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 B10 Guadalupe Bridge Photos of Package B Bridges (1/2)
iii
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 (2/2)
iv
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
C09 Palanit Bridge C10 Jibatang Bridge Photos of Package C Bridges (1/2)
v
C11 Mawo Bridge C12 Biliran Bridge
C13 San Juanico Bridge C14 Lilo-an Bridge
C15 Wawa Bridge C16 2nd Magsaysay 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 Design Condition ...... 16-126 16.4.2 Outline Design of Superstructure ...... 16-129 16.4.3 Seismic Design ...... 16-131 16.4.4 Summary of Outline Design Results ...... 16-144 16.5 Outline Design of Mawo Bridge ...... 16-146 16.5.1 Design Condition ...... 16-146 16.5.2 Outline Design of Superstructure ...... 16-149 16.5.3 Seismic Design ...... 16-151 16.5.4 Summary of Outline Design Results ...... 16-164 16.6 Outline Design of Wawa Bridge ...... 16-166 16.6.1 Design Condition ...... 16-166 16.6.2 Outline Design of Superstructure ...... 16-169 16.6.3 Seismic Design ...... 16-174 16.6.4 Summary of Outline Design Results ...... 16-186
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 Bridge type ...... 18-1 18.2 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 Analysis of Traffic Congestion during Bridge Improvement ...... 19-48 19.5 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 Figure 4.3.2-2 Comparison of Acceleration Spectra for Different Site Conditions and Design Spectra (Moderate Firm Ground) ...... 4-22 Figure 4.3.2-3 Comparison of Acceleration Spectra for Different Site Conditions and Design Spectra (Moderate Firm Ground) ...... 4-23 Figure 4.3.2-4 Comparison of Acceleration Spectra for Different Site Conditions and 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 8.1.2-3 Procedure (STEP2) ...... 8-3 Figure 8.1.2-4 Procedure (STEP3) ...... 8-4 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 13.1.1-15 Hourly Traffic Volume ...... 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 13.2.1-3 Hourly Traffic Volume ...... 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 13.2.1-6 Hourly Traffic Volume ...... 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 13.2.1-9 Hourly Traffic Volume ...... 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 13.2.1-12 Hourly Traffic Volume ...... 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 13.2.1-15 Hourly Traffic Volume ...... 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 13.2.1-18 Hourly Traffic Volume ...... 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 13.2.1-21 Hourly Traffic Volume ...... 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 Figure 14.2.2-6 Flowchart of Comparative Study on Improvement Measure Scheme 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 14.2.2-14 Construction Steps of Outer Bridges (2) ...... 14-34 Figure 14.2.2-15 Construction Steps of Outer Bridges (3) ...... 14-35 Figure 14.2.2-16 Construction Steps of Outer Bridges (4) ...... 14-36 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 Figure 14.2.3-1 Flowchart of Comparative Study on Improvement Measure Scheme 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 Figure 15.4.1-8 Design High Water Level and Vertical Clearance at Guadalupe Bridge ...... 15-111 Figure 15.4.1-9 Design High Water Level and Vertical Clearance 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 15.7.5-17 Improvement of Cross-Section ...... 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 15.7.5-22 Improvement of Cross-Section ...... 15-195 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 16.1.2-20 3 Span Bridge ...... 16-28 Figure 16.1.2-21 4 Span Bridge ...... 16-29 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 Figure 16.1.2-29 2 Span Bridge ...... 16-39 Figure 16.1.2-30 3 Span Bridge ...... 16-39 Figure 16.1.2-31 4 Span Bridge ...... 16-40
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 16.1.2-37 2 Span Bridge ...... 16-53 Figure 16.1.2-38 3 Span Bridge ...... 16-53 Figure 16.1.2-39 4 Span Bridge ...... 16-54 Figure 16.1.2-40 5 Span Bridge ...... 16-54 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 16.4.1-1 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Palanit Bridge ...... 16-126 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 16.4.2-1 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Palanit Bridge ...... 16-129 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 16.4.3-1 Analytical Mode of Seismic Analysis ...... 16-131 Figure 16.4.3-2 Application of Continuous Girder ...... 16-133 Figure 16.4.3-3 Results of Eigenvalue Analysis ...... 16-135 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 16.4.4-2 General View ...... 16-145 Figure 16.5.1-1 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Mawo Bridge ...... 16-146 Figure 16.5.1-2 Soil Profile of Mawo Bridge (Included previous SPT) ...... 16-148 Figure 16.5.1-3 Flow of Outline Design ...... 16-149 Figure 16.5.2-1 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Mawo Bridge ...... 16-149 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 16.5.3-1 Analytical Mode of Seismic Analysis ...... 16-151 Figure 16.5.3-2 Application of Continuous Girder ...... 16-152 Figure 16.5.3-3 Results of Eigenvalue Analysis ...... 16-155 Figure 16.5.3-4 Ground Surface of an Abutment in Seismic Design ...... 16-156 Figure 16.5.3-5 Sectional View of Abutment & Pier of Mawo Bridge ...... 16-159 Figure 16.5.3-6 Philosophy of Unseating Prevention System in JRA ...... 16-160 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 16.5.3-10 Design Methodology of Expansion Joint ...... 16-162 Figure 16.5.3-11 Wearing Coat System of Concrete Slab ...... 16-163 Figure 16.5.4-1 Sectional View of Abutment & Pier of Mawo Bridge ...... 16-164 Figure 16.5.4-2 General View ...... 16-165 Figure 16.6.1-1 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Wawa Bridge ...... 16-166 Figure 16.6.1-2 Soil Profile of Wawa Bridge (included previous SPT) ...... 16-168 Figure 16.6.1-3 Flow of Outline Design ...... 16-169 Figure 16.6.2-1 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Wawa Bridge ...... 16-169 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 Figure 16.6.3-1 Analytical Mode of Seismic Analysis ...... 16-174 Figure 16.6.3-2 Application of Continuous Girder ...... 16-175
xxxix
Figure 16.6.3-3 Results of Eigenvalue Analysis ...... 16-177 Figure 16.6.3-4 Ground Surface of an Abutment in Seismic Design ...... 16-178 Figure 16.6.3-5 Sectional View of Substructure of Wawa Bridge ...... 16-181 Figure 16.6.3-6 Philosophy of Unseating Prevention System in JRA ...... 16-182 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 16.6.3-10 Design Methodology of Expansion Joint ...... 16-184 Figure 16.6.3-11 Wearing Coat System of Concrete Slab ...... 16-185 Figure 16.6.4-1 Sectional View of Substructure of Wawa Bridge ...... 16-186 Figure 16.6.4-2 General View ...... 16-187 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
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 19.3.5-3 Geometric Structure of 4-Lanes ...... 19-31 Figure 19.3.5-4 Geometric Structure of 3-Lanes ...... 19-32 Figure 19.3.5-5 Geometric Structure of 3-Lanes ...... 19-33 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 Figure 19.3.5-8 Traffic Condition Comparison in Case of No. of Lanes-Guadalupe Bridge (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 Figure 19.3.5-12 Traffic Condition Comparison in Case of No. of Lanes-Guadalupe Bridge (Northbound (Bound to Quezon City)) ...... 19-42 Figure 19.3.5-13 Traffic Condition Comparison in Case of No. of Lanes-Guadalupe Bridge (Southbound (Bound to Makati City)) ...... 19-43 Figure 19.3.5-14 Traffic Volume of Guadalupe Bridge in Case of 3-Lanes ...... 19-44 Figure 19.3.5-15 Traffic Volume of Guadalupe Bridge in Case of 3-Lanes ...... 19-45 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 Table 12.1.1-4 Global Evaluation for Bridge Seismic Performance in 1st Screening of Package-B (2/6) ...... 12-23 Table 12.1.1-5 Global Evaluation for Bridge Seismic Performance in 1st Screening of Package-B (3/6) ...... 12-24 Table 12.1.1-6 Global Evaluation for Bridge Seismic Performance in 1st Screening of Package-B (4/6) ...... 12-25 Table 12.1.1-7 Global Evaluation for Bridge Seismic Performance in 1st Screening of Package-B (5/6) ...... 12-26 Table 12.1.1-8 Global Evaluation for Bridge Seismic Performance in 1st Screening of 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 Table 12.2.1-3 Global Evaluation for Bridge Seismic Performance in 1st Screening of Package C (1/6) ...... 12-49 Table 12.2.1-4 Global Evaluation for Bridge Seismic Performance in 1st Screening of Package C (2/6) ...... 12-50 Table 12.2.1-5 Global Evaluation for Bridge Seismic Performance in 1st Screening of Package C (3/6) ...... 12-51
xlvi
Table 12.2.1-6 Global Evaluation for Bridge Seismic Performance in 1st Screening of Package C (4/6) ...... 12-52 Table 12.2.1-7 Global Evaluation for Bridge Seismic Performance in 1st Screening of Package C (5/6) ...... 12-53 Table 12.2.1-8 Global Evaluation for Bridge Seismic Performance in 1st Screening of 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 13.1.1-7 Daily Traffic Volume ...... 13-13 Table 13.1.1-8 Assumption and LOS ...... 13-13 Table 13.1.1-9 Daily Traffic Volume ...... 13-16 Table 13.1.1-10 Assumption and LOS ...... 13-16 Table 13.2.1-1 Daily Traffic Volume ...... 13-25 Table 13.2.1-2 Assumption and LOS ...... 13-25 Table 13.2.1-3 Daily Traffic Volume ...... 13-28 Table 13.2.1-4 Assumption and LOS ...... 13-28 Table 13.2.1-5 Daily Traffic Volume ...... 13-31 Table 13.2.1-6 Assumption and LOS ...... 13-31 Table 13.2.1-7 Daily Traffic Volume ...... 13-34 Table 13.2.1-8 Assumption and LOS ...... 13-34 Table 13.2.1-9 Daily Traffic Volume ...... 13-37 Table 13.2.1-10 Assumption and LOS ...... 13-37 Table 13.2.1-11 Daily Traffic Volume ...... 13-40 Table 13.2.1-12 Assumption and LOS ...... 13-40 Table 13.2.1-13 Daily Traffic Volume ...... 13-43 Table 13.2.1-14 Assumption and LOS ...... 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 Table 15.3.4-23 Standard Design Lateral Force Coefficient for Liquefaction Potential 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 15.7.5-16 Issue of Cross-Section and Measure Policy ...... 15-181 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 Table 15.7.5-22 Issue of Cross-Section and Measure Policy ...... 15-187
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 15.7.5-28 Issue of Cross-Section and Measure Policy ...... 15-194 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 16.1.2-4 Extraction of Applicable Basic Types based on Actual Results ...... 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 16.1.2-8 Extraction of Applicable Basic Types based on Actual Results ...... 16-19 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 16.1.2-18 Extraction of Applicable Basic Types based on Actual Results ...... 16-30 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 16.1.2-22 Site Candidates of 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 16.1.2-26 Extraction of Applicable Basic Types based on Actual Results ...... 16-41 Table 16.1.2-27 Extraction of Basic Types for Final Comparison Study (Steel) ...... 16-41 Table 16.1.2-28 Extraction of Basic Types for Final Comparison Study (PC) ...... 16-42 Table 16.1.2-29 Bridge Types for Final Comparison Study, including Rational Structures (PC) ...... 16-43 Table 16.1.2-30 Candidates of Final Comparison Study ...... 16-43 Table 16.1.2-31 Site Candidates of Comparison Study ...... 16-44 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 Table 16.1.2-36 Extraction of Applicable Basic Types based on Actual Results ...... 16-55 Table 16.1.2-37 Extraction of Basic Types for Final Comparison Study (Steel) ...... 16-56 Table 16.1.2-38 Extraction of Basic Types for Final Comparison Study (PC) ...... 16-56
liii
Table 16.1.2-39 Bridge Types for Final Comparison Study, including Rational Structures (Steel) ...... 16-57 Table 16.1.2-40 Bridge Types for Final Comparison Study, including Rational Structures (Steel) ...... 16-57 Table 16.1.2-41 Candidates of Final Comparison Study ...... 16-58 Table 16.1.2-42 Site Candidates of Comparison Study ...... 16-58 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 16.1.2-45 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Wawa bridge (STEEL 2/3) ...... 16-62 Table 16.1.2-46 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Wawa bridge (STEEL 3/3) ...... 16-63 Table 16.1.2-47 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Wawa bridge (PC 1/2) ...... 16-64 Table 16.1.2-48 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Wawa bridge (PC 2/2) ...... 16-65 Table 16.1.3-1 Seismic Analysis ...... 16-71 Table 16.2.1-1 Summary for Soil Parameters (1) ...... 16-72 Table 16.2.1-2 Summary for Soil Parameters (2) ...... 16-73 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 Table 16.3.1-1 Summary for Soil Parameters (1) ...... 16-96 Table 16.3.1-2 Summary for Soil Parameters (2) ...... 16-97
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 Table 16.3.3-9 Results on Liquefaction Resistance Factor (FL) & Reduction Factor (DE) ...... 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 16.4.3-1 Support Condition ...... 16-131 Table 16.4.3-2 Force Distribution Bearing ...... 16-132 Table 16.4.3-3 Springs of Foundations ...... 16-132 Table 16.4.3-4 Damping Coefficient ...... 16-132 Table 16.4.3-5 Comparison Study of Bearing in Palanit Bridge ...... 16-134 Table 16.4.3-6 Results of Eigenvalue Analysis ...... 16-135 Table 16.4.3-7 Relative Displacement between Substructure and Superstructure ...... 16-135 Table 16.4.3-8 Assessment of Soil Liquefaction ...... 16-136 Table 16.4.3-9 Assessment of Soil Liquefaction Parameters ...... 16-136
Table 16.4.3-10 Results on Liquefaction Resistance Factor (FL) & Reduction Factor (DE) ...... 16-137 Table 16.4.3-11 Devices and Functions of Unseating Prevention System ...... 16-140 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 16.4.3-14 Verification of Longitudinal Restrainer ...... 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 16.5.3-1 Support Condition ...... 16-151 Table 16.5.3-2 Force Distribution Bearing ...... 16-151 Table 16.5.3-3 Springs of Foundations ...... 16-152 Table 16.5.3-4 Damping Coefficient ...... 16-152 Table 16.5.3-5 Comparison Study of Bearing in Mawo Bridge ...... 16-153 Table 16.5.3-6 Results of Eigenvalue Analysis ...... 16-154 Table 16.5.3-7 Relative Displacement between Substructure and Superstructure ...... 16-155 Table 16.5.3-8 Assessment of Soil Liquefaction ...... 16-156 Table 16.5.3-9 Assessment of Soil Liquefaction Parameters ...... 16-157
Table 16.5.3-10 Results on Liquefaction Resistance Factor (FL) & Reduction Factor (DE) ...... 16-157 Table 16.5.3-11 Devices and Functions of Unseating Prevention System ...... 16-160 Table 16.5.3-12 Force Distribution Bearing ...... 16-161 Table 16.5.3-13 Outline Verification of Bearing under LV2 Seismic Forces ...... 16-161 Table 16.5.3-14 Verification of Longitudinal Restrainer ...... 16-162 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 16.6.3-1 Support Condition ...... 16-174 Table 16.6.3-2 Force Distribution Bearing ...... 16-175 Table 16.6.3-3 Springs of Foundations ...... 16-175 Table 16.6.3-4 Damping Coefficient ...... 16-175 Table 16.6.3-5 Comparison Study of Bearing in Wawa Bridge ...... 16-176 Table 16.6.3-6 Results of Eigenvalue Analysis ...... 16-177 Table 16.6.3-7 Relative Displacement between Substructure and Superstructure ...... 16-178 Table 16.6.3-8 Assessment of Soil Liquefaction ...... 16-179 Table 16.6.3-9 Result Assessment of Soil Liquefaction Parameters ...... 16-179 Table 16.6.3-10 Results on Liquefaction Resistance Factor (FL) & Reduction Factor (DE) ...... 16-179 Table 16.6.3-11 Devices and Functions of Unseating Prevention System ...... 16-182 Table 16.6.3-12 Force Distribution Bearing ...... 16-183 Table 16.6.3-13 Outline Verification of Bearing under LV2 Seismic Forces ...... 16-183 Table 16.6.3-14 Verification of Longitudinal Restrainer ...... 16-184 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 19.3.3-5 Traffic Volume (Guadalupe Bridge) ...... 19-16 Table 19.3.3-6 Traffic Volume (Guadalupe Bridge) ...... 19-18 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 BCGS Bureau of Coast and Geodetic Survey 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 SPT Standard Penentration Test 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 cross- sections
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
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 15.2.2-2 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
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 15.2.2-3 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 Active fault solid - trace certain (Route is approximate.) Heavy dashed line - trace approximate
Light dashed line – approximate offshore projection
Lineament assumed by topographic map
Source: Added Topographic Map by NAMRIA Figure 15.2.2-4 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 Active fault solid - trace certain (Route is approximate.) Heavy dashed line - trace approximate
Light dashed line – approximate offshore projection
Lineament assumed by topographic map
Source: Added Topographic Map by NAMRIA Figure 15.2.2-5 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 (Route is approximate.) Active fault solid - trace certain
Heavy dashed line - trace approximate
Light dashed line – approximate offshore projection
Lineament assumed by topographic map
Liloan Bridge
Terrace
Source: Added Topographic Map by NAMRIA 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 (Route is approximate.)
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 15.2.2-7 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 Nearest Active Fault
Delpan 11.1 km northwest of the West Marikina Valley Fault Nagtahan 7.5 km northwest of the West Marikina Valley Fault Package B Lambingan 5.3 km northwest of the West Marikina Valley Fault Guadalupe 2.4 km west of the West Marikina Valley Fault Marikina 1.0 km east of the West Marikina Valley Fault Buntun 15.9 km southwest of the Taboan River Fault Mandaue-Mactan 15.8 kmsouthwest 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 Package C 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 Wawa 5.5 km east of another identified trace of PFZ Eastern Mindanao Fault 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.
Table 15.3.1-1 Laboratory Tests and Methodology Tests / Item Methodology 1 Soil classification AASHTO/ASTM 2 Specific gravity AASHTO T-85 3 Natural moisture content AASHTO T-265 4 Atterberg limits AASHTO T-89&90 5 Grain size analysis AASHTO T-88 6 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) Bridge Item Unit Quantity 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
N 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 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-N1 BIL-S1
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) Thickness (m) N value Soil Characters 0 – 8 8 11 – 7 Mainly fine sand sometime including broken shell fragments relatively low water content blackish-gray colored 8 – 15 7 4 – 10 Sandy silt relatively high water content blackish-gray colored relatively soft 15 – 17 2 7 (- 50) Sandy silt relatively high water content including broken shell fragments gray / dark-gray colored 17 – 21 4 5 – 8 Silt with clay and fine sand including broken shell fragments mostly dark-gray/blackish-gray colored 21 – 33 12 9 – 13 Clayey silt with fine sand including broken shell fragments mostly dark-gray/blackish-gray colored interbedded with white colored volcanic ash about -30.5 m 33 – 38 5 50 < Very fine sand silty relatively low water content 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 N-value Relative Soil Type oil Layer (m) Density/Stiffness As 15 4 – 11 Loose Fine sand, and sandy silt Ac 6 5 – 8 Firm Silt, and sandy silt Dc 12 9 – 13 Stiff Clayey silt Ds 5 50< Very dense Very fine sand
A geological profile for Delpan Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.2-1.
Left bank of the Passig River Right bank
Delpan B-1 BR-1 25 m 25
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) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 0 – 2 2 6 – 18 Gravel and sand including clay relatively low water content dark-gray colored 2 – 12 10 4 – 14 Fine sand with medium sand including gravels having diameter of 10-15 mm gray colored 12 – 14 2 16 Gravel with sand and fines (probably silt) yellowish-gray/gray colored including gravel (20 mm in diameter) 14 – 15 1 13 – 16 Silty sand with gravel dark-gray colored relatively high water content 15 – 17 2 13 – 17 Gravel/sand with gravel yellowish-gray colored moderate to low water content 17 – 23 6 14 – 27 Mainly fine sand with medium sand relatively high water content sometimes including fines brownish-gray/yellowish-gray colored 23 – 30 7 50 < Welded tuff including angular rock fragments and pumice sometime sandstone-like (tuff without rock fragments and/or pumice) yellowish-gray/brownish-gray colored
Groundwater was observed around -3.45 m in the borehole.
15-24
b) Engineering Soil Layers
Based on the boring logs of B-1, the following soil layers can be identified (Table 15.3.2-4).
Table 15.3.2-4 Engineering Soil Layers (Nagtahan B-1) Soil Thickness N-value Relative Soil Type Layer (m) Density/Stiffness Bs 2 6 – 18 Loose – medium dense Gravel, and sand As 10 4 – 14 Loose – medium dense Fine – medium sand Ag 5 13 – 17 Medium dense Gravel, silty sand, and sand with gravel Ds 6 14 – 27 Medium dense Fine sand GF 7 50< Rock Guadalupe Formation: welded tuff
A geological profile for Nagtahan Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.2-2.
Left bank of the Passig River Right bank
BPRL-17 Nagtahan B-1 25 m 25
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) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 0 – 1 1 12 Medium sand brown colored with broken shell fragments 1 – 6 5 6 – 21 Silty fine sand soft or loose relatively high water content mostly gray colored 6 – 10 4 6 – 9 Sandy clay or clayey sand dark-gray colored moderate water content 10 – 11 1 28 Weathered rock strongly weathered (probably tuff) gray colored sand-like 11 – 24 13 50 < Tuff breccia, tuffs, and tuffaceous sandstones brownish-gray colored -11 m - -17 m: strongly weathered portion below -17 m: fresh and/or welded portion 24 – 26 2 50 < Fine sand with broken shell fragments including fines and gravel dark-gray or brownish-gray colored 26 – 28 2 50 < No core recovered (probably fine sand) 28 – 30 2 50 < Strongly welded tuff black colored
Groundwater was observed around -1.5 m in the borehole.
b) Engineering Soil Layers
Based on the boring logs of B-1, the following soil layers can be identified (Table 15.3.2-6).
Table 15.3.2-6 Engineering Soil Layers (Lambingan B-1) Soil Thickness N-value Relative Soil Type Layer (m) Density/Stiffness Bs 1 12 Medium dense Sand As 5 6 – 21 Loose – medium dense Silty fine sand Dc 4 6 – 9 Firm – stiff Sandy clay, and clayey sand WGF 1 50< Rock Weathered rock of the Guadalupe Formation GF 19 50< Rock 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
Left bank of the Passig River Right bank
Lambingan B-1 BL-3 25 m
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.
(II) As: Alluvial Sand 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) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 0 – 2 2 – Fill soils including rock/concrete fragment 2 – 7 5 8 – 28 Mainly coarse to medium sand brownish-gray/yellowish-gray colored including broken shell fragments, fines and gravels (avg. 15 mm in diameter) 7 – 10 3 34 – 50 Gravel with sand Dark-gray/brownish-gray/gray colored 10 – 35 25 26 – 46 Mainly medium to fine sand sometime coarse sand rich with broken shell fragments blackish-gray colored very rich with broken shell fragments about -21.5 m including gravel (10-15 mm in diameter) 35 – 40 5 35 – 39 Mainly fine to medium sand relatively low water content poor with broken shell fragments dark-gray/blackish-gray colored 40 – 46 6 50 < Mainly medium to fine sand Moderate water content with broken shell fragments blackish-gray colored
Groundwater was observed around -2.2 m in the borehole.
b) Engineering Soil Layers
Based on the boring logs of B-1, the following soil layers can be identified (Table 15.3.2-8).
Table 15.3.2-8 Engineering Soil Layers (Guadalupe B-1) Soil Thickness N-value Relative Soil Type Layer (m) Density/Stiffness BF 2 8 – 28 Loose – medium dense Gravel, and sand As 5 34 – 50 Dense Coarse – medium sand Dg 3 26 – 46 Medium dense – dense Gravel with sand Ds1 25 35 – 39 Dense Medium – fine sand Ds2 5 50< Very dense Medium – fine sand
15-29
A geological profile for the Guadalupe Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.2-4.
Right bank Left bank of the Passig River
Guadalupe B-1
BPLW-30 25 m
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
(II) As: Alluvial Sand 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) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 0 – 3 3 3 – 6 Very fine sand silty poor graded relatively high water content brown colored 3 – 5 2 7 – 8 Mainly very fine sand with silt brownish-gray colored 5 – 7 2 9 – 10 Very fine sand silty brownish-gray/gray colored 7 – 12 5 10 – 25 Mainly fine sand including silt and gravel relatively high water content dark-gray colored 12 – 14 2 21 – 25 Fine to medium sand relatively high to moderate water content blackish-gray colored 14 – 18 4 27 – 34 Gravel and sand relatively low to moderate water content sometime medium to fine sand with gravel including gravels (20-30 mm in diameter) 18 – 24 6 40 – 61 Coarse sand relatively high water content brownish-gray/blackish-gary colored 24 – 30 6 50 < Mainly coarse to medium sand including gravel having diameters of 10-20 mm relatively high water content dark-gray/blackish-gray colored
Groundwater was observed around -3.2 m in the borehole.
b) Engineering Soil Layers
Based on the boring logs of B-1, the following soil layers can be identified (Table 15.3.2-10).
Table 15.3.2-10 Engineering Soil Layers (Marikina B-1) Soil Thickness N-value Relative Soil Type Layer (m) Density/Stiffness Asc 7 3 – 10 Loose Very fine sand, and silty fine sand As 7 10 – 25 Medium dense Fine – medium sand Asg 4 27 – 34 Medium dense – dense Gravel, and sand Ds1 6 40 – 61 Dense – very dense Coarse sand Ds2 6 50< Very dense 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
M6-LL (exising) 25 m 25
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.
(IV) Ds1: Diluvial Sand (1) 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 15.3.2-11 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Delpan B-1 Natural Plasticity GL- Major Soil Moisture ASTM Soil Soil Layer Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Index PI (m) Type Content Classification (%) (%) 1 24.8 74.2 1.0 14.3 SP 2 0.0 92.4 7.6 28.2 SP-SC 3 0.0 98.1 1.9 20.1 SP Mainly fine 4 0.0 95.4 4.6 33.3 SP As sand 5 0.0 96.3 3.7 27.3 SP
6 0.9 95.1 4.0 27.6 SP 7 0.0 92.8 7.2 29.5 SP-SC 8 0.0 91.6 8.4 26.6 SP-SC 9 0.0 43.2 56.9 52.2 7 CL 10 0.0 4.9 95.1 58.1 20 CH 11 0.0 4.4 95.6 57.4 7 CL 12 Sandy silt 0.0 47.2 52.8 47.0 7 SP 13 0.0 9.4 90.6 48.9 21 CH 14 0.0 7.7 92.3 42.2 13 CL 15 Ac 0.0 22.7 77.3 42.4 8 SP 16 0.0 63.6 36.4 45.2 SP Sandy silt 17 0.0 31.0 69.0 33.5 SP 18 0.0 15.2 84.9 68.2 11 OH 19 0.0 7.5 92.5 76.4 31 OH Silt 20 0.0 4.1 95.9 43.5 23 OH 21 0.0 11.3 88.7 42.2 30 OH 22 0.0 31.4 68.6 63.4 13 OH 23 0.0 22.4 77.6 37.3 11 OH 24 0.0 5.7 94.3 76.6 18 OH 25 0.0 33.7 66.3 79.8 24 OH 26 0.0 12.0 88.0 71.9 12 OH 27 0.0 4.1 95.9 60.2 4 MH Dc Clayey silt 28 0.0 6.0 94.0 67.7 7 MH 29 0.0 26.5 73.5 41.2 2 MH 30 0.0 21.1 78.9 77.0 5 MH 31 0.0 20.2 79.8 80.4 2 MH 32 0.0 92.1 7.9 68.4 SW-SC 33 0.0 18.2 81.8 50.2 3 MH 34 0.3 86.6 13.1 43.8 SC-SM 35 Very fine 36 Ds sand 34.3 62.1 3.7 16.1 SP 37 0.0 87.1 12.9 28.9 SC-SM 38 0.0 88.1 11.9 25.8 SP-SC
15-35
2) Nagtahan Bridge
A tentative laboratory soil tests results are shown in Table 15.3.2-12.
Table 15.3.2-12 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Nagtahan B-1 Natural Plasticity GL- Major Soil Moisture ASTM Soil Soil Layer Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Index PI (m) Type Content Classification (%) (%) 1 Bs Gravel and 12.85 12.9 85.9 1.3 40.1 SW 2 sand 61.78 61.8 34.6 3.6 41.4 SW 3 1.30 1.3 93.5 5.2 29.0 SW-SC 4 5.70 5.7 89.5 4.9 25.1 SP 5 0.90 0.9 98.4 0.7 29.9 SP 6 Fine sand No test 7 with No test As 8 medium 0.00 0.0 98.9 1.1 20.5 SP 9 sand 1.04 1.0 97.7 1.2 12.7 SP 10 0.00 0.0 98.8 1.2 36.3 SP 11 7.05 7.0 88.3 4.7 41.8 SP 12 0.00 0.0 98.3 1.7 24.6 SP 13 Ag 51.59 51.6 47.6 0.8 25.5 SW Gravel 14 63.48 63.5 35.2 1.3 21.1 SW 15 Silty sand 22.37 22.4 74.0 3.7 23.2 SW 16 Gravel/sand 36.26 36.3 60.6 3.1 50.4 SW 17 with gravel 38.97 39.0 59.2 1.9 23.0 SW 18 Ds 1.18 1.2 91.7 7.1 56.5 SP-SC 19 3.82 3.8 86.2 10.0 54.7 SP-SC 20 Mainly fine 0.59 0.6 83.9 15.5 58.9 SC-SM 21 sand 2.67 2.7 90.1 7.2 56.8 SP-SC 22 3.59 3.6 89.2 7.2 51.8 SP-SC 23 0.00 0.0 97.6 2.4 55.0 SP 24 GF 84.47 84.5 13.6 1.9 30.8 SP 25 No test 26 No test Rock/ 27 No test welded tuff 28 No test 29 No test 30 No test
15-36
3) Lambingan Bridge
A tentative laboratory soil tests results are shown in Table 15.3.2-13.
Table 15.3.2-13 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Lambingan B-1 Natural Plasticity GL- Major Soil Moisture ASTM Soil Soil Layer Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Index PI (m) Type Content Classification (%) (%) 1 Bs Med. sand 8.3 90.8 0.9 21.2 SP 2 0.0 82.7 17.3 48.6 SC-SM 3 0.0 72.0 28.0 44.6 SC-SM Silty fine 4 As 6.0 82.0 12.0 41.4 SP-SC sand 5 1.6 91.1 7.3 62.7 SP-SC 6 0.0 92.7 7.3 46.4 SP-SC 7 0.0 41.9 58.1 55.7 12 CH Sandy clay 8 0.0 22.9 77.1 53.9 13 CH Dc or clayey 9 0.0 33.1 66.9 48.5 19 OH sand 10 0.0 49.0 51.0 62.9 45 OH 11 WGF Rock 17.7 82.1 0.2 38.4 SW 12 0.0 99.5 0.5 41.6 SP 13 14 15 16 17 18 Rock 19 20 21 GF 22 23 24 0.7 98.2 1.1 25.1 SP 25 4.9 94.1 1.0 27.6 SP Fine sand 26 6.90 92.9 0.2 28.8 SP 27 28 Rock 29 30
15-37
4) Guadalupe Bridge
A tentative laboratory soil tests results are shown in Table 15.3.2-14.
Table 15.3.2-14 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Guadalupe B-1 Natural Plasticity GL- Major Soil Moisture ASTM Soil Soil Layer Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Index PI (m) Type Content Classification (%) (%) 1 BF Fill soils 2 3 Mainly 12.4 86.4 1.1 23.4 SP 4 coarse to 0.0 97.4 2.6 23.9 SP As 5 medium 35.7 63.0 0.4 19.5 SP 6 sand 9.7 83.6 2.6 25.4 SW-SC 7 44.5 54.3 1.2 10.9 SP 8 Gravel with 37.7 61.9 0.4 10.4 SW Dg 9 sand 57.9 41.9 0.2 8.8 SP 10 0.0 84.4 15.6 22.5 SP 11 34.7 64.6 0.7 8.3 SP 12 3.9 95.9 0.2 25.4 SP 13 3.0 96.0 1.1 23.4 SP 14 15 2.1 97.5 0.5 21.0 SP 16 2.6 96.1 1.3 23.5 SP 17 18 1.1 98.7 0.2 28.3 SP 19 0.0 99.3 0.7 31.1 SP 20 2.7 96.6 0.7 32.4 SP 21 6.8 91.4 1.8 24.2 SP 22 Mainly 23 medium to 23.8 75.7 0.5 23.0 SP 24 fine sand 41.2 58.6 0.2 9.3 SP 25 Ds1 26 1.0 98.2 0.8 33.5 SP 27 28 0.0 99.5 0.5 27.9 SP 29 30 2.4 97.4 0.2 29.1 SP 31 1.0 95.0 3.9 82.8 SP 32 33 0.0 99.1 0.9 63.2 SP 34 3.3 95.6 1.2 71.6 SP 35 36 3.1 90.8 6.2 89.5 SP-SC Mainly fine 37 0.2 97.1 2.7 65.9 SP to medium 38 sand 0.0 97.7 2.3 52.7 SP 39 0.0 82.7 17.3 46.5 SC-SM 40 0.0 99.8 0.2 75.2 SP 41 42 Mainly 43 medium to Ds2 44 fine sand 0.0 99.8 0.2 66.7 SP 45 16.5 83.3 0.2 55.4 SP 46 0.5 98.9 0.7 58.0 SP
15-38
5) Marikina Bridge
A tentative laboratory soil tests results are shown in Table 15.3.2-15.
Table 15.3.2-15 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Marikina B-1 Natural Plasticity GL- Major Soil Moisture ASTM Soil Soil Layer Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Index PI (m) Type Content Classification (%) (%) 1 0.0 63.8 36.2 44.4 17 SC-SM Very fine sand 2 0.0 62.4 37.7 47.4 19 SC-SM
3 0.0 86.1 13.9 45.6 SP-SC 4 Asc Mainly very 0.0 64.0 36.0 26.3 18 SP 5 fine sand 0.0 81.7 18.3 35.1 SP 6 0.0 56.5 43.4 37.1 15 SP Very fine sand 7 0.0 96.4 3.6 37.4 SP 8 3.2 96.4 0.4 25.8 SP 9 Mainly fine 24.3 54.2 21.5 32.6 SP 10 sand 0.0 96.7 3.3 37.3 SP 11 As 27.5 72.2 0.4 22.9 SP 12 23.4 73.0 2.6 25.8 SP 13 Fine to 0.5 96.4 3.2 27.8 SP 14 medium sand 0.0 95.0 0.4 37.2 SP 15 47.6 51.4 2.6 10.6 SW Gravel and 16 32.5 63.9 3.6 15.4 SP Asg sand 17 45.1 53.3 0.4 16.3 SP
18 20.7 78.2 2.6 13.0 SP 19 27.4 72.0 0.6 18.8 SP 20 32.4 66.7 0.4 16.4 SP 21 Coarse sand 33.4 65.5 2.6 18.1 SP Ds1 22 17.7 81.4 0.9 18.5 SP 23 31.4 67.8 0.4 19.6 SP 24 1.4 97.8 2.6 27.6 SP 25 13.1 86.2 0.7 23.2 SP 26 Mainly coarse 7.8 91.2 0.4 24.8 SP 27 to medium 1.3 98.0 2.6 27.4 SP Ds2 28 sand 2.0 97.2 0.8 23.9 SP 29 4.7 94.2 0.4 29.5 SP 30 7.5 92.0 2.6 24.0 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) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 0 – 1 1 6 Silty clay including gravel and very fine sand 1 – 2 1 6 Fine sand with gravel 2 – 8 6 5 – 7 Clay including grval medium water content sometime including gravel 8 – 10 2 2 Clay medium water content dark-gray - bluish-gray colored 10 – 14 4 25 – 32 Silt very fine sandy relatively low water conent yellowish-brown colored 14 – 16 2 50 < Very fine sand with gravel weakly consolidated reddish-brown colored 16 – 30 14 50 < Very fine sand (probably strongly weathered sandstone) relatively low water content Reddish-brown/ bluish-gray/yellowish-gray colored very dense or relatively consolidated below -23m subrounded gravel (10mm in diameter) included about -25m
Groundwater was observed around -2.5 m in the borehole.
15-40
Table 15.3.3-2 Boring Result (Buntun: BTL-2) Depth(m) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 0 – 6 6 6 – 9 Very fine sand with silt brownish-gray colored relatively high water content below -2 m 6 – 13 7 8 – 12 Fine to medium sand moderate water content dark-gray colored 13 – 14 1 33 Very fine sand with silt relatively high water content 14 – 15 1 33 Fine to medium sand blackish-gray colored 15 – 16 1 30 Very find sand with silt Dark-gray or blackish-gray colored 16 – 26 10 50 < Very fine sand Relatively low water content Poorly graded Blackish-gray or dark-gray colored 26 – 30 4 50 < Very fine sand with silt poorly graded relatively low water content yellowish-gray colored
Groundwater was observed around -2.5 m in the borehole.
b) Engineering Soil Layers
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 Thickness N-value Relative Soil Type Layer (m) Density/Stiffness Ac1 1 6 Firm Silty clay As 1 – 13 6 – 12 Loose – medium dense Very fine – medium sand Ac2 8 2 – 7 Soft – firm Cohesive soil Dc 4 25 – 32 Very stiff – hard Cohesive soil Ds1 3 30 – 33 Dense Very fine – medium sand Ds2 14< 50< Very dense 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
Dc
As Ds1 25 m 25
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.
(II) As: Alluvial Sand 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) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 0 – 4 4 15 – 46 Clayey sand clayey or silty sand brown/brownish-gray/greenish-gray/yellowish-gray colored relatively low to moderate water content -1 m: clayey medium sand with gravel -2 m: gravelly sand -3 m, -4 m: silty sand with gravel 4 – 5 1 50 Silty sand mainly coarse to medium sand moderate water content brownish-gray colored 5 – 6 1 49 Clay with gravel moderate water content including 30 mm gravel 6 – 14 8 50 < Welded tuff light-gray/greenish-gray colored soft rock CL-CM class 14 – 30 16 50 < Tuffaceous rock tuffaceous siltstone/mudstone soft rock greenish-gray colored CL class sometime weathered
Groundwater was observed around -3.0 m in the borehole.
15-43
Table 15.3.3-5 Boring Result (Palanit: PAL-R1) Depth(m) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 0 – 2 2 8 – 9 Gravely sand relatively low water content including plant roots and 10-15 mm gravel dark-grown colored 2 – 6 4 50 < Tuffaceous rock tuffaceous siltstone greenish-gray colored soft rock CL class 6 – 30 24 50 < 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
Groundwater was observed around -3.2 m in the borehole.
b) Engineering Soil Layers
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 Thickness N-value Relative Soil Type Layer (m) Density/Stiffness Asg 2 8 – 9 Loose Gravelly sand Dsg 4 15 – 46 Medium dense – dense Clayey sand Ds 1 50 Dense Silty sand Dc 1 49 Hard Clay with gravel VR 24< 50< Rock 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
VR 25 m
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) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 0 – 5 5 2 – 4 Mainly clay sometime silty including gravels moderate to relatively high water content Dark-gray colored 5 – 7 2 8 – 12 Very fine sand silty including 20-30 mm gravel relatively high water content Dark-gray colored 7 – 9 2 21 – 24 Gravel with silt relatively high water content including 10-30 mm gravel green-gray colored 9 – 11 2 21 Mainly gravel sometime with sand relatively high water content dark-gray/blackish-brown/brownish-gray colored 11 – 15 4 17 – 24 Mainly gravel with silt and sand greenish-gray colored sometime sand with gravel relatively high water content 15 – 28 13 7 – 12 Clay with very fine sand sometime sandy or sandy/clayey silt moderately water content greenish-gray/dark-gray/blackish-gray colored 28 – 31 3 10 – 24 Sand with clay mainly medium to fine sand dark-gray/blackish-gray colored moderate to relatively high water content 31 – 38 7 22 – 50 Fine to medium sand sometime with 10-20 mm gravel relatively low to moderate water content dark-gray colored 38 – 44 6 50 < Basalt mainly auto-breccia medium-hard rock CM-CH class relatively fresh green colored
Groundwater was observed around -0.5 m in the borehole.
15-47
Table 15.3.3-8 Boring Result (Mawo: MAW-L2) Depth(m) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 0 – 1 1 9 Silty gravel with sand including 10-20 mm gravel relatively high water content Yellowish-brown colored 1 – 2 1 6 Gravel with very fine sand stone (probably weathered rock) relatively low water content Yellowish-brown colored 2 – 4 2 2 Sandy clay relatively high water content including 10-20 mm gravel Dark-bluish-gray/gray colored 4 – 7 3 50 < Weathered rock strongly weathered relatively low water content soft rock D-CL class brownish-gray colored 7 – 26 19 50 < Volcanic rocks (andesite) sometime slightly weathered Medium-hard rock CL-CM class gray colored 26 – 30 4 50 < Medium-hard rock CL-CM class gray colored
Groundwater was observed around -1.0 m in the borehole.
b) Engineering Soil Layers
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 Thickness N-value Relative Soil Type Layer (m) Density/Stiffness Ag1 2 6 – 9 Loose Silty gravel, gravel Ac1 2 – 5 2 – 4 Soft Clay, and sandy clay As 2 8 – 12 Loose – medium dense Very fine sand Ag2 2 – 8 17 – 24 Loose – medium dense Gravel, and gravel with fine sand Ac2 13 7 – 12 Firm – stiff Clay with very fine sand Ds1 3 10 – 24 Medium dense Sand with clay Ds2 7 22 – 50 Medium dense – dense Fine – medium sand VR 6 50< Rock 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
Ag2 25 m
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 MAW- L2, 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 15.3.3-10 Boring Result (1st Mandaue-Mactan: MAN-E1) Depth(m) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 0 – 5 5 No core recovered 5 – 10 5 6 – 7 Clay with coral fragments soft moderate to relatively high water content Dark-gray colored 10 – 11 1 7 Silty sand mainly fine sand relatively high water content dark-gray colored 11 – 12 1 7 Sandy silt including fine sand relatively high water content dark gray colored 12 – 14 2 22 – 27 Sand mainly fine sand including silt relatively high water content Dark gray colored 14 – 16 2 29 – 30 Sand mainly medium sand relatively high water content dark gray colored 16 – 17 1 32 Gravel with silt including 10-30 mm gravels relatively high water content yellowish-brown colored 17 – 18 1 25 Clay relatively low water content yellowish-brown colored 18 – 19 1 35 Gravel with silt including 2-4 mm gravels relatively high water content yellowish brown colored 19 – 28 9 25 – 41 Clay with gravel relatively low to moderate water content 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 28 – 33 5 10 – 14 Clay relatively low to moderate water content sometime rock fragments moderate to relatively hard dark gray colored relatively low to moderate water content 33 – 35 2 15 Clay relatively low to moderate water content sometime including coral fragments and/or broken shell fragments moderate to relatively hard yellowish-brown colored relatively low to moderate water content 35 – 40 5 45 – 53 Clay
15-51
Depth(m) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters relatively low to moderate water content sometime including coral fragments and/or broken shell fragments moderate to relatively hard yellowish-brown colored relatively low to moderate water content 40 – 69 29 14 – 42 Clay relatively low to moderate water content sometime including few coral fragments and broken shell fragments moderate to relatively hard yellowish-brown colored relatively low to moderate water content 69 – 81 12 45 – 69 Silty sand (tentative)
Groundwater was observed around -6.0 m in the borehole.
Table 15.3.3-11 Boring Result (1st Mandaue-Mactan: MAN-W1) Depth(m) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 0 – 2 2 21 – 24 Clay with gravel including coral fragments moderate to relatively high water content brown colored 2 – 5 3 24 – 29 Coarse to medium sand including 10 mm gravels, and coral fragments relatively moderate water content brownish-gray/light brownish-gray colored 5 – 8 3 Gravelly sand or sand with gravel mainly coarse to medium sand moderate water content light brownish gray colored 8 – 10 2 Sand with gravel mainly coarse to medium sand moderate water content Light brownish gray colored 10 – 30 20 Coralline limestone light yellowish-gray colored/grayish-white colored weakly weathered soft rock porous below -23m: moderately weathered
Groundwater was observed around -3.00 m in the borehole.
b) Engineering Soil Layers
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 15.3.3-12 Engineering Soil Layers (MAN-E1 – MAN-W1) Soil Thickness N-value Relative Density/Stiffness Soil Type Layer (m) Ag 3 – 5 21 – 29 Medium dense Boulder with fines Ac 2 – 5 6 – 24 Firm – very stiff Clay with gravel, and clay with coral fragments As 1 7 Loose Sandy silt Ds1 4 22 – 30 Medium dense Sand Dg 2 32 – 35 Dense Gravel with silt Dc 1 25 Very stiff Clay Dgs 5 50< Very dense Gravelly sand, and sand with gravel Dc2 9 25 – 41 Very stiff – hard Clay with gravel Dc3 7 10 – 15 Stiff Clay / silt Dc4 5 45 – 53 Hard Clay / silt Dc5 29 14 – 42 Very stiff – hard Clay / silt Ds2 12 45 – 69 Hard Silty sand Lm 20 50< Rock Coralline limestone
A geological profile for the 1st Madnaue-Mactan Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.3-4.
15-53
Cebu Is. Mactan Is. MAN-W1 MAN-E1 Ac As Ag Dgs Ac As Ds Dg/Dc Dc2u Dc2L 50 m
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
(III) As: Alluvial Sand Loose to medium dense sand distributed below the Ac layer is classified into this soil layer.
(IV) Ds1: Diluvial Sand (1) 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 15.3.3-13 Boring Result (Biliran: BIL-N1) Depth (m) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 0 – 1 1 50 < Consolidated clay with gravel 1 – 16 15 50 < 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 16 – 30 14 50 < Basalt mainly auto-breccia dark-green/dark-gray colored medium hard rock CM-CH class
Groundwater was not observed around in the borehole.
Table 15.3.3-14 Boring Result (Biliran: BIL-S1) Depth (m) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 0 – 2 2 5 Clay with gravel including 15 mm gravel moderate water content dark-brown colored 2 – 20 18 50 < Andesite blackish gray/black colored medium hard rock relatively fresh, sometime slightly weathered 20 – 30 10 50 < Andesite relatively grassy weakly weathered soft/medium hard rock blackish gray/black colored
Groundwater was observed around -3.0 m in the borehole.
b) Engineering Soil Layers
Based on the boring logs of BIL-N1 and BIL-S1, the following soil layers can be identified (Table 15.3.3-15).
Table 15.3.3-15 Engineering Soil Layers (BIL-N1 – BIL-S1) Soil Thickness N-value Relative Soil Type Layer (m) Density/Stiffness Ac 2 5 Firm Clay with gravel Dc 1 50 Hard Consolidated clay with gravel VR 28 50< Rock Volcanic rocks: basalt, andesite, andesitic breccia
A geological profile for the Biliran Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.3-5.
15-56
Leyte Is. Bililan Is.
BIL-N1 Dc
BIL-S1 VR VR Ac 25 m
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 15.3.3-16 Boring Result (Liloan: LIL-N1) Depth(m) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 0 – 1 1 50 < Sandy silt (residual soil as weathered limestone) white colored relatively high water content 1 – 30 29 50 < Limestone coral/silty-sandy limestone relatively high porosity including fossils and calcite soft rock CL class
Groundwater was observed around -2.5 m in the borehole.
15-58
Table 15.3.3-17 Boring Result (Liloan: LIL-S1) Depth(m) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 0 – 2 2 50 < Gravel probably including boulders of andesite Dark-gray colored 2 – 4 2 33 – 40 Coarse to medium sand relatively high water content including broken shell fragments Blackish-gray/dark-gray colored 4 – 5 1 50 < Gravel probably including boulders of andesite dark-gray colored 5 – 7 2 32–50 < Sand with gravel mainly medium to fine sand including 10-5 mm gravel 7 – 9 2 50 < Gravel including probably boulders of andesite blackish-gray colored 9 – 10 1 50 < Sandy gravel mainly coarse sand including broken shell/coral fragments moderate water content blackish gray colored 10 – 12 2 50 < Gravel probably including boulders of andesite 12 – 13 1 50 < Sandy gravel including broken coral/shell fragments moderate water content blackish-gray colored 13 – 20 7 50 < Gravelly sand sometime sandy gravel mainly coarse to medium sand relatively poor in broken coral/shell fragments 20 – 22 2 50 < Sandy gravel probably including boulders of basalt relatively low to moderate water content blackish gray colored 22 – 30 8 50 < Sand medium to fine sand rich in broken coral/shell fragments relatively low water content blackish-gray/dark-gray colored
Groundwater was observed around -2.0 m in the borehole.
15-59
b) Engineering Soil Layers
Based on the boring logs of LIL-N1 and LIL-S1, the following soil layers can be identified (Table 15.3.3-18).
Table 15.3.3-18 Engineering Soil Layers (LIL-N1 – LIL-S1) Soil Thickness N-value Relative Soil Type Layer (m) Density/Stiffness Asg 6 5 Firm Gravel, boulder, and coarse – medium sand Dsg1 2 33 – 50< Dense Sand with gravel Dsg2 22 50< Very dense Gravel, gravelly sand, sand, and sandy gravel CL1 1< 50< Hard Strongly weathered limestone: sandy silt CL2 29 50< Rock 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.
LIL-S1. 25 m
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 15.3.3-19 Boring Result (Wawa: WAW-R1) Depth(m) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 0 – 4 4 12 – 20 Gravel with clay relatively high water content including gravels of 15 mm brownish-gray/yellowish-gray colored 4 – 9 5 23 – 47 Very fine sand with gravel and clay brownish-gray/yellowish-gray colored relatively low water content (probably strongly weathered sandstone) 9 – 12 3 46–50 ≤ Clay relatively low water content sometime consolidated dark-gray/greenish-gray colored 12 – 13 1 47 Clay with rock fragments relatively high water content greenish-gray colored 13 – 15 2 50 ≤ Clay with gravel relatively low water content greenish-gray/blackish-gray colored 15 – 17 2 50 ≤ (clay with rock fragments) no core recovered 17 – 18 1 50 ≤ Consolidated clay greenish-gray/blackish-gray colored 18 – 30 12 50 ≤ Clay with gravel relatively high water content including gravels of 10-30 mm in diameter (probably sheared/fractured clayey/silty rocks) blackish-gray/greenish-gray colored Groundwater was observed around -3.2 m in the borehole.
15-63
Table 15.3.3-20 Boring Result (Wawa: WAW-L1) Depth(m) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 0 – 4 4 20 – 30 Clay with gravel relatively low water content including gravels of 10-40 mm in diameter brownish-gray colored 4 – 6 2 30 Clay with gravel including gravel of 20-30 mm in diameter relatively low water content blackish-brown colored 6 – 7 1 40 Clay with gravel relatively high-moderate water content dark-gray/blackish-gray colored 7 – 10 3 49–50 ≤ Clay with gravel relatively high-moderate water content dark-gray/blackish-gray colored medium soft/hard 10 – 12 2 50 Clay with gravel relatively high-moderate water content dark-gray/blackish-gray colored relatively hard 12 – 14 2 50 ≤ Clay relatively high water content greenish-gray colored 14 – 19 5 41 –50≤ Clay relatively low water content bluish-gray/greenish-gray colored soft-hard, sometime consolidated 19 – 30 11 50 ≤ Clay sometime with gravel medium-soft hard dark-greenish-gray colored moderate water content relatively consolidated below -29 m
Groundwater was observed around -15.0 m in the borehole.
b) Engineering Soil Layers
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 15.3.3-21 Engineering Soil Layers (WAW-L1 – WAW-R1) Soil Thickness N-value Relative Density/Stiffness Soil Type Layer (m) BF 6 20 – 30 Very stiff Clay with gravel Ag 4 12 – 20 Medium dense – dense Gravel with clay Ac 5 23 – 47 Medium dense – dense Very fine sand Qc 21 41 – 50 Hard 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
As
Qc 25m
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.
(III) As: Alluvial Sand 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 15.3.3-22 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Buntun BTL-1 Natural Plasticity GL- Soil Major Soil ASTM Soil Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Moisture Index PI (m) Layer Type Classification Content (%) (%) 1 Ac1 Silty clay 0.0 49.0 51.0 9 ML 2 As Fine sand 8.5 88.1 3.4 SP 3 0.0 45.9 54.2 11 CL 4 0.0 35.7 64.3 2 ML 5 0.0 18.2 81.9 23 CL Clay 6 0.0 22.5 77.6 2 ML Ac2 7 0.0 12.5 87.5 21 CL 8 0.0 18.6 81.4 2 ML 9 0.0 11.7 88.3 7 ML Clay 10 0.0 4.9 95.1 10 MH 11 0.0 2.8 97.2 48.87 6 MH 12 0.0 99.2 0.8 SP Dc Silt 13 0.0 12.1 87.9 43.77 7 ML 14 0.0 14.1 85.9 46.63 6 ML 15 Very fine 16 sand 17 0.0 98.0 2.0 SP 18 0.0 99.5 0.5 SP 19 0.0 98.8 1.3 SP 20 3.4 95.7 0.9 SP 21 0.0 99.3 0.7 SP 22 0.0 99.1 0.9 SP Ds2 23 Very fine 0.0 98.3 1.7 SP 24 sand 0.0 94.0 6.0 SP-SC 25 0.0 97.8 2.2 SP 26 0.0 94.5 5.5 SP 27 11.2 89.0 0.3 SP 28 0.0 99.0 1.0 SP 29 0.0 97.7 2.3 SP 30 0.0 99.0 1.0 SP
15-67
Table 15.3.3-23 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Buntun BTL-2 Natural Plasticity GL- Gravel Moisture ASTM Soil Soil Layer Major Soil Type Sand (%) Fines (%) Index PI (m) (%) Content Classification (%) (%) 1 0.0 94.4 5.6 51.5 SP-SC 2 0.0 99.1 1.0 36.1 SP 3 0.0 99.6 0.4 26.3 SP Very fine sand 4 0.0 99.1 0.9 30.5 SP 5 0.0 99.2 0.8 30.9 SP 6 0.0 99.5 0.5 33.7 SP 7 As 0.0 99.6 0.4 19.6 SP 8 0.0 99.8 0.2 12.9 SP 9 0.5 99.1 0.5 23.9 SP Fine to medium 10 0.7 98.8 0.5 26.3 SP sand 11 0.0 99.8 0.2 27.4 SP 12 0.0 99.5 0.5 20.1 SP 13 0.7 99.0 0.2 19.8 SP 14 V. fine sand 0.0 99.1 0.9 38.0 SP 15 Ds1 Fine to med. sand 0.0 99.5 0.5 23.9 SP 16 V. fine sand 0.0 98.7 1.3 35.9 SP 17 18 19 5.5 94.1 0.4 3.8 SP 20 3.6 95.9 0.5 7.7 SP 21 2.4 97.1 0.5 8.7 SP Very fine sand 22 6.5 92.8 0.8 15.7 SP 23 1.0 97.7 1.3 14.7 SP Ds2 24 0.0 99.2 0.8 26.7 SP 25 26 40.3 56.9 2.8 13.8 SP 27 0.0 97.5 2.5 31.9 SP 28 0.0 96.6 3.4 28.9 SP Very fine sand 29 0.0 97.3 2.7 31.9 SP 30 0.3 98.4 1.4 30.4 SP
2) Palanit Bridge
A tentative laboratory soil tests results are shown in Table 15.3.3-24 and Table 15.3.3-25.
Table 15.3.3-24 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Palanit PAL-L1 Natural Plasticity GL- Major Soil Moisture ASTM Soil Soil Layer Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Index PI (m) Type Content Classification (%) (%) 1 0.0 96.8 3.2 27.0 SP 2 8.9 87.9 3.2 19.0 SW Dsg Clayey sand 3 0.0 95.0 5.0 29.1 SP 4 0.0 95.8 4.2 29.2 SP 5 Ds Silty sand 0.0 97.2 2.8 30.7 SP Clay with 6 Dc 0.0 48.3 51.7 25.4 9 MH gravel
Table 15.3.3-25 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Palanit PAL-R1 Natural Plasticity GL- Major Soil Moisture ASTM Soil Soil Layer Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Index PI (m) Type Content Classification (%) (%) 1 Gravely 13.3 84.1 2.7 21.0 SP Asg 2 sand 20.1 76.8 3.0 20.3 SW
15-68
3) Mawo Bridge
A tentative laboratory soil tests results are shown in Table 15.3.3-26 and Table 15.3.3-27.
Table 15.3.3-26 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Mawo MAW-L1 Natural Plasticity GL- Soil Major Soil Moisture ASTM Soil Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Index PI (m) Layer Type Content Classification (%) (%) 0.0 37.7 62.3 46.4 16 CL 2 0.0 43.7 56.3 72.6 2 MH 3 Ac1 Clay 0.0 43.7 56.3 54.7 2 MH 4 0.0 20.3 79.7 73.8 8 MH 5 0.0 97.8 2.2 69.1 SP 6 0.0 98.5 1.5 56.6 SP As V. fine sand 7 0.0 98.5 1.5 46.3 SP 8 Gravel with 80.0 19.8 0.2 6.9 SW 9 silt 33.2 66.2 0.6 15.7 SW 10 24.4 75.4 0.2 24.7 SP Gravel 11 Ag 49.6 49.4 1.1 13.7 SW 12 39.1 59.7 1.3 14.9 SW 13 41.7 55.2 3.1 13.5 SP Gravel 14 69.6 30.2 0.2 13.9 SW 15 5.4 93.0 1.6 24.1 SP Clay with 16 very fine 0.0 38.2 61.8 58.0 12 MH sand 17 0.0 32.0 68.0 54.9 9 MH 18 0.0 27.9 72.1 56.0 4 MH 19 0.0 43.4 56.6 59.7 2 MH 20 0.0 24.3 75.7 64.1 4 MH Ac2 21 Clay with 0.0 43.4 56.6 51.9 5 MH 22 very fine 0.0 64.4 35.6 44.6 4 ML 23 sand 0.0 56.6 43.4 66.2 4 MH 24 0.0 39.5 60.5 43.5 4 ML 25 0.0 64.7 35.3 53.4 3 ML 26 1.1 96.6 2.4 46.1 SP 27 0.3 98.1 1.6 51.8 SP 28 0.0 30.7 69.3 42.5 12 CL 29 0.0 99.1 0.9 55.3 SP Sand with 30 Ds1 0.0 99.2 0.8 57.3 SP clay 31 32 0.0 97.7 2.3 26.5 SP 33 0.0 99.6 0.4 22.0 SP 34 Fine to 10.7 86.8 2.5 39.8 SP 35 Ds2 Medium 19.0 79.6 1.4 33.3 SP 36 sand 61.6 37.2 1.2 14.1 SP 37 0.0 97.8 2.2 30.0 SP 38 2.6 95.9 1.5 25.6 SP
Table 15.3.3-27 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Mawo MAW-L2 Natural Plasticity GL- Major Soil Moisture ASTM Soil Soil Layer Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Index PI (m) Type Content Classification (%) (%) 1 Silty gravel 20.7 40.2 39.1 30.8 6 ML Ag 2 Gravel 0.0 99.0 58.6 17.1 10 ML 3 27.4 92.1 31.5 19.0 SC-SM 4 Ac1 Sandy clay 0.7 98.9 0.5 32.2 SP 5 0.42 99.38 0.20 14.4 SP
15-69
4) 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge
A tentative laboratory soil tests results are shown in Table 15.3.3-28 and Table 15.3.3-29.
Table 15.3.3-28 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of MAN-E1 Natural Plasticity Soil Gravel Moisture ASTM Soil GL-(m) Major Soil Type Sand (%) Fines (%) Index PI Layer (%) Content Classification (%) (%) 34.1 65.7 0.2 15.6 SW 2 35.0 64.8 0.2 17.4 SW 3 Ag Gravel? 25.3 74.5 0.2 12.8 SW 4 26.4 72.9 0.7 17.1 SP 5 35.5 64.1 0.4 15.3 SP 6 0.0 3.9 96.1 49.5 18 CL 7 0.0 5.8 94.2 58.3 27 MH 8 Ac Clay 0.0 8.8 91.2 46.1 9 ML 9 0.0 15.0 85.0 45.3 19 ML 10 0.0 15.2 84.8 44.9 7 ML 11 Silty sand 0.0 50.7 49.3 33.9 6 ML 12 Sandy silt 0.0 46.7 53.3 35.1 8 ML 13 2.0 74.4 23.6 29.1 SC-SM As Sand with silt 14 0.6 76.1 23.3 29.0 SC-SM 15 1.4 98.1 0.5 22.0 SP Med. to fine sand 16 1.7 98.1 0.2 24.0 SP Gravelly sand 17 4.2 95.2 0.6 24.7 SP with silt 18 Dg Clay 19.4 80.0 0.6 34.0 SW 19 Dc1 Gravel with silt 33.9 65.9 0.2 18.7 SP 20 Dg Clay with gravel 0.0 16.7 83.3 13.2 28 CH 21 0.0 18.7 81.4 19.0 25 CH 22 0.0 5.8 94.2 32.0 29 CH 23 0.0 18.9 81.1 37.9 25 CH 24 Clay 0.0 9.2 90.8 29.9 25 CH Dc2 25 0.0 18.5 81.5 33.8 26 CH 26 0.0 18.5 81.5 38.3 26 CH 27 0.0 28.4 71.6 29.9 23 CH 28 Silty clay 0.0 44.0 56.0 24.3 28 CH 29 0.2 54.6 45.2 21.3 28 CH 30 0.0 7.0 93.1 22.3 23 CH 31 0.0 5.7 94.3 23.6 28 CH 32 Dc3 Clay 0.0 2.8 97.2 31.2 26 CH 33 0.0 3.1 96.9 49.0 24 CH 34 0.0 2.9 97.1 23.6 26 CH 35 0.0 3.2 96.8 36.2 29 CH 36 Clay 2.7 37.2 60.1 25.5 24 CH 37 Clay 0.0 17.0 83.0 26.2 28 CH 38 Dc4 Clay 0.0 10.0 90.0 29.6 23 CH 39 Clay 0.0 6.5 93.5 15.5 28 CH 40 Clay 0.0 2.4 97.6 26.0 23 CH 41 0.0 2.1 97.9 41.1 24 CH 42 0.0 7.5 92.5 17.1 25 CH 43 0.0 3.3 96.7 45.7 23 CH 44 0.0 10.4 89.6 36.0 23 CH 45 0.0 5.9 94.1 16.8 24 CH Dc5 Clay 46 0.0 6.5 93.5 26.7 24 CH 47 0.0 15.6 84.4 30.5 24 CH 48 0.0 50.9 49.1 25.4 26 CH 49 0.6 48.8 50.6 26.0 26 CH 50 0.4 44.3 55.3 27.4 24 CH
15-70
Natural Plasticity Soil Gravel Moisture ASTM Soil GL-(m) Major Soil Type Sand (%) Fines (%) Index PI Layer (%) Content Classification (%) (%) 51 1.5 42.5 56.0 25.2 28 CH 52 0.0 43.8 56.2 28.6 25 CH 53 0.0 48.9 51.1 25.6 26 CH 54 0.0 48.6 51.4 26.6 24 CH 55 0.3 56.0 43.7 22.1 24 CH 56 0.0 53.2 46.8 23.9 26 CH 57 0.5 45.4 54.1 23.4 26 CH 58 0.0 45.3 54.7 26.3 24 CH 59 0.0 51.7 48.3 21.6 25 CH 60 0.0 51.9 48.1 18.6 26 CH 61 0.0 24.4 75.6 20.9 23 CH 62 1.0 36.0 63.0 16.9 25 CH 63 0.5 37.1 62.5 17.2 26 CH 64 0.0 3.3 96.7 30.5 25 CH 65 0.0 1.5 98.5 32.7 25 CH 66 0.0 3.0 97.0 30.8 23 CH 67 0.0 1.9 98.1 31.7 24 CH 68 0.0 7.4 92.6 29.1 25 CH 69 0.0 4.5 95.5 25.9 27 CH 70 3.3 69.7 27.0 15.1 SC-SM 71 2.7 69.8 27.5 15.4 SC-SM 72 4.3 69.6 26.1 13.8 SC-SM 73 2.9 67.1 30.0 16.5 SC-SM 74 13.3 57.4 29.3 7.4 SC-SM 75 0.9 72.3 26.8 26.4 SC-SM Ds2 Silty sand 76 0.9 72.5 26.6 27.3 SC-SM 77 0.7 71.9 27.4 39.8 SC-SM 78 1.4 68.6 30.0 15.0 SC-SM 79 0.0 71.2 28.8 17.0 SC-SM 80 1.1 71.3 27.6 21.6 SC-SM 81 1.5 70.1 28.4 18.4 SC-SM
Table 15.3.3-29 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of MAN-W1 Natural Plasticity Soil Gravel Moisture ASTM Soil GL-(m) Major Soil Type Sand (%) Fines (%) Index PI Layer (%) Content Classification (%) (%) 1 Ac 10.1 8.3 81.6 35.7 13 CL Clay with gravel 2 Ac 75.5 14.5 10.0 36.3 SP 3 As 20.5 79.5 0.0 15.6 SP 4 As Coarse to 36.4 63.3 0.3 14.7 SP 5 As medium sand 13.5 86.3 0.3 15.5 SP 6 Dgs 16.9 83.1 0.0 15.2 SP 7 Dgs 6.3 93.8 0.0 17.75 SP 8 Dgs Gravelly sand 21.4 78.7 0.0 16.23 SP 9 Dgs 19.5 80.5 0.0 18.21 SP 10 Ac Gravelly sand 11.8 88.2 0.0 17.19 SP
15-71
5) Biliran Bridge
A tentative laboratory soil tests results are shown in Table 15.3.3-30 and Table 15.3.3-30.
Table 15.3.3-30 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of BIL-N1 Natural Plasticity Soil Major Soil Moisture ASTM Soil GL-(m) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Index PI Layer Type Content Classification (%) (%) Clay with 1 Dc 0.0 27.8 72.2 29.8 8 MH gravel
Table 15.3.3-31 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of BIL-S1 Natural Plasticity Soil Major Soil Moisture ASTM Soil GL-(m) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Index PI Layer Type Content Classification (%) (%) 1 Clay with 0.0 31.9 68.1 47.4 5 ML Ac 2 gravel 0.0 49.5 50.6 47.6 7 MH
6) Liloan Bridge
A tentative laboratory soil tests results are shown in Table 15.3.3-32 and Table 15.3.3-33.
Table 15.3.3-32 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of LIL-N1 Natural Plasticity Soil Major Soil Moisture ASTM Soil GL-(m) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Index PI Layer Type Content Classification (%) (%) 1 CL1 Sandy silt 0.0 86.4 54.6 21.0 3 ML
15-72
Table 15.3.3-33 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of LIL-S1 Natural Plasticity Soil Fines Moisture ASTM Soil GL-(m) Major Soil Type Gravel (%) Sand (%) Index PI Layer (%) Content Classification (%) (%) 1 Gravel 2 3 Asg Coarse to 0.0 99.1 0.9 30.2 SP 4 medium sand 0.0 99.5 0.5 26.7 SP 5 Gravel 6 Sand with 8.7 90.6 0.7 18.1 SP Dsg1 7 gravel 8 Gravel 9 10 Sandy gravel 25.2 74.6 0.2 11.10 SW 11 Gravel 12 13 Sandy gravel 24.7 75.1 0.2 12.30 SW 14 4.4 95.4 0.2 9.30 SP 15 33.3 66.5 0.2 10.10 SW 16 17 Gravelly sand 9.0 90.8 0.2 17.40 SW 18 18.6 81.2 0.2 18.60 SP 19 Dsg2 20 7.5 92.2 0.2 23.20 SP 21 22.2 77.2 0.6 10.70 SP Sandy gravel 22 23 17.7 82.1 0.2 0.07 SP 24 25 19.9 80.0 0.2 6.63 SW 26 Sand 27 28 19.7 80.1 0.2 7.60 SP 29 29.7 70.2 0.2 6.60 SP 30 16.7 83.1 0.2 5.70 SP
15-73
7) Wawa Bridge
A tentative laboratory soil tests results are shown in Table 15.3.3-34 and Table 15.3.3-35.
Table 15.3.3-34 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of WAW-L1 Natural Plasticity Soil Major Soil ASTM Soil GL-(m) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Moisture Index PI Layer Type Classification Content (%) (%) 1 5.5 56.1 38.4 19.6 18 CL 2 Clay with 5.3 35.8 58.9 13.0 15 CL 3 gravel 8.8 59.1 32.1 19.7 SC-SM BF 4 41.7 36.0 22.3 14.0 SC-SM 5 Clay with 0.8 39.4 59.9 31.4 13 CL 6 gravel 8.3 34.3 57.4 29.5 12 CL Clay with 7 0.0 11.1 89.0 32.30 10 CL gravel 8 0.0 7.2 92.8 41.82 11 CL Clay with 9 0.0 6.1 93.9 43.4 14 CL gravel 10 0.0 7.3 92.7 42.7 11 CL 11 Clay with 0.0 5.6 94.5 46.1 19 MH 12 gravel 0.0 8.8 91.2 40.9 10 MH 13 0.0 3.4 96.6 33.1 30 MH Clay 14 0.0 1.9 98.1 38.1 14 MH 15 0.0 1.6 98.4 25.3 11 MH 16 0.0 3.0 97.0 26.2 22 MH 17 Clay 0.0 1.3 98.7 30.6 11 MH 18 Qc 0.0 3.3 96.8 27.5 12 MH 19 0.0 11.7 88.3 30.6 11 MH 20 0.0 33.3 66.7 26.3 18 MH 21 0.0 31.4 68.6 44.3 8 OL 22 3.2 6.1 90.7 50.4 14 MH 23 0.0 5.3 94.8 44.1 5 ML 24 0.0 8.7 91.3 47.1 9 ML 25 Clay 0.0 6.4 93.6 51.3 4 ML 26 0.0 9.7 90.3 26.7 6 ML 27 0.0 5.6 94.4 42.0 17 OH 28 0.0 10.5 89.5 30.6 14 OH 29 0.0 1.6 98.4 35.1 11 MH 30 0.0 3.2 96.8 40.6 16 MH
15-74
Table 15.3.3-35 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of WAW-R1 Natural Plasticity Soil Major Soil ASTM Soil GL-(m) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Moisture Index PI Layer Type Classification Content (%) (%) Sand and 1 20.3 79.1 0.6 13.7 SP gravel Clayey gravel 2 Ag 9.3 90.3 0.4 8.6 SP and sand 3 Clay with 20.9 37.2 41.8 40.8 14 MH 4 gravel 44.1 23.3 32.6 21.5 SC-SM 5 Clayey gravel 48.6 23.5 27.9 14.4 SC-SM 6 and sand 4.8 47.1 48.2 22.2 7 ML Very fine sand 7 As with fines and 0.0 98.6 1.4 16.67 SP gravel 8 Weathered 9 rock (boulder) 10 8.7 36.6 54.7 20.94 16 MH Clay 11 3.6 23.2 73.2 21.38 11 MH 12 0.0 9.7 90.3 16.36 12 CL Clay with 13 23.9 29.4 46.7 17.67 13 MH gravel 14 10.5 24.4 65.2 20.06 13 MH 15 boulder 16 9.3 56.9 33.8 19.09 SC-SM Gravel 17 10.1 58.6 31.3 17.50 SC-SM 18 Silt 0.0 9.9 90.1 29.60 14 MH 19 0.0 7.9 92.1 47.71 15 CL Clay 20 Qc 0.0 6.1 93.9 46.52 14 CL 21 0.0 3.6 96.4 47.14 17 CL 22 0.0 6.0 94.0 49.15 16 CL 23 0.0 8.3 91.7 46.97 13 CL 24 3.3 16.5 80.2 43.03 15 CL 25 0.0 13.7 86.3 38.80 12 CL Gravelly clay 26 0.0 8.5 91.5 35.69 13 CL 27 0.0 7.9 92.1 44.75 14 CL 28 0.5 10.6 88.9 46.69 12 CL 29 0.0 9.0 91.0 40.26 13 CL 30 0.0 8.9 91.1 41.89 15 CL
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
A rigid soil layer with Vs≥300 m/sec is distributed at a depth of 40 m below the ground 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.
Table 15.3.4-1 Standard Design Lateral Force Coefficient for Liquefaction Potential Assessment
JRA Ground JRA Ground Bridge site Location TG Location TG Type Type Delpan Passig (Left) III 0.66 Passig (Right) ( II ) 0.42 Nagtahan Passig (Left) II 0.49 Passig (Right) ( II ) 0.34 Lambingan Passig (Left) ( II ) 0.31 Passig (Right) II 0.23 Guadalupe Passig (Left) ( I ) 0.15 Passig (Right) III 0.59
Metro Manila Marikina Marikina (Left) ( I ) 0.09 Marikina (Right) II 0.47 Palanit Left bank I 0.05 Right bank I 0.09 Mawo Left bank I 0.13 Right bank III 0.72 Biliran Biliran side I 0.01 Leyte side I 0.03 Liloan Leyte side I 0.01 Panaon side I 0.11 1st Mandaue-Mactan Cebu side I 0.08 Mactan side II 0.27 Provinces Provinces Buntun Left bank II 0.29 Right bank II 0.38 Wawa Wawa (Left) I 0.08 Wawa (Right) I 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
A rigid soil layer with Vs≥300 m/sec is distributed at a depth of 24 m below the ground 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 A rigid soil layer with Vs≥300 m/sec is distributed at a depth of 6 m below the ground surface at the borehole. The rigid layer is a very dense sand and gravel layer (Dsg2) with N- values 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 A rigid soil layer with Vs≥300 m/sec is distributed at a depth of 64 m below the ground 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 A rigid soil layer with Vs≥300 m/sec is distributed at a depth of 6 m below the ground 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) Soil Type Condition of soil Unit Angle of Cohesion weight * internal friction (kN/m3) (degree) (kN/m2) Gravel/Sand with gravel Compacted 20 40 0 Sand Compacted Well graded 20 35 0 Poorly graded 19 30 0 Sandy soil Compacted 19 25 ≤ 30 Clayey/Silty soil Compacted 18 15 ≤ 50
Artificial Ground Ground Artificial Loam Compacted 14 20 ≤ 10 Gravel Dense or well graded 20 40 0 Not-dense (loose) or poorly graded 18 35 0 Sand with gravel Dense or well graded 21 40 0 Not-dense (loose) or poorly graded 19 35 0 Sand Dense or well graded 20 35 0 Not-dense (loose) or poorly graded 18 30 0 Sandy soil Dense or well graded 19 30 ≤ 30 Not-dense (loose) or poorly graded 17 25 0 Clayey/Silty soil Hard 18 25 ≤ 50
Natural Ground Slightly soft 17 20 ≤ 30 Soft 16 15 ≤ 15 Clay, and Silt Hard 17 20 ≤ 50 Slightly soft 16 15 ≤ 30 Soft 14 10 ≤ 15 Loam 14 5 (ϕu) ≤ 30 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 2 σv’: effective overburden pressure (kN/m ) 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.
2 E0=700·N (kN/m )
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 Layer Soil Type N values Nd γt C Φ E0 Vsn (m) (kN/m3) (kN/ (º) (kN/m2) (m/sec) m2) -8 As Sandy 11 – 17 13 17 0 34 9,013 188 -21 Ac Silty/Clayey 4 – 10 6 15 36 0 4,083 180 -32 Dc Silty/Clayey 9 – 13 15 18 94 0 10,558 247 -38 Ds Sandy 50/15 -50/25 84 19 0 39 35,000< 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). Soil parameters for bridge design are proposed in Table 15.3.4-5 below.
Table 15.3.4-5 Proposed Soil Parameters for Nagtahan B-1 Site
Depth Layer Soil Type N values Nd γt C Φ E0 Vsn (m) name (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (º) (kN/m2) (m/sec) -2 Bs Sandy 6 – 18 12 17 0 34 8,400 183 -12 As Sandy 4 – 14 10 17 0 32 7,210 174 -17 Ag Gravelly 13 – 17 16 17 0 33 10,920 200 -23 Ds Sandy 14 – 23 19 17 0 33 13,183 213 -30 GF Rock 50 ≤ 50 ≤ 21 – – – 300 < *Vsn: shear wave velocity (m/sec) assumed using conversion formula from N to Vs proposed by JRA
15-81
(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). Soil parameters for bridge design are proposed in Table 15.3.4-6 below.
Table 15.3.4-6 Proposed Soil Parameters for Lambingan B-1 Site
Depth Layer Soil Type N Nd γt C Φ E0 Vsn (m) name (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (º) (kN/m2) (m/sec) -1 Bs Sandy 12 12 17 0 35 8,400 183 -6 As Sandy 6 – 21 11 17 0 34 7,980 180 -10 Dc Silty/Clayey 6 – 9 8 17 47 0 5,250 196 -11 WGF Rock 28 28 21 – – – 273 -30 GF Rock 50/0 50 ≤ 21 – – – 300 < *Vsn: shear wave velocity (m/sec) assumed using conversion formula from N to Vs proposed by JRA
(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). Soil parameters for bridge design are proposed in Table 15.3.4-7 below.
Table 15.3.4-7 Proposed Soil Parameters for Guadalupe B-1 Site
Depth Layer Soil Type N values Nd γt C Φ E0 Vsn (m) name (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (º) (kN/m2) (m/sec) -2 BF Sandy – – 18 – – – – -6 As Sandy 8 – 28 15 17 0 35 10,675 198 -10 Dg Gravelly 34 – 50 ≤ 43 18 0 39 30,100 280 -40 Ds1 Sandy 26 – 46 36 17 0 36 25,410 265 -46 Ds2 Sandy 50 , 50 < 19 0 39 35,000< 350 < *Vsn: shear wave velocity (m/sec) assumed using conversion formula from N to Vs proposed by JRA
(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). Soil parameters for bridge design are proposed in Table 15.3.4-8 below.
Table 15.3.4-8 Proposed Soil Parameters for Marikina B-1 Site
Depth Layer Soil Type N values Nd γt C Φ E0 Vsn (m) name (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (º) (kN/m2) (m/sec) -7 Asc Sandy 3 – 10 7 17 0 31 4,800 152 -14 As Sandy 10 – 25 17 17 0 34 11,600 204 -18 Asg Gravelly 27 – 34 30 17 0 36 20,650 247 -24 Ds1 Sandy 40 – 61 46 17 0 37 32,083 286 -30 Ds2 Sandy 50 < 50 < 19 0 40 35,000< 400 < *Vsn: shear wave velocity (m/sec) assumed using conversion formula from N to Vs proposed by JRA
15-82
(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 Layer Soil Type N values Nd γt C Φ E0 Vsn (m) name (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (º) (kN/m2) (m/sec) -1 Ac1 Silty/Clayey 6 6 15 38 0 4,200 182 -2 As Sandy 6 6 17 0 31 4,200 145 -10 Ac2 Silty/Clayey 2 – 7 5 15 30 0 3,413 170 -14 Dc Silty/Clayey 25 – 32 28 18 173 0 19,425 303 -30 Ds2 Sandy 50 < 50 < 19 0 42 35,000< 400 < *Vsn: shear wave velocity (m/sec) assumed using conversion formula from N to Vs proposed by JRA
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 15.3.4-10 Proposed Soil Parameters for Buntun BTL-2 Site
Depth Layer Soil Type N values Nd γt C Φ E0 Vsn (m) name (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (º) (kN/m2) (m/sec) -13 As Sandy 6 – 12 8 17 0 32 5,600 163 -16 Ds1 Sandy 30 – 33 32 19 0 37 22,400 245 -30 Ds2 Sandy 50 ≤ 50 ≤ 19 0 37 35,000 300 < *Vsn: shear wave velocity (m/sec) assumed using conversion formula from N to Vs proposed by JRA
(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 15.3.4-11 Proposed Soil Parameters for Palanit PAL-L1 Site
Depth Layer Soil Type N values Nd γt C Φ E0 Vsn (m) name (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (º) (kN/m2) (m/sec) -4 Dsg Sandy 15 – 46 15 18 0 39 22,400 197 -5 Ds Sandy 50 50 19 0 41 35,000 295 -6 Dc Silty/Clayey 49 49 18 306 0 34,300 366 -30 VR Rock 50 < 50 < 21 – – – 300 < *Vsn: shear wave velocity (m/sec) assumed using conversion formula from N to Vs proposed by JRA
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 15.3.4-12 Proposed Soil Parameters for PAL-R1 Site
Depth Layer Soil Type N values Nd γt C Φ E0 Vsn (m) name (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (º) (kN/m2) (m/sec) -2 Asg Sandy 8 – 9 9 17 0 33 5,950 163 -30 VR Rock 50 < 50 < – – – – 300< *Vsn: shear wave velocity (m/sec) assumed using conversion formula from N to Vs proposed by JRA
(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 15.3.4-13 Proposed Soil Parameters for Mawo MAW-L1 Site
Depth Layer Soil Type N values Nd γt C Φ E0 Vsn (m) name (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (º) (kN/m2) (m/sec) -5 Ac1 Silty/Clayey 2 – 4 3 14 20 0 2,240 147 -7 As Sandy 8 – 12 10 17 0 34 7,000 172 -15 Ag Gravelly 17 – 24 22 18 0 36 15,225 223 -28 Ac2 Silty/Clayey 7 – 12 9 18 54 0 6,085 206 -31 Ds1 Sandy 10 – 24 17 17 0 32 11,900 206 -38 Ds2 Sandy 22 – 43 32 19 0 34 22,300 254 -44 VR Rock 50 ≤ 50 21 – – – 300 < *Vsn: shear wave velocity (m/sec) assumed using conversion formula from N to Vs proposed by JRA
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 15.3.4-14 Proposed Soil Parameters for Mawo MAW-L2 Site
Depth Layer Soil Type N values Nd γt C Φ E0 Vsn (m) name (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (º) (kN/m2) (m/sec) -2 Ag Gravelly 6 – 9 8 18 0 32 5,250 157 -4 Ac1 Silty/Clayey 2 2 14 13 0 1,400 126 -5 As1 Sandy 50/15 100 19 0 41 35,000< 213 -30 VR Rock 50 < 50 < – – – – 300 < *Vsn: shear wave velocity (m/sec) assumed using conversion formula from N to Vs proposed by JRA
(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 15.3.4-15 Proposed Soil Parameters for 1st Mandaue-Mactan MAN-E1 Site
Depth Layer Soil Type N values Nd γt C Φ E0 Vsn (m) name (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (º) (kN/m2) (m/sec) -5 Ag Gravelly 18-29 23 18 0 37 16,100 226 -10 Ac Silty/Clayey 6-8 7 15 44 0 4,900 191 -12 As Sandy 7 7 17 0 29 4,900 153 -16 Ds1 Sandy 22-30 27 17 0 35 18,900 240 -17 Dg1 Gravelly 32 32 18 0 36 22,400 254 -18 Dc1 Silty/Clayey 25 25 18 156 0 17,500 292 -19 Dg2 Gravelly 35 35 18 0 36 24,500 262 -22 Dc2u Silty/Clayey 13 - 41 23 18 144 0 16,100 284 -28 Dc2ℓ -35 Dc3 Silty/Clayey 10 – 15 13 18 81 0 9,100 235 -40 Dc4 Silty/Clayey 45 – 53 48 18 300 0 33,600 363 -69 Dc5 Silty/Clayey 7 - 42 20 18 125 0 14,000 271 -81 Ds2 Silty/Clayey 45 – 50 < 50 < 19 0 41 35,000< 300 < *Vsn: shear wave velocity (m/sec) assumed using conversion formula from N to Vs proposed by JRA
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 15.3.4-16 Proposed Soil Parameters for 1st Mandaue-Mactan MAN-W1 Site
Depth Layer Soil Type N values Nd γt C Φ E0 Vsn (m) name (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (º) (kN/m2) (m/sec) -2 Ac Silty/Clayey 21 – 24 23 18 144 0 16,100 282 -5 As Sandy 24 – 29 26 17 0 38 18,200 238 -10 Dgs Gravelly/sandy 50 < 50 < 20 0 40 35,000 300 < -30 Lm Rock 50 < 50 < 21 – – – 300 < *Vsn: shear wave velocity (m/sec) assumed using conversion formula from N to Vs proposed by JRA
15-85
(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 15.3.4-17 Proposed Soil Parameters for Biliran BIL-N1 Site
Depth Layer Soil Type N values Nd γt C Φ E0 Vsn (m) name (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (º) (kN/m2) (m/sec) -1 Dc Silty/Clayey 50 < 50 < 18 313< 0 35,000< 300 < -30 VR Rock 50 < 50 < – – – 35,000< 300 < *Vsn: shear wave velocity (m/sec) assumed using conversion formula from N to Vs proposed by JRA
Table 15.3.4-18 Proposed Soil Parameters for Biliran BIL-S1 Site
Depth Layer Soil Type N values Nd γt C Φ E0 Vsn (m) name (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (º) (kN/m2) (m/sec) -2 Ac Silty/Clayey 5 – 50 33 18 203 0 35,000< 319 -30 VR Rock 50 < 50 < – – – 35,000< 300 < *Vsn: shear wave velocity (m/sec) assumed using conversion formula from N to Vs proposed by JRA
(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 15.3.4-19 Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan LIL-S1 Site
Depth Layer Soil Type N values Nd γt C Φ E0 Vsn (m) name (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (º) (kN/m2) (m/sec) -1 CL1 Silty/Clayey 50/10 50 < 18 313 0 35,000< 300 < -30 CL2 Limestone 50 < 50 < 21 – – 35,000< 300 < *Vsn: shear wave velocity (m/sec) assumed using conversion formula from N to Vs proposed by JRA
Table 15.3.4-20 Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan LIL-S1 Site
Depth Layer Soil Type N values Nd γt C Φ E0 Vsn (m) name (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (º) (kN/m2) (m/sec) -5 Asg Gravelly/Sandy 33 – 50 < 37 18 0 41 22,750 255 -7 Dsg1 Gravelly/Sandy 32 – 50 < 32 20 0 44 35,000< 254 -30 Dsg2 Gravelly/Sandy 50 < 50 < 20 0 45 35,000< 300< *Vsn: shear wave velocity (m/sec) assumed using conversion formula from N to Vs proposed by JRA
15-86
(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 15.3.4-21 Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan WAW-L1 Site
Depth Layer Soil Type N values Nd γt C Φ E0 Vsn (m) name (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (º) (kN/m2) (m/sec) -6 BF Silty/Clayey 20 – 30 33 18 169 0 18,900 300 -30 Qc Silty/Clayey 40 – 50 < 50 < 18 313 < 0 35,000< 300 < *Vsn: shear wave velocity (m/sec) assumed using conversion formula from N to Vs proposed by JRA
Table 15.3.4-22 Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan WAW-R1 Site
Depth Layer Soil Type N values Nd γt C Φ E0 Vsn (m) name (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (º) (kN/m2) (m/sec) -4 Ag Gravelly/Sandy 12 – 21 26 18 0 38 17,850 235 -9 As Sandy 23 – 47 37 19 0 41 26,075 267
-30 Qc Silty/Clayey 46 – 50 < 50 < 18 313 < 0 35,000< 300 < *Vsn: shear wave velocity (m/sec) assumed using conversion formula from N to Vs proposed by JRA
(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: Total and effective vertical overburden stress amax: Peak horizontal acceleration at the ground surface generated by the earthquake γd: Stress reduction coefficient =1.0-0.00765·z for z<=9.15m =1.174-0.0267·z for 9.15m 2 CRR7.5={1/[34-(N1)60]}+{(N1)60/135}+{50/[10(N1)60+45] }-[1/200] (N1)60: 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 0.5 CN=(Pa/σv’0) 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 (N1)60cs: Corrected (N1)60 value based on fines content (%) (N1)60cs: α+β·(N1)60 α=0 for FC<=5% α=exp[1.76-(190/FC2)] for 5% 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 No within 10 m from the ground surface Saturated soil layers within 20 m No from the ground surface Yes Grain size analysis No (one sample per one meter) No D50 ≤ 10 mm Yes No D10 ≤ 1 mm Yes Fine Content FC ≤ 35% No Atterberg limit test Yes Yes Plasticity Index No PI ≤ 15 To assess liquefaction potential 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 Cw=2.0 (0.4 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 2 σv: Overburden pressure (kN/m ) at a depth of x (m) 2 σv’: Effective overburden pressure (kN/m ) at a depth of x (m) x: a depth (m) below the ground surface 15-91 Table 15.3.4-23 Standard Design Lateral Force Coefficient for Liquefaction Potential Assessment Level 1 seismic Level 2 (Type I) Level 2 (Type II) motion seismic motion seismic motion Type I Ground 0.12 0.50 0.80 Type II Ground 0.15 0.45 0.70 Type III Ground 0.18 0.40 0.60 c) Cyclic Tri-axial Strength Ratio (RL) 0.5 RL=0.0882·(Na/1.7) [Na<14] 0.5 -6 4.5 RL=0.0882·(Na/1.7) +1.6·10 ·(Na-14) [Na≥14] 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) 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 2 σv b’: Effective overburden pressure at a depth of SPT (kN/m ) 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 15.3.4-24 Comparison 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 Liquefaction potential of B-1 borehole is shown in Figure 15.3.4-3. 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 Liquefaction potential of B-1 borehole is shown in Figure 15.3.4-4. 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 Liquefaction potential of B-1 borehole is shown in Figure 15.3.4-5. 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 Liquefaction potential of B-1 borehole is shown in Figure 15.3.4-6. 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. MAN- W1 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 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (LIL-S1) (VII) 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 15.3.4-25 Summary 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 Lambingan B-1 Yes 7 Guadalupe B-1 Yes 6 Marikina B-1 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. 15-102 500 35 Rainfall (mm) 450 No. of Rainy days 30 400 350 25 days 300 20 (mm) 250 Rainy 15 of 200 Rainfall 150 10 No. 100 5 50 0 0 123456789101112 Month 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 SAN JUAN RI VER 750 MCGS STO. NI ÑO MANI LA 1,300 650 550 500 2,900 2,400 1,500 2,100 BAY 0 800 MARIKINA 95 35 2,400 DAM NAPI NDAN MANGAHAN NANGKA RI VER FLOODWAY RI VER Figure 15.4.1-2 Design Flood Discharge Distribution against 100-year Return Period (MP in 1990) SAN JUAN RIVER 700 MCGS STO. NINO MANILA 1,200 600 550 500 2,900 BAY 0 300 35 95 2,400 NAPINDAN MANGAHAN RIVER FLOODWAY 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 Freeboard Design Stretch Allowance for Work Item Discharge Embankment Lower Pasig River (9.2 km) Delpan Bridge 1,200 m3/s 1.0 m ~ San Juan River (7.1 km) Raising of existing parapet wall and San Juan River rehabilitation of revetment 600 m3/s 1.0 m ~ Lambingan Bridge (2.1 km) Upper Pasig River (7.2 km) Lambingan Bridge Raising of existing parapet wall and 600 m3/s 1.0 m ~ Napindan Channel (7.2 km) rehabilitation of revetment Lower Marikina River (7.3 km) Dredging / excavation, provision of Napindan Channel 550 m3/s 1.0 m new parapet wall, embankment and ~ Mangahan Floodway (7.3 km) construction of MCGS Upper Marikina River (6.1 km) Dredging / excavation, revetment, Mangahan Floodway 2,900 m3/s 1.2 m raising of embankment and river ~ Sto. Niño (6.1 km) widening (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 Observed Mean Higher Mean High Mean Lower Mean Low Station Highest Tide High Water Water Low Water Water Manila South Harbor 1.48 m 0.51 m 0.39 m - 0.49 m - 0.38 m (14°35’ N 120°58’E) *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 Distance from Design Flood Design Flood Level (m) Bridges in Package-B River mouth (km) Discharge (m3/s) (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 13.12 B-16 Marikina Bridge 2,900 9.697 (from Napindan Channel) 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 : Design Flood Discharge (m3/s) A : Cross Sectional Area (m2) V : Flow Velocity (m/s) Table 15.4.1-4 Flow Velocity against the Design Flood Discharge in Pasig-Marikina River Bridges in Package-B 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 Observed Highest Tide Elevation of Soffit of Bridges in Package-B + Vertical Clearance (m) + Navigation Clearance (m) 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 No. of Rainy days 250 25 days 200 20 (mm) Rainy 150 15 of Rainfall 100 10 No. 50 5 0 0 123456789101112 Month 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-0.048-1) where, Q : Design Flood Discharge (m3/s) q : Specific Discharge (m3/s/km2) c : Constant for Regional Specific Discharge Curve (Table 16.5.2.1-1) A : Catchment Area (km2) 15-113 Table 15.4.2-1 Constant for Regional Specific Discharge Curve Return Period Region 2-year 5-year 10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year Luzon 15.66 17.48 18.91 21.51 23.83 25.37 Visayas 6.12 7.77 9.36 11.81 14.52 17.47 Mindanao 8.02 9.15 10.06 11.60 12.80 14.00 Source: MANUAL ON FLOOD CONTROL PLANNING March 2003 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 : Design Flood Discharge (m3/s) A : Cross Sectional Area (m2) V : Flow Velocity (m/s) n : Manning’s Roughness Coefficient R : Hydraulic Radius (m) S : 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 50-year return period 100-year return period Design Flood Discharge (m3/s) 11,103 11,821 Flow Velocity (m/s) Design Flood Level (m) 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 Water Level Station coping of the pier. In relatively dry season, the 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 35 700 35 Rainfall (mm) Rainfall (mm) 600 30 600 30 No. of Rainy days No. of Rainy days 500 25 500 25 days days 400 20 (mm) 400 20 (mm) Rainy Rainy 300 15 of 300 15 Rainfall of Rainfall No. No. 200 10 200 10 100 5 100 5 0 0 0 0 123456789101112 123456789101112 Month Month 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 a) Design Flood Discharge and Design Flood Level 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 Design Flood Discharge obtained from Specific Discharge Method the drawings of WRIS 2005 (*Reference) 50-year 100-year 50-year 100-year Design Flood Discharge (m3/s) 1,156 1,264 1,280 1,770 Flow Velocity (m/s) 2.92 3.01 3.02 3.29 Design Flood Level (m) 40.48 40.64 40.66 41.27 15-117 b) Site Interview According to the controller of the WRIS, observed ▽O.H.W. L highest water level at Wawa Bridge is 41.65 m (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 ↑ Water Level Wawa Bridge which was at the 50 m downstream Gauge by NIA was washed out by the flood. Wawa River carries lots of debris in flood condition. Photo 15.4.2-1 c) Major Design Condition (I) Design High Water Level 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. (III) Vertical Clearance and Freeboard 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 30 No. of Rainy days 300 25 250 days 20 (mm) 200 Rainy 15 of Rainfall 150 10 No. 100 50 5 0 0 123456789101112 Month 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 a) Design Flood Discharge and Design Flood Level 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 50- year 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; 2 2 H2+V2 /2g = H1+V1 /2g+he where, H : Water Level (m) V : Flow Velocity (m/s) g : Gravitational Acceleration (m/s2) he : 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: 2 Sf = {( Q1+Q2 ) / ( K1+K2 )} where, 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 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 Observed Mean Higher Mean High Mean Lower Mean Low Station Highest Tide High Water Water Low Water Water Catbalogan 1.40 m 0.79 m 0.59 m - 0.76 m - 0.66 m (11°46’ N 124°52’E) *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 3 Discharge 197 m /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 Mawo Bridge Return Period 50-year 100-year 50-year 100-year Design Flood Discharge (m3/s) 164 197 1,035 1,245 (calculated by Specific Discharge Method) Flow Velocity (m/s) 1.79 1.92 1.47 1.75 Design Flood Level (m) 1.72 1.90 1.31 1.35 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. c) Major Design Condition (I) Design High Water Level 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 (III) Vertical Clearance and Freeboard 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. Vertical Clearance 1.50 m ▽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 Vertical Clearance 1.50 m ▽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 35 450 35 Rainfall (mm) Rainfall (mm) 400 400 No. of Rainy days 30 No. of Rainy days 30 350 350 25 25 300 300 days days 20 20 (mm) (mm) 250 250 Rainy Rainy 200 15 200 15 of of Rainfall Rainfall 150 150 No. 10 No. 10 100 100 5 5 50 50 0 0 0 0 123456789101112 123456789101112 Month Month Mean Annual Rainfall in Cebu Mean Annual Rainfall in Tacloban City Figure 15.4.2-9 Mean Annual Rainfall in Cebu and Tacloban City (1981-2010) 15-124 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 Observed Mean Higher Mean High Mean Lower Mean Low Station Highest Tide High Water Water Low Water Water Cebu 1.49 m 0.78 m 0.51 m - 0.71 m - 0.51 m (10°18’ N 123°55’E) Catbalogan 1.40 m 0.79 m 0.59 m - 0.76 m - 0.66 m (11°46’ N 124°52’E) Surigao 1.11 m 0.55 m 0.44 m - 0.49 m - 0.41 m (09°47’ N 125°30’E) *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 Navigation Clearance of 1st 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. ▽Observed Highest Tide Elv.1.40 m ▽M.S.L Figure 15.4.2-11 Tide Level on Biliran Bridge ▽Observed Highest Tide Elv.1.11 m ▽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 North- South 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 Figure 15.5.2-2 CBDs and Road Network 15-129 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 Road Name Road Classification Lambingan Bridge Guv W. Pascual Ave. Secondary Guadalupe Bridge EDSA N-S Backbone 1st Mandaue - Mactan Bridge AC Cortes Ave. Secondary Road Palanit Bridge Pan Philippine Highway N-S Backbone Mawo Bridge Pan Philippine Highway N-S Backbone Liloan Bridge Pan Philippine Highway N-S Backbone Wawa Bridge Pan Philippine Highway 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 : 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. Type of Vehicle : 7 classifications (Motorcycle, Car, Jeepney Bus Truck etc.). Survey Method : 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 Station No. Location Survey Period Remark RTC-BR01 Delpan Bridge Target Bridge RTC-BR02 Jones Bridge - RTC-BR05 Ayala Bridge - RTC-BR06 Nagtahan Bridge Target Bridge RTC-BR-PB Pandacan Bridge - RTC-BR08 Lambingan Bridge Target Bridge 24-hours traffic RTC-BR09 Makatimandaluyong Bridge - RTC-EPB Estrella Pantaleon Bridge - RTC-BR10 Guadalupe Bridge Target Bridge RTC-BR11 C-5 Bridge - RTC-BR15 Marcos Bridge - Inside RTC-BR16 Marikina Bridge Target Bridge Metro Manila ITC BR01-A Moriones - Bonifacio Drive ITC BR01-B Claro M. Recto - Bonifacio Drive ITC BR01-C Padre Burgos - Roxas Blvd. ITC-BR05 Quirino Avenue - Paco ITC-BR06 Lacson - Espana ITC-BR08-A Pres. Quirino – Pedro Gil 24-hours traffic Intersection ITC-BR08-B Pedro Gil-Tejeron ITC-BR08-C Shaw Blvd. - New Panaderos ITC-BR10-A EDSA - Kalayaan Avenue ITC-BR10-B EDSA - Shaw Boulevard ITC-BR10-C Merit - Kalayaan Avenue ITC-BR16 Marcos Highway-Aurora Blvd. -Bonifacio Ave. RTC - C02 Buntun Bridge 16-hours traffic RTC - C07 1st Mandaue - Mactan Bridge 24-hours traffic RTC - C09 Palanit Bridge RTC - C11 Mawo Bridge Target Bridge Outside RTC - C12 Biliran Bridge 16-hours traffic Metro Manila RTC - C14 Liloan Bridge RTC - C15 Wawa Bridge ITC - C07-1 ML Quezon-MV Patalinghug-Marigondon Road 24-hours traffic ITC - C07-2 Plaridel - A. Cortes Avenue Intersection ITC – C15-1 Bayugan Intersection 16-hours traffic 15-131 Reference: Google Map Figure 15.5.4-1 24-Hour Traffic Count Survey Station on the Bridge inside Metro Manila Reference: Google Map Figure 15.5.4-2 Intersection Traffic Count Survey Station inside Metro Manila 15-132 Reference: Google Map 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 Mandaue- Matan 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) Rate of 1. 2. Car / Truck No. Bridge Name 4. Large 5. 2-Axle 6. 3-Axle 7. Truck Motorcycle Taxi / Pick- 3. Jeepney Sub-Total Total and Bus Truck Truck trailer / Tricycle up / Van Trailer 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% 15-135 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) 1. 2. Car / Taxi No. Bridge Name 4. Large 5. 2-Axle 6. 3-Axle 7. Truck Motorcycle / Pick-up / 3. Jeepney Sub-Total Total Bus Truck Truck trailer / Tricycle Van 1 Buntun Bridge 9,908 4,357 1,573 59 676 115 83 6,862 16,770 2 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge 28,497 34,573 8,285 12 49 6 1 42,924 71,421 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 15-136 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 NAVOTAS 38,454 18,656 19,799 2,456 2,030 6 4 15,313 5 1,125 12 2,336 833 11 7,317 378 10 5,359 12,847 PIER 7 1,882 3,023 8 717 5,530 9 2,932 MORIONES 2 1 3 277 4,028 15,649 19,954 18,622 38,576 Unit: vehicle/day ANDA CIRCLE Figure 15.5.4-4 Moriones - Bonifacio Drive Intersection NAVOTAS 41,498 ZARAGOZA 24,039 17,459 656 494 1,778 6 4 14,532 5 14 1,677 12 11,843 3,844 11 7,753 6,322 10 22,774 13,112 PIER 7 13 261 10,932 8 3,526 5,359 9 1,572 C.M. RECTO 2 1 3 Intersection Count 5,628 4,006 3,415 18,096 Flyover Count 31,144 23,080 54,224 Unit: vehicle/day ANDA CIRCLE Figure 15.5.4-5 Claro M. Recto - Bonifacio Drive Intersection 15-137 ANDA CIRCLE/DELPAN 68,779 34,541 34,238 588 8,002 6 4 25,649 5 1,399 12 2,485 750 11 35,019 337 10 4,004 58,559 7 10,362 1,519 8 428 23,540 9 12,750 2 MANILA CITY HALL QUIRINO GRANDSTAND QUIRINO 1 3 504 22,780 26,268 49,552 38,736 88,288 Unit: vehicle/day ROXAS BLVD. Figure 15.5.4-6 Padre Burgos - Roxas Blvd. Intersection NAGTAHAN 95,841 50,478 45,363 27,353 18,010 3 4 18,010 32,020 14,010 PANDACAN 2 1 50,478 41,363 91,841 Unit: vehicle/day PEDRO GIL Figure 15.5.4-7 Quirino Avenue – Paco Intersection 15-138 LAONG LAAN/TAYUMAN 48,451 25,077 23,374 0 1,648 6 4 21,726 5 1,489 12 28,658 27,170 11 34,790 0 10 59,236 68,796 7 0 RECTO 30,578 8 28,257 34,006 9 5,749 2 1 3 QUEZON AVE./WELCOME QUEZON 2,321 5,973 23,589 31,882 27,475 59,357 Unit: vehicle/day G. TUAZON/STA. MESA Figure 15.5.4-8 Lacson – Espana Intersectionl NAGTAHAN 115,729 50,561 65,168 2,288 6 4 46,398 16,483 5 0 PACO 12 00 11 16,483 0 10 20,421 35,214 7 0 20,421 8 15,497 18,731 9 3,235 2 TEJERON/STA. ANA 1 3 0 2,637 50,561 53,198 49,632 102,830 Unit: SSH/TAFT AVE. vehicle/day Figure 15.5.4-9 Pres. Quirino – Pedro Gil Intersection 15-139 CARREON 18,421 8,243 10,179 0 4,821 6 4 5,358 5 472 12 11,711 7,801 11 12,622 3,439 10 25,488 25,386 7 2,209 13,777 8 9,803 12,765 9 753 2 NEW PANADEROS PRES. QUIRINO AVENUE PRES. QUIRINO 1 3 0 3,975 5,562 9,537 9,549 19,086 Unit: vehicle/day A.P. REYES/TEJERON Figure 15.5.4-10 Pedro Gil-Tejeron Intersection SAN JUAN CITY 19,113 8,084 11,029 37 6 4 6,256 1,792 SHAW BLVD. 5 2,070 12 18,661 11,561 11 16,299 5,031 10 39,849 36,327 2,221 7 EDSA 21,188 8 16,387 20,028 9 1,421 2 1 3 P. SANCHEZ/AURORA BLVD. 4,765 6,739 2,947 14,450 12,707 27,157 Unit: vehicle/day NEW PANADEROS Figure 15.5.4-11 Shaw Blvd. - New Panaderos Intersection 15-140 GUADALUPE 148,614 69,072 79,542 15,273 8,655 3 70,887 ROCKWELL/ESTRELLA 10 8,655 8 9 17,385 40,465 49,120 23,080 KALAYAAN AVE. 5 7 29,831 18,972 10,859 65,758 35,928 6 18,543 18,972 BUENDIA 69,072 17,769 1 37,515 4 2 86,841 109,240 BONIFACIO GLOBAL CITY 196,080 Unit: vehicle/day AYALA Figure 15.5.4-12 EDSA - Kalayaan Avenue Intersection CUBAO 163,654 70,215 93,439 3,489 11,355 12,190 6 4 66,405 5 14 0 12 6,631 11 0 10 50,601 30,627 23,996 16 91,970 84,616 15 22,153 7 13 0 53,989 41,370 8 18,118 PASIG CITY KALENTONG/JRU 9 1,099 2 1 3 Intersection Count 2,364 7,335 62,880 16,485 Underpass Count 89,063 79,694 Flyover Count 168,757 Unit: vehicle/day BONI AVE./GUADALUPE Figure 15.5.4-13 EDSA - Shaw Boulevard Intersection 15-141 GUADALUPE 31,180 15,163 16,017 6 4 2,765 5,874 7,379 5 4,308 12 25,531 18,565 11 25,944 2,658 10 50,105 59,194 7 10,855 C-5 24,574 8 21,810 33,250 9 586 2 1 3 EDSA/KALAYAAN AVENUE 0 0 0 0 9,118 9,118 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 OPON BRIDGE 64,049 22,611 41,438 9,626 20,366 6 4 11,446 5 6,971 12 24,095 10,469 11 40,939 6,655 10 46,609 87,123 7 4,257 22,513 8 9,999 46,184 M.L. QUEZON 9 31,928 2 1 3 AIRPORT/LLC MACTAN INT'L 1,069 11,383 10,104 22,556 48,209 70,765 Unit: vehicle/day MAXIMO PATALINGHUG Figure 15.5.4-16 ML Quezon-MV Patalinghug-Marigondon Road Intersection PLARIDEL 39,937 18,640 21,296 1,643 4,899 6 4 14,755 5 5,650 12 18,077 12,428 11 31,368 0 10 34,976 51,788 7 0 16,899 10,757 20,420 8 OPON BRIDGE A. CORTEZ 9 9,663 2 1 3 1,243 12,990 17,297 31,531 24,419 55,949 Unit: vehicle/day BRIONES Figure 15.5.4-17 Plaridel - A. Cortes Avenue Intersection 15-143 BUTUAN 34,471 17,772 16,699 4,928 4 11,771 3 4,934 5,936 1,002 11,853 5 5,917 ESPERANZA 6 2 1 989 12,838 13,827 12,773 26,600 Unit: vehicle/day BAYUGAN Figure 15.5.4-18 Bayugan Intersection 15-144 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 Bridge is not located in cultural property or natural reserve area. 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 House Holds and Structures (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ 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. Land use (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ 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. Existing Environmental Condition (Noise, Vibration, Air Pollution and Water contamination.) ・ Environmental condition is good except for the pollution of traffic flow such as noise, vibration and air pollution. 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 Bridge is not located in cultural property or natural reserve area. 15-146 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 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 9- 10 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%). Economic Status Profile ・ 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%) Sanitation and Health Conditions ・ 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%) Awareness and Social Acceptability of the Proposed Project ・ In terms of proposed Project’s awareness, majority of the respondents are aware of the 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 House Holds and Structures (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ 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. Land use (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ Both sides of the Bridge are used for residential and factory area. Existing Environmental Condition (Noise, Vibration, Air Pollution and Water contamination.) ・ Environmental condition is bad for the pollution of traffic flow such as noise, vibration and air pollution. 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 Bridge is not located in cultural property or natural reserve area. 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 50 years to 59 years old (22%) where majority are female respondents (48%). 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 (40%) and lived in the area since birth (25%) or have lived there for more than 10 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%) Economic Status Profile ・ 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. Sanitation and Health Conditions ・ 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%) Awareness and Social Acceptability of the Proposed Project ・ 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%). ・ In general, the proposed Project is considered beneficial to the barangays (57%) as it will 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 House Holds and Structures (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ 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. Land use (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ 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. Existing Environmental Condition (Noise, Vibration, Air Pollution and Water contamination.) ・ Environmental condition is bad for the pollution of traffic flow such as noise, vibration and air pollution. 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 Bridge is not located in cultural property or natural reserve area. 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 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 Economic Status Profile ・ Most of the houses are made of mixed concrete (58%) and G.I. sheet-made roofing (66%). In 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%) Sanitation and Health Conditions ・ 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%) Awareness and Social Acceptability of the Proposed Project ・ 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 House Holds and Structures (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ There are2 houses immediately beside the Bridge. The number of PAPs is 12 under the Bridge. ・ Water pipe is held by the Bridge. Land use (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ 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. Existing Environmental Condition (Noise, Vibration, Air Pollution and Water contamination.) ・ Environmental condition is good except for the pollution of traffic flow such as noise, vibration and air pollution. ・ 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 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 Bridge is not located in cultural property or natural reserve area. 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 50 years to 59 years old (34%) where majority are female respondents (58%). 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 (39%) and lived in the area since birth (21%) or have lived there for more than 10 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%). Economic Status Profile ・ 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%). 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 water sealed types (50%). ・ Last year, majority of the respondents got sick (67%) and most of their sickness/disease are fever and headache (37%). For these results, most of the residents prefer consulting doctors or have it check-up in clinics or hospitals (67%) Awareness and Social Acceptability of the Proposed Project ・ In terms of proposed Project’s awareness, majority of the respondents are aware of the Project (92%). Most information on the proposed project came from the barangay and city officials (46%) or Project Representatives (42%). ・ In general, the proposed Project is considered beneficial to the barangays (96%) as it will 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 House Holds and Structures (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ Along the Bridge there are many houses immediately beside the Bridge. ・ There are 7 informal settlers under the Bridge with 37 PAPs. Land use (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ 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. Existing Environmental Condition (Noise, Vibration, Air Pollution and Water contamination.) ・ Environmental condition is good except for the pollution of traffic flow such as noise, vibration and air pollution. ・ 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. 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 Bridge is not located in cultural property or natural reserve area. 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 40 years to 49 years 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%). ・ The literacy and importance of education among the respondents are relatively average since 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%). Economic Status Profile ・ Most of the houses are made of mixed concrete (35%) and G.I. sheet-made roofing (87%). In 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 Sanitation and Health Conditions ・ 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%). Awareness and Social Acceptability of the Proposed Project ・ In terms of proposed Project’s awareness, majority of the respondents are aware of the Project (91%). Majority of the information about the project known by the respondents came from the barangay and municipal officials (61%). ・ In general, the proposed Project is considered beneficial to the barangays (82%) as it will 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 House Holds and Structures (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ 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. Land use (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ 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. Existing Environmental Condition (Noise, Vibration, Air Pollution and Water contamination.) ・ Environmental condition is good except for the pollution of traffic flow such as noise, vibration and air pollution. 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 Bridge is not located in cultural property or natural reserve area. 15-153 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 years to 39 years 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%). ・ The literacy and importance of education among the respondents are relatively average since 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%). Economic Status Profile ・ 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%). Sanitation and Health Conditions ・ 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%) ・ Last year, majority of the respondents got sick (78%) and most of their sickness/disease are 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%) Awareness and Social Acceptability of the Proposed Project ・ 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 DPWH ２ A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th edition AASHTO ３ Japanese standards Road Structure Ordinance of JRA 2003. JRA ４ Asian Highway Classification And Design Standards ESCAP Note： ESCAP（Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific） JRA (Japan Road Association) 15.7.2 Objective Roads Package B Package C B08 Lambingan Bridge C09 Palanit Bridge B10 Guadalupe Bridge C11 Mawo Bridge C15 Wawa Bridge Package B Package C Figure 15.7.2-1 Objective Roads 15-155 15.7.3 Summary of Roads B08 Lambingan Name of Road New Panaderos Road National Road Classification Secondary Road DEO NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION South Manila District Engineering Office B10 Guadalupe Name of Road EDSA in C4 National Road Classification Primary road DEO NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION Metro Manila 2nd District Engineering Office C09 Palanit Name of Road Pan-Philippine Highway（AH26） National Road Classification Primary road DEO REGION VIII Northern Samar 1st District Engineering Office C11 Mawo Name of Road Pan-Philippine Highway（AH26） National Road Classification Primary road DEO REGION VIII Northern Samar 1st District Engineering Office C15 Wawa Name of Road Pan-Philippine Highway（AH26） National Road Classification Primary road DEO REGION XIII Agusan del Sur 1st 15.7.4 Design Condition (1) Traffic Volume Table 15.7.4-1 Traffic Volume of Objective Roads AADT 1. 2. N0 Bridge name 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 B08 Lambinguan traffic volume 9,379 13,626 6,093 31 943 137 48 20,878 30,257 ratio 31.0% 45.0% 20.1% 0.1% 3.1% 0.5% 0.2% 96.2% 3.8% B10 Guadalupe traffic volume 19,557 181,078 0 13,229 4,100 1,628 876 200,911 220,468 ratio 8.9% 82.1% 0.0% 6.0% 1.9% 0.7% 0.4% 91.0% 9.0% C09 Palanit traffic volume 730 199 65 93 93 76 10 536 1,266 ratio 57.7% 15.7% 5.1% 7.3% 7.3% 6.0% 0.8% 78.5% 21.5% C11 Mawo traffic volume 2,889 322 73 93 130 102 14 734 3,623 ratio 79.7% 8.9% 2.0% 2.6% 3.6% 2.8% 0.4% 90.6% 9.4% C15 Wawa traffic volume 1,476 1,598 48 266 282 238 42 2,474 3,950 ratio 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 DPWH AASHTO AH Japanese Speed Component Recommended Standards Standards Standards Standards (km/h) 1,500m Min. Horizontal (110) (150ｍ) - 64m Secure current Curvature 80 100m condition The length of the 36m minimum horizontal 30ｍ 20m - 80m Secure current curve condition Min. Rate of Vert. 9 7 - 8 9 Curvature K, Crest Min. Rate of Vert. 10 13 - 7 14 Curvature K, Sag Min. Stopping Sight 62.8m 65 m - 55m 65m Distance (5%) (5%) (5%) Max. Grade 4～7% 5% 6～7% 9% 6～8% (0.5%) (0.5%) Min. Grade - 0.3～0.5% 0.7% 0.3～0.5% 0.3～0.5% The length of the 60m - - 40m 60m- minimum vertical curve 50 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% - 3.0m 2.75～ 3.00～ 3.25～ Lane Width 3.50m Secure current 3.65m 3.60m 3.5m condition (1.80- (0.60) Shoulder Width 2.40m) 0.30～ 2.50ｍ 0.50m- 0.6m 0.60- 0.6m 0.60～ Median Width 1.20m- 2.50ｍ 1.00m- 1.2m 1.80m (1.5 m-) Sidewalk Width 1.50m- 1.20～ - 2.00m- 1.5m 2.40m 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 DPWH AASHTO AH Japanese Speed Component Recommended Standards Standards Standards Standards (km/h) ∞ Min. Horizontal (160) (200ｍ) - 135m Secure current Curvature 115 150m condition The length of the minimum horizontal 30ｍ 30m - 100m － curve Min. Rate of Vert. 15 11 - 14 － Curvature K, Crest Min. Rate of Vert. 15 18 - 10 － Curvature K, Sag Min. Stopping Sight 84.6m 85 m - 75m － Distance 5.5% (5%) (5%) (5%) Max. Grade 4～7% Secure current 6～7% 7% 5～7% condition (0.5%) (0.5%) 0.0% Min. Grade - 0.3～0.5% Secure current 0.3～0.5% 0.3～0.5% condition 60 The length of the 60m - - 50m － minimum vertical curve 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～ 3.00～ 3.25～ Lane Width 3.50m 3.35m 3.65m 3.60m 3.5m (1.80- (0.60) 0.3m Shoulder Width 2.40m) 0.30～ 2.50ｍ 0.50m- Secure current 0.60- 0.60m condition Median Width 1.20m- 1.20m 3.00ｍ 1.00m- - 1.20m- (3.6m-) Sidewalk Width - 2.00m- 1.5m 2.40m 2.40m- Note : Figure in parentheses are desirable values. : AH(Asian Highway) 15-158 Table 15.7.4-4 Technical Specifications of Palanit Bridge C09 Palanit （Rural Arterial Road） Design DPWH AASHTO AH Japanese Speed Component Recommended Standards Standards Standards Standards (km/h) ∞ Min. Horizontal (160) (200ｍ) - 135m Secure current Curvature 115 150m condition The length of the minimum horizontal 30ｍ 30m - 100m - curve Min. Rate of Vert. 15 11 - 14 46 Curvature K, Crest Min. Rate of Vert. 15 18 - 10 16 Curvature K, Sag Min. Stopping Sight 84.6m 85 m - 75m 85m Distance (5%) (5%) (5%) 5.7% Max. Grade 4～7% Secure current 6～7% 5～8% 5～7% condition (0.5%) (0.5%) Min. Grade - 0.3～0.5% 0.3% 0.3～0.5% 0.3～0.5% The length of the 60 60m - - 50m 60m- minimum vertical curve 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～ 3.30～ 3.25～ Lane Width 3.50m 3.35m 3.65m 3.60m 3.5m (1.80- (0.60) Shoulder Width 2.40m) 2.50ｍ 0.50m- 0.6m 0.60- 0.60- 1.20～ Median Width 1.20m- 3.00ｍ 1.00m- - 24.00m (1.5 m-) 1.20m- Sidewalk Width 1.20～ - 2.00m- 1.5m 2.40m 2.40m Note : Figure in parentheses are desirable values. : AH(Asian Highway) 15-159 Table 15.7.4-5 Technical Specifications of Mawo Bridge C11 Mawo （Rural Arterial Road） Design DPWH AASHTO AH Japanese Speed Component Recommended Standards Standards Standards Standards (km/h) ∞ Min. Horizontal (160) (200ｍ) - 135m Secure current Curvature 115 150m condition The length of the minimum 30ｍ 30m - 100m - horizontal curve Min. Rate of Vert. 15 11 - 14 100 Curvature K, Crest Min. Rate of Vert. 15 18 - 10 24 Curvature K, Sag Min. Stopping 84.6m 85 m - 75m 85m Sight Distance (5%) (5%) (5%) 2.7% Max. Grade 4～7% Secure current 6～7% 5～8% 5～7% condition (0.5%) (0.5%) Min. Grade - 0.3～0.5% 0.5% 0.3～0.5% 0.3～0.5% The length of the 60 minimum vertical 60m - - 50m 60m- curve Min. Cross Slope 1.50% 1.50% - 1.5% - Max. Cross Slope 2.00% 2.00% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Max. 8.00% 12.00% 10.0% 6.0% - Superelevation 2.75～ 3.30～ 3.25～ Lane Width 3.50m 3.35m 3.65m 3.60m 3.5m (1.80- (0.60) Shoulder Width 2.40m) 2.50ｍ 0.50m- 0.6m- 0.60- 0.60- 1.20～ Median Width 1.20m- 3.00ｍ 1.00m- - 24.00m (1.5 m-) 1.20m- Sidewalk Width 1.20～ - 2.00m- 1.5m 2.40m 2.40m Note : Figure in parentheses are desirable values. : AH(Asian Highway) 15-160 Table 15.7.4-6 Technical Specifications of Wawa Bridge C15 Wawa （Rural Arterial Road） Design DPWH AASHTO AH Japanese Speed Component Recommended Standards Standards Standards Standards (km/h) 200 Min. Horizontal (160) (200ｍ) - 135m Secure current Curvature 115 150m condition The length of the minimum 30ｍ 30m - 100m 135m horizontal curve Length of Spiral - 33m - 50 33m curve Min. Rate of Vert. 15 11 - 14 16 Curvature K, Crest Min. Rate of Vert. 15 18 - 10 21 Curvature K, Sag Min. Stopping 84.6m 85 m - 75m 85m Sight Distance (5%) (5%) (5%) Max. Grade 4～7% 4% 6～7% 5～8% 5～7% (0.5%) (0.5%) Min. Grade - 0.3～0.5% 0.3% 0.3～0.5% 0.3～0.5% The length of the minimum vertical 60m - - 50m 60m- 60 curve Min. Cross Slope 1.50% 1.50% - 1.5% - Max. Cross Slope 2.00% 2.00% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% Max. 8.00% 11.00% 10.0% 6.0% 6.9% Superelevation 3.35m 2.75～ 3.30～ 3.25～ Lane Width 3.50m Secure current 3.65m 3.60m 3.5m condition (1.80- (0.60) Shoulder Width 2.40m) 2.50ｍ 0.50m- 0.6m- 0.60- 0.60- 1.20～ Median Width 1.20m- 3.00ｍ 1.00m- - 24.00m (1.5 m-) 1.20m- Sidewalk Width 1.20～ - 2.00m- 0.75m 2.40m 2.40m Note : Figure in parentheses are desirable values. : AH(Asian Highway) 15-161 (3) Typical Cross-Section of Bridge Section Current Road Cross-Section New Road Cross-Section B08 Lambingan Bridge 23,400 23,400 1,200 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,200 1,500 3,000 3,000 3,000 600 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,500 500 500 500 500 600 300 300 600 Road width 23.4ｍ Road width 23.4ｍ B10 Guadalupe Bridge（Replacement outside bridge） 8,500 8,800 8,500 8,800 1,200 3,350 3,350 3,350 3,350 1,200 1,500 3,350 3,350 3,350 3,350 1,500 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 South Boundlane North Boundlane South Boundlane North Boundlane Road width 8.5ｍ Road width 8.8ｍ C09 Palanit Bridge 8,660 10,900 650 3,350 3,350 650 1,500 3,350 3,350 1,500 330 330 600 600 Road width 8.7ｍ Road width 10.9ｍ C11 Mawo Bridge 9,700 10,900 1,000 3,350 3,350 1,000 1,500 3,350 3,350 1,500 500 500 600 600 Road width 9.7ｍ Road width 10.9ｍ C15 Wawa Bridge 8,700 9,400 700 3,350 3,350 700 750 3,350 3,350 750 300 300 600 600 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 B08 Lambingan Bridge 23,400 23,400 1,200 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,200 1,500 3,000 3,000 3,000 600 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,500 500 500 500 500 600 300 300 600 Road width 23.4ｍ Road width 23.4ｍ C09 Palanit Bridge 10,700 10,700 3,350 3,350 3,350 3,350 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Road width 10.7ｍ Road width 10.7ｍ C11 Mawo Bridge 10,400 10,700 3,200 3,200 3,350 3,350 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Road width 10.4m Road width 10.7ｍ C15 Wawa Bridge 10,700 10,700 3,350 3,350 3,350 3,350 2,000 2,000 2,000 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 Road Type ： Urban Collector Road Traffic Volume ： 30,257 veh/day Number of Lane ： 6 lane Mix rate of large vehicle ： 3.8％ 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 23800 1400 1400 1200 1200 10000 1000 10000 500 3000 3000 3000 500 500 3000 3000 3000 500 ③ ④ 2000 Traffic survey result AADT N0 Bridge name 1.Mortorcycle 2.Car/Taxi/Pi 3.Jeepney 4.Large Bus 5.2-AxleTruck 6.3-Axle Truck 7.Truck Trailer Sub-Total Total /tricycle ck-up/Van B08 Lambinguan Br 交通量 9,379 13,626 6,093 31 943 137 48 20,878 30,257 比率 31.0% 45.0% 20.1% 0.1% 3.1% 0.5% 0.2% 96.2% 3.8% 15-164 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 It is decided with current road and roadside Road Type Urban Collector Road condition Traffic Volume 30,257 veh/day Refer to the traffic survey result Traffic Volume of Large 1,159 veh/day Vehicle Same as the above （3.8％） （Mix rate of large vehicle） Design speed is applied 50km/h based on the Design Speed 50km/h standard value of Urban Collector Road (AASHTO) and existing travel speed. Number of Lane 6 Lane Secure the current number of lane Secure the current lane width Lane Width 3.00ｍ AASHTO Standard value Shoulder 0.60ｍ DPWH, AASHTO Standard value Sidewalk 1.50ｍ DPWH, AASHTO Standard value Median 1.20ｍ DPWH, AASHTO Standard value Decide the current boundary line, because a Right of Way 23.5ｍ correct boundary line is not clear 23,400 1,500 3,000 3,000 3,000 600 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,500 600 300 300 600 Typical Cross-section of Bridge and approach road Note : Right of Way is measured from the survey result. 15-166 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 3,000 3,000 600 3,000 3,000 3,000 600 300 300 600 Taper width＝0.6m 19,200 Taper length=30m 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 600 600 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 3,000 3,000 600 600 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 large- scale earth quake. Table 15.7.5-4 Issue of Current Road and Measure Policy The issue of current road Measure policy Grade Grade is 7% and pedestrian’s walkability is The grade is improved to 5% low. considering the barrier free. Runnability The vertical curve is not secured, and there Secure the vertical curve and improve is an impact when driving. the trafficability. Visibility 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 Stopping Sight Distance Stopping Sight Distance 65.0 65.0 Hight of eye=1.08m 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% g=5% Secure the current elevation 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 a) Issue of the Current Road 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 1400 1200 1200 10000 1000 10000 500 3000 3000 3000 500 500 3000 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 1,500 3,000 3,000 3,000 600 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,500 Water 600 300 300 600 Pipe 1.8m Bridge 13.9m Figure 15.7.5-8 Improvement of Cross-Section 15-171 (2) Guadalupe Bridge 1) Current Road Condition Table 15.7.5-7 Current Road Conditions of Guadalupe Bridge Road Type ： Urban Arterial Road Traffic Volume ： 220,468 veh/day Number of Lane ： 10 lane Mix rate of large vehicle ： 9.0％ Free Flow Speed ： 60 km/h 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 ① ② ③ Traffic survey result AADT 1. 2. N0 Bridge name 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 B10 Guadalupe traffic volume 19,557 181,078 0 13,229 4,100 1,628 876 200,911 220,468 ratio 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 There are requirement to not obstruct the facility as shown below with the bridge replacement. 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 It is decided with current road and roadside Road Type Urban Arterial Road condition Traffic Volume 220,468 veh/day Refer to the traffic survey result Traffic Volume of Large Vehicle 19,833 veh/day Same as the above （Mix rate of large vehicle） （9.0％） Design Speed 60km/h DPWH Standard value Number of Lane 10 Lane Secure the current number of lane Secure the current lane width Lane Width 3.35ｍ DPWH Standard value Shoulder 0.30ｍ DPWH, AASHTO Standard value Sidewalk 1.50ｍ DPWH, AASHTO Standard value Median － － Decide the current boundary line, because a Right of Way 45ｍ correct boundary line is not clear 8,800 8,800 1,500 3,350 3,350 3,350 3,350 1,500 300 300 300 300 Typical Cross-section South Bound lane North Bound lane Note : Right of Way is measured from the survey result. 15-174 4) Horizontal Alignment ① Secure the current horizontal alignment. ② Secure the 10 lane same as current number of lane. ③ Avoid the land acquisition and obstruction to roadside facility as possible. 5) Vertical Alignment a) Restriction of Bridge Elevation In the bridge section, the elevation is secured more than EV=11.6m, it is considering navigation clearance and the bridge structure height. 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 Including pavement thickness Total m 11.580 Conclusion: designed controlled elevation of bridge longitudinal profile : H ≥11.6m b) New Bridge Vertical Alignment Improvement of vertical alignment considering the restriction and the issue is as follows. 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=4.2% g=Flat Secure the Vertical Clearance more than 4.5m Figure 15.7.5-9 New Vertical Alignment of Guadalupe Bridge 15-175 6) Cross-Section Elements a) Issue of the Current Road Table 15.7.5-11 Issue of Cross-Section and Measure Policy Issue of the cross-section Measure policy 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. 1.2m 8,500 8,500 3,350 3,350 1,200 1,200 3,350 3,350 300 300 300 300 South Bound Lane North Bound Lane Figure 15.7.5-10 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Guadalupe Bridge b) Improvement of Cross-Section 8,800 8,800 1,500 3,350 3,350 3,350 3,350 1,500 300 300 300 300 Figure 15.7.5-11 Improvement of Cross-Section 15-176 (3) Palanit Bridge 1) Current Road Condition Table 15.7.5-12 Current Road Conditions of Palanit Bridge Road Type ： Rural Arterial Road Traffic Volume ： 1,266 veh/day Number of Lane ： 2 lane Mix rate of large vehicle ： 21.5％ Free Flow Speed ： 30 km/h 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 Current Cross Section ① ② 8,660 650 3,350 3,350 650 330 330 ③ ④ Traffic survey result AADT 1. 2. N0 Bridge name 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 C09 Palanit traffic volume 730 199 65 93 93 76 10 536 1,266 ratio 57.7% 15.7% 5.1% 7.3% 7.3% 6.0% 0.8% 78.5% 21.5% 15-177 2) Restriction of Road Design There are requirement to not obstruct the facility as shown below with the bridge replacement. Table 15.7.5-13 Restriction of Palanit Bridge ①Church ②Residential area ③Intersection ②Residential area ①Church ③Intersection ③Intersection ②Residential area ①Church ②Residential area ②Residential area ③Intersection ③Intersection 15-178 3) Design Conditions Table 15.7.5-14 Design Conditions of Palanit Bridge Item Condition Remark It is decided with current road and roadside Road Type Rural Arterial Road condition Traffic Volume 1,266 veh/day Refer to the traffic survey result Traffic Volume of Large Vehicle 272 veh/day Same as the above （Mix rate of large vehicle） （21.5％） DPWH Standard value Design Speed 60km/h It is confirmed by DPWH staff Number of Lane 2 Lane Secure the current number of lane Secure the current lane width Lane Width 3.35ｍ DPWH Standard value 0.60ｍ Shoulder DPWH, AASHTO Standard value 2.00ｍ Sidewalk 1.50ｍ DPWH, AASHTO Standard value Median － － Right of Way 30ｍ It is confirmed by DPWH staff 10,900 1,500 3,350 3,350 1,500 600 600 Typical Cross-section Of Bridge section 10,700 3,350 3,350 Typical Cross-section 2,000 2,000 Of Approach road Note : Shoulder width of approach road is decided same as current condition(Current width is from about 2.0m to 2.5m). 15-179 4) Horizontal Alignment ① Secure the current horizontal alignment. ② Secure the 2 lane same as current number of lane. ③ Avoid the land acquisition and obstruction to roadside facility as possible. 5) Vertical Alignment a) Restriction of Bridge Elevation In the bridge section, the elevation is secured more than EV=5.2m, it is considering navigation clearance and the bridge structure height. 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 Including pavement thickness Total m 5.200 Conclusion: designed controlled elevation of bridge longitudinal profile : H ≥5.2m b) New Bridge Vertical Alignment Improvement of vertical alignment considering the restriction and the issue is as follows. 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% g=1.0% Finished grade is more than 5.2m Figure 15.7.5-12 New Vertical Alignment of Palanit Bridge 15-180 6) Cross-Section Elements a) Issue of the Current Road Table 15.7.5-16 Issue of Cross-Section and Measure Policy Issue of the cross-section 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. can pass each other is insufficient. 0.65m 8,660 650 3,350 3,350 650 330 330 Figure 15.7.5-13 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Guadalupe Bridge b) Improvement of Cross-Section 10,900 1,500 3,350 3,350 1,500 600 600 Figure 15.7.5-14 Improvement of Cross-Section 15-181 (4) Mawo Bridge 1) Current Road Condition Table 15.7.5-17 Current Road Conditions of Mawo Bridge Road Type ： Rural Arterial Road Traffic Volume ： 3,623 veh/day Number of Lane ： 2 lane Mix rate of large vehicle ： 9.4％ Free Flow Speed ： 30 km/h Summary of The Road - The Asian Highway (AH26) - 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 - Requisite route to daily life for inhabitants around the bridge Current Road Condition ① ② ③ ④ Current Cross Section ① ② 9,700 1,000 3,350 3,350 1,000 500 500 ③ ④ Traffic survey result AADT 1. 2. N0 Bridge name 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 C11 Mawo traffic volume 2,889 322 73 93 130 102 14 734 3,623 ratio 79.7% 8.9% 2.0% 2.6% 3.6% 2.8% 0.4% 90.6% 9.4% 15-182 2) Restriction of Road Design There are requirement to not obstruct the facility as shown below with the bridge replacement. 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 3) Design Conditions Table 15.7.5-19 Design Conditions of Mawo Bridge Item Condition Remark It is decided with current road and roadside Road Type Rural Arterial Road condition Traffic Volume 3,623 veh/day Refer to the traffic survey result Traffic Volume of Large Vehicle 339 veh/day Same as the above （Mix rate of large vehicle） （9.4％） AASHTO Standard value Design Speed 60km/h It is confirmed by DPWH staff Number of Lane 2 lane Secure the current number of lane Secure the current lane width Lane Width 3.35ｍ DPWH Standard value Bridge:0.60ｍ Shoulder DPWH, AASHTO Standard value Road :2.00ｍ Sidewalk 1.50ｍ DPWH, AASHTO Standard value Median － － Right of Way 30ｍ It is confirmed by DPWH staff 10,900 1,500 3,350 3,350 1,500 600 600 Typical Cross-section Of Bridge section 10,700 3,350 3,350 2,000 2,000 Typical Cross-section Of Approach road Note : Shoulder width of approach road is decided same as current condition(Current width is from about 2.0m to 2.5m). 15-184 4) Horizontal Alignment ① Secure the current horizontal alignment. ② Secure the 2 lane same as current number of lane. ③ Avoid the land acquisition and obstruction to roadside facility as possible. 5) Vertical Alignment 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. Table 15.7.5-20 Issue of Current Road and Measure Policy The issue of current road Measure policy Vertical Large recess around the bridge, Not Improve the vertical alignment alignment appropriate vertical alignment Pathway 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 Conclusion: designed controlled elevation of bridge longitudinal profile : H ≥5.6m c) New Bridge Vertical Alignment Improvement of vertical alignment considering the restriction and the issue is as follows. 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% g=0.8% Finished grade is more than 5.6m Secure Box culvert for pathway Figure 15.7.5-15 New Vertical Alignment of Mawo Bridge 15-186 6) Cross-Section Elements a) Issue of the Current Road Table 15.7.5-22 Issue of Cross-Section and Measure Policy Issue of the cross-section 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. can pass each other is insufficient. 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 3,350 1,000 500 500 1.0m Figure 15.7.5-16 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Mawo Bridge b) Improvement of Cross-Section 10,900 1,500 3,350 3,350 1,500 600 600 Figure 15.7.5-17 Improvement of Cross-Section Retaining Wall Service Road Service Road Figure 15.7.5-18 Image of the Service Road 15-187 (5) Wawa Bridge 1) Current Road Condition Table 15.7.5-23 Current Road Conditions of Wawa Bridge Road Type ： Rural Arterial Road Traffic Volume ： 3,950 veh/day Number of Lane ： 2 lane Mix rate of large vehicle ： 21.0％ Free Flow Speed ： 30 km/h Summary of The Road - The Asian Highway (AH26) - 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 - Requisite route to daily life for inhabitants around the bridge Current Road Condition ③ ① ② ④ Current Cross Section ① ② 9,400 750 3,350 3,350 750 600 600 ③ ④ Traffic survey result AADT 1. 2. N0 Bridge name 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 C15 Wawa traffic volume 1,476 1,598 48 266 282 238 42 2,474 3,950 ratio 37.4% 40.5% 1.2% 6.7% 7.1% 6.0% 1.1% 79.0% 21.0% 15-188 2) Restriction of Road Design There are requirement to not obstruct the facility as shown below with the bridge replacement. Table 15.7.5-24 Restriction of Wawa Bridge ①Dam ②Mountainous area ③Intersection ④Residential Area ② Mountainous area ③Intersection ①Dam ④Residential Area ①Dam ①Dam ②Mountainous area ②Mountainous area ③Intersection ④Residential Area 15-189 3) Design Conditions Table 15.7.5-25 Design Conditions of Wawa Bridge Item Condition Remark It is decided with current road and roadside Road Type Rural Arterial Road condition Traffic Volume 3,950 veh/day Refer to the traffic survey result Traffic Volume of Large Vehicle 828 veh/day Same as the above （Mix rate of large vehicle） （21.0％） DPWH Standard value Design Speed 60km/h It is confirmed by DPWH staff Number of Lane 2 lane Secure the current number of lane Secure the current lane width Lane Width 3.35ｍ DPWH Standard value Bridge:0.60ｍ Shoulder DPWH, AASHTO Standard value Road :2.00ｍ Sidewalk 1.50ｍ DPWH, AASHTO Standard value Median － － Right of Way 60ｍ It is confirmed by DPWH staff 9,400 750 3,350 3,350 750 600 600 Typical Cross-section Of Bridge section 10,700 3,350 3,350 2,000 2,000 Typical Cross-section Of Approach road Note : Shoulder width of approach road is decided same as current condition(Current width is from about 2.0m to 2.5m). 15-190 4) Horizontal Alignment 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 EXISTING ALIGNMENT (BLACK) SHIFT TO UPSTREAM (BLUE) SHIFT TO DOWNSTREAM (RED) Abutment Shift to US Abutment Ｒ＝200ｍ Ｒ＝200ｍ Ｒ＝200ｍ Ｒ＝175ｍ Plan View Ｒ＝ ｍ 200 Houses, Possibility of influences Ｒ＝200ｍ Existing Center Houses, Possibility of influences Fallen rocks Apply existing road Shift to DS Apply existing road to work road to work road Min. Curve Radius SP: R=200m, EP : R=175m SP: R=200m, EP : R=200m SP: R=200m, EP : R=200m Min. Curve Length SP : R=100m, EP : R=110m SP : R=100m, EP : R=125m SP : R=100m, EP : R=125m Bridge Length 230m 230m 230m ・ Need temporary bridge to detour existing traffic volume ・ Difficult to secure work road and construction yard because ・ Applicable the existing road as work road Constructability 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 Structural Property ・ Adequate structure due to strait line at bridge section ・ Curved bridge should be adopted ・ Adequate structure due to strait line at bridge section Environment ・ Minimal earth work amount ・ 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 ・ Possibility of traffic restriction due to landslide disaster such as ・ Minimal possibility of traffic restriction due to landslide disaster Disaster prevention fallen rocks and slope failure fallen rocks and slope failure because enough separation can be secured from mountains Along Roads ・ Minimal influences to houses along the road ・ Minimal influences to houses along the road ・ Slightly houses may be influenced during construction stage ・ Comparatively high due to temporary bridge costs ・ Comparatively high due to large amount of cutting ground work ・ Superior const efficiency because no temporary bridge and Cost Efficiency (approx. 5%) minimal earth works. Blue : Advantage points Red : Disadvantage points Shift to downstream side Minimal earth works advantage for: ・ Constructability Shift to upstream side、Large ・ Environmental Impact cutting ground works disadvantage against: ・ Constructability ・ Cost Efficiency ・ Environmental Impact Figure 15.7.5-19 Typical Cross Section of Comparison Study 15-192 6) Vertical Alignment a) Restriction of Bridge Elevation In the bridge section, the elevation is secured more than EV=48.4m, it is considering navigation clearance and the bridge structure height. 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 Conclusion: designed controlled elevation of bridge longitudinal profile : H ≥48.4m b) New Bridge Vertical Alignment Improvement of vertical alignment considering the restriction and the issue is as follows. 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 7) Cross-Section Elements a) Issue of the Current Road Table 15.7.5-28 Issue of Cross-Section and Measure Policy Issue of the cross-section Measure policy Sidewalk width The sidewalk width is narrow with Secure the 0.75m width as 0.7m, and the width that pedestrian possible the pedestrian can pass can pass each other is insufficient. through. 8,700 700 3,350 3,350 700 300 300 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%. 2 Where: Rmin = 200m, V = 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 3,350 750 3,350 3,350 1,500 600 600 600 600 In the case of both sides sidewalk (W=0.75m) In the case of one side sidewalk (W=1.5m) Figure 15.7.5-22 Improvement of Cross-Section 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 Asphalt concrete pavement or Composite pavement As - Partially crack As and unevenness Con C09 Palanit bridge Concrete pavement - Crack and fracture - Bad trafficability Con Con C11 Mawo bridge Asphalt concrete pavement or Composite pavement - Good condition As As C15 Wawa bridge Asphalt concrete pavement or Composite pavement - Good condition As 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) Less than 3,000 Less than 10,000 More than 10,000 More than 20,000 Less than 20,000 Embankment 25cm 25cm 28cm 30cm Section Source: The design standard of NEXCO, Japan 15-197 3) Pavement of Roadway Layer structures of composite pavement are as follows. Table 15.7.6-5 Layer Structures of Pavement Pavement Surface Intermediate Binder course Base Total structure course course course thickness Material Asphalt Asphalt Reinforced cement concrete stabilization Lanbingan 4cm 4cm 25cm 20cm 53cm Guadalupe 4cm 4cm 25cm 20cm 53cm Palanit 4cm 4cm 25cm 20cm 53cm Mawo 4cm 4cm 25cm 20cm 53cm Wawa 4cm 4cm 25cm 20cm 53cm 4) Pavement of Service Road For pavement for service road, following structure is applied. Table 15.7.6-6 Pavement of Service Road Surface Course ：Concrete ｔ＝ 20cm Base Course ：Aggregate ｔ＝ 15cm Total thickness ｔ＝ 35cm 5) Pavement of Sidewalk For pavement for sidewalk, following structure is applied. Table 15.7.6-7 Pavement of Sidewalk Surface Course ：Asphalt Concrete ｔ＝ 4cm Base Course ：Aggregate ｔ＝ 10cm Total thickness ｔ＝ 14cm 15-198 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. Table 15.7.8-1 Revetment Works Name of Bridge Revetment Works Right Bank Left Bank B08 Lambingan bridge SP＋IW＋VW COMPLETED B10 Guadalupe bridge SP W/H-BEAM＋VW Construction by river improvement (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. EL Established Information order Name Name (MSL=0) Year Year MM-55 Delpan 1st 2.6988 2009 Nov 2010 MM-62 Nagatahan 1st 91.151 2009 Apr 2012 GM-N4 Lambingan 2nd 9.347 1977 Sep 2012 MM-71 Guadalupe 1st 34.158 2009 Oct 2009 MM-2 Marikina 2nd 91.151 1983 Sep 2009 2) Information of GM-N4 Table 15.7.8-4 BM list of River Improvement Project Elev. 2008 NAMRIA 2012 NAMRIA Name Note DPWH MLLW DPWH MLLW diff. DPWH MLLW diff. mmmmm 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 12.461 0.426 11.781 -0.254 Note:GM-N4 : 19.822(2008 NAMRIA)=9.347(Topography)+10.475(MSL:DPWH) 15-204 3) Elevation Adjustment a) 1st step Table 15.7.8-5 Difference of BM Elevation between River Improvement and Topography River improvement Topography Difference GM-N4 19.406 19.822 Δ0.416 b) 2nd step 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 large- scale 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) 【 】 Pic①-1 Northbound Line Interrupting following vehicles due to overtaking basses stepping over Bus Lane Poor safety by forced lane changing 【Northbound Line 】 Pic ①-2 A bus not stops, over Bus Lane, interrupting following busses 【 】 Pic ①-3 Southbound Line Interrupting traffic lanes by the bus overtaking parked buses 15-206 【Southbound Line 】 Pic. ①-4 Passengers remain in traffic lane, following busses can not parked accurately along walk road 【Southbound Line 】 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. 【Northbound Line 】 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. 【Northbound Line 】 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 【Northbound Line 】 Pic ⑥ Traffic island, utilized as bus stop Originally, passengers' incoming and outgoing inhibited 15-209 【Northbound Line 】 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 Issues Causes Countermeasures Proposal ① Additional installation of bus stops Large traffic volume of busses, parking over two lanes Disperse parking busses on the traffic ⇒ Obstruction of bus lane by parking busses Newly install bus stop near Guadalupe bridge where it at peak hours lane may be near large-scale commercial facilities as well as low impact to land acquisition and roadside facilities ②Traffic segregation by structures Interruption by lane change of following busses Over taking busses run at the third lane Lead busses to bus lanes ⇒Physically restrict lane change by installing relevant structures such as separators or posts ③Designation and derivation of bus stop Traffic Not parking at bus stop correctly but parking at center Pedestrians and passengers of busses running over side ⇒Specific location of bus stops by destination Jam Lead busses to park correctly of traffic lane walk. Busses can not park correctly. ⇒Restrict passenger's protrusion over main line by uniformizing their storage spaces ④Installation of Jeepney parking Interruption of main and ramp traffic due to parking Lead Jeepney not to park at main traffic ⇒Apply land of the park to Jeepney parking. Obstruction of traffic lane by Jeepneys Jeepney at ramp lane ⇒Install Jeepney space by improving alignment of Southbound on-ramp Cause of speed degradation due to inflow of low-speed ⑤Added lane Interruption of main traffic by ramp traffic Separate ramp form main line traffic and stop at crossing ⇒Reduce interruption of main traffic by adding extra lanes ⑥Installation of pedestrian deck Pedestrians walking to Guadalupe Br. need to cross the Separate ramp traffic from crossing Interruption of ramp traffic by crossing pedestrians ⇒Install overpass for pedestrian ramp pedestrians ⇒Install guard rails to prevent road crossing physically Safety ⑦Install wide-width side walk Narrow side walk for pedestrians volume The width of side walk just only 1m Widening of side walk ⇒ Secure requisite width corresponding to pedestrian volume ⑧Coordination among key facilities ⇒ Improvement of accessibility with MRT, busses, Longish distance from each traffic point to commercial Accessibility improvement by efficient Aim regional revitalization by connecting key traffic Jeepneys and commercial facility facility along the road coordination with each traffic point points by pedestrian deck such as new bus stop, new Jeepney parking, existing MRT station and commercial Convenience facility ⑨Install taxi parking Enough capacity volume of busses and Jeepneys but not Capacity shortage of parking space of taxi Secure parking space of taxi ⇒ enough for taxi Install taxi stop and parking at the open space in front of the station 15-213 Interruption main traffic by ramp traffic Interruption main traffic by Not stop correctly at bus stop but park at center Jeepney parking mainly riding crossing pedestrians of traffic lane ⇒The parking at on-ramp, which ⇒Busses stop short of bus stop, overtaking interrupts ramp traffic busses run the third lane Narrow side walk ⇒Width of existing side walk about 1m. Interruption of main traffic due to ramp Obstruction of traffic lane by Jeepneys traffic ⇒ ⇒Out side two lanes not functioned due to Interruption of main traffic due to inflow parking Jeepneys traffic without enough acceleration Obstruction of bus lane due to parking busses The space utilized as bus stop Interruption of traffic lane by lane change of following busses ⇒The traffic island of the ramp, utilized as ⇒The congestion of busses at peak hour. Cause of traffic jam bus stop, where is prohibited section for because of overtaking busses run the third lane utilization ⇒High convenience because of good accessibility from commercial facility, Jeepneys and MRT : Traffic line of Jeepneys Existing Jeepney parking : Walk line of pedestrians ⇒Capacity shortage, long lines of passengers : 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