3.4.

4 Risk Constraint (Reliability Index), (Land Acquisition)

The reliability index is taken from a comprehensive analysis of plenty of bridges and is represented
by a unit-less number. A lower value denominates a better level of reliability and a higher value represents
lower level of reliability. Lower reliability means that in order to attain the recommended target reliability
index, further allocation of project budget is added to allow further improvement of design and construction
of the structure. For this reason, the evaluation of risk constraint will be based on the additional cost allotted
for an improved design of the structure based on the deviation of the reliability index from the recommended
value. To determine the best design for this constraint, the designers will assess the three (3) different
tradeoffs to determine which tradeoffs has a minimum additional structural improvement cost.
For transportation context the assessment of risk constraint will be based on land acquisition cost.
Based on the price per square meter by the Regional Statistics office of the Philippines, the pricing of land
around the area of Mandaluyong and Makati is averaged to be Php 120,000.00. From our computation based
on the area of land needed, the cost for Alignment 1 is Php 179,412,000.00, the cost for alignment 2 is Php
559,366,800.00, and the cost for alignment 3 is Php 831,172,800.00.
3.4.4.1Prestressed Concrete Bridge
Based from the study by Norwak et. Al, the mean reliability index of prestressed concrete girder
bridges is 3.8432. This mean reliability index is then compared with the recommended target reliability index
for highway bridge structures for prestressed concrete which is 3.5125. The deviation of the mean reliability
index from its recommended target value is then taken as a percentage with a value of 9.41%. A tenth of this
deviation is taken as a percentage of the total project cost and is now assigned as an additional allowance
for structural improvement of the design with a computed value of Php 1,322,247.12.
3.4.4.2 Steel Bridge
Based from the study by Norwak et. Al, the mean reliability index of steel girder bridges is 4.3003.
This mean reliability index is then compared with the recommended target reliability index for highway bridge
structures for prestressed concrete which is 3.4813. The deviation of the mean reliability index from its
recommended target value is then taken as a percentage with a value of 23.53%. A tenth of this deviation is
taken as a percentage of the total project cost and is now assigned as an additional allowance for structural
improvement of the design with a computed value of Php 4,298,935.70.
3.4.4.3 Precast Reinforced Concrete Bridge
Based from the study by Norwak et. Al, the mean reliability index of steel girder bridges is 3.7492.
This mean reliability index is then compared with the recommended target reliability index for highway bridge
structures for prestressed concrete which is 3.3438. The deviation of the mean reliability index from its
recommended target value is then taken as a percentage with a value of 12.12%. A tenth of this deviation is
taken as a percentage of the total project cost and is now assigned as an additional allowance for structural
improvement of the design with a computed value of.
2.10 Service Flow Rate per Lane (SFL)
The highest hourly rate at which the vehicles can easily travel across the roadway under the given
time while maintaining the design level of service. The design level of service is based on the traffic
density, traffic congestion and vehicular speed. The Level of Service (LOS) before the construction of
Bridge is Level E.
Table 1 Service Flow Rate per Lane

PERCENT TRUCKS
LOS 0 2 4 5 6 8 10 12 15 20
LEVEL TERRAIN
A 700 700 700 700 650 650 650 650 650 600
B 1100 1100 1050 1050 1050 1050 1000 1000 1000 1000
C 1400 1400 1350 1350 1350 1350 1300 1300 1250 1250
D 1750 1750 1700 1700 1650 1650 1650 1600 1600 1550
E 2000 2000 1950 1950 1900 1900 1850 1850 1800 1750
ROLLING TERRAIN
A 700 650 600 600 600 550 550 550 500 500
B 110 1050 1000 950 950 900 850 800 800 700
C 1400 1300 1250 1200 1200 1150 1100 1050 1000 900
D 1750 1560 1550 1500 1500 1400 1350 1300 1250 1100
E 200 1900 1800 1750 1700 1600 1550 1500 1450 1250
MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN
A 700 600 550 500 500 450 400 400 350 300
B 1100 950 850 800 700 700 650 600 550 450
C 1400 1250 1100 1050 1000 900 850 750 700 600
D 1750 1550 1350 1300 1250 1100 1050 950 850 750
E 2000 1750 1550 1500 1400 1250 1200 1100 1000 850
Where:
LOS = Level of Service
Class A = Free Flow
Class B = Reasonably Free Flow
Class C = Stable Operation
Class D = Borderline Unstable
Class E = Extremely Unstable
2.11 Environmental Factor (fe)
There are some environment impacts when designing or planning a traffic system or transport
system like roads and bridges, which includes traffic congestion, destruction of natural habitat and
consume of agricultural lands.
Table 2 Environmental Factor

ENVIRONMENT K D
URBAN 0.09-0.1 0.5
SUB-URBAN 0.1-0.15 0.6
RURAL 0.15-0.2 0.65

2.12 Directional Design Hourly Volume (DDHV)

Directional design hourly volume is one-way volume in the predominant direction of travel in the
design hour with the consideration of directional distribution factor and factor of approximately
. 𝐷𝐷𝐻𝑉 = 𝐴𝐴𝐷𝑇𝑓 𝑥 𝐾 𝑥 𝐷
Where:
AADTf = Future average annual daily traffic considering economic growth
𝐴𝐴𝐷𝑇𝑓 = 𝐴𝐴𝐷𝑇𝑛 (1 + 𝑖)𝑛
K = Percent of AADT occurring in the peak hour
D = Percent of traffic in the peak direction of flow

ENVIRONMENT K D
URBAN 0.09-0.1 0.5
SUB-URBAN 0.1-0.15 0.6
RURAL 0.15-0.2 0.65