the project for study on improvement of bridges … · 2017-01-05 · chapter 2 organizations...

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.

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)

i

LOCATION MAP OF STUDY BRIDGES (PACKAGE B : WITHIN METRO MANILA)

ii

LOCATION MAP OF STUDY BRIDGES (PACKAGE C : OUTSIDE METRO MANILA)

iii

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)

iv

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)

v

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)

vi

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)

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

xiv

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

xv

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

xvi

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

xvii

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

xviii

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

xix

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

xx

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

xxi

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


16.4.2 Outline Design of Superstructure ............................................................ 16-129

16.4.3 Seismic Design ....................................................................................... 16-131


16.5 Outline Design of Mawo Bridge ..................................................................... 16-146



16.5.3 Seismic Design ....................................................................................... 16-151


16.6 Outline Design of Wawa Bridge ..................................................................... 16-166



16.6.3 Seismic Design ....................................................................................... 16-174


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

xxii

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

18.3.2 Construction Cost ..................................................................................... 18-40

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

xxiii

19.3.4 Reappearance of the Traffic Condition around Guadalupe Bridge ............. 19-20

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 ..................................................................................................... 19-56

19.5.5 Result of Economic Evaluation ................................................................. 19-64

19.5.6 Project Sensibility ..................................................................................... 19-73

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

xxiv

PART 5 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER 21 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................... 21-1

21.1 Project Outline ................................................................................................... 21-1

21.2 Project Cost ........................................................................................................ 21-3

21.3 Implementation Schedule ................................................................................... 21-4

21.4 Project Organization ........................................................................................... 21-4

21.5 Financial Analysis and Funding .......................................................................... 21-6

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

xxv

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

xxvi

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

xxvii

Figure 3.2.2-10 Calbo Bridge Damage ........................................................................... 3-48

Figure 3.2.2-11 Cupang Bridge Damage ........................................................................ 3-49

Figure 3.2.2-12 Baliling Bridge Damage ........................................................................ 3-49

Figure 3.2.2-13 Tabora Bridge Damage ......................................................................... 3-50

Figure 3.2.2-14 Manicla Bridge Damage........................................................................ 3-50

Figure 3.2.2-15 Rizal Bridge Damage ............................................................................ 3-51

Figure 3.2.2-1 The Negros Oriental Earthquake ............................................................. 3-53

Figure 4.2.1-1 Strong Motion Network (Metro manila) .................................................... 4-6

Figure 4.2.1-2 The Epicenters of Observed Earthquakes (For example, Dec. 1999-2005,

36 earthquakes, M2.7-M6.8, depth: 1-153km) .......................................................... 4-7

Figure 4.2.1-3 Observed Peak Horizontal Accelerations (Aug. 1998-Oct. 2008) .............. 4-8

Figure 4.2.1-4 Strong Motion Network (National) ........................................................... 4-9

Figure 4.2.1-5 Strong Motion Network (Near-by MM Provinces and Davao) ................. 4-10

Figure 4.2.1-6 Strong Motion Network (National) ......................................................... 4-11

Figure 4.3.1-1 Analysis Procedure ................................................................................. 4-14

Figure 4.3.1-2 Peak Horizontal Acceleration .................................................................. 4-17

Figure 4.3.1-3 Peak Horizontal Acceleration .................................................................. 4-18

Figure 4.3.1-4 Changes in Acceleration Response Spectrum Due to the Difference in

Nonlinear Behavior of the Ground under Large and Small Earthquake Ground Motions

.............................................................................................................. 4-19

Figure 4.3.2-1 Comparison of Acceleration Spectra for Different Site Conditions and

Design Spectra (Firm gGound) ............................................................................... 4-21


Design Spectra (Moderate Firm Ground) ................................................................ 4-22


Design Spectra (Moderate Firm Ground) ................................................................ 4-23


Design Spectra (Soft Ground) ................................................................................. 4-24

Figure 5.2.1-1 Evolution of Seismic Bridge Design Specifications .................................. 5-3

Figure 5.2.2-1 1971 San Fernando Earthquake Leading to Caltrans Seismic Provision .... 5-3

Figure 5.2.3-1 1971 San Fernando Earthquake Leading to Revision of Design

Specifications ........................................................................................................... 5-4

Figure 5.2.4-1 Force-based and Displacement-based AASHTO Specifications ................ 5-4

Figure 5.3.1-1 Early Stage of Japan Bridge Design .......................................................... 5-5

Figure 5.3.3-1 Column Ductility Design and Near-Field Ground Motion ......................... 5-6

Figure 7.3.1-1 A Trend on Relationship between Seismic Forces and Ground Conditions 7-5

Figure 7.3.1-2 Study Procedure for Method 1 .................................................................. 7-6

Figure 7.3.1-3 Study Procedure for Method 2 .................................................................. 7-6

xxviii

Figure 7.3.1-4 JRA Method (For Reference) .................................................................... 7-7

Figure 7.3.2-1 Flow of Establishment of Design Seismic Spectra .................................... 7-7

Figure 7.4.6-1 Comparison of Soil Profile Type Classification System .......................... 7-10

Figure 7.4.6-2 Geological Similarities/Difference among Three Countries (Philippines,

Japan, and United States of America) ...................................................................... 7-12

Figure 7.4.6-3 Tectonic Settings of Philippines, Japan, and United States of America .... 7-12

Figure 7.5.1-1 R-Factor Based on Equal Displacement Approximation .......................... 7-14

Figure 7.5.2-1 Mean Force-Reduction Factors ............................................................... 7-15

Figure 7.5.2-2 Moment-Curvature Curves of a 48” Circular Column ............................. 7-15

Figure 7.5.2-3 Moment-Curvature Relationship ............................................................. 7-16

Figure 7.6.1-1 Dimension for Minimum Supporting Length in NSCP ............................ 7-17

Figure 7.6.1-2 Longitudinal Restrainer in NSCP ............................................................ 7-18

Figure 7.6.3-1 Supporting Length in JRA ...................................................................... 7-20

Figure 7.6.3-2 Examples of Unseating Prevention Devices in JRA ................................ 7-21

Figure 7.6.3-3 Example of Transversal Displacement Restrainer in JRA ........................ 7-22

Figure 8.1.2-1 Acceleration Response Spectra Development Flowchart ........................... 8-2

Figure 8.1.2-2 Procedure (STEP1) ................................................................................... 8-3



Figure 8.1.3-1 Flowchart for Developing Earthquake Ground Motion Matching the Target

Spectrum ................................................................................................................. 8-5

Figure 8.1.3-2 Target Spectra ( AASHOTO 2007, Soil Type-Ⅰ) ...................................... 8-6

Figure 8.1.3-3 Design Spectra (AASHTO 2007) .............................................................. 8-6

Figure 8.1.3-4 Three Types of Faults ............................................................................... 8-9

Figure 8.1.4-1 Natural Periods of Ground of Interest ..................................................... 8-10

Figure 8.1.4-2 Locations of Ground of Interest .............................................................. 8-12

Figure 8.1.4-3 Soil Layer Conditions of Site (Soft Ground) ........................................... 8-13

Figure 8.1.4-4 Soil Layer Conditions of Site (Moderate Firm Ground) .......................... 8-14

Figure 8.1.4-5 Relationship between N-Value and Shear Wave Velocity ........................ 8-16

Figure 8.1.5-1 Method of analysis depend on Strain range ............................................. 8-16

Figure 8.1.5-2 Non-Linear One-Dimensional Dynamic Analysis .................................... 8-17

Figure 8.1.5-3 Damping in Soil at Initial Conditions (γ=10-6) ........................................ 8-18

Figure 8.1.5-4 Wave Propagation Method and Multi-Degree of Freedom Analysis ........ 8-19

Figure 8.1.6-1 H-D model (Hardin and Drnevich) .......................................................... 8-20

Figure 8.1.6-2 H-D Model ( Hardin and Drnevich ) ....................................................... 8-21

Figure 8.1.6-3 Relationship between Strain Dependence of Shear Modulus and γr ......... 8-21

Figure 8.1.7-1 Generation of Earthquake Ground Motion Matching the Target Spectrum8-22

Figure 8.1.7-2 Compatible to Target Spectrum (Typical Conclusion: EQ1) .................... 8-23

xxix

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

xxx

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

xxxi

Figure 13.1.1-8 Location of Lambingan Bridge ............................................................ 13-10

Figure 13.1.1-9 Hourly Traffic Volume ......................................................................... 13-10

Figure 13.1.1-10 Current Bridge Condition of Guadalupe Bridge ................................. 13-11

Figure 13.1.1-11 Location of Guadalupe Bridge ........................................................ 13-13

Figure 13.1.1-12 Hourly Traffic Volume ....................................................................... 13-13

Figure 13.1.1-13 Current Bridge Condition of Marikina Bridge ................................... 13-14

Figure 13.1.1-14 Location of Marikina Bridge ............................................................. 13-16


Figure 13.2.1-1 Structural and Geological Outline of Buntun Bridge ............................ 13-23

Figure 13.2.1-2 Location of Buntun Bridge .................................................................. 13-25


Figure 13.2.1-4 Structural and Geological of 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge ................... 13-26

Figure 13.2.1-5 Location of 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge .............................................. 13-28


Figure 13.2.1-7 Structural and Geological of Palanit Bridge ......................................... 13-29

Figure 13.2.1-8 Location of Palanit Bridge ................................................................... 13-31


Figure 13.2.1-10 Structural and Geological Outline of Mawo Bridge ........................... 13-32

Figure 13.2.1-11 Location of Mawo Bridge .................................................................. 13-34


Figure 13.2.1-13 Structural and Geological Outline of Biliran Bridge .......................... 13-35

Figure 13.2.1-14 Location of Biliran Bridge ................................................................. 13-37


Figure 13.2.1-16 Structural and Geological Outline of Lilo-an Bridge .......................... 13-38

Figure 13.2.1-17 Location of Lilo-an Bridge ................................................................ 13-40


Figure 13.2.1-19 Structural and Geological of Wawa Bridge ........................................ 13-41

Figure 13.2.1-20 Location of Wawa Bridge .................................................................. 13-43


Figure 14.2.2-1 Flowchart of Comparative Study on Improvement Measure Scheme

Selection ............................................................................................................... 14-18

Figure 14.2.2-2 The Structural Characteristics of Inner Bridge and Outer Bridges ........ 14-20

Figure 14.2.2-3 Law for National Heritage Preservation (Section 5) ............................. 14-21

Figure 14.2.2-4 Hourly Traffic Volume of Guadalupe Bridge ....................................... 14-22

Figure 14.2.2-5 Current Hydrological Condition of Guadalupe Bridge ......................... 14-22


Selection ............................................................................................................... 14-23

Figure 14.2.2-7 Image of “Seismic Retrofit with Additional Structure” of Inner Bridge 14-26

xxxii

Figure 14.2.2-8 Images of “Seismic Retrofit by Reconstruction” of Inner Bridge ......... 14-26

Figure 14.2.2-9 Images of Installation of Temporary Detour Bridge ............................. 14-26

Figure 14.2.2-10 Concept of Traffic Control during Replacement Work of Outer Bridges14-27

Figure 14.2.2-11 Option of Replacement Plan for Additional One More Lane .............. 14-29

Figure 14.2.2-12 Construction Difficulties of Inner Bridge ........................................... 14-32

Figure 14.2.2-13 Construction Steps of Outer Bridges (1) ............................................ 14-33




Figure 14.2.2-17 Construction Difficulties of Inner Bridge ........................................... 14-37

Figure 14.2.2-18 Construction Steps of Inner Bridge .................................................... 14-38

Figure 14.2.2-19 Pier reconstruction Steps of Inner Bridge (1) ..................................... 14-39

Figure 14.2.2-20 Pier Reconstruction Steps of Inner Bridge (2) .................................... 14-40

Figure 14.2.2-21 Conclusion of Comparative Study on Improvement Measure Scheme

Selection ............................................................................................................... 14-41


Selection ............................................................................................................... 14-42

Figure 14.2.3-2 Current Condition of Mawo Bridge ..................................................... 14-43

Figure 14.2.3-3 Outline of “PC Fin Back Bridge” ........................................................ 14-45

Figure 14.2.3-4 Conclusion of Comparative Study on Improvement Measure Scheme

Selection ............................................................................................................... 14-45

Figure 15.2.2-1 Topographic Features for the Target Bridges in Metro Manila

(Non-Scale) ............................................................................................................ 15-4

Figure 15.2.2-2 Topographic Features for Buntun Bridge (Non-Scale) ........................... 15-5

Figure 15.2.2-3 Topographic Features for Mandaue-Mactan Bridge (Non-Scale) ........... 15-6

Figure 15.2.2-4 Topographic Features for Palanit Bridge and Mawo Bridge (Non-Scale)15-7

Figure 15.2.2-5 Topographic Features for Biliran Bridge (Non-Scale) ........................... 15-8

Figure 15.2.2-6 Topographic Features for Liloan Bridge (Non-Scale) ............................ 15-9

Figure 15.2.2-7 Topographic Features for Wawa Bridge (Non-Scale) ........................... 15-10

Figure 15.2.2-8 Discrimination of Landforms with Aerial Photographs for Wawa Bridge15-11

Figure 15.2.2-9 Site investigation plan of Wawa Bridge (Non-scale) ........................... 15-11

Figure 15.3.1-1 Location map of borehole (Delpan B-1) .............................................. 15-16

Figure 15.3.1-2 Location Map of Borehole (Nagtahan B-1) ......................................... 15-16

Figure 15.3.1-3 Location Map of Borehole (Lambingan B-1) ...................................... 15-17

Figure 15.3.1-4 Location Map of Borehole (Guadalupe B-1) ....................................... 15-17

Figure 15.3.1-5 Location Map of Borehole (Marikina B-1) .......................................... 15-18

Figure 15.3.1-6 Location Map of Boreholes (Buntun Bridge) .................................... 15-18

Figure 15.3.1-7 Location Map of Boreholes (Palanit Bridge) ....................................... 15-19

xxxiii

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

xxxiv

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

xxxv

Figure 15.5.4-10 Pedro Gil-Tejeron Intersection ......................................................... 15-140

Figure 15.5.4-11 Shaw Blvd. - New Panaderos Intersection ........................................ 15-140

Figure 15.5.4-12 EDSA - Kalayaan Avenue Intersection ............................................. 15-141

Figure 15.5.4-13 EDSA - Shaw Boulevard Intersection .............................................. 15-141

Figure 15.5.4-14 Merit - Kalayaan Avenue Intersection .............................................. 15-142

Figure 15.5.4-15 Marcos Highway-Aurora Blvd. -Bonifacio Ave. Intersection ........... 15-142

Figure 15.5.4-16 ML Quezon-MV Patalinghug-Marigondon Road Intersection .......... 15-143

Figure 15.5.4-17 Plaridel - A. Cortes Avenue Intersection .......................................... 15-143

Figure 15.5.4-18 Bayugan Intersection ....................................................................... 15-144

Figure 15.7.2-1 Objective Roads ................................................................................ 15-155

Figure 15.7.4-1 Typical Cross-Section of Bridge Section ........................................... 15-162

Figure 15.7.4-2 Typical Cross-Section of Approach Road Section .............................. 15-163

Figure 15.7.5-1 Typical Cross-Section at the Taper Section ........................................ 15-167

Figure 15.7.5-2 Typical Cross-Section at the Runoff Section ...................................... 15-168

Figure 15.7.5-3 Issue of Current Vertical Alignment ................................................... 15-169

Figure 15.7.5-4 Issue of the Stopping Sight Distance ................................................. 15-169

Figure 15.7.5-5 Restriction of Vertical Alignment of Lambingan Bridge .................... 15-170

Figure 15.7.5-6 New Vertical Alignment of Lambingan Bridge .................................. 15-170

Figure 15.7.5-7 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Lambingan Bridge .................. 15-171

Figure 15.7.5-8 Improvement of Cross-Section .......................................................... 15-171

Figure 15.7.5-9 New Vertical Alignment of Guadalupe Bridge ................................... 15-175

Figure 15.7.5-10 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Guadalupe Bridge ................. 15-176

Figure 15.7.5-11 Improvement of Cross-Section ......................................................... 15-176

Figure 15.7.5-12 New Vertical Alignment of Palanit Bridge ....................................... 15-180

Figure 15.7.5-13 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Guadalupe Bridge ................. 15-181

Figure 15.7.5-14 Improvement of Cross-Section ........................................................ 15-181

Figure 15.7.5-15 New Vertical Alignment of Mawo Bridge ........................................ 15-186

Figure 15.7.5-16 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Mawo Bridge ........................ 15-187


Figure 15.7.5-18 Image of the Service Road ............................................................... 15-187

Figure 15.7.5-19 Typical Cross Section of Comparison Study .................................... 15-192

Figure 15.7.5-20 New Vertical Alignment of Wawa Bridge ......................................... 15-193

Figure 15.7.5-21 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Wawa Bridge ......................... 15-194


Figure 15.7.8-1 General Layout Plan of Revetment Works ......................................... 15-201

Figure 15.7.8-2 Typical Cross-Section of Revetment Works ....................................... 15-202

Figure 15.7.9-1 Pictures Map of Current Traffic Condition of around Guadalupe Bridge

........................................................................................................................... 15-212

xxxvi

Figure 15.7.9-2 Pictures Map of Traffic Issue of around Guadalupe Bridge ................ 15-214

Figure 15.7.9-3 Proposal of Improvement around the Guadalupe Bridge .................... 15-215

Figure 15.7.9-4 Typical Cross Section of Proposal of Improvement ........................... 15-215

Figure 16.1.1-1 Design Spectrum for New Bridge Design .............................................. 16-4

Figure 16.1.2-1 Procedure of Comparison Study for Selection of New Bridge Types ...... 16-7

Figure 16.1.2-2 Relationships between Actual Results of Basic Bridge Types and Span

Length .................................................................................................................... 16-7

Figure 16.1.2-3 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Lambingan Bridge ........................ 16-8

Figure 16.1.2-4 Vertical Alignment by Road Planning of New Lambingan Bridge .......... 16-8

Figure 16.1.2-5 Determination of Abutment Location of Lambingan Bridge (Simple

Supported Condition) .............................................................................................. 16-9

Figure 16.1.2-6 Determination of Abutment Location of Lambingan Bridge (3-Span

Condition) ............................................................................................................ 16-10

Figure 16.1.2-7 Span Arrangements of Lambingan Bridge in Comparison Study .......... 16-10

Figure 16.1.2-8 Construction Steps of Stage Construction ............................................ 16-11

Figure 16.1.2-9 Detour Temporary Bridge under Total Construction Method ................ 16-11

Figure 16.1.2-10 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Existing Guadalupe Bridge ....... 16-17

Figure 16.1.2-11 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of New Guadalupe Bridge ............ 16-17

Figure 16.1.2-12 Determination of Abutment Location of Guadalupe Bridge ............... 16-18

Figure 16.1.2-13 Span Arrangement for Comparison Study .......................................... 16-18

Figure 16.1.2-14 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Palanit Bridge .......................... 16-25

Figure 16.1.2-15 Rising of Vertical Alignment ............................................................. 16-25

Figure 16.1.2-16 DHW and Free Board of Palanit Bridge ............................................. 16-26

Figure 16.1.2-17 Location of Abutments ...................................................................... 16-27

Figure 16.1.2-18 Installable Area of Piers ..................................................................... 16-27

Figure 16.1.2-19 2 Span Bridge .................................................................................... 16-28



Figure 16.1.2-22 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Mawo Bridge ........................... 16-34

Figure 16.1.2-23 Rising of Vertical Alignment ............................................................. 16-34

Figure 16.1.2-24 DHW and Free Board of Mawo Bridge .............................................. 16-35

Figure 16.1.2-25 Location of Abutments ...................................................................... 16-36

Figure 16.1.2-26 Study of Navigation Width ................................................................ 16-37

Figure 16.1.2-27 Relationship between ship collision and span length specified ........... 16-38

Figure 16.1.2-28 Assumed barges ................................................................................. 16-38




xxxvii

Figure 16.1.2-32 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Wawa Bridge ............................ 16-49

Figure 16.1.2-33 Horizontal Alighment ........................................................................ 16-49

Figure 16.1.2-34 DHW and Free Board of Wawa Bridge .............................................. 16-51

Figure 16.1.2-35 Determination of Abutment Location of Wawa Bridge ....................... 16-51

Figure 16.1.2-36 Boundary Lines of HWL and Influence Area ..................................... 16-52





Figure 16.1.3-1 Basic Vibration Mode (Longitudinal Direction) ................................... 16-67

Figure 16.1.3-2 Damping in Bridge Structure ............................................................... 16-69

Figure 16.2.1-1 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Lambingan Bridge ...................... 16-72

Figure 16.2.1-2 Soil Profile of Lambingan Bridge (Included previous SPT) ................. 16-73

Figure 16.2.1-3 Flow of Outline Design ....................................................................... 16-74

Figure 16.2.2-1 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Lambingan Bridge ...................... 16-75

Figure 16.2.2-2 Design Section of Lambingan Bridge .................................................. 16-75

Figure 16.2.2-3 Analytical Model for Superstructure .................................................... 16-76

Figure 16.2.2-4 Sections for Stress Check .................................................................... 16-77

Figure 16.2.2-5 Side View of Superstructure of Lambingan Bridge .............................. 16-80

Figure 16.2.2-6 Sectional View of Superstructure of Lambingan Bridge ....................... 16-80

Figure 16.2.3-1 Analytical Mode of Seismic Analysis .................................................. 16-81

Figure 16.2.3-2 Results of Eigenvalue Analysis ............................................................ 16-85

Figure 16.2.3-3 Ground Surface of an Abutment in Seismic Design ............................. 16-86

Figure 16.2.3-4 Side View & Sectional View of Abutment of Lambingan Bridge ......... 16-88

Figure 16.2.3-5 Philosophy of Unseating Prevention System in JRA ............................ 16-89

Figure 16.2.3-6 Supporting Length ............................................................................... 16-90

Figure 16.2.3-7 Secure the Length of "Se", Supporting Length ..................................... 16-90

Figure 16.2.3-8 Longitudinal Restrainer for Lambingan Bridge .................................... 16-91

Figure 16.2.3-9 Design Methodology of Expansion Joint ............................................. 16-91

Figure 16.2.3-10 Wearing Coat System of Steel Deck ................................................... 16-92

Figure 16.2.4-1 Side View & Sectional View of Abutment of Lambingan Bridge ......... 16-93

Figure 16.2.4-2 General View ....................................................................................... 16-94

Figure 16.3.1-1 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Guadalupe Bridge ...................... 16-95

Figure 16.3.1-2 Soil Profile of Guadalupe Bridge (Included previous SPT) .................. 16-97

Figure 16.3.1-3 Flow of Outline Design ....................................................................... 16-98

Figure 16.3.2-1 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Guadalupe Side Bridge ............... 16-99

Figure 16.3.2-2 Analytical Model for Superstructure .................................................. 16-100

Figure 16.3.2-3 Sections for Stress Check .................................................................. 16-101

xxxviii

Figure 16.3.2-4 Side View of Superstructure of Guadalupe Side Bridge ..................... 16-102

Figure 16.3.2-5 Sectional View of Superstructure of Guadalupe Side Bridge .............. 16-102

Figure 16.3.3-1 Analytical Mode of Seismic Analysis ................................................ 16-103

Figure 16.3.3-2 Application of Continuous Girder ...................................................... 16-104

Figure 16.3.3-3 Results of Eigenvalue Analysis .......................................................... 16-107

Figure 16.3.3-4 Ground Surface of an Abutment in Seismic Design ........................... 16-108

Figure 16.3.3-5 Side View of Pier of Guadalupe Bridge Substructure with Foundation.16-111

Figure 16.3.3-6 Side View & Sectional View of Abutment of Guadalupe Bridge

Substructure with Foundation. ............................................................................ 16-111

Figure 16.3.3-7 Conceptual View of Steel Sheet Pile Foundation ............................... 16-112

Figure 16.3.3-8 Design Flow for Basic Design of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile Foundation ... 16-113

Figure 16.3.3-9 The Procedure for Construction Method of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile

Foundations (1) ................................................................................................... 16-114

Figure 16.3.3-10 The Procedure For Construction Method of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile

Foundations (2) ................................................................................................... 16-115

Figure 16.3.3-11 Region Where the Skin Friction Force at the Inter Peripheral Surface of

the Well Portion of the Foundation Should Be Taken into Account ..................... 16-116

Figure 16.3.3-12 Calculation Model of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile Foundation ................... 16-118

Figure 16.3.3-13 Philosophy of Unseating Prevention System in JRA ........................ 16-119

Figure 16.3.3-14 Supporting Length ........................................................................... 16-120

Figure 16.3.3-15 Secure the Length of "Se", Supporting Length ................................. 16-120

Figure 16.3.3-16 Longitudinal Restrainer for Guadalupe Bridge ................................ 16-121

Figure 16.3.3-17 Design Methodology of Expansion Joint ......................................... 16-121

Figure 16.3.3-18 Wearing Coat System of Steel Deck ................................................. 16-122

Figure 16.3.4-1 Side View of Pier of Guadalupe Bridge ............................................. 16-123

Figure 16.3.4-2 Side View & Sectional View of Abutment of Guadalupe Bridge ........ 16-123

Figure 16.3.4-3 General View ..................................................................................... 16-125


Figure 16.4.1-2 Soil Profile of Palanit Bridge (Included previous SPT) ...................... 16-127

Figure 16.4.1-3 Flow of Outline Design ..................................................................... 16-128


Figure 16.4.2-2 Designed and Applied AASHTO Girder Type-IV ............................... 16-129

Figure 16.4.2-3 Side View of Superstructure of Palanit Bridge ................................... 16-130

Figure 16.4.2-4 Sectional View of Superstructure of Palanit Bridge ........................ 16-130




Figure 16.4.3-4 Ground Surface of Abutment & Pier in Seismic Design ..................... 16-136

xxxix

Figure 16.4.3-5 Sectional View of Pier & Abutment of Palanit Bridge ........................ 16-139

Figure 16.4.3-6 Philosophy of Unseating Prevention System in JRA .......................... 16-140

Figure 16.4.3-7 Supporting Length ............................................................................. 16-141

Figure 16.4.3-8 Longitudinal Restrainer for Palanit Bridge ........................................ 16-142

Figure 16.4.3-9 Design Methodology of Expansion Joint ........................................... 16-142

Figure 16.4.3-10 Wearing Coat System of Concrete Slab ............................................ 16-143

Figure 16.4.4-1 Sectional View of Pier & Abutment of Palanit Bridge ........................ 16-144



Figure 16.5.1-2 Soil Profile of Mawo Bridge (Included previous SPT) ....................... 16-148



Figure 16.5.2-2 Side View and PC Cable Arrangement of Superstructure of Mawo Bridge

........................................................................................................................... 16-150

Figure 16.5.2-3 Sectional View of Superstructure of Mawo Side Bridge..................... 16-150





Figure 16.5.3-5 Sectional View of Abutment & Pier of Mawo Bridge ......................... 16-159


Figure 16.5.3-7 Supporting length .............................................................................. 16-161

Figure 16.5.3-8 Secure the Length of "Se", Supporting Length ................................... 16-161

Figure 16.5.3-9 Longitudinal Restrainer for Mawo Bridge ......................................... 16-162



Figure 16.5.4-1 Sectional View of Abutment & Pier of Mawo Bridge ......................... 16-164



Figure 16.6.1-2 Soil Profile of Wawa Bridge (included previous SPT) ....................... 16-168



Figure 16.6.2-2 Analytical Model for Superstructure .................................................. 16-170

Figure 16.6.2-3 Members for Stress Check ................................................................. 16-171

Figure 16.6.2-4 Side View of Superstructure of Wawa Bridge .................................... 16-172

Figure 16.6.2-5 Sectional View of Superstructure of Wawa Side Bridge ..................... 16-173



xl



Figure 16.6.3-5 Sectional View of Substructure of Wawa Bridge ................................ 16-181


Figure 16.6.3-7 Supporting Length ............................................................................. 16-183

Figure 16.6.3-8 Secure the Length of "Se", Supporting Length ................................... 16-183

Figure 16.6.3-9 Longitudinal Restrainer for Wawa Bridge .......................................... 16-184



Figure 16.6.4-1 Sectional View of Substructure of Wawa Bridge ................................ 16-186


Figure 17.2.2-1 Site-Specific Design Spectrum of 50-, 100-, 500-, and 1000-Year Return

Periods for Lilo-an Bridge Site ............................................................................. 17-10

Figure 17.2.2-2 Hydrological Condition of Lilo-an Bridge .......................................... 17-13

Figure 17.2.3-1 Summary of Seismic Capacity Verification ......................................... 17-14

Figure 17.2.4-1 Outline of Comparative Studies on Seismic Capacity Improvement

Schemes ................................................................................................................ 17-19

Figure 17.2.4-2 Control of Seismic Inertial Force by Application of Seismic Devices . 17-20

Figure 17.2.4-3 Recommendation for Location of Seismic Damper Installation ........... 17-22

Figure 17.2.4-4 Construction Types for the Foundation Retrofit Work ......................... 17-25

Figure 17.2.4-5 Restrictive Condition for Additional Pile Driving ............................... 17-25

Figure 17.2.4-6 Assumed Abutment Conditions for Comparison Study ........................ 17-27

Figure 17.2.4-7 Improvement Work Image of Abutment-A .......................................... 17-27

Figure 17.2.4-8 Basic Concept of Unseating Prevention System Planning ................... 17-29

Figure 17.2.4-9 Concrete Block and Steel Bracket ....................................................... 17-30

Figure 17.2.4-10 Selection of Unseating Prevention Device Type ................................ 17-30

Figure 17.2.4-11 Selection of Unseating Prevention Device Type (continued) ............. 17-31

Figure 17.2.4-12 Structure Limiting Horizontal Displacement (Shear Keys) ................ 17-31

Figure 17.2.4-13 Non-existence of Cross Beam at End Supports .................................. 17-31

Figure 17.2.5-1 Current Condition of Existing Expansion Joints .................................. 17-32

Figure 17.2.5-2 Current Condition of Existing Steel Members ..................................... 17-32

Figure 17.2.5-3 Current Condition of Connection/Splice Points of Existing Steel Members

............................................................................................................................. 17-32

Figure 17.2.5-4 Current Condition of Existing Deck Slab ............................................. 17-33

Figure 17.3.2-1 Site-Specific Design Spectrum of 50-, 100-, 500-, and 1000-Year return

Periods for 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge Site ........................................................ 17-48

Figure 17.3.2-2 Site-Specific Design Spectrum of 50-, 100-, 500-, and 1000-Year Return

Periods for 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge Site ........................................................ 17-49

xli

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

xlii

Figure 18.2.3-9 Construction Steps of Pier Replacement .............................................. 18-17

Figure 18.2.3-10 Construction Steps of Outer Superstructure ....................................... 18-18

Figure 18.2.3-11 Construction Steps of the Guadalupe Bridge ...................................... 18-19

Figure 18.2.4-1 Pictures of Field Survey <Mactan Side> .............................................. 18-21

Figure 18.2.4-2 Pictures of Field Survey <Cebu Side> ................................................. 18-22

Figure 18.2.4-3 Basic Plan of Temporary Road of 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge ............ 18-23

Figure 18.2.4-4 Navigation Width Control of 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge .................... 18-23

Figure 18.2.4-5 Construction Method of Cast in Place Concrete Pile under Limited Space

............................................................................................................................. 18-24

Figure 18.2.4-6 Installation method of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile ......................................... 18-24


Figure 18.2.5-2 Site Location of Palanit Bridge ............................................................ 18-26


Figure 18.2.6-2 Site Location of Mawo Bridge ............................................................. 18-28

Figure 18.2.6-3 Picture of Mawo Port (At Right side of Rivermouth) ........................... 18-29

Figure 18.2.6-4 Construction Situation of PC Fin Back Bridge ..................................... 18-30


Figure 18.2.7-2 Site Location of the Lilo-an Bridge ..................................................... 18-31

Figure 18.2.7-3 Pictures of Lilo-an Port ....................................................................... 18-31

Figure 18.2.7-4 Construction Method of Cast in Place Concrete Pile under Limited Space

............................................................................................................................. 18-32


Figure 18.2.8-2 Site Location of the Wawa Bridge ....................................................... 18-33

Figure 18.2.8-3 Pictures of Field Survey (2nd Magsaysay) ............................................ 18-34

Figure 18.3.2-1 Composition of Civil work Cost .......................................................... 18-42

Figure 18.3.2-2 Construction Price per Bridge Surface Area ......................................... 18-42

Figure 19.2.1-1 Procedure for Preparation of Present and Future Assignment ................ 19-3

Figure 19.2.1-2 Comparison of Observed and Assigned Traffic Volume ......................... 19-4

Figure 19.2.1-3 Traffic Assignment Method ................................................................... 19-5

Figure 19.3.3-1 Traffic Condition at MRT Line-3 Guadalupe Station ........................... 19-12

Figure 19.3.3-2 Traffic Condition at Guadalupe Bridge ............................................... 19-13

Figure 19.3.3-3 Traffic Congestion at Guadalupe Bridge ............................................. 19-14

Figure 19.3.3-4 Bus Stop at Guadalupe Bridge ............................................................ 19-15

Figure 19.3.3-5 Bottleneck at Kalayaan Fly Over ........................................................ 19-16

Figure 19.3.3-6 Traffic condition at Guadalupe Bridge ................................................ 19-17

Figure 19.3.3-7 Traffic Condition at Guadalupe Bridge ............................................... 19-17

Figure 19.3.3-8 Result of Travel Speed Survey ............................................................ 19-19

Figure 19.3.4-1 Target Area of Microscopic Traffic Simulation ................................... 19-21

xliii

Figure 19.3.4-2 Comparison of Traffic Volume (Morning Peak) ................................... 19-23

Figure 19.3.4-3 Verification of the Simulation Model (Traffic Volume during Morning

Peak) ........................................................................................................... 19-23

Figure 19.3.4-4 Comparison of the Travel Speed (Average speed-1, Morning Peak) .... 19-24

Figure 19.3.4-5 Comparison of the Travel Speed (Average speed-2, Morning Peak) .... 19-25

Figure 19.3.4-6 Comparison of Traffic Volume (Evening Peak) ................................... 19-26

Figure 19.3.4-7 Verification of the Simulation model (Traffic Volume, Evening Peak) 19-26

Figure 19.3.4-8 Comparison of the Travel Speed (Average Speed-1, Evening) ............. 19-27

Figure 19.3.4-9 Comparison of the Travel Speed (Average speed-2) ............................ 19-28

Figure 19.3.5-1 Flow of Analysis ................................................................................. 19-29

Figure 19.3.5-2 Geometric Structure of 4-Lanes .......................................................... 19-30




Figure 19.3.5-6 Average Speed Comparison in Case of No. of Lanes (Guadalupe Bridge,

Morning Peak) ...................................................................................................... 19-35

Figure 19.3.5-7 Traffic Condition Comparison in Case of No. of Lanes-Guadalupe Bridge

(Northbound (Bound to Quezon City)) .................................................................. 19-36


(Southbound (Bound to Makati City)) ................................................................... 19-37

Figure 19.3.5-9 Traffic Volume at Guadalupe Bridge in Case of 3-Lanes ..................... 19-38

Figure 19.3.5-10 Traffic Volume of Guadalupe Bridge in Case of 3-Lanes ................... 19-39

Figure 19.3.5-11 Average Speed Comparison in Case of No. of Lanes (Guadalupe Bridge,

Evening Peak) ....................................................................................................... 19-41


(Northbound (Bound to Quezon City)) .................................................................. 19-42


(Southbound (Bound to Makati City)) ................................................................... 19-43



Figure 19.4.1-1 Hourly Traffic Vlume vs.Capacity during Traffic Restriction at Palanit

Bridge (Y2018) ..................................................................................................... 19-49

Figure 19.4.1-2 Hourly traffic volume vs. capacity during traffic restriction at Mawo

Bridge (Y2018) ..................................................................................................... 19-50

Figure 19.4.1-3 Hourly Traffic Volume vs. Capacity during Traffic Restriction at Liloan

Bridge (Y2018) ..................................................................................................... 19-50

Figure 19.4.1-4 Hourly Traffic Volume vs. Capacity during Traffic Restriction at Wawa

Bridge (Y2018) ..................................................................................................... 19-51

xliv

Figure 19.5.3-1 Process of Converting the Initial Cost from Financial to Economic Value

............................................................................................................................. 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

xlv

Table 3.2.2-2 Maximum Acceleration at Ground Surface Estimated Based on the

Phenomena of Structures after the Earthquake ........................................................ 3-44

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

xlvi

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)

............................................................................................................................. 10-14

Table 10.2.3-5 Ground Types (Site Class) for Seismic Design ...................................... 10-17

Table 10.2.3-6 Response Modification Factors for Substructures .................................. 10-17

Table 10.2.4-1 Minimum Analysis Requirements for Seismic Effects ........................... 10-18

Table 10.3.2-1 Column Shear Design ........................................................................... 10-34

Table 10.4.3-1 Cases for Comparison ........................................................................... 10-39

Table 10.4.4-1 Results of Comparative Study ............................................................... 10-41

Table 11.3-1 Scope of Works and Survey Method for Survey Work (1/2) ....................... 11-3

Table 11.4.1-1 Evaluation Criteria of First Screening ..................................................... 11-5

Table 11.4.1-2 Scoring System for Evaluation Criteria ................................................... 11-5

Table 11.5.3-1 Components for Evaluation and Rating Weight ..................................... 11-11

Table 11.5.3-2 Components of Seismic Vulnerability and Rating Weight ...................... 11-11

Table 11.5.3-3 Evaluation Items and Rating Weight ...................................................... 11-13

Table 11.5.3-4 Components of Evaluation Criteria for Importance and Rating Weight .. 11-14

Table 12.1.1-1 Bridge Condition Based on Visual Inspection for Package-B ................ 12-20

Table 12.1.1-2 Major Defect Analysis for Each Bridge ................................................ 12-21

Table 12.1.1-3 Global Evaluation for Bridge Seismic Performance in 1st Screening of

Package-B (1/6) .................................................................................................... 12-22


Package-B (2/6) .................................................................................................... 12-23


Package-B (3/6) .................................................................................................... 12-24


Package-B (4/6) .................................................................................................... 12-25


Package-B (5/6) .................................................................................................... 12-26


Package-B (6/6) .................................................................................................... 12-27

Table 12.1.2-1 Selected Bridges for Checking Seismic Performance in Package-B ...... 12-28

Table 12.1.2-2 Results of Rating Analysis in the 1st Screening .................................... 12-29

Table 12.2.1-1 Conditions of Bridges Based on Visual Inspection for `Package C ....... 12-47

Table 12.2.1-2 Defect Score Analysis for Each Bridge ................................................. 12-48


Package C (1/6) .................................................................................................... 12-49


Package C (2/6) .................................................................................................... 12-50

xlvii


Package C (3/6) .................................................................................................... 12-51


Package C (4/6) .................................................................................................... 12-52


Package C (5/6) .................................................................................................... 12-53


Package C (6/6) .................................................................................................... 12-54

Table 12.2.2-1 Selected Bridges for Checking Seismic Performance in Package C ...... 12-55

Table 12.2.2-2 Results of Rating Analysis in the First Screening ................................. 12-56

Table 13.1.1-1 Daily Traffic Volume ............................................................................... 13-4

Table 13.1.1-2 Assumption and LOS .............................................................................. 13-4

Table 13.1.1-3 Daily Traffic Volume ............................................................................... 13-7

Table 13.1.1-4 Assumption and LOS .............................................................................. 13-7

Table 13.1.1-5 Daily Traffic Volume ............................................................................. 13-10

Table 13.1.1-6 Assumption and LOS ............................................................................ 13-10




Table 13.1.1-10 Assumption and LOS .......................................................................... 13-16











Table 13.2.1-11 Daily Traffic Volume ........................................................................... 13-40


Table 13.2.1-13 Daily Traffic Volume ........................................................................... 13-43


Table 14.2.1-1 Recommendation of Target Bridges for Outline Design ......................... 14-16

Table 14.2.2-1 AADT Based on Traffic Count Survey Results ...................................... 14-22

Table 14.2.2-2 Comparative Study on Improve Measurement Schemes for Outer Bridges14-28

Table 14.2.2-3 Comparative Study on Improve Measurement Schemes for Inner Bridge14-31

xlviii

Table 14.2.3-1 Comparative Study on Improve Measurement Schemes for Mawo Bridge

(2nd Screening result) ........................................................................................... 14-44

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

xlix

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

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

l

Table 15.3.3-35 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of WAW-R1

........................................................................................................... 15-75

Table 15.3.4-1 Standard Design Lateral Force Coefficient for Liquefaction Potential

Assessment ........................................................................................................... 15-76

Table 15.3.4-2 Comparison of Soil Profile Type Classification ..................................... 15-79

Table 15.3.4-3 Soil Type and Design Parameters on Soils (NEXCO) ........................... 15-80

Table 15.3.4-4 Proposed Soil Parameters for Delpan B-1 Site ...................................... 15-81

Table 15.3.4-5 Proposed Soil Parameters for Nagtahan B-1 Site .................................. 15-81

Table 15.3.4-6 Proposed Soil Parameters for Lambingan B-1 Site ............................... 15-82

Table 15.3.4-7 Proposed Soil Parameters for Guadalupe B-1 Site ................................ 15-82

Table 15.3.4-8 Proposed Soil Parameters for Marikina B-1 Site ................................... 15-82

Table 15.3.4-9 Proposed Soil Parameters for Buntun BTL-1 Site ................................. 15-83

Table 15.3.4-10 Proposed Soil Parameters for Buntun BTL-2 Site ............................... 15-83

Table 15.3.4-11 Proposed Soil Parameters for Palanit PAL-L1 Site .............................. 15-84

Table 15.3.4-12 Proposed Soil Parameters for PAL-R1 Site ......................................... 15-84

Table 15.3.4-13 Proposed Soil Parameters for Mawo MAW-L1 Site ............................ 15-84

Table 15.3.4-14 Proposed Soil Parameters for Mawo MAW-L2 Site ............................ 15-85

Table 15.3.4-15 Proposed Soil Parameters for 1st Mandaue-Mactan MAN-E1 Site ....... 15-85

Table 15.3.4-16 Proposed Soil Parameters for 1st Mandaue-Mactan MAN-W1 Site ..... 15-85

Table 15.3.4-17 Proposed Soil Parameters for Biliran BIL-N1 Site .............................. 15-86

Table 15.3.4-18 Proposed Soil Parameters for Biliran BIL-S1 Site .............................. 15-86

Table 15.3.4-19 Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan LIL-S1 Site ............................... 15-86

Table 15.3.4-20 Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan LIL-S1 Site ............................... 15-86

Table 15.3.4-21 Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan WAW-L1 Site ............................ 15-87

Table 15.3.4-22 Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan WAW-R1 Site ............................ 15-87


Assessment .......................................................................................................... 15-92

Table 15.3.4-24 Comparison of Liquefaction Assessment Methodology using SPT Blow

Counts between AASHTO’s Recommendation and JRA ....................................... 15-93

Table 15.3.4-25 Summary of Liquefaction Potential Assessment ............................... 15-101

Table 15.4.1-1 Summary of Proposed Pasig-Marikina River Channel Improvement Plan in

Detailed Engineering Design in 2002 .................................................................. 15-105

Table 15.4.1-2 Tidal Information at Manila South Harbor Tide Station ...................... 15-106

Table 15.4.1-3 Design Flood Discharge and Design Flood Level in Pasig-Marikina River

........................................................................................................... 15-106

Table 15.4.1-4 Flow Velocity against the Design Flood Discharge in Pasig-Marikina River

........................................................................................................... 15-107

Table 15.4.1-5 Freeboard Allowance for Embankment ............................................... 15-109

li

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

Table 15.4.2-2 Design Flood Level at Buntun Bridge ................................................. 15-114

Table 15.4.2-3 Design flood level at Wawa Bridge ..................................................... 15-117

Table 15.4.2-4 Tidal Information at Catbalogan Tide Station ..................................... 15-121

Table 15.4.2-5 Design Flood Level at Palanit Bridge and Mawo Bridge .................... 15-122

Table 15.4.2-6 Tidal Information at Cebu, Catbalogan and Surigao Tide Station ........ 15-125

Table 15.5.3-1 Road Classification of Selected Bridges .............................................. 15-130

Table 15.5.4-1 Summary of Traffic Count Survey Location ........................................ 15-131

Table 15.5.4-2 Summary of Traffic Count Survey Result inside Metro Manila (AADT)15-135

Table 15.5.4-3 Summary of Traffic Count Survey Result outside Metro Manila (AADT)15-136

Table 15.7.1-1 Applicable Standards ........................................................................... 15-155

Table 15.7.4-1 Traffic Volume of Objective Roads ..................................................... 15-156

Table 15.7.4-2 Technical Specifications of Lambingan Bridge ................................... 15-157

Table 15.7.4-3 Technical Specifications of Guadalupe Bridge .................................... 15-158

Table 15.7.4-4 Technical Specifications of Palanit Bridge .......................................... 15-159

Table 15.7.4-5 Technical Specifications of Mawo Bridge ........................................... 15-160

Table 15.7.4-6 Technical Specifications of Wawa Bridge ............................................ 15-161

Table 15.7.5-1 Current Road Conditions of Lambingan Bridge................................... 15-164

Table 15.7.5-2 Restriction of Lambingan Bridge ........................................................ 15-165

Table 15.7.5-3 Design Conditions of Lambingan Bridge ............................................ 15-166

Table 15.7.5-4 Issue of Current Road and Measure Policy .......................................... 15-169

Table 15.7.5-5 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Lambingan Bridge ......................... 15-170

Table 15.7.5-6 Issue of Cross-Section, and Measure Policy ........................................ 15-171

Table 15.7.5-7 Current Road Conditions of Guadalupe Bridge ................................... 15-172

Table 15.7.5-8 Restriction of Guadalupe Bridge ......................................................... 15-173

Table 15.7.5-9 Design Conditions of Guadalupe Bridge ............................................. 15-174

Table 15.7.5-10 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Guadalupe Bridge ........................ 15-175

Table 15.7.5-11 Issue of Cross-Section and Measure Policy ....................................... 15-176

Table 15.7.5-12 Current Road Conditions of Palanit Bridge ....................................... 15-177

Table 15.7.5-13 Restriction of Palanit Bridge ............................................................. 15-178

Table 15.7.5-14 Design Conditions of Palanit Bridge ................................................. 15-179

Table 15.7.5-15 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Palanit Bridge .............................. 15-180


Table 15.7.5-17 Current Road Conditions of Mawo Bridge ........................................ 15-182

Table 15.7.5-18 Restriction of Mawo Bridge .............................................................. 15-183

Table 15.7.5-19 Design Conditions of Mawo Bridge .................................................. 15-184

Table 15.7.5-20 Issue of Current Road and Measure Policy ........................................ 15-185

lii

Table 15.7.5-21 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Mawo Bridge ............................... 15-186


Table 15.7.5-23 Current Road Conditions of Wawa Bridge ......................................... 15-188

Table 15.7.5-24 Restriction of Wawa Bridge .............................................................. 15-189

Table 15.7.5-25 Design Conditions of Wawa Bridge ................................................... 15-190

Table 15.7.5-26 Comparison Study of Horizontal Alignment ...................................... 15-192

Table 15.7.5-27 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Wawa Bridge ............................... 15-193


Table 15.7.5-29 Designed Values for Widening on Open Highway Curve ................... 15-194

Table 15.7.6-1 Current Condition of Pavement ........................................................... 15-196

Table 15.7.6-2 Accumulated Large Vehicle Volume Calculation Formula ................... 15-197

Table 15.7.6-3 Accumulation of Traffic Volume of Large Vehicle ............................... 15-197

Table 15.7.6-4 Thickness of Reinforced Concrete ....................................................... 15-197

Table 15.7.6-5 Layer Structures of Pavement.............................................................. 15-198

Table 15.7.6-6 Pavement of Service Road .................................................................. 15-198

Table 15.7.6-7 Pavement of Sidewalk ......................................................................... 15-198

Table 15.7.7-1 Current Drainage Facility Condition of Package B .............................. 15-199

Table 15.7.7-2 Current Drainage Facility Condition of Package C .............................. 15-200

Table 15.7.8-1 Revetment Works ................................................................................ 15-201

Table 15.7.8-2 Current Revetment Condition of Package C ........................................ 15-203

Table 15.7.8-3 List of Basic BM for Topography ........................................................ 15-204

Table 15.7.8-4 BM list of River Improvement ............................................................ 15-204

Table 15.7.8-5 Difference of BM Elevation between River Improvement and Topography

........................................................................................................................... 15-205

Table 15.7.8-6 Difference of MSL Elevation between River Improvement and Topography

........................................................................................................................... 15-205

Table 15.7.9-1 Issue of Current Traffic ....................................................................... 15-206

Table 15.7.9-2 Proposal of the Improvement .............................................................. 15-213

Table 16.1.1-1 Design Standards Utilized for Outline Design of New Bridges ................ 16-1

Table 16.1.1-2 Permanent and Transient Loads ............................................................... 16-2

Table 16.1.1-3 Load Combinations and Factors .............................................................. 16-2

Table 16.1.1-4 Load Factors for Permanent Loads, γp .................................................... 16-3

Table 16.1.1-5 Concrete Strength by Structural Member ................................................. 16-5

Table 16.1.1-6 Properties and Stress Limit of Reinforcing Bars ...................................... 16-5

Table 16.1.1-7 Properties and Stress Limit of PC Cable for T girder bridge .................... 16-5

Table 16.1.1-8 Properties and Stress Limit of PC Cable for PC Box Girder bridge ......... 16-5

Table 16.1.1-9 Properties and Stress Limit of Steel Pipe ................................................. 16-6

Table 16.1.1-10 Properties and Stress Limit of Steel Pipe for Steel Pipe Sheet Pile ........ 16-6

liii

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

Table 16.1.2-2 Candidates of comparison study ............................................................ 16-13

Table 16.1.2-3 Site Condition for Study of Type-1 ........................................................ 16-14


Table 16.1.2-5 Site Candidates of Comparison Study ................................................... 16-14

Table 16.1.2-6 Comparison on Foundation Type of Lambingan Bridge Abutment（A2)16-15

Table 16.1.2-7 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Lambingan bridge ...................... 16-16


Table 16.1.2-9 Candidates of Comparison Study .......................................................... 16-20

Table 16.1.2-10 Site Candidates of Comparison Study ................................................. 16-20

Table 16.1.2-11 Extraction of Applicable Basic Types based on Actual Results ............ 16-20

Table 16.1.2-12 Candidates of Comparison Study ......................................................... 16-21

Table 16.1.2-13 Comparison on Abutment Foundation Type of Guadarupe Bridge ....... 16-21

Table 16.1.2-14 Comparison on Abutment Foundation Type of Guadarupe Bridge ....... 16-22

Table 16.1.2-15 Comparison on Pier Foundation（P2) Type of Guadarupe Bridge .... 16-23

Table 16.1.2-16 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Guadalupe Side bridge ............. 16-24

Table 16.1.2-17 DHW of Palanit Bridge ....................................................................... 16-26


Table 16.1.2-19 Extraction of Basic Types for Final Comparison Study (Steel) ............ 16-30

Table 16.1.2-20 Extraction of Basic Types for Final Comparison Study (PC) ............... 16-31

Table 16.1.2-21 Candidates of Final Comparison Study ................................................ 16-31


Table 16.1.2-23 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Palanit bridge (STEEL) ............ 16-32

Table 16.1.2-24 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Palanit bridge (PC) .................. 16-33

Table 16.1.2-25 DHW of Mawo Bridge ........................................................................ 16-35




Table 16.1.2-29 Bridge Types for Final Comparison Study, including Rational Structures

(PC) ...................................................................................................................... 16-43



Table 16.1.2-32 Comparison on Pile Diameter of Mawo Bridge at P1 Pier ................... 16-45

Table 16.1.2-33 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Mawo bridge (STEEL 1/2) ....... 16-46

Table 16.1.2-34 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Mawo bridge (STEEL 2/2) ....... 16-47

Table 16.1.2-35 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Mawo bridge (PC) ................... 16-48


liv




(Steel) ................................................................................................................... 16-57


(Steel) ................................................................................................................... 16-57



Table 16.1.2-43 Comparison on Pile Diameter of Wawa Bridge at P1 Pier ................... 16-60

Table 16.1.2-44 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Wawa bridge (STEEL 1/3) ....... 16-61



Table 16.1.2-47 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Wawa bridge (PC 1/2) .............. 16-64

Table 16.1.2-48 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Wawa bridge (PC 2/2) .............. 16-65

Table 16.1.3-1 Seismic Analysis ................................................................................... 16-71

Table 16.2.1-1 Summary for Soil Parameters (1) .......................................................... 16-72


Table 16.2.2-1 Load Combinations and Factors at Strength I in AASHTO 2012 ........... 16-75

Table 16.2.2-2 Distribution of Sectional Forces under Combination of Strength I ........ 16-76

Table 16.2.2-3 Stress Check of Steel Deck.................................................................... 16-77

Table 16.2.2-4 Stress Check of Arch Rib ...................................................................... 16-78

Table 16.2.2-5 Stress Check of Hangers ....................................................................... 16-79

Table 16.2.2-6 Summary of Calculated Results ............................................................ 16-80

Table 16.2.3-1 Support Condition ................................................................................. 16-81

Table 16.2.3-2 Force Distribution Bearing .................................................................... 16-82

Table 16.2.3-3 Springs of Foundations ......................................................................... 16-82

Table 16.2.3-4 Damping Coefficient ............................................................................. 16-82

Table 16.2.3-5 Comparison Study of Bearing in Lambingan Bridge ............................. 16-84

Table 16.2.3-6 Results of Eigenvalue Analysis ............................................................. 16-85

Table 16.2.3-7 Relative Displacement between Substructure and Superstructure .......... 16-85

Table 16.2.3-8 Assessment of Soil Liquefaction ........................................................... 16-86

Table 16.2.3-9 Assessment of Soil Liquefaction Parameters ......................................... 16-87

Table 16.2.3-10 Results on Liquefaction Resistance Factor (FL) & Reduction Factor (DE)

............................................................................................................................. 16-87

Table 16.2.3-11 Devices and Functions of Unseating Prevention System ...................... 16-89

Table 16.2.3-12 Force Distribution Bearing .................................................................. 16-89

Table 16.2.3-13 Outline Verification of Bearing under LV2 Seismic Forces ................. 16-90

Table 16.2.3-14 Verification of Longitudinal Restrainer ............................................... 16-90

lv



Table 16.3.2-1 Load Combinations and Factors at Strength I in AASHTO 2012 ........... 16-99

Table 16.3.2-2 Distribution of Sectional Forces under Combination of Strength I ...... 16-100

Table 16.3.2-3 Stress Check of Steel Deck for Bending Moment ................................ 16-101

Table 16.3.2-4 Summary of Calculated Results .......................................................... 16-103

Table 16.3.3-1 Support Condition ............................................................................... 16-103

Table 16.3.3-2 Springs of Foundations ....................................................................... 16-104

Table 16.3.3-3 Damping Coefficient ........................................................................... 16-104

Table 16.3.3-4 Comparison Study of Bearing in Guadalupe Bridge ............................ 16-106

Table 16.3.3-5 Results of Eigenvalue Analysis ........................................................... 16-107

Table 16.3.3-6 Relative Displacement between Substructure and Superstructure ........ 16-107

Table 16.3.3-7 Assessment of Soil Liquefaction ......................................................... 16-108

Table 16.3.3-8 Assessment of Soil Liquefaction Parameters ....................................... 16-109


........................................................................................................................... 16-109

Table 16.3.3-10 Stability Calculation Model ............................................................... 16-117

Table 16.3.3-11 Devices and Functions of Unseating Prevention System .................... 16-119

Table 16.3.3-12 Verification of Longitudinal Restrainer ............................................. 16-121

Table 16.4.1-1 Summary for Soil Parameters (1) at A1 side ........................................ 16-126

Table 16.4.1-2 Summary for Soil Parameters (2) at A1 side ........................................ 16-127

Table 16.4.2-1 Determination of Approximate Amount of Prestressing Force ............. 16-130





Table 16.4.3-5 Comparison Study of Bearing in Palanit Bridge .................................. 16-134






........................................................................................................................... 16-137


Table 16.4.3-12 Force Distribution Bearing ................................................................ 16-141

Table 16.4.3-13 Outline Verification of Bearing under LV2 Seismic Forces ............... 16-141


Table 16.5.1-1 Summary for Soil Parameters (1) ........................................................ 16-147

lvi

Table 16.5.1-2 Summary for Soil Parameters (2) ........................................................ 16-147

Table 16.5.2-1 Reaction Forces of Superstructure ....................................................... 16-150





Table 16.5.3-5 Comparison Study of Bearing in Mawo Bridge ................................... 16-153






........................................................................................................................... 16-157





Table 16.6.1-1 Summary for Soil Parameters at A2side (1) ......................................... 16-167

Table 16.6.1-2 Summary for Soil Parameters at A1side (2) ......................................... 16-167

Table 16.6.2-1 Load Combinations and Factors at Strength I in AASHTO 2012 ......... 16-170

Table 16.6.2-2 Distribution of Axial Forces under Combination of Strength I............. 16-171

Table 16.6.2-3 Stress Check of Truss .......................................................................... 16-172

Table 16.6.2-4 Reaction Forces of Superstructure ....................................................... 16-173





Table 16.6.3-5 Comparison Study of Bearing in Wawa Bridge .................................... 16-176




Table 16.6.3-9 Result Assessment of Soil Liquefaction Parameters ............................ 16-179


........................................................................................................................... 16-179





lvii

Table 17.1.2-1 Material Properties ................................................................................. 17-1

Table 17.2.2-1 Load Distribution under EQ and Application Point of Seismic Inertial

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 18.3.1-3 Summary of Estimated Consultancy Service Cost ................................ 18-38

Table 18.3.1-4 Unit Price of Land Acquisition ............................................................. 18-39

Table 18.3.2-1 Summary of Construction cost 1/2 ........................................................ 18-40

lviii

Table 18.3.2-2 Summary of Construction cost 2/2 ........................................................ 18-41

Table 18.3.2-3 Summary of Civil Works cost ............................................................... 18-41

Table 18.3.2-4 Construction Cost of Lambingan Bridge ............................................... 18-43

Table 18.3.2-5 Construction Cost of Guadalupe Bridge ............................................... 18-44

Table 18.3.2-6 Construction Cost of 1st Mactan Bridge ................................................ 18-45

Table 18.3.2-7 Construction Cost of Palanit Bridge ..................................................... 18-46

Table 18.3.2-8 Construction Cost of Mawo Bridge ...................................................... 18-47

Table 18.3.2-9 Construction Cost of Lilo-an Bridget .................................................... 18-48

Table 18.3.2-10 Construction Cost of Wawa Bridge ..................................................... 18-49

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

Table 19.2.2-3 Hourly Volume vs. Capacity in Guadalupe Bridge (3/3) (Case-2, 3-lane) 19-8

Table 19.2.2-4 Hourly Volume vs. Capacity in Lambingan Bridge (1/3) (Case-0, No traffic

restriction 3-lane) ................................................................................................. 19-10

Table 19.2.2-5 Hourly Volume vs. Capacity in Lambingan Bridge (2/3) (Case-1, 2-lane)19-10

Table 19.2.2-6 Hourly Volume vs. Capacity in Lambingan Bridge (3/3) (Case-2, 1-lane)19-11

Table 19.3.3-1 Traffic Volume (Bound to Guadalupe Bridge)....................................... 19-13

Table 19.3.3-2 Traffic Volume (Guadalupe Bridge) ...................................................... 19-13

Table 19.3.3-3 Traffic Volume (On Ramp) ................................................................... 19-14

Table 19.3.3-4 Traffic Volume (Bound to Guadalupe Bridge)....................................... 19-14



Table 19.4.1-1 2011 DPWH Traffic Growth Rate ......................................................... 19-48

Table 19.4.1-2 Assumed Traffic Restriction during Construction ................................. 19-48

Table 19.5.2-1 Basic Concepts of Cost and Benefit ...................................................... 19-52

Table 19.5.3-1 Financial Cost ....................................................................................... 19-54

Table 19.5.3-2 Estimated Economic Cost ..................................................................... 19-54

Table 19.5.3-3 Estimated Economic Cost per Year of Lambingan Bridge ..................... 19-55

Table 19.5.3-4 Estimated Economic Cost per Year of Guadalupe Bridge ...................... 19-55

Table 19.5.3-5 Estimated Economic Cost per Year of 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge ....... 19-55

Table 19.5.3-6 Estimated Economic Cost per Year of Palanit Bridge ............................ 19-55

Table 19.5.3-7 Estimated Economic Cost per Year of Mawo Bridge ............................. 19-56

Table 19.5.3-8 Estimated Economic Cost per Year of Liloan Bridge ............................. 19-56

Table 19.5.3-9 Estimated Economic Cost per Year of Wawa Bridge.............................. 19-56

Table 19.5.4-1 Estimation of Travel Time and Length for Regular Route and Detour Route

lix

............................................................................................................................. 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 19.5.5-2 Cost-Benefit Stream (Lambingan Bridge) ............................................. 19-65

Table 19.5.5-3 Cost-Benefit Stream (Guadalupe Bridge) .............................................. 19-66

Table 19.5.5-4 Cost-Benefit Stream (1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge) ............................... 19-67

Table 19.5.5-5 Cost-Benefit Stream (Palanit Bridge) .................................................... 19-68

Table 19.5.5-6 Cost-Benefit Stream (Mawo Bridge) ..................................................... 19-69

Table 19.5.5-7 Cost-Benefit Stream (Liloan Bridge) ..................................................... 19-70

Table 19.5.5-8 Cost-Benefit Stream (Wawa Bridge) ..................................................... 19-71

Table 19.5.5-9 Cost-Benefit Stream (Total, all seven bridges) ...................................... 19-72

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

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

lx

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

lxi

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

lxii

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

lxiii

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

lxiv

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

PART 4

OUTLINE DESIGN OF SELECTED BRIDGES FOR SEISMIC CAPACITY

IMPROVEMENT (PACKAGE B AND C)

15-1

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.

15-2

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.

15-3

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.

15-4

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.

Source: Added Topographic Map by NAMRIA

Figure 15.2.2-1 Topographic Features for the Target Bridges in Metro Manila

(Non-Scale)

Deplan

Nagtahan

Lambingan

Guadalupe

Marikina

West Marikina

Valley Fault

Active fault solid - trace certain

Heavy dashed line - trace approximate

Light dashed line – approximate offshore projection

Lineament assumed by topographic map

15-5

(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.


Figure 15.2.2-2 Topographic Features for Buntun Bridge (Non-Scale)

Buntun Bridge





15-6

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.


Figure 15.2.2-3 Topographic Features for Mandaue-Mactan Bridge (Non-Scale)

Mandaue-Mactan Bridge





15-7

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.


Figure 15.2.2-4 Topographic Features for Palanit Bridge and Mawo Bridge (Non-Scale)

Mawo Bridge





Palanit Bridge

Northern Samar Lineament

(Route is approximate.)

15-8

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.


Figure 15.2.2-5 Topographic Features for Biliran Bridge (Non-Scale)

Biliran Bridge





Central Leyte Fault


15-9

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.


Figure 15.2.2-6 Topographic Features for Liloan Bridge (Non-Scale)

Liloan Bridge





Terrace

Central Leyte Fault


15-10

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.


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)).

Wawa Bridge





Eastern Mindanao Fault


15-11

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)

Wawa Bridge

Terrace (Tr)

Area of deformed slope

Lineament

Tr

(lower)

Tr

(upper)

15-12

(a) Slope Condition of East Side of the Bridge (b) Sediment Deposit due to Irrigation SystemSource: 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

Package B

Delpan 11.1 km northwest of the West Marikina Valley Fault

Nagtahan 7.5 km northwest of the West Marikina Valley Fault

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

Package C

Buntun 15.9 km southwest of the Taboan River Fault

Mandaue-Mactan 15.8 km southwest of the Cebu Lineament

Palanit 7.6 km southwest of an identified trace of Northern Samar Lineament

Mawo 1.4 km southwest of an identified trace of Northern Samar Lineament

Liloan 2.5 km southwest of an identified trace of PFZ Central Leyte Fault

Biliran 4.3 km northwest of an identified trace of PFZ Central Leyte Fault

Wawa 1.4 km west of an identified trace of PFZ Eastern Mindanao Fault

5.5 km east of another identified trace of PFZ Eastern Mindanao Fault

Source: PHIVOLCS

15-13

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

15-14

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

15-15

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 Mactan

Boring m 80 111 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).

15-16

a) Delpan Bridge

Delpan B-1

100 m

Figure 15.3.1-1 Location map of borehole (Delpan B-1)

b) Nagtahan Bridge

100 m

Nagtahan B-1

Figure 15.3.1-2 Location Map of Borehole (Nagtahan B-1)

15-17

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)

15-18

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

NBTL-1 BTL-2

2000 m

Source: NAMRIA Topographic Map 1:50,000: Tuguegarao

Figure 15.3.1-6 Location Map of Boreholes (Buntun Bridge)

15-19

b) Palanit Bridge

PAL-L1

PAL-R1

Figure 15.3.1-7 Location Map of Boreholes (Palanit Bridge)

c) Mawo Bridge

100 m

MAW-L2

MAW-L1

Figure 15.3.1-8 Location Map of Boreholes (Mawo Bridge)

15-20

d) 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge

100 m

MAN-E1MAN-W1

Figure 15.3.1-9 Location Map of Borehole s (1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge)

e) Biliran Bridge

100 m

BIL-S1BIL-N1

Figure 15.3.1-10 Location Map of Boreholes (Biliran Bridge)

15-21

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-L1WAW-R1

100 m

Figure 15.3.1-12 Location Map of Boreholes (Wawa Bridge)

15-22

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).

15-23

Table 15.3.2-2 Engineering Soil Layers (Deplpan B-1) S

oil Layer Thickness

(m) N-value Relative

Density/StiffnessSoil Type

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.

BR-1

25

m

Left bank of the Passig River

250 m

Right bank

Delpan B-1

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.

15-24

(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


15-25



Table 15.3.2-4 Engineering Soil Layers (Nagtahan B-1) Soil

Layer Thickness


Density/Stiffness Soil Type

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.

Nagtahan B-1

250 m

25

m

BPRL-17


250 m

Right bank

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

15-26

(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.

15-27

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




Table 15.3.2-6 Engineering Soil Layers (Lambingan B-1) Soil

Layer Thickness



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.

15-28

Lambingan B-1

250 m

25

m

BL-3


250 m

Right bank

BF: fill soil, As: alluvial sand, Ac: alluvial cohesive soil, Ds: diluvial sand, GF: Guadalupe Formation (basically pyroclastic

rocks)

Figure 15.3.2-3 Geological Profile for Lambingan Bridge

(I) Bs: Backfill Soil

It is mainly composed of medium sand and has a thickness of 1 m.


Sandy soils between -2 m and -6 m are classified into an alluvial sand layer. A thickness of

layer is about 5 m.

(III) Dc: Diluvial Cohesive Soils

Sandy clay (or clayey sand) between -6 m and -10 m is considered to be a diluvial cohesive

(clayey/silty) layer. Its thickness is 4 m.

(IV) WGF: Weathered Guadalupe Formation

Rocks between -10 m and -11 m are strongly weathered rocks of the Guadalupe Formation.

A thickness of this section is about 1 m.

15-29

(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




Table 15.3.2-8 Engineering Soil Layers (Guadalupe B-1) Soil

Layer Thickness



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

15-30

A geological profile for the Guadalupe Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.2-4.

Guadalupe B-1

250 m

25

m

BPLW-30


250 m

Right bank

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.

15-31


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.

15-32

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




Table 15.3.2-10 Engineering Soil Layers (Marikina B-1) Soil

Layer Thickness



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.

15-33

M6-LL (exising)

250 m

25

m

Marikina B-1

Right bank of the Marikina River

250 m

Left bank

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.

15-34

(III) Asg: Alluvial Sand and Gravel

Sand and gravel between – 14 m and -18 m are categorized as an alluvium layer.


Coarse sand between -18 m and -24 m is a diluvial layer. It is rich in gravels.

(V) Ds2: Diluvial Sand (2)

A sandy section between -24 m and -30 m is considered to be a diluvium layer. This layer is

denser than the Ds1 layer.

(2) Laboratory Tests

Soils of each borehole can be categorized as shown in the following tables.

Of the laboratory tests, results of grain size analysis as of October 31, 2012 are shown below

temporally.

1) Delpan Bridge

A tentative laboratory soil tests results are shown in Table 15.3.2-11.

15-35

Table 15.3.2-11 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Delpan B-1

GL-(m)

Soil Layer Major Soil

Type Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%)

Natural Moisture Content

(%)

Plasticity Index PI

(%)

ASTM Soil Classification

1

As Mainly fine

sand

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 4 0.0 95.4 4.6 33.3 SP 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

Ac

Sandy silt

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 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 0.0 22.7 77.3 42.4 8 SP 16

Sandy silt 0.0 63.6 36.4 45.2 SP

17 0.0 31.0 69.0 33.5 SP 18

Silt

0.0 15.2 84.9 68.2 11 OH 19 0.0 7.5 92.5 76.4 31 OH 20 0.0 4.1 95.9 43.5 23 OH 21 0.0 11.3 88.7 42.2 30 OH 22

Dc Clayey silt

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 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

Ds Very fine

sand

0.3 86.6 13.1 43.8 SC-SM 35 36 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

15-36

2) Nagtahan Bridge


Table 15.3.2-12 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Nagtahan B-1

GL-(m)




(%)

Plasticity Index PI

(%)


1 Bs Gravel and sand

12.85 12.9 85.9 1.3 40.1 SW 2 61.78 61.8 34.6 3.6 41.4 SW 3

As

Fine sand with

medium sand

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 No test 7 No test 8 0.00 0.0 98.9 1.1 20.5 SP 9 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

Gravel 51.59 51.6 47.6 0.8 25.5 SW

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

with gravel 36.26 36.3 60.6 3.1 50.4 SW

17 38.97 39.0 59.2 1.9 23.0 SW 18 Ds

Mainly fine sand

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 0.59 0.6 83.9 15.5 58.9 SC-SM 21 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

Rock/ welded tuff

84.47 84.5 13.6 1.9 30.8 SP 25 No test 26 No test 27 No test 28 No test 29 No test 30 No test

15-37

3) Lambingan Bridge


Table 15.3.2-13 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Lambingan B-1

GL-(m)




(%)

Plasticity Index PI

(%)


1 Bs Med. sand 8.3 90.8 0.9 21.2 SP 2

As Silty fine

sand

0.0 82.7 17.3 48.6 SC-SM 3 0.0 72.0 28.0 44.6 SC-SM 4 6.0 82.0 12.0 41.4 SP-SC 5 1.6 91.1 7.3 62.7 SP-SC 6 0.0 92.7 7.3 46.4 SP-SC 7

Dc Sandy clay or clayey

sand

0.0 41.9 58.1 55.7 12 CH 8 0.0 22.9 77.1 53.9 13 CH 9 0.0 33.1 66.9 48.5 19 OH 10 0.0 49.0 51.0 62.9 45 OH 11 WGF Rock 17.7 82.1 0.2 38.4 SW 12

GF

Rock

0.0 99.5 0.5 41.6 SP 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 0.7 98.2 1.1 25.1 SP 25

Fine sand 4.9 94.1 1.0 27.6 SP

26 6.90 92.9 0.2 28.8 SP 27

Rock

28 29 30

15-38

4) Guadalupe Bridge


Table 15.3.2-14 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Guadalupe B-1

GL-(m)




(%)

Plasticity Index PI

(%)


1 BF Fill soils

2 3

As

Mainly coarse to medium

sand

12.4 86.4 1.1 23.4 SP 4 0.0 97.4 2.6 23.9 SP 5 35.7 63.0 0.4 19.5 SP 6 9.7 83.6 2.6 25.4 SW-SC 7

Dg Gravel with

sand

44.5 54.3 1.2 10.9 SP 8 37.7 61.9 0.4 10.4 SW 9 57.9 41.9 0.2 8.8 SP 10 0.0 84.4 15.6 22.5 SP 11

Ds1

Mainly medium to fine sand

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 23 23.8 75.7 0.5 23.0 SP 24 41.2 58.6 0.2 9.3 SP 25 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

Mainly fine to medium

sand

3.1 90.8 6.2 89.5 SP-SC 37 0.2 97.1 2.7 65.9 SP 38 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

Ds2

Mainly medium to fine sand

42 43 44 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

15-39

5) Marikina Bridge


Table 15.3.2-15 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Marikina B-1

GL-(m)




(%)

Plasticity Index PI

(%)


1

Asc

Very fine sand

0.0 63.8 36.2 44.4 17 SC-SM 2 0.0 62.4 37.7 47.4 19 SC-SM 3 0.0 86.1 13.9 45.6 SP-SC 4 Mainly very

fine sand 0.0 64.0 36.0 26.3 18 SP

5 0.0 81.7 18.3 35.1 SP 6

Very fine sand 0.0 56.5 43.4 37.1 15 SP

7 0.0 96.4 3.6 37.4 SP 8

As

Mainly fine sand

3.2 96.4 0.4 25.8 SP 9 24.3 54.2 21.5 32.6 SP 10 0.0 96.7 3.3 37.3 SP 11 27.5 72.2 0.4 22.9 SP 12 23.4 73.0 2.6 25.8 SP 13 Fine to

medium sand 0.5 96.4 3.2 27.8 SP

14 0.0 95.0 0.4 37.2 SP 15

Asg Gravel and

sand

47.6 51.4 2.6 10.6 SW 16 32.5 63.9 3.6 15.4 SP 17 45.1 53.3 0.4 16.3 SP 18 20.7 78.2 2.6 13.0 SP 19

Ds1 Coarse sand

27.4 72.0 0.6 18.8 SP 20 32.4 66.7 0.4 16.4 SP 21 33.4 65.5 2.6 18.1 SP 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

Ds2

Mainly coarse to medium

sand

13.1 86.2 0.7 23.2 SP 26 7.8 91.2 0.4 24.8 SP 27 1.3 98.0 2.6 27.4 SP 28 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.

15-40

(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


15-41

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



Based on the observation of soil samples of BTL-1 and BTL-2, the following soil layers can

be identified (Table 15.3.3-3).

Table 15.3.3-3 Engineering Soil Layers (BTL-1 – BTL-2) Soil

Layer Thickness



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.

15-42

Ds2

BTL-2

250 m

25

m

BTL-1

Ds1

As

Dc

Ac2

Ac1: alluvial cohesive soil, As: alluvial sand, Ac2: alluvial cohesive soil, Dc: diluvial cohesive soil, Ds1: diluvial sand (1),

Ds2: diluvial sand (2)

Figure 15.3.3-1 Geological Profile for the Buntun Bridge

(I) Ac1: Alluvial Cohesive Soil

The soil of Ac1 consists of silty clay and recognized at BTL-1. This layer has a thickness of

4 m below the ground surface.


Fine to medium sand recognized at BTL-1 and BTL-2 is considered to be alluvial sand with

thicknesses varying from 1m to 13 meter. At BTL-1, the layer is distributed with a thickness

of 1 m below the bottom of the Ac1 layer; at BTL-2, the layer has a thickness of 13 m below

the ground surface.

(III) Ac2: Alluvial Cohesive Soil

Cohesive soil recognized at BTL-1 is considered to be an alluvium. A thickness of the layer

is 8 m and distributed between -2 m and -10 m at BTL-1.

(IV) Dc: Diluvial Cohesive Soil

Cohesive soil seen at BTL-1 is considered to be a diluvial silty soil. It ranges between -10 m

and -14 m at BTL-1.

(V) Ds1: Diluvial Sandy Soil (1)

This soil layer consists of very fine sand and/or fine to medium sand, and observed at only

BTL-2 borehole. The layer is distributed between -13 m and -16 m at BTL-2.

15-43

(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


15-44

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



Based on the boring logs of PAL-R1 and PAL-L1, the following soil layers can be identified

(Table 15.3.3-6).

Table 15.3.3-6 Engineering Soil Layers (PAL-R1 – PAL-L1) Soil

Layer Thickness



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.

15-45

VR

DcDs

DsgAsg

PAL-R1PAL-L1

250 m

25

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.

15-46

(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.

15-47

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


15-48

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



Based on the boring logs of MAW-L1 and MAW-L2, the following soil layers can be

identified (Table 15.3.3-9).

Table 15.3.3-9 Engineering Soil Layers (MAW-L1 – MAW-L2) Soil

Layer Thickness



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.

15-49

250 m

25

m

MAW-L1MAW-L2

VR

VR

Ds2

Ds1

Ac2

Ag2

As

Ac1Ac1

Ag1

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..

15-50

(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.

15-51

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

15-52

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)


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



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.

15-53

Table 15.3.3-12 Engineering Soil Layers (MAN-E1 – MAN-W1) Soil

Layer Thickness

(m) N-value Relative Density/Stiffness Soil Type

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.

15-54

Mactan Is.Cebu Is.

MAN-W1MAN-E1

Lm

Ds2

Dc5

Dc4

Ds2

Dc3

Dc2L

Dc2u

Dg/Dc

DsAs

Ac

AgDgs

AsAc

50

m

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.

15-55


Loose to medium dense sand distributed below the Ac layer is classified into this soil layer.


Medium dense sand (10 – 11 m) below the As layer at MAN-E1 is classified into this layer.

(V) Dg~Dc: Diluvial Gravel and Cohesive Soil

Gravel, and cohesive soils between -16 m and -19 m at MAN-E1 is classified as Dg or Dc

respectively.

(VI) Dgs: Diluvial Sand and Gravel

Sand and gravel between -5 m and -10 m at MAN-W1 is grouped into this layer.

(VII) Dc2: Diluvial Cohesive Soil (2)

Cohesive soil section between -19 and -28 m of MAN-E1 corresponds to this layer. Based

on N-value, the layer is divided into two sub-layers at a depth of 22 m (upper portion of Dc2

is named Dc2u, and lower portion is named Dc2ℓ).

(VIII) Dc3: Diluvial Cohesive Soil (3)

Cohesive soil between -28 m and -35 m at MAN-E1 is classified into this layer.

(IX) Dc4: Diluvial Cohesive Soil (4)

Cohesive soil between -35 and -40 m at MAN-E1 is grouped into this layer.

(X) Dc5: Diluvial Cohesive Soil (5)

Cohesive soil below a depth of -40 m is currently classified as Dc5.

(XI) Ds2: Diluvial Sand

Sandy soil layer below a depth of 69 m at MAN-E1 is currently named Ds2.

(XII) Lm: Limestone

Coralline limestone is distributed below a depth of 10 m at MAN-W1 is named Lm.

5) Biliran Bridge Site

a) Boring Result

The two boring were performed both side of Biliran Bridge. One borehole, BIL-N1, was

located on the south coast of Biliran Island; and another borehole, BIL-S1 was on the northern

coast of Leyte Island. The boring results are shown in Table 15.3.3-13 and Table 15.3.3-14

below.

15-56

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



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

Layer Thickness



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.

15-57

25

m

250 m

VR

VR VRAc

Dc

Bililan Is.Leyte Is.

BIL-N1

BIL-S1

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.

15-58

(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


15-59

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


15-60


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

Layer Thickness



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

15-61

25

m

250 m

Panaon Is.Leyte Is.

LIL-S1.

LIL-N1.

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

15-62

(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.

15-63

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 clayrelatively high water content including gravels of 15 mm brownish-gray/yellowish-gray colored

4 – 9 5 23 – 47 Very fine sandwith gravel and clay brownish-gray/yellowish-gray colored relatively low water content (probably strongly weathered sandstone)

9 – 12 3 46–50 ≤ Clayrelatively low water content sometime consolidated dark-gray/greenish-gray colored

12 – 13 1 47 Clay with rock fragmentsrelatively high water content greenish-gray colored

13 – 15 2 50 ≤ Clay with gravelrelatively low water content greenish-gray/blackish-gray colored

15 – 17 2 50 ≤ (clay with rock fragments)no core recovered

17 – 18 1 50 ≤ Consolidated claygreenish-gray/blackish-gray colored

18 – 30 12 50 ≤ Clay with gravelrelatively high water content including gravels of 10-30 mm in diameter (probably sheared/fractured clayey/silty rocks) blackish-gray/greenish-gray colored


15-64

Table 15.3.3-20 Boring Result (Wawa: WAW-L1) Depth(m) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters0 – 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 gravelincluding gravel of 20-30 mm in diameter relatively low water content blackish-brown colored

6 – 7 1 40 Clay with gravelrelatively high-moderate water content dark-gray/blackish-gray colored

7 – 10 3 49–50 ≤ Clay with gravelrelatively high-moderate water content dark-gray/blackish-gray colored medium soft/hard

10 – 12 2 50 Clay with gravelrelatively high-moderate water content dark-gray/blackish-gray colored

relatively hard12 – 14 2 50 ≤ Clay

relatively high water content greenish-gray colored

14 – 19 5 41 –50≤ Clayrelatively low water content bluish-gray/greenish-gray colored soft-hard, sometime consolidated

19 – 30 11 50 ≤ Claysometime with gravel medium-soft hard dark-greenish-gray colored moderate water content relatively consolidated below -29 m



Based on the boring logs of WAW-L1 and WAW-R1, the following soil layers can be

identified (Table 15.3.3-21).

15-65

Table 15.3.3-21 Engineering Soil Layers (WAW-L1 – WAW-R1) Soil

Layer Thickness

(m) N-value Relative Density/Stiffness Soil Type

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.

250m

25m

Buntun

Qc

As

Ag

BF

BF

WAW-L1

WAW-R1

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.

15-66

(II) Ag: Alluvial Gravel

Gravels lies on the river bed of the Wawa. This gravel is classified into an alluvial gravel

layer and has a thick of 4 m.


Very fine sand portion between -4 m to -9 m at WAW-R1 is considered to be alluvial

deposits of the Wawa River.

(IV) Qc: Quaternary Cohesive Soil

Clayey and silty soil lying under BF, Ag and As is classified into a Quaternary clay member.

This layer is considered to be an alluvium layer.

15-67

(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

GL-(m)

Soil Layer

Major Soil Type

Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Natural

Moisture Content (%)

Plasticity Index PI

(%)


1 Ac1 Silty clay 0.0 49.0 51.0 9 ML 2 As Fine sand 8.5 88.1 3.4 SP 3

Ac2 Clay

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 6 0.0 22.5 77.6 2 ML 7 0.0 12.5 87.5 21 CL 8 0.0 18.6 81.4 2 ML 9

Clay 0.0 11.7 88.3 7 ML

10 0.0 4.9 95.1 10 MH 11

Dc Silt

0.0 2.8 97.2 48.87 6 MH 12 0.0 99.2 0.8 SP 13 0.0 12.1 87.9 43.77 7 ML 14 0.0 14.1 85.9 46.63 6 ML 15

Ds2

Very fine sand

16 17

Very fine sand

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 23 0.0 98.3 1.7 SP 24 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

15-68

Table 15.3.3-23 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Buntun BTL-2

GL-(m)

Soil Layer Major Soil Type Gravel

(%) Sand (%) Fines (%)


(%)

Plasticity Index PI

(%)


1

As

Very fine sand

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 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

Fine to medium sand

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 10 0.7 98.8 0.5 26.3 SP 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

Ds1 V. fine sand 0.0 99.1 0.9 38.0 SP

15 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

Ds2

Very fine sand

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 22 6.5 92.8 0.8 15.7 SP 23 1.0 97.7 1.3 14.7 SP 24 0.0 99.2 0.8 26.7 SP 25 26 40.3 56.9 2.8 13.8 SP 27

Very fine sand

0.0 97.5 2.5 31.9 SP 28 0.0 96.6 3.4 28.9 SP 29 0.0 97.3 2.7 31.9 SP 30 0.3 98.4 1.4 30.4 SP

2) Palanit Bridge


Table 15.3.3-24 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Palanit PAL-L1

GL-(m)




(%)

Plasticity Index PI

(%)


1

Dsg Clayey sand

0.0 96.8 3.2 27.0 SP 2 8.9 87.9 3.2 19.0 SW 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

6 Dc Clay with

gravel 0.0 48.3 51.7 25.4 9 MH

Table 15.3.3-25 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Palanit PAL-R1

GL-(m)




(%)

Plasticity Index PI

(%)


1 Asg

Gravely sand

13.3 84.1 2.7 21.0 SP 2 20.1 76.8 3.0 20.3 SW

15-69

3) Mawo Bridge


Table 15.3.3-26 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Mawo MAW-L1

GL-(m)

Soil Layer

Major Soil Type

Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%)


(%)

Plasticity Index PI

(%)


Ac1 Clay

0.0 37.7 62.3 46.4 16 CL 2 0.0 43.7 56.3 72.6 2 MH 3 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

As V. fine sand 0.0 98.5 1.5 56.6 SP

7 0.0 98.5 1.5 46.3 SP 8

Ag

Gravel with silt

80.0 19.8 0.2 6.9 SW 9 33.2 66.2 0.6 15.7 SW 10

Gravel 24.4 75.4 0.2 24.7 SP

11 49.6 49.4 1.1 13.7 SW 12

Gravel

39.1 59.7 1.3 14.9 SW 13 41.7 55.2 3.1 13.5 SP 14 69.6 30.2 0.2 13.9 SW 15 5.4 93.0 1.6 24.1 SP

16

Ac2

Clay with very fine

sand 0.0 38.2 61.8 58.0 12 MH

17

Clay with very fine

sand

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 21 0.0 43.4 56.6 51.9 5 MH 22 0.0 64.4 35.6 44.6 4 ML 23 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

Ds1 Sand with

clay

0.0 99.1 0.9 55.3 SP 30 0.0 99.2 0.8 57.3 SP 31 32

Ds2 Fine to

Medium sand

0.0 97.7 2.3 26.5 SP 33 0.0 99.6 0.4 22.0 SP 34 10.7 86.8 2.5 39.8 SP 35 19.0 79.6 1.4 33.3 SP 36 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

GL-(m)




(%)

Plasticity Index PI

(%)


1 Ag

Silty gravel 20.7 40.2 39.1 30.8 6 ML 2 Gravel 0.0 99.0 58.6 17.1 10 ML 3

Ac1 Sandy clay 27.4 92.1 31.5 19.0 SC-SM

4 0.7 98.9 0.5 32.2 SP 5 0.42 99.38 0.20 14.4 SP

15-70

4) 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge


Table 15.3.3-28 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of MAN-E1

GL-(m) Soil

Layer Major Soil Type

Gravel (%)

Sand (%) Fines (%)


(%)

Plasticity Index PI

(%)


Ag Gravel?

34.1 65.7 0.2 15.6 SW 2 35.0 64.8 0.2 17.4 SW 3 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

Ac Clay

0.0 3.9 96.1 49.5 18 CL 7 0.0 5.8 94.2 58.3 27 MH 8 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

As

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

Sand with silt 2.0 74.4 23.6 29.1 SC-SM

14 0.6 76.1 23.3 29.0 SC-SM 15

Med. to fine sand 1.4 98.1 0.5 22.0 SP

16 1.7 98.1 0.2 24.0 SP

17 Gravelly sand

with silt 4.2 95.2 0.6 24.7 SP

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

Dc2 Clay

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 0.0 9.2 90.8 29.9 25 CH 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

Dc3 Clay

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 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

Dc4

Clay 2.7 37.2 60.1 25.5 24 CH 37 Clay 0.0 17.0 83.0 26.2 28 CH 38 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

Dc5 Clay

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 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

15-71

GL-(m) Soil


Gravel (%)

Sand (%) Fines (%)


(%)

Plasticity Index PI

(%)


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

Ds2 Silty sand

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 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

GL-(m) Soil


Gravel (%)

Sand (%) Fines (%)


(%)

Plasticity Index PI

(%)


1 Ac Clay with gravel

10.1 8.3 81.6 35.7 13 CL 2 Ac 75.5 14.5 10.0 36.3 SP 3 As

Coarse to medium sand

20.5 79.5 0.0 15.6 SP 4 As 36.4 63.3 0.3 14.7 SP 5 As 13.5 86.3 0.3 15.5 SP 6 Dgs 16.9 83.1 0.0 15.2 SP 7 Dgs

Gravelly sand 6.3 93.8 0.0 17.75 SP

8 Dgs 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

15-72

5) Biliran Bridge


Table 15.3.3-30 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of BIL-N1

GL-(m) Soil

Layer Major Soil



(%)

Plasticity Index PI

(%)


1 Dc Clay with

gravel 0.0 27.8 72.2 29.8 8 MH

Table 15.3.3-31 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of BIL-S1

GL-(m) Soil

Layer Major Soil



(%)

Plasticity Index PI

(%)


1 Ac

Clay with gravel

0.0 31.9 68.1 47.4 5 ML 2 0.0 49.5 50.6 47.6 7 MH

6) Liloan Bridge


Table 15.3.3-32 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of LIL-N1

GL-(m) Soil

Layer Major Soil



(%)

Plasticity Index PI

(%)


1 CL1 Sandy silt 0.0 86.4 54.6 21.0 3 ML

15-73

Table 15.3.3-33 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of LIL-S1

GL-(m) Soil

Layer Major Soil Type Gravel (%) Sand (%)

Fines (%)


(%)

Plasticity Index PI

(%)


1

Asg

Gravel

2 3 Coarse to

medium sand 0.0 99.1 0.9 30.2 SP

4 0.0 99.5 0.5 26.7 SP 5 Gravel 6

Dsg1 Sand with

gravel 8.7 90.6 0.7 18.1 SP

7 8

Dsg2

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

Gravelly sand

4.4 95.4 0.2 9.30 SP 15 33.3 66.5 0.2 10.10 SW 16 17 9.0 90.8 0.2 17.40 SW 18 18.6 81.2 0.2 18.60 SP 19 20 7.5 92.2 0.2 23.20 SP 21

Sandy gravel 22.2 77.2 0.6 10.70 SP

22 23

Sand

17.7 82.1 0.2 0.07 SP 24 25 19.9 80.0 0.2 6.63 SW 26 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

15-74

7) Wawa Bridge


Table 15.3.3-34 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of WAW-L1

GL-(m) Soil

Layer Major Soil


Natural Moisture

Content (%)

Plasticity Index PI

(%)


1

BF

Clay with gravel

5.5 56.1 38.4 19.6 18 CL 2 5.3 35.8 58.9 13.0 15 CL 3 8.8 59.1 32.1 19.7 SC-SM 4 41.7 36.0 22.3 14.0 SC-SM 5 Clay with

gravel 0.8 39.4 59.9 31.4 13 CL

6 8.3 34.3 57.4 29.5 12 CL

7

Qc

Clay with gravel

0.0 11.1 89.0 32.30 10 CL

8 Clay with

gravel

0.0 7.2 92.8 41.82 11 CL 9 0.0 6.1 93.9 43.4 14 CL

10 0.0 7.3 92.7 42.7 11 CL 11 Clay with

gravel 0.0 5.6 94.5 46.1 19 MH

12 0.0 8.8 91.2 40.9 10 MH 13

Clay 0.0 3.4 96.6 33.1 30 MH

14 0.0 1.9 98.1 38.1 14 MH 15

Clay

0.0 1.6 98.4 25.3 11 MH 16 0.0 3.0 97.0 26.2 22 MH 17 0.0 1.3 98.7 30.6 11 MH 18 0.0 3.3 96.8 27.5 12 MH 19 0.0 11.7 88.3 30.6 11 MH 20

Clay

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 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

15-75

Table 15.3.3-35 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of WAW-R1

GL-(m) Soil

Layer Major Soil


Natural Moisture

Content (%)

Plasticity Index PI

(%)


1

Ag

Sand and gravel

20.3 79.1 0.6 13.7 SP

2 Clayey gravel and sand

9.3 90.3 0.4 8.6 SP

3 Clay with gravel

20.9 37.2 41.8 40.8 14 MH 4 44.1 23.3 32.6 21.5 SC-SM 5

As

Clayey gravel and sand

48.6 23.5 27.9 14.4 SC-SM 6 4.8 47.1 48.2 22.2 7 ML

7 Very fine sand with fines and gravel

0.0 98.6 1.4 16.67 SP

8 Weathered rock (boulder)

9

10

Qc

Clay 8.7 36.6 54.7 20.94 16 MH

11 3.6 23.2 73.2 21.38 11 MH 12

Clay with gravel

0.0 9.7 90.3 16.36 12 CL 13 23.9 29.4 46.7 17.67 13 MH 14 10.5 24.4 65.2 20.06 13 MH 15 boulder 16

Gravel 9.3 56.9 33.8 19.09 SC-SM

17 10.1 58.6 31.3 17.50 SC-SM 18 Silt 0.0 9.9 90.1 29.60 14 MH 19

Clay 0.0 7.9 92.1 47.71 15 CL

20 0.0 6.1 93.9 46.52 14 CL 21

Gravelly clay

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 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.

15-76

b) Nagtahan Bridge

A rigid soil layer with Vs≥300 m/sec is distributed at a depth of 23 m below the ground

surface at the B-1. The rigid layer is formed of pyroclastic rocks named the Guadalupe

Formation (GF). TG is 0.49 and the ground type there is II.

c) Lambingan Bridge

A rigid soil layer with Vs≥300 m/sec lies at a depth of 11 m below the ground surface in the

B-1 site. The rigid layer is composed of pyroclastic rocks named the Guadalupe Formation,

and intercalated by a very dense fine sand layer. TG there is 0.23 and the ground is classified

into Type II.

d) Guadalupe Bridge


surface at the B-1 site. The rigid layer is a very dense sand layer (Ds2) with N-values of 50

and greater. TG is 0.64 and the ground is categorized as Type III.


Assessment

Bridge site Location JRA Ground

Type TG Location

JRA Ground Type

TG

Met

ro M

anila

Delpan Passig (Left) III 0.66 Passig (Right) ( II ) 0.42Nagtahan Passig (Left) II 0.49 Passig (Right) ( II ) 0.34Lambingan Passig (Left) ( II ) 0.31 Passig (Right) II 0.23Guadalupe Passig (Left) ( I ) 0.15 Passig (Right) III 0.59Marikina Marikina (Left) ( I ) 0.09 Marikina (Right) II 0.47

Pro

vinc

es

Palanit Left bank I 0.05 Right bank I 0.09Mawo Left bank I 0.13 Right bank III 0.72Biliran Biliran side I 0.01 Leyte side I 0.03Liloan Leyte side I 0.01 Panaon side I 0.111st Mandaue-Mactan Cebu side I 0.08 Mactan side II 0.27Buntun Left bank II 0.29 Right bank II 0.38Wawa 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


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.

15-77

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.

15-78

e) Liloan Bridge

(I) LIL-NI

The site is composed of coralline limestones. TG of the site is 0.01 and the ground is

classified into Type I.

(II) LIL-S1


surface at the borehole. The rigid layer is a very dense sand and gravel layer (Dsg2) with 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


surface. A calculated TG is around 1.0. The site is classified into Type III.

(II) MAN-W1

A rigid soil layer with Vs≥300 m/sec is a diluvial sand and gravel layer at a depth of 5 m

below the ground surface. TG is 0.08 and the ground type is Type I.

g) Wawa Bridge

(I) WAW-R1

A rigid soil layer with Vs≥300 m/sec lies at a depth of 9 m below the ground surface and TG

is 0.15. The site is classified as Type I.

(II) WAW-L1


surface and mainly composed of clayey soils. TG is 0.08 and the ground is classified as

Type I.

15-79

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).

15-80

Table 15.3.4-3 Soil Type and Design Parameters on Soils (NEXCO)

Soil Type Condition of soil Unit weight *(kN/m3)

Angle of internal friction

(degree)

Cohesion (kN/m2)

Art

ific

ial G

roun

d

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

Loam Compacted 14 20 ≤ 10

Nat

ural

Gro

und

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


Sand Dense or well graded 20 35 0


Sandy soil Dense or well graded 19 30 ≤ 30


Clayey/Silty soil Hard 18 25 ≤ 50

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

σv’: effective overburden pressure (kN/m2) at a depth of x (m)

15-81

e) Modulus of Deformation (Modulus of Elasticity)

Elasticity of soil (E0) can be obtained using the following formula empirically in Japan.

E0=700·N (kN/m2)

f) Rock Properties

As for rocks covered by alluvium or diluvium, their geotechnical rock parameter should be

determined using appropriate methods in further study.

g) Tentative Soil Parameters for Preliminary Design

Tentative soil parameters are shown in tables below.

(I) Inside of Metro Manila

(i) Delpan

At the borehole B-1, four (4) soil layers can be identified. Those are As (alluvial sand),

Ac (alluvial cohesive soil), Dc (diluvial cohesive soil), and Ds (diluvial sand).

Soil parameters for bridge design are proposed in Table 15.3.4-4 below.

Table 15.3.4-4 Proposed Soil Parameters for Delpan B-1 Site Depth

(m) Layer Soil Type N values Nd γt

(kN/m3) C

(kN/m2)

Φ (º)

E0

(kN/m2) Vsn

(m/sec)

-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).


Table 15.3.4-5 Proposed Soil Parameters for Nagtahan B-1 Site Depth

(m) Layer name

Soil Type N values Nd γt (kN/m3)

C (kN/m2)

Φ (º)

E0

(kN/m2) Vsn

(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

15-82

(iii) Lambingan

At the borehole B-1, five (5) soil layers can be identified. They are Bs (backfill sand), As

(alluvial sand), Dc (diluvial cohesive soil), WGF (weathered rocks of the Guadalupe

Formation), and pyroclastic rocks named the Guadalupe Formation (GF).


Table 15.3.4-6 Proposed Soil Parameters for Lambingan B-1 Site Depth (m)

Layer name

Soil Type N Nd γt (kN/m3)

C (kN/m2)

Φ (º)

E0

(kN/m2) Vsn

(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 <


(iv) Guadalupe

At the borehole B-1, five (5) soil layers are identified. They are Bs (backfill sand), BF

(fill soil), As (alluvial sand), Dg (diluvial gravelly soil), and diluvial sand layers (Ds1

and Ds2).


Table 15.3.4-7 Proposed Soil Parameters for Guadalupe B-1 Site Depth (m)

Layer name


C (kN/m2)

Φ (º)

E0

(kN/m2) Vsn

(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 <


(v) Marikina

At the borehole B-1, five (5) soil layers can be identified. They are Asc (alluvial

cohesionless soil with fines (silt and/or clay)), As (alluvial sand), Asg (alluvial sand and

gravel), and diluvial sand layers (Ds1 and Ds2).


Table 15.3.4-8 Proposed Soil Parameters for Marikina B-1 Site Depth

(m) Layer name


C (kN/m2)

Φ (º)

E0

(kN/m2) Vsn

(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 <


15-83

(II) Outside of Metro Manila

(i) Buntun

Table 15.3.4-9 shows a proposal of soil parameters for bridge design based on the

geological investigation result at BTL-1 located in the left bank of the river below the

Buntun Bridge.

Five (5) soil layers are identified and they are Ac1(alluvial cohesive soil), As (alluvial

sand), Ac2 (alluvial cohesive soil), Dc (diluvial cohesive soil), and Ds2 (diluvial sandy

soils). Dc2 and Ds2 are considered as good bearing layers.

Table 15.3.4-9 Proposed Soil Parameters for Buntun BTL-1 Site Depth

(m) Layer name


C (kN/m2)

Φ (º)

E0

(kN/m2) Vsn

(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 <


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 (m)

Layer name


C (kN/m2)

Φ (º)

E0

(kN/m2) Vsn

(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.

15-84

Table 15.3.4-11 Proposed Soil Parameters for Palanit PAL-L1 Site Depth

(m) Layer name


C (kN/m2)

Φ (º)

E0

(kN/m2) Vsn

(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 <


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

(m) Layer name


C (kN/m2)

Φ (º)

E0

(kN/m2) Vsn

(m/sec)-2 Asg Sandy 8 – 9 9 17 0 33 5,950 163

-30 VR Rock 50 < 50 < – – – – 300<


(iii) Mawo

Seven (7) soil layers are identified at MAW-L1. They are Ac1 (alluvial cohesive soil

(1)), As (alluvial sand), Ag (alluvial gravel), Ac2 (alluvial cohesive soil (2)), Ds1

(diluvial sand (1)), Ds2 (diluvial sand (2)), and VR (volcanic rocks). A tentative proposal

of soil parameters for bridge design is summarized in Table 15.3.4-13.

Table 15.3.4-13 Proposed Soil Parameters for Mawo MAW-L1 Site Depth

(m) Layer name


C (kN/m2)

Φ (º)

E0

(kN/m2) Vsn

(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 <


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).

15-85

Table 15.3.4-14 Proposed Soil Parameters for Mawo MAW-L2 Site Depth

(m) Layer name


C (kN/m2)

Φ (º)

E0

(kN/m2) Vsn

(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 <


(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 (m)

Layer name


C (kN/m2)

Φ (º)

E0

(kN/m2) Vsn

(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 <


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 (m)

Layer name


C (kN/m2)

Φ (º)

E0

(kN/m2) Vsn

(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 <


15-86

(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 (m)

Layer name


C (kN/m2)

Φ (º)

E0

(kN/m2) Vsn

(m/sec)-1 Dc Silty/Clayey 50 < 50 < 18 313< 0 35,000< 300 <

-30 VR Rock 50 < 50 < – – – 35,000< 300 <


Table 15.3.4-18 Proposed Soil Parameters for Biliran BIL-S1 Site Depth (m)

Layer name


C (kN/m2)

Φ (º)

E0

(kN/m2) Vsn

(m/sec)-2 Ac Silty/Clayey 5 – 50 33 18 203 0 35,000< 319

-30 VR Rock 50 < 50 < – – – 35,000< 300 <


(vi) Liloan

CL1 (strongly weathered limestone: cohesive soil) lies on CL2 (relatively fresh coralline

limestone) at LIL-N1. Three (3) soil layers are identified at LIL-S1. They are Asg

(alluvial sand and gravel), Dsg1 (diluvial sand and gravel (1)), and Dsg2 (diluvial sand

and gravel (2)). A tentative proposal of soil parameters for bridge design is shown in

Table 15.3.4-19 and Table 15.3.4-20.

Table 15.3.4-19 Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan LIL-S1 Site Depth (m)

Layer name


C (kN/m2)

Φ (º)

E0

(kN/m2) Vsn

(m/sec)-1 CL1 Silty/Clayey 50/10 50 < 18 313 0 35,000< 300 <

-30 CL2 Limestone 50 < 50 < 21 – – 35,000< 300 <


Table 15.3.4-20 Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan LIL-S1 Site Depth

(m) Layer name


C (kN/m2)

Φ (º)

E0

(kN/m2) Vsn

(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<


15-87

(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

(m) Layer name


C (kN/m2)

Φ (º)

E0

(kN/m2) Vsn

(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 <


Table 15.3.4-22 Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan WAW-R1 Site Depth

(m) Layer name


C (kN/m2)

Φ (º)

E0

(kN/m2) Vsn

(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 <


(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.

15-88

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<z<=23mb(Liao and Whitman, 1986)

Z depth below ground surface in meters or d =(1.000-0.4113z0.5+0.04052z+0.001753z1.5)/(1.000-0.4177z0.5+0.05729z-

0.006205 z1.5+0.001210z2), (Blake, personal advice)

CRR7.5={1/[34-(N1)60]}+{(N1)60/135}+{50/[10(N1)60+45]2}-[1/200]

(N1)60: 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 stressCE: correction for hammer energy ratio (ER) CB: correction factor for borehole diameter CR: correction factor for rod length CS: correction for samples with or without liners CN=(Pa/σv’0)

0.5 CN: normalize Nm to an effective overburden pressure σ’v0 of approximately 100 kPa (1 atm) Pa or by Seed and Idriss (1982) CN=2.2/(1.2+σ’v0/Pa)<=1.7

(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%<FC<35% α=5.0 for FC=>35% β=1.0 for FC<=5% β=[0.99+(FC1.5/1000)] for 5%<FC<35% β=1.2 for FC=>35%

MSF: Magnitude Scaling Factor =102.24/Mw2.56 Mw: moment magnitude Kσ: depth less than about 15m (low overburden pressure)

= (σv’0/Pa)f-1

Relative densities: 40-60% f=0.7-0.8%, 60-80% f=0.6-0.7

15-89

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.

15-90

Start

Groundwater level within 10 m from

the ground surface

Saturated soil layers within 20 m from the ground

surface

Grain size analysis(one sample per one meter)

D50 ≤ 10 mm

D10 ≤ 1 mm

Fine Content FC ≤ 35%

Plasticity IndexPI ≤ 15

Atterberg limit test

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

To assess liquefaction potential Not to assess liquefaction Potential

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Figure 15.3.4-1 Flow Chart for Evaluation of Liquefiable Soil Layers

15-91

b) Liquefaction Potential Assessment

Soil layers with FL≤1.0 are considered to potentially cause liquefaction.

FL＝R/L

FL stands for a resistance ratio for liquefaction (factor of safety) on a soil layer (usually

estimated at every one (1) meter). Dividing an R value by an L makes an FL value.

R=Cw/RL

L=rd·khgL·σv/σv’

rd=1.0-0.015 x

khgL=Cz・khgL0

Level 1 seismic motion and Level 2 (Type I) seismic motion

Cw=1.0

Level 2 (Type II) seismic motion

Cw=1.0 (RL≦0.1)

Cw=3.3RL+0.67 (0.1<RL≦0.4)

Cw=2.0 (0.4<RL)

FL: Resistance ratio for liquefaction

R: Dynamic shear strength ratio

L: Shear stress ratio during seismic motion

Cw: Correction parameter for seismic motion characteristics

RL: Cyclic tri-axial stress strength ratio

rd: Depth-reduction parameter for seismic stress ratio

khgL: design lateral force coefficient at the ground surface for liquefaction potential

assessment

Cz: Zone modification factor

khgL0: standard design lateral force coefficient at the ground surface for liquefaction

potential assessment

σv: Overburden pressure (kN/m2) at a depth of x (m)

σv’: Effective overburden pressure (kN/m2) at a depth of x (m)

x: a depth (m) below the ground surface

15-92


Assessment Level 1 seismic

motionLevel 2 (Type I) seismic motion

Level 2 (Type II) 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)

RL=0.0882·(Na/1.7)0.5 [Na<14]

RL=0.0882·(Na/1.7)0.5+1.6·10-6·(Na-14)4.5 [Na≥14]

<For Sandy soils>

c1=1 (0%≤FC<10%)

c1=(FC+40)/50 (10%≤FC<60%)

c1=FC/20-1 (60%≤FC)

c2=0 (0%≤FC<10%)

c2=(FC-10)/18 (10%≤FC)

<For Gravelly soils>

Na={1-0.36·log10(D50/2)} ·N1

RL=Cyclic tri-axial strength ratio

N: N-value by SPT

N1: Corrected N-value regarding effective overburden stress

Na: Corrected N-value

σv b’: Effective overburden pressure at a depth of SPT (kN/m2)

c1, c2: Correction parameters for N-value regarding fine contents (FC: %)

FC: Fine content (%)

D50: Particle size (mm) corresponding to 50% finer on the cumulative particle size curve

Table 15.3.4-24 shows a comparison of methodologies specified in AASHTO and JRA.

15-93

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)

15-94

At the borehole (B-1), sandy and silty soil layers from GL-3 m to GL-17 m have relatively

high liquefaction potential.

(II) Nagtahan Bridge


At the borehole (B-1), soil layers bedded GL-1 m and -7 m have relatively high liquefaction

potential.

Figure 15.3.4-3 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (Nagtahan B-1)

15-95

(III) Lambingan Bridge


At the borehole (B-1), a sandy soil layer bedded GL-1 m and -7 m have relatively high

liquefaction potential.

Figure 15.3.4-4 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (Lambingan B-1)

(IV) Guadalupe Bridge


At the borehole (B-1), a sand layer distributed between -2 m and -6 m has relatively high

liquefaction potential.

Figure 15.3.4-5 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (Guadalupe B-1)

15-96

(V) Marikina Bridge


At the borehole (B-1), a sandy soil layer bedded from GL-4 m to GL-18 m has relatively

high liquefaction potential.

Figure 15.3.4-6 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (Marikina B-1)

b) Liquefaction Potential outside of Metro Manila

(I) Buntun Bridge

Liquefaction potential of BTL-1 and BTL-2 boreholes are shown in Figure 15.3.4-7 and

Figure 15.3.4-8. There is liquefaction potential up to a depth of 10 m at BTL-1 and 13 m at

BTL-2 currently.

15-97

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.

15-98

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).

15-99

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.

15-100

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)

15-101

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 Potential

Depth of Liquefaction Potential (GL- m) (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-Mactan

MAN-E1 Yes 16 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.

15-102

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.

15-103

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

No. of Rainy days

Rainfall (m

m)

Month

Mean Annual Rainfall in Manila Port Area

Rainfall (mm)

No. of Rainy days

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.

15-104

1,300 650 550 500 2,900 2,400 1,500 2,100MANILABAY

SAN JUANRIVER

75

0

95 0

2,40

0

80

0

MARIKINADAM

NANGKARIVER

MANGAHANFLOODWAY

NAPINDANRIVER

MCGS STO. NIÑO

35

MCGS

Figure 15.4.1-2 Design Flood Discharge Distribution against 100-year Return Period

(MP in 1990)

MCGS STO. NINO

1,200 600 550 500 2,900MANILABAY

SAN JUANRIVER

70

0

95 0

2,4

00

30

0MANGAHANFLOODWAY

NAPINDANRIVER

35

Figure 15.4.1-3 Design Flood Discharge Distribution against 30-year Return Period

(DD in 2002)

15-105

Table 15.4.1-1 Summary of Proposed Pasig-Marikina River Channel Improvement Plan in

Detailed Engineering Design in 2002

Stretch Design

Discharge

Freeboard Allowance for Embankment

Work Item

Lower Pasig River (9.2 km)

Delpan Bridge ~ San Juan River (7.1 km)

1,200 m3/s 1.0 m Raising of existing parapet wall and rehabilitation of revetment

San Juan River ~ Lambingan Bridge (2.1 km)

600 m3/s 1.0 m

Upper Pasig River (7.2 km)

Lambingan Bridge ~ Napindan Channel (7.2 km)

600 m3/s 1.0 m Raising of existing parapet wall and rehabilitation of revetment

Lower Marikina River (7.3 km)

Napindan Channel ~ Mangahan Floodway (7.3 km)

550 m3/s 1.0 m Dredging / excavation, provision of new parapet wall, embankment and construction of MCGS

Upper Marikina River (6.1 km)

Mangahan Floodway ~ Sto. Niño (6.1 km)

2,900 m3/s 1.2 m Dredging / excavation, revetment, raising of embankment and river 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;

15-106

Table 15.4.1-2 Tidal Information at Manila South Harbor Tide Station

Station Observed

Highest Tide Mean Higher High Water

Mean High Water

Mean Lower Low Water

Mean Low Water

Manila South Harbor (14°35’ N 120°58’E)

1.48 m 0.51 m 0.39 m - 0.49 m - 0.38 m

*Series of Observation: Manila South Harbor BM 66 (1989-2008) **Elevations are above Mean Sea Level (The tidal data in “TIDE AND CURRENT TABLES Philippines 2012 established by NAMRIA” is all above Mean Lower Low Water Level)

Source: Letter from NAMRIA and TIDE AND CURRENT TABLES Philippines 2012

According to the result of the Detailed Engineering Design considering the updated tide level,

the Design Flood Level in each candidate bridges are shown in Table 15.4.1-3.

Table 15.4.1-3 Design Flood Discharge and Design Flood Level in Pasig-Marikina River

Bridges in Package-B Distance from

River mouth (km) Design Flood

Discharge (m3/s) Design Flood Level (m) (above Mean Sea Level)

B-01 Delpan Bridge 0.71 1,200 1.480

B-06 Nagtahan Bridge 5.01 1,200 2.074

B-08 Lambingan Bridge 9.95 600 2.995

B-10 Guadalupe Bridge 14.40 600 3.257

B-16 Marikina Bridge 13.12

(from Napindan Channel) 2,900 9.697

However, the water level in Marikina Bridge has been recorded 11.20 m (above mean sea level)

in the Ondoy Typhoon in September 26th 2009 which occurred the heaviest damages in Metro

Manila. (It was recorded as 22.16 m above Mean Lower Low Water Level +10.47 m by Sto.

Niño Station Gauge which is set by PAGASA) But the recording by the Sto. Niño Station Gauge

was stopped after the elevation (22.16 m) because of a technical problem. According to the

residential people, the water level came up to really close to the bottom of the girder of Marikina

Bridge. The water level in Ondoy Typhoon is seemed to have been higher than the elevation

11.20 m which was recorded by PAGASA. Due to the presentation about the hydraulic analysis

of the Ondoy Typhoon and Marikina River Flood by UPCOE-ICE-NHRC, the peak flood

discharge of Marikina River in Sto. Niño Station in Ondoy Typhoon was 5,770 m3/s and rainfall

depth in 6 hours was 347.5 mm. It corresponds to a 100 ~ 150-year return period rainfall.

Figure 15.4.1-4 Water Level at Marikina Bridge in Ondoy Typhoon (September 26th 2009)

15-107

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.

15-108

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;

15-109

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.

15-110

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

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

Bridges in Package-B Design Water Level

+ Vertical Clearance (m) Observed Highest Tide

+ Navigation Clearance (m) Elevation of Soffit of

the Bridges (m)

B-01 Delpan Bridge 2.98 (1.480 + 1.50) 5.23 (1.48 + 3.75) 5.15

B-06 Nagtahan Bridge 3.574 (2.074 + 1.50) 5.23 (1.48 + 3.75) 5.66

B-08 Lambingan Bridge 4.495 (2.995 + 1.50) 5.23 (1.48 + 3.75) 5.81

B-10 Guadalupe Bridge 4.757 (3.257 + 1.50) 5.23 (1.48 + 3.75) 9.47

B-16 Marikina Bridge 11.467 (9.967 + 1.50) No navigation 12.70

Figure 15.4.1-5 Design High Water Level and Vertical Clearance at Delpan Bridge

Figure 15.4.1-6 Design High Water Level and Vertical Clearance at Nagtahan Bridge

Photo 15.4.1-1

15-111

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.

15-112

(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.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

No. of Rainy days

Rainfall (m

m)

Month

Mean Annual Rainfall in Tuguegarao

Rainfall (mm)

No. of Rainy days

Figure 15.4.2-1 Mean Annual Rainfall in Tuguegarao (1981-2010) and Annual Average Water

Level at Buntun Bridge

15-113

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)

15-114

Table 15.4.2-1 Constant for Regional Specific Discharge Curve

Region Return Period

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)

15-115

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

water level of Cagayan River at Buntun Bridge is

12.70 m at the cold front in November 5th 2010.

The water level came up to the bottom of the

coping of the pier. In relatively dry season, the

water level is very low. Therefore, there is no

navigational ship along the river and only small

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.

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

Vertical Clearance 2.00 m Observed Highest Water Level 12.70 m (Design Water Level assumed)

Water Level Station

Gauge by PAGASA →

▽O.H.W. L +12.70 m

Photo 15.4.2-1

15-116

(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.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

No. of Rainy days

Rainfall (m

m)

Month

Mean Annual Rainfall in Surigao

Rainfall (mm)

No. of Rainy days

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

No. of Rainy days

Rainfall (m

m)

Month

Mean Annual Rainfall in Butuan City

Rainfall (mm)

No. of Rainy days

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.

15-117

3) Major Design Condition of Wawa Bridge


In this survey, because of no detail study, the design discharge of Wawa River at Wawa

Bridge is estimated by Specific Discharge Method as same as Cagayan River in (1) 3) a).

The catchment area of Wawa River to the point of Wawa Bridge is 407 km2, which is

obtained using a topographic map prepared by NAMRIA. The constant for Regional Specific

Discharge Curve for Mindanao is 12.80 for 50-year return period and 14.00 for 100-year

return period (Table 15.4.2-1). Then, Design Flood Discharge for Wawa River at Wawa

Bridge is estimated at 1,156 m3/s for 50-year return period and 1,264 m3/s for 100-year return

period.

Design Flood Level is calculated by the Manning’s equation. Manning’s roughness coefficient

is obtained from DPWH Design Guideline considering the existing river condition. The

average riverbed slope is difficult to be determined by the results of this topographic survey

because of the riverbed topography around Wawa Bridge is not showing some constant slope.

But according to the drawings of WRIS, the riverbed slope is approximately 1/400. The cross

section at the Wawa Bridge is determined by the topographic survey conducted in this study.

As a result of the calculation, the Design Flood Level corresponding to the Design Flood

Discharge 1,156 m3/s and 1,264 m3/s is respectively 40.48 m and 40.64 m. As a reference, the

Design Flood Levels corresponding to the Design Flood Discharge obtained from the

drawings of WRIS, calculated at the cross section by this topographic survey are also showed

in below.

Table 15.4.2-3 Design flood level at Wawa Bridge

Specific Discharge Method

Design Flood Discharge obtained from the drawings of WRIS 2005

(*Reference)

50-year 100-year 50-year 100-year

Design Flood Discharge (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

15-118

b) Site Interview

According to the controller of the WRIS, observed

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

Wawa Bridge which was at the 50 m downstream

was washed out by the flood. Wawa River carries

lots of debris in flood condition.



The Flood Levels which are calculated above are lower than the observed highest water

level 41.65 m. In this survey, higher value 41.65 m might be adopted as the Design Flood

Level. The Design Flood Discharge with the design water level 41.65 m is calculated as

2,159 m3/s.

(II) Flow Velocity

The flow velocity with the design flood discharge Q=2,159 m3/s at Wawa Bridge is

calculated as 3.53 m/s.


According to the DPWH Design Guideline, freeboard allowance for embankment

corresponding to the design flood discharge is 1.20 m because of the discharge calculated

against the Design High Water is between 2,000 m3/s and 5,000 m3/s, and the vertical

clearance shall not be less than 1.5 m because Wawa River carries debris in flood condition.

Therefore, the minimum vertical clearance between soffit of bridge and the design high

water level might be 1.5 m.

Figure 15.4.2-4 Design High Water Level and freeboard at existing Wawa Bridge

Photo 15.4.2-1

▽O.H.W. L

↑ Water Level

Gauge by NIA

15-119

(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.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

No. of Rainy days

Rainfall (m

m)

Month

Mean Annual Rainfall in Catbalogan

Rainfall (mm)

No. of Rainy days

Figure 15.4.2-5 Mean Annual Rainfall in Catbalogan (1981-2010)

2) Major Design Condition of Palanit Bridge and Mawo Bridge


In this survey, because of no detail study, the design discharge of Palanit River at Palanit

Bridge and Bangon River at Mawo Bridge is estimated by Specific Discharge Method as same

as Cagayan River in 16.5.2.1 (3) 1), and Wawa River in 16.5.2.2 (3) 1).

15-120

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;

H2+V22/2g = H1+V1

2/2g+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.

15-121

he = L・Sf

where, L : Reach Length (m) Sf : Representative Friction Slope between two sections

The friction slope (slope of the energy grade line) at each cross section is computed from

Manning’s equation as follows:

Sf = {( Q1+Q2 ) / ( K1+K2 )}2

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

Station Observed


Mean High Water


Mean Low Water

Catbalogan (11°46’ N 124°52’E)

1.40 m 0.79 m 0.59 m - 0.76 m - 0.66 m

*Series of Observation: Catbalogan (2011 -2012) **Elevations are above Mean Sea Level

Source: Letter from NAMRIA

As a result of the non-uniform flow calculation, the design flood level at the Palanit Bridge

(H2) is estimated at 1.72 m for 50-year return period corresponding the Design Flood

Discharge 164 m3/s, and 1.90 m for 100-year return period corresponding the Design Flood

Discharge 197 m3/s. The design flood level at Mawo Bridge (H2) is estimated at 1.31 m for

50-year return period corresponding the Design Flood Discharge 1,035 m3/s, and 1.35 m for

100-year return period corresponding the Design Flood Discharge 1,245 m3/s.

15-122

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) (calculated by Specific Discharge Method)

164 197 1,035 1,245

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.



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.

15-123

(II) Flow Velocity

The flow velocity with the Design Flood Discharge Q=197 m3/s at Palanit Bridge is 1.92

m/s, and 1.75 m/s at Mawo Bridge with the Design Flood Discharge Q=1,245 m3/s


According to the DPWH Design Guideline, freeboard allowance for embankment

corresponding to the design flood discharge is 0.60 m for Palanit Bridge, and 1.00 m for

Mawo Bridge, because the design flood discharge in Palanit Bridge is less than 200 m3/s,

and that in Mawo Bridge is between 500 m3/s and 2,000 m3/s.

And the vertical clearance of Palanit Bridge and Mawo Bridge shall not be less than 1.50 m

because Palanit River and Bangon River carries debris. Therefore, the minimum vertical

clearance between soffit of bridge and design high water level might be 1.50 m for Palanit

Bridge and Mawo Bridge.

Figure 15.4.2-7 Design High Water Level and freeboard at existing Palanit Bridge

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.

Vertical Clearance 1.50 m ▽Design Flood Level Elv.1.90 m (Q=197 m3/s 100-year return period)

Vertical Clearance 1.50 m ▽Observed Highest Tide Elv.1.50 m

15-124

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)).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

No. of Rainy days

Rainfall (m

m)

Month

Mean Annual Rainfall in Cebu

Rainfall (mm)

No. of Rainy days

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

No. of Rainy days

Rainfall (m

m)

Month

Mean Annual Rainfall in Tacloban City

Rainfall (mm)

No. of Rainy days

Figure 15.4.2-9 Mean Annual Rainfall in Cebu and Tacloban City (1981-2010)

15-125

2) Tidal Information of Mactan Channel, Biliran Strait and Panaon Strait

According to NAMRIA, the tide level at Mactan Channel, Biliran Strait and Panaon Strait is

referred to respectively the tidal information at Cebu Tide Station, Catbalogan Tide Station and

Surigao Tide Station observed by NAMRIA. Cebu Tide Station is located about 5 km south

along the Mactan Channel from 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge. Catbalogan Tide Station is located

about 55 km northeast from Biliran Bridge. Surigao Tide Station is located about 60 km

southeast along the Surigao Strait from Liloan Bridge.

Table 15.4.2-6 Tidal Information at Cebu, Catbalogan and Surigao Tide Station

Station Observed


Mean High Water


Mean Low Water

Cebu (10°18’ N 123°55’E)

1.49 m 0.78 m 0.51 m - 0.71 m - 0.51 m

Catbalogan (11°46’ N 124°52’E)

1.40 m 0.79 m 0.59 m - 0.76 m - 0.66 m

Surigao (09°47’ N 125°30’E)

1.11 m 0.55 m 0.44 m - 0.49 m - 0.41 m

*Series of Observation: Cebu (1989-2007), Catbalogan (2011-2012), Surigao (1987-2005) **Elevations are above Mean Sea Level (The tidal data in “TIDE AND CURRENT TABLES Philippines 2012 established by NAMRIA” is all above Mean Lower Low Water Level)

Source: Letter from NAMRIA and TIDE AND CURRENT TABLES Philippines 2012

3) Major Design Condition of 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge, Biliran Bridge and Liloan Bridge

According to DPWH Region Ⅶ Office, 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge has the navigation clearance

as below because many big vessels/ships are navigating under the bridge. And the navigation

clearance has been adopted to the design of 2nd Mandaue-Mactan Bridge constructed about 1.4

km northeast in Mactan Channel.

Vertical Clearance : 22.860 m above Mean High Water Level

Horizontal Clearance : 112.780 m

Figure 15.4.2-10 Navigation Clearance of 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge

▽Mean High Water Level

Elv.0.51 m

Navigation Clearance 22.860 m

Horizontal Clearance 112.780 m

15-126

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.

Figure 15.4.2-11 Tide Level on Biliran Bridge

Note: The section of Liloan Bridge and Riverbed is assumed

Figure 15.4.2-12 Tide Level on Liloan Bridge

▽Observed Highest Tide Elv.1.40 m

▽M.S.L

▽Observed Highest Tide Elv.1.11 m

▽M.S.L

15-127

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.

15-128

(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)

15-129

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 Figure 15.5.2-1 Road Network of Metro Manila

Source: JICA Study Team

Figure 15.5.2-2 CBDs and Road Network

15-130

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.

15-131

Table 15.5.4-1 Summary of Traffic Count Survey Location Area Station No. Location Survey Period Remark

Inside Metro Manila

RTC-BR01 Delpan Bridge

24-hours traffic

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 RTC-BR09 Makatimandaluyong Bridge - RTC-EPB Estrella Pantaleon Bridge - RTC-BR10 Guadalupe Bridge Target Bridge RTC-BR11 C-5 Bridge - RTC-BR15 Marcos Bridge - RTC-BR16 Marikina Bridge Target Bridge ITC BR01-A Moriones - Bonifacio Drive

24-hours traffic Intersection

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 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.

Outside Metro Manila

RTC - C02 Buntun Bridge 16-hours traffic

Target Bridge

RTC - C07 1st Mandaue - Mactan Bridge 24-hours traffic RTC - C09 Palanit Bridge

16-hours traffic RTC - C11 Mawo Bridge RTC - C12 Biliran Bridge RTC - C14 Liloan Bridge RTC - C15 Wawa Bridge ITC - C07-1 ML Quezon-MV Patalinghug-Marigondon Road

24-hours traffic Intersection ITC - C07-2 Plaridel - A. Cortes Avenue

ITC – C15-1 Bayugan Intersection 16-hours traffic

15-132

Reference: Google Map

Figure 15.5.4-1 24-Hour Traffic Count Survey Station on the Bridge inside Metro Manila


Figure 15.5.4-2 Intersection Traffic Count Survey Station inside Metro Manila

15-133


Figure 15.5.4-3 Bridge and Intersection Traffic Count Survey Station outside Metro Manila

15-134

(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.

15-135

Table 15.5.4-2 Summary of Traffic Count Survey Result inside Metro Manila (AADT)

No. Bridge Name

AADT (Veh/Day) Rate of Truck and

Trailer

1. Motorcycle / Tricycle

2. Car / Taxi / Pick-

up / Van 3. Jeepney

4. Large Bus

5. 2-Axle Truck

6. 3-Axle Truck

7. Truck trailer

Sub-Total Total

1 Delpan Bridge 24,906 28,249 1,949 36 2,246 1,609 7,657 41,745 66,651 27.6%

2 Jones Bridge 15,153 30,117 7,696 152 972 123 30 39,089 54,241 3.3%

3 Ayala Bridge 13,160 27,632 1,153 612 914 223 688 31,222 44,382 5.8%

4 Nagtahan Bridge 21,132 64,460 1,655 344 4,993 2,032 1,823 75,306 96,438 11.7%

5 Pandacan Bridge 7,813 22,173 0 25 1,279 206 148 23,831 31,643 6.9%

6 Lambingan Bridge 9,379 13,626 6,093 31 943 137 48 20,877 30,255 5.4%

7 Makati-Mandaluyong Bridge 11,666 30,556 0 14 384 126 11 31,089 42,755 1.7%

8 Estrella Pantaleon Bridge 3,573 21,013 0 13 16 1 0 21,043 24,616 0.08%

9 Guadalupe Bridge 19,557 181,078 0 13,229 4,100 1,628 876 200,909 220,466 3.3%

10 C-5 Bridge 34,157 116,353 0 408 9,067 4,668 1,516 132,212 166,368 11.5%

11 Marcos Bridge 15,720 62,110 11,357 140 3,496 1,282 742 79,125 94,845 7.0%

12 Marikina Bridge 17,421 29,718 8,649 95 1,433 65 15 39,973 57,394 3.8%

*AADT: Annul Average Daily Traffic

Sub-Total is without Motorcycle/Tricycle

Yellow color is target bridges

15-136

Table 15.5.4-3 Summary of Traffic Count Survey Result outside Metro Manila (AADT)

No. Bridge Name

AADT (Veh/Day)

1. Motorcycle / Tricycle

2. Car / Taxi / Pick-up /

Van 3. Jeepney

4. Large Bus

5. 2-Axle Truck

6. 3-Axle Truck

7. Truck trailer

Sub-Total Total

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

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

15-137

2,03

0

15,3

13

38,5

76

2,45

6

1,125

2,336 833

12,847

7,317

ANDA CIRCLE

2,932

277

15,6

49

4,02

8

19,9

54

18,6

22

5,530

38,4

54

18,6

56

19,7

99

MO

RIO

NE

S

PIE

R

NAVOTAS

1,882

3,023 717

378

5,359

1

2

3

45

6

78

9

1011

12

Figure 15.5.4-4 Moriones - Bonifacio Drive Intersection

Intersection Count

Flyover Count

13,112

14,5

32

22,774

5,359

41,4

98

31,144

C.M

. RE

CT

O

PIE

R

NAVOTAS

261

10,932 3,526

6,322

ZA

RA

GO

ZA

494

ANDA CIRCLE

1,572

5,62

8

4,00

6

18,0

96

54,2

24

3,41

5

23,080

656

1,7

78

24,039 17,459

1,677

11,843 3,844 7,753

1

2

3

45

6

78

9

1011

12

13

14

Figure 15.5.4-5 Claro M. Recto - Bonifacio Drive Intersection

Unit: vehicle/day

Unit: vehicle/day

15-138

58,559

35,019

23,540

68,7

79

34,5

41

34,2

38

MA

NIL

A C

ITY

HA

LL

QU

IRIN

O G

RA

ND

ST

AN

DANDA CIRCLE/DELPAN

10,362

1,519 428

337

4,004

12,750

504

22,7

80

26,2

68

588

25,6

49

ROXAS BLVD.

49,5

52

38,7

36

88,2

88

8,00

2

1,399

2,485 750

1

2

3

45

6

78

9

1011

12

Figure 15.5.4-6 Padre Burgos - Roxas Blvd. Intersection

27,3

53

18,010

PEDRO GIL

14,010

50,4

78

41,3

63

91,8

41

PA

ND

AC

AN

NAGTAHAN

95,8

41

50,4

78

45,3

63

32,020

18,0

10

12

34

Figure 15.5.4-7 Quirino Avenue – Paco Intersection

Unit: vehicle/day

Unit: vehicle/day

15-139

0

21,7

26

59,3

57

1,64

8

1,489

28,658 27,170

68,796

34,790

G. TUAZON/STA. MESA

5,749

2,32

1

23,5

89

5,97

3

31,8

82

27,4

75

34,006

48,4

51

25,0

77

23,3

74

QU

EZ

ON

AV

E./

WE

LC

OM

E

RE

CT

OLAONG LAAN/TAYUMAN

0

30,578 28,257

0

59,236

1

2

3

45

6

78

9

1011

12

Figure 15.5.4-8 Lacson – Espana Intersectionl

0

0 0

35,214

16,483

SSH/TAFT AVE.

3,235

2,63

7

50,5

61

0

53,

198

49,

632

102

,830

18,731

115

,729

50,

561

65,

168

16,4

83

2,2

88

46,3

98

TE

JER

ON

/ST

A. A

NA

PA

CO

NAGTAHAN

0

20,421 15,497

0

20,421

1

2

3

45

6

78

9

1011

12

Figure 15.5.4-9 Pres. Quirino – Pedro Gil Intersection

Unit: vehicle/day

Unit: vehicle/day

15-140

25,386

12,765

18,4

21

8,24

3

10,1

79

NE

W P

AN

AD

ER

OS

PR

ES

. Q

UIR

INO

AV

EN

UE

CARREON

2,209

13,777 9,803

3,439

25,488

A.P. REYES/TEJERON

753

3,97

5

5,56

2

0

9,53

7

9,54

9

19,0

86

0

5,35

8

12,622

4,82

1

472

11,711 7,801

1

2

3

45

6

78

9

1011

12

Figure 15.5.4-10 Pedro Gil-Tejeron Intersection

37

6,25

6

27,1

57

1,79

2

2,070

18,661 11,561

SHAW BLVD.

36,327

16,299

NEW PANADEROS

1,421

4,76

5

6,73

9

2,94

7

14,4

50

12,7

07

20,028

19,1

13

11,0

29

8,08

4

ED

SA

P. S

AN

CH

EZ

/AU

RO

RA

BL

VD

.

SAN JUAN CITY

2,221

21,188 16,387

5,031

39,849

1

2

3

45

6

78

9

1011

12

Figure 15.5.4-11 Shaw Blvd. - New Panaderos Intersection

Unit: vehicle/day

Unit: vehicle/day

15-141

GUADALUPE

37,5

15

65,7

58

49,1

20

40,465

RO

CK

WE

LL

/ES

TR

EL

LA

BU

EN

DIA

17,385

23,080

8,655

79,5

42

15,2

73

18,972

148,614

196,080

35,928

10,859

29,831

18,5

43

18,9

72

69,0

72

BONIFACIO GLOBAL CITY

KA

LA

YA

AN

AV

E.

70,8

87

8,65

5

AYALA

109,240

69,0

72

17,7

6986

,841 4

1

2

3

7

8

10

6

9

5

Figure 15.5.4-12 EDSA - Kalayaan Avenue Intersection

Intersection Count

Underpass Count

Flyover Count

3,48

9

66,4

05

70,215 93,439

PA

SIG

CIT

Y

KA

LE

NT

ON

G/J

RU

CUBAO

0

18,118

0

163,

654

1,099

2,36

4

7,33

5

62,8

80

16,4

85

12,1

90

11,3

55

30,6

27

BONI AVE./GUADALUPE

168,

757

79,69489,063

0

6,631

84,6

16

23,996

41,3

70

22,153

53,9

89

91,9

70

50,6

01

1

2

3

45

6

78

9

1011

12

13

14

16

15

Figure 15.5.4-13 EDSA - Shaw Boulevard Intersection

Unit: vehicle/day

Unit: vehicle/day

15-142

2,76

5

5,87

4

9,11

8

7,37

9

4,308

25,531 18,565

59,194

25,944

FORT BONIFACIO

586

0 0 0

0

9,11

8

33,250

31,1

80

15,1

63

16,0

17

C-5

ED

SA

/KA

LA

YA

AN

AV

EN

UE

GUADALUPE

10,855

24,574 21,810

2,658

50,105

1

2

3

45

6

78

9

1011

12

Figure 15.5.4-14 Merit - Kalayaan Avenue Intersection

Figure 15.5.4-15 Marcos Highway-Aurora Blvd. -Bonifacio Ave. Intersection

Unit: vehicle/day

Unit: vehicle/day

15-143

46,609

MAXIMO PATALINGHUG

31,928

1,0

69

11,3

83

10,1

04

22,5

56

48,2

09

70,7

65

20,3

66

4,257

22,513 9,999

6,655

24,095 10,469

11,4

46

9,6

26

22,6

11

41,4

38

6,971

87,123

40,939

MA

CT

AN

IN

T'L

AIR

PO

RT

/LL

C

M.L

. Q

UE

ZO

NOPON BRIDGE

46,184

64,

049

45

6

1011

12

1

2

3

78

9

Figure 15.5.4-16 ML Quezon-MV Patalinghug-Marigondon Road Intersection

34,976

BRIONES

9,663

1,2

43

12,

990

17,

297

31,

531

24,

419

55,9

49

1,64

3

0

16,899 10,757

0

18,077 12,428

4,89

9

14,7

55

18,6

40

21,2

96

5,650

51,788

31,368

OP

ON

BR

IDG

E

A.

CO

RT

EZ

PLARIDEL

20,420

39,9

37

45

6

1011

12

1

2

3

78

9

Figure 15.5.4-17 Plaridel - A. Cortes Avenue Intersection

Unit: vehicle/day

Unit: vehicle/day

15-144

11,853

BAYUGAN

989

12,8

3813

,827

12,7

73

26,6

00

5,917

5,936 1,002

4,92

8

11,7

71

ES

PE

RA

NZ

A

BUTUAN

34,4

71

17,7

72

16,6

99

4,934

3

4

1

2

5

6

Figure 15.5.4-18 Bayugan Intersection

Unit: vehicle/day

15-145

15.6 Results of Natural and Social Environmental Survey

(1) 1st Mandaue 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%)

There many illegal

settlers under the Bridge.

15-146

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

: 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.

Under the Bridge is used for

basket court, vender, orchards

and etc.

15-147


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%)


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

: Residential Area : Industrial Area

There are many informal

settlers besides the Bridge.

There a house under the Bridge out of dyke wall.

15-148

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.



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.

15-149

(4) Guadalupe Bridge

: 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.


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%)

There informal settler houses

around abutment.

15-150


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

: 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.

There informal settler houses.

Under the Bridge is used for

boat shed and drying area.

Water pipe.

15-151

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.



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%)


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.

15-152

(6) Mawo Bridge

: 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.



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%).


terms of cooking, majority of the respondents use charcoal (52%) ・ Majority of the respondents own motorcycles and tricycles (52%) as a means for

transportation.

There houses immediately beside

the Bridge.

There used for storage, breeding

area and etc.

There houses beside

the Bridge

15-153

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%).


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

: 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.

There many thatch houses prospective informal.

Irrigation dam

Maintenance cottage

Water pipe

15-154



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%)

15-155

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

Figure 15.7.2-1 Objective Roads

Package B Package C

15-156

1.Mortorcycle

/tricycle

2.Car/Taxi

/Pick-up/Van

3.Jeepney

4.Large Bus

5.2-AxleTruck

6.3-Axle Truck

7.Truck Trailer

Sub-Total Total

B08 Lambinguan traffic volume 9,379 13,626 6,093 31 943 137 48 20,878 30,257ratio 31.0% 45.0% 20.1% 0.1% 3.1% 0.5% 0.2%

B10 Guadalupe traffic volume 19,557 181,078 0 13,229 4,100 1,628 876 200,911 220,468ratio 8.9% 82.1% 0.0% 6.0% 1.9% 0.7% 0.4%

C09 Palanit traffic volume 730 199 65 93 93 76 10 536 1,266ratio 57.7% 15.7% 5.1% 7.3% 7.3% 6.0% 0.8%

C11 Mawo traffic volume 2,889 322 73 93 130 102 14 734 3,623ratio 79.7% 8.9% 2.0% 2.6% 3.6% 2.8% 0.4%

C15 Wawa traffic volume 1,476 1,598 48 266 282 238 42 2,474 3,950ratio 37.4% 40.5% 1.2% 6.7% 7.1% 6.0% 1.1%

90.6% 9.4%

79.0% 21.0%

AADT

N0 Bridge name

96.2% 3.8%

91.0% 9.0%

78.5% 21.5%

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

Note : Sub-Total is shown the traffic volume without Motorcycle/tricycle.

15-157

(2) Comparison Study of Technical Specifications

Table 15.7.4-2 Technical Specifications of Lambingan Bridge

B08 Lambingan （Urban Collector Road）

Design Speed (km/h)

Component DPWH

Standards AASHTOStandards

AH Standards

Japanese Standards

Recommended

50

Min. Horizontal Curvature

- 64m (110)

80 (150ｍ) 100m

1,500m Secure current

condition The length of the minimum horizontal curve

30ｍ 20m - 80m 36m

Secure current condition

Min. Rate of Vert. Curvature K, Crest

9 7 - 8 9

Min. Rate of Vert. Curvature K, Sag

10 13 - 7 14

Min. Stopping Sight Distance

62.8m 65 m - 55m 65m

Max. Grade (5%)

6～7% (5%) 9%

4～7% (5%)

6～8% 5%

Min. Grade (0.5%)

0.3～0.5%(0.5%)

0.3～0.5%- 0.3～0.5% 0.7%

The length of the minimum vertical curve

60m - - 40m 60m-

Min. Cross Slope 1.50% 1.50% - 1.5% -

Max. Cross Slope 2.00% 3.00% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%

Max. Superelevation 8.00% 6.00% 10.0% 6.0% -

Lane Width 2.75～3.65m

3.00～3.60m

3.50m 3.25～3.5m

3.0m Secure current

condition

Shoulder Width (1.80-2.40m) 0.60-

(0.60) 0.30～0.6m

2.50ｍ 0.50m- 0.6m

Median Width 1.20m- 0.60～1.80m

2.50ｍ 1.00m- 1.2m

Sidewalk Width 1.50m- (1.5 m-) 1.20～2.40m

- 2.00m- 1.5m

Note : Figure in parentheses are desirable values. : AH(Asian Highway)

15-158

Table 15.7.4-3 Technical Specifications of Guadalupe Bridge B10 Guadalupe

（Urban Arterial Road）

Design Speed (km/h)

Component DPWH


AH Standards

Japanese Standards

Recommended

60


- 135m (160) 115

(200ｍ) 150m

∞ Secure current


30ｍ 30m - 100m －


15 11 - 14 －


15 18 - 10 －


84.6m 85 m - 75m －

Max. Grade (5%)

6～7% (5%) 7%

4～7% (5%)

5～7%

5.5% Secure current

condition

Min. Grade (0.5%)

0.3～0.5%(0.5%)

0.3～0.5%- 0.3～0.5%

0.0% Secure current

condition


60m - - 50m －

Min. Cross Slope 1.50% 1.50% - 1.5% －

Max. Cross Slope 2.00% 3.00% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%



3.00～3.60m

3.50m 3.25～3.5m

3.35m


(0.60) 0.30～0.60m

2.50ｍ 0.50m- 0.3m

Secure current condition

Median Width 1.20m- 1.20m 3.00ｍ 1.00m- -

Sidewalk Width 1.20m-2.40m

(3.6m-) 2.40m-

- 2.00m- 1.5m


15-159

Table 15.7.4-4 Technical Specifications of Palanit Bridge C09 Palanit

（Rural Arterial Road）

Design Speed (km/h)

Component DPWH


AH Standards

Japanese Standards

Recommended

60


- 135m (160) 115

(200ｍ) 150m

∞ Secure current

condition

The length of the minimum horizontal curve

30ｍ 30m - 100m -


15 11 - 14 46


15 18 - 10 16


84.6m 85 m - 75m 85m

Max. Grade (5%)

6～7% (5%)

5～8% 4～7%

(5%) 5～7%

5.7% Secure current

condition

Min. Grade (0.5%)

0.3～0.5%(0.5%)

0.3～0.5%- 0.3～0.5% 0.3%


60m - - 50m 60m-

Min. Cross Slope 1.50% 1.50% - 1.5% -

Max. Cross Slope 2.00% 2.00% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%



3.30～3.60m

3.50m 3.25～3.5m

3.35m


(0.60) 0.60-

2.50ｍ 0.50m- 0.6m


3.00ｍ 1.00m- -


(1.5 m-) 1.20～2.40m

- 2.00m- 1.5m


15-160

Table 15.7.4-5 Technical Specifications of Mawo Bridge C11 Mawo


Design Speed (km/h)

Component DPWH


AH Standards

Japanese Standards

Recommended

60


- 135m (160) 115

(200ｍ) 150m

∞ Secure current


30ｍ 30m - 100m -


15 11 - 14 100


15 18 - 10 24


84.6m 85 m - 75m 85m

Max. Grade (5%)

6～7% (5%)

5～8% 4～7%

(5%) 5～7%

2.7% Secure current

condition

Min. Grade (0.5%)

0.3～0.5%(0.5%)

0.3～0.5%- 0.3～0.5% 0.5%


60m - - 50m 60m-

Min. Cross Slope 1.50% 1.50% - 1.5% -

Max. Cross Slope 2.00% 2.00% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%

Max. Superelevation

8.00% 12.00% 10.0% 6.0% -


3.30～3.60m

3.50m 3.25～3.5m

3.35m


(0.60) 0.60-

2.50ｍ 0.50m- 0.6m-


3.00ｍ 1.00m- -


(1.5 m-) 1.20～2.40m

- 2.00m- 1.5m


15-161

Table 15.7.4-6 Technical Specifications of Wawa Bridge C15 Wawa


Design Speed (km/h)

Component DPWH


AH Standards

Japanese Standards

Recommended

60


- 135m (160) 115

(200ｍ) 150m

200 Secure current


30ｍ 30m - 100m 135m

Length of Spiral curve

- 33m - 50 33m


15 11 - 14 16


15 18 - 10 21


84.6m 85 m - 75m 85m

Max. Grade (5%)

6～7% (5%)

5～8% 4～7%

(5%) 5～7%

4%

Min. Grade (0.5%)

0.3～0.5%(0.5%)

0.3～0.5%- 0.3～0.5% 0.3%


60m - - 50m 60m-

Min. Cross Slope 1.50% 1.50% - 1.5% -

Max. Cross Slope 2.00% 2.00% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%

Max. Superelevation

8.00% 11.00% 10.0% 6.0% 6.9%


3.30～3.60m

3.50m 3.25～3.5m

3.35m Secure current

condition


(0.60) 0.60-

2.50ｍ 0.50m- 0.6m-


3.00ｍ 1.00m- -


(1.5 m-) 1.20～2.40m

- 2.00m- 0.75m


15-162

23,400

1,200

500

3,0003,0003,000

500

1,000

500

3,0003,0003,000

500

1,200

23,400

1,500

600

3,0003,0003,000

300

600

300

3,0003,0003,000

600

1,500

10,900

1,500

600

3,3503,350

600

1,500

8,700

700

300

3,3503,350

300

700

8,500

1,200

300

3,3503,350

300

8,500

300

3,3503,350

300

1,200

(3) Typical Cross-Section of Bridge Section

Current Road Cross-Section New Road Cross-Section


Road width 23.4ｍ Road width 23.4ｍ B10 Guadalupe Bridge（Replacement outside bridge）

South Boundlane North Boundlane

South Boundlane North Boundlane

Road width 8.5ｍ Road width 8.8ｍ C09 Palanit Bridge

Road width 8.7ｍ Road width 10.9ｍ C11 Mawo Bridge

Road width 9.7ｍ Road width 10.9ｍ C15 Wawa Bridge

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

10,900

1,500

600

3,3503,350

600

1,500

9,400

750

600

3,3503,350

600

750

8,660

650

330

3,3503,350

330

650

9,700

1,000

500

3,3503,350

500

1,000

8,800

300

3,3503,350

300

1,500

8,800

1,500

300

3,3503,350

300

15-163

10,700

2,000

3,3503,350

2,000

10,700

2,000

3,3503,350

2,000

10,400

2,000

3,2003,200

2,000

10,700

2,000

3,3503,350

2,000

10,700

2,000

3,3503,350

2,000

10,700

2,000

3,3503,350

2,000

23,400

1,200

500

3,0003,0003,000

500

1,000

500

3,0003,0003,000

500

1,200

23,400

1,500

600

3,0003,0003,000

300

600

300

3,0003,0003,000

600

1,500

(4) Typical Cross-Section of Approach Road Section

Current Road Cross-Section New Road Cross-Section


Road width 23.4ｍ Road width 23.4ｍ C09 Palanit Bridge

Road width 10.7ｍ Road width 10.7ｍ C11 Mawo Bridge

Road width 10.4m Road width 10.7ｍ C15 Wawa Bridge

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

15-164

1.Mortorcycle/tricycle

2.Car/Taxi/Pick-up/Van

3.Jeepney 4.Large Bus 5.2-AxleTruck 6.3-Axle Truck 7.Truck Trailer Sub-Total Total

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%

AADTN0 Bridge name

96.2% 3.8%

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 Number of Lane ： 6 lane Free Flow Speed ： 40 km/h

Traffic Volume ： 30,257 veh/day Mix rate of large vehicle ： 3.8％

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

Current Cross Section

Traffic survey result

④③

②①

②④③

Water Pipe Br

①

2000

1400

10000

23800

500 3000 3000 3000 500100001000

500300030003000500

1200

1400

1200

ROW ROW

15-165

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

①Water Pipe bridge

②Intersection(OLD Panaderos st) ③Intersection(F.Y.MANALO ST)

③Intersection（JP Rizal ST.）

④Commercial architecture(junk shop) ④Gas station

①Water Pipe Bridge

②Intersection（OLD PANADEROS ST）

③Intersection（F.Y.MANALO ST＆JP Rizal ST）

④Residential & Commercial Area

15-166

Table 15.7.5-3 Design Conditions of Lambingan Bridge

Item Condition Remark

Road Type Urban Collector Road It is decided with current road and roadside condition

Traffic Volume 30,257 veh/day Refer to the traffic survey result

Traffic Volume of Large Vehicle

（Mix rate of large vehicle）

1,159 veh/day （3.8％） Same as the above

Design Speed 50km/h Design speed is applied 50km/h based on the standard value of Urban Collector Road (AASHTO) and existing travel speed.

Number of Lane 6 Lane Secure the current number of lane

Lane Width 3.00ｍ Secure the current lane width AASHTO Standard value

Shoulder 0.60ｍ DPWH, AASHTO Standard value

Sidewalk 1.50ｍ DPWH, AASHTO Standard value

Median 1.20ｍ DPWH, AASHTO Standard value

Right of Way 23.5ｍ Decide the current boundary line, because a correct boundary line is not clear

Typical Cross-section of Bridge and approach road

Note : Right of Way is measured from the survey result.

23,400

1,500

600

3,0003,0003,000

300

600

300

3,0003,0003,000

600

1,500

15-167

19,200

600

3,0003,0003,0003,0003,0003,000

600

20,400

600

3,0003,0003,000

300

600

300

3,0003,0003,000

600

3) Horizontal Alignment

① Secure the current horizontal alignment. ② Secure the 6 lane same as current number of lane. ③ Avoid the land acquisition and obstruction to roadside facility as possible.

a) Taper Length

Taper is required at the connection of current road. In standard value of the taper of DPWH, the taper length assumed it more than 30m based on the following calculation formula.

（Source:「Design Guidelines Criteria and Standards 」DPWH）

Taper length : L = 0.6・0.6・60 = 21.6m

Figure 15.7.5-1 Typical Cross-Section at the Taper Section

Taper width＝0.6m Taper length=30m

15-168

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】

【4-lane section】

Figure 15.7.5-2 Typical Cross-Section at the Runoff Section

Source:「A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets」AASHTO

13,200

600

3,0003,0003,0003,000

600

19,200

600

3,0003,0003,0003,0003,0003,000

600

Shift width＝3.0ｍ

15-169

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

low. The grade is improved to 5% considering the barrier free.

Runnability The vertical curve is not secured, and there is an impact when driving.

Secure the vertical curve and improve the trafficability.

Visibility The stopping sight distance is not enough, and the safety is low by a lacking visibility.

Secure the stopping sight distance.

Figure 15.7.5-3 Issue of Current Vertical Alignment

Figure 15.7.5-4 Issue of the Stopping Sight Distance

Hight of eye=1.08m

Hight of object=0.60m

65.0

Stopping Sight Distance

65.0

Stopping Sight Distance

The stopping sight distance is not secured

g=7%

The vertical curve is not secured, and there are issues to trafficability and visibility

g=7% The current grade is 7%, and it is not desirable for driver and pedestrian

15-170

Navigation Clearance

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.

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.

Figure 15.7.5-6 New Vertical Alignment of Lambingan Bridge

Secure the current elevation Secure the current elevation

g=5% g=5%

Secure the EL≧8.1m

Secure the Navigation Clearance

Bottom of girder line

15-171

5) Cross-Section Elements


According to discussion with DPWH, widening plan of this route to 6-lane will not be conducted for the near term because the influences of land acquisition may not be ignored. However, the road sections around Lambingan bridge are already widened to 6 lanes, hence, the number of lane of new approach road shall secure existing number of lane.

Table 15.7.5-6 Issue of Cross-Section, and Measure Policy

Issue of the cross-section Measure policy Number of Lane The number of lane of the route is 4

lane, but the bridge section is 6 lane. Secure the 6 lane same as current road.

Sidewalk width The sidewalk width is narrow with 1.2m, and the width that pedestrian can pass each other is insufficient.

Secure the 1.5m width as possible the pedestrian can pass each other.

Figure 15.7.5-7 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Lambingan Bridge

b) Improvement of Cross-Section

Figure 15.7.5-8 Improvement of Cross-Section

2000

1400

10000

23800

500 3000 3000 3000 500100001000

500300030003000500

1200

1400

1200

Water Pipe

Bridge

13.9m

1.8m

23,400

1,500

600

3,0003,0003,000

300

600

300

3,0003,0003,000

600

1,500

15-172

(2) Guadalupe Bridge


Table 15.7.5-7 Current Road Conditions of Guadalupe Bridge

Road Type ： Urban Arterial Road Number of Lane ： 10 lane 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

Current Cross-Section

①

② ③


1.Mortorcycle

/tricycle

2.Car/Taxi

/Pick-up/Van

3.Jeepney

4.Large Bus

5.2-AxleTruck

6.3-Axle Truck

7.Truck Trailer

Sub-Total Total

B10 Guadalupe traffic volume 19,557 181,078 0 13,229 4,100 1,628 876 200,911 220,468ratio 8.9% 82.1% 0.0% 6.0% 1.9% 0.7% 0.4%

AADT

N0 Bridge name

91.0% 9.0%

Note : The traffic lane width shows an assumption value from the survey result.

①② ③

MRT

15-173

2) Restriction of the Road Design


Table 15.7.5-8 Restriction of Guadalupe Bridge ①MRT ②Building & houses ③Power pole & High-voltage cable ④Inside bridge

①MRT

②Buildings&houses

②Buildings&houses

③Power pole&High-voltage cable

④Inside bridge(North bound）

④Inside bridge(South bound)

①MRT

②Buildings&houses

②Buildings&houses

③Power pole&High-voltage cable

④Inside bridge

15-174

8,800

300

3,3503,350

300

1,500

8,800

1,500

300

3,3503,350

300

3) Design Conditions

Table 15.7.5-9 Design Conditions of Guadalupe Bridge


Road Type Urban Arterial Road It is decided with current road and roadside condition


Traffic Volume of Large Vehicle （Mix rate of large vehicle）

19,833 veh/day（9.0％）

Same as the above

Design Speed 60km/h DPWH Standard value


Lane Width 3.35ｍ Secure the current lane width DPWH Standard value

Shoulder 0.30ｍ DPWH, AASHTO Standard value


Median －－

Right of Way 45ｍ Decide the current boundary line, because a correct boundary line is not clear

Typical Cross-section

South Bound lane North Bound lane

Note : Right of Way is measured from the survey result.

15-175




a) Restriction of Bridge Elevation


Table 15.7.5-10 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Guadalupe Bridge

Ingredients Unit Value Notes J. P. RIZAL AVENUE Elevation m 5.000 Vertical Clearance m 4.500 Structure height m 2.080 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.

Figure 15.7.5-9 New Vertical Alignment of Guadalupe Bridge

g=6%g=4.2%

Secure the Vertical Clearance more than 4.5m

Finished grade is more than 11.6m

g=Flat

15-176

8,500

1,200

300

3,3503,350

300

8,500

300

3,3503,350

300

1,200

8,800

300

3,3503,350

300

1,500

8,800

1,500

300

3,3503,350

300



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

1.2m, and the width that pedestrian can pass each other is insufficient.


South Bound Lane North Bound Lane Figure 15.7.5-10 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Guadalupe Bridge



1.2m

15-177

(3) Palanit Bridge


Table 15.7.5-12 Current Road Conditions of Palanit Bridge

Road Type ： Rural Arterial Road Number of Lane ： 2 lane 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


① ②

③ ④


1.Mortorcycle

/tricycle

2.Car/Taxi

/Pick-up/Van

3.Jeepney

4.Large Bus

5.2-AxleTruck

6.3-Axle Truck

7.Truck Trailer

Sub-Total Total

C09 Palanit traffic volume 730 199 65 93 93 76 10 536 1,266ratio 57.7% 15.7% 5.1% 7.3% 7.3% 6.0% 0.8%

AADT

N0 Bridge name

78.5% 21.5%

②

① ③

④

8,660

650

330

3,3503,350

330

650

15-178



Table 15.7.5-13 Restriction of Palanit Bridge ①Church ②Residential area ③Intersection

①Church

②Residential area ②Residential area

③Intersection

③Intersection

①Church

②Residential area

③Intersection

②Residential area

③Intersection

15-179

10,900

1,500

600

3,3503,350

600

1,500


Table 15.7.5-14 Design Conditions of Palanit Bridge


Road Type Rural Arterial Road It is decided with current road and roadside condition



272 veh/day（21.5％）

Same as the above

Design Speed 60km/h DPWH Standard value It is confirmed by DPWH staff



Shoulder 0.60ｍ2.00ｍ DPWH, AASHTO Standard value


Median －－

Right of Way 30ｍ It is confirmed by DPWH staff

Typical Cross-section Of Bridge section

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).

10,700

2,000

3,3503,350

2,000

15-180






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



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

Figure 15.7.5-12 New Vertical Alignment of Palanit Bridge

g=5.7%

g=1.0% g=0.3%

Existing roadExisting road


15-181

10,900

1,500

600

3,3503,350

600

1,500







Figure 15.7.5-13 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Guadalupe Bridge



0.65m

8,660

650

330

3,3503,350

330

650

15-182

(4) Mawo Bridge


Table 15.7.5-17 Current Road Conditions of Mawo Bridge



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


1.Mortorcycle

/tricycle

2.Car/Taxi

/Pick-up/Van

3.Jeepney

4.Large Bus

5.2-AxleTruck

6.3-Axle Truck

7.Truck Trailer

Sub-Total Total

C11 Mawo traffic volume 2,889 322 73 93 130 102 14 734 3,623ratio 79.7% 8.9% 2.0% 2.6% 3.6% 2.8% 0.4%

90.6% 9.4%

AADT

N0 Bridge name

9,700

1,000

500

3,3503,350

500

1,000

① ② ③ ④

15-183



Table 15.7.5-18 Restriction of Mawo Bridge ①Intersection ②Residential Area

①Intersection

①Intersection ①Intersection

①Intersection

②Residential area ②Residential area

①Intersection

②Residential area②Residential area

15-184

10,900

1,500

600

3,3503,350

600

1,500

10,700

2,000

3,3503,350

2,000


Table 15.7.5-19 Design Conditions of Mawo Bridge





339 veh/day（9.4％）

Same as the above

Design Speed 60km/h AASHTO Standard value It is confirmed by DPWH staff

Number of Lane 2 lane Secure the current number of lane


Shoulder Bridge:0.60ｍRoad :2.00ｍ DPWH, AASHTO Standard value


Median －－




Note : Shoulder width of approach road is decided same as current condition(Current width is from

about 2.0m to 2.5m).

15-185




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 alignment

Large recess around the bridge, Not appropriate vertical alignment

Improve the vertical alignment

Pathway Pathway exist at existing abutment, Utilized as residential road

Install the box culvert and secure the passage function.

Large recess of Vertical alignment

Large recess of vertical alignmentPathway（H=2m,W=3.5m）

Pathway（H=2m,W=3.5m）

15-186

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


① Secure 0.5% of minimum vertical gradient considering drainability ② Install pathway (H=3m, W=4m)

Figure 15.7.5-15 New Vertical Alignment of Mawo Bridge

g=2.7% g=0.8% g=0.5% g=0.5%


Secure Box culvert for pathway

15-187







Elevation difference

Elevation difference occurs because of vertical alignment improvement.

Secure the service road and restore current passage function.

Figure 15.7.5-16 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Mawo Bridge



Figure 15.7.5-18 Image of the Service Road

Retaining Wall

Service Road

Service Road

9,700

1,000

500

3,3503,350

500

1,000

10,900

1,500

600

3,3503,350

600

1,500

1.0m

15-188

(5) Wawa Bridge


Table 15.7.5-23 Current Road Conditions of Wawa Bridge



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


①

②

③

④


1.Mortorcycle

/tricycle

2.Car/Taxi

/Pick-up/Van

3.Jeepney

4.Large Bus

5.2-AxleTruck

6.3-Axle Truck

7.Truck Trailer

Sub-Total Total

C15 Wawa traffic volume 1,476 1,598 48 266 282 238 42 2,474 3,950ratio 37.4% 40.5% 1.2% 6.7% 7.1% 6.0% 1.1%

79.0% 21.0%

AADT

N0 Bridge name

9,400

750

600

3,3503,350

600

750

① ② ④ ③

15-189



Table 15.7.5-24 Restriction of Wawa Bridge ①Dam ②Mountainous area ③Intersection ④Residential Area

①Dam

①Dam ②Mountainous area

②Mountainous area

③Intersection ④Residential Area

①Dam

④Residential Area

②Mountainous area

③Intersection

15-190

10,700

2,000

3,3503,350

2,000


Table 15.7.5-25 Design Conditions of Wawa Bridge





828 veh/day（21.0％）

Same as the above

Design Speed 60km/h DPWH Standard value It is confirmed by DPWH staff

Number of Lane 2 lane Secure the current number of lane


Shoulder Bridge:0.60ｍRoad :2.00ｍ DPWH, AASHTO Standard value


Median －－




Note : Shoulder width of approach road is decided same as current condition(Current width is from

about 2.0m to 2.5m).

9,400

750

600

3,3503,350

600

750

15-191


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

R=200m R=200m

Shift 15m for down stream side

15-192

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)

Plan View

Min. Curve Radius SP: R=200m, EP : R=175m SP: R=200m, EP : R=200m SP: R=200m, EP : R=200mMin. 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

Constructability ・ Need temporary bridge to detour existing traffic volume

・ Difficult to secure work road and construction yard because bridge installed between existing road and mountains

・ Need large amount of cutting ground work (6,000m3)

・ Applicable the existing road as work road・ Smoothly mobilize heavy equipment to the site ・ 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 sectionEnvironment ・ Minimal earth work amount ・ Large amount of earth work such as cutting ground work ・ Minimal earth work amount (400m3)

Disaster prevention ・ Possibility of traffic restriction due to landslide disaster such as

fallen rocks and slope failure ・ Possibility of traffic restriction due to landslide disaster such as

fallen rocks and slope failure・ Minimal possibility of traffic restriction due to landslide disaster

because enough separation can be secured from mountainsAlong Roads ・ Minimal influences to houses along the road ・ Minimal influences to houses along the road ・ Slightly houses may be influenced during construction stage

Cost Efficiency ・ Comparatively high due to temporary bridge costs ・ Comparatively high due to large amount of cutting ground work

(approx. 5%)・ Superior const efficiency because no temporary bridge and

minimal earth works. Blue : Advantage points Red : Disadvantage points

Figure 15.7.5-19 Typical Cross Section of Comparison Study

Shift to upstream side、Large cutting ground works disadvantage against: ・ Constructability ・ Cost Efficiency ・ Environmental Impact

Shift to downstream sideMinimal earth works advantage for: ・ Constructability ・ Environmental Impact

Ｒ＝200ｍ

Ｒ＝200ｍ

Ｒ＝175ｍ

Ｒ＝200ｍＲ＝200ｍ

Ｒ＝200ｍ

Shift to US

Shift to DS

Existing Center

Abutment Abutment

Apply existing road to work road

Apply existing road to work road

Houses, Possibility of influences

Houses, Possibility of influences

Fallen rocks

15-193




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



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

Figure 15.7.5-20 New Vertical Alignment of Wawa Bridge

g=4.0%

g=2.9%

Path Way

g=0.3%

15-194



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 0.7m, and the width that pedestrian can pass each other is insufficient.

Secure the 0.75m width as possible the pedestrian can pass through.

Figure 15.7.5-21 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Wawa Bridge

b) Superelevation

It is calculated the following calculation formula. The result of calculation, the superelevation is 6.9%.

Where: Rmin = 200m, V2 = 60kph, fmax = 0.15

c) Widening

Minimum radius is 200m of this section. Therefore, it needs to secure widening for curve. The widening width is 0.7m.

Table 15.7.5-29 Designed Values for Widening on Open Highway Curve

Source:「Design Guidelines Criteria and Standards 」DPWH

0.7m

8,700

700

300

3,3503,350

300

700

15-195

9,400

750

600

3,3503,350

600

750

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 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

9,400

1,500

600

3,3503,350

600

15-196

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 - Good condition

B10 Guadalupe bridge Asphalt concrete pavement or Composite pavement - Partially crack

and unevenness

C09 Palanit bridge Concrete pavement - Crack and fracture - Bad trafficability

C11 Mawo bridge Asphalt concrete pavement or Composite pavement - Good condition

C15 Wawa bridge Asphalt concrete pavement or Composite pavement - Good condition

Con

As

As

As

As

As

Con Con

Con

As

As

As

Con

15-197

(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

Less than 20,000 More than 20,000

Embankment Section

25cm 25cm 28cm 30cm

Source: The design standard of NEXCO, Japan

15-198

3) Pavement of Roadway

Layer structures of composite pavement are as follows.

Table 15.7.6-5 Layer Structures of Pavement Pavement structure

Surface course

Intermediate course

Binder course Base course

Total thickness

Material Asphalt Asphalt Reinforced concrete

cement 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＝ 20cmBase Course ：Aggregate ｔ＝ 15cmTotal 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＝ 4cmBase Course ：Aggregate ｔ＝ 10cmTotal thickness ｔ＝ 14cm

15-199

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

Guadalupe

Gutter Gutter

Gutter Gutter

15-200

Table 15.7.7-2 Current Drainage Facility Condition of Package C Palanit

Mawo

Wawa

Canal Canal

Canal

Canal

Canal

Canal

Gutter

15-201

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

Guadalupe

Source: PASIG-MARIKINA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

Figure 15.7.8-1 General Layout Plan of Revetment Works

SP+IW+VW

Completed

Completed

Completed

SP W/H-BEAM＋VW

Repair-R4

15-202

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

15-203

(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

15-204

(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

2) Information of GM-N4

Table 15.7.8-4 BM list of River Improvement

Note:GM-N4 : 19.822(2008 NAMRIA)=9.347(Topography)+10.475(MSL:DPWH)

BMName

Br.Name

orderEL

(MSL=0)Established

YearInformation

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

Project Elev.

DPWH MLLW DPWH MLLW diff. DPWH MLLW diff.

m m m m m

BMW2A 1st order 58.350 58.788 0.438 58.185 -0.165

BMGMP2 1st order 53.015 53.474 0.459 52.856 -0.159

BMGM16 1st order 33.412 33.795 0.383 33.243 -0.169

BMGMN4 1st order 19.406 19.822 0.416 19.287 -0.119

BMGM23M 1st order 51.408 51.758 0.350 51.284 -0.124

BMML3 1st order 68.054 68.251 0.197 67.943 -0.111

BMGM49M 1st order 17.060 17.408 0.348 16.927 -0.133

BMCIMA18A 1st order 12.181 12.517 0.336 11.936 -0.245

BMGM21 1st order 12.807 13.200 0.393 12.575 -0.232

BMGM9ab 1st order 13.730 13.502 -0.228

BM66 1st order 12.035 12.461 0.426 11.781 -0.254

2008 NAMRIA 2012 NAMRIA

Name Note

15-205

3) Elevation Adjustment

a) 1st step <Project Elev.(2002) : 2008NAMRIA(Topography)>

Table 15.7.8-5 Difference of BM Elevation between River Improvement and Topography

River improvement Topography Difference

GM-N4 19.406 19.822 Δ0.416

b) 2nd step <MLLW～MSL>

Table 15.7.8-6 Difference of MSL Elevation between River Improvement and Topography

River improvement MSL

Topography (DPWH MSL)

Difference

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.

15-206

(2) Issue of Current Traffic

Table 15.7.9-1 Issue of Current Traffic

No.1 Not Functioned : Outside 2 Lanes by Busses ・At the bus stop, critical causes of traffic jam by busses and following and overtaking busses ・Busses stop stepping over two lanes ( large number of passengers, who stepping to traffic lane, that's why busses can not stop correctly along the sidewalk)

【Northbound Line 】 Interrupting following vehicles due to overtaking basses stepping over Bus Lane Poor safety by forced lane changing

【Northbound Line 】 A bus not stops, over Bus Lane, interrupting following busses

【Southbound Line 】 Interrupting traffic lanes by the bus overtaking parked buses

Pic①-1

Pic ①-2

Pic ①-3

15-207

【Southbound Line 】 Passengers remain in traffic lane, following busses can not parked accurately along walk road

【Southbound Line 】 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 】 Obstruction across outside two lanes

Pic. ①-5

Pic ②

Pic. ①-4

15-208

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 】 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】 Interruption by stopping vehicles due to crossing pedestrians

【Southbound Line On-ramp】 Poor safety by sudden lane change from the second lane in front of off-ramp

Pic ③

Pic. ④

Pic④

15-209

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】 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 】 Traffic island, utilized as bus stop Originally, passengers' incoming and outgoing inhibited

Pic ⑥

Pic⑤

15-210

【Northbound Line 】 High convenience for connection between Jeepneys and MRT as well as distances from large-scale commercial facilities

【Northbound Line (North Side)】 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. Existing Jeepney parking Pic⑦-1

Pic ⑥

Pic⑥

15-211

Passenger's line for Jeepney. The line reaches about 50m

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 Many pedestrians walking toward bass stop and Guadalupe station

Pic ⑦-3

Pic ⑦－2

Pic ⑧

15-212

Figure 15.7.9-1 Pictures Map of Current Traffic Condition of around Guadalupe Bridge

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

Traffic accident between a bus and a taxi, caused by sudden lane change. Cause of heavy traffic jam

Pic ⑨

15-213

(3) Proposal of the Improvement

Table 15.7.9-2 Proposal of the Improvement

Items Issues Causes Countermeasures Proposal

Traffic Jam

Obstruction of bus lane by parking busses Large traffic volume of busses, parking over two lanes at peak hours

Disperse parking busses on the traffic lane

① Additional installation of bus stops ⇒Newly install bus stop near Guadalupe bridge where it

may be near large-scale commercial facilities as well as low impact to land acquisition and roadside facilities

Interruption by lane change of following busses Over taking busses run at the third lane Lead busses to bus lanes ②Traffic segregation by structures

⇒Physically restrict lane change by installing relevant structures such as separators or posts

Not parking at bus stop correctly but parking at center of traffic lane

Pedestrians and passengers of busses running over side walk. Busses can not park correctly.

Lead busses to park correctly

③Designation and derivation of bus stop ⇒Specific location of bus stops by destination ⇒Restrict passenger's protrusion over main line by

uniformizing their storage spaces

Obstruction of traffic lane by Jeepneys Interruption of main and ramp traffic due to parking Jeepney at ramp

Lead Jeepney not to park at main traffic lane

④Installation of Jeepney parking ⇒Apply land of the park to Jeepney parking. ⇒Install Jeepney space by improving alignment of

Southbound on-ramp

Interruption of main traffic by ramp traffic Cause of speed degradation due to inflow of low-speed traffic and stop at crossing

Separate ramp form main line ⑤Added lane

⇒Reduce interruption of main traffic by adding extra lanes

Safety

Interruption of ramp traffic by crossing pedestrians Pedestrians walking to Guadalupe Br. need to cross the ramp

Separate ramp traffic from crossing pedestrians

⑥Installation of pedestrian deck ⇒Install overpass for pedestrian ⇒Install guard rails to prevent road crossing physically

Narrow side walk for pedestrians volume

The width of side walk just only 1m Widening of side walk ⑦Install wide-width side walk

⇒Secure requisite width corresponding to pedestrian volume

Convenience

Improvement of accessibility with MRT, busses, Jeepneys and commercial facility

Longish distance from each traffic point to commercial facility along the road

Accessibility improvement by efficient coordination with each traffic point

⑧Coordination among key facilities ⇒Aim regional revitalization by connecting key traffic

points by pedestrian deck such as new bus stop, new Jeepney parking, existing MRT station and commercial facility

Capacity shortage of parking space of taxi Enough capacity volume of busses and Jeepneys but not enough for taxi

Secure parking space of taxi ⑨Install taxi parking

⇒Install taxi stop and parking at the open space in front of the station

15-214

Figure 15.7.9-2 Pictures Map of Traffic Issue of around Guadalupe Bridge

Existing Jeepney parking ⇒Capacity shortage, long lines of passengers

Obstruction of traffic lane by Jeepneys⇒Out side two lanes not functioned due to

parking Jeepneys

Obstruction of bus lane due to parking busses Interruption of traffic lane by lane change of following busses ⇒The congestion of busses at peak hour. Cause of traffic jam

because of overtaking busses run the third lane

The space utilized as bus stop ⇒The traffic island of the ramp, utilized as

bus stop, where is prohibited section for utilization

⇒High convenience because of good accessibility from commercial facility, Jeepneys and MRT

: Traffic line of Jeepneys

: Walk line of pedestrians

: Parking space of Jeepneys

: Parking space of busses

Not stop correctly at bus stop but park at center of traffic lane ⇒Busses stop short of bus stop, overtaking

busses run the third lane

Jeepney parking mainly riding⇒The parking at on-ramp, which

interrupts ramp traffic

Interruption of main traffic due to ramp traffic

⇒Interruption of main traffic due to inflow traffic without enough acceleration

Interruption main traffic by ramp traffic Interruption main traffic by crossing pedestrians

Narrow side walk ⇒Width of existing side walk

about 1m.

15-215

Figure 15.7.9-3 Proposal of Improvement around the Guadalupe Bridge

Figure 15.7.9-4 Typical Cross Section of Proposal of Improvement

① Additional installation of bus stops ③ Designation and derivation of bus stop

②Traffic segregation by structures ④Installation of jeepney parking

⑤Added lane（Speed-change lane at intersection）

⑥Installation of pedestrian deck

⑦Install wide-width side walk

⑧Coordination among key facilities ⑨Install taxi parking

EDSA

SOUTHBOUND LANE NORTHBOUND LANE

15-216

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.