THE PROJECT FOR STUDY ON

IMPROVEMENT OF BRIDGES
THROUGH DISASTER
MITIGATING MEASURES FOR
LARGE SCALE EARTHQUAKES IN
THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES
JAPAN INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGENCY (JICA)

CTI ENGINEERING INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD

CHODAI CO., LTD.
Completed : December 2013 NIPPON KOEI CO., LTD.
 PHILIPPINES
2nd in the World Risk Index

2nd worldwide on the most number

of human exposure to earthquake
hazards
 COMPARISON MATRIX
Present DPWH Design Criteria/Specification
DPWH-LRFD Bridge Seismic Design Specification (BSDS) under JICA Study

PRESENT DESIGN CRITERIA

BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN
ITEMS AASHTO SPECIFICATIONS,
SPECIFICATIONS (BSDS)
INCLUDING DPWH D.O. NO. 75
1. Basic Referral AASHTO Standard Specifications AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
Specification for Highway Bridges, 17th Edition, Specifications, 6th Edition, 2012
2002 and Japan Road Association (JRA)

2. Design Load Factor Design Method (LFD) Load and Resistance Factor
Methodology Method (LRFD)
Note: DGCS 2015 (under
CARDNO) is also based on
AASHTO LRFD Methodology
 LFD vs. LRFD
Until the early 1970s, the sole design philosophy embedded within the AASHTO
Standard Specifications was known as working stress design (WSD). WSD
establishes allowable stresses as a fraction or percentage of a given materials
load-carrying capacity, and requires that calculated design stresses not exceed
those allowable stresses. Beginning in the early 1970s, WSD began to be adjusted
to reflect the variable predictability of certain load types, such as vehicular loads
and wind forces, through adjusting design factors, a design philosophy referred to
as load factor design (LFD). Both WSD and LFD are reflected in the current 17th
edition of the AASHTO Standard Specifications, 2002.

A further philosophical extension results from considering the variability in the

properties of structural elements, in similar fashion to load variability. While
considered to a limited extent in LFD, the design philosophy of load-and-
resistance factor design (LRFD) takes variability in the behavior of structural
elements into account in an explicit manner. LRFD relies on extensive use of
statistical methods, but sets forth the results in a manner readily usable by bridge
designers and analyst.
 PRESENT DESIGN CRITERIA
BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN
ITEMS AASHTO SPECIFICATIONS,
SPECIFICATIONS (BSDS)
INCLUDING DPWH D.O. NO. 75

3. Design The general procedure is to use The general procedure to develop

Earthquake AASHTO response spectra based the design spectrum is to use the
Ground Motions on elastic seismic response peak ground acceleration (PGA)
coefficient (Csm) formula. The and the short and long period
formula basically includes ground spectral acceleration coefficients
acceleration coefficient (A) Map (Cs and Ce) based on the Maps
and developed using included in the Guidelines. The
seismic/geological conditions in spectral acceleration maps
the U.S. developed under the JICA Study
are specific for Philippine seismic/
geological conditions
 PRESENT DESIGN CRITERIA
BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN
ITEMS AASHTO SPECIFICATIONS,
SPECIFICATIONS (BSDS)
INCLUDING DPWH D.O. NO. 75

4. Seismic Hazard Present Philippine seismic hazard Use of proposed seismic

Map map with 0.20g and 0.40g ground hazards map for the entire
acceleration coefficients. (Note: This Philippines based on
is equivalent to 500 year return probabilistic seismic hazards
period as shown in the BSDS) analysis of past earthquake
records. Peak Ground
Acceleration (PGA) for 1000
year return period ranges from
0.20g to 0.60g
 SEISMICITY REGIONS (DPWH, JICA)

Site-specific spectral acceleration maps

1000 year return period 7% probability of

exceedance in 75 years (Site Class B)

Ss (0.2 second period) and S1 ( 1-second

period
 PRESENT DESIGN CRITERIA
BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN
ITEMS AASHTO SPECIFICATIONS,
SPECIFICATIONS (BSDS)
INCLUDING DPWH D.O. NO. 75
5. Design
Earthquake
500-year return period 1000-year return period
Return Period

6. Importance/ Importance Classification (IC) Operational Classification (OC)

Operational Essential Bridges = IC-I (a) Critical Bridges = OC -I
Classification of - those that must continue to (b) Essential Bridges = OC-II
Bridges function after an earthquake. (c) Other Bridges = OC-III
Consideration given to
social/survival and security/
defense requirements. Additional
consideration for AADT
Other Bridges = IC-II
BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS (BSDS)

OC-I, Critical Bridges

Bridge that must remain open to all traffic after the design
earthquake, i.e. 1000 year return period event.

Other bridges required by DPWH to be open to emergency

vehicles and vehicles for security/ defense purposes
immediately after an earthquake larger than the design
earthquake
 OC-II, Essential Bridges
Bridges that should, as a minimum, be open to emergency
vehicles and for security/ defense purposes within a short
period after the design earthquake, i.e. 1000 year return period
event.

OC-III, Other Bridges

All other bridges not required to satisfy OC-I or OC-II
performance.
 PRESENT DESIGN CRITERIA
BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN
ITEMS AASHTO SPECIFICATIONS,
SPECIFICATIONS (BSDS)
INCLUDING DPWH D.O. NO. 75

7. Seismic Two (2) earthquake levels: Involves evaluation of level 1 (100-

Performance (a) small/ moderate earthquakes year return period, small to
Requirements with magnitude below 7, moderate earthquakes) and level 2
(b) large/major earthquake (1000 year return period, major
magnitude 7 and up. earthquake) earthquake levels.

Corresponding serviceability and Corresponding serviceability and

safety performance requirements safety performance levels (SPL 1,
for two (2) bridge classifications 2 & 3)* requirements for three (3)
(IC-I and IC-II) bridge classifications (OC-I, OC-II
and OC-III)

* Detailed description of SPLs on next page

BSDS COMMENTARY C3.3.1 re: SPL

(1)The seismic performance of bridges as a goal in seismic

design is classified into three levels in view of safety,
serviceability and repairability.

SAFETY implies performance to avoid loss of life due to

collapse or unseating of the superstructure during an
earthquake.
SERVICEABILITY means that the bridge is capable of
keeping its bridge function such as fundamental
transportation function, the role as evacuation routes and
emergency routes for rescue.

REPAIRABILITY denotes capability to repair seismic

damages. Bridges that are designed and detailed in
accordance with these provisions may suffer damage, but
should have low probability of collapse due to seismically
induced ground shaking.
SEISMIC PERFORMANCE LEVEL (SPL-1)

Performance level of a bridge to ensure its normal

sound functions during an earthquake, implies
that the bridge shall be restrained safely from
unseating, no emergency repair work is needed to
recover the functions soon after the earthquake,
and repair work which may take long time can be
easily conducted. This indicates full access to all
traffic immediately following an earthquake.
SEISMIC PERFORMANCE LEVEL (SPL-2)

Performance level of a bridge to sustain limited damages during

an earthquake and capable of recovery within a short period,
ensures not only safety in unseating prevention but also capability
to recover the bridge functions soon after the event and
repairability through comparatively easy, long-term repair work.

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE LEVEL (SPL-3)

Performance level of a bridge to ensure no critical damage

during an earthquake, implies that safety against collapse and
unseating is ensured but does not cover the function necessary for
serviceability and repairability for seismic design.
 PRESENT DESIGN CRITERIA
BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN
ITEMS AASHTO SPECIFICATIONS,
SPECIFICATIONS (BSDS)
INCLUDING DPWH D.O. NO. 75

8. Site Effects Considers four (4) soil profiles soil Considers three (3) soil profiles
Type I being rock white soil Type IV similar to JRA as defined by
being soft soil * characteristics value of ground .

Note: The geological

similarities/ differences
between Philippines, Japan and
U.S. are illustrated in the
guidelines Commentary.
NSCP, 2010
*

SOIL PROFILE TYPE I

Rock of any characteristic, either shale-like or crystalline in nature
[such material may be characterized by a shear wave velocity greater
than 760 m/sec, or by other appropriate means of classification]; or

Stiff soil condition where the soil depth is less than 60m and the soil
types overlying rock are stable deposits of sands, gravels, or stiff
clays.
SOIL PROFILE TYPE II
Profile with stiff clay or deep cohesionless soils conditions where the
soil depth exceeds 200 ft. (60m) and the soil types overlying rock are
stable deposits of sands, gravels, or stiff clays.

SOIL PROFILE TYPE III

Profile with soft to medium-stiff clays and sands characterized by 30
ft. (9m) or more of soft to medium-stiff clays with or without
intervening layers of sand or other cohesionless soils.
SOIL PROFILE TYPE IV
Profile with soft clays or silts greater than 40 ft. (12m) in
depth. These materials may be characterized by a shear
wave velocity less than 150m/sec and might include loose
natural deposits or synthetic, non-engineered fill.
RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTORS (R)

The AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,

2012, utilized the force-based approach to seismic
design (R-factor method).
RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTORS (R)
Columns are assumed to deform inelastically, where seismic forces
exceed their design level. This is taken by dividing the elastically
computed force effects by an appropriate response modification
factor, particularly to columns.

Columns should have enough ductility to be able to deform

inelastically to the deformation caused by large earthquakes.
 PRESENT DESIGN CRITERIA
BRIDGE SEISMIC DESIGN
ITEMS AASHTO SPECIFICATIONS,
SPECIFICATIONS (BSDS)
INCLUDING DPWH D.O. NO. 75
Operational Category
All Bridge Classification (BSDS)
(per AASHTO 17th Edition, 2002) OC-I OC-II OC-III
(Critical) (Essential) (Others)
9. Response Single-
Modification Column 3.0 1.5 2.0 3.0
Factor (R) Bents
Multiple
-
5.0 1.5 3.5 5.0
Column
bents
The rationale used in the development of the R-Factors for
columns, piers and pile bents was based on considerations of
redundancy and ductility provided by the various supports. The
wall type pier was judged to have minimal ductility capacity and
redundancy in its strong direction and was assigned an R-Factor
of 2. A multiple column bent with well-detailed columns was
judged to have good ductility capacity and redundancy and was
assigned the highest value of 5. The ductility capacity of single
columns is similar to that of columns in a multiple column bent;
however, there is no redundancy and therefore a lower R-Factor
of 3 was assigned to single columns to provide a level of
performance similar to that of multiple column bents.
 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Mandatory use of BSDS once the LRFD methodology is fully
adopted by the Department. One (1) year transition period is
required from LFD to LRFD in order to give time for DPWH
Engineers and Consultants to adjust with use of the new
guidelines and the LRFD methodology

2. During the transition period, the LFD method (per AASHTO 2002
edition) currently being adopted by the Department can still be
used with the PGA map for 500-year return period developed
under the JICA study.
Location Map of
Study Bridges

In Metro Manila

SELECTED BRIDGES
Location Map of
Study Bridges

Outside Metro
Manila

SELECTED BRIDGES
FOR RECOSTRUCTION

SELECTED BRIDGES
FOR RETROFITTING
Study Bridges

In Metro Manila
Study Bridges

Outside Metro
Manila