Manuscript v11

ABSTRACT
Majority of the Philippines bridges were constructed as Reinforced Concrete

Structures. Many of which, particularly in the area of Metro Manila, were over fifty years of age.
As such, these bridges experience normal deterioration, increase in traffic volume and loads and
the application of new codes and standards. For these reasons, the researchers believe that a
bridges capacity should be defined. This paper presents a comprehensive assessment of the
capacity of the Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road, a reinforced concrete highway bridge
constructed in the year 1963. The assessment of the said bridge includes determining the
designed capacity of its superstructure members such as girders, capping beams and piers. In
order to accomplish this, the researchers opted to use the Finite Element Method, one of the
fundamental methods of analysis in bridge design. The data used for this analysis were based on
the bridges applied specifications and section properties which were modeled using SAP2000
software. Moreover, for further assessment, the actual capacity of the bridge based on its current
age was determined as well. With the use of past related studies, an age factor was acquired. This
age factor served as a multiplier to the design capacity of the members in order to find out their
actual capacity. Both of the design and actual capacities are in terms of the members axial force,
moment at the minor axis and moment at the major axis.
Keywords: capacity assessment, structural members
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Society has always been dependent on transportation. Since the early times, people
already have the interest of travelling and transporting goods from a place to another. In lined
with this, rivers, valleys, mountains and other things which are considered as obstructions have
become one of the primary problems. This is the main reason on why bridges exist. By
definition, a bridge is a structure that provides a passage over a depression or obstacle. The
earliest bridges were made from anything that the nature provides, some are just made from tree
trunks or bamboos, while others are made from rocks. It was in the 18 th century when bridge
construction expanded and people began using iron, steel and reinforced concrete as materials for
bridges.
Now more than ever, bridges play an integral role in the society. It has paved a way to an
easier and advantageous road transportation. However, due to urbanization and economic
expansion in the Philippines, the use of roads and highways for transportation increases each
year. According to the data from the Department of Transportation and Communications Land
Transportation Office (DOTC-LTO), there are a total of 7,690,038 registered motor vehicles in
the Philippines in 2013. Of the said total, twenty-seven percent (27%) or 2,101,148are registered
in the National Capital Region (NCR). From this statistics, one can imagine the number of
vehicles traversing NCR each day. And considering that, bridges, which are considered as
alternative or shorter routes, are even more employed.
In the City of Manila, there are about eight (8) bridges crossing the Pasig River. Among
which, the largest is the Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road (see Figure 1.1). The said bridge is
a reinforced concrete highway bridge constructed in 1960s and became operational in the year
1963. It spans two-hundred one meters (201 m) in length, linking Sta. Mesa, Manila and
Pandacan, Manila. During the reign of the Former President Joseph Erap Ejercito Estrada in
the year 2000, the name of the Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road was changed into Padre
Jacinto Zamora Bridge under Proclamation No. 228. The renaming of the bridge is a fitting
tribute to the memory of the most prestigious son of Pandacan and one of the three secular
priests whose martyrdom kindled the flames of the Philippine Revolution of 1896.
As aforementioned, alongside with the continuous growth of the Philippine economy is
the rise of the number of vehicles on the roads and highways of the country. One of the cities that
is greatly affected by this matter is the countrys capital and economic heart, the City of Manila.
The focus of this study is the Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road in Pandacan, Manila,
Philippines. Taking into account that the said bridge is situated in Manila City, it is no doubt one
of the busiest and most utilized bridges in the country. As such, it sustains a massive amount of
traffic loads per day, a tendency that is expected to continue and escalate in the foreseeable
future. Moreover, concrete structures, as per code provision, has a lifespan of fifty (50) years.
And in the case of the Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road, it was erected and has been serving
the Filipino Community for more than 50 years. Although it has undergone retrofitting after the
1996 earthquake, one cannot expect that an old bridge like the Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link
Road will be able to withstand against an increasing magnitude of load in the long run or
unexpected phenomenon such as a major earthquake. Thus, there should be a defined limit of its
capacity taking into account its age.
With these actualities, the researchers believed that it is indeed imperative to conduct a
study regarding the Capacity Assessment of the Structural Members of a Single Span of
Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road in Pandacan, Manila.

This research aimed to assess the capacity of the structural members of a single span of
Nagtahan - R. Magsaysay Link Road in Pandacan, Manila, Philippines. Specifically, the primary
objectives of this study are the following:
1. Verify the capacity of the Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road based on its design properties
and applied specifications.
2. Use Finite Element Method and SAP2000 software to assess the capacity of
the Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road
3. Determine the capacity of the Nagtahan - R. Magsaysay Link Road with
respect to its age.
This study would be a source of significant information to the readers, especially for
agencies in the field of road infrastructure works, regarding the importance of examining the
capacity of bridges, as well as the useful method that they can utilize in order to assess the
capacity of various reinforced concrete bridges. Also, this study also proposes to expand
advances in technology to further develop approaches that will easily assess the capacity of old
concrete bridges in the Philippines.
The Smart Bridge Research Project of Mapua Institute of Technology may use the
findings in this study as a tool for accomplishing their researches on the Nagtahan R.
Magsaysay Link Road. They may also use the approach included in this study to assess the
capacity of other reinforced concrete bridges. Future researchers, on the other hand, may utilize
the data and information incorporated in this study for its own improvement. It can be a means of
reference if they desire to conduct a research relevant to it. Additionally, for the reason that this
research is related to the field of engineering, it can help the present and incoming Civil
Engineers in exploring engineering methods that will lead to the possibilities of enhancing the
loading capacity of reinforced concrete bridges.
The results obtained in this study can be a basis for the Engineers and other researchers in
determining the adequacy of the Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road. With that, they will be
able to develop ways that could make the said bridge safer for the public, particularly the
Filipino community.
This thesis assesses the capacity of the structural members of Nagtahan R. Magsaysay
Link Road through the application Finite Element Method. To be specific, the study is only
limited to a single span of the said bridge. The structural members that were considered in this
study are parts of the superstructure only, namely the beams or girders, the capping beams or
column caps, and the piers or rectangular columns. Also, by evaluating these structural members,
only the sections capacity were checked, which means the members' self-weight are the only
input. The analysis of such structural members was done through utilizing the SAP2000
software. In addition, the span of this thesis covers an analysis check regarding the bridge's
adequacy. This pertains to the bridge's capacity with respect to its age. And in order to do so, the
researchers opted to conduct a data comparison between the design capacity of the bridge and its
capacity at the present time.
Definition of Terms:
capacity maximum allowable structural load that a particular element of a structure can
resist
assessment analysis of a structural elements capacity based on the applied design
structural member element of a structure that is designed to support other elements or
the structure as a whole; may be subjected to different structural loads

Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A. General Concepts, Principles and Theories
Bridges play an important role and provide links in the transport network.
However their structural members are exposed to the environment and weather, and so are
vulnerable to deterioration through time. In order to avoid damage of bridges, its capacity
should be assured through reinforcing, retrofitting, or reconstruction if needed. An analysis
specific for the bridge needs to be done to assess the condition of a bridge to avoid any
damage or worse, collapse. Current practice and methodologies are based on codes and
standards, experimentation, safety factors, etc., that make allowance on the various
parameters like ductility, redundancy, or consequences of failure. The fundamental criterions
which may cause the failure of a bridge are determined and established, and these are: safety
both current and future, warning level or redundancy, condition and performance
assessment, and the negative outcomes of failure.
In order to obtain structure responses in terms of forces axial, torsional, shear,
and bending forces, as well as deformations, under service loads and seismic loads, a
numerical mathematical process is necessary that is through structural analysis. (Caltrans,
2015). Its purpose is to evaluate or describe accurately the response of a structure during
loading and/or failure. (Grahn, 2012).
Structural analysis is mostly to be carried out if the bridge had some adjustments
to its usage or has been damaged. For instance, changes in the use of a bridge may be due to
heavier vehicles, or if new lane/s is/are to be added. Meanwhile, damages may occur from
bridge bashing, scouring, or earthquakes. Aside from these reasons, assessment can also be
done for efficient allocation of monetary resources for the maintenance of bridge. In any
bridge assessment, it is essential that the hazards that a bridge may encounter are investigated
and determined. (Imhof, 2004).
If an outdated design code was used to design a bridge, then a structural analysis
may be obliged. The parameters of the bridge have to be in consideration of the latest code
and traffic load requirements. Numerous uncertainties in design, in relation to the
identification of mechanical properties of materials, structure geometry, and loads in a bridge
may be disregarded because most of these parameters can be measured. With this, it can be
said that the process of structural analysis differs from the design procedures. (Wineiwski,
2007).
Load evaluation of bridges maximizes the load carrying capacity of the bridge
while maintaining an adequate level of safety. A bridge load evaluation may be required as
result of (i) a bridges load carrying capacity being unknown, (ii) a bridge being subjected to
increased loading, and (iii) a change in the capacity of a bridge in terms of carrying loads. It
shall include the evaluation of primary load carrying bridge superstructure members (e.g.
girders, trusses, etc.). Primary load carrying superstructure members are the bridge members
most affected by an increase in the truck load on a bridge and are the members of most
concern in a load evaluation. Bridge members that will typically not require load evaluation
may need to be load evaluated if they are damaged or deteriorated. For example, a pier
column that, in good condition, would not warrant a load evaluation could require a load
evaluation if significant concrete spalling or corrosion of the reinforcement has occurred and
reduced its load carrying capacity. The manual also contains evaluation procedures as well as
different requirements and guidelines for various types of bridges steel truss, steel girder,
reinforced concrete, precast reinforced concrete, and precast prestressed concrete bridges,
and its loadings permanent, live loads and other transitory and exceptional loads. For
example in reinforced concrete, it includes serviceability limit state, the resistance of the
girders and slab members, the resistance of strengthened concrete bridge girder and slab
members, and the resistance of damaged or deteriorated members.
Field and laboratory testing may be needed depending on the extent of the
deterioration of the structure. Investigation of local scour, erosion and/or deposition of bed
material and changes in local stream should also be considered for the evaluation of the
safety of the foundation. The following data are needed for the assessment: (i) codes and
specifications, (ii) contract drawings updated to reflect as built details, (iii) design
calculations, (iv) site records of constructions, (v) soil investigation data before and during
construction, (vi) material test and load test data, (vii) contract specifications, (viii) post
construction inspection and maintenance reports, (ix) details of all repair/strengthening works
carried out till the date of investigations, (x) hydrological, seismic and environmental data
including changes if any (revision of zone for seismic classification and retrofitting
requirements as needed, and seismic retrofitting details, if carried out), (xi) prevalent
commercial vehicular loads plying on the bridge, (xii) other natural hazards identified, if any,
and (xiii) traffic survey data. Certain information has to be noted during the detailed field
investigation for the assessment of the structural condition of the bridge. These are, but not
restricted to: (i) damages in the superstructure, substructure and foundations (e.g. leaching,
honeycombing, cracking, spalling, loss of material or lamination of concrete members), (ii)
exposure, and corrosion of reinforcing bars, corrosion in structural steel members and pre-
stressing cables, (iii) original and undisturbed strength of the materials, (iv) condition,
performance, and efficiency of structural joints, and/or riveted, bolted and welded
connections for steel bridges, (v) conditions of expansion joints, bearings and articulations
hinges, (vi) instability of the structure or stress redistribution resulting from settlement,
deformation or rotation, (vii) any settlement of protective works and foundations and
whatever apparent movements of piers, abutments, skew backs, retaining walls, anchorages,
(viii) scour and afflux in hydraulic data covering, erosion at abutments variation, if any, in
ground water table and discharging arising out of new irrigation projects or any other reason.
Preliminary and detailed assessments of those mentioned above are needed. Structural
materials should also be investigated specially on strength. When reinforcement details
unknown, position of reinforcement close to the surface may be determined by cover meter,
an electromagnetic reinforcement detector, or by making incision at selected locations, taking
care not to endanger the safety of the structure. This equipment would give an approximate
indication of bar sizes and spacing. In pre-stressed concrete structures, size of tendons can be
determined if the end anchorages are accessible. Radiographic method can be used for
inaccessible materials like reinforcements with depth larger that 120mm. Buckling and
distortion in steel components must be inspected because this would reduce their load
carrying capacity.
B. Local Studies
According to Sika Philippines Bridge and Bridge Refurbishment, the root causes
of damage and deterioration are: steel reinforcement corrosion; non-structural cracks from
the effects of shrinkage, thermal movement, alkali-aggregate reaction; deck corrosion

(corrosion of reinforced concrete or steel deck, which may be caused by, for example, failed
or inadequate waterproofing); leaching or efflorescence due to water ingress, concrete
spalling due to impact or rebar corrosion; structural steel corrosion from inadequate steel
coating and/or water and chloride ingress; structural cracks because of overloading,
earthquake impact, structural movements; and lastly spalling of concrete surfaces due to
erosion, abrasion and/or salt expansion. Also, it was said that before any repair and protection
details, certain bridge project requirement are need to be considered, that are also important
for the maintenance of the structure. The products must provide adequate durability to the
bridge to extend the defined service life. The total life-cycling cost including remedial and
maintenance cost should take into account in influences the renovation concept and materials
to be used. The duration closure is also important since it directly affects the cost of
construction works. Other considerations are the site condition or its exposure to the
environment, aesthetic issues, traffic flow and ecology also has direct impact to the materials
and concept to be used for refurbishment. Finally all the products should be compatible to the
scope of work and structure.
A team from Logistics Cluster and International Medical Corps assessed three
damaged bridges in Burauen, Leyte to determine the extent of damage after typhoon Haiyan
or Yolanda hit Leyte. One is the Malitbog Bridge located on the Barauen Albuera Road at
an elevation of 79 m. It is approximately 30 m. in length and 4 m. in width. Since there is a
danger of possible collapse, one lane of the bridge is closed to vehicles. No cracks or sagging
has been observed on the concrete bridge deck; hence its condition is good. Concrete culverts
are unaffected, but the downstream side is harshly affected by erosion and the roadway may
collapse. It was said that repairs and anti-erosion measures should be done so that the
downstream can open to vehicular traffic, otherwise the risk of collapse may increase due to
further erosion since the deck is not supported by a superstructure.
The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) carried out a major
maintenance and rehabilitation program for roads and bridges in the Philippines. More than
50 bridges in the province of Agusan del Sur have been surveyed and evaluated to determine
the capacity, serviceability and longevity of each structure. One of those is the Adgawan
Bridge which according to the assessment, is in need of strengthening due to concrete
deterioration over time. Its deck and girders have been retrofitted and was introduced to the
Tyfo Fiberwrap Systems to strengthen the structure against shear and flexure.
Soil liquefaction was the reason behind the collapse of the Magsaysay Bridge in
Pangasinan and Carmen Bridge. The 1990 Luzon earthquake caused soil liquefaction and the
lateral spreading of the ground, thus the failure of the said bridges. The concrete decks were
ousted from their bearings affecting the foundation of the bridge. (Pacheco 2000)
The ratio between the capacity and demand (C/D) of the different elements of a
bridge is important to bridge retrofitting. Accordingly, in order to meet the demands of a
bridge capacity (e.g. seismic) prior to retrofitting, structural members need to be accurately
assessed in terms of their capacities.
Instability of surrounding soil conditions is required when considering foundation
retrofitting. Soil liquefaction, for sandy soil, and sliding, for soft clayey soil, usually result to
the instability of abutments underlying ground. Vast damage is mostly suffered by bearings.
The decks unseating from the abutments may follow if there is a large tilt of the abutment.
Inadequate shear and flexure as well as in axial for columns and piers may increase in
seismic demand which may head to footing retrofit by concrete overlay

Reinforced concrete columns with poor flexural ductility, flexural and/or shear
strength in terms of seismic excitation are the outcome of a design wherein plastic
deformation and ductility were not taken into account. In order to avoid unseating of the
superstructure from the piers and abutments while there is a large-displacement demand,
retrofitting may be done. Seismic isolation affects the substructure and superstructure in the
sense that in decreases their force demands, however, at the same time seismic isolation also
amplifies the displacement demands. (Pacheco 2000)
In the Republic of the Philippines, the Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH) is the government body that manages the national road network. Currently, many
Regional, District, Engineering Offices, Services and Bureaus are within the DPWH which
makes them responsible for the national road network administration.
As stated by Linda S. Templo (2004), the system of expenditure priorities and
approach at the time needed upgrade. A unified road management system was developed by
the DPWH to provide support to all the steps such as procurement and implementation.
Within the unified road management system, a Bridge Management System
(BMS) was developed. Under BMS, management of bridges are put through a systematic
structure allowing highway authorities to assimilate information of the current condition of
the bridges in the highway network. This will improve the programs involving specific
bridges and enhance their maintenance works.
The scope of the project as summarised: Establish a system that makes procedures
for effective bridge maintenance, and develop programs that will support the staff of the
DPWH in gathering data and making detailed procedures on Bridge management
applications.
At the time of planning and budgeting, as a standard of most road agencies,
bridges were overshadowed by the pavement works of the highway network. This being the
case, finance and value of the bridge infrastructure was being dominated by road network. As
a result of the domination, few policies were established for bridge management. Those
policies as summarised: National Permanent Bridges from 89% in 2000 to 95% completed by
2004, and Maintenance of existing assets will be given with the highest priority to lengthen
serviceable life of the road network all implemented at minimum cost.
C. Foreign Studies
According to Andrew Sonnenberg et al. (2014), the worry of asset owners about
the safety of their structures has caused an increase of demand in understanding the structure
capacity of rail networks and roads. However, asset owners have a plethora of methods that
are useful at assisting them in the understanding of the risks involved. The range of methods,
unfortunately, comes with a cost. The understanding of the advantages and complexities of
such options is as significant as ensuring the cost does not compromise safety.
Only experienced bridge engineers are capable of undertaking a Load Capacity
Assessment in a structured manner. Vicroads, the state road authority of Victoria, released the
Road Structures Inspection Manual which describes the process in detail. Consultants are
required to be prequalified to PE level by Vicroads. In doing so, the works done by the firms
will most likely to achieve better outcomes and avoid unnecessary reinforcements.
On concrete bridges, a cover meter survey may be undertaken for the inspection
of concrete structures. It needs to determine the spacing, location, and size of reinforcements.
Additionally, the inspection may remove the concrete cover to expose the reinforcements for
extra details of its type. Samples of concrete cores may be tested in accredited testing sites to
determine concrete strength. To determine the tendency of corrosion to happen in the
reinforcements, a Half Cell Potential test may be used. Andrew Sonnenberg et al. (2014)
In structural reliability theory, F. Moses and D. Verma (1987) observed that the
assessments of the performance of structures such as highway bridges was without certainty;
the bridges load intensity, load effect analysis, and strength parameters were almost
unknown. The aim of structural reliability theory is to make these uncertainties be known in
order to decide actions with consistency and reliability. The application does not intend
predict the failure of a structure rather it sets its goal for the code evaluation and modification
of the factor of safety in the design of structures.
Important loads to be considered in the evaluation of superstructures are Dead
Load and Live Load. These loads have the most effect on the superstructure itself. Other
loads such as Seismic, Wind, Thermal, and Deformation Loads may be neglected since
existing structures have withstood the effect of these Loads over a long period. F. Moses and
D. Verma (1987).
Several methods for the analysis of concrete bridges were described, and these
are: (i) linear elastic analysis, (ii) finite element analysis, and (iii) non-linear analysis.
Linear elastic modeling indicates that the structures movement or behavior is
directly proportional to the load applied, which implies that the load linearly varies with the
performance of the structure. The model, under certain instances like uncracked sections, will
define the force distribution, which is not very realistic and/or is never attained because
cracking of concrete often occurs even when the service loads are still small. Assuming that
the concrete is qualified in redistributing the forces, the concrete will crack, therefore
allowing the structure for force redistribution. Another method adequate for calculations and
determination of load capacity is the Finite Element Method (FEM), which is programmed
for analyzing equations in a structural manner. In this method, problems are systematically
examined in a discrete manner using finite number of elements, which is later on transformed
into differential equations. There are three categories that compose the elements special
purpose elements, continuum elements, and structural elements. For the continuum elements,
the structure is considered an unceasing arrangement wherein the neighboring elements do
not contain significant dissimilarity, though the limits have distinguishable difference. In
addition, elements are represented into 3D and 2D elements, for solid elements and
stress/strain elements. The elements focus on the definition of the behavior of the structure
and the analysis of the structures stresses as a whole, which does not serve the purpose of
evaluating the structural elements, (Grahn, 2012). For the non-linear analysis, however, the
reaction of the structure in terms of loading and redistribution of forces is precisely presented
during when the reinforcement yields and when the concrete cracks. (Engstrm, 2011).
Although this method accurately displays the structures behavior, familiarity with the
structures layout is necessary since it requires further computation and models post
processing, may it be in service state or ultimate failure mode.
According to the research, Finite-Element Analysis of Bridge Decks by
Abdelraouf and Matlock (1972), finite element method is applicable to the analysis of several
types of bridges. The present method for modern bridges treats the whole deck as a shell-type
structure, a structure that has smaller thickness compared to the other dimensions of the
structure, to make it possible to present most of the details of the bridge like single and
double curvature, variable girder depth, girder-slab interaction, boundary details, and
variation of material properties. It has a considerable flexibility and be used successfully to
analyze a wide variety of bridges on rigid or elastic supports. Two approaches is used: (a) the
use of coarse meshes composed of refined finite elements wherein input data is reduced and
the probability of data error is relatively smaller; (b) the use of fine meshes composed of
relatively less fine elements that has more complex solution since it requires more data.
Therefore it is economical to use refined elements with coarse material to idealize bridge
decks with simple geometrics (box-girder, slab type, and beam-slab bridges). Fine meshes
can be used with other elements for complex geometries such as single or double curvature
bridges.
Amirahmad and Rahman Al-Sinaidi analyzed an abutment bridge, particularly an
integral bridge, which spans 300 ft, in the Analysis of Integral Bridges by Finite Element
Method using the said method, in Saudi Arabia. What compose the bridge are 8-ft apart steel
girders (W44x285), and concrete deck (10 inches) which is laid on abutments, 10-ft high and
3-ft thick, sustained by steel piles (HP10x42), 6-ft apart. (See Figure 2.11 and 2.12). Also,
these types of bridge do not contain expansion joints. The program used in performing finite
element analysis is ANSYS, which is proficient in understanding problems of plane strain
soil-structure.
Figure 2.1: Bridge Geometry
Figure 2.2: Enlarged view of integral abutment bridge
Table 2.1 Properties of Structural Members

Structural Component Bridge Beams Pile
EA (kips) 2.43 x 106 0.36 x 106
EI (kips-ft2) 4.95 x 106 14.44 x 103
Spacing (ft) 8 6
EA per ft. (kips/ft) 0 60 x 106
2
EI per ft. (kips-ft )/ft 600 x 103 2.4 x 103
Figure 2.3 demonstrates the investigation using the finite element mesh. As per
figure, the mesh formed differs depending on the area analyzed. Around the abutment, the
mesh was a lot finer compared to which is formed adjacent to the boundaries. Border
elements used between the abutment and the approach fill have zero thickness.
The objective of analyzing the model is to make a preview of the expansion
caused by the increase of temperature in the superstructure. This was demonstrated by
putting up loads on each node where the abutment is attached to the superstructure.
Figure 2.3: Finite Element Mesh used for Bridge Analysis
In another analysis, using the same study, an integral abutment bridge was
analyzed in terms of the relationship of the structure, the support/abutment, the piles, the
foundation soil and the approach fill. The bridge spans 92-m and is 25-m wide and has the
following specifications: 9 steel girders (W44x285), and a concrete deck of thickness 23-cm,
lay on abutments, 2.6-m high and 0.9-cm thick, sustained by 8 steel piles (HP10x42) in a
moderately compact sand. Approach fill represented using 4-node quadrilateral element and
foundation soil is represented using 6-node triangular element.
Abutment displacements in x and y directions are shown in figures 2.4 and 2.5. In
addition, studies on the relationship of the behavior of the soil and the bridges structural
segments were analyzed in terms of its compound interfaces. For the integral abutment
bridges, finite element analysis showed how the stresses produced in piles were minimized in
a significant manner with the aid of the approach fill.
Figure 2.4: Abutment displacement in x direction
Figure 2.5: Abutment displacement in y direction
An experiment was conducted to determine the strength of the members of Grant
Road Bridge in both tension and compression with the use of cardboard model. It was said in
the study that in order to assess the load-carrying ability of a structure, the member strengths
should be determined first. Strength of members can be determined using two ways by
experimentation and by application of scientific principles such as mechanics of materials.
However, this study focused on the experimentation. Important properties that need to be
noted of are the cross-sectional area of the member, the tensile strength, and compression
strength.
For example, testing a sample carbon steel bar specimen with cross sectional area
of 1m2, using a testing machine will determine the load and deformation of the specimen.
The load-deformation curve will tell more about the yield strength, the ultimate strength, the
elastic and plastic behavior, as well as the ductility of the specimen before it fails or the
rupture. The analysis about tensile strength led to the following observations: (1) tensile
strength depends on both the type of material the member is made of and the cross-sectional
area, (2) tensile strength does not depend on shape of the cross-section and on the length of a
member.
Using cut-out cardboard materials that are rectangular in shape, compressive
stress was examined and it was observed that (1) shorter members have greater capacity on
compression that than longer members and (2) the compressive strength of hollow tube is
significantly higher than a solid bar even when using the same amount of material. This
means that compressive strength is dependent on the length and the shape of the cross section
of the member, and is not dependent on the material that is it made neither of nor to its cross-
sectional area.
In the absence of testing machines, to determine the amount of force on a certain
member, the principle of lever could be used. In the example mentioned in the study, a 200
pound rock should be moved using only a short log and a 6-meter long steel pipe. Applying
the principle of lever, the steel pipe can be used as the lever while the log is the fulcrum. It is
that when downward force is applied to one end of the lever, the lever pivots on the fulcrum
and produces an upward force to the 200 lb. rock at the other end of the lever. Therefore, F 1L1
= F2L2. Moreover, using a more complex machine, equations that can be formulated are: TL 1
W L2 W L2
= WL2 , T= , C= . The principle of lever is applicable also at the time
L1 L1
when the forces are on the same side of the fulcrum.
For the California Department of Transportation or Caltrans, in the analysis of any
structural members, the following principles should be considered:
1. Static Equilibrium: F=0 and M =0
2. Dynamic Equilibrium: F=m ; For analyzing the dynamic response to a load
that varies by time, or for analyzing the circulation of waves in a structural member,
the correct inertia terms must be used.
3. Constitutive Laws: This defines the relationship of strain and stress in the material
used to make a structure member.
4. Compatibility: Compatibility terms and limits are referred to consistency or
continuity conditions on the strains and the deflections. When a structural member is
deformed under a force, it should be ensured that (i) two or more different points do
not meet in a single third point, (ii) space occupied by a void does not overlap another
void and, (iii) elements connected together remain connected.
Still, based on Caltrans (2015) the analysis methods for bridges are as follows:
1. Small Deflection Theory: Usually it is acceptable for analyzing beam-type bridge
structures. Most of the times, a short approximate method could be used for
measuring the degree of sensitivity; Method of moment magnification factor is one of
the most useful methods among the other possible methods (AASHTO 4.5.3.2.2).
2. Large Deflection Theory: The deformation effects should be considered strictly in the
equilibrium equations if the structural members deformations result in an important
change in force effects. The deformation effect and the characteristics of the material
that are dependent to time and stress that cause significant changes in structural
geometry of slender concrete compressive shall be included in large deflection
analyses and stability analysis.
Essentially large deflection analysis is nonlinear. Therefore the
displacements could not be relevant to the applied force. Therefore superposition is
not applicable. As a result, the principle of applied loads is significantly important
and should be done in a way which is experienced by the structural member, i.e. live
load stages follow dead load stages, etc. When the structural member is subjected to a
deformation which is nonlinear, the loads should be applied incrementally
considering the changes in stiffness after each increment. (Bridge Design Practice,
2015)
3. Linear Analysis: Hookes law could be applicable for only small stress-strain ranges.
For linear elastic analysis, multiple loads acting at the same period of time could be
measured by superimposing the displacements or forces at a certain point.
4. Non-linear Analysis: Non-linear analysis is used to approximate the load capacity of a
structure. The maximum load capacity of a structure could be measured by applying

an incremental analysis with the use of non-linear formulas. The equilibrium equation
in a collapse analysis is valid for each time step and load. Modeling according to
assumption of linear stress-strain relation will not always be conventional due to
physical non-linearity. Significantly flexible bridge structures such as suspension
bridges and cable-stayed bridges need to be analyzed by these methods (LRFD
C4.5.1, AASHTO, 2012). P-Delta effect is an example of physical non-linearity,
where principle of superposition is not applicable anymore, since the beam-column
element experiences significant changes in geometry when loaded.
5. Elastic Analysis: Fatigue limit and service states should be considered fully elastic,
while strength limit states could have the same behavior, except when there are
certain continuous girders where inelastic analysis is allowed, stability investigation
and inelastic redistribution of negative bending moment (LRFD C4.5.1, AASHTO,
2012). When designing the materials elastic behavior, the stiffness properties of
composite and concrete members should be according the cracked and/or uncracked
parts consistent with the expected behavior (LRFD 4.5.2.2, AASHTO, 2012).
6. Inelastic Analysis: For displacement-based analysis, this method should be used
(Akkari and Duan, 2014). The utmost event limit states may need instability
investigation according to inelastic modeling. In this case, a modeling failure
mechanism and its respective hinge positions should be determined (LRFD 4.5.2.3,
AASHTO, 2012).
7. Static Analysis: This is mostly used for bridge structures withstanding vehicular load,
wind load, dead load and effects of temperature changes. The effect of plan geometry
plays a significant part in static analysis (AASHTO 4.6.1). Plan aspect ratio and the
curved structures in plan need serious attention for the analysis.
8. Equivalent Static Analysis (ESA): The method is used to evaluate seismic
requirements for typical bridges (Caltrans, 2013). A bridge structure is usually
modeled as Single-Degree-of- Freedom (SDOF) and seismic load applied as
equivalent static horizontal force. Therefore it is adequate for single frames with
balanced stiffness and spans. Different Equivalent Static Analysis such as Uniform
Load Method, Generalized Coordinate Method and Lollipop Method could be
applied.
9. Nonlinear Static Analysis (Pushover Analysis): To evaluate the maximum
displacement capacity of a bridge structure, Nonlinear Incremental Static Procedure
could be applied. Horizontal loads are incrementally increased to the point when a
structural member approaches instability condition. Change in stiffness of the
structural member is designed as stiffness of the member due to plastic hinges,
cracking, yielding of soil spring at each event. Analysis programs such as CSiBridge,
WFRAME, STRUDL, ADINA, and SCPush 3D can be used.
The requirements for a pushover analysis are (i) initial or gravity loads,
(ii) linear elastic structural model, (iii) characterization of all nonlinear actions -
multi-linear force-deformation relationships, e.g. plastic hinge moment-curvature
relationship, (iv) limits on strain based on design performance level to compute
moment curvature relationship of nonlinear hinge elements, (v) section analysis -
strain curvature, (vi) double integration of curvature displacements, and (vii) track
design performance level strain limits in structural response.

10. General Dynamic Equilibrium Equation: For a typical Single-Degree-of-Freedom ,
the dynamic motion equation are as follows:
Finput =F 1+ F D + F s
Where: F1=mass acceleration=m u

F D =dampling constant velocity=m u
F s=stiffness deformation = ku
weight
m=mass=s V =
g
s =material mass density
V =element volume= A L
K=stiffness
c=damping constant=z c cr
c cr =critical damping=2 m w
0.5 p EDC
z=damping ratio=
ku2
EDC=energy dissipated cycle
U=displacement
Wind, earthquake, and moving vehicles are the main causes of dynamic
loads affecting bridges. For example wind load might cause instability and vibration.
The wind could produce two kinds of forces on bridge structures: motion-dependent
and motion-independent. (These are insignificant to short span bridges). The force
which depends on motion results to aerodynamic instability with significant emphasis
on vibration of rigid bodies. This aerodynamic behavior is controlled by two types of
parameters: (i) structural parameters bridge layout, boundary condition, member
stiffness, natural modes and frequencies; and (ii) aerodynamic parameters wind
climate, bridge section shape. (Bridge Design Practice, 2015) Thus the motion
aerodynamic equation is:
m u + c u + ku = FU md + F mi
Where:
FU md=Motiondependent aerodynamic force vector
FU mi=Motionindependent wind force vector
11. Free Vibration Analysis: Dynamic effects could be caused by automobiles that pass
the bridge with a given velocity will produce vigorous results. These results were
caused by two possible sources: (i) surface cutoffs such as delamination, deck joints
and cracks experience significant effect of the wheel, (ii) reaction of the bridge
caused by automobiles that are possibly resulted from lengthy waves in the road, like
those due to the settlement from the manifestations of vibration of bridge and
automobile. (AASHTO LRFD C3.6.2.1).
The length of the bridge, the coarseness of the surface, and the properties
of the automobile like the velocity tells the reactions degree. The investigation of the
response of bridges from the loads can be conducted using two methods: (i)
numerical analysis or sprung mass model, and (ii) analytical analysis or moving load
model. The second method, the bridge is modeled as a plate with significant
truthfulness from the moving loads caused by vehicles. The ratio of the self-weight of
the structure and the live load is assumed to be less than 0.3.
The free vibration analysis, on the other hand, assumes that a sinusoidal
approach could be implemented to be used for the investigation of the structure and
computing the basic frequencies of the slab-beam bridges, (Zhang, et al., 2014).
Only a small magnification is differed for the bridges with long span
which does not create intensified reactions. It occurs when the frequency of the load
is not far from the bridges basic frequency.
The bridge decks ratios serves a significant part, such that when they are
not greater than 4.0, the shape of the first mode is governing, and when they are
greater than 8.0, the other shapes of mode are agitated.
Old age concrete ranging from 20 to 30 years has terrible mismatched properties.
Comparing to what it was back when it was 28 days old, its properties are worse with
regards to dynamics. According to Vsevolod Levtchitch et al, changes occur due to time
moving forward; concrete possibly benefits from an increase in static strength in
compression however it does not help or has no practical use in strength in terms of
dynamics.
Characteristics pertaining to dynamics deteriorate with respect to age and it
continuously do so. The difference of the capacities between the young and the old concrete
considering dynamics has been widening albeit quietly, as it happens, the problem at hand
grows increasingly worse. As Victor Kvasha et al says, we have the tendency where we
ignore the factor of time. In short, we act as if age does not factor in or even play at the
matter we have at hand. For years, this mistaken belief with regards to concrete age
influence had stayed. Whatever we employ, be it accurate and advanced analysis, the end
result will be dependent on inputted material characteristics. The roots of all problems are
the wrongful use of the properties of concrete therefore no reliable solution exists. Using the
statement of Henry Degenkolb If you start off on the right path, it is not hard to do things
right.
In practice, concrete age does not play an important role. Even though changes in
properties occur due to age, attention is not given. Only few enthusiasts are observing
closely the actual capacities, life expectancy, and remaining reserves of aged concrete.
Research presently existing offers meager helpful information with regards to performance
of old concrete to seismic loads. Knowing the remaining strength and strain capacities of the
concrete is needed to take a risk that is calculated. The research of M. Whitey of 50 years of
investigation continued by G. Washa and K. Wendt, although the best in nature, were not
followed by recent research. Also, it is as if the problem of old age concrete was already
solved but in truth it is getting hotter. Analytical, experimental, and observational
information on the old concretes properties is scarce, unclear, contradicting, and puzzling.
Some of the properties of old concrete have been taken from concrete with younger age.
Contemporary seismic analysis involves the ability to absorb, damp, and dissipate
seismic energy, and residual deformations. W. Ritter (1899) first recognized the inelastic
behavior of concrete. The history of loading can have an effect and alter the concretes
performance in individual details. The shift in recent times from force controlled methods of
analysis to the deformation directed by philosophy need more smart use of properties of
materials compared to before.
Core samples of cylinder shape have been drilled from a precast bridge in Lviv
(Ukraine) and three residential buildings in Nicosia (Cyprus). The precast bridge is aged 30
years. The first building from Nicosia was 25 years old and the rest were 23 years old. The
buildings are with an arrangement that is equal structurally and is built for refugees after the
event of 1974. Construction of the buildings were not proper. Design mix is not
implemented, curing was not met, and seismic codes were not adopted yet; basically, it was
a sloppy job. No critical damage has been known to exist but accumulated damages were
present. It was opted to be demolished rather than be retrofitted. Samples were taken before
demolition. The core samples have diameters of 46, 53, 75, and 100 mm; they have a length-
to-diameter ratio of approximately 1 and in other cases 2. Columns, beams, and slabs have
been investigated. Samples were taken mostly indoors. Additional concrete with age 28-33
days were prepared for comparison.
Testing of static capacity have been conducted with 0.4 MPa/sec as stress rate. Under
loading with regards to dynamics the rate varied between 1.2 MPa/sec and 234MPa/sec. The
dynamic loadings time was in the range of 0.098 sec to 18.7 sec. Deformation rate varied
from 0.00466 mm/s to 0.846 mm/s. The main bulk of low cycle fatigue testing had 5 Hz as
frequency; it translates into 0.1 second of loading time in each complete cycle of loading
and reloading. The time of loading under low cycle action was valued equally to the shortest
investigated time under dynamic loading.
The popular belief that concrete improves with age is not true. Coarse grained old
type cements with high C2S content had shown to increase in strength for up to 50 years due
to long process of hydration. Provided that graph below for the relationship of strength to
age. Figure 2.6: Strength Age relationship

Increase in strength is dependent on many different factors. Clearly design is not
based on strength beyond 28 days, the code does not allow it. According to Nicosia and
Lviv, increase in strength in their test were 5-8% and up to 18%, respectively. Leading to a
tendency that the strength is not proportional to the logarithm of age. Effects in environment
pictured, the static strength of concrete constructed during the period of winter in Nicosia
was found to have a variation factor of 14.4%.
Reported by LHermite many years ago, increase in strength did not show after 50
years with service level loadings in concrete. D. Fluck and G. Washa found out also that
service years of 10.5, concrete showed variation in strength with the range of 5% increase
and 5% decrease. K. Wendt and G. Washa had observed the concrete containing low C2S and
has large surface area had steadily shown a reduction in strength for the time of 10 to 25
years.
Gain in strength with age is to be bundled together with the damaging processes
which from the time of initial setting and hardening is set up. As for approximation for the
hot-dry conditions and a low-aggression environment the strength change of 20 year old
concrete can be presented as follows:
1e0.4 t
K=1.1+0.34ln (t)0.15 )
Where: t=age of concrete years
The first component is for the strength gain and the second is for its deterioration.
The multiplier of the second term limits this effect and should be modified for other
conditions.
The tensile strength rate growth is much higher than compressive strength. G. Washa
found out that clean cement samples preserved in water had little change in tensile strength
from 7 days to 50 years.
Figure 2.7: Tensile Compressive Strengths relationship

The relationship between the strengths are more complicated than what is expected
in common design practice. Between them, there is no clear relationship. It goes to show
that there is no such thing as unchanging properties of concrete.
Modulus of elasticity is growing as the element ages. Increase in the rate of elastic
modulus is higher compared to rate of increase of concrete compressive strength. Even if
compressive strength does not increase, increase of the modulus of elasticity is always
present along with age. Results are greater than the standards suggested by codes from
different countries and from standards found on fresh concrete.
Modulus of elasticity of fresh concrete displays a surprising constant relationship
with the compressive strength. Findings of Anastasios Chassiakos et al for fresh concrete are
in line with recommendations from the code and other experimental results. The linear
appropriate for all data shown in the figure previously produces the following equation with
the correlation factor of 0.91:
Ec=(1.9+0.045 fck)10000 MPa
The Elastic Modulus of up to 25 years old concrete which was not stressed beyond
the micro-cracks formation level and was not subjected to aggressive environment can be
assessed as follows:
Ec=(0.68 f ck0.0146 f 2 ck4.3)10000 MPa
When only the age factor is taken into consideration the Elastic Modulus increase of
up to 25 years old concrete can be defined as:
K E=1+0.08log ( t),
Where: t=the agedays

For concrete older than 25 years the increase may be assessed by the following
equation:
K E1=1+0.07 el og 2 t ,
Where: t=the age years
An increase in concrete stiffness is always supplemented by a matching increase of
stresses. It is of interest that cyclic loading leads to the reduction of elastic modulus. Two
opposite processes are taking place. The reduction of elasticity modulus due to cyclic
loading was estimated as:
K E2=10.07 log N ,
Where: N=number of cycles
The stress-strain relationship of aged concrete is dissimilar in each detail from that of
fresh concrete in the figure below:
Figure 2.8: Typical Stress Strain Relationship

The material acts as an elastic up to the stress level of 75% of the ultimate value.
This is under static loading, and the range of elastic response are even longer under dynamic
loading. Due to elastic modulus increase, the elastic strains of aged concrete are constantly
smaller than fresh concrete. The discrepancy is growing with age. The total strains at peak
load are roughly 40% lesser than those shown by fresh concrete.
The loading rate is an important factor in both low-cycle fatigue and dynamic
loading. Both the deform-ability and strength cannot be separated from the loading rate.
Concrete shows different behavior in dynamic loading when comparing both aged and fresh
concrete. Dynamic properties of concrete are significantly weakening with respect to time.
As Elias Kosmatopoulos et al stated, it is alarming due to the fact that dynamic
properties may weaken into bottom levels where it will fail as shown in the figure:
Figure 2.9: Ultimate Strain vs Concrete Strength
When related only to the time of loading in seconds, the dynamic strengthening in
compression for fresh and aged concrete was respectively assessed as:
K d ,c , y=1.190.04 ln(t )
K d ,c , o=1.050.09 ln (t)
Especially large difference was observed in tensile dynamic strengthening. For fresh
and aged concrete it was assessed to be accordingly:
K d , s , y=1.150.03 ln (t)
K d , s , o=1.020.004 ln(t)
Chapter 3
CAPACITY ASSESSMENT OF THE STRUCTURAL MEMBERS OF NAGTAHAN R.
MAGSAYSAY LINK ROAD IN PANDACAN, MANILA
Abstract
Majority of the Philippines bridges were constructed as Reinforced Concrete
Structures. Many of which, particularly in the area of Metro Manila, were over fifty years of age.
As such, these bridges experience normal deterioration, increase in traffic volume and loads and
the application of new codes and standards. For these reasons, the researchers believe that a
bridges capacity should be defined. This paper presents a comprehensive assessment of the
capacity of the Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road, a reinforced concrete highway bridge
constructed in the year 1963. The assessment of the said bridge includes determining the
designed capacity of its superstructure members such as girders, capping beams and piers. In
order to accomplish this, the researchers opted to use the Finite Element Method, one of the
fundamental methods of analysis in bridge design. The data used for this analysis were based on
the bridges applied specifications and section properties which were modeled using SAP2000
software. Moreover, for further assessment, the actual capacity of the bridge based on its current
age was determined as well. With the use of past related studies, an age factor was acquired. This
age factor served as a multiplier to the design capacity of the members in order to find out their
actual capacity. Both of the design and actual capacities are in terms of the members axial force,
moment at the minor axis and moment at the major axis.
Keywords: capacity assessment, structural members
Introduction
A. Background of the Study
Society has always been dependent on transportation. Since the early times, people
already have the interest of travelling and transporting goods from a place to another. In lined
with this, rivers, valleys, mountains and other things which are considered as obstructions
have become one of the primary problems. This is the main reason on why bridges exist. By
definition, a bridge is a structure that provides a passage over a depression or obstacle. The
earliest bridges were made from anything that the nature provides, some are just made from
tree trunks or bamboos, while others are made from rocks. It was in the 18 th century when
bridge construction expanded and people began using iron, steel and reinforced concrete as
materials for bridges.

Now more than ever, bridges play an integral role in the society. It has paved a way
to an easier and advantageous road transportation. However, due to urbanization and
economic expansion in the Philippines, the use of roads and highways for transportation
increases each year. According to the data from the Department of Transportation and
Communications Land Transportation Office (DOTC-LTO), there are a total of 7,690,038
registered motor vehicles in the Philippines in 2013. Of the said total, twenty-seven percent
(27%) or 2,101,148are registered in the National Capital Region (NCR). From this statistics,
one can imagine the number of vehicles traversing NCR each day. And considering that,
bridges, which are considered as alternative or shorter routes, are even more employed.
In the City of Manila, there are about eight (8) bridges crossing the Pasig River.
Among which, the largest is the Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road (see Figure 1.1). The
said bridge is a reinforced concrete highway bridge constructed in 1960s and became
operational in the year 1963. It spans two-hundred one meters (201 m) in length, linking Sta.
Mesa, Manila and Pandacan, Manila. During the reign of the Former President Joseph Erap
Ejercito Estrada in the year 2000, the name of the Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road was
changed into Padre Jacinto Zamora Bridge under Proclamation No. 228. The renaming of the
bridge is a fitting tribute to the memory of the most prestigious son of Pandacan and one of
the three secular priests whose martyrdom kindled the flames of the Philippine Revolution of
1896.
Figure 3.1: Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road (view from the deck)
B. Statement of the Problem
As aforementioned, alongside with the continuous growth of the Philippine
economy is the rise of the number of vehicles on the roads and highways of the country. One
of the cities that is greatly affected by this matter is the countrys capital and economic heart,
the City of Manila. The focus of this study is the Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road in
Pandacan, Manila, Philippines. Taking into account that the said bridge is situated in Manila
City, it is no doubt one of the busiest and most utilized bridges in the country. As such, it
sustains a massive amount of traffic loads per day, a tendency that is expected to continue
and escalate in the foreseeable future. Moreover, concrete structures, as per code provision,
has a lifespan of fifty (50) years. And in the case of the Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road,
it was erected and has been serving the Filipino Community for more than 50 years.
Although it has undergone retrofitting after the 1996 earthquake, one cannot expect that an
old bridge like the Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road will be able to withstand against an
increasing magnitude of load in the long run or unexpected phenomenon such as a major
earthquake. Thus, there should be a defined limit of its capacity taking into account its age.
With these actualities, the researchers believed that it is indeed imperative to
conduct a study regarding the Capacity Assessment of the Structural Members of a Single
Span of Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road in Pandacan, Manila.
C. Objectives of the Study
This research aimed to assess the capacity of the structural members of a single
span of Nagtahan - R. Magsaysay Link Road in Pandacan, Manila, Philippines. Specifically,
the primary objectives of this study are the following:
4. Verify the capacity of the Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road based on its design
properties and applied specifications.
5. Use Finite Element Method and SAP2000 software to assess the
capacity of the Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road
6. Determine the capacity of the Nagtahan - R. Magsaysay Link Road with
respect to its age.
D. Significance of the Study
1. Technological
This study would be a source of significant information to the readers,
especially for agencies in the field of road infrastructure works, regarding the importance
of examining the capacity of bridges, as well as the useful method that they can utilize in
order to assess the capacity of various reinforced concrete bridges. Also, this study also
proposes to expand advances in technology to further develop approaches that will easily
assess the capacity of old concrete bridges in the Philippines.
2. Academics
The Smart Bridge Research Project of Mapua Institute of Technology may use
the findings in this study as a tool for accomplishing their researches on the Nagtahan
R. Magsaysay Link Road. They may also use the approach included in this study to
assess the capacity of other reinforced concrete bridges. Future researchers, on the other
hand, may utilize the data and information incorporated in this study for its own
improvement. It can be a means of reference if they desire to conduct a research relevant
to it. Additionally, for the reason that this research is related to the field of engineering, it
can help the present and incoming Civil Engineers in exploring engineering methods that
will lead to the possibilities of enhancing the loading capacity of reinforced concrete
bridges.
3. Social
The results obtained in this study can be a basis for the Engineers and other
researchers in determining the adequacy of the Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road.
With that, they will be able to develop ways that could make the said bridge safer for the
public, particularly the Filipino community.
E. Scope and Limitations of the Study
This thesis assesses the capacity of the structural members of Nagtahan R.
Magsaysay Link Road through the application Finite Element Method. To be specific, the
study is only limited to a single span of the said bridge. The structural members that were
considered in this study are parts of the superstructure only, namely the beams or girders, the
capping beams or column caps, and the piers or rectangular columns. Also, by evaluating
these structural members, only the sections capacity were checked, which means the
members' self-weight are the only input. The analysis of such structural members was done
through utilizing the SAP2000 software. In addition, the span of this thesis covers an analysis
check regarding the bridge's adequacy. This pertains to the bridge's capacity with respect to
its age. And in order to do so, the researchers opted to conduct a data comparison between
the design capacity of the bridge and its capacity at the present time.
Methodology
A. Analytical Framework
Problem Statement: Capacity

Assessment of the Structural
Members of a Single Span of
Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link
Road in Pandacan, Manila
Setting of objectives
Gathering of data
Analysis and Comparison of data
Establishment of significant
findings
Figure 3.2: Sequence of Research
1. Setting of Objective
To start this study, the researchers devised the general and specific objectives. These
objectives determined the areas of focus of the study and presents a summary of its
content. In setting up the objectives, the researchers have considered the significance of
the study, as well as its scope and limitations.
2. Gathering of data
The structural model of the Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road generated using the
SAP2000 software is the primary data source of this study. SAP2000 is a general purpose
finite element program which performs the static or dynamic, linear or nonlinear analysis
of structural systems. It is also a powerful design tool to design structures following
AASHTO specifications, ACI and AISC building codes. (Deng and Ghosn, Structural
Analysis with SAP2000). It is in this software that all the data necessary to achieve the
objectives of the study were obtained, this pertains to the design and nominal strength per
superstructure element of the bridge under study. In particular, this refers to the axial load
capacity and the moment capacity in the minor and major axes of the members. The data
presented in this study are in the form interaction diagrams wherein each structural
element were subjected in different loading conditions. Furthermore, through the use of
the past related researches and studies, the researchers sought for a particular multiplier,
also known as the age factor, in order to evaluate the bridge's capacity with respect to its
age.
3. Analysis and Comparison of data

The researchers subjected the gathered data to a comprehensive analysis and interpreted
the results, satisfying the objectives of the study. The resulting capacities for each
structural members that were taken from the bridge's model in SAP2000 was compared to
the bridge's capacity in consideration of its age. From that, an assessment was made
regarding the adequacy of the bridge's sections at the present time.
4. Establishment of significant findings
The significant findings involves two areas, a conclusion and a recommendation. A
conclusion was made based on the interpreted results; that is by acquiring the design
members capacity of the Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road and by accomplishing the
objectives of the study. Likewise, for the recommendations, the researchers' suggestions
regarding on how to further improve the study or some future related studies that can be
conducted related to it were included.
B. Conceptual Framework
Assessment
Quantitative data pertaining to the design parameters through the
of each Determination
application
structural of of
memberFinite
the
of Ele
Ca
Na
section properties
Utilizationpost-tensioning
of the age factor
axial
toload
determine
details capacitythe ca
moment capacity in the
strength and specification
moment capacity in the
Comparison of the bridg
Determination of the br
Input Proc
Figure 3.2: Conceptual Framework
As shown in the conceptual diagram (Figure 3.2), the INPUT presents the
quantitative data gathered in the study such as the section properties, post-tensioning details,
and strength and specification of each structural member of the Nagtahan R. Magsaysay
Link Road. These data served as the independent variables required to
generate the structural model of the bridge. These were originally taken
from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) but the
researchers were able to accumulate them from the Smart Bridge
Research Project.
The PROCESS, on the other hand, describes how the gathered data were utilized
in the study in order to come up with the significant findings. In this study, Finite Analysis
Method were applied with the use of the structural software known to be the SAP2000. The
aim of employing the two software is to be able is to produce an outcome that is reliable.
They were used in the study to check how adequate the required results were.
Finally, in the OUTPUT, the framework shows the dependent variables that were
obtained in the study. These parameters, which are the axial load capacity and the moment
capacity in the minor and major axes of each structural element of the particular span under
study, were based from the inputs (or independent variables) in the study. These resulting
magnitude of capacities are the considered design capacities of the bridge. On the other hand,
the actual capacities of the bridge with respect to time were taken through the application of
the age factor. These two parameters, the design and actual capacities, were compared from
one another to be able assess the bridge's adequacy. From the result of this assessment, the
objectives of the study were then satisfied.
Results
The researchers assessed the capacity a single span of the Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link
Road model using the SAP2000 software. This span has a total of 8 members 2 pier columns, 2
capping beams, and 4 girders.
Span used
for the
analysis
Figure 3.4: Location of the Analyzed Span from the SAP2000 Model
Capping Beam 113
Girder Girder Girder Girder

376
Capping Beam 111

Pier 11
Pier 10
Figure 3.5: Member Elements of a Single Span and their Designation
The following tabulated data below were extracted from the Structure Design of the
model and were used in order to formulate the corresponding interaction diagrams.
PIER ELEMENTS 10 AND 11

Table 3.1: Axial and Moment (@ Minor and Major Axis) Capacity at 0 Degree Angle
at 0 degree
M2 M3 P M2 M3 P
0 0 -151197 0 0 -98278.2
0 17770.02 -151197 0 11550.52 -98278.2
0 29523.63 -139497 0 19190.36 -90672.9
0 37122.48 -115208 0 24129.61 -74885.2
0 40850.55 -89668.9 0 26552.86 -58284.8
0 41414.75 -61580.7 0 26919.59 -40027.4
0 38082.92 -47816.7 0 28870.21 -36249.3
0 33039.76 -33895.7 0 29735.79 -30506.1
0 26347.11 -20238 0 23712.4 -18214.2
0 15909.79 -3533.6 0 14318.81 -3180.24
0 0 18566.21 0 0 16709.58
Where: P = Nominal axial capacity
M2 = Nominal moment capacity at minor axis
M3 = Nominal moment capacity at major axis
P = Design axial capacity
M2 = Design moment capacity at minor axis
M3 = Design moment capacity at major axis
M3 and P
40000
20000
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000
-20000
-40000
-60000
-80000
-100000
-120000
-140000
-160000
Nominal Strength Design Strength

Figure 3.6: Interaction Diagrams between Axial Capacity and Moment Capacity
At Major Axis at 0 Degree Angle
Table 3.2: Axial and Moment (@ Minor and Major Axis) Capacity at 45 Degree Angle
at 45 degrees
M2 M3 P
M2 M3 P
0 0 -151197 0 0 -98278.2
7473.74 4780.606 -151197 4857.931 3107.394 -98278.2
21230.42 12268.23 -151197 13799.77 7974.351 -98278.2
37052.88 17701.98 -131018 24084.37 11506.29 -85161.4
45853.24 18760.51 -90914.4 29804.6 12194.33 -59094.4
38346.87 19559.79 -48773.9 24925.46 12713.86 -31703
30703.62 17426.94 -27324.4 23276.05 13211.16 -20714.3
21734.48 13192.97 -9455.37 19561.03 11873.67 -8509.83
12444.6 7986.198 4471.154 11200.14 7187.578 4024.038
4171.561 2771.759 14366.8 3754.405 2494.583 12930.12
0 0 18566.21 0 0 16709.58
M3 and P
40000
20000
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
-20000
-40000
-60000
-80000
-100000
-120000
-140000
-160000
Figure 3.7: Interaction Diagrams Between Axial Capacity and Moment Capacity
at Major Axis at 45 Degree Angle
M2 and P
40000
20000
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
-20000
-40000
-60000
-80000
-100000
-120000
-140000
-160000
at Minor Axis at 45 Degree Angle
M2 and M3
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
Figure 3.9: Interaction Diagrams between the Moment Capacities

at Major and Minor Axis at 45 Degree Angle
Table 3.3: Axial and Moment (@ Minor and Major Axis) Capacities at 90 Degree Angle
at 90 degrees
M2 M3 P
M2 M3 P
0 0 -151197 0 0 -98278.2
24623.72 0 -151197 16005.42 0 -98278.2
41081.53 0 -140580 26703 0 -91376.9
51607.22 0 -116736 33544.69 0 -75878.4
56484.54 0 -91677.4 36714.95 0 -59590.3
56389.66 0 -64144.1 36653.28 0 -41693.7
52091.96 0 -48437.7 39490.3 0 -36720
44821.59 0 -32858.1 40339.43 0 -29572.3
34405.45 0 -17138.3 30964.9 0 -15424.5
20542.51 0 -1051.74 18488.26 0 -946.564
0 0 18566.21 0 0 16709.58
M2 and P
40000
20000
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
-20000
-40000
-60000
-80000
-100000
-120000
-140000
-160000
at 135 degrees
M2 M3 P
M2 M3 P
0 0 -151197 0 0 -98278.2
7473.74 -4780.61 -151197 4857.931 -3107.39 -98278.2
21230.42 -12268.2 -151197 13799.77 -7974.35 -98278.2
37052.88 -17702 -131018 24084.37 -11506.3 -85161.4
45853.24 -18760.5 -90914.4 29804.6 -12194.3 -59094.4
38346.87 -19559.8 -48773.9 24925.46 -12713.9 -31703
30703.62 -17426.9 -27324.4 23276.05 -13211.2 -20714.3
21734.48 -13193 -9455.37 19561.03 -11873.7 -8509.83
12444.6 -7986.2 4471.154 11200.14 -7187.58 4024.038
4171.561 -2771.76 14366.8 3754.405 -2494.58 12930.12
0 0 18566.21 0 0 16709.58
M3 and P
40000
20000
0
-25000 -20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 0
-20000
-40000
-60000
-80000
-100000
-120000
-140000
-160000
M2 and P
40000
20000
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
-20000
-40000
-60000
-80000
-100000
-120000
-140000
-160000
M2 and M3
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
-5000
-10000
-15000
-20000
-25000

at 180 degrees
M2 M3 P
M2 M3 P
0 0 -151197 0 0 -98278.2
0 -17770 -151197 0 -11550.5 -98278.2
0 -29523.6 -139497 0 -19190.4 -90672.9
0 -37122.5 -115208 0 -24129.6 -74885.2
0 -40850.6 -89668.9 0 -26552.9 -58284.8
0 -41414.8 -61580.7 0 -26919.6 -40027.4
0 -38082.9 -47816.7 0 -28870.2 -36249.3
0 -33039.8 -33895.7 0 -29735.8 -30506.1
0 -26347.1 -20238 0 -23712.4 -18214.2
0 -15909.8 -3533.6 0 -14318.8 -3180.24
0 0 18566.21 0 0 16709.58
M3 and P
40000
20000
0
-45000 -40000 -35000 -30000 -25000 -20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 0
-20000
-40000
-60000
-80000
-100000
-120000
-140000
-160000
at 225 degrees
M2 M3 P
M2 M3 P
0 0 -151197 0 0 -98278.2
-7473.74 -4780.61 -151197 -4857.93 -3107.39 -98278.2
-21230.4 -12268.2 -151197 -13799.8 -7974.35 -98278.2
-37052.9 -17702 -131018 -24084.4 -11506.3 -85161.4
-45853.2 -18760.5 -90914.4 -29804.6 -12194.3 -59094.4
-38346.9 -19559.8 -48773.9 -24925.5 -12713.9 -31703
-30703.6 -17426.9 -27324.4 -23276.1 -13211.2 -20714.3
-21734.5 -13193 -9455.37 -19561 -11873.7 -8509.83
-12444.6 -7986.2 4471.154 -11200.1 -7187.58 4024.038
-4171.56 -2771.76 14366.8 -3754.4 -2494.58 12930.12
0 0 18566.21 0 0 16709.58
M3 and P
40000
20000
0
-25000 -20000 -15000 -10000 -5000 0
-20000
-40000
-60000
-80000
-100000
-120000
-140000
-160000
M2 and P
40000
20000
0
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0
-20000
-40000
-60000
-80000
-100000
-120000
-140000
-160000
M2 and M3
0
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0
-5000
-10000
-15000
-20000
-25000

Table 3.7 Axial and Moment (@ Minor and Major Axis) Capacities at 270 Degree Angle
at 270 degrees
M2 M3 P
M2 M3 P
0 0 -151197 0 0 -98278.2
-24623.7 0 -151197 -16005.4 0 -98278.2
-41081.5 0 -140580 -26703 0 -91376.9
-51607.2 0 -116736 -33544.7 0 -75878.4
-56484.5 0 -91677.4 -36715 0 -59590.3
-56389.7 0 -64144.1 -36653.3 0 -41693.7
-52092 0 -48437.7 -39490.3 0 -36720
-44821.6 0 -32858.1 -40339.4 0 -29572.3
-34405.4 0 -17138.3 -30964.9 0 -15424.5
-20542.5 0 -1051.74 -18488.3 0 -946.564
0 0 18566.21 0 0 16709.58
at 315 degrees
M2 M3 P
M2 M3 P
0 0 -151197 0 0 -98278.2
-7473.74 4780.606 -151197 -4857.93 3107.394 -98278.2
-21230.4 12268.23 -151197 -13799.8 7974.351 -98278.2
-37052.9 17701.98 -131018 -24084.4 11506.29 -85161.4
-45853.2 18760.51 -90914.4 -29804.6 12194.33 -59094.4
-38346.9 19559.79 -48773.9 -24925.5 12713.86 -31703
-30703.6 17426.94 -27324.4 -23276.1 13211.16 -20714.3
-21734.5 13192.97 -9455.37 -19561 11873.67 -8509.83
-12444.6 7986.198 4471.154 -11200.1 7187.578 4024.038
-4171.56 2771.759 14366.8 -3754.4 2494.583 12930.12
0 0 18566.21 0 0 16709.58
M3 and P
40000
20000
0
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
-20000
-40000
-60000
-80000
-100000
-120000
-140000
-160000
Figure 3.19: Interaction Diagrams Between Axial Capacity and Moment Capaciy
M2 and P
40000
20000
0
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0
-20000
-40000
-60000
-80000
-100000
-120000
-140000
-160000
M3 and M3
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
-50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0

CAPPING BEAM ELEMENTS 111 AND 113

at 0 degree
M2 M3 P
M2 M3 P
-64365.8 689.1679 -0.7359 -41837.8 447.9591 -0.4784
-62574.4 7728.9109 -1.0755 -40673.3 5023.792 -0.6991
-45553.1 11603.931 -1.0882 -29609.5 7542.555 -0.7073
-28406.06 12689.23 -1.115 -18463.94 8248 -0.7248
-20427.49 12380.911 -1.1673 -13277.87 8047.592 -0.7588
-13164.35 11569.679 -1.2234 -8556.83 7520.291 -0.7952
-9703.25 10300.206 -1.2532 -7355.92 7808.465 -0.95
-6196.59 8687.6788 0.177 -5576.93 7818.911 0.1593
-3004.132 6744.9759 0.5835 -2703.719 6070.478 0.5252
707.0271 4035.339 0.788 636.3244 3631.805 0.7092
6590.837 -788.4277 0.8419 5931.753 -709.5849 0.7577
M3 and P
1
0.5
0 Nominal Strength Design Strength

-2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
-0.5
-1
-1.5
M2 and P
1
0.5
Nominal Strength Design

0 Strength
-70000 -60000 -50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000
-0.5
-1
-1.5
M2 and M3
14000
12000
10000

8000 Strength
6000
4000
2000
0
-70000 -60000 -50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000
-2000
Figure 3.24: Interaction Diagrams Between Moment Capacities

at Major and Minor Axes at 0 Degree Angle
at 45 degrees
M2 M3 P
M2 M3 P
-64365.8 689.1679 -0.7359 -41837.8 447.9591 -0.4784
-64365.8 2031.618 2916.04 -41837.8 1320.5517 1895.426
-64365.8 4073.8423 8856.3917 -41837.8 2647.9975 5756.6546
-58311.4 6176.8683 12431.227 -37902.4 4014.9644 8080.2972
-47320.3 8293.7156 12948.798 -30758.2 5390.9151 8416.7186
-30043.27 9045.4221 10759.593 -19528.12 5879.5244 6993.7355
-19246.66 8236.11 8060.3226 -14590.67 6243.6981 6110.4358
-8833.17 6289.8523 4776.9974 -7949.86 5660.8671 4299.2977
-830.5231 3766.6354 1954.3305 -747.4708 3389.9719 1758.8974
4665.3792 717.2719 401.3312 4198.8413 645.5447 361.1981
6590.837 -788.4277 0.8419 5931.7533 -709.5849 0.7577
M3 and P
14000
12000
10000
8000 Nominal Strength Design Strength
6000
4000
2000
0
-2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
-2000
M2 and P
14000
12000
10000
8000 Strength
6000
4000
2000
0
-70000 -60000 -50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000
-2000
M2 and M2
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
-70000 -60000 -50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000
-2000

at Major Axis and Minor Axes at 45 Degree Angle
at 90 degrees
M2 M3 P
M2 M3 P
-64365.8 689.1679 -0.7359 -41837.8 447.9591 -0.4784
-64365.8 2160.087 6345.0543 -41837.8 1404.0565 4124.285
3
6863.028
-64365.8 3529.6961 10558.506 -41837.8 2294.3025 6
9074.165
-53196.8 2871.9229 13960.255 -34577.9 1866.7499 6
9828.152
-34490 -723.4634 15120.234 -22418.5 -470.2512 2
8092.689
-16558.15 -3514.74 12450.292 -10762.8 -2284.58 7
8441.014
-11307.01 -3239.85 11134.607 -8571.71 -2456.095 5
8175.810
-5758.27 -3098.676 9084.2335 -5182.44 -2788.809 1
5757.268
-1027.299 -2493.238 6396.9646 -924.5695 -2243.914 1
2854.786
3182.8792 -1524.735 3171.9854 2864.5912 -1372.261 9
6590.837 -788.4277 0.8419 5931.7533 -709.5849 0.7577
M3 and P
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000
-2000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
M2 and P
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
-70000 -60000 -50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000
-2000 0 10000 20000
M2 and M3
4000
3000
2000
1000 Strength
0
-70000 -60000 -50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000

at 135 degrees
M2 M3 P
M2 M3 P
-64365.8 689.1679 -0.7359 -41837.8 447.9591 -0.4784
-64365.8 -2105.671 1752.3535 -41837.8 -1368.686 1139.0298
-60299.3 -6251.51 7132.3755 -39194.5 -4063.48 4636.0441
-41969.3 -7877.04 11760.545 -27280.03 -5120.08 7644.3546
-28181.75 -7225.89 13054.694 -18318.14 -4696.83 8485.5513
-16675.9 -6176.51 12030.714 -10839.34 -4014.73 7819.9641
-10006.47 -5299.72 10170.673 -7585.79 -4017.65 7710.2679
-3553.23 -3908.39 7223.9554 -3197.91 -3517.55 6501.5599
1983.4514 -2471.645 3656.3944 1785.1063 -2224.481 3290.755
5521.0957 -1238.721 951.1867 4968.9862 -1114.849 856.068
6590.837 -788.4277 0.8419 5931.7533 -709.5849 0.7577
M3 and P
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
-10000 -8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000
-2000
M2 and P
14000
12000
10000
8000 Strength
6000
4000
2000
0
-70000 -60000 -50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000
-2000
M2 and M3
2000
0
-70000 -60000 -50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000
-2000
-4000
-6000
-8000
-10000

at 180 degrees
M2 M3 P
M2 M3 P
-64365.8 689.1679 -0.7359 -41837.8 447.9591 -0.4784
-64365.8 -4026.07 -0.552 -41837.8 -2616.945 -0.3588
-64365.8 -7382.5 -0.4664 -41837.8 -4798.62 -0.3032
-63558.4 -10013.56 0.1577 -41313 -6508.82 0.1025
-57577.2 -12020.6 0.4644 -37425.2 -7813.39 0.3019
-47441.5 -13770.96 0.9979 -30837.01 -8951.12 0.6487
-37652.3 -13541.77 1.5239 -28543.78 -10265.86 1.1553
-27613.45 -12316.14 2.1868 -24852.1 -11084.53 1.9681
-17352.47 -10089.09 3.0087 -15617.22 -9080.18 2.7078
-7015.18 -6628.23 0.8419 -6313.67 -5965.41 0.7577
6590.837 -788.4277 0.8419 5931.7533 -709.5849 0.7577
M3 and P
3.5
3
2.5
2
Nominal Strength Design Strrength
1.5
1
0.5
0
-16000 -14000 -12000 -10000 -8000 -6000 -4000 -2000-0.5 0 2000
-1
M2 and P
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-70000 -60000 -50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000
-0.5 0 10000 20000
-1
M2 and M3
2000
0
-70000 -60000 -50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000
-2000 0 10000 20000
-4000
-6000
-8000
-10000
-12000
-14000
-16000

at 225 degrees
M2 M3 P
M2 M3 P
-64365.8 689.1679 -0.7359 -41837.8 447.9591 -0.4784
-64365.8 -2105.126 -1753.143 -41837.8 -1368.332 -1139.543
-60300.3 -6250.9 -7132.91 -39195.2 -4063.08 -4636.39
-41970.2 -7876.29 -11760.6 -27280.66 -5119.59 -7644.39
-28182.97 -7224.89 -13054.22 -18318.93 -4696.18 -8485.24
-16677.55 -6175.08 -12029.2 -10840.41 -4013.8 -7818.98
-10007.14 -5298.25 -10168.8 -7586.29 -4016.54 -7708.85
-3552.15 -3907.49 -7221.64 -3196.93 -3516.74 -6499.48
1984.7 -2471.401 -3653.91 1786.23 -2224.261 -3288.52
5521.0957 -1238.721 -949.5028 4968.9862 -1114.849 -854.5525
6590.837 -788.4277 0.8419 5931.7533 -709.5849 0.7577
M3 and P
2000
0
-10000 -8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000
-2000
-4000
-6000
-8000
-10000
-12000
-14000
M2 and M3
2000
0
-70000 -60000 -50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000
-2000
-4000
-6000
-8000
-10000
M2 and M3
2000
0
-70000 -60000 -50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000
-2000
-4000
-6000
-8000
-10000

at 270 degrees
M2 M3 P M2 M3 P
-64365.8 689.1679 -0.7359 -41837.8 447.9591 -0.4784
-64365.8 2160.6072 -6346.26 -41837.8 1404.3947 -4125.07
-64365.8 3530.4895 -10559.65 -41837.8 2294.8182 -6863.77
-53198.2 2872.9183 -13961.26 -34578.8 1867.3969 -9074.82
-34491.7 -722.0826 -15120.84 -22419.62 -469.3537 -9828.55
-16560.6 -3512.62 -12450.29 -10764.39 -2283.205 -8092.69
-11310.07 -3237.44 -11133.99 -8574.03 -2454.263 -8440.55
-5760.31 -3096.861 -9083.4 -5184.28 -2787.175 -8175.06
-1027.299 -2492.585 -6395.28 -924.5695 -2243.326 -5755.75
3182.8792 -1524.735 -3170.3 2864.5912 -1372.261 -2853.271
6590.837 -788.4277 0.8419 5931.7533 -709.5849 0.7577
M3 and P
2000
0
-4000 -3000 -2000 -1000
-2000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
-4000
-6000
-8000
-10000
-12000
-14000
-16000
M2 and P
2000
0
-70000 -60000 -50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000
-2000 0 10000 20000
-4000
-6000
-8000
-10000
-12000
-14000
-16000
M2 and M3
4000
3000
2000
1000 Strength
0
-70000 -60000 -50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000

at 315 degrees
M2 M3 P
M2 M3 P
-64365.8 689.1679 -0.7359 -41837.8 447.9591 -0.4784
-64365.8 2031.8697 -2917.659 -41837.8 1320.7153 -1896.478
-64365.8 4074.2476 -8857.98 -41837.8 2648.2609 -5757.69
-58311.7 6177.4558 -12432.86 -37902.6 4015.3462 -8081.36
-47321 8294.6149 -12950.39 -30758.63 5391.4997 -8417.75
-30044.96 9046.86 -10761.38 -19529.23 5880.459 -6994.9
-19249.61 8238.049 -8061.63 -14592.9 6245.168 -6111.43
-8837.64 6291.9878 -4777.77 -7953.88 5662.789 -4299.99
-836.0452 3768.4201 -1954.888 -752.4407 3391.5781 -1759.399
4664.8141 717.6482 -399.8152 4198.3327 645.8834 -359.8337
6590.837 -788.4277 0.8419 5931.7533 -709.5849 0.7577
M3 and P
2000
0
-2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
-2000
-4000 Nominal Strength Design Strength
-6000
-8000
-10000
-12000
-14000
M2 and P
2000
0
-70000 -60000 -50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000
-2000
-4000 Strength
-6000
-8000
-10000
-12000
-14000
M2 and M3
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
-70000 -60000 -50000 -40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000
-2000

GIRDER ELEMENTS 374, 370, 372, AND 376

(0.008)
at 0 degree
M2 M3 P M M3 P
2
0.2385 - - 0.155 - -
463.01 21732.2 300.95 14125.
15 8 75 98
- 3073.7 - - 1997.9 -
0.2358 644 20665.0 0.153 469 13432.
7 3 3
0.2969 4939.4 - 0.193 3210.6 -
305 15901.7 298 10336.
7 15
0.9733 5652.8 - 0.632 3674.3 -
814 13338.7 7 729 8670.1
6 9
0.7929 6138.0 - 0.515 3989.7 -
612 10865.9 4 398 7062.8
6 7
0.5724 6639.3 -7843.5 0.372 4315.5 -
3 645 5098.2
8
0.4846 6435.2 - 0.357 4787.3 -
218 6641.16 9 124 4905.1
9
0.3999 5998.5 - 0.341 5225.5 -
141 5480.29 8 099 4684.6
9
0.2479 5017.2 -3396.6 0.223 4515.5 -
671 1 404 3056.9
41
0.0691 3574.0 - 0.062 3216.6 -
671 947.455 2 604 852.71
9 04
- 491.56 3470.37 - 442.41 3123.3
0.2532 8 07 0.227 12 336
9
M3 and P
M2 and P
M2 and M3
Figure 3.48: Interaction Diagrams Between Moment Capacity

at Major Axis and Minor Axis at 0 Degree Angle
at 45 degrees
M2 M3 P M2 M3 P
0.2385 - - 0.155 - -
463.01 21732. 300.95 14125.
15 28 75 98
397.46 838.64 - 258.35 545.11 -
3 24 21732. 1 75 14125.
28 98
710.93 2651.6 - 462.10 1723.5 -
43 719 21042. 73 867 13677.
28 48
330.57 4852.9 - 214.87 3154.4 -
37 668 15711. 29 284 10212.
91 74
109.07 5828.0 - 70.900 3788.2 -
82 932 11423. 9 606 7425.5
91 4
171.75 5982.1 - 111.64 3888.3 -
76 535 7473.2 24 998 4857.6
8 3
292.97 5213.8 - 222.10 3952.5 -
66 002 4433.7 21 206 3361.1
6 8
380.99 3938.9 - 342.89 3545.0 -
09 716 1872.5 18 744 1685.2
23 71
321.46 2639.4 303.98 289.31 2375.5 273.58
25 72 45 62 248 61
163.06 1229.5 2418.6 146.76 1106.6 2176.7
98 808 249 28 227 624
- 491.56 3470.3 - 442.41 3123.3
0.2532 8 707 0.2279 12 336
M3 and P
M2 and P
M2 and M3

at 90 degrees
M2 M3 P M2 M3 P
0.2385 - - 0.155 - -
463.01 21732.2 300.95 14125.9
15 8 75 8
401.262 84.663 - 260.820 55.031 -
6 2 21732.2 7 1 14125.9
8 8
901.950 105.58 - 586.267 68.629 -
1 36 21732.2 5 3 14125.9
8 8
1363.39 12.505 - 886.206 8.1288 -
53 8 18611.9 9 12097.7
5 7
1588.07 - - 1032.25 - -
95 219.24 12422.1 17 142.51 8074.37
92 2
1382.50 - - 898.630 - -
79 386.26 5685.96 1 251.07 3695.87
68 34
1210.82 - - 917.912 - -
59 396.22 3194.71 9 300.37 2421.86
41 29 9
944.286 - - 849.858 - -
8 362.14 922.813 1 325.93 830.531
75 1 27 8
582.032 - 1159.63 523.829 - 1043.67
2 288.03 72 259.22 35
16 84
226.170 114.43 2694.86 203.553 102.99 2425.38
2 62 87 1 26 18
-0.2532 491.56 3470.37 -0.2279 442.41 3123.33
8 07 12 36
M3 and P
M2 and P
M2 and M3

at 135 degrees
M2 M3 P M2 M3 P
0.2385 - - 0.155 - -
463.011 21732.2 300.957 14125.9
5 8 5 8
251.301 - - 163.345 - -
1745.33 21732.2 6 1134.46 14125.9
8 5 8
314.899 - -21656.5 204.684 - -
2 3867.84 5 2514.09 14076.7
3 3
55.3008 -5763.9 - 35.9455 - -
17479.7 3746.53 11361.8
1 1
80.0237 - - 52.0154 - -9492.84
6252.35 14604.3 4064.03
7
499.185 - -9572.51 324.470 - -6222.13
4 5571.37 5 3621.39
754.222 - -6328.71 571.767 - -4797.72
4 4487.75 1 3402.11
775.619 -3228.2 -3504.01 698.057 - -
6 6 2905.37 3153.61
6 1
643.264 - - 578.938 - -
6 1832.18 745.132 1 1648.97 670.619
9 4 1 2
303.437 - 2110.76 273.093 - 1899.68
278.347 55 3 250.512 89
3 6
-0.2532 491.568 3470.37 -0.2279 442.411 3123.33
07 2 36
M3 and P
M2 and P
M2 and M3

at 180 degrees
M2 M3 P M2 M3 P
0.2385 - - 0.155 - -
463.01 21732.28 300.95 14125.9
15 75 8
-0.1033 - - - - -
3551.1 21732.28 0.067 2308.2 14125.9
3 1 38 8
-0.3494 - - - - -
5258.1 19108.76 0.227 3417.7 12420.6
1 1 7 9
-0.4895 - - - - -
5955.5 17188.83 0.318 3871.1 11172.7
6 2 1 4
-0.6384 - - - - -9846.32
6457.7 15148.18 0.414 4197.5
5 9 4
-0.8084 - - - - -8332.29
6863.2 12818.91 0.525 4461.1
6 4 2
-0.6909 - - - - -7667.99
6710.2 11748.76 0.196 4519.8
7 2 6
0.1821 - -9901.41 0.133 -4578.6 -7003.7
6238.1 1
1
0.5137 - -7043.78 0.462 - -6339.4
5152.6 3 4637.3
1 5
0.2432 - -3332.35 0.218 - -
3406.3 8 3065.7 2999.11
4 05 8
-0.2532 491.56 3470.370 - 442.41 3123.33
8 7 0.227 12 36
9
M3 and P
M2 and P
M2 and M3

at 225 degrees
M2 M3 P M2 M3 P
0.2385 - - 0.155 - -
463.01 21732.2 300.95 14125.9
15 8 75 8
- - - - - -
251.10 1745.3 21732.2 163.21 1134.4 14125.9
59 3 8 88 65 8
- - -21656.5 - - -
315.22 3867.8 204.89 2514.0 14076.7
61 4 7 93 3
- -5763.9 - - - -
56.237 17479.7 36.554 3746.5 11361.8
3 1 3 3 1
- - - - - -9492.84
81.379 6252.3 14604.3 52.896 4064.0
8 5 7 9 3
- - -9582.06 - - -6228.34
499.52 5573.9 324.69 3623.0
53 8 15 8
- - -6334.72 - -3403.5 -4802.28
754.59 4489.5 572.04
4 8 88
- - -3506.32 - - -
775.70 3229.0 698.13 2906.1 3155.69
41 1 37 09 1
- - - - - -
643.24 1832.3 745.425 578.92 1649.0 670.883
52 07 7 07 76 2
- - 2110.76 - - 1899.68
303.74 278.34 55 273.37 250.51 89
5 73 05 26
-0.2532 491.56 3470.37 -0.2279 442.41 3123.33
8 07 12 36
M3 and P
M2 and P
M2 and M3

at 270 degrees
M2 M3 P M2 M3 P
0.2385 - - 0.155 - -
463.01 21732.2 300.95 14125.9
15 8 75 8
- 84.130 - - 54.684 -
400.62 1 21732.2 260.409 6 14125.9
95 8 2 8
- 103.78 - - 67.460 -
900.84 53 21732.2 585.550 4 14125.9
71 8 6 8
- 9.9185 - - 6.447 -
1362.4 18621.4 885.574 12103.9
22 4 4 4
- - -12431.6 - - -8080.54
1588.0 221.83 1032.20 144.19
1 66 6 38
- - -5695.45 - - -3702.04
1383.4 388.85 899.223 252.75
21 41 7 52
- - -3201.28 - - -
1211.7 398.21 918.596 301.88 2426.85
28 52 6 22 6
- - - - - -
945.03 363.38 926.513 850.531 327.04 833.862
51 09 5 6 28 1
- - 1157.99 - - 1042.19
582.64 288.63 26 524.379 259.76 33
42 02 8 72
- 114.27 2694.45 - 102.84 2425.01
226.68 39 75 204.018 66 18
68 1
-0.2532 491.56 3470.37 -0.2279 442.41 3123.33
8 07 12 36
M3 and P
M2 and P
M2 and M3

at 315 degrees
M2 M3 P M2 M3 P
0.2385 - - 0.155 - -
463.011 21732.2 300.957 14125.9
5 8 5 8
- 838.592 - - 545.084 -
397.29 1 21732.2 258.241 8 14125.9
39 8 1 8
- 2650.24 - - 1722.66 -
710.32 75 21046.6 461.714 09 13680.3
97 9 3 5
- 4850.30 - - 3152.69 -
330.04 75 15721.6 214.529 98 10219.0
51 1 3 5
- 5828.09 - - 3788.26 -7425.54
107.41 32 11423.9 69.8171 06
1 1
- 5982.15 -7473.28 - 3888.39 -4857.63
170.66 35 110.933 98
69 5
- 5213.80 -4433.76 - 3952.52 -3361.18
292.32 02 221.611 06
96 6
- 3938.97 - - 3545.07 -
380.71 16 1872.52 342.645 44 1685.27
76 3 9 1
- 2639.47 303.984 - 2375.52 273.586
321.50 2 5 289.356 48 1
68 1
- 1229.58 2418.62 - 1106.62 2176.76
163.42 08 49 147.080 27 24
28 5
-0.2532 491.568 3470.37 -0.2279 442.411 3123.33
07 2 36
M3 and P
M2 and P
M2 and M3

GIRDER ELEMENTS 374, 370, 372, AND 376

(0.009)
at 0 degree
M2 M3 P M M3 P
2
0.2424 - - 0.157 - -
470.43 21774.2 5 305.78 14153.
94 4 56 25
- 3077.0 - - 2000.0 -
0.2334 528 20698.1 0.151 843 13453.
5 7 79
0.2989 4945.8 - 0.194 3214.8 -
995 15928.9 3 347 10353.
2 8
0.9747 5663.7 - 0.633 3681.4 -
815 13357.4 6 58 8682.3
8 6
0.7933 6155.6 - 0.515 4001.1 -
149 10872.0 7 497 7066.8
4 2
0.5713 6667.9 - 0.371 4334.1 -
92 7828.47 3 948 5088.5
1
0.4833 6464.9 - 0.358 4821.9 -
568 6622.73 2 477 4908.3
9
0.3985 6028.0 - 0.343 5275.0 -
13 5460.73 315 4699.9
4
0.2463 5046.2 -3374.8 0.221 4541.6 -
939 6 645 3037.3
17
0.0675 3603.0 - 0.060 3242.7 -
939 925.651 8 845 833.08
59
- 498.99 3522.80 - 449.09 3170.5
0.2571 58 99 0.231 62 289
4
M3 and P
M2 and P
M2 and M3

at 45 degrees
M2 M3 P M2 M3 P
0.2424 -470.4394 -21774.24 0.1575 -305.7856 -14153.25
398.0907 838.9028 -21774.24 258.7589 545.2868 -14153.25
711.6777 2654.727 -21075.5 462.5905 1725.573 -13699.08
331.4734 4859.978 -15737.53 215.4577 3158.986 -10229.39
110.2196 5841.178 -11437.83 71.6427 3796.765 -7434.59
173.4218 6005.272 -7466.21 112.7242 3903.427 -4853.03
293.8107 5241.092 -4415.59 222.7345 3973.21 -3347.41
381.4309 3965.643 -1848.648 343.2878 3569.078 -1663.783
322.2063 2662.571 334.1779 289.9857 2396.314 300.7601
164.1615 1243.613 2461.697 147.7454 1119.252 2215.527
-0.2571 498.9958 3522.81 -0.2314 449.0962 3170.529
M3 and P
M2 and P
M2 and M3

at 90 degrees
M2 M3 P M2 M3 P
0.2424 -470.4394 -21774.24 0.1575 -305.7856 -14153.25
402.7174 78.9891 -21774.24 261.7663 51.3429 -14153.25
903.9066 100.5105 -21774.24 587.5393 65.3318 -14153.25
1366.047 8.4121 -18645.09 887.9305 5.4678 -12119.31
1591.77 -221.9872 -12444.98 1034.65 -144.2917 -8089.24
1387.886 -386.6495 -5690.17 902.1259 -251.3222 -3698.61
1216.627 -396.1091 -3185.78 922.3108 -300.2857 -2415.101
949.6142 -361.3427 -900.535 854.6528 -325.2084 -810.4815
585.7328 -285.8559 1195.517 527.1595 -257.2703 1075.965
227.3304 119.9532 2742.945 204.5973 107.9579 2468.65
-0.2571 498.9958 3522.81 -0.2314 449.0962 3170.529
M3 and P
M2 and P
M2 and M3

at 135 degrees
M2 M3 P M2 M3 P
0.2424 -470.4394 -21774.24 0.1575 -305.7856 -14153.25
251.4335 -1757.941 -21774.24 163.4318 -1142.662 -14153.25
315.1154 -3882.12 -21698.24 204.825 -2523.38 -14103.86
55.657 -5780.52 -17517.17 36.1771 -3757.34 -11386.16
80.75 -6272.07 -14634.43 52.4875 -4076.84 -9512.38
500.5955 -5595.82 -9588.9 325.3871 -3637.28 -6232.78
755.896 -4512.7 -6336.9 573.0359 -3421.03 -4803.93
778.031 -3249.54 -3503.59 700.2279 -2924.586 -3153.23
646.8386 -1845.666 -730.1233 582.1547 -1661.099 -657.111
306.0415 -278.4962 2149.637 275.4374 -250.6465 1934.673
-0.2571 498.9958 3522.81 -0.2314 449.0962 3170.529
M3 and P
M2 and P
M2 and M3

at 180 degrees
M2 M3 P M2 M3 P
0.2424 -470.4394 -21774.24 0.1575 -305.7856 -14153.25
-0.1002 -3565.14 -21774.24 -0.0651 -2317.338 -14153.25
-0.3465 -5274.06 -19148.49 -0.2252 -3428.14 -12446.52
-0.4869 -5974.25 -17224.39 -0.3165 -3883.26 -11195.85
-0.6362 -6480.55 -15177.46 -0.4136 -4212.36 -9865.35
-0.807 -6892.92 -12837.71 -0.5245 -4480.4 -8344.51
-0.6896 -6740.15 -11766.5 -0.1953 -4541.24 -7679.85
0.1832 -6267.82 -9916.63 0.1339 -4602.09 -7015.18
0.5146 -5181.04 -7056.13 0.4632 -4662.93 -6350.52
0.2434 -3430.91 -3336.07 0.2191 -3087.823 -3002.465
-0.2571 498.9958 3522.81 -0.2314 449.0962 3170.529
M3 and P
M2 and P
M2 and M3

at 225 degrees
M2 M3 P M2 M3 P
0.2424 -470.4394 -21774.24 0.1575 -305.7856 -14153.25
-251.2319 -1757.941 -21774.24 -163.3007 -1142.662 -14153.25
-315.4362 -3882.12 -21698.24 -205.0336 -2523.38 -14103.86
-56.5881 -5780.52 -17517.17 -36.7822 -3757.34 -11386.16
-82.1017 -6272.07 -14634.43 -53.3661 -4076.84 -9512.38
-500.9331 -5598.43 -9598.45 -325.6065 -3638.98 -6238.99
-756.2664 -4514.54 -6342.92 -573.3167 -3422.42 -4808.49
-778.1156 -3250.35 -3505.9 -700.304 -2925.319 -3155.31
-646.8214 -1845.783 -730.4167 -582.1392 -1661.205 -657.375
-306.3553 -278.4962 2149.637 -275.7197 -250.6465 1934.673
-0.2571 498.9958 3522.81 -0.2314 449.0962 3170.529
M3 and P
M2 and P
M2 and M3

at 270 degrees
M2 M3 P M2 M3 P
0.2424 -470.4394 -21774.24 0.1575 -305.7856 -14153.25
-402.0778 78.456 -21774.24 -261.3506 50.9964 -14153.25
-902.7979 98.7122 -21774.24 -586.8186 64.1629 -14153.25
-1365.069 5.8247 -18654.58 -887.2948 3.7861 -12125.48
-1591.697 -224.5745 -12454.48 -1034.603 -145.9735 -8095.41
-1388.799 -389.2368 -5699.66 -902.7191 -253.0039 -3704.78
-1217.531 -398.1002 -3192.36 -922.9956 -301.795 -2420.088
-950.3657 -362.5761 -904.2354 -855.3292 -326.3185 -813.8118
-586.3501 -286.4546 1193.872 -527.7151 -257.8091 1074.485
-227.854 119.7909 2742.533 -205.0686 107.8118 2468.28
-0.2571 498.9958 3522.81 -0.2314 449.0962 3170.529
M3 and P
M2 and P
M2 and M3

at 315 degrees
M2 M3 P M2 M3 P
0.2424 -470.4394 -21774.24 0.1575 -305.7856 -14153.25
-397.916 838.8525 -21774.24 -258.6454 545.2541 -14153.25
-711.0683 2653.303 -21079.91 -462.1944 1724.647 -13701.94
-330.9411 4857.318 -15747.23 -215.1117 3157.257 -10235.7
-108.5503 5841.178 -11437.83 -70.5577 3796.765 -7434.59
-172.3322 6005.272 -7466.21 -112.0159 3903.427 -4853.03
-293.1663 5241.092 -4415.59 -222.2459 3973.21 -3347.41
-381.1611 3965.643 -1848.648 -343.045 3569.078 -1663.783
-322.2551 2662.571 334.1779 -290.0296 2396.314 300.7601
-164.5208 1243.613 2461.697 -148.0687 1119.252 2215.527
-0.2571 498.9958 3522.81 -0.2314 449.0962 3170.529
M3 and P
M2 and P
M2 and M3

As a result, the maximum capacity of the members were known as seen on each of the
interaction diagram. These diagrams were used to set a limit for whatever load the bridge may
carry. The bridge can sustain loads less than or equal to its capacity. For instance, if a certain
computed axial and moment forces (e.g. dead load), when plotted, is still on the area of the
interaction diagram, then it means that the bridge can withstand these forces.
Additionally, included in the study is an age multiplier. The Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link
Road was completed in the year 1963, hence the structure is 54 years old already. It was
necessary to mention that in actual, the flyover has undergone retrofitting. However, though that
was the case, in the SAP2000 model, the original design parameters of the bridge was used.
Hence, the researchers assessed the capacity of the original conditions of each of the member
elements.
Moving on, with the use of an age multiplier, the researchers analyzed if what was the
maximum capacity of the same structural members from the same single span if assumed to be
54 years without undergoing any rehabilitation.
Conclusion
There are several methods that are usually used for structural analysis for bridges,
however the researchers focused on one, the finite element method. The researchers deliberated
the Nagtahan - R. Magsaysay Link Road, which is located in Pandacan, Manila. With the aid of
the structural plans, they were able to recognize: (i) different superstructure members used for
the bridge girder, capping beam and pier; (ii) its material reinforced concrete; and (iii) the
section properties.
In order to apply the finite element method for the analysis of Nagtahan - R. Magsaysay
Link Road, the researchers utilized the SAP2000 software. With the help of the SMART
BRIDGE Research Project of Mapua Institute of Technology, they were able to obtain the
SAP2000 models for the specific bridge that was studied. This is to help them study the
functions and commands of the modelling software, as well as to familiarize with the properties
of the bridge.
Recommendations
Based on the conclusions, the researchers recommend the following:
1. This study is only limited to considering the self-weight of the structural elements based
on their sections. The next researchers may take into account inputting other types of
load, such as moving loads, lateral loads, etc., in order to come up with more critical
interpretations of the results and outcomes for the capacity of the bridge.
2. In this study, the researchers utilized the SAP2000 software, which in particular, is an
application of the finite element method. For future researchers, the researchers
recommend to not just familiarize but be knowledgeable on the different functions of the
software mentioned. This will be an advantage before carrying out further studies about
the Nagtahan - R. Magsaysay Link Road, as well as other Reinforced Concrete Highway
bridges.
3. The information included in this study is also applicable to other Reinforced Concrete
Highway Bridges in the country. Therefore, for other studies, the future researchers may
opt to utilize this paper as a reference and source of significant details if they wish to
conduct a study related to it.
References
Imhof, D. (2004). Risk Assessment of Existing Bridge Structures
Marg, K.K., Puram, R.K. (2010). Guidelines for Evaluation of Load Carrying Capacity of
Bridges
Structures Engineering Main Roads Western Austraila. (2009). Structures Engineering
Design Manual. Retrieved from https://www.mainroads.wa.gov.au/Documents/SE
%20Design%20Manual%203_8_11.PDF
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2015). Bridge Design Practice.
Wineiwski, D.F. (2007). Safety Formats for the Assessment of Concrete Bridges
Wang, N. (2010). Reliability Based Condition Assessment of Existing Highway Bridges
Grahn, M. (2012). Structural Analysis and Design of Concrete Bridges
Technical Standards Branch Alberta Transportation: Bridge Load Evaluation Manual. (2015).
Retrieved from
http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType253/Production/BridgeLoadEva
luationManualv1(Final%20June%2010%202015).pdf
Deng, L., Ghosn, M. Structural Analysis with SAP2000.
Abdelraouf M.R, Matlock, H. (1972) Finite Element Analysis of Bridge Decks.
Amirahmad, A., Al-Sinaidi,A.R. (2013). Analysis of Integral Bridges by Finite Element
Method.
Moses, F., Verma, D. (1987). Load Capacity Evaluation of Existing Bridges.
Paeglitis, A., Paeglitis A. (2010) Simple Classification Method for the Bridge Capacity
Rating
Test the Strength of Structural Members. (2013). Retrieved from
https://bridgecontest.org/assets/2013/09/la2.pdf
Sika Philippines. (2016). Construction Solution and Systems for New Build Bridges and
Refurbishment Projects. Retrieved from
http://phl.sika.com/en/solutions_products/solutions-for-projects.html
Burauen Bridges Assessment (20130. Retreived from
http://www.logcluster.org/sites/default/files/documents/Logistics
%2520Cluster_Philippines_Assessment_Burauen%2520Bridges_131228.pdf
Retrofitting of Adgawan Bridge in Philippines. (2014). Retrieved from
http://www.fyfeasia.com/Utilities/MakePDF.aspx?pid=%7B27798772-5786-4158-
8B7E-ACD1848B7A4E%7D
Estaero, R., Kawashima, K., Pacheco, B. (2009). Seismic Retrofitting Technologies for
Bridges to Reduce the Environmental Impact of Earthquake on Existing Structures.
Levtchitch,V., Kvasha,V., Boussalis, H.,Chassiakos, A., Kosmatopoulus, E. (2004) Seismic
Performance Capacities of Old Concrete
Fwa, T.F. (2006). The Handbook of Highway Engineering
Holicky, M., Markova, J., Sykora, M. (2008) Partial Factors for Assessment of Existing
Reinforced Concrete Bridges

Chapter 4
CONCLUSION
There are several methods that are usually used for structural analysis for bridges,
however the researchers focused on one, the finite element method. The researchers deliberated
the Nagtahan - R. Magsaysay Link Road, which is located in Pandacan, Manila. With the aid of
the structural plans, they were able to recognize: (i) different superstructure members used for
the bridge girder, capping beam and pier; (ii) its material reinforced concrete; and (iii) the
section properties.
In order to apply the finite element method for the analysis of Nagtahan - R. Magsaysay
Link Road, the researchers utilized the SAP2000 software. With the help of the SMART
BRIDGE Research Project of Mapua Institute of Technology, they were able to obtain the
SAP2000 models for the specific bridge that was studied. This is to help them study the
functions and commands of the modelling software, as well as to familiarize with the properties
of the bridge.
Chapter 5
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the conclusions, the researchers recommend the following:
4. This study is only limited to considering the self-weight of the structural elements based
on their sections. The next researchers may take into account inputting other types of
load, such as moving loads, lateral loads, etc., in order to come up with more critical
interpretations of the results and outcomes for the capacity of the bridge.
5. In this study, the researchers utilized the SAP2000 software, which in particular, is an
application of the finite element method. For future researchers, the researchers
recommend to not just familiarize but be knowledgeable on the different functions of the
software mentioned. This will be an advantage before carrying out further studies about
the Nagtahan - R. Magsaysay Link Road, as well as other Reinforced Concrete Highway
bridges.
6. The information included in this study is also applicable to other Reinforced Concrete
Highway Bridges in the country. Therefore, for other studies, the future researchers may
opt to utilize this paper as a reference and source of significant details if they wish to
conduct a study related to it.

Manuscript v11

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Manuscript v11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABSTRACT

Majority of the Philippines bridges were constructed as Reinforced Concrete

Keywords: capacity assessment, structural members

alternative or shorter routes, are even more employed.

As aforementioned, alongside with the continuous growth of the Philippine economy is

capacity taking into account its age.

Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road in Pandacan, Manila.

objectives of this study are the following:

and applied specifications.

the Nagtahan R. Magsaysay Link Road

3. Determine the capacity of the Nagtahan - R. Magsaysay Link Road with

respect to its age.

concrete bridges in the Philippines.

loading capacity of reinforced concrete bridges.

capacity at the present time.

assessment analysis of a structural elements capacity based on the applied design

structural member element of a structure that is designed to support other elements or

the structure as a whole; may be subjected to different structural loads

A. General Concepts, Principles and Theories

should be assured through reinforcing, retrofitting, or reconstruction if needed. An analysis

parameters like ductility, redundancy, or consequences of failure. The fundamental criterions

assessment, and the negative outcomes of failure.

In order to obtain structure responses in terms of forces axial, torsional, shear,

numerical mathematical process is necessary that is through structural analysis. (Caltrans,

loading and/or failure. (Grahn, 2012).

and determined. (Imhof, 2004).

and traffic load requirements. Numerous uncertainties in design, in relation to the

identification of mechanical properties of materials, structure geometry, and loads in a bridge

members, and the resistance of damaged or deteriorated members.

honeycombing, cracking, spalling, loss of material or lamination of concrete members), (ii)

materials should also be investigated specially on strength. When reinforcement details

an electromagnetic reinforcement detector, or by making incision at selected locations, taking

the effects of shrinkage, thermal movement, alkali-aggregate reaction; deck corrosion

or inadequate waterproofing); leaching or efflorescence due to water ingress, concrete

scope of work and structure.

an elevation of 79 m. It is approximately 30 m. in length and 4 m. in width. Since there is a

further erosion since the deck is not supported by a superstructure.

Bridge which according to the assessment, is in need of strengthening due to concrete

bridge is important to bridge retrofitting. Accordingly, in order to meet the demands of a

assessed in terms of their capacities.

Instability of surrounding soil conditions is required when considering foundation

seismic demand which may head to footing retrofit by concrete overlay

amplifies the displacement demands. (Pacheco 2000)

makes them responsible for the national road network administration.

As stated by Linda S. Templo (2004), the system of expenditure priorities and

Within the unified road management system, a Bridge Management System

structure allowing highway authorities to assimilate information of the current condition of

bridges and enhance their maintenance works.

DPWH in gathering data and making detailed procedures on Bridge management

serviceable life of the road network all implemented at minimum cost.

Only experienced bridge engineers are capable of undertaking a Load Capacity

determine concrete strength. To determine the tendency of corrosion to happen in the

of the factor of safety in the design of structures.

Important loads to be considered in the evaluation of superstructures are Dead

Linear elastic modeling indicates that the structures movement or behavior is

the structure is considered an unceasing arrangement wherein the neighboring elements do

processing, may it be in service state or ultimate failure mode.

According to the research, Finite-Element Analysis of Bridge Decks by

Amirahmad and Rahman Al-Sinaidi analyzed an abutment bridge, particularly an

element analysis is ANSYS, which is proficient in understanding problems of plane strain

Figure 2.2: Enlarged view of integral abutment bridge

Table 2.1 Properties of Structural Members

The objective of analyzing the model is to make a preview of the expansion

caused by the increase of temperature in the superstructure. This was demonstrated by