Mahanagdong Connection Asset - Evaluation Report - Rev 0

EDC MAHANAGDONG CONNECTION ASSET
Tongonan, Kananga, Leyte
Geotechnical Evaluation Report

EDC Mahanagdong Connection Asset
(Switchyard and OHTL Towers)
First Balfour
May 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Background...................................................................................................... 1
2. PROJECT LOCATION AND REGIONAL GEOLOGY ................................................ 2
2.1 Geomorphology ........................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Site Geology ................................................................................................................. 2
3. TECTONIC ACTIVITY AND SEISMICITY............................................................ 4
3.1 Ground Shaking ........................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Ground Rupture ........................................................................................................... 7
3.3 Liquefaction ................................................................................................................. 8
4. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION .................................................................... 9
4.1 Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D1586) ................................................................... 9
4.2 Rock Coring and Sampling (ASTM D2113) .................................................................. 9
5. LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................10
5.1 Determination of Moisture Content (ASTM D2216) ................................................... 10
5.2 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318) ................................................................................ 10
5.3 Sieve Analysis (ASTM D422) ..................................................................................... 10
5.4 Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487) ..................................................... 11
5.5 Unconfined Compressive Test for Intact Rock (ASTM D7012) .................................. 11
6. RESULTS OF SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ...............11
7. GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS ...................................................................13
7.1 SPT N60....................................................................................................................... 13
7.2 Cohesion .................................................................................................................... 14
7.3 Angle of Internal Friction ............................................................................................ 15
7.4 Dry Unit Weight .......................................................................................................... 15
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT | REV. 0

8. SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................17
8.1 Peak Ground Acceleration .......................................................................................... 17
8.2 NSCP 2015 Provisions ............................................................................................... 17
8.3 Liquefaction Assessment ........................................................................................... 17
8.3.1 Preliminary Screening .................................................................................................... 18
8.3.2 GeoLogismiki LiqSVs v2.3.2.5 ....................................................................................... 18
9. SHALLOW FOUNDATION ...........................................................................19
10. EARTHWORKS ISSUES ..........................................................................23
10.1 Excavatibility............................................................................................................... 23
10.2 Slopes ........................................................................................................................ 24
10.3 Engineered Fill and Embankment Formation .............................................................. 24
11. LIMITATIONS .....................................................................................26
12. REFERENCES ......................................................................................27
13. APPENDICES ......................................................................................28
13.1 Site Layout Plan View ................................................................................................ 28
13.2 Borehole Location Plan .............................................................................................. 29
13.3 Final Borehole Logs and Laboratory Results ............................................................. 34
13.3.1 Borehole SY 01 .............................................................................................................. 35
13.3.2 Borehole SY 02 .............................................................................................................. 37
13.3.3 Borehole TL 01 .............................................................................................................. 40
13.3.4 Borehole TL 02 .............................................................................................................. 45
13.4 Hazard Assessment Report ........................................................................................ 48
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Geological Map of the Project Site (USGS, 2000) .................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Distance of the Project Site from the Nearest Active Fault (PHIVOLCS) .................................. 4

Figure 3. Ground Shaking Hazard Map of Kananga, Leyte (PHIVOLCS) .................................................. 6
Figure 4. Ground Rupture Hazard Map of Kananga, Leyte (PHIVOLCS) .................................................. 7
Figure 5. Liquefaction Hazard Map of Kananga, Leyte (PHIVOLCS) ........................................................ 8
Figure 6. Depth vs. SPT N60 Graph....................................................................................................... 14
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Seismic Source Types................................................................................................................ 5
Table 2. Summary of Boreholes .............................................................................................................. 9
Table 3. Idealized Subsurface Profile at SY 01 ...................................................................................... 11
Table 4. Idealized Subsurface Profile at SY 02 ...................................................................................... 12
Table 5. Idealized Subsurface Profile at TL 01 ....................................................................................... 12
Table 6. Idealized Subsurface Profile at TL 02 ....................................................................................... 12
Table 7. Recommended Geotechnical Parameters at SY 01 .................................................................. 15
Table 8. Recommended Geotechnical Parameters at SY 02 .................................................................. 16
Table 9. Recommended Geotechnical Parameters at TL 01 .................................................................. 16
Table 10. Recommended Geotechnical Parameters at TL 02 ................................................................ 16
Table 11. Net Allowable Bearing Capacity at SY 01 ............................................................................... 20
Table 12. Net Allowable Bearing Capacity at SY 02 ............................................................................... 21
Table 13. Net Allowable Bearing Capacity at TL 01................................................................................ 22
Table 14. Net Allowable Bearing Capacity at TL 02................................................................................ 23
Table 15. Typical batters of excavated slopes (Hoerner, 1990)............................................................. 24
Table 16. Typical batters of fill slopes (Hoerner, 1990) ......................................................................... 24

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
This geotechnical evaluation report was prepared per the Client's request, First Balfour, Inc. (FBI), to
determine the subsurface condition at the Proposed Mahanagdong Connection Asset Project in Kananga,
Leyte, Philippines.
The subsurface investigation involved drilling four (4) boreholes at 15.00 meters depth within site to
assess the subsurface conditions and evaluate its characteristics. The soil samples recovered were then
brought to the soil laboratory for analysis and testing. Laboratory tests on selected soil samples include
(if applicable):
• Determination of Moisture Content of Soils (ASTM D2216)

• Determination of Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318)
• Particle Size Analysis of Soils (ASTM D422)
• Soil Classification Using USCS (ASTM D2487)
• Unconfined Compression Test for Intact Rock Core Specimens (ASTM D2938)
This report presents the field and laboratory procedures adopted in the investigation and evaluates the
test results for foundation analysis and design. The subsurface conditions are presented as idealized
soil profiles and borehole logs, including the field results and laboratory tests on selected soil and rock
samples.
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT | REV. 0 Page 1 of 35

2. PROJECT LOCATION AND REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The proposed project involves constructing a Connection Asset in Barangay Tongonan, Kananga, Leyte,
which will connect the energy storage system and the distribution network in the area.
2.1 Geomorphology
The geomorphology of Kananga, Leyte is characterized by a diverse landscape shaped by various

geological processes such as volcanic activity, faulting, and erosion. The municipality is in the central
part of Leyte Island, part of the Visayan Islands in the Philippines.
Kananga is located within the central part of the Eastern Visayas Volcanic Arc, which extends from the
northern part of Samar Island to southern Leyte Island. The volcanic activity within this arc has led to
the formation of numerous volcanic features, including cones, craters, and lava flows. Some notable
volcanic features in Kananga include the Mahagnao Volcano and the nearby hot springs.
Faulting has also played a significant role in shaping the geomorphology of Kananga. The municipality
is located at the intersection of two major fault systems, the Philippine Fault Zone and the Philippine
Trench. The interaction of these fault systems has led to the formation of mountain ranges and valleys
throughout the municipality.
Erosion has also contributed to the geomorphology of Kananga, particularly along the Kananga River
and its tributaries. The river has carved out deep valleys and gorges in the volcanic and sedimentary
rocks, creating a rugged terrain ideal for outdoor activities such as hiking and rock climbing.
2.2 Site Geology
Kananga is a municipality located in the province of Leyte in the Eastern Visayas region of the Philippines.
The geology of Kananga is characterized by a complex interplay of various geological processes that
have shaped the landscape and the underlying rock formations over millions of years.
According to the Geologic Map of the Philippines (2010), the geology of Kananga is dominated by
volcanic rocks that are part of the Leyte Volcanic Group. This volcanic group consists of basaltic to
andesitic lava flows, pyroclastic deposits, and volcanic breccias formed during the Pliocene to the
Pleistocene epochs. The Leyte Volcanic Group is part of the Eastern Visayas Volcanic Arc, which extends
from northern Samar to southern Leyte and is associated with the subduction of the Philippine Sea Plate
beneath the Philippine Plate.
In addition to the Leyte Volcanic Group, the geology of Kananga also includes sedimentary rocks such
as sandstones, siltstones, and shales that were deposited during the Miocene to the Pliocene epochs.
These sedimentary rocks are part of the Carigara Formation, which underlies much of Leyte Island.

The geological processes that have shaped the geology of Kananga include volcanic eruptions, faulting,
and erosion. Volcanic eruptions have contributed to the formation of the Leyte Volcanic Group, while
faulting has caused the displacement of rock formations and the formation of mountain ranges. Erosion
has also played a significant role in shaping the landscape of Kananga, with the Kananga River and its
tributaries carving out deep valleys and gorges in the volcanic and sedimentary rocks.
Project Site T Undivided Tertiary N Neogene Volcanic Rocks
Figure 1. Geological Map of the Project Site (USGS, 2000)

3. TECTONIC ACTIVITY AND SEISMICITY
The Philippines is located in the Pacific Ring of Fire, an area in the Pacific Ocean characterized by
frequent tectonic activity and volcanic eruptions. The country sits at the boundary of several tectonic
plates, including the Pacific Plate, the Eurasian Plate, and the Philippine Sea Plate. The complex
interaction between these plates has led to the tectonic activity and seismicity of the Philippines.
The tectonic activity in the Philippines is manifested through the presence of several active faults,
including the Philippine Fault System, which runs through the length of the country, and the Philippine
Trench, which is the deepest part of the Philippine Sea. These faults can generate earthquakes of
magnitudes up to 8.0 and have caused several significant earthquakes in the past.
According to the HazardHunterPH, an online-based tool that can generate indicative hazard assessment
reports developed by GeoRisk Philippines, the nearest active fault to the project site is the Leyte Segment
of the Philippine Fault, which is approximately 2.10 kilometers northeast of the project site, as shown in
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Distance of the Project Site from the Nearest Active Fault (PHIVOLCS)

The faults that may generate the maximum moment magnitude were computed based on the formula
from the empirical study of Wells and Coppersmith (1994):
log 𝑆𝑅𝐿 = 𝑎 + 𝑏 x 𝑀
Where:
SRL = surface rupture length of the fault
a and b = regression coefficients (which vary for each type of fault)
M = maximum moment magnitude
According to the equation above, the Leyte Segment of the Philippine Fault, the nearest active fault in
the project site, may generate an earthquake with a maximum moment magnitude of 7.7. With this
information, the structural engineer may refer to NSCP 2015 Table 208-4 provided in Table 1 of this
report, which identifies the seismic source type according to the maximum moment magnitude. Since
the nearby fault is classified as active, these can be categorized as seismic source type A.
Table 1. Seismic Source Types

Seismic Source
Seismic Definition
Seismic Source Description
Source Type Maximum Moment
Magnitude, M
Faults that are capable of producing large
A magnitude events and that have a high rate 7.0 ≤ M ≤ 8.4
of seismic activity.
B All faults other than Types A and C. 6.5 ≤ M ≤ 7.0
Faults that are not capable of producing large

C magnitude earthquakes and that have a M < 6.5
relatively low rate of seismic activity.

3.1 Ground Shaking
In the event of an earthquake, the ground shaking hazard map of Kananga, Leyte in Figure 3 shows that
the project site may be affected by a destructive (Intensity VII) ground shaking, a disruptive up, down,
and sideways vibration of the ground. The effects of ground shaking may include damage or collapse of
structures and, consequently, cause a landslide. These can be mitigated by following the provisions of
the National Building Code and the Structural Code of the Philippines (Source: PHIVOLCS).
Project Site
Figure 3. Ground Shaking Hazard Map of Kananga, Leyte (PHIVOLCS)

3.2 Ground Rupture
Ground rupture is a displacement along an active fault trace that reaches the surface, and the
assessment is based on the distance to the nearest known active fault. Since the project site is
approximately 2.10 kilometers from the Leyte Segment of the Philippine Fault, it is considered safe from
ground rupture, based on the ground rupture hazard map shown in Figure 4. The recommended buffer
zone, or Zone of Avoidance, against ground rupture hazard, is at least 5 meters on both sides of the
active fault or from its zone of deformation (Source: PHIVOLCS).
Project Site
Figure 4. Ground Rupture Hazard Map of Kananga, Leyte (PHIVOLCS)

3.3 Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon that occurs mainly in saturated and loose, medium to fine-grained
sands wherein a mass of soil loses a large percentage of its shear resistance when subjected to
monotonic, cyclic, or shock loading and flows in a manner resembling a liquid. Much of the damage to
substructures and foundations during earthquakes is attributed to this phenomenon. Based on the
published liquefaction hazard map of Kananga, Leyte, in Figure 5, the project site is not prone to
liquefaction.
Project Site
Figure 5. Liquefaction Hazard Map of Kananga, Leyte (PHIVOLCS)

4. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
The subsurface investigation presented in this report consists of four (4) boreholes at 15.00 meters
depth. The detailed summary of the boreholes is presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of Boreholes
Final Water GEOGRAPHIC COORDINATES

Borehole Elevation
Depth Level Date of Drilling
No. (masl)
(m) (m) Northing Easting
SY 01 - 14.92 10.00 1228917.882 463910.396 Mar. 24 - 27, 2023
SY 02 - 15.00 NIL 1229200.752 464008.900 Apr. 18 - 21, 2023
TL 01 - 15.00 11.00 1228957.465 463906.259 Mar. 28 - 30, 2023
TL 02 - 15.00 NIL 1229099.103 464010.839 Apr. 04 - 12, 2023
4.1 Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D1586)
Wash boring procedures were employed to advance the drill hole, and the Standard Penetration Test
(SPT) was done to get the underlying soils' penetration resistance profile.
For each test, a 50.8 mm outside diameter spoon sampler is driven into the soil at a distance of 450
mm utilizing a 63.5 kg driving mass falling free from a height of 762 mm.
The number of blows needed to drive the sampler is recorded, and the number of blows required to
drive the last 300 mm is taken as the N-value. Soil samples were recovered using the spoon sampler
and taken to the laboratory for analysis and testing.
4.2 Rock Coring and Sampling (ASTM D2113)
Rock coring was performed whenever Standard Penetration Test (SPT) refusal was reached. Refusal
occurs if any of the conditions are observed during standard penetration testing:
• A total of 50 blows have been applied during any of the three 15 cm increments
• A total of 100 blows have been applied for the three 15cm increments
• There is no observed advancement of the sampler during the application of 10 successive
blows of the hammer
The core recoveries were analyzed, stored in core boxes, and transported to the laboratory for strength
tests. The rock quality designation (RQD) was recorded in a similar method given as follows:
𝑆𝑢𝑚 𝑜𝑓 100𝑚𝑚 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠

𝑅𝑄𝐷 = 𝑥 100%
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑢𝑛

5. LABORATORY TESTING
5.1 Determination of Moisture Content (ASTM D2216)
This method covers the laboratory determination of the moisture content of soil by weight. The moisture
content is defined as the ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the mass of pore water in a given mass
of material to the mass of the solid material particles.
5.2 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318)
This test method covers the determination of the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of soils.
The liquid limit of soil is the water content, expressed as a percentage of the weight of the oven-dried
soil after attaining the condition between the liquid and plastic states.
The soils were mixed with varying amounts of water for multiple trials to produce soil pats that will be
tested on the Liquid Limit Device. The number of blows to close the groove was recorded, along with
the moisture content of the soil. A semi-logarithmic graph was plotted from the different trials' moisture
content and the number of blows. The liquid limit corresponds to the moisture content at 25 blows.
The plastic limit of soil is the water content, expressed as a percentage of the mass of the oven-dried
soil after attaining the condition between the plastic and semi-solid states.
The soil from the liquid limit test was subjected to alternate spreading and mixing to reduce the moisture
content until the soil could be rolled without sticking. The soil was repeatedly kneaded and rolled into
3.2 mm diameter threads until the soil crumbled. The plastic limit corresponds to the moisture content
of the threads obtained from oven drying. The plasticity index is defined as the difference between the
liquid and plastic limits of the soil.
5.3 Sieve Analysis (ASTM D422)
The method covers the quantitative determination of the distribution of particle sizes of soils. The soil
was passed through a series of sieves, and the weight retained in each sieve was recorded. A gradation
curve was drawn for each sample analyzed based on the percent finer weight.
For particle sizes smaller than 75µm, distribution is determined by a sedimentation process using a
hydrometer.

5.4 Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487)
This standard describes a system for classifying mineral and organo-mineral soils for engineering
purposes based on laboratory determination of particle size characteristics, liquid limit, and plasticity
index.
5.5 Unconfined Compressive Test for Intact Rock (ASTM D7012)
The test method involves applying a uniaxial compressive load to cylindrical rock specimens, typically
with a length-to-diameter ratio of 2:1, using a testing machine under controlled stress and temperature
conditions.
The test was done by placing rock specimens in a loading machine. An axial load was applied
continuously under a nearly constant strain rate. The deformation readings for a minimum of 10 load
levels were recorded. The test was terminated when the load became constant, was reduced, or a
predetermined amount of strain was achieved. The maximum load sustained by the specimen was
recorded, and the uniaxial compressive strength was taken as the failure load over the cross-sectional
area of the specimen.
6. RESULTS OF SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
The subsurface soil layers at the project site are mostly made up of very poor to poor sandstones with
few layers of sand and gravel up to thicknesses of 1.00 meters to 5.50 meters.
Table 3 to Table 6 present the idealized subsurface profiles at the four (4) borehole locations.
Table 3. Idealized Subsurface Profile at SY 01
Water
Depth Range Consistency / Relative
Level Lithology
(mbgl) Condition
(mbgl)
0.00 - 7.50 Very Poor SANDSTONE
7.50 - 9.00 Dense SAND

10.00
10.50 - 14.92 Very Dense SAND

Table 4. Idealized Subsurface Profile at SY 02
Water
Level Lithology
(mbgl) Condition
(mbgl)
NIL 0.00 - 15.00 Very Poor SANDSTONE
Table 5. Idealized Subsurface Profile at TL 01
Water
Level Lithology
(mbgl) Condition
(mbgl)
0.00 - 1.00 Medium Dense GRAVEL
1.00 - 2.00 Very Poor SILTSTONE
4.00 - 5.00 Dense GRAVEL
5.00 - 6.00 Dense SAND
6.00 - 15.00 Very Poor - Poor SANDSTONE

11.00
Table 6. Idealized Subsurface Profile at TL 02
Water
Level Lithology
(mbgl) Condition
(mbgl)
NIL 0.00 - 15.00 Very Poor - Poor SANDSTONE

7. GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS
7.1 SPT N60
The geotechnical parameters of soil layers were determined from correlations with standard penetration
test blows (SPT N). Field SPT N-values were corrected using the National Center for Engineering
Earthquake Research (NCEER) recommendations. The SPT blow count was normalized to a hammer
energy of 60%, borehole diameter, rod length, and sampling method to obtain SPT N60.
The average energy transfer ratio correction factors are disclosed in the contractor's SPT Calibration
Report on a single set of SPT equipment, KOKEN 2, dated March 11, 2023. Per the calibration report,
the recommended correction factor for KOKEN 2 is 0.65, respectively. The correction for borehole
diameter is set to 1.0 as the hole diameter is within the range of 65-115 mm. The correction factor of
0.75 is also considered for rod lengths of 3 meters or shorter, up to unity for lengths greater than 10
meters. Lastly, no correction for the sampler size was applied as ASTM standard sampler was used in
the project.
SPT N60 was kept to a maximum value of 50 to indicate penetration refusal. The SPT N60 values on
each borehole were plotted against depth (mbgl), as presented in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Depth vs. SPT N60 Graph
7.2 Cohesion
Correlations are made from the corrected SPT N-value (N60) to estimate the unconfined compressive
strength (qu) of clays using the equation of Hara et al. (1971).
𝑆𝑢 = 0.29 × (𝑁60 )0.72 × 𝑃𝑎
Where:
Pa = atmospheric pressure = 100 kPa
The cohesion is calculated by using half the value of the unconfined compressive strength.

7.3 Angle of Internal Friction
The angle of internal friction of granular soils is correlated with the corrected SPT N-value by Peck et al.
(1974) and was mathematically approximated by Wolff (1989).
Φ = 27.1 + 0.3(𝑁60 ) − 0.00054(𝑁60 )2
7.4 Dry Unit Weight
The dry unit weight (γd) can be expressed as follows:
𝐺𝑠 × 𝛾𝑤
𝛾𝑑 =
1+𝑒
Where:
Gs = specific gravity of soil solids
γw = unit weight of water = 9.81 kN/m3
e = initial void ratio
According to the Federal Highway Administration (2006), for routine computations, the value of Gs for
cohesionless soils may be 2.65, while cohesive soils usually range from 2.50 to 2.90 with an average
value of 2.70.
The recommended geotechnical parameters considering processed borehole data and correlations
disclosed above are presented in Table 7 to Table 10.
Table 7. Recommended Geotechnical Parameters at SY 01
Dry Unit Angle of

Depth Range Cohesion
Lithology Weight Internal
(mbgl) 3 (kPa)
(kN/m ) Friction (deg)
0.00 - 7.50 SANDSTONE 19 - 33 - 34
7.50 - 9.00 SAND 18 - 34
9.00 - 10.50 SANDSTONE 19 - 35
10.50 - 14.92 SAND 18 - 35

Table 8. Recommended Geotechnical Parameters at SY 02
Dry Unit Angle of

(mbgl) 3 (kPa)
0.00 - 15.00 SANDSTONE 19 - 33 - 35
Table 9. Recommended Geotechnical Parameters at TL 01
Dry Unit Angle of

(mbgl) (kPa)
(kN/m3) Friction (deg)
0.00 - 1.00 GRAVEL 17 - 30
1.00 - 2.00 SILTSTONE 19 - 33
2.00 - 4.00 SANDSTONE 19 - 33
4.00 - 5.00 GRAVEL 17 - 31
5.00 - 6.00 SAND 16 - 32
6.00 - 15.00 SANDSTONE 19 - 34 - 35
Table 10. Recommended Geotechnical Parameters at TL 02
Dry Unit Angle of

(mbgl) 3 (kPa)
0.00 - 15.00 SANDSTONE 19 - 33 - 35

8. SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
8.1 Peak Ground Acceleration
Calculating the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) coefficient using the Fukushima and Tanaka attenuation
model, using a surface wave magnitude of 7.7 from the Leyte Segment of the Philippine Fault, and
considering stiff soil condition, the PGA coefficient is 0.640g.
The Fukushima and Tanaka attenuation model is a function of the surface-wave magnitude and the
shortest distance between the project site and the seismic source generator. The general functional
form of this attenuation relation is given by:
𝑙𝑜𝑔10 (𝐴) = 0.41𝑀 − log[𝑅 + 0.032(100.41𝑀 )] − 0.0034𝑅 + 1.30
Where:
A = mean of the peak acceleration from two horizontal components at each site (cm/sec2)
R = shortest distance between site and fault rupture (km)
M = the surface-wave magnitude (also referred to as Ms)
Correction factors are applied to the mean peak acceleration depending on the type of foundation
material: rock, 0.60; hard soil, 0.87; medium soil,1.07; and soft soil, 1.39.
8.2 NSCP 2015 Provisions
In the seismic analysis and design of the proposed structures, a zone factor of 0.4 is recommended
based on the recommendation of the National Structural Code of the Philippines (2015). As to the soil
type, it will be prudent to consider SD in the analysis.
As mentioned earlier, in the Leyte Segment of the Philippine Fault, a Type A seismic source with a fault
distance of approximately 2.10 km from the project site, the near-source factors, Na and Nv, are 1.49
and 1.99, while the seismic coefficients, Ca and Cv, are 0.44Na and 0.64Nv, respectively.
8.3 Liquefaction Assessment
Liquefaction is the loss of soil's shear strength under cyclic loadings commonly induced by earthquakes.
Methods used to analyze the liquefaction susceptibility of recovered materials in the investigation are as
follows:
• Preliminary screening using field data (SPT N, fines content, and Atterberg Limits) in
accordance with DPWH LRFD Bridge Seismic Design Specifications
• Further assessment via GeoLogismiki's LiqSVs v2.3.2.5 software

8.3.1 Preliminary Screening
Liquefaction and related phenomena have been responsible for tremendous damage in historical
earthquakes worldwide. According to the US Geological Survey (USGS), liquefaction is a phenomenon
in which the strength and stiffness of soil are reduced by earthquake shaking or other rapid loadings. It
often occurs on the loose to medium dense saturated soil layers with poor drainage. The granular
material is transformed from solid to liquefied due to increased pore-water pressure and reduced
effective stress. The event is accompanied by a loss of shear strength leading to large ground
deformations beneath the foundation.
Preliminary screening for liquefiable layers is assessed according to accepted practice and institutional
design specifications (i.e., ASCE 7-22, DPWH LRFD Bridge Design Specifications 2013). The following
criteria are as follows:
• Saturated soils with SPT N-values of less than 25

• Saturated soil layer with a depth less than 20 m below the ground surface and having
groundwater level higher than 10 m below the ground surface
• Soil layer containing a fine content (FC) of 35% or less, or soil layer having plasticity index,
PI, less than 15, even if FC is larger than 35%
• Soil layer having a mean particle size (D50) of less than 10 mm and a particle size at 10%
passing (D10) (on the grading curve) is less than 1 mm
8.3.2 GeoLogismiki LiqSVs v2.3.2.5
LiqSVs is a software application developed by the Greek company GeoLogismiki to assess further soil
liquefaction based on the data from the preliminary screening tests. It is important to note that only soils
that passed the preliminary screening tests are subjected to further assessment. The calculation
procedure invoked is divided into the following five (5) steps:
1. Field SPT N-value is used for the evaluation of Cyclic Ratio Resistance (CRR) which is the
soil strength
2. The seismic load is expressed through cyclic stress ratio (CSR)
3. Calculation of factor of safety against liquefaction
4. Estimation of post-liquefaction-induced settlements
5. Assessment of the overall liquefaction potential
Based on the preliminary screening guidelines, no further analysis is required for the project site as all
boreholes' data do not show liquefiable conditions.

9. SHALLOW FOUNDATION
The net allowable bearing capacity is defined as the lesser of the pressure that will result in a shear
failure divided by a factor of safety of 3.0 using Meyerhof's equation or the pressure that results in a
maximum 25 mm settlement using Schmertmann's settlement calculation. Interpolation is then advised
to cover the remaining net allowable bearing capacity combinations. Liquefaction settlement, which can
occur during an earthquake, is treated separately in determining the shallow bearing capacity.
The shear failure criterion for the project site governs the net allowable bearing capacity. According to
NSCP 2015, the recommended allowable bearing capacity for isolated spread footings should be at least
75 kPa. An increase of one-third (1/3) is permitted when considering wind or earthquake loads.
The minimum embedment depth is 1.0 m at the SY area and 3.0 at the TL area. Moreover, spread
footings with tie beams, strip footings, mat foundations, or ground improvements such as densification,
soil replacement, aggregate columns, and grouting techniques may be opted for depending on the
foundation loads and their distribution.
Table 11 to Table 14 present the net allowable bearing capacities for the shallow foundations for isolated
square footing widths presented below.

Table 11. Net Allowable Bearing Capacity at SY 01
Footing Embedment Net Allowable Bearing Modulus of Subgrade

3
Width (m) Depth (m) Capacity (kPa) Reaction (kN/m )
1.0 63 7582
1.5 91 10895
2.0 2.0 125 14967
2.5 164 19665
3.0 205 24637
1.0 73 8764
1.5 99 11900
3.0 2.0 126 15167
2.5 159 19106
3.0 195 23355
1.0 85 10208
1.5 109 13043
4.0 2.0 134 16029
2.5 165 19822
3.0 195 23442

Table 12. Net Allowable Bearing Capacity at SY 02

3
1.0 63 7582
1.5 91 10895
2.0 2.0 125 14967
2.5 164 19665
3.0 205 24637
1.0 73 8764
1.5 99 11900
3.0 2.0 126 15167
2.5 159 19106
3.0 195 23355
1.0 85 10208
1.5 109 13043
4.0 2.0 134 16029
2.5 165 19822
3.0 195 23442

Table 13. Net Allowable Bearing Capacity at TL 01

3
3.0 175 21009
3.5 205 24589
5.0 4.0 235 28211
4.5 266 31869
5.0 300 35969
3.0 185 22248
3.5 211 25378
6.0 4.0 240 28793
4.5 271 32559
5.0 300 35973
3.0 195 23343
3.5 220 26358
7.0 4.0 249 29850
4.5 277 33186
5.0 303 36394

Table 14. Net Allowable Bearing Capacity at TL 02

3
3.0 186 22358
3.5 225 26978
3.0 4.0 264 31634
4.5 312 37454
5.0 358 42921
3.0 187 22442
3.5 221 26529
4.0 4.0 257 30819
4.5 296 35537
5.0 335 40190
3.0 192 23097
3.5 225 27025
5.0 4.0 256 30721
4.5 292 34984
5.0 328 39305
10. EARTHWORKS ISSUES
10.1 Excavatibility
Excavatibility depends on the excavation method to be used as well as the material properties. The
relative strength of a material is one key indicator in assessing excavation requirements.
The soils within the depth of excavation for the foundations will consist of sandstones with very poor
rock quality designation, and the likely excavation requirement will be easy ripping, as referred to by
Look (2014).

10.2 Slopes
Hoerner (1990), shown in Table 15 and Table 16, suggests a general guide of excavated and fill slopes
should there be low to medium height slopes. It is important to note that the table below assumes no
surcharge is applied at the top of the slope, and benches may be required. As a result, it is recommended
that a separate slope stability assessment be conducted for any slopes as part of the development plan.
Table 15. Typical batters of excavated slopes (Hoerner, 1990).

Slope batters (Vertical : Horizontal)
Material
Permanent Temporary
Massive rock 1.5V:1H to Vertical 1.5V:1H to Vertical
Well jointed/bedded rock 1V:2H to 2V:1H 1V:2H to 2V:1H
Gravel 1V:2H to 1V:1H 1V:2H to 1V:1H
Sand 1V:2.5H to 1V:1.5H 1V:2.5H to 1V:1H
Clay 1V:6H to 1V:2H 1V:2H to 2V:1H
Table 16. Typical batters of fill slopes (Hoerner, 1990)
Material Slope batters (Vertical : Horizontal)

Hard rock fill 1V:1.5H to 1V:1H
Weak rock fill 1V:2H to 1V:1.25H
Gravel 1V:2H to 1V:1.25H
Sand 1V:2.5H to 1V:1.5H
Clay 1V:4H to 1V:1.5H
10.3 Engineered Fill and Embankment Formation
The requirements for lifting dimensions, compaction, and soil physical properties should be followed
when constructing engineered fill. The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), the agency's
"blue book," has a comprehensive list of requirements for constructing an acceptable engineered fill.
When fill formation for road embankments is required, the following general steps are recommended
(after DPWH guidelines):
• The existing topsoil layer containing vegetation like grass and possible organic materials at
the project site shall be cleared and grubbed to a minimum depth of 150 mm.
• The exposed surface shall be proof rolled, and the soft areas identified that cannot be
improved by additional compaction shall be removed and replaced with relatively superior
materials.

• Backfill materials shall be placed in horizontal layers not exceeding 200 mm in loose
measurement and shall be compacted as specified (typically 90 to 95% of MDD) before the
next layer is placed.
• Effective spreading equipment shall be used in each lift to obtain uniform thickness before
compaction.
• As the compaction of each layer progresses, continuous leveling and manipulation will be
required to ensure uniform density.
• Water content shall be added or reduced (90% MDD is recommended for roads) to attain the
required density.
In addition to compaction effort or energy, the suitability of fill materials is equally important in ensuring
the soil materials can be compacted to the specifications with relative ease. The US Department of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration (DOT-FHWA) provides a guide that particle sizes must
not exceed 100 mm and fine particles (< 0.075 mm) less than 15% by weight.
The coefficient of uniformity (Cu) and coefficient of curvature (Cc) gives information on the spread of
gradation of coarse-grained soils. The criteria for sands are Cu ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3. As a general rule,
well-graded soil materials are most desirable. Adequate sampling and field density testing of the
constructed fill material should be conducted to ensure the quality of materials and compaction. Trial
mixtures for possible blending of several sources can be undertaken to establish proper proportioning.
The issued selection should have the following soil properties:
Property Acceptance Criteria

Unit Weight (kN/m3) 18
Passing Sieve #200 max 15%
Liquid Limit max 30%
Plasticity Index max 6%

11. LIMITATIONS
This geotechnical evaluation report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation, which includes
four (4) boreholes carried out at the project site by A.M. Geoconsult & Associates, Inc.
This report has been prepared specifically for the Client and other stakeholders. Its scope is limited to
this project and location described herein and represents the author's understanding of the significant
aspects relevant to this report's soil and foundation considerations. Information contained in this report
should not be construed as appropriate for any other purposes or users.
The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based in part upon the data obtained
from a limited number of soil samples from widely spaced subsurface soil explorations. The nature and
extent of variations between explorations may not become evident until construction or further
investigation.
In the event that others make conclusions or recommendations on the data contained in this report,
such conclusions or recommendations are not the responsibility of the undersigned. In addition, this
report has been prepared to aid the Structural Design Engineers in designing the specific project. Its
scope is limited to this project and location described herein. It represents our understanding of the
significant aspects relevant to the soil and foundation considerations as occurred in this study.
All geotechnical parameters are derived from the field or laboratory tests, established correlations, and
engineering judgment of the undersigned. If there are any differences in location and design features,
the undersigned should be informed so that modifications or revisions of the conclusions and
recommendations can be made.
Prepared By:
Loren Margaret C. Palad, RCE, RSE, M.ASCE
Civil-Geotechnical Engineer
PRC C.E. Reg. No.: 0188890
PRC Reg. Valid Until: 07/20/2026
PTR O.R. No.: 5231440
Issued at Cebu City, Cebu

12. REFERENCES
Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, Inc. (2015). National Structural Code of the
Philippines (Vols. I Buildings, Towers and Other Vertical Structures).
Geological Survey of Japan. (2010). Geologic Map of the Philippines, Leyte Sheet (No. 10-2). Scale
1:250,000.
GeoRisk Philippines. (n.d.). Hazard Hunter PH HAZARD ASSESSMENT AT YOUR FINGERTIPS.

Retrieved from Hazard Hunter PH HAZARD ASSESSMENT AT YOUR FINGERTIPS:
https://hazardhunter.georisk.gov.ph/map
Look, B. (2014). Handbook of Geotechnical Investigation and Design Tables, Second edition. London:
Taylor & Francis Group.
Mines and Geosciences Bureau. (2019). Geology of Leyte Island. Retrieved from
https://www.mgb.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Geology-of-Leyte-Island.pdf
Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology. (n.d.). Eastern Visayas Volcanic Arc. Retrieved
March 29, 2023, from https://www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/index.php/volcano-hazard/volcano-
information/phivolcs-volcano-directory/6247-eastern-visayas-volcanic-arc
Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology. (n.d.). Leyte Volcanic Group. Retrieved from
https://www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/index.php/leyte-volcanic-group
Ramos, N. T., & Dimalanta, C. B. (2015). Geology of the Philippine Islands: An overview. Geosciences
Journal, 19(5), 673-686.
Ramos, N. T., Yumul, G. P. Jr., Dimalanta, C. B., Faustino-Eslava, D. V., Marquez, E. J., Pagaduan, J.
R., ... & Tamayo, R. A. (2018). Active tectonics and seismic hazards in the Philippine Fault Zone and
Eastern Visayas Region. Springer, Cham. In Active Tectonics of the World (pp. 259-290).
Sowers, G. F. (1979). Introductory soil mechanics and foundations. New York: Macmillan.
Wells, D. L., & Coppersmith, K. J. (1994). New Empirical Relationships among Magnitude, Rupture
Length, Rupture Width, Rupture Area, and Surface Displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological Society
of America, 974-1002.

13. APPENDICES
13.1 Site Layout Plan View

13.2 Borehole Location Plan

Final Borehole Logs

and Laboratory
Results
A.M. GEOCONSULT AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
FINAL BORING LOG

ASTM D1586-08a, ASTM D1587-08, ASTM D2113-08
Project Name: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION , SAMPLING AND LABORATORY TESTING OF MAHANAGDONG LEYTE
Project Location: LEYTE
Client: FIRST BALFOUR, INC. Project Reference #: 2301FBI1
Client's Address: KM19 WEST SERVICE ROAD, BRGY. MARCELO GREEN SUCAT, PARAÑAQUE CITY
Consultant: - Contact Number: -
Sampling Location: LGBU MAHANAGDONG BASE 42
Date of Sampling: DS: 3/24/23 ; DF: 3/27/23 Borehole Number: SY-01
Site Topography: FLAT Borehole Depth (m): 15.00
Weather Condition: SUNNY AND RAINY Ground Elevation (m): -
Coordinates: 1228917.882 N, 463910.396 E Ground Water Level (m): 10.00
Station: - Date/Time Measured: 3/28/23
Type of Drilling Machine: KOKEN-2 Drilling Orientation: VERTICAL
Type of Hammer: MANUAL Type of Drill Pump: NS-50
DEPTH SAMPLING SAMPLE TYPE OF REC. RQD SPT BLOWS N- N-VALUE (Graphical) CONSISTENCY/ SOIL
RQD SOIL DESCRIPTION REMARKS
(m) DEPTH (m) ID SAMPLING (%) (%) PER 15 cm VALUE 10 20 30 40 50 >50 DESCRIPTION SYMBOL
0.00
1.00 1.00 CS1 9 0 - - - - VERY POOR Gray, SANDSTONE
1.00
2.00 2.00 CS2 12 0 - - - - VERY POOR Light Gray to Pale Red, SANDSTONE
2.00
3.00 3.00 CS3 6 0 - - - - VERY POOR Dark Reddish Gray, SANDSTONE
3.00
4.00 4.00 CS4 6 0 - - - - VERY POOR Bluish Gray, SANDSTONE
4.00
5.00 5.00 CS5 12 0 - - - - VERY POOR Dusky Red & Gray, SANDSTONE
5.00
6.00 6.00 CS6 10 0 - - - - VERY POOR Dusky Red & Gray, SANDSTONE
6.00
7.50 7.50 CS7 7 0 - - - - VERY POOR Grayish Brown, SANDSTONE
8.55 Grayish Brown

9.00 9.00 SS1 33 - 8 12 28 40 DENSE Poorly-graded SAND with Gravel (SP )
9.00 Brownish to Dark Bluish Gray,

10.50 10.50 CS8 17 0 - - - - VERY POOR SANDSTONE
11.55
12.00 12.00 SS2 NR - 16 27 46 73 VERY HARD NO RECOVERY
12.00 Grayish Brown

12.45 12.45 SS3 44 - 12 21 36 57 VERY DENSE Silty SAND (SM )
Grayish Brown
13.05 Poorly-graded SAND with Gravel (SP-
13.50 13.50 SS4 40 - 18 24 31 55 VERY DENSE SM )
14.55 Brown
15.00 14.92 SS5 18 - 24 36 50/7 86/7 VERY DENSE Silty SAND (SM )
TYPES OF SAMPLING TYPES OF SOIL COHESIVE SOIL GRANULAR SOIL ROCK QUALITY
DESIGNATION (RQD)
Wash Boring Clay N-VALUE Consistency N-VALUE Density
LEGENDS, Coring Sand 0 -1 Very Soft 0-4 Very Loose RQD % Description
2 -4 Soft 5 - 10 Loose < 25 Very poor
SYMBOLS, AND Undisturbed Sampling Silt
5 -8 Medium Stiff 11 - 24 Medium Dense 25 - 50 Poor
RANGE OF VALUES Standard Penetration Test Gravel 9 - 15 Stiff 25 - 50 Dense 51 - 75 Fair
Shell 16 - 30 Very Stiff > 50 Very Dense 76 - 90 Good
Coring 31 - 50 Hard > 90 Excellent
> 50 Very Hard
Sizes and type of the samplers used are shown in the Field Boring Log
Performed by: DEXSYN MOLINA

Senior Driller
Checked by: CHRISTIAN IBAÑEZ

DPWH-BRS ACCREDITED
Technical Manager
TESTING LABORATORY
Approved by: REMEDIOS SOLDAO 2301FBI1_RFBL_SY-01_0

Head of Engineering Department Page 1 of 1
THIS TEST REPORT SHOULD NOT BE COPIED, ALTERED, DIVULGED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM A.M. GEOCONSULT & ASSOCIATES, INC.
R-PABH v.2 - A.M. Geoconsult and Associates, Inc. #12 South Zuzuarregui Street, Old Balara, Quezon City 1119. (02) 7968 7816
SUMMARY OF BOREHOLE TEST RESULTS

Project Name: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION , SAMPLING AND LABORATORY TESTING OF MAHANAGDONG LEYTE Borehole Number: SY-01
Project Location: LEYTE Borehole Depth (m): 15.00
Client: FIRST BALFOUR, INC. Project Reference #: 2301FBI1 Coordinates: 1228917.882 N, 463910.396 E
Client's Address: KM19 WEST SERVICE ROAD, BRGY. MARCELO GREEN SUCAT, PARAÑAQUE CITY Station: -
Sampling Location: LGBU MAHANAGDONG BASE 42 Sampling Proc./Date: ASTM D1586-08a/ASTM D1587-08; 3/24/23
Site Topography: FLAT Weather Condition: SUNNY AND RAINY Date of Testing: 3/31/23
ATTERBERG
HYDROMETER
PERFORMED?
CONTENT (%)
PARTICLE SIZE GRADING (CUMULATIVE % PASSING) *CONSOLIDATION
MOISTURE
SAMPLE SAMPLE USCS LIMITS SPECIFIC *TRIAXIAL
UCT (MPa) 2
ID DEPTH (m) SYMBOL 3" 2 1/2" 2" 1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #40 #100 #200 GRAVITY (kg/cm )
LL (%) PI (%) ео CC
(75.00 mm) (63.00 mm) (50.00 mm) (37.50 mm) (25.00 mm) (19.00 mm) (9.50 mm) (4.75 mm) (2.00 mm) (0.425 mm) (0.150 mm) (0.075 mm)
CS1 0.00-1.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS2 1.00-2.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS3 2.00-3.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS4 3.00-4.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS5 4.00-5.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS6 5.00-6.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS7 6.00-7.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SS1 8.55-9.00 SP NL NP 19.5 - - - - 100 88 80 71 49 9 5 3 NO - - - - -
CS8 9.00-10.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SS2 11.55-12.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SS3 12.00-12.45 SM NL NP 23.0 - - - - - 100 97 94 85 50 18 14 NO - - - - -
SS4 13.05-13.50 SP-SM NL NP 16.9 - - - - - 100 94 92 80 39 17 12 NO - - - - -
SS5 14.55-14.92 SM NL NP 37.2 - - - - - - 100 97 88 76 49 43 NO - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
*Test/s are not ISO/IEC 17025:2008 Accredited
Encoded by: MARY ROSE ORTEGA Approved by: REMEDIOS SOLDAO

Office Engineer Head of Engineering Department
DPWH-BRS ACCREDITED
Checked by: CHRISTIAN IBAÑEZ TESTING LABORATORY
Tehnical Manager
2301FBI1_RSBHT_SY-01_0
Page 1 of 1
R-SBHT v.1 - A.M. Geoconsult and Associates, Inc. #12 South Zuzuarregui Street, Old Balara, Quezon City 1119. (02) 7968 7816
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS AND ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM) TEST REPORT
Sampling Procedure/Date: ASTM D1586-08a/ASTM D1587-08; 3/24/23 Borehole Number: SY-01
Coordinates: 1228917.882 N, 463910.396 E Sample ID: SS1
Station: - Sample Depth (m): 8.55 - 9.00
Date of Testing: 3/31/23
LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT, AND PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS - ASTM D4318-10
Multipoint Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Figure 1. Flow Curve

Trial Number 1 2 3 1 2 1.00
Can Number 0 0 0 0 0 0.80
Moisture Content (%)

Wet Soil + Can (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dry Soil + Can (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60
Mass of Can (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Moisture Loss (g) 0.40
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mass of Dry Soil (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20
Moisture Content (%) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Number of Blows 0 0 0 Ave. PL 0.00
NP 10 15 20 25 30 35
Liquid Limit (%) NL (%):
Number of Blows
Plasticity Index (%) NP
MOISTURE CONTENT OF SOILS -

PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS - ASTM D422-63 (2007)
ASTM D2216-05
Mechanical Method Hydrometer Method

Particle Diam. Cum. Mass Cum. % Cum. % Coverage Particle Diam. Percent Wet Soil + Can (g): 187.33
Sieve # (mm) Ret. (g)
U95
(mm)
Retained Passing Factor (k) Finer (%) Dry Soil + Can (g): 160.03
3" 75.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - - Mass of Can (g): 19.76
2 1/2" 63.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - - Moisture Loss (g): 27.30
2" 50.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - - Original Dry Mass (g): 140.27
1 1/2" 37.500 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - - Moisture Content (%): 19.5
1" 25.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - -
3/4" 19.000 16.35 11.66 88.34 ±0.01 1.96 - -
3/8" 9.500 27.48 19.59 80.41 ±0.01 1.96 - -
#4 4.750 40.02 28.53 71.47 ±0.08 1.96 *for uncertainty values, refer to
attached Hydrometer Test SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
#10 2.000 71.83 51.21 48.79 ±0.12 1.96 Report
#40 0.425 127.50 90.90 9.10 ±0.81 1.96
#100 0.150 133.68 95.30 4.70 ±1.15 1.96
#200 0.075 135.42 96.54 3.46 ±1.4 1.96 Moisture Content (%): 19.5
U95x ±0.02
kx 1.96
Figure 2. Particle Size Distribution Curve
Liquid Limit (%): NL
100 U95x -
90 kx -
Cumulative Percentage Passing
80 Plastic Limit (%): NP

70 U95x -
60 kx -
50 Plasticity Index (%): NP
40 Specific Gravity: -
30 * for uncertainty value, refer to attached
Specific Gravity of Soils Test Report
20
10 USCS Symbol: SP
0
100.0000 10.0000 1.0000 0.1000 0.0100 0.0010 0.0001 Soil Description:
Particle Diameter (mm) Grayish Brown, Poorly-graded SAND
Cobbles
Coarse to Medium Fine with Gravel

Gravel Silt Clay
Sand
*Special specimen selection, sample description and sample preparation of all tests are presented in the Laboratory Worksheet.
Peformed by: DANILO DELAN

Senior Laboratory Technician
Checked by: CHRISTIAN IBAÑEZ DPWH-BRS ACCREDITED

Technical Manager TESTING LABORATORY
Approved by: REMEDIOS SOLDAO 2301FBI1_RPABH_SY-01_0

Station: - Sample Depth (m): 12 - 12.45

Can Number 0 0 0 0 0 0.80

Wet Soil + Can (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dry Soil + Can (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60
Mass of Can (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mass of Dry Soil (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20
NP 10 15 20 25 30 35
Number of Blows

ASTM D2216-05

U95
(mm)
3" 75.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - - Mass of Can (g): 19.58
2 1/2" 63.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - - Moisture Loss (g): 36.21
1" 25.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - -
3/4" 19.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - -
3/8" 9.500 5.18 3.29 96.71 ±0.01 1.96 - -
#10 2.000 23.59 14.97 85.03 ±0.1 1.96 Report
#40 0.425 79.18 50.25 49.75 ±0.72 1.96
#100 0.150 128.73 81.70 18.30 ±1.02 1.96
U95x ±0.01
kx 1.96
100 U95x -
90 kx -

70 U95x -
60 kx -
20
10 USCS Symbol: SM
0
Particle Diameter (mm)
Cobbles
Coarse to Medium Fine Grayish Brown, Silty SAND

Gravel Silt Clay
Sand




Can Number 0 0 0 0 0 0.80

Wet Soil + Can (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dry Soil + Can (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60
Mass of Can (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mass of Dry Soil (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20
NP 10 15 20 25 30 35
Number of Blows

ASTM D2216-05

U95
(mm)
3" 75.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - - Mass of Can (g): 19.85
2 1/2" 63.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - - Moisture Loss (g): 24.40
1" 25.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - -
3/4" 19.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - -
3/8" 9.500 7.96 5.51 94.49 ±0.01 1.96 - -
#10 2.000 28.96 20.04 79.96 ±0.11 1.96 Report
#40 0.425 88.65 61.35 38.65 ±0.79 1.96
#100 0.150 119.58 82.75 17.25 ±1.11 1.96
U95x ±0.02
kx 1.96
100 U95x -
90 kx -

70 U95x -
60 kx -
20
10 USCS Symbol: SP-SM
0
Particle Diameter (mm) Grayish Brown, Poorly-graded SAND
Cobbles
Coarse to Medium Fine with Gravel

Gravel Silt Clay
Sand




Can Number 0 0 0 0 0 0.80

Wet Soil + Can (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dry Soil + Can (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60
Mass of Can (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mass of Dry Soil (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20
NP 10 15 20 25 30 35
Number of Blows

ASTM D2216-05

U95
(mm)
3" 75.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - - Mass of Can (g): 19.08
2 1/2" 63.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - - Moisture Loss (g): 24.43
1" 25.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - -
3/4" 19.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - -
3/8" 9.500 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - -
#10 2.000 8.10 12.34 87.66 ±0.25 1.96 Report
#40 0.425 16.05 24.45 75.55 ±1.73 1.96
#100 0.150 33.55 51.11 48.89 ±2.45 1.96
#200 0.075 37.44 57.04 42.96 ±3 1.96 Moisture Content (%): 37.2
U95x ±0.04
kx 1.96
100 U95x -
90 kx -

70 U95x -
60 kx -
20
10 USCS Symbol: SM
0
Cobbles
Coarse to Medium Fine Brown, Silty SAND

Gravel Silt Clay
Sand



FINAL BORING LOG

Date of Sampling: DS: 4/18/23 ; DF: 4/21/23 Borehole Number: SY-02
Coordinates: 1229200.752 N, 464008.900 E Ground Water Level (m): NO WATER ENCOUNTERED
Type of Drilling Machine: TOHO-5 Drilling Orientation: VERTICAL
0.00
1.00 1.00 CS1 8 0 - - - - VERY POOR Gray & Reddish Gray, SANDSTONE
1.00 Dark Reddish Gray & Gray,

2.00


5.00
6.00
7.50 7.50 CS7 6 0 - - - - VERY POOR Gray & Reddish Gray, SANDSTONE
7.50
9.00
10.50
12.00 12.00 CS10 29 24.7 - - - - VERY POOR Bluish Gray, SANDSTONE
12.00
13.50 13.50 CS11 25 8 - - - - VERY POOR Bluish Gray, SANDSTONE
13.50
DESIGNATION (RQD)
> 50 Very Hard
Performed by: JAY ARANAS

Senior Driller

DPWH-BRS ACCREDITED
Technical Manager
TESTING LABORATORY
Approved by: REMEDIOS SOLDAO 2301FBI1_RFBL_SY-02_0


Project Name: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION , SAMPLING AND LABORATORY TESTING OF MAHANAGDONG LEYTE Borehole Number: SY-02
ATTERBERG
HYDROMETER
PERFORMED?
CONTENT (%)
MOISTURE
UCT (MPa) 2
CS1 0.00-1.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS2 1.00-2.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS3 2.00-3.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS4 3.00-4.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS5 4.00-5.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS6 5.00-6.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS7 6.00-7.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS8 7.50-9.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS9 9.00-10.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS10 10.50-12.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 29.34 - - -
CS11 12.00-13.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS12 13.50-15.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DPWH-BRS ACCREDITED
Tehnical Manager
2301FBI1_RSBHT_SY-02_0
Page 1 of 1
A.M. GEOCONSULT AND ASSOCIATES,INC.
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TEST OF ROCK REPORT

ASTM D2938-95 (2002)
Sampling Proc./Date: - Borehole Number: SY-02
Coordinates: 1229200.752 N, 464008.900 E Sample ID: CS10
Station: - Sample Depth: 10.50-12.00
Date of Testing: 4/29/23 Type of Sample: SANDSTONE
Length (mm): 92.26 Mass (kg) 0.3600

3
Diameter (mm): 46.58 Volume (cm ) 157.22
3
Length-Diameter Ratio: 1.98 Density (kg/cm ): 0.0023
2
Area (mm ): 1704.08
Picture of Fracture:
Compressive Load (KN) 50.00
Unconfined
Compressive Strength 29.34
(MPa)
Unconfined
(psi)
Defects in Specimen:
COLUMNAR
Performed by: JEZIEL MALILING

Checked by: ENGR. CHRISTIAN IBAÑEZ

DPWH-BRS ACCREDITED
Approved by: REMEDIOS SOLDAO 2301FBI1_RUCSRT_SY-02_0

THIS TEST REPORT SHOULD NOT BE COPIED, ALTERED, DIVULGED, OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM A.M.
GEOCONSULT & ASSOCIATES, INC.
R-UCSRT v.1 - A.M. Geoconsult and Associates. #12 South Zuzuarregui Street, Old Balara, Quezon City 1119. +63(2) 931-8883 +63(2) 932-9585.
FINAL BORING LOG

Date of Sampling: DS: 3/28/23 ; DF: 3/30/23 Borehole Number: TL-01
Coordinates: 1228957.465 N, 463906.259 E Ground Water Level (m): 11.00
Brown
0.55 Poorly-graded GRAVEL with SILT and
1.00 1.00 SS1 22 - 6 8 12 20 MEDIUM DENSE Sand (GP-GM )
1.00 Dark Reddish Gray & Brownish Gray,

2.00 2.00 CS1 7 0 - - - - VERY POOR SILTSTONE
2.00 Gray & Dark reddish Gray,

3.00
4.00 4.00 CS3 8 0 - - - - VERY POOR Brown, SANDSTONE
4.55 Brown
5.00 5.00 SS2 27 - 8 11 14 25 DENSE Silty GRAVEL with Sand (GM )
5.55 Light Brown

6.00 6.00 SS3 71 - 7 13 15 28 DENSE Silty SAND with Gravel (SM )
6.00
7.50 7.50 CS4 8 0 - - - - VERY POOR Bluish Gray & Gray, SANDSTONE
7.50
9.00 9.00 CS5 14 10.7 - - - - VERY POOR Dark Reddish Gray, SANDSTONE
9.00
10.50 10.50 CS6 32 32 - - - - POOR Bluish Gray, SANDSTONE
10.50
12.00 12.00 CS7 26 24.7 - - - - VERY POOR Dark Reddish Gray, SANDSTONE
12.00
13.50 Dark Reddish Gray & Bluish Gray,

15.00 15.00 CS9 21 7.33 - - - - VERY POOR SANDSTONE
DESIGNATION (RQD)
> 50 Very Hard

Senior Driller

DPWH-BRS ACCREDITED
Technical Manager
TESTING LABORATORY
Approved by: REMEDIOS SOLDAO 2301FBI1_RFBL_TL-01_0


Project Name: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION , SAMPLING AND LABORATORY TESTING OF MAHANAGDONG LEYTE Borehole Number: TL-01
ATTERBERG
HYDROMETER
PERFORMED?
CONTENT (%)
MOISTURE
UCT (MPa) 2
SS1 0.55-1.00 GP-GM NL NP 14.4 - - - - - 100 55 46 32 18 13 12 NO - - - - -
CS1 1.00-2.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS2 2.00-3.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS3 3.00-4.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SS2 4.55-5.00 GM NL NP 21.9 - - - - 100 75 65 55 41 21 16 16 NO - - - - -
SS3 5.55-6.00 SM 34 16 25.9 - - - - 100 90 79 71 59 34 20 16 NO - - - - -
CS4 6.00-7.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS5 7.50-9.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25.24 - - -
CS6 9.00-10.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11.84 - - -
CS7 10.50-12.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11.70 - - -
CS8 12.00-13.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS9 13.50-15.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DPWH-BRS ACCREDITED
Tehnical Manager
2301FBI1_RSBHT_TL-01_0
Page 1 of 1
Sampling Procedure/Date: ASTM D1586-08a/ASTM D1587-08; 3/28/23 Borehole Number: TL-01

Can Number 0 0 0 0 0 0.80

Wet Soil + Can (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dry Soil + Can (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60
Mass of Can (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mass of Dry Soil (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20
NP 10 15 20 25 30 35
Number of Blows

ASTM D2216-05

U95
(mm)
3" 75.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - - Mass of Can (g): 19.80
2 1/2" 63.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - - Moisture Loss (g): 17.22
1" 25.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - -
3/4" 19.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - -
3/8" 9.500 53.23 44.64 55.36 ±0.01 1.96 - -
#10 2.000 80.74 67.71 32.29 ±0.14 1.96 Report
#40 0.425 98.19 82.34 17.66 ±0.95 1.96
#100 0.150 103.81 87.05 12.95 ±1.35 1.96
U95x ±0.02
kx 1.96
100 U95x -
90 kx -

70 U95x -
60 kx -
20
10 USCS Symbol: GP-GM
0
Particle Diameter (mm) Brown, Poorly-graded GRAVEL with
Cobbles
Coarse to Medium Fine SILT and Sand

Gravel Silt Clay
Sand
Performed by: DANILO DELAN


Approved by: REMEDIOS SOLDAO 2301FBI1_RPABH_TL-01_0


Can Number 0 0 0 0 0 0.80

Wet Soil + Can (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dry Soil + Can (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60
Mass of Can (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mass of Dry Soil (g) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20
NP 10 15 20 25 30 35
Number of Blows

ASTM D2216-05

U95
(mm)
3" 75.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - - Mass of Can (g): 22.35
2 1/2" 63.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - - Moisture Loss (g): 20.75
1" 25.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - -
3/4" 19.000 23.71 25.00 75.00 ±0.02 1.96 - -
3/8" 9.500 32.80 34.59 65.41 ±0.02 1.96 - -
#10 2.000 55.95 59.00 41.00 ±0.17 1.96 Report
#40 0.425 74.56 78.62 21.38 ±1.2 1.96
#100 0.150 79.24 83.56 16.44 ±1.7 1.96
U95x ±0.02
kx 1.96
100 U95x -
90 kx -

70 U95x -
60 kx -
20
10 USCS Symbol: GM
0
Cobbles
Coarse to Medium Fine Brown, Silty GRAVEL with Sand

Gravel Silt Clay
Sand




Trial Number 1 2 3 1 2 35.50
Can Number X17 X6 X7 PL26 PL74 35.00

Wet Soil + Can (g) 16.33 14.86 14.15 37.32 38.13
Dry Soil + Can (g) 13.89 12.77 12.23 33.20 33.74 34.50
Mass of Can (g) 6.66 6.61 6.70 9.87 9.80
2.44 2.09 1.92 4.12 4.39
Mass of Dry Soil (g) 7.23 6.16 5.53 23.33 23.94 33.50
18 10 15 20 25 30 35
Liquid Limit (%) 34 (%):
Number of Blows
Plasticity Index (%) 16

ASTM D2216-05

U95
(mm)
3" 75.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - - Mass of Can (g): 19.00
2 1/2" 63.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - - Moisture Loss (g): 32.41
1" 25.000 0.00 0.00 100.00 - - - -
3/4" 19.000 12.09 9.66 90.34 ±0.01 1.96 - -
3/8" 9.500 26.71 21.34 78.66 ±0.02 1.96 - -
#10 2.000 51.65 41.27 58.73 ±0.13 1.96 Report
#40 0.425 82.72 66.10 33.90 ±0.91 1.96
#100 0.150 100.09 79.98 20.02 ±1.29 1.96
U95x ±0.02
kx 1.96
Liquid Limit (%): 34
100 U95x ±0.23
90 kx 1.96
80 Plastic Limit (%): 18

70 U95x ±0.06
60 kx 1.96
50 Plasticity Index (%): 16
20
10 USCS Symbol: SM
0
Cobbles
Coarse to Medium Fine Light Brown, Silty SAND with Gravel

Gravel Silt Clay
Sand



A.M. GEOCONSULT AND ASSOCIATES

ASTM D2938-95 (2002)
Sampling Proc./Date: - Borehole Number: TL-01

Diameter (mm): 47.43 Volume (cm3) 166.75
3
2
Area (mm ): 1766.84
Unconfined
(MPa)
Unconfined
(psi)
CONE


DPWH-BRS ACCREDITED
Approved by: REMEDIOS SOLDAO 2301FBI1_RUCSRT_TL-01_0

GEOCONSULT & ASSOCIATES.

ASTM D2938-95 (2002)

3
2
Area (mm ): 1764.60
Unconfined
(MPa)
Unconfined
(psi)
CONE


DPWH-BRS ACCREDITED


ASTM D2938-95 (2002)

3
2
Area (mm ): 1786.63
Unconfined
(MPa)
Unconfined
(psi)
CONE


DPWH-BRS ACCREDITED

FINAL BORING LOG

Sampling Location: NG5 ROAD LGBU MAHANAGDONG
Date of Sampling: DS: 4/4/23; DF: 4/12/23 Borehole Number: TL-02
Coordinates: 1229099.103 N, 464010.839 E Ground Water Level (m): NO WATER ENCOUNTERED
0.00

2.00
3.00 Dark Reddish Gray to Gray,

4.00 4.00 CS4 46 39 - - - - POOR SANDSTONE
4.00
5.00 Gray & Dark Reddish Gray,


7.50 Dark Reddish Gray & Yellowish Brown,


10.50 10.50 CS9 19 8.67 - - - - VERY POOR SANDSTONE


13.50
15.00 15.00 CS12 41 7.33 - - - - VERY POOR Gray & Brown, SANDSTONE
DESIGNATION (RQD)
> 50 Very Hard

Senior Driller

DPWH-BRS ACCREDITED
Technical Manager
TESTING LABORATORY
Approved by: REMEDIOS SOLDAO 2301FBI1_RFBL_TL-02_0


Project Name: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION , SAMPLING AND LABORATORY TESTING OF MAHANAGDONG LEYTE Borehole Number: TL-02
Sampling Location: NG5 ROAD LGBU MAHANAGDONG Sampling Proc./Date: ASTM D1586-08a/ASTM D1587-08; 44/23
ATTERBERG
HYDROMETER
PERFORMED?
CONTENT (%)
MOISTURE
UCT (MPa) 2
CS1 0.00-1.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS2 1.00-2.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS3 2.00-3.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS4 3.00-4.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21.24 - - -
CS5 4.00-5.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS6 5.00-6.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS7 6.00-7.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS8 7.50-9.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS9 9.00-10.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS10 10.50-12.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS11 12.00-13.50 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CS12 13.50-15.00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DPWH-BRS ACCREDITED
Tehnical Manager
2301FBI1_RSBHT_TL-02_0
Page 1 of 1

ASTM D2938-95 (2002)

3
2
Area (mm ): 1794.13
Unconfined
(MPa)
Unconfined
(psi)
COLUMNAR


DPWH-BRS ACCREDITED

Hazard Assessment
Report
DATE 28 March 2023, 1:47 am
LOCATION Ormoc City, Leyte
COORDINATES 124.67319, 11.11549
Note: When scanning the QR code, the assessment results in the website might vary from the results stated in this report due to updates in the
data in the GeoRiskPH database. You may refer to the report available upon scanning the QR code for the updated assessment results
View document online
SEISMIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT
HAZARD ASSESSMENT EXPLANATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Active faults are faults that have moved within the last 10,000 years. An active
fault may show evidence or may have documented history of recent
Safe;
movements. Ground rupture is a displacement along an active fault trace that
Approximately 2.1
reaches the surface.
km northeast of
Ground Rupture
the Philippine Ground rupture hazard assessment is the distance to the nearest known active
Fault: Leyte fault. The recommended buffer zone, or Zone of Avoidance, against ground
Segment rupture hazard is at least 5 meters on both sides of the active fault or from its
zone of deformation.
All sites may be affected by ground shaking in the event of an earthquake and
Prone; Intensity can be mitigated by following the provisions of the National Building code and
Ground Shaking
VII the Structural code of the Philippines.
Liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein the ground, especially near the river,

lake and coasts, behaves like liquid similar to quicksand due to very strong
Liquefaction Safe
shaking.
Earthquake-Induced Earthquake-induced landslides are the downward slope movement of rocks,

Safe solid and other debris commonly triggered by strong shaking.
Landslide
A tsunami is a series of sea waves commonly generated by under-the-sea

Tsunami Safe earthquakes.
Note:
All hazard assessments are based on the available susceptibility maps and the coordinates of the user’s selected
location.
Depending on the basemaps used and methods employed during mapping, discrepancies may be observed between
location of hazards or exposure information and actual ground observations.
In some areas, hazard assessment may be updated as new data become available for interpretation or as a result of
major topographic changes due to onset of natural events.
For site-specific evaluation or construction of critical facilities, detailed engineering assessment and onsite
geotechnical engineering survey may be required.
This report was generated through GeoRisk Philippines’ HazardHunterPH app. This report is not for sale.
If you require signed hazard assessment reports, request at https://has.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph. If you require detailed hazard analyses that necessitate technical guidance
from our researchers, email your request to Dr. Teresito C. Bacolcol at [email protected] and [email protected].
COORDINATES 124.67319, 11.11549
VOLCANIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT
Active volcanoes are those that erupted within historical times (within the last
Approximately 600 years). Accounts of these eruptions were documented by man within the
Nearest Active Volcano 61.2 km south of last 10,000 years based on the analyses of material from young volcanic
Biliran deposits.
In case of future eruptions, the site may be affected by ash fallout, depending on
the scale of eruption and prevailing wind direction at the time of eruption.
Ashfall Prone Generally, ashfall is heavier near the active vent and thins out indefinitely away
from the eruption center.
Note:
location.
If you require signed hazard assessment reports, request at https://has.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph. If you require detailed hazard analyses that necessitate technical guidance
from our researchers, email your request to Dr. Teresito C. Bacolcol at [email protected] and [email protected].
COORDINATES 124.67319, 11.11549
HYDRO-METEOROLOGICAL HAZARDS ASSESSMENT
Areas with moderate susceptibility to rain-induced landslides are those with

moderately steep slopes where soil creep and other indications of possible
landslide occurrence are present.
Implementation of appropriate mitigation measures as deemed necessary by

Moderate project engineers and LGU building officials is recommended for landslide-
Rain-Induced Susceptibility; susceptible areas. This includes performing site-specific studies to address
Landslide Possible landslide potential foundation/slope stability problems.
occurrence
Monitoring of signs/evidences of ground movement such as tension cracks,
tilted trees and fences, and bulging road sections in areas that are moderately
to critically susceptible to landslides should be done regularly and reported to
local authorities and/or the MGB.
Note:
location.
The possibility of both rain-induced landslide and flooding occurring is not disregarded. Because of the composite
nature of MGB’s 1:10,000-scale Rain-induced Landslide and Flood Susceptibility Maps, it spatially prioritizes the
more frequently occurring and most damaging hazards in an area. Continuous updating is being done.
To obtain an official document for legal purposes, or for the assessment of sites for development, request for an Official Geohazard Certification or Site Investigation on
Rain-induced Landslide and Flood hazards from the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) by sending an email to [email protected].
COORDINATES 124.67319, 11.11549
The Regional Severe Wind Hazard Map represents the 3-second peak gust
wind speed measured at 10-meter height (above ground) over open and flat
terrain. This does not take into account the local factors such as topography,
terrain roughness and shielding from neighbouring structures.
The Regional Severe Wind Hazard is expressed in terms of Return

Periods(RPs) of Tropical Cyclone winds. Return period means the repeat
interval, or the estimate of likelihood and severity of severe wind event. Return
periods are then translated into Annual Exceedance Probabilities (AEPs) which
are the chance that a given severe wind hazard level will be equalled or
117.1 - 220 kph (20-
exceeded in any year.
year return period);
Severe Wind
117.1 - 220 kph (500- At higher return periods, the wind speeds are stronger but are less frequent.
year return period)
At lower return periods, the wind speeds are less intense but are more frequent.
The Regional severe wind hazard maps are used to update the wind zoning
map of the Philippines and as reference in designing building structures.
For those areas identified as high risk to wind damage, building

codes/regulations must be strictly implemented to mitigate severe wind risks.
For already developed areas, retrofitting is encouraged – the methods applied in
this study can be used to set out a cost-benefit study for retrofitting older, more
vulnerable building types to increase their resilience to severe winds.
To obtain an official document for legal purposes, request for an Official Report from the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration
(PAGASA) by sending an email to [email protected].
COORDINATES 124.67319, 11.11549
A storm surge (“daluyong ng bagyo”) is the abnormal rise in sea level that
occurs during tropical cyclones or “bagyo”. It happens when a very strong
tropical cyclone blows-off excessive amounts of seawater toward low-lying
coastal communities.
It is catastrophic and life-threatening because a storm surge can cause massive

Storm Surge Safe inland flooding, sometimes in unimaginable heights. It is even more dangerous
when the storm surge coincides with a high tide.
For storm surge-prone communities, the most important considerations are 1)

the strength of the tropical cyclone, 2) the height of the surge, and 3) if the
community is located in a low-lying areas.
Note:
location.
To obtain an official document for legal purposes, request for an Official Report from the Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration
(PAGASA) by sending an email to [email protected].
COORDINATES 124.67319, 11.11549
NEAREST CRITICAL FACILITIES
CRITICAL FACILITY NAME TYPE DISTANCE FROM SPECIFIED LOCATION
Cambantog Primary School Public Elementary School 2.9 km
Pedro G. Bañez National High School Public Secondary School 2.1 km
Milagro Barangay Health Station Government Health Facility 4.1 km
Clinica Gatchalian And Hospital Private Health Facility 13.4 km
Palo-Carigara-Ormoc Rd; Leyte (fourth

Primary Road Network 9.4 km
District)
Dayhagan-Salvacion-Coob-Libertad Rd;
Secondary Road Network 10.1 km
Leyte (fourth District)
Note:
location.
All computations are based on the available exposure data and the coordinates of the user’s selected location
Schools data obtained from Department of Education (2015)
Health facilities data obtained from Department of Health (2016)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

#12 South Zuzuarregui Street, Old Balara
Quezon City, Philippines 1119
TELEFAX +63(2) 931-8883 +63(2) 932-9585

Mahanagdong Connection Asset - Evaluation Report - Rev 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mahanagdong Connection Asset - Evaluation Report - Rev 0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Mahanagdong Connection Asset - Evaluation Report - Rev 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EDC MAHANAGDONG CONNECTION ASSET

Tongonan, Kananga, Leyte

Geotechnical Evaluation Report

(Switchyard and OHTL Towers)

1.1 Project Background...................................................................................................... 1

2. PROJECT LOCATION AND REGIONAL GEOLOGY ................................................ 2

2.1 Geomorphology ........................................................................................................... 2

2.2 Site Geology ................................................................................................................. 2

3. TECTONIC ACTIVITY AND SEISMICITY............................................................ 4

3.1 Ground Shaking ........................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Ground Rupture ........................................................................................................... 7

3.3 Liquefaction ................................................................................................................. 8

4. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION .................................................................... 9

4.1 Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D1586) ................................................................... 9

4.2 Rock Coring and Sampling (ASTM D2113) .................................................................. 9

5. LABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................10

5.1 Determination of Moisture Content (ASTM D2216) ................................................... 10

5.2 Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318) ................................................................................ 10

5.3 Sieve Analysis (ASTM D422) ..................................................................................... 10

5.4 Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487) ..................................................... 11

6. RESULTS OF SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ...............11

7. GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS ...................................................................13

7.1 SPT N60....................................................................................................................... 13

7.2 Cohesion .................................................................................................................... 14

7.3 Angle of Internal Friction ............................................................................................ 15

7.4 Dry Unit Weight .......................................................................................................... 15

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT | REV. 0

8. SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................17

8.1 Peak Ground Acceleration .......................................................................................... 17

8.2 NSCP 2015 Provisions ............................................................................................... 17

8.3 Liquefaction Assessment ........................................................................................... 17

8.3.1 Preliminary Screening .................................................................................................... 18

8.3.2 GeoLogismiki LiqSVs v2.3.2.5 ....................................................................................... 18

9. SHALLOW FOUNDATION ...........................................................................19

10. EARTHWORKS ISSUES ..........................................................................23

10.2 Slopes ........................................................................................................................ 24

10.3 Engineered Fill and Embankment Formation .............................................................. 24

11. LIMITATIONS .....................................................................................26

12. REFERENCES ......................................................................................27

13. APPENDICES ......................................................................................28

13.1 Site Layout Plan View ................................................................................................ 28

13.2 Borehole Location Plan .............................................................................................. 29

13.3 Final Borehole Logs and Laboratory Results ............................................................. 34

13.3.1 Borehole SY 01 .............................................................................................................. 35

13.3.2 Borehole SY 02 .............................................................................................................. 37

13.3.3 Borehole TL 01 .............................................................................................................. 40

13.3.4 Borehole TL 02 .............................................................................................................. 45

13.4 Hazard Assessment Report ........................................................................................ 48

Figure 1. Geological Map of the Project Site (USGS, 2000) .................................................................... 3

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT | REV. 0

Figure 3. Ground Shaking Hazard Map of Kananga, Leyte (PHIVOLCS) .................................................. 6

Figure 4. Ground Rupture Hazard Map of Kananga, Leyte (PHIVOLCS) .................................................. 7

Figure 5. Liquefaction Hazard Map of Kananga, Leyte (PHIVOLCS) ........................................................ 8

Figure 6. Depth vs. SPT N60 Graph....................................................................................................... 14

Table 1. Seismic Source Types................................................................................................................ 5

Table 2. Summary of Boreholes .............................................................................................................. 9

Table 3. Idealized Subsurface Profile at SY 01 ...................................................................................... 11

Table 4. Idealized Subsurface Profile at SY 02 ...................................................................................... 12