Capstone 1 - Group 1 - Draft 7

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES
938 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

Civil Engineering Department
CE 506
CE Design Projects 1
DESIGN OF 500-METER SLOPE PROTECTION ALONG MARILAQUE HIGHWAY, BARAS, RIZAL
PREPARED BY:
BATTAD, JEFFERSON F.
BARIA, STEVE JOHN
SALITA, JERSEY C.
SORIANO, SHANNEN PATRICE J.
CE51S1
SUBMITTED TO:
ENGR. BRYLLE JERALD TIMBAL
Instructor
2020
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................................4
LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................................................................5
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................6
1.1 Project Background.................................................................................................................................6
1.2 Project Description..................................................................................................................................8
1.3 Project Location......................................................................................................................................9
1.4 Project Objectives.................................................................................................................................11
1.4.1 General Objectives........................................................................................................................11
1.4.2 Specific Objectives.........................................................................................................................11
1.5 Project Client.........................................................................................................................................11
1.6 Project Scope and Limitations..............................................................................................................12
1.6.1 Scope.............................................................................................................................................12
1.6.2 Limitations......................................................................................................................................12
1.7 Project Development......................................................................................................................13
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS AND RELATED LITERATURE....................................................................14
2.1 Design Inputs........................................................................................................................................14
2.1.1 Topography....................................................................................................................................14
2.1.2 Land Area.......................................................................................................................................14
2.1.3 Subsurface Conditions...................................................................................................................16
2.1.4 Distance of the Project Location from the Fault Line....................................................................27
2.1.5 Ground Shaking.............................................................................................................................27
2.1.6 Liquefaction....................................................................................................................................29
2.1.7 Earthquake-Induced Landslide......................................................................................................30
2.1.8 Design Loadings............................................................................................................................31
2.1.8.1 Surcharge Load.....................................................................................................................31
2.1.9 Software and Web-based Application Tools.................................................................................34
2.1.9.1 Geotechnical Software Geo5................................................................................................34
2.1.9.2 AutoCAD 2016.......................................................................................................................34
2.1.9.3 Contour Map Creator.............................................................................................................34
2.1.9.4 Geocontext............................................................................................................................35
2.2 Review of Related Literature............................................................................................................35
2
2.2.1 Local Literature.........................................................................................................................35
2.2.2 Foreign Literature.....................................................................................................................38
2.3 References........................................................................................................................................43
CHAPTER 3: CONTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS, AND DESIGN STANDARDS.................................................45
3.1 Design Constraints................................................................................................................................45
3.1.2 Quantitative Constraints................................................................................................................45
3.1.2.1 Economic Constraint (Material Cost).....................................................................................45
3.1.2.2 Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost).......................................................................45
3.1.2.3 Constructability Constraint (Duration of Construction)..........................................................46
3.1.2.4 Risk Assessment Constraint (Factor of Safety)....................................................................46
3.1.2.5 Environmental Constraint (Concrete Carbon Footprint)........................................................46
3.1.2 Qualitative Constraints...................................................................................................................47
3.1.2.1 Social Constraints..................................................................................................................47
3.1.2.2 Political Constraints...............................................................................................................47
3.2 Design Trade-Offs.................................................................................................................................47
3.2.1 Geotechnical Context....................................................................................................................47
3.2.1.1 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) using Geogrid as oil Reinforcement..........................47
3.2.1.2 Soil Nailing.............................................................................................................................49
3.2.1.3 Cement Grouting...................................................................................................................50
3.2.2 Structural Context..........................................................................................................................51
3.2.2.1 Anchored Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall.....................................................................51
3.2.2.2 Sheet Pile Retaining Wall......................................................................................................53
3.2.2.3 Cantilevered Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall................................................................54
3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking.......................................................................................................................55
3.4 Design Standards.................................................................................................................................55
3
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: An astonishing view of Marilaque Highway....................................................................................6
Figure 1-2: Soil Erosion along Marilaque Highway due to Typhoon Ulysses..................................................7
Figure 1-3: An example of a Geosynthetic Slope Protection............................................................................8
Figure 1-4: A portion of Baras Map locating the Project Location....................................................................9
Figure 1-5: A satellite view of an approximation of 500-meter slope protection located along Marilaque
Highway in municipality of Baras, Rizal........................................................................................10
Figure 1-6: Project Development Diagram.....................................................................................................13
Figure 2-1: Project Location Topography.......................................................................................................14

Figure 2-2: Baras Satellite Map locating the Project Location........................................................................15
Figure 2-3: STA M 0 + 0..................................................................................................................................16
Figure 2-4: STA M 0 + 50................................................................................................................................17
Figure 2-5: STA M 0 + 100..............................................................................................................................18
Figure 2-6: STA M 0 + 150..............................................................................................................................19
Figure 2-7: STA M 0 + 200..............................................................................................................................20
Figure 2-8: STA M 0 + 250..............................................................................................................................21
Figure 2-9: STA M 0 + 300..............................................................................................................................22
Figure 2-10: STA M 0 + 350............................................................................................................................23
Figure 2-11: STA M 0 + 400............................................................................................................................24
Figure 2-12: STA M 0 + 450............................................................................................................................25
Figure 2-13: STA M 0 + 500............................................................................................................................26
Figure 2-14: Distance of Project Site to the East Valley Fault........................................................................27
Figure 2-15: Ground Shaking Map of Baras, Rizal.........................................................................................28
Figure 2-17: Liquefaction Map of Baras, Rizal...............................................................................................29
Figure 2-18: Earthquake-Induced Landslide Map of Baras, Rizal..................................................................30
Figure 2-19: HS20-44......................................................................................................................................32
Figure 2-20: Standard MS (HS) Trucks..........................................................................................................33
Figure 3-1: Geogrid as Soil Reinforcement....................................................................................................48

Figure 3-2: Soil Nail.........................................................................................................................................49
Figure 3-3: Cement Grouting..........................................................................................................................50
Figure 3-4: Anchored Retaining Wall..............................................................................................................52
Figure 3-5: Sheet Pile Retaining Wall.............................................................................................................53
Figure 3-6: Parts of Cantilevered Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall.........................................................54
4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Dead Loads....................................................................................................................................31
Table 3-1: Advantages and Disadvantages of using Geogrid........................................................................48

Table 3-2: Advantages and Disadvantages of using Soil Nailing...................................................................50
Table 3-3: Advantages and Disadvantages of using Cement Grouting.........................................................51
Table 3 4: Advantages and Disadvantages of using Anchored Retaining Wall.............................................52
Table 3-5: Advantages and Disadvantages of using Sheet Pile Retaining Wall............................................53
Table 3-6: Advantages and Disadvantages of using Cantilevered Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall.....54
5
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
Philippines has numerous of wonderful scenic drives. Some are in the coastal areas while the others are in
mountain drives. These drives are located slightly away from major cities and famous tourist spots. Still,
there is an easy day trip from Manila that is – the Marilaque Highway.
Highway, by definition from Merriam Webster’s dictionary, is a public way and a main direct road. Marilaque
Highway is a scenic highway that crosses Luzon from the borders of Metro Manila to Infanta on the Pacific
coast. It is about 110 kilometers long and traverses the well-known mountain range, Sierra Madre.
Figure 1-1: An astonishing view of Marilaque Highway

The highway encompasses such astonishing views. It winds its way through small villages settlements that
are scattered at the side of the road. Through the patches of rainforests and visually attractive waterfalls
are things that made this highway known for. Marilaque Highway will take you above the clouds or through
these vast fogs which are resonant of mountain drives at higher elevations.
6
Behind its pleasing picturesque drives, it was reported that last December 2015, Querocep Bridge along
Infanta Highway was damaged by a landslide. It is very alarming for travelers to have this kind of natural
occurrence in this kind of major highway. Thus, the aim of this project is to have a slope protection along
Marilaque Highway, Baras, Rizal preventing such natural phenomenon in the future.
Figure 1-2: Soil Erosion along Marilaque Highway due to Typhoon Ulysses
Figure 1-2 shows the current situation of the problem along Marilaque Highway that might happen in the
future. A soil erosion was occurred caused by Typhoon Ulysses last November 2020. There are no reports
of deaths or injuries made affected by the landslide. Moreover, it is highly recommended to put a slope
protection to prevent this kind of natural phenomenon in the future.
7
1.2 Project Description
The project is to design a 500-meter slope protection along Marilaque Highway, Baras, Rizal. The 500-
meter slope protection will prevent soil erosion along Marilaque Highway. It is expected that the slope
protection will have sufficient strength since the stabilization of the soil is to be fixated and considered.
Figure 1-3: An example of a Geosynthetic Slope Protection

The purpose of the slope protection is to provide stabilization of soil against the sliding or malfunction.
Some incidents of soil erosion occur in the area. A further study of the behavior and characteristics of soil
will be conducted to consider the most economical and competent design of slope protection. The benefits
of this project will make people, who are using Marilaque Highway, safe.
The designers will utilize a trade-off strategy in designing a slope protection. The aim of the project is to
design adapting the code and design standards from National Building Code of the Philippines and National
Structural Code of the Philippines. The project recommends solutions in the fields of Geotechnical
Engineering and Structural Engineering.
8
1.3 Project Location
Marilaque Highway is within the Radial Road 6. Radial Road 6 is a sixth radial road in Metro Manila. It
passes through the cities of Manila, Quezon City, San Juan, Pasig and Marikina. In addition to that, from
the province of Rizal, Cainta and Antipolo, to Sta. Maria, Laguna and Infanta Quezon were included in this
road.
Project Location
Figure 1-4: A portion of Baras Map locating the Project Location.

Source: Google Maps
The project is stationed along Marilaque Highway, Baras, Rizal. The figure above shows an approximate
500-meter slope protection will be constructed. Precautionary signs were visible. There will be codes,
designs, constraints and trade-offs to be considered from the following chapters. The project is expected to
an efficient slope protection for the safety of the tourists.
9
Figure 1-5: A satellite view of an approximation of 500-meter slope protection located along Marilaque
Highway in municipality of Baras, Rizal.
Source: Google Maps
As stated in Figure 1-5, the installation and construction of the proposed slope protection along Marilaque
Highway is 500 meters. The project location is to be dissected every 50 meters to show the actual site and
altitude of the slope.
10
1.4 Project Objectives
1.4.1 General Objectives
This project aims to design an effective slope protection along Marilaque Highway, Baras, Rizal that will
serve as a protection from soil erosions. A design that will make the concerned areas safe as a slope
protection will be built along 500-meter span of the highway which will provide strength and stability for the
soil.
1.4.2 Specific Objectives

The general objective mentioned above can be broken down into three more specific objectives that would
together achieve the overall goal of the project, which are specified as follows:
 To design a slope protection along Marilaque Highway that can withstand all loads subjected to it,
conforming to the necessary codes and design standards given by the National Building Code of the
Philippines and National Structural Code of the Philippines.
 To provide and design a clear cost and estimate of the proposed slope protection.
 To evaluate and select the trade-off with the most effective and economical design based on the given
constraints set by the client to effectively select the best design of slope protection.
1.5 Project Client

The clients of this project will be the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) – Rizal 2 nd District
Engineering Office thru District Engineer De Juliana D. Vergara and Assistant District Engineer Ade
Francisco F. Cruz.
The project is to fulfill the specifications of the client on the proposed 500-meter slope protection. Clients
sought to ensure that the design of the slope protection must be in line with current design practices and
building code requirements. Cost-effective without wasting time and effort is anticipated by the clients. In
addition to that, consideration of the environment must also be monitored throughout the project. Allocation
of budget will be projected once the design is generated. Planning and Design Department will scrutinize
the project provided by the designers. The department will approve, evaluate and check out the budget that
will be provided. Hence, the target of the project is to in line with client’s vision to be effective and efficient
government agency for the benefit of every Filipino through quality structure.
11
1.6 Project Scope and Limitations
1.6.1 Scope
a. To design a 500 meters slope protection along Marilaque Highway using the necessary
code designs and standards considering the three trade-offs for dual context (Geotechnical
and Structural).
b. To provide structural plans in compliance with the NSCP 2015.
c. To provide cost estimate of material, equipment and labor, and a detailed scheduling.
1.6.2 Limitations
a. This project does not include drainages for it already has slope protection.
d. This project does not include the detailed construction management plan such as bidding,
procurement, and the actual execution of the actual project.
e. The project spans for only 500 meters of the selected area along Marilaque highway. The
part where there is no need to conduct this project will also not be included in the design.
12
1.7 Project Development
The design project will undergo various phases. The project started with conceptualization which involves
identifying the problem that the designers will want to assess. In this phase, the designers are also able to
share their ideas about the feasible solutions to the problem. After identifying the problem, which is the
prevention of possible landslides in the chosen location in Baras, Rizal, along Marilaque highway. Data
gathered will also serve as a proof that the problem exists and needs to have a solution. The next phase is
the proposed trade-offs wherein the designers are able to choose the most appropriate design for the
project. And lastly, the final design output wherein the feasible solution has been executed for the said
project that can prevent possible landslides in Baras, Rizal, along Marilaque highway.
Figure 1-6: Project Development Diagram
13
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN INPUTS AND RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Design Inputs
2.1.1 Topography
The location of the project is situated approximately 14° 31' North, 121° 16' East

(14.5218, 121.2658), in Baras Rizal. Elevation at these coordinates is estimated at 288 meters or
944.882 feet above sea level.
Figure 2-1: Project Location Topography

Source: https://en-ph.topographic-map.com
2.1.2 Land Area
Baras is a municipality in the province of Rizal. The land area of the municipality of Rizal is 84.93
square kilometers or 32.79 miles which comprises 7.13% of the total area of Rizal. Philippine
Statistics Authority census August 2015 stated that the population was 69,300. Baras makes
2.40% of the total population of Rizal province and 0.48% in Region IV-A CALABARZON. Its
population density is at 816 inhabitants per square kilometers or 2,113 inhabitants per square mile.
14
Figure 2-2: Baras Satellite Map locating the Project Location
Source: Google Maps
One of the smaller municipalities in the Province of Rizal is Baras It is bordered by the city of
Antipolo to the north, by the municipality of Tanay to the east, and by the municipality of Morong to
the west The Luneta Grandstand is about 51 kilometers away and the Provincial Government
Center is 21 kilometers away. Geographically, at the foot of the Sierra Madre Mountains, the town
is located and its funnel-like form dips into Laguna de Bay. In the south end of the city, the
Poblacion region is where the communities and human activities are concentrated. Here you can
find homes, commercial establishments, the local government center, institutional centers and the
historic Baras Church. The Baras River winds in between all of these. The Baras tip dips into the
15
waters of the great old Laguna de Bay at its southernmost tip. In this place, small fishing villages,
marshlands, and fish pens mingle.
2.1.3 Subsurface Conditions
Upon reaching the location of the project, the designers describe the subsurface conditions and
captured the environment to know how will the project go and use the most efficient and
economical trade off to be used.
Figure 2-3: STA M 0 + 0

As seen in Figure 2-3, there are rock debris filling almost the side of the road. It has a lot of trees and huge
rocks on the side. Before this station, there is a blind curved road going to Palo Alto.
16
The station has a traffic sign of curve road ahead. The soil could be typical about 50% solids and 50%
voids in which the half is occupied by water and half by gas. On this side of the road, it has many trees on
the slope.
17
It has a lot of trees and also contains rock formation on the slope. There are some debris of rocks seen
beside the road.
18
In Figure 2-6, this area has a signage of falling rocks. The height of the slope varies. This station contains
soil but mostly rock formation with trees.
19
The station has fallen rock debris on the side of the road. The area contains rock solid forms and yellow-
whitish soil with a lot of trees.
20
The side of the road almost filled with eroded soil with rock debris. The height on the area is higher than in
Figure 2-7, STA 0 + 200 meters.
21
The height of the slope the station is much higher than other stations. It can also be seen in Figure 2-9 that
the rock debris and eroded soil are almost filling the side of the road.
22
Figure 2-10: STA M 0 + 350
The station has a huge body rock formation with trees. The rock formations could be less than 1 meter
away from the road.
23
Figure 2-11: STA M 0 + 400
This area, as seen in Figure 2-11, has a yellowish rock forms with rock debris and eroded soil on the
ground reaching the side of the road.
24
Figure 2-12: STA M 0 + 450
The area, from Figure 2-12, the barrier of the road is farther to the huge rocks on the side. The rocks seen
are filled with trees.
25
Figure 2-13: STA M 0 + 500
The station has yellowish form of rock debris on the side of the road with eroded soil. The entire slope
could be higher among those stations.
26
2.1.4 Distance of the Project Location from the Fault Line
The location of the project is located at Barangay Pinugay, Baras, Rizal, which has a 19.9-kilometer
distance from the nearest fault. The name of the fault line is Valley Fault System that was mapped in the
year of 2014.
Figure 2-14: Distance of Project Site to the East Valley Fault

Source: PHIVOLCS Fault Finder
2.1.5 Ground Shaking
The data was obtained from Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) website. A
ground shaking map shows the probability of occurring the distribution of earthquake shaking levels. The
map used 4 colors that signifies each of the PHIVOLCS Earthquake Intensity Scale (PEIS). The red color
implies PEIS Intensity VIII and above. Pink color denotes PEIS Intensity VII. Purple color represents PEIS
Intensity VI. Lastly, yellow color symbolizes PEIS Intensity Lower than VI.
PEIS Intensity VIII and above are considered as very destructive, devastating and completely devastating.
PEIS Intensity VII is destructive. PEIS Intensity VI is very strong. PEIS Intensity lower than VI are
considered to be strong, moderately strong, weak and slightly felt.
27
Figure 2-15: Ground Shaking Map of Baras, Rizal
Source: PHIVOLCS website

From Figure 2-15, the yellow circle shows the project location for the design of 500-meter slope protection
along Marilaque Highway. The town of Tanay is all in red. Hence, the PEIS Intensity Level is VIII and
above. The project location may have an occurrence of very destructive, devastating and completely
devastating intensity level. Limited liquefaction, literal spreading and landslides are observed. Trees are
shaken strongly. Numerous landslides and rockfalls occur in mountainous and hilly areas.
28
2.1.6 Liquefaction
The map was based on the geology, faults of the earthquake source region, historical liquefaction
accounts, geomorphology, area hydrology. Preliminary data from the microtremor survey was used to verify
the form of materials underlying it. The hazard limits are all estimated and/or incremental. The map is semi-
detailed and can be used for land use, preparation for emergency response and mitigation, and should not
be used for site-specific assessment. As long as proper engineering considerations are applied, the
liquefaction hazard maps do not prohibit construction of any structures and creation in areas susceptible to
liquefaction.
Red, Purple and Yellow colors signify high, moderate and low liquefaction potentials of the soil,
respectively. The map illustrates that the location of the project has no existence of any liquefaction in the
soil.
29
Figure 2-17: Liquefaction Map of Baras, Rizal
Source: PHIVOLCS
2.1.7 Earthquake-Induced Landslide
By simulating the maximum credible magnitude of different earthquake sources occurring in the region, the
earthquake-induced landslide hazard map was developed. The computed Factor Protection, simulated
ground shaking by Fukushima and Tanaka, and critical slope acceleration by Newmark technique were
used to measure landslide potential. The result demonstrates the potential zones of initiation of landslides
to varying degrees, that is, high, moderate and low. The potential depositional extent of landslide materials
is shown by the Hachured areas and is considered part of the areas affected by landslides.
Figure 2-18: Earthquake-Induced Landslide Map of Baras, Rizal
30
Source: PHIVOLCS
Red color indicates the high susceptibility of the slope. Purple color represents moderate susceptibility.
Yellow color signifies low susceptibility. White color means not susceptible. Possible landslide depositional
or affected zone is striped.
Looking at Figure 2-18, which is the Earthquake-Induced Landslide Map of Baras Rizal, the project location
indicates high and moderate susceptibility of the slope to cause a landslide.
2.1.8 Design Loadings
2.1.8.1 Surcharge Load

A surcharge load is any load which is imposed upon the surface of the soil close enough to
the excavation to cause a lateral pressure to act on the system in addition to the basic
earth pressure. Groundwater will also cause an additional pressure, but not considered a
surcharge load. Examples of surcharge loads are excavated soil in embankments adjacent
to the trench, streets or highways, construction machinery or material stockpiles, adjacent
buildings or structures, and railroads.
2.1.8.1.1 Dead Load

The dead loads shall consist of the weight of the entire structure including the
roadway, sidewalks; car tracks pipes, conduits, cables and other public utility
services. The following unit weighs of construction materials were used in
computing the dead loads:
Table 2-1: Dead Loads

MATERIALS UNIT WEIGHT (kN/m3)
Concrete, Plain or Reinforced 23.7
Compacted Earth, Sand, Gravel or Ballast 18.9
Structural Steel 77
Cat Iron 71
Water (without sediment) 9.81
Bituminous Wearing Surface (50mm thick) 1.08 kPa
31
2.1.8.1.2 Live Load
The live loads shall consist of the weight of applied moving loads of the
vehicles, cars and pedestrians.
 Traffic Surcharge
When it comes to traffic surcharge, the heaviest loads are those produced
by large transport trucks. To design the capacity of a road, the American
Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has
a series of specifications for truck loadings. For two-axial trucks AASHTO
designates these vehicles as H series trucks. Trucks that pull trailers are
designated as HS, for example HS 20-44 (a 20-ton semi-trailer truck). The
AASHTO specification also allows the designer to represent the truck as a
single concentrated load and a uniform load.
Figure 2-19: HS20-44
Source: AASHTO
32
Figure 2-20: Standard MS (HS) Trucks
AASHTO recommended the design load of HS20-44 for national highways.

Length of Truck: 14’ + 30’ = 44 ft (13.4 m)
Loading Specifications of HS20-44
 Axle Loads: (1) 8-kip & (2) kips; Total 72 kips (320 kN)
 Maximum Overall Contact Projection:
6 ft ( 14 ft +14 )=168 ft 2 (15.6 m 2)
 Projection Surcharge
72kips
=428 psf (12 kPa)
168 ft 2
 Equivalent Surcharge
1
( 428 psf )=214 psf (10.25 kPa)
2
Including Collision Impact Factor (From DPWH DGCS Vol. 4 – Highway Design)
Note: Impact Fraction, I not exceeded 30%
50 50
I= = =36 %>30 %
Ltruct +125 13.4+125
∴ Use30 % additional ¿ traffic surcharge
33
10.25 kPa+30 %=13. kPa
2.1.9 Software and Web-based Application Tools

2.1.9.1 Geotechnical Software Geo5
Geo5 is a software designed to solve various geotechnical tasks such as slope stability,
foundations and retaining walls. GEO5 suite consists of wide range of powerful programs
based on both analytical method as well as Finite Element Method. Analytical methods of
computation (e.g. slope stability, sheeting design) allow users to design and check
structures quickly and efficiently. The designed structure may be transferred into the FEM
program where the general analysis of the structure is performed using the Finite Element
Method. This not only saves designer’s time but also compares two independent solutions,
thereby increasing design safety.
GEO5 is the revolutionary geotechnical software package that could be used for:
 Stability Analysis
 Excavation Design
 Retaining Wall Design
 Foundation Design
 Soil Settlement Analysis
 Digital Terrain Model
 Advanced Finite Element analysis

2.1.9.2 AutoCAD 2016
AutoCAD is a commercial computer-aided design (CAD) software application used to
create blueprints, bridges, and other engineering drawings. It was developed by Autodesk
to help drafters, engineers and other professionals to create two dimensional (2D) and
three dimensional (3D) in an easy and convenient way using the computer.
2.1.9.3 Contour Map Creator

Contour Map Creator is an application web-tool that generates contour lines and used to
determine elevations and are lines on a map that are produced from connecting points of
equal elevation (elevation refers to height in feet, or meters and above sea level).
34
2.1.9.4 Geocontext
A topographic profile is one of the important requirements in engineering design
and other fields like earth sciences. It is a cross-sectional view along a line drawn in a
portion of the topographic map. It is so useful because it helps us understand a
topographic map. We can construct topographic profile manually but it is time-consuming
and hard so nowadays, with the modern technologies invented there are now online
applications that can help us construct topographic profiles in an easier and faster way.
One of this is the Geocontext Profiler. Geocontext profiler allows the user to make a
topographic profile, anywhere on earth, online. It is very useful especially for
geomorphology and hydrography purposes. This program offers advanced options that
allow the user to make a profile along the road and it can measure the slope and angle of
it. It also has some amazing features that show the highest mountains and largest ocean
depths in different parts of the world.
2.2 Review of Related Literature
2.2.1 Local Literature
Chrysopogon zizanioides (Vetiver Grass) as a potential plant for aiding potential landslide.
As reported by Kriyssa D, Balangcod, Freda M. Wong and Teodora D. Balangcod (2015), this type of
grass (vetiver grass) can stabilize soil. Because this grass has fast growth rate and can hold soil through its
ability to grow on steep slopes. For their study, they used this grass specie in Antok, Benguet, and northern
Philippines because of the area’s probability to intense rain fall and typhoons that may cause landslides in
the area. The aim of their study was to validate the use of vetiver grass for stabilization of an experimental
landslide area in Antok, Benguet, Northern Philippines, and monitor its growth performance under nursery
condition. They established the nursery in Antok for the propagation of vetiver grass and other plant
species, with potential use in stabilizing landslides. There samples were plotted randomly, the number of
new shoots and shoot length were measured every month from planting. For the result, during the early
stages of growth, the vetiver grass developed new shoots; and for the average of new shoots in three per
pot, t3he longest shoot increment measured was 65 cm. For the raining season, the vetiver grass was
transplanted to experimental site and they monitored after 2 months, the plants had shown and were able
35
to produce more and longer shoots. To assess the capability of the roots to stabilize the soil, a force gauge
was used on the three vetiver plants to measure how strongly the roots can hold soil. For the result, they
proved that the vetiver grass has a strong soil-aggregation capacity and that the roots were able to
establish in the landslide prone area within 2 months.
According to Engr. G.J. Hearn and J.R. Hart of Quarterly journal of the Engineering Geology and
Hydrogeology (2019), among the most challenging locations on Earth to build and maintain transport
infrastructure in part of the Central Cordillera of Luzon, and by the Halsema Highway’s situation are
perhaps the most epitomized. Since the highway’s original construction in 1990 and undergone phased
improvement, and the highway became a socio-economic lifeline to the rural communities it serves. In
1990, the road improvements were abandoned because of the outcome of 7.8 magnitude earthquake and
the effect of subsequent typhoon damages. In 1998, they designed the earthquake reinstatement and
constructed from 2001 to 2006. The engineering’s geological challenges posed was compounded by the
effects of severe typhoon and rains during the reconstruction period, requiring continuous assessment of
changing slope and drainage conditions. During the construction, the several new typhoons including,
most-notably, typhoons Pepeng and Ompong in 2009 and 2018 hampered its development. In field
inspection, they combined the interpretation of satellite imagery that available in Google Earth in 2010 and
2018, and in 2001 and 2006 they allowed to perform the works implemented and the assessed outcome
has been largely favourable. The location of earthquake reinstatement happened to have a very little
recorded damage. They developed several new areas of slope failure preventions and subsequent
blockage to the road, and many of the areas’ engineering flaws can be explained with respect to their
underlying engineering geology and geomorphology. However, during the natural disasters, their origin to
the pattern of rainfall and runoff arising, they can be modified significantly by drainage management
practices in road corridor, where engineering serviceability and farming practices sometimes have
conflicting objectives.
Retaining Wall Design by DEPW Study
A retaining wall of Casa del Rio Subdivision in Sitio Cadaohan, Talamaban, Cebu, Philippines was being
investigated by the Department of Engineering and Public Works after its collapse where it killed 2 people
and injured 6 more persons. The investigation showed that the weep holes of the retaining wall ware
covered by the residents living in the area. Weep holes are very important in retaining walls as it allows
water to pass outside the wall and preventing it from accumulating inside. When water is trapped inside the
36
cracks of the wall, it will help weaken the foundation which most likely caused the fall. Also, weep holes
contribute in making the air circulate inside the wall which prevents accumulation of mold. Molds can cause
damage to the structural elements of a structure and might cause its failure. It was said that the people
living beside the creek also installed tiles on the wall and that it might have added more weight on the
retaining wall. The construction of another retaining wall will go underway once the construction permit has
been issued. The permit will be given only if the requirements are met and if the designs of the proposed
retaining wall will comply to the guidelines and meet structural codes evaluated by the Department of
Engineering and Public Works. A soil evaluation will be conducted so as to prevent another collapse from
happening.
Highway Protected Against Landslides in Amuyong, Alfonso, Cavite
Maccaferri Philippines states their solution in stability of the highway in Amuyong, in the town of Alfonso,
Cavite. The Local Government Unit (LGU) was concerned about the stability of the highway and the danger
of landslides on the downslope side. Since the location is well-populated and has a basketball court
immediately below, addressing the problem was important. The solution was an 8m high and 30m long
MSE wall constructed with MacBags filled with locally-sourced materials and reinforced with MacGrid
geogrids. This proved to be a cost-effective solution compared to reinforced concrete and allowed
completion of the project within budget constraints. The construction method called for the soil bags to be
laid down on MacGrid® WG8 geogrid made from high molecular weight, high tenacity polyester
multifilament yarns. MacTex MXL non-woven geotextiles and MacDrain W1061 drainage composite were
also used in the design. As each layer of soil bags was installed, MacGrid was wrapped around the face of
the bags with up to 4m of reinforcement. This system was also used successfully for a 1.2 Km long
retaining wall in Tagaytay in 2015. The total wall height was 8 meters. The geogrid and soil bag component
topped out at 4.2 meters and length was 30 meters. Total construction time including site preparation was a
little over 2 months and the project was completed ahead of schedule.
An Installation of Slope Protection Along Landslide-Prone Road in Ilocos Sur
It was announced by Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Secretary Mark A. Villar that a
new stabilization structure is in progress to prevent landslides and closing of roads along Tagudin-
Cervantes Road in Suyo, Ilocos Sur. Prioritizing the installation of slope protection was prioritized to solve
the inconvenience of road closure caused by the landslides to motorists traveling the Tagudin-Cervantes
Road. Engineer Jose GInete Jr, a DPWH Ilocos Sur Second District, reported that the project has two
37
designs – rock netting and shotcrete procedure. The target was to provide an extra support and prevent
slipping of soil. The construction for this 1,400 square meter slope area has a budget of 40-million Php
which started last May 2020. DPWH Secretary Villar said that the workers who are working for this project
has complied strictly to health safety protocols towards to make sure an on-time completion of the project
for the safety of motorists.
2.2.2 Foreign Literature
Design, development, and deployment of a wireless sensor network for detection of Landslides.
According to Ramesh M (2014), Wireless sensor networks are one of the most promising emerging
technologies, offering opportunities for real time monitoring of disaster-prone such as, remote and hostile
geographical regions. This work reaffirms the capacity of wireless sensor networks for disaster mitigation
with a focus on landslide detection. For the past three years, the wireless sensor network system, together
with other geological, hydrological and soil properties, has collected vast amounts of data such as
correlated sensor data on rainfall, moisture, pore pressure and movement, helping to provide a better
understanding of the landslide scenario. The design of this system uses new methods of data aggregation
in the field application for power optimization. Here is presented a study on unexpected challenges faced in
the field implementation of wireless sensor networks and the new solutions designed to address them.
Based on the findings above, it would definitely help the nature using the Wireless sensor networks to
easily detect and monitor the disaster-prone areas. They would respond immediately in case of there’s any
nature hazard happens. These technologies are reliable to detect the landslides and power saving
solutions so they can avoid the delay of helping the mankind.
Landslide and Landslide process and impacts: A proposed classification method.
According to Kwong et al., (2015), Landslides in mountainous cities are the most frequently natural
disaster. The possibility and frequency of landslide can be increased by dense buildings and other
structures. Those cities or lands located close to slopes and rivers and prone to these landslides. Natural
hazards, such as landslides and flooding or rivers, are easily triggered by housing and road construction in
wavy form lands. Based on this article, this result suggested the adjacent of construction to sloping lands
and low-lying areas during heavy rainfall is exposed to the risk to flash floods and debris flows. Therefore,
through the presentation of various case studies, tis review considers an alternate classification theory
38
concerning significant concepts of landslide hazard and risk. This paper attempts to describe a systematic
organizational approach in framing landslide impacts in order to more reliably describe and integrate
analysis and mitigation measures.
39
Landslide counteracting system and Landslide science for a safer geo-environment.
According to Mrozek T and Kułak M (2014), Mountainous are moderately vulnerable to natural hazards, but
floods and landslides are major threats that lead to significant economic losses. Unlike floods, precipitation
normally causes the landslides. These disasters highlighted a critical need for an improved system for
collecting landslide data, building awareness of danger and developing mitigation measures. An initially
developed plan for recovery of landslide damage has evolved into a strategy for reducing risk. The center is
now established by the ongoing project called Landslide Counteracting System LCS (SOPO in Polish) in
conjunction with DBMS, which is designed to monitor landslides across the world. The second streamline,
however, it focuses on systemic remediation steps aimed at ensuring the reliability and functionality of
public infrastructure in the foreseeable future.
An additional to this, based on my understanding and recommendation on the article above it should have
a planning plans, details on the spatial distribution of landslides is to be considered by law. Municipal
authorities should rely on previously observed landslide risks and potential damage to avoid unnecessary
spending and create local management policies that enforce development restrictions on landslide-prone
lands.
Retaining walls as a landslide solution
Retaining walls are commonly used in areas that have steep slopes. It is designed to restrain the soil.
However, retaining walls are proven as a very effective and efficient solution to landslides. There are
several types of retaining walls that can be constructed; gravity walls that resists the pressure from behind
due to their own mass, pilling walls that is made of steel and appropriate to use in narrow spaces with soft
soil having 2/3 of the wall beneath the ground, cantilever walls that has large structural footing and converts
the horizontal pressure from behind the wall into vertical pressure on the ground below and anchored walls
that uses cable or anchored in the rock or soil behind to increase resistance.
40
Ecological Retaining Wall for High-Steep Slopes: A Case Study in the Ji-Lai Expressway, Eastern China
Research on the retaining structures for high-steep slopes is extremely significant thanks to its real-world
applications and far-reaching implications. A versatile geocell-reinforced ecological wall as a high-steep
slope protection scheme was developed and applied to the slope protection project of the Ji-Lai
Expressway by analyzing the reinforcement mechanism of the geocell used. The lateral displacement and
Earth pressure distribution on the flexible ecological wall applied to the high-steep slope were studied using
finite element numerical simulations and verified using field experiments. Results reveal that the wall
maximum horizontal displacement is 2/3 H far from the wall toe thanks to the replacement of the upper a
part of soil. There is a visible bucking effect on the active Earth pressure round the stiffened site, and also
the flexible deformation of the wall helped effectively release a number of the planet pressure.
Consequently, the measured value is less than the theoretical value. Through this case
study, it's demonstrated that the flexible ecological wall as a slope protection technology are
often successfully applied to steep slopes with a height of over 15 m. Moreover, it brings significant
advantages for shielding the ecological environment and improving the highway landscape.
Design of Reinforced Concrete Cantilever Retaining Wall Using Grey Wolf Optimization Algorithm
A cantilever wall could be a common application for highway, bridge and railway constructions and lots
of other engineering activities. These sorts of constructions entail cut and fill processes which may form soil
slopes with the angle of inclination. A vertical stem and a base slab are basically the weather which
comprise a cantilever wall. The Stem provides lateral support to the fill. During this case there's a shear key
on the underside of the bottom slab. Soil could also be retained at the 2 sides of the cantilever retaining
wall; therefore, soil exert pressure from each side, passive and active earth pressures. The shear key
increases stability of the wall with passive earth pressure arising from the soil ahead of it.
41
The designing process of cantilever wall is usually supported people. Designers scientific intuition,
vision, and knowledge are essential for assuming the size which they meet the geotechnical and structural
restrictions. Once the scale is decided, designers must check sufficiency of the wall for resistance to sliding
and tipping, bearing capacity of foundation, strength against bending and shear moment. These designing
and analyze processes repeat with iterations until the designer reach the ultimate solution. Although this
sort of rigorous approach, there's no guarantee that the last design is that the best solution. At this time,
optimization techniques could also be helpful to forestall misusing material and time.
Analysis and Design of Retaining Wall having Reinforced Cohesive Frictional Backfill
The case of a rigid wall with inclined back face retaining reinforced cohesive-frictional backfill subjected to
uniformly distributed surcharge load has been analyzed using limit equilibrium approach. The analysis
considers the soundness of a component of the failure wedge, which is assumed to develop within
the reinforced earth mass adjoining the rear face of wall. The non-dimensional charts are developed for
computing the lateral earth pressure on wall and therefore the height of its point of application above the
bottom of wall. The theoretical findings are verified by model tests on a rigid wall retaining a dry cohesive-
frictional soil reinforced by geogrid strips. Experimental results are in good agreement with the theoretical
predictions. A design example has been included for example the planning procedure.
Slope Stabilization for Local Government Engineers in Minnesota

Retaining walls are an option for projects during which space is a difficulty. A well-designed
and constructed wall enables design teams to figure around severe grade changes in some
highway projects. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) could be a source for design
guidelines for retaining walls, like Christopher et al. (2009). Retaining walls can manage
grade changes in roadway construction, keep salt, oil and other highway chemicals off the
surrounding environment, and protect motorists from rocks, wildlife and other hazards that might
enter the roadway.
42
Geosynthetic reinforcement is another stabilization option. The term “geotextile”
describes a permeable fabric. The term “geogrid” typically refers to a lattice-pattern synthetic
that is placed between layers of fill material. Westfall
(2014) describes how geogrid was employed in combination with other stabilization methods along
U.S. 50 in Nevada, near Lake Tahoe. The Nevada Department of Transportation hired
engineering consultants and used proprietary designs, indicating that this repair method is probably going
not an in-house stabilization method for county maintenance engineers. The geosynthetic
material allowed the project to fulfill environmental and aesthetic requirements. Geosynthetics are
often considered due to simple installation, and work well together with other
stabilization methods.
Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) embankments are simply a mixture of several

stabilization methods. Generally, more common in new construction, an embankment is
constructed using prescribed fill placed in compacted lifts with geosynthetic reinforcement
between layers. Fill is usually free-draining borrow material, unless the location has adequate in place
drainage and strength. Teams may additionally install drainage features. This embankment type
stabilizes slopes but is mostly expensive. The FHWA could be a good source for design guidelines
and standards for MSE walls and other structural reinforcement methods (Berg et al., 2009).
43
2.3 References
Kryssa D. Balangcod, Freda M. Wong and Teodora D. Balangcod (2015) Chrysopogon zizanioides (vetiver
grass) as a potential plant for landslide bioengineering at Atok, Benguet, Philippines: Research.
Australian Journal of Botany. Retrieved from:
https://www.publish.csiro.au/bt/BT1427
Engr. Winston V. Abobo (2014). Failure of Gabion in highway of Province of Benguet.

Retrieved from WAbobo-2017-itceprints.slu.edu.ph
Engr. G.J. Hearn and J.R. Hart (2019). The performance of mountain road rehabilitation in the Central
Cordillera of the Philippines: Research. Geological Society Publications. Retrieved from
https://qjegh.lyellcollection.org/content/early/2019/11/30/qjegh2019-152.abstract
Mrozek T, Kułak M, Grabowski D, Wójcik A (2014) Landslide counteracting system (SOPO): inventory
database of landslides. In: Sassa K et al (eds) Landslide science for a safer geoenvironment,
Chap. 126. Springer, Heidelberg
Maneesha V. Ramesh (2014), Volume 13, Part A, February 2014, Pages 2-18 Design, development, and
deployment of a wireless sensor network for detection of landslides
Alimohammadou Y (2013), Landslide process and impacts: A proposed classification model Kwong et al.,
(2015), Landslide, Undertaking loss reduction measures to prevent slope failures
Borromeo, R. (n.d.). Retaining wall design under DEPW study. Retrieved January 03, 2021, from
https://www.philstar.com/cebu-news/2012/05/16/807155/retaining-wall-design-under-depw-study
News, 2. (2017, June 20). MSE wall in Amuyong, Alfonso. Retrieved January 04, 2021, from
https://www.maccaferri.com/ph/highway-protected-landslides-amuyong-alfonso-cavite/
Retaining Walls a Landslide Solution. (n.d.). Retrieved January 04, 2021, from
http://blog.sandiegoretainingwall.com/retaining-walls-a-landslide-solution/
Jiang, P., Li, J., Zuo, S., & Cui, X. (2020, July 24). Ecological Retaining Wall for High-Steep Slopes: A Case
Study in the Ji-Lai Expressway, Eastern China. Retrieved January 04, 2021, from
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ace/2020/5106397/
Kalemci, E., İkizler, S., Dede, T., & Angın, Z. (2019, December 01). Design of reinforced concrete
cantilever retaining wall using Grey wolf optimization algorithm. Retrieved January 04, 2021, from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352012419301717
Garg, K., K.G.. Garg, C., K.G.. Garg, S., Khan, I., Mittal, S., S.. Mittal, K., . . . Tschebotarioff, G. (1988,
January 01). Analysis and Design of Retaining Wall having Reinforced Cohesive Frictional Backfill.
Retrieved January 04, 2021, from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10706-004-5153-9
44
Nelson, M. G. (2017). SLOPE STABILIZATION FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENGINEERS IN
MINNESOTA (Unpublished master's thesis). UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA.


DPWH. (2020, November 8). Slope Protection Works On-Going Along Landslide-Prone Road in Ilocos Sur.
Retrieved from https://pia.gov.ph/news/articles/1058380
Hasan, M. and Ankan, M.C. (2020). Analysis of Vegetation Effects on Slope Stability Embankment.
American Journal of Civil Engineering, 8(4), 77-86. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/paperinfo?journalid=229&doi=10.11648/
j.ajce.20200804.11
Intrieri, E., Carla, T., Gigli, G. (2018). Forecasting the Time of Failure of Landslides at Slope-Scale: A
Literature Review. Earth-Science Reviews, 193, 333-349. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001282521830518X
Nibalkar S.S., Borole S.T, Kale S., Mungase S. (2016). Slope Stability Analysis with Geo5 Software for
Malin Landslide in Pune. Global Journal of Engineering Science and Researches. Retrieved from
https://geotechpedia.com/Publication/Show/4751/SLOPE-STABILITY-ANALYSIS-WITH-GEO5-
SOFTWARE-FOR-MALIN-LANDSLIDE-IN-PUNE--MAHARASHTRA-
45
CHAPTER 3: CONTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS, AND DESIGN STANDARDS
3.1 Design Constraints
Design constraints are stipulations that need for a successful project to happen In addition, it can impact
how the project will be handled by the designers and can also serve as a determining factor whether or not
to continue with the project design. Limitations on projects usually fall into many groups. By understanding
these categories, one can further concentrate on the design and thus increase the chances of discovering
all aspects of the project. Practically, in all situations, the restricting effect of the limitations can be
minimized or removed.
The design constraints are categorized into qualitative and quantitative in this project. Quantitative
limitations are those that can be calculated and estimated using engineering techniques and mathematical
models (such as estimations, etc.), while qualitative limitations do not have a definite scale, but can be
measured and ranked by designers according to their own discretion, understanding, and experience.
3.1.2 Quantitative Constraints
3.1.2.1 Economic Constraint (Material Cost)

For all construction projects in general, the budget of a certain project, concerning the cost
of machinery, materials, and labor costs, has become a key issue. In particular, the
customer and the researchers met halfway to the vision of a low-cost or economical
project, allocating all possible expenses that the project could carry, without losing its
intensity as a framework, of course. The availability of supplies in the local market would
also be weighed, and the equipment would also require the least assistance. It will pick
whatever tradeoff yields the cheapest cost.
3.1.2.2 Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost)

Sustainability, as described, focuses on meeting the needs of the present without
undermining future generations' ability to meet their needs. Sustainability is also one of the
most critical aspects that a designer seeks to create, especially if it is anticipated that the
structure itself will last as long as possible. The estimated life period, which will then be
converted into maintenance costs necessary to maintain the structure for the longest
possible time, will be considered as the parameter for this restriction. Indeed, in order to
make the structure sustainable, further maintenance of the structure would benefit. The
46
basic restriction category is regulated by whatever trade-off indicates the cheapest
maintenance expense.
3.1.2.3 Constructability Constraint (Duration of Construction)

In designing the retaining wall structure, the buildability limit is also an important
consideration to consider. In terms of working hours, this element is defined by the period
of construction. If the original timeline was followed, a longer period of constructing the
structure would most likely cause unnecessary delays and more rises in the cost provided
by the project. The term 'duration' includes the cost of labor and the cost of equipment to
provide a better meaning. It can easily be concluded from this that the less time dedicated
to the construction process would mean lower costs. An estimate of the construction time
in terms of man-hours will also be given by the designers. For this type of restriction,
whatever trade-off has the shortest length will control the construction of the structure.
The six tradeoffs (three for each context) had been evaluated on their projected duration of
construction based on the nature of the construction phase, duration of procurement of
materials, and other considerable factors that might affect the longevity of the project
construction. The work plans for each trade-off, presented in Gantt Chart formats, are
rendered through MS Project and were based solely from the designers’ discretion.
3.1.2.4 Risk Assessment Constraint (Factor of Safety)

The protection of the structure is still regarded as one of the main design considerations.
However, this would also mean a possible rise in the overall cost to keep the structure
adequately functional against the effect of external forces operating on it. Due to sliding,
the majority of wall structures typically collapse. There is also a need for the structure to be
adequately resilient to natural disasters such as earthquakes, landslides, flash floods, etc.,
where the operation of retaining walls is required to prevent aggravation of these
calamities.
3.1.2.5 Environmental Constraint (Design Life)

Geologic and environmental conditions can influence the performance of slope protection
that may require special consideration during design. The further deterioration of the
environment that influence the sudden changes of the weather, and unexpected ground
movement that causes flooding, landslide, and soil liquefaction that may or may not occur
47
during the construction stage shall be considered to prevent increase in cost of the project
and failure of the structure that may threaten the safety of the travelers passing by. Since
the function of slope protection is to help in resisting soil erosion and landslides, it is
essential to determine how long it can last. The designer opts to choose the best design of
the slope protection that will be durable to limit and prevent the risk of landslides and soil
erosion. Thru identifying the design of each trade-offs, the designer concluded that the
longer the life span of a slope protection, the longer it will be able to hold and retain the soil
and protect it from ground movement like landslide and erosion.
Limitation: This constraint will focus only on the effect of the environmental factors such as
the effect of sudden changes of the weather and ground movement.
3.1.2 Qualitative Constraints
Qualitative constraints will also be considered by the designers; however, these will not
significantly affect the determination of the chosen best retaining wall system design and soil
stabilization techniques to be used in this project.
3.1.2.1 Social Constraints
The project needs to take into account how beneficial it would be for the society. The
length of the project could have a significant effect on its in-and-out trading business.
When driving along the roadside of the project site, the project ensures the safety of the
commuters.
3.1.2.2 Political Constraints

The project must take into account the properties and lots that will be impacted as the
retaining wall is constructed. The property lines must be well-observed and, during
building, an open space for sidewalks must be created. The designers ensured that the
retaining wall did not impact the road and sidewalk space, waiting sheds, and others that
could cause conflicts.
3.2 Design Trade-Offs
Different trade-offs will be proposed to achieve the retaining wall design modification that best fits the site,
which will be subject to assessment using the various design constraints presented above. Since the
analysis requires a dual context, three (3) trade-offs for each context group will be considered by the
designers.
48
3.2.1 Geotechnical Context
3.2.1.1 Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) using Geotextile as Soil Reinforcement
Geotextile is an absorbent fabric that is made form polypropylene, polyester, polyethylene,
polyarride (nylon), polyvinylidene chloride or fiberglass. The most common material used
in producing geotextile are polypropylene and polyester. The utilization of additives in the
composition and changing the processing methods used to form the molten material into
filaments are the physical properties of these materials. Yarns are formed from fibers in a
process called spinning in which fibers have been bundled and twisted together.
Figure 3-1: Geotextile as Soil Reinforcement

Table 3-1: Advantages and Disadvantages of using Geogrid
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Lighter in weight Installation is critical and requires experienced
contractors
Transport and labor costs are les in real terms May delay seed germination due to reduction in
soil temperature
49
Knitted geotextile have high tear strength Maximum flow rate limitations
Not suitable for areas that have foot traffic
50
3.2.1.2 Soil Nailing
Soil nailing is a ground stabilization technique that can be used on either natural or

excavated slopes. It involves drilling holes for steel bars to be inserted into a slope face
which are then grouted in place. Mesh is attached to the bar ends to hold the slope face in
position.
Figure 3-2: Soil Nail
Compared to other retaining wall systems, soil nailing is typically used stabilize existing
slopes and excavation. This technique is an effective and economical in constructing
retaining wall for excavation support, bridge abutments and highways.
51
Table 3-2: Advantages and Disadvantages of using Soil Nailing
Good for confined spaces with restricted access Not suitable for areas with high water table
Less environmental impact Not suitable for permanent use in sensitive and
expansive soils
Relatively quick and easy to install Extensive 3D modelling is required
Uses less materials and shoring Specialist contractors are required
Flexible enough to be used on construction
The height is not restricted
More economical than gravity walls
3.2.1.3 Cement Grouting

Cement grouting is an effective method for filling pores in granular soil or voids in rock/soil,
with flowable particulate grouts. It is an effective and long-lasting solution for strengthening
granular soils including gravel and sand.
Figure 3-3: Cement Grouting

52
Table 3-3: Advantages and Disadvantages of using Cement Grouting
ADVANTAGES DISADVATAGES
Can be accomplished on limited spaces Generally large lateral soil stresses may be seen
during the removal of the lateral supports and
cracking of the ground surface.
Provides unique design flexibility The tendency of high ground loss due to drilling
techniques, especially on certain granular soils.
Can accomplish a high cement grout column It is less suitable for coarse-grained soils and
without causing an enormous ground disturbance. softer soils which have shorter self-support times
and the risk of soil creep.
Can stabilize soil foundations Only suitable for digging above ground water
Provide Barriers
Rapid Installation
Increase bearing capacity
3.2.2 Structural Context

3.2.2.1 Anchored Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall
An anchored retaining wall includes additional strength using cables or other stays
anchored in the rock or soil behind it. They are used in moderate height up to 12 meters
depending on the site and soil conditions. This type of retaining wall is suitable for loose
soil over rocks and is employed when the space is limited. Anchors acts against
overturning and sliding pressure.
Figure 3-4: Anchored Retaining Wall
53
Table 3 4: Advantages and Disadvantages of using Anchored Retaining Wall
Anchored walls are one of the most economical Quality control is critical on the anchorage
system of earth retention. capacity
Very versatile in design options Require proper drainage
Can be used to create high, curved walls
Can be built on confined areas
Can be installed easily
3.2.2.2 Sheet Pile Retaining Wall

Sheet pile retaining wall is constructed by driving prefabricated sections into the ground.
Soil conditions may allow for the sections to be vibrated into ground instead of it being
hammer driven. The full sheet pile wall is formed by connecting the joints of adjacent sheet
pile sections in sequential installation. Sheet pile walls provide structural resistance by
utilizing the full section. Steel sheet piles are most commonly used in deep excavations,
although reinforced concrete sheet piles have also being used successfully.
Figure 3-5: Sheet Pile Retaining Wall
54
Table 3-5: Advantages and Disadvantages of using Sheet Pile Retaining Wall
Provides high resistance to driving stresses. Settlements in adjacent properties may take place
due to installation vibrations.
Long service life above or below water with modest Excavation shapes are dictated by the sheet pile
protection. section and interlocking elements.
Easy to adapt the pile length by either welding or Sheet pile driving may cause neighborhood
bolting disturbance.
Light weight Inadequate depth of penetration due to boulders in
the subsoil or high bedrock, which prevents pile
penetration.
Lightweight construction at location where the
upper layer or layers of subsoil are inadequate for
supporting retaining walls.
3.2.2.3 Cantilevered Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall

Cantilever retaining walls are constructed of reinforced concrete. They consist of a
relatively thin stem and a base slab. The base is also divided into two parts, the heel and
toe. The heel is the part of the base under the backfill. The toe is the other part of the
base. Cantilever retaining wall is economical up to a height of 10m.
Figure 3-6: Parts of Cantilevered Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall
55
Table 3-6: Advantages and Disadvantages of using Cantilevered Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall
Offers an unobstructed open excavation Maximum excavation for cantilever walls is rather
limited, typically to 18 feet or 6 meters maximum
Do not require installation of tiebacks below Generally, not recommended to use cantilever
adjacent properties walls next to adjacent buildings
Offer a simpler staged construction procedure Control of lateral wall displacements depends on
the mobilization of passive earth resistance
For deeper cantilever excavations, the wall
stiffness may need to be considerably increased.
This can limit the available space within the
excavation.
3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking

For the client to have an overview on how the designers choose among the mentioned trade-offs based on
their constraints, Trade-off Strategies in Engineering Design by Otto and Antonsson (1991) will be used.
The use of the table of Designer’s Raw Ranking is to rate each constraint based on its importance to the
designer’s perspective and also, to rate each design methodology’s ability to satisfy the given criterion by
rating on a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 is the highest.
Equation to be used in the computation of ranking for the ability to satisfy the criterion:
Higher Value−Lower Value

% Difference= x 10 Equation 3-1
Higher Value
Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank−% Difference Equation 3-2
The governing rank will be subjected based on how important each constraint to the designers’ own
perspective. This subjective value depends on the initial estimate, say for economic criterion, which the
designers can initially select. While the subordinate rank is a variable that corresponds to its percentage
distance from the governing rank.
There will be different instances that may occur in the assessment since it is subjective and based only to
the designers’ own perspective.
56
Figure 3-7: Ranking Scale for Percentage Difference
As shown in Figure 3-7, the distance is determined by multiplying the percentage difference by the number
of scale which is 10. The product will be the number of interval from the governing value. After considering
the design constraints, the designers will come up with the initial rankings on the section to be used and the
connection joining them. Table 3-7 shows the initial estimate from the quantitative constraints selected by
the designers.
Table 3-7: Designer’s Initial Raw Ranking

Initial Estimate
Geotechnical Structural
Constraint
Cement
Geotextile Soil Nailing Anchored Sheet Pile Cantilevered
Grouting
Constructability
(Project 1423 Days 352 Days 489 Days 1650 Days 374 Days 1346 Days
Duration)
PHP PHP
Economical PHP PHP PHP PHP
196,192,583. 98,161,598.0
(Project Cost) 433,070,584.30 4,305,557.67 192,484,004.2 298,351,556.50
3 9
Sustainability PHP
PHP PHP PHP PHP PHP
(Maintenance 21,702,583.3
2,289,467.52 3,263,889.17 1,741,666.67 3,815,779.20 1,831,574.02
Cost) 3
Environmental
95 years 75 years 200 years 75 years 120 years 90 years
(Design Life)
3.4 Trade-off Initial Assessment

3.4.1 Initial Estimate for Constructability Constraint: Project Duration
The designers used the study of North American Steel Sheet Piling Association in Comparison
Retaining Wall Design and Cost Study Steel Sheet Piling versus Various Walls as a reference for the initial
cost estimate and project duration. Refer to Appendix B for the reference and summary. Table 3-8 shows
differences of the trade-offs in terms of its duration (days).
57
Table 3-8: Initial Estimate for Constructability Constraint of Geotechnical Trade-offs (Project Duration)
Geotechnical Trade-offs Days

Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Using
1423 Days
Geotextile
Soil Nailing 352 Days
Cement Grouting 489 Days
1. Soil Nailing vs Cement Grouting

% Difference= x 10
Higher Value
489−352
% Difference= x 10
489
% Difference=0.28 %
Subordinate Rank=Governing Rank−% Difference
Subordinate Rank=10−2.80
Subordinate Rank=7.2 ≈ 8
Figure 3-8: Ranking Scale for Percent Difference for Constructability of Geotechnical Trade-offs (Soil
Nailing – Cement Grouting)
2. Soil Nailing vs Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Using Geotextile

% Difference= x 10
Higher Value
1423−352
% Difference= x 10
1423
% Difference=7.54 %
58
Figure 3-9: Ranking Scale for Percent Difference for Constructability of Geotechnical Trade-offs (Soil
Nailing vs Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Using Geotextile)
Table 3-9: Initial Estimate for Constructability Constraint of Structural Trade-offs (Project Duration)
Structural Trade-offs Days
Anchored Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall 1650
Sheet Pile Retaining Wall 374
Cantilever Retaining Wall 1346
1. Sheet Pile Retaining Wall vs Cantilever Retaining Wall

% Difference= x 10
Higher Value
1346−374
% Difference= x 10
1346
% Difference=7.22 %
59
Figure 3-10: Ranking Scale for Percent Difference for Constructability of Structural Trade-offs
(Sheet Pile Retaining Wall vs Cantilever Retaining Wall)
2. Sheet Pile Retaining Wall vs Anchored Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall

% Difference= x 10
Higher Value
1650−374
% Difference= x 10
1650
% Difference=7.73 %
Figure 3-11: Ranking Scale for Percent Difference for Constructability of Structural Trade-offs
(Sheet Pile Retaining Wall vs Anchored Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall)
3.4.2 Initial Estimate for Environmental Constraint: Design Life

The designers used the design life of different types of retaining wall were based from different
research studies and articles related to service life of slope protection. Refer to Appendix B for the Design
Life for each tradeoff.
60
Table 3-10: Initial Estimate for Environmental Constraint of Geotechnical Trade-offs (Design Life)
Geotechnical Trade-Offs Years

Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Using Geotextile 95 years
Soil Nailing 75 years
Cement Grouting 200 years
1. Cement Grouting vs. Soil Nailing

% Difference= x 10
Higher Value
200−75
% Difference= x 10
200
% Difference=6.25 %
Figure 3-12: Ranking Scale for Percent Difference for Constructability of Geotechnical Trade-offs (Cement
Grouting vs. Soil Nailing)
2. Cement Grouting vs. MSE Using Geotextile
% Difference= x 10
Higher Value
200−95
% Difference= x 10
200
% Difference=5.25 %
Subordinate Rank=4.75≈ 5
61
Figure 3-13: Ranking Scale for Percent Difference for Constructability of Geotechnical Trade-offs (Cement
Grouting vs. MSE Using Geotextile)
Table 3-11: Initial Estimate for Environmental Constraint of Structural Trade-offs (Design Life)
Structural Trade-Offs Years
Anchored Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall 75 years
Sheet Pile Retaining Wall 120 years
Cantilevered Retaining Wall 90 years
1. Sheet Pile Retaining Wall vs. Anchored Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall

% Difference= x 10
Higher Value
120−75
% Difference= x 10
120
% Difference=3.75 %
Figure 3-14: Ranking Scale for Percent Difference for Constructability of Structural Trade-offs (Sheet Pile
Retaining Wall vs. Anchored Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall)
62
2. Sheet Pile Retaining Wall vs. Cantilevered Retaining Wall

% Difference= x 10
Higher Value
120−90
% Difference= x 10
120
% Difference=2.08 %
Figure 3-15: Ranking Scale for Percent Difference for Constructability of Structural Trade-offs (Sheet Pile
Retaining Wall vs. Cantilevered Retaining Wall)
3.4.3 Initial Estimate for Economical Constraint: Project Cost
The designers used the study of North American Steel Sheet Piling Association in Comparison
Retaining Wall Design and Cost Study Steel Sheet Piling versus Various Walls as a reference for the initial
cost estimate and project duration. Refer to Appendix B for the reference and summary.
Table 3-12: Initial Estimate for Economical Constraint of Geotechnical Trade-offs (Project Cost)
Geotechnical Trade-off Cost

Geotextile PHP 433,070,584.30
Soil Nailing PHP 4,305,557.67
Cement Grouting PHP 196,192,583.3
The governing value for the economic constraint is the soil nailing, with an overall material cost of Php
4,305,557.67. Therefore, in this particular constraint, the stated trade-off will have 10 as its assigned
subordinate rank.
63
1. Soil Nailing vs. Geotextile
Php 433,070,584.30−Php 4,305,557.67
% Difference= x 10
Php 433,070,584.30
% Difference=9.9
Figure 3-16: Ranking Scale for Percent Difference for Economical Constraint of Geotechnical Trade-offs
(Soil Nailing vs. Geotextile)
2. Soil Nailing vs. Cement Grouting

Php 196,192,583.3−Php 4,305,557.67
% Difference= x 10
Php196,192,583.3
% Difference=9.78
Figure 3-17: Ranking Scale for Percent Difference for Economical Constraint of Geotechnical Trade-offs
(Soil Nailing vs. Cement Grouting)
64
Table 3-13: Initial Estimate for Economical Constraint of Structural Trade-offs (Project Cost)
Structural Trade-offs Cost
Cantilever Retaining Wall PHP 298,351,556.50
Sheet Pile Retaining Wall PHP 98,161,598.09
Anchored Retaining Wall PHP 192,484,004.2
The governing value for the economic constraint is the sheet pile retaining wall, with an overall material
cost of Php 98,161,598.09. Therefore, in this particular constraint, the stated trade-off will have 10 as its
assigned subordinate rank.
1. Sheet Pile Retaining Wall vs. Cantilever Retaining Wall
Php 298,351,556.50−Php 98,161,598.09
% Difference= x 10
Php 298,351,556.50
% Difference=6.71
Figure 3-18: Ranking Scale for Percent Difference for Economical Constraint of Structural Trade-offs
(Sheet Pile Retaining Wall vs. Cantilever Retaining Wall)
2. Sheet Pile Retaining Wall vs. Anchored Retaining Wall

Php 192,484,004.2−Php 98,161,598.09
% Difference= x 10
Php 192,484,004.2
% Difference=4.9
65
Figure 3-19: Ranking Scale for Percent Difference for Economical Constraint of Structural Trade-offs
(Sheet Pile Retaining Wall against Anchored Retaining Wall)
3.4.4 Initial Estimate for Sustainability Constraint: Maintenance Cost

Maintenance Cost includes annual repairs due to changes in soil which results to formation of
cracks. This also includes wall replacement for those parts of the wall that has major or serious damage.
Leak from damaged drainage are also prevalent in slope protection structures that can cause scouring thus
decreasing the structural integrity of the wall. Refer to Appendix for the reference and summary.
Table 3-14: Initial Estimate for Sustainability Constraint of Geotechnical Trade-offs (Maintenance Cost)
Geotechnical Trade-offs Cost
Geotextile PHP 2,289,467.52
Soil Nailing PHP 3,263,889.17
Cement Grouting PHP 21,702,583.33
The governing value for the sustainability constraint is the geotextile, having a projected maintenance cost
of Php 2,289,467.52. Therefore, in this particular constraint, the stated trade-off will have 10 as its assigned
subordinate rank.
1. Geotextile vs. Soil Nailing
Php 3,263,889.17−Php 2,289,467.52
% Difference= x 10
Php 3,263,889.17
% Difference=2.99
Subordinate Rank=10−2.9 9
66
Figure 3-20: Ranking Scale for Percent Difference for Sustainability Constraint of Geotechnical Trade-offs
(Geotextile vs. Soil Nailing)
2. Geotextile against Cement Grouting

Php 21,702,583.33−Php 2,289,467.52
% Difference= x 10
Php 21,702,583.33
% Difference=8.95
Figure 3-21: Ranking Scale for Percent Difference for Sustainability Constraint of Geotechnical Trade-offs
(Geotextile vs. Cement Grouting)
Table 3-15: Initial Estimate for Sustainability Constraint of Structural Trade-offs (Maintenance Cost)
Structural Trade-offs Cost
Cantilever Retaining Wall PHP 1,831,574.02
Sheet Pile Retaining Wall PHP 3,815,779.20
Anchored Retaining Wall PHP 1,741,666.67
The governing value for the sustainability constraint is the anchored reinforced concrete retaining walls,
having a projected maintenance cost of Php 1,741,666.67. Therefore, in this particular constraint, the
stated trade-off will have 10 as its assigned subordinate rank.
1. Anchored Retaining Wall vs. Cantilever Retaining Wall
Php 1,831,574.02−Php 1,741,666.67
% Difference= x 10
Php 1,831,574.02
% Difference=0.49
67
Figure 3-22: Ranking Scale for Percent Difference for Sustainability Constraint of Structural Trade-offs
(Anchored Retaining Wall vs. Cantilever Retaining Wall)
2. Anchored Retaining Wall vs. Sheet Pile Retaining Wall

Php 3,815,779.20−Php 1,741,666.67
% Difference= x 10
Php 3,815,779.20
% Difference=5.44
Subordinate Rank=4.56 ≈5
Figure 3-23: Ranking Scale for Percent Difference for Sustainability Constraint of Structural Trade-offs
(Anchored Retaining Wall vs. Sheet Pile Retaining Wall)
3.4.5 Constructability Constraint Initial Assessment

Table 3-16: Constructability Constraint Initial Assessment of Geotechnical Trade-offs (Project Duration)
Geotechnical Trade-offs Days Subordinate Rank
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Using Geotextile 1423 Days 3
Soil Nailing 352 Days 10
Cement Grouting 489 Days 8
68
Based on the computed percentage difference and subordinate rank for constructability constraint, Soil
Nailing got the highest subordinate rank for geotechnical context followed by Cement Grouting and
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Using Geotextile.
Table 3-17: Constructability Constraint Initial Assessment of Structural Trade-offs (Project Duration)
Structural Trade-offs Days Subordinate Rank
Anchored Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall 1650 3
Sheet Pile Retaining Wall 374 10
Cantilever Retaining Wall 1346 3
On the other hand, for structural context the computed percentage difference and subordinate rank for
constructability constraint, Sheet Pile Retaining Wall got the highest subordinate rank followed by
Cantilever Retaining Wall and Anchored Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall.
3.4.6 Environmental Constraint Initial Assessment
Table 3-18: Environmental Constraint Initial Assessment of Geotechnical Trade-offs (Design Life)
Geotechnical Trade-offs Days Subordinate Rank
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Using Geotextile 1423 Days 5
Soil Nailing 352 Days 4
Cement Grouting 489 Days 10
Based on the computed percentage difference and subordinate rank for environmental constraint, Cement
Grouting got the highest subordinate rank for geotechnical context followed by Mechanically Stabilized
Earth (MSE) Using Geotextile and Soil Nailing.
69
Table 3-19: Environmental Constraint Initial Assessment of Structural Trade-offs (Design Life)
Anchored Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall 1650 7
Sheet Pile Retaining Wall 374 10
Cantilever Retaining Wall 1346 8
constructability constraint, Sheet Pile Retaining Wall got the highest subordinate rank followed by
Cantilever Retaining Wall and Anchored Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall.
3.4.7 Economical Constraint Initial Assessment
Table 3-20: Economical Constraint Initial Assessment of Geotechnical Trade-offs (Project Cost)
Geotechnical Trade-offs Cost Subordinate Rank
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Using Geotextile PHP 433,070,584.30 1
Soil Nailing PHP 4,305,557.67 10
Cement Grouting PHP 196,192,583.3 1
Based on the computed percentage difference and subordinate rank for constructability constraint, Soil
Nailing got the highest subordinate rank for geotechnical context followed by Cement Grouting and
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Using Geotextile.
70
Table 3-21: Economical Constraint Initial Assessment of Structural Trade-offs (Project Cost)
Anchored Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall PHP 192,484,004.2 5.1
Sheet Pile Retaining Wall PHP 98,161,598.09 10
Cantilever Retaining Wall PHP 298,351,556.50 3.29
constructability constraint, Sheet Pile Retaining Wall got the highest subordinate rank followed by Anchored
Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall and Cantilever Retaining Wall.
3.4.8 Sustainability Constraint Initial Assessment
Table 3-22: Sustainability Constraint Initial Assessment of Geotechnical Trade-offs (Maintenance Cost)
Geotechnical Trade-offs Cost Subordinate Rank
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Using Geotextile PHP 2,289,467.52 10
Soil Nailing PHP 3,263,889.17 8
Cement Grouting PHP 21,702,583.33 2
Based on the computed percentage difference and subordinate rank for constructability constraint,
Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Using Geotextile got the highest subordinate rank for geotechnical
context followed by Soil Nailing and Cement Grouting.
71
Table 3-23: Sustainability Constraint Initial Assessment of Structural Trade-offs (Maintenance Cost)
Anchored Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall PHP 1,741,666.67 10
Sheet Pile Retaining Wall PHP 3,815,779.20 5
Cantilever Retaining Wall PHP 1,831,574.02 10
constructability constraint, Anchored Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall got the highest subordinate rank
followed by Cantilever Retaining Wall and Sheet Pile Retaining Wall.
3.5 Overall Assessment of Trade-offs
The designers evaluate the criterion's importance by rating constructability and environmental constraints
of 10 while a rate of 9 was given to economic constraint, and a rate of 8 for sustainability constraint. The
evaluation is based on the client's wishes to design a slope protection based on the evaluation of loads and
pressures that would act on the structure and the design of the structure to withstand those loads and
pressure and will meet or exceed safety and performance expectations and at the same time, it can do its
purpose for a long period of time which the structure is expected to meet specific restricting criteria, mostly
in terms of allowable stresses and strains.
72
Table 3-24: Designers’ Initial Raw Ranking Over-all Assessment for Geotechnical Context
Criterion’ Ability to satisfy the criterion (Rating on a scale from 1 to 10)

s
Importan
Design ce Mechanically
Criterion (Rating Stabilized Earth
on a Soil Nailing Cement Grouting
(MSE) Using
scale of 1 Geotextile
to 10)
Constructabili
ty (Project 10 2.46 24.6 10 100 7.2 72
Duration)
Environmenta
10 5 50 4 40 10 100
l (Design Life)
Economical
10 0.1 1 10 100 .22 2.2
(Project Cost)
Sustainability
(Maintenance 9 10 90 7.01 63.09 1.05 9.45
Cost)
Overall Rank 165.6 303.09 183.65
73
Table 3-25: Designers’ Initial Raw Ranking Over-all Assessment for Structural Context
Criterion’ Ability to satisfy the criterion (Rating on a scale from 1 to 10)

s
Importanc
Design
e (Rating Anchored Reinforced
Criterion Sheet Pile Retaining Cantilever Retaining
on a Concrete Retaining
scale of 1 Wall Wall
Wall
to 10)
Constructabilit
y (Project 10 2.27 20.27 10 100 2.78 20.78
Duration)
Environmenta
10 7 70 10 100 8 80
l (Design Life)
Economical
10 5.1 50.10 10 100 3.29 32.90
(Project Cost)
Sustainability
(Maintenance 9 10 90 4.56 41.04 9.51 85.59
Cost)
Overall Rank 230.37 341.04 219.27
Based on the overall rank computed by the designers, for geotechnical context, Soil Nailing garnered the
highest score, followed by Cement Grouting then Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Using Geotextile
who got the lowest score. When it comes to the rating of different slope protection based on different
constraints, the Soil Nailing got the highest rank in all constraints. Cement Grouting and MSE Using
Geotextile have a close over-all ranking scores in most constraints. For structural context, Sheet Pile
Retaining Wall garnered the highest score, followed by Anchored Reinforced Concrete Retaining Wall then
Cantilever Retaining Wall who got the lowest score. When it comes to the rating of different slope
protection based on different constraints, the Sheet Pile Retaining Wall got the highest rank in
constructability, environmental, and economical constraints because of its ease in constructing this type of
slope protection but it got the lowest score in the sustainability constraint. Anchored Reinforced Concrete
Retaining Wall got the highest rank in sustainability constraint due to its less maintenance but it got the
74
lowest score in constructability constraint. Cantilever Retaining Wall got also the highest rank in
sustainability constraint but it also got the lowest score in constructability constraint.
75

Capstone 1 - Group 1 - Draft 7

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Capstone 1 - Group 1 - Draft 7

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

938 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

DESIGN OF 500-METER SLOPE PROTECTION ALONG MARILAQUE HIGHWAY, BARAS, RIZAL

Figure 2-1: Project Location Topography.......................................................................................................14

Figure 3-1: Geogrid as Soil Reinforcement....................................................................................................48

Table 3-1: Advantages and Disadvantages of using Geogrid........................................................................48

Figure 1-1: An astonishing view of Marilaque Highway

Figure 1-3: An example of a Geosynthetic Slope Protection

Figure 1-4: A portion of Baras Map locating the Project Location.

1.4.2 Specific Objectives

1.5 Project Client

Figure 1-6: Project Development Diagram

2.1 Design Inputs

The location of the project is situated approximately 14° 31' North, 121° 16' East

Figure 2-1: Project Location Topography

2.1.2 Land Area

2.1.3 Subsurface Conditions

Figure 2-3: STA M 0 + 0

Figure 2-14: Distance of Project Site to the East Valley Fault

2.1.5 Ground Shaking

Source: PHIVOLCS website

Figure 2-18: Earthquake-Induced Landslide Map of Baras, Rizal

2.1.8 Design Loadings

2.1.8.1 Surcharge Load

2.1.8.1.1 Dead Load

Table 2-1: Dead Loads

Figure 2-19: HS20-44

AASHTO recommended the design load of HS20-44 for national highways.

Loading Specifications of HS20-44

Note: Impact Fraction, I not exceeded 30%

∴ Use30 % additional ¿ traffic surcharge

2.1.9 Software and Web-based Application Tools

 Retaining Wall Design

 Soil Settlement Analysis

 Digital Terrain Model

 Advanced Finite Element analysis

2.1.9.3 Contour Map Creator

2.2 Review of Related Literature

2.2.1 Local Literature

Retaining Wall Design by DEPW Study

Highway Protected Against Landslides in Amuyong, Alfonso, Cavite

An Installation of Slope Protection Along Landslide-Prone Road in Ilocos Sur

2.2.2 Foreign Literature

Landslide and Landslide process and impacts: A proposed classification method.

Retaining walls as a landslide solution

Slope Stabilization for Local Government Engineers in Minnesota

Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) embankments are simply a mixture of several

Engr. Winston V. Abobo (2014). Failure of Gabion in highway of Province of Benguet.

Nelson, M. G. (2017). SLOPE STABILIZATION FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENGINEERS IN

Nelson, M. G. (2017). SLOPE STABILIZATION FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENGINEERS IN

3.1.2 Quantitative Constraints

3.1.2.1 Economic Constraint (Material Cost)

3.1.2.2 Sustainability Constraint (Maintenance Cost)

3.1.2.3 Constructability Constraint (Duration of Construction)

3.1.2.4 Risk Assessment Constraint (Factor of Safety)

3.1.2.5 Environmental Constraint (Design Life)

3.1.2 Qualitative Constraints

3.1.2.2 Political Constraints

3.2 Design Trade-Offs

Figure 3-1: Geotextile as Soil Reinforcement

Soil nailing is a ground stabilization technique that can be used on either natural or

Figure 3-2: Soil Nail