Geo Tech

ANNEX B
GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL

INVESTIGATION REPORT FOR STATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2 PHYSIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................. 2
Location and Accessibility................................................................................................ 2
PART - I GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY ..................................................................................... 2
A. Geology ............................................................................................................... 2
1. Quaternary Alluvium ................................................................................. 2
2. Diliman Tuff .............................................................................................. 3
B. Seismicity ............................................................................................................ 3
C. Peak Ground Acceleration ................................................................................... 4
Part – II GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ............................................................................. 5
CHAPTER 3 RESULTS OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION............................................... 5
Field Information .............................................................................................................. 5
A. Depth of Water Table ........................................................................................... 5
1. Soil Profiles .............................................................................................. 5
CHAPTER 4 SOIL AND ROCK STRENGTH .............................................................................. 7
CHAPTER 5 FOUNDATION SYSTEM ..................................................................................... 10
A Pile Foundation .................................................................................................. 10
B. Modulus of Subgrade Reaction .......................................................................... 11
C. Susceptibility to Liquefaction .............................................................................. 11
D. Chemical Analysis of Soil and Groundwater Underlying the Stations ................. 12
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ........................................................ 13
LIMITATIONS .............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Maximum Credible Earthquakes.................................................................................... 4

Table 2 Peak Ground Acceleration............................................................................................. 4
Table 3 Correlation of N-Value and Clay Strength ...................................................................... 7
Table 4 Summary of Soil and Rock Properties – Emerald Station .............................................. 7
Table 5 Summary of Soil and Rock Properties- Masinag Station ............................................... 9
Table 6 Allowable Pile Capacity ............................................................................................... 10
Table 7 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction ................................................................................... 11
Table 8 Result of Chemical Test on Soil Sample from BH-60................................................... 12
Consultancy Services for the Civil Works

of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project Page i
APPENDICES
Appendix-1 Project Area Location Plan

Appendix-2 Borehole Location at Emerald Station
Appendix-3 Borehole Location at Masinag Station
Appendix-4 Regional Tectonic Setting
Appendix-5 Seismicity Map
Appendix-6 Soil Profile at Emerald Station
Appendix-7 Soil Profile at Masinag Station
Appendix-8 Summary of Test Results (BH 59 to BH 64)

of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project Page ii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Apart from the Geotechnical Investigation undertaken on the viaduct alignment, drilling was also
made for the proposed Emerald Station (Sta. 24+344.041 to Sta. 24+444.041) and Masinag
Station (Sta. 26+796.041 to Sta. 26+896.041) along Marcos Highway. Intended primarily for site
geotechnical characterization, three boreholes were drilled at Emerald Station and also three
boreholes at Masinag Station. All the boreholes were advanced adequately to reach the highly
dense soil (N>50 blows) and/or bedrock level. The borehole locations at Emerald Station are
indicated at Appendix-2, and for the Masinag Station, at Appendix-3.
Earlier, 58 boreholes were drilled along the viaduct alignment. Not all the boreholes reached
bedrock level but the information obtained generally indicated appreciable alluvium thickness at
Santolan Station (more than 40 meters thick) and that it progressively decreases towards the
end of the project at Masinag. The drilling investigation is done to determine the soil and rock
types, their vertical and lateral persistency and engineering properties. The boreholes are
correlated to obtain indications on the general soil distribution and variability.
As mentioned in the earlier report on the viaduct alignment, the LRT Line-2 East (Masinag)
Extension Project is entirely located along Marcos Highway. It is sandwiched between two active
major faults, the West and East Valley fault systems. As the traces of these active faults are less
than 2 km from the site, ‘a near field’ tectonic movement could be expected in case any of the
two fault systems rupture.
Assessment of the regional seismicity had been covered in the previous report. However, a brief
discussion of the surrounding fault generators cannot be ignored in this report because the
liquefaction susceptibility of the underlying structural foundations has to be analyzed.

of the LRT Line 2 East (Masinag) Extension Project Page 1
CHAPTER 2 PHYSIOGRAPHY
Location and Accessibility
LRT Line-2 East (Masinag) Extension Project spans the entire Marcos Highway starting from the
existing Santolan Station until Masinag, Antipolo, Project Area Location Plan (Appendix-1). For
the 4.1 km long extension two stations shall be added: (1) Emerald Station at Sta. 24+344.041
to Sta. 24+444.041 and (2) Masinag Station at Sta. 26+796.041 to Sta. 26+896.041. Emerald
Station is situated between the two malls, Robinsons and Sta. Lucia while Masinag Station is
near SM Masinag. Marcos Highway is connected to Cubao, Quezon City via Aurora Boulevard.
The entire project area is located within Marikina Valley. The topography is essentially flat to
broadly rolling near the end of the alignment at Masinag. It is bounded by hilly to mountainous
terrain on the east of Masinag and by slightly elevated flat to rolling terrain on the west (Quezon
City side). Rock crops out at Quezon City and at Masinag but the entire viaduct alignment is
blanketed with alluvial soils of variable thickness.
PART - I GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY
The geological setting and seismicity have been covered on the Engineering Geological and
Geotechnical Report (EGGAR). However because of its importance on the assessment of
liquefaction of the soil foundation it will be discussed briefly in this report. The existence of active
faults, the valley fault system near the project site, is a compelling reason to include discussion
of these items in this report.
A. Geology
As the project area is covered with thick alluvium, no rock crops out at the two stations
and along the entire viaduct alignment. Consequently, the site geological environment is
based on the rock exposures outside of the project area and on the results of drilling.
1. Quaternary Alluvium
Drilling information indicated very thick deposits of sediments reaching more than 40
meters near the Santolan Station. Within the first few hundred meters from Santolan
Station to Masinag the sediments consist mainly of layered clays largely varying in
composition from clay and clayey silt invariably with high degree of plasticity.
Occasionally, it includes thin beds of silty sand, sandy silt and sandy clay. Deep
boreholes indicated the presence of bedrock at variable depths but not shallower
than 43 meters beneath the ground surface. However sediment thickness gradually
diminishes as the distance increases from Santolan Station. At the end of the
alignment at Masinag the thickness is reduced to less than 10 meters. Sand and
gravel beds tend to increase in proportion to clay towards Masinag.
At the Emerald Station, about 1.20 km from Santolan, the sediments are still
relatively thick, ranging from 25 to 35 meters thick. The upper section, up to about 15
to 18 meters below the surface, is predominantly clay but changes largely into gravel
and sand beds at the lower section. The sediments overlie Diliman tuff at variable
depth, varying from 25 to 35 meters below the surface.
At Masinag Station the sediment thickness is relatively limited and it consists mainly
of gravel and sand with limited clay beds. The underlying Diliman tuff bedrock lies
about 7 to 9 meters below the ground surface.

2. Diliman Tuff
Diliman tuff, the upper member of the Pliocene to Pleistocene Guadalupe Formation,
is the bedrock at the project area. It is not known to crop out anywhere within the
project area. The only known exposures are near Masinag Market and at nearby
slopes in Quezon City. Commonly, it is comprised of pyroclastic rocks mainly tuff,
commonly with inter-layered tuffaceous sandstone and agglomerate. Based on
borehole information however Diliman tuff consists predominantly of tuffaceous
sandstone with associated tuff beds at the project area.
At Emerald Station the underlying bedrock consists of thinly bedded tuffaceous

sandstone in close association with agglomerate and limited tuff. Thinly layered, the
bedrock trends N10 W and dips slightly towards the SW. The rock occurs at the
bottom of the boreholes at depths of 25 to 33 meters below the surface.
Geologically, Diliman tuff is classified as soft rock as its unconfined compressive

strength usually ranges from 1 to 5 MPa. Rock strength is commonly affected by
degree of weathering and the associated fractures. At the site, the Diliman tuff is
commonly slightly weathered to fresh. Its unconfined compressive strength averages
33 Kg/ cm2.
B. Seismicity
The regional tectonic setting is indicated in Appendix-4. The Philippine Archipelago is

surrounded by opposite trending subduction zones such as the Manila Trench, the
Negros Trench and Sulu Trench on the western side and the East Luzon Trough and
Philippine Trench on the eastern side. Most of the major earthquakes, volcanic activity
and orogenic processes are associated with plate tectonics. Apart the subduction zones,
major active faults are known to occur within a radius of 200 km of the site. The most
prominent of these is the Philippine Fault Zone whose mapped fault trace extends at
least 1200 km long from northern Luzon to eastern Mindanao. As far as the project area
seismicity is concerned, however, the presence of the Marikina Valley Fault System
whose mapped fault trace is less than 2 km away from the site is the most disturbing.
Other active faults that are expected to contribute to the area seismicity include the East
Luzon Trough, Manila Trench, Casiguran fault, Lubang fault, and Macolod Corridor fault.
The seismicity associated with the various active fault zones, subduction zones and
trenches has been discussed in the main report. Recent earthquakes associated with the
various active faults as well as their distances with respect to the project area were
covered in the report.
The seismicity related with the Marikina Valley Fault System however requires special
consideration because of its nearness to the project area. The Marikina Valley Fault
System (MVFS) consists of two parallel northeast trending dextral faults, Appendix-5
shows the Seismicity Map located on the eastern and western borders of the valley.
The fault on the western side, whose mapped length is longer, is referred to as the West
Valley Fault (WVF) while the other fault system on the eastern side the East Valley Fault.
Obscured by thick alluvial over, the continuity of the faults near the project site is hardly
discernible. Because of very close juxtaposition to the site, a ‘near field’ seismic activity
could be expected.
No historical record which suggests that the MVFS is active. It is known to have
displaced Pleistocene Diliman tuff but it has not been established. The northern half of

the WVF had been mapped recently by PHIVOLCS but its continuity to the south was
established mainly on the basis of photo geologic interpretation and satellite imagery.
Detailed investigation consisting of trenching, geologic mapping and soil sampling by

PHIVOLCS in cooperation with USGS (US Geological Survey) indicated that 3 to 4
earthquake events have occurred during the past 1200 to 1400 years. With a mapped
length of at least 150 km, the MVFS is believed capable of generating as much as Ms
7.1 magnitude.
Table 1 below indicates the maximum credible earthquakes that the various fault zones
are capable of generating as well as the distance of the nearest fault traces to the site.
Table 1 Maximum Credible Earthquakes
Source of Earth Earthquake Distance, km Magnitude, Ms

Philippine Fault Zone 75 8.0
Manila Trench 100 8.0
East Luzon Trough 120 7.6
Lubang Fault 80 7.5
West Valley Fault 2 7.1
Casiguran Fault 200 7.5
C. Peak Ground Acceleration
The ground motion parameter relevant to structural design as well as to analysis of

susceptibility to liquefaction is peak ground acceleration (PGA). Owing to utter lack of
instrumental record determination of the PGA is extremely difficult. Usual practice is to
assume the validity of attenuation relation developed in other countries provided the
tectonic environment is highly similar to that of the Philippines. The Fukushima- Tanaka
equation, shown below, finds wide acceptance in this country.
Log10 A= 0.41 M- Log10 (R + 0.032 x 10 0.41M) – 0.0034 R + 1.30

Where:
A = peak ground acceleration in cm/ sec 2
R = shortest distance between the site and fault rupture in km
M = surface wave magnitude
According to Fukushima and Tanaka, the PGA level at very short distances from the
earthquake source is 0.632 g, irrespective of the earthquake magnitude. Considering
medium ground condition site soil condition, the PGA expected anywhere within the
project site is 0.55 g. Applying the Fukushima-Tanaka equation and assuming medium
ground soil condition, the PGA’s attributable to the other earthquake sources are
indicated in Table 2.
Table 2 Peak Ground Acceleration
Earthquake Sources Distance, Maximum Credible Peak Ground

km Earthquake, Ms Acceleration in g’s
Philippine Fault Zone 75 8.0 0.16
Manila Trench 100 8.0 0.13
East Luzon Trough 120 7.4 0.10
Lubang Fault 80 7.4 0.10
West Valley Fault System 2 7.1 0.55
Casiguran Fault 200 7.4 0.02

Part – II GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
CHAPTER 3 RESULTS OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Field Information
The results of the field investigation are presented in the form of borehole logs and soil profiles.
The borehole logs contain all the drilling information including penetration resistance values, and
results of laboratory tests, and description and classification of the soil and rock types. Depth of
water table below the sites is also indicated.
Plates 59 to 61 are borehole logs of drill holes at Emerald Station while Plates 62 to 64 are for
Masinag Station. The boreholes were drilled adequately to reach obtain bedrock level and
obtain specimen for unconfined compression test. The lateral persistency and variability of the
sedimentation are indicated by correlation of the boreholes. These are indicated in the form of
soil profiles.
A. Depth of Water Table
Depths of water table below the ground surface are measured after completion of the
boreholes. Depth of water table measured in August varies from 3.0 to 3.50 meters.
Despite measurements made during the rainy season the depths measured are similar
to the information gathered in late May. Piezometers have been installed at BH- 60 at
Emerald Station and at BH-63 at Masinag Station. The piezometers are intended to
obtain long term data base on water table depth fluctuation. This information is crucial in
analysis of susceptibility to liquefaction of the soil foundations. Hopefully, the LRTA
management would continue gathering the required information.
1. Soil Profiles
The soil profiles represent the soil and rock types, N-Values, depth of water table and
unconfined compressive strength of the core samples. The soil types encountered by the
various drill holes are correlated so as to obtain indications on the soil variability laterally
and vertically. A line connecting the dense soils intercepted by the boreholes are
indicated. Dense soil in this report is defined as the soil type whose minimum N-Value is
50 blows. In the same manner a line is also drawn in the soil profile indicating the top of
bedrock.
Soil Profile -Emerald Station
The soil profile at Emerald Station is shown in Appendix- 6. The figure indicates that the
initial 14 to 18.50 meters depth consist wholly of cohesive soils. Under the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) the cohesive soils are classified as clay and clayey silt.
The clay and clayey silt are inter-layered and because of variability the soil beds tend to
shrink and swell along the line of section. Small lenses of silty clay are occasionally
included.
The clay and clayey silt are brown to gray and characteristically with elevated plasticity.
The liquid limit is generally more than 70 % and the plasticity index almost reaching 40
%. The N-Value distribution with depth is erratic but it slightly indicates a tendency to
increase with increasing depth. Average N-Value varies from hole to hole but appears
relatively higher below BH-60 and BH-61.

About 14 to 18.50 meters below the ground surface, the cohesive soil changes to
granular soils comprising mainly of gravel and sand. The sand at the lower section is
generally medium dense to very dense but quite unexpectedly a thin very loose sand
bed (N= 2 to 3 blows) is indicated at 27 to 28 meters below BH- 60 (Emerald Station).
The very loose sand is sandwiched between very dense silty sand and very hard clay
beds. At such depth range all the sediments encountered by all the boreholes including
those drilled along the viaduct alignment are consistently with dense relative density. The
reason for the presence of the loose sand at such depth range cannot be explained. As
has been consistently observed in practically all the boreholes drilled in the project area,
the sediments usually bottomed in very dense gravel and/ or gravelly sand before
reaching bedrock level. The hard clays commonly encountered at the near bottom of the
boreholes are presumed part of the bedrock except that it is highly weathered.
BH-59 and BH-60 intercepted bedrock at the bottom of the holes. BH-61 bottomed on
about 9 meters thick of very dense silty sand and gravel beds. Thick succession of
tuffaceous sandstone and agglomerate lie beneath the Emerald Station. The rock
strength varies from a low of 20.70 kg /cm 2 to a high of 51.95 kg/ cm2. The low strength
rocks are moderately weathered while the fresh rocks are much stronger.
Soil Profile – Masinag Station
The soil profile at Masinag Station is shown in Appendix- 7. It is highly apparent that the
soil foundations underlying Masinag Station are widely different from that of Emerald
Station in terms of soil type and thickness. Instead of cohesive soils, non-plastic granular
soils comprised the overlying soil overburden. Thin beds of silty gravel, clayey sand,
clayey gravel and silty sand occur in profusion. In comparison, very limited amount of
sandy silt and clayey silt are occasionally associated.
N-Value distribution with depth is highly erratic but the upper soil layers are generally
relatively loose. The dense soils occur at the bottom, just before reaching bedrock level.
The highly dense soil (N> 50 blows) and/or bedrock level lies at much shallower depth as
compared to Emerald Station.
As expected, the underlying bedrock is similar to those below the Emerald Station.
Tuffaceous sandstone inter-layered with tuff, agglomerate and lapilli tuff lies beneath the
sediments. Unconfined compressive strength varies from 25.90 to 94.12 kg/cm2.
Considering a relatively high average compressive strength of 56.43 kg/cm2, the
underlying bedrock appears sound, strong, well cemented and generally fresh.

CHAPTER 4 SOIL AND ROCK STRENGTH
The soil properties are determined on the basis of the SPT information. Rock strength is
measured based on unconfined compression tests done on core samples. Difficulty is in
measurement of cohesive strength because of the generally stiff consistency of the clayey soils.
The unit weight of the soil is measured in the field. Soil samples contained in the split tube
sampler are weighed and the volume is measured to obtain the wet unit weight. Sample is
obtained to determine the moisture content. Strength of cohesive soils is based on SPT
correlation as indicated in Table 3.
Table 3 Correlation of N-Value and Clay Strength
Estimated Unconfined
Clay Consistency Range of N-Value
Compressive Strength, kPa
Very Soft Below 2 < 12
Soft 2-4 12-25
Firm (medium) 4-8 25-50
Stiff 8-15 50-100
Very Stiff 15-30 100-200
Hard > 30 > 200
In the case of granular soils (sand), the angle of internal friction is determined based on the
SPT- effective friction angle correlation made by Peck, Hanson and Thornburn (1974) and
mathematically approximated by Wolff (1989). Such equation is indicated below:
Effective friction angle phi = 27.1 + 0.30 N (adj) – 0.00054 N2 (adj)

Where:
N (adj) – N-Value adjusted for field condition (overburden pressure,
Borehole depth, diameter, etc
The N-Values indicated for gravel/ gravelly soils are generally inaccurate especially if the size of
the gravel components is large. The N-Value in this case has to be adjusted to a much lower
value.
The soil properties are summarized and presented in Table 4 for Emerald Station and Table 5
for Masinag Station.
Table 4 Summary of Soil and Rock Properties – Emerald Station
Depth Soil Unit Wt Friction Cohesion UCT

BH No Field N N-adj Ave, N
m Type KN/m3 Angle kPa Kg/cm2
BH-59
1.50 SP-SM 10 32 16.97 20 33
3.0 SM 13 20 ↑
4.50 CH 5 7
6.0 CH 6 7
7.50 CH 8 10
9.0 CH 13 14 17.60 Ave Ave
10.50 CH 21 22 N=14 60
12.0 CH 25 23
13.50 CH 17 14
15.0 MH 19 14 17.60
16.50 CH 25 17 ↓
18.0 SM 27 17
19.50 SM 13 8 17.13


21.0 SM 16 9
22.50 SM 27 14
24.0 GM 52/18 266 > 40
25.50 GM 50/2 359 > 40
27.0 TS Coring 10.80
28.50 TS Coring
30.0 TS Coring
31.50 TS Coring 20.70
BH-60
1.50 MH 14 43 ↑ ↑
3.0 MH 16 25
4.50 CH 17 24 17.76 Ave N=19 Ave
6.00 CH 16 19 C=75
7.50 MH 14 16 ↓
9.00 MH 14 14 ↓
10.50 CL 27 26 17.92 ↑ ↑
12.00 CH 35 30
13.50 CH 35 27 Ave N=25 Ave
15.00 CH 36 26 17.92 ↓ C=125
16.50 MH 28 19
18.00 MH 42 26 ↑ ↓
19.50 GP-GM 56 33
21.00 SP-SM 72 39
22.50 SM 91 46 Ave N=31 34 deg
24.00 SM 97 45
25.50 SC 14 6 ↓
27.00 SP-SM 3 1 Ave N=2 27 deg
28.50 SP-SM 3 1 ↑
30.00 CH 33 12 Ave N=15 32 deg
31.50 GM 38 13 ↓
33.00 GM 67 22
34.50 GM 50/2 247 >40 deg
36.00 Agglo Coring 50.8
BH-61
1.50 SM 16 49 ↑ ↑
3.00 MH 19 29 17.92
4.50 MH 30 42
6.00 CH 40 48 Ave N=39 150
7.50 CH 52 60 18.23
9.00 MH 50 50
10.50 MH 53 50 ↓ ↓
12.00 MH 21 18 17.76 Ave. N=20 C=100
13.50 CH 30 23 ↑
15.00 SM 42 30 Ave N=40 36 deg
16.50 SM 76 51 ↓
18.00 GM 118 72
19.50 GM 119/19 108
21.00 SM 60/6 160 18.23
22.50 SM 60/10 90 40 deg
24.00 GP 118/16 105
25.50 GP 107/25 58

Table 5 Summary of Soil and Rock Properties- Masinag Station

BH-62
1.50 GM 4 13
3.00 GM 7 11 16.97
4.50 SC 9 13
6.00 ML 21 27 17.13
9.00 Tuff Coring 83.3
14.00
BH-63
1.50 GC 18 56 ↑ ↑
3.00 GC 20 32 17.7 Ave N=23 33 deg
4.50 SM 7 10 17.60 ↓
6.00 GC 22 27 ↓
7.50 MH 77 82 18.07
9.00 TS Coring 51.0
BH-64
1.50 SM 14 44 16.97 ↑ ↑
3.00 GC 32 50 Ave N=14 33 deg
4.50 GC 13 19 16.97 ↓
↓
6.00 MH 22 27 N=28 ↑
7.50 MH 28 29 17.92 C=100
9.00 GP-GM 106/25 91 ↓
Notes:
CH - Clay TS - Tuffaceous Sandstone
MH - Clayey silt Agglo - Agglomerate
CL - Silty clay SM - Silty
GM - Silty gravel GC - Clayey gravel
SC - Clayey sand

CHAPTER 5 FOUNDATION SYSTEM
A Pile Foundation
Evidently deep foundation is required. The ultimate static pile capacity is calculated for various
pile dimensions and a factor of safety of 2.50 is applied to arrive at the proposed pile capacity
summarized in Table 6. The soil properties listed under Tables 4 and 5 were used in the
calculation.
The soil profile at Emerald Station generally indicates high variability in terms of soil types and
penetration resistance, both vertically and along the section lines. The various sediment beds
generally occur in lenses which tend to pinch and swell even at a short distance laterally. This
means the pile lengths could be expected to vary within a short distance. The depths to the
highly dense soil (N= 50 blows) and rock line below the surface are shown in the soil profile but
these could also be expected to vary. The pile lengths are designed in such a way that the pile
tips are embedded well within very dense sand and/ or gravel layer or the underlying bedrock.
The rock line indicated in the soil profile could be used to determine the length of the piles
particularly in locations without borehole information.
At Masinag Station the soil distribution with depth is fairly homogenous. The soil overburden
thickness is comparatively limited in all the three boreholes. The N-Values are generally low but
the presence of bedrock at shallow depth shall provide the required pile capacity. All the
boreholes which intercepted at least 6.50 meters thick of fresh, highly strength rock showed no
fossil soil.
Table 6 indicates the pile capacities at various pile lengths and dimensions.
Table 6 Allowable Pile Capacity
Pile Static Pile Capacity, tons

Location
Length, m Pile Diameters, m
1.0 1.50 2.0 2.50
Emerald Station
BH-59 20 290 550 880 1285
26 690 1390 2335 3500
BH-60 20 275 445 630 840
33 795 1455 2290 3295
BH-61 15 490 935 1510 2215
20 670 1300 2125 3145
Masinag Station
BH-62 10.50 350 770 1345 2080
BH-63 10.50 370 800 1400 2170
BH-64 10.50 380 810 1420 2180
It will be noted that at BH-60 the presence of very loose sand is ignored for proposed 20 meter
long pile. At 20 meters embedment depth the tip of the pile is some 4 meters above the loose
sand. With such adequate buffer depth the presence of the loose sand could be ignored.
Needless to say, pile load tests are necessary to obtain more accurate information on the
allowable pile capacity and pile deflection.

B. Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
Lateral pile deflection is commonly determined during pile load tests. However this can be
approximated with the use of the following relationships:
ks = 80 (SF) qa + C q Nq kN /m3
Where:
ks = modulus of subgrade reaction

qa= allowable bearing capacity
SF = safety factor
C = constant = 40
q= effective overburden pressure
Nq = bearing capacity factor
The moduli of subgrade reaction for the boreholes drilled below the stations are
summarized in Table 7.
Table 7 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
Modulus of Subgrade
Location Pile Length, m
Reaction, MN/m3
Emerald Station
BH-59 20 180
BH-60 20 270
BH-61 15 310
Masinag Station
BH-62 10.50 600
BH-63 10.50 565
BH-64 10.50 660
C. Susceptibility to Liquefaction
As discussed under Section 2.3 Seismicity the project area lies very close to active faults, (WVF
and EVF), and that if any of these fault system ruptures a ‘near field’ tectonic movement shall
be experienced. For this reason the possibility of soil liquefaction is a cause for concern. The
soil materials most vulnerable to liquefaction failure are fully saturated impervious fine sands
especially if it’s relative density is loose to very loose. However, being very close to active faults
even medium dense sands are presumably unstable.
The soil profiles indicate a thick succession of silty sands at Emerald Station. The sands occur
at lower depths of the soil profile, ranging from 18 to 23 meters (mid-section of sand bed) below
the ground surface. Generally fine grained, the silty sand is relatively impervious and thus
appears liquefiable. However penetration test data indicates that the sand is generally dense
(N> 30 blows) and because the mid-section lies comparatively deep beneath the ground surface
it is highly possible that the silty sand bed is highly resistant against liquefaction. Based on the
case history the liquefiable soils occur at depths less than 30 feet or 9 meters below the surface.

Granular soils mainly clayey gravel underlies the Masinag Station. This soil type with clayey
sediments is not liquefiable. Consequently, the soil foundations underlying Masinag Station can
be assumed stable against liquefaction.
D. Chemical Analysis of Soil and Groundwater Underlying the Stations
The results of chemical analysis as shown on Table 8 on soil sample taken from BH-60 done by
the Bureau of Soils and Water Management indicated very low concentration of chloride and
sulfate. Sulfate concentration of 37.72 to cause attack on concrete is described as negligible.
Table 8 Result of Chemical Test on Soil Sample from BH-60
Source Location Sulfate, ppm Chloride, ppm

BH-60 37.72 8.98

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
On the basis of the foregoing discussions the following can be concluded:
(a) The LRT Line-2 East (Masinag) Extension Project includes construction of two stations:
Emerald Station at Sta 24 + 394.041 and Masinag Station at Sta. 26 + 846.041. Three
boreholes were drilled in each of the stations.
(b) Located within Marikina Valley, no rock crops out anywhere within the project area. The
boreholes information indicated the rock types as well as the exposures obtaining on the
rolling to mountainous terrain east of Masinag and on the slopes separating Marikina
Valley and Quezon City.
(c) The project area is underlain by thick alluvium reaching more than 40 meters at the
vicinity of the start of the project at Santolan to less than 10 meters at the end of the
project at Masinag. The soil thickness is variable but generally indicated a decreasing
thickness towards Masinag.
(d) At the two stations the soil cover is relatively thick at Emerald Station, reaching as much
as 34.50 meters thick. At Masinag Station the soil thickness is limited to 7.50 to 9 meters
thick.
(e) Both stations are underlain by pyroclastic rocks belonging to the Pliocene to Pleistocene
Diliman tuff. It consists mainly of bedded tuffaceous sandstone inter-layered with
agglomerate and tuff.
(f) At Emerald Station the soil thickness is highly variable, ranging from 25.50 to as much as
34.50 meters. It consists of cohesive soils, highly plastic clay and clayey silt on the upper
14 to 18.50 meters and sand and gravel beds at the lower section. At Masinag Station
the sedimentation is different, consisting largely of clayey gravel and sand with only
minor clayey silt and sandy silt beds.
(g) Soil strength is deduced mainly on the penetration resistance of the clays while the rock
strength is determined on the basis of unconfined compression test on the core samples.
The soil and rock properties are presented in the text. In general, the clay consistency is
variable. At Emerald Station, it is generally stiff for the initial 9 meters depth but generally
becomes very stiff to hard as the depth increases.
(h) Penetration resistance of the granular soils is likewise variable. A relatively thick zone of
highly dense sand and gravel beds is identified at BH-60 and BH-61 but no such layer
exists beneath BH-59. Quite unexpectedly, very loose sand beds, N= 2 to 3 blows, was
intercepted below BH-60 but such soil condition was not encountered by the other
boreholes. Before bedrock level all the three boreholes indicated very dense gravel at
the base. The pyroclastic rocks are geologically classified as soft rock. Based on
strength tests done the unconfined compressive strength ranges from 10.80 to 94.1 kg/
cm2. Average rock strength is about 40.37 kg/cm2.
(i) At Masinag the upper lying sediments are generally medium dense gravel and sand
beds. The N-Value increases with depth. All the boreholes bottomed in rock.
(j) The presence of active faults very near the project area is a cause of concern. A ‘near
field’ tectonic event is actually expected should any of the two active faults near the site
ruptures. The peak ground accelerations (PGA) expected from the earthquake

generators within 2000 km radius of the project area is evaluated on the basis of the
Fukushima- Tanaka equation. The PGA varies from 0.02g to as much as 0.16g. The
lower value applies to the Casiguran fault, 200 km away, and the larger number to the
Philippine Fault System. In the case of the Valley fault system, the PGA expected is
0.55g, based on medium soil site condition.
(k) Pile foundation is recommended. The static pile capacity is computed for various pile
diameters and various pile lengths, based on factor of safety of 2.5. Actual pile capacity
must, however, be based on several pile load tests which will be done in the future. The
moduli of subgrade reaction are also determined and included in the text.
(l) The thick sand beds underlying Emerald Station are fine grained. The sand layer is
presumably not susceptible to liquefaction because it is generally dense and it occurs too
deep below the ground surface. Liquefiable soils are located within about 30 feet below
the surface.

APPENDIX-1 PROJECT AREA LOCATION PLAN
FORESIGHT
LIGHT
DEVELOPMENT
& SURVEYING
SOOSUNG
ENGINEERING
KOREA RAIL
NETWORK RAIL DEPARTMENT OF
COMPANY COMPANY, LTD. AUTHORITY
TRANSIT TRANSPORTATION
AND COMMUNICATIONS
AUTHORITY

Geo Tech

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geo Tech

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANNEX B

GEOLOGICAL AND GEOTECHNICAL

Table 1 Maximum Credible Earthquakes.................................................................................... 4

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works

Appendix-1 Project Area Location Plan

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works

Location and Accessibility

PART - I GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works

At Emerald Station the underlying bedrock consists of thinly bedded tuffaceous

Geologically, Diliman tuff is classified as soft rock as its unconfined compressive

The regional tectonic setting is indicated in Appendix-4. The Philippine Archipelago is

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works

Detailed investigation consisting of trenching, geologic mapping and soil sampling by

Table 1 Maximum Credible Earthquakes

Source of Earth Earthquake Distance, km Magnitude, Ms

C. Peak Ground Acceleration

The ground motion parameter relevant to structural design as well as to analysis of

Log10 A= 0.41 M- Log10 (R + 0.032 x 10 0.41M) – 0.0034 R + 1.30

Table 2 Peak Ground Acceleration

Earthquake Sources Distance, Maximum Credible Peak Ground

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works

Part – II GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

A. Depth of Water Table

Soil Profile -Emerald Station

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works

Soil Profile – Masinag Station

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works

CHAPTER 4 SOIL AND ROCK STRENGTH

Table 3 Correlation of N-Value and Clay Strength

Effective friction angle phi = 27.1 + 0.30 N (adj) – 0.00054 N2 (adj)

Table 4 Summary of Soil and Rock Properties – Emerald Station

Depth Soil Unit Wt Friction Cohesion UCT

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works

Depth Soil Unit Wt Friction Cohesion UCT

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works

Table 5 Summary of Soil and Rock Properties- Masinag Station

Depth Soil Unit Wt Friction Cohesion UCT

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works

CHAPTER 5 FOUNDATION SYSTEM

Table 6 Allowable Pile Capacity

Pile Static Pile Capacity, tons

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works

B. Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

ks = modulus of subgrade reaction

Table 7 Modulus of Subgrade Reaction

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works

D. Chemical Analysis of Soil and Groundwater Underlying the Stations

Table 8 Result of Chemical Test on Soil Sample from BH-60

Source Location Sulfate, ppm Chloride, ppm

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

On the basis of the foregoing discussions the following can be concluded:

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works

Consultancy Services for the Civil Works

You might also like