Salvador F. Reyes’ Evaluation of Geotechnical Conditions at Site of Proposed C5 Midas Property Development E Rodriguez Jr Ave cor Jose C Cruz St, Pasig City INTRODUCTION This evaluation is based on the factual report submitted by ARS Testing & Inspection, Inc to SMDC on 2 July 2018 (Ref. No. ARS-13689-24924-18). The report contains detailed results of field and laboratory geotechnical studies conducted by ARS. The field investigations consisted of drilling three 50 meters deep boreholes which were spotted near the extremeties of the proposed T- shaped building footprint in an almost level rectangular property area, as shown in Fig. 1 of the ARS report. In the soil zone the boreholes were advanced by the wash boring method inter- rupted at one meter intervals to perform the standard penetration test (SPT) for collecting representative samples and conducting laboratory classification tests on the moisture-preserved samples. In the underlying rock zone successive 1.5 meter runs of a multiple tube core barrel sampler was carried out to extract cores. For every 1.5 meter coring run a specimen was prepared (if possible) for un- confined compressive strength (UCS) testing after overnight soaking (to approx- imately replicate the in situ water content of the rock. At each point of soil sampling the SPT procedure provided a record of the sampler penetration resistance to controlled hammer blows called the N-value. A number of empirical formulas are at hand to correlate an N-value to the value of, the angle of internal friction, @), which in turn, leads to an estimate of the effec- tive angle of internal friction, 9, to be paired with an estimate the cohesion, c, based on the classification test results. The pair of parameters (c,9) defines the linear strength envelope of effective stresses appropriate for soils. Civil EngineerSalvador F. Reyes’ For the rocks, three parameters serve to define a curved envelope proposed by Hoek & Brown (HB). Those parameters are the representative value of the UCS and “s”, of the layer in question and two non-dimensional parameters termed “1 the recommended values of which had been tabulated by HB based on the rock classification (calcareous, argillaceous, arenaceous, fine grained polymineralic, or coarse grained polymineralic) and the degree of fracturing and/or weathering of the rock in situ (intact, very good, good, fair, poor, or very poor) of the layer as perceived from an examination of the extracted cores. ARS FINDINGS At the boreholes the thickness of the soil zone suggests that the soil-rock inter- face dips to the east or south, it being only one meter at BH-1 but about four meters at BH-3. However, the actual interface ia more likely to be non-planar and might have been partly due to prior site development work. At any rate the configuration of the soil-rock interface would be immaterial if at least one basement level is provided in order to set the entire foundation on rock. On attached page A-1, N-values (in log scale) obtained from the soil zone are plotted ys depth below ground level for all three boreholes in the upper chart. The corresponding N-value correlated @, values (degrees) according to two rules are plotted in the lower chart. On pages A-2 and A-3 (upper chart), the unconfined compressive strengths or UCS values of core specimens from the rock zone are plotted also vs depth below the ground level at BH-1. ‘The characteristically jagged pattern the plots is indicative of the nature of the bedrock, the Guadalupe Tuff Formation or GTF, as an intercalation of relatively thin (seldom greater than five meters thick) layers of tuff, sandstones, siltstones, shales, and (much less frequently) mudstones and limestones. The formation usually classifies as very soft rock with UCS values less than 100 kg/sq em. 2 Civil EngineerSalvador F. Reyes’ However, in the presence instance some of the layers of well cemented sand- stones and siltstones actually yielded higher UCS values. Although the layers are either horizontally bedded or gently folded the jagged pattern is not consistent among the three borings, indicating that the strengths of specific layers are not laterally persistent. No vertical joints were encountered in the boreholes although these are usually common and could contain gouge materials in most areas close to the West Valley Fault about four kilometers east of the site. Clarification of the actual joint patterns and frequency awaits actual excavations during construction. It follows from the foregoing observations that for the purpose of bearing capa- city analysis the GTF can only be represented as groups of actual layers with a representative set of UCS, m, and s parameters. The lower chart on page A-3 displays the scatter diagram of all 78 UCS values , including 7 core runs which yielded no specimen suitable for testing. These are marked with UCS = 0. The average UCS and standard deviation values obtained from BH-1, BH-2, and BH-3 are, respectively, (70.6,46.0), (56.1,37.0), and (72.0,33.7). For all 78 tests, the statistics are (66.4,40.3). In terms of depth ranges, they are (17.4,20.9) from 0 to 8 meters depth and (77.3,36.4) below 8 meters The strength and other properties of the assumed 3-layer profile are listed in the array “LP” on page A-4. In the array the rock type index of “2" indicates the formation is primarily argillaceous. The quality index of “3" indicates that the rock as a whole is of good quality. The ambient pressure dependent “instant- aneous” values of cohesion and angle of internal friction (c,9) are plotted on the page. Civil EngineerSalvador F. Reyes’ CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, Subsurface conditions should permit the construction of high rise structures (with many tens of floor levels) founded on footings or an integrated mat without need for bearing piles provided all foundation components are based on the GTF rock. The borehole logs suggest this may require various depths of footing pad embedments up to four or five meters. Adjacent footings may be based at dif ferent levels provided the difference in elevation does not exceed 75 percent of the clear distance between the footing pads. Sizing Isolated Footings or Integrated Mat For foundation depths of embedment of 4 (or less), 8,12, and 16 (or more) meters and a range of footing pad or mat widths of one (1) to 40 meters, the charts on pages A-5 and A-6 present plots of the net safe bearing pressure or NSBP. Inter- polation is appropriate for intermediate depths of embedment. The well known Terzaghi formula, which gives the ultimate net bearing pressure (UNBP) for a homogenous elasto-plastic medium, was adapted to stratified sub- surface materials with straight or curved strength envelope by substituting into the bearing capacity factors a Schmertman type of weighted average of the strength parameters (c,) over the stressed zone, which is assumed to be three times the width of the foundation. A factor of safety of F = 2.5 was then applied to the UNBP to obtain the charted NSBP A reduction or amplification factor may be applied to the charted NSBP if need be. For example, if the working (non- factored) loads include not only dead plus live loads but also the code specified effect of wind or earthquake, the charted NSBP may be factored by 4/3 (four- thirds). The discontinuities in the NSBP curves at pad widths of about 33 meters indicate 4 Civil EngineerSalvador F. Reyes’ that for wider pads the serviceability criterion (an arbitrarily imposed immediate settlement limit of 50 mm) is more stringent than the strength criterion based on the Terzaghi formula. Settlement was estimated assuming one dimensional or constrained compression of an elastic medium with moduli proportional to the UCS at any depth as specified in the array “LP” on page A-4. If an immediate settlement other than 50 mm is considered tolerable the charted NSBP for pads wider than 33 meters may be factored accordingly provided the adjusted NSBP does not thereby exceed the charted NSBP value for 33 meters wide pads. Note that by “net” pressure is meant the total pressure at the foundation pad base less the minimum surcharge at the edges of the pad. For integrated mats bounded by basement walls this definition automatically accounts for the so-called com- pensating effect. However, for isolated or combined footing pads it is more convenenient to calculate the net pressure as the pressure induced by the super- structure (only) at the pad base plus an allowance for the fact that the specific weight of the embedded footing pad exceeds that of soil or GTF rock it displaced by 6 KN/cu m; ie., the allowance is 6 kN/cu m multiplied by the estimated thick- ness of the pad. In sizing footing pads when the charted NSBP value itself depends on pad size, tedius iterations are largely avoided with minimal cost penalty by grouping footings supporting similar loads and applying the charted NSBP which is least for the pads in the group. Where the plots in the chart decrease with size that would be footing supporting the greatest load. Otherwise it would be that supporting the least load. If the footings are embedded at least 12 meters below the ground a fixed NSBP value of 2000 kPa (40,000 Ib/sq ft) for proportioning footings. As to integrated mats the chart on page A-8 assumes that the pressure distribution is planar under centric as well as eccentric loading. But finite element analysis of the integrated “S- Civil EngineerSalvador F. Reyes’ mat leads to a nonlinear pressure distribution which usually peak at columns, shear walls, or edges of the mat. These localized peak pressures may be allowed to exceed the charted NSBP value (perhaps adjusted as recommended above in case an immediate settlement other than 50 mm is considered tolorable) by up to 30 percent. The modulus of subgrade reaction for finite element analysis should not be greater than 150,000 kPa/sq m. Basement Wall Pressures and Excavation Protection For basement wall heights, H (meters), ranging from 4.0 to 16.0 meters, the chart on page A-7 presents the recommended force, P (kN/m), per running meter. The force takes account of soil/rock to wall interactions during seismic events based on the Mononobe-Okabe theory. The lateral pressure distribution is assumed to be arching active whereby the pressure, p (kPa) between points on the wall 0.2*H and 0.8*H below the top is p = P/(0.8*H) and tapers to zero from these points to the top and bottom of the wall. The recommended pressure distribution involves no hydrostatic pressures; hence, wall back drains should be provided because it is expected that perched phreatic surfaces would develop almost up to the ground surface during extended rainy periods causing leakage if not actual structural damage of the walls. Similarly, underdrains beneath the basement slabs on grade (if any) are needed to avoid the build up of excessive hydrostatic uplift pressure. GTF strata exposed in the excavations normally need protection where vertical joints are narrowly angled to the plane of the excavation (potentially causing rock falls due to wedge failures at the joints) and where extensive highly fractured or weathered rock is exposed. Protection with reinforced shoterete secured by soil nails is customary. In detailing the protection special attention should be given to the sections where the footings of the existing (generally low 6- Civil EngineerSalvador F. Reyes’ rise) are adjacent to the excavation. The need to prevent not only failure but also damaging excessive ground movement underneath those foundations should also be given due consideration in detailing the excavation protection scheme. Site Seismicity ‘The National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015 (NSCP) assigns a site seismicity rating of Z = 4. The soil profile type at site is Type S; as defined in ‘Table 208-2 of the NSCP. The distance of the site from the trace of the most proximate known active fault, the N-S trending West Valley Fault or WVF (Fig.208-2F in the NSCP) is about four (4) km to the east. The WVF is believed to be Type B according to Table 208-4 or capable of generating a seismic event of up to 7 in magnitude, If the plane of the N-S trending WVF is assumed to dip to the east as befits its being the west flank of the Marikina Valley Fault System, the horizontal distance of the subject site to the actual focus of the potential seismic energy source may be about nine (9) km if it is assumed that the depth of the focus is about 10 km or in the hard basement complex rocks. As defined in the NSCP the distance in question in 9 km for the purpose of applying near source factors in Tables 208 -5 and 208-6. However, it is worth mentioning that in the latest ASCE 10-16 the distance is measured to the fault scarp; ie, only four (4) km regardless of the actual dip of the fault plane. a SALVADOR F. REYES, Ph.D. CE 3233 Attachment 7 pages 14 July 2018 Civil EngineerSPT N and Correlated Angle of Friction Values Proposed SMDC C5 Midas Property Development E Rodriguez Jr Ave cor Jose C Cruz St, Pasig City Field N Values vo 100 7 ° £ 2 3 ° ° 5 - ° a ° ‘0 - ° 1 aN css mr = ene Ns ser Ns NS Depth low Grown BH! wo N-Comelated Phi Values (degrees) % x x ° 2 « ° a x Zz 0 2 ° x x oo 7 © x ° ° x bg x x mmc aa | nes mes ce eee ee cc es Depth Below Ground At-BH () © Schmertman XX Uchida ye ‘SPTvsPHI.med Aad sfr 9 July 2018UCS Values at Boreholes Proposed SMDC C5 Midas Property Development E Rodriguez Jr Ave cor Jose C Cruz St, Pasig City 00 Borchole BI vs aa 1% A Wy Fa o ‘ : 2 6 2 Pn Fn 2 26 « Depth Below Ref ly) veo Borehole B2 1s E us g 2 % 10 0 as o ° 7 ° 2 16 Fa ™ = cs 36 rn Depth Below Ref Elev (mn) UcSTestResults.med A-2 sfr 3 July 2018UCS Values at Boreholes Proposed SMDC C5 Midas Property Development E Rodriguez Jr Ave cor Jose C Cruz St, Pasig City 7 bari 8 € ous : Te 7 2 : ° ° 130] a oe = 1s! 0° i § ° z °° 5 = ol 8 5, s © 020 ° A 8 ° 6 a ° ° ° 2 as e° ° 08 8° 0 ° ° 0% ° 00 8 og o Fy Oo ° ° > (° ° aS ° ° o-0 q 2s o—-2 = ° o 4 ' 2 16 20 2 2 3 Depth Below Ref le rn) UcsTestResults.med A-3 6 ra ( sfr 3 July 2018SOILIROCK Profile Proposed SMDC C5 Midas Property Development E Rodriguez Jr Ave cor Jose C Cruz St, Pasig City Data: Weighting Parameters 26 10 14 tt 12 16 Layer Properties - Thickness, quelty index, ype index, unt wt, oF 6,0) modulisstrength rato. g } 4 6 5000 i 5 1000 2000 303003 LP 02 2 is 18 418 o mo ~C]S*~*~C«S*«OSCSC*«s 50 100 150 Norma Stress) — Layer == Layer? == Layer3 wo Friction Angle «0 2 2 i 5 Zao. i § ASS 2 oS 20 ~-dite-< o ° 500 vo00 Pressure (KP) Presa (is) Layer = wer = Layer? = Layer? Layer3 Layer’3 SoilfRock Profile A-4 sfr 6 July 2016ISOLATED/COMBINED FOOTINGS Proposed E Rodrigu 2600 2400 2300 2200 2100 Net Allowable Pressure (KPa) 1400] 1700] 1600 100 1400] 1300] 1200) ‘MDC C5 Property Development Factor of Safety ez Jr Ave cor Jose C Cruz St, Pasig City Max Immediate ‘Settlement (m) Net Safe Bearing Pressure vs Pad Width 1 2 3 + 5 6 7 ' ° 10 Pa With (m) — Embedment Depth 4.0 m 80 160 BearingCapacityFootingsHB.med AS F=25 Is =0.05 4 sfr 6 July 201COMBINED FOOTINGS or INTEGRATED MAT Proposed SMDC C5 Midas Property Development Factor of Safety = F=2.5 E Rodriguez Jr Ave cor Jose C Cruz St, Pasig City 2180 2100 [Net Allowable Presute (APs) i) rn) 1750) 160 Max immediate Setement(m) $= 0.05 Net Safe Bearing Pressure vs Pad Width, — Embedment Depth 4.0 —— 30 = 120 —— 160 BearingCapacityFootingsHB.med 25 x0 35 0 ad Width) A-6 sfr 6 July 201Proposed SMDC C5 Midas Property Development E Rodriguez Jr Ave cor Jose C Cruz St, Pasig City Sesmic Thickness, c¢, qualiy index, type index, or WaterTable z= 12 Coeficients (6.6,0), columns of LP Surcharge Is K-08 44 100 PPR ry =035 u Force Orientation S 1000 2000] Range of Wall Dephs (postive upward) 303 LOAof force reckoned from 02 2 bottom /depth ofimentwal k= 0.5 Factorof Safety 2000 1800 veo v0 g ind 2 5 we 2 200 se 7 wo BS BasementWallPressures.med Depth of Basement (m) sfr 9 Jusly 201