GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION - INTAKE - WMTP

PREPARED BY:
PROJECT NAME:
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION FOR
PROPOSED INTAKE
LOCATION:
CAMPO 3, JACLUPAN, TALISAY CITY, CEBU
10.289059613815276, 123.81903133547621
PREPARED FOR:
BCB ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY – WMTP

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 4
2. SITE LOCATION 5
3. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE 7
4. FIELD PROCEDURE 7
4.1. DRILLING PROCEDURE 7
4.2. LABORATORY TESTS 10
4.2.1. Soil Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D422, ASTM D1140) 10
4.2.2. The Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318) 10
4.2.3. Fall Cone Method (BS 1377) 10
4.2.4. Moisture Content of Soils (ASTM D2216, ASTM D4959) 10
4.2.5. Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (ASTMD 2487) 10
4.2.6. Direct Sher Test (ASTM D 3080) 11
4.2.7. Soil Bearing Capacity Computation 13
4.3. GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SEISMICITY 14
4.3.1. Spectral Acceleration Map of Cebu 16
4.4. SUBSOIL CONDITION 17
4.4.1. GROUND WATER TABLE 19
4.4.2. LIQUEFACTION 19
5. OBSERVATION 22
6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 22
6.1. Structural Foundations 22
6.2. Bearing Capacity of Soil on Shallow Locations 23
7. LIMITATIONS 29
8. APPENDICES 30
8.1. BORING LOG 30
8.2. PROJECT SAMPLE LIST 30
8.3. SUMMARY OF LAB TEST 30
8.4. SIEVE ANALYSIS 30
8.5. SPT 30
8.6. PICTURES 30
2|Page
TABLES
Table 1: Undrained Shear Strength ........................................................................................... 8

Table 2: Relative Density .......................................................................................................... 9
Table 3: Angle of Internal Friction ......................................................................................... 11
Table 4: Liquefaction on 7.0 Magnitude ................................................................................. 20
Table 5: Liquefaction on 6.0 Magnitude ................................................................................. 21
Table 8: Average Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity for Borehole 1 - 1mx1m ....................... 24
Table 9: Average Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity for Borehole 1 - 2mx2m ....................... 25
Table 10: Average Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity for Borehole 1 - 3mx3m ..................... 26
FIGURES
Figure 1: Location Map ............................................................................................................. 5

Figure 2: Vicinity Map .............................................................................................................. 6
Figure 3:Shear Wave Graph .................................................................................................... 14
Figure 4: Location of the nearest fault (Phivolcs Fault) ......................................................... 15
Figure 5: Spectral Map SA 0.2 sec at 2475 Year MRI on Rock Site ..................................... 16
Figure 6: Spectral Map SA 1 sec at 2475 Year MRI on Rock Site ........................................ 16
3|Page
1. INTRODUCTION
A subsurface soil investigation was conducted by drilling 1 test holes scheduled to be 15 meters from the natural
ground level. Test holes were conducted accordingly within the proposed area based on client specifications.
This report contains the discussion, evaluation, and recommendation intended for the design of the structural
foundation and components of the proposed INTAKE in Campo 3, Jaclupan, Talisay City, Cebu. It is construed that the
recommendations stated herein are purely recommendatory based on universally accepted engineering procedures and
standards in testing and evaluation.
4|Page
2. SITE LOCATION
Figure 1: Location Map
5|Page
Figure 2: Vicinity Map
6|Page
3. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE
The subsurface soil investigation was conducted to obtain information on the subsurface conditions needed for the
design of the foundation component of the proposed structure. Samples obtained during the investigation were tested in
the laboratory for soil classification and determining the engineering characteristics of the on-site soil and rock. The
results of the field and laboratory tests are discussed and presented herein. Specifically, the soil investigation was
conducted to meet the following objectives.
4. FIELD PROCEDURE
4.1. DRILLING PROCEDURE
The boring was accomplished using a hydraulically operated, rotary drilling rig. The hole was advanced using the
rotary wash method. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was carried out using a standard split-spoon sampler, mounted on
a drive rod of sufficient strength to prevent whipping from blows delivered by the 140lbs (63.5 kg) hammer free-falling
from a height of 30-in (76-cm). The value of N (penetration resistance) is obtained as the number of blows required to
drive the tube to the last 18-in (450-mm) of penetration distance.
After the sample and tube are brought to the surface and separated, the sample is removed from the tube and properly
preserved and sealed using a moisture-tight plastic bag for further testing in the laboratory.
Correlation of SPT data with other soil parameters has been developed for estimates of the stiffness of soil and is a
very useful supplementary classification as shown in the tables below:
7|Page
(Bowles 1988)
Table 1: Undrained Shear Strength
8|Page
(Idriss and Bouglar, 2003)
Table 2: Relative Density
9|Page
Drilling through Hard Rocks and Soils
Coring which simultaneously advances the hole and obtains continuous samples is performed. The method consists
of grinding away an annular zone with a rotary diamond drill bit, leaving a cylindrical core that was captured by a core
barrel and removed from the ground. The cuttings are removed by a circulating drilling fluid/water. The core recovery,
which is the total sample length recovered from each core run divided by the run length is the RQD (Rock Quality
Designation), which is the percentage of core in pieces 100 mm or longer of the sample and is recorded.
4.2. LABORATORY TESTS

Selected soil samples were subjected to the following specific tests:
4.2.1. Soil Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D422, ASTM D1140)
The size and quantity of individual particles found in particular soil are indicative of the performance characteristics
of the soil. The percentage by weight of the material passing through each succession sieve is recorded.
4.2.2. The Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318)
The liquid limit and the plastic limit tests define the upper and lower moisture content points at which a particular
soil ceases to perform as plastic. The use of this test is restricted to cohesive soils.
4.2.3. Fall Cone Method (BS 1377)
Alternative method to the Casagrande method for measuring the Liquid Limit of a soil sample. Furthermore, the
undrained shear strength for each one of those measured water content can be computed as proposed by Hansbo:[2]
The fall cone factor can vary between 0.5 and 1.33.
4.2.4. Moisture Content of Soils (ASTM D2216, ASTM D4959)
It is based on the weight of the water in the soil. This indicates the imperative behavior of different soil types at
various levels of moisture.
4.2.5. Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (ASTMD 2487)

Based on the results of visual observations and prescribed laboratory tests, a soil is cataloged according to the basic
soil groups, assigned a group symbol(s) and name, and thereby classified. This standard classifies soils from any
geographic location into categories representing the results of prescribing laboratory tests to determine the particle-size
characteristics, the liquid limit, and the plasticity index.
The various groupings of the classification system have been devised to correlate in a general way with the
engineering behavior of soils.
10 | P a g e
4.2.6. Direct Sher Test (ASTM D 3080)
Relatively simple soil mechanics test run on cohesive or non-cohesive samples of undisturbed or remolded soil
materials. A shear box, or shear ring, contains the soil specimen and consists of two halves, stacked vertically. A direct
shear machine applies a predetermined vertical load (normal stress) to the soil specimen in the shear box assembly. The
applied normal stresses depend on the loads anticipated in the design. The bottom half of the shear box is held in place
while the shear machine applies a controlled horizontal force to move the upper half in one direction. The deformation
and force applied to the sample are measured and recorded until there is a shear failure.
Shioi and Fukui angle of internal friction value should be used if it is lesser than the Direct Shear Test (ASTM D
3080) is observed.
Table 3: Angle of Internal Friction
11 | P a g e
It should be noted that no UCT was performed for rock samples that did not pass the requirement as a specimen, e.g
not an intact sample to fill the special dimensioning.
Further, rock properties are identified through the following measures.
TOTAL CORE RECOVERY (TCR)

TCR is the borehole core recovery percentage, defined as the quotient:
TCR = lsum of pieces/ltotal core run (100%)
Lsum of pieces = sum of the length of the core pieces

Ltotal core run = total length of the core run
ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION (RQD)
RQD is an approximate measure of the degree of jointing or fracture in a rock mass, measured as the percentage of
the drill core in the length of 100mm or more. High-quality rock has an RQD of more than 75% while the low quality
of less than 50%. Whereas rock quality designation could have several definitions, a popular definition was developed
in 1964 by D. U. Deere wherein it is the borehole core recovery percentage incorporating only pieces of a solid core that
is longer than 100mm in length measured along the centerline of the core.
As such, pieces of a core that are not competent (hard and sound) should not be counted despite being 100MM in
length.
RQD is defined as the quotient:
TCR = lsum of 100/ltotal core run (100%)
Lsum of 100 = sum of the length of the core stick longer than 100mm measured along the centerline of the core
Ltotal core run = total length of the core run
From the RQD index, the rock mass can be classified as follows:
RQD Rock Mass

Quality
< 25% Very Poor
25%-50% Poor
50%-75% Fair
75%-90% Good
90%-100% Excellent
12 | P a g e
4.2.7. Soil Bearing Capacity Computation
The results of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and soil laboratory test results were used to compute the soil
bearing capacity and to generate the empirical values of unit weight, cohesion, and internal friction angle. The soil-
bearing capacity was computed using the Meyerhof, Hansen, and Vesic formula:
Where:
Qu - Ultimate soil-bearing capacity
c - Cohesion of soils
𝐲𝐞 - The unit weight of soil at the base of the footing
𝐲𝐪 - The unit weight of overburden
D - Depth of footing
B - Base of footing
𝑭𝒄 , 𝑭𝒒 , 𝑭𝒚 - Shape factors
𝑵𝒄 , 𝑵𝒒 , 𝑵𝒚 - Dimensionless bearing capacity factors
13 | P a g e
4.3. GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SEISMICITY
The project lies within Jaclupan, Talisay City, and is bounded by a seismic generator which is to be considered in
the structural design of the proposed new structure. The nearest active fault trace on the said location is the Cebu Central
Fault about 1.3 kilometers away which can generate a 7.0 magnitude earthquake, mapped by PHIVOLCS in 2016.
Shear Wave Velocity of BH1 BH2
Figure 3:Shear Wave Graph

For structural design considerations, the seismic parameters are as follows:
Zone Factor = 0.4
Type of Soil = SC
Magnitude of Earthquake = 7.0
Distance to the nearest fault = 1.3 km
Near Source Factor (Na=1.5; Nv=2.0)
Seismic Coefficients (Ca=0.64; Cv=1.12)
14 | P a g e
Figure 4: Location of the nearest fault (Phivolcs Fault)
15 | P a g e
4.3.1. Spectral Acceleration Map of Cebu
Figure 5: Spectral Map SA 0.2 sec at 2475 Year MRI on Rock Site
Figure 6: Spectral Map SA 1 sec at 2475 Year MRI on Rock Site
16 | P a g e
4.4. SUBSOIL CONDITION
Based on the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and laboratory tests for material classification, the following
subsurface condition was determined.
Borehole BH - 01 “see boring log”
17 | P a g e
18 | P a g e
4.4.1. GROUND WATER TABLE
The actual groundwater table encounters a 1-meter depth in borehole, but during heavy residents in the area observe
flooding in the area. So, they assumed the ground water table is 0.00m depth from the natural grade level.
4.4.2. LIQUEFACTION
Liquefaction is defined as the transformation of granular soil from a solid state into a liquid state. Soils most
susceptible to liquefaction are commonly associated with saturated sandy and silty soils having low plasticity and
density. Liquefaction assessment is carried out on the areas having silty soil to a sand formation with shallow depth of
water table and the relative loose density of (N<15). The assessment is evaluated by calculating the Cyclic Stress Ratio
(CSR) induced by an earthquake and the Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) of the soil formation using the factor of safety
approach. For the given depth of the soil in each borehole, the CRR is then divided by the CSR to determine the ratio
of these two variables. A Liquefaction Resistance Factor (FL) value less than 1 signifies that the depth considered is
susceptible to soil liquefaction. The assessment would also determine the probable depth and location of liquefaction
when the areas are subjected to a ground motion acceleration equivalent to 0.4g or the equivalent ground acceleration
derived from the maximum design earthquake (MDE) in 100 years with a given distance, in a kilometer, to the nearest
fault.
The Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI) is estimated using Boulanger and Idriss (2014), Iwasaki et al. (1982), and
Luna and Frost (1998).
Relation between damage extension and approximate settlement using Ishihara and Yoshimine 1992.
Summary table for earthquake liquefaction.
19 | P a g e
BH1
20 | P a g e
Overburden Stress Safety
SPT Test CRR7.5
(kPa) Fines Relative Factor
Depth
Rd Content Density CSR_I&B (z) w(z) F(z) H F(z).(w)(z).H REMARKS
(m) Boulanger Boulanger
(%) Dr (%)
Total Effective N Co Cn N1(60) & Idriss & Idriss
(2014) (2014)
0.5 1 7.5 3.58 0 90 0.75 1.7 115 100 0.546 0.88 1.92 - - - - - NON LIQUEFIABLE
1.5 0.99 22.5 8.77 0 90 0.75 1.7 115 100 0.662 0.88 1.59 1.00 - - - - NON LIQUEFIABLE
2.5 0.98 37.5 13.96 0 90 0.79 1.7 121 100 0.685 0.88 1.53 2.25 - - - - NON LIQUEFIABLE
4 0.96 60 21.75 0 90 0.86 1.7 132 100 0.689 0.86 1.50 3.25 - - - - NON LIQUEFIABLE
5.5 0.94 82.5 29.54 0 21 0.9 1.7 32 83.6 0.682 0.7 1.23 4.75 - - - - NON LIQUEFIABLE
7 0.92 105 37.33 0 28 0.95 1.62 43 96.6 0.669 0.84 1.50 6.25 - - - - NON LIQUEFIABLE

8.5 0.89 127.5 45.12 0 18 0.97 1.47 26 74.7 0.654 0.32 0.58 7.75 - - - - LIQUEFIABLE
10 0.86 150 52.91 0 36 0.98 1.36 48 100 0.636 0.83 1.55 9.25 - - - - NON LIQUEFIABLE
Table 4: Liquefaction on 7.0 Magnitude

11.5 0.84 172.5 60.7 0 32 0.98 1.27 40 93.1 0.618 0.82 1.59 10.75 - - - - NON LIQUEFIABLE
13 0.81 195 68.49 0 45 0.99 1.2 53 100 0.598 0.82 1.63 12.25 - - - - NON LIQUEFIABLE
14.5 0.78 217.5 76.28 0 32 0.99 1.13 36 88.5 0.579 0.81 1.67 5.75 - - - - NON LIQUEFIABLE
LPI 0.00
Liquefaction Assessment based on SPT considering Magnitude 7.0 Earthquake and Ground Acceleration of 0.4g
BH1
21 | P a g e
Overburden Stress Safety
SPT Test CRR7.5
(kPa) Fines Relative Factor
Depth
Rd Content Density CSR_I&B (z) w(z) F(z) H F(z).(w)(z).H REMARKS
(m) Boulanger Boulanger
(%) Dr (%)
Total Effective N Co Cn N1(60) & Idriss & Idriss
(2014) (2014)
0.5 1 7.5 3.58 0 90 0.75 1.7 115 100 0.409 0.88 3.00 - - - - - NON LIQUEFIABLE
1.5 0.99 22.5 8.77 0 90 0.75 1.7 115 100 0.493 0.88 3.00 1.00 - - - - NON LIQUEFIABLE
2.5 0.97 37.5 13.96 0 90 0.79 1.7 121 100 0.507 0.88 3.00 2.25 - - - - NON LIQUEFIABLE
4 0.94 60 21.75 0 90 0.86 1.7 132 100 0.505 0.86 3.00 3.25 - - - - NON LIQUEFIABLE
5.5 0.91 82.5 29.54 0 21 0.9 1.7 32 83.6 0.494 0.7 2.52 4.75 - - - - NON LIQUEFIABLE
7 0.87 105 37.33 0 28 0.95 1.62 43 96.6 0.479 0.84 3.00 6.25 - - - - NON LIQUEFIABLE

8.5 0.84 127.5 45.12 0 18 0.97 1.47 26 74.7 0.461 0.32 1.23 7.75 - - - - NON LIQUEFIABLE
10 0.8 150 52.91 0 36 0.98 1.36 48 100 0.442 0.83 3.00 9.25 - - - - NON LIQUEFIABLE
Table 5: Liquefaction on 6.0 Magnitude

11.5 0.76 172.5 60.7 0 32 0.98 1.27 40 93.1 0.423 0.82 3.00 10.75 - - - - NON LIQUEFIABLE
13 0.73 195 68.49 0 45 0.99 1.2 53 100 0.403 0.82 3.00 12.25 - - - - NON LIQUEFIABLE
14.5 0.69 217.5 76.28 0 32 0.99 1.13 36 88.5 0.384 0.81 3.00 5.75 - - - - NON LIQUEFIABLE
LPI 0.00
Liquefaction Assessment based on SPT considering Magnitude 6.0 Earthquake and Ground Acceleration of 0.3g
5. OBSERVATION
The proposed Structure in Jaclupan, Talisay City, Cebu was there no significant construction at the time of the test
which can affect soil consolidation. The topography of the area is relatively flat within the immediate vicinity of the
proposed project site.
From the test conducted, the geologic profile in the area is described as sedimentary soils. It is predominantly
underlain with poorly graded sand with gravel; the soil is classified as shown in the borehole log detail with no plasticity.
‘’See borehole log’’
6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

6.1. Structural Foundations
The foundation level shall be lowered to allow for an increase in foundation resistance.
Economic considerations may allow the use of shallow foundations along the area. The foundation level shall be
located between 1.00 below depth depending on the required loading conditions noting the variability in material
composition and resistance of the upper influencing soil materials, otherwise the structural engineer (engineer on
records) may use spread footing with data showing soil bearing capacity in tables 6 to 10.
. The Foundation level shall be lowered to allow for an increase in foundation resistance. The foundation may consist
of spread footings or raft foundations. Dewatering may be necessary during excavations for the foundation.
22 | P a g e
6.2. Bearing Capacity of Soil on Shallow Locations
The general equation is usually Meyerhof, Hansen, and Vesic bearing capacity theory. The shape factors are adopted
from AASHTO (1996).
The correlation of values, normally based on SPT resistance was estimated based on different authors for
determining the effect of pore pressure, overburden pressure, and shear strength resistance of the underlying soil
materials. The buoyancy effect due to the presence of groundwater at shallow levels should be considered in the design
of the foundation.
The N-value, which is used to estimate the geotechnical properties of the foundation material was not generated
along with the sampling depth that indicates coring, because the foundation materials could not be penetrated through
SPT. Hence, estimating rock-bearing strength was done by assuming an N-value of 50, which indicates refusal – a state
where the soil is impenetrable and SPT could no longer be advanced, for each sampling depth. With this assumption,
the very poor rock is considered very hard soil, and the soil-bearing capacity computation for the shallow foundation
was generated.
The recommended allowable bearing capacity for the general condition is intended to provide a sufficient margin
of safety concerning bearing failures and deformation/settlement.
23 | P a g e
24 | P a g e
qall=qbu/F.S qnet=(qbu - q)/F.S
qbu Modulus of
F.S (SOIL) = 3 F.S (SOIL) = 3
SPT NO. DEPTH ɸ, deg. c, Kpa γΗ’, kN/m3 Subgrade,
F.S (ROCK) = 9, F.S (ROCK) = 9,
Ks, kN/m3
Meyerhof Hansen Vesic kPa kPa
CORING 1 0.50 45.0 0.00 17.80 2511 1434 1717 159 159 19,113.43
CORING 2 1.50 45.0 0.00 17.80 7311 2691 2975 299 298 35,883.62
CORING 3 2.50 45.0 0.00 17.60 14248 3945 4222 438 436 52,603.31
CORING 4 4.00 45.0 0.00 17.60 29503 5941 6217 660 657 79,211.02
SPT 5 5.50 27.2 0.00 16.50 1598 738 755 246 234 29,505.99
SPT 6 7.00 30.0 0.00 16.80 3823 1324 1350 441 425 52,977.05

SPT 7 8.50 26.6 0.00 16.56 3037 1077 1093 359 340 43,074.18
SPT 8 10.00 33.4 0.00 16.80 12536 2755 2794 918 895 110,194.18
SPT 9 11.50 32.1 0.00 16.78 12861 2722 2755 907 881 108,872.94
SPT 10 13.00 37.1 0.00 16.50 37935 5288 5352 1763 1734 211,527.13
SPT 11 14.50 32.2 0.00 15.60 16595 2877 2905 959 931 115,062.04
Table 6: Average Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity for Borehole 1 - 1mx1m

25 | P a g e
qbu Modulus of
F.S (ROCK) = 9, F.S (ROCK) = 9,
Ks, kN/m3
CORING 1 0.50 45.0 0.00 17.80 3404 2236 2803 248 248 29,809.95
CORING 2 1.50 45.0 0.00 17.80 6952 3498 4065 389 387 46,643.76
CORING 3 2.50 45.0 0.00 17.60 11458 4595 5147 511 508 61,264.06
CORING 4 4.00 45.0 0.00 17.60 20765 6565 7118 729 726 87,537.46
SPT 5 5.50 27.2 0.00 16.50 1129 744 780 248 236 29,778.20
SPT 6 7.00 30.0 0.00 16.80 2526 1342 1393 447 431 53,665.69

SPT 7 8.50 26.6 0.00 16.56 1971 1081 1114 360 341 43,244.65
SPT 8 10.00 33.4 0.00 16.80 7628 2796 2875 932 909 111,847.84
SPT 9 11.50 32.1 0.00 16.78 7705 2751 2818 917 890 110,047.72
SPT 10 13.00 37.1 0.00 16.50 21908 5381 5509 1794 1765 215,241.92
SPT 11 14.50 32.2 0.00 15.60 9626 2901 2957 967 939 116,054.45

26 | P a g e
qbu Modulus of
F.S (ROCK) = 9, F.S (ROCK) = 9,
Ks, kN/m3
CORING 1 0.50 45.0 0.00 17.80 4402 3038 3888 338 337 40,506.47
CORING 2 1.50 45.0 0.00 17.80 7533 4301 5151 478 477 57,340.28
CORING 3 2.50 45.0 0.00 17.60 11210 5424 6253 603 600 72,317.42
CORING 4 4.00 45.0 0.00 17.60 18535 7218 8047 802 799 96,237.09
SPT 5 5.50 27.2 0.00 16.50 995 754 807 251 239 30,160.71
SPT 6 7.00 30.0 0.00 16.80 2130 1361 1438 454 437 54,456.33

SPT 7 8.50 26.6 0.00 16.56 1636 1087 1136 362 343 43,466.33
SPT 8 10.00 33.4 0.00 16.80 6058 2839 2958 946 923 113,576.27
SPT 9 11.50 32.1 0.00 16.78 6038 2782 2882 927 901 111,273.47
SPT 10 13.00 37.1 0.00 16.50 16687 5475 5667 1825 1796 219,018.95
SPT 11 14.50 32.2 0.00 15.60 7346 2927 3011 976 948 117,074.41

27 | P a g e
qbu Modulus of
F.S (ROCK) = 9, F.S (ROCK) = 9,
Ks, kN/m3
CORING 1 0.50 45.0 0.00 17.80 5425 3840 4974 427 426 51,202.99
CORING 2 1.50 45.0 0.00 17.80 8348 5103 6236 567 566 68,036.80
CORING 3 2.50 45.0 0.00 17.60 11598 6206 7311 690 687 82,746.20
CORING 4 4.00 45.0 0.00 17.60 17931 7898 9003 878 874 105,301.64
SPT 5 5.50 27.2 0.00 16.50 944 767 837 256 243 30,670.29
SPT 6 7.00 30.0 0.00 16.80 1960 1384 1487 461 445 55,375.24

SPT 7 8.50 26.6 0.00 16.56 1483 1094 1160 365 346 43,755.82
SPT 8 10.00 33.4 0.00 16.80 5321 2885 3044 962 938 115,406.92
SPT 9 11.50 32.1 0.00 16.78 5244 2814 2947 938 911 112,570.42
SPT 10 13.00 37.1 0.00 16.50 14167 5572 5828 1857 1828 222,884.21
SPT 11 14.50 32.2 0.00 15.60 6240 2953 3065 984 956 118,133.84

28 | P a g e
qbu Modulus of
F.S (ROCK) = 9, F.S (ROCK) = 9,
Ks, kN/m3
CORING 1 0.50 45.0 0.00 17.80 6459 4642 6059 516 515 61,899.51
CORING 2 1.50 45.0 0.00 17.80 9256 5905 7322 656 655 78,733.32
CORING 3 2.50 45.0 0.00 17.60 12240 6988 8370 776 774 93,174.97
CORING 4 4.00 45.0 0.00 17.60 17978 8835 10216 982 978 117,793.63
SPT 5 5.50 27.2 0.00 16.50 927 783 871 261 249 31,302.74
SPT 6 7.00 30.0 0.00 16.80 1879 1411 1539 470 454 56,430.88

SPT 7 8.50 26.6 0.00 16.56 1403 1103 1186 368 349 44,122.12
SPT 8 10.00 33.4 0.00 16.80 4919 2934 3132 978 955 117,358.08
SPT 9 11.50 32.1 0.00 16.78 4798 2849 3015 950 923 113,953.63
SPT 10 13.00 37.1 0.00 16.50 12728 5671 5991 1890 1861 226,858.45
SPT 11 14.50 32.2 0.00 15.60 5602 2981 3121 994 966 119,242.70
7. LIMITATIONS
Limitations must be acknowledged and the results analyzed in conjunction with the geological information for this
specific area of concern. Furthermore, practical observations of the subsoil should be made during the construction of
every structure in the area.
29 | P a g e
8. APPENDICES
8.1. BORING LOG
8.2. PROJECT SAMPLE LIST
8.3. SUMMARY OF LAB TEST
8.4. SIEVE ANALYSIS
8.5. SPT
8.6. PICTURES
30 | P a g e
Hydraulic Rotary Log BH01
Project :GEOTECHNICAL Depth:14.5 (m) Elevation: BB
Company Info.
Borehole Info.
Project Info.
REPORT FOR
Client :WMTP GWL:0 (m) Easting:589684.35
Location :LAGTANG, CEBU Drill Date:03/07/2024 Northing:1137472.83
Job No.:BCB202421 Logged By:VC Method:Hydraulic Rotary
Particle Analysis
Atterberg Limits
Sample Type
Test
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
GWL (m)
Symbol
USCS /
Lithology Description Field Tests
Gravel (%)
AASHTO
Sand (%)
Clay (%)
PL (%)
Silt (%)
PI (%)
LL (%)
* SPT
10 20 30 40 50
0
0
Poorly Graded Gravel With Sand
GP 100 NLL - NPI

A-1-b(0) Poorly Graded Gravel With Sand
1
1
GP 100 NLL - NPI
2
2
GP 100 NLL - NPI
3
3
GP 100 NLL - NPI
4
4
A-1-b(0) Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel
5
SP 2.1 96.2 1.7 NLL - NPI

A-3(0) Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel
6
SP 2.8 95.8 1.4 NLL - NPI

7

8
SP 2.7 93.2 4.1 NLL - NPI

9
9
10
10
SP 1 97.5 1.5 NLL - NPI

A-3(0)
Disturbed SPT Sample LL : Liquid Limit C : Cohesion Cc : Cc w : Moisture Content CD : Consolidated,
SampleTypes
Abreviations
Drained
Undisturbed Water Sample PL : Plastic Limit Phi : Friction Angle Cs : Cs qu : Unconfined Comp. QuUU : Unconsolidated,
Undrained
Shelby / U4 Groundwater Level PI : Plastic Index C' : Cohesion (CU) Pc : Pre-Consolidation F : Fast CU : Consolidated,
Pressure Undrained
Core Cutter NPI : None PI Phi' : Friction Angle (CU) K : Permeability Coeff. S : Slow page 1 of 2
NovoLAB 4.0.2022.310 Licensed to : BB (bcbconsultingengineers@gmail.com)

Printed On 17/03/2024 By DESKTOP-BEK8BSC\Admin
Hydraulic Rotary Log BH01
Project :GEOTECHNICAL Depth:14.5 (m) Elevation: BB
Company Info.
Borehole Info.
Project Info.
REPORT FOR
Client :WMTP GWL:0 (m) Easting:589684.35
Location :LAGTANG, CEBU Drill Date:03/07/2024 Northing:1137472.83
Job No.:BCB202421 Logged By:VC Method:Hydraulic Rotary
Particle Analysis
Atterberg Limits
Sample Type
Test
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
GWL (m)
Symbol
USCS /
Lithology Description Field Tests
Gravel (%)
AASHTO
Sand (%)
Clay (%)
PL (%)
Silt (%)
PI (%)
LL (%)
* SPT
10 20 30 40 50
SP 1 97.5 1.5 NLL - NPI
10
10
A-3(0) Poorly Graded Silty Sand With Gravel &
Clay
11
11
SP-SM 4.3 88.6 7 NLL - NPI
A-3(0) Poorly Graded Silty Sand With Gravel &
Clay
12
12
SP-SM 2.4 91.9 5.7 NLL - NPI
13
13
A-3(0) Silty Sand With Gravel
14
14
SM 0.9 72.4 26.8 NLL - NPI
A-4(0) End of Log @ 14.5 (m)
Disturbed SPT Sample LL : Liquid Limit C : Cohesion Cc : Cc w : Moisture Content CD : Consolidated,

SampleTypes
Abreviations
Drained
Undisturbed Water Sample PL : Plastic Limit Phi : Friction Angle Cs : Cs qu : Unconfined Comp. QuUU : Unconsolidated,
Undrained
Shelby / U4 Groundwater Level PI : Plastic Index C' : Cohesion (CU) Pc : Pre-Consolidation F : Fast CU : Consolidated,
Pressure Undrained
Core Cutter NPI : None PI Phi' : Friction Angle (CU) K : Permeability Coeff. S : Slow page 2 of 2
NovoLAB 4.0.2022.310 Licensed to : BB (bcbconsultingengineers@gmail.com)

PROJECT SAMPLES LIST
Project : GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR BB
INTAKE
Client : WMTP
Job No.: BCB202421
Location : LAGTANG, CEBU
BH01
Description USCS / AASHTO Type Depth (m)
GPA-1-b(0) Core Cutter 0.5

GPA-1-b(0) Core Cutter 4
SPA-3(0) SPT Split Spoon 5.5
SPA-3(0) SPT Split Spoon 7
SPA-3(0) SPT Split Spoon 8.5
SPA-3(0) SPT Split Spoon 10
SP-SMA-3(0) SPT Split Spoon 11.5
SP-SMA-3(0) SPT Split Spoon 13
SMA-4(0) SPT Split Spoon 14.5
NovoLAB 4.0.2022.310 Licensed to: BB (bcbconsultingengineers@gmail.com) Page 1 / 1

Summary of Lab. Tests
INTAKE
Client : WMTP
Job No.: BCB202421
Particle Analysis Test

Sample Soil
Borehole Depth Class D10 mm D30 mm D60 mm Clay (%) Silt (%) Sand (%) Gravel
(%)
Cobble
(%) LL PL
(m)
GP
BH01 0.5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0 0 0 100 0 N/A N/A
A-1-b(0)
GP
BH01 1.5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0 0 0 100 0 N/A N/A
A-1-b(0)
GP
BH01 2.5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0 0 0 100 0 N/A N/A
A-1-b(0)
GP
BH01 4 0.001 0.001 0.001 0 0 0 100 0 N/A N/A
A-1-b(0)
SP
BH01 5.5 0.154 0.239 0.358 0 1.7 96.2 2.1 0 N/A N/A
A-3(0)
SP
BH01 7 0.157 0.244 0.374 0 1.4 95.8 2.8 0 N/A N/A
A-3(0)
SP
BH01 8.5 0.115 0.201 0.344 0 4.1 93.2 2.7 0 N/A N/A
A-3(0)
SP
BH01 10 0.16 0.27 0.393 0 1.5 97.5 1 0 N/A N/A
A-3(0)
SP-SM
BH01 11.5 0.098 0.201 0.354 0 7 88.6 4.3 0.1 N/A N/A
A-3(0)
SP-SM
BH01 13 0.093 0.177 0.287 0 5.7 91.9 2.4 0 N/A N/A
A-3(0)
SM
BH01 14.5 -1 0.1 0.233 0 26.8 72.4 0.9 0 N/A N/A
A-4(0)

INTAKE
Client : WMTP
ASTM C136
Job No.: BCB202421
Particle Distribution (%)

- Cobble
Clay Silt Sand Gravel
0 - 100
Classification
Sample D10 D30 D50 D60
Borehole Depth (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Cc Cu LL (%) PI (%) Disp. (%) USCS AASHTO
(m)
BH01 0.5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 1 - - N/A GP A-1-b(0)

INTAKE
Client : WMTP
ASTM C136
Job No.: BCB202421

- Cobble
0 - 100
Classification
(m)
BH01 1.5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 1 - - N/A GP A-1-b(0)

INTAKE
Client : WMTP
ASTM C136
Job No.: BCB202421

- Cobble
0 - 100
Classification
(m)
BH01 2.5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 1 - - N/A GP A-1-b(0)

INTAKE
Client : WMTP
ASTM C136
Job No.: BCB202421

- Cobble
0 - 100
Classification
(m)
BH01 4 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 1 - - N/A GP A-1-b(0)

INTAKE
Client : WMTP
ASTM C136
Job No.: BCB202421

- Cobble
1.7 96.2 2.1
Classification
(m)
BH01 5.5 0.154 0.239 0.327 0.358 1.036 2.325 - - N/A SP A-3(0)

INTAKE
Client : WMTP
ASTM C136
Job No.: BCB202421

- Cobble
1.4 95.8 2.8
Classification
(m)
BH01 7 0.157 0.244 0.336 0.374 1.014 2.382 - - N/A SP A-3(0)

INTAKE
Client : WMTP
ASTM C136
Job No.: BCB202421

- Cobble
4.1 93.2 2.7
Classification
(m)
BH01 8.5 0.115 0.201 0.288 0.344 1.021 2.991 - - N/A SP A-3(0)

INTAKE
Client : WMTP
ASTM C136
Job No.: BCB202421

- Cobble
1.5 97.5 1
Classification
(m)
BH01 10 0.16 0.27 0.354 0.393 1.159 2.456 - - N/A SP A-3(0)

INTAKE
Client : WMTP
ASTM C136
Job No.: BCB202421

0.1 Cobble
7 88.6 4.3
Classification
(m)
BH01 11.5 0.098 0.201 0.295 0.354 1.165 3.612 - - N/A SP-SM A-3(0)

INTAKE
Client : WMTP
ASTM C136
Job No.: BCB202421

- Cobble
5.7 91.9 2.4
Classification
(m)
BH01 13 0.093 0.177 0.244 0.287 1.174 3.086 - - N/A SP-SM A-3(0)

INTAKE
Client : WMTP
ASTM C136
Job No.: BCB202421

- Cobble
26.8 72.4 0.9
Classification
(m)
A-3|0|0
BH01 14.5 - 0.1 0.196 0.233 42.918 - - - N/A SM
(0)

Standard Penetration Test
ASTM D2216-90, D854

INTAKE
Client : WMTP
Job No.: BCB202421

PICTURES WERE TAKEN DURING SUB-SURFACE EXPLORATION OF INTAKE:

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION - INTAKE - WMTP

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

GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION - INTAKE - WMTP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PREPARED BY:

BCB ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY – WMTP

Table 1: Undrained Shear Strength ........................................................................................... 8

Figure 1: Location Map ............................................................................................................. 5

Figure 1: Location Map

Table 1: Undrained Shear Strength

Table 2: Relative Density

4.2. LABORATORY TESTS

4.2.1. Soil Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D422, ASTM D1140)

4.2.2. The Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318)

4.2.3. Fall Cone Method (BS 1377)

4.2.4. Moisture Content of Soils (ASTM D2216, ASTM D4959)

4.2.5. Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (ASTMD 2487)

Table 3: Angle of Internal Friction

Further, rock properties are identified through the following measures.

TOTAL CORE RECOVERY (TCR)

Lsum of pieces = sum of the length of the core pieces

RQD is defined as the quotient:

TCR = lsum of 100/ltotal core run (100%)

RQD Rock Mass

Shear Wave Velocity of BH1 BH2

Figure 3:Shear Wave Graph

Figure 6: Spectral Map SA 1 sec at 2475 Year MRI on Rock Site

Borehole BH - 01 “see boring log”

Summary table for earthquake liquefaction.

BCB ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY – WMTP

Table 4: Liquefaction on 7.0 Magnitude

BCB ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY – WMTP

Table 5: Liquefaction on 6.0 Magnitude

6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

BCB ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY – WMTP

Table 6: Average Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity for Borehole 1 - 1mx1m

BCB ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY – WMTP

Table 7: Average Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity for Borehole 1 - 2mx2m

BCB ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY – WMTP

Table 8: Average Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity for Borehole 1 - 3mx3m

BCB ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY – WMTP

Table 9: Average Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity for Borehole 1 - 4mx4m

BCB ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY – WMTP

GP 100 NLL - NPI

SP 2.1 96.2 1.7 NLL - NPI

SP 2.8 95.8 1.4 NLL - NPI

A-3(0) Poorly Graded Sand With Gravel

SP 2.7 93.2 4.1 NLL - NPI

SP 1 97.5 1.5 NLL - NPI

NovoLAB 4.0.2022.310 Licensed to : BB (bcbconsultingengineers@gmail.com)

Disturbed SPT Sample LL : Liquid Limit C : Cohesion Cc : Cc w : Moisture Content CD : Consolidated,

NovoLAB 4.0.2022.310 Licensed to : BB (bcbconsultingengineers@gmail.com)

GPA-1-b(0) Core Cutter 0.5

NovoLAB 4.0.2022.310 Licensed to: BB (bcbconsultingengineers@gmail.com) Page 1 / 1

Particle Analysis Test

NovoLAB 4.0.2022.310 Licensed to: BB (bcbconsultingengineers@gmail.com) Page 1 / 1

Particle Distribution (%)

NovoLAB 4.0.2022.310 Licensed to: BB (bcbconsultingengineers@gmail.com) Page 1 / 11

Particle Distribution (%)

NovoLAB 4.0.2022.310 Licensed to: BB (bcbconsultingengineers@gmail.com) Page 2 / 11

Particle Distribution (%)

NovoLAB 4.0.2022.310 Licensed to: BB (bcbconsultingengineers@gmail.com) Page 3 / 11

Particle Distribution (%)

NovoLAB 4.0.2022.310 Licensed to: BB (bcbconsultingengineers@gmail.com) Page 4 / 11

Particle Distribution (%)

1.7 96.2 2.1

NovoLAB 4.0.2022.310 Licensed to: BB (bcbconsultingengineers@gmail.com) Page 5 / 11

Particle Distribution (%)