ABSTRACT:

The main purpose of this project is for the students to apply their knowledge in Geotechnical Engineering in

order to solve an engineering problem provided also with an engineering solution. The project is entitled

“Slope Stabilization Design of the eroded silty clay type soil in Sitio Kasapi, Barangay Bagong

Nayon, Antipolo City”. The designers consider a lot of constraints during the design of the project and

from those constraints the designer come up with different methods or techniques namely the Soil Nailing

and the Micropile Slide Stabilization System for the mechanical methods and Lime Stabilization for the

chemical methods. The design project is to replace the collapsed riprap wall in the vicinity, considering that

the client’s requests and desires to satisfy the safety of the citizens living within the site. The design has

been done by researching previous projects that has relation on the problem and discovering what

advantages and disadvantages it would have on the project considering the parameters from the

experiments and geotechnical report. After comparing the trade-offs selected, the designers conduct

sensitivity analysis in the chosen trade-off in order to foreseen the possible scenarios that might occur

during its service life. And after the validation, the designers provide proper and detailed specifications and

drawings that would be easy-to-read for anyone in the chosen trade-off.

6
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPROVAL SHEET .........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

ABSTRACT: ..................................................................................................................................... 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................... 7
TABLE OF FIGURES:...................................................................................................................... 11
LIST OF TABLES: ........................................................................................................................... 12
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ................................................................................. 13
1.1 THE PROJECT ................................................................................................................. 13
1.1.1 SPECIFIC PROPERTY OF SOIL THAT NEED TO BE IMPROVE OR ENHANCE ................. 16
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION ............................................................................................................ 17
1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................... 18
1.3 THE CLIENT..................................................................................................................... 18
1.4 PROJECT SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS .............................................................................. 18
1.5 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 19
1.6 SITE DOCUMENTATION ........................................................................................................ 20
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS ........................................................................................................ 23
2.1 PRELIMINARY DATA ............................................................................................................. 23
2.1.1 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (DPWH-RIZAL, 2015) ................................................................. 23
2.2 INPUT PARAMETERS ............................................................................................................ 23
2.2.1 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL ........................................................................................... 24
2.2.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATION................................................................................ 24
2.2.3 EARTHWORK AND SITE PREPARATION ........................................................................ 24
2.3 BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN ............................................................................................... 26
2.4 SOIL PROFILES .................................................................................................................... 27
2.5 POSSIBLE FAILURE CASES ................................................................................................. 28
2.6 SOIL STABILIZATION ............................................................................................................ 31
2.7 ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 32
2.7.1 Factor of Safety Methods ................................................................................................ 32
2.8 RELATED LITERATURE ................................................................................................... 34
Zion National Park Rehabilitation ............................................................................................ 34
Oso Creek Stabilization........................................................................................................... 35
Stabilization at Washington County: ....................................................................................... 36
Interstate Project in Pennyslvania ........................................................................................... 40

7
 Estimation of micropile capacity grouted under pressure by H. Elarabi, and M. Alhadi Alshareef
............................................................................................................................................... 40
Case Studies in Soil Nailing by G.L. Sivakumar Babu ............................................................. 41
Stabilization of Silty-Sand with Nontraditional Additives......................................................... 42
Deep-Slope Stabilization Using Lime Piles .............................................................................. 42
Ground Improvement/ Stabilization of Jewfish Creek, Key Largo, Florida ............................... 42
Soil Stabilization Using Lime: Advantages, Disadvantages and Proposing a Potential
Alternative .............................................................................................................................. 43
CHAPTER 3: DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS AND DESIGN STANDARDS .......................... 44
3.1 DESIGN CONSTRAINTS ........................................................................................................ 44
3.2 TRADE-OFFS ........................................................................................................................ 45
3.2.1 Soil Nailing ..................................................................................................................... 45
3.2.2 Micropile Slide Stabilization System (MS3 Walls) ............................................................ 46
3.2.3 Lime Stabilization ........................................................................................................... 47
3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking ....................................................................................................... 49
3.3.1 Trade-offs Assessments ................................................................................................. 49
3.3.2 Initial Cost Estimate ........................................................................................................ 50
3.3.3 Design Standards: .......................................................................................................... 53
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF SLOPE STABLIZATION ........................................................................... 54
4.1 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 54
4.2 SLOPE STABILIZATION DESIGN PROCESS .......................................................................... 54
4.2.1 Design Parameters ......................................................................................................... 57
4.2.2 Slope Stability Analysis .................................................................................................. 57
4.2.2.1 Rotational Stability Analysis ........................................................................................ 58
4.2.2.1.1 Summary of the Analysis using GeoStudio ............................................................... 59
4.2.2.1.2 Summary of Interslice Forces provided by GesStudio ............................................... 63
4.2.3 Design of Soil Nailing for Slope Stabilization .................................................................. 64
4.2.3.1 Soil Nail Reinforcement (Homantin, 2008) ..................................................................... 65
4.2.3.2 Design Considerations................................................................................................. 68
4.2.3.3 Final Design of Soil Nails ............................................................................................. 69
4.2.4 Design of Micropile Slide Stabilization (MS3) .................................................................. 70
4.2.4.1 Final Design of Micropiles............................................................................................ 81
4.2.5 Design of Lime Stabilization ........................................................................................... 83
4.3 Validation of Trade-Offs ........................................................................................................ 89
4.3.1 Final Estimate: ................................................................................................................ 89

8
 4.3.2 Final Constructability Estimate: ...................................................................................... 89
4.3.3 Final Serviceability Estimate:.......................................................................................... 89
4.4 Manual Computation of Validation: ....................................................................................... 90
4.4.1 Influence of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standard ............................................ 91
4.4.2 Sensitivity Analysis ........................................................................................................ 93
4.4.2.1 Rise of Water Level (Pore-Water Pressure) .................................................................. 93
4.4.2.2 Filling Material (Soil Layers) ......................................................................................... 96
CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN ........................................................................................................... 99
APPENDIX A. INITIAL COST ESTIMATE ........................................................................................ 102
APPENDIX B: STABILITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 105
SLICE 1 .................................................................................................................................... 106
SLICE 2 .................................................................................................................................... 107
SLICE 3 .................................................................................................................................... 107
SLICE 4 .................................................................................................................................... 108
SLICE 5 .................................................................................................................................... 108
SLICE 6 .................................................................................................................................... 109
SLICE 7 .................................................................................................................................... 109
SLICE 8 .................................................................................................................................... 110
SLICE 9 .................................................................................................................................... 110
SLICE 10................................................................................................................................... 111
SLICE 11................................................................................................................................... 111
SLICE 12................................................................................................................................... 112
SLICE 13................................................................................................................................... 112
SLICE 14................................................................................................................................... 113
SLICE 15................................................................................................................................... 113
SLICE 16................................................................................................................................... 114
APPENDIX C: Design for Soil Nailing ........................................................................................... 114
SLICE 1 .................................................................................................................................... 114
SLICE 2 .................................................................................................................................... 118
SLICE 3 .................................................................................................................................... 121
SLICE 4 .................................................................................................................................... 124
SLICE 5 .................................................................................................................................... 127
SLICE 6 .................................................................................................................................... 130
SLICE 7 .................................................................................................................................... 133

9
 SLICE 8 .................................................................................................................................... 135
SLICE 9 .................................................................................................................................... 139
SLICE 10................................................................................................................................... 142
SLICE 11................................................................................................................................... 145
SLICE 12................................................................................................................................... 148
SLICE 13................................................................................................................................... 151
SLICE 14................................................................................................................................... 154
SLICE 15................................................................................................................................... 157
SLICE 16................................................................................................................................... 160
APPENDIX D: STABILITY ANALYSIS WITH MICROPILE CONSIDERATION ................................... 163
SLICE 1 .................................................................................................................................... 163
SLICE 2 .................................................................................................................................... 163
SLICE 3 .................................................................................................................................... 164
SLICE 4 .................................................................................................................................... 164
SLICE 5 .................................................................................................................................... 165
SLICE 6 .................................................................................................................................... 165
SLICE 7 .................................................................................................................................... 165
SLICE 8 .................................................................................................................................... 166
SLICE 9 .................................................................................................................................... 167
SLICE 10................................................................................................................................... 167
SLICE 11................................................................................................................................... 168
SLICE 12................................................................................................................................... 168
SLICE 13................................................................................................................................... 169
SLICE 14................................................................................................................................... 169
SLICE 15................................................................................................................................... 170
SLICE 16................................................................................................................................... 170
APPENDIX E: STABILITY ANALYSIS WITH MICROPILE CONSIDERATION ................................... 171
APPENDIX F: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 1....................................................................................... 177
APPENDIX G: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 2 ...................................................................................... 182
APPENDIX H: FINAL ESTIMATION OF MICROPILE ....................................................................... 185
APPENDIX I: FINAL ESTIMATION OF SOIL NAILING ..................................................................... 189
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 191
MINUTES OF THE MEETING COMPILATION ................................................................................. 192

10
 TABLE OF FIGURES:
Figure 1: Investigation of the accident, picture taken by GMA news. .............................................. 13
Figure 2: Conceptualization of the Vicinity Cross-Section .............................................................. 14
Figure 3: The up-close picture of the landslide due to the collapsed of the riprap tooked a day after
the accident. .................................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 4: The landslide in Cherry Hills subdivision in Antipolo City, April 3, 1999, pictures taken by
BILIRAN ISLAND. ........................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 5: A soil structure of Cohesionless soil (Left Side) and Cohesive Soil (Right Side) ............. 16
Figure 6: Project Development Chart .............................................................................................. 19
Figure 7: The debris of the riprap that collapsed. ........................................................................... 20
Figure 8: A commercial establishment that was destroyed upon the accident. ............................... 20
Figure 9: The creek in the site location. .......................................................................................... 21
Figure 10:Riprap (Grouted) in the vicinity. ...................................................................................... 21
Figure 11: The designers gathering of data and interview/talk with the client, Kap. Larry T. Onza .. 22
Figure 12: City Planning and Development Map of the Vicinity Made by the Brgy. Bagong Nayon
Officials. ......................................................................................................................................... 22
Figure 13: Void Ratio, Moisture Content and Drying Unit Weight for some typical soils in a natural
state. .............................................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 14: Typical Values of drained angle of friction for sands and silts; sands; angular grains
(dense) ........................................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 15: Cohesionless soils. ....................................................................................................... 26
Figure 16: Borehole Location Plan ................................................................................................. 26
Figure 17: Cross Section of BH-1 ................................................................................................... 27
Figure 18: Soil Profile ..................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 19: Soil Profile Legend ........................................................................................................ 28
Figure 20: Case 1 Riprap Failure .................................................................................................... 29
Figure 21: The soil fillers were not followed to the specifications and standards. .......................... 29
Figure 22: Rise of water level ......................................................................................................... 30
Figure 23: A factor of safety versus lambda plot ............................................................................ 34
Figure 24: Compound Wall Construction in Zion National Park. ..................................................... 35
Figure 25: Repair of the 640-foot-long Oso Creek Landslide in Orange County, Calif., included 324,
70- to 75-foot-long micropiles and 60, 150- to 170-foot-long tiebacks. ............................................ 36
Figure 26: The illustration of the site. ............................................................................................. 37
Figure 27: Approximate station 100+50 of the site. ......................................................................... 37
Figure 28: Approximate station 118+00 of the site. ......................................................................... 38
Figure 29: Pittsburgh Coal Outcrop ................................................................................................ 38
Figure 30: The construction/installation of the piles on the roadside.............................................. 39
Figure 31: The output of the project. .............................................................................................. 40
Figure 32: The slope failure considered by Babu G.S., 2009 ........................................................... 41

11
 LIST OF TABLES:
Table 1: Geotechnical Parameters .................................................................................................. 23
Table 2: Designer's Ranking ........................................................................................................... 49
Table 3: Designer’s Raw Ranking ................................................................................................... 51
Table 4: Summary of Design Parameters........................................................................................ 57
Table 5: Slip Slices ......................................................................................................................... 62
Table 6: Summary of Interslice Forces ........................................................................................... 63
Table 7: Summary of Interslice Forces ........................................................................................... 64
Table 8: Computed Design Tensile Strength against Actual Tensile Force ..................................... 66
Table 9: Main Material Specification ............................................................................................... 69
Table 10: Summary of Typical abond (Grout - to - Grout Bond) Values for Micropile design. .......... 73
Table 11: Relationship Between Micropile Application, Design Behavior and Construction Type ... 74
Table 12: Cross-Section of the Micropile ........................................................................................ 74
Table 13: Result of the first trial ..................................................................................................... 88
Table 14: Result of the Second Trial ............................................................................................... 88
Table 15: Total Cost Estimate of the Methodologies. ...................................................................... 89
Table 16: Total Duration Estimate of the Methodologies ................................................................. 89
Table 17: Total Serviceability Estimate of the Methodologies. ........................................................ 89
Table 18: Final Ranking .................................................................................................................. 91
Table 19: Soil Nail Specificatios ................................................................................................... 101

12
 CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

1.1 THE PROJECT

The project is the soil improvement of the eroded soil in Sitio Kasapi, Brgy. Bagong Nayon,
Antipolo City, due to the recent accident on November 21, 2015 when a 9 years old child was
unearthed and 5 houses were buried under a massive pile of soil. The site has an ongoing road
widening project of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), the expansion was
done by dumping of soils on the vicinity and heavy machineries like dump trucks and backhoes
were being placed on the location. As the Construction is on progress, the residents have noticed
that there were rocks falling from the rip rap that is 9 meters high above ground, and have
residential houses below.

Figure 1: Investigation of the accident, picture taken by GMA news.

According to the Barangay Captain, the Rip rap was constructed about a decade ago, and its main
purpose was to support the box-culvert that’s passing through a stream crossing the Marikina –
Infantra Road (Marcos Highway).

13
 Figure 2: Conceptualization of the Vicinity Cross-Section

The riprap collapsed and destroyed the houses below, killing a 9-year old girl who was at the time
beneath the riprap. The collapse caused the people to move out of their houses, and businesses to
be stopped. This was the first time the structure collapsed after a decade of its construction.

Figure 3: The up-close picture of the landslide due to the collapsed of the riprap tooked a
day after the accident.

There were several cases of accidents involving collapsing of soil through landslide/s around
Antipolo City. On the night of August 3, 1999, a massive landslide occurred in Cherry Hills
Subdivision in Antipolo City that caused widespread damage and loss of life. The landslide was

14
primarily caused by the heavy rains of the approaching typhoon Olga. The subdivision became a
death trap when its foundations was filled with water and the whole complex slid down the hill on
which it was built.

Figure 4: The landslide in Cherry Hills subdivision in Antipolo City, April 3, 1999, pictures
taken by BILIRAN ISLAND.

The designers would like to resolve the problem by enhancing/improving the soil of the project site
to be able to sustain pressures and to avoid collapse of structures and slopes using different
ground improvement methodologies and techniques.

15
1.1.1 SPECIFIC PROPERTY OF SOIL THAT NEED TO BE IMPROVE OR ENHANCE

Soil Structure is defined as the geometric arrangement of soil with respect to one another. There
are many factors that affect the soils structure, like the shape, size, and mineralogical composition
of soil particles, and the nature and composition of soil water. (Das, Principles of Geotechnical
Engineering, 2010)

According to the same reference, generally, Soil Structure is divided into two groups, Cohesive and
Cohesionless soils, a cohesion is a molecular attraction by which particles of a body are united by
body mass within small spacing between each other that an attractive and repulsive force exist
between the soil particles. As the spacing decreases, the forces of attraction increases.

Cohesionless soil does not have this forces due to the particles being spaced too far. The shape
and size distribution of the soil particles and their relative positions influence the denseness of
packing, thus, a wide range of void ratios is possible. Inconsideration on of soil properties, clay is
considered as a cohesionless soil.

Figure 5: A soil structure of Cohesionless soil (Left Side) and Cohesive Soil (Right Side)

16
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION

Figure 1.2 - 1: The site location along Marikina – Infantra Road (Marcos Highway) from
Google Earth.

Figure 1.2 - 2: Top view of the vicinity from Google Earth.

The project is located in Antipolo City, as by research the soil is moderately deep to deep well drained soils
occurring on wavy surfaces to rolling basaltic hills and ridges with localized valley. Ripraps are quite
common in parts of Antipolo city due to slopes and frequent landslides occurring in this mountainous
regions.

17
1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the project are the following:

General Objectives:

 To apply all acquired knowledge, concepts and principles in Geotechnical Engineering to solve the
stated problem.
 To suggest/provide the most suitable and effective method that will improve the stabilization of the
slope in Sitio Kasapi, Barangay Bagong Nayon, Antipolo City.

Specific Objectives:

 To provide a slope stabilization design in compliance with the necessary codes and design
standards, considering the trade-offs based on the multiple constraints such as economic,
constructability, environmental and sustainability.
 To evaluate the influence/s of constraints, trade-offs and standards in the final design.
 To determine the cost efficient and easy-to- construct design respectively based on the cost and
labor estimates.
 To stabilize the slope that the riprap would not be necessary.

1.3 THE CLIENT

The client for this project is represented by Larry T. Onza (Punong Barangay) of Barangay Nayon in
Antipolo City. The client indicates that the project needs to be economical but safe from different types of
failures and must sustain in long period of time.

1.4 PROJECT SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

The project focuses mainly in the following:

 Slope Stabilization Design of the eroded silty clay type soil in Sitio Kasapi, Barangay Bagong
Nayon, Antipolo City considering different trade-offs.
 Provide complete plans and specifications of the design considering the different types of failures,
the stability of the soil based on short and long term behavior.
 Material and labor estimate of the chosen design.

The project is limited in some aspect of design and these are the following:

 Any alternatives for ground improvement design which are not included in the trade-offs.
 The detailed investigation of the causes of collapse of the riprap because the designer focuses on
the improvement of the soil.
 The limitation/availability of programs that could be used on the trade-offs computation.

18
1.5 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

The following are the description for the process that the design needs to undertake. In the planning phase
of the said project design, necessary data must be gathered first before proceeding to the technical part of
the study. Site visitation is also a vital part of the design process since it gives the designers some insights
and ideas about the site location and what difficulties can hurdle them as the design computation starts.
Due to some factors acting on the project, design constraints are considered. In the design process,
several manuals and handbooks must be conformed for the proponent that was obtained during the
gathering of data.

Figure 6: Project Development Chart

19
1.6 SITE DOCUMENTATION

Figure 7: The debris of the riprap that collapsed.

Figure 8: A commercial establishment that was destroyed upon the accident.

20
 Figure 9: The creek in the site location.

Figure 10:Riprap (Grouted) in the vicinity.

21
Figure 11: The designers gathering of data and interview/talk with the client, Kap. Larry T. Onza

Figure 12: City Planning and Development Map of the Vicinity Made by the Brgy. Bagong Nayon
Officials.

22
 CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS

2.1 PRELIMINARY DATA

The project site is located at Sitio Kasapi, Barangay Bagong Nayon, Antipolo City, along Marikina Infantra
Road, where a road widening construction under DPWH Rizal 1st District Engineering Office is ongoing.
The designers requested the geotechnical report of the vicinity in order to determine general subsurface
conditions for the proposed COGEO Bridge in Antipolo City.

2.1.1 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (DPWH-RIZAL, 2015)

AM Geoconsult and Associates executed the field investigation from May 8 to 9, 2015, followed by
laboratory testing of recovered field samples.
The general geology of the area, the stratigraphy of the area consists of the following formation by age:
Guadalupe Formation, overlain by Quaternary Alluvium.
 Guadalupe Formation – is composed of flat-lying, tuffaceous line to medium grained sandstone
from the Pleistocene age. The formation, covers large portions of Pasig City, Makati City and their
adjoining areas. Meanwhile, through thousands of years of erosion and sedimentation, alluvial and
weathered deposits were formed which now rest on top of the rock formation. The project area, in
particular was formed by the deposition of tributaries flowing towards the Pasig River.

The potential seismic sources for the project include the Valley Fault System, and Digdig and
Infanta section from the Philippine Fault zone.

2.2 INPUT PARAMETERS

The first task in this project was to gain and examine the already available knowledge, related to the
objectives of this project. Parameters that are relevant for the objective of this study were determined. The
analysis were based on information taken from geotechnical investigation conducted by Department of
Public Works and Highways (DPWH).

The key geotechnical parameters needed to facilitate the design are as follows:
Table 1: Geotechnical Parameters

REMARKS (RELATIVE
Layer ID: Depth: USCS Classification: SPT-N Value: DENSITY/
CONSISTENCY)
A 0 – 6.0 ML 10 – 13 Stiff
B 6.0 – 7.5 ML/SP-SM 34 – 38 Hard
C 7.5 – 15.0 Sandstone n/a Very Poor

23
This site is generally characterized by stiff to hard silt overlying a relatively shallow Guadalupe Tuff
Formation. The GTF is encountered at a depth of -7.5m below NGL, and is overlain by a 1 .5m to 3m thick
intermediate layer of hard silt and very dense sand.
Of note is the upper 6m of silt with an SPT N value averaging at 12 blows/ foot which may be prone to
excessive settlement upon loading and liquefaction upon saturation and cyclic motions from a major
earthquake.
The groundwater depth was observed at -4.0m during the investigation works. It should be noted that the
groundwater levels may fluctuate due to seasonal variations.

2.2.1 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL

Liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein the sudden rise of pore water pressures during an earthquake
decreases the interacting forces between soil particles, which in effect reduces the soil’s shear strength.
Liquefaction commonly occurs with saturated, loose to medium dense cohesionless soils, and even non
plastic silts.

Liquefaction susceptibility is assessed by using the methods suggested in the 1998 NCEER/NSF workshop
on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils. For the analysis, a magnitude of 7.2 earthquake and a
ground acceleration of 0.40g was considered. Based on the assumed earthquake scenario and the SPT N
data values gathered from the site investigation, Material A is susceptible to liquefaction. As such it is
necessary to employ deep foundations in order to bypass the weaker soil stratum and found the structure
to a capable layer.

2.2.2 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATION

An outlined on NSCP 2010, most portions of the Philippines fall under zone 4 with the exception of
Palawan, Sulu and Tawi – Tawi which are under zone 2. As such a seismic factor of 0.40 shall be used,
with the valley fault system considered as a Type A Generator. With the projects site less than 10 km from
the Valley Fault Trace, near source factor shall be Na = 1.2 and Nv = 1.2. As per the observed average
properties at the site location, a soil type of Sd may be conservatively assumed.

2.2.3 EARTHWORK AND SITE PREPARATION

All backfilling works for the foundations or any engineering fill that may be necessary shall be compacted to
95% of maximum dry density, unless specified otherwise. Excavation for foundations works up to a depth of
1.5m shall maintain a slope of 1V:2H, unless more detailed calculations or shoring protection indicate the
soundness of a steeper slope. Deeper excavations shall comply with benching of slope as detailed in
NSCP 2010.

*Some of the information was not indicated in the Geotechnical Report, the designer computed the missing
data:

24
 Figure 13: Void Ratio, Moisture Content and Drying Unit Weight for some typical soils in a natural
state.
Source: Principle of Geotechnical Engineering, 6th edition by Braja M. Das, page 59.

Computation of Unit weight Geotechnical report:

1st Layer: ∂ = 17(1 + 0.137) = 19.33 kN / m^3
2nd and 3rd Layer: ∂ = 19(1 + 0.221) = 23.20 kN / m^3

Figure 14: Typical Values of drained angle of friction for sands and silts; sands; angular grains
(dense)
Source: Principle of Geotechnical Engineering, 6th edition by Braja M. Das, page 366.

For normally consolidated clays, the cohesion is approximated at 0. The same assumption is done for sand
and silts type soils.

25
 Figure 15: Cohesionless soils.
Source: Principle of Geotechnical Engineering, 6th edition by Braja M. Das, page 355 - 366.

2.3 BOREHOLE LOCATION PLAN

Figure 16: Borehole Location Plan

26
 Figure 17: Cross Section of BH-1
2.4 SOIL PROFILES

Figure 18: Soil Profile

27
 Figure 19: Soil Profile Legend

2.5 POSSIBLE FAILURE CASES

There are three (3) cases that could be assumed why the riprap collapsed, using the previous accidents in
Antipolo (mainly the cherry hills accident) as a basis of this theory. As to limited access of data for the
project, the designers assumed these cases:

1. There was a failure on the riprap, the methodologies and construction of the riprap was not
according to the specifications, there was human errors in the construction or there was a
degradation on the strength of the riprap.

2. If the soil fillers used wasn’t able to follow the standards or specifications during its construction.

3. The rise of water level, causing additional pressure to the riprap and saturating the soil due to
climatic effects. Increased buoyancy or uplift effects, thus reducing effective stresses significantly
and increased water pressure induced swelling and expansion of the highly expansive siltstone
layers causing heaving and disturbance of the intensely fractured rocks at some locations.

28
 Figure 20: Case 1 Riprap Failure

Figure 21: The soil fillers were not followed to the specifications and standards.

29
Figure 22: Rise of water level

30
2.6 SOIL STABILIZATION

The following were considered by the designers in the conceptualization of soil stabilization:
1. Accept the site material as it is, and design a solution to improve its existing quality.
2. Remove the original site material and replace it with a better/greater material interms of quality.

Increase in cost on the material and the other construction necessities just in removing/replacing the soil
would result in the first place, improving the current material/soil would be a better option in terms of time
and cost, assuring reaching the engineering standards once constructed. The client has decided that, the
original soil would still be used for the project.

Soil stabilization is the collective term for any physical, chemical, or biological method, or any combination
of such methods, employed to improve certain properties of a natural soil to make it serve adequately and
intended engineering purpose. The different use of soil pose different requirement of mechanical strength
and of resistance to environmental forces. Stabilizing the slope of a cut or a fill against eroision is a vastly
different matter from stabilizing a soil to carry a heavy bomber without excessive deformation (Winterkorn &
Pamukcu, 1991).

A land-based structure of any type is only as strong as its foundation. For that reason, soil is a critical
element influencing the success of a construction project. Soil is either part of the foundation or one of the
raw materials used in the construction process. Understanding the engineering properties of soil is crucial
to obtain strength and economic permanence. Soil stabilization is the process of maximizing the suitability
of soil for a given construction purpose. (The Civil Engineer (Web Blogger))

It was also stated that there are considerable advantages of Soil Stabilization (Babu P. G., 2012):
1. To increase strength, bearing capacity and resistance to deteriorative forces of nature and man-
made environment.
2. To decrease the volume change tendency, settlement and to control permeability.

The two general stabilization methods are mechanical and additive. The effectiveness of stabilization
depends on the ability to obtain uniformity in blending the various materials (NAVFAC).

The designer have decided that improving the soil by these type of soil stabilization (The Civil Engineer
(Web Blogger)):

1.) Chemical Stabilization - improving the engineering properties of soil is by adding chemicals or
other materials to improve the existing soil. This technique is generally cost effective: for example,
the cost, transportation and processing of a stabilizing agent such as soil cement or lime to treat an
in place soil material is probably more economical than importing aggregate for the same thickness
of the base course.

Additives can be mechanical that is their load bearing properties bolster the engineering properties
of the soil. They can also be chemical that is they react with or change the chemical properties of
the soil thereby changing the properties of the soil.

2.) Mechanical Stabilization - This refers to either compaction or the introduction of fibrous and other
non- biodegradable reinforcements to the soil. This practice does not require chemical change of
31
 the soil. There are several methods used to achieve mechanical stabilization. Traditionally this has
been the accepted practice to deal with soil contamination. Soil problems are sometimes remedied
by engineered or non-engineered mechanical solutions. Geo-textiles, engineered plastic mesh and
other type of mechanical methodologies are designed to trap soils and help control erosion,
moisture conditions and soil permeability. Larger aggregates such as gravel, stones and boulders
are often employed where additional mass and rigidity can prevent soil migration or improve load-
bearing properties.

2.7 ANALYSIS

The designers use computer aided program or software “GeoStudio-SLOPE/W” in the analysis of the
design, but in order to understand the process of computing the factor of safety, the designers discuss and
explain it below.

2.7.1 Factor of Safety Methods

The designers use Morgenstern-Price method in computing the factors of safety for the analysis. And with
the aid of software:

General Limit Equilibrium Formulation

A general limit equilibrium (GLE) formulation was developed by Fredlund at the University of Saskatchewan
in the 1970s (Krahn, 1981). This formulation encompasses the key elements of all the limit equilibrium
methods available in SLOPE/W. The GLE formulation provides a framework for discussing, describing and
understanding all the other methods (Calgary, 2015).

The GLE formulation is based on two factor of safety equations and allows for range of interslice shear-
normal force assumptions. One equation gives the factor of safety with respect to moment equilibrium (Fm),
while the other equation gives the factor of safety with respect to horizontal force equilibrium (Ff).
The idea of using two factor of safety equations follows from the work of Spencer.

The interslice shear forces in the GLE formulation are handled with an equation proposed by Morgenstern
and Price. The equation is:
𝑋 = 𝐸𝜆𝑓(𝑥)
Where:
f(x) = is a function
λ = is the percentage (in decimal form) of the function used
E = is the interslice normal force
X = is the interslice shear force

The GLE factor of safety equation with respect to moment equilibrium is:

∑(𝑐 ′ 𝛽𝑅 + (𝑁 − 𝑢𝛽)𝑅 𝑡𝑎𝑛∅′

𝐹𝑚 =
∑ 𝑊𝑥 − ∑ 𝑁𝑓 ± ∑ 𝐷𝑑

The GLE factor of safety equation with respect to horizontal force equilibrium is:

32
 ∑(𝑐 ′ 𝛽 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼 + (𝑁 − 𝑢𝛽)𝑅 𝑡𝑎𝑛∅′ 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼
𝐹𝑚 =
∑ 𝑁 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼 − ∑ 𝐷 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜔

The terms in the equations are:

c’ = effective cohesion
Φ’ = effective angle of friction
U = pore-water pressure
N = slice base normal force
W = slice weight
D = concentrated point load
β, R, x, f, d, ω = geometric parameters
α = inclination of slice base

One of the key variables in both equations is N, the normal at the base of each slice. This equation is
obtained by the summation of vertical forces. Vertical force equilibrium is consequently satisfied as:

𝑐 ′ 𝛽 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼 + 𝑢𝛽 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼 𝑡𝑎𝑛∅′

𝑊 + (𝑋𝑅 − 𝑋𝐿 ) −
𝑁= 𝐹
𝑠𝑖𝑛𝛼 𝑡𝑎𝑛∅′
𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛼 + 𝐹

F is Fm when N is substituted into the moment factor of safety equation and F is Ff when N is substituted
into the force factor of safety equation.

An important point to note here is that the slice base normal is dependent on the interslice shear forces XR
and XL on other side of a slice. The slice base normal is consequently different for the various methods,
depending on how each method deals with the interslice shear forces.

The GLE formulation computes Fm and Ff for a range of lambda (λ) values. With these computed values, a
plot such as in Figure 23 can be drawn that shows how Fm and Ff vary with lambda (λ). This type of plot is
a useful feature of the GLE formulation. Such Plot makes it possible to understand the differences between
the factors of safety from the various methods, and to understand the influence of the selected interslice
force function (Calgary, 2015).

33
 Figure 23: A factor of safety versus lambda plot
Source: Figure 3-2, p. 29 (Calgary, 2015)

Two of the primary assumptions of the Bishop’s Simplified method are that it ignores interslice shear forces
and satisfies only moment equilibrium. In the GLE terminology, not considering shear forces means λ is
zero As a result, the Bishop’s Simplified factor of safety falls on the moment curve in Figure 23 where
lambda is zero. Janbu’s Simplified method also ignores interslice shear forces and only satisfies force
equilibrium. The Janbu’s Simplified factor of safety consequently falls on the force curve in Figure 23 where
λ is zero. The Spencer and Morgenstern-Price (M-P) factors of safety are determined at the point where the
two curves cross. At this point the factor of safety satisfies both moment and force equilibrium. A rigoruous
method such a M-P or Spencer’s method satisfies both moment and force equilibrium by finding the cross-
over point of the Fm and Ff curves (Calgary, 2015). Therfore, the designers use the M-P factor of safety
method in the analysis of the of the design.

2.8 RELATED LITERATURE

Zion National Park Rehabilitation

A certain project was constructed when there was a complete erosion of soil, which the engineers
used mechanical soil stabilization as part of the solution.

~In 1995, Sentinel landslide reactivated and formed a temporary dam in the North Fork of the
Virgin River in Zion National Park, Utah, which runs parallel to the park’s main access road. The
dam ultimately breached causing complete erosion of approximately 180 meters of the highway. In
an effort to limit disturbance to the landslide slope while maintaining a two-lane access road
adjacent to the river, a compound retaining wall, which included shoring via soil nailing to
facilitate T-wall installation, was constructed. However, design of the T-wall did not incorporate
the retaining benefits provided by the shoring wall.

34
The use of soil nailing on eroded soil was considered even the design did not incorporate the
benefits provided by the shoring wall. This solution and consideration of soil nailing in stabilizing
eroded soil would be considered on picking of methodologies suitable for stabilizing the project soil.

Figure 24: Compound Wall Construction in Zion National Park.

Source:
http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/td/geotech/smse/documents/04_chapter2_evaluation_smse_walls
.pdf

Oso Creek Stabilization

The Oso Creek Stabilization also used mechanical stabilization to stabilize a hillside that collapsed
due to heavy rain on south Orange County, Calif. This project considered to use micropiling to
stabilize the soil, estimating the adequate depth and dimension to sustain the soil loads inorder the
soil to stay in place.

The project is related because the same accident happened and soil stabilization was considered.
Micropiling, also known as minipiles which is furthered discuss in Chapter 3: Trade-offs.

~In 2000, heavy rains saturated the hillside and caused Oso Creek in south Orange County,
California, to swell and undercut the toe of the slope downhill from a roadway called Camino
Capistrano and the Orange County Transportation Authority railroad line. The site consisted of
loose fill materials overlying residual weathered Capistrano formation and deeper unweathered
Capistrano.

The landslide was almost 640 feet long. The repair included 324 micropiles, 5-1/2 inches O.D.,
which were 70 to 75 feet long. Sixty tiebacks were installed with capacities of 400 kips and 550
kips, and were 150 to 170 feet long. The system was designed for a static factor of safety of 1.5
and a seismic factor of safety of 1.1 for a design earthquake.

35
Figure 25: Repair of the 640-foot-long Oso Creek Landslide in Orange County, Calif., included 324,
70- to 75-foot-long micropiles and 60, 150- to 170-foot-long tiebacks.

Source: http://cenews.com/article/8597/stabilizing_major_landslides_

The flexibility of micropiling to be combined with other stabilizing methods, it would be suited on the
project, especially the DPWH is considering to use retaining walls.

Stabilization at Washington County:

Another example is landslide stabilization at Washington County, PA, state route 87,
The following is the summary of content:

~The Site Reconnaissance Summary:

 Distressed pavement
· Patching
· Depression/displacements and cracking
 Non-functioning roadway drainage systems
 Toe bulges in soil below the adjacent RR
 Past landslide remediation efforts by the RR
 Outcrop of the Pittsburgh coal seam

36
 Figure 26: The illustration of the site.

Figure 27: Approximate station 100+50 of the site.

37
Figure 28: Approximate station 118+00 of the site.

Figure 29: Pittsburgh Coal Outcrop

38
Analyses:
 Subsurface model created based upon site survey, boring data, piezometers and laboratory test
data.
 Failure plane identified by inclinometer and boring data in native soil near the top of the bedrock.
 Failure of existing slope modelled by back analysis
o FS slightly less than 1.0 achieved
o Rediscovered some pitfalls of back analysis (i.e., waterlevels)
There were tons of methodologies to choose from that were suggested by the designers:
1. Horizontal drains – deemed inappropriate
2. Excavation and replacement – required detour
3. Anchored soldier pile wall – requires ROW acquisition
4. Tangent caisson wall - $6-7 million
Ultimately, the Micro piling method was used because of its advantages:
1. Relatively quick construction
2. No need for additional ROW
3. Administratively simpler – buried reinforcement
4. Concurrent reestablishment/improvement of site drainage
With approximate of $3.5million as the final cost, compared to the Tangent caisson wall.

Figure 30: The construction/installation of the piles on the roadside.

39
 Figure 31: The output of the project.
This project has shown the designers that a certain methodology would have advantage over other trade-
offs, depends on the situation and the properties of the soil. Once again micropiling is used as a stabilizing
methodology. Another project that would give benefit on choosing a project methodology.

Interstate Project in Pennyslvania

Usage of the chemicals as an stabilizing agent:
~A recent interstate project in Pennsylvania March 2001(The Pennsylvania Interstate 99 Bud
shuter highway project), for example, began with a $29.3 million traditional design approach. An
alternate design using lime stabilization, consistent with AASHTO mechanistic-empirical designs,
cost only $21.6 million—more than 25 percent savings (Qubain et al., Incorporating Subgrade Lime
Stabilization into Pavement Design, Transportation Research Board Meeting, January 2000.)
In the longer term, lime stabilization provides performance benefits that reduce maintenance costs.
To illustrate, stabilizing an 8-inch native clay subgrade with lime as part of an asphalt pavement
project can reduce 30-year life cycle costs from $24.49 to $22.47 per square yard

Source: http://www.pahighways.com/interstates/I99.html

This project uses a Chemical Methodology as a Stabilizing methodology, giving the designers
additional option on stabilizing the soil at Sitio Kasapi. Using lime as a stabilizing agent on soil,
which availability is no question in the market, would be a considerable trade-off for the project.

Estimation of micropile capacity grouted under pressure by H. Elarabi, and M. Alhadi Alshareef
~The aim of this paper is to study the behavior of micropile type B (additional grout is injected
under pressure after the primary grout) where neat cement grout is placed into the hole under
pressure. Numerical analysis is used to simulate this behavior. The model was verified against field

40
 test data performed on Khartoum soil. These models are introduced briefly, and then used to
investigate the effect of pressure grouting on micropile. For micropiles of diameter less than 25cm
a considerable increase in their capacities was deduced due to increase in pressure. For any
diameter larger than 30cm it is expected that, the pressure will have no effect on increasing the pile
diameter and thus the capacity of pile. This why micropiles diameter are assumed = 30cm. Though
the factor (f) for micropiles with diameters greater than 10cm and less than 20cm can be estimated
using certain equation developed in this study. The results of the developed model are in good
agreement with the experimental results. (H. Elarabi, 2014)

This study is helpful towards the concept of Micropiling, using a small diameter, inducing its capacities and
limitation, this experimental results would help the modelling process especially the standard used is
“FHWA Micropile Designing and Construction Reference Manual (2005)” by the U.S. Department of
Transportation

Case Studies in Soil Nailing by G.L. Sivakumar Babu

~This paper presents a few case studies on the stabilization of a vertical cut and improvement of
slope stability using soil-nailing technique. It was found that the vertical cut stability/slope stability
improved due to the reinforcing effect of nails. The study illustrates that the technique is a viable
technique to improve the stability of vertical cuts and stability of existing slopes and its advantages
need to be exploited on a large scale in infrastructure projects.

In the paper, a few case studies on soil nailing have been presented illustrating its advantages. There is a
need to use this technique on large scale in India in many infrastructure projects wherever applicable to
realize the technical and economic advantages associated with the technique. (Babu G. S., 2009)

Figure 32: The slope failure considered by Babu G.S., 2009

The ideal concept that the designers cope up with this paper is that the Case Study II (Stabilization of Slope
of Reservoir). Loss of cohesion leads to overall reduction in shear resistance of the soil and when the
driving forces under the influence of infiltrating water, seepage pressures through the tensions cracks
increase, the available resistance being less, slopes fail as happened in the present case. In order to

41
increase the available shear resistance, introduction of reinforcement is useful. It is reported that the
stability of the bund section is satisfactory. (Babu G. S., 2009)

Stabilization of Silty-Sand with Nontraditional Additives

The objective of this research is to screen off- the – shelf nontraditional stabilizers, and to determine the
benefits for Silty Sand soils.

The type of additives that has been used in consideration:

 Acids
 Enzymes
 Lignosulfonates
 Polymers
 Petroleum Emulsions
 Tree Resin

Only the polymer, petroleum emulsions and tree resins are the additives used (mechanical additives) that
had high impact on stabilizing the silty sand soil. It was recommended that for stabilizing consideration,
Polymers and Cement is the additives to be used and for water proofing, petroleum emulsion, tree resin
and Lignosulfonates are the additives that could be used.

This research experiment helps the designers to expand their knowledge on the additives that they could
use to add strength and stabilize the silty clay soil in Sitio Kasapi.

Deep-Slope Stabilization Using Lime Piles

Lime piles, which usually consist of columns of quicklime placed in pre-formed holes in clay soils, draw in
water during hydration and expand. No lateral consolidation of the surrounding clay occurs, however,
because of the stoichiometry of the hydration reaction. The water loss in the surrounding clay causes an
increase in undrained shear strength. (Glendinning)

The literature, although providing valuable information about the successful use of lime piles for several
applications along with some details of laboratory experimentation, does not adequately prove the modes
of operation of lime piles. This research increased the option of the designer on the stabilization
methodology.

Ground Improvement/ Stabilization of Jewfish Creek, Key Largo, Florida

In the United Stated, Florida, a two-lane highway, serves as the main route to and from florida keys. The
problem is they are planning to replace the drawbridge with a fixed bridge and to widen the roadway but the
environment is sensitve and adjacent to water control (Hayward Baker Geotech. Corp., n.d.). Dry Mass
Stabilization was chosen as the design solution to improve the soft underlying soils. The method would
improve the shear strength of the soft soils sufficiently to safetly support embankment, and would greatly
reduce the long-term maintenance of the roadway by eliminating both primary and secondary consolidation
settlement.

Another mechanical stabilization method that the researchers could use to stabilizing the slope, improving
the shear strengt and consolidation settlement of the soil. But the consideration of the vicinity and the
space for this type of methodology would be considered.

42
 Soil Stabilization Using Lime: Advantages, Disadvantages and Proposing a Potential Alternative
~This study is an overview of previous studies on lime (quick and hydrated) -treated soil. Lime is
the oldest traditional stabilizer used for soil stabilization. The mechanism of soil-lime treatment
involves cation exchange, which leads to the flocculation and agglomeration of soil particles. The
high pH environment then causes a pozzolanic reaction between the free Ca+2 cations and the
dissolved silica and alumina. Lime-treated soil effectively increases the strength, durability and
workability of the soil. Such treatment also improves soil compressibility. A fluctuation behavior was
observed on the influence of lime on soil permeability. However, the factors affecting the
permeability of the soil-lime mixture should be extensively studied. Nonetheless, lime treatment
has a number of inherent disadvantages, such as carbonation, sulfate attack and environment
impact. Magnesium oxide/hydroxide are thus proposed as a suitable alternative stabilizer to
overcome at least some of the disadvantages of using lime in soil stabilization. (Jawad, Taha,
Majeed, & Khan, 2014)

An additional conceptual consideration in using Lime as the main additive for the chemical stabilization for
this project. The ideal benefits for this treatment methodology is the increase in strength, durability and the
effectiveness of the soil by using mere substance that is market available. The advantages and
disadvantages should be considered.

43
 CHAPTER 3: DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS AND DESIGN STANDARDS

3.1 DESIGN CONSTRAINTS

Constraint is defined as a constraining condition, agency, or force that limits the systems’ performance in a
given context/environment. Constraint describes the relationships between objects and processes.
Constraints have to be managed. Practically, in all cases the constraints’ limiting impact can be reduced or
eliminated.

Quantifiable Constraints:

 Economical Constraint (Cost)

Different approaches in improving the properties of soil may be effective but at the same time,
maybe too costly. The designers will focus to the design methods which perfectly fit the soil
condition with reasonable cost. This constraint controls the design scheme in quality and quantity
which is directly proportional to the cost of the project. In a design with high quality materials may
have a greater cost. Concrete would be the main substance for the Micropiling and Soil Nailing
methodologies, and a Lime-Fly ash as the main substance for the Lime Stabilization. The
methodologies will use the same machineries. The main difference would be the main substance to
be used on the methodologies. The cheapest but will provide the best output for the project will be
chosen.

 Constructability Constraint (Duration)

In relation with economic constraint, the designers considered the convenience and duration of
project construction. If the work is complex, more workers will be needed in the construction which
will increase the labor cost of the project. The longer the construction of the project, it will be
directly proportional to its cost.

This constraint was chosen of the designers because the methodologies for the trade-offs would
have different durations, and different method/s might have a huge gap on costing compared to the
other methodologies which would affect greatly the project schedule.

The curing process in the lime stabilization is the longest, it must be taken to account the duration
of the whole process. The other methodologies would use concrete which would take time to cure
and attain its desired strength, an example would be soil nailing, and the concrete would be used
as the cover of the nails, which would require about 2-3 days before pinning/drilling the next nail
because it may disrupt the strength of the concrete.

The designers plan to finish/complete the project in the shortest duration, as the road to be in use
as soon as possible.

44
  Sustainability Constraint (Serviceability)
One of the constraint that is needed to be considered is the Sustainability Constraint, its concern
with how long the structure will withstand its usefulness and the maintenance of each methodology
would cost. These possible trade-offs fits to solve this problem such as Soil Nailing and Micropiling,
because each trade-offs would last in very long period of time.

Non-Quantifiable Constraints:
 Environmental Constraint

The resistance to chemical attack and biological degradation of environmental condition to the
design of soil to be used is also considered as a constraint on this project because these
environmental factors can lessen the design strength of the material.

In considering design constraints, trade-offs were provided by the designer that have a significant effect on
improving the properties of soil. As a trade-off, the designer will have to evaluate whether which kind of
material will be used as a final design considering the constraints mentioned above.

3.2 TRADE-OFFS

As for the trade-offs, there are methodologies which the designers assume to be best for the project.
Deliberation will be done to determine which is the most effective that will comply the multiple constraints
mentioned above.

3.2.1 Soil Nailing

Soil Nailing is generally constructing walls after reinforcing the slope by inserting reinforcement materials
(such as reinforcing bars and being grouted by concrete) from Top to down. Typically, 3 to 6 feet of soil is
excavated from the top of the planned excava. Near-horizontal holes are drilled into the exposed face at
typically 3 to 6 foot centers, (Hayward Baker Geotech. Corp., n.d.).

45
 Figure 33: Soil Nailing Illustated by Hayward baker.
Tension-resisting steel bars are inserted into the holes and grouted. A drainage system is installed on the
exposed face, followed by the application of reinforced shotcrete facing. Bearing plates are then fixed to the
heads of the soil nails. The installation process is repeated until the design wall depth is reached. The
finished soil nails produce a zone of reinforced ground. (Olden, n.d.).

Soil nailing equipment is small enough that it can easily negotiate restricted access. For existing steep
slopes, such as bluffs or existing retaining walls, the soil nails can be installed from crane-suspended
working platforms. Soil nails can also be installed directly beneath existing structures adjacent to
excavations. (Hayward Baker Geotech. Corp., n.d.)

3.2.2 Micropile Slide Stabilization System (MS3 Walls)

The micropile slide stabilization system is typically a slope stabilization system as opposed to an
excavation support system. Micropiles retains soil by connecting an array of drilled and grouted micropiles,
sometimes in combination with ground anchors, to a reinforced concrete beam constructed near the ground
surface. Acting in tension and compression, the micropiles effectively create an integral, stabilized ground
reinforcement system capable of resisting driving forces in the slope that could otherwise cause instability
or failure. (Hayward Baker Geotech. Corp., n.d.)

46
 Figure34: Micropile Slide Stabilization System

3.2.3 Lime Stabilization

Lime is an unparalleled aid in the modification and stabilization of soil beneath road and similar construction
projects. Using lime can substantially increase the stability, permeability, and load-bearing capacity of the
subgrade. And lime is a proven solution--witness the more than one million metric tons of lime used
annually in the U.S. for soil modification and stabilization (National Lime Association, 2001).

Accoring to (National Lime Association, 2016) Modification occurs because calcium cations supplied by the
hydrated lime replace the cations normally present on the surface of the clay mineral, promoted by the high
pH environment of the lime-water system.

Thus, the clay surface mineralogy is altered, producing the following benefits:

· Plasticity reduction
· Reduction in moisture-holding capacity (drying)
· Swell reduction
· Improved stability
· The ability to construct a solid working platform
These benefits expedite construction and save time and money.
Soil stabilization occurs when lime is added to a reactive soil to generate long-term strength gain through a
pozzolanic reaction. This reaction produces stable calcium silicate hydrates and calcium aluminate
hydrates as the calcium from the lime reacts with the aluminates and silicates solubilized from the clay.
(Parampreet Kaur, 2012)
Benefits of soil stabilization include:
· Very substantial increases in resilient modulus values (by a factor of 10 or more in many
cases)
· Very substantial improvements in shear strength (by a factor of 20 or more in some cases)
· Continued strength gain with time, even after periods of environmental or load damage
(autogenous healing)
47
 · Long-term durability over decades of service even under severe environmental conditions.
In addition to stabilization of new materials lime is an excellent choice for the reclamation of roadbases. As
more and more governmental entities are choosing to reclaim existing roadbases rather than replacing
them, this use of lime will become even more important.

In the short-term, considering the structural contribution of lime-stabilized layers in pavement design can
create more cost-effective design alternatives. A recent interstate project in Pennsylvania March 2001(The
Pennsylvania Interstate 99 Bud shuter highway project), for example, began with a $29.3 million traditional
design approach. An alternate design using lime stabilization, consistent with AASHTO mechanistic-
empirical designs, cost only $21.6 million—more than 25 percent savings (Qubain et al., Incorporating
Subgrade Lime Stabilization into Pavement Design, Transportation Research Board Meeting, January
2000.)

In the longer term, lime stabilization provides performance benefits that reduce maintenance costs. To
illustrate, stabilizing an 8-inch native clay subgrade with lime as part of an asphalt pavement project can
reduce 30-year life cycle costs from $24.49 to $22.47 per square yard
Source: http://www.pahighways.com/interstates/I99.html
http://www.graymont.com/sites/default/files/pdf/tech_paper/using_lime_soil_stabilization_modification
http://www.graymont.com/sites/default/files/pdf/tech_paper/using_lime_soil_stabilization_modification

Figure 35: Texas Geomix uses Quicklime and lime Slurry to break down and rebuild the soil
particles in heavy clays.
Source: http://texasgeomix.com/products/

48
 Figure 36: Before and after using of lime on clay soil
Source: http://www.carmeusena.com/markets/construction/lime-soil-stabilization

3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking

After considering the design constraints, the designers came up with the raw rankings on the said trade-
offs. The discussion on how the designers came up with the raw rankings values are shown and computed
below.

Table 2: Designer's Ranking

Criterion’s
Importance Ability to satisfy the criterion
(on a scale of 0 (on a scale from -5 to 5)
Decision
to 5)
Criteria
Micropile
Slide Lime
Soil Nailing
Stabilization stabilization
Economic 5 3 3 5
Constructability 4 4 4 4
Sustainability 5 4 5 4
Over-all Rank 51 56 61

3.3.1 Trade-offs Assessments

The importance of every trade-off in the ranking is chosen with the best compatibility and its value on the
comparison that would make an impact to the project’s development. And still the client and designer will

49
choose the methodology to be used on the construction of the project. The constraints were assessed with
an importance value of 5 given both in cost and serviceability of the structure, which indicate that the client
and designer gives priority. Constructability with an importance value of 4, designing and constructing of
this project must be safe for it’s user with the minimum cost and time.

3.3.1.1 Economic Assessment (Quantifiable)

The designer is considering a constraint that can calculate the difference between the cost of the trade-offs,
with the economic considerations to be satisfied, and doing computations to prove the rankings, it would
show if the lime stabilization, is more economical rather than the other methodologies on slope stabilization,
considering that all of the methodologies would use the same machineries, it would all comes down to the
material and labor cost. Lime stabilization is a methodology that uses fly-ash, and concrete in order to add
strength and stability to the soil, which is why the designers have chosen it to be a part of the tradeoffs.

3.3.1.2 Serviceability Assessment (Quantifiable)

Stabilizing and improving the soil for the long term is the ideal solution, for the citizens that lives below the
structure would be secured. The designers are considering the difference between the serviceability
features of the methodologies to be chosen. The performance of the methodologies to the expected use
will be the criteria for the basis of the serviceability assessment. The method that would correspond beyond
the specification will be chosen.

3.3.1.3 Constructability Assessment (Quantifiable)

Finishing the project faster and meeting the deadline given to the project would make the road effective
again and commence the operations needed to serve its purpose, as for the road widening project of the
DPWH would commence making the road accessible in the shortest time is the ideal methodology. In the
Constructability constraint, the chemical grouting methodology has been assumed with the fastest
construction due to its process.

3.3.2 Initial Cost Estimate

Using the model on trade-off strategies in engineering design (Otto & Antonson, 1991), the importance of
each criterion (on scale of 0 to 5, 5 with the highest importance) was assigned. Each design methodology’s
ability to satisfy the criterion (on a scle from -5 to 5, 5 with the highest ability to satisfy the criterion) was
likewise tabulated. The designers computed the ability to satisfy the criterion using this procedure.
Computation of ranking for ability to satisfy criterion of materials:

Higher Value−Lower Value

% difference = × 10
Higher Value

Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank − (% difference × 10)

The governing rank is the subjective value set by the designers. The importance of each constraint is
determined by the referrals of the client and the designer’s perspective on the constraint. The subordinate
rank in the equation is a variable that corresponds to its percentage distance from the governing rank along
the ranking scale.

50
 Figure 37: Ranking Scale

Table 3: Designer’s Raw Ranking

Ability to satisfy the criterion

Criterion’s
(on a scale from -5 to 5)
Importance
Decision Criteria Micropile Lime
(on a scale from 0
to 5) Soil Nailing Slide Stabilization
Stabilization
1. Economic (Cost) 5 2,906,253 2,921,373 1,518,750

2. Constructability 4 5 weeks 3.2 weeks 2.3 weeks

3. Sustainability 5 Varies by design.

Over-all Rank 9
*Reference: Otto, K. N. and Antonsson, E. K., (1991). Trade-off strategies in engineering design. Research
in Engineering Design, volume 3, number 2, pages 87-104.Retrieved from
http://www.design.caltech.edu/Research/Publications/90e.pdf on March 11, 2013

The designers had decided to set the corresponding importance rank in every criteria that must be
considered. The Economic importance is set to five (5) because this is a government project, which would
have limited funds for this matter, the designer set it as the highest possible ranking in all of the constraints.
The constructability importance was ranked as four (4) because the duration of the project would affect the
traffic caused by the construction, and the longer the duration of the project, it would be proportional to the
cost to the workers, but the ranking is four (4) because this constraint is all up to the client, and depends on
the methodology best suited to the project. The sustainability importance was ranked as five (5) because
the project is about enhancing the soil, the safety of the people is the main priority of the government, the
methodology that is to be used on the project is the one that would give strength to the soil for a long period
of time, with less maintenance, the Sustainability is the same as the Economical constraint, because as the
maintenance cost rise, even the construction is done, the government would have to deal with high costing
maintenance on stability of the soil for the people’s safety.

Computation for ranking for Economic Constraint:

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

Lime Stabilization has the lowest estimated cost with 1,518,750 php.

51
For Soil Nailing:
2,906,253 − 1,518,750
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
2,906,253
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 4.98 𝑠𝑎𝑦 5

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 − (%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒)

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 5 − 5

𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟎

For Micropile slide stabilization:

2,921,373 − 1,518,750
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
2,921,373
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 5

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 − (%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒)

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 5 − 5

𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟎

Computation for ranking of constructability constraint:

Lime Stabilization has the shortest construction duration

For Soil Nailing:

5 − 2.3
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
5
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 5.4
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 − (%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒)
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 5 − 5.4

𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒌 =. 𝟒

For Micropile slide stabilization:

3.2 − 2.3
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥 10
3.2
% 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 2.8125 𝑠𝑎𝑦 2.9

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 − (%𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒)

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 5 − 2.8

𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟐. 𝟐

52
3.3.3 Design Standards:
The following are the manuals or guidelines used in the design for the slope stabilization:
1. DPWH Blue Book Vol. 2 Department of Public Works and Highways – Standard Specifications for
Highways, Bridges and Airports (Volume II).
2. The material standards provided by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
3. Study guide for Soil Mechanics Level 1 (Module II) of AASHTO (American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials)
4. National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) vol. 1-2010 edition (PD1096)

DPWH Blue Book Vol. 1 Construction of government infrastructure facilities of the highest quality has
always been the primary mandate of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). Cognizant of
the importance of providing effective standard specifications to be used in the implementation of projects
that will produce sound, durable and economical structures, this Department has revised the 1995 edition
of the DPWH Standard Specifications for Highways, Bridges and Airports (Volume II).

American Society for Testing and Materials The quality of ASTM testing standards is such that they are
frequently used worldwide. At CMTL the Quality Program is the driving force for all of our business
operations. This quality system model determines our administrative duties, directs all technical activities,
and manages all issues related to compliance testing, sampling and specimen traceability.

Study guide for Soil Mechanics Level 1 (Module II) of AASHTO this training module on the Unified Soil
Classification is one of the 3 modules of the Sol Mechanics Level I course.
1. Unified Soil Classification System
2. AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials)
3. USDA Textural Soil Classifciation

53
The National Building Code of the Philippines (PD 1096).The National Building Code of the Philippines,
also known as Presidential Decree No. 1096 was formulated and adopted as a uniform building code to
embody up-to-date and modern technical knowledge on building design, construction, use, occupancy and
maintenance. The Code provides for all buildings and structures, a framework of minimum standards and
requirements to regulate and control location, site, design, and quality of materials, construction, use,
occupancy, and maintenance.

CHAPTER 4: DESIGN OF SLOPE STABLIZATION

4.1 METHODOLOGY

The designers followed the procedures in “Guide to Soil Nail Design and Construction (2008)” for the
design of slope stabilization using soil nails published by the Civil Engineering Department Government of
the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. For the design of slope stabilization using micropiles, the
designers used “FHWA Micropile Designing and Construction Reference Manual (2005)” by the U.S.
Department of Transportation. For the design of slope stabilization using lime stabilization methodology, the
designers used “Mixture Design and Testing Procedures for Lime Stabilized Soil” by the National Lime
Stabilization.

4.2 SLOPE STABILIZATION DESIGN PROCESS

As the preceding chapters of this document stated, the road widening extension will be constructed over
soft soil and stabilizing the slope using soil nails or micropiles was the proposed solution to the problem.

54
Figure 38: Slope Stabilization using Mechanical Methodologies

55
Figure 39: Flowchart of Slope Stabilization Design Using Mehcanical Methodologies

56
4.2.1 Design Parameters

The following table were the summary of design parameters in the actual design of the slope.

Table 4: Summary of Design Parameters

Input Parameter Values Reference/Remark

Cross Section
Height (H) 7.5 m Figure 2.3-2 Soil Profiles
Length (L) 11 Figure 2.3-2 Soil Profiles
Width of Base (B) 10 m
Width of Crest 2m
Slope 2 H:1 V Section 2.2.3 of this Project
Soil Properties Refer to Geotechnical Report in Chapter 2
Ground Water
Refer to Geotechnical Report in Chapter 3
Table
Backfill Properties
Layer 1
Angle of Friction 26 º
Refer to Input Parameters in
Unit Weight 19.33 kN/m^3
Chapter 2
Cohesion 0 kPa
Layer 2
Angle of Friction 40 º
Refer to Input Parameters in
Unit Weight 23.2 kN/m^3
Chapter 2
Cohesion 0 kPa
Layer 3
Angle of Friction 40 º
Refer to Input Parameters in
Unit Weight 23.2 kN/m^3
Chapter 2
Cohesion 0 kPa
Factor of Safety 1.45 GeoStudio

4.2.2 Slope Stability Analysis

In this section, the analysis is perform with different slips and each slip has different values of factor of
safety, and the designers will pick the slip which has the least value. And the designers will use the results
from the most critical slip for the design of the reinforcement.

57
4.2.2.1 Rotational Stability Analysis

Rotational stability of the project is evaluated using Morgenstern-Price Method and was analyzed through
the use of GeoStudio software. Morgenstern and Price (1965) developed a method similar to the Spencer
method, but they allowed for various user-specified interslice force functions (Calgary, 2015). Therefore in
each slices the forces are included, and by this, the designers will be able to locate in what distance where
the soil is most tensioned. And also, this method is more rigorous becuase it considers both interslice shear
and normal forces that will result to lower factor of safety (Calgary, 2015). From the actual tensile force, the
ultimate tensile strength requirement of the reinforcing materials, which are soil nails and micropiles, can be
worked out. A minimum factor of safety of 1.5 may be adopted for rotational stability analysis (Kama Koti
Marg, 2013).

The process that the designers used in rotational stability analysis is illustrated in the flowchart below.

Figure 40: Flowchart of Rotational Stability Analysis

58
The figure below illustrates results that can be obtain in GeoStudio. These data will be used for further
computation of the design.

Figure 41: GeoStudio Software Slope Stability Analysis (Unreinforced)

4.2.2.1.1 Summary of the Analysis using GeoStudio

Slope Stability Analysis

Report generated using GeoStudio 2012. Copyright © 1991-2015 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd.
Project Settings
Length(L) Units: Meters
Time(t) Units: Seconds
Force(F) Units: Kilonewtons
Pressure(p) Units: kPa
Strength Units: kPa
Unit Weight of Water: 9.807 kN/m³
View: 2D
Element Thickness: 1

59
 Analysis Settings
Slope Stability Analysis
Description: This analysis will provide us the needed data for the design process in chapter 4.
Kind: SLOPE/W
Method: Morgenstern-Price
Settings
Side Function
Interslice force function option: Half-Sine
PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line
Apply Phreatic Correction: No
Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No
Slip Surface
Direction of movement: Left to Right
Use Passive Mode: No
Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit
Critical slip surfaces saved: 1
Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 °
Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5 °
Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No
Tension Crack
Tension Crack Option: (none)
F of S Distribution
F of S Calculation Option: Constant
Advanced
Number of Slices: 15
F of S Tolerance: 0.001
Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 m
Search Method: Root Finder
Tolerable difference between starting and converged F of S: 3
Maximum iterations to calculate converged lambda: 20
Max Absolute Lambda: 2

Materials
1st Layer
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 19.33 kN/m³
Cohesion': 0 kPa
Phi': 26 °
Phi-B: 0 °
Pore Water Pressure
Piezometric Line: 1

60
2nd Layer
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 23.2 kN/m³
Cohesion': 0 kPa
Phi': 40 °
Phi-B: 0 °
Pore Water Pressure
Piezometric Line: 1
3nd Layer
Model: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 23.2 kN/m³
Cohesion': 0 kPa
Phi': 40 °
Phi-B: 0 °
Pore Water Pressure
Piezometric Line: 1

Slip Surface Entry and Exit

Left Projection: Range
Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (0.0456, 7.5) m
Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (2, 7.5) m
Left-Zone Increment: 4
Right Projection: Range
Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (10.0464, 2.5) m
Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (11, 2.5) m
Right-Zone Increment: 4
Radius Increments: 4

Slip Surface Limits

Left Coordinate: (0, 7.5) m
Right Coordinate: (11, 2.5) m

Piezometric Lines
Piezometric Line 1
Coordinates

X (m) Y (m)
Coordinate 1 0 3.5
Coordinate 2 11 3.5

61
 Points
X (m) Y (m)
Point 1 0 0
Point 2 11 0
Point 3 11 1.5
Point 4 0 1.5
Point 5 11 2.5
Point 6 10 2.5
Point 7 4.4 6
Point 8 0 6
Point 9 2 7.5
Point 10 0 7.5

Regions
Material Points Area (m²)
Region 1 3nd Layer 1,2,3,4 16.5
Region 2 2nd Layer 4,3,5,6,7,8 36.2
Region 3 1st Layer 8,7,9,10 4.8

Current Slip Surface

Slip Surface: 123

F of S: 1.450
Volume: 8.02005 m³
Weight: 181.8428 kN
Resisting Moment: 1,147.267 kN-m
Activating Moment: 791.35372 kN-m
Resisting Force: 103.19268 kN
Activating Force: 71.190138 kN
F of S Rank (Analysis): 1 of 125 slip surfaces
F of S Rank (Query): 1 of 125 slip surfaces
Exit: (11, 2.5) m
Entry: (2, 7.5) m
Radius: 9.5060341 m
Center: (10.381034, 11.985861) m

Table 5: Slip Slices

X (m) Y (m) PWP (kPa) Base Frictional Cohesive

62
 Normal Strength Strength
Stress (kPa) (kPa) (kPa)
Slice 1 2.2490775 7.086575 -35.173541 2.909701 1.419156 0
Slice 2 2.7472326 6.336575 -27.818291 7.717965 3.7643031 0
Slice 3 3.3472326 5.6127009 -20.719258 11.157144 9.3619558 0
Slice 4 4.0490775 4.9113145 -13.840761 16.551638 13.888473 0
Slice 5 4.6827965 4.3852134 -8.6812878 20.537896 17.233341 0
Slice 6 5.2483895 3.991632 -4.8214347 23.202319 19.469057 0
Slice 7 5.8139825 3.6550321 -1.5204001 25.440482 21.347099 0
Slice 8 6.3846816 3.3665142 1.3090951 26.878333 21.455139 0
Slice 9 6.9604869 3.1219282 3.7077497 26.981412 19.528921 0
Slice 10 7.5362921 2.9204834 5.6833194 25.521802 16.646464 0
Slice 11 8.1120974 2.7593392 7.2636601 22.282206 12.602056 0
Slice 12 8.6666667 2.6396255 8.437693 19.731683 9.4767829 0
Slice 13 9.2 2.5573081 9.2449793 17.857052 7.2263866 0
Slice 14 9.7333333 2.505686 9.7512376 14.075755 3.6287012 0
Slice 15 10.25 2.4840193 9.9637228 10.240796 0.23249192 0
Slice 16 10.75 2.4902858 9.9022667 10.095853 0.16243818 0

4.2.2.1.2 Summary of Interslice Forces provided by GesStudio

The complete analysis of interslice forces was attached in Appendix B.

Slice 8 - Morgenstern-Price Method

18.609
10.638

14.669
16.019

9.8208
9.3935

17.059

Figure 42: Free Body Diagram and Force Polygon of Slice 8

Table 6: Summary of Interslice Forces
Weight Base Normal Force Base Shear Res. Force Base Shear Mob. Force

63
 (kN) (kN) (kN) (kN)
Slice 1 2.482 2.8088 1.3699 0.94502
Slice 2 6.7059 6.4633 3.1523 2.1746
Slice 3 15.233 11.662 9.7858 6.7505
Slice 4 20.702 15.59 13.082 9.024
Slice 5 18.87 14.518 12.182 8.4035
Slice 6 19.396 15.595 13.086 9.0269
Slice 7 19.174 16.409 13.769 9.4982
Slice 8 18.609 17.059 13.617 9.3955
Slice 9 17.069 16.653 12.053 8.3145
Slice 10 14.953 15.402 10.046 6.93
Slice 11 12.298 13.212 7.4725 5.1547
Slice 12 8.5835 10.699 5.1386 3.5447
Slice 13 5.4776 9.5982 3.8842 2.6794
Slice 14 1.9919 7.5246 1.9398 1.3381
Slice 15 0.18538 5.1209 0.11626 0.080197
Slice 16 0.11268 5.0517 0.08128 0.56069

Table 7: Summary of Interslice Forces

4.2.3 Design of Soil Nailing for Slope Stabilization
Left Side Normal Left Side Shear Right Side Normal Right Side Shear
Force (kN) Force (kN) Force (kN) Force (kN)
Slice 1 1.9238 0.22325
Slice 2 1.9238 0.22325 5.8485 1.3369
Slice 3 5.8485 1.3369 9.9762 3.7381
Slice 4 9.9762 3.7381 13.657 6.8071
Slice 5 13.657 6.8071 15.64 9.0212
Slice 6 15.64 9.0212 16.465 10.418
Slice 7 16.465 10.418 16.019 10.638
Slice 8 16.019 10.638 14.669 9.8208
Slice 9 14.669 9.8208 12.904 8.3615
Slice 10 12.904 8.3615 10.901 6.5444
Slice 11 10.901 6.5444 9.0467 4.7816
Slice 12 9.0467 4.7816 6.9391 3.0738
Slice 13 6.9391 3.0738 3.8291 1.3099
Slice 14 3.8291 1.3099 0.27111 0.062193
Slice 15 0.27111 0.062193 0.25385 0.029566
Slice 16 0.25385 0.029566

64
Using the interslice forces provided by the GeoStudio software, the designers can design the reinforcement
needed for the slope stabilization.

4.2.3.1 Soil Nail Reinforcement (Homantin, 2008)

The allowable tensile capacity, TT, of a soil nail is given by:

𝒇𝒚 𝑨′ Equation 5.1
𝑻𝑻 =
𝑭𝑻
Where:
fy = characteristic yield strength of the soil-nail reinforcement
A'= effective cross-sectional area of the soil-nail reinforcement
FT = factor of safety against tensile failure of soil-nail reinforcement

The allowable pullout resistance provided by the soil-grout bond length in the passive zone, TSG, can be
determined using the effective stress method:

𝒄′ 𝑷𝒄 𝑳 + 𝟐𝑫𝝈′𝒗 𝝁∗ 𝑳 Equation 5.2

𝑻𝑺𝑮 =
𝑭𝑺𝑮

Where:
c' = effective cohesion of the soil
Pc = outer perimeter of the cement grout sleeve
L = bond length of the soil-nail reinforcement in the passive zone
D = outer diameter of the cement grout sleeve
σ ' ν = vertical effective stress in the soil calculated at mid-depth of the soil-nail reinforcement in the passive
zone, with a maximum value of 300 kPa
* *
μ = coefficient of apparent friction of soil (μ may be taken to be equal to tan φ', where φ' is the
angle of shearing resistance of the soil under effective stress condition)
FSG = factor of safety against pullout failure at soil-grout interface

The allowable pullout resistance provided by the grout-reinforcement bond length in the passive zone, TGR,
is given by:

𝜷√𝒇𝒄𝒖 𝑷𝒓 𝑳
𝑻𝑮𝑹 = Equation 5.3
𝑭𝑮𝑹
Where:
β = coefficient of friction at the grout-reinforcement interface, which depends on the bar type characteristic
in accordance with BS 8110 (BSI, 1997), e.g., 0.5 for high yield deformed steel bars
fcu = characteristic strength of cement grout
Pr = effective perimeter of the soil-nail reinforcement (In the absence of detailed investigation, a presumed
value of rock-grout bond strength of 0.35 MPa may be used for determining the pullout capacity)
L = bond length of the soil-nail reinforcement in the passive zone
FGR = factor of safety against pullout failure at grout-reinforcement interface

65
 Figure 43: Recommended Minimum Factor of Safety
Source: (Homantin, 2008), page 42

Table 8: Computed Design Tensile Strength against Actual Tensile Force

Φ L (m) T (kN) TT (kN) TSR (kN) TGR (kN) CHECKING

Slice 1 26.00 2.00 2.81 112.90 3.77 23.23 SAFE
Slice 2 26.00 4.00 6.46 112.90 7.54 46.46 SAFE
Slice 3 40.00 4.00 11.66 112.90 12.98 46.46 SAFE
Slice 4 40.00 5.00 15.59 112.90 16.22 58.08 SAFE
Slice 5 40.00 5.00 14.52 112.90 16.22 58.08 SAFE
Slice 6 40.00 5.00 15.60 112.90 16.22 58.08 SAFE
Slice 7 40.00 6.00 16.41 112.90 19.47 69.70 SAFE
Slice 8 40.00 6.00 17.06 112.90 19.47 69.70 SAFE
Slice 9 40.00 6.00 16.65 112.90 19.47 69.70 SAFE
Slice 10 40.00 5.00 15.40 112.90 16.22 58.08 SAFE
Slice 11 40.00 5.00 13.21 112.90 16.22 58.08 SAFE
Slice 12 40.00 4.00 10.70 112.90 12.98 46.46 SAFE
Slice 13 40.00 3.00 9.60 112.90 9.73 34.85 SAFE
Slice 14 40.00 3.00 7.52 112.90 9.73 34.85 SAFE
Slice 15 40.00 2.00 5.12 112.90 6.49 23.23 SAFE
Slice 16 40.00 2.00 5.05 112.90 6.49 23.23 SAFE

66
 Figure 44: Design Drawing base on Results

Table 8 shows the values of the tensile forces from the actual up to the ultimate tensile strength of
the soil nails. It shows also that in every slices there are different design of soil nails, because the
forces varies with the distance from the entry and exit of the circular slip surface. The complete
solution for table 8 was attached in Appendix C.

However, widely-spaced soil nails may not be effective in ensuring that the soil nails and the
ground act as an integral mass, and in preventing local instability between soil nails. Conversely,
soil nails that are too close may not be cost-effective and may be difficult to install properly. In
Hong Kong, soil nails are commonly installed at a spacing of 1.5 m to 2 m. Horizontal rows of soil
nails should be staggered to improve the integral action between the soil nails and the ground
(Homantin, 2008). Therefore the designers applies the minimum spacing of 1.5 m to each nails,
and this change will result to a lesser number of nails that will be used in the slope. And in the
summary of the data shown above, the spacing in between slices is almost 0.5 m, thus by
increasing the spacing of it by 1.5 m will result to a lesser number of required nails. And for the
uniformity, the nail should be used in the construction is the one that has the highest capacity of all.

Theoretically the effectiveness of the soil nails will be maximized if they are installed at their
corresponding optimum soil-nail orientations, i.e., aligned with the direction of the maximum tensile
strain of the soil. This will lead to different soil-nail inclination, which is the angle of a soil nail to the
horizontal. However, for practical reasons, soil nails are commonly installed at a uniform inclination
(Homantin, 2008). Therfore, the angle of the inclination for each nails will be uniform also.

67
4.2.3.2 Design Considerations

A soil-nailed system is required to fulfil fundamental requirements of stability, serviceability and durability
during construction and throughout its design life. Other issues such as cost and environmental impact are
also important design considerations (Homantin, 2008).

(1) Stability. The stability of a soil-nailed system throughout its design life should be assessed. Its
performance should not exceed a state at which failure mechanisms can form in the ground or
within the soil-nailed system, or when movement of the soil-nailed system can lead to severe
damage to its structural elements or nearby structures, facilities or services.

(2) Serviceability. The performance of a soil-nailed system should not exceed a state at which the
movement of the system affects its appearance or the efficient use of nearby structures, facilities or
services, which rely upon it. Potential serviceability problems associated with soil-nailed systems
include excessive ground deformation, and deterioration of slope facing and drainage systems.

(3) Durability. The environmental conditions should be investigated at the design stage to assess their
significance in relation to the durability of soil nails. Appropriate measures should be applied to the
soil nails such that an adequate safety margin of the soil-nailed system can be maintained
throughout its design life.

(4) Economic Considerations. The construction cost of a soil-nailed system depends on the material
cost, construction method, temporary works requirements, buildability, corrosion protection
requirements, soil-nail layout, type of facing, etc.

(5) Environmental Considerations. The construction of a soil-nailed system may disturb the ground
ecosystem, induce nuisance and pollution during construction, and cause visual impact to the
existing environment. Adverse impact to the environment should be minimised. For example,
mature trees and natural terrain should be preserved and protected whenever possible to sustain
the ecosystem. Appropriate pollution control measures, such as providing water sprays and dust
traps at the mouths of drillholes when drilling rocks, screening the working platform and installing
noise barriers in areas with sensitive receivers, should be provided.

68
4.2.3.3 Final Design of Soil Nails

Figure 45: Final Design Drawing

Table 9: Main Material Specification

PARAMETERS:
d (mm) 25.00
D (mm) 50.00
θ (degree) 26.57
S (m) 1.50
L (m) 6.00
CAPACITY:
TT (kN) 112.90
TSR (kN) 19.47
TGR (kN) 69.70

Where:
d = diameter of the cement soil nail reinforcement
D = outer diameter of the cement grout sleeve
Θ = inclination of the soil nail with respect to horizontal
L = bond length of the soil-nail reinforcement in the passive zone
TT = allowable tensile capacity
TSR = allowable pullout resistance provided by the soil-grout bond length in the passive zone
TGR = allowable pullout resistance provided by the grout-reinforcement bond length in the passive zone

69
4.2.4 Design of Micropile Slide Stabilization (MS3)

Based on “FHWA Micropile Design and Construction Reference Manual (2005)” published by the U.S.
Department of Transportation:

Evaluation of Factor of Safety:

Generally, factor of safety is required to bring the slope from the state of collapse to a usable state. The
factor of safety also known as Safety Factor is used to provide a design margin over the theoretical design
capacity to allow for uncertainty in the design process.

Checking of the factor of safety of the modelled slope, using Geostudio 2012 [Student Version] (SLOPE w/
define), the slope has an height 7.5 meters and length considered is 11 meters with a groundwater table
according to the Geotechnical Report (See appendix) at 3.5 meters.

Figure shows the output of the modelled and analysed slope with a factor of safety of 1.450 which is above
the minimum factor of safety stated in FHWA Micropile Design and Construction reference manual (2005)
with a F.S. of 1.3 is enough. But the target factor of safety of the designer is 2.00.

Figure 46: Slope Model of the Project

Source: Photo from Geostudio.

To attain the target factor of safety, insertion of micropiles would be done, but due to the constraint of
software limitation, the alternative process was done by selecting the chosen critical strip in the slope and
add a relatively large cohesive strength assigned to a soil layer.

Adding cohesive strength to the critical strip of the slope until the target safety of factor is attained.
C =5.1 kPa was used to attain the safety factor of 2.006.

70
 Figure 47: Model of the slope reinforced.
Micropiles used for slopes are designed to prevent downward movement of the slope mass above the
potential slip surface. The micropiles must be capable of providing the force required to stabilize the slope.
This force is the force required to increase the factor of safety of the slope from an existing value to a target
value. Hreq is the additional force required to stabilize and increase the factor of safety of the slope to the
target value.

Hreq = C x L
Where:
Hreq = Additional force required to stabilze the slope
C = Cohesive Strength
L = Length of the slice

Load Transfer in Micropiles:

Micropiles resist unstable slope forces through a combination of axial resistance developed atthe grout-to-
ground interface both above and below the potential slip surface and structural (i.e., shear and bending)
resistance.

The axial force required to be resisted by the micropile below the potential slip surface is assumed to be
equal to the ultimate side resistance of the micropile that could develop above the failure surface with a

71
factor of safety. The ultimate side resistance of the micropile above the failure surface, Pult, can be
calculated as:
Pult = αbond-above x Labove x ∏ x d

Where:
Pult = Ultimate side resistance of the micropile above the failure surface
Αbond-above= grout-to-ground ultimate bond strength above the critical slip surface from table
Labove = length of the micropile from the slip surface to the bottom of the cap beam (check figure)
D = Diameter of the micropile

The required length of the micropile below the slip surface, Lbelow, is calculated as:

Lbelow = ( Pult / αbond-below x ∏ x d ) x F.S.

Where:
αbond-below = grout-to-ground ultimate bond strength below the critical slip surface from table

72
Table 10: Summary of Typical abond (Grout - to - Grout Bond) Values for Micropile design.

Source: FHWA Micropile Design and Construction Reference Manual (2005).

.
Evaluation of the Micropile:

The process would be mainly iteration of the crosssection of the micropile due to the limitation of software
and other resources, the alternative process is used, same concept but different approach. The bending
and shear is evaluated if the micropile can withstand and if it would not be pulled off from the soil.

Choosing of the type of micropiles will be based on this table:

73
Table 11: Relationship Between Micropile Application, Design Behavior and Construction Type

Table 12: Cross-Section of the Micropile

Type : A
O.D. Casing: 140 Mm
Wall Thickness: 6.0 Mm
Fy = 425,000 kPa
d= 0.130 M
L= 4.2 M

74
For the column evaluation the Ultimate Moment was computed using the software program Prokon (demo
mode) and modelled as an General Column with restraints at top and pinned at bottom. The soil presence
was not considered for more conservative output.

Input:
Estimated Length of the Micropile:

Ltotal = Labove x Lbelow

*Labove = length of micropile between the ground surface and the critical slip surface
*Lbot = length of micropile below the critical slip surface

Labove = 1.515 m ; Lbelow =F.S. x ( Pult / d x ∏ x ∂bond-below )

Pult, Ultimate Side Resistance = ∂bond-above x Labove x ∏ x d

∂bond - above = 66 kPa

∂bond - below = 75 kPa

Pult = 66 x 1.515 x 3.14 x 0.13 = 40.815918 kN

Lbelow = 2 x (40.815918 / 0.13 x 75 x 3.14) = 2.6664 m

Total length = 4.2 m

75
Figure 48: Modelling of the Cross-section on Prokon (Demo mode)

76
Output:
Assuming P = 0;

Figure 49: Moment Capacity of the Micropile if P = 0.

Assuming P = Pult; My = Mx

Figure 50: Moment Capacity of the Micropile if P = Pult.

The output shows that the pile would have ang Moment capacity of 7.7 kN.m, according to the FHWA
Micropile design and construction reference manual (2005), the shear resistance of a micropile
corresponds to the maximum shear force that can be applied to the micropile that results in a maximum
bending moment within the micropile (at any location) to be just equal to the ultimate bending moment of
the micropile.

The GEO5 program – Micropile (Demo Version) – is used to assess the micropile section used, the
verification on the internal stability and section bearing capacity, the designers focused on the section
bearing capacity criteria, attaining the factor of safety of F.S. = 2, because most of the sections passed the

77
evaluation of the internal stability criteria, for the most economical section, the section bearing capacity was
considered.

Figure 51: The evaluation of the section using GEO5 software.

Figure 52: The results of the assessment.

Resulting that the section passed. The section would be used for the project.
Spacing of the Micropiles:
The assumed forces acting on a micropile are shown in Figure 6-19 for the case of a vertical micropile
(where axial resistance is assumed to be zero, i.e., P=0) and for an inclined micropile (where axial
resistance is assumed to be equal to the ultimate axial resistance provided by the ground slip surface, P =
Pult).

78
P = Axial Ultimate Force applied to the micropile.
Q = Shear Ultimate Force applied to the micropile.

Figure 53: Illustration of the Forces acting on the Micropile

Source: FHWA Micropile Design and Construction Reference Manual (2005)

Figure 54: Maximum Forces acting on the Micropile computed by the Geostudio 2012 [Student
Version] ( SLOPE w/ Define)
The forces was provided by the GeoStudio 2012 [Student Version] (SLOPE w/ define), the slice with the
greatest possible force that the micropile will carry was shown. With the gathered datas the spacing could
be computed by:

S = Hult-pair / Hreq

79
Where:
Hult-pair = Q + P, summation of forces that acts on the micropile.
Hreq = Additional force required to stabilze the slope
The other slices with the forces is shown on the appendix, only the critical slice was chosen. The complete
and detailed computation for the designing can be browsed in Appendix D.

The output of the Design:

Spacing of
micropile:
From soil,:
Qmax = 10.409 kN
Pmax = 20.822 kN
Pmax = 40.81592 kN
Hult-pair = Qmax + Pmax = 51.22492 kN

Spacing of Micropile = Hult-pair / Hreq = 51.224918 / 56.1 = 0.9131 m

Figure 55: The design of Micropile.

Then the Cap Beam where all of the Moment loadings are being carried. The FHWA gives a standard
dimension of cap beam, with a 2 meter by 1 meter interms of depth and thickness respectively. The
spacing of reinforcement is the one computed by the designers. The designers computed 10 – 20mm ᴓ
bars spaced @ 100 O.C.
Design of Cap Beam:
Base Thickness
Dimension (Recommended by FHWA): 2 x 1 meter
Moment = F x
d= 10.409 x 1.515 = 15.76964 kN . M

80
(From Slice 7, F = 10.409 kN ; d = 1.515 m)

4.2.4.1 Final Design of Micropiles

81
Figure 56: Details of the Micropiling Design

82
4.2.5 Design of Lime Stabilization

83
 Figure 57: Flowchart of Slope Stabilization using Lime
Using the soil gathered by the designers from the site, following the accordance in boring a sample for the
lab experiments. The designers used the proper tools on boring the samples.

84
 Figure 58: Getting Soil Sample from the Site

Figure 59: Drilling of Soil using Auger

According to (Office of Geotechnical Engineering, Indianapolis, 2008), Lime reacts with soils to produce
decreased plasticity, increased workability, reduced swelling, and increased strength. The major soil
properties and characteristics that influence the soils ability to react with lime to produce cementitious
materials are pH, organic content, natural drainage, and clay mineralogy.

The soil properties is the first stage of the designing process. One of the needed property is the Moisture
Content of the soil. It would be a factor on defining the percentage of lime needed referring to ASTM D
6276 (Eads – Grim Test).

85
 Figure 60: Conducting Physical and Mechanical Test
After the mechanical and physical tests on the soil, the sampling for the percentage of the solution of
Calcium Hydroxide (Lime) to be used. Variations of percentage of Lime solutions was prepared. Using the
Eads – Grim Test, the optimum lime content would be the aim of the test.

A sufficient amount of lime shall be added to the soil to produce a pH of 12.4 or equal to the lime pH itself.
(Office of Geotechnical Engineering, Indianapolis, 2008)

The designer prepared 5 samples for the first trial, 2%, 3%, 4%, 5%, 6% (Recommended by (ASTM-
D6276)) and a Lime + water solution only. The lime is mixed with a specific amount of soil calculated with
the moisture content of the soil (ASTM D 6276 reference). The containers used are plastic bottle, air tight
for assurance that the Calcium Hydroxide would not be disturbed.

(ASTM-D6276) Using Air-Dried Samples, the mass of each soil specimen to be mixed with lime for the test
would be computed from:
𝑾
𝑴𝒂 = 𝟐𝟓 𝒙 (𝟏 + )
𝟏𝟎𝟎
Where:
Ma = Mass of air-dried soil for the specimen
W = Water content (%) of the air-dried sample

Every sample would be added with 100 mL of water and be shaken for minimum of 30 seconds until the
mixtures are thoroughly mixed. The shaking of mixtures to be continued every 10 minutes for 1 hour.

86
 Figure 61: Soils with different % Lime Solution
Within the 15 minute of the end of the 1 hour shaking period, the pH of the samples would be determined.

If the 12.4 pH is not attained, the Lime concentration maybe increased. A trial and error method would be
necessary.

Figure 62: Measuring Alkalinity of the Soil mixed with the Lime

87
Result of the Two (2) trial test conducted by the designers:
Table 13: Result of the first trial

First Trial: LIME STABILIZATION Eads and Grim Test

Percentage: pH recorded:
2% 8
3% 9.2
4% 9.3
5% 9.4
6% 9.5
Lime + Water 10

Another Trial Run with higher solution percentage was conducted due to low pH output of the mixtures.
Table 14: Result of the Second Trial

Second Trial: LIME STABILIZATION Eads and Grim Test

Percentage: pH recorded:
10% 11.7
20% 11.9
30% 10.6
40% 11.8
50% 11.1

pH recorded:
14
11.7 11.9 11.8
12 10.6 11.1
10
PH LEVEL ATTAINED

9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5

10
8
8
6
4
2
0
2% 3% 4% 5% 6% Lime + 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Water
SOLUTION PERCENTAGE OF THE MIXTURE

Figure 63: pH recorded of Soil with different % of Lime Solution

From the graph presented Figure 63, the soil has different reactions to the soil, even if the lime
concentration is increased beyond the recommended amount by the National Lime Association, there
would be a certain reaction to every mixture of samples. Interpreting the data, the highest pH gathered was
with the 20% solution of lime. But still the 12.4 pH level was not attained, which means the concentration of
the solution used would be increased, even in the 50% solution, the pH level decreased. The designers

88
 would recommend that the Lime Stabilization Methodology is not suitable/uneconomical for the soil type of
the project. The other tradeoffs would be the focus of the designers here on forward.

4.3 Validation of Trade-Offs

To confirm the Designer’s Raw Ranking that was stated in Chapter 3, the designer computed the
necessary details for the validation of tradeoffs. The validation will prove if the assumptions on the initial
estimates presented in Chapter 3 is right.
In this chapter, the drafted tradeoffs (Soil Nailing, Micropiling, and Lime Stabilization (Taken out)) on
Stabilizing methodology, we compared with initial estimates from the designer. The tables below would
signify which tradeoff fits perfectly to the clients constraints.

4.3.1 Final Estimate:

The Total Cost Estimate of the Designer using the methodologies indicated in chapter 3.
Table 15: Total Cost Estimate of the Methodologies.

Item Cost
Description Soil Nailing Methodology Micropile Methodology Difference:
TOTAL Php632,600.00 Php769,558.76 Php31195.47

4.3.2 Final Constructability Estimate:

The Total Estimated time for the projects construction to be completed:
Table 16: Total Duration Estimate of the Methodologies

Item Constructability
Description Soil Nailing Methodology Micropile Methodology Difference:
TOTAL 3 weeks 4.5 weeks 1.5 weeks

4.3.3 Final Serviceability Estimate:

The Total Estimated time for the projects construction to be completed:
Table 17: Total Serviceability Estimate of the Methodologies.

Item Serviceability
Description Soil Nailing Methodology Micropile Methodology Difference:
TOTAL 40 Years 50 Years 10 Years

89
The Manual Computation of the values stated in the tables is indicated in the Appendix H.
4.4 Manual Computation of Validation:

Validation of:
1.) Economic
Higher Cost = Php769,558.76 Governing Rank = 5
Lower Cost = Php632,601.00

Higher Value - Lower Value 769558.76 – 632601

% difference = x 10 =
Higher Value 769558.76

% difference = 0.177969204

Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank - %Difference = 5 - 0.177969204067016

Subordinate Rank = 4.822030796

2.) Constructability
Higher Cost = 4.5 weeks Governing Rank = 4
Lower Cost = 3 weeks

Higher Value - Lower Value 4.5 – 3

% difference = x 10 =
Higher Value 4.5

% difference = 0.333333333

Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank - %Difference = 4 - 0.333333333333333

Subordinate Rank = 3.666666667

3.) Serviciability As
Higher Cost = 50 Years Governing Rank = 5
Lower Cost = 40 Years

Higher Value - Lower Value 50 – 40

% difference = x 10 =
Higher Value 50

% difference = 0.2

Subordinate Rank = Governing Rank - %Difference = 5 - 0.2

Subordinate Rank = 4.8

90
Table 18: Final Ranking
Criterion’s
Importance Ability to satisfy the criterion
(on a scale of 0 (on a scale from -5 to 5)
Decision
to 5)
Criteria
Micropile
Slide Lime
Soil Nailing
Stabilization stabilization
Economic 5 5 4.8222 0
Constructability 4 4 3.67 0
Sustainability 5 4.8 5 0
Over-all Rank 65 63.791 0

Table 4 shows the final ranking based on the final estimates conducted after the completion of the design.
The trade-offs which are given of rank of 5 are those which gives a lesser amount of material cost
(Economic), labor cost (Constructability) and cost of the volume of the settled soil (sustainability). It was
subjectively ranked in terms of being economical, constructible and sustainable. On the other hand, the
trade-off which earned the higher cost was calculated by the deducting the percentage difference multiplied
by 10 to the governing rank.

4.4.1 Influence of Multiple Constraints, Trade-offs and Standard

Multiple constraints limit the design of a certain project. In this project, four (4) constraints are limiting the
factors of the project. The trade-offs developed by the designers the use mechanical and chemical
stabilization methodology for the project. It is aimed which among the two trade-off would become
sustainable and lower the cost of the project and speed up the construction rate. Two separate designs are
presented concerning the multiple constraints and evaluated in order to determine the most appropriate
design.

Economic Alternative:

ECONOMIC CONSTRAINT
Soil Nailing Micropiling

769,558.76
632600

Economic
Constraint

Figure 64: Economic Constraint Chart (php)

91
The figure above shows the difference of cost between Soil Nailing (Blue) and Micropiling (Orange). The
cost efficiency that the trade-offs oppose towards the project is analyze by estimating the closest possible
actual cost of each project. The Soil Nailing is more vast in terms of construction due to the entire surface
area of the slope is being reinforced plus the nails that is drilled upon the soil, micropiling in the other hand
has the same concept but in certain parts only, where it is critical but requires more reinforcement
compared to Soil Nailing Methodology.
The Detail Computation is stated in the APPENDIX H and I.

Constructability Constraint

CONSTRUCTABILITY CONSTRAINT
Soil Nailing Micropiling

4.50

Constructability
Constraint

Figure 65: Constructability Constraint Graph (weeks)

The graph above shows the difference between the two tradeoffs on completing the construction faster,
indicates the complexity of the construction in each trade-off. Both methodology uses concrete which needs
curing and driller as to pinning the nails and micro piles into place. The ease and convenient construction is
Soil Nailing. The Detail Computation is stated in the Appendix H and I.

Serviceability Constraint

SERVICEABILITY CONSTRAINT
Soil Nailing Micropiling

50.00
40

Serviceability
Constraint

Figure 66: Serviceability Constraint Graph (Years)

92
The Graph above shows the accessibility and efficiency of the design towards its purpose. The designer
designed the most economical and efficient design with a life expectancy proportional to its allowable
strength against forces. The micropile methodology was designed with 50 years life expectancy with a
reasonable price and reinforcement, while the Soil Nailing Methodology is designed to last 40 years.

Considering the efficiency that is directly proportional to the design, Micropiling leads the Soil Nailing in this
constraint.

The Detail Computation is stated in the Appendix H and I.

4.4.2 Sensitivity Analysis

After the validation, the trade-off that suits to deal the multiple constraints is the Soil Nailing. But before the
designer proceed to the final design, it must undergo with sensitivity analysis in order to foreseen the
possible outcome that might affect its service life.

Sensitivity Analysis (SA) is the investigation of potential changes and the errors and their impacts on
conclusions to drawn from the model (Panell, 2015). The designers will make some changes in terms of
possible failure/s, and with the use different graphs that will help to give more accurate results. The
designers will use different criteria to judge the possible changes.

4.4.2.1 Rise of Water Level (Pore-Water Pressure)

When h = 8.00 m:

Figure 67: Soil fully submerged with water

93
 Slice 9 - Morgenstern-Price Method
26.985

17.554
6.7168

58.016
63.161

5.843
5.2053

41.993

Figure 68: Forces acting on the most critical slice.

Summary:

h (m) FS T (kN)
3.5 1.45 17.059
4 1.413 21.733
5 1.402 21.513
6 1.463 29.633
7 1.56 35.555
8 1.585 41.993

h vs FS
1.6

1.55

1.5

1.45

1.4

1.35
0 2 4 6 8 10

Figure 69: Height of Water VS Factor of Safety

94
Based on the graph, when h = 3.5 m the factor of safety is 1.45, and when the h is equal to 4 and 5 the
factors of safety is lesser, but when h goes up from 6 to 8 the factors of safety became higher. Therefore
the designer can’t conclude that the h is proportional to the factor of safety.

h vs T
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10

Figure 70: Height of Water VS Tension Force

Based on the graph, the tension force (T) is directly proportional the height (h) of water. As the water rises
the tension force rises and vice versa.

FS vs T
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1.35 1.4 1.45 1.5 1.55 1.6

Figure 71: Factor of Safety VS Tension Force

Based on the graph, the factor of safety is not proportional to tension force. Therefore the designers can’t
conclude based on pore-water pressure. Thus the Soil Nailing is still suitable as water rises even the
capacity is lesser than actual force because the factor of safety against sliding is greater than 1.5 (Kama
Koti Marg, 2013).

The detailed computation in this section is attached at the Appendix F.

95
4.4.2.2 Filling Material (Soil Layers)
When Soil 1 = 19.33 kN/cu. m (All Layers):

Figure 72: Layers of Soil (All 19.33 kN/cu. m)

Slice 8 - Morgenstern-Price Method

15.505
8.0847

11.476
12.603

7.4217
7.8252

14.197

Figure 73: Forces acting at Soil 1

96
Summary:

SOIL FS T
1 0.833 14.197
2 1.453 17.059
3 1.456 17.034

Where:
Soil 1 = 19.33 All layers
Soil 2 = Original
Soil 3 = 23.2 All layers

SOIL vs FS
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4

Figure 74: Soil VS Factor of Safety

SOIL vs T
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 1 2 3 4

Figure 75: Soil VS Tension Force

97
 FS vs T
20

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Figure 76: Factor of Safety VS Tension Force

Based on the graphs, the least factor of safety is attained at Soil 1 and the highest factor of safety is
attained at Soil 3. But the difference between Soil 2 and Soil 3 is not very big, even with the tension force.
Therefore changing of soil is not necessary. Thus, this analysis doesn’t affect the final design.

The detailed computation in this section is attached at the Appendix G.

98
 CHAPTER 5: FINAL DESIGN

A Comparative assestment of the Trade-offs with the constraint that comes along with it, addressing mainly
the quatifiable constraint (Economical, Constructability, and Serviciability). The result of Analysis is that the
Soil Nailing Methodology governs interms of Cost, and Constructability. The serviciablity design of the
Micropiling Methodology implies an impact on the decision, but the computation shows that the Soil Nailing
would be the best fit for the project.

The designer provided the final spefications and drawings provided below:

Figure 77: Soil Nailing Layout.

99
Figure 78: Soil Nailing Plan.

100
Table 19: Soil Nail Specificatios

SOIL NAIL DESIGN RESULTS

Bond Length of the soil-in reinforcement 6.0 – 9.0 m
Allowable Pullout Resistance (soil grout bond 19.47
length)
Allowable Pullout Resistance (grout reinforcement 69.70
bond length)
Allowable Tensile Capacity 112.90
Numbers of Layers
Diameter of cement soil nail reinforcement 25 mm
Outer diameter of the cement grout sleeve 50 mm

This is the Computed Specification of the Soil Nailing Design to be used for the project. The number of Soil
Nails and its diameter is specified. The Soil Nail is covered with Epoxy to avoid corrosion and direct contact
with the soil.

101
 APPENDIX A. INITIAL COST ESTIMATE

INITIAL ESTIMATE FOR SOIL NAILING:

Cost estimate:

Length (m): 10 M
Height (m): 7.5 M
Area (m2): 75 m2
Unit Cost (Php/m2): 38750 Php/m2
Estimated Cost (PhP): 2,906,253 Php

Constructabilitty
estimate:

Number of estimated nails to be

installed: 15 pcs.
Productivy per week(Number of
nails installed): 3 pcs/week
Number of weeks: 5 weeks

Reference:
Cost - https://itd.idaho.gov/bridge/manual/16%20Cost%20Estimating/16.1%20Structure%20Cost
%20Per%20Square%20Foot.pdf
http://www.wtcb.be/homepage/download.cfm?dtype=services&doc=tc17_text_15.pdf&l
Constructability-
ang=en\

102
 INITIAL ESTIMATE FOR MICRO PILING:

Cost estimate:

Length (m): 10 M
Height (m): 7.5 M
Spacing of Piles (m): 3 M
Depth of Piles (m): 15 M
Number Of Piles: 15 Pcs
Unit Cost (Php/lm): 12841 php/lm
Estimated Cost (PhP): 2,921,373 Php

Constructabilitty estimate:

Number of estimated piles to be installed: 15 pcs.

Productivy per day(Number of piles installed): 0.68 pcs/week
Number of
days: 22.0588235 weeks
Number of Weeks: 3.1512605

Reference:
Cost - http://dot.state.nm.us/content/dam/nmdot/Plans_Specs_Estimates/AUB/2014_All_I
tems.pdf

http://www.ismicropiles.org/uploads/Proceedings/2009/Lehtonen%20-
Constructability- %20Duration%20of%20Micropile%20Underpinning%20Projects%20in%20T
urku.pdf

103
 INITIAL ESTIMATE FOR CHEMICAL GROUTING:

Cost
estimate:

Length (m): 10 m
Height (m): 7.5 m
Area (m2): 75 m
Unit Cost (Php/m2): 20250 m
Estimated Cost (PhP): 1,518,750 pcs

Constructabilitty estimate:

Total area(m2): 75 m2
Productivity rate(m2/day): 32.7378 m2/day
Duration Estimate: 2.29093 Days
Curing Time(Days): 7 days per batching
Total days: 16.03651 Days
Number of weeks: 2.29093 Weeks

Referencee:
Cost
- http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/Content/docType257/Production/UnitPriceList.pdf

Construc https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=
tability- 0ahUKEwiSpYzT95zKAhWG46YKHTW8AoEQFggpMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fww

INITIAL ESTIMATE FOR LIME STABILIZATION:

104
Cost estimate:
Width(m): 2
Length (m): 10 M
Height (m): 7.5 M
Area (m2): 150 M
Unit Cost (Php/m2): 9716 M
Estimated Cost (PhP): 1,457,400 Pcs

Constructabilitty estimate:

Scarification: 3 days
Application of Lime mixture: 3 days
Preliminary mixing and watering: 2 days
Mellowing Period: 7 days
Final mixing and pulverization: 2 days
Compaction: 2 days
Final curing: 7 days
Total estimated days of construction: 26 days
Number of weeks: 3.71428571 weeks

Reference:
Cost -
http://esm.versar.com/pprp/bibliography/PPRP-157/PPRP-157.pdf

http://www.ismicropiles.org/uploads/Proceedings/2009/Lehtonen%20-
%20Duration%20of%20Micropile%20Underpinning%20Projects%20in%20Turku.pdf
Constructability- Lime treated soil construction manual published by national lime association

APPENDIX B: STABILITY ANALYSIS

105
Slope Stability Analysis (without reinforcement)

Figure: GeoStudio Software Slope Stability Analysis (Unreinforced)

Parameter
Method Morgenstern-Price
Factor of Safety 1.450
Total Volume 8.02 m³
Total Weight 181.84 kN
Total Resisting Moment 1,147.3 kN-m
Total Activating Moment 791.35 kN-m
Total Resisting Force 103.19 kN
Total Activating Force 71.19 kN

SLICE 1

106
 Slice 1 - Morgenstern-Price Method

2.482

1.9238

0.22325
2.8088
0.94502

SLICE 2

Slice 2 - Morgenstern-Price Method

6.7059
0.22325

1.9238
5.8485

1.3369

6.4633 2.1746

SLICE 3

107
 Slice 3 - Morgenstern-Price Method

15.233
1.3369

5.8485
9.9762

3.7381

6.7505
11.662

SLICE 4

Slice 4 - Morgenstern-Price Method

20.702
3.7381

9.9762
13.657

6.8071

9.024

15.59

SLICE 5

108
 Slice 5 - Morgenstern-Price Method

18.87
6.8071

13.657 15.64

9.0212

8.4035

14.518

SLICE 6

Slice 6 - Morgenstern-Price Method

19.396
9.0212

15.64 16.465

10.418

9.0269

15.595

SLICE 7

109
 Slice 7 - Morgenstern-Price Method

19.174
10.418

16.465 16.019

10.638

9.4982

16.409

SLICE 8

Slice 8 - Morgenstern-Price Method

18.609
10.638

14.669
16.019

9.8208
9.3935

17.059

SLICE 9

110
 Slice 9 - Morgenstern-Price Method

17.069
9.8208

12.904
14.669

8.3615
8.3145

16.653

SLICE 10

Slice 10 - Morgenstern-Price Method

14.953
8.3615

10.901
12.904

6.5444
6.93

15.402

SLICE 11

111
 Slice 11 - Morgenstern-Price Method

12.298
6.5444

9.0467
10.901

4.7816
5.1547

13.212

SLICE 12

Slice 12 - Morgenstern-Price Method

1.028

8.5835
4.7816

6.9391
9.0467

3.0738
3.5447

10.699

SLICE 13

112
 Slice 13 - Morgenstern-Price Method
3.084

5.4776
3.0738

3.8291
6.9391

1.3099
2.6794

9.5982

SLICE 14

Slice 14 - Morgenstern-Price Method

5.1399

1.9919
1.3099

0.27111
3.8291

0.062193
1.3381

7.5246

SLICE 15

113
 Slice 15 - Morgenstern-Price Method
4.9035

0.18538
0.062193

0.25385
0.27111

0.029566
0.080197

5.1209

SLICE 16
Slice 16 - Morgenstern-Price Method
4.9035

0.11268
0.029566

0.25385

0.056069

5.0517

APPENDIX C: Design for Soil Nailing

SLICE 1

114
 GIVEN:

fy = 345.00 Mpa
d = 25.00 mm
A' = 490.87 sq.mm
FT = 1.50
c' = 0.00 kPa
D = 50.00 mm
Pc = 157.08 mm
L = 2.00 m
σ'v = 77.33 kPa
Φ = 26.00
μ* = 0.49
FSG = 2.00
β = 0.50
fcu = 0.35 Mpa
Pr = 78.54 mm
FGR = 2.00

115
 COMPUTATION:

ALLOWABLE TENSILE CAPACITY:

𝒇𝒚𝑨′
𝑻𝑻 =
𝑭𝑻

= 112.90 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

𝒄 𝑷 𝑳 + 𝟐𝑫𝝈′𝒗𝝁 ∗𝑳
𝑻𝑺𝑮 =
𝑭𝑺𝑮

= 3.77 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE

PROVIDED BY THE GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

𝜷 𝒇𝒄𝒖𝑷𝒓 𝑳
𝑻𝑮𝑹 =
𝑭𝑮𝑹

= 23.23 kN

116
 CHECKING:

GIVEN CRITICAL FORCE: 2.81 kN

FOR TENSILE CAPACITY:

112.90 ≥ 2.81 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

3.77 ≥ 2.81 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE PROVIDED BY GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

23.23 ≥ 2.81 SAFE

117
SLICE 2

GIVEN:

fy = 345.00 Mpa
d = 25.00 mm
A' = 490.87 sq.mm
FT = 1.50
c' = 0.00 kPa
D = 50.00 mm
Pc = 157.08 mm
L = 4.00 m
σ'v = 77.33 kPa
Φ = 26.00
μ* = 0.49
FSG = 2.00
β = 0.50
fcu = 0.35 Mpa
Pr = 78.54 mm
FGR = 2.00

118
 COMPUTATION:

ALLOWABLE TENSILE CAPACITY:

𝒇𝒚𝑨′
𝑻𝑻 =
𝑭𝑻

= 112.90 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

𝒄 𝑷 𝑳 + 𝟐𝑫𝝈′𝒗𝝁 ∗𝑳
𝑻𝑺𝑮 =
𝑭𝑺𝑮

= 7.54 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE

PROVIDED BY THE GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

𝜷 𝒇𝒄𝒖𝑷𝒓 𝑳
𝑻𝑮𝑹 =
𝑭𝑮𝑹

= 46.46 kN

119
 CHECKING:

GIVEN CRITICAL FORCE: 6.46 kN

FOR TENSILE CAPACITY:

112.90 ≥ 6.46 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

7.54 ≥ 6.46 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE PROVIDED BY GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

46.46 ≥ 6.46 SAFE

120
SLICE 3

GIVEN:

fy = 345.00 Mpa
d = 25.00 mm
A' = 490.87 sq.mm
FT = 1.50
c' = 0.00 kPa
D = 50.00 mm
Pc = 157.08 mm
L = 4.00 m
σ'v = 77.33 kPa
Φ = 40.00
μ* = 0.84
FSG = 2.00
β = 0.50
fcu = 0.35 Mpa
Pr = 78.54 mm
FGR = 2.00

121
 COMPUTATION:

ALLOWABLE TENSILE CAPACITY:

𝒇𝒚𝑨′
𝑻𝑻 =
𝑭𝑻

= 112.90 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

𝒄 𝑷 𝑳 + 𝟐𝑫𝝈′𝒗𝝁 ∗𝑳
𝑻𝑺𝑮 =
𝑭𝑺𝑮

= 12.98 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE

PROVIDED BY THE GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

𝜷 𝒇𝒄𝒖𝑷𝒓 𝑳
𝑻𝑮𝑹 =
𝑭𝑮𝑹

= 46.46 kN

122
 CHECKING:

GIVEN CRITICAL FORCE: 11.66 kN

FOR TENSILE CAPACITY:

112.90 ≥ 11.66 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

12.98 ≥ 11.66 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE PROVIDED BY GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

46.46 ≥ 11.66 SAFE

123
SLICE 4

GIVEN:

fy = 345.00 Mpa
d = 25.00 mm
A' = 490.87 sq.mm
FT = 1.50
c' = 0.00 kPa
D = 50.00 mm
Pc = 157.08 mm
L = 5.00 m
σ'v = 77.33 kPa
Φ = 40.00
μ* = 0.84
FSG = 2.00
β = 0.50
fcu = 0.35 Mpa
Pr = 78.54 mm
FGR = 2.00

124
 COMPUTATION:

ALLOWABLE TENSILE CAPACITY:

𝒇𝒚𝑨′
𝑻𝑻 =
𝑭𝑻

= 112.90 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

𝒄 𝑷 𝑳 + 𝟐𝑫𝝈′𝒗𝝁 ∗𝑳
𝑻𝑺𝑮 =
𝑭𝑺𝑮

= 16.22 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE

PROVIDED BY THE GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

𝜷 𝒇𝒄𝒖𝑷𝒓 𝑳
𝑻𝑮𝑹 =
𝑭𝑮𝑹

= 58.08 kN

125
 CHECKING:

GIVEN CRITICAL FORCE: 15.59 kN

FOR TENSILE CAPACITY:

112.90 ≥ 15.59 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

16.22 ≥ 15.59 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE PROVIDED BY GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

58.08 ≥ 15.59 SAFE

126
SLICE 5

GIVEN:

fy = 345.00 Mpa
d = 25.00 mm
A' = 490.87 sq.mm
FT = 1.50
c' = 0.00 kPa
D = 50.00 mm
Pc = 157.08 mm
L = 5.00 m
σ'v = 77.33 kPa
Φ = 40.00
μ* = 0.84
FSG = 2.00
β = 0.50
fcu = 0.35 Mpa
Pr = 78.54 mm
FGR = 2.00

127
 COMPUTATION:

ALLOWABLE TENSILE CAPACITY:

𝒇𝒚𝑨′
𝑻𝑻 =
𝑭𝑻

= 112.90 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

𝒄 𝑷 𝑳 + 𝟐𝑫𝝈′𝒗𝝁 ∗𝑳
𝑻𝑺𝑮 =
𝑭𝑺𝑮

= 16.22 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE

PROVIDED BY THE GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

𝜷 𝒇𝒄𝒖𝑷𝒓 𝑳
𝑻𝑮𝑹 =
𝑭𝑮𝑹

= 58.08 kN

128
 CHECKING:

GIVEN CRITICAL FORCE: 14.52 kN

FOR TENSILE CAPACITY:

112.90 ≥ 14.52 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

16.22 ≥ 14.52 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE PROVIDED BY GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

58.08 ≥ 14.52 SAFE

129
SLICE 6

GIVEN:

fy = 345.00 Mpa
d = 25.00 mm
A' = 490.87 sq.mm
FT = 1.50
c' = 0.00 kPa
D = 50.00 mm
Pc = 157.08 mm
L = 5.00 m
σ'v = 77.33 kPa
Φ = 40.00
μ* = 0.84
FSG = 2.00
β = 0.50
fcu = 0.35 Mpa
Pr = 78.54 mm
FGR = 2.00

130
 COMPUTATION:

ALLOWABLE TENSILE CAPACITY:

𝒇𝒚𝑨′
𝑻𝑻 =
𝑭𝑻

= 112.90 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

𝒄 𝑷 𝑳 + 𝟐𝑫𝝈′𝒗𝝁 ∗𝑳
𝑻𝑺𝑮 =
𝑭𝑺𝑮

= 16.22 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE

PROVIDED BY THE GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

𝜷 𝒇𝒄𝒖𝑷𝒓 𝑳
𝑻𝑮𝑹 =
𝑭𝑮𝑹

= 58.08 kN

131
 CHECKING:

GIVEN CRITICAL FORCE: 15.60 kN

FOR TENSILE CAPACITY:

112.90 ≥ 15.60 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

16.22 ≥ 15.60 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE PROVIDED BY GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

58.08 ≥ 15.60 SAFE

132
SLICE 7

GIVEN:

fy = 345.00 Mpa
d = 25.00 mm
A' = 490.87 sq.mm
FT = 1.50
c' = 0.00 kPa
D = 50.00 mm
Pc = 157.08 mm
L = 6.00 m
σ'v = 77.33 kPa
Φ = 40.00
μ* = 0.84
FSG = 2.00
β = 0.50
fcu = 0.35 Mpa
Pr = 78.54 mm
FGR = 2.00

133
 COMPUTATION:

ALLOWABLE TENSILE CAPACITY:

𝒇𝒚𝑨′
𝑻𝑻 =
𝑭𝑻

= 112.90 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

𝒄 𝑷 𝑳 + 𝟐𝑫𝝈′𝒗𝝁 ∗𝑳
𝑻𝑺𝑮 =
𝑭𝑺𝑮

= 19.47 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE

PROVIDED BY THE GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

𝜷 𝒇𝒄𝒖𝑷𝒓 𝑳
𝑻𝑮𝑹 =
𝑭𝑮𝑹

= 69.70 kN

134
 CHECKING:

GIVEN CRITICAL FORCE: 16.41 kN

FOR TENSILE CAPACITY:

112.90 ≥ 16.41 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

19.47 ≥ 16.41 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE PROVIDED BY GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

69.70 ≥ 16.41 SAFE

SLICE 8

135
 GIVEN:

fy = 345.00 Mpa
d = 25.00 mm
A' = 490.87 sq.mm
FT = 1.50
c' = 0.00 kPa
D = 50.00 mm
Pc = 157.08 mm
L = 6.00 m
σ'v = 77.33 kPa
Φ = 40.00
μ* = 0.84
FSG = 2.00
β = 0.50
fcu = 0.35 Mpa
Pr = 78.54 mm
FGR = 2.00

136
 COMPUTATION:

ALLOWABLE TENSILE CAPACITY:

𝒇𝒚𝑨′
𝑻𝑻 =
𝑭𝑻

= 112.90 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

𝒄 𝑷 𝑳 + 𝟐𝑫𝝈′𝒗𝝁 ∗𝑳
𝑻𝑺𝑮 =
𝑭𝑺𝑮

= 19.47 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE

PROVIDED BY THE GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

𝜷 𝒇𝒄𝒖𝑷𝒓 𝑳
𝑻𝑮𝑹 =
𝑭𝑮𝑹

= 69.70 kN

137
 CHECKING:

GIVEN CRITICAL FORCE: 17.06 kN

FOR TENSILE CAPACITY:

112.90 ≥ 17.06 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

19.47 ≥ 17.06 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE PROVIDED BY GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

69.70 ≥ 17.06 SAFE

138
SLICE 9

GIVEN:

fy = 345.00 Mpa
d = 25.00 mm
A' = 490.87 sq.mm
FT = 1.50
c' = 0.00 kPa
D = 50.00 mm
Pc = 157.08 mm
L = 6.00 m
σ'v = 77.33 kPa
Φ = 40.00
μ* = 0.84
FSG = 2.00
β = 0.50
fcu = 0.35 Mpa
Pr = 78.54 mm
FGR = 2.00

139
 COMPUTATION:

ALLOWABLE TENSILE CAPACITY:

𝒇𝒚𝑨′
𝑻𝑻 =
𝑭𝑻

= 112.90 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

𝒄 𝑷 𝑳 + 𝟐𝑫𝝈′𝒗𝝁 ∗𝑳
𝑻𝑺𝑮 =
𝑭𝑺𝑮

= 19.47 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE

PROVIDED BY THE GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

𝜷 𝒇𝒄𝒖𝑷𝒓 𝑳
𝑻𝑮𝑹 =
𝑭𝑮𝑹

= 69.70 kN

140
 CHECKING:

GIVEN CRITICAL FORCE: 16.65 kN

FOR TENSILE CAPACITY:

112.90 ≥ 16.65 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

19.47 ≥ 16.65 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE PROVIDED BY GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

69.70 ≥ 16.65 SAFE

141
SLICE 10

GIVEN:

fy = 345.00 Mpa
d = 25.00 mm
A' = 490.87 sq.mm
FT = 1.50
c' = 0.00 kPa
D = 50.00 mm
Pc = 157.08 mm
L = 5.00 m
σ'v = 77.33 kPa
Φ = 40.00
μ* = 0.84
FSG = 2.00
β = 0.50
fcu = 0.35 Mpa
Pr = 78.54 mm
FGR = 2.00

142
 COMPUTATION:

ALLOWABLE TENSILE CAPACITY:

𝒇𝒚𝑨′
𝑻𝑻 =
𝑭𝑻

= 112.90 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

𝒄 𝑷 𝑳 + 𝟐𝑫𝝈′𝒗𝝁 ∗𝑳
𝑻𝑺𝑮 =
𝑭𝑺𝑮

= 16.22 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE

PROVIDED BY THE GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

𝜷 𝒇𝒄𝒖𝑷𝒓 𝑳
𝑻𝑮𝑹 =
𝑭𝑮𝑹

= 58.08 kN

143
 CHECKING:

GIVEN CRITICAL FORCE: 15.40 kN

FOR TENSILE CAPACITY:

112.90 ≥ 15.40 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

16.22 ≥ 15.40 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE PROVIDED BY GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

58.08 ≥ 15.40 SAFE

144
SLICE 11

GIVEN:

fy = 345.00 Mpa
d = 25.00 mm
A' = 490.87 sq.mm
FT = 1.50
c' = 0.00 kPa
D = 50.00 mm
Pc = 157.08 mm
L = 5.00 m
σ'v = 77.33 kPa
Φ = 40.00
μ* = 0.84
FSG = 2.00
β = 0.50
fcu = 0.35 Mpa
Pr = 78.54 mm
FGR = 2.00

145
 COMPUTATION:

ALLOWABLE TENSILE CAPACITY:

𝒇𝒚𝑨′
𝑻𝑻 =
𝑭𝑻

= 112.90 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

𝒄 𝑷 𝑳 + 𝟐𝑫𝝈′𝒗𝝁 ∗𝑳
𝑻𝑺𝑮 =
𝑭𝑺𝑮

= 16.22 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE

PROVIDED BY THE GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

𝜷 𝒇𝒄𝒖𝑷𝒓 𝑳
𝑻𝑮𝑹 =
𝑭𝑮𝑹

= 58.08 kN

146
 CHECKING:

GIVEN CRITICAL FORCE: 13.21 kN

FOR TENSILE CAPACITY:

112.90 ≥ 13.21 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

16.22 ≥ 13.21 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE PROVIDED BY GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

58.08 ≥ 13.21 SAFE

147
SLICE 12

GIVEN:

fy = 345.00 Mpa
d = 25.00 mm
A' = 490.87 sq.mm
FT = 1.50
c' = 0.00 kPa
D = 50.00 mm
Pc = 157.08 mm
L = 4.00 m
σ'v = 77.33 kPa
Φ = 40.00
μ* = 0.84
FSG = 2.00
β = 0.50
fcu = 0.35 Mpa
Pr = 78.54 mm
FGR = 2.00

148
 COMPUTATION:

ALLOWABLE TENSILE CAPACITY:

𝒇𝒚𝑨′
𝑻𝑻 =
𝑭𝑻

= 112.90 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

𝒄 𝑷 𝑳 + 𝟐𝑫𝝈′𝒗𝝁 ∗𝑳
𝑻𝑺𝑮 =
𝑭𝑺𝑮

= 12.98 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE

PROVIDED BY THE GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

𝜷 𝒇𝒄𝒖𝑷𝒓 𝑳
𝑻𝑮𝑹 =
𝑭𝑮𝑹

= 46.46 kN

149
 CHECKING:

GIVEN CRITICAL FORCE: 10.70 kN

FOR TENSILE CAPACITY:

112.90 ≥ 10.70 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

12.98 ≥ 10.70 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE PROVIDED BY GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

46.46 ≥ 10.70 SAFE

150
SLICE 13

GIVEN:

fy = 345.00 Mpa
d = 25.00 mm
A' = 490.87 sq.mm
FT = 1.50
c' = 0.00 kPa
D = 50.00 mm
Pc = 157.08 mm
L = 3.00 m
σ'v = 77.33 kPa
Φ = 40.00
μ* = 0.84
FSG = 2.00
β = 0.50
fcu = 0.35 Mpa
Pr = 78.54 mm
FGR = 2.00

151
 COMPUTATION:

ALLOWABLE TENSILE CAPACITY:

𝒇𝒚𝑨′
𝑻𝑻 =
𝑭𝑻

= 112.90 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

𝒄 𝑷 𝑳 + 𝟐𝑫𝝈′𝒗𝝁 ∗𝑳
𝑻𝑺𝑮 =
𝑭𝑺𝑮

= 9.73 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE

PROVIDED BY THE GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

𝜷 𝒇𝒄𝒖𝑷𝒓 𝑳
𝑻𝑮𝑹 =
𝑭𝑮𝑹

= 34.85 kN

152
 CHECKING:

GIVEN CRITICAL FORCE: 9.60 kN

FOR TENSILE CAPACITY:

112.90 ≥ 9.60 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

9.73 ≥ 9.60 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE PROVIDED BY GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

34.85 ≥ 9.60 SAFE

153
SLICE 14

GIVEN:

fy = 345.00 Mpa
d = 25.00 mm
A' = 490.87 sq.mm
FT = 1.50
c' = 0.00 kPa
D = 50.00 mm
Pc = 157.08 mm
L = 3.00 m
σ'v = 77.33 kPa
Φ = 40.00
μ* = 0.84
FSG = 2.00
β = 0.50
fcu = 0.35 Mpa
Pr = 78.54 mm
FGR = 2.00

154
 COMPUTATION:

ALLOWABLE TENSILE CAPACITY:

𝒇𝒚𝑨′
𝑻𝑻 =
𝑭𝑻

= 112.90 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

𝒄 𝑷 𝑳 + 𝟐𝑫𝝈′𝒗𝝁 ∗𝑳
𝑻𝑺𝑮 =
𝑭𝑺𝑮

= 9.73 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE

PROVIDED BY THE GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

𝜷 𝒇𝒄𝒖𝑷𝒓 𝑳
𝑻𝑮𝑹 =
𝑭𝑮𝑹

= 34.85 kN

155
 CHECKING:

GIVEN CRITICAL FORCE: 7.52 kN

FOR TENSILE CAPACITY:

112.90 ≥ 7.52 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

9.73 ≥ 7.52 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE PROVIDED BY GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

34.85 ≥ 7.52 SAFE

156
SLICE 15

GIVEN:

fy = 345.00 Mpa
d = 25.00 mm
A' = 490.87 sq.mm
FT = 1.50
c' = 0.00 kPa
D = 50.00 mm
Pc = 157.08 mm
L = 2.00 m
σ'v = 77.33 kPa
Φ = 40.00
μ* = 0.84
FSG = 2.00
β = 0.50
fcu = 0.35 Mpa
Pr = 78.54 mm
FGR = 2.00

157
 COMPUTATION:

ALLOWABLE TENSILE CAPACITY:

𝒇𝒚𝑨′
𝑻𝑻 =
𝑭𝑻

= 112.90 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

𝒄 𝑷 𝑳 + 𝟐𝑫𝝈′𝒗𝝁 ∗𝑳
𝑻𝑺𝑮 =
𝑭𝑺𝑮

= 6.49 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE

PROVIDED BY THE GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

𝜷 𝒇𝒄𝒖𝑷𝒓 𝑳
𝑻𝑮𝑹 =
𝑭𝑮𝑹

= 23.23 kN

158
 CHECKING:

GIVEN CRITICAL FORCE: 5.12 kN

FOR TENSILE CAPACITY:

112.90 ≥ 5.12 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

6.49 ≥ 5.12 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE PROVIDED BY GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

23.23 ≥ 5.12 SAFE

159
SLICE 16

GIVEN:

fy = 345.00 Mpa
d = 25.00 mm
A' = 490.87 sq.mm
FT = 1.50
c' = 0.00 kPa
D = 50.00 mm
Pc = 157.08 mm
L = 2.00 m
σ'v = 77.33 kPa
Φ = 40.00
μ* = 0.84
FSG = 2.00
β = 0.50
fcu = 0.35 Mpa
Pr = 78.54 mm
FGR = 2.00

160
 COMPUTATION:

ALLOWABLE TENSILE CAPACITY:

𝒇𝒚𝑨′
𝑻𝑻 =
𝑭𝑻

= 112.90 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

𝒄 𝑷 𝑳 + 𝟐𝑫𝝈′𝒗𝝁 ∗𝑳
𝑻𝑺𝑮 =
𝑭𝑺𝑮

= 6.49 kN

ALLOWABLE PULLOUT RESISTANCE

PROVIDED BY THE GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

𝜷 𝒇𝒄𝒖𝑷𝒓 𝑳
𝑻𝑮𝑹 =
𝑭𝑮𝑹

= 23.23 kN

161
 CHECKING:

GIVEN CRITICAL FORCE: 5.05 kN

FOR TENSILE CAPACITY:

112.90 ≥ 5.05 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE:

6.49 ≥ 5.05 SAFE

FOR PULLOUT RESISTANCE PROVIDED BY GROUT REINFORCEMENT:

23.23 ≥ 5.05 SAFE

162
 APPENDIX D: STABILITY ANALYSIS WITH MICROPILE CONSIDERATION
SLICE 1

SLICE 2

163
SLICE 3

SLICE 4

164
SLICE 5

SLICE 6

SLICE 7

165
SLICE 8

166
SLICE 9

SLICE 10

167
SLICE 11

SLICE 12

168
SLICE 13

SLICE 14

169
SLICE 15

SLICE 16

170
 APPENDIX E: STABILITY ANALYSIS WITH MICROPILE CONSIDERATION

Miropile Slide Stabilization System Design (MS3 Design):

Parameters used:
Unit
Height(m) Weight(KN/m3) Phi (°) Cohesion (KPa)
Layer 1 1.5 19.33 26 5.5
Layer 2 4.5 23.22 40 5.5
Layer 3 1.5 23.22 40 5.5

Source: Photo from Geostudio.

Factor of safety computed from Geostudio: 1.45

Target Factor of safety : 2

171
By Trial and error:
The Cohesive Strength need to reach the Target of F.S, (c). = 5.1 Kpa
Length of the slice, (L) = 11 m

Force required, Hreq = C x L = 5.1 x 11 = 56.1 kN/m

Hreq = 56.1 kN/m

The Cross Section of the chosen Micropile:

Type : A
O.D. Casing: 139.7 mm
Wall Thickness: 12.7 mm
Fy = 425,000 kPa
d= 0.130 m

172
 Estimated Length of the Micropile:

Ltotal = Labove x Lbelow

*Labove = length of micropile between the ground surface and the critical slip surface
*Lbot = length of micropile below the critical slip surface

Labove = 1.515 m ; Lbelow =F.S. x ( Pult / d x ∏ x ∂bond-below )

Pult, Ultimate Side Resistance = ∂bond-above x Labove x ∏ x d

∂bond - above = 66 kPa

∂bond - below = 75 kPa

Pult = 66 x 1.515 x 3.14 x 0.13 = 40.815918 kN

Lbelow = 2 x (40.815918 / 0.13 x 75 x 3.14) = 2.6664 m

Total length = 4.2 m
Computing for Mmax: The pile was treated as if a column, the soil was not considered for the
conservatibility of the design.

When P = 0

173
When P = 0

When P = Pult

Evaluation of the Pile using GEO5:

174
From soil:
Qmax = 10.409 kN
Pmax = 20.822 kN
Pmax = 40.81592 kN
Hult-pair = Qmax + Pmax = 51.22492 kN

Spacing of Micropile = Hult-pair / Hreq = 51.224918 / 56.1 = 0.9131 m

175
 Design of Cap Beam:
Thicknes
Base s
Dimension (Recommended by FHWA): 2 x 1 meter
Moment = F x
d= 10.409 x 1.515 = 15.76964 kN . M
(From Slice 7, F = 10.409 kN ; d = 1.515 m)

Bending Reinforcement/ Moment Reinforcement:

The diameter of bar to be used = Øbar= 20 mm
Base = 2000 mm
thickness
= 1000 mm

effective
d= 895 mm

Mu = ø(f'c)(b)(d^2)(ω)(1-0.59ω)
Mu= = 15.769635 KNm
1.0753E-
ω= 09
5.56468E-
ρ = ω(f'c) / fy = ρ= 11
ρ min= 0.0035
use ρ = 0.0035
As = ρbd = As= 3132.5 sqmm
9.9761146
N = As/Asb = N= 5 bars
use N= 10 bars
Bending Reinforcement/ Moment Reinforcement (Spacing):
1000 As
=
S Asb

1000 3132.5
=
S 314

S= 100.2394 mm
S= 100 mm

176
 APPENDIX F: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 1
When h = 8.00 m:

Slice 9 - Morgenstern-Price Method

26.985

17.554
6.7168

58.016
63.161

5.843
5.2053

41.993

When h = 7.00 m:

177
 Slice 11 - Morgenstern-Price Method
22.587

14.792
6.8194

40.294
47.443

5.196
4.9343

35.555

When h = 6.00 m:

178
 Slice 10 - Morgenstern-Price Method
15.391

14.792
9.3822

32.645
38.12

7.208
5.4985

29.633

When h = 5.00 m:

179
 Slice 12 - Morgenstern-Price Method
8.2606

12.759
9.8101

23.169
27.202

7.4429
5.209

21.513

When h = 4.00 m:

180
 Slice 5 - Morgenstern-Price Method

27.614
5.8163

13.509 15.804

8.2633

12.904

21.733

181
 APPENDIX G: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 2
When Soil 1 = 19.33 all layers:

Slice 8 - Morgenstern-Price Method

15.505
8.0847

11.476
12.603

7.4217
7.8252

14.197

182
When Soil 2 = Original layers:

Slice 8 - Morgenstern-Price Method

18.609
10.638

14.669
16.019

9.8208
9.3935

17.059

183
When Soil 3 = 23.2 all layers:

Slice 8 - Morgenstern-Price Method

18.609
10.205

14.436
15.744

9.4329
9.3401

17.034

184
APPENDIX H: FINAL ESTIMATION OF MICROPILE

185
186
187
188
 APPENDIX I: FINAL ESTIMATION OF SOIL NAILING

FINAL ESTIMATE FOR SOIL NAILING:

Volume of soil = 1/2(7.4)(5) × 10m = 185 cu.m
Excavation Cost = 185 × 285.57 = Php 52,830.45
Volume of cement = 10m x 8.94m x 100mm = 8.94 cu.m.
8.94/0.035 per bag = 255.43 bags say 256 bags
*Cost = 250/bag x 256 bags = Php 64,000

Volume of grout = π/4×.05^2×9m×35holes=0.6185 cu.m

Area of wire mesh, 2”x3mm = 10m x 8.94m = 89.4 sqm

89.4/2.97 = 30.07 say 30 pcs
Cost = 30 pcs x 600/pc = Php 18,000

No. of nails (25mm deformed bars, 9m) = 5 x 7 = 35 pcs

Cost = 35 pcs x 722/pc = Php 25,270

Cost of Soil Nailing Service (with chemical grout, source: PGA) = 1500/linear meter
*1500 x 9 x 35 = Php 472,500

Total Cost = 52,830.45 64,000 + 18,000 + 25,270 + 472,500

Total Cost = Php 632,600.00

Cost estimate
Length: 10m
Height: 5m
1.5
Spacing of nails:
m
Depth of nails: 9m
35
Number of nails:
pcs
1500 php /linear
Unit cost:
meter
Estimated cost: 500000 php

Number of days to
Process
finish
Excavate small cut 2days
Drill holes for nail 4days
Install the grout nail 7days

189
Place drainage strips 4days
Repeat process to final grade 2days
Place the final facing 2days

Total number of working days 21days

Constructability estimate
Number of estimated nails to install: 18 pcs
0.51 pcs
Productivity per day (Number of nails installed)
week
22
Number of days
days
3
Number of weeks
weeks

The project designed at 40

Serviceability Estimate:
years withstand

190
Bibliography

ASTM-D6276.
Babu, G. S. (2009). CASE STUDIES IN SOIL NAILING . Associate Professor, Department of Civil
Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.
Babu, P. G. (2012). Ground Improvement.
Calgary, A. (2015). Stability Modeling with SLOPE/W. Canada: GEO-SLOPE Internationalm Ltd.
Das, B. M. (2010). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering Seventh Edition. Stamford: Cengage.
DPWH-RIZAL. (2015). Geotechnical Investigation Report of the Proposed Cogeo Bridge Gate 2. Antipolo:
A.M. Geoconsult & Associates, Inc.
Glendinning, C. R. Deep-Slope Stabilization Using Lime Piles.
H. Elarabi, M. A. (2014). Estimation of Micropile Capacity Grouted under Pressure. American Journal of
Engineering,.
Hayward Baker Geotech. Corp. Hayward Baker. Geotechnical Construction:
http://www.haywardbaker.com/WhatWeDo/Techniques/EarthRetentionSystems/SoilNailing/default.
aspx
Homantin, K. (2008). Guide to Soil Design and Construction. Hong Kong: The Government of the Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region.
Jawad, I., Taha, M., Majeed, Z., & Khan, T. (2014). Soil Stabilization Using Lime: Advantages,
Disadvantages and Proposing a.
Kama Koti Marg. (2013). Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Geosynthetic Reinforced
Embankment on Soft Soil. New Delhi: Indian Road Congress.
Krahn, F. (1981). The relationship between slope stability methods. Proceedings of International
Conference on Soil Mechanics Foundation, 409-417.
National Lime Association. (2001). USING LIME FOR SOIL STABILIZATION AND MODIFICATION.
Arlington, Virginia.
National Lime Association. (2016). Soil Stabilization. National Lime Association: http://lime.org/lime-
basics/uses-of-lime/construction/soil-stabilzation/
NAVFAC. Chapter 5, Soil Stabilization.
Office of Geotechnical Engineering, Indianapolis. (2008). Design Procedures for Soil Modification or
Stabilization.
Olden, C. A division of Hayward Baker:
http://www.craigoldeninc.com/WhatWeDo/TemporaryShoringSystems/default.aspx
Panell, D. J. (2015). Sensitivity analysis: methods, concepts, examples. Australia: Crawley 6009.
Parampreet Kaur, G. S. (2012). SOIL IMPROVEMENT WITH LIME.
The Civil Engineer (Web Blogger). Mechanical And Cement Stabilization of Soil. Construction Updates.
Winterkorn, H. F., & Pamukcu, S. (1991). Soil Stabilization and Grouting. In Foundation Engineering
Handbook.

191
 MINUTES OF THE MEETING COMPILATION
CAPSTONE GROUP No.4

Minutes of the Meeting No. 1

WEEKLY COORDINATION MEETING

Program: Civil Engineering Design Team:

Date of the Meeting: November 9, 2015 Paul Aldrine Quiñones
Alpanorwen Aseo
Attendance: Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores Jimboy Santiago Jonathan
Juayong

Topic Discussion Remarks

 Gather and explore every field given,

specifically Transportation, Water,
Project Topic Geotechnical, Structural and Traffic
Engineering.
 Give the title for each field.
 Discuss background of the project.
 Discuss the importance of minutes of
the meeting.
 Take note all the important data that
said of our adviser Engr. Estores
because we will use it in our project.

192
 CAPSTONE GROUP No.4

Minutes of the Meeting No. 2

WEEKLY COORDINATION MEETING

Program: Civil Engineering Design Team:

Date of the Meeting: November 16, 2015 Paul Aldrine Quiñones Alpanorwen
Aseo
Attendance: Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores Jimboy Santiago Jonathan
Juayong

Topic Discussion Remarks

Project Topic  The field of topic was being chose.

 The present project title needs to be

Chapter 1 revised.
 Discuss the background story of the Revise only
design project and its problem.
 Indicate the client in the design project.
 Verify who is the contractor that in
charge at the site project and also the
Brgy. Officials who are in charge in the
site location.
 Where are the data and the analysis of
the problem?
 Be specific about the problem and the
possible solution of your assigned
design project.
 Present the chapter 1 and 2 in
PowerPoint presentation.

193
 CAPSTONE GROUP No.4

Minutes of the Meeting No. 3

WEEKLY COORDINATION MEETING

Program: Civil Engineering Design Team:

Date of the Meeting: November 23, 2015 Paul Aldrine Quiñones Alpanorwen
Aseo
Attendance: Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores Jimboy Santiago Jonathan
Juayong

Topic Discussion Remarks

Project Topic  (pag-isipan ko to….)

 Everything was okay, the designer/s

Chapter 1 just need to improve their title to be Improve
more specific and realistic.
 The person or the client must be
specific. State his/her name.
 Add and enhance more data in Chapter
1 and
 Revise the Project Scope and
Limitations.
 What are the possible outcomes or
solutions for the problem?

194
 CAPSTONE GROUP No.4

Minutes of the Meeting No. 4

WEEKLY COORDINATION MEETING

Program: Civil Engineering Design Team:

Date of the Meeting: November 30, 2015 Paul Aldrine Quiñones Alpanorwen
Aseo
Attendance: Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores Jimboy Santiago Jonathan
Juayong

Topic Discussion Remarks

Project Topic  Done.

Chapter 1  Done.


 Discuss the design inputs.

 Lack of presentation of the Design improve
Inputs.
 Show your project plans.
 Need to propose how many years the
Chapter 2 soil will be stable.
 In chapter 2, need more details in the
data, figures and pictures that your
inputs.
 What are the reasons for the need to
improve the soil?

195
 CAPSTONE GROUP No.4

Minutes of the Meeting No. 5

WEEKLY COORDINATION MEETING

Program: Civil Engineering Design Team:

Date of the Meeting: Dcember 7, 2015 Paul Aldrine Quiñones
Alpanorwen Aseo
Attendance: Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores Jimboy Santiago Jonathan
Juayong

Topic Discussion Remarks

Project Topic  Done.

Chapter 1  Done.

 In meeting with our external adviser, he

said that we first need to know the Improve
problem prior to the design project and
what the possible solutions are.
Chapter 2  One of our two advisers said that we
need to investigate or to test the soil to
determine what type of soil it is.
 Test the soil in laboratory to get a data
and input in software to start design.

196
 CAPSTONE GROUP No.4

Minutes of the Meeting No. 6

WEEKLY COORDINATION MEETING

Program: Civil Engineering Design Team:

Date of the Meeting: Dcember 14, 2015 Paul Aldrine Quiñones
Alpanorwen Aseo
Attendance: Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores Jimboy Santiago Jonathan
Juayong

Topic Discussion Remarks

Project Topic  Done.

Chapter 1  Done.

 This chapter done, all improvement and Okay

Chapter 2 revision are doing done. Therefore our
adviser Engr. Estores say that proceed
in Chapter 3.

197
 CAPSTONE GROUP No.4

Minutes of the Meeting No. 7

WEEKLY COORDINATION MEETING

Program: Civil Engineering Design Team:

Date of the Meeting: January 4, 2016 Paul Aldrine Quiñones
Alpanorwen Aseo
Attendance: Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores Jimboy Santiago Jonathan
Juayong

Topic Discussion Remarks

Project Topic  Done.

Chapter 1  Done.

Chapter 2  Done.

 Discuss how the constraints affect your

design and vice versa. Improve
 In designing of constraints, be specific in
each constraint and discuss further each
Chapter 3 constraint
 Don’t focus on riprap because you are
not to design a structure, Instead focus
and discuss detailed the design project
about the soil.

198
 CAPSTONE GROUP No.4

Minutes of the Meeting No. 8

WEEKLY COORDINATION MEETING

Program: Civil Engineering Design Team:

Date of the Meeting: January 11, 2016 Paul Aldrine Quiñones
Alpanorwen Aseo
Attendance: Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores Jimboy Santiago Jonathan
Juayong

Topic Discussion Remarks

Project Topic  Done.

Chapter 1  Done.

Chapter 2  Done.

 In the discussion of design constraints,

gradually discuss the trade-offs of the
project and how do these become Improve
solutions to the problem.
 Improve your constraints.
 Show to us the improvement of he
Chapter 3 trade-offs, “Use modern tools” like
simulation software or programs.
 Discuss further your constraints and
why did you choose it as a constraint to
the design, why should you use it as a
constraints and how the constraints may
help the trade offs to become more
effective/efficient.

199
 CAPSTONE GROUP No.4

Minutes of the Meeting No. 9

WEEKLY COORDINATION MEETING

Program: Civil Engineering Design Team:

Date of the Meeting: January 18, 2016 Paul Aldrine Quiñones
Alpanorwen Aseo
Attendance: Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores Jimboy Santiago Jonathan
Juayong

Topic Discussion Remarks

Project Topic  Done.

Chapter 1  Done.

Chapter 2  Done.

 Need the state the standards together

Chapter 3 with the discussion of each trade-off. Improve
 Choose two or more trade-offs and then
choose one who will satisfy the design
project based on constraints.
 This chapter is almost done, all revision
are accomplish.

200
 CAPSTONE GROUP No.4

Minutes of the Meeting No. 10

WEEKLY COORDINATION MEETING

Program: Civil Engineering Design Team:

Date of the Meeting: January 25, 2016 Paul Aldrine Quiñones
Alpanorwen Aseo
Attendance: Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores Jimboy Santiago Jonathan
Juayong

Topic Discussion Remarks

Project Topic  Done.

Chapter 1  Done.

Chapter 2  Done.

Chapter 3  Done.

Chapter 4  Revise of the minute of the meeting. Improve

 Briefly discuss in this chapter the final
design in chapter 5.
 Discuss the processes that you will be
doing in the design project.

201
 CAPSTONE GROUP No.4

Minutes of the Meeting No. 11

WEEKLY COORDINATION MEETING

Program: Civil Engineering Design Team:

Date of the Meeting: February 22, 2016 Paul Aldrine Quiñones
Alpanorwen Aseo
Attendance: Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores Jimboy Santiago Jonathan
Juayong

Topic Discussion Remarks

 The Department Chair of Civil

Engineering was entering the room
to do lecture about in Capstone
Design Project.
 In design input, the adviser said
that if you want to stabilize a soil,
Project Topic input the example.
 The submission must have the
following:
 Table of contents.
 List of acronym, figures and
tables.
 Acronyms.
 Symbols used.
 Input the reference in chapter 2.
 Specify what solution you will do
to the soil.
 What made you choose your
design?
 Explain why you choose your
trade-off.

202
 CAPSTONE GROUP No.4

Minutes of the Meeting No. 12

WEEKLY COORDINATION MEETING

Program: Civil Engineering Design Team:

Date of the Meeting: February 29, 2016 Paul Aldrine Quiñones
Alpanorwen Aseo
Attendance: Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores Jimboy Santiago Jonathan
Juayong

Topic Discussion Remarks

 How did you come up with that

design?
 What element are you reinforcing?
Project Topic  How did you come up with the
thickness?
 Show all your plans. Check the
limitations and scope of the project.
 Present the abstract of your work.

203
 CAPSTONE GROUP No.4

Minutes of the Meeting No. 13

WEEKLY COORDINATION MEETING

Program: Civil Engineering Design Team:

Date of the Meeting: March 1, 2016 Paul Aldrine Quiñones Alpanorwen
Aseo
Attendance: Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores Jimboy Santiago Jonathan
Juayong

Topic Discussion Remarks

 The project tittle was incorrect,

need to change to more detailed
related to the problem of the
Project Topic project.
 What are the design going to do in
the project?
 In chapter 1, must have a three
paragraph.
 Present the work to the defense in
maximum time of 10 minutes only.

204
 CAPSTONE GROUP No.4

Minutes of the Meeting No. 13

WEEKLY COORDINATION MEETING

Program: Civil Engineering Design Team:

Date of the Meeting: March 7, 2016 Paul Aldrine Quiñones Alpanorwen
Aseo
Attendance: Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores Jimboy Santiago Jonathan Juayong

Topic Discussion Remarks

 The defense was good, Ma’am

Marquez only requested a
recitation about soil stabilization
Defense from each member of the group,
but the over-all project was given a
“OK”.

Deadlines  Engr. Estores announced the

deadline of submission of hardcopy
is 3/21/2016.

205
 CAPSTONE GROUP No.4

Minutes of the Meeting No. 13

WEEKLY COORDINATION MEETING

Program: Civil Engineering Design Team:

Date of the Meeting: March 16, 2016 Paul Aldrine Quiñones
Alpanorwen Aseo
Attendance: Engr. Rhonnie C. Estores Jimboy Santiago Jonathan Juayong

Topic Discussion Remarks

 The external and internal advisor

signed on the approval sheet.
Approval Sheet

206