Good day, panelists! I am Ivory Jane S. Agot, and together with my partner Gerald O.

Marquez, we
are here to present our thesis entitled “Geotechnical Investigation of Caraga State University-
Main Campus for Structural Development.”

INTRODUCTION (1st Slide)

Geotechnical Investigation explores and assesses the subsurface conditions

of the soil and its properties, which are crucial in designing a structure and its
development. As the world continues to evolve, Caraga State University Main
Campus is adapting to meet the changing needs of the students and the region.
With its growth as an academic institution, it is important to note the rise of new
facilities to provide. Caraga State University invests in building modern facilities and
infrastructure like H.E.R.O. Learning Commons (Library). It was featured on July 23,
2021, in the local media outlet “Philippine Information Agency” that it was recognized
as the largest state university library in Mindanao. As Caraga State University - Main
Campus is adapting to support its students and its region, it is vital to ensure that a
proposed structural development will provide safety, durability, and cost-
effectiveness of construction projects.

Caraga State University has conducted several geotechnical investigations for

its infrastructure projects; however, significant lapses have been identified in the
reports. For instance, the geotechnical investigation of the newly constructed
H.E.R.O. Library was conducted post-construction rather than prior to the
commencement of the project, which deviates from standard practices. Additionally,
the number of boreholes utilized was notably insufficient, with only one borehole
drilled instead of the minimum requirement of three boreholes per building as
stipulated in the National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) 2015.
Furthermore, other buildings, such as the CEIT, rely on geotechnical data derived
from boreholes used in previous soil explorations for unrelated structures. This
practice raises concerns regarding the reliability and accuracy of the geotechnical
investigation and its implications for the overall integrity and foundation stability of
the structures.

This study aims to give site-specific geotechnical data, provided a detailed

report before starting a project, including investigation of soil and geological
conditions of land and design criteria and recommendations to construction workers
on the site’s subsurface conditions for Caraga State University-Main Campus,
ensuring structure to be build safely and can be adequately supported.
2ND SLIDE

For the location of the study, we were able to identify our location with the
help of the Engineering and Architectural Office of Caraga State University, where
they The office plans to propose a building which is located at Caraga State
University - Main Campus KM7, Ampayon, Butuan City, the undeveloped land at the
front of the Food Innovation Center and behind the Food Technology Building.

3RD SLIDE

For our methodology, We conducted a preliminary site investigation, which

includes site and map reconnaissance, determination of general geology, and an
assessment of the seismic and meteorological conditions. For data collection, we
conducted soil exploration with the help of Terms Concrete and Materials Testing
Laboratory Inc. in performing wash borehole drilling with a depth of approximately 5
meters, with three boreholes scattered around the vicinity. For the laboratory testing,
we went to Terms Concrete and Materials Testing Laboratory in Bukidnon to perform
and using the ASTM Standards conducting the ASTM D2216 for Determination of
Moisture Content Test, ASTM D422 for Grain Size Analysis Test, ASTM D854 for
Specific Gravity Test, ASTM D4318 for Atterberg Limit Test, and ASTM D2487 for soil
classification. After all of that, we were able to create a Geotechnical Report which
includes the data of laboratory test results, geotechnical parameters, liquefaction
potential criteria, and the bearing capacity and foundation recommendation report.

4TH SLIDE

For the Results and Discussions

First we have the subsurface soil profile and spt results, using the ASTM D2487 this
presents the detailed results obtained from the Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
conducted during the subsurface soil investigation. The SPT data provides essential
geotechnical parameters used in evaluating the strength characteristics of the in-situ
soils. Based on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) Classification, it is
identified that from borehole 1 to 3 with twelve (12) samples, the soil is categorized
to be Clayey Slit.

5TH SLIDE

The groundwater table was also measured from the three boreholes with a length of
1.5 meters from the ground level, the soil is categorized to be Clayey Silt (MH).
Clayey Silt is described as brown (0-3 meters in depth) and grayish blue (3-5 meters),
clayey silt with medium plasticity was found in soft to medium stiff states at varying
layers.
6TH SLIDE

THROUGH THE TEST, SAME WITH BOREHOLE 3 IT WAS ALSO IDENTIFIED AS

CLAYEY SILT

7TH SLIDE

For the liquefaction potential criteria. The average clay fraction of the samples
was 64.93%, which is significantly higher than the commonly accepted threshold of
15% for liquefiable soils. This high clay content suggests a predominance of fine-
grained, cohesive particles that are typically resistant to the pore pressure which is
buildup necessary for liquefaction. Additionally, the Plasticity Index (PI) of the soil
averages 24, well above the 12% limit associated with higher liquefaction
susceptibility. This further confirms that the soil exhibits moderate to high plasticity.
The Liquid Limit (LL) of the soil samples is 54.28%, exceeding the threshold of 35%,
which reinforces the soil's cohesive nature and its resistance to liquefaction.
Although the corrected Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N-value is relatively low at 4
and subsurface conditions seen in the soil boring logs suggest that underlying layers,
which consist of soft stratum and is located in an area that is generally susceptible
to liquefaction, these factors alone does not dictate liquefaction potential. We based
our results on the studies from Seed et al., 1983 Soils with less than 15% of particles
finer than 0.005 mm or clay fraction may exhibit susceptibility to liquefaction. And
According to Bray & Sancio, 2006, PI less than 12 and a natural water content to
liquid limit ratio (wc/LL) greater than 0.85 tend to be prone to liquefaction.
Additionally, When interpreted in the context of the soil’s high plasticity and fine
content, the low N-value more likely indicates a soft but cohesive material rather
than a loose, liquefiable one. Therefore, a further and a more in-depth liquefaction
analysis is recommended to further ensure the safety of the structure.

8TH SLIDE

For bearing and foundation recommendation, the values are based on the
standard formula from Graja M. Das and from the guidance of the expert which is
the TERMS Laboratory and Testing Inc. It can be seen that at shallower depths (1–2
meters), Meyerhof’s lower results controlled the design values, while at deeper levels
(3–4 meters), uniform recommended values of 73–75 kPa were used across all
widths, reflecting possible concerns such as compressibility or long-term settlement
behavior. The conservative approach aligns with standard geotechnical engineering
practice to ensure the foundation’s reliability, stability, and performance under actual
site conditions.

9TH SLIDE

For mat foundation the depth are not limited only from the given table and it is
only a representation, and with the guidance from TERMS LAboratory testing it can
be seen that at 1-meter depth, yielding a gross allowable bearing capacity of 127 kPa
from Terzaghi’s method at 5 m width. Meyerhof’s values increased with width due to
the influence of shape, depth, and inclination factors, reaching as high as 572 kPa at
20 m width. However, the recommended values remained fixed at the lower Terzaghi
-derived capacities, reflecting a conservative approach. At 2 meters, similar trends
persisted, with consistent cohesion and increasing overburden pressure, Terzaghi’s
capacity slightly increased to 139 kPa at wider widths, while Meyerhof’s values again
escalated with foundation size. The recommended capacities followed Terzaghi’s
more stable outputs, particularly 133 kPa to 139 kPa, maintaining conservatism for
design reliability.

At 3 and 4 meters, significantly impacting Terzaghi’s outputs, which dropped

to a consistent 73–75 kPa regardless of width. Although Meyerhof’s value remained
higher, surpassing 600 kPa at 20 m width, the recommended capacities did not
follow these increases. Instead, values were capped at 73–75 kPa, suggesting an
intentional design limit possibly influenced by anticipated settlement concerns or
subsurface compressibility at these depths.

Despite Meyerhof’s method offering theoretically higher bearing capacities

due to various modifying factors, the recommended values consistently align with
Terzaghi’s more conservative estimates. This approach ensures uniformity and
reliability across the mat foundation design, especially in deeper zones where soil
strength variability and long-term settlement effects are more critical. The consistent
use of a square footing model and a safety factor of three reinforces the structural
integrity and serviceability of the foundation under expected loading conditions.

10TH SLIDE

● The soil is fine-grained and was classified based on USCS Classification as Silty Clay (MH).
● The Atterberg Limit Test, includes liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index indicates
moderate to high plasticity.
● The Specific Gravity Test, the average specific gravity of silty clay was found to have specific
gravity of 2.68.
● The natural moisture content is found to be 35.19% which is relatively high. And there was no
unconfined compression test performed because the samples did not pass the requirements
for the test specimen or no intact sample to fulfill the specified dimensioning.
● The high clay content suggests a predominance of fine-grained, cohesive particles that are
typically resistant to the pore pressure buildup necessary for liquefaction.
● The evaluations of allowable bearing pressures have been made against tolerable
settlements. The Terzaghi’s Bearing Capacity method was used for the evaluation of the
bearing capacity in shear, while the one-dimensional consolidation theory along with the
Meyerhof method was used for the settlement evaluation. Since the soil samples gathered
are limited because of the depth of each borehole, mat foundation and isolated foundation
would be the best type of foundation to design