Geotechnical-Investigation-Report - Proposed Construction of Two Storey Housing BLDG - Pasay City

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Final Report
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF TWO (2) -

STOREY BUILDING HOUSING FACILITY FOR
SOLID WASTE FACILITY HOUSING
Tripa De Gallina, Pasay City, Metro Manila
Prepared for:
MONARCH GLOBAL CONSTRUCTION

Prepared by:
DRILLWORKS ENGINEERING
15 Zafra St., Dalandanan, Valenzuela City
30th January 2024
Reference No.: DW-24-01-005

`
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………. 1
1.1 Objective of the Investigation …………………………………………………………… 1
1.2 Scope of Work ………………………….………………………………………………….. 1
1.3 Project Location and Description……...………………………………………………….. 2
1.4 Project Duration and Personnel ………………………………………………………….. 3
1.5 Equipment Applied in the Project ………………………………………………………… 4
1.6 Laboratory Instruments ……………………………………………………………………. 4
2. SITE CHARACTERIZATION…………………..……………………………………………….. 4
2.1 Topography ………………………………………………………………………………… 4
2.2 Geology…………………...…………………………………………………………………. 5
3. FIELD INVESTIGATION…………... …………………………………………………………… 5

3.1 Investigation Program ……………………………………………………………………… 5
3.2 Borehole Location……………… …………………………………………………… …… 5
3.3 Boring Method ……………………………………………………………………………… 7
3.4 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)…………………………………………………………. 8
3.5 Observation of Groundwater Level ………………………………………………………. 10
3.6 Characteristic of Soil Strata ……………………………………………………………….. 10
4. LABORATORY TEST………………………..……………………..…………………………… 17
5. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ……………………………………………………………... 18

5.1 Geotechnical Design Parameters ………………………………………………………… 18
5.2 Foundation Analysis Method …………………..………………………………………… 19
5.3 Foundation Recommendation………………………………….…………………………. 20
5.4 Earthquake Consideration ………………………………………………………………… 22
6 REFERENCES ..………………………………………………………………………………... 25
7 LIMITATIONS ……………………………………………………………………………........... 26
8 CLOSURE ……………………………………………………………………………................ 26
APPENDIX: Soil Profile, Final Borehole Logs & Laboratory Test Results
DRILLWORKS ENGINEERING
Proposed Construction of Two (2) Storey Building for Housing
Facility for Solid Waste Facility
Tripa De Gallina, Pasay City
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT PROPOSED

CONSTRUCTION OF TWO (2) STOREY FOR HOUSING
FACILITY OF SOLID WASTE FACILTY
1 INTRODUCTION
Geotechnical investigation is generally carried out to evaluate the sub-surface condition of a

site for small and large-scale constructions, such as high-rise buildings, bridges, dams, towers,
factories, ports, among others. Geotechnical evaluation studies the physical and mechanical
properties of soils and rock. Such data, are necessary to obtain for proper design of required
structures. The client, Monarch Global Construction , is planning to construct a Two (2)-
Storey Building in Tripa De Gallina, Pasay City. Therefore, DRILLWORKS ENGINEERING
SERVICES. was assigned to conduct soil investigation program to obtain soil properties of
selected locations in the project area.
1.1 Objective of the Investigation
Soil condition at the site is one of the factors that will govern project decisions. The
geotechnical investigation conducted during this project phase intends to define the sub-
surface conditions at the project site. The specific objectives are to assess-
➢ The type of foundation system based on the sub-surface characteristics, location and
structures.
➢ The geotechnical parameters for determining the load carrying capacity of sub-strata
with the proposed foundation system.
➢ The deformation characteristics of sub-surface strata.
➢ Any peculiar condition and phenomena and its possible effects during construction.
➢ The ground water level and its seasonal fluctuations.
➢ The susceptibility of the site to seismic hazards.
1.2 Scope of Work
The investigation covers three phases: field exploration program, laboratory testing and report
preparation. The field exploration program includes soil boring and Standard Penetration Test
1|P ag e
DW-24-01-005 DRILLWORKS ENGINEERING
(SPT) and coring. There are two (2) boring locations and the depth of investigation for the
boreholes is 15.0 meters or until refusal (hard strata). Standard penetration test was performed in
the borehole in compliance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). The
collected samples from the boreholewere analyzed. Laboratory testing includes physical and index
properties. Subsequently, the reports for the field investigation and laboratory testing are in
accordance with ASTM and adopting SI units.
1.3 Project Location and Description
The project is located at Tripa De Gallina, Pasay City having coordinates: 14°31'48"N
121°0'2"E.. The location map of the project is indicated in Figure 1.1..
Figure 1.1 Location of the Project Area (Source: Google Map)
1.4 Project Duration and Personnel
PROJECT LOCATION
The field exploration program conducted by DrillWorks Engineering at the project area in Tripa
De Gallina, Pasay City started on January 26, 2024. The test borehole started on
2|P ag e
January 26, 2024 and was completed on January 26, 2024. The laboratory tests were carried
out on January 29, 2024 and was completed on January 30, 2024.
Photo 1.1 View of the Project Area
3|P ag e
The organizational chart for the program is illustrated in Figure 1.3. The entire personnel for
the operation, including the geotechnical specialist, drilling specialist, crews for boring
machines, laboratory technicians as well as the helpers and assistants involved in this
operation are indicated in the chart:
4|P ag e
Figure 1.3 Organizational Chart for the Geotechnical Investigation Program
5|P ag e
1.5 Equipment Applied in the Project

1.5.1 Boring Equipment
The boring equipment, a portable engineering drill was used in the soil investigation work of
the project to acquire the general condition of soil layers under planned area for future
construction. The type of boring equipment and its specification are presented in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Specification of Boring Equipment

Parts of Equipment Particulars
Brand Toho
Boring Type Rotary
Drilling Capacity 100 meters
Feeding Stroke 400 mm
Maximum Torque 350 N-m
Maximum Thrust Capacity 10 kN
Maximum Balance Capacity 30 kN
Rotate Speed 54 140 300
Hoisting Capacity 10 kN Single Pull Line
Power 8.8 kW
Net Weight 400 kgs
L*W*H 1660*732*1170 mm
1.6 Laboratory Instruments
The principal instruments applied for soil laboratory tests are shown in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2 Laboratory Instruments

Instrument Name Manufacturer and Types
Drying Oven Gilson-Quincy Bench Ovens
Atterberg Limits Apparatus Controls-Casagrande
Electric Balance Torbal ATN110A 0.1 mg
Sieve Test Set Advantech 10SS8F-DS Sieve
2 SITE CHARACTERIZATION
This section presents the topography and geology of the project area. Site characterization is
conducted to develop an understanding of the soils, along with groundwater at the site.
2.1 Topography
The terrain of the project area is generally flat and falls within the slope category of flat land
(0-3%). The surrounding areas are mainly commercial establishment. The elevation of the
6|P ag e
project area is approximately ranging from 1.0 to 1.5 meters above sea level. The site is
predominantly composed of sand and silt deposits.
2.2 Geology
The proposed project is located at Tripa De Gallina Pumping Station, Pasay City, Metro
Manila. The city of Pasay and Metro Manila rests upon alluvial deposits from Pasig River,
which is a tidal estuary that connects Laguna de Bay to Manila Bay. The direction of flow of
water depends on the relative water levels of Laguna de Bay andManila Bay. Manila is situated
on the Coastal Lowland region, which consists of soft sand andclay deposits that can reach
40m in depth (Miura et al., 2008). The closest earthquake generators to the project site are
the Valley Fault System (VFS). VFS is a two-fault line systemdetermined by Phivolcs to be
active. This generator can produce earthquakes with magnitudesgreater than 7.0 and therefore
potential sources of disasters. (MGB, 2010).
3 FIELD INVESTIGATION
3.1 Investigation Program
The objective of the investigation is to identify the general stratification of the ground and the
nature of the soil. The plan consists of Two (2) boreholes, the fieldinvestigation included soil
boring with tests associated with Standard Penetration Test (SPT), Disturbed Soil Sampling,
Coring and Water Level Measurement. Total boring length is 30.0 meters and the total quantity
of investigation program is listed in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Quantity of Boring

No. of SPT
Borehole Date Drilled Final Depth (m)
sample
BH-1 20-Feb-24 15.0/up until 12
refusal
BH-2 21-Feb -24 15.0/up until 12
refusal
TOTAL SAMPLES 24
3.2 Borehole Location

The location of investigated point was designated by the client.
7|P ag e
3.3 Boring Method
The field exploration methods used in boreholes were rotary drilling and wash boring. A rotary
drilling rig and a high-pressure pump were employed to advance the boreholes, perform in-
situ tests and secure soil samples. This method was done by boring a hole at designated area
with drilling outfit, complete with drilling machine, water pump, drill rods, casings, bits,
samplers, tools and accessories. A rapidly rotating drilling bits was attached to the bottom of
the drilling rods which cut and grind the soil and advance the borehole. The drilling fluid carried
the cuttings of the materials penetrated from the bottom of the borehole to the ground surface.
During sampling, the drill rod was raised, and the cutting bit was replaced by a soil sampler.
In layers containing large gravels, the use of rotary drilling prevented and delayed the progress
of advancing the boreholes and the drill bits cannot easily break large gravels. Hence, wash
boring was employed for advancing boreholes. Wash boring used a casing 2 to 3 meters long
and driven into the ground. Water was forced though the drilling rod and exited at a very high
velocity though the holes at the bottom of the chopping bit. The very high velocity of water
disintegrated the soil in the boreholes and carried the broken fragments upward through the
space between the casing and the drill rod. The process of raising, dropping and turning of
the drill rod is continued even below the bottom of the casing until the borehole began to
collapse. Soil samples were collected by attaching the soil sampler to the bottom of the drill
rod, after removing the chopping bit.
8|P ag e
3.4 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
The standard penetration test was done in accordance with the American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM D1586-99). The test was performed using a split barrel sampler (50mm
diameter) connected to the end of boring rods as shown in Figure 3.2. The sampler was driven
into the soil by means of a 63.5 kg (140 lb) hammer falling freely through the height of 76 cm
onto the anvil attached to the rod. The sampler is driven 450 mm (18 inches) into the soil. SPT
N-value is recorded for each 150 mm (6 inches) penetration of the sampling tube. The blows
for the first 150 mm (6 inches) of penetration are not taken into account and regarded as
seating drive because in this condition, the bottom of the hole may deviate from the natural
condition at a certain extent. The resistance N-value is taken as the number of blow for the
penetration of test drive of the next 300 mm (12 inches). When 50 blows are reached before
the full penetration 150 mm, no other blows are applied but final penetration is recorded. The
retained soil sample was then extracted and stored in plastic bag for laboratory testing. The
operation of SPT is shown in Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.2 Schematic Diagram of Split Spoon Sampler (Coduto, 2001)
9|P ag e
Figure 3.3 Demonstration of Standard Penetration Test with Donut Hammer

(Coduto, 2001)
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT-N) value can be correlated with the relative density of
cohesionless soil and consistency of cohesive soil shown in Table 3.2 and 3.3, respectively.
Table 3.2. Relative Density of Sand versus SPT N value

N value
Relative Density Dr (%)
(blows/ft or 305mm)
0 to 4 Very loose 0 to 15
4 to 10 Loose 15 to 35
10 to 30 Medium 35 to 65
30 to 50 Dense 65 to 85
> 50 Very dense 85 to 100
(Source: Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990, p. 2-19, based on Terzaghi and Peck, 1967, and Lambe and
Whitman, 1969)
10 | P a g e
Table 3.3. Consistency of Sand versus SPT N value and Approximate Undrained Shear
Strength, su
N value
Consistency Approximate su/pa
(blows/ft or 305mm)
0–2 Very Soft <1/8
2–4 Soft 1/8 to 1/4
4–8 Medium Stiff 1/4 to 1/2
8 – 15 Stiff ½ to 1.0
15 – 30 Very Stiff 1.0 to 2.0
> 30 Hard >2.0
(Source: Kulhawy and Mayne, 1990, p. 4-54, based on Terzaghi and Peck, 1967)
3.5 Observation of Groundwater Level

During the investigation program, groundwater level recording was carefully carried out by
using water sounding gauge after completion of drilling work. The groundwater table was
recorded from ground elevation. The ground water level at boring points is shown in Table 3.2.
However, fluctuations in groundwater level may occur because of seasonal variations in the
amount of rainfall, runoff, and other factors. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations
should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.
Table 3.4 Groundwater Level at Boring Points

Borehole Date of Measurement Ground Water Level -(m)
BH-1 26-January-24 -1.0m
BH-2 26-January-24 -1.50m
3.6 Characteristics of Soil Strata
3.6.1 Stratigraphy
The subsurface conditions encountered in the two boreholes are presented in detail on the
attached borehole logs. It should be noted that the borehole logs indicate the subsurface at
the locations of the borehole only. Subsurface conditions vary between boreholes and across
the site and between sampling points and depths. Based on the results obtained from two
boreholes, the idealized subsurface condition is summarized as follows:
11 | P a g e
Table 3.5 Idealized Subsurface Condition

Borehole Soil Relative Density/
Depth (m) SPT- N value
Number Classification Consistency
0.00 – 1.50 Fill: Silty Sand 9 loose
1.50 – 3.00 22 medium dense
3.00 – 4.50 30 very dense
6.00 – 7.50 2 very loose
Silty Sand
7.50 – 9.00 2 very loose
BH-
9.00 – 10.50 0 very loose
10.50 – 12.00 2 very loose
12.00 – 13.50 18 medium dense
13.50 – 15.00 41 hard
Sandy Elastic Silt
15.00 – 16.50 Refusal hard
0.00 – 1.50 4 very loose

Fill: Silty Sand
1.50 – 3.00 10 loose
7.50 – 9.00 6 loose
BH-2
9.00 – 10.50 Silty Sand 7 loose
10.50 – 12.00 4 very loose
12.00 – 13.50 13 medium dense
13.50 – 15.00 37 dense
15.00 – 16.50 Refusal very dense
Loose to medium dense Layer

0.00 to 3.0 meters: Fill materials composed of silty sand of loose to medium dense condition.
The SPT-N values range from 4 to 22.
Medium Dense Layer

3.00 to 6.0 meters: Predominantly silty sand of medium dense condition. The SPT-N values
range from 14 to 30 with an average of 20.
12 | P a g e
Very Loose to Loose Layer

6.00 to 12.0 meters: Composed of silty sand of very loose to loose condition. The SPT-N
values range from 0 to 7 with an average of 3.4.
Medium Dense Layer

12.00 to 13.50 meters: silty sand of medium dense condition. The SPT-N values range from
13 to 18 with an average of 15.5.
Dense/Hard Layer
13.50 to 15.00 meters: Silty Sand and Sandy Silt of dense to hard/very dense condition.
The SPT-N values range from 37 to >50 with an average of >50.
The presence of very loose and loose deposits in the upper 3.0-meter layer and between 6.0
to 12.0 meters caused poor sub-surface condition having low strength.
13 | P a g e
4 LABORATORY TEST
For the investigated boreholes, a total of twenty-four (24) disturbed samples were collected
from the project site. No undisturbed sample was collected. All disturbed samples were
subjected to physical and index property tests. The tests were in accordance with the ASTM
standards.
The physical and index property tests are as follows.
o Natural Moisture Content Test (ASTM D 2216-05)

o Particle Size Analysis Test (ASTM D 422-63)
➢ Grain Size Distribution Test
o Atterberg Limits Test (ASTM D 4318-05)
➢ Liquid Limit Test
➢ Plastic Limit Test
The range of natural moisture content and Atterberg limits for the soil at the site is presented
in Table 4.1. The detailed laboratory test results are found in the Appendix.
14 | P a g e
Table 4.1 Summary of Laboratory Results

Natural Atterberg Limit
Borehole Soil
Depth (m) Moisture
Number Classification LL PI
Content (%)
0.00 – 1.50 Fill: Silty Sand 15
1.50 – 3.00 21
3.00 – 4.50 19
4.50 – 6.00 33
6.00 – 7.50 32 non-plastic
Silty Sand
7.50 – 9.00 26
BH-1 9.00 – 10.50 31
10.50 – 12.00 46
12.00 – 13.50 27
13.50 – 15.00 Sandy Elastic
39 65 21
Silt
15.00 – 16.50 Sandy Elastic
39 78 28
Silt
0.00 – 1.50 20
Fill: Silty Sand
1.50 – 3.00 26
3.00 – 4.50 25
4.50 – 6.00 35
non-plastic
6.00 – 7.50 25
7.50 – 9.00 23
BH-2 9.00 – 10.50 Silty Sand 29
10.50 – 12.00 47
12.00 – 13.50 28 42 7
13.50 – 15.00 33 non-plastic
15.00 – 16.50 31 45 11
15 | P a g e
1 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
1.1 Geotechnical Design Parameters
The geotechnical design parameters that will be useful in the design of foundation system are
generally obtained from the results of field testing and laboratory testing. In cases where these
design parameters cannot be evaluated directly neither from field tests or laboratory tests due
to unfavorable nature of deposits or uncontrolled investigation methods, geotechnical
properties are evaluated using the available test data. These predictions are made most often
from the laboratory index tests and in-situ results (i.e. SPT-N values). Table 5.1 presents the
ranges of geotechnical design parameters for the soil at the site.
Table 5.1 Recommended Geotechnical Design Parameters

Unit Weight (kN/m3)
Soil Type/Description
γd γsat γsub
Silty Sand 16.1 17.71 7.9
Elastic Silt / Sandy Silt 15.3 17.01 7.2
16 | P a g e
Undrained Internal
Borehole Shear Friction
Depth (m) Soil Classification
Number Strength, su
Angle,  (°)
(kPa)
1.0 - 24.4
2.0 - 26.3
3.0 - 27.8
4.0 - 28.3
5.0 - 28.1
6.0 - 26.8
7.0 Silty Sand - 24.4
BH-1 8.0 - 11.9
9.0 - 11.9
10.0 - 7.0
11.0 - 7.0
12.0 - 11.9
13.0 - 26.3
14.0 Elastic Silt 43 17.3
15.0 Elastic Silt 48 19.5
1.0 - 17.9
BH-2 2.0 Silty Sand - 24.4
3.0 - 25.5
17 | P a g e
Undrained Internal
Borehole Shear Friction
Depth (m) Soil Classification
Number Strength, su
Angle,  (°)
(kPa)
4.0 - 27.0
5.0 - 27.3
6.0 - 27.3
7.0 - 26.8
8.0 - 25.8
BH-2 9.0 - 24.4
10.0 - 24.7
11.0 - 24.4
12.0 - 23.8
13.0 - 25.5
14.0 - 27.5
15.0 - 29.6
1.2 Foundation Analysis Method
5.2.1 Bearing Capacity for Shallow Foundation
The soil bearing capacity equation is given below:
𝑞ult = 1.3c'N𝑐 + qN𝑞 + 0.4𝛾BN𝛾 for square foundation;
in which c = cohesion, γ = soil unit weight, q = vertical stress (γD), and Nc, Nγ, Nq =
dimensionless bearing capacity factors (Das, 2007).
5.2.1 Pile Axial Capacity
The tip capacity is given by:
qult = cNccscdcr + qNqqsqdqr + 0.5BNsdr
in which c = cohesion, γ = soil unit weight, q = vertical stress at pile tip (γD), and Nc, Nγ, Nq =
dimensionless bearing capacity factors, ζ = shape, depth and rigidity modifiers.
and side resistance is given by:
18 | P a g e
f (z) = v (z) K tan  (z)
in which h = horizontal effective stress, which acts as a normal stress on the soil-pile
interface, δ = effective stress friction angle for soil-pile interface, z = depth, v = vertical
effective stress, and K = coefficient of horizontal soil stress ( h / v ).
1.3 Foundation Recommendation
The estimated net allowable soil bearing capacity is presented in Table 5.2. These bearing
capacities include 25.0 mm settlement. A factor of safety of 3.0 was used in the analysis.
Table 5.2 Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity

Allowable Bearing Capacity (KPa)
Depth
(Factor of Safety = 3.0)
(m)
BH-1 BH-2
1.0 51 26
2.0 94 80
3.0 149 118
4.0 195 174
5.0 227 213
6.0 226 247
7.0 194 264
8.0 46 262
9.0 52 246
10.0 26 280
11.0 28 294
12.0 67 296
13.0 420 388
14.0 374 484
15.0 496 662
Taking into account the site and sub-surface condition, it is recommended that the proposed
structure is mat foundation and be supported by soil stabilization mainly deep grouting works.
19 | P a g e
The estimated net allowable soil bearing capacity of mat footing is presented in Table 5.3.
These bearing capacities include 25.0 mm settlement. A factor of safety of 3.0 was used in the
analysis. Theminimum depth of embedment shall take into consideration lateral stability and
differential settlement of the soil at the site.
Table 5.3 Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity for Mat Foundation

Allowable Bearing Capacity (KPa)
Depth
(Factor of Safety = 3.0)
(m)
BH-1 BH-2
1.0 180 110
2.0 295 291
3.0 359 324
4.0 563 479
5.0 585 532
6.0 522 565
7.0 404 560
8.0 82 519
9.0 87 457
10.0 40 499
11.0 43 504
12.0 102 489
13.0 696 634
14.0 445 783
15.0 592 1067
20 | P a g e
5.3.2 Settlement
The layers of coarse-grained materials at the site although exhibit immediate settlement due
to its high elastic properties, the existing subsurface condition will result to considerable
vertical deformation because of the very loose to lose soil deposits at some layers. This hasto
be considered in the design of the structure. Elastic settlement can be completed during or
immediately after construction. The layers of fine-grained materials at the site have generally
time-dependent deformation because of its low permeability.
5.4 Earthquake Consideration
The most prominent geologic structure in the region nearest to the project area is the West
Valley Fault (Phivolcs Certification) as illustrated in Figure 5.1 located 8.9 kilometers southeast
of the site. Unless otherwise justified by a site-specific seismic risk analysis, the seismic factors
for designing the proposed structure shall be taken from the National Structural Codeof the
Philippines (2015), in conjunction with the soil profile described herein (Table 5.5).
Figure 5.1 Nearest Fault to the Project Area (Source: Phivolcs Faultfinder)
21 | P a g e
Table 5.5 Recommended Seismic Parameters

Parameter Symbol Value
Soil Profile Type SE
Seismic Zone Factor Zone 4 0.4
Seismic source type A
Near Source Factor Na 1.04
Near Source Factor Nv 1.29
Seismic coefficient Ca 0.44 Na
Seismic coefficient Cv 0.96 Nv
Causative Fault: WVFS, 8.9 kilometers southeast of the project site
5.4.1 Liquefaction Analysis
Soil liquefaction generally occurs in saturated loose/soft to moderately dense/stiff sand, silty
sand and sandy silt soil. This happens when intense ground shaking during earthquake occurs
resulting to increase in porewater pressure with corresponding loss of shear strength and
permanent decrease in volume.
In the liquefaction analysis of the project area, the Earthquake Magnitude (M w) of 7.00 and
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) of 0.30 g are used.
The analytical evaluation of liquefaction potential calculates the factor of safety (FS) against
liquefaction in terms of cyclic stress ratio, CSR (demand), and the cyclic resistance ratio, CRR
(capacity) using the formula;
FS = CRR / CSR
If FS ≤ 1.0, there is some possibility of occurrence of liquefaction and if FS is smaller, higher

chances of liquefaction is possible.
If FS > 1.0, there is no possibility of occurrence of liquefaction.
However, even if FS ≤ 1.0, strain of soil may be within the limit of liquefaction because of the
effect of cyclic mobility of soil.
Liquefaction Potential (PL) was originally developed in Japan to estimate the potential of
liquefaction to cause foundation damage at the site (Iwasaki, 1978). PL assumes that the
severity of liquefaction is proportional to the:
22 | P a g e
1. Thickness of the liquefied layer

2. Proximity of the liquefied layer to the surface;
3. Value of the FS
The potential of liquefaction can be calculated by the formula;
20
PL = ∫0 (1. 𝐹𝑆)(10 − 0.5𝑧)𝑑𝑧
where PL is potential of liquefaction, FS is the factor of safety and z is depth in meters. Table
5.6 shows the condition for liquefaction potential
Table 5.6 Condition for Liquefaction Potential

15 < PL High Possibility of Liquefaction
5 < PL ≤ 15 Possibility of Liquefaction
0 < PL ≤ 5 Low Possibility of Liquefaction
5.4.2 Liquefaction Analysis Results
Table 5.7 presents the summary of liquefaction analysis. Based on the analysis, low possibility
to possible liquefaction is observed for a number of soil layers. The possibility of some layers
to liquefy is due to the low relative density and fine content of the sand. This is evident
throughout the depth where soil is saturated and very loose/very soft to loose/soft silty sand is
found. This condition should be taken into account in the design process.
23 | P a g e
Table 5.7 Summary of Liquefaction Analysis Results

Liquefaction Potential
Depth (m)
BH -1 BH-2
1.50 Possible Possible
3.00 NL Low
4.50 NL NL
6.00 NL NL
10.50 Possible Low
12.00 Low Low
13.50 Low Low
15.00 Low Low
16.50 Low Low
18.00 Low Low
19.50 NL NL
21.00 NL NL
* NL: Non-liquefiable
2 REFERENCES:
1. Mines and Geosciences Bureau (2010). “Geology of the Philippines” 2nd Edition,
Philippines
2. Philvocs Faultfinder, http://faultfinder.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/
3. F.H. Kulhawy and P.W. Mayne (1990) “Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for
Foundation Design” Final Report EL6800, New York
4. B. Das (2007), “Principles of Foundation Engineering” 6th Edition, Thomson
5. National Structural Code of the Philippines (2015), 7th Edition, Philippines
6. Coduto, D.P. (2001) Foundation Design: Principle and Practices. 2nd Edition, Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River.
7. Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. (1971) Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction
Potential. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE 97, SM9, 1249-
1273.
8. Iwasaki, T,, Tatsuoka, F., Tokida, K, and Yasuda, S, (1978), "A Practical Method for
Assessing Soil Liquefaction Potential Based on Case Studies at Various Sites in Japan",
2nd International Conference on Microzonation for Safer Construction Research and
Application, pp. 885-896.
9. Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., and Chung, R. M. (1985). ‘‘The influence of SPT
procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations.’’ J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE,
111(12), 1425–1445.
10. T.L. Youd and I.M. Idriss (2001) “Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the
1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance
of soils”
24 | P a g e
11. Ali M AL-Kinani and Mahmood D Ahmed 2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 737
012083
3 LIMITATIONS
The findings and recommendations are in accordance with the generally accepted engineering
principles. The analyses are based on selected points of field exploration, laboratory testing
and understanding of the proposed project. Furthermore, these are based on the assumption
that soil conditions beneath the entire structure do not vary significantly from those found at
specific borehole locations as described herein. Findings are valid as of this date. Findings
may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes of the property which can occur with the
passage of time, whether they are from natural processes or works of man, on this or adjoining
properties. Therefore, the report is subject to review should such changes occur.
4 CLOSURE
We believe that this report meets your current needs. Should you have further questions or
comments, please feel free to contact our office at your convenience.
DRILLWORKS ENGINEERING SERVICES
Prepared by:
ENGR. RUPERT PASTRANA

Consulting Geotechnical Engineer
PRC. CE 0166044
29th January 2024
25 | P a g e
26 | P a g e
`
APPENDIX
Soil Profile,
Borehole Logs,
Laboratory Results
Project: Proposed Construction of Two (2) Storey Bldg for Housing Facility of Solid Waste Facility JANUARY 2024
Location: Tripa De Gallina, Pasay City, Metro Manila

Owner: Monarch Global Construction
Soil Profile
Depth,m BH-2
BGL
BH-1
0.0
0.0 
0.0
Fill: loose silty sand with rock 4 GWL=0.90m
1.0  Fill: loose, silty sand with rock fragments fragments and gravel, brown
and gravel, black
GWL=0.70m
9
2.0 1.50 10
Fill: Medium dense, silty sand with rock
fragments and gravel, gray 3.0
3.0 22
4.0 Dense, silty sand with traces of shell Medium dense, silty sand with traces
30 of shell fragments, gray 19
fragments, grayish brown
5.0
Medium dense, silty sand with traces of
15 shell fragments, black 18
6.0 6.0
Stifft, elastic silt with traces of shell
fragments, gray
7.0
2 14
7.50
8.0 Very Loose, silty sand with traces of
shell fragments, gray Loose, silty sand traces of shell
2 fragments, gray 6
9.0
10.0
0 7
11.0
2 4
12.0
Medium dense, silty sand with traces of shell Medium dense, silty sand with
13.0
18 fragments, gray traces of shell fragments, gray 13
14.0
Dense, silty sand with traces of shell
41 Hard, sandy elastic silt with traces of fragments, gray 37
15.0 shell fragments, greenish gray
16.0
48 69
17.0 hard, sandy silt with traces of gravel, Hard, sandy elastic silt,
black greenish gray
Ref. 70
18.0 18.0 18.0
Notes: (1) Numbers on the right of the borehole columns are SPT N -values
LEGEND: (2) Numbers on the left of the borehole columns are depths
(3) GWL shown above were the latest readings
 GWL
Project : Construction of Two (2) Storey Housing Bldg Ground Elev.,m NGL Borehole No.: BH-1 Date of Test : 26Jan-24
Location : Tripa De Gallina, Pasay City, Metro Manila Ground water (m.) 0.70m Sample No. SPT-1 Tested by : R. Galabo
Owner: Monarch Global Construction Depth (m): 1.05-1.5
Moisture content, %
NON-PLASTIC
NON-PLASTIC
100
90
80
PERCENT PASSING
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001

PARTICLE SIZE DIAMTER, mm
Soil Type: silty sand USCS: SM

APPENDIX : LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Construction of Two (2) Storey Housing Bldg Ground Elev.,m NGL Borehole No.: BH-2 Date of Test : 26-Jan-24
Tripa De Gallina, Pasay City, Metro Manila Ground water (m.) Sample No. SPT-2 Tested by : R. Galab
Monarch Global Construction Depth (m): 2.55-3.0
NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM-2216)/ATTERBERG LIMIT (ASTM-D4316) LIQUID LIMIT FLOW CURVE
Type of Test LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT

NMC 48
1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Moisture content, %
46
No. of Blows 44
Tare can No. B-5 42 NON-PLASTIC

Tare Weight, gm 9.70 40
Wet Soil + Tare
101.70 NON-PLASTIC 38
Weight, gm
Dry Soil + Tare 36
85.70 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Weight, gm
Water, gm 16.00
Dry Soil, gm 76.00 No. of Blows
Moisture Content, % 21.05
LL @ 25 BLOWS,%
SIEVE ANALYSIS (ASTM-D422)
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Oven Dry Wt, gm 76.00
100
Sieve Size Diameter (mm) Individual Weight Retained Individual Percent Retained Percent Passing 10th DC Percent Passing
90
1 25.40 80
PERCENT PASSING
0.75 19.10 70
60
0.5 12.70
50
0.375 9.52 100.00 100
40
4 4.75 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 30
10 2.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 20
40 0.43 0.70 0.92 99.08 99 10
#100 0.15 30.81 40.54 58.54 59 0

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
#200 0.08 9.66 12.71 45.83 46 PARTICLE SIZE DIAMTER, mm
PAN 41.2 54.17
WASH 34.8 45.83
TOTAL 76.00 Soil Type: silty sand USCS: SM

NMC 58
1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Moisture content, %
56
No. of Blows 54
Tare can No. D-3 NON-PLASTIC
52
Tare Weight, gm 10.00
Wet Soil + Tare 50
103.11 NON-PLASTIC
Weight, gm
Dry Soil + Tare 48
88.11 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Weight, gm
Water, gm 15.00
Moisture Content, % 19.20 PL=
PI= LL @ 25 BLOWS,%
100
90
1 25.40 80
PERCENT PASSING
0.75 19.10 70
60
0.5 12.70
50
0.375 9.52 100.00 100
40
4 4.75 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 30
10 2.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 20
40 0.43 0.33 0.42 99.58 100 10
#100 0.15 30.88 39.53 60.04 60 0

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PAN 41.9 53.59
WASH 36.3 46.41

NMC 46
1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Moisture content, %
44
42
No. of Blows
Tare can No. B-6 40 NON-PLASTIC
Wet Soil + Tare
Weight, gm
Dry Soil + Tare 34
95.20 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Weight, gm
Water, gm 27.70
PI= LL @ 25 BLOWS,%
100
90
1 25.40 80
PERCENT PASSING
0.75 19.10 70
60
0.5 12.70
50
0.375 9.52 100.00 100
40
4 4.75 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 30
10 2.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 20
40 0.43 0.33 0.39 99.61 100 10
#100 0.15 27.22 31.99 67.62 68 0

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PAN 49.7 58.36
WASH 35.4 41.64
Project : Construction of Two (2) Storey Housing Bldg Ground Elev.,m NGL Borehole No.: BH-2 Date of Test : 26-Jan-24
Location : Tripa De Gallina, Pasay City Ground water (m.) Sample No. SPT-5 Tested by : R.Galab

NMC 64
1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Moisture content, %
62
60
No. of Blows
58
Tare can No. S-2 NON-PLASTIC
56
54
Wet Soil + Tare
Weight, gm
Dry Soil + Tare 50
88.11 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Weight, gm
Water, gm 25.20
PI= LL @ 25 BLOWS,%
100
90
1 25.40 80
PERCENT PASSING
0.75 19.10 70
60
0.5 12.70
50
0.375 9.52 100.00 100
40
4 4.75 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 30
10 2.00 0.35 0.44 99.56 100 20
40 0.43 6.14 7.80 91.75 92 10
#100 0.15 51.44 65.37 26.38 26 0

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PAN 62.7 79.62
WASH 16.0 20.38
Project : Construction of Two (2) Storey Housing Bldg Ground Elev.,m NGL Borehole No.: BH-2 Date of Test : 26-Jant-24

NMC 48
1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Moisture content, %
46
No. of Blows 44
Tare can No. E-6 NON-PLASTIC
42
Wet Soil + Tare 40
Weight, gm
114.50 NON-PLASTIC
Dry Soil + Tare 38
93.11 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Weight, gm
Water, gm 21.39
PI= LL @ 25 BLOWS,%
100
90
1 25.40 80
PERCENT PASSING
0.75 19.10 70
60
0.5 12.70
50
0.375 9.52 100.00 100
40
4 4.75 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 30
10 2.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 20
40 0.43 0.32 0.38 99.62 100 10
#100 0.15 50.81 61.06 38.55 39 0

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PAN 62.4 74.93
WASH 20.9 25.07
Project : Construction of Two Storey Housing Bldg Ground Elev.,m NGL
Location : Tripa De Gallina, Pasay City Ground water (m.) SPT-7
Owner: Monarch Global Construction
Moisture content, %
NON-PLASTIC
NON-PLASTIC
100
90
80
PERCENT PASSING
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001

PARTICLE SIZE DIAMTER, mm
Soil Type: silty sand USCS: SM

Location : Tripa De Gallina, Pasay City Ground water (m.) Sample No. SPT-8 Tested by : R. Galab

NMC
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 64
Moisture content, %
62
No. of Blows 60
58
Tare can No. R-2 NON-PLASTIC
56
54
Wet Soil + Tare
Weight, gm
Dry Soil + Tare 50
108.11 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Weight, gm
Water, gm 45.19
PI= LL @ 25 BLOWS,%
100
90
1 25.40 80
PERCENT PASSING
0.75 19.10 70
60
0.5 12.70
50
0.375 9.52 100.00 100
40
4 4.75 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 30
10 2.00 0.32 0.32 99.68 100 20
40 0.43 5.30 5.35 94.33 94 10
#100 0.15 51.65 52.13 42.19 42 0

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PAN 62.9 63.52
WASH 36.1 36.48

NMC
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 64
Moisture content, %
62
No. of Blows 60
58
Tare can No. E-7 NON-PLASTIC
56
54
Wet Soil + Tare
Weight, gm
Dry Soil + Tare 50
93.70 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Weight, gm
Water, gm 22.50
PI= LL @ 25 BLOWS,%
100
90
1 25.40 80
PERCENT PASSING
0.75 19.10 70
60
0.5 12.70
50
0.375 9.52 100.00 100
40
4 4.75 0.44 0.53 99.47 99 30
10 2.00 1.85 2.21 97.27 97 20
40 0.43 12.99 15.50 81.77 82 10
#100 0.15 42.00 50.12 31.65 32 0

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PAN 63.6 75.92
WASH 20.2 24.08
Type of Test LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT y = -0.3482x + 73.042

NMC 70
1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Moisture content, %
68
66
No. of Blows 18 24 32
Tare can No. M-1 B-11 B-70 B-21 D-12 64
Tare Weight, gm 9.66 9.70 9.70 9.52 10.10 62
Wet Soil + Tare
79.40 58.92 56.06 57.73 33.31 60
Weight, gm
Dry Soil + Tare 58
60.00 39.19 37.89 39.28 26.20 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Weight, gm
Water, gm 19.40 19.73 18.17 18.45 7.11
Dry Soil, gm 50.34 29.49 28.19 29.76 16.10 No. of Blows
Moisture Content, % 38.54 66.90 64.46 62.00 PL= 44.16
PI= 21.45 LL @ 25 BLOWS,% 65.607

100
90
1 25.40 80
PERCENT PASSING
0.75 19.10 70
60
0.5 12.70
50
0.375 9.52 100.00 100
40
4 4.75 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 30
10 2.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 20
40 0.43 0.20 0.40 99.60 100 10
#100 0.15 0.33 0.66 98.95 99 0

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PAN 0.7 1.45
WASH 49.6 98.55
TOTAL 50.34 Soil Type: elastic sillt USCS: MH
Location : Tripa De Gallina, Pasay City Ground water (m.) Sample No. SPT-11 Tested by : R.Galabo

NMC 84
1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Moisture content, %
82
80
Tare can No. A-1 Q-1 Q-10 Q-31 A-12 78
Tare Weight, gm 10.01 9.58 9.70 9.60 9.60 76
Wet Soil + Tare
75.60 49.80 51.92 52.17 34.30 74
Weight, gm
Dry Soil + Tare 72
57.11 31.90 33.38 33.73 25.98 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Weight, gm
Water, gm 18.49 17.90 18.54 18.44 8.32
PI= 27.55 LL @ 25 BLOWS,% 78.342

100
90
1 25.40 80
PERCENT PASSING
0.75 19.10 70
60
0.5 12.70
50
0.375 9.52 100.00 100
40
4 4.75 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 30
10 2.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 20
40 0.43 2.01 4.27 95.73 96 10
#100 0.15 1.34 2.85 92.89 93 0

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PAN 7.9 16.67
WASH 39.3 83.33
TOTAL 47.10 Soil Type: elastic silt USCS: MH
Project : Construction of Two (2) Storey Housing Bldg Ground Elev.,m NGL Borehole No.: BH-1 Date of Test : 26-Jan.24

NMC 50
1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Moisture content, %
48
46
Tare can No. D-10 J-32 J-28 J-18 K-14 44
Tare Weight, gm 9.80 9.52 9.56 9.60 9.75 42
Wet Soil + Tare
90.11 53.82 49.50 49.05 33.70 40
Weight, gm
Dry Soil + Tare 38
74.70 39.81 37.20 37.32 27.73 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
Weight, gm
Water, gm 15.41 14.01 12.30 11.73 5.97
PI= 10.89 LL @ 25 BLOWS,% 44.0895

100
90
1 25.40 80
PERCENT PASSING
0.75 19.10 70
60
0.5 12.70
50
0.375 9.52 100.00 100
40
4 4.75 3.22 4.96 95.04 95 30
10 2.00 1.34 2.06 92.97 93 20
40 0.43 2.70 4.16 88.81 89 10
#100 0.15 8.99 13.85 74.96 75 0

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PAN 21.0 32.36
WASH 43.9 67.64
TOTAL 64.90 Soil Type: sandy silt USCS: ML
Project : Construction of Two (2) Storey Housing Bldg Ground Elev.,m NGL Borehole No.: BH-2 Date of Test : 26 Jan24

NMC 48
1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Moisture content, %
46
No. of Blows 44
Tare can No. F-1 42 NON-PLASTIC

Wet Soil + Tare
Weight, gm
Dry Soil + Tare 36

92.60 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Weight, gm
Water, gm 17.00
LL @ 25 BLOWS,%
100
90
1 25.40 80
PERCENT PASSING
0.75 19.10 70
60
0.5 12.70
50
0.375 9.52 100.00 100
40
4 4.75 10.66 12.85 87.15 87 30
10 2.00 6.73 8.11 79.04 79 20
40 0.43 17.01 20.50 58.54 59 10
#100 0.15 17.33 20.88 37.66 38 0

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PAN 54.9 66.20
WASH 28.1 33.80

NMC 48
1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Moisture content, %
46
No. of Blows 44
Tare can No. T-2 42 NON-PLASTIC

Wet Soil + Tare
Weight, gm
Dry Soil + Tare 36
96.50 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Weight, gm
Water, gm 22.70
LL @ 25 BLOWS,%
100
90
1 25.40 80
PERCENT PASSING
0.75 19.10 70
60
0.5 12.70
50
0.375 9.52 100.00 100
40
4 4.75 6.90 7.95 92.05 92 30
10 2.00 6.23 7.17 84.88 85 20
40 0.43 9.01 10.38 74.50 75 10
#100 0.15 16.77 19.31 55.19 55 0

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PAN 45.9 52.89
WASH 40.9 47.11

NMC 58
1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Moisture content, %
56
No. of Blows 54
Tare can No. N-1 NON-PLASTIC
52
Wet Soil + Tare 50
Weight, gm
101.42 NON-PLASTIC
Dry Soil + Tare 48
82.90 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Weight, gm
Water, gm 18.52
PI= LL @ 25 BLOWS,%
100
90
1 25.40 80
PERCENT PASSING
0.75 19.10 70
60
0.5 12.70
50
0.375 9.52 100.00 100
40
4 4.75 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 30
10 2.00 0.99 1.36 98.64 99 20
40 0.43 3.90 5.35 93.29 93 10
#100 0.15 18.88 25.91 67.38 67 0

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PAN 45.2 62.06
WASH 27.7 37.94

NMC 46
1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Moisture content, %
44
No. of Blows 42
Tare can No. A-4 40 NON-PLASTIC

Wet Soil + Tare
Weight, gm
Dry Soil + Tare 34

70.03 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Weight, gm
Water, gm 20.98
PI= LL @ 25 BLOWS,%
100
90
1 25.40 80
PERCENT PASSING
0.75 19.10 70
60
0.5 12.70
50
0.375 9.52 100.00 100
40
4 4.75 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 30
10 2.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 20
40 0.43 3.60 6.00 94.00 94 10
#100 0.15 16.25 27.07 66.93 67 0

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PAN 38.3 63.78
WASH 21.7 36.22

NMC 70
1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Moisture content, %
68
No. of Blows 18 24 32 66
Tare can No. Z-1 K-1 K-3 K-4 Z-1
64
Tare Weight, gm 9.83 9.75 9.50 9.53 9.83
Wet Soil + Tare 62
110.02 69.00 66.92 60.43 38.90
Weight, gm
Dry Soil + Tare 60
90.20 45.20 44.25 40.58 30.60 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Weight, gm
Water, gm 19.82 23.80 22.67 19.85 8.30
PI= 25.40 LL @ 25 BLOWS,% 65.359

100
90
1 25.40 80
PERCENT PASSING
0.75 19.10 70
60
0.5 12.70
50
0.375 9.52 100.00 100
40
4 4.75 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 30
10 2.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 20
40 0.43 3.99 4.96 95.04 95 10
#100 0.15 23.22 28.89 66.14 66 0

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PAN 49.8 61.93
WASH 30.6 38.07

NMC 48
1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Moisture content, %
46
No. of Blows 44
Tare can No. G-10 NON-PLASTIC
42
Wet Soil + Tare 40
Weight, gm
111.16 NON-PLASTIC
Dry Soil + Tare 38
92.11 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Weight, gm
Water, gm 19.05
PI= LL @ 25 BLOWS,%
100
90
1 25.40 80
PERCENT PASSING
0.75 19.10 70
60
0.5 12.70
50
0.375 9.52 100.00 100
40
4 4.75 14.77 17.90 82.10 82 30
10 2.00 3.45 4.18 77.92 78 20
40 0.43 17.20 20.85 57.07 57 10
#100 0.15 13.33 16.16 40.91 41 0

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PAN 56.5 68.42
WASH 26.1 31.58
Project : Construction of Two (2) Storey Housing Bldg Ground Elev.,m NGL Borehole No.: BH-2 Date of Test : 26-Jan 24

NMC
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 48
Moisture content, %
46
44
Tare can No. P-1 G-5 G-7 G-2 F-2
Tare Weight, gm 9.79 8.41 8.90 8.61 9.55 42
Wet Soil + Tare 40
146.50 67.60 63.19 59.36 38.00
Weight, gm
Dry Soil + Tare 38
115.60 49.10 46.83 44.58 30.40 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Weight, gm
Water, gm 30.90 18.50 16.36 14.78 7.60
PI= 6.67 LL @ 25 BLOWS,% 43.1255

100
90
1 25.40 80
PERCENT PASSING
0.75 19.10 70
60
0.5 12.70
50
0.375 9.52 100.00 100
40
4 4.75 11.32 10.70 89.30 89 30
10 2.00 6.85 6.47 82.83 83 20
40 0.43 16.30 15.40 67.42 67 10
#100 0.15 21.76 20.57 46.86 47 0

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PAN 67.2 63.55
WASH 38.6 36.45

NMC 47
1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Moisture content, %
45
43
Tare can No. G-2 Q-2 Q-1 Q-3 C-7 41
Tare Weight, gm 10.12 9.58 9.56 9.52 9.80 39
Wet Soil + Tare
153.40 74.50 69.92 71.23 32.10 37
Weight, gm
Dry Soil + Tare 35
107.30 54.90 52.28 53.62 27.10 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Weight, gm
Water, gm 46.10 19.60 17.64 17.61 5.00
PI= 12.51 LL @ 25 BLOWS,% 41.414

100
90
1 25.40 80
PERCENT PASSING
0.75 19.10 70
60
0.5 12.70
50
0.375 9.52 100.00 100
40
4 4.75 4.77 4.91 95.09 95 30
10 2.00 3.85 3.96 91.13 91 20
40 0.43 10.82 11.13 80.00 80 10
#100 0.15 50.02 51.47 28.52 29 0

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PAN 81.7 84.03
WASH 15.5 15.97

NMC
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 48
Moisture content, %
46
No. of Blows 18 24 32 44
Tare can No. Y-1 A-9 A-4 A-6 A-2 42
Tare Weight, gm 9.99 9.80 9.60 10.00 10.00 40
Wet Soil + Tare
122.60 81.50 74.30 60.43 44.40 38
Weight, gm
Dry Soil + Tare 36
98.11 59.90 54.91 45.58 35.40 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Weight, gm
Water, gm 24.49 21.60 19.39 14.85 9.00
PI= 7.08 LL @ 25 BLOWS,% 42.514

100
90
1 25.40 80
PERCENT PASSING
0.75 19.10 70
60
0.5 12.70
50
0.375 9.52 100.00 100
40
4 4.75 7.01 7.96 92.04 92 30
10 2.00 4.66 5.29 86.76 87 20
40 0.43 8.90 10.10 76.66 77 10
#100 0.15 17.65 20.03 56.63 57 0

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PAN 56.3 63.92
WASH 31.8 36.08

NMC 92
1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Moisture content, %
90
88
No. of Blows 86
Tare can No. D-12
84
NON-PLASTIC
82
Wet Soil + Tare
Weight, gm
Dry Soil + Tare 78
100.04 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
Weight, gm
Water, gm 29.57
PI= LL @ 25 BLOWS,% 85.337

100
90
1 25.40 80
PERCENT PASSING
0.75 19.10 70
60
0.5 12.70
50
0.375 9.52 100.00 100
40
4 4.75 3.11 3.46 96.54 97 30
10 2.00 5.15 5.73 90.82 91 20
40 0.43 9.03 10.04 80.78 81 10
#100 0.15 26.66 29.64 51.13 51 0

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PAN 56.5 62.83
WASH 33.4 37.17

NMC 50
1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Moisture content, %
48
46
Tare can No. R-1 B-18 B-34 B-9 A-14 44
Tare Weight, gm 10.01 9.70 8.90 10.01 9.60 42
Wet Soil + Tare
94.20 57.10 63.72 55.47 37.00 40
Weight, gm
Dry Soil + Tare 38
74.40 42.10 46.79 41.83 30.05 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
Weight, gm
Water, gm 19.80 15.00 16.93 13.64 6.95
PI= 10.62 LL @ 25 BLOWS,% 44.6015

100
90
1 25.40 80
PERCENT PASSING
0.75 19.10 70
60
0.5 12.70
50
0.375 9.52 100.00 100
40
4 4.75 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 30
10 2.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 20
40 0.43 6.11 9.49 90.51 91 10
#100 0.15 18.20 28.27 62.25 62 0

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PAN 36.4 56.47
WASH 28.0 43.53
Location : Tripa De Gallina, Pasay City Ground water (m.) Sample No. SPT-12 Tested by : R. Galab

NMC 72
1 2 3 4 1 2 3
Moisture content, %
70
68
66
Tare can No. R-1 B-20 B-38 B-29 A-20
64
Tare Weight, gm 10.01 9.70 8.90 10.01 9.60
62
Wet Soil + Tare
94.20 58.90 57.65 55.47 38.09 60
Weight, gm
Dry Soil + Tare 58
74.40 39.10 38.39 37.89 29.70 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38
Weight, gm
Water, gm 19.80 19.80 19.26 17.58 8.39
PI= 24.99 LL @ 25 BLOWS,% 66.7325

100
90
1 25.40 80
PERCENT PASSING
0.75 19.10 70
60
0.5 12.70
50
0.375 9.52 100.00 100
40
4 4.75 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 30
10 2.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100 20
40 0.43 3.05 4.74 95.26 95 10
#100 0.15 16.85 26.17 69.09 69 0

100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
PAN 29.2 45.41
WASH 35.2 54.59
TOTAL 64.39 Soil Type: sandy elastic silt USCS: MH

Geotechnical-Investigation-Report - Proposed Construction of Two Storey Housing BLDG - Pasay City

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical-Investigation-Report - Proposed Construction of Two Storey Housing BLDG - Pasay City

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical-Investigation-Report - Proposed Construction of Two Storey Housing BLDG - Pasay City

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF TWO (2) -

Tripa De Gallina, Pasay City, Metro Manila

MONARCH GLOBAL CONSTRUCTION

30th January 2024

Reference No.: DW-24-01-005

3. FIELD INVESTIGATION…………... …………………………………………………………… 5

5. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ……………………………………………………………... 18

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT PROPOSED

Geotechnical investigation is generally carried out to evaluate the sub-surface condition of a

1.1 Objective of the Investigation

1.2 Scope of Work

1.3 Project Location and Description

Figure 1.1 Location of the Project Area (Source: Google Map)

1.4 Project Duration and Personnel

Photo 1.1 View of the Project Area

Figure 1.3 Organizational Chart for the Geotechnical Investigation Program

1.5 Equipment Applied in the Project

Table 1.1 Specification of Boring Equipment

1.6 Laboratory Instruments

Table 1.2 Laboratory Instruments

Table 3.1 Quantity of Boring

3.2 Borehole Location

3.3 Boring Method

3.4 Standard Penetration Test (SPT)

Figure 3.2 Schematic Diagram of Split Spoon Sampler (Coduto, 2001)

Figure 3.3 Demonstration of Standard Penetration Test with Donut Hammer

Table 3.2. Relative Density of Sand versus SPT N value

3.5 Observation of Groundwater Level

Table 3.4 Groundwater Level at Boring Points

3.6 Characteristics of Soil Strata

Table 3.5 Idealized Subsurface Condition

0.00 – 1.50 4 very loose

Loose to medium dense Layer

Medium Dense Layer

Very Loose to Loose Layer

Medium Dense Layer

The physical and index property tests are as follows.

o Natural Moisture Content Test (ASTM D 2216-05)

➢ Plastic Limit Test

Table 4.1 Summary of Laboratory Results

1.1 Geotechnical Design Parameters

Table 5.1 Recommended Geotechnical Design Parameters

1.2 Foundation Analysis Method

5.2.1 Bearing Capacity for Shallow Foundation

The soil bearing capacity equation is given below:

𝑞ult = 1.3c'N𝑐 + qN𝑞 + 0.4𝛾BN𝛾 for square foundation;

5.2.1 Pile Axial Capacity

The tip capacity is given by:

qult = cNccscdcr + qNqqsqdqr + 0.5BNsdr

and side resistance is given by:

f (z) = v (z) K tan  (z)

effective stress, and K = coefficient of horizontal soil stress ( h / v ).

1.3 Foundation Recommendation

Table 5.2 Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity

Table 5.3 Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity for Mat Foundation

5.4 Earthquake Consideration

Table 5.5 Recommended Seismic Parameters

5.4.1 Liquefaction Analysis