GENERAL PROVISIONS

AND LIMIT STATES

DPWH Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards 2015
Governing Laws and Department Memorandum
- RA 9184 for Memorandum Circular No. 16 series of 1994
- Conduct of Soil Analysis and Boring Tests of the Project Sites before
undertaking Design, Preparing POW and Cost Estimates and Bidding of
Government Infrastructure Projects

- Batas Pambansang Bilang 344 (“Accessibility Law”) and its IRR (Feb 25, 1983)

- Headquarters Philippines Coast Guard (HPCG) / CG-8 Memorandum Circular

No. 01-14, April 16, 2014
- Navigational Clearance for Road Bridges and Other Structures and
Navigable Inland Waters

- Department Memorandum, June 21, 2011

- Upgrade on Flood Control and Road Drainage Standards
Reference Code
Current Design Code
American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
2012, LRFD Bridge Design Specification
Material and Construction Reference
Current Specification

DPWH Standard Specifications for

Highways, Bridges and Airports 2013
DESIGN DATA
AVAILABLE INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE BRIDGE PROJECT SHOULD BE
COMPILED, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:

1. Topographic maps of bridge site and stream catchment area

2. Geotechnical information
3. History of any prior or existing bridges at the site, (i.e. date of construction,
performance during past floods and earthquakes)
4. Road Right of Way (RROW)
Topographic / Hydrographic Survey
SURVEYS SHALL ALSO BE OBTAINED AND DOCUMENT OF ALL OTHER SITE
INFORMATION RELEVANT TO DESIGN INCLUDING:

1. Topographic/hydrographic survey of river channel and flood plains

- Distance of, whichever is larger : - 5 times the width of river

- 100m / 200 m
For new bridge cross sections over channel length:
- 20 m intervals, 11 cross sections (5 upstream, 5 downstream, 1
centerline)
For existing bridges, cross sections over channel length:
- 20 m intervals, 12 cross sections ( 5 upstream, 5 downstream, 1 at each bridge face)
Geotechnical Investigation
SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN FOR THE DESIGN OF ALL BRIDGE FOUNDATIONS:

1. At least one borehole at the proposed location of each abutment and pier

2. For piers or abutments 30m wide, minimum of two borings

3. Additional boreholes shall be drilled when there is significant difference

between adjacent boreholes or in areas where subsurface condition is
complex

4. In case centerline is realigned, confirmatory boreholes should be conducted

Geotechnical Investigation
5. Borehole Depth
If foundation type has not been identified,
- Minimum depth: 30 m (ordinary soil)
3 m (sound rock)
- In case bearing layer is not yet encountered,boring shall be continued
until preferred layer is encountered and/or upon the instruction of the
geotechnical engineer
6. Tests on Borehole Samples

- Standard Penetration Test (SPT) – max interval of 1.5 m and every change in soil stratum

- Laboratory Tests
Geotechnical Investigation
7. Required information in GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

a. Borehole location plan (with coordinates and elevations)

b. Depth of Boreholes
c. Soil stratigraphy
d. Soil parameters
e. Allowable bearing capacity
f. Anticipated settlement
g. Rock Quality Designation (RQD)
h. Shear wave velocity
i. Liquefaction potential
j. Recommended foundation type
Existing Bridge Data
INSPECTION SHALL BE CONDUCTED TO REVIEW THE HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE
OF EXISTING BRIDGES IN TERMS OF:

1. Constriction

2. Inadequate waterway

3. Excessive backwater

4. High flood velocities under the bridge or severe scouring

DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

1. BRIDGE LOCATION AND ALIGNMENT

2. BRIDGE WATERWAY AND LENGTH
3. SPAN ARRANGEMENT
4. FREEBOARD
5. BRIDGE DECK DRAINAGE
Bridge Location and Alignment
1. River morphology -
minimize risk from river
channel movements and
determine meander belt
2. River training works –
for unstable streams/
rivers with wide active
zones
3. Bridge location –
normal to the river, along
straight channels, avoid
sharp bends (scouring
and channel shifting)
4. Alluvial fans – avoid
due to hydraulic
problems
Bridge Waterway and Length
1. Approximate River Width, B

B = (c) Q3/4 *

Q = discharge
c = coefficient ranging from 0.5 – 0.8, determined considering
flood plain obstruction (refer to Table 3-1 of DGCS Volume 3 Water Projects)

2. Desirable minimum bridge span length, L

L = 20 + 0.005Q **

* Developed in a study conducted in Japan

** Design standard by Ministry of Construction in Japan
Some common terminologies for different types
of flood levels include:
• Ordinary Water Level or Normal Water Level (OWL/NWL)

Height of water level in the river under normal condition

• Maximum Flood Level (MFL)

Highest recorded flood level. Note that where gauging is not

available, this might need to be based on anecdotal observations
from the community. However, the values have to be verified or
validated by the hydrologist. An equivalent return period may be
computed which will guide the hydrologist whether the maximum
flood level shall be used as the design flood level.
Some common terminologies for different types
of flood levels include:

• Design Flood

Discharge used to size the capacity of the bridge. The design flood
frequencies for different road types is provided in Table 3.2.5-1.

• Check Flood

A less frequent flood which generate greater runoff than the design
flood and may cause catastrophic effect on the bridge (refer to
Volume 3 and Section 2.3 of AASHTO LRFD 2012)
 Some common terminologies for different types
of flood levels include:
• Ultimate Limit State Flood (ULSF)

Design flood against which the bridge is structurally designed to withstand the
force of the water. Overtopping can occur in this event, but the bridge structure
must be designed to withstand the loading.

• Design Flood Level (DFL)

Design flood level is calculated from the design flood discharge identified above.
The Design Flood Level (DFL) will be the reference from which the freeboard will be
measured, refer Section 4.4.
 ELEVATION OF SUPERSTRUCTURE SOFFIT
ELEV
FREEBOARD
FREEBOARD

CHECK
FLOOD
DFL at Q50 LEVEL
MEFL

NGL
Table 3.2.5-1 Design Flood Frequencies (Minimum Requirements) for Bridges

Road River Bridge Drainage

Classification
Structure Hydraulic Scour

Design Check Design Check Design Check

Flood Flood Flood Flood Flood Flood

Expressway 100 yr 200 yr *100 yr *500 yr 25 yr 50 yr

National Road 50 yr 100 yr *100 yr *500 yr 10 yr 25 yr

Other Roads 25 yr 50 yr 50 yr 100 yr 5 yr 10 yr

•*or from an overtopping flood of lesser recurrence level, whichever is more severe based on AASHTO LRFD 2012
Sec 2.6.4.4.2 Bridge Scour
Clear Width of Bridges
Minimum Roadway Width
DGCS

1 Lane 4.00 m

2 Lanes (rural) 7.32 m

2 Lanes (urban) 7.32 m

Farm-to-Market Roads 5.60 m
Local Roads 4.00 m
Span Arrangement
1. Pier location
• To meet navigational clearance requirements

• To give minimum interference to flood flow

• To be placed parallel with direction of river current

• To avoid scour and debris blockage / constriction

2. Provision for passing debris

• Increase span length and vertical clearance

• Select proper pier type

• Provide debris deflectors

Clearance
Clearance Requirements
1. Hydraulic Clearance / Freeboard
Rivers carrying debris : 1.5 m
Other bridges: 1.0 m

2. Vehicular Vertical Clearance

(above roadway)
Not less than 4.88 m plus allowance of 0.15m for future road resurfacing

3. Navigational
Vertical clearance = HWL + HV + K
HWL = highest water level recorded within the area of responsibility
HV = height of vessel
K = 1.0 m allowance
Clearance
- additional clearance requirements not included in previous DGCS
4. Air Clearance

Height clearance permit shall be secured from the Civil Aviation Authority of
the Philippines (CAAP)

5. Underpass

Not less than 4.88 m vertical clearance for entire width (or between curbs)

6. Tunnels
Not less than 4.88 m vertical clearance (exclusive of wearing surface)

7. Through – Truss Bridge

Min. vertical clearance from roadway to overhead cross bracing: 5.3 m
TYPICAL BRIDGE LAYOUT PLAN
DESIGN CRITERIA & STANDARDS

A. DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
 AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, 2002

 Department Order No. 75, Series of 1992,

re: DPWH Advisory for Seismic Design of Bridges.

 DPWH Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards, (DGCS) Volumes 1 & 2

1984 ed. (currently being updated)

 DPWH Standard Specifications (Blue Book) Vol. II, Highways, Bridges &
Airports, 2013 ed.
B. LOADINGS

 DEAD LOAD
 Selfweight

 Superimposed DL(wearing surface, sidewalks, railing and utilities)

 LIVE LOAD

AASHTO Standard Truck Loadings

 M 13.5 (H 15-44)
 M 18 (H 20-44)

 MS 13.5 (HS 15-44)

 MS 18 (HS 20-44)
 STANDARD AASHTO TRUCK LOADINGS

4.27 m

M 13.5 27 kN (3 tons) 108 kN (12 tons) 15 U.S. tons

H 20-44 M 18 36 kN (4 tons) 144 kN (16 tons) 20 U.S. tons

4.27 m 4.27 to 9.14 m

MS 13.5 27 kN 108 kN 108 kN 27 U.S.tons

HS 20-44 MS 18 36 kN 144 kN 144 kN 36 U.S.tons

EQUIVALENT LANE LOADING

M 13.5 and MS 13.5 Loading

Concentrated Load = 60 kN for Moment
= 87 kN for Shear

Uniform Load = 7.10 kN per meter of load lane

M 18 and MS 18 Loading
Concentrated Load = 80 kN for Moment
= 116 kN for Shear

Uniform Load = 9.40 kN per meter of load lane

DGCS 2015 Requirement

Design Tandem
1.20 m

108 kN 108 kN

9.34 kN / meter
 Permit Design Live Load *
116 107 107 107 107 107 107 kN

13 tons 12 tons

85 tons GVW

4.80 1.37 4.11 1.37 4.11 1.37 meters

* P Loads (permit design live loads) are special vehicular loads that shall
be applied at the factored level in the Load Factor Design and at service
level for fatigue consideration in steel structures.
Resolution Amending the IRR of
RA 8794

April 5, 2013
 5th April

(Signed) (Signed)
Basis of the Revised IRR
OVERLOADING DEFINED

There is overloading of trucks /trailers when:

1. Any axle load exceeds 13,500 kg, or

2. The gross vehicle weight (GVW) exceeds the

allowable GVW as prescribed in the IRR
REVISIONS TO IRR OF R.A. 8794

• Limitation on maximum axle load for

tandem and tridem axles

• Increase in the allowable gross vehicle

weight(GVW) for each truck/trailer
configuration
BASIS FOR REVISIONS

• Computations were based on design of bridges

adopting the AASHTO Specifications

• Based on AASHTO study, a different maximum load

is prescribed for tandem and tridem axles because
closely spaced axles have much greater damaging
potential than two or three single axles respectively.
 IMPACT

 Impact , I = 15.24 / ( L + 38)

where : I = impact fraction (maximum of 30%)

L = span length in meters

 SIDEWALK LOADING

 For spans up to 7.92 m ……….4070 Pa

 For spans 7.92 to 30.5 m…..….2870 Pa

 For spans > 30.5 m ……..……p = [ 1435 + 43800 / L ] [ (1.67 - W) / 15.2 ] Pa

L = span length, m W = sidewalk width, m

DESIGN OBJECTIVES
Design Philosophies
• Working Stress Design

• Load Factor Design

• Load and Resistance Factor Design

LFD vs. LRFD
LOAD FACTOR DESIGN (LFD) LOAD AND RESISTANCE FACTOR
DESIGN (LRFD)
 also known as Ultimate Strength  Same format of load factors and
Design resistance factors as LFD but different
values
 factors based on experience and  factors based on probability-based
judgment statistics

 Considers variable predictability of  Considers variability in the behavior of

certain load types structural elements as well as loading
types
ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN (ASD)
In terms of:
1. Safety

2. Bending Moment

- ASD does not consider variabilities of different load types

LOAD FACTOR DESIGN (LFD)
In terms of:
1. Safety

2. Bending Moment

- LFD does not consider load and resistance simultaneously

DGCS 1982
LOAD & RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN
(LRFD)
In terms of:
1. Safety

- LRFD has a more uniform, systematic and rational approach in

the selection of load and resistance factors
LOAD FACTORS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS
(LRFD)

η = load modifiers
γ = load factors
LOAD MODIFIERS
For strength limit state,
Load modifier
Ductility, ηD 1.05 Non-ductile components and connections
1.00 Conventional designs and details complying to AASHTO
0.95 Additional ductility-enhancing measures specified
Redundancy, ηR 1.05 Non-redundant members
1.00 Conventional levels of redundancy
0.95 Exceptional levels of redundancy
Operational 1.05 For critical or essential bridges
Importance, ηI
1.00 For typical bridges
0.95 For relatively less important bridges
For all other limit states,
η = 1.00
Ductility
Load modifier
Ductility, ηD 1.05 Non-ductile components and connections
1.00 Conventional designs and details complying to AASHTO
0.95 Additional ductility-enhancing measures specified

• Commonly used factor for ductility in AASHTO Design,

ηD = 1.00
Redundancy
Load modifier
Redundancy, ηR 1.05 Non-redundant members
1.00 Conventional levels of redundancy
0.95 Exceptional levels of redundancy

• Non-redundant members • Redundant members

- Bridges with 3 or fewer girders - Bridges with 5 or more girders

- Bridges with 4 girders with a spacing - Bridges with 4 girders with a spacing
of 12’ or more of less than 12’
- Single and two column piers - Cap and column piers with 3 or more
columns
Operational Importance
Load modifier
Operational 1.05 For critical or essential bridges
Importance, ηI
1.00 For typical bridges
0.95 For relatively less important bridges

• Critical or essential bridges • Relatively less important bridges

- Design ADT ≥ 60,000 - Design ADT ≤ 400

- Detour length ≥ 80 km - Detour length ≤ 16 km
- Any span length ≥ 100 m
LOAD FACTORS
LOAD FACTORS
LOAD FACTORS
FOR PERMANENT
LOADS
DEAD LOADS
Weight of all components
of the structure,
appurtenances and
utilities attached thereto,
earth cover, wearing
surface, future overlays
and planned widening
Commonly used Dead Loads for Bridges
• DC: Components and Attachments
- structures and components present during construction

- lower load factor because values are known with certainty

• DW: Future Dead Loads

- future wearing surfaces and utilities

- higher load factor because values are known with less certainty

• EV: Vertical Earth Pressure

- vertical component of earth fill
The AASHTO LRFD Specifications require
bridges to satisfy the corresponding limit
states of serviceability, fatigue and
fracture, strength and extreme event.
STRENGTH LIMIT STATES

• Provided to ensure that strength and stability are

provided to resist statistically significant load
combinations a bridge structure may have to endure
during its design life

• Considerable distress and structural damage may occur at

this state condition, but overall structural integrity is
expected to be maintained
STRENGTH LIMIT STATES
EXTREME EVENT LIMIT STATES

• Provided to ensure structural survival of a bridge

under earthquake, vehicular collision or
foundation scour
EXTREME EVENT LIMIT STATES
SERVICE LIMIT STATES
• Restrictions on stress, deformation and crack width under
regular service conditions

• Ensures that the bridge performs acceptably during its

design life
SERVICE LIMIT STATES
FATIGUE LIMIT STATES

• Restrictions on stress range under regular service

conditions reflecting the number of expected
cycles

• Intended to prevent fracture and limit crack

growth
FATIGUE LIMIT STATES
APPLICATION OF DESIGN VEHICULAR LIVE LOADS
COMPARISON OF VEHICULAR LOADING
Design vehicular load shall be the greater of:

Old AASHTO Standard Loading AASHTO LRFD Standard Loading

 HS 20 (MS18) truck load  HL-93 truck load plus design lane

load
 Alternate military load  Design tandem plus design lane
load
 Design lane load  90% of 2 trucks (HL-93) plus design
lane load
DESIGN VEHICULAR LIVE LOAD
Maximum Positive Moment

Vehicular live loading on roadways of bridges or incidental structures,

designated HL-93, and shall consist of:

• Design truck or tandem load

• Design lane load

Each design lane under consideration shall be occupied by either the

design truck or tandem, coincident with the lane load, where
applicable. The loads shall be assumed to occupy 3.0 m transversely
within a design lane.
DESIGN TRUCK (HL – 93)
DESIGN TANDEM

DESIGN LANE LOAD

DESIGN VEHICULAR LIVE LOAD
Maximum Positive Moment

Vehicular live loading on roadways of bridges or incidental structures, shall be:

35 kN 145 kN 145 kN 108 kN 108 kN

1.2
4.3m 4.3 – 9.1m m

Uniform load of 9.34 kN/m

DESIGN VEHICULAR LIVE LOAD
SLAB DESIGN: Maximum Negative Moment (Moment over Pier)
Vehicular live loading on roadways of bridges or incidental structures, shall be :

• 90% of 2 trucks (HL-93), minimum spacing of 15m, plus

• 90% of Uniform design lane load

HL-93 90% of 90% of HL-93

truck load 35 kN 145 kN truck load
90% of
Uniform load
of 9.34 kN/m

4.3m 15 m 4.3m
DYNAMIC LOAD ALLOWANCE, IM
The factor to be applied to the static load, shall be

F = 1 + (IM / 100)

- shall not be applied to pedestrian loads and design lane load

DESIGN VEHICULAR LIVE LOAD
NUMBER OF DESIGN LANES
DESIGN VEHICULAR LIVE LOAD
MULTIPLE PRESENCE LIVE LOAD
COMMON LOAD COMBINATIONS
Reinforced Concrete Slab
COMMON LOAD COMBINATIONS

Reinforced Concrete Slab

• Strength I: 1.25 DC + 1.50 DW + 1.75 (LL * IM)

• Service I: 1.00 DC + 1.00 DW + 1.00 (LL * IM)

DC = components and attachments

DW = future dead loads
LL = total live load
IM = dynamic load allowance
COMMON LOAD COMBINATIONS
Pre-stressed Concrete Girder
COMMON LOAD COMBINATIONS
Pre-stressed Concrete Girder
COMMON LOAD COMBINATIONS
Pre-stressed Concrete Girder
• Strength I: 1.25 DL + 1.75 [(TL*IM) + L]

• Service I: 1.00 DL + 1.00 [(TL*IM) + L]

• Service II: 1.00 DL + 1.30 [(TL*IM) + L]

• Fatigue II: 0.75 [(TL*IM) + L]

(Fatigue Limit State rarely controls for

pre-stressed concrete)

DL = total dead load

TL = greater of truck load and tandem load
L = lane load
IM = dynamic load allowance
COMMON LOAD COMBINATIONS
Reinforced Concrete Girder
COMMON LOAD COMBINATIONS

Reinforced Concrete Girder

• Strength I: 1.25 DL + 1.75 [(TL*IM) + L]

• Service I: 1.00 DL + 1.00 [(TL*IM) + L]

• Fatigue II: 0.75 [(TL*IM) + L]

DL = total dead load

TL = greater of truck load and tandem load
L = lane load
IM = dynamic load allowance
SEISMIC DESIGN:

 Specification : AASHTO 17th ed. 2002, Division I-A, Seismic Design

 Governing Regulation : DPWH Dep’t Order No.75 Series of 1992, re: Seismic Design of Bridges

Design Parameters :

 Ground motion parameter defined as ground acceleration coefficient, A

( A = 0.40g is presently being adopted for design of bridges throughout the Phil., Fig 4.2)

 Site Effects as defined by site coefficient, S depending on soil profile at the bridge site.

Important Considerations :

 Relationship of the site to active faults.

 Seismic response of the soils at the site.

 Dynamic response characteristics of the whole structure.

GOVERNING REGULATION
DEPARTM EN T O RDER N O . 7 5 , Series of 1 9 9 2
re: DPWH Advisory for Seismic Design of Bridges
July 1 7 , 1 9 9 2

The threat of earthquakes occurring in the Philippines can no longer be discounted. Past

And recent events have shown devastating effects of earthquakes not only on buildings

but also on highways and bridges. In addition to the loss of lives, the recent Cabanatuan

and Baguio Earthquakes caused the closure of many highways and the collapse of

many bridges which are designed based on older AASHTO Standard Specifications

resulting in millions of pesos in repair and/or replacements.

GOVERNING REGULATION
DEPARTM EN T O RDER N O . 7 5 , Series of 1 9 9 2
re: DPWH Advisory for Seismic Design of Bridges
July 1 7 , 1 9 9 2

Considering that highways and bridges are the main arteries in bringing relief to victims
of earthquakes and other calamities, they should be serviceable at all times especially
during emergencies..
DEP’T ORDER NO.75
cont..

In modern seismic design of bridges, the basic design philosophy is for

the bridge to resist small to moderate earthquakes in the elastic
range without significant damage.

In case of large earthquakes, a bridge may suffer damage but this

should not cause collapse of all or any of its parts and such damage
should readily be detectable and accessible for inspection and repair.
DEP’T ORDER NO.75
cont..

Therefore, to mitigate, if not prevent damage/s to bridges due to earthquakes, and for the
guidance of engineering professionals and DPWH engineers particularly those
undertaking the design of bridges, the DPWH is issuing this ADVISORY :

1. As a minimum requirement, the design of bridges shall conform with the current
AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 14th Edition,
and the Guide Specifications for Seismic Design (1989 or latest edition)
or the 1991 AASHTO Standard Specifications adopting the Guide Specifications
for Seismic Design (AASHTO Interim Specifications - Bridges)
 DEP’T ORDER NO.75 cont..

2. Design Concept to be adopted shall be as follows :

a) Continuous bridges with monolithic multi-column bents have high degree of

redundancy and are the preferred type of bridge structure to resist seismic

shaking. Deck discontinuities such as expansion joints and hinges should be

kept to an absolute minimum . Suspended spans, brackets, rollers, etc are not

recommended.

.
 DEP’T ORDER NO.75 cont..

2. Design Concept to be adopted shall be as follows :

b) Where multi-span simple span bridges are justified, decks should be

continuous.

c) Restrainers (horizontal linkage between adjacent span) are required at all joints in

accordance with the AASHTO Guide Specifications for Seismic Design and

generous seat widths at piers and abutments should be provided to prevent

loss- of-span failures.

.
 DEP’T ORDER NO. 75 cont...

2. Design Concept to be adopted shall be as follows :

d) Transverse reinforcements in the zones of yielding is essential to the successful

performance of reinforced concrete columns during earthquqkes. Transverse

reinforcement serves to confine the main longitudinal reinforcement and the

concrete within the core of the column, thus preventing buckling of the main

reinforcements
 DEP’T ORDER NO. 75 cont...

2. Design Concept to be adopted shall be as follows :

e) Plastic hinging should be forced to occur in ductile column regions of the pier rather
than in the foundation unit. A scheme to protect the abutment piles from failure is
often accomplished by designing the backwall to shear-off when subjected to the
design seismic lateral force that would otherwise fail the abutment piles.
 DEP’T ORDER NO. 75 cont...

2. Design Concept to be adopted shall be as follows :

f) The stiffness of the bridge as a whole should be considered in the analysis. In irregular
structures, it is particularly important to include the soil-structure interaction.

This Advisory amends the existing DPWH Guidelines on the Seismic Design of Bridges

and shall take effect immediately.

III. DESIGN PROCEDURE
1. Preliminary layout of the proposed bridge.
(General Plan and Elevation)

 Review hydraulic/hydrologic analyses to determine the required waterway opening and

bridge elevation.

 Survey data (topographic map of bridge site, profiles, river cross sections, water elevations)

 Bridge geometric requirements such as vertical/ horizontal alignments, roadway width,

sidewalk/ shoulder width, median width and vertical clearance.

 Preliminary selection of the types of superstructures, substructures and foundations.

 TOTAL BRIDGE LENGTH
Based on Required Waterway Width, Minimum Vertical Clearance, etc

MINIMUM CLEARANCE :
1.0 m (no debris)
1.5 m
or as required for navigation TOP OF ROADWAY ELEV.

SLOPE
BOTTOM OF GIRDER EL..
MFL
SLOPE

OWL

(PROFILE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF BRIDGE)

Fig. 4 LAYOUT OF A PROPOSED BRIDGE

TYPICAL BRIDGE LAYOUT PLAN
2. Establish the design criteria and specifications
(General Notes)

 Design Specifications / Standards

 Design Live Load

 Design Stresses

 Seismic design criteria :

o Ground acceleration coefficient., A

o Importance classification, IC
o Seismic Performance Category, SPC

 Materials specifications

 Construction specifications
3. Final selection of the type of structures.
 Superstructures & substructures :

- Span Lengths
- Height of Substructures
- Size Limitations

 Foundations :

- depth of scour
- depth of hard strata
- liquefaction potential of foundation materials
- magnitude of loads from superstructure
4. Design of Superstructures

 Deck slab (interior & exterior slab)

Slab thickness
Steel reinforcement (main rebars, distribution rebars )

 Design of main girders & cross beams

(RCDG, Prestressed Girder, Steel or Concrete Box

Girder, Composite Plate Girder, etc.)

 Design of steel trusses

Main members (top & bottom chords, vert. & diag.)

Floor system (stringers & floor beams)

- Miscellaneous Structures

Bearings, railings, expansion dams, lighting etc.

5. Design of Substructures
 Check for depth of scour.

 Check for liquefaction potential.

 Create a “stick model” of the bridge for structural analyses (see Fig.5)

 Analyze for various combination of loads (see AASHTO Table 3.22.1A for load
combinations) (see Fig. 6 & 7, Seismic Design Flow Charts)

 Design pier coping and columns.

 Design pier footings and foundations.

 Detailing
THANK YOU!