The Project For Study ON Improvement of Bridges Through Disaster Mitigating Measures For Large Scale Earthquakes IN The Republic of The Philippines

THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH)
THE PROJECT FOR STUDY

ON
IMPROVEMENT OF BRIDGES
THROUGH
DISASTER MITIGATING MEASURES
FOR LARGE SCALE EARTHQUAKES
IN
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FINAL REPORT
MAIN TEXT [2/2]
DECEMBER 2013
JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY (JICA)
CTI ENGINEERING INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD

CHODAI CO., LTD.
NIPPON KOEI CO., LTD. EI
JR(先)
13-261(3)
Exchange Rate used in the Report is:
PHP 1.00 = JPY 2.222
US$ 1.00 = JPY 97.229 = PHP 43.756
(Average Value in August 2013, Central Bank of the Philippines)
LOCATION MAP OF STUDY BRIDGES (PACKAGE B : WITHIN METRO MANILA)
i
LOCATION MAP OF STUDY BRIDGES (PACKAGE C : OUTSIDE METRO MANILA)
ii
B01 Delpan Bridge B02 Jones Bridge
B03 Mc Arthur Bridge B04 Quezon Bridge
B05 Ayala Bridge B06 Nagtahan Bridge
B07 Pandacan Bridge B08 Lambingan Bridge
B09 Makati-Mandaluyong Bridge B10 Guadalupe Bridge

Photos of Package B Bridges (1/2)
iii
B11 C-5 Bridge B12 Bambang Bridge
B13-1 Vargas Bridge (1 & 2) B14 Rosario Bridge
B15 Marcos Bridge B16 Marikina Bridge
B17 San Jose Bridge

Photos of Package B Bridges (2/2)
iv
C01 Badiwan Bridge C02 Buntun Bridge
C03 Lucban Bridge C04 Magapit Bridge
C05 Sicsican Bridge C06 Bamban Bridge
C07 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge C08 Marcelo Fernan Bridge
C09 Palanit Bridge C10 Jibatang Bridge

Photos of Package C Bridges (1/2)
v
C11 Mawo Bridge C12 Biliran Bridge
C13 San Juanico Bridge C14 Lilo-an Bridge
C15 Wawa Bridge C16 2nd Magsaysay Bridge

Photos of Package C Bridges (2/2)
vi
vii
Perspective View of Lambingan Bridge (1/2)

viii
Perspective View of Lambingan Bridge (2/2)

ix
Perspective View of Guadalupe Bridge

x
Perspective View of Palanit Bridge

xi
Perspective View of Mawo Bridge (1/2)

xii
Perspective View of Mawo Bridge (2/2)

xiii
Perspective View of Wawa Bridge

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Location Map
Photos
Perspective View
Table of Contents
List of Figures & Tables
Abbreviations
Main Text
Appendices
MAIN TEXT
PART 1 GENERAL
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Project Background .............................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Project Objectives ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2.1 Project Purpose ............................................................................................. 1-1
1.2.2 Overall Objective of the Project .................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Project Area ......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.4 Scope of the Study ................................................................................................ 1-1
1.4.1 Package A (Seismic Design Guidelines for Bridges) ..................................... 1-1
1.4.2 Package B (Inside Metro Manila Area) ......................................................... 1-2
1.4.3 Package C (Outside Metro Manila Area) ....................................................... 1-2
1.5 Schedule of the Study ........................................................................................... 1-3
1.6 Organization of the Study ..................................................................................... 1-4
1.6.1 Joint Coordinating Committee (JCC) ............................................................ 1-4
1.6.2 Counter Part Team (CP)/Technical Working Group (TWG) .......................... 1-5
1.6.3 JICA Advisory Committee (JAC) .................................................................. 1-6
1.6.4 JICA Study Team (JST) ................................................................................ 1-7
1.7 Major Activities of the Study ............................................................................... 1-8
1.7.1 Seminar and Discussion ................................................................................ 1-8
1.7.2 Meeting ....................................................................................................... 1-15
1.7.3 Training in Japan ........................................................................................ 1-20
1.8 Reports ............................................................................................................... 1-24
xiv
CHAPTER 2 ORGANIZATIONS CONCERNED FOR SEISMIC DESIGN OF
BRIDGES ................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Functions of the Concerned Organizations ........................................................... 2-1
2.1.1 Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) ................................... 2-1
2.1.2 Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) ............... 2-4
2.1.3 Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines (ASEP) ..................... 2-5
2.1.4 Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers (PICE)............................................... 2-7
2.1.5 Geological Society of the Philippines ............................................................ 2-9
2.2 Relationships between Concerned Organizations for Seismic Design Issues on
Bridges .............................................................................................................. 2-10
2.2.1 DPWH Seismic Design Guidelines Development ........................................ 2-10
2.2.2 ASEP Bridge Seismic Structural Code Development .................................. 2-11
2.2.3 Relationship in Functions between Organizations Concerned for Bridge
Seismic Design Issue .................................................................................. 2-12
CHAPTER 3 SEISMIC VULNERABILITIES OF BRIDGES IN THE PHILIPPINES 3-1

3.1 Natural Environment Related to Earthquakes ....................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Geographical Characteristics ......................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Geological Characteristics........................................................................... 3-12
3.1.3 Hydrological Characteristics ....................................................................... 3-21
3.2 Seismic Vulnerabilities of Bridges Based on Typical Damages due to the Past
Relatively Large Earthquakes ............................................................................ 3-22
3.2.1 Outlines of the Past Relatively Large Scale Earthquakes ............................. 3-22
3.2.2 The 1990 North Luzon Earthquake,,,, ........................................................... 3-41
3.2.3 The 2012 Negros Earthquake ...................................................................... 3-53
CHAPTER 4 CURRENT INFORMATION ON EARTHQUAKE RELATED ISSUES 4-1

4.1 Existing Plans for Earthquakes Issues of Concerned Organizations ...................... 4-1
4.1.1 DPWH (Department of Public Works and Highways) ................................... 4-1
4.1.2 ASEP (Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines) ..................... 4-2
4.1.3 PHIVOLCS ................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2 Current Situations of Seismograph Observatories in the Philippines ..................... 4-5
4.2.1 Situations of Seismograph Observatories ...................................................... 4-5
4.2.2 Issues for Future ......................................................................................... 4-11
4.3 Analysis of Recorded Earthquake Ground Motions (EGM) ................................ 4-12
4.3.1 Analysis Method/Procedure and Results ..................................................... 4-12
4.3.2 Records of Earthquake Ground Motions ...................................................... 4-20
xv
PART 2 BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS (PACKAGE A)
CHAPTER 5 CHRONOLOGY OF BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 5-1

5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 AASHTO Bridge Seismic Design Evolution (USA).............................................. 5-1
5.2.1 Early Design Code Stages ............................................................................. 5-1
5.2.2 AASHO Elastic Design Approach ................................................................. 5-3
5.2.3 AASHTO Force-Based Design Approach (WSD and LFD) ........................... 5-3
5.2.4 AASHTO Force-Based Design Approach (LRFD) ........................................ 5-4
5.2.5 AASHTO LRFD Seismic Bridge Design ....................................................... 5-5
5.3 Japan Bridge Seismic Design Evolution ............................................................... 5-5
5.3.1 Early Stages of Bridge Design ...................................................................... 5-5
5.3.2 Consideration for Soil Liquefaction and Unseating Device ........................... 5-6
5.3.3 Column Ductility, Bearing Strength and Ground Motion............................... 5-6
5.4 Philippine Seismic Bridge Design Evolution ........................................................ 5-7
CHAPTER 6 COMPARISON ON BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

BETWEEN DPWH/NSCP, AASHTO AND JRA ..................................... 6-1
6.1 Purpose of Comparison ........................................................................................ 6-1
6.2 Items for Comparison ........................................................................................... 6-2
6.3 Difference in Major Items between NSCP, AASHTO and JRA ............................ 6-2
6.3.1 Principles of Seismic Design ......................................................................... 6-2
6.3.2 Seismic Performance Requirements .............................................................. 6-5
6.3.3 Design Procedures and Methods ................................................................... 6-8
6.3.4 Acceleration Response Spectra ................................................................... 6-17
6.3.5 Unseating/Fall-Down Devices ..................................................................... 6-20
6.3.6 Foundation Design ...................................................................................... 6-27
6.3.7 Judgment of Liquefaction and its Consideration in Foundation Design ....... 6-35
CHAPTER 7 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES ON CURRENT PRACTICE AND DPWH

SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR BRIDGES ........................ 7-1
7.1 General ................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2 Formulation of Policy on Seismic Performance Requirements .............................. 7-2
7.3 Necessity of Establishment of Acceleration Response Spectra based on the Local
Conditions ........................................................................................................... 7-4
7.3.1 Development Methods of Acceleration Response Spectra for the Philippines 7-4
7.3.2 Recommendations ......................................................................................... 7-7
7.4 Ground Type Classification in Bridge Seismic Design ......................................... 7-7
7.4.1 General ......................................................................................................... 7-7
xvi
7.4.2 Soil Profile Type Classification under NSCP Vol.2 (2005) ........................... 7-8
7.4.3 Site Profile Types under AASHTO LFRD 2007 ............................................ 7-8
7.4.4 Soil Profile Types under AASHTO LFRD 2012 ............................................ 7-8
7.4.5 Soil Profile Types under the Japan Road Association (JRA) ....................... 7-10
7.4.6 Comparison of Soil Profile Types ............................................................... 7-10
7.5 Issues on Seismic Response Modification Factor R ............................................ 7-13
7.5.1 AASHTO Specifications for Response Modification Factor R .................... 7-13
7.5.2 Drawback of the Force-Reduction R-Factor ................................................ 7-14
7.6 Issues on Bridge Falling Down Prevention System ............................................. 7-16
7.6.1 Specified Devices/ Functions in NSCP ........................................................ 7-17
7.6.2 Specified Devices/ Functions in AASHTO .................................................. 7-18
7.6.3 Bridge Falling Down Prevention System in JRA ......................................... 7-19
CHAPTER 8 APPROACH TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOCALIZED SEISMIC

ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR BRIDGE DESIGN ..... 8-1
8.1 Method 1 – Based on AASHTO Acceleration Response Spectra (Currently Utilized
by DPWH) ........................................................................................................... 8-1
8.1.1 Purpose of the Development ......................................................................... 8-1
8.1.2 Development Procedure/Flowchart ............................................................... 8-2
8.1.3 Conversion from Acceleration Response Spectra to Earthquake Ground
Motions ......................................................................................................... 8-4
8.1.4 Objective Soil Layer Conditions ................................................................. 8-10
8.1.5 Dynamic Analysis Methodology for Surface Soil Layers ............................ 8-16
8.1.6 Modeling of Soil Dynamic Properties ......................................................... 8-20
8.1.7 Analysis Results .......................................................................................... 8-21
8.1.8 Comparison on the Shapes of Acceleration Response Spectra between Analysis
Results and AASHTO Specifications .......................................................... 8-42
8.1.9 Development of Design Acceleration Response Spectra .............................. 8-45
8.1.10 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 8-51
8.2 Method 2 – Based on Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis ............................. 8-52
CHAPTER 9 SEISMIC HAZARD MAPS FOR DESIGN OF BRIDGES ...................... 9-1

9.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 9-1
9.2 Methodology and Return Periods .......................................................................... 9-4
9.3 Proposed Generalized Seismic Hazard Maps for the Design of Bridges —
Coefficients of PGA, 0.2-sec Acceleration Response and 1.0-sec Acceleration
Response ............................................................................................................. 9-6
9.4 Site Effects ......................................................................................................... 9-24
9.5 Assumptions and Limitations ............................................................................. 9-24
xvii
CHAPTER 10 OUTLINE OF DRAFT BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
(BSDS), MANUAL AND DESIGN EXAMPLES .................................... 10-1
10.1 Development of the Draft Bridge Seismic Design Specifications (BSDS) .......... 10-1
10.1.1 Background ................................................................................................. 10-1
10.1.2 Need for Revision of Current Bridge Seismic Specifications ....................... 10-2
10.1.3 Policy on the Development of Bridge Seismic Design Specifications (BSDS)10-5
10.2 Outline of the Draft Bridge Seismic Design Specifications (BSDS) .................... 10-8
10.2.1 Section 1 : Introduction ............................................................................... 10-8
10.2.2 Section 2 : Definitions and Notations ........................................................ 10-10
10.2.3 Section 3 : General Requirements ............................................................. 10-10
10.2.4 Section 4 : Analysis Requirements ............................................................ 10-18
10.2.5 Section 5 : Design Requirements ............................................................... 10-19
10.2.6 Section 6 : Effects of Seismically Unstable Ground .................................. 10-21
10.2.7 Section 7 : Requirements for Unseating Prevention System ...................... 10-23
10.2.8 Section 8 : Requirements for Seismically Isolated Bridges ........................ 10-24
10.3 Outline of the Seismic Design Calculation Example using the Bridge Seismic
Design Specifications (BSDS) ......................................................................... 10-25
10.3.1 Policy in the Development of Seismic Design Example ............................ 10-25
10.3.2 Outline of Seismic Design Example .......................................................... 10-26
10.4 Comparison between the DPWH Existing Design with the Bridge Seismic Design
Specifications (BSDS) Using the Proposed Design Acceleration Response Spectra10-37
10.4.1 Comparison Objective ............................................................................... 10-38
10.4.2 Comparison Condition .............................................................................. 10-38
10.4.3 Cases for Comparison ............................................................................... 10-39
10.4.4 Results of Comparison .............................................................................. 10-39
10.5 Policy and Outline of Example for Practical Application of Seismic Retrofit ... 10-42
10.5.1 Seismic Lessons Learned from Past Earthquakes ...................................... 10-42
10.5.2 Outline of Seismic Retrofit Schemes ......................................................... 10-43
10.5.3 Detail of Each Seismic Retrofit Scheme .................................................... 10-45
PART 3 SELECTION OF BRIDGES FOR SEISMIC CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT

(PACKAGE B AND C)
CHAPTER 11 PROCEDURES FOR SELECTION OF BRIDGES FOR OUTLINE

DESIGN ............................................................................................... 11-1
11.1 General ............................................................................................................... 11-1
11.2 Flowchart for Selection ...................................................................................... 11-1
11.3 Contents of Survey for the First and Second Screenings ..................................... 11-3
xviii
11.4 Evaluation Criteria for the First Screening ......................................................... 11-5
11.4.1 Construction Year and Applied Specification .............................................. 11-6
11.4.2 Conditions of Bridge ................................................................................... 11-6
11.4.3 Load Capacity ............................................................................................. 11-6
11.4.4 Bridge Importance ...................................................................................... 11-6
11.4.5 Seating Length ............................................................................................ 11-7
11.4.6 Fall-down Prevention Devices..................................................................... 11-7
11.4.7 Type of Bridge ............................................................................................ 11-7
11.4.8 Liquefaction Potential ................................................................................. 11-7
11.4.9 Soil Classification ....................................................................................... 11-8
11.4.10 Impact to Environment ................................................................................ 11-8
11.5 Evaluation Criteria for the Second Screening ..................................................... 11-8
11.5.1 Purpose of the Second Screening ................................................................ 11-8
11.5.2 Process of Establishment of Selection Criteria ............................................ 11-9
11.5.3 Priority Evaluation Criteria ....................................................................... 11-11
CHAPTER 12 THE FIRST SCREENING ...................................................................... 12-1

12.1 The First Screening for Package B...................................................................... 12-1
12.1.1 Results of the First Screening ...................................................................... 12-1
12.1.2 Selection of Target Bridges for the Second Screening ............................... 12-28
12.2 Results of the First Screening for Package C .................................................... 12-30
12.2.1 Results of the First Screening .................................................................... 12-30
12.2.2 Selection of Target Bridges for the Second Screening ............................... 12-55
CHAPTER 13 THE SECOND SCREENING .................................................................. 13-1

13.1 Evaluation of the Second Screening for Package B ............................................. 13-1
13.1.1 Results of the Second Screening ................................................................. 13-1
13.1.2 Comparison of Improvement Measures ..................................................... 13-17
13.2 Evaluation of the Second Screening for Package C ........................................... 13-22
13.2.1 Results of the Second Screening ............................................................... 13-22
13.2.2 Comparison of Improvement Measures ..................................................... 13-44
CHAPTER 14 RECOMMENDATION ON TARGET BRIDGES FOR THE OUTLINE

DESIGN ............................................................................................... 14-1
14.1 Prioritization of Bridges with Evaluation Criteria for the Second Screening ....... 14-1
14.2 Recommendation of Target Bridge Selection for the Outline Design ................ 14-15
14.2.1 Recommendation of Target Bridge Selection Based on the Second Screening14-15
14.2.2 Detail Comparative Study on Improvement Measure Scheme Selection for
Guadalupe Bridge & Mawo Bridge ........................................................... 14-17
xix
14.2.3 Detail Comparative Study on Improvement Measure Scheme Selection for
Mawo Bridge ............................................................................................ 14-42
PART 4 OUTLINE DESIGN OF SELECTED BRIDGES FOR SEISMIC

CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT (PACKAGE B AND C)
CHAPTER 15 DESIGN CONDITIONS FOR SELECTED BRIDGES .......................... 15-1

15.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 15-1
15.2 Topographic Features and Design Conditions ..................................................... 15-1
15.2.1 Methodology and Results ............................................................................ 15-1
15.2.2 Topographic Feature and Design Condition ................................................ 15-4
15.3 Geotechnical and Soil Profile Conditions ......................................................... 15-13
15.3.1 Purpose of Geological Investigation, Outlines and Work Methodology ..... 15-13
15.3.2 Results of Geotechnical Investigation inside of Metro Manila ................... 15-22
15.3.3 Results of Geotechnical Investigation outside of Metro Manila ................. 15-39
15.3.4 Reviews and Analysis on Results on Geological Investigation .................. 15-75
15.4 River and Hydrological Conditions ................................................................ 15-101
15.4.1 Package B ............................................................................................... 15-101
15.4.2 Package C ............................................................................................... 15-111
15.5 Existing Road Network and Traffic Condition ................................................ 15-127
15.5.1 National Road Network ........................................................................... 15-127
15.5.2 Road Network in Metro Manila ............................................................... 15-129
15.5.3 Road Classification of Selected Bridges .................................................. 15-130
15.5.4 Traffic Condition .................................................................................... 15-130
15.6 Results of Natural and Social Environmental Survey ...................................... 15-145
15.7 Highway Conditions and Design .................................................................... 15-155
15.7.1 Applicable Standards .............................................................................. 15-155
15.7.2 Objective Roads ...................................................................................... 15-155
15.7.3 Summary of Roads .................................................................................. 15-156
15.7.4 Design Condition .................................................................................... 15-156
15.7.5 Summary of Outline Design .................................................................... 15-164
15.7.6 Pavement Design .................................................................................... 15-196
15.7.7 Drainage Facility Design ......................................................................... 15-199
15.7.8 Revetment Design ................................................................................... 15-201
15.7.9 Property of Traffic Around Guadalupe Bridge ........................................ 15-205
15.7.10 Further Verification to be Examined in the Next Phase ........................... 15-216
xx
CHAPTER 16 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT OUTLINE DESIGN OF SELECTED
BRIDGES ............................................................................................... 16-1
16.1 Design Criteria and Conditions for Bridge Replacement ..................................... 16-1
16.1.1 Design Criteria and Conditions for Bridge Replacement ............................. 16-1
16.1.2 Determination of New Bridge Types for Outline Design ............................. 16-7
16.1.3 Methodology of Seismic Analysis of New Bridge ..................................... 16-66
16.2 Outline Design of Lambingan Bridge ............................................................... 16-72
16.2.1 Design Condition ...................................................................................... 16-72
16.2.2 Outline Design of Superstructure .............................................................. 16-75
16.2.3 Seismic Design ......................................................................................... 16-81
16.2.4 Summary of Outline Design Results .......................................................... 16-93
16.3 Outline Design of Guadalupe Outer Side Bridge .............................................. 16-95
16.3.1 Design Condition ...................................................................................... 16-95
16.3.2 Outline Design of Superstructure .............................................................. 16-99
16.3.3 Seismic Design ....................................................................................... 16-103
16.3.4 Summary of Outline Design Results ........................................................ 16-123
16.4 Outline Design of Palanit Bridge .................................................................... 16-126
16.4.2 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
xxi
17.2.2 Design Conditions ....................................................................................... 17-8
17.2.3 Seismic Capacity Verification of Existing Structures ................................ 17-14
17.2.4 Comparative Studies on Seismic Capacity Improvement Schemes ............ 17-19
17.2.5 Planning for Repair Works ........................................................................ 17-32
17.2.6 Summary of the Seismic Retrofit Planning & Repair Work ....................... 17-34
17.3 Outline Design of 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge ................................................ 17-36
17.3.1 Structural Data of the Existing Bridge ....................................................... 17-36
17.3.2 Design Conditions ..................................................................................... 17-47
17.3.3 Seismic Capacity Verification of Existing Structures ................................ 17-55
17.3.4 Comparative Studies on Seismic Capacity Improvement Schemes ............ 17-60
17.3.5 Planning for Repair Works ........................................................................ 17-76
17.3.6 Summary of Proposed Seismic Retrofit Schemes & Repair Works ............ 17-78
CHAPTER 18 CONSTRUCTION PLANNING AND COST ESTIMATE .................... 18-1

18.1 General ............................................................................................................... 18-1
18.1.1 Bridge type ................................................................................................. 18-1
18.2 Construction Planning ........................................................................................ 18-1
18.2.1 General ....................................................................................................... 18-1
18.2.2 Construction Planning of Lambingan Bridge ............................................... 18-3
18.2.3 Construction Planning of Guadalupe Bridge ............................................. 18-11
18.2.4 Construction Planning of 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge .............................. 18-21
18.2.5 Construction Planning of Palanit Bridge ................................................... 18-26
18.2.6 Construction Planning of Mawo Bridge .................................................... 18-28
18.2.7 Construction Planning of Lilo-an Bridge ................................................... 18-31
18.2.8 Construction Planning of Wawa Bridge .................................................... 18-33
18.2.9 Construction Schedule of the Project......................................................... 18-35
18.3 Cost Estimate ................................................................................................... 18-36
18.3.1 General ..................................................................................................... 18-36
CHAPTER 19 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION .................. 19-1

19.1 Traffic Analysis .................................................................................................. 19-1
19.2 Traffic Analysis of Package B ............................................................................ 19-2
19.2.1 Traffic Assignment ..................................................................................... 19-2
19.2.2 Analysis of Traffic Congestion during Bridge Improvement ....................... 19-6
19.3 Traffic Influence Analysis during Rehabilitation Works at Guadalupe Bridge .. 19-11
19.3.1 Background ............................................................................................... 19-11
19.3.2 Purpose ..................................................................................................... 19-11
19.3.3 Present Traffic Condition at Guadalupe Bridge ......................................... 19-12
19.3.4 Reappearance of the Traffic Condition around Guadalupe Bridge ............. 19-20
xxii
19.3.5 Influence of the Lane Reduction ............................................................... 19-29
19.3.6 Result of the Traffic Analysis of Guadalupe Bridge .................................. 19-46
19.4 Traffic Analysis of Package C .......................................................................... 19-48
19.4.1 Analysis of Traffic Congestion during Bridge Improvement ..................... 19-48
19.5 Economic Evaluation ........................................................................................ 19-52
19.5.1 General ..................................................................................................... 19-52
19.5.2 Basic Assumption and Condition .............................................................. 19-52
19.5.3 Economic Cost .......................................................................................... 19-53
19.5.4 Benefits ..................................................................................................... 19-53
19.5.5 Result of Economic Evaluation ................................................................. 19-61
19.5.6 Project Sensibility ..................................................................................... 19-62
CHAPTER 20 Natural and social environment assessment ........................................... 20-1

20.1 Environmental and Social Consideration ............................................................ 20-1
20.1.1 Legal Framework ........................................................................................ 20-1
20.1.2 Project Rationale ......................................................................................... 20-8
20.1.3 Brief Discussion and Assessment of Predicted Impact ................................ 20-8
20.1.4 Brief Discussion on the Proposed Mitigation Measures ............................. 20-10
20.1.5 Environmental Monitoring Plan ................................................................ 20-14
20.1.6 Stakeholder Meeting ................................................................................. 20-16
20.2 Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Framework .................................... 20-16
20.2.1 Justification of the Land Acquisition with Respect to the Bridge Repair and
Rehabilitation............................................................................................ 20-16
20.2.2 Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Framework ............................. 20-17
20.2.3 Status of settlement around the Bridge ...................................................... 20-23
20.2.4 Compensation and Entitlements ................................................................ 20-25
20.2.5 Grievance Redress System ........................................................................ 20-29
20.2.6 Implementation Framework ...................................................................... 20-30
20.2.7 Schedule ................................................................................................... 20-31
20.2.8 Cost Estimation ......................................................................................... 20-31
20.2.9 Internal and External Monitoring and Evaluation ...................................... 20-33
20.3 Others ............................................................................................................... 20-34
20.3.1 Categorization on JICA Guidelines for Environmental and Social
Considerations .......................................................................................... 20-34
PART 5 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
xxiii
CHAPTER 21 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................... 21-1
21.1 Project Outline ................................................................................................... 21-1
21.2 Implementation Schedule ................................................................................... 21-3
21.3 Project Organization ........................................................................................... 21-3
21.4 Financial Analysis and Funding .......................................................................... 21-4
CHAPTER 22 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 22-1

22.1 Proposed Bridge Seismic Design Specifications (BSDS) .................................... 22-1
22.2 Implementation of the project for seismic strengthening of bridges recommended
in the Study ....................................................................................................... 22-4
22.3 Recommendation of Improvement Project for Traffic Conditions in Traffic
Intermodal Area through Guadalupe Bridge Seismic Strengthening Project ....... 22-6
22.3.1 Present Issues on the Traffic Intermodal Area ............................................. 22-6
22.3.2 Improvement Measures ............................................................................... 22-8
22.3.3 Recommendations ..................................................................................... 22-11
xxiv
APPENDICES
VOLUME 1 SEIMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

1-A PROPOSED DPWH BRIDGES SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
(DPWH-BSDS)
1-B DESIGN EXAMPLE (NEW BRIDGE) USING DPWH-BSDS
1-C SEISMIC RETROFIT WORKS EXAMPLE
1-D COMPARISON OF SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
(1) COMPARISON TABLE OF BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
BETWEEN JRA AND AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
(6TH Ed., 2012)
(2) COMPARISON TABLE OF BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
BETWEEN JRA AND AASHTO GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS LRFD FOR
SEISMIC BRIDGE DESIGN (2ND Ed., 2011)
(3) COMPARISON TABLE OF BRIDGE SEISMIC SPECIFICATIONS BETWEEN
JRA AND NSCP Vol. II Bridges ASD (Allowable Stress Design), 2nd Ed., 1997
(Reprint Ed. 2005)
VOLUME 2 DEVELOPMENT OF ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA

2-A GENERALIZED ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA DEVELOPMENT BY
PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD ANALYSIS (PSHA)
2-B DETERMINATION OF SITE SPECIFIC DESIGN SEISMIC RESPONSE SPECTRA
FOR SEVEN (7) BRIDGES
2-C ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA DEVELOPMENT BASED ON AASHTO
VOLUME 3 RESULTS OF EXISTING CONDITON SURVEY

3-A GEOLOGICAL DATA (LOCATION OF BOREHOLES, BORING LOGS, AND
GEOLOGICAL PROFILES)
3-B DETAILED RESULTS FOR FIRST SCREENING OF CANDIDATE BRIDGES
3-C SUMMARY OF STAKEHOLDER MEETING
VOLUME 4 OUTLINE DESIGN
VOLUME 5 RECORDS OF SEMINAR AND MEETING/DISCUSSION
xxv
LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES
FIGURES
Figure 2.1.1-1 DPWH History ......................................................................................... 2-1
Figure 2.1.1-2 Organization Chart of DPWH ................................................................... 2-2
Figure 2.1.2-1 PHIVOLCS History .................................................................................. 2-4
Figure 2.1.2-2 Organization Chart of PHIVOLCS ............................................................ 2-5
Figure 2.1.3-1 Organization Chart of ASEP ..................................................................... 2-6
Figure 2.1.4-1 PICE History ............................................................................................ 2-7
Figure 2.1.4-2 Organization Chart of PICE ...................................................................... 2-8
Figure 2.1.5-1 Geological Society of the Philippines History ........................................... 2-9
Figure 3.1.1-1 Geodynamic Setting of the Southeast Asia – West Pacific Domain.
(Numbers beside arrows indicate rates of plate motion in cm/yr relative to Eurasia.) 3-2
Figure 3.1.1-2 Simplified Tectonic Map of the Philippines. ............................................. 3-3
Figure 3.1.1-3 Distribution of Active Faults and Trenches in the Philippines ................... 3-4
Figure 3.1.1-4 Intensity Isoseismal Map of the Ms 7.3 Ragay Gulf Earthquake of 1973,
Showing the Elongation of the Source: Philippine Fault. .......................................... 3-6
Figure 3.1.1-5 Focal Mechanism Solutions of Major Earthquakes (>Ms 5.0) Related to the
Philippine Fault from 1964 to 1991. ......................................................................... 3-7
Figure 3.1.1-6 Diagram Explaining the Concept of Shear Partitioning ............................. 3-9
Figure 3.1.1-7 Motion Vectors in the Philippines Deduced from GPS Measurements. .... 3-10
Figure 3.1.1-8 Tsunami Hazards Map ............................................................................ 3-11
Figure 3.1.2-1 Geological Map of the Philippines .......................................................... 3-16
Figure 3.1.2-2 Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of the Philippines ................................. 3-20
Figure 3.1.3-1 Climate Map of the Philippines ............................................................... 3-21
Figure 3.2.1-1 Pacific Ring of Fire ................................................................................ 3-22
Figure 3.2.1-2 Eurasian Plate and Philippine Ocean Trench ........................................... 3-22
Figure 3.2.1-3 Active Faults and Trenches ..................................................................... 3-22
Figure 3.2.1-4 Past Earthquakes in the Philippines ........................................................ 3-23
Figure 3.2.2-1 The 16 July 1990 Luzon Earthquake Rupture .......................................... 3-41
Figure 3.2.2-2 Distribution of Seismic Intensity of Main Shock Modified Rossi-Forel
(MRF) Intensity Scale (1990) ................................................................................. 3-42
Figure 3.2.2-3 Contours of Maximum Acceleration (gal) (3Falts Planes Model, M=7.0) 3-43
Figure 3.2.2-4 Acceleration Coefficient ......................................................................... 3-45
Figure 3.2.2-5 Vega Grande Bridge Damage .................................................................. 3-46
Figure 3.2.2-6 Dupinga Bridge Damage ......................................................................... 3-46
Figure 3.2.2-7 St. Monica Bridge Damage ..................................................................... 3-47
Figure 3.2.2-8 Carmen Bridge Damage .......................................................................... 3-47
Figure 3.2.2-9 Magsaysay Bridge Damage ..................................................................... 3-48
xxvi
Figure 3.2.2-10 Calbo Bridge Damage ........................................................................... 3-48
Figure 3.2.2-11 Cupang Bridge Damage ........................................................................ 3-49
Figure 3.2.2-12 Baliling Bridge Damage ........................................................................ 3-49
Figure 3.2.2-13 Tabora Bridge Damage ......................................................................... 3-50
Figure 3.2.2-14 Manicla Bridge Damage........................................................................ 3-50
Figure 3.2.2-15 Rizal Bridge Damage ............................................................................ 3-51
Figure 3.2.2-1 The Negros Oriental Earthquake ............................................................. 3-53
Figure 4.2.1-1 Strong Motion Network (Metro manila) .................................................... 4-6
Figure 4.2.1-2 The Epicenters of Observed Earthquakes (For example, Dec. 1999-2005,
36 earthquakes, M2.7-M6.8, depth: 1-153km) .......................................................... 4-7
Figure 4.2.1-3 Observed Peak Horizontal Accelerations (Aug. 1998-Oct. 2008) .............. 4-8
Figure 4.2.1-4 Strong Motion Network (National) ........................................................... 4-9
Figure 4.2.1-5 Strong Motion Network (Near-by MM Provinces and Davao) ................. 4-10
Figure 4.2.1-6 Strong Motion Network (National) ......................................................... 4-11
Figure 4.3.1-1 Analysis Procedure ................................................................................. 4-14
Figure 4.3.1-2 Peak Horizontal Acceleration .................................................................. 4-17
Figure 4.3.1-3 Peak Horizontal Acceleration .................................................................. 4-18
Figure 4.3.1-4 Changes in Acceleration Response Spectrum Due to the Difference in
Nonlinear Behavior of the Ground under Large and Small Earthquake Ground Motions
.............................................................................................................. 4-19
Figure 4.3.2-1 Comparison of Acceleration Spectra for Different Site Conditions and
Design Spectra (Firm gGound) ............................................................................... 4-21
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
xxvii
Figure 7.3.1-4 JRA Method (For Reference) .................................................................... 7-7
Figure 7.3.2-1 Flow of Establishment of Design Seismic Spectra .................................... 7-7
Figure 7.4.6-1 Comparison of Soil Profile Type Classification System .......................... 7-10
Figure 7.4.6-2 Geological Similarities/Difference among Three Countries (Philippines,
Japan, and United States of America) ...................................................................... 7-12
Figure 7.4.6-3 Tectonic Settings of Philippines, Japan, and United States of America .... 7-12
Figure 7.5.1-1 R-Factor Based on Equal Displacement Approximation .......................... 7-14
Figure 7.5.2-1 Mean Force-Reduction Factors ............................................................... 7-15
Figure 7.5.2-2 Moment-Curvature Curves of a 48” Circular Column ............................. 7-15
Figure 7.5.2-3 Moment-Curvature Relationship ............................................................. 7-16
Figure 7.6.1-1 Dimension for Minimum Supporting Length in NSCP ............................ 7-17
Figure 7.6.1-2 Longitudinal Restrainer in NSCP ............................................................ 7-18
Figure 7.6.3-1 Supporting Length in JRA ...................................................................... 7-20
Figure 7.6.3-2 Examples of Unseating Prevention Devices in JRA ................................ 7-21
Figure 7.6.3-3 Example of Transversal Displacement Restrainer in JRA ........................ 7-22
Figure 8.1.2-1 Acceleration Response Spectra Development Flowchart ........................... 8-2
Figure 8.1.2-2 Procedure (STEP1) ................................................................................... 8-3
Figure 8.1.3-1 Flowchart for Developing Earthquake Ground Motion Matching the Target
Spectrum ................................................................................................................. 8-5
Figure 8.1.3-2 Target Spectra ( AASHOTO 2007, Soil Type-Ⅰ) ...................................... 8-6
Figure 8.1.3-3 Design Spectra (AASHTO 2007) .............................................................. 8-6
Figure 8.1.3-4 Three Types of Faults ............................................................................... 8-9
Figure 8.1.4-1 Natural Periods of Ground of Interest ..................................................... 8-10
Figure 8.1.4-2 Locations of Ground of Interest .............................................................. 8-12
Figure 8.1.4-3 Soil Layer Conditions of Site (Soft Ground) ........................................... 8-13
Figure 8.1.4-4 Soil Layer Conditions of Site (Moderate Firm Ground) .......................... 8-14
Figure 8.1.4-5 Relationship between N-Value and Shear Wave Velocity ........................ 8-16
Figure 8.1.5-1 Method of analysis depend on Strain range ............................................. 8-16
Figure 8.1.5-2 Non-Linear One-Dimensional Dynamic Analysis .................................... 8-17
Figure 8.1.5-3 Damping in Soil at Initial Conditions (γ=10-6) ........................................ 8-18
Figure 8.1.5-4 Wave Propagation Method and Multi-Degree of Freedom Analysis ........ 8-19
Figure 8.1.6-1 H-D model (Hardin and Drnevich) .......................................................... 8-20
Figure 8.1.6-2 H-D Model ( Hardin and Drnevich ) ....................................................... 8-21
Figure 8.1.6-3 Relationship between Strain Dependence of Shear Modulus and γr ......... 8-21
Figure 8.1.7-1 Generation of Earthquake Ground Motion Matching the Target Spectrum8-22
Figure 8.1.7-2 Compatible to Target Spectrum (Typical Conclusion: EQ1) .................... 8-23
xxviii
Figure 8.1.7-3 Response Values and Location of Interest ............................................... 8-24
Figure 8.1.7-4 Shear Stress-Strain Hysteretic Behavior of Layers under EQ1 ................ 8-27
Figure 8.1.7-5 Shear Stress-strain Hysteretic Behavior of Layers under EQ1 ................. 8-28
Figure 8.1.7-6 Shear Stress-Strain Hysteretic Behavior of Layers under EQ13 .............. 8-29
Figure 8.1.7-7 Maximum Acceleration, Maximum Displacement, Maximum Shear Strain
and Maximum Shear Stress at Different Layers (Soft Ground, Site No.1) ............... 8-30
Figure 8.1.7-8 Maximum Acceleration, Maximum Displacement, Maximum Shear Strain
and Maximum Shear Stress at Different Layers (Moderate Firm Ground, Site No.1)8-31
Figure 8.1.7-9 Comparison of Maximum Surface Accelerations of Soft Ground and
Moderately Firm Ground and Maximum Acceleration at Outcrop Motion Defined at
Rock Outcrop at Ground Surface ............................................................................ 8-32
Figure 8.1.7-10 Comparison of Maximum Surface Acceleration of Soft Ground and
Maximum Acceleration of Outcrop Motion Defined at Rock Outcrop at Ground
Surface ............................................................................................................ 8-33
Figure 8.1.7-11 Comparison of Maximum Surface Acceleration of Moderate Firm Ground
and Maximum Acceleration of Outcrop Motion Defined at Rock Outcrop at Ground
Surface ............................................................................................................. 8-34
Figure 8.1.7-12 Estimation of Acceleration Amplification Factor .................................. 8-35
Figure 8.1.7-13 Acceleration Amplification Factor (Soft Ground).................................. 8-36
Figure 8.1.7-14 Acceleration Amplification Factor (Moderate Firm Ground) ................. 8-37
Figure 8.1.7-15 Estimation of Spectral Amplification Factor ......................................... 8-39
Figure 8.1.7-16 For Reference Only: Resonance Curves for Absolute Displacement of a
Single-Degree-of-Freedom System Excited by Sinusoidal Displacement ................ 8-40
Figure 8.1.7-17 Spectral Amplification Factor (Soft Ground) ......................................... 8-41
Figure 8.1.7-18 Spectral Amplification Factor (Moderate Firm Ground) ........................ 8-41
Figure 8.1.8-1 Response Values and Location of Interest ............................................... 8-42
Figure 8.1.8-2 Comparison on the Shapes of Acceleration Response Spectra between
Analysis Results and AASHTO Specifications (Soft Ground: Site No.1) ................ 8-43
Figure 8.1.8-3 Comparison on the Shapes of Acceleration Response Spectra between
Analysis Results and AASHTO Specifications (Moderate Firm Ground: Site No.1) 8-44
Figure 8.1.9-1 Estimation of Acceleration Spectra Response ......................................... 8-45
Figure 8.1.9-2 Roles of Site Coefficients S and S0 ......................................................... 8-46
Figure 8.1.9-3 Proposed Design Acceleration Response Spectra Based on Study Results8-47
Figure 8.1.9-4 Comparison Proposed Spectra and Design Spectra of AASHTO (2012) .. 8-50
Figure 10.2.1-1 Seismic Design Procedure Flow Chart ................................................... 10-9
Figure 10.2.3-1 Relationship between Lateral Load-Displacement Curve, Seismic
Performance Level, Earthquake Ground Motion and Operational Classification ... 10-12
Figure 10.2.3-2 Combination Examples of Members with Consideration of Plasticity or
xxix
Non-Linearity ....................................................................................................... 10-13
Figure 10.2.3-3 Seismic Hazard Maps for a 100-year Return Earthquake ..................... 10-15
Figure 10.2.3-4 Seismic Hazard Maps for a 1,000-year Return Earthquake .................. 10-16
Figure 10.2.3-5 Design Response Spectrum .................................................................. 10-17
Figure 10.2.6-1 Determination of Liquefaction Assessment Necessity .......................... 10-22
Figure 10.2.6-2 Model to Calculate Lateral Movement Forces...................................... 10-22
Figure 10.2.7-1 Mechanism of Unseating Prevention System ....................................... 10-23
Figure 10.2.7-2 Fundamental Principles of Unseating Prevention System .................... 10-24
Figure 10.3.2-1 Outline of Seismic Design Example .................................................... 10-26
Figure 10.3.2-2 Bridge Design Example Layout ........................................................... 10-28
Figure 10.3.2-3 Ground Condition for Foundation Design ............................................ 10-29
Figure 10.3.2-4 Characteristics of Soil Layer “As” ....................................................... 10-30
Figure 10.3.2-5 Acceleration Coefficients for Site ........................................................ 10-30
Figure 10.3.2-6 Design Acceleration Response Spectrum ............................................. 10-30
Figure 10.3.2-7 Pile Foundation Model and Spring Properties ...................................... 10-31
Figure 10.3.2-8 Pier Modeled as a Single-Degree-of-Freedom Vibration Unit .............. 10-32
Figure 10.3.2-9 Design Seismic Coefficients ................................................................ 10-33
Figure 10.3.2-10 Combination of Column Design Forces ............................................. 10-33
Figure 10.3.2-11 Pile Foundation Model and Pile Spring Constants ............................. 10-34
Figure 10.3.2-12 Foundation Design Forces ................................................................. 10-35
Figure 10.3.2-13 Reaction Force and Displacement at Pile Body .................................. 10-36
Figure 10.3.2-14 Pile Section Interaction Diagram ....................................................... 10-37
Figure 10.4.2-1 Pier Layout for Comparison Study ....................................................... 10-38
Figure 10.4.2-2 Design Acceleration Response Spectra (3-Cases) ................................ 10-39
Figure 10.5.1-1 Typical Structural Failures Learned from Past Earthquakes ................. 10-42
Figure 10.5.2-1 Basic Concept of Seismic Retrofit Planning ........................................ 10-43
Figure 10.5.2-2 Additional Options for Seismic Retrofit Planning ................................ 10-44
Figure 10.5.3-1 Detail of Each Seismic Retrofit Scheme .............................................. 10-45
Figure 11.2-1 Procedure of Identification of Prioritized Bridges .................................... 11-2
Figure 11.5.2-1 Process for Establishment of Priority Evaluation Criteria and Selection of
Bridges for Outline Design ................................................................................... 11-10
Figure 13.1.1-1 Current Bridge Condition of Delpan Bridge .......................................... 13-2
Figure 13.1.1-2 Location of Delpan Bridge .................................................................. 13-4
Figure 13.1.1-3 Hourly Traffic Volume ........................................................................... 13-4
Figure 13.1.1-4 Current Bridge Condition of Nagtahan Bridge ....................................... 13-5
Figure 13.1.1-5 Location of Nagtahan Bridge ................................................................. 13-7
Figure 13.1.1-6 Hourly Traffic Volume ........................................................................... 13-7
Figure 13.1.1-7 Current Bridge Condition of Lambingan Bridge .................................... 13-8
xxx
Figure 13.1.1-8 Location of Lambingan Bridge ............................................................ 13-10
Figure 13.1.1-9 Hourly Traffic Volume ......................................................................... 13-10
Figure 13.1.1-10 Current Bridge Condition of Guadalupe Bridge ................................. 13-11
Figure 13.1.1-11 Location of Guadalupe Bridge ........................................................ 13-13
Figure 13.1.1-12 Hourly Traffic Volume ....................................................................... 13-13
Figure 13.1.1-13 Current Bridge Condition of Marikina Bridge ................................... 13-14
Figure 13.1.1-14 Location of Marikina Bridge ............................................................. 13-16
Figure 13.2.1-1 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
xxxi
Figure 14.2.2-8 Images of “Seismic Retrofit by Reconstruction” of Inner Bridge ......... 14-26
Figure 14.2.2-9 Images of Installation of Temporary Detour Bridge ............................. 14-26
Figure 14.2.2-10 Concept of Traffic Control during Replacement Work of Outer Bridges14-27
Figure 14.2.2-11 Option of Replacement Plan for Additional One More Lane .............. 14-29
Figure 14.2.2-12 Construction Difficulties of Inner Bridge ........................................... 14-32
Figure 14.2.2-13 Construction Steps of Outer Bridges (1) ............................................ 14-33
Figure 14.2.2-17 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
xxxii
Figure 15.3.1-8 Location Map of Boreholes (Mawo Bridge) ........................................ 15-19
Figure 15.3.1-9 Location Map of Borehole s (1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge) .............. 15-20
Figure 15.3.1-10 Location Map of Boreholes (Biliran Bridge) ..................................... 15-20
Figure 15.3.1-11 Location Map of Boreholes (Liloan Bridge) ...................................... 15-21
Figure 15.3.1-12 Location Map of Boreholes (Wawa Bridge) ...................................... 15-21
Figure 15.3.2-1 Geological Profile for Delpan Bridge .................................................. 15-23
Figure 15.3.2-2 Geological Profile for Nagtahan Bridge .............................................. 15-25
Figure 15.3.2-3 Geological Profile for Lambingan Bridge ........................................... 15-28
Figure 15.3.2-4 Geological Profile for the Guadalupe Bridge ...................................... 15-30
Figure 15.3.2-5 Geological Profile for the Marikina Bridge ......................................... 15-33
Figure 15.3.3-1 Geological Profile for the Buntun Bridge ............................................ 15-42
Figure 15.3.3-2 Geological Profile for the Palanit Bridge ............................................ 15-45
Figure 15.3.3-3 Geological Profile for the Mawo Bridge ............................................. 15-49
Figure 15.3.3-4 Geological Profile for the 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge ....................... 15-54
Figure 15.3.3-5 Geological Profile for Biliran Bridge .................................................. 15-57
Figure 15.3.3-6 Geological Profile for Liloan Bridge ................................................... 15-61
Figure 15.3.3-7 Geological Profile for Wawa Bridge ................................................... 15-65
Figure 15.3.4-1 Flow Chart for Evaluation of Liquefiable Soil Layers ......................... 15-90
Figure 15.3.4-2 Summary of liquefaction potential (Delpan B-1) ................................. 15-93
Figure 15.3.4-3 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (Nagtahan B-1) ............................ 15-94
Figure 15.3.4-4 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (Lambingan B-1) ......................... 15-95
Figure 15.3.4-5 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (Guadalupe B-1) .......................... 15-95
Figure 15.3.4-6 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (Marikina B-1) ............................ 15-96
Figure 15.3.4-7 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (BTL-1) ....................................... 15-97
Figure 15.3.4-8 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (BTL-2) ....................................... 15-97
Figure 15.3.4-9 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (MAW-L1) .................................. 15-98
Figure 15.3.4-10 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (MAW-L2) .............................. 15-98
Figure 15.3.4-11 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (MAN-E1) ................................. 15-99
Figure 15.3.4-12 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (MAN-W1) ................................ 15-99
Figure 15.3.4-13 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (LIL-S1) ............................... 15-100
Figure 15.3.4-14 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (WAW-R1) ............................... 15-100
Figure 15.4.1-1 Mean annual rainfall in Manila Port area (1981-2010) ...................... 15-103
Figure 15.4.1-2 Design Flood Discharge Distribution against 100-year Return Period (MP
in 1990) ......................................................................................................... 15-104
Figure 15.4.1-3 Design Flood Discharge Distribution against 30-year Return Period (DD in
2002) ......................................................................................................... 15-104
Figure 15.4.1-4 Water Level at Marikina Bridge in Ondoy Typhoon (September 26th 2009)
......................................................................................................... 15-106
xxxiii
Figure 15.4.1-5 Design High Water Level and Vertical Clearance at Delpan Bridge ... 15-110
Figure 15.4.1-6 Design High Water Level and Vertical Clearance at Nagtahan Bridge
......................................................................................................... 15-110
Figure 15.4.1-7 Design High Water Level and Vertical Clearance at Lambingan Bridge
......................................................................................................... 15-111
Figure 15.4.1-8 Design High Water Level and Vertical Clearance at Guadalupe Bridge
......................................................................................................... 15-111
Figure 15.4.1-9 Design High Water Level and Vertical Clearance at Marikina Bridge
......................................................................................................... 15-111
Figure 15.4.2-1 Mean Annual Rainfall in Tuguegarao (1981-2010) and Annual Average
Water Level at Buntun Bridge ............................................................................. 15-112
Figure 15.4.2-2 Design High Water Level and freeboard at existing Buntun Bridge ... 15-115
Figure 15.4.2-3 Mean Annual Rainfall in Surigao and Butuan City (1981-2010) ....... 15-116
Figure 15.4.2-4 Design High Water Level and freeboard at existing Wawa Bridge ..... 15-118
Figure 15.4.2-5 Mean Annual Rainfall in Catbalogan (1981-2010) ............................ 15-119
Figure 15.4.2-6 Terms in the Energy Equation ........................................................... 15-120
Figure 15.4.2-7 Design High Water Level and freeboard at existing Palanit Bridge ... 15-123
Figure 15.4.2-8 Design High Water Level and freeboard at existing Mawo Bridge .. 15-123
Figure 15.4.2-9 Mean Annual Rainfall in Cebu and Tacloban City (1981-2010)......... 15-124
Figure 15.4.2-10 Navigation Clearance of 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge ...................... 15-125
Figure 15.4.2-11 Tide Level on Biliran Bridge ........................................................... 15-126
Figure 15.4.2-12 Tide Level on Liloan Bridge ........................................................... 15-126
Figure 15.5.1-1 DPWH Functional Classification (1/3) (Luzon) ................................. 15-128
Figure 15.5.1-2 DPWH Functional Classification (2/3) (Visayas) ............................... 15-128
Figure 15.5.1-3 DPWH Functional Classification (3/3) (Mindanao) ........................ 15-129
Figure 15.5.2-1 Road Network of Metro Manila ......................................................... 15-129
Figure 15.5.2-2 CBDs and Road Network ................................................................... 15-129
Figure 15.5.4-1 24-Hour Traffic Count Survey Station on the Bridge inside Metro Manila
........................................................................................................................... 15-132
Figure 15.5.4-2 Intersection Traffic Count Survey Station inside Metro Manila ......... 15-132
Figure 15.5.4-3 Bridge and Intersection Traffic Count Survey Station outside Metro Manila
........................................................................................................................... 15-133
Figure 15.5.4-4 Moriones - Bonifacio Drive Intersection ............................................ 15-137
Figure 15.5.4-5 Claro M. Recto - Bonifacio Drive Intersection .................................. 15-137
Figure 15.5.4-6 Padre Burgos - Roxas Blvd. Intersection ........................................... 15-138
Figure 15.5.4-7 Quirino Avenue – Paco Intersection ................................................... 15-138
Figure 15.5.4-8 Lacson – Espana Intersectionl ........................................................... 15-139
Figure 15.5.4-9 Pres. Quirino – Pedro Gil Intersection ............................................... 15-139
xxxiv
Figure 15.5.4-10 Pedro Gil-Tejeron Intersection ......................................................... 15-140
Figure 15.5.4-11 Shaw Blvd. - New Panaderos Intersection ........................................ 15-140
Figure 15.5.4-12 EDSA - Kalayaan Avenue Intersection ............................................. 15-141
Figure 15.5.4-13 EDSA - Shaw Boulevard Intersection .............................................. 15-141
Figure 15.5.4-14 Merit - Kalayaan Avenue Intersection .............................................. 15-142
Figure 15.5.4-15 Marcos Highway-Aurora Blvd. -Bonifacio Ave. Intersection ........... 15-142
Figure 15.5.4-16 ML Quezon-MV Patalinghug-Marigondon Road Intersection .......... 15-143
Figure 15.5.4-17 Plaridel - A. Cortes Avenue Intersection .......................................... 15-143
Figure 15.5.4-18 Bayugan Intersection ....................................................................... 15-144
Figure 15.7.2-1 Objective Roads ................................................................................ 15-155
Figure 15.7.4-1 Typical Cross-Section of Bridge Section ........................................... 15-162
Figure 15.7.4-2 Typical Cross-Section of Approach Road Section .............................. 15-163
Figure 15.7.5-1 Typical Cross-Section at the Taper Section ........................................ 15-167
Figure 15.7.5-2 Typical Cross-Section at the Runoff Section ...................................... 15-168
Figure 15.7.5-3 Issue of Current Vertical Alignment ................................................... 15-169
Figure 15.7.5-4 Issue of the Stopping Sight Distance ................................................. 15-169
Figure 15.7.5-5 Restriction of Vertical Alignment of Lambingan Bridge .................... 15-170
Figure 15.7.5-6 New Vertical Alignment of Lambingan Bridge .................................. 15-170
Figure 15.7.5-7 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Lambingan Bridge .................. 15-171
Figure 15.7.5-8 Improvement of Cross-Section .......................................................... 15-171
Figure 15.7.5-9 New Vertical Alignment of Guadalupe Bridge ................................... 15-175
Figure 15.7.5-10 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Guadalupe Bridge ................. 15-176
Figure 15.7.5-11 Improvement of Cross-Section ......................................................... 15-176
Figure 15.7.5-12 New Vertical Alignment of Palanit Bridge ....................................... 15-180
Figure 15.7.5-13 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Guadalupe Bridge ................. 15-181
Figure 15.7.5-14 Improvement of Cross-Section ........................................................ 15-181
Figure 15.7.5-15 New Vertical Alignment of Mawo Bridge ........................................ 15-186
Figure 15.7.5-16 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Mawo Bridge ........................ 15-187
Figure 15.7.5-18 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
xxxv
Figure 15.7.9-2 Pictures Map of Traffic Issue of around Guadalupe Bridge ................ 15-214
Figure 15.7.9-3 Proposal of Improvement around the Guadalupe Bridge .................... 15-215
Figure 15.7.9-4 Typical Cross Section of Proposal of Improvement ........................... 15-215
Figure 16.1.1-1 Design Spectrum for New Bridge Design .............................................. 16-4
Figure 16.1.2-1 Procedure of Comparison Study for Selection of New Bridge Types ...... 16-7
Figure 16.1.2-2 Relationships between Actual Results of Basic Bridge Types and Span
Length .................................................................................................................... 16-7
Figure 16.1.2-3 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Lambingan Bridge ........................ 16-8
Figure 16.1.2-4 Vertical Alignment by Road Planning of New Lambingan Bridge .......... 16-8
Figure 16.1.2-5 Determination of Abutment Location of Lambingan Bridge (Simple
Supported Condition) .............................................................................................. 16-9
Figure 16.1.2-6 Determination of Abutment Location of Lambingan Bridge (3-Span
Condition) ............................................................................................................ 16-10
Figure 16.1.2-7 Span Arrangements of Lambingan Bridge in Comparison Study .......... 16-10
Figure 16.1.2-8 Construction Steps of Stage Construction ............................................ 16-11
Figure 16.1.2-9 Detour Temporary Bridge under Total Construction Method ................ 16-11
Figure 16.1.2-10 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Existing Guadalupe Bridge ....... 16-17
Figure 16.1.2-11 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of New Guadalupe Bridge ............ 16-17
Figure 16.1.2-12 Determination of Abutment Location of Guadalupe Bridge ............... 16-18
Figure 16.1.2-13 Span Arrangement for Comparison Study .......................................... 16-18
Figure 16.1.2-14 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Palanit Bridge .......................... 16-25
Figure 16.1.2-15 Rising of Vertical Alignment ............................................................. 16-25
Figure 16.1.2-16 DHW and Free Board of Palanit Bridge ............................................. 16-26
Figure 16.1.2-17 Location of Abutments ...................................................................... 16-27
Figure 16.1.2-18 Installable Area of Piers ..................................................................... 16-27
Figure 16.1.2-19 2 Span Bridge .................................................................................... 16-28
Figure 16.1.2-22 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
xxxvi
Figure 16.1.2-32 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Wawa Bridge ............................ 16-49
Figure 16.1.2-33 Horizontal Alighment ........................................................................ 16-49
Figure 16.1.2-34 DHW and Free Board of Wawa Bridge .............................................. 16-51
Figure 16.1.2-35 Determination of Abutment Location of Wawa Bridge ....................... 16-51
Figure 16.1.2-36 Boundary Lines of HWL and Influence Area ..................................... 16-52
Figure 16.1.3-1 Basic Vibration Mode (Longitudinal Direction) ................................... 16-67
Figure 16.1.3-2 Damping in Bridge Structure ............................................................... 16-69
Figure 16.2.1-1 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Lambingan Bridge ...................... 16-72
Figure 16.2.1-2 Soil Profile of Lambingan Bridge (Included previous SPT) ................. 16-73
Figure 16.2.1-3 Flow of Outline Design ....................................................................... 16-74
Figure 16.2.2-1 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Lambingan Bridge ...................... 16-75
Figure 16.2.2-2 Design Section of Lambingan Bridge .................................................. 16-75
Figure 16.2.2-3 Analytical Model for Superstructure .................................................... 16-76
Figure 16.2.2-4 Sections for Stress Check .................................................................... 16-77
Figure 16.2.2-5 Side View of Superstructure of Lambingan Bridge .............................. 16-80
Figure 16.2.2-6 Sectional View of Superstructure of Lambingan Bridge ....................... 16-80
Figure 16.2.3-1 Analytical Mode of Seismic Analysis .................................................. 16-81
Figure 16.2.3-2 Results of Eigenvalue Analysis ............................................................ 16-85
Figure 16.2.3-3 Ground Surface of an Abutment in Seismic Design ............................. 16-86
Figure 16.2.3-4 Side View & Sectional View of Abutment of Lambingan Bridge ......... 16-88
Figure 16.2.3-5 Philosophy of Unseating Prevention System in JRA ............................ 16-89
Figure 16.2.3-6 Supporting Length ............................................................................... 16-90
Figure 16.2.3-7 Secure the Length of "Se", Supporting Length ..................................... 16-90
Figure 16.2.3-8 Longitudinal Restrainer for Lambingan Bridge .................................... 16-91
Figure 16.2.3-9 Design Methodology of Expansion Joint ............................................. 16-91
Figure 16.2.3-10 Wearing Coat System of Steel Deck ................................................... 16-92
Figure 16.2.4-1 Side View & Sectional View of Abutment of Lambingan Bridge ......... 16-93
Figure 16.2.4-2 General View ....................................................................................... 16-94
Figure 16.3.1-1 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Guadalupe Bridge ...................... 16-95
Figure 16.3.1-2 Soil Profile of Guadalupe Bridge (Included previous SPT) .................. 16-97
Figure 16.3.1-3 Flow of Outline Design ....................................................................... 16-98
Figure 16.3.2-1 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Guadalupe Side Bridge ............... 16-99
Figure 16.3.2-2 Analytical Model for Superstructure .................................................. 16-100
Figure 16.3.2-3 Sections for Stress Check .................................................................. 16-101
xxxvii
Figure 16.3.2-4 Side View of Superstructure of Guadalupe Side Bridge ..................... 16-102
Figure 16.3.2-5 Sectional View of Superstructure of Guadalupe Side Bridge .............. 16-102
Figure 16.3.3-1 Analytical Mode of Seismic Analysis ................................................ 16-103
Figure 16.3.3-2 Application of Continuous Girder ...................................................... 16-104
Figure 16.3.3-3 Results of Eigenvalue Analysis .......................................................... 16-107
Figure 16.3.3-4 Ground Surface of an Abutment in Seismic Design ........................... 16-108
Figure 16.3.3-5 Side View of Pier of Guadalupe Bridge Substructure with Foundation.16-111
Figure 16.3.3-6 Side View & Sectional View of Abutment of Guadalupe Bridge
Substructure with Foundation. ............................................................................ 16-111
Figure 16.3.3-7 Conceptual View of Steel Sheet Pile Foundation ............................... 16-112
Figure 16.3.3-8 Design Flow for Basic Design of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile Foundation ... 16-113
Figure 16.3.3-9 The Procedure for Construction Method of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile
Foundations (1) ................................................................................................... 16-114
Figure 16.3.3-10 The Procedure For Construction Method of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile
Foundations (2) ................................................................................................... 16-115
Figure 16.3.3-11 Region Where the Skin Friction Force at the Inter Peripheral Surface of
the Well Portion of the Foundation Should Be Taken into Account ..................... 16-116
Figure 16.3.3-12 Calculation Model of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile Foundation ................... 16-118
Figure 16.3.3-13 Philosophy of Unseating Prevention System in JRA ........................ 16-119
Figure 16.3.3-14 Supporting Length ........................................................................... 16-120
Figure 16.3.3-15 Secure the Length of "Se", Supporting Length ................................. 16-120
Figure 16.3.3-16 Longitudinal Restrainer for Guadalupe Bridge ................................ 16-121
Figure 16.3.3-17 Design Methodology of Expansion Joint ......................................... 16-121
Figure 16.3.3-18 Wearing Coat System of Steel Deck ................................................. 16-122
Figure 16.3.4-1 Side View of Pier of Guadalupe Bridge ............................................. 16-123
Figure 16.3.4-2 Side View & Sectional View of Abutment of Guadalupe Bridge ........ 16-123
Figure 16.3.4-3 General View ..................................................................................... 16-125
Figure 16.4.1-2 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
xxxviii
Figure 16.4.3-5 Sectional View of Pier & Abutment of Palanit Bridge ........................ 16-139
Figure 16.4.3-6 Philosophy of Unseating Prevention System in JRA .......................... 16-140
Figure 16.4.3-7 Supporting Length ............................................................................. 16-141
Figure 16.4.3-8 Longitudinal Restrainer for Palanit Bridge ........................................ 16-142
Figure 16.4.3-9 Design Methodology of Expansion Joint ........................................... 16-142
Figure 16.4.3-10 Wearing Coat System of Concrete Slab ............................................ 16-143
Figure 16.4.4-1 Sectional View of Pier & Abutment of Palanit Bridge ........................ 16-144
Figure 16.5.1-2 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
xxxix
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
xl
Figure 17.3.2-3 Hydrological Condition of 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge ..................... 17-54
Figure 17.3.3-1 Summary of Seismic Capacity Verification ......................................... 17-55
Figure 17.3.4-1 Outline of Comparison Studies on Seismic Capacity Improvement
Schemes ........................................................................................................... 17-60
Figure 17.3.4-2 Control of Seismic Inertial Force by Application of Seismic Devices .. 17-61
Figure 17.3.4-3 Recommendation for Location of Seismic Damper Installation ........... 17-63
Figure 17.3.4-4 Construction Types for the Foundation Retrofit Work ......................... 17-66
Figure 17.3.4-5 Restrictive condition for additional pile driving .................................. 17-66
Figure 17.3.4-6 Restrictive Conditions for Selection of Foundation Improvement Method 68
Figure 17.3.4-7 Construction Procedure of SPSP Foundation ....................................... 17-70
Figure 17.3.4-8 “None-stage method” for SPSP Foundation Installation ...................... 17-70
Figure 17.3.4-9 Assumed Existing Abutment Condition ............................................... 17-71
Figure 17.3.4-10 Basic Concept of Unseating Prevention System Planning .................. 17-73
Figure 17.3.4-11 Concrete block and Steel Bracket ...................................................... 17-74
Figure 17.3.4-12 Selection of unseating prevention device type ................................... 17-75
Figure 17.3.4-13 Selection of Unseating Prevention Device type (continued) .............. 17-75
Figure 17.3.4-14 Structure Limiting Horizontal Displacement (Shear Keys) ................ 17-76
Figure 17.3.5-1 Current Condition of Existing Expansion Joints .................................. 17-76
Figure 17.3.5-2 Current Condition of Existing Steel Members ..................................... 17-76
Figure 17.3.5-3 Current Condition of Existing Deck Slab ............................................ 17-77
Figure 18.2.2-1 Location Site of Lambingan Bridge ....................................................... 18-3
Figure 18.2.2-2 Recommend superstructure Type of Lambingan Bridge ......................... 18-3
Figure 18.2.2-3 Pictures of Field Survey ........................................................................ 18-4
Figure 18.2.2-4 Erection Method of Lambingan Bridge .................................................. 18-5
Figure 18.2.2-5 Erection steps of superstructure ............................................................. 18-5
Figure 18.2.2-6 Construction Condition of Cast in Place Concrete Pile .......................... 18-6
Figure 18.2.2-7 Example of Cast in Place Concrete Pile Method .................................... 18-7
Figure 18.2.2-8 Construction Steps of Lambingan Bridge 1/3 ......................................... 18-7
Figure 18.2.2-9 Construction Steps of Lambingan Bridge 2/3 ......................................... 18-8
Figure 18.2.2-10 Construction Steps of Lambingan Bridge 3/3 ....................................... 18-9
Figure 18.2.3-1 Pictures of Field Survey ...................................................................... 18-11
Figure 18.2.3-2 Construction Base and Site Location of the Guadalupe Bridge ............ 18-12
Figure 18.2.3-3 Travel Time in Case of Different Number of Traffic Lanes .................. 18-12
Figure 18.2.3-4 EDSA Detour Plan ............................................................................... 18-13
Figure 18.2.3-5 EDSA Traffic Control Plan of Guadalupe Bridge ................................. 18-14
Figure 18.2.3-6 Erection Method of Center span of Guadalupe Bridge ......................... 18-15
Figure 18.2.3-7 Installation method of Steel Pipe Sheet Pile ......................................... 18-16
Figure 18.2.3-8 Pier Replacement Work with Temporary support ................................. 18-16
xli
Figure 18.2.3-9 Construction Steps of Pier Replacement .............................................. 18-17
Figure 18.2.3-10 Construction Steps of Outer Superstructure ....................................... 18-18
Figure 18.2.3-11 Construction Steps of the Guadalupe Bridge ...................................... 18-19
Figure 18.2.4-1 Pictures of Field Survey <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 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
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
xlii
Peak) ........................................................................................................... 19-23
Figure 19.3.4-4 Comparison of the Travel Speed (Average speed-1, Morning Peak) .... 19-24
Figure 19.3.4-5 Comparison of the Travel Speed (Average speed-2, Morning Peak) .... 19-25
Figure 19.3.4-6 Comparison of Traffic Volume (Evening Peak) ................................... 19-26
Figure 19.3.4-7 Verification of the Simulation model (Traffic Volume, Evening Peak) 19-26
Figure 19.3.4-8 Comparison of the Travel Speed (Average Speed-1, Evening) ............. 19-27
Figure 19.3.4-9 Comparison of the Travel Speed (Average speed-2) ............................ 19-28
Figure 19.3.5-1 Flow of Analysis ................................................................................. 19-29
Figure 19.3.5-2 Geometric Structure of 4-Lanes .......................................................... 19-30
Figure 19.3.5-6 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
Figure 19.5.3-1 Process of Converting the Initial Cost from Financial to Economic Value
xliii
............................................................................................................................. 19-53
Figure 19.5.4-1 Probability Density of Bridge Un-Service ........................................... 19-58
Figure 20.1.1-1 Flowchart for ECC applications and review processes ........................... 20-4
Figure 20.2.4-1 Flow Chart for Payment of Compensation to PAPs .............................. 20-26
Figure 20.2.5-1 Redress Grievance Flow Chart ............................................................ 20-29
Figure 21.4-1 Proposed Project Organization ................................................................. 21-5
Figure 22.3.1-1 Present Issues on Traffic Conditions in the Intermodal Area .................. 21-7
Figure 22.3.2-1 Improvement Measures.......................................................................... 21-8
Figure 22.3.3-1 Recommended Improvement Scheme in and around Traffic Intermodal
Area near Guadalupe Bridge ................................................................................. 21-11
TABLES
Table 1.7.1-1 Summary of Seminars ................................................................................ 1-8
Table 1.7.1-2 Photos of Seminars ................................................................................... 1-11
Table 1.7.1-3 Summary of Discussions .......................................................................... 1-12
Table 1.7.1-4 Photos of Discussions .............................................................................. 1-14
Table 1.7.2-1 Summary of TWG Meetings ..................................................................... 1-15
Table 1.7.2-2 Photos of TWG Meetings ......................................................................... 1-17
Table 1.7.2-3 Summary of JCC Meetings ....................................................................... 1-18
Table 1.7.2-4 Photos of JCC Meetings ........................................................................... 1-19
Table 1.7.3-1 Schedule of Training ................................................................................ 1-20
Table 1.7.3-2 Photos of 1st Training ............................................................................... 1-21
Table 1.7.3-3 Schedule of Training ................................................................................ 1-22
Table 1.7.3-4 Photos of 2nd Training .............................................................................. 1-23
Table 2.2.3-1 Functional Relationship between DPWH and ASEP in the Development of
Seismic Design Guidelines ..................................................................................... 2-13
Table 3.1.1-1 Estimate of Extent of Displacement, Slip Rate and Age of the Philippine
Fault ................................................................................................................... 3-8
Table 3.1.1-2 Main Tsunami Disaster History in the Philippines .................................... 3-11
Table 3.1.2-1 List of Active and Potentially Active Volcanoes of the Philippines ........... 3-13
Table 3.1.2-2 Summary of Stratigraphic Column for the Philippines .............................. 3-17
Table 3.1.2-3 Summary of Igneous and Intrusive Rocks for the Philippines ................... 3-18
Table 3.1.2-4 Summary of Volcanic Rocks for the Philippines ....................................... 3-18
Table 3.2.1-1 Major Earthquakes that Have Occurred in the Philippines in Recent Years3-23
Table 3.2.2-1 Calculated Maximum Acceleration (gal) (3 Faults Planes Model, M=7.0) 3-44
Table 3.2.2-2 Maximum Acceleration at Ground Surface Estimated Based on the

Phenomena of Structures after the Earthquake ........................................................ 3-44
xliv
Table 3.2.2-3 Bridge Seismic Vulnerability .................................................................... 3-52
Table 3.2.3-1 Damages on Some Bridges Affected by the February 6, 2012 Negros Oriental
Earthquake .............................................................................................................. 3-55
Table 4.1.3-1 Available (Down loadable) Data and/or Thematic Maps on PHIVOLCS
Website ................................................................................................................. 4-4
Table 4.2.1-1 Locations of and Geological Conditions around Observation Stations ........ 4-7
Table 4.3.1-1 Locations of and Geological Conditions around Observation Stations ...... 4-13
Table 4.3.1-2 Totals of data on Observed Earthquake Ground Motions Collected at
Respective Observation Stations（1999 - 2011） ................................................... 4-13
Table 6.3.7-1 Comparison between AASHTO and JRA Requirements for Site Liquefaction
Potential Assessment .............................................................................................. 6-35
Table 7.4.2-1 Soil Profile Types of National Structural Code of the Philippines ............... 7-8
Table 7.4.3-1 Soil profile types under AASHTO LFRD 2007 ........................................... 7-8
Table 7.4.4-1 Soil Profile Types under AASHTO LFRD 2012.......................................... 7-9
Table 7.4.4-2 Simplified Soil Profile Types of AASHTO LFRD 2012 .............................. 7-9
Table 7.4.5-1 Soil Profile Type of JRA .......................................................................... 7-10
Table 7.5.1-1 Response Modification Factors ................................................................ 7-13
Table 8.1.3-1 Definition of Soil Profile Types (AASHTO 2007) ...................................... 8-7
Table 8.1.3-2 AASHTO soil Types and Corresponding JRA Soil Types ........................... 8-7
Table 8.1.3-3 Strong Motion Seismograph Networks (Database) ..................................... 8-7
Table 8.1.3-4 Seed Earthquake Records Selected as Rock Outcrop Motion ...................... 8-8
Table 8.1.4-1 Types and Locations of Ground (Soft Ground) of Interest ........................ 8-11
Table 8.1.4-2 Types and Locations of Ground (Moderate Firm Ground) of Interest ....... 8-11
Table 8.1.7-1 Comparison of Acceleration Amplification Factor .................................... 8-38
Table 8.1.9-1 Proposed Acceleration Response Spectra Based on AASHTO (2007)
(Moderate Firm Ground : Soil Type-III ) ................................................................. 8-48
Table 8.1.9-2 Proposed acceleration response spectra based on AASHTO (2007) (Soft
ground : Soil Type-IV ) ........................................................................................... 8-48
Table 8.1.9-3 Proposed Acceleration Response Spectra Based on AASHTO (2007) (Soil
Type –I, II, III, IV) ................................................................................................. 8-49
Table 10.2.3-1 Operational Classification of Bridges .................................................... 10-11
Table 10.2.3-2 Earthquake Ground Motion and Seismic Performance of Bridges ......... 10-12
Table 10.2.3-3 Combination Examples of Members Considering Plasticity (Non-linearity)
and Limit States of Each Members (For Seismic Performance Level 2) ................ 10-14
Table 10.2.3-4 Combination Examples of Members with Consideration of Plasticity

(Non-linearity) and Limit States of Each Members (For Seismic Performance Level 3)
xlv
............................................................................................................................. 10-14
Table 10.2.3-5 Ground Types (Site Class) for Seismic Design ...................................... 10-17
Table 10.2.3-6 Response Modification Factors for Substructures .................................. 10-17
Table 10.2.4-1 Minimum Analysis Requirements for Seismic Effects ........................... 10-18
Table 10.3.2-1 Column Shear Design ........................................................................... 10-34
Table 10.4.3-1 Cases for Comparison ........................................................................... 10-39
Table 10.4.4-1 Results of Comparative Study ............................................................... 10-41
Table 11.3-1 Scope of Works and Survey Method for Survey Work (1/2) ....................... 11-3
Table 11.4.1-1 Evaluation Criteria of First Screening ..................................................... 11-5
Table 11.4.1-2 Scoring System for Evaluation Criteria ................................................... 11-5
Table 11.5.3-1 Components for Evaluation and Rating Weight ..................................... 11-11
Table 11.5.3-2 Components of Seismic Vulnerability and Rating Weight ...................... 11-11
Table 11.5.3-3 Evaluation Items and Rating Weight ...................................................... 11-13
Table 11.5.3-4 Components of Evaluation Criteria for Importance and Rating Weight .. 11-14
Table 12.1.1-1 Bridge Condition Based on Visual Inspection for Package-B ................ 12-20
Table 12.1.1-2 Major Defect Analysis for Each Bridge ................................................ 12-21
Table 12.1.1-3 Global Evaluation for Bridge Seismic Performance in 1st Screening of
Package-B (1/6) .................................................................................................... 12-22
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
Package C (3/6) .................................................................................................... 12-51
xlvi
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
Table 14.2.3-1 Comparative Study on Improve Measurement Schemes for Mawo Bridge
(2nd Screening result) ........................................................................................... 14-44
xlvii
Table 14.2.3-2 Detail Comparative Study on Improve Measurement Schemes for Mawo
Bridge (Optimization of Replacement Plan) .......................................................... 14-46
Table 15.2.2-1 Position and Distance between the Target Bridge and Active Fault ....... 15-12
Table 15.3.1-1 Laboratory Tests and Methodology ....................................................... 15-13
Table 15.3.1-2 Quantities of Geotechnical Investigation (Inside Metro Manila) ........... 15-14
Table 15.3.1-3 Quantities of Geotechnical Investigation (Outside Metro Manila) ........ 15-15
Table 15.3.2-1 Boring Result (Deplpan B-1) ................................................................ 15-22
Table 15.3.2-2 Engineering Soil Layers (Deplpan B-1) ................................................ 15-23
Table 15.3.2-3 Boring Result (Nagtahan B-1) .............................................................. 15-24
Table 15.3.2-4 Engineering Soil Layers (Nagtahan B-1) .............................................. 15-25
Table 15.3.2-5 Boring Result (Lambingan B-1) ........................................................... 15-27
Table 15.3.2-6 Engineering Soil Layers (Lambingan B-1) ........................................... 15-27
Table 15.3.2-7 Boring Result (Guadalupe B-1) ............................................................ 15-29
Table 15.3.2-8 Engineering Soil Layers (Guadalupe B-1) ............................................ 15-29
Table 15.3.2-9 Boring Result (Marikina B-1) ............................................................... 15-32
Table 15.3.2-10 Engineering Soil Layers (Marikina B-1) ............................................. 15-32
Table 15.3.2-11 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Delpan B-1
........................................................................................................... 15-35
Table 15.3.2-12 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Nagtahan
B-1 ........................................................................................................... 15-36
Table 15.3.2-13 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Lambingan
B-1 ........................................................................................................... 15-37
Table 15.3.2-14 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Guadalupe
B-1 ........................................................................................................... 15-38
Table 15.3.2-15 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Marikina
B-1 .......................................................................................................... 15-39
Table 15.3.3-1 Boring Result (Buntun: BTL-1) ............................................................ 15-40
Table 15.3.3-2 Boring Result (Buntun: BTL-2) ............................................................ 15-41
Table 15.3.3-3 Engineering Soil Layers (BTL-1 – BTL-2) ........................................... 15-41
Table 15.3.3-4 Boring Result (Palanit: PAL-L1) .......................................................... 15-43
Table 15.3.3-5 Boring Result (Palanit: PAL-R1) .......................................................... 15-44
Table 15.3.3-6 Engineering Soil Layers (PAL-R1 – PAL-L1) ....................................... 15-44
Table 15.3.3-7 Boring Result (Mawo: MAW-L1) ......................................................... 15-47
Table 15.3.3-8 Boring Result (Mawo: MAW-L2) ......................................................... 15-48
Table 15.3.3-9 Engineering Soil Layers (MAW-L1 – MAW-L2) .................................. 15-48
Table 15.3.3-10 Boring Result (1st Mandaue-Mactan: MAN-E1) .................................. 15-51
Table 15.3.3-11 Boring Result (1st Mandaue-Mactan: MAN-W1) ................................. 15-52
Table 15.3.3-12 Engineering Soil Layers (MAN-E1 – MAN-W1) ................................ 15-53
xlviii
Table 15.3.3-13 Boring Result (Biliran: BIL-N1) ......................................................... 15-56
Table 15.3.3-14 Boring Result (Biliran: BIL-S1) ......................................................... 15-56
Table 15.3.3-15 Engineering Soil Layers (BIL-N1 – BIL-S1) ...................................... 15-56
Table 15.3.3-16 Boring Result (Liloan: LIL-N1) .......................................................... 15-58
Table 15.3.3-17 Boring Result (Liloan: LIL-S1) .......................................................... 15-59
Table 15.3.3-18 Engineering Soil Layers (LIL-N1 – LIL-S1) ....................................... 15-60
Table 15.3.3-19 Boring Result (Wawa: WAW-R1) ........................................................ 15-63
Table 15.3.3-20 Boring Result (Wawa: WAW-L1) ........................................................ 15-64
Table 15.3.3-21 Engineering Soil Layers (WAW-L1 – WAW-R1) ................................. 15-65
Table 15.3.3-22 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Buntun
BTL-1 .......................................................................................................... 15-67
Table 15.3.3-23 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Buntun
BTL-2 .......................................................................................................... 15-68
Table 15.3.3-24 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Palanit
PAL-L1 .......................................................................................................... 15-68
Table 15.3.3-25 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Palanit
PAL-R1 .......................................................................................................... 15-68
Table 15.3.3-26 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Mawo
MAW-L1 .......................................................................................................... 15-69
Table 15.3.3-27 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Mawo
MAW-L2 .......................................................................................................... 15-69
Table 15.3.3-28 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of MAN-E1
........................................................................................................... 15-70
Table 15.3.3-29 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of MAN-W1
........................................................................................................... 15-71
Table 15.3.3-30 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of BIL-N1
........................................................................................................... 15-72
Table 15.3.3-31 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of BIL-S1
........................................................................................................... 15-72
Table 15.3.3-32 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of LIL-N1
........................................................................................................... 15-72
Table 15.3.3-33 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of LIL-S1
........................................................................................................... 15-73
Table 15.3.3-34 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of WAW-L1
........................................................................................................... 15-74
Table 15.3.3-35 Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of WAW-R1
........................................................................................................... 15-75
xlix
Table 15.3.4-1 Standard Design Lateral Force Coefficient for Liquefaction Potential
Assessment ........................................................................................................... 15-76
Table 15.3.4-2 Comparison of Soil Profile Type Classification ..................................... 15-79
Table 15.3.4-3 Soil Type and Design Parameters on Soils (NEXCO) ........................... 15-80
Table 15.3.4-4 Proposed Soil Parameters for Delpan B-1 Site ...................................... 15-81
Table 15.3.4-5 Proposed Soil Parameters for Nagtahan B-1 Site .................................. 15-81
Table 15.3.4-6 Proposed Soil Parameters for Lambingan B-1 Site ............................... 15-82
Table 15.3.4-7 Proposed Soil Parameters for Guadalupe B-1 Site ................................ 15-82
Table 15.3.4-8 Proposed Soil Parameters for Marikina B-1 Site ................................... 15-82
Table 15.3.4-9 Proposed Soil Parameters for Buntun BTL-1 Site ................................. 15-83
Table 15.3.4-10 Proposed Soil Parameters for Buntun BTL-2 Site ............................... 15-83
Table 15.3.4-11 Proposed Soil Parameters for Palanit PAL-L1 Site .............................. 15-84
Table 15.3.4-12 Proposed Soil Parameters for PAL-R1 Site ......................................... 15-84
Table 15.3.4-13 Proposed Soil Parameters for Mawo MAW-L1 Site ............................ 15-84
Table 15.3.4-14 Proposed Soil Parameters for Mawo MAW-L2 Site ............................ 15-85
Table 15.3.4-15 Proposed Soil Parameters for 1st Mandaue-Mactan MAN-E1 Site ....... 15-85
Table 15.3.4-16 Proposed Soil Parameters for 1st Mandaue-Mactan MAN-W1 Site ..... 15-85
Table 15.3.4-17 Proposed Soil Parameters for Biliran BIL-N1 Site .............................. 15-86
Table 15.3.4-18 Proposed Soil Parameters for Biliran BIL-S1 Site .............................. 15-86
Table 15.3.4-19 Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan LIL-S1 Site ............................... 15-86
Table 15.3.4-20 Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan LIL-S1 Site ............................... 15-86
Table 15.3.4-21 Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan WAW-L1 Site ............................ 15-87
Table 15.3.4-22 Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan WAW-R1 Site ............................ 15-87
Assessment .......................................................................................................... 15-92
Table 15.3.4-24 Comparison of Liquefaction Assessment Methodology using SPT Blow
Counts between AASHTO’s Recommendation and JRA ....................................... 15-93
Table 15.3.4-25 Summary of Liquefaction Potential Assessment ............................... 15-101
Table 15.4.1-1 Summary of Proposed Pasig-Marikina River Channel Improvement Plan in
Detailed Engineering Design in 2002 .................................................................. 15-105
Table 15.4.1-2 Tidal Information at Manila South Harbor Tide Station ...................... 15-106
Table 15.4.1-3 Design Flood Discharge and Design Flood Level in Pasig-Marikina River
........................................................................................................... 15-106
Table 15.4.1-4 Flow Velocity against the Design Flood Discharge in Pasig-Marikina River
........................................................................................................... 15-107
Table 15.4.1-5 Freeboard Allowance for Embankment ............................................... 15-109
Table 15.4.1-6 Summary of the Major Design Condition of Package-B ..................... 15-110
Table 15.4.2-1 Constant for Regional Specific Discharge Curve ................................ 15-114
l
Table 15.4.2-2 Design Flood Level at Buntun Bridge ................................................. 15-114
Table 15.4.2-3 Design flood level at Wawa Bridge ..................................................... 15-117
Table 15.4.2-4 Tidal Information at Catbalogan Tide Station ..................................... 15-121
Table 15.4.2-5 Design Flood Level at Palanit Bridge and Mawo Bridge .................... 15-122
Table 15.4.2-6 Tidal Information at Cebu, Catbalogan and Surigao Tide Station ........ 15-125
Table 15.5.3-1 Road Classification of Selected Bridges .............................................. 15-130
Table 15.5.4-1 Summary of Traffic Count Survey Location ........................................ 15-131
Table 15.5.4-2 Summary of Traffic Count Survey Result inside Metro Manila (AADT)15-135
Table 15.5.4-3 Summary of Traffic Count Survey Result outside Metro Manila (AADT)15-136
Table 15.7.1-1 Applicable Standards ........................................................................... 15-155
Table 15.7.4-1 Traffic Volume of Objective Roads ..................................................... 15-156
Table 15.7.4-2 Technical Specifications of Lambingan Bridge ................................... 15-157
Table 15.7.4-3 Technical Specifications of Guadalupe Bridge .................................... 15-158
Table 15.7.4-4 Technical Specifications of Palanit Bridge .......................................... 15-159
Table 15.7.4-5 Technical Specifications of Mawo Bridge ........................................... 15-160
Table 15.7.4-6 Technical Specifications of Wawa Bridge ............................................ 15-161
Table 15.7.5-1 Current Road Conditions of Lambingan Bridge................................... 15-164
Table 15.7.5-2 Restriction of Lambingan Bridge ........................................................ 15-165
Table 15.7.5-3 Design Conditions of Lambingan Bridge ............................................ 15-166
Table 15.7.5-4 Issue of Current Road and Measure Policy .......................................... 15-169
Table 15.7.5-5 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Lambingan Bridge ......................... 15-170
Table 15.7.5-6 Issue of Cross-Section, and Measure Policy ........................................ 15-171
Table 15.7.5-7 Current Road Conditions of Guadalupe Bridge ................................... 15-172
Table 15.7.5-8 Restriction of Guadalupe Bridge ......................................................... 15-173
Table 15.7.5-9 Design Conditions of Guadalupe Bridge ............................................. 15-174
Table 15.7.5-10 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Guadalupe Bridge ........................ 15-175
Table 15.7.5-11 Issue of Cross-Section and Measure Policy ....................................... 15-176
Table 15.7.5-12 Current Road Conditions of Palanit Bridge ....................................... 15-177
Table 15.7.5-13 Restriction of Palanit Bridge ............................................................. 15-178
Table 15.7.5-14 Design Conditions of Palanit Bridge ................................................. 15-179
Table 15.7.5-15 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Palanit Bridge .............................. 15-180
Table 15.7.5-17 Current Road Conditions of Mawo Bridge ........................................ 15-182
Table 15.7.5-18 Restriction of Mawo Bridge .............................................................. 15-183
Table 15.7.5-19 Design Conditions of Mawo Bridge .................................................. 15-184
Table 15.7.5-20 Issue of Current Road and Measure Policy ........................................ 15-185
Table 15.7.5-21 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Mawo Bridge ............................... 15-186
li
Table 15.7.5-23 Current Road Conditions of Wawa Bridge ......................................... 15-188
Table 15.7.5-24 Restriction of Wawa Bridge .............................................................. 15-189
Table 15.7.5-25 Design Conditions of Wawa Bridge ................................................... 15-190
Table 15.7.5-26 Comparison Study of Horizontal Alignment ...................................... 15-192
Table 15.7.5-27 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Wawa Bridge ............................... 15-193
Table 15.7.5-29 Designed Values for Widening on Open Highway Curve ................... 15-194
Table 15.7.6-1 Current Condition of Pavement ........................................................... 15-196
Table 15.7.6-2 Accumulated Large Vehicle Volume Calculation Formula ................... 15-197
Table 15.7.6-3 Accumulation of Traffic Volume of Large Vehicle ............................... 15-197
Table 15.7.6-4 Thickness of Reinforced Concrete ....................................................... 15-197
Table 15.7.6-5 Layer Structures of Pavement.............................................................. 15-198
Table 15.7.6-6 Pavement of Service Road .................................................................. 15-198
Table 15.7.6-7 Pavement of Sidewalk ......................................................................... 15-198
Table 15.7.7-1 Current Drainage Facility Condition of Package B .............................. 15-199
Table 15.7.7-2 Current Drainage Facility Condition of Package C .............................. 15-200
Table 15.7.8-1 Revetment Works ................................................................................ 15-201
Table 15.7.8-2 Current Revetment Condition of Package C ........................................ 15-203
Table 15.7.8-3 List of Basic BM for Topography ........................................................ 15-204
Table 15.7.8-4 BM list of River Improvement ............................................................ 15-204
Table 15.7.8-5 Difference of BM Elevation between River Improvement and Topography
........................................................................................................................... 15-205
Table 15.7.8-6 Difference of MSL Elevation between River Improvement and Topography
........................................................................................................................... 15-205
Table 15.7.9-1 Issue of Current Traffic ....................................................................... 15-206
Table 15.7.9-2 Proposal of the Improvement .............................................................. 15-213
Table 16.1.1-1 Design Standards Utilized for Outline Design of New Bridges ................ 16-1
Table 16.1.1-2 Permanent and Transient Loads ............................................................... 16-2
Table 16.1.1-3 Load Combinations and Factors .............................................................. 16-2
Table 16.1.1-4 Load Factors for Permanent Loads, γp .................................................... 16-3
Table 16.1.1-5 Concrete Strength by Structural Member ................................................. 16-5
Table 16.1.1-6 Properties and Stress Limit of Reinforcing Bars ...................................... 16-5
Table 16.1.1-7 Properties and Stress Limit of PC Cable for T girder bridge .................... 16-5
Table 16.1.1-8 Properties and Stress Limit of PC Cable for PC Box Girder bridge ......... 16-5
Table 16.1.1-9 Properties and Stress Limit of Steel Pipe ................................................. 16-6
Table 16.1.1-10 Properties and Stress Limit of Steel Pipe for Steel Pipe Sheet Pile ........ 16-6
Table 16.1.1-11 Properties and Stress Limit of Steel Members ....................................... 16-6
Table 16.1.2-1 Extraction of Applicable Basic Types based on Actual Results .............. 16-12
lii
Table 16.1.2-2 Candidates of comparison study ............................................................ 16-13
Table 16.1.2-3 Site Condition for Study of Type-1 ........................................................ 16-14
Table 16.1.2-5 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
liii
(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
liv
Table 16.3.2-1 Load Combinations and Factors at Strength I in AASHTO 2012 ........... 16-99
Table 16.3.2-2 Distribution of Sectional Forces under Combination of Strength I ...... 16-100
Table 16.3.2-3 Stress Check of Steel Deck for Bending Moment ................................ 16-101
Table 16.3.2-4 Summary of Calculated Results .......................................................... 16-103
Table 16.3.3-1 Support Condition ............................................................................... 16-103
Table 16.3.3-2 Springs of Foundations ....................................................................... 16-104
Table 16.3.3-3 Damping Coefficient ........................................................................... 16-104
Table 16.3.3-4 Comparison Study of Bearing in Guadalupe Bridge ............................ 16-106
Table 16.3.3-5 Results of Eigenvalue Analysis ........................................................... 16-107
Table 16.3.3-6 Relative Displacement between Substructure and Superstructure ........ 16-107
Table 16.3.3-7 Assessment of Soil Liquefaction ......................................................... 16-108
Table 16.3.3-8 Assessment of Soil Liquefaction Parameters ....................................... 16-109
........................................................................................................................... 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
Table 16.5.1-2 Summary for Soil Parameters (2) ........................................................ 16-147
Table 16.5.2-1 Reaction Forces of Superstructure ....................................................... 16-150
lv
Table 16.5.3-5 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
Table 17.1.2-1 Material Properties ................................................................................. 17-1
Table 17.2.2-1 Load Distribution under EQ and Application Point of Seismic Inertial
lvi
Forces ............................................................................................................. 17-11
Table 17.2.4-1 Comparison of Seismic Devices ........................................................... 17-21
Table 17.2.4-2 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Pier Columns ...................... 17-23
Table 17.2.4-3 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Pier Copings ....................... 17-24
Table 17.2.4-4 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Foundations ........................ 17-26
Table 17.2.4-5 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Abutments .......................... 17-28
Table 17.3.2-1 Load Distribution under EQ and Application Point of Seismic Inertial
Forces ............................................................................................................. 17-50
Table 17.3.2-2 Result of Liquefaction Potential Assessment (MAN-E1 side) ............... 17-52
Table 17.3.2-3 Result of Liquefaction Potential Assessment (MAN-W1 side) .............. 17-53
Table 17.3.4-1 Comparison of Seismic Devices ........................................................... 17-62
Table 17.3.4-2 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Pier Columns ...................... 17-64
Table 17.3.4-3 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Pier Copings ....................... 17-65
Table 17.3.4-4 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Foundations (1) .................. 17-67
Table 17.3.4-5 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Foundations (2) .................. 17-69
Table 17.3.4-6 Comparison of Improvement Schemes for Abutments .......................... 17-72
Table 18.1.1-1 The Recommended Structure Type of Selected Bridges .......................... 18-1
Table 18.2.1-1 The Width of Right of Way ..................................................................... 18-2
Table 18.2.1-2 List of Imported Items ............................................................................ 18-2
Table 18.2.2-1 Result of Traffic Analysis ....................................................................... 18-4
Table 18.2.2-2 Construction Schedule of Lambingan Bridge ........................................ 18-10
Table 18.2.3-1 Navigation Width of Existing Bridges at the Pasig River ...................... 18-15
Table 18.2.3-2 Construction Schedule of Guadalupe Bridge ........................................ 18-20
Table 18.2.4-1 Construction Schedule of 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge ......................... 18-25
Table 18.2.5-1 Comparison Study of Detour Plan of Palanit Bridge ............................. 18-27
Table 18.2.5-2 Construction Schedule of Palanit Bridges ........................................... 18-27
Table 18.2.6-1 Comparison Study of Detour Plan of Mawo Bridge ............................... 18-29
Table 18.2.6-2 Construction Schedule of Mawo Bridge ............................................... 18-30
Table 18.2.7-1 Construction Schedule of Lilo-an Bridge .............................................. 18-32
Table 18.2.8-1 Construction Schedule of Wawa Bridge ................................................ 18-34
Table 18.2.9-1 Construction Schedule of the Project .................................................... 18-35
Table 18.3.1-1 General Work Ratio of the Past Project................................................. 18-37
Table 18.3.1-2 Overhead Ratio .................................................................................... 18-38
Table 19.2.1-1 Comparison of Observed (Survey data) and Assigned Traffic Volume .... 19-4
Table 19.2.1-2 Future Traffic Volume Crossing Pasig River / Marikina River ................ 19-5
Table 19.2.2-1 Hourly Volume vs. Capacity in Guadalupe Bridge (1/3) (Case-0, No traffic
restriction 5-lane) ................................................................................................... 19-7
Table 19.2.2-2 Hourly Volume vs. Capacity in Guadalupe Bridge (2/3) (Case-1, 4-lane) 19-7
lvii
Table 19.2.2-3 Hourly Volume vs. Capacity in Guadalupe Bridge (3/3) (Case-2, 3-lane) 19-8
Table 19.2.2-4 Hourly Volume vs. Capacity in Lambingan Bridge (1/3) (Case-0, No traffic
restriction 3-lane) ................................................................................................. 19-10
Table 19.2.2-5 Hourly Volume vs. Capacity in Lambingan Bridge (2/3) (Case-1, 2-lane)19-10
Table 19.2.2-6 Hourly Volume vs. Capacity in Lambingan Bridge (3/3) (Case-2, 1-lane)19-11
Table 19.3.3-1 Traffic Volume (Bound to Guadalupe Bridge)....................................... 19-13
Table 19.3.3-2 Traffic Volume (Guadalupe Bridge) ...................................................... 19-13
Table 19.3.3-3 Traffic Volume (On Ramp) ................................................................... 19-14
Table 19.3.3-4 Traffic Volume (Bound to Guadalupe Bridge)....................................... 19-14
Table 19.4.1-1 2011 DPWH Traffic Growth Rate ......................................................... 19-48
Table 19.4.1-2 Assumed Traffic Restriction during Construction ................................. 19-48
Table 19.5.2-1 Basic Concepts of Cost and Benefit ...................................................... 19-52
Table 19.5.4-1 Estimation of Travel Time and Length for Regular Route and Detour Route
............................................................................................................................. 19-57
Table 19.5.4-2 Probability Density of Bridges .............................................................. 19-59
Table 19.5.4-3 Assumed Un-service Duration of Bridges .............................................. 19-60
Table 19.5.4-4 Unit VOC by Vehicle Type in September 2008 ............................... 19-61
Table 19.5.4-5 Unit VOC by Vehicle Type in 2013 ................................................. 19-61
Table 19.5.4-6 Unit Travel Time Cost in 2008 ........................................................ 19-62
Table 19.5.4-7 Unit Travel Time Cost in 2013 ........................................................ 19-62
Table 19.5.4-8 PHILVOLCS Earthquake Intensity Scale .............................................. 19-62
Table 19.5.4-9 Return Period of PGA Value .................................................................. 19-64
Table 19.5.5-1 Results of Economic Evaluation by Bridges .......................................... 19-64
Table 19.5.6-1 Project Sensitivity ................................................................................. 19-73
Table 20.1.1-1 National and Local Environmental Assessment Laws, Regulations and
Standards ................................................................................................................ 20-1
Table 20.1.1-2 Other National and Local Environmental Laws, Regulations and Standards
............................................................................................................................... 20-2
Table 20.1.1-3 Summary Table of Project Groups, EIA Report Types, Decision Documents,
Processing/Deciding Authorities and Processing Duration ...................................... 20-6
Table 20.1.1-4 National Ambient Air Quality Guideline Values ...................................... 20-7
Table 20.1.1-5 Effluent Standard: Conventional and Other Pollutants in Land Waters Class
C and Coastal Waters Class ..................................................................................... 20-7
Table 20.1.1-6 Ambient Noise Level (unit:db(A)) ........................................................... 20-8
Table 20.1.1-7 Noise standards for construction activities .............................................. 20-8
Table 20.1.3-1 Matrix of Proposed Project’s Environmental Impacts .............................. 20-9
lviii
Table 20.1.4-1 Matrix of the Proposed Project’s Environmental Mitigation and
Enhancement Measures ......................................................................................... 20-10
Table 20.1.5-1 Matrix of the Proposed Project’s Environmental Monitoring Plan ......... 20-14
Table 20.1.6-1 First time courtesy Meeting ................................................................... 20-16
Table 20.1.6-2 Second time Stakeholder Meeting ......................................................... 20-16
Table 20.2.1-1 Possible Implementation Options for the Project ................................... 20-17
Table 20.2.2-1 National and Local Laws, Regulations and Standards for Involuntary
Resettlement ......................................................................................................... 20-17
Table 20.2.2-2 Gaps in JICA and Philippine Involuntary Resettlement Frameworks ..... 20-19
Table 20.2.3-1 Status of settlers around candidate Bridges (Package-B) ....................... 20-23
Table 20.2.3-2 Status of settlers around candidate Bridges (Package-C) ....................... 20-23
Table 20.2.3-3 Estimated Number of Household members to be resettle ....................... 20-24
Table 20.2.3-4 Number of Households/Structures within the DIA ................................ 20-24
Table 20.2.4-1 Sample Restoration and Possible Solutions ........................................... 20-27
Table 20.2.4-2 Sample Entitlements Matrix .................................................................. 20-27
Table 20.2.6-1 Implementation Framework .................................................................. 20-30
Table 20.2.7-1 Schedule of IEE & LARAP ................................................................... 20-31
Table 20.2.9-1 Sample of Monitoring/Evaluation Indicators ......................................... 20-34
Table 21.1-1 Project Outline .......................................................................................... 21-1
Table 21.2-1 Estimated Project Cost .............................................................................. 21-3
Table 21.3-1 Proposed Implementation Schedule ........................................................... 21-4
Table 21.5-1 Results of Economic Evaluation by Bridges .............................................. 21-6
Table 21.5-2 Project Sensitivity ..................................................................................... 21-6
Table 22.3.2-1 Features of Improvement Levels ............................................................. 21-9
Table 22.3.2-2 Proposal for the Improvement of Traffic Situations around MRT Guadalupe
Station .................................................................................................................. 21-10
lix
ABBREVIATIONS
AADT : Annual Average Daily Traffic

AASHTO : American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ABC : Approved Budget for the Contract
AH : Asian Highway
AHTN : Asean Harmonized Tariff Nomenclature
ASD : Allowable Stress Design
ASEP : Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines
B/C : Benefit Cost
BCGS Bureau of Coast and Geodetic Survey
BCR : Benefit Cost Ratio
BIR : Bureau of Internal Revenue
BOC : Bureau of Construction
BOD : Bureau of Design
BOM : Bureau of Maintenance
BRS : Bureau of Research and Standards
BSDS : Bridge Seismic Design Specification
CBD : Central Business District
CCA : Climate Change Adaptation
CCP : Cast-in-place concrete pile
CDA : Cooperative Development Authority
CLOA : Certificates of Land Ownership Award
CP : Counter Part
CPI : Consumer Price Index
DAO : Department Administrative Order
DEO : District Engineering Office
DIA : direct impact area
DL : Dead Load
DOF : Degree of Freedom
DPWH : Department of Public Works and Highways
DRR : Disaster Risk Reduction
DSWD : Department of Social Welfare and Development
ECA : Environmentally Critical Area
lx
ECC : Environmental Compliance Commitment
EDC : Estimated Direct Cost
EDSA : Epifanio de los Santos Avenue
EGM : Earthquake Ground Motion
EIA : Environmental Impact Assessment
EIRR : Economic Internal Rate of Return
EIS : Environmental Impact Statement
EMB : Environmental Mnagement Bureau
EMoP : Environmental Monitoring Plan
EQ : Earthquake Load
ESCAP : Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
ESSO : Environmental and Social Services Office
GRS : Grievance Redress System
ICC : Investment Coordinating Committee
IEE : Initial Environmental Examination
IMF : International Monetary Fund
IR : Involuntary Resettlement
IRR : Internal Rate of Return
ITC : Intersection Traffic Count
JBA : Japan Bridge Association
JCC : Joint Coordinating Committee
JICA : Japan International Cooperation Agency
JPCCA : Japan Prestressed Concrete Contractors Association
JRA : Japan Road Association
LAP : Land Acquisition Plan
LARRIPP : Land Acquisition, Resettlement, Rehabilitation and Indigenous Peoples’
LD : Longitudinal Direction
LFD : Load Factors Design
LGUs : Local Government Units
LL : Live Load
LOS : Level-of-Service
LPG : Liquefied Petroleum Gas
LRB : Laminated Rubber Bearing
LRFD : Load and Resistance Factor Design
MAD : Mean Absolute Difference
lxi
MC : Memorandum Circular
MGB : Mines and Geosciences Bureau
MHWL : Mean High Water Level
MRT : Mass Rapid Transit
MSL : Mean Sea Level
NAMRIA : National Mapping and Resource Information Authority
NCR : National Capital Region
NGO : Non-Governmental Organization
NIED : National Research Institute for Earth Science and Disaster Prevention
NLEX : North Luzon Expressway
NPV : Net Present Value
NSCP : National Structural Code of the Philippines
OC : Operational Classification
OD : Origin and Destination
OJT : On-the-Job Training
PAF : Project Affected Family
PAP : Project Affected Person
PC : Prestressed Concrete
PCG : Philippine Coast Guard
PD : Presidential Decree
PEIS : Philippine Earthquake Intensity Scale
PFI : Private Finance Initiative
PGA : Peak Ground Acceleration
PHIVOLCS : Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
PICE : Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers
PMO : Project Management Office
PPP : Public Private Partnership
R/D : Record and Discussion
RA : Republic Act
RAP : Resettlement Action Plan
RC : Reinforced Concrete
RIC : Resettlement Implementation Committee
RO : Regional Office
ROW : Right of Way
RTC : Roadside Traffic Count
lxii
SER : Shadow Exchange Rate
SLEX : South Luzon Expressway
SMR : Self-Monitoring Report
SPL : Seismic Performance Level
SPP : Steel Pipe Pile
SPSP : Steel Pipe Sheet Pile
SPT Standard Penentration Test
SPZ : Seismic Performance Zone
SR : Superstructure Replacement
SWMP : Solid Waste Management Plan
SWR : Shadow Wage Rate
TCT : Transfer Certificate of Title
TD : Transversal Direction
TESDA : Technical Education and Skills Development Authority
TTC : Travel Time Cost
VAT : Value Added Tax
VOC : Vehicle Operating Cost
WB : World Bank
lxiii
PART 4
OUTLINE DESIGN OF SELECTED

BRIDGES FOR SEISMIC CAPACITY
IMPROVEMENT
(PACKAGE B AND C)
CHAPTER 15 DESIGN CONDITIONS FOR SELECTED
BRIDGES
15.1 Introduction
Part 4 will describe the outline design of prioritized bridges, which have been identified through the
first and second screening in the previous chapters, based on the Draft Bridge Seismic Design
Specifications prepared under Package A. In the outline design, design conditions shall be clear and
consideration shall be given to the overall economic efficiency, seismic resistance, environment, and
so on.
This chapter will show design conditions based on the result of existing condition survey conducted in
the first and the second screening for outline design of package B and C.
15.2 Topographic Features and Design Conditions
15.2.1 Methodology and Results
(1) Methodology
1) Review of the Data
National control points and benchmarks around each bridge were collected to determine the
coordinates and elevation.
2) GPS Survey
Standard static GPS survey method has been adopted and simultaneous measurements of 2
receivers for duration of 2- 3 hours giving 2 correlated vectors.
3) Traverse Control Points
The traverse control points were meant for horizontal control of the survey works. The traverse
control points are marked by concrete putty of size 25cm x 25cm.
4) Establishment of Temporary Bench Marks
Level survey was started from and closed to the National Bench Mark (NBM). Semi-permanent
Temporary Bench Marks (TBM) were established at each bridge site. The TBM was made of
25cm x 25cm concrete putty and possessed easting and northing coordinates and altitude. The
details of the established TBM including its photos are shown in the APPENDIX.
15-1
5) Center Line Profile Survey of Target Bridges and Their Approach Roads
Profile survey was carried out along centerlines of the target bridges and their approach roads by
a double run observation method. The scale of drawing is V=1:100 and H=1:1,000.
6) Cross Section Survey of Target Bridges and Their Approach Roads
Cross section survey of the target bridges and their approach roads was carried out at 50m
intervals for each area. Level survey was carried out by differential leveling double run. The
scale of drawing is S=1:100.
7) Topographic (Plan) Survey
Topographic survey was conducted for the target bridges and their approach roads. The details of
the survey are as follows.
 Scale of drawing: S=1:1,000
 Contours at 1m interval
 Location of structures such as houses, buildings, walls, fence, traffic signs, established
TBM and etc.
8) Cross Section Survey of the Rivers
Cross section survey of the rivers which the target bridges cross was carried out as follows.
 By using echo sounder and total stations set-up on the nearby ground established control
points
 At the bridge centerline
 At 200m and 100m downstream and upstream away respectively from the bridge
centerline (In case of the Palanit Bridge and the Wawa Bridge, 300m downstream and
300m upstream away respectively)
 At 15m downstream and 15m upstream away respectively from the edges of bridge cross
section
 Scale of drawing: S=1:100
9) Centerline Profile Survey of the Rivers
Centerline profile survey of the rivers which the target bridges cross was carried out along
appropriate centerlines of the rivers by using echo sounder and total stations set-up on the nearby
ground established control points.
15-2
10) Shape and Dimension Measurement of Target Bridges
Shape and dimension measurement of the target bridges was conducted for the as-built and
structural data of the bridges. The details are as follows.
 By using established horizontal and vertical controls to be used as basis for determining
position and evaluation of as-built and structure data
 Measure structural members of the each bridge superstructures at four typical cross-
sections
In addition, concrete girder displacement of the Lambingan Bridge was measured along with the
bottom of girder bridge to make clear the deflection using Topcon Image Scanner.
(2) Survey Results
Topographic survey results were used for outline design, hydrological survey and social environment
survey.
15-3
15.2.2 Topographic Feature and Design Condition
(1) Package B (Delpan, Nagtahan, Lambingan, Guadalupe and Marikina Bridge)
Figure 15.2.2-1 shows the locations of the target bridges in Metro Manila. The Marikina Valley Fault
System which is the closest active fault to Manila and represents the most likely near-field source of
large damaging earthquakes. The West Marikina Valley Fault is running along the Marikina River.
The Delpan Bridge is located at 11.1 km northwest of the fault, the Nagtahan Bridge is 7.5 km
northwest, the Lambingan Bridge is 5.3 km northwest, the Guadalupe Bridge is 2.4 km west and the
Marikina Bridge is 1.0 km east.
West Marikina
Valley Fault
Marikina
Nagtahan
Deplan
Lambingan
Guadalupe
Active fault solid - trace certain
Heavy dashed line - trace approximate
Light dashed line – approximate offshore projection
Lineament assumed by topographic map
Source: Added Topographic Map by NAMRIA

Figure 15.2.2-1 Topographic Features for the Target Bridges in Metro Manila
(Non-Scale)
15-4
(2) Package C
1) Buntun Bridge
The Buntun Bridge is located at floodplain area of the Cagayan River as shown in Figure
15.2.2-2 and 15.9 km southwest of the Taboan River Fault.
Buntun Bridge

Figure 15.2.2-2 Topographic Features for Buntun Bridge (Non-Scale)
15-5
2) Mandaue-Mactan Bridge
The Mandaue - Mactan Bridge connects Cebu Island and Mactan Island as shown in Figure
15.2.2-3 and 15.8 km southwest of the Cebu Lineament.
Mandaue-Mactan Bridge

Figure 15.2.2-3 Topographic Features for Mandaue-Mactan Bridge (Non-Scale)
15-6
3) Palanit Bridge and Mawo Bridge
The Mawo Bridge is over the Mauo River and also the Palanit Bridge is over the Palanit River.
The Northern Samar Lineament is running around this area as shown in Figure 15.2.2-4 (The
Mawo Bridge is located at 1.4 km southwest of the Northern Samar Lineament and the Palanit is
7.6 km southwest). Several lineaments assumed by topographic map are recognized and the
bridges are located over the lineaments.
Mawo Bridge
Palanit Bridge
Northern Samar Lineament

Active fault solid - trace certain (Route is approximate.)

Figure 15.2.2-4 Topographic Features for Palanit Bridge and Mawo Bridge (Non-Scale)
15-7
4) Biliran Bridge
The Biliran Bridge connects Leyte Island and Poro Island as shown in Figure 15.2.2-5. The
bridge is located at 4.3 km northwest of an identified trace of the Central Leyte Fault.
Biliran Bridge
Central Leyte Fault

(Route is approximate.)

Figure 15.2.2-5 Topographic Features for Biliran Bridge (Non-Scale)
15-8
5) Liloan Bridge
The Liloan Bridge connects Panaon Island and Leyte Island as shown in Figure 15.2.2-6. The
bridge is located at 2.5 km southwest of an identified trace of the Central Leyte Fault.
Central Leyte Fault

Liloan Bridge
Terrace

Figure 15.2.2-6 Topographic Features for Liloan Bridge (Non-Scale)
15-9
6) Wawa Bridge
The Wawa Bridge is over the Wawa River as shown in Figure 15.2.2-7. The bridge is located at
1.4 km west of an identified trace of the Eastern Mindanao Fault.
Wawa Bridge
Eastern Mindanao Fault


Figure 15.2.2-7 Topographic Features for Wawa Bridge (Non-Scale)
Figure 15.2.2-8 shows discrimination of landforms with aerial photographs for Wawa Bridge.
Several lineaments which are attributable to the Eastern Mindanao Fault are recognized and
running through the slope behind the Wawa Bridge. Also the area of deformed slope is
recognized in lineament area. General two levels of river terrace are recognized at the side of
current river course of the Wawa River.
Figure 15.2.2-9 shows site investigation plan of the Wawa Bridge. It seems that the cut slope of
east side of the bridge is currently stable although weathering developed at slope surface (Photo
15.2.2-1(a)). There is sediment deposit (mainly sand) upper the irrigation system (Photo
15.2.2-1(b)).
15-10
Tr
(lower)
Wawa Bridge
Tr
(upper)
Terrace (Tr)
Area of deformed slope
Lineament
Source: Added Aerial Photograph(S=1:25,000) by NAMRIA

Figure 15.2.2-8 Discrimination of Landforms with Aerial Photographs for Wawa Bridge
Source: JICA study team

Figure 15.2.2-9 Site investigation plan of Wawa Bridge (Non-scale)
15-11
(a) Slope Condition of East Side of the Bridge (b) Sediment Deposit due to Irrigation System
Source: JICA study team
Photo 15.2.2-1 Site Condition of Wawa Bridge
(3) Position and Distance between Target Bridge and Active Fault
Table 15.2.2-1 shows position and distance between above the target bridges and active fault. This
information is duly from PHIVOLCS.
Table 15.2.2-1 Position and Distance between the Target Bridge and Active Fault
Location Nearest Active Fault
Delpan 11.1 km northwest of the West Marikina Valley Fault

Nagtahan 7.5 km northwest of the West Marikina Valley Fault
Package B Lambingan 5.3 km northwest of the West Marikina Valley Fault
Guadalupe 2.4 km west of the West Marikina Valley Fault
Marikina 1.0 km east of the West Marikina Valley Fault
Buntun 15.9 km southwest of the Taboan River Fault
Mandaue-Mactan 15.8 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
Package C
Liloan 2.5 km southwest of an identified trace of PFZ Central Leyte Fault
Biliran 4.3 km northwest of an identified trace of PFZ Central Leyte Fault
1.4 km west of an identified trace of PFZ Eastern Mindanao Fault
Wawa
5.5 km east of another identified trace of PFZ Eastern Mindanao Fault
Source: PHIVOLCS
15-12
15.3 Geotechnical and Soil Profile Conditions
15.3.1 Purpose of Geological Investigation, Outlines and Work Methodology
(1) Purpose of Geological Investigation
Geological investigation was implemented to confirm geology, geotechnical and soil properties, and
design condition of the selected bridge sites for the 2nd Screening of the bridges inside and outside of
Metro Manila. There were five (5) bridge sites inside Metro Manila and were Seven (7) bridge sites
outside of Metro Manila. The geological investigation was undertaken by a local consultant
(EASCON Mla. Const. Con., Inc.). The JICA Study Team supervised the local consultant’s work.
(2) Outlines and Contents of Geological Investigation
The geological investigation for each bridge site is basically comprised of boring with standard
penetration test, laboratory tests to know soil mechanical properties, and downhole shear wave test.
The geological investigation was carried out between August and October in 2012.
(3) Methodologies of Work
1) Boring
Non-core drilling work was executed at the locations specified by the JICA Study Team. The
depth of the drilling at each borehole was planned and terminated by the JICA Study Team. Soil
samples obtained by Standard Penetration Test (SPT) were reserved using sealed plastic bags.
The soil samples were observed by the geologist of the JICA Study Team and used for
laboratory soil tests.
2) Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed for every one (1) meter basically. Ground water
levels at each borehole were measured every morning.
3) Laboratory Test
All the laboratory tests shall be executed in accordance with AASHTO, ASTM basically. The
laboratory tests for boring cores or samples contain the test items shown in Table 15.3.1-1 below.
Table 15.3.1-1 Laboratory Tests and Methodology

Tests / Item Methodology
1 Soil classification AASHTO/ASTM
2 Specific gravity AASHTO T-85
3 Natural moisture content AASHTO T-265
4 Atterberg limits AASHTO T-89&90
5 Grain size analysis AASHTO T-88
6 Unconfined compression test of soils / rock test AASTHO T-24
15-13
4) Downhole Shear Wave Test (DSWT)
The downhole shear wave test (DSWT) shall confirm to ASTM 7400. The test requires drilling
of a single borehole. This borehole was taken from one of the geotechnical boreholes at each site
basically. The geotechnical boreholes were reamed to a larger diameter to accommodate PVC or
GI pipes and the ground tubes. The boreholes were then thoroughly cleaned with its cuttings
prior to the installation of the PVC pipe and grouting. The formulated ground mixture shall
approximate the density of the surrounding in-situ material after consolidation. A minimum of
two week waiting time was followed to fully cured the grout prior to actual testing.
During testing, seismic energy was generated on the ground surface using a shear beam firmly
fixed at a short distance from the top of the borehole. The travel times of the first-arrival seismic
waves (S waves) were measured at regular intervals using a single, clamped triaxial geophone
that is gradually moved down the borehole. The S-wave arrival times for each receiver location
are combined to produce travel-time versus depth curves for the completed borehole. These are
then used to produce total velocity profiles from which interval velocities and the various elastic
moduli can be calculated (in conjunction with density data from geophysical logging of the
borehole).
5) Quantity of Geotechnical Investigation
The following tables (Table 15.3.1-2 and Table 15.3.1-3) show the quantity of the geological
investigation in this study (as of October 29, 2012).
Table 15.3.1-2 Quantities of Geotechnical Investigation (Inside Metro Manila)

Bridge Item Unit Quantity
Plan Actual
Delpan Boring m 60 38
SPT nos. 60 38
Laboratory Test nos. 60 37
DSWT m 60 38
Nagtahan Boring m 40 30
SPT nos. 40 30
DSWT m 40 30
Lambingan Boring m 50 30
SPT nos. 50 30
DSWT m 50 30
Guadalupe Boring m 50 46
SPT nos. 50 42
DSWT m 50 46
Marikina Boring m 30 30
SPT nos. 30 30
DSWT m 30 30
15-14
Table 15.3.1-3 Quantities of Geotechnical Investigation (Outside Metro Manila)
Bridge Item Unit Quantity
Plan Actual
Buntun Boring m 60 60
SPT nos. 60 60
1st Mandaue Boring m 80 111
Mactan SPT nos. 80 111
Laboratory Test nos. 80 Not completed
DSWT m 40 81
Palanit Boring m 80 60
SPT nos. 80 48
DSWT m 40 30
Mawo Boring m 100 74
SPT nos. 100 74
DSWT m 50 44
Biliran Boring m 60 60
SPT nos. 60 60
Liloan Boring m 80 30
SPT nos. 80 30
DSWT m 40 30
Wawa Boring m 120 60
SPT nos. 120 60
Laboratory Test nos. 120 Not completed
DSWT m 60 Not completed
(4) Locations of Boreholes
1) Metro Manila
Five bridge sites were investigated inside of Metro Manila. Locations of boreholes made inside
of Metro Manila are shown below (Figure 15.3.1-1 to Figure 15.3.1-5).
15-15
a) Delpan Bridge
Delpan B-1
100 m
Figure 15.3.1-1 Location map of borehole (Delpan B-1)
b) Nagtahan Bridge
Nagtahan B-1
100 m
Figure 15.3.1-2 Location Map of Borehole (Nagtahan B-1)
15-16
c) Lambingan Bridge
Lambingan B-1
100 m
Figure 15.3.1-3 Location Map of Borehole (Lambingan B-1)
d) Guadalupe Bridge
Guadalupe B-1
100 m
Figure 15.3.1-4 Location Map of Borehole (Guadalupe B-1)
15-17
e) Marikina Bridge
Marikina B-1
100 m
Figure 15.3.1-5 Location Map of Borehole (Marikina B-1)
2) Outside of Metro Manila
Seven (7) bridge sites were investigated outside of Metro Manila. Locations of boreholes made
inside of Metro Manila are shown below (Figure 15.3.1-6 to Figure 15.3.1-12).
a) Buntun Bridge
BTL-1 N
BTL-2
2000 m
Source: NAMRIA Topographic Map 1:50,000: Tuguegarao
Figure 15.3.1-6 Location Map of Boreholes (Buntun Bridge)
15-18
b) Palanit Bridge
PAL-L1
PAL-R1
Figure 15.3.1-7 Location Map of Boreholes (Palanit Bridge)
c) Mawo Bridge
MAW-L2
MAW-L1
100 m
Figure 15.3.1-8 Location Map of Boreholes (Mawo Bridge)
15-19
d) 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge
MAN-E1
MAN-W1
100 m
Figure 15.3.1-9 Location Map of Borehole s (1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge)
e) Biliran Bridge
BIL-N1
BIL-S1
100 m
Figure 15.3.1-10 Location Map of Boreholes (Biliran Bridge)
15-20
f) Liloan Bridge
LIL-N1
LIL-S1
1000 m
Source: NAMRIA Topographic Map 1:50,000: San Francisco
Figure 15.3.1-11 Location Map of Boreholes (Liloan Bridge)
g) Wawa Bridge
WAW-R1 WAW-L1
100 m
Figure 15.3.1-12 Location Map of Boreholes (Wawa Bridge)
15-21
15.3.2 Results of Geotechnical Investigation inside of Metro Manila
Geological investigation inside Metro Manila was conducted at the five (5) sites that are Delpan
Bridge, Nagtahan Bridge, Lambingan Bridge, Guadalupe Bridge, and Marikina Bridge.
(1) Boring and Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
1) Delpan Bridge
a) Boring Result
The boring was carried out at the left bank of the Passig River. A soil profile of the borehole
B-1 is shown in Table 15.3.2-1.
Table 15.3.2-1 Boring Result (Deplpan B-1)

Depth(m) Thickness (m) N value Soil Characters
0–8 8 11 – 7 Mainly fine sand
sometime including broken shell fragments
relatively low water content
blackish-gray colored
8 – 15 7 4 – 10 Sandy silt
relatively high water content
relatively soft
15 – 17 2 7 (- 50) Sandy silt
including broken shell fragments
gray / dark-gray colored
17 – 21 4 5–8 Silt
with clay and fine sand
mostly dark-gray/blackish-gray colored
21 – 33 12 9 – 13 Clayey silt
with fine sand
mostly dark-gray/blackish-gray colored
interbedded with white colored volcanic ash about -30.5 m
33 – 38 5 50 < Very fine sand
silty
yellowish-gray colored
Groundwater was observed around -3.00 m in the borehole.
b) Engineering Soil Layers
Based on the boring logs of B-1, the following soil layers can be identified (Table 15.3.2-2).
15-22
Table 15.3.2-2 Engineering Soil Layers (Deplpan B-1)
S Thickness N-value Relative Soil Type
oil Layer (m) Density/Stiffness
As 15 4 – 11 Loose Fine sand, and sandy silt
Ac 6 5–8 Firm Silt, and sandy silt
Dc 12 9 – 13 Stiff Clayey silt
Ds 5 50< Very dense Very fine sand
A geological profile for Delpan Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.2-1.
Left bank of the Passig River Right bank
Delpan B-1 BR-1
25 m
250 m
As: Alluvial sand, Ac: alluvial cohesive soil, Ds: diluvial sand, Dc: diluvial cohesive soil
Figure 15.3.2-1 Geological Profile for Delpan Bridge
(I) As: Alluvial Sand

The layer is distributed from the ground surface to a depth of 8 m. Therefore the layer has a
thickness of eight (8) meter and mainly composed of loose fine sand.
(II) Ac: Alluvial Cohesive Soil

Cohesive soils between -8 m and -21 is classified as an alluvial cohesive (silty/clayey) soil
layer and named Ac in this report. The Ac layer has a thickness of 13 m and is composed of
soft to firm silty/clayey soils.
15-23
(III) Dc: Diluvial Cohesive Soil
Cohesive soils between -17 m and -33 m is classified into a diluvial cohesive (silty/clayey)
soil layer. The Dc layer has a thickness of 16m and is composed of firm to stiff cohesive
soils.
(IV) Ds: Diluvial Sand

Sandy soil between -33 m and -38 m is categorized as a diluvial sand layer. The layer has a
thickness of 5 m at least and considered to be a bearing layer.
2) Nagtahan Bridge
a) Boring Result
The boring was performed on the left bank of the Passig River. A soil profile of the borehole
is summarized in Table 15.3.2-3.
Table 15.3.2-3 Boring Result (Nagtahan B-1)

Depth (m) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters
0–2 2 6 – 18 Gravel and sand
including clay
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
15 – 17 2 13 – 17 Gravel/sand with gravel
moderate to low water content
17 – 23 6 14 – 27 Mainly fine sand
with medium sand
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
15-24
Table 15.3.2-4 Engineering Soil Layers (Nagtahan B-1)

Soil Thickness N-value Relative Soil Type
Layer (m) Density/Stiffness
Bs 2 6 – 18 Loose – medium dense Gravel, and sand
As 10 4 – 14 Loose – medium dense Fine – medium sand
Ag 5 13 – 17 Medium dense Gravel, silty sand, and sand with gravel
Ds 6 14 – 27 Medium dense Fine sand
GF 7 50< Rock Guadalupe Formation: welded tuff
A geological profile for Nagtahan Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.2-2.
BPRL-17 Nagtahan B-1
25 m
250 m
BF: fill soil, As: alluvial sand, Ac: alluvial cohesive soil, Ag: alluvial gravel, Dc: diluvial cohesive soil, Ds: diluvial sand,
GF: Guadalupe Formation (basically pyroclastic rocks)
Figure 15.3.2-2 Geological Profile for Nagtahan Bridge
15-25
(I) Bs: Backfill Soil
The layer is distributed from the ground surface up to a depth of 2 m and mainly composed
of gravel and sand layers. This layer has a thickness of 2 m.
(II) As: Alluvial Sand

Sandy soil between -2 m and -12 m is categorized as an alluvial sandy soil layer. The layer
has a thickness of 10 m at least and considered to be a bearing layer.
(III) Ag: Alluvial Gravelly Soil

Gravel, silty sand, and sand with gravel between -12 m and -17 m are categorized as an
alluvial gravelly soil layer. The layer has a thickness of 5 m.
(IV) Ds: Diluvial Sand

Sandy soil between -17 and -23 m can be classified into a diluvial sandy soil layer. That has
a thickness of 6 m in total.
(V) GF: Guadalupe Formation

Rocks between -23 m and -30 m are composed of welded tuffs named the Guadalupe
Formation. The Guadalupe Formation has a thickness greater than 7 m at this site.
3) Lambingan Bridge
a) Boring Result
The boring was executed on the right bank of the Passig River. The boring result is
summarized in Table 15.3.2-5 below.
15-26
Table 15.3.2-5 Boring Result (Lambingan B-1)
0–1 1 12 Medium sand
brown colored
with broken shell fragments
1–6 5 6 – 21 Silty fine sand
soft or loose
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
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)

Bs 1 12 Medium dense Sand
As 5 6 – 21 Loose – medium dense Silty fine sand
Dc 4 6–9 Firm – stiff Sandy clay, and clayey sand
WGF 1 50< Rock Weathered rock of the Guadalupe
Formation
GF 19 50< Rock Guadalupe Formation: tuff breccia, tuffs,
tuffaceous sandstone; intercalating fine
sand layer
A geological profile for Lambingan Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.2-3.
15-27
Lambingan B-1
BL-3
25 m
250 m
BF: fill soil, As: alluvial sand, Ac: alluvial cohesive soil, Ds: diluvial sand, GF: Guadalupe Formation (basically pyroclastic
rocks)
Figure 15.3.2-3 Geological Profile for Lambingan Bridge
(I) Bs: Backfill Soil

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

Sandy soils between -2 m and -6 m are classified into an alluvial sand layer. A thickness of
layer is about 5 m.
(III) Dc: Diluvial Cohesive Soils

Sandy clay (or clayey sand) between -6 m and -10 m is considered to be a diluvial cohesive
(clayey/silty) layer. Its thickness is 4 m.
(IV) WGF: Weathered Guadalupe Formation

Rocks between -10 m and -11 m are strongly weathered rocks of the Guadalupe Formation.
A thickness of this section is about 1 m.
15-28
(V) GF: Guadalupe Formation
Relatively fresh welded tuffs lying at a depth of 12 m are classified into the Guadalupe
Formation.
4) Guadalupe Bridge
a) Boring Result
The boring was carried out at the right bank of the Passig River, and its result is summarized
in Table 15.3.2-7.
Table 15.3.2-7 Boring Result (Guadalupe B-1)

Depth(m) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters
0–2 2 – Fill soils
including rock/concrete fragment
2–7 5 8 – 28 Mainly coarse to medium sand
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
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
poor with broken shell fragments
dark-gray/blackish-gray colored
40 – 46 6 50 < Mainly medium to fine sand
Moderate water content
Table 15.3.2-8 Engineering Soil Layers (Guadalupe B-1)

BF 2 8 – 28 Loose – medium dense Gravel, and sand
As 5 34 – 50 Dense Coarse – medium sand
Dg 3 26 – 46 Medium dense – dense Gravel with sand
Ds1 25 35 – 39 Dense Medium – fine sand
Ds2 5 50< Very dense Medium – fine sand
15-29
A geological profile for the Guadalupe Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.2-4.
Right bank
Left bank of the Passig River
Guadalupe B-1
BPLW-30
25 m
250 m
BF: fill soil, As: alluvial sand, Dg: diluvial gravel, Ds1: diluvial sand (1), Ds2: diluvial sand (2)
Figure 15.3.2-4 Geological Profile for the Guadalupe Bridge
(I) BF: Backfill Soil

Soil between the ground surface and -2 m are considered to be backfill soil with a thickness
of 2 m.
15-30
Coarse to medium sand between -3 m and -6 m is classified into an alluvial sand layer with a
thickness of 3m.
(III) Dg: Diluvial Gravel

Gravel with sand between -7 m and -10 m is classified as a diluvial gravel layer.
(IV) Ds1: Diluvial Sand (1)

A soil section between -10 m and -40 m is composed of fine to medium sand. This section is
considered to be a diluvial sand layer.
(V) Ds2: Diluvial Sand (2)

Medium to fine sand between -40 m and -46 m is denser than Ds1, and it is categorized as
the secondary diluvial sand layer.
5) Marikina Bridge
a) Boring Result
The boring was performed on the right bank of the Marikina River. Its soil profile is shown in
Table 15.3.2-9.
15-31
Table 15.3.2-9 Boring Result (Marikina B-1)
0–3 3 3–6 Very fine sand
silty
poor graded
brown colored
3–5 2 7–8 Mainly very fine sand
with silt
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
dark-gray colored
12 – 14 2 21 – 25 Fine to medium sand
relatively high to moderate water content
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
brownish-gray/blackish-gary colored
24 – 30 6 50 < Mainly coarse to medium sand
including gravel having diameters of 10-20 mm
Table 15.3.2-10Engineering Soil Layers (Marikina B-1)

Asc 7 3 – 10 Loose Very fine sand, and silty fine sand
As 7 10 – 25 Medium dense Fine – medium sand
Asg 4 27 – 34 Medium dense – dense Gravel, and sand
Ds1 6 40 – 61 Dense – very dense Coarse sand
Ds2 6 50< Very dense Coarse – medium sand
A geological profile for the Marikina Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.2-5.
15-32
Right bank of the Marikina River Left bank
Marikina B-1
M6-LL (exising)
25 m
250 m
Asc: alluvial sandy and cohesive soil, As: alluvial sand, Asg: alluvial sand and gravel, Ds1: diluvial sand (1), Dc2: diluvial
cohesive soil, Ds2: diluvial sand (2)
Figure 15.3.2-5 Geological Profile for the Marikina Bridge
(I) Asc: Alluvial Sandy and Cohesive Soil

A soil section between the ground surface and -7 m is comprised of very fine sand with fines.
This section can be classified into an alluvium layer.
(II) As: Alluvial Sands

Sandy soils between -7 m and -14 m are considered to be an alluvium. This section is
composed of very fine to medium sand.
15-33
(III) Asg: Alluvial Sand and Gravel
Sand and gravel between – 14 m and -18 m are categorized as an alluvium layer.

Coarse sand between -18 m and -24 m is a diluvial layer. It is rich in gravels.
(V) Ds2: Diluvial Sand (2)

A sandy section between -24 m and -30 m is considered to be a diluvium layer. This layer is
denser than the Ds1 layer.
(2) Laboratory Tests
Soils of each borehole can be categorized as shown in the following tables.

Of the laboratory tests, results of grain size analysis as of October 31, 2012 are shown below
temporally.
1) Delpan Bridge
A tentative laboratory soil tests results are shown in Table 15.3.2-11.
15-34
Table 15.3.2-11Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Delpan B-1
Natural
Plasticity
GL- Major Soil Moisture ASTM Soil
Soil Layer Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Index PI
(m) Type Content Classification
(%)
(%)
1 24.8 74.2 1.0 14.3 SP
2 0.0 92.4 7.6 28.2 SP-SC
3 0.0 98.1 1.9 20.1 SP
Mainly fine
4 0.0 95.4 4.6 33.3 SP
As sand
5 0.0 96.3 3.7 27.3 SP
6 0.9 95.1 4.0 27.6 SP
7 0.0 92.8 7.2 29.5 SP-SC
8 0.0 91.6 8.4 26.6 SP-SC
9 0.0 43.2 56.9 52.2 7 CL
10 0.0 4.9 95.1 58.1 20 CH
11 0.0 4.4 95.6 57.4 7 CL
12 Sandy silt 0.0 47.2 52.8 47.0 7 SP
13 0.0 9.4 90.6 48.9 21 CH
14 0.0 7.7 92.3 42.2 13 CL
15 Ac 0.0 22.7 77.3 42.4 8 SP
16 0.0 63.6 36.4 45.2 SP
Sandy silt
17 0.0 31.0 69.0 33.5 SP
18 0.0 15.2 84.9 68.2 11 OH
19 0.0 7.5 92.5 76.4 31 OH
Silt
20 0.0 4.1 95.9 43.5 23 OH
21 0.0 11.3 88.7 42.2 30 OH
22 0.0 31.4 68.6 63.4 13 OH
23 0.0 22.4 77.6 37.3 11 OH
24 0.0 5.7 94.3 76.6 18 OH
25 0.0 33.7 66.3 79.8 24 OH
26 0.0 12.0 88.0 71.9 12 OH
27 0.0 4.1 95.9 60.2 4 MH
Dc Clayey silt
28 0.0 6.0 94.0 67.7 7 MH
29 0.0 26.5 73.5 41.2 2 MH
30 0.0 21.1 78.9 77.0 5 MH
31 0.0 20.2 79.8 80.4 2 MH
32 0.0 92.1 7.9 68.4 SW-SC
33 0.0 18.2 81.8 50.2 3 MH
34 0.3 86.6 13.1 43.8 SC-SM
35 Very fine
36 Ds sand 34.3 62.1 3.7 16.1 SP
37 0.0 87.1 12.9 28.9 SC-SM
38 0.0 88.1 11.9 25.8 SP-SC
15-35
2) Nagtahan Bridge
Table 15.3.2-12Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Nagtahan B-1
Natural
Plasticity
(%)
(%)
1 Bs Gravel and 12.85 12.9 85.9 1.3 40.1 SW
2 sand 61.78 61.8 34.6 3.6 41.4 SW
3 1.30 1.3 93.5 5.2 29.0 SW-SC
4 5.70 5.7 89.5 4.9 25.1 SP
5 0.90 0.9 98.4 0.7 29.9 SP
6 Fine sand No test
7 with No test
As
8 medium 0.00 0.0 98.9 1.1 20.5 SP
9 sand 1.04 1.0 97.7 1.2 12.7 SP
10 0.00 0.0 98.8 1.2 36.3 SP
11 7.05 7.0 88.3 4.7 41.8 SP
12 0.00 0.0 98.3 1.7 24.6 SP
13 Ag 51.59 51.6 47.6 0.8 25.5 SW
Gravel
14 63.48 63.5 35.2 1.3 21.1 SW
15 Silty sand 22.37 22.4 74.0 3.7 23.2 SW
16 Gravel/sand 36.26 36.3 60.6 3.1 50.4 SW
17 with gravel 38.97 39.0 59.2 1.9 23.0 SW
18 Ds 1.18 1.2 91.7 7.1 56.5 SP-SC
19 3.82 3.8 86.2 10.0 54.7 SP-SC
20 Mainly fine 0.59 0.6 83.9 15.5 58.9 SC-SM
21 sand 2.67 2.7 90.1 7.2 56.8 SP-SC
22 3.59 3.6 89.2 7.2 51.8 SP-SC
23 0.00 0.0 97.6 2.4 55.0 SP
24 GF 84.47 84.5 13.6 1.9 30.8 SP
25 No test
26 No test
Rock/
27 No test
welded tuff
28 No test
29 No test
30 No test
15-36
3) Lambingan Bridge
Table 15.3.2-13Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Lambingan B-1
Natural
Plasticity
(%)
(%)
1 Bs Med. sand 8.3 90.8 0.9 21.2 SP
2 0.0 82.7 17.3 48.6 SC-SM
3 0.0 72.0 28.0 44.6 SC-SM
Silty fine
4 As 6.0 82.0 12.0 41.4 SP-SC
sand
5 1.6 91.1 7.3 62.7 SP-SC
6 0.0 92.7 7.3 46.4 SP-SC
7 0.0 41.9 58.1 55.7 12 CH
Sandy clay
8 0.0 22.9 77.1 53.9 13 CH
Dc or clayey
9 0.0 33.1 66.9 48.5 19 OH
sand
10 0.0 49.0 51.0 62.9 45 OH
11 WGF Rock 17.7 82.1 0.2 38.4 SW
12 0.0 99.5 0.5 41.6 SP
13
14
15
16
17
18 Rock
19
20
21 GF
22
23
24 0.7 98.2 1.1 25.1 SP
25 4.9 94.1 1.0 27.6 SP
Fine sand
26 6.90 92.9 0.2 28.8 SP
27
28
Rock
29
30
15-37
4) Guadalupe Bridge
Table 15.3.2-14Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Guadalupe B-1
Natural
Plasticity
(%)
(%)
1
BF Fill soils
2
3 Mainly 12.4 86.4 1.1 23.4 SP
4 coarse to 0.0 97.4 2.6 23.9 SP
As
5 medium 35.7 63.0 0.4 19.5 SP
6 sand 9.7 83.6 2.6 25.4 SW-SC
7 44.5 54.3 1.2 10.9 SP
8 Gravel with 37.7 61.9 0.4 10.4 SW
Dg
9 sand 57.9 41.9 0.2 8.8 SP
10 0.0 84.4 15.6 22.5 SP
11 34.7 64.6 0.7 8.3 SP
12 3.9 95.9 0.2 25.4 SP
13 3.0 96.0 1.1 23.4 SP
14
15 2.1 97.5 0.5 21.0 SP
16 2.6 96.1 1.3 23.5 SP
17
18 1.1 98.7 0.2 28.3 SP
19 0.0 99.3 0.7 31.1 SP
20 2.7 96.6 0.7 32.4 SP
21 6.8 91.4 1.8 24.2 SP
22 Mainly
23 medium to 23.8 75.7 0.5 23.0 SP
24 fine sand 41.2 58.6 0.2 9.3 SP
25 Ds1
26 1.0 98.2 0.8 33.5 SP
27
28 0.0 99.5 0.5 27.9 SP
29
30 2.4 97.4 0.2 29.1 SP
31 1.0 95.0 3.9 82.8 SP
32
33 0.0 99.1 0.9 63.2 SP
34 3.3 95.6 1.2 71.6 SP
35
36 3.1 90.8 6.2 89.5 SP-SC
Mainly fine
37 0.2 97.1 2.7 65.9 SP
to medium
38 sand 0.0 97.7 2.3 52.7 SP
39 0.0 82.7 17.3 46.5 SC-SM
40 0.0 99.8 0.2 75.2 SP
41
42 Mainly
43 medium to
Ds2
44 fine sand 0.0 99.8 0.2 66.7 SP
45 16.5 83.3 0.2 55.4 SP
46 0.5 98.9 0.7 58.0 SP
15-38
5) Marikina Bridge
Table 15.3.2-15Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Marikina B-1
Natural
Plasticity
(%)
(%)
1 0.0 63.8 36.2 44.4 17 SC-SM
Very fine sand
2 0.0 62.4 37.7 47.4 19 SC-SM
3 0.0 86.1 13.9 45.6 SP-SC
4 Asc Mainly very 0.0 64.0 36.0 26.3 18 SP
5 fine sand 0.0 81.7 18.3 35.1 SP
6 0.0 56.5 43.4 37.1 15 SP
Very fine sand
7 0.0 96.4 3.6 37.4 SP
8 3.2 96.4 0.4 25.8 SP
9 Mainly fine 24.3 54.2 21.5 32.6 SP
10 sand 0.0 96.7 3.3 37.3 SP
11 As 27.5 72.2 0.4 22.9 SP
12 23.4 73.0 2.6 25.8 SP
13 Fine to 0.5 96.4 3.2 27.8 SP
14 medium sand 0.0 95.0 0.4 37.2 SP
15 47.6 51.4 2.6 10.6 SW
Gravel and
16 32.5 63.9 3.6 15.4 SP
Asg sand
17 45.1 53.3 0.4 16.3 SP
18 20.7 78.2 2.6 13.0 SP
19 27.4 72.0 0.6 18.8 SP
20 32.4 66.7 0.4 16.4 SP
21 Coarse sand 33.4 65.5 2.6 18.1 SP
Ds1
22 17.7 81.4 0.9 18.5 SP
23 31.4 67.8 0.4 19.6 SP
24 1.4 97.8 2.6 27.6 SP
25 13.1 86.2 0.7 23.2 SP
26 Mainly coarse 7.8 91.2 0.4 24.8 SP
27 to medium 1.3 98.0 2.6 27.4 SP
Ds2
28 sand 2.0 97.2 0.8 23.9 SP
29 4.7 94.2 0.4 29.5 SP
30 7.5 92.0 2.6 24.0 SP
(3) Downhole Seismic Test (DSWT)
DSWT data were in processing as of October 31, 2012. The analysis results should be shown in the
next report.
15.3.3 Results of Geotechnical Investigation outside of Metro Manila
Geological investigation outside Metro Manila were conducted at the seven (7) sites that include
Buntun Bridge in Luzon, 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge in Cebu, Palanit and Mawo Bridges in Samar,
Biliran and Liloan Bridges in Leyte, and Wawa Bridge in Mindanao.
15-39
(1) Geological Profiles
1) Buntun Bridge Site
a) Boring Result
The borings were performed on the right and left banks of the River below the Buntun Bridge.
One of two boreholes was BTL-1 on the left bank of the River and another was BTL-2 on the
right bank. Soil profile at each borehole is shown in Table 15.3.3-1 and Table 15.3.3-2.
Table 15.3.3-1 Boring Result (Buntun: BTL-1)

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
with gravel
weakly consolidated
reddish-brown colored
(probably strongly weathered sandstone)
Reddish-brown/ bluish-gray/yellowish-gray colored
very dense or relatively consolidated below -23m
subrounded gravel (10mm in diameter) included
about -25m
15-40
Table 15.3.3-2 Boring Result (Buntun: BTL-2)
0–6 6 6–9 Very fine sand
with silt
relatively high water content below -2 m
dark-gray colored
13 – 14 1 33 Very fine sand
with silt
14 – 15 1 33 Fine to medium sand
15 – 16 1 30 Very find sand
with silt
Dark-gray or blackish-gray colored
Relatively low water content
Poorly graded
Blackish-gray or dark-gray colored
with silt
poorly graded
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)

Ac1 1 6 Firm Silty clay
As 1 – 13 6 – 12 Loose – medium dense Very fine – medium sand
Ac2 8 2–7 Soft – firm Cohesive soil
Dc 4 25 – 32 Very stiff – hard Cohesive soil
Ds1 3 30 – 33 Dense Very fine – medium sand
Ds2 14< 50< Very dense Very fine sand
A geological profile for the Buntun Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.3-1.
15-41
BTL-1
Ac2
BTL-2
Dc
As
25 m
Ds1
Ds2
250 m
Ac1: alluvial cohesive soil, As: alluvial sand, Ac2: alluvial cohesive soil, Dc: diluvial cohesive soil, Ds1: diluvial sand (1),
Ds2: diluvial sand (2)
Figure 15.3.3-1 Geological Profile for the Buntun Bridge
(I) Ac1: Alluvial Cohesive Soil

The soil of Ac1 consists of silty clay and recognized at BTL-1. This layer has a thickness of
4 m below the ground surface.

Fine to medium sand recognized at BTL-1 and BTL-2 is considered to be alluvial sand with
thicknesses varying from 1m to 13 meter. At BTL-1, the layer is distributed with a thickness
of 1 m below the bottom of the Ac1 layer; at BTL-2, the layer has a thickness of 13 m below
the ground surface.
(III) Ac2: Alluvial Cohesive Soil

Cohesive soil recognized at BTL-1 is considered to be an alluvium. A thickness of the layer
is 8 m and distributed between -2 m and -10 m at BTL-1.
(IV) Dc: Diluvial Cohesive Soil
Cohesive soil seen at BTL-1 is considered to be a diluvial silty soil. It ranges between -10 m
and -14 m at BTL-1.
(V) Ds1: Diluvial Sandy Soil (1)

This soil layer consists of very fine sand and/or fine to medium sand, and observed at only
BTL-2 borehole. The layer is distributed between -13 m and -16 m at BTL-2.
15-42
(VI) Ds2: Diluvial Sandy Soil (2)
The layer is comprised of very fine sand and denser than Ds1. The layer is distributed below
a depth of 16 m at BTL-1 and BTL-2.
2) Palanit Bridge Site
a) Boring Result
The borings were performed on the right and left banks of the river below the Palanit Bridge.
One of two boreholes was PAL-R1 on the left bank of the river and another was PAL-L1 on
the right bank. Soil profile at each borehole is shown in Table 15.3.3-4 and Table 15.3.3-5.
Table 15.3.3-4 Boring Result (Palanit: PAL-L1)

0–4 4 15 – 46 Clayey sand
clayey or silty sand
brown/brownish-gray/greenish-gray/yellowish-gray
colored
-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
5–6 1 49 Clay with gravel
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
15-43
Table 15.3.3-5 Boring Result (Palanit: PAL-R1)
0–2 2 8–9 Gravely sand
including plant roots and 10-15 mm gravel
dark-grown colored
2–6 4 50 < Tuffaceous rock
tuffaceous siltstone
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)

Asg 2 8–9 Loose Gravelly sand
Dsg 4 15 – 46 Medium dense – dense Clayey sand
Ds 1 50 Dense Silty sand
Dc 1 49 Hard Clay with gravel
VR 24< 50< Rock Tuffaceous rocks, welded tuff
A geological profile for the Palanit Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.3-2.
15-44
PAL-L1 PAL-R1
Asg
Dsg
Ds
Dc
VR
25 m
250 m
Asg: alluvial sand and gravel, Dsg: diluvial sand and gravel, Ds: diluvial sand, Dc: diluvial clay, VR: volcanic rocks
Figure 15.3.3-2 Geological Profile for the Palanit Bridge
(I) Asg: Alluvial Sand and Gravel

The layer named Asg is recognized at PAL-R1, composed of sand and gravel, and has a
thickness of 2 m below the ground surface. The layer is not recognized at PAL-L1.
(II) Dsg: Diluvial Sand and Gravel

This layer is formed of clayey sand with gravel and considered to be a diluvium layer. The
layer has a thickness of 4 m below the ground surface.
(III) Ds: Diluvial Sand

Sandy soil between -4 m and -5 m at PAL-L1 is categorized as a diluvial sand layer.
15-45
(IV) Dc: Diluvial Cohesive Soil
This layer (Dc) is composed of clay with gravel and has a thickness of 1 m. The layer can be
indentified between -5 m and -6 m at PAL-L1.
(V) VR: Volcanic Rocks

Tuffaceous rocks lie under alluvium and diluvium at a depth of 6 m in the PAL-L1 site and
at a depth of 2 m in the PAL-R1 site.
3) Mawo Bridge Site
a) Boring Result
The boring were performed on the right and left banks of the river below the Mawo Bridge.
One of two boreholes was MAW-L1 on the right bank and another was MAW-L2 on the right
bank. Geological profiles at the boreholes are summarized in Table 15.3.3-7 and Table
15.3.3-8 below.
15-46
Table 15.3.3-7 Boring Result (Mawo: MAW-L1)
0–5 5 2–4 Mainly clay
sometime silty
including gravels
moderate to relatively high water content
Dark-gray colored
silty
including 20-30 mm gravel
Dark-gray colored
7–9 2 21 – 24 Gravel with silt
green-gray colored
9 – 11 2 21 Mainly gravel
sometime with sand
dark-gray/blackish-brown/brownish-gray colored
11 – 15 4 17 – 24 Mainly gravel
with silt and sand
sometime sand with gravel
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
sometime with 10-20 mm gravel
dark-gray colored
38 – 44 6 50 < Basalt
mainly auto-breccia
medium-hard rock
CM-CH class
relatively fresh
green colored
15-47
Table 15.3.3-8 Boring Result (Mawo: MAW-L2)
0–1 1 9 Silty gravel
with sand
Yellowish-brown colored
1–2 1 6 Gravel
with very fine sand stone
(probably weathered rock)
Yellowish-brown colored
2–4 2 2 Sandy clay
Dark-bluish-gray/gray colored
4–7 3 50 < Weathered rock
strongly weathered
soft rock
D-CL class
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)

Ag1 2 6–9 Loose Silty gravel, gravel
Ac1 2–5 2–4 Soft Clay, and sandy clay
As 2 8 – 12 Loose – medium dense Very fine sand
Ag2 2–8 17 – 24 Loose – medium dense Gravel, and gravel with fine sand
Ac2 13 7 – 12 Firm – stiff Clay with very fine sand
Ds1 3 10 – 24 Medium dense Sand with clay
Ds2 7 22 – 50 Medium dense – dense Fine – medium sand
VR 6 50< Rock Volcanic rocks: basalt, and andesite
A geological profile for the Mawo Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.3-3.
15-48
MAW-L1
MAW-L2
Ag1
Ac1
Ac1
As
Ag2
25 m
Ac2
VR
Ds1
Ds2
VR
250 m
Ag1: alluvial gravelly soil (1), Ac1: alluvial cohesive soil (1), As: alluvial sand, Ag: alluvial gravelly soil, Ac2: alluvial
cohesive soil (2), Ds1: diluvial sand (1), Ds2: diluvium sand (2), VR: volcanic rocks
Figure 15.3.3-3 Geological Profile for the Mawo Bridge
(I) Ag1: Alluvial Gravelly Soil (1)

This layer is distributed from the ground surface to a depth of 1 m at MAW-L2..
15-49
(II) Ac1: Alluvial Cohesive Soil (1)
This layer is distributed from the ground surface to a depth of 5 m at MAW-L1. At MAW-
L2, sandy clay between -2 m and -4 m is identified as this layer (Ac1).
(III) As: Alluvial Sand

A section of very fine sand intercalated between -5 m and -7 m at MAW-L1 is considered to
be an alluvial sand layer. This layer is not seen at MAW-L2.
(IV) Ag2: Alluvial Gravelly Soil (2)

Gravelly soil between -7 m and -15 m at MAW-L1 is categorized as an alluvial gravelly soil
layer. At MAW-L2, the layer has a thickness of 2 m below the ground surface.
(V) Ac2: Alluvial Cohesive Soil (2)

This layer is identified in a section between -15 m and -28 m at MAW-L1. This layer is not
distributed at MAW-L2.
(VI) Ds1: Diluvial Sand (1)

A section composed of sand with clay between -28 m and -31 m at MAW-L1 is classified
into a diluvial sand layer. The Ds1 is not distributed at MAW-R1.
(VII) Ds2: Diluvial Sand (2)

This layer is identified as a sandy soil between -31 m and -38 m at MAW-L1. The layer is
not distributed at MAW-R1.
(VIII) VR: Volcanic Rocks

Basalt lies at a depth of 38 m in the MAW-L1 site. In the MAW-L2 site, weathered volcanic
rock (probably andesite) lies from a depth of 4 m; and fresh andesitic rock is distributed
below a depth of 7 m.
4) 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge Site
a) Boring Result
The two boring were performed both side of 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge. One borehole,
MAN-W1, was located on the east coast of Cebu Island; and another borehole, MAN-E1 was
on the west coast of Mactan Island. The boring results at both sides of the bridge are
summarized in Table 15.3.3-10 and Table 15.3.3-11 below.
15-50
Table 15.3.3-10Boring Result (1st Mandaue-Mactan: MAN-E1)
0–5 5 No core recovered
5 – 10 5 6–7 Clay with coral fragments
soft
Dark-gray colored
10 – 11 1 7 Silty sand
mainly fine sand
dark-gray colored
11 – 12 1 7 Sandy silt
including fine sand
dark gray colored
12 – 14 2 22 – 27 Sand
mainly fine sand
including silt
Dark gray colored
14 – 16 2 29 – 30 Sand
mainly medium sand
dark gray colored
16 – 17 1 32 Gravel with silt
including 10-30 mm gravels
17 – 18 1 25 Clay
18 – 19 1 35 Gravel with silt
including 2-4 mm gravels
yellowish brown colored
19 – 28 9 25 – 41 Clay with gravel
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
sometime rock fragments
dark gray colored
33 – 35 2 15 Clay
sometime including coral fragments and/or broken
shell fragments
35 – 40 5 45 – 53 Clay
15-51
sometime including coral fragments and/or broken
shell fragments
40 – 69 29 14 – 42 Clay
sometime including few coral fragments and broken
shell fragments
69 – 81 12 45 – 69 Silty sand (tentative)
Table 15.3.3-11Boring Result (1st Mandaue-Mactan: MAN-W1)

0–2 2 21 – 24 Clay with gravel
including coral fragments
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
light brownish gray colored
8 – 10 2 Sand with gravel
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.
15-52
Table 15.3.3-12Engineering Soil Layers (MAN-E1 – MAN-W1)
Soil Thickness N-value Relative Density/Stiffness Soil Type
Layer (m)
Ag 3–5 21 – 29 Medium dense Boulder with fines
Ac 2–5 6 – 24 Firm – very stiff Clay with gravel, and clay with coral
fragments
As 1 7 Loose Sandy silt
Ds1 4 22 – 30 Medium dense Sand
Dg 2 32 – 35 Dense Gravel with silt
Dc 1 25 Very stiff Clay
Dgs 5 50< Very dense Gravelly sand, and sand with gravel
Dc2 9 25 – 41 Very stiff – hard Clay with gravel
Dc3 7 10 – 15 Stiff Clay / silt
Dc4 5 45 – 53 Hard Clay / silt
Dc5 29 14 – 42 Very stiff – hard Clay / silt
Ds2 12 45 – 69 Hard Silty sand
Lm 20 50< Rock Coralline limestone
A geological profile for the 1st Madnaue-Mactan Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.3-4.
15-53
Cebu Is. Mactan Is.
MAN-W1
MAN-E1
Ac
As Ag
Dgs
Ac
As
Ds
Dg/Dc
Dc2u
50 m
Dc2L
Dc3
Dc4
Lm
Dc5
Ds2
500 m
Ag: alluvial gravel, Ac: alluvial cohesive soil, As alluvial sand, Ds1: diluvial sand (1), Dg/Dc: diluvial gravel/diluvium
cohesive soil, Dgs: diluvium sand and gravel, Dc2: diluvial cohesive soil (2), Dc3: diluvial cohesive soil (3), Dc4: diluvial
cohesive soil (4), Dc5: diluvial cohesive soil (5), Ds2: diluvial sand (2)
Figure 15.3.3-4 Geological Profile for the 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge
(I) Ag: Alluvial Gravel

This soil layer is distributed with a depth of 5 m from the ground surface. It seems to be a
kind of backfill soil.
(II) Ac: Alluvial Cohesive Soil

Cohesive soil in relatively shallow depth at MAN-W1 and MAN-E1 is grouped into this soil
layer.
15-54
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.
15-55
Table 15.3.3-13Boring Result (Biliran: BIL-N1)
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 15.3.3-14Boring Result (Biliran: BIL-S1)

including 15 mm gravel
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 15.3.3-15Engineering Soil Layers (BIL-N1 – BIL-S1)

Ac 2 5 Firm Clay with gravel
Dc 1 50 Hard Consolidated clay with gravel
VR 28 50< Rock Volcanic rocks: basalt, andesite, andesitic
breccia
A geological profile for the Biliran Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.3-5.
15-56
Leyte Is. Bililan Is.
BIL-N1
Dc
BIL-S1
VR VR
Ac
25 m
VR
250 m
Ac: alluvial clay, Dc: diluvial clay, VR: volcanic rocks
Figure 15.3.3-5 Geological Profile for Biliran Bridge
(I) Ac: Alluvial Cohesive Soil

At the BIL-S1 borehole, clay with gravel with a thickness of 2 m is distributed from the
ground surface. This soil is not observed at BIL-N1.
(II) Dc: Diluvial Cohesive Soil

At BIL-N1, the consolidated clay with gravel is distributed with a thickness of 1 m below
the ground surface. This soil is not distributed at BIL-S1.
15-57
(III) VR: Volcanic Rocks
Andesitic rock lies widely between BIL-N1 and BIL-S1 as a basement rock. Andesitic rocks
are exposed on the ground or lies in shallower depths below the ground surface.
6) Liloan Bridge Site
a) Boring Result
The two boring were performed both side of Biliran Bridge. One borehole, BIL-N1, was
located on the south end of Leyte Island; and another borehole, LIL-S1 was on the north end
of Panaon Island. Table 15.3.3-16 and Table 15.3.3-17 show the soil profiles of LIL-N1 and
LIL-S1.
Table 15.3.3-16Boring Result (Liloan: LIL-N1)

0–1 1 50 < Sandy silt
(residual soil as weathered limestone)
white colored
1 – 30 29 50 < Limestone
coral/silty-sandy limestone
relatively high porosity
including fossils and calcite
soft rock
CL class
15-58
Table 15.3.3-17Boring Result (Liloan: LIL-S1)
0–2 2 50 < Gravel
probably including boulders of andesite
Dark-gray colored
2–4 2 33 – 40 Coarse to medium sand
Blackish-gray/dark-gray colored
4–5 1 50 < Gravel
dark-gray colored
5–7 2 32–50 < Sand with gravel
mainly medium to fine sand
7–9 2 50 < Gravel
including probably boulders of andesite
9 – 10 1 50 < Sandy gravel
mainly coarse sand
including broken shell/coral fragments
blackish gray colored
10 – 12 2 50 < Gravel
including broken coral/shell fragments
13 – 20 7 50 < Gravelly sand
sometime sandy gravel
relatively poor in broken coral/shell fragments
probably including boulders of basalt
blackish gray colored
22 – 30 8 50 < Sand
medium to fine sand
rich in broken coral/shell fragments
blackish-gray/dark-gray colored
15-59
Based on the boring logs of LIL-N1 and LIL-S1, the following soil layers can be identified
(Table 15.3.3-18).
Table 15.3.3-18Engineering Soil Layers (LIL-N1 – LIL-S1)

Asg 6 5 Firm Gravel, boulder, and coarse – medium
sand
Dsg1 2 33 – 50< Dense Sand with gravel
Dsg2 22 50< Very dense Gravel, gravelly sand, sand, and sandy
gravel
CL1 1< 50< Hard Strongly weathered limestone: sandy silt
CL2 29 50< Rock Coralline limestone
A geological profile for the Liloan Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.3-6
15-60
Leyte Is. Panaon Is.
LIL-N1.
LIL-S1.
25 m
250 m
Asg: alluvial sand and gravel, Dsg1: diluvial sand and gravel (1), Dsg2: diluvial sand and gravel (2), CL1: coralline
limestone (1), CL2: coralline limestone (2)
Figure 15.3.3-6 Geological Profile for Liloan Bridge
15-61
(I) Asg: Alluvial Sand and Gravel
The Asg layer is not distributed at LIL-N1 and only distributed at and around LIL-S1. A
thickness of the layer is 5 m below the ground surface. It consists of gravel, and coarse to
medium sand. It is considered that the layer includes boulders at some depths.
(II) Dsg1: Diluvial Sand and Gravel (1)

Sand with gravel between -5 m and -7 m at LIL-S1 is considered to be diluvial soil. The
layer is not distributed at LIL-N1.
(III) Dsg2: Diluvial Sand and Gravel (2)

This layer comprises gravel, sandy gravel, and gravelly sand, and recognized at LIL-S1 only.
This layer is denser than Dsg1.
(IV) CL1: Coralline Limestone (1)

Sandy silt with a thickness of 1 m below the ground surface at LIL-N1 is considered to be a
weathered portion of coralline limestone (CL2).
(V) CL2: Coralline Limestone (2)

CL2 is composed of coralline limestone and distributed only at and around LIL-N1 (Leyte
side). CL1 and CL2 are not distributed at/around LIL-S1.
7) Wawa Bridge Site
a) Boring Result
The two boring were performed both side of Wawa Bridge. One borehole, WAW-R1, was
located on the right bank the Wawa River; and another borehole, WAW-L1 was on the left
bank of the river. Summarized boring logs are shown in Table 15.3.3-19 and Table 15.3.3-20.
15-62
Table 15.3.3-19Boring Result (Wawa: WAW-R1)
0–4 4 12 – 20 Gravel with clay
including gravels of 15 mm
with gravel and clay
(probably strongly weathered sandstone)
9 – 12 3 46–50 ≤ Clay
sometime consolidated
dark-gray/greenish-gray colored
12 – 13 1 47 Clay with rock fragments
13 – 15 2 50 ≤ Clay with gravel
greenish-gray/blackish-gray colored
15 – 17 2 50 ≤ (clay with rock fragments)
no core recovered
17 – 18 1 50 ≤ Consolidated clay
greenish-gray/blackish-gray colored
18 – 30 12 50 ≤ Clay with gravel
including gravels of 10-30 mm in diameter
(probably sheared/fractured clayey/silty rocks)
blackish-gray/greenish-gray colored
15-63
Table 15.3.3-20Boring Result (Wawa: WAW-L1)
0–4 4 20 – 30 Clay with gravel
including gravels of 10-40 mm in diameter
including gravel of 20-30 mm in diameter
blackish-brown colored
relatively high-moderate water content
7 – 10 3 49–50 ≤ Clay with gravel
medium soft/hard
10 – 12 2 50 Clay with gravel
relatively hard
12 – 14 2 50 ≤ Clay
14 – 19 5 41 –50≤ Clay
bluish-gray/greenish-gray colored
soft-hard, sometime consolidated
19 – 30 11 50 ≤ Clay
sometime with gravel
medium-soft hard
dark-greenish-gray colored
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).
15-64
Table 15.3.3-21Engineering Soil Layers (WAW-L1 – WAW-R1)
Soil Thickness N-value Relative Density/Stiffness Soil Type
Layer (m)
BF 6 20 – 30 Very stiff Clay with gravel
Ag 4 12 – 20 Medium dense – dense Gravel with clay
Ac 5 23 – 47 Medium dense – dense Very fine sand
Qc 21 41 – 50 Hard Clay, clay with gravel, and clay with rock
fragments
A geological profile for the Wawa Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.3-7.
WAW-L1
Buntun
BF
BF
WAW-R1
Ag
As
Qc
25m
250m
BF: embankment (fill soil), Ag: alluvial gravel (and river deposits), As: alluvial sand, Qc: Quaternary clay
Figure 15.3.3-7 Geological Profile for Wawa Bridge
(I) BF: Backfill soil

Clay with gravel with a thickness of 6 m below the ground surface is a part of embankment
material around WAW-L1.
15-65
(II) Ag: Alluvial Gravel
Gravels lies on the river bed of the Wawa. This gravel is classified into an alluvial gravel
layer and has a thick of 4 m.

Very fine sand portion between -4 m to -9 m at WAW-R1 is considered to be alluvial
deposits of the Wawa River.
(IV) Qc: Quaternary Cohesive Soil

Clayey and silty soil lying under BF, Ag and As is classified into a Quaternary clay member.
This layer is considered to be an alluvium layer.
15-66
(2) Laboratory Tests
Soil of each borehole can be categorized as shown in the following tables.

Of the laboratory tests, results of grain size analysis are shown below temporally.
1) Buntun Bridge
A tentative laboratory soil tests results are shown in Table 15.3.3-22 and Table 15.3.3-22.
Table 15.3.3-22Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Buntun BTL-1
Natural Plasticity
GL- Soil Major Soil ASTM Soil
Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Moisture Index PI
(m) Layer Type Classification
Content (%) (%)
1 Ac1 Silty clay 0.0 49.0 51.0 9 ML
2 As Fine sand 8.5 88.1 3.4 SP
3 0.0 45.9 54.2 11 CL
4 0.0 35.7 64.3 2 ML
5 0.0 18.2 81.9 23 CL
Clay
6 0.0 22.5 77.6 2 ML
Ac2
7 0.0 12.5 87.5 21 CL
8 0.0 18.6 81.4 2 ML
9 0.0 11.7 88.3 7 ML
Clay
10 0.0 4.9 95.1 10 MH
11 0.0 2.8 97.2 48.87 6 MH
12 0.0 99.2 0.8 SP
Dc Silt
13 0.0 12.1 87.9 43.77 7 ML
14 0.0 14.1 85.9 46.63 6 ML
15 Very fine
16 sand
17 0.0 98.0 2.0 SP
18 0.0 99.5 0.5 SP
19 0.0 98.8 1.3 SP
20 3.4 95.7 0.9 SP
21 0.0 99.3 0.7 SP
22 0.0 99.1 0.9 SP
Ds2
23 Very fine 0.0 98.3 1.7 SP
24 sand 0.0 94.0 6.0 SP-SC
25 0.0 97.8 2.2 SP
26 0.0 94.5 5.5 SP
27 11.2 89.0 0.3 SP
28 0.0 99.0 1.0 SP
29 0.0 97.7 2.3 SP
30 0.0 99.0 1.0 SP
15-67
Table 15.3.3-23Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Buntun BTL-2
Natural
Plasticity
GL- Gravel Moisture ASTM Soil
Soil Layer Major Soil Type Sand (%) Fines (%) Index PI
(m) (%) Content Classification
(%)
(%)
1 0.0 94.4 5.6 51.5 SP-SC
2 0.0 99.1 1.0 36.1 SP
3 0.0 99.6 0.4 26.3 SP
Very fine sand
4 0.0 99.1 0.9 30.5 SP
5 0.0 99.2 0.8 30.9 SP
6 0.0 99.5 0.5 33.7 SP
7 As 0.0 99.6 0.4 19.6 SP
8 0.0 99.8 0.2 12.9 SP
9 0.5 99.1 0.5 23.9 SP
Fine to medium
10 0.7 98.8 0.5 26.3 SP
sand
11 0.0 99.8 0.2 27.4 SP
12 0.0 99.5 0.5 20.1 SP
13 0.7 99.0 0.2 19.8 SP
14 V. fine sand 0.0 99.1 0.9 38.0 SP
15 Ds1 Fine to med. sand 0.0 99.5 0.5 23.9 SP
16 V. fine sand 0.0 98.7 1.3 35.9 SP
17
18
19 5.5 94.1 0.4 3.8 SP
20 3.6 95.9 0.5 7.7 SP
21 2.4 97.1 0.5 8.7 SP
Very fine sand
22 6.5 92.8 0.8 15.7 SP
23 1.0 97.7 1.3 14.7 SP
Ds2
24 0.0 99.2 0.8 26.7 SP
25
26 40.3 56.9 2.8 13.8 SP
27 0.0 97.5 2.5 31.9 SP
28 0.0 96.6 3.4 28.9 SP
Very fine sand
29 0.0 97.3 2.7 31.9 SP
30 0.3 98.4 1.4 30.4 SP
2) Palanit Bridge
Table 15.3.3-24Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Palanit PAL-L1
Natural
Plasticity
(%)
(%)
1 0.0 96.8 3.2 27.0 SP
2 8.9 87.9 3.2 19.0 SW
Dsg Clayey sand
3 0.0 95.0 5.0 29.1 SP
4 0.0 95.8 4.2 29.2 SP
5 Ds Silty sand 0.0 97.2 2.8 30.7 SP
Clay with
6 Dc 0.0 48.3 51.7 25.4 9 MH
gravel
Table 15.3.3-25Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Palanit PAL-R1
Natural
Plasticity
(%)
(%)
1 Gravely 13.3 84.1 2.7 21.0 SP
Asg
2 sand 20.1 76.8 3.0 20.3 SW
15-68
3) Mawo Bridge
Table 15.3.3-26Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Mawo MAW-L1
Natural
Plasticity
GL- Soil Major Soil Moisture ASTM Soil
Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Index PI
(m) Layer Type Content Classification
(%)
(%)
0.0 37.7 62.3 46.4 16 CL
2 0.0 43.7 56.3 72.6 2 MH
3 Ac1 Clay 0.0 43.7 56.3 54.7 2 MH
4 0.0 20.3 79.7 73.8 8 MH
5 0.0 97.8 2.2 69.1 SP
6 0.0 98.5 1.5 56.6 SP
As V. fine sand
7 0.0 98.5 1.5 46.3 SP
8 Gravel with 80.0 19.8 0.2 6.9 SW
9 silt 33.2 66.2 0.6 15.7 SW
10 24.4 75.4 0.2 24.7 SP
Gravel
11 Ag 49.6 49.4 1.1 13.7 SW
12 39.1 59.7 1.3 14.9 SW
13 41.7 55.2 3.1 13.5 SP
Gravel
14 69.6 30.2 0.2 13.9 SW
15 5.4 93.0 1.6 24.1 SP
Clay with
16 very fine 0.0 38.2 61.8 58.0 12 MH
sand
17 0.0 32.0 68.0 54.9 9 MH
18 0.0 27.9 72.1 56.0 4 MH
19 0.0 43.4 56.6 59.7 2 MH
20 0.0 24.3 75.7 64.1 4 MH
21 Ac2 0.0 43.4 56.6 51.9 5 MH
Clay with
22 very fine 0.0 64.4 35.6 44.6 4 ML
23 sand 0.0 56.6 43.4 66.2 4 MH
24 0.0 39.5 60.5 43.5 4 ML
25 0.0 64.7 35.3 53.4 3 ML
26 1.1 96.6 2.4 46.1 SP
27 0.3 98.1 1.6 51.8 SP
28 0.0 30.7 69.3 42.5 12 CL
29 0.0 99.1 0.9 55.3 SP
Sand with
30 Ds1 0.0 99.2 0.8 57.3 SP
clay
31
32 0.0 97.7 2.3 26.5 SP
33 0.0 99.6 0.4 22.0 SP
34 Fine to 10.7 86.8 2.5 39.8 SP
35 Ds2 Medium 19.0 79.6 1.4 33.3 SP
36 sand 61.6 37.2 1.2 14.1 SP
37 0.0 97.8 2.2 30.0 SP
38 2.6 95.9 1.5 25.6 SP
Table 15.3.3-27Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of Mawo MAW-L2
Natural
Plasticity
(%)
(%)
1 Silty gravel 20.7 40.2 39.1 30.8 6 ML
Ag
2 Gravel 0.0 99.0 58.6 17.1 10 ML
3 27.4 92.1 31.5 19.0 SC-SM
4 Ac1 Sandy clay 0.7 98.9 0.5 32.2 SP
5 0.42 99.38 0.20 14.4 SP
15-69
4) 1st Mandaue Mactan Bridge
Table 15.3.3-28Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of MAN-E1
Natural
Plasticity
Soil Gravel Moisture ASTM Soil
GL-(m) Major Soil Type Sand (%) Fines (%) Index PI
Layer (%) Content Classification
(%)
(%)
34.1 65.7 0.2 15.6 SW
2 35.0 64.8 0.2 17.4 SW
3 Ag Gravel? 25.3 74.5 0.2 12.8 SW
4 26.4 72.9 0.7 17.1 SP
5 35.5 64.1 0.4 15.3 SP
6 0.0 3.9 96.1 49.5 18 CL
7 0.0 5.8 94.2 58.3 27 MH
8 Ac Clay 0.0 8.8 91.2 46.1 9 ML
9 0.0 15.0 85.0 45.3 19 ML
10 0.0 15.2 84.8 44.9 7 ML
11 Silty sand 0.0 50.7 49.3 33.9 6 ML
12 Sandy silt 0.0 46.7 53.3 35.1 8 ML
13 2.0 74.4 23.6 29.1 SC-SM
As Sand with silt
14 0.6 76.1 23.3 29.0 SC-SM
15 1.4 98.1 0.5 22.0 SP
Med. to fine sand
16 1.7 98.1 0.2 24.0 SP
Gravelly sand
17 4.2 95.2 0.6 24.7 SP
with silt
18 Dg Clay 19.4 80.0 0.6 34.0 SW
19 Dc1 Gravel with silt 33.9 65.9 0.2 18.7 SP
20 Dg Clay with gravel 0.0 16.7 83.3 13.2 28 CH
21 0.0 18.7 81.4 19.0 25 CH
22 0.0 5.8 94.2 32.0 29 CH
23 0.0 18.9 81.1 37.9 25 CH
24 Clay 0.0 9.2 90.8 29.9 25 CH
Dc2
25 0.0 18.5 81.5 33.8 26 CH
26 0.0 18.5 81.5 38.3 26 CH
27 0.0 28.4 71.6 29.9 23 CH
28 Silty clay 0.0 44.0 56.0 24.3 28 CH
29 0.2 54.6 45.2 21.3 28 CH
30 0.0 7.0 93.1 22.3 23 CH
31 0.0 5.7 94.3 23.6 28 CH
32 Dc3 Clay 0.0 2.8 97.2 31.2 26 CH
33 0.0 3.1 96.9 49.0 24 CH
34 0.0 2.9 97.1 23.6 26 CH
35 0.0 3.2 96.8 36.2 29 CH
36 Clay 2.7 37.2 60.1 25.5 24 CH
37 Clay 0.0 17.0 83.0 26.2 28 CH
38 Dc4 Clay 0.0 10.0 90.0 29.6 23 CH
39 Clay 0.0 6.5 93.5 15.5 28 CH
40 Clay 0.0 2.4 97.6 26.0 23 CH
41 0.0 2.1 97.9 41.1 24 CH
42 0.0 7.5 92.5 17.1 25 CH
43 0.0 3.3 96.7 45.7 23 CH
44 0.0 10.4 89.6 36.0 23 CH
45 0.0 5.9 94.1 16.8 24 CH
Dc5 Clay
46 0.0 6.5 93.5 26.7 24 CH
47 0.0 15.6 84.4 30.5 24 CH
48 0.0 50.9 49.1 25.4 26 CH
49 0.6 48.8 50.6 26.0 26 CH
50 0.4 44.3 55.3 27.4 24 CH
15-70
Natural
Plasticity
(%)
(%)
51 1.5 42.5 56.0 25.2 28 CH
52 0.0 43.8 56.2 28.6 25 CH
53 0.0 48.9 51.1 25.6 26 CH
54 0.0 48.6 51.4 26.6 24 CH
55 0.3 56.0 43.7 22.1 24 CH
56 0.0 53.2 46.8 23.9 26 CH
57 0.5 45.4 54.1 23.4 26 CH
58 0.0 45.3 54.7 26.3 24 CH
59 0.0 51.7 48.3 21.6 25 CH
60 0.0 51.9 48.1 18.6 26 CH
61 0.0 24.4 75.6 20.9 23 CH
62 1.0 36.0 63.0 16.9 25 CH
63 0.5 37.1 62.5 17.2 26 CH
64 0.0 3.3 96.7 30.5 25 CH
65 0.0 1.5 98.5 32.7 25 CH
66 0.0 3.0 97.0 30.8 23 CH
67 0.0 1.9 98.1 31.7 24 CH
68 0.0 7.4 92.6 29.1 25 CH
69 0.0 4.5 95.5 25.9 27 CH
70 3.3 69.7 27.0 15.1 SC-SM
71 2.7 69.8 27.5 15.4 SC-SM
72 4.3 69.6 26.1 13.8 SC-SM
73 2.9 67.1 30.0 16.5 SC-SM
74 13.3 57.4 29.3 7.4 SC-SM
75 0.9 72.3 26.8 26.4 SC-SM
Ds2 Silty sand
76 0.9 72.5 26.6 27.3 SC-SM
77 0.7 71.9 27.4 39.8 SC-SM
78 1.4 68.6 30.0 15.0 SC-SM
79 0.0 71.2 28.8 17.0 SC-SM
80 1.1 71.3 27.6 21.6 SC-SM
81 1.5 70.1 28.4 18.4 SC-SM
Table 15.3.3-29Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of MAN-W1
Natural
Plasticity
(%)
(%)
1 Ac 10.1 8.3 81.6 35.7 13 CL
Clay with gravel
2 Ac 75.5 14.5 10.0 36.3 SP
3 As 20.5 79.5 0.0 15.6 SP
4 As Coarse to 36.4 63.3 0.3 14.7 SP
5 As medium sand 13.5 86.3 0.3 15.5 SP
6 Dgs 16.9 83.1 0.0 15.2 SP
7 Dgs 6.3 93.8 0.0 17.75 SP
8 Dgs Gravelly sand 21.4 78.7 0.0 16.23 SP
9 Dgs 19.5 80.5 0.0 18.21 SP
10 Ac Gravelly sand 11.8 88.2 0.0 17.19 SP
15-71
5) Biliran Bridge
Table 15.3.3-30Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of BIL-N1
Natural
Plasticity
Soil Major Soil Moisture ASTM Soil
GL-(m) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Index PI
Layer Type Content Classification
(%)
(%)
Clay with
1 Dc 0.0 27.8 72.2 29.8 8 MH
gravel
Table 15.3.3-31Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of BIL-S1
Natural
Plasticity
(%)
(%)
1 Clay with 0.0 31.9 68.1 47.4 5 ML
Ac
2 gravel 0.0 49.5 50.6 47.6 7 MH
6) Liloan Bridge
Table 15.3.3-32Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of LIL-N1
Natural
Plasticity
(%)
(%)
1 CL1 Sandy silt 0.0 86.4 54.6 21.0 3 ML
15-72
Table 15.3.3-33Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of LIL-S1
Natural
Plasticity
Soil Fines Moisture ASTM Soil
GL-(m) Major Soil Type Gravel (%) Sand (%) Index PI
(%)
(%)
1
Gravel
2
3 Asg Coarse to 0.0 99.1 0.9 30.2 SP
4 medium sand 0.0 99.5 0.5 26.7 SP
5 Gravel
6 Sand with 8.7 90.6 0.7 18.1 SP
Dsg1
7 gravel
8
Gravel
9
10 Sandy gravel 25.2 74.6 0.2 11.10 SW
11
Gravel
12
13 Sandy gravel 24.7 75.1 0.2 12.30 SW
14 4.4 95.4 0.2 9.30 SP
15 33.3 66.5 0.2 10.10 SW
16
17 Gravelly sand 9.0 90.8 0.2 17.40 SW
18 18.6 81.2 0.2 18.60 SP
19 Dsg2
20 7.5 92.2 0.2 23.20 SP
21 22.2 77.2 0.6 10.70 SP
Sandy gravel
22
23 17.7 82.1 0.2 0.07 SP
24
25 19.9 80.0 0.2 6.63 SW
26
Sand
27
28 19.7 80.1 0.2 7.60 SP
29 29.7 70.2 0.2 6.60 SP
30 16.7 83.1 0.2 5.70 SP
15-73
7) Wawa Bridge
Table 15.3.3-34Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of WAW-L1
Natural Plasticity
Soil Major Soil ASTM Soil
GL-(m) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Moisture Index PI
Layer Type Classification
Content (%) (%)
1 5.5 56.1 38.4 19.6 18 CL
2 Clay with 5.3 35.8 58.9 13.0 15 CL
3 gravel 8.8 59.1 32.1 19.7 SC-SM
BF
4 41.7 36.0 22.3 14.0 SC-SM
5 Clay with 0.8 39.4 59.9 31.4 13 CL
6 gravel 8.3 34.3 57.4 29.5 12 CL
Clay with
7 0.0 11.1 89.0 32.30 10 CL
gravel
8 0.0 7.2 92.8 41.82 11 CL
Clay with
9 0.0 6.1 93.9 43.4 14 CL
gravel
10 0.0 7.3 92.7 42.7 11 CL
11 Clay with 0.0 5.6 94.5 46.1 19 MH
12 gravel 0.0 8.8 91.2 40.9 10 MH
13 0.0 3.4 96.6 33.1 30 MH
Clay
14 0.0 1.9 98.1 38.1 14 MH
15 0.0 1.6 98.4 25.3 11 MH
16 0.0 3.0 97.0 26.2 22 MH
17 Clay 0.0 1.3 98.7 30.6 11 MH
18 Qc 0.0 3.3 96.8 27.5 12 MH
19 0.0 11.7 88.3 30.6 11 MH
20 0.0 33.3 66.7 26.3 18 MH
21 0.0 31.4 68.6 44.3 8 OL
22 3.2 6.1 90.7 50.4 14 MH
23 0.0 5.3 94.8 44.1 5 ML
24 0.0 8.7 91.3 47.1 9 ML
25 Clay 0.0 6.4 93.6 51.3 4 ML
26 0.0 9.7 90.3 26.7 6 ML
27 0.0 5.6 94.4 42.0 17 OH
28 0.0 10.5 89.5 30.6 14 OH
29 0.0 1.6 98.4 35.1 11 MH
30 0.0 3.2 96.8 40.6 16 MH
15-74
Table 15.3.3-35Grain Size Analysis and Soil Classification on Soil Samples of WAW-R1
Natural Plasticity
Soil Major Soil ASTM Soil
GL-(m) Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) Moisture Index PI
Layer Type Classification
Content (%) (%)
Sand and
1 20.3 79.1 0.6 13.7 SP
gravel
Clayey gravel
2 Ag 9.3 90.3 0.4 8.6 SP
and sand
3 Clay with 20.9 37.2 41.8 40.8 14 MH
4 gravel 44.1 23.3 32.6 21.5 SC-SM
5 Clayey gravel 48.6 23.5 27.9 14.4 SC-SM
6 and sand 4.8 47.1 48.2 22.2 7 ML
Very fine sand
7 As with fines and 0.0 98.6 1.4 16.67 SP
gravel
8 Weathered
9 rock (boulder)
10 8.7 36.6 54.7 20.94 16 MH
Clay
11 3.6 23.2 73.2 21.38 11 MH
12 0.0 9.7 90.3 16.36 12 CL
Clay with
13 23.9 29.4 46.7 17.67 13 MH
gravel
14 10.5 24.4 65.2 20.06 13 MH
15 boulder
16 9.3 56.9 33.8 19.09 SC-SM
Gravel
17 10.1 58.6 31.3 17.50 SC-SM
18 Silt 0.0 9.9 90.1 29.60 14 MH
19 0.0 7.9 92.1 47.71 15 CL
Clay
20 Qc 0.0 6.1 93.9 46.52 14 CL
21 0.0 3.6 96.4 47.14 17 CL
22 0.0 6.0 94.0 49.15 16 CL
23 0.0 8.3 91.7 46.97 13 CL
24 3.3 16.5 80.2 43.03 15 CL
25 0.0 13.7 86.3 38.80 12 CL
Gravelly clay
26 0.0 8.5 91.5 35.69 13 CL
27 0.0 7.9 92.1 44.75 14 CL
28 0.5 10.6 88.9 46.69 12 CL
29 0.0 9.0 91.0 40.26 13 CL
30 0.0 8.9 91.1 41.89 15 CL
15.3.4 Reviews and Analysis on Results on Geological Investigation
(1) Soil Profile Type Classification
Soil profile types obtained using JRA’s methodology are shown in Table 15.3.4-1.
1) Metro Manila
a) Delpan Bridge
A rigid soil layers (mainly Ds) with Vs≥300 m/sec lie at a depth of 32 m below the ground
surface in the B-1 site. The ground characteristic value of the ground (TG) is 0.66 and the
ground type there is classified into Type III.
15-75
b) Nagtahan Bridge
A rigid soil layer with Vs≥300 m/sec is distributed at a depth of 23 m below the ground
surface at the B-1. The rigid layer is formed of pyroclastic rocks named the Guadalupe
Formation (GF). TG is 0.49 and the ground type there is II.
c) Lambingan Bridge
A rigid soil layer with Vs≥300 m/sec lies at a depth of 11 m below the ground surface in the
B-1 site. The rigid layer is composed of pyroclastic rocks named the Guadalupe Formation,
and intercalated by a very dense fine sand layer. TG there is 0.23 and the ground is classified
into Type II.
d) Guadalupe Bridge
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
JRA Ground JRA Ground
Bridge site Location TG Location TG
Type Type
Delpan Passig (Left) III 0.66 Passig (Right) ( II ) 0.42
Metro Manila
Nagtahan Passig (Left) II 0.49 Passig (Right) ( II ) 0.34

Lambingan Passig (Left) ( II ) 0.31 Passig (Right) II 0.23
Guadalupe Passig (Left) (I) 0.15 Passig (Right) III 0.59
Marikina Marikina (Left) (I) 0.09 Marikina (Right) II 0.47
Palanit Left bank I 0.05 Right bank I 0.09
Mawo Left bank I 0.13 Right bank III 0.72
Provinces
Biliran Biliran side I 0.01 Leyte side I 0.03

Liloan Leyte side I 0.01 Panaon side I 0.11
1st Mandaue-Mactan Cebu side I 0.08 Mactan side II 0.27
Buntun Left bank II 0.29 Right bank II 0.38
Wawa Wawa (Left) I 0.08 Wawa (Right) I 0.15
Type I can be compared to Class A, B or C in AASHOTO (2012), and also compared to Type I or II in AASHTO (2007), as
shown in Table 15.3.4-2.
e) Marikina Bridge
surface at the B-1 site. The rigid layer is a very dense sand layer (Ds2) with N-values of 50
and greater. TG is 0.47 and the ground type is classified into Type II.
15-76
2) Outside of Metro Manila
a) Buntun Bridge
(I) BTL-1
A rigid soil layer withVs≥300 m/sec is Ds2 and is distributed at a depth of 14 m below the
ground surface at the borehole site. The characteristic value of the ground (TG) is 0.29 and
the ground there is classified into Type II.
(II) BTL-2
A rigid soil layer withVs≥300 m/sec is also Ds2 and is distributed at a depth of 17 m below
the ground surface at the borehole site. The ground characteristic value of the ground (TG) is
0.38 and the ground there is classified into Type II as well as the BTL-1 site.
b) Palanit Bridge
(I) PAL-L1
A rigid layer with Vs≥300 m/sec is distributed at a depth of 6 m below the ground surface at
the site. The rigid layer is composed volcanic rocks. TG is 0.09 and the ground type there is
classified into Type I.
(II) PAL-R1
A rigid layer with Vs≥300 m/sec lies at a depth of 2 m below the ground surface at the site.
The rigid layer is composed volcanic/pyroclastic rocks. TG is 0.05 and the ground type there
is classified into Type I as well as the PARL-L1 site.
c) Mawo Bridge
(I) MAW-L1
A rigid soil layer with Vs≥300 m/sec lies at a depth of 38 m below the ground surface there.
The rigid layer is formed of volcanic rocks. TG is 0.72 and the ground type there is
classified into Type III.
(II) MAW-L2
Volcanic rock lies at a depth of 4 m below the ground surface and is a rigid layer with
Vs≥300 m/sec. TG is 0.13 and the site is classified into Type I.
d) Biliran Bridge
(I) BIL-NI
Volcanic rocks lie at a depth of one (1) m below the ground surface. TG is 0.01 and the
ground is classified into Type I.
(II) BIL-S1
Volcanic rocks are distributed at a depth of two (2) m below the ground surface. TG is 0.03
and the site is classified into Type I.
15-77
e) Liloan Bridge
(I) LIL-NI
The site is composed of coralline limestones. TG of the site is 0.01 and the ground is
classified into Type I.
(II) LIL-S1
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.
15-78
3) Comparison of Soil Profile Type Classification
Soil profile types determined using JRA’s method can be comparable to soil profile types
defined by AASHTO and ASEP as shown in Table 15.3.4-2.
Table 15.3.4-2 Comparison of Soil Profile Type Classification
(2) Design Condition
Soil parameters are preliminary proposed for preliminary design condition in this section. The
parameters below should be updated based on laboratory test or in-situ tests, and used for references
currently.
1) Soil Parameters for Bridge Design
a) N Value
N-values (SPT blow counts) give civil engineering essential information of soil strength or
characters. A design N-value (Nd) is proposed for each borehole site below.
b) Unit Weight of Soil
Unit weights of soils can be assumed based on the geological investigation and using a table
suggested by Nippon Expressway Company Ltd. (NEXCO), Japan (Table 15.3.4-3).
15-79
Table 15.3.4-3 Soil Type and Design Parameters on Soils (NEXCO)
Soil Type Condition of soil Unit Angle of Cohesion
weight * internal friction
(kN/m3) (degree) (kN/m2)
Gravel/Sand with gravel Compacted 20 40 0
Artificial Ground
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
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
Natural Ground
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)
15-80
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 Layer Soil Type N values Nd γt C Φ E0 Vsn
(m) (kN/m3) (kN/ (º) (kN/m2) (m/sec)
m2)
-8 As Sandy 11 – 17 13 17 0 34 9,013 188
-21 Ac Silty/Clayey 4 – 10 6 15 36 0 4,083 180
-32 Dc Silty/Clayey 9 – 13 15 18 94 0 10,558 247
-38 Ds Sandy 50/15 -50/25 84 19 0 39 35,000< 350
*Vsn: shear wave velocity (m/sec) assumed using conversion formula from N to Vs proposed by JRA
(ii) Nagtahan
At the borehole B-1, five (5) soil layers are identified. They are Bs (backfill sand), As
(alluvial sandy soil), Ag (alluvial gravelly soil), Ds (diluvial sand), and pyroclastic rocks
named the Guadalupe Formation (GF).
Table 15.3.4-5 Proposed Soil Parameters for Nagtahan B-1 Site

(m) name (kN/m3) (kN/m2) (º) (kN/m2) (m/sec)
-2 Bs Sandy 6 – 18 12 17 0 34 8,400 183
-12 As Sandy 4 – 14 10 17 0 32 7,210 174
-17 Ag Gravelly 13 – 17 16 17 0 33 10,920 200
-23 Ds Sandy 14 – 23 19 17 0 33 13,183 213
-30 GF Rock 50 ≤ 50 ≤ 21 – – – 300 <
15-81
(iii) Lambingan
At the borehole B-1, five (5) soil layers can be identified. They are Bs (backfill sand), As
(alluvial sand), Dc (diluvial cohesive soil), WGF (weathered rocks of the Guadalupe
Formation), and pyroclastic rocks named the Guadalupe Formation (GF).
Table 15.3.4-6 Proposed Soil Parameters for Lambingan B-1 Site

Depth Layer Soil Type N Nd γt C Φ E0 Vsn
-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

-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

-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 <
15-82
(II) Outside of Metro Manila
(i) Buntun
Table 15.3.4-9 shows a proposal of soil parameters for bridge design based on the
geological investigation result at BTL-1 located in the left bank of the river below the
Buntun Bridge.
Five (5) soil layers are identified and they are Ac1(alluvial cohesive soil), As (alluvial
sand), Ac2 (alluvial cohesive soil), Dc (diluvial cohesive soil), and Ds2 (diluvial sandy
soils). Dc2 and Ds2 are considered as good bearing layers.
Table 15.3.4-9 Proposed Soil Parameters for Buntun BTL-1 Site

-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 15.3.4-10Proposed Soil Parameters for Buntun BTL-2 Site

-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 <
(ii) Palanit
Four (4) soil layers are identified and they are Dsg (diluvial sand and gravel), Ds
(diluvial sand), Dc (diluvial cohesive soil), and VR (volcanic rocks) at PAL-L1. A
tentative proposal of soil parameters for bridge design is summarized in Table 15.3.4-11.
15-83
Table 15.3.4-11Proposed Soil Parameters for Palanit PAL-L1 Site
-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 15.3.4-12Proposed Soil Parameters for PAL-R1 Site

-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 15.3.4-13Proposed Soil Parameters for Mawo MAW-L1 Site

-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).
15-84
Table 15.3.4-14Proposed Soil Parameters for Mawo MAW-L2 Site
-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 15.3.4-15Proposed Soil Parameters for 1st Mandaue-Mactan MAN-E1 Site

3 2 2
(m) name (kN/m ) (kN/m ) (º) (kN/m ) (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 15.3.4-16Proposed Soil Parameters for 1st Mandaue-Mactan MAN-W1 Site

-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 <
15-85
(v) Biliran
Dc (diluvial cohesive soil) and VR (volcanic rocks) are identified at BIL-N1. Ac (alluvial
clay) lies on VR at BIL-S1. A tentative proposal of soil parameters for bridge design is
shown in Table 15.3.4-17 and Table 15.3.4-18.
Table 15.3.4-17Proposed Soil Parameters for Biliran BIL-N1 Site

-1 Dc Silty/Clayey 50 < 50 < 18 313< 0 35,000< 300 <
-30 VR Rock 50 < 50 < – – – 35,000< 300 <
Table 15.3.4-18Proposed Soil Parameters for Biliran BIL-S1 Site

-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 15.3.4-19Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan LIL-S1 Site

-1 CL1 Silty/Clayey 50/10 50 < 18 313 0 35,000< 300 <
-30 CL2 Limestone 50 < 50 < 21 – – 35,000< 300 <
Table 15.3.4-20Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan LIL-S1 Site

-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<
15-86
(vii) Wawa
Two (2) soil layers are identified at WAW-L1 (Table 15.3.4-21). And, three (3) soil
layers are identified at WAW-R1 (Table 15.3.4-22).
Table 15.3.4-21Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan WAW-L1 Site

-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 15.3.4-22Proposed Soil Parameters for Liloan WAW-R1 Site

-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.
15-87
FOS=(CRR7.5/CSR)·MSF
CSR=(τ·σv/σv’0)=0.65·(amax/g)·( σv0/σv’0)·γd
σv0, σv’0: Total and effective vertical overburden stress

amax: Peak horizontal acceleration at the ground surface generated by the earthquake
γd : Stress reduction coefficient
=1.0-0.00765·z for z<=9.15m
=1.174-0.0267·z for 9.15m<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 stress
CE: correction for hammer energy ratio (ER)
CB: correction factor for borehole diameter
CR: correction factor for rod length
CS: correction for samples with or without liners
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
15-88
2) Empirical Method by JRA
The methodology using SPT N-values in the liquefaction potential assessment specified by JRA
is mentioned below.
a) Soil layers for Liquefaction Potential Assessment (JRA's method)
Liquefaction assessment shall be conducted when alluvial saturated soil layers meet all of the
following conditions.
1) The groundwater level is within 10 m and soil layers within 20 m from the ground surface
2) Fine content (FC) ≤35 or Plastic Index (PI) ≤15
3) D50≤10mm and D10≤1mm
Figure 15.3.4-1 shows a flow chart on evaluation of soil layers to be assessed for the
liquefaction potential assessment.
15-89
Start
Groundwater level No
within 10 m from
the ground surface
Saturated soil
layers within 20 m No
from the ground
surface
Yes
Grain size analysis No

(one sample per one meter)
No
D50 ≤ 10 mm
Yes
No
D10 ≤ 1 mm
Yes
Fine Content
FC ≤ 35%
No
Atterberg limit test
Yes
Yes Plasticity Index No

PI ≤ 15
To assess liquefaction potential Not to assess liquefaction Potential
Figure 15.3.4-1 Flow Chart for Evaluation of Liquefiable Soil Layers
15-90
b) Liquefaction Potential Assessment
Soil layers with FL≤1.0 are considered to potentially cause liquefaction.
FL＝R/L
FL stands for a resistance ratio for liquefaction (factor of safety) on a soil layer (usually
estimated at every one (1) meter). Dividing an R value by an L makes an FL value.
R=Cw/RL
L=rd·khgL·σv/σv’
rd=1.0-0.015 x
khgL=Cz・khgL0
Level 1 seismic motion and Level 2 (Type I) seismic motion
Cw=1.0
Level 2 (Type II) seismic motion
Cw=1.0 (RL≦0.1)
Cw=3.3RL+0.67 (0.1<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
15-91
Table 15.3.4-23Standard Design Lateral Force Coefficient for Liquefaction Potential
Assessment
Level 1 seismic Level 2 (Type I) Level 2 (Type II)
motion seismic motion seismic motion
Type I Ground 0.12 0.50 0.80
Type II Ground 0.15 0.45 0.70
Type III Ground 0.18 0.40 0.60
c) Cyclic Tri-axial Strength Ratio (RL)
RL=0.0882·(Na/1.7)0.5 [Na<14]
0.5 -6 4.5
RL=0.0882·(Na/1.7) +1.6·10 ·(Na-14) [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.
15-92
Table 15.3.4-24Comparison of Liquefaction Assessment Methodology using SPT Blow Counts
between AASHTO’s Recommendation and JRA
3) Liquefaction Potential at Bridge Sites
Liquefaction potential assessment requires some physical soil properties such as D50, D10, or
FC. However, in this interim report, the data of soil properties had been tentatively obtained
from the laboratory test. Therefore liquefaction potential mentioned below shows a preliminary
potential assessment by assuming soil properties based on observation of the soil samples
obtained in boring. These assessment results have to be updated based on the final laboratory test
results.
a) Liquefaction Potential inside of Metro Manila
(I) Delpan Bridge

Liquefaction potential of B-1 borehole is shown in Figure 15.3.4-2.
Figure 15.3.4-2 Summary of liquefaction potential (Delpan B-1)
15-93
At the borehole (B-1), sandy and silty soil layers from GL-3 m to GL-17 m have relatively
high liquefaction potential.
(II) Nagtahan Bridge

At the borehole (B-1), soil layers bedded GL-1 m and -7 m have relatively high liquefaction
potential.
Figure 15.3.4-3 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (Nagtahan B-1)
15-94
(III) Lambingan Bridge
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)
15-95
(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.
15-96
Figure 15.3.4-7 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (BTL-1)
Figure 15.3.4-8 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (BTL-2)
(II) Palanit Bridge

Basically there is considered to be no liquefiable soil layers based on the boring (PAL-L1
and PAL-R1).
(III) Mawo Bridge

Liquefaction potential of MAW-L1 and L2 boreholes are shown in Figure 15.3.4-9 and
Figure 15.3.4-10 . There is liquefaction potential up to a depth of 20 m at MAW-L1
and 4 m at MAW-L2 currently.
15-97
Figure 15.3.4-9 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (MAW-L1)
Figure 15.3.4-10 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (MAW-L2)
(IV) 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge

Liquefaction potential of MAN-E1 borehole is shown in Figure 15.3.4-11. A borehole
(MAN-W1) site is considered to be not so liquefiable.
At the MAN-E1, there is liquefaction potential from the ground surface to GL-16 m. MAN-
W1 site has less liquefaction potential (Figure 15.3.4-12).
15-98
Figure 15.3.4-11 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (MAN-E1)
Figure 15.3.4-12 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (MAN-W1)
(V) Biliran Bridge

At the two (2) boreholes (BIL-S1 and BIL-N1), there are considered to be not liquefiable
based on the JRA’s criteria.
(VI) Liloan Bridge

LIL-N1 borehole site is located in limestone prone area and there is not liquefiable soil
(Figure 15.3.4-13). Another borehole (LIL-S1) site has very low liquefaction potential.
15-99
Figure 15.3.4-13 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (LIL-S1)
(VII) Wawa Bridge

Liquefaction potential of WAW-R1 borehole is shown in Figure 15.3.4-14. There is some
liquefaction potential from the ground surface to GL-4 m using the JRA’s method. Another
borehole (WAW-L1) is considered to be not liquefiable.
Figure 15.3.4-14 Summary of Liquefaction Potential (WAW-R1)
15-100
4) Summary of Liquefaction Potential at Boreholes
Table 15.3.4-25 currently shows a summary of liquefaction potential assessment.
Table 15.3.4-25Summary of Liquefaction Potential Assessment

Bridge Borehole Liquefaction Depth of Liquefaction Potential (GL- m)
Potential (applying JRA Level 2 Seismic motion)
Delpan B-1 Yes 18
Nagtahan B-1 Yes 20
Lambingan B-1 Yes 7
Guadalupe B-1 Yes 6
Marikina B-1 Yes 18
Buntun BTL-1 Yes 10
BTL-2 Yes 13
Palanit PAL-L1 No
PAL-R1 No
Mawo MAW-L1 Yes 20
MAW-L2 Yes 4
1st Mandaue- MAN-E1 Yes 16
Mactan MAN-W1 No
Biliran BIL-N1 No
BIL-S1 No
Liloan LIL-N1 No
LIL-S1 No
Wawa WAW-R1 No
WAW-L1 No
15.4 River and Hydrological Conditions
15.4.1 Package B
The candidate bridges of Package-B are all located on Pasig-Marikina River in Metro Manila. Delpan
Bridge is located at about 0.7 km, Nagtahan Bridge is about 5.0 km, Lanbingan Bridge is about 10.0
km, and Guadalupe Bridge is about 14.4 km upstream along Pasig River from the river mouth.
Marikina Bridge is located at about 6.6 km upstream along Upper Marikina River from the Junction
of Mangahan Floodway.
(1) Outline of Pasig-Marikina River
The Pasig-Marikina River flows through the city of Manila to the Manila Bay. Its total catchment area
is estimated at around 621 km2, about 20% of which is situated in Metro Manila. At the junction of
Napindan Hydraulic Control Structure (NHCS), the river is known as the Marikina River in the upper
reaches and the Pasig River in the lower reaches. The San Juan River, one of the tributaries with a
catchment of 91 km2, joins the Pasig River at its meandering section in the central city area where is
7.1 km from the river mouth. The Mangahan Floodway has been constructed to divert floodwaters
from the Marikina River into the Laguna Lake.
15-101
The Pasig River from the river mouth to the junction of NHCS in total 17.1 km has the average
riverbed gradient of 1/10,000, the width ranging from 60 m to 250 m and depth from 6.0 m to 12.0 m.
The Pasig River plays important role as a transportation route between river mouth, where the
moorings facilities are installed along the riversides especially from Delpan Bridge to Jones Bridge,
and densely built-up factories along the river toward the NHCS.
The Marikina River consists of two stretches, namely: Lower Marikina River from NHCS to
Mangahan Floodway in total 6.9 km and Upper Marikina River from Mangahan Floodway to
Montalban (Mangahan Floodway to Sto. Niño in total of 6.3 km). The Lower Marikina River has the
average river gradient of less than 1/5,000, the width ranging from 50 m to 110 m and the depth from
4.2 m to 9.5 m. The Upper Marikina River has the average gradient of 1/5,000, the width ranging
from 70 m to 200 m.
The Laguna Lake is situated in Region IV (Southern Tagalog) at 14°11.6’ to 14°32.2’ north
longitude and 120°2.7’ to 121°28.7’ latitude. The basin encompasses a total area of nearly 4,000
km2. The lake has a total surface area of about 900 km2, and average depth of 2.8 m. It has a total
volume of 3.2 billion m3 with a shoreline of 220 km.
(2) Climate of Pasig-Marikina River Basin
According to the Corona Climate Classification by PAGASA, the climate of Pasig-Marikina River
Basin is classified under Type Ⅰ. It is characterized by a dominant rainy season from May to October
and a dominant dry season for the rest of the months. The mean annual rainfall in Manila Port Area is
showed in Figure 15.4.1-1. The total rainfall from May to October accounts about 88 % of the annual
rainfall, which is brought mainly by the wet southwestern monsoon and the occasional typhoons.
Metro Manila has been suffering from flood damages almost every year in part to the insufficient flow
capacity of the Pasig-Marikina Rivers and drainage systems in Metro Manila. Especially, Typhoon
Ondoy hit Metro Manila on 26th of September in 2009 and dumped one month’s rainfall in less than
24 hours, causing Marikina River system including Mangahan Floodway to burst its banks rapidly.
Along with the flooding of other river systems, 80 % of National Capital Region (NCR) became
flooded. This is the worst storm on record that Metro Manila has experienced since 1967.
15-102
500 35
Rainfall (mm)
450
No. of Rainy days 30
400
350 25
No. of Rainy days
Rainfall (mm)
300 20
250
200 15
150 10
100
5
50
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Mean Annual Rainfall in Manila Port Area
Figure 15.4.1-1 Mean annual rainfall in Manila Port area (1981-2010)
(3) Pasig-Marikina River Channel Improvement Project
The Pasig-Marikina River has experienced frequent channel overflow even after construction of
Mangahan Floodway in 1985, the channel improvement project has been conducted.
DPWH formulated the master plan of the Pasig-Marikina River System in the Study on Flood Control
and Drainage Project in Metro Manila (JICA Study, March 1990). In the master plan, the river
channel improvement project including the Marikina Control Gate Structure (MCGS) and Marikina
Dam against the project scale of 100-year return period was proposed. The estimated design flood
discharge was reviewed in the Detailed Engineering Design conducted in 2002 as shown in Figure
15.4.1-2. In the Detailed Engineering Design, the project scale is proposed to be a 30-year return
period for the urgent flood control plan. Major works consists of the improvement of Pasig River and
Lower Marikina and a part of Upper Marikina Rivers, and the construction of MCGS. The San Juan
River Improvement and the construction of Marikina Dam are excluded. The estimated design flood
discharge distribution against the project scale 30-year return period is shown in Figure 15.4.1-3. The
Pasig-Marikina River Channel Improvement Project has already been commenced based on the
design flood discharge distribution in Pasig River.
15-103
SANJUAN
RIVER
750
MCGS STO. NIÑO
MANILA 1,300 650 550 500 2,900 2,400 1,500 2,100

BAY
2,400
800
MARIKINA
95
35
0
DAM
NAPINDAN MANGAHAN NANGKA
RIVER FLOODWAY RIVER
Figure 15.4.1-2 Design Flood Discharge Distribution against 100-year Return Period
(MP in 1990)
SAN JUAN
RIVER
700
MCGS STO. NINO

MANILA 1,200 600 550 500 2,900
BAY
2,400
300
0
35
95
NAPINDAN MANGAHAN
RIVER FLOODWAY
Figure 15.4.1-3 Design Flood Discharge Distribution against 30-year Return Period
(DD in 2002)
15-104
Table 15.4.1-1 Summary of Proposed Pasig-Marikina River Channel Improvement Plan in
Detailed Engineering Design in 2002
Freeboard
Design
Stretch Allowance for Work Item
Discharge
Embankment
Lower Pasig River (9.2 km)
Delpan Bridge
1,200 m3/s 1.0 m
~ San Juan River (7.1 km) Raising of existing parapet wall and
San Juan River 3 rehabilitation of revetment
600 m /s 1.0 m
~ Lambingan Bridge (2.1 km)
Upper Pasig River (7.2 km)
Lambingan Bridge Raising of existing parapet wall and
600 m3/s 1.0 m
~ Napindan Channel (7.2 km) rehabilitation of revetment
Lower Marikina River (7.3 km)
Dredging / excavation, provision of
Napindan Channel
550 m3/s 1.0 m new parapet wall, embankment and
~ Mangahan Floodway (7.3 km)
construction of MCGS
Upper Marikina River (6.1 km)
Dredging / excavation, revetment,
Mangahan Floodway
2,900 m3/s 1.2 m raising of embankment and river
~ Sto. Niño (6.1 km)
widening
(4) Major Design Condition of Bridges in Pasig-Marikina River
1) Design Flood Discharge and Design Flood Level
Design Flood Discharge in Pasig-Marikina River is referred to the value estimated in Detailed
Engineering Design of Pasig–Marikina River Channel Improvement Project as shown in Table
15.4.1-1. The Design Flood Discharge is estimated against the project scale 30-year return period
because of the urgent project. On the other hand, according to the estimated Design Flood
Discharge in master plan in 1990, the discharge against 100-year return period might be
controlled as almost same amount as it against 30-year return period by Marikina Dam proposed
to construct in the upstream of Upper Marikina River.
Design Flood Level in Pasig-Marikina River corresponding to the discharge is also estimated in
the Detailed Engineering Design. The water level in Pasig-Marikina River is well affected by the
tide level of Manila Bay and also Laguna Lake. The Design Flood Level was calculated with
considering of the backwater of the observed highest tide level in Manila Bay.
In the Detailed Engineering Design, the tide level of Manila Bay was referred to the data of
Primary Tidal Bench Mark BM4B in Intramuros Manila. However, the Bench Mark BM4B has
been disappeared in 2004. Then, topographic survey in this study has been conducted based on
the elevation of BM66 in Manila South Harbor. Therefore, the tide level of Manila Bay might be
referred to the bench mark BM66. The tidal information at Manila South Harbor tide Station is
obtained from NAMRIA as below;
15-105
Table 15.4.1-2 Tidal Information at Manila South Harbor Tide Station
Observed Mean Higher Mean High Mean Lower Mean Low
Station
Highest Tide High Water Water Low Water Water
Manila South Harbor

1.48 m 0.51 m 0.39 m - 0.49 m - 0.38 m
(14°35’ N 120°58’E)
*Series of Observation: Manila South Harbor BM 66 (1989-2008)

**Elevations are above Mean Sea Level (The tidal data in “TIDE AND CURRENT TABLES Philippines 2012
established by NAMRIA” is all above Mean Lower Low Water Level)
Source: Letter from NAMRIA and TIDE AND CURRENT TABLES Philippines 2012
According to the result of the Detailed Engineering Design considering the updated tide level,
the Design Flood Level in each candidate bridges are shown in Table 15.4.1-3.
Table 15.4.1-3 Design Flood Discharge and Design Flood Level in Pasig-Marikina River
Distance from Design Flood Design Flood Level (m)
Bridges in Package-B
River mouth (km) Discharge (m3/s) (above Mean Sea Level)
B-01 Delpan Bridge 0.71 1,200 1.480

B-06 Nagtahan Bridge 5.01 1,200 2.074
B-08 Lambingan Bridge 9.95 600 2.995
B-10 Guadalupe Bridge 14.40 600 3.257
13.12
B-16 Marikina Bridge 2,900 9.697
(from Napindan Channel)
However, the water level in Marikina Bridge has been recorded 11.20 m (above mean sea level)
in the Ondoy Typhoon in September 26th 2009 which occurred the heaviest damages in Metro
Manila. (It was recorded as 22.16 m above Mean Lower Low Water Level +10.47 m by Sto.
Niño Station Gauge which is set by PAGASA) But the recording by the Sto. Niño Station Gauge
was stopped after the elevation (22.16 m) because of a technical problem. According to the
residential people, the water level came up to really close to the bottom of the girder of Marikina
Bridge. The water level in Ondoy Typhoon is seemed to have been higher than the elevation
11.20 m which was recorded by PAGASA. Due to the presentation about the hydraulic analysis
of the Ondoy Typhoon and Marikina River Flood by UPCOE-ICE-NHRC, the peak flood
discharge of Marikina River in Sto. Niño Station in Ondoy Typhoon was 5,770 m3/s and rainfall
depth in 6 hours was 347.5 mm. It corresponds to a 100 ~ 150-year return period rainfall.
Figure 15.4.1-4 Water Level at Marikina Bridge in Ondoy Typhoon (September 26th 2009)
15-106
In this study, the design flood level might be referred to the Detailed Engineering Design. The
design flood level in Marikina Bridge is also referred to the Detailed Engineering Design even
the water level in Ondoy Typhoon was above the design flood level because the design flood
discharge in Marikina Bridge against 100-year return period would be controlled by Marikina
Dam which is proposed in Master Plan in 1990 in the future (refer to Figure 15.4.1-3).
2) Flow Velocity
The flow velocity at the bridges corresponding to the Design Flood Discharge is calculated by
the equation below;
Q=A・V
where, Q : Design Flood Discharge (m3/s)
A : Cross Sectional Area (m2)
V : Flow Velocity (m/s)
Table 15.4.1-4 Flow Velocity against the Design Flood Discharge in Pasig-Marikina River
Bridges in Package-B Design Flood Discharge (m3/s) Flow Velocity (m/s)
B-01 Delpan Bridge 1,200 1.41

B-06 Nagtahan Bridge 1,200 1.92
B-08 Lambingan Bridge 600 1.16
B-10 Guadalupe Bridge 600 1.27
B-16 Marikina Bridge 2,900 3.53
3) Navigation Clearance
The regulated vertical navigation clearance specified under Philippine Coast Guard (PCG)
Memorandum-Circular No.05-97, “Minimum Vertical Navigation Clearance for Road Bridges”
is 3.75 m (10 ft) from the highest water level that would allow the safety passage of watercrafts,
which should be applied on the Pasig River and lower Marikina River for transportation by barge.
The Detailed Engineering Design reports the highest water level in Pasig River means the
highest tidal water level on record and not the flood level because the water level of Pasig River
usually from river mouth to around Guadalupe Bridge is well affected by the tide level in Manila
Bay. The current direction of Pasig River is also changing by the tide level.
15-107
However, PCG is proposing the new vertical clearance as below because the scale of the
vessels/ships has been becoming increasingly large;
Vertical Clearance (Proposed by PCG) = H.W.L + H.V +K

where, H.W.L : The Highest Water Level recorded within the AOR
H.V : Height of Vessel
K : Constant 3 meters allowance
However, the vertical clearance proposed by PCG would affect the vertical alignment of the
bridges along the Pasig River and also the approach road area if bridges meet the clearance in
reconstruction. The vertical clearance is realistically not acceptable to the bridges in Pasig River.
Therefore, the existing regulation of the vertical clearance might be applied in this study and
which is approved in the Technical Working Group with DPWH.
Thus, the minimum vertical navigation clearance for the Delpan Bridge, Nagtahan Bridge,
Lambingan Bridge and Guadalupe Bridge is below;
Vertical Clearance = H.W.L + 3.75 m

where, H.W.L : Observed Highest Tide in Manila Bay (= 1.48 m)
The elevation of the soffit for these 4 bridges must be higher than 5.23 m (above Mean Sea
Level).
The navigational span of the bridge should be provided in a way that it does not obstruct the safe
navigation of appropriate vessels or watercraft passing through the area.
As for Marikina Bridge, navigation is made by only small banker boat along Upper Marikina
River and there is no regulation about the navigation clearance in Upper Marikina River.
4) Freeboard and Vertical Clearance
As Detailed Engineering Design reporting in Table 15.4.1-1, according to the “DESIGN

Guidelines Criteria and Standards for Public Works and Highways” which is prepared by the
Bureau of Design (DPWH Design Guideline), the freeboard allowance for embankment at each
bridge are determined corresponding to the design discharge as below;
15-108
Table 15.4.1-5 Freeboard Allowance for Embankment
Item Design Discharge (m3/s) Value to be added to design water level (m)
1 Less than 200 0.60
2 200 to less than 500 0.80
3 500 to less than 2,000 1.00
4 2,000 to less than 5,000 1.20
5 5,000 to less than 10,000 1.50
6 More than 10,000 2.00
Source: DESIGN Guidelines Criteria and Standards for Public Works and Highways
Also vertical clearance (below the bridge) shall not be less than 1.50 m for stream carrying
debris and 1.00 m for others. According to DPWH, Pasig-Marikina River carries debris in flood
condition and the vertical clearance must have not less than 1.50 m.
Considering the freeboard and the vertical clearance, value to be added to design water level at
bridges along the Pasig-Marikina River might be 1.50 m.
5) Considerations
a) River Flow at Lambingan Bridge
According to the Station Commander

of Coast Guard Station PASIG (PSG),
the area of Lambingan Bridge is an
accident prone zone for the navigation
in the Pasig River because the bridge
is located on the sharp river bend.
PSG regulates the maximum speed for
navigation in the Pasig River as 12
knots, but as for the area from about
200 m before and after Lambingan
Bridge (both ways) the maximum
speed is regulated as 5 knots. The direction of the river flow from at Lambingan Bridge is
toward the northern pier and vessel/ships are prone to hit the pier because of the flow.
15-109
b) Vessel/Ships Navigation in Flood Condition
The vertical navigation clearance in the Pasig River regulated

by PCG is set from the observed highest tide in Manila Bay
and it is not considered of the flood condition. However,
according to the Station Commander of PSG, navigation in
flood condition is not restricted by the regulation and it is
restricted in typhoon based on the warning signal by
PAGASA. The all responsibility of the navigation in the flood Photo 15.4.1-1
condition is on the captain’s decision. However, the water level is raised up to higher than the
observed highest tide level which is caused by the heavy rain and the water level of the
Laguna Lake, and the vertical navigation clearance might be decreased and vessel/ships are
likely to hit the bottom girder like Lambingan Bridge. There is a crack on the bottom cord
caused by the collision on the Lambingan Bridge even Lambingan bridge meets the vertical
navigation clearance.
6) Major Design Condition
The summary of the major design condition of the bridges of Package-B is shown in Table
15.4.1-6.
Table 15.4.1-6 Summary of the Major Design Condition of Package-B

Design Water Level Observed Highest Tide Elevation of Soffit of
Bridges in Package-B
+ Vertical Clearance (m) + Navigation Clearance (m) the Bridges (m)
B-01 Delpan Bridge 2.98 (1.480 + 1.50) 5.23 (1.48 + 3.75) 5.15
B-06 Nagtahan Bridge 3.574 (2.074 + 1.50) 5.23 (1.48 + 3.75) 5.66
B-08 Lambingan Bridge 4.495 (2.995 + 1.50) 5.23 (1.48 + 3.75) 5.81
B-10 Guadalupe Bridge 4.757 (3.257 + 1.50) 5.23 (1.48 + 3.75) 9.47
B-16 Marikina Bridge 11.467 (9.967 + 1.50) No navigation 12.70
Figure 15.4.1-5 Design High Water Level and Vertical Clearance at Delpan Bridge
Figure 15.4.1-6 Design High Water Level and Vertical Clearance at Nagtahan Bridge
15-110
Figure 15.4.1-7 Design High Water Level and Vertical Clearance at Lambingan Bridge
Figure 15.4.1-8 Design High Water Level and Vertical Clearance at Guadalupe Bridge
Figure 15.4.1-9 Design High Water Level and Vertical Clearance at Marikina Bridge
15.4.2 Package C
The candidate bridges of Package-C are located on rivers, river mouths, channel and straits. Buntun
Bridge is over the Cagayan River in Northern Luzon, approximately 130 km from River Mouth to the
Babuyan Channel. Wawa Bridge is over the Wawa River which is the tributary of Agusan River in
Eastern Part of Mindanao Island. Palanit Bridge is over the Palanit River in Northern Samar of
Visayas, approximately 200 m from the river mouth to the Samar Sea. Mawo Bridge is over the
Bangon River in Northern Samar of Visayas, approximately 700 m from the river mouth to the Samar
Sea. 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge is located over the Mactan Channel connecting Mactan Island and
Cebu Island in Visayas. Biliran Bridge is located over the Biliran Strait connecting Biliran Island and
Northern Leyte in Visayas. Liloan Bridge is located over the Panaon Strait connecting Panaon Island
and Northern Leyte in Visayas.
15-111
(1) Hydrological Survey and Results of Cagayan River
1) Outline of Cagayan River
Cagayan River travels about 520 km in the Cagayan Valley from South to north in the northern
part of the Luzon Island, which is the longest and largest river in Philippines with its catchment
area of 27,281 km2. The major tributaries are the Magat River (5,113 km2), Ilagan River (3,132
km2), Siffu-Mallig River (2,015 km2), and Chico River (4,551 km2).
The climate in the Cagayan River Basin consists of two tropical monsoons, i.e. the Southwest
Monsoon and the Northeast Monsoon. According to the Corona Climate Classification by
PAGASA, climate in the Cagayan River basin is under Type III. This climate type is by not very
pronounced seasons with relatively dry weather condition from November to April while the
remaining of the year is noted as wet weather. The Cagayan River Basin experiences heavy
rainfall during the rainy season that normally occurs from June to November. Figure 15.4.2-1
shows the mean annual rainfall in Tuguegarao city where Buntun Bridge is located. The annual
average rainfall in the basin is estimated to be 2,600 mm.
Major storms that have struck the Cagayan River Basin have resulted from typhoons and
monsoon in the area. The typhoons normally strike during July to December, with about 8 times
a year on the average.
350 35
Rainfall (mm)
300 30
No. of Rainy days
250 25
No. of Rainy days
Rainfall (mm)
200 20
150 15
100 10
50 5
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Mean Annual Rainfall in Tuguegarao
Figure 15.4.2-1 Mean Annual Rainfall in Tuguegarao (1981-2010) and Annual Average Water
Level at Buntun Bridge
15-112
2) Existing Study of Cagayan River
The Cagayan River Basin has been experienced floods occur during typhoons usually strikes
from July to December which bring abundant rainfall to the basin and by heavy rainfall during
the rainy season that normally occurs from June to November. JICA conducted the Master Plan
Study on the Cagayan River Basin Water Resources Development from 1985 to 1987. The flood
control plan was formulated in the Master Plan including flood control dams, diking systems,
narrow improvement and bank protection. In the Feasibility Study conducted by 2002, the
Master Plan was reviewed and some priority flood control projects in the lower Cagayan River
were studied. The priority projects are including Tuguegarao right dike system (21.3 km) around
Buntun Bridge, Alcala-Buntun left dike system (33.5 km) along downstream of Buntun Bridge,
Enrile left dike system (12.2 km) along upper stream of Buntun Bridge and Tuguegarao cut-off
channels in upper stream of Buntun Bridge. According to the Feasibility Study, these projects are
proposed to be implemented in Phase 3 (2007-2015) and Phase 4 (2011-2020). However, it has
not been implemented and the Preparatory Study for Sector Loan on Disaster Risk Management
was conducted by JICA in 2010. In this study, the feasibility study was conducted for the
selected three core areas which really need urgent implementation of a flood control project in
Tuguegarao area.
3) Major Design Condition of Buntun Bridge
a) Design Flood Discharge and Design Flood Level
In this survey, because of no detail study, the design discharge of Cagayan River at Buntun
Bridge is estimated by Specific Discharge Method referring “MANUAL ON FLOOD
CONTROL PLANNING” established by Project for the Enhancement of Capabilities in Flood
Control and Sabo Engineering of the DPWH. Design high water level for the bridge must be
compared to the observed highest water level by interview with the high water level calculated
by the design flood discharge which is estimated by the Specific Discharge Method.
According to the DPWH Design Guideline, design storm frequency considered desirable for
use in the Philippines is 50 years. However this project scale must be also considered to be a
100-year return period because all the candidate bridges are very essential.
Design Flood Discharge is estimated at follows;
Q=q・A
q=c・A (A -0.048
-1)

q : Specific Discharge (m3/s/km2)
c : Constant for Regional Specific Discharge Curve (Table 16.5.2.1-1)
A : Catchment Area (km2)
15-113
Table 15.4.2-1 Constant for Regional Specific Discharge Curve
Return Period
Region
2-year 5-year 10-year 25-year 50-year 100-year
Luzon 15.66 17.48 18.91 21.51 23.83 25.37
Visayas 6.12 7.77 9.36 11.81 14.52 17.47
Mindanao 8.02 9.15 10.06 11.60 12.80 14.00
Source: MANUAL ON FLOOD CONTROL PLANNING March 2003
The catchment area of Cagayan River to the point of Buntun Bridge is 19,247 km2, which is
obtained using a topographic map prepared by NAMRIA. The constant for Regional Specific
Discharge Curve for Luzon is 23.83 for 50-year return period and 25.37 for 100-year return
period. Then, Design Flood Discharge for Cagayan River at Buntun Bridge is calculated using
the formula above, 11,103 m3/s for 50-year return period and 11,821 m3/s for 100-year return
period.
Design Flood Level is estimated with the Manning’s equation;
Q=A・V
V=1/n・R2/3・S1/2
A : Cross Sectional Area (m2)
n : Manning’s Roughness Coefficient
R : Hydraulic Radius (m)
S : River Bed Slope
Manning’s roughness coefficient is obtained from DPWH Design Guideline considering the
existing river condition. According to the Preparatory Study for Sector Loan on Disaster Risk
Management (January 2010), average riverbed slope is 1/9,000 between Alcala to Tuguegarao
River. The cross section at the Buntun Bridge is determined by the topographic survey
conducted in this study. The Design Flood Level corresponding to the Design Flood
Discharge 11,103 m3/s and 11,821 m3/s will be calculated after the topographic survey is done.
Table 15.4.2-2 Design Flood Level at Buntun Bridge

Specific Discharge Method
50-year return period 100-year return period
Design Flood Discharge (m3/s) 11,103 11,821
Flow Velocity (m/s)
Design Flood Level (m)
15-114
b) Site Interview
The water level of Cagayan River has been

observed at Buntun Bridge by PAGASA since
1982. The water level station gauge is on the pier.
According to PAGASA, the observed highest ▽O.H.W. L +12.70 m
water level of Cagayan River at Buntun Bridge is
12.70 m at the cold front in November 5th 2010.
The water level came up to the bottom of the Water Level Station
Gauge by PAGASA →
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 Photo 15.4.2-1
boat is passing under the bridge.
c) Major Design Condition
(I) Design High Water Level

The design high water level is determined by comparing the observed highest water level
12.70 m and the design flood level corresponding to the design flood discharge. The design
flood level will be calculated after topographic survey at Buntun Bridge is finished.
(II) Flow Velocity
The flow velocity at the design water level will be calculated after the water level is
determined.
(III) Vertical Clearance and Freeboard

According to DPWH Design Guideline, vertical clearance (below the bridge) shall not be
less than 1.50 m for stream carrying debris and 1.00 m for others. And also, the freeboard
allowance for embankment is determined corresponding to the Design Flood Discharge as
Table 15.4.1-4.
Thus, value to be added to design water level at Buntun Bridge might be 2.00 m whether it
carries debris or no, because Design Flood Discharge is more than 10,000 m3/s at Buntun
Bridge.
Vertical Clearance 2.00 m

Observed Highest Water Level 12.70 m (Design Water Level assumed)
Note: The section of Buntun Bridge and Riverbed is assumed
Figure 15.4.2-2 Design High Water Level and freeboard at existing Buntun Bridge
15-115
(2) Hydrological Survey and Results of Wawa River
1) Outline of Wawa River
Wawa River is one of the tributaries of the Agusan River, located in the northeastern part of
Mindanao. The Agusan River has the third largest basin of the Philippines with a river length of
350 km and the catchment area 10,921 km2. Wawa River with a river length of 88.2 km with the
catchment area of 764.14 km2 flows into the Agusan River at middle Agusan River Basin in
Agusan del Sur Province.
The Climate in Wawa River Basin is Tropical Wet and it is rainy throughout the year. Based on
the Coronas Climate Classification, most of the Wawa River Basin is classified to Type Ⅱ
which is characterized by the absence of a dry season and a very pronounce maximum rainfall
occurring from November to January, even the most part of the Agusan River Basin is classified
to Type Ⅳ. The mean annual rainfall at Surigao and Butuan City, Agusan del Norte where has
the close climate as Wawa River Basin is showed in Figure 15.4.2-3.
700 35
700 35
Rainfall (mm)
Rainfall (mm) 600 30
600 30
No. of Rainy days
No. of Rainy days
500 25
500 25
No. of Rainy days
No. of Rainy days
Rainfall (mm)
Rainfall (mm)
400 20
400 20
300 15
300 15
200 10
200 10
100 5
100 5
0 0
0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Month
Mean Annual Rainfall in Butuan City
Mean Annual Rainfall in Surigao
Figure 15.4.2-3 Mean Annual Rainfall in Surigao and Butuan City (1981-2010)
2) Existing Study of Wawa River
The master plan project for the Agusan River Basin to develop the integrated river basin
management was conducted by Asian Development Bank (ADB) by 2008. On the other hand,
regarding to Wawa River, Wawa River Irrigation System (WRIS) was constructed at
approximately 60 m downstream of Wawa Bridge by National Irrigation Administration (NIA)
in 2005. According to the drawings of the WRIS which is obtained from NIA sub office
controlling the irrigation system, the design flood discharge is 1,280 m3/s for 50-year return
period and 1,770 m3/s for 100-year return period.
15-116
3) Major Design Condition of Wawa Bridge
In this survey, because of no detail study, the design discharge of Wawa River at Wawa
Bridge is estimated by Specific Discharge Method as same as Cagayan River in (1) 3) a).
The catchment area of Wawa River to the point of Wawa Bridge is 407 km2, which is
obtained using a topographic map prepared by NAMRIA. The constant for Regional Specific
Discharge Curve for Mindanao is 12.80 for 50-year return period and 14.00 for 100-year
return period (Table 15.4.2-1). Then, Design Flood Discharge for Wawa River at Wawa
Bridge is estimated at 1,156 m3/s for 50-year return period and 1,264 m3/s for 100-year return
period.
Design Flood Level is calculated by the Manning’s equation. Manning’s roughness coefficient
is obtained from DPWH Design Guideline considering the existing river condition. The
average riverbed slope is difficult to be determined by the results of this topographic survey
because of the riverbed topography around Wawa Bridge is not showing some constant slope.
But according to the drawings of WRIS, the riverbed slope is approximately 1/400. The cross
section at the Wawa Bridge is determined by the topographic survey conducted in this study.
As a result of the calculation, the Design Flood Level corresponding to the Design Flood
Discharge 1,156 m3/s and 1,264 m3/s is respectively 40.48 m and 40.64 m. As a reference, the
Design Flood Levels corresponding to the Design Flood Discharge obtained from the
drawings of WRIS, calculated at the cross section by this topographic survey are also showed
in below.
Table 15.4.2-3 Design flood level at Wawa Bridge

Design Flood Discharge obtained from
Specific Discharge Method the drawings of WRIS 2005
(*Reference)
50-year 100-year 50-year 100-year
3
Design Flood Discharge (m /s) 1,156 1,264 1,280 1,770
Flow Velocity (m/s) 2.92 3.01 3.02 3.29
Design Flood Level (m) 40.48 40.64 40.66 41.27
15-117
b) Site Interview
According to the controller of the WRIS, observed

▽O.H.W. L
highest water level at Wawa Bridge is 41.65 m
(above mean sea level) at the typhoon in February
2011. And also in 1959, there was a flood and the
water level came up to about 40.0 m, then the old
↑ Water Level
Wawa Bridge which was at the 50 m downstream Gauge by NIA
was washed out by the flood. Wawa River carries
lots of debris in flood condition. Photo 15.4.2-1

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
15-118
(3) Hydrological Survey and Results of Palanit River and Bangon River
1) Outline of Palanit River and Bangon River
Both Palanit River and Bangon River (named Mawo River in the map prepared by NAMRIA)
are located in the northern west part of Samar Island of Visayas. These rivers are not principal
rivers and have not much information. The length and catchment area of the rivers are obtained
from the map prepared by NAMRIA. The length of Palanit River is approximately 7.4 km with
the catchment area 15.9 km2 and the length of Bangon River is approximately 30.9 km with the
catchment area 263.9 km2. Both are facing to Samar Sea.
According to the Corona Climate Classification by PAGASA, climate of the both river’s basin is
under Type Ⅳ. In the climate, rainfall is more or less evenly distributed throughout the year, and
has no dry season. The mean annual rainfall in Catbalogan where is on the same coastline with
the both river’s basin is showed in Figure 15.4.2-5.
400 35
350 Rainfall (mm)
30
No. of Rainy days
300
25
No. of Rainy days
Rainfall (mm)
250
20
200
15
150
10
100
50 5
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Mean Annual Rainfall in Catbalogan
Figure 15.4.2-5 Mean Annual Rainfall in Catbalogan (1981-2010)
2) Major Design Condition of Palanit Bridge and Mawo Bridge
In this survey, because of no detail study, the design discharge of Palanit River at Palanit
Bridge and Bangon River at Mawo Bridge is estimated by Specific Discharge Method as same
as Cagayan River in 16.5.2.1 (3) 1), and Wawa River in 16.5.2.2 (3) 1).
15-119
The catchment area of Palanit River to the point Palanit Bridge is 15.9 km2 and Bangon River
to the point of Mawo Bridge is 263.9 km2, which are obtained using a topographic map
prepared by NAMRIA. The constant for Regional Specific Discharge Curve for Visayas is
14.52 for 50-year return period and 17.47 for 100-year return period (Table 16.5.2-1). Then,
Design Flood Discharge for Palanit River at Palanit Bridge is estimated at 164 m3/s for 50-
year return period and 197 m3/s for 100-year return period, that for Bangon River at Mawo
Bridge is estimated at 1,035 m3/s for 50-year return period and 1,245 m3/s for 100-year return
period.
Both Palanit Bridge and Mawo Bridge are located at almost the river mouth. Palanit Bridge is
approximately 200 m upstream from the river mouth and Mawo Bridge is approximately 700
m upstream from the river mouth. Therefore, the water level at these bridges is affected by
tide level and the non-uniform flow method shall be applied for determination of Design
Flood Level for these bridges.
According to “Manual on Flood Control Planning”, water level in non-uniform flow shall be
calculated by Energy Equation as below;
H2+V22/2g = H1+V12/2g+he
where, H : Water Level (m)
g : Gravitational Acceleration (m/s2)
he : Energy Head Loss (m)
A diagram showing terms of the energy equation is shown below;
Source: Manual on Flood Control Planning
Figure 15.4.2-6 Terms in the Energy Equation
The energy head loss (he) between two sections is composed of friction losses.
15-120
he = L・Sf
where, L : Reach Length (m)
Sf : Representative Friction Slope between two sections
The friction slope (slope of the energy grade line) at each cross section is computed from
Manning’s equation as follows:
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
Catbalogan
1.40 m 0.79 m 0.59 m - 0.76 m - 0.66 m
(11°46’ N 124°52’E)
*Series of Observation: Catbalogan (2011 -2012)

**Elevations are above Mean Sea Level
Source: Letter from NAMRIA
As a result of the non-uniform flow calculation, the design flood level at the Palanit Bridge
(H2) is estimated at 1.72 m for 50-year return period corresponding the Design Flood
Discharge 164 m3/s, and 1.90 m for 100-year return period corresponding the Design Flood
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.
15-121
Table 15.4.2-5 Design Flood Level at Palanit Bridge and Mawo Bridge
Location Palanit Bridge Mawo Bridge
Return Period 50-year 100-year 50-year 100-year
3
Design Flood Discharge (m /s)
164 197 1,035 1,245
(calculated by Specific Discharge Method)
Flow Velocity (m/s) 1.79 1.92 1.47 1.75
Design Flood Level (m) 1.72 1.90 1.31 1.35
b) Site Interview
(I) Palanit Bridge

According to residential people, the observed highest water
level in flood condition is approximately 1.80 m ~ 1.90 m.
Photo 15.4.2-2
Usually the water level at the Palanit Bridge is changing
according to the tidal level. According to residential people,
the water level comes up to approximately 1.50 m in high
tide. Palanit River carries debris in flood condition. Only
small banker boat is passing under the bridge.
(II) Mawo Bridge

According to residential people, Bangon River has experienced to be flooded in 1982, 1984
and 1987 and the observed highest water level in flood condition is approximately 1.50 m.
The house situated on the right river bank has experienced to be flooded approximately 0.40
m from the ground in the flood condition (Photo 15.4.2-2). Bangon River carries debris in
flood condition.
Usually the water level at the Mawo Bridge is also changing according to the tidal level.
Only small banker boat is passing under the bridge.

The water level at Palanit Bridge 1.90 m with Design Flood Discharge Q=197 m3/s is much
higher than the observed highest tide in Catbalogan (1.40 m), and the water level has not big
difference with the flood level which is obtained by site interview. Therefore, elevation 1.90
m might be adopted as the Design Flood Level of Palanit Bridge.
As for Mawo Bridge, the observed highest flood level (1.50 m) is higher than theobserved
highest tide in Catbalogan (1.40 m) or the water level 1.35 m with Design Flood Discharge
Q=1,245 m3/s. Therefore, elevation 1.50 m might be adopted as the Design Flood Level of
Mawo Bridge.
15-122
(II) Flow Velocity
The flow velocity with the Design Flood Discharge Q=197 m3/s at Palanit Bridge is 1.92
m/s, and 1.75 m/s at Mawo Bridge with the Design Flood Discharge Q=1,245 m3/s

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.

▽Design Flood Level Elv.1.90 m (Q=197 m3/s 100-year return period)
Figure 15.4.2-7 Design High Water Level and freeboard at existing Palanit Bridge

▽Observed Highest Tide Elv.1.50 m
Figure 15.4.2-8 Design High Water Level and freeboard at existing Mawo Bridge
(4) Hydrological Survey and Results of Mactan Channel, Biliran Strait and Panaon Strait
1) Outline of Mactan Channel, Biliran Strait and Panaon Strait
a) Mactan Channel
Mactan Channel is the narrow body of water between mainland Cebu and Mactan Island in
Visayas. It stretches about 12 km north to south. Mactan Channel serves as the site of the
Cebu Harbor which is one of the largest harbor facilities in Philippines and the channel is one
of the main passageways for ships navigating between Cebu and Bohol.
15-123
According to the Corona Climate Classification by PAGASA, climate in Mactan Channel is
under Type Ⅲ. It has no very pronounced maximum rain period with a dry season lasting only
few months during February to May. The mean annual rainfall in Mactan International Airport
in Cebu is showing in Figure 15.4.2-9.
b) Biliran Strait
Biliran Strait is located between Biliran Island and northern part of Leyte Island in eastern
Visayas.
The climate of Biliran is evenly moist throughout the year with heaviest rainfall during
December and January. It is classified under Type Ⅳ in the Corona Climate Classification by
PAGASA. The mean annual rainfall in Tacloban City where is about 60 km away in Layte
Island and same climate Type is showing in Figure 15.4.2-9.
c) Panaon Strait
Panaon Strait is located between Panaon Island and southern part of Leyte Island in Visayas.
In the Panaon Strait, the Liloan Ferry Terminal is situated only about 500 m west from Liloan
Bridge. The ferry service is between Liloan and Surigao in Mindanao, and the sea route is
west side of the Panaon Island and they are not passing under Liloan Bridge.
The climate of the Panaon Strait is wet throughout the year and classified under Type Ⅱ in the
Corona Climate Classification by PAGASA. The mean annual rainfall might be referred to
that in Surigao (Figure 15.4.2-3 in (2) 1)).
450 35 450 35
Rainfall (mm) Rainfall (mm)
400 400
No. of Rainy days 30 No. of Rainy days 30
350 350
25 25
No. of Rainy days
No. of Rainy days
300 300
Rainfall (mm)
Rainfall (mm)
250 20 250 20
200 15 200 15
150 150
10 10
100 100
5 5
50 50
0 0 0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month Month
Mean Annual Rainfall in Cebu Mean Annual Rainfall in Tacloban City
Figure 15.4.2-9 Mean Annual Rainfall in Cebu and Tacloban City (1981-2010)
15-124
2) Tidal Information of Mactan Channel, Biliran Strait and Panaon Strait
According to NAMRIA, the tide level at Mactan Channel, Biliran Strait and Panaon Strait is
referred to respectively the tidal information at Cebu Tide Station, Catbalogan Tide Station and
Surigao Tide Station observed by NAMRIA. Cebu Tide Station is located about 5 km south
along the Mactan Channel from 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge. Catbalogan Tide Station is located
about 55 km northeast from Biliran Bridge. Surigao Tide Station is located about 60 km
southeast along the Surigao Strait from Liloan Bridge.
Table 15.4.2-6 Tidal Information at Cebu, Catbalogan and Surigao Tide Station
Station
Cebu
1.49 m 0.78 m 0.51 m - 0.71 m - 0.51 m
(10°18’ N 123°55’E)
Catbalogan
1.40 m 0.79 m 0.59 m - 0.76 m - 0.66 m
(11°46’ N 124°52’E)
Surigao
1.11 m 0.55 m 0.44 m - 0.49 m - 0.41 m
(09°47’ N 125°30’E)
*Series of Observation: Cebu (1989-2007), Catbalogan (2011-2012), Surigao (1987-2005)
**Elevations are above Mean Sea Level (The tidal data in “TIDE AND CURRENT TABLES Philippines 2012 established
by NAMRIA” is all above Mean Lower Low Water Level)
Source: Letter from NAMRIA and TIDE AND CURRENT TABLES Philippines 2012
3) Major Design Condition of 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge, Biliran Bridge and Liloan Bridge
According to DPWH Region Ⅶ Office, 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge has the navigation clearance
as below because many big vessels/ships are navigating under the bridge. And the navigation
clearance has been adopted to the design of 2nd Mandaue-Mactan Bridge constructed about 1.4
km northeast in Mactan Channel.
Vertical Clearance : 22.860 m above Mean High Water Level

Horizontal Clearance : 112.780 m
Navigation Clearance 22.860 m

Horizontal Clearance 112.780 m ▽Mean High Water Level
Elv.0.51 m
st
Figure 15.4.2-10 Navigation Clearance of 1 Mandaue-Mactan Bridge
15-125
On the other hand, according to Maritime Industry Authority Marina Regional Office No.VIII,
there is no navigational ship under Biliran Bridge and Liloan Bridge. In the case of Biliran
Bridge, its vertical clearance and shallow depth limits the use thereof to mostly motorbancas. In
case of Liloan Bridge, the same is not passable for vessels/ships more than 200 GT with high
structures or booms. It is also commonly known that the unusually strong current under the
bridge and its vicinities discourage vessels/ships to pass through the said shorter route. As of
now only motorbancas passes under Liloan Bridge.
▽M.S.L
Figure 15.4.2-11 Tide Level on Biliran Bridge
▽M.S.L
Note: The section of Liloan Bridge and Riverbed is assumed
Figure 15.4.2-12 Tide Level on Liloan Bridge
15-126
15.5 Existing Road Network and Traffic Condition
15.5.1 National Road Network

DPWH adopts a functional road network classification namely: Arterial Roads comprising North-
South Backbone, East-West Laterals and other Road of Strategic Importance or Strategic Roads and
National Secondary Roads (see Figure 15.5.1-1 - Figure 15.5.1-3). According to the figures, all major
cities and traffic generation sources are connected with arterial roads. The definitions of the road
classifications are as follows:
(1) Arterial Roads (15,987km)

North-South Backbone (5,151km)
 The backbone road network in consideration of road and sea (ferry) linkages.
 This includes interconnection of primary centers and roads leading to growth corridors.
East-West Laterals (3,016 km)

 Arterial roads which inter-links North-South backbone road network in an east-west lateral
orientation across the country with an interval of 50 to 200 km.
Strategic Roads (7,819 km)

 Roads which connect the other primary entries and all tertiary centers not on the above road
category.
 These include roads which interconnect the above category roads at an appropriate interval as
well as forming a closed network and alternative roads, including island circumferential and
cross-island roads.
15-127
(2) National Secondary Roads (15,372km)
 All other national roads that are not classified as the arterial roads.
Figure 15.5.1-1 DPWH Functional

Classification (1/3) (Luzon)
Figure 15.5.1-2 DPWH Functional Classification (2/3) (Visayas)
15-128
Figure 15.5.1-3
DPWH
Functional
Classification
(3/3)
(Mindanao)
Source: DPWH
Atlas
15.5.2 Road Network in Metro Manila

Road Network in Metro Manila is formed by mainly five (5) circumferential roads and ten (10) radial
roads are connected central business district (hereafter called as CBD), commercial and residential
area. Road network is shown in Figure 15.5.2-1. And, there is expressway of NLEX and SLEX are
connected to the city of Region III and Region IV-A. CBD is the commercial and geographic heart of
a city which is concentrated nearby EDSA. Specially, Makati CBD and Ortigas CBD is economical
centre in Metro Manila. Therefore, heavy traffic congestion is occurring during weekday at EDSA as
shown in Figure 15.5.2-2. Global City CBD has recently developed rapidly, traffic volume along C-5
will tremendously increase in the near future.
Source: JICA Study Team Source: JICA Study Team

Figure 15.5.2-1 Road Network of Metro Manila Figure 15.5.2-2 CBDs and Road Network
15-129
15.5.3 Road Classification of Selected Bridges
Selected Five Bridges are located in N-S Backbone and other 2 Bridges are located in Secondary
Road shown in Table 15.5.3-1. But 1st Mactan Bridge is very important bridges to connect with Cebu
Island and Mactan Island (Cebu Airport).
Lambingan Bridge is also very important bridge to connect with Makati City and Mandaluyong City.
Table 15.5.3-1 Road Classification of Selected Bridges

Selected Bridge Road Name Road Classification
Lambingan Bridge Guv W. Pascual Ave. Secondary
Guadalupe Bridge EDSA N-S Backbone
1st Mandaue - Mactan Bridge AC Cortes Ave. Secondary Road
Palanit Bridge Pan Philippine Highway N-S Backbone
Mawo Bridge Pan Philippine Highway N-S Backbone
Liloan Bridge Pan Philippine Highway N-S Backbone
Wawa Bridge Pan Philippine Highway N-S Backbone
15.5.4 Traffic Condition

Traffic count survey was carried out inside Metro Manila and outside Metro Manila to better
understand the current traffic condition. The purpose of traffic count survey is show in below.
 For consideration and plan of detour, the number of vehicles affected during the construction
period for seismic strengthening (maintenance, repair and reinforcement) and forecasting
future traffic volume.
 To consider the traffic volume for detour road/bridge during seismic retrofit/replacement
 To forecast future traffic volume to determine necessary number of lanes
Based on these purpose, traffic survey method, result and condition is described below.
(1) Methodology of Traffic Count Survey
Traffic survey contents
 Traffic Survey Period : 2 weekdays from 6:00 AM to 6:00 AM inside Metro Manila and Cebu
area, 2 weekdays from 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM outside Metro Manila.
 Type of Vehicle : 7 classifications (Motorcycle, Car, Jeepney Bus Truck etc.).
 Survey Method : Surveyor was using traffic counter and recording every per hour. And,
traffic volume was observed by direction.
(2) Survey Location
Summary of traffic count survey station is shown in Table 15.5.4-1.
Traffic count survey location inside Metro Manila is on Pasig River and Marikina River bridges and
near intersections where are shown in Figure 15.5.4-1 and Figure 15.5.4-2. Traffic count station on
bridge is 12 locations, intersection is 12 locations. Considerations of the point of determining
intersection are considered to account for the long distance of detour based on traffic regulation of
large truck and public transportation.
On the other hand, traffic count survey location outside Metro Manila is North Luzon area, Samar
area, Cebu area and Mindanao area as shown in Figure 15.5.4-3. Traffic count on bridge is 7 bridges
and intersection is 3 locations. Area of other than Cebu and Mindanao is no road for long distance of
detour road. Therefore, intersection survey was carried out 3 locations.
15-130
Table 15.5.4-1 Summary of Traffic Count Survey Location
Area Station No. Location Survey Period Remark
RTC-BR01 Delpan Bridge Target Bridge
RTC-BR02 Jones Bridge -
RTC-BR05 Ayala Bridge -
RTC-BR06 Nagtahan Bridge Target Bridge
RTC-BR-PB Pandacan Bridge -
RTC-BR08 Lambingan Bridge Target Bridge
24-hours traffic
RTC-BR09 Makatimandaluyong Bridge -
RTC-EPB Estrella Pantaleon Bridge -
RTC-BR10 Guadalupe Bridge Target Bridge
RTC-BR11 C-5 Bridge -
RTC-BR15 Marcos Bridge -
Inside RTC-BR16 Marikina Bridge Target Bridge
Metro Manila ITC BR01-A Moriones - Bonifacio Drive
ITC BR01-B Claro M. Recto - Bonifacio Drive
ITC BR01-C Padre Burgos - Roxas Blvd.
ITC-BR05 Quirino Avenue - Paco
ITC-BR06 Lacson - Espana
ITC-BR08-A Pres. Quirino – Pedro Gil
24-hours traffic Intersection
ITC-BR08-B Pedro Gil-Tejeron
ITC-BR08-C Shaw Blvd. - New Panaderos
ITC-BR10-A EDSA - Kalayaan Avenue
ITC-BR10-B EDSA - Shaw Boulevard
ITC-BR10-C Merit - Kalayaan Avenue
ITC-BR16 Marcos Highway-Aurora Blvd. -Bonifacio Ave.
RTC - C02 Buntun Bridge 16-hours traffic
RTC - C07 1st Mandaue - Mactan Bridge 24-hours traffic
RTC - C09 Palanit Bridge
RTC - C11 Mawo Bridge Target Bridge
Outside RTC - C12 Biliran Bridge 16-hours traffic
Metro Manila RTC - C14 Liloan Bridge
RTC - C15 Wawa Bridge
ITC - C07-1 ML Quezon-MV Patalinghug-Marigondon Road
24-hours traffic
ITC - C07-2 Plaridel - A. Cortes Avenue Intersection
ITC – C15-1 Bayugan Intersection 16-hours traffic
15-131
Reference: Google Map
Figure 15.5.4-1 24-Hour Traffic Count Survey Station on the Bridge inside Metro Manila

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
(3) Traffic Count Survey Result
1) Traffic Volume on the Bridge
Traffic survey result is shown in Table 15.5.4-2 and Table 15.5.4-3. The traffic volume on
bridges are seen annual average traffic volume (hereafter called in AADT) to use seasonal factor
which was referred DPWH’s traffic survey results.
The following observations can be deduced from the traffic survey results of bridges;
 Guadalupe Bridge in the Metro Manila has the highest traffic volume among 12 bridges with
over 200,000 veh/day.
 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge has the highest traffic volume outside Metro Manila.
 Jones Bridge, Lambingan Bridge and Marcos Bridge inside Metro Manila and 1st Mandaue-
Matan Bridge outside Metro Manila have the high volume of Jeepney over 6,000 veh/day.
 Large truck and trailer is difficult through Metro Manila, they are passing particular roads
which are C-2 and C-5 as circumferential road and Bonifacio Drive as radial road. Therefore,
Delpan Bridge, Nagtahan Bridge and C-5 Bridge have the high volume traffic of large truck
and trailer.
2) Intersection Traffic Volume

Intersection traffic volume is shown in Figure 15.5.4-4 to Figure 15.5.4-18 which are by
direction traffic volume.
The following observations can be deduced from the traffic survey result of intersections;
 All observed intersection condition is chronically occurred heavy congestion at peak hour as
shown in intersection traffic volume results in Metro Manila.
 Specially, EDSA, Quirino Avenue and A. Bonifacio Avenue have the traffic volume with
more than 100,000 veh/day.
15-134
Table 15.5.4-2 Summary of Traffic Count Survey Result inside Metro Manila (AADT)
AADT (Veh/Day) Rate of

1. 2. Car / Truck
No. Bridge Name 4. Large 5. 2-Axle 6. 3-Axle 7. Truck
Motorcycle Taxi / Pick- 3. Jeepney Sub-Total Total and
Bus Truck Truck trailer Trailer
/ Tricycle up / Van
1 Delpan Bridge 24,906 28,249 1,949 36 2,246 1,609 7,657 41,745 66,651 27.6%
2 Jones Bridge 15,153 30,117 7,696 152 972 123 30 39,089 54,241 3.3%
3 Ayala Bridge 13,160 27,632 1,153 612 914 223 688 31,222 44,382 5.8%
4 Nagtahan Bridge 21,132 64,460 1,655 344 4,993 2,032 1,823 75,306 96,438 11.7%
5 Pandacan Bridge 7,813 22,173 0 25 1,279 206 148 23,831 31,643 6.9%
15-135
6 Lambingan Bridge 9,379 13,626 6,093 31 943 137 48 20,877 30,255 5.4%
7 Makati-Mandaluyong Bridge 11,666 30,556 0 14 384 126 11 31,089 42,755 1.7%
8 Estrella Pantaleon Bridge 3,573 21,013 0 13 16 1 0 21,043 24,616 0.08%
9 Guadalupe Bridge 19,557 181,078 0 13,229 4,100 1,628 876 200,909 220,466 3.3%
10 C-5 Bridge 34,157 116,353 0 408 9,067 4,668 1,516 132,212 166,368 11.5%
11 Marcos Bridge 15,720 62,110 11,357 140 3,496 1,282 742 79,125 94,845 7.0%
12 Marikina Bridge 17,421 29,718 8,649 95 1,433 65 15 39,973 57,394 3.8%
*AADT: Annul Average Daily Traffic
Sub-Total is without Motorcycle/Tricycle
Yellow color is target bridges
Table 15.5.4-3 Summary of Traffic Count Survey Result outside Metro Manila (AADT)
AADT (Veh/Day)
No. Bridge Name 1. 2. Car / Taxi
4. Large 5. 2-Axle 6. 3-Axle 7. Truck
Motorcycle / Pick-up / 3. Jeepney Sub-Total Total
Bus Truck Truck trailer
/ Tricycle Van
1 Buntun Bridge 9,908 4,357 1,573 59 676 115 83 6,862 16,770
2 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge 28,497 34,573 8,285 12 49 6 1 42,924 71,421
3 Palanit Bridge 730 199 65 93 93 76 10 536 1,265
4 Mawo Bridge 2,889 322 73 93 130 102 14 735 3,625
5 Biliran Bridge 1,718 276 49 57 124 23 2 530 2,248
15-136
6 Liloan Bridge 1,979 226 45 84 180 25 15 575 2,554

7 Wawa Bridge 1,476 1,598 48 266 282 238 42 2,473 3,950
*AADT: Annul Average Daily Traffic
Sub-Total is without Motorcycle/Tricycle
NAVOTAS
38,454
18,656
15,313 19,799
2,030
2,456
6 4
5
1,125 12
MORIONES
2,336 833 11 7,317
378 10
PIER
5,359 12,847
7 1,882
3,023 8 717 5,530
9 2,932
2
1 3
19,954 15,649
4,028
277
18,622
38,576
Unit:
vehicle/day
ANDA CIRCLE
Figure 15.5.4-4 Moriones - Bonifacio Drive Intersection
NAVOTAS
ZARAGOZA
41,498
24,039 17,459
14,532
1,778
656
494
6 4
5
14
1,677 12
C.M. RECTO
11,843 3,844 11 7,753

6,322 10
PIER
22,774 13,112
7 13 261
10,932 8 3,526 5,359
9 1,572
2
1 3
18,096
Intersection Count
5,628
4,006
3,415
Flyover Count 31,144 23,080

54,224
Unit:
vehicle/day
ANDA CIRCLE
Figure 15.5.4-5 Claro M. Recto - Bonifacio Drive Intersection
15-137
ANDA CIRCLE/DELPAN
68,779
34,541
25,649 34,238
8,002
588
6 4
5
QUIRINO GRANDSTAND
MANILA CITY HALL

1,399 12
2,485 750 11 35,019
337 10
4,004 58,559
7 10,362
1,519 8 428 23,540
9 12,750
2
1 3
49,552 22,780
26,268
504
38,736
88,288
Unit:
vehicle/day
ROXAS BLVD.
Figure 15.5.4-6 Padre Burgos - Roxas Blvd. Intersection
NAGTAHAN
95,841
50,478
27,353 45,363
18,010
3
4
PANDACAN
18,010
32,020
14,010
2
1
50,478
41,363
91,841
Unit:
vehicle/day
PEDRO GIL
Figure 15.5.4-7 Quirino Avenue – Paco Intersection
15-138
LAONG LAAN/TAYUMAN
48,451
25,077
21,726 23,374
1,648
0
6 4
5
QUEZON AVE./WELCOME
1,489 12
28,658 27,170 11 34,790
10
RECTO
0
59,236 68,796
7 0
30,578 8 28,257 34,006
9 5,749
2
1 3
31,882 23,589
2,321
5,973
27,475
59,357
Unit:
vehicle/day
G. TUAZON/STA. MESA
Figure 15.5.4-8 Lacson – Espana Intersectionl
NAGTAHAN
115,729
50,561
46,398 65,168
16,483
2,288
6 4
5
PACO
TEJERON/STA. ANA
0 12
0 0 11 16,483
0 10
20,421 35,214
7 0
20,421 8 15,497 18,731
9 3,235
2
1 3
53,198 50,561
2,637
49,632
102,830
Unit:
SSH/TAFT AVE.
vehicle/day
Figure 15.5.4-9 Pres. Quirino – Pedro Gil Intersection
15-139
CARREON
18,421
10,179
8,243
5,358
4,821
0
6 4
5
PRES. QUIRINO AVENUE
NEW PANADEROS
472 12
11,711 7,801 11 12,622
3,439 10
25,488 25,386
7 2,209
13,777 8 9,803 12,765
9 753
2
1 3
3,975
5,562
0
9,537
9,549
19,086
Unit:
vehicle/day
A.P. REYES/TEJERON
Figure 15.5.4-10 Pedro Gil-Tejeron Intersection
SAN JUAN CITY

19,113
11,029
8,084
6,256
1,792
37
6 4
SHAW BLVD. 5
P. SANCHEZ/AURORA BLVD.
2,070 12
18,661 11,561 11 16,299
5,031 10
EDSA
39,849 36,327
7 2,221
21,188 8 16,387 20,028
9 1,421
2
1 3
4,765
14,450 6,739
2,947
12,707
27,157
Unit:
NEW PANADEROS
vehicle/day
Figure 15.5.4-11 Shaw Blvd. - New Panaderos Intersection
15-140
GUADALUPE
ROCKWELL/ESTRELLA
148,614
69,072
79,542
15,273
70,887
8,655
3
KALAYAAN AVE.
10 8,655
49,120
8 9
17,385 40,465
23,080
5 7
BUENDIA
29,831 18,972
65,758
10,859
18,543
18,972
35,928
6
69,072
17,769
37,515
1
86,841
4 2
109,240 BONIFACIO GLOBAL CITY
196,080
Unit:
vehicle/day
AYALA
Figure 15.5.4-12 EDSA - Kalayaan Avenue Intersection
CUBAO
163,654
70,215 93,439
11,355
66,405
12,190
3,489
6 4
5
14
0 12
KALENTONG/JRU
6,631 11
30,627
50,601
10
PASIG CITY
0
23,996 16
84,616
91,970
15 22,153
53,989
41,370
7 13 0
8 18,118
9 1,099
2
1 3
62,880
16,485
Intersection Count
2,364
7,335
Underpass Count 89,063 79,694
Flyover Count
168,757
Unit:
vehicle/day
BONI AVE./GUADALUPE
Figure 15.5.4-13 EDSA - Shaw Boulevard Intersection
15-141
GUADALUPE
31,180
15,163
5,874 16,017
2,765
7,379
6 4
5
EDSA/KALAYAAN AVENUE
4,308 12
25,531 18,565 11 25,944
2,658 10
C-5
50,105 59,194
7 10,855
24,574 8 21,810 33,250
9 586
2
1 3
0
9,118
0
9,118
Unit:
vehicle/day
FORT BONIFACIO
Figure 15.5.4-14 Merit - Kalayaan Avenue Intersection
Unit:
vehicle/day
Figure 15.5.4-15 Marcos Highway-Aurora Blvd. -Bonifacio Ave. Intersection
15-142
OPON BRIDGE
64,049
22,611
9,626 41,438
11,446
20,366
6 4
MACTAN INT'L AIRPORT/LLC

5
6,971 12
M.L. QUEZON
24,095 10,469 11 40,939

6,655 10
46,609 87,123
7 4,257
22,513 8 9,999 46,184
9 31,928
2
1 3
22,556 11,383
10,104
1,069
48,209
70,765
Unit:
vehicle/day
MAXIMO PATALINGHUG
Figure 15.5.4-16 ML Quezon-MV Patalinghug-Marigondon Road Intersection
PLARIDEL
39,937
18,640
14,755 21,296
4,899
1,643
6 4
5
OPON BRIDGE
5,650 12
A. CORTEZ
18,077 12,428 11 31,368

0 10
34,976 51,788
7 0
16,899 8 10,757 20,420
9 9,663
2
1 3
31,531 12,990
17,297
1,243
24,419
55,949
Unit:
vehicle/day
BRIONES
Figure 15.5.4-17 Plaridel - A. Cortes Avenue Intersection
15-143
BUTUAN
34,471
17,772
11,771 16,699
4,928
4
3
4,934
ESPERANZA
5,936 1,002
11,853
5
5,917
6
2
1
13,827 12,838
989
12,773
26,600
Unit:
vehicle/day
BAYUGAN
Figure 15.5.4-18 Bayugan Intersection
15-144
15.6 Results of Natural and Social Environmental Survey
(1) 1st Mandaue Bridge
There many illegal

settlers under the Bridge.
: Residential Area : Industrial Area
House Holds and Structures (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road)
・ Under the Bridge on both side of the strait there are many illegal settlers.
・ Total number of illegal houses 189 and number of PAPs are 733 at the time of survey.
Land use (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road)
・ Under the Bridge is used for resident area including some kinds of shops and illegal settlers.
Existing Environmental Condition (Noise, Vibration, Air Pollution and Water contamination.)
・ Environmental condition is not so bad for noise, vibration and air pollution. But sanitary
condition such as waste effluent is bad without water and sewerage.
Environmental Protection Area (national park, reserves and designated wet land)
・The Bridge is not located in cultural property or natural reserve area.
Existence on Location Map of Valuable Habitats Ecologically, Historical and Cultural Assets
The succeeding sub-sections are the results and analysis of the said household survey.
Age, Gender, Household Size, Tenure, Work-Gender, Educational and Occupational Profile
・ Based on the household survey results, most of the respondents are aged 30 to 39 years old
(30%) where majority are female respondents (72%). The dominance of respondents is
attributed on the timing of the interview where females (mostly wives and nannies) are the
ones left behind in their homes. Also, most of the respondents have a household size of 4 to
6 members (47%) and lived in the area since birth (27%) or have lived there for more than 10
years (39%).
・ The literacy and importance of education among the respondents is average since most of
them graduated from the high school level or reached the high school level (46%) when they
were interviewed. Unemployment is high in the area since most of the respondents don’t
have jobs (46%). For those that do have jobs or businesses, majority of them earn a monthly
salary of 1 to 4,999 pesos (51%) In addition to this, majority of those working are females
(61%)
Economic Status Profile
・ Most of the respondents live in houses made of nipa or plywood (45%) and G.I. sheet-made
roofing (81%). In terms of cooking, most of the respondents use charcoal (42%)
・ Majority of the respondents did not respond on the type of vehicles they owned (65%). For
those that do have, bicycles, motorcycles and tricycles were the commonly-owned means of
transportation (32%)
15-145
Sanitation and Health Conditions
・ Based on the survey results, 50% of the respondents have proper and adequate sanitation
facilities (i.e., toilets) and most of their toilets are open pits toilets (38%).
・ Last year, majority of the respondents got sick (51%) from sickness/diseases such as fever
and headache (13%), coughs, colds or the flu (15%) and other seasonal diseases such as
chicken pox and skin rashes (16%). Most of the respondents prefer self-medication (42%) in
treating their diseases whereas other residents prefer consulting doctors or have it check-up in
clinics or hospitals (41%)
Awareness and Social Acceptability of the Proposed Project
・ In terms of proposed Project’s awareness, majority of the respondents are aware of the
Project (64%). Most information on the proposed project came from their neighbors, family
members or from hearsay (43%)
・ In general, the proposed Project is considered beneficial to the barangays (94%) as it will
provide a safer means of transportation (53%). Most of the respondents perceive that traffic
will increase (33%) during the construction of the project
(2) Liloan Bridge
Under the Bridge is used for

basket court, vender, orchards
and etc.
: Residential Area
・ 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.
・ 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.
・ Environmental condition is good except for the pollution of traffic flow such as noise,
vibration and air pollution.
15-146
・ 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%).
・ 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%)
・ 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
There a house under the Bridge out of dyke wall.
There are many informal

settlers besides the Bridge.
: Residential Area : Industrial Area
15-147
・ 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.
・ Both sides of the Bridge are used for residential and factory area.
・ Environmental condition is bad for the pollution of traffic flow such as noise, vibration and
air pollution.
old (22%) where majority are female respondents (48%). The dominance of respondents is
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%)
・ 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.
・ 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%)
・ 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%).
lessen vehicular accidents (40%). The increase in traffic (28%) is mostly feared by the
respondents as the negative effect of the Project but they are aware that this will be
temporary during the construction activities.
15-148
(4) Guadalupe Bridge
There informal settler houses

around abutment.
: Business and Industrial Area
・ 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.
・ 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.
・ Environmental condition is bad for the pollution of traffic flow such as noise, vibration and
air pollution.
・ Based on the household survey results, most of the respondents are aged 40-49 years (27%)
and majority are female respondents (59%). The dominance of the respondents is attributed
on the timing of the interview where females (mostly wives and nannies) are the ones left
behind in their homes. Also, most of the respondents have a household size of 4 to 6
members (35%) and lived in the area since birth (34%) or in the area for more than 10 years
of their lives (24%).
・ Most of the respondents graduated from high school or reached the high school level (49%)
when they were interviewed. This may be attributed to poverty or the respondents finished
high school in the province and came to the metro to seek jobs in order to help their relatives
back home. Most of the respondents or their spouses own small businesses such as sari-sari
stores or small eateries (27%) or don’t have a job at all (22%). Majority of the respondents
have a monthly salary of 1 to 4,999 pesos (32%). In addition to this, more males (37%) are
working than females (34%)
15-149
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%)
・ 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%)
・ In terms of proposed Project’s awareness, most of the respondents are not aware of the
Project (54%). For those that knew about the project, majority of the respondents did not
reveal the source of their awareness (73%).
・ Despite this, the proposed Project is generally considered to be beneficial to the barangays
(78%) as it will provide a safer means of transportation to the people (46%). Aside from this,
most of the respondents perceive no negative effects from the proposed project (34%)
(5) Palanit Bridge
There informal settler houses.
Water pipe.
Under the Bridge is used for

boat shed and drying area.
: Residential Area : House
・ There are2 houses immediately beside the Bridge. The number of PAPs is 12 under the
Bridge.
・ Water pipe is held by the Bridge.
・ 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.
・ Based on the water quality sampling analysis some of the residents dispose of their waste
through the river but the level of contamination is under the standard.
15-150
old (34%) where majority are female respondents (58%). The dominance of respondents is
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%).
・ 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%).
・ 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%).
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%).
provide a safer means of transportation (67%). Half of the respondents do not perceive any
negative effects from the proposed project.
15-151
(6) Mawo Bridge
There houses immediately beside

the Bridge.
There houses beside

the Bridge
There used for storage, breeding
area and etc.
: Residential Area
・ Along the Bridge there are many houses immediately beside the Bridge.
・ There are 7 informal settlers under the Bridge with 37 PAPs.
・ 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.
・ 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.
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%).
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.
15-152
・ 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%).
promote the progress of the barangay (40%). The displacement of homes is the most
perceived negative effect of the project by the respondents (57%)
(7) Wawa Bridge
There many thatch houses prospective informal.
Water pipe
Maintenance cottage
Irrigation dam
: House
・ 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.
・ 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.
15-153
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%).
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%).
・ 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%).
・ 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%)
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%)
・ In terms of proposed Project’s awareness, all of the respondents are aware of the project
(100%) and consider it as beneficial (100%). Information regarding the project was mostly
obtained from project representatives (44%) and neighbors, family members or the radio
(33%). Respondents consider the project beneficial since it will provide a safer means of
transportation (69%). The main concern of the respondents is that residents will be displaced
from their homes (89%)
15-154
15.7 Highway Conditions and Design
15.7.1 Applicable Standards

The design and planning shall be conducted based on the standard issued by DPWH, and the items
that is not specified in the standard of DPWH, the standards of AASHTO and JRA shall be utilized.
The routes in the Package C may correspond to the Asian Highway, AH26, separately the standard of
ESCAP is utilized for the examination. The following table shows the applied standards in this project.
Table 15.7.1-1 Applicable Standards

No. NAMES OF STANDARDS
１ Design Guidelines Criteria and Standards DPWH
th
２ A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6 edition AASHTO
３ Japanese standards Road Structure Ordinance of JRA 2003. JRA
４ Asian Highway Classification And Design Standards ESCAP
Note： ESCAP（Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific）
JRA (Japan Road Association)
15.7.2 Objective Roads

Package B Package C
B08 Lambingan Bridge C09 Palanit Bridge
B10 Guadalupe Bridge C11 Mawo Bridge
C15 Wawa Bridge
Package B Package C
Figure 15.7.2-1 Objective Roads
15-155
15.7.3 Summary of Roads
B08 Lambingan
Name of Road New Panaderos Road
National Road Classification Secondary Road
DEO NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
South Manila District Engineering Office
B10 Guadalupe
Name of Road EDSA in C4
National Road Classification Primary road
DEO NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
Metro Manila 2nd District Engineering Office
C09 Palanit
Name of Road Pan-Philippine Highway（AH26）
DEO REGION VIII
Northern Samar 1st District Engineering Office
C11 Mawo
DEO REGION VIII
Northern Samar 1st District Engineering Office
C15 Wawa
DEO REGION XIII
Agusan del Sur 1st
15.7.4 Design Condition

(1) Traffic Volume
Table 15.7.4-1 Traffic Volume of Objective Roads
AADT
1. 2.
N0 Bridge name 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Mortorcycle Car/Taxi Sub-Total Total
Jeepney Large Bus 2-AxleTruck 3-Axle Truck Truck Trailer
/tricycle /Pick-up/Van
B08 Lambinguan traffic volume 9,379 13,626 6,093 31 943 137 48 20,878 30,257
ratio 31.0% 45.0% 20.1% 0.1% 3.1% 0.5% 0.2%
96.2% 3.8%
B10 Guadalupe traffic volume 19,557 181,078 0 13,229 4,100 1,628 876 200,911 220,468
ratio 8.9% 82.1% 0.0% 6.0% 1.9% 0.7% 0.4%
91.0% 9.0%
C09 Palanit traffic volume 730 199 65 93 93 76 10 536 1,266
ratio 57.7% 15.7% 5.1% 7.3% 7.3% 6.0% 0.8%
78.5% 21.5%
C11 Mawo traffic volume 2,889 322 73 93 130 102 14 734 3,623
ratio 79.7% 8.9% 2.0% 2.6% 3.6% 2.8% 0.4%
90.6% 9.4%
C15 Wawa traffic volume 1,476 1,598 48 266 282 238 42 2,474 3,950
ratio 37.4% 40.5% 1.2% 6.7% 7.1% 6.0% 1.1%
79.0% 21.0%
Note : Sub-Total is shown the traffic volume without Motorcycle/tricycle.
15-156
(2) Comparison Study of Technical Specifications
Table 15.7.4-2 Technical Specifications of Lambingan Bridge

B08 Lambingan
（Urban Collector Road）
Design
DPWH AASHTO AH Japanese
Speed Component Recommended
Standards Standards Standards Standards
(km/h)
1,500m
Min. Horizontal (110) (150ｍ)
- 64m Secure current
Curvature 80 100m
condition
The length of the 36m
minimum horizontal 30ｍ 20m - 80m Secure current
curve condition
Min. Rate of Vert.
9 7 - 8 9
Curvature K, Crest
Min. Rate of Vert.
10 13 - 7 14
Curvature K, Sag
Min. Stopping Sight
62.8m 65 m - 55m 65m
Distance
(5%) (5%) (5%)
Max. Grade 4～7% 5%
6～7% 9% 6～8%
(0.5%) (0.5%)
Min. Grade - 0.3～0.5% 0.7%
0.3～0.5% 0.3～0.5%
The length of the
60m - - 40m 60m-
minimum vertical curve
50
Min. Cross Slope 1.50% 1.50% - 1.5% -
Max. Cross Slope 2.00% 3.00% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
Max. Superelevation 8.00% 6.00% 10.0% 6.0% -

3.0m
2.75～ 3.00～ 3.25～
Lane Width 3.50m Secure current
3.65m 3.60m 3.5m
condition
(1.80- (0.60)
Shoulder Width 2.40m) 0.30～ 2.50ｍ 0.50m- 0.6m
0.60- 0.6m
0.60～
Median Width 1.20m- 2.50ｍ 1.00m- 1.2m
1.80m
(1.5 m-)
Sidewalk Width 1.50m- 1.20～ - 2.00m- 1.5m
2.40m
Note : Figure in parentheses are desirable values.
: AH(Asian Highway)
15-157
Table 15.7.4-3 Technical Specifications of Guadalupe Bridge
B10 Guadalupe
（Urban Arterial Road）
Design
(km/h)
∞
Curvature 115 150m
condition
The length of the
minimum horizontal 30ｍ 30m - 100m －
curve
Min. Rate of Vert.
15 11 - 14 －
Curvature K, Crest
Min. Rate of Vert.
15 18 - 10 －
Curvature K, Sag
Min. Stopping Sight
84.6m 85 m - 75m －
Distance
(5%) (5%) 5.5%
(5%)
Max. Grade 4～7% Secure current
6～7% 7% 5～7%
condition
(0.5%) (0.5%) 0.0%
Min. Grade - 0.3～0.5% Secure current
0.3～0.5% 0.3～0.5%
condition
60 The length of the
60m - - 50m －
Min. Cross Slope 1.50% 1.50% - 1.5% －
Max. Cross Slope 2.00% 3.00% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
2.75～ 3.00～ 3.25～

Lane Width 3.50m 3.35m
3.65m 3.60m 3.5m
(1.80- (0.60) 0.3m
Shoulder Width 2.40m) 0.30～ 2.50ｍ 0.50m- Secure current
0.60- 0.60m condition
Median Width 1.20m- 1.20m 3.00ｍ 1.00m- -
1.20m- (3.6m-)
Sidewalk Width - 2.00m- 1.5m
2.40m 2.40m-
: AH(Asian Highway)
15-158
Table 15.7.4-4 Technical Specifications of Palanit Bridge
C09 Palanit
（Rural Arterial Road）
Design
(km/h)
∞
Curvature 115 150m
condition
The length of the
minimum horizontal 30ｍ 30m - 100m -
curve
Min. Rate of Vert.
15 11 - 14 46
Curvature K, Crest
Min. Rate of Vert.
15 18 - 10 16
Curvature K, Sag
Min. Stopping Sight
84.6m 85 m - 75m 85m
Distance
(5%) (5%) (5%) 5.7%
6～7% 5～8% 5～7%
condition
(0.5%) (0.5%)
Min. Grade - 0.3～0.5% 0.3%
0.3～0.5% 0.3～0.5%
60 The length of the
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%

2.75～ 3.30～ 3.25～
3.65m 3.60m 3.5m
(1.80-
(0.60)
Shoulder Width 2.40m) 2.50ｍ 0.50m- 0.6m
0.60-
0.60-
1.20～
Median Width 1.20m- 3.00ｍ 1.00m- -
24.00m
(1.5 m-)
1.20m-
Sidewalk Width 1.20～ - 2.00m- 1.5m
2.40m
2.40m
: AH(Asian Highway)
15-159
Table 15.7.4-5 Technical Specifications of Mawo Bridge
C11 Mawo
Design
(km/h)
∞
Curvature 115 150m
condition
The length of the
minimum 30ｍ 30m - 100m -
horizontal curve
Min. Rate of Vert.
15 11 - 14 100
Curvature K, Crest
Min. Rate of Vert.
15 18 - 10 24
Curvature K, Sag
Min. Stopping
84.6m 85 m - 75m 85m
Sight Distance
(5%) (5%) (5%) 2.7%
6～7% 5～8% 5～7%
condition
(0.5%) (0.5%)
Min. Grade - 0.3～0.5% 0.5%
0.3～0.5% 0.3～0.5%
The length of the
60 minimum vertical 60m - - 50m 60m-
curve
Min. Cross Slope 1.50% 1.50% - 1.5% -
Max. Cross Slope 2.00% 2.00% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%

Max.
8.00% 12.00% 10.0% 6.0% -
Superelevation
2.75～ 3.30～ 3.25～
3.65m 3.60m 3.5m
(1.80-
(0.60)
Shoulder Width 2.40m) 2.50ｍ 0.50m- 0.6m-
0.60-
0.60-
1.20～
24.00m
(1.5 m-)
1.20m-
2.40m
2.40m
: AH(Asian Highway)
15-160
Table 15.7.4-6 Technical Specifications of Wawa Bridge
C15 Wawa
Design
(km/h)
200
Curvature 115 150m
condition
The length of the
minimum 30ｍ 30m - 100m 135m
horizontal curve
Length of Spiral
- 33m - 50 33m
curve
Min. Rate of Vert.
15 11 - 14 16
Curvature K, Crest
Min. Rate of Vert.
15 18 - 10 21
Curvature K, Sag
Min. Stopping
84.6m 85 m - 75m 85m
Sight Distance
(5%) (5%) (5%)
Max. Grade 4～7% 4%
6～7% 5～8% 5～7%
(0.5%) (0.5%)
Min. Grade - 0.3～0.5% 0.3%
0.3～0.5% 0.3～0.5%
The length of the
minimum vertical 60m - - 50m 60m-
60 curve
Min. Cross Slope 1.50% 1.50% - 1.5% -
Max. Cross Slope 2.00% 2.00% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%
Max.
8.00% 11.00% 10.0% 6.0% 6.9%
Superelevation
3.35m
2.75～ 3.30～ 3.25～
Lane Width 3.50m Secure current
3.65m 3.60m 3.5m
condition
(1.80-
(0.60)
Shoulder Width 2.40m) 2.50ｍ 0.50m- 0.6m-
0.60-
0.60-
1.20～
24.00m
(1.5 m-)
1.20m-
2.40m
2.40m
: AH(Asian Highway)
15-161
(3) Typical Cross-Section of Bridge Section
Current Road Cross-Section New Road Cross-Section

B08 Lambingan Bridge
23,400 23,400
1,200 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,200 1,500 3,000 3,000 3,000 600 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,500
500 500 500 500 600 300 300 600
Road width 23.4ｍ Road width 23.4ｍ

B10 Guadalupe Bridge（Replacement outside bridge）
8,500 8,500 8,800 8,800
1,200 3,350 3,350 3,350 3,350 1,200 1,500 3,350 3,350 3,350 3,350 1,500
300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300
South Boundlane North Boundlane South Boundlane North Boundlane

C09 Palanit Bridge
8,660 10,900
650 3,350 3,350 650 1,500 3,350 3,350 1,500
330 330 600 600

C11 Mawo Bridge
9,700 10,900
1,000 3,350 3,350 1,000 1,500 3,350 3,350 1,500
500 500 600 600

C15 Wawa Bridge
8,700 9,400
700 3,350 3,350 700 750 3,350 3,350 750
300 300 600 600

Note : Cross section of current roads are applied the typical cross section, because these are different
according to a place.
Figure 15.7.4-1 Typical Cross-Section of Bridge Section
15-162
(4) Typical Cross-Section of Approach Road Section
Current Road Cross-Section New Road Cross-Section

B08 Lambingan Bridge
23,400 23,400
1,200 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,200 1,500 3,000 3,000 3,000 600 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,500
500 500 500 500 600 300 300 600

C09 Palanit Bridge
10,700 10,700
3,350 3,350 3,350 3,350
2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

C11 Mawo Bridge
10,400 10,700
3,200 3,200 3,350 3,350
2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Road width 10.4m Road width 10.7ｍ

C15 Wawa Bridge
10,700 10,700
3,350 3,350 3,350 3,350
2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

Note : Cross section of current roads are applied the typical cross section, because these are different
according to a place.
Note : The approach road of Guadalupe is not improved.
Figure 15.7.4-2 Typical Cross-Section of Approach Road Section
15-163
15.7.5 Summary of Outline Design
(1) Lambingan Bridge
1) Current Road Condition
Table 15.7.5-1 Current Road Conditions of Lambingan Bridge
Road Type ： Urban Collector Road Traffic Volume ： 30,257 veh/day
Number of Lane ： 6 lane Mix rate of large vehicle ： 3.8％
Free Flow Speed ： 40 km/h
Summary of The Road
・ The main constituent of the traffic is Motorcycle and Jeepney, these are occupies 90% or more of
the whole traffic.
・ This route is required as the function of community road and arterial road.
・ This route is secured 4 traffic lanes for the whole route.
・ However, the section of approximately 450m including a bridge is maintained 6 traffic lanes,
because there was 6 traffic lane widening plan of the road.
Current Road View
Water Pipe Br
① ② ③ ④
Current Cross Section
ROW ROW ① ②
23800
1400 1400
1200 1200
10000 1000 10000
500 3000 3000 3000 500 500 3000 3000 3000 500
2000
③ ④
Traffic survey result

AADT
N0 Bridge name 1.Mortorcycle 2.Car/Taxi/Pi
3.Jeepney 4.Large Bus 5.2-AxleTruck 6.3-Axle Truck 7.Truck Trailer Sub-Total Total
/tricycle ck-up/Van
B08 Lambinguan Br 交通量 9,379 13,626 6,093 31 943 137 48 20,878 30,257
比率 31.0% 45.0% 20.1% 0.1% 3.1% 0.5% 0.2%
96.2% 3.8%
15-164
2) Restriction of Road Design
There are requirement to not obstruct the facility as shown below with the bridge replacement.
Table 15.7.5-2 Restriction of Lambingan Bridge

①Water Pipe Bridge
②Intersection（OLD PANADEROS ST.）
③Intersection（F.Y.MANALO ST＆JP Rizal ST.）
④Residential & Commercial Area
②Intersection（OLD PANADEROS ST）

①Water Pipe Bridge
③Intersection（F.Y.MANALO ST＆JP Rizal ST）
④Residential & Commercial Area
①Water Pipe bridge ②Intersection(OLD Panaderos st) ③Intersection(F.Y.MANALO ST)
③Intersection（JP Rizal ST.） ④Commercial architecture(junk shop) ④Gas station
15-165
Table 15.7.5-3 Design Conditions of Lambingan Bridge
Item Condition Remark
It is decided with current road and roadside
Road Type Urban Collector Road
condition
Traffic Volume 30,257 veh/day Refer to the traffic survey result
Traffic Volume of Large
1,159 veh/day
Vehicle Same as the above
（3.8％）
（Mix rate of large vehicle）
Design speed is applied 50km/h based on the
Design Speed 50km/h standard value of Urban Collector Road
(AASHTO) and existing travel speed.
Number of Lane 6 Lane Secure the current number of lane
Secure the current lane width
Lane Width 3.00ｍ
AASHTO Standard value
Shoulder 0.60ｍ DPWH, AASHTO Standard value
Sidewalk 1.50ｍ DPWH, AASHTO Standard value
Median 1.20ｍ DPWH, AASHTO Standard value

Decide the current boundary line, because a
Right of Way 23.5ｍ
correct boundary line is not clear
23,400
1,500 3,000 3,000 3,000 600 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,500
600 300 300 600
Typical Cross-section of
Bridge and approach road
Note : Right of Way is measured from the survey result.
15-166
3) Horizontal Alignment
① Secure the current horizontal alignment.
② Secure the 6 lane same as current number of lane.
③ Avoid the land acquisition and obstruction to roadside facility as possible.
a) Taper Length
Taper is required at the connection of current road.
In standard value of the taper of DPWH, the taper length assumed it more than 30m based on
the following calculation formula.
（Source:「Design Guidelines Criteria and Standards 」DPWH）
Taper length : L = 0.6・0.6・60 = 21.6m
20,400
3,000 3,000 3,000 600 3,000 3,000 3,000
600 300 300 600
Taper width＝0.6m 19,200

Taper length=30m 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
600 600
Figure 15.7.5-1 Typical Cross-Section at the Taper Section
15-167
b) Runoff Section Length
There is the increase and decrease of the number of the traffic lanes, 4-lane and 6-lane.
Therefore, it is required runoff section. The runoff section length assumes it 50m based on
the following calculation formula.
W ： 3.0ｍ、S ：50km/h
L = （3.0×502）÷155=48.4ｍ ≒ 50ｍ
【6-lane section】
19,200
3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
600 600
【4-lane section】
13,200
3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000
600 600
Shift width＝3.0ｍ
Figure 15.7.5-2 Typical Cross-Section at the Runoff Section
Source:「A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets」AASHTO
15-168
4) Vertical Alignment
a) Issue of the Current Road
The planning of approach roads shall consider safety and trafficability as well as
requirements of road network function as emergency transportation in a disaster such large-
scale earth quake.
Table 15.7.5-4 Issue of Current Road and Measure Policy

The issue of current road Measure policy
Grade Grade is 7% and pedestrian’s walkability is The grade is improved to 5%
low. considering the barrier free.
Runnability The vertical curve is not secured, and there Secure the vertical curve and improve
is an impact when driving. the trafficability.
Visibility The stopping sight distance is not enough, Secure the stopping sight distance.
and the safety is low by a lacking visibility.
The vertical curve is not secured, and there are issues to trafficability and visibility
g=7% g=7%
The current grade is 7%, and it is not desirable for driver and pedestrian
Figure 15.7.5-3 Issue of Current Vertical Alignment
Stopping Sight Distance Stopping Sight Distance
65.0 65.0
Hight of eye=1.08m The stopping sight distance is not secured
Hight of object=0.60m
Figure 15.7.5-4 Issue of the Stopping Sight Distance
15-169
b) Restriction of Vertical Alignment
① Connect to the current intersection
There are two intersections near the bridge. Therefore, the vertical alignment is decided
considering intersection’s elevation.
② Secure the Navigation clearance
Secure the interval between existing bridge pier more than current EV=6.00m.
Navigation Clearance
Figure 15.7.5-5 Restriction of Vertical Alignment of Lambingan Bridge
c) Restriction of Bridge Elevation

In the bridge section, the elevation is secured more than EV=8.1m, it is considering
navigation clearance and the bridge structure height.
Table 15.7.5-5 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Lambingan Bridge

Ingredients Unit Value Notes
Navigation Clearance m 6.000
Structure height m 2.080 Including pavement thickness
Total m 8.080
Conclusion: designed controlled elevation of bridge longitudinal profile
: H ≥8.10m
d) New Bridge Vertical Alignment

Improvement of vertical alignment considering the restriction and the issue is as follows.
Secure the EL≧8.1m
g=5% g=5%
Secure the current elevation Bottom of girder line Secure the current elevation
Secure the Navigation Clearance
Figure 15.7.5-6 New Vertical Alignment of Lambingan Bridge
15-170
5) Cross-Section Elements
According to discussion with DPWH, widening plan of this route to 6-lane will not be
conducted for the near term because the influences of land acquisition may not be ignored.
However, the road sections around Lambingan bridge are already widened to 6 lanes, hence,
the number of lane of new approach road shall secure existing number of lane.
Table 15.7.5-6 Issue of Cross-Section, and Measure Policy

Issue of the cross-section Measure policy
Number of Lane The number of lane of the route is 4 Secure the 6 lane same as current
lane, but the bridge section is 6 lane. road.
Sidewalk width The sidewalk width is narrow with Secure the 1.5m width as
1.2m, and the width that pedestrian possible the pedestrian can pass
can pass each other is insufficient. each other.
23800
1400 1400
1200 1200
10000 1000 10000
500 3000 3000 3000 500 500 3000 3000 3000 500
2000
Figure 15.7.5-7 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Lambingan Bridge
b) Improvement of Cross-Section
23,400
1,500 3,000 3,000 3,000 600 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,500
Water 600 300 300 600
Pipe 1.8m
Bridge
13.9m
Figure 15.7.5-8 Improvement of Cross-Section
15-171
(2) Guadalupe Bridge
Table 15.7.5-7 Current Road Conditions of Guadalupe Bridge

Road Type ： Urban Arterial Road Traffic Volume ： 220,468 veh/day
Summary of The Road
・ The 2 traffic lanes of outside bridge are managed as a bus lane.
・ There are Guadalupe station and MRT at center of EDSA.
・ There is a Junction that is connected to Dr Jose P. Rizal Ave at the left bank side.
・ The vicinity of Guadalupe Station has been the traffic hub with MRT, Bus, Jeepney and Taxi.
・ There are a lot of commercial buildings along the EDSA, and there are a lot of shoppers.
Current Road View
② ③
①
Current Cross-Section MRT
① ② ③

AADT
1. 2.
N0 Bridge name 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
B10 Guadalupe traffic volume 19,557 181,078 0 13,229 4,100 1,628 876 200,911 220,468
ratio 8.9% 82.1% 0.0% 6.0% 1.9% 0.7% 0.4%
91.0% 9.0%
Note : The traffic lane width shows an assumption value from the survey result.
15-172
2) Restriction of the Road Design
Table 15.7.5-8 Restriction of Guadalupe Bridge

①MRT
②Building & houses
③Power pole & High-voltage cable
④Inside bridge
②Buildings&houses
③Power pole&High-voltage cable
①MRT
④Inside bridge
②Buildings&houses
①MRT ②Buildings&houses ②Buildings&houses
③Power pole&High-voltage cable ④Inside bridge(North bound） ④Inside bridge(South bound)
15-173
3) Design Conditions
Table 15.7.5-9 Design Conditions of Guadalupe Bridge

Road Type Urban Arterial Road
condition
Traffic Volume of Large Vehicle 19,833 veh/day
Same as the above
（Mix rate of large vehicle）（9.0％）
Design Speed 60km/h DPWH Standard value

Lane Width 3.35ｍ
DPWH Standard value
Shoulder 0.30ｍ DPWH, AASHTO Standard value
Median －－
Decide the current boundary line, because a
Right of Way 45ｍ
correct boundary line is not clear
8,800 8,800
1,500 3,350 3,350 3,350 3,350 1,500
300 300 300 300
Typical Cross-section
South Bound lane North Bound lane

Note : Right of Way is measured from the survey result.
15-174

a) Restriction of Bridge Elevation
Table 15.7.5-10 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Guadalupe Bridge

J. P. RIZAL AVENUE Elevation m 5.000
Vertical Clearance m 4.500
Total m 11.580
: H ≥11.6m
b) New Bridge Vertical Alignment

① Maintain the current vertical alignment.

② The grade is flat at the bridge section same as existing grade of bridge section.
③ The point that crosses J. P. RIZAL AVENUE secures vertical clearance more than 4.5m.
g=6%
Finished grade is more than 11.6m g=4.2%
g=Flat
Secure the Vertical Clearance more than 4.5m
Figure 15.7.5-9 New Vertical Alignment of Guadalupe Bridge
15-175
Table 15.7.5-11 Issue of Cross-Section and Measure Policy

can pass each other is insufficient. each other.
1.2m
8,500 8,500
1,200 3,350 3,350 3,350 3,350 1,200
300 300 300 300
South Bound Lane North Bound Lane
Figure 15.7.5-10 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Guadalupe Bridge
8,800 8,800
1,500 3,350 3,350 3,350 3,350 1,500
300 300 300 300
15-176
(3) Palanit Bridge
Table 15.7.5-12 Current Road Conditions of Palanit Bridge

Road Type ： Rural Arterial Road Traffic Volume ： 1,266 veh/day
Summary of The Road
- The Asian Highway (AH26)
- Low traffic volume but high mix rate of large vehicles (over 20%)
- Important route required as emergency transportation in a disaster as well as residential road and
material transportation in ordinal times
- Requisite route to daily life for inhabitants around the bridge
- Many students utilize as school road
Current Road Condition
③
① ④
②
Current Cross Section ① ②
8,660
650 3,350 3,350 650
330 330
③ ④

AADT
1. 2.
N0 Bridge name 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
C09 Palanit traffic volume 730 199 65 93 93 76 10 536 1,266
ratio 57.7% 15.7% 5.1% 7.3% 7.3% 6.0% 0.8%
78.5% 21.5%
15-177
Table 15.7.5-13 Restriction of Palanit Bridge

①Church
②Residential area
③Intersection
②Residential area
①Church
③Intersection
③Intersection
②Residential area
①Church ②Residential area ②Residential area
③Intersection ③Intersection
15-178
Table 15.7.5-14 Design Conditions of Palanit Bridge

Road Type Rural Arterial Road
condition
Traffic Volume of Large Vehicle 272 veh/day
Same as the above
DPWH Standard value
Design Speed 60km/h
It is confirmed by DPWH staff
Lane Width 3.35ｍ
DPWH Standard value
0.60ｍ
Shoulder DPWH, AASHTO Standard value
2.00ｍ
Median －－
Right of Way 30ｍ It is confirmed by DPWH staff
10,900
1,500 3,350 3,350 1,500
600 600
Of Bridge section
10,700
3,350 3,350
Typical Cross-section 2,000 2,000
Of Approach road
Note : Shoulder width of approach road is decided same as current condition(Current width is from
about 2.0m to 2.5m).
15-179
Table 15.7.5-15 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Palanit Bridge

100Y HWL m 1.900
Free Board m 1.500
Total m 5.200
: 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
g=5.7%
Existing road
Existing road
g=0.3% g=1.0%
Finished grade is more than 5.2m
Figure 15.7.5-12 New Vertical Alignment of Palanit Bridge
15-180

Sidewalk width The sidewalk width is narrow with Secure the 1.5m width as possible
0.65m, and the width that pedestrian the pedestrian can pass each other.
can pass each other is insufficient.
0.65m
8,660
650 3,350 3,350 650
330 330
Figure 15.7.5-13 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Guadalupe Bridge
10,900
1,500 3,350 3,350 1,500
600 600
15-181
(4) Mawo Bridge
Table 15.7.5-17 Current Road Conditions of Mawo Bridge

Summary of The Road
- 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
① ② ③ ④
9,700
1,000 3,350 3,350 1,000
500 500
③ ④

AADT
1. 2.
N0 Bridge name 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
C11 Mawo traffic volume 2,889 322 73 93 130 102 14 734 3,623
ratio 79.7% 8.9% 2.0% 2.6% 3.6% 2.8% 0.4%
90.6% 9.4%
15-182
Table 15.7.5-18 Restriction of Mawo Bridge

①Intersection
②Residential Area
①Intersection
②Residential area
②Residential area
①Intersection ①Intersection ①Intersection
①Intersection ②Residential area ②Residential area
15-183
Table 15.7.5-19 Design Conditions of Mawo Bridge

condition
Same as the above
AASHTO Standard value
Design Speed 60km/h
Number of Lane 2 lane Secure the current number of lane
Lane Width 3.35ｍ
DPWH Standard value
Bridge:0.60ｍ
Road :2.00ｍ
Median －－
10,900
1,500 3,350 3,350 1,500
600 600
Of Bridge section
10,700
3,350 3,350
2,000 2,000
Of Approach road
15-184

a) Issue of current Vertical Alignment
Existing vertical alignment does not meet appropriate geometrical design because large recess
exists around the bridge in order to connect forcedly with bridge and sub-approach roads.
This route plays a role of important function for logistics as a part of the Asian Highway. Also,
this route should meet the required function as emergency transportation in a disaster as well as
residential road and material transportation in ordinal times. Therefore, the newly planned
vertical alignment is determined based on such the important considerations.
Table 15.7.5-20 Issue of Current Road and Measure Policy

The issue of current road Measure policy
Vertical Large recess around the bridge, Not Improve the vertical alignment
alignment appropriate vertical alignment
Pathway Pathway exist at existing abutment, Install the box culvert and secure the
Utilized as residential road passage function.
Large recess of Vertical alignment
Pathway（H=2m,W=3.5m）
Pathway（H=2m,W=3.5m）
Large recess of vertical alignment
15-185
b) Restriction of Bridge Elevation
In the bridge section, the elevation is secured more than EV=5.6m, it is considering navigation
clearance and the bridge structure height.
Table 15.7.5-21 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Mawo Bridge

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
: 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)
g=2.7%
g=0.5% g=0.5% g=0.8%
Finished grade is more than 5.6m
Secure Box culvert for pathway
Figure 15.7.5-15 New Vertical Alignment of Mawo Bridge
15-186

Sidewalk width The sidewalk width is narrow with Secure the 1.5m width as possible
1.0m, and the width that pedestrian the pedestrian can pass each other.
can pass each other is insufficient.
Elevation Elevation difference occurs because Secure the service road and restore
difference of vertical alignment improvement. current passage function.
9,700
1,000 3,350 3,350 1,000
500 500
1.0m
Figure 15.7.5-16 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Mawo Bridge
10,900
1,500 3,350 3,350 1,500
600 600
Retaining Wall
Service Road
Service Road
Figure 15.7.5-18 Image of the Service Road
15-187
(5) Wawa Bridge
Table 15.7.5-23 Current Road Conditions of Wawa Bridge

Summary of The Road
- 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
② ③
① ④
9,400
750 3,350 3,350 750
600 600
③ ④

AADT
1. 2.
N0 Bridge name 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
C15 Wawa traffic volume 1,476 1,598 48 266 282 238 42 2,474 3,950
ratio 37.4% 40.5% 1.2% 6.7% 7.1% 6.0% 1.1%
79.0% 21.0%
15-188
Table 15.7.5-24 Restriction of Wawa Bridge

①Dam
②Mountainous area
③Intersection
④Residential Area
②Mountainous area
③Intersection
①Dam
④Residential Area
①Dam ①Dam ②Mountainous area
②Mountainous area ③Intersection ④Residential Area
15-189
Table 15.7.5-25 Design Conditions of Wawa Bridge

condition
Same as the above
DPWH Standard value
Design Speed 60km/h
Number of Lane 2 lane Secure the current number of lane
Lane Width 3.35ｍ
DPWH Standard value
Bridge:0.60ｍ
Road :2.00ｍ
Median －－
9,400
750 3,350 3,350 750
600 600
Of Bridge section
10,700
3,350 3,350
2,000 2,000
Of Approach road
15-190
① Shift 15m for downstream side to use existing road during new bridge construction stage
② The value of 15m is resulted from the examination regarding influences to neighboring
settlements and construction yard
③ Secure R=200m of horizontal curve, same as existing radius
④ Secure 2 lanes, same as existing road
⑤ Land acquisition should be avoided as much as possible
⑥ Boundary lines of ROW is determined as 30m for both side from existing road center line
Shift 15m for down stream side
R=200m R=200m
15-191
5) Comparison Study of Horizontal Alignment
- There is a lot of flexibility to change horizontal alignment for bridge replacement because there is not road connecting to main road and because there are little houses and structures beside main road.
- The following advantages can be confirmed in case of shifting for downstream side; new horizontal alignment shall be shifted to downstream side and the existing bridge shall be utilized as detour road during construction stage.
Table 15.7.5-26 Comparison Study of Horizontal Alignment

EXISTING ALIGNMENT (BLACK) SHIFT TO UPSTREAM (BLUE) SHIFT TO DOWNSTREAM (RED)
Abutment Shift to US Abutment

Ｒ＝200ｍＲ＝200ｍ
Ｒ＝200ｍＲ＝175ｍ
Plan View Ｒ＝200ｍ Houses, Possibility of

influences Ｒ＝200ｍ
Existing Center
Houses, Possibility of influences Fallen rocks
Apply existing road Shift to DS Apply existing road

to work road to work road
Min. Curve Radius SP: R=200m, EP : R=175m SP: R=200m, EP : R=200m SP: R=200m, EP : R=200m
Min. Curve Length SP : R=100m, EP : R=110m SP : R=100m, EP : R=125m SP : R=100m, EP : R=125m
Bridge Length 230m 230m 230m
・ Need temporary bridge to detour existing traffic volume ・ Difficult to secure work road and construction yard because ・ Applicable the existing road as work road
Constructability bridge installed between existing road and mountains ・ Smoothly mobilize heavy equipment to the site
・ Need large amount of cutting ground work (6,000m3) ・ Secure construction yard without any earth works
Structural Property ・ Adequate structure due to strait line at bridge section ・ Curved bridge should be adopted ・ Adequate structure due to strait line at bridge section
Environment ・ Minimal earth work amount ・ Large amount of earth work such as cutting ground work ・ Minimal earth work amount (400m3)
・ Possibility of traffic restriction due to landslide disaster such as ・ Possibility of traffic restriction due to landslide disaster such as ・ Minimal possibility of traffic restriction due to landslide disaster
Disaster prevention
fallen rocks and slope failure fallen rocks and slope failure because enough separation can be secured from mountains
Along Roads ・ Minimal influences to houses along the road ・ Minimal influences to houses along the road ・ Slightly houses may be influenced during construction stage
・ Comparatively high due to temporary bridge costs ・ Comparatively high due to large amount of cutting ground work ・ Superior const efficiency because no temporary bridge and
Cost Efficiency
(approx. 5%) minimal earth works.
Blue : Advantage points Red : Disadvantage points
Shift to downstream side

Minimal earth works
advantage for:
・ Constructability
Shift to upstream side、Large ・ Environmental Impact
cutting ground works
disadvantage against:
・ Constructability
・ Cost Efficiency
・ Environmental Impact
Figure 15.7.5-19 Typical Cross Section of Comparison Study
15-192
Table 15.7.5-27 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Wawa Bridge

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
: 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
g=2.9%
g=0.3%
g=4.0%
Path Way
Figure 15.7.5-20 New Vertical Alignment of Wawa Bridge
15-193
can pass each other is insufficient. through.
8,700
700 3,350 3,350 700
300 300
0.7m
Figure 15.7.5-21 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Wawa Bridge
b) Superelevation
It is calculated the following calculation formula.
The result of calculation, the superelevation is 6.9%.
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
15-194
d) Improvement of Cross-Section
① Secure W=0,75m of side walk because low volume of pedestrians

② Install side walks to both sides based on the discussion with DPWH
9,400 9,400
750 3,350 3,350 750 3,350 3,350 1,500
600 600 600 600
In the case of both sides sidewalk (W=0.75m) In the case of one side sidewalk (W=1.5m)
15-195
15.7.6 Pavement Design
(1) Current Condition
Based on site investigation, both of asphalt and concrete pavements were executed for the approach
roads of bridges.
Table 15.7.6-1 Current Condition of Pavement

SP side EP side
B08 Lambingan bridge
Asphalt concrete pavement

or
Composite pavement
As
- Good condition
As
Con
B10 Guadalupe bridge

or
Composite pavement As
- Partially crack
and unevenness As
Con
C09 Palanit bridge
Concrete pavement
- Crack and fracture

- Bad trafficability
Con Con
C11 Mawo bridge

or
Composite pavement
- Good condition As As
C15 Wawa bridge

or
Composite pavement
- Good condition As
As Con
15-196
(2) Design conditions
Generally, road pavement can be categorized into asphalt pavement consisting of asphalt top layer and
concrete pavement consisting of concrete slab layer. Additionally, as an intermediate structure, a
pavement structure of composite pavement can be categorized, in which asphalt top layer is executed
on the concrete slab as base layer; it seems visually like asphalt pavement but structurally categorized
as concrete pavement.
Therefore, composite pavement has both advantage factors of concrete pavement and asphalt
pavement such as structural durability of concrete pavement and adequate trafficability as well as well
maintenancability of asphalt pavement, which well durability is expected rather than ordinal asphalt
pavement and is often applied to highway, national road and airport in Japan.
Thereby, in this project, composite pavement well applied in Japan is proposed as a recommendable
structure because existing layer structures and CBR values are totally unknown;
1) Applicable Standards
The design standard of NEXCO, Japan is often applied to the design of composite pavement for
Freeway and national arterial road.
2) Accumulated Large Vehicle Volume

Accumulated Large Vehicle Volume is calculated with calculation formula as follows. The large
traffic volume is based on the traffic survey result.
Table 15.7.6-2 Accumulated Large Vehicle Volume Calculation Formula

Accumulated Large Vehicle Volume
= Large Vehicle Volume/Day/Direction x Coefficient of Lane Number x 365 x 20yrs
Table 15.7.6-3 Accumulation of Traffic Volume of Large Vehicle

Lanbingan 580×0.8×365×20 ＝ 339(million veh)
Guadalupe 9,917×0.8×365×20 ＝ 5,792(million veh)
Palanit 136×1.0×365×20 ＝ 99(million veh)
Mawo 170×1.0×365×20 ＝ 124(million veh)
Wawa 414×1.0×365×20 ＝ 302(million veh)
Note: Coefficient of lane number 0.8 in case of more than 3 lanes/ a direction
Note: Accumulated large vehicle volume for 20 years for a direction
Table 15.7.6-4 Thickness of Reinforced Concrete

Accumulation of traffic volume of large vehicle(1 million veh)
Less than 3,000 Less than 10,000 More than 10,000 More than 20,000
Less than 20,000
Embankment
25cm 25cm 28cm 30cm
Section
Source: The design standard of NEXCO, Japan
15-197
3) Pavement of Roadway
Layer structures of composite pavement are as follows.
Table 15.7.6-5 Layer Structures of Pavement

Pavement Surface Intermediate Binder course Base Total
structure course course course thickness
Material Asphalt Asphalt Reinforced cement
concrete stabilization
Lanbingan 4cm 4cm 25cm 20cm 53cm
Guadalupe 4cm 4cm 25cm 20cm 53cm
Palanit 4cm 4cm 25cm 20cm 53cm
Mawo 4cm 4cm 25cm 20cm 53cm
Wawa 4cm 4cm 25cm 20cm 53cm
4) Pavement of Service Road

For pavement for service road, following structure is applied.
Table 15.7.6-6 Pavement of Service Road

Surface Course ：Concrete ｔ＝ 20cm
Base Course ：Aggregate ｔ＝ 15cm
Total thickness ｔ＝ 35cm
5) Pavement of Sidewalk
For pavement for sidewalk, following structure is applied.
Table 15.7.6-7 Pavement of Sidewalk

Surface Course ：Asphalt Concrete ｔ＝ 4cm
Base Course ：Aggregate ｔ＝ 10cm
Total thickness ｔ＝ 14cm
15-198
15.7.7 Drainage Facility Design
For the approach roads of Lambingan and Guadalapue bridges, gutter blocks are generally installed
along the boundary lines between traffic and pedestrian lanes. For Palanit, Mawo and Wawa bridges,
canals are installed at end of roads for some sections.
For outline design, drawings and approximate quantities are prepared as premises for re-installation to
the original conditions; in the detail design stage or equivalent stage, detail conditions such as amount
of rain fall, drain system, and drainage conditions shall be obviously clarified to carry out detail
design of drainage system.
Table 15.7.7-1 Current Drainage Facility Condition of Package B

Lambingan
Gutter Gutter
Guadalupe
Gutter Gutter
15-199
Table 15.7.7-2 Current Drainage Facility Condition of Package C
Palanit
Canal
Canal
Mawo
Canal
Canal
Canal
Wawa
Gutter
Canal
15-200
15.7.8 Revetment Design
(1) Package B
1) Information of River-Improvement-Works
In Pasig river, currently river improvement works are being executed in a lot of river sections;
around Lambingan bridge and Guadalupe bridge, planning of such the improvement works are
progressing.
For replacement of such the bridges, re-installment works should be conducted after adequate
installation of substructures of bridges; in this outline design, based on the section of planning
revetment of River-improvement-works, drawings and approximate quantities are prepared. In
the stage of basic and detail design stage, such the revetment condition shall be carefully verified.
Table 15.7.8-1 Revetment Works

Name of Bridge Revetment Works
Right Bank Left Bank
B08 Lambingan bridge SP＋IW＋VW COMPLETED
B10 Guadalupe bridge SP W/H-BEAM＋VW Construction by river improvement
(REPAIR-R4)
Lambingan
South Side North Side
SP+IW+VW
Completed
Completed
Completed
Guadalupe
SP W/H-BEAM＋VW
Repair-R4
Source: PASIG-MARIKINA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Figure 15.7.8-1 General Layout Plan of Revetment Works
15-201
2) Typical Cross-Section of Revetment
SP＋IW＋VW
SP W/H-BEAM＋VW
Construction by river improvement(REPAIR-R4)
Source: PASIG-MARIKINA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Figure 15.7.8-2 Typical Cross-Section of Revetment Works
15-202
(2) Package Ｃ
For the bridges in Package C, there are no artificial bank protections but natural banks where
inhabitants are utilizing as small dock. Therefore, in this project, new artificial revetments are not
planned from the aspect of the premise in this project, which is re-installation to the original
conditions or function. In the future stage such as detail design, careful planning and design shall
be carried out on the basis of organization of latest river planning and condition.
Table 15.7.8-2 Current Revetment Condition of Package C

Palanit Bridge
Mawo Bridge
Wawa Bridge
15-203
(3) Adjustment of Elevation
The elevation of the bench marks utilized in river-improvement works in Passig-Marikina river is
deferent from that of the bench marks utilized in this project. The following modifications are
conducted based on the elevation of the common bench mark GM-N4.
1) Topography BM Data
Table 15.7.8-3 List of Basic BM for Topography

BM Br. EL Established Information
order
Name Name (MSL=0) Year Year
MM-55 Delpan 1st 2.6988 2009 Nov 2010
MM-62 Nagatahan 1st 91.151 2009 Apr 2012
GM-N4 Lambingan 2nd 9.347 1977 Sep 2012
MM-71 Guadalupe 1st 34.158 2009 Oct 2009
MM-2 Marikina 2nd 91.151 1983 Sep 2009
2) Information of GM-N4
Table 15.7.8-4 BM list of River Improvement

Project Elev. 2008 NAMRIA 2012 NAMRIA
Name Note DPWH MLLW DPWH MLLW diff. DPWH MLLW diff.
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
Note:GM-N4 : 19.822(2008 NAMRIA)=9.347(Topography)+10.475(MSL:DPWH)
15-204
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 Topography Difference
MSL (DPWH MSL)
MSL 10.600 10.475 Δ0.125
Note: River improvement‘s MSL is calculation during 1981 to 1999.

Note: Topography’s MSL is from the letter of BCGS.
c) Adjustment
Revetment elevation is adjusted by the following calculation formula.
Topography Elve. ＝ River Project Elve. －10.6 + 0.416 + 0.125
15.7.9 Property of Traffic Around Guadalupe Bridge
(1) Purpose of The Examination
EDSA area at Guadalupe bridge is the critical point of heavy traffic jam because of major arterial road
connecting the center of Metro Manila to suburbs. This chronic traffic jam must causes lane change
and traffic conflict, which increase the risks of traffic accidents as well as deterioration of neighboring
environment due to exhaust fumes.
Therefore, the traffic jam at EDSA may be a pressing issue to be addressed; however, a lot of large-
scale commercial facilities are constructed along the road and MRT is running on the center of the
road; widening of the road may be quite difficult condition currently.
Consequently, because currently it may be difficult to conduct drastic countermeasure such like road
widening with land acquisition, the possibility of improvement on heavy traffic jam should firstly be
examined as the primal purpose based on widening of Guadalupe bridge, which will not be restricted
by progress of land acquisition.
15-205
(2) Issue of Current Traffic
Table 15.7.9-1 Issue of Current Traffic

No.1 Not Functioned : Outside 2 Lanes by Busses
・At the bus stop, critical causes of traffic jam by busses and following and overtaking busses
・Busses stop stepping over two lanes
( large number of passengers, who stepping to traffic lane, that's why busses can not stop correctly
along the sidewalk)
【Northbound Line 】
Pic①-1
Interrupting following vehicles due to
overtaking basses stepping over Bus Lane
Poor safety by forced lane changing
Pic ①-2
A bus not stops, over Bus Lane, interrupting
following busses
【Southbound Line 】
Pic ①-3
Interrupting traffic lanes by the bus
overtaking parked buses
15-206
Pic. ①-4
Passengers remain in traffic lane, following
busses can not parked accurately along walk
road
Pic. ①-5
Passengers make a bus stop at not duly bus
stop
No.2 Obturation by jeepneys at entrance of Northbound off ramp

・Outside two lanes are not functioned by parking of Jeepneys and derivation to facilities along the
road.
Pic ②
Obstruction across outside two lanes
15-207
No.3 Interruption of main traffic by Northbound on ramp
・The speed of main traffic may be downed because the on-ramp traffic inflows without enough
speed.
・Frequently, influent on-ramp traffic attempt forced lane change until the third traffic lane, which
may be cause of safety and runability interruption due to crossing against main traffic.
Pic ③
Interruption by on-ramp traffic inflowing
without enough speed
No.4 Interruption of main traffic by pedestrians

・Off-ramp traffic should stop when crossing pedestrians at on-ramp
【Southbound Lane off-ramp】
Pic. ④
Interruption by stopping vehicles due to
crossing pedestrians
【Southbound Line On-ramp】

Pic④
Poor safety by sudden lane change from the
second lane in front of off-ramp
15-208
No.5 Park area of Jeepneys on Southbound line on ramp
・An area of on ramp is utilized as park area of Jeepneys, which clearly become traffic obstruction
for general main traffic
【Southbound Line On ramp】
Pic⑤
Obstruction by Jeepneys parking at on ramp.
No.6 The traffic island of Northbound lane ramp, utilized as bus stop
・Substantially utilized as bus stops in spite of inhibition of incoming and outgoing
・For Northbound line, because Jeepneys should use this off ramp, a lot of passengers should get out
here. Therefore, utilization connection from Jeepneys to busses may by frequent condition,
・Large-scale commercial facilities stands along the road, for which convenience may be better than
using radical bus stop at start point side
Pic ⑥
Traffic island, utilized as bus stop
Originally, passengers' incoming and
outgoing inhibited
15-209
Pic ⑥
High convenience for connection between

Jeepneys and MRT as well as distances from
large-scale commercial facilities
【Northbound Line (North Side)】

Pic⑥
Obstruction of main and off ramp due to
motorcade of busses at peak hour
No.7 Capacity shortage of existing jeepney parking

・Existing Jeepney parking behind large-scale commercial facility
・The space is not enough capacity causing passenger's line
・Many passengers use Jeepneys. Efficient planning to build new Jeepney parking near commercial
facility.
Pic⑦-1 Existing Jeepney parking
15-210
Pic ⑦－2 Passenger's line for Jeepney. The line
reaches about 50m
Pic ⑦-3
Exit of the parking is steep grade,
deterioration of concrete pavement and
terribly dusty by brake pats.
No.8 Large volume of pedestrian

・Comparatively many passengers who utilize Robinson mall across the bridge
・Existing width of side walk is about 1.2m against such the many passengers. Safety is concerned
due to no guardrails
Pic ⑧ Many pedestrians walking toward bass stop

and Guadalupe station
15-211
No.9 Cause of traffic jam and accident
・Risk of traffic accident may be high due to sudden lane change in traffic jam
・Large economic losses by additional traffic jam due to traffic accident
Pic ⑨ Traffic accident between a bus and a taxi,

caused by sudden lane change. Cause of
heavy traffic jam
Figure 15.7.9-1 Pictures Map of Current Traffic Condition of around Guadalupe Bridge
15-212
(3) Proposal of the Improvement
Table 15.7.9-2 Proposal of the Improvement
Items Issues Causes Countermeasures Proposal

① Additional installation of bus stops
Obstruction of bus lane by parking busses
Large traffic volume of busses, parking over two lanes Disperse parking busses on the traffic ⇒Newly install bus stop near Guadalupe bridge where it
at peak hours lane may be near large-scale commercial facilities as well as
low impact to land acquisition and roadside facilities
②Traffic segregation by structures
Interruption by lane change of following busses Over taking busses run at the third lane Lead busses to bus lanes ⇒Physically restrict lane change by installing relevant
structures such as separators or posts
③Designation and derivation of bus stop
Traffic
Not parking at bus stop correctly but parking at center Pedestrians and passengers of busses running over side ⇒Specific location of bus stops by destination
Jam Lead busses to park correctly
of traffic lane walk. Busses can not park correctly. ⇒Restrict passenger's protrusion over main line by
uniformizing their storage spaces
④Installation of Jeepney parking
Interruption of main and ramp traffic due to parking Lead Jeepney not to park at main traffic ⇒Apply land of the park to Jeepney parking.
Obstruction of traffic lane by Jeepneys
Jeepney at ramp lane ⇒Install Jeepney space by improving alignment of
Southbound on-ramp
Cause of speed degradation due to inflow of low-speed ⑤Added lane
Interruption of main traffic by ramp traffic Separate ramp form main line
traffic and stop at crossing ⇒Reduce interruption of main traffic by adding extra lanes
⑥Installation of pedestrian deck
Pedestrians walking to Guadalupe Br. need to cross the Separate ramp traffic from crossing
Interruption of ramp traffic by crossing pedestrians ⇒Install overpass for pedestrian
ramp pedestrians
⇒Install guard rails to prevent road crossing physically
Safety
⑦Install wide-width side walk
Narrow side walk for pedestrians volume
The width of side walk just only 1m Widening of side walk ⇒Secure requisite width corresponding to pedestrian
volume
⑧Coordination among key facilities
Improvement of accessibility with MRT, busses, Longish distance from each traffic point to commercial Accessibility improvement by efficient ⇒Aim regional revitalization by connecting key traffic
Jeepneys and commercial facility facility along the road coordination with each traffic point points by pedestrian deck such as new bus stop, new
Jeepney parking, existing MRT station and commercial
Convenience
facility
⑨Install taxi parking
Enough capacity volume of busses and Jeepneys but not
Capacity shortage of parking space of taxi
enough for taxi
Secure parking space of taxi ⇒Install taxi stop and parking at the open space in front of
the station
15-213
Interruption main traffic by
ramp traffic
Interruption main traffic by
Not stop correctly at bus stop but park at center Jeepney parking mainly riding crossing pedestrians
of traffic lane ⇒The parking at on-ramp, which
⇒Busses stop short of bus stop, overtaking interrupts ramp traffic
busses run the third lane
Narrow side walk

⇒Width of existing side walk
about 1m.
Interruption of main traffic due to ramp

Obstruction of traffic lane by Jeepneys traffic
⇒Out side two lanes not functioned due to ⇒Interruption of main traffic due to inflow
parking Jeepneys traffic without enough acceleration
Obstruction of bus lane due to parking busses The space utilized as bus stop
Interruption of traffic lane by lane change of following busses ⇒The traffic island of the ramp, utilized as
⇒The congestion of busses at peak hour. Cause of traffic jam bus stop, where is prohibited section for
because of overtaking busses run the third lane utilization
⇒High convenience because of good
accessibility from commercial facility,
Jeepneys and MRT
: Traffic line of Jeepneys
Existing Jeepney parking : Walk line of pedestrians

⇒Capacity shortage, long lines of passengers
: Parking space of Jeepneys
: Parking space of busses
Figure 15.7.9-2 Pictures Map of Traffic Issue of around Guadalupe Bridge
15-214
⑤Added lane（Speed-change lane at intersection）
④Installation of jeepney parking

②Traffic segregation by structures
⑦Install wide-width side walk
① Additional installation of bus stops

③ Designation and derivation of bus stop
⑧Coordination among key facilities

⑨Install taxi parking
⑥Installation of pedestrian deck
Figure 15.7.9-3 Proposal of Improvement around the Guadalupe Bridge
EDSA
SOUTHBOUND LANE NORTHBOUND LANE
Figure 15.7.9-4 Typical Cross Section of Proposal of Improvement
15-215
15.7.10 Further Verification to be Examined in the Next Phase
The following items may be necessary to be verified or evaluated further in the next phase such as
basic or detail design stages.
 For the topographic survey, sectional survey should be executed at least every 20m.
 For the traffic survey, pedestrian traffic volume may be desirable to be investigated, which
may be useful factors to determine appropriate width of side walk.
 Specific the right of way should be verified based on close discussion.
 For the drainage design, detail drainage conditions will be required for detail design.
 Detail pavement design shall be executed in consideration of economic efficiency and life
cycle costs based on specific values of CBR testing.
 For the retaining wall design, detail profiles of existing structures are required.
 For the revetment design, the latest conditions and planning works shall be applied.
15-216

The Project For Study ON Improvement of Bridges Through Disaster Mitigating Measures For Large Scale Earthquakes IN The Republic of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Project For Study ON Improvement of Bridges Through Disaster Mitigating Measures For Large Scale Earthquakes IN The Republic of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH)

THE PROJECT FOR STUDY

MAIN TEXT [2/2]

JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY (JICA)

CTI ENGINEERING INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD

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

B13-1 Vargas Bridge (1 & 2) B14 Rosario Bridge

B15 Marcos Bridge B16 Marikina Bridge

B17 San Jose 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

C13 San Juanico Bridge C14 Lilo-an Bridge

C15 Wawa Bridge C16 2nd Magsaysay Bridge

Perspective View of Lambingan Bridge (1/2)

Perspective View of Lambingan Bridge (2/2)

Perspective View of Guadalupe Bridge

Perspective View of Palanit Bridge

Perspective View of Mawo Bridge (1/2)

Perspective View of Mawo Bridge (2/2)

Perspective View of Wawa Bridge

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 1-1

CHAPTER 3 SEISMIC VULNERABILITIES OF BRIDGES IN THE PHILIPPINES 3-1

CHAPTER 4 CURRENT INFORMATION ON EARTHQUAKE RELATED ISSUES 4-1

CHAPTER 5 CHRONOLOGY OF BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 5-1

CHAPTER 6 COMPARISON ON BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

CHAPTER 7 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES ON CURRENT PRACTICE AND DPWH

CHAPTER 8 APPROACH TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOCALIZED SEISMIC

CHAPTER 9 SEISMIC HAZARD MAPS FOR DESIGN OF BRIDGES ...................... 9-1

PART 3 SELECTION OF BRIDGES FOR SEISMIC CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT

CHAPTER 11 PROCEDURES FOR SELECTION OF BRIDGES FOR OUTLINE

CHAPTER 12 THE FIRST SCREENING ...................................................................... 12-1

CHAPTER 13 THE SECOND SCREENING .................................................................. 13-1

CHAPTER 14 RECOMMENDATION ON TARGET BRIDGES FOR THE OUTLINE

PART 4 OUTLINE DESIGN OF SELECTED BRIDGES FOR SEISMIC

CHAPTER 15 DESIGN CONDITIONS FOR SELECTED BRIDGES .......................... 15-1

CHAPTER 17 BRIDGE SEISMIC RETROFIT OUTLINE DESIGN OF SELECTED

CHAPTER 18 CONSTRUCTION PLANNING AND COST ESTIMATE .................... 18-1

CHAPTER 19 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION .................. 19-1

CHAPTER 20 Natural and social environment assessment ........................................... 20-1

PART 5 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER 22 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 22-1

VOLUME 1 SEIMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

VOLUME 2 DEVELOPMENT OF ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA

VOLUME 3 RESULTS OF EXISTING CONDITON SURVEY

VOLUME 4 OUTLINE DESIGN

VOLUME 5 RECORDS OF SEMINAR AND MEETING/DISCUSSION

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

Table 10.2.3-4 Combination Examples of Members with Consideration of Plasticity

AADT : Annual Average Daily Traffic

OUTLINE DESIGN OF SELECTED

15.2 Topographic Features and Design Conditions

15.2.1 Methodology and Results

1) Review of the Data

3) Traverse Control Points

4) Establishment of Temporary Bench Marks

6) Cross Section Survey of Target Bridges and Their Approach Roads

7) Topographic (Plan) Survey