.3-11 Construction Steps of the Guadalupe Bridge ...................................... 18-19
Figure 18.2.4-1 Pictures of Field Survey <Mactan Side> .............................................. 18-21
Figure 18.2.4-2 Pictures of Field Survey <Cebu Side> ................................................. 18-22
Figure 18.2.4-3 Basic Plan of Temporary Road of 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge ............ 18-23
Figure 18.2.4-4 Navigation Width Control of 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge .................... 18-23
Figure 18.2.4-5 Construction Method of Cast in Place Concrete Pile under Limited Space
............................................................................................................................. 18-24
Figure 18.2.4-6 Installation method of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile ......................................... 18-24
Figure 18.2.5-2 Site Location of Palanit Bridge ............................................................ 18-26
Figure 18.2.6-2 Site Location of Mawo Bridge ............................................................. 18-28
Figure 18.2.6-3 Picture of Mawo Port (At Right side of Rivermouth) ........................... 18-29
Figure 18.2.6-4 Construction Situation of PC Fin Back Bridge ..................................... 18-30
Figure 18.2.7-2 Site Location of the Lilo-an Bridge ..................................................... 18-31
Figure 18.2.7-3 Pictures of Lilo-an Port ....................................................................... 18-31
Figure 18.2.7-4 Construction Method of Cast in Place Concrete Pile under Limited Space
............................................................................................................................. 18-32
Figure 18.2.8-2 Site Location of the Wawa Bridge ....................................................... 18-33
Figure 18.2.8-3 Pictures of Field Survey (2nd Magsaysay) ............................................ 18-34
Figure 19.2.1-1 Procedure for Preparation of Present and Future Assignment ................ 19-3
Figure 19.2.1-2 Comparison of Observed and Assigned Traffic Volume ......................... 19-4
Figure 19.2.1-3 Traffic Assignment Method ................................................................... 19-5
Figure 19.3.3-1 Traffic Condition at MRT Line-3 Guadalupe Station ........................... 19-12
Figure 19.3.3-2 Traffic Condition at Guadalupe Bridge ............................................... 19-13
Figure 19.3.3-3 Traffic Congestion at Guadalupe Bridge ............................................. 19-14
Figure 19.3.3-4 Bus Stop at Guadalupe Bridge ............................................................ 19-15
Figure 19.3.3-5 Bottleneck at Kalayaan Fly Over ........................................................ 19-16
Figure 19.3.3-6 Traffic condition at Guadalupe Bridge ................................................ 19-17
Figure 19.3.3-7 Traffic Condition at Guadalupe Bridge ............................................... 19-17
Figure 19.3.3-8 Result of Travel Speed Survey ............................................................ 19-19
Figure 19.3.4-1 Target Area of Microscopic Traffic Simulation ................................... 19-21
Figure 19.3.4-2 Comparison of Traffic Volume (Morning Peak) ................................... 19-23
Figure 19.3.4-3 Verification of the Simulation Model (Traffic Volume during Morning
xlii
Peak)
........................................................................................................... 19-23
Figure 19.3.4-4 Comparison of the Travel Speed (Average speed-1, Morning Peak) .... 19-24
Figure 19.3.4-5 Comparison of the Travel Speed (Average speed-2, Morning Peak) .... 19-25
Figure 19.3.4-6 Comparison of Traffic Volume (Evening Peak) ................................... 19-26
Figure 19.3.4-7 Verification of the Simulation model (Traffic Volume, Evening Peak) 19-26
Figure 19.3.4-8 Comparison of the Travel Speed (Average Speed-1, Evening) ............. 19-27
Figure 19.3.4-9 Comparison of the Travel Speed (Average speed-2) ............................ 19-28
Figure 19.3.5-1 Flow of Analysis ................................................................................. 19-29
Figure 19.3.5-2 Geometric Structure of 4-Lanes .......................................................... 19-30
Figure 19.3.5-6 Average Speed Comparison in Case of No. of Lanes (Guadalupe Bridge,
Morning Peak) ...................................................................................................... 19-35
Figure 19.3.5-7 Traffic Condition Comparison in Case of No. of Lanes-Guadalupe Bridge
(Northbound (Bound to Quezon City)) .................................................................. 19-36
(Southbound (Bound to Makati City)) ................................................................... 19-37
Figure 19.3.5-9 Traffic Volume at Guadalupe Bridge in Case of 3-Lanes ..................... 19-38
Figure 19.3.5-10 Traffic Volume of Guadalupe Bridge in Case of 3-Lanes ................... 19-39
Figure 19.3.5-11 Average Speed Comparison in Case of No. of Lanes (Guadalupe Bridge,
Evening Peak) ....................................................................................................... 19-41
(Northbound (Bound to Quezon City)) .................................................................. 19-42
(Southbound (Bound to Makati City)) ................................................................... 19-43
Figure 19.4.1-1 Hourly Traffic Vlume vs.Capacity during Traffic Restriction at Palanit
Bridge (Y2018) ..................................................................................................... 19-49
Figure 19.4.1-2 Hourly traffic volume vs. capacity during traffic restriction at Mawo
Bridge (Y2018) ..................................................................................................... 19-50
Figure 19.4.1-3 Hourly Traffic Volume vs. Capacity during Traffic Restriction at Liloan
Bridge (Y2018) ..................................................................................................... 19-50
Figure 19.4.1-4 Hourly Traffic Volume vs. Capacity during Traffic Restriction at Wawa
Bridge (Y2018) ..................................................................................................... 19-51
Figure 19.5.3-1 Process of Converting the Initial Cost from Financial to Economic Value
xliii
............................................................................................................................. 19-53
Figure 19.5.4-1 Probability Density of Bridge Un-Service ........................................... 19-58
Figure 20.1.1-1 Flowchart for ECC applications and review processes ........................... 20-4
Figure 20.2.4-1 Flow Chart for Payment of Compensation to PAPs .............................. 20-26
Figure 20.2.5-1 Redress Grievance Flow Chart ............................................................ 20-29
Figure 21.4-1 Proposed Project Organization ................................................................. 21-5
Figure 22.3.1-1 Present Issues on Traffic Conditions in the Intermodal Area .................. 21-7
Figure 22.3.2-1 Improvement Measures.......................................................................... 21-8
Figure 22.3.3-1 Recommended Improvement Scheme in and around Traffic Intermodal
Area near Guadalupe Bridge ................................................................................. 21-11
TABLES
Table 1.7.1-1 Summary of Seminars ................................................................................ 1-8
Table 1.7.1-2 Photos of Seminars ................................................................................... 1-11
Table 1.7.1-3 Summary of Discussions .......................................................................... 1-12
Table 1.7.1-4 Photos of Discussions .............................................................................. 1-14
Table 1.7.2-1 Summary of TWG Meetings ..................................................................... 1-15
Table 1.7.2-2 Photos of TWG Meetings ......................................................................... 1-17
Table 1.7.2-3 Summary of JCC Meetings ....................................................................... 1-18
Table 1.7.2-4 Photos of JCC Meetings ........................................................................... 1-19
Table 1.7.3-1 Schedule of Training ................................................................................ 1-20
Table 1.7.3-2 Photos of 1st Training ............................................................................... 1-21
Table 1.7.3-3 Schedule of Training ................................................................................ 1-22
Table 1.7.3-4 Photos of 2nd Training .............................................................................. 1-23
Table 2.2.3-1 Functional Relationship between DPWH and ASEP in the Development of
Seismic Design Guidelines ..................................................................................... 2-13
Table 3.1.1-1 Estimate of Extent of Displacement, Slip Rate and Age of the Philippine
Fault
................................................................................................................... 3-8
Table 3.1.1-2 Main Tsunami Disaster History in the Philippines .................................... 3-11
Table 3.1.2-1 List of Active and Potentially Active Volcanoes of the Philippines ........... 3-13
Table 3.1.2-2 Summary of Stratigraphic Column for the Philippines .............................. 3-17
Table 3.1.2-3 Summary of Igneous and Intrusive Rocks for the Philippines ................... 3-18
Table 3.1.2-4 Summary of Volcanic Rocks for the Philippines ....................................... 3-18
Table 3.2.1-1 Major Earthquakes that Have Occurred in the Philippines in Recent Years3-23
Table 3.2.2-1 Calculated Maximum Acceleration (gal) (3 Faults Planes Model, M=7.0) 3-44
Table 3.2.2-2 Maximum Acceleration at Ground Surface Estimated Based on
the
Phenomena of Structures after the Earthquake ........................................................ 3-44
xliv
Table 3.2.2-3 Bridge Seismic Vulnerability .................................................................... 3-52
Table 3.2.3-1 Damages on Some Bridges Affected by the February 6, 2012 Negros Oriental
Earthquake .............................................................................................................. 3-55
Table 4.1.3-1 Available (Down loadable) Data and/or Thematic Maps on PHIVOLCS
Website
................................................................................................................. 4-4
Table 4.2.1-1 Locations of and Geological Conditions around Observation Stations ........ 4-7
Table 4.3.1-1 Locations of and Geological Conditions around Observation Stations ...... 4-13
Table 4.3.1-2 Totals of data on Observed Earthquake Ground Motions Collected at
Respective Observation Stations（1999 - 2011） ................................................... 4-13
Table 6.3.7-1 Comparison between AASHTO and JRA Requirements for Site Liquefaction
Potential Assessment .............................................................................................. 6-35
Table 7.4.2-1 Soil Profile Types of National Structural Code of the Philippines ............... 7-8
Table 7.4.3-1 Soil profile types under AASHTO LFRD 2007 ........................................... 7-8
Table 7.4.4-1 Soil Profile Types under AASHTO LFRD 2012.......................................... 7-9
Table 7.4.4-2 Simplified Soil Profile Types of AASHTO LFRD 2012 .............................. 7-9
Table 7.4.5-1 Soil Profile Type of JRA .......................................................................... 7-10
Table 7.5.1-1 Response Modification Factors ................................................................ 7-13
Table 8.1.3-1 Definition of Soil Profile Types (AASHTO 2007) ...................................... 8-7
Table 8.1.3-2 AASHTO soil Types and Corresponding JRA Soil Types ........................... 8-7
Table 8.1.3-3 Strong Motion Seismograph Networks (Database) ..................................... 8-7
Table 8.1.3-4 Seed Earthquake Records Selected as Rock Outcrop Motion ...................... 8-8
Table 8.1.4-1 Types and Locations of Ground (Soft Ground) of Interest ........................ 8-11
Table 8.1.4-2 Types and Locations of Ground (Moderate Firm Ground) of Interest ....... 8-11
Table 8.1.7-1 Comparison of Acceleration Amplification Factor .................................... 8-38
Table 8.1.9-1 Proposed Acceleration Response Spectra Based on AASHTO (2007)
(Moderate Firm Ground : Soil Type-III ) ................................................................. 8-48
Table 8.1.9-2 Proposed acceleration response spectra based on AASHTO (2007)
(Soft
ground : Soil Type-IV ) ........................................................................................... 8-48
Table 8.1.9-3 Proposed Acceleration Response Spectra Based on AASHTO (2007)
(Soil
Type –I, II, III, IV) ................................................................................................. 8-49
Table 10.2.3-1 Operational Classification of Bridges .................................................... 10-11
Table 10.2.3-2 Earthquake Ground Motion and Seismic Performance of Bridges ......... 10-12
Table 10.2.3-3 Combination Examples of Members Considering Plasticity (Non-linearity)
and Limit States of Each Members (For Seismic Performance Level 2) ................ 10-14
Table 10.2.3-4 Combination Examples of Members with Consideration of Plasticity
(Non-linearity) and Limit States of Each Members (For Seismic Performance Level 3)
xlv
............................................................................................................................. 10-14
Table 10.2.3-5 Ground Types (Site Class) for Seismic Design ...................................... 10-17
Table 10.2.3-6 Response Modification Factors for Substructures .................................. 10-17
Table 10.2.4-1 Minimum Analysis Requirements for Seismic Effects ........................... 10-18
Table 10.3.2-1 Column Shear Design ........................................................................... 10-34
Table 10.4.3-1 Cases for Comparison ........................................................................... 10-39
Table 10.4.4-1 Results of Comparative Study ............................................................... 10-41
Table 11.3-1 Scope of Works and Survey Method for Survey Work (1/2) ....................... 11-3
Table 11.4.1-1 Evaluation Criteria of First Screening ..................................................... 11-5
Table 11.4.1-2 Scoring System for Evaluation Criteria ................................................... 11-5
Table 11.5.3-1 Components for Evaluation and Rating Weight ..................................... 11-11
Table 11.5.3-2 Components of Seismic Vulnerability and Rating Weight ...................... 11-11
Table 11.5.3-3 Evaluation Items and Rating Weight ...................................................... 11-13
Table 11.5.3-4 Components of Evaluation Criteria for Importance and Rating Weight .. 11-14
Table 12.1.1-1 Bridge Condition Based on Visual Inspection for Package-B ................ 12-20
Table 12.1.1-2 Major Defect Analysis for Each Bridge ................................................ 12-21
Table 12.1.1-3 Global Evaluation for Bridge Seismic Performance in 1st Screening of
Package-B (1/6) .................................................................................................... 12-22
Package-B (2/6) .................................................................................................... 12-23
Package-B (3/6) .................................................................................................... 12-24
Package-B (4/6) .................................................................................................... 12-25
Package-B (5/6) .................................................................................................... 12-26
Package-B (6/6) .................................................................................................... 12-27
Table 12.1.2-1 Selected Bridges for Checking Seismic Performance in Package-B ...... 12-28
Table 12.1.2-2 Results of Rating Analysis in the 1st Screening .................................... 12-29
Table 12.2.1-1 Conditions of Bridges Based on Visual Inspection for `Package C ....... 12-47
Table 12.2.1-2 Defect Score Analysis for Each Bridge ................................................. 12-48
Package C (1/6) .................................................................................................... 12-49
Package C (2/6) .................................................................................................... 12-50
Package C (3/6) .................................................................................................... 12-51
xlvi
Package C (4/6) .................................................................................................... 12-52
Package C (5/6) .................................................................................................... 12-53
Package C (6/6) .................................................................................................... 12-54
Table 12.2.2-1 Selected Bridges for Checking Seismic Performance in Package C ...... 12-55
Table 12.2.2-2 Results of Rating Analysis in the First Screening ................................. 12-56
Table 13.1.1-1 Daily Traffic Volume ............................................................................... 13-4
Table 13.1.1-2 Assumption and LOS .............................................................................. 13-4
Table 13.1.1-3 Daily Traffic Volume ............................................................................... 13-7
Table 13.1.1-4 Assumption and LOS .............................................................................. 13-7
Table 13.1.1-5 Daily Traffic Volume ............................................................................. 13-10
Table 13.1.1-6 Assumption and LOS ............................................................................ 13-10
Table 13.1.1-10 Assumption and LOS .......................................................................... 13-16
Table 13.2.1-11 Daily Traffic Volume ........................................................................... 13-40
Table 13.2.1-13 Daily Traffic Volume ........................................................................... 13-43
Table 14.2.1-1 Recommendation of Target Bridges for Outline Design ......................... 14-16
Table 14.2.2-1 AADT Based on Traffic Count Survey Results ...................................... 14-22
Table 14.2.2-2 Comparative Study on Improve Measurement Schemes for Outer Bridges14-28
Table 14.2.2-3 Comparative Study on Improve Measurement Schemes for Inner Bridge14-31
Table 14.2.3-1 Comparative Study on Improve Measurement Schemes for Mawo Bridge
(2nd Screening result) ........................................................................................... 14-44
xlvii
Table 14.2.3-2 Detail Comparative Study on Improve Measurement Schemes for Mawo
Bridge (Optimization of Replacement Plan) .......................................................... 14-46
Table 15.2.2-1 Position and Distance between the Target Bridge and Active Fault ....... 15-12
Table 15.3.1-1 Laboratory Tests and Methodology ....................................................... 15-13
Table 15.3.1-2 Quantities of Geotechnical Investigation (Inside Metro Manila) ........... 15-14
Table 15.3.1-3 Quantities of Geotechnical Investigation (Outside Metro Manila) ........ 15-15
Table 15.3.2-1 Boring Result (Deplpan B-1) ................................................................ 15-22
Table 15.3.2-2 Engineering Soil Layers (Deplpan B-1) ................................................ 15-23
Table 15.3.2-3 Boring Result (Nagtahan B-1) .............................................................. 15-24
Table 15.3.2-4 Engineering Soil Layers (Nagtahan B-1) .............................................. 15-25
Table 15.3.2-5 Boring Result (Lambingan B-1) ........................................................... 15-27
Table 15.3.2-6 Engineering Soil Layers (Lambingan B-1) ........................................... 15-27
Table 15.3.2-7 Boring Result (Guadalupe B-1) ............................................................ 15-29
Table 15.3.2-8 Engineering Soil Layers (Guadalupe B-1) ............................................ 15-29
Table 15.3.2-9 Boring Result (Marikina B-1) ............................................................... 15-32
Table 15.3.2-10 Engineering Soil Layers (Marikina B-1) ............................................. 15-32
Table 15.3.2-11 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Delpan B-1
........................................................................................................... 15-35
Table 15.3.2-12 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Nagtahan
B-1
........................................................................................................... 15-36
Table 15.3.2-13 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Lambingan
B-1
........................................................................................................... 15-37
Table 15.3.2-14 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Guadalupe
B-1
........................................................................................................... 15-38
Table 15.3.2-15 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Marikina
B-1
.......................................................................................................... 15-39
Table 15.3.3-1 Boring Result (Buntun: BTL-1) ............................................................ 15-40
Table 15.3.3-2 Boring Result (Buntun: BTL-2) ............................................................ 15-41
Table 15.3.3-3 Engineering Soil Layers (BTL-1 – BTL-2) ........................................... 15-41
Table 15.3.3-4 Boring Result (Palanit: PAL-L1) .......................................................... 15-43
Table 15.3.3-5 Boring Result (Palanit: PAL-R1) .......................................................... 15-44
Table 15.3.3-6 Engineering Soil Layers (PAL-R1 – PAL-L1) ....................................... 15-44
Table 15.3.3-7 Boring Result (Mawo: MAW-L1) ......................................................... 15-47
Table 15.3.3-8 Boring Result (Mawo: MAW-L2) ......................................................... 15-48
Table 15.3.3-9 Engineering Soil Layers (MAW-L1 – MAW-L2) .................................. 15-48
Table 15.3.3-10 Boring Result (1st Mandaue-Mactan: MAN-E1) .................................. 15-51
Table 15.3.3-11 Boring Result (1st Mandaue-Mactan: MAN-W1) ................................. 15-52
Table 15.3.3-12 Engineering Soil Layers (MAN-E1 – MAN-W1) ................................ 15-53
xlviii
Table 15.3.3-13 Boring Result (Biliran: BIL-N1) ......................................................... 15-56
Table 15.3.3-14 Boring Result (Biliran: BIL-S1) ......................................................... 15-56
Table 15.3.3-15 Engineering Soil Layers (BIL-N1 – BIL-S1) ...................................... 15-56
Table 15.3.3-16 Boring Result (Liloan: LIL-N1) .......................................................... 15-58
Table 15.3.3-17 Boring Result (Liloan: LIL-S1) .......................................................... 15-59
Table 15.3.3-18 Engineering Soil Layers (LIL-N1 – LIL-S1) ....................................... 15-60
Table 15.3.3-19 Boring Result (Wawa: WAW-R1) ........................................................ 15-63
Table 15.3.3-20 Boring Result (Wawa: WAW-L1) ........................................................ 15-64
Table 15.3.3-21 Engineering Soil Layers (WAW-L1 – WAW-R1) ................................. 15-65
Table 15.3.3-22 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Buntun
BTL-1
.......................................................................................................... 15-67
Table 15.3.3-23 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Buntun
BTL-2
.......................................................................................................... 15-68
Table 15.3.3-24 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Palanit
PAL-L1
.......................................................................................................... 15-68
Table 15.3.3-25 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Palanit
PAL-R1
.......................................................................................................... 15-68
Table 15.3.3-26 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Mawo
MAW-L1
.......................................................................................................... 15-69
Table 15.3.3-27 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Mawo
MAW-L2
.......................................................................................................... 15-69
Table 15.3.3-28 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of MAN-E1
........................................................................................................... 15-70
Table 15.3.3-29 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of MAN-W1
........................................................................................................... 15-71
Table 15.3.3-30 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of BIL-N1
........................................................................................................... 15-72
Table 15.3.3-31 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of BIL-S1
........................................................................................................... 15-72
Table 15.3.3-32 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of LIL-N1
........................................................................................................... 15-72
Table 15.3.3-33 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of LIL-S1
........................................................................................................... 15-73
Table 15.3.3-34 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of WAW-L1
........................................................................................................... 15-74
Table 15.3.3-35 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of WAW-R1
........................................................................................................... 15-75
xlix
Table 15.3.4-1 Standard Design Lateral Force Coefficient for Liquefaction Potential
Assessment ........................................................................................................... 15-76
Table 15.3.4-2 Comparison of Soil Profile Type Classification ..................................... 15-79
Table 15.3.4-3 Soil Type and Design Parameters on Soils (NEXCO) ........................... 15-80
Table 15.3.4-4 Proposed Soil Parameters for Delpan B-1 Site ...................................... 15-81
Table 15.3.4-5 Proposed Soil Parameters for Nagtahan B-1 Site .................................. 15-81
Table 15.3.4-6 Proposed Soil Parameters for Lambingan B-1 Site ............................... 15-82
Table 15.3.4-7 Proposed Soil Parameters for Guadalupe B-1 Site ................................ 15-82
Table 15.3.4-8 Proposed Soil Parameters for Marikina B-1 Site ................................... 15-82
Table 15.3.4-9 Proposed Soil Parameters for Buntun BTL-1 Site ................................. 15-83
Table 15.3.4-10 Proposed Soil Parameters for Buntun BTL-2 Site ............................... 15-83
Table 15.3.4-11 Proposed Soil Parameters for Palanit PAL-L1 Site .............................. 15-84
Table 15.3.4-12 Proposed Soil Parameters for PAL-R1 Site ......................................... 15-84
Table 15.3.4-13 Proposed Soil Parameters for Mawo MAW-L1 Site ............................ 15-84
Table 15.3.4-14 Proposed Soil Parameters for Mawo MAW-L2 Site ............................ 15-85
Table 15.3.4-15 Proposed Soil Parameters for 1st Mandaue-Mactan MAN-E1 Site ....... 15-85
Table 15.3.4-16 Proposed Soil Parameters for 1st Mandaue-Mactan MAN-W1 Site ..... 15-85
Table 15.3.4-17 Proposed Soil Parameters for Biliran BIL-N1 Site .............................. 15-86
Table 15.3.4-18 Proposed Soil Parameters for Biliran BIL-S1 Site .............................. 15-86
Table 15.3.4-19 Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan LIL-S1 Site ............................... 15-86
Table 15.3.4-20 Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan LIL-S1 Site ............................... 15-86
Table 15.3.4-21 Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan WAW-L1 Site ............................ 15-87
Table 15.3.4-22 Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan WAW-R1 Site ............................ 15-87
Assessment .......................................................................................................... 15-92
Table 15.3.4-24 Comparison of Liquefaction Assessment Methodology using SPT Blow
Counts between AASHTO’s Recommendation and JRA ....................................... 15-93
Table 15.3.4-25 Summary of Liquefaction Potential Assessment ............................... 15-101
Table 15.4.1-1 Summary of Proposed Pasig-Marikina River Channel Improvement Plan in
Detailed Engineering Design in 2002 .................................................................. 15-105
Table 15.4.1-2 Tidal Information at Manila South Harbor Tide Station ...................... 15-106
Table 15.4.1-3 Design Flood Discharge and Design Flood Level in Pasig-Marikina River
........................................................................................................... 15-106
Table 15.4.1-4 Flow Velocity against the Design Flood Discharge in Pasig-Marikina River
........................................................................................................... 15-107
Table 15.4.1-5 Freeboard Allowance for Embankment ............................................... 15-109
Table 15.4.1-6 Summary of the Major Design Condition of Package-B ..................... 15-110
Table 15.4.2-1 Constant for Regional Specific Discharge Curve ................................ 15-114
l
Table 15.4.2-2 Design Flood Level at Buntun Bridge ................................................. 15-114
Table 15.4.2-3 Design flood level at Wawa Bridge ..................................................... 15-117
Table 15.4.2-4 Tidal Information at Catbalogan Tide Station ..................................... 15-121
Table 15.4.2-5 Design Flood Level at Palanit Bridge and Mawo Bridge .................... 15-122
Table 15.4.2-6 Tidal Information at Cebu, Catbalogan and Surigao Tide Station ........ 15-125
Table 15.5.3-1 Road Classification of Selected Bridges .............................................. 15-130
Table 15.5.4-1 Summary of Traffic Count Survey Location ........................................ 15-131
Table 15.5.4-2 Summary of Traffic Count Survey Result inside Metro Manila (AADT)15-135
Table 15.5.4-3 Summary of Traffic Count Survey Result outside Metro Manila (AADT)15-136
Table 15.7.1-1 Applicable Standards ........................................................................... 15-155
Table 15.7.4-1 Traffic Volume of Objective Roads ..................................................... 15-156
Table 15.7.4-2 Technical Specifications of Lambingan Bridge ................................... 15-157
Table 15.7.4-3 Technical Specifications of Guadalupe Bridge .................................... 15-158
Table 15.7.4-4 Technical Specifications of Palanit Bridge .......................................... 15-159
Table 15.7.4-5 Technical Specifications of Mawo Bridge ........................................... 15-160
Table 15.7.4-6 Technical Specifications of Wawa Bridge ............................................ 15-161
Table 15.7.5-1 Current Road Conditions of Lambingan Bridge................................... 15-164
Table 15.7.5-2 Restriction of Lambingan Bridge ........................................................ 15-165
Table 15.7.5-3 Design Conditions of Lambingan Bridge ............................................ 15-166
Table 15.7.5-4 Issue of Current Road and Measure Policy .......................................... 15-169
Table 15.7.5-5 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Lambingan Bridge ......................... 15-170
Table 15.7.5-6 Issue of Cross-Section, and Measure Policy ........................................ 15-171
Table 15.7.5-7 Current Road Conditions of Guadalupe Bridge ................................... 15-172
Table 15.7.5-8 Restriction of Guadalupe Bridge ......................................................... 15-173
Table 15.7.5-9 Design Conditions of Guadalupe Bridge ............................................. 15-174
Table 15.7.5-10 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Guadalupe Bridge ........................ 15-175
Table 15.7.5-11 Issue of Cross-Section and Measure Policy ....................................... 15-176
Table 15.7.5-12 Current Road Conditions of Palanit Bridge ....................................... 15-177
Table 15.7.5-13 Restriction of Palanit Bridge ............................................................. 15-178
Table 15.7.5-14 Design Conditions of Palanit Bridge ................................................. 15-179
Table 15.7.5-15 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Palanit Bridge .............................. 15-180
Table 15.7.5-17 Current Road Conditions of Mawo Bridge ........................................ 15-182
Table 15.7.5-18 Restriction of Mawo Bridge .............................................................. 15-183
Table 15.7.5-19 Design Conditions of Mawo Bridge .................................................. 15-184
Table 15.7.5-20 Issue of Current Road and Measure Policy ........................................ 15-185
Table 15.7.5-21 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Mawo Bridge ............................... 15-186
li
Table 15.7.5-23 Current Road Conditions of Wawa Bridge ......................................... 15-188
Table 15.7.5-24 Restriction of Wawa Bridge .............................................................. 15-189
Table 15.7.5-25 Design Conditions of Wawa Bridge ................................................... 15-190
Table 15.7.5-26 Comparison Study of Horizontal Alignment ...................................... 15-192
Table 15.7.5-27 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Wawa Bridge ............................... 15-193
Table 15.7.5-29 Designed Values for Widening on Open Highway Curve ................... 15-194
Table 15.7.6-1 Current Condition of Pavement ........................................................... 15-196
Table 15.7.6-2 Accumulated Large Vehicle Volume Calculation Formula ................... 15-197
Table 15.7.6-3 Accumulation of Traffic Volume of Large Vehicle ............................... 15-197
Table 15.7.6-4 Thickness of Reinforced Concrete ....................................................... 15-197
Table 15.7.6-5 Layer Structures of Pavement.............................................................. 15-198
Table 15.7.6-6 Pavement of Service Road .................................................................. 15-198
Table 15.7.6-7 Pavement of Sidewalk ......................................................................... 15-198
Table 15.7.7-1 Current Drainage Facility Condition of Package B .............................. 15-199
Table 15.7.7-2 Current Drainage Facility Condition of Package C .............................. 15-200
Table 15.7.8-1 Revetment Works ................................................................................ 15-201
Table 15.7.8-2 Current Revetment Condition of Package C ........................................ 15-203
Table 15.7.8-3 List of Basic BM for Topography ........................................................ 15-204
Table 15.7.8-4 BM list of River Improvement ............................................................ 15-204
Table 15.7.8-5 Difference of BM Elevation between River Improvement and Topography
........................................................................................................................... 15-205
Table 15.7.8-6 Difference of MSL Elevation between River Improvement and Topography
........................................................................................................................... 15-205
Table 15.7.9-1 Issue of Current Traffic ....................................................................... 15-206
Table 15.7.9-2 Proposal of the Improvement .............................................................. 15-213
Table 16.1.1-1 Design Standards Utilized for Outline Design of New Bridges ................ 16-1
Table 16.1.1-2 Permanent and Transient Loads ............................................................... 16-2
Table 16.1.1-3 Load Combinations and Factors .............................................................. 16-2
Table 16.1.1-4 Load Factors for Permanent Loads, γp .................................................... 16-3
Table 16.1.1-5 Concrete Strength by Structural Member ................................................. 16-5
Table 16.1.1-6 Properties and Stress Limit of Reinforcing Bars ...................................... 16-5
Table 16.1.1-7 Properties and Stress Limit of PC Cable for T girder bridge .................... 16-5
Table 16.1.1-8 Properties and Stress Limit of PC Cable for PC Box Girder bridge ......... 16-5
Table 16.1.1-9 Properties and Stress Limit of Steel Pipe ................................................. 16-6
Table 16.1.1-10 Properties and Stress Limit of Steel Pipe for Steel Pipe Sheet Pile ........ 16-6
Table 16.1.1-11 Properties and Stress Limit of Steel Members ....................................... 16-6
Table 16.1.2-1 Extraction of Applicable Basic Types based on Actual Results .............. 16-12
lii
Table 16.1.2-2 Candidates of comparison study ............................................................ 16-13
Table 16.1.2-3 Site Condition for Study of Type-1 ........................................................ 16-14
Table 16.1.2-5 Site Candidates of Comparison Study ................................................... 16-14
Table 16.1.2-6 Comparison on Foundation Type of Lambingan Bridge Abutment（A2)16-15
Table 16.1.2-7 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Lambingan bridge ...................... 16-16
Table 16.1.2-9 Candidates of Comparison Study .......................................................... 16-20
Table 16.1.2-10 Site Candidates of Comparison Study ................................................. 16-20
Table 16.1.2-11 Extraction of Applicable Basic Types based on Actual Results ............ 16-20
Table 16.1.2-12 Candidates of Comparison Study......................................................... 16-21
Table 16.1.2-13 Comparison on Abutment Foundation Type of Guadarupe Bridge ....... 16-21
Table 16.1.2-14 Comparison on Abutment Foundation Type of Guadarupe Bridge ....... 16-22
Table 16.1.2-15 Comparison on Pier Foundation（P2)
Type of Guadarupe Bridge .... 16-23
Table 16.1.2-16 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Guadalupe Side bridge ............. 16-24
Table 16.1.2-17 DHW of Palanit Bridge ....................................................................... 16-26
Table 16.1.2-19 Extraction of Basic Types for Final Comparison Study (Steel) ............ 16-30
Table 16.1.2-20 Extraction of Basic Types for Final Comparison Study (PC) ............... 16-31
Table 16.1.2-21 Candidates of Final Comparison Study ................................................ 16-31
Table 16.1.2-23 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Palanit bridge (STEEL) ............ 16-32
Table 16.1.2-24 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Palanit bridge (PC) .................. 16-33
Table 16.1.2-25 DHW of Mawo Bridge ........................................................................ 16-35
Table 16.1.2-29 Bridge Types for Final Comparison Study, including Rational Structures
(PC) ...................................................................................................................... 16-43
Table 16.1.2-32 Comparison on Pile Diameter of Mawo Bridge at P1 Pier ................... 16-45
Table 16.1.2-33 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Mawo bridge (STEEL 1/2) ....... 16-46
Table 16.1.2-34 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Mawo bridge (STEEL 2/2) ....... 16-47
Table 16.1.2-35 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Mawo bridge (PC) ................... 16-48
liii
(Steel) ................................................................................................................... 16-57
(Steel) ................................................................................................................... 16-57
Table 16.1.2-43 Comparison on Pile Diameter of Wawa Bridge at P1 Pier ................... 16-60
Table 16.1.2-44 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Wawa bridge (STEEL 1/3) ....... 16-61
Table 16.1.2-47 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Wawa bridge (PC 1/2) .............. 16-64
Table 16.1.2-48 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Wawa bridge (PC 2/2) .............. 16-65
Table 16.1.3-1 Seismic Analysis ................................................................................... 16-71
Table 16.2.1-1 Summary for Soil Parameters (1) .......................................................... 16-72
Table 16.2.2-1 Load Combinations and Factors at Strength I in AASHTO 2012 ........... 16-75
Table 16.2.2-2 Distribution of Sectional Forces under Combination of Strength I ........ 16-76
Table 16.2.2-3 Stress Check of Steel Deck.................................................................... 16-77
Table 16.2.2-4 Stress Check of Arch Rib ...................................................................... 16-78
Table 16.2.2-5 Stress Check of Hangers ....................................................................... 16-79
Table 16.2.2-6 Summary of Calculated Results ............................................................ 16-80
Table 16.2.3-1 Support Condition ................................................................................. 16-81
Table 16.2.3-2 Force Distribution Bearing .................................................................... 16-82
Table 16.2.3-3 Springs of Foundations ......................................................................... 16-82
Table 16.2.3-4 Damping Coefficient ............................................................................. 16-82
Table 16.2.3-5 Comparison Study of Bearing in Lambingan Bridge ............................. 16-84
Table 16.2.3-6 Results of Eigenvalue Analysis ............................................................. 16-85
Table 16.2.3-7 Relative Displacement between Substructure and Superstructure .......... 16-85
Table 16.2.3-8 Assessment of Soil Liquefaction ........................................................... 16-86
Table 16.2.3-9 Assessment of Soil Liquefaction Parameters ......................................... 16-87
Table 16.2.3-10 Results on Liquefaction Resistance Factor (FL) & Reduction Factor (DE)
............................................................................................................................. 16-87
Table 16.2.3-11 Devices and Functions of Unseating Prevention System ...................... 16-89
Table 16.2.3-12 Force Distribution Bearing .................................................................. 16-89
Table 16.2.3-13 Outline Verification of Bearing under LV2 Seismic Forces ................. 16-90
Table 16.2.3-14 Verification of Longitudinal Restrainer ............................................... 16-90
liv
Table 16.3.2-1 Load Combinations and Factors at Strength I in AASHTO 2012 ........... 16-99
Table 16.3.2-2 Distribution of Sectional Forces under Combination of Strength I ...... 16-100
Table 16.3.2-3 Stress Check of Steel Deck for Bending Moment ................................ 16-101
Table 16.3.2-4 Summary of Calculated Results .......................................................... 16-103
Table 16.3.3-1 Support Condition ............................................................................... 16-103
Table 16.3.3-2 Springs of Foundations ....................................................................... 16-104
Table 16.3.3-3 Damping Coefficient ........................................................................... 16-104
Table 16.3.3-4 Comparison Study of Bearing in Guadalupe Bridge ............................ 16-106
Table 16.3.3-5 Results of Eigenvalue Analysis ........................................................... 16-107
Table 16.3.3-6 Relative Displacement between Substructure and Superstructure ........ 16-107
Table 16.3.3-7 Assessment of Soil Liquefaction ......................................................... 16-108
Table 16.3.3-8 Assessment of Soil Liquefaction Parameters ....................................... 16-109
........................................................................................................................... 16-109
Table 16.3.3-10 Stability Calculation Model ............................................................... 16-117
Table 16.3.3-11 Devices and Functions of Unseating Prevention System .................... 16-119
Table 16.3.3-12 Verification of Longitudinal Restrainer ............................................. 16-121
Table 16.4.1-1 Summary for Soil Parameters (1) at A1 side ........................................ 16-126
Table 16.4.1-2 Summary for Soil Parameters (2) at A1 side ........................................ 16-127
Table 16.4.2-1 Determination of Approximate Amount of Prestressing Force ............. 16-130
Table 16.4.3-5 Comparison Study of Bearing in Palanit Bridge .................................. 16-134
........................................................................................................................... 16-137
Table 16.4.3-12 Force Distribution Bearing ................................................................ 16-141
Table 16.4.3-13 Outline Verification of Bearing under LV2 Seismic Forces ............... 16-141
Table 16.5.1-1 Summary for Soil Parameters (1) ........................................................ 16-147
Table 16.5.1-2 Summary for Soil Parameters (2) ........................................................ 16-147
Table 16.5.2-1 Reaction Forces of Superstructure ....................................................... 16-150
lv
Table 16.5.3-5 Comparison Study of Bearing in Mawo Bridge ................................... 16-153
........................................................................................................................... 16-157
Table 16.6.1-1 Summary for Soil Parameters at A2side (1) ......................................... 16-167
Table 16.6.1-2 Summary for Soil Parameters at A1side (2) ......................................... 16-167
Table 16.6.2-1 Load Combinations and Factors at Strength I in AASHTO 2012 ......... 16-170
Table 16.6.2-2 Distribution of Axial Forces under Combination of Strength I............. 16-171
Table 16.6.2-3 Stress Check of Truss .......................................................................... 16-172
Table 16.6.2-4 Reaction Forces of Superstructure ....................................................... 16-173
Table 16.6.3-5 Comparison Study of Bearing in Wawa Bridge .................................... 16-176
Table 16.6.3-9 Result Assessment of Soil Liquefaction Parameters ............................ 16-179
........................................................................................................................... 16-179
Table 17.1.2-1 Material Properties ................................................................................. 17-1
Table 17.2.2-1 Load Distribution under EQ and Application Point of Seismic Inertial
lvi
Forces
............................................................................................................. 17-11
Table 17.2.4-1 Comparison of Seismic Devices ........................................................... 17-21
Table 17.2.4-2 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Pier Columns ...................... 17-23
Table 17.2.4-3 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Pier Copings ....................... 17-24
Table 17.2.4-4 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Foundations ........................ 17-26
Table 17.2.4-5 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Abutments .......................... 17-28
Table 17.3.2-1 Load Distribution under EQ and Application Point of Seismic Inertial
Forces
............................................................................................................. 17-50
Table 17.3.2-2 Result of Liquefaction Potential Assessment (MAN-E1 side) ............... 17-52
Table 17.3.2-3 Result of Liquefaction Potential Assessment (MAN-W1 side) .............. 17-53
Table 17.3.4-1 Comparison of Seismic Devices ........................................................... 17-62
Table 17.3.4-2 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Pier Columns ...................... 17-64
Table 17.3.4-3 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Pier Copings ....................... 17-65
Table 17.3.4-4 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Foundations (1) .................. 17-67
Table 17.3.4-5 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Foundations (2) .................. 17-69
Table 17.3.4-6 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Abutments .......................... 17-72
Table 18.1.1-1 The Recommended Structure Type of Selected Bridges .......................... 18-1
Table 18.2.1-1 The Width of Right of Way ..................................................................... 18-2
Table 18.2.1-2 List of Imported Items ............................................................................ 18-2
Table 18.2.2-1 Result of Traffic Analysis ....................................................................... 18-4
Table 18.2.2-2 Construction Schedule of Lambingan Bridge ........................................ 18-10
Table 18.2.3-1 Navigation Width of Existing Bridges at the Pasig River ...................... 18-15
Table 18.2.3-2 Construction Schedule of Guadalupe Bridge ........................................ 18-20
Table 18.2.4-1 Construction Schedule of 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge ......................... 18-25
Table 18.2.5-1 Comparison Study of Detour Plan of Palanit Bridge ............................. 18-27
Table 18.2.5-2
Construction Schedule of Palanit Bridges ........................................... 18-27
Table 18.2.6-1 Comparison Study of Detour Plan of Mawo Bridge ............................... 18-29
Table 18.2.6-2 Construction Schedule of Mawo Bridge ............................................... 18-30
Table 18.2.7-1 Construction Schedule of Lilo-an Bridge .............................................. 18-32
Table 18.2.8-1 Construction Schedule of Wawa Bridge ................................................ 18-34
Table 18.2.9-1 Construction Schedule of the Project .................................................... 18-35
Table 18.3.1-1 General Work Ratio of the Past Project................................................. 18-37
Table 18.3.1-2 Overhead Ratio .................................................................................... 18-38
Table 19.2.1-1 Comparison of Observed (Survey data) and Assigned Traffic Volume .... 19-4
Table 19.2.1-2 Future Traffic Volume Crossing Pasig River / Marikina River ................ 19-5
Table 19.2.2-1 Hourly Volume vs. Capacity in Guadalupe Bridge (1/3) (Case-0, No traffic
restriction 5-lane) ................................................................................................... 19-7
Table 19.2.2-2 Hourly Volume vs. Capacity in Guadalupe Bridge (2/3) (Case-1, 4-lane) 19-7
lvii
Table 19.2.2-3 Hourly Volume vs. Capacity in Guadalupe Bridge (3/3) (Case-2, 3-lane) 19-8
Table 19.2.2-4 Hourly Volume vs. Capacity in Lambingan Bridge (1/3) (Case-0, No traffic
restriction 3-lane) ................................................................................................. 19-10
Table 19.2.2-5 Hourly Volume vs. Capacity in Lambingan Bridge (2/3) (Case-1, 2-lane)19-10
Table 19.2.2-6 Hourly Volume vs. Capacity in Lambingan Bridge (3/3) (Case-2, 1-lane)19-11
Table 19.3.3-1 Traffic Volume (Bound to Guadalupe Bridge)....................................... 19-13
Table 19.3.3-2 Traffic Volume (Guadalupe Bridge) ...................................................... 19-13
Table 19.3.3-3 Traffic Volume (On Ramp) ................................................................... 19-14
Table 19.3.3-4 Traffic Volume (Bound to Guadalupe Bridge)....................................... 19-14
Table 19.4.1-1 2011 DPWH Traffic Growth Rate ......................................................... 19-48
Table 19.4.1-2 Assumed Traffic Restriction during Construction ................................. 19-48
Table 19.5.2-1 Basic Concepts of Cost and Benefit ...................................................... 19-52
Table 19.5.4-1 Estimation of Travel Time and Length for Regular Route and Detour Route
............................................................................................................................. 19-57
Table 19.5.4-2 Probability Density of Bridges .............................................................. 19-59
Table 19.5.4-3 Assumed Un-service Duration of Bridges .............................................. 19-60
Table 19.5.4-4 Unit VOC by Vehicle Type in September 2008 ............................... 19-61
Table 19.5.4-5 Unit VOC by Vehicle Type in 2013 ................................................. 19-61
Table 19.5.4-6 Unit Travel Time Cost in 2008 ........................................................ 19-62
Table 19.5.4-7 Unit Travel Time Cost in 2013 ........................................................ 19-62
Table 19.5.4-8 PHILVOLCS Earthquake Intensity Scale .............................................. 19-62
Table 19.5.4-9 Return Period of PGA Value .................................................................. 19-64
Table 19.5.5-1 Results of Economic Evaluation by Bridges .......................................... 19-64
Table 19.5.6-1 Project Sensitivity ................................................................................. 19-73
Table 20.1.1-1 National and Local Environmental Assessment Laws, Regulations and
Standards ................................................................................................................ 20-1
Table 20.1.1-2 Other National and Local Environmental Laws, Regulations and Standards
............................................................................................................................... 20-2
Table 20.1.1-3 Summary Table of Project Groups, EIA Report Types, Decision Documents,
Processing/Deciding Authorities and Processing Duration ...................................... 20-6
Table 20.1.1-4 National Ambient Air Quality Guideline Values ...................................... 20-7
Table 20.1.1-5 Effluent Standard: Conventional and Other Pollutants in Land Waters Class
C and Coastal Waters Class ..................................................................................... 20-7
Table 20.1.1-6 Ambient Noise Level (unit:db(A)) ........................................................... 20-8
Table 20.1.1-7 Noise standards for construction activities .............................................. 20-8
Table 20.1.3-1 Matrix of Proposed Project’s Environmental Impacts .............................. 20-9
lviii
Table 20.1.4-1 Matrix of the Proposed Project’s Environmental Mitigation and
Enhancement Measures ......................................................................................... 20-10
Table 20.1.5-1 Matrix of the Proposed Project’s Environmental Monitoring Plan ......... 20-14
Table 20.1.6-1 First time courtesy Meeting ................................................................... 20-16
Table 20.1.6-2 Second time Stakeholder Meeting ......................................................... 20-16
Table 20.2.1-1 Possible Implementation Options for the Project ................................... 20-17
Table 20.2.2-1 National and Local Laws, Regulations and Standards for Involuntary
Resettlement ......................................................................................................... 20-17
Table 20.2.2-2 Gaps in JICA and Philippine Involuntary Resettlement Frameworks ..... 20-19
Table 20.2.3-1 Status of settlers around candidate Bridges (Package-B) ....................... 20-23
Table 20.2.3-2 Status of settlers around candidate Bridges (Package-C) ....................... 20-23
Table 20.2.3-3 Estimated Number of Household members to be resettle ....................... 20-24
Table 20.2.3-4 Number of Households/Structures within the DIA ................................ 20-24
Table 20.2.4-1 Sample Restoration and Possible Solutions ........................................... 20-27
Table 20.2.4-2 Sample Entitlements Matrix .................................................................. 20-27
Table 20.2.6-1 Implementation Framework .................................................................. 20-30
Table 20.2.7-1 Schedule of IEE & LARAP ................................................................... 20-31
Table 20.2.9-1 Sample of Monitoring/Evaluation Indicators ......................................... 20-34
Table 21.1-1 Project Outline .......................................................................................... 21-1
Table 21.2-1 Estimated Project Cost .............................................................................. 21-3
Table 21.3-1 Proposed Implementation Schedule ........................................................... 21-4
Table 21.5-1 Results of Economic Evaluation by Bridges .............................................. 21-6
Table 21.5-2 Project Sensitivity ..................................................................................... 21-6
Table 22.3.2-1 Features of Improvement Levels ............................................................. 21-9
Table 22.3.2-2 Proposal for the Improvement of Traffic Situations around MRT Guadalupe
Station .................................................................................................................. 21-10
lix
ABBREVIATIONS
AADT
:
Annual Average Daily Traffic
AASHTO
:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ABC
:
Approved Budget for the Contract
AH
:
Asian Highway
AHTN
:
Asean Harmonized Tariff Nomenclature
ASD
:
Allowable Stress Design
ASEP
:
Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines
B/C
:
Benefit Cost
Bureau of Coast and Geodetic Survey
BCGS
BCR
:
Benefit Cost Ratio
BIR
:
Bureau of Internal Revenue
BOC
:
Bureau of Construction
BOD
:
Bureau of Design
BOM
:
Bureau of Maintenance
BRS
:
Bureau of Research and Standards
BSDS
:
Bridge Seismic Design Specification
CBD
:
Central Business District
CCA
:
Climate Change Adaptation
CCP
:
Cast-in-place concrete pile
CDA
:
Cooperative Development Authority
CLOA
:
Certificates of Land Ownership Award
CP
:
Counter Part
CPI
:
Consumer Price Index
DAO
:
Department Administrative Order
DEO
:
District Engineering Office
DIA
:
direct impact area
DL
:
Dead Load
DOF
:
Degree of Freedom
DPWH
:
Department of Public Works and Highways
DRR
:
Disaster Risk Reduction
DSWD
:
Department of Social Welfare and Development
ECA
:
Environmentally Critical Area
lx
ECC
:
Environmental Compliance Commitment
EDC
:
Estimated Direct Cost
EDSA
:
Epifanio de los Santos Avenue
EGM
:
Earthquake Ground Motion
EIA
:
Environmental Impact Assessment
EIRR
:
Economic Internal Rate of Return
EIS
:
Environmental Impact Statement
EMB
:
Environmental Mnagement Bureau
EMoP
:
Environmental Monitoring Plan
EQ
:
Earthquake Load
ESCAP
:
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
ESSO
:
Environmental and Social Services Office
GRS
:
Grievance Redress System
ICC
:
Investment Coordinating Committee
IEE
:
Initial Environmental Examination
IMF
:
International Monetary Fund
IR
:
Involuntary Resettlement
IRR
:
Internal Rate of Return
ITC
:
Intersection Traffic Count
JBA
:
Japan Bridge Association
JCC
:
Joint Coordinating Committee
JICA
:
Japan International Cooperation Agency
JPCCA
:
Japan Prestressed Concrete Contractors Association
JRA
:
Japan Road Association
LAP
:
Land Acquisition Plan
LARRIPP
:
Land Acquisition, Resettlement, Rehabilitation and Indigenous Peoples’
LD
:
Longitudinal Direction
LFD
:
Load Factors Design
LGUs
:
Local Government Units
LL
:
Live Load
LOS
:
Level-of-Service
LPG
:
Liquefied Petroleum Gas
LRB
:
Laminated Rubber Bearing
LRFD
:
Load and Resistance Factor Design
MAD
:
Mean Absolute Difference
lxi
MC
:
Memorandum Circular
MGB
:
Mines and Geosciences Bureau
MHWL
:
Mean High Water Level
MRT
:
Mass Rapid Transit
MSL
:
Mean Sea Level
NAMRIA
:
National Mapping and Resource Information Authority
NCR
:
National Capital Region
NGO
:
Non-Governmental Organization
NIED
:
National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention
NLEX
:
North Luzon Expressway
NPV
:
Net Present Value
NSCP
:
National Structural Code of the Philippines
OC
:
Operational Classification
OD
:
Origin and Destination
OJT
:
On-the-Job Training
PAF
:
Project Affected Family
PAP
:
Project Affected Person
PC
:
Prestressed Concrete
PCG
:
Philippine Coast Guard
PD
:
Presidential Decree
PEIS
:
Philippine Earthquake Intensity Scale
PFI
:
Private Finance Initiative
PGA
:
Peak Ground Acceleration
PHIVOLCS
:
Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
PICE
:
Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers
PMO
:
Project Management Office
PPP
:
Public Private Partnership
R/D
:
Record and Discussion
RA
:
Republic Act
RAP
:
Resettlement Action Plan
RC
:
Reinforced Concrete
RIC
:
Resettlement Implementation Committee
RO
:
Regional Office
ROW
:
Right of Way
RTC
:
Roadside Traffic Count
lxii
SER
:
Shadow Exchange Rate
SLEX
:
South Luzon Expressway
SMR
:
Self-Monitoring Report
SPL
:
Seismic Performance Level
SPP
:
Steel Pipe Pile
SPSP
:
Steel Pipe Sheet Pile
Standard Penentration Test
SPT
SPZ
:
Seismic Performance Zone
SR
:
Superstructure Replacement
SWMP
:
Solid Waste Management Plan
SWR
:
Shadow Wage Rate
TCT
:
Transfer Certificate of Title
TD
:
Transversal Direction
TESDA
:
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority
TTC
:
Travel Time Cost
VAT
:
Value Added Tax
VOC
:
Vehicle Operating Cost
WB
:
World Bank
lxiii
PART 4
OUTLINE DESIGN OF SELECTED
BRIDGES FOR SEISMIC CAPACITY
IMPROVEMENT
(PACKAGE B AND C)
CHAPTER 15 DESIGN CONDITIONS FOR SELECTED
BRIDGES
15.1
Introduction
Part 4 will describe the outline design of prioritized bridges, which have been identified through the
first and second screening in the previous chapters, based on the Draft Bridge Seismic Design
Specifications prepared under Package A. In the outline design, design conditions shall be clear and
consideration shall be given to the overall economic efficiency, seismic resistance, environment, and
so on.
This chapter will show design conditions based on the result of existing condition survey conducted in
the first and the second screening for outline design of package B and C.
15.2
Topographic Features and Design Conditions
15.2.1 Methodology and Results
(1) Methodology
1) Review of the Data
National control points and benchmarks around each bridge were collected to determine the
coordinates and elevation.
2) GPS Survey
Standard static GPS survey method has been adopted and simultaneous measurements of 2
receivers for duration of 2- 3 hours giving 2 correlated vectors.
3) Traverse Control Points
The traverse control points were meant for horizontal control of the survey works. The traverse
control points are marked by concrete putty of size 25cm x 25cm.
4) Establishment of Temporary Bench Marks
Level survey was started from and closed to the National Bench Mark (NBM). Semi-permanent
Temporary Bench Marks (TBM) were established at each bridge site. The TBM was made of
25cm x 25cm concrete putty and possessed easting and northing coordinates and altitude. The
details of the established TBM including its photos are shown in the APPENDIX.
15-1
5) Center Line Profile Survey of Target Bridges and Their Approach Roads
Profile survey was carried out along centerlines of the target bridges and their approach roads by
a double run observation method. The scale of drawing is V=1:100 and H=1:1,000.
6) Cross Section Survey of Target Bridges and Their Approach Roads
Cross section survey of the target bridges and their approach roads was carried out at 50m
intervals for each area. Level survey was carried out by differential leveling double run. The
scale of drawing is S=1:100.
7) Topographic (Plan) Survey
Topographic survey was conducted for the target bridges and their approach roads. The details of
the survey are as follows.

Scale of drawing: S=1:1,000

Contours at 1m interval

Location of structures such as houses, buildings, walls, fence, traffic signs, established
TBM and etc.
8) Cross Section Survey of the Rivers
Cross section survey of the rivers which the target bridges cross was carried out as follows.

By using echo sounder and total stations set-up on the nearby ground established control
points

At the bridge centerline

At 200m and 100m downstream and upstream away respectively from the bridge
centerline (In case of the Palanit Bridge and the Wawa Bridge, 300m downstream and
300m upstream away respectively)

At 15m downstream and 15m upstream away respectively from the edges of bridge cross
section

Scale of drawing: S=1:100
9) Centerline Profile Survey of the Rivers
Centerline profile survey of the rivers which the target bridges cross was carried out along
appropriate centerlines of the rivers by using echo sounder and total stations set-up on the nearby
ground established control points.
15-2
10) Shape and Dimension Measurement of Target Bridges
Shape and dimension measurement of the target bridges was conducted for the as-built and
structural data of the bridges. The details are as follows.

By using established horizontal and vertical controls to be used as basis for determining
position and evaluation of as-built and structure data

Measure structural members of the each bridge superstructures at four typical crosssections
In addition, concrete girder displacement of the Lambingan Bridge was measured along with the
bottom of girder bridge to make clear the deflection using Topcon Image Scanner.
(2) Survey Results
Topographic survey results were used for outline design, hydrological survey and social environment
survey.
15-3
15.2.2 Topographic Feature and Design Condition
(1) Package B (Delpan, Nagtahan, Lambingan, Guadalupe and Marikina Bridge)
Figure 15.2.2-1 shows the locations of the target bridges in Metro Manila. The Marikina Valley Fault
System which is the closest active fault to Manila and represents the most likely near-field source of
large damaging earthquakes. The West Marikina Valley Fault is running along the Marikina River.
The Delpan Bridge is located at 11.1 km northwest of the fault, the Nagtahan Bridge is 7.5 km
northwest, the Lambingan Bridge is 5.3 km northwest, the Guadalupe Bridge is 2.4 km west and the
Marikina Bridge is 1.0 km east.
West Marikina
Valley Fault
Marikina
Nagtahan
Deplan
Lambingan
Guadalupe
Active fault solid - trace certain
Heavy dashed line - trace approximate
Light dashed line – approximate offshore projection
Lineament assumed by topographic map
Source: Added Topographic Map by NAMRIA
Figure 15.2.2-1 Topographic Features for the Target Bridges in Metro Manila
(Non-Scale)
15-4
(2) Package C
1) Buntun Bridge
The Buntun Bridge is located at floodplain area of the Cagayan River as shown in Figure
15.2.2-2 and 15.9 km southwest of the Taboan River Fault.
Buntun Bridge
Figure 15.2.2-2 Topographic Features for Buntun Bridge (Non-Scale)
15-5
2) Mandaue-Mactan Bridge
The Mandaue - Mactan Bridge connects Cebu Island and Mactan Island as shown in Figure
15.2.2-3 and 15.8 km southwest of the Cebu Lineament.
Mandaue-Mactan Bridge
Figure 15.2.2-3 Topographic Features for Mandaue-Mactan Bridge (Non-Scale)
15-6
3) Palanit Bridge and Mawo Bridge
The Mawo Bridge is over the Mauo River and also the Palanit Bridge is over the Palanit River.
The Northern Samar Lineament is running around this area as shown in Figure 15.2.2-4 (The
Mawo Bridge is located at 1.4 km southwest of the Northern Samar Lineament and the Palanit is
7.6 km southwest). Several lineaments assumed by topographic map are recognized and the
bridges are located over the lineaments.
Mawo Bridge
Palanit Bridge
Northern Samar Lineament
(Route is approximate.)
Figure 15.2.2-4 Topographic Features for Palanit Bridge and Mawo Bridge (Non-Scale)
15-7
4) Biliran Bridge
The Biliran Bridge connects Leyte Island and Poro Island as shown in Figure 15.2.2-5. The
bridge is located at 4.3 km northwest of an identified trace of the Central Leyte Fault.
Biliran Bridge
Central Leyte Fault
Figure 15.2.2-5 Topographic Features for Biliran Bridge (Non-Scale)
15-8
5) Liloan Bridge
The Liloan Bridge connects Panaon Island and Leyte Island as shown in Figure 15.2.2-6. The
bridge is located at 2.5 km southwest of an identified trace of the Central Leyte Fault.
Central Leyte Fault
Liloan Bridge
Terrace
Figure 15.2.2-6 Topographic Features for Liloan Bridge (Non-Scale)
15-9
6) Wawa Bridge
The Wawa Bridge is over the Wawa River as shown in Figure 15.2.2-7. The bridge is located at
1.4 km west of an identified trace of the Eastern Mindanao Fault.
Wawa Bridge
Eastern Mindanao Fault
Figure 15.2.2-7 Topographic Features for Wawa Bridge (Non-Scale)
Figure 15.2.2-8 shows discrimination of landforms with aerial photographs for Wawa Bridge.
Several lineaments which are attributable to the Eastern Mindanao Fault are recognized and
running through the slope behind the Wawa Bridge. Also the area of deformed slope is
recognized in lineament area. General two levels of river terrace are recognized at the side of
current river course of the Wawa River.
Figure 15.2.2-9 shows site investigation plan of the Wawa Bridge. It seems that the cut slope of
east side of the bridge is currently stable although weathering developed at slope surface (Photo
15.2.2-1(a)). There is sediment deposit (mainly sand) upper the irrigation system (Photo
15.2.2-1(b)).
15-10
Tr
(lower)
Wawa Bridge
Tr
(upper)
Terrace (Tr)
Area of deformed slope
Lineament
Source: Added Aerial Photograph(S=1:25,000) by NAMRIA
Figure 15.2.2-8 Discrimination of Landforms with Aerial Photographs for Wawa Bridge
Source: JICA study team
Figure 15.2.2-9 Site investigation plan of Wawa Bridge (Non-scale)
15-11
(a) Slope Condition of East Side of the Bridge
(b) Sediment Deposit due to Irrigation System
Source: JICA study team
Photo 15.2.2-1 Site Condition of Wawa Bridge
(3) Position and Distance between Target Bridge and Active Fault
Table 15.2.2-1 shows position and distance between above the target bridges and active fault. This
information is duly from PHIVOLCS.
Table 15.2.2-1 Position and Distance between the Target Bridge and Active Fault
Location
Delpan
Package B
11.1 km
northwest of the West Marikina Valley Fault
Nagtahan
7.5 km
Lambingan
5.3 km
Guadalupe
2.4 km
west of the West Marikina Valley Fault
Marikina
Package C
Nearest Active Fault
1.0 km
east of the West Marikina Valley Fault
Buntun
15.9 km
southwest of the Taboan River Fault
Mandaue-Mactan
15.8 km
southwest of the Cebu Lineament
Palanit
7.6 km
southwest of an identified trace of Northern Samar Lineament
Mawo
1.4 km
southwest of an identified trace of Northern Samar Lineament
Liloan
2.5 km
southwest of an identified trace of PFZ Central Leyte Fault
Biliran
4.3 km
northwest of an identified trace of PFZ Central Leyte Fault
1.4 km
west of an identified trace of PFZ Eastern Mindanao Fault
5.5 km
east of another identified trace of PFZ Eastern Mindanao Fault
Wawa
Source: PHIVOLCS
15-12
15.3
Geotechnical and Soil Profile Conditions
15.3.1
Purpose of Geological Investigation, Outlines and Work Methodology
(1) Purpose of Geological Investigation
Geological investigation was implemented to confirm geology, geotechnical and soil properties, and
design condition of the selected bridge sites for the 2nd Screening of the bridges inside and outside of
Metro Manila. There were five (5) bridge sites inside Metro Manila and were Seven (7) bridge sites
outside of Metro Manila. The geological investigation was undertaken by a local consultant
(EASCON Mla. Const. Con., Inc.). The JICA Study Team supervised the local consultant’s work.
(2) Outlines and Contents of Geological Investigation
The geological investigation for each bridge site is basically comprised of boring with standard
penetration test, laboratory tests to know soil mechanical properties, and downhole shear wave test.
The geological investigation was carried out between August and October in 2012.
(3) Methodologies of Work
1) Boring
Non-core drilling work was executed at the locations specified by the JICA Study Team. The
depth of the drilling at each borehole was planned and terminated by the JICA Study Team. Soil
samples obtained by Standard Penetration Test (SPT) were reserved using sealed plastic bags.
The soil samples were observed by the geologist of the JICA Study Team and used for
laboratory soil tests.
2) Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed for every one (1) meter basically. Ground water
levels at each borehole were measured every morning.
3) Laboratory Test
All the laboratory tests shall be executed in accordance with AASHTO, ASTM basically. The
laboratory tests for boring cores or samples contain the test items shown in Table 15.3.1-1 below.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Table 15.3.1-1 Laboratory Tests and Methodology
Tests / Item
Methodology
Soil classification
AASHTO/ASTM
Specific gravity
AASHTO T-85
Natural moisture content
AASHTO T-265
Atterberg limits
AASHTO T-89&90
Grain size analysis
AASHTO T-88
Unconfined compression test of soils / rock test
AASTHO T-24
15-13
4) Downhole Shear Wave Test (DSWT)
The downhole shear wave test (DSWT) shall confirm to ASTM 7400. The test requires drilling
of a single borehole. This borehole was taken from one of the geotechnical boreholes at each site
basically. The geotechnical boreholes were reamed to a larger diameter to accommodate PVC or
GI pipes and the ground tubes. The boreholes were then thoroughly cleaned with its cuttings
prior to the installation of the PVC pipe and grouting. The formulated ground mixture shall
approximate the density of the surrounding in-situ material after consolidation. A minimum of
two week waiting time was followed to fully cured the grout prior to actual testing.
During testing, seismic energy was generated on the ground surface using a shear beam firmly
fixed at a short distance from the top of the borehole. The travel times of the first-arrival seismic
waves (S waves) were measured at regular intervals using a single, clamped triaxial geophone
that is gradually moved down the borehole. The S-wave arrival times for each receiver location
are combined to produce travel-time versus depth curves for the completed borehole. These are
then used to produce total velocity profiles from which interval velocities and the various elastic
moduli can be calculated (in conjunction with density data from geophysical logging of the
borehole).
5) Quantity of Geotechnical Investigation
The following tables (Table 15.3.1-2 and Table 15.3.1-3) show the quantity of the geological
investigation in this study (as of October 29, 2012).
Table 15.3.1-2 Quantities of Geotechnical Investigation (Inside Metro Manila)
Quantity
Bridge
Item
Unit
Plan
Actual
Delpan
Boring
m
60
38
SPT
nos.
60
38
Laboratory Test
nos.
60
37
DSWT
m
60
38
Nagtahan
Boring
m
40
30
SPT
nos.
40
30
Laboratory Test
nos.
40
22
DSWT
m
40
30
Lambingan Boring
m
50
30
SPT
nos.
50
30
Laboratory Test
nos.
50
27
DSWT
m
50
30
Guadalupe
Boring
m
50
46
SPT
nos.
50
42
Laboratory Test
nos.
50
33
DSWT
m
50
46
Marikina
Boring
m
30
30
SPT
nos.
30
30
Laboratory Test
nos.
30
30
DSWT
m
30
30
15-14
Table 15.3.1-3 Quantities of Geotechnical Investigation (Outside Metro Manila)
Bridge
Item
Unit
Quantity
Plan
Actual
Buntun
Boring
m
60
60
SPT
nos.
60
60
Laboratory Test
nos.
60
55
1st Mandaue Boring
m
80
111
Mactan
SPT
nos.
80
111
Laboratory Test
nos.
80
Not completed
DSWT
m
40
81
Palanit
Boring
m
80
60
SPT
nos.
80
48
Laboratory Test
nos.
80
8
DSWT
m
40
30
Mawo
Boring
m
100
74
SPT
nos.
100
74
Laboratory Test
nos.
100
35
DSWT
m
50
44
Biliran
Boring
m
60
60
SPT
nos.
60
60
Laboratory Test
nos.
60
3
Liloan
Boring
m
80
30
SPT
nos.
80
30
Laboratory Test
nos.
80
17
DSWT
m
40
30
Wawa
Boring
m
120
60
SPT
nos.
120
60
Laboratory Test
nos.
120
Not completed
DSWT
m
60
Not completed
(4) Locations of Boreholes
1) Metro Manila
Five bridge sites were investigated inside of Metro Manila. Locations of boreholes made inside
of Metro Manila are shown below (Figure 15.3.1-1 to Figure 15.3.1-5).
15-15
a) Delpan Bridge
Delpan B-1
100 m
Figure 15.3.1-1 Location map of borehole (Delpan B-1)
b) Nagtahan Bridge
Nagtahan B-1
100 m
Figure 15.3.1-2 Location Map of Borehole (Nagtahan B-1)
15-16
c) Lambingan Bridge
Lambingan B-1
100 m
Figure 15.3.1-3 Location Map of Borehole (Lambingan B-1)
d) Guadalupe Bridge
Guadalupe B-1
100 m
Figure 15.3.1-4 Location Map of Borehole (Guadalupe B-1)
15-17
e) Marikina Bridge
Marikina B-1
100 m
Figure 15.3.1-5 Location Map of Borehole (Marikina B-1)
2) Outside of Metro Manila
Seven (7) bridge sites were investigated outside of Metro Manila. Locations of boreholes made
inside of Metro Manila are shown below (Figure 15.3.1-6 to Figure 15.3.1-12).
a) Buntun Bridge
BTL-1
BTL-2
2000 m
Source: NAMRIA Topographic Map 1:50,000: Tuguegarao
Figure 15.3.1-6 Location Map of Boreholes (Buntun Bridge)
15-18
N
b) Palanit Bridge
PAL-L1
PAL-R1
Figure 15.3.1-7 Location Map of Boreholes (Palanit Bridge)
c) Mawo Bridge
MAW-L2
MAW-L1
100 m
Figure 15.3.1-8 Location Map of Boreholes (Mawo Bridge)
15-19
d) 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge
MAN-E1
MAN-W1
100 m
Figure 15.3.1-9 Location Map of Borehole s (1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge)
e) Biliran Bridge
BIL-S1
BIL-N1
100 m
Figure 15.3.1-10
Location Map of Boreholes (Biliran Bridge)
15-20
f) Liloan Bridge
LIL-N1
LIL-S1
1000 m
Source: NAMRIA Topographic Map 1:50,000: San Francisco
Figure 15.3.1-11
Location Map of Boreholes (Liloan Bridge)
g) Wawa Bridge
WAW-R1
WAW-L1
100 m
Figure 15.3.1-12
Location Map of Boreholes (Wawa Bridge)
15-21
15.3.2 Results of Geotechnical Investigation inside of Metro Manila
Geological investigation inside Metro Manila was conducted at the five (5) sites that are Delpan
Bridge, Nagtahan Bridge, Lambingan Bridge, Guadalupe Bridge, and Marikina Bridge.
(1) Boring and Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
1) Delpan Bridge
a) Boring Result
The boring was carried out at the left bank of the Passig River. A soil profile of the borehole
B-1 is shown in Table 15.3.2-1.
Table 15.3.2-1 Boring Result (Deplpan B-1)
Depth(m)
0–8
Thickness (m)
8
N value
11 – 7
8 – 15
7
4 – 10
15 – 17
2
7 (- 50)
17 – 21
4
5–8
21 – 33
12
9 – 13
33 – 38
5
50 <
Soil Characters
Mainly fine sand
sometime including broken shell fragments
relatively low water content
blackish-gray colored
Sandy silt
relatively high water content
relatively soft
Sandy silt
including broken shell fragments
gray / dark-gray colored
Silt
with clay and fine sand
mostly dark-gray/blackish-gray colored
Clayey silt
with fine sand
mostly dark-gray/blackish-gray colored
interbedded with white colored volcanic ash about -30.5 m
Very fine sand
silty
yellowish-gray colored
Groundwater was observed around -3.00 m in the borehole.
b) Engineering Soil Layers
Based on the boring logs of B-1, the following soil layers can be identified (Table 15.3.2-2).
15-22
Table 15.3.2-2 Engineering Soil Layers (Deplpan B-1)
S Thickness
(m)
oil Layer
As
15
Ac
6
Dc
12
Ds
5
N-value
4 – 11
5–8
9 – 13
50<
Soil Type
Relative
Density/Stiffness
Loose
Firm
Stiff
Very dense
Fine sand, and sandy silt
Silt, and sandy silt
Clayey silt
Very fine sand
A geological profile for Delpan Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.2-1.
Right bank
Left bank of the Passig River
Delpan B-1
25 m
BR-1
250 m
As: Alluvial sand, Ac: alluvial cohesive soil, Ds: diluvial sand, Dc: diluvial cohesive soil
Figure 15.3.2-1 Geological Profile for Delpan Bridge
(I) As: Alluvial Sand
The layer is distributed from the ground surface to a depth of 8 m. Therefore the layer has a
thickness of eight (8) meter and mainly composed of loose fine sand.
(II) Ac: Alluvial Cohesive Soil
Cohesive soils between -8 m and -21 is classified as an alluvial cohesive (silty/clayey) soil
layer and named Ac in this report. The Ac layer has a thickness of 13 m and is composed of
soft to firm silty/clayey soils.
15-23
(III) Dc: Diluvial Cohesive Soil
Cohesive soils between -17 m and -33 m is classified into a diluvial cohesive (silty/clayey)
soil layer. The Dc layer has a thickness of 16m and is composed of firm to stiff cohesive
soils.
(IV) Ds: Diluvial Sand
Sandy soil between -33 m and -38 m is categorized as a diluvial sand layer. The layer has a
thickness of 5 m at least and considered to be a bearing layer.
2) Nagtahan Bridge
a) Boring Result
The boring was performed on the left bank of the Passig River. A soil profile of the borehole
is summarized in Table 15.3.2-3.
Table 15.3.2-3 Boring Result (Nagtahan B-1)
Depth (m)
0–2
Thickness (m)
2
N value
6 – 18
2 – 12
10
4 – 14
12 – 14
2
16
14 – 15
1
13 – 16
15 – 17
2
13 – 17
17 – 23
6
14 – 27
23 – 30
7
50 <
Soil characters
Gravel and sand
including clay
dark-gray colored
Fine sand with medium sand
including gravels having diameter of 10-15 mm
gray colored
Gravel
with sand and fines (probably silt)
yellowish-gray/gray colored
including gravel (20 mm in diameter)
Silty sand
with gravel
dark-gray colored
Gravel/sand with gravel
moderate to low water content
Mainly fine sand
with medium sand
sometimes including fines
brownish-gray/yellowish-gray colored
Welded tuff
including angular rock fragments and pumice
sometime sandstone-like (tuff without rock fragments
and/or pumice)
yellowish-gray/brownish-gray colored
15-24
Table 15.3.2-4 Engineering Soil Layers (Nagtahan B-1)
Soil
Layer
Bs
As
Ag
Ds
GF
Thickness
(m)
2
10
5
6
7
N-value
6 – 18
4 – 14
13 – 17
14 – 27
50<
Relative
Density/Stiffness
Loose – medium dense
Medium dense
Medium dense
Rock
Soil Type
Gravel, and sand
Fine – medium sand
Gravel, silty sand, and sand with gravel
Fine sand
Guadalupe Formation: welded tuff
A geological profile for Nagtahan Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.2-2.
Right bank
Nagtahan B-1
25 m
BPRL-17
250 m
BF: fill soil, As: alluvial sand, Ac: alluvial cohesive soil, Ag: alluvial gravel, Dc: diluvial cohesive soil, Ds: diluvial sand,
GF: Guadalupe Formation (basically pyroclastic rocks)
Figure 15.3.2-2 Geological Profile for Nagtahan Bridge
15-25
(I)
Bs: Backfill Soil
The layer is distributed from the ground surface up to a depth of 2 m and mainly composed
of gravel and sand layers. This layer has a thickness of 2 m.
(II) As: Alluvial Sand
Sandy soil between -2 m and -12 m is categorized as an alluvial sandy soil layer. The layer
has a thickness of 10 m at least and considered to be a bearing layer.
(III) Ag: Alluvial Gravelly Soil
Gravel, silty sand, and sand with gravel between -12 m and -17 m are categorized as an
alluvial gravelly soil layer. The layer has a thickness of 5 m.
(IV) Ds: Diluvial Sand
Sandy soil between -17 and -23 m can be classified into a diluvial sandy soil layer. That has
a thickness of 6 m in total.
(V) GF: Guadalupe Formation
Rocks between -23 m and -30 m are composed of welded tuffs named the Guadalupe
Formation. The Guadalupe Formation has a thickness greater than 7 m at this site.
3) Lambingan Bridge
a) Boring Result
The boring was executed on the right bank of the Passig River. The boring result is
summarized in Table 15.3.2-5 below.
15-26
Table 15.3.2-5 Boring Result (Lambingan B-1)
Depth (m)
0–1
Thickness (m)
1
N value
12
1–6
5
6 – 21
6 – 10
4
6–9
10 – 11
1
28
11 – 24
13
50 <
24 – 26
2
50 <
26 – 28
2
50 <
28 – 30
2
50 <
Soil characters
Medium sand
brown colored
with broken shell fragments
Silty fine sand
soft or loose
mostly gray colored
Sandy clay or clayey sand
dark-gray colored
moderate water content
Weathered rock
strongly weathered (probably tuff)
gray colored
sand-like
Tuff breccia, tuffs, and tuffaceous sandstones
brownish-gray colored
-11 m - -17 m: strongly weathered portion
below -17 m: fresh and/or welded portion
Fine sand
including fines and gravel
dark-gray or brownish-gray colored
No core recovered
(probably fine sand)
Strongly welded tuff
black colored
Table 15.3.2-6 Engineering Soil Layers (Lambingan B-1)
Soil
Layer
Bs
As
Dc
WGF
GF
Thickness
(m)
1
5
4
1
19
N-value
12
6 – 21
6–9
50<
Relative
Density/Stiffness
Medium dense
Firm – stiff
Rock
50<
Rock
Soil Type
Sand
Silty fine sand
Sandy clay, and clayey sand
Weathered rock of the Guadalupe
Formation
Guadalupe Formation: tuff breccia, tuffs,
tuffaceous sandstone; intercalating fine
sand layer
A geological profile for Lambingan Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.2-3.
15-27
Right bank
Lambingan B-1
25 m
BL-3
250 m
BF: fill soil, As: alluvial sand, Ac: alluvial cohesive soil, Ds: diluvial sand, GF: Guadalupe Formation (basically pyroclastic
rocks)
Figure 15.3.2-3 Geological Profile for Lambingan Bridge
(I) Bs: Backfill Soil
It is mainly composed of medium sand and has a thickness of 1 m.
Sandy soils between -2 m and -6 m are classified into an alluvial sand layer. A thickness of
layer is about 5 m.
(III) Dc: Diluvial Cohesive Soils
Sandy clay (or clayey sand) between -6 m and -10 m is considered to be a diluvial cohesive
(clayey/silty) layer. Its thickness is 4 m.
(IV) WGF: Weathered Guadalupe Formation
Rocks between -10 m and -11 m are strongly weathered rocks of the Guadalupe Formation.
A thickness of this section is about 1 m.
15-28
(V) GF: Guadalupe Formation
Relatively fresh welded tuffs lying at a depth of 12 m are classified into the Guadalupe
Formation.
4) Guadalupe Bridge
a) Boring Result
The boring was carried out at the right bank of the Passig River, and its result is summarized
in Table 15.3.2-7.
Table 15.3.2-7 Boring Result (Guadalupe B-1)
Depth(m)
0–2
Thickness (m)
2
N value
–
2–7
5
8 – 28
7 – 10
3
34 – 50
10 – 35
25
26 – 46
35 – 40
5
35 – 39
40 – 46
6
50 <
Soil characters
Fill soils
including rock/concrete fragment
Mainly coarse to medium sand
including broken shell fragments, fines and gravels
(avg. 15 mm in diameter)
Gravel with sand
Dark-gray/brownish-gray/gray colored
Mainly medium to fine sand
sometime coarse sand
rich with broken shell fragments
very rich with broken shell fragments about -21.5 m
including gravel (10-15 mm in diameter)
Mainly fine to medium sand
poor with broken shell fragments
dark-gray/blackish-gray colored
Mainly medium to fine sand
Moderate water content
Table 15.3.2-8 Engineering Soil Layers (Guadalupe B-1)
Soil
Layer
BF
As
Dg
Ds1
Ds2
Thickness
(m)
2
5
3
25
5
N-value
8 – 28
34 – 50
26 – 46
35 – 39
50<
Relative
Density/Stiffness
Dense
Medium dense – dense
Dense
Very dense
15-29
Soil Type
Gravel, and sand
Coarse – medium sand
Gravel with sand
Medium – fine sand
Medium – fine sand
A geological profile for the Guadalupe Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.2-4.
Right bank
Guadalupe B-1
25 m
BPLW-30
250 m
BF: fill soil, As: alluvial sand, Dg: diluvial gravel, Ds1: diluvial sand (1), Ds2: diluvial sand (2)
Figure 15.3.2-4 Geological Profile for the Guadalupe Bridge
(I) BF: Backfill Soil
Soil between the ground surface and -2 m are considered to be backfill soil with a thickness
of 2 m.
15-30
Coarse to medium sand between -3 m and -6 m is classified into an alluvial sand layer with a
thickness of 3m.
(III) Dg: Diluvial Gravel
Gravel with sand between -7 m and -10 m is classified as a diluvial gravel layer.
(IV) Ds1: Diluvial Sand (1)
A soil section between -10 m and -40 m is composed of fine to medium sand. This section is
considered to be a diluvial sand layer.
(V) Ds2: Diluvial Sand (2)
Medium to fine sand between -40 m and -46 m is denser than Ds1, and it is categorized as
the secondary diluvial sand layer.
5) Marikina Bridge
a) Boring Result
The boring was performed on the right bank of the Marikina River. Its soil profile is shown in
Table 15.3.2-9.
15-31
Table 15.3.2-9 Boring Result (Marikina B-1)
Depth (m)
0–3
Thickness (m)
3
N value
3–6
3–5
2
7–8
5–7
2
9 – 10
7 – 12
5
10 – 25
12 – 14
2
21 – 25
14 – 18
4
27 – 34
18 – 24
6
40 – 61
24 – 30
6
50 <
Soil characters
Very fine sand
silty
poor graded
brown colored
Mainly very fine sand
with silt
Very fine sand
silty
brownish-gray/gray colored
Mainly fine sand
including silt and gravel
dark-gray colored
Fine to medium sand
relatively high to moderate water content
Gravel and sand
relatively low to moderate water content
sometime medium to fine sand with gravel
including gravels (20-30 mm in diameter)
Coarse sand
brownish-gray/blackish-gary colored
Mainly coarse to medium sand
including gravel having diameters of 10-20 mm
Table 15.3.2-10Engineering Soil Layers (Marikina B-1)
Soil
Layer
Asc
As
Asg
Ds1
Ds2
Thickness
(m)
7
7
4
6
6
N-value
3 – 10
10 – 25
27 – 34
40 – 61
50<
Relative
Density/Stiffness
Loose
Medium dense
Dense – very dense
Very dense
Soil Type
Very fine sand, and silty fine sand
Gravel, and sand
Coarse sand
Coarse – medium sand
A geological profile for the Marikina Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.2-5.
15-32
Right bank of the Marikina River
Left bank
Marikina B-1
25 m
M6-LL (exising)
250 m
Asc: alluvial sandy and cohesive soil, As: alluvial sand, Asg: alluvial sand and gravel, Ds1: diluvial sand (1), Dc2: diluvial
cohesive soil, Ds2: diluvial sand (2)
Figure 15.3.2-5 Geological Profile for the Marikina Bridge
(I) Asc: Alluvial Sandy and Cohesive Soil
A soil section between the ground surface and -7 m is comprised of very fine sand with fines.
This section can be classified into an alluvium layer.
(II) As: Alluvial Sands
Sandy soils between -7 m and -14 m are considered to be an alluvium. This section is
composed of very fine to medium sand.
15-33
(III) Asg: Alluvial Sand and Gravel
Sand and gravel between – 14 m and -18 m are categorized as an alluvium layer.
Coarse sand between -18 m and -24 m is a diluvial layer. It is rich in gravels.
(V) Ds2: Diluvial Sand (2)
A sandy section between -24 m and -30 m is considered to be a diluvium layer. This layer is
denser than the Ds1 layer.
(2) Laboratory Tests
Soils of each borehole can be categorized as shown in the following tables.
Of the laboratory tests, results of grain size analysis as of October 31, 2012 are shown below
temporally.
1) Delpan Bridge
A tentative laboratory soil tests results are shown in Table 15.3.2-11.
15-34
Table 15.3.2-11Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Delpan B-1
GL(m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Soil Layer
As
Major Soil
Type
Mainly fine
sand
Sandy silt
Ac
Sandy silt
Silt
Dc
Ds
Clayey silt
Very fine
sand
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Fines (%)
24.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
74.2
92.4
98.1
95.4
96.3
95.1
92.8
91.6
43.2
4.9
4.4
47.2
9.4
7.7
22.7
63.6
31.0
15.2
7.5
4.1
11.3
31.4
22.4
5.7
33.7
12.0
4.1
6.0
26.5
21.1
20.2
92.1
18.2
86.6
1.0
7.6
1.9
4.6
3.7
4.0
7.2
8.4
56.9
95.1
95.6
52.8
90.6
92.3
77.3
36.4
69.0
84.9
92.5
95.9
88.7
68.6
77.6
94.3
66.3
88.0
95.9
94.0
73.5
78.9
79.8
7.9
81.8
13.1
Natural
Moisture
Content
(%)
14.3
28.2
20.1
33.3
27.3
27.6
29.5
26.6
52.2
58.1
57.4
47.0
48.9
42.2
42.4
45.2
33.5
68.2
76.4
43.5
42.2
63.4
37.3
76.6
79.8
71.9
60.2
67.7
41.2
77.0
80.4
68.4
50.2
43.8
34.3
0.0
0.0
62.1
87.1
88.1
3.7
12.9
11.9
16.1
28.9
25.8
15-35
Plasticity
Index PI
(%)
7
20
7
7
21
13
8
11
31
23
30
13
11
18
24
12
4
7
2
5
2
3
ASTM Soil
Classification
SP
SP-SC
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP-SC
SP-SC
CL
CH
CL
SP
CH
CL
SP
SP
SP
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
SW-SC
MH
SC-SM
SP
SC-SM
SP-SC
2) Nagtahan Bridge
Table 15.3.2-12Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Nagtahan B-1
GL(m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Soil Layer
Bs
As
Ag
Major Soil
Type
Gravel and
sand
Fine sand
with
medium
sand
Gravel
Silty sand
Gravel/sand
with gravel
Ds
Mainly fine
sand
GF
Rock/
welded tuff
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Fines (%)
12.85
61.78
1.30
5.70
0.90
No test
No test
0.00
1.04
0.00
7.05
0.00
51.59
63.48
22.37
36.26
38.97
1.18
3.82
0.59
2.67
3.59
0.00
84.47
No test
No test
No test
No test
No test
No test
12.9
61.8
1.3
5.7
0.9
85.9
34.6
93.5
89.5
98.4
Natural
Moisture
Content
(%)
1.3
3.6
5.2
4.9
0.7
0.0
1.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
51.6
63.5
22.4
36.3
39.0
1.2
3.8
0.6
2.7
3.6
0.0
84.5
98.9
97.7
98.8
88.3
98.3
47.6
35.2
74.0
60.6
59.2
91.7
86.2
83.9
90.1
89.2
97.6
13.6
1.1
1.2
1.2
4.7
1.7
0.8
1.3
3.7
3.1
1.9
7.1
10.0
15.5
7.2
7.2
2.4
1.9
15-36
Plasticity
Index PI
(%)
ASTM Soil
Classification
40.1
41.4
29.0
25.1
29.9
SW
SW
SW-SC
SP
SP
20.5
12.7
36.3
41.8
24.6
25.5
21.1
23.2
50.4
23.0
56.5
54.7
58.9
56.8
51.8
55.0
30.8
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SW
SW
SW
SW
SW
SP-SC
SP-SC
SC-SM
SP-SC
SP-SC
SP
SP
3) Lambingan Bridge
Table 15.3.2-13Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Lambingan B-1
GL(m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Soil Layer
Major Soil
Type
Bs
Med. sand
As
Silty fine
sand
Dc
Sandy clay
or clayey
sand
WGF
Rock
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Fines (%)
8.3
0.0
0.0
6.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.7
0.0
90.8
82.7
72.0
82.0
91.1
92.7
41.9
22.9
33.1
49.0
82.1
99.5
0.9
17.3
28.0
12.0
7.3
7.3
58.1
77.1
66.9
51.0
0.2
0.5
Natural
Moisture
Content
(%)
21.2
48.6
44.6
41.4
62.7
46.4
55.7
53.9
48.5
62.9
38.4
41.6
0.7
4.9
6.90
98.2
94.1
92.9
1.1
1.0
0.2
25.1
27.6
28.8
Plasticity
Index PI
(%)
12
13
19
45
ASTM Soil
Classification
SP
SC-SM
SC-SM
SP-SC
SP-SC
SP-SC
CH
CH
OH
OH
SW
SP
Rock
GF
Fine sand
Rock
15-37
SP
SP
SP
4) Guadalupe Bridge
Table 15.3.2-14Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Guadalupe B-1
GL(m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Soil Layer
Major Soil
Type
BF
Fill soils
As
Mainly
coarse to
medium
sand
Dg
Gravel with
sand
Mainly
medium to
fine sand
Ds1
Mainly fine
to medium
sand
Ds2
Mainly
medium to
fine sand
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Fines (%)
Natural
Moisture
Content
(%)
12.4
0.0
35.7
9.7
44.5
37.7
57.9
0.0
34.7
86.4
97.4
63.0
83.6
54.3
61.9
41.9
84.4
64.6
1.1
2.6
0.4
2.6
1.2
0.4
0.2
15.6
0.7
23.4
23.9
19.5
25.4
10.9
10.4
8.8
22.5
8.3
SP
SP
SP
SW-SC
SP
SW
SP
SP
SP
3.9
3.0
95.9
96.0
0.2
1.1
25.4
23.4
SP
SP
2.1
2.6
97.5
96.1
0.5
1.3
21.0
23.5
SP
SP
1.1
0.0
2.7
6.8
98.7
99.3
96.6
91.4
0.2
0.7
0.7
1.8
28.3
31.1
32.4
24.2
SP
SP
SP
SP
23.8
41.2
75.7
58.6
0.5
0.2
23.0
9.3
SP
SP
1.0
98.2
0.8
33.5
SP
0.0
99.5
0.5
27.9
SP
2.4
1.0
97.4
95.0
0.2
3.9
29.1
82.8
SP
SP
0.0
3.3
99.1
95.6
0.9
1.2
63.2
71.6
SP
SP
3.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
90.8
97.1
97.7
82.7
99.8
6.2
2.7
2.3
17.3
0.2
89.5
65.9
52.7
46.5
75.2
SP-SC
SP
SP
SC-SM
SP
0.0
16.5
0.5
99.8
83.3
98.9
0.2
0.2
0.7
66.7
55.4
58.0
SP
SP
SP
15-38
Plasticity
Index PI
(%)
ASTM Soil
Classification
5) Marikina Bridge
Table 15.3.2-15Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Marikina B-1
GL(m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Soil Layer
Major Soil
Type
Very fine sand
Asc
Mainly very
fine sand
Very fine sand
Mainly fine
sand
As
Fine to
medium sand
Asg
Ds1
Ds2
Gravel and
sand
Coarse sand
Mainly coarse
to medium
sand
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Fines (%)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
24.3
0.0
27.5
23.4
0.5
0.0
47.6
32.5
45.1
20.7
27.4
32.4
33.4
17.7
31.4
1.4
13.1
7.8
1.3
2.0
4.7
7.5
63.8
62.4
86.1
64.0
81.7
56.5
96.4
96.4
54.2
96.7
72.2
73.0
96.4
95.0
51.4
63.9
53.3
78.2
72.0
66.7
65.5
81.4
67.8
97.8
86.2
91.2
98.0
97.2
94.2
92.0
36.2
37.7
13.9
36.0
18.3
43.4
3.6
0.4
21.5
3.3
0.4
2.6
3.2
0.4
2.6
3.6
0.4
2.6
0.6
0.4
2.6
0.9
0.4
2.6
0.7
0.4
2.6
0.8
0.4
2.6
Natural
Moisture
Content
(%)
44.4
47.4
45.6
26.3
35.1
37.1
37.4
25.8
32.6
37.3
22.9
25.8
27.8
37.2
10.6
15.4
16.3
13.0
18.8
16.4
18.1
18.5
19.6
27.6
23.2
24.8
27.4
23.9
29.5
24.0
Plasticity
Index PI
(%)
17
19
18
15
ASTM Soil
Classification
SC-SM
SC-SM
SP-SC
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SW
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
(3) Downhole Seismic Test (DSWT)
DSWT data were in processing as of October 31, 2012. The analysis results should be shown in the
next report.
15.3.3 Results of Geotechnical Investigation outside of Metro Manila
Geological investigation outside Metro Manila were conducted at the seven (7) sites that include
Buntun Bridge in Luzon, 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge in Cebu, Palanit and Mawo Bridges in Samar,
Biliran and Liloan Bridges in Leyte, and Wawa Bridge in Mindanao.
15-39
(1) Geological Profiles
1) Buntun Bridge Site
a) Boring Result
The borings were performed on the right and left banks of the River below the Buntun Bridge.
One of two boreholes was BTL-1 on the left bank of the River and another was BTL-2 on the
right bank. Soil profile at each borehole is shown in Table 15.3.3-1 and Table 15.3.3-2.
Table 15.3.3-1 Boring Result (Buntun: BTL-1)
Depth(m)
0–1
Thickness (m)
1
N value
6
1–2
1
6
2–8
6
5–7
8 – 10
2
2
10 – 14
4
25 – 32
14 – 16
2
50 <
16 – 30
14
50 <
Soil characters
Silty clay
including gravel and very fine sand
Fine sand
with gravel
Clay
including grval
medium water content
sometime including gravel
Clay
medium water content
dark-gray - bluish-gray colored
Silt
very fine sandy
relatively low water conent
yellowish-brown colored
Very fine sand
with gravel
weakly consolidated
reddish-brown colored
Very fine sand
(probably strongly weathered sandstone)
Reddish-brown/ bluish-gray/yellowish-gray colored
very dense or relatively consolidated below -23m
subrounded gravel (10mm in diameter) included
about -25m
15-40
Table 15.3.3-2 Boring Result (Buntun: BTL-2)
Depth(m)
0–6
Thickness (m)
6
N value
6–9
6 – 13
7
8 – 12
13 – 14
1
33
14 – 15
1
33
15 – 16
1
30
16 – 26
10
50 <
26 – 30
4
50 <
Soil characters
Very fine sand
with silt
relatively high water content below -2 m
Fine to medium sand
dark-gray colored
Very fine sand
with silt
Fine to medium sand
Very find sand
with silt
Dark-gray or blackish-gray colored
Very fine sand
Relatively low water content
Poorly graded
Blackish-gray or dark-gray colored
Very fine sand
with silt
poorly graded
Based on the observation of soil samples of BTL-1 and BTL-2, the following soil layers can
be identified (Table 15.3.3-3).
Table 15.3.3-3 Engineering Soil Layers (BTL-1 – BTL-2)
Soil
Layer
Ac1
As
Ac2
Dc
Ds1
Ds2
Thickness
(m)
1
1 – 13
8
4
3
14<
N-value
6
6 – 12
2–7
25 – 32
30 – 33
50<
Relative
Density/Stiffness
Firm
Soft – firm
Very stiff – hard
Dense
Very dense
Soil Type
Silty clay
Very fine – medium sand
Cohesive soil
Cohesive soil
Very fine – medium sand
Very fine sand
A geological profile for the Buntun Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.3-1.
15-41
BTL-1
Ac2
BTL-2
As
Ds1
25 m
Dc
Ds2
250 m
Ac1: alluvial cohesive soil, As: alluvial sand, Ac2: alluvial cohesive soil, Dc: diluvial cohesive soil, Ds1: diluvial sand (1),
Ds2: diluvial sand (2)
Figure 15.3.3-1 Geological Profile for the Buntun Bridge
(I) Ac1: Alluvial Cohesive Soil
The soil of Ac1 consists of silty clay and recognized at BTL-1. This layer has a thickness of
4 m below the ground surface.
Fine to medium sand recognized at BTL-1 and BTL-2 is considered to be alluvial sand with
thicknesses varying from 1m to 13 meter. At BTL-1, the layer is distributed with a thickness
of 1 m below the bottom of the Ac1 layer; at BTL-2, the layer has a thickness of 13 m below
the ground surface.
(III) Ac2: Alluvial Cohesive Soil
Cohesive soil recognized at BTL-1 is considered to be an alluvium. A thickness of the layer
is 8 m and distributed between -2 m and -10 m at BTL-1.
(IV) Dc: Diluvial Cohesive Soil
Cohesive soil seen at BTL-1 is considered to be a diluvial silty soil. It ranges between -10 m
and -14 m at BTL-1.
(V) Ds1: Diluvial Sandy Soil (1)
This soil layer consists of very fine sand and/or fine to medium sand, and observed at only
BTL-2 borehole. The layer is distributed between -13 m and -16 m at BTL-2.
15-42
(VI) Ds2: Diluvial Sandy Soil (2)
The layer is comprised of very fine sand and denser than Ds1. The layer is distributed below
a depth of 16 m at BTL-1 and BTL-2.
2) Palanit Bridge Site
a) Boring Result
The borings were performed on the right and left banks of the river below the Palanit Bridge.
One of two boreholes was PAL-R1 on the left bank of the river and another was PAL-L1 on
the right bank. Soil profile at each borehole is shown in Table 15.3.3-4 and Table 15.3.3-5.
Table 15.3.3-4 Boring Result (Palanit: PAL-L1)
Depth(m)
0–4
Thickness (m)
4
N value
15 – 46
4–5
1
50
5–6
1
49
6 – 14
8
50 <
14 – 30
16
50 <
Soil characters
Clayey sand
clayey or silty sand
brown/brownish-gray/greenish-gray/yellowish-gray
colored
-1 m: clayey medium sand with gravel
-2 m: gravelly sand
-3 m, -4 m: silty sand with gravel
Silty sand
mainly coarse to medium sand
Clay with gravel
including 30 mm gravel
Welded tuff
light-gray/greenish-gray colored
soft rock
CL-CM class
Tuffaceous rock
tuffaceous siltstone/mudstone
soft rock
greenish-gray colored
CL class
sometime weathered
15-43
Table 15.3.3-5 Boring Result (Palanit: PAL-R1)
Depth(m)
0–2
Thickness (m)
2
N value
8–9
2–6
4
50 <
6 – 30
24
50 <
Soil characters
Gravely sand
including plant roots and 10-15 mm gravel
dark-grown colored
Tuffaceous rock
tuffaceous siltstone
soft rock
CL class
Tuffaceous rock
mainly tuffaceous siltstone
greenish-gray colored in fresh portions
dark-grown colored in weathered portions
soft to medium-hard rock
CL class
-7 to -13 m: relatively weathered
sometime interbedded by blackish mudstone
Based on the boring logs of PAL-R1 and PAL-L1, the following soil layers can be identified
(Table 15.3.3-6).
Table 15.3.3-6 Engineering Soil Layers (PAL-R1 – PAL-L1)
Soil
Layer
Asg
Dsg
Ds
Dc
VR
Thickness
(m)
2
4
1
1
24<
N-value
8–9
15 – 46
50
49
50<
Relative
Density/Stiffness
Loose
Dense
Hard
Rock
Soil Type
Gravelly sand
Clayey sand
Silty sand
Clay with gravel
Tuffaceous rocks, welded tuff
A geological profile for the Palanit Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.3-2.
15-44
PAL-L1
PAL-R1
Asg
Dsg
Ds
Dc
25 m
VR
250 m
Asg: alluvial sand and gravel, Dsg: diluvial sand and gravel, Ds: diluvial sand, Dc: diluvial clay, VR: volcanic rocks
Figure 15.3.3-2 Geological Profile for the Palanit Bridge
(I) Asg: Alluvial Sand and Gravel
The layer named Asg is recognized at PAL-R1, composed of sand and gravel, and has a
thickness of 2 m below the ground surface. The layer is not recognized at PAL-L1.
(II) Dsg: Diluvial Sand and Gravel
This layer is formed of clayey sand with gravel and considered to be a diluvium layer. The
layer has a thickness of 4 m below the ground surface.
(III) Ds: Diluvial Sand
Sandy soil between -4 m and -5 m at PAL-L1 is categorized as a diluvial sand layer.
15-45
(IV) Dc: Diluvial Cohesive Soil
This layer (Dc) is composed of clay with gravel and has a thickness of 1 m. The layer can be
indentified between -5 m and -6 m at PAL-L1.
(V) VR: Volcanic Rocks
Tuffaceous rocks lie under alluvium and diluvium at a depth of 6 m in the PAL-L1 site and
at a depth of 2 m in the PAL-R1 site.
3) Mawo Bridge Site
a) Boring Result
The boring were performed on the right and left banks of the river below the Mawo Bridge.
One of two boreholes was MAW-L1 on the right bank and another was MAW-L2 on the right
bank. Geological profiles at the boreholes are summarized in Table 15.3.3-7 and Table
15.3.3-8 below.
15-46
Table 15.3.3-7 Boring Result (Mawo: MAW-L1)
Depth(m)
0–5
Thickness (m)
5
N value
2–4
5–7
2
8 – 12
7–9
2
21 – 24
9 – 11
2
21
11 – 15
4
17 – 24
15 – 28
13
7 – 12
28 – 31
3
10 – 24
31 – 38
7
22 – 50
38 – 44
6
50 <
Soil characters
Mainly clay
sometime silty
including gravels
moderate to relatively high water content
Dark-gray colored
Very fine sand
silty
including 20-30 mm gravel
Dark-gray colored
Gravel with silt
green-gray colored
Mainly gravel
sometime with sand
dark-gray/blackish-brown/brownish-gray colored
Mainly gravel
with silt and sand
sometime sand with gravel
Clay with very fine sand
sometime sandy or sandy/clayey silt
moderately water content
greenish-gray/dark-gray/blackish-gray colored
Sand with clay
mainly medium to fine sand
Fine to medium sand
sometime with 10-20 mm gravel
dark-gray colored
Basalt
mainly auto-breccia
medium-hard rock
CM-CH class
relatively fresh
green colored
15-47
Table 15.3.3-8 Boring Result (Mawo: MAW-L2)
Depth(m)
0–1
Thickness (m)
1
N value
9
1–2
1
6
2–4
2
2
4–7
3
50 <
7 – 26
19
50 <
26 – 30
4
50 <
Soil characters
Silty gravel
with sand
Yellowish-brown colored
Gravel
with very fine sand stone
(probably weathered rock)
Yellowish-brown colored
Sandy clay
Dark-bluish-gray/gray colored
Weathered rock
strongly weathered
soft rock
D-CL class
Volcanic rocks
(andesite)
sometime slightly weathered
Medium-hard rock
CL-CM class
gray colored
Medium-hard rock
CL-CM class
gray colored
Based on the boring logs of MAW-L1 and MAW-L2, the following soil layers can be
identified (Table 15.3.3-9).
Table 15.3.3-9 Engineering Soil Layers (MAW-L1 – MAW-L2)
Soil
Layer
Ag1
Ac1
As
Ag2
Ac2
Ds1
Ds2
VR
Thickness
(m)
2
2–5
2
2–8
13
3
7
6
N-value
6–9
2–4
8 – 12
17 – 24
7 – 12
10 – 24
22 – 50
50<
Relative
Density/Stiffness
Loose
Soft
Firm – stiff
Medium dense
Rock
Soil Type
Silty gravel, gravel
Clay, and sandy clay
Very fine sand
Gravel, and gravel with fine sand
Clay with very fine sand
Sand with clay
Volcanic rocks: basalt, and andesite
A geological profile for the Mawo Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.3-3.
15-48
MAW-L1
MAW-L2
Ag1
Ac1
Ac1
As
25 m
Ag2
Ac2
VR
Ds1
Ds2
VR
250 m
Ag1: alluvial gravelly soil (1), Ac1: alluvial cohesive soil (1), As: alluvial sand, Ag: alluvial gravelly soil, Ac2: alluvial
cohesive soil (2), Ds1: diluvial sand (1), Ds2: diluvium sand (2), VR: volcanic rocks
Figure 15.3.3-3 Geological Profile for the Mawo Bridge
(I) Ag1: Alluvial Gravelly Soil (1)
This layer is distributed from the ground surface to a depth of 1 m at MAW-L2..
15-49
(II) Ac1: Alluvial Cohesive Soil (1)
This layer is distributed from the ground surface to a depth of 5 m at MAW-L1. At MAWL2, sandy clay between -2 m and -4 m is identified as this layer (Ac1).
(III) As: Alluvial Sand
A section of very fine sand intercalated between -5 m and -7 m at MAW-L1 is considered to
be an alluvial sand layer. This layer is not seen at MAW-L2.
(IV) Ag2: Alluvial Gravelly Soil (2)
Gravelly soil between -7 m and -15 m at MAW-L1 is categorized as an alluvial gravelly soil
layer. At MAW-L2, the layer has a thickness of 2 m below the ground surface.
(V) Ac2: Alluvial Cohesive Soil (2)
This layer is identified in a section between -15 m and -28 m at MAW-L1. This layer is not
distributed at MAW-L2.
(VI) Ds1: Diluvial Sand (1)
A section composed of sand with clay between -28 m and -31 m at MAW-L1 is classified
into a diluvial sand layer. The Ds1 is not distributed at MAW-R1.
(VII)
Ds2: Diluvial Sand (2)
This layer is identified as a sandy soil between -31 m and -38 m at MAW-L1. The layer is
not distributed at MAW-R1.
(VIII)
VR: Volcanic Rocks
Basalt lies at a depth of 38 m in the MAW-L1 site. In the MAW-L2 site, weathered volcanic
rock (probably andesite) lies from a depth of 4 m; and fresh andesitic rock is distributed
below a depth of 7 m.
4) 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge Site
a) Boring Result
The two boring were performed both side of 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge. One borehole,
MAN-W1, was located on the east coast of Cebu Island; and another borehole, MAN-E1 was
on the west coast of Mactan Island. The boring results at both sides of the bridge are
summarized in Table 15.3.3-10 and Table 15.3.3-11 below.
15-50
Table 15.3.3-10Boring Result (1st Mandaue-Mactan: MAN-E1)
Depth(m)
0–5
5 – 10
Thickness (m)
5
5
N value
6–7
10 – 11
1
7
11 – 12
1
7
12 – 14
2
22 – 27
14 – 16
2
29 – 30
16 – 17
1
32
17 – 18
1
25
18 – 19
1
35
19 – 28
9
25 – 41
28 – 33
5
10 – 14
33 – 35
2
15
35 – 40
5
45 – 53
Soil characters
No core recovered
Clay with coral fragments
soft
Dark-gray colored
Silty sand
mainly fine sand
dark-gray colored
Sandy silt
including fine sand
dark gray colored
Sand
mainly fine sand
including silt
Dark gray colored
Sand
mainly medium sand
dark gray colored
Gravel with silt
including 10-30 mm gravels
Clay
Gravel with silt
including 2-4 mm gravels
yellowish brown colored
Clay with gravel
sometime including coral fragments and brocken shell
fragments
moderate to relatively hard
light brownish-gray colored
between -19 m and -23 m: relatively rich in coral
fragments
below -23 m: relatively poor in coral fragments than
upper part
Clay
sometime rock fragments
dark gray colored
Clay
sometime including coral fragments and/or broken
shell fragments
Clay
15-51
Depth(m)
Thickness (m)
N value
40 – 69
29
14 – 42
69 – 81
12
45 – 69
Soil characters
sometime including coral fragments and/or broken
shell fragments
Clay
sometime including few coral fragments and broken
shell fragments
Silty sand (tentative)
Table 15.3.3-11Boring Result (1st Mandaue-Mactan: MAN-W1)
Depth(m)
0–2
Thickness (m)
2
2–5
3
5–8
3
8 – 10
2
10 – 30
20
N value
21 – 24
24 – 29
Soil characters
Clay with gravel
including coral fragments
brown colored
Coarse to medium sand
including 10 mm gravels, and coral fragments
relatively moderate water content
brownish-gray/light brownish-gray colored
Gravelly sand
or sand with gravel
light brownish gray colored
Sand with gravel
Light brownish gray colored
Coralline limestone
light yellowish-gray colored/grayish-white colored
weakly weathered
soft rock
porous
below -23m: moderately weathered
Based on the boring logs of BIL-N1 and BIL-S1, the following soil layers can be currently
identified as below (Table 15.3.3-12). However the soil layers should be re-classified after
finishing the observation of soil samples and laboratory tests.
A tentative geological profile for the 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.3-4.
15-52
Table 15.3.3-12Engineering Soil Layers (MAN-E1 – MAN-W1)
Soil
Layer
Ag
Ac
Thickness
(m)
3–5
2–5
N-value
Relative Density/Stiffness
21 – 29
6 – 24
Medium dense
Firm – very stiff
As
Ds1
Dg
Dc
Dgs
Dc2
Dc3
Dc4
Dc5
Ds2
Lm
1
4
2
1
5
9
7
5
29
12
20
7
22 – 30
32 – 35
25
50<
25 – 41
10 – 15
45 – 53
14 – 42
45 – 69
50<
Loose
Medium dense
Dense
Very stiff
Very dense
Very stiff – hard
Stiff
Hard
Very stiff – hard
Hard
Rock
Soil Type
Boulder with fines
Clay with gravel, and clay with coral
fragments
Sandy silt
Sand
Gravel with silt
Clay
Gravelly sand, and sand with gravel
Clay with gravel
Clay / silt
Clay / silt
Clay / silt
Silty sand
Coralline limestone
A geological profile for the 1st Madnaue-Mactan Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.3-4.
15-53
Mactan Is.
Cebu Is.
MAN-W1
MAN-E1
Ac
As
Ag
Dgs
Ac
Dc2L
50 m
As
Ds
Dg/Dc
Dc2u
Dc3
Dc4
Lm
Dc5
Ds2
500 m
Ag: alluvial gravel, Ac: alluvial cohesive soil, As alluvial sand, Ds1: diluvial sand (1), Dg/Dc: diluvial gravel/diluvium
cohesive soil, Dgs: diluvium sand and gravel, Dc2: diluvial cohesive soil (2), Dc3: diluvial cohesive soil (3), Dc4: diluvial
cohesive soil (4), Dc5: diluvial cohesive soil (5), Ds2: diluvial sand (2)
Figure 15.3.3-4 Geological Profile for the 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge
(I) Ag: Alluvial Gravel
This soil layer is distributed with a depth of 5 m from the ground surface. It seems to be a
kind of backfill soil.
(II) Ac: Alluvial Cohesive Soil
Cohesive soil in relatively shallow depth at MAN-W1 and MAN-E1 is grouped into this soil
layer.
15-54
Loose to medium dense sand distributed below the Ac layer is classified into this soil layer.
Medium dense sand (10 – 11 m) below the As layer at MAN-E1 is classified into this layer.
(V) Dg~Dc: Diluvial Gravel and Cohesive Soil
Gravel, and cohesive soils between -16 m and -19 m at MAN-E1 is classified as Dg or Dc
respectively.
(VI) Dgs: Diluvial Sand and Gravel
Sand and gravel between -5 m and -10 m at MAN-W1 is grouped into this layer.
(VII)
Dc2: Diluvial Cohesive Soil (2)
Cohesive soil section between -19 and -28 m of MAN-E1 corresponds to this layer. Based
on N-value, the layer is divided into two sub-layers at a depth of 22 m (upper portion of Dc2
is named Dc2u, and lower portion is named Dc2ℓ).
(VIII)
Dc3: Diluvial Cohesive Soil (3)
Cohesive soil between -28 m and -35 m at MAN-E1 is classified into this layer.
(IX) Dc4: Diluvial Cohesive Soil (4)
Cohesive soil between -35 and -40 m at MAN-E1 is grouped into this layer.
(X) Dc5: Diluvial Cohesive Soil (5)
Cohesive soil below a depth of -40 m is currently classified as Dc5.
(XI) Ds2: Diluvial Sand
Sandy soil layer below a depth of 69 m at MAN-E1 is currently named Ds2.
(XII)
Lm: Limestone
Coralline limestone is distributed below a depth of 10 m at MAN-W1 is named Lm.
5) Biliran Bridge Site
a) Boring Result
The two boring were performed both side of Biliran Bridge. One borehole, BIL-N1, was
located on the south coast of Biliran Island; and another borehole, BIL-S1 was on the northern
coast of Leyte Island. The boring results are shown in Table 15.3.3-13 and Table 15.3.3-14
below.
15-55
Table 15.3.3-13Boring Result (Biliran: BIL-N1)
Depth (m)
0–1
Thickness (m)
1
N value
50 <
1 – 16
15
50 <
16 – 30
14
50 <
Soil characters
Consolidated clay
with gravel
Andesite (lava)
between -1 m and -7 m: slightly weathered
below -7 m: relatively fresh
medium hard to hard rock
Blakish-gray/dark-gray colored
CL-CH class
Basalt
mainly auto-breccia
dark-green/dark-gray colored
medium hard rock
CM-CH class
Groundwater was not observed around in the borehole.
Table 15.3.3-14Boring Result (Biliran: BIL-S1)
Depth (m)
0–2
Thickness (m)
2
N value
5
2 – 20
18
50 <
20 – 30
10
50 <
Soil characters
Clay with gravel
including 15 mm gravel
dark-brown colored
Andesite
blackish gray/black colored
medium hard rock
relatively fresh, sometime slightly weathered
Andesite
relatively grassy
weakly weathered
soft/medium hard rock
blackish gray/black colored
Based on the boring logs of BIL-N1 and BIL-S1, the following soil layers can be identified
(Table 15.3.3-15).
Table 15.3.3-15Engineering Soil Layers (BIL-N1 – BIL-S1)
Soil
Layer
Ac
Dc
VR
Thickness
(m)
2
1
28
N-value
5
50
50<
Relative
Density/Stiffness
Firm
Hard
Rock
Soil Type
Clay with gravel
Consolidated clay with gravel
Volcanic rocks: basalt, andesite, andesitic
breccia
A geological profile for the Biliran Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.3-5.
15-56
Bililan Is.
Leyte Is.
BIL-N1
Dc
BIL-S1
VR
VR
25 m
Ac
VR
250 m
Ac: alluvial clay, Dc: diluvial clay, VR: volcanic rocks
Figure 15.3.3-5 Geological Profile for Biliran Bridge
(I) Ac: Alluvial Cohesive Soil
At the BIL-S1 borehole, clay with gravel with a thickness of 2 m is distributed from the
ground surface. This soil is not observed at BIL-N1.
(II) Dc: Diluvial Cohesive Soil
At BIL-N1, the consolidated clay with gravel is distributed with a thickness of 1 m below
the ground surface. This soil is not distributed at BIL-S1.
15-57
(III) VR: Volcanic Rocks
Andesitic rock lies widely between BIL-N1 and BIL-S1 as a basement rock. Andesitic rocks
are exposed on the ground or lies in shallower depths below the ground surface.
6) Liloan Bridge Site
a) Boring Result
The two boring were performed both side of Biliran Bridge. One borehole, BIL-N1, was
located on the south end of Leyte Island; and another borehole, LIL-S1 was on the north end
of Panaon Island. Table 15.3.3-16 and Table 15.3.3-17 show the soil profiles of LIL-N1 and
LIL-S1.
Table 15.3.3-16Boring Result (Liloan: LIL-N1)
Depth(m)
0–1
1 – 30
Thickness (m)
1
29
N value
50 <
50 <
Soil characters
Sandy silt
(residual soil as weathered limestone)
white colored
Limestone
coral/silty-sandy limestone
relatively high porosity
including fossils and calcite
soft rock
CL class
15-58
Table 15.3.3-17Boring Result (Liloan: LIL-S1)
Depth(m)
0–2
Thickness (m)
2
N value
50 <
2–4
2
33 – 40
4–5
1
50 <
5–7
2
32–50 <
7–9
2
50 <
9 – 10
1
50 <
10 – 12
2
50 <
12 – 13
1
50 <
13 – 20
7
50 <
20 – 22
2
50 <
22 – 30
8
50 <
Soil characters
Gravel
probably including boulders of andesite
Dark-gray colored
Coarse to medium sand
Blackish-gray/dark-gray colored
Gravel
dark-gray colored
Sand with gravel
mainly medium to fine sand
Gravel
including probably boulders of andesite
Sandy gravel
mainly coarse sand
including broken shell/coral fragments
blackish gray colored
Gravel
Sandy gravel
including broken coral/shell fragments
Gravelly sand
sometime sandy gravel
relatively poor in broken coral/shell fragments
Sandy gravel
probably including boulders of basalt
blackish gray colored
Sand
medium to fine sand
rich in broken coral/shell fragments
blackish-gray/dark-gray colored
15-59
Based on the boring logs of LIL-N1 and LIL-S1, the following soil layers can be identified
(Table 15.3.3-18).
Table 15.3.3-18Engineering Soil Layers (LIL-N1 – LIL-S1)
Soil
Layer
Asg
Thickness
(m)
6
N-value
5
Relative
Density/Stiffness
Firm
Dsg1
Dsg2
2
22
33 – 50<
50<
Dense
Very dense
CL1
CL2
1<
29
50<
50<
Hard
Rock
Soil Type
Gravel, boulder, and coarse – medium
sand
Sand with gravel
Gravel, gravelly sand, sand, and sandy
gravel
Strongly weathered limestone: sandy silt
Coralline limestone
A geological profile for the Liloan Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.3-6
15-60
Leyte Is.
Panaon Is.
LIL-N1.
25 m
LIL-S1.
250 m
Asg: alluvial sand and gravel, Dsg1: diluvial sand and gravel (1), Dsg2: diluvial sand and gravel (2), CL1: coralline
limestone (1), CL2: coralline limestone (2)
Figure 15.3.3-6 Geological Profile for Liloan Bridge
15-61
(I) Asg: Alluvial Sand and Gravel
The Asg layer is not distributed at LIL-N1 and only distributed at and around LIL-S1. A
thickness of the layer is 5 m below the ground surface. It consists of gravel, and coarse to
medium sand. It is considered that the layer includes boulders at some depths.
(II) Dsg1: Diluvial Sand and Gravel (1)
Sand with gravel between -5 m and -7 m at LIL-S1 is considered to be diluvial soil. The
layer is not distributed at LIL-N1.
(III) Dsg2: Diluvial Sand and Gravel (2)
This layer comprises gravel, sandy gravel, and gravelly sand, and recognized at LIL-S1 only.
This layer is denser than Dsg1.
(IV) CL1: Coralline Limestone (1)
Sandy silt with a thickness of 1 m below the ground surface at LIL-N1 is considered to be a
weathered portion of coralline limestone (CL2).
(V) CL2: Coralline Limestone (2)
CL2 is composed of coralline limestone and distributed only at and around LIL-N1 (Leyte
side). CL1 and CL2 are not distributed at/around LIL-S1.
7) Wawa Bridge Site
a) Boring Result
The two boring were performed both side of Wawa Bridge. One borehole, WAW-R1, was
located on the right bank the Wawa River; and another borehole, WAW-L1 was on the left
bank of the river. Summarized boring logs are shown in Table 15.3.3-19 and Table 15.3.3-20.
15-62
Table 15.3.3-19Boring Result (Wawa: WAW-R1)
Depth(m)
0–4
Thickness (m)
4
N value
12 – 20
4–9
5
23 – 47
9 – 12
3
46–50 ≤
12 – 13
1
47
13 – 15
2
50 ≤
15 – 17
2
50 ≤
17 – 18
1
50 ≤
18 – 30
12
50 ≤
Soil characters
Gravel with clay
including gravels of 15 mm
Very fine sand
with gravel and clay
(probably strongly weathered sandstone)
Clay
sometime consolidated
dark-gray/greenish-gray colored
Clay with rock fragments
Clay with gravel
greenish-gray/blackish-gray colored
(clay with rock fragments)
no core recovered
Consolidated clay
greenish-gray/blackish-gray colored
Clay with gravel
including gravels of 10-30 mm in diameter
(probably sheared/fractured clayey/silty rocks)
blackish-gray/greenish-gray colored
15-63
Table 15.3.3-20Boring Result (Wawa: WAW-L1)
Depth(m)
0–4
Thickness (m)
4
N value
20 – 30
4–6
2
30
6–7
1
40
7 – 10
3
49–50 ≤
10 – 12
2
50
12 – 14
2
50 ≤
14 – 19
5
41 –50≤
19 – 30
11
50 ≤
Soil characters
Clay with gravel
including gravels of 10-40 mm in diameter
Clay with gravel
including gravel of 20-30 mm in diameter
blackish-brown colored
Clay with gravel
relatively high-moderate water content
Clay with gravel
medium soft/hard
Clay with gravel
relatively hard
Clay
Clay
bluish-gray/greenish-gray colored
soft-hard, sometime consolidated
Clay
sometime with gravel
medium-soft hard
dark-greenish-gray colored
relatively consolidated below -29 m
Based on the boring logs of WAW-L1 and WAW-R1, the following soil layers can be
identified (Table 15.3.3-21).
15-64
Table 15.3.3-21Engineering Soil Layers (WAW-L1 – WAW-R1)
Soil
Layer
BF
Ag
Ac
Qc
Thickness
(m)
6
4
5
21
N-value
Relative Density/Stiffness
Soil Type
20 – 30
12 – 20
23 – 47
41 – 50
Very stiff
Hard
Clay with gravel
Gravel with clay
Very fine sand
Clay, clay with gravel, and clay with rock
fragments
A geological profile for the Wawa Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.3-7.
WAW-L1
Buntun
BF
BF
WAW-R1
Ag
Qc
25m
As
250m
BF: embankment (fill soil), Ag: alluvial gravel (and river deposits), As: alluvial sand, Qc: Quaternary clay
Figure 15.3.3-7 Geological Profile for Wawa Bridge
(I) BF: Backfill soil
Clay with gravel with a thickness of 6 m below the ground surface is a part of embankment
material around WAW-L1.
15-65
(II) Ag: Alluvial Gravel
Gravels lies on the river bed of the Wawa. This gravel is classified into an alluvial gravel
layer and has a thick of 4 m.
Very fine sand portion between -4 m to -9 m at WAW-R1 is considered to be alluvial
deposits of the Wawa River.
(IV) Qc: Quaternary Cohesive Soil
Clayey and silty soil lying under BF, Ag and As is classified into a Quaternary clay member.
This layer is considered to be an alluvium layer.
15-66
(2) Laboratory Tests
Soil of each borehole can be categorized as shown in the following tables.
Of the laboratory tests, results of grain size analysis are shown below temporally.
1) Buntun Bridge
A tentative laboratory soil tests results are shown in Table 15.3.3-22 and Table 15.3.3-22.
Table 15.3.3-22Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Buntun BTL-1
GL(m)
Soil
Layer
Major Soil
Type
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Ac1
As
Silty clay
Fine sand
Clay
Ac2
Clay
Dc
Silt
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Fines (%)
0.0
8.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
49.0
88.1
45.9
35.7
18.2
22.5
12.5
18.6
11.7
4.9
2.8
99.2
12.1
14.1
51.0
3.4
54.2
64.3
81.9
77.6
87.5
81.4
88.3
95.1
97.2
0.8
87.9
85.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
98.0
99.5
98.8
95.7
99.3
99.1
98.3
94.0
97.8
94.5
89.0
99.0
97.7
99.0
2.0
0.5
1.3
0.9
0.7
0.9
1.7
6.0
2.2
5.5
0.3
1.0
2.3
1.0
Natural
Moisture
Content (%)
Plasticity
Index PI
(%)
9
48.87
11
2
23
2
21
2
7
10
6
43.77
46.63
7
6
ASTM Soil
Classification
ML
SP
CL
ML
CL
ML
CL
ML
ML
MH
MH
SP
ML
ML
Very fine
sand
Ds2
Very fine
sand
15-67
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP-SC
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
Table 15.3.3-23Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Buntun BTL-2
GL(m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Soil Layer
Major Soil Type
Gravel
(%)
Sand (%)
Fines (%)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
94.4
99.1
99.6
99.1
99.2
99.5
99.6
99.8
99.1
98.8
99.8
99.5
99.0
99.1
99.5
98.7
5.6
1.0
0.4
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.9
0.5
1.3
Natural
Moisture
Content
(%)
51.5
36.1
26.3
30.5
30.9
33.7
19.6
12.9
23.9
26.3
27.4
20.1
19.8
38.0
23.9
35.9
5.5
3.6
2.4
6.5
1.0
0.0
94.1
95.9
97.1
92.8
97.7
99.2
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.8
1.3
0.8
3.8
7.7
8.7
15.7
14.7
26.7
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
40.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
56.9
97.5
96.6
97.3
98.4
2.8
2.5
3.4
2.7
1.4
13.8
31.9
28.9
31.9
30.4
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
Very fine sand
As
Fine to medium
sand
Ds1
V. fine sand
Fine to med. sand
V. fine sand
Very fine sand
Ds2
Very fine sand
Plasticity
Index PI
(%)
ASTM Soil
Classification
SP-SC
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
2) Palanit Bridge
Table 15.3.3-24Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Palanit PAL-L1
GL(m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
Soil Layer
Major Soil
Type
Dsg
Clayey sand
Ds
Silty sand
Clay with
gravel
Dc
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Fines (%)
0.0
8.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
96.8
87.9
95.0
95.8
97.2
3.2
3.2
5.0
4.2
2.8
Natural
Moisture
Content
(%)
27.0
19.0
29.1
29.2
30.7
0.0
48.3
51.7
25.4
Plasticity
Index PI
(%)
ASTM Soil
Classification
SP
SW
SP
SP
SP
9
MH
Table 15.3.3-25Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Palanit PAL-R1
GL(m)
1
2
Soil Layer
Major Soil
Type
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Fines (%)
Asg
Gravely
sand
13.3
20.1
84.1
76.8
2.7
3.0
15-68
Natural
Moisture
Content
(%)
21.0
20.3
Plasticity
Index PI
(%)
ASTM Soil
Classification
SP
SW
3) Mawo Bridge
Table 15.3.3-26Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Mawo MAW-L1
GL(m)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Soil
Layer
Ac1
Clay
As
V. fine sand
Gravel with
silt
Gravel
Ag
Gravel
Clay with
very fine
sand
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Major Soil
Type
Ac2
Ds1
Ds2
Clay with
very fine
sand
Sand with
clay
Fine to
Medium
sand
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Fines (%)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
80.0
33.2
24.4
49.6
39.1
41.7
69.6
5.4
37.7
43.7
43.7
20.3
97.8
98.5
98.5
19.8
66.2
75.4
49.4
59.7
55.2
30.2
93.0
62.3
56.3
56.3
79.7
2.2
1.5
1.5
0.2
0.6
0.2
1.1
1.3
3.1
0.2
1.6
Natural
Moisture
Content
(%)
46.4
72.6
54.7
73.8
69.1
56.6
46.3
6.9
15.7
24.7
13.7
14.9
13.5
13.9
24.1
0.0
38.2
61.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
32.0
27.9
43.4
24.3
43.4
64.4
56.6
39.5
64.7
96.6
98.1
30.7
99.1
99.2
0.0
0.0
10.7
19.0
61.6
0.0
2.6
97.7
99.6
86.8
79.6
37.2
97.8
95.9
Plasticity
Index PI
(%)
ASTM Soil
Classification
16
2
2
8
CL
MH
MH
MH
SP
SP
SP
SW
SW
SP
SW
SW
SP
SW
SP
58.0
12
MH
68.0
72.1
56.6
75.7
56.6
35.6
43.4
60.5
35.3
2.4
1.6
69.3
0.9
0.8
54.9
56.0
59.7
64.1
51.9
44.6
66.2
43.5
53.4
46.1
51.8
42.5
55.3
57.3
9
4
2
4
5
4
4
4
3
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
ML
MH
ML
ML
SP
SP
CL
SP
SP
2.3
0.4
2.5
1.4
1.2
2.2
1.5
26.5
22.0
39.8
33.3
14.1
30.0
25.6
12
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
Table 15.3.3-27Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Mawo MAW-L2
GL(m)
1
2
3
4
5
Soil Layer
Major Soil
Type
Ag
Silty gravel
Gravel
Ac1
Sandy clay
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Fines (%)
20.7
0.0
27.4
0.7
0.42
40.2
99.0
92.1
98.9
99.38
39.1
58.6
31.5
0.5
0.20
15-69
Natural
Moisture
Content
(%)
30.8
17.1
19.0
32.2
14.4
Plasticity
Index PI
(%)
6
10
ASTM Soil
Classification
ML
ML
SC-SM
SP
SP
4) 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge
Table 15.3.3-28Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of MAN-E1
GL-(m)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Soil
Layer
Ag
Ac
Gravel?
Clay
Silty sand
Sandy silt
As
Sand with silt
Med. to fine sand
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Major Soil Type
Dg
Dc1
Dg
Dc2
Gravelly sand
with silt
Clay
Gravel with silt
Clay with gravel
Clay
Silty clay
Dc3
Clay
Dc4
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Dc5
Clay
Gravel
(%)
Sand (%)
Fines (%)
34.1
35.0
25.3
26.4
35.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.6
1.4
1.7
65.7
64.8
74.5
72.9
64.1
3.9
5.8
8.8
15.0
15.2
50.7
46.7
74.4
76.1
98.1
98.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.4
96.1
94.2
91.2
85.0
84.8
49.3
53.3
23.6
23.3
0.5
0.2
Natural
Moisture
Content
(%)
15.6
17.4
12.8
17.1
15.3
49.5
58.3
46.1
45.3
44.9
33.9
35.1
29.1
29.0
22.0
24.0
4.2
95.2
0.6
24.7
SP
19.4
33.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.4
80.0
65.9
16.7
18.7
5.8
18.9
9.2
18.5
18.5
28.4
44.0
54.6
7.0
5.7
2.8
3.1
2.9
3.2
37.2
17.0
10.0
6.5
2.4
2.1
7.5
3.3
10.4
5.9
6.5
15.6
50.9
48.8
44.3
0.6
0.2
83.3
81.4
94.2
81.1
90.8
81.5
81.5
71.6
56.0
45.2
93.1
94.3
97.2
96.9
97.1
96.8
60.1
83.0
90.0
93.5
97.6
97.9
92.5
96.7
89.6
94.1
93.5
84.4
49.1
50.6
55.3
34.0
18.7
13.2
19.0
32.0
37.9
29.9
33.8
38.3
29.9
24.3
21.3
22.3
23.6
31.2
49.0
23.6
36.2
25.5
26.2
29.6
15.5
26.0
41.1
17.1
45.7
36.0
16.8
26.7
30.5
25.4
26.0
27.4
SW
SP
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
15-70
Plasticity
Index PI
(%)
18
27
9
19
7
6
8
28
25
29
25
25
26
26
23
28
28
23
28
26
24
26
29
24
28
23
28
23
24
25
23
23
24
24
24
26
26
24
ASTM Soil
Classification
SW
SW
SW
SP
SP
CL
MH
ML
ML
ML
ML
ML
SC-SM
SC-SM
SP
SP
GL-(m)
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
Soil
Layer
Ds2
Major Soil Type
Silty sand
Gravel
(%)
Sand (%)
Fines (%)
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
2.7
4.3
2.9
13.3
0.9
0.9
0.7
1.4
0.0
1.1
1.5
42.5
43.8
48.9
48.6
56.0
53.2
45.4
45.3
51.7
51.9
24.4
36.0
37.1
3.3
1.5
3.0
1.9
7.4
4.5
69.7
69.8
69.6
67.1
57.4
72.3
72.5
71.9
68.6
71.2
71.3
70.1
56.0
56.2
51.1
51.4
43.7
46.8
54.1
54.7
48.3
48.1
75.6
63.0
62.5
96.7
98.5
97.0
98.1
92.6
95.5
27.0
27.5
26.1
30.0
29.3
26.8
26.6
27.4
30.0
28.8
27.6
28.4
Natural
Moisture
Content
(%)
25.2
28.6
25.6
26.6
22.1
23.9
23.4
26.3
21.6
18.6
20.9
16.9
17.2
30.5
32.7
30.8
31.7
29.1
25.9
15.1
15.4
13.8
16.5
7.4
26.4
27.3
39.8
15.0
17.0
21.6
18.4
Plasticity
Index PI
(%)
28
25
26
24
24
26
26
24
25
26
23
25
26
25
25
23
24
25
27
ASTM Soil
Classification
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
CH
SC-SM
SC-SM
SC-SM
SC-SM
SC-SM
SC-SM
SC-SM
SC-SM
SC-SM
SC-SM
SC-SM
SC-SM
Table 15.3.3-29Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of MAN-W1
GL-(m)
Soil
Layer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Ac
Ac
As
As
As
Dgs
Dgs
Dgs
Dgs
Ac
Major Soil Type
Clay with gravel
Coarse to
medium sand
Gravelly sand
Gravelly sand
Gravel
(%)
Sand (%)
Fines (%)
10.1
75.5
20.5
36.4
13.5
16.9
6.3
21.4
19.5
11.8
8.3
14.5
79.5
63.3
86.3
83.1
93.8
78.7
80.5
88.2
81.6
10.0
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15-71
Natural
Moisture
Content
(%)
35.7
36.3
15.6
14.7
15.5
15.2
17.75
16.23
18.21
17.19
Plasticity
Index PI
(%)
13
ASTM Soil
Classification
CL
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
SP
5) Biliran Bridge
Table 15.3.3-30Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of BIL-N1
GL-(m)
Soil
Layer
Major Soil
Type
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Fines (%)
Natural
Moisture
Content
(%)
Plasticity
Index PI
(%)
ASTM Soil
Classification
1
Dc
Clay with
gravel
0.0
27.8
72.2
29.8
8
MH
Table 15.3.3-31Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of BIL-S1
GL-(m)
Soil
Layer
Major Soil
Type
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Fines (%)
1
2
Ac
Clay with
gravel
0.0
0.0
31.9
49.5
68.1
50.6
Natural
Moisture
Content
(%)
47.4
47.6
Plasticity
Index PI
(%)
ASTM Soil
Classification
5
7
ML
MH
6) Liloan Bridge
Table 15.3.3-32Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of LIL-N1
GL-(m)
Soil
Layer
Major Soil
Type
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Fines (%)
1
CL1
Sandy silt
0.0
86.4
54.6
15-72
Natural
Moisture
Content
(%)
21.0
Plasticity
Index PI
(%)
ASTM Soil
Classification
3
ML
Table 15.3.3-33Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of LIL-S1
GL-(m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Soil
Layer
Natural
Moisture
Content
(%)
Plasticity
Index PI
(%)
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Fines
(%)
0.0
0.0
99.1
99.5
0.9
0.5
30.2
26.7
SP
SP
8.7
90.6
0.7
18.1
SP
25.2
74.6
0.2
11.10
SW
Sandy gravel
24.7
4.4
33.3
75.1
95.4
66.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
12.30
9.30
10.10
SW
SP
SW
Gravelly sand
9.0
18.6
90.8
81.2
0.2
0.2
17.40
18.60
SW
SP
7.5
22.2
92.2
77.2
0.2
0.6
23.20
10.70
SP
SP
17.7
82.1
0.2
0.07
SP
19.9
80.0
0.2
6.63
SW
19.7
29.7
16.7
80.1
70.2
83.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
7.60
6.60
5.70
SP
SP
SP
Major Soil Type
ASTM Soil
Classification
Gravel
Asg
Dsg1
Coarse to
medium sand
Gravel
Sand with
gravel
Gravel
Sandy gravel
Gravel
Dsg2
Sandy gravel
Sand
15-73
7) Wawa Bridge
Table 15.3.3-34Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of WAW-L1
GL-(m)
1
2
3
4
5
6
Soil
Layer
BF
Clay with
gravel
Clay with
gravel
Clay with
gravel
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Major Soil
Type
Clay with
gravel
Clay with
gravel
Clay
Clay
Qc
Clay
38.4
58.9
32.1
22.3
59.9
57.4
Natural
Moisture
Content (%)
19.6
13.0
19.7
14.0
31.4
29.5
Plasticity
Index PI
(%)
18
15
13
12
CL
CL
SC-SM
SC-SM
CL
CL
11.1
89.0
32.30
10
CL
7.2
6.1
7.3
5.6
8.8
3.4
1.9
1.6
3.0
1.3
3.3
11.7
33.3
31.4
6.1
5.3
8.7
6.4
9.7
5.6
10.5
1.6
3.2
92.8
93.9
92.7
94.5
91.2
96.6
98.1
98.4
97.0
98.7
96.8
88.3
66.7
68.6
90.7
94.8
91.3
93.6
90.3
94.4
89.5
98.4
96.8
41.82
43.4
42.7
46.1
40.9
33.1
38.1
25.3
26.2
30.6
27.5
30.6
26.3
44.3
50.4
44.1
47.1
51.3
26.7
42.0
30.6
35.1
40.6
11
14
11
19
10
30
14
11
22
11
12
11
18
8
14
5
9
4
6
17
14
11
16
CL
CL
CL
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
OL
MH
ML
ML
ML
ML
OH
OH
MH
MH
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Fines (%)
5.5
5.3
8.8
41.7
0.8
8.3
56.1
35.8
59.1
36.0
39.4
34.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15-74
ASTM Soil
Classification
Table 15.3.3-35Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of WAW-R1
GL-(m)
Soil
Layer
1
2
Ag
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
As
Major Soil
Type
Sand and
gravel
Clayey gravel
and sand
Clay with
gravel
Clayey gravel
and sand
Very fine sand
with fines and
gravel
Weathered
rock (boulder)
Clay
Clay with
gravel
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Fines (%)
Natural
Moisture
Content (%)
Plasticity
Index PI
(%)
20.3
79.1
0.6
13.7
SP
9.3
90.3
0.4
8.6
SP
20.9
44.1
48.6
4.8
37.2
23.3
23.5
47.1
41.8
32.6
27.9
48.2
40.8
21.5
14.4
22.2
0.0
98.6
1.4
16.67
8.7
3.6
0.0
23.9
10.5
36.6
23.2
9.7
29.4
24.4
54.7
73.2
90.3
46.7
65.2
20.94
21.38
16.36
17.67
20.06
9.3
10.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
56.9
58.6
9.9
7.9
6.1
3.6
6.0
8.3
16.5
13.7
8.5
7.9
10.6
9.0
8.9
33.8
31.3
90.1
92.1
93.9
96.4
94.0
91.7
80.2
86.3
91.5
92.1
88.9
91.0
91.1
19.09
17.50
29.60
47.71
46.52
47.14
49.15
46.97
43.03
38.80
35.69
44.75
46.69
40.26
41.89
14
7
ASTM Soil
Classification
MH
SC-SM
SC-SM
ML
SP
16
11
12
13
13
MH
MH
CL
MH
MH
14
15
14
17
16
13
15
12
13
14
12
13
15
SC-SM
SC-SM
MH
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
boulder
Gravel
Silt
Qc
Clay
Gravelly clay
15.3.4 Reviews and Analysis on Results on Geological Investigation
(1) Soil Profile Type Classification
Soil profile types obtained using JRA’s methodology are shown in Table 15.3.4-1.
1) Metro Manila
a) Delpan Bridge
A rigid soil layers (mainly Ds) with Vs≥300 m/sec lie at a depth of 32 m below the ground
surface in the B-1 site. The ground characteristic value of the ground (TG) is 0.66 and the
ground type there is classified into Type III.
15-75
b) Nagtahan Bridge
A rigid soil layer with Vs≥300 m/sec is distributed at a depth of 23 m below the ground
surface at the B-1. The rigid layer is formed of pyroclastic rocks named the Guadalupe
Formation (GF). TG is 0.49 and the ground type there is II.
c) Lambingan Bridge
A rigid soil layer with Vs≥300 m/sec lies at a depth of 11 m below the ground surface in the
B-1 site. The rigid layer is composed of pyroclastic rocks named the Guadalupe Formation,
and intercalated by a very dense fine sand layer. TG there is 0.23 and the ground is classified
into Type II.
d) Guadalupe Bridge
surface at the B-1 site. The rigid layer is a very dense sand layer (Ds2) with N-values of 50
and greater. TG is 0.64 and the ground is categorized as Type III.
Assessment
Provinces
Metro Manila
Bridge site
Delpan
Nagtahan
Lambingan
Guadalupe
Marikina
Palanit
Mawo
Biliran
Liloan
1st Mandaue-Mactan
Buntun
Wawa
Location
JRA Ground
Type
TG
Location
JRA Ground
Type
TG
Passig (Left)
Passig (Left)
Passig (Left)
Passig (Left)
Marikina (Left)
Left bank
Left bank
Biliran side
Leyte side
Cebu side
Left bank
Wawa (Left)
III
II
( II )
(I)
(I)
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
0.66
0.49
0.31
0.15
0.09
0.05
0.13
0.01
0.01
0.08
0.29
0.08
Passig (Right)
Passig (Right)
Passig (Right)
Passig (Right)
Marikina (Right)
Right bank
Right bank
Leyte side
Panaon side
Mactan side
Right bank
Wawa (Right)
( II )
( II )
II
III
II
I
III
I
I
II
II
I
0.42
0.34
0.23
0.59
0.47
0.09
0.72
0.03
0.11
0.27
0.38
0.15
Type I can be compared to Class A, B or C in AASHOTO (2012), and also compared to Type I or II in AASHTO (2007), as
shown in Table 15.3.4-2.
e) Marikina Bridge
surface at the B-1 site. The rigid layer is a very dense sand layer (Ds2) with N-values of 50
and greater. TG is 0.47 and the ground type is classified into Type II.
15-76
2) Outside of Metro Manila
a) Buntun Bridge
(I)
BTL-1
A rigid soil layer withVs≥300 m/sec is Ds2 and is distributed at a depth of 14 m below the
ground surface at the borehole site. The characteristic value of the ground (TG) is 0.29 and
the ground there is classified into Type II.
(II) BTL-2
A rigid soil layer withVs≥300 m/sec is also Ds2 and is distributed at a depth of 17 m below
the ground surface at the borehole site. The ground characteristic value of the ground (TG) is
0.38 and the ground there is classified into Type II as well as the BTL-1 site.
b) Palanit Bridge
(I) PAL-L1
A rigid layer with Vs≥300 m/sec is distributed at a depth of 6 m below the ground surface at
the site. The rigid layer is composed volcanic rocks. TG is 0.09 and the ground type there is
classified into Type I.
(II) PAL-R1
A rigid layer with Vs≥300 m/sec lies at a depth of 2 m below the ground surface at the site.
The rigid layer is composed volcanic/pyroclastic rocks. TG is 0.05 and the ground type there
is classified into Type I as well as the PARL-L1 site.
c) Mawo Bridge
(I)
MAW-L1
A rigid soil layer with Vs≥300 m/sec lies at a depth of 38 m below the ground surface there.
The rigid layer is formed of volcanic rocks. TG is 0.72 and the ground type there is
classified into Type III.
(II) MAW-L2
Volcanic rock lies at a depth of 4 m below the ground surface and is a rigid layer with
Vs≥300 m/sec. TG is 0.13 and the site is classified into Type I.
d) Biliran Bridge
(I) BIL-NI
Volcanic rocks lie at a depth of one (1) m below the ground surface. TG is 0.01 and the
ground is classified into Type I.
(II) BIL-S1
Volcanic rocks are distributed at a depth of two (2) m below the ground surface. TG is 0.03
and the site is classified into Type I.
15-77
e) Liloan Bridge
(I) LIL-NI
The site is composed of coralline limestones. TG of the site is 0.01 and the ground is
classified into Type I.
(II) LIL-S1
surface at the borehole. The rigid layer is a very dense sand and gravel layer (Dsg2) with Nvalues of 50 and greater. TG is 0.11 and the ground type is classified into Type I.
f) 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge
(I) MAN-E1
surface. A calculated TG is around 1.0. The site is classified into Type III.
(II) MAN-W1
A rigid soil layer with Vs≥300 m/sec is a diluvial sand and gravel layer at a depth of 5 m
below the ground surface. TG is 0.08 and the ground type is Type I.
g) Wawa Bridge
(I) WAW-R1
A rigid soil layer with Vs≥300 m/sec lies at a depth of 9 m below the ground surface and TG
is 0.15. The site is classified as Type I.
(II) WAW-L1
surface and mainly composed of clayey soils. TG is 0.08 and the ground is classified as
Type I.
15-78
3) Comparison of Soil Profile Type Classification
Soil profile types determined using JRA’s method can be comparable to soil profile types
defined by AASHTO and ASEP as shown in Table 15.3.4-2.
Table 15.3.4-2 Comparison of Soil Profile Type Classification
(2) Design Condition
Soil parameters are preliminary proposed for preliminary design condition in this section. The
parameters below should be updated based on laboratory test or in-situ tests, and used for references
currently.
1) Soil Parameters for Bridge Design
a) N Value
N-values (SPT blow counts) give civil engineering essential information of soil strength or
characters. A design N-value (Nd) is proposed for each borehole site below.
b) Unit Weight of Soil
Unit weights of soils can be assumed based on the geological investigation and using a table
suggested by Nippon Expressway Company Ltd. (NEXCO), Japan (Table 15.3.4-3).
15-79
Table 15.3.4-3 Soil Type and Design Parameters on Soils (NEXCO)
Artificial Ground
Soil Type
Unit
weight *
(kN/m3)
Angle of
internal friction
(degree)
Cohesion
40
35
30
25
15
20
40
35
40
35
35
0
0
0
≤ 30
≤ 50
≤ 10
0
0
0
0
0
(kN/m2)
Gravel/Sand with gravel
Sand
Compacted
Compacted
Sandy soil
Clayey/Silty soil
Loam
Gravel
Compacted
Compacted
Compacted
Dense or well graded
Not-dense (loose) or poorly graded
20
20
19
19
18
14
20
18
21
19
20
Hard
18
19
17
18
30
30
25
25
0
≤ 30
0
≤ 50
Slightly soft
Soft
Hard
Slightly soft
Soft
17
16
17
16
14
14
20
15
20
15
10
5 (ϕu)
≤ 30
≤ 15
≤ 50
≤ 30
≤ 15
≤ 30
Sand with gravel
Sand
Natural Ground
Condition of soil
Sandy soil
Clayey/Silty soil
Clay, and Silt
Well graded
Poorly graded
Loam
Source: NEXCO Design Standards Vol.1
c) Cohesion of Soil
Cohesion of cohesive soil can be obtained using the following formula empirically in Japan.
C (cohesion) = 6.25·N (kN/m2)
d) Internal Friction Angle of Soil
Internal friction angle (ϕ) of cohesionless soil can be obtained using the following formula
proposed by JRA.
Φ=4.8·lognN1+21 (N>5)
N1=(170·N) / (σv’+70)
N: SPT brow counts
σv’: effective overburden pressure (kN/m2) at a depth of x (m)
15-80
e) Modulus of Deformation (Modulus of Elasticity)
Elasticity of soil (E0) can be obtained using the following formula empirically in Japan.
E0=700·N (kN/m2)
f) Rock Properties
As for rocks covered by alluvium or diluvium, their geotechnical rock parameter should be
determined using appropriate methods in further study.
g) Tentative Soil Parameters for Preliminary Design
Tentative soil parameters are shown in tables below.
(I) Inside of Metro Manila
(i) Delpan
At the borehole B-1, four (4) soil layers can be identified. Those are As (alluvial sand),
Ac (alluvial cohesive soil), Dc (diluvial cohesive soil), and Ds (diluvial sand).
Soil parameters for bridge design are proposed in Table 15.3.4-4 below.
Table 15.3.4-4 Proposed Soil Parameters for Delpan B-1 Site
Depth
(m)
-8
-21
-32
-38
Layer
Soil Type
N values
Nd
γt
(kN/m3)
As
Ac
Dc
Ds
Sandy
Silty/Clayey
Silty/Clayey
Sandy
11 – 17
4 – 10
9 – 13
50/15 -50/25
13
6
15
84
17
15
18
19
C
(kN/
m2)
0
36
94
0
Φ
(º)
E0
(kN/m2)
Vsn
(m/sec)
34
0
0
39
9,013
4,083
10,558
35,000<
188
180
247
350
*Vsn: shear wave velocity (m/sec) assumed using conversion formula from N to Vs proposed by JRA
(ii) Nagtahan
At the borehole B-1, five (5) soil layers are identified. They are Bs (backfill sand), As
(alluvial sandy soil), Ag (alluvial gravelly soil), Ds (diluvial sand), and pyroclastic rocks
named the Guadalupe Formation (GF).
Table 15.3.4-5 Proposed Soil Parameters for Nagtahan B-1 Site
Depth
(m)
-2
-12
-17
-23
-30
Layer
name
Bs
As
Ag
Ds
GF
Soil Type
N values
Nd
Sandy
Sandy
Gravelly
Sandy
Rock
6 – 18
4 – 14
13 – 17
14 – 23
50 ≤
12
10
16
19
50 ≤
γt
(kN/m3)
17
17
17
17
21
C
(kN/m2)
0
0
0
0
–
Φ
(º)
34
32
33
33
–
E0
(kN/m2)
8,400
7,210
10,920
13,183
–
15-81
Vsn
(m/sec)
183
174
200
213
300 <
(iii) Lambingan
At the borehole B-1, five (5) soil layers can be identified. They are Bs (backfill sand), As
(alluvial sand), Dc (diluvial cohesive soil), WGF (weathered rocks of the Guadalupe
Formation), and pyroclastic rocks named the Guadalupe Formation (GF).
Table 15.3.4-6 Proposed Soil Parameters for Lambingan B-1 Site
Depth
(m)
-1
-6
-10
-11
-30
Layer
name
Bs
As
Dc
WGF
GF
Soil Type
N
Nd
Sandy
Sandy
Silty/Clayey
Rock
Rock
12
6 – 21
6–9
28
50/0
12
11
8
28
50 ≤
γt
(kN/m3)
17
17
17
21
21
C
(kN/m2)
0
0
47
–
–
Φ
(º)
35
34
0
–
–
E0
(kN/m2)
8,400
7,980
5,250
–
–
Vsn
(m/sec)
183
180
196
273
300 <
(iv) Guadalupe
At the borehole B-1, five (5) soil layers are identified. They are Bs (backfill sand), BF
(fill soil), As (alluvial sand), Dg (diluvial gravelly soil), and diluvial sand layers (Ds1
and Ds2).
Table 15.3.4-7 Proposed Soil Parameters for Guadalupe B-1 Site
Depth
(m)
-2
-6
-10
-40
-46
Layer
name
BF
As
Dg
Ds1
Ds2
Soil Type
N values
Nd
Sandy
Sandy
Gravelly
Sandy
Sandy
–
8 – 28
34 – 50 ≤
26 – 46
50 ,
–
15
43
36
50 <
γt
(kN/m3)
18
17
18
17
19
C
(kN/m2)
–
0
0
0
0
Φ
(º)
–
35
39
36
39
E0
(kN/m2)
–
10,675
30,100
25,410
35,000<
Vsn
(m/sec)
–
198
280
265
350 <
(v) Marikina
At the borehole B-1, five (5) soil layers can be identified. They are Asc (alluvial
cohesionless soil with fines (silt and/or clay)), As (alluvial sand), Asg (alluvial sand and
gravel), and diluvial sand layers (Ds1 and Ds2).
Table 15.3.4-8 Proposed Soil Parameters for Marikina B-1 Site
Depth
(m)
-7
-14
-18
-24
-30
Layer
name
Asc
As
Asg
Ds1
Ds2
Soil Type
N values
Nd
Sandy
Sandy
Gravelly
Sandy
Sandy
3 – 10
10 – 25
27 – 34
40 – 61
50 <
7
17
30
46
50 <
γt
(kN/m3)
17
17
17
17
19
C
(kN/m2)
0
0
0
0
0
Φ
(º)
31
34
36
37
40
E0
(kN/m2)
4,800
11,600
20,650
32,083
35,000<
15-82
Vsn
(m/sec)
152
204
247
286
400 <
(II) Outside of Metro Manila
(i) Buntun
Table 15.3.4-9 shows a proposal of soil parameters for bridge design based on the
geological investigation result at BTL-1 located in the left bank of the river below the
Buntun Bridge.
Five (5) soil layers are identified and they are Ac1(alluvial cohesive soil), As (alluvial
sand), Ac2 (alluvial cohesive soil), Dc (diluvial cohesive soil), and Ds2 (diluvial sandy
soils). Dc2 and Ds2 are considered as good bearing layers.
Table 15.3.4-9 Proposed Soil Parameters for Buntun BTL-1 Site
Depth
(m)
-1
-2
-10
-14
-30
Layer
name
Ac1
As
Ac2
Dc
Ds2
Soil Type
N values
Nd
Silty/Clayey
Sandy
Silty/Clayey
Silty/Clayey
Sandy
6
6
2–7
25 – 32
50 <
6
6
5
28
50 <
γt
(kN/m3)
15
17
15
18
19
C
(kN/m2)
38
0
30
173
0
Φ
(º)
0
31
0
0
42
E0
(kN/m2)
4,200
4,200
3,413
19,425
35,000<
Vsn
(m/sec)
182
145
170
303
400 <
Table 15.3.4-10 shows a proposal of soil parameters for bridge design based on the
geological investigation result at BTL-2 located in the right bank of the river below the
Bridge.
Three (3) soil layers are identified at BTL-2 and they are Ac1 (alluvial cohesive soils),
As (alluvial sand), Ac2 (alluvial cohesive soil), Dc (diluvial cohesive soil), and Ds2
(diluvial sand). Dc2 and Ds2 are considered as good bearing layers.
Table 15.3.4-10Proposed Soil Parameters for Buntun BTL-2 Site
C
Φ
E0
Depth Layer
Soil Type
N values
Nd
γt
(º)
(kN/m2)
(m)
name
(kN/m3) (kN/m2)
-13
As
Sandy
6 – 12
8
17
0
32
5,600
-16 Ds1 Sandy
30 – 33
32
19
0
37
22,400
-30 Ds2 Sandy
50 ≤
50 ≤
19
0
37
35,000
Vsn
(m/sec)
163
245
300 <
(ii) Palanit
Four (4) soil layers are identified and they are Dsg (diluvial sand and gravel), Ds
(diluvial sand), Dc (diluvial cohesive soil), and VR (volcanic rocks) at PAL-L1. A
tentative proposal of soil parameters for bridge design is summarized in Table 15.3.4-11.
15-83
Table 15.3.4-11Proposed Soil Parameters for Palanit PAL-L1 Site
Depth
(m)
-4
-5
-6
-30
Layer
name
Dsg
Ds
Dc
VR
Soil Type
N values
Nd
Sandy
Sandy
Silty/Clayey
Rock
15 – 46
50
49
50 <
15
50
49
50 <
γt
(kN/m3)
18
19
18
21
C
(kN/m2)
0
0
306
–
Φ
(º)
39
41
0
–
E0
(kN/m2)
22,400
35,000
34,300
–
Vsn
(m/sec)
197
295
366
300 <
A tentative proposal of soil parameters for bridge design is assumed for thePAL-R1 site
summarized in Table 15.3.4-12
Two (2) soil layers are identified and they are Asg (alluvial sand and gravel), VR
(volcanic rocks).
Table 15.3.4-12Proposed Soil Parameters for PAL-R1 Site
Depth
(m)
-2
-30
Layer
name
Asg
VR
Soil Type
Sandy
Rock
N values
Nd
8–9
50 <
9
50 <
γt
(kN/m3)
17
–
C
(kN/m2)
0
–
Φ
(º)
33
–
E0
(kN/m2)
5,950
–
Vsn
(m/sec)
163
300<
(iii) Mawo
Seven (7) soil layers are identified at MAW-L1. They are Ac1 (alluvial cohesive soil
(1)), As (alluvial sand), Ag (alluvial gravel), Ac2 (alluvial cohesive soil (2)), Ds1
(diluvial sand (1)), Ds2 (diluvial sand (2)), and VR (volcanic rocks). A tentative proposal
of soil parameters for bridge design is summarized in Table 15.3.4-13.
Table 15.3.4-13Proposed Soil Parameters for Mawo MAW-L1 Site
Depth
(m)
-5
-7
-15
-28
-31
-38
-44
Layer
name
Ac1
As
Ag
Ac2
Ds1
Ds2
VR
Soil Type
N values
Nd
Silty/Clayey
Sandy
Gravelly
Silty/Clayey
Sandy
Sandy
Rock
2–4
8 – 12
17 – 24
7 – 12
10 – 24
22 – 43
50 ≤
3
10
22
9
17
32
50
γt
(kN/m3)
14
17
18
18
17
19
21
C
(kN/m2)
20
0
0
54
0
0
–
Φ
(º)
0
34
36
0
32
34
–
E0
(kN/m2)
2,240
7,000
15,225
6,085
11,900
22,300
–
Vsn
(m/sec)
147
172
223
206
206
254
300 <
A tentative proposal of soil parameters for bridge design is assumed for the MAW-L2
site shown in Table 15.3.4-14.
Four (4) soil layers are identified and they are Ag (alluvial gravel), Ac1 (alluvial
cohesive soil (1)), As1 (alluvial sand (1)), and VR (volcanic rocks).
15-84
Table 15.3.4-14Proposed Soil Parameters for Mawo MAW-L2 Site
Depth
(m)
-2
-4
-5
-30
Layer
name
Ag
Ac1
As1
VR
Soil Type
N values
Nd
Gravelly
Silty/Clayey
Sandy
Rock
6–9
2
50/15
50 <
8
2
100
50 <
γt
(kN/m3)
18
14
19
–
C
(kN/m2)
0
13
0
–
Φ
(º)
32
0
41
–
E0
(kN/m2)
5,250
1,400
35,000<
–
Vsn
(m/sec)
157
126
213
300 <
(iv) 1st Mandaue-Mactan
Twelve (12) soil layers are identified at MAN-E1. They are Ag (alluvial gravel), Ac
(alluvial cohesive soil), As (alluvial sand), Ds1 (diluvial sand (1)), Dg1 and Dg2 (diluvial
gravels), Dc1 (diluvial cohesive soil (1)), Dc2 (diluvial cohesive soil (2)), Dc3 (diluvial
cohesive soil (3)), Dc4 (diluvial cohesive soil (4)), Dc5 (diluvial cohesive soil (5)), and
Ds2 (diluvial sand (2)) A tentative proposal of soil parameters for bridge design is
shown in Table 15.3.4-15.
Table 15.3.4-15Proposed Soil Parameters for 1st Mandaue-Mactan MAN-E1 Site
Depth Layer
Soil Type
N values
Nd
γt
C
Φ
E0
Vsn
3
2
2
(m)
name
(kN/m ) (kN/m )
(º)
(kN/m ) (m/sec)
-5
-10
-12
-16
-17
-18
-19
-22
-28
-35
-40
-69
-81
Ag
Ac
As
Ds1
Dg1
Dc1
Dg2
Dc2u
Dc2ℓ
Dc3
Dc4
Dc5
Ds2
Gravelly
Silty/Clayey
Sandy
Sandy
Gravelly
Silty/Clayey
Gravelly
Silty/Clayey
18-29
6-8
7
22-30
32
25
35
13 - 41
23
7
7
27
32
25
35
23
18
15
17
17
18
18
18
18
0
44
0
0
0
156
0
144
37
0
29
35
36
0
36
0
16,100
4,900
4,900
18,900
22,400
17,500
24,500
16,100
226
191
153
240
254
292
262
284
Silty/Clayey
Silty/Clayey
Silty/Clayey
Silty/Clayey
10 – 15
45 – 53
7 - 42
45 – 50 <
13
48
20
50 <
18
18
18
19
81
300
125
0
0
0
0
41
9,100
33,600
14,000
35,000<
235
363
271
300 <
Table 15.3.4-16 summarizes a tentative proposal of soil parameters for bridge design is
assumed for theMAN-W1 site.
Four (4) soil layers are identified and they are Ac (alluvial cohesive soil), As (alluvial
sand), Dgs (diluvial gravel and sand), and VR (volcanic rocks).
Table 15.3.4-16Proposed Soil Parameters for 1st Mandaue-Mactan MAN-W1 Site
Depth
(m)
-2
-5
-10
-30
Layer
name
Ac
As
Dgs
Lm
Soil Type
Silty/Clayey
Sandy
Gravelly/sandy
Rock
N values
Nd
21 – 24
24 – 29
50 <
50 <
23
26
50 <
50 <
γt
(kN/m3)
18
17
20
21
C
(kN/m2)
144
0
0
–
Φ
(º)
0
38
40
–
E0
(kN/m2)
16,100
18,200
35,000
–
15-85
Vsn
(m/sec)
282
238
300 <
300 <
(v) Biliran
Dc (diluvial cohesive soil) and VR (volcanic rocks) are identified at BIL-N1. Ac (alluvial
clay) lies on VR at BIL-S1. A tentative proposal of soil parameters for bridge design is
shown in Table 15.3.4-17 and Table 15.3.4-18.
Table 15.3.4-17Proposed Soil Parameters for Biliran BIL-N1 Site
Depth
(m)
-1
-30
Layer
name
Dc
VR
Soil Type
Silty/Clayey
Rock
N values
Nd
50 <
50 <
50 <
50 <
γt
(kN/m3)
18
–
C
(kN/m2)
313<
–
Φ
(º)
0
–
E0
(kN/m2)
35,000<
35,000<
Vsn
(m/sec)
300 <
300 <
Table 15.3.4-18Proposed Soil Parameters for Biliran BIL-S1 Site
Depth
(m)
-2
-30
Layer
name
Ac
VR
Soil Type
Silty/Clayey
Rock
N values
Nd
5 – 50
50 <
33
50 <
γt
(kN/m3)
18
–
C
(kN/m2)
203
–
Φ
(º)
0
–
E0
(kN/m2)
35,000<
35,000<
Vsn
(m/sec)
319
300 <
(vi) Liloan
CL1 (strongly weathered limestone: cohesive soil) lies on CL2 (relatively fresh coralline
limestone) at LIL-N1. Three (3) soil layers are identified at LIL-S1. They are Asg
(alluvial sand and gravel), Dsg1 (diluvial sand and gravel (1)), and Dsg2 (diluvial sand
and gravel (2)). A tentative proposal of soil parameters for bridge design is shown in
Table 15.3.4-19 and Table 15.3.4-20.
Table 15.3.4-19Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan LIL-S1 Site
Depth
Layer
(m)
name
-1 CL1
-30 CL2
Soil Type
Silty/Clayey
Limestone
N values
Nd
50/10
50 <
50 <
50 <
γt
(kN/m3)
18
21
C
(kN/m2)
313
–
Φ
(º)
0
–
E0
(kN/m2)
35,000<
35,000<
Vsn
(m/sec)
300 <
300 <
Table 15.3.4-20Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan LIL-S1 Site
Depth Layer
(m)
name
-5 Asg
-7 Dsg1
-30 Dsg2
Soil Type
Gravelly/Sandy
Gravelly/Sandy
Gravelly/Sandy
N values
Nd
33 – 50 <
32 – 50 <
50 <
37
32
50 <
γt
(kN/m3)
18
20
20
C
(kN/m2)
0
0
0
Φ
(º)
41
44
45
E0
(kN/m2)
22,750
35,000<
35,000<
15-86
Vsn
(m/sec)
255
254
300<
(vii) Wawa
Two (2) soil layers are identified at WAW-L1 (Table 15.3.4-21). And, three (3) soil
layers are identified at WAW-R1 (Table 15.3.4-22).
Table 15.3.4-21Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan WAW-L1 Site
Depth Layer
(m)
name
-6
BF
-30
Qc
Soil Type
Silty/Clayey
Silty/Clayey
N values
Nd
20 – 30
40 – 50 <
33
50 <
γt
(kN/m3)
18
18
C
(kN/m2)
169
313 <
Φ
(º)
0
0
E0
(kN/m2)
18,900
35,000<
Vsn
(m/sec)
300
300 <
Table 15.3.4-22Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan WAW-R1 Site
Depth Layer
(m)
name
-4
Ag
-9
As
-30
Qc
Soil Type
Gravelly/Sandy
Sandy
Silty/Clayey
26
37
γt
(kN/m3)
18
19
C
(kN/m2)
0
0
Φ
(º)
38
41
E0
(kN/m2)
17,850
26,075
Vsn
(m/sec)
235
267
50 <
18
313 <
0
35,000<
300 <
N values
Nd
12 – 21
23 – 47
46 – 50 <
(3) Liquefaction Potential Assessment
This JICA study evaluates the liquefaction potential assessment for each of the selected bridge sites
for the 2nd screening by applying Youd et al. (2001; recommended by AASHTOs) and JRA’s method
mentioned below.
1) Empirical Method Recommended by AASHTO
The methodology using SPT N-values by Youd et al. (2001) is mentioned below.
Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF
Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils
Youd et al. (2001): Journal of Geotechnical and geoenvironmental Engineering, October 2001
The equation for factor of safety (FOS) against liquefaction is written in terms of CRR (Cyclic
Resistance Ratio), CSR (Cyclic Stress Ratio), and MSF (Magnitude Scaling Factor) as follows.
15-87
FOS=(CRR7.5/CSR)·MSF
CSR=(τ·σv/σv’0)=0.65·(amax/g)·( σv0/σv’0)·γd
σv0, σv’0:
amax:
γd :
Z
d
Total and effective vertical overburden stress
Peak horizontal acceleration at the ground surface generated by the earthquake
Stress reduction coefficient
=1.0-0.00765·z for z<=9.15m
=1.174-0.0267·z for 9.15m<z<=23mb(Liao and Whitman, 1986)
depth below ground surface in meters or
=(1.000-0.4113z0.5+0.04052z+0.001753z1.5)/(1.000-0.4177z0.5+0.05729z0.006205 z1.5+0.001210z2), (Blake, personal advice)
CRR7.5={1/[34-(N1)60]}+{(N1)60/135}+{50/[10(N1)60+45]2}-[1/200]
(N1)60:
(N1)60cs:
(N1)60cs:
MSF:
Kσ:
the SPT blow count normalized to an overburden pressure of approximately
100kPa (1ton/sqft) and a hammer energy ratio or hammer efficiency of 60%
Nm·CN·CE·CB·CR·CS
Nm: measured standard penetration resistance
CN: factor to normalize Nm to a common reference effective overburden stress
CE: correction for hammer energy ratio (ER)
CB: correction factor for borehole diameter
CR: correction factor for rod length
CS: correction for samples with or without liners
CN=(Pa/σv’0)0.5
CN: normalize Nm to an effective overburden pressure σ’v0 of approximately
100 kPa (1 atm) Pa or by Seed and Idriss (1982)
CN=2.2/(1.2+σ’v0/Pa)<=1.7
Corrected (N1)60 value based on fines content (%)
α+β·(N1)60
α=0
for FC<=5%
α=exp[1.76-(190/FC2)]
for 5%<FC<35%
α=5.0
for FC=>35%
β=1.0
for FC<=5%
β=[0.99+(FC1.5/1000)] for 5%<FC<35%
β=1.2
for FC=>35%
Magnitude Scaling Factor
=102.24/Mw2.56
Mw: moment magnitude
depth less than about 15m (low overburden pressure)
= (σv’0/Pa)f-1
Relative densities: 40-60% f=0.7-0.8%, 60-80% f=0.6-0.7
15-88
2) Empirical Method by JRA
The methodology using SPT N-values in the liquefaction potential assessment specified by JRA
is mentioned below.
a) Soil layers for Liquefaction Potential Assessment (JRA's method)
Liquefaction assessment shall be conducted when alluvial saturated soil layers meet all of the
following conditions.
1) The groundwater level is within 10 m and soil layers within 20 m from the ground surface
2) Fine content (FC) ≤35 or Plastic Index (PI) ≤15
3) D50≤10mm and D10≤1mm
Figure 15.3.4-1 shows a flow chart on evaluation of soil layers to be assessed for the
liquefaction potential assessment.
15-89
Start
Groundwater level
within 10 m from
the ground surface
Saturated soil
layers within 20 m
from the ground
surface
No
No
Yes
Grain size analysis
(one sample per one meter)
D50 ≤ 10 mm
No
No
Yes
D10 ≤ 1 mm
No
Yes
Fine Content
FC ≤ 35%
No
Atterberg limit test
Yes
Yes
Plasticity Index
PI ≤ 15
To assess liquefaction potential
No
Not to assess liquefaction Potential
Figure 15.3.4-1 Flow Chart for Evaluation of Liquefiable Soil Layers
15-90
b) Liquefaction Potential Assessment
Soil layers with FL≤1.0 are considered to potentially cause liquefaction.
FL＝R/L
FL stands for a resistance ratio for liquefaction (factor of safety) on a soil layer (usually
estimated at every one (1) meter). Dividing an R value by an L makes an FL value.
R=Cw/RL
L=rd·khgL·σv/σv’
rd=1.0-0.015 x
khgL=Cz・khgL0
Level 1 seismic motion and Level 2 (Type I) seismic motion
Cw=1.0
Level 2 (Type II) seismic motion
Cw=1.0
(RL≦0.1)
Cw=3.3RL+0.67
(0.1<RL≦0.4)
Cw=2.0
(0.4<RL)
FL: Resistance ratio for liquefaction
R: Dynamic shear strength ratio
L: Shear stress ratio during seismic motion
Cw: Correction parameter for seismic motion characteristics
RL: Cyclic tri-axial stress strength ratio
rd: Depth-reduction parameter for seismic stress ratio
khgL: design lateral force coefficient at the ground surface for liquefaction potential
assessment
Cz: Zone modification factor
khgL0: standard design lateral force coefficient at the ground surface for liquefaction
potential assessment
σv: Overburden pressure (kN/m2) at a depth of x (m)
σv’: Effective overburden pressure (kN/m2) at a depth of x (m)
x: a depth (m) below the ground surface
15-91
Table 15.3.4-23Standard Design Lateral Force Coefficient for Liquefaction Potential
Assessment
Level 1 seismic
Level 2 (Type I)
motion
seismic motion
0.12
0.50
0.15
0.45
0.18
0.40
Type I Ground
Type II Ground
Type III Ground
Level 2 (Type II)
seismic motion
0.80
0.70
0.60
c) Cyclic Tri-axial Strength Ratio (RL)
RL=0.0882·(Na/1.7)0.5
0.5
[Na<14]
-6
RL=0.0882·(Na/1.7) +1.6·10 ·(Na-14)
4.5
[Na≥14]
<For Sandy soils>
c1=1
(0%≤FC<10%)
c1=(FC+40)/50
(10%≤FC<60%)
c1=FC/20-1
(60%≤FC)
c2=0
(0%≤FC<10%)
c2=(FC-10)/18
(10%≤FC)
<For Gravelly soils>
Na={1-0.36·log10(D50/2)} ·N1
RL=Cyclic tri-axial strength ratio
N: N-value by SPT
N1: Corrected N-value regarding effective overburden stress
Na: Corrected N-value
σv b’: Effective overburden pressure at a depth of SPT (kN/m2)
c1, c2: Correction parameters for N-value regarding fine contents (FC: %)
FC: Fine content (%)
D50: Particle size (mm) corresponding to 50% finer on the cumulative particle size curve
Table 15.3.4-24 shows a comparison of methodologies specified in AASHTO and JRA.
15-92
Table 15.3.4-24Comparison of Liquefaction Assessment Methodology using SPT Blow Counts
between AASHTO’s Recommendation and JRA
3) Liquefaction Potential at Bridge Sites
Liquefaction potential assessment requires some physical soil properties such as D50, D10, or
FC. However, in this interim report, the data of soil properties had been tentatively obtained
from the laboratory test. Therefore liquefaction potential mentioned below shows a preliminary
potential assessment by assuming soil properties based on observation of the soil samples
obtained in boring. These assessment results have to be updated based on the final laboratory test
results.
a) Liquefaction Potential inside of Metro Manila
(I) Delpan Bridge
Liquefaction potential of B-1 borehole is shown in Figure 15.3.4-2.
Figure 15.3.4-2 Summary of liquefaction potential (Delpan B-1)
15-93
At the borehole (B-1), sandy and silty soil layers from GL-3 m to GL-17 m have relatively
high liquefaction potential.
(II) Nagtahan Bridge
At the borehole (B-1), soil layers bedded GL-1 m and -7 m have relatively high liquefaction
potential.
Figure 15.3.4-3 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (Nagtahan B-1)
15-94
(III) Lambingan Bridge
At the borehole (B-1), a sandy soil layer bedded GL-1 m and -7 m have relatively high
liquefaction potential.
Figure 15.3.4-4 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (Lambingan B-1)
(IV) Guadalupe Bridge
At the borehole (B-1), a sand layer distributed between -2 m and -6 m has relatively high
liquefaction potential.
Figure 15.3.4-5 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (Guadalupe B-1)
15-95
(V) Marikina Bridge
At the borehole (B-1), a sandy soil layer bedded from GL-4 m to GL-18 m has relatively
high liquefaction potential.
Figure 15.3.4-6 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (Marikina B-1)
b) Liquefaction Potential outside of Metro Manila
(I) Buntun Bridge
Liquefaction potential of BTL-1 and BTL-2 boreholes are shown in Figure 15.3.4-7 and
Figure 15.3.4-8. There is liquefaction potential up to a depth of 10 m at BTL-1 and 13 m at
BTL-2 currently.
15-96
Figure 15.3.4-7 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (BTL-1)
Figure 15.3.4-8 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (BTL-2)
(II) Palanit Bridge
Basically there is considered to be no liquefiable soil layers based on the boring (PAL-L1
and PAL-R1).
(III) Mawo Bridge
Liquefaction potential of MAW-L1 and L2 boreholes are shown in Figure 15.3.4-9 and
Figure 15.3.4-10
. There is liquefaction potential up to a depth of 20 m at MAW-L1
and 4 m at MAW-L2 currently.
15-97
Figure 15.3.4-9 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (MAW-L1)
Figure 15.3.4-10
Summary of Liquefaction Potential (MAW-L2)
(IV) 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge
Liquefaction potential of MAN-E1 borehole is shown in Figure 15.3.4-11. A borehole
(MAN-W1) site is considered to be not so liquefiable.
At the MAN-E1, there is liquefaction potential from the ground surface to GL-16 m. MANW1 site has less liquefaction potential (Figure 15.3.4-12).
15-98
Figure 15.3.4-11
Summary of Liquefaction Potential (MAN-E1)
Figure 15.3.4-12
Summary of Liquefaction Potential (MAN-W1)
(V) Biliran Bridge
At the two (2) boreholes (BIL-S1 and BIL-N1), there are considered to be not liquefiable
based on the JRA’s criteria.
(VI) Liloan Bridge
LIL-N1 borehole site is located in limestone prone area and there is not liquefiable soil
(Figure 15.3.4-13). Another borehole (LIL-S1) site has very low liquefaction potential.
15-99
Figure 15.3.4-13
(VII)
Summary of Liquefaction Potential (LIL-S1)
Wawa Bridge
Liquefaction potential of WAW-R1 borehole is shown in Figure 15.3.4-14. There is some
liquefaction potential from the ground surface to GL-4 m using the JRA’s method. Another
borehole (WAW-L1) is considered to be not liquefiable.
Figure 15.3.4-14
Summary of Liquefaction Potential (WAW-R1)
15-100
4) Summary of Liquefaction Potential at Boreholes
Table 15.3.4-25 currently shows a summary of liquefaction potential assessment.
Table 15.3.4-25Summary of Liquefaction Potential Assessment
Bridge
Borehole
Liquefaction
Depth of Liquefaction Potential (GL- m)
Potential
(applying JRA Level 2 Seismic motion)
Delpan
B-1
Yes
18
Nagtahan
B-1
Yes
20
B-1
Lambingan
Yes
7
B-1
Guadalupe
Yes
6
B-1
Marikina
Yes
18
Buntun
BTL-1
Yes
10
BTL-2
Yes
13
Palanit
PAL-L1
No
PAL-R1
No
Mawo
MAW-L1
Yes
20
MAW-L2
Yes
4
1st Mandaue- MAN-E1
Yes
16
Mactan
MAN-W1
No
Biliran
BIL-N1
No
BIL-S1
No
Liloan
LIL-N1
No
LIL-S1
No
Wawa
WAW-R1
No
WAW-L1
No
15.4
River and Hydrological Conditions
15.4.1 Package B
The candidate bridges of Package-B are all located on Pasig-Marikina River in Metro Manila. Delpan
Bridge is located at about 0.7 km, Nagtahan Bridge is about 5.0 km, Lanbingan Bridge is about 10.0
km, and Guadalupe Bridge is about 14.4 km upstream along Pasig River from the river mouth.
Marikina Bridge is located at about 6.6 km upstream along Upper Marikina River from the Junction
of Mangahan Floodway.
(1) Outline of Pasig-Marikina River
The Pasig-Marikina River flows through the city of Manila to the Manila Bay. Its total catchment area
is estimated at around 621 km2, about 20% of which is situated in Metro Manila. At the junction of
Napindan Hydraulic Control Structure (NHCS), the river is known as the Marikina River in the upper
reaches and the Pasig River in the lower reaches. The San Juan River, one of the tributaries with a
catchment of 91 km2, joins the Pasig River at its meandering section in the central city area where is
7.1 km from the river mouth. The Mangahan Floodway has been constructed to divert floodwaters
from the Marikina River into the Laguna Lake.
15-101
The Pasig River from the river mouth to the junction of NHCS in total 17.1 km has the average
riverbed gradient of 1/10,000, the width ranging from 60 m to 250 m and depth from 6.0 m to 12.0 m.
The Pasig River plays important role as a transportation route between river mouth, where the
moorings facilities are installed along the riversides especially from Delpan Bridge to Jones Bridge,
and densely built-up factories along the river toward the NHCS.
The Marikina River consists of two stretches, namely: Lower Marikina River from NHCS to
Mangahan Floodway in total 6.9 km and Upper Marikina River from Mangahan Floodway to
Montalban (Mangahan Floodway to Sto. Niño in total of 6.3 km). The Lower Marikina River has the
average river gradient of less than 1/5,000, the width ranging from 50 m to 110 m and the depth from
4.2 m to 9.5 m. The Upper Marikina River has the average gradient of 1/5,000, the width ranging
from 70 m to 200 m.
The Laguna Lake is situated in Region IV (Southern Tagalog) at 14°11.6’ to 14°32.2’ north
longitude and 120°2.7’ to 121°28.7’ latitude. The basin encompasses a total area of nearly 4,000
km2. The lake has a total surface area of about 900 km2, and average depth of 2.8 m. It has a total
volume of 3.2 billion m3 with a shoreline of 220 km.
(2) Climate of Pasig-Marikina River Basin
According to the Corona Climate Classification by PAGASA, the climate of Pasig-Marikina River
Basin is classified under Type Ⅰ. It is characterized by a dominant rainy season from May to October
and a dominant dry season for the rest of the months. The mean annual rainfall in Manila Port Area is
showed in Figure 15.4.1-1. The total rainfall from May to October accounts about 88 % of the annual
rainfall, which is brought mainly by the wet southwestern monsoon and the occasional typhoons.
Metro Manila has been suffering from flood damages almost every year in part to the insufficient flow
capacity of the Pasig-Marikina Rivers and drainage systems in Metro Manila. Especially, Typhoon
Ondoy hit Metro Manila on 26th of September in 2009 and dumped one month’s rainfall in less than
24 hours, causing Marikina River system including Mangahan Floodway to burst its banks rapidly.
Along with the flooding of other river systems, 80 % of National Capital Region (NCR) became
flooded. This is the worst storm on record that Metro Manila has experienced since 1967.
15-102
450
30
No. of Rainy days
400
Rainfall (mm)
35
Rainfall (mm)
350
25
300
20
250
200
15
150
10
100
No. of Rainy days
500
5
50
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8
Month
9 10 11 12
Mean Annual Rainfall in Manila Port Area
Figure 15.4.1-1 Mean annual rainfall in Manila Port area (1981-2010)
(3) Pasig-Marikina River Channel Improvement Project
The Pasig-Marikina River has experienced frequent channel overflow even after construction of
Mangahan Floodway in 1985, the channel improvement project has been conducted.
DPWH formulated the master plan of the Pasig-Marikina River System in the Study on Flood Control
and Drainage Project in Metro Manila (JICA Study, March 1990). In the master plan, the river
channel improvement project including the Marikina Control Gate Structure (MCGS) and Marikina
Dam against the project scale of 100-year return period was proposed. The estimated design flood
discharge was reviewed in the Detailed Engineering Design conducted in 2002 as shown in Figure
15.4.1-2. In the Detailed Engineering Design, the project scale is proposed to be a 30-year return
period for the urgent flood control plan. Major works consists of the improvement of Pasig River and
Lower Marikina and a part of Upper Marikina Rivers, and the construction of MCGS. The San Juan
River Improvement and the construction of Marikina Dam are excluded. The estimated design flood
discharge distribution against the project scale 30-year return period is shown in Figure 15.4.1-3. The
Pasig-Marikina River Channel Improvement Project has already been commenced based on the
design flood discharge distribution in Pasig River.
15-103
750
SANJUAN
RIVER
STO. NIÑO
MCGS
2,900
2,400
800
500
2,400
550
0
650
NAPINDAN
RIVER
MANGAHAN
FLOODWAY
NANGKA
RIVER
35
1,300
95
MANILA
BAY
1,500
2,100
MARIKINA
DAM
Figure 15.4.1-2 Design Flood Discharge Distribution against 100-year Return Period
(MP in 1990)
700
SAN JUAN
RIVER
MCGS
STO. NINO
MANGAHAN
FLOODWAY
35
NAPINDAN
RIVER
300
500 2,900
2,400
550
0
600
95
MANILA
BAY
1,200
Figure 15.4.1-3 Design Flood Discharge Distribution against 30-year Return Period
(DD in 2002)
15-104
Table 15.4.1-1 Summary of Proposed Pasig-Marikina River Channel Improvement Plan in
Detailed Engineering Design in 2002
Stretch
Lower Pasig River (9.2 km)
Delpan Bridge
~ San Juan River (7.1 km)
San Juan River
~ Lambingan Bridge (2.1 km)
Upper Pasig River (7.2 km)
Lambingan Bridge
~ Napindan Channel (7.2 km)
Lower Marikina River (7.3 km)
Napindan Channel
~ Mangahan Floodway (7.3 km)
Design
Discharge
Freeboard
Allowance for
Embankment
1,200 m3/s
1.0 m
3
Work Item
Raising of existing parapet wall and
rehabilitation of revetment
600 m /s
1.0 m
600 m3/s
1.0 m
Raising of existing parapet wall and
rehabilitation of revetment
550 m3/s
1.0 m
Dredging / excavation, provision of
new parapet wall, embankment and
construction of MCGS
2,900 m3/s
1.2 m
Dredging / excavation, revetment,
raising of embankment and river
widening
Upper Marikina River (6.1 km)
Mangahan Floodway
~ Sto. Niño (6.1 km)
(4) Major Design Condition of Bridges in Pasig-Marikina River
1) Design Flood Discharge and Design Flood Level
Design Flood Discharge in Pasig-Marikina River is referred to the value estimated in Detailed
Engineering Design of Pasig–Marikina River Channel Improvement Project as shown in Table
15.4.1-1. The Design Flood Discharge is estimated against the project scale 30-year return period
because of the urgent project. On the other hand, according to the estimated Design Flood
Discharge in master plan in 1990, the discharge against 100-year return period might be
controlled as almost same amount as it against 30-year return period by Marikina Dam proposed
to construct in the upstream of Upper Marikina River.
Design Flood Level in Pasig-Marikina River corresponding to the discharge is also estimated in
the Detailed Engineering Design. The water level in Pasig-Marikina River is well affected by the
tide level of Manila Bay and also Laguna Lake. The Design Flood Level was calculated with
considering of the backwater of the observed highest tide level in Manila Bay.
In the Detailed Engineering Design, the tide level of Manila Bay was referred to the data of
Primary Tidal Bench Mark BM4B in Intramuros Manila. However, the Bench Mark BM4B has
been disappeared in 2004. Then, topographic survey in this study has been conducted based on
the elevation of BM66 in Manila South Harbor. Therefore, the tide level of Manila Bay might be
referred to the bench mark BM66. The tidal information at Manila South Harbor tide Station is
obtained from NAMRIA as below;
15-105
Table 15.4.1-2 Tidal Information at Manila South Harbor Tide Station
Station
Observed
Highest Tide
Mean Higher
High Water
Mean High
Water
Mean Lower
Low Water
Mean Low
Water
Manila South Harbor
(14°35’ N 120°58’E)
1.48 m
0.51 m
0.39 m
- 0.49 m
- 0.38 m
*Series of Observation: Manila South Harbor BM 66 (1989-2008)
**Elevations are above Mean Sea Level (The tidal data in “TIDE AND CURRENT TABLES Philippines 2012
established by NAMRIA” is all above Mean Lower Low Water Level)
Source: Letter from NAMRIA and TIDE AND CURRENT TABLES Philippines 2012
According to the result of the Detailed Engineering Design considering the updated tide level,
the Design Flood Level in each candidate bridges are shown in Table 15.4.1-3.
Table 15.4.1-3 Design Flood Discharge and Design Flood Level in Pasig-Marikina River
Bridges in Package-B
Distance from
River mouth (km)
Design Flood
Discharge (m3/s)
Design Flood Level (m)
(above Mean Sea Level)
B-01
Delpan Bridge
0.71
1,200
1.480
B-06
Nagtahan Bridge
5.01
1,200
2.074
B-08
Lambingan Bridge
9.95
600
2.995
B-10
Guadalupe Bridge
14.40
600
3.257
B-16
Marikina Bridge
13.12
(from Napindan Channel)
2,900
9.697
However, the water level in Marikina Bridge has been recorded 11.20 m (above mean sea level)
in the Ondoy Typhoon in September 26th 2009 which occurred the heaviest damages in Metro
Manila. (It was recorded as 22.16 m above Mean Lower Low Water Level +10.47 m by Sto.
Niño Station Gauge which is set by PAGASA) But the recording by the Sto. Niño Station Gauge
was stopped after the elevation (22.16 m) because of a technical problem. According to the
residential people, the water level came up to really close to the bottom of the girder of Marikina
Bridge. The water level in Ondoy Typhoon is seemed to have been higher than the elevation
11.20 m which was recorded by PAGASA. Due to the presentation about the hydraulic analysis
of the Ondoy Typhoon and Marikina River Flood by UPCOE-ICE-NHRC, the peak flood
discharge of Marikina River in Sto. Niño Station in Ondoy Typhoon was 5,770 m3/s and rainfall
depth in 6 hours was 347.5 mm. It corresponds to a 100 ~ 150-year return period rainfall.
Figure 15.4.1-4 Water Level at Marikina Bridge in Ondoy Typhoon (September 26th 2009)
15-106
In this study, the design flood level might be referred to the Detailed Engineering Design. The
design flood level in Marikina Bridge is also referred to the Detailed Engineering Design even
the water level in Ondoy Typhoon was above the design flood level because the design flood
discharge in Marikina Bridge against 100-year return period would be controlled by Marikina
Dam which is proposed in Master Plan in 1990 in the future (refer to Figure 15.4.1-3).
2) Flow Velocity
The flow velocity at the bridges corresponding to the Design Flood Discharge is calculated by
the equation below;
Q=A・V
where,
Q
A
V
: Design Flood Discharge (m3/s)
: Cross Sectional Area (m2)
: Flow Velocity (m/s)
Table 15.4.1-4 Flow Velocity against the Design Flood Discharge in Pasig-Marikina River
Design Flood Discharge (m3/s)
Flow Velocity (m/s)
B-01
Delpan Bridge
1,200
1.41
B-06
Nagtahan Bridge
1,200
1.92
B-08
Lambingan Bridge
600
1.16
B-10
Guadalupe Bridge
600
1.27
B-16
Marikina Bridge
2,900
3.53
3) Navigation Clearance
The regulated vertical navigation clearance specified under Philippine Coast Guard (PCG)
Memorandum-Circular No.05-97, “Minimum Vertical Navigation Clearance for Road Bridges”
is 3.75 m (10 ft) from the highest water level that would allow the safety passage of watercrafts,
which should be applied on the Pasig River and lower Marikina River for transportation by barge.
The Detailed Engineering Design reports the highest water level in Pasig River means the
highest tidal water level on record and not the flood level because the water level of Pasig River
usually from river mouth to around Guadalupe Bridge is well affected by the tide level in Manila
Bay. The current direction of Pasig River is also changing by the tide level.
15-107
However, PCG is proposing the new vertical clearance as below because the scale of the
vessels/ships has been becoming increasingly large;
Vertical Clearance (Proposed by PCG) = H.W.L + H.V +K
where,
H.W.L : The Highest Water Level recorded within the AOR
H.V : Height of Vessel
K : Constant 3 meters allowance
However, the vertical clearance proposed by PCG would affect the vertical alignment of the
bridges along the Pasig River and also the approach road area if bridges meet the clearance in
reconstruction. The vertical clearance is realistically not acceptable to the bridges in Pasig River.
Therefore, the existing regulation of the vertical clearance might be applied in this study and
which is approved in the Technical Working Group with DPWH.
Thus, the minimum vertical navigation clearance for the Delpan Bridge, Nagtahan Bridge,
Lambingan Bridge and Guadalupe Bridge is below;
Vertical Clearance = H.W.L + 3.75 m
where,
H.W.L : Observed Highest Tide in Manila Bay (= 1.48 m)
The elevation of the soffit for these 4 bridges must be higher than 5.23 m (above Mean Sea
Level).
The navigational span of the bridge should be provided in a way that it does not obstruct the safe
navigation of appropriate vessels or watercraft passing through the area.
As for Marikina Bridge, navigation is made by only small banker boat along Upper Marikina
River and there is no regulation about the navigation clearance in Upper Marikina River.
4) Freeboard and Vertical Clearance
As Detailed Engineering Design reporting in Table 15.4.1-1, according to the “DESIGN
Guidelines Criteria and Standards for Public Works and Highways” which is prepared by the
Bureau of Design (DPWH Design Guideline), the freeboard allowance for embankment at each
bridge are determined corresponding to the design discharge as below;
15-108
Table 15.4.1-5 Freeboard Allowance for Embankment
Item
Design Discharge (m3/s)
Value to be added to design water level (m)
1
Less than 200
0.60
2
200 to less than 500
0.80
3
500 to less than 2,000
1.00
4
2,000 to less than 5,000
1.20
5
5,000 to less than 10,000
1.50
6
More than 10,000
2.00
Source: DESIGN Guidelines Criteria and Standards for Public Works and Highways
Also vertical clearance (below the bridge) shall not be less than 1.50 m for stream carrying
debris and 1.00 m for others. According to DPWH, Pasig-Marikina River carries debris in flood
condition and the vertical clearance must have not less than 1.50 m.
Considering the freeboard and the vertical clearance, value to be added to design water level at
bridges along the Pasig-Marikina River might be 1.50 m.
5) Considerations
a) River Flow at Lambingan Bridge
According to the Station Commander
of Coast Guard Station PASIG (PSG),
the area of Lambingan Bridge is an
accident prone zone for the navigation
in the Pasig River because the bridge
is located on the sharp river bend.
PSG regulates the maximum speed for
navigation in the Pasig River as 12
knots, but as for the area from about
200 m before and after Lambingan
Bridge (both ways) the maximum
speed is regulated as 5 knots. The direction of the river flow from at Lambingan Bridge is
toward the northern pier and vessel/ships are prone to hit the pier because of the flow.
15-109
b) Vessel/Ships Navigation in Flood Condition
The vertical navigation clearance in the Pasig River regulated
by PCG is set from the observed highest tide in Manila Bay
and it is not considered of the flood condition. However,
according to the Station Commander of PSG, navigation in
flood condition is not restricted by the regulation and it is
restricted in typhoon based on the warning signal by
PAGASA. The all responsibility of the navigation in the flood
Photo 15.4.1-1
condition is on the captain’s decision. However, the water level is raised up to higher than the
observed highest tide level which is caused by the heavy rain and the water level of the
Laguna Lake, and the vertical navigation clearance might be decreased and vessel/ships are
likely to hit the bottom girder like Lambingan Bridge. There is a crack on the bottom cord
caused by the collision on the Lambingan Bridge even Lambingan bridge meets the vertical
navigation clearance.
6) Major Design Condition
The summary of the major design condition of the bridges of Package-B is shown in Table
15.4.1-6.
Table 15.4.1-6 Summary of the Major Design Condition of Package-B
Design Water Level
+ Vertical Clearance (m)
Observed Highest Tide
+ Navigation Clearance (m)
Elevation of Soffit of
the Bridges (m)
B-01
Delpan Bridge
2.98 (1.480 + 1.50)
5.23 (1.48 + 3.75)
5.15
B-06
Nagtahan Bridge
3.574 (2.074 + 1.50)
5.23 (1.48 + 3.75)
5.66
B-08
Lambingan Bridge
4.495 (2.995 + 1.50)
5.23 (1.48 + 3.75)
5.81
B-10
Guadalupe Bridge
4.757 (3.257 + 1.50)
5.23 (1.48 + 3.75)
9.47
B-16
Marikina Bridge
11.467 (9.967 + 1.50)
No navigation
12.70
Figure 15.4.1-5 Design High Water Level and Vertical Clearance at Delpan Bridge
Figure 15.4.1-6 Design High Water Level and Vertical Clearance at Nagtahan Bridge
15-110
Figure 15.4.1-7 Design High Water Level and Vertical Clearance at Lambingan Bridge
Figure 15.4.1-8 Design High Water Level and Vertical Clearance at Guadalupe Bridge
Figure 15.4.1-9 Design High Water Level and Vertical Clearance at Marikina Bridge
15.4.2 Package C
The candidate bridges of Package-C are located on rivers, river mouths, channel and straits. Buntun
Bridge is over the Cagayan River in Northern Luzon, approximately 130 km from River Mouth to the
Babuyan Channel. Wawa Bridge is over the Wawa River which is the tributary of Agusan River in
Eastern Part of Mindanao Island. Palanit Bridge is over the Palanit River in Northern Samar of
Visayas, approximately 200 m from the river mouth to the Samar Sea. Mawo Bridge is over the
Bangon River in Northern Samar of Visayas, approximately 700 m from the river mouth to the Samar
Sea. 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge is located over the Mactan Channel connecting Mactan Island and
Cebu Island in Visayas. Biliran Bridge is located over the Biliran Strait connecting Biliran Island and
Northern Leyte in Visayas. Liloan Bridge is located over the Panaon Strait connecting Panaon Island
and Northern Leyte in Visayas.
15-111
(1) Hydrological Survey and Results of Cagayan River
1) Outline of Cagayan River
Cagayan River travels about 520 km in the Cagayan Valley from South to north in the northern
part of the Luzon Island, which is the longest and largest river in Philippines with its catchment
area of 27,281 km2. The major tributaries are the Magat River (5,113 km2), Ilagan River (3,132
km2), Siffu-Mallig River (2,015 km2), and Chico River (4,551 km2).
The climate in the Cagayan River Basin consists of two tropical monsoons, i.e. the Southwest
Monsoon and the Northeast Monsoon. According to the Corona Climate Classification by
PAGASA, climate in the Cagayan River basin is under Type III. This climate type is by not very
pronounced seasons with relatively dry weather condition from November to April while the
remaining of the year is noted as wet weather. The Cagayan River Basin experiences heavy
rainfall during the rainy season that normally occurs from June to November. Figure 15.4.2-1
shows the mean annual rainfall in Tuguegarao city where Buntun Bridge is located. The annual
average rainfall in the basin is estimated to be 2,600 mm.
Major storms that have struck the Cagayan River Basin have resulted from typhoons and
monsoon in the area. The typhoons normally strike during July to December, with about 8 times
a year on the average.
350
35
Rainfall (mm)
300
30
250
25
200
20
150
15
100
10
50
5
0
No. of Rainy days
Rainfall (mm)
No. of Rainy days
0
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8
Month
9 10 11 12
Mean Annual Rainfall in Tuguegarao
Figure 15.4.2-1 Mean Annual Rainfall in Tuguegarao (1981-2010) and Annual Average Water
Level at Buntun Bridge
15-112
2) Existing Study of Cagayan River
The Cagayan River Basin has been experienced floods occur during typhoons usually strikes
from July to December which bring abundant rainfall to the basin and by heavy rainfall during
the rainy season that normally occurs from June to November. JICA conducted the Master Plan
Study on the Cagayan River Basin Water Resources Development from 1985 to 1987. The flood
control plan was formulated in the Master Plan including flood control dams, diking systems,
narrow improvement and bank protection. In the Feasibility Study conducted by 2002, the
Master Plan was reviewed and some priority flood control projects in the lower Cagayan River
were studied. The priority projects are including Tuguegarao right dike system (21.3 km) around
Buntun Bridge, Alcala-Buntun left dike system (33.5 km) along downstream of Buntun Bridge,
Enrile left dike system (12.2 km) along upper stream of Buntun Bridge and Tuguegarao cut-off
channels in upper stream of Buntun Bridge. According to the Feasibility Study, these projects are
proposed to be implemented in Phase 3 (2007-2015) and Phase 4 (2011-2020). However, it has
not been implemented and the Preparatory Study for Sector Loan on Disaster Risk Management
was conducted by JICA in 2010. In this study, the feasibility study was conducted for the
selected three core areas which really need urgent implementation of a flood control project in
Tuguegarao area.
3) Major Design Condition of Buntun Bridge
a) Design Flood Discharge and Design Flood Level
In this survey, because of no detail study, the design discharge of Cagayan River at Buntun
Bridge is estimated by Specific Discharge Method referring “MANUAL ON FLOOD
CONTROL PLANNING” established by Project for the Enhancement of Capabilities in Flood
Control and Sabo Engineering of the DPWH. Design high water level for the bridge must be
compared to the observed highest water level by interview with the high water level calculated
by the design flood discharge which is estimated by the Specific Discharge Method.
According to the DPWH Design Guideline, design storm frequency considered desirable for
use in the Philippines is 50 years. However this project scale must be also considered to be a
100-year return period because all the candidate bridges are very essential.
Design Flood Discharge is estimated at follows;
Q=q・A
q=c・A (A
where,
Q
q
c
A
-0.048
-1)
: Specific Discharge (m3/s/km2)
: Constant for Regional Specific Discharge Curve (Table 16.5.2.1-1)
: Catchment Area (km2)
15-113
Table 15.4.2-1 Constant for Regional Specific Discharge Curve
Return Period
2-year
5-year
10-year
25-year
Luzon
15.66
17.48
18.91
21.51
Visayas
6.12
7.77
9.36
11.81
Mindanao
8.02
9.15
10.06
11.60
Source: MANUAL ON FLOOD CONTROL PLANNING March 2003
Region
50-year
23.83
14.52
12.80
100-year
25.37
17.47
14.00
The catchment area of Cagayan River to the point of Buntun Bridge is 19,247 km2, which is
obtained using a topographic map prepared by NAMRIA. The constant for Regional Specific
Discharge Curve for Luzon is 23.83 for 50-year return period and 25.37 for 100-year return
period. Then, Design Flood Discharge for Cagayan River at Buntun Bridge is calculated using
the formula above, 11,103 m3/s for 50-year return period and 11,821 m3/s for 100-year return
period.
Design Flood Level is estimated with the Manning’s equation;
Q=A・V
V=1/n・R2/3・S1/2
where,
Q
A
V
n
R
S
: Cross Sectional Area (m2)
: Manning’s Roughness Coefficient
: Hydraulic Radius (m)
: River Bed Slope
Manning’s roughness coefficient is obtained from DPWH Design Guideline considering the
existing river condition. According to the Preparatory Study for Sector Loan on Disaster Risk
Management (January 2010), average riverbed slope is 1/9,000 between Alcala to Tuguegarao
River. The cross section at the Buntun Bridge is determined by the topographic survey
conducted in this study. The Design Flood Level corresponding to the Design Flood
Discharge 11,103 m3/s and 11,821 m3/s will be calculated after the topographic survey is done.
Table 15.4.2-2 Design Flood Level at Buntun Bridge
Specific Discharge Method
Design Flood Discharge (m3/s)
50-year return period
100-year return period
11,103
11,821
Flow Velocity (m/s)
15-114
b) Site Interview
The water level of Cagayan River has been
observed at Buntun Bridge by PAGASA since
1982. The water level station gauge is on the pier.
According to PAGASA, the observed highest
▽O.H.W. L +12.70 m
water level of Cagayan River at Buntun Bridge is
12.70 m at the cold front in November 5th 2010.
The water level came up to the bottom of the
coping of the pier. In relatively dry season, the
Water Level Station
Gauge by PAGASA →
water level is very low. Therefore, there is no
navigational ship along the river and only small
Photo 15.4.2-1
boat is passing under the bridge.
c) Major Design Condition
(I) Design High Water Level
The design high water level is determined by comparing the observed highest water level
12.70 m and the design flood level corresponding to the design flood discharge. The design
flood level will be calculated after topographic survey at Buntun Bridge is finished.
(II) Flow Velocity
The flow velocity at the design water level will be calculated after the water level is
determined.
(III) Vertical Clearance and Freeboard
According to DPWH Design Guideline, vertical clearance (below the bridge) shall not be
less than 1.50 m for stream carrying debris and 1.00 m for others. And also, the freeboard
allowance for embankment is determined corresponding to the Design Flood Discharge as
Table 15.4.1-4.
Thus, value to be added to design water level at Buntun Bridge might be 2.00 m whether it
carries debris or no, because Design Flood Discharge is more than 10,000 m3/s at Buntun
Bridge.
Vertical Clearance 2.00 m
Observed Highest Water Level 12.70 m (Design Water Level assumed)
Note: The section of Buntun Bridge and Riverbed is assumed
Figure 15.4.2-2 Design High Water Level and freeboard at existing Buntun Bridge
15-115
(2) Hydrological Survey and Results of Wawa River
1) Outline of Wawa River
Wawa River is one of the tributaries of the Agusan River, located in the northeastern part of
Mindanao. The Agusan River has the third largest basin of the Philippines with a river length of
350 km and the catchment area 10,921 km2. Wawa River with a river length of 88.2 km with the
catchment area of 764.14 km2 flows into the Agusan River at middle Agusan River Basin in
Agusan del Sur Province.
The Climate in Wawa River Basin is Tropical Wet and it is rainy throughout the year. Based on
the Coronas Climate Classification, most of the Wawa River Basin is classified to Type Ⅱ
which is characterized by the absence of a dry season and a very pronounce maximum rainfall
occurring from November to January, even the most part of the Agusan River Basin is classified
to Type Ⅳ. The mean annual rainfall at Surigao and Butuan City, Agusan del Norte where has
the close climate as Wawa River Basin is showed in Figure 15.4.2-3.
700
35
Rainfall (mm)
600
600
30
20
300
15
200
10
100
5
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8
Month
Rainfall (mm)
400
No. of Rainy days
Rainfall (mm)
25
30
No. of Rainy days
No. of Rainy days
500
35
Rainfall (mm)
500
25
400
20
300
15
200
10
100
5
0
0
1
9 10 11 12
No. of Rainy days
700
2
3
4
5
6 7 8
Month
9 10 11 12
Mean Annual Rainfall in Butuan City
Mean Annual Rainfall in Surigao
Figure 15.4.2-3 Mean Annual Rainfall in Surigao and Butuan City (1981-2010)
2) Existing Study of Wawa River
The master plan project for the Agusan River Basin to develop the integrated river basin
management was conducted by Asian Development Bank (ADB) by 2008. On the other hand,
regarding to Wawa River, Wawa River Irrigation System (WRIS) was constructed at
approximately 60 m downstream of Wawa Bridge by National Irrigation Administration (NIA)
in 2005. According to the drawings of the WRIS which is obtained from NIA sub office
controlling the irrigation system, the design flood discharge is 1,280 m3/s for 50-year return
period and 1,770 m3/s for 100-year return period.
15-116
3) Major Design Condition of Wawa Bridge
In this survey, because of no detail study, the design discharge of Wawa River at Wawa
Bridge is estimated by Specific Discharge Method as same as Cagayan River in (1) 3) a).
The catchment area of Wawa River to the point of Wawa Bridge is 407 km2, which is
obtained using a topographic map prepared by NAMRIA. The constant for Regional Specific
Discharge Curve for Mindanao is 12.80 for 50-year return period and 14.00 for 100-year
return period (Table 15.4.2-1). Then, Design Flood Discharge for Wawa River at Wawa
Bridge is estimated at 1,156 m3/s for 50-year return period and 1,264 m3/s for 100-year return
period.
Design Flood Level is calculated by the Manning’s equation. Manning’s roughness coefficient
is obtained from DPWH Design Guideline considering the existing river condition. The
average riverbed slope is difficult to be determined by the results of this topographic survey
because of the riverbed topography around Wawa Bridge is not showing some constant slope.
But according to the drawings of WRIS, the riverbed slope is approximately 1/400. The cross
section at the Wawa Bridge is determined by the topographic survey conducted in this study.
As a result of the calculation, the Design Flood Level corresponding to the Design Flood
Discharge 1,156 m3/s and 1,264 m3/s is respectively 40.48 m and 40.64 m. As a reference, the
Design Flood Levels corresponding to the Design Flood Discharge obtained from the
drawings of WRIS, calculated at the cross section by this topographic survey are also showed
in below.
Table 15.4.2-3 Design flood level at Wawa Bridge
Specific Discharge Method
Design Flood Discharge obtained from
the drawings of WRIS 2005
(*Reference)
50-year
100-year
50-year
100-year
Design Flood Discharge (m /s)
1,156
1,264
1,280
1,770
Flow Velocity (m/s)
2.92
3.01
3.02
3.29
40.48
40.64
40.66
41.27
3
15-117
b) Site Interview
According to the controller of the WRIS, observed
highest water level at Wawa Bridge is 41.65 m
▽O.H.W. L
(above mean sea level) at the typhoon in February
2011. And also in 1959, there was a flood and the
water level came up to about 40.0 m, then the old
Wawa Bridge which was at the 50 m downstream
↑ Water Level
Gauge by NIA
was washed out by the flood. Wawa River carries
lots of debris in flood condition.
Photo 15.4.2-1
The Flood Levels which are calculated above are lower than the observed highest water
level 41.65 m. In this survey, higher value 41.65 m might be adopted as the Design Flood
Level. The Design Flood Discharge with the design water level 41.65 m is calculated as
2,159 m3/s.
(II) Flow Velocity
The flow velocity with the design flood discharge Q=2,159 m3/s at Wawa Bridge is
calculated as 3.53 m/s.
According to the DPWH Design Guideline, freeboard allowance for embankment
corresponding to the design flood discharge is 1.20 m because of the discharge calculated
against the Design High Water is between 2,000 m3/s and 5,000 m3/s, and the vertical
clearance shall not be less than 1.5 m because Wawa River carries debris in flood condition.
Therefore, the minimum vertical clearance between soffit of bridge and the design high
water level might be 1.5 m.
Figure 15.4.2-4 Design High Water Level and freeboard at existing Wawa Bridge
15-118
(3) Hydrological Survey and Results of Palanit River and Bangon River
1) Outline of Palanit River and Bangon River
Both Palanit River and Bangon River (named Mawo River in the map prepared by NAMRIA)
are located in the northern west part of Samar Island of Visayas. These rivers are not principal
rivers and have not much information. The length and catchment area of the rivers are obtained
from the map prepared by NAMRIA. The length of Palanit River is approximately 7.4 km with
the catchment area 15.9 km2 and the length of Bangon River is approximately 30.9 km with the
catchment area 263.9 km2. Both are facing to Samar Sea.
According to the Corona Climate Classification by PAGASA, climate of the both river’s basin is
under Type Ⅳ. In the climate, rainfall is more or less evenly distributed throughout the year, and
has no dry season. The mean annual rainfall in Catbalogan where is on the same coastline with
the both river’s basin is showed in Figure 15.4.2-5.
400
35
Rainfall (mm)
350
25
250
20
200
15
150
10
100
No. of Rainy days
300
Rainfall (mm)
30
No. of Rainy days
5
50
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6 7 8
Month
9 10 11 12
Mean Annual Rainfall in Catbalogan
Figure 15.4.2-5 Mean Annual Rainfall in Catbalogan (1981-2010)
2) Major Design Condition of Palanit Bridge and Mawo Bridge
In this survey, because of no detail study, the design discharge of Palanit River at Palanit
Bridge and Bangon River at Mawo Bridge is estimated by Specific Discharge Method as same
as Cagayan River in 16.5.2.1 (3) 1), and Wawa River in 16.5.2.2 (3) 1).
15-119
The catchment area of Palanit River to the point Palanit Bridge is 15.9 km2 and Bangon River
to the point of Mawo Bridge is 263.9 km2, which are obtained using a topographic map
prepared by NAMRIA. The constant for Regional Specific Discharge Curve for Visayas is
14.52 for 50-year return period and 17.47 for 100-year return period (Table 16.5.2-1). Then,
Design Flood Discharge for Palanit River at Palanit Bridge is estimated at 164 m3/s for 50year return period and 197 m3/s for 100-year return period, that for Bangon River at Mawo
Bridge is estimated at 1,035 m3/s for 50-year return period and 1,245 m3/s for 100-year return
period.
Both Palanit Bridge and Mawo Bridge are located at almost the river mouth. Palanit Bridge is
approximately 200 m upstream from the river mouth and Mawo Bridge is approximately 700
m upstream from the river mouth. Therefore, the water level at these bridges is affected by
tide level and the non-uniform flow method shall be applied for determination of Design
Flood Level for these bridges.
According to “Manual on Flood Control Planning”, water level in non-uniform flow shall be
calculated by Energy Equation as below;
H2+V22/2g = H1+V12/2g+he
where,
H
V
g
he
: Water Level (m)
: Gravitational Acceleration (m/s2)
: Energy Head Loss (m)
A diagram showing terms of the energy equation is shown below;
Source: Manual on Flood Control Planning
Figure 15.4.2-6 Terms in the Energy Equation
The energy head loss (he) between two sections is composed of friction losses.
15-120
he = L・Sf
where,
L : Reach Length (m)
Sf : Representative Friction Slope between two sections
The friction slope (slope of the energy grade line) at each cross section is computed from
Manning’s equation as follows:
Sf = {( Q1+Q2 ) / ( K1+K2 )}2
Q : Discharge (m3/s)
K : Conveyance ｛ = ( A・R2/3 ) / n ｝
n : Manning’s Roughness Coefficient
The mean monthly highest water level (MMHW) should be basically used for the starting
where,
water level (H1) at the river mouth. In this study, MMHW at the river cross section 100 m
downstream of the Palanit Bridge and 100 m downstream of Mawo Bridge is adopted as the
starting water level (H1) for each calculation. According to NAMRIA, MMHW in Samar Sea
is 1.20 m (above Mean Sea Level). The tide level of Samar Sea is referred to the tidal
information observed in Catbalogan where is on the same coastline with Palanit Bridge and
Mawo Bridge, 84 km southeast of Palanit Bridge, 96 km southeast of Mawo Bridge by
NAMRIA. Tidal information at Catbalogan Tide Station is shown in Table 15.4.2-4.
Table 15.4.2-4 Tidal Information at Catbalogan Tide Station
Station
Observed
Highest Tide
Mean Higher
High Water
Mean High
Water
Mean Lower
Low Water
Mean Low
Water
Catbalogan
(11°46’ N 124°52’E)
1.40 m
0.79 m
0.59 m
- 0.76 m
- 0.66 m
*Series of Observation: Catbalogan (2011 -2012)
**Elevations are above Mean Sea Level
Source: Letter from NAMRIA
As a result of the non-uniform flow calculation, the design flood level at the Palanit Bridge
(H2) is estimated at 1.72 m for 50-year return period corresponding the Design Flood
Discharge 164 m3/s, and 1.90 m for 100-year return period corresponding the Design Flood
Discharge 197 m3/s. The design flood level at Mawo Bridge (H2) is estimated at 1.31 m for
50-year return period corresponding the Design Flood Discharge 1,035 m3/s, and 1.35 m for
100-year return period corresponding the Design Flood Discharge 1,245 m3/s.
15-121
Table 15.4.2-5 Design Flood Level at Palanit Bridge and Mawo Bridge
Location
Palanit Bridge
Return Period
Mawo Bridge
50-year
100-year
50-year
100-year
Design Flood Discharge (m /s)
(calculated by Specific Discharge Method)
164
197
1,035
1,245
Flow Velocity (m/s)
1.79
1.92
1.47
1.75
1.72
1.90
1.31
1.35
3
b) Site Interview
(I) Palanit Bridge
According to residential people, the observed highest water
level in flood condition is approximately 1.80 m ~ 1.90 m.
Photo 15.4.2-2
Usually the water level at the Palanit Bridge is changing
according to the tidal level. According to residential people,
the water level comes up to approximately 1.50 m in high
tide. Palanit River carries debris in flood condition. Only
small banker boat is passing under the bridge.
(II) Mawo Bridge
According to residential people, Bangon River has experienced to be flooded in 1982, 1984
and 1987 and the observed highest water level in flood condition is approximately 1.50 m.
The house situated on the right river bank has experienced to be flooded approximately 0.40
m from the ground in the flood condition (Photo 15.4.2-2). Bangon River carries debris in
flood condition.
Usually the water level at the Mawo Bridge is also changing according to the tidal level.
Only small banker boat is passing under the bridge.
The water level at Palanit Bridge 1.90 m with Design Flood Discharge Q=197 m3/s is much
higher than the observed highest tide in Catbalogan (1.40 m), and the water level has not big
difference with the flood level which is obtained by site interview. Therefore, elevation 1.90
m might be adopted as the Design Flood Level of Palanit Bridge.
As for Mawo Bridge, the observed highest flood level (1.50 m) is higher than theobserved
highest tide in Catbalogan (1.40 m) or the water level 1.35 m with Design Flood Discharge
Q=1,245 m3/s. Therefore, elevation 1.50 m might be adopted as the Design Flood Level of
Mawo Bridge.
15-122
(II) Flow Velocity
The flow velocity with the Design Flood Discharge Q=197 m3/s at Palanit Bridge is 1.92
m/s, and 1.75 m/s at Mawo Bridge with the Design Flood Discharge Q=1,245 m3/s
According to the DPWH Design Guideline, freeboard allowance for embankment
corresponding to the design flood discharge is 0.60 m for Palanit Bridge, and 1.00 m for
Mawo Bridge, because the design flood discharge in Palanit Bridge is less than 200 m3/s,
and that in Mawo Bridge is between 500 m3/s and 2,000 m3/s.
And the vertical clearance of Palanit Bridge and Mawo Bridge shall not be less than 1.50 m
because Palanit River and Bangon River carries debris. Therefore, the minimum vertical
clearance between soffit of bridge and design high water level might be 1.50 m for Palanit
Bridge and Mawo Bridge.
▽Design Flood Level Elv.1.90 m (Q=197 m3/s 100-year return period)
Figure 15.4.2-7 Design High Water Level and freeboard at existing Palanit Bridge
▽Observed Highest Tide Elv.1.50 m
Figure 15.4.2-8 Design High Water Level and freeboard at existing Mawo Bridge
(4) Hydrological Survey and Results of Mactan Channel, Biliran Strait and Panaon Strait
1) Outline of Mactan Channel, Biliran Strait and Panaon Strait
a) Mactan Channel
Mactan Channel is the narrow body of water between mainland Cebu and Mactan Island in
Visayas. It stretches about 12 km north to south. Mactan Channel serves as the site of the
Cebu Harbor which is one of the largest harbor facilities in Philippines and the channel is one
of the main passageways for ships navigating between Cebu and Bohol.
15-123
According to the Corona Climate Classification by PAGASA, climate in Mactan Channel is
under Type Ⅲ. It has no very pronounced maximum rain period with a dry season lasting only
few months during February to May. The mean annual rainfall in Mactan International Airport
in Cebu is showing in Figure 15.4.2-9.
b) Biliran Strait
Biliran Strait is located between Biliran Island and northern part of Leyte Island in eastern
Visayas.
The climate of Biliran is evenly moist throughout the year with heaviest rainfall during
December and January. It is classified under Type Ⅳ in the Corona Climate Classification by
PAGASA. The mean annual rainfall in Tacloban City where is about 60 km away in Layte
Island and same climate Type is showing in Figure 15.4.2-9.
c) Panaon Strait
Panaon Strait is located between Panaon Island and southern part of Leyte Island in Visayas.
In the Panaon Strait, the Liloan Ferry Terminal is situated only about 500 m west from Liloan
Bridge. The ferry service is between Liloan and Surigao in Mindanao, and the sea route is
west side of the Panaon Island and they are not passing under Liloan Bridge.
The climate of the Panaon Strait is wet throughout the year and classified under Type Ⅱ in the
Corona Climate Classification by PAGASA. The mean annual rainfall might be referred to
that in Surigao (Figure 15.4.2-3 in (2) 1)).
450
35
Rainfall (mm)
400
450
400
30
No. of Rainy days
30
No. of Rainy days
20
200
15
150
10
Rainfall (mm)
250
No. of Rainy days
25
300
25
300
250
20
200
15
150
10
100
100
5
50
0
2
3
4
5
6 7 8
Month
0
0
0
1
5
50
1
9 10 11 12
2
3
4
5
6 7 8
Month
9 10 11 12
Mean Annual Rainfall in Tacloban City
Mean Annual Rainfall in Cebu
Figure 15.4.2-9 Mean Annual Rainfall in Cebu and Tacloban City (1981-2010)
15-124
No. of Rainy days
350
350
Rainfall (mm)
35
Rainfall (mm)
2) Tidal Information of Mactan Channel, Biliran Strait and Panaon Strait
According to NAMRIA, the tide level at Mactan Channel, Biliran Strait and Panaon Strait is
referred to respectively the tidal information at Cebu Tide Station, Catbalogan Tide Station and
Surigao Tide Station observed by NAMRIA. Cebu Tide Station is located about 5 km south
along the Mactan Channel from 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge. Catbalogan Tide Station is located
about 55 km northeast from Biliran Bridge. Surigao Tide Station is located about 60 km
southeast along the Surigao Strait from Liloan Bridge.
Table 15.4.2-6 Tidal Information at Cebu, Catbalogan and Surigao Tide Station
Station
Observed
Highest Tide
Mean Higher
High Water
Mean High
Water
Mean Lower
Low Water
Mean Low
Water
Cebu
(10°18’ N 123°55’E)
1.49 m
0.78 m
0.51 m
- 0.71 m
- 0.51 m
Catbalogan
(11°46’ N 124°52’E)
1.40 m
0.79 m
0.59 m
- 0.76 m
- 0.66 m
Surigao
(09°47’ N 125°30’E)
1.11 m
0.55 m
0.44 m
- 0.49 m
- 0.41 m
*Series of Observation: Cebu (1989-2007), Catbalogan (2011-2012), Surigao (1987-2005)
**Elevations are above Mean Sea Level (The tidal data in “TIDE AND CURRENT TABLES Philippines 2012 established
by NAMRIA” is all above Mean Lower Low Water Level)
Source: Letter from NAMRIA and TIDE AND CURRENT TABLES Philippines 2012
3) Major Design Condition of 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge, Biliran Bridge and Liloan Bridge
According to DPWH Region Ⅶ Office, 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge has the navigation clearance
as below because many big vessels/ships are navigating under the bridge. And the navigation
clearance has been adopted to the design of 2nd Mandaue-Mactan Bridge constructed about 1.4
km northeast in Mactan Channel.
Vertical Clearance
: 22.860 m above Mean High Water Level
Horizontal Clearance
: 112.780 m
Navigation Clearance 22.860 m
Horizontal Clearance 112.780 m
▽Mean High Water Level
Elv.0.51 m
Figure 15.4.2-10
st
Navigation Clearance of 1 Mandaue-Mactan Bridge
15-125
On the other hand, according to Maritime Industry Authority Marina Regional Office No.VIII,
there is no navigational ship under Biliran Bridge and Liloan Bridge. In the case of Biliran
Bridge, its vertical clearance and shallow depth limits the use thereof to mostly motorbancas. In
case of Liloan Bridge, the same is not passable for vessels/ships more than 200 GT with high
structures or booms. It is also commonly known that the unusually strong current under the
bridge and its vicinities discourage vessels/ships to pass through the said shorter route. As of
now only motorbancas passes under Liloan Bridge.
▽M.S.L
Figure 15.4.2-11
Tide Level on Biliran Bridge
▽M.S.L
Note: The section of Liloan Bridge and Riverbed is assumed
Figure 15.4.2-12
Tide Level on Liloan Bridge
15-126
15.5
Existing Road Network and Traffic Condition
15.5.1 National Road Network
DPWH adopts a functional road network classification namely: Arterial Roads comprising NorthSouth Backbone, East-West Laterals and other Road of Strategic Importance or Strategic Roads and
National Secondary Roads (see Figure 15.5.1-1 - Figure 15.5.1-3). According to the figures, all major
cities and traffic generation sources are connected with arterial roads. The definitions of the road
classifications are as follows:
(1) Arterial Roads (15,987km)
North-South Backbone (5,151km)
 The backbone road network in consideration of road and sea (ferry) linkages.
 This includes interconnection of primary centers and roads leading to growth corridors.
East-West Laterals (3,016 km)
 Arterial roads which inter-links North-South backbone road network in an east-west lateral
orientation across the country with an interval of 50 to 200 km.
Strategic Roads (7,819 km)
 Roads which connect the other primary entries and all tertiary centers not on the above road
category.
 These include roads which interconnect the above category roads at an appropriate interval as
well as forming a closed network and alternative roads, including island circumferential and
cross-island roads.
15-127
(2) National Secondary Roads (15,372km)
 All other national roads that are not classified as the arterial roads.
Figure 15.5.1-1 DPWH Functional
Classification (1/3) (Luzon)
Figure 15.5.1-2 DPWH Functional Classification (2/3) (Visayas)
15-128
Figure 15.5.1-3
DPWH
Functional
Classification
(3/3)
(Mindanao)
Source: DPWH
Atlas
15.5.2 Road Network in Metro Manila
Road Network in Metro Manila is formed by mainly five (5) circumferential roads and ten (10) radial
roads are connected central business district (hereafter called as CBD), commercial and residential
area. Road network is shown in Figure 15.5.2-1. And, there is expressway of NLEX and SLEX are
connected to the city of Region III and Region IV-A. CBD is the commercial and geographic heart of
a city which is concentrated nearby EDSA. Specially, Makati CBD and Ortigas CBD is economical
centre in Metro Manila. Therefore, heavy traffic congestion is occurring during weekday at EDSA as
shown in Figure 15.5.2-2. Global City CBD has recently developed rapidly, traffic volume along C-5
will tremendously increase in the near future.
Source: JICA Study Team
Source: JICA Study Team
Figure 15.5.2-1 Road Network of Metro Manila
15-129
Figure 15.5.2-2 CBDs and Road Network
15.5.3 Road Classification of Selected Bridges
Selected Five Bridges are located in N-S Backbone and other 2 Bridges are located in Secondary
Road shown in Table 15.5.3-1. But 1st Mactan Bridge is very important bridges to connect with Cebu
Island and Mactan Island (Cebu Airport).
Lambingan Bridge is also very important bridge to connect with Makati City and Mandaluyong City.
Table 15.5.3-1 Road Classification of Selected Bridges
Selected Bridge
Lambingan Bridge
Guadalupe Bridge
1st Mandaue - Mactan Bridge
Palanit Bridge
Mawo Bridge
Liloan Bridge
Wawa Bridge
Road Name
Guv W. Pascual Ave.
EDSA
AC Cortes Ave.
Pan Philippine Highway
Road Classification
Secondary
N-S Backbone
Secondary Road
N-S Backbone
N-S Backbone
N-S Backbone
N-S Backbone
15.5.4 Traffic Condition
Traffic count survey was carried out inside Metro Manila and outside Metro Manila to better
understand the current traffic condition. The purpose of traffic count survey is show in below.



For consideration and plan of detour, the number of vehicles affected during the construction
period for seismic strengthening (maintenance, repair and reinforcement) and forecasting
future traffic volume.
To consider the traffic volume for detour road/bridge during seismic retrofit/replacement
To forecast future traffic volume to determine necessary number of lanes
Based on these purpose, traffic survey method, result and condition is described below.
(1) Methodology of Traffic Count Survey
Traffic survey contents

Traffic Survey Period


Type of Vehicle
Survey Method
: 2 weekdays from 6:00 AM to 6:00 AM inside Metro Manila and Cebu
area, 2 weekdays from 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM outside Metro Manila.
: 7 classifications (Motorcycle, Car, Jeepney Bus Truck etc.).
: Surveyor was using traffic counter and recording every per hour. And,
traffic volume was observed by direction.
(2) Survey Location
Summary of traffic count survey station is shown in Table 15.5.4-1.
Traffic count survey location inside Metro Manila is on Pasig River and Marikina River bridges and
near intersections where are shown in Figure 15.5.4-1 and Figure 15.5.4-2. Traffic count station on
bridge is 12 locations, intersection is 12 locations. Considerations of the point of determining
intersection are considered to account for the long distance of detour based on traffic regulation of
large truck and public transportation.
On the other hand, traffic count survey location outside Metro Manila is North Luzon area, Samar
area, Cebu area and Mindanao area as shown in Figure 15.5.4-3. Traffic count on bridge is 7 bridges
and intersection is 3 locations. Area of other than Cebu and Mindanao is no road for long distance of
detour road. Therefore, intersection survey was carried out 3 locations.
15-130
Table 15.5.4-1 Summary of Traffic Count Survey Location
Area
Inside
Metro Manila
Outside
Metro Manila
Station No.
RTC-BR01
RTC-BR02
RTC-BR05
RTC-BR06
RTC-BR-PB
RTC-BR08
RTC-BR09
RTC-EPB
RTC-BR10
RTC-BR11
RTC-BR15
RTC-BR16
ITC BR01-A
ITC BR01-B
ITC BR01-C
ITC-BR05
ITC-BR06
ITC-BR08-A
ITC-BR08-B
ITC-BR08-C
ITC-BR10-A
ITC-BR10-B
ITC-BR10-C
ITC-BR16
RTC - C02
RTC - C07
RTC - C09
RTC - C11
RTC - C12
RTC - C14
RTC - C15
ITC - C07-1
ITC - C07-2
ITC – C15-1
Location
Delpan Bridge
Jones Bridge
Ayala Bridge
Nagtahan Bridge
Pandacan Bridge
Lambingan Bridge
Makatimandaluyong Bridge
Estrella Pantaleon Bridge
Guadalupe Bridge
C-5 Bridge
Marcos Bridge
Marikina Bridge
Moriones - Bonifacio Drive
Claro M. Recto - Bonifacio Drive
Padre Burgos - Roxas Blvd.
Quirino Avenue - Paco
Lacson - Espana
Pres. Quirino – Pedro Gil
Pedro Gil-Tejeron
Shaw Blvd. - New Panaderos
EDSA - Kalayaan Avenue
EDSA - Shaw Boulevard
Merit - Kalayaan Avenue
Marcos Highway-Aurora Blvd. -Bonifacio Ave.
Buntun Bridge
1st Mandaue - Mactan Bridge
Palanit Bridge
Mawo Bridge
Biliran Bridge
Liloan Bridge
Wawa Bridge
ML Quezon-MV Patalinghug-Marigondon Road
Plaridel - A. Cortes Avenue
Bayugan Intersection
15-131
Survey Period
24-hours traffic
24-hours traffic
Remark
Target Bridge
Target Bridge
Target Bridge
Target Bridge
Target Bridge
Intersection
16-hours traffic
24-hours traffic
Target Bridge
16-hours traffic
24-hours traffic
16-hours traffic
Intersection
Reference: Google Map
Figure 15.5.4-1 24-Hour Traffic Count Survey Station on the Bridge inside Metro Manila
Figure 15.5.4-2 Intersection Traffic Count Survey Station inside Metro Manila
15-132
Figure 15.5.4-3 Bridge and Intersection Traffic Count Survey Station outside Metro Manila
15-133
(3) Traffic Count Survey Result
1) Traffic Volume on the Bridge
Traffic survey result is shown in Table 15.5.4-2 and Table 15.5.4-3. The traffic volume on
bridges are seen annual average traffic volume (hereafter called in AADT) to use seasonal factor
which was referred DPWH’s traffic survey results.
The following observations can be deduced from the traffic survey results of bridges;

Guadalupe Bridge in the Metro Manila has the highest traffic volume among 12 bridges with
over 200,000 veh/day.

1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge has the highest traffic volume outside Metro Manila.

Jones Bridge, Lambingan Bridge and Marcos Bridge inside Metro Manila and 1st MandaueMatan Bridge outside Metro Manila have the high volume of Jeepney over 6,000 veh/day.

Large truck and trailer is difficult through Metro Manila, they are passing particular roads
which are C-2 and C-5 as circumferential road and Bonifacio Drive as radial road. Therefore,
Delpan Bridge, Nagtahan Bridge and C-5 Bridge have the high volume traffic of large truck
and trailer.
2) Intersection Traffic Volume
Intersection traffic volume is shown in Figure 15.5.4-4 to Figure 15.5.4-18 which are by
direction traffic volume.
The following observations can be deduced from the traffic survey result of intersections;

All observed intersection condition is chronically occurred heavy congestion at peak hour as
shown in intersection traffic volume results in Metro Manila.

Specially, EDSA, Quirino Avenue and A. Bonifacio Avenue have the traffic volume with
more than 100,000 veh/day.
15-134
Table 15.5.4-2 Summary of Traffic Count Survey Result inside Metro Manila (AADT)
AADT (Veh/Day)
No.
Bridge Name
1.
Motorcycle
/ Tricycle
2. Car /
Taxi / Pickup / Van
3. Jeepney
4. Large
Bus
5. 2-Axle
Truck
6. 3-Axle
Truck
7. Truck
trailer
Sub-Total
Total
Rate of
Truck
and
Trailer
15-135
1
Delpan Bridge
24,906
28,249
1,949
36
2,246
1,609
7,657
41,745
66,651
27.6%
2
Jones Bridge
15,153
30,117
7,696
152
972
123
30
39,089
54,241
3.3%
3
Ayala Bridge
13,160
27,632
1,153
612
914
223
688
31,222
44,382
5.8%
4
Nagtahan Bridge
21,132
64,460
1,655
344
4,993
2,032
1,823
75,306
96,438
11.7%
5
Pandacan Bridge
7,813
22,173
0
25
1,279
206
148
23,831
31,643
6.9%
6
Lambingan Bridge
9,379
13,626
6,093
31
943
137
48
20,877
30,255
5.4%
7
Makati-Mandaluyong Bridge
11,666
30,556
0
14
384
126
11
31,089
42,755
1.7%
8
Estrella Pantaleon Bridge
3,573
21,013
0
13
16
1
0
21,043
24,616
0.08%
9
Guadalupe Bridge
19,557
181,078
0
13,229
4,100
1,628
876
200,909
220,466
3.3%
10
C-5 Bridge
34,157
116,353
0
408
9,067
4,668
1,516
132,212
166,368
11.5%
11
Marcos Bridge
15,720
62,110
11,357
140
3,496
1,282
742
79,125
94,845
7.0%
12
Marikina Bridge
17,421
29,718
8,649
95
1,433
65
15
39,973
57,394
3.8%
*AADT: Annul Average Daily Traffic
Sub-Total is without Motorcycle/Tricycle
Yellow color is target bridges
Table 15.5.4-3 Summary of Traffic Count Survey Result outside Metro Manila (AADT)
AADT (Veh/Day)
No.
Bridge Name
1.
Motorcycle
/ Tricycle
2. Car / Taxi
/ Pick-up /
Van
3. Jeepney
9,908
4,357
1,573
59
676
115
83
6,862
16,770
28,497
34,573
8,285
12
49
6
1
42,924
71,421
4. Large
Bus
5. 2-Axle
Truck
6. 3-Axle
Truck
7. Truck
trailer
Sub-Total
Total
15-136
1
Buntun Bridge
2
1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge
3
Palanit Bridge
730
199
65
93
93
76
10
536
1,265
4
Mawo Bridge
2,889
322
73
93
130
102
14
735
3,625
5
Biliran Bridge
1,718
276
49
57
124
23
2
530
2,248
6
Liloan Bridge
1,979
226
45
84
180
25
15
575
2,554
7
Wawa Bridge
1,476
1,598
48
266
282
238
42
2,473
3,950
*AADT: Annul Average Daily Traffic
Sub-Total is without Motorcycle/Tricycle
4
2,456
15,313 19,799
6
2,030
18,656
38,454
NAVOTAS
5
PIER
11
833
MORIONES
12
1,125
2,336
7,317
10
378
12,847
5,359
1,882
7
3,023
717
8
9
5,530
2,932
2
3
38,576
18,622
4,028
277
19,954 15,649
1
Unit:
vehicle/day
ANDA CIRCLE
Figure 15.5.4-4 Moriones - Bonifacio Drive Intersection
41,498
ZARAGOZA
NAVOTAS
494
656
4
14,532
6
17,459
1,778
24,039
5
14
11
3,844
7,753
10
6,322
22,774
13,112
10,932
261
13
7
3,526
8
9
5,359
1,572
2
3,415
3
31,144
23,080
54,224
Flyover Count
18,096
Intersection Count
4,006
1
5,628
PIER
11,843
Unit:
vehicle/day
ANDA CIRCLE
Figure 15.5.4-5 Claro M. Recto - Bonifacio Drive Intersection
15-137
C.M. RECTO
12
1,677
8,002
4
25,649 34,238
6
588
34,541
68,779
ANDA CIRCLE/DELPAN
MANILA CITY HALL
12
1,399
2,485
11
750
35,019
10
337
4,004
58,559
10,362
7
1,519
428
8
9
23,540
12,750
2
38,736
26,268
3
88,288
504
49,552 22,780
1
Unit:
vehicle/day
ROXAS BLVD.
Figure 15.5.4-6 Padre Burgos - Roxas Blvd. Intersection
18,010
27,353 45,363
50,478
95,841
NAGTAHAN
3
18,010
32,020
14,010
2
91,841
41,363
1
PANDACAN
4
50,478
QUIRINO GRANDSTAND
5
PEDRO GIL
Figure 15.5.4-7 Quirino Avenue – Paco Intersection
15-138
Unit:
vehicle/day
4
1,648
6
21,726 23,374
0
25,077
48,451
LAONG LAAN/TAYUMAN
12
1,489
RECTO
28,658
11
27,170
34,790
10
0
68,796
59,236
0
7
30,578
28,257
8
9
34,006
5,749
2
3
59,357
27,475
5,973
2,321
31,882 23,589
1
QUEZON AVE./WELCOME
5
Unit:
vehicle/day
G. TUAZON/STA. MESA
Figure 15.5.4-8 Lacson – Espana Intersectionl
4
16,483
2,288
6
46,398 65,168
50,561
115,729
NAGTAHAN
12
0
0
11
0
16,483
10
0
20,421
35,214
0
7
20,421
15,497
8
9
18,731
3,235
2
3
102,830
49,632
0
53,198 50,561
2,637
1
SSH/TAFT AVE.
Figure 15.5.4-9 Pres. Quirino – Pedro Gil Intersection
15-139
Unit:
vehicle/day
TEJERON/STA. ANA
PACO
5
4
4,821
6
5,358
0
8,243
10,179
18,421
CARREON
12
472
11,711
NEW PANADEROS
PRES. QUIRINO AVENUE
5
11
7,801
12,622
10
3,439
25,488
25,386
2,209
7
13,777
9,803
8
9
12,765
753
2
3
19,086
9,549
0
5,562
9,537
3,975
1
Unit:
vehicle/day
A.P. REYES/TEJERON
Figure 15.5.4-10 Pedro Gil-Tejeron Intersection
1,792
6,256
37
4
5
12
11
11,561
16,299
10
5,031
39,849
36,327
2,221
7
21,188
16,387
8
9
EDSA
2,070
18,661
20,028
1,421
2
12,707
2,947
3
27,157
14,450 6,739
1
4,765
P. SANCHEZ/AURORA BLVD.
6
SHAW BLVD.
8,084
11,029
19,113
SAN JUAN CITY
NEW PANADEROS
Figure 15.5.4-11 Shaw Blvd. - New Panaderos Intersection
15-140
Unit:
vehicle/day
ROCKWELL/ESTRELLA
GUADALUPE
79,542
8,655
9
17,385
KALAYAAN AVE.
10
8
49,120
3
8,655
70,887
15,273
69,072
148,614
40,465
23,080
7
18,543
10,859
35,928
37,515
17,769
6
1
86,841
18,972
18,972
69,072
65,758
BUENDIA
5
29,831
4
2
BONIFACIO GLOBAL CITY
109,240
196,080
Unit:
vehicle/day
AYALA
Figure 15.5.4-12 EDSA - Kalayaan Avenue Intersection
163,654
CUBAO
3,489
12,190
4
66,405
6
93,439
11,355
70,215
5
14
50,601
10
0
23,996
22,153
15
0
13
7
18,118
8
9
91,970
16
1,099
2
Flyover Count
16,485
62,880
7,335
3
89,063
79,694
168,757
Underpass Count
2,364
1
Intersection Count
BONI AVE./GUADALUPE
Figure 15.5.4-13 EDSA - Shaw Boulevard Intersection
15-141
Unit:
vehicle/day
PASIG CITY
12
11
41,370
53,989
84,616
30,627
KALENTONG/JRU
0
6,631
7,379
5,874 16,017
4
5
12
4,308
11
18,565
25,944
10
2,658
50,105
59,194
10,855
7
24,574
21,810
8
9
33,250
586
2
3
9,118
0
9,118
0
0
1
Unit:
vehicle/day
FORT BONIFACIO
Figure 15.5.4-14 Merit - Kalayaan Avenue Intersection
Unit:
vehicle/day
Figure 15.5.4-15 Marcos Highway-Aurora Blvd. -Bonifacio Ave. Intersection
15-142
C-5
25,531
0
EDSA/KALAYAAN AVENUE
6
2,765
15,163
31,180
GUADALUPE
M.L. QUEZON
5
12
6,971
24,095
11
10,469
40,939
10
6,655
87,123
46,609
4,257
7
22,513
9,999
8
9
46,184
31,928
2
48,209
10,104
3
70,765
1,069
22,556 11,383
1
MACTAN INT'L AIRPORT/LLC
20,366
4
9,626 41,438
6
11,446
22,611
64,049
OPON BRIDGE
Unit:
vehicle/day
MAXIMO PATALINGHUG
Figure 15.5.4-16 ML Quezon-MV Patalinghug-Marigondon Road Intersection
1,643
4
14,755 21,296
6
4,899
18,640
39,937
PLARIDEL
12
11
12,428
31,368
10
0
51,788
34,976
0
7
16,899
10,757
8
9
20,420
9,663
2
24,419
17,297
3
55,949
31,531 12,990
1
1,243
A. CORTEZ
5,650
18,077
Unit:
vehicle/day
BRIONES
Figure 15.5.4-17 Plaridel - A. Cortes Avenue Intersection
15-143
OPON BRIDGE
5
4
11,771 16,699
4,928
17,772
34,471
BUTUAN
4,934
5,936
1,002
11,853
5
5,917
6
2
26,600
12,773
13,827 12,838
1
989
ESPERANZA
3
BAYUGAN
Figure 15.5.4-18 Bayugan Intersection
15-144
Unit:
vehicle/day
15.6
Results of Natural and Social Environmental Survey
(1) 1st Mandaue Bridge
There many illegal
settlers under the Bridge.
: Residential Area
: Industrial Area
House Holds and Structures (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road)
・ Under the Bridge on both side of the strait there are many illegal settlers.
・ Total number of illegal houses 189 and number of PAPs are 733 at the time of survey.
Land use (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road)
・ Under the Bridge is used for resident area including some kinds of shops and illegal settlers.
Existing Environmental Condition (Noise, Vibration, Air Pollution and Water contamination.)
・ Environmental condition is not so bad for noise, vibration and air pollution. But sanitary
condition such as waste effluent is bad without water and sewerage.
Environmental Protection Area (national park, reserves and designated wet land)
・The Bridge is not located in cultural property or natural reserve area.
Existence on Location Map of Valuable Habitats Ecologically, Historical and Cultural Assets
The succeeding sub-sections are the results and analysis of the said household survey.
Age, Gender, Household Size, Tenure, Work-Gender, Educational and Occupational Profile
・ Based on the household survey results, most of the respondents are aged 30 to 39 years old
(30%) where majority are female respondents (72%). The dominance of respondents is
attributed on the timing of the interview where females (mostly wives and nannies) are the
ones left behind in their homes. Also, most of the respondents have a household size of 4 to
6 members (47%) and lived in the area since birth (27%) or have lived there for more than 10
years (39%).
・ The literacy and importance of education among the respondents is average since most of
them graduated from the high school level or reached the high school level (46%) when they
were interviewed. Unemployment is high in the area since most of the respondents don’t
have jobs (46%). For those that do have jobs or businesses, majority of them earn a monthly
salary of 1 to 4,999 pesos (51%) In addition to this, majority of those working are females
(61%)
Economic Status Profile
・ Most of the respondents live in houses made of nipa or plywood (45%) and G.I. sheet-made
roofing (81%). In terms of cooking, most of the respondents use charcoal (42%)
・ Majority of the respondents did not respond on the type of vehicles they owned (65%). For
those that do have, bicycles, motorcycles and tricycles were the commonly-owned means of
transportation (32%)
15-145
Sanitation and Health Conditions
・ Based on the survey results, 50% of the respondents have proper and adequate sanitation
facilities (i.e., toilets) and most of their toilets are open pits toilets (38%).
・ Last year, majority of the respondents got sick (51%) from sickness/diseases such as fever
and headache (13%), coughs, colds or the flu (15%) and other seasonal diseases such as
chicken pox and skin rashes (16%). Most of the respondents prefer self-medication (42%) in
treating their diseases whereas other residents prefer consulting doctors or have it check-up in
clinics or hospitals (41%)
Awareness and Social Acceptability of the Proposed Project
・ In terms of proposed Project’s awareness, majority of the respondents are aware of the
Project (64%). Most information on the proposed project came from their neighbors, family
members or from hearsay (43%)
・ In general, the proposed Project is considered beneficial to the barangays (94%) as it will
provide a safer means of transportation (53%). Most of the respondents perceive that traffic
will increase (33%) during the construction of the project
(2) Liloan Bridge
Under the Bridge is used for
basket court, vender, orchards
and etc.
: Residential Area
・ Along north side of approach road there is no houses.
・ Along south side of the Bridge there are some houses. Under the Bridge near strait is used for
basket court and there are two venders.
・ There is resident area on south side of the Bridge.
・ Under the Bridge are used for orchard, block storage site, chicken house, waste collection
point and dock for boat.
・ Environmental condition is good except for the pollution of traffic flow such as noise,
vibration and air pollution.
15-146
・ Based on the household survey results, most of the respondents are aged 40 years to 49 years
old (45%) where majority are male respondents (58%). Aside from this, most of the
respondents have a household size of 4 to 6 members (48%) and have lived in the area for 910 years (29%) and for more than 10 years (26%).
・ The literacy and importance of education among the respondents are relatively average since
most of them graduated from the elementary level (52%) when they were interviewed. Since
the project area is situated in a rural city, most of the people work as fishermen (64%) having
a monthly salary of 5,000 to 10,000 pesos (45%) and most who are working are males (42%).
・ Most of the houses are made of mixed concrete (49%) with Yero or G.I. sheet roofing (87%).
In terms of cooking, majority of the respondents use wood (65%).
・ Majority of the respondents use motorcycles or tricycles as a means for transportation (42%)
・ Based on the survey results, majority of the respondents have proper and adequate sanitation
facilities (i.e., toilets) (94%) and most of these toilets are water sealed types (87%)
・ Last year, majority of the respondents got sick (52%) but most of the respondents did not
respond to the type of sickness/disease they experienced (49%). Commonly experienced
sickness/disease are seasonal diseases (19%) and colds and coughs (16%). For these results,
most of the residents prefer consulting doctors or have it check-up in clinics or hospitals
(45%)
project (97%) and consider it as beneficial (90%). Information regarding the project was
mostly obtained from project representatives (52%) and barangay and municipal officials
(32%). Respondents consider the project beneficial since it will provide employment
opportunities (39%). The main concern of the respondents is that residents will be displaced
from their homes (65%)
(3) Lambingan Bridge
There a house under the Bridge out of dyke wall.
There are many informal
settlers besides the Bridge.
: Residential Area
: Industrial Area
15-147
・ There are many houses along the both sides of the approach road.
・ There is one illegal house under the bridge with 5 members.
・ There are many illegal settlers beside the Bridge on south side.
・ Both sides of the Bridge are used for residential and factory area.
・ Environmental condition is bad for the pollution of traffic flow such as noise, vibration and
air pollution.
old (22%) where majority are female respondents (48%). The dominance of respondents is
years (33%).
・ The literacy and importance of education among the respondents are quite high since most of
them graduated from college or is/was in the college level (48%) when they were
interviewed. Most of the respondents or their spouses work as a laborer or construction
workers (28%) or don’t have a job at all (27%). For income, majority did not answer this
portion of the survey (49%) but for those working, most of them have a monthly salary of 1
to 4,999 pesos (17%). Most of the respondents did not answer the work-gender portion
although majority who are working are females (33%)
・ Most of the houses are made of mixed concrete (64%) and G.I. sheet-made roofing (91%). In
terms of cooking, majority of the respondents use liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) (74%) and
gas stoves.
・ More than half of the respondents did not answer what type of vehicles they owned (52% but
motorcycle and tricycles (21%) are the commonly-owned vehicles of the respondents.
・ Based on the survey results, most of respondents don’t have proper and adequate sanitation
facilities (i.e., toilets) (48%) For those that do have, most of their toilets are water sealed
types (69%).
・ Last year, majority of the respondents got sick (58%) and most of their sickness/disease are
fever and headache (32%). For these results, most of the residents prefer consulting doctors
or have it check-up in clinics, health centers or hospitals (51%)
・ In terms of proposed Project’s awareness, most of the respondents are not aware of the
Project (64%). For those that are aware, information regarding the proposed project mostly
came from the barangay and city officials (16%), from neighbors, family members, hearsay
or the radio (16%).
lessen vehicular accidents (40%). The increase in traffic (28%) is mostly feared by the
respondents as the negative effect of the Project but they are aware that this will be
temporary during the construction activities.
15-148
(4) Guadalupe Bridge
There informal settler houses
around abutment.
: Business and Industrial Area
・ There are many business facilities along both sides of North approach road.
・ Both sides of north abutment and under the Bridge there are 12 unit informal settlers with 27
members.
・ North side of the River is used for side walk with basket court and Monument Park.
・ There are parks inside of inter-change on south side.
・ Environmental condition is bad for the pollution of traffic flow such as noise, vibration and
air pollution.
・ Based on the household survey results, most of the respondents are aged 40-49 years (27%)
and majority are female respondents (59%). The dominance of the respondents is attributed
on the timing of the interview where females (mostly wives and nannies) are the ones left
behind in their homes. Also, most of the respondents have a household size of 4 to 6
members (35%) and lived in the area since birth (34%) or in the area for more than 10 years
of their lives (24%).
・ Most of the respondents graduated from high school or reached the high school level (49%)
when they were interviewed. This may be attributed to poverty or the respondents finished
high school in the province and came to the metro to seek jobs in order to help their relatives
back home. Most of the respondents or their spouses own small businesses such as sari-sari
stores or small eateries (27%) or don’t have a job at all (22%). Majority of the respondents
have a monthly salary of 1 to 4,999 pesos (32%). In addition to this, more males (37%) are
working than females (34%)
15-149
terms of cooking, majority of the respondents use liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) (78%) and
gas stoves.
・ Majority of the respondents did not respond as to what type of vehicle they owned (61%).
For the respondents that have vehicles, motorcycles are the most commonly-owned (22%)
・ Based on the survey results, most of respondents do not have proper and adequate sanitation
facilities (i.e., toilets) (63%). For those that have, most of their toilets are water sealed types
(78%).
・ Majority of the respondents did not respond to the section on whether they became sick
(54%), if they consulted a doctor (69%) and on what type of diseases they had (44%) since
last year. For those that did get sick, most of them experienced seasonal types of diseases (i.e.
chicken pox, rashes) (24%)
・ In terms of proposed Project’s awareness, most of the respondents are not aware of the
Project (54%). For those that knew about the project, majority of the respondents did not
reveal the source of their awareness (73%).
・ Despite this, the proposed Project is generally considered to be beneficial to the barangays
(78%) as it will provide a safer means of transportation to the people (46%). Aside from this,
most of the respondents perceive no negative effects from the proposed project (34%)
(5) Palanit Bridge
There informal settler houses.
Water pipe.
Under the Bridge is used for
boat shed and drying area.
: Residential Area
: House
・ There are2 houses immediately beside the Bridge. The number of PAPs is 12 under the
Bridge.
・ Water pipe is held by the Bridge.
・ The area is generally agricultural with coconut farming and fishing as primary source of
livelihood.
・ Under the Bridge is used for shed of fishing boat, breeding place for fighting cock, and for
drying area.
・ Based on the water quality sampling analysis some of the residents dispose of their waste
through the river but the level of contamination is under the standard.
15-150
old (34%) where majority are female respondents (58%). The dominance of respondents is
years (54%).
・ The literacy and importance of education among the respondents are relatively low since
most of them graduated from the elementary level (27%) when they were interviewed or
preferred not to answer this section (40%). Since the project area is situated in a rural city,
most of the people work either as laborers or construction workers (33%) or are business
owners (33%) having a monthly salary of 1 to 4,999 pesos (58%) and most who are working
are females (29%).
・ Most of the houses are made of nipa or plywood (54%) and G.I. sheet-made roofing (71%).
In terms of cooking, majority of the respondents use charcoal (79%)
・ For the type of vehicles owned, majority of the respondents did not respond to this section
(96%).
・ Based on the survey results, 50% of the respondents have proper and adequate sanitation
facilities (i.e., toilets) and most of their toilets are water sealed types (50%).
fever and headache (37%). For these results, most of the residents prefer consulting doctors
or have it check-up in clinics or hospitals (67%)
Project (92%). Most information on the proposed project came from the barangay and city
officials (46%) or Project Representatives (42%).
provide a safer means of transportation (67%). Half of the respondents do not perceive any
negative effects from the proposed project.
15-151
(6) Mawo Bridge
There houses immediately beside
the Bridge.
There houses beside
the Bridge
There used for storage, breeding
area and etc.
: Residential Area
・ Along the Bridge there are many houses immediately beside the Bridge.
・ There are 7 informal settlers under the Bridge with 37 PAPs.
・ North side area and along approach road on south side are used for residential area.
・ Under the Bridge is used for shed of boat, breeding place for domestic animal such as
fighting cock, pig and for hanging out washing to drying area.
・ Based on the water quality sampling analysis some of the residents dispose of their waste
through the river but the level of contamination is under the standard.
old (48%) where majority are male respondents (52%). Also, majority of the respondents
have a household size of 4 to 6 members (52%) and have lived in the area for more than 10
years (61%).
most of them graduated from the elementary level (33%) or from the high school level (33%)
when they were interviewed. Since the project area is situated in a rural city, most of the
people work either as laborers or construction workers (31%) having a monthly salary of
5,000 to 10,000 pesos (35%). In addition to this, most of the respondents working are males
(52%).
terms of cooking, majority of the respondents use charcoal (52%)
・ Majority of the respondents own motorcycles and tricycles (52%) as a means for
transportation.
15-152
・ Based on the survey results, 78% of the respondents do not have proper and adequate
sanitation facilities (i.e., toilets). For those that do have, majority of them have water sealed
type (61%) toilets.
・ Last year, majority of the respondents got sick (61%). Most of them experienced
sickness/diseases such as cough, colds or the flu (29%). For these results, some residents
prefer consulting doctors or have it check-up in clinics or hospitals (41%) while others prefer
self-medication (42%).
Project (91%). Majority of the information about the project known by the respondents came
from the barangay and municipal officials (61%).
promote the progress of the barangay (40%). The displacement of homes is the most
perceived negative effect of the project by the respondents (57%)
(7) Wawa Bridge
There many thatch houses prospective informal.
Water pipe
Maintenance cottage
Irrigation dam
: House
・ On the north side there are many thatch houses along the approach road and on the dam
facility. It is commonly observed as illegal.
・ A water pipe is held along the Bridge.
・ Downstream of the River there is dam for irrigation use.
・ There cottage for maintenance of the Bridge.
・ The land use zone classification in the area is generally agricultural, due to the soil’s high
fertility potential, with multi-crop farming as a primary source of livelihood.
15-153
old (33%) where majority are male respondents (72%). Aside from this, majority of the
respondents have a household size of 4 to 6 members (67%) and lived in the area since birth
(39%) or have lived there for more than 10 years (22%).
most of them graduated from the high school level (59%) when they were interviewed. Since
the project area is situated in a rural city, most of the people work either as laborers or
construction workers (44%) having a monthly salary of 1 to 4,999 pesos (100%).
・ Most of the houses are made of nipa or plywood (67%) with nipa or bamboo roofing (56%).
In terms of cooking, majority of the respondents use wood (94%). As for the type of vehicles
owned, majority of the respondents did not (83%).
・ Based on the survey results, majority of the respondents have proper and adequate sanitation
facilities (i.e., toilets) (78%). Majority of the respondents did not answer what type of toilet
facilities they owned (63%) but the most common answer is the water sealed type (27%)
the seasonal types (i.e. chicken pox, rashes) (44%). For these results, most of the residents
prefer consulting doctors or have it check-up in clinics or hospitals (56%)
・ In terms of proposed Project’s awareness, all of the respondents are aware of the project
(100%) and consider it as beneficial (100%). Information regarding the project was mostly
obtained from project representatives (44%) and neighbors, family members or the radio
(33%). Respondents consider the project beneficial since it will provide a safer means of
transportation (69%). The main concern of the respondents is that residents will be displaced
from their homes (89%)
15-154
15.7
Highway Conditions and Design
15.7.1 Applicable Standards
The design and planning shall be conducted based on the standard issued by DPWH, and the items
that is not specified in the standard of DPWH, the standards of AASHTO and JRA shall be utilized.
The routes in the Package C may correspond to the Asian Highway, AH26, separately the standard of
ESCAP is utilized for the examination. The following table shows the applied standards in this project.
Table 15.7.1-1 Applicable Standards
No.
NAMES OF STANDARDS
１ Design Guidelines Criteria and Standards
th
２ A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6 edition
３ Japanese standards Road Structure Ordinance of JRA 2003.
４ Asian Highway Classification And Design Standards
Note： ESCAP（Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific）
JRA (Japan Road Association)
15.7.2 Objective Roads
Package B
B10 Guadalupe Bridge
Package B
Package C
C09 Palanit Bridge
C11 Mawo Bridge
C15 Wawa Bridge
Package C
Figure 15.7.2-1 Objective Roads
15-155
DPWH
AASHTO
JRA
ESCAP
15.7.3 Summary of Roads
B08 Lambingan
Name of Road
National Road Classification
DEO
B10 Guadalupe
Name of Road
DEO
C09 Palanit
Name of Road
DEO
C11 Mawo
Name of Road
DEO
C15 Wawa
Name of Road
DEO
New Panaderos Road
Secondary Road
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
South Manila District Engineering Office
EDSA in C4
Primary road
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
Metro Manila 2nd District Engineering Office
Pan-Philippine Highway（AH26）
Primary road
REGION VIII
Northern Samar 1st District Engineering Office
Primary road
REGION VIII
Northern Samar 1st District Engineering Office
Primary road
REGION XIII
Agusan del Sur 1st
15.7.4 Design Condition
(1) Traffic Volume
Table 15.7.4-1 Traffic Volume of Objective Roads
N0
Bridge name
B08 Lambinguan
traffic volume
ratio
B10 Guadalupe
traffic volume
ratio
C09 Palanit
traffic volume
ratio
C11 Mawo
traffic volume
ratio
C15 Wawa
traffic volume
ratio
AADT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Mortorcycle
Car/Taxi
Sub-Total Total
Jeepney Large Bus 2-AxleTruck 3-Axle Truck Truck Trailer
/tricycle
/Pick-up/Van
9,379
13,626
6,093
31
943
137
48
20,878
30,257
31.0%
45.0%
20.1%
0.1%
3.1%
0.5%
0.2%
96.2%
3.8%
19,557
181,078
0
13,229
4,100
1,628
876
200,911 220,468
8.9%
82.1%
0.0%
6.0%
1.9%
0.7%
0.4%
91.0%
9.0%
730
199
65
93
93
76
10
536
1,266
57.7%
15.7%
5.1%
7.3%
7.3%
6.0%
0.8%
78.5%
21.5%
2,889
322
73
93
130
102
14
734
3,623
79.7%
8.9%
2.0%
2.6%
3.6%
2.8%
0.4%
90.6%
9.4%
1,476
1,598
48
266
282
238
42
2,474
3,950
37.4%
40.5%
1.2%
6.7%
7.1%
6.0%
1.1%
79.0%
21.0%
Note : Sub-Total is shown the traffic volume without Motorcycle/tricycle.
15-156
(2) Comparison Study of Technical Specifications
Table 15.7.4-2 Technical Specifications of Lambingan Bridge
B08 Lambingan
（Urban Collector Road）
Design
Speed
(km/h)
Component
Min. Horizontal
Curvature
The length of the
minimum horizontal
curve
Min. Rate of Vert.
Curvature K, Crest
Min. Rate of Vert.
Curvature K, Sag
Min. Stopping Sight
Distance
Max. Grade
Min. Grade
50
The length of the
minimum vertical curve
DPWH
Standards
AASHTO
Standards
AH
Standards
Japanese
Standards
-
64m
(110)
80
(150ｍ)
100m
30ｍ
20m
-
80m
9
7
-
8
9
10
13
-
7
14
62.8m
65 m
-
55m
65m
4～7%
(5%)
6～8%
5%
-
0.3～0.5%
0.7%
(5%)
(5%)
9%
6～7%
(0.5%)
(0.5%)
0.3～0.5% 0.3～0.5%
Recommended
1,500m
Secure current
condition
36m
Secure current
condition
60m
-
-
40m
60m-
Min. Cross Slope
1.50%
1.50%
-
1.5%
-
Max. Cross Slope
2.00%
3.00%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
Max. Superelevation
8.00%
6.00%
10.0%
6.0%
-
Lane Width
2.75～
3.65m
3.00～
3.60m
3.50m
3.25～
3.5m
3.0m
Secure current
condition
Shoulder Width
(1.802.40m)
0.60-
2.50ｍ
0.50m-
0.6m
Median Width
1.20m-
2.50ｍ
1.00m-
1.2m
Sidewalk Width
1.50m-
(0.60)
0.30～
0.6m
0.60～
1.80m
(1.5 m-)
1.20～
2.40m
-
2.00m-
1.5m
Note : Figure in parentheses are desirable values.
: AH(Asian Highway)
15-157
Table 15.7.4-3 Technical Specifications of Guadalupe Bridge
B10 Guadalupe
（Urban Arterial Road）
Design
Speed
(km/h)
Component
Min. Horizontal
Curvature
The length of the
minimum horizontal
curve
Min. Rate of Vert.
Curvature K, Crest
Min. Rate of Vert.
Curvature K, Sag
Min. Stopping Sight
Distance
Max. Grade
Min. Grade
60
The length of the
DPWH
Standards
AASHTO
Standards
AH
Standards
Japanese
Standards
Recommended
-
135m
(160)
115
(200ｍ)
150m
∞
Secure current
condition
30ｍ
30m
-
100m
－
15
11
-
14
－
15
18
-
10
－
84.6m
85 m
-
75m
－
(5%)
6～7%
(5%)
7%
4～7%
(0.5%)
(0.5%)
0.3～0.5% 0.3～0.5%
-
5.5%
Secure current
condition
0.0%
0.3～0.5% Secure current
condition
(5%)
5～7%
60m
-
-
50m
－
Min. Cross Slope
1.50%
1.50%
-
1.5%
－
Max. Cross Slope
2.00%
3.00%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
Max. Superelevation
8.00%
11.00%
10.0%
6.0%
-
2.75～
3.65m
(1.802.40m)
0.60-
3.00～
3.60m
(0.60)
0.30～
0.60m
3.50m
3.25～
3.5m
3.35m
2.50ｍ
0.50m-
0.3m
Secure current
condition
1.20m-
1.20m
3.00ｍ
1.00m-
-
-
2.00m-
1.5m
Lane Width
Shoulder Width
Median Width
1.20m(3.6m-)
2.40m
2.40mNote : Figure in parentheses are desirable values.
: AH(Asian Highway)
Sidewalk Width
15-158
Table 15.7.4-4 Technical Specifications of Palanit Bridge
C09 Palanit
（Rural Arterial Road）
Design
Speed
(km/h)
Component
Min. Horizontal
Curvature
The length of the
minimum horizontal
curve
Min. Rate of Vert.
Curvature K, Crest
Min. Rate of Vert.
Curvature K, Sag
Min. Stopping Sight
Distance
Max. Grade
Min. Grade
60
The length of the
DPWH
Standards
AASHTO
Standards
AH
Standards
Japanese
Standards
Recommended
-
135m
(160)
115
(200ｍ)
150m
∞
Secure current
condition
30ｍ
30m
-
100m
-
15
11
-
14
46
15
18
-
10
16
84.6m
85 m
-
75m
85m
(5%)
6～7%
(5%)
5～8%
4～7%
(5%)
5～7%
5.7%
Secure current
condition
-
0.3～0.5%
0.3%
(0.5%)
(0.5%)
0.3～0.5% 0.3～0.5%
60m
-
-
50m
60m-
Min. Cross Slope
1.50%
1.50%
-
1.5%
-
Max. Cross Slope
2.00%
2.00%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
Max. Superelevation
8.00%
12.00%
10.0%
6.0%
-
2.75～
3.65m
(1.802.40m)
0.60-
3.30～
3.60m
3.50m
3.25～
3.5m
3.35m
(0.60)
0.60-
2.50ｍ
0.50m-
0.6m
3.00ｍ
1.00m-
-
-
2.00m-
1.5m
Lane Width
Shoulder Width
Median Width
1.20m-
Sidewalk Width
1.20m2.40m
1.20～
24.00m
(1.5 m-)
1.20～
2.40m
: AH(Asian Highway)
15-159
Table 15.7.4-5 Technical Specifications of Mawo Bridge
C11 Mawo
Design
Speed
(km/h)
Component
Min. Horizontal
Curvature
The length of the
minimum
horizontal curve
Min. Rate of Vert.
Curvature K, Crest
Min. Rate of Vert.
Curvature K, Sag
Min. Stopping
Sight Distance
Max. Grade
Min. Grade
60
DPWH
Standards
AASHTO
Standards
AH
Standards
Japanese
Standards
Recommended
-
135m
(160)
115
(200ｍ)
150m
∞
Secure current
condition
30ｍ
30m
-
100m
-
15
11
-
14
100
15
18
-
10
24
84.6m
85 m
-
75m
85m
(5%)
6～7%
(5%)
5～8%
4～7%
(5%)
5～7%
2.7%
Secure current
condition
-
0.3～0.5%
0.5%
(0.5%)
(0.5%)
0.3～0.5% 0.3～0.5%
The length of the
minimum vertical
curve
60m
-
-
50m
60m-
Min. Cross Slope
1.50%
1.50%
-
1.5%
-
Max. Cross Slope
2.00%
2.00%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
Max.
Superelevation
8.00%
12.00%
10.0%
6.0%
-
2.75～
3.65m
(1.802.40m)
0.60-
3.30～
3.60m
3.50m
3.25～
3.5m
3.35m
(0.60)
0.60-
2.50ｍ
0.50m-
0.6m-
3.00ｍ
1.00m-
-
-
2.00m-
1.5m
Lane Width
Shoulder Width
1.20～
24.00m
(1.5 m-)
1.20mSidewalk Width
1.20～
2.40m
2.40m
: AH(Asian Highway)
Median Width
1.20m-
15-160
Table 15.7.4-6 Technical Specifications of Wawa Bridge
C15 Wawa
Design
Speed
(km/h)
Component
Min. Horizontal
Curvature
The length of the
minimum
horizontal curve
Length of Spiral
curve
Min. Rate of Vert.
Curvature K, Crest
Min. Rate of Vert.
Curvature K, Sag
Min. Stopping
Sight Distance
Max. Grade
Min. Grade
60
DPWH
Standards
AASHTO
Standards
AH
Standards
Japanese
Standards
Recommended
-
135m
(160)
115
(200ｍ)
150m
200
Secure current
condition
30ｍ
30m
-
100m
135m
-
33m
-
50
33m
15
11
-
14
16
15
18
-
10
21
84.6m
85 m
-
75m
85m
4～7%
(5%)
5～7%
4%
-
0.3～0.5%
0.3%
(5%)
(5%)
6～7%
5～8%
(0.5%)
(0.5%)
0.3～0.5% 0.3～0.5%
The length of the
minimum vertical
curve
60m
-
-
50m
60m-
Min. Cross Slope
1.50%
1.50%
-
1.5%
-
Max. Cross Slope
2.00%
2.00%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
Max.
Superelevation
8.00%
11.00%
10.0%
6.0%
6.9%
Lane Width
2.75～
3.65m
3.30～
3.60m
3.50m
3.25～
3.5m
3.35m
Secure current
condition
Shoulder Width
(1.802.40m)
0.60-
(0.60)
0.60-
2.50ｍ
0.50m-
0.6m-
Median Width
1.20m-
1.20～
24.00m
3.00ｍ
1.00m-
-
-
2.00m-
0.75m
(1.5 m-)
Sidewalk Width
1.20～
2.40m
: AH(Asian Highway)
1.20m2.40m
15-161
(3) Typical Cross-Section of Bridge Section
Current Road Cross-Section
New Road Cross-Section
23,400
23,400
1,200 3,000
500
3,000 3,000 1,000 3,000
500
500
3,000
3,000 1,200
500
1,500 3,000
600
3,000 3,000 600 3,000
300 300
3,000
3,000 1,500
600
Road width 23.4ｍ
Road width 23.4ｍ
B10 Guadalupe Bridge（Replacement outside bridge）
8,500
8,500
1,200 3,350
300
3,350
3,350
300
300
South Boundlane
8,800
8,800
3,350 1,200
300
North Boundlane
1,500 3,350
300
3,350
3,350
300
300
South Boundlane
Road width 8.5ｍ
3,350 1,500
300
North Boundlane
Road width 8.8ｍ
C09 Palanit Bridge
10,900
8,660
650 3,350
330
1,500 3,350
600
3,350 650
330
Road width 8.7ｍ
3,350
1,500
600
Road width 10.9ｍ
C11 Mawo Bridge
9,700
1,000 3,350
500
10,900
3,350 1,000
500
1,500 3,350
600
Road width 9.7ｍ
3,350
1,500
600
Road width 10.9ｍ
C15 Wawa Bridge
8,700
700 3,350
300
9,400
3,350 700
300
750
3,350
600
3,350 750
600
Road width 8.7ｍ
Road width 9.4ｍ
Note : Cross section of current roads are applied the typical cross section, because these are different
according to a place.
Figure 15.7.4-1 Typical Cross-Section of Bridge Section
15-162
(4) Typical Cross-Section of Approach Road Section
Current Road Cross-Section
New Road Cross-Section
23,400
23,400
1,200 3,000
500
3,000 3,000 1,000 3,000
500
500
3,000
3,000 1,200
500
1,500 3,000
600
Road width 23.4ｍ
3,000 3,000 600 3,000
300 300
3,000
3,000 1,500
600
Road width 23.4ｍ
C09 Palanit Bridge
10,700
10,700
3,350
3,350
3,350
2,000
3,350
2,000
2,000
Road width 10.7ｍ
2,000
Road width 10.7ｍ
C11 Mawo Bridge
10,400
3,200
10,700
3,200
2,000
3,350
2,000
3,350
2,000
Road width 10.4m
2,000
Road width 10.7ｍ
C15 Wawa Bridge
10,700
10,700
3,350
2,000
3,350
3,350
2,000
2,000
3,350
2,000
Road width 10.7ｍ
Road width 10.7ｍ
Note : Cross section of current roads are applied the typical cross section, because these are different
according to a place.
Note : The approach road of Guadalupe is not improved.
Figure 15.7.4-2 Typical Cross-Section of Approach Road Section
15-163
15.7.5 Summary of Outline Design
(1) Lambingan Bridge
1) Current Road Condition
Table 15.7.5-1 Current Road Conditions of Lambingan Bridge
Traffic Volume
： 30,257 veh/day
Road Type
： Urban Collector Road
Mix rate of large vehicle ： 3.8％
Number of Lane ： 6 lane
Free Flow Speed ： 40 km/h
Summary of The Road
・ The main constituent of the traffic is Motorcycle and Jeepney, these are occupies 90% or more of
the whole traffic.
・ This route is required as the function of community road and arterial road.
・ This route is secured 4 traffic lanes for the whole route.
・ However, the section of approximately 450m including a bridge is maintained 6 traffic lanes,
because there was 6 traffic lane widening plan of the road.
Current Road View
Water Pipe Br
②
①
③
④
Current Cross Section
ROW
ROW
①
②
③
④
23800
1400
1200
500 3000
10000
3000
2000
1000
3000 500 500 3000
1400
1200
10000
3000 3000 500
Traffic survey result
AADT
1.Mortorcycle 2.Car/Taxi/Pi
3.Jeepney 4.Large Bus 5.2-AxleTruck 6.3-Axle Truck 7.Truck Trailer Sub-Total
/tricycle
ck-up/Van
B08 Lambinguan Br 交通量
9,379
13,626
6,093
31
943
137
48
20,878
比率
31.0%
45.0%
20.1%
0.1%
3.1%
0.5%
0.2%
96.2%
3.8%
N0
Bridge name
15-164
Total
30,257
2) Restriction of Road Design
There are requirement to not obstruct the facility as shown below with the bridge replacement.
Table 15.7.5-2 Restriction of Lambingan Bridge
①Water Pipe Bridge
②Intersection（OLD PANADEROS ST.）
③Intersection（F.Y.MANALO ST＆JP Rizal ST.）
④Residential & Commercial Area
②Intersection（OLD PANADEROS ST）
①Water Pipe Bridge
③Intersection（F.Y.MANALO ST＆JP Rizal ST）
④Residential & Commercial Area
①Water Pipe bridge
②Intersection(OLD Panaderos st)
③Intersection(F.Y.MANALO ST)
③Intersection（JP Rizal ST.）
④Commercial architecture(junk shop)
④Gas station
15-165
Table 15.7.5-3 Design Conditions of Lambingan Bridge
Item
Condition
Remark
Road Type
Urban Collector Road
Traffic Volume
30,257 veh/day
Traffic Volume of Large
Vehicle
（Mix rate of large vehicle）
1,159 veh/day
（3.8％）
Design Speed
50km/h
Design speed is applied 50km/h based on the
standard value of Urban Collector Road
(AASHTO) and existing travel speed.
Number of Lane
6 Lane
Secure the current number of lane
Lane Width
3.00ｍ
Secure the current lane width
AASHTO Standard value
Shoulder
0.60ｍ
DPWH, AASHTO Standard value
Sidewalk
1.50ｍ
Median
1.20ｍ
Right of Way
23.5ｍ
Decide the current boundary line, because a
correct boundary line is not clear
It is decided with current road and roadside
condition
Refer to the traffic survey result
Same as the above
23,400
Typical Cross-section of
Bridge and approach road
1,500 3,000
600
3,000 3,000 600 3,000
300 300
Note : Right of Way is measured from the survey result.
15-166
3,000
3,000 1,500
600
3) Horizontal Alignment
① Secure the current horizontal alignment.
② Secure the 6 lane same as current number of lane.
③ Avoid the land acquisition and obstruction to roadside facility as possible.
a) Taper Length
Taper is required at the connection of current road.
In standard value of the taper of DPWH, the taper length assumed it more than 30m based on
the following calculation formula.
（Source:「Design Guidelines Criteria and Standards 」DPWH）
Taper length : L = 0.6・0.6・60 = 21.6m
20,400
3,000
600
3,000 3,000 600 3,000
300 300
3,000
3,000
600
19,200
Taper width＝0.6m
Taper length=30m
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
600
3,000
3,000
600
Figure 15.7.5-1 Typical Cross-Section at the Taper Section
15-167
b) Runoff Section Length
There is the increase and decrease of the number of the traffic lanes, 4-lane and 6-lane.
Therefore, it is required runoff section. The runoff section length assumes it 50m based on
the following calculation formula.
W ： 3.0ｍ、S ：50km/h
L = （3.0×502）÷155=48.4ｍ ≒ 50ｍ
【6-lane section】
19,200
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
600
600
【4-lane section】
13,200
3,000
3,000
600
3,000
3,000
600
Shift width＝3.0ｍ
Figure 15.7.5-2 Typical Cross-Section at the Runoff Section
Source:「A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets」AASHTO
15-168
4) Vertical Alignment
a) Issue of the Current Road
The planning of approach roads shall consider safety and trafficability as well as
requirements of road network function as emergency transportation in a disaster such largescale earth quake.
Grade
Runnability
Visibility
Table 15.7.5-4 Issue of Current Road and Measure Policy
The issue of current road
Measure policy
Grade is 7% and pedestrian’s walkability is The grade is improved to 5%
low.
considering the barrier free.
The vertical curve is not secured, and there Secure the vertical curve and improve
is an impact when driving.
the trafficability.
The stopping sight distance is not enough, Secure the stopping sight distance.
and the safety is low by a lacking visibility.
The vertical curve is not secured, and there are issues to trafficability and visibility
g=7%
g=7%
The current grade is 7%, and it is not desirable for driver and pedestrian
Figure 15.7.5-3 Issue of Current Vertical Alignment
Hight of eye=1.08m
Stopping Sight Distance
Stopping Sight Distance
65.0
65.0
The stopping sight distance is not secured
Hight of object=0.60m
Figure 15.7.5-4 Issue of the Stopping Sight Distance
15-169
b) Restriction of Vertical Alignment
① Connect to the current intersection
There are two intersections near the bridge. Therefore, the vertical alignment is decided
considering intersection’s elevation.
② Secure the Navigation clearance
Secure the interval between existing bridge pier more than current EV=6.00m.
Navigation Clearance
Figure 15.7.5-5 Restriction of Vertical Alignment of Lambingan Bridge
c) Restriction of Bridge Elevation
In the bridge section, the elevation is secured more than EV=8.1m, it is considering
navigation clearance and the bridge structure height.
Table 15.7.5-5 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Lambingan Bridge
Ingredients
Unit
Value
Notes
Navigation Clearance
m
6.000
Structure height
m
2.080
Including pavement thickness
Total
m
8.080
Conclusion: designed controlled elevation of bridge longitudinal profile
: H ≥8.10m
d) New Bridge Vertical Alignment
Improvement of vertical alignment considering the restriction and the issue is as follows.
Secure the EL≧8.1m
g=5%
Secure the current elevation
g=5%
Bottom of girder line
Secure the current elevation
Secure the Navigation Clearance
Figure 15.7.5-6 New Vertical Alignment of Lambingan Bridge
15-170
5) Cross-Section Elements
According to discussion with DPWH, widening plan of this route to 6-lane will not be
conducted for the near term because the influences of land acquisition may not be ignored.
However, the road sections around Lambingan bridge are already widened to 6 lanes, hence,
the number of lane of new approach road shall secure existing number of lane.
Table 15.7.5-6 Issue of Cross-Section, and Measure Policy
Issue of the cross-section
Measure policy
Number of Lane
The number of lane of the route is 4 Secure the 6 lane same as current
lane, but the bridge section is 6 lane. road.
Sidewalk width
The sidewalk width is narrow with Secure the 1.5m width as
1.2m, and the width that pedestrian possible the pedestrian can pass
can pass each other is insufficient.
each other.
23800
1400
1200
500 3000
10000
3000
1000
3000 500 500 3000
1400
1200
10000
3000 3000 500
2000
Figure 15.7.5-7 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Lambingan Bridge
b) Improvement of Cross-Section
23,400
Water
Pipe
Bridge
1,500 3,000
600
3,000 3,000 600 3,000
300 300
3,000
1.8m
13.9m
Figure 15.7.5-8 Improvement of Cross-Section
15-171
3,000 1,500
600
(2) Guadalupe Bridge
Table 15.7.5-7 Current Road Conditions of Guadalupe Bridge
Traffic Volume
： 220,468 veh/day
Road Type
： Urban Arterial Road
Summary of The Road
・ The 2 traffic lanes of outside bridge are managed as a bus lane.
・ There are Guadalupe station and MRT at center of EDSA.
・ There is a Junction that is connected to Dr Jose P. Rizal Ave at the left bank side.
・ The vicinity of Guadalupe Station has been the traffic hub with MRT, Bus, Jeepney and Taxi.
・ There are a lot of commercial buildings along the EDSA, and there are a lot of shoppers.
Current Road View
②
③
①
Current Cross-Section
MRT
②
①
③
N0
Bridge name
B10 Guadalupe
traffic volume
ratio
AADT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Mortorcycle
Car/Taxi
Sub-Total Total
/tricycle
/Pick-up/Van
19,557
181,078
0
13,229
4,100
1,628
876
200,911 220,468
8.9%
82.1%
0.0%
6.0%
1.9%
0.7%
0.4%
91.0%
9.0%
Note : The traffic lane width shows an assumption value from the survey result.
15-172
2) Restriction of the Road Design
Table 15.7.5-8 Restriction of Guadalupe Bridge
①MRT
②Building & houses
③Power pole & High-voltage cable
④Inside bridge
②Buildings&houses
③Power pole&High-voltage cable
①MRT
④Inside bridge
②Buildings&houses
①MRT
②Buildings&houses
②Buildings&houses
③Power pole&High-voltage cable
④Inside bridge(North bound）
④Inside bridge(South bound)
15-173
3) Design Conditions
Table 15.7.5-9 Design Conditions of Guadalupe Bridge
Item
Condition
Remark
Road Type
Urban Arterial Road
Traffic Volume
220,468 veh/day
Traffic Volume of Large Vehicle
19,833 veh/day
（9.0％）
Same as the above
Design Speed
60km/h
DPWH Standard value
Number of Lane
10 Lane
Lane Width
3.35ｍ
DPWH Standard value
Shoulder
0.30ｍ
Sidewalk
1.50ｍ
Median
－
Right of Way
45ｍ
condition
－
Decide the current boundary line, because a
correct boundary line is not clear
8,800
8,800
1,500 3,350
300
3,350
3,350
300
300
3,350 1,500
300
Typical Cross-section
South Bound lane
Note : Right of Way is measured from the survey result.
15-174
North Bound lane
a) Restriction of Bridge Elevation
Table 15.7.5-10 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Guadalupe Bridge
Ingredients
Unit
Value
Notes
J. P. RIZAL AVENUE Elevation
m
5.000
Vertical Clearance
m
4.500
Structure height
m
2.080
Total
m
11.580
: H ≥11.6m
b) New Bridge Vertical Alignment
① Maintain the current vertical alignment.
② The grade is flat at the bridge section same as existing grade of bridge section.
③ The point that crosses J. P. RIZAL AVENUE secures vertical clearance more than 4.5m.
g=6%
Finished grade is more than 11.6m
g=Flat
Secure the Vertical Clearance more than 4.5m
Figure 15.7.5-9 New Vertical Alignment of Guadalupe Bridge
15-175
g=4.2%
Table 15.7.5-11 Issue of Cross-Section and Measure Policy
Measure policy
Sidewalk width
each other.
1.2m
8,500
8,500
1,200 3,350
300
3,350
3,350
300
300
South Bound Lane
3,350 1,200
300
North Bound Lane
Figure 15.7.5-10 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Guadalupe Bridge
8,800
8,800
1,500 3,350
300
3,350
3,350
300
300
3,350 1,500
300
15-176
(3) Palanit Bridge
Table 15.7.5-12 Current Road Conditions of Palanit Bridge
Traffic Volume
： 1,266 veh/day
Road Type
： Rural Arterial Road
Summary of The Road
- The Asian Highway (AH26)
- Low traffic volume but high mix rate of large vehicles (over 20%)
- Important route required as emergency transportation in a disaster as well as residential road and
material transportation in ordinal times
- Requisite route to daily life for inhabitants around the bridge
- Many students utilize as school road
Current Road Condition
③
①
④
②
①
②
③
④
8,660
650 3,350
330
3,350 650
330
N0
C09 Palanit
Bridge name
traffic volume
ratio
AADT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Mortorcycle
Car/Taxi
Sub-Total
/tricycle
/Pick-up/Van
730
199
65
93
93
76
10
536
57.7%
15.7%
5.1%
7.3%
7.3%
6.0%
0.8%
78.5%
21.5%
15-177
Total
1,266
Table 15.7.5-13 Restriction of Palanit Bridge
①Church
②Residential area
③Intersection
②Residential area
①Church
③Intersection
③Intersection
②Residential area
①Church
②Residential area
③Intersection
③Intersection
15-178
②Residential area
Table 15.7.5-14 Design Conditions of Palanit Bridge
Item
Condition
Remark
Road Type
Rural Arterial Road
Traffic Volume
1,266 veh/day
272 veh/day
（21.5％）
Design Speed
60km/h
DPWH Standard value
It is confirmed by DPWH staff
Number of Lane
2 Lane
Lane Width
3.35ｍ
DPWH Standard value
Shoulder
0.60ｍ
2.00ｍ
Sidewalk
1.50ｍ
Median
－
Right of Way
30ｍ
condition
Same as the above
－
10,900
1,500 3,350
600
3,350
1,500
600
Of Bridge section
10,700
3,350
2,000
Of Approach road
3,350
2,000
Note : Shoulder width of approach road is decided same as current condition(Current width is from
about 2.0m to 2.5m).
15-179
Table 15.7.5-15 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Palanit Bridge
Ingredients
Unit
Value
Notes
100Y HWL
m
1.900
Free Board
m
1.500
Structure height
m
1.800
Total
m
5.200
: H ≥5.2m
① The minimum vertical gradient shall be at g=0.3% to reduce height difference to houses
② The elevation should be controlled not to affect sub-approach road as residential roads
g=5.7%
Existing road
Existing road
g=0.3%
Figure 15.7.5-12 New Vertical Alignment of Palanit Bridge
15-180
g=1.0%
Measure policy
Sidewalk width
The sidewalk width is narrow with Secure the 1.5m width as possible
0.65m, and the width that pedestrian the pedestrian can pass each other.
0.65m
8,660
650 3,350
330
3,350 650
330
Figure 15.7.5-13 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Guadalupe Bridge
10,900
1,500 3,350
600
3,350
1,500
600
15-181
(4) Mawo Bridge
Table 15.7.5-17 Current Road Conditions of Mawo Bridge
Traffic Volume
： 3,623 veh/day
Road Type
Summary of The Road
- Rate of Motorcycle/tricycle is Over 80% in total traffic volume
- Important route required as emergency transportation in a disaster as well as residential road and
material transportation in ordinal times
③
②
①
④
①
②
③
④
9,700
1,000 3,350
500
3,350 1,000
500
N0
C11 Mawo
Bridge name
traffic volume
ratio
AADT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Mortorcycle
Car/Taxi
Sub-Total
/tricycle
/Pick-up/Van
2,889
322
73
93
130
102
14
734
79.7%
8.9%
2.0%
2.6%
3.6%
2.8%
0.4%
90.6%
9.4%
15-182
Total
3,623
Table 15.7.5-18 Restriction of Mawo Bridge
①Intersection
②Residential Area
①Intersection
②Residential area
②Residential area
①Intersection
①Intersection
①Intersection
①Intersection
②Residential area
②Residential area
15-183
Table 15.7.5-19 Design Conditions of Mawo Bridge
Item
Condition
Remark
Road Type
Rural Arterial Road
Traffic Volume
3,623 veh/day
339 veh/day
（9.4％）
Design Speed
60km/h
Number of Lane
2 lane
Lane Width
3.35ｍ
DPWH Standard value
Shoulder
Bridge:0.60ｍ
Road :2.00ｍ
Sidewalk
1.50ｍ
Median
－
Right of Way
30ｍ
condition
Same as the above
AASHTO Standard value
－
10,900
1,500 3,350
600
3,350
1,500
600
Of Bridge section
10,700
3,350
2,000
3,350
2,000
Of Approach road
15-184
a) Issue of current Vertical Alignment
Existing vertical alignment does not meet appropriate geometrical design because large recess
exists around the bridge in order to connect forcedly with bridge and sub-approach roads.
This route plays a role of important function for logistics as a part of the Asian Highway. Also,
this route should meet the required function as emergency transportation in a disaster as well as
residential road and material transportation in ordinal times. Therefore, the newly planned
vertical alignment is determined based on such the important considerations.
Vertical
alignment
Pathway
Table 15.7.5-20 Issue of Current Road and Measure Policy
The issue of current road
Measure policy
Large recess around the bridge, Not Improve the vertical alignment
appropriate vertical alignment
Pathway exist at existing abutment, Install the box culvert and secure the
Utilized as residential road
passage function.
Large recess of Vertical alignment
Pathway（H=2m,W=3.5m）
Pathway（H=2m,W=3.5m）
Large recess of vertical alignment
15-185
b) Restriction of Bridge Elevation
In the bridge section, the elevation is secured more than EV=5.6m, it is considering navigation
clearance and the bridge structure height.
Table 15.7.5-21 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Mawo Bridge
Ingredients
Unit
Value
Notes
HTW LEVEL
m
1.400
Free Board
m
1.500
Girder height
m
2.500
Height difference of cross slope 2%
m
0.079
Thickness of pavement
m
0.080
Total
m
5.559
: H ≥5.6m
c) New Bridge Vertical Alignment
① Secure 0.5% of minimum vertical gradient considering drainability
② Install pathway (H=3m, W=4m)
g=2.7%
g=0.5%
g=0.5%
Secure Box culvert for pathway
Figure 15.7.5-15 New Vertical Alignment of Mawo Bridge
15-186
g=0.8%
Measure policy
Sidewalk width
The sidewalk width is narrow with Secure the 1.5m width as possible
1.0m, and the width that pedestrian the pedestrian can pass each other.
Elevation
Elevation difference occurs because Secure the service road and restore
difference
of vertical alignment improvement. current passage function.
9,700
1,000 3,350
500
3,350 1,000
500
1.0m
Figure 15.7.5-16 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Mawo Bridge
10,900
1,500 3,350
600
3,350
1,500
600
Retaining Wall
Service Road
Service Road
Figure 15.7.5-18 Image of the Service Road
15-187
(5) Wawa Bridge
Table 15.7.5-23 Current Road Conditions of Wawa Bridge
Traffic Volume
： 3,950 veh/day
Road Type
Summary of The Road
- Low traffic volume but high mix rate of large vehicles (over 20%)
- Important route as emergency transportation in a disaster as well as residential road and material
transportation in ordinal times
①
③
②
④
①
②
③
④
9,400
750
3,350
600
3,350 750
600
N0
C15 Wawa
Bridge name
traffic volume
ratio
AADT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Mortorcycle
Car/Taxi
Sub-Total
/tricycle
/Pick-up/Van
1,476
1,598
48
266
282
238
42
2,474
37.4%
40.5%
1.2%
6.7%
7.1%
6.0%
1.1%
79.0%
21.0%
15-188
Total
3,950
Table 15.7.5-24 Restriction of Wawa Bridge
①Dam
②Mountainous area
③Intersection
④Residential Area
②Mountainous area
③Intersection
①Dam
④Residential Area
①Dam
①Dam
②Mountainous area
②Mountainous area
③Intersection
④Residential Area
15-189
Table 15.7.5-25 Design Conditions of Wawa Bridge
Item
Condition
Remark
Road Type
Rural Arterial Road
Traffic Volume
3,950 veh/day
828 veh/day
（21.0％）
Design Speed
60km/h
Number of Lane
2 lane
Lane Width
3.35ｍ
DPWH Standard value
Shoulder
Bridge:0.60ｍ
Road :2.00ｍ
Sidewalk
1.50ｍ
Median
－
Right of Way
60ｍ
condition
Same as the above
DPWH Standard value
－
9,400
750
3,350
600
3,350 750
600
Of Bridge section
10,700
3,350
2,000
3,350
2,000
Of Approach road
15-190
① Shift 15m for downstream side to use existing road during new bridge construction stage
② The value of 15m is resulted from the examination regarding influences to neighboring
settlements and construction yard
③ Secure R=200m of horizontal curve, same as existing radius
④ Secure 2 lanes, same as existing road
⑤ Land acquisition should be avoided as much as possible
⑥ Boundary lines of ROW is determined as 30m for both side from existing road center line
Shift 15m for down stream side
R=200m
R=200m
15-191
5) Comparison Study of Horizontal Alignment
- There is a lot of flexibility to change horizontal alignment for bridge replacement because there is not road connecting to main road and because there are little houses and structures beside main road.
- The following advantages can be confirmed in case of shifting for downstream side; new horizontal alignment shall be shifted to downstream side and the existing bridge shall be utilized as detour road during construction stage.
Table 15.7.5-26 Comparison Study of Horizontal Alignment
SHIFT TO UPSTREAM (BLUE)
EXISTING ALIGNMENT (BLACK)
Abutment
Shift to US
Abutment
Ｒ＝200ｍ
Ｒ＝200ｍ
Ｒ＝200ｍ
Plan View
Ｒ＝200ｍ
Ｒ＝175ｍ
Houses, Possibility of
influences
Existing Center
Houses, Possibility of influences
Apply existing road
to work road
Min. Curve Radius
Min. Curve Length
Bridge Length
SP: R=200m, EP : R=175m
SP : R=100m, EP : R=110m
230m
・ Need temporary bridge to detour existing traffic volume
・
Constructability
Structural Property
Environment
Disaster prevention
Along Roads
Cost Efficiency
・
・
・
・
・
Adequate structure due to strait line at bridge section
・
Minimal earth work amount
・
Possibility of traffic restriction due to landslide disaster such as ・
fallen rocks and slope failure
Minimal influences to houses along the road
・
・ Comparatively high due to temporary bridge costs
SHIFT TO DOWNSTREAM (RED)
Shift to DS
Ｒ＝200ｍ
Fallen rocks
Apply existing road
to work road
SP: R=200m, EP : R=200m
SP: R=200m, EP : R=200m
SP : R=100m, EP : R=125m
SP : R=100m, EP : R=125m
230m
230m
Difficult to secure work road and construction yard because ・ Applicable the existing road as work road
bridge installed between existing road and mountains
・ Smoothly mobilize heavy equipment to the site
Need large amount of cutting ground work (6,000m3)
・ Secure construction yard without any earth works
Curved bridge should be adopted
・ Adequate structure due to strait line at bridge section
Large amount of earth work such as cutting ground work
・ Minimal earth work amount (400m3)
Possibility of traffic restriction due to landslide disaster such as ・ Minimal possibility of traffic restriction due to landslide disaster
because enough separation can be secured from mountains
fallen rocks and slope failure
Minimal influences to houses along the road
・ Slightly houses may be influenced during construction stage
・ Comparatively high due to large amount of cutting ground work ・ Superior const efficiency because no temporary bridge and
(approx. 5%)
minimal earth works.
Blue : Advantage points Red : Disadvantage points
Shift to downstream side
Minimal earth works
advantage for:
・ Constructability
・ Environmental Impact
Shift to upstream side、Large
cutting ground works
disadvantage against:
・ Constructability
・ Cost Efficiency
・ Environmental Impact
Figure 15.7.5-19 Typical Cross Section of Comparison Study
15-192
Table 15.7.5-27 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Wawa Bridge
Ingredients
Unit
Value
Notes
Observed HW LEVEL
m
41.650
Free Board
m
1.500
Girder height
m
5.000
Height difference of cross slope 2%
m
0.079
Thickness of pavement
m
0.080
Total
m
48.309
: H ≥48.4m
① Maximum gradient shall be 4% equivalent to existing gradient
② Secure 0.3% of minimum vertical gradient in bridge sections
③ Secure path way
g=2.9%
g=0.3%
g=4.0%
Path Way
Figure 15.7.5-20 New Vertical Alignment of Wawa Bridge
15-193
Measure policy
Sidewalk width
through.
8,700
700 3,350
300
3,350 700
300
0.7m
Figure 15.7.5-21 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Wawa Bridge
b) Superelevation
It is calculated the following calculation formula.
The result of calculation, the superelevation is 6.9%.
Where: Rmin = 200m, V2 = 60kph, fmax = 0.15
c) Widening
Minimum radius is 200m of this section. Therefore, it needs to secure widening for curve.
The widening width is 0.7m.
Table 15.7.5-29 Designed Values for Widening on Open Highway Curve
Source:「Design Guidelines Criteria and Standards 」DPWH
15-194
d) Improvement of Cross-Section
① Secure W=0,75m of side walk because low volume of pedestrians
② Install side walks to both sides based on the discussion with DPWH
9,400
9,400
750
3,350
600
3,350
3,350 750
600
600
3,350
1,500
600
In the case of one side sidewalk (W=1.5m)
In the case of both sides sidewalk (W=0.75m)
15-195
15.7.6 Pavement Design
(1) Current Condition
Based on site investigation, both of asphalt and concrete pavements were executed for the approach
roads of bridges.
Table 15.7.6-1 Current Condition of Pavement
SP side
EP side
B08 Lambingan bridge
Asphalt concrete pavement
or
Composite pavement
As
- Good condition
As
Con
B10 Guadalupe bridge
or
Composite pavement
As
- Partially crack
and unevenness
As
Con
C09 Palanit bridge
Concrete pavement
- Crack and fracture
- Bad trafficability
Con
Con
C11 Mawo bridge
or
Composite pavement
- Good condition
As
As
C15 Wawa bridge
or
Composite pavement
As
- Good condition
As
Con
15-196
(2) Design conditions
Generally, road pavement can be categorized into asphalt pavement consisting of asphalt top layer and
concrete pavement consisting of concrete slab layer. Additionally, as an intermediate structure, a
pavement structure of composite pavement can be categorized, in which asphalt top layer is executed
on the concrete slab as base layer; it seems visually like asphalt pavement but structurally categorized
as concrete pavement.
Therefore, composite pavement has both advantage factors of concrete pavement and asphalt
pavement such as structural durability of concrete pavement and adequate trafficability as well as well
maintenancability of asphalt pavement, which well durability is expected rather than ordinal asphalt
pavement and is often applied to highway, national road and airport in Japan.
Thereby, in this project, composite pavement well applied in Japan is proposed as a recommendable
structure because existing layer structures and CBR values are totally unknown;
1) Applicable Standards
The design standard of NEXCO, Japan is often applied to the design of composite pavement for
Freeway and national arterial road.
2) Accumulated Large Vehicle Volume
Accumulated Large Vehicle Volume is calculated with calculation formula as follows. The large
traffic volume is based on the traffic survey result.
Table 15.7.6-2 Accumulated Large Vehicle Volume Calculation Formula
Accumulated Large Vehicle Volume
= Large Vehicle Volume/Day/Direction x Coefficient of Lane Number x 365 x 20yrs
Table 15.7.6-3 Accumulation of Traffic Volume of Large Vehicle
Lanbingan
580×0.8×365×20
＝
339(million veh)
Guadalupe
9,917×0.8×365×20 ＝ 5,792(million veh)
Palanit
136×1.0×365×20
＝
99(million veh)
Mawo
170×1.0×365×20
＝
124(million veh)
Wawa
414×1.0×365×20
＝
302(million veh)
Note: Coefficient of lane number 0.8 in case of more than 3 lanes/ a direction
Note: Accumulated large vehicle volume for 20 years for a direction
Table 15.7.6-4 Thickness of Reinforced Concrete
Accumulation of traffic volume of large vehicle(1 million veh)
Embankment
Section
Less than 3,000
Less than 10,000
More than 10,000
Less than 20,000
More than 20,000
25cm
25cm
28cm
30cm
Source: The design standard of NEXCO, Japan
15-197
3) Pavement of Roadway
Layer structures of composite pavement are as follows.
Pavement
structure
Material
Lanbingan
Guadalupe
Palanit
Mawo
Wawa
Table 15.7.6-5 Layer Structures of Pavement
Surface
Intermediate
Binder course
Base
course
course
course
Asphalt
Asphalt
Reinforced
cement
concrete
stabilization
4cm
4cm
25cm
20cm
4cm
4cm
25cm
20cm
4cm
4cm
25cm
20cm
4cm
4cm
25cm
20cm
4cm
4cm
25cm
20cm
Total
thickness
53cm
53cm
53cm
53cm
53cm
4) Pavement of Service Road
For pavement for service road, following structure is applied.
Surface Course
Base Course
Total thickness
Table 15.7.6-6 Pavement of Service Road
：Concrete
：Aggregate
ｔ＝ 20cm
ｔ＝ 15cm
ｔ＝ 35cm
5) Pavement of Sidewalk
For pavement for sidewalk, following structure is applied.
Surface Course
Base Course
Total thickness
Table 15.7.6-7 Pavement of Sidewalk
：Asphalt Concrete
：Aggregate
15-198
ｔ＝ 4cm
ｔ＝ 10cm
ｔ＝ 14cm
15.7.7
Drainage Facility Design
For the approach roads of Lambingan and Guadalapue bridges, gutter blocks are generally installed
along the boundary lines between traffic and pedestrian lanes. For Palanit, Mawo and Wawa bridges,
canals are installed at end of roads for some sections.
For outline design, drawings and approximate quantities are prepared as premises for re-installation to
the original conditions; in the detail design stage or equivalent stage, detail conditions such as amount
of rain fall, drain system, and drainage conditions shall be obviously clarified to carry out detail
design of drainage system.
Table 15.7.7-1 Current Drainage Facility Condition of Package B
Lambingan
Gutter
Gutter
Guadalupe
Gutter
Gutter
15-199
Table 15.7.7-2 Current Drainage Facility Condition of Package C
Palanit
Canal
Canal
Mawo
Canal
Canal
Canal
Wawa
Gutter
Canal
15-200
15.7.8 Revetment Design
(1) Package B
1) Information of River-Improvement-Works
In Pasig river, currently river improvement works are being executed in a lot of river sections;
around Lambingan bridge and Guadalupe bridge, planning of such the improvement works are
progressing.
For replacement of such the bridges, re-installment works should be conducted after adequate
installation of substructures of bridges; in this outline design, based on the section of planning
revetment of River-improvement-works, drawings and approximate quantities are prepared. In
the stage of basic and detail design stage, such the revetment condition shall be carefully verified.
Name of Bridge
B08 Lambingan bridge
B10 Guadalupe bridge
Table 15.7.8-1 Revetment Works
Revetment Works
Right Bank
Left Bank
COMPLETED
SP＋IW＋VW
Construction
by river improvement
SP W/H-BEAM＋VW
(REPAIR-R4)
Lambingan
South Side
North Side
SP+IW+VW
Completed
Completed
Completed
Guadalupe
SP W/H-BEAM＋VW
Repair-R4
Source: PASIG-MARIKINA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Figure 15.7.8-1 General Layout Plan of Revetment Works
15-201
2) Typical Cross-Section of Revetment
SP＋IW＋VW
SP W/H-BEAM＋VW
Construction by river improvement(REPAIR-R4)
Source: PASIG-MARIKINA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Figure 15.7.8-2 Typical Cross-Section of Revetment Works
15-202
(2) Package Ｃ
For the bridges in Package C, there are no artificial bank protections but natural banks where
inhabitants are utilizing as small dock. Therefore, in this project, new artificial revetments are not
planned from the aspect of the premise in this project, which is re-installation to the original
conditions or function. In the future stage such as detail design, careful planning and design shall
be carried out on the basis of organization of latest river planning and condition.
Table 15.7.8-2 Current Revetment Condition of Package C
Palanit Bridge
Mawo Bridge
Wawa Bridge
15-203
(3) Adjustment of Elevation
The elevation of the bench marks utilized in river-improvement works in Passig-Marikina river is
deferent from that of the bench marks utilized in this project. The following modifications are
conducted based on the elevation of the common bench mark GM-N4.
1) Topography BM Data
Table 15.7.8-3 List of Basic BM for Topography
BM
Br.
Name
Name
MM-55
Delpan
MM-62 Nagatahan
GM-N4 Lambingan
MM-71 Guadalupe
MM-2
Marikina
order
1st
1st
2nd
1st
2nd
EL
(MSL=0)
2.6988
91.151
9.347
34.158
91.151
Established
Year
2009
2009
1977
2009
1983
Information
Year
Nov 2010
Apr 2012
Sep 2012
Oct 2009
Sep 2009
2) Information of GM-N4
Table 15.7.8-4 BM list of River Improvement
Project Elev.
Name
Note
2008 NAMRIA
2012 NAMRIA
DPWH MLLW
DPWH MLLW
diff.
DPWH MLLW
diff.
m
m
m
m
m
BMW2A
1st order
58.350
58.788
0.438
58.185
-0.165
BMGMP2
1st order
53.015
53.474
0.459
52.856
-0.159
BMGM16
1st order
33.412
33.795
0.383
33.243
-0.169
BMGMN4
1st order
19.406
19.822
0.416
19.287
-0.119
BMGM23M
1st order
51.408
51.758
0.350
51.284
-0.124
BMML3
1st order
68.054
68.251
0.197
67.943
-0.111
BMGM49M
1st order
17.060
17.408
0.348
16.927
-0.133
BMCIMA18A
1st order
12.181
12.517
0.336
11.936
-0.245
BMGM21
1st order
12.807
13.200
0.393
12.575
-0.232
BMGM9ab
1st order
13.730
13.502
-0.228
BM66
1st order
12.035
11.781
-0.254
12.461
0.426
Note:GM-N4 : 19.822(2008 NAMRIA)=9.347(Topography)+10.475(MSL:DPWH)
15-204
3) Elevation Adjustment
a) 1st step <Project Elev.(2002) : 2008NAMRIA(Topography)>
Table 15.7.8-5 Difference of BM Elevation between River Improvement and Topography
River improvement
Topography
Difference
19.406
19.822
Δ0.416
GM-N4
b) 2nd step <MLLW～MSL>
Table 15.7.8-6 Difference of MSL Elevation between River Improvement and Topography
River improvement
Topography
Difference
MSL
(DPWH MSL)
MSL
10.600
10.475
Δ0.125
Note: River improvement‘s MSL is calculation during 1981 to 1999.
Note: Topography’s MSL is from the letter of BCGS.
c) Adjustment
Revetment elevation is adjusted by the following calculation formula.
Topography Elve.
＝
River Project Elve. －10.6 + 0.416 + 0.125
15.7.9 Property of Traffic Around Guadalupe Bridge
(1) Purpose of The Examination
EDSA area at Guadalupe bridge is the critical point of heavy traffic jam because of major arterial road
connecting the center of Metro Manila to suburbs. This chronic traffic jam must causes lane change
and traffic conflict, which increase the risks of traffic accidents as well as deterioration of neighboring
environment due to exhaust fumes.
Therefore, the traffic jam at EDSA may be a pressing issue to be addressed; however, a lot of largescale commercial facilities are constructed along the road and MRT is running on the center of the
road; widening of the road may be quite difficult condition currently.
Consequently, because currently it may be difficult to conduct drastic countermeasure such like road
widening with land acquisition, the possibility of improvement on heavy traffic jam should firstly be
examined as the primal purpose based on widening of Guadalupe bridge, which will not be restricted
by progress of land acquisition.
15-205
(2) Issue of Current Traffic
Table 15.7.9-1 Issue of Current Traffic
No.1 Not Functioned : Outside 2 Lanes by Busses
・At the bus stop, critical causes of traffic jam by busses and following and overtaking busses
・Busses stop stepping over two lanes
( large number of passengers, who stepping to traffic lane, that's why busses can not stop correctly
along the sidewalk)
【Northbound Line 】
Pic①-1
Interrupting following vehicles due to
overtaking basses stepping over Bus Lane
Poor safety by forced lane changing
Pic ①-2
A bus not stops, over Bus Lane, interrupting
following busses
【Southbound Line 】
Pic ①-3
Interrupting traffic lanes
overtaking parked buses
15-206
by
the
bus
Pic. ①-4
Passengers remain in traffic lane, following
busses can not parked accurately along walk
road
Pic. ①-5
Passengers make a bus stop at not duly bus
stop
No.2 Obturation by jeepneys at entrance of Northbound off ramp
・Outside two lanes are not functioned by parking of Jeepneys and derivation to facilities along the
road.
Pic ②
Obstruction across outside two lanes
15-207
No.3 Interruption of main traffic by Northbound on ramp
・The speed of main traffic may be downed because the on-ramp traffic inflows without enough
speed.
・Frequently, influent on-ramp traffic attempt forced lane change until the third traffic lane, which
may be cause of safety and runability interruption due to crossing against main traffic.
Pic ③
Interruption by on-ramp traffic inflowing
without enough speed
No.4 Interruption of main traffic by pedestrians
・Off-ramp traffic should stop when crossing pedestrians at on-ramp
【Southbound Lane off-ramp】
Pic. ④
Interruption by stopping vehicles due to
crossing pedestrians
【Southbound Line On-ramp】
Pic④
Poor safety by sudden lane change from the
second lane in front of off-ramp
15-208
No.5 Park area of Jeepneys on Southbound line on ramp
・An area of on ramp is utilized as park area of Jeepneys, which clearly become traffic obstruction
for general main traffic
【Southbound Line On ramp】
Pic⑤
Obstruction by Jeepneys parking at on ramp.
No.6 The traffic island of Northbound lane ramp, utilized as bus stop
・Substantially utilized as bus stops in spite of inhibition of incoming and outgoing
・For Northbound line, because Jeepneys should use this off ramp, a lot of passengers should get out
here. Therefore, utilization connection from Jeepneys to busses may by frequent condition,
・Large-scale commercial facilities stands along the road, for which convenience may be better than
using radical bus stop at start point side
Pic ⑥
Traffic island, utilized as bus stop
Originally, passengers' incoming
outgoing inhibited
15-209
and
Pic ⑥
High convenience for connection between
Jeepneys and MRT as well as distances from
large-scale commercial facilities
【Northbound Line (North Side)】
Pic⑥
Obstruction of main and off ramp due to
motorcade of busses at peak hour
No.7 Capacity shortage of existing jeepney parking
・Existing Jeepney parking behind large-scale commercial facility
・The space is not enough capacity causing passenger's line
・Many passengers use Jeepneys. Efficient planning to build new Jeepney parking near commercial
facility.
Pic⑦-1
Existing Jeepney parking
15-210
Pic ⑦－2
Passenger's line for Jeepney. The line
reaches about 50m
Pic ⑦-3
Exit of the parking is steep grade,
deterioration of concrete pavement and
terribly dusty by brake pats.
No.8 Large volume of pedestrian
・Comparatively many passengers who utilize Robinson mall across the bridge
・Existing width of side walk is about 1.2m against such the many passengers. Safety is concerned
due to no guardrails
Pic ⑧
Many pedestrians walking toward bass stop
and Guadalupe station
15-211
No.9 Cause of traffic jam and accident
・Risk of traffic accident may be high due to sudden lane change in traffic jam
・Large economic losses by additional traffic jam due to traffic accident
Pic ⑨
Traffic accident between a bus and a taxi,
caused by sudden lane change. Cause of
heavy traffic jam
Figure 15.7.9-1 Pictures Map of Current Traffic Condition of around Guadalupe Bridge
15-212
(3) Proposal of the Improvement
Table 15.7.9-2 Proposal of the Improvement
Items
Traffic
Jam
Issues
Causes
Countermeasures
Obstruction of bus lane by parking busses
Large traffic volume of busses, parking over two lanes Disperse parking busses on the traffic
at peak hours
lane
Interruption by lane change of following busses
Over taking busses run at the third lane
Lead busses to bus lanes
Not parking at bus stop correctly but parking at center Pedestrians and passengers of busses running over side
Lead busses to park correctly
of traffic lane
walk. Busses can not park correctly.
Obstruction of traffic lane by Jeepneys
Interruption of main and ramp traffic due to parking Lead Jeepney not to park at main traffic
Jeepney at ramp
lane
Interruption of main traffic by ramp traffic
Cause of speed degradation due to inflow of low-speed
Separate ramp form main line
traffic and stop at crossing
Interruption of ramp traffic by crossing pedestrians
Pedestrians walking to Guadalupe Br. need to cross the Separate ramp traffic from crossing
ramp
pedestrians
Safety
Narrow side walk for pedestrians volume
The width of side walk just only 1m
Widening of side walk
Improvement of accessibility with MRT, busses, Longish distance from each traffic point to commercial Accessibility improvement by efficient
Jeepneys and commercial facility
facility along the road
coordination with each traffic point
Convenience
Capacity shortage of parking space of taxi
Enough capacity volume of busses and Jeepneys but not
Secure parking space of taxi
enough for taxi
Proposal
① Additional installation of bus stops
⇒Newly install bus stop near Guadalupe bridge where it
may be near large-scale commercial facilities as well as
low impact to land acquisition and roadside facilities
②Traffic segregation by structures
⇒Physically restrict lane change by installing relevant
structures such as separators or posts
③Designation and derivation of bus stop
⇒Specific location of bus stops by destination
⇒Restrict passenger's protrusion over main line by
uniformizing their storage spaces
④Installation of Jeepney parking
⇒Apply land of the park to Jeepney parking.
⇒Install Jeepney space by improving alignment of
Southbound on-ramp
⑤Added lane
⇒Reduce interruption of main traffic by adding extra lanes
⑥Installation of pedestrian deck
⇒Install overpass for pedestrian
⇒Install guard rails to prevent road crossing physically
⑦Install wide-width side walk
⇒Secure requisite width corresponding to pedestrian
volume
⑧Coordination among key facilities
⇒Aim regional revitalization by connecting key traffic
points by pedestrian deck such as new bus stop, new
Jeepney parking, existing MRT station and commercial
facility
⑨Install taxi parking
⇒Install taxi stop and parking at the open space in front of
the station
15-213
Not stop correctly at bus stop but park at center
of traffic lane
⇒Busses stop short of bus stop, overtaking
busses run the third lane
Jeepney parking mainly riding
⇒The parking at on-ramp, which
interrupts ramp traffic
Interruption main traffic by
ramp traffic
Interruption main traffic by
crossing pedestrians
Narrow side walk
⇒Width of existing side walk
about 1m.
Obstruction of traffic lane by Jeepneys
⇒Out side two lanes not functioned due to
parking Jeepneys
Obstruction of bus lane due to parking busses
Interruption of traffic lane by lane change of following busses
⇒The congestion of busses at peak hour. Cause of traffic jam
because of overtaking busses run the third lane
Interruption of main traffic due to ramp
traffic
⇒Interruption of main traffic due to inflow
traffic without enough acceleration
The space utilized as bus stop
⇒The traffic island of the ramp, utilized as
bus stop, where is prohibited section for
utilization
⇒High convenience because of good
accessibility from commercial facility,
Jeepneys and MRT
: Traffic line of Jeepneys
Existing Jeepney parking
⇒Capacity shortage, long lines of passengers
: Walk line of pedestrians
: Parking space of Jeepneys
: Parking space of busses
Figure 15.7.9-2 Pictures Map of Traffic Issue of around Guadalupe Bridge
15-214
⑤Added lane（Speed-change lane at intersection）
④Installation of jeepney parking
②Traffic segregation by structures
⑦Install wide-width side walk
① Additional installation of bus stops
③ Designation and derivation of bus stop
⑧Coordination among key facilities
⑨Install taxi parking
⑥Installation of pedestrian deck
Figure 15.7.9-3 Proposal of Improvement around the Guadalupe Bridge
EDSA
SOUTHBOUND LANE
NORTHBOUND LANE
Figure 15.7.9-4 Typical Cross Section of Proposal of Improvement
15-215
15.7.10 Further Verification to be Examined in the Next Phase
The following items may be necessary to be verified or evaluated further in the next phase such as
basic or detail design stages.
 For the topographic survey, sectional survey should be executed at least every 20m.
 For the traffic survey, pedestrian traffic volume may be desirable to be investigated, which
may be useful factors to determine appropriate width of side walk.
 Specific the right of way should be verified based on close discussion.
 For the drainage design, detail drainage conditions will be required for detail design.
 Detail pavement design shall be executed in consideration of economic efficiency and life
cycle costs based on specific values of CBR testing.
 For the retaining wall design, detail profiles of existing structures are required.
 For the revetment design, the latest conditions and planning works shall be applied.
15-216

the project for study on improvement of bridges through disaster

Transcription

Similar documents