Comparative Study of Potential Liquefaction of Three Selected Locations Along

the Pasig City Segment of the Valley Fault System

A Research Presented to Faculty of Civil Engineering

College of Engineering, Computer Studies and Architecture
Lyceum of the Philippines University - Cavite
General Trias City

Submitted by:
Engr. Anjerick J. Topacio
Engr. Joanna Carla A. Pacamparra
Engr. Alyssa Erika P. Ramos
Engr. Jayson E. Villaester

Abstract
A seismic induced liquefaction is a complex ground failure phenomenon
observed when saturated loose sand deposits loss its shear strength. It may be
quantified as to the damage that it causes to the built infrastructures within the vicinity.
This study was conducted to determine the potential liquefaction of three specific
locations along the Pasig City segment of the Valley Fault System in Barangay
Kapitolyo, Manggahan and Ugong and correlate it with their respective soil suitability.
The study employed secondary data from geotechnical firms, DOST
PHIVOLCS and the local government unit of Pasig City.
The results were assessed through the use of an excel program devised by the
researchers based on a simplified procedure by Seed and Idriss (1997), and Das
(1995). The factor of safety due to liquefaction (FS) at specific soil conditions was
computed using this program and proved that the chosen location in barangay Ugong is
the most susceptible to liquefaction among the three chosen locations. The mitigation
measures for the soil and/or the type of foundations to be applied was considered and
pile foundations are recommended in the locations in baranggay Manggahan and
Ugong. Shallow foundations are, on the other hand, safe in barangay Kapitolyo.

Chapter 1
The Problem and its Background
1.1 Introduction
A seismic induced liquefaction is a complex ground failure phenomenon
observed when saturated loose sand deposits loss its shear strength. During seismic
activity, the continuous cyclic loading increases the pore water pressure that causes the
soil to behave like liquid. The potential soil liquefaction is primarily influenced by factors
such as void ratio and relative density of soil, depth of water table, effective confining
stress, coefficient of lateral earth pressure, seismic and geologic history of the site and
the recorded intensity and duration of the locale (Raychowdhury & Basudhar, 2011).
The effects of liquefaction may be quantified as to the damage that it causes to
the built infrastructures within the vicinity. The loss of the effective stress of the soil
affects the structures foundation through settlement. Surface rapture and structure
failure are some of the detrimental effects produced by the instability of subsoil
conditions. Major earthquakes that have occurred in the past years such as 1964
Alaska, 1964 Niigata, 1989 Loma- Prieta and 1995 Hyogoken- Nambu have
demonstrated the damaging effects of soil liquefaction (Liyanapathirana & Poulos,
2003).
In the Philippine setting, the Valley Fault System is one of the countrys active
fault lines that are found in Central Luzon. It is a group of strike- slip fault extending from
San Mateo to Marikina and running through the cities of Marikina, Makati, Pasig,

Paraaque and Taguig. The fault is divided into two segments namely East Valley Fault
and West Valley Fault. Valley Fault System or the formerly known as Marikina Valley
Fault System is classified under a Seismic Source Type A. As defined in the National
Structural Code of the Philippines, it is described to be an active fault capable of
producing large magnitude events with a high rate of seismic activity. The projected
magnitude under Source Type A is greater than or equal to seven (7) which has an
intensity range of Destructive to Completely Devastating (DOST- PHIVOLCS, 2011).
Aside from the seismic source type, Near Source Factor is also used for
designing the earthquake loading for a structure. The proximity of the location to the
nearest active fault varies the factor of safety required by an infrastructure. The nearer
the location to the epicenter, the greater the damage that may be expected, and it
includes the higher possibility of liquefaction occurrence (Sumer et al., 2007).
The cities along the Valley Fault System are classified to be the most highly
urbanized locations within Metro Manila. Large infrastructures and skyscrapers may be
found to the vicinities where traces of fault are visible or approximated to lay. These are
where the countrys prime business districts like the Ortigas Center, which lies in the
west of Pasig City, the Tiendesitas along the C-5 road, large billboards in Ugong Pasig
City and other establishments are situated, thus a large portion of the economy is
derived from it. Natural geological hazards like earthquake and its sub consequences
may be imminent, but proper pre-assessment of the risk may eliminate its worse effects.
The main objective of the study is to determine the potential liquefaction of three
barangays along the Pasig City segment of the Valley Fault System which is developing
in to the citys economic resources namely Barangay Kapitolyo, Barangay Manggahan
4

and Barangay Ugong and correlate it with the land use of the specific location gathered
in these barangays.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Pasig City has been widely developed into one of the countrys prime business
districts despite its proximity to the Valley Fault System which is an active fault line. The
seismic activity of a source can never be determined; thus, parameters such as unit
weight of soil, depth of water table, effective stress and seismic history of the site should
be evaluated. Specifically, the study attempts to answer the following:
1. Can the potential liquefaction of the three selected locations along the Pasig City
segment of the Valley Fault System namely the chosen location in Kapitolyo,
Manggahan, and Ugong be determined in terms of factor of safety due to
liquefaction?
2. Which of the three selected areas has the greatest potential liquefaction?
3. What are the possible mitigation measures for the soil and/or the type of
foundation that can be applied to the selected areas considering their potential
liquefaction?
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The main objective of this study is to determine the potential liquefaction of three
locations along the Pasig City segment of the Valley Fault System namely Kapitolyo,
Manggahan, and Ugong by evaluating the parameters such as unit weight of soil, depth
of water table, effective stress and seismic history of the site obtained from secondary
data. This study seeks to achieve the following objectives:

1. To determine the potential liquefaction of the three selected areas in Pasig City in
terms of factor of safety due to liquefaction.
2. To determine which of the areas has the greatest potential liquefaction.
3. To determine the mitigation measures for the soil and/or the type of foundation
that can be applied to the selected areas considering their potential liquefaction.
1.4 Significance of the Study
The goal of this study is to determine the potential liquefaction of three locations
along the Pasig City segment of the Valley Fault System namely Kapitolyo, Manggahan,
and Ugong and to identify which of the areas has the greatest susceptibility. The local
soils unit weight, depth of water table, effective stress and seismic history of the site
were used to evaluate its vulnerability to liquefaction. Through this, the study was able
to determine the possible mitigation measures for the soil and/or the type of foundation
that can be applied to the selected locations taking into consideration the sites potential
liquefaction.
In the Philippine setting, natural hazards like typhoons and earthquakes are
common scenarios. However, the simultaneous occurrence of two natural hazards may
further amplify the damage that each may cause. This study could help engineers and
planners in considering the probable effects of these hazards to their design. Through
this, the possible damages could be mitigated.
For civil engineering students, this study would help them to derive further
studies on the branch of seismic and geotechnical engineering. This study will promote
long term planning and designing of infrastructures in the micro and macro setting
taking into consideration the potential liquefaction of the selected areas.
6

1.5 Scope and Limitations

The study focuses on the investigation of the potential liquefaction of three
specific locations along the Pasig City segment of the Valley Fault System specifically
on a site in barangay Kapitolyo, Manggahan, and Ugong through evaluating the
parameters such as unit weight of soil, depth of water table, effective confining stress,
and seismic and geologic history. The data that were used in evaluating the potential
liquefaction of the vicinities were obtained from soil tests reports from geotechnical
firms, secondary data from the local government unit of Pasig City and records from
Department of Science and Technology- Philippine Institute of Volcanology and
Seismology (DOST- PHIVOLCS). The specific locations that were evaluated are only
those which are within five kilometers (5km) range of distance from the Valley Fault
System to determine the maximum possible effect of a seismic activity.

1.6 Study Framework

The study employed the process as shown in the diagram below.

Data Gathering
7

Secondary Data

Assessment of Liquefaction
Parameters by Seed and
Idriss Simplified Procedure

Soil Suitability Evaluation

Summary of Results

Conclusions and
Recommendations
Figure 1.1 Study Framework of the Study

1.7 Definition of Terms

Liquefaction. the process by which saturated, unconsolidated soil is converted into
a suspension
8

Cyclic stress ratio (CSR). the loading induced at different depths in a soil profile
during seismic activity
Cyclic resistance ratio (CRR). the amount of seismic/ cyclic load that a soil profile
may resist
Factor of safety (FS). the ratio of CRR and CSR; a constant value that defines the
required strength amplification to resist liquefaction
Standard Penetration Test (SPT). an in situ test conducted to measure soil density
through the resistance of soil to penetration by quantifying the blow count needed in
able to get through the soil layer
Soil Suitability. adequacy of the soil to support infrastructures during a large seismic
event
Total Vertical Stress. overburden pressure of soil
Pore Water Pressure. the pressure of groundwater held within a soil or rock, in gaps
between particles (pores)
Effective Vertical Stress. pore water pressure subtracted to total overburden of soil
Energy Correction. using different kinds of hammers, with different energy delivery
systems which also have varying degrees of efficiency. The main reason for this
variation is due to the use of different methods for raising and dropping the hammer
Acceleration in g. maximum horizontal acceleration of the ground surface in units of
g from earthquake records of magnitude M
9

Deformability Reduction. to reduce the ability to change the original state or size of
a rock mass, especially by folding or faulting
Magnitude. the magnitude is a number that characterizes the relative size of an
earthquake

Chapter 2
Review of Related Literature
2.1 Earthquake

10

Earthquake is a natural phenomenon caused by sudden movement of faults and

trenches (tectonic) or by movement of magma beneath volcanoes (volcanic). This
geologic hazard poses detrimental effects to lives and properties which are manifested
either directly or indirectly. Seismic activities may cause threat to lifelines and utilities
that people basically need (i.e. water supply, communication and transportation
facilities, and electrical networks). The stability and the integrity of an infrastructure may
also be at risk if the local soil reaches failure. The condition where the soil behaves like
liquid after exposure to a devastating shaking is called liquefaction (DOST- PHIVOLCS,
2011).
In the Philippines, the seismic activities are quantified to be twenty (20) recorded
earthquakes per day, two hundred (200) felt earthquakes per year and ninety (90)
destructive earthquakes for the past four hundred (400) years. The seismicity of the
country is directly associated with the two earthquake zone classification of the country
(Zone 2 and Zone 4) and that it belongs to the Pacific Ring of Fire (DOST- PHIVOLCS,
2011).
One of the seismic generators in Central Luzon is the Valley Fault System and
one of the cities that it traverses is Pasig City. The Pasig City segment of the Valley
Fault is shown in Figure 2.1.

11

(Planning Department of Pasig City Hall, 2011)

Figure 2.1 Pasig City Segment of the Valley Fault System

(Planning Department of
Pasig City Hall, 2011)
Figure 2.2 Location of the Considered Sites(left, Brgy. Kapitolyo; right, Brgy. Manggahan
and Brgy. Ugong)

The Valley Fault Systems major historical activities are presented in Table 2.1.
12

Table 2.1 Major Historical Earthquakes Generated by Valley Fault System that have
Affected Manila and Vicinity
Event
1599 Jun

Intensity
VIII

1601 Jan

VIII

1658 Aug

IX

1885 Nov

VII

Impact
Violent earthquake; damaged many buildings in
Manila including the Sto. Domingo Church located
on bedrock (adobe); other effects include fissuring
of the stone vault of the society of Jesus and other
principal edifices in the city.
Violent earthquake; completed destruction wrought
by 1599 June earthquake; damage to the city was
immense, destroying many stone houses, churches
and injuring/ killing an unspecified number of
people.
Most buildings in Manila, mainly made of wood and
timber, were wiped out; several persons killed/
injured.
Strong but no serious damage; strong subterranean noise observed in Marikina and suburbs
of Manila.

(PHIVOLCS Professional Paper 01, 1997)

2.2 Liquefaction
One of the major effects of a moderate to large earthquake is the seismic
induced liquefaction which is technically the generation of excess water pressure, loss
of shear strength and excessive volume contraction of saturated loose soil
(Raychowdhury & Basudhar, 2011). It is the transformation of the granular material from
a solid to a liquefied state after the induction of cyclic loading made by a seismic
excitation (Sumer et al., 2007). Liquefaction is one of the major causes of destruction
whenever an earthquake occurs and it should be one of the considerations in hazard
investigations for buildings, pipelines, railway, highway bridges and land use planning.

13

Primary method used in the United States and many other countries in analyzing
liquefaction hazard is the simplified procedure developed by Seed and Idriss (1971).
Potential liquefaction depends on the nature of ground shaking and the sites
geological condition (Sumer et al., 2007). The factors that significantly affect liquefaction
are the void ratio and relative density of soil, depth of water table, effective confining
stress and coefficient of lateral earth pressure (Raychowdhury & Basudhar, 2011). The
term liquefaction, however, varies with respect to soil classification. For loose sand,
liquefaction occurs after the complete loss of strength due to the 100% build up of pore
water pressure, accompanied by a softening and large deformation. For medium dense
to dense sand, it is characterized by the 100% build up of pore water pressure
accompanied by about 5% double amplitude axial strain but of limited deformation. The
plasticity of fines to silty sands or sandy silts defines its liquefiability. Silty soils with non
plastic fines make it easily liquefiable while cohesive fines increase its cyclic resistance
(Sumer et al., 2007).
Such condition is catastrophic to infrastructures especially when the effective
stress of the soil reaches the level that it can no longer support the buildings
foundation. Settlement on footings and piles may occur as the shear strength of the soil
depletes. Structures built underground are also directly affected by liquefaction.
Example of which are buried pipelines and storage tanks. The extent of damage may be
further magnified when structures are located near the epicenter of the earthquake.
In understanding the potential liquefaction of an identified location, the locales
geologic and seismic history must be considered. This would include the recorded
14

intensity, duration and the characteristics of the ground shaking of the specific vicinity.
The study and analyses of the potential liquefaction of vicinity are strongly
recommended especially when infrastructures of special purpose are to be built within
the site. Locations for high risk infrastructures such as dams and nuclear power plants
must be evaluated (Raychowdhury & Basudhar, 2011).
Liquefaction in Dagupan City, 1990
Liquefaction is a major secondary effect of the July 16, 1990 Luzon earthquake
with a magnitude of 7.8 in a large elongated zone of the Central Plain. Cohesionless
saturated fine sandy and silty sediments near the ground surface are liable to liquefy
under the effect of intense cyclic ground shaking.
Dagupan City is located on a flat terrain where extensive deposits of loose sand
and gravels are present. There are numerous abandoned stream meanders and
wetlands, which are prone to liquefaction (Torres et al., 2001).
The mid-Luzon tectonic depression, known as the Central Plain (about 30,000
sq. km), was filled with clastic sediments during the Tertiary and Quaternary. The
uppermost part of the sequence, consisting of loose to very loose fine sand, reacted to
the ground-shaking with liquefaction on a regional scale (Orense, 2011).
The earthquake was said to have been accompanied by a terrifying noise with felt
aftershocks lasting until the following year (Punongbayan, 2011).

15

a. Effects of 1990 earthquake

Close to around 500 buildings and residential houses underwent severe
settlements as well as varying amounts of tilting as a result of the loss in strength of the
underlying soil in Dagupan City. Except for one, no building in the affected area was
supported by piles and, therefore, no resistance was possible against subsidence after
liquefaction. Earthquake shaking did not destroy buildings in the area nor cause any
structural damage (Orense, 2011). Also lateral spreading occurred along the banks of
Pantal River of about 3 to 5 meters. The 5-storey Asia Career Building subsided by
more than 1m, with minor structural damage; however, the 1-storey section adjacent to
it was severely distorted. Magsaysay Bridge collapsed as a result of the lateral
movement of the opposing banks of Pantal River where the bridge abutted. As a result
of liquefaction of the river bank, the bridge piers sank and tilted towards the center of
the river. Roads became virtually impassable because of cracks in road pavements.
Several buried structures, such as gasoline tanks, septic tanks and buried pipes, were
uplifted due to the buoyant force exerted by the liquefied soil. A buried water pipe along
Rizal Street buckled and was thrust upward. Immediately after the earthquake, much of
the town was coated in dark-grey mud and water ejected from fissures in the ground
(Orense, 2011).
2.3 Liquefaction Ingredients
Current sediments or fills of saturated, cohesionless soils located at shallow
depths will be heavily prone to liquefaction during large earthquakes. Geologic history,

16

confining pressure, density, and characteristics of the soil grain affect the liquefaction
susceptibility of a specific deposit (Rauch, 2001).
The ground at the site must be loose uncompacted or unconsolidated sand
and silt without much clay or stuck together. The sand and silt must be soggy (water
saturated) due to a high water table. Lastly, the site must be shaken long and hard
enough by the earthquake to trigger liquefaction (Perkins, 2001).
Table 2.2 shows the liquefaction hazard based on combinations of Modified
Mercalli Intensity (MMI) and liquefaction susceptibility (Perkins, 2001).
Table 2.2 Liquefaction Susceptibility based on Combinations of Modified Mercalli
Intensity (MMI)

Liquefaction Susceptibility Category

MMI
Value

Description of MMI
Shaking Severity

Very
low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

II

III

IV

Light

17

VI

Moderate

VII

Strong

Moderately
Low
Hazard

Moderately
Low Hazard

Moderate
Hazard

VIII

Very Strong

Moderate
Hazard

Moderate
Hazard

Moderate
Hazard

IX

Violent

High
Hazard

High Hazard

High
Hazard

Very Violent

High
Hazard

High Hazard

High
Hazard

(The Risk Plates Supplemental. Retrieved August 2011,

http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/eqmaps/mitigation/TheRisk-Plates-Supplemental.pdf)

2.4 Liquefaction Measurement

If sand boils, ground cracking, lateral ground movement, settlement or transition
of structures, bearing capacity failures, or uplifting of buried pipes and tanks are
observed, liquefaction occurs. It is assumed that theres no liquefaction if there is no
surface evidence observed. Still, deeper soils could have liquefied without producing
surface indication (Rauch, 2001).
2.5 Liquefaction Resistance Assessment

18

Assessing the liquefaction resistance of soil is one of the most significant

measures in the engineering design of new structures and in the retrofitting of existing
ones especially those earthquake prone areas. Simplified Procedure which was first
introduced by Seed and Idriss is the method used in the United States and most of the
countries in the world. Simplified Procedure uses the blow counts from the Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) which is correlated with a parameter representing the seismic
loading on the soil, called Cyclic Stress Ratio. Small-strain shear wave velocity Vs,
measurements can be an alternative way to the penetration-based approach. Void ratio,
state of stress, stress history and geologic stress influence both Vs and liquefaction
resistance, and for that reason the use of Vs as index of liquefaction is completely
supported. (Andrus & Stokoe, 2001)
Mathematically, the potential liquefaction of a location may be quantified through
tests. There are two general approaches used in determining the susceptibility of the
local soil to such ground condition. First is the use of laboratory testing of undisturbed
samples and second is the use of empirical relationships obtained from in situ index
test. The laboratory testing of soil samples requires a good preparation of the specimen
because it strongly affects its resistance to cyclic loading. Remolded and reconstituted
samples have less in situ stress history which leads to the underestimation of
liquefaction. Undisturbed soil sampling techniques have been developed through the
years. Examples of which are the in situ freezing and frozen shelby tube samples.
Investigations were conducted and it was determined that the sampling method have
lower liquefaction resistance compared with the undisturbed samples. Due to this,
empirical approaches were used as a viable tool for testing. Four Empirical Liquefaction
19

Models (ELMs) are used in assessing the potential liquefaction of a location. First is the
standard penetration test (SPT), second is the cone penetration test (CPT), third is the
measurement of shear wave velocity (Vs) and last is the Becker penetration test. SPT is
executed to determine the stiffness of the local soil and it is done inside a borehole. The
CPT, on the other hand, measures the stress, sleeve friction and the pore water
pressure. The Vs measures the shear wave velocity profile of the soil. The assessment
methods used in determining the susceptibility of the soil is aided with the values
expressed in terms of cyclic stress ratio (CSR) and the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR).
The evaluated variables dictate the factor of safety at a given depth (Sumer et al.,
2007).
The simplified methods in potential liquefaction assessment are very useful in
creating preliminary designs. The loading parameters that are often used in testing are
represented by either the generated cyclic shear stress due to earthquake or by the
amount of energy released (Liyanapathirana & Poulos, 2003). The relationship between
the values of CSR and CRR derives the factor of safety for liquefaction that may be
used in structural analysis.
The most comprehensive liquefaction data catalogues are based on Standard
penetration Test (SPT) blowcounts (N SPT). Starting in 1970s, H. B. Seed and his
colleagues worked to develop a reliable method for assessing liquefaction potential
based on SPT data. Their framework for SPT-based assessment of liquefaction
potentials was developed in a series of papers that includes Seed and Idriss (1971),
Seed et al (1977), Seed (1979), Seed and Idriss (1981; 1982), and Seed et al (1983)
(Rauch A. F., 2001).
20

The simplified procedure formulated by Seed and Idriss in evaluating potential

liquefaction is dicussed below.
Induced Shear Stress, i can be computed using the Seed-Idriss Simplified
Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure. The maximum shear stress induced at depth z is
given by:

Equation 2-1

where:
v

is the total vertical stress

amax

is the peak horizontal acceleration at the ground surface

rd

is the stress reduction coefficient at depth z.

For the period of ground shaking, at least a maximum shear stress is induced.
Seed and Idriss (1967) used a 0.65 coefficient to be multiplied to ( i)max to characterize
an equivalent uniform shear stress.

0.65

Equation 2-2

The values of the magnitude scaling factor (MSF) consider that MSF=1 for
Mw=7.5.The value of the MSF can be computed using the equation:
21

MSF=6.9 exp

( M4 )0.06

Equation 2-3

The anticipated value of MSF is restricted up to MSF=1.82 for Mw < 5.2. The
controlled value is because of the fact that the equivalent uniform induced stress is
measured to be equivalent to 0.65 of the maximum induced stress. The maximum
stress must be at least more than half to one cycle. It can be practical to consider that
the peak shear stress would work at about cycle.
MSF value cannot be more that of the ratio of the CSR at cycles divided by
CSR for 15 cycles multiplied by 0.65 and can be written as:
3
Cycles
4
2.8
065= 0.65=1.82
CSR for 15Cycles
1
CSR for

MSF <

Equation 2-4

The equivalent uniform induced stress at a certain depth z with regards to ground
motions produced by an earthquake with a magnitude Mw can be written as:
i max

0.65
i w =

Equation 2-5

The stress reduction coefficient, rd was originally formulated by Seed and Idriss
(1971) and was given in chart form with an average value ranging from 1 at the ground
surface to about 0.85 at depth of 40 ft (-12.2m), while the complete range of the
parameter r

was from a range of magnitudes of earthquakes. Recent studies of

22

Golesorkhi (1989) under the supervision of the late H.B. Seed show the variations of r d
with earthquake magnitude.
The induced shear stress at depth z is proportional to the ratio (r d/MSF). If rd has
no connection with magnitude , then it is essential to adjust MSF to reflect the potential
reduction rd with decreasing value of magnitude.
The effect of magnitude on r d at shallow depths is not as important as it is at
greater depths. Consequently, it is necessary that the two parameters be determined
separately and properly include in assessing the liquefaction potential at a site (Idriss,
1999).
The liquefaction potential index may be introduced to the analysis to determine
the severity of the possible liquefaction at a given depth of soil sample. LPI exhibits the
probability of surface manifestation of liquefaction. It may be assumed that the severity
of liquefaction is proportional to the thickness of the liquefied layer, proximity of the
affected layer to surface and to the factor of safety amounting to less than 1 (Toprak &
Holzer, 2003).
2.6 Liquefaction Modeling
Through the continuous search for the quantification of the liquefaction
vulnerability of soil, numerous modeling were derived in order to get the most precise
values that may be used in the engineering practice. The common means of
measurement in the field are the penetration tests (standard penetration test (SPT) and
cone penetration test (CPT)) that are used in determining the soil density and stress of

23

soil. These in situ tests are said to produce volumetric stresses in soil; thus, pore water
pressure induced by the shear is not directly measured. In order to mitigate the
discrepancies produced by the method and to better understand the basic mechanisms,
liquefaction modeling like torsional shear test, centrifuge model, and constitutive model
were then developed.
Torsional shear test may be done through laboratory experiments or field tests.
Laboratory set up intends to identify the distinct pattern between the torsional moment
and the rotation angle of cylinder for dilative behavior of sample. The field test, however,
is executed by slightly modifying the standard penetration test (Dehghani et al., 2001).
Centrifuge earthquake modeling is intended to produce an artificial gravitational field
higher than that of the earths gravitational field. The prototype simulates the soil
structure system and the response of the system to dynamic loading (Dobry & Liu,
2002). Lastly, the constitutive model is focused on the deviatoric stress- strain response
mechanism of soil. Cyclic laboratory tests are included in this model to produce salient
relations of deformations to the cycle of applied load (Elgamal et al., 2002).
2.7 Effects of Liquefaction: Ground Failure and Settlement
When ground liquefies and fails, it may cause damage to built environment.
These failures take the form of flows, lateral spreads, ground oscillations (or movement
of the surface layer of ground separately from the underlying liquefied layers), loss of
bearing strength (to hold up buildings or hold tanks and pipes underground); and
settlement and differential settlement (Perkins, 2001).

24

Typically, flows failure occurs on slopes of more than 3 degrees, while

spreads failure are on less steep slopes (EERI, 1994). A lateral spread failure is a
failure where a layer of ground at the surface is carried on an underlying layer of
liquefied material over a nearly flat surface toward a river channel or other bank
(Perkins, 2001). Also, when soil liquefies, it becomes weaker. It may lose its capacity
to support buildings, particularly large buildings with poorly designed foundations. In
addition, underground tanks and pipelines can float upwards, sometimes all the way to
the surface. Another common problem is settlement as soil compacts and consolidates
after the ground stops shaking.
Settlement can range from 1% - 5% of the liquefiable layer. In very loose sands,
it can be as large as 10% of the thickness of the saturated loose materials that liquefy
(Tokimatsu & Seed, 1984). Although small uniform changes are typically not damaging,
the soil can settle unevenly. This problem, called differential settlement, occurs when
the layers that liquefy are not of a uniform thickness, a common problem when the
liquefaction occurs in artificial fills,
different

particularly fills that have been placed during

times and using different techniques.

Thus, using the 10% settlement

estimate for loose materials, if the liquefying layers are 10 feet different in thickness,
differential settlement of a foot can be achieved (Perkins, 2001).

2.8 Soil Improvement: Soil Grouting

Grouting is a widely used method for strengthening and sealing rock, soil and
concrete. The possibilities for sealing structures are of great importance from both an
25

economic and environmental point of view. The primary purpose of any grouting project
is to alter, to a desired degree, the properties of an existing medium by the most
economical means. Different grouting types that can be used include:
Portland-cement grout is a mixture of portland cement, water, and, frequently,
chemical and mineral additives (Guyer, 2009).
Soils used as the primary grout ingredient can be divided into two classifications.
One includes the natural soils found at or near the project with little or no modification
required. The second includes commercially processed clay such as bentonite (Guyer,
2009).
In 1957 there had been some 87 patents issued for processes related to
chemical grouting. Since then, there undoubtedly have been more. These processes
cover the use of many different chemicals and injection processes. The primary
advantages of chemical grouts are their low viscosity and good control of setting time.
Disadvantages are the possible toxic nature of some chemicals and the relatively high
cost (Guyer, 2009).

Chapter 3
Methodology

26

The study employed secondary data from geotechnical firms, Department of

Science and Technology- Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (DOSTPHIVOLCS) and the local government unit of Pasig City in determining the potential
liquefaction of selected locations in three different barangays namely Barangay
Kapitolyo, Barangay Manggahan and Barangay Ugong along the Pasig City segment of
the Valley Fault System. The process, as shown in figure 2, was followed.
3.1 Data Gathering
The data used in this study such as surface geology maps were obtained from
Department of Science and Technology- Philippine Institute of Volcanology and
Seismology (DOST-PHIVOLCS). The quantities were utilized as a secondary data in
assessing the liquefaction susceptibility of a selected location in three different
barangays namely Barangay Kapitolyo, Barangay Manggahan and Barangay Ugong
along the Pasig City segment of the Valley Fault System. The researchers also
coordinated with geotechnical engineering professionals in determining the soil
properties of the selected locations through soil test results.
Also, the researchers secured the local fault line map of the selected locations
from the local government of Pasig City.

The figure below shows the flow of the study. The inputs and the corresponding
outputs are stated. Different methods were used to yield these results.

Input

Process

Output
27

Secondary Data
(Metro Manila
Earthquake
Impact Reduction
Study Report and
Maps) from
Philippine
Institute of
Volcanology and
Seismology
(PHIVOLCS)

Secondary Data
(Soil Tests
Results) from
Geotechnical
Firms

Secondary Data
(Comprehensive
Land Use Plan
and Maps) from
Local
Government Unit
of Pasig City

Assessment of
Parameters through
Excel Program

Quantification of
the Sites Factor
of Safety Due to
Liquefaction

Calculation of the
Local Soils
Effective Stress

Calculation of the
Factor of Safety
due to
Liquefaction

Identification of
the Location with
the Greatest
Potential
Liquefaction

Identification of
Possible
Mitigation
Measures for the
Soil and/or the
Foundation

Figure 3.1 Methodological Framework

3.2 Data Analysis

The specific test locations were derived from the Active Fault Map, Geological
Surface Map, and Valley Fault System Map that were obtained from the Department of
28

Science and Technology- Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology (DOSTPHIVOLCS); and from the Pasig City segment of the Valley Fault System Map that was
obtained from the local government unit of Pasig City.
The gathered quantified subsurface parameters (void ratio, ground water level,
relative density of soil, and effective confining stress) of the selected locations were
assessed through the use of an excel program based on a simplified procedure by Seed
and Idriss (1997), and Das (1995) for SPT correction. The input values were obtained
from the geotechnical tests results. The assessment aimed to determine the factor of
safety due to liquefaction (FS) at specific soil conditions. The FS values were derived
from the Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) and Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) by following the
simplified procedure formulated by Seed and Idriss (1997). The corresponding results
from the test locations were compared to identify which has the greatest liquefaction
susceptibility. The equations used to determine the Factor of Safety (FS) are
mathematically written as:
a. Total Vertical Stress, TZ
TZ =( MD Z MD Z1) SOILZ + TZ 1

Equation 3-1

where:
MDz middepth at depth z (m)

MDZ =

DEPTH Z DEPTH Z1
+ DEPTH Z1
2

29

soil dry unit weight of soil (kN/m3)

b. Pore Water Pressure, Uz
U Z =IF (U 1 Z < 0,0,U 1Z )
U 1Z =

DEPTH Z DEPTH Z1
DEPTH Z W (GWT W )
2

Equation 3-2

where:
w unit weight of water (9.81 kN/m 3)
GWT Ground Water Table (m)
c. Effective Stress, EZ
EZ = TZ |U Z|

Equation 3-3

where:
TZ= total stress (kN/m2)
UZ= pore water pressure (kN/m2)
d. SPT Correction (Das, 1995), NCORZ
9.78
N CORZ =
EZ

Equation 3-4

N CORZ >2.2, N CORZ

)
N CORZ =IF
e. Energy Correction, CERZ
C ERZ =IF (DEPTH Z <3, 0.75,1.0)

Equation 3-5

f. Corrected Blow Count, NCZ

N CZ =N VALUE N CORZ C ERZ

Equation 3-6

where:
NVALUE= field blow count
NCORZ= SPT correction
CERZ= energy correction
g. Fines Content Correction of SPT-N (Seed and Idris, 1997), N CFZ
N CFZ= Z + Z N CZ

Equation 3-7

30

where:
NCZ= corrected blow count
Z =IF ( FINES CONTENT Z <5, 1 Z , IF ( FINES CONTENT Z <35, 2Z , 3 Z ))
Z =IF ( FINES CONTENT Z <5, 1 Z , IF ( FINESCONTENT Z <35, 2Z , 3 Z ) )
1Z =0

2 Z =e

190
1.76
2
(FINESCONTENT Z )

3 Z =5.0

1 Z =1.0
FINES CONTENT
( Z )1.5
1000
2Z =0.99+
3 Z =1.2

h. Earthquake-Induced Stress
Acceleration in g, a
where:
a=0.4

Deformability Reduction, rdZ

rd Z =IF ( DEPTH Z <9.15, rd 1Z , IF ( DEPTH Z <23, rd 2 Z, IF ( DEPTH Z <30, rd 3 Z , rd 4Z ) ) )

31

rd 1Z =10.00765 DEPTH Z

rd 2Z =1.1740.0267 DEPTH Z

rd 3 Z =0.7440.008 DEPTH Z

rd 4 Z =0.5

Shear-Stress Average, AVEZ

AVEZ =0.65 a TZ rd Z

Equation 3-8

where:
a= peak ground acceleration
TZ= total stress (kN/m2)
rdZ= deformability reduction factor
Cyclic Stress Ratio, CSRZ

CSR Z =

AVEZ
EZ

Equation 3-9

where:
AVEZ= shear- stress average

32

E= effective stress (kN/m2)

i. Liquefaction Strength
Magnitude Scaling Factor, MSF

MSF=

102.24
2.56
m

Equation 3-10

where:
m= magnitude of earthquake
Cyclic Resistance Ratio, CRRZ
CRR Z =0.007 ( N CFZ )1.155

Equation 3-11

where:
NCFZ= fines content correction of SPT-N
Factor of Safety, FS

FSZ =

CRR Z
MSF
CSR Z

Equation 3-12

where:
CRRZ= cyclic resistance ratio
CSRZ= cyclic stress ratio
33

MSF= magnitude scaling factor

Figure 3.2 shows the sample user interface of the Excel based program devised
by the researchers in calculating the selected locations potential liquefaction. The
program includes input cells that can be filled up using the Standard Penetration Test
results specifically the depth of soil layer, blow count value, soil class, magnitude, and
depth of ground of water table. The output includes the parameters defined in the Seed
and Idriss Simplified Liquefaction Evaluation Procedure. Through the program, the
factor of safety due to liquefaction is determined.

Figure 3.2 Sample User Interface of the Potential Liquefaction Program

34

Figure 3.3 Sample User Interface of the Liquefiable Zone Diagram

Figure 3.3 shows the sample user interface of the liquefiable zone diagram
included in the Excel based program devised by the researchers. The diagram presents
the soil classification and the probability of liquefaction occurrence of the soil layer at a
given depth. The plots that the figure exhibits are based from the input values entered at
the user interface of the potential liquefaction program.

35

Chapter 4
Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data
The data obtained from soil test results were processed through the use of an
excel program devised by the researchers. The program followed the simplified method
of analysis formulated by Seed and Idriss (1997) and Das (1995) for the SPT correction.
The peak ground acceleration value that was used in determining the earthquake
induced stress is equal to 0.4g, the value assigned to Pasig City by Philippine Institute
of Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) based on its proximity to a seismic
generator.
4.1 Assessment of Parameters
4.1.1 Barangay Kapitolyo
Borehole 1
ground water table = 1.1m
Table 4.1

In-situ Soil Index Properties for Barangay Kapitolyo- Borehole 1

Depth
(m)

N- Value

Soil Class

0
1.50
3.00

0
10
67

CL
SP

Dry Unit
Weight, soil
(kN/m3)
15.25
15.72

Fines
Content (%)
0
66.78
4.19

Effective
Stress,
(kN/m2)
0
11.19
23.74

(Terms Concrete Testing, 2011)

Table 4.1shows the subsurface properties in Borehole 1 of Barangay Kapitolyo,
Pasig City. The parameters such as depth, blow count value, soil class, unit weight of
soil, and fines content are the quantities obtained from the soil test reports. The table
shows that parameters vary with depth. The soils effective stress depends mainly on
36

the type of soil and the depth of the water table. The saturation of soil to water
decreases its effective stress due to the accumulation of pore water pressure.

0
0.98
-0.5

0.98

0.99

0.99

1.00

1.00

-1
-1.5
DEPTH (m)
-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
DEFORMABILITY REDUCTION FACTOR

Figure 4.1 Deformability Reduction versus Depth of Barangay Kapitolyo-Borehole 1

Figure 4.1 shows the relationship of the deformability reduction value (rd) with
respect to depth. The rd decreases as soil exploration extends deeper. The shallower
the depth, the greater deformability reduction factor it receives.

0
0.00
-0.5

10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00

-1
-1.5
DEPTH (m)
-2

EFFECTIVE
TOTAL

-2.5
-3
-3.5
OVERBURDEN PRESSURE (kPa)

37

Figure 4.2 Overburden Pressure versus Depth of Barangay Kapitolyo - Borehole 1

As presented in figure 4.2, the total overburden pressure increases with depth. It
may be monitored that the value of the effective overburden pressure is equal to or less
than the value of the total overburden pressure. The discrepancies between the two
overburden pressure values were derived from the effect of the ground water table
where pore water pressure value was obtained. It may be observed that the changes
between the two plots start at depth 1.5m, and it may be synthesized that it is due to the
water table encounter at depth 1.1m.

0
0.00
-0.5

50.00 100.00 150.00

-1
-1.5
DEPTH (m)
-2

N-FIELD
N-CORRECTED

-2.5
-3
-3.5
BLOW COUNT (N-VALUE)

Figure 4.3 Blow Count Value versus Depth of Barangay Kapitolyo- Borehole 1
The plotted field blow count values were obtained from bore logs presented in
the soil test results. The corrected blow count values were obtained from field blow
count values multiplied with SPT correction and energy correction as computed per
layer of soil. Correction values were introduced to provide adjustments on possible
errors that the in situ conditions may have incurred. The discrepancies between plots

38

were amplified starting at depth 1.5m due to the correction values that increased with
depth.
Borehole 2
ground water table= 2.9m
Table 4.2

In-situ Soil Index Properties for Barangay Kapitolyo- Borehole 2

Depth
(m)

N- Value

Soil Class

0
1.50
3.00

0
10
59

CL
SP

Dry Unit
Weight, soil
(kN/m3)
15.25
15.72

Fines
Content (%)

Effective
Stress,
(kN/m2)
0
11.44
35.02

0
59.5
4.48

(Terms Concrete Testing, 2011)

The preceding table 4.2 exhibits the soil conditions obtained from Borehole 2 of
Barangay Kapitolyo. Similarities with the bore logs presented in Table 4.1 and 4.2 may
be observed and it is due to the proximity of the hole locations with each other thus
posting resemblance to soil properties. However, the depth of the encountered ground
water table has a negligible effect to the effective overburden stress of soil.

0
0.98
-0.5

0.98

0.99

0.99

1.00

1.00

-1
-1.5
DEPTH (m)

-2
-2.5
-3
-3.5
DEFORMABILITY REDUCTION FACTOR

39

Figure 4.4 Deformability Reduction versus Depth of Barangay Kapitolyo-Borehole 2

It may be observed that in figure 4.4, the deformability reduction value decreases
with the increase in soil depth.

0
-0.5

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

-1
-1.5
DEPTH (m)
-2

EFFECTIVE
TOTAL

-2.5
-3
-3.5
OVERBURDEN PRESSURE (kPa)

Figure 4.5 Overburden Pressure versus Depth of Barangay Kapitolyo - Borehole 2

The values of the total and effective overburden pressure plotted in figure 4.5
possess equal quantities. It may be synthesized that ground water level was not
encountered, or had a very negligible effect to soil, thus inducing pore water pressure
equal to 0. The value of the pore water pressure made the total overburden pressure
equal to the effective stress.

40

0
0.00
-0.5

50.00

100.00

-1
-1.5
DEPTH (m)

N-FIELD

-2

N-CORRECTED

-2.5
-3
-3.5
BLOW COUNT (N-VALUE)

Figure 4.6 Blow Count Value versus Depth of Barangay Kapitolyo-Borehole 2

As shown in figure 4.6, the field and corrected blow count values are almost
similar up to 1.5 meters of depth. The difference between the two blow count values
beyond the 1.5 meter depth was greatly affected by the required energy correction for it
also increased with depth.
4.1.2 Barangay Manggahan
The table 4.3, as shown below, presents the bore logs of Borehole 1 of Barangay
Manggahan. The soil exploration extended up to 15 layers equivalent to 21 meters of
depth. Similar to the previous logs, Borehole 1 exhibited discrepancies in the soil index
properties per layer.
Borehole 1
ground water table = 1.5m
Table 4.3 In-situ Soil Index Properties for Barangay Manggahan- Borehole 1
Depth
(m)

N- Value

Soil Class

Dry Unit
Weight, soil

Fines
Content (%)

Effective
Stress,
41

0
1.50
3.00
4.50
6.00
7.50
9.00
10.50
12.00
13.50
15.00
16.50
18.00
19.50
21.00

0
4
5
9
33
11
7
9
12
14
20
22
27
43
51

ML
ML
ML
SC
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
SC
CL
CL
CL
CL

(kN/m3)
16.50
16.50
16.50
15.72
15.25
15.25
15.25
15.25
15.25
15.72
15.25
15.25
15.25
15.25

0
93.65
81.19
82.31
37.16
96.65
92.37
90.89
92.12
93.71
36.28
96.36
63.18
80.25
65.46

(kN/m2)
0
12.38
29.77
43.48
56.03
67.86
79.70
91.54
103.38
115.22
127.76
139.60
151.44
163.28
175.12

(Terms Concrete Testing, 2011)

0
0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
-5
-10
DEPTH (m)
-15
-20
-25
DEFORMABILITY REDUCTION FACTOR

Figure 4.7 Deformability Reduction versus Depth of Barangay Manggahan-Borehole 1

It may be observed that in figure 4.7, the deformability reduction value decreases
as the soil depth increases. The greatest depth reached by SPT which is 21 meters was
calculated to have a depth reduction factor equal to 0.6133.

42

0
-50.00 50.00 150.00 250.00 350.00
-5
-10
DEPTH (m)
-15

EFFECTIVE
TOTAL

-20
-25
OVERBURDEN PRESSURE (kPa)

Figure 4.8 Overburden Pressure versus Depth of Barangay Manggahan - Borehole 1

As presented in figure 4.8, the total overburden pressure and the depth of the soil
are directly proportionate. It can also be monitored that the value of the effective
overburden pressure can be equal to or less than the value of the total overburden
pressure. The discrepancies between the two overburden pressure values were derived
from the effect of the ground water table to the soil where pore water pressure value
was obtained.

43

0
0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

-5
-10
DEPTH (m)

N-FIELD

-15

N-CORRECTED

-20
-25
BLOW COUNT (N-VALUE)

Figure 4.9 Blow Count Value versus Depth of Barangay Manggahan - Borehole 1
The plotted field blow count values were obtained from bore logs presented in
the soil test results. The corrected blow count values, however, were obtained from field
blow count values multiplied with the two considered corrections, SPT correction and
energy correction, as computed per layer of soil. Correction values were introduced to
provide adjustments on possible errors that the in situ conditions may have incurred.
The behavior of graph shown above represents the different soil characteristics at each
layer. For example, depth 6m required great number of blow count to penetrate through
it, an implication that the layer is tough.

Borehole 2
ground water table = 1.5m
Table 4.4
Depth
(m)

In-situ Soil Index Properties for Barangay Manggahan- Borehole 2

N- Value

Soil Class

Dry Unit
Weight, soil

Fines
Content (%)

Effective
Stress,
44

0
1.50
3.00
4.50
6.00
7.50
9.00
10.50
12.00
13.50
15.00
16.50
18.00
19.50
21.00

0
4
6
11
35
10
8
11
13
16
17
22
28
47
54

ML
ML
ML
SC
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
SC
CL
CL
CL
CL

(kN/m3)
16.50
16.50
16.50
15.72
15.25
15.25
15.25
15.25
15.25
15.72
15.25
15.25
15.25
15.25

0
93.15
82.79
84.81
32.1
95.58
91.86
91.35
90.15
94.61
24.69
96.32
56.96
71.68
61.27

(kN/m2)
0
12.38
29.77
43.48
56.03
67.86
79.70
91.54
103.38
115.22
127.76
139.60
151.44
163.28
175.12

(Terms Concrete Testing, 2011)

The table above shows the soil properties that Borehole 2 has. Most of the soil
layers encountered in the soil exploration were classified as inorganic clays with low to
medium plasticity (CL) equivalent to a value of dry unit weight of 15.25kN/m 3.Similar to
the previously presented logs, it may be observed that the effective stress increases
with depth.

0.00
0.550.600.650.700.750.800.850.900.951.00
-5.00
-10.00
DEPTH (m)
-15.00
-20.00
-25.00
DEFORMABILITY REDUCTION FACTOR

45

Figure 4.10 Deformability Reduction versus Depth of Barangay ManggahanBorehole 2

The deformability reduction values as presented in Figure 4.10 vary with depth.
The values needed to determine the stress induced by a seismic activity to the given
soil is adjusted by the deformability reduction value; thus, it may be synthesized that
reduction increases with depth.

0
-50.00 50.00 150.00 250.00 350.00
-5
-10
DEPTH (m)
-15

EFFECTIVE
TOTAL

-20
-25
OVERBURDEN PRESSURE (kPa)

Figure 4.11 Overburden Pressure versus Depth of Barangay Manggahan

Borehole 2
The difference between the effective stress and the total stress present in the soil
is an implication of ground water table encounter. Soil exploration reached the level
where water induced pore water pressure to soil particles, reducing the amount of
stress needed in order to displace the soil.

46

0
0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

-5
-10
DEPTH (m)
-15

N-FIELD
N-CORRECTED

-20
-25
BLOW COUNT (N-VALUE)

Figure 4.12 Blow Count Value versus Depth of Barangay Manggahan - Borehole 2
Figure 4.12 shows that most of the blow count value is less than 20. It implies
that the soil sample needed less blows to reach the stable part of the borehole. It may
also be observed that the toughest layer is found at depth 21m because it exceeds 50
blows where standard penetration test is stopped.

4.1.3 Barangay Ugong

Borehole 1
ground water table = 1.5m
Table 4.5 In-situ Soil Index Properties for Barangay Ugong- Borehole 1

47

Depth
(m)

N- Value

Soil Class

0
1.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
15.00
18.00

0
14
18
20
12
13
17
19

0
CL
CL
SM
CH
CH
CH
CL

Dry Unit
Weight, soil
(kN/m3)
0
15.25
15.25
19.75
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.25

Fines
Content (%)
0
98
96
45
97
98
96
99

Effective
Stress,
(kN/m2)
0
7.63
15.79
6.30
7.16
8.01
8.87
10.47

(DPWH, 2002)
The table above shows the distinctive characteristics of the borehole situated in
Barangay Ugong. It may be monitored that among the effective stresses encountered in
the soil exploration, Borehole 1 of Ugong possesses lowest values. The values
presented in Table 4.5 are implication that the soil in the site has the greatest potential
to be displaced from its current position.

0
-20.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
-4
-6
-8
DPETH (m) -10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
DEFORMABILITY REDUCTION FACTOR

Figure 4.13 Deformability Reduction versus Depth of Barangay Ugong - Borehole 1

The deformability reduction values posted by figure 4.13 shows that as the soil
exploration extends deeper, the required reduction value is lesser. These values are
48

used in order to introduce larger adjustments at greater depths in order to determine the
shear- stress induced by a seismic activity.

0
-20.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

-4
-6
-8
DEPTH (m) -10
-12
-14

EFFECTIVE
TOTAL

-16
-18
-20
OVERBURDEN PRESSURE (kPa)

Figure 4.14 Overburden Pressure versus Depth of Barangay Ugong - Borehole 1

It may be observed in the figure above that the values of the effective stress and
the total stress have a large difference. The effective stress of the soil sample is
relatively low; thus, it may be synthesized that it has a great probability of displacement.
The great discrepancy between plots is yielded from the ground water table effect to
soil.

49

0
-20.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

-4
-6
-8
DEPTH (m) -10

N-FIELD

-12

N-CORRECTED

-14
-16
-18
-20
BLOW COUNT (N-VALUE)

Figure 4.15 Blow Count Value versus Depth of Barangay Ugong - Borehole 1
The figure shown above presents the differences incurred by the correction
factors introduced to the blow count value obtained in the field. The plots show that
there is a great difference between the in situ values to the required quantity to be used
in determining the liquefaction vulnerability.

Borehole 2
ground water table = 1.5m
Table 4.6 In-situ Soil Index Properties for Barangay Ugong- Borehole 2
Depth
(m)

N- Value

Soil Class

Dry Unit
Weight, soil
(kN/m3)
0

Fines
Content (%)
0

Effective
Stress,
(kN/m2)
0
50

1.00
3.00
6.00
9.00
12.00
15.00
15.90
17.95
19.95

2
1
3
20
16
19
50
50
50

SW
SM
CH
CH
CH
CH
SM
SM
SM

15.29
19.75
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
19.75
19.75
19.75

7
24
80
97
98
80
34
28
41

7.65
22.56
1.20
2.05
2.91
3.76
192.81
111.64
136.41

(DPWH, 2002)
The table above is the bore log for Barangay Ugong- Borehole 2. It may be
observed that the upper layer of the sample is soft soils while the lower layer consists of
hard material. The blow count value and the effective stress, as presented, define the
condition quantitatively. The greater the blow count value, the tougher the soil layer is.
The figure below shows the graph of the reduction factor required for each depth
of the soil sample. Greater adjustments are required as the sample extends deeper. The
reduction factor decreases from 0 meters from the ground up to greater depths.

0
0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
-5
-10
DEPTH (m)
-15
-20
-25
DEFORMABILITY REDUCTION FACTOR

Figure 4.16 Deformability Reduction versus Depth of Barangay Ugong - Borehole 2

51

The deformability reduction values posted by figure 4.16 shows that as the soil
exploration extends deeper, the required reduction value is lesser. These values are
used in order to introduce larger adjustments at greater depths in order to determine the
shear- stress induced by a seismic activity.

0
-50.00 50.00 150.00 250.00 350.00
-5
-10
DEPTH (m)
-15

EFFECTIVE
TOTAL

-20
-25
OVERBURDEN PRESSURE (kPa)

Figure 4.17 Overburden Pressure versus Depth of Barangay Ugong - Borehole 2

The effective and total overburden plots show great discrepancy; however, the
behavior of the soil property exhibits the large effect of the ground water table. The
presence of water and the soil classification could alter the overburden pressure of soil.

52

0
0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

-5
-10
DEPTH (m)
-15

N-FIELD
N-CORRECTED

-20
-25
BLOW COUNT (N-VALUE)

Figure 4.18 Blow Count Value versus Depth of Barangay Ugong - Borehole 2
The blow count values of Borehole 2 show that as the test extends at greater
depths, the greater number of blows it requires. It may be synthesized that the soil gets
harder with depth. Thus, more blow count is needed to penetrate through the layer.

4.2 Liquefaction Analysis

4.2.1 Barangay Kapitolyo
Borehole 1
53

Table 4.7 Elements of Factor of Safety Due to Liquefaction in Barangay KapitolyoBorehole 1

Depth
(m)

CSR

CRR

1.50

0.2570

0.2618

3.00

0.2540

1.3882

Magnitude

MSF

FS

5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0

2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63

2.81
2.20
1.76
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.72
0.63
15.09
11.83
9.46
7.71
6.38
5.35
4.53
3.88
3.35

54

16.00
14.00
12.00
M=5
10.00
FACTOR OF SAFETY DUE TO LIQUEFACTION

M=5.5
M=6

8.00

M=6.5

6.00

M=7

4.00

M=8

M=7.5
M=8.5

2.00

M=9

0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
DEPTH (m)

Figure 4.19 Factor of Safety Due to Liquefaction versus Depth of Barangay KapitolyoBorehole 1
Table 4.7 and Figure 4.19 show that the shallow layers of the soil in Borehole 1 of
Barangay Kapitolyo post greater potential liquefaction since the factor of safety values is
close to or less than 1. The probability of liquefaction occurrence diminishes with depth.
However, the magnitude of the seismic activity greatly affects potential liquefaction. Non
liquefiable zones could be liquefiable at a certain magnitude. For example, at depth 1.5,
it is a non liquefiable up to magnitude 7.0 but the increase in magnitude makes it
susceptible to liquefaction.

55

Borehole 2
Table 4.8 Elements of Factor of Safety Due to Liquefaction in Barangay KapitolyoBorehole 2
Depth
(m)

CSR

CRR

1.50

0.2626

0.2618

3.00

0.3748

2.0040

Magnitude

MF

FS

5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0

2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63

2.88
2.25
1.80
1.47
1.22
1.02
0.86
0.74
0.64
15.42
12.09
9.67
7.88
6.52
5.46
4.63
3.97
3.425

56

18.00
16.00
14.00

FACTOR OF SAFETY DUE TO LIQUEFACTION

12.00

M=5

10.00

M=6

M=5.5
M=6.5

8.00

M=7

6.00

M=7.5
M=8

4.00

M=8.5

2.00

M=9

0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
DEPTH (m)

Figure 4.20 Factor of Safety Due to Liquefaction versus Depth of Barangay KapitolyoBorehole 2
Table 4.8 and Figure 4.20 post a similar soil behavior with Borehole 1. It may be
observed that up to magnitude 7.5, no liquefaction occurrence may be expected.
However at magnitude 8.0, depth 1.5m posts liquefaction susceptibility. Quantitatively,
liquefaction occurrence is expressed as a factor of safety less than 1.

57

4.2.2 Barangay Manggahan

Borehole1
Table 4.9 Elements of Factor of Safety Due to Liquefaction in Barangay ManggahanBorehole 1
Depth
(m)

CSR

CRR

1.50

0.26

0.13

3.00

0.32

0.17

4.50

0.36

0.24

Magnitude

MF

FS

5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5

2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44

1.38
1.08
0.87
0.71
0.58
0.49
0.42
0.36
0.31
1.51
1.18
0.95
0.77
0.64
0.53
0.45
0.39
0.34
1.86
1.46
1.17
0.95
58

6.00

0.38

0.74

7.50

0.39

0.23

9.00

0.40

0.15

10.50

0.39

0.17

12.00

0.38

0.21

7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0

1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82

0.79
0.66
0.56
0.48
0.41
5.54
4.34
3.47
2.83
2.34
1.96
1.66
1.42
1.23
1.67
1.31
3.98
0.85
0.71
0.59
0.50
0.43
0.37
1.06
0.83
1.05
0.54
0.45
0.38
0.32
0.27
0.24
1.25
0.98
0.67
0.64
0.53
0.44
0.37
0.32
0.28
1.55
59

13.50

0.37

0.23

15.00

0.35

0.30

0.34

0.31

0.32

0.37

16.50

18.00

5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0

2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85

1.21
0.78
0.79
0.65
0.55
0.46
0.40
0.34
1.74
1.37
0.97
0.89
0.74
0.62
0.52
0.45
0.39
2.40
1.88
1.09
1.22
1.01
0.85
0.72
0.62
0.53
2.63
2.06
1.50
1.34
1.11
0.93
0.79
0.68
0.58
3.22
2.53
1.65
1.65
1.36
1.14
0.97
60

19.50

21.00

0.30

0.29

0.56

0.65

8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0

0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63

0.83
0.72
5.21
4.08
2.02
2.66
2.20
1.85
1.56
1.34
1.16
6.35
4.98
3.27
3.25
2.68
2.25
1.91
1.63
1.41

61

7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
FACTOR OF SAFETY DUE TO LIQUEFACTION

3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

DEPTH (m)

Figure 4.21 Factor of Safety Due to Liquefaction versus Depth of Barangay

Manggahan- Borehole 1
Table 4.9 and Figure 4.21 are the representation of the soil behavior of Borehole
1 of Barangay Manggahan. It may be observed that soil properties vary with depth.
Each layer has a different response to the probable loading during a seismic event.
However, it could be synthesized that the liquefaction vulnerability of a layer could be
greatly affected by the magnitude of the earthquake. The graph shows that the factor of
safety decreases with the increase in magnitude, thus shifting layers to a value closer to
1 which is critical for liquefaction.

62

Borehole2
Table 4.10 Elements of Factor of Safety Due to Liquefaction in Barangay ManggahanBorehole 2
Depth
(m)

CSR

CRR

1.50

0.2570

0.1258

3.00

0.3168

0.1960

4.50

0.3573

0.2826

Magnitude

MF

FS

5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0

2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85

1.38
1.08
0.87
0.71
0.58
0.49
0.42
0.36
0.31
1.75
1.37
1.10
0.89
0.74
0.62
0.52
0.45
0.39
2.23
1.75
1.40
1.14
0.94
0.79
0.67
63

6.00

0.3784

0.7683

7.50

0.3912

0.2131

9.00

0.3985

0.1661

10.50

0.3911

0.2035

12.00

0.3799

0.2228

8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0

0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77

0.57
0.50
5.73
4.49
3.59
2.93
2.42
2.03
1.72
1.47
1.27
1.54
1.20
0.96
0.79
0.65
0.54
0.46
0.40
0.34
1.18
0.92
0.74
0.60
0.50
0.42
0.35
0.30
0.26
1.47
1.15
0.92
0.75
0.62
0.52
0.44
0.38
0.33
1.66
1.30
1.04
64

13.50

0.3669

0.2551

15.00

0.3517

0.2308

0.3364

0.3130

0.3204

0.3792

16.50

18.00

6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5

1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73

0.85
0.70
0.59
0.50
0.43
0.37
1.96
1.54
1.23
1.00
0.83
0.70
0.60
0.51
0.44
1.85
1.45
1.16
0.95
0.78
0.66
0.56
0.48
0.41
2.63
2.06
1.65
1.34
1.11
0.93
0.79
0.68
0.58
3.34
2.62
2.09
1.71
1.41
1.18
1.00
0.86
65

19.50

21.00

0.3038

0.2867

0.6147

0.6849

9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0

0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63

0.74
5.71
4.47
3.58
2.92
2.41
2.02
1.72
1.47
1.27
6.74
5.28
4.23
3.44
2.85
2.39
2.02
1.73
1.50

8.00
7.00
6.00

M=5

5.00
FACTOR OF SAFETY DUE TO LIQUEFACTION

M=5.5
M=6

4.00

M=6.5
M=7

3.00

M=7.5
M=8

2.00

M=8.5
1.00

M=9

0.00
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00
DEPTH (m)

Figure 4.22 Factor of Safety Due to Liquefaction versus Depth of Barangay

Manggahan- Borehole 2
66

Table 4.10 and Figure 4.22 are similar to the soil characteristics of Borehole 1 of
Manggahan. The behavior of soil differs with depth. However, magnitude amplifies the
possibility of liquefaction occurrence. For example depth 18m shows no potential
liquefaction at magnitude 5, and from the value of 3.340 it drops to 0.742 at Magnitude
9, thus posting a high rate of vulnerability to liquefaction.
4.2.3 Barangay Ugong
Borehole 1
Table 4.11 Elements of Factor of Safety Due to Liquefaction in Barangay UgongBorehole 1
Depth
(m)

CSR

CRR

1.00

0.2580

0.3585

3.00

0.4908

0.6152

Magnitude

MSF

FS

5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0

2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19

3.92
3.07
2.46
2.00
1.66
1.39
1.18
1.01
0.87
3.54
2.77
2.22
1.81
1.50
67

6.00

3.1451

0.6865

9.00

4.2253

0.4083

4.7068

0.4420

4.8746

0.5800

12.00

15.00

18.00

4.4877

0.6507

7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0

1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82

1.25
1.06
0.91
0.79
0.62
0.48
0.39
0.32
0.26
0.22
0.19
0.16
0.14
0.27
0.21
0.17
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.27
0.21
0.17
0.14
0.11
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.34
0.26
0.21
0.17
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.09
0.08
0.41
68

5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0

2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63

0.32
0.26
0.21
0.17
0.15
0.12
0.11
0.09

4.50
4.00
3.50

FACTOR OF SAFETY DUE TO LIQUEFACTION

3.00

M=5

2.50

M=6

M=5.5
M=6.5

2.00

M=7

1.50

M=7.5
M=8

1.00

M=8.5

0.50

M=9

0.00
0.00

10.00

20.00

DEPTH (m)

Figure 4.23 Factor of Safety Due to Liquefaction versus Depth of Barangay UgongBorehole 1
Table 4.11 and Figure 4.23 show that subsurface conditions at depths 1m-3m are
more stable compared to other layers. However, it may be observed that the other lower
layers post potential liquefaction even at a magnitude of 5.0; thus, greater vulnerability
could be expected as the magnitude increases. At magnitude 9.0, it is predicted that the
entire sample are already liquefiable.

69

Borehole 2
Table 4.12 Elements of Factor of Safety Due to Liquefaction in Barangay UgongBorehole 2
Depth
(m)

CSR

CRR

1.00

0.2580

0.0263

3.00

0.4198

0.0597

6.00

15.5213

0.1258

Magnitude

MSF

5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0

2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85

FS
0.29
0.23
0.18
0.15
0.12
0.10
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.40
0.31
0.25
0.21
0.17
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.09
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
70

9.00

14.1445

0.6865

12.00

12.5881

0.5450

15.00

0.6507
11.2199

15.90

0.5943
0.2509

17.95

0.4489

0.7503

8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0

0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77

0.01
0.01
0.137
0.107
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.16
0.13
0.10
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.04
6.69
5.24
4.19
3.42
2.83
2.37
2.01
1.72
1.49
4.72
3.70
2.96
71

19.95

0.3880

0.7201

6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0

1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63
2.82
2.21
1.77
1.44
1.19
1.00
0.85
0.73
0.63

2.41
1.99
1.67
1.42
1.21
1.05
5.24
4.11
3.29
2.68
2.21
1.86
1.57
1.35
1.16

8.00
7.00
6.00
M=5
5.00
FACTOR OF SAFETY DUE TO LIQUEFACTION

M=5.5
M=6

4.00

M=6.5

3.00

M=7

2.00

M=8

M=7.5
M=8.5

1.00

M=9

0.00
0.00

10.00

20.00

DEPTH (m)

Figure 4.24 Factor of Safety Due to Liquefaction versus Depth of Barangay UgongBorehole 2
Table 4.12 and Figure 4.24 show the behavior of soil layers with respect to the
increase in magnitude of the seismic activity. It may be observed that liquefaction

72

susceptibility from depth 0m to depth 15m is present even under a low magnitude of 5.
Hence, under a seismic activity, the lateral load induced by earthquake overpowers the
reaction force of the soil.
4.3 Mitigation Measures for the Soil and/or the Foundation
Table 4.13 Mitigation Measures for Barangay Kapitolyo Borehole 1
Magnitude
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0

Depth of Liquefiable Zone

(m)
1.50

Mitigation Measures
Shallow foundations
Shallow foundations
Shallow foundations
Shallow foundations
Shallow foundations
Shallow foundations
Shallow foundations
Shallow foundations
Soil improvement

The table above shows the recommended mitigation measures for the soil of the
selected vicinity in Barangay Kapitolyo for Borehole 1. The action to be applied is
determined by the depth of the liquefiable zone.
A practical limit for unbraced or open excavations for shallow foundations is eight
feet (2.48 meters) (French, 1930). If the depth of the affected soil is within this range,
soil improvement in the affected soil depths may be applied to strengthen the soil. If the
depth of the liquefiable zone exceeds the maximum depth for shallow foundations, two
choices may be enforced. Either there will be a soil improvement in the affected soil
depths or pile foundation will be used.

73

Table 4.14 Mitigation Measures for Barangay Kapitolyo Borehole 2

Magnitude
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0

Depth of Liquefiable Zone

(m)
1.50

Mitigation Measures
Shallow foundations
Shallow foundations
Shallow foundations
Shallow foundations
Shallow foundations
Shallow foundations
Shallow foundations
Shallow foundations
Soil improvement

The table above shows the recommended mitigation measures for the soil of the
selected vicinity in Barangay Kapitolyo for Borehole 2. The action to be applied is
determined by the depth of the liquefiable zone.
A practical limit for unbraced or open excavations for shallow foundations is eight
feet (2.48 meters) (French, 1930). If the depth of the affected soil is within this range,
soil improvement in the affected soil depths may be applied to strengthen the soil. If the
depth of the liquefiable zone exceeds the maximum depth for shallow foundations, two
choices may be enforced. Either there will be a soil improvement in the affected soil
depths or pile foundation will be used.

74

Table 4.15 Mitigation Measures for Barangay Manggahan Borehole 1

Magnitude
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0

Depth of Liquefiable Zone

(m)
3.00
7.50
12.00
12.00
15.00
16.50
16.50
16.50

Mitigation Measures
Shallow Foundation
Soil Improvement
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation

The table above shows the recommended mitigation measures for the soil and
the foundation of the selected vicinity in Barangay Manggahan for Borehole 1. The
action to be applied is determined by the depth of the liquefiable zone.
A practical limit for unbraced or open excavations for shallow foundations is eight
feet (2.48 meters) (French, 1930). If the depth of the affected soil is within this range,
soil improvement in the affected soil depths may be applied to strengthen the soil. If the
depth of the liquefiable zone exceeds the maximum depth for shallow foundations, two
choices may be enforced. Either there will be a soil improvement in the affected soil
depths or pile foundation will be used.

75

Table 4.16 Mitigation Measures for Barangay Manggahan Borehole 2

Magnitude
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0

Depth of Liquefiable Zone

(m)
6.00
7.50
13.50
15.00
15.00
16.50
16.50

Mitigation Measures
Shallow Foundation
Shallow Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation

The table above shows the recommended mitigation measures for the soil and
the foundation of the selected vicinity in Barangay Manggahan for Borehole 2. The
action to be applied is determined by the depth of the liquefiable zone.
A practical limit for unbraced or open excavations for shallow foundations is eight
feet (2.48 meters) (French, 1930). If the depth of the affected soil is within this range,
soil improvement in the affected soil depths may be applied to strengthen the soil. If the
depth of the liquefiable zone exceeds the maximum depth for shallow foundations, two
choices may be enforced. Either there will be a soil improvement in the affected soil
depths or pile foundation will be used.

76

Table 4.17 Mitigation Measures for Barangay Ugong Borehole 1

Magnitude
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0

Depth of Liquefiable Zone

(m)
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.50
9.00
10.50

Mitigation Measures
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation

The table above shows the recommended mitigation measures for the foundation
of the selected vicinity in Barangay Ugong for Borehole 1. The action to be applied is
determined by the depth of the liquefiable zone.
A practical limit for unbraced or open excavations for shallow foundations is eight
feet (2.48 meters) (French, 1930). If the depth of the affected soil is within this range,
soil improvement in the affected soil depths may be applied to strengthen the soil. If the
depth of the liquefiable zone exceeds the maximum depth for shallow foundations, two
choices may be enforced. Either there will be a soil improvement in the affected soil
depths or pile foundation will be used.

77

Table 4.18 Mitigation Measures for Barangay Ugong Borehole 2

Magnitude
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0

Depth of Liquefiable Zone

(m)
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00
9.00

Mitigation Measures
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation
Pile Foundation

The table above shows the recommended mitigation measures for the foundation
of the selected vicinity in Barangay Ugong for Borehole 2. The action to be applied is
determined by the depth of the liquefiable zone.
A practical limit for unbraced or open excavations for shallow foundations is eight
feet (2.48 meters) (French, 1930). If the depth of the affected soil is within this range,
soil improvement in the affected soil depths may be applied to strengthen the soil. If the
depth of the liquefiable zone exceeds the maximum depth for shallow foundations, two

78

choices may be enforced. Either there will be a soil improvement in the affected soil
depths or pile foundation will be used.

Chapter 5
Summary of Findings, Conclusion and Recommendation
5.1 Summary of Findings
The factor of safety due to liquefaction calculated through the simplified
procedure formulated by Seed and Idriss shows that the behavior of soil varies with
classification, depth of water table and magnitude. It may be monitored from the
presented tables of the preceding chapter that the blow count values and undrained
shear strength may project the factor of safety due to liquefaction.
Table 5.1 Summary of Liquefaction Susceptibility of the Selected Locations

Magnitude
5.00
5.50
6.00

Ugong
0.12
0.10
0.08

Manggaha
n
1.06
0.83
0.67

Kapitolyo
2.81
2.20
1.76
79

6.50
7.00
7.50
8.00
8.50
9.00

0.06
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03

0.54
0.45
0.38
0.32
0.27
0.24

1.44
1.19
1.00
0.84
0.72
0.62

Table 5.1 shows the susceptibility of the locations to liquefaction. It may be

observed that Barangay Ugong and Manggahan exhibit vulnerability since the yielded
factor of safety is less than 1at any given magnitude. However, Barangay Kapitolyo
shows partial susceptibility. Liquefaction occurrence starts at magnitude 7.5 while the
factor of safety exceeds the critical value of 1 at lower magnitudes.

By comparing the selected sites potential liquefaction, it was identified that

Borehole 2 in Barangay Ugong at depth 6m has the greatest vulnerability. It was
determined through its value of factor of safety due to liquefaction that the induced
lateral force of a seismic event overcomes most layer of the soils lateral force, thus
posting an FS value less than 1. Results show that magnitudes 5, 5.5, 6, 6.5, 7, 7.5, 8,
8.5, and 9 yielded factor of safety values of 0.12, 0.10, 0.08, 0.06, 0.05, 0.004, 0.004,
0.003 and 0.003 respectively.
The probable foundation or mitigation used for the safety of the future
establishments that may be developed on the specific locations was considered in the
study. For the specific location in barangay Manggahan and Ugong, liquefaction will
occur at a magnitude 7.5 earthquake, in which the Valley Fault System is capable of
producing; thus, settlement will occur and pile foundations are recommended in these
locations. The data for the specific location in barangay Kapitolyo show that shallow
80

foundations can be safe from liquefaction up until a magnitude 9 earthquake; thus, only
soil improvement is recommended.
5.2 Conclusions
The figure below shows the vulnerability of the three selected locations along the
Pasig city segment of the Valley Fault System. This presents the most vulnerable area
among the three locations which is the site in Barangay Ugong. This is followed by
barangay Manggahan. And among the three locations, Barangay Kapitolyo shows
greatest resistance against liquefaction occurrence.

10.00
9.00
8.00
MAGNITUDE

7.00

SAFE

6.00

UGONG

5.00

MANGGAHAN
KAPITOLYO

4.00
0.50
1.50
2.50
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
FACTOR OF SAFETY DUE TO LIQUEFACTION

Figure 5.1 Summary of Liquefaction Susceptibility of the Selected Locations

Based on the blow count values (N-Field) and undrained shear strength of each
layer of soil considered in this study, the factor of safety due to liquefaction values was
grouped into their respective soil profile type. The individual values of factor of safety

81

classified for each soil type were used to provide the range of the probable factor of
safety for each profile.

Table 5.2 Augmented Table of Soil Profile Types

Soil
Profile
Type

SA
SB
SC

SD
SE1
SF

Soil Profile
Name/
Generic
Descriptio
n
Hard Rock
Rock
Very Dense
Soil and
Soft Rock
Stiff Soil
Profile
Soft Soil
Profile

Average Soil Properties for Top 30m of Soil Profile

Shear
SPT, N
Undraine
Factor of Safety
Wave
(blows/300mm
d Shear
Due to
Velocity,
)
Strength,
Liquefaction, FS
Vs (m/s)
SU (kPa)
(at Magnitude 7.5)
>1500
760 to
1500
360 to
>50
>100
>2
760
180 to
360
<180

15 to 50

50 to 100

>1 but <2

<15

<50

<1

Soil Requiring Site-specific Evaluation

(National Structural Code of the Philippines, 2010)

82

Table 5.2 shows the average properties of soil for top 30m of soil profile. The
original table obtained from the National Structural Code of the Philippines 2010 was
augmented based from the results yielded by the researchers. In determining the range
of factor of safety due to liquefaction for each soil type, blow count values and
undrained shear strength were considered. It may be synthesized from the results that
Soft Soil Profile (SE) is vulnerable to liquefaction since the expected factor of safety due
to liquefaction is less than or equal to the critical value of FS which is 1. On the other
hand, Stiff Soil Profile (SD) has an FS range of greater than 1 but less than or equal to 2
and Very Dense Soil, and Soft Rock (S C) has an FS value of greater than 2 which can
be considered as non liquefiable stratum.
Potential liquefaction in the selected locations is considered in determining the
probable mitigation measures for the soil and/ or the type of foundation that can be
applied to the selected areas. The summation of the liquefiable depths is referred as the
possible settlement of the soil. At a given magnitude, the soil may liquefy and the
affected soil will act as liquid; thus, the tough layers in between the liquefiable zones will
settle up to the depth of the deepest liquefiable stratum. This data can then be
considered for soil improvement or pile foundation.
5.3 Recommendations
Through the yielded values of factor of safety due to liquefaction, the extent of
mitigation can now be determined. The measures that will be applied will depend on the
severity of the sites vulnerability to liquefaction. In the case of the site in Barangay
Ugong, where most of its layers are comprised of soft soils and the factor of safety is
83

below the critical value of 1, soil improvement must be considered on the soils where
light structures like residential houses are to be built. On the other hand, pile
foundations must be considered if heavy structures like high rise building are to be built
in the selected site.
The augmented soil profile type table may provide the probable values of factor
of safety at specific soil classification. The table will enable the people concerned to
determine the probable mitigation measures that the location requires, given the extent
of the sites susceptibility to liquefaction.
Further studies may be conducted in determining the potential liquefaction of
other locations within the selected baranggays. The quantification of their susceptibility
to such condition will enable future researchers to create a model that could generalize
the susceptibility of each baranggay to liquefaction. It can also provide precision to the
range of values of factor of safety due to liquefaction in the augmented soil profile type
table.

84

Chapter 6
Bibliography
Arab, A., Shahrour, I., & Lancelot, L. (2010). A Laboratory Study of Liquefaction of
Partially Saturated Sand. Journal of Iberian Geology, 37(1), 29-36. Retrieved July
2011, doi: 10.5209/rev_JIGE.2011.v37.n1.2
Gordon A. Fenton, G.M. Paice, & D. V. Grifths (1978). Probabilistic Analysis of
Foundation Settlement
Guyer, J. P.,P.E., R.A., Fellow ASCE, Fellow AEI. (2009), An Introduction to Soil
Grouting
85

Ozcep, F. & Zarif H. (2009). Variations Of Soil Liquefaction Safety Factors Depending
On Several Design Earthquakes In The City Of Yalova. Scientific Research and
Essay, 4(6), 594-604.
Perkins (2001). The REAL Dirt on Liquefaction. Earthquake Program Manager,
Association of Bay Area Governments
Poulos (2000). Foundation Settlement Analysis Practice versus Research (The Eighth
Spencer J. Buchanan Lecture). TX 77840: College Station Hilton 810 University
Drive East College Station.
Raychowdhury, P. & Basudharz P.K. (2011). Liquefaction Characteristics Evaluation
Through Different Stress- Based Models. A Comparative Study. Journal of
Engineering Research and Studies. 2(2), 131-142.
Sumer, B., Ansal A., & Cetin, K. (2007). Earthquake Induced Liquefaction around
Marine Structures. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering.
Retrieved July 2011, doi: 10.1061/_ASCE_0733-950X_2007_133:1_55_

86

87