Group 3_Capstone Design

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES 938 Aurora Blvd, Cubao, Quezon City

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE Civil Engineering Department

In Partial Fulfillment for the Requirements In CE 509 CE DESIGN PROJECTS II

DESIGN OF MALICNAO BRIDGE IN BARANGAY POBLACION EAST, ROSARIO, LA UNION

Submitted By:  Agresor, Wilson B. Manlapaz, Emmanuel T. Subiza, Genelyn B. Villanueva, Maricris R. CE52FB1

Submitted to: Engr. Jennifer Camino Faculty, Civil Engineering Department

March 2018

APPROVAL SHEET

The design project entitled “DESIGN OF MALICNAO BRIDGE IN BARANGAY POBLACION EAST, ROSARIO, LA UNION” prepared by Emmanuel T. Manlapaz, Genelyn B. Subiza, Maricris R. Villanueva and Wilson B. Agresor of the Civil Engineering Department was evaluated by the Students Design Evaluation Panel, and is hereby recommended for approval.

 _________________  ___________________________ _____________ ___ Engr. Ronald Miguel David External Adviser

 _________________  ___________________________ _____________ ___ Engr. Jennifer Camino  Adviser

 _________________  ___________________________ ______________ ____ Engr. James Victor Cerezo Panel Member

 _________________  __________________________ ____________ ___ Engr. Alden De Guzman Panel Member

 _________________  ___________________________ _____________ ___ Engr. Asisclo Villafuerte Panel Member

i

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Our deepest gratitude to our external adviser, Engr. Ronald Miguel David, for all the patience, guidance and assistance he gave to us, as well as the knowledge that he willingly shared. His kindness and encouragement enc ouragement broke the worries we used to have and made us be more passionate to every step we do.  A genuine appreciation to our family and friends for their continuous motivation and support that made us even more determined to accomplish this project. As well as to other people who offered their help in getting the data necessary for this work. Special acknowledgment to our adviser, faculty members and department chair of the Civil Engineering Department who helped us to provide request letters addressed to different institutions when we were gathering data necessary for the project. Thank you to our capstone defense panelists who provided us their expertise and ideas for the improvement of our work.  And lastly, all our praises to Almighty God for giving us the strength, guidance, presence presence of mind and good health that lead us to this point and be able to accomplish this project. Nothing would be possible without Him.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS  APPROVAL  APPROVAL SHEET..................... ................................. ....................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ..................... ......... i

 ACKNOWLEDGMENT  ACKNOWLEDGMENT ..................... ................................ ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ................ .... ii LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................................................................viii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................... xii Chapter I ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Project ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Statement of the Problem.......................... ...................................... ....................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ..................... ..........4 1.3 Project Objectives .......................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3.1 General Objective ................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3.2 Specific Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 4 1.4 The Client ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.5 Project Scope and Limitation.................... ............................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ...................... .............5 1.5.1 Scope ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.5.2 Limitation ................................................................................................................................................. 5 1.6 Project Development ..................................................................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER II ......................................................................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Description of the Project ..................... ................................ ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ................ ..... 7 2.2 Description of the Structure............................... .......................................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... .............. ...7 2.2.1 Geometrics Geometric s ......................... ............ .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... .......................... ............. 7 2.2.1.1 Bridge Alignment ...................... ................................. ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... .............. ... 7 2.2.1.2 Proposed Plan Layout ..................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 Site Definition ...................... ................................. ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ................ .... 9 2.2.2.1 Surface Elevation ............................................................................................................................ 9 2.2.2.2 Boring Data with SPT ............................. ......................................... ....................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ..................... .......... 9 2.2.2.3 Discharge Measurements Measurements ..................... ................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ..................... ..........11 2.2.2.4 Flood Level .................................................................................................................................... 12 2.2.2.5 Seismic Design Criteria.............................. .......................................... ....................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ................ .....13 2.2.2.6 Wind Load Parameter ..................... ................................. ....................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ................ .....14 2.2.3 Design Loadings ................................................................................................................................... 14 2.2.3.1 Dead Load ..................................................................................................................................... 14 2.2.3.2 Vehicular Live Loading........................ ................................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ...................... ...................... .............14 2.2.3.3 Impact Load ................................................................................................................................... 16 iii

2.2.3.4 Sidewalk Loading ....................... .................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ..................... ..........16 2.2.3.4 Wind Load ...................................................................................................................................... 16 2.2.3.5 Seismic Load ...................... .................................. ....................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ................. ......17 2.2.3.5a Load Case 1 ................................................................................................................................ 17 2.2.3.5b Load Case 2 ................................................................................................................................ 17 2.3 Topographic Map ......................................................................................................................................... 18 2.4 Elevation Map .............................................................................................................................................. 19 2.5 Review Related Literature and Studies ..................... ................................. ....................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ................ 19 2.5.1 Foreign Reviews ................................................................................................................................... 19 2.5.2 Local Reviews ....................................................................................................................................... 22 CHAPTER III ...................................................................................................................................................... 23 3.1 Design Constraints....................................................................................................................................... 23 3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints ..................... ................................. ....................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ................... ........23 3.1.1.1 Economic (Overall Cost) ..................... ................................ ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ...................... ...................... .............23 3.1.1.2 Constructability (Duration) ...................... ................................. ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ....................... .................... ........23 3.1.1.3 Serviceability (Deflection) ..................... ................................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ..................... ..........24 3.1.1.4 Sustainability (Maintenance Cost) ..................... ................................ ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ................... ........24 3.1.2

Qualitative Constraints ...................... .................................. ....................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... .............. ... 24

3.1.2.1 Social ............................................................................................................................................. 24 3.2 Trade-offs ..................................................................................................................................................... 24 3.2.1 Prestressed Post-Tensioned Concrete I-Girder Bridge ..................... ................................ ...................... ...................... ....................... ................ ....25 3.2.2 Steel Plate Girder Bridge.................... Bridge............................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ................... ........25 3.2.3 Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder Bridge ................... .............................. ...................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ................. ......26

3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking   ............................................................................................................................. 27 3.4 Trade-off Assessment .................................................................................................................................. 28 a.

Economic Constraint (Cost) ...................... .................................. ....................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... .............. ... 28

b.

Constructability Constraint (Duration)...................... ................................. ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ..................... ..........29

c.

Serviceability Constraint Constraint (Deflection) ..................... ................................ ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ...................... ...................... ............. 29

d.

Sustainability Constraint Constraint (Maintenance Cost) Cost) ...................... ................................. ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ................... ........29

3.5 Design Standards ........................................................................................................................................ 30 CHAPTER IV ...................................................................................................................................................... 31 4.1 Design Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 31 4.2 Unfactored Design Loads ............................................................................................................................ 32 iv

4.3 Foundation Design Specifications ...............................................................................................................38 4.3.1 Concrete Mix for Pile Foundation ........................................................................................................38 4.3.2 Design of Shear Key in the Abutment .................................................................................................38 4.3.3 Bored Pile.............................................................................................................................................. 39 4.3.4 Pile Arrangement .................................................................................................................................. 39 4.4 Design of Prestressed Post-Tensioned Concrete I-Girder Bridge.............................................................42 4.4.1 Design Process ..................................................................................................................................... 42 4.4.2 Material Properties ...............................................................................................................................43 4.4.2.1 Concrete Mix..................................................................................................................................44 4.4.2.2 Constructability Activities ..............................................................................................................44 4.4.3 Computation of Girder Design .............................................................................................................45 4.4.3.1 Determining Appropriate Section..................................................................................................45 4.4.3.2

Prestressing Bar Location.........................................................................................................45

4.4.3.3

Flexure and Fatigue Adequacy................................................................................................. 45

4.4.3.4 Prestress Losses ........................................................................................................................... 46 4.4.3.5

Deflection................................................................................................................................... 46

4.4.3.6

Design of main reinforcing bars ................................................................................................47

4.4.3.7

Design of Stirrups......................................................................................................................48

4.4.3.8 Design of Diaphragm ....................................................................................................................48 4.4.3.9 Design of Foundation ....................................................................................................................49 4.4.4 Design Drawings ................................................................................................................................... 49 4.5 Design of Steel Plate Girder Bridge ............................................................................................................58 4.5.1 Design Process ..................................................................................................................................... 58 4.5.2 Material Properties ...............................................................................................................................59 4.5.2.1 Constructability Activities ..................................................................................................................59 4.5.3 Steel Girder Analysis ............................................................................................................................60 4.5.3.1 Proportion Limits............................................................................................................................60 4.5.3.2 Strength Limit State (Flexure Adequacy) .....................................................................................60 4.5.3.3 Fatigue Limit State ........................................................................................................................61 4.5.3.4 Service Limit State ........................................................................................................................61 4.5.3.5 Constructability ..............................................................................................................................62 4.5.3.6

Shear Connectors ..................................................................................................................... 62

4.5.3.7 Design of Stiffener .........................................................................................................................63 v

4.5.3.8

Design of Cross Frame ............................................................................................................64

4.5.3.9

Camber ..................................................................................................................................... 66

4.5.3.10 Deflection ..................................................................................................................................... 67 4.5.3.11 Design of Foundation..................................................................................................................67 4.5.4 Design Drawings ................................................................................................................................... 68 4.6 Design of Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder Bridge ..................................................................................76 4.6.1 Design Process ..................................................................................................................................... 76 4.6.2 Material Properties ...............................................................................................................................76 4.6.2.1 Concrete Mix..................................................................................................................................77 4.6.2.2 Constructability Activities ..............................................................................................................77 4.6.3 Computation of Girder Design .............................................................................................................78 4.6.3.1 Tension steel reinforcements using pmax....................................................................................78 4.6.3.2

Flexure Adequacy ..................................................................................................................... 78

4.6.3.3

Design for Stirrups ....................................................................................................................79

4.6.3.4 Design of Diaphragm ....................................................................................................................80 4.6.3.4

Deflection................................................................................................................................... 80

4.6.3.5 Design of Foundation ....................................................................................................................80 4.6.4 Design Drawings ................................................................................................................................... 81 4.7 Validation of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards ...................................................................88 4.8 Trade-off Assessment .................................................................................................................................. 92 4.8.1 Economic Constraint ............................................................................................................................ 92 4.8.2 Constructability Constraint ...................................................................................................................92 4.8.3 Serviceability Constraint.......................................................................................................................92 4.8.4 Sustainability Constraint ........................................................................................................................... 92 4.9 Design Optimization.....................................................................................................................................93 4.9.1 Economy vs Constructability ................................................................................................................93 4.9.2 Economy vs Serviceability ................................................................................................................... 96 4.9.3 Economy vs Sustainability ................................................................................................................... 99 CHAPTER V ..................................................................................................................................................... 102  APPENDIX A: COMPARATIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................111  APPENDIX B: CONCRETE DECK DESIGN ..................................................................................................115  APPENDIX C: DESIGN OF PRESTRESSED POST-TENSIONED CONCRETE I-GIRDER BRIDGE .......124  APPENDIX D: DESIGN OF STEEL PLATE GIRDER BRIDGE..................................................................... 160 vi

 APPENDIX E: DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE DECK GIRDER BRIDGE ...................................202  APPENDIX F: SCHEDULE OF BEARING PAD .............................................................................................234  APPENDIX G: COMPUTATION OF INITIAL ESTIMATE ..............................................................................235  APPENDIX H: COMPUTATION OF FINAL ESTIMATE .................................................................................243  APPENDIX I: DETAILS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ..................................................................................251  APPENDIX J: MINUTES OF MEETING .........................................................................................................255  APPENDIX K: CURRICULUM VITAE .............................................................................................................258 Reference ......................................................................................................................................................... 266

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Project Location Map ........................................................................................................................ 1 Figure 1-2. View of Malicnao River ..................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 1-3. Pier Side of Existing Bridge .............................................................................................................. 3 Figure 1-4. View of Existing Bridge .....................................................................................................................3 Figure 1-5. Current situation of Malicnao Bridge (as of 2017) ........................................................................... 4 Figure 1-6. Project Development Process .......................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2-1. Initial Deck Layout.............................................................................................................................7 Figure 2-2. Girder Spacing Outline......................................................................................................................8 Figure 2-3. Elevation ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 2-4. Cross-Section .................................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2-5. Surface Elevation of Malicnao Bridge .............................................................................................. 9 Figure 2-6. Soil Profile .......................................................................................................................................11 Figure 2-7. Bued River Scope Boundaries .......................................................................................................12 Figure 2-8. River Elevation ................................................................................................................................ 13 Figure 2-9. Route Considered for Determination of River Elevation ...............................................................13 Figure 2-10. Design Truck .................................................................................................................................14 Figure 2-11. Design Tandem Alternate Military Loading..................................................................................15 Figure 2-12. Design Lane Load ......................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 2-13. Special Permitted Design Load .................................................................................................... 15 Figure 2-14. Forces on Vehicle Collision .......................................................................................................... 16 Figure 2-15. Seismic Load for Load Case 1 .....................................................................................................17 Figure 2-16. Seismic Load for Load Case 2 .....................................................................................................17 Figure 2-17. Topographic Map of Project Area ................................................................................................18 Figure 2-18. Topographic Map of La Union ......................................................................................................18 Figure 2-19. Elevation Map of La Union ...........................................................................................................19 Figure 2-20. Bridge Type Selection System (Itoh, 2000) ................................................................................. 20 Figure 3-1. Prestressed Concrete I-Girder........................................................................................................25 Figure 3-2. Steel Plate Girder............................................................................................................................26 Figure 3-3. Reinforced Concrete Deep Beam ..................................................................................................26 Figure 4-1. Design Process ...............................................................................................................................31 Figure 4-2. Position of Bearing Pads (Trade-off 1)...........................................................................................34 Figure 4-3. Position of Bearing Pads (Trade-off 2)...........................................................................................34 Figure 4-4. Position of Bearing Pads (Trade-off 3)...........................................................................................34 Figure 4-5. Seismic Forces 1 (Trade-off 1) .......................................................................................................34 Figure 4-6. Seismic Forces 1 (Trade-off 2) .......................................................................................................35 Figure 4-7. Seismic Forces 1 (Trade-off 3) .......................................................................................................35 Figure 4-8. Seismic Forces 2 (Trade-off 1) .......................................................................................................35 Figure 4-9. Seismic Forces 2 (Trade-off 2) .......................................................................................................35 Figure 4-10. Seismic Forces 2 (Trade-off 3) ..................................................................................................... 36 viii

Figure 4-11. Wind Load Intensity (Trade-off 1) .................................................................................................36 Figure 4-12. Wind Load Intensity (Trade-off 2) .................................................................................................37 Figure 4-13. Wind Load Intensity (Trade-off 3) .................................................................................................38 Figure 4-14. Pile Arrangements at Abutment Side ...........................................................................................40 Figure 4-15. Pile Arrangements at Pier Side ....................................................................................................41 Figure 4-16. AASHTO Type V PSC Girder ....................................................................................................... 43 Figure 4-17. PSC Section Details at Midspan ..................................................................................................49 Figure 4-18. PSC Section Details at End Span ................................................................................................50 Figure 4-19. Reinforcement Details of End Diaphragm ...................................................................................50 Figure 4-20. Transverse End Diaphragm Reinforcement Details ....................................................................51 Figure 4-21. Intermediate Diaphragm Reinforcement Details .........................................................................51 Figure 4-22. Diaphragm Layout (PSC)..............................................................................................................51 Figure 4-23. Cross Section at Pier Side ............................................................................................................ 52 Figure 4-24. Cross Section at Abutment Side ..................................................................................................52 Figure 4-25. Transverse Elevation of Abutment ............................................................................................... 53 Figure 4-26. Reinforcement Details of Abutment .............................................................................................53 Figure 4-27. Details of Section B-B ................................................................................................................... 54 Figure 4-28. Details of “X”  .................................................................................................................................. 54 Figure 4-29. Details of Pier Cap ........................................................................................................................ 54 Figure 4-30. Reinforcement Details of Pier Footing .........................................................................................54 Figure 4-31. Reinforcement Details of Pier .......................................................................................................55 Figure 4-32. Reinforcement Details of Pile Cap (Abutment) ............................................................................55 Figure 4-33. Reinforcement Details of Pile Cap (Pier) .....................................................................................55 Figure 4-34. Reinforcement Details of Pile (Abutment)....................................................................................55 Figure 4-35. Reinforcement Details of Pile (Pier) .............................................................................................55 Figure 4-36. Details of Pile Cap and Pile Arrangement (Abutment) ................................................................ 56 Figure 4-37. Details of Pile Cap and Pile Arrangement (Pier) .........................................................................56 Figure 4-38. Front Elevation at Pier .................................................................................................................. 56 Figure 4-39. PSC Bridge Elevation ................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 4-40. Steel W-shaped I-Girder ............................................................................................................... 59 Figure 4-41. Bearing Stiffener ...........................................................................................................................64 Figure 4-42. Cross Frame Dimension ............................................................................................................... 64 Figure 4-43. Strut BA Section............................................................................................................................64 Figure 4-44. Steel Girder Camber Details.........................................................................................................66 Figure 4-45. W 36 x 798 Steel Girder Section ..................................................................................................68 Figure 4-46. Bearing Stiffener ...........................................................................................................................68 Figure 4-47. Pitch of Shear Studs .....................................................................................................................69 Figure 4-48. Typical Cross Frame.....................................................................................................................69 Figure 4-49. Strut Bolted Connection................................................................................................................69 Figure 4-50. Cross Frame Layout ..................................................................................................................... 70 Figure 4-51. Cross Section at Pier Side ............................................................................................................ 70 Figure 4-52. Cross Section at Abutment Side ..................................................................................................71 Figure 4-53. Transverse Elevation of Abutment ............................................................................................... 71 Figure 4-54. Reinforcement Details of Abutment .............................................................................................72 ix

Figure 4-55. Details of Section B-B ................................................................................................................... 72 Figure 4-56. Details of “X”  .................................................................................................................................. 72 Figure 4-57. Details of Pier Cap ........................................................................................................................ 73 Figure 4-58. Reinforcement Details of Pier Footing .........................................................................................73 Figure 4-59. Reinforcement Details of Pier .......................................................................................................73 Figure 4-60. Reinforcement Details of Pile Cap (Abutment) ............................................................................73 Figure 4-61. Reinforcement Details of Pile Cap (Pier) .....................................................................................74 Figure 4-62. Reinforcement Details of Pile (Abutment)....................................................................................74 Figure 4-63. Reinforcement Details of Pile (Pier) .............................................................................................74 Figure 4-64. Details of Pile Cap and Pile Arrangement (Abutment) ................................................................ 74 Figure 4-65. Details of Pile Cap and Pile Arrangement (Pier) .........................................................................75 Figure 4-66. Front Elevation at Pier .................................................................................................................. 75 Figure 4-67. Steel Bridge Elevation .................................................................................................................. 75 Figure 4-68. Outline of RC T-Beam .................................................................................................................. 76 Figure 4-69. RC Section Reinforcement Details ............................................................................................... 81 Figure 4-70. Reinforcement Details of End Diaphragm ...................................................................................81 Figure 4-71. Transverse End Diaphragm Reinforcement Details ....................................................................82 Figure 4-72. Intermediate Diaphragm Reinforcement Details .........................................................................82 Figure 4-73. Diaphragm Layout (RC)................................................................................................................82 Figure 4-74. Cross Section at Pier Side ............................................................................................................ 83 Figure 4-75. Cross Section at Abutment Side ..................................................................................................83 Figure 4-76. Transverse Elevation of Abutment ............................................................................................... 84 Figure 4-77. Reinforcement Details of Abutment .............................................................................................84 Figure 4-78. Details of Section B-B ................................................................................................................... 85 Figure 4-79. Details of “X”  .................................................................................................................................. 85 Figure 4-80. Details of Pier Cap ........................................................................................................................ 85 Figure 4-81. Reinforcement Details of Pier Footing .........................................................................................85 Figure 4-82. Reinforcement Details of Pier .......................................................................................................86 Figure 4-83. Reinforcement Details of Pile Cap (Abutment) ............................................................................86 Figure 4-84. Reinforcement Details of Pile Cap (Pier) .....................................................................................86 Figure 4-85. Reinforcement Details of Pile (Abutment)....................................................................................86 Figure 4-86. Reinforcement Details of Pile (Pier) .............................................................................................86 Figure 4-87. Details of Pile Cap and Pile Arrangement (Abutment) ................................................................ 87 Figure 4-88. Details of Pile Cap and Pile Arrangement (Pier) .........................................................................87 Figure 4-89. Front Elevation at Pier .................................................................................................................. 87 Figure 4-90. RC Deck Bridge Elevation ............................................................................................................88 Figure 4-91. Cost Difference .............................................................................................................................90 Figure 4-92. Duration Difference .......................................................................................................................90 Figure 4-93. Deflection Difference.....................................................................................................................91 Figure 4-94. Maintenance Cost Difference ....................................................................................................... 91 Figure 4-95. Overall Cost vs Duration (PSC)....................................................................................................94 Figure 4-96. Overall Cost vs Duration (Steel) ...................................................................................................94 Figure 4-97. Overall Cost vs Duration (RCDG) ................................................................................................95 Figure 4-98. Overall Cost vs Duration –  Comparison....................................................................................... 96 x

Figure 4-99. Overall Cost vs Deflection (PSC) .................................................................................................97 Figure 4-100. Overall Cost vs Deflection (Steel) ..............................................................................................97 Figure 4-101. Overall Cost vs Deflection (RCDG)............................................................................................ 98 Figure 4-102. Overall Cost vs Deflection  – Comparison .................................................................................. 99 Figure 4-103. Overall Cost vs Maintenance Cost (PSC)..................................................................................99 Figure 4-104. Overall Cost vs Maintenance Cost (Steel) ............................................................................... 100 Figure 4-105. Overall Cost vs Maintenance Cost (RCDG) ............................................................................101 Figure 4-106. Overall Cost vs Maintenance Cost  –  Comparison................................................................... 101

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1. Proposed Dimension of Bridge .......................................................................................................... 7 Table 2-2. Surface Elevation ...............................................................................................................................9 Table 2-3. Borehole Log Data ........................................................................................................................... 10 Table 2-4. Hydraulic Data of Bued River ..........................................................................................................11 Table 2-5. Seismic Design Parameters ............................................................................................................14 Table 3-1. Initial Estimate ..................................................................................................................................28 Table 3-2. Initial Raw Ranking...........................................................................................................................30 Table 4-1. Unfactored Maximum Shear and Moment ......................................................................................32 Table 4-2. Unfactored Support Forces (Trade-off 1) ........................................................................................ 32 Table 4-3. Unsupported Support Forces (Trade-off 2) ..................................................................................... 33 Table 4-4. Unsupported Support Forces (Trade-off 3) ..................................................................................... 33 Table 4-5. Wind Load parameters (Trade-off 1) ...............................................................................................36 Table 4-6. Wind Load Parameters (Trade-off 2)...............................................................................................37 Table 4-7. Wind Load Parameters (Trade-off 3)...............................................................................................37 Table 4-8. Properties of Aggregates ................................................................................................................. 38 Table 4-9. Concrete Mix Ratio...........................................................................................................................38 Table 4-10. AAHSTO Type V PSC Girder Section Dimension ........................................................................43 Table 4-11. Other Properties of PSC ................................................................................................................ 43 Table 4-12. Properties of Aggregates ............................................................................................................... 44 Table 4-13. Concrete Mix Ratio ......................................................................................................................... 44 Table 4-14. Required Section Modulus.............................................................................................................45 Table 4-15. Location of Prestressing Bar..........................................................................................................45 Table 4-16. Checking of Flexural Adequacy ..................................................................................................... 46 Table 4-17. Details of Prestress Losses ........................................................................................................... 46 Table 4-18. Details of Deflection ....................................................................................................................... 47 Table 4-19. Factored Moment and Shear ........................................................................................................47 Table 4-20. Result of Moment Capacity ............................................................................................................ 47 Table 4-21. Details of Main Reinforcing Bars ...................................................................................................48 Table 4-22. Details of Stirrups...........................................................................................................................48 Table 4-23. Details of Intermediate Diaphragm ................................................................................................ 48 Table 4-24. Details of End Diaphragm ..............................................................................................................48 Table 4-25. Details of Bottom End Diaphragm .................................................................................................49 Table 4-26. Steel Section Properties (W 36 x 798) ..........................................................................................59 Table 4-27. Checking of Section Proportion Limits ..........................................................................................60 Table 4-28. Checking of Flexure for Strength Limit State ................................................................................ 61 Table 4-29. Checking for Fatigue Limit State ...................................................................................................61 Table 4-30. Checking for Service Limit State ...................................................................................................62 Table 4-31. Checking for Constructability ......................................................................................................... 62 Table 4-32. Details of Shear Studs ................................................................................................................... 63 Table 4-33. Details of Transverse Stiffeners .................................................................................................... 63 xii

Table 4-34. Details of Bearing Stiffeners ..........................................................................................................63 Table 4-35. Top and Bottom Strut Section Details ...........................................................................................65 Table 4-36. Diagonal Strut Section Details .......................................................................................................65 Table 4-37. Limiting Factors ..............................................................................................................................66 Table 4-38. Strut Connection Details ................................................................................................................ 66 Table 4-39. Camber Details ............................................................................................................................... 67 Table 4-40. Dimension Details of RC T-Beam..................................................................................................77 Table 4-41. Other Details...................................................................................................................................77 Table 4-42. Properties of Aggregates ............................................................................................................... 77 Table 4-43. Concrete Mix Ratio ......................................................................................................................... 77 Table 4-44. Details of Tension Reinforcement Bars......................................................................................... 78 Table 4-45. Details of Compression Bars .........................................................................................................79 Table 4-46. Details of Reinforcing Bars ............................................................................................................79 Table 4-47. Details of Stirrups...........................................................................................................................79 Table 4-48.Details of Intermediate Diaphragm ................................................................................................. 80 Table 4-49. Details of End Diaphragm ..............................................................................................................80 Table 4-50. Details of Bottom End Diaphragm .................................................................................................80 Table 4-51. Final Estimate.................................................................................................................................89 Table 4-52. Final Designer’s Raw Ranking   ...................................................................................................... 92 Table 4-53. Duration Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (PSC) .........................................................93 Table 4-54. Duration Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (Steel) .........................................................94 Table 4-55. Duration Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (RCDG) ......................................................95 Table 4-56. Deflection Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (PSC) .......................................................96 Table 4-57. Deflection Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (Steel) ......................................................97 Table 4-58. Deflection Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (RCDG) ....................................................98 Table 4-59. Maintenance Cost Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (PSC)..........................................99 Table 4-60. Maintenance Cost Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (Steel) .......................................100 Table 4-61. Maintenance Cost Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (RCDG) ....................................100

xiii

CHAPTER I

Project Background 1.1 The Project

Being the principal center of Ilocos region, La Union was developed to have sustainable roads to aid the trading in and out of the region and nearby areas. But these developments are commonly focused on main highways and those situated at towns and barrios are given the least priority. In Barangay Poblacion East, Rosario, a bridge of more than fifty meters in length is composed of steel barriers and I-beams which are both of poor condition and a damaged wood deck which makes it susceptible to accidents. This bridge is the only connection of barangay Alipang, Vila, Cadumanian and Carunoan East to the central zone of Rosario used for transporting their agricultural crops like palays, mais, and tobacco to Manila and even in neighboring provinces. To have this bridge completely damage would mean a great loss for the farmers who only rely to this kind of business. This project is made to address this concern through designing an improved and economical bridge which will replace the existing Malicnao Bridge that will be sustainable and of low maintenance. Factors such as the soil profile, environmental conditions, and traffic volume will be the governing elements for the design. The location of the project is along Alipang-Cadumanian Barangay Road in Poblacion East, Rosario, La Union.

Figure 1-1. Project Location Map

1

Natural Environmental Considerations The implementation of construction of the project has no direct impact on natural resources such as trees, and biodiversity of the river.

Figure 1-2. View of Malicnao River

The pictures above were taken during the onslaught of Typhoon Jolina in Northern Luzon which shows the flood level on Malicnao River to be 5 meters below the deck of the existing river as measured by one of the designers.

2

Figure 1-3. Pier Side of Existing Bridge

Figure 1-4. View of Existing Bridge

Social Environmental Considerations The impact of the implementation of the project is to the population of four barangays and other individuals who are currently using the existing bridge. Also, businesses related to agricultural sector is also affected. In this regard, it is recommended that for the next phase of the project, the following issues must be addresses:

3





Monitoring of compensation procedure for the affected families. Individuals, and agricultural businesses. Loss of access route to properties during construction of the project

1.2 Statement of the Problem

It has been years since the Malicnao Bridge was developed along Alipang-Cadumanian Road in Brgy. Poblacion East. It is composed of wood deck and steel beam that - according to the residents, is not in its safe condition anymore. The team decided to take part in resolving this problem through providing an economical and sustainable design that will replace the existing bridge.

Figure 1-5. Current situation of Malicnao Bridge (as of 2017) 1.3 Project Objectives 1.3.1 General Objective

The designers are to provide a design of bridge to replace the existing Malicnao Bridge along AlipangCadumanian Barangay Road in Poblacion East that is economical and sustainable and at the same time addresses safety and other concerns for the residents and commuters which conforms to codes and standards as applicable. 1.3.2 Specific Objectives

1. To design the most efficient bridge that is suitable to the environmental and economic limitations 2. To provide a design that will conform to the codes and standards provided in the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) Volume II Bridges and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Bridge Design Specifications 2012 3. To establish and assess trade- offs’ advantages and disadvantages based on the given situation and multiple constraints provided

4

1.4 The Client

The client of this project is the Municipal Planning and Development Department of Rosario, La Union headed by Engr. Juanito M. Quinto Jr. This is in line with the on-going rural development being carried out by the administration to provide sustainable structures to give an easy access to all provinces and its locality which is related to the abovementioned objective of the proponents. To satisfy the condition of the client, the final design of the project is planned to be within the allocated budget and any further increase in costing has no guarantee to be negotiable. 1.5 Project Scope and Limitation 1.5.1 Scope

1. Design a bridge that is bounded by the provisions specified in NSCP Volume II Bridges and AASHTO Bridge Specifications 2012 2. Design analysis (computation) for each trade-off 3. Provide structural plans for the final design 1.5.2 Limitation

1. Detailed breakdown of estimate for cost and construction activities 1.6 Project Development

This project involves different stages in order to come up with the final design that is suitable in completing this project. A site visit is important to investigate the actual location in determining what data constraints and conditions starting from identifying the location in order to extract ideas on methods that are needed to be collected and to know the maximum dimensions for the design. From this, a set of trade-offs will be presented and assessed through the constraints provided by the designer. Three selected trade-offs will now be designed which will then be evaluated again to have the final design. Related documents and plans will be prepared along with the completion of the design which will be presented to the clients.

5

Figure 1-6. Project Development Process

6

CHAPTER II

Design Inputs 2.1 Description of the Project

The project is a design of a two-way traffic bridge along Alipang-Cadumanian Barangay Road in Poblacion East, Rosario, La Union with approximately 57 m in length. Parameters and standards will be use d to identify restrictions and correct outline of the design in order to provide a sustainable bridge that is safe and costeffective. 2.2 Description of the Structure 2.2.1 Geometrics 2.2.1.1 Bridge Alignment

The bridge is under normal type where the alignment of the structure is perpendicular to the bank of the river. 2.2.1.2 Proposed Plan Layout

In DPWH Standard Specifications, it was stated (based on AASHTO Bridge Specifications) that the minimum total width for bridge structure in rural areas is 6.7 meters composed of 2 lanes and 4 girders. For this project, the designer used a 3.4 m roadway width per lane, 1.4 m shoulder width and 300 mm total deck thickness which will be supported by 5 girders spaced at 2 meters on center. Abutments are used on both ends of the structure and a pier at the connecting span composed of columns and piles as applicable. Table 2-1. Proposed Dimension of Bridge Measurement Total Span Length 57 m Total Width 9.6 m Number of Road Lanes 2 Width of each road lane 3.4 m Number of Sidewalk 2 Width of each Sidewalk 1.4 m Total Deck Thickness 300 mm

Figure 2-1. Initial Deck Layout

7

Figure 2-2. Girder Spacing Outline

Figure 2-3. Elevation

Figure 2-4. Cross-Section

8

2.2.2 Site Definition 2.2.2.1 Surface Elevation

The figure below shows the surface elevation below Malicnao Bridge. The data presented are measured from the existing bridge at a specific reference point. The vertical clearance of the bridge to be designed will have at least 1.0 m vertical clearance below the girder to the land or water surface. Table 2-2. Surface Elevation Location (m) Elevation (m) 0+005 2.00 0+010 5.92 0+015 5.97 0+020 5.90 0+025 4.95 0+030 4.32 0+035 4.38 0+040 4.38 0+045 4.63 0+050 3.84 0+055 3.70 0+058 2.00

Figure 2-5. Surface Elevation of Malicnao Bridge 2.2.2.2 Boring Data with SPT

The table below shows the soil exploration data for the classification of soil present in the project site with a casing depth of 18.0 meters.

9

Table 2-3. Borehole Log Data1 Sampling Depth (m)

SPT Blows

N-value

Consistency / RQD (Coring)

Soil Description

18

Med. Dense

Grayish Fine Sand

3.45

per 15 cm 1 6 12

4.95

5

7

10

17

Med. Dense

Grayish Fine Sand

6.45

8

11

16

27

Dense

Grayish Fine Sand

7.95

12

20

25

45

Dense

Grayish Fine Sand

9.45

7

13

23

36

Dense

Grayish Fine Sand

10.95

10

16

23

39

Dense

Grayish Fine Sand

12.45

9

19

23

42

Dense

Grayish Fine Sand

13.95

10

21

29

50

Dense

Grayish Fine Sand

15.45

7

16

25

41

Dense

Grayish Fine Sand

16.95

21

47

48

95

Very Dense

Grayish Fine Sand

18.45

34

43

30

73

Very Dense

Grayish Fine Sand

19.95

10

19

28

47

Hard

Grayish Fine Sand

The first three meters is composed of gravel soils from the backfill (rivermix) in the project site. Sand classification started at depth 3.0 m up to 19.50 m. At that point, the soil type underneath is classified as grayey clayey soil. 10

Figure 2-6. Soil Profile 2.2.2.3 Discharge Measurements

The following data were taken from the recorded measurements of Bued River upstream with the latest date of report as of May 2017.  Average Discharge Mean Velocity   Average Gage Height 

4.015 m 0.410 m 3.200 m

Table 2-4. Hydraulic Data of Bued River 2 Velocity (m/s)

Date

Width (m)

Area (m²)

Discharge (m³/s)

Mean

Max

Min

Gage Height (m)

17-May

21.0

8.01

2.951

0.368

0.518

0.222

3.280

17-Apr

19.0

5.13

2.003

0.390

0.752

0.237

2.970

17-Mar

19.0

3.98

1.479

0.387

0.845

0.258

2.740

17-Feb

25.0

5.25

2.543

0.485

1.025

360.000

2.900

17-Jan

25.0

8.81

4.154

0.471

1.114

0.204

3.260

16-Dec

28.0

15.48

5.305

0.343

0.810

-

3.400

16-Nov

28.0

15.98

5.776

0.361

0.860

0.073

3.780

16-Oct

27.0

15.40

5.700

0.370

0.796

0.108

3.750

16-Sep

26.0

14.64

5.778

0.395

0.782

0.075

3.800

11

16-Aug

27.0

14.39

5.786

0.402

0.771

0.038

3.900

16-Jun

25.5

12.82

4.572

0.357

0.573

0.086

3.450

16-Apr

25.0

12.50

4.300

0.344

0.541

0.103

3.260

16-Feb

25.0

12.20

3.837

0.315

0.603

0.056

3.340

16-Jan

24.0

12.19

4.057

0.333

0.553

0.089

3.370

15-Dec

25.0

11.08

3.941

0.356

0.572

-

3.470

15-Oct

24.0

10.96

3.559

0.325

0.533

-

3.300

2.2.2.4 Flood Level

 According to Engr. Delgado, Chief of Hydrology Department - DPWH Region I, Bued River is already abandoned from annual investigation due to low water level occurrence in its system although there is still a data gathering for discharge measurements as of 2017. The location for this project is situated in one of the small branches of the river which is at a higher elevation. For this reason, there is a low probability that the project location will experience high flood level which was also certified by Engr. Quinto as per experience and history. Also, the pictures presented in Chapter 1.1 are proofs that even during typhoon, the water level in the river is still within its range and did not overflow. To prove that that the small branch of river located in the project site is not a catch basin, the designers used an alternative way and are presented as follows:

Figure 2-7. Bued River Scope Boundaries

12

Figure 2-8. River Elevation

Figure 2-9. Route Considered for Determination of River Elevation

Based from the data presented, the project location is proved to be a downstream area from the main Bued River but is not considered as a catchment basin for a larger scale. 2.2.2.5 Seismic Design Criteria

The following seismic parameters will be used for the design of substructure as provided from NSCP Volume II Section 21 – Seismic Design: 13

Table 2-5. Seismic Design Parameters  Acceleration coefficient (A) 3.924 Site Coefficient (S) 1.0 Response Modification Factor (R) 1.0 Seismic Coefficient (kh) 1.962 2.2.2.6 Wind Load Parameter

 As stated from NSCP, the basic wind speed in La Union where the project is located is 200 kph. This basic wind speed shall be increased where records and experience indicate that the wind speeds are higher than what is reflected (Section 207.5.4.1). 2.2.3 Design Loadings 2.2.3.1 Dead Load

The density of concrete used for the deck, barrier and foundation is 24 kN/m³. The dead load due to barrier and other utilities (street lightings, etc.) and wearing surface are 6.55 kN/m and 5.0 kN/m, respectively. 2.2.3.2 Vehicular Live Loading

 A theoretical vehicular loading HL-93 is a proposed by AASHTO in 1993. It is used as the design loadings for highway structures in most countries where AASHTO code is followed. This type of load is a combination of three different loads. 1. HL-93 Design Truck 2. HL-93 Design Tandem 3. Design Lane Load HL 93 Design Truck

The design truck consist of three axles, with a front axle weighing 36 kN and two rear axles weighing 144 kN. The distance between front and rear axle is 4.27 m and for the distance between two rear axles is 4.27 m to 9.14 m to obtain the worst design force. The tire to tire distance in any axle is 1.8 m.

Figure 2-10. Design Truck HL-93 Design Tandem

It is consist of twin axles spaced 1.22 m apart, weight of axle is 110kN. The distance between any axles is 1.8 m.

14

Figure 2-11. Design Tandem Alternate Military Loading

It is the former alternate military load. In order, to obtain maximum negative moments, a pair of tandems should be considered, spaced at 8.0m to 12.0m along with design lane load to produce worse hogging effect.

Code doesn’t specify maximum number of tandems that can be considered in a lane, nor does it explicitly specify minimum tandem to tandem distance. Design Lane Load

The design load consist of load of 9.4 kN/m which is uniformly distributed in the longitudinal direction. In transverse direction, the design lane load shall be assumed to be uniformly distributed over a 3 m width.

Figure 2-12. Design Lane Load Permit Design Load

It is the special permit required before passing the bridge.

Figure 2-13. Special Permitted Design Load Placement of HL-93 Load

The extreme force effect is obtained when design vehicle and lane loads should be applied in the design. In case the multiple lanes, multiple lane factors is considered.

15

Vehicular Collision

It refers to collisions that occur with the barrier rail or at unprotected columns. The test level four (TL-4) applies most of the time. The expected height of barrier is 0.81 m and for every 3 m contact:

Figure 2-14. Forces on Vehicle Collision

Ft  = 240.2 kN Fc  = 80.1 kN MCT =

240.2 x 0.8 = 64.05 kN-m/m 3

 Applying 20% factor of safety results: 1.2 x 64.05 = 76.86 kN-m/m 2.2.3.3 Impact Load

The impact load for the design of both PSC and Steel is 23% and 27% for RCDG of the total live load which was obtained by the equation, I  =

 ,

15.24 as provided in NSCP Volume II (where L is the length of bridge) L+28

2.2.3.4 Sidewalk Loading

The sidewalk live load for a span of 28.5 m is 2870 Pa. 2.2.3.4 Wind Load

For a velocity of 160km/hr the bridge superstructure carries 2390 Pa applied horizontally. For the usual girder and slab bridges having maximum span length of 38m the wind load on structure should resist the 2390 Pa in transverse direction and 575 Pa in longitudinal direction and both forces shall be applied simultaneously. The wind load on live load is equivalent to 1.5kN/m for transverse direction, 0.60kN/m in longitudinal direction and both forces shall be applied simultaneously. Since the wind load is only applicable for 160km/hr the designers added 20% of the total wind load to account for the 200 km/hr wind load in the project area. 16

2.2.3.5 Seismic Load

The earthquake analysis for the proposed bridge is the combination of orthogonal seismic forces which is used to resolve the directional vagueness of earthquake motions and the simultaneous occurrence of earthquake for in two perpendicular horizontal motion. 2.2.3.5a Load Case 1

Seismic forces at the longitudinal direction is 100% of the total dead load of the superstructure and 30% of its dead weight in transverse direction.

Figure 2-15. Seismic Load for Load Case 1 2.2.3.5b Load Case 2

The seismic force at the transverse direction is 100% of the total dead load of the superstructure and 30% of its dead weight in longitudinal direction.

Figure 2-16. Seismic Load for Load Case 2

17

2.3 Topographic Map

Project Location

Figure 2-17. Topographic Map of Project Area

Figure 2-18. Topographic Map of La Union 3

The highlighted barangay boundaries in Figure 2-18 shows the 4 barangays connected to the existing Malicnao Bridge. According to Engr. Quinto, this bridge is the nearest way used by the residents of four barangays to travel to the central area of Rosario.

18

2.4 Elevation Map

The elevation map below supports the contour map presented in the previous section where the project location is only within 120 to 150 meters above sea level.

Figure 2-19. Elevation Map of La Union 4 2.5 Review Related Literature and Studies 2.5.1 Foreign Reviews

Designing a suitable bridge for any given location requires full attention to the general setting where it will be built and to the details of the structure itself. There are cases, well most of the time, that constructing bridges are crossing environmentally and ecologically sensitive sites. With this, the designer must be considerate on the short and long term impacts of the project in order to preserve the hydrologic and ecologic value present on the location. The overall design from the span len gth to structural layout is need to be adjusted in order to lessen the negative impacts it might produce in its environment. Well, bridges can actually be designed in a ways that it can serve as an additional beauty to the landscape. It is necessary to de velop alternatives based on local conditions such as geologic, hydrologic, shipping, construction, etc. and apply initiative in selecting the correct choice. In a review paper conducted by Kiamarsi and Mohamed (2015), a bridge is said to be functional in terms of its quality, optimization and cost if it has an innovative design, a well-managed construction process, timeefficient and it uses an innovative material.5

19

One of the context in Bridge Design Handbook (2000) mentioned that the most efficient func tional bridge is something that considers the most requirements in transport associated with safety factors and that is convenient to all users which must also be effective in terms of labor and material as well as cost-efficient that can be completed in a reasonable time.6

According to Fisher Associates (2013), there are two essential choices to build a bridge, it’s e ither made of concrete or steel.7 The utilization of pre-stressed concrete increased excessively since it was first introduced than steel, however steel is practical and economical in many ways. Pre-stressed concrete box girder bridges are in demand because workers may not be pleasant with concrete deck formwork, drilling and scaffolding required for steel bridges. However, advances in technology made steel easier to install which may result in decreasing the labor needed to construct a bridge. Pre-stressed concrete beams can be fabricated within a short period of time compared to steel that takes a longer time to order, depending on the site of the steel plant that can cause higher transportation costs. However, steel is more readily fabricated to meet skewed or curved design over concrete. Steel bridges are easy to repair or replaceable compare to concrete bridge that needs great repairs when damage occurs. Steel bridges are not easily affected by seismic damage. In terms of aesthetics, both concrete and steel can be designed to be appealing to the eye, but still depends on the location on which material best suits the surroundings. About initial and life-cycle costs, many steel structures nowadays remain in service indefinitely with proper maintenance. Several factors need to be considered before the designing phase of the project. In the planning stage, conceptualizing the overall project would help to assess what type of approach must be applied. The figure below is a sample of a bridge type selection process by Itoh (2000) which was presented in his journal Bridge Type Selection System Incorporating Environmental Impacts. 8

Figure 2-20. Bridge Type Selection System (Itoh, 2000)

20

In the study “Temperature Effects on Soil Behavior in Relation to Transportation Infrastructure” (2016), the author discussed about how temperature affects the soil behavior which in return will give an effect to the bridge’s foundation. The presence of th ermo-hydro-mechanical coupling between the soil particles and pore water is the cause of the effect of sudden change in temperature to the behavior of the soil. Studies have shown that temperature change affects the Atterberg limit and preconsolidation pressure of fine-grained soils as well as the shear strength and compressibility of soil. Temperature increase also results in excess pore water pressures for undrained conditions and induces volume change during drained conditions. At 15-20 feet depth, the soil temperature remains constant. At this point the soil above this range undergoes temperature changes overtime due to seasonal variation in the ground surface which will later have an effect to deep foundations. According to the author of this article, the behavior of deep foundations under lateral loads can be considerably affected by temperature-induced variation of soil strength and compressibility at these upper levels. The magnitude of this effect will be related to seasonal temperatures at a given location, thermal conductivity of the soils at the site, the extent of temperature-induced effects on the soils at the site and the dimensions of the deep foundation. It is important to take note of this temperature-induced effects in soil strength and compressibility because lack of considerations will result to an overdesign or unsafe

conditions to all transportation structures. Moreover, the author stated that “The urgency of this challenge lies in the need to evaluate the lateral capacity of existing bridge foundations under earthquakes and other lateral loads, which would be critical for the serviceability and safety of bridges. It is unlikely that there would be failures but it is highly likely that there will be a reduction in the service level of structures as a result of

this issue during normal operational lateral load levels.” Any shortcomings in the design without considering

the seasonal temperature effects will place the bridge foundation at risk during earthquakes. Thus, old bridges must be subjected to retrofitting if needed and the new ones must be designed in a systematic and robust manner.9 Dicleli and Erhan (2010) performed a study on the effect of soil –bridge interaction on the magnitude of internal forces in integral abutment bridge components due to live load effects through providing a structural model of a typical integral abutment bridge (IAB) by including and excluding the effect of backfill and foundation soil and was analyzed under AASHTO live load. They found out that indeed it has significant effect on the magnitude of the live load moments in the components of IABs. Also, the effect of the backfill behind the abutment in the structural model is generally found to result in larger superstructure support and abutment moments and smaller superstructure span and pile moments. Furthermore, the difference between the live load moments for the cases with and without soil –bridge interaction effects is found to be a function of the foundation soil stiffness. However, the soil-interaction was found to have neglible effect on the live load moments of the superstructure. 10 During an earthquake, gravity loads are not the only forces produced in this event but also dynamic loadings due to the flexible nature of suspension-tire systems. However, this seismic response is yet unclear. There are only few design specifications about the inclusion of this parameters in designing. Wibowo et al. ( 2012) in their study focuses on experimental approach wherein they used a shake table testing of 0.4 scale model of a curved steel girder bridge loaded by different representative trucks. The results showed the indeed the presence of live load has significant effect on the performance of the bridge even during a small amplitude motions but became insignificant with increasing amplitude. 11 Bridge crossing waterways during flood events can be partially or fully submerged in water that will result to a significant hydrodynamic loading in the bridge deck. Estimation of this loading during design phase is very important. The designer must take into account different situations that may happen. During flood events, hydrodynamic loadings will result in a possible shearing and overturning of the deck and failure to the 21

superstructure. Multiple modeling for this can be acquired through scaled experiments to estimate the response of the structure to the flood flow. 12 2.5.2 Local Reviews

In a case study by Vallejo entitled Evaluation of Major Bridges in Cagayan Valley, Philippines, presented and discussed defects seen by the researcher in all major bri dges of Cagayan Valley. As most of the bridges here in the Philippines are concrete slab-on girder types, it is actually common to see cracks and fatigues on structures that are not well-constructed and maintained. Defects observed on the superstructure were cracks on deck, spalling at the expansion joints, poor anchorage of plates, scaling of asphalt overlay, spalling of the roadbed, corrosion of the roller support. In case of the substructures damages were also seen in the embankment, there were corrosion present on sheet piles, cracking on abutments and exposed piles. Spalling is commonly caused by corrosion of the steel reinforcement bars embedded in the concrete matrix or by the exposure of the concrete to high temperature causing the chunks of the concrete to separate from the concrete structure. In the study of Hoopwood (2004), the average condition ratings of major bridge elements and for specific deck components decreases over 7-8 year intervals. The damaged embankments for some bridges were obtained from the sinking or settlement of soil fill. It is evident that some defects were caused by environmental factors such as change in weather, heavy weight of passing vehicles and even fatigue. In old bridges, cases of increased in heavy loads from vehicles more than the design capacity of the bridge greatly affects the pavement for which it will flex s lightly and will then result to fatigues and cracking. 13 In the editorial section on Philstar webpage in 2012, a writer named J. Bondoc discussed about the difference of steel and concrete as a material used for bridge structure. 14 According to him, this topic came up during

last year’s senate hearing on the President’s Bridge Program. Government and private engineers and economists gave some points. Concrete is cheaper, but steel is more economical over a long period of time. Steel spans are long lasting than concrete. The damage to any steel structure is easily seen but repairable. In contrast, the damage in the concrete such as cracks may not be visible but it can affect the rated lifespan of a structure. Steel bridges take a short period of time to construct compared to concrete that takes months or years to construct and use. Lastly, steel bridges can be low-cost than concrete.

22

CHAPTER III

Constraints, Tradeoffs and Standards 3.1 Design Constraints

 An important factor to be considered in designing a project is the presence of constraints which serves as a basis of conditions and limitations that will aid in deciding what type from different kinds is ideal. During the designing phase, choosing from many options would be difficult since there will be a lot of contradicting opinions as to what type is the best. Constraint is the restriction and will set what aspect is significant for that particular project. Design constraints have different forms and categories which can either be in terms of functionality, material consideration, technology-based or external concerns. Design constraint is divided into two groups  –  the qualitative and quantitative constraints. Qualitative

constraints are those which cannot be measured or counted but are evaluated by the designer’s perception and experience. The quantitative constraints are those that can be measured by estimation of the designer. The following are the design constraints for this project: 3.1.1 Quantitative Constraints 3.1.1.1 Economic (Overall Cost)

Cost has been the top determining factor in identifying what type of bridge can be designed and constructed within a certain range of budget that the client can only provide. Limits inhibited by financial constraint are at almost each detail - from planning, designing and during construction of the bridge. The allocation of budget will control the time, cost and quality in which a simple change in one will have an impact to the other. Thus, the designers need to do adjustment to satisfy the cost limit without sacrificing the aesthetics, quality, serviceability and functionality of the structure. For this project, it would not be focusing on the actual construction itself but only in the design part of the proposed bridge in Rosario, La Union. Through this economic constraint, the designers will be able to create a design that can save money and time while increasing the quality and acceptable to the desire of the client since it will be funded either by government or other private institution. The client allotted a fund of Php 25,000,000.00 for the project. A ny further increase in costing of the project has no guarantee to be negotiable. 3.1.1.2 Constructability (Duration)

 As mentioned above, limit on the allocated budget affects time just like how time can control cost. Higher financial capabilities of the client can support great number of workers needed or it can increase machineries to lessen the labors which can be both time-efficient. However, lower financial capacity can slow down the construction which will require money overtime. On the other hand, failure to estimate the duration of the project properly can also affect cost. Hence, it is significant to have estimation for how long a specific design can be constructed. The designers will determine the number of man-hours and/or days required for the construction of the three types of bridges preferably chosen by the designers themselves. The materials and labour costs will be initially estimated for each type of bridge based on existing bridge to know if there are other options can be applied to lessen the duration of the project. The design that would accumulate the least period of time is ideal. 23

The client wants to finish this project as soon as possible to reduce possible impacts on loss of profit to the affected residents and businesses related to agriculture. In this regard, the construction of the project is limited only to 200 days excluded the time needed to conduct further investigations and studies necessary for the project. 3.1.1.3 Serviceability (Deflection)

On top of all concerns regarding the bridge design, safety is a priority of the designers. The maximum loading the design can carry should be taken into consideration to prevent deflection, buckling, or worst - failure of the structure itself. It is important to take note that this proposed bridge will be used by small trucks loaded with sand, gravel and agricultural crops at most. So, any failure in the design of this bridge would give an impact to the business of the community. Moreover, since the project is located near a fault zone, the designers will make sure that the design of each type can withstand lateral loadings caused by seismic forces, wind land hydrodynamic loadings as well as the earth pressure. Three studies presented in Chapter 2 about the importance of soil interaction, earthquake and hydrodynamic loadings are very important to take into account in designing the bridge. These factors will determine the safety of the structure if it can actually survive its actual design loads and such abrupt changes in loadings. Specifications from NSCP Bridges stated that the deflection of the girder due to live load (design moving load) with impact load is only limited to 800 th of the span length. 3.1.1.4 Sustainability (Maintenance Cost)

Generally, the main objective of any project is to make it efficient and sustainable. Just like in bridge construction, a design is preferable to have a longer life to get a visible return of investment from cost to a good service. The designers have a set of selection of materials presented in the next section that are comparable with each other as to what type of material will perform longer and which are not. Also, longer life-span of the structure can be a proof that it was designed with quality and has been effective. In this project, the design among the three types to be proven cheaper in maintenance but has longer lifespan based on the design is more favorable to both the designer and the client as well as to commuters. To maintain the aesthetics of the structure, the client allotted Php 500,000.00 as the budget a one-time maintenance of the bridge. 3.1.2

Qualitative Constraints

3.1.2.1 Social

This constraint is more on determining how useful this project is to the community. One of the factors that may affect the residents especially when it comes to their agricultural business is the duration of the project. The shorter the time to construct the better but time approach along with finance capacity is another. 3.2 Trade-offs

The design trade-offs are set to address the constraints presented in section 3.1 of this chapter. The designers came up with three trade-offs which will be assessed according to its impact and importance to the project. A final deliberation and evaluation will be conducted later on to determine which among the three 24

trade-offs is the most effective and efficient to use. For the following trade-offs, all are determined based on bridge deck support design. 3.2.1 Prestressed Post-Tensioned Concrete I-Girder Bridge

One of the reasons I-shaped for girders is known because of its efficiency in carrying loads with its capacity in resisting shear forces and increased flexural strength through its web and flange section, respectively. Even with a lesser cross-sectional area, I-section still produces more bending resistance which makes it costeffective. Added to this, the effect of precast members is advantageous with the high performance of concrete for its strength, durability, constructability which is efficient and competitive. This will make a faster construction that will reduce traffic disruption and environmental impact where a minimal construction clearance is available.

Figure 3-1. Prestressed Concrete I-Girder 15 3.2.2 Steel Plate Girder Bridge

Using a multi-girder as an option for superstructure is very effective if the project is limited to a certain depth. This is also widely used for single spans and continuous multiple spans. With the different advantages steel material can offer, this has been a very popular bridge construction. Composite girder is aesthetically approved and easy to fabricate and erect. Though using steel girder is costly, it is still very acceptable with its design considerations in such a way that it is durable and sustainable. It also has lesser maintenance and can vary from different sizes and shape.

25

Figure 3-2. Steel Plate Girder 16 3.2.3 Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder Bridge

Reinforced concrete deep girder is used for bridges with a span of 8.00 m to 24.00 m. An advantage of deep beam compared to regular beam is that it can carry higher loads and the flexural behavior of the section is not critical. The cross-sectional area of the beam also helps to lessen the deflection.

Figure 3-3. Reinforced Concrete Deep Beam 17

26

3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking

To give the client an overview to which design will prevail among the trade-offs based on each constraint, the designers used an engineering design model on trade-off strategies and assessment. This process involves a modified evaluation approach by Otto and Antonsson (1991). Originally, each constraint is rated based on its importance to the designer’s perspective in a scale of 0 to 5 and each trade -off will be ranked following the concept of percentage analyzation according to its ability to satisfy the given criterion from -5 to 5. However, to account for a much ideal ranking, an alteration of this process is used for this project where the importance factor for each constraint is from 0 to 10 whereas the computation for the percentage difference remains the same. Equation to be used in the computation of ranking for the ability to satisfy the criterion:

% difference=

Higher value - Lower value x 10 Higher value

Subordinate Rank = Governing rank - %difference

Equation 3-1 Equation 3-2

The governing rank will be subjected based on how important each constraint is to the designer’s own perspective for the project. The subordinate rank according to Otto & Antonsson (1991) on the other hand is a variable that corresponds to its percentage distance from the governing rank.

Different instances may occur in this assessment since it is subjective and only depends on designer’s own  judgment. As explained previously in this chapter, cost affects time and quality and vice versa. When time means money, saving a lot of time from a costly design and construction is acceptable. On the other hand, low budget means more time and can be more costly in the long run.  Among the quantitative constraints, economic and safety aspects were given ten (10) since both are the top priorities of the designers. A balance between cost and serviceability is something that must be accounted for. The design, may it be too costly or not, must be able to withstand any worst scenario that may occur in the location which can be controlled through following all specified codes and standards. Minimizing the cost as much as possible is important but should be in an effective manner. On the other hand, constructability was rated eight (8), since the duration of the project is more likely to depend in financial aspect. More allocated budget for equipment and labor force would result, ideally, to a faster construction of the project whereas poor apportionment would possibly lead to substandard and lower production. For sustainability constraint, it was ranked nine (9) where the project must be within acceptable span of time in which maintenance cost will be the factor to consider.

27

Table 3-1. Initial Estimate Decision Criteria

Economic (Material Cost) Constructability 2 (Duration) Serviceability 3 (Deflection) Sustainability 4 (Maintenance Cost) 1

PSC I-Girder

Trade-offs Steel Plate Girder

RC Deck Girder

Php 23,807,195.11

Php 22,555,076.78

Php 25,050,840.10

120 days

115 days

133 days

14.278 mm

32.964 mm

60.311 mm

Php 361,500.00

Php 320,338.88

Php 285,000.00

Table 3-1 shows the initial estimate of the trade-offs for each constraint. Estimated cost includes material cost, fabrication, installation, equipment, labor and maintenance cost. The consideration for duration is based on the number of days of fabrication of the material, transportation to the project site and installation. In terms of calculating the deflection, the designers used the highest section possible based on the availability o f the material that is within the required clearance below the superstructure as defined in Chapter 2. For the maintenance cost, it is only equivalent to a onetime maintenance expenses expected for each trade-off. The designers estimated the over-all cost which is in accordance with the Department of Public Works and Highways summary cost rates. In regards, the designers able to calculate the expected cost of the project in each tradeoffs. For the constructability of the project, the designers surveyed construction engineers for the possible construction duration of the project. In serviceability of the project design, the designers assumed the possible cross section of each tradeoff and use STAAD software to produce the deflection. Last, for the sustainability the designers based the cost of maintaining the bridge in DPWH summary sheet of material cost and labor cost. 3.4 Trade-off Assessment

This section will present the preliminary assessment of the trade-offs for each constraint that is based on the initial estimate of the designer. Detailed computation of each ranking is shown here. a. Economic Constraint (Cost) Governing Rank: Steel Plate Girder = 10.0 * PSC I-Girder

% difference =

23,807,195.11 - 22,555,076.78 x 10 = 0.5259411385 23,807,195.11

Subordinate Rank = 10 - 0.5259411385 = 9.474058862 ≈  9.47 * RC Deck Girder

% difference =

25,050,840.10 - 22,555,076.78 x 10 = 0.9962792904 25,050,840.10

Subordinate Rank = 10 - 0.9962792904 = 9.00372071 ≈  9.0

28

b. Constructability Constraint (Duration) Governing Rank: Steel Plate Girder = 10.0 * PSC I-Girder

120 - 115 x 10 = 0.4166666667 120 Subordinate Rank = 10 - 0.4166666667 = 9.583333333 ≈  9.58 % difference =

* RC Deck Girder

133 - 115 x 10 = 1.353383459 133 Subordinate Rank = 10 - 1.353383459 = 8.646616541 ≈  8.65 % difference =

c. Serviceability Constraint (Deflection) Governing Rank: PSC I-Girder = 10.0 * Steel Plate Girder

32.964 - 14.278 x 10 = 5.668608179 32.964 Subordinate Rank = 10 - 5.668608179 = 4.331391821 ≈  4.33 % difference =

* RC Deck Girder

60.311 - 14.278 x 10 = 7.632604334 60.311 Subordinate Rank = 10 - 7.632604334 = 2.367395666 ≈  2.37 % difference =

d.

Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost) Governing Rank: RC Deck Girder = 10.0 * PSC I- Girder

% difference =

361,500 - 285,000 x 10 = 2.116182573 361,500

Subordinate Rank = 10 - 2.116182573 = 7.883817427 ≈ 7.88 * Steel Plate Girder

% difference=

320,338.88 - 285,000 x 10 = 1.103171741 320,338.88

Subordinate Rank = 10 - 1.103171741 = 8.896828259 ≈  8.90

29

Decision Criteria

Economic (Overall Cost) Constructability 2 (Duration) Serviceability 3 (Deflection) Sustainability 4 (Maintenance Cost) Overall Rank 1

Table 3-2. Initial Raw Ranking Criterion's Ability to satisfy the criterion Importance on a scale of 0 to 10 (on a scale of 0 to 10) PSC I-Girder Steel Plate Girder RC Deck Girder

10

9.47

10.0

9.0

8

9.58

10.0

8.65

10

10.0

4.33

2.37

9

7.88

8.90

10.0

342.26

303.40

272.90

3.5 Design Standards

The codes and standards used as a basis in this project are stated as follows where it defines all needed requirements, design procedures, use of materials and correct computation and analysis of the bridge design in accordance with the characteristics of the locality: 1. National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) Volume II Bridges 2.  American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2012 3. Department of Public Works and Highways Design Guidelines and Standards: Volume 5 - Bridge Design

30

CHAPTER IV

Design of Structure 4.1 Design Methodology

Three tradeoffs are presented to address the problem of unstable Bailey bridge in Barangay Alipang, Rosario, La Union. The designer used AASHTO LRFD specifications and NSCP Volume II Bridges for the design parameters. The codes and formulas were used to design appropriate section of girder and its components that is sufficient to support stresses due to applied loads. The design was analyzed using BEAVA, a special feature of STAAD, to determine the maximum design loads due to dead loads and live loads applied on the structure. Preliminary Layout of Proposed Bridge   

Determination of water opening and bridge elevation Survey data, geometrics and bridge requirements Preliminary layout and arrangement of superstructure and substructure Establish design criteria and standards

 

Design specifications and standards Material and construction specifications

Performing Structural Analysis   

Design Loads  Actual Stresses Comparison to allowable stresses

Evaluation of Multiple Constraints    

Economic Criteria Constructability Criteria Serviceability Criteria Sustainability Criteria

Selection of Final Design   

Prestressed Concrete I-Girder Bridge Steel Plate Girder Bridge Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder Bridge Figure 4-1. Design Process

31

4.2 Unfactored Design Loads

The following list is used as reference for the designation of design loads applied on the girder: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

DC1 –dead load due to concrete deck and self-weight of the girder DC2 – dead load due to barrier and other utilities (street lightings, etc.) DW – dead load due to wearing surface LL – pedestrian load ML – moving load (HL-93)

The unfactored loads are analyzed in STAAD to get the maximum moment and shear were DC1 is equivalent to 29.4 kN/m for trade-off 1 (PSC), 25.65 kN/m for trade-off 2 (Steel) and 28.014 kN/m for trade-off 3 (RCDG), DC2 is 6.55 kN/m, DW is 5.0 kN/m, LL is 5.74 kN/m and ML is the combination of concentrated and lane load of HL-93 including the impact load as indicated in NSCP Volume II. The following tables show the unfactored maximum shear and moment produced by each load component on the girder and the unfactored axial force that will transfer from the superstructure to the substructure for each trade-off. Table 4-1. Unfactored Maximum Shear and Moment Load Component

Dc1 Dc2 DW LL ML

Fy (kN)

Mz (kNm)

PSC Steel RCDG PSC Steel 377.842 363.866 261.166 2589.032 2494.205 -302.118 -290.751 -208.156 2697.1 2598.578 92.901 92.901 61.313 -636.823 -636.823 -74.234 -74.234 -48.868 663.463 663.463 70.917 70.917 46.804 -486.124 -486.124 -56.667 -56.667 -37.304 506.461 506.461 81.413 81.413 53.731 -558.071 -558.071 -65.054 -65.054 -42.825 581.417 581.417 163.708 163.758 132.694 -1671.58 -1722.18 -163.708 -163.758 -132.694 1762.397 1760.318

RCDG 1204.677 1255.467 -282.818 294.742 -215.892 224.994 -247.844 258.293 -873.275 878.894

Table 4-2. Unfactored Support Forces (Trade-off 1) Bearing pad

DC1 (kN)

DC2 (kN)

DW (kN)

Live Load (kN)

Moving Loads (kN)

Diaphragm

Total Axial Load (kN)

 A.1  A.2 P.1 P.2 P.3 P.4

1047.375 1047.375 1047.375 1047.375 1047.375 1047.375

233.344 233.344 233.344 233.344 233.344 233.344

178.125 178.125 178.125 178.125 178.125 178.125

204.288 204.288 204.288 204.288 204.288 204.288

363.622 361.249 355.805 386.424 355.805 386.424

228.024 228.024 228.024 228.024 228.024 228.024

2254.778 2252.405 2246.961 2277.58 2246.961 2277.58 32

 A.3  A.4

1047.375 1047.375

233.344 233.344

178.125 178.125

204.288 204.288

363.622 361.249

228.024 228.024

2254.778 2252.405

Table 4-3. Unsupported Support Forces (Trade-off 2) Bearing pad

DC1 (kN)

DC2 (kN)

DW (kN)

Live Load (kN)

Moving Loads (kN)

Diaphragm

Total Axial Load (kN)

 A.1  A.2  A.3  A.4  A.5 P.1 P.2 P.3 P.4 P.5 P.6 P.7 P.8 P.9 P.10  A.6  A.7  A.8  A.9  A.10

365.575 365.575 365.575 365.575 365.575 365.575 365.575 365.575 365.575 365.575 365.575 365.575 365.575 365.575 365.575 365.575 365.575 365.575 365.575 365.575

93.338 93.338 93.338 93.338 93.338 93.338 93.338 93.338 93.338 93.338 93.338 93.338 93.338 93.338 93.338 93.338 93.338 93.338 93.338 93.338

72.25 72.25 72.25 72.25 72.25 72.25 72.25 72.25 72.25 72.25 72.25 72.25 72.25 72.25 72.25 72.25 72.25 72.25 72.25 72.25

81.795 81.795 81.795 81.795 81.795 81.795 81.795 81.795 81.795 81.795 81.795 81.795 81.795 81.795 81.795 81.795 81.795 81.795 81.795 81.795

53.953 196.912 227.78 196.64 51.133 50.233 193.151 225.49 193.503 53.488 50.233 193.151 225.49 193.503 53.488 53.953 196.912 227.78 196.64 51.133

0.24217 0.48434 0.48434 0.48434 0.24217 0.24217 0.48434 0.48434 0.48434 0.24217 0.24217 0.48434 0.48434 0.48434 0.24217 0.24217 0.48434 0.48434 0.48434 0.24217

667.15317 810.35434 841.22234 810.08234 664.33317 663.43317 806.59334 838.93234 806.94534 666.68817 663.43317 806.59334 838.93234 806.94534 666.68817 667.15317 810.35434 841.22234 810.08234 664.33317

Table 4-4. Unsupported Support Forces (Trade-off 3) Bearing pad

DC1 (kN)

DC2 (kN)

DW (kN)

Live Load (kN)

Moving Loads (kN)

Diaphragm

Total Axial Load (kN)

 A.1  A.2 P.1 P.2 P.3 P.4 P.5 P.6 P.7

665.333 665.333 665.333 665.333 665.333 665.333 665.333 665.333 665.333

155.163 155.163 155.163 155.163 155.163 155.163 155.163 155.163 155.163

118.75 118.75 118.75 118.75 118.75 118.75 118.75 118.75 118.75

136.325 136.325 136.325 136.325 136.325 136.325 136.325 136.325 136.325

322.156 315.687 307.749 315.372 307.749 315.372 307.749 315.372 307.749

170.534 170.534 170.534 170.534 170.534 170.534 170.534 170.534 170.534

1568.261 1561.792 1553.854 1561.477 1553.854 1561.477 1553.854 1561.477 1553.854 33

P.8  A.3  A.4

665.333 665.333 665.333

155.163 155.163 155.163

118.75 118.75 118.75

136.325 136.325 136.325

315.372 322.156 315.687

170.534 170.534 170.534

1561.477 1568.261 1561.792

Figure 4-2. Position of Bearing Pads (Trade-off 1)

Figure 4-3. Position of Bearing Pads (Trade-off 2)

Figure 4-4. Position of Bearing Pads (Trade-off 3)

For the analysis of seismic forces, the following figures show the intensity of load applied to the structure used for the design of foundation: a. Load Case 1

Figure 4-5. Seismic Forces 1 (Trade-off 1)

34

Figure 4-6. Seismic Forces 1 (Trade-off 2)

Figure 4-7. Seismic Forces 1 (Trade-off 3)

b. Load Case 2

Figure 4-8. Seismic Forces 2 (Trade-off 1)

Figure 4-9. Seismic Forces 2 (Trade-off 2)

35

Figure 4-10. Seismic Forces 2 (Trade-off 3)

On the other hand, the following tables show the wind load intensity for each trade-off: Table 4-5. Wind Load parameters (Trade-off 1)

Length Mean Height Girder depth Column Width WL on Structure Transverse WL Longitudinal WL WL on Live Load Transverse WL Longitudinal WL Uniform Load Horizontal Vertical

28.5 4.5 1.3 1

m m m m

2868 690

Pa Pa

1800 720

N/m N/m

5528.4 1410

N/m N/m

Figure 4-11. Wind Load Intensity (Trade-off 1)

36

Table 4-6. Wind Load Parameters (Trade-off 2)

Length Mean Height Girder depth Column Width Wind Load on Structure Transverse WL Longitudinal WL Wind Load on Live Load Transverse WL Longitudinal WL Total Wind Load Horizontal Vertical

28.5 4.5 1 1

m m m m

2868 690

Pa Pa

1800 720

N/m N/m

4668 1410

N/m N/m

Figure 4-12. Wind Load Intensity (Trade-off 2) Table 4-7. Wind Load Parameters (Trade-off 3)

Length Mean Height Girder depth Column Width WL on Structure Transverse WL Longitudinal WL WL on Live Load Transverse WL Longitudinal WL Uniform Load Horizontal Vertical

19 4.5 1.4 1

m m m m

2868 690

Pa Pa

1800 720

N/m N/m

5815.2 1410

N/m N/m 37

Figure 4-13. Wind Load Intensity (Trade-off 3) 4.3 Foundation Design Specifications 4.3.1 Concrete Mix for Pile Foundation

Consistency of concrete to be used for the piles must be suitable to the method of installation of piles. The grade of concrete to be used for piling should be a minimum of M25. Mixing is carried out in mechanical mixer only. The table below specifies the properties of the aggregates necessary in determining the concrete mix ratio. Table 4-8. Properties of Aggregates

Specified Strength Required Slump Maximum Size of aggregate Specific gravity of fine aggregates Specific gravity of coarse aggregates Rodded bulk density of coarse aggregate  Absorption Coarse  Absorption Fine Moisture Content of aggregates Control Factor

25 MPa 50-75 mm 20 mm 2.64 2.84 1600 kg/m 3 1% 2% 0 0.8

Table 4-9. Concrete Mix Ratio 25 MPa Cement : Fine Aggregate : Coarse Aggregate  Aggregate / Cement ratio W/C ratio

1

1

2

3 0.47

4.3.2 Design of Shear Key in the Abutment

Shear is being provided below the base of the abutment if the wall is found to be unsafe against sliding. Such a key develops passive pressure which resists completely the sliding tendency of the wall. In determining the external stability of retaining walls, failure modes like bearing failure, sliding and overturning are normally 38

considered in design. In considering the criterion of sliding, the sliding resistance of retaining walls is derived from the base friction between the wall base and the foundation soils. To increase the sliding resistance of retaining walls, other than providing a large self-weight or a large retained soil mass, shear keys are to be installed at the wall base. The principle of shear keys is to increase the extra passive resistance developed by the height of shear keys. However, active pressure developed by shear keys also increases simultaneously. The success of shear keys lies in the fact that the increase of passive pressure exceeds the increase in active pressure, resulting in a net improvement of sliding resistance. Since the factor of safety against sliding of the abutment is greater than the required factor of safety, the designer did not consider shear key in the design. Detailed calculations are presented in the appendices. 4.3.3 Bored Pile

Bored pile is a circular, cast-in-situ reinforced concrete pile which is used as foundations to support high-rise buildings, bridges and other heavy industrial complexes which diverts severe structural loads deep into a more stable soil stratum. It is design and categorized into two types  – skin friction piles and end bearing piles, depending on the soil condition where the piles shall be constructed. The bored piles construction entails two main steps, the drilling phase (demolition, removal and stabilization) and the construction phase (reinforcing case, casting and curing). The size of the piles to be used depends upon the availability of bored piling rigs that a foundation contractor have. One of those foundation contractor have bored piling rigs that have the capacity to drill from 800 mm Ø to 1500 mm Ø, fully complemented with allied equipment and accessories. The different pile diameter and pile cap arrangement will be provided based on the available sizes of bored piling rigs. 4.3.4 Pile Arrangement

The diameters of piles to be used are dependent on the available sizes of bored piling rigs that a foundation contractor can provide. Upon checking its available sizes which is from 800mm to 1500 mm, different pile arrangement will be provided. Set of pile arrangements for both abutment and pier side are presented as follows:

39

Figure 4-14. Pile Arrangements at Abutment Side

40

Figure 4-15. Pile Arrangements at Pier Side

41

4.4 Design of Prestressed Post-Tensioned Concrete I-Girder Bridge 4.4.1 Design Process

START DETERMINE UNFACTORED  AND FACTORED LOADS SELECT A PROPER SECTION DESIGN AND LOCATE PRESTRESSING BAR USING UNFACTORED LOADS

NO

IS SECTION ADEQUATE TO FLEXURE STRESSES  AND DEFLECTION?

YES COMPUTE PRESTRESS PARTIAL LOSSES

DESIGN OF NONPRESTRESSING BARS USING FACTORED LOADS DESIGN STIRRUPS USING FACTORED LOADS DESIGN DIAPHRAGM

END

42

4.4.2 Material Properties

Through series of investigation, standard PSC AASHTO Type V is found to be the least section appropriate for the design.

Figure 4-16. AASHTO Type V PSC Girder

The details and section properties of PSC Girder are presented on the following tables: Table 4-10. AAHSTO Type V PSC Girder Section Dimension Type V

 Ac Igx Igy St Sb Bf Tf B2 T2 H Bw Ct Cb R2 Self-weight

1013 521180 61236 16790 16307 42 7 28 13 63 8 31.04 31.96 514 1055

Unit in² in⁴ in⁴ in³ in³ in in in in in in in in in plf

Table 4-11. Other Properties of PSC Compressive Strength of Concrete 41.37 MPa Rebar Strength 1861.58 MPa Haunch Thickness 1 in

43

Prestressing Bar Diameter Main Bar Diameter Prestressing Force Total Girder Volume Total Haunch Volume Total Concrete Deck Volume Total Diaphragm Volume

0.5 in. 1.29 in. 5076 kN 186.2 m3 7.72 m 3 109.44 m 3 27.26 m 3

4.4.2.1 Concrete Mix

The table below specifies the properties of the aggregates necessary in determining the Concrete Mix Ratio. Table 4-12. Properties of Aggregates

Specified Strength Required Slump Maximum Size of aggregate Fineness Modulus of fine aggregate Specific gravity of aggregates Rodded bulk density of coarse aggregate  Absorption Coarse  Absorption Fine Moisture Content of aggregates Control Factor

41.4 MPa 50 mm 20 mm 2.2 2.65 1600 kg/m 3 0.5% 0.7% 0 0.8

Table 4-13. Concrete Mix Ratio

27.6 MPa Cement : Fine Aggregate : Coarse Aggregate  Aggregate / Cement ratio W/C ratio 41.4 MPa Cement : Fine Aggregate : Coarse Aggregate  Aggregate / Cement ratio W/C Ratio

1

1

1.74 2.76 4.499626105 0.469 0.91 3.65 0.43

2.74

4.4.2.2 Constructability Activities

Incorporating post-tensioning method for prestressed girder is more economical since the location of the project is far from available plants that can offer fabrication and delivery of the girder to the site. With regards to the fabrication of the girder, it will start with placing the prestressing and non-prestressing bars readied to be poured with high-strength concrete. Achieving the curing of 28 days, the strands of the girder is to be pulled using a portable machine and to be mounted above the bearing pads above the abutment using a crawler crane. Diaphragms are to be constructed right after the placement of the girder. 44

4.4.3 Computation of Girder Design 4.4.3.1 Determining Appropriate Section

In determining the appropriate section for the given loadings, use these formulas.

St  ≥

MD + MSD + ML γf ti - f c

Sb  ≥

MD + MSD + ML f c γf ci

 -

where: MD = Moment due to dead load

; f ci = Allowable initial compressive stress

MSD = Moment due to superimposed dead load ; f ti = Allowable initial tensile stress ML = Moment due to live load

; f t = Allowable tensile stress at service condition

f c = Allowable compressive stress at service condition Table 4-14. Required Section Modulus Required Top Section Modulus 9617.067685 in 3 Required Bottom Section Modulus 11536.2417 in 3 4.4.3.2 Prestressing Bar Location

The location of prestressing bar is obtained using the formula,

 

St ec = ft i - f ci Pi where, St is the section modulus at top, Pi   is the initial prestressing force and ec is the distance of prestressing bar from centroid of the section. Table 4-15. Location of Prestressing Bar 1140740.074 lb Pi St 30663.87 in³ 5.53 in. from bottom ec 4.4.3.3 Flexure and Fatigue Adequacy

In checking for flexure and fatigue adequacy, a little allowance is permitted up to 1% since the main reinforcing steel is not included yet. The formulas used in checking the flexure and fatigue adequacy and determination of the required number of prestressing bars are as follows: Fatigue I :

1.75 (LL+IM) MS18

45

    

Pe e' ct f  = 1+ 2 Ac r  t

     1.75

Pe e' cb f b = 1- 2 Ac r 

Pi e' cb MD Pi e' cb MD f  = 1 - 2 - t f b = 1+ 2 + t Ac Ac r  r  S S t

Pi e' cb f b = 1+ 2 + Ac r 

ML

St

where: Pi = Initial prestressing force ;

Cb = Distance from centroid to bottom section

 Ac = Area of section

Sb = Bottom Section Modulus of section

;

Ct = Distance from centroid to topmost section Table 4-16. Checking of Flexural Adequacy 28 pcs. # of Prestressing Tendons ½”  Adequate Fti  Adequate Fbi  Adequate Ft  Adequate Fb Ff   Adequate 4.4.3.4 Prestress Losses

In determining the jacking stress needed for the prestressing bars, prestress losses should be considered. Table 4-17. Details of Prestress Losses Partial Losses Value fpCR 1395.911759 fpSH 2786.313143 fR 12639.76654 Total 33619.61949 Jacking Stress 221809.6195

Unit Psi Psi Psi Psi psi

4.4.3.5 Deflection

In determining the maximum deflection of a prestressed girder, the deflection (upward) produced by the prestressing bars is deducted to the sum of the deflection produced by the weight of the girder itself and the applied loads.

5Wu l4 Pel2 Δf = +Δ 384EI ML 8EI

46

where:

Wu = Distributed loadings in kN/m

;

l = Length of span of Girder

ΔML = deflection due to moving loads

;

E = Modulus of Elasticity

P = Effective Force of Prestressing Bars in e = distance of prestressing bars from gross center of gravity of the section I = Gross Moment of inertia of the section Table 4-18. Details of Deflection Camber of prestress 33.10 mm ↑ Deflection due to loads 50.143 mm ↓ Total Deflection 17.043 mm ↓ 4.4.3.6 Design of main reinforcing bars

The load combination applicable to the limit state listed below is based from AASHTO 3.4 and Table 3.4.11. The loads being considered in the equation are the unfactored value and (LL + IM) denotes to a one -lane loaded effect only. Strength I:

1.25(DC) + 1.5(DW) + 1.75(LL + IM) MS 18 Table 4-19. Factored Moment and Shear

Strength I DC DW LL+ML Total

Moment 39445842.28 12938954.03 36290478.91 88675275.23

Shear 140342.09 46018.97 96153.73 282514.79

Aps f ps  + As f y -A's f y f  0.85f'c βb+kAps( pu d ) p

 ≤  ⁄  ⁄ ⁄  | | (  ) c=

Mn A f  d - a +A f  d - a -A' f  a -d' 0.9 ps py p 2 s y s 2 s y 2 s M N V Aps f ps + As f y  ≥ u + 0.5 u + u - Vp - 0.5Vs cotθ dv Øf  Øc Øc Table 4-20. Result of Moment Capacity c 5.63 in Factored Moment 88675275.23 lbin Moment Capacity 104323853.2 lbin Reinforcement Adequacy Adequate

47

Table 4-21. Details of Main Reinforcing Bars Type of bar 32 mm 4 bars @ top # of bars required 4 bars @ bottom Location Corners of girder 4.4.3.7 Design of Stirrups

The design for shear and torsional adequacy uses the formula below in determining the number of stirrups and spacing required for the girder as well as for the dowels.

 √ 

Vc = 0.60λ fc' + 700

 √ 

√ 

Vu dp b d  ≥ 2λ fc' bw dp  ≤ 2λ fc' bw dp Mu w p

Table 4-22. Details of Stirrups Type of reinforcement #3 U stirrups, 0.11 in² Spacing of stirrups 3.6 in 4.4.3.8 Design of Diaphragm

The design of diaphragms is the same as designing reinforced concrete beams using the formulas below.

≤  ⁄ ⁄   = + √ 

Mn A f  d - a - A's f y a 2 -d's 0.9 s y s 2 Vu  ≤ ØVn Vn

Vc

Vs

1 fc' bw d 6 Av f y d Vs = S

Vc  =

Table 4-23. Details of Intermediate Diaphragm Top bar reinforcement 3-16mm bars Bottom bar reinforcement 7-16mm bars Stirrups 600mm spacing Thickness 254mm Depth 1143mm Location Every 7125 mm from the support Table 4-24. Details of End Diaphragm Top bar reinforcement 2-16mm Bars Bottom bar reinforcement 9-16mm Bars Stirrups 600mm Spacing

48

Thickness 500mm Depth 1600mm Table 4-25. Details of Bottom End Diaphragm Top Reinforcing bars 12-16mm Bars Base Reinforcing Bars 10-16mm Bars Stirrups 12mm every 200mm 4.4.3.9 Design of Foundation

Refer to Appendix C for the detailed design of foundation. 4.4.4 Design Drawings

Figure 4-17. PSC Section Details at Midspan

49

Figure 4-18. PSC Section Details at End Span

Figure 4-19. Reinforcement Details of End Diaphragm

50

Figure 4-20. Transverse End Diaphragm Reinforcement Details

Figure 4-21. Intermediate Diaphragm Reinforcement Details

Figure 4-22. Diaphragm Layout (PSC)

51

Figure 4-23. Cross Section at Pier Side

Figure 4-24. Cross Section at Abutment Side

52

Figure 4-25. Transverse Elevation of Abutment

Figure 4-26. Reinforcement Details of Abutment

53

Figure 4-27. Details of Section B-B

Figure 4-28. Details of “X”

Figure 4-29. Details of Pier Cap

Figure 4-30. Reinforcement Details of Pier Footing

54

Figure 4-31. Reinforcement Details of Pier

Figure 4-32. Reinforcement Details of Pile Cap (Abutment)

Figure 4-33. Reinforcement Details of Pile Cap (Pier)

Figure 4-34. Reinforcement Details of Pile (Abutment)

Figure 4-35. Reinforcement Details of Pile (Pier)

55

Figure 4-36. Details of Pile Cap and Pile Arrangement (Abutment)

Figure 4-37. Details of Pile Cap and Pile Arrangement (Pier)

Figure 4-38. Front Elevation at Pier 

56

Figure 4-39. PSC Bridge Elevation

57

4.5 Design of Steel Plate Girder Bridge 4.5.1 Design Process

START

SELECT GIRDER LAYOUT, FRAMING SYSTEMS AND SECTIONS PERFORM LOAD AND STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS DETERMINE LOAD COMBINATION COMPUTE LIVE LOAD DISTRIBUTION FACTORS

COMPUTE FACTORED MAXIMUM SHEAR AND MOMENT FOR EACH LIMIT STATE

CHECK FLEXURE FOR STRENGTH LIMIT STATE CHECK REQUIREMENT FOR FATIGUE  AND SERVICE LIMIT STATE CHECK REQUIREMENT FOR CONSTRUCTABILITY DESIGN SHEAR CONNECTOR, CROSS FRAME COMPUTE DEFLECTION  AND CAMBER

END

58

4.5.2 Material Properties

The dimension of steel girder is based from the ASEP Steel Manual Volume 1. This section is subjected to investigation to determine its actual stresses and to check its adequacy in terms of the limitations and specifications applicable to the design based from AASHTO LRFD 2012 and NSCP.

Figure 4-40. Steel W-shaped I-Girder

Table 4-40 shows the dimension and properties of W 36 x 798 steel section. The design strength used is 248 MPa. Table 4-26. Steel Section Properties (W 36 x 798) Unit  Area 150,967 mm² Depth 1,066.04 mm tw 60.45 mm bf 456.95 mm tf 108.97 mm Nominal Weight 1,188 kg/m rt 121.92 mm Ix 26,056 x 10⁶ mm⁴ Sx 48,833 x 10³ mm³ Iy 1,748 x 10⁶ mm⁴ Sy 7,653 x 10³ mm³ 4.5.2.1 Constructability Activities

The steel girder used in the design is pre-fabricated. Concrete deck and substructures are all cast-in-place. 59

4.5.3 Steel Girder Analysis

The details presented in this section are calculated manually in accordance with AASHTO LRFD 2012 and NSCP. The computations are designed to check the conformity of the chosen steel section to various limitations, specifications and comparison of actual to allowable stresses and for the design of other components needed. 4.5.3.1 Proportion Limits Table 4-27. Checking of Section Proportion Limits Remark

< < > >

D 150 tw bf  12 2tf  D bf  6

Web w/o Longitudinal Stiffeners

Flange Proportion

tf  1.1tw 0.1<

Flange Ratio

Iyc Iyt

OK OK OK OK OK

Table 4-27 shows the checking of the proportionality of the steel section in accordance with AASHTO 6.10.2.2. 4.5.3.2 Strength Limit State (Flexure Adequacy)

The maximum moment for strength limit state is situated at the mid-span of the mid-interior girder of the structure. For this limit state, the composite compact steel section shall satisfy the requirement as follows:

Mu ≤ Øf Mn where, Mu is the value of the maximum moment, Øf  is the flexure resistance factor which is equal to 1.0 and Mn is the flexural resistance of the section computed as,

Dp Dt - 0.1 0.32

   

Mn = 1- 1-

My Mp

Mp

60

Table 4-28. Checking of Flexure for Strength Limit State Check Section Compactness D

Web Proportion

w

Web Slenderness Limit

<

150

OK

 

OK

2Dcp E ≤ tw Fyc

Calculate Plastic Moment ybar Mp Calculate Yield Moment My Calculate Flexural Resistance Mu Øf Mn OK

140.5579111 mm 18690329772 Nmm 13568497546 Nmm

11084427388 Nmm 13006789918 Nmm

4.5.3.3 Fatigue Limit State

The fatigue stress ranges are also checked for the design which involves live loads including moving and impact load multiplied to its distribution factor.



γ Δf  =

|+M| |-M| + SST SNC

Table 4-29. Checking for Fatigue Limit State Stress Range Factored +M Factored -M

Top Flange y(Δf)f  Bottom Flange y(Δf)b

4098036250 3990439250 119.232092 150.586809

Nmm Nmm MPa MPa

4.5.3.4 Service Limit State

The service limit state is used to control the elastic permanent deflection under design live load HL-93. The loads DC1, DC2, DW and (LL + IM) are considered in the calculation with all taken as factored values. To check the flange stresses, the computation and results are as follows:

f f  ≤ 0.95Rh Fyf  where, Rh  is the hybrid factor which is for this computation is equivalent to 1.0, Fyf  is the flange yield strength and f f  is computed as,

61

MDC1 MDC2 + MDW M(LL+IM) + + SNC SLT SST Table 4-30. Checking for Service Limit State

≤

Check Flange Stresses f f  0.95RhFyf 

235.6 127.03087 159.265717

Compression Flange Tension Flange

MPa MPa MPa

OK 4.5.3.5 Constructability

The flexural stresses of the section is checked to prevent the nominal yielding on post -buckling resistance of the girder during construction stage. The load being considered in the calculation is the dead load due to concrete deck and the self-weight of the girder. The slenderness ratio for a non-compact web is determined. For the nominal flexural resistance, the compression and tension flange is checked if it met the requirement.

Mu <ØF SNCt f  NC  Also, the web bend-buckling resistance is also checked if it met the requirement in accordance with AASHTO 3.10.3.2.1-3.

f bu < Øf FCRW Table 4-31. Checking for Constructability Web Compactness 2Dc tw

<

λrw

WEB IS NOT LENDER

Calculate Flexural Resistance Øf Fnc > Fbu OK Calculate Web Bend-buckling Resistance Øf Fcrw > Fbu OK Check Tension Flange bu

≤ Øf Rh Fyt

OK

4.5.3.6 Shear Connectors

The shear connector for the span is designed for fatigue in accordance to AASHTO 6.10.10. A 7/8 inch ( 22 mm) stud shear connector, 3 per row, is used with an allowable range for horizontal shear for each individual shear connector of 32,313.45 N. 62

Table 4-32. Details of Shear Studs Span

No. of Studs

0 - 5.7 m 5.7 - 22.8 m 22.8 - 28.5 m

3 - 22 mm Ø @ 550 mm 3 - 22 mm Ø @ 275 mm 3 - 22 mm Ø @ 550 mm

Strength

414 MPa

4.5.3.7 Design of Stiffener

The bearing stiffeners are placed at all bearing locations which are at abutment and pier. The capacity of the stiffener is checked for both axial resistance and bearing resistance in accordance with AASHTO 6.10.11.2.34. Also transverse stiffeners were included in the design to increase the shear capacity of the web member. The details are as follows: Table 4-33. Details of Transverse Stiffeners

width height thickness

90 848.1 12.5

mm mm mm

Table 4-34. Details of Bearing Stiffeners Load

Vu

3404.175

Stiffener Details B.S. Fraction 1-5/8 " Thickness 41.3 Width 152.400 Bearing Resistance 3275.829 Axial Resistance 17777.180 Fillet Weld Thickness 7.938 Clip 25.400 Length of weld 797.300 Resistance 4145.926 OK

kN

mm mm kN kN mm mm mm kN

63

Figure 4-41. Bearing Stiffener 4.5.3.8 Design of Cross Frame

To resist lateral forces such as wind load, cross frame is designed consisting of single angles spaced every 7.125 m of the span. The design wind load used is 200 kph.

Figure 4-42. Cross Frame Dimension

Figure 4-43. Strut BA Section

Tables 4-42 and 43 show the single angle section used for the design components of cross frame.

64

Table 4-35. Top and Bottom Strut Section Details Section Length H B t  Ag Xc = Yc Ix = Iy rx =ry K Fy

L 90 x 90 x 6 1.9545 m 90 mm 90 mm 6 mm 1057 mm² 24.05 mm 803000000 mm ⁴ 27.57 mm 1 275 MPa

Table 4-36. Diagonal Strut Section Details Section Length H B t  Ag Xc = Yc Ix = Iy rx =ry K Fy

L 75 x 75 x 6 1.232 mm 75 mm 75 mm 6 mm 1501 mm² 25.4 mm 761 mm⁴ 22.5 mm 1 275 Mpa

The factored bending stress of the top and bottom strut due to wind load is checked by:

fl < 0.6 Fyf   At the strength limit state, the composite compact section in positive moment regions satisfies the requirement as follows:

1 Mu+  ft Sxt < Øf Mn 3 The effective slenderness ratio of the compression bracing member is 119.90 which complies with the following standards.

65

Table 4-37. Limiting Factors Check Limiting Slenderness Ratio KLd/rz < 140 OK Check Member Strength L/rx < 80 OK Slender Element Reduction Factor b/t < k*SQRT(E/Fy) OK Effective Slender Ratio (KL/r)eff 125.1692057

The actual strength capacity of the section is 103.8 kN. The cross frame is attached in the girder using bolt connections and the details are shown as follows: Table 4-38. Strut Connection Details

Bolt Diameter Bolt Spacing Bolt Edge Distance Bolt Yield Strength No. of Bolts

20 60 32 830 4

mm mm mm MPa Bolts

4.5.3.9 Camber

To counter the expected deflection due to dead load which is 38.703 mm, camber is made to the steel girder.

Figure 4-44. Steel Girder Camber Details

The radius of curvature of the girder and camber at specific span of the steel girder is computed by the following standard formula:

R= where:

37bD Fy Ψtw

√ 

b = widest flange width

tw = web thickness

D = clear distance between flanges

R = radius 66

The total camber at any point along the span is computes as,

∆=

∆DL  (∆M + ∆R) ∆M

where:

∆DL = camber at any point along the length of girder ∆M = maximum value of ∆DL Table 4-39. Camber Details

 Asg Ψ  R

∆R ∆DL1/5 ∆DL2/5 ∆DL1/2 ∆DL3/5 ∆DL4/5 ∆ Span 1/5 ∆ Span 2/5 ∆ Span 1/2 ∆ Span 3/5 ∆ Span 4/5

110968.000 2.229 784480.970 0.000 12.696 25.393 38.089 25.393 12.696

mm²

4.232 16.928 38.089 16.928 4.232

mm mm mm mm mm

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

4.5.3.10 Deflection

The deflection of the girder produced by live and moving loads is 5.917 mm and 16.441 mm, respectively which gives a total deflection of 22.358 mm. 4.5.3.11 Design of Foundation

Refer to Appendix D for the detailed design of foundation.

67

4.5.4 Design Drawings

Figure 4-45. W 36 x 798 Steel Girder Section

Figure 4-46. Bearing Stiffener

68

Figure 4-47. Pitch of Shear Studs

Figure 4-48. Typical Cross Frame

Figure 4-49. Strut Bolted Connection

69

Figure 4-50. Cross Frame Layout

Figure 4-51. Cross Section at Pier Side

70

Figure 4-52. Cross Section at Abutment Side

Figure 4-53. Transverse Elevation of Abutment

71

Figure 4-54. Reinforcement Details of Abutment

Figure 4-55. Details of Section B-B

Figure 4-56. Details of “X”

72

Figure 4-57. Details of Pier Cap

Figure 4-58. Reinforcement Details of Pier Footing

Figure 4-59. Reinforcement Details of Pier

Figure 4-60. Reinforcement Details of Pile Cap (Abutment)

73

Figure 4-61. Reinforcement Details of Pile Cap (Pier)

Figure 4-62. Reinforcement Details of Pile (Abutment)

Figure 4-63. Reinforcement Details of Pile (Pier)

Figure 4-64. Details of Pile Cap and Pile Arrangement (Abutment)

74

Figure 4-65. Details of Pile Cap and Pile Arrangement (Pier)

Figure 4-66. Front Elevation at Pier

Figure 4-67. Steel Bridge Elevation

75

4.6 Design of Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder Bridge 4.6.1 Design Process

START DETERMINE FACTORED LOADS DETERMINE PROPERTIES OF MATERIALS TO BE USED DEVELOP APPROPRIATE TBEAM SECTION DESIGN FOR FLEXURE REINFORCEMENT AS DOUBLE-REINFORED DESIGN SHEAR REINFORCEMENT DESIGN OF DIAPHRAGMS END 4.6.2 Material Properties

The designer used the ultimate stress design approach to obtain a satisfactory design for reinforced concrete girder.

Figure 4-68. Outline of RC T-Beam

76

Table 4-40. Dimension Details of RC T-Beam

Length Effective Depth of beam Breadth of beam Concrete Slab thickness Ideal flange width of T-Girder Type of concrete

Unit 19 m 1225 mm 500 mm 200 mm 1200 mm Normal weight

Table 4-41. Other Details Total Girder Volume Total Concrete Deck Volume Total Diaphragm Volume

159.76 m3 109.44 m 3 24.87 m3

4.6.2.1 Concrete Mix

The table below specifies the properties of the aggregates necessary in determining the Concrete Mix Ratio. Table 4-42. Properties of Aggregates

Specified Strength Required Slump Maximum Size of aggregate Fineness Modulus of fine aggregate Specific gravity of aggregates Rodded bulk density of coarse aggregate  Absorption Coarse  Absorption Fine Moisture Content of aggregates Control Factor

41.4 MPa 50 mm 20 mm 2.2 2.65 1600 kg/m 3 0.5% 0.7% 0 0.8

Table 4-43. Concrete Mix Ratio

27.6 MPa Cement : Fine Aggregate : Coarse Aggregate  Aggregate / Cement ratio W/C ratio

1

1.74 2.76 4.499626105 0.469

4.6.2.2 Constructability Activities

The reinforced concrete girder used for this design is cast-in-place as well as the end and intermediate diaphragm and the substructure. The process to be used is in accordance with the standard construction methods. 77

4.6.3 Computation of Girder Design 4.6.3.1 Tension steel reinforcements using pmax

In determining the appropriate steel reinforcements, the formula used is:

 

0.85ß1 fc' 600 ρMAX = 0.75 * * f y 600+ f y where:

ρMAX  = Steel area to concrete area ratio , ρmax =

As bd

ß1  = Ratio of depth of compression zone to the neutral axis fc’ = Compressive strength of concrete f y = Yield strength of steel Table 4-44. Details of Tension Reinforcement Bars  Actual Steel Steel area using the chosen chosen steel diameter diameter 12867.96 mm² mm² Diameter of Main Reinforcement Bars 32 mm Number of Main Reinforcement Bars 16 pcs. 4.6.3.2 Flexure Adequacy

For flexure adequacy, additional compression bars are needed. This addition of reinforcement bars is computed as the moment capacity of the initial reinforcing bars using the formula:

 ∅  

Mu = [As f y d-

a + Acf f cf  cf (d")] 2

This initial capacity is subtracted to the factored actual moment and is equivalent to the moment capacity of the compression bars where the needed area can be obtained.

 ∅

Mactual - Mu = A' s f y (d-d' ) where:

Fcf  = Yield strength of CRFP  Acf  =  = Area of section

d” = distance of centroid of reinforcements to centroid of CRFP A’s = Compressive steel area d’ = distance of centroid of compressive c ompressive stee l area to topmost concrete fiber

78

Table 4-45. Details of Compression Bars Steel area 1608.50 mm² Bar Diameter 32 mm # of compressive bars 2 Table 4-46. Details of Reinforcing Bars

Location Quantity at support Support Top Bar 2 Support Bottom Bar 12 at midspan Midspan Top Bar 2 Midspan Bottom Bar 16 32 mm Bar Diameter 4.6.3.3 Design for Stirrups

The shear and torsional adequacy is checked and design using the following formulas:

Vu  ≤ ØVn

Vn

 = + √  Vc

Vs

1 fc' fc' bw d 6 Av f y d Vs = S

Vc  =

where:

Vu = ultimate shear

;

Vn  = nominal shear

Vc = shear capacity of concrete

;

Vs  = shear of stirrups

S = spacing

;

Av = Area of shear reinforcements

Table 4-47. Details of Stirrups

Vu Vn Vs  Av Vc Bar Diameter Stirrups Spacing at outer third of span Stirrups Spacing at middle third of span

606.25 kN 673.71 kN 699.45 kN 226.19 mm² 536.30 kN 12 mm 200 mm 300 mm 79

4.6.3.4 Design of Diaphragm

The design of diaphragms is the same as designing reinforced concrete concrete beams using the formulas below.

≤  ⁄ ⁄   = + √ 

Mn A f  d - a -A' f  a -d' 0.9 s y s 2 s y 2 s Vu  ≤ ØVn

Vn

Vc

Vs

1 fc' fc' bw d 6 Av f y d Vs = S

Vc  =

Table 4-48.Details of Intermediate Diaphragm Top bar reinforcement 2-12mm bars Bottom bar reinforcement 4-12mm bars Stirrups 200mm spacing Thickness 254mm Depth 921.12mm Location Midspan Table 4-49. Details of End Diaphragm Top bar reinforcement 2-16mm Bars Bottom bar reinforcement 6-16mm Bars Stirrups 200mm Spacing Thickness 500mm Depth 1121.12mm Table 4-50. Details of Bottom End Diaphragm Top Reinforcing bars 19-16mm Bars Base Reinforcing Bars 14-16mm Bars Stirrups 12mm every 200mm 4.6.3.4 Deflection

The deflection for this design is 34.274 mm due to the effect of dead and live loads. 4.6.3.5 Design of Foundation

Refer to Appendix E for the detailed design of foundation.

80

4.6.4 Design Drawings

Figure 4-69. RC Section Reinforcement Details

Figure 4-70. Reinforcement Details of End Diaphragm

81

Figure 4-71. Transverse End Diaphragm Reinforcement Details

Figure 4-72. Intermediate Diaphragm Reinforcement Details

Figure 4-73. Diaphragm Layout (RC)

82

Figure 4-74. Cross Section at Pier Side

Figure 4-75. Cross Section at Abutment Side

83

Figure 4-76. Transverse Elevation of Abutment

Figure 4-77. Reinforcement Details of Abutment

84

Figure 4-78. Details of Section B-B

Figure 4-79. Details of “X”

Figure 4-80. Details of Pier Cap

Figure 4-81. Reinforcement Details of Pier Footing

85

Figure 4-82. Reinforcement Details of Pier

Figure 4-83. Reinforcement Details of Pile Cap (Abutment)

Figure 4-84. Reinforcement Details of Pile Cap (Pier)

Figure 4-85. Reinforcement Details of Pile (Abutment)

Figure 4-86. Reinforcement Details of Pile (Pier)

86

Figure 4-87. Details of Pile Cap and Pile Arrangement (Abutment)

Figure 4-88. Details of Pile Cap and Pile Arrangement (Pier)

Figure 4-89. Front Elevation at Pier

87

Figure 4-90. RC Deck Bridge Elevation 4.7 Validation of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standards

To verify the initial ranking assumed by the designer as presented in the previous chapter, a more conclusive estimation based from the design of each trade-off was performed. The new estimates will be compared to

the designer’s raw ranking to obtain the final ranking which will set as a basis of the final design for this project. The formula used is the same as that of presented in the initial estimate in Chapter 3.

% difference =

Higher value - Lower value x 10 Higher value

Subordinate Rank = Governing rank - %difference

Equation 4-1 Equation 4-2

 Among the quantitative constraints, economic and safety aspects were given ten (10) since both are the top priorities of the designers. A balance between cost and serviceability is something that must be accounted for. The design, may it be too costly or not, must be able to withstand any worst scenario that may occur in the location which can be controlled through following all specified codes and standards. Minimizing the cost as much as possible is important but should be in an effective manner. On the other hand, constructability was rated eight (8), since the duration of the project is more likely to depend in financial aspect. More allocated budget for equipment and labor force would result, ideally, to a faster construction of the project whereas poor apportionment would possibly lead to substandard and lower production. For sustainability constraint, it was ranked nine (9) where the project must be within acceptable span of time in which maintenance cost will be the factor to consider. The economic cost comprises the materials, labor, equipment, installation, fabrication and one-time maintenance expenses. For the duration, the data is computed based on the required works for the project and the average capability range of skilled workers available to complete a specific scope of work. And for uniformity, same number of workers is assigned for each trade-off to generate a more justifiable analysis. In terms of deflection, it is obtained through the use of STAAD BEAVA application which is applied only for the effect of live load and moving loads. The maintenance cost is only a one-time estimate which only involves the primary materials needed to prevent the deterioration of the structure since the project area has a portion of water body in one of its sides.

88

Table 4-51. Final Estimate Decision Criteria

1

Economic (Overall Cost)

2

Constructability (Duration)

3

Serviceability (Deflection)

4

Sustainability (Maintenance Cost)

Trade-offs

PSC I-Girder

Steel Plate Girder

RC Deck Girder

Php 23,853,765.80

Php 23,453,889.48

Php 22,049,853.20

144 days

138 days

179 days

17.043 mm

23.358 mm

34.274 mm

Php 330,660.00

Php 312,255.18

Php 256,650.00

For the final estimate the designers, conducts more specific information than the initial estimate and it is also based on the final designs of each tradeoffs. The economic cost of the project is based on the summary of labor and materials cost of DPWH and the operators and equipment cost of the ACEL equipment guidebook. In construction duration, the designers created construction activities and assigned number of labors to be deploy in the project. In accordance with it the designers able to set the expected construction duration of the project. For the deflection of the project, it is based on the strength of material and its moment of inertia based on the cross section of each tradeoff. Using the STAAD software the designers able to generate the deflection of each tradeoffs. In the sustainability of the project, the designers allotted needed materials for maintaining each bridge which cost is based on the DPWH standard material and labor cost and other cost from different suppliers. Cleaning as maintenance of the bridge is done in order to avoid expected uncertainties that may develop to the structure that can cause damage on the structure. a. Computation of ranking for Economic Constraint Governing Rank: RC Deck Girder = 10.0

*PSC I-Girder

% difference =

23,853,765.80 - 22,049,853.20 x 10 = 0.7562380779 23,853,765.80

Subordinate Rank = 10 - 0.7562380779 = 9.243761922 ≈  9.24 *Steel Plate Girder

% difference =

23,453,889.48 - 22,049,853.20 x 10 = 0.598636862 23,453,889.48

Subordinate Rank = 10 - 0.598636862 = 9.401363138 ≈ 9.40

89

Figure 4-91. Cost Difference b. Computation of ranking for Constructability Constraint Governing Rank: Steel Plate Girder = 10.0

* PSC I-Girder

% difference =

144 - 138 x 10 = 0.4166666667 144

Subordinate Rank = 10 - 0.4166666667 = 9.583333333 ≈  9.58 * RC Deck Girder

% difference =

179 - 138 x 10 = 2.290502793 179

Subordinate Rank = 10 - 2.290502793 = 7.709497207 ≈  7.71

Figure 4-92. Duration Difference c. Computation of ranking for Serviceability Constraint Governing Rank: PSC I-Girder = 10.0

* Steel Plate Girder

% difference =

22.358 - 17.043 x 10 = 2.377225154 22.358

Subordinate Rank = 10 - 2.377225154 = 7.622774846 ≈  7.62 90

*RC Deck Girder

% difference =

34.274 - 17.043 x 10 = 5.027426037 34.274

Subordinate Rank = 10 - 5.027426037 = 4.972573963 ≈  4.97

Figure 4-93. Deflection Difference

d. Computation of ranking for Sustainability Constraint Governing Rank: RC Deck Girder = 10.0 *PSC I-Girder

% difference =

330,600 - 256,650 x 10 = 2.239564428 330,600

Subordinate Rank = 10 - 2.239564428 = 7.760435572 ≈ 7.76 * Steel Plate Girder

% difference =

312,255.18 - 256,650 x 10 = 1.780760851 312,255.18

Subordinate Rank = 10 - 1.780760851 = 8.219239149 ≈ 8.22

Figure 4-94. Maintenance Cost Difference

Table 4-52 shows the designer’s final ranking based on multiple constraints and importance factor of each criteria. This assessment used an engineering design approach introduced by Otto and Antonsson (1991) as previously discussed in Chapter 3. 91

Decision Criteria

Table 4-52. Final Designer’s Raw Ranking Criterion's Ability to satisfy the criterion Importance on a scale of 0 to 10 (on a scale of 0 to 10) PSC I-Girder Steel Plate Girder RC Deck Girder

1

Economic (Overall Cost)

10

9.24

9.40

10.0

2

Constructability (Duration)

8

9.58

10.0

7.71

3

Serviceability (Deflection)

10

10.0

7.46

4.81

9

7.76

8.22

10.0

338.88

322.58

299.78

4

Sustainability (Maintenance Cost) Overall Rank

4.8 Trade-off Assessment 4.8.1 Economic Constraint

Reinforced Concrete Girder Bridge has the advantage since the material used is composed of an average type of concrete mix which comes with a lower price compare to what is used for the Prestressed Concrete I-Girder design. As for the Steel Plate Girder Bridge, the cost of the beam itself is already expensive. Both steel and prestressed concrete needs to have a camber to reduce its deflection which resulted to a difference in cost of more than a million to the third trade-off. Also, prestressed concrete girder involves prestressing which made it the most costly among the three. 4.8.2 Constructability Constraint

Two of the trade-offs used for this project involves concrete and one factor needed for its maintenance is to apply sealant for protection. For this reason, finishing these two trade-offs would take longer to accomplish compare to the overall duration needed for the steel plate girder. Moreover, the reinforced concrete bridge is composed of three spans and has one additional pier. To install the extra part for RC Bridge means additional time. 4.8.3 Serviceability Constraint

The prestressing involved in prestressed concrete bridge really helped to reduce its final deflection. Through it is noted that the camber for a girder is applicable only to oppose the effect of dead load at initial stage, the camber for prestressed concrete exceeds what is only needed which minimizes in return some of the effect of live loads. Steel also has a camber application for dead load alone. However, for reinforced concrete, no camber is applied to the girder so it carries all the effects of different design loads from initial s tage to service period. 4.8.4 Sustainability Constraint

The maintenance cost for all the trade-offs are quite close to each other since the limit for this expense is to only account for a one-time maintenance activity. Steel is prone to rusting that is why it needs more coating 92

to protect its layer. And prestressed section, on the other hand has more edges so it requires more sealant than reinforced concrete. 4.9 Design Optimization

The design of each trade-off shown in this chapter is the most efficient design that is suggested and can be

provided based on designer’s perspective. In considering the client’s choice which is governed by the budget allocated, an analysis is done to see the effect of increase in cost to other components which are the construction hours, deflection and life span. The percentage increase is 5, 10, 15 and 20 of the total estimated cost based on the final design of each trade-off. This analysis will help the client to choose from a variety of conditions to know what would be the significant choice that is advantageous to his intent for the project. The final design will now be based on the selection of the client. Details are presented in Appendix I. 4.9.1 Economy vs Constructability

The percent increase in cost for each trade-off is divided into different components to lessen the number of days required to finish the construction of each type. These adjustments are stated as follows: a.5 % - increase in number of skilled workers and laborers b.10 % - increase in number of machine operators c. 15 % - increase in number of engineers, skilled workers and laborers d.20 % - increase in number of machine operators, skilled workers and laborers The changes in these components are also subjected to additional expenses for equipment and labor which will justify the increase in overall cost. The following tables and figures present the data assessment of the effect of increase in overall cost to the duration of the project for each trade-off. Table 4-53. Duration Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (PSC) Prestressed Concrete I-Girder Bridge Percent Increase

Overall Cost (Php)

Days

Percent (%)

0 5 10 15 20

23853765.8 25046454.09 26239142.38 27431830.67 28624518.96

144 138 128 120 108

0.00 4.96 9.97 14.97 19.98

93

160 140     )     S120     Y     A 100     D     (     N 80     O     I     T     A 60     R     U     D 40

20 0 0

5

10

15

20

ECONOMIC COST % INCREASE

Figure 4-95. Overall Cost vs Duration (PSC)

The variation of the estimated duration for Prestressed Concrete I-Girder Bridge is about 36-day difference between actual duration and that of modified with an increase of 20% of overall cost. Table 4-54. Duration Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (Steel) Steel Plate Girder Bridge Percent Increase

Overall Cost (Php)

Days

Percent (%)

0 5 10 15 20

23453889.48 24624737.02 25794925.9 26968108.16 28136363.92

138 130 122 111 100

0.00 4.99 9.98 14.98 19.96

160 140     )     S120     Y     A     D100     (     N     O     I     T     A     R     U     D

80 60 40 20 0 0

5

10

15

20

ECONOMIC COST % INCREASE

Figure 4-96. Overall Cost vs Duration (Steel)

94

The variation of the estimated duration for Steel Plate Girder Bridge is about 38-day difference between actual duration and that of modified with an increase of 20% of overall cost. Table 4-55. Duration Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (RCDG) Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder Bridge Percent Increase

Overall Cost (Php)

Days

Percent (%)

0 5 10 15 20

22049853.2 23146583.27 24247713.67 25351850.06 26455420.46

179 172 160 151 144

0.00 4.97 9.97 14.98 19.98

200 180     ) 160     S     Y140     A     D     ( 120     N 100     O     I     T 80     A     R     U 60     D 40 20 0 0

5

10

15

20

ECONOMIC COST % INCREASE

Figure 4-97. Overall Cost vs Duration (RCDG)

The variation of the estimated duration for Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder Bridge is about 35-day difference between actual duration and that of modified with an increase of 20% of overall cost.

95

200 180     ) 160     S     Y140     A     D     ( 120     N 100     O     I     T 80     A     R     U 60     D 40 20 0

PSC Steel RCDG

0

5 10 15 ECONOMIC COST % INCREASE

20

Figure 4-98. Overall Cost vs Duration  – Comparison

Even with the help of additional component such as skilled workers to decrease the duration of each type, trade-off 2 still has the advantage and remains to have the shortest required days to finish its construction. On the other hand, trade-off 3 is visible to have the longest duration among the three. 4.9.2 Economy vs Serviceability

The deflection of the girder is dependent on the section itself and the strength of the material used. It is somehow difficult to maintain the final design while decreasing the deflection of the girder. For this reason, any future increase in cost would not have a significant impact to the deflection of the girder considering that there will be no alteration in the design. Table 4-56. Deflection Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (PSC) Prestressed Concrete I-Girder Bridge Percent Increase

Overall Cost (Php)

Deflection (mm)

Percent (%)

0 5 10 15 20

23985414.1 25137998.13 26359869.34 27541109.64 28704242.52

17.043 17.043 17.043 17.043 17.043

0.00 4.81 9.90 14.82 19.67

96

18 16 14     N12     O     I     T10     C     E     L 8     F     E     D 6 4 2 0 0

5

10

15

20

ECONOMIC COST % INCREASE

Figure 4-99. Overall Cost vs Deflection (PSC)

The variation of the deflection for Prestressed Post-Tensioned Concrete I-Girder Bridge is constant even up to 20% increase in cost. Table 4-57. Deflection Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (Steel) Steel Plate Girder Bridge Percent Increase

Overall Cost (Php)

Deflection (mm)

Percent (%)

0 5 10 15 20

23453889.48 24613432.42 25763201.25 26899295.52 28093221.42

22.358 22.358 22.358 22.358 22.358

0.00 4.94 9.85 14.69 19.78

25 20     N     O     I 15     T     C     E     L     F10     E     D

5 0 0

5

10

15

20

ECONOMIC COST % INCREASE

Figure 4-100. Overall Cost vs Deflection (Steel)

97

The variation of the deflection for Steel Plate Girder Bridge is constant. Table 4-58. Deflection Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (RCDG) Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder Bridge Percent Increase

Overall Cost (Php)

Deflection (mm)

Percent (%)

0 5 10 15 20

22049853.2 23136458.9 24255801.28 25351436.47 26451389.6

34.274 34.274 34.274 34.274 34.274

0.00 4.93 10.00 14.97 19.96

40 35 30

    N     O     I 25     T     C     E20     L     F     E15     D

10 5 0 0

5

10

15

20

ECONOMIC COST % INCREASE

Figure 4-101. Overall Cost vs Deflection (RCDG)

The variation of the deflection for Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder Bridge is constant 40 35 30

    N     O     I     I 25     T     C20     E     L     F15     E     D

PSC Steel

10

RCDG

5 0 0

5

10

15

20

ECONOMIC COST % INCREASE

98

Figure 4-102. Overall Cost vs Deflection  – Comparison Based on the graph, trade-off 3 has the most flexible changes in deflection with respect to increasing cost to the point that at 20%, its deflection is comparably close to that of steel but with a lower overall cost of about 26.5 million – a difference of 1.5 million to steel. On the other hand, trade-off 1 is still the most efficient design to choose if serviceability is considered to be the governing factor for the final selection. 4.9.3 Economy vs Sustainability

The increase in economic cost will fund the maintenance activities of the bridge. This amount would determine the span of time that the bridge can undergo maintenance. With this additional aspect, the lifespan of the bridge is expected to be longer than its projected life. Table 4-59. Maintenance Cost Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (PSC) Prestressed Concrete I-Girder Bridge Percent Increase

Overall Cost (Php)

Maintenance Cost (Php)

Percent (%)

0 5 10 15 20

23985414.10 25184684.80 26383955.51 27583226.21 28782496.92

330600.00 1199270.705 2398541.41 3597812.115 4797082.82

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00

6000000     )    p     h 5000000     P     (     T     S4000000     O     C     E     C3000000     N     A     N2000000     E     T     N     I     A1000000     M

0 0

5

10

15

20

ECONOMIC COST % INCREASE

Figure 4-103. Overall Cost vs Maintenance Cost (PSC)

The variation for Prestressed Concrete I-Girder Bridge is about 4.5 million difference between actual and that of modified with an increase of 20% of overall cost which is sufficient for 14 years of maintenance.

99

Table 4-60. Maintenance Cost Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (Steel) Steel Plate Girder Bridge Percent Increase

Overall Cost (Php)

Maintenance Cost (Php)

Percent (%)

0 5 10 15 20

23453889.48 24626583.95 25799278.43 26971972.9 28144667.37

312255.18 1172694.474 2345388.948 3518083.422 4690777.896

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00

5000000

    )    p 4500000     h     P     ( 4000000     T     S3500000     O     C3000000     E     C2500000     N     A2000000     N     E1500000     T     N     I 1000000     A     M 500000

0 0

5

10

15

20

ECONOMIC COST % INCREASE

Figure 4-104. Overall Cost vs Maintenance Cost (Steel)

The variation of the maintenance cost for Steel Plate Girder Bridge is about 4.4 million difference between actual maintenance cost and that of modified with an increase of 20% of overall cost which is already sufficient for 15 years of maintenance. Table 4-61. Maintenance Cost Difference per % Increase in Overall Cost (RCDG) Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder Bridge Percent Increase

Overall Cost (Php)

Maintenance Cost (Php)

Percent (%)

0 5 10 15 20

22049853.2 23152345.86 24254838.52 25357331.18 26459823.84

256650 1102492.66 2204985.32 3307477.98 4409970.639

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00

100

5000000     )    p 4500000     h     P     ( 4000000     T     S3500000     O     C3000000     E     C2500000     N     A2000000     N     E1500000     T     N     I 1000000     A     M 500000

0 0

5

10

15

20

ECONOMIC COST % INCREASE

Figure 4-105. Overall Cost vs Maintenance Cost (RCDG)

The variation of the maintenance cost for Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder Bridge is about 4.2 million difference between actual maintenance cost and that of modified with an increase of 20% of overall cost which is already sufficient for 17 years of maintenance. 6000000

    )    p     h 5000000     P     (     T     S4000000     O     C     E     C3000000     N     A     N2000000     E     T     N     I     A1000000     M

PSC Steel RCDG

0 0

5

10

15

20

ECONOMIC COST % INCREASE

Figure 4-106. Overall Cost vs Maintenance Cost  – Comparison

The maintenance cost of each trade-off is undeniably close to each other as what is seen on the graph. However, trade-off 3 still has the lower expenses for maintenance which is already sufficient for a longer span of time.

101

CHAPTER V

Final Design In the earlier chapters, it was stated that the concern of the client is more on the economic aspect in which the design must be within the specified limit of the budget. Through series of comparative analysis, the increase in overall cost is proven to produce only a minimal effect on other constraints. For this reason, the final design of the project will be based on the result of ran king as presented in Chapter 4.8 where Prestressed Post-Tensioned Concrete I-Girder Bridge is found to be the most efficient and applicable to the demand of the client. The architectural and structural plans are presented on the following figures:

102

APPENDIX A: COMPARATIVE SUMMARY Item No.

Description

1 2

No. of Span Length per Span

3

Piles

4

 Abutment Pier Volume of Concrete (m³) Superstructure Concrete Deck Wearing Surface Sidewalk Barrier Girder Intermediate Diaphragm End Diaphragm  Abutment Side  Abutment Footing Pile Cap Piles Pier Side Pier Cap Pier Footing

Trade-off 1 PSC

Trade-off 2 Steel

Trade-off3 RC

2

2

3

28.5 m

28.5 m

19.0 m

Quantity

Dia (mm)

Length (m)

Quantity

Dia (mm)

Length (m)

Quantity

Dia (mm)

Length (m)

6

0.9

10

6

0.9

9

6

0.8

10

4

0.9

10

4

0.9

9

4

0.8

10

109.44

109.44

109.44

54.72

54.72

54.72

23.94

23.94

23.94

69.83

69.83

186.2

69.83 -

159.76

10.904

-

8.29

16.356

-

16.58

55.899

52.992

54.144

65.664

63.936

62.208

64.8

58.32

40.96

76.34

61.072

60.319

4.8

3.888

3.072

8.14

6.842

9.161

31.5

28.8

46.8

111

Pile Cap Piles 5

Steel Bars Concrete Deck Longitudinal Transverse Wearing Surface Sidewalk Girder Prestressing Strands Main Reinforcing Bars Compression Bars Temperature Bars Stirrups Diaphragm Intermediate End  Abutment Side  Abutment Footing Pile Cap Piles Pier Side Pier Cap Pier Footing

40.5

36.45

50.89

51.2

45.804

wt. (kg)

dia (mm)

Length (m)

wt. (kg)

7773.3

16

425

10533.6

25

3323.1

80.42

dia (mm)

Length (m)

wt. (kg)

dia (mm)

Length (m)

7773.3

16

425

7773.3

16

425

2736

10533.6

25

2736

10533.6

25

2736

12

3734

3323.1

12

3734

3323.1

12

3734

3805.3

12

4276

3805.3

12

4276

3805.3

12

4276

6180.7

0.5 in.

7987

-

-

-

-

-

-

1799.3

16

1140

-

-

-

28788.9

32

4560

1799.3 -

16 -

1140 -

-

-

-

3598.6

32

570

-

-

-

2403.8

6

10830

1023.4

8

2594

-

-

-

3573

12

4024

586.4

16

371.6

-

-

-

488.7

16

309.6

681.8

16

432

-

-

-

568.2

156

360

23925

28

3984

21979

28

3748

27152

28

4256

1058

28

741

1023

28

721

976

28

678

2755

25

895

2543

25

752

2388

25

643

28226.88

20

1176.12

23522.4

20

980.1

316335.8

20

1568.16

5088.384

32

806.4

4912.634

32

806.4

3856.34

32

806.4

1181.232

32

187.2

817

32

129.6

1211.52

32

192

528.58

20

321

497.65

20

321

418.07

20

321

112

Pile Cap Piles 6

1819.125

25

472.5

1745.564

25

472.5

1598.55

25

421.7

16598

20

1512

15965

20

1421.6

13954

20

1523

Steel Girder

-

-

-

-

-

-

28.5 / girder -

-

-

W 36 x 798 -

-

Intermediate Cross Frame End Cross Frame Transverse Stiffener Bearing Stiffener

1188 kg/m 993.76

-

-

-

-

-

-

993.76

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3957.07

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1675.16

1 5/8 “ 1 5/8 “

-

-

-

-

For Trade-off 2

Concrete Mix Design: *Trade-off 1 (PSC) 27.6 MPa Cement : Fine Aggregate : Coarse Aggregate  Aggregate / Cement ratio W/C ratio 41.4 MPa Cement : Fine Aggregate : Coarse Aggregate  Aggregate / Cement ratio W/C Ratio

1

1.74 4.499626105 0.469

2.76

1

0.91 3.65 0.43

2.74

*Trade-off 3 (RC) 27.6 MPa Cement : Fine Aggregate : Coarse Aggregate  Aggregate / Cement ratio W/C ratio

1

1.74 4.499626105 0.469

2.76

113

*Piles 27.6 MPa Cement : Fine Aggregate : Coarse Aggregate  Aggregate / Cement ratio W/C ratio

1

1.74 4.499626105 0.469

2.76

114

APPENDIX B: CONCRETE DECK DESIGN

LRFD Reinforced Concrete Deck Design The designers use the strip or approximate elastic method for the concrete deck. It is designed for flexural resistance and control cracking. Shear design is not required for deck slabs according to AASHTO C4.6.2.1.6.  Also fatigue and fracture design is also not required according to AASHTO 9.5.3. It is a cast-in-place concrete deck design. The design procedure of the reinforced concrete deck are as follows: 1.  Assume the deck design parameters which includes a) Design stresses b) Design thickness c) Design reinforcements For Positive Moment (Transverse Bottom Reinforcement) and Negative Moment (Transverse Top Reinforcement) Bridge Parameters Girder Length Girder spacing

28.5 2

m m

Design Stresses fy f'c

415 25

MPa MPa

For Positive Moment (Transverse Bottom Reinforcement) Design Deck and Reinforcement t 200 Ø RSB 25 Spacing of RSB 200 Clear Cover 30

mm mm mm mm

For Negative Moment (Transverse Top Reinforcement) Design Deck and Reinforcement t 200 Ø RSB 25 Spacing of RSB 200 Clear Cover 25

mm mm mm mm

2. Determination of Maximum Factored Load

MSTRENGTH I =γp DC+γp DW+1.75(LL+IM) Where γp is equal to 1.25 for DC and 1.5 for DW

MSERVICE I =1.0(DC+DW+LL+IM) The load abbreviations are defined as follows: 115

DC DW IM LL

= dead load of structural components (DC1) and non-structural attachments (DC2). = dead load of future wearing surface = dynamic load allowance (impact) = vehicular live load

For Positive Moment (Transverse Bottom Reinforcement) and Negative Moment (Transverse Top Reinforcement) Unfactored Loads and Moments MDC1 2.5 MDC2 1.169175 MDW 0.8925 MLL+IM 8.68

kN-m kN-m kN-m kN-m

3. Determination of Maximum Moment Load  All factored loads shall then be multiplied by the load modifier ηi, defined as:

ηi = ηDηRηI ≥ 0.95 Where:

ηD ηR ηI

= ductility factor, taken as 1.00 for conventional designs = redundancy factor, taken as 1.00 for conventional levels of redundancy = importance factor, taken as 1.00 for typical bridges

For most bridges, η i = (1.00)(1.00)(1.00) = 1.00 For Positive Moment (Transverse Bottom Reinforcement) and Negative Moment (Transverse Top Reinforcement) Factored Moments Mstrength I 21.1152188 Mservice I 13.241675

kN-m kN-m

4. Check Control Cracking The spacing of reinforcement, s (in.), in the layer closest to the tension face shall satisfy the following:

S≤

700γe  - 2dc ßsf s

Where: dc = thickness of concrete cover from extreme tension fiber to center of the flexural reinforcement located closest thereto (in.).

dc 0.7(h-dc)

ßs

= 1+

fs

= stress in mild steel tension reinforcement at service load condition 116

γe

= 0.75 for Class 2 Exposure. C5.7.3.4 defines Class 2 Exposure as decks and any substructure units exposed to water

Positive Moment (Transverse Bottom Reinforcement)

фMn фMn>Mstrength I

27.997 kN-m ADEQUATE

Check Control Cracking 344.380514 (700γe/ßsfs - 2dc)

s < (700γe/ßsfs - 2dc)

mm

ADEQUATE

Negative Moment (Transverse Top Reinforcement)

фMn фMn>Mstrength I

28.914 kN-m ADEQUATE

Check Control Cracking s 200 (700γe/ßsfs - 2dc) 368.421533

s < (700γe/ßsfs - 2dc)

mm mm

ADEQUATE

5. Check Limits of Reinforcement

εt =

0.003(dt-c) c

Where: dt = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of bottom row of reinforcement (in.)  As there is typically only one row of reinforcement in slab bridges, dt = ds. Positive Moment (Transverse Bottom Reinforcement) Negative Moment (Transverse Top Reinforcement) 6. Check Flexural Resistance The factored resistance, Mr (k-in.), shall be taken as:

[  ]

Mr = ΦMn =Φ As f s  ds-

a 2

 ≥ Mstrength I

Where:

φ a

= Assumed to be 0.9, then checked in Limits of Reinforcement check

= depth of equivalent stress block (in.), taken as a = cβ1

117

As f s  (in.) 0.85ß1f'cb

c

=

 As b ds f s

= area of tension reinforcement in strip (in.²) = width of design strip (in.) = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tensile reinforcement (in.) = stress in the mild steel tension reinforcement as specified at nominal flexural resistance (ksi). If c / ds < 0.6, then fy may use in lieu of exact computation of fs. = specified compressive strength of concrete (ksi) 'cf = stress block factor

f’c β1

Positive Moment (Transverse Bottom Reinforcement) Check Maximum Reinforcement ADEQUATE εt > 0.005 Check Minimum Reinforcement Mcr 25.208 kN-m Mr 27.997 kN-m Mcr
Negative Moment (Transverse Top Reinforcement) Check Maximum Reinforcement ADEQUATE εt > 0.005 Check Minimum Reinforcement Mcr 25.208 kN-m Mr 28.914 kN-m Mcr
Positive moment (bottom of slab transverse) reinforcement and negative moment (top of slab transverse) reinforcement are designed using approximate elastic method. Haunch is designed to have a depth of 50mm. Longitudinal reinforcement is not designed. The top and bottom longitudinal reinforcement need only satisfy shrinkage and temperature requirements according to AASHTO 5.10.8, where 16mmØ at 300mm center to center are adequate. In accordance with it designers use top and bottom longitudinal reinforcement of 16mmØ at 250mm O.C. and 16mmØ at 200mm O.C respectively  According to AASHTO LRFD 5.11.1.2 additional longitudinal reinforcement over supports shall be extended to the end of slab negative moment reinforcement and positive moment reinforcement of 300mm to satisfy the requirement.

Summary of Concrete Deck Reinforcement

118

Top Reinforced Steel Bars Use 25mm Ø @ 200mm center to center spacing for transverse moment Use 16mm Ø @ 250mm center to center spacing for longitudinal moment Bottom Reinforced Steel Bars Use 25mm Ø @ 200mm center to center spacing for transverse moment Use 16mm Ø @ 200mm center to center spacing for longitudinal moment

119

Detailed Computation Positive Moment (Transverse Bottom Reinforcement) Bridge Parameters Girder Length Girder spacing

28.5 2

m m

Design Stresses fy f'c

415 25

MPa MPa

Design Deck and Reinforcement t 200 Ø RSB 25  As 490.873852 Spacing of RSB 200 Clear Cover 30 ds 157.5 dc 42.5 ß1 0.85

mm mm mm² mm mm mm mm

Determination of Maximum Factored Load Unfactored Loads and Moments WDC1 5 WDC2 2.33835 WDW 1.785 MDC1 2.5 MDC2 1.169175 MDC3 0.8925 MLL+IM 8.68

kN/m kN/m kN/m kN-m kN-m kN-m kN-m

Factored Moments n1 b Mstrength I Mservice I

mm kN-m kN-m

1 1000 21.1152188 13.241675

Design Flexural Resistance

ф   Assume fs c c/ds fs

0.9 415 MPa 11.278 mm 0.072 VALID 120

фMn фMn>Mstrength I

27.997 kN-m ADEQUATE

Check Control Cracking ßs 1.181 0.750 γe  0.003 ρ  n 8.511 k 0.165  j 0.945 fs 181.243 s 200 (700γe/ßsfs - 2dc) 344.380514

s < (700γe/ßsfs - 2dc)

MPa mm mm

ADEQUATE

Check Limits of Reinforcement Check Maximum Reinforcement 0.017 εt  ADEQUATE εt > 0.005 Check Minimum Reinforcement S 6666666.67 mm fr 3.151 MPa 0.750 γ3  1.600 γ1  Mcr 25.208 kN-m Mr 27.997 kN-m Mcr
28.5 2

m m

Design Stresses fy f'c

415 25

MPa MPa

Design Deck and Reinforcement t 200 Ø RSB 25

mm mm 121

 As Spacing of RSB Clear Cover ds dc ß1

490.873852 200 25 162.5 37.5 0.85

mm² mm mm mm mm

Determination of Maximum Factored Load Unfactored Loads and Moments WDC1 5 WDC2 2.33835 WDW 1.785 MDC1 2.5 MDC2 1.169175 MDC3 0.8925 MLL+IM 8.68 Factored Moments n1 1 b 1000 Mstrength I 21.1152188 Mservice I 13.241675

kN/m kN/m kN/m kN-m kN-m kN-m kN-m

mm kN-m kN-m

Design for Ultimate Capacity

ф   Assume fs c c/ds fs

фMn фMn>Mstrength I

0.9 415 MPa 11.278 mm 0.069 VALID 28.914 kN-m ADEQUATE

Check Control Cracking ßs 1.181 0.750 γe  0.003 ρ  n 8.511 k 0.162  j 0.946 fs 175.504 MPa s 200 mm 368.421533 mm (700γe/ßsfs - 2dc) s < (700γe/ßsfs - 2dc) ADEQUATE

Check Limits of Reinforcement

122

Check Maximum Reinforcement 0.018 εt  ADEQUATE εt > 0.005 Check Minimum Reinforcement S 6666666.67 mm fr 3.151 MPa 0.750 γ3  1.600 γ1  Mcr 25.208 kN-m Mr 28.914 kN-m Mcr
123

APPENDIX C: DESIGN OF PRESTRESSED POST-TENSIONED CONCRETE I-GIRDER BRIDGE Transformed Section Properties

The transformed section moment of inertia, location of centroid, and section modulus are shown in the following table: Properties of Transformed Girder Section

Factored Moments and Shears

The load combination applicable to the limit state listed below is based from AASHTO 3.4 and Table 3.4.11. The loads being considered in the equation are the unfactored value and (LL + IM) denotes to a one -lane loaded effect only. Strength I Fatigue I

: :

1.25(DC) + 1.5(DW) + 1.75(LL + IM) MS 18 1.75(LL + IM) MS 18

Factored Maximum Shear and Moment for Strength I Strength I DC DW LL+ML Total

Moment 40222944.33 6723836.328 57878923.11 104825703.8

Shear 143049.0418 23905.99574 142453.5578 309408.5954

Factored Maximum Shear and Moment for Fatigue I Fatigue I LL+ML

Moment 57878923.11

Shear 142453.5578

Recommended Section Allowable Stresses fti fci fpy fpi fpe fc ft Unfactored Moment

6*√f’ci

0.6*f’ci  0.85*fpu 0.7*fpu 0.9*fpi 0.45*f’c  6*√f’c

415.69 -2880 229500 188190 169371 -2700 464.76

psi psi psi psi psi psi psi 124

MD 4482557.552 MSD 32178355.46 ML 33073670.35 Recommended Section Modulus St 9617.067685 Sb 11536.2417

inlb inlb inlb in3 in 3

Design of Prestressing Bars

̅

Location of Prestressing Strands

f ci ec

ct f ti - (f ti-f ci )  h St (f ti -f ci ) Pi

̅ ̅

-922.51

psi

5.53

in

Number of Prestressing Strands Pi 1140740.074 f ci Ac  Ap 6.992 28 # of tendons Stresses Adequacy f ti 415.6921938 -2880 f bi -1905.758959 f t 441.5623327 f b f fb -1171.8511 fti>fti OK OK fci>fbi OK fc>ft OK ft>fb OK ffb>0.4f’c

lb In2

psi psi psi psi psi

Prestress Losses and Jacking Stress Prestress Losses fpCR fpSH fR Total Jacking Stress Jacking stress

1395.911759 2786.313143 12639.76654 33619.61949

Psi Psi Psi Psi

221809.6195

psi

Design of Reinforcing Bars Results of Moment Capacity Depth of compression

5.63

in 125

lbin  Actual Factored Moment 88675275.23 lbin Moment Capacity 104323853.2 Details of Main Reinforcing Bars 32mm diameter, Fy=276 MPa Type of bar 4 bars Top Bars 4 bars Bottom Bars Corners of girder Location Design of Shear Reinforcement Results of Shear Capacity 1 Vudp/Mu Vc 185791.236 lb  Av 0.016477139 in 2 Details of Shear Reinforcing Bars #3 U Stirrups, 0.11 in 2 Type of bar in Spacing 3.6 Design of Diaphragms Intermediate - Flexure Reinforcement 34.38 kN-m  Actual Factored Moment Moment Capacity 45.63 kN-m Top bar reinforcement 3-16mm bars Bottom bar reinforcement 7-16mm bars Mu<0.9Mn OK Shear Reinforcement 12.63 kN Vu 34.44 kN Vc OK, minimum reinforcement Vu<0.9Vc Type of Bar 12mm bars Spacing 500 mm End Diaphragm Mu 17.19 kN-m Moment Capacity 47.15 kN-m Top bar reinforcement 12-16mm Bars Bottom bar reinforcement 10-16mm Bars Stirrups 200mm Spacing Thickness 500mm Depth 1600mm Bottom End Diaphragm pmin 0.00509 pmax 0.04972 Top Reinforcing bars 12-16mm Bars

126

Design of Pier Cap DESIGN MOMENTS  At Mid Span 1,814.26 kN-m Cantilever Moments 3,663.07 kN-m DESIGN FOR BENDING OF MIDSPAN Design Moment 1,814.26 kN-m Span Length 6,500 mm Depth Of Slab/Deck 300 mm Depth Of Pier Cap 500 mm Width Of Pier Cap 1000 mm Cover Of Reinforcement 40.0 mm Size Of Reinforcement 32.0 mm Stirrup Diameter 10.0 mm Effective Depth 434 mm K 0.385 K' 0.156 Compression Steel Required TENSILE REINFORCEMENT  At The Top 10 no of 32 mm bar  At The Bottom 18 no of 32 mm bar Design For Shear Shear Force 5,890 kN Shear Stress 13.571 N/mm2 Concrete Shear Stress 0.913 N/mm2 Provide 12 Mm Stirrups At 175 Mm Center To Center DESIGN FOR BENDING (CANTILEVER) Design Moment 3,663.07 kN-m Span Length 1,550 mm Depth Of Slab/Deck 300 mm Depth Of Pier Cap 500 mm Width Of Pier Cap 1000 mm Cover Of Reinforcement 40.0 mm Size Of Reinforcement 32.0 mm Stirrup Diameter 10.0 mm Effective Depth 434 mm K 0.778 K' 0.156 Compression Steel Required TENSILE REINFORCEMENT  At The Top 24 no of 32 mm bar  At The Bottom 32 no of 32 mm bar DESIGN FOR SHEAR Shear Force 5,890 kN Shear Stress 13.571 N/mm2 Concrete Shear Stress 0.913 N/mm2 Provide 12 Mm Stirrups At 200 Mm Center To Center

127

Design of Pier

Design Load per Pier f'c fy Diameter of Main Bar Diameter of Spiral Reinforcement Diameter of Gross Section  Area of Gross Section  Area of Steel Limits of Reinforcement No. of Reinforcing Bars Concrete Cover Diameter of Spiral Reinforcement Core Diameter  Area of Core Diameter  Area of Spiral Reinforcement Ratio of Spiral Reinforcement Spacing Use the computed Spacing

23,835.56 28 415 32 12 1200 1130400 20509.91 0.01814394 26 50 12 1100 949850 113.04 0.005771184 70

kN Mpa Mpa mm mm mm sq.mm sq.mm mm mm mm mm sq.mm sq.mm mm

Design of Pier Footing

Design moment Base depth, h Width of base, bw Cover to reinforcement, d' Reinforcement size, f Stirrup diameter, t Effective depth, d  As  Apply (bottom)  Apply (top) Design moment Span length Base depth, h Width of base, bw Cover to reinforcement, d' Reinforcement size, f Stirrup diameter, t Effective depth, d  As

DESIGN FOR BENDING 19,585.37 1,750.00 3,000.00 50.0 20.0 12.0 1,678 TENSILE REINFORCEMENT 36,152 69 18 TRANSVERSE BENDING MOMENT 954.870 1,550 1,750.00 3,000.00 50.0 20.0 12.0 1,678 TENSILE REINFORCEMENT 1,424

kn-m mm mm mm mm mm mm sq.mm pcs pcs kN-m mm mm mm mm mm mm mm sq.mm 128

 Apply (bottom)  Apply (top)

Design shear force , v Design shear stress, v  Apply 12 mm @

20 pcs 20 pcs 135 mm centres in the transverse direction CHECKS FOR PUNCHING SHEAR 5,478 kN 1.088 n/sq.mm 300 mm on centers

Design of Abutment

Depth of Girder Seat [d1] Thickness of wall [t] Height of Retained Earth [H] Width of wall [B] Equivalent height of Earth for Live Load Surcharge [d2] Thickness of Approach Slab [d3] Length of base in back of wall [L1] Length of base in wall location [L2] Length of base at front of wall [L3] Total Length of Base [D] Thickness of wall at the Top [L4] Thickness of Base [d4]

Angle between wall and Horizontal base on Earth side [θ] Inclination of Earth fill side with the Horizontal [δ] = 0°  Angle of friction between Earth and Wall [z] Coefficient of friction between Earth and wall [µ]

Unit weight of Back fill Earth [γ_b] Unit weight of Concrete [γ_c] Angle of Internal friction of backfill [φ] Bearing Capacity [p] Concrete Grade [f_ck] Steel Grade [f_y] Live Load from vehicles [w6] Permanent Load from Super Structure [w5] Vehicle Braking Force [F] Bending Moment and Shear Force Factor [Fact] Reinf. Clear Cover [cover] V(kN) w1 w2 w3 w4 w5

42 30.75 28.5 111.52 119

H(long)

H (trans)

Distance (m) 1.55 2.05 1.9 3 1.55

1.7 0.7 5 9.6 1 0.3 1.6 1 1.2 3.8 0.3 0.9 90 0 24 0.5 17 25 48 230 28 415 63.63211 142.052 200 1.5 50 MV

m m m m m m m m m m m m

kN/m^3 kN/m^3 kN/m^2 Mpa Mpa kN/m kN/m kN mm MH(long) MH(trans)

65.1 63.0375 54.15 334.56 184.45 129

P1 29.8987 w8 44.64 P3 11.9595 Seismic(long) 29.8593 Seismic 23.8401 (trans) Sum in unloaded 376.41 71.7175 23.8401 condition Design Values 376.41 71.717 23.8401 Horizontal Break Force 10.41667 (P2) Vehicle Breaking 2.33918128 Force Vehicle load From 538.103 Superstructure  Additional Seismic Force 48.6398 (transverse) sum of loaded 916.852181 82.1342 72.479 condition design values 916.852181 82.1342 72.479

2.1 3 2.5 3.3

62.7873 133.92 29.8987 98.5356

9.6

228.865 835.2175

191.221

228.865

835.2175

191.221

228.865

3.3

34.375

1.55

3.62573099

1.55

834.05965

5.3

257.7909 1672.90288

225.596

486.655

1672.90288

225.596

486.655

STEP 3 : Check for Stability against Overturning CASE I : Span Unloaded Condition Overturning Moment about toe (MH1) 191.221815 Restoring Moment about toe (MV1) 835.2175 Factor of Safety against overturning 4.36779402 Location of Resultant for toe(Xo) 1.710888884 Maximum permissible Eccentricity 0.633333333 Eccentricity of Resultant (e2) 0.189111116 CASE II : Span Loaded Condition Overturning Moment about toe (MH2) 225.596815 Restoring Moment about toe (MV2) 1672.902881 Factor of Safety against overturning 7.41545434 Location of Resultant from toe (Xo) 1.578559876 Maximum permissible Eccentricity 0.633333333 Eccentricity of Resultant (e1) 0.321440124 STEP 4 : Check for Stresses at Base For Span Loaded Condition Total downward forces (V2) 916.8521813 Bearing Capacity 230 Stress at base 217.1492008

Safe

OK

kN-m kN-m Safe

OK

OK

130

Extreme Stresses at Base

363.7338476 118.819932 STEP 5 : Check for Sliding

Longitudinal Sliding Force Force resisting Sliding Factor of Safety against Sliding Transverse Sliding Force Force resisting Sliding Factor of Safety against Sliding

82.13421667 458.4260906 5.581426466 72.47989632 458.4260906 6.324872329

Design of Shear Key is not Needed STEP 6 : Reinforcement Steel Bars Design of Base Slab at Front Toe for Steel requirements. Thickness of Base Slab 0.9 Deff 850 Shear Force factor 1.5 ON BASE : Pr1 = Upward pressure at Toe 363.7338476 Pr2 = Upward Pressure at a distance of effective depth from 371.45 Front of wall Pr3 = Upward Pressure at The Front Face of wall 283.698 Pr4 = Upward Pressure at The Backfill Face of wall 189.132 Pr5 = Upward Pressure at Heel 118.819932 Dpr = downward Pressure by Self weight of Base 22.5 Design Shear Force 181.17326 Design Bending Moment 282.5241385  Area of Steel required at bottom Base slab at Toe  Ast 1793.98 Provided T20 bars @ 200 mm c/c at bottom of Base Slab at Toe Provided Provided Ast 1884.96 Percent of Tension Steel 0.15 0.261 Applied Shear Stress τ_v Distribution Steel 1020 Provide T10 @ 90 mm c/c Steel Area Provided 942.478 STEP 7 : Design of Base Slab at Backfill Heel Side for Steel Reinforcement Upward Pressure 118.819932 downward Pressure 133.7 Tension reinforcement steel will be required at the top Design Shear Force 189.69 Design Bending Moment 267.45 Effective Depth of Base Slab at Heel 264.66  Area of Steel required at top of base slab at Heel 799.91 Provide T20 bars @ 200 mm c/c at Top of bar slab at H eel Steel Area Provided 1884.96 Percentage 0.22

Safe

Safe

m mm

kN/m^2 kN/m^2 kN/m^2 kN/m^2 kN/m^2 kN/m^2 kN kN-m

sq.mm OK sq.mm

sq.mm kN/m^2 kN/m^2 kN kN-m mm sq.mm

131

 Applied Shear Stress

0.21

OK

864.94

sq.mm

Provide T10 @ 90 mm c/c  Ast Provided

STEP 8 : Design of Wall Reinforcement  At the bottom of the front face of the wall Design Bending Moment 1441.75 Design Shear 143.871 Factored Bending Moment 2162.625 Factored Shear Force 215.8065 Effective Thickness of wall at the base 274.66  Area of steel required 3166.66 Provide T32 bars @200 mm c/c at Top of bar slab at Heel  Ast Provided 4125.89 Distribution Steel for Temperature Reinforcements:  Area of Temperature Steel 6048 Use 10 mm bars 65 Provide 43 bars horizontally on the Front face @ 80 mm c/c Provide 21 bars horizontally on the Backfill side face @ 240 mm c/c

kN-m kN kN-m kN mm sq.mm sq.mm sq.mm pcs

Design of Piles

Using 800 mm bored piling rig Pile Diameter [D]  Applied Load on Pile Group [P] Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure [K] Factor of Safety [FS]

Allowable Flexural Stress in Concrete [σ_c] Steel Grade [fy]

Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st]   Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c] Total Piles [Np] Total Piles in front row [N]

γ_sub FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP  Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression

[σ_cbc] Allowable stress in steel [σ_st] Modular Ratio [m] = 10 Load Factor [F] = 1.5 Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter Reinforcement Clear Cover

0.8 922.4344546 1.5 3 11.67 415 200 2.5 4 2 0.92

m ton

N/sq.mm N/mm^2

116.7

kg/sq.cm

2000 10 1.5 20 25 16 10 75

kg/sq.cm

mm mm mm mm mm 132

Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars Pile Cap Length [LPC] Pile Cap Width [BPC] Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] Pier Length [LPr] Pier Width [BPr] Distance [L1] Distance [L2] Distance [L3]

150 4800 4800 1000 3000 1200 1800 1200 1200

DESIGN CALCULATIONS STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION Pile Length 14 Embedded Length 12 Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) 0.5024 (A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT OF SOIL : SKIN FRICTION : Borehole No. : BH:1 Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction : For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) 370.6865646 END BEARING Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing : Nc 95.7 Nq 81.3 Ny 100.4 Rus 434.7729408 Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile 805.4595054 Safe Load on Pile (Qus) 268.4865018

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

m m m^2

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton

ton ton ton

(B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL :

133

Layers No.

Thickness of the Layer (m)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

Depth Below Scour Level (m) 3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 5.05

Surface Area (m^2)

α (deg)

c (deg)

Ultimate Resistance(ton)

10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

0.15 0.1 0.15 0.15 0.35 0.3 0.1 0.05 0.05

0.813 0.2355 0.70725 0.35325 0.82425 0.7065 0.2355 0.11775 0.27875

Total Ultimate Resistance 4.27175 ton End Bearing 2.403984 ton Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu 6.675734 ton Safe Load on Pile (Quc) 2.225244667 ton Permissible safe Load on Pile 270.7117465 ton  Applied Load on Pile 922.4344546 ton Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group 57.6 ton Self-weight of each Pile 10.5504 ton Total Load on Pile = Pu 255.5590137 SAFE STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE Pile Diameter 800 mm Pile Reinforcement Cover 95 mm Cover / Pile Dia 0.11875 0.073016861 Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10 In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide p = 0.4%, here p = 0% Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4  Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 2009.6 sq.mm Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20  Area of one Steel reinforcement bar 314 sq.mm Total number of bars 7 Radius of Pile up to Rebars 325 mm Perimeter along Rebars 2041 mm Spacing of bars 226.7777778 mm So, Provide Spacing 200 mm Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm < 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm < 300 mm Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c STEP 3 : DESIGN OF PILE CAP : 134

Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528 0.368487528 Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824 0.877170824 Q 18.86026676 Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 511.1180273 511.1180273 Moment at the Face of Pier 306.6708164 306.6708164 Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 21.6 Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 19.44 ton-m Total Moment at the Face of Pier 287.2308164 287.2308164 ton-m Moment per Linear metre 59.83975341 59.83975341 ton-m/m Depth required 563.2756561 563.2756561 mm Overall Depth Provided 1000 Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay deff 91.25 cm Required Steel Reinforcement 37.38029706 37.38029706 sq.cm/m Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing. Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of the Pile Cap Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar 16 mm Diameter Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Steel Provided 13.39733333 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Steel Provided 13.39733333 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Shear Reinforcement : Critical section at deff 912.5 mm Reaction on Piles in Front row 511.1180273 511.1180273 ton Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v  4.971147937 Percent of bottom main reinforcement 0.409647091 0.409647091 Minimum Shear Reinforcement 27.5 sq.cm/m Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing Using 900 mm bored piling rig Pile Diameter [D]  Applied Load on Pile Group [P] [P] Factor of Safety [FS]

Allowable Flexural Stress in Concrete [σ_c] Steel Grade [fy]

Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st]   Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c] Total Piles [Np] Total Piles in front row [N]

0.9 922.4344546 922.4344546 3 11.67 415 200 2.5 4 2

m ton N/sq.mm N/mm^2

135

γ_sub

0.92

FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP  Allowable Stress Stress in concretein bending bending compression compression

[σ_cbc] Allowable stress in steel [σ_st]

116.7

kg/sq.cm

2000 10 1.5 20 25 16 10 75 150 5400 5400 1000 3000 1200 1950 1350 1350

kg/sq.cm

Modular Ratio [m] = 10 Load Factor [F] = 1.5 Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter Reinforcement Clear Cover Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars Pile Cap Length [LPC] Pile Cap Width [BPC] Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] Pier Length [LPr] Pier Width [BPr] Distance [L1] Distance [L2] Distance [L3] DESIGN CALCULATIONS STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION Pile Length 13 Embedded Length 11 Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) 0.63585 (A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT COMPONENT OF SOIL : SKIN FRICTION : Borehole No. : BH:1

Layer No.

Depth up to the bottom Layer

Thickness of Sub Layer

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

3.45 1.5 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5

Depth Below Scour level 3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 5.05

Surfac e Area 10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

m m m^2

φ

δ

(deg )

(deg )

(ton/cu.m)

39 38.4 50 46.8 47.9 49 51.6 48.6 50.7

26 25.6 33.3 31.2 32 32.7 34.4 32.4 33.8

1.81 1.86 1.19 1.9 1.91 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92

γ_sub

P_D(

P_Di

6.245 9.207 8.595 8.55 5.73 5.76 5.76 5.76 9.696 9.696

3.12 7.72 8.90 8.57 7.14 5.74 5.76 5.76 7.72

Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction : 136

For Layer 1 : For Layer 2 : For Layer 3 : For Layer 4 : For Layer 5 : For Layer 6 : For Layer 7 : For Layer 8 : For Layer 9 : Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) END BEARING Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing : Nc Nq Ny Rus Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile Safe Load on Pile (Qus)

Layers No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

24.76143125 26.18403594 82.79489455 36.71432872 31.46198517 26.01312158 27.87973344 25.84908288 89.02795104 370.6865646

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton

95.7 81.3 100.4 556.3880798 556.38807 98 927.0746444 309.0248815

ton ton ton

(B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL : Thickness of Depth Below Surface Area α (deg) c (deg) the Layer Scour Level (m^2) (m) (m) 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 Total Ultimate Resistance End Bearing Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu Safe Load on Pile (Quc) Permissible safe Load on Pile  Applied Load on Pile Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group Self-weight of each Pile Total Load on Pile = Pu STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE Pile Diameter Pile Reinforcement Cover

Ultimate Resistance(ton) 0.813 0.2355 0.70725 0.35325 0.82425 0.7065 0.2355 0.11775 0.27875 0.27875

4.27175 3.04254225 7.31429225 2.438097417 2.438097417 311.4629789 311.4629789 922.4344546 922.4344546 72.9 12.399075 261.2326887 261.2326887

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton SAFE

900 95

mm mm 137

Cover / Pile Dia

0.105555556 0.105555556 0.074637911 Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 1.42857E-10 Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide provide p = 0.4%, 0.4%, here p = 0% Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4  Area of Main Steel Steel Reinforcement (As) 2543.4 sq.mm Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20  Area of one Steel Steel reinforcement bar 314 sq.mm Total number of bars 9 Radius of Pile up to Rebars 375 mm Perimeter along Rebars 2355 mm Spacing of bars 261.6666667 261.6666667 mm So, Provide Spacing 250 mm Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm < 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm < 300 mm Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c STEP 3 : DESIGN OF PILE CAP : Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528 0.368487528 Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824 0.877170824 Q 18.86026676 Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 522.4653773 522.4653773 Moment at the Face of Pier 313.4792264 313.4792264 Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 26.325 Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 25.666875 ton-m Total Moment at the Face of Pier 287.8123514 287.8123514 ton-m Moment per Linear metre 53.29858359 53.29858359 ton-m/m Depth required 531.59871 mm Overall Depth Provided 1000 Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay deff 91.25 cm Required Steel Reinforcement 33.29420283 33.29420283 sq.cm/m Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing. Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar 16 mm Diameter Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Steel Provided 13.39733333 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Steel Provided 13.39733333 13.39733333 sq.cm/m 138

Shear Reinforcement : Critical section at deff Reaction on Piles in Front row Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v   Percent of bottom main reinforcement Minimum Shear Reinforcement Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing

912.5 522.4653773 522.4653773 5.94035977 0.364867976 0.364867976 27.5

mm ton

sq.cm/m

Using 1000 mm bored piling rig Pile Diameter [D]  Applied Load on Pile Group [P] [P] Factor of Safety [FS]  Allowable Flexural Flexural Stress in Concrete Concrete [σ_c] Steel Grade [fy] Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st]  

Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c] Total Piles [Np] Total Piles in front row [N]

γ_sub FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP  Allowable Stress Stress in concretein bending bending compression compression

[σ_cbc] Allowable stress in steel [σ_st]

1 922.4344546 922.4344546 3 11.67 415 200 2.5 4 2 0.92

m ton N/sq.mm N/mm^2

116.7

kg/sq.cm

2000 10 1.5 20 25 16 10 75 150 6000 6000 1000 3000 1200 2100 1500 1500

kg/sq.cm

Modular Ratio [m] = 10 Load Factor [F] = 1.5 Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter Reinforcement Clear Cover Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars Pile Cap Length [LPC] Pile Cap Width [BPC] Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] Pier Length [LPr] Pier Width [BPr] Distance [L1] Distance [L2] Distance [L3] DESIGN CALCULATIONS STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION Pile Length 12 Embedded Length 10 Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) 0.785

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

m m m^2 139

(A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT OF SOIL : SKIN FRICTION : Borehole No. : BH:1

Layer No.

Depth up to the bottom Layer

Thicknes s of Sub Layer

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

3.45 1.5 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5

Depth Below Scour level 3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 5.05

Surfac e Area 10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

φ (deg )

δ

γ_sub

(deg)

(ton/cu.m)

39 38.4 50 46.8 47.9 49 51.6 48.6 50.7

26 25.6 33.3 31.2 32 32.7 34.4 32.4 33.8

1.81 1.86 1.19 1.9 1.91 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92

Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction : For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) 370.6865646 END BEARING Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing : Nc 95.7 Nq 81.3 Ny 100.4 Rus 694.465008 Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile 1065.151573 Safe Load on Pile (Qus) 355.0505242

P_D(

P_Di

6.245 9.207 8.595 8.55 5.73 5.76 5.76 5.76 9.696

3.12 7.72 8.90 8.57 7.14 5.74 5.76 5.76 7.72

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton

ton ton ton

(B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL : Layers No.

Thickness of the Layer (m)

Depth Below

Surface Area (m^2)

α (deg)

c (deg)

Ultimate Resistance(ton) 140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

Scour Level (m) 3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 5.05

10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

0.15 0.1 0.15 0.15 0.35 0.3 0.1 0.05 0.05

0.813 0.2355 0.70725 0.35325 0.82425 0.7065 0.2355 0.11775 0.27875

Total Ultimate Resistance 4.27175 ton End Bearing 3.756225 ton Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu 8.027975 ton Safe Load on Pile (Quc) 2.675991667 ton Permissible safe Load on Pile 357.7265159 ton  Applied Load on Pile 922.4344546 ton Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group 90 ton Self-weight of each Pile 14.13 ton Total Load on Pile = Pu 267.2386137 SAFE STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE Pile Diameter 1000 mm Pile Reinforcement Cover 95 mm Cover / Pile Dia 0.095 0.07635389 Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 1.42857E-10 Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide p = 0.4%, here p = 0% Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4  Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 3140 sq.mm Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20  Area of one Steel reinforcement bar 314 sq.mm Total number of bars 10 Radius of Pile up to Rebars 425 mm Perimeter along Rebars 2669 mm Spacing of bars 296.5555556 mm So, Provide Spacing 250 mm Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm < 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm < 300 mm Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c STEP 3 : DESIGN OF PILE CAP : Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528 Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824 141

Q 18.86026676 Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 534.4772273 Moment at the Face of Pier 320.6863364 Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 31.5 Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 33.075 ton-m Total Moment at the Face of Pier 287.6113364 ton-m Moment per Linear metre 47.93522273 ton-m/m Depth required 504.1426725 mm Overall Depth Provided 1000 Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay deff 91.25 cm Required Steel Reinforcement 29.94385443 sq.cm/m Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing. Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar 16 mm Diameter Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Shear Reinforcement : Critical section at deff 912.5 mm Reaction on Piles in Front row 534.4772273 ton 6.955525561 Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v   Percent of bottom main reinforcement 0.328151829 Minimum Shear Reinforcement 27.5 sq.cm/m Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing Using 1100 mm bored piling rig Pile Diameter [D]  Applied Load on Pile Group [P] Factor of Safety [FS]

Allowable Flexural Stress in Concrete [σ_c] Steel Grade [fy]

Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st]   Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c] Total Piles [Np] Total Piles in front row [N]

γ_sub

1.1 922.4344546 3 11.67 415 200 2.5 4 2 0.92

m ton N/sq.mm N/mm^2

FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP 142

 Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression

[σ_cbc] Allowable stress in steel [σ_st]

116.7

kg/sq.cm

2000 10 1.5 20 25 16 10 75 150 6600 6600 1000 3000 1200 2250 1650 1500

kg/sq.cm

Modular Ratio [m] = 10 Load Factor [F] = 1.5 Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter Reinforcement Clear Cover Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars Pile Cap Length [LPC] Pile Cap Width [BPC] Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] Pier Length [LPr] Pier Width [BPr] Distance [L1] Distance [L2] Distance [L3] DESIGN CALCULATIONS STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION Pile Length 11 Embedded Length 9 Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) 0.94985 (A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT OF SOIL : SKIN FRICTION : Borehole No. : BH:1 Layer No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Depth up to the bottom Layer 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

Thickness of Sub Layer 3.45 1.5 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5

Depth Below Scour level 3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 5.05

Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction : For Layer 1 : For Layer 2 : For Layer 3 :

Surface  Area

φ

δ

(deg)

(deg)

10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

39 38.4 50 46.8 47.9 49 51.6 48.6 50.7

26 25.6 33.3 31.2 32 32.7 34.4 32.4 33.8

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

m m m^2

γ_sub (ton/cu.m ) 1.81 1.86 1.19 1.9 1.91 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92

P_D(

P_Di

6.245 9.207 8.595 8.55 5.73 5.76 5.76 5.76 9.696

3.12 7.72 8.90 8.57 7.14 5.74 5.76 5.76 7.72

24.76143125 ton 26.18403594 ton 82.79489455 ton 143

For Layer 4 : For Layer 5 : For Layer 6 : For Layer 7 : For Layer 8 : For Layer 9 : Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) END BEARING Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing : Nc Nq Ny Rus Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile Safe Load on Pile (Qus)

Layers No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Thickness of the Layer (m) 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

36.71432872 31.46198517 26.01312158 27.87973344 25.84908288 89.02795104 370.6865646

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton

95.7 81.3 100.4 849.4576939 ton 1220.144258 ton 406.7147528 ton

(B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL : Depth Below Surface Area α (deg)  c (deg) Scour Level (m) (m^2) 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05

Total Ultimate Resistance End Bearing Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu Safe Load on Pile (Quc) Permissible safe Load on Pile  Applied Load on Pile Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group Self-weight of each Pile Total Load on Pile = Pu STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE Pile Diameter Pile Reinforcement Cover Cover / Pile Dia

4.27175 4.54503225 8.81678225 2.938927417 409.6536802 922.4344546 108.9 15.672525 273.5061387

1100 95 0.086363636 0.078144611 Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 1.42857E-10 Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide p = 0.4%, here p = 0%

Ultimate Resistance(ton) 0.813 0.2355 0.70725 0.35325 0.82425 0.7065 0.2355 0.11775 0.27875

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton SAFE mm mm

144

Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4  Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 3799.4 sq.mm Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20  Area of one Steel reinforcement bar 314 sq.mm Total number of bars 13 Radius of Pile up to Rebars 475 mm Perimeter along Rebars 2983 mm Spacing of bars 331.4444444 mm So, Provide Spacing 300 mm Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm < 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm < 300 mm Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c STEP 3 : DESIGN OF PILE CAP : Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528 Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824 Q 18.86026676 Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 547.0122773 Moment at the Face of Pier 328.2073664 Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 37.125 Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 41.765625 ton-m Total Moment at the Face of Pier 286.4417414 ton-m Moment per Linear metre 43.40026385 ton-m/m Depth required 479.7028176 mm Overall Depth Provided 1000 Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay deff 91.25 cm Required Steel Reinforcement 27.11098664 sq.cm/m Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing. Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar 16 mm Diameter Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Shear Reinforcement : Critical section at deff 912.5 mm Reaction on Piles in Front row 547.0122773 ton 8.017851188 Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v   145

Percent of bottom main reinforcement Minimum Shear Reinforcement Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing

0.297106703 27.5

sq.cm/m

Using 1200 mm bored piling rig Pile Diameter [D]  Applied Load on Pile Group [P] Factor of Safety [FS]  Allowable Flexural Stress in Concrete [σ_c] Steel Grade [fy] Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st]  

Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c] Total Piles [Np] Total Piles in front row [N]

γ_sub

1.2 922.4344546 3 11.67 415 200 2.5 4 2 0.92

m ton N/sq.mm N/mm^2

FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP

Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression [σ_cbc] Allowable stress in steel [σ_st] Modular Ratio [m] = 10 Load Factor [F] = 1.5 Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter Reinforcement Clear Cover Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars Pile Cap Length [LPC] Pile Cap Width [BPC] Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] Pier Length [LPr] Pier Width [BPr] Distance [L1] Distance [L2] Distance [L3]

116.7 2000 10 1.5 20 25 16 10 75 150 7200 7200 1000 3000 1200 2400 1800 1800

kg/sq.cm kg/sq.cm

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

DESIGN CALCULATIONS STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION Pile Length 10 m Embedded Length 8 m Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) 1.1304 m^2 (A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT OF SOIL : SKIN FRICTION : Borehole No. : BH:1

146

Layer No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Depth up to the bottom Layer 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

Thickness of Sub Layer 3.45 1.5 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5

Depth Below Scour level 3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 5.05

Surface  Area

φ

δ

(deg)

(deg)

10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

39 38.4 50 46.8 47.9 49 51.6 48.6 50.7

26 25.6 33.3 31.2 32 32.7 34.4 32.4 33.8

γ_sub (ton/c u.m) 1.81 1.86 1.19 1.9 1.91 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92

Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction : For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) 370.6865646 END BEARING Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing : Nc 95.7 Nq 81.3 Ny 100.4 Rus 1021.820106 Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile 1392.506671 Safe Load on Pile (Qus) 464.1688903

Layers No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Thickness of the Layer (m) 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45

(B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL : Depth Below Surface Area α (deg) c (deg) Scour Level (m^2) (m) 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 3 4.71 0.5 0.05

P_D(

P_Di

6.245 9.207 8.595 8.55 5.73 5.76 5.76 5.76 9.696

3.122 7.726 8.901 8.572 7.14 5.745 5.76 5.76 7.728

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton

ton ton ton

Ultimate Resistance(ton) 0.813 0.2355 0.70725 0.35325 0.82425 0.7065 0.2355 0.11775 147

9

19.95

5.05

11.15

0.5

0.05

0.27875

Total Ultimate Resistance 4.27175 ton End Bearing 5.408964 ton Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu 9.680714 ton Safe Load on Pile (Quc) 3.226904667 ton Permissible safe Load on Pile 467.3957949 ton  Applied Load on Pile 922.4344546 ton Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group 129.6 ton Self-weight of each Pile 16.956 ton Total Load on Pile = Pu 279.9646137 SAFE STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE Pile Diameter 1200 mm Pile Reinforcement Cover 95 mm Cover / Pile Dia 0.079166667 0.07998989 Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 1.42857E-10 Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide p = 0.4%, here p = 0% Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4  Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 4521.6 sq.mm Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20  Area of one Steel reinforcement bar 314 sq.mm Total number of bars 15 Radius of Pile up to Rebars 525 mm Perimeter along Rebars 3297 mm Spacing of bars 366.3333333 mm So, Provide Spacing 350 mm Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm < 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm < 300 mm Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c STEP 3 : DESIGN OF PILE CAP : Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528 Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824 Q 18.86026676 Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 559.9292273 Moment at the Face of Pier 335.9575364 Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 43.2 Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 51.84 ton-m Total Moment at the Face of Pier 284.1175364 ton-m Moment per Linear metre 39.46076894 ton-m/m Depth required 457.4133717 mm Overall Depth Provided 1000 Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay 148

deff 91.25 cm Required Steel Reinforcement 24.6500893 sq.cm/m Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing. Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar 16 mm Diameter Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Shear Reinforcement : Critical section at deff 912.5 mm Reaction on Piles in Front row 559.9292273 ton 9.127613432 Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v   Percent of bottom main reinforcement 0.270137965 Minimum Shear Reinforcement 27.5 sq.cm/m Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing Using 1300 mm bored piling rig Pile Diameter [D]  Applied Load on Pile Group [P] Factor of Safety [FS]

Allowable Flexural Stress in Concrete [σ_c] Steel Grade [fy]

Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st]   Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c] Total Piles [Np] Total Piles in front row [N]

γ_sub

1.3 922.4344546 3 11.67 415 200 2.5 2 1 0.92

m ton

116.7 2000 10 1.5 20 25 16 10 75 150

kg/sq.cm kg/sq.cm

N/sq.mm N/mm^2

FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP

Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression [σ_cbc] Allowable stress in steel [σ_st] Modular Ratio [m] = 10 Load Factor [F] = 1.5 Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter Reinforcement Clear Cover Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars

mm mm mm mm mm mm 149

Pile Cap Length [LPC] Pile Cap Width [BPC] Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] Pier Length [LPr] Pier Width [BPr] Distance [L1] Distance [L2] Distance [L3]

7800 3900 1000 3000 1200 2550 1950 1950

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

DESIGN CALCULATIONS STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION Pile Length 11 Embedded Length 9 Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) 1.32665 (A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT OF SOIL : SKIN FRICTION : Borehole No. : BH:1 Layer No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Depth up to the bottom Layer 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

Thicknes s of Sub Layer 3.45 1.5 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5

Depth Below Scour level 3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 5.05

Surfac e Area 10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

φ (deg ) 39 38.4 50 46.8 47.9 49 51.6 48.6 50.7

Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction : For Layer 1 : For Layer 2 : For Layer 3 : For Layer 4 : For Layer 5 : For Layer 6 : For Layer 7 : For Layer 8 : For Layer 9 : Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) END BEARING Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing : Nc Nq

m m m^2

γ_sub

δ (deg) (ton/cu.m P_D( 26 25.6 33.3 31.2 32 32.7 34.4 32.4 33.8

24.76143125 26.18403594 82.79489455 36.71432872 31.46198517 26.01312158 27.87973344 25.84908288 89.02795104 370.6865646

) 1.81 1.86 1.19 1.9 1.91 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92

6.245 9.207 8.595 8.55 5.73 5.76 5.76 5.76 9.696

P_Di 3.122 7.726 8.901 8.572 7.14 5.745 5.76 5.76 7.728

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton

95.7 81.3 150

Ny Rus Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile Safe Load on Pile (Qus) (B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL : Layers Thickness of Depth Below No. the Layer (m) Scour Level (m) 1 3.45 3.45 2 4.95 4.95 3 7.95 4.5 4 9.45 4.5 5 10.95 3 6 12.45 3 7 13.95 3 8 15.45 3 9 19.95 5.05

100.4 1212.006214 ton 1582.692778 ton 527.5642594 ton

Surface Area (m^2) 10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

α (deg)

c (deg)

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

0.15 0.1 0.15 0.15 0.35 0.3 0.1 0.05 0.05

Total Ultimate Resistance 4.27175 End Bearing 6.34802025 Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu 10.61977025 Safe Load on Pile (Quc) 3.539923417 Permissible safe Load on Pile 531.1041828  Applied Load on Pile 922.4344546 Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group 76.05 Self-weight of each Pile 21.889725 Total Load on Pile = Pu 521.1319523 STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE Pile Diameter 1300 Pile Reinforcement Cover 95 Cover / Pile Dia 0.073076923 0.148894844 Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10 In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide p = 0.4%, here p = 0% Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4  Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 5306.6 Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20  Area of one Steel reinforcement bar 314 Total number of bars 17 Radius of Pile up to Rebars 575 Perimeter along Rebars 3611 Spacing of bars 401.2222222 So, Provide Spacing 400 Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm

Ultimate Resistance(ton) 0.813 0.2355 0.70725 0.35325 0.82425 0.7065 0.2355 0.11775 0.27875

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton SAFE mm mm

sq.mm sq.mm mm mm mm mm

151

< 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm < 300 mm Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c STEP 3 : DESIGN OF PILE CAP : Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528 Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824 Q 18.86026676 Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 521.1319523 Moment at the Face of Pier 312.6791714 Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 49.725 Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 63.399375 ton-m Total Moment at the Face of Pier 249.2797964 ton-m Moment per Linear metre 31.95894826 ton-m/m Depth required 411.6445062 mm Overall Depth Provided 1000 Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay deff 91.25 cm Required Steel Reinforcement 19.96390211 sq.cm/m Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing. Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar 16 mm Diameter Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Shear Reinforcement : Critical section at deff 912.5 mm Reaction on Piles in Front row 521.1319523 ton 9.351819966 Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v   Percent of bottom main reinforcement 0.218782489 Minimum Shear Reinforcement 27.5 sq.cm/m Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing Using 1400 mm bored piling rig Pile Diameter [D]  Applied Load on Pile Group [P] Factor of Safety [FS]  Allowable Flexural Stress in Concrete [σ_c] Steel Grade [fy] Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st]  

1.4 922.4344546 3 11.67 415 200

m ton N/sq.mm N/mm^2

152

Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c]

2.5 2 1 0.92

Total Piles [Np] Total Piles in front row [N]

γ_sub FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP

Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression [σ_cbc] Allowable stress in steel [σ_st]

116.7 2000 10 1.5 20 25 16 10 75 150 8400 4200 1000 3000 1200 2700 2100 2100

kg/sq.cm kg/sq.cm

Modular Ratio [m] = 10 Load Factor [F] = 1.5 Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter Reinforcement Clear Cover Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars Pile Cap Length [LPC] Pile Cap Width [BPC] Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] Pier Length [LPr] Pier Width [BPr] Distance [L1] Distance [L2] Distance [L3] DESIGN CALCULATIONS STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION Pile Length 10 Embedded Length 8 Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) 1.5386 (A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT OF SOIL : SKIN FRICTION : Borehole No. : BH:1

Layer No.

Depth up to the bottom Layer

Thicknes s of Sub Layer

1 2 3 4 5 6

3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45

3.45 1.5 3 1.5 1.5 1.5

Depth Below Scour level 3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

m m m^2

γ_sub

Surfac e Area

φ

δ

(deg)

(deg)

(ton/cu.m )

P_D(

P_Di

10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71

39 38.4 50 46.8 47.9 49

26 25.6 33.3 31.2 32 32.7

1.81 1.86 1.19 1.9 1.91 1.92

6.245 9.207 8.595 8.55 5.73 5.76

3.12 7.72 8.90 8.57 7.14 5.74 153

7 8 9

13.95 15.45 19.95

1.5 1.5 4.5

3 3 5.05

4.71 4.71 11.15

51.6 48.6 50.7

34.4 32.4 33.8

1.92 1.92 1.92

Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction : For Layer 1 : 24.76143125 For Layer 2 : 26.18403594 For Layer 3 : 82.79489455 For Layer 4 : 36.71432872 For Layer 5 : 31.46198517 For Layer 6 : 26.01312158 For Layer 7 : 27.87973344 For Layer 8 : 25.84908288 For Layer 9 : 89.02795104 Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) 370.6865646 END BEARING Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing : Nc 95.7 Nq 81.3 Ny 100.4 Rus 1420.469985 Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile 1791.156549 Safe Load on Pile (Qus) 597.0521831

Layers No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Thickness of the Layer (m) 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

(B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL : Depth Below Surface Area α (deg) Scour Level (m) (m^2) 3.45 10.84 0.5 4.95 4.71 0.5 4.5 9.43 0.5 4.5 4.71 0.5 3 4.71 0.5 3 4.71 0.5 3 4.71 0.5 3 4.71 0.5 5.05 11.15 0.5

Total Ultimate Resistance End Bearing Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu Safe Load on Pile (Quc) Permissible safe Load on Pile  Applied Load on Pile Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group Self weight of each Pile

4.27175 7.362201 11.633951 3.877983667 600.9301667 922.4344546 88.2 23.079

5.76 5.76 9.696

5.76 5.76 7.72

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton

ton ton ton

c (deg) 0.15 0.1 0.15 0.15 0.35 0.3 0.1 0.05 0.05

Ultimate Resistance(ton) 0.813 0.2355 0.70725 0.35325 0.82425 0.7065 0.2355 0.11775 0.27875

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton 154

Total Load on Pile = Pu 528.3962273 SAFE STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE Pile Diameter 1400 mm Pile Reinforcement Cover 95 mm Cover / Pile Dia 0.067857143 0.150970351 Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 1.42857E-10 Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide p = 0.4%, here p = 0% Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4  Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 6154.4 sq.mm Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20  Area of one Steel reinforcement bar 314 sq.mm Total number of bars 20 Radius of Pile up to Rebars 625 mm Perimeter along Rebars 3925 mm Spacing of bars 436.1111111 mm So, Provide Spacing 400 mm Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm < 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm < 300 mm Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c STEP 3 : DESIGN OF PILE CAP : Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528 Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824 Q 18.86026676 Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 528.3962273 Moment at the Face of Pier 317.0377364 Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 56.7 Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 76.545 ton-m Total Moment at the Face of Pier 240.4927364 ton-m Moment per Linear metre 28.63008767 ton-m/m Depth required 389.6165742 mm Overall Depth Provided 1000 Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay deff 91.25 cm Required Steel Reinforcement 17.88445174 sq.cm/m Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing. Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar Diameter 16 mm Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m 155

Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 Shear Reinforcement : Critical section at deff 912.5 Reaction on Piles in Front row 528.3962273 10.35077541 Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v   Percent of bottom main reinforcement 0.195993992 Minimum Shear Reinforcement 27.5 Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing

sq.cm/m mm ton

sq.cm/m

Using 1500 mm bored piling rig Pile Diameter [D]  Applied Load on Pile Group [P] Factor of Safety [FS]

Allowable Flexural Stress in Concrete [σ_c] Steel Grade [fy]

Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st]   Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c] Total Piles [Np] Total Piles in front row [N]

γ_sub

1.5 m 922.4344546 ton 3 11.67 N/sq.mm 415 N/mm^2 200 2.5 2 1 0.92

FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP  Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression 116.7

[σ_cbc] Allowable stress in steel [σ_st]

2000 10 1.5 20 25 16 10 75 150 9000 4500 1000 3000 1200 2850 2250 2250

Modular Ratio [m] = 10 Load Factor [F] = 1.5 Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter Reinforcement Clear Cover Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars Pile Cap Length [LPC] Pile Cap Width [BPC] Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] Pier Length [LPr] Pier Width [BPr] Distance [L1] Distance [L2] Distance [L3] DESIGN CALCULATIONS STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION

kg/sq.cm kg/sq.cm

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

156

Pile Length Embedded Length Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) (A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT OF SOIL : SKIN FRICTION : Borehole No. : BH:1

Laye r No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Depth up to the bottom Layer 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

Thickness of Sub Layer

Depth Below Scour level

Surfac e Area

3.45 1.5 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5

3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 5.05

10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

10 8 1.76625

φ (deg ) 39 38.4 50 46.8 47.9 49 51.6 48.6 50.7

Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction : For Layer 1 : For Layer 2 : For Layer 3 : For Layer 4 : For Layer 5 : For Layer 6 : For Layer 7 : For Layer 8 : For Layer 9 : Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) END BEARING Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing : Nc Nq Ny Rus Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile Safe Load on Pile (Qus)

Layers No.

Thickness of the Layer (m)

m m m^2

γ_sub

δ (deg) (ton/cu.m P_D(

P_Di

) 26 25.6 33.3 31.2 32 32.7 34.4 32.4 33.8

1.81 1.86 1.19 1.9 1.91 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92

24.76143125 26.18403594 82.79489455 36.71432872 31.46198517 26.01312158 27.87973344 25.84908288 89.02795104 370.6865646

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton

6.245 9.207 8.595 8.55 5.73 5.76 5.76 5.76 9.696

3.122 7.726 8.901 8.572 7.14 5.745 5.76 5.76 7.728

95.7 81.3 100.4 1647.665388 ton 2018.351953 ton 672.7839842 ton

(B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL : Depth Below Surface Area Scour Level α (deg) c (deg) (m^2) (m)

Ultimate Resistance(ton) 157

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 5.05

10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

Total Ultimate Resistance End Bearing Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu Safe Load on Pile (Quc) Permissible safe Load on Pile  Applied Load on Pile Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group Self weight of each Pile Total Load on Pile = Pu STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE Pile Diameter Pile Reinforcement Cover Cover / Pile Dia

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 4.27175 8.45150625 12.72325625 4.241085417 677.0250696 922.4344546 101.25 26.49375 538.3359773

0.15 0.1 0.15 0.15 0.35 0.3 0.1 0.05 0.05

0.813 0.2355 0.70725 0.35325 0.82425 0.7065 0.2355 0.11775 0.27875

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton SAFE

1500 mm 95 mm 0.063333333 0.153810279 Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 1.42857E-10 Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide p = 0.4%, here p = 0% Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4  Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 7065 sq.mm Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20  Area of one Steel reinforcement bar 314 sq.mm Total number of bars 23 Radius of Pile up to Rebars 675 mm Perimeter along Rebars 4239 mm Spacing of bars 471 mm So, Provide Spacing 450 mm Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm < 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm < 300 mm Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c STEP 3 : DESIGN OF PILE CAP : Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528 Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824 Q 18.86026676 Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 538.3359773 158

Moment at the Face of Pier 323.0015864 Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 64.125 Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 91.378125 ton-m Total Moment at the Face of Pier 231.6234614 ton-m Moment per Linear metre 25.73594015 ton-m/m Depth required 369.39933 mm Overall Depth Provided 1000 Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay deff 91.25 cm Required Steel Reinforcement 16.07655502 sq.cm/m Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing. Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar Diameter 16 mm Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Shear Reinforcement : Critical section at deff 912.5 mm Reaction on Piles in Front row 538.3359773 ton 11.43042144 Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v   Percent of bottom main reinforcement 0.176181425 Minimum Shear Reinforcement 27.5 sq.cm/m Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing

159

APPENDIX D: DESIGN OF STEEL PLATE GIRDER BRIDGE Elastic Properties

The elastic properties of the steel section, steel section and slab and its longitudinal reinforcement for short term and long term composite section are shown in the following tables: Properties of Steel Section and Concrete Deck Ai 

Top Flange Web Bottom Flange ∑

yi

Aiyi

49793.84 1011.555 50369209

yi-y NC b   Ai(yi-y N Cb ) ²

Io

y N Cb

 

533.02

mm

 

533.02

mm

478.535

11402577892

49272918.7

y N Ct

51267.65

533.02

27326680

0

0

3072955341

I NC   25976656962 mm⁴

49793.84

54.485

2713017

-478.535

11402577892

49272918.7

S N Cb   48734863.54 mm³

22805155783

3171501179

S N Ct   48734863.54 mm³

150855.3

80408907

Properties of Short-Term Composite Section (n = 8) Ai  Steel Section   150855.3 Concrete Slab

50000

yi

yi-y S Tb   Ai(yi-y S Tb ) ²

Io

y S Tb   690.6010824

mm

375.4389176

mm

533.02

80408907 -157.581

3746008963

2.5977E+10

1166.04

58302000 475.4389

11302108217

166666667

I S T   41191440808 mm⁴

1.39E+08

15048117180

2.6143E+10

S S Tb   59645780.84 mm³

200855.3

∑

Aiyi

y S Tt

S S Tt

109715426.1

mm³

Io

y LTb

595.9987948

mm

470.0412052

mm

Properties of Long-Term Composite Section (3n = 24) yi-y LTb   Ai(yi-y LTb ) ²

Ai 

yi

Steel Section

150855.3

533.02

80408907 -62.9788

598341801.8

2.5977E+10

y LTt

Concrete Slab

16666.67

1166.04 19434000 570.0412

5415782926

55555555.6

I LT   32046337246 mm⁴

167522

99842907

6014124728

2.6032E+10

S LTb   53769130.95 mm³

∑

Aiyi

S LTt

68177719.09

mm³

The distance of the centroid of each component from the bottom extreme fiber is denoted by y  and S represents the section modulus with respect to top and bottom part of the section. Live Load Distribution Factors

The live load distribution factor is calculated in accordance with AASHTO Tables 4.6.2.2.2b-1 and 4.6.2.2.3a1. The application of live loads to the structure are assumed to either be one or two lanes or both. One-Lane loaded

Kg 0.1 S 0.4 S 0.3 DFm  = 0.06 + ( ) + ( ) + ( ) 14 L 12Lt3g DFv = 0.36 +

S 25 160

Two-Lane Loaded

Kg 0.1 S 0.6 S 0.2 DFm  = 0.06 + ( ) + ( ) + ( ) 9.5 L 12Lt3g S S 2 DFv = 0.32 + - ( ) 12 35 where: S = girder spacing L = span length

Kg  = longitudinal stiffness parameter

; ;

t = deck thickness

Live Load Distribution Factor for Strength and Service Limit State DFm

DFv

Span Length One Lane Two Lane One Lane Two Lane 28.5 m 0.431841 0.64137 0.6224 0.711537

Live Load Distribution Factor for Fatigue Limit State DFm

DFv

Span Length One Lane One Lane 28.5 m 0.431841 0.6224 Factored Moments and Shears

The load combination applicable to the limit state listed below is based from AASHTO 3.4 and Table 3.4.11. The loads being considered in the equation are the unfactored value and (LL + IM) denotes to a one -lane loaded effect only. Strength I Service II Fatigue I

: : :

1.25(DC) + 1.5(DW) + 1.75(DF)(LL + IM)M 13.5 1.0(DC) + 1.0(DW) + 1.3(DF)(LL + IM) M 13.5 1.75(DF)(LL + IM) M 13.5

Factored Maximum Shear and Moment for Strength I Strength I Dc1 Dc2 DW LL ML

31.6543 17.375 5 5.74 Total

kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m

Moment Shear One Lane Two Lane One Lane Two Lane 4017.37327 4017.37327 563.8418625 563.8418625 2205.131836 2205.131836 309.4921875 309.4921875 761.484375 761.484375 106.875 106.875 1019.881406 1019.881406 143.14125 143.14125 3080.5565 3080.5565 286.5765 286.5765 11084.42739 11084.42739 1409.9268 1409.9268

161

Factored Maximum Shear and Moment for Service II Service II Dc1 Dc2 DW LL ML

31.6543 17.375 5 5.74

kN/m kN/m kN/m kN/m

Total

Moment One Lane Two Lane 3213.898616 3213.898616 1764.105469 1764.105469 507.65625 507.65625 757.6261875 757.6261875 2288.4134 2288.4134 8531.699923 8531.699923

Shear One Lane Two Lane 451.07349 451.07349 247.59375 247.59375 71.25 71.25 106.3335 106.3335 212.8854 212.8854 1089.13614 1089.13614

Factored Maximum Shear and Moment for Fatigue I Fatigue I LL ML

5.74

kN/m

Total

Moment Positive Negative 1017.47975 976.62425 3080.5565 3013.815 4098.03625 3990.43925

Shear One Lane 143.14125 286.5765 429.71775

Checking for Strength Limit State Check Section Compactness Web Proportion

d/tw ≤ 150

OK 1.045092179 106.7768248

2Dcp / tw

Web Slenderness Limit

3.76 (√E/Fyc)   OK

Plastic Moment Mp

γbar   Mp Ps = 0.85F'cbeffts Pc = AfcFyc Pw = AwFyw Pt = AftFyt Ps + Pc Pw + Pt if PNA @ top flange

γbar  Mp

140.5579111 mm 18690329772 Nmm 8500000 N 12348872.69 N 12714375.96 N 12348872.69 N 20848872.69 25063248.65 DISREGARD 127.5644321 mm 18984275692 Nmm

if PNA @ web

γbar  Mp

140.5579111 18690329772

mm Nmm

Mu Md1 Md2

11084427388 4017373270 2966616211

Nmm Nmm Nmm

For Strength I

 Yield Moment My

162

My = Md1+Md2+Mad My Top Bottom

13568497546 MAD 13391180420 6584508064

Flexural Resistance Mu < ØfMn ?

Nmm Nmm Nmm OK

Mu Mn Dt Dp 0.42Dt 0.1Dt

11084427388 13006789918 1266.04 449.5279111 531.7368 126.604

Dp ≤ 0.42Dt Dp ≥ 0.1Dt

Nmm Nmm mm mm mm mm OK OK

Checking for Fatigue Limit State

4098036250 3990439250

Nmm Nmm

y(Δf)

119.232092

MPa

y(Δf)

150.5868092

MPa

Mdc1 Mdc2 + Mdw M(LL+IM) Flange Stresses 0.95RhFyf ff (topflange) ff (bottomflange)

3213898616 2271761719 3046039588

Nmm Nmm Nmm

Factored +M Factored -M Top Flange

Bottom Flange

Checking for Strength Limit State For Service II

235.6 127.0308696 159.2657167

OK OK

Checking for Constructability Check Compression Flange λrw  2Dc / tw Fnc rt Lp 0.7Fyc Fyr

161.8691228 14.02977667 248 131.7232735 3740.689602 173.6 173.6

OK MPa mm mm MPa

163

Lr Fnc Fbu

14045.99551 223.5666939 82.43325166

mm MPa MPa OK

Web Bend-Buckling Resistance k 56.87944833 Fcrw 32921.03571 248 Use Fcrw 248 OK Check Tension Flange Fbu 82.43325166 ØRhFyt 248 OK

MPa MPa MPa

MPa MPa

Design of Shear Connectors

Dia of stud Vsr Zr

ΔF n n (# of shear conn) Check for Ultimate Strength

89.01639344 65.08433104 P 8500000 Qr 130599.7905 Qn 153646.8124 Ec 3640 Details of Pitch Vf (N) Vsr 178365.21 102.94 263717.10 152.19 234767.26 135.49 209626.34 120.98 41531.20 23.97 49672.97 28.67 143993.33 83.10 204097.56 117.79 234640.91 135.41 272748.75 157.41 No. of Studs Spacing 3 610 3 305 3 610 n

x/L 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 USE 0 - 5.7 m 5.7 - 22.8 m 22.8 - 28.5 m

0.875 0.000577109 32313.44453 165.4742 3

in N MPa

OK N N N ksi p (mm) 941.75 636.95 715.50 801.31 4044.57 3381.63 1166.55 823.02 715.88 615.86 Strength 414 Mpa 164

Design of Transverse Stiffener Shear Resistance

3D do k D/tw 1.4sqrt(Ek/Fy) C Vp Vcr 2Dtw/bf Vn Vu

3198.12 2000 6.420551602 17.63507031 85.44460645 0.801020408 12885073.48 10321206.82 1.294178478 10321934.33 1409926.8

mm mm

N N N N OK

Projecting Width 2+(D/30)

90 86.33466667

mm mm OK

tp 16tp bf/4

12.5 200 114.2375

mm mm mm OK

USE

width height thickness

90 848.1 12.5

mm mm mm

Rdc1 Rdc2 Rdw Rll Rml Total

1142.417 291.680 267.188 357.853 1345.208 3404.345

kN kN kN kN kN kN

Flange Width Web Thickness Web Height Depth Fys Stiffener Details  As rqd B.S. Fraction tp

456.950 60.450 848.100 1066.040 248.000

mm mm mm mm MPa

16149.644 1-5/8 " 41.3

mm²

Design of Bearing Stiffener Design Loads

Parameters

mm 165

width Check Projecting Width Check Bearing Resistance  Assume:  Apn (Rsb)r

152.400 562.623

mm mm OK

38.100 9435.465 3275.829

mm cope to BS mm² kN OK

Check Axial Resistance Stiffener Area Web Area Eff. Column Area I x-x rs KD/rs

12580.620 68234.752 80815.372 290811.279 1223.844 10705.571

kl/r ≤ 120

mm² mm² mm² mm⁴ mm OK

Pe Po Pe/Po Pn Pr Pr > Vu Bearing Stiffener-to-web Weld tw (weld) clip Fexx Rr Length of weld

579297.917 20040.508 128.575 19752.422 17777.180

kN kN kN kN kN

7.938 25.400 482.650 231.672 797.300

mm mm MPa MPa mm

Shear Resistance of Weld

4145.926

kN

OK

Vr > Vu

OK

Design of Cross Frame Bottom Strut and Top Strut Wind Load Vwind Ws Wsbf Wstf Flexure Resistance Mws fl-ws fl fl<0.6Fyf

200 0.517895903 0.15928776 0.358608143

kph N/mm N/mm N/mm

808.6342705 0.000213235 8.52941E-05

Nmm MPa MPa OK 166

Mu+1/3ftSxt < ØfMn OK Forces acting on Cross Frame Pu 1588.895409 N Pudiagonal 2002.887213 N Design of Top Strut = Bottom Strut Check Limiting Slenderness Ratio KLd/rz < 140 OK Check Member Strength L/rx < 80 OK Slender Element Reduction Factor b/t < k*SQRT(E/Fy) OK Effective Slender Ratio (KL/r)eff 125.1692057 Nominal Axial Compression Strength Pe 133171.02 N Po 266629.40 N Pe/Po 0.50 Pn 115336.72 N Pu 103803.05 N Diagonals Check Limiting Ratio KL/rmin 53.98773006 KL/rmin < 140 OK Connections Bolt Diameter 20 mm Bolt Spacing 60 mm Bolt Edge Distance 32 mm Bolt Yield Strength 830 MPa N 4.00 Bolts pcs Fu 400.00 MPa t 12.70 MPa 0.80 φs  Lc 6.00 mm 2d 40.00 mm Rn 36576.00 N Use: Bottom and Top Strut Section Length H B t  Ag Xc = Yc

L 90 x 90 x 6 1.9545 90 90 6 1057 24.05

m mm mm mm mm² mm 167

Ix = Iy rx =ry K Fy

803000000 27.57 1 275

mm⁴ mm MPa

Use: Diagonals Section Length H B t  Ag Xc = Yc Ix = Iy rx =ry K Fy

L 75 x 75 x 6 1.232 mm 75 mm 75 mm 6 mm 1501 mm² 25.4 mm 761 mm⁴ 22.5 mm 1 275 MPa

Use: Bolt Details

Bolt Diameter Bolt Spacing Bolt Edge Distance Bolt Yield Strength No. of Bolts

20 60 32 830 4

mm mm mm MPa Bolts

110968.000 2.229 784480.970 0.000 12.696 25.393 38.089 25.393 12.696

mm²

4.232 16.928 38.089 16.928 4.232

mm mm mm mm mm

Camber Details

 Asg Ψ  R

∆R ∆DL1/5 ∆DL2/5 ∆DL1/2 ∆DL3/5 ∆DL4/5 ∆ Span 1/5 ∆ Span 2/5 ∆ Span 1/2 ∆ Span 3/5 ∆ Span 4/5

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

168

Design of Pier Cap DESIGN MOMENTS  At Mid Span 1,398.05 kN-m Cantilever Moments 3,227.72 kN-m DESIGN FOR BENDING OF MIDSPAN Design Moment 1,398.05 kN-m Span Length 6,500 mm Depth Of Slab/Deck 300 mm Depth Of Pier Cap 450 mm Width Of Pier Cap 900 mm Cover Of Reinforcement 40.0 mm Size Of Reinforcement 32.0 mm Stirrup Diameter 10.0 mm Effective Depth 384 mm k 0.421 COMPRESSION STEEL REQUIRED k' 0.156 TENSILE REINFORCEMENT  At The Top 10 no of 32 mm bar  At The Bottom 16 no of 32 mm bar DESIGN FOR SHEAR Shear Force 4,989 kN Shear Stress 14.436 N/mm2 Concrete Shear Stress 0.939 N/mm2 Provide 12 mm stirrups at 175 mm center to center DESIGN FOR BENDING (CANTILEVER) Design Moment 3,227.72 kN-m Span Length 1,550 mm Depth Of Slab/Deck 300 mm Depth Of Pier Cap 450 mm Width Of Pier Cap 900 mm Cover Of Reinforcement 40.0 mm Size Of Reinforcement 32.0 mm Stirrup Diameter 10.0 mm Effective Depth 384 mm k 0.973 COMPRESSION STEEL REQUIRED k' 0.156 TENSILE REINFORCEMENT  At The Top 26 no of 32 mm bar  At The Bottom 32 no of 32 mm bar DESIGN FOR SHEAR Shear Force 4,989 kN Shear Stress 14.436 N/mm2 Concrete Shear Stress 0.939 N/mm2 Provide 12 mm stirrups at 200 mm center to center

169

Design of Pier

Design Load per Pier f'c fy Diameter of Main Bar Diameter of Spiral Reinforcement Diameter of Gross Section  Area of Gross Section  Area of Steel Limits of Reinforcement No. of Reinforcing Bars Concrete Cover Diameter of Spiral Reinforcement Core Diameter  Area of Core Diameter  Area of Spiral Reinforcement Ratio of Spiral Reinforcement Spacing Use the computed Spacing

20,232.67 28 415 32 12 1100 949850 16290.55 0.017150655 21 50 12 1000 785000 113.04 0.006375904 70

kN Mpa Mpa mm mm mm sq.mm sq.mm mm mm mm mm sq.mm sq.mm mm

Design of Pier Footing

Design Moment Span Length base depth, h width of base, bw cover to reinforcement, d' reinforcement size, f stirrup diameter, t effective depth, d  As  Apply (bottom)  Apply (top) Design Moment Span Length base depth, h width of base, bw cover to reinforcement, d' reinforcement size, f stirrup diameter, t effective depth, d

Design For Bending 16,835.00 6,500 1,600.00 3,000.00 50.0 20.0 12.0 1,528 TENSILE REINFORCEMENT 34,273 69 18 Transverse Bending Moment 954.870 1,550 1,600.00 3,000.00 50.0 20.0 12.0 1,528 TENSILE REINFORCEMENT

kN-m mm mm mm mm mm mm mm sq.mm pcs pcs kN-m mm mm mm mm mm mm mm 170

 As  Apply (bottom)  Apply (top)

1,564 20 20 135

sq.mm pcs pcs mm centres in the transverse direction CHECKS FOR PUNCHING SHEAR Design Shear Force , V 5,478 kN Design Shear Stress, v  1.195 N/sq.mm  Apply 12 mm @ 300 mm on centers Design of Abutment

Depth of Girder Seat [d1] Thickness of wall [t] Height of Retained Earth [H] Width of wall [B] Equivalent height of Earth for Live Load Surcharge [d2] Thickness of Approach Slab [d3] Length of base in back of wall [L1] Length of base in wall location [L2] Length of base at front of wall [L3] Total Length of Base [D] Thickness of wall at the Top [L4] Thickness of Base [d4]

Angle between wall and Horizontal base on Earth side [θ] Inclination of Earth fill side with the Horizontal [δ] = 0°  Angle of friction between Earth and Wall [z] Coefficient of friction between Earth and wall [µ]

Unit weight of Back fill Earth [γ_b] Unit weight of Concrete [γ_c] Angle of Internal friction of backfill [φ] Bearing Capacity [p] Concrete Grade [f_ck] Steel Grade [f_y] Live Load from vehicles [w6] Permanent Load from Super Structure [w5] Vehicle Braking Force [F] Bending Moment and Shear Force Factor [Fact] Reinf. Clear Cover [cover] V(kN)

w1 w2 w3

50.75 30.75 27.75

H (long)

H (trans)

Distance (m) 1.55 2.05 1.85

1.2 0.6 5 9.6 1 0.3 1.5 1 1.2 3.7 0.3 0.9 90 0 24 0.5 17 25 48 230 28 415 63.74136 111.9054 200 1.5 50 MV

m m m m m m m m m m m m

kN/m^3 kN/m^3 kN/m^2 Mpa Mpa kN/m kN/m kN mm MH (long)

MH (trans)

78.6625 63.0375 51.3375 171

w4 w5 P1 w8 P3 Seismic(long) Seismic (trans) Sum in unloaded condition Design Values Horizontal Break Force (P2) Vehicle Breaking Force Vehicle load From Superstructure  Additional Seismic Force (transverse) sum of loaded condition design values

104.55 119

2.95 1.55 2.1 2.95 2.5 3.8

29.89875 41.85 11.9595 29.952 24.309

308.4225 184.45 62.78738 123.4575 29.89875 113.8176

9.6

233.3664

374.65

71.81025

24.309

809.3675

206.5037

233.3664

374.65

71.81025

24.309

809.3675

206.5037

233.3664

10.41667

3.8

39.58333

1.9737

1.55

3.059210526

538.103

1.55

834.05965

48.6069

5.3

257.6166

914.7267

82.22692

72.9159

1646.486361

246.0871

490.983

914.7267

82.22692

72.9159

1646.486361

246.0871

490.983

STEP 3 : Check for Stability against Overturning CASE I : Span Unloaded Condition Overturning Moment about toe (MH1) 206.503725 Restoring Moment about toe (MV1) 809.3675 Factor of Safety against overturning 3.919384505 Location of Resultant for toe(Xo) 1.609138596 Maximum permissible Eccentricity 0.616666667 Eccentricity of Resultant (e2) 0.240861404 CASE II : Span Loaded Condition Overturning Moment about toe (MH2) 246.0870583 Restoring Moment about toe (MV2) 1646.486361 Factor of Safety against overturning 6.690666188 Location of Resultant from toe (Xo) 1.530948344 Maximum permissible Eccentricity 0.616666667 Eccentricity of Resultant (e1) 0.319051656 STEP 4 : Check for Stresses at Base For Span Loaded Condition Total downward forces (V2) 914.7266842

Safe

OK

kN-m kN-m Safe

OK

172

Bearing Capacity Stress at base Extreme Stresses at Base

230 222.5010853 375.1321485 119.3147078

OK

STEP 5 : Check for Sliding

Longitudinal Sliding Force Force resisting Sliding Factor of Safety against Sliding Transverse Sliding Force Force resisting Sliding Factor of Safety against Sliding

82.22691667 457.3633421 5.562209562 Safe 72.91590158 457.3633421 6.272477364 Safe Design of Shear Key is not Needed STEP 6 : Reinforcement Steel Bars Design of Base Slab at Front Toe for Steel requirements. Thickness of Base Slab 0.9 m Deff 850 mm Shear Force factor 1.5 ON BASE : Pr1 = Upward pressure at Toe 375.1321485 kN/m^2 Pr2 = Upward Pressure at a distance of effective depth from 371.45 kN/m^2 Front of wall Pr3 = Upward Pressure at The Front Face of wall 283.698 kN/m^2 Pr4 = Upward Pressure at The Backfill Face of wall 189.132 kN/m^2 Pr5 = Upward Pressure at Heel 119.3147078 kN/m^2 Dpr = downward Pressure by Self weight of Base 22.5 kN/m^2 Design Shear Force 184.165314 kN Design Bending Moment 288.2976059 kN-m  Area of Steel required at bottom Base slab at Toe  Ast 1793.98 Provided T20 bars @ 200 mm c/c at bottom of Base Slab at Toe Provided Provided Ast 1884.96 sq.mm Percent of Tension Steel 0.15 Applied Shear Stress τ_v 0.261 OK Distribution Steel 1020 sq.mm Provide T10 @ 90 mm c/c Steel Area Provided 942.478 sq.mm STEP 7 : Design of Base Slab at Backfill Heel Side for Steel Reinforcement Upward Pressure 119.3147078 kN/m^2 downward Pressure 133.7 kN/m^2 Tension reinforcement steel will be required at the top Design Shear Force 189.69 kN Design Bending Moment 267.45 kN-m Effective Depth of Base Slab at Heel 264.66 mm  Area of Steel required at top of base slab at Heel 799.91 sq.mm Provide T20 bars @ 200 mm c/c at Top of bar slab at Heel 173

Steel Area Provided Percentage  Applied Shear Stress Provide T10 @ 90 mm c/c  Ast Provided

1884.96 0.22 0.21

OK

864.94 STEP 8 : Design of Wall Reinforcement  At the bottom of the front face of the wall Design Bending Moment 1441.75 Design Shear 143.871 Factored Bending Moment 2162.625 Factored Shear Force 215.8065 Effective Thickness of wall at the base 274.66  Area of steel required 3166.66 Provide T32 bars @200 mm c/c at Top of bar slab at Heel  Ast Provided 4125.89 Distribution Steel for Temperature Reinforcements:  Area of Temperature Steel 6048 Use 10 mm bars 65 Provide 43 bars horizontally on the Front face @ 80 mm c/c Provide 21 bars horizontally on the Backfill side face @ 240 mm c/c

sq.mm

kN-m kN kN-m kN mm sq.mm sq.mm sq.mm pcs

Design of Piles

Using 800 mm bored piling rig Pile Diameter [D]  Applied Load on Pile Group [P] Factor of Safety [FS]

Allowable Flexural Stress in Concrete [σ_c] Steel Grade [fy]

Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st]   Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c] Total Piles [Np] Total Piles in front row [N]

γ_sub

0.8 m 771.1707156 ton 3 11.67 N/sq.mm 415 N/mm^2 200 2.5 4 2 0.92

FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP

Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression [σ_cbc] 116.7 2000 Allowable stress in steel [σ_st]

kg/sq.cm kg/sq.cm

Modular Ratio [m] = 10 Load Factor [F] = 1.5 Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter Reinforcement Clear Cover

mm mm mm mm mm

10 1.5 20 25 16 10 75

174

Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars Pile Cap Length [LPC] Pile Cap Width [BPC] Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] Pier Length [LPr] Pier Width [BPr] Distance [L1] Distance [L2] Distance [L3]

150 4800 4800 1000 3000 1200 1800 1200 1200

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

DESIGN CALCULATIONS STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION Pile Length 11 m Embedded Length 9 m Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) 0.5024 m^2 (A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT OF SOIL : SKIN FRICTION : Borehole No. : BH:1

Layer No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Depth up to the bottom Layer 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

Thickness of Sub Layer 3.45 1.5 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5

Depth Below Scour level 3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 5.05

Surface  Area

φ

δ

γ_sub

(deg)

(deg)

(ton/cu.m)

10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

39 38.4 50 46.8 47.9 49 51.6 48.6 50.7

26 25.6 33.3 31.2 32 32.7 34.4 32.4 33.8

1.81 1.86 1.19 1.9 1.91 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92

Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction : For Layer 1 : For Layer 2 : For Layer 3 : For Layer 4 : For Layer 5 : For Layer 6 : For Layer 7 : For Layer 8 : For Layer 9 : Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) END BEARING Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing :

24.76143125 26.18403594 82.79489455 36.71432872 31.46198517 26.01312158 27.87973344 25.84908288 89.02795104 370.6865646

P_D(

P_Di

6.245 9.207 8.595 8.55 5.73 5.76 5.76 5.76 9.696

3.122 7.726 8.901 8.572 7.14 5.745 5.76 5.76 7.728

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton

175

Nc Nq Ny Rus Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile Safe Load on Pile (Qus)

Layers No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Thickness of the Layer (m) 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

95.7 81.3 100.4 434.7729408 ton 805.4595054 ton 268.4865018 ton

(B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL : Depth Below Surface Area α (deg) c (deg) Scour Level (m^2) (m) 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05

Total Ultimate Resistance End Bearing Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu Safe Load on Pile (Quc) Permissible safe Load on Pile  Applied Load on Pile Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group Self weight of each Pile Total Load on Pile = Pu STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE Pile Diameter Pile Reinforcement Cover Cover / Pile Dia

4.27175 2.403984 6.675734 2.225244667 270.7117465 771.1707156 57.6 8.2896 215.4822789

800 95 0.11875 0.061566365 Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 1.42857E-10 Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide p = 0.4%, here p = 0% Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4  Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 2009.6 Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20  Area of one Steel reinforcement bar 314 Total number of bars 7 Radius of Pile up to Rebars 325 Perimeter along Rebars 2041 Spacing of bars 226.7777778

Ultimate Resistance(ton) 0.813 0.2355 0.70725 0.35325 0.82425 0.7065 0.2355 0.11775 0.27875

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton SAFE mm mm

sq.mm sq.mm mm mm mm 176

So, Provide Spacing 200 mm Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm < 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm < 300 mm Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c STEP 3 : DESIGN OF PILE CAP : Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528 Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824 Q 18.86026676 Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 430.9645578 Moment at the Face of Pier 258.5787347 Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 21.6 Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 19.44 ton-m Total Moment at the Face of Pier 239.1387347 ton-m Moment per Linear metre 49.82056972 ton-m/m Depth required 513.9613122 mm Overall Depth Provided 1000 Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay deff 91.25 cm Required Steel Reinforcement 31.12158039 sq.cm/m Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing. Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar Diameter 16 mm Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Shear Reinforcement : Critical section at deff 912.5 mm Reaction on Piles in Front row 430.9645578 ton 4.191573096 Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v   Percent of bottom main reinforcement 0.341058415 Minimum Shear Reinforcement 27.5 sq.cm/m Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing Using 900 mm bored piling rig Pile Diameter [D]  Applied Load on Pile Group [P] Factor of Safety [FS]

0.9 m 771.1707156 ton 3 177

 Allowable Flexural Stress in Concrete [σ_c] Steel Grade [fy] Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st]  

Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c] Total Piles [Np] Total Piles in front row [N]

γ_sub

11.67 415 200 2.5 4 2 0.92

N/sq.mm N/mm^2

116.7 2000 10 1.5 20 25 16 10 75 150 5400 5400 1000 3000 1200 1950 1350 1350

kg/sq.cm kg/sq.cm

FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP

Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression [σ_cbc] Allowable stress in steel [σ_st]

Modular Ratio [m] = 10 Load Factor [F] = 1.5 Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter Reinforcement Clear Cover Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars Pile Cap Length [LPC] Pile Cap Width [BPC] Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] Pier Length [LPr] Pier Width [BPr] Distance [L1] Distance [L2] Distance [L3] DESIGN CALCULATIONS STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION Pile Length 11 Embedded Length 9 Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) 0.63585 (A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT OF SOIL : SKIN FRICTION : Borehole No. : BH:1 Layer No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Depth up to the bottom Layer 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95

Thickness of Sub Layer 3.45 1.5 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Depth Below Scour level 3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

m m m^2

Surface  Area

φ

δ

γ_sub

(deg)

(deg)

(ton/cu.m)

10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71

39 38.4 50 46.8 47.9 49 51.6

26 25.6 33.3 31.2 32 32.7 34.4

1.81 1.86 1.19 1.9 1.91 1.92 1.92

P_D(

P_Di

6.245 9.207 8.595 8.55 5.73 5.76 5.76

3.122 7.726 8.901 8.572 7.14 5.745 5.76 178

8 9

15.45 19.95

1.5 4.5

3 5.05

4.71 11.15

48.6 50.7

Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction : For Layer 1 : For Layer 2 : For Layer 3 : For Layer 4 : For Layer 5 : For Layer 6 : For Layer 7 : For Layer 8 : For Layer 9 : Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) END BEARING Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing : Nc Nq Ny Rus Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile Safe Load on Pile (Qus) (B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL : Layers Thickness of Depth Surface Area No. the Layer Below (m^2) (m) Scour Level (m) 1 3.45 3.45 10.84 2 4.95 4.95 4.71 3 7.95 4.5 9.43 4 9.45 4.5 4.71 5 10.95 3 4.71 6 12.45 3 4.71 7 13.95 3 4.71 8 15.45 3 4.71 9 19.95 5.05 11.15 Total Ultimate Resistance End Bearing Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu Safe Load on Pile (Quc) Permissible safe Load on Pile  Applied Load on Pile Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group

32.4 33.8

1.92 1.92

24.76143125 26.18403594 82.79489455 36.71432872 31.46198517 26.01312158 27.87973344 25.84908288 89.02795104 370.6865646

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton

5.76 5.76 9.696 7.728

95.7 81.3 100.4 556.3880798 ton 927.0746444 ton 309.0248815 ton

α (deg)

c (deg)

Ultimate Resistance(ton)

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

0.15 0.1 0.15 0.15 0.35 0.3 0.1 0.05 0.05

0.813 0.2355 0.70725 0.35325 0.82425 0.7065 0.2355 0.11775 0.27875

4.27175 3.04254225 7.31429225 2.438097417 311.4629789 771.1707156 72.9

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton 179

Self weight of each Pile Total Load on Pile = Pu STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE Pile Diameter Pile Reinforcement Cover Cover / Pile Dia

10.491525 ton 221.5092039 SAFE

900 mm 95 mm 0.105555556 0.063288344 Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 1.42857E-10 Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide p = 0.4%, here p = 0% Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4  Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 2543.4 sq.mm Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20  Area of one Steel reinforcement bar 314 sq.mm Total number of bars 9 Radius of Pile up to Rebars 375 mm Perimeter along Rebars 2355 mm Spacing of bars 261.6666667 mm So, Provide Spacing 250 mm Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm < 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm < 300 mm Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c STEP 3 : DESIGN OF PILE CAP : Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528 Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824 Q 18.86026676 Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 443.0184078 Moment at the Face of Pier 265.8110447 Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 26.325 Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 25.666875 ton-m Total Moment at the Face of Pier 240.1441697 ton-m Moment per Linear metre 44.47114253 ton-m/m Depth required 485.5849614 mm Overall Depth Provided 1000 Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay deff 91.25 cm Required Steel Reinforcement 27.77993597 sq.cm/m Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing. Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar Diameter 16 mm Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing 180

 Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 Shear Reinforcement : Critical section at deff 912.5 Reaction on Piles in Front row 443.0184078 5.037058609 Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v   Percent of bottom main reinforcement 0.304437655 Minimum Shear Reinforcement 27.5 Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing

sq.cm/m

sq.cm/m mm ton

sq.cm/m

Using 1000 mm bored piling rig Pile Diameter [D]  Applied Load on Pile Group [P] Factor of Safety [FS]

Allowable Flexural Stress in Concrete [σ_c] Steel Grade [fy]

Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st]   Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c] Total Piles [Np] Total Piles in front row [N]

γ_sub

1 m 771.1707156 ton 3 11.67 N/sq.mm 415 N/mm^2 200 2.5 4 2 0.92

FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP

Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression [σ_cbc] Allowable stress in steel [σ_st]

116.7 2000 10 1.5 20 25 16 10 75 150 6000 6000 1000 3000 1200 2100 1500 1500

Modular Ratio [m] = 10 Load Factor [F] = 1.5 Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter Reinforcement Clear Cover Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars Pile Cap Length [LPC] Pile Cap Width [BPC] Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] Pier Length [LPr] Pier Width [BPr] Distance [L1] Distance [L2] Distance [L3] DESIGN CALCULATIONS STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION

kg/sq.cm kg/sq.cm

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

181

Pile Length Embedded Length Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) (A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT OF SOIL : SKIN FRICTION : Borehole No. : BH:1 Layer No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Depth up to the bottom Layer 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

Thicknes s of Sub Layer 3.45 1.5 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5

Depth Below Scour level 3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 5.05

11 9 0.785

1

Thickness of the Layer (m) 3.45

γ_sub

Surface  Area

φ

δ

(deg)

(deg)

10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

39 38.4 50 46.8 47.9 49 51.6 48.6 50.7

26 25.6 33.3 31.2 32 32.7 34.4 32.4 33.8

(ton/cu. m) 1.81 1.86 1.19 1.9 1.91 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92

24.76143125 26.18403594 82.79489455 36.71432872 31.46198517 26.01312158 27.87973344 25.84908288 89.02795104 370.6865646

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton

Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction : For Layer 1 : For Layer 2 : For Layer 3 : For Layer 4 : For Layer 5 : For Layer 6 : For Layer 7 : For Layer 8 : For Layer 9 : Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) END BEARING Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing : Nc Nq Ny Rus Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile Safe Load on Pile (Qus)

Layers No.

m m m^2

P_D(

P_Di

6.245 9.207 8.595 8.55 5.73 5.76 5.76 5.76 9.696

3.122 7.726 8.901 8.572 7.14 5.745 5.76 5.76 7.728

95.7 81.3 100.4 694.465008 ton 1065.151573 ton 355.0505242 ton

(B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL : Depth Below Surface Area Scour Level α (deg) c (deg) (m^2) (m) 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15

Ultimate Resistance(ton) 0.813 182

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 5.05

4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

Total Ultimate Resistance End Bearing Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu Safe Load on Pile (Quc) Permissible safe Load on Pile  Applied Load on Pile Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group Self-weight of each Pile Total Load on Pile = Pu STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE Pile Diameter Pile Reinforcement Cover Cover / Pile Dia

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 4.27175 3.756225 8.027975 2.675991667 357.7265159 771.1707156 90 12.9525 228.2451789

0.1 0.15 0.15 0.35 0.3 0.1 0.05 0.05

0.2355 0.70725 0.35325 0.82425 0.7065 0.2355 0.11775 0.27875

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton SAFE

1000 mm 95 mm 0.095 0.065212908 Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 1.42857E-10 Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide p = 0.4%, here p = 0% Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4  Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 3140 sq.mm Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20  Area of one Steel reinforcement bar 314 sq.mm Total number of bars 10 Radius of Pile up to Rebars 425 mm Perimeter along Rebars 2669 mm Spacing of bars 296.5555556 mm So, Provide Spacing 250 mm Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm < 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm < 300 mm Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c STEP 3 : DESIGN OF PILE CAP : Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528 Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824 Q 18.86026676 Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 456.4903578 Moment at the Face of Pier 273.8942147 183

Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 31.5 Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 33.075 ton-m Total Moment at the Face of Pier 240.8192147 ton-m Moment per Linear metre 40.13653578 ton-m/m Depth required 461.3133545 mm Overall Depth Provided 1000 Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay deff 91.25 cm Required Steel Reinforcement 25.07222281 sq.cm/m Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing. Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar Diameter 16 mm Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Shear Reinforcement : Critical section at deff 912.5 mm Reaction on Piles in Front row 456.4903578 ton 5.940627944 Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v   Percent of bottom main reinforcement 0.274764086 Minimum Shear Reinforcement 27.5 sq.cm/m Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing Using 1100 mm bored piling rig Pile Diameter [D]  Applied Load on Pile Group [P] Factor of Safety [FS]  Allowable Flexural Stress in Concrete [σ_c] Steel Grade [fy] Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st]  

Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c] Total Piles [Np] Total Piles in front row [N]

γ_sub

1.1 771.1707156 3 11.67 415 200 2.5 4 2 0.92

m ton

116.7 2000 10 1.5

kg/sq.cm kg/sq.cm

N/sq.mm N/mm^2

FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP

Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression [σ_cbc] Allowable stress in steel [σ_st] Modular Ratio [m] = 10 Load Factor [F] = 1.5

184

Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] 20 Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] 25 Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] 16 Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter 10 Reinforcement Clear Cover 75 Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars 150 Pile Cap Length [LPC] 6600 Pile Cap Width [BPC] 6600 Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] 1000 Pier Length [LPr] 3000 Pier Width [BPr] 1200 Distance [L1] 2250 Distance [L2] 1650 Distance [L3] 1650 DESIGN CALCULATIONS STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION Pile Length 11 Embedded Length 9 Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) 0.94985 (A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT OF SOIL : SKIN FRICTION : Borehole No. : BH:1

Layer No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Depth up to the bottom Layer 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

Thickness of Sub Layer 3.45 1.5 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5

Depth Below Scour level 3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 5.05

Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction : For Layer 1 : For Layer 2 : For Layer 3 : For Layer 4 : For Layer 5 : For Layer 6 : For Layer 7 :

Surfac e Area 10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

δ

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

m m m^2

γ_sub

φ (deg) (deg) (ton/cu.m

P_D(

P_Di

6.245 9.207 8.595 8.55 5.73 5.76 5.76 5.76 9.696

3.122 7.726 8.901 8.572 7.14 5.745 5.76 5.76 7.728

)

39 38.4 50 46.8 47.9 49 51.6 48.6 50.7

26 25.6 33.3 31.2 32 32.7 34.4 32.4 33.8

24.76143125 26.18403594 82.79489455 36.71432872 31.46198517 26.01312158 27.87973344

1.81 1.86 1.19 1.9 1.91 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton 185

For Layer 8 : For Layer 9 : Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) END BEARING Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing : Nc Nq Ny Rus Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile Safe Load on Pile (Qus)

Layers No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Thickness of the Layer (m) 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

25.84908288 ton 89.02795104 ton 370.6865646 ton

95.7 81.3 100.4 849.4576939 ton 1220.144258 ton 406.7147528 ton

(B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL : Depth Below Surface Area Scour Level α (deg) c (deg) (m^2) (m) 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05

Total Ultimate Resistance End Bearing Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu Safe Load on Pile (Quc) Permissible safe Load on Pile  Applied Load on Pile Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group Self weight of each Pile Total Load on Pile = Pu STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE Pile Diameter Pile Reinforcement Cover Cover / Pile Dia

4.27175 4.54503225 8.81678225 2.938927417 409.6536802 771.1707156 108.9 15.672525 235.6902039

Ultimate Resistance(ton) 0.813 0.2355 0.70725 0.35325 0.82425 0.7065 0.2355 0.11775 0.27875

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton SAFE

1100 mm 95 mm 0.086363636 0.067340058 Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 1.42857E-10 Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide p = 0.4%, here p = 0% Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4  Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 3799.4 sq.mm Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20 186

 Area of one Steel reinforcement bar 314 sq.mm Total number of bars 13 Radius of Pile up to Rebars 475 mm Perimeter along Rebars 2983 mm Spacing of bars 331.4444444 mm So, Provide Spacing 300 mm Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm < 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm < 300 mm Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c STEP 3 : DESIGN OF PILE CAP : Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528 Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824 Q 18.86026676 Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 471.3804078 Moment at the Face of Pier 282.8282447 Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 37.125 Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 41.765625 ton-m Total Moment at the Face of Pier 241.0626197 ton-m Moment per Linear metre 36.52463935 ton-m/m Depth required 440.0672533 mm Overall Depth Provided 1000 Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay deff 91.25 cm Required Steel Reinforcement 22.8159675 sq.cm/m Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing. Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar Diameter 16 mm Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Shear Reinforcement : Critical section at deff 912.5 mm Reaction on Piles in Front row 471.3804078 ton Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v   6.90927447 Percent of bottom main reinforcement 0.250038 Minimum Shear Reinforcement 27.5 sq.cm/m Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing

187

Using 1200 mm bored piling rig Pile Diameter [D]  Applied Load on Pile Group [P] Factor of Safety [FS]

Allowable Flexural Stress in Concrete [σ_c] Steel Grade [fy]

Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st]   Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c] Total Piles [Np] Total Piles in front row [N]

γ_sub

1.2 771.1707156 3 11.67 415 200 2.5 2 1 0.92

m ton

116.7 2000 10 1.5 20 25 16 10 75 150 7200 3600 1000 3000 1200 2400 1800 1800

kg/sq.cm kg/sq.cm

N/sq.mm N/mm^2

FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP

Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression [σ_cbc] Allowable stress in steel [σ_st]

Modular Ratio [m] = 10 Load Factor [F] = 1.5 Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter Reinforcement Clear Cover Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars Pile Cap Length [LPC] Pile Cap Width [BPC] Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] Pier Length [LPr] Pier Width [BPr] Distance [L1] Distance [L2] Distance [L3] DESIGN CALCULATIONS STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION Pile Length 11 Embedded Length 9 Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) 1.1304 (A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT OF SOIL : SKIN FRICTION : Borehole No. : BH:1

Layer No.

Depth up to the bottom Layer

Thickness of Sub Layer

1

3.45

3.45

Depth Below Scour level 3.45

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

m m m^2

γ_sub

Surfac e Area

φ

δ

(deg)

(deg)

(ton/cu.m )

P_D(

P_Di

10.84

39

26

1.81

6.245

3.122 188

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

1.5 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5

4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 5.05

4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

38.4 50 46.8 47.9 49 51.6 48.6 50.7

Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction : For Layer 1 : For Layer 2 : For Layer 3 : For Layer 4 : For Layer 5 : For Layer 6 : For Layer 7 : For Layer 8 : For Layer 9 : Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) END BEARING Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing : Nc Nq Ny Rus Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile Safe Load on Pile (Qus)

Layers No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Thickness of the Layer (m) 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

25.6 33.3 31.2 32 32.7 34.4 32.4 33.8

1.86 1.19 1.9 1.91 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92

24.76143125 26.18403594 82.79489455 36.71432872 31.46198517 26.01312158 27.87973344 25.84908288 89.02795104 370.6865646

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton

7.726 8.901 8.572 7.14 5.745 5.76 5.76 7.728

95.7 81.3 100.4 1021.820106 ton 1392.506671 ton 464.1688903 ton

(B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL : Depth Below Surface Area Scour Level α (deg) c (deg) (m^2) (m) 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05

Total Ultimate Resistance End Bearing

9.207 8.595 8.55 5.73 5.76 5.76 5.76 9.696

4.27175 5.408964

Ultimate Resistance(ton) 0.813 0.2355 0.70725 0.35325 0.82425 0.7065 0.2355 0.11775 0.27875

ton ton 189

Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu Safe Load on Pile (Quc) Permissible safe Load on Pile  Applied Load on Pile Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group Self-weight of each Pile Total Load on Pile = Pu STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE Pile Diameter Pile Reinforcement Cover Cover / Pile Dia

9.680714 3.226904667 467.3957949 771.1707156 64.8 18.6516 436.6369578

ton ton ton ton ton ton SAFE

1200 mm 95 mm 0.079166667 Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.124753417 1.42857E-10 Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide p = 0.4%, here p = 0% Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4  Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 4521.6 sq.mm Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20  Area of one Steel reinforcement bar 314 sq.mm Total number of bars 15 Radius of Pile up to Rebars 525 mm Perimeter along Rebars 3297 mm Spacing of bars 366.3333333 mm So, Provide Spacing 350 mm Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm < 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm < 300 mm Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c STEP 3 : DESIGN OF PILE CAP : Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528 Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824 Q 18.86026676 Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 436.6369578 Moment at the Face of Pier 261.9821747 Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 43.2 Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 51.84 ton-m Total Moment at the Face of Pier 210.1421747 ton-m Moment per Linear metre 29.18641315 ton-m/m Depth required 393.3837784 mm Overall Depth Provided 1000 Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay deff 91.25 cm Required Steel Reinforcement 18.23197342 sq.cm/m Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm 190

Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing. Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar Diameter 16 mm Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Shear Reinforcement : Critical section at deff 912.5 mm Reaction on Piles in Front row 436.6369578 ton 7.117780545 Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v   Percent of bottom main reinforcement 0.199802448 Minimum Shear Reinforcement 27.5 sq.cm/m Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing Using 1300 mm bored piling rig Pile Diameter [D]  Applied Load on Pile Group [P] Factor of Safety [FS]  Allowable Flexural Stress in Concrete [σ_c] Steel Grade [fy] Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st]  

Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c] Total Piles [Np] Total Piles in front row [N]

γ_sub

1.3 m 771.1707156 ton 3 11.67 N/sq.mm 415 N/mm^2 200 2.5 2 1 0.92

FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP

Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression [σ_cbc] Allowable stress in steel [σ_st] Modular Ratio [m] = 10 Load Factor [F] = 1.5 Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter Reinforcement Clear Cover Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars Pile Cap Length [LPC] Pile Cap Width [BPC] Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] Pier Length [LPr] Pier Width [BPr]

116.7 2000 10 1.5 20 25 16 10 75 150 7800 3900 1000 3000 1200

kg/sq.cm kg/sq.cm

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm 191

Distance [L1] Distance [L2] Distance [L3]

2550 1950 1950

mm mm mm

DESIGN CALCULATIONS STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION Pile Length 11 m Embedded Length 9 m Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) 1.32665 m^2 (A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT OF SOIL : SKIN FRICTION : Borehole No. : BH:1

Layer No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Depth up to the bottom Layer 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

Thickness of Sub Layer

Depth Below Scour level

Surfac e Area

φ

δ

(deg)

(deg)

(ton/cu.m )

P_D(

P_Di

3.45 1.5 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5

3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 5.05

10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

39 38.4 50 46.8 47.9 49 51.6 48.6 50.7

26 25.6 33.3 31.2 32 32.7 34.4 32.4 33.8

1.81 1.86 1.19 1.9 1.91 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92

6.245 9.207 8.595 8.55 5.73 5.76 5.76 5.76 9.696

3.122 7.726 8.901 8.572 7.14 5.745 5.76 5.76 7.728

24.76143125 26.18403594 82.79489455 36.71432872 31.46198517 26.01312158 27.87973344 25.84908288 89.02795104 370.6865646

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton

Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction : For Layer 1 : For Layer 2 : For Layer 3 : For Layer 4 : For Layer 5 : For Layer 6 : For Layer 7 : For Layer 8 : For Layer 9 : Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) END BEARING Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing : Nc Nq Ny Rus Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile

γ_sub

95.7 81.3 100.4 1212.006214 ton 1582.692778 ton 192

Safe Load on Pile (Qus)

Layers No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Thickness of the Layer (m) 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

527.5642594 ton

(B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL : Depth Below Surface Area Scour Level α (deg) c (deg) (m^2) (m) 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05

Total Ultimate Resistance End Bearing Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu Safe Load on Pile (Quc) Permissible safe Load on Pile  Applied Load on Pile Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group Self-weight of each Pile Total Load on Pile = Pu STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE Pile Diameter Pile Reinforcement Cover Cover / Pile Dia

4.27175 6.34802025 10.61977025 3.539923417 531.1041828 771.1707156 76.05 21.889725 445.5000828

1300 95 0.073076923 0.127285738 Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) 1.42857E-10 In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide p = 0.4%, here p = 0% Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4  Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 5306.6 Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20  Area of one Steel reinforcement bar 314 Total number of bars 17 Radius of Pile up to Rebars 575 Perimeter along Rebars 3611 Spacing of bars 401.2222222 So, Provide Spacing 400 Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm < 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm < 300 mm

Ultimate Resistance(ton) 0.813 0.2355 0.70725 0.35325 0.82425 0.7065 0.2355 0.11775 0.27875

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton SAFE mm mm

sq.mm sq.mm mm mm mm mm

193

Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c STEP 3 : DESIGN OF PILE CAP : Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528 Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824 Q 18.86026676 Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 445.5000828 Moment at the Face of Pier 267.3000497 Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 49.725 Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 63.399375 ton-m Total Moment at the Face of Pier 203.9006747 ton-m Moment per Linear metre 26.14111214 ton-m/m Depth required 372.2957809 mm Overall Depth Provided 1000 Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay deff 91.25 cm Required Steel Reinforcement 16.32965515 sq.cm/m Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing. Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar Diameter 16 mm Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Shear Reinforcement : Critical section at deff 912.5 mm Reaction on Piles in Front row 445.5000828 ton 7.994590527 Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v   Percent of bottom main reinforcement 0.178955125 Minimum Shear Reinforcement 27.5 sq.cm/m Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing Using 1400 mm bored piling rig Pile Diameter [D]  Applied Load on Pile Group [P] Factor of Safety [FS]

Allowable Flexural Stress in Concrete [σ_c] Steel Grade [fy]

Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st]   Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c] Total Piles [Np]

1.4 771.1707156 3 11.67 415 200 2.5 2

m ton N/sq.mm N/mm^2

194

Total Piles in front row [N]

1 0.92

γ_sub FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP

Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression [σ_cbc] Allowable stress in steel [σ_st]

116.7 2000 10 1.5 20 25 16 10 75 150 8400 4200 1000 3000 1200 2700 2100 2100

kg/sq.cm kg/sq.cm

Modular Ratio [m] = 10 Load Factor [F] = 1.5 Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter Reinforcement Clear Cover Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars Pile Cap Length [LPC] Pile Cap Width [BPC] Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] Pier Length [LPr] Pier Width [BPr] Distance [L1] Distance [L2] Distance [L3] DESIGN CALCULATIONS STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION Pile Length 10 Embedded Length 8 Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) 1.5386 (A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT OF SOIL : SKIN FRICTION : Borehole No. : BH:1

Layer No.

Depth up to the bottom Layer

Thickness of Sub Layer

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

3.45 1.5 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5

Depth Below Scour level 3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 5.05

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

m m m^2

γ_sub

Surface  Area

φ

δ

(deg)

(deg)

(ton/cu. m)

P_D(

P_Di

10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

39 38.4 50 46.8 47.9 49 51.6 48.6 50.7

26 25.6 33.3 31.2 32 32.7 34.4 32.4 33.8

1.81 1.86 1.19 1.9 1.91 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92

6.245 9.207 8.595 8.55 5.73 5.76 5.76 5.76 9.696

3.122 7.726 8.901 8.572 7.14 5.745 5.76 5.76 7.728 195

Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction : For Layer 1 : For Layer 2 : For Layer 3 : For Layer 4 : For Layer 5 : For Layer 6 : For Layer 7 : For Layer 8 : For Layer 9 : Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) END BEARING Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing : Nc Nq Ny Rus Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile Safe Load on Pile (Qus)

Layers No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Thickness of the Layer (m) 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

24.76143125 26.18403594 82.79489455 36.71432872 31.46198517 26.01312158 27.87973344 25.84908288 89.02795104 370.6865646

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton

95.7 81.3 100.4 1420.469985 ton 1791.156549 ton 597.0521831 ton

(B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL : Depth Below Surface Area Scour Level α (deg) c (deg) (m^2) (m) 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05

Total Ultimate Resistance End Bearing Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu Safe Load on Pile (Quc) Permissible safe Load on Pile  Applied Load on Pile Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group Self-weight of each Pile Total Load on Pile = Pu STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE

4.27175 7.362201 11.633951 3.877983667 600.9301667 771.1707156 88.2 23.079 452.7643578

Ultimate Resistance(ton) 0.813 0.2355 0.70725 0.35325 0.82425 0.7065 0.2355 0.11775 0.27875

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton SAFE

196

Pile Diameter Pile Reinforcement Cover Cover / Pile Dia

1400 mm 95 mm 0.067857143 Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.129361245 1.42857E-10 Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide p = 0.4%, here p = 0% Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4  Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 6154.4 sq.mm Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20  Area of one Steel reinforcement bar 314 sq.mm Total number of bars 20 Radius of Pile up to Rebars 625 mm Perimeter along Rebars 3925 mm Spacing of bars 436.1111111 mm So, Provide Spacing 400 mm Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm < 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm < 300 mm Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c STEP 3 : DESIGN OF PILE CAP : Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528 Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824 Q 18.86026676 Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 452.7643578 Moment at the Face of Pier 271.6586147 Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 56.7 Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 76.545 ton-m Total Moment at the Face of Pier 195.1136147 ton-m Moment per Linear metre 23.22781127 ton-m/m Depth required 350.9378643 mm Overall Depth Provided 1000 Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay deff 91.25 cm Required Steel Reinforcement 14.50979384 sq.cm/m Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing. Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar Diameter 16 mm Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing 197

 Area of Steel Provided Shear Reinforcement : Critical section at deff Reaction on Piles in Front row Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v   Percent of bottom main reinforcement Minimum Shear Reinforcement Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing

13.39733333 sq.cm/m 912.5 mm 452.7643578 ton 8.869219612 0.159011439 27.5 sq.cm/m

Using 1500 mm bored piling rig Pile Diameter [D]  Applied Load on Pile Group [P] Factor of Safety [FS]  Allowable Flexural Stress in Concrete [σ_c] Steel Grade [fy] Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st]  

Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c] Total Piles [Np] Total Piles in front row [N]

γ_sub

1.5 771.1707156 3 11.67 415 200 2.5 2 1 0.92

m ton

116.7 2000 10 1.5 20 25 16 10 75 150 9000 4500 1000 3000 1200 2850 2250 2250

kg/sq.cm kg/sq.cm

N/sq.mm N/mm^2

FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP

Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression [σ_cbc] Allowable stress in steel [σ_st]

Modular Ratio [m] = 10 Load Factor [F] = 1.5 Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter Reinforcement Clear Cover Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars Pile Cap Length [LPC] Pile Cap Width [BPC] Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] Pier Length [LPr] Pier Width [BPr] Distance [L1] Distance [L2] Distance [L3] DESIGN CALCULATIONS STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION Pile Length 10 Embedded Length 8 Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) 1.76625

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

m m m^2 198

(A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT OF SOIL : SKIN FRICTION : Borehole No. : BH:1 Layer No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Depth up to the bottom Layer 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

Thickness of Sub Layer 3.45 1.5 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5

Depth Below Scour level 3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 5.05

Surfac e Area

φ

δ

(deg)

(deg)

10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

39 38.4 50 46.8 47.9 49 51.6 48.6 50.7

26 25.6 33.3 31.2 32 32.7 34.4 32.4 33.8

Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction : For Layer 1 : For Layer 2 : For Layer 3 : For Layer 4 : For Layer 5 : For Layer 6 : For Layer 7 : For Layer 8 : For Layer 9 : Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) END BEARING Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing : Nc Nq Ny Rus Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile Safe Load on Pile (Qus)

Layers No. 1 2 3 4

Thickness of the Layer (m) 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45

γ_sub (ton/cu.m ) 1.81 1.86 1.19 1.9 1.91 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92

24.76143125 26.18403594 82.79489455 36.71432872 31.46198517 26.01312158 27.87973344 25.84908288 89.02795104 370.6865646

P_D(

P_Di

6.245 9.207 8.595 8.55 5.73 5.76 5.76 5.76 9.696

3.122 7.726 8.901 8.572 7.14 5.745 5.76 5.76 7.728

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton

95.7 81.3 100.4 1647.665388 ton 2018.351953 ton 672.7839842 ton

(B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL : Depth Below Surface Area Scour Level α (deg) c (deg) (m^2) (m) 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15

Ultimate Resistance(ton) 0.813 0.2355 0.70725 0.35325 199

5 6 7 8 9

10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

3 3 3 3 5.05

4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

Total Ultimate Resistance End Bearing Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu Safe Load on Pile (Quc) Permissible safe Load on Pile  Applied Load on Pile Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group Self-weight of each Pile Total Load on Pile = Pu STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE Pile Diameter Pile Reinforcement Cover Cover / Pile Dia

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 4.27175 8.45150625 12.72325625 4.241085417 677.0250696 771.1707156 101.25 26.49375 462.7041078

0.35 0.3 0.1 0.05 0.05

0.82425 0.7065 0.2355 0.11775 0.27875

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton SAFE

1500 mm 95 mm 0.063333333 0.132201174 Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 1.42857E-10 Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide p = 0.4%, here p = 0% Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4  Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 7065 sq.mm Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20  Area of one Steel reinforcement bar 314 sq.mm Total number of bars 23 Radius of Pile up to Rebars 675 mm Perimeter along Rebars 4239 mm Spacing of bars 471 mm So, Provide Spacing 450 mm Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm < 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm < 300 mm Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528 Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824 Q 18.86026676 Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 462.7041078 Moment at the Face of Pier 277.6224647 Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 64.125 Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 91.378125 ton-m Total Moment at the Face of Pier 186.2443397 ton-m Moment per Linear metre 20.69381552 ton-m/m 200

Depth required 331.242742 mm Overall Depth Provided 1000 Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay deff 91.25 cm Required Steel Reinforcement 12.92687432 sq.cm/m Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing. Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar Diameter 16 mm Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Shear Reinforcement : Critical section at deff 912.5 mm Reaction on Piles in Front row 462.7041078 ton 9.824539275 Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v   Percent of bottom main reinforcement 0.141664376 Minimum Shear Reinforcement 27.5 sq.cm/m Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing

201

APPENDIX E: DESIGN OF REINFORCED CONCRETE DECK GIRDER BRIDGE Transformed Section Properties

The transformed section moment of inertia, location of centroid, and section modulus are shown in the following table: Properties of Transformed Girder Section

Factored Moments and Shears

The load combination applicable to the limit state listed below is based from AASHTO 3.4 and Table 3.4.11. The loads being considered in the equation are the unfactored value and (LL + IM) denotes to a one -lane loaded effect only. Strength I

:

1.3[(DC) + 1.67(LL + IM)] MS 18

Factored Maximum Shear and Moment for Strength I Strength I DC LL+ML Total

Moment 675.66 3762.12 5615.21

Shear 117.13 330.99 448.11

Flexural Reinforcement Moment Capacity Mu 5615.21 kN-m Mn 6109.47 Psi Mu<0.9Mn OK Reinforcement Details (Midspan) Top Bars 2-32mm Compression Bars Bottom Bars 16-32mm Tension Bars Reinforcement Details (Support) Top Bars 2-32mm Bars Bottom Bars 12-32mm Bars ft 6*√f’c 464.76 psi

202

Shear Reinforcement

Vu Vn Vs  Av Vc

606.25 673.71 699.45 226.19 536.30

kN kN kN mm2 kN

Stirrups Spacing at outer third of the span Stirrups Spacing at middle third of the span

200 300

mm mm

Design of Diaphragms Intermediate Diaphragm Flexural Capacity Mu Mn Top Bar Reinforcement Bottom Bar Reinforcement Shear Capacity Vu Vc Vu<0.9Vc Type of Bar Spacing End Diaphragm Mu Moment Capacity Top bar reinforcement Bottom bar reinforcement Stirrups Bottom End Diaphragm pmin pmax Top Reinforcing bars Base Reinforcing Bars

34.48 kN-m kN-m 40.43 kN-m kN-m 2-16mm bars 4-16mm bars 12.63 kN 36.12 kN OK, minimum reinforcement 12mm bars 200 mm 17.19 kN-m 47.15 kN-m 2-16mm Bars 7-16mm Bars 200mm Spacing 0.00509 0.04972 19-16mm Bars 14-16mm Bars

Design of Pier Cap DESIGN MOMENTS  At Mid Span 1,161.89 kN-m Cantilever Moments 2,646.24 kN-m DESIGN FOR BENDING OF MIDSPAN Design Moment 1,161.89 kN-m

203

Span Length Depth Of Slab/Deck Depth Of Pier Cap Width Of Pier Cap Cover Of Reinforcement Size Of Reinforcement Stirrup Diameter Effective Depth k k'

6,500 mm 300 mm 400 mm 800 mm 40.0 mm 32.0 mm 10.0 mm 334 mm 0.521 0.156 COMPRESSION STEEL REQUIRED TENSILE REINFORCEMENT  At The Top 10 no of 32 mm bar  At The Bottom 14 no of 32 mm bar DESIGN FOR SHEAR Shear Force 4,097 kN Shear Stress 15.332 N/mm2 Concrete Shear Stress 1.001 N/mm2 Provide 12 mm stirrups at 175 mm center to center DESIGN FOR BENDING (CANTILEVER) Design Moment 2,646.24 kN-m Span Length 1,550 mm Depth Of Slab/Deck 300 mm Depth Of Pier Cap 400 mm Width Of Pier Cap 800 mm Cover Of Reinforcement 40.0 mm Size Of Reinforcement 32.0 mm Stirrup Diameter 10.0 mm Effective Depth 334 mm k 1.186 k' 0.156 COMPRESSION STEEL REQUIRED TENSILE REINFORCEMENT  At The Top 26 no of 32 mm bar  At The Bottom 30 no of 32 mm bar DESIGN FOR SHEAR Shear Force 4,097 kN Shear Stress 15.332 N/mm2 Concrete Shear Stress 1.001 N/mm2 Provide 12 mm stirrups at 200 mm center to center Design of Pier

Design Load per Pier f'c

16,663.30 28

kN Mpa 204

fy Diameter of Main Bar Diameter of Spiral Reinforcement Diameter of Gross Section  Area of Gross Section  Area of Steel Limits of Reinforcement No. of Reinforcing Bars Concrete Cover Diameter of Spiral Reinforcement Core Diameter  Area of Core Diameter  Area of Spiral Reinforcement Ratio of Spiral Reinforcement Spacing Use the computed Spacing

415 32

Mpa mm

12

mm

900 635850 15175.34 0.023866226 19 50

mm sq.mm sq.mm

12

mm

800 502400 113.04 0.008064759 65

mm sq.mm sq.mm

mm mm

mm

Design of Pier Footing DESIGN FOR BENDING Design Moment 12,365.00 Span Length 6,500 base depth, h 1,300.00 width of base, bw 3,000.00 cover to reinforcement, d' 50.0 reinforcement size, f 20.0 stirrup diameter, t 12.0 effective depth, d 1,228 TENSILE REINFORCEMENT  As 31,872  Apply (bottom) 69  Apply (top) 18 Transverse Bending Moment Design Moment 954.870 Span Length 1,550 base depth, h 1,300.00 width of base, bw 3,000.00 cover to reinforcement, d' 50.0 reinforcement size, f 20.0 stirrup diameter, t 12.0 effective depth, d 1,228

kN-m mm mm mm mm mm mm mm sq.mm pcs pcs kN-m mm mm mm mm mm mm mm 205

 As  Apply (bottom)  Apply (top)

TENSILE REINFORCEMENT 1,946 20 20

sq.mm pcs pcs Mm on centres in the 135 transverse direction CHECKS FOR PUNCHING SHEAR Design Shear Force , V 5,478 kN Design Shear Stress, v 1.487 N/sq.mm  Apply 12 mm @ 300 Mm on centres Design of Abutment

Depth of Girder Seat [d1] Thickness of wall [t] Height of Retained Earth [H] Width of wall [B] Equivalent height of Earth for Live Load Surcharge [d2] Thickness of Approach Slab [d3] Length of base in back of wall [L1] Length of base in wall location [L2] Length of base at front of wall [L3] Total Length of Base [D] Thickness of wall at the Top [L4] Thickness of Base [d4]

Angle between wall and Horizontal base on Earth side [θ] Inclination of Earth fill side with the Horizontal [δ] = 0°  Angle of friction between Earth and Wall [z] Coefficient of friction between Earth and wall [µ]

Unit weight of Back fill Earth [γ_b] Unit weight of Concrete [γ_c] Angle of Internal friction of backfill [φ] Bearing Capacity [p] Concrete Grade [f_ck] Steel Grade [f_y] Live Load from vehicles [w6] Permanent Load from Super Structure [w5] Vehicle Braking Force [F] Bending Moment and Shear Force Factor [Fact] Reinf. Clear Cover [cover]

1.4 0.6 5 9.6 1 0.3 1.5 1 1.1 3.6 0.3 0.9 90 0 24 0.5 17 25 48 230 28 415 50.08893 140.1827 200 1.5 50

m m m m m m m m m m m m

kN/m^3 kN/m^3 kN/m^2 Mpa Mpa kN/m kN/m kN mm

206

V(kN)

w1 w2 w3 w4 w5 P1 w8 P3 Seismic(long) Seismic(trans) Sum in unloaded condition Design Values Horizontal Break Force (P2) Vehicle Breaking Force Vehicle load From Superstructure  Additional Seismic Force (transverse) sum of loaded condition design values

H (long)

H (trans)

47.25 30.75 27 104.55 119 29.8987 41.85 11.9595 29.5695 23.9265

Distance (m) 1.45 1.95 1.8 2.85 1.45 2.1 2.85 2.5 3.6 9.6

MV

MH (long)

MH (trans)

68.5125 59.9625 48.6 297.9675 172.55 62.78738 119.2725 29.89875 106.4502 229.694

370.4

71.4277

23.9265

766.865

199.1363

229.694

370.4

71.4277

23.9265

766.865

199.1363

229.694

10.4166

3.6

37.5

2.1198830

1.45

3.07383040

538.103

1.45

780.24935

48.6200

5.3

257.686

910.62288

81.8444

72.5465

1550.18818

236.6363

487.380

910.62288

81.8444

72.5465

1550.18818

236.6363

487.380

STEP 3 : Check for Stability against Overturning CASE I : Span Unloaded Condition Overturning Moment about toe (MH1) 199.136325 Restoring Moment about toe (MV1) 766.865 Factor of Safety against overturning 3.850954867 Location of Resultant for toe(Xo) 1.532744803 Maximum permissible Eccentricity 0.6 Eccentricity of Resultant (e2) 0.267255197 CASE II : Span Loaded Condition Overturning Moment about toe (MH2) 236.636325 Restoring Moment about toe (MV2) 1550.18818

Safe

OK

kN-m kN-m 207

Factor of Safety against overturning 6.55093076 Location of Resultant from toe (Xo) 1.442476221 Maximum permissible Eccentricity 0.6 Eccentricity of Resultant (e1) 0.357523779 STEP 4 : Check for Stresses at Base For Span Loaded Condition Total downward forces (V2) 910.622883 Bearing Capacity 230 Stress at base 227.6557208 Extreme Stresses at Base 403.6773444 102.2242573 STEP 5 : Check for Sliding Longitudinal Sliding Force 81.84441667 Force resisting Sliding 455.3114415 Factor of Safety against Sliding 5.56313381 Transverse Sliding Force 72.54655947 Force resisting Sliding 455.3114415 Factor of Safety against Sliding 6.276127287 Design of Shear Key is not Needed STEP 6 : Reinforcement Steel Bars Design of Base Slab at Front Toe for Steel requirements. Thickness of Base Slab 0.9 Deff 850 Shear Force factor 1.5 ON BASE : Pr1 = Upward pressure at Toe 403.6773444 Pr2 = Upward Pressure at a distance of effective depth from 371.45 Front of wall Pr3 = Upward Pressure at The Front Face of wall 283.698 Pr4 = Upward Pressure at The Backfill Face of wall 189.132 Pr5 = Upward Pressure at Heel 102.2242573 Dpr = downward Pressure by Self weight of Base 22.5 Design Shear Force 136.8988771 Design Bending Moment 164.859318  Area of Steel required at bottom Base slab at Toe  Ast 1793.98 Provided T20 bars @ 200 mm c/c at bottom of Base Slab at Toe Provided Provided Ast 1884.96 Percent of Tension Steel 0.15 0.261 Applied Shear Stress τ_v Distribution Steel 1020 Provide T10 @ 90 mm c/c Steel Area Provided 942.478

Safe

OK

OK

Safe

Safe

m mm

kN/m^2 kN/m^2 kN/m^2 kN/m^2 kN/m^2 kN/m^2 kN kN-m sq.mm sq.mm OK sq.mm

sq.mm 208

STEP 7 : Design of Base Slab at Backfill Heel Side for Steel Reinforcement Upward Pressure 102.2242573 downward Pressure 133.7 Tension reinforcement steel will be required at the top Design Shear Force 189.69 Design Bending Moment 267.45 Effective Depth of Base Slab at Heel 264.66  Area of Steel required at top of base slab at Heel 799.91 Provide T20 bars @ 200 mm c/c at Top of bar slab at Heel Steel Area Provided 1884.96 Percentage 0.22  Applied Shear Stress 0.21 Provide T10 @ 90 mm c/c  Ast Provided 864.94 STEP 8 : Design of Wall Reinforcement  At the bottom of the front face of the wall Design Bending Moment 1421.75 Design Shear 140.709 Factored Bending Moment 2132.625 Factored Shear Force 211.0635 Effective Thickness of wall at the base 274.66  Area of steel required 3166.66 Provide T32 bars @200 mm c/c at Top of bar slab at Heel  Ast Provided 4125.89 Distribution Steel for Temperature Reinforcements:  Area of Temperature Steel 6048 Use 10 mm bars 65 Provide 43 bars horizontally on the Front face @ 80 mm c/c Provide 21 bars horizontally on the Backfill side face @ 240 mm c/c

kN/m^2 kN/m^2 kN kN-m mm sq.mm

OK

sq.mm

kN-m kN kN-m kN mm sq.mm sq.mm sq.mm pcs

Design of Piles

Using 800 mm bored piling rig Pile Diameter [D]  Applied Load on Pile Group [P] Factor of Safety [FS]

Allowable Flexural Stress in Concrete [σ_c] Steel Grade [fy]

Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st]   Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c] Total Piles [Np] Total Piles in front row [N]

γ_sub

0.8 m 635.1337411 ton 3 11.67 N/sq.mm 415 N/mm^2 200 2.5 4 2 0.92 209

FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP

Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression [σ_cbc] 116.7 2000 Allowable stress in steel [σ_st]

kg/sq.cm kg/sq.cm

Modular Ratio [m] = 10 10 Load Factor [F] = 1.5 1.5 Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] 20 Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] 25 Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] 16 Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter 10 Reinforcement Clear Cover 75 Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars 150 Pile Cap Length [LPC] 4800 Pile Cap Width [BPC] 4800 Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] 1000 Pier Length [LPr] 3000 Pier Width [BPr] 1200 Distance [L1] 1800 Distance [L2] 1200 Distance [L3] 1200 DESIGN CALCULATIONS STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION Pile Length 11 Embedded Length 9 Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) 0.5024 (A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT OF SOIL : SKIN FRICTION : Borehole No. : BH:1

Layer No.

Depth up to the bottom Layer

Thicknes s of Sub Layer

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

3.45 1.5 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5

For Layer 1 : For Layer 2 :

Depth Below Scour level 3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 5.05

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

m m m^2

γ_sub

Surfac e Area

φ

δ

(deg)

(deg)

(ton/cu.m )

P_D(

P_Di

10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

39 38.4 50 46.8 47.9 49 51.6 48.6 50.7

26 25.6 33.3 31.2 32 32.7 34.4 32.4 33.8

1.81 1.86 1.19 1.9 1.91 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92

6.245 9.207 8.595 8.55 5.73 5.76 5.76 5.76 9.696

3.122 7.726 8.901 8.572 7.14 5.745 5.76 5.76 7.728

Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction : 24.76143125 ton 26.18403594 ton 210

For Layer 3 : For Layer 4 : For Layer 5 : For Layer 6 : For Layer 7 : For Layer 8 : For Layer 9 : Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) END BEARING Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing : Nc Nq Ny Rus Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile Safe Load on Pile (Qus)

Layers No.

Thickness of the Layer (m)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

82.79489455 36.71432872 31.46198517 26.01312158 27.87973344 25.84908288 89.02795104 370.6865646

95.7 81.3 100.4 434.7729408 ton 805.4595054 ton 268.4865018 ton

(B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL : α (deg) c (deg) Depth Surface Area Below (m^2) Scour Level (m) 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05

Total Ultimate Resistance End Bearing Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu Safe Load on Pile (Quc) Permissible safe Load on Pile  Applied Load on Pile Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group Self-weight of each Pile Total Load on Pile = Pu STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE Pile Diameter Pile Reinforcement Cover Cover / Pile Dia

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton

Ultimate Resistance(ton)

0.813 0.2355 0.70725 0.35325 0.82425 0.7065 0.2355 0.11775 0.27875

4.27175 2.403984 6.675734 2.225244667 270.7117465 635.1337411 57.6 8.2896 181.4730353

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton SAFE

800 95 0.11875

mm mm

211

Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) Mu/(σ_ck*D**3)

0.051849439 1.42857E-10

In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide p = 0.4%, here p = 0% Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4  Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 2009.6 sq.mm Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20  Area of one Steel reinforcement bar 314 sq.mm Total number of bars 7 Radius of Pile up to Rebars 325 mm Perimeter along Rebars 2041 mm Spacing of bars 226.7777778 mm So, Provide Spacing 200 mm Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm < 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm < 300 mm Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c STEP 3 : DESIGN OF PILE CAP : Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528 Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824 Q 18.86026676 Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 362.9460705 Moment at the Face of Pier 217.7676423 Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 21.6 Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 19.44 ton-m Total Moment at the Face of Pier 198.3276423 ton-m Moment per Linear metre 41.31825882 ton-m/m Depth required 468.055217 mm Overall Depth Provided 1000 Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay deff 91.25 cm Required Steel Reinforcement 25.81041366 sq.cm/m Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing. Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar Diameter 16 mm Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Shear Reinforcement : Critical section at deff 912.5 mm 212

Reaction on Piles in Front row Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v   Percent of bottom main reinforcement Minimum Shear Reinforcement Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing

362.9460705 ton 3.530023426 0.282853848 27.5 sq.cm/m

Using 900 mm bored piling rig Pile Diameter [D]  Applied Load on Pile Group [P] Factor of Safety [FS]

Allowable Flexural Stress in Concrete [σ_c] Steel Grade [fy]

Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st]   Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c] Total Piles [Np] Total Piles in front row [N]

γ_sub

0.9 635.1337411 3 11.67 415 200 2.5 4 2 0.92

m ton

116.7 2000 10 1.5 20 25 16 10 75 150 5400 5400 1000 3000 1200 1950 1350 1350

kg/sq.cm kg/sq.cm

N/sq.mm N/mm^2

FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP

Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression [σ_cbc] Allowable stress in steel [σ_st]

Modular Ratio [m] = 10 Load Factor [F] = 1.5 Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter Reinforcement Clear Cover Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars Pile Cap Length [LPC] Pile Cap Width [BPC] Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] Pier Length [LPr] Pier Width [BPr] Distance [L1] Distance [L2] Distance [L3] DESIGN CALCULATIONS STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION Pile Length 11 Embedded Length 9 Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) 0.63585 (A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT OF SOIL : SKIN FRICTION : Borehole No. : BH:1

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

m m m^2

213

Layer No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Depth up to the bottom Layer 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

Thicknes s of Sub Layer 3.45 1.5 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5

Depth Below Scour level 3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 5.05

Surface  Area

φ

δ

(deg)

(deg)

10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

39 38.4 50 46.8 47.9 49 51.6 48.6 50.7

26 25.6 33.3 31.2 32 32.7 34.4 32.4 33.8

Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction : For Layer 1 : For Layer 2 : For Layer 3 : For Layer 4 : For Layer 5 : For Layer 6 : For Layer 7 : For Layer 8 : For Layer 9 : Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) END BEARING Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing : Nc Nq Ny Rus Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile Safe Load on Pile (Qus)

Layers No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Thickness of the Layer (m) 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95

γ_sub (ton/cu. m) 1.81 1.86 1.19 1.9 1.91 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92

24.76143125 26.18403594 82.79489455 36.71432872 31.46198517 26.01312158 27.87973344 25.84908288 89.02795104 370.6865646

P_D(

P_Di

6.245 9.207 8.595 8.55 5.73 5.76 5.76 5.76 9.696

3.122 7.726 8.901 8.572 7.14 5.745 5.76 5.76 7.728

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton

95.7 81.3 100.4 556.3880798 ton 927.0746444 ton 309.0248815 ton

(B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL : Depth Below Surface Area Scour Level α (deg) c (deg) (m^2) (m) 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 3 4.71 0.5 0.1

Ultimate Resistance(ton) 0.813 0.2355 0.70725 0.35325 0.82425 0.7065 0.2355 214

8 9

15.45 19.95

3 5.05

4.71 11.15

Total Ultimate Resistance End Bearing Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu Safe Load on Pile (Quc) Permissible safe Load on Pile  Applied Load on Pile Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group Self-weight of each Pile Total Load on Pile = Pu STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE Pile Diameter Pile Reinforcement Cover Cover / Pile Dia

0.5 0.5 4.27175 3.04254225 7.31429225 2.438097417 311.4629789 635.1337411 72.9 10.491525 187.4999603

0.05 0.05

0.11775 0.27875

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton SAFE

900 mm 95 mm 0.105555556 0.053571417 Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 1.42857E-10 Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide p = 0.4%, here p = 0% Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4  Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 2543.4 sq.mm Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20  Area of one Steel reinforcement bar 314 sq.mm Total number of bars 9 Radius of Pile up to Rebars 375 mm Perimeter along Rebars 2355 mm Spacing of bars 261.6666667 mm So, Provide Spacing 250 mm Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm < 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm < 300 mm Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c STEP 3 : DESIGN OF PILE CAP : Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528 Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824 Q 18.86026676 Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 374.9999205 Moment at the Face of Pier 224.9999523 Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 26.325 Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 25.666875 ton-m Total Moment at the Face of Pier 199.3330773 ton-m Moment per Linear metre 36.91353284 ton-m/m Depth required 442.4038424 mm Overall Depth Provided 1000 215

Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay deff 91.25 cm Required Steel Reinforcement 23.05889888 sq.cm/m Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing. Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar Diameter 16 mm Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Shear Reinforcement : Critical section at deff 912.5 mm Reaction on Piles in Front row 374.9999205 ton 4.263697727 Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v   Percent of bottom main reinforcement 0.252700262 Minimum Shear Reinforcement 27.5 sq.cm/m Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing Using 1000 mm bored piling rig Pile Diameter [D]  Applied Load on Pile Group [P] Factor of Safety [FS]  Allowable Flexural Stress in Concrete [σ_c] Steel Grade [fy] Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st]  

γ_sub

1 m 635.1337411 ton 3 11.67 N/sq.mm 415 N/mm^2 200 2.5 4 2 0.92

FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP  Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression

116.7

kg/sq.cm kg/sq.cm

Modular Ratio [m] = 10 Load Factor [F] = 1.5 Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter Reinforcement Clear Cover

2000 10 1.5 20 25 16 10 75

Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c] Total Piles [Np] Total Piles in front row [N]

[σ_cbc] Allowable stress in steel [σ_st]

mm mm mm mm mm 216

Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars 150 Pile Cap Length [LPC] 6000 Pile Cap Width [BPC] 6000 Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] 1000 Pier Length [LPr] 3000 Pier Width [BPr] 1200 Distance [L1] 2100 Distance [L2] 1500 Distance [L3] 1500 DESIGN CALCULATIONS STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION Pile Length 11 Embedded Length 9 Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) 0.785 (A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT OF SOIL : SKIN FRICTION : Borehole No. : BH:1 Layer No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Depth up to the bottom Layer 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

Thickness of Sub Layer 3.45 1.5 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5

Depth Below Scour level 3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 5.05

Surface φ δ (deg)  Area (deg) 10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

39 38.4 50 46.8 47.9 49 51.6 48.6 50.7

Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction : For Layer 1 : For Layer 2 : For Layer 3 : For Layer 4 : For Layer 5 : For Layer 6 : For Layer 7 : For Layer 8 : For Layer 9 : Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) END BEARING Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing : Nc

26 25.6 33.3 31.2 32 32.7 34.4 32.4 33.8

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

m m m^2

γ_sub (ton/cu. m) 1.81 1.86 1.19 1.9 1.91 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92

24.76143125 26.18403594 82.79489455 36.71432872 31.46198517 26.01312158 27.87973344 25.84908288 89.02795104 370.6865646

P_D(

P_Di

6.245 9.207 8.595 8.55 5.73 5.76 5.76 5.76 9.696

3.122 7.726 8.901 8.572 7.14 5.745 5.76 5.76 7.728

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton

95.7 217

Nq Ny Rus Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile Safe Load on Pile (Qus)

Layers No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Thickness of the Layer (m) 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

81.3 100.4 694.465008 ton 1065.151573 ton 355.0505242 ton

(B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL : Depth Below Surface Area Scour Level α (deg) c (deg) (m^2) (m) 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05

Total Ultimate Resistance End Bearing Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu Safe Load on Pile (Quc) Permissible safe Load on Pile  Applied Load on Pile Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group Self-weight of each Pile Total Load on Pile = Pu STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE Pile Diameter Pile Reinforcement Cover Cover / Pile Dia

4.27175 3.756225 8.027975 2.675991667 357.7265159 635.1337411 90 12.9525 194.2359353

1000 95 0.095 0.055495982 Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 1.42857E-10 Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide p = 0.4%, here p = 0% Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4  Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 3140 Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20  Area of one Steel reinforcement bar 314 Total number of bars 10 Radius of Pile up to Rebars 425 Perimeter along Rebars 2669 Spacing of bars 296.5555556 So, Provide Spacing 250

Ultimate Resistance(ton) 0.813 0.2355 0.70725 0.35325 0.82425 0.7065 0.2355 0.11775 0.27875

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton SAFE mm mm

sq.mm sq.mm mm mm mm mm 218

Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm < 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm < 300 mm Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c STEP 3 : DESIGN OF PILE CAP : Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528 Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824 Q 18.86026676 Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 388.4718705 Moment at the Face of Pier 233.0831223 Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 31.5 Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 33.075 ton-m Total Moment at the Face of Pier 200.0081223 ton-m Moment per Linear metre 33.33468705 ton-m/m Depth required 420.4111983 mm Overall Depth Provided 1000 Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay deff 91.25 cm Required Steel Reinforcement 20.82328943 sq.cm/m Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing. Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar 16 mm Diameter Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Shear Reinforcement : Critical section at deff 912.5 mm Reaction on Piles in Front row 388.4718705 ton 5.055455849 Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v   Percent of bottom main reinforcement 0.228200432 Minimum Shear Reinforcement 27.5 sq.cm/m Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing Using 1100 mm bored piling rig Pile Diameter [D]  Applied Load on Pile Group [P] Factor of Safety [FS]

1.1 m 635.1337411 ton 3 219

Allowable Flexural Stress in Concrete [σ_c]

N/sq.mm N/mm^2

γ_sub

11.67 415 200 2.5 2 1 0.92

FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP  Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression

116.7

kg/sq.cm

2000 10 1.5 20 25 16 10 75 150 6600 6600 1000 3000 1200 2250 1650 1500

kg/sq.cm

Steel Grade [fy]

Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st]   Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c] Total Piles [Np] Total Piles in front row [N]

[σ_cbc] Allowable stress in steel [σ_st]

Modular Ratio [m] = 10 Load Factor [F] = 1.5 Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter Reinforcement Clear Cover Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars Pile Cap Length [LPC] Pile Cap Width [BPC] Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] Pier Length [LPr] Pier Width [BPr] Distance [L1] Distance [L2] Distance [L3] DESIGN CALCULATIONS STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION Pile Length 11 Embedded Length 9 Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) 0.94985 (A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT OF SOIL : SKIN FRICTION : Borehole No. : BH:1

Layer No. 1 2 3 4

Depth up to the bottom Layer 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45

Thickness of Sub Layer 3.45 1.5 3 1.5

Depth Below Scour level 3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5

Surface  Area

φ

δ

(deg)

(deg)

10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71

39 38.4 50 46.8

26 25.6 33.3 31.2

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

m m m^2

γ_sub (ton/cu. m) 1.81 1.86 1.19 1.9

P_D(

P_Di

6.245 9.207 8.595 8.55

3.12 7.72 8.90 8.57 220

5 6 7 8 9

10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5

3 3 3 3 5.05

4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

47.9 49 51.6 48.6 50.7

Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction : For Layer 1 : For Layer 2 : For Layer 3 : For Layer 4 : For Layer 5 : For Layer 6 : For Layer 7 : For Layer 8 : For Layer 9 : Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) END BEARING Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing : Nc Nq Ny Rus Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile Safe Load on Pile (Qus)

Layers No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

32 32.7 34.4 32.4 33.8

1.91 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92

24.76143125 26.18403594 82.79489455 36.71432872 31.46198517 26.01312158 27.87973344 25.84908288 89.02795104 370.6865646

7.14 5.74 5.76 5.76 7.72

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton

95.7 81.3 100.4 849.4576939 ton 1220.144258 ton 406.7147528 ton

(B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL : Thickness of Depth Below Surface Area α (deg) c (deg) the Layer (m) Scour Level (m) (m^2) 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05 Total Ultimate Resistance End Bearing Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu Safe Load on Pile (Quc) Permissible safe Load on Pile  Applied Load on Pile

5.73 5.76 5.76 5.76 9.696

4.27175 4.54503225 8.81678225 2.938927417 409.6536802 635.1337411

Ultimate Resistance(ton) 0.813 0.2355 0.70725 0.35325 0.82425 0.7065 0.2355 0.11775 0.27875

ton ton ton ton ton ton 221

Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group Self-weight of each Pile Total Load on Pile = Pu STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE Pile Diameter Pile Reinforcement Cover Cover / Pile Dia

108.9 ton 15.672525 ton 387.6893955 SAFE

1100 mm 95 mm 0.086363636 0.110768399 Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 1.42857E-10 Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide p = 0.4%, here p = 0% Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4  Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 3799.4 sq.mm Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20  Area of one Steel reinforcement bar 314 sq.mm Total number of bars 13 Radius of Pile up to Rebars 475 mm Perimeter along Rebars 2983 mm Spacing of bars 331.4444444 mm So, Provide Spacing 300 mm Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm < 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm < 300 mm Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c STEP 3 : DESIGN OF PILE CAP : Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528 Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824 Q 18.86026676 Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 387.6893955 Moment at the Face of Pier 232.6136373 Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 37.125 Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 41.765625 ton-m Total Moment at the Face of Pier 190.8480123 ton-m Moment per Linear metre 28.9163655 ton-m/m Depth required 391.5596551 mm Overall Depth Provided 1000 Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay deff 91.25 cm Required Steel Reinforcement 18.06328186 sq.cm/m Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing. Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m

222

Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar 16 Diameter Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 Shear Reinforcement : Critical section at deff 912.5 Reaction on Piles in Front row 387.6893955 5.682570592 Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v   Percent of bottom main reinforcement 0.197953774 Minimum Shear Reinforcement 27.5 Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing

mm

sq.cm/m

sq.cm/m mm ton

sq.cm/m

Using 1300mm bored piling rig Pile Diameter [D]  Applied Load on Pile Group [P]  Applied Moment on Pile Group [AM] Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure [K] Factor of Safety [FS]

m ton ton-m

γ_sub

1.3 635.1337411 5 1.5 3 11.67 415 200 2.5 2 1 0.92

FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP  Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression

116.7

kg/sq.cm

2000 10 1.5 20 25 16 10 75 150 6600 6600 1000 3000

kg/sq.cm

Allowable Flexural Stress in Concrete [σ_c] Steel Grade [fy]

Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st]   Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c] Total Piles [Np] Total Piles in front row [N]

[σ_cbc] Allowable stress in steel [σ_st] Modular Ratio [m] = 10 Load Factor [F] = 1.5 Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter Reinforcement Clear Cover Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars Pile Cap Length [LPC] Pile Cap Width [BPC] Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] Pier Length [LPr]

N/sq.mm N/mm^2

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm 223

Pier Width [BPr] 1200 Distance [L1] 2250 Distance [L2] 1650 Distance [L3] 1500 DESIGN CALCULATIONS STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION Pile Length 11 Embedded Length 9 Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) 1.32665 (A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT OF SOIL : SKIN FRICTION : Borehole No. : BH:1 Layer No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Depth up to the bottom Layer 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

Thicknes s of Sub Layer 3.45 1.5 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5

Depth Below Scour level 3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 5.05

φ

Surface (deg  Area ) 10.84 39 4.71 38.4 9.43 50 4.71 46.8 4.71 47.9 4.71 49 4.71 51.6 4.71 48.6 11.15 50.7

Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction : For Layer 1 : For Layer 2 : For Layer 3 : For Layer 4 : For Layer 5 : For Layer 6 : For Layer 7 : For Layer 8 : For Layer 9 : Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) END BEARING Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing : Nc Nq Ny Rus Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile Safe Load on Pile (Qus)

mm mm mm mm

m m m^2

δ

γ_sub

(deg)

(ton/cu.m)

26 25.6 33.3 31.2 32 32.7 34.4 32.4 33.8

1.81 1.86 1.19 1.9 1.91 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92

24.76143125 26.18403594 82.79489455 36.71432872 31.46198517 26.01312158 27.87973344 25.84908288 89.02795104 370.6865646

P_D(

P_Di

6.245 9.207 8.595 8.55 5.73 5.76 5.76 5.76 9.696

3.122 7.726 8.901 8.572 7.14 5.745 5.76 5.76 7.728

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton

95.7 81.3 100.4 1212.006214 ton 1582.692778 ton 527.5642594 ton 224

Layers No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Thickness of the Layer (m) 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

(B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL : Depth Below Surface Area Scour Level α (deg) c (deg) (m^2) (m) 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1 4.5 9.43 0.5 0.15 4.5 4.71 0.5 0.15 3 4.71 0.5 0.35 3 4.71 0.5 0.3 3 4.71 0.5 0.1 3 4.71 0.5 0.05 5.05 11.15 0.5 0.05

Total Ultimate Resistance End Bearing Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu Safe Load on Pile (Quc) Permissible safe Load on Pile  Applied Load on Pile Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group Self-weight of each Pile Total Load on Pile = Pu STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE Pile Diameter Pile Reinforcement Cover Cover / Pile Dia

4.27175 6.34802025 10.61977025 3.539923417 531.1041828 635.1337411 108.9 21.889725 393.9065955

Ultimate Resistance(ton) 0.813 0.2355 0.70725 0.35325 0.82425 0.7065 0.2355 0.11775 0.27875

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton SAFE

1300 mm 95 mm 0.073076923 Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.112544742 1.42857E-10 Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide p = 0.4%, here p = 0% Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4  Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 5306.6 sq.mm Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20  Area of one Steel reinforcement bar 314 sq.mm Total number of bars 17 Radius of Pile up to Rebars 575 mm Perimeter along Rebars 3611 mm Spacing of bars 401.2222222 mm So, Provide Spacing 400 mm Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm < 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm < 300 mm Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c 225

STEP 3 : DESIGN OF PILE CAP : Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528 Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824 Q 18.86026676 Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 393.9065955 Moment at the Face of Pier 236.3439573 Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 37.125 Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 41.765625 ton-m Total Moment at the Face of Pier 194.5783323 ton-m Moment per Linear metre 29.4815655 ton-m/m Depth required 395.3678537 mm Overall Depth Provided 1000 Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay deff 91.25 cm Required Steel Reinforcement 18.41634722 sq.cm/m Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing. Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar 16 mm Diameter Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Shear Reinforcement : Critical section at deff 912.5 mm Reaction on Piles in Front row 393.9065955 ton 5.773699414 Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v   Percent of bottom main reinforcement 0.201822983 Minimum Shear Reinforcement 27.5 sq.cm/m Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing Using 1400 mm bored piling rig Pile Diameter [D]  Applied Load on Pile Group [P] Factor of Safety [FS]

Allowable Flexural Stress in Concrete [σ_c] Steel Grade [fy]

Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st]   Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c]

1.4 m 635.1337411 ton 3 11.67 N/sq.mm 415 N/mm^2 200 2.5 226

Total Piles [Np] Total Piles in front row [N]

γ_sub

2 1 0.92

FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP  Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression

116.7

kg/sq.cm

2000 10 1.5 20 25 16 10 75 150 7200 7200 1000 3000 1200 2700 2100 2100

kg/sq.cm

[σ_cbc] Allowable stress in steel [σ_st]

Modular Ratio [m] = 10 Load Factor [F] = 1.5 Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter Reinforcement Clear Cover Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars Pile Cap Length [LPC] Pile Cap Width [BPC] Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] Pier Length [LPr] Pier Width [BPr] Distance [L1] Distance [L2] Distance [L3] DESIGN CALCULATIONS STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION Pile Length 11 Embedded Length 9 Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) 1.5386 (A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT OF SOIL : SKIN FRICTION : Borehole No. : BH:1

Layer No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Depth up to the bottom Layer 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45

Thickness of Sub Layer 3.45 1.5 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

Depth Below Scour level 3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3

Surface  Area

φ

δ

(deg)

(deg)

10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71

39 38.4 50 46.8 47.9 49 51.6 48.6

26 25.6 33.3 31.2 32 32.7 34.4 32.4

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

m m m^2

γ_sub (ton/cu. m) 1.81 1.86 1.19 1.9 1.91 1.92 1.92 1.92

P_D(

P_Di

6.245 9.207 8.595 8.55 5.73 5.76 5.76 5.76

3.122 7.726 8.901 8.572 7.14 5.745 5.76 5.76 227

9

19.95

4.5

5.05

11.15

50.7

Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction : For Layer 1 : For Layer 2 : For Layer 3 : For Layer 4 : For Layer 5 : For Layer 6 : For Layer 7 : For Layer 8 : For Layer 9 : Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) END BEARING Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing : Nc Nq Ny Rus Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile Safe Load on Pile (Qus)

Layers No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

33.8

24.76143125 26.18403594 82.79489455 36.71432872 31.46198517 26.01312158 27.87973344 25.84908288 89.02795104 370.6865646

9.696 7.728

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton

95.7 81.3 100.4 1420.469985 ton 1791.156549 ton 597.0521831 ton

(B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL : Thickness of the Depth Below Surface Area α Layer (m) Scour Level (m) (m^2) (deg) 3.45 3.45 10.84 0.5 4.95 4.95 4.71 0.5 7.95 4.5 9.43 0.5 9.45 4.5 4.71 0.5 10.95 3 4.71 0.5 12.45 3 4.71 0.5 13.95 3 4.71 0.5 15.45 3 4.71 0.5 19.95 5.05 11.15 0.5 Total Ultimate Resistance End Bearing Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu Safe Load on Pile (Quc) Permissible safe Load on Pile  Applied Load on Pile Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group Self-weight of each Pile Total Load on Pile = Pu STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE

1.92

4.27175 7.362201 11.633951 3.877983667 600.9301667 635.1337411 129.6 25.3869 407.7537705

c (deg) 0.15 0.1 0.15 0.15 0.35 0.3 0.1 0.05 0.05

Ultimate Resistance(ton) 0.813 0.2355 0.70725 0.35325 0.82425 0.7065 0.2355 0.11775 0.27875

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton SAFE

228

Pile Diameter Pile Reinforcement Cover Cover / Pile Dia

1400 mm 95 mm 0.067857143 Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 0.116501077 1.42857E-10 Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide p = 0.4%, here p = 0% Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4  Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 6154.4 sq.mm Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20  Area of one Steel reinforcement bar 314 sq.mm Total number of bars 20 Radius of Pile up to Rebars 625 mm Perimeter along Rebars 3925 mm Spacing of bars 436.1111111 mm So, Provide Spacing 400 mm Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm < 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm < 300 mm Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c STEP 3 : DESIGN OF PILE CAP : Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528 Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824 Q 18.86026676 Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 407.7537705 Moment at the Face of Pier 244.6522623 Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 48.6 Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 65.61 ton-m Total Moment at the Face of Pier 179.0422623 ton-m Moment per Linear metre 24.86698088 ton-m/m Depth required 363.1095027 mm Overall Depth Provided 1000 Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay deff 91.25 cm Required Steel Reinforcement 15.53373935 sq.cm/m Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing. Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar 16 mm Diameter Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap 229

16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided Shear Reinforcement : Critical section at deff Reaction on Piles in Front row Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v   Percent of bottom main reinforcement Minimum Shear Reinforcement Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing

13.39733333 sq.cm/m 912.5 mm 407.7537705 ton 7.987505368 0.17023276 27.5 sq.cm/m

Using 1500mm bored piling rig Pile Diameter [D]  Applied Load on Pile Group [P] Factor of Safety [FS]

γ_sub

1.5 m 635.1337411 ton 3 11.67 N/sq.mm 415 N/mm^2 200 2.5 2 1 0.92

FOR DESIGN OF PILE CAP  Allowable Stress in concretein bending compression

116.7

kg/sq.cm

2000 10 1.5 20 25 16 10 75 150 7800 7800 1000 3000 1200 2850 2250 2250

kg/sq.cm

Allowable Flexural Stress in Concrete [σ_c] Steel Grade [fy]

Permissible Stress in Steel [σ_st]   Unit Weight of Concrete [γ_c] Total Piles [Np] Total Piles in front row [N]

[σ_cbc] Allowable stress in steel [σ_st]

Modular Ratio [m] = 10 Load Factor [F] = 1.5 Diameter of Main Steel Reinforcement bars [d1] Bottom Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d2] Top Reinforcement Bar Diameter [d3] Shear Reinforcement Bar Diameter Reinforcement Clear Cover Pile Cap Spacing of Rebars Pile Cap Length [LPC] Pile Cap Width [BPC] Depth of Pile Cap [DPC] Pier Length [LPr] Pier Width [BPr] Distance [L1] Distance [L2] Distance [L3] DESIGN CALCULATIONS STEP 1 : CAPACITY FROM SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION Pile Length 11

mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm

m 230

Embedded Length Cross Sectional Area of PIle ( Ap) (A) FOR COHESIONLESS COMPONENT OF SOIL : SKIN FRICTION : Borehole No. : BH:1 Layer No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Depth up to the bottom Layer 3.45 4.95 7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

Thickness of Sub Layer 3.45 1.5 3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 4.5

Depth Below Scour level 3.45 4.95 4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 5.05

9 1.76625

Surface  Area

φ

δ

(deg)

(deg)

10.84 4.71 9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

39 38.4 50 46.8 47.9 49 51.6 48.6 50.7

26 25.6 33.3 31.2 32 32.7 34.4 32.4 33.8

Ultimate Resistance by Skin Friction : For Layer 1 : For Layer 2 : For Layer 3 : For Layer 4 : For Layer 5 : For Layer 6 : For Layer 7 : For Layer 8 : For Layer 9 : Total Ultimate Resistance due to Skin Friction (Rfs) END BEARING Ultimate Resistance by End Bearing : Nc Nq Ny Rus Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile Safe Load on Pile (Qus)

Layers No. 1 2

Thickness of the Layer (m) 3.45 4.95

m m^2

γ_sub (ton/cu. m) 1.81 1.86 1.19 1.9 1.91 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92

24.76143125 26.18403594 82.79489455 36.71432872 31.46198517 26.01312158 27.87973344 25.84908288 89.02795104 370.6865646

P_D(

P_Di

6.245 9.207 8.595 8.55 5.73 5.76 5.76 5.76 9.696

3.122 7.726 8.901 8.572 7.14 5.745 5.76 5.76 7.728

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton

95.7 81.3 100.4 1647.665388 ton 2018.351953 ton 672.7839842 ton

(B) FOR COHESIVE COMPONENT OF SOIL : Depth Below Surface Area Scour Level α (deg) c (deg) (m^2) (m) 3.45 10.84 0.5 0.15 4.95 4.71 0.5 0.1

Ultimate Resistance(ton) 0.813 0.2355 231

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

7.95 9.45 10.95 12.45 13.95 15.45 19.95

4.5 4.5 3 3 3 3 5.05

9.43 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 4.71 11.15

Total Ultimate Resistance End Bearing Total Ultimate Resistance of Pile = Qu Safe Load on Pile (Quc) Permissible safe Load on Pile  Applied Load on Pile Load by Pile Cap on Pile Group Self-weight of each Pile Total Load on Pile = Pu STEP 2 : STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF PILE Pile Diameter Pile Reinforcement Cover Cover / Pile Dia

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 4.27175 8.45150625 12.72325625 4.241085417 677.0250696 635.1337411 152.1 29.143125 422.7599955

0.15 0.15 0.35 0.3 0.1 0.05 0.05

0.70725 0.35325 0.82425 0.7065 0.2355 0.11775 0.27875

ton ton ton ton ton ton ton ton SAFE

1500 mm 95 mm 0.063333333 0.12078857 Pu/(σ_ck*D*D) 1.42857E-10 Mu/(σ_ck*D**3) In piles, if p <= 0.4% then provide p = 0.4%, here p = 0% Provide 0.4% Steel. 0.4  Area of Main Steel Reinforcement (As) 7065 sq.mm Pile Main Reinforcement Bar Dia 20  Area of one Steel reinforcement bar 314 sq.mm Total number of bars 23 Radius of Pile up to Rebars 675 mm Perimeter along Rebars 4239 mm Spacing of bars 471 mm So, Provide Spacing 450 mm Use 10mm diameter lateral MS bars as Ties the pitch / spacing = r < 500 mm < 16*d1 = 16*20 = 320 mm < 300 mm Provide T10 mm dia bars as lateral Ties/binders with spacing of 300 mm c/c STEP 3 : DESIGN OF PILE CAP : Neutral Axis Factor (n) 0.368487528 Lever Arm Factor (j) 0.877170824 Q 18.86026676 Sum of Forces on Piles in front row (P2) 422.7599955 Moment at the Face of Pier 253.6559973 Relief due to self wt of Pile Cap (P3) 55.575 232

Moment due to self wt of Pile Cap 79.194375 ton-m Total Moment at the Face of Pier 174.4616223 ton-m Moment per Linear metre 22.36687466 ton-m/m Depth required 344.3727165 mm Overall Depth Provided 1000 Effective Depth Provided 912.5 Okay deff 91.25 cm Required Steel Reinforcement 13.97198971 sq.cm/m Required minimum Steel for tension 0.1825 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Main Reinforcement Bar Diameter 25 mm Provide Steel Reinforcements 25 Diameter bars @150 mm c/c spacing. Steel Provided in Longitudinal direction at the top of Pile Cap Nominal Steel 0.05475 sq.cm/m Pile Cap Distribution Reinforcement Bar 16 mm Diameter Provided 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Distribution Steel provided at top and bottom of Pile Cap 16 mm dia bars at 150 mm c/c spacing  Area of Steel Provided 13.39733333 sq.cm/m Shear Reinforcement : Critical section at deff 912.5 mm Reaction on Piles in Front row 422.7599955 ton 8.976410864 Nominnal Shear stress = τ_v   Percent of bottom main reinforcement 0.153117695 Minimum Shear Reinforcement 27.5 sq.cm/m Provide 10 mm diameter 200 mm c/c spacing

233

APPENDIX F: SCHEDULE OF BEARING PAD

Position Bearing Pad PSC I-Girder Bridge  A.1 TE 4a  A.2 TA 4 P.1 TE 4a P.2 TA 4 Steel Plate Girder Bridge  A.1 TE 2a  A.2 TE 2a  A.3 TA 2  A.4 TA 2  A.5 TA 2 P.1 TE 2a P.2 TE 2a P.3 TA 2 P.4 TA 2 P.5 TA 2 RC Deck Girder Bridge  A.1 TE 3a  A.2 TA 3 P.1 TE 3a P.2 TA 3 P.3 TE 3a P.4 TA 3

Position

Bearing Pad

P.3 P.4 A.3 A.4

TE 4a TA 4 TE 4a TA 4

P.6 P.7 P.8 P.9 P.10 A.6 A.7 A.8 A.9 A.10

TE 2a TE 2a TA 2 TA 2 TA 2 TE 2a TE 2a TA 2 TA 2 TA 2

P.5 P.6 P.7 P.8 A.3 A.4

TE 3a TA 3 TE 3a TA 3 TE 3a TA 3

234

APPENDIX G: COMPUTATION OF INITIAL ESTIMATE A. Overall Cost

1. Prestressed Concrete I-Girder Bridge Task Excavation Piling Footing  Abutment Pier Column Pier Head Pier Diaphragm Girder Deck Shoulder & W. Surface Railings Finishing Total

Labor Cost ₱  797,299.60 ₱  830,336.80 ₱  633,820.80 ₱  423,208.80 ₱  209,008.00 ₱  364,110.00 ₱  364,110.00 ₱  617,253.20 ₱  479,861.20 ₱  328,635.60 ₱  172,011.20 ₱  172,011.20 ₱  5,391,666.40

Material

Girder Wearing Surface Deck Gutter Barrier Diaphragm Pier Head Post Footing Pier Piles  Abutment  Abutment Piles Intermediate Diaphragm Form Lumber Bolts, Nuts, And Washers Tie Wire # 16 Paint Nails Total Material Cost Summary Material Cost Labor Cost Equipment Cost

Equipment Cost 956,275.60 ₱  ₱  1,724,270.20 580,207.35 ₱  403,301.94 ₱  183,707.73 ₱  296,665.45 ₱  296,665.45 ₱  632,855.94 ₱  592,962.43 ₱  342,640.41 ₱  110,526.77 ₱  110,526.77 ₱  ₱  6,230,606.03

Cost ₱  6,509,454.62 ₱  439,705.60 ₱  860,514.40 ₱  241,911.60 ₱  384,702.04 ₱  185,179.79 ₱  124,275.81 61,786.26 ₱  ₱  349,870.04 ₱  320,004.19 ₱  1,148,667.69 ₱  677,463.05 ₱  390,327.59 28,000.00 ₱  80,880.00 ₱  5,600.00 ₱  12,500.00 ₱  2,580.00 ₱  ₱11,823,422.68 ₱  11,823,422.68 ₱ 

5,391,666.40 ₱  6,230,606.03 235

Maintenance Cost Total Cost 2. Steel Plate Girder Bridge Task Excavation Piling Footing  Abutment Pier Column Pier Head Pier Diaphragm Girder Deck Shoulder & W. Surface Railings Finishing Total

₱ 

361,500.00 ₱  23,807,195.11

Labor Cost ₱  824,228.00 ₱  918,504.00 ₱  582,960.00 ₱  389,301.60 ₱  189,408.00 ₱  329,810.00 ₱  329,810.00 ₱  371,447.20 ₱  435,761.20 ₱  294,335.60 ₱  152,411.20 ₱  152,411.20 ₱  4,970,388.00 Material

Girder Wearing Surface Deck Gutter Barrier Pier Head Post Footing Pier Piles  Abutment  Abutment Piles Cross Frame Form Lumber Bolts, Nuts, And Washers Tie Wire # 16 Paint Nails Total Material Cost

Equipment Cost ₱  1,244,539.20 ₱  2,760,750.12 ₱  531,623.71 ₱  370,912.85 ₱  145,833.82 ₱  230,386.11 ₱  230,386.11 ₱  456,341.65 ₱  507,746.15 ₱  276,361.07 72,652.86 ₱  72,652.86 ₱  ₱  6,900,186.53

Cost ₱  6,386,800.00 402,769.60 ₱  860,514.40 ₱  241,911.60 ₱  384,702.04 ₱  119,325.90 ₱  48,653.75 ₱  240,973.91 ₱  263,721.75 ₱  980,601.27 ₱  274,205.33 ₱  38,551.50 ₱  28,000.00 ₱  113,664.00 ₱  5,600.00 ₱  12,500.00 ₱  2,580.00 ₱  ₱  10,405,075.05

Summary

Material Cost Labor Cost Equipment Cost Maintenance Cost Total Cost

₱  10,405,075.05 ₱ 

4,970,388.00 ₱  6,900,186.53 279,427.20 ₱  ₱  22,555,076.78 236

3. RC Deck Girder Bridge Task Excavation Piling Footing  Abutment Pier Column Pier Head Pier Diaphragm Girder Deck Shoulder & W. Surface Railings Finishing Total

Labor Cost ₱  933,965.10 ₱  1,008,338.40 ₱  761,181.70 ₱  527,938.90 ₱  283,924.90 ₱  451,368.80 ₱  451,368.80 ₱  885,516.30 ₱  518,871.70 ₱  357,577.10 ₱  178,549.20 ₱  182,949.20 ₱  6,541,550.10 Material

Girder Wearing Surface Deck Gutter Barrier Diaphragm Pier Head Post Footing Pier Piles  Abutment  Abutment Piles Intermediate Diaphragm Form Lumber Bolts, Nuts, And Washers Tie Wire # 16 Paint Nails Total Material Cost

Equipment Cost ₱  1,799,377.20 ₱  3,740,798.73 557,082.18 ₱  406,382.84 ₱  153,846.55 ₱  207,922.19 ₱  207,922.19 ₱  818,450.36 ₱  475,081.88 ₱  250,955.54 ₱  42,225.01 ₱  42,225.01 ₱  ₱  8,702,269.68

Cost ₱  5,475,189.63 ₱  402,769.60 ₱  860,514.40 ₱  241,911.60 ₱  384,702.04 ₱  299,453.72 97,634.71 ₱  ₱  277,643.77 ₱  254,295.54 ₱  130,890.44 ₱  772,840.80 81,571.27 ₱  ₱  193,922.79 28,000.00 ₱  ₱  ----------------5,600.00 ₱  12,500.00 ₱  2,580.00 ₱  ₱  9,522,020.32

Summary

Material Cost Labor Cost Equipment Cost Maintenance Cost Total Cost

₱ 

9,522,020.32 ₱  6,541,550.10 ₱  8,702,269.68 285,000.00 ₱  ₱  25,050,840.10

237

B. Duration Task

Excavation Piling Footing  Abutment Pier Column Pier head Pier diaphragm Girder Fabrication Deck Shoulder & W. Surface Railings Finishing Total number of days

PSC (days) 23 22 12 8 4 7 7 13 9 7 4 4 120

STEEL (days) 23 22 12 8 4 7 7 8 9 7 4 4 115

RCDG (days) 27 24 13 9 5 8 8 15 9 7 4 4 133

C. Deflection

1. Prestressed I-Girder Girder type:

AASHTO Type 6 11

Ix: 3.0523 x 10  mm Self-weight: 30.4867 kN/m Deflection due to Live load: 4.767 mm Deflection due to Moving load: 9.511 mm Total Deflection: 14.278 mm *Deflection due to Live Load

238

*Deflection due to Moving Load

2. Steel Plate Girder Girder type: Ix: Self-weight:

W 36 x 848

2.8056 x 10 10  mm 23.5647 kN/m

Deflection due to Live load: 8.609 mm Deflection due to Moving load: 24.355 mm Total Deflection: 32.964 mm *Deflection due to Live Load

239

*Deflection due to Moving Load

3. RC Girder Girder type: Ix: Self-weight:

1.6 x 0.5 m

3.88 x 1011  mm 32.88 kN/m

Deflection due to Dead load: 40.922 mm Deflection due to Live load: 5.287 mm Deflection due to Moving load: 14.102 mm Total Deflection: 60.311 mm *Deflection due to Dead Load

240

*Deflection due to Live Load

*Deflection due to Moving Load

D. Maintenance Cost

1. Prestressed Concrete I-Girder Bridge Description Concrete Sealant Cost Others PSC Cleaning Materials Labor and Equipment Cost Total Cost

Cost Php 161,500.00 Php 82,325.00 Php 117,675.00 Php 361,500.00

2. Steel Plate Girder Bridge Description Air Drying Paint Primer Sand shot Other Steel Cleaning Materials Labor and Equipment Cost Total Cost

Cost Php 37,200.00 Php 18,727.20 Php 23,500.00 Php 140,169.44 Php 100,742.24 Php 320,338.88

241

3. RC Deck Girder Bridge Description Concrete Sealant Cost Others RCDG Cleaning Materials Labor and Equipment Cost Total Cost

Cost Php 85,500.00 Php 91,750.00 Php 108,250.00 Php 285,000.00

242

APPENDIX H: COMPUTATION OF FINAL ESTIMATE A. Overall Cost

The following cost is based on summary sheet of unit price rate of Department of Public Works and Highways and the construction rental rates based ACEL equipment guidebook. 1. Prestressed Concrete I-Girder Bridge Task Excavation Piling Footing  Abutment Pier Column Pier Head Pier Diaphragm Girder Deck Shoulder & W. Surface Railings Finishing Total

Labor Cost ₱  600,319.20 ₱  661,096.16 ₱  462,755.36 ₱  330,917.60 ₱  159,901.36 ₱  254,677.76 ₱  275,477.76 ₱  496,346.52 ₱  554,775.62 ₱  292,870.88 ₱  174,299.50 ₱  174,299.50 ₱  4,437,737.22

Material

Girder Wearing Surface Deck Gutter Barrier Diaphragm Pier Head Post Footing Pier Piles  Abutment  Abutment Piles Intermediate Diaphragm Free Bearing Pad Guided Bearing Pad Form Lumber Bolts, Nuts, And Washers Tie Wire # 16 Paint Nails Total Material Cost

Equipment Cost ₱  2,125,980.48 ₱  1,816,179.84 612,240.96 ₱  454,511.60 ₱  153,135.84 ₱  220,849.04 ₱  220,849.04 ₱  434,008.72 ₱  844,986.08 ₱  399,515.68 ₱  96,288.00 ₱  96,288.00 ₱  ₱  7,474,833.28

Cost ₱  6,169,422.93 454,922.08 ₱  720,396.21 ₱  205,386.00 ₱  369,707.32 ₱  334,876.16 ₱  137,537.12 ₱  67,771.44 ₱  270,281.28 ₱  465,958.84 ₱  ₱  1,384,868.33 509,187.27 ₱  179,741.20 ₱  69,363.00 ₱  141,616.12 ₱  28,000.00 ₱  80,880.00 ₱  5,600.00 ₱  12,500.00 ₱  2,580.00 ₱  ₱ 11,610,595.30

243

Summary

Material Labor Equipment Maintenance Total

₱  11,610,595.30 ₱ 

4,437,737.22 ₱  7,474,833.28 330,600.00 ₱  ₱ 23,853,765.80

2. Steel Plate Girder Bridge Task Excavation Piling Footing  Abutment Pier Column Pier Head Pier Diaphragm Girder Deck Shoulder & W. Surface Railings Finishing Total

Labor Cost ₱  600,319.20 ₱  661,096.16 ₱  470,035.36 ₱  336,117.60 ₱  162,501.36 ₱  258,837.76 ₱  279,637.76 ₱  232,041.76 ₱  562,575.62 ₱  297,030.88 ₱  179,499.50 ₱  179,499.50 ₱  4,219,192.46 Material

Girder Wearing Surface Deck Gutter Barrier Intermediate Cross Frame Pier Head Post Footing Pier Piles  Abutment  Abutment Piles Pier Cross Frame Free Bearing Pad Guided Bearing Pad Form Lumber Bolts, Nuts, And Washers Tie Wire # 16 Paint Nails Total Material Cost

Equipment Cost ₱  2,125,980.48 ₱  1,816,179.84 540,672.96 ₱  403,391.60 ₱  127,575.84 ₱  179,953.04 ₱  179,953.04 ₱  414,805.52 ₱  768,306.08 ₱  358,619.68 ₱  70,728.00 ₱  70,728.00 ₱  ₱  7,056,894.08

Cost ₱  7,454,331.00 345,482.08 ₱  720,396.21 ₱  205,386.00 ₱  369,707.32 ₱  154,834.04 ₱  74,996.16 ₱  45,508.40 ₱  320,490.00 ₱  228,205.40 ₱  ₱  1,267,550.96 275,451.00 ₱  50,116.95 ₱  52,022.24 ₱  138,726.00 ₱  28,000.00 ₱  113,664.00 ₱  5,600.00 ₱  12,500.00 ₱  2,580.00 ₱  ₱  11,865,547.76

244

Summary

Material Labor Equipment Maintenance Total

₱  11,865,547.76 ₱ 

4,219,192.46 ₱  7,056,894.08 312,255.18 ₱  ₱  23,453,889.48

3. RC Deck Girder Bridge Task Excavation Piling Footing  Abutment Pier Column Pier Head Pier Diaphragm Girder Deck Shoulder & W. Surface Railings Finishing Total

Labor Cost ₱  831,211.20 ₱  865,324.64 ₱  660,776.64 ₱  331,976.16 ₱  256,265.60 ₱  255,207.04 ₱  271,847.04 ₱  825,052.60 ₱  546,975.62 ₱  267,910.88 ₱  158,699.50 ₱  171,699.50 ₱  5,442,946.42 Material

Girder Wearing Surface Deck Gutter Barrier Diaphragm Pier Head Post Footing Pier Piles  Abutment  Abutment Piles Intermediate Diaphragm Free Bearing Pad Guided Bearing Pad Form Lumber Bolts, Nuts, And Washers Tie Wire # 16 Paint Nails Total Material Cost

Equipment Cost ₱  2,943,665.28 ₱  2,384,839.36 870,976.96 ₱  467,297.04 ₱  250,131.52 ₱  227,241.76 ₱  227,241.76 ₱  760,867.92 ₱  904,650.08 ₱  431,336.48 ₱  96,288.00 ₱  96,288.00 ₱  ₱  9,660,824.16

Cost ₱  6,416,430.78 454,922.08 ₱  720,396.21 ₱  205,386.00 ₱  369,707.32 ₱  334,876.16 ₱  79,848.16 ₱  54,230.08 ₱  413,232.00 ₱  269,785.28 ₱  ₱  1,324,745.84 429,768.00 ₱  179,741.20 ₱  69,363.00 ₱  141,616.12 ₱  28,000.00 ₱  80,880.00 ₱  5,600.00 ₱  12,500.00 ₱  2,580.00 ₱  ₱  11,593,608.23

245

Summary

Material Labor Equipment Maintenance Total

₱ 

6,689,432.62 ₱  5,442,946.42 ₱  9,660,824.16 256,650.00 ₱  ₱  22,049,853.20

B. Duration Task

Excavation Piling Footing  Abutment Pier Column Pier head Pier diaphragm Girder Fabrication Deck Shoulder & W. Surface Railings Finishing Total days

PSC

STEEL

RCDG

26 26 14 10 5 8 8 14 15 8 5 5 144

26 26 14 10 5 8 8 8 15 8 5 5 138

36 34 20 10 8 8 8 22 15 8 5 5 179

C. Deflection

1. Prestressed Concrete I-Girder Bridge Due to Dead Loads 32.728 mm Due to Moving Loads 12.862 mm Due to Live Loads 4.553 mm Total 50.143 mm (camber not included)  Actual Deflection 17.415 mm

246

*Deflection due to Dead Load

*Deflection due to Moving Load

*Deflection due to Live Load

2. Steel Plate Girder Due to Dead Load Due to Moving Load Due to Live Load

38.703 mm 16.441 mm 5.917 mm 247

Total Load  Actual Deflection

61.061 mm (camber not included) 22.358 mm

*Deflection due to Dead Load

*Deflection due to Moving Load

*Deflection due to Live Load

248

3. RC Deck Girder Bridge Due to Dead Loads Due to Moving Loads Due to Live Loads  Actual Deflection

21.04 mm 10.182 mm 3.052 mm 34.274 mm

*Deflection due to Dead Load

*Deflection due to Moving Load

249

*Deflection due to Live Load

D. Maintenance

1. PSC Concrete Sealant Cost (1800m²) Others PSC Cleaning Materials Labor and Equipment Cost Total Cost

= ₱ 153,000.00 = ₱ 75,000.00 = ₱ 102,600.00 = ₱ 330,600.00

2. STEEL  Air Drying Paint (250kg) Primer (52 cans) Sand shot (2MT) Other Steel Cleaning Materials Labor and Equipment Cost Total Cost

= ₱ 46,500.00 = ₱ 21,848.40 = ₱ 47,000.00 = ₱ 100,000.00 = ₱ 96,905.78 = ₱ 312,255.18

3. RCDG Concrete Sealant Cost (1200m²) Others RCDG Cleaning Materials Labor and Equipment Cost Total Cost

= ₱ 102,000.00 = ₱ 75,000.00 = ₱ 79,650.00 = ₱ 256,650.00

250

APPENDIX I: DETAILS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

 A. Economic vs. Constructability 

Economic Cost Material PSC 11610595.30 STEEL 11865547.76 RCDG 6689432.62

Labor 4437737.22 4219192.46 5442946.42 Task

Excavation Piling Footing  Abutment Pier Column Pier head Pier diaphragm Girder Fabrication Deck Shoulder & W. Surface Railings Finishing Total days 

5% Increase in Economic Cost Material Labor PSC 11610595.30 5242103.52 11865547.76 5190672.00 STEEL RCDG 6689432.62 6261072.49 Task

Excavation Piling Footing  Abutment Pier Column Pier head Pier diaphragm Girder Fabrication Deck Shoulder & W. Surface

Equipment 7474833.28 7056894.08 9660824.16 PSC (days) 26 26 14 10 5 8 8 14 15 8 5 5 144

STEEL (days) 26 26 14 10 5 8 8 8 15 8 5 5 138

Equipment 7863155.27 7256262.08 9939428.16 PSC (days) 26 26 14 10 5 8 8 14 15 8

Maintenance 330600.00 312255.18 256650.00

STEEL (days) 26 25 14 10 5 8 8 8 15 8

Total 23853765.80 23453889.48 22049853.20

RCDG (days) 36 34 20 10 8 8 8 22 15 8 5 5 179

Maintenance 330600.00 312255.18 256650.00

Total 25046454.09 24624737.02 23146583.27

RCDG (days) 36 34 20 10 8 8 8 22 15 8

251

Railings Finishing Total days 10% Increase in Economic Cost Material Labor PSC 11610595.30 5719178.832 11865547.76 5337409.28 STEEL RCDG 6689432.62 6864267.69

5 5 138

5 5 130

5 5 172



Task

Excavation Piling Footing  Abutment Pier Column Pier head Pier diaphragm Girder Fabrication Deck Shoulder & W. Surface Railings Finishing Total days 15% Increase in Economic Cost Material Labor 11610595.30 6196254.15 PSC 11865547.76 5871511.54 STEEL RCDG 6689432.62 7184771.04

Equipment 8578768.25 8279713.68 10437363.36 PSC (days) 25 24 13 9 5 8 8 13 14 8 5 5 128

STEEL (days) 25 24 13 9 5 8 8 8 14 8 5 5 122

Maintenance 330600.00 312255.18 256650.00

Total 26239142.38 25794925.90 24247713.67

RCDG (days) 34 31 18 9 8 8 8 20 14 8 5 5 160



Task

Excavation Piling Footing  Abutment Pier Column Pier head Pier diaphragm Girder Fabrication Deck Shoulder & W. Surface

Equipment 9294381.22 8918793.68 11220996.40 PSC (days) 23 22 12 9 5 7 7 12 13 7

STEEL (days) 23 22 12 9 5 7 7 7 13 7

Maintenance 330600.00 312255.18 256650.00

Total 27431830.67 26968108.16 25351850.06

RCDG (days) 33 29 17 9 7 7 7 19 13 7

252

Railings Finishing Total days 20% Increase in Economic Cost Material Labor PSC 11610595.30 6673329.46 11865547.76 6204223.54 STEEL RCDG 6689432.62 7790406.24

5 5 120

5 5 111

5 5 151



Equipment 10009994.20 9754337.44 11718931.60

Task

Excavation Piling Footing  Abutment Pier Column Pier head Pier diaphragm Girder Fabrication Deck Shoulder & W. Surface Railings Finishing Total days

PSC (days) 23 22 12 9 5 7 7 12 13 7 5 5 120

STEEL (days) 23 22 12 9 5 7 7 7 13 7 5 5 111

Maintenance 330600.00 312255.18 256650.00

Total 28624518.96 28136363.92 26455420.46

RCDG (days) 33 29 17 9 7 7 7 19 13 7 5 5 151

D. Economic vs. Serviceability The increase in cost for 5, 10, 15, and 20 % for the three trade-offs do not have significant effect on the actual deflection of the girder considering that there will be no modification provided in the final design. C. Economic vs. Sustainability a. Prestressed Concrete I-Girder Bridge Increase 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Project Cost ₱  23,853,765.80 ₱  25,046,454.09 ₱  26,239,142.38 ₱  27,431,830.67 ₱  28,624,518.96

Maintenance 330,600.00 ₱  ₱ 1,199,270.70 ₱ 2,398,541.41 ₱ 3,597,812.11 ₱ 4,797,082.82

Years 1.00 3.63 7.26 10.88 14.51

Project Cost ₱  23,453,889.48 ₱  24,626,583.95

Maintenance 312,255.18 ₱  ₱ 1,172,694.47

Years 1.00 3.76

b. Steel Plate Girder Bridge Increase 0% 5%

253

10% 15% 20%

₱  25,799,278.43

₱

2,345,388.95 3,518,083.42 4,690,777.90

7.51 11.27 15.02

₱  26,971,972.90

₱

₱  28,144,667.37

₱

Maintenance 256,650.00 ₱  ₱ 1,102,492.66 ₱ 2,204,985.32 ₱ 3,307,477.98 ₱ 4,409,970.64

Years 1.00 4.30 8.59 12.89 17.18

c. Reinforced Concrete Deck Girder Increase 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Project Cost ₱  22,049,853.20 ₱  23,152,345.86 ₱  24,254,838.52 ₱  25,357,331.18 ₱  26,459,823.84

254

APPENDIX J: MINUTES OF MEETING Minutes of Meeting

Location Date Time  Attendees

España, Manila December 17, 2017 3:00 pm – 7:00 pm Emmanuel Manlapaz Genelyn Subiza Maricris Villanueva Wilson Agresor Ronald Miguel David (External Adviser)

    

Agenda:

1. Reviewing of project proposal 2. Brainstorming of design layout 3. Dividing works regarding the initial design of each trade-off Item

 Agenda 1  Agenda 2  Agenda 3 Trade-off 1 Trade- off 2 Trade-off 3 Foundation Staad Works     

Assigned to

Deadline

Status

-

-

Completed Completed

Manlapaz Subiza Manlapaz Villanueva  Agresor

Jan 7, 2018 Jan 7, 2018 Jan 7, 2018 Jan 7, 2018 Dec 24, 2017

Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed

255

Minutes of Meeting

Location Date Time  Attendees

Ermita, Manila January 14, 2018 3:00 pm – 6:00 pm Emmanuel Manlapaz Genelyn Subiza Maricris Villanueva Wilson Agresor Ronald Miguel David (External Adviser)

    

Agenda:

1. Discussion on how to input moving loads to STAAD BEAVA application - For correction of design moving loads 2. Checking of initial design of each trade-off 3. Modification of design (as applicable) Item

 Agenda 1  Agenda 2  Agenda 3 Trade-off 1 Trade- off 2 Trade-off 3 Foundation    

Assigned to

 Agresor Manlapaz Subiza Manlapaz Villanueva

Deadline

Jan 28, 2018 Feb 10, 2018 Feb 10, 2018 Feb 10, 2018 Feb 10, 2018

Status

Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed

256

Minutes of Meeting

Location Date Time  Attendees

Ermita, Manila Feb 11, 2018 4:00 pm – 6:00 pm Emmanuel Manlapaz Genelyn Subiza Maricris Villanueva Wilson Agresor Ronald Miguel David (External Adviser)

    

Agenda:

1. Checking of final design of each trade-off 2. Modification of design (as applicable) Item

Assigned to

Deadlines

Status

 Agenda 1  Agenda 2 Trade-off 1 Trade- off 2 Trade-off 3 Foundation

-

-

Completed

Manlapaz Subiza Manlapaz Villanueva

Feb 17, 2018 Feb 17, 2018 Feb 17, 2018 Feb 17, 2018

Completed Completed Completed Completed

   

257

APPENDIX K: CURRICULUM VITAE

EMMANUEL TAN MANLAPAZ JR. CIVIL ENGINEERING

 Address: Block 7, Lot 8, Katiyagaan Road, Karangalan Village, Pasig City E-mail Address:  [email protected] Contact No.: 09156148756

I.

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Date of Birth: November 5, 1996  Age: 21 Gender: Male Nationality: Filipino Religion: Roman Catholic II.

EDUCATION

Tertiary

III.

Technological Institute of the Philippines Quezon City Campus (TIP –QC) Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering 2013 –present

ORGANIZATIONS 



IV.

Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers (PICE) TIP   –QC Student Chapter Member, 2015 –present American Concrete Institute (ACI) TIP   –QC Student Chapter Member, 2015 –present SEMINARS AND TRAININGS ATTENDED



2nd Philippine Engineering Student Congress Technological Institute of the Philippines QC 258

Mar 10, 2017 

V.

1st Philippine Engineering Student Congress Technological Institute of the Philippines QC Mar 08, 2016 REFERENCES Engr. Niño Pozon Site Operations Engineer  DDT Konstract, Inc. [email protected] 09087955134

Arch. Kimberly Romualdo Site Architect [email protected]

259

GENELYN BANGAY SUBIZA CIVIL ENGINEERING

 Address: 415 Del Rosario Compound, Talipapa, Novaliches, Quezon City E-mail Address: [email protected] Contact No.: 0926-533-0548

I.

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Date of Birth: July 31, 1997  Age: 20 Gender: Female Nationality: Filipino Religion: Roman Catholic II.

EDUCATION

Tertiary

III.

Technological Institute of the Philippines Quezon City Campus (TIP –QC) Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering 2013 –present

ORGANIZATIONS 







TIP-QC Department Student Council Civil Engineering Department  Auditor, 2016-2017 Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers (PICE) TIP   –QC Student Chapter Member, 2015 –present American Concrete Institute (ACI) TIP   –QC Student Chapter Member, 2015 –present Inhinyera TIPQC Project Extension Service Committee Vice-Chair, 2015 –2016  Auditor, 2016-2017

260

IV.

ACADEMIC AWARDS

1st place, English Day Speech Choir Competition (2014) 2nd place, English Day Essay Writing Contest (2014) 3rd place, PE Day Cheer Dance Competition (2013) 2nd place, Freshmen Day Creative Dance Competition (2013) 3rd place, English Day Spelling Bee (2013) Hon. Marivic Co-Pilar Scholarship Grantee (2014 –present) V.

SEMINARS AND TRAININGS ATTENDED 





VI.

2nd Philippine Engineering Student Congress Technological Institute of the Philippines QC Mar 10, 2017 National Civil Engineering Symposium 2016 University of the Philippines Diliman Sep 15, 2016 1st Philippine Engineering Student Congress Technological Institute of the Philippines QC Mar 08, 2016 REFERENCES Engr. Fatima Jade C. Ang Drainage Design Engineer   Arcadis Manila GEC [email protected] 09175006524

Arch. Robert Valera Free Lancer Architect [email protected] 09286964596

261

MARICRIS REAZO VILLANUEVA CIVIL ENGINEERING

 Address: 14 Potsdam St., Silangan, Cubao, Quezon City E-mail Address: [email protected] Contact No.: 09461108637

I.

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Date of Birth: July 28, 1997  Age: 20 Gender: Female Nationality: Filipino Religion: Roman Catholic II.

EDUCATION

Tertiary

Technological Institute of the Philippines Quezon City Campus (TIP –QC) Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering 2015 –present Rizal Technological University Boni Campus Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering 2013 –2015

III.

ORGANIZATIONS 



Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers (PICE) TIP   –QC Student Chapter Member, 2015 –present American Concrete Institute (ACI) TIP   –QC Student Chapter Member, 2015 –present

262

IV.

SEMINARS AND TRAININGS ATTENDED 

V.

2nd Philippine Engineering Student Congress Technological Institute of the Philippines QC Mar 10, 2017 REFERENCES Engr. Noel M. Gahoz Project Manager   Archipelago Builders [email protected] 09303308788

Engr. Lorenzo Caranguian Department Head, Civil Engineering Rizal Technological University [email protected] 09123651326

263

WILSON BALTAZAR AGRESOR CIVIL ENGINEERING

 Address: 2035 MRB Complex Phase II Brgy Commonwealth, Quezon City E-mail Address: [email protected] Contact No.: 0905-701-1403

I.

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Date of Birth: June 27, 1997  Age: 20 Gender: Male Nationality: Filipino Religion: Pentecostal II. EDUCATION

Tertiary

III.

Technological Institute of the Philippines Quezon City Campus (TIP –QC) Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering 2013 –present

ORGANIZATIONS 



IV.

Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers (PICE) TIP   –QC Student Chapter Member, 2015 –present American Concrete Institute (ACI) TIP   –QC Student Chapter Member, 2016 –present ACADEMIC AWARDS

1st place, English Day Speech Choir Competition (2014) V.

SEMINARS AND TRAININGS ATTENDED 

2nd Philippine Engineering Student Congress Technological Institute of the Philippines QC 264

Mar 10, 2017 



VI.

National Civil Engineering Symposium 2016 University of the Philippines Diliman Sep 15, 2016 1st Philippine Engineering Student Congress Technological Institute of the Philippines QC Mar 08, 2016 REFERENCES Engr. Jem G. Eripol Project Engineer   Agtekpin Eco-Bricks  [email protected] 09057061020

Engr. Billy Rudolfh Rejuso Instructor National University [email protected] 09278310348

265

Reference

Department of Public Works and Highways Regional Office I  –  Materials Testing Division (2017). Subsurface Exploration Data (Boring Log) 1 

of Public Works and Highways Central Office NCR  – Waterways Division (2017). Discharge Measurements of Bued River  2 Department

3  National

Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA). Topographic Map. Available from Municipality Office of Rosario, La Union 4 

National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA). E levation Map. Available from Municipality Office of Rosario, La Union 5 Kiamarsi,

F. & Mohamed, G. (2015). Critical Success Factors for Efficient Bridge Construction [E-reader Version]. Retrieved from publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/213286/213286.pdf 6

Bridge Design Handbook   (2000). [E-reader Version]. Retrieved from igs.nigc.ir/STANDS/BOOK/HBBRIDGE.PDF 7 Fisher

Associates. (2013). Bridge Design. Retrieved from www.fisherassociates.com/article/14/

8  Itoh,

Y. et al. (2000). Bridge Type Selection System Incorporating Environmental Impacts  [E-reader Version]. Retrieved from users.encs.concordia.ca/~hammad/papers/J17.pdf 9

Temperature Effects on Soil Behavior in Relation to Transportation Infrastructure (2016). Retrieved from rns.trb.org/dproject.asp?n=40671 10 Dicleli,

M. et al. (2010). Effect of soil  –bridge interaction on the magnitude of internal forces in integral abutment bridge components due to live load effects  [E-reader Version]. Retrieved from www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S01410296090 02892 11 Wibowo,

H. et al. (2012). Evaluation of Vehicle-Bridge Interaction during Earthquakes [E-reder Version]. Retrieved from www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/WCEE2012_1560.pdf 12

Hydrodynamic forces on Inundated Bridge Decks (2009). [E-reader Version].

13 Vallejo,

S. (2015). Evaluation of Major Bridges in Cagayan Valley, Philippines [E-reader Version].

14 Bondoc,

J. (2012). What’s Better: Steel or Concrete Bridge?. Retrieved from www.philstar.com/opinion/ 2012-11-28/875423/what%E2%80%99s-better-steel-or-concrete-bridge 15 Retrieved

from www.stressconindustries.com

16 Retrieved

from www.steelconstruction.info

17 Retrieved

from www.google.com/images

266