CHAPTER 16 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT OUTLINE DESIGN
OF SELECTED BRIDGES
16.1 Design Criteria and Conditions for Bridge Replacement
16.1.1 Design Criteria and Conditions for Bridge Replacement
The following items show design criteria and conditions utilized for outline design of new bridges.
(1) Design Standards utilized for Outline Design of New Bridges
The Design standards utilized for outline design of new bridges shall be given as follows:
Table 16.1.1-1 Design Standards Utilized for Outline Design of New Bridges
Item Design Condition Specification
1) General
Design Load Combination LV2 Seismic Design: Extreme Event I LRFD (2012)
Seismic Design Design Spectrum (1,000year) JICA Study Team
Response Spectrum Analysis JICA Study Team
2) Superstructure
3350 mm (Pack and Guadalupe)
Design Lane Width DPWH, AASHTO
3000 mm (Lambingan)
Dead Load LRFD (2012)
Live Load HL-93 and Lane Loads LRFD (2012)
3) Substructure
Seismic Earth Pressure LRFD(2012)
Column Section Design R-factor method LRFD(2012)
4) Foundation
Pile Foundation Analysis JICA Study Team (JRA)
Soil Type JICA Study Team (JRA)
Liquefaction design JICA Study Team (JRA)
Pile Bearing L1: FS=2, L2: FS=1 JICA Study Team (JRA)
Pile Section Design M-N chart ( =1.0) LRFD(2012)
16-1
(2) Load Factors and Combination
The outline design calculation shall be carried out based on LRFD methodology given in AASHTO
LRFD 2012 as follows:
1) Loads
Table 16.1.1-2 Permanent and Transient Loads
Permanent Loads DD = Down drag
DC = Dead load of structural components and nonstructural attachment
DW = Dead load of wearing surfaces and utilities
EH = Horizontal earth pressure load
EL = Accumulated locked-in force effects resulting from the construction
process, including the secondary forces from post-tensioning
ES = Earth surcharge load
EV = Vertical pressure from dead load of earth fill
Transient Loads BR = Vehicular braking force
CE = Vehicular centrifugal force
CR = Creep
CT = Vehicular collision force
CV = Vessel collision force
EQ = Earthquake
FR = Friction
IM = Vehicular dynamic load allowance
LL = Vehicular live load
LS = Live load surcharge
PL = Pedestrian live load
SE = Settlement
SH = Shrinkage
TG = Temperature gradient
TL = Train Load
TU = Uniform temperature
WA = Water load and stream pressure
WL = Wind on live load
WS = Wind load on structure
Source: LRFD 2012
2) Load Factors and Combination
Table 16.1.1-3 Load Combinations and Factors
Load DC LL TL WA WS WL FR TU TG SE Use One of These
Combination DW IM CR At a Time
EH CE SH
EV BR
Limit State ES PL EQ CT CV
LS
EL
Extreme
γp 0.50 0.50 1.00 - - 1.00 - - - 1.00 - -
Event I
Source: LRFD 2012
16-2
Table 16.1.1-4 Load Factors for Permanent Loads, γp
Type of Load Load Factor
Maximum Minimum
DC : Component and Attachments 1.25 0.90
DW : Wearing Surfaces and Utilities 1.50 0.65
EH : Horizontal Earth Pressure
Active 1.50 0.90
At Rest 1.35 0.90
EL : Locked-in Erection Stress 1.00 1.00
EV : Vertical Earth Pressure
Overall Stability 1.00 N/A
Retaining Structures 1.35 1.00
Rigid Buried Structures 1.30 0.90
Rigid Frames 1.35 0.90
ES : Earth Surcharge 1.50 0.75
Source: LRFD 2012
16-3
(3) Design Spectrum
The design spectrum utilized for modal analysis and response spectrum analysis shall be as following
figure and table, evaluated in this project.
Sｓ= 0.38 Site-Specfic Design Spectrum
= 0.93 (0.38<T<0.55)
10.00
5% Damped
= 0.51/T (0.55<T)
1.00
Csm
0.10
Mawo Br. at A1(1000-Year)
Guadarupe Br. at B2(1000-year)
Wawa Br. at A1(1000-year)
Lambingan Br. at A1(1000-year)
Palanit Br. at A1(1000-year)
0.01
0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0
Tm(sec)
Soil Type & Response Coefficement
Soil Profile Type
Guadarupe Br. Mawo Br. at A1 Wawa Br. at A1 Lambingan Br. Palanit Br.
at B2 at A1 at A1 at A1 & B1 at A1
T(sec) Cs(g) T(sec) Cs(g) T(sec) Cs(g) T(sec) Cs(g) T(sec) Cs(g)
0.010 0.380 0.010 0.380 0.010 0.380 0.010 0.380 0.010 0.630
0.120 0.920 0.200 0.820 0.150 0.880 0.110 0.920 0.070 1.570
0.120 0.920 0.200 0.820 0.150 0.880 0.110 0.920 0.070 1.570
0.590 0.920 1.120 0.820 0.730 0.880 0.560 0.920 0.340 1.570
0.590 0.915 1.120 0.820 0.730 0.877 0.560 0.911 0.340 1.559
0.610 0.885 1.200 0.767 0.750 0.853 0.600 0.850 0.600 0.883
0.700 0.771 3.000 0.307 0.800 0.800 0.700 0.729 0.700 0.757
0.810 0.667 4.000 0.230 0.850 0.753 0.800 0.638 0.800 0.663
0.900 0.600 5.000 0.184 0.900 0.711 0.900 0.567 0.900 0.589
1.000 0.540 6.000 0.153 1.000 0.640 1.000 0.510 1.000 0.530
2.000 0.270 7.000 0.131 2.000 0.320 2.000 0.255 2.000 0.265
3.000 0.180 8.000 0.115 3.000 0.213 3.000 0.170 3.000 0.177
4.000 0.135 9.000 0.102 4.000 0.160 4.000 0.128 4.000 0.133
5.000 0.108 10.000 0.092 5.000 0.128 5.000 0.102 5.000 0.106
6.000 0.090 0.000 0.000 6.000 0.107 6.000 0.085 6.000 0.088
7.000 0.077 0.000 0.000 7.000 0.091 7.000 0.073 7.000 0.076
8.000 0.068 0.000 0.000 8.000 0.080 8.000 0.064 8.000 0.066
9.000 0.060 0.000 0.000 9.000 0.071 9.000 0.057 9.000 0.059
10.000 0.054 0.000 0.000 10.000 0.064 10.000 0.051 10.000 0.053
Figure 16.1.1-1 Design Spectrum for New Bridge Design
16-4
(4) Materials
The material properties for concrete, reinforcing bar, PC cable, piles and steel structure mainly
utilized for steel deck superstructures shall be given as follows:
1) Concrete
Table 16.1.1-5 Concrete Strength by Structural Member
Compressive Strength
at 28 days (MPa) Structural Member
(Cylinder Specimen)
Post-tensioned PC I-Girder
40
Cast-in-situ PC Slab/Girder
Cast-in-situ PC Slab
35
Cast-in-situ PC Crossbeam
Substructure (Pier, Abutment, Pile Caps, Wing wall)
Retaining Wall, Box Culvert
28
Precast Reinforced Concrete Plate
Precast Parapet
21 Approach Slab
28 Cast-in-situ Bored Pile
Non-reinforced Concrete Structure
18
Lean Concrete
Source: DPWH
2) Reinforcing Bar
Table 16.1.1-6 Properties and Stress Limit of Reinforcing Bars
Yield Strength f y Tensile Strength f u Modulus of Elasticity Diameter of Bar
Type
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (mm)
Grade 275 275 500 200,000 D10, D12, D16,D20
Grade 415 414 620 200,000 D25,D28,D32,D36
Source: DPWH
3) PC Cable
Table 16.1.1-7 Properties and Stress Limit of PC Cable for T girder bridge
Min. Ultimate Strength Temporary Stress Stress at Service Load
(MPa) Before Loss due to Creep After Losses =0.7fs'
and Shrinkage = 0.8fs'
Grade 270 1862 1488 1300
Source: AASHTO
Table 16.1.1-8 Properties and Stress Limit of PC Cable for PC Box Girder bridge
Diameter Tensile Strength Modulus of Elasticity
(mm) (kN) (MPa)
12S15.2mm (SWPR7BL) 15.2mm 3130 200,000
Source: JIS
16-5
4) Steel Pipe Pile
Table 16.1.1-9 Properties and Stress Limit of Steel Pipe
Yield Strength f y Tensile Strength f u Modulus of Elasticity
Type
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
Grade SKK 400 235 400 200,000
Grade SKK 490 315 490 200,000
Source: JIS
5) Steel Pipe Sheet Pile
Table 16.1.1-10 Properties and Stress Limit of Steel Pipe for Steel Pipe Sheet Pile
Yield Strength f y Tensile Strength f u Modulus of Elasticity
Type
(MPa) (MPa) (Mpa)
Grade SKY 400 235 400 200,000
Grade SKY 490 315 490 200,000
Source: JIS
6) Steel members for superstructure
Table 16.1.1-11 Properties and Stress Limit of Steel Members
Yield Strength f y Tensile Strength f u Modulus of Elasticity
Type
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
450 t < 40mm
SM570 430 40mm < t < 75mm 570 200,000
420 75mm < t < 100mm
355 t < 40mm
SM490W 335 40mm < t < 75mm 490 200,000
325 75mm < t < 100mm
235 t < 40mm
SM400AW 400 200,000
215 40mm < t < 100mm
355 t < 40mm
SM490Y 335 40mm < t < 75mm 490 200,000
325 75mm < t < 100mm
235 t < 40mm
SS400 400 200,000
215 40mm < t < 100mm
Source: JIS
16-6
16.1.2 Determination of New Bridge Types for Outline Design
Bridge types to be conducted in the outline design are determined based on comparison study
considering multiple elements such as costs, structure advantage, constructability, environmental
impact and maintenance ability. The following flowchart shows the basic procedure of the
comparison study for selection of new bridge types.
STEP 1. Confirmation of ROAD CONDITION
- Cross Section of Bridge, Lane Arrangement
- Road Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
STEP 2. Confirmation of HYDRAULIC CONDITION
- Confirmation of River Condition From Interim Report
- HWL/ HTW for Navigation Clearance
STEP 3. Examination of SUBSTRUCTURE LOCATION
- Abutment Location
- Span Arrangement
STEP 4. Confirmation of BASIC CONCEPT
STEP 5. COMPARISON STUDY of New Bridge Types
- Extraction of Applicable Basic Types based on Actual Results
- Selection of Logically Suitable Types from above the Basic Types
- Applicability of Modern/ Rational/ Advanced Technological Types
- Comprehensive Comparison Study of New Bridge Types
Cost, Structure, Environment, Construction and Maintenance
Figure 16.1.2-1 Procedure of Comparison Study for Selection of New Bridge Types
For extraction of applicable basic types based on actual results shown at STEP 5 in the above
procedure, the following table regarding the relationship between actual results of basic bridge types
and span length is organized on the basis of '11 Design Data Book ('11 JBA Manual) and PC Bridge
Planning Manual ('2007 JPPCA).
Figure 16.1.2-2 Relationships between Actual Results of Basic Bridge Types and Span Length
16-7
(1) Lambingan Bridge
STEP 1. Confirmation of ROAD CONDITION
i) Bridge Width
For the cross section and lane arrangement of new bridge, the examined results of road planning
including approach roads shall be applied, shown as follows. For the current condition of Lambingan
bridge, a water pipe bridge, which is a trussed arch bridge, is currently located at 2.0m separated from
the existing road bridge for downstream side; thereby, adequate superstructure type without any
influence against the water pipe bridge even during construction phase shall be selected.
Figure 16.1.2-3 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Lambingan Bridge
ii) Road Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
For horizontal and vertical alignment of new bridge, the examined results of road planning including
approach roads shall be applied, shown as follows. In the road planning, multiple planning in
consideration of river condition such as height of design flood level and required free board are
examined, from the conclusion of which the girder height of Lambingan bridge is restricted within
2.0m.
Figure 16.1.2-4 Vertical Alignment by Road Planning of New Lambingan Bridge
STEP 2. Confirmation of HYDRAULIC CONDITION
For hydraulic condition in the new bridge selection, the determined results in this project shall be
applied. From the result of hydraulic examination, existing free board and navigation width shall be
strongly secured from the aspect of safety of vessels.
16-8
STEP 3. Examination of SUBSTRUCTURE LOCATION
i) Location of Abutments for Simple Supported Bridge Type
For the location of abutments for simple supported bridge type, the abutment shall be planned at the
section, at which the wing walls of new abutments and existing retaining walls can be continuously
connected. Consequently, the bridge length for the simple supported bridge type can be resulted as
90m long.
Figure 16.1.2-5 Determination of Abutment Location of Lambingan Bridge
(Simple Supported Condition)
ii) Location of Abutments for 3-Span Continuous Bridge Type
2-Span and 4-Span bridges are negative to be applied in this location because the pier(s) would be
naturally installed in the center of the river. Therefore, following the above mentioned simple
supported bridge, applicability of 3-Span bridge type shall be considered in the multiple comparison
study. In case that the new piers were planned at the same location of existing piers based on
navigation condition, inadequate negative reactions would be caused at the abutments even in the
dead load condition due to ambulanced span arrangement. Thereby, the location of new abutments
shall be determined considering such the occasion.
16-9
Figure 16.1.2-6 Determination of Abutment Location of Lambingan Bridge (3-Span Condition)
iii) Span Arrangement in Comparison Study
Following figure shows the span arrangements using in comparison study, resulted from above
examination. 2-Span and 4-Span bridges are not included in the comparison study because they can
not absolutely meet the navigation and river required conditions.
Figure 16.1.2-7 Span Arrangements of Lambingan Bridge in Comparison Study
iv) Examination of Applicable Bridge Types Considering Construction Condition
Lambingan bridge is of urban bridge, the both sides of approach roads of which have a lot of houses
and buildings. Besides, other useful alternative bridges to be utilized as Detour bridge during
construction phase do not exist near Lambingan bridge. Thereby, the adequate construction method is
required not to affect existing traffic flow and residential removal. Based on such the background,
following construction methodologies are compared in consideration of two of construction
conditions such as Stage Construction and Total Construction.
16-10
< STAGE CONSTRUCTION>
The construction method to elect new bridge separately
Figure 16.1.2-8 Construction Steps of Stage Construction
<Advantage>
- No need secure detour roads such as other alternative bridge or temporary bridge
- Minimum residential removal
<Disadvantage>
- Complicated construction steps and longer schedule, rather than Total Construction
- Limited superstructure type because even 1st phase structure should meet live loads influences.
< TOTAL CONSTRUCTION>
In order to secure existing traffic flow, detour road such like temporary bridge across the river is to be
utilized and all of structure will be erected after demolishing the existing structure.
Figure 16.1.2-9 Detour Temporary Bridge under Total Construction Method
<Advantage>
- Erection schedule is to be shorter and familiar method is available to applied
- Structurally rational superstructure can be designed
<Disadvantage>
- A temporary detour bridge is required to secure existing wide navigation width (W=60m)
- The span length of the temporary detour bridge is needed over 61m, which may be extremely
expensive because familiar structure can not apply.
- Influence of residential removal may be quite significant due to detour road and its approaches
16-11
Based on the above comparison, application of the total construction may not be realistic method;
hence, the selection of bridge type of Lambingan bridge shall be examined based on the stage
construction method.
STEP 4. Confirmation of BASIC CONCEPT
The basic concept resulted from above STEP 1 to STEP 3 is enumerated. The basic concept may be
significantly important factor for bridge selection under the comparison study.
New abutments locations are newly and carefully determined in consideration of existing and
planning condition around the location
Existing navigation width and navigation height shall be strictly secured.
Based on road alignment examination, the girder height should be kept within 2.0m to secure
the existing navigation clearance
The longest span of New Bridge: 90m (Simple), 61m (3-Spans)
2-Span or 4 or more Span bridge not applicable
In the Comparison Study of New Bridge Type, the concept of bridge construction should be
reflected into the evaluation. Stage construction method is applicable to this bridge
STEP 5. COMPARISON STUDY of New Bridge Types
i) Extraction of Applicable Basic Types based on Actual Results
Based on the basic concept and several conditions, applicable bridge types are extracted from the table
of Relationships between Actual Results of Basic Bridge Types and Span Length, shown as follows.
Table 16.1.2-1 Extraction of Applicable Basic Types based on Actual Results
STEEL PC
Simple Supported
Steel Truss PC Cable Stayed
Steel Langer Concrete Lohse Arch
Steel Lohse Arch
Steel Lohse Arch Stiffened Steel Deck Box
(Rational Structure)
2-Span
--- ---
3-Span
Continuous RC Slab Steel Box Continuous PC Box
Continuous Steel Deck Box
16-12
ii) Selection of Logically Suitable Types from above the Basic Types
Steel Truss bridge shall be included in one of the candidates. 2.0m of girder height is realizable.
Because Floor system and trusses are separated structurally, connection between 1st and 2nd phase
structures is smoothly executable using simple counter weights. Structurally 3-face truss type should
be applied due to stage construction method.
3-span continuous steel deck box girder bridge shall be included in one of the candidates. 2.0m of
girder height is realizable.
Simple steel Langer and Lohse arch bridges shall not be included in the detail comparison study.
General Langer and Lohse arch bridges consist of 2 of arch ribs and floor system that is structurally
separated and that is installed between the two arch ribs. Therefore, to realize stage construction, 3-
arch-rib structure system should be applied. Consequently, in case of application of such the 3-arch-
rib system, absolutely it will be much more expensive than the above truss bridge.
As structurally rational bridge type, other rational arch type bridge that arch ribs stiffen girder type
bridge may be applicable. Thus, simple supported steel Lohse arch stiffening steel deck box girder
bridge would be efficiently applicable to be included as a candidate, which is obviously erectable in
this site. 90 m of span length of the steel deck box girder can not be applicable in this site because the
girder height will be over 3.0m high, otherwise, application of steel Langer or Lohse arch bridges are
as mentioned above concern about expensive costs. Therefore, the effectiveness of such the rational
structure may be absolutely confirmed. Structurally separated Lohse stiffened box girders are needed
because of application of stage construction; however, by applying same structures to 1st and 2nd
phase superstructure types, connection between them is smoothly executable using simple counter
weight.
PC cable stayed bridge and simple supported concrete Lohse arch bridge will be naturally the most
expensive bridge type in this site, and there are no land spaces where stiffening concrete arch or
towers can be constructed. Therefore, such the bridge types are not realistic bridge type to be included
into the detail comparison study. Additionally, 3 span RC slab steel box girder and PC box girder can
not be applicable because the girder height will be beyond 3.0m which can not meet the road and river
required condition.
Based on the above evaluation, multiple comparison study is conducted considering cost, structure,
environmental impact, constructability and maintenance ability.
Table 16.1.2-2 Candidates of comparison study
SEEL PC
Simple Supported
Steel Truss ―
Steel Lohse Arch Stiffening Steel Deck Box
(Rational Structure)
3-Span
Continuous Steel Deck Box ―
Based on the evaluation, shown in the comparison table, the recommendable bridge type for outline
design is Simple Supported Lohse Arch Stiffening Steel Deck Girder Bridge.
iii) Selection of Logically Suitable Types of Bridge Foundations
In the study on selection of bridge foundation, study of site conditions for selecting an appropriate
foundation type is a key discussion.
The site conditions are shown in below table. In the abutment, particularly it was located very close to
existing abutment, meanwhile, the Pier foundation is located very close to navigation channel.
16-13
Table 16.1.2-3 Site Condition for Study of Type-1
Study Type Abutment Foundation Pier Foundation
Foundation location On the ground In the River
Closed to narrow navigation
proximity structure Closed to existing abutment
channel
in a curve with close to existing
Navigation condition -
piers
Max. Water depth (m) - Around 10.5 m
Depth of bearing layer (m) Around GL-17.5 to 19.0m Around GL-15.0m
Type of bearing layer Rock Rock
Liquefaction liquefiable site liquefiable site
Lateral spreading - -
Based on the above site conditions, applicable foundation types are extracted, shown as follows.
Table 16.1.2-4 Extraction of Applicable Basic Types based on Actual Results
Abutment Foundation Pier Foundation
Large Diameter Bored Pile Steel Pipe Sheet Pile Foundation
(Rotary all casing boring method) (Press-in method)
Commonly used Cast-in-place Concrete Pile Commonly used Cast-in-place Concrete Pile
(Reverse circulation drill method) (Reverse circulation drill method)
According to the above evaluation, multiple comparison study is conducted considering cost,
construction period, neighboring construction, constructability, and environmental impact.
The result of comparative study of abutment foundation are shown in the next tables, the
recommendable abutment foundation type for outline design is Large Diameter Bored Pile, because of
its advantages in low construction cost and shortest construction period on account of consider
neighboring Constructability.
The recommendable pier foundation type for outline design is Steel Pipe Sheet Pile (SPSP)
Foundation, because of its advantages in minimum term of construction period & traffic control with
efficient workability in the river. (refer to Chapter 16.1.2. (2) Guadarupe bridge)
Table 16.1.2-5 Site Candidates of Comparison Study
Abutment Foundation Pier Foundation
Simple Supported
Large Diameter Bored Pile
-
(Rotary all casing boring method)
3-Span
Large Diameter Bored Pile Steel Pipe Sheet Pile Foundation
(Rotary all casing boring method) (Press-in method)
16-14
Table 16.1.2-6 Comparison on Foundation Type of Lambingan Bridge Abutment（A2)
Alternative-1 (reverse circulation drill method) Alternative-2 (rotary all casing boring method)
Evaluation Items
Commonly used Cast-in-place Concrete Pile D= 1.2m Large Diameter Bored Pile(Cas-in-place Pile D= 2.5m)
Diameter of pile : 1200 mm Diameter of pile : 2500 mm
Total number of pile : 16 Total number of pile :5
Pile length : 18.0 m Pile length : 18.0 m
Total length of pile : 288.0 m Total length of pile : 90.0 m OUTLINE DESIGN
8,500
Side View
Pile arrangement
3,500
CCP φ2,500
L=18,000 n=5
CCP φ1,200
L=18,000,n=16
16-15
- Pile Displacement Ratio (Pile dosplacement/displacement limit) is 0.872 - Pile Displacement Ratio (Pile dosplacement/displacement limit) is 0.980
Structural Aspect and Stability - Need to the large number of Cast-in-Place Concrete A B
Unit Cost Total Unit Cost
Quantity (Php) (1,000Php) Quantity (Php) Total (1,000Php)
Pile Cap Concrete 290m3 7,559.8 2,195 Pile Cap Concrete 185m3 7,559.8 1,397
Construction Cost Reinforcement steel 58ton 52,600.0 3,055 Reinforcement steel 37ton 52,600.0 1,944
C A
(for Foundation） Pile 288m 45,898.5 13,219 Pile 90m 116,987.0 10,529
Cofferdam 1077m2 21,181.9 22,813 Cofferdam 1017m2 21,181.9 21,542
Total 41,282 Total 35,412
Ratio 1.166 Ratio 1.000
- Working in Temporary cofferdam & low spaces of under the temporary stage. - Working in Temporary cofferdam & low spaces of under the temporary stage.
Cofferdam Work 40 days Cofferdam Work 38 days
Pile work (1.5pile/day) 24 days Pile work (2pile/day) 10 days
Construction Plan and Period C A
Pile Cap 29 days Pile Cap 18 days
Total 1.404891487 93 days Total 1 66 days
Ratio 1.405 Ratio 1.000
- Keep out of exsisting abutment and new abutment foundation by rotary all casing boring
Neighboring Construction - Not keep out of exsisting abutment and new abutment foundation. C A
method.
Constructability - Constructability is inferior due to large number of Cast-in-place concrete Pile work. B -Constructability is superior with small number of foundation work. A
Environmental Aspect - Inferior in Environmental aspect due to large number of excavated soil. B - Superior in Environmental aspect with small number of excavated soil. A
- Construction cost is highest with long construction period. - Construction cost is lowest with minimum Construction period with efficient workability.
Evaluation B A
Not Recommended Most Recommended
Table 16.1.2-7 Comparison of New Bridge Types for Lambingan bridge
OUTLINE DESIGN
16-16
(2) Guadalupe Bridge
STEP 1. Confirmation of ROAD CONDITION
i) Bridge Width
The superstructure of new bridge shall be the outer bridge, which is currently PC girder bridge.
Figure 16.1.2-10 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of Existing Guadalupe Bridge
For the cross section and lane arrangement of new bridge, the examined results of road planning
including approach roads shall be applied, shown as follows.
Figure 16.1.2-11 Cross Section/ Lane Arrangement of New Guadalupe Bridge
ii) Road Horizontal and Vertical Alignment
Horizontal and vertical alignment of the new bridge shall be adjusted to existing center bridge.
STEP 2. Confirmation of HYDRAULIC CONDITION
For hydraulic condition in the new bridge selection, the determined results in this project shall be
applied. From the result of hydraulic examination, existing free board and navigation width shall be
strongly secured from the aspect of safety of vessels.
16-17