GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

COMMUNICATION AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

INFASTRUCTURE PHILIPPINES

SITE ID: GT-PPPL011

LATITUDE: 9.7526
LONGITUDE: 118.7678
SITE ADDRESS: BRGY. SAN PEDRO, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN
COMPANY NAME: IENGINFRASTRUCTURE PHILS. INC / CREI PHILIPPINES

As prepared for:

MARCH 5, 2022
Prepared by:
Checked by:

MAYCA R. COMOSO ENGR. CESARIO A. BACOSA JR., PH.D.

Technical Staff Consultant (CIVIL Engineer- Geotechnical
bacsconstructionreports@gmail.com Engineer)
0917-305-7462
BACS Construction Services & Engineering
Consultancy
bacsconstructionprojects@gmail.com
09479908092 Smart 09064731918 Globe

PTR No: 1641079

Issued on January 06, 2022
Issue at Puerto Princesa City

PRC No. 0087885

Issued on: August 15, 2000
Valid Until: August 19, 2022
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
1.0 INTRODUCTION---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
2.0 PURPOSE OF STUDY---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
3.0 OBJECTIVES--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
4.0 PROJECT VICINITY------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6
5.0 SEISMIC HAZARD--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7
6.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY-------------------------------------------------------10
Borehole Location and Descriptions
Procedure for The Standard Penetration Test
Laboratory Testing Program
Grain Size Analysis (ASTM D422-63)
ASTM D-2487 Standard Classification of Soil for Engineering Purposes
ASTM D-422 Standard Test Method for particle Size Analysis Soil
ASTM D-4318 Standard Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity
Index of Soil
ASTM D-2216 Standard Method for Lab Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil
and Rock by Mass
Direct Shear Test
7.0 SUB-SURFACE CONDITION--------------------------------------------------------------------------------12
8.0 GROUND WATER LEVEL-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------12
9.0 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL------------------------------------------------------12
10.0 Soil Bearing Capacity for Isolated Footing Foundation in Untreated Soil -----------------------------16
Types of Foundation
Soil Bearing Capacity for Isolated Footing Foundation in Untreated Soil
11.0 MODULUS OF ELASTICITY, SETTLEMENT AND SUBGRADE MODULUS -----------------22
Modulus of Elasticity, Settlement and Subgrade Modulus
12.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ALLOWABLE SOIL BEARING CAPACITY-----------------------25
Foundation Soil Typing and Characteristics
Assessment of Subsoils
Over-compacted/Over-consolidated Zone
Types of Foundation
13.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS------------------------------------------------------------------------------26
14.0 SITE COEFFICIENTS AND SEISMIC FACTORS-------------------------------------------------------27
15.0 CONCLUSIONS------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------28
16.0 LIMITATIONS------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------29
17.0 ENGINEER’S CERTIFICATE---------------------------------------------------------------------------------30
Graphical log
Appendix A
Appendix B
References--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------44

Page 2 of 50
 ABSTRACT

The study of soil foundation has long been regarded as the most interesting and important
aspect of engineering geology and geotechnical engineering wherein designers and planners
from private and public sectors address before implementing the construction of vertical
structures. Failure to appreciate the problems to soil foundation may lead to property damage
and even loss of lives.

The foundation design’s primarily concern is to ensure that movement of foundation must be
kept within the limits of tolerance in accordance with the proposed structures without adversely
affecting its functional requirement.

The design of the foundation structure requires an understanding of the geology and
groundwater conditions, and more particularly, the analysis of the various stresses and types of
ground settlement that can occur in the area.

Page 3 of 50
1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report pertains to the result of the Geotechnical Investigation conducted at BRGY. SAN
PEDRO, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN for the proposed CREI PHILIPPINES
PROJECT on 5th of MARCH 2022 as per request of the proponent,
IENGINFRASTRUCTURE PHILS. INC / CREI PHILIPPINES. The site is situated within a
flat residential area with a topography that is relatively flat underlying by different types of soil
materials.

The soil foundation type in the proposed site and its corresponding structures can be categorized
into several types of soil, but generally, the dominant materials are SANDY CLAYS, SANDY
CLAY GRAVEL AND SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH CLAYSTONES.

This report deals with the results of the geotechnical investigation conducted for the proposed
construction of Tower with Site ID: GT-PPPL011 located in Brgy. San Pedro, Puerto Princesa
City, Palawan. The investigation was carried out by BACS Construction Services & Engineering
Consultancy following the request from the client prior to construct the said structure.

The purpose of the investigation is to verify the general subsurface condition by test boring with
SPT sampling and core drilling and to evaluate the results of investigation with respect to the
concept of foundation design for the proposed structure. The samples obtained were tested in the
laboratory for engineering classification and determination of basic engineering properties of soil.
The report discusses the methods of field and laboratory investigation, the geotechnical evaluation
of the project site, the estimate of the soil and rock bearing capacity analyses for the design of the
required foundation.

Page 4 of 50
2.0 PURPOSE OF STUDY

The purpose of the geotechnical investigation is to obtain information on the physical properties of
the soil or rock underlying the site and the soil bearing capacities at certain depths which shall be
used as reference for designing the foundations of the proposed structure.

The primary considerations for foundation supports are bearing capacity settlements and ground
movement beneath the foundations. Bearing capacity is the ability of the site soils to support the
loads imposed by the buildings or structures.

Settlement occurs under all foundations in all soil conditions, through lightly loaded structures or
rock sites may experience negligible settlements. For heavier structures or softer sites, both overall
settlements relative to unbuilt areas or neighboring building, and differential settlement under a single
structure, can be concerns.

Of particular concern is settlement which occurs over time, as immediate settlement can usually be
compensated for during construction. Ground movement beneath a structure’s foundations can occur
due to shrinkage or swell of expansive soils due to climatic changes, frost expansion of soil, melting
of permafrost, slope instability, or other causes. All these factors must be considered during of
foundations.

The behavior of every foundation depends primarily on the engineering characteristics of the
underlying deposits of soil and rock. It is important for the foundation engineer to distinguish among
the various deposits of different character to identify their physical constituents and to determine
their physical properties in the investigated site.

3.0 OBJECTIVES
The following objectives were established based on the general requirements of the projects.
1. To explore the sub- surface conditions of the area to provide general data related to the
project.
2. To give an outline of the surface and subsoil geology.
3. To analyze the data obtained give engineering consideration and recommendation on the
selection and design of foundation.
4. To prepare the detailed geotechnical and geological investigation of sites for the preparation
of foundation.
5. To be able to provide a detailed sub- soil technical report.

Page 5 of 50
4.0 PROJECT VICINITY

The project and borehole locations are shown in the following figures.

Figure1: Vicinity Map of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan

Figure 2: Borehole Location (BH-1)

Page 6 of 50
5.0 SEISMIC HAZARD
The Philippines archipelago is prone to earthquakes because of its geotectonic characteristics. It is
also transected by numerous faults, foremost of which is the Philippine Fault Zone that runs the
length from Luzon through Eastern Visayas to Eastern Mindanao and bounded by several trenches: in
the east by the East Luzon Trench, Philippines Trench and Davao Trench; and in the west the by the
Manila Trench, Negros Trench, Sulu Trench and Cotabato Trench. These tectonic features serve as
the major earthquake generators in the country which hosts at least five unfelt to felt earthquakes per
day.

The Philippine Island’s location along a major plate boundary almost guarantees that the level of
seismicity will be high and earthquakes large (moment magnitude M<6.5). In BRGY. SAN PEDRO,
PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN, the nearest major geologic structures that have
important bearing on the physical stability of the project is West Panay Fault. The said fault is about
380.1 kilometers from the project site.

Figure 3. Distribution of Active Faults and Trenches in Puerto Princesa City, Palawan according to
PHIVOLCS

Page 7 of 50
 Figure 4. Design pseudo- acceleration Response Spectrum

The seismic displacements are evaluated by multiplying the displacements resulting from the design
spectrum with the displacement behavior factor qd. The value of qdis equal to the behavior
factor q for periods T ≥ TC and larger than the behavior factor q for periods T < TC. Alternatively,
since the calculated seismic displacement does not need to be larger than the value derived from the
elastic response spectrum. The horizontal peak ground acceleration for earthquake ground motion
was illustrated on table 1.

Page 8 of 50
 DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM IN HORIZONTAL DIRECTION
Table 1
Period Design spectral Period Design spectral Period Design spectral Period Design spectral Period Design spectral Period Design spectral
pseudo- pseudo- pseudo- T (s) pseudo- T (s) pseudo- T (s) pseudo-
T (s) T (s) T (s)
acceleration acceleration acceleration acceleration acceleration acceleration
Sa (g) Sa (g) Sa (g) Sa (g) Sa (g) Sa (g)
0.00 0.180 0.18 0.225 0.36 0.156 0.54 0.104 0.72 0.078 0.90 0.062
0.01 0.189 0.19 0.225 0.37 0.152 0.55 0.102 0.73 0.077 0.91 0.062
0.02 0.198 0.20 0.225 0.38 0.148 0.56 0.100 0.74 0.076 0.92 0.061
0.03 0.207 0.21 0.225 0.39 0.144 0.57 0.099 0.75 0.075 0.93 0.060
0.04 0.216 0.22 0.225 0.40 0.141 0.58 0.097 0.76 0.074 0.94 0.060
0.05 0.225 0.23 0.225 0.41 0.137 0.59 0.095 0.77 0.073 0.95 0.059
0.06 0.225 0.24 0.225 0.42 0.134 0.60 0.094 0.78 0.072 0.96 0.059
0.07 0.225 0.25 0.225 0.43 0.131 0.61 0.092 0.79 0.071 0.97 0.058
0.08 0.225 0.26 0.216 0.44 0.128 0.62 0.091 0.80 0.070 0.98 0.057
0.09 0.225 0.27 0.208 0.45 0.125 0.63 0.089 0.81 0.069 0.99 0.057
0.10 0.225 0.28 0.201 0.46 0.122 0.64 0.088 0.82 0.069 1.00 0.056
0.11 0.225 0.29 0.194 0.47 0.120 0.65 0.087 0.83 0.068 1.01 0.056
0.12 0.225 0.30 0.187 0.48 0.117 0.66 0.085 0.84 0.067 1.02 0.055
0.13 0.225 0.31 0.181 0.49 0.115 0.67 0.084 0.85 0.066 1.03 0.055
0.14 0.225 0.32 0.176 0.50 0.112 0.68 0.083 0.86 0.065 1.04 0.054
0.15 0.225 0.33 0.170 0.51 0.110 0.69 0.082 0.87 0.065 1.05 0.054
0.16 0.225 0.34 0.165 0.52 0.108 0.70 0.080 0.88 0.064 1.06 0.053
0.17 0.225 0.35 0.161 0.53 0.106 0.71 0.079 0.89 0.063 1.07 0.053

Checked by:

ENGR. CESARIO A. BACOSA JR., PH.D.

Consultant (CIVIL Engineer- Geotechnical Engineer)

BACS Construction Services & Engineering Consultancy

bacsconstructionprojects@gmail.com
09479908092 Smart 09064731918 Globe

Page 9 of 50
6.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION
One (1) borehole was drilled at the site on 1st week of March 2022. The depth of borehole is 15
meters. The Borehole was advanced by the combination of wash boring with standard penetration
test (SPT) at the soil layers and coring method if there is a presence of rocks.
The borehole was advanced to its final depth by wash boring methods and standard penetration test
and coring method. The drilling works were carried out I accordance with ASTM standard procedure
and all samples were securely forwarded to laboratory for proper classification of its designated layer
and testing.

6.1 BOREHOLE LOCATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS

Table 2 below shows the borehole location and descriptions.

Table 2: Borehole Location and Description

Ground Water Borehole Location
Borehole Depth Level Date of Drilling
No. (m) from ground Latitude Longitude Activities
surface (m)
BH- 1 15 3.22m (±) 9.7526 118.7678 MARCH 5, 2022

6.2 PROCEDURE FOR THE STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)

The conduct of test and the requirement/tools used in accordance with the American Standard for
Testing Materials (ASTM-D-1586), and consist of a 5-centimeter diameter sampler (i.e., split spoon)
into the ground by means of freely dropping a “63.3-kg cylindrical hammer” from a height of 75-
centimeters and counting blows needed to penetrate a 15-centimeter section. Each test section of sub-
soil is equivalent to 45-centimeters.

The total number of blows for the last 30-centimeters is added up and repeated as “N” or penetration
is recorded after 60 blows. In the latter case, should refusal depth be less than one (1) meter, another
SPT (i.e., offset hole) is conducted three (3) meters away from the first hole. A maximum of three
“offset” SPT holes for each site will be conducted for confirmation purpose.

The penetration resistance (N) being directly related to the soil in site density and consistency is
utilized in the computation of the soil bearing capacity for foundation design purpose. Other
parameters such as cohesion, friction angle, and unit weight (wet and dry) are derived using
empirical relationships established by Terzhagi, Hansen, Vesics, Meyerhofs, Peck, Coduto,
AASHTO, et, al. Digital BH Loggers has been embedded in the penetration drilling rods and sensors
has been put in the pivotal points 300 mm depth to determine the soil vibrations, refractions and
motions during drilling wherein the sensors detected the soil properties profile up to desired depth
30m to 50m. the recorded data is empirically correlated on the soil properties such as N values, and
other properties.

Page 10 of 50
6.3 LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
Laboratory tests were performed on extracted borehole samples based on the Terms of Reference in
order to acquire necessary information with regards to the physical and mechanical properties of the
soil and rock layers and further on to evaluate and determine the parameters required for the
calculations.

The following laboratory tests and their brief description were carried out on all samples from the
site:
6.3.1 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422-63)

The size and quantity of individual particles found in particular soil is indicative of the performance
characteristics of the soil. The percentage by weight of the material passing through each succession
sieve is recorded.

6.3.2 ASTM D-2487 Standard Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes

(USCS)
This standard described a system for classifying mineral and organo-mineral soils for engineering
purposes based on laboratory determination of particle size characteristics, liquid limit and plasticity
index of soil.

6.3.3 ASTM D-422 Standard Test Method for Particle Size Analysis of Soils
This test method covers the quantitative determination of the distribution of particle sizes in soils by
sieving. The weight of soil retained on each sieve was obtained and recorded. For each sample
analyzed, a gradation curve was drawn based on percent finer by weight.

6.3.4 ASTM D-4318 Standard Test Method for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and
Plasticity Index of Soils
Liquid Limit is defined as “the moisture content at which soil changes from liquid state to plastic
state.” Plastic Limit is the water content at which the soil begins to crumble when rolled up into
threads with 3mm diameter. Plasticity Index (PI) is a measure of the plasticity of a soil. The
plasticity index is the size of the range of water contents where the soil exhibits plastic properties.
The PI is the difference between the liquid limit and the plastic limit (PI = LL-PL).

6.3.5 ASTM D-2216 Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of

Water (Moisture) Content of Soils and Rock by Mass
These test methods cover the laboratory determination of the water (moisture) content by mass of
soil, rock, and similar materials where the reduction in mass by drying is due to loss of water. It is
defined as the ratio expressed as a percentage of the weight of water in a given mass of soil to the
weight of the solid particles.

Page 11 of 50
6.3.6 Direct Shear Test
For unconfined compressive strength of intact rock, unconfined compression test is carried out in
accordance with ASTM D- 2938, if applicable.

7.0 SUB-SURFACE CONDITION

The project site is generally underlain by Well Graded SANDY CLAYS at the upper layer and
SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH CLAYSTONES at the lower layer of the borehole.

8.0 GROUND WATER CONDITIONS

At the time of drilling, there is a 3.22m water table encountered in a final depth of 15m from existing
ground surface. There is a possibility that water level will rise and fall, this can occur due to changes
made to the natural drainage patterns during development, heavy rainfall, and other reasons. Because
the introduction of water is usually the triggering mechanism for most common type of soil
problems, it is important to provide adequate surface drainage and drainage proposed improvement
such as foundation and slab areas and other improvements that could adversely affected by water.

9.0 EVALUATION OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AND ESTIMATION

OF EQINDUCED SETTLEMENT OF SOIL DEPOSITS UNDER LEVEL
GROUND CONDITIONS

Liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein a reduction of the shear strength of soil deposit may occur
due to pore pressure build up in the soil skeleton. The shear strength of cohesionless soil depends
mainly on the angle of internal friction and the effective stress acting on the soil skeleton.
When saturated loose sands are subjected to earthquake loading, primarily induced by upward
propagation of shear waves from bedrock, they tend to settle and densify. However, the duration of
the cyclic stress application is so short compared to the time required for water to drain, that the soil
volume contraction cannot occur immediately, and excess pore pressure will progressively build up.
A temporary complete loss of the stiffness and shear strength of soil may occur when the pore
pressure build up will equal to the total stress reducing the effective stress to zero. Such state is
referred to as “initial liquefaction”. At this state, loose sand will experience unlimited deformation
resulting to structures supported above or within the liquefied zone undergo significant settlement
and tilting. Manifestations like water flowing upward to the surface creating sand boils and buried
pipelines and tanks may become buoyant and float to the surface.
Based on empirical correlations between Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Resistance and observed
performance, the following evaluation of liquefaction potential limited for one (1) borehole, the
susceptibility for liquefaction will not occur from the ground surface up to the 15.0-meter depth of
the borehole.

Page 12 of 50
Soil liquefaction describes a phenomenon where a saturated or partially saturated soil substantially
loses strength and stiffness in response to an applied stress, usually earthquakes shaking or other
sudden change in stress condition, causing it to behave like a liquid. The phenomenon is most often
observed in saturated, loose (low density or uncompacted), sandy soils.
This is because loose sand has a tendency to compress when a load is applied; dense sands by
contrast tend to expand in volume or dilate. If the soil is saturated by water, a condition that often
exists when the soil is below the ground water table or sea level, then water fills the gaps between
soil grains (‘pore spaces’). In response to the soil compressing, this water increases in pressure and
attempts to flow out from the soil to zones of low pressure (usually upward towards the ground
surface).

However, if the loading is rapidly applied and large enough, or is repeated many times (e.g.
earthquake shaking, storm wave loading) such that it does not flow out in time before the next cycle
of load is applied, the water pressures may have built to an extent where they exceed the contract
stresses between the grains of soil that keep them in contact with each other. These contacts between
grains are the means by which the weight from buildings and overlying soil layers are transferred
from the ground surface to layers of soil or rock at greater depths. This loss of soil structure causes it
to lose all of its strength (the ability to transfer shear stress) and it may be observed to flow like a
liquid (hence ‘liquefaction’).

On the samples taken during the conduct of the standard penetration tests reveals the site’s existence
of very stiff to hard deposits down to the depth of 2.0 meters before refusal for Borehole 1. With this
observation of the overburden soil, it is most likely that liquefaction of the soil may not take place
due to earthquakes. Liquefaction usually occurs to soft and loosed soils that are subjected to high
shear strains and loses its shear strength due to seismic shaking and the built-up of pore pressures
that reduce the effective stress in soil. The three factors that control the development of liquefaction
are the characters of ground motions (acceleration and frequency content), soil types and in-situ
stress condition. The materials within the firm and compacted zones however are less likely to
liquefy. Based on the SPT, the high stress of the site materials taken makes liquefaction less likely to
happen.
If FL is less than 1.0, then the soil is susceptible to liquefaction. However, the effect of
liquefaction will be evaluated if the soil is satisfied the following:

Soil layer with fines content not more than 35%. Silty soil layer with low plasticity, with not
more than 10% or Plasticity Index (PI) not more than 15%, even it has fines content not less
than 35%. Sands and silts that has N- blows value lower than 30 blows.

Liquefaction Assessment details (See table 4)

Page 13 of 50
 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS OF SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS
COMPANY NAME: IENGINFRASTRUCTURE PHILS. INC / CREI PHILIPPINES
SITE ID: GT-PPPL011
LATITUDE: 9.7526
LONGITUDE: 118.7678
SITE ADDRESS: SAN PEDRO, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN
DATE SOIL DRILLING PERFORMED: MARCH 5, 2022
DEPTH OF WATER TABLE: 3.22m (±)
Table 3

Soil Subsurface Settlement Analysis : Schmertmann Methods

Top Bottom Es zf I epsilon strain delta K
N' (m) (m) (kPa) (m) (%) (mm) (kPa)
0 0.0 1.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
21 1.0 2.0 18658.20 1.00 0.80 1.51 3.01 4.83
23 2.0 2.5 19737.60 1.75 0.60 1.07 2.14 5.49
27 2.5 3.0 21588.00 2.25 0.46 0.76 1.52 6.57
36 3.0 3.5 26316.80 2.75 0.33 0.45 0.89 27.43
38 3.5 4.0 27293.40 3.25 0.20 0.26 0.52 28.92
39 4.0 4.5 27756.00 3.75 0.07 0.08 0.17 68.55
39 4.5 5.0 27499.00 4.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 67.50
47 5.0 5.5 32073.60 4.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 86.05
53 5.5 6.0 34746.40 5.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 96.72
56 6.0 6.5 36494.00 5.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 103.63
54
61 6.5
7.0 7.0
7.5 35568.80
39166.80 6.25
6.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 99.98
#VALUE!
Total Settlement: 8.246

Checked by:

ENGR. CESARIO A. BACOSA JR., PH.D.

Consultant (CIVIL Engineer- Geotechnical Engineer)

BACS Construction Services & Engineering Consultancy

bacsconstructionprojects@gmail.com
09479908092 Smart 09064731918 Globe

Page 14 of 50
 LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT

COMPANY NAME: IENGINFRASTRUCTURE PHILS. INC / CREI PHILIPPINES

SITE ID: GT-PPPL011
LATITUDE: 9.7526
LONGITUDE: 118.7678
SITE ADDRESS: SAN PEDRO, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN
DATE SOIL DRILLING PERFORMED: MARCH 5, 2022
DEPTH OF WATER TABLE: 3.22m (±)
Table 4

PLASTICITY
FINES CONTENT N- BLOWS
INDEX
Depth BH 1 BH 1 BH 1
SPT No: FL REMARKS
(m)
(<35) (<15) (N<30)
#200 Remarks PI Remarks N blows Remarks
SPT-01 1 4.45 36.93 N/A 16.42 N/A 28 A Not Susceptible
SPT-02 1.5 4.27 33.78 A 15.89 N/A 32 N/A Not Susceptible
SPT-03 2 4.94 35.03 N/A 14.99 A 39 N/A Not Susceptible
SPT-04 2.5 4.02 12.49 A 12.69 A 57 N/A Not Susceptible
SPT-05 3 3.52 24.22 A 12.21 A 61 N/A Not Susceptible
SPT-06 3.5 3.60 17.96 A 11.99 A 63 N/A Not Susceptible
SPT-07 4 3.61 20.65 A 12.11 A 62 N/A Not Susceptible
SPT-08 4.5 3.28 25.56 A 9.88 A 80 N/A Not Susceptible
SPT-09 6 2.83 13.55 A 8.58 A 90 N/A Not Susceptible
SPT-10 8 3.09 24.27 A 7.73 A 97 N/A Not Susceptible
SPT-11 10 2.54 9.64 A 8.18 A 93 N/A Not Susceptible
SPT-12 12 HARD STRATA - CLAYSTONES
SPT-13 14 HARD STRATA - CLAYSTONES
SPT-14 16 HARD STRATA - CLAYSTONES

Legend:
S - Susceptible
NS -Not Susceptible to Liquefaction
A - Applicable
N/A - Not Applicable

Checked by:

ENGR. CESARIO A. BACOSA JR., PH.D.

Consultant (CIVIL Engineer- Geotechnical Engineer)

BACS Construction Services & Engineering Consultancy

bacsconstructionprojects@gmail.com
09479908092 Smart 09064731918 Globe

Page 15 of 50
10.0 Soil Bearing Capacity for Isolated Footing Foundation in Untreated Soil
The allowable or safe bearing resistance is based on shear failure control taking into
consideration the ground water level along the area. The general equation is usually based on
Terzaghi’s bearing capacity theory. Correlation of values normally based on SPT resistance
conducted were estimated based on different authors for determining effect of pore pressure,
overburden pressure and shear strength resistance of the underlying soil materials.
10.1 Equation for correcting the no. of SPT “N” values.
10.1.1 Correction is carried out when water table/ground water was encountered during drilling
and potentially submerged condition is likely to occur.
N’ = N, for N<15 blows (1)
(𝑵−𝟏𝟓)
N’ = 15 + for N>15 blows (2)
𝟐
Where, N’= adjusted/corrected No. of SPT blows
N = actual No. of SPT blows per 30cm of penetration.

10.1.2. For computation of Soil Bearing Capacity

{𝐜 𝑵𝒄 𝑭𝒄+ 𝜸𝑫 (𝑵𝒈𝑭𝒈−𝟏)+𝟎.𝟓𝜸𝑩 𝑵𝜸 𝑭𝜸}
Qa = + 𝜸𝑫
𝐅𝐬

Qu = c Nc Fc + γD Nq Fq + 0.5γBNγ Fγ

10.2 Terzaghi SOIL BEARING CAPACITY

The standard penetration test was carried out to reach the maximum depth required. Using the
Terzaghi’s Soil Bearing Formula, supplemented by parameters and assumptions corresponding
to the result of the Standard Penetration Resistance Values, allowable bearing capacities at
different depths were determined for the proposed building. The loading capacity assumes a
factor of safety equivalent to a Local Shear Failure Condition for conservative purposes.
10.2.1 Terzaghi’s Soil Bearing Formula is presented as equation:

Qu = c Nc + g D Nq + 0.5 g B Ng , (kN/m2) Strip Footing

Qu = 1.3 c Nc + g D Nq + 0.4 g B Ng , (kN/m2) Square Footing
Qu = 1.3 c Nc + g D Nq + 0.3 g B Ng , (kN/m2) Circular Footing
Qa = Qu (6)
F.S.
Where:
Qu = is the ultimate soil bearing capacity
Qa = Allowable bearing capacity (kN/m2)
q; y = is the surcharge = yD; yB (kPa)
y = is the soil unit weight in kN/mᵌ
D = is the depth of footing in meters
B = is the base length in meters
C = Cohesion of soil (kN/m2)
F.S. = Factor of Safety

Page 16 of 50
10.2.2 A factor of safety Fs is used to calculate the allowable bearing capacity qa from the
ultimate bearing pressure qf. The value of Fs is usually taken to be 2.5 - 3.0.

(7)
The factor of safety should be applied only to the increase in stress, i.e., the net bearing pressure
qn. Calculating qa from qf only satisfies the criterion of safety against shear failure. However, a
value for Fs of 2.5 - 3.0 is sufficiently high to empirically limit settlement. It is for this reason
that the factors of safety used in foundation design are higher than in other areas of geotechnical
design. (For slopes, the factor of safety would typically be 1.3 - 1.4). Experience has shown that
the settlement of a typical foundation on soft clay is likely to be acceptable if a factor of 2.5 is
used. Settlements on stiff clay may be quite large even though ultimate bearing capacity is
relatively high, and so it may be appropriate to use a factor nearer 3.0.

10.2.3 Bearing capacity factors:

Nc, Nq, Ny is bearing capacity dimensionless factors based on friction angle.
The bearing capacity factors relate to the drained angle of friction ('). The c.Nc term is the
contribution from soil shear strength, the qo.Nq term is the contribution from the surcharge
pressure above the founding level, the ½.B..Ng term is the contribution from the self-weight of
the soil. Terzaghi's analysis was based on an active wedge with angles ' rather than (45+'/2),
and his bearing capacity factors are in error, particularly for low values of '.
Commonly used values for Nq and Nc are derived from the Prandtl-Reisner expression giving

(8 and 9)
Exact values for Ng are not directly obtainable; values have been proposed by Brinch Hansen
(1968), and also by Meyerhof (1963), which have been adopted in

10.2.4 Brinch Hansen:

N = 1.8 (Nq - 1) tan' (10)

10.2.5 Meyerhof:
N = (Nq - 1) tan (1.4 ') (11)
e = Napier's constant = 2.718...,
ϕ’ or ϕ’ = angle of internal friction (degrees).
Notes:
Effective unit weight, g, is the unit weight of the soil for soils above the water table and capillary
rise. For saturated soils, the effective unit weight is the unit weight of water, gw,
9.81kN/m3 (62.4lb/ft3), subtracted from the saturated unit weight of soil.
Cohesive soils are clay type soils. Cohesion is the force that holds together molecules or like
particles within a soil. Cohesion, c, is usually determined in the laboratory from the Direct Shear
Test.

Page 17 of 50
 τ = c + σ tan f (12)
where:
c= cohesion, kPa
τ = Shear Stress, kPa
σ = Normal stress,kPa
f = Angle of Internal Friction
Angle of internal friction ϕ, for a given soil is the angle on the graph (Mohr's Circle) of the shear
stress and normal effective stresses at which shear failure occurs. Angle of Internal Friction, f,
can be determined in the laboratory by the Direct Shear Test or the Triaxial Stress Test.

Where in
tan  = (τ / σ), degrees (13)

Shape factor Fc, Fq and Fy formulas: (14)

SHAPE OF FOOTING Fc Fq Fv
Strip 1.0 1.0 1.0
Square 1 + (Nq/Nc) 1 + tan  0.8
Circular 1 + (Nq/Nc 1 + tan  0.6
Rectangular 1 + (B/L) (Nq/Nc) 1 + tan  1 -.040 (B/L)

1AASHTO states that minimum factor of safety (FS) of 3.0 against a bearing capacity failure
should be used.
10.3 AASHTO soil bearing capacity:
AASHTO equation
Qult= cNc ζc bc ic + 0.5γ B Nγ ζγ bγ iγ + qNq ζq bq iq
Will have: i) for  = 0, Nc= 5.14, Nq=1.0 and Nγ= 0.0
1.0
ii) Sc = 1 + (5.14)= 1.195, ζq =1, ζγ=1-0.4=0.6
iii) ic = iq= iγ = 1 for vertical load
and iv) bc = bq = bγ= 1 for horizontal base

In ASSHTO, section 4, Foundations, it states that foundations shall be designed to provide

adequate structural capacity, and adequate foundation bearing capacity with acceptable
settlements.
Qult = cNc + 0.5γ BNγ + qNq (AASHTO 4.4.7.1-1)
The allowable bearing capacity shall be determined as:

Qall = Qult / FS (AASHTO 4.4.7.1-2)

The modified form of the general bearing capacity equation that accounts for the effects of
footing shape, base inclination, and inclined loads is as follows:
Qult= cNc ζc bc ic + 0.5γ B Nγ ζγ bγ iγ + qNq ζq bq iq (AASHTO4.4.7.1.1-1)

Page 18 of 50
Where Nc, Nγ,and Nq are bearing capacity factors that are functions of the friction angle of the
soil  
qbu₁ (AASHTO) = γH’tanØ Nq + 0.3 Nγ B
qbu₂ (AASHTO) = 6.4c +  D’

10.4 ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY BASED GENERAL SHEAR

FAILURE
qbu = c•Nc•ζc +0.5•B•γΗ
’•Νγ•ζγ + σD
’•Nq•ζq
Where: qbu = ultimate bearing capacity
c = cohesion of soil or undrained shear strength Cu
B = dimension of footing
γΗ’ = effective unit weight beneath foundation base
γD’ = effective unit weight of surcharge soil with depth, D
σD’ = effective soil or surcharge pressure at foundation depth
Nc, Nγ, Nq = dimensionless bearing capacity factors
ζc, ζγ, ζq = dimensionless correction factors

REFERENCE EQUATION
Terzaghi (1943) Qult = cNc ζc + γ DNq + 0.5γ BNγ ζγ
Meyerhof (1963) Qult= cNc ζc dc ic + DNq ζq dq iq + 0.5γ BNγ ζγ dγ iγ
Hansen (1970) Qult= cNc ζc dc ic gc bc + DNq ζq dq iq gq bq + 0.5γ BNγ ζγ dγ iγ gγ bγ
Vesic (1975) Same as Hansen’s equation

Note: Qult: ultimate unit resistance or bearing capacity of footing; c: cohesion parameter; γ:
average effective unit weight of the soil below and the around the foundation; B: foundation
width; D: embedment depth foundation; Nc, Nq and Nγ: non- dimensional bearing capacity
factors as exponential functions of  ;  soil internal friction angle; ζc, ζγ and ζq: non-
dimensional shape factors; ic, iq and iγ: non- dimensional inclination factors; dc, dq and dγ; non-
dimensional depth factors; gc, gq and gγ: non- dimensional ground factors (base on slope); bc, bq
and bγ: base factors (tilted base)
10.5 OTHER SOIL BEARING- CAPACITY EQUATIONS USED.
10.5.1 HANSEN’S BEARING CAPACITY EQUATION (General Equation)

Qult= 0.5γ B’ Nγ ζγ dγ iγ gγ bγ + q Nq ζq dq iq gq bq + C Nc ζc dc ic gc bc

10.5.2 VESIC’ (1973, 1975) FORMULAS

Qult= c’ Nc sc dc ic bc cc + ’zD Nq sq dq iq bq gq + 0.5γ’B Nγ sγ dγ iγ bγ gγ

Page 19 of 50
10.5.3 MEYERHOF (1963) suggested the general form of general capacity equation:

Qu= c’ Nc Fcs Fcs Fcd Fci + q Nq Fqs Fqd Fqi + ½ γ B Nγ Fγs Fγd Fγi

In this equation;
c’ = cohesion
q = effective stress at the level of the bottom of the foundation
γ = unit weight of soil
B = width of foundation (= diameter for a circular foundation)
Fcs’ Fqs’ Fyd = shape factors
Fcd’ Fqd’ Fyd = depth factors
Fci’ Fqi’ Fyi = load inclination factors
Nc’ Nq’ Ny = bearing capacity factors
Nγ= (Nq-1) tan (1.4Ø) (Meyerhof)
Nγ= 1.5(Nq-1) tanØ (Hansen)
Nγ= 2(Nq+1) tanØ (Vesic)

FACTORS MEYERHOF HANSEN VESIC

sc 1 + 0.2 N Ø 1+

sq 1 + 0.1 N Ø for Ø > 10° 1+ tan Ø

sy = sq for Ø > 10° The shape and depth factors of

sy 1 - 0.4
sy = sq = 1 for Ø = 10° Vesic are the same as those of Hansen.

dc 1+0.2 √N Ø 1+0.4
𝑩 𝑩

dq 1+0.1 √N Ø for Ø > 10° 1+ 2 tanØ (1-sinØ)

2
𝑩 𝑩

dy = dq for Ø > 10°

dy
dy = dq = 1 for Ø=0 1 for all Ø
Note; Vesic's s and d factors =
Hansen's s and d factors
2 1−
ic 1- ᾳ /90 for any Ø iq - for Ø > 0 Same as Hansen for Ø > 0
−1

1/2 m
0.5 1-(Q h ) / Af Cᾳ for Ø= 0 [1- (mQ h / Af ca Nc)]

iq iq = ic for any Ø [1- (0.5Qh / Qu + Af ca cot Ø )]5 [1- (Q h / Qu + Af ca cot Ø )]m

1- (ᾳ2 / Ø ) for Ø > 0

iy [1- 0.7 ( Q h / Qu + Af ca cot Ø )]5 [1- Qh / Qu + Af ca cot Ø]m+1
iy = 0 for Ø= 0

Page 20 of 50
11.0 MODULUS OF ELASTICITY, SETTLEMENT AND SUBGRADE
MODULUS
Elastic modulus can be estimated using SPT 'N' value or based static cone penetration resistance
(qc)
Sand (Normally consolidated) E = 500(N+15) (15)
or E = 2 to 4qc
sand(saturated) E = 250(N+15), (16)
sand (over consolidated), E = 6 to 30qc (17)
gravelly sand E = 1200(N+6) (18)
clayey sand E=320(N+15) (19)
silty sand E=300(N+6) (20)

However, the Digital SBT borehole logger apparatus used has its results per soil layer based on
the formulas indicated above and the results shows that the Soil modulus of elasticity (Es)
ranging from 18658kPa to 36494kPa.

For the design purposes, the following table (Table 5) provides the allowable bearing capacity
that has can be used for the design. The bearing capacities were calculated based on the tolerable
settlement. The settlements (S) were calculated based on Schmertmann Method; the results
show the settlements (delta) was 8mm wherein at depth of 4m there is no settlement. The
pressure due to the weight of excavated materials should be added to the above values. A
computed value ranging 19.06kN/m3 to 21.16kN/m3 can be used in determining the unit weight
of soil above the ground water table and 9.19kN/m3 to 9.36kN/m3 below.

For the design purposes, the allowable net bearing Settlement capacities were shown on (Table
3) that can be used for the design. The allowable net bearing capacities (Qanet) were calculated
considering the computed (Schmertmann Method) maximum settlement of 8mm which ranges
from 73kPa to 895kPa.

Page 21 of 50
 SOIL BEARING CAPACITY CALCULATIONS

COMPANY NAME: IENGINFRASTRUCTURE PHILS. INC / CREI PHILIPPINES

SITE ID: GT-PPPL011
LATITUDE: 9.7526
LONGITUDE: 118.7678
SITE ADDRESS: SAN PEDRO, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN
DATE SOIL DRILLING PERFORMED: MARCH 5, 2022
DEPTH OF WATER TABLE: 3.22m (±)
Table 5

SPT NO: Depth(m) N-Values N' Cohesion Unit Weight Internal Friction Nc Nq Nỿ Fc Fq Fỿ Qa (Fs=3.0) Qa net (Fs=3.0) Qu (Fs=3.0)
2
(kg/m ) (kPa) (kg/m3) (kN/m3) (Degrees) (Psf) (kPa) (Psf) (kPa) (Psf) (kPa)
SPT-01 1 28 21 4907.1 48.1 1943.2 19.06 33.6 47.7 34.8 43.2 1.7 1.7 0.8 1924.6 92 1526 73 5774 276
SPT-02 1.5 32 23 5661.6 55.5 1969.9 19.33 35.0 54.9 42.2 55.6 1.8 1.7 0.8 2217.5 106 1611 77 6653 318
SPT-03 2 39 27 6935.6 68.0 2015.8 19.78 37.2 69.3 57.5 83.0 1.8 1.8 0.8 2719.6 130 1892 90 8159 390
SPT-04 2.5 57 36 10188.3 99.9 2133.0 20.93 42.1 123.3 121.4 211.8 2.0 2.0 0.8 12008.1 574 10914 522 36024 1722
SPT-05 3 61 38 10865.4 106.6 2157.2 21.16 43.0 138.9 141.3 255.1 2.0 2.0 0.8 12803.0 612 11475 549 38409 1836
SPT-06 3.5 63 39 11205.8 109.9 936.8 9.19 43.5 147.5 152.5 280.0 2.0 2.0 0.8 13179.6 630 12507 598 39539 1890
SPT-07 4 62 39 11015.0 108.1 936.3 9.19 43.2 142.6 146.1 265.8 2.0 2.0 0.8 12970.4 620 12202 583 38911 1860
SPT-08 4.5 80 47 14183.8 139.1 945.4 9.27 47.1 251.6 296.7 625.7 2.2 2.2 0.8 16694.2 798 15821 756 50082 2394
SPT-09 6 90 53 16023.0 157.2 950.7 9.33 49.2 353.9 450.4 1027.5 2.3 2.3 0.8 18869.8 902 17699 846 56610 2706
SPT-10 8 97 56 17224.8 169.0 954.1 9.36 50.5 445.1 594.7 1425.3 2.3 2.3 0.8 20292.4 970 18726 895 60877 2910
SPT-11 10 93 54 16585.6 162.7 952.3 9.34 49.8 393.7 512.7 1197.1 2.3 2.3 0.8 19539.3 934 17585 841 58618 2802
SPT-12 12 HARD STRATA - CLAYSTONES
SPT-13 14 HARD STRATA - CLAYSTONES
SPT-14 16 HARD STRATA - CLAYSTONES

Page 22 of 50
 Table 5 continuation
Permeability, K Es Settlement ( S) Liquefaction skin friction,fs Pile driven Bearing Capacity, FbModulus of Subgrade, Ks Geological Classifications
(mm/sec) (kPa) (mm) Remarks (kPa) (kPa) (kPa) Description USCS Relative Soil Condition
5.61 18658 3.01 Not Susceptible 39.05 816.50 4.83 SANDY CLAYS CL-SW very stiff to hard
4.45 19738 2.14 Not Susceptible 42.90 897.00 5.49 SANDY CLAY GRAVEL GC-CL very stiff to hard
3.52 21588 1.52 Not Susceptible 49.50 1035.00 6.57 SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH CLAYSTONES GC-SW very stiff to hard
2.79 26317 0.89 Not Susceptible 65.00 1387.67 27.43 SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH CLAYSTONES GC-SW very stiff to hard
2.21 27293 0.52 Not Susceptible 65.00 1460.50 28.92 SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH CLAYSTONES GC-SW very stiff to hard
1.75 27756 0.17 Not Susceptible 65.00 1495.00 68.55 SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH CLAYSTONES GC-SW very stiff to hard
1.38 27499 0.00 Not Susceptible 65.00 1475.83 67.50 SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH CLAYSTONES GC-SW very stiff to hard
1.10 32074 0.00 Not Susceptible 65.00 1817.00 86.05 SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH CLAYSTONES GC-SW very stiff to hard
0.54 34746 0.00 Not Susceptible 65.00 2016.33 96.72 SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH CLAYSTONES GC-SW very stiff to hard
0.21 36494 0.00 Not Susceptible 65.00 2146.67 103.63 SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH CLAYSTONES GC-SW very stiff to hard
0.08 35569 0.00 Not Susceptible 65.00 2077.67 99.98 SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH CLAYSTONES GC-SW very stiff to hard
HARD STRATA - CLAYSTONES
HARD STRATA - CLAYSTONES
HARD STRATA - CLAYSTONES

Checked by:

ENGR. CESARIO A. BACOSA JR., PH.D.

Consultant (CIVIL Engineer- Geotechnical Engineer)

BACS Construction Services & Engineering Consultancy

bacsconstructionprojects@gmail.com
09479908092 Smart 09064731918 Globe

PTR No: 1641079

Issued on January 06, 2022
Issue at Puerto Princesa City

PRC No. 0087885

Issued on: August 15, 2000
ValidUntil:August19,2022

Page 23 of 50
The lowest computed allowable bearing capacity (Qa) was encountered at 1.0 meter-depth with
an equivalent value of 92kPa while the maximum allowable bearing capacity was encountered
at 8.0 meters depth with an equivalent value of 970kPa. The ultimate bearing capacities (Qu)
before also range from 276kPa to 2910kPa (refer to Table 5).

The materials taken as samples during the penetration test consist SANDY CLAYS, SANDY
CLAY GRAVEL AND SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH CLAYSTONES.

12.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ALLOWABLE SOIL BEARING

CAPACITY

Based on the results of field investigation, a recommended type of shallow foundation should be
Mat Foundation, to support the structure and transferring its weight to the ground, is essentially a
continuous slab resting on the soil that extends over the entire footprint of the structure.

The undersigned suggested a Soil Bearing Capacity (Qanet) of 90kPa to 598kPa at a

minimum depth of 2.00 – 3.50 meters below the existing natural ground surface.

Adequate compaction under the footings should be established prior to foundation construction.
Lean concrete with a minimum of 50mm thick concrete or structural earth fill with a minimum
of 150mm thick shall be required prior to place the footing re-bars and pouring of concrete. This
contains of free draining granular materials (well graded sandy gravel or gravelly sand). It shall
be compacted with a minimum of 95% M.D.D. based on ASTM D-698

12.1 FOUNDATION SOIL TYPING AND CHARACTERISTICS

❖ SANDY CLAYS
❖ SANDY CLAY GRAVEL
❖ SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH CLAYSTONES

12.2 ASSESSMENT OF SUBSOILS

Based on the boring results, the subsoil at the building site can be idealized to consist of one (1)
type of horizon, the over-consolidated zone:

12.2.1 Over-compacted/Over-consolidated Zone – this zone is composed of over-

consolidated silt and clayey silt with N-values over 15.
12.2.2 TYPES OF FOUNDATION
For the general subsurface condition prevailing at the project site, it is recommended that the
footing foundations of proposed structure be excavated at the depth of ATLEAST 2.50 meters
with calculated allowable soil bearing capacities (Qa) 574kPa (pls. refer to Table 5) as basis
for design computation for the footing foundations where it can safely and possible sustain the
loads of the proposed structure.

Normal or manual excavation can still be undertaken at the option of the owner considering the
type of structure to be renovated/erected although the characteristics of the soil down to the
recommended depth of footing foundation are soft to hard deposits. Machine excavation works
may also be done at the option of the owner to expedite the work.

Shoring and dewatering considerations should also be applied during excavation works until
completion of formworks and concreting of footings, if necessary.

13.0 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

The nearest seismic source for this site is the West Panay Fault according to PHIVOLCS as
shown in Figure 5. The Table shown below is recommended for seismic analysis for the
proposed tower structure.

West Panay
Seismic Source
Fault
Source Distance 380.1km
Seismic Zone Factor 0.2
Type of Fault M<6.5
Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.28Na
Seismic Coefficient, Cv 0.40Nv
Near Source Factor, Na 1.0
Near Source Factor, Nv 1.0
Peak Ground
0.12g
Acceleration
Table 6: Factors for Seismic Design Figure 5: Fault distance to the project site

Page 25 of 50
14.0 SITE COEFFICIENTS AND SEISMIC FACTORS
The site coefficient S and seismic zone factor Z required to determine the design base shear V
for structural design is defined in terms of the soil profile as specified in the National Building
Code of the Philippines. Based on the soil profiles (graphical log) as determined from borings,
the Structural Engineer for this project could classify the site corresponding S factor for given
type of soil by referring to the Building Code. The seismic map of the Philippines divides the
country into two zones, namely Zone 2 and Zone 4. For the site under study, the zone factor Z is
also found in the said Building Code. (Pls refer to Philippine seismic map.). Puerto Princesa
City, Palawan belongs to zone 2.

Page 26 of 50
15.0 CONCLUSIONS
This report has been prepared based on generally accepted Engineering Principles and Practices,
and on the results of the borings undertaken at the site for the Proposed Cell site Tower with Site
ID: GT-PPPL011 located in BRGY. SAN PEDRO, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY,
PALAWAN. Its scope is limited to this project and the specific site describes herein and
represents the understanding of the significant aspects relevant to the soil and foundation
considerations as occurred on this study.

The geotechnical information obtained from the project site does not indicate a variation in
stratigraphy. It is expected that given the date as discussed above, the proposed structure can be
properly designed. This geotechnical evaluation was prepared by the undersigned as a guide in
the design of the foundation of the proposed structure. Its scope is limited to the project and at
the site herein described. Should there be a change in the location of the structure relative to the
drilled hole, and/or any marked differences in the characteristics of the soil as reported herein
compared to the found in the excavation for foundation, the undersigned should be informed so
that conclusions and recommendations stated herein are modified accordingly.

In the event that conclusions or recommendations based on the data contained in this report are
made by others, such as conclusions or recommendations are not the responsibility of BACS
Construction Services & Engineering Consultancy.

This analysis has been prepared as guide in the design of the foundation for the aforementioned
structure with specified location. If there are differences in location and/or designs features as
they are understood and as are defined by the test borings, the undersigned must inform thru this
office or e-mail address at bacsconstructionreports@gmail.com so that modification or revision
of the conclusions and recommendations can be made.

In preparing this report, the professional services performed, findings obtained, and
recommendations prepared are in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and
practices.

16.0 LIMITATIONS
The foregoing discussions are limited to the general evaluation of the surface and subsurface
conditions based on the results of the field activities for this project and its location described
herein. It includes our understanding of the engineering geological, geotechnical and geo-hazard
conditions of the project area at the time the investigation was carried out along with our
interpretation of the geotechnical properties of the foundation material based on the results of the
investigation. The design of foundation is beyond the purview of this report.

It will be important for the Project Geotechnical Engineer or Engineering Geologist to observe
the subsurface conditions at the site during construction to verify if it is consistent with what has
been presented and assumed in this report. Should there be any significant deviations in the soil
characterization as observed.

Page 27 of 50
The consultant should be notified immediately so that modification or refinement of the
recommendations shall be made.

1. Formulas used for this soil investigations is the discretions of the Geotechnical
Engineer.

2. The Geotechnical Engineer can only give the Soil Bearing Capacity Calculation (Qa,
Qanet and Qu) and other field investigation,

3. The structural Engineer should design the footing and foundation of the structures.

Prepared by:

Checked by:

MAYCA R. COMOSO KEVIN O. BOCALA

Technical Staff Technical Project Head
bacsconstructionreports@gmail.com kevin.bcsec.gmail.com
PMD-Technical Division 0917-305-7362

Approved by:

ENGR. CESARIO A. BACOSA JR., PH.D.

Consultant (CIVIL Engineer- Geotechnical
Engineer)

BACS Construction Services & Engineering

Consultancy
bacsconstructionprojects@gmail.com
09479908092 Smart 09064731918 Globe

PTR No: 1641079

Issued on January 06, 2022
Issue at Puerto Princesa City

PRC No. 0087885

Issued on: August 15, 2000
Valid Until: August 19, 2022

Page 28 of 50
17.0 ENGINEER’S CERTIFICATE

Page 29 of 50
APPENDIX A

SUMMARY
OF
BORELOGS

Page 30 of 50
 GRAPHICAL LOG

PROJECT: PROPOSED CREI TOWER HOLE NO.: BH1

LOCATION: SAN PEDRO, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN DEPTH: 15m

DATE DRILLED: 05/03/2022 DATE FINISHED: 05/03/2022 WATER TABLE: 3.22 m(±) COORDINATES: 9.7526
118.7678
ATTERBERG SIEVE ANALYSIS
N-VALUES

MOISTURE CONTENT
SAMPLE NUMBER

CONSISTENCY

SOIL SAMPLE
LIMITS
% PASSING SIEVE NO.
SAMPLE TYPE
% RECOVERY

LOG SYMBOL
DEPTH,m

% RQD

Geological Classification SPT

USCS

GRAPH LL PI
4 10 16 30 40 60 100 200 0.053

15 cm

15 cm

15 cm
(%) (%)
Ground Surface 10 20 30 40 50

1 1 100 - SS CL-SW very stiff to hard SANDY CLAYS 14 14 14 27.62 47 16 69 66 72 69 48 43 41 37 0

1.5 2 100 - SS GC-CL very stiff to hard SANDY CLAY GRAVEL 16 16 16 26.88 47 16 67 65 61 59 56 50 35 34 1

SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH

2 3 100 - SS GC-SW very stiff to hard 20 20 19 25.68 45 15 77 75 75 74 70 49 39 35 1
CLAYSTONES

SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH

4 100 - SS GC-SW very stiff to hard 29 29 28 22.98 42 13 69 65 59 57 51 45 43 12 0
2 .5 CLAYSTONES

SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH

3 5 100 - SS GC-SW very stiff to hard 31 31 30 22.47 41 12 67 64 60 42 33 32 31 24 0
CLAYSTONES

SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH

3 .5 6 100 - SS GC-SW very stiff to hard 32 32 31 22.23 41 12 66 60 54 48 42 37 36 18 0
CLAYSTONES

SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH

4 7 100 - SS GC-SW very stiff to hard 31 31 31 22.36 41 12 65 61 57 43 41 39 35 21 4
CLAYSTONES

SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH

4 .5 8 100 - SS GC-SW very stiff to hard 40 40 40 20.11 38 10 58 52 49 42 40 32 29 26 5
CLAYSTONES

SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH

6 9 100 - SS GC-SW very stiff to hard 45 45 45 18.88 36 9 56 50 37 36 34 33 23 14 0
CLAYSTONES

SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH

8 10 100 - SS GC-SW very stiff to hard 48 49 48 18.11 35 8 53 47 44 40 38 36 29 24 6
CLAYSTONES

SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH

10 11 100 - SS GC-SW very stiff to hard 47 47 46 18.51 36 8 53 47 38 36 27 24 19 10 2
CLAYSTONES

12 12 100 - SS HARD STRATA - CLAYSTONES

14 13 100 - SS HARD STRATA - CLAYSTONES

16 14 100 - SS HARD STRATA - CLAYSTONES

digital Recorded sample length rebound area Core Sample

Digital Results ( Scanning)

ENGR. CESARIO A. BACOSA JR,PhD
Laboratory Technician
Geotechnical Engineer

Page 31 of 50
 APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS

• Direct Shear Test

• Unit weight
• Water Content
• Atterberg’s Data Limits
• Sieve Analysis

Page 32 of 50
 SPT 1: DIRECT SHEAR TEST SPT 2: DIRECT SHEAR TEST
Depth(m): 1 12 DATE: 6/26/2020 SPT NO: 2 Depth(m): 1.5 12
Normal stress 1.04
(kPa)
10 10
Horizont
Ver dial
Vertical Stress 8 Hor dial Proving al Shear Vertical Stress 8

Shear stress ( kPa )

Shear stress ( kPa )

movement ratio gauge Rring gauge moveme stress moveme ratio

) (mm) t/ n 6 Rdg (div) Rdg (div) Rdg (div) nt (mm) (kPa) nt (mm) t/  n 6

0.00 0.00 4 0 0 1.73 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 4

-0.01 0.56 0.05 0.01 1.72 0.05 0.5 -0.01 0.50
-0.01 2.80 2 0.15 0.05 1.72 0.15 2.6 -0.01 2.48 2
-0.01 4.48 0.3 0.08 1.72 0.30 4.1 -0.01 3.96 0
0
0.00 6.16 0.0 1.0 0.6
2.0 0.11
3.0 1.73
4.0 0.60
5.0 5.7
6.0 0.00 5.45 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
0.01 7.28 Horizontal
0.8 displacement
0.13 (
1.74mm )0.80 6.7 0.01 6.44 Horizontal displacement ( mm )
0.05 8.40 0.9 0.15 1.78 0.90 7.7 0.05 7.43
0.09 9.52 1.60 1 0.17 1.82 1.00 8.8 0.09 8.42 1.60
Vertical displacement ( mm )

1.2 0.19 1.89 1.20 9.8 0.16 9.41

Vertical displacement ( mm )
0.16 10.64 1.40 1.40
0.22 11.20 1.20
1.4 0.20 1.95 1.40 10.3 0.22 9.91 1.20
0.30 11.48 1.6 0.21 2.03 1.60 10.6 0.30 10.16
1.00 1.00
0.38 11.20 1.7 0.20 2.11 1.70 10.3 0.38 9.91
0.80 0.80
0.50 10.64 1.8 0.19 2.23 1.80 9.8 0.50 9.41
0.61 10.08 0.60 2 0.18 2.34 2.00 9.3 0.61 8.92 0.60
0.73 9.52 0.40 2.25 0.17 2.46 2.25 8.8 0.73 8.42 0.40
0.82 8.96 2.5 0.16 2.55 2.50 8.2 0.82 7.93 0.20
0.20
0.95 8.40 3 0.15 2.68 3.00 7.7 0.95 7.43
0.00 0.00
1.03 7.84 3.5 0.14 2.76 3.50 7.2 1.03 6.94 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 -0.20
1.10 7.28 -0.20 4 0.13 2.83 4.00 6.7 1.10 6.44
1.23 7.00 Horizontal
5 displacement
0.13 (
2.96mm ) 5.00 6.4 1.23 6.19 Horizontal displacement ( mm )
1.34 6.72 6 0.12 3.07 6.00 6.2 1.34 5.95

SPT 3: DIRECT SHEAR TEST SPT 4: DIRECT SHEAR TEST

3 Depth(m): 2.00 0 012 0 0DATE: 6/26/2020 SPT NO: 4 Depth(m): 2.50 0 0
12
0 0
18
(kPa) Normal stress 1.25
(kPa)
10 Horizont 10
Ver dial
ear Vertical Stress Hor dial Proving al Shear Vertical Stress
gauge moveme 8
Shear stress ( kPa )

8 Rring
Shear stress ( kPa )

ratio gauge stress moveme ratio

ess moveme
Rdg (div) Rdg (div) Rdg (div) nt (mm) (kPa) nt (mm) t/ n
Pa) nt (mm) t/ n 6 6

.0 0.00 0.00 0 0 1.73 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00

4 4
.5 -0.01 0.44 0.05 0.01 1.72 0.05 0.5 -0.01 0.41
.6 -0.01 2.19 2 0.15 0.05 1.72 0.15 2.6 -0.01 2.07 2

.1 -0.01 3.51 0.3 0.08 1.72 0.30 4.1 -0.01 3.30

0 0
.7 0.00 4.82 0.6 0.11 1.73 0.60 5.7 0.00 4.54 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
.7 0.01 5.70 0.8 displacement
Horizontal 0.13 (1.74
mm ) 0.80 6.7 0.01 5.37 Horizontal displacement ( mm )

.7 0.05 6.57 0.9 0.15 1.78 0.90 7.7 0.05 6.20

1.60 1 0.17 1.82 1.00 8.8 0.09 7.02 1.60
.8 0.09 7.45
1.2 0.19 1.89 1.20 9.8 0.16 7.85
Vertical displacement ( mm )

1.40
.8 0.16 8.33
Vertical displacement ( mm )

1.40
0.3 0.22 8.77 1.4 0.20 1.95 1.40 10.3 0.22 8.26 1.20
1.20
0.6 0.30 8.99 1.6 0.21 2.03 1.60 10.6 0.30 8.47
1.00 1.00
0.3 0.38 8.77 1.7 0.20 2.11 1.70 10.3 0.38 8.26
0.80
.8 0.50 8.33 0.80 1.8 0.19 2.23 1.80 9.8 0.50 7.85
0.60 2 0.18 2.34 2.00 9.3 0.61 7.43 0.60
.3 0.61 7.89
.8 0.73 7.45 2.25 0.17 2.46 2.25 8.8 0.73 7.02 0.40
0.40
.2 0.82 7.01 2.5 0.16 2.55 2.50 8.2 0.82 6.61 0.20
0.20
.7 0.95 6.57 3 0.15 2.68 3.00 7.7 0.95 6.20
0.00 0.00
.2 1.03 6.14 3.5 0.14 2.76 3.50 7.2 1.03 5.78 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 -0.20
.7 1.10 5.70 -0.20 4 0.13 2.83 4.00 6.7 1.10 5.37
5 displacement
Horizontal 0.13 (2.96
mm ) 5.00 6.4 1.23 5.16 Horizontal displacement ( mm )
.4 1.23 5.48
.2 1.34 5.26 6 0.12 3.07 6.00 6.2 1.34 4.96

SPT 5: DIRECT SHEAR TEST SPT 6: DIRECT SHEAR TEST

5 Depth(m): 3.00 0 012 0 0DATE: 6/26/2020 SPT NO: 6 Depth(m): 3.50 0 0 0 0
12
25
(kPa) Normal stress 1.29
(kPa)
10 10
Horizont
Ver dial
ear Vertical Stress 8 Hor dial Proving al Shear Vertical Stress
Shear stress ( kPa )

gauge moveme 8
Shear stress ( kPa )

ess movemen ratio gauge Rring stress moveme ratio

a) t (mm) t/ n 6 Rdg (div) Rdg (div) Rdg (div) nt (mm) (kPa) nt (mm) t/ n 6
0 0.00 0.00 4
0 0 1.73 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00
4
5 -0.01 0.41 0.05 0.01 1.72 0.05 0.5 -0.01 0.40
6 -0.01 2.05 2 0.15 0.05 1.72 0.15 2.6 -0.01 2.00 2
1 -0.01 3.28 0.3 0.08 1.72 0.30 4.1 -0.01 3.20
0 0
7 0.00 4.52 0.0 1.0 2.00.6 0.11
3.0 4.01.73 0.60
5.0 5.7
6.0 0.00 4.39 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
7 0.01 5.34 0.8
Horizontal 0.13
displacement ( 1.74
mm ) 0.80 6.7 0.01 5.19 Horizontal displacement ( mm )
7 0.05 6.16 0.9 0.15 1.78 0.90 7.7 0.05 5.99
1.60 1 0.17 1.82 1.00 8.8 0.09 6.79 1.60
8 0.09 6.98
1.2 0.19 1.89 1.20 9.8 0.16 7.59 1.40
Vertical displacement ( mm )

8 0.16 7.80
Vertical displacement ( mm )

1.40
.3 0.22 8.21 1.20 1.4 0.20 1.95 1.40 10.3 0.22 7.99 1.20
.6 0.30 8.42 1.6 0.21 2.03 1.60 10.6 0.30 8.19
1.00 1.00
.3 0.38 8.21 1.7 0.20 2.11 1.70 10.3 0.38 7.99
0.80 0.80
8 0.50 7.80 1.8 0.19 2.23 1.80 9.8 0.50 7.59
3 0.61 7.39 0.60 2 0.18 2.34 2.00 9.3 0.61 7.19 0.60
8 0.73 6.98 0.40 2.25 0.17 2.46 2.25 8.8 0.73 6.79 0.40
2 0.82 6.57 2.5 0.16 2.55 2.50 8.2 0.82 6.39 0.20
0.20
7 0.95 6.16 3 0.15 2.68 3.00 7.7 0.95 5.99
0.00 0.00
2 1.03 5.75 3.5 0.14 2.76 3.50 7.2 1.03 5.59 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
7 1.10 5.34 -0.20 4 0.13 2.83 4.00 6.7 1.10 5.19 -0.20
4 1.23 5.13 Horizontal
5 displacement
0.13 ( mm )
2.96 5.00 6.4 1.23 4.99 Horizontal displacement ( mm )
2 1.34 4.93 6 0.12 3.07 6.00 6.2 1.34 4.79

Page 33 of 50
 SPT 7: DIRECT SHEAR TEST SPT 8: DIRECT SHEAR TEST
12 12

10 10

8 8
Shear stress ( kPa )

Shear stress ( kPa )

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Horizontal displacement ( mm ) Horizontal displacement ( mm )

1.60 1.60
Vertical displacement ( mm )

Vertical displacement ( mm )
1.40 1.40
1.20 1.20
1.00 1.00
0.80 0.80
0.60 0.60
0.40 0.40
0.20 0.20
0.00 0.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
-0.20 -0.20
Horizontal displacement ( mm ) Horizontal displacement ( mm )

SPT 9: DIRECT SHEAR TEST SPT 10: DIRECT SHEAR TEST

12 12

10 10

8
Shear stress ( kPa )

8
Shear stress ( kPa )

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Horizontal displacement ( mm ) Horizontal displacement ( mm )

1.60 1.60
Vertical displacement ( mm )
Vertical displacement ( mm )

1.40 1.40

1.20 1.20

1.00 1.00

0.80 0.80

0.60 0.60

0.40 0.40

0.20 0.20

0.00 0.00
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
-0.20 -0.20
Horizontal displacement ( mm ) Horizontal displacement ( mm )

SPT 11: DIRECT SHEAR TEST

DATE: 6/26/2020 SPT NO: 11 Depth(m): 10.00 0 012 0 0
Normal stress 1.56
(kPa)
10
Horizont
Ver dial
Hor dial Proving al Shear Vertical Stress
8
Shear stress ( kPa )

gauge Rring gauge moveme stress moveme ratio

Rdg (div) Rdg (div) Rdg (div) nt (mm) (kPa) nt (mm) t/ n 6
0 0 1.73 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 4
0.05 0.01 1.72 0.05 0.5 -0.01 0.33
0.15 0.05 1.72 0.15 2.6 -0.01 1.65 2
0.3 0.08 1.72 0.30 4.1 -0.01 2.64
0
0.6 0.11 1.73 0.60 5.7 0.00 3.63 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
0.8 0.13 1.74 0.80 6.7 0.01 4.29 Horizontal displacement ( mm )
0.9 0.15 1.78 0.90 7.7 0.05 4.94
1 0.17 1.82 1.00 8.8 0.09 5.60 1.60

1.2 0.19 1.89 1.20 9.8 0.16 6.26 1.40

Vertical displacement ( mm )

1.4 0.20 1.95 1.40 10.3 0.22 6.59 1.20

1.6 0.21 2.03 1.60 10.6 0.30 6.76
1.00
1.7 0.20 2.11 1.70 10.3 0.38 6.59
0.80
1.8 0.19 2.23 1.80 9.8 0.50 6.26
2 0.18 2.34 2.00 9.3 0.61 5.93 0.60
2.25 0.17 2.46 2.25 8.8 0.73 5.60 0.40
2.5 0.16 2.55 2.50 8.2 0.82 5.27 0.20
3 0.15 2.68 3.00 7.7 0.95 4.94
0.00
3.5 0.14 2.76 3.50 7.2 1.03 4.62 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
4 0.13 2.83 4.00 6.7 1.10 4.29 -0.20
5 0.13 2.96 5.00 6.4 1.23 4.12 Horizontal displacement ( mm )
6 0.12 3.07 6.00 6.2 1.34 3.96

Page 34 of 50
 UNIT WEIGHT

Unit Weight Data Sheet

ASTM D4318-10

Project: GT-PPPL011 Tested By: ASHA BATUL Started 5-Mar-22

Location: SAN PEDRO, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN Checked By: ENGR. CESARIO A. BACOSA JR. Finished 7-Mar-22
Boring No: BH1 Test Number: BH1
Sample Depth: 15m Gnd Elevation: N.A

TEST UNIT WEIGHT

SPT NO:
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Var. Units
Mass of Empty Can MC (g) 0.900 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Mass Can & Soil (Wet) MCS (g) 160.227 162.421 166.182 175.794 177.779 77.711 77.669 78.413 78.848 79.132 78.982
Weight of Soil (wet) WS (g) 159.327 161.521 165.282 174.894 176.879 76.811 76.769 77.513 77.948 78.232 78.082
Initial Volume (Vi) Vi (cc) 0.000100 0.000100 0.000100 0.000100 0.000100 0.000100 0.000100 0.000100 0.000100 0.000100 0.000100
Final Volume (Vf) Vf (cc) 0.000952 0.000952 0.000952 0.000952 0.000952 0.000952 0.000952 0.000952 0.000952 0.000952 0.000952
Volume os soil Vs (cu.m) 0.000852 0.000852 0.000852 0.000852 0.000852 0.000852 0.000852 0.000852 0.000852 0.000852 0.000852
Unit Weight Uw ( KN/c.m) 19.06 19.33 19.78 20.93 21.16 9.19 9.19 9.27 9.33 9.36 9.34

WATER CONTENT
Water Content Data Sheet
ASTM D4318-10

Project: GT-PPPL011 Tested By: ASHA BATUL Started 5-Mar-22

Location: SAN PEDRO, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN Checked By: ENGR. CESARIO A. BACOSA JR. Finished 7-Mar-22
Boring No: BH1 Test Number: BH1
Sample Depth: 15m Gnd Elevation: N.A

USCS Soil Classification:

TEST WATER CONTENT

SPT No:
Variable SPT-1 SPT-2 SPT-3 SPT-4 SPT-5 SPT-6 SPT-7 SPT-8 SPT-9 SPT-10 SPT-11
Var. Units
Mass of Empty Can MC (g) 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Mass Can & Soil (Wet) MCMS (g) 51.85 51.55 51.07 49.99 49.79 49.69 49.75 48.85 48.36 48.05 48.21
Mass Can & Soil (Dry) MCDS (g) 40.82 40.82 40.82 40.82 40.82 40.82 40.82 40.82 40.82 40.82 40.82
Mass of Soil MS (g) 39.92 39.92 39.92 39.92 39.92 39.92 39.92 39.92 39.92 39.92 39.92
Mass of Water MW (g) 11.03 10.73 10.25 9.17 8.97 8.87 8.93 8.03 7.54 7.23 7.39
Water Content w (%) 27.6 26.9 25.7 23.0 22.5 22.2 22.4 20.1 18.9 18.1 18.5

SIEVE ANALYSIS

Page 35 of 50
SPT 1: ATTERBERG LIMIT SPT 2: ATTERBERG LIMIT
Atterberg Limits Data Sheet Atterberg Limits Data Sheet
ASTM D4318-10 ASTM D4318-10

Project: GT-PPPL011 Tested By: ASHA BATUL Started 5-Mar-22 Project: GT-PPPL011 Tested By: ASHA BATUL Started 5-Mar-22
Location: SAN PEDRO, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN Checked By: ENGR. CESARIO A. BACOSA JR. Finished 7-Mar-22 Location: SAN PEDRO, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN Checked By: ENGR. CESARIO A. BACOSA JR. Finished 7-Mar-22
Boring No: BH1 Test Number: BH1 Boring No: BH1 Test Number: BH1
Sample Depth (m): 1.00 Gnd Elevation: 0 Sample Depth: 1.50 Gnd Elevation: 0
SPT NO: 1 SPT NO: 2
USCS Soil Classification: SANDY CLAYS USCS Soil Classification: SANDY CLAY GRAVEL

TEST PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT TEST PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT
NO NO
Variable 1 2 3 average 1 2 3 average Variable 1 2 3 average 1 2 3 average
Var. Units Var. Units
Number of Blows N blows 100 0 0 33 Number of Blows N blows 56 64 99 73
Can Number --- --- a b c a b c 0 Can Number --- --- a b c a b c 0
Mass of Empty Can MC (g) 20.63 20.66 20.63 20.64 17.33 17.41 17.45 17.40 Mass of Empty Can MC (g) 20.63 20.66 20.63 20.64 17.33 17.41 17.45 17.40
Mass Can & Soil (Wet) MCMS (g) 40.59 44.61 43.38 42.86 41.28 40.16 47.03 42.83 Mass Can & Soil (Wet) MCMS (g) 40.59 44.61 43.38 42.86 41.28 40.16 47.03 42.83
Mass Can & Soil (Dry) MCDS (g) 34.40 37.24 36.47 36.04 29.93 29.55 33.61 31.03 Mass Can & Soil (Dry) MCDS (g) 34.45 37.24 36.38 36.03 30.11 29.55 33.23 30.96
Mass of Soil MS (g) 19.96 23.95 22.75 22.22 23.95 22.75 29.58 25.43 Mass of Soil MS (g) 19.96 23.95 22.75 22.22 23.95 22.75 29.58 25.43
Mass of Water MW (g) 6.19 7.37 6.91 6.82 11.36 10.62 13.42 11.80 Mass of Water MW (g) 6.14 7.37 7.00 6.84 11.18 10.62 13.80 11.86
Water Content w (%) 31.0 30.8 30.4 30.71 47.4 46.7 45.4 47.41 Water Content w (%) 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.77 46.7 46.7 46.7 46.66

60 60
Liquid Limit (LL or w L ) (%): 47.4 LL PI Liquid Limit (LL or w L ) (%): 46.7 LL PI U Line

Plasticity Index (PI)

U Line A Line
Plasticity Index (PI)

50
A Line 50
Plastic Limit (PL or w P ) (%): 31.0 4 4 Plastic Limit (PL or w P ) (%): 30.8 4 4
CH CH
Plasticity Index (PI) (%): 16 40 25.5 4 Plasticity Index (PI) (%): 16 4025.5 4
Consistency very stiff to hard 115.8904 70 USCS Classification: very stiff to hard 115.8904
30 70
30
CL CL
20 MH 20 MH
PI at "A" Line = 0.73(LL-20) 0 0 PI at "A" Line = 0.73(LL-20) 0 0
10 70 CL-ML One Point Liquid Limit Calculation: 1070 CL-ML 70
One Point Liquid Limit Calculation: 70 ML ML
LL = w n (N/25)0.12 LL = w n (N/25)0.12 0
0
07 10 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 70 107 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PROCEDURE USED Liquid Limit (LL or wL) PROCEDURE USED 29.6 7 Liquid Limit (LL or wL)
29.6 7
38 38
Wet Preperation 50 0 Wet Preperation 50 0
Multipoint 37 50 70
Multipoint 37 50 70

Water Content (%)

Water Content (%)

36 36
15.8 7 Dry Preperation 15.8 7
X Dry Preperation
Multipoint 35 85.77778 70
X Multipoint 35 85.77778 70

y = -8.406ln(x) + 60.659 34 y = -8.406ln(x) + 60.659

34 R² = 0.9828
R² = 0.9828
25 0 25 0
Procedure A Multipoint 33 Procedure A Multipoint 33
25 10 25 10

32 25 20
32 25 20

25 30 31 25 30
Procedure B One-Point 31 Procedure B One-Point
25 40 25 40
30 25 60 30 25 60
10 100 10 100
Number of Blows (N) Number of Blows (N)

SPT 3: ATTERBERG LIMIT SPT 4: ATTERBERG LIMIT

Atterberg Limits Data Sheet Atterberg Limits Data Sheet
ASTM D4318-10 ASTM D4318-10

Project: GT-PPPL011 Tested By: ASHA BATUL Started 5-Mar-22 Project: GT-PPPL011 Tested By: ASHA BATUL Started 5-Mar-22
Location: SAN PEDRO, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN Checked By: ENGR. CESARIO A. BACOSA JR. Finished 7-Mar-22 Location: SAN PEDRO, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN Checked By: ENGR. CESARIO A. BACOSA JR. Finished 7-Mar-22
Boring No: BH1 Test Number: BH1 Boring No: BH1 Test Number: BH1
Sample Depth: 2.00 Gnd Elevation: 0 Sample Depth: 2.50 Gnd Elevation: 0
SPT NO: 3 SPT NO: 4
USCS Soil Classification: SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH CLAYSTONES USCS Soil Classification: SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH CLAYSTONES

TEST PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT TEST PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT
NO NO
Variable 1 2 3 average 1 2 3 average Variable 1 2 3 average 1 2 3 average
Var. Units Var. Units
Number of Blows N blows 98 78 74 83 Number of Blows N blows 86 172 118 125
Can Number --- --- a b c a b c 0 Can Number --- --- a b c a b c 0
Mass of Empty Can MC (g) 20.63 20.66 20.63 20.64 17.33 17.41 17.45 17.40 Mass of Empty Can MC (g) 20.63 20.66 20.63 20.64 17.33 17.41 17.45 17.40
Mass Can & Soil (Wet) MCMS (g) 40.59 44.61 43.38 42.86 41.28 40.16 47.03 42.83 Mass Can & Soil (Wet) MCMS (g) 40.59 44.61 43.38 42.86 41.28 40.16 47.03 42.83
Mass Can & Soil (Dry) MCDS (g) 34.53 37.34 36.47 36.11 30.42 29.84 33.61 31.29 Mass Can & Soil (Dry) MCDS (g) 34.73 37.58 36.70 36.34 31.21 30.60 34.59 32.13
Mass of Soil MS (g) 19.96 23.95 22.75 22.22 23.95 22.75 29.58 25.43 Mass of Soil MS (g) 19.96 23.95 22.75 22.22 23.95 22.75 29.58 25.43
Mass of Water MW (g) 6.06 7.27 6.91 6.75 10.87 10.32 13.42 11.54 Mass of Water MW (g) 5.86 7.03 6.68 6.53 10.07 9.57 12.44 10.69
Water Content w (%) 30.4 30.4 30.4 30.37 45.4 45.4 45.4 45.36 Water Content w (%) 29.4 29.4 29.4 29.37 42.1 42.1 42.1 42.05
60 60
Liquid Limit (LL or w L ) (%): 45.4 LL PI U Line Liquid Limit (LL or w L ) (%): 42.1 LL PI
Plasticity Index (PI)

A Line U Line
Plasticity Index (PI)

50 50
A Line
Plastic Limit (PL or w P ) (%): 30.4 4 4 Plastic Limit (PL or w P ) (%): 29.4 4 4
CH CH
Plasticity Index (PI) (%): 15 40 25.5 4 Plasticity Index (PI) (%): 13 40 25.5 4
USCS Classification: very stiff to hard 115.8904
30 70 USCS Classification: very stiff to hard 115.8904 70
30
CL CL
20 MH 20 MH
PI at "A" Line = 0.73(LL-20) 0 0 PI at "A" Line = 0.73(LL-20) 0 0
One Point Liquid Limit Calculation: 10 70 CL-ML 70 10 70 CL-ML
ML One Point Liquid Limit Calculation: 70 ML
LL = w n (N/25)0.12 0 LL = w n (N/25)0.12 0
07 10 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 07 10 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PROCEDURE USED 29.6 7 Liquid Limit (LL or wL) PROCEDURE USED Liquid Limit (LL or wL)
29.6 7
38 38
Wet Preperation 50 0 Wet Preperation 50 0
Multipoint 37 50 70 Multipoint 37 50 70
Water Content (%)

Water Content (%)

36 36
Dry Preperation 15.8 7 15.8 7
X Multipoint 35 85.77778 70 X Dry Preperation
Multipoint 35 85.77778 70
34 y = -8.406ln(x) + 60.659 y = -8.406ln(x) + 60.659
R² = 0.9828
34
R² = 0.9828
25 0 25 0
Procedure A Multipoint 33 Procedure A Multipoint 33
25 10 25 10
32 25 20 32 25 20
31 25 30 25 30
Procedure B One-Point Procedure B One-Point 31
25 40 25 40
30 25 60 30 25 60
10 100 10 100
Number of Blows (N) Number of Blows (N)

SPT 5: ATTERBERG LIMIT SPT 6: ATTERBERG LIMIT

Atterberg Limits Data Sheet
Atterberg Limits Data Sheet ASTM D4318-10
ASTM D4318-10
Project: GT-PPPL011 Tested By: ASHA BATUL Started 5-Mar-22
Project: GT-PPPL011 Tested By: ASHA BATUL Started 5-Mar-22 Location: SAN PEDRO, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN Checked By: ENGR. CESARIO A. BACOSA JR. Finished 7-Mar-22
Location: SAN PEDRO, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN Checked By: ENGR. CESARIO A. BACOSA JR. Finished 7-Mar-22 Boring No: BH1 Test Number: BH1
Boring No: BH1 Test Number: BH1 Sample Depth: 3.50 Gnd Elevation: 0
Sample Depth: 3.00 Gnd Elevation: 0 SPT NO: 6
SPT NO: 5 USCS Soil Classification: SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH CLAYSTONES
USCS Soil Classification: SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH CLAYSTONES
TEST PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT
TEST PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT NO
NO Variable 1 2 3 average 1 2 3 average
Variable 1 2 3 average 1 2 3 average Var. Units
Var. Units Number of Blows N blows 95 126 39 87
Number of Blows N blows 122 122 86 110 Can Number --- --- a b c a b c 0
Can Number --- --- a b c a b c 0 Mass of Empty Can MC (g) 20.63 20.66 20.63 20.64 17.33 17.41 17.45 17.40
Mass of Empty Can MC (g) 20.63 20.66 20.63 20.64 17.33 17.41 17.45 17.40 Mass Can & Soil (Wet) MCMS (g) 40.59 44.61 43.38 42.86 41.28 40.16 47.03 42.83
Mass Can & Soil (Wet) MCMS (g) 40.59 44.61 43.38 42.86 41.28 40.16 47.03 42.83 Mass Can & Soil (Dry) MCDS (g) 34.79 37.65 36.77 36.40 31.45 30.82 34.89 32.39
Mass Can & Soil (Dry) MCDS (g) 34.77 37.63 36.75 36.38 31.37 30.75 34.79 32.31 Mass of Soil MS (g) 19.96 23.95 22.75 22.22 23.95 22.75 29.58 25.43
Mass of Soil MS (g) 19.96 23.95 22.75 22.22 23.95 22.75 29.58 25.43 Mass of Water MW (g) 5.80 6.96 6.61 6.46 9.83 9.34 12.14 10.44
Mass of Water MW (g) 5.82 6.98 6.64 6.48 9.91 9.41 12.24 10.52 Water Content w (%) 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.06 41.0 41.0 41.0 41.05
Water Content w (%) 29.2 29.2 29.2 29.16 41.4 41.4 41.4 41.37
60
60 Liquid Limit (LL or w L ) (%): 41.0 LL PI U Line
Plasticity Index (PI)

A Line
Liquid Limit (LL or w L ) (%): 41.4 LL PI 50
U Line Plastic Limit (PL or w P ) (%): 29.1 4 4
Plasticity Index (PI)

A Line
50 CH
Plastic Limit (PL or w P ) (%): 29.2 4 4 Plasticity Index (PI) (%): 12 40 25.5 4
CH
Plasticity Index (PI) (%): 12 40 25.5 4 USCS Classification: very stiff to hard 115.8904 70
30
USCS Classification: very stiff to hard 115.8904
30 70 CL
CL 20 MH
MH PI at "A" Line = 0.73(LL-20) 0 0
20
PI at "A" Line = 0.73(LL-20) 0 0 One Point Liquid Limit Calculation: 10 70 CL-ML 70
10 70 CL-ML
ML
One Point Liquid Limit Calculation: 70 ML LL = w n (N/25)0.12 0
LL = w n (N/25)0.12 0 07 10 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
07 10 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROCEDURE USED 29.6 7 Liquid Limit (LL or wL)
PROCEDURE USED 29.6 7 Liquid Limit (LL or wL)
38
38 Wet Preperation 50 0
Wet Preperation 50 0 Multipoint 37 50 70
Water Content (%)

Multipoint 37 50 70
Water Content (%)

36
36 Dry Preperation 15.8 7
Dry Preperation 15.8 7 X Multipoint 35 85.77778 70
X Multipoint 35 85.77778 70
34 y = -8.406ln(x) + 60.659
34 y = -8.406ln(x) + 60.659 R² = 0.9828
R² = 0.9828 25 0
25 0 Procedure A Multipoint 33
Procedure A Multipoint 33 25 10
25 10
32 25 20
32 25 20
31 25 30
Procedure B One-Point
31 25 30 25 40
Procedure B One-Point
25 40 30 25 60
30 25 60 10 100
10 100 Number of Blows (N)
Number of Blows (N)

Page 36 of 50
SPT 7: ATTERBERG LIMIT SPT 8: ATTERBERG LIMIT
Atterberg Limits Data Sheet Atterberg Limits Data Sheet
ASTM D4318-10 ASTM D4318-10

Project: GT-PPPL011 Tested By: ASHA BATUL Started 5-Mar-22 Project: GT-PPPL011 Tested By: ASHA BATUL Started 5-Mar-22
Location: SAN PEDRO, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN Checked By: ENGR. CESARIO A. BACOSA JR. Finished 7-Mar-22 Location: SAN PEDRO, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN Checked By: ENGR. CESARIO A. BACOSA JR. Finished 7-Mar-22
Boring No: BH1 Test Number: BH1 Boring No: BH1 Test Number: BH1
Sample Depth: 4.00 Gnd Elevation: 0 Sample Depth: 4.50 Gnd Elevation: 0
SPT NO: 7 SPT NO: 8
USCS Soil Classification: SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH CLAYSTONES USCS Soil Classification: SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH CLAYSTONES

TEST PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT TEST PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT
NO NO
Variable 1 2 3 average 1 2 3 average Variable 1 2 3 average 1 2 3 average
Var. Units Var. Units
Number of Blows N blows 93 124 116 111 Number of Blows N blows 120 80 95 98
Can Number --- --- a b c a b c 0 Can Number --- --- a b c a b c 0
Mass of Empty Can Mass of Empty Can MC (g) 20.63 20.66 20.63 20.64 17.33 17.41 17.45 17.40
MC (g) 20.63 20.66 20.63 20.64 17.33 17.41 17.45 17.40
Mass Can & Soil (Wet) Mass Can & Soil (Wet) MCMS (g) 40.59 44.61 43.38 42.86 41.28 40.16 47.03 42.83
MCMS (g) 40.59 44.61 43.38 42.86 41.28 40.16 47.03 42.83
Mass Can & Soil (Dry) MCDS (g) 34.97 37.87 36.98 36.61 32.17 31.51 35.78 33.16
Mass Can & Soil (Dry) MCDS (g) 34.78 37.64 36.76 36.39 31.41 30.78 34.84 32.34
Mass of Soil MS (g) 19.96 23.95 22.75 22.22 23.95 22.75 29.58 25.43
Mass of Soil MS (g) 19.96 23.95 22.75 22.22 23.95 22.75 29.58 25.43
Mass of Water MW (g) 5.62 6.74 6.40 6.25 9.11 8.65 11.25 9.67
Mass of Water MW (g) 5.81 6.97 6.63 6.47 9.87 9.38 12.20 10.48
Water Content w (%) 28.1 28.1 28.1 28.14 38.0 38.0 38.0 38.03
Water Content w (%) 29.1 29.1 29.1 29.12 41.2 41.2 41.2 41.23
60
60 Liquid Limit (LL or w L ) (%): 38.0 LL PI U Line

Plasticity Index (PI)

Liquid Limit (LL or w L ) (%): 41.2 LL PI U Line 50
A Line
Plasticity Index (PI)

A Line
50 Plastic Limit (PL or w P ) (%): 28.1 4 4
Plastic Limit (PL or w P ) (%): 29.1 4 4 CH
CH Plasticity Index (PI) (%): 10 4025.5 4
Plasticity Index (PI) (%): 12 40 25.5 4
USCS Classification: very stiff to hard 115.8904
30 70
USCS Classification: very stiff to hard 115.8904
30 70
CL
CL 20 MH
20 MH PI at "A" Line = 0.73(LL-20) 0 0
PI at "A" Line = 0.73(LL-20) 0 0
One Point Liquid Limit Calculation: 10 70 CL-ML 70
One Point Liquid Limit Calculation: 10 70 CL-ML 70 ML
ML LL = w n (N/25)0.12 0
LL = w n (N/25)0.12 0 07 10 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
07 10 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROCEDURE USED Liquid Limit (LL or wL)
29.6 7
PROCEDURE USED 29.6 7 Liquid Limit (LL or wL)
38
38 Wet Preperation 50 0
Wet Preperation 50 0 Multipoint 37 50 70
37

Water Content (%)

Multipoint 50 70
Water Content (%)

36
36 Dry Preperation 15.8 7
Dry Preperation 15.8 7 X Multipoint 35 85.77778 70
X Multipoint 35 85.77778 70
34 y = -8.406ln(x) + 60.659
34 y = -8.406ln(x) + 60.659 R² = 0.9828
R² = 0.9828 25 0
25 0
Procedure A Multipoint 33
Procedure A Multipoint 33 25 10
25 10 32 25 20
32 25 20
31 25 30
Procedure B One-Point
31 25 30 25 40
Procedure B One-Point
25 40 30 25 60
30 25 60 10 100
Number of Blows (N)
10 100
Number of Blows (N)

SPT 9: ATTERBERG LIMIT SPT 10: ATTERBERG LIMIT

Atterberg Limits Data Sheet
Atterberg Limits Data Sheet ASTM D4318-10
ASTM D4318-10
Project: GT-PPPL011 Tested By: ASHA BATUL Started 5-Mar-22
Project: GT-PPPL011 Tested By: ASHA BATUL Started 5-Mar-22 Location: SAN PEDRO, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN Checked By: ENGR. CESARIO A. BACOSA JR. Finished 7-Mar-22
Location: SAN PEDRO, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN Checked By: ENGR. CESARIO A. BACOSA JR. Finished 7-Mar-22 Boring No: BH1 Test Number: BH1
Boring No: BH1 Test Number: BH1 Sample Depth: 8.00 Gnd Elevation: 0
Sample Depth: 6.00 Gnd Elevation: 0 SPT NO: 10
SPT NO: 9 USCS Soil Classification: SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH CLAYSTONES
USCS Soil Classification: SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH CLAYSTONES
TEST PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT
TEST PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT NO
Variable 1 2 3 average 1 2 3 average
NO Var. Units
Variable 1 2 3 average 1 2 3 average
Var. Units Number of Blows N blows 49 97 56 67
Number of Blows N blows 45 90 79 71 Can Number --- --- a b c a b c 0
Can Number --- --- a b c a b c 0 Mass of Empty Can MC (g) 20.63 20.66 20.63 20.64 17.33 17.41 17.45 17.40
Mass of Empty Can MC (g) 20.63 20.66 20.63 20.64 17.33 17.41 17.45 17.40 Mass Can & Soil (Wet) MCMS (g) 40.59 44.61 43.38 42.86 41.28 40.16 47.03 42.83
Mass Can & Soil (Wet) MCMS (g) 40.59 44.61 43.38 42.86 41.28 40.16 47.03 42.83 Mass Can & Soil (Dry) MCDS (g) 35.16 38.10 37.19 36.82 32.91 32.22 36.70 33.94
Mass Can & Soil (Dry) MCDS (g) 35.09 38.01 37.11 36.73 32.62 31.94 36.34 33.63 Mass of Soil MS (g) 19.96 23.95 22.75 22.22 23.95 22.75 29.58 25.43
Mass of Soil MS (g) 19.96 23.95 22.75 22.22 23.95 22.75 29.58 25.43 Mass of Water MW (g) 5.43 6.52 6.19 6.05 8.37 7.95 10.33 8.88
Mass of Water MW (g) 5.50 6.61 6.27 6.13 8.66 8.23 10.70 9.19 Water Content w (%) 27.2 27.2 27.2 27.21 34.9 34.9 34.9 34.93
Water Content w (%) 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.58 36.2 36.2 36.2 36.16
60
Liquid Limit (LL or w L ) (%): 34.9 LL PI U Line
60
Plasticity Index (PI)

A Line
Liquid Limit (LL or w L ) (%): 36.2 LL PI 50
U Line Plastic Limit (PL or w P ) (%): 27.2 4 4
Plasticity Index (PI)

50
A Line
CH
Plastic Limit (PL or w P ) (%): 27.6 4 4 Plasticity Index (PI) (%): 8 40 25.5 4
CH
Plasticity Index (PI) (%): 9 40 25.5 4 USCS Classification: very stiff to hard 115.8904 70
30
USCS Classification: very stiff to hard 115.8904
30 70 CL
20 MH
CL PI at "A" Line = 0.73(LL-20) 0 0
20 MH
PI at "A" Line = 0.73(LL-20) 0 0 One Point Liquid Limit Calculation: 10 70 CL-ML 70 ML
One Point Liquid Limit Calculation: 10 70 CL-ML 70 LL = w n (N/25)0.12
ML 0
LL = w n (N/25)0.12 0 07 10 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
07 10 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 PROCEDURE USED 29.6 7 Liquid Limit (LL or wL)
PROCEDURE USED 29.6 7 Liquid Limit (LL or wL)
38
38 Wet Preperation 50 0
Wet Preperation 50 0 Multipoint 37 50 70
Water Content (%)

Multipoint 37 50 70
Water Content (%)

36
36 Dry Preperation 15.8 7
Dry Preperation 15.8 7 X Multipoint 35 85.77778 70
X Multipoint 35 85.77778 70 y = -8.406ln(x) + 60.659
34
y = -8.406ln(x) + 60.659 R² = 0.9828
34 25 0
R² = 0.9828 Procedure A Multipoint 33
25 0 25 10
Procedure A Multipoint 33
25 10 32 25 20
32 25 20
31 25 30
Procedure B One-Point
31 25 30 25 40
Procedure B One-Point
25 40 30 25 60
30 25 60 10 100
Number of Blows (N)
10 100
Number of Blows (N)

SPT 11: ATTERBERG LIMIT

Atterberg Limits Data Sheet
ASTM D4318-10

Project: GT-PPPL011 Tested By: ASHA BATUL Started 5-Mar-22

Location: SAN PEDRO, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, PALAWAN Checked By: ENGR. CESARIO A. BACOSA JR. Finished 7-Mar-22
Boring No: BH1 Test Number: BH1
Sample Depth: 10.00 Gnd Elevation: 0
SPT NO: 11
USCS Soil Classification: SANDY CLAY GRAVEL WITH CLAYSTONES

TEST PLASTIC LIMIT LIQUID LIMIT

NO
Variable 1 2 3 average 1 2 3 average
Var. Units
Number of Blows N blows 49 97 56 67
Can Number --- --- a b c a b c 0
Mass of Empty Can MC (g) 20.63 20.66 20.63 20.64 17.33 17.41 17.45 17.40
Mass Can & Soil (Wet) MCMS (g) 40.59 44.61 43.38 42.86 41.28 40.16 47.03 42.83
Mass Can & Soil (Dry) MCDS (g) 35.12 38.05 37.15 36.77 32.76 32.07 36.51 33.78
Mass of Soil MS (g) 19.96 23.95 22.75 22.22 23.95 22.75 29.58 25.43
Mass of Water MW (g) 5.47 6.56 6.24 6.09 8.52 8.10 10.52 9.05
Water Content w (%) 27.4 27.4 27.4 27.40 35.6 35.6 35.6 35.58

60
Liquid Limit (LL or w L ) (%): 35.6 LL PI U Line
Plasticity Index (PI)

A Line
50
Plastic Limit (PL or w P ) (%): 27.4 4 4
CH
Plasticity Index (PI) (%): 8 40 25.5 4
USCS Classification: very stiff to hard 115.8904
30 70
CL
20 MH
PI at "A" Line = 0.73(LL-20) 0 0
One Point Liquid Limit Calculation: 10 70 CL-ML 70 ML
LL = w n (N/25)0.12 0
07 10 7 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PROCEDURE USED 29.6 7 Liquid Limit (LL or wL)
38
Wet Preperation 50 0
Multipoint 37 50 70
Water Content (%)

36
Dry Preperation 15.8 7
X Multipoint 35 85.77778 70

34 y = -8.406ln(x) + 60.659
R² = 0.9828
25 0
Procedure A Multipoint 33
25 10
32 25 20

31 25 30
Procedure B One-Point
25 40
30 25 60
10 100
Number of Blows (N)

Page 37 of 50
 APPENDIX C
SITES / ACTIVITY PHOTOS
AND
SOIL SAMPLES

Page 38 of 50
Depth: 0.00-0.50m

Page 39 of 50
SOIL SAMPLE PICTURES
Depth: 0.00-0.50m

Page 40 of 50
REFERENCES:
1. EARTH MANUAL, United States Department of the Interior Oxford & IBH Publishing Co, 4th
Edition, 1974
2. FOUNDATION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN, 3rd Edition, Joseph E. Bowless Consulting
Engineer/Software Consultant, McGraw Hill, Inc., Copyright, 1982
3. THE GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, MINES AND
GEOSCIENCES BUREAU, published in 1974
4. SMITH’s ELEMENTS OF SOIL MECHANICS, 8th Edition, Ian Smith, Napier University,
Edinburgh
5. PROFILE OF PALAWAN
6. BOWLES, J. (1968). FOUNDATION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN, McGraw-Hill, New York.
7. Cubrinovski, M. and Ishihara, K. (1999). “EMPIRICAL CORRELATION BETWEEN SPT N-
VALUE AND RELATIVE DENSITY FOR SANDY SOILS.” Soils and Foundations, Vol. 39, No.
3, pp. 6l–7l, DOI: 10.3208/sandf.39.5_61.
8. Farooq, k., Imtiaz, K., and Kibria, S. (2010), “GEOTECHNICAL ZONING OF LAHORE
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN BASED ON SPT DATA.” Proceedings of International
Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, Pakistan Geotechnical Engineering Society, Lahore-
Pakistan, pp. 167–174.
9. Gibbs, H. J. and Holtz, W. G. (1957). “RESEARCH ON DETERMINING THE DENSITY OF
SANDS BY SPOON PENETRATION TESTING.” International Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Eng., Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 35–39.
10. Hatanaka, M. and Uchida, A. (1996). “EMPIRICAL CORRELATION BETWEEN
PENETRATION RESISTANCE AND INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE OF SANDY SOILS.”
Soils and Foundations, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 1–9, DOI: 10.3208/sandf.36.4_1.
11. Hayat, K. (2003). GEOTECHNICAL ZONATION AND THEIR RELATION TO
GEOLOGY OF PAKISTAN. PhD Thesis, Institute of Geology, Punjab University, Lahore,
Pakistan.
12. Hettiarachchi, H. and Brown, T. (2009). “USE OF SPT BLOW COUNTS TO ESTIMATE
SHEAR STRENGTH PROPERTIES OF SOILS: ENERGY BALANCE APPROACH.” Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 135, pp. 25–32, DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000016.
13. Japan Road Association (1990). Specification for Highway Bridges, Part V. Jianguo, C. (2012).
Correlation analysis of SPT N values and cohesion and internal angle of a clay.” SOIL
ENGINEERING AND FOUNDATION, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 91–93.
14. Kibria, S. and Masood, T. (1998). “SPT, Relative Density and PHI Relationships for Indus Sands
at Chashma.” PROCEEDING OF VII NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF PAKISTAN
NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR SOIL MECHANICS AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING,
169–188
15. Kulhawy, F. H. and Mayne, P. W. (1990). MANUAL ON ESTIMATING SOIL
PROPERTIES FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN, FINAL REPORT (EL-6800) submitted to
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, Calif.
16. Liao, S. and Whitman, R. V. (1986). “OVERBURDEN CORRECTION FACTOR FOR SPT
IN SAND.” JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 3, pp.
373–377, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1986)112:3(373).
17. Meyerhof, G. G., (1956). “PENETRATION TESTS AND BEARING CAPACITY OF
COHESIONLESS SOILS.” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 866/1–
866/19.

Page 41 of 50
18. Mohammad, M. (2013). “RELIABILITY OF STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT)
IN PREDICTING PROPERTIES OF SILTY CLAY WITH SAND SOIL.” International Journal
of Civil and Structural Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 545–556, DOI: 10.6088/ijcser.201203013050.
19. Peck, R. B., Hanson, W. E., and Thornburn, T. H. (1974). FOUNDATION ENGINEERING,
2ND ED., Wiley, New York.
20. Rogers, J. D. (2006). “RELIABILITY OF USING STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
(SPT) IN PREDICTING PROPERTIES OF SILTY CLAY WITH SAND SOIL.”
Environmental & Engineering Geoscience, Vol. XII, No. 2, 161–179, DOI: 10.2113/12.2.161.
21. Salari, P., Lashkaripour, G. R., and Ghafoori, M. (2015). “PRESENTATION OF
EMPIRICAL EQUATIONS FOR ESTIMATING INTERNAL FRICTION ANGLE OF GW
AND GC SOILS IN MASHHAD, IRAN USING STANDARD PENETRATION AND DIRECT
SHEAR TESTS AND COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS EQUATIONS.” Open Journal of
Geology, No. 5, pp. 231–238, DOI: 10.4236/ojg.2015.55021.
22. Sivrikaya, O. and Togrol, E. (2006). “DETERMINATION OF UNDRAINED SHEAR
STRENGTH OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS BY MEANS OF SPT AND ITS APPLICATION IN
TURKEY.” Engineering Geology, Vol. 86, pp. 52–69, DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.05.002.
23. Skempton, A. W. (1986). “STANDARD PENETRATION TEST PROCEDURES AND THE
EFFECT IN SANDS OF OVERBURDEN PRESSURE, RELATIVE DENSITY, PARTICLE
SIZE, AGING AND OVERCONSOLIDATION.” Geotechnique, Vol. 36, No. 3, 425–447, DOI:
10.1680/geot.1986.36.3.425.
24. Tomlinson, M. J. (1986). FOUNDATION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION, Longman,
Singapore.
25. Wolff, T. F. (1989). “PILE CAPACITY PREDICTION USING PARAMETER
FUNCTIONS.” IN PREDICTED AND OBSERVED AXIAL BEHAVIOR OF PILES,
RESULTS OF A PILE PREDICTION SYMPOSIUM, sponsored by Geotechnical Engineering
Division, ASCE, Evanston, Ill., June 1989, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 23, 96–106.
26. Yoshida, Y. and Ikemi, M. (1988). “1. BOWLES, J. (1968). FOUNDATION ANALYSIS
AND DESIGN, MCGRAW-HILL, NEW YORK.Proc. 1st Int. Symposium on Penetration Testing,
Rotterdam, pp. 381–387.

Page 42 of 50
Page 43 of 50
Page 44 of 50
Page 45 of 50
Page 46 of 50
Page 47 of 50
Page 48 of 50
Page 49 of 50
Page 50 of 50