TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES

938 Aurora Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE

Civil Engineering Department

CE 509
CE Design Projects 2

Structural Design of Two-Storey Waste-to-Energy Treatment Plant

in Nagpanaoan, Ilocos Sur along Lagben River

Prepared by:
Cabrera, Lalaine Mae A.
Malabanan, Jewen E.
Rubio, Kemverly V.
Sawan, Emma Rizza C.
CE52FC2

Submitted to:
Engr. Rhonnie Estores
Instructor

November 2019
 Table of Contents
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................. i
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................................ii
CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 The Project .......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Location ................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Project Objective.................................................................................................................................. 2
1.3.1 General Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 3
1.3.2 Specific Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 The Client ............................................................................................................................................ 3
1.5 Project Scope and Limitations ............................................................................................................. 3
1.5.1 Scope ............................................................................................................................................... 3
1.5.2 Limitations..................................................................................................................................... 4
1.6 Project Development ........................................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2: DESIGN CRITERIA AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ........................................... 7
2.1 Design Criteria ..................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.1 Demography ................................................................................................................................. 7
2.1.3 Topography................................................................................................................................... 8
2.1.4 Geotechnical Report ..................................................................................................................... 9
2.1.4.1 General Geology................................................................................................................. 10
2.1.4.2 Soil Profile .......................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.4.3 Soil Property ....................................................................................................................... 16
2.1.5 Seismic Source ........................................................................................................................... 30
2.1.6 Liquefaction Susceptibility Map................................................................................................... 30
2.1.7 Landslide and Flood Hazard Susceptibility Map ......................................................................... 32
2.2 Related Literature .............................................................................................................................. 33
CHAPTER 3: CONSTRAINTS, TRADEOFFS AND STANDARDS .............................................................. 41
3.1 Design Constraints ............................................................................................................................ 40
3.1.1 Qualitative Constraints ................................................................................................................ 40
3.1.1.1 Environmental ..................................................................................................................... 40
3.1.2 Quantitative constraints .............................................................................................................. 41
3.1.2.1 Economic Constraint (Project Cost) .................................................................................... 41
33.1.2.2 Constructability Constraint (Project Duration) ................................................................... 41
3.1.2.3 Sustainability (Life Span) .................................................................................................... 42
3.1.2.4 Risk Assessment ................................................................................................................ 42
3.2 Trade-offs .......................................................................................................................................... 42
3.2.1 Structural Context Trade-Offs ..................................................................................................... 42
3.2.2 Geotechnical Context Trade-Offs ............................................................................................... 46
3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking ................................................................................................................... 50
3.4 Initial Estimates and Ranking Computation ....................................................................................... 52
3.4.1 Raw Ranking for Structural Trade-offs ........................................................................................ 52
 3.4.2 Raw Ranking for Geotechnical Trade-offs .................................................................................. 58
3.5 Tradeoffs Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 64
3.5.1 Tradeoff Assessment for Structural Context ............................................................................... 64
3.5.2 Tradeoff Assessment for Geotechnical Context.......................................................................... 64

References .............................................................................................................................................. 66
 List of Figures

Figure 1-1 Location of the Project ................................................................................................................. .2

Figure 1-2 Project Development Plan for the Design Project ......................................................................... 6
Figure 2-1 Regional Distribution of Establishments .................................................................................... 10
Figure 2-2 Topographic Map of Ilocos Sur................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2-3 Borehole location in Calungbuyan, Ilocos Sur ............................................................................ 12
Figure 2-4 Distances of Nagpanaoan and West Ilocos Fault System .......................................................... 31
Figure 2-5 Liquefaction Susceptibility Map .................................................................................................. 32
Figure 2-6 Enlarged Legend of Detailed Landslide and Flood Hazard Map ................................................ 33
Figure 2-7 Enlarged Legend of Detailed Landslide and Flood Hazard Map ................................................ 34
Figure 3-1 Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Resisting Frames ........................................................... 44
Figure 3-2 Steel Special Moment Resisting Frames .................................................................................... 45
Figure 3-3 Concentric Braced Frames (Cross) ............................................................................................ 46
Figure 3-4 Stone Columns ........................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 3-5 Steel Pile .................................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 3-6 Soil Cement Mix Columns ......................................................................................................... 50
Figure 3-7 Ranking Scale Value .................................................................................................................. 52
Figure 3-8 Subordinate Rank of Steel Concentric Bracing (X) Plotted in a Rank Line ................................ 54
Figure 3-9 Subordinate Rank of RC SMRF Plotted in a Rank Line ............................................................. 55
Figure 3-10 Subordinate Rank of Steel SMRF Plotted in a Rank Line ........................................................ 56
Figure 3-11 Subordinate Rank of Steel Concentric Bracing (X) Plotted in a Rank Line ............................... 56
Figure 3-12 Subordinate Rank of Steel SMRF Plotted in a Rank Line ........................................................ 57
Figure 3-13 Subordinate Rank of Steel Concentric Bracing (X) Plotted in a Rank Line .............................. 57
Figure 3-14 Subordinate Rank of Steel Concentric Bracing (X) Plotted in a Rank Line .............................. 58
Figure 3-15 S Subordinate Rank of RC SMRF Plotted in a Rank Line ....................................................... 59
Figure 3-16 Subordinate Rank of Stone Columns Plotted in a Rank Line ................................................... 60
Figure 3-17 Subordinate Rank of Steel Pile Plotted in a Rank Line ............................................................. 60
Figure 3-18 Subordinate Rank of Stone Columns Plotted in a Rank Line ................................................. 61
Figure 3-19 Subordinate Rank of Steel Pile Plotted in a Rank Line ............................................................ 62
Figure 3-20 Subordinate Rank of Stone Columns Plotted in a Rank Line .................................................. 62
Figure 3-21 Subordinate Rank of Steel Pile Plotted in a Rank Line ........................................................... 63
Figure 3-22 Subordinate Rank of Soil Cement Mix Column Plotted in a Rank Line .................................... 64
Figure 3-23 Subordinate Rank of Steel Pile Plotted in a Rank Line ............................................................ 64

i
 List of Tables

Table 2-1 Population Distribution of Top Five Municipalities by Sex: Ilocos Sur, 2000 .................................. 8
Table 2-2 Total Population by Age Group, Sex and Sex Ratio: Ilocos Sur, 2000 .......................................... 9
Table 2-3 Boring Log of Borehole No. 1 ..................................................................................................... 13
Table 2-4 Boring Log of Borehole No. 2 ..................................................................................................... 14
Table 2-5 Boring Log of Borehole No. 3 ..................................................................................................... 15
Table 2-6 Boring Log of Borehole No. 4 ..................................................................................................... 16
Table 2-7 Sieve Analysis for SPT-1 ............................................................................................................ 17
Table 2-8 Sieve Analysis for SPT-2 ............................................................................................................ 17
Table 2-9 Sieve Analysis for SPT-3 ............................................................................................................ 18
Table 2-10 Sieve Analysis for SPT-4 .......................................................................................................... 18
Table 2-11 Sieve Analysis for SPT-5 .......................................................................................................... 18
Table 2-12 Sieve Analysis for SPT-6 .......................................................................................................... 18
Table 2-13 Sieve Analysis for SPT-7 ........................................................................................................... 19
Table 2-14 Sieve Analysis for SPT-8 .......................................................................................................... 19
Table 2-15 Sieve Analysis for SPT-9 .......................................................................................................... 19
Table 2-16 Sieve Analysis for SPT-10 ........................................................................................................ 19
Table 2-17 Sieve Analysis for SPT-11 ........................................................................................................ 20
Table 2-18 Sieve Analysis for SPT-12 ........................................................................................................ 20
Table 2-19 Sieve Analysis for SPT-13 ........................................................................................................ 20
Table 2-20 Sieve Analysis for SPT-14 ........................................................................................................ 20
Table 2-21 Sieve Analysis for SPT-15 ........................................................................................................ 21
Table 2-22 Sieve Analysis for SPT-16 ........................................................................................................ 21
Table 2-23 Sieve Analysis for SPT-17 ........................................................................................................ 21
Table 2-24 Sieve Analysis for SPT-18 ........................................................................................................ 21
Table 2-25 Sieve Analysis for SPT-19 ........................................................................................................ 22
Table 2-26 Sieve Analysis for SPT-20 ........................................................................................................ 22
Table 2-27 Sieve Analysis for SPT-21 ........................................................................................................ 22
Table 2-28 Sieve Analysis for SPT-22 ........................................................................................................ 22
Table 2-29 Liquid limit and plasticity index for SS-1, SS-2, SS-3 ................................................................ 23
Table 2-30 Liquid limit and plasticity index for SS-4, SS-5, SS-6 ................................................................ 24
Table 2-31 Liquid limit and plasticity index for SS-7, SS-8, SS-9 ................................................................ 25
Table 2-32 Liquid limit and plasticity index for SS-10, SS-11, SS-12 .......................................................... 26
Table 2-33 Liquid limit and plasticity index for SS-13, SS-14, SS-15 .......................................................... 27
Table 2-34 Liquid limit and plasticity index for SS-16, SS-17, SS-18 .......................................................... 28
Table 2-35 Liquid limit and plasticity index for SS-19, SS-20, SS-21 .......................................................... 29
Table 2-36 Liquid limit and plasticity index for SS-22 ................................................................................. 30
Table 3-1 Advantages & Disadvantages of Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Resisting Frame ......... 44

ii
Table 3-2 Advantages & Disadvantages of Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame .................................. 45
Table 3-3 Advantages & Disadvantages of Concentric Braced Frames (Cross).......................................... 47
Table 3-4 Advantages & Disadvantages of Stone Columns ....................................................................... 48
Table 3-5 Advantages & Disadvantages of Steel Pile.................................................................................. 49
Table 3-6 Advantages & Disadvantages of Soil Cement Mix Columns ....................................................... 51
Table 3 7 Initial Estimate of Structural Trade-offs ....................................................................................... 52
Table 3 8 Initial Estimate of Geotechnical Trade-offs .................................................................................. 52
Table 3-9 Initial Estimates of Structural Trade-offs ..................................................................................... 53
Table 3-10 Initial Estimates of Geotechnical Trade-offs ............................................................................. 53
Table 3-11 Initial Estimated Value for Risk Assessment Constraint ........................................................... 54
Table 3-12 Initial Estimated Value for Economic Constraint ....................................................................... 55
Table 3-13 Initial Estimated Value for Sustainability Constraint .................................................................. 56
Table 3-14 Initial Estimated Value for Constructability Constraint .............................................................. 57
Table 3-15 Initial Estimated Value for Risk Assessment Constraint ............................................................ 59
Table 3-16 Initial Estimated Value for Economic Constraint ....................................................................... 60
Table 3-17 Initial Estimated Value for Sustainability Constraint .................................................................. 62
Table 3-18 Initial Estimated Value for Constructability Constraint .............................................................. 63
Table 3-19 Designers’ Raw Ranking for Structural Trade-offs .................................................................... 65
Table 3-19 Designers’ Raw Ranking for Geotechnical Trade-offs .............................................................. 65

iii
 CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND

1.1 The Project

Philippines still remain to be one of the countries with waste management problems among the many
others. Improper waste disposal serves as a major factor causing several health and environmental
problems in the country. Examples of these problems are air pollution, water contamination, flood, infection,
and other health complications. This is due to the harmful chemicals generated by solid wastes when
exposed to humans, animals, and other living beings. According to Asian Development Bank, about 35,000
tons of solid wastes are being produced every day in the Philippines and this is not getting any better
because these wastes are just being set aside when there are many ways in making good use of these
wastes that will not only help reduce waste, but also help the environment. Landfills here in the Philippines
are more of an open dumpster because all the wastes are just being dumped and left untreated openly,
contaminating air and water surrounding the area—enough reason why a lot of landfills were closed down
by the government. This is another reason why solid waste must be converted to energy because storage
is insufficient.

One common source of gas emissions that contains gases such as methane and carbon dioxide is landfill
wherein these gases contribute greatly to the aggravation of global warming. Majority of the well-known
ways and practices regarding reduce of waste generated are thermal treatments like incineration, pyrolysis,
anaerobic digestion, gasification or plasma (Soria and Monroy, 2019). Aside from these common options,
another technology has been showing up in the spotlight and this is the focus of this paper. It is a process
of reusing and recycling wherein organic waste matter, also known as rubbish or useless matter that are
left discarded, are the main source of methane in landfills as they decompose. Now, these are transformed
into something useful and functional such as materials, chemicals, fuels or other sources of energy. This
process is called waste valorization (aiche.org). Although incineration is more popular than waste
valorization, the latter has more advantages than the former. One is its lower emission of carbon dioxide
which is prominent in waste burning. Another is the reduced odor emissions (Perrot and Subiantoro, 2018).

According to Waste Management and Remediation Activities Sector (2016), a map shows that Region I is
the third largest waste producer, tied with Region V. The highest contributor of solid waste is Region III
followed by Region IVA. The waste-to-energy plant will be located at Region I, in Ilocos Sur even though it
is only the third waste producer because a lot of options and proposal are already presented in those two
regions especially in Metro Manila.

Waste-to-energy plants have a lot of potential due to the benefits and convenience associated with this. A
process of this Waste-to-energy plant called waste valorization is truly a solution to the waste management
problems that the country is having. Electricity, heat or fuel in vehicle is the results of waste conversion and
this is a big thing for the country because foreign oil imports will be a thing in the past. This technology will
also benefit the people of Region I because the primary source of energy will be waste—meaning,

1
electricity costs will be cheaper. A lot of unemployed people will also be given a job from this huge
treatment plant so the local job-hunting dilemma will surely lessen. Last but definitely not the least, this
plant will lessen environmental risks caused by greenhouse gas emissions, a type of gas proven to be very
harmful to the ozone layer; therefore environmental quality shall surely improve.

1.2 Project Location

The location of the project will be at Nagpanaoan, Ilocos Sur along Lagben River and is a few kilometers
away from the residential community and agricultural crops. The project site's coordinates are 17⁰33’55.42”
N 120⁰26’32.69E. Figure 1 shows the precise location of the project. The location is distant from the
residential community which keeps them from possible hazardous effects which they might acquire from
the wastes. It also has wide lot area that is essential for the project. The team also considered the
accessibility of the project site for easy transportation of garbage. Lastly, just a few kilometers away from
Ilocos Sur Electric Company which can be a prospect in buying the energy produced.

Figure 1-1 Location of the Project

(Source: https://www.google.com/earth/)

1.3 Project Objective

The purpose of this project is to dispense a waste-to-energy plant that would serve the residents of Ilocos
Sur concerning a quality outcome by the succeeding objectives:

2
 1.3.1 General Objectives

The main goal of this project is to design a two-storey waste-to-energy plant that is seismic
resistant and structurally sound located at Nagpanaoan, Santa, Ilocos Sur in accordance with the
National Structural Code of the Philippines 2015.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

The researchers are competent to do the following:

 To gather data necessary in performing the analysis and design for both structural and
geotechnical contexts of the building.
 To introduce the most appropriate tradeoffs for each context based on the specified design
constraints and to give a preliminary comparison and assessment of these tradeoffs.
 To analyze and design the two-storey structure with the application of modern engineering
software and incorporating appropriate design codes for both contexts.
 To choose the most suitable waste-to-energy plant design considering the overarching
constraints and tradeoff.
 To provide architectural plans and structural plans together with the detailed cost estimate of
the governing design.

1.4 The Client

The client for this project is Mr. Michael L. Escaler, the Chairman of the Board of Metro Clark Waste
Management Corporation (MCWMC). MCWMC is determined in developing sustainable alternatives to
minimize the effect of urban development and energy production projects on the environment. The client
wants to produce the first waste to energy treatment plant which will collect hazardous waste such as the
industrial, municipal, hazardous and household wastes. The gas to be collected like methane can be
converted into energy using the structure to be built at the location. The client specifically indicated that the
focus of this project should be its risk assessment and economic cost.

1.5 Project Scope and Limitations

This section presents the sphere of the design project. It focuses on detailing the areas covered as well as
the circumstances that were not considered by the designers.

1.5.1 Scope

The design team will focus on providing the list stated below which serves as the general scope of
the design project:

3
  Equip overall layout design of two-storey waste-to-energy power plant in Ilocos Sur with
accordance to the standards and codes stated below.
 Incorporate the design of geotechnical components based on the location’s soil classification.
 Provide cost estimates and quantity of material, equipment and labor exploited in the design
for each tradeoff preferred.
 Present comprehensive concepts and design of waste-to-energy power plant according to the
following laws, standards, and codes:
a. Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA No. 9003)
b. Department of Environment and Natural Resources Administrative Order No. 50-1998
c. National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP)
d. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
 Provide specifications of the final design and profound analysis using AutoCAD 2018 and
ETABS.

1.5.2 Limitations
The design team shall provide a list of the extent of the design project wherein they are
responsible; the limitations of the design project are stated below:

 The design of plumbing and electrical components and its cost estimates are not included in
the design project.
 The operation and maintenance of the waste-to-energy power plant is out of the design project.
 The design team shall not appraise other constraints with no bearing on waste-to-energy
power plant design.

1.6 Project Development

The project must arrive at a development stage that is based on the sequencing of phases before a design
project is well-executed and completed. The process is based on Figure 2. The first phase is
conceptualization. This phase involves why the project is needed and the beneficiaries of the accomplished
project. This is also the design's scheduling method. The second phase is the gathering of data. Sanitary
landfill design requires the collection of essential information and data such as the viable place of the
project and standard design set by the Metro Clark Waste Management. Next is the identification of design
constraints wherein determining of the impending design limitations with the assistance of the client is
necessary to proceed to the next stage. Next is the determination of trade-offs based on constraints. These
are the different feasible alternatives that will help the client to decide on which will be the best and most
economical design to be used in the sanitary landfill. Next is the analysis and design of trade-offs of context
1 and context 2, wherein using computer-aided software is needed for the manual analysis of the design
such as AutoCAD 2018 and GEO5. GEO5 software provides geotechnical functions such as the excavation
design, stability and settlement analysis, deep and shallow foundations, and geological surveys. Next is the
analysis, design and evaluation of results of context 1 and 2. The attainable designs will be ranked again
based on its final estimates. Final design is chosen by analyzing the defined design constraints and

4
evaluation of trade-offs. Presentation of design using a selected trade-off will be shown in the final phase
after the designers follow all latter process.

5
Figure 1-2 Project Development Plan for the Design Project

6
 CHAPTER 2: DESIGN CRITERIA AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Design Criteria

2.1.1 Demography

According to Census, barangay Nagpanaoan caters a total population of 762 in 2015. Nagpanaoan is a
barangay located at the municipality of Santa wherein its population covers 4.97% of the total population of
the said municipality in Ilocos Sur.
Philippine Statistics Authority published in 2002 that the population growth rate of Ilocos doubled within 5
years and has recorded at total population of 594,206 persons in the 2000 Census of Population and
Housing (Census 2000).
Due to the increasing population in Region 1, it has been ranked as the third highest producer of waste in
the Philippines which is 6.7% as shown in the Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1 Regional distribution of establishments with TE of 20 and over for Water Supply; Sewerage, Waste Management and
Remediation Activities sector by industry group in 2016

7
Table 2-1 Population Distribution of Top Five Municipalities by Sex: Ilocos Sur, 2000
MUNICIPALITY TOTAL PERCENT MALE FEMALE
POPULATION
Ilocos Sur 594,206 100.0 297,017 297,189

Candon 50,564 8.51 25,256 25,308

Vigan (Capital) 45,143 7.60 22,127 23,016

Narvacan 38,435 6.47 19,292 19,143

Santa Cruz 34,433 5.79 17,267 17,166

Tagudin 34,427 5.79 17,008 17,419
Other
Municipalities 391,204 65.84 196,067 195,137
(Source: NSO, 2000 Census of Population and Housing)

POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF TOP FIVE

MUNICIPALITIES BY SEX: ILOCOS SUR, 2000
Total Population Percent Male Female

297,189 25,308 23,016 19,143 17,166 17,419 195,137

297,017 25,256 22,127 19,292 17,267 17,008 196,067
100% 8.51% 7.60% 6.47% 5.79% 5.79% 65.84%
594,206 50,564 45,143 38,435 34,433 34,427 391,204

ILOCOS SUR CANDON VIGAN NARVACAN

S A N T A C R U ZT A G U D I N OTHERS

8
Table 2-2 Total Population by Age Group, Sex and Sex Ratio: Ilocos Sur, 2000
AGE GROUP TOTAL MALE FEMALE SEX RATIO
POPULATION
Ilocos Sur 594,206 297,017 297,189 99.94
Under 1 12,349 6,367 5,982 106.44
1 to 4 49,161 25,446 23,715
(Source: NSO, 2000 Census of Population and Housing)

As the population in the region increases each year, solid waste generation remains a big problem. Total
waste volume generated each day increases together with the growth of the population. As per the National
Solid Waste Management Commission, the total waste generation of Region 1 in 2016 is 1,830.64 tons per
day. Additionally, CAR generates 664.75 tons as the total volume of solid waste per day.

2.1.3 Topography

Situated along the western seaboard of Northern Luzon, Ilocos Sur is surrounded by different provinces in
all equal divisions. Bordered by Ilocos Norte to the north, bounded by Abra to the northeast and Mountain
province to the east, it is also side by side Benguet to the southeast, wherein La Union is to its south and
lastly, the China Sea to its west.

The total land area of Ilocos Sur is 2,579.58 square kilometers inhabiting the overall land area of Region 1
by 20.11% according to the government of Ilocos Sur. Mount Namagoian having the highest elevation in

9
this province consists of about 2,009 meters or 6591 feet. Ilocos Sur’s ridges range from 10 to 1,700
meters above sea level.

Figure 2-2 Topographic Map of Ilocos Sur

(Source: https://kapuluanngpilipinas.wordpress.com/2016/05/16/region-i-ilocos-region/)

2.1.4 Geotechnical Report

The information included in this report is from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) for
the implementation of this Design of Sanitary Landfill in Nagpanaoan, Ilocos Sur. The data considered is
from the nearest infrastructure from the proposed location of the landfill since there is no provided available
data on the exact site. It is used to determine the site conditions, design and construction for the proposed
landfill design. The report came up with the specific information such as the physical properties of the soil
foundations and earthworks and to give refurbishment caused by subsurface conditions. The main purpose
of this investigation report is to obtain information that can be beneficial for the designers as they need
these to conduct an adequate review of geotechnical related features.

10
2.1.4.1 General Geology

The province of Ilocos Sur is located along the western coast of the northern part of Luzon Island, roughly
300 kilometers northern part of manila. Ilocos Sur is categorized as type 1 climate for the reason that there
are two different seasons; dry season and west season, where dry season starts from November to April
and wet season throughout the rest of the year.

As part of the stratigraphic chain of the Ilocos Region, Suyo Schist is the Ilocos Sur's oldest formations
which compose of amphibolites, quartz-biotite schist, actinolite-tremolite-talc schist and quartzite. These
rocks are almost certainly of cretaceous age. Exhibiting geological unconformity over this layer is the
Bangui formation which consists mainly of volcanic limestones be embedded among conglomerate and
mudstone.

The soil of the Ilocos region have been classified by the Bureau of Soils into three main groups that is
found to be by their topographic positions specifically: plains soil, intermediate upland soils, and lastly soils
of the mountainous area. The first classification incorporates beach sand, san miguel clay loam, bantog
clay loam and river wash. The intermediate upland soils are consists of umingan sandy loam and bantay
clay loam. In addition, mountain soils are constitutes to be rough stony land. Some information of the soil
was also recognized. It is found to have Entisol soil in some areas of Ilocos region that has low-lying
ground adjacent to a river, formed mostly of river sediments and subject to flooding, areas that has rough
broken land and beside seashores.

Region I is endowed with diverse mineral resources both metallic and non-metallic. The total amount of
mineral reserves was approximately 1.37 billion metric tons in 1992 while the non-metallic mineral reserves
composed of roughly 99 percent of the overall mineral reserves. The copper which was ranked to be the
biggest deposit with around 54.6 percent of the total metallic reserves was plentiful in Ilocos Norte and
Pangasinan. Iron magnetic sand was found in Ilocos Sur which was ranked as the second biggest deposit
with roughly 31 percent.

Ilocos Sur also inhabited with a long narrow stretch of coast skirting steep mountain ranges cut by dozens,
which are commonly known as swift rivers. It is located on the north by Abra and Ilocos Norte and on the
south by La Union.

2.1.4.2 Soil Profile

Soil profile is the vertical section of soil that is exposed in soil pit. Before anything else, testing the condition
of the soil where the structure is going to be built is of main importance. Soil profile then comes to the
scene. A process is done wherein the act of investigating the soil structure is done in order to know if the
soil is stable enough and if the soil in that certain area attains the standards needed in order for
construction to push through. Below is the picture of the location of four boreholes in Calungbuyan, Ilocos
Sur.

11
Figure 2-3 Borehole location in Calungbuyan, Ilocos Sur
(Source: Par Geotechnical Testing Center)

12
Table 2-3 Boring Log of Borehole No. 1

DEPTH (METERS) USC N-VALUE

SPT-1 0.55-1.00 SP-SM 13
SPT-2 1.55-2.00 SP-SM 4
SPT-3 2.55-3.00 MH 3
SPT-4 3.55-4.00 MH 3
SPT-5 4.55-5.00 CL 3
SPT-6 5.55-6.00 CL 3
SPT-7 7.05-7.50 CL 6
SPT-8 8.55-9.00 CL 4
SPT-9 10.05-10.50 CL 10
SPT-10 11.55-12.00 CL 13
SPT-11 13.05-13.50 CL 11
SPT-12 14.55-15.00 ML 15
SPT-13 16.05-16.50 CL 10
SPT-14 17.55-18.00 ML 14
SPT-15 19.05-19.50 SM 42
SPT-16 20.55-21.00 SM 42
SPT-17 22.05-22.50 SM 45
SPT-18 23.55-24.00 ML 10
SPT-19 25.05-25.50 CL 12
SPT-20 26.66-27.00 CL 18
SPT-21 28.05-28.40 SM 50/5
CS-1 28.40-29.90 CS -
SPT-22 29.90-30.35 SM 12

13
Table 2-4 Boring Log of Borehole No. 2

DEPTH (METERS) USC N-VALUE

SPT-1 0.55-1.00 ML 3
SPT-2 1.55-2.00 ML 3
SPT-3 2.55-3.00 CL 4
SPT-4 3.55-4.00 CL 2
SPT-5 4.55-5.00 ML 4
SPT-6 5.55-6.00 SM 12
SPT-7 7.05-7.50 CL 4
SPT-8 8.55-9.00 CL 8
SPT-9 10.05-10.50 CL 14
SPT-10 11.55-12.00 CL 12
SPT-11 13.05-13.50 ML 26
SPT-12 14.55-14.95 SM 50/10
CS-1 14.95-16.45 CS -
SPT-13 16.45-16.90 SP-SM 61
SPT-14 17.95-18.40 ML 19
SPT-15 19.45-19.90 CL 16
SPT-16 20.95-21.40 CH 22
SPT-17 22.45-22.90 SM 29
SPT-18 23.95-24.40 SM 42
SPT-19 25.45-25.90 SM 33
SPT-20 26.95-27.40 SM 37
SPT-21 28.45-28.90 SM 41
SPT-22 29.95-30.40 SM 45

14
Table 2-5 Boring Log of Borehole No. 3

DEPTH (METERS) USC N-VALUE

SPT-1 0.55-1.00 CH 8
SPT-2 1.55-2.00 CL 5
SPT-3 2.55-3.00 ML 2
SPT-4 3.55-4.00 SM 5
SPT-5 4.55-5.00 ML 2
SPT-6 5.55-6.00 ML 2
SPT-7 7.05-7.50 CL 4
SPT-8 8.55-9.00 CL 5
SPT-9 10.05-10.50 ML 14
SPT-10 11.55-12.00 ML 14
SPT-11 13.05-13.50 ML 17
SPT-12 14.55-15.00 CL 11
SPT-13 16.05-16.50 ML 32
SPT-14 17.55-18.00 MH 8
SPT-15 19.05-19.50 CL 8
SPT-16 20.55-21.00 CH 8
SPT-17 22.05-22.50 ML 23
SPT-18 23.55-24.00 CL 21
SPT-19 25.05-25.50 CL 18
SPT-20 26.55-27.00 ML 59
SPT-21 28.05-28.50 SM 36
SPT-22 29.55-30.00 SM 20

15
Table 2-6 Boring Log of Borehole No. 4

DEPTH (METERS) USC N-VALUE

SPT-1 0.55-1.00 CL 17
SPT-2 1.55-2.00 CH 11
SPT-3 2.55-3.00 CH 3
SPT-4 3.55-4.00 CL 2
SPT-5 4.55-5.00 CL 2
SPT-6 5.55-6.00 CL 4
SPT-7 7.05-7.50 CH 3
SPT-8 8.55-9.00 CL 5
SPT-9 10.05-10.50 CL 6
SPT-10 11.55-12.00 CL 6
SPT-11 13.05-13.50 CL 10
SPT-12 14.55-15.00 ML 6
SPT-13 16.05-16.50 ML 12
SPT-14 17.55-18.00 CL 13
SPT-15 19.05-19.50 SM 78
SPT-16 20.55-21.00 SM 57
SPT-17 22.05-22.32 SM 50/12
CS-1 22.32-23.82 CS -
SPT-18 23.82-24.27 SM 43
SPT-19 25.32-25.77 SM 36
SPT-20 26.82-27.27 SM 29
SPT-21 28.32-28.77 SM 31
SPT-22 29.82-30.27 SM 41

16
2.1.4.3 Soil Property

Soil is the composition of organic matter, mineral particles, air and water. The combination of all these will
lead to knowing what the soil properties are such as the soil’s color, texture, porosity, chemistry and
structure (Science.org.nz). Soil properties need to be tested in order to determine if that soil is suited for a
construction of landfill. We, the researchers, were able to gather data regarding the geotechnical
investigation report of Calungbuyan, Santa, Ilocos Sur, a province in Santa, Ilocos Sur, near the proposed
location of the landfill that will be built which is located at Nagpanaoan, Santa, Ilocos Sur. A series of tests
were made in the soil samples acquired from the four boreholes. This part of the chapter presents the three
analyses made in the soil samples from borehole 1 only and these are: water content determination, sieve
analysis and plasticity index. The tables presented for sieve analysis not only includes the weight retained,
weight passing, percent passing and percent retained of the STPs 1-22 of BH-1, these also includes the
determination of water content/ moisture content. For plasticity index, the liquid limit and plasticity of the
STPS 1-22 of BH-1 were shown. Such tests were made to acquire information regarding the effect of the
soil properties to the yield potential of the soil.

Table 2-7 Sieve Analysis for SPT-1 Table 2-8 Sieve Analysis for SPT-2
SPT -1 SPT -2
Original Wt.182.83 Oven Dry Wt. 159.71 Washed OD Wt. Original Wt.217.52 Oven Dry Wt. 183.87 Washed OD Wt.
149.49 171.78
SIEVE CUMMULATIVE SIEVE CUMMULATIVE
SIZE SIZE
INCH mm Wt. Wt. % Passing % INCH mm Wt. Wt. % Passing %
Retained Passing Retained Retained Passing Retained
gms gms gms gms
3” 75 3” 75
2 ½” 63 2 ½” 63
2” 50 2” 50
1 ½” 37.5 1 ½” 37.5
1” 25 1” 25
¾” 19 ¾” 19
½” 12.5 ½” 12.5
3/8” 9.5 159.71 100 3/8” 9.5 183.87 100
No.4 4.75 0.14 159.57 100 No.4 4.75 0.58 183.29 100
No.10 2.99 0.61 158.96 100 No.10 2.99 0.19 183.10 100
No.40 0.425 64.26 94.70 59 No.40 0.425 87.26 95.84 52
No.200 0.075 84.29 10.41 7 No.200 0.075 83.53 12.31 7
PAN 0.19 PAN 0.22
Wash Loss Passing 10.22 Wash Loss Passing 12.09
No. 200 No. 200
TOTAL 159.71 TOTAL 183.87
MOISTURE 14.48 MOISTURE 18.30
CONTENT % CONTENT %

17
Table 2-9 Sieve Analysis for SPT-3 Table 2-10 Sieve Analysis for SPT-4
SPT -3 SPT -4
Original Wt.262.76 Oven Dry Wt. 190.78 Washed OD Wt. Original Wt.197.27 Oven Dry Wt. 135.22 Washed OD Wt.
14.67 11.71
SIEVE CUMMULATIVE SIEVE CUMMULATIVE
SIZE SIZE
INCH mm Wt. Wt. % Passing % INCH mm Wt. Wt. % Passing %
Retained Passing Retained Retained Passing Retained
gms gms gms gms
3” 75 3” 75
2 ½” 63 2 ½” 63
2” 50 2” 50
1 ½” 37.5 1 ½” 37.5
1” 25 1” 25
¾” 19 ¾” 19
½” 12.5 ½” 12.5
3/8” 9.5 190.78 100 3/8” 9.5 100
No.4 4.75 0.13 190.65 100 No.4 4.75 135.22 100
No.10 2.99 1.41 189.24 99 No.10 2.99 0.08 135.14 100
No.40 0.425 12.95 176.29 92 No.40 0.425 0.26 134.88 91
No.200 0.075 0.18 No.200 0.075 11.17 123.71
PAN 0.19 PAN 0.20
Wash Loss Passing 176.1 Wash Loss Passing 123.51
No. 200 No. 200
TOTAL 190.78 TOTAL 135.22
MOISTURE 37.73 MOISTURE 45.89
CONTENT % CONTENT %

Table 2-11 Sieve Analysis for SPT-5 Table 2-12 Sieve Analysis for SPT-6
SPT -5 SPT -6
Original Wt.237.50 Oven Dry Wt. 165.94 Washed OD Wt. Original Wt.217.70 Oven Dry Wt. 163.41 Washed OD Wt.
31.53 36.55
SIEVE CUMMULATIVE SIEVE CUMMULATIVE
SIZE SIZE
INCH mm Wt. Wt. % Passing % INCH mm Wt. Wt. % Passing %
Retained Passing Retained Retained Passing Retained
gms gms gms gms
3” 75 3” 75
2 ½” 63 2 ½” 63
2” 50 2” 50
1 ½” 37.5 1 ½” 37.5
1” 25 1” 25
¾” 19 ¾” 19
½” 12.5 165.94 100 ½” 12.5
3/8” 9.5 2.15 163.79 99 3/8” 9.5 162.41 100
No.4 4.75 1.87 161.92 98 No.4 4.75 0.99 161.42 99
No.10 2.99 1.17 160.75 97 No.10 2.99 0.53 160.89 99
No.40 0.425 2.29 158.46 95 No.40 0.425 1.36 159.53 98
No.200 0.075 23.84 134.62 81 No.200 0.075 33.43 126.10 78
PAN 0.21 PAN 0.24
Wash Loss Passing 134.41 Wash Loss Passing 125.86
No. 200 No. 200
TOTAL 165.94 TOTAL 162.41
MOISTURE 43.12 MOISTURE 34.04
CONTENT % CONTENT %

18
Table 2-13 Sieve Analysis for SPT-7 Table 2-14 Sieve Analysis for SPT-8
SPT -7 SPT -8
Original Wt.239.30 Oven Dry Wt. 175.40 Washed OD Wt. Original Wt.268.71 Oven Dry Wt. 203.05 Washed OD Wt.
18.89 39.66
SIEVE CUMMULATIVE SIEVE CUMMULATIVE
SIZE SIZE
INCH mm Wt. Wt. % Passing % INCH mm Wt. Wt. % Passing %
Retained Passing Retained Retained Passing Retained
gms gms gms gms
3” 75 3” 75
2 ½” 63 2 ½” 63
2” 50 2” 50
1 ½” 37.5 1 ½” 37.5
1” 25 1” 25
¾” 19 ¾” 19
½” 12.5 ½” 12.5
3/8” 9.5 175.40 100 3/8” 9.5 203.05 100
No.4 4.75 0.30 175.10 100 No.4 4.75 0.90 202.15 100
No.10 2.99 0.27 174.83 100 No.10 2.99 0.86 201.29 99
No.40 0.425 0.69 174.14 99 No.40 0.425 0.91 200.38 99
No.200 0.075 17.43 156.71 89 No.200 0.075 36.80 163.58 81
PAN 0.20 PAN 0.19
Wash Loss Passing 156.51 Wash Loss Passing 163.39
No. 200 No. 200
TOTAL 175.40 TOTAL 203.05
MOISTURE 36.43 MOISTURE 32.34
CONTENT % CONTENT %

Table 2-15 Sieve Analysis for SPT-9 Table 2-16 Sieve Analysis for SPT-10
SPT -9 SPT -10
Original Wt.267.46 Oven Dry Wt. 202.80 Washed OD Wt. Original Wt.266.58 Oven Dry Wt. 202.84 Washed OD Wt.
56.61 56.06
SIEVE CUMMULATIVE SIEVE CUMMULATIVE
SIZE SIZE
INCH mm Wt. Wt. % Passing % INCH mm Wt. Wt. % Passing %
Retained Passing Retained Retained Passing Retained
gms gms gms gms
3” 75 3” 75
2 ½” 63 2 ½” 63
2” 50 2” 50
1 ½” 37.5 1 ½” 37.5
1” 25 1” 25
¾” 19 ¾” 19 202.84 100
½” 12.5 202.80 100 ½” 12.5 4.67 198.17 98
3/8” 9.5 1.88 200.92 99 3/8” 9.5 0.00 198.17 98
No.4 4.75 0.43 200.49 99 No.4 4.75 0.00 198.17 98
No.10 2.99 0.48 200.01 99 No.10 2.99 0.16 198.01 98
No.40 0.425 0.98 199.03 98 No.40 0.425 0.81 197.20 97
No.200 0.075 52.61 146.42 72 No.200 0.075 50.25 146.95 72
PAN 0.23 PAN 0.17
Wash Loss Passing 146.19 Wash Loss Passing 146.78
No. 200 No. 200
TOTAL 202.80 TOTAL 202.84
MOISTURE 31.88 MOISTURE 31.42
CONTENT % CONTENT %

19
Table 2-17 Sieve Analysis for SPT-11 Table 2-18 Sieve Analysis for SPT-12
SPT -11 SPT -12
Original Wt.182.83 Oven Dry Wt. 159.71 Washed OD Wt. Original Wt.217.52 Oven Dry Wt. 183.87 Washed OD Wt.
149.49 171.78
SIEVE CUMMULATIVE SIEVE CUMMULATIVE
SIZE SIZE
INCH mm Wt. Wt. % Passing % INCH mm Wt. Wt. % Passing %
Retained Passing Retained Retained Passing Retained
gms gms gms gms
3” 75 3” 75
2 ½” 63 2 ½” 63
2” 50 2” 50
1 ½” 37.5 1 ½” 37.5
1” 25 1” 25
¾” 19 ¾” 19
½” 12.5 ½” 12.5
3/8” 9.5 3/8” 9.5
No.4 4.75 165.12 100 No.4 4.75 179.61 100
No.10 2.99 0.45 164.67 100 No.10 2.99 0.09 179.52 100
No.40 0.425 2.38 162.29 98 No.40 0.425 0.57 178.95 100
No.200 0.075 27.42 134.87 82 No.200 0.075 55.08 123.87 69
PAN 0.13 PAN 0.16
Wash Loss Passing 134.74 Wash Loss Passing 123.71
No. 200 No. 200
TOTAL 165.12 TOTAL 179.61
MOISTURE 42.19 MOISTURE 13.51
CONTENT % CONTENT %

Table 2-19 Sieve Analysis for SPT-13 Table 2-20 Sieve Analysis for SPT-14
SPT -13 SPT -14
Original Wt.262.76 Oven Dry Wt. 190.78 Washed OD Wt. Original Wt.197.27 Oven Dry Wt. 135.22 Washed OD Wt.
14.67 11.71
SIEVE CUMMULATIVE SIEVE CUMMULATIVE
SIZE SIZE
INCH mm Wt. Wt. % Passing % INCH mm Wt. Wt. % Passing %
Retained Passing Retained Retained Passing Retained
gms gms gms gms
3” 75 3” 75
2 ½” 63 2 ½” 63
2” 50 2” 50
1 ½” 37.5 1 ½” 37.5
1” 25 1” 25
¾” 19 ¾” 19 180.51 100
½” 12.5 160.15 100 ½” 12.5 5.07 175.44 97
3/8” 9.5 1.70 158.45 99 3/8” 9.5 2.20 173.24 95
No.4 4.75 0.00 158.45 99 No.4 4.75 3.52 169.72 94
No.10 2.99 1.14 157.31 98 No.10 2.99 1.79 167.93 93
No.40 0.425 0.95 156.36 98 No.40 0.425 2.03 165.90 92
No.200 0.075 25.39 130.97 82 No.200 0.075 23.51 142.39 79
PAN 0.25 PAN 0.26
Wash Loss Passing 130.72 Wash Loss Passing 142.13
No. 200 No. 200
TOTAL 160.15 TOTAL 180.51
MOISTURE 32.60 MOISTURE 41.58
CONTENT % CONTENT %

20
Table 2-21 Sieve Analysis for SPT-15 Table 2-22 Sieve Analysis for SPT-16
SPT -15 SPT -16
Original Wt.237.50 Oven Dry Wt. 165.94 Washed OD Wt. Original Wt.217.70 Oven Dry Wt. 163.41 Washed OD Wt.
31.53 36.55
SIEVE CUMMULATIVE SIEVE CUMMULATIVE
SIZE SIZE
INCH mm Wt. Wt. % Passing % INCH mm Wt. Wt. % Passing %
Retained Passing Retained Retained Passing Retained
gms gms gms gms
3” 75 3” 75
2 ½” 63 2 ½” 63
2” 50 2” 50
1 ½” 37.5 178.0 100 1 ½” 37.5
1” 25 42.99 135.00 76 1” 25 203.53 100
¾” 19 0.00 135.00 76 ¾” 19 23.21 180.32 89
½” 12.5 0.00 135.00 76 ½” 12.5 0.00 180.32 89
3/8” 9.5 1.61 133.39 75 3/8” 9.5 0.00 180.32 89
No.4 4.75 0.53 132.86 75 No.4 4.75 1.87 178.45 88
No.10 2.99 0.91 131.95 74 No.10 2.99 2.77 175.68 86
No.40 0.425 1.31 130.64 73 No.40 0.425 4.51 171.17 84
No.200 0.075 90.40 40.24 23 No.200 0.075 106.67 64.50 32
PAN 0.26 PAN 0.23
Wash Loss Passing 39.98 Wash Loss Passing 64.27
No. 200 No. 200
TOTAL 177.99 TOTAL 203.53
MOISTURE 23.21 MOISTURE 22.48
CONTENT % CONTENT %

Table 2-23 Sieve Analysis for SPT-17 Table 2-24 Sieve Analysis for SPT-18
SPT -17 SPT -18
Original Wt.239.30 Oven Dry Wt. 175.40 Washed OD Wt. Original Wt.268.71 Oven Dry Wt. 203.05 Washed OD Wt.
18.89 39.66
SIEVE CUMMULATIVE SIEVE CUMMULATIVE
SIZE SIZE
INCH mm Wt. Wt. % Passing % INCH mm Wt. Wt. % Passing %
Retained Passing Retained Retained Passing Retained
gms gms gms gms
3” 75 3” 75
2 ½” 63 2 ½” 63
2” 50 2” 50
1 ½” 37.5 1 ½” 37.5
1” 25 1” 25
¾” 19 ¾” 19
½” 12.5 ½” 12.5 202.26 100
3/8” 9.5 166.12 100 3/8” 9.5 2.37 199.89 99
No.4 4.75 2.00 164.12 99 No.4 4.75 4.94 194.95 96
No.10 2.99 0.78 163.34 98 No.10 2.99 4.56 190.39 94
No.40 0.425 0.96 162.38 98 No.40 0.425 3.65 186.74 92
No.200 0.075 119.25 43.13 26 No.200 0.075 84.45 102.29 51
PAN 0.20 PAN 0.24
Wash Loss Passing 42.93 Wash Loss Passing 102.05
No. 200 No. 200
TOTAL 166.12 TOTAL 202.26
MOISTURE 23.03 MOISTURE 7.36
CONTENT % CONTENT %

21
Table 2-25 Sieve Analysis for SPT-19 Table 2-26 Sieve Analysis for SPT-20
SPT -19 SPT -20
Original Wt.267.46 Oven Dry Wt. 202.80 Washed OD Wt. Original Wt.266.58 Oven Dry Wt. 202.84 Washed OD Wt.
56.61 56.06
SIEVE CUMMULATIVE SIEVE CUMMULATIVE
SIZE SIZE
INCH mm Wt. Wt. % Passing % INCH mm Wt. Wt. % Passing %
Retained Passing Retained Retained Passing Retained
gms gms gms gms
3” 75 3” 75
2 ½” 63 2 ½” 63
2” 50 2” 50
1 ½” 37.5 1 ½” 37.5
1” 25 1” 25
¾” 19 ¾” 19
½” 12.5 ½” 12.5 181.37 100
3/8” 9.5 181.35 100 3/8” 9.5 3.69 177.68 98
No.4 4.75 1.40 179.95 99 No.4 4.75 3.10 174.58 96
No.10 2.99 0.69 179.26 99 No.10 2.99 1.38 173.20 95
No.40 0.425 0.98 178.28 98 No.40 0.425 1.13 172.07 95
No.200 0.075 25.23 153.05 84 No.200 0.075 55.91 116.16 64
PAN 0.25 PAN 0.26
Wash Loss Passing 152.80 Wash Loss Passing 115.90
No. 200 No. 200
TOTAL 181.35 TOTAL 181.37
MOISTURE 33.93 MOISTURE 29.22
CONTENT % CONTENT %

Table 2-27 Sieve Analysis for SPT-21 Table 2-28 Sieve Analysis for SPT-22
SPT -21 SPT -22
Original Wt.267.46 Oven Dry Wt. 202.80 Washed OD Wt. Original Wt.266.58 Oven Dry Wt. 202.84 Washed OD Wt.
56.61 56.06
SIEVE CUMMULATIVE SIEVE CUMMULATIVE
SIZE SIZE
INCH mm Wt. Wt. % Passing % INCH mm Wt. Wt. % Passing %
Retained Passing Retained Retained Passing Retained
gms gms gms gms
3” 75 3” 75
2 ½” 63 2 ½” 63
2” 50 2” 50
1 ½” 37.5 1 ½” 37.5
1” 25 1” 25
¾” 19 ¾” 19
½” 12.5 ½” 12.5
3/8” 9.5 189.53 100 3/8” 9.5
No.4 4.75 2.57 186.96 99 No.4 4.75 132.50 100
No.10 2.99 0.43 186.53 98 No.10 2.99 0.29 132.21 100
No.40 0.425 0.37 186.16 98 No.40 0.425 0.18 132.03 100
No.200 0.075 127.49 58.67 31 No.200 0.075 93.68 38.35 29
PAN 0.25 PAN 0.23
Wash Loss Passing 58.42 Wash Loss Passing 38.12
No. 200 No. 200
TOTAL 189.53 TOTAL 132.50
MOISTURE 26.19 MOISTURE 27.16
CONTENT % CONTENT %

22
Table 2-29 Liquid limit and plasticity index for SS-1, SS-2, SS-3
LIQUID LIMIT
SS-1 SS-2 SS-3
TRIAL NUMBER 1 2 3 TRIAL 1 2 3 TRIAL 1 2 3
NUMBER NUMBER
NO. OF BLOWS 25- 20- 15- NO. OF 25- 20- 15- NO. OF 25- 20-30 15-25
REQUIRED 35 30 25 BLOWS 35 30 25 BLOWS 35
REQUIRED REQUIRED
CAN, grams CAN, grams CAN, grams 8.85 8.61 8.39
CAN + WET CAN + WET CAN + WET 16.85 16.25 16.47
SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms)
CAN + DRY SOIL CAN + DRY CAN + DRY 13.89 13.36 13.35
(gms) SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms)
MOISTURE MOISTURE MOISTURE 2.96 2.89 3.12
LOSS (gms) LOSS (gms) LOSS (gms)
DRY SOIL (gms) DRY SOIL DRY SOIL 5.04 4.75 4.96
(gms) (gms)
MOISTURE MOISTURE MOISTURE 58.73 60.89 62.90
CONTENT, % CONTENT, % CONTENT, %
NUMBR OF NUMBR OF NUMBR OF 32 26 20
BLOWS BLOWS BLOWS

PLASTICITY
CAN, grams CAN, grams CAN, grams 7.97 7.17
CAN + WET SOIL (gms) CAN + WET SOIL CAN + WET SOIL 20.86 20.47
(gms) (gms)
CAN + DRY SOIL (gms) CAN + DRY SOIL CAN + DRY SOIL (gms) 17.30 16.80
(gms)
MOISTURE LOSS MOISTURE LOSS MOISTURE LOSS 3.56 3.67
DRY SOIL (gms) DRY SOIL (gms) DRY SOIL (gms) 9.33 9.63
MOISTURE CONTENT, % MOISTURE MOISTURE CONTENT, 38.16 38.11
CONTENT, % %
Liquid Limit = SOIL Liquid Limit = SOIL Liquid Limit = 61 SOIL
TYPE TYPE TYPE
Plastic Limit = Plastic Limit = Plastic Limit = 38
Plasticity Index Ip = SP- Plasticity Index Ip = SP- Plasticity Index Ip = 23 MH
SM SM
REMARKS: This report is the result of test performed on the samples submitted.

23
Table 2-30 Liquid limit and plasticity index for SS-4, SS-5, SS-6
LIQUID LIMIT
SS-4 SS-5 SS-6
TRIAL 1 2 3 TRIAL 1 2 3 TRIAL 1 2 3
NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER
NO. OF 25- 20- 15-25 NO. OF 25- 20- 15- NO. OF 25-35 20- 15-25
BLOWS 35 30 BLOWS 35 30 25 BLOWS 30
REQUIRED REQUIRED REQUIRED
CAN, grams 7.98 7.87 7.84 CAN, 7.45 7.64 7.44 CAN, grams 8.28 8.74 8.25
grams
CAN + WET 15.71 15.69 15.44 CAN + 16.28 16.84 16.74 CAN + WET 15.88 15.94 15.75
SOIL (gms) WET SOIL SOIL (gms)
(gms)
CAN + DRY 12.75 12.60 12.34 CAN + DRY 14.29 14.64 14.36 CAN + DRY 13.99 14.07 13.69
SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms)
MOISTURE 2.96 3.09 3.10 MOISTURE 1.99 2.20 2.38 MOISTURE 1.89 1.87 2.06
LOSS (gms) LOSS (gms) LOSS (gms)
DRY SOIL 4.77 4.73 4.50 DRY SOIL 6.84 7.00 6.92 DRY SOIL 5.71 5.33 5.44
(gms) (gms) (gms)
MOISTURE 62.05 65.33 68.89 MOISTURE 29.09 31.43 34.39 MOISTURE 33.10 35.08 37.87
CONTENT, % CONTENT, CONTENT, %
%
NUMBR OF 30 24 18 NUMBR 29 24 18 NUMBR OF 31 26 20
BLOWS OF BLOWS BLOWS

PLASTICITY
CAN, grams 8.02 8.17 CAN, grams 8.74 8.39 CAN, grams 8.52 8.36
CAN + WET SOIL (gms) 19.68 19.71 CAN + WET SOIL 19.4 19.7 CAN + WET SOIL (gms) 20.4 20.82
(gms) 5 8 1
CAN + DRY SOIL (gms) 16.39 16.46 CAN + DRY SOIL 17.9 18.2 CAN + DRY SOIL (gms) 18.6 19.00
(gms) 0 0 6
MOISTURE LOSS 3.29 3.25 MOISTURE LOSS 1.55 1.58 MOISTURE LOSS 1.75 1.82
DRY SOIL (gms) 8.37 8.29 DRY SOIL (gms) 9.16 9.27 DRY SOIL (gms) 10.1 10.64
4
MOISTURE CONTENT, 39.31 39.20 MOISTURE 16.9 17.0 MOISTURE CONTENT, % 17.2 17.11
% CONTENT, % 2 4 6
Liquid Limit = 65 SOIL Liquid Limit = 32 SOIL Liquid Limit = 35 SOIL
TYPE TYP TYPE
E
Plastic Limit = 39 Plastic Limit = 17 Plastic Limit = 17
Plasticity Index Ip = 26 MH Plasticity Index Ip = 15 CL Plasticity Index Ip = 18 CL
REMARKS: This report is the result of test performed on the samples submitted.

24
Table 2-31 Liquid limit and plasticity index for SS-7, SS-8, SS-9
LIQUID LIMIT
SS-7 SS-8 SS-9
TRIAL 1 2 3 TRIAL 1 2 3 TRIAL 1 2 3
NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER
NO. OF 25- 20- 15- NO. OF 25- 20- 15- NO. OF 25-35 20- 15-25
BLOWS 35 30 25 BLOWS 35 30 25 BLOWS 30
REQUIRED REQUIRED REQUIRED
CAN, grams 7.98 7.77 7.48 CAN, grams 7.76 7.69 7.74 CAN, grams 8.25 8.17 8.22
CAN + WET 16.22 16.52 16.14 CAN + WET 15.28 15.41 15.25 CAN + WET 15.74 15.63 15.82
SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms)
CAN + DRY 14.36 14.46 14.04 CAN + DRY 13.65 13.62 13.38 CAN + DRY 13.89 13.68 13.65
SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms)
MOISTURE 1.86 2.06 2.10 MOISTURE 1.63 1.79 1.87 MOISTURE 1.85 1.95 2.17
LOSS (gms) LOSS (gms) LOSS (gms)
DRY SOIL 6.38 6.69 6.56 DRY SOIL 5.89 5.93 5.64 DRY SOIL 5.64 5.51 5.43
(gms) (gms) (gms)
MOISTURE 29.15 30.79 32.01 MOISTURE 27.67 30.19 33.16 MOISTURE 32.80 35.39 39.96
CONTENT, % CONTENT, CONTENT, %
%
NUMBR OF 31 26 21 NUMBR OF 30 24 18 NUMBR OF 30 26 20
BLOWS BLOWS BLOWS

PLASTICITY
CAN, grams 8.69 8.75 CAN, grams 8.09 8.11 CAN, grams 7.48 7.69
CAN + WET SOIL (gms) 19.3 19.7 CAN + WET SOIL 20.2 20.2 CAN + WET SOIL (gms) 19.6 19.85
9 5 (gms) 8 5 3
CAN + DRY SOIL (gms) 17.6 18.0 CAN + DRY SOIL 18.7 18.6 CAN + DRY SOIL (gms) 17.7 17.97
9 2 (gms) 0 8 6
MOISTURE LOSS 1.70 1.73 MOISTURE LOSS 1.58 1.57 MOISTURE LOSS 1.87 1.88
DRY SOIL (gms) 9.00 9.27 DRY SOIL (gms) 10.6 10.5 DRY SOIL (gms) 10.2 10.28
1 7 8
MOISTURE CONTENT, % 18.8 18.6 MOISTURE 14.8 14.8 MOISTURE CONTENT, % 18.1 18.29
9 6 CONTENT, % 9 5 9
Liquid Limit = 31 SOIL Liquid Limit = 30 SOIL Liquid Limit = 36 SOIL
TYPE TYPE TYPE
Plastic Limit = 19 Plastic Limit = 15 Plastic Limit = 18
Plasticity Index Ip = 12 CL Plasticity Index Ip = 15 CL Plasticity Index Ip = 18 CL
REMARKS: This report is the result of test performed on the samples submitted.

25
Table 2-32 Liquid limit and plasticity index for SS-10, SS-11, SS-12
LIQUID LIMIT
SS-10 SS-11 SS-12
TRIAL 1 2 3 TRIAL 1 2 3 TRIAL 1 2 3
NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER
NO. OF 25- 20- 15- NO. OF 25- 20- 15- NO. OF 25-35 20- 15-25
BLOWS 35 30 25 BLOWS 35 30 25 BLOWS 30
REQUIRED REQUIRED REQUIRED
CAN, grams 7.85 7.82 7.77 CAN, grams 7.93 7.36 7.82 CAN, grams 8.17 8.16 8.10
CAN + WET 16.27 16.36 16.41 CAN + WET 15.74 15.27 15.15 CAN + WET 16.85 16.89 16.93
SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms)
CAN + DRY 14.19 14.19 14.13 CAN + DRY 13.90 13.34 13.30 CAN + DRY 14.90 14.80 14.73
SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms)
MOISTURE 2.08 2.17 2.28 MOISTURE 1.84 1.93 1.85 MOISTURE 1.95 2.09 2.20
LOSS (gms) LOSS (gms) LOSS (gms)
DRY SOIL 6.34 6.37 6.36 DRY SOIL 5.97 5.98 5.48 DRY SOIL 6.73 6.64 6.63
(gms) (gms) (gms)
MOISTURE 32.81 34.07 35.85 MOISTURE 30.82 32.27 33.76 MOISTURE 28.97 31.48 33.18
CONTENT, % CONTENT, CONTENT, %
%
NUMBR OF 31 26 21 NUMBR OF 29 24 19 NUMBR OF 32 24 19
BLOWS BLOWS BLOWS

PLASTICITY
CAN, grams 7.88 7.82 CAN, grams 8.39 8.32 CAN, grams 7.96 7.93
CAN + WET SOIL 19.19 19.41 CAN + WET SOIL 20.24 20.26 CAN + WET SOIL (gms) 19.55 19.63
(gms) (gms)
CAN + DRY SOIL (gms) 17.36 17.53 CAN + DRY SOIL 18.25 18.26 CAN + DRY SOIL (gms) 17.30 17.36
(gms)
MOISTURE LOSS 1.83 1.88 MOISTURE LOSS 1.99 2.00 MOISTURE LOSS 2.25 2.27
DRY SOIL (gms) 9.48 9.71 DRY SOIL (gms) 9.86 9.94 DRY SOIL (gms) 9.34 9.43
MOISTURE CONTENT, 19.30 19.36 MOISTURE 20.18 20.12 MOISTURE CONTENT, 24.09 24.07
% CONTENT, % %
Liquid Limit = 34 SOIL Liquid Limit = 32 SOIL Liquid Limit = 31 SOIL
TYPE TYPE TYPE
Plastic Limit = 19 Plastic Limit = 20 Plastic Limit = 24
Plasticity Index Ip = 15 CL Plasticity Index Ip = 12 CL Plasticity Index Ip = 7 ML
REMARKS: This report is the result of test performed on the samples submitted.

26
Table 2-33 Liquid limit and plasticity index for SS-13, SS-14, SS-15
LIQUID LIMIT
SS-13 SS-14 SS-15
TRIAL 1 2 3 TRIAL 1 2 3 TRIAL 1 2 3
NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER
NO. OF 25- 20- 15- NO. OF 25- 20-30 15- NO. OF 25- 20- 15-25
BLOWS 35 30 25 BLOWS 35 25 BLOWS 35 30
REQUIRED REQUIRED REQUIRED
CAN, grams 7.63 7.68 7.61 CAN, grams 8.10 8.25 8.14 CAN, grams
CAN + WET 15.22 15.26 15.14 CAN + WET 15.39 15.22 15.28 CAN + WET
SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms)
CAN + DRY 13.55 13.52 13.32 CAN + DRY 13.72 13.53 13.44 CAN + DRY
SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms)
MOISTURE 1.67 1.74 1.82 MOISTURE 1.67 1.69 1.84 MOISTURE
LOSS (gms) LOSS (gms) LOSS (gms)
DRY SOIL 5.92 5.84 5.71 DRY SOIL 5.62 5.28 5.30 DRY SOIL
(gms) (gms) (gms)
MOISTURE 28.21 29.79 31.87 MOISTURE 29.72 32.01 34.72 MOISTURE
CONTENT, % CONTENT, % CONTENT, %
NUMBR OF 30 26 20 NUMBR OF 33 26 19 NUMBR OF
BLOWS BLOWS BLOWS

PLASTICITY
CAN, grams 8.63 8.62 CAN, grams 8.25 8.36 CAN, grams
CAN + WET SOIL (gms) 20.1 20.1 CAN + WET SOIL 20.11 20.2 CAN + WET SOIL (gms)
1 8 (gms) 2
CAN + DRY SOIL (gms) 18.5 18.5 CAN + DRY SOIL 17.74 17.8 CAN + DRY SOIL (gms)
4 8 (gms) 6
MOISTURE LOSS 1.57 1.60 MOISTURE LOSS 2.37 2.36 MOISTURE LOSS
DRY SOIL (gms) 9.91 9.96 DRY SOIL (gms) 9.49 9.50 DRY SOIL (gms)
MOISTURE CONTENT, % 15.8 16.0 MOISTURE 24.97 24.8 MOISTURE CONTENT,
4 6 CONTENT, % 4 %
Liquid Limit = 30 SOIL Liquid Limit = 32 SOIL Liquid Limit = SOIL
TYP TYPE TYPE
E
Plastic Limit = 16 Plastic Limit = 25 Plastic Limit =
Plasticity Index Ip = 14 CL Plasticity Index Ip = 7 ML Plasticity Index Ip = SM
REMARKS: This report is the result of test performed on the samples submitted.

27
Table 2-34 Liquid limit and plasticity index for SS-16, SS-17, SS-18
LIQUID LIMIT
SS-16 SS-17 SS-18
TRIAL NUMBER 1 2 3 TRIAL 1 2 3 TRIAL NUMBER 1 2 3
NUMBER
NO. OF BLOWS 25- 20- 15- NO. OF 25- 20- 15- NO. OF BLOWS 25- 20- 15-25
REQUIRED 35 30 25 BLOWS 35 30 25 REQUIRED 35 30
REQUIRED
CAN, grams CAN, grams CAN, grams 7.03 7.07 7.11
CAN + WET CAN + WET CAN + WET 16.20 16.42 16.18
SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms)
CAN + DRY SOIL CAN + DRY CAN + DRY SOIL 14.00 14.12 13.86
(gms) SOIL (gms) (gms)
MOISTURE MOISTURE MOISTURE 2.20 2.30 2.32
LOSS (gms) LOSS (gms) LOSS (gms)
DRY SOIL (gms) DRY SOIL DRY SOIL (gms) 6.97 7.05 6.75
(gms)
MOISTURE MOISTURE MOISTURE 31.56 32.62 34.37
CONTENT, % CONTENT, CONTENT, %
%
NUMBR OF NUMBR OF NUMBR OF 30 26 19
BLOWS BLOWS BLOWS

PLASTICITY
CAN, grams CAN, grams CAN, grams 7.36 7.33
CAN + WET SOIL CAN + WET SOIL CAN + WET SOIL (gms) 20.20 20.16
(gms) (gms)
CAN + DRY SOIL (gms) CAN + DRY SOIL CAN + DRY SOIL (gms) 17.40 17.36
(gms)
MOISTURE LOSS MOISTURE LOSS MOISTURE LOSS 2.80 2.80
DRY SOIL (gms) DRY SOIL (gms) DRY SOIL (gms) 10.04 10.03
MOISTURE CONTENT, MOISTURE MOISTURE CONTENT, % 27.89 27.92
% CONTENT, %
Liquid Limit = SOIL Liquid Limit = SOIL Liquid Limit = 33 SOIL
TYPE TYPE TYPE
Plastic Limit = Plastic Limit = Plastic Limit = 28
Plasticity Index Ip = S Plasticity Index Ip = SM Plasticity Index Ip = 5 ML
REMARKS: This report is the result of test performed on the samples submitted.

28
Table 2-35 Liquid limit and plasticity index for SS-19, SS-20, SS-21
LIQUID LIMIT
SS-19 SS-20 SS-21
TRIAL 1 2 3 TRIAL 1 2 3 TRIAL 1 2 3
NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER
NO. OF BLOWS 25- 20- 15- NO. OF 25- 20- 15-25 NO. OF 25- 20- 15-25
REQUIRED 35 30 25 BLOWS 35 30 BLOWS 35 30
REQUIRED REQUIRED
CAN, grams 7.20 7.22 7.14 CAN, grams 8.12 8.17 8.20 CAN, grams
CAN + WET 16.30 16.20 16.16 CAN + WET 15.11 15.10 15.28 CAN + WET
SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms)
CAN + DRY 14.03 13.84 13.65 CAN + DRY 13.45 13.37 13.37 CAN + DRY
SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms)
MOISTURE 2.27 2.36 2.51 MOISTURE 1.66 1.73 1.91 MOISTURE
LOSS (gms) LOSS (gms) LOSS (gms)
DRY SOIL 6.83 6.62 6.51 DRY SOIL 5.33 5.20 5.17 DRY SOIL
(gms) (gms) (gms)
MOISTURE 33.24 35.65 38.56 MOISTURE 31.14 33.27 36.94 MOISTURE
CONTENT, % CONTENT, % CONTENT, %
NUMBR OF 31 26 20 NUMBR OF 30 27 22 NUMBR OF
BLOWS BLOWS BLOWS

PLASTICITY
CAN, grams 8.31 8.30 CAN, grams 7.18 7.15 CAN, grams
CAN + WET SOIL (gms) 20.52 20.66 CAN + WET SOIL 20.23 20.15 CAN + WET SOIL
(gms) (gms)
CAN + DRY SOIL (gms) 18.66 18.79 CAN + DRY SOIL 18.15 18.10 CAN + DRY SOIL (gms)
(gms)
MOISTURE LOSS 1.86 1.87 MOISTURE LOSS 2.08 2.05 MOISTURE LOSS
DRY SOIL (gms) 10.35 10.49 DRY SOIL (gms) 10.97 10.95 DRY SOIL (gms)
MOISTURE CONTENT, 17.97 17.83 MOISTURE 18.96 18.72 MOISTURE CONTENT,
% CONTENT, % %
Liquid Limit = 36 SOIL Liquid Limit = 34 SOIL Liquid Limit = SOIL
TYPE TYPE TYPE
Plastic Limit = 18 Plastic Limit = 19 Plastic Limit =
Plasticity Index Ip = 18 CL Plasticity Index Ip = 15 CL Plasticity Index Ip = SM
REMARKS: This report is the result of test performed on the samples submitted.

29
Table 2-36 Liquid limit and plasticity index for SS-22
LIQUID LIMIT
SS-22
TRIAL NUMBER 1 2 3 TRIAL 1 2 3 TRIAL 1 2 3
NUMBER NUMBER
NO. OF BLOWS 25- 20- 15- NO. OF NO. OF
REQUIRED 35 30 25 BLOWS BLOWS
REQUIRED REQUIRED
CAN, grams CAN, grams CAN, grams
CAN + WET CAN + WET CAN + WET
SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms)
CAN + DRY SOIL CAN + DRY CAN + DRY
(gms) SOIL (gms) SOIL (gms)
MOISTURE MOISTURE MOISTURE
LOSS (gms) LOSS (gms) LOSS (gms)
DRY SOIL (gms) DRY SOIL DRY SOIL
(gms) (gms)
MOISTURE MOISTURE MOISTURE
CONTENT, % CONTENT, % CONTENT, %
NUMBR OF NUMBR OF NUMBR OF
BLOWS BLOWS BLOWS

PLASTICITY
CAN, grams CAN, grams CAN, grams
CAN + WET SOIL (gms) CAN + WET SOIL CAN + WET SOIL (gms)
(gms)
CAN + DRY SOIL (gms) CAN + DRY SOIL CAN + DRY SOIL (gms)
(gms)
MOISTURE LOSS MOISTURE LOSS MOISTURE LOSS
DRY SOIL (gms) DRY SOIL (gms) DRY SOIL (gms)
MOISTURE CONTENT, % MOISTURE MOISTURE CONTENT, %
CONTENT, %
Liquid Limit = SOIL Liquid Limit = SOIL Liquid Limit = SOIL
TYPE TYPE TYPE
Plastic Limit = Plastic Limit = Plastic Limit =
Plasticity Index Ip = SM Plasticity Index Ip = Plasticity Index Ip =
REMARKS: This report is the result of test performed on the samples submitted.

30
2.1.5 Seismic Source

Earthquake is one of the biggest threats to human life and infrastructure. As we all know, Philippines is
located on the Pacific Ring of Fire. Natural phenomenon like this is hardly predicted so it is best to design
our infrastructure to withstand destructive earthquakes. The proposed location for the design project stands
2.3km away from a big fault line, West Ilocos Fault System.

Figure 2-4 Distances of Nagpanaoan and West Ilocos Fault System

(Source: http://faultfinder.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/)

2.1.6 Liquefaction Susceptibility Map

Liquefaction happens when the soil loses its strength due to strong earthquake. The liquefaction
susceptibility map helps in professional designs where significant hazard brought by liquefaction can be
clearly seen. It should be considered in land-use planning due to great seismic impact. It can be seen from
the map that the proposed location for the design project is under high susceptibility of liquefaction.

31
 SITE

Figure 2-5 Liquefaction Susceptibility Map

(Source:https://gisweb.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/phivolcs_hazardmaps/01.%20Region%20I/2%20Province/Ilocos%20Sur/Earthquake
/Liquefaction/)

32
2.1.7 Landslide and Flood Hazard Susceptibility Map
This section shows the risk of flooding in the whole municipality of Santa, Ilocos Sur under extreme
conditions. It is also stated that the project area, Nagpanaoan, is likely to experience flood height ranges
from 1 to 2 meters and will last more than 3 days long. Continuous heavy rainfall for several hours will
immediately result to flooding. The area is surrounded by river channels which made it vulnerable to
flashflood.

Figure__: Detailed Landslide and Flood Hazard Map of Santa, Ilocos Sur, Philippines
Source: http://region1.mgb.gov.ph/geology-and-geohazard-maps/1-10-000-geohazard-maps/ilocos-sur/per-municipality-
quadrants

SITE

Figure 2-6 Enlarged Legend of Detailed Landslide and Flood Hazard Map of Santa, Ilocos Sur, Philippines
(Source: http://region1.mgb.gov.ph/geology-and-geohazard-maps/1-10-000-geohazard-maps/ilocos-sur/per-municipality-
quadrants)

33
 Figure 2-7 Enlarged Legend of Detailed Landslide and Flood Hazard Map of Santa, Ilocos Sur, Philippines
(Source: http://region1.mgb.gov.ph/geology-and-geohazard-maps/1-10-000-geohazard-maps/ilocos-sur/per-municipality-
quadrants)

2.2 Related Literature

Philippines, as a developing country, face numerous management issues regarding Sanitary landfills and
open dumpsites. In the year 2000, approximately 300 waste scavengers working in Payatas Landfill was
killed when it disintegrated (Atienza, n.d.). Philippines is also said to be facing one of the greatest waste
management challenges among Asian countries. The country is also well-known for its rapid population
growth and industrialization which can be considered the reasons for increasing volume of solid waste. Due
to multiple hazards awaiting for both human and environment if the waste problem remains unsolved, the
Philippines enacted the Republic Act 9003 wherein stated that “sanitary landfills should be developed as a
final disposal site but they should be operated in accordance with guidelines presented in the act” (Republic
34
of the Philippines, 2006). In older times, dumpsites are managed in an unsustainable way which poses
great risk of direct harm to human and the environment. Open dumpsites also produce pollution in water
and air. Leachate, which is considered as one of the major problems in solid waste management, is the
liquid that has percolated through solid waste and leached out some its content. The application of
practices of sanitary landfill involves few challenges to operations since it will prioritize the minimization of
spread of disease and the disasters due to dumpsites. Some requires barrier layers for extra prevention for
leachate migration out of the landfill (Townsend, Powell, Jain, Xu, Tolaymat, & Reinhart, 2015). Galarpe
(2017) found out that the rate progress of waste generation in 2012 is 10.6 million tons and speculates to
double the rate progress by 2025. Thus, the necessity for more disposal facilities is growing. For the
Philippines, landfill and dumpsites are the major option for solid waste disposal. Disposal sites around the
country must have proper management to keep the harmful chemicals like leachate, landfill gas, etc. out of
reach of the community. Determining whether the geotechnical properties suites landfill activities is a must
since the samples from sanitary landfills can be used as compost for non-edible crops and cover material to
future sanitary landfills (Joseph, Selvam, & Palanivelu, 2003). While in uncontrolled landfills, degradation is
not uniform and reuse of fine fractions are not possible.

One of the most used lateral load resisting systems is the Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Resisting
Frames. It is widely known due to its improved ductility capacity and popularly used in high seismic risk
zones (Ghugal & Mapari, 2017). SMRFs promote strong earthquake resistant without compromising the
strength of the structure. It requires special proportioning and specific detailing which is incorporated in the
design. Nowadays, the reinforced concrete SMRF is required to resist at least 25% of the design seismic
forces (Hooper, Luble, & Moehle, 2008). The researchers found a study about the seismic performance
assessment of non-compliant reinforced concrete SMRF using shake-table test. The study resulted to
beam longitudinal bar slip and pullout. The joints with no appropriate ties experienced extensive damage
due to ground shaking. There is also an observed cover/core concrete spalling. The SMRF could resist at
least 70% of the shake-table ground motion to remain within the code-specified drift limit (Ahmad, et al.,
2017).

The proposed location for the energy plant facility, Ilocos Sur, has a high seismic risk which required to be
designed in SMRF. It is advisable to use SMRF when buildings are in zones with high seismic risk. The
structural components such as beams, columns, and beam-column joints in moment frames are designed

35
to resist flexural, axial, and shearing actions which results to swaying of building through multiple
displacement cycles during the shaking of ground due to earthquake. Most of the buildings having SMRF
uses cast-in-place and normal weight concrete which has rectilinear cross sections without prestressing.
The special requirements like proportioning and detailing for SMRF will allow frames to safely undergo
extensive inelastic deformations which are anticipated in the seismic design categories. The lifespan of
structure subjected to seismic loads may increase when designed in reinforced concrete special moment
resisting frame because it will resist lateral loads.

Design and construction of power plants involve complex engineering analyzations. The operation of power
plants may have great cause to the lifespan of the structure especially if it is located in a demanding
environment that may have the potential to alter the level of safety. Reliable operation of power plants
require significant strength of the structures, systems, and components. The structure of power plant
functions in two ways: First, they are the carrier of systems and components which provides smooth
operating of the power plant. Second, they mitigate the impact of radiological release within the site
boundary when designed properly. Concrete is one of the most considered construction materials when
designing for a power plant due to its numerous advantages: mould-ability, fast manufacturing process,
usage of local ingredients, less production cost, good compression strength, good shielding property
against gamma radiation (Basu & Labbe, 2013).

Aside from reinforced concrete SMRF, Steel SMRF has been widely used in construction industry as one of
the conventional framing systems for almost vertical buildings because of its advantages in construction
duration and strength quality. There were many researches related with this study to further optimize or
improve the conventional technique and some of them are discussed hereafter.

In a study made by Lee et. al. (2002), they evaluated the performance of steel frame buildings with respect
to seismic loadings, specifically after the Northbridge Earthquake. This earthquake has done a great
damage for most of the buildings in the area of consideration, which definitely exposed the weakness in the
structural design and construction of the buildings. This then led to the development of a new performance-
based design guidelines for steel frame structures. 26 steel posts-Northbridge buildings with application of
special moment resisting frames were designed considering the effect of ductile connections, panel zone
deformation and interior gravity frames. These samples have gone through performance evaluations

36
considering ground motions with hazard levels equal to 2/50 and 50/50 and all of them have passed the
evaluation. These buildings exhibit a high confidence level especially in their performance of dealing with
large earthquakes in the future.

Another study made by Le-Trung et. al. (2012) evaluated the seismic behavior of steel SMRF, but this time,
these buildings have vertical irregularities specifically in mass, stiffness, and strength. In this study, they
compared the behavior of irregular and regular structures in which the samples were subjected to 20
different earthquake ground motions considering a 2% seismic hazard level probability with 50 year
exceedance. They used nonlinear static and dynamic analyses and they have computed the confidence
level that is needed to be satisfied. With the results, they have found out that there is a difference between
the result of the two especially in the resulting storey drifts, maximum storey drift demands, global collapse
storey drift capacities and confidence levels.

Concentric Braced Frames are known for its rigidness, secure system and the ability to holdout against
wind and seismic loading. Uriz (2005) indicated that different types of braces were tested out to know each
one’s abilities. One type of bracing systems is called SCBF designed with accordance to the provisions.
Results of this test wasn’t what was expected since the story drift ratio showed a much lower capacity than
of what’s expected due to maximum magnitude of earthquake considered (Hsaio et al., 2011b). Shepard
(1972) mentioned that observance on light X braced frames was made and these frames were put to test to
see if it has the capacity to be a tension only braces system. Aside from that, dual bracing was presented
for the betterment of the system’s nonlinear performance. Another study states that it has been shown that
40% of newly built constructions in California used CFBs (Uriz, 2005). However, as (Sabelli, 2000)
mentioned, CBF design in accordance with the provisions suffered severe damages when struck with
ground motion even though the design was made to withstand that kind of motion.

Geo and El Tayem (1986) mentioned in their study that braced frames containing angle bracing shown
premature brace fracture and smaller inelastic deformations aside from the other SCBF designs. Tremblay
et al., (2003) used 10 X bracing frames to mimic a construction but all failed to do so. All of these tests
mentioned conclude that X- CBF cannot match the abilities of the other configurations because of the lack
thereof. This bracing is just perfect to be used on single story, smaller building.

37
Stone columns are one of the techniques in geotechnical engineering that are extensively used to improve
or increase the poor bearing capacity of a weak or loose soil (Mokhtari & Kalantari, 2012) and also to
reduce the resulting settlement of the soil due to the structures being supported (Balaam & Booker, 1985).
Several researches have studied different ways in order to further improve or enhance the current
performance of the stone columns as soil stabilizers. Some examples are the application of encasement in
the stone column (Malarvizhi & Illamparuthi, 2004; Pulko et. al., 2011) and utilization of sleeves as
reinforcement (Tandel et. al., 2012). Both have concluded that reinforcing the stone columns would lead to
a better effect but still, the economic constraint should still be considered within the process. This has been
very significant not just in the field of geotechnical engineering, but also in other sectors as ground
stabilization plays a very important part for the safety of any structure. In line with this, there were also
studies conducted in order to determine whether the stone columns can be successfully applied to the
foundations of structures.

Another study conducted by Engelhard and Golding (1975) focuses on field testing for evaluation of stone
column performance of a sewerage treatment plant which is situated in an area with the highest seismic
susceptibility and in a soil, which is predominantly deep, cohesive, and soft. Thus, soil improvements were
utilized as they considered it to be the best solution for this problem. In this study, there are three main
points that they have found out. First, the cohesive subsoil was densified sufficiently with the help of the
stone columns which reduces the potential for liquefaction. Second, the additional mass of the stone
columns has resulted in a better shear strength to the soil increasing the soil’s resistance to horizontal
forces with 0.25 g ground acceleration. Lastly, aside from the improvement of density and shear, the stone
columns also provided an acceptable load-settlement ratio.

Within the Philippines, another study was conducted by Sondermann and Wehr (2004) wherein they used
stone columns were used to prevent liquefaction to a gas field extension for an existing gas plant. As
recorded, the supporting soil consists of soft clay from the surface until 3 meters below, and a layer of
liquefiable loose send which is 11 meters deep. Thus, they chose stone columns in order to provide an
additional bearing pressure which has a requirement of 150 kPa for the supporting soil. Also, there is a
settlement requirement of 25 mm which cannot be attained by the existing soil. As a result of adding these
stone columns, positive outcomes were obtained. Aside from improving the bearing capacity, the
liquefaction potential of the sand was also reduced.

38
Sheet piles are continous section of flexible piles deeply implanted in soil, known for its ability of
withstanding horizontal pressure and tolerating large deformation (Stanislav, 2006). The focus of this paper
is to introduce steel sheet piling known for its purpose of stabilizing ground slopes. Different materials make
up for sheet piles but steel sheet pile is the most popular one due to its strength and efficiency in
installation and handling. A research material entitled “Installation and Performance of a Steel Sheet Pile
Wall for Supporting an Excavation in Urban Environment” monitored the performance of steel sheet piles
on soft unstable ground. According to Ou (2006), research regarding the subject of deep excavation has
increased significantly and different methods have been popping up such as: reinforced concrete systems
like diaphragm walls or pile walls, “Berlin” walls, steel sheet pile walls and soil mix pile walls. This research
was conducted at Patras, Greece and a number of conclusion were provided regarding the result of the
investigation such as: steel sheet piles with lateral supports installed by vibratory drivers can be used in
retaining delicated town/city environment but with following conditions of (a) thick-sand gravel layers were
not on site and (b) driving of ground vibrations were systematically monitored. Small difference on the
placement of sheet piles makes it hard for its extractions on the ground. Another study entitled “Steel Sheet
Piles – Applications and ElementaryDesign Issues” showed in this paper how steel sheet piling was used in
protecting vertical fault for the construction of underground storeys. Aside from steel sheet piles being used
as a foundation element, it is also known for its ability in withstanding earth pressure and transfering
vertical loads. Piles and steel sheet piles are used in some structures such as footbridges, tunnel and
semitunnels, excavations, embankments and railways—to name a few, because of its known durability.
Countries like Holland, Germany and Denmark are known for their abundant undrground construction and
steel sheet piles are what they use in supporting excavations. In Japan, sheet pile with the use of vibrating
methods are prohibited because th country is very earthquake prone that is why they use pressed-in steel
sheet piles.

Urban life has become a factor on why it is more difficult in finding stable ground for construction in certain
areas. Due to this case, one of the methods used for ground stabilization is by using the deep soil mixing to
improve the soil. This is often used for this specific reason due to its efficiency and for it is good for the
environment also. Weak soils are enhanced in terms of its physical and chemical properties by using this
method and one of the mixtures is by mixing soil with cement. This method is typically applicable to
foundations of structure, braced excavation, mitigation of liquefaction potential and slope stability. The

39
installation of the column could be in blocks, single columns, and panels or stabilized grids and this can be
determined by the basis on how the soil should be improved (Kitazume and Terashi, 2012).

The cement improved soil has a strength development during the first month of the curing period
(EuroSoilStab, 2002). To stabilize a silty soil, it is stated that a cement dosage rate of 240 kg/m3 is effective
(Farouk and Shahien, 2013). While some stated that the range of cement dosage should be about 5 to 16
percent of the untreated soil’s weight (Winterkorn and Fang, 1975). According to a research, a soil-cement
column is composed of Portland cement, bentonite and a calcium chloride as a binder. Bentonite is impure
clay that consists of montmorillonite. One type of this is the sodium bentonite that can absorb its dry weight
in water and for this reason; it can be used in forming impermeable barriers that can be used also for the
liner at the base of landfills to prevent migration of leeches seeping into the soil.

The proposed location of the structure is in Ilocos Sur and it is stated in the geotechnical report that the soil
is weak. Having this kind of reason, the soil of the area is not stabilized enough to carry loads and might
cause unnecessary failure of the soil in the future. Soil cement mix column is one of the possible solutions
in order to make the soil or ground of the location of where the structure to be built to become more
stabilized or improved. The integral part of deep soil stabilization is that columns of stabilized material are
formed by combining the current soil with a ' binder ' and the binder's contact with the soft soil contribute to
a surface that has better performing properties than the existing soil (Hebib and Farrell, 2003).This method
is often applied on many geotechnical and foundation applications such as the stabilization of deep
excavations and the increase of soil strength for building foundation and the slope stability for building the
power plant. In addition, deep soil stabilization technique like this is often used and is classified as an
economical alternative as a deep foundation for those locations that needs ground improvement.

There were reportedly few special concentrically braced steel frames built in California. There is a popular
belief in the community of structural engineering that the seismic performance of the concentrically braced
steel frames is not as good as to special moment resisting frames (Uriz & Mahin, 2004). It is based on a
fact that concentrically braced frame received extensive damage due to many recent earthquakes.
Because of that, there are additional requirements in the design of concentrically braced frame in zones of
high seismic risk. The design and construction of SMRF became more complex due to the latest revision of
codes which made many design companies switch to concentrically braced frame for low to mid rise

40
construction. Steel concentrically braced frame distributed earthquake energy through buckling of braces
which acts as compression and yielding of braces acts as tension which made it popular as lateral load
resisting frames compared to the performance of SMRF on recent earthquakes (Momenzadeh, 2017). In
other studies, they incorporated the use of buckling-controlled braces (BCB) in steel concentrically braced
frames to enhance its performance under high seismic scenario. They considered BCB as one of the best
suitable substitute for conventional braces.

CHAPTER 3: CONSTRAINTS, TRADEOFFS AND STANDARDS

3.1 Design Constraints

Design constraints is defined as the restrictions or limitations that we want need and want to happen in a
design. It acts like criteria that the designers consider taking measures from to know what and what not to
include in the design of the project. With the use of the constraints, the designers can weigh what design
fits the client’s preferences. The decision to be made on choosing what design is perfect for the
infrastructure depends on the constraints. In a design process, constraints are to be used in order to know
which designs are to be carried out.

The following constraints defined below are what the designers believe to have a significance on the design
of treatment plant to be constructed:

3.1.1 Qualitative Constraints

3.1.1.1 Environmental

Although treatment plant plays a vital role in waste management, it also has a lot of environmental impacts
to be considered properly. The infrastructure might be useful but it shouldn’t be forgotten that its design
must also be environmentally friendly. A lot of resources are going to be used in creating buildings and
infrastructures and this often produces different kinds of pollution and gas emissions. That is why the
designers have to see to it that the infrastructure to be constructed will have to use greener and innovative
options like using renewable energy sources to reduce the environmental effects because our nature
should not really suffer, aside form that, it saves money as well. The designers must plan thoroughly a
smarter way of constructing buildings and infrastructures to practice sustainability.

41
3.1.2 Quantitative constraints

3.1.2.1 Economic Constraint (Project Cost)

One of the most important part of the project is the budget itself since it represents the overall cost of the
project and the allocation of resources. The construction of treatment plant requires a fair amount of money
to be able to achieve its paramount goal. The project cost are costs throughout the actual construction
phase such as the expenses incurred by materials and labor force. Having insufficient budget carries
negative effect in the construction of the project concerning to its performance, quality and safety. However,
appropriate budget must be taken into consideration that will meet the most efficient and effective design
with regards to lesser cost. Still, the designers will take account to what's the most suitable design for the
client's budget.

 Limitation: This constraint covers only the cost of the materials and labor force during the actual
construction. This does not take into account on the costs on which the project is supposed to
work. Along with, the overall costs of the projects does not include the maintenance costs too.

3.1.2.2 Constructability Constraint (Project Duration)

The designers considered the duration of the construction phase as it plays significant role for the
ascertainmet of trade-offs. It also takes part in the client's preference something which the construction may
ended up sooner. The reason is that it can contribute as well with the cost of the project. The longer the
duration of the project, the more it becomes costly in terms of the labor force. Nevertheless, shorter
construction exerts influence on the quality of the design of treatment plant, too. Having high quality
treatment plant design requires ampoule of time for the certainty that the structural members and other
materials used are placed well. Moreover, the area experiences shortage of waste-to-energy treatment
plant and the wastes from landfills may harm the public’s health because of the gases caused by the it.
Therefore, it must be taken into action the need for quick yet high-grade treatment plant design. Delayed
project duration must taken also into consideration as it adds costs for the the project. Planned schedule for
the project minimizes delays which includes some extra slack time.

 Limitation: Constructability constraint focuses only with the period of the construction stage (days).
It also has relevance to the project cost on how it affects the overall cost of the project to the period
of the construction by manpower. Furthermore, this constraint is not concerned with the planning of
the project.

42
3.1.2.3 Sustainability (Maintenance Cost)

The designers considered the sustainability of the project. It is necessary for the construction, thus, the
resources or funds (php) must be used not only in efficient but also in an effective way. In considering the
durability of the structure, this constraint must be conveyed in order to lengthen the life span of the project.
To ensure the life span of the structure, maintaining the structural members and the installed seismic
resistant equipment is a must. Due to the presence of carbon made by the construction materials, it causes
serious effect on the environment. Hence, it is proper to just maintain the structural members because it not
only lessen the project cost but also minimize the production of greenhouse gases that is harmful to the
environment.

3.1.2.4 Risk Assessment (Storey-Drift)

In risk assessment, identification of possible situations and processes that is dangerous not only to people
and the environment but also the structure is essential. Waste-to-energy treatment plant is one of the
techniques in converting wastes to renewable energy without causing too much pollution to the
environment. The safety of the people in Ilocos Sur surrounding the site especially the workers must be
considered. The structure must not cause any harm to them and the treatment plant that holds gases has a
high potential to cause any danger that is why it must stay in place on site. This measures the vertical
displacement (mm) of the structure.

3.2 Trade-offs

Tradeoffis a process refraining one or more qualities in exchange for gains in other aspect. It could be a
strategic move for it provides a clear vision of advantages and disadvantages of different designs. It
requires balancing of opposing situations or qualities given their differences to produce the most preferred
possible alternative. Choosing how to best allocate the time, money, and other constraints spent in the
project is accomplished through the process of trade off.

3.2.1 Structural Context Trade-Offs

3.2.1.1 Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Resisting Frame

This type of design for building is widely used nowadays for lateral load resisting systems. Reinforced
Concrete Special Moment Resisting Frame is known in the community of structural engineering for its
enhanced ductility capacity. Its ability to deform without compromising the strength of the structure is what
made it popular to designing companies. It is also recommended to use this design for locations with high
seismic risk. RC SMRF provides open view lines which results to more architectural flexibility compared to
others such as braced frames and shear walls wherein they obstruct the space in the plane. The design
codes propose the use of this system through lower design level forces because it can generate more
economical designs. This can be made through accepting permanent damage on structural components

43
and allowing inelastic deformations to happen while proper detailing behaves being ductile. With observant
and careful detailing, it can prevent column side-sway mechanisms and produce the desirable side-sway
mechanisms of beams which cause the structure to handle the movement caused by ground shaking.

Figure 3-1 Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Resisting Frames

(Source: www.lakhlani.com)

Table 3-1 Advantages & Disadvantages of Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Resisting Frame

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Common choice for both residential and Shrinkage causes crack development and strength
commercial construction because of architectural loss.
flexibility
Concrete cracking and yielding of reinforcement in
the plastic hinge zones of these beams during the
Suggested for high seismic risk zones inelastic deformation cycles provide the major
source of energy absorption and dissipation in the
reinforced concrete special moment frames
A stable inelastic flexural behavior of SMRF beams
is essential for satisfactory building performance Greater construction days than steel structure
Cost less than steel structure

44
3.2.1.2 Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame

A special moment resisting frame or commonly known as SMRF is a type of structural framing system
commonly used to enhance the seismic design of buildings especially those that are situated in high
seismic risk zones. It is especially detailed that considers mainly the ductile behavior of building materials
such as steel. By theory, its main difference with the ordinary moment resisting frame is that the response
reduction factor (R) used for a building system is greater. Thus, providing a larger design base shear leads
to larger member sections.

Figure 3-2 Steel Special Moment Resisting Frames

Source: (https://www.tekla.com/sg/references/sinotech-research-development-building)

Table 3-2 Advantages & Disadvantages of Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

It has high maintenance cost especially with regards

Short construction period compared to other
to using expensive paints necessary for steel
building materials.
corrosion.

Higher strength to weig It has high material and fabrication costs compared
ht ratio compared to other building materials. to other building materials.

It is exceptionally strong, ductile, and stiff compared It requires expensive fireproofing costs as steel is
to all other building materials. non fireproof material.

Buildings with SMRF require a larger quantity of

It considers high design base shear thus giving a
buildings materials making it more costly compared
safer design compared to other framing systems.
to other framing systems.

45
It provides architectural appeal and open spaces
over other lateral load resisting systems.

3.2.1.3 Concentric Braced Frames (Cross)

Basically, concentric braced frames are trusses with different brace positioning such as X, K or V. In cross
bracings, the form of letter X is the most commonly used in practice subject to lateral loads. According to a
study of FAGGIANO, B. et. al., CBF-X can be identified because its ductility and destructive quality is lower
than Moment Resisting Frames (MRF). The idea of this bracing system is that, compressive braces are
designed to buckle when conditions are ultimate and tensile braces show how plastic deformation is formed
with the energy dissipation. The structure with this kind of bracing system is extremely stiff. This makes the
bracing system highly capable of resisting lateral loads. Like any other bracing, CBF X also has
advantages and disadvantages. Its advantages include: it is economical, easy to erect, occupies less space
and has flexibility to design for meeting the required strength and stiffness, braced frames resist the wind
and seismic forces, much more than non-braced buildings, due to bracing of the buildings, lateral storey
displacement, storey drift as well as axial force and bending moment in columns reduces to a remarkable
level. Lastly, reduction in lateral displacement is a major advantage. Concentric (X) bracing is more
effective in this case than Eccentric (V) bracing. Disadvantages include: the inelastic behavior of CBF is
usually inferior to that of special moment-resisting steel frames. One reason is that the behavior of
concentric braced frames under large seismic forces is dominated by buckling. X bracing haslittle
compressive buckling capacity. It is restricted to use in less seismically active zones or very short
structures in more active zones.

Figure 3-3 Concentric Braced Frames (Cross)

Source: (https://ed808.com/node/20449)

46
Table 3-3 Advantages & Disadvantages of Concentric Braced Frames (Cross)

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Provide strength and stiffness at low cost Ductility is likely to be limited

Major advantage when it comes to reduction in Bracing may restrict architectural

lateral displacement planning

Steel bracing is economical Height-dependent changes in seismic behavior

Easy to erect Creates obstruction between piles to catch debris

Occupies less space

Has flexibility to design for meeting the required Provides unwanted support to breakaway walls.
strength and stiffness.

Resist the wind and seismic forces

Source: (https://constructionqueries.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/what-is-the-advantage-of-braced-building/
https://www.sefindia.org/forum/files/steel_bracings_146.pdf
https://www.ijraset.com/fileserve.php?FID=17483
https://www.civilengineeringx.com/construction/limitations-on-concentric-braced-frames/)

3.2.2 Geotechnical Context Trade-Offs

3.2.2.1 Stone Columns

The stone column is a ground improvement technique that is used to enhance the soil parameters such as
load bearing capacity and reduce the settlement of soil. It carries more load than soil so it reduces the
overall settlement since it has a greater modulus of elasticity than the soil. It gives a more economical and
sustainable technique than any other alternatives. This technique offers a more stable solution for ground
improvement in the construction of weak cohesive soils. The stone column technique is the stabilization of
soil with the help of crane-suspended downhole vibrator. Stone columns are constructed by strengthening
the soft soil and replacing some part of the soil with stone aggregates. The column aggregate will perform

47
as a drainage channel to lessen the excess pore water pressure existing in the subsoil and speed up the
consolidation process. With this technique, columns prevent the effect of liquefaction and therefore reduce
the damage to foundations.

Figure 3-4 Stone Columns

Source: (https://www.eqc.govt.nz/sites/public_files/images/What%20are%20stone%20columns.pdf)

Table 3-4 Advantages & Disadvantages of Stone Columns

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

There is an increase in the settlement when used in

Short construction period and there is no dewatering
some types of clay mainly because of the absence
or excavation for the construction
of lateral restraint.

Radial drainage is reduced as clay particles clog

Reduce the overall settlement
around the stone columns.

Saves money and time as it Increases the bearing Encasing and reinforcing is sometimes necessary
capacity of the strata and possible to use shallow which adds to the construction cost of the stone
foundation columns.

Accelerates the consolidation process in cohesive

soils by supplying drainage channels to water.

48
3.2.2.2 Steel Pile

Steel piles are continuous section of flexible piles deeply implanted in soil, known for its ability of
withstanding horizontal pressure and tolerating large deformation. Large And Waterfront Structures,
Erosion Protection, Stabilizing Ground Slopes And Shoring Walls Of Trenches And Other Excavations, And
Cofferdams are just some of the many purpose of sheet pile walls. Different kinds of materials such as
wood, steel, concrete or aluminum is what sheet piles are made up of and each materials differs on its own
application. The process of constructing sheet piles is composed of 5 steps. First is to lay out sections of
the piles making sure that they will interlock with each other. Second is driving the pile into desired depth.
Third is driving sheet piles with interlocks. Fourth step is repeating the first and second steps until a wall
perimeter has been created. Last step, connector elements are to be used when dealing with complex
shapes.

Figure 3-5 Steel Pile

Source: (https://civildigital.com/)

Table 3-5 Advantages & Disadvantages of Steel Pile

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Easy to transport and install Durability is affected by corrosion

Sheet piles can be pulled put and driven again Sheet piles have limited length
They can easily be joint together Sometimes impossible to plunge sheet piles with
usual methods
High durability
Ensure clean area because sheet piles are
delivered in one transport

49
 Long service life When obstacle in soil is encountered, sheet piles
Reusable can easily be destroyed or disconnected from
Can produce watertight wall interlocking joints.
Relatively lightweight
Resistant to high driving stresses
Joints are less apt to deform
(Source:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267920552_Basic_Types_of_Sheet_Pile_Walls_and_Their_Application_in_th
e_Construction_Industry-a_Review)

3.2.2.3 Soil Cement Mix Columns

Soil-cement mix column is one of the techniques used in improving the problematic soils that has a means
of changing its engineering properties such as shear strength and compressibility. This is one of the deep
mixing methods that could be applied in solving this kind of issue. Heightening the level of stiffness of the
untreated soil depends on the added admixture like cement. In this type of technique, the made soil-cement
column are usually compressed to a relatively high density. The components that may affect the durability
of the column are the soil type, cement dose, and the water cement ratio. The special-built machines are
used in making this type of column that has a higher strength than the natural soil. Installation of different
kinds of arrangements of the column can be made in accordance to the specifications. This type of ground
improvement is not only advantageous to the strength of the ground itself but also an excellent method
when it comes to limiting the settlement.

Figure 3-6 Soil Cement Mix Columns

50
Table 3-6 Advantages & Disadvantages of Soil Cement Mix Columns

ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES

Increases bearing capacity and decreases the total High cost of mobilization and batching plants when
settlement. you use the wet mixing method

Improve stability of slopes and deep excavations.

Cost effective solution.

Full strength of column may not be mobilized when
the pH of groundwater is acidic or carbon dioxide is
Does improve soft cohesive and loose to medium high when dry mixing method is used.
dense cohesion less soils when wet mixing method
is used.

Dry mixing method provides a more economic

benefit

3.3 Designer’s Raw Ranking

Otto and Antonsson (1991) stated that preliminary decision making is critical due to its great effect to the
overall project cost which requires transparency in all its aspects. There are several designs of landfill
available, but we narrowed it down by focusing only on three geotechnical and water trade-offs. The
following trade-offs were supposed to satisfy the given constraints above. The process of ranking is scaled
from 0 to 10, wherein 10 is considered the highest value and 0 is the lowest. This process permits
designers to have a specific design goal trade-off strategy to identify how to trade-off various design goals.
It is also asserted that time comes where a larger gain will compensate for a slight loss.

The designers furnished the estimation of each trade-off based on constraints. They will choose the
independent variable, governing rank, based on the importance of the constraint. The significance of the
constraint will be based from the client and designer’s perspective. The subordinate rank is a dependent
variable which will be determined by the percentage distance from the governing rank through the ranking
scale. The result of the ranking is beyond control of the designers. Every figure was backed up by an
evidence data from the designers’ analysis.

51
The computation of ranking ability to satisfy the criteria of the design is as follows:

Higher value-Lower value

% difference= x 10 (Equation 1)
Higher value

Subordinate rank=Governing rank- % difference (Equation 2)

Figure 3-7 Ranking Scale Value

(Source: Otto, K.N. and Antonsson, E.K. (1991).Trade of Strategies in Engineering Design. Research in Engineering Design,
Volume 3, Number 2, Pages 87-104)

Table 3-7 Initial Estimate of Structural Trade-offs

Designer's Raw Ranking Summary

Constraint/Criteria Trade-off Score

Description RC SMRF Steel SMRF Steel Concentric
Bracing
Economic (PHP) 341,080,003.80 551,820,100 601,025,100
Sustainability (PHP) 68,216,000.76 84,895,400 120,205,020
Constructability (days/180 m2) 230 160 180
Risk Assessment (m) 11 8.45 9.60

Table 3-8 Initial Estimate of Geotechnical Trade-offs

Designer's Raw Ranking Summary

Constraint/Criteria Trade-off Score

Description Stone Columns Steel Pile Soil Cement Mix
Column
Economic (PHP) 39,294,186.75 58,893,737.50 36,604,948.25
Sustainability (PHP) 7,858,837.35 11,778,747.50 7,320,989.65
Constructability (days/180 m2) 20 28 24
Risk Assessment (mm) 9 11.45 8.25

52
3.4 Initial Estimates and Ranking Computation

The following table presents the initial ranking of trade-offs based on the constraints starting from 0 to 10
wherein it is specified that 0 is the lowest value while 10 is the highest. The constraints are also ranked by
the designers depending on its importance in the design parameters. Risk assessment got the first rank
since the designers are prioritizing the safety of the infrastructure and people. Second to it is the
economical constraint in which the cost of the project wherein it concerns the client’s budget needed for the
construction. Sustainability constraint is ahead against Constructability constraint since the designers think
that the construction duration of the project should have less effect on the selection of design.
Table 3-9 Initial Estimates of Structural Trade-offs
Importance Structural Trade offs
Constraints Factor (on a RC SMRF Steel SMRF Steel Concentric
scale of 0-10) Bracing
Risk Assessment (m) 10 7.68 10 8.80
Economic (PHP) 9 9 5.18 4.67
Sustainability (PHP) 8 8 6.04 3.67
Constructability 7 3.96 7 5.89
(days/180 m2)

Table 3-10 Initial Estimates of Geotechnical Trade-offs

Importance Geotechnical Trade offs
Constraints Factor (on a Stone Columns Steel Pile Soil Cement Mix
scale of 0-10) Columns
Risk Assessment (m) 10 9.17 7.24 10
Economic (PHP) 9 8.32 5.22 9
Sustainability (PHP) 8 7.32 4.22 8
Constructability 7 7 4.14 5.33
(days/180 m2)

3.4.1 Raw Ranking for Structural Trade-offs

Selection of appropriate design for treatment plant is essential because adapting the best alternative could
increase the overall performance of the project. Meeting the necessary qualifications for the area helps
ensure the usage of available resources wisely. This section serves as a tool to find out the right design
fitted for the client’s specification. The corresponding value was estimated by the designers based from the
existing similar studies.

53
3.4.1.1 Computation of Raw Ranking for Risk Assessment Constraint
Table 3-11 Initial Estimated Value for Risk Assessment Constraint
Description RC SMRF Steel SMRF Steel Concentric
Bracing (X)

Risk Assessment 11 8.45 9.60

Subordinate Rank 7.68 10 8.80

Solution:
Since Risk Assessment is the most important among all constraints, the designers gave it a scale
of ten (10).

Steel SMRF vs. Steel Concentric Bracing (X)

Using equation’s 1 and 2;
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
9.60 − 8.45
= 𝑥10
9.60
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟏. 𝟏𝟗𝟕𝟗𝟐%

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 10 − 𝟏. 𝟏𝟗𝟕𝟗𝟐

𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟖. 𝟖𝟎

Figure 3-8 Subordinate Rank of Steel Concentric Bracing (X) Plotted in a Rank Line

Steel SMRF vs. RC SMRF

Using equation’s 1 and 2;
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
11 − 8.45
= 𝑥10
11

54
 % 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟐. 𝟑𝟏𝟖𝟏𝟖%

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 10 − 𝟐. 𝟑𝟏𝟖𝟏𝟖
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟕. 𝟔𝟖

Figure 3-9 Subordinate Rank of RC SMRF Plotted in a Rank Line

3.4.1.2 Computation of Raw Ranking for Economic Constraint

Table 3-12 Initial Estimated Value for Economic Constraint

Description RC SMRF Steel SMRF Steel Concentric
Bracing (X)

Economic (PHP) 341,080,003.80 551,820,100 601,025,100

Subordinate Rank 9 5.18 4.67

Solution:
Since Economic Constraint ranked second among all constraints, the designers gave it a scale of
nine (9).

RC SMRF vs. Steel SMRF

Using equation’s 1 and 2;
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
551,820,100 − 341,080,003.80
= 𝑥10
551,820,100
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟑. 𝟖𝟏𝟗%

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 9 − 𝟑. 𝟖𝟏𝟗
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟓. 𝟏𝟖

55
 Figure 3-10 Subordinate Rank of Steel SMRF Plotted in a Rank Line

RC SMRF vs. Steel Concentric Bracing (X)

Using equation’s 1 and 2;
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
601,025,100 − 341,080,003.80
= 𝑥10
601,025,100
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟒. 𝟑𝟐𝟓𝟎𝟑%

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 9 − 𝟒. 𝟑𝟐𝟓𝟎𝟑
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟒. 𝟔𝟕

Figure 3-11 Subordinate Rank of Steel Concentric Bracing (X) Plotted in a Rank Line

3.4.1.3 Computation of Raw Ranking for Sustainability Constraint

Table 3-13 Initial Estimated Value for Sustainability Constraint

Description RC SMRF Steel SMRF Steel Concentric
Bracing (X)

Sustainability (PHP) 68,216,000.76 84,895,400 120,205,020

Subordinate Rank 8 6.04 3.67

Solution:
Since Sustainability Constraint ranked third among all constraints, the designers gave it a scale
of eight (8).

56
 RC SMRF vs. Steel SMRF
Using equation’s 1 and 2;
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
84,895,400 − 68,216,000.76
= 𝑥10
84,895,400
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟏. 𝟗𝟔𝟒𝟕𝟎%

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 8 − 𝟏. 𝟗𝟔𝟒𝟕𝟎
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟔. 𝟎𝟒

Figure 3-12 Subordinate Rank of Steel SMRF Plotted in a Rank Line

RC SMRF vs. Steel Concentric Bracing (X)

Using equation’s 1 and 2;
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
120,205,020 − 68,216,000.76
= 𝑥10
120,205,020
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟒. 𝟑𝟐𝟓𝟎𝟑%
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒
= 8 − 𝟒. 𝟑𝟐𝟓𝟎𝟑
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟑. 𝟔𝟕

Figure 3-13 Subordinate Rank of Steel Concentric Bracing (X) Plotted in a Rank Line

3.4.1.3 Computation of Raw Ranking for Constructability Constraint

Table 3-14 Initial Estimated Value for Constructability Constraint

57
 Description RC SMRF Steel SMRF Steel Concentric
Bracing (X)

Constructability 230 160 180

(days/180 m2)

Subordinate Rank 3.96 7 5.89

Solution:
Since Conventional Constraint ranked fourth among all constraints, the designers gave it a scale
of seven (7).
Steel SMRF vs. Steel Concentric Bracing (X)
Using equation’s 1 and 2;
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
180 − 160
= 𝑥10
180
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟏. 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏%

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 7 − 𝟏. 𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟓. 𝟖𝟗

Figure 3-14 Subordinate Rank of Steel Concentric Bracing (X) Plotted in a Rank Line

Steel SMRF vs. RC SMRF

Using equation’s 1 and 2;
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
230 − 160
= 𝑥10
230
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟑. 𝟎𝟒𝟑𝟒𝟖%

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 7 − 𝟑. 𝟎𝟒𝟑𝟒𝟖

58
 𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟑. 𝟗𝟔

Figure 3-15 Subordinate Rank of RC SMRF Plotted in a Rank Line

3.4.2 Raw Ranking for Geotechnical Trade-offs

There are several key factors in the selection of materials to utilize in the design. The designers should
focus on evaluation of the benefits of each trade-off. The design process consists of assessment of cost,
quality, and safety which plays big role in the performance of project in the long run. The designers were
able to provide an estimate of materials through the past projects with same scope of study.

3.4.2.1 Computation of Raw Ranking for Risk Assessment Constraint

Table 3-15 Initial Estimated Value for Risk Assessment Constraint
Description Stone Columns Steel Pile Soil Cement Mix
Column

Risk Assessment (mm) 9 11.45 8.25

Subordinate Rank 9.17 7.24 10

Solution:
Since Risk Assessment is the most important among all constraints, the designers gave it a scale
of ten (10).

Soil Cement Mix Column vs. Stone Columns

Using equation’s 1 and 2;

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
9 − 8.25
= 𝑥10
9
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟖𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑 %

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

59
 = 10 − 0.83333
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟗. 𝟏𝟕

Figure 3-16 Subordinate Rank of Stone Columns Plotted in a Rank Line

Soil Cement Mix Column vs. Steel Pile

Using equation’s 1 and 2;

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
11.45 − 8.25
= 𝑥10
11.45
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟐. 𝟕𝟔𝟑𝟏𝟔 %

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 10 − 2.76316
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟕. 𝟐𝟒

Figure 3-17 Subordinate Rank of Steel Pile Plotted in a Rank Line

3.4.2.2 Computation of Raw Ranking for Economic Constraint

Table 3-16 Initial Estimated Value for Economic Constraint
Description Stone Columns Steel Pile Soil Cement Mix
Column

Economic (PHP) 39,294,186.75 58,893,737.50 36,604,948.25

Subordinate Rank 8.32 5.22 9

60
Solution:
Since Economic Constraint ranked second among all constraints, the designers gave it a scale of
nine (9).

Soil Cement Mix Column vs. Stone Columns

Using equation’s 1 and 2;

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
39,294,186.75 − 36,604,948.25
= 𝑥10
39,294,186.75
% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟔𝟖𝟒𝟑𝟗 %

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 9 − 0.68439
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟖. 𝟑𝟐

Figure 3-18 Subordinate Rank of Stone Columns Plotted in a Rank Line

Soil Cement Mix Column vs. Steel Pile

Using equation’s 1 and 2;

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
58,893,737.50 − 36,604,948.25
= 𝑥10
58,893,737.50

% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟑. 𝟕𝟖𝟒𝟓𝟖 %

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 9 − 3.78458
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟓. 𝟐𝟐

61
 Figure 3-19 Subordinate Rank of Steel Pile Plotted in a Rank Line

3.4.2.1 Computation of Raw Ranking for Sustainability Constraint

Table 3-17 Initial Estimated Value for Sustainability Constraint
Description Stone Columns Steel Pile Soil Cement Mix
Column

Sustainability (PHP) 7,858,837.35 11,778,747.50 7,320,989.65

Subordinate Rank 7.32 4.22 8

Solution:
Since Sustainability Constraint ranked third among all constraints, the designers gave it a scale
of eight (8).

Soil Cement Mix Column vs. Stone Columns

Using equation’s 1 and 2;

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
7,858,837.35 − 7,320,989.65
= 𝑥10
7,858,837.35

% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟎. 𝟔𝟖𝟒𝟑𝟗 %

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 8 − 0.68439
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟕. 𝟑𝟐

62
 Figure 3-20 Subordinate Rank of Stone Columns Plotted in a Rank Line

Soil Cement Mix Column vs. Steel Pile

Using equation’s 1 and 2;

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
11,778,747.50 − 7,320,989.65
= 𝑥10
11,778,747.50

% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟑. 𝟕𝟖𝟒𝟓𝟖 %

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 8 − 3.78458
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟒. 𝟐𝟐

Figure 3-21 Subordinate Rank of Steel Pile Plotted in a Rank Line

3.4.2.1 Computation of Raw Ranking for Constructability Constraint

Table 3-18 Initial Estimated Value for Constructability Constraint
Description Stone Columns Steel Pile Soil Cement Mix
Column

Constructability 20 28 24
(days/180 m2)

Subordinate Rank 7 4.14 5.33

Solution:
Since Constructability Constraint ranked fourth among all constraints, the designers gave it a
scale of eight (7).

Stone Columns vs. Soil Cement Mix Column

Using equation’s 1 and 2;

63
 𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
24 − 20
= 𝑥10
24

% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟏. 𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟔𝟕 %

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 7 − 1.66667
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟓. 𝟑𝟑

Figure 3-22 Subordinate Rank of Soil Cement Mix Column Plotted in a Rank Line

Stone Columns vs. Steel Pile

Using equation’s 1 and 2;

𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 − 𝐿𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

% 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑥10
𝐻𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒
28 − 20
= 𝑥10
28

% 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 = 𝟐. 𝟖𝟕𝟓𝟏𝟒 %

𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 = 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑘 − % 𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒

= 7 − 2.87514
𝑺𝒖𝒃𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝑹𝒂𝒏𝒌 = 𝟒. 𝟏𝟒

Figure 3-23 Subordinate Rank of Steel Pile Plotted in a Rank Line

64
3.5 Tradeoffs Assessment

3.5.1 Tradeoff Assessment for Structural Context

Table 3-18 Designers’ Raw Ranking for Structural Trade-offs

Importance Structural Trade offs
Constraints Factor (on a RC SMRF Steel SMRF Steel Concentric
scale of 0-10) Bracing (X)
Risk Assessment (m) 10 7.68 10 8.80
Economic (PHP) 9 9 5.18 4.67
Sustainability (PHP) 8 8 6.04 3.67
Constructability 7 3.96 7 5.89
(days/180 m2)
Overall Ranking 249.52 243.94 200.62

3.5.1.1 Risk Assessment Constraint (m)

Based from the trade-off assessment, the RC SMRF is first in the overall ranking having 249.52 even
though it ranked the lowest on the risk assessment constraint having 7.68 as subordinate ranking. It ranked
the least due to high value of storey drift.

3.5.1.2 Economic Constraint (PHP)

For this constraint, RC SMRF is first in ranking having 9 as subordinate ranking due to its affordability. It
costs less compared to steel members.

3.5.1.3 Sustainability Constraint (PHP)

The Steel Concentric Bracing (X) ranked the least in the sustainability constraint having 3.67 as
subordinate ranking.

3.5.1.4 Constructability Constraint (days/180 m2)

The Steel SMRF ranked first for constructability constraint having 7 as subordinate ranking because it only
needs 160 days of construction time. It is easier to construct because it is much simple compared to others.

3.5.2 Tradeoff Assessment for Geotechnical Context

Table 3-19 Designers’ Raw Ranking for Geotechnical Trade-offs

Importance Water Trade offs
Constraints Factor (on a Stone Columns Steel Pile Soil Cement Mix
scale of 0-10) Column
Risk Assessment (mm) 10 9.17 7.24 10
Economic (PHP) 9 8.32 5.22 9

65
 Sustainability (PHP) 8 7.32 4.22 8
Constructability 7 7 4.14 5.33
(days/180 m2)
Overall Ranking 274.14 182.12 282.31

3.5.2.1 Risk Assessment Constraint (m)

The trade-off assessment above shows that Soil Cement Mix Column won the overall ranking having
282.31 and Risk Assessment constraints having 10 as subordinate ranking.

3.5.2.2 Economic Constraint (PHP)

For economic constraint, Soil Cement Mix Column ranked first having 9 as subordinate ranking due to its
affordability. It has the lowest price among all trade-offs. Soil Cement Mix Column requires fewer resources
to manufacture hence its low price.

3.5.2.3 Sustainability Constraint (PHP)

The Steel Pile ranked the least in the sustainability constraint having 4.22 as subordinate ranking.

3.5.2.4 4 Constructability Constraint (days/180 m2)

The Stone Columns ranked first for constructability constraint having 7 as subordinate ranking because it
only needs 20 days of construction time. It is easier to construct compared to others because of fewer
resource is needed.

66
 References
Ahmad, N., Shahzad, A., Rizwan, M., Khan, A., Muhammad Ali, S., Ahsraf, M., . . . Alam, B. (2017).
Seismic Performance Assessment of Non-Compliant SMRF-Reinforced Concrete Frame: Shake-Table Test
Study. Pakistan: Earthquake Engineering Center.
Basu, P., & Labbe, P. (2013). Nuclear Power Plant Concrete Structures.
Ghugal, Y. M., & Mapari, A. K. (2017). Seismic Performance of Multistorey RC SMRF and OMRF Buildings.
Joseph, K., Selvam, A., & Palanivelu, K. (2003). Studies on landfill mining at solid waste dumpsites in India.
Moehle, J. P., Hooper, J. D., & Lubke, C. D. (2008). Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Special
Moment Frames. Gaithersburg: National Instittute of Standards Technology.

Lee, K., & Foutch, D. A. (2002). Performance evaluation of new steel frame buildings for seismic loads.
Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics, 31(3), 653-670.
Le‐Trung, K., Lee, K., Lee, J., & Lee, D. H. (2012). Evaluation of seismic behaviour of steel special moment
frame buildings with vertical irregularities. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 21(3), 215-
232.
AECOM. (2016). Conventional Waste to Energy Project, Quezon City, Philippines. AECOM.
Ahmad, N., Shahzad, A., Rizwan, M., Khan, A., Muhammad Ali, S., Ahsraf, M., . . . Alam, B. (2017).
Seismic Performance Assessment of Non-Compliant SMRF-Reinforced Concrete Frame: Shake-Table Test
Study. Pakistan: Earthquake Engineering Center.
Basu, P., & Labbe, P. (2013). Nuclear Power Plant Concrete Structures.
Ghugal, Y. M., & Mapari, A. K. (2017). Seismic Performance of Multistorey RC SMRF and OMRF Buildings.
Joseph, K., Selvam, A., & Palanivelu, K. (2003). Studies on landfill mining at solid waste dumpsites in India.
Militar, J., Ortwein, A., Senorio, S. M., & Schade, J. (2014). Potential and Demand for Energy from Biomass
by Thermo-chemical Conversion in the Province of Antique, Philippines - Part 1, Biomass Availability
Analysis.
Moehle, J. P., Hooper, J. D., & Lubke, C. D. (2008). Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Special
Moment Frames. Gaithersburg: National Instittute of Standards Technology.
Uche-Soria, M., & Rodriguez-Monroy, C. (2019). An Efficient Waste-to-Energy Model n Isolated
Environments.

Yawata, I. (1961). Burial systems of ancient Mariana Islanders. Asian Perspectives, 5(1), 164.

67
Spears, D. S. (2014). Soil Improvement Using Vibro-Replacement. Aquila: The FGCU Student Journal, 1,
1-5.
Mokhtari, M., & Kalantari, B. (2012). Soft soil stabilization using stone columns—A review. Electronic
journal of Geotechnical engineering, 17, 1459-1456.
Malarvizhi, S. N., & Ilamparuthi, K. (2004, June). Load versus settlement of clay bed stabilized with stone
and reinforced stone columns. In 3rd Asian Regional Conference on Geosynthetics (pp. 322-329).
Balaam, N. P., & Booker, J. R. (1985). Effect of stone column yield on settlement of rigid foundations in
stabilized clay. International journal for numerical and analytical methods in geomechanics, 9(4), 331-351.
Pulko, B., Majes, B., & Logar, J. (2011). Geosynthetic-encased stone columns: analytical calculation model.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 29(1), 29-39.
Giannaros, C., & Tsiambaos, G. (1997). Stabilization of embankment foundations by using stone columns.
Geotechnical & Geological Engineering, 15(3), 247-258.
Tandel, Y. K., Solanki, C. H., & Desai, A. K. (2012). Reinforced granular column for deep soil stabilization:
A review. International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, 2(3), 711.
Vautrain, J. (1978). REINFORCED EARTH WALLS ON STONE COLUMNS IN SOIL. BULL LIAISON LAB
PONTS CHAUSS, (SPEC VI-E).
Shin, B. W., Lee, B. J., Yoon, J. S., & Bee, W. S. (2000, January). Stability of refuse landfill reinforced by
stone columns. In The Tenth International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference. International
Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers.
Poorooshasb, H. B., & Meyerhof, G. G. (1997). Analysis of behavior of stone columns and lime columns.
Computers and Geotechnics, 20(1), 47-70.
Athanasopoulos, George & Vlachakis, V. & Pelekis, Panagiotis. (2011). Installation and Performance of a
Steel Sheet Pile Wall for Supporting an Excavation in Urban Environment. Geotechnical Special
Publication. 3370-3380. 10.1061/41165(397)345.
Eskandari, Leila & Kalantari, Behzad. (2011). Basic Types of Sheet Pile Walls and Their Application in the
Construction Industry—a Review. 16.
Sobala, Dariusz & Rybak, Jaroslaw. (2017). Steel Sheet Piles – Applications and Elementary Design
Issues. IOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering. 245. 022072. 10.1088/1757-
899X/245/2/022072.

Abbey, S., Ngambi, S., & Ngekpe, B. (2015, March). UNDERSTANDING THE PERFORMANCE OF DEEP
MIXED COLUMN IMPROVED SOILS - A REVIEW. International Journal of Civil Engineering and

68
Technology, 6(3), 97-117. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299369070_UNDERSTANDING_THE_PERFORMANCE_OF_DE
EP_MIXED_COLUMN_IMPROVED_SOILS_-A_REVIEW

Hashim, R., & Islam, S. (2008). Properties of Stabilized Peat by Soil-Cement Column Method (Vol. 13).
Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8234/e8929acdcaefdc44d8b0e82c85cb9f138c2a.pdf

Pham, V., Huang, J., Turner, B., & Kelly, R. (2017, August). Long-term strength of soil-cement columns in
coastal areas. Soils and Foundation, 57(4), 645-654. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2017.04.005

Momenzadeh, S. (2017). Seismic Design of Concentrically Braced Frames With and Without Buckling-
controlled Braces. Iowa: Iowa State University.

Uriz, P., & Mahin, S. A. (2004). Seismic Performance Assessment of Concentrically Braced Steel Frames.

Mokhtari, M., & Kalantari, B. (2012). Soft soil stabilization using stone columns—A review. Electronic
Journal of Geotechnical engineering, 17, 1459-1456.

Karun, M., & Nigee, K. (2013). A study on ground improvement using stone column technique. International
journal of innovative research in science and technology, 2(11), 6451-6456.

Ruwhenua, K. (2017). What are stone columns? Wellington: Earthquake Commission, Kōmihana
Rūwhenua.

Stone Column. (n.d.). Retrieved November 10, 2019, from http://www.spargrp.com/stone-column/.

Stone Columns. (n.d.). Retrieved November 10, 2019, from https://www.menard-

group.com/en/techniques/stone-columns/.

69