PRESENTATION CONTENTS

(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

GROUP LEADER: (GOOD MORNING ENGR. ALCID, CLASSMATES, AND SPECTATORS. WE ARE
HERE TO PRESENT TO YOU OUR DESIGN PROJECT ENTITLED: “___” WITH ME ARE MY
GROUPMATES [STATE THEIR NAME])

/FIRST SLIDE/
DESIGN OF SLOPE STABILIZATION IN BARANGAY BUSAY, CEBU CITY

JOHN MARVIN C. ORTIZ

KRISTINE JOY B. CORDOVIZ
GIEMHEL C. GELERA
GAYLLE PEARL L. LOQUINARIO

EXTERNAL ADVISER: ENGR. McARWILL DE JESUS

/SEPARATE SLIDE/ CHAPTER 1: PROJECT BACKGROUND

(BRIEFLY DISCUSS WHAT INCLUDES IN CHAPTER 1)

/NEXT SLIDES/
THE PROJECT
The project refers to the slope stabilization at a residential lot along Transcentral Highway in
Sitio Garaje, Barangay Busay, Cebu City. Known for being a landslide prone area, Region VII or Central
Visayas has been reported with several landslide cases for the past years and recently in 2017, continuous
rainfall triggered a landslide in Barangay Busay, burying vehicles and roadways but no fatalities.
The project provides a slope stabilization design to support the structure and prevent imminent
landslide incidents. The designers would like to introduce their proposed plans using engineering
applications, and different code and standard specifications
PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

PROJECT LOCATION
The project is located at Transcentral Highway, Sitio Garaje, Barangay Busay, Cebu City. The area is
located at 10°22'16.7"N latitude and 123°52'30.0"E longitude, and is the only access to the two city’s
tourist attractions, the Temple of Leah and the Mountainview Nature Park.

(INCLUDE THIS IN YOUR EXPLANATION: The location is privately owned by Clarissa Otadoy and
according to a news report from sunstar, she is willing to donate a portion of her land to the government
so that the city and researchers can intervene and help in the rehabilitation of the place.)

PROJECT OBJECTIVES
General Objective
The general objective of the project is to provide an appropriate slope stabilization that
will combat or mitigate liquefaction to the underlying soil condition of the said location in
accordance to the provisions, relevant codes, and standards.
Specific Objectives
 To design slope stabilization that will combat a possible liquefaction in Sitio
Garaje, Barangay Busay.
 To design an economical and sustainable slope stabilization.
 To evaluate the competitiveness of the given tradeoffs using the identified
constraints, and the governing national provisions, standards, and codes.

THE CLIENT
Client Specifications
The client for this project is Hon. Edgardo Labella, the current Mayor of Cebu
City. He wanted the project to be safe, cost-effective, and sustainable. Specifically, the
project must meet the following conditions:
 The project has a budget of PHP 30 Million.
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

 The project must be done within three hundred sixty five (365) days or one (1)
year.
 The project should last at least thirty (30) years.

PROJECT SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

Project Scope
The following are the scope covered by the project:
 Slope Stabilization Design in Barangay Busay, Cebu City in accordance with the
codes, engineering standards, and trade-offs considerations.
 Plans, specifications, and procedures of the chosen design.
 Materials and labor estimate of the chosen design.
Project Limitations
The following are the limitations of the project:
 The detailed investigation of the causes of landslide since the designers focus on
the improvement of the soil and stabilization of the slope.
 The limitation/availability of programs that could be used on the tradeoffs
computation.
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
(DISCUSS THE PROJECT FLOW)
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

/SEPARATE SLIDE/ CHAPTER 2: DATA INPUTS AND REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

/NEXT SLIDES/
PRIMARY DATA

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
DPWH Region VII South Road Properties (SRP) provided a subsurface exploration report
conducted by the Quality Assurance and Hydrology Division in Brgy. Apas, a region that is 8km away
from Brgy. Busay. The report consists of Laboratory Test Results, Sieve Analysis Test, and Atterberg
Limits.
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

Bore Depth of Atterberg Limits Test AASHTO Soil

No. of N-
Hole Layer Soil Descriptio
Layer Values LL PL PI
No. (m) Classification n
White
Sample 1 1.5 – 1.95 56 29 25 4 A-1-a
Limestone
Hole #1
White
Sample 2 3.0 – 4.35 66 28 23 5 A-1-a
Limestone
White
Sample 1 1.5 – 1.95 52 31 26 5 A-1-a
Limestone
Hole #2
White
Sample 2 3.0 – 3.45 64 26 20 6 A-1-a
Limestone
White
Sample 1 1.5 – 1.95 54 29 24 5 A-1-a
Limestone
Hole #3
White
Sample 2 3.0 – 3.45 62 28 22 6 A-1-a
Limestone

Soil Parameters

Recognized
Sampling
Type of Environmental SPT Blows N- Cohesive Granular Soil
Depth
Sampling Condition (per 15 cm) Values Soils Soils Description
(m)
(REC)
Standard
White
1.5 – 1.95 Penetration 21% 22 27 29 56 Hard Dense
Limestone
Test
Standard
Very Very White
3.0 – 3.45 Penetration 10% 29 32 34 66
Hard Dense Limestone
Test
Standard
4.5 – 4.95 Penetration - - - - - - - -
Test
Bore Hole #1 Log and Test Results
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

Recognized
Sampling
Type of Environmental SPT Blows N- Cohesive Granular Soil
Depth
Sampling Condition (per 15 cm) Values Soils Soils Description
(m)
(REC)
Standard
White
1.5 – 1.95 Penetration 26% 18 24 28 52 Hard Dense
Limestone
Test
Standard
Very Very White
3.0 – 3.45 Penetration 15% 29 31 33 64
Hard Dense Limestone
Test
Standard
4.5 – 4.95 Penetration - - - - - - - -
Test
Bore Hole #2 Log and Test Results

Recognized
Sampling
Type of Environmental SPT Blows N- Cohesive Granular Soil
Depth
Sampling Condition (per 15 cm) Values Soils Soils Description
(m)
(REC)
Standard
White
1.5 – 1.95 Penetration 20% 22 25 29 54 Hard Dense
Limestone
Test
Standard
Very Very White
3.0 – 3.45 Penetration 13% 27 30 32 62
Hard Dense Limestone
Test
Standard
4.5 – 4.95 Penetration - - - - - - - -
Test
Bore Hole #3 Log and Test Results
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

GENERAL GEOLOGY
 Sedimentary rocks constitute 60% of the city
 Recent Alluvium is a term for clay, silt, sand, gravel or similar unconsolidated detrital
material, deposited during comparatively recent geologic time (US Geological Survey).
 Cebu City is rugged and mountainous with elevation reaching up to 900 meters above
mean sea level.
 Brgy. Busay has a slope grade ranging from 18% to 30%.
PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
Liquefaction is a phenomenon that happens when there is an excessive ground movement such as
an earthquake. . Based on field surveys conducted by the Philippine Institute of Volcanology and
Seismology (PHIVOLCS) in 2017, Brgy. Busay is not susceptible to liquefaction.
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Using the PHILVOCS FaultFinder mobile application, Brgy. Busay is 2km away from the
nearest active fault, the Central Cebu Fault. As per the news reports from 2019, Central Visayas
experienced earthquakes with magnitude of less than 6.5.
PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

CLIMATE AND AGROMETEOROLOGICAL REPORT

Time
Month Day RA (mm) Time (max) Time (mean) RH WS WD
(min)
10 77.4 27.2 24 25.6 92 4 360
January 14 19.1 27.5 24.6 26.05 93 1 140
16 31.6 25.8 23.7 24.75 92 6 360
3 6.2 28.5 23.9 26.2 87 4 360
February 16 12 26.2 22.9 24.55 89 6 20
23 11.6 30.2 24 27.1 88 3 360
7 13.6 30.1 24.1 27.1 83 5 20
March 28 15.1 29.6 24.4 27 83 4 30
31 12 27.5 24.5 26 90 3 350
2 106 31.2 23.8 27.5 81 4 360
April 4 14.8 25.6 23.8 24.7 92 4 20
15 78 31.5 24.8 28.15 80 3 30
3 22.9 33.5 23.5 28.5 80 3 90
May 9 11.3 32.4 25 28.7 80 3 40
20 18.4 32.9 24.9 28.9 81 1 20
5 28.6 32.9 24.4 28.65 77 2 240
June 8 69.4 29 23.8 26.4 91 1 300
30 50.2 31.4 24 27.7 81 2 340
6 20.2 31.8 24.1 27.95 82 2 60
July 8 34.1 32 25 28.5 83 2 150
18 37.6 31.6 23.2 27.4 80 3 360
4 15.1 32.6 24.8 28.7 83 3 240
August 7 36.9 33.2 24.4 28.8 84 2 360
24 59.7 30.6 24 27.3 91 2 220
6 35.4 33.1 24.1 28.6 79 2 50
September 8 68.8 32.6 24.2 28.4 77 2 50
29 40.4 30.6 24.1 27.35 88 1 20
1 21.6 31.9 25 28.45 81 2 40
October 18 35.6 30.6 24.6 27.6 86 4 240
31 7 27.1 24.6 25.85 90 2 240
6 14.8 31.5 25.8 28.65 79 3 50
November 7 23 30.2 25.1 27.65 86 3 40
16 58 29.9 24.4 27.15 86 4 10
5 20.7 32.6 24.8 28.7 77 4 20
December 15 24.4 24.4 20.6 22.5 91 2 20
28 12.8 30.7 25.1 27.9 84 4 10
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
 Public Health - The design aims to provide preparedness in which people can be healthy
while foreseeing the entire population’s needs and safety as well.
 Global - The design has a purpose to affect and communicate with similar studies all
over the world as the demand in soil improvement, slope stabilization, and landslide
mitigation is increasing.
 Social - Engineering will best carry out its social purpose through involvement in the
formulation of the response to a social need, rather than just being called to provide a
quick technological fix with plans and procedures provided.
 Cultural - The design addresses cultural diversity by bringing the designers, clients, and
workers to function as one, together.
 Welfare - Welfare can be explained in a way that by stabilizing the slope in that area,
majority of the public will believe that their safety has strengthened, their concern in
landslide is no longer alarming, and tourists can reach the attractions efficiently.

/SEPARATE SLIDE/ CHAPTER 3: DESIGN CONSTRAINTS, TRADE-OFFS, AND

STANDARDS

/NEXT SLIDES/
DESIGN CONSTRAINTS
(DISCUSS BRIEFLY WHAT IS DESIGN CONSTRAINTS AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE)

QUANTITATIVE CONSTRAINTS
1. Economical - Due to the susceptibility when it comes to earthquake intensity scale and
earthquake-induced landslide potential, the designers will identify and choose possible
alternatives to strengthen the soil and stabilized the slope in accordance to the codes and
design standards while considering the cost of the method.
2. Constructability - The aim of this constraint is to identify the appropriate technique that
can finish the project in the shortest possible period of time without exceeding the
amount money allocated for the construction.
3. Sustainability - To minimize the environmental impact in a moderate earthquake-induce
landslide potential area, proper maintenance is needed to prolong the lifespan of the
project.
4. Environmental - The designers will evaluate each trade-offs using Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) during the construction of each trade-offs and choose which
has the best set of results.
5. Risk Assessment - The designers will choose the trade-off with the lowest risk or
severity of outcome during and after the completion of the project using Risk Matrix
Assessment.
Health and Safety - the designers will analyze the safety as well as the health of the
people involved by evaluating the likelihood, consequence, result, and risk of each
scenario during and after the completion of the project.
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

QUALITATIVE CONSTRAINTS
1. Social - The project is bounded by what is imposed or desired by the local residents in
the area. It is in best interest to stop or minimize the effects when the soil erosion occurs
through slope stabilization.
2. Availability - The project can only be implemented under the availability of the budget
from the local government of Cebu City and the client’s specifications.
3. Political - The slope stabilization design will help the local government to keep Busay’s
tourist attractions available to the public and increase the city’s economic status.

TRADE-OFFS
(WHAT IS TRADE-OFFS?)

GEOTECHNICAL TRADE-OFFS
(BRIEFLY EXPLAIN WHAT IS TERRACING)
Terracing reduces the amount and velocity of water moving across the soil surface which will
help to lessen the impact on structure/s (such as reinforcement walls) constructed at the toe of the slope.

BENCH TERRACING
Bench terracing is a method to convert a steep slope into a series of level steps or benching by
cutting and filling to produce a series of level steps or benches. This method reduces the slope by twenty
(20) to thirty (30) percent and the runoff water is lessened as well since the water infiltrates the soil more
and the water goes down the slope slower.

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Improves the fertility of the soil in the long run Needs skilled labor for proper construction
Effectively controls soil, water runoff, and
Time-consuming construction
erosion
Requires high expenditure of money for
Provides permanent improvement of the land
construction and maintenance
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

FANYA JUU TERRACING

Fanya juu terraces are made by digging the trenches along the contour lines of terraced slope –
the excavated soil is being thrown uphill to form an embankment, which may be also strengthened by
grass cover.

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Risk of breakages and therefore increased
Reduces the loss of soil and water
erosion
Tolerant to climate extremes (e.g. rain
Not suitable for short term establishments
storms)
Has low to medium labor requirements in High amount of labor involved for initial
maintenance construction
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

BROAD-BASE TERRACING
Broad base terrace is a surface channel or embankment type soil conservation technique which is
formed at a suitable spacing along the graded contours of gentle slopes.

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Utilizes the land left between terrace and the
Not suitable for high rainfall regions
ridge
Intercepts the runoff and divert to a safe Cost depends on the length of terrace and
point. size of slope cross-section
Is preferred due to ease of construction
Has critical maintenance requirements
equipment and procedures
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

STRUCTURAL TRADE-OFFS
(BRIEFLY EXPLAIN WHAT ARE REINFORCEMENT WALLS)
Terracing, if not maintained, can provoke land degradation and thus it has to be combined with
additional soil protection technique. Reinforcement walls combined with terracing, imminent soil
erosion will have lesser impact as it stop the soil from behind without overturning.

GABION WALL
Gabion walls are made up of prefabricated tied steel wire baskets which are filled with selected
rock fragments. Gabions are used to slow the velocity of concentrated runoff or to stabilize slopes with
seepage problems and/or non-cohesive soils.

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Construction materials are easy to transport Should be designed with adequate corrosion
to sites, easy to unload, and place protection.
Doesn’t require a skilled labor or specialized
Needs large stone quantities.
equipment
Resists breakage and separation due to the
Time-consuming construction
flexibility of their wire mesh construction
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH (MSE) WALL

Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) wall consists of reinforcing mesh or strips, granular soil,
and a precast block assembled on top of each. It is constructed from bottom to top since it is assembled on
top of each other.

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Susceptible to elastic deformation Requires select granular fill
Specifications and contracting practices have
Simple and fast construction
not been fully standardized
Cost effective Requires a relatively large space
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

SOIL NAIL WALL

Soil nail wall is a type of retaining wall wherein steel reinforcement bars are inserted into the soil
and placing a front face support. Soil nailing is typically used to stabilize existing slopes or excavations
where top-to-bottom construction is advantageous compared to other retaining wall systems.

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Not recommended for sensitive and expansive
Economical and cost-effective
soils
Requires specialized and experienced
No need for heavy equipment
contractors
Performs well during seismic events and to Very high soil density may be required in soils
overall system flexibility of low shear strength
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

DESIGNER’S RAW DATA

(BRIEFLY DISCUSS WHAT THE DESIGNERS DID IN THIS PART)
(ASSIGNED PRESENTER: IN THIS PART, WE USED THE PROVIDED DESIGN MATRIX FOR THIS
COURSE WITH ELEMENTS IDENTIFIED UNDER LIKELIHOOD AND CONSEQUENCES)

CONSEQUENCES

Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic

Almost Certain High High Extreme Extreme Extreme

Likely Medium High High Extreme Extreme

LIKELIHOOD

Possible Low Medium High Extreme Extreme

Unlikely Low Low Medium High Extreme

Rare Low Low Medium High High

RISK ASSESSMENT
Risk Assessment identifies and analyzes potential events that may negatively impact certain
assets by making judgements on its tolerability to the risk. (EXPLAIN FURTHER)

GEOTECHNICAL TRADE-OFFS
Bench Terracing
Final
Scenario Likelihood Consequence Result
Assessment
Earth-moving
equipment Unlikely Moderate Medium
malfunction

During Uncompact Soil Rare Moderate Medium

High
Soil Erosion Unlikely Major High

Uneven spread of
Unlikely Minor Low
top soil
After
Uncompact terrace
Possible Minor Medium
formation
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

Fanya juu Terracing

Final
Scenario Likelihood Consequence Result
Assessment
Earth-moving
equipment Rare Insignificant Low
malfunction

During Uncompact Soil Rare Moderate Medium

Medium
Soil Erosion Rare Moderate Medium

Uneven spread of top

Unlikely Minor Low
soil
After
Uncompact terrace
Unlikely Minor Low
formation

Broad-base Terracing
Final
Scenario Likelihood Consequence Result
Assessment
Earth-moving
equipment Unlikely Moderate Medium
malfunction

During Uncompact Soil Rare Moderate Medium

High
Soil Erosion Unlikely Major High

Uneven spread of top

Possible Minor Medium
soil
After
Uncompact terrace
Possible Moderate High
formation
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

STRUCTURAL TRADE-OFFS

Gabion Wall
Final
Scenario Likelihood Consequence Result
Assessment
Earth-moving
equipment Unlikely Minor Low
malfunction
During Wall
Rare Minor Low
Deformation
Ground Medium
Unlikely Moderate Medium
movement
Vegetation
growing at the Possible Minor Medium
After toe of the wall
Bulging of the
Unlikely Moderate Medium
wall

MSE Wall
Final
Scenario Likelihood Consequence Result
Assessment
Earth-moving
equipment Unlikely Moderate Medium
malfunction
During Wall
Rare Moderate Medium
Deformation
Ground High
Possible Moderate High
movement
Vegetation
growing at the Possible Minor Medium
After toe of the wall
Bulging of the
Rare Moderate Medium
wall
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

Soil Nail Wall

Final
Scenario Likelihood Consequence Result
Assessment
Earth-moving
equipment Unlikely Moderate Medium
malfunction
During Wall
Rare Moderate Medium
Deformation
Ground High
Possible Moderate High
movement
Vegetation
growing at the Possible Minor Medium
After toe of the wall
Bulging of the
Rare Major High
wall

HEALTH AND SAFETY ASSESSMENT

Health and Safety assessment analyzes the severity of each potential events to the physical health
and safety of the people involved during and after the construction of each trade-offs. (EXPLAIN
FURTHER)

GEOTECHNICAL TRADE-OFFS

Bench Terracing
Final
Scenario Likelihood Consequence Result
Assessment
Workers not wearing
Unlikely Minor Low
proper PPE
Serious Injuries Rare Moderate Medium
Unskilled/ Less experience
Unlikely Minor Low
During personnel
Weather condition Possible Minor Medium
Hazardous Noise levels Possible Minor Medium Medium
Suffocation/Buried Rare Moderate Medium
Airbone fibres/dust Possible Minor Medium
Exhaustion of workers Possible Minor Medium
Sliding Failure Rare Minor Low
After Hand Arm and Vibration
Possible Minor Medium
Syndrome (HVAS)
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

Fanya juu Terracing

Final
Scenario Likelihood Consequence Result
Assessment
Workers not wearing
Rare Minor Low
proper PPE
Serious Injuries Unlikely Minor Low
Unskilled/ Less experience
Possible Minor Medium
During personnel
Weather condition Possible Minor Medium
Hazardous Noise levels Rare Minor Low Medium
Suffocation/Buried Rare Insignificant Low
Airbone fibres/dust Possible Minor Medium
Exhaustion of workers Possible Minor Medium
Sliding failure Rare Minor Low
After Hand Arm and Vibration
Possible Minor Medium
Syndrome (HVAS)

Broad-base Terracing
Final
Scenario Likelihood Consequence Result
Assessment
Workers not wearing
Unlikely Moderate Medium
proper PPE
Serious Injuries Rare Moderate Medium
Unskilled/ Less experience
Unlikely Minor Low
During personnel
Weather condition Possible Minor Medium
Hazardous Noise levels Possible Minor Medium High
Suffocation/Buried Possible Moderate High
Airbone fibres/dust Possible Moderate High
Exhaustion of workers Possible Minor Medium
Sliding failure Rare Minor Low
After Hand Arm and Vibration
Possible Minor Medium
Syndrome (HVAS)
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

STRUCTURAL TRADE-OFFS

Gabion Wall
Final
Scenario Likelihood Consequence Result
Assessment
Workers not wearing
Unlikely Minor Low
proper PPE
Serious Injuries Unlikely Minor Low
Unskilled/ Less experience
Possible Minor Medium
During personnel
Airbone fibres/dust Possible Minor Medium
Falling from the height of
Unlikely Minor Low Medium
the wall
Hazardous Noise levels Unlikely Minor Low
Exhaustion of workers Possible Minor Medium
Excessed materials Unlikely Minor Low
Stone fragments Possible Minor Medium
After
Hand Arm and Vibration
Possible Minor Medium
Syndrome (HVAS)

MSE Wall
Final
Scenario Likelihood Consequence Result
Assessment
Workers not wearing
Unlikely Moderate Medium
proper PPE
Serious Injuries Possible Minor Medium
Unskilled/ Less experience
Possible Minor Medium
During personnel
Airbone fibres/dust Possible Minor Medium
Falling from the height of
Unlikely Moderate Medium Medium
the wall
Hazardous Noise levels Unlikely Moderate Medium
Exhaustion of workers Possible Minor Medium
Excessed materials Possible Minor Medium
Stone fragments Possible Minor Medium
After
Hand Arm and Vibration
Possible Minor Medium
Syndrome (HVAS)
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

Soil Nail Wall

Final
Scenario Likelihood Consequence Result
Assessment
Workers not wearing
Unlikely Moderate Medium
proper PPE
Serious Injuries Possible Moderate High
Unskilled/ Less experience
Possible Minor Medium
During personnel
Airbone fibres/dust Possible Minor Medium
Falling from the height of
Unlikely Moderate Medium High
the wall
Hazardous Noise levels Unlikely Moderate Medium
Exhaustion of workers Possible Minor Medium
Excessed materials Unlikely Moderate Medium
Stone fragments Possible Minor Medium
After
Hand Arm and Vibration
Possible Minor Medium
Syndrome (HVAS)
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Environmental Assessment is the process of evaluating the environmental impact of a proposed
project during and after its construction. (EXPLAIN FURTHER)

GEOTECHNICAL TRADE-OFFS

Bench Terracing
Negative Impact Positive Impact
No Impact
Very Likely Possible Possible Very Likely
Numerical Equivalent (NE) -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Environmental Effects
Solute
X
dispersion
Toxic
X
substances
Organic
Pollution X
pollution
Anaerobic
X
effects
Gas
X
emissions
Salinity X
Soil
X
properties
Saline
X
Soil groundwater
Saline
X
drainage
Saline
X
intrusion
Number of Crosses (NC) - 6 2 2 -
NE x NC -3 0 1
Final Assessment
∑(𝑵𝑬 𝒙 𝑵𝑪) -20%
[ ∑ 𝑵𝑪
𝒙 𝟏𝟎𝟎%]
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

Fanya juu Terracing

Negative Impact Positive Impact
No Impact
Very Likely Possible Possible Very Likely
Numerical Equivalent (NE) -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Environmental Effects
Solute
X
dispersion
Toxic
X
substances
Organic
Pollution X
pollution
Anaerobic
X
effects
Gas
X
emissions
Salinity X
Soil
X
properties
Saline
X
Soil groundwater
Saline
X
drainage
Saline
X
intrusion
Number of Crosses (NC) - 4 4 2 -
NE x NC - -2 0 1 -
Final Assessment
∑(𝑵𝑬 𝒙 𝑵𝑪) -10%
[ ∑ 𝑵𝑪
𝒙 𝟏𝟎𝟎%]
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

Broad-base Terracing
Negative Impact Positive Impact
No Impact
Very Likely Possible Possible Very Likely
Numerical Equivalent (NE) -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Environmental Effects
Solute
X
dispersion
Toxic
X
substances
Organic
Pollution X
pollution
Anaerobic
X
effects
Gas
X
emissions
Salinity X
Soil
X
properties
Saline
X
Soil groundwater
Saline
X
drainage
Saline
X
intrusion
Number of Crosses (NC) - 5 4 1 -
NE x NC - -2.5 0 0.5
Final Assessment
∑(𝑵𝑬 𝒙 𝑵𝑪) -20%
[ ∑ 𝑵𝑪
𝒙 𝟏𝟎𝟎%]
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

STRUCTURAL TRADE-OFFS

Gabion Wall
Negative Impact Positive Impact
No Impact
Very Likely Possible Possible Very Likely
Numerical Equivalent (NE) -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Environmental Effects
Solute
X
dispersion
Toxic
X
substances
Organic
Pollution X
pollution
Anaerobic
X
effects
Gas
X
emissions
Salinity X
Soil
X
properties
Saline
X
Soil groundwater
Saline
X
drainage
Saline
X
intrusion
Number of Crosses (NC) - 4 5 1 -
NE x NC - -2 0 1 -
Final Assessment
∑(𝑵𝑬 𝒙 𝑵𝑪) -10%
[ ∑ 𝑵𝑪
𝒙 𝟏𝟎𝟎%]
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

MSE Wall
Negative Impact Positive Impact
No Impact
Very Likely Possible Possible Very Likely
Numerical Equivalent (NE) -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Environmental Effects
Solute
X
dispersion
Toxic
X
substances
Organic
Pollution X
pollution
Anaerobic
X
effects
Gas
X
emissions
Salinity X
Soil
X
properties
Saline
X
Soil groundwater
Saline
X
drainage
Saline
X
intrusion
Number of Crosses (NC) - 5 3 1 -
NE x NC - -2.5 0 0.5
Final Assessment
∑(𝑵𝑬 𝒙 𝑵𝑪) -20%
[ ∑ 𝑵𝑪
𝒙 𝟏𝟎𝟎%]
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

Soil Nail Wall

Negative Impact Positive Impact
No Impact
Very Likely Possible Possible Very Likely
Numerical Equivalent (NE) -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Environmental Effects
Solute
X
dispersion
Toxic
X
substances
Organic
Pollution X
pollution
Anaerobic
X
effects
Gas
X
emissions
Salinity X
Soil
X
properties
Saline
X
Soil groundwater
Saline
X
drainage
Saline
X
intrusion
Number of Crosses (NC) - 6 3 1 -
NE x NC - -3 0 0.5 -
Final Assessment
∑(𝑵𝑬 𝒙 𝑵𝑪) -25%
[ ∑ 𝑵𝑪
𝒙 𝟏𝟎𝟎%]
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

INITIAL ASSESSMENT BREAKDOWN

(EXPLAIN THE SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENTS. INCLUDE THAT THE PROJECT COST
EXCLUDES THE MAINTENANCE COST ON THE TABLE)

GEOTECHNICAL TRADE-OFFS
CONSTRAINTS BROAD-BASE
BENCH TERRACING FANYA JUU TERRACING
TERRACING
ECONOMICAL
Php 797, 650 Php 934, 390 Php 797, 650
(PROJECT COST)
CONSTRUCTABILITY
35 days/ 5 weeks 41 days/ 6 weeks 35 days/ 5 weeks
(DURATION)
SUSTAINABILITY
15 years 25 years 10 years
(LIFESPAN)
RISK ASSESSMENT
3 2 3
(DURING AND AFTER)
HEALTH AND SAFETY
2 2 3
(DURING AND AFTER)
ENVIRONMENTAL
(POLLUTION AND -20% -10% -20%
SOIL EFFECTS)

STRUCTURAL TRADE-OFFS
CONSTRAINTS
GABION WALL MSE WALL SOIL NAIL WALL
ECONOMICAL
Php 109, 320 Php 252, 450 Php 84,167
(PROJECT COST)
CONSTRUCTABILITY
23 days/ 3 weeks 12 days/ 2 weeks 45 days/ 6 weeks
(DURATION)
SUSTAINABILITY
50 years 75 years 40 years
(LIFESPAN)
RISK ASSESSMENT
2 3 3
(DURING AND AFTER)
HEALTH AND SAFETY
2 2 3
(DURING AND AFTER)
ENVIRONMENTAL
-10% -20% -25%
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

NORMALIZATION OF RAW DATA

GEOTECHNICAL TRADE-OFFS
CRITERION’S ABILITY TO SATISFY THE CRITERION
DECISION IMPORTANCE (on a scale of -5 to 5)
CRITERION BENCH FANYA JUU BROAD-BASE
on a scale of 0 to 5
TERRACING TERRACING TERRACING
ECONOMICAL
4 1 10 1
(PROJECT COST)
CONSTRUCTABILITY
3 1 10 1
(DURATION)
SUSTAINABILITY
5 10 28 1
(LIFESPAN)
RISK ASSESSMENT
(DURING AND 3 1 10 1
AFTER)
HEALTH AND
SAFETY
3 10 10 1
(DURING AND
AFTER)
ENVIRONMENTAL
1 10 1 10
OVERALL RANK 100 244 28

STRUCTURAL TRADE-OFFS
CRITERION’S ABILITY TO SATISFY THE CRITERION
DECISION IMPORTANCE (on a scale of -5 to 5)
CRITERION
on a scale of 0 to 5 GABION WALL MSE WALL SOIL NAIL WALL
ECONOMICAL
4 1 -50.21337415 10
(PROJECT COST)
CONSTRUCTABILITY
3 10 13 1
(DURATION)
SUSTAINABILITY
5 10 32.5 1
(LIFESPAN)
RISK ASSESSMENT
(DURING AND 3 10 1 1
AFTER)
HEALTH AND
SAFETY
3 10 10 1
(DURING AND
AFTER)
ENVIRONMENTAL
1 -17 1 10
OVERALL RANK 127 34.6465 64

(INCLUDE THE SUMMARY OF DESIGNER’S INITIAL ASSESSMENTS ON THIS PART, THE

OVERALL HIGHEST TRADE-OFF OF EACH CONTEXT))
 PRESENTATION CONTENTS
(6 LINES PER SLIDE)

DESIGN STANDARDS
(WHAT IS/ARE THE PURPOSE OF THIS?)

1. ASTM’s Geotechnical Engineering Standards

2. DPWH Blue Book Volume I
3. AASHTO’s Study guide for Soil Mechanics Level 1 (Module II)
a. Unified Soil Classification System
b. AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials)
c. USDA Textural Soil Classification
4. The National Building Code of the Philippines (PD 1096)

/LAST SLIDES/
PHOTO WITH EXTERNAL ADVISER
“THANK YOU”