3.

4 Designer’s Raw Ranking (INITIAL)

3.4.1 Importance Factor

The following are the importance factor as per constraints. These are regarded for the raw ranking of each
tradeoff.

Table 3.1: Importance Factor

ECONOMICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL POLITICAL ETHICAL HEALTH CONSTRUCTABILIT SUSTAINAB RISK RANK
AND Y ILITY ASSESS
SAFETY MENT
ECONOMICAL - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
ENVIRONMENTAL 0 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3
SOCIAL 0 0 - 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
POLITICAL 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0
ETHICAL 0 0 1 1 - 0 0 0 0 2
HEALTH AND 0 1 1 1 1 - 1 0 0 5
SAFETY
CONSTRUCTABILIT 0 1 1 1 1 1 - 0 0 5
Y
SUSTAINABILITY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 8
RISK ASSESSMENT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 8

3.4.2 Designer’s Raw Ranking (Structural Engineering)

PROJECT COST FACTOR OF CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE

(Million-Php) SAFETY (Days) COST
(Million- Php)
CANTILEVER 150.46 1.3 250 3.35
RETAINING
WALL
SHEET PILES 20.539250 1.3 90 4.11
ANCHORED 93.69 2.71 275 23.9

Table 3.2: Initial Estimates of Structural Tradeoffs

RETAINING
WALL

Table 3.3: Designer’s Raw Ranking (Structural Engineering)

ABILITY TO SATISFY THE CRITERION

(ON A SCALE 0 TO 10)
CRITERION'S
DESIGN CRITERIA IMPORTANC
E(ON SCALE SHEET
OF 0 TO 10) CANTILEVER ANCHORED
PILES
RETAINING RETAINING
WALL WALL

Sustainability
8 10 9 2

Safety
10 10 10 5

Economical
(Php) 10 7 3 10
Constructability
(Duration - Days) 7 9 10 9

Over-all Rank 313 272 229

3.4.2.1 Economic Constraint (Material Cost)

The following table shows the initial estimate of the cost of the trade-offs. Through this initial result, the
designers will figure out which trade-off has the lowest material cost and which one of the three is the most
economical.

Description Cantilever Retaining Sheet Piles Anchored Retaining

Wall Wall
Economic Cost 150.46 20.49225 93.69
(Million- Php)
Subordinate Rank 7 3 10
Table 3.4: Designer’s Initial Estimate (Economic)

Computation for Ranking of Economic Constraint (ANCHORED RETAINING WALL VS. CANTILEVER
RETAINING WALL)
150.46 − 93.69
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
150.46
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 3.77
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 3.77

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 7

Figure 3-8: Economic Difference (ANCHORED RETAINING WALL VS. CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL)

Computation for Ranking of Economic Constraint (ANCHORED RETAINING WALL VS. SHEET PILES)
327.44 − 93.69
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
327.44
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 7.14
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 7.14
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 3

Figure 3-9: Economic Difference (ANCHORED RETAINING WALL VS. SHEET PILES)
3.4.2.2 Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost)
Based on the data acquired from the slope protections that are already constructed, the designers provided
the maintenance cost of each tradeoff. From these, the designers choose the most sustainable among the
three tradeoffs.
Table 3.5: Designer’s Initial Estimate (Sustainability)
Description Cantilever Retaining Sheet Piles Anchored Retaining
Wall Wall
Maintenance Cost 3.35 4.11 23.9
(Million-Php)
Subordinate Rank 10 9 2

Computation for Ranking of Sustainability Constraint (CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL VS. SHEET
PILES)
4.11 − 3.35
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
4.11
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 1.85

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 1.85

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 9

Figure 3-10: Sustainability Difference (CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL VS. SHEET PILES)

Computation for Ranking of Sustainability Constraint (CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL VS. ANCHORED
RETAINING WALL)
23.9 − 3.35
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
23.9
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 8.60
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 8.60
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 2
 Figure 3-11: Sustainability Difference (CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL VS. ANCHORED RETAINING WALL)

3.4.2.3 Constructability Constraints (Duration-Days)

The duration of each tradeoff provided in this constraint was based on the existing project schedules of
completed projects.

Table 3.6: Designer’s Initial Estimate (Constructability)

Description Cantilever Retaining Sheet Piles Anchored Retaining
Wall Wall
Duration (Days) 250 90 275
Subordinate Rank 9 10 9

Computation for Ranking of Constructability Constraint (SHEET PILES VS. CANTILEVER RETAINING
WALL)
250 − 225
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
250
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 1
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 1
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 9

Figure 3-12: Constructability Difference (SHEET PILES VS. CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL)

Computation for Ranking of Constructability Constraint (SHEET PILES VS ANCHORED RETAINING

WALL)
 275 − 225
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
275
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 1.82

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 1.82

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 9

Figure 3-13: Constructability Difference (SHEET PILES VS ANCHORED RETAINING WALL)

3.4.2.4 Safety Constraints (Factor of Safety)

Based on the safety factor acquired from existing projects, the designers will have to choose the safest
among the three tradeoffs.
Table 3.7 Designer’s Initial Estimate (Safety)
Description Cantilever Retaining Sheet Piles Anchored Retaining
Wall Wall
Factor of Safety 1.3 1.3 2.71
Subordinate Rank 10 10 5

Computation for Ranking of Safety Constraint (CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL VS. SHEET PILES)
1.3 − 1.3
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
1.3
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 0
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 0
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10

Figure 3-14. Safety Difference (CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL VS. SHEET PILES)
Computation for Ranking of Safety Constraint (CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL VS. ANCHORED
RETAINING WALL)

PROJECT COST FACTOR OF CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE

(Million-Php) SAFETY (Days) COST
(𝒙𝟏𝟎𝟑 -Php)
GABIONS 68.43 1 2040
RIPRAPS 10.342133 2 90 3010
MECHANICALLY 26.905516 1.5 150 430
STABILIZED
EARTH (MSE)
WALL
2.71 − 1.3
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
2.71
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 5.20

Figure 3-15. Safety Difference (CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL VS. ANCHORED RETAINING WALL)

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 5.20

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 5

3.4.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking (Geotechnical Engineering)

Table 3.8: Initial Estimates (Geotechnical Engineering)

ABILITY TO SATISFY THE CRITERION (ON A

SCALE 0 TO 10)
CRITERION'S
DESIGN CRITERIA IMPORTANC
E(ON SCALE GABIONS MECHANICALLY
OF 0 TO 10) RIPRAPS STABILIZED EARTH (MSE)
WALL
 Sustainability
8 3 2 10
Safety
10 10 5 7
Economical
(Php) 10 8 10 3
Constructability
(Duration - Days) 7 6 10 8
Over-all 246 236 236
Rank
Table 3.9: Designer’s Raw Ranking (Geotechnical Engineering)

3.4.3.1 Economic Constraint (Material Cost)

The following table shows the initial estimate of the cost of the trade-offs. Through this initial result, the
designers will figure out which trade-off has the lowest material cost and which one of the three is the most
economical.
Table 3.10: Designer’s Initial Estimate (Economic)
Description Gabions Riprap Mechanically
Stabilized Earth (MSE)
Wall
Economic Cost 68.43 10.342133 26.905516
(Million- Php)
Subordinate Rank 8 10 3

Computation for Ranking of Economic Constraint (RIPRAP VS. MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH
(MSE) WALL)
174.68 − 50.43
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
174.68
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 7.11
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 7.11
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 3
 Figure 3-16: Economic Difference (RIPRAP VS. MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH (MSE) WALL)

Computation for Ranking of Economic Constraint (RIPRAP VS. GABIONS)

68.43 − 50.43
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
68.43
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 2.63
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 2.63
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 8

Figure 3-17: Economic Difference (RIPRAP VS. GABIONS)

3.4.3.2 Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost)

Based on the data acquired from the slope protections that are already constructed, the designers provided
the maintenance cost of each tradeoff. From these, the designers choose the most sustainable among the
three tradeoffs.
Table 3.11: Designer’s Initial Estimate (Sustainability)
Description Gabions Riprap Mechanically
Stabilized Earth (MSE)
Wall
Maintenance Cost 2040 3010 430
(𝒙𝟏𝟎𝟑 - Php)
Subordinate Rank 3 2 10

Computation for Ranking of Sustainability Constraint (MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH (MSE)

WALL VS. GABIONS)
 2040 − 430
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
2040
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 7.89
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 7.89
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 3

Figure 3-18: Sustainability Difference (MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH (MSE) WALL VS. GABIONS)

Computation for Ranking of Sustainability Constraint (MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH (MSE)

WALL VS. RIPRAPS)
3010 − 430
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
3010
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 8.57

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 8.57

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 2

Figure 3-19: Sustainability Difference (MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH (MSE) WALL VS. RIPRAPS)

3.4.3.3 Constructability Constraints (Duration-Days)

The duration of each tradeoff provided in this constraint was based on the existing project schedules of
completed projects.
Table 3.12: Designer’s Initial Estimate (Constructability)
Description Gabions Riprap Mechanically
Stabilized Earth (MSE)
Wall
Duration (Days) 400 90 150
Subordinate Rank 6 10 8

Computation for Ranking of Constructability Constraint (RIPRAP VS. MECHANICALLY STABILIZED

EARTH (MSE) WALL)
300 − 220
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
300
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 2.67
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 2.67
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 8

Figure 3-20: Constructability Difference (RIPRAP VS. MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH (MSE) WALL)

Computation for Ranking of Constructability Constraint (RIPRAP VS. GABIONS)

400 − 220
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
400
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 4.5
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 4.5
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 6
 Figure 3-21: Constructability Difference (RIPRAP VS. GABIONS)

3.4.3.4 Safety Constraints (Factor of Safety)

Based on the safety factor acquired from existing projects, the designers will have to choose the safest
among the three tradeoffs.
Table 3.13: Designer’s Initial Estimate (Safety)
Description Gabions Riprap Mechanically
Stabilized Earth (MSE)
Wall
Factor of Safety 1 2 1.5
Subordinate Rank 10 5 7

Computation for Ranking of Safety Constraint (GABIONS VS MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH

(MSE) WALL)
1.5 − 1
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
1.5
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 3.33

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 3.33

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 7

Figure 3-22: Safety Difference (GABIONS VS MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH (MSE) WALL)

Computation for Ranking of Safety Constraint (GABIONS VS. RIPRAP)

2−1
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
2
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 5

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 5
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 5
 Figure 3-23: Safety Difference (GABIONS VS. RIPRAP)
ECONOMICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL POLITICAL ETHICAL HEALTH CONSTRUCTABILIT SUSTAINAB RISK RANK
AND Y ILITY ASSESS
SAFETY MENT
ECONOMICAL - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
ENVIRONMENTAL 0 - 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3

Table 4-96: Importance Factor

4.8.1.1 Importance Factor (Final)

The following are the importance factor as per constraints. These are regarded for the final ranking of each
tradeoff.
SOCIAL 0 0 - 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
POLITICAL 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0
ETHICAL 0 0 1 1 - 0 0 0 0 2
HEALTH AND 0 1 1 1 1 - 1 0 0 5
SAFETY
CONSTRUCTABILIT 0 1 1 1 1 1 - 0 0 5
Y
SUSTAINABILITY 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 8
RISK ASSESSMENT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 8

4.8.1.2 Designer’s Final Ranking (Structural Engineering)

Table 4-97: Estimates of Structural Tradeoffs

PROJECT COST FACTOR OF CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE

(Million-Php) SAFETY (Days) COST
(Million- Php)
CANTILEVER 115.68 1.3 250 3.35
RETAINING
WALL
SHEET PILES 17.437250 1.3 75 4.11
ANCHORED 56.73 2.71 275 23.9
RETAINING
WALL

Table 4-98: Designer’s Final Ranking (Structural Engineering)

ABILITY TO SATISFY THE CRITERION

(ON A SCALE 0 TO 10)
CRITERION'S
DESIGN CRITERIA IMPORTANC
E(ON SCALE SHEET
OF 0 TO 10) CANTILEVER ANCHORED
PILES
RETAINING RETAINING
WALL WALL
 Sustainability
8 10 9 2

Safety
10 10 10 5

Economical
(Php) 10 5 4 10
Constructability
(Duration - Days) 7 9 10 9
Over-all Rank 293 282 229

4.8.1.2.3 Economic Constraint (Material Cost)

The following table shows the final estimate of the cost of the trade-offs. Through this final result, the
designers will figure out which trade-off has the lowest material cost and which one of the three is the most
economical.

Description Cantilever Retaining Sheet Piles Anchored Retaining

Wall Wall
Economic Cost 115.68 17.437250 56.73
(Million- Php)
Subordinate Rank 5 4 10
Table 4-99: Designer’s Estimate (Economic)

Computation for Ranking of Economic Constraint (ANCHORED RETAINING WALL VS. CANTILEVER
RETAINING WALL)
115.68 − 56.73
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
115.68
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 5.10
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 5.10
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 5
 Figure 4-130: Economic Difference (ANCHORED RETAINING WALL VS. CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL)

Computation for Ranking of Economic Constraint (ANCHORED RETAINING WALL VS. SHEET PILES)
160.55 − 56.73
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
160.55
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 6.47

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 6.47

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 4

Figure 4-131: Economic Difference (ANCHORED RETAINING WALL VS. SHEET PILES)

4.8.1.2.4 Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost)

Based on the data computed, the designers provided the maintenance cost of each tradeoff. From these,
the designers choose the most sustainable among the three tradeoffs.
Table 4-100: Designer’s Estimate (Sustainability)
Description Cantilever Retaining Sheet Piles Anchored Retaining
Wall Wall
Maintenance Cost 3.35 4.11 23.9
(Million-Php)
Subordinate Rank 10 9 2

Computation for Ranking of Sustainability Constraint (CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL VS. SHEET
PILES)
4.11 − 3.35
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
4.11
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 1.85
 𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 1.85

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 9

Figure 4-132: Sustainability Difference (CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL VS. SHEET PILES)

Computation for Ranking of Sustainability Constraint (CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL VS. ANCHORED
RETAINING WALL)
23.9 − 3.35
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
23.9
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 8.60
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 8.60
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 2

Figure 4-133: Sustainability Difference (CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL VS. ANCHORED RETAINING WALL)

4.8.1.2.5 Constructability Constraints (Duration-Days)

The duration of each tradeoff provided in this constraint was based on the project schedules created by the
designers.

Table 4-101: Designer’s Estimate (Constructability)

Description Cantilever Retaining Sheet Piles Anchored Retaining
Wall Wall
Duration (Days) 250 75 275
Subordinate Rank 9 10 9
Computation for Ranking of Constructability Constraint (SHEET PILES VS. CANTILEVER RETAINING
WALL)
250 − 225
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
250
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 1

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 1
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 9

Figure 4-134: Constructability Difference (SHEET PILES VS. CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL)

Computation for Ranking of Constructability Constraint (SHEET PILES VS ANCHORED RETAINING

WALL)
275 − 225
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
275
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 1.82
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 1.82
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 9

Figure 4-135: Constructability Difference (SHEET PILES VS ANCHORED RETAINING WALL)

4.8.1.2.6 Safety Constraints (Factor of Safety)

Based on the safety factor acquired from Geo5 2020, the designers will have to choose the safest among
the three tradeoffs.
Table 4-102. Designer’s Estimate (Safety)
Description Cantilever Retaining Sheet Piles Anchored Retaining
Wall Wall
Factor of Safety 1.3 1.3 2.71
Subordinate Rank 10 10 5

Computation for Ranking of Safety Constraint (CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL VS. SHEET PILES)
1.3 − 1.3
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
1.3
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 0

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 0
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10

Figure 4-136. Safety Difference (CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL VS. SHEET PILES)

Computation for Ranking of Safety Constraint (CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL VS. ANCHORED
RETAINING WALL)
2.71 − 1.3
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
2.71
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 5.20
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 5.20
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 5

Figure 4-137. Safety Difference (CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL VS. ANCHORED RETAINING WALL)
4.8.1.3 Designer’s Final Ranking (Geotechnical Engineering)

Table 4-103: Estimates (Geotechnical Engineering)

PROJECT COST FACTOR OF CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE
(Million-Php) SAFETY (Days) COST
(𝒙𝟏𝟎𝟑 -Php)
GABIONS 21.69 1 400 2040
RIPRAPS 21.73 2 220 3010
MECHANICALLY 76.2 1.5 300 430
STABILIZED
EARTH (MSE)
WALL

Table 4-104: Designer’s Final Ranking (Geotechnical Engineering)

ABILITY TO SATISFY THE CRITERION (ON A

SCALE 0 TO 10)
CRITERION'S
DESIGN CRITERIA IMPORTANC
E(ON SCALE GABIONS MECHANICALLY
OF 0 TO 10) RIPRAPS STABILIZED EARTH (MSE)
WALL

Sustainability
8 3 2 10
Safety
10 10 5 7
Economical
(Php) 10 10 10 3
Constructability
(Duration - Days) 7 6 10 8
Over-all 266 236 236
Rank
4.8.1.3.1 Economic Constraint (Material Cost)
The following table shows the final estimate of the cost of the trade-offs. Through this initial result, the
designers will figure out which trade-off has the lowest material cost and which one of the three is the most
economical.
Table 4-105: Designer’s Estimate (Economic)
Description Gabions Riprap Mechanically
Stabilized Earth (MSE)
Wall
Economic Cost 21.69 21.73 76.2
(Million- Php)
Subordinate Rank 10 10 3

Computation for Ranking of Economic Constraint (GABIONS VS. MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH
(MSE) WALL)
76.2 − 21.69
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
76.2
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 7.15
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 7.15
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 3

Figure 4-138: Economic Difference (GABIONS VS. MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH (MSE) WALL)

Computation for Ranking of Economic Constraint (GABIONS VS. RIPRAP)

21.73 − 21.69
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
21.73
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 0.02
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 0.02
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10
 Figure 4-139: Economic Difference (GABIONS VS. RIPRAP)

4.8.1.3.2 Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost)

Based on the data computed, the designers provided the maintenance cost of each tradeoff. From these,
the designers choose the most sustainable among the three tradeoffs.
Table 4-106: Designer’s Estimate (Sustainability)
Description Gabions Riprap Mechanically
Stabilized Earth (MSE)
Wall
Maintenance Cost 2040 3010 430
(𝒙𝟏𝟎𝟑 - Php)
Subordinate Rank 3 2 10

Computation for Ranking of Sustainability Constraint (MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH (MSE)

WALL VS. GABIONS)
2040 − 430
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
2040
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 7.89
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 7.89
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 3

Figure 4-140: Sustainability Difference (MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH (MSE) WALL VS. GABIONS)
Computation for Ranking of Sustainability Constraint (MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH (MSE)
WALL VS. RIPRAPS)
3010 − 430
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
3010
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 8.57
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 8.57
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 2

Figure 4-141: Sustainability Difference (MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH (MSE) WALL VS. RIPRAPS)

4.8.1.3.3 Constructability Constraints (Duration-Days)

The duration of each tradeoff provided in this constraint was based on the project schedules of created by
the designers.
Table 4-107: Designer’s Estimate (Constructability)
Description Gabions Riprap Mechanically
Stabilized Earth (MSE)
Wall
Duration (Days) 400 220 300
Subordinate Rank 6 10 8

Computation for Ranking of Constructability Constraint (RIPRAP VS. MECHANICALLY STABILIZED

EARTH (MSE) WALL)
300 − 220
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
300
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 2.67
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 2.67
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 8
 Figure 4-142: Constructability Difference (RIPRAP VS. MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH (MSE) WALL)

Computation for Ranking of Constructability Constraint (RIPRAP VS. GABIONS)

400 − 220
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
400
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 4.5
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 4.5
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 6

Figure 4-143: Constructability Difference (RIPRAP VS. GABIONS)

4.8.1.3.4 Safety Constraints (Factor of Safety)

Based on the safety factor acquired from Geo5 2020, the designers will have to choose the safest among
the three tradeoffs.
Table 4-108: Designer’s Estimate (Safety)
Description Gabions Riprap Mechanically
Stabilized Earth (MSE)
Wall
Factor of Safety 1 2 1.5
Subordinate Rank 10 5 7

Computation for Ranking of Safety Constraint (GABIONS VS MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH

(MSE) WALL)
1.5 − 1
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
1.5
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 3.33
 𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 3.33
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 7

Figure 4-144: Safety Difference (GABIONS VS MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH (MSE) WALL)

Computation for Ranking of Safety Constraint (GABIONS VS. RIPRAP)

2−1
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
2
%𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 5
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 10 − 5
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 5

Figure 4-145: Safety Difference (GABIONS VS. RIPRAP)