PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK

460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila

______________________________________________________________________________

2
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 4
OBJECTIVES OF INVESTIGATIONS 4
SURFACE INVESTIGATION PROGRAM 4
LABORATORY TESTS 6
REGIONAL GEOLOGY 6
SUBSOIL CONDITION 7
DESIGN METHODOLOGY 8
RECOMMENDATIONS 8
TYPES AND DEPTH OF FOUNDATION 9
SETTLEMENT LIMITATIONS 9
TABLE 1 10
Allowable Bearing Pressure 10
SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATION 12
SITE PREPARATION AND EXCAVATION 13
LIMITATIONS / COMMENTS 13
REFERENCES CITED 14
APPENDICES
Vicinity Map
Borehole Location Plan
Generalized Subsoil Profile
Final Boring Log
Summary of Laboratory Tests Result
Practice – size Distribution Curve
Site Pictures

3
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION
This geotechnical evaluation was prepared for the Design Evaluation of PROPOSED FOUR
(4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK, located at 460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila. Single (1)
borehole was drilled using Standard penetration test with split barrel SPT (ASTM D1586) to a
depth reaching hard bearing layers to determine the conditions of the foundation soil.
This report incorporates all the field and laboratory procedures incorporates all the field
and laboratory procedures and results adopted in the investigation as well as the evaluation of
the test results for the foundation analysis. The level of information is believed adequate to judge
the probable engineering performance engineering performance of the sub soils.

OBJECTIVES OF THE INVESTIGATION

Based on the requirement of the project, the following objectives were established for the work:

 To conduct a detailed soil investigation of the area and check the integrity of the
foundation of the soil;
 To be able to recommend the most suitable type of foundation scheme and
associated net bearing capacities;
 To evaluate the magnitude of the expected foundation settlements and to
recommend any mitigation procedures;
 To identify any foundation soil stability problems within the project area.

SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION PROGRAM

Single (1) borehole was carried out to depth reaching hard bearing layers. The borehole was
located in accessible area within the project site.
To advance the borehole wash bring was employed. Standard penetration test (SPT) was
carried out in soil at depth intervals of not more than 2.0m. The SPT is performed using a standard
split-spoon sampler, having 50mm outside diameter, 35mm inside diameter and about 710mm
length, which is attached at the bottom of a string of drill rods. The sampler is driven into the
bottom of the borehole by means of 63-kg hammer falling freely along a guide from a height of
760mm onto an anvil at the top of the drill rods. The sampler is driven to an initial penetration
of 300mm to bypass distributed soil at the bottom of the borehole. Then it is driven 300mm
further. The number of the blows for the last 300mm of penetration is recorded. The total
number of blows for the last 300 mm of penetration is known as the standard penetration
resistance (N) of the soil. Correlations have been developed between the SPT N value and soil
parameters which can be used for bearing estimates.

4
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

During the SPT distributed soil samples are obtained in the split-barrel sampler as it
penetrates into the soil. Part of the retrieved soil is placed in moisture-tight plastic bags for
further examination and laboratory testing.
The results of the SPT, description of the soil samples and other field data are shown in the
boring log. Estimates of soil in-situ relative density shown in the soil description are based on the
tables below.

Relative Density of Sand according to results of Standard

Penetration Test
QU (KN/m2) Relative Density
< -50 Very Loose
50 – 90 Loose
90 – 140 Medium dense
140 – 200 Dense
>200 Very dense

Relation of Consistency of Cohesive Soils SPT N Value,

and Unconfined Compressive Strength, QU
CONSISTENCY QU (KN/m2)
Very soft < -50
Soft 50 – 90
Medium 90 – 140
Stiff 140 – 200
Very Stiff 200 – 400
Hard >400

Selected soil samples were subjected to natural moisture content determination. Atterberg
limits test and sieve analysis. Some intact rock cores were subjected to unfined compression
testing.
The laboratory tests were carried out in accordance with ASTM procedures.

5
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

LABORATORY TESTS
The samples are tested in the laboratory to provide soil classification data and index
properties of soils encountered during the field exploration. These tests were performed in
general conformance with current ASTM standards. The following tests were performed on
selected samples:
a. Liquid and Plastic Limits (Attenberg Limits). Attenberg Limits tests of fine Grained (i.e.,
clayed or silly) soil were performed to provide soil classification data and to evaluate the
moisture content at which the behavior of soil changes. Tests were performed in
accordance with ASTM D 4318.
b. Soil Practice analysis (Sieve Analysis). Sieve Analysis were performed to evaluate the
gradation characteristics of the soil and to provide soil classification data. Tests were
performed in accordance with ASTM D 422.
c. Moisture Content. Moisture Content tests were performed to determine the Amount of
water present in the soil mass. Tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 2216.

The soil samples were classified according to the United Soil Classification System (ASTM D
2487). This system is based on the identification of soils according to their particle-size, gradation,
plasticity index, liquid limit, and organic matter content.

REGIONAL GEOLOGY

Manila is the capital of the Philippines and the most densely populated city proper in the
world.[3] It was the first chartered City by virtue of the Philippine Commission Act 183 on July
31, 1901 and gained autonomy with the passage of Republic Act No. 409 or the “Revised
Charter of the City of Manila” on June 18, 1949.[9] These soil characteristics define soil type
nos. 17 and 18, commonly called Novaliches Clay Loam Adobe, and Guadalupe Clay.
The City of Manila is located on the eastern shores of the Manila Bay in one of the finest
harbors in the country. The Pasig River flows through the middle of the city, dividing it into the
north and south. Manila is made up of 16 districts: Binondo, Ermita, Intramuros, Malate, Paco,
Pandacan, Port Area, Quiapo, Sampaloc, San Andres, San Miguel, San Nicolas, Santa Ana, Santa
Cruz, Santa Mesa and Tondo. Manila is also made up of Six Congressional Districts that
represents the city on the Lower House of the Philippine Congress.
The City of Manila is situated on the eastern shore of Manila Bay, on the western edge
of Luzon, 1300 km from mainland Asia.[54] One of Manila’s greatest natural resources is the
protected harbor upon which its sits, regarded as the finest in all of Asia.[55] The Pasig River
flows through the middle of city, dividing it into the north and south.[3][4] The overall grade of

6
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

the city’s central, built-up areas, is relatively consistent with the natural flatness of its overall
natural geography, generally exhibiting only slight differentiation otherwise.
Almost all of Manila sits on top of centuries of prehistoric alluvial deposits built by the
waters of the Pasig River and on some land reclaimed from Manila Bay. Manila’s land has been
altered substantially by human intervention, with considerable land reclamation along the
waterfronts since the American colonial times. Some of the City’s natural variations in
topography have been evened out. As of 2013, Manila had a total area of 42.88 square
kilometers.[3][4].

SUBSOIL CONDITION
Based on the soil boring conducted at the site, clayey (CH) associated with high plasticity
covers the area for at least 2.0 meters depth. The soil is medium in resistance as implied by intial
standard penetration test N-value of 8. Subsequent layer of gravely clay (CL) exhibiting slight
plasticity extends to at least 4.0 meters depth. The soil varies from stiff as reflected by SPT N-
values of merely 12 to 28.
Lower formation of sand-clay mixture (CL) of nil plasticity extends after 4.0 meters level. The
soil is consistently very stiff having SPT N-values from 28 to 37 meters down to 6 meters depth.

7
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

DESIGN METHODOLOGY
RIGID METHOD
The simplest approach to structural design of cluster or mat foundation is the rigid
method (also known as the conventional method or the conventional method of static
equilibrium). This method assumes the cluster / mat is such more rigid than the underlying
soils, which means any distortion in the cluster or mat are too small to significantly impact
the distribution of bearing pressure depends only on the applied loads and the weight of mat,
and either uniform across the bottom of the cluster / mat (if the normal acts through the
centroid and no moment load is present) or varies linearly a cross the mat (if eccentric or
moment loads are present) this is the same simplifying assumption used in the analysis of
spread footings.
The simple distribution makes it easy to compute the flexural stresses and deflections
(differential settlements) in the mat. For analysis purposes, the mat becomes an inverted and
simply loaded two-way slab, which means the shears, moments and deflection may be easily
computed using the principles of the structural mechanics. The engineer can then select the
appropriate mat thickness & reinforcement. Although this type of analysis is appropriate for
spread footings, it doesn’t accurately model mat foundations becomes the width-to-
thickness ratio is much greater in mats and the assumption of rigidity is no longer valid.
Because the rigid method does not consider this redistribution of bearing pressure, it
doesn’t produce reliable estimates of the shear, moments, and deformations in the mat. In
addition, even if the mat was perfectly rigid, the simplified bearing pressure distribution in
figure (6.6) are not correct-in reality; the bearing pressure is greater on the edges and smaller
in the center than shown in this figure.
NON-RIGID METHOD
To become the in accuracies of the rigid method by using analyses that consider
deformations in the mat and their influence on the bearing pressure distribution. These are
called non-rigid methods, and produce more accurate values of mat deformations and
stresses, unfortunately non-rigid analyses also are more difficult to implement because they
require consideration of soil-structure interaction and because the bearing pressure
distribution is not as simple.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on evaluation of the information available from the field and laboratory testing.
Combined or cluster footing for the proposed structure is recommended as the main foundation
design choice. For earthquake-resistant foundation design, we recommend foundation layout

8
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

with different elements of the substructure tied together. Use Soil Bearing Capacity of 130 KPa
at 2.00 meters depth.

TYPES AND DEPTH OF FOUNDATION

Considering the type of structure under study, the loads expected there from and the
subsurface conditions at the site. Isolated footing or Combined Footing w/ footing tie beam for
uneven settlement, would be the most economical foundation for the proposed Structure.
Combined Footings. If adjacent footings are close to each other it is suggested that the
footing be combined for ease of construction. It is further suggested to integrate the grade beams
with the combined footings to obtain a stiffer foundation from the inverted T configuration. The
foundation can then be analyzed as part of the resisting frame which may result in a more
economical and safer structure.
If structural loads are distributed fairly evenly over the entire building area settlement will be
fairly uniform. Total settlements will depend on the size of the footing but cannot conceivably
exceed 16mm.

SETTLEMENT LIMITATIONS
The two essential requirements in the design of foundation are that the total settlement of
the structure be limited to a tolerably small amount and that differential settlement of the
various parts of the structure be eliminated as nearly as possible.
With respect to possible structural damage, the elimination of differential settlement, i.e.,
different amounts of settlement within the same structure is even more important than
limitations on uniform overall settlement.
To limit settlements as indicated, it is necessary to:

 Transmit the load of the structure to a soil stratum of sufficient strength.

 Spread the load over a sufficiently large area of that stratum to minimize bearing
pressure.
A shallow single Foundation unit that supports all columns & walls of a structure or parts of
a structure may be called a raft foundation. A raft foundation is also called as mat foundation.
They are usually provided for multi-storey buildings, overhead water tanks, chimneys, etc. A raft
foundation becomes unavoidable in submerged structure, in some multi-storey structures with
basement and in retaining walls, etc. the raft foundation is usually designed as a flat slab.

9
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

Table 1. Recommended allowable bearing pressures of strip footing at location of BH-1.

Allowable
Depth below natural
Type of material bearing
ground surface, m
pressure, KPa
1.0 Clayey (High Plasticity) 100
2.0 Clayey (High Plasticity) 130
3.0 Gravel Clay (slightly plastic) 160
4.0 Gravel Clay (slightly plastic) 200
5.0 Sandy Clay (slightly plastic) 240
6.0 Sandy Clay (slightly plastic) 280

This report has been prepared as a guide in the design of the foundations of Proposed Four
(4) Storey Residential Building located at Talumpong St., Mandaluyong City. Its scope is limited
to this project and at the site described herein.
Provide adequate shorings during excavation. Continuous pumping may be necessary.
Provide 100mm thick lean concrete at footing levels to enable placing of rebars on a clean
surface.
This report is true for the location and project it was prepared for. It is not valid other projects.

Coefficient of subgrade reaction:

Because non-rigid method consider the effects of local mat deformations on the
distribution of bearing pressure, it is necessary, it is necessary to define the relation slip
between settlement & bearing pressure. This is usually done using the coefficient of subgrade
reaction, Ks (also known as the modulus of subgrade reaction, or the subgrade modulus).

𝑞
𝐾𝑠 = 𝛿

Where:
K = coefficient of subgrade reaction.
q = Bearing pressure.
𝞭 = Settlement.

10
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

The coefficient K has units of force length cubed. Although we use the same units to wt., K is
not the same as the unit wt. and they are not numerically equal.
The interaction between the mat and the underlying soil may there be represented as a “bed of
springs” each with a stiffness K per unit area, as shown in fig (6.7). Portions of the mat that
experience more settlement produce more compression in the “springs,” which represents the
higher bearing pressure, whereas portions that settle less don’t compress the springs as for and
thus have less bearing pressure. The sum of these spring forces must equal the applied structural
loads plus the wt. of the mat.

∑p + Wf – uD = ∫ q dA = ∫ 𝞭 ks dA
Where:
∑P = sum of structural loads acting on the mat.
Wf = Pore of the mat.
uD = Bearing pressure between mat & soil.
A = mat-soil contact Area.
𝞭 = settlement at a point on the mat.
This method of describing bearing pressure is called a soil-structure interaction analysis
because the bearing pressure depends on the mat deformations, and the mat deformations
depends on the bearing pressure.
For the supporting soils on the area, the estimated modulus of subgrade reaction2, (k) shall
be,
Depth Modulus of Subgrade Reaction (k), kN/m3
Above 2m 5,600
Below 2m 40,000
Allowable Bearing Pressure
This method used for determining soil’s bearing capacity include application of bearing
capacity equations and utilization of penetration resistance data obtained during soil exploration.
The bearing capacity equations developed by K. Terzaghi during the 1930’s, although still in
use, are now considered by many to be conservative. The following bearing capacity equation
proposed by Meyerhof (1963) is similar to Terzaghi’s but includes a shape factor and factors of
depth and inclination.
Qu = 1.3cNc + qNq + 0.4yNy
Qallow = Qu / Fs

11
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

Where qu = ultimate bearing capacity; c = cohesion, q = effective stress at the base of the
footing = Q/B per unit length, y = unit weight of soil removed, and B = width of footing (Meyerhof,
1963). The equation involves the evaluation of bearing capacity factors Nc, Nq and Ny (Meyerhof,
1963 and Vesic, 1973), shape factors Sc, Sq, Sy (De Beer, 1970), and depth factors Dc, Dq, and Dy
(Hansen, 1970).
The allowable bearing capacity pressure that can be used for foundation design is shown in
Table 1. the allowable bearing pressure applies to dead plus live loads and may be increased by
1/3 for short-term loading due to wind or seismic forces. These values include factor of safety of
at least 3.

SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATION

The proposed project is expected to experience strong ground shaking during the life of the
project as a result of a large earthquake that have the potential to disrupt portions of the project
components and result in structural damage. To mitigate, the design will take into account strong
ground shaking that could be generated by nearby faults to an acceptable level of damage that
infrastructure may sustain from that level of ground shaking.
The structure should be designed for lateral force requirements as set forth in the National
Structural Code of the Philippines (2010).
Recommended parameters for input to seismic modeling are presented in Table 2 based on
information contained in this report.

Table 2. Recommended seismic design parameters

Seismic Design Parameter Reference Recommended Value
Soil Profile Type NSCP Table 208-2 Sc
Seismic Zone Factor Z NSCP Table 208-3 0.40
Seismic Source Type NSCP Table 208-6 A

The most recent mapping by the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
(PHIVOLCS) should be used to determine the closest distance to the seismic sources.

12
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

SITE PREPARATION & EXCAVATION

Temporary shoring or the early construction of permanent walls designed to shore up the
boundaries will be necessary. The design of shoring will also need to take account of lateral loads
due to large amount of soil excavated, it will be necessary to establish the nature and founding
levels of the footings to the adjacent lot to determine underpinning requirements (if any) and to
ensure that an appropriate construction methodology.
The footing alternative is predicated on removal of soft materials, manmade fill, and
otherwise unsuitable sub grade soils and replacement with engineered fill to achieve the final
grade. Engineered fill should consist of sand and gravel compacted to at least 95 percent of the
maximum dry unit weight obtained by ASTM D1557.
When a structure is to founded on rock, the rock should be firm, unshattered by excavation
operations, and not deteriorated from exposure to the weather. The contractor should be
required to remove shattered rock and to fill the space with concrete.

LIMITATIONS / COMMENTS
The design of the structure is beyond the scope of this report. The foregoing analysis,
conclusions and recommendations have been based on the subsoil investigation data from single
(1) borehole. Should any difference in the site subsoil conditions be observed during
construction, the undersigned shall be informed so that necessary corrections and changes in the
recommendations can be made.

13
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

REFERENCES CITED
Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc., 2001 . National Structural Code of
the Philippines; C 10 – 01, Volume 1, Buildings, Towers, and Other Vertical Structures, Fifth
Edition.
Bureau of Mines and Geo-Sciences, 1983. Geologic Map of Manila and Quezon quadrangle
(scale 1:50,000)
Corby, E. W. et al, 1951. Geology and oil possibilities of the Philippines, Department of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, Technical Bulletin No. 21 , 536 p.
De Beer, E. E., 1970. Experimental determination of the shape factors and the bearing
capacity factors of sand. Geotechnique , Vol. 20, No. 4, Dec., pp 387-411.
Hansen, J. B., 1986. A revised and extended formula for bearing capacity. Danish Geotechnical
Institute, Copenhagen, Bul. No. 28, 21 p.
Meyerhof, G., 1965. Shallow foundations. Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, ASCE, SM2, Vol. 91, jan., pp 21-31
Nelson, A. R., Personius, S. F., Rimando, R. E., Punongbayan R. S., Tungol, N. M., Mirabueno,
H. M., Rasdas, A., 1995. Four large earthquakes in the past 1400 years on a fault in
Metropolitan Manila, the Philippines USGS, 4p
Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology, 2000. Distribution of Active Faults and
Trenches in the Philippines
Vesic, A. S., 1973. Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations. Journal of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, ASCE, SM1, Vol. 99 Jan., pp 45-73

IRVIN I. ESTRADA, MSCE (G)

Civil/ Geotechnical Engineer
PRC 96494
PTR 5912225
DATE 01-06-17

14
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

15
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

16
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

17
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

18
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

19
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

20
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

21
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

22
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

23
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

24
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

25
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

26
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

27
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

28
 PROPOSED FOUR (4) STOREY W/ ROOF DECK
460 H-2, De Guzman St., Quiapo, Manila
______________________________________________________________________________

29