Ps

i
EFFECTIVENESS OF VARIOUS RETAINING STRUCTURE USING GEOTECHNICAL

PROPERTIES AT CAMP 8, KENNON ROAD, BAGUIO CITY
A Project Study Presented to

the Faculty of the Department of Civil Engineering
College of Engineering and Architecture
University of the Cordilleras
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
By
Somera, Karen Consolacion S.
Sta. Marina, Jonas D.
Tamondong, Joy G.
Tillo, Pol Hendrix V.
March 27, 2019

ii

College of Engineering and Architecture
Department of Civil Engineering
APPROVAL SHEET
This PROJECT STUDY entitled “PROPOSED COUNTERFORT RETAINING
WALL AT STATION 247+775 TO STATION 248+165 CAMP 8, KENNON ROAD,
BAGUIO CITY” prepared and submitted by KAREN CONSOLACION SALAZAR
SOMERA, JONAS DELA CRUZ STA. MARINA, JOY GARCIA TAMONDONG, and POL
HENDRIX VILLANUEVA TILLO in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN CIVIL
ENGINEERING, has been examined and is recommended for acceptance
and approval for oral examination.
ENGR. JAN NICHOLAS S. BALDO

Adviser
Date Signed:_______________
Approved by the TECHNICAL PANEL for Oral Examination on March 27,

2019 with a rating of ____.
Engr. BENITO G. GARWAGEO

Member, Technical Panel
Date Signed:_________
Engr. DEXTER HANSEL C. APNOYAN Engr. JENNICA B. DAGDAG

Member, Technical Panel Member, Technical Panel
Date Signed:_________ Date Signed:___________
Accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering.
Engr. ALMA A. AGUILAR Engr. NELSON G. NOTARTE

Department Head, CE OIC-DEAN, CEA
Date Signed:_________ Date Signed:___________
iii
ABSTRACT
Landslide has been major problem during rainy seasons in
mountainous areas. In finding appropriate ways to address it,
several studies have been undertaken. Some built cantilever
retaining wall to resist the lateral pressure of soil but was
damaged by the typhoons that passed by. In finding the most
appropriate type of retaining structure to be used on a particular
location, a uniform geotechnical property and theory was used to
check the factors of safety against sliding, overturning, and
bearing capacity failure of different types of retaining
structures. Results were compared to determine most appropriate
retaining structure and then compared to the existing cantilever
retaining wall with respect to their external stabilities. This
leads to a particular retaining structure that will be sufficient
and efficient enough to hold the material and save more money for
the construction.
Keywords: Landslide, Cantilever Retaining Wall, Geotechnical
Property, Factor of Safety, Sliding, Overturning, Bearing Capacity
Failure, Retaining Structure

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study would not have been a success if it were not for
the efforts of the researchers together with the help, support,
and assistance of many people who had contributed to its production
and completion. Hence, the researchers would whole-heartedly want
to express their utmost gratitude and respect to those who became
part in this success and those who made this research study
possible.
To the officers of the Department of Public Works and Highways
whose assistance were acquired by the researchers to conduct the
study.
To Engr. Jan Nicholas S. Baldo for his guidance and commitment
to the researchers.
To the family of the researchers, for their love, moral, and
financial support that motivated the researchers to finish this
study.
Above all, to Almighty God for providing strength, knowledge,
and wisdom to all the participants in this research.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TITLE PAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
APPROVAL SHEET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
LIST OF FIGURE/S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
LIST OF EQUATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
CHAPTER
1 THE PROBLEM
Background of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Conceptual/Theoretical Framework . . . . . . 11
Research Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . 25
Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . 26
Scope, Limitation and Delimitation. . . . . . 27
2 DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Research Design and Methodology . . . . . . . 28
Sources of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Population and Locale of the Study. . . . . . 34
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Geotechnical Properties at Camp 8, Kennon 35
Road Baguio City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
External Stabilities of the Retaining Wall. . 40
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
vi
APPENDICES
A Cantilever Retaining Wall . . . . . . . . . . 48
B Counterfort Retaining Wall. . . . . . . . . . 52
C Geogrid Retaining Wall. . . . . . . . . . . . 56
D Gabion Gravity Retaining Wall . . . . . . . . 58
E Geotechnical Properties from DPWH . . . . . . 61
F Letter to DPWH-Baguio City District 62
Engineering Office. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
G Letter to Mines and Geosciences Bureau-CAR. . 63
CURRICULUM VITAE
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Table Title Page
1 Data Gathered from Department of Public Works 35
and Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2 Trial Dimensions for Cantilever Retaining 36
Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3 Typical Dimensions of Counterfort Retaining 37
Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4 Typical Dimensions of Geogrid Retaining Wall 38
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 Typical Dimensions of Gabion Gravity 39
Retaining Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Factor of Safety of the Cantilever Retaining
6 Wall and Counterfort Retaining Wall Using the 40
DPWH design data . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 Wall and Geogrid Retaining Wall Using the 40
DPWH design data . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8 Wall and Gabion Gravity Retaining Wall Using 41
the DPWH design data . . . . . . . . . . . .
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Figure Title Page
No.
1 Satellite Location of the Project Study Area. 3
2 Existing Damaged Retaining Wall. . . . . . . 10
3 Conceptual Framework Diagram 11
4 Theoretical Framework Diagram. . . . . . . . 12
5 Active Earth Pressure for Granular Soil. . . 13
6 Generalized Case for Rankine Active Pressure. 14
7 Location of Force Pa for Pure Sand . . . . . 16
8 Failure of the Structure Against Sliding . . 18
9 Failure of the Structure Against Overturning 20
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10 Failure of the Structure Against Bearing 22
Capacity Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11 Research Paradigm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
12 Schematic Diagram of Cantilever Retaining 36
Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13 Schematic Diagram of Counterfort Retaining 37
Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14 Schematic Diagram of Geogrid Retaining Wall 38
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15 Gabion Gravity Retaining Wall Schematic 39
Diagram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ix
LIST OF EQUATIONS
Equation Equation Title Page
No.
1 Active Pressure Coefficient. . . . . . . . . 13
2 Active Earth Pressure Force General Cases 15
for Granular Soil Only . . . . . . . . . . .
3 Active Pressure Coefficient General Cases 15
for Granular Soil Only . . . . . . . . . . .
4a Active Earth Horizontal Pressure Force . . . 15
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4b Active Earth Vertical Pressure Force . . . . 15
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5 Active Earth Pressure Force General Cases 16
for Pure Sand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 Active Pressure Coefficient General Cases 16
for Pure Sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7 Passive Pressure Coefficient . . . . . . . . 17
8 Factor of Safety Against Sliding . . . . . . 18
9 Passive Earth Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . 18
10 Active Earth Pressure. . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11 Surcharge Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
12 Factor of Safety against Overturning . . . . 20
13 Resisting Moment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
14 Overturning Moment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
13 Factor of Safety against Bearing Capacity. . 23
14 Pressure Distribution at Base . . . . . . . 23
The Problem 1

Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM
Background of the Study
Landslide is a particularly serious problem worldwide
(Boardman, 2006; Manzatto et al., 2002; Orimoogunje, 2014). It is
accelerated by a marked landscape slope, removal of vegetation to
create agricultural land, drought, soil tillage, wind, or water,
but erosion by water is the most widespread and serious. This is
because the force of gravity on water and ice may lower the shear
strength of landscape slopes, making soils behave like plastics
or, under very moist conditions, like fluids (Abrahams, 1986;
Brunsden, 1988; Clague and Robert, 2012; Goudie and Viles, 1997;
Kanungo and Sharma, 2014; Selby, 1993).
Landslide is a major hazard in most mountainous and hilly
regions as well as in steep river banks and coastlines. Their
impact depends largely on their size and speed, the elements at
risk in their path and the vulnerability of these elements. Every
year landslides cause fatalities and result in large damage to
infrastructure (roads, railways, pipelines, artificial reservoirs,
etc.) and property (buildings, agricultural land).
This has been a problem in many countries especially during
rainy seasons and Philippines is not a stranger to this problem.
This usually happens in Cordillera Administrative Region because

The Problem 2

of its prominent geological features. Some of the deadliest
landslides happened days after Tropical Storm Ondoy (Ketsana) left
the country, Typhoon Pepeng (Parma) battered the mountainous
Cordillera region with intense rain, causing multiple landslides
in the region in early October 2009. Approximately about 120 people
died in Benguet province, 25 in Baguio City, and 23 in Mountain
Province, according to authorities. And recently, the one that
occurred at a mining town in Itogon, Benguet on September 15, 2018.
As of September 21, 2018, at least 58 people have been reported
dead and 31 of whom lived in Barangay Ucab where the biggest
landslide happened.
One of the major victims of this natural disaster is Baguio
City which experiences such disaster almost every time strong
typhoon occurs. Several measures have been considered to mitigate
the problem in landslide here in Baguio City. The Department of
Public Works and Highways is constructing different kinds of slope
protections including installation of hazard at different parts of
the roads. For the damages caused by several typhoon including the
worst typhoon experience here in Baguio City, typhoon Ompong which
causes loss of life’s and damages to different properties.
According to mayor Mauricio Domogan “The City Government Disaster
Risk Reduction Management Council has done their best to prepare
for any calamity. But we cannot really estimate what calamity will
come so we can be in prayer and cooperation”. The mayor also urged

The Problem 3

citizens to inspect mountains above them because of the possibility
of a landslide during weather disturbances. He also said that he
is eyeing to put canals for communities who live in mountainous
areas to prevent landslides. According to the Department of Public
Works and Highways Secretary Mark Villar who was the guest of honor
and speaker in the 14th National Annual Convention of the District
Engineers League of the Philippines in Baguio City said measures
will now be implemented to ensure that such incident would not
happen again to other facilities of the department. “We will be
using the hazard map and at this point, we have sent out a memo to
review existing infrastructures and to be even more vigilant with
our new structures to make sure that nothing will be compromised
in anyway specially on safety”.
Figure 1. Satellite Location of the Project Study Area

The Problem 4

As shown in Figure 1, it is one of the critical areas that is
highly susceptible to landslide and that is the reason that it is
never new for us to hear that Camp 8, Kennon Road is closed during
rainy seasons. It is because this place is one of the areas where
almost every time a strong typhoon occurs, landslide happens due
to its weak type of soil and has insufficient retaining structures
in some areas. As a matter of fact, a cantilevered concrete
retaining wall has been built on a particular area but was damaged
by soil erosion due to the too much rainfall caused by the strong
typhoon Ompong last 2018 as shown in Figure 2 and it is still left
unrepaired. A cantilever retaining wall is one that consists of a
wall which is connected to foundation. A cantilever wall holds
back a significant amount of soil, so it must be well engineered.
They are the most common type used as retaining walls. Cantilever
wall rest on a slab foundation. This slab foundation is also loaded
by back-fill and thus the weight of the back-fill and surcharge
also stabilizes the wall against overturning and sliding. The
damaged cantilever retaining wall along Camp 8, Kennon Road was
designed and put up by the Department of Public Works and Highways.
As said, it is still left untouched and unrepaired for unknown
reasons. Retaining wall are to retain the materials that it is
expected to keep and not fail but since worst case has happened,
investigation and repair must be done to avoid future unwanted
disaster. Inadequacy of the existing retaining structure might be

The Problem 5

one of the reasons that it failed and it is not supposed to be the
one that was built. As part of this study, it includes the
evaluation of the existing cantilever retaining wall with regards
to its external stability based on the design given by the
Department of Public Works and Highways. Also, it includes
evaluation of various types of retaining structures that is
considered as more effective.
Counterfort retaining walls are cantilever walls strengthened
with counter forts monolithic with the back of the wall slab and
base slab. The counter-forts act as tension stiffeners and connect
the wall slab and the base to reduce the bending and shearing
stresses. To reduce the bending moments in vertical walls of great
height, counterforts are used, spaced at distances from each other
equal to or slightly larger than one-half of the height Counter
forts are used for high walls with heights greater than 6 to 12 m.
The advantages of counterfort walls are the large effective
depth for the cantilever reinforcement and concrete efficiently
concentrated in the counterfort. For very tall walls, where an
alternative cantilever wall would require greater thickness and
larger quantities of reinforcing steel and concrete, the savings
in material will exceed the additional cost of forming the
counterforts. Accurate design is necessary for economy in
important projects involving large quantities of material and

The Problem 6

requires refinement of the simple assumptions in the definition of
counterfort walls. The analysis becomes complex for determination
of the division of the load between one-way horizontal slab and
vertical cantilever action. (Merritt, 2003)
A counterfort R.C.C. retaining wall was constructed in the
year 2002-2003.The length of the wall is about 310 meters no of
counterforts at the backfill side. The height of the wall was 5
meters above the foundation level. The wall is located near Sangli
City in Maharashta state of India. The purpose of the wall was to
retain earth on the side for 5 meters’ height. The type of soil to
be retained was B.C. soil. Also, there is a road along the wall on
the retained earth where two lane traffic was expected. (Padhye,
2008).
A geogrid is defined as a geosynthetic material consisting of
connected parallel sets of tensile ribs with apertures of
sufficient size to allow strike-through of surrounding soil,
stone, or other geotechnical material (Koerner, 1999). Geogrid is
a flexible mesh that is used to create a reinforced coherent mass
behind the retaining wall by stabilizing the soil. The geogrid
system is more flexible in nature. The retaining wall with the
geogrid system has the higher adapting ability with the deformation
of the foundation, when compared with traditional construction,
which is very stiffer in nature. More flexibility implies they

The Problem 7

behave well as earthquake resistant. This construction can be made
more economical, compared to traditional method. The landfill can
be made steeper, which shows a cost reduction. More height in wall
and steepness are created with the help of reinforced soil system.
The onboard Geogrid arrangement has afforestation protection. This
brings environmental benefits, which is an important parameter in
sustainable construction. The Geogrid retaining wall construction
guaranty quality and reduced cost of construction. This helps in
rapid and convenient construction. With time the geogrid
reinforcing retaining wall construction and its advantages have
earned appreciation, which had made its demand to increase in the
construction in highways, railways, dams, ports, planning city and
projects focusing on the environment. The stability of the soil
depends greatly on the friction angle it contains. The friction
angle is often referred to as the shear strength of the soil. Shear
is the force that is applied when using a pair of scissors. In
soil, the friction angle is the maximum shear force between
particles of soil as they try to pass each other. Segmental
retaining wall height is restricted due to stability issues, but
the height can be increased with the help of using woven synthetic
sheet or in another term geogrids as successive layers at the back
face of the wall. Layers are positioned and anchored into the
facing result in creating reinforced earth unit mass that acts
against overturning and sliding actions. The geogrid segmental

The Problem 8

retaining walls can be constructed for height more than 12m. There
are various types of geogrids with different tensile strength that
produced by manufacturers. Generally, Geogrids are 3.65 m wide and
the length is depending on design requirements. Ultimate strength
of geogrids is determined by test as per either ASTM or
Geosynthetic Research Institute (GRI). Moreover, long term design
strength is calculated from ultimate tensile strength by using a
safety factor to take detrimental effects to considerations, such
as long term degradation, damages during construction, material
deficiency. Geogrids are commonly anchored into the facing wall
joints at one end and in-situ soil beyond the backfill to achieve
effective utilization of geogrids. Resistance against pullout is
consist of friction coefficient at block joint and any engagement
technique that is employed for example pins through geogrid
interstices, folding geogrids over a lip in the block.
Gabions are cylinders or boxes that are filled with earth or
stones, which are used in the building structures such as dams,
retaining walls, and dikes. Gabions have been used for several
millennia in Egypt and China. Prior to 1879 gabions were
constructed withplant materials, which severely limited their
useful life. In about 1879 a company in Italy isthought to have
first used wire mesh in the construction of gabion baskets.
(Freeman, 2000). This is possibly the first use of the modern
wire mesh baskets as used today. Gabions are now usedthroughout

The Problem 9

the world for bank stabilization, retaining walls, slope
stability, hydraulicstructures, channel linings, weirs for
erosion, and numerous other purposes (Kuo-Hung, 2009). The
advantages of gabion include very porous, flexible, strong,
durable,reliable, easily constructed, and ecological properties.
Gabions come in three basic forms, thegabion basket, gabion
mattress, and sack gabion. Gabion baskets can be made from
eitherwelded or woven wire mesh. The welded wire is normally
galvanizedto reduce corrosion but may be coated with plastic or
other material to prevent corrosionandlor damage to the wire
mesh containing the rock. Gabion fill is normally graded filI
ofbetween 100mm to 200mm in diameter with a nominal 60% smaller or
larger, the more angularthe fill, the better interlock and the
less deformation of the face occurs. The fill normally consists of
rock material but other materials such as bricks, crushed concrete
and blocky or flatquarried stone have been used to fill the baskets
(Chai et al., 2010). Utilized PFC numerical simulation to study
the influence of reinforcement on the earth stress of gabion
retaining wall. It was found that the eafth pressure behind the
wall reached passive state at a depth of 5 m andappeared active
state at a depth of 2 m which were corresponding to results of
fieldmeasurements. Hence, the purpose of this study presents first
to investigate the mechanicalbehavior of soil confined with geo-
textiles by a series of tri-axial compression tests, and second to

The Problem 10

analyze the failed case of soil gabion retaining wall by a
numerical method undervarious conditions of river level changed.
Figure 2. Existing Damaged Retaining Wall

The Problem 11

Conceptual and Theoretical Framework
Conceptual Framework
In this figure it shows the concept of the study that will be
use determine the external stability of an effective retaining
structure.
Existing Evaluation
Damaged of Different Effective
Retaining Type of Retaining
Wall Due to Retaining Structure
Soil Erosion Structures
Figure 3. Conceptual Framework
The main objective of the study is to determine the external
stabilities of different retaining structures using the data of
the Department of Public Works and Highways on site. To be
specific, the evaluation of the different types of retaining
structures with respect to their factors of safety against siding,
overturning, and bearing capacity failure. After which, results of
different types of retaining structures will be compared to the
existing retaining structure which is the cantilever retaining
wall to determine the most effective retaining structure to be
used at the location.

The Problem 12

Theoretical Framework
In this figure it consists the list of theoretical method
that will be used in the study.
Geotechnical
Properties at
the site
Various
Retaining
Structures
Rankine Method
Factor of Safety Factor of Safety

Factor of Safety
Against Against Bearing
Against Sliding
Overturning Capacity Failure
Allowable
Coefficient Resisting
Bearing
of Friction Moment
Capacity
Weight of Maximum
Overturning
the Pressure at
Moment
Structure Base
Lateral
Earth
Pressure
Surcharge
Figure 4. Theoretical Framework Diagram

The Problem 13

Rankine Active Lateral Earth Pressure Method
This theory is based mainly on the assumption of neglecting
friction between the soil and the wall, so no shear forces are
developed on soil particles. The soil in this case pushes the wall
far away. The transformation factor of vertical pressure to
horizontal pressure in this case is "Ka" and the lateral earth
force is termed by "Pa"
Firstly, the value of Ka can be calculated as following:
Ka = tan2(45-Ø/2) eqn’(1)
There are different cases:
In case of granular soil (pure sand):
Figure 5. Active Earth Pressure for Granular Soil

The Problem 14

Generalized Case for Rankine Active Pressure:
This will calculate the lateral earth pressure for general
case (inclined wall and inclined backfill).
For Granular soil only (pure sand):
Figure 6. Generalized Case for Rankine Active Pressure
Where:
α = inclination of backfill with horizontal
θ = inclination of wall with vertical

The Problem 15

β = inclination of Pa with the normal to the wall
From trigonometry, the angle between the normal to the wall and
horizontal is θ.
Calculation of Pa:
Pa = 1/2ɣH2Ka eqn’(2)
Where: area of vertical pressure diagram = 1/2γH2
The value of Ka in this case is calculated from the following
equation:
cos ∝-θ 1+sin2∅-2sin∅cosφa

Ka = eqn’(3)
cos2θ cos2∝+√sin2∅-sin2α
Where:
φa = sin-1(sinα/sin∅)
β = tan-1(sin∅sinφa/1-sin∅cosφa)
The location of Pa is H/3 from base as shown in figure. For the
computation of horizontal and vertical components of Pa:
Pah = Pacos(β+θ) eqn’(4a)
Pav = Pasin(β+θ) eqn’(4b)

The Problem 16

For Pure Sand:
Figure 7. Location of Force Pa for Pure Sand
Pa is inclined with angle α with horizontal and Effective
vertical pressure = γH
Pa = 1/2γH2Ka eqn’(5)
Ka in this case is calculated from the following equation:
cos∝-√COS2∝-COS2∅
Ka = cos∝ eqn’(6)
cos∝+COS2∝-COS2∅
The Problem 17

Rankine Passive Lateral Earth Pressure
The wall in this case pushed into the soil. The transformation
factor of vertical pressure to horizontal pressure in this case is
"Kp" and the lateral earth force is termed by "Pp"
Kp = tan2(45+Ø/2) eqn’(7)
The only difference between passive and active is in the formula
of calculating K.
Factor of Safety against Sliding (FSsliding)
Retaining walls are structures designed to bound soils
between two different elevations, therefore they are mainly
exposed to lateral pressures from the retained soil plus any other
surcharge. Retaining walls may be sensitive to sliding problems,
particularly if founded on poor soils. The horizontal pressures on
the backfill side will push the wall outward, which will tend to
slide on its footing. The driving force from the applied loads
must be resisted by an opposite friction force at the interface of
the footing base and the underlying soil, produced by the bearing
pressure against the base. In addition, the passive pressure
against the front face of the wall and footing may be considered
as well. It is unlikely that the natural soil will remain
undisturbed during the construction, therefore it’s a common
practice to conservatively ignore the top portion of the soil cover
for the passive force calculation. When the friction plus passive
forces are not high enough to counteract the pushing force, a shear
The Problem 18

key can be designed under the wall footing. This structural element
will bear laterally against the soil, allowing to extend the
passive pressure diagram deeper, as shown in the image above. This
is a very efficient way to increase the sliding resistance of a
retaining wall. The factor of safety against sliding is defined as
the resisting forces (friction + passive) divided by the driving
lateral force, and the minimum value should be greater than or
equal to 1.5.
Figure 8. Failure of the Structure Against Sliding
μ∑W+Fp
FSsliding = ≥ 1.5 eqn’(8)
Fa +Fq
1
Fp = γ k H2 eqn’(9)
2 s p
1
Fa = γ k H2 eqn’(10)
2 s a
The Problem 19

Fq = qka H eqn’(11)
Where:
µ = Coefficient of friction
∑W = Total weight of the structures
Fp = Passive Earth Pressure
Fa = Active Earth Pressure
Fq = Surcharge Pressure
q = Surcharge
ka = coefficient of active earth pressure
kp = coefficient of passive earth pressure
H = Total height of backfill
Factor of Safety against Overturning (FSOT)
The safety factor of wall stability against overturning is
defined as the ratio between the sum of resisting moments and the
sum of overturning moments. In evaluating these moments, the
vertical component of the active thrust on the wall may be
considered in two different ways: as decreasing the overturning
moment, or increasing the resisting one. This technical note shows
that both these definitions are false because the safety factor
value depends on the thrust surface being arbitrarily assumed in
the analysis. Wall stability against overturning can, however, be

The Problem 20

assessed using the position of the resultant force on the base,
which is unaffected by the assumed thrust surface. Contrary to
overturning, safety factors against sliding and bearing capacity
are unaffected by the assumed thrust surface. The horizontal
pressures on the backfill side will push the wall outward, which
will tend to overturn around the end of the toe, as shown at the
right. The overturning moment from the applied forces must be
resisted by an opposite moment produced by the vertical forces,
including the wall self-weight and the weight of the backfill over
the heel. The factor of safety against overturning is defined as
the resisting moment divided by the overturning moment, and the
minimum value should be greater than or equal to 1.50.
Figure 9. Failure of the Structure Against Overturning

The Problem 21

RM
FSOT = ≥ 1.5 eqn’(12)
OM
1
RM = ∑Wi Xi + Fp h eqn’(13)
3
1 1
OM = Fa H +Fq H eqn’(14)
3 2
Where:
RM = Resisting Moment
OM = Overturning Moment
Wi = Weight of Strucuture
Xi = Moment Arm About toe
h = height of passive earth pressure
H = total height of backfill
Factor of Safety against Bearing Capacity Failure (FSBC)
The vertical pressure as transmitted to the soil by the base
slab of the retaining wall should be checked against the ultimate
bearing capacity of the soil. The nature of variation of the
vertical pressure transmitted by the base slab into the soil. Note
that qtoe and qheel are the maximum and the minimum pressures
occurring at the ends of the toe and heel sections, respectively.
The magnitudes of qtoe and qheel can be determined through solving.
Generally, a factor of safety of 3 is required. It is noted that
the ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations occurs at a

The Problem 22

settlement of about 10% of the foundation width. In the case of
retaining walls, the width B is large. Hence the ultimate load qu
will occur at a fairly large foundation settlement. A factor of
safety of 3 against bearing capacity failure may not ensure, in
all cases, that settlement of the structure will be within the
tolerable limit. Thus, this situation needs further investigation.
Note that ∑V includes the soil weight and that, when the value of
the eccentricity, e, becomes greater than B/6, qmin becomes
negative. Thus, there will be some tensile stress at the end of
the heel section. This stress is not desirable because the tensile
strength of soil is very small. If the analysis of a design shows
that e > B/6, the design should be re-proportioned and calculations
redone.
Figure 10. Failure of the Structure Against Bearing Capacity

Failure
The Problem 23

Qall
FSBC = ≥ 2.0 eqn’(15)
Qmax
∑W 6e
Qmax = 1+ eqn’(16)
B B
Where:
Qall = Allowable Bearing Capacity
Qmax = Maximum Pressure Distribution at Base
∑W = Total Weight of Structure
B = Base of Structure
e = eccentricity
The Problem 24

Research Paradigm
This study involves the determination of different types of
retaining structures with respect to their external stabilities
using a particular theory. After the calculation of the factors
of safety against sliding, overturning and bearing capacity
failure, compare to see if which of the retaining structures is
the most effective to be used at the location.
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
• Geotechnical • Determination of Lateral • External

Properties at Earth Pressure using Stability of
Camp 8, Rankine Method Existing
Kennon Road, 1−sin∅ Cantilever
Baguio City • Ka = Retaining
1+sin∅
Benguet 1+sin∅ Wall
• Unit Weight • Kp = • External
1−sin∅
of Soil • Calculation of Existing Stability of
• Angle of Cantilever Retaining Wall Counterfort
Friction μ∑W+Fp Retaining
• Unit Weight • FSsliding = Wall
Fa+Fq
of Materials RM • External
• Coefficient • FSOT = Stability of
OM
of friction Q Geogrid
• FSBC = all Retaining
• Allowable Qmax
Wall
Bearing • Proportioning the
Capacity dimensions of Various • External
Retaining Structures Stability of
• Cohesion Gabion
• Surcharge • Height Gravity Wall
• Base
• Schematic • Thickness
Diagram of • Calculation of Various
Cantilever Retaining Structures
Retaining μ∑W+Fp
Wall • FSsliding =
Fa+Fq
• Hazardous RM
Map of Baguio • FSOT =
OM
City, Benguet Q
• FSBC = all
Qmax
Figure 11. Research Paradigm

The Problem 25

Significance of the Study
Since landslide is common in some part of Baguio City and due
to the climate change that we are facing right now, it is expected
to experience the worst scenario as time passes by like having
more rain fall or even stronger earthquakes which may cause the
problem to arise that may damage properties and even cause the
loss of life of people who live in Baguio City. This study will
help the Department of Public Works and Highways to check which
type of retaining wall is the most effective to be used on the
area that will be sufficient enough to hold the material save more
money for the construction. This way, further effects of landslide
is avoided and saves lives and properties. In addition to this,
this study can help other people who is willing to build a
retaining structure where this study can help them to adopt which
is the most effective and more unique by any means.

The Problem 26

Statement of the Problem
The main objective of this study is to evaluate different
types of retaining structures using the DPWH geotechnical data
through Rankine method. The study intends to answer the
following questions:
1. What are the factors of safety with respect to the following
retaining wall?
a. Cantilever Retaining Wall
b. Counterfort Retaining Wall
c. Geogrid Retaining Wall
d. Gabion Gravity Wall
2. What is the most efficient retaining structure based on their
factors of safety?
The Problem 27

Scope, Limitation and Delimitation of the Study
This study focuses on the comparison of the existing retaining
structure and other types of retaining structure by determining
its external stability using the gathered design data from the
Department of Public Works and Highways.
This study is limited to the gathered design data from the
DPWH. For the most effective retaining structure, determination of
the different limiting values for the factors of safety against
sliding, overturning, and bearing capacity failure are only
considered. Also, the method that will use in this is only one
which is Rankine’s Theory.
This study does not include the determination of the internal
stability of existing retaining structure in the site and the total
cost of the project since the study area is a public highway
wherein projects or proposals are government funded.

Design and Methodology 28
Chapter 2
DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
This chapter discusses the methods used in order to come up
with the necessary results in the evaluation of various retaining
walls for barangay Camp 8, Baguio City. The research methodology,
source of data, and population and locale of the study are also
discussed in this chapter.
Research Methodology
The researchers made used of descriptive research
methodology. The descriptive research was used in gathering the
scientific theories about the specifications and procedures needed
in the analysis of the project. In order to determine the most
efficient retaining wall to be used on the given site, four
different types of retaining wall were evaluated to checked the
external stability of the various retaining wall which are:
Cantilever retaining wall, Counterfort retaining wall, Geogrid
retaining wall and Gabion retaining wall.
Proportioning Retaining Walls, when designing retaining
walls, an engineer must assume some of the dimensions, called
proportioning, which allows the engineer to check trial sections
for stability. If the stability checks yield undesirable results,
the section can be changed and rechecked.

Determining the Coefficient of Active Earth Pressure, the
first step is to calculate the coefficient of active earth
pressure, Ka, using Rankine theory. When the backfill profile is
horizontal behind the retaining wall, the Rankine equation for
calculating the coefficient of active earth pressure is
simplified. Then, the coefficient of active earth pressure is equal
to one minus the sine of the angle of internal friction divided by
one plus the sine of the angle of internal friction.
Rankine theory (1857) considered the equilibrium of a soil
element at any depth in the backfill behind a retaining wall and
determined the active earth pressure. The assumptions made in
Rankine’s theory of earth pressure is summarized as follows:
 The backfill is homogeneous and semi-infinite.
 The backfill is dry and cohesion less.
 The surface of the backfill is plane and horizontal.
 The back of the retaining wall is vertical and smooth so that
there is no friction between the wall and the backfill when
the wall moves away from the backfill.
 The shear strength of the backfill is governed by Coulomb’s
equation.
 The wall moves sufficiently away from the backfill so that
Mohr’ circle touches the failure envelope and the backfill

attains a state of plastic equilibrium so that lateral earth
pressure becomes minimum equal to active earth pressure.
 The position and direction of the resultant or total active
earth pressure are known. The resultant active pressure acts
parallel to the surface of the backfill through the centroid
of the pressure diagram.
Determining the Lateral Force Resultant, the second step is to
compute the lateral force resultant, Pa, due to the active earth
pressure. The active earth pressure along the depth of the
retaining wall must be known. The active earth pressure is equal
to vertical soil pressure times the coefficient of active earth
pressure minus two times the soil cohesion times the square root
of the coefficient of active earth pressure. When the backfill
soil is cohesion less, the active earth pressure along the depth
of the retaining wall is reduced to the vertical soil pressure
multiplied by the coefficient of active earth pressure. The
vertical soil pressure at any depth along the retaining wall is
equal to the unit weight of the backfill soil multiplied by the
vertical distance from the top of the backfill to the location of
interest resulting in a triangular pressure distribution. To
calculate the lateral force resultant, the area of the triangle is
found and multiplied by the coefficient of active earth pressure.
Then, the lateral force resultant is equal to total retaining wall

height squared times one-half times the unit weight of the backfill
soil times the coefficient of active earth pressure.
Determining the Overturning Moment, the third step is to find
the overturning moment, Mo, caused by the lateral force resultant
due to the active earth pressure. It is equal to the lateral force
resultant multiplied by the moment arm of the resultant force. The
moment arm is equal to the perpendicular distance from the toe of
the retaining wall to the centroid of the lateral pressure
distribution due to the active earth pressure. Since the lateral
pressure distribution is triangular, the distance from the toe of
the retaining wall to the centroid is simply the total height of
the retaining wall divided by the three.
Determining the Resisting Moment, the fourth step is to
determine the balancing moment that is responsible for resisting
the overturning moment on the retaining wall. The weights and
centroids of both the retaining wall and backfill soil must be
known. But in most cases, the retaining wall and soil are broken
up into simpler geometric components, and the weights and centroids
of these components are found individually. After finding the self-
weights and centroids of the retaining wall and soil, the moments
their self-weights exert about the toe of the retaining wall are
tabulated and added together to arrive at the final balancing
moment quantity.
Determining of Factor of Safety Against Overturning, the fifth
step is calculating the factor of safety against overturning. It
is equal to the balancing moment divided by the overturning moment
and should be greater than or equal to two.
For external stability of a retaining wall it should satisfy
the following conditions:
 The wall should be stable against sliding. The factor of
safety against sliding shall have a minimum value of 1.5.
 The wall should be stable against overturning. For granular
backfill, the factor of safety against overturning shall have
a minimum value of 1.5. For cohesive backfill, the factor of
safety against overturning shall have a minimum value of 2.
 The base of the wall should be stable against bearing capacity
failure. For granular backfill, the factor of safety against
bearing capacity failure shall have a minimum value of 2. For
cohesive backfill, the factor of safety against bearing
capacity failure shall have a minimum value of 3.
 The resultant of all the forces should fall within the middle
third of the base.
Determining of Factor of Safety Against Sliding, the sixth step
is to find the factor of safety against sliding. It is equal to
the coefficient of friction between the concrete and soil times
the total weight of the retaining wall and soil divided by the
lateral force resultant due to the active earth pressure. When
ignoring the effects of the passive earth pressure, a minimum
required factor of safety against sliding of 1.5 is acceptable
otherwise, a factor of 2.0 is typically accepted.
Determining of Factor of Safety Against Bearing Capacity, the
seventh step is to find the factor of safety against bearing
capacity. It is equal to the allowable soil bearing capacity
divided by the maximum pressure distribution at base. The computed
value should be greater than two.
Sources of Data
The researchers gathered the geotechnical properties of the
given site and was obtained from the written reports and records
of Department of Public Works and Highways(DPWH)-CAR.
For the evaluation of various retaining wall, the researchers
gathered information regarding different theories to be used from
books, journals, and literatures regarding the design parameters
to be used in the study.

Population and Locale of the Study
Barangay Camp 8, Kennon Road, Baguio City is generally
characterized by irregular terrains and steep slopes. It has a
latitude and longitude of 16°23’59” N and 120°36’1” E respectively,
and has a population of approximately 2155. It is located at a
mountainous area where slopes are present and soil erosion is high
due to soil’s soft nature and can result to road closure which
will delay the transportation of resources, goods and people. The
roadway from Baguio General Hospital going to barangay Camp 8 is
located on a mountainous side. Houses and trees can be found above
and access road below the given site. The length of the roadway
was 8 meters with an existing retaining structure with an
approximately 390 meters long however, a part of this retaining
wall was damaged due to strong typhoon Ompong last year 2018.
Results and Discussions 35

CHAPTER 3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter shows the tabulated data gathered in the study
with their corresponding figures, analysis, and interpretation.
Geotechnical Properties at Camp 8, Kennon Road, Baguio City
The geotechnical properties were determined by gathering data
from Department of Public Works and Highways and this will be used
to compute the external stabilities of various retaining
structures.
Table 1. Data Gathered from Department of Public Works and Highways
Symbol Description Values Unit

γconcrete Unit Weight of Concrete 24 kN/m3
γsoil Unit Weight of Soil 19 kN/m3
q Surcharge 9.8 kPa
Ø Angle of friction of soil 35 º
δ Angle of friction bet. Soil/wall 0 º
α Backfill slope angle 0 º
θ Slope of Wall 0 º
fc' Compressive Strength of Concrete 20.7 mPa
Ec Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete 21520 mPa
fs Min. Yield Strength of RSB (Grade 40) 276 mPa
fs Min. Yield Strength of RSB (Grade 60) 415 mPa
Es Modulus of Elasticity of RSB 200000 mPa
qa Allowable Soil Bearing Capacity 294 kPa
bw Considered Strip of Masonry 1 m
β Seismic Coefficient (Kh/1-Kv) 21.8
Kh Horizonal Acceleration coefficient = A 0.4
Kv Vertical Acceleration Coefficient 0
µ Coefficient of Base Friction 0.55

Table shows the geotechnical properties at Camp 8, Kennon
Road, Baguio City.
Table 2. Trial Dimensions for Cantilever Retaining Wall

H Height of active soil pressure 7.00 m
b1 Top stem thickness 0.30 m
b2 = d Bottom Stem thickness 1.20 m
D Thickness of Footing 0.80 m
B Width of Footing 4.20 m
a Length of Toe 2.70 m
c Length of Heel 0.30 m
h Height of passive soil pressure 2.30 m
1 meter strip of Reinforced Concrete Ret.
bw Wall 1.00 m
Figure 12. Schematic Diagram of Cantilever Retaining Wall(NTS)


Table 3. Typical Dimensions of Counterfort Retaining Wall(NTS)

b1 Top stem thickness 0.30 m
b2 = d Bottom Stem thickness 1.20 m
D Thickness of Footing 0.50 m
B Width of Footing 4.20 m
a Length of Toe 1.40 m
c Length of Heel 2.50 m
1 meter strip of Reinforced Concrete Ret.
bw Wall 1.00 m
bc Assume width of Counterfort 0.30 m
Spacing of Counterforts from center to
L center 3.50 m
Figure 13. Schematic Diagram of Counterfort Retaining Wall (NTS)


Table 4. Typical Dimensions of Geogrid Retaining Wall

B Base of Geogrid 4.20 m
Table shows the typical dimensions of geogrid retaining wall
compared from the dimensions of DPWH design data.
Figure 14. Schematic Diagram of Geogrid Retaining Wall (NTS)


Table 5. Typical Dimensions of Gabion Gravity Retaining Wall

B Base width of Gabion 4.20 m
t Thickness of Gabion per layer 1.00 m
tr Space of Gabion per layer 0.3 m
Table shows the typical dimensions of gabion gravity
retaining wall compared from the dimensions of DPWH design data.
Figure 15. Gabion Gravity Retaining Wall Schematic Diagram (NTS)


External Stability of the Retaining Wall
The computed factor of safety of various types of retaining
walls are compared to each other to come up with the most efficient
type of retaining wall to be used at the given site.
Table 6. Factor of Safety of the Cantilever Retaining Wall and

Counterfort Retaining Wall Using the DPWH design data
Factor of Safety Cantilever Retaining Counterfort

Against Wall Retaining Wall
Sliding 2.27 > 1.5 SAFE 2.87 > 1.5 SAFE
Overturning 2.17 > 1.5 SAFE 5.17 > 1.5 SAFE
Bearing Capacity
Failure 2.31 > 1.5 SAFE 2.69 > 2.0 SAFE
Table 6 shows the compared external stability of cantilever
retaining wall from DPWH and counterfort retaining wall from
researchers. The computed factors of safety are all safe.

Geogrid Retaining Wall Using the DPWH design data
Factor of Safety Cantilever Retaining Geogrid Retaining

Against Wall Wall
Bearing Capacity 1.471 < 2.0 NOT
Failure 2.31 > 1.5 SAFE SAFE
retaining wall from DPWH and geogrid retaining wall from
researchers. The computed factor of safety against bearing
capacity in geogrid retaining wall is not safe.


Gabion Gravity Retaining Wall Using the DPWH design data
Factor of Safety Cantilever Gabion Gravity

Against Retaining Wall Retaining Wall
Bearing Capacity
Failure 2.31 > 1.5 SAFE 2.64 > 2.0 SAFE
retaining wall from DPWH and gabion gravity retaining wall from
researchers. The computed factors of safety are all safe.

Conclusions and Recommendations 42

Chapter 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents conclusions and recommendations based
on the findings of the project study.
Conclusions
Using the geotechnical data of Department of Public Works and
Highways, the result of external stability for the existing
cantilever retaining wall passed all the limiting values for the
factors of safety and compared to the other types of retaining
structures that were computed, the limiting values for factors of
safety also passed except for geogrid retaining wall, the result
shows that this retaining wall is critical for bearing capacity
failure.
Based from the results that were undertaken, the most
efficient retaining structure based on their factors of safety is
the counterfort retaining wall compare to the other types of
retaining structures it is more stable.

Conclusions and Recommendations 43

Recommendation
The researcher’s recommendation to further improve the study
are as follows.
1. Use other theories to check the external stability of the
retaining structures because the researchers only used
Rankine’s theory.
2. Check the wall stability of other types of retaining
structures that were not checked on this study using the same
parameters.
3. Study on the design of a Counterfort retaining wall to be
used at the given location.

References 44

References
Bowles, J.E. (1982), Foundation Analysis and Design.
Das, B.M. (2008), Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering.
Indelicato, A. (September 2015). Landslides in the
Philippines: Assessing The Role of Bioengineering as an effective
Alternative Mitigation Technique. Retrieved from
https://researchgate.net/publication/321698939_LANDSLIDES_IN_THE
_PHILIPPINES_ASSESING_THE_ROLE_OF_BIOENGINEERING_AS_AN_EFFECTIVE
_ALTERNATIVE_MITIGATION_TECHNIQUE
Sunstar. (July 2018). Mayor sets reminders for weather safety.
Retrieved from https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/1753609
Prashant, A. (January 2007). Rankine’s Earth Pressure Theory for
Nonlinear Failure Envelopes. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/Institution/Indian_Institute_of_Tec
hnology_Gandhinagar
Chaliawa, Y. (December, 2015). Comparative Study of Cantilever
and Counterfort Retaining Wall. Retrieved from
https://www.scribd.com/document/293993679/Comparative-Study-of-
Cantilever-and-Counter-Fort-Retaining-Wall-46768
Bakr, H. Counterfort Retaining Wall MCN. Retrieved from
https://www.scribd.com/document/381197527/COUNTERFORT-RETAINING-
WALL-MCN.pdf
References 45

Syed, U. Design of Counterfort Retaining Wall. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/12042876/design_of_counter_fort_retaini
ng_wall
Kasilingam, S. Behavior of Cantilever and Counterfort
Retaining Wall Subjected to Lateral Earth Pressure from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272308503_Behavior_of_c
antilever_and_counterfort_retainingw_walls_subjected_to_lateral_
earth_pressure
Chowdhury, I. Counterfort retaining walls under earthquake
force from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291527386_
Counterfort_retaining_walls_under_earthquake_force
Merritt, F.S. Counterfort Retaining Walls (Building Design
and Construction) from http://www.civilengineeringx.com/bdac/
counterfort-retaining-walls/
Padhye, R. D. Case Study of Failure of a R.C.C. Counterfort
Retaining Wall from http://www.scholarsmine.mst.edu/cgi/viewcon
tent.cgi?article=2712&content=icchge
MacGinley, T.J. (2006), Reinforced Concrete Design, Design
Theory and Examples.
Al-Agha, A.S. Foundation Engineering from
http://site.jugaza.edu.ps/ahmedagha/files/2014/10/Foundation-
Ch.7.pdf
References 46

Almadhoun, Y.M. Civil Engineering Department: Foundation
Engineering (ECIV 4052) from
http://site.jugaza.edu.ps/ymadhoun/files/2016/09/Chapter-12.pdf
Mawlood, Y. Analytical Study for Stability of Gabion Walls
from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289857945_Analy
tical_Study_for_Stability_of_Gabion_Walls
Rahul, G. Retaining Walls from https://www.slide share.net/ra
hulagrawal05/retaining-walls-21085895
Mizal-Azzmi N. Jamaludin N. Mohd-Noor N. (December 2011).
Geotechnical Approaches for Slope Stabilization in Residential
Area from https://www.researchgate.net/publication /271637658
_Geotechnical_Approaches_for_Slope_Stabilization_in_Residential_
Area
Das, B.J. (2011). Principles of Foundation Engineering from
https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=v3Mq9szzE1YC&printsec=front
cover&dq=foundation+engineering&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjV6o6O_anh
AhVDJHIKHa0VCUcQ6AEIPDAD#v=onepage&q=foundation%20engineering&f=
false
Hamakareem M.I. Retaining Wall Types, Materials, Economy, and
Applications from https://theconstructor.org/geotechnical/retain
ing-walltypesuse/24566/?fbclid=IwAR0uOj8VPCIQT
jOwpq_TP783LmWjUCRQlD6bzy12a0KurgI54emGA7yXBY0
References 47

Murthy, V.N.S Geotechnical Engineering Principles and
Practices of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.
gbv.de/dms/goettingen/351118926.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwifrCC8s_hAhUbfXAK
HY6RCPsQFjAPegQlBxAB&usg=AOvVaw2y7DqEBfyLoacX4wV2Gma
Mandal, J.N. Geosynthetics Engineering: In Theory and
Practice from https://nptel.ac.in/courses/105101143/downlo
ads/Lecture%2032.pdf
Brooks, H. Nielsen, J.P. (1992) Basics of Retaining Wall
Design 10th Edition.

Appendices 48
Appendices A – Cantilever Retaining Wall
fc’ = 20.7 N/mm2
fy = 415 N/mm2
γs = 19 kN/m3
γc = 24 kN/m3
μ = 0.55
QALL = 294 kN/m2
Ø = 35°
C = 0
ka = tan2(45-Ø/2) = tan2(45-35/2) = 0.271
kp = 1/ka = 1/0.271 = 3.690
Figure 1A. Dimensions Components of the Wall(NTS)

Appendices 49
A. Proportioning of Wall Components
H = Height of active soil pressure = 7m
b1 = Top stem thickness = 0.30m
b2 = d = Bottom stem thickness = 1.20m
D = Thickness of footing = 0.80m
B = Width of footing = 4.20m
a = length of toe = 2.70m
c = Length of Heel = 0.30m
h = Height of passive soil pressure = 2.30m
bw = 1-meter strip of R.C Ret. Wall = 1.0m
Figure 2A. Cantilever Retaining Wall Schematic Diagram (NTS)

Appendices 50
B. Check Stability of the Wall
 Against Overturning
W1 = 24(0.30)(0.3)(1m)= 2.16 Kn
W2 = 24(1/2)(1.2-0.3)(7-0.80)(1m)= 66.96 Kn
W3 = 24(4.2)(0.8)(1m)= 80.64 Kn
W4 = 19(0.3)(7-0.80)(1m)= 35.34 Kn
W5 = 19(2.7)(1.5)(1m)= 76.95 Kn
W6 = 9.80(0.3)= 2.94
∑W = 264.99 Kn
Fa = 1/2kaɣ(H+h’)2
Fa = 1/2(0.271)(19)(7)2 = 126.151 kN
Fp = 1/2kpɣh2
Fp = 1/2(3.69)(19)(2.3)2 = 185.441 kN
At 1m strip surcharge, fq = 9.8(7.52) = 19.972 Kn
RM = 2.16(3.75)+66.96(2/3(0.9)+2.7)+80.64(4.2/2)+35.34(0.3/2+3.9)
+76.95(1.35)+9.8(1/2(0.3)+2.7+1.2)= 685.115
OM = Fa(1/3)(7.52)
OM = 126.105(1/3(7.52)) = 316.217
FSOT = RM/OM = 685.115/316.217 = 2.17 > 1.5 SAFE!
 Against Sliding
FSSL = µ∑W/(Fa+fq)
FSSL = 0.55(262.05)/126.151+19.972 = 2.27 > 1.5 SAFE!

Appendices 51
 Against Bearing Capacity
Q = (∑W/b)+(1±6e/b)
QMAX= (264.99/4.2 + 6(0.71)/4.2) = 127.09 kPa < Qa okay!
QMIN = (264.99/4.2-6(0.71)/4.2) = -90.90 kPa < Qa okay!
FSBC = QALL/QMAX = 294/127.09 = 2.31 > 1.5 SAFE!

Appendices 52
Appendices B – Counterfort Retaining Wall
fc’ = 20.7 N/mm2
fy = 415 N/mm2
γs = 19 kN/m3
γc = 24 kN/m3
μ = 0.55
PALL = 294 kN/m2
Ø = 35°
C = 0
1-sinØ
ka = = 0.271
l+sinØ
1+sinØ
kp = = 3.690
l-sinØ
A. Proportioning of Wall Components
H = 4.7+2.30 = 7m
b = 0.4H to 0.7H = 0.6H = 4.2m
Toe projection = b/3 to b/4 = 4.2/3 = 1.4m
Assume thickness of vertical wall = 300mm
Thickness of base slab = H/14 to H/12 = 500mm
Clear spacing between counterforts is given by:
L = 0.3-0.6H = 3.5 m
provide counterforts at 3.5 m c/c.
Assume width of counterfort = 300 mm
clear spacing provided = L = 3.5-0.3 = 3.2m

Appendices 53
Figure 1B. Trial Dimension Components of the Wall(NTS)
B. Check Stability of Wall
 Against Overturning
Distance of Moment about

Sr. Description of Loads in Kn c.g. from Toe in
No. loads Toe in m kN-m
Weight of stem 24 x 0.3 x (7-0.5) 1.4 + 0.3/2
1 72.54
W1 = 46.8 = 1.55
Weight of base slab 24 x 4.2 x 0.5
2 4.2/2 = 2.1 105.84
W2 = 50.40
Weight of earth 19 x 2.5 x (7-0.5) (2.5/2)+1.4
3 910.81
over heel slab W3 = 308.75 +0.3 = 2.95
Weight of [(24-19) x 2.50 x 1.4 + 0.3 +
4 Counterfort W4 (7-0.5)/2]/3.5 2.5/2 34.241
using (ɣc-ɣs) = 11.607 = 2.95
Total ΣW = 417.557 ΣM=1123.431
Appendices 54
Figure 2B. Counterfort Retaining Wall Schematic Diagram(NTS)
γH2ka 19x(7)2(0.271)
Pah = = = 126.15 kN
2 2
Plh = LLxkaxH= 9.81x0.271x7 = 18.610 kN
PH = Pah + Plh = 144.76 kN
H H H
M0 = (Pahx )+(Plhx )-(Pphx )
3 2 3
Appendices 55
7 7 2.3
M0 = (126.15x )+(18.610x )-(185.44x ) = 217.31 kN
3 2 3
∑M .
F.SO = = = 5.17 > 1.5 SAFE!
MO 217.31
 Against Sliding Php
∑µ.W + Php = (0.55 x 417.557)+ 185.44 = 415.096 kN

F.SSL= ∑µ.W/PH = 415.096/144.76 = 2.87 > 1.5 SAFE!
 Bearing Capacity
x= (∑M-MO)/∑W = (1123.431-217.31)/417.557 = 2.17m
e = b/2 – x = 4.2/2 – 2.17 = -0.07m
b/6 = 4.2/6 = 0.7 ; e shall be ≤ b/6 to ignore tension stress
∑W 6e
P= (1± )
b b
417.557 6X-0.07
PA= 1+ = 89.477 kN/m2 < PALL (294 kN/m2) SAFE!
4.2 4.2
417.557 6X-0.07
PD = 1- = 109.37kN/m2 < PALL (294 kN/m2) SAFE!
4.2 4.2
(2.50+0.30)
PB = 89.447+(109.37-89.447)X = 102.729 kN/m2
4.20
2.50
PC =89.447+(109.37-89.447)X = 101.305 kN/m2
4.2
0.43
PE = 89.447+(109.37-89.447)X = 91.487 kN/m2
4.2
Pall 294
F.SBC = = = 2.69 > 2 SAFE!
Pmax 109.37
Appendices 56
Appendices C – Geogrid Retaining Wall
fc’ = 20.7 N/mm2
fy = 415 N/mm2
γs = 19 kN/m3
γc = 24 kN/m3
μ = 0.55
QALL = 294 kN/m2
Ø = 35°
C = 0
1-sinØ
ka = = 0.271
l+sinØ
1+sinØ
kp = = 3.690
l-sinØ
Figure 1C. Geogrid Retaining Wall Schematic Diagram (NTS)

Appendices 57
B. Check Stability of the Wall
 Pressure Distribution
Fa = 1/2ɣH2ka
Fa = 1/2(19)(0.271)(7)2= 126.151 kN
Fq = 9.81(0.271)(7) = 18.591 kN
FT = 126.151+18.591 = 144.742 kN
 Against Sliding (neglecting effect of surcharge)
W = 19(4.20)(7)tan25 = 260.479 kN
FSSL = W/FT = 260.479/144.742 = 1.80 > 1.5 SAFE!
 Against Overturning Moment
RM = W(L/2)= 19(7)(4.20)(4.20/2) = 1173.06 kN-m
OM = Fa(7/3)+(Fq)(7/2)
OM = 126.151(7/3)+18.591(7/2) = 359.421
FSOT = RM/OM = 1173.06/359.421 = 3.26 > 2.0 SAFE!
e = OM/W+Fq(L)
e = 359.421/19(7)(4.20)+9.8(4.20) = 0.599m < 4.2/6 = 0.700m
Effective Length = L-2e = 4.20-2(0.599) = 3.002
Bearing Pressure = [19(7)+9.8](4.2/3.002)= 199.801 kPa
FSBC = 294/199.801 = 1.471 < 2.0 NOT SAFE!

Appendices 58
Appendices D - Gabion Gravity Retaining Wall

fc’ = 20.7 N/mm2
fy = 415 N/mm2
γs = 19 kN/m3
γc = 24 kN/m3
μ = 0.55
PALL = 294 kN/m2
Ø = 35°
C = 0
1-sinØ
ka = = 0.271
l+sinØ
1+sinØ
kp = = 3.690
l-sinØ
Figure 1D. Gabion Gravity Retaining Wall Schematic Diagram (NTS)

Appendices 59
A. Check Stability of the Wall
Fa = 1/2ɣH2ka
Fa = 1/2(19)(0.271)(7)2= 126.151 kN
Fq = 9.81(0.271)(7) = 18.591 kN
Fp = 1/2kpɣh2
Fp = 1/2(3.69)(19)(2.3)2 = 185.441 kN
Wg = 100lb/ft2 x 3.283/1m x 1/2.2
Wg = 15.735 kN/m3
[1x24x3]+[2.7x1x2.85]+[3x1x2.7]+[3.3x1x2.55]+[3.6x1x2.4]+[3.9x1x2.25]+[4.2x1x2.1]
dg =
23.1
dg = 57.645/23.1 = 2.4955m
Wg =[(4.2)(1)+(3.9)(1)+3.6(1)+3.3(1)+3(1)+2.7(1)+2.4(1)](15.735)
Wg = 363.4785 kN
 Against Sliding
FSSL = µWg/Fa
FSSL = [0.55(363.4785)+185.441]/126.151+19.591
FSSL = 2.66 > 1.5 SAFE!
 Against Overturning Moment
1 7 7
FSOT = 363.4785(2.4955)+185.441 (2.3) / 126.151 +18.597
3 3 2
FSOT = 2.92 > 1.5 SAFE!
x = RM-OM/Rv
x = [1049.232-359.421]/363.4785
x = 1.898m
Appendices 60
e = B/2-x = 4.2/2-1.898 = 0.202m
QMAX = 363.4785/4.2[1+6(0.593)/4.2]
QMAX = 111.516 kPa < QALL = 294 kPa SAFE!
QMIN = 363.4785/4.2[1-6(0.593)/4.2]
QMIN = 61.569 kPa < QALL = 294 kPa SAFE!
FSBC = QALL/QMAX = 294/111.516 = 2.64 > 2.0 SAFE!

Appendices 61
Appendices – E Geotechnical Properties from DPWH

Appendices 62
Appendices – F Letter to DPWH-Baguio City District Engineering

Office
Appendices 63
Appendices – G Letter to Mines and Geosciences Bureau-CAR

KAREN CONSOLACION S. SOMERA
Gibraltar, Baguio City, Philippines
Mobile No.: (+63) 9480330114
E-mail Address: karenconsolacionsomera@gmail.com
CAREER OBJECTIVE:
I am looking for an opportunity in a reputed engineering firm
where I can contribute my knowledge and integrated skills in
engineering.
QUALIFICATIONS:
 Capable of using AutoCAD, STAAD, ETABS and 2D Matrix

 Knowledgeable in Microsoft Applications
PERSONAL INFORMATION:
Date of Birth: September 8, 1996
Place of Birth: Tagudin, Ilocos Sur
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Civil Status: Single
Citizenship: Filipino
Religion: Roman Catholic
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT:
Tertiary Saint Louis College
Lingsat, San Fernando City, La Union
June 2013 – October 2016

Gov. Pack Road, Baguio City, Benguet
January 2017 – Present
Secondary Tagudin National High School

Quirino, Tagudin, Ilocos Sur
June 2009 – April 2013
Primary San Miguel Primary School

Salvacion, Tagudin, Ilocos Sur
Tagudin Central School
Del Pilar, Tagudin, Ilocos Sur
CHARACTER REFERENCES:
Engr. Nelson Notarte

CEA OIC-Dean
Engr. Alma Aguilar

CEA Department Head/ Instructor
I hereby certify that the above information is true and

correct.

KAREN CONSOLACION S. SOMERA
JONAS DELA CRUZ STA. MARINA
#75 Valenzuela St. 2nd Rd. Salud Mitra,
Baguio City, Philippines
+639959476090
jonasky00@gmail.com
OBJECTIVE:
To work in an environment in which I can utilize my
abilities and knowledge learned with hard work, perseverance and
dedication by providing the best of my efforts into
professionally managed organization.
PERSONAL INFORMATION
Age: 26
Height: 168 cm
Weight: 60 kg
Birthday: July 7, 1992
Birthplace: Tarlac
Father’s Name: Francisco Sta. Marina
Mother’s Maiden Name: Leonidez Dela Cruz
Religion: Catholic
QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
On-the-job trainee, A.P.0 general construction

UP Baguio (May to July, 2018)
Member, Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers (PICE)

(S.Y. 2015-2019)
Tertiary University of the Cordilleras
September 2014 – Present
Secondary Gerona Junior College

Poblacion 3, Gerona, Tarlac
2005-2009
Primary Gerona North Central Elementary School

Poblacion 3, Gerona, Tarlac
1999-2005
CHARACTER REFERENCES:
Engr. Nelson Notarte

CEA OIC-Dean
Engr. Alma Aguilar


correct.

JONAS D. STA. MARINA
JOY G. TAMONDONG
Hilltop, Baguio City, Philippines
Mobile No.: (+63)9958343194
E-mail Address: jtamondong.23@gmail.com
CAREER OBJECTIVE:
Looking for positions of responsibility within Operations
area in construction industry that will greatly utilize my
skills and performance from my past experiences in school and in
the actual job training.
QUALIFICATIONS:
 Capable of performing structural analysis and calculations

 Familiarity with NSCP 2001, NSCP 2015
 Capable of using AutoCAD, STAAD, and 2D Matrix
Date of Birth: October 23, 1996
Place of Birth: Pozorrubio, Pangasinan
Age: 22
Gender: Female
Tertiary University of the Cordilleras
June 2012 – Present
Secondary St. Philomena’s Academy

Pozorrubio, Pangasinan
Primary Buneg Elementary School

Buneg, Pozorrubio, Pangasinan
REFERENCES:
Engr. Nelson Notarte Engr. Jan Nicholas Baldo

CEA Dean CEA Instructor
University of the Cordilleras University of the Cordilleras
Engr. Alma Aguilar


correct.

JOY G. TAMONDONG
POL HENDRIX V. TILLO
#17-C Purok 6 Bakakeng Norte,
Baguio City, Philippines, 2600 Philippines
Mobile No.: +639150218065
E-mail Address: hendrixtillogmail.com
OBJECTIVE:
Seeking an entry-level position as a civil engineer where I
can use my comprehensive, analytical, and calculative skills for
implementing construction plans and preparing accurate report
projects.
Age: 20
Height: 170 cm
Weight: 65 kg
Birthdate: May 12, 1998
Birthplace: Olongapo City, Zambales
Father’s Name: Leopoldo A. Tillo
Mother’s Maiden Name: Ailyn P. Villanueva
ORGANIZATIONS:
Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers (PICE)

Member, S.Y. 2014 – 2018
SKILLS:
 AutoCAD
 Knowledgeable in using Microsoft Office
 Microsoft Word
 Microsoft Excel
 Microsoft PowerPoint
 Has a good communication and interpersonal skill
 Good Learner
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:
Tertiary: University of the Cordilleras

Governor Pack Road, Baguio City
2014 – Present
Secondary: Saint Anne Academy

Block 1 Federico St. Long Rd., Olongapo City
2012 – 2014
Saint Joseph College Inc.
Elicano Street, Olongapo City
2010 – 2012
Elementary: Saint Anne Academy

Block 1 Federico St. Long Rd., Olongapo City
2007 – 2010
Balic-Balic Elementary School
Balic-Balic Sta.Rita, Olongapo City
2004 – 2007
I hereby certify that the above information is true and correct

to the rest of my knowledge.
Pol Hendrix V. Tillo

Ps

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Ps

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

i

EFFECTIVENESS OF VARIOUS RETAINING STRUCTURE USING GEOTECHNICAL

A Project Study Presented to

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

March 27, 2019

University of the Cordilleras

ENGR. JAN NICHOLAS S. BALDO

Approved by the TECHNICAL PANEL for Oral Examination on March 27,

Engr. BENITO G. GARWAGEO

Engr. DEXTER HANSEL C. APNOYAN Engr. JENNICA B. DAGDAG

Accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Engr. ALMA A. AGUILAR Engr. NELSON G. NOTARTE

Landslide has been major problem during rainy seasons in

mountainous areas. In finding appropriate ways to address it,

several studies have been undertaken. Some built cantilever

retaining wall to resist the lateral pressure of soil but was

damaged by the typhoons that passed by. In finding the most

appropriate type of retaining structure to be used on a particular

location, a uniform geotechnical property and theory was used to

check the factors of safety against sliding, overturning, and

bearing capacity failure of different types of retaining

structures. Results were compared to determine most appropriate

retaining structure and then compared to the existing cantilever

retaining wall with respect to their external stabilities. This

leads to a particular retaining structure that will be sufficient

Keywords: Landslide, Cantilever Retaining Wall, Geotechnical

Property, Factor of Safety, Sliding, Overturning, Bearing Capacity

Failure, Retaining Structure

the efforts of the researchers together with the help, support,

and assistance of many people who had contributed to its production

and completion. Hence, the researchers would whole-heartedly want

to express their utmost gratitude and respect to those who became

To the officers of the Department of Public Works and Highways

whose assistance were acquired by the researchers to conduct the

To Engr. Jan Nicholas S. Baldo for his guidance and commitment

To the family of the researchers, for their love, moral, and

financial support that motivated the researchers to finish this

Above all, to Almighty God for providing strength, knowledge,

and wisdom to all the participants in this research.

Background of the Study

Landslide is a particularly serious problem worldwide

(Boardman, 2006; Manzatto et al., 2002; Orimoogunje, 2014). It is

accelerated by a marked landscape slope, removal of vegetation to

create agricultural land, drought, soil tillage, wind, or water,

but erosion by water is the most widespread and serious. This is

strength of landscape slopes, making soils behave like plastics

or, under very moist conditions, like fluids (Abrahams, 1986;

Kanungo and Sharma, 2014; Selby, 1993).

Landslide is a major hazard in most mountainous and hilly

regions as well as in steep river banks and coastlines. Their

impact depends largely on their size and speed, the elements at

risk in their path and the vulnerability of these elements. Every

year landslides cause fatalities and result in large damage to

infrastructure (roads, railways, pipelines, artificial reservoirs,

etc.) and property (buildings, agricultural land).

This has been a problem in many countries especially during

rainy seasons and Philippines is not a stranger to this problem.

This usually happens in Cordillera Administrative Region because

of its prominent geological features. Some of the deadliest

landslides happened days after Tropical Storm Ondoy (Ketsana) left

the country, Typhoon Pepeng (Parma) battered the mountainous

Cordillera region with intense rain, causing multiple landslides

in the region in early October 2009. Approximately about 120 people