Appendix 4 - EGGAR C01

REPORT
Engineering Geological and

Geohazard Assessment Report
Engineering Geological and Geohazard Assessment

Report
Client: Pasay Harbor City Corporation
Reference: SF1141-RHD-DN-ZZ-RP-0004
Status: Final/C01
Date: 17 April 2020
Project related
HASKONING PHILIPPINES INC.
Unit 62 Level 6 Legaspi Suites Building

178 Salcedo Street Legaspi Village
Makati City 1229
Water
Trade register number: CS200410042
+63 2 802 2160 / 61 T

info@ph.rhdhv.com E
royalhaskoningdhv.com W
Document title: Engineering Geological and Geohazard Assessment Report
Document short title: EGGAR

Reference: SF1141-RHD-DN-ZZ-RP-0004
Status: C01/Final
Date: 17 April 2020
Project name: Pasay Harbor City
Project number: SF1141
Author(s): Prima Nilasari, Ernesto Dulay II, Shuhong Tan, Casper Gies
Prima Nilasari, Ernesto Dulay II,

Drafted by:
Shuhong Tan, Casper Gies
Checked by: Carolina Sigaran
Date / initials: 17-04-2020
Approved by: Trevor Morrish-Hale
Date / initials: 17-04-2020
Classification
Project related
Disclaimer
No part of these specifications/printed matter may be reproduced and/or published by print, photocopy, microfilm or by
any other means, without the prior written permission of Haskoning Philippines Inc.; nor may they be used, without
such permission, for any purposes other than that for which they were produced. Haskoning Philippines Inc. accepts
no responsibility or liability for these specifications/printed matter to any party other than the persons by whom it was
commissioned and as concluded under that Appointment. The integrated QHSE management system of Haskoning
Philippines Inc. has been certified in accordance with ISO 9001:2015.
17 April 2020 EGGAR SF1141-RHD-DN-ZZ-RP-0004 i

Project related
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION 6
1.1 Project Description 6
1.2 Scope of this Report 6
1.3 References 6
2 SITE CONDITION 8
2.1 Site Location 8
2.2 Bathymetry and Topography 8
2.3 Climate 9
3 GEOLOGY AND GROUND CONDITION 12

3.1 Tectonic Setting 12
3.2 Regional Geology 12
3.3 Local Geology 14
3.4 Seismogenic sources 15
3.5 Ground Condition 18
4 GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS 20
4.1 Seismic Hazards 20
4.2 Mass Movement 32
4.3 Volcanic Hazards 35
5 HYDROLOGICAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT 37

5.1 Fluvial Hazards 37
5.2 Coastal Hazards 37
6 OTHER HAZARDS 40
6.1 Airborne 40
6.2 Cosmic 40
7 RISK ASSESSMENT 41
7.1 Approach to risk assessment 41
7.2 Risk assessment 42
7.3 Measures 43
17 April 2020 EGGAR SF1141-RHD-DN-ZZ-RP-0004 2

Project related
Table of Tables
Table 2-1: Climate data summary 9
Table 3-1: Summary of stratigraphic units defined at the project site 18
Table 4-1: PHIVOLCS Earthquake Intensity Scale (PEIS) [25] 21
Table 4-2: PGA -based on DSHA per GMPE and ground condition based on West Marikina
Valley Fault 25
Table 4-3: PGA -based on DSHA per GMPE and ground condition based on Philippines Fault 26
Table 4-4: PGA -based on DSHA per GMPE and ground condition based on Lubang Fault 26
Table 4-5: PGA-based on DSHA per GMPE and ground condition based on Manila Trench 27
Table 7-1: Risk assessment matrix 41
Table 7-2: Likelihood of risk 42
Table 7-3: Evaluation of present and projected hazards for Pasay Harbor City 42
Table 7-4: Possible measures 44
Table of Figures
Figure 2-1: Pasay Harbor City reclamation 8
Figure 2-2: Bathymetry level of Project site [3] 9
Figure 2-3: Rainfall intensity-frequency-duration curve based on the Port Area Station records in
Manila 10
Figure 2-4: Climate map of the Philippines (1951-2010) by PAGASA 11
Figure 3-1: Tectonic setting and active faults in central and northern Luzon. MVFS: Marikina
valley fault system; PFZ: Philippines fault zone (after [11]). Red star indicates the project
location. 12
Figure 3-2: Geologic Map of Manila [4] 13
Figure 3-3: Stratigraphy of Manila [24] 14
Figure 3-4: Active tectonic faults and trenches in the Philippines (after [12]) 16
Figure 4-1: Seismicity map [27] 20
Figure 4-2: Seismic hazard map of Pasay City for event Scenario: magnitude 7.2 Earthquake
along the WVF [25] 23
Figure 4-3: Peak ground acceleration map of the Philippines 500 years return period on rock site
[28] 24
Figure 4-4: A continuous fault scarp of the North Bohol Fault in Brgy. Anonang, Inabanga, Bohol
[25] 28
Figure 4-5: Liquefaction susceptibility criteria [23] 28
Figure 4-6: Liquefaction hazard map of Pasay City [25] 30

Project related
Figure 4-7: Projected tsunami in the event of Magnitude 7.0 earthquake generated by Manila
Trench with epicentre at the vicinity of Manila Bay entrance [1] 31
Figure 4-8: Map of tsunami prone areas in the Philippines 33
Figure 4-9: Ground motion velocity in cm/year for 2003-2010 (Raucoules,2013) 34
Figure 4-10: Time-load-settlement for loading with fill and surcharge [26] 35
Figure 5-1: Location of rivers nearby Project site 37
Figure 5-2: Project sea level rise relative to 2005 38
Figure 5-3: Regional sea level change for RCP 8.5 time window 2081-2100 39
Appendices
A1 INPUT PARAMETERS FOR THE DETERMINISTIC PGA ANALYSIS – Active Shallow
Crustal

Project related
Acronyms
Acronym Acronym description
DSHA Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment
EGGA Engineering Geological and Geohazard Assessment
EGGAR Engineering Geological and Geohazard Assessment Report
GMPE Ground Motion Prediction Equation
PGA Peak Ground Acceleration
PGV Peak Ground Velocity
PHCC Pasay Harbor City Corporation
PHC Pasay Harbor City
PSHA Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment
MGB Mines and Geosciences Bureau
MSL Mean Sea Level
PPA Philippine Port Authority
GPI Geotechnics Philippines Inc
KSCC Kwan Sing Construction Corporation
Sa Spectral acceleration
WVF West Valley Fault
EVF East Valley Fault

Project related
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description

Manila has long been the largest city in the Philippines, and it continues to absorb the vast majority of the
country’s urban growth. The existing Central Business Districts of Manila are filling up fast, and numerous
developments are being proposed. Good fundamentals and strong growth from stabilized economy over the
past 10 years have led to increased demand for real estate, preferably in areas that have been master
planned, engineered with proper infrastructure, and designed to incorporate the latest lifestyle trends.
In this regard Pasay Harbor City Corporation (PHCC), the Client, has the ambition and has secured the
development rights to develop two islands (Island A and Island B) in Manila Bay with a total surface area of
265 hectares. The objective is to establish the Pasay Harbor City as the western gateway to Manila. PHCC
requested Royal HaskoningDHV (RHDHV) to carry out a detailed engineering design of Pasay Harbor City
project.
Earlier Engineering Geological and Geohazard Assessment Report (EGGAR) has been prepared by DCCD
Engineering Corporation in April 2018. During 2019 and 2020 additional ground investigation has been
executed for the ongoing design works and update on the EGGAR is deemed necessary. This is to cover
the gained knowledge on the site-specific ground conditions within the interpretation of the seismic design
loads and methods which will be used in the update detailed engineering design of the proposed
reclamation. The report includes the results of all engineering geological, structural geological and
geohazard assessment and geotechnical tests, with any other specialized studies and tests undertaken, as
prescribed by the DENR/Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB).
1.2 Scope of this Report

The following tasks are undertaken in this Engineering Geological and Geohazard Assessment (EGGA)
report:
• To describe the site condition, geological and geotechnical ground condition, implementing the
latest geotechnical information received from the ongoing geotechnical investigation campaign;
• To assess the geological hazards, hydrological hazards and others based on the updated ground
condition and site characteristics of Project area;
• To provide additional methods on the deterministic seismic hazard analysis based on the literature;
• To conclude and summarize the findings and provide the risk assessment for the Project.
1.3 References
[1] Engineering Geological & Geohazard Assessment Report, Pasay Harbor City Reclamation Project,
DCCD Engineering Corporation, April 2018
[2] Factual Report Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Manila Bay Reclamation Pasay City,
Geotechnics Philippines Inc., 2814-17.R0, April 2018
[3] Hydrographic & Geophysical Survey Final Report: Additional Hydrographic & Geophysical Survey
at Pasay Harbour City Center Reclamation, EGS, 1419G, August – September 2019
[4] Geological Survey Division. (1983). Geological Map of Manila and Quezon City Quadrangle. [map].
1:50000. Geological Quadrangle Maps of the Philippines, Sheet 3263-IV. Manila: Philippine Bureau
of Mines and Geo-sciences
[5] Dell, T., McClung, J. & Morales, E. Characterisation of the Reclaimed Soils in the Foreshore Area
of Manila Bay, Philippines.
[6] Geotechnical Soil Investigation Report, KSCC, January 2020

Project related
[7] Aurelio, M., Barrierj, E., Gaulon, R., & Rangin, C. (1997). Deformation and stress states along the
central segmentof the Philippine Fault: implications to wrench fault tectonics. Journal of Asian Earth
Sciences, 15(2-3), 107-119.
[8] JICA, M. (2004). PHIVOLCS. Earthquake Impact Reduction Study for Metropolitan Manila, Republic
of the Philippines. Final Report.
[9] Koo, R., Mote, T., Manlapig, R. V., & Zamora, C. (2009). Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment
for Central Manila in Philippines. In Australian Earthquake Engineering Society Conference.
[10] Miura, H., Midorikawa, S., Fujimoto, K., Pacheco, B. M., & Yamanaka, H. (2008). Earthquake
damage estimation in Metro Manila, Philippines based on seismic performance of buildings
evaluated by local experts’ judgments. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 28(10-11), 764-
777.
[11] Rimando, R. E., & Knuepfer, P. L. (2006). Neotectonics of the Marikina Valley fault system (MVFS)
and tectonic framework of structures in northern and central Luzon, Philippines. Tectonophysics,
415(1-4), 17-38.
[12] PHIVOLCS (2015). Design Guidelines, Criteria & Standards. Volume 2A Geohazard Assessment.
[13] PHIVOLCS. (1997). “Professional Paper 01, The Marikina Valley Fault System: Active Faulting in
Eastern Metro”, PHIVOLCS Press, Quezon City.
[14] Nelson, A.R. Personius, S.F., Rimando, R.E., Punongbayan, R.S., Tungol, N., Mirabueno, H.,
Rasdas, A. (2000). Multiple large earthquakes in the past 1500 years on a fault in Metropolitan
Manila, The Philippines. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 90(1): 73-85.
[15] Bautista B C, Bautista M L P, Oike K, Wu F T and Punongbayan R S. (2001) A new insight on the
geometry of subducting slabs in northern Luzon, Philippines. Tectonophys.339(3–4) 279–310.
[16] Allen, C. R. (1962). Circum‐Pacific faulting in the Philippines‐Taiwan region. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 67(12), 4795-4812.
[17] Acharya, H. K. (1980). Seismic slip on the Philippine fault and its tectonic implications. Geology,
8(1), 40-42.
[18] Newhall, C.G., and Punongbayan, R.S. (1990). “Questions raised by the Luzon, Philippines
earthquake of July 16, 1990: EOS”, 71(43), 1442.
[19] Douglas, J. (2003). Earthquake ground motion estimation using strong-motion records: A review of
equations for the estimation of peak ground acceleration and response spectral ordinates. Earth-
Science Reviews, 61(1–2): 43–104.
[20] Queano, K.L., Ali, J.R., Milsom, J., Aitchison, J. C., & Pubellier, M. (2007). North Luzon and the
Philippine Sea Plate motion model: Insights following paleomagnetic, structural, and age‐dating
investigations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 112(B5).
[21] Catane, S. G., Mendoza, E. P. P., Pascua, C. S., & Zarco, M. A. H. (2010). Suitability of Volcanic
Soils in Metro Manila, Philippines for Landfill Liner Material.
[22] JICA, M. (2010). PHIVOLCS. The study of Masterplan on High Standard Highway Network
Development In the Republic of the Philippines. Final Report.
[23] Jonathan D. Bray and Rodolfo B. Sancio (2006). Assessment of the Liquefaction Susceptibility of
Fine-Grained Soils
[24] Rolando Pena (2008). Lexicon of Philippine Stratigraphy
[25] PHIVOLCS website: https://www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/
[26] CIRIA CURNET 244 Hydraulic Fill Manual, November 2012
[27] ISC-GEM website: http://www.isc.ac.uk/iscgem/download.php
[28] DOST PHIVOLCS. (2017). A Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment of the Philippines and of
Metro Manila

Project related
2 SITE CONDITION
2.1 Site Location

The proposed project is sub-divided into two (2) islands which envisioned to expand areas for development
around the Manila bay area and envisaged to be the next major commercial and residential area in Metro-
Manila. The Project location is presented in Figure 2-1.
Figure 2-1: Pasay Harbor City reclamation
2.2 Bathymetry and Topography

The project area is located in jurisdictional offshore boundaries of Pasay City, one of the component cities
of Metro Manila. The study area is currently submerged underlying muddy substrate characterize Manila
Bay. Bathymetry data of the site is obtained from bathymetry survey conducted in September 2020 by EGS
Asia Inc. Seabed levels vary from approximately -9.5 to -14.0mMSL, see Figure 2-2. There is an existing
navigation channel of Philippine Port Authority towards South Harbour which is crossing Island A.
Metro Manila is located at the southern part of Central Luzon Valley Basin. It is surrounded by Manila Bay
to the west, by Laguna de Bay and Sierra Madre to the east and the Marikina-Pasig River cuts through
Metro Manila. Three local landforms characterize the area: Manila Plain, Central Plateau and Marikina
Valley. The Manila Plain in the western part of Metro Manila is a wide alluvial plain formed by fluvial and
deltaic processes of Pasig River and Manila Bay. The Central Plateau is flanked to the west by Manila Plain
and to the East by Marikina Valley. It is a slightly elevated region of Metro Manila underlain by volcanic tuff
deposits. The Marikina Valley to the east is an alluvial plain formed through the fluvial processes of the
Marikina River.

Project related
Figure 2-2: Bathymetry level of Project site [3]
2.3 Climate
The Climate of the Philippines is tropical and maritime. It is characterized by relatively high temperature,
high humidity and abundant rainfall. Based on the distribution of rainfall, four climate types are recognized,
which described in climatic map of the Philippines, see Figure 2-4. The Project is located under Type 1 with
two pronounced seasons: dry from November to April and wet during the rest of the year.
Manila Bay, like a large part of the Philippines, is exposed to both the Southwest Monsoon from May
to September, and the Northeast Monsoon which occurs from October to late March. Annually, about 20
typhoons on average make landfall or cross the Philippines according to PAGASA tracking record. The
tracks of cyclone are usually westerly or north-westerly direction. However, occasionally some typhoon
tracks show an easterly direction.
Based on the records from Port Area (MCO) station nearby Project site from 1981 – 2010, see Table 2-1,
the mean annual temperature is 28.4o C. The coolest months fall in January with a mean temperature of
26.7o C while the warmest month occurs in May with a mean temperature of 30o C. While the rainfall records
show the annual value of 2103.6 mm in the Port Area, Manila. August is the wettest month with 432.4 mm
and the driest month is February with 14.2 mm. Figure 2-3 shows the rainfall intensity-frequency-duration
curve based on the 55 years data recorded in the Port Area, Manila.
Table 2-1: Climate data summary
Rainfall Temperature Wind No. of days w/
Vapor Press.
MSLP (mbs)
Cloud AMT.
RH (%)
Month
SPD (mps)
(mbs)
(okta)
DIR (16pt)
Dew Point
Mean (°C)
Wet Bulb
Max (°C)
Dry Bulb
Min (°C)
Amount
record
TSTM
No. of
LTNG
(mm)
(°C)
(°C)
(°C)
Jan 17.3 4 29.6 23.8 26.7 26.7 22.9 21.4 25.3 72 1013 N 2 7 0 0
Feb 14.2 3 30.6 24.2 27.4 27.3 22.9 21.2 24.9 69 1012 E 3 6 0 0

Project related
Rainfall Temperature Wind No. of days w/
Vapor Press.
MSLP (mbs)
Cloud AMT.
RH (%)
Month
SPD (mps)
(mbs)
(okta)
DIR (16pt)
Dew Point
Mean (°C)
Wet Bulb
Max (°C)
Dry Bulb
Min (°C)
Amount
record
TSTM
No. of
LTNG
(mm)
(°C)
(°C)
(°C)
Mar 15.8 3 32.1 25.3 28.7 28.5 23.7 21.9 26 67 1012 SE 3 6 0 1
Apr 23.7 4 33.5 26.6 30.1 30 24.9 23.1 28 66 1010 SE 3 6 2 2
May 147.2 10 33.2 26.9 30 30 25.7 24.3 30 71 1009 SW 3 6 9 9
Jun 253.5 17 32.2 26.4 29.3 29.3 25.8 24.6 30.8 76 1008 SW 3 7 11 9
Jul 420.5 21 31.2 25.9 28.5 28.5 25.6 24.6 30.8 79 1008 SW 3 7 12 9
Aug 432.4 21 30.8 25.8 28.3 28.2 25.6 24.7 31 81 1007 SW 4 7 11 7
Sep 355.1 20 31 25.7 28.4 28.3 25.5 24.6 30.7 80 1008 SW 3 7 12 8
Oct 234.8 17 31.1 25.7 28.4 28.3 25.2 24.1 29.9 78 1009 SW 3 7 7 6
Nov 121.7 12 30.9 25.1 28 28 24.5 23.2 28.3 75 1010 N 3 7 3 1
Dec 67.4 7 29.8 24.2 27 27 23.4 22 26.3 74 1012 N 2 7 1 0
Annual 2103.6 139 31.3 25.5 28.4 28.4 24.6 23.3 28.5 74 1010 SW 3 7 68 52
Figure 2-3: Rainfall intensity-frequency-duration curve based on the Port Area Station records in Manila

Project related
Figure 2-4: Climate map of the Philippines (1951-2010) by PAGASA

Project related
3 GEOLOGY AND GROUND CONDITION
3.1 Tectonic Setting

Manila Bay is like most of the Philippines mainland situated on the Philippine Mobile Belt (PMB) which
represents the complex interface between the Eurasian and Philippine Sea plate. This PMB is a roughly
400-km-wide deformation zone that accommodates the WNW movement of the Philippine Sea Plate
towards the Eurasian plate. Across the entire PMB the major N-S trending left lateral strike slip Philippine
Fault System accommodates most of the complex movements within the area. There are two oppositely
dipping subduction zones with north-south strike: the Manila trench on the west and the Philippine trench or
East Luzon Trough on the east side mark the edge of the PMB (Figure 3-1). On the western side the Sunda
plate is subducting below the PMB at the Manila trench. While east at the Philippine trench the Philippine
Sea plate is subducting. Both subducting plates on either side of the PMB create magmatic arcs in the
central part of the Philippines [20].
There are more tectonic features within the PMB that accommodate the complex movement of the belt
besides the Philippine Fault System (Figure 3-1). In section 3.4 all relevant active seismogenic source zones
that could be hazardous for the project location are described.
Figure 3-1: Tectonic setting and active faults in central and northern Luzon. MVFS: Marikina valley fault system; PFZ: Philippines
fault zone (after [11]). Red star indicates the project location.
3.2 Regional Geology

The PMB has continental and oceanic basement rocks, because of the continental characteristics of the
Sunda plate and the oceanic origin of the Philippine Sea plate. On top of the basement rocks are Cretaceous
to Pleistocene magmatic arcs formed due to the continuous subduction of the Sunda and Philippines Sea

Project related
plate. Based on the presence of both marine and terrestrial molluscs within the rocks, the area of present
Metro Manila was below sea level during the early Pleistocene [21] Nearby volcanic eruptions of the Laguna
and Taal calderas east and south of Manila deposited volcanic sediments in the area over time. Each end
of an active volcanic episode is marked by a soil horizon. During less active periods the volcanic sediments
where reworked multiple times. The distribution and orientation of sediments indicate deposition
environments from alluvial fans and lahars to braided river deposits and delta environments. This results in
a typical sedimentation sequence at the Metro Manila area of interbeds of tuff and re-deposited sediments
each with a soil capping [21]. Manila Bay is within the Greater Manila Area which is an integral part of both
the south-eastern extension of Central Valley and the southern extension of the Sierra Madre Range. The
stratigraphy of South Sierra Madre, however, more clearly illustrates where Manila is located in Figure 3-2.
Figure 3-2: Geologic Map of Manila [4]

Project related
Figure 3-3: Stratigraphy of Manila [24]
3.3 Local Geology

The Stratigraphy of Manila can be described in general by the following sequence: (1) Holocene and
Pleistocene alluvial deposits, (2) pyroclastic rocks and ignimbrites and (3) tuff or tuffaceous deposits. These
three lithologic units are interbedded and deposited in sequential order, as mentioned in section 3.2. Besides
these more common lithological units, there are also lava flows found within the Metropolitan Manila
underlain by metamorphosed rocks. Below all the sedimentary rocks is the basement rock. The basement
rocks of the Manila bay consist of a sequence of pillow basalts, pillow basalt breccias, reworked pillow
basalts interbedded with laminated reddish-brown cherts and mudstones. This basement rock is cropped
out east of Metropolitan Manila.

Project related
3.3.1 Alluvial deposits

On top of the stratigraphic column at the Metro Manila an unconsolidated sedimentary bed of alluvial
deposits is found the so-called Manila formation. At the end of the Pasig River a delta plain is formed made
up of clay, silt and sand. This typical calm meandering river deposit interbeds with coarser grained
sediments stream upwards along the Pasig River from a rougher environment. Below the unconsolidated
sediments are sandstone, siltstone, mudstone and conglomerates with and without shell fragments found.
The conglomerates mainly originate from channel fill deposits based on their lens-shaped occurrence. This
indicates the continuous movement of the river, changing the location and flow rate of the channel
throughout time [21]. The deposit is in general stratified to cross bedded and is over 70m thick near the
coast and thins out eastward in the Sta. Mesa and Makati areas.
3.3.2 Pyroclastic flow deposits

Because of the location of the Manila bay surrounded by multiple volcanos, the pyroclastic rocks found in
the area of interest originate from several sources. Two major pyroclastic sources are the Taal and Laguna
caldera. During the multiple eruptions of these volcanos a turbulent mixture of mass was coming from above
towards the Manila bay. This type of volcanic rock consists of fragmental materials and hot gases deposited
in high speed movements and explosive eruptions. Based on which caldera is erupted two major types of
pyroclastic rock deposits are found. These are either (1) mixed scoria-pumice pyroclastic flow or (2)
dominantly fine-grained pumice-rich pyroclastic flow [22].
3.3.3 Tuff and Tuffaceous sediments

Three types of volcanic tuff can be found in the area of interest. While the first two units consist of light grey
coloured fine-grained material the third is different. This third tuff unit is mostly found below the other two
and is made up of a coarse-grained volcanic breccia. The other two units consist either of fine-grained
volcanic ash or fine-grained dark ash with pumice and prismatic minerals. All these three units are reworked
and widely distributed across the project location and form together the Guadalupe Formation.
The terrain underlain by tuff immediately east and north of Manila is characterized by subdued rolling hills
with well-integrated, consequent, meandering drainage systems. Eastward, the relief rises gradually from
about 5m to as high as 30m at Paranaque City; around 40m from Guadalupe to near Camp Crame; and
between 50 to 70m from Quezon City to San Mateo, Rizal or around the vicinity of the project site particularly
on the right flank of Marikina River valley.
3.4 Seismogenic sources

The main active seismogenic source for Manila is the Marikina Valley fault system. Other important seismic
sources are the Manila Trench, Philippine fault and East Luzon Trough. South-west of the project location
is the Lubang Fault situated which represents a minor seismogenic source (Figure 3-4).

Project related
Figure 3-4: Active tectonic faults and trenches in the Philippines (after [12])
3.4.1 Marikina Valley fault system

The Marikina Valley is a pull-apart basin bounded by two major faults with northeast trend: West- and East-
Marikina Valley faults, WMVF and EMVF respectively. These faults are lateral with dominantly dextral
motion for WMVF and oblique-lateral for EMVF. These faults have interpreted different rupture patterns,
occurring in multiple segments for EMVF separately from plausible events associated to WMVF [11]. The
southern part of the EMVF lies on the western side of the Southern Sierra Madre, whereas the WMVF
bounds the west side of the valley (Figure 3-4).

Project related
The WMVF is at 10.2 km distance from the project location. According to the PHIVOLCS map (faultfinder
online tool http://faultfinder.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/), the fault length can be measured as near 92 Km. Other
sources like [10], [11] and [9] indicate fault lengths of 40 km, 130-135 km (and rupture of 87.5 km) and 150
km, respectively.
Paleoseismic studies on the entire Marikina Valley Fault System show multiple ruptures on both “East” and
“West” segments. Both segments accommodate slip from the oblique convergence of the tectonic plate
convergence ([13], [14]). Over the past 1200 to 1400 years a 1 to 2 m horizontal rupture offset is observed
for the West Marikina Valley Fault according to Nelson et al. (2000). The horizontal offset component is
supported by geomorphological evidence at alluvial fans and streams. Slip rates estimated for the WMVF
locally change between minimal 1 mm/year to maximal 10 mm/year. Despite there is no instrumental
seismicity associated to this fault it is expected represent a very important hazard for Manila given its near
distance and known paleoseismicity and neotectonic features.
This fault system has estimated earthquake magnitudes within the range M7.3-7.7, based on single-event
offsets interpreted by [11]. Other smaller magnitudes have been associated by other authors as: 6.8-7.1 by
[14]; 7.2 by [12] and 7.7 by [9].
3.4.2 Manila Trench

Subduction zone from the Eurasian plate with north-south orientation and eastward dipping. From Manila,
it is located at near 180 km. The subduction slab extends in depth down to 200-300 km [15]. The largest
historic earthquake associated to the trench was in 1942 with a magnitude (M s) of 7.7. The hazard of this
trench has an associated maximum magnitude of 8.0 for the trench segment closer to Manila [9].
3.4.3 Philippine fault

A dominant feature of the Luzon Island is the Philippine Fault. It is a sinistral structure which runs north-
south for over 1200 km [7] or 1600 km from Luzon to Mindanao according to [11]. It is near 80 km eastwards
from Manila. Multiple features along the strike of the fault zone indicate a still very active fault. Closed
depressions along fault scarps, offset streams and sag ponds are all neotectonic features observed by [16].
This fault has produced several large earthquakes during the last 100 years. The Ms 7.8 July Luzon 1990
earthquake is associated to this fault. Based on historical seismicity the slip rate is estimated to be 68
mm/year according to [17]. Based on the 1990 earthquake, slip rates of 15 to 30 mm/year have been
estimated by [18]. The maximum magnitude associated to this fault is 8.0 ([12], [9]). In historic times, the
Philippine Fault has been the major generator of earthquakes that have caused severe damages to civil
infrastructures and loss of lives.
3.4.4 East Luzon Trough

North-south convergent boundary at the eastern side of the Philippine Archipelago (Figure 3-3). Southwards
it becomes a transform lateral fault that joins the East Luzon Through to the Philippine Trench on the
southern part from the archipelago.
The slip rate on the East Luzon Trench based on historical seismicity is estimated to be 70 to 85 mm/year
(Barrier et al., 1991 in [9]). However, [9] estimate it as 10 to 35 mm/year based on seismic activity rates.
The maximum magnitude associated to the East Luzon Trough is 8.0 for the shallow crust seismicity and
8.4 for the interface events according to [9].

Project related
3.4.5 Lubang fault

The Lubang fault is a strike-slip fault with northwest strike. It extends entirely offshore between Batangas
and Mindoro Islands, about 92 km south of Manila (Figure 3-4). The structure is represented in most maps
as the Lubang Fault, and some maps show this to extend farther east near Verde Island, being termed
Verde Island Fault. This fault has an extension larger than 130 km according to [11], 175 km according to
[8]. The maximum magnitude associated is 7.8 [12] or 8.0 [9].
3.5 Ground Condition

The stratigraphy at the project site has been evaluated based on the interpretation of the soil descriptions
given on the borehole logs and results of laboratory index and classification tests from geotechnical
investigation (GI) by Geotechnics Philippines Inc. (GPI) in 2018 and the ongoing additional GI Phase 1
carried out by Kwan Sing Construction Corporation (KSCC). In general, the geological stratigraphy beneath
the site found to be heterogeneous, three main geotechnical Soil Units (SU) can be distinguished with two
Intermediate Layers (IL), as summarized in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1: Summary of stratigraphic units defined at the project site
Soil Unit Soil Description Thickness (m)
CLAY, silty, sandy, very soft, dark gray with traces of sand and
SU1A 2.0
gravel
CLAY, silty, sandy, very soft to soft, dark gray with traces of sand
SU1B 4.0 – 20.9
and gravel
SU2 CLAY, silty, sandy, firm, dark gray with traces of sand and gravel 0.2 – 4.5
Guadalupe Tuff Formation(GTF): Tuffaceous Rock – subdivided

SU3
further into 3 sub-units:
1.0 to unproven max

SU3A TUFF, silty, clayey, highly weathered to unweathered
thickness
CLAY or SILT, very stiff to hard, locally cemented, contains pocket 0.7 to unproven maximum
SU3B
of sand (locally), brown to greenish grey thickness
SAND, silty, dense to very dense, locally cemented, brown to 1.3 to unproven maximum
SU3C
greenish grey, contains some gravel (locally) thickness
IL-1 SAND, silty, very loose to loose, grayish brown, with trace of gravel
1.0 – 3.0
(encountered in BH-01and BH-15)
IL-2 CLAY, silty very soft to firm, dark gray, with trace of sand and gravel
2.6 – 6.4
(encountered at BH-08 and CPTu-17)
3.5.1 Soil Unit 1; very soft to soft silty CLAY

SU1 is encountered in all boreholes along the project site as the upper layer with the thickness increasing
towards the west direction, where the seabed is going deeper. This very soft to soft CLAY layer is also
subdivided into two sub units SU1A and SU1B. SU1A is interpreted as the first 2.0 m of SU1 while the
remaining is considered as SU1B. The subdivision is taking into account the change in geotechnical
properties such as (moisture content, plasticity index and undrained shear strength) with depth, such as
FVST measurement, (S)CPT’s and the laboratory data such as index properties test.

Project related
3.5.2 Soil Unit 2; firm silty CLAY

SU2 is a thin firm CLAY below SU1. The presence of SU2 is evident in the middle of the project area. The
thickness is ranging from 2.5 m to 4.5 m.
3.5.3 Soil Unit 3; Guadalupe Tuff Formation

SU3 is a Guadalupe Tuff Formation (GTF) which is the bottom layer. Due to sporadic volcanic activity in the
past, sub units of GTF are highly varying in layering. The GTF layer has been further subdivided into 3 sub
units consisting of alternating layers of sandy to silty TUFF (SU3A), stiff to hard clayey SILT (SU3B) and
dense to very dense silty SAND (SU3C). SU3B and SU3C are locally referred to as “fossil soils” where soil
layers are deposited and covered by the next phase of tuff deposition [5]. GTF is considered as the
competent layer for the project with high soil / rock strength.

Project related
4 GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS
4.1 Seismic Hazards
4.1.1 Seismicity
Figure 4-1 shows all historical and instrumental seismic events for the period between 1904 and 2015. The
seismicity includes events with magnitudes above Mw 5.5, according to the ISC-GEM Catalogue (Figure
4-1).
Figure 4-1: Seismicity map [27]
4.1.2 Ground shaking

The Project site is located in highly active seismic region (section 4.1.1). The seismic hazard to expect at a
specific location can be quantified with different approaches in terms of ground motion parameters, such as
peak ground acceleration (PGA), peak ground velocity (PGV) and spectral accelerations (Sa’s) at various
periods (T) of oscillation.
Attenuation models or ground motion prediction equations (GMPE’s) of ground motion parameters are used
to quantify the hazard in deterministic and probabilistic methods. GMPEs are determined from a set of
explanatory variables describing the earthquake source, wave propagation path and local site conditions
[19]. Different variables are included in the different GMPEs available in literature, e.g. magnitude, site-to-
source distance, rupture mechanism at the source (style of faulting), local site conditions.
For Pasay City, a ground shaking hazard map was developed by PHIVOLCS in October 2013 [25] It shows
PHIVOLCS Earthquake Intensity Scale (PEIS), see Table 4-1, for a hypothetic scenario based on magnitude
7.2 earthquake along WMVF. For the project area it is high with a scale 8 (very destructive), see Figure 4-2.

Project related
The Department of Science and Technology from the Philippines Institute of Volcanology and Seismology
(DOST-PHIVOLCS) performed a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) for the entire Philippines
in2017. The seismic hazard map for a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years, for PGA and engineering
bedrock condition (Vs30 = 760 m/s) is shown at Figure 4-3. At the project site, the PGA is ranging between
0.3g and 0.4g.
Table 4-1: PHIVOLCS Earthquake Intensity Scale (PEIS) [25]
Intensity
Shaking Description
Scale
Perceptible to people under favourable circumstances. Delicately balanced objects

I Scarcely Perceptible
are disturbed slightly. Still Water in containers oscillates slowly.
Felt by few individuals at rest indoors. Hanging objects swing slightly. Still Water in
II Slightly Felt
containers oscillates noticeably.
Felt by many people indoors especially in upper floors of buildings. Vibration is felt
like one passing of a light truck. Dizziness and nausea are experienced by some
III Weak
people. Hanging objects swing moderately. Still water in containers oscillates
moderately.
Felt generally by people indoors and by some people outdoors. Light sleepers are
awakened. Vibration is felt like a passing of heavy truck. Hanging objects swing
considerably. Dinner, plates, glasses, windows and doors rattle. Floors and walls of
IV Moderately Strong
wood framed buildings creak. Standing motor cars may rock slightly. Liquids in
containers are slightly disturbed. Water in containers oscillate strongly. Rumbling
sound may sometimes be heard.
Generally felt by most people indoors and outdoors. Many sleeping people are
awakened. Some are frightened, some run outdoors. Strong shaking and rocking
felt throughout building. Hanging objects swing violently. Dining utensils clatter and
V Strong
clink; some are broken. Small, light and unstable objects may fall or overturn.
Liquids spill from filled open containers. Standing vehicles rock noticeably. Shaking
of leaves and twigs of trees are noticeable.
Many people are frightened; many run outdoors. Some people lose their balance.
motorists feel like driving in flat tires. Heavy objects or furniture move or may be
shifted. Small church bells may ring. Wall plaster may crack. Very old or poorly built
VI Very Strong
houses and man-made structures are slightly damaged though well-built structures
are not affected. Limited rockfalls and rolling boulders occur in hilly to mountainous
areas and escarpments. Trees are noticeably shaken.
Most people are frightened and run outdoors. People find it difficult to stand in
upper floors. Heavy objects and furniture overturn or topple. Big church bells may
ring. Old or poorly-built structures suffer considerably damage. Some well-built
structures are slightly damaged. Some cracks may appear on dikes, fish ponds,
VII Destructive
road surface, or concrete hollow block walls. Limited liquefaction, lateral spreading
and landslides are observed. Trees are shaken strongly. (Liquefaction is a process
by which loose saturated sand lose strength during an earthquake and behave like
liquid).
People are panicky. People find it difficult to stand even outdoors. Many well-built
VIII Very Destructive buildings are considerably damaged. Concrete dikes and foundation of bridges are
destroyed by ground settling or toppling. Railway tracks are bent or broken.

Project related
Intensity
Shaking Description
Scale
Tombstones may be displaced, twisted or overturned. Utility posts, towers and

monuments mat tilt or topple. Water and sewer pipes may be bent, twisted or
broken. Liquefaction and lateral spreading cause man- made structure to sink, tilt
or topple. Numerous landslides and rockfalls occur in mountainous and hilly areas.
Boulders are thrown out from their positions particularly near the epicenter.
Fissures and faults rapture may be observed. Trees are violently shaken. Water
splash or stop over dikes or banks of rivers.
People are forcibly thrown to ground. Many cry and shake with fear. Most buildings
are totally damaged. bridges and elevated concrete structures are toppled or
destroyed. Numerous utility posts, towers and monument are tilted, toppled or
broken. Water sewer pipes are bent, twisted or broken. Landslides and liquefaction
IX Devastating
with lateral spreading and sand boils are widespread. the ground is distorted into
undulations. Trees are shaken very violently with some toppled or broken. Boulders
are commonly thrown out. River water splashes violently on slops over dikes and
banks.
Practically all man-made structures are destroyed. Massive landslides and

Completely liquefaction, large scale subsidence and uplifting of land forms and many ground
X
Devastating fissures are observed. Changes in river courses and destructive seiches in large
lakes occur. Many trees are toppled, broken and uprooted.

Project related
Figure 4-2: Seismic hazard map of Pasay City for event Scenario: magnitude 7.2 Earthquake along the WVF [25]

Project related
Figure 4-3: Peak ground acceleration map of the Philippines 500 years return period on rock site [28]
The National Structural Code of Philippines (NSCP, 2015) used in the seismic design of regular structures
[28] prescribes minimum design loads. The seismic loads from NSCP (2015) are set for life time of 50 years
and the earthquake load is defined for a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years, or 475 years return
period. The definition of the seismic loads and design spectra is function of the seismic hazard. This EGGA
prescribes the characteristics from the seismic hazard input to interpret the starting points for seismic design
aligned to NSCP (2015).

Project related
For this EGGA, a partial DSHA was performed to quantify the PGA’s for three soil classes:
a) Vs30=760 m/s, engineering bedrock condition used in most GMPE’s;
b) Vs30=360 m/s, bedrock condition expected at the project site;
c) Vs30=180 m/s, hypothetic soil profile at the project site.
Not all GMPE’s allow the use of specific Vs30, for those cases a specification of ground class is made. The
hazard was assessed for the main seismogenic sources:
a) Subduction: Manila trench;
b) Active crustal regions: West Marikina Valley, Philippines, Lubang faults.
The following ground motion prediction equations (GMPE’s) were selected for the analysis:
1. Active Crustal Region:

• Fukushima and Tanaka (1990, 1991), FT91, and Fukushima et al. (2007a), FEA07;
• Boore et. al. (2014), BEA14;
• Chiou and Youngs (2014), CY14;
• Campbell and Borzorgnia (2014), CB14.
2. Subduction Zone:
• Youngs et al. (1997), YEA97;
• Atkinson and Boore (2003), AB03;
• Zhao et al. (2006), ZEA06.
The input parameters used in the models are shown in Appendix A1 and the results are listed in Table 4-2
to Table 4-4 for the active crustal sources and Table 4-5 for the subduction source.
Table 4-2: PGA -based on DSHA per GMPE and ground condition based on West Marikina Valley Fault
GMPE Vs 30 [m/s] or site class PGA [g]
BEA14 180 0.725
360 0.478
760 0.305
CY14 180 0.382
360 0.430
760 0.348
CB14 180 0.278
360 0.355
760 0.378
FT90 Soft soil 0.667
Medium soil 0.514
Hard soil 0.418
Rock 0.288
FEA07 Soft soil 0.550
Medium soil 0.424
Hard soil 0.344

Project related
Rock 0.237
Table 4-3: PGA -based on DSHA per GMPE and ground condition based on Philippines Fault
BEA14 180 0.145
360 0.096
760 0.061
CY14 180 0.145
360 0.122
760 0.089
CB14 180 0.067
360 0.085
760 0.091
Medium soil 0.157
Hard soil 0.128
Rock 0.088
Medium soil 0.107
Hard soil 0.087
Rock 0.060
Table 4-4: PGA -based on DSHA per GMPE and ground condition based on Lubang Fault
BEA14 180 0.114
360 0.075
760 0.048
CY14 180 0.097
360 0.077
760 0.055
CB14 180 0.046
360 0.059
760 0.063
Medium soil 0.105

Project related
Hard soil 0.086
Rock 0.059
Medium soil 0.065
Hard soil 0.053
Rock 0.036
Table 4-5: PGA-based on DSHA per GMPE and ground condition based on Manila Trench
ZEA06 180 0.072

360 0.067
760 0.053
AB03 180 0.125
360 0.111
760 0.099
YEA97 Soil 0.090
Rock 0.052
From the PGA’s determined deterministically the following is observed:

• The seismic hazard of the project site, in terms of PGA is governed clearly by the WMVF, near-fault
feature at only 10.2 km.
• There is a large variability in the PGA results from the different GMPE’s.
• For the soft soil or hypothetic soil with Vs30=180m/s, from the WMVF, the estimated PGA varies
between 0.28 and 0.72 g.
• For the medium soil or hypothetic soil with Vs30=360m/s, from the WMVF, the estimated PGA varies
between 0.36 and 0.51 g.
• For the hard soil/rock or engineering bedrock with Vs30=760m/s, from the WMVF, the estimated
PGA varies between 0.24 and 0.42 g.
• The PGA’s coming from the subduction Manila trench are low. The largest value reaches 0.125 g
for the hypothetic soil condition (Vs30=180m/s) with the AB03 GMPE.
4.1.3 Ground rupture

Ground rupture can occur when a fault ruptures at surface level (Figure 4-4), as well as a site effect
(consequence) from the shaking, due to amplification of the seismic waves or during liquefaction. Fault
rupture at the project site is not expected, as the nearest fault, the West Marikina Valley, is at 10.2 km
distance. Nevertheless, site effects are plausible and designs shall be seismic-resistant to prevent large
deformations.

Project related
Figure 4-4: A continuous fault scarp of the North Bohol Fault in Brgy. Anonang, Inabanga, Bohol [25]
4.1.4 Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the transformation of a granular material from a solid state to a liquefied state as a
consequence of increased pore water pressure and reduced effective stress and stiffness induced under
cyclic earthquake loading. During an earthquake event, liquefaction can occur in saturated soils.
Not all soils are susceptible to liquefaction. In particular loose cohesionless soils deposits (sands and
reclamations constructed with uncompacted hydraulic sand fills) are susceptible to liquefaction.
Liquefaction is mostly related to saturated and recent (young) cohesionless soils, but it can occur as well in
low plasticity cohesive soils and non-plastic silts as well [23]. Figure 4-5 illustrates the susceptibility
classification from the natural soils sampled at the project site.
Figure 4-5: Liquefaction susceptibility criteria [23]

Project related
The liquefaction hazards are mainly cracks in the ground, settlements, loss of foundation capacity for
structures, lateral spreading. This hazard shall be assessed throughout the project site following good
international practice and standards. Simplified methods (e.g. CPT- and/or SPT-based) can be used to
quantify the factor of safety against liquefaction along the soil profiles. The design conditions for the lifetime
of the project shall be proved as liquefaction-resistant, in line to the design requirements.
Sand fill material needs to be sufficiently compacted. Depending on the placement method the sand layers
will already have a certain relative density after placing, for instance when spraying is applied relative
densities (Dr) between 20% and 40% can be expected, and for pipeline discharge between 20% and 45%.
The required safety against liquefaction shall at least be 1.3, therefore additional compaction is required to
meet the liquefaction requirements. A compaction performance line (the required relative density to be
achieved by densification) is developed for the sand fill material, for safety factor against liquefaction ≥ 1.3.
The upper part of performance line (above water condition) represents extra compaction for shallow
foundations and is not related to the liquefaction potential.

Project related
Figure 4-6: Liquefaction hazard map of Pasay City [25]
4.1.5 Differential settlement

Differential settlement can be expected resulting from the seismic-induced settlement in the both natural
cohesionless layers and reclamation fill material and the secondary (creep) settlement in the cohesive
layers.

Project related
Based on the function of the reclamation a maximum residual and long-term settlement of 0.35m is
considered acceptable from handover to the end of the design life (50 years). However, the settlement
coming from the stiff CLAY layer within GTF due to the placement of reclamation will be unpredictable as
the total thickness varies and unknown for some area. Intensive monitoring is required to predict the
occurred settlement during construction from this layer and differential settlement due to this can be
mitigated.
4.1.6 Lateral spread

Lateral spread is a total loss of strength that results on soil failure with large lateral displacements of meters
to kilometers. When continuous liquefiable layers are identified during the liquefaction hazard assessment,
lateral spreading shall be considered.
4.1.7 Tsunami
In general, earthquakes, volcanoes and submarine landslides are the root-causes of tsunamis. These can
result in displacement of the sea floor and associated movement of the water body. Earthquake related
tsunamis are considered to be the main agent for large-scale impacts (e.g. 2004 Sumatran earthquake in
the Indian Ocean and also the 2011 tsunami in Japan). The amplitude at the open oceans of tsunamis is
generally low (less than 1 meter). However, the amplitude can increase very significantly near the shore (>
10 meters) because the wave energy is trapped near the coast in shallow water. Once reaching the shore,
the tsunami waves travel some distance inland and slowly loses its energy due to energy dissipation and
run-up to land elevations higher than the tsunami height.
Figure 4-7: Projected tsunami in the event of Magnitude 7.0 earthquake generated by Manila Trench with epicentre at the vicinity of
Manila Bay entrance [1]

Project related
Tsunamis are a well-known phenomenon in the Philippines. Manila Trench in the west of Project area is the
major instrument to generate tsunami activity, see Figure 4-8. Next to earthquakes, landslides and also
volcanic activity might induce tsunamis in the area of interest although the risk is low.
Risk mapping of earthquake-related tsunamis has been carried out by various agencies/institutes in the
past. The Philippine Institute for Volcanology and Seismology (PHIVOLCS) presents maps indicating the
tsunami risk (Figure 4-8) without providing quantification. The Project site is prone to trench-related local
tsunami. Figure 4-7 shows the projected tsunami generated by Manila Trench with epicentre in the vicinity
of Manila Bay entrance.
The wave front could possibly have a run-up of 2.0 to 8.5 meters depending on the topography of the sea
floor, as experienced in the 1994 Mindoro earthquake. The wave will impact the coastline of Bataan and
Cavite and with the irregular shape and varying depth, cause the wave to refract as the wave crests
bend. As the tsunami travels, segments of the wave moving at different speeds as the water depth along
the crest will vary dissipating much its energy in the process [1].
4.1.8 Seiches
Seiches are a temporary disturbance or oscillation in the water level of a lake or partially enclosed body of
water especially one that is caused by changes in atmospheric pressure. At coastlines, it can be caused by
long period waves, associated to tsunamis, covered in section 4.1.7.
4.2 Mass Movement

Mass movement is defined as unit movement of a portion of the land surface as in landslide, creep,
subsidence or settlement. These are all geologic processes that contribute to degradation or mass wasting
to attain an ultimate or idealized earth surface called peneplain. Along with landslide, which is defined as
the perceptible downward sliding, falling, toppling and slumping of a considerable mass of earth, rock or a
mixture of the two materials and causing these to spread and flow down the slope into a lower ground mostly
adjacent to it, these geologic phenomena are simply not possible along a subterranean locality like Manila
Bay.
4.2.1 Landslides and fault creep

Landslide and fault creep are unlikely for the project site. The project site is below sea level and the
reclaimed island shall be designed resistant against slope failures under static and seismic condition in
compliance with good international practice.
Fault creep is also a remote possibility within and around the vicinity of the project site simply because of
the absence of a geologic structure that could trigger slow soil and rock movement towards and away from
the area.

Project related
Figure 4-8: Map of tsunami prone areas in the Philippines

Project related
4.2.2 Subsidence
Subsidence is the sinking of a part of the ground surface.I It also applies to rock and soil movement in which
there is no free side and surface materials are displaced vertically downward with little or no horizontal
component. Land subsidence has been reported along the shoreline of Metro-Manila (especially at the Port
and Novotas/Malabon area). Racoules et al. (Raucoules, 2013) has presented evidence for high rates of
spatially and temporally variable ground deformation in the Manila urban area based on space-borne SAR
interferometry during the last two decades. In the ground motion velocity over 2003-2010 several red areas
are visible where the ground motion velocity is highest, see Figure 4-9.
Figure 4-9: Ground motion velocity in cm/year for 2003-2010 (Raucoules,2013)
The proposed land reclamation is located at a relatively large distance from the critical spots in Navotas and
Malabon Cities, and the Manila Port area, and therefore the land subsidence is expected to be limited
according to Figure 4-9. It is also concluded that the development will not induce nor aggravate subsidence,
but the proposed land reclamation will be vulnerable to this hazard (Technotrix, 2018). Due to uncertainty a
nominal allowance for subsidence of 0.25m has been allowed for, which equates to 0.5cm/year.
4.2.3 Settlement
Settlement of the compressible layers, such as SU1A, SU1B, SU2 and SU3B, present on Project site is
foreseen due to the placement of reclamation material. The following settlements are likely to occur:
• Immediate settlement, which takes place under undrained conditions due to shear deformation;
• Primary consolidation settlement, which occurs due to dissipation of excess pore water pressures;
• Secondary (creep) consolidation settlements, the continuing readjustment of the soil grains into a
closer state under compressive loading;

Project related
• Seismic settlements, dissipation of build-up excess pore pressures developed by cyclic loading
(earthquake) of the soil.
Based on the function of the reclamation a maximum residual and long-term settlement of 0.35m is
considered acceptable for SU1A, SU1B and SU2 from handover to the end of the design life (50 years). In
order to meet this criteria the ground improvement is necessary. SU3B will contribute to the overall primary
and secondary settlements of the ground; however the residual settlement criteria will not be applied for
SU3B since the uncertainty is high and it is not possible to improve this layer due to its deep location in the
alternating layers of GTF and its stiffness.
PVDs with temporary preloading are the promising option for the ground improvement of natural soil units
SU1A, SU1B and SU2 in the reclamation area. Temporary preloading will be placed starting from the
platform level to the designated height to speed up the settlement rate and compensate the occurred
settlement during construction. Figure 4-10 illustrates the scheme of time-load-settlement for the loading
with fill and surcharge during construction until the end of design lifetime.
Figure 4-10: Time-load-settlement for loading with fill and surcharge [26]
Consolidation settlement has been estimated using D-Settlement software and total settlements of 2.0m to
8.5m is expected from start of filling time until the end of design lifetime (50 years). Residual settlement of
SU1A, SU1B and SU2 from the handover to 50 years varies from 10 to 35 cm.
4.3 Volcanic Hazards

Volcanic hazard indirectly associated with the eruption involves lahar flooding, landslide, volcanic tsunami,
ground deformation and ashfall. The project site is surrounded by volcanoes which divided into three
categories, i.e. active volcanoes (Mt. Taal, Mt. Pinatubo), potentially active volcanoes (Mt. Mariveles, Mt.
Arayat, Mt. Laguna Caldera, Mt. Natib, Mt. Panay, Mt. San Cristobal) and inactive volcanoes. Recently Taal

Project related
volcano erupted and emitted a huge plume of ash. Ash fall from this volcano has already reached the capital,
Manila, more than 65 km north of the eruption. The plume was more than 9 miles tall and triggered lightning.

Project related
5 HYDROLOGICAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT
5.1 Fluvial Hazards

These hazards involve surface water processes occurring inland along rivers, streams and gullies, as well
as other man-made drainage systems.
Figure 5-1: Location of rivers nearby Project site
At various locations rivers and dewatering canals are discharging into Manila Bay. The two largest rivers
are the Pampanga (in the northern part of Manila Bay), and Pasig River discharging respectively 49% and
21% of the total fresh water influx into Manila Bay (Taniguchi, Kontar, & Ishitobi, 2008) having yearly mean
discharges of 391 and 170 m3/s. The Imus River amongst others is discharging water and sediments into
this bay which is also – at least to a part – the reason why Bacoor Bay shows siltation.
The local acceleration and deceleration of the current might result in local erosion and deposition but due
to the small current velocities and the small suspended sediment concentrations the changes will be local
and small. Due to the angle of wave incidence in relation to the location of the Project, the reclamation is
estimated to have limited impact on the wave-related morphological processes.
5.2 Coastal Hazards

Coastal hazards due to flooding, coastal erosion, coastal aggradation, storm surge, coastal subsidence or
sea level rise and submarine landslide occur and affect the proposed project site.
Flooding is mainly brought about by excess river run-offs which are exacerbated by regular high tide
occurrences which basically deter the normal outflow of river water towards the sea.
Coastal erosion and aggradation are two processes that work oppositely against one another and for the
particular project site may seem to cancel each other out. The proposed area for reclamation is at best

Project related
shallowly underwater so no erosion processes may be at work. Aggradation may be possible, but build-up
of the area is also slow if at all as the basin-like shape of the area is lost to adjacent areas, and whatever
sediment build up is done at one time may be lost to erosion on the next episode of tidal disruption.
Storm surge is always a threat to an open coastal area like Manila Bay and should always be on guard for
approach of super typhoons of the like of Yolanda and Lawin. Luckily for the project site, it located on the
west side of the country and any typhoon that landfalls east particularly onto Sierra Madre mountains will
almost always dissipate and lose its power to wreak havoc on the western side that includes Manila.
Coastal subsidence along Manila Bay may be brought about by either seismic or volcanic disturbance. The
proposed project site may slightly or abruptly go down from its original level due to shaking introduced by
either disturbance, and most susceptible are areas that are overlain by thick soil deposits, although areas
underlain by bedrock may as well experience subsidence. Still, it is important to collate the results of the
geotechnical investigation which may soon commence, as well as the geophysical exploration to have a
firm grip of the geologic horizon within and around the proposed project site.
Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere (IPCC, 2019) reports a 0.84 sea level rise in 2100 relative to 2005 (which is 0.10 m
higher than the IPCC 2014 values). This translates to roughly to 0.75 m from 2020 to 2100 for RCP 8.5 scenario (high emission).
Regional estimates can be used and are available for a time window 2081-2100 (
Figure 5-3). This will result in a value between 0.62 and 0.72 m. Picking a mean value of 0.67 and translating
this to the lower 2081 bandwidth leads to a 0.45 m value for 50 years (2023-2073).
Figure 5-2: Project sea level rise relative to 2005

Project related
Figure 5-3: Regional sea level change for RCP 8.5 time window 2081-2100

Project related
6 OTHER HAZARDS
6.1 Airborne
There are no other geologic or geographic occurrences within the project site or around Manila Bay that
may give rise to terrestrial hazards by airborne or air-induced processes. There will have been a potential
problem if the project area is within the vicinity of a sand dune or desert, and each time there is a storm, the
fine sediments gets blown into the atmosphere and then settles to various parts of the neighbouring areas
after said tempest.
An airborne phenomenon proximate to this may occur only when Mount Mariveles suddenly wakes from its
dormant stage, becomes active and erupts in a manner like Mt. Pinatubo in June, 1991 after more than 6
centuries of inactivity.
A stratovolcano type like Mount Mariveles might probably behave like Mount Pinatubo and send off millions
if not billions of metric tons of ash, sulfur dioxide and aerosol into the air and affect large areas even several
kilometers or hundreds of kilometer away from the volcano like the project site, depending on the force of
the eruption.
Recently, Mount Taal volcano, the second most active volcano located in about 50 km from Project site,
erupted and emitted a huge plume of ash. The dusty ash has already reached the capital, Manila, more than
65 km north of the eruption. The plume was more than 9 miles tall and triggered lightning.
6.2 Cosmic
As has been pointed out in the EGGAR guidelines, hazards due to falling extra-terrestrial objects such as
meteorites may only be assessed as required by specialized projects. But it is also recognized that the
probability of such hazards occurring is generally much smaller than those produced by earth processes.

Project related
7 RISK ASSESSMENT
7.1 Approach to risk assessment

The exposure of Pasay Harbor City to hazards has been explored in the previous sections. This chapter
continues the risk assessment framework process (after ISO 31000:2018 E) by evaluating future projections
of these risks, highlighting areas of ongoing and future vulnerability.
Although essentially very similar in nature and process, the risk assessment framework utilised in this
document is based on the following universally accepted standards and guidelines:
• ISO 31000:2018 Risk management – principles and guidelines.
• AS/NZS 4360:2004 Risk management
• AS 5334:2013 Climate change adaptation for settlements and infrastructure – a risk-based
approach
• ISO/CD 14091 Adaptation to climate change – vulnerability, impacts and risk assessment
The analysis of project risks starts with assigning a likelihood and consequence to each risk. This allows
quantifying the most critical of risks using a standard Risk Assessment Matrix, see Table 7-1. Essentially,
this is a method of establishing success criteria based on the project objectives to assist in the evaluation
of the significance of the risks. The likelihood of current and future risk has been determined based upon
the following lines of evidence:
• Historical occurrences, trends and extreme events observed in the available historical data,
stakeholder consultation and downtime assessments for port operability; and
• Projections and level of confidence in projections.
The likelihood is essentially the probability of a specific risk or hazard occurring. A standard risk likelihood
matrix is presented in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1: Risk assessment matrix
CONSEQUENCE
Negligible Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic

1 2 3 4 5
Almost Certain A High High Extreme Extreme Extreme
Likely B Moderate High High Extreme Extreme

LIKELIHOOD
Possible C low Moderate High Extreme Extreme
Unlikely D Low Low Moderate High Extreme
Rare E Low Low Moderate High High

Project related
Table 7-2: Likelihood of risk

Long term risks
Likelihood Description Recurrence
(under climate change scenario)
Almost Has a greater than 90% chance of

Could occur several times per
Certain Expected to occur occurring in the identified time period if
year.
(A) the risk is not mitigated.
Has a 60–90% chance of occurring in

Likely Has a greater chance of
May occur once every year. the identified time period if the risk is not
(B) happening than not
mitigated.
Has a 40–60% chance of occurring in

Possible
May occur at some time. May arise once in 5 years. the identified time period if the risk is not
(C)
mitigated.
Unlikely May occur at some time but May arise once in 5 to 50 Has a 10–30% chance of occurring in
(D) is considered unlikely. years. the future if the risk is not mitigated.
May occur in exceptional circumstances

Rare Could occur in exceptional Unlikely during the next 50 (i.e. less than 10% chance of occurring
(E) circumstances. years. in the identified time period) if the risk is
not mitigated.
The consequences of risk are determined as the impacts of the occurrence of that risk on the project
objectives.
7.2 Risk assessment

The evaluation process for determining the vulnerability of Pasay Harbor City for hazard identified in the
previous chapters is presented in Table 7-3. Hazards with related risks are grouped. Hazard has several
stated risks as they relate to the reclamation function during operational time. The vulnerability of the
present-day was determined as a function of the likelihood (or probability) of the event occurring and the
consequence if the event occurred. Likelihood is rated from almost certain (A) to rare (E), while consequence
is rated from negligible (1) to catastrophic (5), following the risk assessment matrix in Table 7-1. The
projection for each hazard at the 50-year design life (2073) was then stated and the evaluation process was
undertaken again for the projection assuming no change to the reclamation operations and infrastructure
during that period (i.e. status quo).
Table 7-3: Evaluation of present and projected hazards for Pasay Harbor City
Risk category Risk category
Hazard Risk statement (Present day) Projection (Future)
L C R L C R
Damage to reclamation. Earthquakes can lead to

different degrees of damage from partial to total due to
C 4 E C 4 E
permanent deformations (cracks, settlements),
liquefaction, slope failure. Constant seismic
Earthquakes
Change in bathymetry and/or landform. If there is a risks
slope, during an earthquake instability can occur or
C 3 H C 3 H
permanent deformations due to site effects (e.g.
amplification), lateral spreading.
Inundation of land shutting operational down for Constant

Tsunamis E 5 H E 5 H
extended period tsunamigenic risks

Project related
Risk category Risk category

Hazard Risk statement (Present day) Projection (Future)
L C R L C R
Significant wave forces on revetment structures E 5 H E 5 H
Excessive damage of structures near the coastal line

E 5 H E 5 H
extended closure
Differential settlement, excessive settlement damage

C 4 E Constant C 4 E
Settlement and structures on reclamation.
settlement and
subsidence
subsidence risks
Flooding in the reclamation due to lower platform level C 4 E C 4 E
Volcanic Disturbance of operations – low to moderate damages Constant volcanic

C 2 M C 2 M
and disturbances due to ash fall risks
Inundation of land shutting operational down for

extended period results in increased incidence of loss or E 3 M D 3 M
damage of structures.
Sea level High water level reduces the effectiveness of drainage Sea level rise
resulting in ponding/flooding of the site which can result
C 2 M B 3 H
in operational disruptions through to damage to facilities,
can represent a risk to workplace safety.
Wave overtopping leads to inundation of land resulting No statistically

D 1 L significant C 2 M
in increased incidence of loss or damage of structures.
increases in
Adverse wave conditions disrupt operations near coastal magnitude or
C 2 M C 3 H
line. occurrence of wave
heights, wind
Wind and wave
speeds or change
climate
in directionality.
Combination of high winds and waves cause safety However, under
issues in the revetment, port and jetty location (during C 3 H higher sea levels C 4 E
berthing, unloading/loading). future wave action
will present a
greater hazard.
Excessive wave forces result in structural damage due

D 4 H Increase intensity E 5 H
exposure and design criteria.
Tropical but decrease in
cyclones High wind forces on maritime and landside infrastructure frequency of
B 3 H tropical cyclone C 4 E
cause damage to structures.
7.3 Measures
A wide range of adaptation, mitigation and resilience measures are available to address the high-risk
hazards identified for the Project. In order to arrive at the most suitable measures, all options that may be
available to the project need to be evaluated. ISO2001:2018 offers the following generic options when
evaluating risk:
• do nothing;
• further consider risk treatment measures;
• undertake further analysis to better understand the risk;
• maintain existing controls; and
• reconsider objectives.
A list of adaptation measures was developed in Table 7-4 below.

Project related
Table 7-4: Possible measures

Hazards Adaptation Measures
Seismic hazard
• Incorporate the seismic loads in the coastal protection and

reclamation designs.
• Conduct site-specific assessment from the possible earthquake
Seismicity sources to determine representative site-specific ground motion
design parameters combining the hazard and ground condition.
• Apply ground improvement to increase the strength of the natural soil
and reclamation fill material.
• There is no Fault present in the Project area. No mitigation.

• Permanent deformations on the site during earthquakes shall be
Ground rupture
considered within a performance-based design to the required
acceptable levels.
• Conduct liquefaction susceptibility and hazard analysis. Calculate

safety factors against liquefaction for both natural soils and
reclamation fill. Prescribe designs resistant to liquefaction in line to the
requirements and good international practice.
Liquefaction • Apply ground improvement such as compaction to densify the sand
soils (reclamation fill) to meet the compaction criteria against safety
factor of 1.3.
• Estimate the seismic-induced settlement of the potentially liquefiable
soils to be considered in the structural design.
• Conduct geotechnical investigation at least drilling which cover

sufficient depth to hard layers and consolidation test to obtain the
compressibility properties of the cohesive soil layers
Differential settlement
• Estimate the potential residual settlement over reclamation area
• Design a robust foundation of buildings which can limit the impact of
differential settlement (if any) to the buildings (such as cracks)
• Estimate the possible impact to the reclamation stability due to static

and seismic loads
Lateral spread
• Apply a robust ground improvement in line to the requirements and
good international practice.
The design of structures and buildings on the reclamation can take into
Tsunami
account the possibility of tsunami.
Manila Bay is not enclosed but generally an open water body. No

Seiches
mitigation required.
Mass movement
No mitigation required due to the absence of a geologic structure that

Landslide and fault creep could trigger slow soil and rock movement towards and away from the
area.
Apply conservative approach in the design; a nominal allowance for

Subsidence
subsidence of 0.25m will be allowed for, which equates to 0.5cm/year.
• Conduct geotechnical investigation at least drilling which cover

Settlement sufficient depth to hard layers and consolidation test to obtain the
compressibility properties of the cohesive soil layers

Project related
Hazards Adaptation Measures

• Estimate the potential settlement over reclamation area due to the
placement of reclamation fill
• Apply a robust ground improvement (such as PVDs and temporary
preloading) to limit the residual (post-construction) settlement
• Design a robust foundation of buildings which can limit the impact of
differential settlement (if any) to the buildings (such as cracks)
Volcanic hazard
Ensure to always update the development of the nearby volcanoes

Lava/lahar flow, ashfall, volcanic tremors
activity and comply the emergency plan from the local governor.
Hydrological hazard
Sedimentation due to the presence of nearby rivers and channels will be

Fluvial hazard limited in the Project site considering the seabed material, wave and
current speed. Monitoring might be necessary to monitor the
• Incorporate the storm surge and sea level rise to the reclamation
design (sufficient crest level and reclamation platform level). Apply
Coastal hazard (flood, storm surge, sea
flood safety level of 1:1,000.
level rise)
• Adequate drainage systems & retention/storage areas for floodwater
should be incorporated into the design.
Other hazard
Airborne Ensure to comply the emergency plan from the local governor.
Cosmic No mitigation required.

Project related
A1 INPUT PARAMETERS FOR THE DETERMINISTIC PGA

ANALYSIS – Active Shallow Crustal
Three earthquake generators are considered in the assessment, i.e. West Marikina Valley Fault, Philippines
Fault and Lubang Fault. The parameters taken into account in the calculation are presented in the following
tables.
Table A- 1: ACR West Marikina Valley Fault (WMVF)
Parameter Value Source
150 Koo et al. (2009)

Fault length
87.5 Rimando & Knuepfer (2006)
Rake angle fault 13.62 [◦] Rimando and Kneupfer 2006
Dip angle fault 90 [◦] Miura et al. 2008
Rupture depth (Ztor) 2 [km] JICA, M. 2004
Distance 10.2 [km] http://faultfinder.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/
Type Strike-slip [dextral] Rimando and Kneupfer 2006
Rimando and Knuepfer (2006); Koo et al. (2009)

Magnitude 7.7
Down-dip width = Fault length
Hypocentral depth (Zhyp) 13.25 [km] Koo-Mote et al. 2009
Table A- 2: ACR Philippines Fault

1200 Aurelio et al. 1997

Fault length
220 Hypothetic segment
Rake angle fault 0 [◦]
Dip angle fault 90 [◦] Miura et al. 2008
Distance 80 [km] http://faultfinder.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/
Type Strike-slip [lateral] Aurelio et al. 1997
Magnitude 8.0 Koo-Mote et al., 2009
Table A- 3: ACR Lubang Fault

Fault length 175 JICA, M. 2004
Rake angle fault 0 [◦]
Dip angle fault 90 [◦] No information

Project related
Distance 95 [km] http://faultfinder.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/
Type Strike-slip [lateral] Koo-Mote et al. 2009
Magnitude 8.0 Koo-Mote et al. 2009

Appendix 4 - EGGAR C01

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Appendix 4 - EGGAR C01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPORT

Engineering Geological and

Engineering Geological and Geohazard Assessment

Client: Pasay Harbor City Corporation

HASKONING PHILIPPINES INC.

Unit 62 Level 6 Legaspi Suites Building

+63 2 802 2160 / 61 T

Document title: Engineering Geological and Geohazard Assessment Report

Document short title: EGGAR

Prima Nilasari, Ernesto Dulay II,

Checked by: Carolina Sigaran

Date / initials: 17-04-2020

Approved by: Trevor Morrish-Hale

Date / initials: 17-04-2020

17 April 2020 EGGAR SF1141-RHD-DN-ZZ-RP-0004 i

3 GEOLOGY AND GROUND CONDITION 12

5 HYDROLOGICAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT 37

17 April 2020 EGGAR SF1141-RHD-DN-ZZ-RP-0004 2

17 April 2020 EGGAR SF1141-RHD-DN-ZZ-RP-0004 3

17 April 2020 EGGAR SF1141-RHD-DN-ZZ-RP-0004 4

DSHA Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment

EGGA Engineering Geological and Geohazard Assessment

EGGAR Engineering Geological and Geohazard Assessment Report

GMPE Ground Motion Prediction Equation

PGA Peak Ground Acceleration

PGV Peak Ground Velocity

PHCC Pasay Harbor City Corporation

PHC Pasay Harbor City

PSHA Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment

MGB Mines and Geosciences Bureau

MSL Mean Sea Level

PPA Philippine Port Authority

GPI Geotechnics Philippines Inc

KSCC Kwan Sing Construction Corporation

WVF West Valley Fault

EVF East Valley Fault

17 April 2020 EGGAR SF1141-RHD-DN-ZZ-RP-0004 5

1.1 Project Description

1.2 Scope of this Report

17 April 2020 EGGAR SF1141-RHD-DN-ZZ-RP-0004 6

17 April 2020 EGGAR SF1141-RHD-DN-ZZ-RP-0004 7

2.1 Site Location

Figure 2-1: Pasay Harbor City reclamation

2.2 Bathymetry and Topography

17 April 2020 EGGAR SF1141-RHD-DN-ZZ-RP-0004 8

Figure 2-2: Bathymetry level of Project site [3]

17 April 2020 EGGAR SF1141-RHD-DN-ZZ-RP-0004 9

Rainfall Temperature Wind No. of days w/

Apr 23.7 4 33.5 26.6 30.1 30 24.9 23.1 28 66 1010 SE 3 6 2 2

May 147.2 10 33.2 26.9 30 30 25.7 24.3 30 71 1009 SW 3 6 9 9

Aug 432.4 21 30.8 25.8 28.3 28.2 25.6 24.7 31 81 1007 SW 4 7 11 7

Sep 355.1 20 31 25.7 28.4 28.3 25.5 24.6 30.7 80 1008 SW 3 7 12 8

Nov 121.7 12 30.9 25.1 28 28 24.5 23.2 28.3 75 1010 N 3 7 3 1

Dec 67.4 7 29.8 24.2 27 27 23.4 22 26.3 74 1012 N 2 7 1 0

17 April 2020 EGGAR SF1141-RHD-DN-ZZ-RP-0004 10

Figure 2-4: Climate map of the Philippines (1951-2010) by PAGASA

17 April 2020 EGGAR SF1141-RHD-DN-ZZ-RP-0004 11

3 GEOLOGY AND GROUND CONDITION

3.1 Tectonic Setting

3.2 Regional Geology

17 April 2020 EGGAR SF1141-RHD-DN-ZZ-RP-0004 12

Figure 3-2: Geologic Map of Manila [4]

17 April 2020 EGGAR SF1141-RHD-DN-ZZ-RP-0004 13

Figure 3-3: Stratigraphy of Manila [24]