BRIDGE DESIGN PROPOSAL AT SITIO SAWMILL, TERESA, MACO, DAVAO DE ORO

An undergraduate Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of College of Engineering Education

Robin Lucas
Melcah Mae Sabroso
Reinhard Angana
May 2022
BRIDGE DESIGN PROPOSAL AT SITIO SAWMILL, TERESA, MACO, DAVAO DE ORO

An Undergraduate Thesis

Presented to the Faculty of College of

Engineering Education

In Partial Fulfilment

of the Requirements of the Course

CE Projects for

The Degree Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

Robin Lucas
Melcah Mae Sabroso
Reinhard Angana
May 2022
 APPROVAL SHEET

Upon the recommendation of the Panel of Examiners, this thesis

entitled,
“BRIDGE DESIGN PROPOSAL AT SITIO SAWMILL, TERESA, MACO, DAVAO DE ORO”
prepared and submitted by Robin Lucas, Melcah Mae Sabroso, and Reinhard
Angana
in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the course Civil Engineering Projects for
the degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering,
has been examined and is recommended for the approval and acceptance.
ENGR. ROLDAN SUAZO
Adviser

PANEL OF EXAMINERS

Approved by the Panel Members with a grade of Passed

CHAIRPERSON

Member Member

Accepted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the course CE Projects for the
Degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering.
Engr. Roldan Suazo
Dean, College of Engineering Education
May 2022
 ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to design an accurate and complete bridge design. It is important
to present a bridge design proposal that will benefit not only the residents of Barangay Teresa, but
also the motorists passing the location. Previously, there were many attempts in constructing a bridge
on the location, but unfortunately, they were unsuccessful as those bridges were gone and were
carried away by floods.

The researchers started with consulting the barangay council and the residents. Next, the
researchers conducted a site survey for inspection and to know the damage of the location. The
researchers also consulted with their advisers and the Faculty of College of Engineering Education of
Jose Maria College Foundation Inc.

The solution that the researchers found for the existing problem follows the standards set by
the Department of Public Works and Highways, AASHTO and LRFD. Designs of steel bridges is
done using Structural Analysis to find a distribution of sectional forces which provides equilibrium
and is suitable for design. It has been from the beginning, our wish as authors of this study that it will
be used by other students and practicing engineers in bridge design.
 Declaration of Original Work

I declare that this thesis represents of my own work. All the materials incorporated
in this paper, unless cited and acknowledged as the work of other author[s], are the product of
my research. Rules in power citation have been observed and technical aspect adhered to; and
rules of grammar were employed. Further, I also declare that it has not been previously
submitted to this College or any other institutions as academic requirement for the granting of
a degree, diploma or other qualifications.
Robin Lucas, Reinhard Angana, Melcah Mae Sabroso
Authors
May 2022

Engr. Roldan Suazo

Dean, College of Engineering Education

Engr. Roldan Suazo

Faculty Adviser

Faculty Editor
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This study is wholeheartedly dedicated to our Almighty God, thank you for
the wisdom protection, and guidance. To our beloved and supportive parents, namely, Rowena
Lucas, Juliet and Gregorio Sabroso, Anna and Roel Angana who have been inspiring us to
continue our study amidst the Covid-19 pandemic.

To the Barangay Officials of Teresa, friends, and mentors who shared their
words of advice and constant encouragement to finish this study. Without them, this study
would not have been possible.

R.L

R.A

M.S
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TITLE PAGE

APPROVAL SHEET

ABSTRACT

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Objectives of the Study

Significance of the Study

Scope and Limitation

Operational Definition of Terms

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Related Literature

Related Studies

Conceptual Framework

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

Research Design

Research Locale

Materials

Tools and Machine

Procedures

Testing of Samples

Statistical Tools
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

7
CURRICULUM VITAE

Note for Reference:

 LIST OF TABLES

Table I Summary of Live Load Distribution Factors

Table II Load, Shear and Moment Diagram (Live Load)

Table III Load, Shear and Moment Diagram (Dead Load)

Table IV Type of Deck

Table V Pmax Acting on Pile

Table 1A Site Clearing Cost

Table 1B Forms, Pile Driving

Table 1C Forms, Pile Driving

Table 1E Substructure Cost

Table 1F Substructure Cost

Table 1G Substructure Cost

Table 1H Superstructure Cost

Table 1I Superstructure Cost

Table 1J Superstructure Cost

Table 1K Cost of Civil Engineer

 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Lane Load

Figure 2 Center Line Position at A

Figure 3 Center Line Position at B

Figure 4 Center Line Position at C

Figure 5 Maximum Shear

Figure 6 Spacing for Spirals

Figure 7 Depth of Footing from Beam Shear

Figure 7-A Depth of Footing from Beam Shear

Figure 8 Pmax Acting on Pile

 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Teresa is a barangay in the municipality of Maco, in the province of Davao de Oro. Its
population as determined by the 2020 Census was 2,051. Its neighboring barangay are Mainit which is
known for its Sulfuric Hot spring and Barangay New Leyte, which is known for its Lake Leonard.
This represented 2.46% of the total population of Maco. There also indigenous people living in the
barangay called Mansaka. The barangay doesn’t have a strong bridge that will allow its residents to
travel, to report to work and export their agricultural products to the public markets when it rains
heavily. According to the secretary of the barangay residents rely on agriculture as their means of
livelihood, some residents are employees of Apex Mining Company and some are small business
owners. The common agricultural products that these farmers produce are corn, sweet potato and
other crops, tomato, capsicum, eggplant, banana and peanut. These products need to be delivered after
they are harvested to keep its freshness and quality.

Normally, when it rains heavily, it would take 2-3 days before the river is passable because of
rocks and muds that come from the mountains of Barangay Teresa and New Barili that cover up the
said river. With that, it is possible to have these products delivered late to the buyers. Sometimes,
some of these products are returned to the owners or farmers because they are overripe. Sometimes
these products are bought at lower costs which make it harder for the farmers to gain revenue. Apex
Mining employee’s salary ranges from 400-700 pesos per day depending on their employment status,
regular or probationary and position. If the river is not passable, most of them cannot report to work
which make them harder to provide for their family in terms of food and utilities. Business owners are
also affected because they cannot transport goods from supermarkets in the city. With the average of
20 TC’s per year, about eight or nine (9) of them are crossing the Philippines. It is very inconvenient
for the residents when it rains because it affects their livelihood. Students are also affected which
make their access to education more difficult. Since time immemorial, having a bridge is the dream of
every Lumad and of every resident of Barangay Teresa. And that is why it is imperative to construct a
bridge that will connect Sitio Sawmill and Teresa.

The Philippines has a huge stock of bridges along local and national road networks. National
bridges are under the responsibility of the national government through the Department of Public
Works and Highways (DPWH). Based on the generated BMS output for CY 2020, the total number of
bridges nationwide is 8,496, with an aggregate length of 384,221 linear meters; of which, 8,464
(99.62%) are classified as permanent bridges having an aggregate length of 382,616 linear meters and
only 32 (0.38%), with an aggregate length of 1,604 linear meters, are considered as temporary bridges
(Bridge WriteUp 2020, DPWH).
Objectives of the Study

General Objective

 This study aims to design a steel bridge according to 2001 NSCP edition and ASHTO 2012
edition.

Specific Objective

 To determine the socio-economic and environmental impacts of constructing the bridge.

Significance of the Study

Residence
Teresa is one of the most remote areas in the Municipality of Maco, Davao de Oro. Living in
this barangay are the Lumads called Mansaka who preserves the nature or the environment. These
people are living in this barangay since time immemorial. This study is significant for the reason of
better and easy access by the said residents to Teresa National High School, Teresa Elementary School
and workers of Apex Mining Company. Since the location is a provincial road, it will also help the
passage of the people from other barangays especially to Barangay New Barili, Trese and De Oro.

Civil Engineering Students (especially the researchers)

This study will benefit those students who are engaging in design of bridges. This can also be
a guide to students who are conducting visibility study or thesis. It will help them enhance their ability
to consider thing in a amalgamate method which intents for the effective and finest design that is cost-
effective and considering the environment of the people who may be involved in the negative impacts
of the design.

Civil Engineering Faculty

Faculties of Civil Engineering especially in Jose Maria College Foundation Inc will recognize
the significance of school activities like Bridge Building Design competition to the students in demand
for them to learn and gain familiarity and involvement about bridge design. They will also be able to
relay actual work from concepts to their learners/ students.

Local and National Government

If this bridge will be constructed, with the use of our plan and this research, we, researchers
believe that this will be the start of the progress not only in Brgy. Teresa but also in other nearby
barangays and also in the municipality of Maco. It will also provide sense of apprehension from the
government in part of the residence. It will also give justice to the Lumads who preserve the location
since time immemorial. Lumads are the real owners of the location.

Scope and Limitations

This study is within the vicinity of Barangay Teresa, Maco, Davao de Oro. Its goal is to
design a bridge on the said location. It covers the cost of bridge building. The design criteria of the
bridge structure is based from the AASHTO Specification for Highway Bridges Load Resistance
Factor design and follows the guidelines of Department of Public Works and Highways. This study
does not include seismic analysis for the structure and does not include the actual soil and geographic
analysis of the site.

Operational Definition of Terms

Compressive Strength- The amount of compressive stress that a material can resist before failing.

Design- (verb) To plan out in a systematic, often graphic form. To create for a particular purpose or
effect. Bridge Design (noun) A well thought-out plan.

Engineering Design- The process of devising a system, or component or process to meet desired needs.

(Source: Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology Inc.)

Girders: The “beams” or a bridge, usually horizontal members.

Load: Any of the forces that a structure is calculated to oppose, comprising any unmoving and unvarying
force (dead load), any load from win or earthquake (environmental load), and any other moving or
temporary force (live load).

Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)- A reliability-based design methodology in which force
affects caused by factored are not permitted to exceed the factored resistance of the components.

Load Factor- A statistically-based multiplier applied to force effects accounting primarily for the
variability of loads, the lack of accuracy in analysis, and the probability of simultaneous occurrence of
different loads, but also related to the statistics of the resistance through the calibration process.

Load Modifier- A factor accounting for ductility, redundancy, and the operational classification of the
bridge.

Member- An individual angle, beam, plate or built piece intended to become an integral part of an
assembled frame or structure.

Multiple-Load Path Structure- A structure capable of supporting the specified loads following loss of a
main load carrying component or connection.
Nominal Resistance- Resistance of a component or connection to force effects, as indicated by the
dimensions specified in the contract documents and by permissible stresses, deformation, or specified
strength of materials.

Piers- The “columns” of a bridge, usually vertical members.

Substructure- Structural parts of the bridge that support the horizontal span.

Superstructure- Structural parts of the bridge that provide the horizontal span.

Tensile Strength- The amount of tensile stress that a material can resist before failing.

Social Definition of Term

Mansaka- A Mansaka is an ethnic group found in the provinces of Davao del Norte and Davao de Oro in
the cities and municipalities of the said provinces, Davao, Pantukan, Maco, Mabini, Mawab, Maragusan
and Nabunturan. They are the most dominant ethnic group in the province of Davao de Oro. They are
said to have lived in the area since the time when Magbabaya (creator) created them. (Source:
ncca.gov.ph)

CHAPTER 2
 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Definition

A bridge is a structure built to span a physical obstacle such as a body of water, valley or road,
for the purpose of providing passage over the obstacle. There are many different designs that all serve
unique purpose and apply to different situations. Design of bridges vary depending on the function of the
bridge, the nature of the terrain where the bridge is constructed and anchored, the material used to make
it, and the funds available to build it.

Etymology

The Oxford English Dictionary traces the origin of the word bridge to an old English word brycg,
of the same meaning derived from the hypothetical Proto Germanic root brugjộ. There are also other
cognates in Germanic languages.

History

The first bridges were made by nature itself- as simple as a log fallen across a stream or stones in
the river. The first bridges made by humans were probably spans of cut of wooden logs and eventually
stones, using a simple support and crossbeam arrangement. Early Americans used tress or bamboo poles
to cross small caverns or wells to get from one place to another. A common form of lashing sticks, logs,
and deciduous branches together involved the use of long reeds or other harvested fibers woven together
to form a connective rope capable of bending and holding together the materials used in early bridges.

The Arkadiko Bridge is one of our Mycenaean corbel arch cridges part of a former network of
roads, designed to accommodate chariots, between Tiryns and Epidauros in the Peloponnese, in Greece.
Dating to the Greek Bronze Age (13th century BC), it is one of the oldest arch bridges from the Hellenistic
era can be found in the Peloponnese in southern Greece.

The greatest bridge builders of antiquity were the ancient Romans. The Romans built arch bridges
and aqueducts that could stand in conditions that would damage or destroy eealier designs. Some stand
today, a very good example is the Alcantara Bridge, built over the river Tagus, in Spain.

In the Philippines, presently, the longest bridge is the Cebu-Cordova Link Expressway which measures
8.9km, surpassing the 5-km Candaba Viaduct of North Luzon expressway and the 2-km San Juanico
Bridge between Samar and Leyte.
Types of Bridges

Bridges can be categorized in several different ways. Common categories include the type of
structural elements used, by what they carry, whether they are fixed or movable by the materials used.

Structure Type

Bridges may be classified by how the forces of tension, compression, bending, torsion and shear
are distributed through their structure. Most bridges will employ all the principal forces to some degree.

Beam Bridge- are horizontally supported at each end of substructure units and can be either simply
supported when the beams only connect across a single span, or continuous when the beams are
connected across two or more spans.

Truss Bridge- bridge whose load-bearing superstructure is composed of a truss. This truss is a structure
of connected elements forming triangular units. The connected elements may be stressed from tension,
compression, or sometimes both in response to dynamic loads.

Cantilever Bridge- are built using cantilevers-horizontal beam supported on only one end. Most of this
type of bridge use a pair of continuous spans that extended from opposite sides of the supporting piers to
meet at the center of the obstacle in the bridge crosses.

Arch Bridge- these bridges have abutments at each end. The weight of the bridge is the thrust into the
abutments at either side. The earliest known arch bridges were built by the Greeks, and include the
Arkadiko Bridge. A good example of arch bridge in the country is Binondo-Intramuros Bridge in Manila.

Suspension Bridge- are suspended from cables. The earliest suspension bridges were made of ropes and
vines covered with pieces of bamboo, In modern bridges, the cables hang from towers that are attached to
caissons or cofferdams. The caissons or cofferdams are implanted deep into the floor of a lake or river.

Cable-stayed bridges- like suspension bridges, are help up by cable, however, in cable-stayed bridges,
less cable is required and the towers holding the cables are proportionately higher.

Fixed or movable bridges- most bridges are fixed bridges, meaning they have no moving parts and stay
in one place until they fall or demolished.

Double-decked bridges- have two levels, truss work between the roadways levels provided stiffness to
the roadways and reduced movement of the upper level when the lower level was installed three decades
following the upper level.

Viaducts- made up of multiple bridges connected into one longer structure. The longest and some of the
highest bridges are viaducts, such as the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway and Millau Viaduct.
Three-way bridges- has three separate spans which meet near the center of the bridge. The bridge
appears as a “T” or “Y” when viewed above. These extremely rare.

Bridge Types by Use

A bridge can be categorized by what it is designed to carry, such as trains, pedestrian or road
traffic, a pipeline or waterway for water transport or barge traffic. An aqueduct is a bridge that carries
water, resembling a viaduct, which is a bridge that connects points of equal height. A road-rail bridge
carries both road and rail traffic. Bridges can also carry overhead power lines as does the Storstrom
Bridge. Some bridges accommodate other purposes, such as the tower of Novy Most Brdufe in Bratislava,
which features a restaurant.

Aesthetics

Most bridges are utilitarian in appearance, but in some cases, the appearance of the bridge can
have a great importance. This is the case with a large bridge that serves as an entrance to a city, or crosses
over main harbor entrance. To create a beautiful image, some bridges are built much taller than necessary.

Bridge Maintenance

Consisting of a combination of structural health monitoring and testing, This is regulated in

country specific engineer standards and includes for example an ongoing monitoring every three to six
months, a simple test or inspection every two to three years and a major inspection every six to ten years.
In some cases, the cost of maintenance is highest than spending on new bridges.

Bridge Failures

The failure of bridges is of special concern for structural engineer in trying to learn lessons vital
to bridge design, construction and maintenance. The failure of bridges first assumed national interest
during the Victorian era when many new designed were being built, often using new materials.

Bridge Monitoring

There are several methods used to monitor the stress on large structures like bridges. The most
common method is the used of an accelerometer, which is integrated into the bridge while it is being
built. This technology is used for long term surveillance of the bridge. Another option for structural-
integrity monitoring is “non-contact monitoring”, which uses the Doppler Effect.

Related Studies

Foreign Study

Steel Bridge Design

12/5/7
Authors: Christopher Caruso

Samuel Garcia

Professor: Professor Siddiqui

Abstract:

We propose to design and construct a steel bridge to the specifications and constraints governing
the 2008 ASCE/AISC Steel Bridge Competition. We will use MultiFrame® and ANSYS® for the
analysis and manual computation for the sizing of the members. After than full design is complete,
construction drawings will be made using AUTOCAD® and fabrication will commence. Once fabrication
is complete, the bridge will be loadtested to obtain measurements for maximum deflection under vertical
and lateral loads. Student members of the Swarthmore ASCE student chapter will assist in fabrication and
construction of the bridge at the ASCE Mid Atlantic Steel Bridge Competition to be held at Lafayette
College on April 4th and 5th, 2008. The competition judging criterion evaluates bridges based on their
structural efficiency and construction efficiency. Our bridge design will optimize to minimize fabrication
complexity and the number of workers necessary for construction.

Caruso-Garcia “Steel Bridge Design” E90 Project Proposal

Related Studies

“Proposed Design of Steel Bridge at Along-Ong, Libon, Albay”

By: Wilter Mapa

Harold M. Zamora
 Robert M. Madrinian

Abstract:

Along-ong is one of the 47 barangays of Libon and considered to be an urban area. It has a 465
hectares land area and is used for agriculture. Fishing and farming are the people’s primary source of
income. The proposed bridge will greatly help the residence. According to them, during rainy seasons the
river over flow which results in difficulty for the students to go to school. It is also a big problem among
farmers and workers in terms of transporting their goods. The proposed bridge is not only beneficial to
the people but also a sign of progress. If the bridge will come to reality, it will give a feeling of concern
from the government in the part of the residence.

Zamora-Madrinian-Mapa “Proposed Design of Steel Bridge at Along-Ong Libon, Albay”

Conceptual Framework
 INPUT PROCESSING OUTPUT

Assume Structural Detailed Engineering Determination of

Geometry Design with Design required structural
Type of Span, total Paremeters analysis
length of span and Computation of Identifying overall cost
number of spans Structural Analysis of the project
Bridge Geometry Identifying Project Recommendation of
Building Height, deck Duration Structural Analysis
level Computation of Costs;
Materials, Heavy
Equipment,
Manpower

CHAPTER 3
 METHODOLOGY

The researchers started to gather data which is relevant to the study. The DPWH (Department
of Public Works and Highways) referred the researchers to the Engineering Office of Maco to gather
essential information about the site. Next, we, researchers conducted site visit to familiarize the vicinity
of the subjects and had a field observation about the current situation by means of ocular inspection.
While doing a site visit, we also asked the residents of Barangay Teresa and one of the barangay councils
that concerns the evaluation of the said project location. We also conducted a survey using google forms
with the questions; (1) Are you aware about the present situation of the location? (2) Do you think the
present situation of the location extremely affects the community? (3) Do you consider that there is a need
to construct a bridge in Sitio Sawmill? And (4) If yes, what is/ are the factors that contribute to
constructing a bridge in Sawmill? The last question doesn’t require the respondents to answer.

After the data gathering process, we, the researchers, started the design process which is
composed of three phases; the pre design process, structural analysis and cost estimate. For the first
process, we conceptualize the front and side elevation of the proposed bridge. After that, we started the
structural analysis starting from superstructure down to substructure to obtain appropriate materials and
its dimension to be put up in the designed bridge.

Research Design

The design of the bridge superstructure or any structural analysis or elements are based on a
set of loading conditions which the component or element must withstand. The designer must take into
consideration a wide variety of loads which may vary based on the duration, direction, deformation
and effects such as shear and bending. To be able to form a consistent basis for the design,
organization like AASHTO have developed a set of standard loading conditions which are applied to
the engineer’s design model.

For single span structure, the connections between the bridge span and abutment with fixed
bearings should be design to resist the superstructure weight multiplied by the acceleration coefficient
for the soil type ( AASHTO Division 1-A). The type of superstructure chosen for a bridge can be
based on variety factors ranging from maintenance consideration to personal preference. Some of the
commonly used criteria in selecting the type of superstructure are the aesthetics environmental
concerns, maintenance cost, life expectancy and availability of materials. The Design Parameters are:
2001 National Structural Code of the Philippines ( NSCP) and 2012 AASHTO Specification for the
Design Highway Structure. The design criteria identify the AASHTO LRFD bridge design
Specifications.

DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN

a) GIVEN DATA
 Unit weight
 22 kn
 Plain concrete 3
m
24 kn
 Reinforced Concrete 3
m
8 kn
 Fill materials 3
m
78.5 kn
 Steel
m3
19.07 kn
 Saturated soil
m3
0.015 kN
 Loose and compacted gravel 3
m
 STRUCTURAL STEEL TYPE

A709/GRADE 50 ( ASTM DESIGNATION)

FU =448.16MPa
FY =344.74MPa
MODULUS OF ELASTICITY= 200000 MPa
 CONCRETE

CLASS A (SUPERSTRUCTURE)
fc’=27.58 MPa

CLASS B (SUBSTRUCTURE)
fc’=16.55 MPa

REINFORCEMENT STRENGTH
fY=413.69 MPa

b) BRIDGE DATA
b1) GENERAL
SPAN 21m
HEIGHT 2m
WIDTH 8.3m
OVERALL DECK THICKNESS 0.84m
NO. OF LANES 2
ROADWAY WIDTH 6.2m
SIDEWALK WIDTH 0.85m
POST DIMENSION 0.1x0.1m
 POST HEIGHT 0.9m
NO. OF POST 32
RAILING DIMENSION 0.2x0.2m
NO. OF RAILINGS 4
b2) SUPERSTRUCTURE
SLAB THICKNESS 0.2m
HAUNCH THICKNESS 0.05m
WEARING SURFACE THICKNESS 0.018m
DECK OF OVERHANG SPACING 0.872m
GIRDER SPACING 2.18m
NO. OF DIAPHRAGM 3
NO. OF GIRDERS 4

b3) STEEL STRUCTURE

TYPE STEEL 1-
BEAM(524x121)
DEPTH 0.622m
WEIGHT 180.7 kg/m
AREA 0.023 m 2
FLANGE THICKNESS 0.028m
FLANGE WIDTH 0.028m
WEB THICKNESS 0.204m
DIAPHRAGM
TYPE STEEL 1-
BEAM(524x80)
AREA 0.015m 2
WEIGHT 119.28 kg/m
DEPTH 0.61m
FLANGE THICKNESS 0.022m
FLANGE WIDTH 0.178m
WEB THICKNESS 0.013m
 SUPERSTRUCTURE DESIGN

o COMPUTING THE REQUIRED LOADS

I. DEAD LOAD
1) SUPERSTRUCTURE
a) CONCRETE DECK
WCD = (tS)(BW)(YRC)
= (0.2) (8.3) (24)
= 39.84 kN/m
b) HAUNCH
WH = (tH)(WB)(NG)(YRC)
= (0.05) (0.204) (4) (24)
= 0.98 Kn/m
c) GIRDER
WG = (AG) (YST) (NG)
= (0.023) (4) (78.5)
= 7.22 Kn/m

d) DIAPHRAGM
WB = (AD) (YST) ND)
= 0.015 (78.5) (3)
= 3.53 Kn/m
e) POST
WD = (AP) (YRC) (NP) (hP)
L
= (0.04) (24) (32) (0.9)
21
= 1.32 kN/m

f) RAILINGS

WSi = (AR) (NR) (YRC)

= (0.04) (4) (24)

 = 3.84 Kn/m

g) SIDEWALK

WSI = (hS) (WS) (YRC) (2)

= (0.25) (0.85) (24) (2)

= 10.2 kN/m

 TOTAL DEAD LOAD:

WDL = ℇW
= 63.93 kN

 DL = DL (L)
= 63.93 (21)
= 1342.53 kN∙m

II. WEARING SURFACE

FWS = 1.05 kPa
= 1.05 (6.2)
= 6.51 kN/m

WEARING SURFACE LOAD:

DW = WFWS (tWFS) (RW)/NG

= 6.51 kN/m (0.018) (6.2)/4

DW = 0.182 kN
 III. LIVE LOAD

1) LANE LOAD (HS20 LOADING)

W = 9.35 kN/m

L = 21 m
R1 R2
Figure 1

MMAX = 9.35 (21) (10.5) R2=R1=0.5

(9.35) (21)

= 2061.675 kN∙m = 98.175 kN

2) VEHICULAR LOAD (HS20 LOADING)

HS20 TRUCK: DISTANCE FROM A TO B = 4.25 m

DISTANCE FROM B TO C = 4.25 m

BRIDGE SPAN LENGTH = 21 m

 MAXIMUM MOMENT

 POSITION AT A

319kN

35kN 142kN
142kN

A B C

5.68m
R1 R2

Figure 2

CENTER LINE
DISTANCE FROM A TO C.L = 2.84 m

ℇMR1 = 0

R2 = 319 (13.34)/21

= 202.64 kN ; R1 = 116.36 kN

MA = (ℇM)L

= 116.36 (7.66) = 891.32 kN∙m

 POSITION AT B

319kN

35kN 142kN
142kN

A B C

5.68m
R1 R2

Figure 3

CENTER LINE

DISTANCE FROM B TO C.L = 0.715 m

ℇMR1 = 0

R2 = 319 (12.215) / 21

= 185.55 kN; R1 = 133.45 kN

MB = (ℇM)L
 = 133.45 (9.785) – 35 (4.25) = 1157.06 kN∙m

 POSITION AT C

319kN

35kN 142kN
142kN

A B C

5.68m
R1 R2

Figure 4

CENTER LINE

DISTANCE FROM C TO C.L = 1.41 M

ℇMR1 = 0

R2 = 319 (9.09) / 21

= 138.08 kN

MC = (ℇM)R

= 138.08 (9.09) = 1255.15 kN∙m

THEREFORE, POSITION AT GOVERNS.

 MAXIMUM SHEAR
319kN

35kN 142kN
142kN
A B C

5.68m
VMAX
Figure 5

VMAX = 319 (2.82) / 21

VMAX = 42.84 kN
LIVE LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTOR

 INTERIOR I – GIRDER

 POSITIVE MOMENT

KG = n (I + AeG2)

WHERE; eG = (st/2) + TH + y = 0.1 + 0.05 + 0.41 = 0.56 m

n = 8 (MODULAR RATIO) REFER TO S6.10.3.1.1b)

KG = 8 (0.0003 + 0.02297 (0.562)

= 0.06 m4

FOR ONE LANE LOADED (REFER TO Article 4.6.2.2b)

0.06 + (s/40.4 (s/L)0.3 (KG/3.7(L)(st3)0.1

0.06 + (2.18/4)0.4 (2.18/21)0.3 (0.06/3.7(21)(0.23)0.1

= 0.7 LANES

WHERE; S = TRANSVERSE SPACING

L = LONGITUDINAL LOADING

FOR TWO LANES LOADED

0.075 + (s/3)0.6 (s/L)0.2 (kG/3.7(L)(st3)0.1

0.075 + (2.18/3)0.6 (2.18/3.5)0.2 (KG/3.7(3.7)(0.23)0.1

= 0.8 LANES (GOVERNS)

 NEGATIVE MOMENT (USE POSITIVE MOMENT EQUATION)

BUT L = LS/2 = 21/2 = 10.5 m

FOR ONE LANE,

0.06 + (2.18/4)0.4 (2.18/10.5)0.2 (0.06/ (3.7x10.5x0.23)0.1

= 0.48 LANES

FOR TWO LANES,

 0.075 + (2.18/3)0.6 (2.18/10.5)0.2 (0.06/ (3.7x10.5x0.23)0.1

= 0.57 LANES (GOVERNS)

 SHEAR

FOR ONE LANE LOADED (Table 4.6.2.2.3a-1)

0.36 + (s/7.62) = 0.36 + (2.18/7.62) = 0.65 LANES

FOR TWO LANES LOADED

0.2 + (s/3.7) – (s/10.7)2

= 0.2 + (2.18/3.7) – (2.18/10.7)2 = 0.75 LANES (GOVERNS)

 EXTERIOR GIRDER (LEVER RULE)

 MOMENT (Table 4.6.2.2.2d-1)

USE HS20 TRANSVERSE LOADING

FOR ONE LANE (MULTIPLE PRESENCE FACTOR ALREADY CONSIDERED)

MPF = 1.2

∑M = 0; 1.2Pe – Rs = 0

1.2 (222) (0.4042) – R (2.18)

R = 49.39 kN

DF = 1.2e/s = 1.2(0.4042) / 2.18 = 0.22 LANES

FOR TWO LANES,

e = 0.77 + de/2.77;de = 0.7 m

= 0.77 + 0.7/2.77 = 1.02

DF = (1.02 (2.18 – 0.4042))/2.18 = 1.02 (1.78)/2.18 = 0.83 LANES (GOVERNS)

 SHEAR
FOR ONE LANE (LEVER RULE),

DF = 0.22 LANES

FOR TWO LANES,

e = 0.6 + de/10 = 0.6 + 0.7/10 = 0.67

DF = e DFINT = 0.67 (0.75) = 0.5 LANES (GOVERNS)

 SUMMARY OF LIVE LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS (STRENTH LIMIT STATE)

Table I

INTERIOR GIRDER (LANES) EXTERIOR GIRDER (LANES)

(+) MOMENT 0.8 0.83
(-) MOMENT 0.57 0.83
SHEAR 0.75 0.5
(TAKE DF = 0.83 FOR THE STRENGTH AND SERVICE LIMIT STATE)

IV. LOAD, SHEAR AND MOMENT DIAGRAM (LIVE LOAD)

Table II

LENGTH UNFACTORED MOMENT FACTORED MOMENT ( DF =

0.83)

1.0 L 0 0

0.9 L 896.2002 KN∙m 743.846 KN∙m

0.8 L 1593.2448 KN∙m 1322.393 KN∙m

0.7 L 2091.1338 KN∙m 1735.641 KN∙m

0.6 L 2389. 8672 KN∙m 1983.590 KN∙m

0.5 L 2489.4450 KN∙m 2066.240 KN∙m

0.4 L 2389.8672 KN∙m 1983.590 KN∙m

0.3 L 2091.1338 KN∙m 1735.641 KN∙m

0.2 L 1593.2448 KN∙m 1322.393 KN∙m

0.1 L 896.2002 KN∙m 743.846 KN∙m

0L 0 0
V. LOAD, SHEAR AND MOMENT DIAGRAM (DEAD LOAD)

Table III

LENGTH UNFACTORED MOMENT FACTORED MOMENT (DF =

0.83)
1.0 L 0 0
0.9 L 60.4233 KN∙m 50.15 KN∙m
0.8 L 107.4192 KN∙m 89.16 KN∙m
0.7 L 140.9877 KN∙m 117.02 KN∙m
 0.6 L 161.1288 KN∙m 133.74 KN∙m

0.5 L 167.8425 KN∙m 138.72 KN∙m

0.4 L 161.1288 KN∙m 133.74 KN∙m

0.3 L 140.9877 KN∙m 117.02 KN∙m

0.2 L 107.4192 KN∙m 89.16 KN∙m

0.1 L 60.4233 KN∙m 50.15 KN∙m

0L 0 0

 NOMINAL GIRDER MOMENT FOR DESIGN

DC = 0.83 (1342.53) = 1114.30 kN∙m

DW = 0.83 (32.105) = 26.65 kN∙m

LL = 0.83 (2985) = 2477.55 kN∙m

IM = 0.83 (985.05) = 817.59 kN∙m (REFER TO DYNAMIC LOAD ALLOWANCE)

IV. DYNAMIC LOAD ALLOWANCE

(+) IM = 0.33 (2066.240 kN∙m)

(+) IM = 681.86 kN∙m

o DESIGN OF BEAM

1. FACTORED DESIGN LOADS (WITHOUT SELF WEIGHT)

USING LRFD LOAD COMBINATIONS:

WU = 1.4 (D + F)

WU = 1.4 (WD + WF)

= 1.4 (9.35 + 29.72)

KN
= 54.7
m
 PU = 1.4(PD + PL)

= 1.4(0 + 319)

= 446.6 KN

WUL 2 P❑ L
MU = + U
8 4

2
54.7(21) 446.6( 21)
= +
8 4

= 5360 KN∙m

2. SELECT SECTION (524 X 121)

MAXIMUM STRESS

M 5360
f
max = =
S X 4227 m3

= 1.268 MPa

SINCE; 1.268 < Fy, THEREFORE, S24 X 121 APPLICABLE

 FLEXURE DESIGN

MY = FySx

= 344.74 (4.227 x 10-3)

MY = 1457.22 kN∙m

MN = 1.3 (RH)(MY)

WHERE RH = 1.0

MN =1.3 (1457.22)

MN 1894.896 kN∙m
 LATERAL TORSIONAL BUCKLING

12.5MMAX
Cb =
2.5MMAX + 2MA + 4MB + 3MC

12.5(2204.96)
=
(4 + 2.5)(2204.96) + 5(1411.553)

27562
= = 1.29
14332.24 + 7057.765

Since 1 < Cb < 2.3 Mu = MMAX

 FLEXURAL YIELDING LIMIT STATE

Mu ≤ ꬾbMn

2204.96 ≤ 1.4 (1894.896)

2204.96 ≤ 2652.85

 ALLOWABLE BENDING STRESS

EQ 5.16 Fb = 0.75Fy

= 0.75 (334.74) = 258.56 MPa

 ALLOWABLE SHEAR STRESS

d 998
≤
tw FY

0.0622 998
≤
0.02 344.74
31.1 ≤ 53.75
 THEREFORE, USE EQUATION 5.20

FV = 0.4FY

V
≤ 0.4FY
dt w

V
≤ 0.4 (344.74)
0.622(20.3)
V = 1715 kN

 WEB STIFFNESS

USE TRANSVERSE STIFFNERS

DETERMINE REQUIRED MOMENT OF INERTIA

IREQ,D = atwj

WHERE, a = SPACING OF STIFFENER

=3m

J = 0.5((a/h)2 -2)

= 10.63

IREQ,D = 3(0.027)3(10.63)

= 6.28 x 10 -4 m4

DETERMINE ACTUAL MOMENT OF INERTIA

NO. OF DOUBLE STIFFNERS = 2

FOR DOUBLE STIFFENERS:

t[ ( 2 b+tw ) 3−tw 3]
I PLATE =
12
t = 0.018 m

0.018( ( 2 b+tw ) 3−tw 3)

6.28 x 10-4 =
12
b = 0.05m

NO. OF SINGLE STIFFENER = 2

 FOR SINGLE STIFFENERS:

IPLATE > IREQiD

3
tb
IPLATE =
3

t = 0.018 m

3
0.018 b
6.28 x 10-4 =
3

b = 0.5 m
 BOLTED CONNECTION

RELEVANT PROPERTIES (DIAPHRAGM) S24 X 80

d = 0.61

tw = 0.013m

bf = 0.178m

tr = 0.0221m

FOR ASTM A53 STEEL:

Fy = 241 MPa

Fu = 414 MPa

SHEAR ON BOLTS (DOUBLE SHEAR)

R =Fy + AV

FV = 207 MPa

π
Av = (25)2 x 6 x 2
4

= 5890.4862 mm2 = 5.89 m2

R = 207 (5.89) = 1219.33 KN

 BEARING ON CONTACT AREA

R = FP + AP

FP = 1.2(414) = 496.8 MPa

AP = Bolt diam x tW x 6

= 25 + 0.013 + 6 = 1950 mm2

R = 496.8(1950) = 968760 N

= 968.76 KN

ALLOWABLE TENSILE STRESS COMBINED TENSION AND SHEAR ON NET AREA

(BLOCK SHEAR)

R = (tension w x tw)0.5Fu + (shear w x tw)0.3Fu

= (46.5 x 13)(0.5(414) + (53 x 5 + 46.5)(13)(0.3 x 414)

= 125131.5 + 502947.9 = 628079.4 N

R = 628.0794 KN

FOR A490 BOLTS WITH THREADS EXCLUDED SHEAR PLANE:

ALLOWABLE SHEARING STRESS, ts = 276 MPa

, tt = v372ᴧ2-1.82fv ᴧ2 Table 2 -7

SHEARING STRESS ON BOLTS

p 1219330
Fv = = π
A v ❑4 (25)2❑
❑
X12
❑

= 206.99 MPa ≤ 276 MPa (OK!)

TENSILE STRESSS

Ft = √ 3322−1.82 f 2 V

= 245.78 MPa

ACTUAL TENSILE STRESS

 Ae = 2127.94

P 1219330
Ft = =
A e 2127.94

Ft = 573.01 MPa

o CHECKING THE GIRDER CROSS SECTION PROPORTIONAL LIMIT

I. WEB PROPORTION

D/tw ≤ 150

0.622/0.02 ≤ 150

30.7 ≤ 150 (OK!)

II. FLANGE PROPORTION

1. Bt/2t, ≤ 12

0.205/(2)(0.028) ≤ 12

3.69 ≤ (OK!)

2. bf ≥ D/6

0.205 ≥ 0.622/6

0.205 ≥ 0.104 (OK!)

3. tf ≥ 1.1 tw

0.028 ≥ 1.1(0.2)

0.028 ≥ 0.022 (KO!)

4. 0.1 ≤ IYC/lYT ≤ 10
 Lyc = 0.02(0.41) + 0.205(0.0283)

= 0.001 m4

lyT = 0.02(0.2123) + 0.205 (0.283)

= 0.0002 m4

0.1 ≤ 5.13 ≤ 10 ( OK!)

o PLASTIC MOMENT CAPACK OF GIRDER

1. POSITIVE MOMENT REGION

 TENSION FLANGE

Pt = Fy (Dw) (Tw)

= 248MP a (028)(0.205

= 142.52 kN

 WEB

Pw = Fy (Dw)(tw)

= 248 MPa (0.567) (0.02

= 2812=.32 kN

 COMPRESSION FLANGE

PC = FY (bc) (tc)

= 248MPa(0.159) (0.028)

= 1104.1 Kn
 SLAB

PS = 0.85 (f’C) (bS) (ts)

= 0.85 ( 27.58MPa) (1.102) (0.2)

= 5166.84 kN

 LOCATION OF PLASTIC NEUTRAL AXIS

Pt + Pw = 4235.84 kN

Pc + Ps = 6270.94 kN

Pt + Pw + Pc = 5339.94 kN

Y = ts ((Pt + Pw + Pc)/Ps)

= 0.2 (5339.94/5166.34)

= 0.21 m

THEREFORE, THE PLASTIC NEUTRAL AXIS IS LOCATED OUTSIDE

THE SLAB

(HAUNCH IS NEEDED)

 COMPUTE PLASTIC MOMENT

dc = DISTANCE FROM AN ELEMENT FORCE TO THE PLASTIC

NEUTRAL AXIS

= tc/2 – 0.01

= 0.004 m

dw = tt/2 + (d – 0.01)

= 0.626m

Mp = (Y2 (Ps)/2ts) + (Pcdc + Pwdw + Ptdt)

 = 3214.45 kN∙m

2. DETERMINE IF SECTION IS COMPACT OR NONCOMPACT

 COMPACT SECTION WEB SLENDERNESS

2DCP/tw ≤ 3.76 √(E/FYC)

Dcp = depth of the web in compression at the plastic moment

2 (0.01)/0.02 ≤ 3.76(√(200000/448.16)

10 ≤ 79.43 (OK!)

From NSCP 2001:

EQ. 5.1

bf 170
≤
2 d f √ Fy

204.5 170
≤
2(27.7) √ 344.74
7.38 ≤ 9.16

EQ. 5.2

d 1680
≤
t w √ Fy

622.3 1680
≤
20.3 √344.74
30.66 ≤ 90.48

THEREFORE, THE SECTION IS CONSIDERED TO BE COMPACTED

3. FLEXURAL DESIGN OF GIRDER

  CHECK FOR STRENGTH LIMIT STATE

STRENGTH I: 1.25DC + 1.50DW + 1.75(LL+IM)

1.25(26.42) + 1.5(3.822) + 1.75(393.57 + 129.88)

= 954.8 kN

 CHECK FOR SERVICE LIMIT STATE

SERVICE II: 1.00DC + 1.00 DW + 1.30(LL+IM)

1.0 (26.42) + 1.00 (3.822) + 1.30 (393.57 + 129.88)

= 710.727 kN

 CHECK FOR FATIGUE LIMIT STATE

FATIGUE: 0.75(LL+IM)

0.75 (393.57 + 129.88)

= 392.5875 Kn

 TOTAL FACTORED FORCE EFFECT

Q = 954.8 + 710.727 + 392.5875

= 2058.1145 Kn

o CONVENTIONAL DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE DECK

1. WIDTH OF EQUIVALENT INTERIOR STRIP (Table 4.6.2.1.3-1)

 DIRECTION OF PRIMARY STRIP RELATIVE TO TRAFFIC

MAIN BARS
  TYPE OF DECK

Table IV

Supporting Components Types of Deck

Steel Beam Cast-in-place concrete slab. Precast
concrete slab. Steel grid glued spiked
panels. Stressed wood

2. CONCRETE DECK SLABS (9.7)

 Minimum Depth and Cover (9.7.1.1)

DCONCRETE DECK > 0.178 m

0.2 > 0.178 m (OK!)

 EMPIRICAL DESIGN

 CORE DEPTH OF THE SLAB IS NOT

LESS THAN 102 mm

 REINFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS:

USE GRADE 80 STEEL

MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT FOR TOP LAYER = 381 mm2/m

USE 16 mm Ф BAR SPACING AT @ 450 mm o.c

MINIMUM REINFORCEMENT FOR THE BOTTOM LAYER = 571

mm2/m

USE 22 mm Ф BAR SPACING AT @ 300 mm o.c

 MINIMUM NEGATIVE FLEXURE CONCRETE DECK REINFORCEMENT

(6.10.1.7)

NORMAL WEIGHT CONCRETE:

fR = 0.24√f’ c

= 1.26
 SUBSTRUCTURE DESIGN

o DESIGN CRITERIA

BACKWALL BACK COVER 0.08 m

STEM BACK COVER 0.08 m

FOOTING TOP COVER 0.05 m

FOOTING BOTTOM COVER 0.08 m

ABUTMENT HEIGHT 5m

ABUTMENT LENGTH 40.35 m

WINGWALL HEIGHT 9.4 m

o LOAD COMPUTATION

 DEAD LOAD OF SUPERSTRUCTURE

COMBINED LOAD = 1012.2 KN

1012.2
CLGIRDER = = 506.1 KN
2
VOLUME OF ABUTMENT
 1
VABUTMENT = (5(1M) + 0.6(4.64) + 1.5625(1.64) + (1.5625)(0.2418)9.3
2
VABUTMENT = 97.98 m3

DEAD LOAD OF ABUTMENT

DLABUTMENT = VABUTMENT (δCONCRETE)

= 97.98(24) – 2351.5 KN

VOLUME OF BACKWALL

VBACKWALL = 0.5(9.5)6.4

= 30.4 m3

DEAD LOAD BACKWALL

DLBACKWALL = VBACKWALL (δCONCRETE)

= 30.4(2.4) = 729.6 KN

DEAD LOAD OF WINGWALL

DLWINGWALL= VBOULDER(δCONCRETE)

= 88.16m3(25) = 2204 KN

DEAD LOAD OF EARTH

DLEARTH = VEARTHδGRAVEL

KN
= 8.17(0.015) = 0.12
m
DEAD LOAD OF FOOTING

DLFOOTING = VFOOTINGδCONCRETE

= 3(1)9.3(24) = 1116 KN

LIVE LOAD

 DYNAMIC LOAD ALLOWANCE

o OTHER LOAD EFFECTS

 BRAKING FORCE

BF = 0.25 (222 KN)

 = 55.5 KN

 WIND LOAD ON SUPERSTRUCTURE

Dt = hPARA + DECK + tTOP FLANGE + tBOTT FLANGE + tHAUNCH

= 0.9 + 0.84 + 0.04 + 0.02 + 0.05

Dt = 1.858 m

LWIND = 10.5 m

WIND AREA:

AW = Dt (LWIND)

= 19.509 m2

VDZ = 160.934 Kph

WIND PRESSURE

V DZ 2
PV = PB ( ) ; vDZ = VB ‫؞‬PD = TB
VB

 TOTAL WIND LOADING ON GIRDERS:

WTOTAL = 0.006Dt = 0.006(1.858)

= 0.011 KN

 WIND LOAD ON SUBSTRUCTURE

AW ABUTMENT = (7.87)(5)

= 5.35 m2

 WIND LOAD ON VEHICLES:

LWIND = 10.5 m

WIND ANGLE OF 0 DEGREES,

WLO0 = 10.5(0.001) = 0.0105 KN

 LATERAL EAERTH LOAD

1−sin 60
ka = = 0.07
1+sin 60
 R1 = (13.71)(2) = 27.42

R2 = (8.97)

LATERAL EARTH FORCE:

R = 27.42 + 8.97 = 36.69 Kn

DISTANCE OF R WITH RESPECT TO THE BOTTOM:

Є MBOTTOM = 0]

36.39X = 39.38

X = 1.08 m

 EARTH SURCHARGE LOAD:

PS = HEQ X δS X ka

= 3.5(9.26)(0.07)

kN
=2.27
m
o CHECK STRENGTH LIMIT STATE (STRENGTH I)
YDC = 1.25,YU = 1.75,YEH = 1.5,YLS = 1.75

 FACTORED VERTICAL FORCE

FVF = 1.25(54.42) + 1.75(108.82)

kN
= 258.46
m

o FOR SOIL BEARING CAPACITY

 EXTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE,

Ф = 60°

 INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE,

2 2
Ф’ = Ф= (60)
3 3
Ф’ = 40°

 FROM TERZAGHI’S BEARING CAPACITY FACTORS,

 NC = 95.7

Nq = 81.3

Nδ = 100.4

 DETERMINING SUC

DRY UNIT WEIGHT = δSAT - δW

= 19.07 – 9.81

KN
= 9.26
m3
KN 1m3 1 kip 1000 lb
9.26 3 X x x = 59 3
m 3 3
3.26 ft 4.448 1 kip ft
ORGANIC SOILS ARE RANGING FROM

lb
50 – 70 3
ft
‫ ؞‬THE SOIL IS ORGANIC (OL)

ESTIMATED CONSISTENCY FOR OL, MEDIUM

SUC = 1.5

 DETERMINING C
S UC
C= = 0.75
2

 DETERMINING q,
q = δD = 19.07(1)

q = 19.07 kPa

 DETERMINING qULT. USING TERZAGHI’S EQUATION,

qULT = qNq + 1.3 cNc + 0.48δ’ Nδ

= 19.07(81.3) + 1.3(0.75)(95.7) + 0.4(9.26)(100.4)

qULT = 2015.500 kPa

ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY, USE FS = 3

 qULT 2015.58
qALL = = = 671.86 kPa
3 3
o COLUMN
fc’ = 16.55 MPa

fy = 413.69 MPa

DL = 63.93 kN

LL = 948.36 kN

 FACTORED APPLIED AXIAL LOAD AT A KNOWN ECCENTRICITY

Pu = 1.4 DL + 1.7 LL

= 1.4(63.93) + 1.7(948.36)

Pu = 1701.714 kN = 1701714 N

 TRIAL AREA
TRY Pg = 0.04

Pu
Ag = '
Ф ( 0.80 ) [0.85 f c ( 1−Pg ) + fyPg]
FOR SPIRAL COLUMN Ф = 0.75

1701714
=
0.75 ( 0.80 ) [0.85 (16.55 )( 1−0.04 ) + ( 413.69 )( 0.04 ) ]
2
A g=94374.83 mm
2
πD
= 94374.83
4
D=346.64 mm
TRY D=400 mm
π
Ag= (400)2 = 125663.71 mm2
4

A S=P g A g=0.04 ( 125663.71) =5026.55 mm2

USE 28 mm Ф
π 2
(28) n= A S
4
 π
(28)2 n=5026.55
4
n=8.2 Say 8 bars
π 2 2
A S= ( 28 ) ( 8 )=4926.02mm
4
2
A S=P g A g=0.04 ( 125663.71) =5026.55 mm

USE 28 mm Ф
π
( 28 )2 n= A S
4
n=8.2 Say 8 bars
π
A S= ( 28 )2 (8) = 4926.02 mm2
4
AS 4926.02
Pg = = = 0.04 > 0.1 < 0.08 (OK!)
A g 125663.71
'
PU =0.75 ( 0.85 ) A g [0.85 f c ( 1−P g ) + f y P g ]

¿ 0.75 ( 0.85 ) ( 125663.71 ) [0.85 ( 16.55 ) ( 1−0.04 )+ 413.69 ( 0.04 )]

PU =2407516.25 N >1701714 N ( SAFE !)

USE=10 mm Ф SPIRALS
π 2 2
A S= (10) =78.54 mm
4
DC =D−80 mm=400 mm−80 mm=320 mm

 FOR SPACING OF SPIRALS:

4 AS
S=
D C PS

PS =0.45
[ ]
Ag
Ac
f'
−1 C
fy

π π
AC = (DC )2= (320)2
4 4
2
AC =70685.83mm
 PS =0.45 ( 125663.71
70685.83
−1 )
16.55
413.69
=0.014

4 AS 4 (78.54)
S= =
D C PS 320(0.014)

S=74.8mm Say 70 mm
USE S = 70mm ON CENTERS

USE D = 400 mm WITH 8 – 28 mmФ MAIN REINFORCEMENT WITH 10mm SPIRALS,

SPACED AT 70mm ON CENTER

40 mm

8 -28 mm Ф

SPACED @ 70 mm on center

Figure 6

o FOOTING
DL=DL SUPERSTRUCTURE + DL COLUMN

DL=63.93+04 ( 4.5 ) ( 24 ) +2.75 ( 9.3 )=720.93 kN

¿=948.36 kN
 ASSUME WT. OF FOOTING TO BE 9% OF CONCENTIC SERVICE LOADS.

wt . of footing=0.09 (720.93 )+ 948.36 ¿=150.24

 AREA REQ’D

wt . of footing+ DL +¿
A=
q ALL

150.24+720.93+948.36
¿ =2.71m2
671.86
2
B =2.71
B=1.65 m Say B=2 m; e=0.4 m
 PU =1.4 DL +1.7≪¿ 1.4 ( 720.93 ) +1.7(948.36)

¿ 2621.514 kN
 NET ULTIMATE SOIL PRESSURE, qULT

2621.514 kN
q ULT = 2
=655.3785 3
2 m
 DETERMINE DEPTH OF FOOTING FROM BEAM SHEAR:

1
V C= √ fc ( ALLOWABLE )
6
1 1
¿ √ 0.45 f ' c = √ 0.45(16.55)=0.46 MPa( ALLOWABLE )
6 6
B
X = +e−0.2=1.2m
2

V U =655.38(1.2−d )(2)

VU
V n=
Фbd
655.38(1.2−d )(2)(1000)
0.46=
0.85 ( 2000 ) d (1000)
d=0.75 m=751mm Say d=760 mm

0.4 m
 1m 0.4 m 0.4 m

1m

Figure 7

2m

Figure 7-7A

o PILE DESIGN

 DIAMETER: H – PILE RANGE IN 0.2 m TO 0.4 m WIDTH

USE A 0.3 m H – PILE

 SPACING SMIN = ≥ 2.5D

SMIN = 2.5 (0.3) = 0.75 m

SMAX = 3.05 m
SACTUAL = 1.9 m c – c

 EDGE CLEARANCE: COVERMIN = 0.23 m

 MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM EDGE OF FOOTING TO CENTER OF PILE

DMIN = COVERMIN + d/2

= 0.23 + 0.3/2

= 0.38 m

 MAXIMUM PILE CAP DIMENSION

 LMAX = L;L = 6.4 m

B = 3.05 m

SB = B – 2(DMIN)

= 3.05 – 2(0.38)

= 2.29 m
 DETERMINE PMAX ACTING ON PILE

RX

B F

Figure 8

Table V (FOR STR)

PX(kN) M(kN∙m) RFRONT(kN) RBACK(kN)

STRMAX 506.52 527.3 476.39 30.13
STRMIN 418.17 499.75 420.64 -2.47

PMAX ON FRONT OF PILES:

RFRONT = 476.39 kN

 MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SPACES AT 3D SPACING (NL)

NL ≤ SL/D

NL ≤ 5.34/3(0.3)

NL ≤ 6.6; NL = 6

 MAXIMUM ANTICIPATED FACTORED PILE LOAD

 RMAX = RFRONT/NL

= 476.39/6

= 79.4 kN

 STRUCTURAL RESISTANCE

PT = ФC FY AS WHERE Ф = 0.6

FY = 250 MPa (A36 STEEL)

AS = (RMAX/ФV)/FY

= (79.4/0.6)/250000

= 5.29 x 104 m2

THEREFORE, USE HP 200 FOR PILE

BRIDGE DESIGN PROPOSAL AT SITIO SAWMILL, TERESA, MACO, DAVAO DE ORO

A. SITE CLEARING (7 DAY DURATION)

Table 1

MANPOWER QUANTITY RATE PER DAY TOTAL COST FOR

7-DAY PERIOD
FOREMAN 1 590 4130.00
HEAVY 2 800 11200.00
EQUIPMENT I
OPERATOR
LABORER 5 390 13650.00
OVERALL COST 28980.00

Table 1A

HEAVY QUANTITY RENTAL PER DAY TOTAL COST FOR

EQUIPMENT 7-DAY PERIOD
BACKHOE 2 16000 224000.00
OVERALL COST 224000.00

B. FORMS, PILE DRIVING (10-DAY DURATION)

Table 1B

HEAVY EQUIPMENT QUANTITY RENTAL PER DAY TOTAL COST FOR

10-DAY PERIOD
50 TN CRANE 2 16000 320000.00
OVERALL COST 320000.00

Table 1C

MANPOWER QUANTITY RATE PER DAY TOTAL COST FOR

10-DAY PERIOD
FOREMAN 1 590 4500.00
CRANE OPERATOR 2 800 16000.00
LABORER 10 390 39000.00
OVERALL COST 59500.00

Table 1D

EQUIPMENTS TOTAL COST

FORMS 75000.00
OVERALL COST 75000.00

C. SUBSTRUCTURE (90DAYS)

Table 1E

MATERIALS AND QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE

MISC. SUPPLIES
CEMENT 2200 BAGS 215.00 473000.00
CONCRETE 24 3520 84480.00
BLANKETS
REINFORCING BARS 5 TONS 34 170000.00
MISC. SUPPLIES 1 100000 100000.00
OVERALL COST 827480.00

Table 1F

HEAVY EQUIPMENT QUANTITY RENTAL PRICE PER TOTAL PRICE

DAY
TRUCK MIXER 1 160000 240000.00
CRANE 1 160000 240000.00
OVERALL COST 480000.00

Table 1G

MANPOWER QUANTITY RATE PER DAY TOTAL PRICE

FOREMAN 1 590 53100.00
SKILLED WORKER 2 490 88200.00
HE OPERATOR 2 800 144000.00
LABORER 10 390 351000.00
OVERALL COST 636300.00

D. SUPERSTRUCTURE (90 DAY DURATION)

Table 1H

MATERIALS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST

I BEM GIRDER 10 17000 170000.00
ELASTOMERIC 8 900000 7200000.00
STEEL PLATE 10 29000 290000.00
REINFORCING BARS 3 TONS 38 114000.00
CEMENT 2000 BAGS 215 430000.00
OVERALL COST 8204000.00

Table 1I
MANPOWER QUANTITY RATE PER DAY TOTAL PRICE
FOREMAN 1 590 53100.00
SKILLED WORKERS 3 490 132300.00
LABORERS 10 390 351000.00
HE OPERATOR 4 800 288000.00
OVERALL COST 824400.00

Table 1J

HEAVY EQUIPMENT QUANTITY RENTAL PER DAY TOTAL COST

TRUCK MIXER 1 16000 480000.00
CRANE 1 16000 480000.00
PISON 2 16000 960000.00
OVERALL COST 1920000.00

Table 1K

CIVIL ENGINEER 1 800 164000.00

ESTIMATED OVERALL COST OF CONSTRUCTION= PHP 13,763,660.00

Research Locale

Sitio Sawmill, Teresa, Maco Davao de Oro is a very remote location situated near the operation
area of a mining company. It is within 100m radius of an active volcano called Leonard Kniaseff. There
are around 30 families residing near the project location. Two rivers meet in the project location which
the bridge is needed. Sitio Sawmill is a passage of nearby barangay namely New Barili. Large stones are
present in the river. This is provincial road and preserved by the Lumads since time immemorial.
Materials

Measuring Tape- used to measure the length and width of the bridge needed in the location.

Scientific Calculator- used to perform basic and complex calculations.

Tools and Machines

 Computer - is a digital electronic machine that can be programmed to carry out sequences of
arithmetic or logical operations automatically. Modern computers can perform generic sets of
operations known as programs. These programs enable computers to perform a wide range of
tasks. The researchers did not use any machine for testing. There was no testing made. All the
solutions were manually calculated.

Procedures

The researchers started to gather data which is relevant to the study. Next, we, researchers
conducted site visit to familiarize the vicinity of the subjects and had a field observation about the current
situation by means of ocular inspection. After the data gathering process, we, the researchers, started the
design process which is composed of three phases; the pre design process, structural analysis and cost
estimate. For the first process, we conceptualize the front and side elevation of the proposed bridge. After
that, we started the structural analysis starting from superstructure down to substructure to obtain its
dimension to be put up in the designed bridge.

Statistical Tools

The researchers did not use any statistical tools.

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

 Bending contact area is 986.76KN and the allowable tensile stress combined tension and
shear on net area is 628.0794KN.
 Allowable shearing stress on bolts is 206.99. The actual tensile stress is 573.01MPa.
  The plastic moment is 3214.45 kN.m and is considered compact.
 Flexural design of girder is 954.8kN. The service limit state is 710.727kN and the fatigue
limit state is 392.5875Kn. The total factored force effect is 2058.1145Kn.
 The empirical design for concrete deck; the core depth is less then 102mm. The
reinforcement requirement is grade 80 steel.
 The spacing for spiral are S=70mm, D=400mm with 8-28mm.
 For footing, DL=720.93kN and LL=948.36kN. The weight of footing is 150.24.
 The depth of footing is 760mm. Use HP 200 for Pile.
 The depth of footing is 760mm. Use HP 200 for Pile. The minimum edge clearance is 0.23m.
 Maximum strength on front of pile is 476.39kN. Maximum Factored Pile Load is 79.4kN.
Maximum number of spaces is 6.
 The total cost of the project is Php13,763,660.00. The project duration is 197 days.
 Results show to use HS20 for Transverse Loading and HP 200 for Pile.

Socio-economic Impact

The socio-economic impact of bridge is it influence the people in terms of migration, traffic,
safety and construction, health, impact on the environment such as climate change because of CO2
emission are amongst several parameters which contribute in the decision process at the overall
holistic conceptual level, the more detailed level of section of bridge sites and the selection of
bridge types as well as construction and materials to be used.

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION

SUMMARY AND FINDINGS

 The reason why we need to construct a bridge in the location is because of calamity and
transportation. Residents have been complaining about the current situation of the location.
 The structural design was presented in Chapter 3, it was based on Standard Specification of
 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Load and Resistance
Factor Design and National Structural Code of the Philippines.
 The bill of estimate of the construction of bridge as well as the project duration was already
presented on chapter 3 and 4.

Conclusion

Bridges are immensely important. They are critical component in our nation’s infrastructure. To
facilitate travel in order for the consumers to purchase goods and services we need a bridge. In Brgy.
Teresa, farmers are unable to transport their agricultural products to the markets, employees are unable to
report to their work, and students are unable to come to school. Residents have been complaining about
these issues for a decade now. We, the researchers of this study, have identified the problems and so there
is an urgent need to design a bridge for the benefits of all the residents. The design of this bridge must be
based on the guidelines, requirements and standards set by DPWH and National Structural Code of the
Philippines.

Recommendation

Based on the findings and conclusions, we, researchers, have identified the problem in Brgy.
Teresa. Considering the current condition of the location, we recommend to design a steel bridge because
this type of bridge has been proven safe and cost effective. It is widely used because it can hold great
loads. The design of this bridge must follow the standards and requirements set by the Department of
Public Works and Highways. The barangay officials need to coordinate to the Local Government of
Maco, Davao de Oro in asking assistance on constructing a bridge. We, the researchers, are open to
giving this research as basis for structural analysis and feasibility study. Also, students who wish to
engage in bridge design should have a knowledge in Structural Engineering for more accurate analysis in
designing a bridge. Bridge design is one of the most difficult topics in Civil Engineering so it is
imperative to have an idea about the subject matter before making such decision. Also, it is important to
study seismic analysis.