Bhride

Design Of 80 Meters Steel Bridge In Between
Damayang Lagi and Doa Melda,

Metro Manila City
Arriola, Ian B.
Technological Institute of the Philippines

Quezon City
Table of Content
Chapter 1: Project Background ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 The Project .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Objective ................................................................................................................................. 2
1.3 The Client ............................................................................................................................................ 2
1.4 Project Scope and Limitations............................................................................................................. 2
1.5 Project Development .......................................................................................................................... 2
Chapter II: Design Inputs ............................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Preliminary Data ................................................................................................................................. 4
Chapter III: Constraints, Trade-Offs and Standards ...................................................................................... 7
3.1 Design Constraints .............................................................................................................................. 7
3.2 Trade-Offs ........................................................................................................................................... 7
3.4 Design Standards .............................................................................................................................. 12
Chapter IV: Design of Structure .................................................................................................................. 13
4.1 Methodology..................................................................................................................................... 13
4.2 Structural Design ............................................................................................................................... 13
4.3 Geometric Modeling ......................................................................................................................... 16
4.4 Validation of Trade-Off ..................................................................................................................... 16
Chapter V: Final Design ............................................................................................................................... 18
References .................................................................................................................................................. 19
Appendixes.................................................................................................................................................. 20
Appendix A: Design Standards ................................................................................................................ 20
Appendix B: Design of Post, Railings and Side Walks ............................................................................. 25
Appendix C: Design of Interior Slab ........................................................................................................ 31
Appendix D: Design of Beam................................................................................................................... 34
Appendix E: Design of Column ................................................................................................................ 37
Appendix F: Materials Price .................................................................................................................... 39
Chapter 1: Project Background

1.1 The Project
The project is a Steel bridge connecting two municipalities in Metro Manila. The project site is located at the
Central part of the Philippines in the National Capital Region. The project is intended for the connection of
two lands separated by a river. The bridge is for the improvement of transportation in the place, connecting
two pieces of land to further more ease the way of transportation in the said place. These place are Damayang
Lagi and Doa Melda in where the steel bridge will be constructed in between the two municipalities.
The length of the steel bridge will be eighty meters to overcome the width of the river. The location of the
project is in the urban city of Manila that is why the project is needed to give more path ways for the motorist.
In the completion of the project this will improve the time and distance of transportation of the vehicles to
improve the development of the city.
The design bridge will be eight meters wide for opposite in direction lanes which the vehicles will use to go
to the other side of the river. The bridge will be made of Steel which will be design for the safety travel along
the structure. In the design of the structure design standards and constraints will be use.
Figure I - 1: Project Site Map Location
1.2 Project Objective

In the design of the structural bridge, the designer must achieve the objectives at the end of the project.
Analyze the loads of the structure which will be used for the design.
Design of the structure in line with the given constraints and standards.
Provide a design which will be reasonably to be adopted to the project.
1.3 The Client
The client of the project will be the Municipality of Manila which will give the following requirements in the
design of the structural bridge.
1.4 Project Scope and Limitations
In the design of the structure there will be some limitations on how far will the designer prepare in the plan of
the structure. This are the list of the scope and limitation of the project.
Scope:
Computation of the design load which will be used in the design.
Design of the main component of the bridge.
Limitation:
Design of the slab deck in where the vehicles pass by.
Design of the Embankment of soil.
1.5 Project Development
The project will undergo into step by step process which is shown in the flow chart below for the proper
development of the plan. This will aid to clarify the project objective and limitations.
Start
Collection of Data
Design Constraints and
Standard
Trade-offs
Preliminary Design
Plan
Design Trade 1
Verification of Design
Plan
Design Trade 2
End
Figure I - 2: Project Development Chart
Chapter II: Design Inputs

2.1 Preliminary Data
The project is located at the central part of the Philippines, in place of Metro Manila. Currently the purpose of
the project is to improve the transportation rate in their place. The structural bridge will be made of structural
Steel in accordance to the purpose of the project. The bridge will have an eighty meter length that will cross
the river. It will provide a one way lane for each the opposite flow of vehicles a total of eight meters one going
to and moving out to Damayang Lagi.
Figure II - 1: Site Location
Figure II - 2: Profile Elevation of the Proposed Project
Figure II - 3: Isometric View of the Project

5
Figure II - 4: Front View
Chapter III: Constraints, Trade-Offs and Standards

3.1 Design Constraints
1. Economical The design of the project must be economical and must be reasonably in cost. In
the design the cost of the project is very important because this will show if the project will be approved or
must be revised for the client wants the project to be practically cost efficient. The project must display a
design that will permit the continuation of the project and this can be done by generating trade-offs in where
the client and designer will choose of which design express more practicality. Since the material that must
be used onto the project is steel the designer will provide trade-offs in where steel is the main material. The
trade-off that may be apply to the project is the number of bay in a span of truss four span with in the supports
and three span with in the support. In the design it will be determine of what design will be most economical
to design the bridge with the constraints.
2. Constructability In the constructability the designer has also considered the construction
duration of the project of the number the days can the project be finished. The duration of the project will play
a big role of how much the increase in expense will the project have. The longer the project takes the more
it become costly that is why the duration of the project is one of the hindrance that needs to be considered.
In setting this in mind two trade-offs were been thought, it is the number of bay that will be apply with in the
supports of the truss. The two different structures has difference in the time of lifting and connecting the steel
members that is why this two are being considered as trade-offs.
3.2 Trade-Offs
In the design trade-offs, is where the designer will introduce two way of designing the structure of where the
designer will choose which deign will produce an adequate results. In this part of the project, the two tradeoffs that will be presented is the difference in the number of bay with in the truss. The thought that made this
a trade-off is the difference in the size of section that will be used in each geometry of the bridge. When the
bay length is larger the beam also gets larger but the connections will lessen and the time of the construction
will also reduce because the number of members that must be connected is minimize. While in the smaller
bay length the beams get smaller but the connections increase that make it consume more time in the
construction of the bridge truss.
25
Figure III-1: Warren Truss with four Bay Span with in Supports
25
Figure III-2: Warren Truss with three Bay Span with in Supports
Warren Truss
The Warren Truss provides optimum efficiency and offers an alternative appearance for medium to long
spans. A parallel chord truss with diagonals in alternating directions creating a W pattern, the Warren Truss
may or may not include vertical members.
Many Warren Truss styles include overhead bracing. Overhead bracing often reduces member sizes by
adding stability and may be required for the longest spans.
The bridge depth of section, measured from the top of deck to the bottom of the lowest member (typically the
bottom chord) can be minimized by adding overhead bracing. For bridges requiring fencing or covered
enclosure of the top, designs with overhead bracing are preferred. (Wheeler)
Figure III-3: Subohonsen 2400 ft long Warren Truss on concrete piers (Bridge Photo of the Day)
Using the model on trade-off strategies in engineering design by Otto and Antonsson (1991), the importance
of each criterion (on a scale of 0 to 5, 5 with the highest importance) was assigned and each design
methodologys ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scale from -5 to 5, 5 with the highest ability to satisfy the
criterion) was likewise tabulated.
Computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials:
% Difference=
Higher value-Lower value

Higher value
x10
Subordinate rank=Governing rank-(% difference)x10
Equation 3-1.
Equation 3-2.
9
The governing rank is the subjective choice of the designer. In assigning the value for the criterions
importance and the ability to satisfy the criterion, the designers subjectively choose a desired value that will
respond to the level of importance of the constraints. The subjective value depends on the value initial
estimate, say for economic criterion, which the designer can initially select. The subordinate rank in Equation
3-1 is a variable that corresponds to its percentage distance from the governing rank along the ranking scale.
Figure III-4: Ranking Scale

The criterions importance was ranked in accordance to the level of importance of the constraints which is
based on the clients preferable cost savings and designers perspective in the design of structure. For this
project, the economic constraint was given a rank of five (5). It was in highest consideration because money
is mainly involved and it is always needed to be maximized. While on the other hand, the constructability
constraint was ranked four (4) because somehow it is important and much related to economic. The longer
the duration of the construction is the more likely the labor cost it will consume.
In the ability to satisfy the criterion, the governing tradeoff in terms of which method accounted the lower cost
was subjectively ranked higher. And then the other trade-off (subordinate tradeoff) which accounted higher
cost was computed its rank in accordance to Equation 3-1. For the economic criteria, welded connection won
in terms of the low material cost and was subjectively given a rank of five (5) because it garnered an extremely
ideal cost. On the other hand, for the constructability criteria, bolted connection won in terms of the low labor
cost and was subjectively given a rank of four (4) because it garnered a fairly ideal cost.
Table III-1. Raw Designers Ranking
Decision Criteria
Criterions Importance
(on a scale of 0 to 5)
1. Economic (Cost)
2. Constructability
Over-all Rank
5
4
Ability to satisfy the criterion

(on a scale from -5 to 5)
Three Span Bay with in Four Span Bay with
Supports
in Supports
5
3.086
3.8181
5
40.2724
35.43
10
Table III-2. Initial Cost of the Project

Type
Three Span Bay with in Supports
Four Span Bay with in Supports
Total Cost
56,852,436.8
67,731,078.4
(Source: DPWH)
Total Construction Duration

6532 man hour
5760 man hour
Computation of Ranking for Economic (Cost):

% difference = (Higher Value Lower Value) / (Higher Value)
Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank (% difference) x 10
% difference = (67,731,078.4 56,852,436.8)/ (56,852,436.8) x 10 = 1.913
Subordinate Rank = 5 1.913
Subordinate Rank = 3.086
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
Figure III-4: Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for the Initial Cost Estimate for Three Bay Span and
Four Bay Span
Computation of Ranking for Constructability (Construction Duration):
% difference = (Higher Value Lower Value) /(Higher Value)
% difference = (6532 5760)/ 6532 x 10 = 1.1818
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
Figure III-5: Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for the Initial Construction Duration for Three Bay
Span and Four Bay Span
11
3.4 Design Standards

In the design of the structure the designer must follow the standards that are given by the government so
that the design will give safety to the users of the structure. Here are some of the standards that are used in
the design.
National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010
Standard book that are used by the civil engineers in the design of vertical structures like buildings. In this
book is where the standard of the design of the column will be acquire.
National Structural Code of the Philippines 2005 Volume 2
Standard book use in the design of the horizontal structures like highways and bridges. This book will provide
the most standards that must follow in the design of the steel bridge.
ASEP Steel Handbook
List of different structural steel and their properties that will be used in the design of the steel member.
12
Chapter IV: Design of Structure

4.1 Methodology
For the design of the bridge the designer has followed standards and specifications from the codes that is for
the design of a bridge. In designing, the following codes where used to design the bridge to provide an
efficient structure. The raw designers ranking were used to help the designer choose from the presented
trade-offs. The methodology followed was from the codes and standards that will be tracked by the designer.
4.2 Structural Design
In the design of the structure the first thing to be done is the computation of the loads that will be used in the
design. After the computation of the loads like the dead load and moving live load the designer will apply the
loads to the computation and design of the properties of the bridge. Here are the design process for the parts
of the prestress bridge.
Collection of Data
(Design Loading and Design Properties)
Design Railings, Post and Sidewalk
Design Deck Slab
Design of Trade-off
(Four bay span or Three bay span)
Design of Beam
Column and Supports
Design of Coping
Design of Back wall and Wing wall
Figure IV-1: Structural Design process

13
Design of the Interior Slab
Dimention of the bridge and slab

Material properties
Input Data
Load Analysis
Dead load and Live load Moment

Ultimate moment
Cracking moment
Modulus of rapture
Required
Reinforcement
Maximum and minimum steel ratio

Required steel area and
Spacing of bars and number of bars
Distribution of reinforcement
Temperature and Shrinkage reinforcement
14
Design of Railing
Geometric Input of Data
Determination of Loads
Steel Reinforcement
Dimension of the Railings

Properties of used material
Weight and Designing moment

Cracking Moment, Modulus of Rupture
Maximum and Minimum Steel ratio

Required Steel area
Number of bars
Check for shear
Spacing of reinforcing bars
Design of Sidewalk
Dimension of the Railings
Properties of used material
Geometric Input of Data
Weight and Designing moment

Cracking Moment, Modulus of Rupture
Determination of Loads
Steel Reinforcement
Maximum and Minimum Steel ratio

Required Steel area
Number of bars
Check for shear
Spacing of reinforcing bars
15
4.3 Geometric Modeling

The model came from the Staad software which the design properties of the bridge where input. The picture
shows the Structural model.
Figure IV-2: Staad Model
4.4 Validation of Trade-Off

In this part of the chapter the designer will verify the designers ranking that has been base from the
previous projects. The part is more detailed than the pre estimate that has been done in chapter three of
the project.
Table IV-1. Final Designers Ranking
Decision Criteria
Criterions Importance
(on a scale of 0 to 5)
1. Economic (Cost)
2. Constructability
Over-all Rank
5
4
Ability to satisfy the criterion

(on a scale from -5 to 5)
Three Bay Span with in Four Bay Span with
supports
in Supports
5
4.562
4.289
5
42.156
42.81
16
Table IV-2. Initial Cost of the Project

Type
Total Cost
Total Construction Duration
Three Bay Span with in Supports
68,548,269.23 Pesos
7,518 man hour
Four Bay Span with in Supports
71.684,213.65 Pesos
6,984 man hour
(Source: Idaho Transportation Department)
Computation of Ranking for Economic (Cost):
% difference = (Higher Value Lower Value) / (Higher Value)
% difference = (71,684,213.65 68,548,269.23)/ (71,684,213.65) x 10 = 0.4374
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
Figure IV-3: Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for the Initial Cost Estimate for Three Bay Span and
Four Bay Span
Computation of Ranking for Constructability (Construction Duration):
% difference = (Higher Value Lower Value) /(Higher Value)
% difference = (7518 6984)/ 7518 x 10 = 0.7102
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
Figure IV-4: Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference for the Initial Construction Duration for Three Bay
Span and Four Bay Span
17
Chapter V: Final Design

The purpose of the project is to design a bridge structure that is following the realistic constraints like
economic and constructability that is used in this matter. These constraints will lead the designer to solve this
problems also with a realistic solution. In way of planning and designing the designer have introduce the
trade-offs, of dividing the span with in the supports of three and four of a 25 m support span of the columns.
From the designs that had been done the result of the designers ranking is telling the span of that has four
number of bays with in the length of the supports is the most suitable to apply to the project. Although that
the difference in the ranking of two geometry is near to each other still four span suffice.
Upon the completion of the evaluation of the trades presented the designer will choose the usage and
promulgation of four span bay length for the project. The results shows that the usage of four span in a truss
is more economical in the project compare to the three span. The reason behind this is that because the
force acting on larger span cause the member of the truss to become big although the connection is decrease.
In shorter span the force on the member is not as big as it is compared from. Because the beam are smaller
the price of it is reduce compare to a larger span that has the same length but larger that is why it is defeated
in the economical aspect.
In the constructability aspect even though larger span is faster to construct the difference in time is not that
big that the loss from the economical aspect can be compensated by the speed of construction. Due to the
reasons it is why shorter pan of bay in truss is the winning trade-off.
18
References
AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, 2002
National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP), 2010, Volume 1, Vertical structures
National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2nd Edition, 1997, Volume II, Bridges.
DPWH Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards, Latest Edition
DPWH Standard Specifications, Volume II, Highways, Bridges and Airports, 2004
ASSEP Steel Manual
19
Appendixes
Appendix A: Design Standards
Based on American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Loads
There are four standard classes of highway loading: H20, H 15, HS 20, and HS 15. Loading HS 15 is
75 percent of HS 20. If loadings other than these are to be considered, they should be obtained by
proportionally adjusting the weights for the standard trucks and the corresponding lane loads. Bridges
supporting interstate highways should be redesigned for HS 20-44 loading or an alternate military
loading of two axles 4 ft. apart, with each axle weighing 24,000 lb, whichever loading produces the
larger stress value.
(i) Impact. Movable loads require impact allowance as a fraction of the live load
stress. It can be expressed by standard AASHTO (LFD):
where I = Impact fraction

L = Length in feet of the portion of the span that is loaded resulting in maximum stress in that member.
Construction specifications: all construction shall conform to the special provisions, the DPWH
standard specification for highway, bridges and airports volume - ii 2004 edition as modified in the special
provisions & supplemental specifications.
Construction limits: the contractor shall verify and work within the construction limits or easements of
the bridge structure. he shall however provide for his own use its intent of the plans to leave undisturbed
everything which does not adversely affect the finished work. All area disturbed by construction shall
be restored to its original conditions as directed by the engineer.
Site preparation: all existing permanent works (such as pavements, curbs, riprap, slope protection
works and all other similar works) which will interfere with the works shall be completely removed
and disposed of site by the contractor. All salvageable materials shall be properly and carefully dismantled
and deposited on a convenient site as instructed by the engineer. However, if such permanent works
are designated to remain but will be demolished by the contractor for the necessary precaution of the
works, these demolished permanent works shall be restored by the contractor to their original condition.
Traffic management: the contractor shall be responsible for the developing and maintaining an
effective traffic control plan in accordance with the special provisions subject to the approval of the
20
engineer and the corresponding local authorities.

1. Dimensions: all dimensions shown are in meters and millimeters unless otherwise noted. All
stationing are in kilometers + meters and elevations in meters. All dimensions elevations and
stationing shown in the drawings shall be verified by the contractor before construction starts. In
the interpretation of drawings, numerical figures shall govern over scaled values. All dimensions,
distances and sizes shall not be scaled for construction purposes.
2. Excavation: excavation for structure shall be neat lines and the ground underneath. Structure
foundations shall not be disturbed.
3. Backfilling: backfilling structure shall be done with granular materials compacted according
to the specifications.
4. Concrete: unless otherwise indicated in the plans or noted for a particular structure, the
minimum 28th day cylinder strength of concrete shall be as follows:
Figure 0-1: Minimum 28th Day Cylinder Strength of Concrete

The contractor shall submit to the engineer for approval placing sequence for all types of concreting works.
4.5 Design Loadings
4.5.1 Loads
4.5.1.1 Dead Load

The following loads are components in computing the dead load of the structure as
indicated in NSCP Vol. II Bridge.
21
a.
Plain Concrete
23 kN/m
b.
c.
d.
e.
Reinforced Concrete
Structural Steel
Fill Materials
Wearing Surface
24 kN/m
77 kN/m
18 kN/m
1.05kPa
4.5.1.2 Live Load

Live loadings shall be based on AASHTO MS-18 (HS20-44).
A. Truck Load
B. Lane Load
C. Alternate Military Loading
22
D. Permit Design Loading
4.5.1.3 Seismic Load

Seismic loading shall be based on the NSCP vol. II and AASHTO Division I-A, Seismic
Design.
Importance Classification, I
Essential
Acceleration Coefficient, A
Soil Type , S
Seismic Performance Category
Analysis Type
Damping Ratio
0.4
II
SPC D
Multi - mode spectral analysis
0.05
4.3 Material Properties of the Structure
Table 0-1: Reinforced Concrete

Slab, Sidewalk, Abutments and Piers
Compressive Strength of Concrete (28 days)
fc = 20.7 MPa
Modulus of Elasticity
Ec = 21,520 MPa (4730fc0.50)
Shear Stress Carried by Concrete (Ultimate Load)
Vc = 0.76 MPa (0.167fc0.50)
Others (Curb and Gutter, Railing, Median, Etc.)

Compressive Strength of Concrete (28 days)
fc = 20.7 MPa
23
Modulus of Elasticity
Ec = 21,520 MPa (4730fc0.50)
Shear Stress Carried by Concrete (Ultimate Load)
Vc = 0.76 MPa (0.167fc0.50)
Thermal Expansion / Contraction Coefficient
a = 0.00001099 cm/cm/C
Source: NSCP 1992, Volume 2 and AASHTO
Following is the properties of the material that was used in the design.
a. the minimum compressive strength of concrete, fc = 20.7 MPa
b. modulus of rupture, fr = 2.841 Mpa
1. Reinforcing steel bars the material was used in the design of reinforcement for bridge deck and
abutments. Following is the diameter of bars with their corresponding yielding strength, Fy
a. For 12mm diameter = 276 MPa
b. For 16mm diameter = 276 Mpa
c. For 16mm diameter = 276 Mpa
d. For 32mm diameter = 276 Mpa
2. Structural Steel Plates the material was used in the girder part of the structure. Since the girder is
a built-up section, it is composed of steel plates combined though welded and bolted connections.
Different strength was used in web and flange to give less cost in the construction materials.
a. For webs, A36 = 248 Mpa
b. For flanges, A50 = 345 Mpa
c. Fu = 400 Mpa
3. Connections following are the material used to combine the web and flange of the girder, and to
joint all assembled single girders to build up a single 55m girder.
a. Fillet weld; E60, Fv = 124.2 Mpa
b. Bolt screw; A325, Fv = 207 Mpa
24
Appendix B: Design of Post, Railings and Side Walks

Design of Side Walk
Properties
gc = 23.6 kN/m
fc' = 20.7 MPa
fy = 276.00 MPa
Railing dimension :
Rw = 200 mm
Rd = 200 mm
0.2m
Post dimension :
Pw = 300 mm
0.4m
0.5m
Pd = 300 mm
Ph = 900 mm
Ls = 2000 mm
Sidewalk :
Sw =
1100 mm
Sit = 240 mm
Sot = 200 mm
Railings Design
W = 0.73 kN/m
P = 45 kN
c = 1 +
= 1
c = 1.14
Ph
33
; Ph > 0.839 m
0.457
18
; Ph < 0.839 m
M u = 0.10 w . Ls2 +
Section 2.7.1.3.1
0.50 P . Ls
c
6
M u = 8.7 kN.m
Steel Reinforcement
b = 0.9
dte = 0.15 m
Diab = 16 mm
cc = 40 mm
s = 0.85
Areab = 201 mm
25
fr = 0.623 . fc' 0.50

fr = 2.83 MPa
Ig =
b ts3
12
Ig =
yt = ts / 2
yt = 0.10 m
fr . Ig
M cr =
yt
M cr = 3.8 kN.m
1.2M cr = 4.5 kN.m
0.85 . fc'
min =
fy
min =
- 1 -
2 (1.2M cr)
b b d (0.85 fc')
4.0E-6
0.85 . 1 . fc' . 600
bal =
fy . (600 + fy)
bal = 0.0371
max = 0.75 bal

max = 27.8E-3
Rut =
Mu
b . b . d 2
Rut
=
0.85 fc'
fy
2.10 MPa
1 - 1
2 Rut
0.85 fc'
= 0.0081
AS = b d
AS = 246.6 mm 2
AS
Nb =
Areab
Nb =
2 pcs.
Use 16 mm @ 2 pcs.
Longitudinal bars @ both face
26
Check Shear
Vu = 0.5 P/2
Vu = 11.1 kN
Vc = 0.167 . s . fc' 0.50 . Rw . dte
Vc = 19.6 kN
Shear Capacity, O.K. ! ! !
Post Design
b = 0.9
Diab = 16 mm
cc = 40 mm
s = 0.85
Areab = 201 mm
dte = 0.25 m
fr = 0.623 . fc' 0.50
fr = 2.83 MPa
Ig =
Mu =
b ts3
12
Mu =
0.75 m
P
2
0.35 m
24.5 kN.m
Ig =
yt = ts / 2
yt = 0.15 m
M cr =
M cr=
fr . Ig
yt
12.8 kN.m
1.2M cr = 15.31 kN-m

min =
=
bal =
bal
0.85 . fc'
fy
1 - 1
0.000003
2 (1.2M cr)
b . b.d (0.85 . fc')
1 = 0.85
0.85 . 1 . fc' . 600

fy . (600 + fy)
0.037
max = 0.75 bal

max = 0.028
Rut =
Rut =
=
Mu
b . b . d 2
1.43 MPa
0.85 . fc'
fy
= 0.0054
1 - 1
2 . Rut
0.85 . fc'
27
AS = b d
AS = 408 mm
AS
Nb =
Areab
Nb = 3 pcs.
Use 16 mm @
3 pcs.
Vertical bars @ both face
Check Shear
Vu = P
Vu = 44.5 kN
Vc = 0.167 . s . fc' 0.50 . Rw . dte
Vc = 48.8 kN
Shear Capacity, O.K. ! ! !
Shear Strength provided by reinforcement
ds = 10 mm
Areab = 78 mm
No. of legs
spc =
Nl = 2
Areab . fy . d
Vu /s - Vc
3075 mm
spc =
Use 10 mm @ 300 mm
Stirrups spacing ! ! !
Sidewalk Design
side walk
b = 1.00 m
ws = 0.5 (Sit + Sot)
ws =
0.3 m b gc
1.3 kN
railings
wr = 2 Rw Rd b g c
wr =
1.9 kN
post
wp = Pw Pd Ph gc 9/15
wp =
1.1 kN
moment from dead load

M DL =
0.3 m
2
ws +
0.01 m wr + 0.25 m
0.30 m
2
wp
M DL = 0.30 kN.m
28
Distance from load to point of support

x = 0.3 m
x
E
= 0.8 x + 1.143
= 9.653 kN.m
M LL
= P
E
M LL
side walk live load

SLL = 4.07 kPa
M LL
M LL
I =
0.01 m
= Sll b
2
0.0002 kN.m
=
15.24
0.01 +
I =
0.30
38
factored moment
M u = 1.30 { M DL + 1.0 [ M LL (1 + I) + M ll ] }
M u = 16.70 kN.m
Reinforcement
b = 0.9
Diab = 20 mm
cc = 40 mm
s = 0.85
Areab = 314 mm
dte = 0.190 m
fr = 0.623 . fc' 0.50
fr = 2.83 MPa
Ig =
b ts3
12
Ig =
yt = ts / 2
yt = 0.12 m
fr . Ig
M cr =
yt
M cr=
27.2 kN.m
1.2M cr = 32.7 kN.m

min =
0.85 . fc'
fy
2 .(1.2 . M cr)
- 1 b . b . d2 .(0.85 . fc')
= 0.0038
bal =
1 = 0.85
0.85 . 1 . fc' . 600
bal=
fy . (600 + fy)
0.0371
29
max = 0.75 bal

max = 27.8E-3
Rut =
Mu
b . b . d 2
Rut =
=
0.292 MPa
0.85 . fc'
fy
= 0.0038
1 - 1 -
2 Rut
0.85 fc'
AS = b d
AS = 713 mm
Sp =
Ab . b
AS
440 mm
Sp =
Use 20 mm @ 400 mm spacing o.c. ! ! !
Shrinkage & T emperature bars
ds = 10 mm
Areab = 78 mm
sp1 = 3 . Sit
sp1 = 720 mm
sp2 = 457 mm
sp3 =
264 mm 2 . b
sp3 =
Areab
300 mm
Use 10 mm @ 300 mmspacing o.c. ! ! !
16 mm-4 pcs.
10 mm @300 mm
10 mm @300 mm
20 mm @400 mm
10 pcs.-10 mm
30
Appendix C: Design of Interior Slab

Design of Interior Slab
Girder Spacing (c.c.)
Slab thickness
=
=
Beam top flange width

Span length
20.7 MPa
f c' =
fy =
276.0 MPa
gc =
Fws =
=
23.6 kN/m
=
=
2,300 mm
300 mm
508 mm
1,792 mm
1.05 kPa
0.90
cc =
LL =
P =
38 mm
db =
20 mm
dt =
20 mm
d =
b =
252 mm
1,000 mm
MS18
72 kN
Slab w1 = b ts gc
w1 =
7.1 kN/m
Fws
w2 =
1.1 kN/m
w2 = b Fws
8.1 kN/m
WDL =
Impact factor
I
0.30
use I =
15.24
S + 38
0.38
Moment
Dead Load
WDL . S2
M DL =
8
3.3 kN.m
M DL =
Live Load
S + 0.61
9.74
M LL+I =
P18
22.2 kN.m
M LL =
Ultimate Moment
M U = 1.3 ( M DL + 1.67 M LL+I ) 0.8

MU
53.5 kN.m
Steel Reinforcement
fr = 0.623 fc'
fr =
2.83 MPa
31
Ig = b ts3 1/12
Ig =
0.002 m^4
yt = ts / 2
yt
0.15 m
=
fr Ig
M cr =
yt
M cr =
42.5 kN.m
1.2M cr = 51.0 kN.m

0.85 fc'
min =
1 - 1
fy
2 (1.2M cr)
b d (0.85 fc')
0.0033
min =
1 = 0.85
0.85 1 fc' 600
bal =
fy (600 + fy)
bal
0.0371
max = 0.75 bal

max
0.0278
Longitudinal Bars
Rn
MU
b d2
Rn
AS
0.85fc'
0.94 MPa
fy
2 Rn
0.85 fc'
879 mm
Ab = 0.25.p.db
Ab =
314 mm
Ab .b
Sp =
Sp
0.0035
=
= bd
AS
- 1
AS
=
275 mm
Use 20 mm
275 mm
center to center
AS sup = 1,142 mm
32
For main reinforcement perpendicular to traffic,

% distribution;
% = 67 %
121
% distribution;
% =
S
use % distribution;
max
% = 90 %
= 67 %
AS dr =
765 mm
Size of distribution rebar
ddr =
20 mm
Area of one bar
Adr =
314 mm
Sp =
410 mm
Area of distribution bars
AS dr
Spacing of rebars
Use
20 mm
= % distribution x AS sup
Sp =
@ 200 mm
Adr . b
AS dr
center to center
distr. bars
T emperature bar
Size of T /S rebar
Area of one bar
2
Min.area for T /S reinforcement (1/8 in per foot in each direction)

Spacing of rebars
Use
12 mm
Sp =
@ 200 mm
ATS . b
AS T/S
center to center
dT/S =
12 mm
ATS =
113 mm
AS T/S =
265 mm
Sp =
427 mm
temperature/shrinkage bars
33
Appendix D: Design of Beam
Beam Properties of W 36 x 650 Section

bf (mm) = 446.4
FY (Mpa) =
L (mm) =
tf (mm) = 89.92
tw (mm) = 50.04
L b (mm) =
d (mm) = 1028
A (mm2 ) =
h (mm) = 848.1
Sx (mm3 ) =
4
20354000000
IX (mm ) =
Sy (mm3) =
Iy (mm4 ) = 1344000000
Wbeam (Kn/m) =
rT (mm) = 118.618
Check if it is a beam or a plate girder
848.1 2547
50.04
248
Check for compactness of web
1028 1680
50.04
248
Check for compactness of flange
446.4
170
(2)(89.916) 248
Check if L B < L c
(200)(446.405)
248
NSCP 2001, Section 506.1.1

16.95
20.54
2.48
161.7 (Beam)
106.7 (Web is compact)
10.8
(Flange is compact)
NSCP 2001, Section 502.6.1.1

Table 502-1
Equation 506-2
21713
Min(5669.35,21713)
Max(5669.35,21713)
NSCP 2001, Section 502.6.1.1

Table 502-1
NSCP 2001, Section 506.2.1.1

Equation 506-2
5669
137900
(248)(1027.938)
(446.405)(89.916)
3000 < 5669.35

3000 < 21712.59
248
6250.00 m
3000
122580.4
39601610.21
6021437.93
9.489437008
5669.35
21712.59
NSCP 2001, Section 506.2.1.1
Lb < Lc
Lb < Lu
Allowable bending stress about strong axis (Compact Section)

0.66(248)
163.68 Mpa
Allowable bending stress about weak axis (Compact flange)
NSCP 2001, Section 506.2.1.1

Equation 506-1
NSCP 2001, Section 506.3.1.1.1

Equation 506-9
0.75(248)
186.00 Mpa
Maximum acting moment on the beam
For major axis,
For minor axis,
Axial load,
(from framing analysis and STAAD model)
645.00 Kn.m
516.00 Kn.m
358.00 Kn
34
Additional bending moment due to weight of beam

0.093(6.25)
12
645 + 0.048
645.048 Kn.m
Calculation of required section modulus
645.048
0.66(248)
516
0.75(248)
##########
3940912
2774194
Section modulus of W 36 x 650 section

39601610.21
(Section is adequate)
6021437.93
(Section is adequate)
Actual bending stress of the beam
645.05
39601610.21
516.00
6021437.93
16.29 Mpa
85.69 Mpa
Allowable axial stress

0.6(248)
148.80 Mpa
Actual axial stress on the beam
358.00
122580.4
2.921 Mpa (Section is adequate)
Capacity ratio of the section
2.92
148.80
16.29
163.68
85.69
186.00
Allowable shearing stress

848.1
50.04
0.58
(Economical Section)
NSCP 2001, Section 506.5.1
998
248
0.4(248)
16.949 > 4.024

99 Mpa
Equation 506-15
35
Maximum shear stress on the section
Q = (89.916 x 446.405)(469.011) + (50.038 x 424.053)(212.0265)

Q = 23324550.28 mm3
V = 200.00 Kn (from framing analysis and STAAD)
y1 = 212 mm
y2 = 469 mm
(200)(23324550.275)
(20354000000)(50.038)
4.58 Mpa (Safe in shear failure)
Maximum deflection of beam (using 3 Moment equation or STAAD)
2.09 Kn.m
NSCP 2001, Section 512.4.1.1
(2.09309137704848)(6250)
384(200000)(20354000000)
0.33 mm (Safe in deflection)
Serviceability requirement (Allowable deflection of beam)
6250
360
17.36 mm
36
Appendix E: Design of Column
Column properties of W40 x 249

ASTM Designation
=
Yield strength Fy
=
Effective length factor, k =
Area, A
=
Depth
=
Web thickness
=
Width of flange
=
Flange thickness
=
Radius of gyration, r T
=
Column heigth, l u
=
Weigth of beam
=
External loadings
Moment about x-x axis
Moment about y-y axis
Axial load Py
Transverse load Px
=
=
=
=
Slenderness ratio
(1)(3000)
47290.228
527.21 Kn.m
428.54 Kn.m
1,952.32 Kn
0.000 Kn
Total acting axial load

Ptotal = 1,952.31 Kn
Use max. slendernaess ratio

(1)(3000)
90.424
28.80737469
Actual stresses
Axial stress
section
Elastic properties
A36 STEEL
X - X Axis
248.00 Mpa
Ix = 8117000000
1.0
Sx = 16229910.06
##############
rx = 47290.228
1000.252
19.05
Y - Y Axis
400.05
Iy = 385000000
36.068
Sy = 1924759.405
104.14
ry = 90.424
3,000.00 mm
3.6352. Kn/m
33.17703
33.17703265
Bending stress
1952.309
47290.23
41.3 Mpa
527.21
16229910
32.48 Mpa
Bending stress
428.54
1924759
222.65 Mpa
Determine if the column is intermediate or long

33.17703
(
)
248.00
126.169
(KL/r < Cc)
(Intermidiate Column)
37
Allowable axial stress
3(33.177033)
8(126.169)
1.76
(33.177033)
126.169
(33.177033) 248.00
2(126.169)
1.76
135.81 Mpa
Check if L B < L c
(200)(400.05)
248
137900
(248)(1000.252)
(400.05)(36.068)
5081
8021
Min(5080.64,8021)
Max(5080.64,8021)
3000 < 5080.64
3000 < 8021.2
5080.64
8021.2
Lb < Lc
Lb < Lu
Allowable bending stress about strong axis (Compact Section)

Flange and web of the section is compact(ASEP Steel Handbook 2004)
0.66(248)
163.68 Mpa
Allowable bending stress about weak axis (Compact flange)

0.75(248)
186.00 Mpa
Euler's buckling formula
12(200000)
23(28.8074)
1,241.01 Mpa
Actual to allowable axial stress

41.28
135.81
12(200000)
23(33.177)
935.64 Mpa
0.3039898
Magnification Factors(Cm = 0.85, Compression members subjected to joint translation)

0.85
0.879 use =
1
41.28
(
) 1
1,241.01
0.85
0.889 use =
1
41.28
(
) 1
935.64
41.28
(1)(32.484)
(1)(41.284)
+
+
135.81
163.68
186.00
0.72
38
Appendix F: Materials Price

(Source: Idaho Transportation Department)
AVERAGE UNIT PRICES FOR STANDARD BID ITEMS
(Based Upon 3 Low Bids thru December 2013)
SECTION 203 - REMOVAL OF OBSTRUCTIONS
ITEM NO. ITEM UNIT ALL DISTRICT S
203-020A Removal of Single Span Bridges
SF $12
203-020A Removal of Multi-span Bridges
SF $16
203-020A Removal of Truss Bridges
SF $19
203-035A Removal of Culverts SF
$22
NOTE: Use square foot cost for estimating purposes but show as cost per EACH on the Cost Estimate.
SECTION 205 - EXCAVATION & EMBANKMENT
ITEM NO. ITEM UNIT ALL DISTRICTS
205-040A Granular Borrow CY
$15
SECTION 210 - STR. EXC. & COMP. BACKFILL
210-005A Structure Excavation Sch. No. 1
CY $14
210-015A Compacting Backfill
CY $11
NOTE: Multiply Str. Exc. unit cost by 2.0 if underwater excavation involved, and by 3.0 if rock excavation
involved.
SECTION 301 GRANULAR SUBBASE
301-010A Granular Subbase
CY $20
SECTION 502 - CONCRETE
502-005A Concrete Class 15
CY $240
502-025A Concrete Class 40A
CY $600
502-140A Concrete Class 40A Sch. No. 1
CY $430
502-250A Concrete Class 40A Sch. No. 2
CY $550
502-345A Seal Concrete
CY $260
502-400A AASHTO Type 2 Girder
FT $185
FT $195
FT $210
502-415A Bulb Tee Girders LF/in2 of area
$0.37
502-415A WF Girders LF/in2 of area
$0.40
502-430A Concrete Parapet-32 high
FT $95
502-430A Concrete Parapet-42 high FT
$115
502-431A Concrete Parapet, Decorative FT
$200
502-435A Approach Slab SY
$196
502-445A Voided Slabs LF/in2 of area
$0.35
502-470A Prestr. T-beam & DeckTee LF/in2 of area
$0.45
502-500A Prestr. Box Beam LF/in2 of area
$0.43
NOTE : Reduce deck concrete costs by $50/CY when girder type makes slab forms unnecessary.
Use LF/in2 of girder cross-section area for estimating, but show as FT on Cost Estimate.
For Voided Slabs, use the net cross-section area.
39

SECTION 503 - METAL REINFORCEMENT
503-005A Metal Reinforcement
LB $1.05
503-010A Metal Reinforcement Sch. No. 1
LB $0.90
503-015A Metal Reinforcement Sch. No. 2
LB $0.85
503-020A Epoxy Coated Metal Reinforcement
LB $0.90
S501-30A #4 GFRP
FT $2.00
SECTION 504 - STRUCTURAL METALS
504-005A Steel Bridge
LB $2.20
504-015A Structural Steel
LB $3.50
504-030A 2 Tube Curb Mount Rail
FT $125
504-035A Pedestrian/Bicycle Rail
FT $130
504-040A Combination Pedestrian/Bicycle & Traffic Rail
FT $160
504-040A Combination Rail w/Ped Screen
FT $310
NOTE: Steel Bridge - Use Cost/lb for estimating purposes but show as lump sum on the Cost Estimate.
Reduce costs by $0.10/lb for rolled girders. Increase costs by $0.05/lb for haunched girders. Increase costs
by $0.10/lb for curved girders.
SECTION 505 - PILING
505-030A Provide & Drive HP 12X74 Piling
FT $65
505-045A Provide & Drive HP 14X117 Piling
FT $80
505-100A Provide & Drive Shell Piling, 12 Diam
FT $60
505-110A Provide & Drive Shell Piling, 16 Diam
FT $100
505-185A Provide & Drive Test Pile HP 12X74
FT $75
505-197A Provide & Drive Test Pile HP 14X117
FT $90
505-150A Provide & Drive Test Pile 12 Diam
FT $60
505-160A Provide & Drive Test Pile 16 Diam
FT $110
505-205A Provide & Install 12 Shell Pile Shoes or Tips
EA $175
505-205A Provide & Install 16 Shell Pile Shoes or Tips
EA $200
505-205A Provide & Install HP 12x74 Pile Shoes or Tips
EA $120
505-205A Provide & Install HP 14x117 Pile Shoes or Tips
EA $165
SECTION 506 - PRESTRESSING CONCRETE
506-005A Prestressing Cast-In-Place Concrete
LB $2.50
NOTE: Use Cost/lb for estimating purposes but show as lump sum on the Cost Estimate.
SECTION 510 - CONCRETE OVERLAY
510-005A Concrete Overlay
CY $760
SECTION 511 - CONCRETE WATERPROOFING SYSTEM
511-005A Conc Waterproofing System, Type A or D
SY $20
511-005A Conc Waterproofing System, Type C
SY $7
S501-51A Spray-Applied Waterproofing membrane
SF $5
40

SECTION 623 - CONCRETE SLOPE PAVING
623-005A Concrete Slope Paving
SY $85
SECTION 624 - RIPRAP
624-005A Loose Riprap
CY $55
SECTION 632 - REMOVAL OF BRIDGE DECK CONCRETE
632-005A Concrete Bridge Deck Removal Class A
SY $60
632-010A Concrete Bridge Deck Removal Class B
SY $30
SECTION 640 CONSTRUCTION GEOTEXTILES
640-010A Riprap/Erosion Control Geotextile
SY $2.80
640-015A Subgrade Separation Geotextile
SY $1.80
SECTION 629 - MOBILIZATION
Z629-05A Mobilization LS
NOTE : Use 10% of total of all other bid items for small projects and 7.5% for large projects for estimating
purposes but show as lump sum on Cost Estimate.
AVERAGE UNIT PRICES FOR SPECIAL PROVISION BID ITEMS
EXPANSION JOINTS
S501-06A Compression Seal Joints w/armor angles
LF/inch $40
S501-06A Compression Seal only 2
LF/inch $16
S501-06A Compression Seal only >2
LF/inch $18
S501-06A 4 Strip Seal Joints & Extrusions
LF $190
S501-06A Modular Joints LF/inch
$110
S501-05A Asphaltic Plug Joints CF
$370
S501-06A Silicone Sealant FT
$20
S501-06A W or J Series Joint (Jeene)
LF/inch $26
S501-40A Elastomeric Concrete Header
CY $9,400
S501-30A Removal of Armored Joints FT
$27
NOTE: Use LF/inch for estimating, but show as FT on Cost Estimate. For compression seals, use
uncompressed width for size to determine cost. For strip seals & modular joints, use total movement range
for size to determine cost.
SURFACE TREATMENT
S501-60A Textured Concrete Surface
SY $28
S501-51A Anti-Graffiti Coating
SF $1.60
PRE-DRILLING FOR PILES
S505-05A Predrilling For Piling in Soil LF/inch of diam
$2.75
S505-05A Predrilling For Piling in Rock LF/inch of diam
$7.00
NOTE: Use LF/inch of diameter for estimating, but show as FT on Cost Estimate.
41
CASING FOR INTEGRAL ABUTMENTS

S501-30A Pile Casing 24 diameter
FT $35
S501-30A Pile Casing 30 diameter FT
$45
DEWATER FOUNDATION
S500-11A Cofferdam
SF $48
S500-11A Other LS
$10,000
NOTE: Use Cost/sf of cofferdam form area for estimating purposes but show as lump sum on the Cost
Estimate.
Cofferdam form area is equal to the perimeter of the seal concrete times the difference in elevation of the
bottom of the seal concrete and the cofferdam vent elevation.
RAIL RETROFIT
S501-30A Std Drawing G-2-F Type 1
FT $105
S501-30A Std Drawing G-2-F Type 2 FT
$110
S501-30A Std Drawing G-2-F Type 4 FT
$95
S501-30A Delaware Thrie Beam FT
$98
S501-20A Remove End Block EA
$1000
RETAINING WALL
S501-17A MSE Wall
SF $45
S501-18A Coping FT
$102
S501-15A Reinforced Segmental Block Wall
SF $46
S501-15A Welded Wire Wall
SF $32
S501-15A Welded Wire Wall w/Concrete facing
SF $78
S501-51A Soil Nail Wall
SF $70
S501-51A Soldier Pile Wall
SF $85
TEMPORARY SHORING
S501-90A Bridge
LS $37,000
S501-90A Culvert
LS $12,000
PATCH & REPAIR CONCRETE SURFACE
S501-51A Substructure
SF $100
S501-51A Deck
SF $80
CRACK REPAIR
S501-30A Preparation
FT $55
S501-50A Injection
GAL $700
Note: Gallons = in3 of crack/231
REMOVE ASPHALT OVERLAY
S501-35A Remove Asphalt Overlay
SY $6
42
PAINT STRUCTURAL STEEL

S501-70A At Expansion Joints in Field SF of girder painted area
$34
S501-30A Picket Fence Rail in Field
FT $220
UTILITY CONDUITS
S501-30A Complete across bridge
FT/conduit $13
S501-30A At Abutments with diaph sleeves & deck inserts
FT/conduit $9
DECK CRACK SEALER
S501-35A Preparation
SY $2.50
S501-50A Sealer
GAL $56
DECK OVERLAYS
S501-35A Polyester Concrete Overlay
SY $125
S501-51A Epoxy Overlay
SF $3.80
BEARINGS
S501-55A Plain elastomeric pads in3 of pad
$0.80
S501-55A Laminated elastomeric pads in3 of pad
$1.00
S501-55A Stainless Steel/PTFE Kip
$36
NOTE: Use Cost/ in3 of pad for estimating purposes but show as EACH on the Cost Estimate.
Use Cost/ kip for estimating purposes but show as EACH on the Cost Estimate.
DYNAMIC PILE TESTING
S501-20A Dynamic Pile Testing
EA $2800
S501-20B CAPWAP Analysis
EA $300
DRILLED SHAFT
Drilled Shaft LF/ft2 of area
$60
NOTE: Use cross-sectional area of drilled shaft. Cost should be used for preliminary estimating only.
Final drilled shaft cost is based on multiple bid items.
PC/PS DECK PANEL
Precast Deck Panel
SF $60
NOTE: Use plan area of deck panels.
Cost includes panel and prestressing and should be used for preliminary estimating only.
PC ABUTMENT PILE CAP
Precast Abutment Pile Cap
CY $1200
NOTE: Cost includes concrete and reinforcement and should be used for preliminary estimating only.
PC CANTILEVER WING WALLS
Precast Cantilever Wing Walls
CY $1200
43

PC PIER CAP
Precast Pier Cap
CY $2500
PC PIER COLUMN
Precast Pier Column
CY $2000
NOTE: Cost includes concrete and reinforcement and should be used for preliminary estimating only
44

Bhride

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bhride

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design Of 80 Meters Steel Bridge In Between

Damayang Lagi and Doa Melda,

Technological Institute of the Philippines

Chapter 1: Project Background

Figure I - 1: Project Site Map Location

1.2 Project Objective

Chapter II: Design Inputs

Figure II - 1: Site Location

Figure II - 2: Profile Elevation of the Proposed Project

Figure II - 3: Isometric View of the Project

Figure II - 4: Front View

Chapter III: Constraints, Trade-Offs and Standards

Higher value-Lower value

Subordinate rank=Governing rank-(% difference)x10

Figure III-4: Ranking Scale

Ability to satisfy the criterion

Table III-2. Initial Cost of the Project

Total Construction Duration

Computation of Ranking for Economic (Cost):

3.4 Design Standards

National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010

National Structural Code of the Philippines 2005 Volume 2

ASEP Steel Handbook

Chapter IV: Design of Structure

Design Railings, Post and Sidewalk

Design Deck Slab

Design of Back wall and Wing wall

Figure IV-1: Structural Design process

Design of the Interior Slab

Dimention of the bridge and slab

Dead load and Live load Moment

Maximum and minimum steel ratio

Geometric Input of Data

Dimension of the Railings

Weight and Designing moment

Maximum and Minimum Steel ratio

Weight and Designing moment

Maximum and Minimum Steel ratio

4.3 Geometric Modeling

Figure IV-2: Staad Model

4.4 Validation of Trade-Off

Ability to satisfy the criterion

Table IV-2. Initial Cost of the Project

Chapter V: Final Design

where I = Impact fraction

engineer and the corresponding local authorities.

Figure 0-1: Minimum 28th Day Cylinder Strength of Concrete

4.5.1.1 Dead Load

4.5.1.2 Live Load

C. Alternate Military Loading

D. Permit Design Loading

4.5.1.3 Seismic Load

4.3 Material Properties of the Structure

Table 0-1: Reinforced Concrete

Ec = 21,520 MPa (4730fc0.50)

Shear Stress Carried by Concrete (Ultimate Load)

Vc = 0.76 MPa (0.167fc0.50)

Others (Curb and Gutter, Railing, Median, Etc.)

Ec = 21,520 MPa (4730fc0.50)

Shear Stress Carried by Concrete (Ultimate Load)

Vc = 0.76 MPa (0.167fc0.50)

Thermal Expansion / Contraction Coefficient

Source: NSCP 1992, Volume 2 and AASHTO