Dgcs Volume 2a

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

Contents ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................................................... IV GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................................................... V 1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 GEOHAZARDS IN THE PHILIPPINES ............................................................................................................... 1-1 THE NEED FOR A PRELIMINARY GEOHAZARD ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ 1-1 MITIGATION OF GEOHAZARDS ..................................................................................................................... 1-2

2

1.1 1.2 1.3

3

2.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 SEISMICITY ................................................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2.1 The Nature of Seismicity .................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2.2 Faulting ............................................................................................................................................ 2-4 2.2.3 The Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment ......................................................................................... 2-4 2.3 LIQUEFIABLE SOILS .................................................................................................................................... 2-5 2.3.1 The Nature of Liquefaction .............................................................................................................. 2-5 2.3.2 Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment ................................................................................................ 2-6 2.4 VOLCANIC ACTIVITY ................................................................................................................................... 2-8 2.4.1 The Nature of the GeoHazard .......................................................................................................... 2-8 2.4.2 Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment ................................................................................................ 2-8 2.5 UNSTABLE SLOPES ................................................................................................................................... 2-10 2.5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 2-10 2.5.2 Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment .............................................................................................. 2-11 2.6 KARST ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-12 2.6.1 Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment .............................................................................................. 2-13 2.7 MINING ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................................................. 2-13 2.7.1 Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment .............................................................................................. 2-13 2.8 PROBLEM SOILS ....................................................................................................................................... 2-14 2.8.1 Expansive soils ................................................................................................................................ 2-14 2.8.2 Fills.................................................................................................................................................. 2-16 2.8.3 High Compressibility Soils .............................................................................................................. 2-17 2.8.4 Contaminated Soils ........................................................................................................................ 2-18 2.9 GROUNDWATER ....................................................................................................................................... 2-20 2.10 FLOODING, SCOUR AND EROSION ............................................................................................................ 2-21 2.10.1 Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment........................................................................................... 2-21 2.11 TSUNAMIS, SEICHES, STORM SURGES ...................................................................................................... 2-22 2.11.1 Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment........................................................................................... 2-22 2.12 GEOTHERMAL ACTIVITY......................................................................................................................... 2-22 2.12.1 Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment........................................................................................... 2-23 2.13 EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ............................................................................................................... 2-24

4

3.1 REQUIRED EXPERTISE................................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 SCOPE OF PRELIMINARY GEOHAZARD ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................... 3-1 3.2.1 Desk Study ........................................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2.2 Reconnaissance ................................................................................................................................ 3-2 3.3 PRELIMINARY GEOHAZARD ASSESSMENT REPORT ........................................................................................ 3-2 3.4 FURTHER ACTION....................................................................................................................................... 3-3

GEOHAZARDS IN THE PHILIPPINES ................................................................................................ 2-1

PRELIMINARY GEOHAZARD ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................... 3-1

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................. 4-1

i

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

Volumes Volume 1

Introduction and Overview

Volume 2B

Engineering Surveys

Volume 3

Water Engineering Projects

Volume 2A Volume 2C Volume 4 Volume 5 Volume 6

GeoHazard Assessment

Geological and Geotechnical Investigations Highway Design Bridge Design

Public Buildings and Other Related Structures

Annexes Annex A

Seismicity

Annex C

Volcanic Activity

Annex B

Annex D Annex E Annex F

Annex G

Annex H

ii

Liquefiable Soils

Unstable Slopes and Landslides Problem Soils: Expansive Soils

Fumaroles and Hydrothermal Explosion Sources of GeoHazard Assessment Data

Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment Report Template

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

Tables and Figures Table 2-1

Landslide Hazard (after PTCPD, 2012) ................................................................................................. 2-11

Table 2-3

Main Contaminative Industries (Environment Agency)................................................................ 2-19

Table 2-2 Table 2-4 Table 2-5

Properties of Clay Minerals ........................................................................................................................ 2-14 Contaminated Ground Risk to Infrastructure .................................................................................... 2-20 Relation of Climate Change to GeoHazard ........................................................................................... 2-25

Figure 2-1

A Collapsed Building during the July 16, 1990 Northern Luzon Earthquake .........................2-2

Figure 2-3

Map showing Peak Horizontal Acceleration Values for Rock.........................................................2-5

Figure 2-2 Figure 2-4 Figure 2-5 Figure 2-6 Figure 2-7 Figure 2-8 Figure 2-9

Figure 2-10 Figure 2-11 Figure 2-12

Structural Map of the Philippines ...............................................................................................................2-3 Cyclic Mobility Resulting in Spreading of Bridge Foundations, Niigata 1964 ........................2-6

Liquefaction Map ................................................................................................................................................2-7 Active and Potentially Active Volcanoes ..................................................................................................2-9 PHIVOLCS Description of Volcanoes ...................................................................................................... 2-10 Landslide Hazard Map .................................................................................................................................. 2-11

Typical Karst Terrain .................................................................................................................................... 2-12 Moisture Variations beneath Roads ....................................................................................................... 2-15 Cracking Observed in a Residential Development ........................................................................... 2-15

Spring Lines ....................................................................................................................................................... 2-21

iii

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

Abbreviations Acronym

Definition

ADB

Asian Development Bank

AGS

Association of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists

ASEP

Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines

BSDS

Bridges Seismic Design Specifications (by DPWH)

CDF

Controlled Density Fill

CNC

Certificate of Non-Coverage

CPT

Cone Penetration Test

CRR

Cyclic Resistance Ratio

CSR

Cyclic Stress Ratio

DENR

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

DGCS

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards

DPWH

Department of Public Works and Highways

ECC

Environmental Clearance Certificate

EGGA

Engineering Geology and GeoHazard Assessment

FHWA

Federal Highway Administration

GSI

Geological Strength Index

JICA

Japan International Cooperation Agency

LL

Liquid Limit

MGB

Mines and Geosciences Bureau

MSE

Mechanically-Stabilized Earth

MSF

Magnitude Scaling Factor

NAMRIA

National Mapping and Resource Information Authority

PGA

Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment

PHIVOLCS

Philippine Institute of Volcanology and Seismology

PTCPD

Penang Town and Country Planning Department

RMR

Rock Mass Rating

SPT

Standard Penetration Test

iv

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

Glossary Acronym

Definition

Abstraction

Removal of groundwater.

Anisotropy

Having different physical properties when measured in different directions.

Archipelago

A chain, cluster or collection of islands.

Back-sapping

Loss of ground, generally on slope, as a result of loss of support in the area below.

Bioengineering

The use of mechanical elements in combination with biological elements (e.g.plants) particularly for control of erosion and prevention of slope failures.

Caldera

A very large crater associated with a volcano and often formed by the collapse of an underground magma chamber.

Clast

Fragment of pre-existing rocks produced by the process of weathering and erosion.

Clay

A clastic mineral particle of any composition that has a grain size smaller than 1/256 (0.00391) mm.

Counterfort

A buttress, usually in a wall.

Creep

A slow or gradual movement, applied to soil and superficial accumulations moving under gravity.

Downdrag

The loading, particularly on piles, caused by settlement of soil in the upper part of the pile.

Down-slope

At a point on the slope below the reference point.

Escarpment

A steep slope or long cliff that occurs from faulting and resulting erosion and separates two relatively level areas of differing elevations.

Far-fault

A fault more than 5km distant from the reference point.

Fault

A shear fracture in rock along which there has been an observable amount of displacement.

Fumarole

A hot spring emitting volatiles.

Geohazard

Geologic and natural hazards, particularly those that put infrastructure at risk.

Geomembrane

Very low permeability synthetic membrane liner of barrier used with any geotechnical engineering related material so as to control fluid (or gas) migration in a human-made project, structure, or system.

Geomorphology

The study of landforms, their origin and development.

Geoportal

A web-based source of data on the earth sciences.

Groundwater

Water that exists below the water table in the zone of saturation.

Hydrogeology

The study of the interrelationship of geologic materials and processes with water, especially groundwater.

Levee (alias ‘Dike’)

An embankment, generally constructed on or parallel to the banks of a stream, lake or other body of water for the purpose of protecting the land side from inundation by flood water, or to confine the stream flow to its regular channel.

Lineament

A large-scale linear feature which expresses itself in terms of topography.

Liquefaction

The sudden, large decrease of shear strength of cohesionless soil caused by collapse of the soil structure, produced by small shear strains associated with sudden but temporary increase of pore water pressure.

Mass wasting

Down slope movement of soil and/or rock under the influence of gravity.

Morphostructural

Relating to landforms and the tectonic structure of the rocks.

Near-fault

A fault less than 5km distant from the reference point.

Near-field

The area of the near-fault.

Piping

The movement of soil particles as a result of unbalanced seepage forces produced by percolating water.

Pyroclastic

Rocks formed by fragmental volcanic materials that have been blown into the atmosphere by volcanic activity.

Reinforced-soil

Soil constructed with artificial reinforcing, also known as mechanically stabilized earth or MSE

v

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

Seiche

Raised water level and wave in inland bodies of water, produced by seismic or storm action.

Shear-wave

A type of elastic wave, the S-wave, secondary wave, or shear wave is one of the two main types of elastic body waves.

Slickenside

A form of polish with linear grooves and ridges on the two surfaces of a rock which has undergone relative movement as a result of faulting.

Strike-slip

A type of fault surface which is usually near vertical and the footwall moves either left or right or laterally with very little vertical motion.

Subduction

The process that takes place at convergent boundaries by which one tectonic plate moves under another tectonic plate and sinks into the mantle as the plates converge.

Tectonic

Large-scale processes such as structural or orogenic activity that collectively deform the Earth’s crust.

vi

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

1

Introduction

1.1

GeoHazards in the Philippines By reason of its geographic, geologic and tectonic setting the Philippines is prone to geologic and natural hazards that include earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and major mass movements. The more recent geologic events that have caused enormous destruction to lives and property are the earthquake of Luzon on 16 July 1990 and the eruption of Pinatubo Volcano on 13 June 1991. Both incidents killed thousands of people and destroyed millions of pesos of property.

1.2

In August 1999, suburban Cherry Hills Subdivision located on a hilly section of Antipolo City experienced yet another disaster in which torrential rains for three consecutive days triggered a landslide that cost the lives of over 50 people and rendered hundreds more homeless. The Philippine government proceeded to issue DENR AO2000-28 as its long-term response to the urgent need of protecting lives and property from destruction brought about by such geologic hazards.

The Need for a Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment

The guidelines of DENR AO 2000-28, issued as MGB Memorandum Circular No. 2000-33, stipulate that the Engineering Geology and GeoHazard Assessment (EGGA) process requires a land development project proponent to request the appropriate MGB office for a site geological scoping survey. This survey is aimed to determine the scope of geological study to be conducted in and around the site. The project proponent then prepares an Engineering Geological and GeoHazard Assessment Report focusing on potential geologic hazards that may have direct or indirect impact to the project, and their appropriate mitigating measures. The EGGA Report undergoes a technical review by an MGB panel after which a revision may be made before the report is evaluated and finally endorsed to the Environment Management Bureau for consideration in the issuance of the ECC. For private projects, the EGGA is conducted by a privately practicing geologist or qualified engineer while for government projects, the EGGA may be performed by a government geologist or qualified engineer under a Memorandum of Agreement (Aurelio, 2004). However smaller projects undertaken by DPWH, both as part of their own budget appropriation, and for other agencies, have generally been given a Certificate of Non-Coverage, as not requiring any environmental assessment. Since small projects may not be assessed for GeoHazard, but may nevertheless be at risk from such hazards, it is appropriate to undertake a Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment (PGA) at the time of the project concept development stage for all projects. This document describes the nature of GeoHazards encountered in the Philippines, the information available to assess their likelihood at any 1-1

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

1.3

particular project site in a preliminary assessment, and the procedure by which DPWH will follow from the results of the PGA.

Mitigation of GeoHazards

Some GeoHazards require to be taken into account as part of the standard design procedures and codes. This is particularly the case for seismic loading, and mitigation measures for this GeoHazard are dealt with in the relevant Volume.

Other hazards: flooding, liquefaction, highly compressible soils, are dealt with as part of routine geotechnical design and are discussed in Volume 3 – Water Projects Design for flooding, Volume 4 – Highway Design in relation to earthworks and earth retaining structures, and in Volume 5 – Bridge Design in relation to bridge structures and approaches. Mitigation measures for GeoHazards which are less normally dealt with as part of routine design, in particular unstable slopes or landslides and expansive soils, are discussed in the relevant section of this volume or the annex to that section.

1-2

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

2

GeoHazards in the Philippines

2.1

Introduction The main GeoHazards of significance in infrastructure design and delivery are described in the following sections. The majority of GeoHazards are naturally occurring; a few are man-made such as un-engineered fills. However the remainder can be a combination of natural and man-made influences. Examples include: •

•

•

Flooding which is a natural event but which can be caused or exacerbated by man, as a result of deforestation, building on flood plains and so on. Earthquakes which are natural phenomena, but which can be triggered by large dam construction; also it is predicted that sea level rise as a result of climate change (a man-made event) will modify the behavior of earthquakes.

Contaminated land which is usually man-made but can be from naturally occurring substances such as arsenic, methane gas or radon gas.

Consequently the GeoHazards have been considered as a single set, and man’s influence on their presence is discussed where relevant.

The study of these GeoHazards and their consequences requires the expertise of geologists, geomorphologists, geotechnical engineers and so on. However the Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment described in this guide is intended to be undertaken primarily by engineers without this specialist expertise, which would be called in at design stage, or before, if appropriate. Therefore, the requirement for particular specialists in relation to specific GeoHazards has not been identified as relevant to this stage of a project.

The extent to which a specific GeoHazard will affect an infrastructure project is dependent not only on the general type of the project, but its size, strategic importance and other factors; therefore all the GeoHazards identified should be assessed for all projects at the preliminary screening stage which is the PGA.

2.2

Seismicity

2.2.1

The Nature of Seismicity Earthquakes refer to the ground shaking or ground motion produced by movement along a trench or an active fault or during a volcanic eruption. Earthquakes may therefore be tectonic – either generated by a trench or by an active fault – or volcanic in origin. Earthquakes may occur at depths that are shallow (0–70 km), intermediate (70–300 km) or deep (300–700 km). Shallow earthquakes may be triggered 2-1

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

by both trenches and faults. Intermediate to deep earthquakes are usually associated with trenches. It is the large shallow earthquakes that cause most damage as shown in Figure 2-1. In case of such a major earthquake structures, slopes and foundations will be subjected to seismic loading. Earthquakes can trigger other seismic hazards such as landslides, liquefaction, lateral spreading, differential settlement, tsunamis, seiches and even fires. Figure 2-1

A Collapsed Building during the July 16, 1990 Northern Luzon Earthquake

As shown in Figure 2-2, the Philippine Mobile Belt is sandwiched by trenches on both sides and traversed along its entire length by the Philippine Fault. Palawan and Zamboanga are in the Eurasian margin. Faults are near-faults or far-faults; a fault within the 5 km distance is a nearfault while a fault beyond that distance is a far-fault, located in the far field. The ground acceleration that a site may experience in the far field is a function of distance with the acceleration experienced by a site decreasing as distance from the fault increases. In the case of a near-field fault distance from the fault has little effect.

2-2

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

Structural Map of the Philippines

Manila – Negros-Cotabato

EURASIAN MARGIN

Figure 2-2

PHILIPPINE FAULT

2-3

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

2.2.2

Faulting An active fault is one that has moved during the last 10,000 years. Faulting, whether through aseismic fault creep or through a catastrophic ground rupture, refers to actual displacement or dislocation along a fault. Depending on the orientation of the fault plane and on the direction of displacement, a fault may be classified as a normal fault, a thrust fault or a strike-slip fault. A fault is therefore defined by its geometry – its strike and dip – and displacement. Sudden movements along faults result in earthquakes which, in turn, can trigger other seismic hazards such as landslides, liquefaction, lateral spreading, differential settlement, tsunamis or seiches.

2.2.3

A relationship is observed to exist between fault length, rupture length, displacement and magnitude. A major fault, such as the Philippine Fault which cuts across the entire length of the archipelago, is capable of producing longer rupture lengths, larger amounts of displacement and larger magnitude earthquakes than a minor fault.

The Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment

For seismic design of vertical buildings, ASEP National Structural Code of the Philippines (2010) requires input of:  

Distance from active fault Soil type

The procedures for selecting the spectrum are then set out. The following requirements need to be considered: 



For bridges, requirements of DWPH Bridges Seismic Design Specifications (DPWH-BSDS), December 2013 JICA Study and the DGCS Volume 5 – Bridge Design.

For earth retaining structures and earthworks, DGCS Volume 4 – Highway Design recommends designing using the quasi-static method, which will require a peak ground acceleration and then a reduction factor. At this stage the requirements are to identify the distance from active fault and peak ground acceleration at the site.

The distance from active fault can be identified from the PHIVOLCS maps1. At the country scale is the map shown in Figure 2-2. However for some parts of the country, larger scale maps are available; the most detailed available map for the site should be used, and the scale of the map should be recorded in the Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment. The peak ground acceleration can also be obtained from the PHIVOLCS web site maps, and an example is shown in Figure 2-3. 1 www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph

2-4

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

Figure 2-3

2.3 2.3.1

Map showing Peak Horizontal Acceleration Values for Rock

These have been arrived at by applying the attenuation model of Fukushima and Tanaka (1990) described in Annex A. If the map scale is found to be inadequate to identify the peak ground acceleration at the site then the values can be calculated directly from the equation set out in Annex A.

Liquefiable Soils

The Nature of Liquefaction When saturated soils with little cohesion are loaded rapidly this causes pore pressures to increase and effective stresses to reduce, with a consequent reduction in the strength of the soil. Under some circumstances the strength reduction can be severe or total, the phenomenon referred to as liquefaction, and any structures founded on or in the soils will suffer a major loss of support, often leading to their collapse. Cyclic loading during an earthquake event is the major cause of liquefaction.

Two kinds of liquefaction have been recognized. Flow liquefaction occurs when the initial cyclic loading causes the shear strength to reduce, sufficient for the soil to cause a flow failure. In this case the soil will be initially on a sloping ground.

2-5

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

Figure 2-5

Liquefaction Map

Where the site lies within the liquefaction susceptible zone shown on the map, the PGA Summary Report shall identify this. If the location is not clear, as a result of the small scale of the map or for any other reason, then the Report shall note this along with the reason.

If there is an existing local knowledge about liquefaction potential and zoning, then this should be added to the Report. Additional assessment of liquefaction risk can be undertaken using borehole data; a single SPT value does not identify a liquefaction potential, which is affected by overburden pressure, grading and fines content. The procedure for the assessment is described in Annex B. For the initial PGA, data can be used from previous ground investigations in the general vicinity of the site if the ground conditions are believed to be similar. The assessment can then be repeated during Design Development using actual site data.

District and Regional Offices should aim to build up a database of their ground investigation reports, identifying which sites contain liquefaction susceptible soils, and this information can be fed back to a PHIVOLCS or DPWH national database when resources permit.

2-7

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

2.4

Volcanic Activity

2.4.1

The Nature of the GeoHazard The Philippines sits on a unique tectonic setting ideal to volcano formation. The archipelago is surrounded by subducting plates as manifested by the trenches that are related to volcano formation. Volcanoes are classified into three (3) types: 





Active volcanoes: erupted within historical times (within the last 600 years), accounts of these eruptions were documented by man; also those that have erupted within the last 10,000 years based on analyses of datable materials. There are twenty three (23) identified active volcanoes; Potentially active volcanoes: morphologically young looking but with no historical records of eruption. There are twenty six (26) identified potentially active volcanoes; and

Inactive volcanoes: no record of eruptions; physical form is being changed by agents of weathering and erosion via formation of deep and long gullies. There are three hundred fifty three (353) identified inactive volcanoes.

Volcanic phenomena directly associated with eruption are:    

Lava flow, dome growth

Pyroclastic flow, pyroclastic surge, lateral blast Tephra fall – ash fall, volcanic bomb Volcanic gas

Volcanic phenomena indirectly associated with eruption are:      

2.4.2

Lahar, flooding

Debris avalanche, landslide Tsunami, seiche

Subsidence, fissuring

Secondary / hydrothermal explosion Secondary pyroclastic flow

Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment According to Aurelio (2004) areas are zoned according to the degree of volcanic risk they may be subjected to. Volcanic hazards given attention to in this classification include possible routes of lava flows, lahars, debris and pyroclastic flows, lateral blast and pyroclastic surge materials, as well as the potential extent to be affected by volcanic bombs, ballistic projectiles, ash fall and gas emissions.

2-8

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

 

2.6.1

Virac, Catanduanes, Philippines

Caramoan Peninsula, Camarines Sur, Philippines

Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment

Locations of karst terrain can be assessed from:   

2.7

Geological maps to identify presence of limestone rocks directly underlying superficial soils. Field investigation to identify any surface expression: caves, sinkholes.

Local knowledge of voids, water losses into the ground or other relevant features.

Mining Activities

Mining takes place throughout the Philippines, for metallic and non-metallic deposits (particularly nickel, cobalt, silver, gold, salt, copper) and for limestone. Mines can be in the form of open pits, and underground workings. Both these types of mine are developed both by companies with authorized mining permits and by illegal small and medium-scale workings.

Shallow pit mining is frequently backfilled with loose spoil, and consequences for infrastructure are similar to those for un-engineered fill as described in Section 2.8.2. The presence of underground workings can result in uncontrolled long-term settlement, failure of piles founded above the workings, and loss of concrete in bored piles penetrating through the workings, possibly resulting in loss of performance of the pile.

2.7.1

In areas of coal mining, or geological conditions where coal may have formed, there is the additional danger of the generation of naturally occurring methane gas.

Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment

The geological map may indicate that extractable resources are present, though this does not identify that mining has taken place.

No information on the location of deposits or of mining permits is available from MGB website at present8. If mine workings are suspected then MGB should be requested to provide available data on permits and extraction for licensed mines, and local knowledge should be used to identify whether the site may have been affected by illegal mining, either on the site or in the vicinity where it could affect the site.

8 http://www.mgb.gov.ph/lmrp.aspx Mineral Resources Maps

2-13

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

2.8

Problem Soils

2.8.1

Expansive soils

2.8.1.1

Swelling Clay Minerals The swelling potential of clay varies according to its mineralogy, since different clay minerals have different crystal lattice structure and bonding.

The plasticity of the clay, as measured by the Atterberg Limit test, is influenced by these same factors and provides good guidance on the swell potential of clay soils. Since natural clay soils contain a substantial proportion of silt which is non-active, it is convenient to express swell potential in terms of Activity (Plasticity Index / Clay Content)

The main clay mineral groups, in order of increasing expansiveness are shown in Table 2-2. Table 2-2

Properties of Clay Minerals

Clay Mineral

2.8.1.2

Plasticity Index %

Activity

Kaolinite

15-20

0.3-0.5

Illite

30-50

0.9

Smectites (montmorillonite)

> 150

1.5 (Ca) to 7.2 (Na)

Moisture Content Changes In order for a clay to swell or shrink there needs to be a change in moisture content. The most common reason for changes in moisture content is seasonal changes in groundwater level due to variation in rainfall. Other common causes are:     

Longer term climate variation, particularly droughts.

Construction, of buildings, roads etc. reducing surface evaporation locally. Planting or felling of trees, which have a substantial water demand. Leakage of water or sewer pipes. Irrigation practices.

For road projects, the major concern is normally seasonal rainfall effects. These can cause swelling and shrinkage of clay soils in two (2) main ways, as shown in Figure 2-10:  

2-14

Regional groundwater level changes, which will affect the whole of the roads if built at grade.

Local surface infiltration and drying of the road formation, more commonly in the case of roads on embankments. The infiltration and drying effects can be by means of roadside drains, unpaved shoulders or defective pavement.

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

Figure 2-10

2.8.1.3

Moisture Variations beneath Roads

Indications of Swelling Clay Problems The effect of swelling clays on roads is initially to cause unevenness of the surface, followed by cracking and rutting. Once the pavement is cracked then the combination of traffic and additional moisture penetration to the formation will quickly result in complete failure of the pavement. Examination of Figure 2-10 shows that longitudinal cracking should dominate the early behavior, and this has been recorded as shown in Figure 2-11. However the variability of the clay soils and of moisture ingress generally means that the pattern of heave and cracking is by no means uniform.

Figure 2-11

Cracking Observed in a Residential Development

15 cm

Cavite (2001)

2-15

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

Pavement failures caused by swelling clays can be differentiated from other forms of failures to some extent by the mode of failure, for example: 

 

2.8.1.4

Longitudinal cracking can occur even on at-grade sections, which differentiates it from longitudinal cracking caused by embankment instability. Rutting is not limited to wheel tracks, which is the case where rutting is caused by overloading.

Unevenness can be quite extreme before the pavement starts to break up, normally much greater than when the asphalt mix design is poor.

However, it is not reliable to attempt to identify swelling clay problems solely from pavement behavior. Worldwide, the identification of swelling clay soil problems has generally developed as a result of specific local experience of road and building failures, coupled with investigation of soil properties and the experience of different types of remedial works for the local conditions.

Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment

The procedures for identifying or eliminating swelling clays as a cause of pavement problems should be broadly as follows:    

2.8.2

Pavement condition survey

Geological desk study and field survey of soils

Laboratory testing of soils including Atterberg Limits and swell pressure determinations Monitoring of groundwater level variations

Fills

Three (3) main types of fill are likely to be encountered during infrastructure development:

Engineered Fills: consisting of selected materials placed and compacted to provide a stable formation for further development. Such fills should not be a GeoHazard, except for possible liquefaction as discussed in Section 2.3;

Un-engineered Fills: material dumped without selection or compaction, but excluding waste dumps or landfills. Materials are likely to be compressible and unsuitable for founding of infrastructure but not otherwise be considered a GeoHazard; and Waste Dumps or Landfills: material containing organic material which will decay over time. The ground is likely to be highly compressible and also will settle as a result of the organic decay. The generation of methane from such dumps provides a potential hazard to buildings and other structures and to the building users. Such sites should also be assumed to be contaminated and assessed in accordance with Section 2.8.4. 2-16

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

2.8.2.1

Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment The identification of fill areas should be made by:   

 

2.8.3

Drawing on local knowledge, as described in the desk study section of Volume 2C – Geological and Geotechnical Investigations.

Examination of topographic maps. In urban areas, examination of old maps may assist in identifying the stages of development.

Examination of geomorphology maps. If the area has no geomorphology map then the assessing engineer should commence the development of such a map with the information from the project under consideration. Field inspection. Trial pitting.

High Compressibility Soils Soils of high compressibility and significant depth at the site of the infrastructure development require to be identified at an early stage so that adequate allowance is provided for the additional costs of dealing with them in the engineering design.

The two (2) most common types of highly compressible soils are peat and recent soft clay. These are both found mainly in low-lying areas, close to sea level in river basins with a meandering river form. Peat is also found at higher altitudes in depressions in hilly terrain.

2.8.3.1

Where such soils are underlain by sands and gravels, as is often the case, then it is frequently found that excessive groundwater abstraction occurs from these aquifers. This results in partial drainage of the compressible soils resulting in regional subsidence; the coastal area of Manila is reported to have subsided by up to 10 cm / year until groundwater extraction was controlled, at least in metro Manila. It was also responsible for minor movement along faults (Rodolfo and Siringan, 2006). Ongoing regional subsidence is particularly significant for the design of flood prevention works. Also, subsidence results in down drag on piles, which needs to be taken into account in their design.

Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment

General landform and vegetation provide good indicators of the presence of these soils; also damage to existing infrastructure caused by settlement may be apparent or known locally. More guidance on the identification of these soils is provided in Annex E. Regional subsidence is normally identified by sea encroachment, and measured by long-term benchmark data. Where compressible soils are identified, and regional subsidence is known or believed to exist, the assessment should identify the compressible soils as a hazard, and annotate the report to identify regional subsidence.

2-17

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

2.8.4

Contaminated Soils Contamination of natural soils by industrial or related activities can result in toxicity of the ground which may be hazardous to users of the land or to the population more widely. Any land which has been used for industrial purposes should be assessed for potential contamination.

Contaminants usually result from dumping of industrial wastes, leakage of product, or demolition of facilities, and fall into the following main categories:     

Organic pollutants such as pesticides, organic solvents, petroleum products Heavy metals such as lead, arsenic, mercury, cadmium Acids

Asbestos Gases

Table 2-3 identifies the main contaminative industries.

Industry profiles which identify the main contaminants found at such sites can be found at the UK Environment Agency website.

Gases are a special concern. Methane gas is generated during the decay process of organic materials in landfill, as well as naturally occurring in organic deposits such as coal. Also radon gas, which is naturally occurring but mentioned here for completeness. Radon is produced by the radioactive decay of radium-226, which is found in uranium ores; phosphate rock; shales; igneous and metamorphic rocks such as granite, gneiss, and schist; and, to a lesser degree, in common rocks such as limestone9.

9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radon accessed 14 March 2014

2-18

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

Table 2-3

Main Contaminative Industries (Environment Agency10)

Industries Railway land Engineering works: shipbuilding, repair and shipbreaking (including naval shipyards), airports and railway engineering works Gas works, coke works and other coal carbonization plants Ceramics, cement and asphalt manufacturing works Sewage works and sewage farms Road vehicle fuelling, service and repair: garages and filling stations Metal manufacturing, refining and finishing works: iron and steel works, lead works and nonferrous metal works Power stations (excluding nuclear power stations) Oil refineries and bulk storage of crude oil and petroleum products Chemical works (cosmetics and toiletries, fertilizer, soap and detergent, organic chemicals and mastics, sealants, adhesives and roofing felt manufacturing works) Timber treatment works Engineering works: mechanical engineering and ordinance works and vehicle manufacturing works Textile works and dye works Food and drink Waste recycling, treatment and disposal sites: landfills and other waste treatment or waste disposal sites Animal and animal products processing works Pulp and paper manufacturing works Engineering works: electrical and electronic equipment manufacturing works (including works manufacturing equipment containing PCBs) Chemical works: explosives, propellants and pyrotechnics manufacturing works Glass manufacturing works Printing and book-binding works Chemical works: linoleum, vinyl and bitumen-based floor covering manufacturing works Chemical works: rubber processing works (including works manufacturing tires or other rubber products) Chemical works: coatings (paints and printing inks) manufacturing works and mastics, sealants, adhesives and roofing felt manufacturing works Asbestos manufacturing works Dry cleaners Waste recycling, treatment and disposal sites: metal recycling sites

2.8.4.1

Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment The identification of areas of contamination requires a staged approach; with desk study followed, if required, by field investigation. 

Drawing on local knowledge, as described in the section on desk study in Volume 2C – Geological and Geotechnical Investigation.

10 http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33708.aspx

2-19

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment





 

Examination of topographic maps. In urban areas, examination of old maps and also historical aerial photographs may assist in identifying the stages of development.

Examination of geomorphology maps. If the area has no geomorphology map then the assessing engineer should commence the development of such a map with the information from the project under consideration. Field inspection. Trial pitting.

Particular care should be taken when undertaking field inspection and trial pitting of suspected contaminated sites. Precautions as described in Volume 1 – Introduction and Overview should be adopted and extended as appropriate based on the expected risk.

If an initial site assessment does not identify any prior contaminative uses then it should be identified.

If contamination is suspected then the resulting risk as a result of the planned infrastructure development should be assessed, in accordance with Table 2-4. Further guidance on the requirements for investigation is given by AGS (2007). Table 2-4

Contaminated Ground Risk to Infrastructure

Type of Development

2.9

Risk during construction

Risk to End Users

Road rehabilitation

Low

Very low

New road construction

Medium. Require preliminary investigation at survey stage and / or special measures during construction

Very low

Bridge construction

Medium: Piling works may generate contaminated spoil. High: Exposure during excavations.

Medium: Piled foundations may increase linkage between contamination and underlying aquifer.

Buildings: whole site to be hard covered.

High: Exposure during excavations.

Very low.

Buildings including open space

High: Exposure during excavations.

Medium. If child access then High.

Groundwater The flow of groundwater out at the surface is known as a spring. It can be permanent or only occur during the wet season of the year. The two (2) main causes of springs are: 

2-20

The result of uphill groundwater recharge by rainfall and relatively steep terrain resulting in the phreatic surface meeting the ground surface, as shown in Figure 2-12a.

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment



The result of permeable soils or rocks overlying an impermeable layer, resulting in a spring line at the boundary of these strata, as shown in Figure 2-12b.

Figure 2-12

2.9.1.1

Spring Lines

Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment During periods of spring discharge, the spring line should be directly identifiable. At other times, spring lines can be identified by changes in vegetation since the local increase in water provides a different microclimate. Also, there may be surface erosion, and back-sapping of noncohesive soils at the spring line. Where springs or spring lines are identified or suspected within the project site or in the immediate vicinity at similar elevations, then this should be identified as a hazard in the PGA.

2.10

Flooding, Scour and Erosion

2.10.1

Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment Flood hazard maps are available from MGB11. At present the area of coverage is limited; refer to Annex F for information on the NAMRIA Geoportal and long-term plans for development of this mapping.

Local information on flood-prone areas should be available from local knowledge and should be reported in the PGA. If the proposed project involves significant earthworks then the effect of such earthworks on local flood behavior should be identified.

Scour and erosion are influenced by terrain, soil type and surface water flow velocities. They are best assessed in the initial stage by local inspection of existing scour and erosion, and reporting of any significant locations which could indicate special requirements in design. DGCS Volume 3 – Water Engineering Projects gives more detailed information on the identification and mitigation required. If flood hazard is identified, then as a minimum a hydrological and hydraulic assessment will

11 http://www.mapcentral.ph/mgb/index.cfm?maptype=Flood&areatype=province&code=045800000&listform_prov_code=

2-21

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

2.11

need to be undertaken to determine the extent of the floodplain using the techniques outlined in Volume 3.

Tsunamis, Seiches, Storm Surges

Tsunamis are large, often destructive, sea waves produced by a submarine earthquake, subsidence, landslide or volcanic eruption. Being in a seismically active region, the coast of the Philippines is at risk from tsunamis.

Seiches are raised water levels and waves in inland bodies of water, produced by seismic or storm action. UNESCAP (1999) identified risk of seiches from volcanic calderas in the land using planning of the Tagaytay – Taal area. Giese et al (1999) describe harbor seiches at Palawan Island.

2.11.1

Storm Surges are raised sea levels and accompanying high waves resulting from high winds and often associated with low barometric pressure, particularly from cyclones.

Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment

A map of tsunami hazard zones in the Philippines was produced in 2007 and is available on the PHIVOLCS website12. This indicates only the coastline at risk. Sites located within 5 km of an at-risk coastline and at an elevation of less than 20 m above sea level should be identified as having a tsunami hazard. Local knowledge on flood levels and the history of seiches should be investigated in relevant localities and reported on.

2.12

Flood hazard maps as described in Section 2.10 should have accounted for storm surges. However unless local knowledge or other data allow an alternative conclusion, any site within 50 m of high tide level should be identified as at risk from storm surge.

Geothermal Activity

The Philippines obtains some 27% of its power supply from eighteen (18) geothermal plants sited in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao. However, such plants extract energy from some depth below ground, and are therefore not indicative of locations of surface or near-surface geothermal activity of interest to the GeoHazard assessment. Geothermal activity is caused by the transfer of heat from depth to the earth's surface. Surface expression of geothermal activity can take various forms13:

12 http://www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77&Itemid=129 13 After Search: http://www.volcanolive.com/geothermal.html (retrieved 18 September 2013)

2-22

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

Warm Ground: represents a low level of geothermal activity. The ground temperature is raised at a meter depth but not at the surface. Warm ground is not visible on infrared images but changes to vegetation can be identified.

Hot Steaming Ground: Hot vapors rise near the surface but are not actually discharged. The vapors condense and drain away without being released to the atmosphere. A thin layer of steam may condense under moist air conditions. If the air is dry then no steam is observed. Hot Pool: the result of hot water or steam heating a pool of groundwater. Hot pools may be calm, ebullient (effervescent) or boiling. Hot Lake: fills hydrothermal depressions in geothermal areas. They are a subclass of volcanic lakes.

Hot Spring: the most common type of geothermal activity. They are located where water from a geothermal system reaches the surface.

Fumarole: steam discharge from a hydrothermal or volcanic system. A solfatara contains sulphur emissions. Steam is the most abundant emission from fumaroles.

Geyser: Vent from which hot water and steam are violently emitted. They are very rare but well known and extensively studied. Requirements for geyser formation include fractured rocks and boiling water at a shallow depth. Hydrothermal Eruption: caused by catastrophic discharges of water close to the boiling point. No ash, incandescence, or clasts are erupted. Hydrothermal eruptions may be caused by a reduction in the overlying pressure. Geothermal Seepage: A seepage is a general term which describes any subsurface discharge of warm fluids from a geothermal area. Seepages may occur into rivers or lakes.

2.12.1

The significance of geothermal activity to infrastructure development is dependent on its scale and how close it is to the surface. Risks may be shortterm during construction (for example damage to in-situ concrete piling during casting) or long-term to the infrastructure fabric or to site users. Further details of some of the phenomena relating to geothermal activity, the effects on infrastructure, and possible mitigation measures, are given in Annex F.

Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment

Sites within one kilometer of known hot springs, hot pools or one or more of the other manifestations describe above should be classified as hazardous under this heading.

2-23

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

2.13

Effects of Climate Change The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cruz et al, 2007) predicts that climate change will affect the globe over the next one hundred years. The main effects of the predicted climate change are:

   

a rise in temperature a rising sea level

variation in rainfall patterns with increased intensities and greater drought and rainfall periods in different places variation in track and increased intensity of cyclones

A further consequence for infrastructure is increased saline intrusion.

The Philippines lies third in the world’s countries most vulnerable to climate change and disasters caused by natural hazards (ADB, 2013). The projected rising temperatures and sea levels, and changes in precipitation, are capable of initiating load changes and elevated porepressures sufficient to cause a range of geological and geomorphological processes that have hazard potential. There is already significant evidence, according to McGuire et al (2012), that this will cause a modulation or triggering of seismic, landslide and volcanic activity resulting from small changes in environmental parameters such as solid Earth and ocean tides, atmospheric temperature and pressure, as well as in response to specific geophysical events such as typhoons or torrential precipitation.

Specific events already identified include the violent venting of volcanic gases from Mount St Helens resulting from rainstorms, and collapses of the Soufriere Hills’ lava dome on Montserrat linked to intense tropical rainfall.

Table 2-5 shows the hazards identified as potentially being influenced by climate change. All except glacial outburst floods are relevant to the Philippines. However the research on the effects of climate change on GeoHazards is at a very early stage and no quantitative predictions are available. They can be considered as a higher order of uncertainty compared with the direct assessment of current GeoHazards. Therefore no attempt is made to incorporate the effects of climate change in GeoHazard assessment in this Guide. For major projects where a full risk assessment is undertaken, including consequence-based risk, the potential effects of such climatechange induced changes to GeoHazard risk may be appropriate using, for example, the approaches described in PIARC (2013). Specific effects of climate change which will affect engineering structures, including sea level change, storm surge and flooding, are addressed in the Guide Volume 3 – Water Engineering Projects Design.

2-24

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

Table 2-5 Potential hazard

Relation of Climate Change to GeoHazard

Mechanism / potential relationship with climate change

Relevant climate drivers

Environmental settings

Sub aerial landslides and debris flows

Permafrost thaw; pore-water pressurization; intense rainfall destabilizing regolith

Temperature rise; ice-mass loss; intense precipitation

Mountainous terrain; volcanic landscapes

Glacial outburst floods (GLOFs)

Glacier retreat; accumulation of melt water in pro-glacial lakes

Temperature rise; ice-mass loss

High latitudes; mountainous terrain; glaciated volcanic landscapes

Earthquakes

Ice-sheet and glacier wastage; ocean island and ocean margin loading due to sea-level rise

Temperature rise; ice-mass loss; ocean volume increase

High latitudes; glaciated terrain at mid-to-low latitudes; ocean basins and margins

Volcanic activity

Unloading due to ice-sheet and glacier wastage; loading due to sea-level rise; pore-water pressurization; intense rainfall destabilizing regolith

Temperature rise; ice-mass loss; intense precipitation; ocean volume increase

Volcanic landscapes at all latitudes

Tsunamis

Submarine and sub-aerial slope failures and volcano lateral collapses; gashydrate breakdown; ocean load-related earthquakes; ice-quakes

Ocean temperature rise; ocean volume increase; intense precipitation

Ocean basins and margins

McGuire, et al 201

2-25

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

3

Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment Initial project development requires projects to be identified as requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment, an Initial Environmental Assessment or for projects having no significant environmental impact, a Project Description Report. Projects are then reviewed by DENR and where considered appropriate an Engineering Geological and GeoHazard Assessment is required. This is undertaken by MGB. According to DENR (2007), unless projects are located in an environmentally critical area or are environmentally critical projects DENR are required to issue a Certificate of Non-Coverage if the project proponent submits only Project Description Report. The Proponent is responsible for identifying whether the project lies in an environmentally critical area and there is no single source for identifying the extent of environmentally critical areas. Consequently the great majority of projects are not considered for an EGGA and therefore there was a potential risk that GeoHazards have not been identified. The introduction of a PGA at the concept development stage of all projects, including rehabilitation and reconstruction work, is therefore to ensure that smaller projects, which may yet be at risk from GeoHazards, are adequately assessed.

3.1

3.2 3.2.1

The PGA is carried out at proponent level initially. Its purpose is to identify exceptional conditions that may require special investigation, design measures, additional budget or in the extreme case a relocation of the project.

Required Expertise

The person undertaking the PGA should be a qualified geologist, or engineer who has undertaken at least geology and geotechnical engineering modules in a university degree level course. Alternatively, the person should have extensive experience and job-training sufficient to undertake the assessment.

Scope of Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment

Desk Study The PGA cannot be undertaken without a Project Description. If one has not been prepared then this should be done before undertaking the PGA. Procedures for preparing a Project Description are described elsewhere.

The desk study for the PGA is similar in nature to the broader study to be undertaken as part of the site investigation and described in Volume 2C – Geological and Geotechnical Investigations. However, for the PGA, the desk study is limited to the GeoHazards and specific sources of information.

3-1

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

The information to be used in the GeoHazard desk study is listed under the relevant hazard in Section 2 of this Guide.

However the available information is expanding rapidly. Annex F summarizes the available information about likely developments in the next few years, which should be taken into account in undertaking the PGA.

3.2.2

In addition to the specific sources, the assessment should make use of topographic maps from the NAMRIA Geoportal, aerial photographs where available, land-use maps if available in the region, and agricultural soils maps.

Reconnaissance

The reconnaissance for GeoHazards is most appropriately undertaken as part of a broader field inspection which may include validation of assumptions contained in the Project Description and, for reconstruction works, identification of the causes of deterioration of the asset. Before undertaking the field reconnaissance, the desk study should be undertaken and a general sketch and list of potential GeoHazards should be drafted. During the reconnaissance, these potential GeoHazards would be assessed, as well as identifying other possible GeoHazards. Field reconnaissance and procedures for identification of specific GeoHazards are described in Section 2. Where the project consist of or contains rehabilitation of existing assets, the field reconnaissance should identify specifically those GeoHazards which have contributed to the current deterioration of the asset.

3.3

Field inspections of areas where GeoHazards may be present require additional safety measures. The basic requirements for safety during field reconnaissance are described in Volume 2C Geological and Geotechnical Investigations. The person leading the field inspection should undertake a prior safety assessment and adopt appropriate precautions for the inspection team.

Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment Report

The report shall consist of a one-page summary and attachments. The template for the report is included as Annex H. The person that undertook the field reconnaissance for the assessment is the required signatory on the report.

Where GeoHazards have been identified, or there is remaining uncertainty, attachments should be included showing the information on which the assessment was based.

3-2

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

3.4

Further Action For the Concept Development Report, the project should be classified from the Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment as one of the following four (4) categories:

  



No significant GeoHazards identified.

GeoHazards identified and budget for mitigation calculated and included in project budget.

GeoHazards identified and there is a requirement for further field investigation and design before the budget can be reasonably assessed. In this case the Concept Development phase may need to be extended with additional budget. GeoHazards at or adjacent to the site are sufficiently severe that mitigation measures would not be practical, and it is recommended that the site is unsuitable for the proposed use.

If the responsible person was not able to conclude that no GeoHazards exist, then the assessment should be first completed as far as possible, identifying the outstanding issues. Then there should be consultations as follows:





PHIVOLCS offers a service to provide certification on active faults, lahar, pyroclastic flow, lava flow, volcano Permanent Danger Zone14. If the identified hazards fall into these categories then PHIVOLCS should be approached for certification, providing them with a copy of the Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment.

MGB have a geology unit based in each of their regional offices. They may be approached for assistance, once the PGA has been completed. If their input allows the GeoHazards to be identified or discounted then their report should be attached to the PGA, which can be annotated accordingly.

If these approaches do not resolve outstanding issues with the PGA then the District should escalate the matter to the Region, and the Region to BOD Central Office as appropriate.

14 http://www.phivolcs.dost.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25&Itemid=40

3-3

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

4

References and Bibliography ADB, Facts and Figures in http://www.adb.org/themes/climatechange/facts-figures (accessed 8 September 2013)

AGS Quick-Start Guide to Contaminated Land Investigation, Association of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Specialists, UK, 2007 http://www.ags.org.uk/publications/agreement.php?docname=AGS%20Q uick%20Start%20Guide%20to%20Contaminated%20Land.pdf ASEP, National Structural Code of the Philippines, Volume 1: Buildings, Towers and Other Vertical Structures, C101-10, Association of Structural Engineers of the Philippines, 2010. Aurelio M A, Engineering Geological and GeoHazard Assessment (EGGA) system for sustainable infrastructure development: the Philippine experience. Engineering Geology for Sustainable Development in Mountainous Areas, Free and Aydin (eds), 2004 Geological Society of Hong Kong. http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/230308/Session%201/Ses sion%201%20Reading%201.PDF

Barry et al, The Indonesian Geoguides, MSRI Guide No Pt T-08-2002, Ministry of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure, Indonesia, 2002. E W. Brand and R P Brenner, Soft clay engineering, Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co., 1981

BS 10175:2001 Code of practice for the investigation of potentially contaminated sites, British Standards (2001) Comité technique AIPCR C.3 GEstion des risques d’exploitation dans l’expoitation routière au plan national et international and Permanent International Association of Road Congresses (PIARC) Technical Committee, Risk Associated with Natural Disasters, Climate Change, Man-made Disasters and Security Threats (2013), PIARC, Paris, France. http://www.piarc.org/en/order-library/20314-enRisks%20associated%20with%20natural%20disasters,%20climate%20ch ange,%20man-made%20disasters%20and%20security%20threats.htm Cruz, R.V., H. Harasawa, M. Lal, S. Wu, Y. Anokhin, B. Punsalmaa, Y. Honda, M. Jafari, C. Li and N. Huu Ninh, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2007, 469-506. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10.html (accessed 8 September 2013-11-03

DENR AO 2000-28. Implementing guidelines on Engineering Geological and GeoHazard Assessment (EGGA) as additional requirement for ECC applications covering subdivision, housing and other land development and 4-1

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

infrastructure projects. Administrative Order No. 28, Series of 2000. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Philippines. 14 March 2000. DENR AO 2003-30. Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) for the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) System. Administrative Order No. 30, Series of 2003. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Philippines. 30 June 2003. DENR Revised Procedural Manual for DENR Administrative Order No 30 Series of 2003 (DAO 03-30), August 2007.

Environment Agency UK, ‘Progress in 2002 with implementing the Part IIA regime, Dealing with contaminated land in England; (2002), Environment Agency, Bristol, England.

Fukushima, Y. and Tanaka, T., 1990. A new attenuation relation for peak horizontal acceleration of strong earthquake ground motion in Japan, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v.80, no. 4, p. 757-778

German Technical Cooperation (GTZ), UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok and The Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. ‘Handbook on Good Building Design and Construction in the Philippines; (2008), International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR), Philippines http://www.preventionweb.net/files/10329_GoodBuildingHandbookPhili ppines.pdf Huismann, M. 2000. Lecture Notes, Advanced Soil Mechanics, Mapua Institute of Technology, Manila. Lobley, Katrina. ‘In Case of Emergency: how Australia deals with disasters and the people who confront the unexpected’, (2007), Australian Emergency Management Institute (AEMI), Australia. http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php? id=1730.

McGuire B and Maslin M A, Climate Forcing of Geological Hazards [Kindle Edition], 326 pp, Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.

MGB MC 2000-33. Guidelines and outline/checklist for the preparation of an Engineering Geological and GeoHazard Assessment Report as per DENR AO 2000-28. Memorandum Circular No. 33, Series of 2000. Mines and Geosciences Bureau, Philippines, 24 March 2000. MGB MC 2002-43. Implementation of DENR Memorandum dated 26 November 2001 relative to Executive Order No. 45. Memorandum Circular No. 33, Series of 2000. Mines and Geosciences Bureau, Philippines, 24 March 2000. Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. ‘Hazard Risk and Vulnerability Analysis Toolkit’, (2004). Provincial Emergency Program Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, Canada. http://www.preventionweb.net/files/3393_toolkit.pdf 4-2

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

National Building Code of the Philippines, 2000, Philippine Law Gazette. Vicente B. Foz, Publisher.

Presidential Decree 1586. Establishing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) system including other environmental management related measures and for other purposes. Malacañang Palace, Manila, Philippines, 11 June 1978.

Presidential Executive Order 42. Prescribing time periods for issuance of housing-related certifications, clearances and permits, and imposing sanctions for failure to observe the same. Malacañang Palace, Manila, Philippines, 24 October 2001. Geoff O’Brien, Phil O’Keefe, Joanne Rose and Ben Wisner, Climate change and disaster management, Disasters, 30(1): 64−80. , Overseas Development Institute, Blackwell Publishing, 2006. PTCPD, 2012 Safety Guideline for Hillsite Development, Penang Town and Country Planning Department, 2012, http://www.mppp.gov.my/documents/10124/20fa2155-5a83-46448629-64da6405f4e1

Rodolfo K S and Siringan F P, 2006, Global sea-level rise is recognised, but flooding from anthropogenic land subsidence is ignored around northern Manila Bay, Philippines, Overseas Development Institute, Blackwell Publishing 30(1): 118-139. http://www.paase.org/images/RodolfoSiringan2006.pdf

Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M. and Arango, I., 1983. Evaluation of Liquefaction potential using field performance data. American Society of Civil Engineers Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, v.109, no. 3, p. 458-482.

Steinberg M, 1978, Geomembranes and the Control of Expansive Soils in Construction, McGraw-Hill. Thenhaus, P.C., Hanson, S.L., Algermissen, S.T., Bautista, B.C., Bautista, M.L.P., Punongbayan, B., Rasdas, A., Nillos, T.E. and Punongbayan, R.S., 1994. Proceedings: National Conference on Natural Disaster Mitigation, p. 45-60, 1921, October 1994, Quezon City, Philippines.

Villanueva, M.I.P., Abundo, R.V. and Manipon, C.J.C., in prep. GeoHazards and landslide modelling of Baguio city using thematic maps. Submitted to Journal of the Geological Society of the Philippines. Quezon City, Philippines Mines and Geosciences Bureau. 2010. Geology of the Philippines, Mines and Geosciences Bureau, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Quezon City. Philippines, 532 p.

4-3

Annex A

Seismicity

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

A1

Introduction To have a better grasp of the seismic hazards in the country, one should understand that the Philippine archipelago is tectonically divided into the Philippine Mobile Belt and the Eurasian Margin as shown in Figure A1-1. Figure A1- 1

Structural Map of the Philippines

Manila – Negros-Cotabato Trench

PHILIPPINE FAULT

EURASIAN MARGIN A-1

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

The Philippine Mobile Belt refers to that portion of the archipelago sandwiched by the Manila-Negros-Cotabato Trenches on the west and the East Luzon Trough-Philippine Trench on the east and traversed along its entire length by the active Philippine Fault. The Philippine Mobile Belt is therefore tectonically, seismically and volcanically active.

A2

Palawan and Zamboanga, on the other hand, are part of the Eurasian Margin and are therefore tectonically and seismically inactive. There are no earthquake generators within the margin, although it can experience earthquakes generated by bounding structures such as the Sindangan Fault or Cotabato Trench.

Ground Motion

An estimate of the ground motion specific to a site can be calculated. In order to determine the peak ground acceleration that a site can experience in the case of a major earthquake, the attenuation model of Fukushima and Tanaka (1990) is applied. A design earthquake is assumed to occur at a point along the causative fault that is nearest to the site, assessed as described in Section 2.2.3. Correction factors are then applied depending on the type of foundation material. The attenuation model of Fukushima and Tanaka is written as: log 10 A = 0.41M – log 10 (R+0.032x10 0.4 M) – 0.0034R + 1.30 where:

(6.1)

A = mean peak acceleration (cm/sec2)

R = shortest distance between the site and the fault rupture (km) M = surface-wave magnitude (also referred to as Ms)

Correction factors are applied to the mean peak acceleration depending on the type of foundation material: rock, 0.6; hard soil, 0.87; medium soil, 1.07; and soft soil, 1.39. Alternatively the peak ground acceleration obtained from the maps provided by PHIVOLCS can be used, if they are considered accurate enough for the particular site.

PHIVOLCS produce Ground Shaking Hazard Maps at the provincial level within the framework of the READY Project but at present the maps are limited to Aurora, Bohol, Cavite, Dinagat, Leyte, Southern Leyte, Surigao del Norte, and Surigao del Sur. An example of such a map is shown on Figure A21.

A-2

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

Figure A2-1

Example of a Ground Shaking Hazard Map (READY Project).

The project site can be located on the map after which the class to which the polygon belongs to is looked up in the legend. The legend is color-coded according to the maximum amount of ground shaking that can be expected. This is expressed in PHIVOLCS Earthquake Intensity Scale. However this scale is not used as input to the infrastructure design process so it is of secondary interest.

A-3

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

Design earthquakes can be determined using different empirical formula relating fault length, rupture length, displacement and magnitude compiled in Bonilla (Weigel(ed), 197015). The West Valley Fault, for example, is assigned a magnitude 7.216 earthquake. The Lubang and Legazpi Faults might be capable of magnitude 7.8 earthquakes. The Philippine Fault, on the other hand, is such a major fault that it is capable of generating a magnitude 8.0 earthquake. A magnitude 8.0 earthquake is such a rare event that it occurs, on the average, only once a year or once in two years worldwide.

A3

In case of critical or strategic projects or in case where lives might be at risk, it is recommended that a more detailed seismic hazard assessment be conducted during the design development stage of the project.

Faulting Assessment

There may be instances when an active or potentially active fault is not yet reflected on existing fault maps. In this case, a geologist may resort to the morpho-structural interpretation of 1:50,000 scale or 1:10,000 scale NAMRIA topographic maps, radar imagery, satellite imagery or aerial photographs. Lineaments identified on the documents may be validated in the field. Evidence for the presence of a fault may be geomorphological (e.g. escarpments, highly linear drainage) and geological (e.g. shear zones, gouge, breccia, mylonite, fault planes). Once the presence of a fault is established, it is then compared with historical, geological or seismological evidence to determine whether the fault is active or not.

In case of critical or strategic projects, or in case where lives might be at risk, it might not be enough that existing fault maps are relied upon. Faults on a map may turn out to be inactive or non-existing. An active fault might not yet be reflected on the map, or there might be inaccuracies in the plotting of a fault. For such projects, it is recommended that further active fault studies be conducted during the Design Development phase of the project.

A4

This procedure is not required for the Preliminary GeoHazard Assessment.

Engineering Implications

From the engineering perspective there are different considerations for design which are related to distance from the active fault.

In the zone immediately adjacent to the fault, ground movement will be expected along with the ground motion. The extent of this zone depends on the nature of the fault and soils overlying bedrock. In the City of Manila signs prohibiting building within 5m of the fault indicate the assessed zone. Any

15 reference missing in this draft 16 It is currently unclear what magnitude system is being used and this is to be clarified for here and elsewhere in the report in a subsequent draft.

A-4

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

A5

References and Bibliography Aurelio, Mario A. (1992). Tectonique du segment central de la faille Philippine: etude structurale, cinematique et evolution geodynamique. These de doctorat, Universite Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France.

Daligdig, Jessie A., Punongbayan, Raymundo S., Besana, Glenda M. and Tungol, Norman M. (1997). PHIVOLCS Professional Paper 01: The Marikina Valley Fault System: Active Faulting in Eastern Metro Manila. PHIVOLCS Press, Quezon City.

Fukushima Y. and Tanaka, T. (1990). A new attenuation relation for peak horizontal acceleration of strong earthquake ground motion in Japan, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 80, 4, 757-783. Maleterre, Ph. (1989). Histoire sedimentaire, magmatique, tectonique et metallogenique d’un arc oceanique deforme en regime de transpression. These de doctorat, Universite de Bretagna Occidentale, Brest, France, 304p. Metro Manila Development Authority, JICA, and PHIVOLCS (2004). Metro Manila Earthquake Impact Reduction Study (MMEIRS).

PHIVOLCS Quick Response Team (1994). PHIVOLCS Special Report No. 2: 15 November 1994 Mindoro Earthquake: Preliminary Report of Investigation. Department of Science and Technology -PHIVOLCS, Quezon City.

Pinet, Nicolas (1990). Un example de grand decrochment actif en contexte de subduction oblique: la faille Philippine dans sa partie septentrionale: etude regionale (NW Luzon), thematique et modelisation analogique. These de doctorat, Insitut de Geodynamique, Universite de Nice – Sophia Anipolis. Punongbayan, Raymundo S.; Rimando, Rolly E.; Daligdig, Jesse A.; Besana, Glenda M.; Daag, Arturo S.; Nakata, Takashi and Hiroyuki, Tsutsumi (1990). Ground Rupture of the 16 July 1990 Luzon Earthquake in Proceedings of Geocon ’90: the Third Annual Geological Convention Held on December 5 to 7, 1990 at UP-NIGS, Quezon City sponsored by the Geological Society of the Philippines. pp. 13 – 37.

Quebral, Ramon D., 1994. Tectonique du segment meridional de la faille philippine, Mindanao Oriental, Philippines: passage d’une zone de collision à une zone de décrochement. These de doctorat, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France. Ringenbach, Jean Claude (1992). La Faille Philippine et les chaines en decrochment associees (centre et nord de Luzon): evolution cenozoique et cinematique des deformations quaternaries. These de doctorat, Insitut de Geodynamique, Universite de Nice – Sophia Anipolis. Thenhaus, P.C. Hanson S.L., Algermissen, S.T., Bautista B.C., Bautista, L.P., Punonbayan, B.J., Rasdas, A.R., Nillos, J.T.E. and Punongbayan, R.S., Estimates of the Regional Ground Motion Hazard in the Philippines.-Proceedings of the Conference on Natural Disaster Mitigation in the Philippines. October 19 to 21, 1994. A-6

Annex B

Liquefiable Soils

Design Guidelines, Criteria and Standards: Volume 2A – GeoHazard Assessment

B3

Since liquefaction is associated with saturated soils, there is no requirement for assessment of liquefaction hazard if the depth to groundwater is below the depth of potentially liquefiable soils.

Standard Penetration Test for Assessing Liquefaction Potential

For coarse-grained soils Youd and Idriss (2001) procedure is recommended by AASHTO (2012). Since SPT test results are most commonly available the procedure to assess liquefaction potential from the SPT is described here.

The measured SPT values Nm first require to be corrected to the standard value (N1)60 according to (N1)60 = Nm CN CE CB CR CS

(8.2)

where:

CN is the effective stress normalization factor calculated from CN = 2.2/(1.2 + σ’vo/Pa)

(8.3)

Which normalizes Nm to a standard effective overburden pressure of Pa of 100kPa.

CE is the factor to normalize the energy ratio to a standard of 60%. The correction factor is shown in Table B3-1. Where the SPT Test is performed in full accordance with ASTM D 1586-99 the upper end of the range should be selected. Table B3-1 also contains the correction factors CB, CR and CS for borehole diameter, rod length, and sampling method respectively. Table B3-1

Correction Factor CE for SPT N Energy Ratio

Factor Energy Ratio

Borehole diameter

Rod length

Sampling method

B-3

Equipment Variable

Term

Correction

Donut hammer

CE

0.5-1.0

Safety hammer

CE

0.7-1.2

Automatic-trip Donut type hammer

CE

0.8-1.3

65-115mm

CB

1.0

150mm

CB

1.05

200mm

CB

1.15