SAINT JOSEPH COLLEGE

Department of Civil Engineering

Mambajao Campus, Mambajao, Maasin City

DETERMINATION OF SOIL BEARING CAPACITY USING TERZHAGI’S

METHOD IN THE THREE SELECTED LOCATION
IN SOUTHERN LEYTE- DISTRICT I

Abarico, Maryjoy T.
Balboa lll, Regino G.
Gonzales, Jonathan

CE Capstone Project

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

Supervised by:
Engr. Renato L. Maglasang
Maasin City, 2022
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to express our special appreciation and thanks to our instructor Engr.
Renato L. Maglasang Jr., you have been a tremendous mentor for us. Thank you for
extending your patience and allowing us to grow as a learner. Your advice on both research
capstone as well as on my career have been invaluable and for your brilliant comments and
suggestions. The criticism and advice from other members of staff in the department and
professionals at different stages of the capstone are also highly appreciated.
We have taken a huge effort in this study. However, it would not be possible without
the kind support and help of the many individuals, especially to our classmates who helped us
to learn of the valuable inputs. The DPWH/Southern Leyte District Engineering Office-
District 1 for providing us the necessary data needed for the study. Without the data the study
will run smoothly not and end successfully.
A special thanks to each of our families. Words cannot express how grateful we are to
our mother, and father for all of the sacrifices that you have done on our behalf. Your prayer
for us was what sustained me this far.
Finally, we thank you God for letting us go through all the difficulties we have
experienced. For giving us the strength to continue, encouragement and motivation. We will
keep on trusting you for my future. Thank you, Lord.
 Abstract
The study described by the capstone was focused on the determination of the soil
bearing capacity in selected location in Southern Leyte- District 1 using the Terzaghi’s
Equation. The data obtained from the previous soil investigation consisted of bore drilling
hole, the work execute by a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) in accordance to ASTM D-1589.
The SPT were conducted with a specified boring depth. Conducted every 1.5 meters’ interval,
2 inches’ diameter borehole using a free drop hammer. The number of blows required to
15cm later were recorded for the measure of density or consistency of the soil. All the soil
sample were retrieved using a spoon sampler and all recovered soil sample were brought to
the soil laboratory for testing (DPWH-E. B Testing Center Inc).
The Terzaghi’s Equation were considered in the study as it was recommended by a
geotechnical reference authored by Engr. Johnro D. Docog. (Geotechnical Engineering,
pg.259). Which explores bearing capacity, the maximum pressure that a soil can support
without failure. The key parameter for a foundation design and also for design of retaining
walls at the base level. The study was determined through the data from previous geotechnical
exploration done in district 1.
The capstone utilizes the output to compute the geological properties using a
software which contains engineering suite that includes determination of soil bearing capacity
using Terzaghi’s equation. The software able to generate the allowable capacity and the
ultimate bearing capacity were manually computed by a factor of safety=3.0. The Bearing
Capacity were determined by multi-layered with sub-soil and analyzes as a whole system.
Groundwater depth were also considered as it altered the soil profile. And the foundation
dimension as a constant variable in different parameter to established determination and
comparison in different location.

Table of Content
 s
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.........................................................................................................i
Abstract....................................................................................................................................ii
Chapter I...................................................................................................................................1
Introduction..............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Background of the Study....................................................................................................1
1.2 Aims and Objectives...........................................................................................................3
1.3 Statement of the Problem....................................................................................................3
1.4 Locale of the Study.............................................................................................................4
1.5 Scope and Delimitation.......................................................................................................4
Chapter II............................................................................................................................5
Review of Related Literature.............................................................................................5
2.1 Overview........................................................................................................................5
2.1.1 Soil in Bearing Capacity............................................................................................5
2.1.2 Types of Soil with Higher Bearing Capacity............................................................8
2.1.2.1 Sand.........................................................................................................................8
2.1.2.2 Gravel......................................................................................................................9
2.1.3 Types of Soil with Lower Bearing Capacity...........................................................10
2.1.3.1 Silts.........................................................................................................................10
2.1.3.2 Clay........................................................................................................................11
2.1.4 Three Different Types of Bearing Capacity...........................................................12
2.1.4.1 Ultimate Bearing Capacity...................................................................................12
2.1.4.2 Safe Bearing Capacity..........................................................................................13
2.1.4.3 Allowable Bearing Capacity.................................................................................14
2.1.5 Three Modes of Failure in Soils Bearing Capacity................................................15
2.1.5.1 General Shear Failure..........................................................................................15
2.1.5.2 Local shear failure................................................................................................16
2.1.5.3 Punching shear failure..........................................................................................17
2.1.6 Discontinuities of Soil in Bearing Capacity of Foundation...................................18
2.1.7 Twelve Factors Influencing Bearing Capacity of Soils..........................................19
2.1.7.1 Soil Strength..........................................................................................................19
2.1.7.2 Foundation Width.................................................................................................20
2.1.7.3 Foundation Depth.................................................................................................21
2.1.7.4 Soil Weight and Surcharge...................................................................................21
............................................................................................................................................22
2.1.7.5 Earthquake and Dynamic Motion.......................................................................22
2.1.7.6 Frost Action...........................................................................................................24
2.1.7.7 Subsurface Voids...................................................................................................25
2.1.7.8 Expansive and Collapsible Soils...........................................................................26
2.1.7.9 Potential Heave.....................................................................................................27
2.1.7.10 Soil Erosion and Seepage....................................................................................28
2.1.7.11 Soil Reinforcement..............................................................................................29
2.2 Conceptual Frameworks............................................................................................30
2.3 Operational Definition of Terms................................................................................31
Chapter III....................................................................................................................32
Methodology..................................................................................................................32
3.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................32
3.2 Research Design......................................................................................................32
3.3 Research Instrument...............................................................................................32
3.4 Data Entry...............................................................................................................33
3.5 Calculations.............................................................................................................37
3.6 Design Approaches..................................................................................................39
CHAPTER IV...............................................................................................................45
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS............................................................................45
4.1 Soil properties.........................................................................................................46
4.1.1 MAASIN CITY....................................................................................................46
4.1.2 VILLA JACINTA NHVS....................................................................................47
4.1.3 TIMBA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, MALITBOG...........................................48
4.2 Bearing Capacity.....................................................................................................49
4.2.1 Maasin City High School -Bore 1........................................................................49
4.2.2 Maasin City High School-Bore 2.........................................................................49
4.3.1 Villa Jacinta NVHS- Bore 1.................................................................................50
4.3.2 Villa Jacinta NVHS- Bore 2.................................................................................50
4.4.1 Timba Elementary School- Bore 1......................................................................51
4.4.2 Timba Elementary School- Bore 1......................................................................51
CHAPTER V.................................................................................................................56
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION....................................56
5.1 Summary.................................................................................................................56
5.2 Conclusion...............................................................................................................57
5.3 Recommendation.....................................................................................................58
5.4 References:..............................................................................................................59
APPENDIX A................................................................................................................62
APPENDIX B................................................................................................................63
APPENDIX C................................................................................................................70
Figure

Figure 2.1 Sandy soil is easy to spot by its feel (Rhoades, H.)......................................7
Figure 2.2 Gravel soil brown ground texture. (Gudella, P.).........................................8
Figure 2.3 Silty soil, which is in between sandy and clay soils and is more fertile than
sandy soil, is the middle ground. Avoid working with silty soils when they're moist to
lower your chance of compaction. Utilizing compost and products rich in soil
microbes will increase the organic matter in the soil. (Ersek, K.)................................9
Figure 2.4 Old, compact soils that have formed and compacted over a long period of
time are called clay soils. They are widespread throughout the world, including much
of the United States. If water pools after a storm or if your soil is sticky, you can be
sure you have clay soil. (Balzer, D.)............................................................................10
Figure 2.5 Details of ultimate bearing capacity equations.........................................11
Figure 2.6 Safe Bearing Capacity (Nair, S. M.)..........................................................12
Figure 2.7Allowable Bearing capacity of soil for different water level depth............13
Figure 2.8 The soil on both sides of the footing is ruptured by general shear failure
and is pushed upward. When a footing actually fails in the field, the dirt is frequently
forced up only on one side, causing the structure to tilt. (Suryakanta, 2022).............14
Figure 2.9 When a localized force acts on the structure, punching shear failure of the
foundation occurs. It is most commonly found in foundations, but it is also found in
flat slabs. (Sowmya, CB., 2020)...................................................................................16
Figure 2.10 For example, earthquakes and dynamic motion, frost action, subsurface
voids, expansive and collapsible soil, potential heave, soil erosion and seepage, and
soil reinforcement are all examples. Bearing capacity is the ability of soil to safely
carry the pressure applied to it by any engineered structure without experiencing
shear failure and large settlement. (Daily Engineering, 2022)...................................17
Figure 2.11 Soil Strength.............................................................................................18
Figure 2.12 Minimum width of strip foundations. (Design Building, 2022)...............19
Figure 2.13 Minimum Depth of Foundation................................................................20
Figure 2.14 Chematic Illustration of Foundation System...........................................21
Figure 2.15 Bearing Capacity Failure Due to Liquefaction.......................................22
Figure 2.16 Formation of ice lenses in a pavement structure.....................................23
Figure 2.17 Subsurface Voids......................................................................................24
Figure 2.18 Influence of Collapsible Soil....................................................................25
Figure 2.19 For a mortgagee, a foundation heave can be a particularly distressing
event since it causes unsightly wall fissures, immovable doors, and a triangle that
emerges from your garage slab, resembling a half-formed pentagram from hell.
(Dalinghaus, B., 2021).................................................................................................26
Figure 2.20 Soil Erosion and Seepage........................................................................27
Figure 2.21 Soil Reinforcement...................................................................................28
 Chapter I
Introduction

1.1 Background of the Study

The department of Agriculture-Bureau of agriculture Researched identified
fifteen (15) soils types in Southern Leyte. These types the irregular mountainous land
ranks the highest with fifty-two percent (52%) and eighty-nine thousand, nine
hundred (89,900) of the total land area of the province. These are found in twelve
municipalities of the province, mostly at Sogod, Libagon and the municipalities of the
Panaon and Pacific Area. Maasin clay ranks next which accounts for seventeen
percent (17%), twenty-nine thousand, one hundred fifty-seven (29,157) hectares.
These are found mostly in Maasin City, Tomas Oppus, Bontoc and Hinundayan.
Faraon Clay which totaled fourteen thousand seven hundred thirty-eight (14,738)
hectares or eight percent (8%) of the total lan area of the province is found in Maasin
City, Macrohon, Limasawa, Tomas Oppus, Liloan, and Hinundayan. Malitbog Clay
covering (6%) of the total land area of the province is found in Malitbog and Padre
Burgos. [1]
The bearing capacity of soil is its ability to support loads applied to the ground
above. It is primarily determined by the type of soil, its shear strength, and density. It
is also affected by the depth of the load's embedment; the deeper it is founded, the
greater the bearing capacity. Where there is insufficient bearing capacity, the ground
can be improved, or the load can be spread over a larger area, reducing the applied
stress to an acceptable value less than the bearing capacity. Spread foundations made
of reinforced concrete, for example, can accomplish this. A granular platform
provides improved load spread in the case of crane and piling rig working platforms,
and its performance can be further improved by mechanical stabilization using Tensar
geogrids. [2]
The department of Agriculture-Bureau of agriculture Researched identified
fifteen (15) soils types in Southern Leyte. These types the irregular mountainous land
ranks the highest with fifty-two percent (52%) and eighty-nine thousand, nine
hundred (89,900) of the total land area of the province. These are found in twelve
municipalities of the province, mostly at Sogod, Libagon and the municipalities of the
Panaon and Pacific Area. Maasin clay ranks next which accounts for seventeen

1
percent (17%), twenty-nine thousand, one hundred fifty-seven (29,157) hectares.
These are found mostly in Maasin City, Tomas Oppus, Bontoc and Hinundayan.
Faraon Clay which totaled 14,738 hectares or 8% of the total lan area of the province
is found in Maasin City, Macrohon, Limasawa, Tomas Oppus, Liloan, and
Hinundayan. Malitbog Clay covering. [2]
Soil is a naturally occurring natural material that is primarily composed of
rocks and rocky minerals. Because soil is a natural product, it is essentially variable
and complex. The most significant soil property that governs foundation design is
bearing capacity. Bearing capacity and settlement are two important parameters in the
field of geotechnical engineering. Soft clay strata are frequently unable to bear the
load transferred from the superstructure to the foundation. Buildings, bridges, dams,
and roadways all necessitate detailed subsurface information as part of the design
process. Bearing capacity is influenced by a variety of factors such as changes in
water table level, eccentric loads, inclined loads, footing dimensions, and so on. [3]
Soils on a structure can be classified into three types: hard soils, which are
generally rocky in nature, compressible, and can withstand fairly high loads.
Examples include solid rock, moo rum, and stony soils. Soft soils, also known as
alluvial soils, are compressible when loaded. They can withstand a lot of weight. This
is evident in ordinary clay, loam, and common soils. Spreading soils, when contained
and prevented from spreading, are compressible. When loaded, these soils spread out
laterally. This type of soil includes sand and gravel. [4]
The methods ground improvement have used to improve the engineering
properties of the weak soils, mostly bearing capacity and compressibility. Also when
shear strength of the soil is less than the shear stress the bearing capacity will be
failure occurs. In improving the bearing capacity of a shallow footing is critical in
geotechnical engineering practice. Densification through the compaction, pre-
compression and vibration, pre-compression, blasting, electro-osmosis, drainage,
drying, the addition of admixtures such as lime and cement, the construction of
stiffening columns, and chemical and natural reinforcement are all examples of
ground improvement techniques. [5]
Safe bearing capacity of soil is the maximum load per unit area that the soil
can bear without any movement. This is expressed in kilograms per square centimeter.
If the load exceeds this limit, the soil will begin to shift or break. This will lead to

2
structure settlement, which can end up in destructive results. [6]

1.2 Aims and Objectives

The main purpose of this research is to optimization of soil bearing capacity in
Southern Leyte and develop the necessary data used for future safe soil bearing
capacity. Moreover, this study also aims to:

 Determine what are the soil properties in Southern Leyte in District 1.

 Determine how to analyzing bearing capacity using terzhagi method while

using civils.ai software.

 Determine of how to obtain the comparison of the data of the three different
location in District 1

1.3 Statement of the Problem

Soil bearing capacity affected by the capacity of soil to support the loads
applied to the ground. Following the determination of how bearing capacity of soil
can be improved and the different types of soil condition in bearing capacity in
Southern Leyte that this paper seeks, the researchers further aspire to answer the
following questions:

 What are the soil properties in Southern Leyte in District 1?

 How to analyzing bearing capacity using terzhagi method while using civils.ai
software?

 How to obtain the comparison of the data of the three selected location in
District 1?

3
1.4 Locale of the Study
The researchers chose this different data of application because it will give the
researchers the needed information for the optimization of soil bearing capacity and it
will be conduct in knowing the efficiency of the said study of optimization of soil
bearing capacity in Southern Leyte. The study will be conducted in the different areas
within Southern Leyte.

1.5 Scope and Delimitation

The study focuses on the optimization of soil bearing capacity in different
types of soils in different areas within Southern Leyte. The study will be containing
the following materials that suitable for soil bearing capacity, the effects of water
table or presence of water in designing a footing or foundations, and how to optimize
the bearing capacity in Southern Leyte.

1.6 Parameters
Civil.ai is used to analyze the previous soil investigation. The table shows the
relationship the variable in the study.

Constant Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Footing Dimension Soil Properties Allowable Bearing

Structural Loads Soil Profile (Layers) Capacity
(P=1500 kN) Ground water table Ultimate Bearing Capacity
Factor of Safety (F.S=3.0)

4
 Chapter II
Review of Related Literature
2.1 Overview
2.1.1 Soil in Bearing Capacity
For soil mechanics engineers, calculating the bearing capacity of a foundation
is basically a stability problem, which involves equilibrium equations for ideal soil
conditions and the assumption of failure at plastic flow. Deformation is ignored for as
long as it does not exceed given limits, such as restrictions on lateral strain under bulk
tank conditions. PRANTL (1920), REISSNER (1924) and TERZAGHI (1943)
developed their models of bearing capacity for loads acting on a homogeneous
isotropic hemisphere of soil without weight, based on COULOMB’S equation of ideal
elastic and ideal plastic soil. Soil deformation is assumed to act only in parallel to a
vertical plane rectangular to the compressed area, and in the event of failure must be
sufficiently large to achieve a full plastic state for the soil adjacent to the failure.
These assumptions are not compatible with actual practice, but adequate safety factors
are applied to compensate for the error. The foundation plane is assumed to have a
coarse face, flattening the active RANKINE’s wedge below the foundation. Fig. 1,
copied from TERZAGHI/ JELINEK (1954), shows the trend of failure lines when
adapted to real soil conditions. The commonly used failure model consists of an active
RANKINE wedge (I) in its elastic state, a plastic transition zone (II) based on a
logarithmic spiral by OHDE (1938), and a passive lateral RANKINE shearing wedge
(III). The embedded length of the strip footing is simulated by an adequate lateral
surcharge, which does not affect shearing. If no embedment is available and therefore
no lateral surcharge applies, this simplification means that the foundation load will be
calculated as a triangularly shaped load rising from the lower edge of the foundation
strip rather than a uniformly acting load, in line with RANKINE’s main stresses
which are still used in all soil failure standards. The bearing resistance of the strip
footing is given by a linear equation including the sum of all vertical loads. This
equation consists of three terms with dimensionless bearing capacity factors for
cohesion c, surcharge q and width 2b of the strip footing.

5
 Deep mixing is in soil modification technique that employs a stabilizer to
improve bearing capacity and reduce settlement on soft ground. The technique is
helpful for dealing with sensitive clay and ground with a high organic matter content.
It has been used to improve bearing capacity, reduce settlement, prevent sliding
failure, control seepage, prevent soft foundation shear deformation, and treat
contaminated soils. (Bouassida and Porbaha, 2017).
Soil stabilization is a process that includes various methods for increasing the
strength and stability of a given soil mass, as well as other engineering and physical
properties. It is typically used when the soil available for construction is unsuitable for
the intended use. By increasing the shear strength of the soil, improving the lead
bearing capacity, and controlling the shrink-swell properties, stabilization results in
better engineering performance with a lower chance of bad engineering behavior such
as washing collapse occurring. The soil stabilization process can be carried out with
or without the addition of admixtures such as lime, lime-pozzolana, cement, and so
on. It could also include the use of geotextiles. To prepare the soil for the intended
building activity, it may also involve the use of geotextile or be reinforced with strips.
Although improving natural soil for the construction of highways and airfields is the
primary goal of soil stabilization (Arora, 2011), it is also used to change the
permeability and compressibility of the soil mass in earth structures for managing the
grading of soils and aggregates in the construction of bases and sub-bases of the
highways and airfields, parking areas, site development projects, and many other

6
situations where the sub-soils are not suitable for construction. Numerous sub-grade
materials, ranging from expansive clays to granular materials, can be treated using
stabilization. (Santosh and Arora, 2020)
For many years, ground improvement methods have been used to improve the
engineering properties of weak soils, particularly bearing capacity and
compressibility. When the shear strength of the soil is less than the shear stress,
bearing capacity failure occurs. Improving the bearing capacity of a shallow footing is
critical in geotechnical engineering practice. Densification through vibration, blasting
and compaction, pre-compression, electro-osmosis, drainage, drying, the addition of
admixtures such as cement and lime, the construction of stiffening columns, and
chemical and natural reinforcement are all examples of ground improvement
techniques. Geotextile reinforcement is one method for increasing the bearing
capacity of the soil mass. Soil has a natural compression strength but a low-tension
strength. Therefore, the tensile ability of the soil and, consequently, its load carrying
capacity, can be improved by using reinforcement with high tensile strength. In
geotechnical and civil engineering applications, a geotextile is a planar, permeable,
polymeric (synthetic or natural) textile material that can be knitted, woven, or
nonwoven and is utilized in contact with soil and other materials. (Shirazi, M. G.,
Nazir R. B., Rashid A. H. B. A., Moayed, H., Horpibulsuk S. and Samingthong W.)
Soil matter in bearing capacity by spread out the weight of the house so that
the soil can carry the load by providing a level platform for forms or masonry. The
load spreads out at about a 45-degree angle within the footing and then spreads out in
the soil at a steeper angle, more like 60-degrees from the horizontal. Pressure on the
soil decreases as the load under a footing spread out. Because the soil directly beneath
the footing bears the greatest load, it should be thoroughly compacted. The pressure
on the soil is greatest right beneath the footing because the load spreads out. The unit
soil pressure has dropped by about half by the time we get down below the footing a
distance equal to the width of the footing. If you walk the same distance again, the
pressure will have dropped by two-thirds. So the soil directly beneath the footing is
the most critical and, in most cases, the most abused. (Anderson, B., 2020)

7
2.1.2 Types of Soil with Higher Bearing Capacity
2.1.2.1 Sand
Small fragments of worn rock make up the sand soil. Because they have
relatively few nutrients and a low water-holding capacity, sandy soils are among
the worst types of soil for growing plants because they make it difficult for the
roots of the plants to absorb water. The drainage system does quite well with this
kind of soil. Typically, rocks like granite, limestone, and quartz break down or
fragment to produce sand-like soil.

Figure 2.1 Sandy

Figuresoil is easy
2.1 Sandy soil to spotto by
is easy spotits
by feel
its feel(Rhoades, H.)

8
2.1.2.2 Gravel
Gravel is made up of small, irregularly shaped pieces of rock and stone. It is
rougher and rockier than sand and smaller than stones. A large proportion of rocks or
gravel will be present in rocky or gravelly soil.

Figure 2.2 Gravel soil brown ground texture. (Gudella, P.)

9
2.1.3 Types of Soil with Lower Bearing Capacity
2.1.3.1 Silts
Silt is a dense, dust-like sediment that is carried and deposited by water, ice, and
wind. Rock and mineral particles larger than clay but smaller than sand make up
silt. (Pattavina, P.)

Figure 2.3 Silty soil, which is in between sandy and clay soils and is more fertile than
sandy soil, is the middle ground. Avoid working with silty soils when they're moist to
lower your chance of compaction. Utilizing compost and products rich in soil
microbes will increase the organic matter in the soil. (Ersek, K.)

10
2.1.3.2 Clay
Clay soils are the heaviest soil types and are frequently regarded as the most
difficult to work with. They retain water and take longer to warm up in the spring.
Clay soils are also prone to soil compaction and cracking. This not only looks bad,
but it also prevents plant roots from breaking through hard layers of clay.
However, unlike sandy soils, clay soils are nutrient-rich! Nutrients are stored for
much longer in clay soils and are less likely to leech away.

Figure 2.4 Old, compact soils that have formed and compacted over a long period of
time are called clay soils. They are widespread throughout the world, including much
of the United States. If water pools after a storm or if your soil is sticky, you can be
sure you have clay soil. (Balzer, D.)

11
2.1.4 Three Different Types of Bearing Capacity
2.1.4.1 Ultimate Bearing Capacity
The ultimate bearing capacity of soil is the maximum load that any soil can
withstand without rupturing in shear or excessive settlement of the structure over it.
The maximum load that can be supported without failure is defined as the ultimate
bearing capacity by overturning of a building. Allowable bearing capacity is the
maximum load that can be applied without causing excessive settlements for a given
structural or operational application.

Figure 2.5 Details of ultimate bearing capacity equations.

(Dhiraj, R. and Bharathi, M.)

12
2.1.4.2 Safe Bearing Capacity
The safe bearing capacity of the soil is the maximum pressure that it can withstand
without failing. It is the bearing capacity value that is used in the foundation design.
This number is calculated by dividing the final bearing capacity by an appropriate
safety factor. The safety factor is typically maintained between 3 and 5.

Figure 2.6 Safe Bearing Capacity (Nair, S. M.)

13
2.1.4.3 Allowable Bearing Capacity
The net load intensity, taking into account the foundation surcharge, at which
neither the earth fails owing to shear rupture nor the foundation settles too much.
However, when designing, this bearing pressure is not taken into account. In general,
an adequate factor of safety is always employed for uncertainty and unknown factors.

Figure 2.7Allowable Bearing capacity of soil for different water level depth.

(Tahmid, A., Junaed, S. and Hossain, F.)

14
2.1.5 Three Modes of Failure in Soils Bearing Capacity
When the soil's shear forces surpass its shear strength, a foundation failure
known as a bearing capacity failure takes place. Failures of foundations' bearing
capacities can be divided into three groups.
2.1.5.1 General Shear Failure
The underlying soil is completely ruptured during a broad shear failure. The
soil (solid lines) fails continuously from beneath the footing to the ground's
surface. When the load is plotted against footing settlement, there is a specific
load (solid circle) at which the foundation fails, and this is called Qult. The
ultimate bearing capacity (qult) of the footing is calculated as the value of Qult
divided by the width B and length L of the footing. The bearing stress that results
in an abrupt, catastrophic failure of the foundation is what has been described as
the ultimate bearing capacity. (Yadav, P. C., 2022).

Figure 2.8 The soil on both sides of the footing is ruptured by general shear failure
and is pushed upward. When a footing actually fails in the field, the dirt is frequently
forced up only on one side, causing the structure to tilt. (Suryakanta, 2022)

2.1.5.2 Local shear failure

The wedge and slip surface failure patterns are well defined only under the
15
footing in this type of soil shear failure. The soil surface has a slight bulge. It is not
expected that the footing will tilt. In this mode, large deformation occurs beneath the
footing prior to the formation of failure zones, i.e. large vertical settlement occurs
prior to slight bulging of the ground surface. It is not expected that the footing will
tilt. The ultimate load is not well defined in local shear failure. It is found in soils that
are moderately compressible or loose sand, i.e. soil with a high compressibility.
Yielding occurs near the footing's lower edges. Several yield developments, each
accompanied by a series of jerks, are possible. The bearing pressure at which the first
yield occurs is referred to as the first-failure pressure or first failure load. Jamal H.
(2017).

2.1.5.3 Punching shear failure

Punching shear is a flat slab phenomenon caused by concentrated support
reactions that induce a cone-shaped perforation starting from the slab's top surface.

16
 Punching shear is a brittle failure mode that, while usually preceded by flexural
failure, necessitates a higher safety class in structural design due to the risk of
progressive collapse. (Paul, A., 2022).

2.1.6 Discontinuities of Soil in Bearing Capacity of Foundation

Many factors influence soil bearing capacity, including soil strength, foundation
width and depth, soil weight and surcharge, and foundation spacing. These factors are
related to the loads applied to the soil and have a significant impact on the bearing
capacity. Aside from the aforementioned factors, there are a number of non-load
related factors that influence bearing capacity and must be considered during
foundation design and soil bearing capacity computation.

Figure 2.9 When a localized force acts on the structure, punching shear failure of the
foundation occurs. It is most commonly found in foundations, but it is also found in
flat slabs. (Sowmya, CB., 2020)

17

Figure 2.10 For example, earthquakes and dynamic motion, frost action, subsurface
 voids, expansive and collapsible soil, potential heave, soil erosion and seepage, and

2.1.7 Twelve Factors Influencing Bearing Capacity of Soils

Shallow foundations' bearing capacity may be reduced when located near slopes,
particularly during seismic events. However, there has been little research that isolates
the destabilizing influences of seismicity and finite slope geometry on ultimate
bearing capacity in terms of conventional bearing capacity factors. Analytical
solutions based on upper-bound kinematic limit analysis are used here to isolate both
the mechanism of failure and bearing capacity factors (Nc, N, and Nq) for shallow
foundations near slopes subject to seismic action without using superposition
principles. When compared to numerical results, the analytical solutions of ultimate
seismic bearing capacity show good agreement and accuracy. Seismic bearing
capacity factors are calculated by taking into account transitions in the failure
mechanism, soil properties, and finite configurations of slope and footing geometry.
The results presented show. The presented results show significant non-linearity in
bearing capacity factors that have not previously been demonstrated, owing to a
change in governing mechanism with geometry, shear strength, or seismic loading.
This study demonstrates that the isolation of bearing capacity factors without
superposition is possible when slope and footing geometry are taken into account, and
that the failure mechanism has a significant impact. (Yang, S., Leshchinsky, B., Cui,
K. and Gao, F. Z. Y.)
2.1.7.1 Soil Strength.
The bearing capacity of cohesion less soil and mixed soil increases inversely
as the effective friction angle increases. However, if the effective friction angle is
zero, the bearing capacity of cohesive soil varies linearly with soil cohesion.

Figure 2.11 Soil Strength

18
2.1.7.2 Foundation Width
The bearing capacity of cohesion less soil is affected by the width of the
foundation. The bearing capacity of a footing placed on the surface of cohesion less
soil, where soil shear strength is heavily influenced by internal friction, is proportional
to foundation width. Cohesive soil with constant shear strength and infinite depth has
a bearing capacity that is independent of foundation width. (WALLENDER, L.,

2022).

19
2.1.7.3 Foundation Depth
Foundations are substructure elements that carry a structure's superstructure
load to the final bearing soil layer/stratum. The depth of a foundation is an important
parameter that influences the structure's performance. There are no hard and fast rules
or formulas for determining the depth of a foundation, but there are several important
factors to consider before deciding on the final depth of foundation. (Obinna, U.,
2021)

Figure 2.13 Minimum Depth of Foundation

2.1.7.4 Soil Weight and Surcharge

The contribution of subsurface and surcharge soil to bearing capacity, which is
influenced by the water table, cannot be overlooked. To avoid construction, seepage,
and uplift issues, the water table should not be higher than the foundation's base. If the
water table is below the failure surface, it has no effect on the bearing capacity.
We'll look at a scenario where a soil mass—made up of two soil deposits with
bulk unit weights of 1 and 2 and thicknesses of H1 and H2, respectively is charged
extra. Surcharge is the extra weight placed on the earth as a result of a structure or
moving object that is situated above it. (Elementary Engineering Library, 2022)

20
 Figure 2.14 Chematic Illustration of Foundation System

2.1.7.5 Earthquake and Dynamic Motion

Repeated movements may increase pore pressure in foundation soil, reducing
bearing capacity. Earthquakes, vibrating machinery, and other sources such as
vehicular traffic, blasting, and pile driving are all sources of cyclic movements.
When pore pressures equal or exceed the soil confining stress, the foundation soil
can liquefy. Liquefaction reduces effective stress to zero, causing structural
differential settlement and loss of bearing capacity.
This work investigates the seismic bearing capacity of strip footings placed
near c- soil slopes using finite element limit analysis combined with an adaptive
remising procedure. The so-called pseudo static approach is used in the analysis to
quantitatively describe the seismic effects. The method is used to calculate and
summarize the upper and lower bounds of the normalized seismic bearing
capacity factor p/B in design tables/charts for practitioners. The variation of the
normalized seismic bearing capacity factor p/B with respect to all of the problem
variables defined in section 2 is illustrated using parametric studies. There are also
graphical results from upper bound analyses to show the potential failure
mechanisms of the footing-slope bearing system under seismic conditions.
21
 (Zhang, R., Xiao, Y., Zhao, M. and Jiang, J., 2020).
The earthquake ground motion used for seismic design at the life safety limit
is the site-specific motion of an extremely rare earthquake that occurs once every
500 years or so. The soil layer with a shear wave velocity greater than 400 m/s is
assumed to be the engineering bedrock. The seismic ground motion at the exposed
outcrop engineering bedrock basic design earthquake acceleration response
spectra S0 is given as
S0T= {3.2+30TT<0.1680.16≤T<0.645.12/T0.64≤T [Eq.1]
where S0 denotes the basic design acceleration response spectra in m/s2 and T
denotes the natural period at the damage limit, the level of earthquake ground motion
used for seismic design should be reduced to one-fifth of life safety. (Rajasekaran,
R.,2022).

Figure 2.15 Bearing Capacity Failure Due to Liquefaction

22
2.1.7.6 Frost Action
Over time, bearing capacity may change due to frost heave in some soil types
that are in contact with water and exposed to freezing temperatures, as well as the
thawing-induced loss of strength in frozen soil. Materials with low cohesiveness and a
large concentration of silt-sized particles are most vulnerable to frost action.

Figure 2.16 Formation of ice lenses in a pavement structure.

23
2.1.7.7 Subsurface Voids
Subsurface voids that are within a key depth beneath the foundation reduce the
soil's bearing ability. The crucial depth is the depth below which there is little
influence of foundation pressure on the earth.

Figure 2.17 Subsurface Voids

24
2.1.7.8 Expansive and Collapsible Soils
When relatively dry, expansive and collapsible soil can have a high strength
and bearing capacity. However, variations in the water content of these soils cause
changes in their volume. The result is foundation movements that are both total
and differential. Seasonal cycles of rainfall and evaporation and drying out may
result in soil movements, which frequently cause severe long-term deterioration of
structures with significant cumulative damage.

Figure 2.18 Influence of Collapsible Soil

2.1.7.9 Potential Heave
The findings of a consolidometer test, which can be carried out in accordance
with ASTM D 4546, can be used to calculate the potential heave. The results of this
test are taken into account when evaluating how foundation soils should be prepared
in order to minimize harmful differential movements and to provide a foundation
strong enough to withstand or isolate the anticipated soil heave.

25
 For three test sections, methods for describing swell behavior and forecasting
the total potential heave of foundation soils were compared with field measurements.
Nine empirical procedures, three different consolidometer test types, and a
thermocouple psychrometric soil suction method were all used in the research. It was
discovered that straightforward classification tests can deliver accurate predictions of
field heaves. When compared to field data, the consolidometer's predictions of
prospective heaves were occasionally low and may frequently indicate small heaves.
For all test sites, predictions based on the soil suction approach provided reasonable
upper bounds. (Johnson, L. D. and Snethen, D. R.).

Figure 2.19 For a mortgagee, a foundation heave can be a particularly distressing

event since it causes unsightly wall fissures, immovable doors, and a triangle that
emerges from your garage slab, resembling a half-formed pentagram from hell.
(Dalinghaus, B., 2021)

26
2.1.7.10 Soil Erosion and Seepage
When finer particles are moved out of the soil mass by specific hydraulic
gradients, the condition is known as seepage erosion. Seepage erosion has the effect
of causing a slope to gradually collapse until slope failure happens. As soon as the
seepage force exceeds the forces of friction between the particles and self-weight of
the sand particles, groundwater will start to flow. (Su, Y., Lin, M. L., Huang, W. C.
and Chang, K. T., 2022).

Figure 2.20 Soil Erosion and Seepage.

(Xu, L., Qiao, X., Wu, C., and Dai, F., 2022)

2.1.7.11 Soil Reinforcement

Installing different types of reinforcement in the soil, such as metal ties, strips,

27
or grids, geotextile fabrics, or granular materials, can significantly boost the bearing
capacity of soft or weak soil.

Figure 2.21 Soil Reinforcement

2.2 Conceptual Frameworks

28
 PROCEDURE
AND DESIGN MODELLING
PROGRAM

TEST
IDENTIFICATION OF
CONDUCTED BY IMPORTANT
PREVIOUS VALUES AND SOIL
GEOTECHICAL SLDEO-
FILES PROPERTIES
INVESTIGATION
(DPWH)

civils.ai COMPUTATION
TERZHAGI'S
EQUATION

OVERALL
RESULTS

2.3 Operational Definition of Terms

Civil.Ai- a suite of enterprise level for engineering analysis for feasibility design. Run
29
 geotechnical, structural and tunnelling calculations. That includes the
determination of the soil bearing capacity by the Terzaghi’s method.
District I- The first district of Southern Leyte that comprises of Maasin City and
municipalities of Macrohon, Limasawa, Padre Burgos, Malitbog, Tomas
Oppus and Bontoc.
Maasin City High School- location 1 of the soil investigation.
Villa Jacinta National Vocational High School- Location 2 of the soil investigation.
Timba Elementary School, Malitbog- Location 3 of the soil investigation
Terzaghi’s Soil Bearing Capacity- the research instrument of the study in the
determination of the ultimate bearing capacity and allowable bearing
capacity.
Densification – this is what designers, planners, theorists and developers to define the
increasing solidity of individuals living in urban regions.
Foundation - are typically placed below ground level to increase structural stability.
Embankment - an elevated structure made of earth or gravel that is used to carry a
road or to hold back water.
Bearing capacity - is the highest stress or strain that a footing can withstand before
the rock or soil supporting the footing fails.
Ultimate Bearing Capacity- the theoretical maximum pressure which can be
supported without failing.
Allowable Bearing Capacity- the ultimate bearing capacity divided by a factor of
safety.
Parameters - is employed to describe the study's whole population.
Optimization - utilizing a situation or resource in the greatest or most efficient way
possible.
Compressibility - the ability of something to be compressed and reduced in size.

Chapter III
Methodology
3.1 Introduction

This chapter describes the research methodology that will be used by

30
researchers to assess the result of the E.B Testing center Inc. a material testing and
geotechnical engineering laboratory using the Final Borehole log and summary of
test results from the data of DPWH-Southern Leyte to support applied loads acting
on it. This is significant because whenever a load is placed on the ground, such as
from a building foundation or retaining wall, the ground must be capable of
supporting the load without excessive settlement or failure. Procedures and strategies
for collecting, processing, and analyzing data required for optimizing soil bearing
capacity. This allows the researchers to evaluate the overall strength and reliability of
the study.
3.2 Research Design

This study employs a quantitative research design to developed by applying

computer test models to the program, which inputs the data from previous
investigation made by the Southern Leyte District Engineering Office- district 1. To
determine the soil bearing capacity, the study use Civil.ai an engineering program
with engineering suite including the Terzaghi’s method for the determination of the
bearing capacity.
3.3 Research Instrument

In order to collect the necessary data for the research objectives, researchers
conduct an initial data collection. The first step in District 1 is the soil identification
about the soil profile with 10 meters below the ground by the data provided by the
DPWH- Southern Leyte. Then, by the data provided soil data inputted in the Civil.ai
with multi layered and computed in three euro7 standard approach.
The soil investigation consisted of borehole drilling below the present ground
level at the site with the use of one drilling machine. The works were executed
following the ASTM procedures as briefly described below (ASTM D-1586). The
location of the soil investigation is within the Southern Leyte-District I.
The investigation consisted of drilling boreholes with Standard Penetration
Test (SPT). The SPT’s conducted every 1.5-meter interval, consisted of driving a
standard split spoon sampler of 5.08 cm (2 inches O.D) diameter in three successive
segments of 15 cm (6 inches) using a freely falling drop hammer of 63.6 kg (140 lbs.)
weight from height of 76.2 cm (30 inches.)

31
 The number of blows required to penetrate the three 15-cm layers are
recorded. The blow counts of the last two layers are added to give N-value of a
particular 45 cm stretch, a measure of density or consistency of the soil.

3.4 Data Entry

The preliminary data from District 1 will be used to get values of the bearing
capacity of the design from the geotechnical exploration conducted from the previous
investigation. (See Final Borehole…appendix C). Using the Civil.ai results with the
standard code are applied to analysis the results.

Location 3

Location 1

Location 2

Figure 3.1 location

The study takes consider of the three locations the Maasin City Highschool,
Villa Jacinta National Vocational High School and Timba Elementary School,
Malitbog as the location for the analysis of soil bearing capacity. The study depends
32
on the previous investigation documented by the SLDEO, the study is dependent to
the past geotechnical exploration.

Maasin City High School- Bore 1`

Figure 3.1 Soil profile

Input data based from the previous investigation by the standard drilling
method. The soil exploration takes place in the selected area based from the
availability of sources from SLDEO- 1st District within the parameter 10 meter below
the ground.
Soil parameter were input that includes its properties for the soil assignment to layer
in the next method. Where it includes the soil individual unit weights, angle of
internal friction, cohesion of soil, modulus and saturated unit weight.

33
 Figure 3.3 I- Foundation Profile

The foundation frame with a centric spread footing as the type of the
foundation and fill in all the dimensions such as depth from the original ground
surface, the depth of the footing bottom, the thickness of the foundation and the
inclination of the finished grade as shown in the figure. The foundation profile
includes GWT inputs the location of the water table in the ground as it’s a necessary
parameter in the investigation of the study and analysis.

34
Figure 3.4- Illustration

35
3.5 Calculations

Based on Terzaghi’s bearing capacity theory, column load P is resisted by

shear stresses at edges of three zones under the footing and the overburden pressure, q
(=gD) above the footing.  The first term in the equation is related to cohesion of the
soil. The second term is related to the depth of the footing and overburden pressure.
The third term is related to the width of the footing and the length of shear stress
area. The bearing capacity factors, Nc, Nq, Ng, are function of internal friction
angle, f.
Identification of type of footing (Shallow foundation)
Terzaghi's Bearing capacity equations:
Strip footings: 

 Qu = c Nc + g D Nq + 0.5 g B Ng

Square footings:

Qu = 1.3 c Nc + g D Nq + 0.4 g B Ng

Circular footings:

 Qu = 1.3 c Nc + g D Nq + 0.3 g B Ng

Where:

C: Cohesion of soil (apparent cohesion intercept); g: unit weight of soil; D: depth of

footing (depth of embedment); B: width/breadth of footing; Nc, Nq, Nr:  Terzaghi’s
bearing capacity factors depend on soil friction angle, f:

36
Kp=passive pressure coefficient. 

The Bowles' Foundation analysis and design book, "Terzaghi never explained. How
he obtained Kp used to compute Ng")

f Nc Nq Ng

0 5.7 1 0

5 7.3 1.6 0.5

10 9.6 2.7 1.2

15 12.9 4.4 2.5

20 17.7 7.4 5

25 25.1 12.7 9.7

30 37.2 22.5 19.7

35 57.8 41.4 42.4

40 95.7 81.3 100.4

45 172.3 173.3 297.5

48 258.3 287.9 780.1

Figure 3.5- Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity Factors.

The study decided to have the square footing with the dimensions of 2x2m
with the embedment of 0.5m. Determine ultimate soil bearing capacity using
Terzaghi’s bearing capacity equation for square footings.
Qu = 1.3 c Nc + g D Nq + 0.4 g B Ng

Allowable soil bearing capacity,

Qa = Qu / F.S

37
Factor safety of = 3.0

The Inputs of Soil Profile in Civil.ai. Soil Parameters, depths and groundwater were
inputted to analyze by the software. For technical computations. By the Terzaghi’s
equations. Design approaches are evaluated in three approaches with a default
parameter from the standard code of euro 7. Below is the table the shows the variables
applied in the equation.

3.6 Design Approaches

There are three design approach to control the strength of soil, and applied
load (surcharge). Soil strength such as cohesion, friction angle and dilatancy angle
will be reduced using the partial factor. Load (surcharge) will be increased with
partial factor. Below, there are descriptions about design approaches as below,
 

3.6.1 Design Approach 1 (DA1)

There are two combinations from Design Approach 1.
Combination 1: A1 + M1 + R1
Combination 2: A2 + M2 + R1
 

3.6.2 Design Approach 2 (DA2)

Combination: A1 + M1 + R2
 
3.6.3 Design Approach 3 (DA3)
Combination: (A1 or A2) + M2 + R3
 

Combinations are denoted by A (for actions or effects of actions), M (for soil

parameters) and R (for resistances). They are selected according to the used Design
Approaches.
 
 

38
 
1) Partial Factors on action (A)

Figure 3.6- Partial Factors on action (A)

  For the verification of structural (STR) and geotechnical (GEO) limit states
set A1 or set A2 of the following partial factors on action or the effects of actions
shall be applied. The recommended values for buildings in EN 1990 for the two sets
A1 and A2 are given in table below,

39
 2) Partial Factors for soil parameters (M)

The recommended values for the two sets M1 and M2 are given in table below,

Figure 3.7- Partial Factors for soil parameters

For the verification of structural (STR) and geotechnical (GEO) limit state set M1 or
set M2 of the following partial factors on soil parameters shall be applied. The data contains
the default from the software, soil parameters as independent variables.

40
 3) Partial Factors for Resistance (R)

Figure 3.8- Partial factors for Resistance

The recommended values for partial factor can be summarized in table below,
for spread foundations and verifications of structural (STR) and geotechnical (GEO)
limit states, set R1, R2 and R3 of the following partial factors on resistance shall be
applied. The recommended values for the three sets R1, R2 and R3 are given in table
below,

Figure 3.9- Design Approach 1

From Design Approach 1. Combination 1: A1 + M1 + R1 and Combination 2: A2 +
M2 + R1
41
Figure
3.10- Design Approach 2
Design Approach 2 contains the Combination: A1 + M1 + R2.

Figure 3.11- Design Approach 3

The Design Approach 3 has a Combination: (A1 or A2) + M2 + R3

42
 A summary of the three design approaches in calculation, where load
combinations are applied by a certain default the soil parameters and resistance as an
individual independent variable.

Repeat the calculation: The calculation should be repeated for each soil layer
beneath the foundation, considering the distribution of the load through the subgrade
modulus or angle of friction to dissipate the load.

Allowable bearing pressure can be determined for both shallow and deep foundations
using the Terzaghi bearing capacity equations.

43
 CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
This chapter comprises the analysis, presentation and interpretation of the
findings resulting from the study. The analysis and interpretation of the data is carried
out by the results of the geotechnical software

Figure 4.1-Final Bore log

The table shows the subsoil in the three selected location with two boreholes
in district 1-Southern Leyte. The data also contains the location of the groundwater.
The data was retrieved from the previous soil investigation by a standard penetration
test of the SLDEO-District 1

44
 4.1 Soil properties
4.1.1 MAASIN CITY
Silty Clayey Sandy Silt Sandy Clay Clayey Weathered
Sand Sand (MS), FIRM (CS), FIRM Gravel Limestone
(SM) (SC) CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY (GC)
Unit Weight (Kn/m) 18.00 18.50 18.00 18.50 19.50 19.00

Angle of internal 29.00 27.00 26.50 24.50 30.00 32.50

friction
Cohesion of soil 5.00 8.00 12.00 14.00 6.00 0.00

Oedometric modulus 13.50 12.50 10.50 8.00 67.50 102.00

Saturated unit weight 18.00 18.50 18.00 18.50 19.50 19.00

Figure 4.2- Soil Profile-Maasin NHS

The table contains the subsoils and soil composition of the location 1- Maasin
City NHS. The location 1 composed of six subsoils.

SOIL PROPERTIES OF MAASIN CITY

Silty Sand Clayey Sand Sandy Silt
Sandy Clay Clayey Gravel Weathered Limestone
102
67.5
32.5
26.5
24.5
19.5

19.5
30
18.5

18.5

18.5

18.5
29
27

13.5
12.5
10.5
19

19
18

18

18

18
14
12
8

8
6
5

) n a) a) )
/m o P p /m
n c ti (k (M kN
(K i il s (
t fr so lu t
gh al f u g h
ei rn o o
d ei
W te n m w
o
it in si ic it
n e n
of tr u
U
e oh e d
C m te
gl o
A
n ed ra
O tu
Sa

Figure 4.3- Graphical Presentation of Soil Profile -Maasin City NHS

45
4.1.2 VILLA JACINTA NHVS

MH- Stiff, Sandy silt Silty Clayey Weathered

Elatic Silt (MS), firm sand sand Limestone
consistency (SM) (SC)
Unit Weight (Kn/m) 21.00 18.00 18.00 18.50 19.00

Angle of internal friction 17.00 26.50 29.00 27.00 32.50

Cohesion of soil 12.00 12.00 5.00 8.00 0.00

Oedometric modulus 13.00 10.50 13.50 12.50 102.00

Saturated unit weight 21.00 18.00 18.00 18.50 19.00

Figure 4.4- Soil Profile-Villa Jacinta NVHS

SOIL PROPERTI ES OF VILLA JACI NTA

NHVS
Unit Weight (Kn/m) Angle of internal friction Cohesion of soil (kPa)
Oedometric modulus (Mpa) Saturated unit weight (kN/m)

102
3 2 .5
2 6 .5

1 8 .5

1 8 .5
1 3 .5

1 2 .5
1 0 .5

29

27
21

21

19

19
18

18

18

18
17

13
12

12

8
5

Figure 4.5- Graphical Presentation of Soil Profile -Villa Jacinta NHVS

The table contains the subsoils and soil composition of the location 2- Villa Jacinta
NVHS, Villa Jacinta, Macrohon, Southern Leyte. The location 2 composed of five
subsoils.

4.1.3 TIMBA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, MALITBOG

Silt with low or Silty sand (SM) Weathered
medium plasticity Limestone
(ML, MI), firm
consistency
Unit Weight (Kn/m) 20.00 18.00 19.00

46
 Angle of internal friction 21.00 29.00 32.50
Cohesion of soil 12.00 5.00 0.00
Oedometric modulus 8.50 13.50 102.00
Saturated unit weight 20.00 18.00 19.00

 
Figure 4.6- Soil Profile-Timba Elem.

The table contains the subsoils and soil composition of the location 3- Timba,
Elementary School, Malitbog, Southern Leyte. The location 3 composed of three
subsoils.

SOIL PROPERTIES OF TIMBA ELEMENTARY

SCHOOL, MALITBOG
Silt with low or medium plasticity (ML, MI), firm consistency
Silty sand (SM)
Weathered Limestone

102
32.5

13.5
29
21
20

20
19

19
18

18
8.5
12
5
0

Figure 4.7- Soil Profile-Timba Elem.

47
4.2 Bearing Capacity
4.2.1 Maasin City High School -Bore 1

Figure 4.9- Result summary 1.1

4.2.2 Maasin City High School-Bore 2

Figure 4.10- Result summary 1.2

48
4.3.1 Villa Jacinta NVHS- Bore 1

Figure 4.11- Result summary 2.1

4.3.2 Villa Jacinta NVHS- Bore 2

Figure 4.12- Result summary 2.2

49
4.4.1 Timba Elementary School- Bore 1

Figure 4.13- Result summary 3.1

4.4.2 Timba Elementary School- Bore 1

Figure 4.14- Result summary 3.2

50
 Bearing Pressure and Allowable Bearing Cap.
350 327.2
309.5
300

250
216.1
200

150

100
50.6 50.6 50.6
50

0
Maasin City High School Villa Jacinta NVHS Timba Elem, Malitbog

Bearing Pressure/ Design Load Allowable Bearing Capacity

Figure 4.15- Allowable Bearing Capacity

The bearing pressure altered by the force acted by the foundation. It serves as
a constant variable in the determination of soil bearing capacity versus to the soil
parameters compose in the three-selection location in Southern Leyte.
The allowable bearing capacity of the three location are 327.2 kN/m3 in the
Maasin HS, 216 kN/m3 in Villa Jacinta NVHS and 309.5 kN/m3 in Timba Elem.,
Malitbog. Which the amount of load the soil can take without experiencing shear
failure or exceeding the allowable amount of settlement.

51
 Ultimate Bearing Capacity (kN/m3)

981.6
928.5

738.3

Maasin City HS Villa Jacinta NVHS Timba Elem., Malitbog

Ultimate Bearing Capacity

Figure 4.16- Ultimate Bearing Capacity

The graph represents the ultimate bearing capacity of soil that are the
maximum vertical pressure that can be applied to the ground surface at which point a
shear failure mechanism develops in the supporting soil. In the essence, this means
the maximum amount of load the soil can take before it fails or gives way completely.
The determination of the ultimate bearing capacity is through the factor of
safety of three (F. S= 3.0). and multiplied by the allowable bearing capacity. The
result show that Maasin City HS possess 981.6 kN/m3, Villa Jacinta NVJS has 738.3
and the Timba Elem., Malitbog has the 2nd highest among the three that has 928.5
kn/m3.

Measure of Tendency

Mean (Average) 882.8

Median 928.5
Range 243.3
Mode All values appeared just once.

Two of the most frequently used and most valuable measures of central
tendency in psychological research are the mean and median. Both tell us something
about the central values or typical measure in a distribution of scores.
52
 Measures of Variability
We have already seen that a measure of central tendency by itself provides only a
limited amount of information about a distribution. To complete the description, it is
necessary to have some idea of how the scores are distributed about the central value.

Range 243.3
Variance 127.92611
Standard Deviation 16365.09

Geometric Mean 876.29387353622

Largest 981.6
Smallest 738.3
Sum 2648.4
Count 3

Sorted Data Set: 738.3, 928.5, 981.6

Solution
Computation made from the data.

Standard Deviation
s =127.92611
Variance
s2 =16365.09
Count
n =3
Mean
x¯¯¯x¯ =882.8
Sum of Squares
SS =32730.18

53
 The graph of the normal distribution is characterized by two parameters:
the mean, or average of the ultimate bearing capacity, which is the maximum of the
graph and about which the graph is always symmetric; and the standard deviation,
which determines the amount of dispersion away from the mean.
A based on the result of the standard deviation from the result of the
Terzaghi’s equation generated by the Civl.ai. It resulted by a wide standard deviation
equated 127.93. It implies that Southern Leyte possess a wide range of soil bearing
capacity. Furthermore, the soil bearing capacity are falls within the satisfactorily
passed in analysis result.

54
 CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter concludes the study by dealing with summary of findings,

conclusion and recommendation on the determination of the soil bearing capacity in
Southern Leyte -District 1.

5.1 Summary
The data obtained from the previous soil investigation consisted of
bore drilling hole, the work execute by a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) in
accordance to ASTM D-1589. The SPT were conducted with a specified boring depth.
Conducted every 1.5 meters’ interval, 2 inches’ diameter borehole using a free drop
hammer. The number of blows required to 15cm later were recorded for the measure
of density or consistency of the soil. All the soil sample were retrieved using a spoon
sampler and all recovered soil sample were brought to the soil laboratory for testing
(DPWH-E. B Testing Center Inc).
The determination of the soil bearing capacity using Terzaghi’s equation in
Southern Leyte, district 1 was determine using theoretical testing from the previous
investigation conducted by the DPWH-SLDEO, District 1 and computed by the
Civil.ai using Terzaghi’s equation. The data from the previous investigation
determines the soil composition and profile in the three selected location in southern
Leyte. The data were inputted through multiple layers with corresponding soil profile
using the parameter. The Civil.ai generated the allowable bearing capacity and
manually computed to get the ultimate bearing capacity through the factor of safety =
3.0.
The parameter is investigated through geometry, materials, soil profile by its
unit weight, cohesion, angle friction and the location of the ground water. And
analysis of result is in the chapter IV that compose of tables and graphs. The goal was
evaluated the sustainability, capacity and satisfactory to investigate bearing capacity
that do not have a document for this exploration and determine the relationship
between the independent and dependent variable. And finally, developed a result that
could help further studies and development in the soil exploration within the area of
district 1.

55
 The study takes consider of the three locations the Maasin City Highschool,
Villa Jacinta National Vocational High School and Timba Elementary School,
Malitbog as the location for the analysis of soil bearing capacity. The subsoil in
district I are the following: in the location 1-Maasin City NHS, composed of medium
to very dense clayey and silty sand with gravel and the bottom of 9-10.5 m depth are
completely weathered limestone with groundwater at the depth of 3.2 meters. In Villa
Jacinta NVHS are stiff, elastic silt and 4.5m to bottom is completely weathered corals
with 4.5m below the ground groundwater table. In location 3 the Timba Elementary
of Malitbog is from firm silt with sand to 9m of weathered Limestone with 9 meter
the ground water table below the surface.
The allowable bearing capacity of the three locations are 327.2 kN/m3 in the
Maasin HS, 216 kN/m3 in Villa Jacinta NVHS and 309.5 kN/m3 in Timba Elem.,
Malitbog. Which the amount of load the soil can take without experiencing shear
failure or exceeding the allowable amount of settlement. The determination of the
ultimate bearing capacity is through the factor of safety of three (F. S= 3.0). and
multiplied by the allowable bearing capacity. The result show that Maasin City HS
possess 981.6 kN/m3, Villa Jacinta NVJS has 738.3 and the Timba Elem., Malitbog
has the 2nd highest among the three that has 928.5 kn/m3.
The Bearing Capacity were determined by multi-layered with sub-soil
and analyzes as a whole system. Groundwater depth were also considered as it altered
the soil profile. And the foundation dimension as a constant variable in different
parameter to established determination and comparison in different location. Based
from wide standard deviation equated 127.93. It implies that Southern Leyte possess a
wide range of soil bearing capacity. Furthermore, the soil bearing capacity are falls
within the satisfactorily passed in analysis result.

5.2 Conclusion
Soil profile presented by the data from previous investigation and
determination of soil bearing capacity using a software, Civil.ai through the concept
of Terzaghi’s equation. Soil bearing capacities presented satisfactorily pass. With the
ground water with minimum 3.2 meter and 9 meter as maximum of the three location
and six drilling of holes from the ground surface the soil mass having firm to stiff
sandy silt, medium dense to very dense silty sand and highly completed weathered

56
limestone, the ground is not susceptible to liquefaction in the event of strong
earthquakes. Therefore, for a shallow foundation the selected location in the district 1
do not require soil bearing optimization since the soil bearing is adequate to withstand
bearing pressure and failures from general, shear and flexures.
5.3 Recommendation
The study can be improved through laboratory experiment and surveying. As
it implies, basic changes of the factors may alter the soils. Consultations to the
structural engineers and specialized engineer can be a great motivation to intensify the
study to gather significant data that can be a measure of the project feasibility of the
construction projects. More references and studies that can relate the data of the study
to help as a guide for theoretical comparison based on the results of the Geotechnical
software and the methodology. And a good recommendation for the future researcher
to have all the places within the district must include in the study to generate a good
conclusion about the district soil distribution and generalization of soil bearing
capacity of district.

57
5.4 References:

1. DA-BAR, Tacloban/Office of the Province Agriculturist, So. Leyte

2. https://info.tensar.co.uk/blog/what-is-the-bearing-capacity-of-soil#what-is-
bearing

3. https://gndec.ac.in/~igs/ldh/conf/2011/articles/T11_09.pdf

4. https://civilengineering.blog/2017/10/20/bearing-capacity/

5. file:///C:/Users/OWNER/Downloads/article%202.pdf

6. https://www.quantity-takeoff.com/types-of-soil-and-its-bearing-capacity.htm

7. S. A. Rashid, A. R. Bunawan, and K. N. Mat Said, “Hub: The deep mixing

method: Bearing Capacity Studies: 10.1007/S10706-017-0196-X,” Sci. [Online].
Available: https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1007/s10706-017-0196-x. [Accessed:
12-Jul-2022].

8. G. A. Archibong, E. U. Sunday, J. C. Akudike, O. C. Okeke, and C. Amadi, “A

review of the principles and methods of soil stabilization - researchgate.”
[Online]. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Akudike/publication/342448451_A_
REVIEW_OF_THE_PRINCIPLES_AND_METHODS_OF_SOIL_STABILIZ
ATION/links/5ef4ba6792851c52d6fabf6f/A-REVIEW-OF-THE-PRINCIPLES-
AND-METHODS-OF-SOIL-STABILIZATION.pdf. [Accessed: 12-Jul-2022].
9. B. Mahajan and About the Author Bhushan Mahajan Welcome to
civiconcepts.com, “What is clay soil: How to improve Clay Soil: Pros & cons of
clay soil: Uses of clay soil: Soil and clay,” Civiconcepts, 06-Jun-2022. [Online].
Available: https://civiconcepts.com/blog/clay-soil. [Accessed: 14-Jul-2022].
10. P. E. U. J. 30 Brent Anderson, “Bearing capacity of soil - bearing pressure
chart,” The Concrete Network, 01-Jul-2020. [Online]. Available:

58
 https://www.concretenetwork.com/concrete/footing_fundamentals/why_soils_m
atter.htm. [Accessed: 14-Jul-2022].
11. D. Balzer, “What is clay soil?” Family Handyman, 11-Mar-2022. [Online].
Available: https://www.familyhandyman.com/article/clay-soil/. [Accessed: 14-
Jul-2022].
12. P. C. Yadav and Roopa, “3 primary types of bearing capacity failures of
Foundation,” CivilBlog.Org, 25-Jul-2015. [Online]. Available:
https://civilblog.org/2015/07/25/3-primary-types-of-bearing-capacity-failures-
of-foundation/. [Accessed: 14-Jul-2022].
13. H. Jamal, “Haseeb Jamal,” Modes of Shear Failure of Soil - General, Local,
Punching Shear, 08-Jun-2017. [Online]. Available:
https://www.aboutcivil.org/modes-of-shear-failure-in-soil.html. [Accessed: 14-
Jul-2022].
14. A. Paul, “What is punching shear? punching shear in flat slabs - civildigital -,”
CivilDigital, 27-Mar-2021. [Online]. Available:
https://civildigital.com/punching-shear-punching-shear-flat-slabs/. [Accessed:
15-Jul-2022].
15. S. Yang, B. Leshchinsky, K. Cui, and F. Z. Y. Gao, “Hub: Influence of failure
mechanism on seismic bearing capacity factors for shallow foundations near
slopes: 10.1680/jgeot.19. p.329,” Sci. [Online]. Available: https://sci-
hub.hkvisa.net/10.1680/jgeot.19.P.329. [Accessed: 15-Jul-2022].
16. R. Zhang, Y. Xiao, M. Zhao, and J. Jiang, “Seismic bearing capacity of strip
footings placed near C-φ soil slopes,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 22-May-2020. [Online]. Available:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0267726119315283.
[Accessed: 15-Jul-2022].
17. L. Wallender, “Building Code Foundation requirements,” The Spruce, 29-Apr-
2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.thespruce.com/foundation-footings-
code-basics-1822269#:~:text=Footing%20width%20can%20vary
%20according,footings%20for%201%2C500%20LBV%20soil. [Accessed: 15-
Jul-2022].

18. (Ubinna, 2021)

59
U. O. -, By, -, Ubani ObinnaA dynamic civil engineer with vast experience in
research, U. Obinna, and A dynamic civil engineer with vast experience in research,
“How to determine the depth of foundation,” Structville, 18-Jun-2021. [Online].
Available: https://structville.com/2021/06/how-to-determine-the-depth-of-
foundation.html. [Accessed: 26-Jul-2022].

60
 APPENDIX A
Location

Location 3

Location 1

Location 2

The soil investigation consisted of borehole drillings below the presented

ground level at the site with the use of machine. The standard penetration test (SPT)
an ASTM D- 1586 procedure. The soil investigation takes place in the three selected
location in Southern Leyte- District I. The Maasin City National High School,
Combado; Villa Jacinta National Vocational High School, Villa Jacinta and Timba
Elementary School, Malitbog.

61
 APPENDIX B

Parameters
Maasin City Highschool- Bore 2

Soil Profile

Soil Profile
62
 Illustration

Villa Jacinta NVHS- Bore 1

Soil Profile

63
Foundation Profile

Illustration

64
Villa Jacinta NHVS- Bore 2

Soil Profile

65
 Illustration

Timba Elem., Malitbog- Bore 1

66
67
Timba, Malitbog- Bore 2

68
 APPENDIX C

Calculations

Calculation in every soil layer based on the E7-3 design approaches.

Maasin City Highschool- Bore 1

Soil 1. SM- Medium Dense, Light Brown, Silty sand gravel

2nd Soil Layer. SC- Medium Dense, Light Brown Clayey Sand with Gravel

69
3rd soil layer. MS- Dense to very dense, Light Gray, Silty sand with Gravel

4th Soil Layer- CS-Medium Dense, light Gray, Silty Sand with gravel

70
5th Soil Layer- GC- very Dense, Light Gray, Clayey Sand with Gravel

6th Soil Layer- Light brown, Completely Weathered Limestone

71
7th Soil Layer- Light brown, Completely Weathered Limestone

72
Maasin City Highschool- Bore 2

73
74
Villa Jacinta National Vocational High School- Bore 1

75
76
Villa Jacinta National Vocational High School- Bore 2

77
78
79
80
Timba Elementary School, Malitbog- Bore 1

81
82
83
Timba Elementary School, Malitbog- Bore 2

84
85
86