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.
291
Embed
THE PROJECT FOR STUDY ON IMPROVEMENT OF BRIDGES … · 2017-01-05 · CHAPTER 2 ORGANIZATIONS CONCERNED FOR SEISMIC DESIGN OF BRIDGES ... 10.5 Policy and Outline of Example for Practical
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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.
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)
i
LOCATION MAP OF STUDY BRIDGES (PACKAGE B : WITHIN METRO MANILA)
ii
LOCATION MAP OF STUDY BRIDGES (PACKAGE C : OUTSIDE METRO MANILA)
Figure 15.3.1-6 Location Map of Boreholes (Buntun Bridge)
15-19
b) Palanit Bridge
PAL-L1
PAL-R1
Figure 15.3.1-7 Location Map of Boreholes (Palanit Bridge)
c) Mawo Bridge
100 m
MAW-L2
MAW-L1
Figure 15.3.1-8 Location Map of Boreholes (Mawo Bridge)
15-20
d) 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge
100 m
MAN-E1MAN-W1
Figure 15.3.1-9 Location Map of Borehole s (1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge)
e) Biliran Bridge
100 m
BIL-S1BIL-N1
Figure 15.3.1-10 Location Map of Boreholes (Biliran Bridge)
15-21
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-L1WAW-R1
100 m
Figure 15.3.1-12 Location Map of Boreholes (Wawa Bridge)
15-22
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 blackish-gray colored relatively soft
15 – 17 2 7 (- 50) Sandy silt relatively high water content including broken shell fragments gray / dark-gray colored
17 – 21 4 5 – 8 Silt with clay and fine sand including broken shell fragments mostly dark-gray/blackish-gray colored
21 – 33 12 9 – 13 Clayey silt with fine sand including broken shell fragments mostly dark-gray/blackish-gray colored interbedded with white colored volcanic ash about -30.5 m
33 – 38 5 50 < Very fine sand silty relatively low water content 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).
15-23
Table 15.3.2-2 Engineering Soil Layers (Deplpan B-1) S
oil Layer Thickness
(m) N-value Relative
Density/StiffnessSoil Type
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.
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.
15-24
(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 relatively low water content 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 relatively high water content
15 – 17 2 13 – 17 Gravel/sand with gravel yellowish-gray colored moderate to low water content
17 – 23 6 14 – 27 Mainly fine sand with medium sand relatively high water content 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
Groundwater was observed around -3.45 m in the borehole.
15-25
b) Engineering Soil Layers
Based on the boring logs of B-1, the following soil layers can be identified (Table 15.3.2-4).
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.
10 – 35 25 26 – 46 Mainly medium to fine sand sometime coarse sand rich with broken shell fragments blackish-gray colored 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 relatively low water content poor with broken shell fragments dark-gray/blackish-gray colored
40 – 46 6 50 < Mainly medium to fine sand Moderate water content with broken shell fragments blackish-gray colored
Groundwater was observed around -2.2 m in the borehole.
b) Engineering Soil Layers
Based on the boring logs of B-1, the following soil layers can be identified (Table 15.3.2-8).
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
15-30
A geological profile for the Guadalupe Bridge is shown in Figure 15.3.2-4.
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.
15-31
(II) As: Alluvial Sand
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.
15-32
Table 15.3.2-9 Boring Result (Marikina B-1) Depth (m) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 0 – 3 3 3 – 6 Very fine sand
silty poor graded relatively high water content brown colored
3 – 5 2 7 – 8 Mainly very fine sand with silt brownish-gray colored
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 relatively high water content dark-gray colored
12 – 14 2 21 – 25 Fine to medium sand relatively high to moderate water content blackish-gray colored
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 relatively high water content brownish-gray/blackish-gary colored
24 – 30 6 50 < Mainly coarse to medium sand including gravel having diameters of 10-20 mm relatively high water content dark-gray/blackish-gray colored
Groundwater was observed around -3.2 m in the borehole.
b) Engineering Soil Layers
Based on the boring logs of B-1, the following soil layers can be identified (Table 15.3.2-10).
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.
15-40
(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) Depth(m) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 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
14 – 16 2 50 < Very fine sand with gravel weakly consolidated reddish-brown colored
16 – 30 14 50 < Very fine sand (probably strongly weathered sandstone) relatively low water content Reddish-brown/ bluish-gray/yellowish-gray colored very dense or relatively consolidated below -23m subrounded gravel (10mm in diameter) included about -25m
Groundwater was observed around -2.5 m in the borehole.
15-41
Table 15.3.3-2 Boring Result (Buntun: BTL-2) Depth(m) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 0 – 6 6 6 – 9 Very fine sand
with silt brownish-gray colored relatively high water content below -2 m
6 – 13 7 8 – 12 Fine to medium sand moderate water content dark-gray colored
13 – 14 1 33 Very fine sand with silt relatively high water content
14 – 15 1 33 Fine to medium sand blackish-gray colored
15 – 16 1 30 Very find sand with silt Dark-gray or blackish-gray colored
16 – 26 10 50 < Very fine sand Relatively low water content Poorly graded Blackish-gray or dark-gray colored
26 – 30 4 50 < Very fine sand with silt poorly graded relatively low water content yellowish-gray colored
Groundwater was observed around -2.5 m in the borehole.
b) Engineering Soil Layers
Based on the observation of soil samples of BTL-1 and BTL-2, the following soil layers can
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.
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.
(II) As: Alluvial Sand
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.
15-43
(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) Depth(m) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 0 – 4 4 15 – 46 Clayey sand
clayey or silty sand brown/brownish-gray/greenish-gray/yellowish-gray colored relatively low to moderate water content -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 moderate water content brownish-gray colored
5 – 6 1 49 Clay with gravel moderate water content 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
Groundwater was observed around -3.0 m in the borehole.
15-44
Table 15.3.3-5 Boring Result (Palanit: PAL-R1) Depth(m) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 0 – 2 2 8 – 9 Gravely sand
relatively low water content including plant roots and 10-15 mm gravel dark-grown colored
2 – 6 4 50 < Tuffaceous rock tuffaceous siltstone greenish-gray colored 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
Groundwater was observed around -3.2 m in the borehole.
b) Engineering Soil Layers
Based on the boring logs of PAL-R1 and PAL-L1, the following soil layers can be identified
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.
18 – 19 1 35 Gravel with silt including 2-4 mm gravels relatively high water content yellowish brown colored
19 – 28 9 25 – 41 Clay with gravel relatively low to moderate water content 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 relatively low to moderate water content sometime rock fragments moderate to relatively hard
dark gray colored relatively low to moderate water content
33 – 35 2 15 Clay relatively low to moderate water content sometime including coral fragments and/or broken shell fragments moderate to relatively hard yellowish-brown colored relatively low to moderate water content
35 – 40 5 45 – 53 Clay
15-52
Depth(m) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters relatively low to moderate water content sometime including coral fragments and/or broken shell fragments moderate to relatively hard yellowish-brown colored relatively low to moderate water content
40 – 69 29 14 – 42 Clay relatively low to moderate water content sometime including few coral fragments and broken shell fragments moderate to relatively hard yellowish-brown colored relatively low to moderate water content
69 – 81 12 45 – 69 Silty sand (tentative)
Groundwater was observed around -6.0 m in the borehole.
Table 15.3.3-11 Boring Result (1st Mandaue-Mactan: MAN-W1) Depth(m) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters 0 – 2 2 21 – 24 Clay with gravel
including coral fragments moderate to relatively high water content 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 mainly coarse to medium sand moderate water content light brownish gray colored
8 – 10 2 Sand with gravel mainly coarse to medium sand moderate water content Light brownish gray colored
18 – 30 12 50 ≤ Clay with gravelrelatively high water content including gravels of 10-30 mm in diameter (probably sheared/fractured clayey/silty rocks) blackish-gray/greenish-gray colored
Groundwater was observed around -3.2 m in the borehole.
15-64
Table 15.3.3-20 Boring Result (Wawa: WAW-L1) Depth(m) Thickness (m) N value Soil characters0 – 4 4 20 – 30 Clay with gravel
relatively low water content including gravels of 10-40 mm in diameter brownish-gray colored
4 – 6 2 30 Clay with gravelincluding gravel of 20-30 mm in diameter relatively low water content blackish-brown colored
6 – 7 1 40 Clay with gravelrelatively high-moderate water content dark-gray/blackish-gray colored
7 – 10 3 49–50 ≤ Clay with gravelrelatively high-moderate water content dark-gray/blackish-gray colored medium soft/hard
10 – 12 2 50 Clay with gravelrelatively high-moderate water content dark-gray/blackish-gray colored
relatively hard12 – 14 2 50 ≤ Clay
relatively high water content greenish-gray colored
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.
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.
15-76
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
A rigid soil layer with Vs≥300 m/sec is distributed at a depth of 40 m below the ground
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.
Table 15.3.4-1 Standard Design Lateral Force Coefficient for Liquefaction Potential
Assessment
Bridge site Location JRA Ground
Type TG Location
JRA Ground Type
TG
Met
ro M
anila
Delpan Passig (Left) III 0.66 Passig (Right) ( II ) 0.42Nagtahan Passig (Left) II 0.49 Passig (Right) ( II ) 0.34Lambingan Passig (Left) ( II ) 0.31 Passig (Right) II 0.23Guadalupe Passig (Left) ( I ) 0.15 Passig (Right) III 0.59Marikina Marikina (Left) ( I ) 0.09 Marikina (Right) II 0.47
Pro
vinc
es
Palanit Left bank I 0.05 Right bank I 0.09Mawo Left bank I 0.13 Right bank III 0.72Biliran Biliran side I 0.01 Leyte side I 0.03Liloan Leyte side I 0.01 Panaon side I 0.111st Mandaue-Mactan Cebu side I 0.08 Mactan side II 0.27Buntun Left bank II 0.29 Right bank II 0.38Wawa 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
A rigid soil layer with Vs≥300 m/sec is distributed at a depth of 24 m below the ground
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.
15-77
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.
15-78
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
A rigid soil layer with Vs≥300 m/sec is distributed at a depth of 6 m below the ground
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
A rigid soil layer with Vs≥300 m/sec is distributed at a depth of 64 m below the ground
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
A rigid soil layer with Vs≥300 m/sec is distributed at a depth of 6 m below the ground
surface and mainly composed of clayey soils. TG is 0.08 and the ground is classified as
Type I.
15-79
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).
15-80
Table 15.3.4-3 Soil Type and Design Parameters on Soils (NEXCO)
Soil Type Condition of soil Unit weight *(kN/m3)
Angle of internal friction
(degree)
Cohesion (kN/m2)
Art
ific
ial G
roun
d
Gravel/Sand with gravel Compacted 20 40 0
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
Nat
ural
Gro
und
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
Not-dense (loose) or poorly graded 19 35 0
Sand Dense or well graded 20 35 0
Not-dense (loose) or poorly graded 18 30 0
Sandy soil Dense or well graded 19 30 ≤ 30
Not-dense (loose) or poorly graded 17 25 0
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)
15-81
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
(m) Layer Soil Type N values Nd γt
(kN/m3) C
(kN/m2)
Φ (º)
E0
(kN/m2) Vsn
(m/sec)
-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).
Soil parameters for bridge design are proposed in Table 15.3.4-5 below.
Table 15.3.4-5 Proposed Soil Parameters for Nagtahan B-1 Site Depth
*Vsn: shear wave velocity (m/sec) assumed using conversion formula from N to Vs proposed by JRA
(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.
15-88
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)
(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 stressCE: 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)
Figure 15.4.1-2 Design Flood Discharge Distribution against 100-year Return Period
(MP in 1990)
MCGS STO. NINO
1,200 600 550 500 2,900MANILABAY
SAN JUANRIVER
70
0
95 0
2,4
00
30
0MANGAHANFLOODWAY
NAPINDANRIVER
35
Figure 15.4.1-3 Design Flood Discharge Distribution against 30-year Return Period
(DD in 2002)
15-105
Table 15.4.1-1 Summary of Proposed Pasig-Marikina River Channel Improvement Plan in
Detailed Engineering Design in 2002
Stretch Design
Discharge
Freeboard Allowance for Embankment
Work Item
Lower Pasig River (9.2 km)
Delpan Bridge ~ San Juan River (7.1 km)
1,200 m3/s 1.0 m Raising of existing parapet wall and rehabilitation of revetment
San Juan River ~ Lambingan Bridge (2.1 km)
600 m3/s 1.0 m
Upper Pasig River (7.2 km)
Lambingan Bridge ~ Napindan Channel (7.2 km)
600 m3/s 1.0 m Raising of existing parapet wall and rehabilitation of revetment
Lower Marikina River (7.3 km)
Napindan Channel ~ Mangahan Floodway (7.3 km)
550 m3/s 1.0 m Dredging / excavation, provision of new parapet wall, embankment and construction of MCGS
Upper Marikina River (6.1 km)
Mangahan Floodway ~ Sto. Niño (6.1 km)
2,900 m3/s 1.2 m Dredging / excavation, revetment, raising of embankment and river 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;
15-106
Table 15.4.1-2 Tidal Information at Manila South Harbor Tide Station
Station Observed
Highest Tide Mean Higher High Water
Mean High Water
Mean Lower Low Water
Mean Low Water
Manila South Harbor (14°35’ N 120°58’E)
1.48 m 0.51 m 0.39 m - 0.49 m - 0.38 m
*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
Bridges in Package-B Distance from
River mouth (km) Design Flood
Discharge (m3/s) Design Flood Level (m) (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
B-16 Marikina Bridge 13.12
(from Napindan Channel) 2,900 9.697
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)
15-107
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.
15-108
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;
15-109
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.
15-110
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
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
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
Photo 15.4.1-1
15-111
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.
15-112
(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.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
No. of Rainy days
Rainfall (m
m)
Month
Mean Annual Rainfall in Tuguegarao
Rainfall (mm)
No. of Rainy days
Figure 15.4.2-1 Mean Annual Rainfall in Tuguegarao (1981-2010) and Annual Average Water
Level at Buntun Bridge
15-113
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)
where, Q : Design Flood Discharge (m3/s) q : Specific Discharge (m3/s/km2) c : Constant for Regional Specific Discharge Curve (Table 16.5.2.1-1) A : Catchment Area (km2)
15-114
Table 15.4.2-1 Constant for Regional Specific Discharge Curve
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
where, Q : Design Flood Discharge (m3/s) A : Cross Sectional Area (m2) V : Flow Velocity (m/s) 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)
15-115
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
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
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
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.
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
Vertical Clearance 2.00 m Observed Highest Water Level 12.70 m (Design Water Level assumed)
Water Level Station
Gauge by PAGASA →
▽O.H.W. L +12.70 m
Photo 15.4.2-1
15-116
(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.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
No. of Rainy days
Rainfall (m
m)
Month
Mean Annual Rainfall in Surigao
Rainfall (mm)
No. of Rainy days
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
No. of Rainy days
Rainfall (m
m)
Month
Mean Annual Rainfall in Butuan City
Rainfall (mm)
No. of Rainy days
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.
15-117
3) Major Design Condition of Wawa Bridge
a) Design Flood Discharge and Design Flood Level
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
Specific Discharge Method
Design Flood Discharge obtained from the drawings of WRIS 2005
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.
(III) Vertical Clearance and Freeboard
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
Photo 15.4.2-1
▽O.H.W. L
↑ Water Level
Gauge by NIA
15-119
(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.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
No. of Rainy days
Rainfall (m
m)
Month
Mean Annual Rainfall in Catbalogan
Rainfall (mm)
No. of Rainy days
Figure 15.4.2-5 Mean Annual Rainfall in Catbalogan (1981-2010)
2) Major Design Condition of Palanit Bridge and Mawo Bridge
a) Design Flood Discharge and Design Flood Level
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).
15-120
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+V1
2/2g+he
where, H : Water Level (m) V : Flow Velocity (m/s) 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.
15-121
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 Observed
Highest Tide Mean Higher High Water
Mean High Water
Mean Lower Low Water
Mean Low Water
Catbalogan (11°46’ N 124°52’E)
1.40 m 0.79 m 0.59 m - 0.76 m - 0.66 m
*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.
15-122
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
Design Flood Discharge (m3/s) (calculated by Specific Discharge Method)
164 197 1,035 1,245
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.
c) Major Design Condition
(I) Design High Water Level
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.
15-123
(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
(III) Vertical Clearance and Freeboard
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.
Figure 15.4.2-7 Design High Water Level and freeboard at existing Palanit Bridge
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.
Vertical Clearance 1.50 m ▽Design Flood Level Elv.1.90 m (Q=197 m3/s 100-year return period)
Vertical Clearance 1.50 m ▽Observed Highest Tide Elv.1.50 m
15-124
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)).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
No. of Rainy days
Rainfall (m
m)
Month
Mean Annual Rainfall in Cebu
Rainfall (mm)
No. of Rainy days
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
No. of Rainy days
Rainfall (m
m)
Month
Mean Annual Rainfall in Tacloban City
Rainfall (mm)
No. of Rainy days
Figure 15.4.2-9 Mean Annual Rainfall in Cebu and Tacloban City (1981-2010)
15-125
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 Observed
Highest Tide Mean Higher High Water
Mean High Water
Mean Lower Low Water
Mean Low Water
Cebu (10°18’ N 123°55’E)
1.49 m 0.78 m 0.51 m - 0.71 m - 0.51 m
Catbalogan (11°46’ N 124°52’E)
1.40 m 0.79 m 0.59 m - 0.76 m - 0.66 m
Surigao (09°47’ N 125°30’E)
1.11 m 0.55 m 0.44 m - 0.49 m - 0.41 m
*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
Figure 15.4.2-10 Navigation Clearance of 1st Mandaue-Mactan Bridge
▽Mean High Water Level
Elv.0.51 m
Navigation Clearance 22.860 m
Horizontal Clearance 112.780 m
15-126
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.
Figure 15.4.2-11 Tide Level on Biliran Bridge
Note: The section of Liloan Bridge and Riverbed is assumed
Figure 15.4.2-12 Tide Level on Liloan Bridge
▽Observed Highest Tide Elv.1.40 m
▽M.S.L
▽Observed Highest Tide Elv.1.11 m
▽M.S.L
15-127
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.
15-128
(2) National Secondary Roads (15,372km)
All other national roads that are not classified as the arterial roads.
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 Figure 15.5.2-1 Road Network of Metro Manila
Source: JICA Study Team
Figure 15.5.2-2 CBDs and Road Network
15-130
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.
15-131
Table 15.5.4-1 Summary of Traffic Count Survey Location Area Station No. Location Survey Period Remark
Figure 15.5.4-1 24-Hour Traffic Count Survey Station on the Bridge inside Metro Manila
Reference: Google Map
Figure 15.5.4-2 Intersection Traffic Count Survey Station inside Metro Manila
15-133
Reference: Google Map
Figure 15.5.4-3 Bridge and Intersection Traffic Count Survey Station outside Metro Manila
15-134
(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.
15-135
Table 15.5.4-2 Summary of Traffic Count Survey Result inside Metro Manila (AADT)
Figure 15.5.4-16 ML Quezon-MV Patalinghug-Marigondon Road Intersection
34,976
BRIONES
9,663
1,2
43
12,
990
17,
297
31,
531
24,
419
55,9
49
1,64
3
0
16,899 10,757
0
18,077 12,428
4,89
9
14,7
55
18,6
40
21,2
96
5,650
51,788
31,368
OP
ON
BR
IDG
E
A.
CO
RT
EZ
PLARIDEL
20,420
39,9
37
45
6
1011
12
1
2
3
78
9
Figure 15.5.4-17 Plaridel - A. Cortes Avenue Intersection
Unit: vehicle/day
Unit: vehicle/day
15-144
11,853
BAYUGAN
989
12,8
3813
,827
12,7
73
26,6
00
5,917
5,936 1,002
4,92
8
11,7
71
ES
PE
RA
NZ
A
BUTUAN
34,4
71
17,7
72
16,6
99
4,934
3
4
1
2
5
6
Figure 15.5.4-18 Bayugan Intersection
Unit: vehicle/day
15-145
15.6 Results of Natural and Social Environmental Survey
(1) 1st Mandaue 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 Bridge is not located in cultural property or natural reserve area.
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%)
There many illegal
settlers under the Bridge.
15-146
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
: Residential Area
House Holds and Structures (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ 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. Land use (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ 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. Existing Environmental Condition (Noise, Vibration, Air Pollution and Water contamination.) ・ Environmental condition is good except for the pollution of traffic flow such as noise,
vibration and air pollution. 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 Bridge is not located in cultural property or natural reserve area.
Under the Bridge is used for
basket court, vender, orchards
and etc.
15-147
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 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%).
Economic Status Profile ・ 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%) Sanitation and Health Conditions ・ 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%)
Awareness and Social Acceptability of the Proposed Project ・ In terms of proposed Project’s awareness, majority of the respondents are aware of the
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
: Residential Area : Industrial Area
There are many informal
settlers besides the Bridge.
There a house under the Bridge out of dyke wall.
15-148
House Holds and Structures (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ 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. Land use (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ Both sides of the Bridge are used for residential and factory area. Existing Environmental Condition (Noise, Vibration, Air Pollution and Water contamination.) ・ Environmental condition is bad for the pollution of traffic flow such as noise, vibration and
air pollution. 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 Bridge is not located in cultural property or natural reserve area.
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 50 years to 59 years
old (22%) where majority are female respondents (48%). 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 (40%) and lived in the area since birth (25%) or have lived there for more than 10 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%)
Economic Status Profile ・ 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.
Sanitation and Health Conditions ・ 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%)
Awareness and Social Acceptability of the Proposed Project ・ 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%).
・ In general, the proposed Project is considered beneficial to the barangays (57%) as it will 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.
15-149
(4) Guadalupe Bridge
: Business and Industrial Area
House Holds and Structures (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ 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. Land use (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ 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. Existing Environmental Condition (Noise, Vibration, Air Pollution and Water contamination.) ・ Environmental condition is bad for the pollution of traffic flow such as noise, vibration and
air pollution. 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 Bridge is not located in cultural property or natural reserve area.
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 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%)
There informal settler houses
around abutment.
15-150
Economic Status Profile ・ Most of the houses are made of mixed concrete (58%) and G.I. sheet-made roofing (66%). In
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%)
Sanitation and Health Conditions ・ 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%)
Awareness and Social Acceptability of the Proposed Project ・ 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
: Residential Area : House
House Holds and Structures (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ There are2 houses immediately beside the Bridge. The number of PAPs is 12 under the
Bridge. ・ Water pipe is held by the Bridge. Land use (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ 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. Existing Environmental Condition (Noise, Vibration, Air Pollution and Water contamination.) ・ Environmental condition is good except for the pollution of traffic flow such as noise,
vibration and air pollution. ・ 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.
There informal settler houses.
Under the Bridge is used for
boat shed and drying area.
Water pipe.
15-151
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 Bridge is not located in cultural property or natural reserve area.
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 50 years to 59 years
old (34%) where majority are female respondents (58%). 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 (39%) and lived in the area since birth (21%) or have lived there for more than 10 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%).
Economic Status Profile ・ 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%). 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 water sealed types (50%). ・ Last year, majority of the respondents got sick (67%) and most of their sickness/disease are
fever and headache (37%). For these results, most of the residents prefer consulting doctors or have it check-up in clinics or hospitals (67%)
Awareness and Social Acceptability of the Proposed Project ・ In terms of proposed Project’s awareness, majority of the respondents are aware of the
Project (92%). Most information on the proposed project came from the barangay and city officials (46%) or Project Representatives (42%).
・ In general, the proposed Project is considered beneficial to the barangays (96%) as it will provide a safer means of transportation (67%). Half of the respondents do not perceive any negative effects from the proposed project.
15-152
(6) Mawo Bridge
: Residential Area
House Holds and Structures (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ Along the Bridge there are many houses immediately beside the Bridge. ・ There are 7 informal settlers under the Bridge with 37 PAPs. Land use (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ 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. Existing Environmental Condition (Noise, Vibration, Air Pollution and Water contamination.) ・ Environmental condition is good except for the pollution of traffic flow such as noise,
vibration and air pollution. ・ 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. 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 Bridge is not located in cultural property or natural reserve area.
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 40 years to 49 years
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%).
・ The literacy and importance of education among the respondents are relatively average since 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%).
Economic Status Profile ・ Most of the houses are made of mixed concrete (35%) and G.I. sheet-made roofing (87%). In
terms of cooking, majority of the respondents use charcoal (52%) ・ Majority of the respondents own motorcycles and tricycles (52%) as a means for
transportation.
There houses immediately beside
the Bridge.
There used for storage, breeding
area and etc.
There houses beside
the Bridge
15-153
Sanitation and Health Conditions ・ 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%).
Awareness and Social Acceptability of the Proposed Project ・ In terms of proposed Project’s awareness, majority of the respondents are aware of the
Project (91%). Majority of the information about the project known by the respondents came from the barangay and municipal officials (61%).
・ In general, the proposed Project is considered beneficial to the barangays (82%) as it will 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
: House
House Holds and Structures (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ 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. Land use (Area facing to the Bridge and the approach road) ・ 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. Existing Environmental Condition (Noise, Vibration, Air Pollution and Water contamination.) ・ Environmental condition is good except for the pollution of traffic flow such as noise,
vibration and air pollution. 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 Bridge is not located in cultural property or natural reserve area.
There many thatch houses prospective informal.
Irrigation dam
Maintenance cottage
Water pipe
15-154
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 years to 39 years
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%).
・ The literacy and importance of education among the respondents are relatively average since 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%).
Economic Status Profile ・ 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%).
Sanitation and Health Conditions ・ 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%)
・ Last year, majority of the respondents got sick (78%) and most of their sickness/disease are 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%)
Awareness and Social Acceptability of the Proposed Project ・ 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%)
15-155
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
2 A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 2011 6th 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
Table 15.7.5-1 Current Road Conditions of Lambingan Bridge Road Type : Urban Collector Road Number of Lane : 6 lane Free Flow Speed : 40 km/h
Traffic Volume : 30,257 veh/day Mix rate of large vehicle : 3.8%
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
Current Cross Section
Traffic survey result
④③
②①
②④③
Water Pipe Br
①
2000
1400
10000
23800
500 3000 3000 3000 500100001000
500300030003000500
1200
1400
1200
ROW ROW
15-165
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
Table 15.7.5-3 Design Conditions of Lambingan Bridge
Item Condition Remark
Road Type Urban Collector Road It is decided with current road and roadside condition
Traffic Volume 30,257 veh/day Refer to the traffic survey result
Traffic Volume of Large Vehicle
(Mix rate of large vehicle)
1,159 veh/day (3.8%) Same as the above
Design Speed 50km/h Design speed is applied 50km/h based on the standard value of Urban Collector Road (AASHTO) and existing travel speed.
Number of Lane 6 Lane Secure the current number of lane
Lane Width 3.00m Secure the current lane width AASHTO Standard value
Shoulder 0.60m DPWH, AASHTO Standard value
Sidewalk 1.50m DPWH, AASHTO Standard value
Median 1.20m DPWH, AASHTO Standard value
Right of Way 23.5m Decide the current boundary line, because a correct boundary line is not clear
Typical Cross-section of Bridge and approach road
Note : Right of Way is measured from the survey result.
23,400
1,500
600
3,0003,0003,000
300
600
300
3,0003,0003,000
600
1,500
15-167
19,200
600
3,0003,0003,0003,0003,0003,000
600
20,400
600
3,0003,0003,000
300
600
300
3,0003,0003,000
600
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
Figure 15.7.5-1 Typical Cross-Section at the Taper Section
Taper width=0.6m Taper length=30m
15-168
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】
【4-lane section】
Figure 15.7.5-2 Typical Cross-Section at the Runoff Section
Source:「A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets」AASHTO
13,200
600
3,0003,0003,0003,000
600
19,200
600
3,0003,0003,0003,0003,0003,000
600
Shift width=3.0m
15-169
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
low. The grade is improved to 5% considering the barrier free.
Runnability The vertical curve is not secured, and there is an impact when driving.
Secure the vertical curve and improve the trafficability.
Visibility The stopping sight distance is not enough, and the safety is low by a lacking visibility.
Secure the stopping sight distance.
Figure 15.7.5-3 Issue of Current Vertical Alignment
Figure 15.7.5-4 Issue of the Stopping Sight Distance
Hight of eye=1.08m
Hight of object=0.60m
65.0
Stopping Sight Distance
65.0
Stopping Sight Distance
The stopping sight distance is not secured
g=7%
The vertical curve is not secured, and there are issues to trafficability and visibility
g=7% The current grade is 7%, and it is not desirable for driver and pedestrian
15-170
Navigation Clearance
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.
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.
Figure 15.7.5-6 New Vertical Alignment of Lambingan Bridge
Secure the current elevation Secure the current elevation
g=5% g=5%
Secure the EL≧8.1m
Secure the Navigation Clearance
Bottom of girder line
15-171
5) Cross-Section Elements
a) Issue of the Current Road
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
lane, but the bridge section is 6 lane. Secure the 6 lane same as current road.
Sidewalk width The sidewalk width is narrow with 1.2m, and the width that pedestrian can pass each other is insufficient.
Secure the 1.5m width as possible the pedestrian can pass each other.
Figure 15.7.5-7 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Lambingan Bridge
b) Improvement of Cross-Section
Figure 15.7.5-8 Improvement of Cross-Section
2000
1400
10000
23800
500 3000 3000 3000 500100001000
500300030003000500
1200
1400
1200
Water Pipe
Bridge
13.9m
1.8m
23,400
1,500
600
3,0003,0003,000
300
600
300
3,0003,0003,000
600
1,500
15-172
(2) Guadalupe Bridge
1) Current Road Condition
Table 15.7.5-7 Current Road Conditions of Guadalupe Bridge
Road Type : Urban Arterial Road Number of Lane : 10 lane Free Flow Speed : 60 km/h
Traffic Volume : 220,468 veh/day Mix rate of large vehicle : 9.0%
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
Note : The traffic lane width shows an assumption value from the survey result.
①② ③
MRT
15-173
2) Restriction of the Road Design
There are requirement to not obstruct the facility as shown below with the bridge replacement.
Table 15.7.5-8 Restriction of Guadalupe Bridge ①MRT ②Building & houses ③Power pole & High-voltage cable ④Inside bridge
①MRT
②Buildings&houses
②Buildings&houses
③Power pole&High-voltage cable
④Inside bridge(North bound)
④Inside bridge(South bound)
①MRT
②Buildings&houses
②Buildings&houses
③Power pole&High-voltage cable
④Inside bridge
15-174
8,800
300
3,3503,350
300
1,500
8,800
1,500
300
3,3503,350
300
3) Design Conditions
Table 15.7.5-9 Design Conditions of Guadalupe Bridge
Item Condition Remark
Road Type Urban Arterial Road It is decided with current road and roadside condition
Traffic Volume 220,468 veh/day Refer to the traffic survey result
Traffic Volume of Large Vehicle (Mix rate of large vehicle)
19,833 veh/day(9.0%)
Same as the above
Design Speed 60km/h DPWH Standard value
Number of Lane 10 Lane Secure the current number of lane
Lane Width 3.35m Secure the current lane width DPWH Standard value
Shoulder 0.30m DPWH, AASHTO Standard value
Sidewalk 1.50m DPWH, AASHTO Standard value
Median - -
Right of Way 45m Decide the current boundary line, because a correct boundary line is not clear
Typical Cross-section
South Bound lane North Bound lane
Note : Right of Way is measured from the survey result.
15-175
4) Horizontal Alignment
① Secure the current horizontal alignment. ② Secure the 10 lane same as current number of lane. ③ Avoid the land acquisition and obstruction to roadside facility as possible.
5) Vertical Alignment
a) Restriction of Bridge Elevation
In the bridge section, the elevation is secured more than EV=11.6m, it is considering navigation clearance and the bridge structure height.
Table 15.7.5-10 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Guadalupe Bridge
Ingredients Unit Value Notes J. P. RIZAL AVENUE Elevation m 5.000 Vertical Clearance m 4.500 Structure height m 2.080 Including pavement thickness Total m 11.580 Conclusion: designed controlled elevation of bridge longitudinal profile
: H ≥11.6m
b) New Bridge Vertical Alignment
Improvement of vertical alignment considering the restriction and the issue is as follows. 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.
Figure 15.7.5-9 New Vertical Alignment of Guadalupe Bridge
g=6%g=4.2%
Secure the Vertical Clearance more than 4.5m
Finished grade is more than 11.6m
g=Flat
15-176
8,500
1,200
300
3,3503,350
300
8,500
300
3,3503,350
300
1,200
8,800
300
3,3503,350
300
1,500
8,800
1,500
300
3,3503,350
300
6) Cross-Section Elements
a) Issue of the Current Road
Table 15.7.5-11 Issue of Cross-Section and Measure Policy
Issue of the cross-section Measure policy Sidewalk width The sidewalk width is narrow with
1.2m, and the width that pedestrian can pass each other is insufficient.
Secure the 1.5m width as possible the pedestrian can pass each other.
South Bound Lane North Bound Lane Figure 15.7.5-10 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Guadalupe Bridge
b) Improvement of Cross-Section
Figure 15.7.5-11 Improvement of Cross-Section
1.2m
15-177
(3) Palanit Bridge
1) Current Road Condition
Table 15.7.5-12 Current Road Conditions of Palanit Bridge
Road Type : Rural Arterial Road Number of Lane : 2 lane Free Flow Speed : 30 km/h
Traffic Volume : 1,266 veh/day Mix rate of large vehicle : 21.5%
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
There are requirement to not obstruct the facility as shown below with the bridge replacement.
Table 15.7.5-13 Restriction of Palanit Bridge ①Church ②Residential area ③Intersection
①Church
②Residential area ②Residential area
③Intersection
③Intersection
①Church
②Residential area
③Intersection
②Residential area
③Intersection
15-179
10,900
1,500
600
3,3503,350
600
1,500
3) Design Conditions
Table 15.7.5-14 Design Conditions of Palanit Bridge
Item Condition Remark
Road Type Rural Arterial Road It is decided with current road and roadside condition
Traffic Volume 1,266 veh/day Refer to the traffic survey result
Traffic Volume of Large Vehicle (Mix rate of large vehicle)
272 veh/day(21.5%)
Same as the above
Design Speed 60km/h DPWH Standard value It is confirmed by DPWH staff
Number of Lane 2 Lane Secure the current number of lane
Lane Width 3.35m Secure the current lane width DPWH Standard value
Shoulder 0.60m2.00m DPWH, AASHTO Standard value
Sidewalk 1.50m DPWH, AASHTO Standard value
Median - -
Right of Way 30m It is confirmed by DPWH staff
Typical Cross-section Of Bridge section
Typical Cross-section 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).
10,700
2,000
3,3503,350
2,000
15-180
4) Horizontal Alignment
① Secure the current horizontal alignment. ② Secure the 2 lane same as current number of lane. ③ Avoid the land acquisition and obstruction to roadside facility as possible.
5) Vertical Alignment
a) Restriction of Bridge Elevation
In the bridge section, the elevation is secured more than EV=5.2m, it is considering navigation clearance and the bridge structure height.
Table 15.7.5-15 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Palanit Bridge
Ingredients Unit Value Notes
100Y HWL m 1.900 Free Board m 1.500 Structure height m 1.800 Including pavement thickness Total m 5.200 Conclusion: designed controlled elevation of bridge longitudinal profile
: H ≥5.2m
b) New Bridge Vertical Alignment
Improvement of vertical alignment considering the restriction and the issue is as follows.
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
Figure 15.7.5-12 New Vertical Alignment of Palanit Bridge
g=5.7%
g=1.0% g=0.3%
Existing roadExisting road
Finished grade is more than 5.2m
15-181
10,900
1,500
600
3,3503,350
600
1,500
6) Cross-Section Elements
a) Issue of the Current Road
Table 15.7.5-16 Issue of Cross-Section and Measure Policy
Issue of the cross-section Measure policy Sidewalk width The sidewalk width is narrow with
0.65m, and the width that pedestrian can pass each other is insufficient.
Secure the 1.5m width as possible the pedestrian can pass each other.
Figure 15.7.5-13 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Guadalupe Bridge
b) Improvement of Cross-Section
Figure 15.7.5-14 Improvement of Cross-Section
0.65m
8,660
650
330
3,3503,350
330
650
15-182
(4) Mawo Bridge
1) Current Road Condition
Table 15.7.5-17 Current Road Conditions of Mawo Bridge
Road Type : Rural Arterial Road Number of Lane : 2 lane Free Flow Speed : 30 km/h
Traffic Volume : 3,623 veh/day Mix rate of large vehicle : 9.4%
Summary of The Road - The Asian Highway (AH26) - 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 - Requisite route to daily life for inhabitants around the bridge Current Road Condition
There are requirement to not obstruct the facility as shown below with the bridge replacement.
Table 15.7.5-18 Restriction of Mawo Bridge ①Intersection ②Residential Area
①Intersection
①Intersection ①Intersection
①Intersection
②Residential area ②Residential area
①Intersection
②Residential area②Residential area
15-184
10,900
1,500
600
3,3503,350
600
1,500
10,700
2,000
3,3503,350
2,000
3) Design Conditions
Table 15.7.5-19 Design Conditions of Mawo Bridge
Item Condition Remark
Road Type Rural Arterial Road It is decided with current road and roadside condition
Traffic Volume 3,623 veh/day Refer to the traffic survey result
Traffic Volume of Large Vehicle (Mix rate of large vehicle)
339 veh/day(9.4%)
Same as the above
Design Speed 60km/h AASHTO Standard value It is confirmed by DPWH staff
Number of Lane 2 lane Secure the current number of lane
Lane Width 3.35m Secure the current lane width DPWH Standard value
Shoulder Bridge:0.60mRoad :2.00m DPWH, AASHTO Standard value
Sidewalk 1.50m DPWH, AASHTO Standard value
Median - -
Right of Way 30m It is confirmed by DPWH staff
Typical Cross-section Of Bridge section
Typical Cross-section 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).
15-185
4) Horizontal Alignment
① Secure the current horizontal alignment. ② Secure the 2 lane same as current number of lane. ③ Avoid the land acquisition and obstruction to roadside facility as possible.
5) Vertical Alignment
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 alignment
Large recess around the bridge, Not appropriate vertical alignment
Improve the vertical alignment
Pathway Pathway exist at existing abutment, Utilized as residential road
Install the box culvert and secure the passage function.
Large recess of Vertical alignment
Large recess of vertical alignmentPathway(H=2m,W=3.5m)
Pathway(H=2m,W=3.5m)
15-186
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
Ingredients Unit Value Notes
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 Conclusion: designed controlled elevation of bridge longitudinal profile
: H ≥5.6m
c) New Bridge Vertical Alignment
Improvement of vertical alignment considering the restriction and the issue is as follows.
① Secure 0.5% of minimum vertical gradient considering drainability ② Install pathway (H=3m, W=4m)
Figure 15.7.5-15 New Vertical Alignment of Mawo Bridge
g=2.7% g=0.8% g=0.5% g=0.5%
Finished grade is more than 5.6m
Secure Box culvert for pathway
15-187
6) Cross-Section Elements
a) Issue of the Current Road
Table 15.7.5-22 Issue of Cross-Section and Measure Policy
Issue of the cross-section Measure policy Sidewalk width The sidewalk width is narrow with
1.0m, and the width that pedestrian can pass each other is insufficient.
Secure the 1.5m width as possible the pedestrian can pass each other.
Elevation difference
Elevation difference occurs because of vertical alignment improvement.
Secure the service road and restore current passage function.
Figure 15.7.5-16 Issue of the Current Cross-Section of Mawo Bridge
b) Improvement of Cross-Section
Figure 15.7.5-17 Improvement of Cross-Section
Figure 15.7.5-18 Image of the Service Road
Retaining Wall
Service Road
Service Road
9,700
1,000
500
3,3503,350
500
1,000
10,900
1,500
600
3,3503,350
600
1,500
1.0m
15-188
(5) Wawa Bridge
1) Current Road Condition
Table 15.7.5-23 Current Road Conditions of Wawa Bridge
Road Type : Rural Arterial Road Number of Lane : 2 lane Free Flow Speed : 30 km/h
Traffic Volume : 3,950 veh/day Mix rate of large vehicle : 21.0%
Summary of The Road - The Asian Highway (AH26) - 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 - Requisite route to daily life for inhabitants around the bridge Current Road Condition
There are requirement to not obstruct the facility as shown below with the bridge replacement.
Table 15.7.5-24 Restriction of Wawa Bridge ①Dam ②Mountainous area ③Intersection ④Residential Area
①Dam
①Dam ②Mountainous area
②Mountainous area
③Intersection ④Residential Area
①Dam
④Residential Area
②Mountainous area
③Intersection
15-190
10,700
2,000
3,3503,350
2,000
3) Design Conditions
Table 15.7.5-25 Design Conditions of Wawa Bridge
Item Condition Remark
Road Type Rural Arterial Road It is decided with current road and roadside condition
Traffic Volume 3,950 veh/day Refer to the traffic survey result
Traffic Volume of Large Vehicle (Mix rate of large vehicle)
828 veh/day(21.0%)
Same as the above
Design Speed 60km/h DPWH Standard value It is confirmed by DPWH staff
Number of Lane 2 lane Secure the current number of lane
Lane Width 3.35m Secure the current lane width DPWH Standard value
Shoulder Bridge:0.60mRoad :2.00m DPWH, AASHTO Standard value
Sidewalk 1.50m DPWH, AASHTO Standard value
Median - -
Right of Way 60m It is confirmed by DPWH staff
Typical Cross-section Of Bridge section
Typical Cross-section 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).
9,400
750
600
3,3503,350
600
750
15-191
4) Horizontal Alignment
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
R=200m R=200m
Shift 15m for down stream side
15-192
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)
Plan View
Min. Curve Radius SP: R=200m, EP : R=175m SP: R=200m, EP : R=200m SP: R=200m, EP : R=200mMin. 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
Constructability ・ Need temporary bridge to detour existing traffic volume
・ Difficult to secure work road and construction yard because bridge installed between existing road and mountains
・ Need large amount of cutting ground work (6,000m3)
・ Applicable the existing road as work road・ Smoothly mobilize heavy equipment to the site ・ 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 sectionEnvironment ・ Minimal earth work amount ・ Large amount of earth work such as cutting ground work ・ Minimal earth work amount (400m3)
Disaster prevention ・ Possibility of traffic restriction due to landslide disaster such as
fallen rocks and slope failure ・ Possibility of traffic restriction due to landslide disaster such as
fallen rocks and slope failure・ Minimal possibility of traffic restriction due to landslide disaster
because enough separation can be secured from mountainsAlong Roads ・ Minimal influences to houses along the road ・ Minimal influences to houses along the road ・ Slightly houses may be influenced during construction stage
Cost Efficiency ・ Comparatively high due to temporary bridge costs ・ Comparatively high due to large amount of cutting ground work
(approx. 5%)・ Superior const efficiency because no temporary bridge and
minimal earth works. Blue : Advantage points Red : Disadvantage points
Figure 15.7.5-19 Typical Cross Section of Comparison Study
Shift to upstream side、Large cutting ground works disadvantage against: ・ Constructability ・ Cost Efficiency ・ Environmental Impact
Shift to downstream sideMinimal earth works advantage for: ・ Constructability ・ Environmental Impact
R=200m
R=200m
R=175m
R=200m R=200m
R=200m
Shift to US
Shift to DS
Existing Center
Abutment Abutment
Apply existing road to work road
Apply existing road to work road
Houses, Possibility of influences
Houses, Possibility of influences
Fallen rocks
15-193
6) Vertical Alignment
a) Restriction of Bridge Elevation
In the bridge section, the elevation is secured more than EV=48.4m, it is considering navigation clearance and the bridge structure height.
Table 15.7.5-27 Restriction of Bridge Elevation of Wawa Bridge Ingredients Unit Value Notes
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 Conclusion: designed controlled elevation of bridge longitudinal profile
: H ≥48.4m
b) New Bridge Vertical Alignment
Improvement of vertical alignment considering the restriction and the issue is as follows.
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
Figure 15.7.5-20 New Vertical Alignment of Wawa Bridge
g=4.0%
g=2.9%
Path Way
g=0.3%
15-194
7) Cross-Section Elements
a) Issue of the Current Road
Table 15.7.5-28 Issue of Cross-Section and Measure Policy Issue of the cross-section Measure policy
Sidewalk width The sidewalk width is narrow with 0.7m, and the width that pedestrian can pass each other is insufficient.
Secure the 0.75m width as possible the pedestrian can pass through.
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
0.7m
8,700
700
300
3,3503,350
300
700
15-195
9,400
750
600
3,3503,350
600
750
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 In the case of both sides sidewalk (W=0.75m)
In the case of one side sidewalk (W=1.5m) Figure 15.7.5-22 Improvement of Cross-Section
9,400
1,500
600
3,3503,350
600
15-196
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 - Good condition
C09 Palanit bridge Concrete pavement - Crack and fracture - Bad trafficability
C11 Mawo bridge Asphalt concrete pavement or Composite pavement - Good condition
C15 Wawa bridge Asphalt concrete pavement or Composite pavement - Good condition
Con
As
As
As
As
As
Con Con
Con
As
As
As
Con
15-197
(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
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
Guadalupe
Gutter Gutter
Gutter Gutter
15-200
Table 15.7.7-2 Current Drainage Facility Condition of Package C Palanit
Mawo
Wawa
Canal Canal
Canal
Canal
Canal
Canal
Gutter
15-201
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
Guadalupe
Source: PASIG-MARIKINA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Figure 15.7.8-1 General Layout Plan of Revetment Works
SP+IW+VW
Completed
Completed
Completed
SP W/H-BEAM+VW
Repair-R4
15-202
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
15-203
(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
15-204
(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.
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.
15-206
(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 】 Interrupting following vehicles due to overtaking basses stepping over Bus Lane Poor safety by forced lane changing
【Northbound Line 】 A bus not stops, over Bus Lane, interrupting following busses
【Southbound Line 】 Interrupting traffic lanes by the bus overtaking parked buses
Pic①-1
Pic ①-2
Pic ①-3
15-207
【Southbound Line 】 Passengers remain in traffic lane, following busses can not parked accurately along walk road
【Southbound Line 】 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. 【Northbound Line 】 Obstruction across outside two lanes
Pic. ①-5
Pic ②
Pic. ①-4
15-208
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. 【Northbound Line 】 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】 Interruption by stopping vehicles due to crossing pedestrians
【Southbound Line On-ramp】 Poor safety by sudden lane change from the second lane in front of off-ramp
Pic ③
Pic. ④
Pic④
15-209
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】 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 【Northbound Line 】 Traffic island, utilized as bus stop Originally, passengers' incoming and outgoing inhibited
Pic ⑥
Pic⑤
15-210
【Northbound Line 】 High convenience for connection between Jeepneys and MRT as well as distances from large-scale commercial facilities
【Northbound Line (North Side)】 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. Existing Jeepney parking Pic⑦-1
Pic ⑥
Pic⑥
15-211
Passenger's line for Jeepney. The line reaches about 50m
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 Many pedestrians walking toward bass stop and Guadalupe station
Pic ⑦-3
Pic ⑦-2
Pic ⑧
15-212
Figure 15.7.9-1 Pictures Map of Current Traffic Condition of around Guadalupe Bridge
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
Traffic accident between a bus and a taxi, caused by sudden lane change. Cause of heavy traffic jam
Pic ⑨
15-213
(3) Proposal of the Improvement
Table 15.7.9-2 Proposal of the Improvement
Items Issues Causes Countermeasures Proposal
Traffic Jam
Obstruction of bus lane by parking busses Large traffic volume of busses, parking over two lanes at peak hours
Disperse parking busses on the traffic lane
① Additional installation of bus stops ⇒Newly install bus stop near Guadalupe bridge where it
may be near large-scale commercial facilities as well as low impact to land acquisition and roadside facilities
Interruption by lane change of following busses Over taking busses run at the third lane Lead busses to bus lanes ②Traffic segregation by structures
⇒Physically restrict lane change by installing relevant structures such as separators or posts
Not parking at bus stop correctly but parking at center of traffic lane
Pedestrians and passengers of busses running over side walk. Busses can not park correctly.
Lead busses to park correctly
③Designation and derivation of bus stop ⇒Specific location of bus stops by destination ⇒Restrict passenger's protrusion over main line by
uniformizing their storage spaces
Obstruction of traffic lane by Jeepneys Interruption of main and ramp traffic due to parking Jeepney at ramp
Lead Jeepney not to park at main traffic lane
④Installation of Jeepney parking ⇒Apply land of the park to Jeepney parking. ⇒Install Jeepney space by improving alignment of
Southbound on-ramp
Interruption of main traffic by ramp traffic Cause of speed degradation due to inflow of low-speed traffic and stop at crossing
Separate ramp form main line ⑤Added lane
⇒Reduce interruption of main traffic by adding extra lanes
Safety
Interruption of ramp traffic by crossing pedestrians Pedestrians walking to Guadalupe Br. need to cross the ramp
Separate ramp traffic from crossing pedestrians
⑥Installation of pedestrian deck ⇒Install overpass for pedestrian ⇒Install guard rails to prevent road crossing physically
Narrow side walk for pedestrians volume
The width of side walk just only 1m Widening of side walk ⑦Install wide-width side walk
⇒Secure requisite width corresponding to pedestrian volume
Convenience
Improvement of accessibility with MRT, busses, Jeepneys and commercial facility
Longish distance from each traffic point to commercial facility along the road
Accessibility improvement by efficient coordination with each traffic point
⑧Coordination among key facilities ⇒Aim regional revitalization by connecting key traffic
points by pedestrian deck such as new bus stop, new Jeepney parking, existing MRT station and commercial facility
Capacity shortage of parking space of taxi Enough capacity volume of busses and Jeepneys but not enough for taxi
Secure parking space of taxi ⑨Install taxi parking
⇒Install taxi stop and parking at the open space in front of the station
15-214
Figure 15.7.9-2 Pictures Map of Traffic Issue of around Guadalupe Bridge
Existing Jeepney parking ⇒Capacity shortage, long lines of passengers
Obstruction of traffic lane by Jeepneys⇒Out side two lanes not functioned due to
parking Jeepneys
Obstruction of bus lane due to parking busses Interruption of traffic lane by lane change of following busses ⇒The congestion of busses at peak hour. Cause of traffic jam
because of overtaking busses run the third lane
The space utilized as bus stop ⇒The traffic island of the ramp, utilized as
bus stop, where is prohibited section for utilization
⇒High convenience because of good accessibility from commercial facility, Jeepneys and MRT
: Traffic line of Jeepneys
: Walk line of pedestrians
: Parking space of Jeepneys
: Parking space of busses
Not stop correctly at bus stop but park at center of traffic lane ⇒Busses stop short of bus stop, overtaking
busses run the third lane
Jeepney parking mainly riding⇒The parking at on-ramp, which
interrupts ramp traffic
Interruption of main traffic due to ramp traffic
⇒Interruption of main traffic due to inflow traffic without enough acceleration
Interruption main traffic by ramp traffic Interruption main traffic by crossing pedestrians
Narrow side walk ⇒Width of existing side walk
about 1m.
15-215
Figure 15.7.9-3 Proposal of Improvement around the Guadalupe Bridge
Figure 15.7.9-4 Typical Cross Section of Proposal of Improvement
① Additional installation of bus stops ③ Designation and derivation of bus stop
②Traffic segregation by structures ④Installation of jeepney parking
⑤Added lane(Speed-change lane at intersection)
⑥Installation of pedestrian deck
⑦Install wide-width side walk
⑧Coordination among key facilities ⑨Install taxi parking
EDSA
SOUTHBOUND LANE NORTHBOUND LANE
15-216
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.