CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Project

The purpose of this project is to design a sixty-meter steel bridge that will connect the two nearby
barangays, namely Barangay Fortune, Marikina City and Barangay Sta. Barbara, San Mateo, Rizal which
will be crossing through the downstream of San Mateo Channel. The proposed bridge is a replacement for
the existing reinforced concrete bridge which does not function well during inclement weather due to the
increase of water level in this channel.

The project consists of two vehicular lane with 3 meters in width for both lanes and two sidewalks in both
sides having 1 meter each. It has total length of 60 meters composing of 3 spans at 20 meters each.

Figure 1.1 Perspective view of the proposed project

1.2 Project Location
The project is located along the border of Brgy. Fortune and Brgy. Sta. Barbara, San Mateo, Rizal crossing
the San Mateo Channel.

2
 Figure 1.2 Fortune-Sta. Barbara Bridge (via Google Earth)

1.3 Project Objectives

1.3.1 General Objective

The design project is intended to improve the designer’s knowledge and skills in the course of Structural
Steel Design and to be able to use the said concepts in coming up with a design that will be able to cater
the client’s needs.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

 To design a structure in line with the given constraints and standards.
 To provide a structural steel design that will cater and satisfy the client’s needs.
 To provide a structural steel design that will cater and satisfy the client’s needs.

1.4 Project Scope and Limitations

1.4.1 Scope
The scopes of the project design are as follows:

 Provide the necessary drawings and other structural member details.

3
 Cost estimate of the structural works of the bridge.

1.4.2 Limitations
The limitations of the project design are as follows:

 Only the materials used in the structural design of the bridge was involved in the cost estimate, hence,
the architectural costs and other non-structural members were not included.
 The design of reinforced concrete columns and foundation is excluded.

1.5 The Client

The client of this project will be the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) – Rizal II District
Engineering Office thru District Engineer De Adilbert B. Rosete. Based on the client's specifications on the
proposed bridge, he wanted to ensure that the proposed design must be aligned with current design
practices and requirements. It also must be cost-efficient or being effective without wasting time, effort and
expense.

1.6 Project Development

The design project had undergone different stages in order to achieve the project objectives. Cited below
(Fig. 1.3) are the said design stages. It started with determination and conceptualization of the project
wherein the designers consider the client’s need together with the project budget and locations. The
designers then identify and gather the input parameters needed for the project. After gathering the input
parameters, the designers will now sight for the possible constraints of the project and will then explore
design trade-offs considering all the constraints. Definite design for these alternatives will next be
undertaken. Data results from the design process will be analyzed and will compare to each other. Finally,
the client will decide which design they will accept for the project.

4
 EVALUATION
DETERMINATION OF DESIGN
IDENTIFYING PROJECT OF DESIGN BASED ON FINAL
THE CONCEPTUAL CONSTRAINTS MULTIPLE
AND TRADE- CONSTRAINTS DESIGN
PROBLEM IZATION
OFFS AND
STANDARDS

Figure 1.3 Project Development Process

5
 CHAPTER 2 DESIGN INPUTS

2.1 Description of the Project

The structural bridge will be made of structural steel in accordance to the purpose of the project. It is
located at the boundary of Barangay Fortune, Marikina City and Barangay Sta. Barbara, San Mateo, Rizal.
The project consists of two vehicular lane with 3 meters in width for both lanes and two sidewalk in both
side having 1 meter each. It has total length of 60 meters composing of 3 spans at 20 meters each.

Table 2.1 Bridge Geometry

Superstructure Type Steel deck supported by truss

Span 3 span @ 20 meters
Total Width 8 meters
-width of vehicular lane (both lane) 3 meters
-width of sidewalk (both side) 1 meters
Railings Concrete type F - parapets

2.2 Architectural Plans

The structural design of the steel bridge should conform to the following plans provided by the designer.
The figures below show the detailed plan of the bridge in which the dimensions of the roadway, sidewalk,
and other necessary components were also provided. The elevation and different views of the steel bridge
were also included.

Figure 2.1 Top view of Bridge

6
Figure 2.2 Side Elevation view of the Bridge

7
 CHAPTER 3 CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS AND STANDARDS

3.1 Design Constraints

Constraints can be defined as the limiting factors or conditions that might greatly affect or hinder the design
and construction of the project. This causes the project to have a diminutive quality output. Constraints
must be identified so that the realizations and possible substantial impact can be looked upon in this design
project. Doing this process can determine who is responsible for them. During the course of this project, the
designer select quantitative constraints that can be obtain and evaluate.

3.1.1 Economic Constraint (Project Cost)

In any design project, the economic constraint is an utmost consideration. As a result, the designer was
able to come up with two possible options to choose from which might affect the overall cost of the
structure. The type of structure that will mainly support the load of the steel bridge is a selection between
Girder Bridge and truss bridge. Each of the mentioned trade-offs will be evaluated as to which of the two
will be more cost efficient without putting the strength of the structure at risk and shall be adapted.

3.1.2 Constructability Constraint (Project Duration)

Constructability is also another constraint to be considered in the design of the steel bridge. The longer the
duration of construction, the higher the labor cost and the more time of affecting the daily routine of the
people in the area. Recognizing the availability and suitability of materials will also help to accelerate the
construction of the bridge. Recognizing the availability and suitability of materials will also help to
accelerate the construction of the bridge. The designer will quantify this constraint into labor cost by
estimating the required number of workers in doing the construction of the project. For this constraint, the
designer will evaluate the truss and girder steel bridges. Recognizing the availability and suitability of
materials will also help to accelerate the construction of the bridge.

3.1.3 Sustainability (Maintenance Cost)

Sustainability or maintenance of every structure has also been the primary consideration in the design of
the steel bridge. The two trade-offs will be deliberated based on the cost of maintenance that will be
needed when the construction of the project was done. As for the two options in which the first one will
require a larger superstructure while that of the second one which will have more steel girders that are opt
to be maintained, hence, both trade-offs will be deliberated to see which of the two will be more cost
efficient in terms of sustainability.

8
3.1.4 Environmental Constraint
The environmental condition of the project site was also considered in the design of the project because it
may affect the design of bridge. For the past years, flood level of the project site continually increases the
flood water level hence the proposed bridge must be built with higher elevation.

3.2 Trade-Offs
To address the design constraints, the designer considered the two materials that will be used in design of
steel bridge and these are selection between Girder Bridge and Truss Bridge. Deliberation will be done to
determine which is the most effective and efficient design that will satisfy the design constraints. Selection
of appropriate material is based on the design criteria gathered by the designers.

3.2.1 Girder Bridge

Girder is a term used in construction to refer to a supporting, horizontal beam that can be made from a
variety of construction materials such as stainless steel, concrete, or a combination of these materials. A
girder bridge is a basic, common type of bridge where the bridge deck is built on top of such supporting
beams, that have in turn been placed on piers and abutments that support the span of the bridge.

Figure 3.1 Girder Bridge (Source: Google Images)

3.2.1.1 Advantages of Girder Bridge

 Easy to Install

9
 Reduce the requirement for support joints
 Have high strength and torsional stiffness that give greater and better suitability for horizontally curved
bridges
 Ensure enhanced durability
 Have high strength and torsional stiffness that give greater and better suitability for horizontally curved
bridges

3.2.1.2 Disadvantages of Girder Bridge

 Low strength to weight ratio so produces a heavy structure using lots of material.
 Plate girders have limited spans.
 Not as architecturally pleasing as other types.
 Limited visibility through the structure.

3.2.2 Truss Bridge

Truss bridge is a type of bridge whose main element is a truss which is a structure of connected elements
that form triangular units. Truss is used because it is a very rigid structure and it transfers the load from a
single point to a much wider area. Truss bridges appeared very early in the history of modern bridges and
are economic to construct because they use materials efficiently. On truss bridges, a tension member is
subject to forces that pull outward at its ends. Compressive forces push or compress together and are
heavier.

In theory, a truss bridge contained no redundant members. Builders considered each member or element
essential to the functioning of the truss, although some were more important than others were. While most
trusses could sustain considerable damage and lose the support of some members without collapsing,
severe traffic damage to a member could result in the collapse of the bridge.

10
 Figure 3.2 Truss Bridge (Source: Google Images)

3.2.2.1 Advantages of Truss Bridge

 Truss Bridges can span virtually any distance
 It offers a superior level of strength
 It is highly adaptable. It can be constructed under conditions that would be considered extreme by
other design options.
 They are light, but strong.
 It allows placement of roadways on the structure itself.
 The shape of a triangle allows all of the weight applied to the sides (or legs) to be redistributed down
and away from the center.

3.2.2.2 Disadvantages of Truss Bridge

 A truss bridge requires high levels of on-going maintenance.
 Engineering and architectural specialists are required.
 Truss bridges have a lower per capital weight tolerance.
 It tends to be a heavy design, even with lightweight materials.
 Truss bridges can become structurally unsound faster than other bridges. Even with regular monitoring
and maintenance, a truss bridge may experience faster wear and tear than other bridges.

11
 It requires high costs. Even if this type of structure is strong, having the capability to support a lot of
force, it is not seen to be built anymore these days due to the high costs that come with it.

3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking

For the client to have an overview on how the designers choose among the mentioned trade-offs based on
their constraints, Trade-off Strategies in Engineering Design by Otto and Antonsson (1991) will be used.
The use of the table of Designer’s Raw Ranking is to rate each constraints based on its importance to the
designer’s perspective and also, to rate each design methodology’s ability to satisfy the given criterion by
rating on a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 is the highest.

Equation to be used in the computation of ranking for the ability to satisfy the criterion:

The governing rank will be subjected based on how important each constraint to the designers’ own
perspective. This subjective value depends on the initial estimate, say for economic criterion, which the
designers can initially select while the subordinate rank is a variable that corresponds to its percentage
distance from the governing rank.

There will be different instances that may occur in the assessment since it is subjective and based only to
the designers’ own perspective.

Figure 3.3 Ranking scale for percentage difference

12
As shown in Figure 3.5, the distance is determined by multiplying the percentage difference by the number
of scale which is 10. The product will be the number of interval from the governing value. After considering
the design constraints, the designers will come up with the initial rankings on the section to be used and the
connection joining them.

Table 3.1 Designer’s Raw Ranking

Criterion’s Importance Ability to satisfy the criterion

Decision Criteria (on a scale of 1 to 10) (on a scale from 1 to 10)

Girder Bridge Truss Bridge

Economic 10 10 9
Constructability 9 9 10
Sustainability 9 4 10
Over-all Rank 230 290

Table 3.2 Summary of Initial estimate

Trade-off
Decision Criteria
Girder Bridge Truss Bridge

Economic (Material Cost) Php 20,139,777.50 Php 16,822,642.50

Constructability (Man-Hour
6713 man hours 7290 man hours
Duration)
Sustainability (Maintenance
Php 150,000 Php 475,000
Cost)

Computation of Ranking for Economic Constraint:

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

20139777.50 − 16822642.50
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
20139777.50
13
 % 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 1.65 = 1

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − (% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒)𝑥 10

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 1

𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟗

Figure 3.4 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Economic Constraint

Computation of Ranking for Constructability Constraint:

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

7290 − 6713
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
7290

% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 0.79 = 1

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − (% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒)𝑥 10

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 1

𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟗

Figure 3.5 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Constructability Constraint

Computation of Ranking for Sustainability Constraint:

14
 𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

475,000 − 150,000
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
475000

% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 6.84 = 6

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − (% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒)𝑥 10

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 6

𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟒

Figure 3.6 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Sustainability Constraint

3.4 Design Guidelines and Standards

The stages of design of the sixty-meter steel bridge were done in accordance to the following codes and
standards:

• National Structural Code of the Philippines Volume II, Bridges ASD (Allowable Stress Design), 2nd
Edition, 1997

• ASEP Steel Handbook 2004 Volume 1

• AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specification 6th Edition, 2012

National Structural Code of the Philippines Volume II, Bridges ASD (Allowable Stress Design), 2 nd
Edition 1997

15
The design of the steel bridge was done in accordance to the NSCP Vol. II for bridges. This code served as
a guide for the design analysis and general structural integrity of the project. All the other standards and
provisions (e.g. standard highway clearances, road width, vertical clearance, etc.) were also taken from the
said code.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Bridge Design
Specification

These are standards setting body which provides specifications and other guidelines that are used in the
design and construction of bridges and other horizontal structures. This is the governing body in the United
States but their standards are also adapted here in the Philippines.

16
 CHAPTER 4 DESIGN OF STRUCTURE

4.1 Design Methodology

The sixty-meter steel bridge will be designed as a steel structure. The design is primarily done in
accordance and with reference to the different codes and standards that were stated on the previous
chapter. As for the methodology and other design computations, the Ultimate Strength Design (USD) and
the Allowable Stress Design (ASD) was adapted with respect to the National Structural Code of the
Philippines Volume II for Bridges. Moreover, the bridge will be designed to resist the loads that will be
acting on it, hence, all the other design procedures, other codes and parameters were indicated in the
design standards.

Figure 4.1 Design Process

17
4.2 Design Criteria and Assumptions

Using the different mentioned codes and standards and the previously illustrated design process, these are
specific design criteria and other assumptions that will be used in the design of the steel bridge.

Table 4.1: Design Specifications for Steel

Design Specifications (Steel)

A42 Steel (fy) 345 MPa
Reinforcement Bar (fy) 414 MPa

As illustrated in the table, the structural members of the steel bridge will be adapting an A42 steel
conforming to the ASTM standards with an allowable yield strength of 345 MPa. Moreover, the reinforcing
bars that will be used will have a yield strength of 414 MPa.

Table 4.2: Design Specifications for Concrete

Design Specifications (Concrete)

Compressive Strength, f’c 28 MPa
Weight of Concrete 2405.7 kg/m3
Clear cover of Slab 50 mm
Slab Thickness 250 mm

As for the non-steel members and accessories of the bridge, the type of concrete that will be used will have
a compressive strength (f’c) of 28 MPa. Unlike the major structural members which be designed as steel,
the bridge deck will be primarily made from concrete with a weight of 2405.7 kg/m 3 and a clear cover of
50mm for the slab. A thickness of 250mm will also be adapted for the concrete deck.

4.2.1 Loadings

The steel bridge was designed to be able to resist the following types of loadings, as per the mentioned
design parameters:

18
4.2.1.1 Dead Loads

Dead loads consist of the weight of the entire structure which includes the roadway, sidewalks together with
cables and other public utility services.

The following dead loads are used in the design of the steel bridge as per the National Structural Code of
the Philippines Volume II, 2nd Edition 1997:

Table 4.3: Dead Loads

Concrete, plain or reinforced 23.5 KN/m3

Wearing surface 23.5 KN/m3
Steel or cast steel 77 KN/m3
Parapets 22 KN/m3

As for the steel and concrete dead loads, the steel or cast steel will have a unit weight of 77 KN/m 3, while
23.5 KN/m3 will be adapted for the concrete that will be used for the roadway and sidewalks as well as the
concrete wearing surface. For the additional protection and safety of the by-passers, parapets will be
provided on the edge of the bridge and will have a unit weight of 22 KN/m3.

For the type of loading to be used, the design will be adapting the MS 18 as per AASHTO 1944 Edition.

4.2.1.2 Live Loads

The bridge was also designed to be able to resist the live load that will be applied on it. It is designed to
conform to the codes and standards. As per the NSCP Vol II, the loading was modelle d through the
use of STAAD Pro V8i in which the live load was applied as a moving load going along the bridge with a
weight of 108 KN that are 1.20 m apart.

As for the computation of stresses, as indicated in Section 3.11 of the National Structural Code of the
Philippines Vol II, each 3.0 m lane load or single standard truck shall be considered as a unit.

The following figures show the illustration of the standard M trucks live load that will be acting on the bridge:

19
 Figure 4.2 Standard M Trucks

The following figures show the different lane loadings as per NSCP Vol II, 2nd Edition, 1997

Figure 4.3 M 18 Loading

Figure 4.4 M 13.5 Loading

20
4.2.1.3 Wind Load

As per NSCP Volume II, the wind load shall consist of moving uniformly distributed loads applied to the
exposed area of the structure. Hence, the following wind loads were used in the design of the steel bridge
and its other components:

Table 4.4: Wind Load Intensities

For Trusses and arches 3590 Pa

For girders and beams 2390 Pa

As indicated in the table, a wind pressure of 2390 Pa was applied on the girders and beams of the bridge
which was reduced to its tributary area, while a wind pressure of 3590 Pa was used for the design of the
steel pratt truss.

4.3 Superstructure

A superstructure is an upward extension of a given structure which is above the grade line or the base line.
This term can be applied to several structures including buildings and bridges. Hence, for the project under
consideration, all the data presented in this section will include the methodology and design of the steel
truss (for the 1st trade-off), bridge deck and girders (for both trade-offs).

4.3.1 Design of Pratt Truss

The steel truss will be designed using the axial force (fx) tension or compression from the structural
analysis. The analysis of the said member was done through the application of the necessary loadings
such as its self-weight, wind load (from NSCP Vol. II and as discussed in the previous section), and the
load imposed by the bridge deck that is carried by the girders and was then transferred to the members of
the steel truss. This part of the structure was analysed using STAAD Pro v8i in which the governing axial
force was used in the design. The following flowchart shows the procedure in designing the truss members.

21
4.3.1.1 Pratt Truss Analysis and Result
This section shows the analysis of the steel truss and its result due to the applied loadings and other
considerations presented herein. Tables and figures were provided and the detailed computations for the
design of the members are indicated in the Appendix.

4.3.1.1.1 Design of Pratt Truss

Figure 4.5: Geometric Modelling of the Pratt Truss

Figure 4.6: Sample Truss Loading due to Wind Load

22
 Figure 4.7: Axial Force acting on the Truss

4.3.1.1.2 Summary of Forces acting on the Steel Truss

The following figures show the summary of max forces acting the truss members (top, web, and bottom)
generated using STAAD Pro V8i. These max axial forces were used in the design of the said members.

Table 4.5 Top Chord Max Loadings Results

Axial Moment- Moment-

Shear-Y Shear-Z Torsion
Beam L/C Node Force Y Z
kN kN kN-m
kN kN-m kN-m
24 1 15 1022.695 1.964 0 0 0 0
25 1 16 1022.695 1.964 0 0 0 0
23 1 14 981.759 1.964 0 0 0 0
26 1 17 981.759 1.964 0 0 0 0
22 1 13 858.951 1.964 0 0 0 0

Table 4.6 Web Members Max Loadings Results

Axial Moment- Moment-

Shear-Y Shear-Z Torsion
Beam L/C Node Force Y Z
kN kN kN-m
kN kN-m kN-m
37 1 20 644.182 1.716 0 0 0 0
33 1 12 644.182 1.716 0 0 0 0
36 1 19 461.110 1.716 0 0 0 0
32 1 13 461.110 1.716 0 0 0 0

Table 4.7 Bottom Chord Max Loadings Results

Beam L/C Node Axial Shear-Y Shear-Z Torsion Moment- Moment-

23
 Force kN kN kN-m Y Z
kN kN-m kN-m
5 1 6 335.675 72.639 0 0 0 0
6 1 7 335.675 72.639 0 0 0 0
9 1 9 278.365 72.639 0 0 0 0
10 1 10 278.365 72.639 0 0 0 0
2 1 2 278.365 72.639 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 278.365 72.639 0 0 0 0

4.3.1.2 Pratt Truss Design Result

Table 4.8: Designed Sections for the Pratt Truss

Truss Member Designed Sections

Top Chord W 16x57
Web Member W 16x57
Bottom Chord W 16x57

4.3.2 Design of Bridge Deck

The design of the bridge deck was based on the results of the structural analysis using STAAD Pro V8i. As
per Article 3.24 of the National Structural Code of the Philippines Vol II 1997, the deck was analysed
through the application of subjected loading conditions such as dead load, live loads, moving loads, and
impact loads.

24
As per the moving and impact loads that are acting on the span of the bridge deck, the type of loading was
based on the application of M-18 loading as presented in the previous section of this chapter.

Determine the effective Compute for the Main

Geometric Modeling
depth Reinforcements

Input the necessary Determine the

design parameters such Compute for the Total Distribution
as slab thickness, Factored Moment acting Reinforcements (As per
wearing surface on the bridge deck Art. 3.24.10.1 NSCP Vol
thickness, etc. II)

Assume the section of

the stringers to be used Determine the Impact Spacing of the computed
as a support for the Load Factor reinforcements
bridge deck

Determine the Moments

Compute for the Effective
due to the Dead and Live
Span Length (As per Art.
Loads (As per Article
3.24.1 NSCP Vol II)
3.21.3.1 NSCP Vol II)

4.3.2.1 Bridge Deck Analysis and Result

The data presented in this section are the sample loading conditions as well as the results of the analysis
done by the designer for the concrete slab/deck of the steel bridge. As per the NSCP Vol II, M-trucks are
used for the live load in the design and all the detailed calculations are shown in the Appendix.

It should also be noted that the results of the analysis for the bridge deck was applied and adapted for the
two trade-offs.

25
 Figure 4.9 Geometric Modelling of the Bridge Deck

Figure 4.10 Sample M-Truck Loading using STAAD Pro V8i

Figure 4.11: 2nd Sample M-Truck Loading using STAAD Pro V8i

26
For the M-Truck Loadings, the diagrams shown were just sample loadings that were used for the analysis
of the bridge deck.

Figure 4.12: Moment Diagram due to Live Load

Table 0.9: Design Results for the Bridge Deck

Main Bars Reinforcements 16 mm Φ @ 360 mm OC

Distribution Bars Reinforcements 12 mm Φ @ 200 mm OC

4.3.3 Design of Girder and Floor Beam

For the design of the girders and stringers of the steel bridge, it was done through the analysis of a 50-m
span which was subdivided into two 25-m span supported by a pin and roller at the middle and at the end
supports. As for the loading conditions used in the analysis, the weight of the bridge deck resulting from the
previous design analysis was applied on the bridge girders for both trade-offs. As per NSCP Vol II, M-trucks
were applied as live load with varying conditions which was shown in detail in the previous sections. As for
the stresses that are used in the design, the structure was analysed using STAAD Pro V8i and the
governing stresses (moments, shear forces, deflections) as a result of the analysis was used in the
computation for the appropriate sections to be used. A more detailed computation for the design section
was shown in the Appendix.

The design of beams was done in accordance to the following equations and processes as indicated in the
Section 506 of NSCP 2001. All the stresses such as maximum bending moment and shear forces are

27
based on the result of the structural analysis through STAAD Pro V8i. As for the design of the members,
the actual member stresses should not exceed the allowable stresses as indicated in the following sections.

For Bending Stress:

fb  Fb

Where:

fb = actual bending stress

Fb = allowable bending stress

Allowable stress for compact section: Strong Axis

Fb  0.66Fy (Equation 506-1 NSCP 2001 Vol. 1)

Allowable stress for compact section: Weak Axis

Fb  0.75Fy (Equation 506-9 NSCP 2001 Vol. 1)

A compact section satisfies the following equation:

bf 170
 (Table 502-1 NSCP 2001 Vol. 1)
2tf Fy

d 1680 (Table 502-1 NSCP 2001 Vol. 1)


tw Fy

The unsupported length of the compression flange Lb does not exceed the value of Lc . Where
Lc is the smaller value of the following equations:

28
 200bf 137900
or (Equation 506-2 NSCP 2001 Vol. 1)
Fy  d / Af  Fy

When Lb  Lc and Lb  Lu :

7032070cb L 3516330cb
Case 1:  
Fy rr Fy

Fb is the larger of the following equations:

 2 Fy  L / rt 2 
Fb  Fy     0.60Fy
3 Fy 
 

82740cb
Fb   0.60Fy (Equation 506-8 NSCP 2001 Vol. 1)
Ld /  Af 

L 3516330cb
Case 2: 
rr Fy

Fb is the larger of the following equations:

1172100cb
Fb   0.60Fy (Equation 506-7 NSCP 2001 Vol. 1)
 L / rt 
2

Where:

2
M M  (Section 506.2.3 NSCP 2001 Vol. 1)
cb  1.75  1.05 1  0.3  1 
M2  M2 

M 1 = smaller bending moment at the ends of the unbraced length

M2 = larger bending moment at the ends of the unbraced length

29
 M1
= positive for reverse curvature
M2

M1
= negative for single curvature
M2

For Shearing Stress:

When:
h 998
 (Section 506.5 NSCP 2001 Vol. 1)
tw Fy

(Equation 506-15 NSCP 2001 Vol. 1)

Fv  0.40Fy

When:
h 998
 (Section 506.5 NSCP 2001 Vol. 1)
tw Fy

Fy (Equation 506-15 NSCP 2001 Vol. 1)

Fv  Cv  0.40Fy
2.89

Where:

310264kv Cv is less than 0.80 (Section 506.5.5 NSCP 2001 Vol. 1)

Cv  when
Fy  h / t w 
2

500 kv
Cv  when Cv is more than 0.80
h / tw Fy

5.34
kv  4.00  when a/h is less than 1.0
a / h 
2

30
 4.00
kv  5.34  when a/h is more than 1.0
a / h 
2

t w = thickness of web, mm

a = clear distance between transverse stiffeners, mm

h = clear distance between flanges at the section under investigation, mm

For Deflection:

The deflection of members must not exceed the allowable 1/ 360 of the span which is indicated in
Section 512 of NSCP 2001 Vol. 1.

As for the detailed computations, they were all included and indicated in the Appendix.

4.3.3.1 Girder and Floor Beams Analysis and Result for Trade-off 1

The results of the analysis done through the use of STAAD Pro V8i were presented in this section. All the
loading conditions for Trade-off 1 together with their respective diagrams were also presented for a clearer
visualization. Hence, a more detailed computation was included in the Appendix.

Figure 4.13: Shear Diagram for Trade-off 1

31
 Figure 4.14: Moment Diagram for Trade-off 1

The figures above show the Shear and Moment Diagram for the girders and floor beams of the first trade-
off.

The following figures show the summary of stresses generated using STAAD (maximum bending and shear
forces) for the first trade-off:

Table 4.10 Max Forces due to Dead Load of Longitudinal Girders

Axial Shear Torsion Bending

Max Fx Max Fy Max Fz Max Mx Max My Max Mz

Section
kN kN kN kN-m kN-m kN-m

W36X Max +ve 0 427.296 0 0.092 0 1477.514

Max -ve 0 -427.296 0 -0.092 0 -801.309

32
Table 4.11 Max Forces due to Wind Load of Longitudinal Girders

Axial Shear Torsion Bending

Max Fx Max Fy Max Fz Max Mx Max My Max Mz

Section
kN kN kN kN-m kN-m kN-m

W36X Max +ve 0 128.324 0 0.025 0 440.747

Max -ve 0 -128.324 0 -0.025 0 -237.256

Table 4.12 Max Forces due to Dead Load of Transverse Beams

Axial Shear Torsion Bending

Max Fx Max Fy Max Fz Max Mx Max My Max Mz

Section
kN kN kN kN-m kN-m kN-m

W36X Max +ve 0 128.324 0 0.025 0 440.747

Max -ve 0 -128.324 0 -0.025 0 -237.256

Table 4.13 Max Forces due to Wind Load of Transverse Beams

Axial Shear Torsion Bending

Max Fx Max Fy Max Fz Max Mx Max My Max Mz

Section
kN kN kN kN-m kN-m kN-m

W36X Max +ve 0 20.031 0 0.029 0 44.827

33
 Max -ve 0 -20.031 0 -0.029 0 -20.604

Table 4.14 Max Forces due to Live Load for Trade-off 2

Axial Shear Torsion Bending

Max Fx Max Fy Max Fz Max Mx Max My Max Mz

Section
kN kN kN kN-m kN-m kN-m

W36X Max +ve 0 155.115 0 0 0 378.776

Max -ve 0 -141.339 0 0 0 -757.233

As for the Load Combinations, it was manually computed using the generated stresses, and the governing
load combination was used in the design of the girders and beams.

Table 4.15: Load Combinations for Trade-off 1 Girders

Load Combinations:
Moment (KN-m) Shear (KN)
Group I: 2139.046 686.2915
Group I-A: 3010.231 1043.056
Group II: 1592.312 414.32
Group III: 3107.566 1068.494
Governing: 3107.566 KN-m 1068.494 KN

34
Table 4.16: Load Combinations for Trade-off 1 Beams

Load Combinations:
Moment (KN-m) Shear (KN)
Group I: 959.2528 413.1855
Group I-A: 1830.438 769.95
Group II: 108.602 70.247
Group III: 1836.598 774.0978
Governing: 1836.598 KN-m 774.0978 KN

Figure 4.15: Moment Diagram of the Critical Section

Figure 4.16: Shear Diagram of the Critical Section

4.4 Validation of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards

The different rankings and criteria of importance that are shown in Chapter 3 are primarily based on the
initial deliberation done by the designer. Though the initial deliberation was done with the aide of
appropriate sources and careful calculations, it would still be proper if the mentioned constraints and
trade-offs will be further validated with a more complete and detailed presentation of data.

35
 After the preliminary deliberation indicated in chapter 3, it was clearly shown that the girder bridge cost
more as that of the truss bridge. It may be due to the fact that the girder bridge requires larger
members, thus, resulting to a greater cost. As for the other two constraints, constructability and
sustainability, it was also shown that these constraints were able to affect the deliberation and the
design of the steel bridge.

4.4.1 Final Estimates of Trade-offs

In order to confirm the result of Designer’s Raw Ranking in Chapter 3, the designers had this validation of
trade-offs. This validation will show the certainty of the assumptions done through the initial estimates and
compare it to the final cost estimates.

Table 4.17: Final Estimate

Estimate
Constraint
Truss Bridge Girder Bridge

Economic Php 30,009,526.35 Php 35,828,084.60

Constructability 1865 man hours 1713 man hours

Sustainability Php 247,032.79 Php 150,885.28

4.4.2 Computation for Final Designer’s Ranking

Computation of Ranking for Economic Constraint:

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒−𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

35,828,084.60−30,009,526.35
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
35,828,084.60

% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 1.62 = 2

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − (% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒)𝑥 10

36
 𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 2

𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 =8

Figure 4.17 Final Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Economic Constraint

Computation of Ranking for Constructability Constraint:

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒−𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

1,865−1,713
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
1,865

% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 0.82 = 1

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − (% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒)𝑥 10

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 1

𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟗

Figure 4.18 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Constructability Constraint

Computation of Ranking for Sustainability Constraint:

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒−𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

37
 247,032.79−150,885.28
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
247,032.79

% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 3.89 = 4

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − (% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒)𝑥 10

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 4

𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟔

Figure 4.19 Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for Sustainability Constraint

Table 4.18: Final Designer’s Ranking

Decision Criteria Criterion’s Ability to satisfy the criterion

Importance
(on a scale from 1 to 10)
(on a scale of 1 to 10)
Truss Bridge Girder Bridge
1. Economic
10 10 8
2. Constructability
9 9 10
3. Sustainability
9 6 10

Rank 280 250 280

*Reference: Otto, K. N. and Antonsson, E. K., (1991). Trade-off strategies in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design, volume 3,
number 2, pages 87-104. Retrieved from http://www.design.caltech.edu/Research/Publications/90e.pdf

38
4.5 Influence of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs, and Standards in the Final Design
Multiple constraints limit the design of a certain project. In this project, six constraints are limiting the factors
of the project. The trade-offs developed by the designers are two layout of bridges that. It is aimed which
among the two trade-off would become sustainable and lower the cost of the project and speed up the
construction rate. Two separate designs are presented concerning the multiple constraints and evaluated in
order to determine the most appropriate design.

4.5.2 Economic Assessment

Figure 4.20. Comparison of Material Cost

The design of two steel bridge were performed to determine the cost efficiency that the trade-offs pose.
After the design of each trade-off, the estimate for the material cost was prepared and evaluated. The
graph above shows the comparison of the cost of materials used by the two tradeoffs. The figure above
shows the comparison of materials costs of the two trade-offs. Since scheme 1 has less cost of materials
used compared to scheme 2, scheme 1 is favored over scheme 2.

4.5.3 Constructability Assessment

The complexity of work increase the labor cost of the project since more workers will be needed in the
construction. The ease of construction to finish the project reflects to lower cost in labor. Therefore, as
shown in the final estimates above, scheme 2 won over scheme 1 in terms of the cost in labor.

39
 Figure 4.21 Comparison in Labor Cost

4.5.4 Sustainability Assessment

In order to quantify the sustainability of the structure, the cost per cubic meter of the settled soil is
considered. The graph below shows the comparison of the trade-offs in terms of its settled soil cost.

Figure 4.22. Maintenance cost

40
4.6 Final Choice for Steel Bridge
The final judgment of the designer among the two trade-offs presented is to adopt Steel Girder as the main
member of the Fortune-Sta. Barbara Bridge. Even though Truss bridge is advance in maintenance cost,
steel girder bridge is still more economical in terms of material cost and labor cost. Based also in the
Designers’ Final Ranking, the scheme 1 alternative accumulated higher points over the scheme 2.

41
 CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN

5.1 Conclusion
The design steel bridge using girder and truss were presented in Chapter 4. At the same time, comparative
assessment were made with both designs. Initial assumption was verified through the detailed estimates of
material cost, labor cost and backfill cost of project for both trade-offs.

The designer was able to come up with a structural design that is in accordance with the different codes
and standards, namely, the National Structural Code of the Philippines Volume II and the AASHTO LRFD
Bridge Design Specifications. The design of each member have undergone a thorough design process in
which each structural member has been proven to be safe against bending, shear and deflection, and will
be able to sustain the loads that might be applied on it.

As for the two trade-offs, namely, the truss bridge and the girder bridge, the type of bridge which has been
proven to be more efficient is the latter. Considering the economic constraint which is given an importance
of 5, the 1st trade-off was able to save an average of Php 5,000,000 as compared to that of the girder
bridge. But although the truss bridge was able to govern in terms of cost, considering the other two
constraints, namely, constructability and sustainability, the girder bridge was able to govern and receive a
higher rank and satisfy the criterion. Given that the remaining constraints both have an importance factor of
4, the girder bridge was able to have an advantage of 100 man hours as to that of the truss bridge, and was
also able to have a lesser maintenance cost due to several factors that were considered.

But in totality, the designer was able to conclude that the use of the Girder Bridge without having to use a
steel truss is more cost-efficient and reasonable to adapt since not only does it have a lesser duration of
construction, but it has also been proven to be more effective in terms of sustainability since it requires a
cheaper maintenance cost.

5.1.1 MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS

1. Structural Steel Plates- the material was used in the girder part of the structure. Since the girder is a
built-up section, it is composed of steel plates combined through welded though welded and bolted
connections. Different strength was used in web and flange to give less cost in the construction materials
a.) For webs, A36= 248 Mpa

b.) For flanges, A50- 345 Mpa

42
c.) Fu= 400 Mpa

2. Connections- following are the material used to combine the web and flange of the girder, and to joint all
assembled single girders to build up a single 60m girder.

a.) Fillet weld; E60, Fv= 124.2 Mpa

b.) Bolt screw; A325, Fv= 207 Mpa

43
44
 APPENDIX A: INITIAL COST ESTIMATE

Initial Estimate:

Economic Constraint
Trade-off Considered Area (m 2) Cost per square meter (Php) Total Cost (Php)
Steel Truss Bridge 250 67290.57 16,822,642.50
Steel Girder Bridge 250 80559.11 20,139,777.50
source: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/policy/costs/Bridges.pdf

Constructability Constraint
Trade-off Cost Labor Cost (Php) Duration
Steel Truss Bridge 21,869,435.25 2,186,943.53 7290
Steel Girder Bridge 20,139,777.50 2,013,977.75 6713
Note: The initial cost of the Truss bridge is increased by 20% for the fabrication and assembly of truss members
Note: The duration of man-hours

Sustainability Constraint
Trade-off Cost per meter Length in meters Total Cost
Steel Truss Bridge 9,500.00 50.00 475,000.00
Steel Girder Bridge 3,000.00 50.00 150,000.00
Note: initial cost for the sustainability are only rough estimates

45
 APPENDIX B: MANUAL COMPUTATION OF PRATT TRUSS
Design of Superstructure
PRATT TRUSS

Design of Top Chord Members

Assume Trial Section
W 16 x 57 P = 1022695 N
L= 2500 mm

Dimensions and Properties of Trial Section

Fy = 345 Mpa E (Mpa) = 200000
2
A= 10839 mm k= 1
4
I= 3.16E+08 mm

Compute for Slenderness Ratio

r = √ (I/A)
r = 170.7454

kL = 14.64169
r

Compute for Compression Index, C c

2
Fy = 345 Cc =√ (2∏ E/Fy )
E= 200000 Cc = 106.9721 > 14.64169
Design as short member!

46
Therefore:
2
Fa = (1-(kL/r )) Fy Fy = 345
(2Cc2) F.S.

3
F.S. = 5 + 3(kL/r) - (kL/r)
3 8Cc 8Cc 3
F.S. = 1.666667 + 0.051328 - 0.000321
F.S. = 1.717674

2
Fa = (1-(kL/r )) Fy
2
(2Cc ) F.S.
Fa = 0.990633 x 200.853 = 198.9716

Allowable Axial Stress Actual Axial Stress

Fa = 198.9716 Mpa P = 1022695
fa = P/A A= 10839
fa = 94.35326 Mpa
Since: Fa > fa The section is SAFE!

47
 Design of Superstructure
PRATT TRUSS

Design of Bottom Chord Members

Assume Trial Section
W 16 x 57 P= 335675 N
L= 2500 mm

Dimensions and Properties of Trial Section

Fy = 345 Mpa E (Mpa) = 200000
2
A= 10839 mm k= 1
4
I= 3.16E+08 mm

Compute for Slenderness Ratio

r = √ (I/A)
r = 170.7454

kL = 14.64169
r

Compute for Compression Index, C c

2
Fy = 345 Cc =√ (2∏ E/Fy )
E= 200000 Cc = 106.9721 > 14.64169
Design as short member!

48
Therefore:
2
Fa = (1-(kL/r )) Fy Fy = 345
2
(2Cc ) F.S.

3
F.S. = 5 + 3(kL/r) - (kL/r)
3
3 8Cc 8Cc
F.S. = 1.666667 + 0.051328 - 0.000321
F.S. = 1.717674

2
Fa = (1-(kL/r )) Fy
2
(2Cc ) F.S.
Fa = 0.990633 x 200.853 = 198.9716

Allowable Axial Stress Actual Axial Stress

Fa = 198.9716 Mpa P= 335675
fa = P/A A= 10839
fa = 30.96919 Mpa
Since: Fa > fa The section is SAFE!

49
 Design of Superstructure
PRATT TRUSS

Design of Web Members

Assume Trial Section
W 16 x 57 P= 644182 N
L= 5590 mm

Dimensions and Properties of Trial Section

Fy = 345 Mpa E (Mpa) = 200000
2
A= 10839 mm k= 1
4
I= 3.16E+08 mm

Compute for Slenderness Ratio

r = √ (I/A)
r = 170.7454

kL = 32.73881
r

Compute for Compression Index, C c

2
Fy = 345 Cc =√ (2∏ E/Fy )
E= 200000 Cc = 106.9721 > 32.73881
Design as short member!

50
If it is a long member, ignore the following and proceed to the other value of Fa:

2
Fa = (1-(kL/r )) Fy Fy = 345
2
(2Cc ) F.S.

3
F.S. = 5 + 3(kL/r) - (kL/r)
3 8Cc 8Cc 3
F.S. = 1.666667 + 0.114769 - 0.003583
F.S. = 1.777852

Fa = (1-(kL/r2)) Fy
(2Cc2) F.S.
Fa = 0.953167 x 194.0544 = 184.9662

Allowable Axial Stress Actual Axial Stress

Fa = 184.9662 Mpa P= 644182
fa = P/A A= 10839
fa = 59.43187 Mpa
Fa = 12∏2E
23(KL/r)2 Since: Fa > fa The section is SAFE!
Fa = 960.854 Mpa

use Fa: 184.9662 Mpa

51
APPENDIX C: MANUAL COMPUTATION OF BRIDGE DECK

52
 Design of Bridge Deck

Design Parameters:

Bridge Loading = M18

f'c 28 Mpa Slab thickness 250 mm
3
fy 414 Mpa Concrete Weight 23.5 KN/m
Wearing surface thickness 50 mm
3
Wearing surface weight 23.5 KN/m
Distance between Flange 2m
Clear Concrete Cover 50 mm

Main Reinforcement 16 mm
Distribution Reinforcement 12 mm
Assumed Stringers
W36x170
Flange Width 305.56

Effective Span Length

S = distance between flange + 0.5(top flange width) (Article 3.24.1 NSCP Vol II 1997)
-3
S = 2.00m + 0.50(305.56x10 )m
S= 2.15278 m

Moment due to Dead Loads:

WDL = (23.5)(1)(.25) + (23.5)(0.05)(1)
WDL = 7.05 KN/m
2
MDL = wl / 10
MDL = 3.267296 KN-m

Moment due to Live Loads:

MLL = (3.28S + 2)P18 (Article 3.24.3.1 NSCP Vol. II 1997)
32
MLL = (3.28(2.15) + 2)(72)
32
MLL = 16.72376 KN-m

53
Impact Load Factor
I= 15.24 ≤ 30 % (Article 3.8.2.1 NSCP Vol. II 1997)
L + 38
I= 37.95503 > 30
I= 30 %

MLL-1 = MLL (1.3)

MLL-1 = 21.74088 KN-m

Total Factored Dead Load Moment

Mu = 1.2MDL + 1.6MLL
Mu = 38.70617 KN-m

Effective Depth
d= thickness - wearing surface - cover - bar diameter
d= 134 mm

Computation for Main Reinforment

Mu = φbd 2f'cω(1-0.59ω)
38706165 φbd 2f'cω(1-0.59ω)
ω= 0.09037

ω= ρfy/f'c ρmin = 1.4/fy

ρ= ωf'c/fy ρmin = 0.003382
ρ= 0.006112
use ρ = 0.006112

As = ρbd
As = 819.0054 mm2

Distribution of Reinforcements
D= 120/ √ S ≤ 67 % (Article 3.24.10.1 NSCP Vol. II 1997)
D= 81.78646 > 67 %
D= 67 %
Distribution Steel = A s D
Distribution Steel = 548.7336 mm2

54
Reinforcement Spacing
Main Reinforcement
Using 16 mm bar diameter
2
Abar = 201.0619 mm

Spacing = Abar/As x 1000

Spacing = 366.4108 ≈ 366 mm

Main Reinforcement
Using 12 mm bar diameter
2
Abar = 113.0973 mm

Spacing = Abar/As x 1000

Spacing = 206.1061 ≈ 206 mm

55
 APPENDIX D: MANUAL COMPUTATION OF BEAMS
Trade-off 1: Design of Longitudinal Beams (Stringers)

Load Combinations (Article 3.22 NSCP Vol. II 1997)

Group I: γ [β DD + β L(L+I)] γ= 1
Group I-A: γ [β DD + 2β L(L+I)] βD = 1
Group II: γ [β DD + β wW] βL = 1
Group III: γ [β DD + 2β L(L+I) + 0.3β w W] βW = 1

STAAD Results
Moments (KN-m) Shear (KN) Deflection (mm)
MDL 1447.514 VDL 427.296 ∆DL 29.981
MLL 378.776 VLL 155.115 ∆LL 0.01
MW 440.747 VW 128.324 ∆W 8.904

Load Combinations:
Moment (KN-m) Shear (KN)
Group I: 2318.699 784.0605
Group I-A: 3189.884 1140.825
Group II: 1888.261 555.62
Group III: 3322.108 1179.322
Governing: 3322.108 KN-m 1179.322 KN

*I = LL x 1.3 =492.4088 201.6495 (for impact) (Article 3.8.2 NSCP Vol II 1997)
*For the Distribution Factor, it should be the larger of the following
where S = 2.15
S = 1.279762
1.68
S = 1.223329
1.22 + 0.25S
Design Parameters:

f'c 28 Mpa Length of Bridge 25 m

fy 345 Mpa Unbraced Length 2.5 m

56
For Flexure

Assume Trial Section

W 36x280
Dimensions and Properties of Trial Section
area 53161 mm2 Wt 417 kg/m
depth 927.61 mm rt 111 mm
tw 22.48 mm
bf 421.51 mm
tf 39.88 mm

Ix 7.87E+09 Iy 4.99E+08
Sx 1.69E+07 Sy 2.36E+06
rx 383.54 ry 96.77

Allowable Bending Stress

Fb = 0.6fy
Fb = 207 Mpa

Sx = M
Fb
Sx = 3.32E+03
207
Sx = 1.60E+07 mm3 < 1.69E+07 Okay!

Compute for Moment due to Dead load

w= w x (9.81/1000) MDL = wl2
w= 4.09077 KN/m 32
MDL = 79.89785 KN-m
l= 25 m
Compute for Total Moment acting on the Member
MT = 3322.1077 + 79.89785
MT = 3402.00555 KN-m

57
 APPENDIX E: FINAL COST ESTIMATE
Final Estimate:

Final Estimate for Economic Constraint

Trade-off 1 (Truss Bridge)

Section Length Weight Material Cost Total Cost
(m) (kg/m) per kg (Php)
W 16x57 483.608 85 125.51 5159299.407
W 36x280 250 417 125.51 13084417.5
W 24x250 252 372 125.51 11765809.44
Total: 30,009,526.35

Trade-off 2 (Girder Bridge)

Section Length Weight Material Cost Total Cost
(m) (kg/m) per kg (Php)
W 36x328 350 488 125.51 21437108
W 24x306 252 455 125.51 14390976.6
Total: 35,828,084.60

Final Estimate for Constructability Constraint

Trade-off 1 (Truss Bridge)

Section Length Weight Material Duration
(m) (kg/m) Duration (Man-hours)
W 16x57 483.608 85 6 320.632104
W 36x280 250 417 6 813.15
W 24x250 252 372 6 731.2032
Total: 1,865
Note: The duration for the Truss bridge is increased by 20% for the fabrication and assembly of truss members

Trade-off 2 (Girder Bridge)

Section Length Weight Material Duration
(m) (kg/m) Duration (Man-hours)
W 36x328 350 488 6 1024.8
W 24x306 252 455 6 687.96
Total: 1,713

58
Final Estimate for Sustainability Constraint

Trade-off 1 (Truss Bridge)

Section Length Cost Total Cost
(m) (per meter) (Php)
W 16x57 483.608 250.64 121211.5091
W 36x280 250 250.64 62660
W 24x250 252 250.64 63161.28
Total: 247,032.79

Trade-off 2 (Girder Bridge)

Section Length Cost Total Cost
(m) (per meter)
W 36x328 350 250.64 87724
W 24x306 252 250.64 63161.28
Total: 150,885.28

59